The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About74 Hydrolic Analysis Study Lick CreekHydrologic Analysis Study For a Portion of the Lick Creek Watershed Through the Westfield Addition City of College Station, Texas Date: April 15 , 1999 B y: Morrison Hydrology Engineering, Inc. 210 Arnold Ave. Arlington, Texas 76010 (81 7) 461-0321 Fax (81 7) 2 74-1338 Morrison Hydrology Engineering, Inc. Ronald W. Morrison, P .E . April 15 , 1999 Page-1 Table of Contents Introduction Existing Condition Hydrologic Analysis Proposed Condition Hydrologic Analysis Summary Appendices 1. Existing Condition Hydrologic analysis • Watershed Map • Existing Condition HECI Computer model 2 . Phase 1 Condition Hydrologic analysis • Phase I Condition HEC I Computer model 3. Final Developed Condition Hydro logic analysis • Final Developed HECI model 4 . HEC2 comparison models Morrison Hydrology Engineering, Inc. Page-2 Introduction Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine the existing, phase 1 and final developed condition flows through the Westfield Addition development. Area Description The upper watershed of Lick Creek is largely undeveloped with natural vegetation (trees, brush and natural grasses). The area is relatively flat with generally less than a 1% slope . The soils are generally clay and silt-clay. The annual rainfall in Brazos County is 39.1 inches . FEMA Information The Westfield Addition Site is located in an area of the FEMA map that has no floodplain shown. The area has not been previously studied by FEMA so there is no FEMA data available. Existing Condition Hvdrologic Analysis Appendix 1 contains the HECl analysis of the watershed completed for this study. The time of concentration was determined by the TR55 SCS method. Phase 1 Westfield Addition Condition Hvdrologic Analvsis The phase 1 condition consists of 10 acres of development on the Westfield site. This changes the SCS curve number slightly . The result of these developments increase the peak discharge as shown below: Existing Condition 100-Year flow 1226 cfs Phase 1 Condition 100-Y ear flow 1236 cfs This results in a 100-year flood elevation increase of approximately . 01 feet or slightly more than 0 .1 inches (see awendix 4). Final Developed Westfield Addition Condition Hydrologic Analysis The final developed condition consists of 10 acres of development on the Westfield site. This changes the SCS curve number slightly . The result of these developments increase the peak discharge as shown below: Existing Condition 100-Year flow 1226 cfs Phase 1Condition100-Year flow 1241 cfs This results in a 100-year flood elevation increase of approximately .02 feet or slightly more than 0 .24 inches-(see appendix 4). ...... • .. ·.·• Morrison Hydrology Engineering, Inc. Page-3 Summarv This report has provided a hydrologic analysis that demonstrates that phase 1 of the proposed project results in an increased flow of approximately 10 cfs and an increase in 100 year flood elevation of approximately 0 .1 inches . The City of College Station has a policy of "no increase" in flows as a result of dev elopment. While the developer does not want to avoid detention to meet this requirement, he does want to save the detention facility until the final phase of development. His desire is to complete phase 1 without detention. TABLE 1 COMPARISON BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITION , PHASE 1 CONDITION AND FINAL CONDITION SECT. 100-YR Q 100-YR Q DIFF . 100-YR Q DIFF NO. CFS CFS CFS 285 .19 1226 285.2 1236 0 .01 285.21 1241 0.02 2 285.96 1226 285 .97 1236 0.01 285.98 1241 0.02 3 286 .64 1226 286.65 1236 0.01 286 .66 1241 0.02 4 286.98 1226 286 .99 1236 0.01 287 1241 0.02 5 287 .39 1226 287.4 1236 0.01 287 .41 1241 0.02 6 287 .76 1226 287.77 1236 0.01 287.78 1241 0.02 --· 7 288.25 1226 288 .27 1236 0.02 288 .28 1241 0.03 8 288.6 1226 288.61 1236 0.01 288 .62 1241 0.02 9 288 .71 1226 288.72 1236 0.01 288.73 1241 0.02 10 288 .88 1226 288.9 1236 0.02 288 .91 1241 0.03 100 year discharge determination FILE :CSWESTEX ......•.................................. ....................................... FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEJ MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CEl VERSION 4 .0 .lE 609 SECOND STREET Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5 .01 DAVIS , CALIFORNIA 956l l Dodson & Associates, Inc . (916) 551-1748 RUN DATE 04/15/99 TIME 11 :48 :08 •.•...................................... x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x xx x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HECl (JAN 73), HEClGS, HEClDB, AND HEClKW. THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP-AND -RTIOR-HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973 -STYLE INPUT STRUCTIJF THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK-ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81 . THIS IS THE FORTRAN?? VERSION NEW OPTIONS : DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS :WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY, DSS :READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE : NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORiniM .. 100 ye;;u-discharge determination FILE:CSWESTEX FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) MAY 1991 VERSION 4 .0.lE L<lhey F77L-EM /3 2 version 5 .01 Dodson & Assoc i ates, Inc . RUN DATE 04/15/99 TIME 11 :48 :08 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION WESTFIELD ADDITION EXISTING CONDITION 6 IO IT MORRISON HYDROLOGY ENGINEERING 100 YEAR OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT I PLOT QSCAL HYDROGRAPH TIME NMIN I DATE ITIME DATA 1 5 PRINT CONTROL O PLOT CONTROL O • HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE 10 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION 0 STARTING DATE 0000 STARTING TIME FILE :CSWESTEX INTERVAL NQ 145 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES NDDATE 2 0. ENDING DATE NDTIME 0000 ENDING TIME I CENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL TOTAL TIME BASE 0 .17 HOURS 24.00 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA PRECIPITATION DEPTH LENGTH, ELEVATION FLOW STORAGE VO LUME SURFACE AREA TEMPERATURE SQUARE MILES INCHES FEET CUBIC FEET PER SECOND ACRE -FEET ACRES DEGREES FAHRENHEI T U .S . ARMY CORPS OF ENGINE: HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CE1 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 9561 • (916) 551-1748 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** •••••• *** *** *** ••• *** *** *** •••••••••••••••••• *** •••••• *** *** ** 7 KK AREAl 9 KO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL I PLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL QS CAL 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE IPNCH 1 PUNCH COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH IOUT 21 SAVE HYDROGRAPH ON THIS UNIT ISAVl 1 FIRST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED ISAV2 145 LAST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED TIMINT 0.167 TIME INTERVAL IN HOURS .. LINE 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 100 year discharge determination FILE :CSWESTEX HEC-1 INPUT ID ....... 1 ....... 2 ....... 3 ....... 4 ....... S ....... 6 ....... 7 ....... 8 ....... 9 ...... 10 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ID ID ID ID WESTFIELD ADDITION EXISTING CONDITION MORRISON HYDROLOGY ENGINEERING 100 YEAR FILE :CSWESTEX IT 10 0 0 14S IO s KK AREAl KM HYDROGRAPH FROM AREAl KO 0 0 0 1 21 1 BASIN AREA • 314 acres BA .4906 . !NI.LOSS SCS CN . ======-=== LS 0 81. s LAG CP 640 us .s 0. 72 • RAINFALL DATA 2 YEAR * PH so 0 .S3 l. lS 2.2 2.6 2 .8 10 YEAR * PH 10 0 .66 l.4S 3 .0 3.9 4 .3 2S YEAR * PH 4 0 .7S 1. 64 3 .49 4.6 S.l so YEAR * PH 2 0 .82 1. 8 3 .87 S .2 S.6 100 YEAR PH 1 0 .89 1. 9S 4 .2S S.6 6.3 500 YEAR * PH .2 0 .96 2 .1 4. 63 6 7 KK ROUT KM ROUTE HYDROGRAPHTHRU AREAl KO 0 0 0 0 21 1 * CHANNEL ROUTING USING NORMAL DEPTH STORAGE RS 1 STOR -1 NLOB NCH NROB XLCH SLOPE RC .05 .05 .05 4000 .007S Xl X2 LOB TOE TOE ROB X7 RX 792 944 983 995 1005 1020 1038 RY 292 288 286 283 283 286 288 zz 3 .3 3 .8 4.S S.2 6.2 7 .2 6.2 7.S 8.8 7 8 .4 9 .8 7 .4 9.5 11 7 .8 10 .6 12 .2 X8 10 7 0 292 PAGE 1 :...d ... -1 100 year discba.rge determination FILE :CSWESTEX ••• *** •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• *** •••••••••••••••••••••••• **' 14 KK 16 KO ROOT .•............ OOTPOT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNI' I PLOT QSCAL IPNCH IOOT ISAVl ISAV2 TIMINT 5 PRINT CONTROL O PLOT CONTROL 0 . HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE O PUNCH COMPOTED HYDROGRAPH 21 SAVE HYDROGRAPH ON THIS UNIT 1 FIRST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED 145 LAST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED 0.167 TIME INTERVAL IN HOURS OPERATION STATION HYDROGRAPH AT AREAl ROUTED TO ROUT "*"'• NORMAL END OF HEC-1 *** 100 year discharge determin,tian FILE :CSWESTEX RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD FLOW PEAK 6 -HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR 1340 . 12 .67 348 . 113 . 113 . 1226 . 12 .83 348 . 113 . 113 . BASIN AREA 0 .49 0 .49 MAXIMUM STAGE 288 .27 TIME OF MAX STAG 12 .8 3 100 year discharge deter111ination FILE :CSWESTPl FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U .S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINE: MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CE! VERSION 4.0 .lE 609 SECOND STREET La.bey F77L-EM/32 version 5 .01 DAVIS , CALIFORNIA 9561 • Dodson & Associates, Inc. ( 916) 551-1748 * RUN DATE 04/15/99 TIME 11:54 :23 x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x xx x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HECl (JAN 73), HEClGS , HEClDB, AND HEClKW. THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP-AND -RTIOR-HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTUJ THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK -ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81 . THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY, DSS :READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE :GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM LINE 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 100 year discholrge detennin•tion FILE:CSWESTPl HEC-1 INPUT ID ....... 1 ....... 2 ....... 3 ....... 4 ....... S ....... 6 ....... 7 ....... 8 ....... 9 ...... 10 ID ID ID ID CITY OF COLLEGE STATION WESTFIELD ADDITION PHASE 1 DEVELOPED EXISTING ELSEWHERE MORRISON HYDROLOGY ENGINEERING 100 YEAR IT IO KK 10 s AREAl 0 KM HYDROGRAPH KO 0 0 BASIN AREA 314 acres BA .4906 * !NI.LOSS SCS CN * ======== LS 0 82 .2 LAG CP 640 us .s 0. 72 RAINFALL DATA 2 YEAR * PH so 0 10 YEAR * PH 10 0 2S YEAR * PH 4 0 so YEAR * PH 2 0 100 YEAR PH 1 0 soo YEAR * PH .2 .o ROUT 0 14S FROM AREAl 0 1 21 .S3 l.lS 2 .2 .66 l .4S 3 .0 .7S 1 .64 3.49 .82 1 .8 3 .8 7 .89 1. 9S 4 .2S . 96 2 .1 4. 63 KK KM KO ROUTE HYDROGRAPHTHRU AREAl 0 0 0 0 21 * CHANNEL ROUTING USING NORMAL DEPTH STORAGE RS 1 STOR -1 NLOB NCH NROB XLCH SLOPE RC .OS .OS . OS 4000 .007S Xl X2 LOB TOE TOE RX 792 944 983 99S lOOS RY 292 288 286 283 283 zz FILE :CSWESTPl 1 2.6 2.8 3.3 3.8 3.9 4 .3 S .2 6.2 4.6 S .l 6 .2 7 .S S .2 S .6 7 8 .4 S.6 6.3 7.4 9 .S 6 7 7 .8 10 .6 1 ROB X7 XS 1020 1038 1070 286 288 292 4.S 7.2 8.8 9 .8 11 12 .2 PAGE 1 100 year discharge determination FILE :CSWESTPl FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) MAY 1991 VERSION 4 .0 .lE Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01 Dodson & Associates, Inc. RUN DATE 04/15/99 TIME 11 :54 :23 .........................•...•......... CITY OF COLLEGE STATION WESTFIELD ADDITION PHASE 1 DEVELOPED EXISTING ELSEWHERE 6 IO IT MORRISON HYDROLOGY ENGINEERING 100 YEAR OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT I PLOT QSCAL HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA 5 PRINT CONTROL 0 PLOT CONTROL 0 . HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE FILE:CSWESTPl NMIN 10 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL !DATE 1 0 STARTING DATE I TIME 0000 STARTING TIME NQ 145 NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ND DATE 2 0 ENDING DATE NDTIME 0000 ENDING TIME I CENT 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL TOTAL TIME BASE 0.17 HOURS 24.00 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA PRECIPITATION DEPTH LENGTH, ELEVATION FLOW STORAGE VOLUME SURFACE AREA TEMPERATURE SQUARE MILES INCHES FEET CUBIC FEET PER SECOND ACRE-FEET ACRES DEGREES FAHRENHEIT ORDINATES U .S . ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEJ HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CE1 609 SECOND STREET DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 956l t (916) 551-1748 •••••••••••••••••• *** •••••• *** ••• *** ••• *** ••• *** ••••••••••••••••••••• *** *** *** ••• *** ....... ~-· "'<** 7 KK 9 KO AREAl OUTPUT CONTROL VAR IABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTRO L I PLOT QSCAL IPNCH IOUT ISAVl ISAV 2 TIMINT 0 o. 1 2 1 1 14 5 0 .16 7 PLOT CONTROL HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE PUNCH COMPUTED HYD ROGRAPH SAVE HYDROGRAPH ON THIS UNIT FIRST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED LAST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED TIME INTERVAL IN HOURS 100 year discharge detertnination FILE :CSWESTPl *** ••• *** *** *** •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• *** ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ··~ .............. 14 KX ROUT .............. 16 KO OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 I PLOT 0 QSCAL 0. IPNCH 0 !OUT 21 ISAVl 1 ISAV2 145 TI MINT 0 .167 PRINT CONTROL PLOT CONTROL HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE PUNCH COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH SAVE HYDROGRAPH ON THIS UNIT FIRST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED LAST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED TIME INTERVAL IN HOURS OPERATION STATION HYDROGRAPH AT AREAl ROUTED TO ROUT *** NORMAL END OF HEC-1 *** 100 year disc~e determination FILE :CSWESTPl RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD FLOW PEAK 6 -HOUR 24-HOUR 72 -HOUR 1350 . 12.67 351. 114 . 114 . 1236 . 12.83 350 . 114 . 114 . BASIN AREA 0 .49 0 .49 MAXIMUM STAGE 288 .29 TIME 0 MAX STA 12 .8 , .. BY: RONALD W . MORRISON , P.E. DATE : 4/99 PROJECT Westfield Addition E=existing condition P1 =Phase 1 Sbunn iewicz PS= Entire Sbunniewicz Development CLIENT: Lick Creek Sbunniewicz CURVE NUMBER CALCULATION SOILA CURVE NO 39 BASIN TOT AREA NAME ACRES SOILA E 314 0 P1 314 0 PS 314 0 SOILS SOILC SOILD PAVED 61 74 80 98 PERCENT AREA SOILS SOILC SOILD LAKE 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 LAND USE IMPERVIOUSNESS PERCENTAGE CALCULATION LAND USE % IMPERV. CLANDUSE SINGLE FAMILY 1 1/4ACRE 38 0 .5 COMM. & BUSINESS SINGLE FAMILY 2 1/3 ACRE 30 0 .5 INDUSTRIAL . SINGLE FAMILY 3 1/2 ACRE 25 0.5 OPEN SPACE SINGLE FAMILY 4 1 ACRE 20 0 .35 LAKES ROADS MULTI FAMILY 1/8 ACRE 65 0.75 BAS IN TOT AREA PERCENT AREA NAME (sq . mi.) SF1 SF2 SF3 SF4 MF E 314 13.5 ·O 0 0 0 P1 314 23 .5 0 0 0 0 PS 314 30 0 0 0 0 LAKE 100 % IMPERV. 85 72 2 100 C&B 0 0 0 ESTIMATED COMPARISON AVERAGE SOIL OVERALL RUNOFF CN CN COEFF. 80 80 80 c 0 .8 0 .7 0 .3 0.95 81 .4994 82 .1474 82 .5686 0.33675 0 .35675 0.36975 ROADS& COMB IND OS LAKEIMPERV 0 85 1.5 8.33 0 75 1.5 11 .93 0 68 .5 1.5 14.27 100 y ear discharge determination FILE :CS WESTPS FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEE MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CEN VERSION 4 .0 .lE 609 SECOND STREET Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01 DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 Dodson & Associates, Inc. (916) 551-1 748 RUN DATE 04/15 /9 9 TIME 12 :00:09 x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x xx x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HECl (JAN 73), HEClGS, HEClDB, AND HEClKW . THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP-AND -RTIOR-HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTUR THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK-ON RM-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81 . THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION 1!1EW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS :WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY, DSS :READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL ltINEMATIC WAVE : NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION LINE l 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 10 0 y ear discharge deteJ:1llinat ion FILE:CSWESTPS HEC-1 INPUT ID ....... l ....... 2 ....... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6 ....... 7 ....... 8 ....... 9 ...... 10 ID ID I D ID CITY OF COLLEGE STATION WESTFIELD ADDITION ENTIRE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPED EXISTING ELSEWHERE MORR I SON HYDROLOGY ENGINEER ING 100 YEAR IT 10 0 0 145 IO s KK AREAl KM HYD ROGRAP H FROM AREAl KO 0 0 0 l 21 BASIN AREA 314 acres BA .4906 * !NI.LOSS SCS CN • •••••=-•a LS 0 82 .6 LAG CP 640 us .5 0 . 72 * RAINFALL DATA 2 YEAR * PH so 0 .53 1.15 2 .2 10 YEAR * PH 10 0 .66 l .4S 3 .0 2S YEAR * PH 4 0 .7S l.64 3 .49 so YEAR * PH 2 0 .82 l. 8 3.87 100 YEAR PH l 0 .89 l. 9S 4 .2S 500 YEAR * PH .2 0 .96 2 .l 4.63 * KK ROUT KM ROUTE HYDROGRAPHTHRU AREAl KO 0 0 0 0 21 * CHANNEL ROUTING USING NORMAL DEPTH STORAGE RS l STOR -l NLOB NCH NROB XLCH SLOPE RC .OS .OS .OS 4000 .007 S Xl X2 LOB TOE TOE RX 792 944 983 99S 1005 RY 292 288 286 283 283 zz FILE:CSWESTPS l 2 .6 2 .8 3 .3 3. 8 4 .S 3 . 9 4 .3 5 .2 6 .2 7 .2 4 .6 S .l 6.2 7 .5 8.8 5.2 S .6 7 8.4 9 .8 S .6 6.3 7 .4 9 .5 ll 6 7 7 .8 10.6 12 .2 l ROB X7 XS 1020 1038 1070 286 288 292 PAG E l 100 y ear discharge determinati on FILE:CSWESTPS FLOO D HYDROGRAPH PAClCAGE (HE C-1 ) U.S . ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEE MAY 1991 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CEN VERSION 4 .0 .lE 609 SECOND STREET Lahey F77L-EM/32 version 5.01 DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 Dcx:lson & Associates, Inc. (916) 551-1748 RUN DATE 04/15/99 TIME 12 :00 :09 ..........................•.............. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION WESTFIELD ADDITION ENTIRE SUJ3DIVISION DEVELOPED EXISTING ELSEWHERE 6 IO IT MORRISON HYDROLOGY ENGINEERING 100 YEAR OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL !PLOT QSCAL HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA 0 PLOT CONTROL 0 . HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE FILE:CSWESTPS NMIN IDA TE 1 10 0 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL STARTING DATE ITIME 0000 NQ 145 NDDATE 2 a NDTIME 0000 I CENT 19 STARTING TIME NUMBER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES ENDING DATE ENDING TIME CENTURY MARK COMPUTATION INTERVAL TOTAL TIME BASE 0.17 HOURS 24 .00 HOURS ENGLISH UNITS DRAINAGE AREA PRECIPITATION DEPTH LENGTH, ELEVATION FLOW STORAGE VOLUME SURFACE AREA TEMPERATURE SQUARE MILES INCHES FEET CUBIC FEET PER SECOND ACRE-FEET ACRES DEGREES FAHRENHEIT •••••• *** ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• *** ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• *** ••• 7 ll 9 !CO .............. AREAl ............... OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL I PLOT QSCAL IPNCH IOUT ISAVl ISAV2 TIMINT 0 o . 1 21 l 145 0 .167 PLOT CONTROL HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE PUNCH COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH SAVE HYDROGRAPH ON THIS UNIT FIRST ORDINATE PUOCHliD OR SAVED LAST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED TIME INTERVAL IN HOURS 14 KK 16 KO 1 00 y e;;u-discharge determi nati on F I LE :CS WESTPS ROUT OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL I PLOT O PLOT CONTROL HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE QSCAL 0 . IPNCH IOUT ISAVl ISAV2 TI MINT O PUNCH COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH 21 SAVE HYDROGRAPH ON THIS UNIT l FIRST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED 145 LAST ORDINATE PUNCHED OR SAVED 0 .167 TIME INTERVAL IN HOURS OPERATION STATION HYDROGRAPH AT AREAl ROUTED TO ROUT *** NORMAL END OF HEC-l *** 1 00 y ear discha.rge deteruiin~tion FILE :CS WESTPS RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD FLOW PEAK 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR 1356. 12.67 352 . 115 . 115. 1241 . 12 .83 352 . 114 . 114 . BASIN AREA 0 .49 0 .49 MAXIMUM STAGE 288 .29 T I ME OF MAX STAG 12 .83 1 00-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION EX I STING COND . FILE :CSWEX HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROF ILES U.S . ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENT Vers ion 4.6 .2; May 1991 609 SECOND STREET , SUITE D DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616-468 RUN DATE 15APR99 TIME 1 2 :08 :50 (916 ) 756-1104 ..•••.................................. x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx 100 -YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND . FILE :CS WEX l5APR99 1 2:08 :50 PAGE l TH IS RUN EXE CUTED l 5A PR99 12 :08 :50 ***********************••+•+++++•++•• HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4 .6 .2 ; May 1991 ·························••+•++++++++ Tl COLLEGE STATION EXISTING CONDITION LICK CREEK T2 DOWNSTREAM OF WESTFIELD ADDITION USING WESTFIELD DISCHARGE TJ 100 YEAR FILE : CSTAT Jl I CHECK INQ NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS Q WSEL FQ 0 2 o 0 .00 7 S 0 0 0 288 J2 NPROF I PLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW CHNIM I TRACE -l 0 -l J3 VARIABLE CODES FOR SUMMARY PRINTOUT 38 l 43 42 4 S3 S4 26 QT 1 1226 NC .OS .OS .OS .l . 3 Xl l 14 94S 1100 GR 290 S72 288 643 2 86 7S4 287 .l 819 286 94S GR 282 984 281 1000 282 1008 283.3 1042 284 1082 GR 286 1100 288 1181 289 .2 1 2 60 290 1377 Xl 2 12 906 lOSS 1 4 0 lll 13S GR 290 61S 289 .1 687 288 792 286 906 2 84 929 GR 282 991 281 1000 282 1010 284 1034 286 lOSS GR 288 1098 290 123S Xl 3 12 9S8 1094 129 146 180 GR 290 773 289 .1 863 288 938 286 9S8 284 97S GR 282 991 281 1000 282 1009 284 1014 286 1 094 GR 288 llSS 290 1384 Xl 4 13 931 104S 42 lOS 7S GR 290 7S4 289 .9 798 288 91S 286 931 284 971 GR 282 994 281 1000 282 1007 284 1012 286 104S GR 286 .7 1103 288 1197 290 1290 Xl s 12 969 1073 126 SS 128 GR 290 8 7 9 288 9S6 286 969 284 980 282 993 GR 281 1000 282 1004 284 1008 284 .4 1044 286 1073 GR 288 1123 290 12SS 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND. FILE:CSWEX 15APR99 12:08:50 PAGE 2 Xl 6 12 932 1023 166 75 141 GR 290 817 288 906 286 932 284 981 282 993 GR 281 1000 282 1002 284 1012 286 1023 288 1043 GR 288 1098 290 1184 Xl 7 10 953 1049 181 108 182 GR 290 808 289.5 870 288 941 286 953 284 990 GR 283 1000 284 1005 286 1049 288 1055 290 1088 Xl 8 12 928 1053 126 122 139 GR 292 798 290 898 288 914 286 928 285.5 956 GR 284 988 283 1000 284 1006 286 1053 288 1112 GR 290 1140 291.4 1219 Xl 9 12 968 1018 80 96 115 GR 292 808 290 860 288 879 286 900 285.7 939 GR 286 968 284 990 283 1000 284 1005 286 1018 GR 288 1025 290 1055 Xl 10 11 983 1020 110 149 143 GR 292 792 290 909 288 944 286 983 284 990 GR 283 1000 284 1011 286 1020 288 1038 290 1049 GR 292 1070 100-YEAR FLOOD EU,.""VATION EXISTING COND . FILE:CSWEX l.5APR99 1 2:08:5 0 PAGE 3 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL ClUWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOS S L-BANK ELEV Q QLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH AROB VO L TWA R-BANK ELEV TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XN CH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR I TRIAL IDC I CONT CORAR TOPWID DIDST •PROF l. CCHV• .100 CEHVa .300 •SECNO 1 .000 l. 000 4.19 285.19 .00 288 .00 285 .4 6 .2 7 .00 .oo 2 86 .00 l.226.0 . 0 1226 .0 .o . 0 292. 5 .0 .0 . 0 286 .00 .00 .oo 4.19 .oo .000 .050 .000 .000 2 81 .00 952 .90 .007460 0. 0 . 0 . 0 0 5 .00 139 .81 1092 . 71 •SECNO 2 .000 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO -1 .50 2 .000 4. 96 285 .96 .oo .00 286.12 .1 6 .65 .01 286 .00 1226 .0 .0 1226 .0 . 0 .0 381.6 . 0 l. 0 .4 286 .00 .01 .oo 3.21 .00 .000 .050 .000 .000 281.00 906.46 • 003321 140 . 135. lll. 2 0 0 .00 148 .13 1054 .58 *SECNO 3.000 3.000 5.64 286.64 .00 .00 286.85 .2 1 .72 .02 286.00 1226.0 2 .0 1218.0 6 .0 2 .0 327.8 6 .2 2 .5 l. l 286.00 .03 .97 3. 72 .97 .050 .050 .050 .000 281. 00 951 .62 .004872 129. 180. 146 . 2 0 0 .00 161. 85 1113 .47 *SECNO 4.000 4.000 S.98 286 .98 .00 .00 287.17 .19 .32 .00 286 .00 1226.0 4 .2 1172.9 48.9 3 .8 326.9 39 .l 3.1 l.4 286 .00 .03 1.10 3.59 1.25 .050 .050 .050 .000 281.00 923 .1 9 • 003610 42 . 75. 105 . 2 0 0 .00 199 .83 1123 .01 *SECNO 5 .000 5 .000 6 .39 287 .39 .00 .00 287.57 .18 .40 .00 286 .00 1226 .0 7.6 1188 . 9 29 .5 6.2 343 .7 24.0 4.2 l. 8 286.00 .04 1.22 3 .46 l.23 .050 .050 .050 .000 281.00 959 .99 .002789 126. 128 . 55. 2 0 0 .00 147.67 1107 . 66 *SECNO 6 .000 6 .000 6.76 287.76 .00 .00 287.96 .19 .38 .00 286 .00 1226 .0 28 .5 1175. 5 21.9 20.2 326 .8 15 .5 5 .4 2.3 286.00 .05 l.42 3 .60 1 .41 .050 .050 .050 .000 281. 00 909 .10 .002699 166. 141. 75 . 2 0 0 .00 131 .51 1040.61 100 -YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND. FILE:CSWEX 1 5APR99 1 2 :0 8 :5 0 PAGE 4 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CR I WS WSE LK EG HV HL OLOSS L-BANK ELEV Q QLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA R-BANK E LEV TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELM IN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR I TRIAL IDC I CO NT CORAR TOPW ID EIIDST •SECNO 7 .000 7 .00 0 5.25 2 88.25 .00 .00 288 .44 .19 .4 9 .00 28 6 .0 0 1226 .0 27 .3 1185.5 13 .2 16 .5 334.8 8 .0 6 .8 2 .8 2 86 .00 .0 7 1. 65 3 .54 1. 64 .050 .050 .050 .000 283 .00 929 .0 4 .00269 4 18 1. 182 . 108 . 2 0 0 .00 130 .14 1 05 9 .17 •SECNO 8 .000 3302 WARNING : CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO = 1. 60 8 .000 5 .60 288.60 .00 .00 288.67 .08 .22 .Ol 286 .00 1226 .0 30 .0 1070 .5 125 . 6 23.9 464 .2 97.0 8.3 3 .3 286 .00 .08 1.26 2 .31 1.29 .050 .050 .050 .ooo 2 83.00 909 .1 9 • 001049 126 . 139. 1 2 2 . 0 0 0 .oo 211. 24 1120 .42 •sECNO 9 .000 9 .000 5 .71 288 . 71 .00 .00 288 .83 .12 .14 .Ol 2 86 .00 1226 .0 545.4 657 .8 22 .7 232.4 207 .8 15 .7 9.6 3 .7 286 .00 .10 2 .35 3 .17 l .45 .050 .050 .050 .000 283 . 00 8 72 . 30 .001716 80 . 115 . 96 . 2 0 0 .00 163 . 29 1035 .58 *SECNO 10 .000 3302 WARNING : CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE , KRATIO = .66 10 .000 5 .88 288 .88 .00 .oo 289 .22 .34 .33 .07 286 .00 l.226.0 216 .8 910 .5 98 .6 80 .7 175 .5 36 .2 10 .7 4 .1 286.00 .10 2 .69 5 .19 2. 72 .050 .050 .050 .000 283 .00 9 2 8 .4 1 .003908 110 . 143. 149 . 0 0 0 .00 114 .49 104 2 .90 1 00-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND . FILE:CSWEX 1 5APR99 12:08 :5 0 PAG E 5 TH IS RUN EXE CUTED 15APR9 9 1 2 :08:51 HE C -2 WATER SURFACE PRO F ILES Versi on 4 .6 .2; May 1991 NOTE-ASTERISK (+) AT LEFT OF CROSS-SECTION NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST 100 YEAR SUMMARY PRINTOUT SECNO CWSEL Q ELM IN TOPWID SSTA END ST VCH l .000 285.19 1226 .00 281.00 13 9 . 81 952.90 1092 . 7l 4 .19 2 .000 285 .96 1226.00 281. 00 148 .13 906 .46 1054 . 58 3.21 3 .000 286 .64 1226 .00 281. 00 161 .85 951. 62 1113 .47 3.72 4 .000 286 .98 1226 .00 281.00 199 . 83 923.19 1123.0l 3.59 5.000 287 .3 9 1226.00 281. 00 147 .67 959 .99 1107 .66 3.46 6 .000 287.76 1226 .00 281 .00 131. 51 909 .10 104-0 .61 3 .60 7 .000 288 .25 1226.00 283.00 130 .14 929 . 04 1059 .17 3 .54 8.000 288 .60 1226 .00 283 .00 211. 24 909 .19 1120.42 2 .31 9 .000 288 . 7l 1226 .00 283 .00 163 .29 872 .30 1035 . 58 3 .17 10 .000 288 .88 1226.00 283.00 114.49 928 .41 1042.90 5.19 10 0 -Y-~ FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND . FILE:CSWEX 1 5APR 9 9 12 :08 :50 SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES WARNING SECNO • WARNING SECNO= WARNING SECNO • 2.000 PROFILE= l CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANG E 8 .000 PROFILE= 1 . CONVE YANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE 10 .000 PROFILE= l CONVE YANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE PAGE 6 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND. FILE:CSWPl HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES U .S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG I NEER HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CEN"r Vers ion 4 .6 .2; May 1991 609 SECOND STREET, SUITE D DAVIS , CALIFORNIA 95616-468 RUN DATE 15APR99 TIME 12:13 :50 (916) 7 56-1104 ********************•······················· x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx 100-Y'""',,.AR FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND . FILE :CSWP l l5APR99 12; l3; 5 0 PAGE THIS RUN EXECUTED l5APR9 9 12 :13 :50 *********+••••······················· HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6.2; May 1991 ................•......••....••••••.. Tl COLLEGE STATION EXISTING CONDITION LICK CREEK T2 DOWNSTREAM OF WESTFIELD ADDITION USING WESTFIELD DISCHARGE T3 100 YEAR FILE: CSWPl Jl I CHECK INQ NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS Q WSEL FQ 0 2 0 0 .0075 0 0 0 288 J2 NPROF I PLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW CHNIM I TRACE -l 0 -l JJ VARIABLE CODES FOR SUMMARY PRINTOUT 38 l 43 42 4 53 S4 26 QT l 1236 NC .OS .OS .OS .l .3 Xl l 14 94S llOO GR 290 S72 288 643 286 7S4 287 .l 819 286 94S GR 282 984 281 1000 282 1008 283 .3 1042 284 1082 GR 286 llOO 288 ll8l 289 .2 1260 290 1377 Xl 2 12 906 lOSS 140 lll l3S GR 290 61S 289.l 687 288 792 286 906 284 929 GR 282 991 281 1000 282 1010 284 1034 286 lOSS GR 288 1098 290 123S Xl 3 12 9S8 1094 129 146 180 GR 290 773 289.l 863 288 938 286 9S8 284 97S GR 282 991 281 1000 282 1009 284 1014 286 1094 GR 288 llSS 290 1384 Xl 4 13 931 104S 42 lOS 7S GR 2 90 7S4 289 .9 798 288 91S 286 931 284 971 GR 282 994 281 1000 282 1007 284 1012 286 104S GR 286 .7 ll03 288 1197 290 1290 Xl s 12 969 1073 126 SS 128 GR 290 879 288 9S6 286 969 284 980 282 993 GR 281 1000 282 1004 284 1008 284 .4 1044 286 1073 GR 288 ll23 290 12SS 100-YEAR FLOOD ELb-VATION EXISTING COND . FILE,CSWPl 15APR99 12 :13 :50 PAGE 2 Xl 6 12 932 1023 16 6 75 141 GR 290 817 288 906 286 932 284 981 282 993 GR 28 1 1 000 282 100 2 284 1012 286 1023 2 8 8 1043 GR 288 1098 290 1184 Xl 7 10 953 1049 181 108 182 GR 290 808 289 .5 870 2 88 94 1 286 953 284 990 GR 283 1000 284 1005 286 1049 288 1055 290 1088 Xl 8 12 928 1053 126 12 2 139 GR 292 798 290 898 288 914 286 928 285 .5 956 GR 284 988 283 1000 284 1006 286 1053 288 1112 GR 290 1140 291. 4 1219 Xl 9 12 968 1018 80 96 115 GR 292 808 290 860 288 879 286 900 285 .7 939 GR 286 968 284 990 283 1000 284 1005 286 1018 GR 288 1025 290 1055 Xl 10 11 983 1020 110 149 143 GR 292 792 290 909 288 944 286 983 284 990 GR 283 1000 284 1011 286 1020 288 1038 290 1049 GR 292 1070 l SAPR99 SECNO Q TIME SLOPE •PROF l l 2 :13 :SO DEPTH QLOB VLOB XLOBL CCHV = .100 CEHV • •SECNO l .000 l .000 1236 .0 4.20 .a . 00 .00 . 007462 a . •SECNO 2.000 CWSEL QCH VCH XLCH .300 28S .20 1236.0 4.20 a . 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION E..XISTING COND . FILE :CSWP l CRIWS QROB VROB XLOBR .00 .a .00 a . WSELK ALOB XNL I TRIAL 288 .00 . a .000 a EG ACH XNCH IDC 28S .48 294 .l .oso a HV AROB XNR I CONT .27 . a .000 s HL VO L WTN CORAR .00 .a .000 .00 OLOSS TWA ELM IN TOPW I D .00 .a 281 .00 1 4 0 .0 2 3302 WARNING : CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE , KRATIO • l .SO 2 .000 1 2 36 .0 .Ol . 003331 *SECNO 3 .000 3 .000 1236 .0 .03 .0048S8 *SECNO 4 .000 4.000 1236 .0 .03 • 003605 *SECNO 5 .000 5.000 1236.0 .04 .002796 *SECNO 6 .000 6 .000 1236 . a .OS .002706 4.97 .a .00 140 . 5 .65 2 .l . 98 129 . 5 .99 4 .4 l. ll 42 • 6 .40 7.8 l .23 126. 6 .77 29 .2 l .4 2 166. 285 .97 1236 .0 3 .22 135. 286.65 1227 .6 3. 72 180. 286 .99 ll8l .O 3 .60 7S . 287 .40 1197 . 9 3 .47 128 . 28 7 .77 1184. 4 3 .61 l4l. .00 .a .00 lll. .00 6 .4 .98 146 . .00 50 .7 l.26 lOS . .00 30 .3 l.24 SS. .00 22 .4 l. 42 7S . .00 .a .000 2 .00 2 .l .050 2 .00 3.9 .oso 2 .00 6 .4 .050 2 .00 20 .S .050 2 286 .13 383 .4 .050 a 286.87 329. 6 .oso a 287.18 328 .3 .oso a 287 .58 345. a .oso a 287 .97 328.0 .050 a .16 . a .000 a .21 6 .5 .050 a .19 40 .l .050 a .18 24 .S .050 a .20 15 .7 .050 a .65 l .O .000 .00 .72 2 .5 .000 .00 .31 3 .2 .000 .00 .40 4 .2 .000 .00 .38 5.4 .000 .00 .Ol .4 28l. 00 148 . 3 9 .02 l. l 281 .00 162 .40 .00 l. 4 28l. 00 200 .87 .00 l .8 28l. 00 148 .07 .00 2 .3 28l. 00 131.82 L-BANK ELEV R-BANK ELEV SSTA END ST 286 .00 28 6 .00 9S2 . 79 1092 . Bl 2 86 .00 2 86 .00 906 .32 l OS4 .7l 2 86.00 286.00 951.48 lll3.88 2 86 .00 286 .00 923 .08 112 3 .95 286 .00 286 .00 959 .91 ll07 . 97 286 .00 286.00 908 . 93 1 040 .75 PAGE 3 100-T"".:.AR FLOOD ELEVAT ION EXISTING COND . FILE:CSWPl 15APR99 12:13 :50 PAGE 4 SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSE LK EG HV HL CLOSS L-BANK ELEV Q QLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA R-BANK ELEV TIME VLOB VCH VROB JCNL XNCH XNR WI'N ELMIN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC I CONT CORAR TOPW I D DIDST •SECNO 7.000 7.000 5 .27 288 .27 .oo .00 288.46 .19 .4 9 .00 286 .00 1236. 0 27 .9 1194. 6 13 .5 16.9 336 . 2 8 .2 6 .9 2.8 286.00 .07 1. 65 3 .55 1 .65 .050 .050 .050 .000 283 .00 928 . 35 .002698 181. 182 . 108. 2 0 0 .oo 131. 06 1059 .41 *SECNO 8 .000 3302 WARNING : CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO s 1. 60 9.000 5.61 288.61 .00 .00 298 .69 .08 .2 2 .01 286.00 1236 .0 30 .5 1077 .9 127. 6 24 .2 466.l 99. l 8 .4 3 .3 286 .00 .09 1.26 2.31 1.30 .050 .050 .050 .000 283. 00 909.07 .001049 126 . 139 . 122. 0 0 0 .oo 211. 57 1120.64 *SECNO 9.000 9 .000 5 . 72 288 . 72 .00 .00 299.94 .12 .14 .01 286 .00 1236.0 550 .9 662.0 23.2 233.9 208.6 15.9 9.6 3 .7 286.00 .09 2.36 3 .17 1.45 .050 .050 .050 .000 283 .00 872 .15 . 001716 80. 115. 96 . 2 0 0 .00 163.67 1035. 82 •SECNO 10.000 3302 WARNING : CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO s .66 10.000 5 .90 288. 90 .00 .00 299 .24 .34 .33 .07 286 .00 1236 .0 220 .l 915.8 100.l 81. 5 176 .0 36 .6 10.7 4.1 286.00 .10 2.70 5 .20 2.74 .050 .050 .050 .000 293 .00 929.14 • 003911 110. 143 . 149 . 0 0 0 .00 114 .84 1042 .98 100-!EAR FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND . FILE:CSWPl 1SAPR99 12 :13 :50 PAGE 5 TH IS RUN EXE CUTED 15APR99 1 2:13 :50 HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4 .6 .2; May 1991 NOTE-ASTERISK (•) AT LEFT OF CROSS-SECTION NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST 100 YEAR SUMMARY PRINTOUT SECNO CWSEL Q EI.MIN TOPWID SSTA END ST VCH 1. 000 285 .20 1236 .00 281. 00 140 .02 952 .79 1092 .81 4.20 2 .000 285 .97 1236.00 281.00 148 .39 906.32 1054 . 71 3 .22 3.000 286 .65 1236 .00 281.00 162.40 951. 48 1113 .88 3 .72 4.000 286 .99 1236 .00 281.0 0 2 0 0 . 87 923.0 8 1123. 95 3.60 5.000 287 .40 1236.00 281. 00 148 . 07 959.91 1107 .97 3 .47 6 .000 287 .77 1236 .00 281 .00 131.82 9 0 8. 93 1040.75 3 .61 7 .000 288 .27 1236 .00 283 .00 131. 06 928 .35 1059 .41 3 .55 8 .000 288 .61 1236 .00 283 .00 211. 57 909 .0 7 1120 . 64 2 .31 9 .000 288 . 72 1236.00 283 .00 163 .67 872 .15 1035 . 82 3.17 10 .000 288 .90 1236.00 283.00 114 .84 928 .14 1042.98 5 .20 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND. FILE:CSWPl 15APR99 12 : 13 : 50 SUMMARY OF ERROR S AND SPECIAL NOTES WARN I NG S ECNO= WARN I NG SECNO= WARNING SECNO= 2.000 PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE 8 .000 PROFILE= 1 . CONVE YANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE 10 .000 PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE PAGE 6 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND. FILE:CSWPS **********••••························· HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES U .S . ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEID HYDROLOGIC ENGINEER.ING CEN"'J Version 4 .6 .2; May 1991 609 SECOND STREET, SUITE D DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616-46 ! RUN DATE 15APR99 TIME 12 :31 :17 (916) 756-1104 x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxx.xxx lCXXX x xxxxx xxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND . FILE :CSWPS l5APR99 l2 :3 l :l7 PAGE THIS RUN EXECUTED l5APR99 l2 :3l :l7 ************************************* HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4.6.2; May 1991 **•·································· Tl COLLEGE STATION EXISTING CONDITION LICK CREEK T2 DOWNSTREAM OF WESTFIELD ADDITION USING WESTFIELD DISCHARGE T3 100 YEAR FILE : CS WPS Jl I CHECK INQ NINV IDIR STRT METRIC HVINS Q WSEL FQ o 2 o o .0075 o 0 o 288 J2 NPROF I PLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC IBW CHNIM I TRACE -1 o -l .. J3 VARIABLE CODES FOR SUMMARY PRINTOUT 38 l 43 42 4 53 54 26 QT l 1241 NC .05 .OS .05 .l . 3 Xl l 14 945 1100 GR 290 572 288 643 286 754 287.l 819 286 945 GR 282 984 281 1000 282 1008 283.3 1042 284 1082 GR 286 1100 288 1181 289.2 1260 290 1377 Xl 2 12 906 1055 140 lll 135 GR 290 615 289.l 687 288 792 286 906 284 929 GR 282 991 281 1000 282 1010 284 1034 286 1055 GR 288 1098 290 1235 Xl 3 12 958 1094 129 146 180 GR 290 773 289.l 863 288 938 286 958 284 975 GR 282 991 281 1000 282 1009 284 1014 286 1094 GR 288 1155 290 1384 Xl 4 13 931 1045 42 105 75 GR 290 754 289 .9 798 288 915 286 931 284 97l GR 282 994 281 1000 282 1007 284 1012 286 1045 GR 286 .7 1103 288 1197 290 1290 Xl 5 12 969 10 73 1 26 55 128 GR 290 8 79 288 956 286 969 284 980 282 993 GR 281 1000 282 1004 284 1008 284 .4 1044 286 1073 GR 288 1123 290 1255 l.00-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND. FILE:CSWPS l.5APR99 l.2:31.:17 PAGE Xl. 6 12 932 1023 166 75 141 GR 290 817 288 906 286 932 284 981 282 993 GR 281 1000 282 1002 284 1012 286 l.023 288 1043 GR 288 1098 290 1184 Xl 7 10 953 1049 181 108 182 GR 290 808 289.5 870 288 941 286 953 284 990 GR 283 1000 284 1005 286 1049 288 1055 290 1088 Xl 8 12 928 1053 126 122 139 GR 292 798 290 898 288 914 286 928 285.5 956 GR 284 988 283 1000 284 1006 286 1053 288 1112 GR 290 1140 291. 4 1219 Xl 9 12 968 1018 80 96 115 GR 292 808 290 860 288 879 286 900 285.7 939 GR 286 968 284 990 283 1000 284 1005 286 1018 GR 288 1025 290 1055 Xl 10 11 983 1020 110 149 143 GR 292 792 290 909 288 944 286 983 284 990 GR 283 1000 284 1011 286 1020 288 1038 290 1049 GR 2 92 1070 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND . FILE :CSWPS l5APR99 12 :31 :17 PAGE SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL CLOSS L-BANK ELEV Q QLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA R-BANK ELEV TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR wrN ELM IN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR I TRIAL IDC !CONT CORAR TOPWID END ST *PROF l CCHV= .100 CEHV= .30 0 *SECNO l .000 l. 000 4 .21 285 .21 .oo 288.00 285.48 .28 .00 . 00 286.00 1241. 0 . 0 1241. 0 .0 .0 294.9 . 0 .0 .0 286 .00 .00 .00 4 .21 .00 .000 .050 .000 .000 281 .00 952 . 73 .007463 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 5 .00 140 .13 1092. 86 *SECNO 2.000 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, KRATIO = l. so 2.000 4 . 98 285.98 .00 .00 286.14 .16 .65 .Ol 286 .00 1241.0 . 0 1241. 0 .0 .0 384 .3 . 0 l.l .4 286 .00 .Ol .00 3.23 .00 .000 .050 .000 .000 281.00 906 .25 . 00333 6 140 . 135 . lll. 2 0 0 .00 148 .52 1054. 77 *SECNO 3 .000 3 .000 5 .66 286 .66 .00 .oo 286.87 .2 1 . 72 .02 286.00 1241.0 2 .l 1232.3 6 .5 2.2 330.5 6 .6 2.5 l. l 286.00 .03 .98 3. 73 .99 .050 .050 .050 .000 281.00 951 .42 .004851 129 . 180 . 146 . 2 0 0 .00 162 .67 1114. 08 *SECNO 4 .000 4.000 6 .00 287.00 .00 .oo 287 .19 .19 .31 .00 286 .00 1241 .0 4 .4 1185.0 Sl. 6 4.0 329. l 40.7 3.2 l. 4 286 .00 .03 l.12 3.60 l.27 .050 .050 .050 .000 281. 00 923 .03 .003602 42 . 75. 105. 2 0 0 .00 201 .40 1124.43 *SECNO 5 .000 5. 000 6 .41 287 .41 .00 .00 287 .59 .18 .40 .00 286 .00 1241 .0 7.9 1202 .4 30 .7 6 .4 345 . 6 24 .7 4 .2 l. 8 286.00 .04 l.23 3.48 l.24 .050 .050 .050 .0 00 281 .00 959 .87 .002800 126 . 128. 55. 2 0 0 .oo 148 .26 1108 .13 *SECNO 6 .0 00 6.000 6 .78 287.78 .00 .oo 287 . 98 .20 . 39 .00 286 .00 1241 .0 29.5 1188.9 22 .6 20 .6 328.6 15 .9 5.4 2 .3 286 .00 .OS l.43 3 .6 2 l. 43 .050 .050 .050 .000 281.00 908 .84 .002710 166 . 141. 75. 2 0 0 .00 1 31 .97 1 0 40.81 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND . FILE :CSWPS 15APR99 12:31 :17 PAGE SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOS S L -BANK ELEV Q QLOB QCH QROB ALOB ACH AROB VOL TWA R -BANK ELEV TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELM IN SSTA SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR I TRIAL IDC I CONT CORAR TOPWID END ST *SECNO 7 .000 7 .000 5 .28 288.28 .00 .00 288 .4 7 .19 .49 .00 2 86.00 1 241. 0 28 .2 1199 .1 13.7 17.1 336 .9 8 .3 6 .9 2.8 2 86.00 .0 7 1. 65 3 .56 1.65 .050 .050 .050 .0 0 0 2 83 .00 9 28 .01 .002 7 00 181. 182 . 108. 2 0 0 .00 131. 5 2 1059 .53 *SECNO 8 .000 3302 WARNING : CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE , ICRATIO = 1. 60 8.000 5 .62 288 .62 .00 .oo 288 .70 .08 .2 2 .01 286 .00 1241 .0 30 .7 1081 .6 1 2 8.7 24.3 467 .1 98 .6 8 .4 3.3 2 86 .00 .08 1.2 6 2 .32 1.31 .050 .050 .050 .000 283 .00 909 .00 . 00104 9 126 . 139 . 12 2 . 0 0 0 .00 211 . 74 1 12 0 .74 ' - *SECNO 9 .000 9 .000 5 .73 288 . 73 .00 .00 288 .85 .12 .1 4 .01 286 .00 1241. 0 553 .6 664.0 23.4 234 .6 208 .9 16 .1 9.6 3.7 2 86 .00 .09 2 .36 3 .18 1. 46 .050 .050 .050 .000 283 .00 8 72 . 08 .. 00111 7 80 . 115 . 96. 2 0 0 .00 163 .85 1035 .93 *SECNO 10.000 3302 WARNING: CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE OF ACCEPTABLE RANGE, ICRATIO = .66 10 .000 5.91 288 .91 .00 .00 289 .25 . 34 .33 .0 7 2 86 .00 1 2 41 .0 2 2 1 .8 918 .4 100 .8 82 .0 176 .3 36 .7 1 0.8 4.1 2 86 .00 .1 0 2 . 71 5 .21 2 .74 .050 .050 .050 .000 2 83 .00 92 8 .01 . 00391 2 110 . 143 . 149 . 0 0 0 .00 115 .0 2 104 3 .0 3 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND. FILE :CSWPS 15APR99 12:31 :17 PAGE 5 THIS RUN EXECUTED 15APR99 1 2 : 31 : 1 7 HEC-2 WATER SURFACE PROFILES Version 4 .6 .2; M•y 1991 NOTE-ASTERISK (*) AT LEFT OF CROSS-SECTION NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST 1 00 YEAR SUMMARY PRINTOUT SECNO CWSEL Q ELMIN TO PW ID SSTA END ST VCH 1.000 285.21 1241. 00 281.00 -140.13 952 . 73 1092 . 8 6 4 .21 .. 2.000 285 .98 1241. 0 0 281.00 148. 52 9 0 6 .25 1054 .77 3.23 3 .000 286.66 1241. 00 2 8 1.0 0 162.67 951.42 1114. 0 8 3 .73 4.000 287 .00 1241 .00 281.00 201 .40 923.03 1124 .43 3.60 5 .000 287 .41 1241 .00 281.00 148.26 959.87 1108 .13 3 .48 6 .000 287.78 1241.00 281.0 0 131 .97 908 .84 1040 .81 3 .62 7 .000 288 .28 1241 .00 283 .0 0 131. 52 928 .01 1059 .53 3 .56 8 .000 288 .62 1241. 00 283 .00 211 . 74 909 .00 1120 . 74 2 .32 9 .000 288.73 1241. 00 283. 00 163 .85 872 . 08 1035 . 93 3 .18 10 .000 288 .91 1241. 00 283 .00 115 . 02 928 .01 1043 .0 3 5 .21 100-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION EXISTING COND . FILE:CSWPS 15APR99 12:31 :17 SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES WARNING SECNO = WARNING SECNO~ WARNING SECNO= 2 .000 PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE 8 .000 PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE 10.000 PROFILE= 1 CONVEYANCE CHANGE OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE RANGE PAGE . - WESTFIELD ADDITION, LTD. P.O. Box 14000, College Station, Texas 77841 (409)260-1647 PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC REPORT FOR A PORTION OF THE SOUTH FORK OF LICK CREEK IN THE PROPOSED PHASE 1 OF WESTFIELD ADDITION INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to demonstrate the 100-year floodplain delineation and elevation for that portion of the South Fork of Lick Creek located in the proposed Phase 1 of the WESTFIELD ADDITION, in College Station, Texas . A consulting Engineer, Ronald W . Morrison, P .E ., of MORRISON HYDROLOGY ENGINEERING, INC . was consulted and the basis of the available data relied for this study was the City of College Station 2-foot topographic maps which were provided by Williams- Stackhouse, Inc ., of 2118 Mannix Dr., San Antonio, Texas 78217, under contract to the City of College Station, the data being from an aerial flight in February/March , 1994. As of the date of this report, no actual on the ground verification or surveying of elevations were conducted on the site . GENERAL This report is based on the Hydraulic and Hydro logic Analysis in Support of a Letter of Map Revision For a portion of Lick Creek Through the Graham Road Intermediate School Tract dated March 2 , 1998 , prepared by Morrison Hydrology Engineering, Inc ., to which reference is made and incorporated herein for all purposes . That report studied and covered the portion of Lick Creek affecting Phase 1, Westfield Addition, being immediately west and adjoining the Graham Road Intermediate School Tract. The hydrologic study of this portion of the Creek was completed using the Corps of Engineers HECl Computer Methodology . The hydraulic analysis was based on the Corps of Engineers HEC2 Computer Model. Floodplain Delineation was prepared for the Creek and presented in the Report of March 2 , 1998, containing 10 cross sections, 2 of which (cross section #9 and #10) were located on Phase 1, Westfield Addition. Additional cross sections were requested to be prepared which resulted in Morrison Hydrology Engineering, Inc ., preparing two additional cross-sections #11 and #12 which covers the full extent of the Creek in the proposed Phase 1 of Westfield Addition. The additional cross-sections are attached hereto as well as the letter from Ron Morrison dated April 14 , 1998, which are made a part of this report. FLOODPLAIN DELINEATION Referring to the additional cross-sectional study attached hereto , the floodplain delineation were placed upon the proposed Final Plat of Phase, see attached portion of Phase 1, and appears to be substantially limited to the Park Lot with a possibility of a portion of the floodplain affecting lots 5 , 6 and 7 . Actual surveying and on the ground staking and profiling will be conducted with further analysis done to verify these findings , and a supplemental report will be submitted when such field work and studies have been completed. Included in this final report will be recommended slab elevations for any of the affected lots . A P~-3 0 -98 T HU 0 6 :53 PM M ORR I S ON HYD R OLOGY 81746103 22 Morrison Hydrology Engineering, Inc. 210 A.mold Ave, A.r/ittgtt)n, Tll!CX4.' 76010 Metro (811) 461·03Zl Fax (81'7) 274-1338 E·Mail: ronmor7771@,aQLC41't April 14, 1998 Mr. John Zabuniewicz Lick Creek Development P.O. Box 14000 College Station, Te(as 77841 Off 409-260-1647 Fax 409-846-1655 Re: Lick Creek Floodplain Dear Mr. Zabuniewicz: At your request we extended the Lick Creek floodplain to cover a portion of your development. The attached floodplain represents existing condition. We made no attempt to reduce the floodplain to fit your development, although thiS is possible as long as the 100-year floodplain is not increased. Attached is a floodplain map and HEC2 computer printout supporting the floodplain delineation. We will invoice you based on an hourly basis for th is analysis . We are preparing a proposal for a City of College Station and FEMA approval under the Conditional Letter of Map Revision procedure for the entire subdivision including the proposed crossing. Th fa will involve channelization . Please let us know if you want to reclaim any other portion of the floodpla in. Call me if you have questions . on Cl W. Morrison , P.E., C.F.M. Senior Hydrologist P .01 ~nit lJ"Wlll l!O'f KI a..:rot' .., ,, flOard...O-. Ht~ '\I Y ,,-/"/ •I• ::-'t· ., 1"3..L .... 0 \ : . ' . I 1 . ' ... i . ··- T v ····-·-r OlOG.L SVx:a.J,. 'NOJ.0.rl~ CTl(.llonI'V 0"1~ ~ .,, ill I ::! 0 ill ill H (I) 0 z ::r -< tj ill 0 r 0 Ci -< 1l . . ··"' ·~~ , 0 - \ FINAL PLAT '. . ~ WESTFIELD ADDITION · .. ·. . . . •' . . ,· ·PHASEJ .·. . r · . 1·4. 226 . ACRES _I •• · ROBERT STEVENSON SURVEY, A'BSTRACT ·No. 54 . . . . . . rn T f Ji'~ Ji' -<::.tT 11 T rn 'AT ·P p A '7n" -·rnr T hT'T'V· . T '];1 VA." McCLURE ENGINEERING, INC. 1722 Broadmoor, Suite 210 Bryan, Texas 77802 (409) 776-6700, Fax: (409) 776-6699 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO: Mr. Jeff Tondre Graduate Engineer Date: 8/24/99 Attn: Job# CITY OF COLLEGE STATION RE: Westfield Addition Engineering Sewerage Report We are sending you the following: ~ Attached D Under Separate Cover Via: D Invoice D Prints D Plans D Contractor Invoice D Bid Books D Specifications D Change Order D Contracts ~ Other Engineering Sewerage Report Copies Date Description 1 January, 1999 Report referenced above These are transmitted as follows D For Approval D For your use D As Requested REMARKS: COPY TO: D Approved as Submitted ---Sets to be approved and returned to me D Approved except as noted ---Copies for your files D Resubmitted after Revisions Corrected Prints --- Returned after loan to our office SIGNED: Steven C. Franks, P.E. Design Engineer ELLIOTT CONSTRUCTION, I NC. P.O. BOX 510 WELLBORN, TX. 77881 OFFICE ( 409) 690-7071 FAX (409) 690-7152 MOBILE {409) ~5-4901 WESTFIELD ADDlTJ.UN .l:'rtA::.c J.: cJ..J...l.OLL. '-V""' ....... ~~ ~-~--, -··---· 2. DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION: 18" RCP (C76. CL.II[) ....••.................• L.F. 80 1 5' R<'.o:sscd Concrete: InlCL •.• --.......... Ea. 2 3 24" RCP (C76, CT..III). ________ .......... L.F. 675 4 5' Recessed Concrete Inlet.-.. -......... : Ea. 1 ·S 11 RCP (C76, CT..III). __ ·····-·-LF. 400 6 S' Roo::ssed Concrete Inlet__._ ........... Ea. l 7 3Q" RCP (C76, cL.m) ---·-·· LF. 20 8 Trench Safetv Storm Drain ................. L.F. 1175 Total ........................ ·--------·-----· 3. SEWER LINE CONSTRUCilON: --· .. l 6" PVC (SDR-26, 03034)(6' ..g• depth) LF. . 2000 1. Standard S~ .Manhole(< s• depth) Ea. 4 3 Trench Safety Sewer Syst.cm__ ___ LF. 2000 4 4" Service Lines ITvoe ID 56' Avg ...... Ea. 30 s 28.00 s 2000.00 s 32.50 s 2000.00 s 38.00 s 2000.00 s 46.70 s 1 . 50 ------ s 14.00 s1290.oo s 1.00 s 655.00 s 2240 .QO s 4000.00 s 21937.50 s 2000.00 s 15200.00 s 2000 .00 s 934.00 s 1762.50 s 50,074.00 s 2aoo·o . oo s 4800.00 s 2000.00 s19650.00 Total. .••.................... __ •·•-•••-uu-·•·-•-u•n••n•--•-•uuu-••H•nn•--••nuuuu•un•u-S 5 4 c 4 5 Q • Q Q 4 . \VATER LINE CONSTRUCilON: l 6 .. PVC (C900, CT..200) .... -·-··········· L.F. 2 Connect to Existing 12" Line .............. Ea. 3 Fire Hydrants ()) ................................ Ea. 4 6" MJ Gate Valve ...... _ ... , ................... Ea. 5 6" x 6" Hydrant Ts .... _ ...................... Ea. 6 6" x 6" Line T's.-·-·-····················· Ea. 7 l 112" Co s . (5 • pper c:rvtce 0 ) Avg ........ Ea. 8 Trench Safetv Water Line .................. L .F. 1885 l 3 5 3 2 30 18S3' s 12 .• 00 s160o.oo siaoo.oo s 400.00 s 200.00 s 200.00 s 700.00 s "'?Zl" s22620.oo s 1600.00 s 5400.00 s 2000.00 s 600.00 s 400.00 S21000.00 s 500.00 Total. ................................................ -....................................................................... s 54, 120.00 S. DETENTION: I. Detention Ar~ ................................. . Ea. s s)2,0LO TOTAL BIO PRICE OF ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION ......................... -... S 158, 6 4 4. 0 0 Price will remain the same, as long as the price for materials _,,\..,_._ __ ._,_,, .. ._,__ --~.-. f=l""lr Ph ::>c:oc:? 1 ;:inr1 ·4 . / COLLEGE STATION P. 0 . Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue Tel : 409 764 3500 College Station , TX 77842 Lick Creek Development, Inc . P.O. Box 14000 College Station, Texas 77841 Attn: John Szabuniewicz Dear John: May 12,1998 w cS0c; In looking at the conditions of the approval of the preliminary plat for the Westfield Subdivision, it appears that there is one item that is still lacking. As discussed with the preliminary plat, the hydraulic study was to be complete through the entire Westfield property to show the location of the existing floodplain. To date, staff has been presented with the lines through a portion of Phase 1, but not through the entire property. Please submit the hydraulic analysis (HEC runs) as well as the location of the floodplain, depicted on the preliminary plat. Once we have this information on the preliminary plat , a final plat for Phase 1 can be scheduled for a hearing at the Planning & Zoning Commission. We are currently in the process of reviewing your engineer's estimates for oversize participation and to determine the viability for the phasing you have proposed for the development. We have not completed that review and our comments being returned today include all other review comments save those related to the estimates for construction. Please call if you have any questions regarding the comments on the construction plans or reports. cc: file Tun Callaway, Director of Development Services Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Jane Kee, City Planner Paul Kaspar, Graduate Civil Engineer Home of Texas A&M University DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 535 Westfield Addition Off-site Sanitary Sewer Line FOR AREAS INSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE : CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Public Utility Easements Froehling Vol 3391Pg151 Neelley Vol 3393 Pg 1 C.S.I.S.D. Vol 2774 Pg 269 OWNER: Westfield Addition, Ltd. John Szabuniewicz P.O. Box 14000 College Station, TX 77841 (409) 268-1008 (409) 694-8925 DRAINAGE BASIN: Lick Creek SITE ADDRESS: 800 Graham Road TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:This permit is valid for construction of the off site sanitary sewer trunk line from the proposed Westfield Addition Phase I Subdivision to the existing sewer line in the Spring-Brook Cypress Meadows subdivision. The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate construction site in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Criteria. The Owner and/or Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and establishment of vegetation occurs prior to removal of any silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion control. The Owner and/or Contractor shall also insure that any disturbed vegetation be returned to its original condition, placement and state. The Owner and/or Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to adjacent properties, city streets or infrastructure due to heavy machinery and/or equipment as well as erosion, siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work. Any trees required to be protected by ordinance or as part of the landscape plan must be completely fenced before any operations of this permit can begin. In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station , measures shall be taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion , and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage facilities. I hereby grant this permit for development of an area inside the special flood hazard area. All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the development permit application for the above named project and all of the codes and rdinances of the City of College Station that apply. Contractor Date --. ---- ---_2_£_ ?~~ ~~ ·--- _ _ ____ 2J oL__t_\_re_~ ~~ __ _ --~-~tlJV\ I --r.vx.~ 1 _1__7_<6 0_1-_ ---· ---·--- 3-!l '. __ k~{~ -~· 0~ ... Y. 0 . '°&_Qi _ 5 7_Q 0 G_4 _ ... t+o~Q\11,TQ//tt-o 1 _12e;7 . -: \ t -·--- .J~O ~~ i I ' .,,.. . I EASEMENT INFORMATION SHEET (To be filled in and su bmitted with construction plans and specifications for preliminary review) REQUESTING DEPARTMENT INFORMATION ..... ·.·.·.·.if REouEsTED B)': -sb,w\~ VoU" EXT .'34~~ ·<· .· . ·. . . · ( (City Department and Name of Per-Son to ·~.P.?Rn,ta0··ct.J)EC .. T .. NO ... ~~<: _: • ·::··::;·;( . ·AGGQ _O.NT :t~Q;:::::·:.. .-·-:-:-: .=·-==·== .. . · -{F .O:f -Orderi_nQ title work /-appraisals, etc .) .· .. =-:-:: · · ::=::\;~ :-:-··.·::.::::: ===== ~=}f~{ TYPE OF EASEMENI: . <tt. . 4ub;ic utilities < • Sprinkler Vaull/Fire Hydrant .... _:. _Temporary; Blanket Electric Lines _ Electric lin~ _ Sanitary Sewer Line _ Temporar-YBlanket Utilities (prior to bUDding pennit) SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 'f\!:> ~ ~ S~~~ ~~ ~ l)o ~C\" \,AA\!(... 00\ ~ REVIEW AND APPROVAL REQUIRED/GIVEN BY THE FOLLOWING DEPARTMENTS :< .·.·:·::::::·<·:.:.)'·\ .-:;:.:-:·:·:·:·'.·:····· Approval Required By : Electric Waler/WW --v7' City Engin ee r Approval Given By : __ Electric . . .J..5i.J. (please initial) W,aterNJ'!"I . ~j..o APPLICANT INFORMATION ~City Engineer .~ ( PROPERTY OWNER(S): Ctc>U ~ l ~l ~ ~: (N es must be exactly as ey appear on the d eed ADDRESs :M .J~,M ~tr~. PHONE NUMBER: ____ _ \B\i Wtish~. Q.5. ~· 11K4o IF OWNER IS A CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP , OR JOINT VENTURE : 1. State of Incorporation/Registration--------------------- 2 . Partners' Names (if applicabl e) ---------------------- 3 . Person Authorized to Sign ---------__,..-.-----:-=~:---------- (Na m e and Title } js/c/forms/info .doc ion 1196 LEGAL DEPARTMENT MUST BE PROVID.ED WITH THE FOLLOWING: Any land acquisition resulting from Capital Improvement Projects requires a meeting between the City Attorney and the Project Manager. EASEMENT INFORMATION SHEET (To be Med in and submitted with construction plans and specificarions for preliminary review) REQUESTING DEPARTMENT INFORMATION )( REQUESTED B)':.~~=· =-l,.....l~~k:.....;,_;_ _ ___,...---------,....,-.,.---,. EXT . ~ ; f \ (City Department 'and Name of PerSon to COntclct) ···.--::._·:-.;:<{-··-·· · . :):)~~ft:: ;::\f::::;:-:··=:=·:-:-. .· . . ·pROJEC:f NO .. -~&LI .... : .::. :• )} AGC:::QUNT f'JO ;~.···--------'-"'-----~"'-"'---,-- . '(For .ordering title work ; appraisals ,: etc.) .·•···•'•'•·•"•'•' .. •'•::;::,.-:/: .. : .•••••• TYPE OF tASEMENT: . :;) :1::11: ·j . ~~~~~~l~~il~1J1uFire Hydrant = ~~en~i~~li~~wer Line . · ·. ~~r~~~~;::1iJ!IJ!::1::1;i:jJ . . :,.,_: _. Temporaf"Y Blanket Electric Lines . _ TemporaryBlanket Utilities ... <:): •. Access '? ····•········ :· :PE. CIAL INSTRUCTIONS lit, ™""I' -k ~"-t•::.S ~;';;;: ''!1111 .. r ' ~ . '!>o t-JtS\" \..A..A. l ~ ax<'· . REVIEW AND APPROVAL REQUIRED/GIVEN BY THE FOLLOWING DEPARTMENTS : Approval Required By : Electric Approval Given By : __ Electric ..... :·• <> =z: ~::~=er (F'm• ;oi6•I) ~ ~::~=~; ~ APPLICANT INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER(S): ADDRESS : t1c(\ ( a es must be exactly as they appear on the deed 1>~d Ckru PHONE NUMBER: --------~1--t 11 cgo~ IF OWNER IS A CORPORATION , PARTNERSHIP , OR JOINT VENTURE : 1 . State of Incorporation/Registration--------------------- 2 . Partners' Names (if applicable) ---------------------- 3 . Person Authorized to Sign-------------:-=~--------- (Na m e and Title } LEGAL DEPARTMENT MUST BE PROVIDED WITH THE FOLLOWING: .·.:. . .:··.··-.. ·."::::=: proof of authority to sign on behalf ofthe ··corporation , partnersh ip;orjoint:V enture ) ' : ·t:·· :@:/]f::ffi 5. Name, address and phon number of person who is to •re ·ve th easemen F:af\d:b~ responsible for getti ng it executed. ' ·c. ' > : I> ::: js/dfonns/info.doc IOnt/96 Any land acquisition resulting from Capital Improvement Projects requires a meeting between the City Attorney and the Project Manager. ... ' . ~ . EASEMENT INFORMATION SHEET (To b e filled in and submitted with construction plans and specifications for preliminary review) REQUESTING DEPARTMENT INFORMATION 1:~;~.:r:~: ~¥~L'"' .oo N•m• ot p,rao, ,,~~:~ECJNO.• • ~~:181;.: · (F()( ordering title work, appraisals, etc .) ·· ••·••• •···· · . < · : / ? TYPE OF EASEMENT: .. ··.· ... ·.· .... ::: •• · ·· ,:£~~~~~1~~~tZ1uFire Hydrant = ~~n~~~li~~~er Line . • •• :~~}~~~i~i~i Y .·.·. •.·. <Temporar)' Blanket Electric Lines _ Temporar)' Blanket Utilities ··.••.•· .... : : . Access } ··: : ::· { · · ·.. · · (prior to buildii1g permU) · _::>: · · ·.· >: :::= ·}::: :=:=:=:::=:=:;::~ :::\:=:·::;:::=::::· S. PE_.CIAL INSTRUCTIONS·. o'-.. AL . II. I_ 1>~ ~ ~.l"Ull I 0 ~-·· . . ··Cc.··.· .. · ................ _:::·:· \ f'1 ~UJ\ """ 10 ~ ~ I.AN'""""'° ____:.;> •···•.·•. •·•·•·•·•·.······· REVIEW AND APPROVAL REQUIRED/GIVEN BY THE FOLLOWING DEPARTMENTS : Approval Required By: PROPERTY OWNER(S): (Names must be exa ctly as they a ear on the deed ADDRESS : ?. 0 · ~ 'f., ')1Dl.o(A P\5\>~ 0')( 11201 PHONE NUMBER: -------~ IF OWNER IS A CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, OR JOINT VENTURE : 1. State of Incorporation/Registration--------------------- 2. Partners' Names (if applicable) --------------------- 3 . Person Authorized to Sign -----------,.,.,---,..-::~--------- (Name an d Titl e} j s/dforms/info.doc 10/21/96 LEGAL DEPARTMENT MUST BE PROVIDED WITHTHE FOLLOWING: Any land acquisition resulting from Capital Improvement Projects requires a meeting between the City Attorney and the Project Manager. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 535 Westfield Addition Water & Sanitary Sewer Only FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Westfield Addition Phase I OWNER: Westfield Addition, Ltd. John Szabuniewicz P .O. Box 14000 College Station, TX 77841 (409) 268-1008 (409) 694-8925 DRAINAGE BASIN: Lick Creek SITE ADDRESS: 800 Graham Road TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:This permit is valid construction of the water and sewer only as shown on the approved plans as of July 15, 1999. The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate construction site in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Criteria. The Owner and/or Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and establishment of vegetation occurs prior to removal of any silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion control. The Owner and/or Contractor shall also insure that any disturbed vegetation be returned to its original condition, placement and state. The Owner and/or Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to adjacent properties, city streets or infrastructure due to heavy machinery and/or equipment as well as erosion, siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work. Any trees required to be protected by ordinance or as part of the landscape plan must be completely fenced before any operations of this permit can begin. Jn accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage facilities. I hereby grant this permit for development of an area outside the special flood hazard area. A ll development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the development permit application for the above named project and all of the codes and dinances of the City of College Station that apply. Da Contractor Date \VESTFIELD ADDITION, LTD. P.O. Box 14000, College Station, Texas 77841 ( 409)260-164 7 PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGIC REPORT FOR A PORTION OF THE SOUTH FORK OF LICK CREEK IN THE PROPOSED PHASE 1 OF WESTFIELD ADDITTQN INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to demonstrate the 100-year floOdplain delineation and elevation fo r that portion of the South Fork of Lick Creek located in the proposed Phase 1 of the WESTFIELD ADDITION, in College Station, Texas. A consulting Engineer, Ronald W. Morrison, P .E ., of MORRISON HYDROLOGY ENGINEERING, INC. was consulted and the basis of the available data relied for this study was the City of College Station 2-foot topographic maps which were provided by Williarns- Stackhouse, Inc., of 2118 Mannix Dr., San Antonio , Texas 78217, under contract to the City of College Station, the data being from an aerial flight in February/March, 1994. As of the date of this report, no a ctual on the ground verification or surveying of elevations were conducted on the site. GENERAL This report is based on the Hydraulic and Hydro logic Analysis in Support of a Letter of Map Revision For a portion of Lick Creek Through the Graham Road Intermediate School Tract dated March 2, 1998 , preparod by Morrison Hydrology Engineering, Inc., to which reference is made and~ herein . 11 . for all purposes. That report studied and covered the portion of Lick Creek affectin Phase 1 estfield T ~ 1 • 1.. ;.... Addition, being immediately west and adjoining the Graham Road Intermediate ract. The C,(S\D.JJ.IAf'-J hydrologic study of this portion of the Creek was completed using the Corps of Engineers HECl ~c..QJ.... ~ Computer Methodology. The hydraulic analysis was based on the Corps of Engineers HEC2 Computer 'iW. · Model. Floodplain Delineation was prepared for the Creek and presented in the Report of March 2, 1998, ~ · containing 10 cross sections, 2 of which (cross section #9 and #10) were located on Phase 1, Westfield M11-f-~ UJa.D Addition. Additional cross sections were requested to be prepared which resulted in Morrison Hydrology ~biJi 1 _ Engineering, Inc., p~e · two additional cross-sections #11 and #12 which covers the full extent of the~(}..... r----; ~O Creek in the propos Phase f Westfield Addition. The additional cross-sections are attached hereto as well as the letter from ~~dated April 14, 1998, which are made a part of this report. ~ ~ FLOODPLAINDELINEATION ~t~ . . ~~~~ Referring to the additional cross-sectional study attached hereto, the floodplain delineation were placed ::.,j.., IJ ; ~ upon the proposed Final Plat of Phase, see attached portion of Phase 1, and appears to be sub_stantially ~MJ ""-• limited to the Park Lot with a possibility of a portion of the floodplain affecting lots 5, .6 and 7. Actual ~ ~ surveying and on the ground staking and profiling will be conducted with further analysis done to verify these findings, and a supplemental report will be submitted when such field work and studies have been completed. Included in this final report will be recommended slab elevations for any of the affected lots. ~ W a._ ~ ~~bl *:e AP ~-30-98 T HU 06:53 P M MOR R I SON H Y DROLOGY 8174610 322 Morrison Hydrology Engineetlng, Inc. 210 A.m()U/ Ave. A..rlirrgtJm, Ta:a.~ 76010 Metro (811) 461.()311 Fax (81'i) 274-1338 E-Mail: ronmor7771@aol.C41fl . April 14, 1998 Mr. Joho Zabuniewicz Liclc Creek Development P.O. Box 14000 College Station, Te;,cas 77841 Off 409-260-1647 Fax 409~846-1655 Re: Lick Creek Floodplain Deaf Mr_ Zabuniewicz.: At your request we extended the Lick Creek floodplain to cover a'. porti on of your developmen t. The attached floodplain represents existing condition. We made no att emp t to reduce the flood pla in to fit your development, although thiS is possible as Ion e 100-year floodplain is not increased. Attached is a floodplain map and C2 computer printout ppOrt in g the floodplain delin eation., . ..H-A .4 wt.~~ ~'-ttUa ~ We will invoice you based on an hourly basis fo.r this analysis. We are preparing a proposal for a City of College Station and FEMA approval under the Conditional Utter of Map Revision proced ure for the entire subdivision including the proposed crossing. Thi:s will involve channelization. Pl ease let us know if you want to recla.Un any other p<rlion of the floodplain. 9.111 m~jf ).'OU have questions .. on <J W. Morrison, P.E ., C.F.M Senior Hydrologist P.01 ~; -~- ··-~ ; . ' . a. N N t41 (Sl .... \0 v I'-.... OJ I , . MORRISON. HYDROLOGY ENGINEERING, J1VC . ... .... . . ... -· .. ... ~ . .. . .I ....... . i ... '! .... ... .. . - . : \ I! .. , I .. I "I "'l.~1 • • .: •, )- l:J 0 ..J 0 ct l=l )- :! z 0 IJ) w :J f- 00 (]'\. I v .... I ct a. .<r . . FINAL PLA->7f « _ -__ -- '· . . ... ) . WESTFIELD ADDITION -·--- . . . .. . . --·.· ·PHASE 1 ---• .. -. ~ - .. : . ,,. .. . .) .. · .. ROBERT STEVENSON SURV~Y, ·A'BSTRACT .·NO .-·54 _.x.: THIS FORM REPLACES PR!=VIOUS FORM 3510-0 (8-92) I Fonn Appc'oved.. OMISNa.~ See Rev~e for Instructions ~~~, ... ' 4 EPA United Stat6S EtMrocvnet\tal Prot&dion >.geocy NPOES o ··.·. w~oc 20460 . FORM Notice of Intent (NOi) for Storm Water OlschargH Associated with Industrial . . · Activity Under a NP DES General Penntt . · Subminion of thl.s Node. of Intent oorwtitut .. node• that the party identified In ~·c~n U of tt-i9 fonn Intend• to be euthorind by ii NPOES pcnrit iuuad foe •torm wstec df~ .. ~ with lnductrl.i ec:tf-Atv In the State id•ntlfied In Sec:tion 111 of thl1 form. ~ • pcrmittH oblio-t" cuch dl1charoe< to compfy wtth the tenm and conditlona of the permit. ALL NECfSSAl\Y INFOl\MA TION MUST BE PROVIOB> ON THIS FORM. I. Permit Selection: You~ lndlcata tM NPOES Stetm Wst« gencr.i permit under which \"IXI are i!pply4ng f«·COYSf-0-. ~one Ot th.N. Baaellnc D BaHllM 'S Multi-S.ctct ·o lndu•tri.i Constrvction <Grex1p Permit) II.· Fecility Op•r•tor 11\formation A.1>.l>.-t ;T~l .o.N.,. Name: Iv../.~~ .r.F. I .1'2,L-.'D1 .b~CQ I I I I I I Phone: 141 QfJ 1~16 18. I { 1 01 O.S'I AddrHS: 1£.D~ .~,o~. • l ,~0.,0.0, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Statue of Ip J Owrwr/Oi>«r•tor. City: iLQ,L.,L ,~b.~ 1 ~1l':lt.T 1 1 1 0 1 N1 I I I I I I I Stat•:~ ZIP Codi: t717 1~141 (I·, I I I I Ill . F•cility/Sit• Location AJ>.J>.1 .T.1 .o.J. Name: 1ki~.2.f 1 F, I g, L1D1 I lc th. fecil ity locat-4 oft ~ I I I I I I I I I I I lndien undl1 CY or NI AddrHC : 6,12./UJ·, A.1l:J1 .12.QA;Q.· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City: C1D1~1b .f;;,GifZ" 1S1 r.Arr, l 1fJ..,J I I I I I I I S t ate : LUJ ZIP Code : I 71 Z1BA1 ~I ' I J Latitude: I I I I I I I Longltu<le:I I I I I I I I Quartet :~ Section:LLl Township : I I I I I I . Range : I I I I I . IV. Sitt ActlllitY lnfominlon MS• Operator Nemc: 1w.~b.T,F1l ,E:,b 1D. 1A1~1t>.·1.T.1 .~.N.~ I IL /,Q4 I I I I I I I I Receivi"Q Wat•r Body: 12,0 ,tJ , "'f 1 lti .F,Q.R 1 t<. .t...£/'.,C. .c,e_.r;;g-,r, I I I If you art filinq u a co-permlttH. Mu!Ii·Sl!CIQC e11a.nit !ccllcaotl Qall!: enter storm watu ~necel permit numlar. I I I I I I I I I I Sued on the irvtNctioN pro...;(ftd in Add~C'dum H of the Multi•Sec.tor permit. are spccle1 Identified in . SIC or Otsionated · Prim~ry: I I 2nd: I J Addendum H in proximity to the 1torrn wattr dicc:hergee Activity Code: I I I I I I to be cowred under th/1 permit. °' tM ueu of BMP D ccnetn.iction tc control thou 1torrn water dicc:hugH1 Til ,y or N) le the facility ~·~ired to wbnit monitoring date7 (1, 2., 3, ot •I Will construction (land disturbing acti-.<tiH) ba D If You H1vt Another Existing NPOES 1. I conducted for •torm water oontrold (Y or NI Permit. Enter Permit Number: I I I I I I I I D le eppllcam aubject to and in compliance with • written historic prHuvation aoreement1 (Y or N> V. Additional lntorrn~on Required for Conatn.u:tion Acti'WitiH Only Project Stert Oete: Completion Cata: le tha Storm Water PoRution Prevencioft &l 10.11 Lz;l~.~I ii 011,t;191~l Ectlmat9<1 ArH to ba I 1115: .. 1.. I Plen In cGmpllenc:t with Stat• 1nd/ot Loe• · Disturbed Cin Acru): I •~imtnt end erosion pfana1 (Y or NI · VI. Certification: ~ c.rtification .utement In Box 1 appliH to &11 . IPr.,icenu. · . The cartificetion 1tetement In Sox 2. appliH Q!U to tcilitl~ eppty(ng f04' th4 Mu(O-:Sector. atorm water get>.ral ~- BOX 1 BOX 2. . ~. APPUCANTS: MULTI -SECTOR STORM WATER GENERAL PERMIT APPtlGAHTS OfCl. Y! I ce rti fy 'under penaJ-cy of le w thct thl• I carlity under penalty of lew thct I havw reed and understand tM Part LS.: el io•t>J.tV ft4Arem.nts document and all a tt.e<:tYT\C nta were for coverage under th• Muld·Sactoc atorm wstar o•Mcal permit. includino tho•• •e<J'•t-i• prapcred ut'der my direction o< 1UP•n/4alon relating to ·tha pr.otection of apaciH ldandtled In Addendum H. · in . accord1nce with a aystam dHlgned ·to To tha baet of my kno..,ledge, tha di1charOH covered under thl• pacmit. end cl>f'llt~ ef H•u,.. thet · qualified peraonn.I property· o•thet end evaluate the li'lfonna1ion BMP1 to control storm wstef Nn-otf, are not lilcely to and will not likely edvenely ·.tt.ci el"'I eubmined.· S.19<1 on my Inquiry of tM apeciH ldentffted In Addendum H of the MulU-Sector •term water genarel permit -- pe~. « peniona who ~ the otherwica eligible for cowreo• due to pre-.<oua euthorlutlor:i under the EC'dengere4 s . .-Act. •vetem. or thoH · per.one direcdy To the beat of.my knowtedo•. I furthec certify that .euch dlachargH, and conettvcOOft ef 1MP'1 tc rHPQntlble for ga-therino tM lnformaUon, the lnfo~on ~bmltt.cl It, to the bast control 8tonn water Nft-Off, do not h.tw an effect on propaniH listed or ·.r.gibla fot "'~ °" the of my knowf.clge and belief, tnlt, Netlonal Ragltter of Historic PlecH ut'der th• Nttional Hlctoric PrHatvl1ion Act. or. •• ..,..,wiH iccuret•, 1nd · complete. I em awafa that · eligible for oowr• du• to a p;e..;ex1• agrHmCnt under the National Hictorio Pr~ Act. there are llgnificant penaldH for I ut'deratand that oontinu9<1 coverage under the Multi-S1ctor gener.i ~rmit i1 co~ "°°" tubtritting falH Information. ·including the . ponibility of fine and impriconmant for · mainUining aliglbilitv H prollided for in Patt 1.B. I knowing· "'°'•tions. ! Print Name: . ~ . UN l Ew: l .G .'2-J ' -i · . I Oite: I (),7, ! 1S (q t1.1 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I June 30, 1999 Mr. John Zabuniewicz Lick Creek Development P. 0. Box 14000 S~5 Morrison Hydrology Engineering, Inc. 210 Arnold Ave. Arlington, Texas 76010 Metro (817) ./61-0321 Fax (81 7) 274-1338 E-Mail: ronmor 7777@aol.com College Station, Texas 77841 Off. (409) 268-1008 Home (409) 694-8925 Re: Detention for Lick Creek Development Phase I Dear Mr. Zabuniewicz: We had a conversation today with Veronica Morgan and Jeff Tondre with the City of College Station. The reason for our conversation was to determine how to proceed with the phasing of your project in regard to detention analysis. Ms. Morgan explained that there is a lot of development occurring along Lick Creek including a new school., a subdivision across the creek and a subdivision downstream. The downstream subdivision has experienced some flooding problems that may or may not be flooding from Lick Creek. The city ordinance requires that any subdivisioo completed must include detention to ensure that there is no impact to the floodplain downstream. The subdivision across the creek from you has submitted a master plan that includes a detention analysis. Based on this, the city has let them proceed with construction . Ms. Morgan said that the city would extend the same privilege to you if they had a master plan for your subdivision which included a detention analysis. This analysis must show the location of the detention facility as well as all other improvements anticipated for all phases of the p::oject. In addition Ms. Morgan also discussed the location of the detention facility. If it is proposed that this detention will be located in the park that is to be dedicated to the city, the details of this detention facility must be coordinated with the Park Board before the master plan could be finalized. Finally, we discussed wetland considerations . Any change to the creek area might require approvals from the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This will probably not affect Phase I however . We can proceed with the study addressed in our contract if you will provide us with your desired location for the detention facility. The completion of this study should address the concerns of the city. Morrison Hydrology Engineering, Inc . Page -2- We have discussed obtaining survey data for the creek area. This is needed to complete our study . Please advise us of the status of this information . Sincerely, Ronald W. Morrison , P.E., C.F.M. Senior Hydrologist Copy Veronica Morgan City of College Station ,. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 535B Westfield Addition Off-site Sanitary Sewer Line FOR AREAS INSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Public Utility Easements Froehling Vol 3391Pg151 Neelley Vol 3393 Pg 1 C .S .I.S .D . Vol 2774 Pg 269 OWNER: Westfield Addition, Ltd. John Szabuniewicz P.O. Box 14000 College Station, TX 77841 (409) 268-1008 ( 409) 694-8925 DRAINAGE BASIN: Lick Creek SITE ADDRESS: 800 Graham Road TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:This permit is valid for construction work as per approved site plans, with the condition that this permit shall expire on October 1, 1999 if final construction plans for the temporary detention pond are not received by that date. The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate construction site in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Criteria. The Owner and/or Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and establishment of vegetation occurs prior to removal of any silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion control. The Owner and/or Contractor shall also insure that any disturbed vegetation be returned to its original condition, placement and state. The Owner and/or Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to adjacent properties, city streets or infrastructure due to heavy machinery and/or equipment as well as erosion, siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work. Any trees required to be protected by ordinance or as part of the landscape plan must be completely fenced before any operations of this permit can begin. Jn accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that debris from construction , erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage facilities. I hereby grant this permit for development of an area inside the special flood hazard area. All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the development permit application for the above named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station that apply. 1!:i:i/j//A v Owne ~gent Date ~/q/qq Date Contractor Date WESTFIELD ADDITION, LTD Mr. Jeff Tondre, P. E. Development Services City of College Station 209-B University Drive East, College Station, Texas 77840 Tel (409) 268-1008 Fax (409) 268-5879 September 8, 1999 Re: Westfield Addition, Phase 1 Dear Mr. Tondre: This is to acknowledge to you that pursuant to your receipt of our final construction plans for street and storm sewer for Phase 1, and our Final Report of the proposed temporary detention area for Phase 1, we will submit to your office by October 1, the final construction plans for the proposed temporary detention pond . I agree to diligently pursue modifications necessary for the approval of these plans in an effort to have approved plans by November 1, 1999. If any of these items are not accomplished within the prescribed time, I understand that the City may revoke the development permit for this site . I also understand that a complete set of approved plans (including the detention facility) are required prior to processing the filing of the final Plat of Phase 1. In addition prior to the filing of the Final Plat of Phase 1, the pond would need to be constructed and accepted by the City or sufficient guarantee placed with the City in accordance with Section 7 of the City's Subdivision Regulations. I also understand that building permits for the construction of homes cannot be issued until the Final Plat of Phase 1 has been filed of record . Thank you for your assistance in this matter. ~' 0'~ Hydrologic Detention Study For Temporary Detention for Phase I of the Westfield Addition City of College Station, Texas Date: August 19, 1999 By: Morrison Hydrology Engineering, Inc. 210 Arnold Ave. Arlington, Texas 76010 (817) 4 61-0321 Fax (81 7) 274-1338 WESTFIELD ADDITION, LTD Mr. Jeff Tondre, P . E . Development Services City of College Station 209-B University Drive East, College Station, Texas 77840 Tel (409) 268-1008 Fax (409) 268-5879 September 8, 1999 Re: Westfield Addition, Phase I Dear Mr. Tondre: This is to acknowledge to you that pursuant to your receipt of our final construction plans for street and storm sewer for Phase 1, and our Final Report of the proposed temporary detention area for Phase 1, we will submit to your office by October 1, the final construction plans for the proposed temporary detention pond . I agree to diligently pursue modifications necessary for the approval of these plans in an effort to have approved plans by November 1, 1999 . If any of these items are not accomplished within the prescribed time, I understand that the City may revoke the development permit for this site. I also understand that a complete set of approved plans (including the detention facility) are required prior to processing the filing of the final Plat of Phase 1. In addition prior to the filing of the Final Plat of Phase 1, the pond would need to be constructed and accepted by the City or sufficient guarantee placed with the City in accordance with Section 7 of the City 's Subdivision Regulations . I also understand that building permits for the construction of homes cannot be issued until the Final Plat of Phase 1 has been filed of record . Thank you for your assistance in this matter. fi7l r¥ {JIM S~uniewi ~ Mo"ison Hydrology Engineering, Inc. Temporary Detention Westfield Addition Phase I Page-I Table of Contents Introduction Existing Condition Hydrologic Analysis Temporary Detention to Offset Development Increases Proposed Condition Hydrologic Analysis Summary Appendices 1. Existing Condition Hydrologic analysis • Watershed Map • Existing Condition HAESTEAD Computer model 2 . Phase 1 Condition Hydrologic analysis • Phase 1 Condition HAESTEAD Computer model Mo"ison Hydro/Qgy Engineering, Inc. Temporary Detention W estfo!ld Addit:Wn Phase I Page-2 Introduction Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine the existing condition and phase 1 developed conditions and determine a temporary detention facility to offset the impacts of increases in flow as a result of the phase I development through the Westfield Addition. Before the remainder of the development is completed a detention facility will be determined that accounts for flow increases for the entire development. Area Description The upper watershed of Lick Creek is largely undeveloped with natural vegetation (trees, brush and natUrat grasses). The area is relatively flat with generally less than a 1% slope. The soils are generally clay and silt-clay. The annual rainfall in Brazos County is 3 9 .1 inches. FEMA Information The Westfield Addition Site is located in an area of the FEMA map that has no floodplain shown. The area has not been previously studied by FEMA so there is no FEMA data available. Existing Condition Hydrologic Analysis Appendix 1 contains the HAES1EAD analysis of the watershed completed for this study. The time of concentration was determined by the TRS5 SCS method. Phase 1 Westfield Addition Condition Hydrologic Analysis The phase l condition consists of development of 10 acres of the 52 acre Westfield Addition site. In order to determine the increase in flow for the phase I development changes were made to the Runoff Coefficient. The result of this development increases the peak discharge as shown below: Existing Condition 100-Y ear flow 872.67 cfs Phase 1Condition109.:-Year flow 881.42 cfs Temporary Detention Facilitv to Offset the Impacts of Increases in Flow In order to reduce the outflow from the site by 8 . 75 cfs it is necessacy to create a detention facility with an outflow of no more than 872.67 cfs. This was accomplished by excavating an area of .522 acres or more and providing for an outflow that allows a discharge outflow of 872.67 or less when the detention pond is full. Summary This report has provided a hydrologic analysis that demonstrates that phase l of the proposed project results in an increased flow of approximately 8. 7 5 cfs . This increase may be reduced to by the creation of a detention pond as shown below . This detention pond is temporary. A final detention pond will be completed for the entire development. This final detention pond will be completed upstream of the proposed road over Lick Creek Tributary. WESTFIELD ADDITION, LTD Mr. Jeff Tondre, P . E . Development Services City of College Station 209-B University Drive East, College Station, Texas 77840 Tel (409) 268-1008 Fax (409) 268-5879 September 8, 1999 Re : Westfield Addition, Phase 1 Dear Mr. Tondre : This is to acknowledge to you that pursuant to your receipt of our final construction plans for street and storm sewer for Phase 1, and our Final Report of the proposed temporary detention area for Phase 1, we will submit to your office by October 1, the final construction plans for the proposed temporary detention pond . I agree to diligently pursue modifications necessary for the approval of these plans in an effort to have approved plans by November 1, 1999 . If any of these items are not accomplished within the prescribed time , I understand that the City may revoke the development permit for this site . I also understand that a complete set of approved plans (including the detention facility) are required prior to processing the filing of the final Plat of Phase 1. In addition prior to the filing of the Final Plat of Phase 1, the pond would need to be constructed and accepted by the City or sufficient guarantee placed with the City in accordance with Section 7 of the City's Subdivision Regulations. I also understand that building permits for the construction of homes cannot be issued until the Final Plat of Phase 1 has been filed of record . Thank you for your assistance in this matter . . 09/08/1999 14:16 8172741338 MORRISON ENG P.2 MORRISSON HYDROLOGY ENGINEERING, INC. .210J4'1N1'..4 ..... ~ , __ 1'1111 Tn "11) 411-M.21 T• (111) :114-lJJI Rydrolo&ie Detention Stud)' For TemporarJ Detendom fer Pll111 I oftht Wlltlleld AddldOSI CitJ of Collqt Satlo•, Tuu Ctrtifiutjo1 PAGE 01 I hereby oertify that thie Report tor the drainage d.llgn of th• Temporary Detandoa tor PbaM I, WeadleJd Addiiion, in the City of Q)Uege Station, Tau wu prepartd by IM or undtt my superviaion in accordance with the proYi•lona of the City ot Collep !tatioo Dnlnaa• Polioy and Oclian Standarcla for the owners thereof'. Dated u ot. Ausust 19, 1999. 2~~ Jtcnald W. Morrialon. P.!. No. Jt56' Mo"ison Hydrology Engineering, Inc. Temporary Detention Westfield Addition Phase I Page-3 Detention Pond: Size: at elevation 292 , 250 'x 90 ' Side slopes 3: 1 Grass-lined Outlet: Trapeziodal shape Bottom width 58 ' Depth 2' with bottom at elevation 290 ' Grass-lined Flowline slope 1 % ·J Quick TR-55 Ver.5 .46 Executed : 15:03:59 S/N: 08-23-1999 City of College Station Existing Condition Lick Creek Tribion * * * * * * SUMMARY OF RATIONAL METHOD PEAK DISCHARGES * * * * * * Q = adj * C * I * A Where : Q=cfs, C=Weighted Runoff Coefficient, I=in/hour, A=acres adj = 'C' adjustment factor for each return frequency Subarea Descr. Runoff IC' LD RESIDENT 0.600 HWY ROW 0.850 OPEN SPACE 0.450 Area acres 42.00 5.00 267.00 Tc (min) Wtd. I c I 45.00 0.476 RETURN FREQUENCY = 10 years 'C' adjustment, k = 1 . Adj. 'C' = Wtd.'C' x 1 ========================= ======== Adj. I 'C' in/hr Total acres 0 .476 3.900 314.00 Peak Q (cfs) 583.44 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 Executed: 15:03:59 S/N: 08-23-1999 City of College Station Existing Condition Lick Creek Tribion * * * * * * SUMMARY OF RATIONAL METHOD PEAK DISCHARGES * * * * * * Q = adj * C * I * A Where: Q=cfs, C=Weighted Runoff Coefficient, I=in/hour, A=acres adj = 'C' adjustment factor for each return frequency Subarea Descr. Runoff 'C' LD RESIDENT 0.600 HWY ROW 0.850 OPEN SPACE 0.450 Area acres 42.00 5.00 267.00 Tc (min) Wtd. f cf 45.00 0.476 RETURN FREQUENCY = 25 years 'C' adjustment, k = 1 . Adj. 'C' = Wtd.'C' x 1 ========================= ======== Adj. I 'C' in/hr Total acres 0.476 4.533 314.00 Peak Q (cfs) 678.19 :._; Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 Executed: 15:03 :59 S/N: 08-23-1999 City of College Station Existing Condition Lick Creek Tribion * * * * * * SUMMARY OF RATIONAL METHOD PEAK DISCHARGES * * * * * * Q = adj * C * I * A Where : Q=cfs, C=Weighted Runoff Coefficient, I=in/hour, A=acres adj = 'C' adjustment factor for each return frequency Subarea Descr . Runoff I c I LD RESIDENT 0.600 HWY ROW 0.850 OPEN SPACE 0.450 Area acres 42.00 5.00 267.00 Tc (min) Wtd. I c I 45.00 0.476 RETURN FREQUENCY = 50 years 'C' adjustment, k = 1 Adj. 'C' = Wtd.'C' x 1 ========================= ======== Adj. I 'C' in/hr Total acres 0.476 5.100 314.00 Peak Q (cfs) 762 .96 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 Executed: 15:03:59 S/N: 08-23-1999 City of College Station Existing Condition Lick Creek Tribion * * * * * * SUMMARY OF RATIONAL METHOD PEAK DISCHARGES * * * * * * Q = adj * C * I * A Where: Q=cfs, C=Weighted Runoff Coefficient, I=in/hour, A=acres adj = 'C' adjustment factor for each return frequency Subarea Descr. Runoff I c I LD RESIDENT 0.600 HWY ROW 0 .850 OPEN SPACE 0.450 Area acres 42.00 5.00 267.00 Tc (min) Wtd. IC I 45.00 0.476 RETURN FREQUENCY = 5 years 'C' adjustment, k = 1 Adj. 'C' = Wtd.'C' x 1 ========================= ======== Adj. I 'C' in/hr Total acres 0.476 3.433 314.00 Peak Q (cf s) 513.63 1.-d Quick TR -55 Ver .5.46 Executed: 15 :03:59 S/N: 08-23-1999 City of College Station Existing Condition Lick Creek Tribion * * * * * * SUMMARY OF RATIONAL METHOD PEAK DISCHARGES * * * * * * Q = adj * C * I * A Where: Q=cfs, C=Weighted Runoff Coefficient, I=in/hour, A=acres adj = 'C' adjustment factor for each return frequency Subarea Descr. Runoff I c I LD RESIDENT 0.600 HWY ROW 0.850 OPEN SPACE 0.450 Area acres 42.00 5.00 267.00 Tc (min) Wtd. I c I 45.00 0.476 RETURN FREQUENCY = 100 years 'C' adjustment, k = 1 . Adj. 'C' = Wtd.'C' x 1 ========================= ======== Adj. I 'C' in/hr Total acres 0.476 5.833 314.00 Peak Q (cfs) 872.67 Quick TR -5 5 Ver.5 .46 Executed : 15:09:58 S/N : 08-23-1999 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ----Graphical Summary for Maximum Required Storage ---- City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib ********************************************************************** * * * RETURN FREQUENCY: 5 yr * 'C' Adjustment: 1.000 Allowable Outflow: 513.00 cfs * Required Storage: * * STORM DURATION = Tc for Max .Storage 0.358 ac-ft * * * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * Peak Inflow: 518.78 cfs Inflow .HYD stored: OU5 .HYD * ********************************************************************** F L 0 w c f s 0 0 . I 0 0 TC= I = Q = 45.00 3.433 518.78 minutes in/hr cf s Area (ac) : Weighted C: Adjusted C: Required Storage -----------0.358 ac-ft 0 0 0 0 Q= 513.00 cfs (Allow.Outflow) NOT TO SCALE ============ 45.50 minutes 314.00 0 .48 0.48 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 Ex ecuted : 15 :09:58 S/N: 08-23-1999 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ----Graphical Summary for Maximum Required Storage ---- City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib ********************************************************************** * * * RETURN FREQUENCY: 10 yr * 'C' Adjustment: 1.000 Allowable Outflow: Required Storage : 583.00 cfs * 0.390 ac-ft * * * STORM DURATION = Tc for Max.Storage * * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * Peak Inflow: 589.29 cfs Inflow .HYD stored: OUlO .HYD * ********************************************************************** F L 0 w c f s 0 0 0 . I 0 TC= I = Q = 45.00 3.900 589.29 minutes in/hr cf s Area (ac) : Weighted C: Adjusted C: Required Storage -----------0.390 ac-ft 0 0 0 0 Q= 583.00 cfs (Allow.Outflow) NOT TO SCALE ============ 45.48 minutes 314 .00 0.48 0 .48 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 Executed: 15:09:58 S/N: 08-23-1999 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ----Graphical Summary for Maximum Required Storage ---- City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib ********************************************************************** * * * * * RETURN FREQUENCY: 25 yr 'C' Adjustment: 1.000 Allowable Outflow: Required Storage: STORM DURATION = Tc for Max.Storage * 678.00 cfs * 0.433 ac-ft * * * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * Peak Inflow: 684.99 cfs Inflow .HYD stored: OU25 .HYD * ********************************************************************** F L 0 w c f s 0 0 0 Tc= I = . Q = . I 0 45.00 4.533 684.99 minutes in/hr cf s Area (ac) : Weighted C: Adjusted C: Required Storage -----------0.433 ac-ft 0 0 0 0 Q= 678.00 cfs (Allow.Outflow) NOT TO SCALE ============ 45.46 minutes 314.00 0.48 0.48 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 Executed: 15:09:58 S/N: 08-23-1999 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ----Graphical Summary for Maximum Required Storage ---- City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib ********************************************************************** * * * * * RETURN FREQUENCY: 50 yr 'C' Adjustment: 1.000 Allowable Outflow: Required Storage: STORM DURATION = Tc for Max.Storage 763.00 cfs 0.471 ac-ft * * * * * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * Peak Inflow: 770 .61 cfs Inflow .HYD stored: OU50 .HYD * ********************************************************************** F L 0 w c f s 0 0 0 . I 0 Tc= I = Q = 45.00 5.100 770.61 minutes in/hr cf s Area (ac) : Weighted C: Adjusted C: Required Storage -----------0 .471 ac-ft 0 0 0 0 Q= 763 .00 cfs (Allow.Outflow) NOT TO SCALE ============ 45.44 minutes 314.00 0.48 0.48 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 Executed: 15:09:58 S/N: 08-23-1999 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ----Graphical Summary for Maximum Required Storage ---- City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib ********************************************************************** * * * RETURN FREQUENCY: 100 yr * 'C' Adjustment: 1.000 Allowable Outflow: 873.00 cfs * * * Required Storage: STORM DURATION = Tc for Max.Storage 0.522 ac-ft * * * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * Peak Inflow: 881.42 cfs Inflow .HYD stored: OUlOO .HYD * ********************************************************************** F L 0 w c f s 0 0 0 Tc= I = . Q = . I . I 0 45.00 5.833 881. 42 minutes in/hr cf s Area (ac) : Weighted C: Adjusted C: Required Storage -----------0.522 ac-ft 0 0 0 0 Q= 873.00 cfs (Allow.Outflow) NOT TO SCALE ============ 45.43 minutes 314.00 0.48 0.48 -· Quick TR-55 Ver.5 .46 S/N : Executed: 15:09:58 08-23-1999 City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib **** Modified Rational Hydrograph ***** Weighted C = 0.481 Area= 314.000 acres Tc = 45.00 minutes Adjusted C = 0.481 RETURN FREQUENCY: Output file: OU5 Time Hours Time Td= 45.00 min . I= 3.43 in/hr 5 year storm .HYD Adj.factor= 1.00 HYDROGRAPH FOR MAXIMUM STORAGE For the 5 Year Storm Time increment = 0.017 Hours on left represents time for first Q Qp= 518.78 cfs in each row . ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.000 0.00 11.53 23.06 34.59 46.11 57 .64 69.17 0.117 80.70 92 .23 103.76 115.28 126.81 138.34 149 .87 0.233 161.40 172.93 184.45 195.98 207.51 219.04 230 .57 0.350 242.10 253.62 265.15 276.68 288.21 299.74 311.27 0.467 322.79 334.32 345.85 357 .38 368.91 380 .44 391. 96 0 .583 403.49 415.02 426.55 438.08 449 .61 461.13 472.66 0.700 484.19 495.72 507.25 518.78 507.25 495.72 484.19 0.817 472.66 461.13 449.61 438.08 426 .55 415.02 403.49 0.933 391.96 380.44 368.91 357 .38 345.85 334 .32 3 2 2.79 1 .050 311. 27 299 .74 288.21 276 .68 265.15 253.62 242 .10 1.167 230.57 219.04 207.51 195.98 184.45 17 2.93 161.40 1 .283 149.87 138 .34 126.81 115.28 103 .76 9 2.23 80 .70 1.400 69.17 57.64 46.11 34.59 23 .06 11.53 0 .00 .. J .. Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 S/N: Executed: 15:09:58 08-23-1999 **** City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib Modified Rational Hydrograph ***** Weighted C = 0 .481 Area= 314.000 acres Tc = 45.00 minutes Adjusted C = 0.481 Td= 45.00 min. I= 3.90 in/hr Qp= 589 .29 cfs RETURN FREQUENCY: 10 year storm Adj .factor = 1.00 Output file: OUlO .HYD HYDROGRAPH FOR MAXIMUM STORAGE For the 10 Year Storm Time Time increment = 0.017 Hours Hours Time on left represents time for first Q in each row. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.000 0.00 13.10 26.19 39.29 52.38 65.48 78.57 0.117 91. 67 104.76 117 .86 130.95 144.05 157.14 170.24 0.233 183.33 196.43 209.53 222.62 235.72 248 .81 261.91 0.350 275.00 288.10 301.19 314.29 327.38 340.48 353.57 0.467 366.67 379.76 392.86 405.96 419.05 432.15 445.24 0.583 458.34 471.43 484.53 497.62 510.72 523.81 536.91 0.700 550.00 563.10 576.19 589.29 576.19 563.10 550.00 0.817 536.91 523.81 510.72 497.62 484 .53 471.43 458.34 0.933 445.24 432.15 419.05 405.96 392.86 379.76 366.67 1.050 353.57 340.48 327.38 314.29 301.19 288.10 275.00 1.167 261.91 248.81 235.72 222.62 209.53 196.43 183.33 1.283 170.24 157.14 144.05 130.95 117.86 104.76 91.67 1.400 78.57 65.48 52.38 39.29 26.19 13.10 0.00 • .J Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 S/N: Executed: 15:09:58 08-23-1999 **** City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib Modified Rational Hydrograph ***** Weighted C = 0.481 Area= 314.000 acres Tc = 45.00 minutes Adjusted C = 0.481 Td= 45.00 min. I= 4.53 in/hr RETURN FREQUENCY: 25 year storm Adj .factor = 1.00 Output file: OU25 .HYD HYDROGRAPH FOR MAXIMUM STORAGE For the 25 Year Storm Time increment = 0.017 Hours Qp= 684.99 cfs Time Hours Time on left represents time for first Q in each row. 0.000 0.117 0.233 0.350 0.467 0.583 0.700 0.817 0.933 1.050 1 .167 1. 283 1.400 0.00 106 .55 213.11 319.66 426.21 532.77 639.32 624.10 517.55 410.99 304 .44 197.89 91.33 15.22 121.78 228.33 334.88 441. 44 547.99 654.54 608.88 502.32 395.77 289.22 182.66 76.11 30.44 137.00 243.55 350.10 456.66 563.21 669.76 593.66 487 .10 380.55 273.99 167.44 60.89 45.67 152.22 258.77 365.33 471.88 578.43 684.99 578.43 471.88 365.33 258.77 152.22 45.67 60.89 167.44 273.99 380.55 487.10 593.66 669.76 563.21 456.66 350.10 243.55 137.00 30.44 76.11 182.66 289.22 395.77 502 .32 608.88 654.54 547.99 441 .44 334 .88 228.33 121.78 15 .22 91. 33 197.89 304.44 410.99 517.55 624.10 639.32 532.77 426.21 319.66 213.11 106.55 0.00 ... Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 S/N: Executed: 15:09:58 08-23-1999 **** City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib Modified Rational Hydrograph ***** Weighted C = 0.481 Area= 314.000 acres Tc = 45.00 minutes Adjusted C = 0.481 Td= 45.00 min. I= 5.10 in/hr Qp= 770.61 cfs RETURN FREQUENCY: 50 year storm Adj.factor= 1.00 Output file: OU50 .HYD HYDROGRAPH FOR MAXIMUM STORAGE For the 50 Year Storm Time Time increment = 0.017 Hours Hours Time on left represents time for first Q in each row. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.000 0.00 17.12 34.25 51.37 68.50 85.62 102.75 0.117 119.87 137.00 154.12 171.25 188.37 205.50 222.62 0.233 239.75 256.87 273.99 291.12 308.24 325.37 342.49 0.350 359.62 376.74 393.87 410.99 428.12 445.24 462.37 0.467 479.49 496.62 513.74 530.86 547.99 565.11 582.24 0.583 599.36 616.49 633.61 650.74 667.86 684.99 702.11 0.700 719.24 736.36 753.49 770.61 753.49 736.36 719.24 0.817 702.11 684.99 667.86 650.74 633.61 616.49 599.36 0.933 582.24 565.11 547.99 530.86 513.74 496.62 479.49 1.050 462.37 445.24 428.12 410.99 393.87 376.74 359.62 1.167 342.49 325.37 308.24 291.12 273.99 256.87 239.75 1.283 222.62 205.50 188.37 171. 25 154.12 137.00 119.87 1.400 102.75 85.62 68.50 51. 37 34.25 17.12 0.00 ·- ... Quick TR-55 Ver .5 .46 S/N: Executed: 15 :09:58 08-23-1999 **** City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib Modified Rational Hydrograph ***** Weighted C = 0 .481 Area= 314.000 acres Tc = 45.00 minutes Adjusted C = 0.481 Td= 45.00 min. I= 5.83 in/hr RETURN FREQUENCY: 100 year storm Output file: OUlOO .HYD Adj .factor = 1 .00 HYDROGRAPH FOR MAXIMUM STORAGE For the 100 Year Storm Time Time increment = 0.017 Hours Hours Time on left represents time for first Q Qp= 881.42 cfs in each row. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.000 0.00 19.59 39.17 58.76 78.35 97.94 117.52 0.117 137.11 156.70 176.28 195.87 215.46 235.04 254.63 0.233 274.22 293.81 313.39 332.98 352.57 372 .15 391.74 0.350 411. 33 430.91 450.50 470 .09 489.68 509.26 528 .85 0.467 548.44 568.02 587.61 607.20 626.79 646 .37 665 .96 0.583 685.55 705.13 724.72 744.31 763.89 783 .48 803.07 0 .700 822.66 842 .24 861.83 881 .42 861.83 842.24 8 22 .66 0.817 803.07 783.48 763.89 744.31 724.72 705 .13 685.55 0.933 665.96 646.37 626.79 607.20 587 .61 568 .02 548.44 1.050 528.85 509.26 489.68 470.09 450.50 430.91 411. 33 1.167 391.74 372.15 352.57 332.98 313.39 293.81 274.22 1.283 254.63 235.04 215.46 195.87 176.28 156 .70 137.11 1.400 117 .52 97 .94 78.35 58.76 39 .1 7 19.59 0.00 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 Executed: 15:09:58 S/N: 08-23-1999 City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib * * * * * * SUMMARY OF RATIONAL METHOD PEAK DISCHARGES * * * * * * Q = adj * C * I * A Where: Q=cfs, C=Weighted Runoff Coefficient, I=in/hour, A=acres adj = 'C' adjustment factor for each return frequency Subarea Descr. Runoff IC' LD RESIDENT 0.600 HWY ROW 0.850 OPEN SPACE 0.450 Area acres 52.00 5.00 257.00 Tc (min) Wtd. I c I 45.00 0.481 RETURN FREQUENCY = 5 years 'C' adjustment, k = 1 Adj. 'C' = Wtd.'C' x 1 ========================= ======== Adj. I 'C' in/hr Total acres 0.481 3.433 314.00 Peak Q (cfs) 518.78 Quick TR-55 Ver .5.46 Executed: 15:09:58 S/N: 08-23-1999 City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib * * * * * * SUMMARY OF RATIONAL METHOD PEAK DISCHARGES * * * * * * Q = adj * C * I * A Where: Q=cfs, C=Weighted Runoff Coefficient, I=in/hour, A=acres adj = 'C' adjustment factor for each return frequency Subarea Descr. Runoff I c I LD RESIDENT 0.600 HWY ROW 0.850 OPEN SPACE 0.450 Area acres 52.00 5.00 257.00 Tc (min) Wtd. IC I 45.00 0.481 RETURN FREQUENCY = 10 years 'C' adjustment, k = 1 . Adj. 'C' = Wtd.'C' x 1 ========================= ======== Adj. I 'C' in/hr Total acres 0.481 3.900 314.00 Peak Q (cfs) 589 .29 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 Executed: 15:09:58 S/N: 08-23-1999 City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib * * * * * * SUMMARY OF RATIONAL METHOD PEAK DISCHARGES * * * * * * Q = adj * C * I * A Where: Q=cfs, C=Weighted Runoff Coefficient, I=in/hour, A=acres adj = 'C' adjustment factor for each return frequency Subarea Descr. Runoff IC I LD RESIDENT 0.600 HWY ROW 0. 850 OPEN SPACE 0.450 Area acres 52.00 5.00 257.00 Tc (min) Wtd. I c I 45.00 0.481 RETURN FREQUENCY = 25 years 'C' adjustment, k = 1 Adj. 'C' = Wtd.'C' x 1 ========================= ======== Adj. I 'C' in/hr Total acres 0 .481 4.533 314.00 Peak Q (cfs) 684.99 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 S/N: Executed: 15:09:58 08-23-1999 City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib * * * * * * SUMMARY OF RATIONAL METHOD PEAK DISCHARGES * * * * * * Q = adj * C * I * A Where: Q=cfs, C=Weighted Runoff Coefficient, I=in/hour, A=acres adj = 'C' adjustment factor for each return frequency Subarea Descr. Runoff IC' LD RESIDENT 0.600 HWY ROW 0.850 OPEN SPACE 0.450 Area acres 52.00 5.00 257.00 Tc (min) Wtd. I c I 45.00 0.481 RETURN FREQUENCY = 50 years 'C' adjustment, k = 1 Adj. 'C' = Wtd.'C' x 1 ========================= ======== Adj. I 'C' in/hr Total acres 0.481 5.100 314.00 Peak Q (cfs) 770.61 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 S/N: Executed: 15:09:58 08-23-1999 City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib * * * * * * SUMMARY OF RATIONAL METHOD PEAK DISCHARGES * * * * * * Q = adj * C * I * A Where: Q=cfs, C=Weighted Runoff Coefficient, I=in/hour, A=acres adj = 'C' adjustment factor for each return frequency Subarea Descr. Runoff I c I LD RESIDENT 0.600 HWY ROW 0. 850 OPEN SPACE 0.450 Area acres 52.00 5.00 257.00 Tc (min) Wtd. IC' 45.00 0.481 RETURN FREQUENCY = 100 years 'C' adjustment, k = 1 Adj. 'C' = Wtd.'C' x 1 ========================= ======== Adj. I 'C' in/hr Total acres 0.481 5.833 314 .00 Peak Q (cfs) 881.42 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 Executed: 15:09:58 S/N : 08-23-1999 ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ * * MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD * * * * ----Grand Summary For All Storm Frequencies * * * * * * ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ First peak outflow point assumed to occur at Tc hydrograph recession leg. Area = City of College Station DEVELOPED CONDITION Lick Creek Trib 314.00 acres Tc = 45.00 minutes .................................... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................... . . .................................. . Frequency Adjusted (years) 'C' 5 0.481 10 0 .481 25 0.481 50 0 .481 100 0.481 Duration Intens. Qpeak minutes in/hr cf s 45 3.433 518.78 45 3.900 589.29 45 4.533 684.99 45 5.100 770.61 45 5.833 881.42 Allowable cf s 513.00 583.00 678.00 763.00 873 .00 VOLUMES Inf low Storage (ac-ft) (ac-ft) 32.156 36 .526 42 .458 47 .765 54 .633 0.358 0.390 0.433 0.471 0.522 ·.,•j Rectangular Channel Analysis & Design Open Channel -Uniform flow Worksheet Name: Description: Solve For Discharge Given Constant Data; Bottom Width ...... . Mannings 'n' ...... . Channel Slope ..... . 58.00 0.030 0.0100 Page 1 of 2 -·-·variable Input Data Minimum Maximum Increment By ----------------------------------------------------======= ============ Channel Depth 0.00 2.00 0.20 Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.21 (c) Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 Bottom Width ft Mannings Channel 'n' Slope ft/ft VARIABLE COMPUTED COMPUTED =========================== Channel Depth ft Channel Velocity Discharge fps cfs Page 2 of 2 =========================================================== Unable 58.00 58.00 58.00 58.00 58.00 58.00 58.00 58.00 58.00 58.00 58.00 to compute this 0.030 0.0100 0.030 0.0100 0.030 0.0100 0.030 0.0100 0.030 0.0100 0.030 0.0100 0.030 0.0100 0.030 0.0100 0.030 0.0100 0.030 0.0100 0.030 0.0100 instance. 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 19.56 61.82 120.96 194.50 280.87 378.93 487.78 606.70 735.10 872.43 1018.26 Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3 .21 (c) 1.69 2.66 3.48 4.19 4.84 5.44 6.01 6.54 7.04 7.52 7.98 Haestad Methods, Inc . * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, ct 0670 RILEY ENGINEERING COMPANY CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING SERVICES 7182 Riley Road, Bryan, Texas 77808 (409) 589-2457 ENGINEERING SEWERAGE REPORT (t Dn FOR THE PROPOSED S.S. TRUNKLINE EXTENSION ~ Of TO WESTFIELD ADDITION ~ INTRODUCTION The WESTFIELD ADDITION project is a proposed development consisting of approximately 52 Acres fronting on Graham Road , between the CSISD Intermediate School Tract and the proposed extension of Victoria Avenue. A proposed sewer trunkline is to be constructed from the end of the Springbrook -Cypress Meadows Subdivision to the proposed Westfield Addition and running along the north side of the South Fork of Lick Creek. It is the intention of the developer to oversize this proposed Trunkline sufficient to sewer the adjacent land and drain field area. GENERAL The sewer will be owned and maintained by the City of College Station and will be constructed with both Developer private funds and City of College Station oversize participation funds . The line is designed Riley Engineering Company, Martin L. Riley , R.P .E , R.P.L.S . (409) 589-2457 . The proposed sewer line is to be located within the rights-of-way of proposed streets and public utility easements of the City of College Station. The sewerage flows from this line will flow to the existing wastewater system of the City of College Station and the existing waste water treatment plant (TNRCC Permit #10024006) operated by the City of College Station, Texas . The project consists of tying on to the existing 18 " Line at Springbrook -Cypress Meadows Subdivision and extending with approximately 430 ft. of 18 " Sewer Line northwesterly to a Manhole as shown, and then extending with approximately 2484 ft. Of 15" Sewer Line southwesterly ending at a manhole . Included are additional manholes with maximum spacing of 500 ft. No horizontal or vertical curves are required for this Trunkline. No drop manholes are required because there are no drops greater than 24". All manholes to be a minimum of 4 ' or greater and all manholes lids are a minimum of 24". The slope of the line is to be 0 .25% to insure that no flow velocities are greater than two feet per second and less than ten feet per second . CAPACITY Capacity design for this line is based on existing and projected future service connections in the drainage basin of the South Fork of Lick Creek, which drainage area is shown in the attached Exhibit 1. The total drainage basin area consists of a total of 842 acres , extending from State Highway 6 westward to just past Wellborn Road and mostly between South Graham Road and Barron Road . Some of the area has been developed in t o parts of Shenandoah and Springbrook-Cypress Meadows Subdivisions with an existing 18 " sewer trunkline and a lift station located at State Highway 6 . The following is a summary of the watershed and the various tracts being currently sewered and to be sewered by the proposed trunkline extension . According to the land use plan currently in effect, the ent ire watershed area is shown to be used as low density residential use . Total Watershed Area -842 Acres -Sewered as follows: A. Areas currently being served (231 Acres): A-1 Area south of Barron Road (Shenandoah Subdivision) .......... 65 Acres A-2 Area in Springbrook Subdivision........................................... 86 Acres A-3 Area along Graham Road at 01 Corp down to Victoria Av ... 30 Acres A-4 Area along Graham, CSISD Intermediate School.................. 20 Acres A-5 Area to be served with extension ofEagle north ................... 50 Acres TOTAL AREA ALREADY SERVED ......................................... 251 Acres B . Areas to be served by the proposed trunkline extension (561 Acres): B-1 Rivers Tract.......................................................................... 100 Acres B-2 Tracts West ofRivers to Bald Prairie .................................... 66 Acres B-3 Neelley West Tract............................................................... 70 Acres B-4 Neelley East Tract................................................................ 30 Acres B-5 CSISD Tract (30 Tract less 10 Ac park)................................ 20 Acres B-6 Westfield Addition ................................................................. 52 Acres B-7 Bald Prairie Subdivision & Tracts West ofWestfield .............. 243 Acres TOTAL AREA TO BE SERVED WITH NEW TRUNKLINE ...... 581 Acres As the proposed trunkline extension courses westward on the north side of the South Fork of Lick Creek as per attached plan , all of the areas not presently served (some 5 81 Acres) will • eventually be serviceable by the proposed extension . Beginning at the . remotest upstream point in the system, to be called Manhole A, the flows at that point will be all of area B-6 comprised of 243 Acres . The next point of reference is the point designated Manhole B . This Manhole B will accept all of the flows from Manhole A plus contributory flows from tracts B-2 and B-5 . The next point of reference is the point designated Manhole C. This Manhole C will accept all of the flows from Manhole B plus contributory flows from tracts B-1 , B-3 and B-5 . The Manhole C will accept flows at the Manhole from Area B-4 . The following table summarizes the flows described above and as shown in the attached map showing the sewer alignment and referenced Manholes A, B and C and the attached Exhibit showing the calculations of demand showing flows at each manhole plus flows from Contributory Areas (C.A.) and Q of Pipe. M .H.# @A B @B c @C Property & Area 0 Property Pipe & Slope Q Pipe Remarks B-6 -243 Ac. 1.725 FO -15" @0.25% 4 .194 1.725. < 4 .194 B-2, B-5 -118 Ac 0.838 FI -12" @ 0 .25% 4.194 .838 < 2 .315 FO -15" @0.25% 4.194 .838 < 4 .194 Flow A + C.A. B 2 .563 FO -12" @ 0 .25% 2 .315 2 .563 > 2 .315 Construct 15" line between Manhole A and B B-1. B-3. B-5 -190 Ac. 1.349 Flow B + C.A. C 3 .791 FI-15"@0.25% 4 .194 1.349 <4 .194 FI -15"@ 0 .25% 4 .194 3 .791 < 4 .194 FO -18"@ 0 .25% 6 .827 Construct 15" line between Manhole B and C Additional Flows at C : B-4 -30 Ac . & alternate A-5 -50 Ac. 0 .568 Out of C Flow In C +Additional 4 .358 F .O . -15"@ 0 .25% 4 .194 4 .358 > 4 .194 F .O . -18"@ 0 .25% 6 .827 4 .358 < 6 .827 Construct 18 " Line between Manhole C and Existing Manhole As has been illustrated above, the proposed line sizes have adequate capacity to handle the projected peak flows of the presently unsewered areas . As for the proposed Westfield Addition (52 Ac.), it consists of 220 residential lots . Using 200 gallons per day (g.p.d.) with infiltration of 10% and a peaking factor of 4 .0, the peak flow requirements for Westfield Subdivision is: 220 X200 GPD Infiltration 10% Peak Factor 4 = Total Flow = = 44,000 GPD = 4,400 GPD 176,400 GPD 222,400 GPD = 0 .343 CFS (Cubic Ft. Per Sec.) A 6" Line @ 0 .33% Slope will have a Q value of 0.418 CFS , which is of sufficient capacity to handle the entire peak load of Westfield Subdivision . Therefore, the oversize participation should be the cost difference between a 6" line and the proposed oversized pipe shown . If you any further questions, please call me at any time . EXHIBITC Calculations of Demand and 0 of Pipe A. Demand Calculations: 1. Manhole A -Contributory Area (C.A. A) Area B-6. 243 Acres: Sec.) 243 Acres X 5 D.U./Ac. 1,215 D .U X 200 G .P .D. Plus Infiltration @ 10% Plus Peak Factor@ 3 .5 Total Peak Flow M.H. A 1,215 D.U. 243,000 G .P .D. 24,300 G.P.D . 850.500 G .P .D . 1, 117,800 G .P .D . (Gallons Per Day) 1,117,800 G.P.D . X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7.5 = 1.725 C.F.S . (Cubic Ft. Per 2 . Manhole B -Contributory Areas (C.A. B) B-2 and B-5. 118 Acres: Sec.) 118 Acres X 5 D.U./Ac. 590 D.U. X 200 G.P.D . Plus Infiltration @ 10% Plus Peak Factor@ 3 .5 Total Peak Flow of C .A. = 590D.U. = 118,000 G .P.D. 11,800 G .P.D. 413.000 G .P .D . = 542,800 G .P .D . (Gallons Per Day) 542,800 G .P .D . X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7 .5 = 0 .838 C.F.S (Cubic Ft. Per 3 . Manhole C -Contributory Areas (C.A. C) B-1, B-3 and B-5, 190 Acres : Sec.) 190 Acres X 5 D .U./Ac. 950 D .U. X 200 G .P .D . Plus Infiltration @ 10% Plus Peak Factor@ 3 .5 Total Peak Flow of C.A. 950 D .U. 190,000 G .P .D. = 19,000 G .P .D. 665.000 G .P .D . 874,500 G.P .D . (Gallons Per Day) 874,000 G.P.D . X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7.5 = 1.349 C.F.S . (Cubic Ft. Per 4 . Additional Flow at Manhole C from B-4 and Alternate A-5, 80 Acres : Sec.) 80 Acres X 5 D .U./Ac . 400 D .U. X 200 G .P .D . Plus Infiltration @ 10% Plus Peak Factor@ 3 .5 Total Peak Flow of C.A. = = 400 D .U. 80 ,000 G .P .D. 8,000 G .P .D . 280.000 G .P .D . 368 ,000 G.P .D . (Gallons Per Day) 368,000 G .P.D . X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7 .5 = 0 .568 C .F .S . (Cubi c Ft. Per B. 0 of Pipe: 1. Q of Pipe Flowing In at Manhole A -12"@ 0.25% Slope : Q = [1.486 AR 2/3 S 1/2] In Q = [1.486 (0 .785) (0.25)2/3 (0 .0025)112] I O.Ol Q = 148 .6 (0 .785) 0 .397) (0 .05) Q = 2 .315 CFS 2 . 0 of Pipe Flowing In at Manhole B -15 "@ 0 .25% Slope : Q = [1.486 (1.227) (0 .312)2/3 (0 .0025)112] I O.Ol Q = 148 .6 (1.227) (0.460) (0 .05) Q = 4 .194 CFS 3 . 0 of Pipe Flowing at Manhole C -18 "@ 0 .25% Slope : Q = [1.486 (1.767) (0 .375)2/3 (0 .0025)1/2] I O.Ol Q = 148 .6 (1.767) (0 .520) (0.05) Q = 6 .827 CFS ~ • i, ' \ l-, \ ) ::::} ' ' \ ' ' I ) ' ( •.,;.~< I ( ( J i .~ .... s ) .' J ! .· .. · .... ,· ..... · SJlfTll J.Jr.) ]OlSJf>O ' . ' Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATES FOR SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION & OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION Description 8'' Line 12" Line 15" Line Easement Cost $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 Clearing & Grubbing $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400 .00 $ 2,400.00 Sewer Pipe -PVC SDR-26 (D3034) @ $ 2.22 $ 5.00 $ 7.66 450 L.F. $ 999.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 3,447.00 2,450 L.F. $ 5,439.00 $12,250.00 $18,767.00 Trenching & Instal. @ $ 10.00 $ 18.00 $ 20.00 2,900 L.F. (10'-12') $29,000.00 $52,200.00 $58,000.00 Trench Safety 10'-12'@ $ 1.50 $ 1.50 $ 1.50 2900 L.F. $ 4,350.00 $ 4,350.00 $ 4,350 .00 Manholes 7 @4' Dia. $ 1,500.00 $ 10,500.00 7 @5' Dia. $ 2,500.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 17,500.00 Engin., Surv., Plans $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500 .00 $ 7,500.00 TOTALS ............................ $ 60,688.00 $ 98,950.00 $112,464.00 OVERSIZE PORTION ........................................ $ 382262.00 $ 512776.00 18" Line $ 500.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 10.00 $ 4,500.00 $24,500.00 $ 22.00 $63,800.00 $ 1.50 $ 4,350.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $125,050.00 $ 642362.00 There will be one crossing of the South Fork of Lick Creek, but the designed depth of the sewer line will be below the flow of the Creek. The portion of the line being built now, some 2,900 ft. Will provide sewer to Phase 1, of Westfield Addition and the future planned Elementary School. Additional sections of the sewer trunkline will be built with future phases of Westfield Addition until it reaches through the entire property at the future extension of Victoria Avenue . Further extensions will be done by others in the future . i I ' I' I! ii i· j l ·----~-=- KE L LY BURT oo z::ri ? 0 . Box C.~i :J 3;yan. Texas 77805 Office 6 9 1-8801 Fax 691 -39 1 7 Mob ile 759 -3 101 WESTFIELD ADDIDON -PHA SE 1 '?hd- L DESCRIPTION OF PHASE 1 IlVIPROVEMENTS:. 1. STREETS: WESTFIELD DRIVE (39') ..••... - WEs1FIELD DRIVE (28') ........ . 690 L.F. -26,910 S.F. 1,115 L.F. -31,220 S.F. - 90 L.F. -3.510 S.F. - 90 L.F. -3.510 S .F . - 2,990 S .Y. -1,.280 L.F . of Curb & Gutter 3~470 S:Y. -2,.230 L.F. of Curb & Gutter HARVC...sT DRIVE (39'>--··-····· FLOWERMOUNP DR. C28'l.... SUBTOTAL.--···---··---···- 2. DRAINAGE: 80 L.F. of 18" with 2 Inlets 675 L.F. of24" with 1 Inlet 400 L.F. of27" with 1 Inlet 20 L.F. of30" 3. SEWER LINE CON-SITE): 2065 L.F. of 6" Sewer Linc 30 Service Lines (4" -57' Avg.) 4 . WATER LINE: 1900 L.F. of6"WaterLinc 30 Service Lines (1 112" -50' Avg.) 39.0 S.Y. -180 L.F. of Curb & Gutter 390 S .Y, -180 L.F, of Curb & Gutter ~ 1,985 L.F. -65,150 S.F. -7,.240 S.Y. -3,870 L.F. of Curb & Gutter II. PHASE 1 CONST-RUCTION COST EST™A TES: 1. STREET CONSTRUCTION: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II Erosion Sedimentation Control... ...... . Clearing & Grubbing ........................ . Excavation ........................................ . Cellulose Fiber Mulch Seeding .......... . 6" Lime Stabilization Subgrade (5%) Ex'tra Lime ........................................ . 6 " Flexible Base Crushed Stone ......... . 1 lfl" HMAC (Type 0) ..................... . Reinforced Concrete Curb & Guctcr .. .. Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk ........... . Reinforced Concrele Aprons (4) ........ .. L.S. L .S. C.Y. S.Y. S.Y. Ton S.Y. S.Y. L.F. S.F. S .F. 1 I 2,530 4,300 7,960 25 7,240 7,240 3,870 2,720 540 s .?'5 00 . Q'.) s ;soo. oo s L!. 9J c.y. s • 50 'S.y. s 3.00 ~'-j · S 15.00 ton S 5 . 'JS ~j S 5 . '15 S'J S ?. 00 c...F s ,;)..50 5 . f'. $ 3 $"() 5 .t'. Tota I ........................................................................................................................... . s '3600 .00 s 3500 .00 s //385 . 00 s :2.J5(). 00 s z3sso .oo s· 1e?S. oo s l//(p30. 0 0 s '/.11o~o. o o S ~7<YjD , 00 s ~oo .oo s 1890 .oo s 1&5 330 .CXJ Figure XU Development Permit City of College Station, Texas Site Legal Description : R..obruf S1e.ve11~rn ~a<.. A ~S4 , ~! ,1;).PJjz.tfd !/Jdif;otv Site Owner: We~ffit/d " Addi tlo'1l.k/;.ddress : ]tJ. PtJ'I 14tJtJ0,C/fr~/tih. T<.77~4/ ' Telephone: 4d/-'2. 6 8 -IOIJt} Architect/ Engineer: MtJifiK f2tJ~y.Ji. C o nt ractor: Ltcl. utd. Rtvd1z~ lwL I Da te Application Filed : ~"'Jul~~·-2~!_,__/~q~q_f __ Address: 7t82 /lJt,t1f41,1ntau. Tx. 77& o& Telephone No: 4oqlt... 5&9-Z4-57 Addre ss: fO .]&& t4o&f) ,&~Jf~,N...J 7 g4/ Telephone No : _________ _ Approved : __________ _ Application is hereby made for the following development specific waterway alterations : 1) Sewer 7ra1tk.li& Effe11 St'oik fet11. SpYt'hlfOf>R/_Ctjff tf.!:. ~ t tJ.eAf h'.tH A:UltPl4. z) Pltaf.L., I, tJe-atj1'.Utl. Add.lliotv v 0 Application Fee 0 Signed Certifications 0 Drainage and erosion control plan, with supporting Drainage Report two (2) copies each . 0 Site and Construction Plans, with supporting Drainage Report two (2) copies each . 0 Other: ------------------------------ As a condition of approval of this permit application, I agree to constru~t the improvements proposed in this application according to these documents and the requirements of Chapter 13 of the College Stati n City od ~ ~7Jfl&Y ~<t::,L!d. ~ (:;!Ji:!~ -. Figure XII Continued CE RT IFICATIONS : (for proposed alteration s within designat ed flood hazard area s .) A. l ,~f U ~. 12..lffl Jl,.. , c ertify that any nonresidential structure on or proposed t be on this site as part of this }pplication is designated to preve nt damage to the structure or its c nte nts as a result of flooding from e l 00 year storm . , ~ 12.(i.S\'l& E ng in e er Date B . 1, ~UJ \.... ~ \ {k c ert ify that the finish e d floor elevation o f the lowest flo o r , including any basem e nt , of resid enti al structure, proposed as part of this a pplication is at or abo ve the base flo od e le va tion establi sh ed in the latest Fed e ra l Insurance Ad min istration od Hazard Study and m a ps, as amended . 4 f! . · I l.f 1--i ( C) & Date C. 1, ~fl... cert ify that the alterat io ns or developm e nt covered by th is per m it shall not dimin is h the d-carry ing capacity of th e waterway adjoini ng o r crossing this pe rmitted site and th a t such alterations or d evelopment are co nsistent with r equirements o f th e Ci ty of College Stati o n City Code, Ch apte r 13 concerning e nc roachments of fl ood ways and o f odway frin g e~. ~ __ ,_2-_._f_u---1/'--c:r_s _____ _ Eng ine er Date I, HbQ...'Tlt..l (.,, ~l6j j rJ,., , do certify that the propo sed alterations do not raise the level of t he 100 year flood above elevation establ is hed in the latest Fe deral Insurance Administration ~ Hazard ~'"ctc'/\ fl, ~ V LJ ~ ~ '~-· 1 z. {U' /c:i a Engi neer -0-a-t e __ ___i_ _ ___.'--....:::....-------- Condit ions or comme nt s as pa rt of appro val : ~------------------- In accordance with Cha pter 13 of the Cod e o f Ordinances of th e City of College Station , measu res shall be taken to insure that debri s from construction, e rosion, and sedim e ntation shall no t be deposited in city streets, or existing d rainage facilities . I hereby grant this perm it for development . All development shall be in accordance with the plans a nd s pe cifications submitted to and approve d by the City Enginee r for the above na med project. All of th e applicabl e cod es and ordinances of the City of Coll ege Station shall apply . fom dlalft/d!1cm1t<J I Q-9 ) COLLEGE STATION September 16, 1997 J.M. Szabuniewicz President Lick Creek Development P .O . Box 14000 P. 0 . Bo x 9960 College Station, Texas 77841 1101 Tex as Aven ue Tel : 4 0 9 764 3500 Ref: Electro-Chemical for Use as Soil Stabilizer Dear Mr. Szabuniewicz: C olle ge Stat ion , TX 77 842 I have reviewed the information you provided on the Condor SS Electro-Chemical Soil Stabilizer. I have decided to reject your request for use of this soil stabilizer in lieu of lime stabilization. My understanding is that the Condor process described in the documents is a supplement to lime stabilization for expansive soils. It is not a substitute. I would consider allowing it to be used in conjunction with the City's standard lime stabilization process. Z-Kent Laza, Pl:r- City Engineer Home of Texas A&M University Kent Laza, City Engineer City of College Station P . 0 . Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842-9960 September 5, 1997 Re: Consideration of Electro-Chemical for Use as Soil Stabilizer to be used at New Proposed Subdivision on Graham Road , College Station, Texas Dear Mr. Laza: This is to introduce to you for your consideration and approval for the use of Condor SS, an electro-chemical soil stabilizer for use in the street development of a new Subdivision to be proposed at Graham Road and Victoria Avenue, in College Station, Texas . This product is made and will be installed by ProChemical Soil Stabilization of Texas, Inc. I have included the product information manual as well as the technical data for your review . As I understand it , the chemical is a sulfonated-oil chemical which possesses high potential for ionic exchange. It is this ionic interaction which causes the electrochemical bonds of the water which is bound to clay to break down and release the water. It also permanently neutralizes the clay platelets and once the sites are neutralized it is irreversible. The net effect is that it practically eliminates soil porosity and eliminates capillary action and swell potential. Also resistance and bearing strength are greatly increased . This chemical alters the chemical nature of clay which drives water away and creates a new, dense stable base ready for construction . I have talked to Dean Parker with ProChemical and they would be willing to make a presentation to the City if you would like. Let me know and I will co-ordinate it. Thanks for your consideration. ~ ProChemical SOIL STABILIZATION OF TEXAS , INC . DEAN PARKER Projects Management P.O . Box 185125 BOB HORN President Fort Wort h, Te xas 76181 MIKE HORN Vice-President (817) 595-0299 Metro (817) 589-0046 Fax (817) 595-2323 ~ Pr0Chemi·~- so1L STABILIZATION OF TEXAS , INC. DEAN PARKER Projects Management BOB HORN President MIKE HORN Vi ce -Pre5ide11t (817) 595-0299 Metro (817) 589-0046 Fax (817) 595-2323 CONTENTS CONDOR~ AND PROCHEM OF TEXAS TECHNICAL INFORMATION CONDOR~ -TFSrS RESULTS PERMANENCY OF TREATI\1ENT RECOMMENDATIONS: LETIERS & ARTICLES CONDOR®SS AND PROCHEM OF TEXAS ProChemical .. Each year swelling or shrinking soils inflict over $2 billion in damages to houses, buildings, roads, pipelines and other structures ..• more than twice the damage from floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes combined! Today, ProChemical offers solutions that prevent damage caused by the heave and contraction of · · clay-based soils." ProChemical The Company ProChemical Soil Stabilization Company is a forward-looking, manufacturing and operating company that employs environmentally safe chemicals to improve subsurface conditions. ProChemical is an established Texas firm with a staff of experienced soil stabilization experts. The company possesses not only ttte technical, administrative and operational disciplines, but also the QA/QC required to successfully complete ttle most important and sensitive assignments. ProChemical was founded in 1987 as an operating company under the auspices of the original developer of CONDOR 5~ Earth Science Products Company, Portland Oregon. ProChemicaJ is the primary distribution/installation firm cf this product and serves not only Texas, but aJso nationaJ and international markets. The company is now based in Fort Worth, Texas. ProChemical serves commercial and industrial firms, govemmental agencies, developers and individual homeowners. More and more, specifications are changing to incorporate CONDOR S~as the product of choice tor stabilizing clay-based soils. The company's client list includes Veterans Administration, DFVV Airport, U.S. Forest Service and numerous city, state and national entities. ProChemical Advantages -:n e So il Stabilization Product of Ch oice is CONDOR SS~ Our product CONDOR SS® is an environmentally fri endly ion-exci'lange medium that surpasses li me 's effect on clay-based soils and costs less tc instaJI and maintain. • Fast! Large areas (up to 30,000 sq. ft . t reatable in a single day). • Economicml! Produa and installation costs are a fractian ot t hose for other stabilizers or methods. • Increases load capacity and sh .. r strength! The ion exchange actually transforms and increases the unccnfined c::cmpressive strength of the soi. • Reduces maintar111nce c:mt! Because base and sub-bale failures are virtually eliminaled. • Permanent! Ion exchange charactenst rc:s outlast lime and are c::cnsidered permanent by many engineers. • Non-toxi c , non-flammable, non- corrosive wnen used as directed! U s ing reccmmended · '. methods . no protective breathing acpara1us or special c:!othing needed. • Radue.as frost heave damage! T reated soil s sned water . almost eli m in atrng any swell from rain or flood rr.; or fro zen mois:ura . ·~ ProChemical :lOIL STASIUZATlOH CY-rowi. INC DEAN PARKER Projects Management P.O. Box 185 125 BOB HORN President Fort Worth , Texas 76181 HOME OFF1C! MIKE HORN Vic l!·Prl!side n t (8 17) 59 5-02 99 Metro (8 17) 58 9-0046 Fax (8 17) 595-2323 ProChernical Soil Stabilization Of Texas, Inc. 7415 Whitehall, Suite 110 Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6427 Phone: (817) 595-0299 Fax: (817) 595-2323 Metro: (817) 589-0046 Pro Chemical Advantages The Soil Stabilization Product of Choice is CONDOR SS~ Our product. CONDOR SS® is an environmentally triendly ion-exchange medium that surpasses lime's effect on clay-based soils and costs less tc instaJI and maintain. • Fast! Large areas (up to 30,000 sq. 1t.. treatable in a single day). • Eccnomic:al! Product and installation costs are a fracticn ct those for other stabilizers or methods. • Increases load capacity and shHr strength! The ion exchange acruaJly transfcrms and increases the unc::cnfinad c::cmpressive strength ot the sai. • Reduca mainten•nce cost! Because base and sub-base . failures are virtually alimin.aed. • Permanent! Ion exchange charactenst1cs outlast lime and ar9 ccnsidered permanent by many engineers. • Non-toxic, non-flammable, non- o::irrosive when used as directed! Using rec::cmmendad · ·. methods , no protective breathing acparatus or special clothing needed. • Reducas frost heave damage! Treated soils sned water , almost eliminaung any swell lrom ~in or flooding or froz en moistura. ·~ ProChemical 50L STASIUZATIOH ~ TE!Wi. INC DEAN PARKER Projects ,W'anagement P.O . Box 185125 BOB HORN Presid1mt Fort Worth, Texas 76181 HOME OFFICE MIKE HORN Vict!-Prl!sident (817 ) 595-0299 Metro (81 TJ 589-0046 Fax (817) 595-2323 ProChemical Soil Stabilization Of Texas, Inc. 7415 Whitehall, Suite 110 Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6427 Phone: (817) 595-0299 Fax: (817) 595-2323 Metro: (817) 589-0046 Applications Roads and Highways ProChemical provides the best answers when the subsurface of new or existing roads, streets and highways must be stabilized. At the direction of the highway department, general contractor, public wori<s engineer or developer, ProChemical goes to work quickly to solve the problem . In advance of each application engineers analyze the soil and detailed plans are prepared for the injection of CONDORS~ ProChemical or its contractors perform the work, generally in one-third the time required for other methods. ProChemical Clay Soil Chemistry Clay soils are formed by crystalline particles of minerals such as aluminum hydrated silicates, iron, magnesium and potassium. They may also contain colloidal organic materials well as quartz and feldspar. Clay particles are elongated and arrange themselves in thin layers. They possess two important physical characteristics: plasticity and resistance. Clay Swell and Con.olldation Problem Clay soils adsorb water in the wet seasons and lose moisture during the dry seasons, creating cycles of swelling and shrinkage. This "heave• and consolidation involves significant volumetric change ... and is the cause of billions of dollars of damage to property each year. How the Platelets Attract and Hold Water Earthworks, Railw8ys, Airports, Plrking Lots, Subdivisions and Buildings Clay particles contain an excess of negative ions. The ions, like platelets along the lineal surfaces of the clay, readily polarize water molecules and A CONDOR SS~ bond wit:i the positively charged hydrogen. Residential Foundations treatment effectively Damaged Building and Residence Foundations CONDOR ss®works to stabilize the subsoil conditions for existing foundations, too . After engineering analysis, CONDOR SS®1s injeded, forming a permanent eledro- chemical reaction against the swelling of clay-based soils ..• actually increasing the dry density of the soil stabilizes subgrade soils The way CONDOR Ss®changes the subsurface chemistry to build a that are expansive and dense, stabile base for construdion is illustrated by the s~:etches below. high in moisture c:cntent, characteristi:s otten found under sites for pari<ing lots, railroads, dams and homes. . ;i{~:. : . ;i,; ... :: .·· -.:.~ .. ·•:.Treated · ··:·~'Clay _··.·~-~"""""'~~~~~~· and improving its unconfined .. "!:====~===:::=~ compressive strength . NEGATIVE A~~~ CLAY IONS POSITIVE METAL IONS CONDOR S~ a concentrated, water-soluble, sulfonated-oil chemical, possesses an enormous potential for ionic exchange. It activates water's H+ ions and (OH)·, causing a vigorous exchange of electrical charges with soil panicles. Water bound to clay, breaks its electrochemical bonds and drains away through gravity, evaporation and compadion. CONDORS~ permanently neutralizes the sites on the clay platelets that otherwise attract and bind water. Once adsorbed water separates in this irreversible process, clay particles compact through vibration to create a highly dense mass, practically eliminating soil porosity, capillary action and swell potential. Resistance and bearing strength are significantly increased. Techniques and Equipment While CONDOR ss®may be sprayed or injected, the preferred technique for most applications is injection. High pressure injection rigs pump diluted solutions of CONDOR SS® via hose and nozzle into the soil . Injection Plan Prior to stabilization, a complete site analysis is prepared The pressurized injection process allows complete penetration into the bulk clay mass, as well as all fisures, cracks and seams in the subgrade. Adsorption Of CONDOR SS® and a plan detailed. Depending upon the analysis, injections are generally made on staggered six-foot centers to a deoth of three to seven feet. The chemical diffuses from the surface and the injection hole, permeating the subsoil, vigorously freeing ions and permanently capturing the charges of the clay platelets. CONDOR SS9actually transforms the chemical nature of the clay substrate. Bound water now drains away. The result: a new dense, stable base ready for construction. NEGATIVE CLAY IONS POSITIVE METAL IONS CONDOR 5~ a concentrated, water-soluble, sulfonated-oil chemical, possesses an enormous potential for ionic exchange. It activates water's H+ ions and (OH)-. causing a vigorous exchange of electrical charges with soil particles. Water bound to clay , breaks its electrochemical bonds and drains away through gravity, evaporation and compadion. CONDOR 55® permanently neutralizes the sites on the clay platelets that otherwise attract and bind water. Once adsorbed water separates in this irreversible process, clay particles compact through vibration to create a highly dense mass, practically eliminating soil porosity, capillary action and swell potential. Resistance and bearing stnlngth are significantly increased. Technigues and Eguipment While CONDOR ss®may be sprayed or injected , the preferred technique for most applications is injection . High pressure injection rigs pump diluted so lutions of CONDOR SS® via hose and nozzle into the soil. Injection Plan Prior to stabilization, a complete site analysis is prepared The pressurized injection process allows complete penetration into the bulk clay mass, as well as all fisures, cracks and seams in the subgrade . Adsorption Of CONDOR SS® and a plan detailed . Depending upon the analysis, injections are generally made on staggered six-foot canters to a deoth of three to seven feet. The chemical diffuses from the surface and the injection hole, permeating the subsoil, vigorously freeing ions and permanently capturing the charges of the clay platelets. CONDOR SS'®actually transforms the chemical nature of the clay substrate. Bound water now drains away . The result: a new dense, stable base ready for construction. ·I Typical Hydraulic Injection Typical Hand Injection "CONDOR®SS" AN ELECTRO-CHEMICAL SOIL STABILIZER ADDED VALUE TO YOUR CONSTRUCTION PLANS! What is it? CONDOR®SS is a sulfonated oil product derived from the naphthalene fraction of petroleum. It is a thick black liquid with a specific gravity of 1.15, a pH of 1.25, soluble in water, cation exchange agent. What does it do? CONDOR9SS by its chemical composition, has enormous potential of ionic exchange in the expansive clays. When small quantities of CONDOR®SS are put into the soil, it activates the positive H ions and negative OH ions, ionizing the adsorbed water which vigorously exchanges its electric charges with the soil particles, making the adhered water break its electrochemical bond and separate to become free water, which can then drain by gravity, evaporation and compaction. What are the final results? ./ Better orientation of the clay particles, reducing moisture and compaction energy, increasing density . ./ Reduction of porous-capillary structure and the permeability . ./ Improvement in bearing strength . ./ Reduction in swell (potential vertical rise) ./ Reduced structural section of road, floor or parking lot . ./ Can be used with local, in-situ, materials . ./ Cost savings in the range of 60-90% over other methods. OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF "CONDOR®SS" BENEFITS YOUR PROJECT/COSTS FAST AND ECONOMICAL APPLICATION Large areas treated in a single day Construction costs less than other stabilization products In -situ material does not need to be removed NON-HAZARDOUS, NON-TOXIC, NON-FLAMMABLE, NON-CORROSIVE (When handled properly and in recommended amounts) No protective breathing apparatus or special clothing needed Safe for fish and wildlife environments Safe around trees, plants, bushes and grass Has less than standard minimums for BTEX/TPH concentrations TREATMENT IS INTO THE EXPANSIVE CLAYS -NOT THE IQf SURFACE High pressure injection ( 1500-2500 psi) technique is used normally Minimum of three (3) feet is standard practice No waste of stabilization product REDUCES THE SWELL POTENTIAL OF CLAYS Less than one ( 1) percent swell CPVR) is common Cr ackin g and heaving is lowered in foundations and roads Increases soil strength, reducing section thickness requirements ELECTRO-CHEMICAL CATION EXCHANGE PROCESS STASH IZES CLAY Improves the physical and mechanical properties of the soil Changes the soil particles so they no longer adsorb water Treatment is permanent and reinjection is not normally required Want More Information? Cost Proposal? Call: 817 /595-0299 OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF "CONDOR®SS" BENEFITS YOUR PROJECT/COSTS FAST AND ECONOMICAL APPLICATION Large areas treated in a single day Construction costs less than other stabilization products In-situ material does not need to be removed NON-HAZARDOUS, NON-TOXIC, NON-FLAMMABLE, NON-CORROSIVE (When handled properly and in recommended amounts) No protective breathing apparatus or special clothing needed Safe for fish and wildlife environments Safe around trees, plants, bushes and grass Has less than standard minimums for BTEX/TPH concentrations TREATMENT IS INTO THE EXPANSIVE CLAYS -NOT THE TOP SURFACE High pressure injection (1500-2500 psi) technique is used normally Minimum of three (3) feet is standard practice No waste of stabilization product REDUCES THE SWELL POTENTIAL OF CLAYS Less than one ( 1) percent swell (PVR) is common Cracking and heaving is lowered in foundations and roads Increases soil strength, reducing section thickness requirements ELECTRO-CHEMICAL CATION EXCHANGE PROCESS STABH IZES CLAY Improves the physical and mechanical properties of the soil Changes the soil particles so they no longer adsorb water Treatment is permanent and reinjection is not normally required Want More Information? Cost Proposal? Call: 817/595-0299 \ ) l ELECTRO-CHEMICAL SOIL STABILIZATION PROCESS The method of electro-chemical oxidation-reduction reactions and base exchange of clay minerals is ref erred to as electro-chemical soil treatment. Dewatering and hardening of the soil are two results o·:: this process. The purpose of electrochemical stabilization is to alter the physic chemical properties of the potentially swelling clay by introducing a high concentration of pref erred exchangeable cations into the clay. The effects realized. are normally a mix of physical and chemical the "stabilize" the potentially expansive clays. The technique can reduce swell pressure and the percentage of swell. The process requires an electrolyte in the clay to facilitate the reactions. High pressure injection techniques appear to be the most effective means to transport an electrolyte solution into the soils "active zone". Injection of this type is essentially boring or jet grouting through shallow lens, fractures or seams to allow greater surface area or contact with the bulk clay in this zone. The high pressure also provides the needed oxygen required for the chemical reduction action. Normal operations using this technique require the electrolyte solution (concentrate is diluted prior to injection) be pumped at 1500 to 2500 psi pressure through hollow roads at six (6) foot centers (staggered) or less, and to a minimum depth of three (3) feet below the subgrade level. Typical injections are six (6) to ten (10) feet deep. The actual injection is timed so as to assure proper concentration and contact with the soil water present, or until refusal is obtained. Lateral distribution is noted by "columns" of treated subgrade soil and may be adjusted for site conditions to assure penetration, migration, or saturation. In many cases the reactions seem to be instantaneous while others may take two to three weeks, making the process site specific and time dependent. There is usually an increase in initial moisture content and in the plasticity index, however, with time these drop substantially. The technique is not used as a complete replacement for sound · engineering practices, but serves as a supolement and often provides an additional safety factor against building movement. ProChemical Soil Stabilization of Texas, Inc.,(PCSS/'I'X) is headquartered in Ft. Worth, Texas. We occupy a unique position in the soil stabilization industry by offering competitive pricing on electro-chemical soil stabilization. Through the application of Condor®SS we have become a leader in the stabilization of expansive clay soils. . . , :,,INDUSTRY LEADER IN .· ··;:·.· .·.:-.-:-:·.·. ·.:;._:'.::. .. ··.·.··:'.: ... HYDRAULIC TRACTOR INJECTION TO 10 FEET APPLICATION OF CONDOR~SS, AN EFFECTIVE ELECTROLYTE OSHA. TRAINED SUPERVISORY' PERSONNEL COMPE'I'ITIVE PRICING PROVEN RESULTS COMPARED TO LIME/WATER INJECTION PCSS/TX can and has offered significant savings to the owner, developer and contractor on projects ranging in size from several thousand to hWldreds of thousand square feet. The application of Condor® SS allows use of on-site clay materials, thereby saving thousands of dollars in cut, haul-off or use of select fill. PCSS/TX has successfully treated expansive clay problems for major federal, state and local governments. We also have an extensive corporate and private client base. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT US Forestry Service USAF -Space Surveillance Center Medina Annex Lackland Air Force Base CITY' GOVERNMENT Ft . Worth Fanners Branch Oak Leal OIIJCHEMICAL COMPANIES Exxon Conoco Dow Chemical Occidental Chemical RETAIL/COMMERCIAL Lowe's, Home Depot City Garages, Wal-Mart/Sam's W-mn-Dixie Stores OTHER PROJECTS STATE AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT Texas Hwy 36/US 190 - l Mile Hwy 360 -Slope Failure County Roads -Ellis, Johnson CORPORATE CLIENTS El Chico, Chill's, Jack in the Box. On the Border, McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Taco Cabana, National Tire Warehouse, Assisted Livings, Comfort Inn, Country Inn, Residence Inn/Suites, Fallfield Inn AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS Classic Chevrolet Ted Arendale Ford El Dorado Group North Hills Lincoln-Mercury SCHOOL SYSTEMS Kilgore ISD, Perrin-Whitt ISD, Godley ISD, Keene ISD , Boles ISD Dallas/Ft Worth Airport Major Roads , Six Churches, Bowling Alley, Vet Clinic, Physical Therapy Clinic , New and existing Homes, Emery Air Freiaht-DFW. (817)595-0299 Metro (817)589-0046 ProChemical Soil Stabilization of Texas, Inc.,(PCSS/TX) is headquartered in Ft. Worth, Texas. We occupy a unique position in the soil stabilization industry by offering competitive pricing on electro-chemical soil stabilization. Through the application of Condor®SS we have become a leader in the stabilization of expansive clay soils. :·.··.·.· .;.-.· .. · ;.IND ..................... USTRY.... ·•···.·· .· .LEAD· .·.·.ER· ·:·IN· · .: · .:·· ·<.·.·;;;:: ··.::::( . . . .. . .:. ·.•.· · .... ·.··-=<:: :;·::>·:·:·'.··:::::.:.-:-··· . ·.·: .. · .. ·.· .• . :··:·_·_ .. ;·-.·: ·:.: .. ··-···:-:-:-:-· HYDRAULIC TRACTOR INJECTION TO 10 FEET APPLICATION OF CONDOR~SS, AN EFFECTIVE ELECTROLYTE OSHA TRAINED SUPElMSORY PERSONNEL COMPETITIVE PRICING PROVEN RESULTS COMPARED TO LIME'JWATER INJECTION PCSS/'I'X can and has offered significant savings to the owner, developer and contractor on proj ects ranging in size from several thousand to hundreds of thousand square feet. The application of Condor® SS allows use of on-site clay materials, thereby saving thousands of dollars in cut, haul-off or use of select fill. PCSS/'I'X has successfully treated expansive clay problems for major federal, state and local governments. We also have an extensive corporate and private client base. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT US Forestry Se.rvic:e USAF -Space Surveillance Center ' Medina Annex Lackland Air Force Base CITY GOVERNMENT Ft. Worth Farmers Branch Oak Leaf OnJCHEMICAL COMPANIES Exxon Conoco Dow Chemical Occidental Chemical RETAIL/COMMERCIAL Lowe's, Home Depot City Garages, Wal-Mart/Sam 's Wmn-Dixie Stores OTHER PROJECTS STATE AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT Texas Hwy 36/US 190 -1 Mile Hwy 360 -Slope Failure County Roads -Ellis, Johnson CORPORATE CLIENTS El Cltico, Chili's, Jack in the Box, On the Border, McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Taco Cabana, National Tire Warehouse, Assjsted Livings, Comfort Inn, Country Inn, Residence Inn/Suites, Faimeld Inn AUTOMOBll.JE DEALERSHIPS Classic Chevrolet Ted Arendale Ford El Dorado Group North Hills Lincoln-Mercury SCHOOL SYSTEMS Kilgore ISO, Perrin-Whitt ISO, Godley ISD , Keene ISO , Boles ISO Dallas/Ft Worth Airport Major Roads, Six Churches, Bowlina Alley, Vet Clinic, Physical Therapy Clinic, New and existing Homes, Emery Air Freight-DFW. (817)595-0299 Metro (817 )589-0046 TECHNICAL INFORMATION John Hall, Cluirman Pam Recd, Commissioner Peggy Gamet", Commissioner TEXAS WATER COMMISSION l'IOTECT1NC TEXAliS" llEAJ.T11 AND SAFETY 8Y l'REYENTTNC AND REDUONC l'OUUT10N May 22, 1992 Mr. Paul Leonard III ChemSoil Stabilization, Inc. 4500 Airport Freeway Fort Worth, Texas 76117 Re: Request for Approval of subsurface injection of an electrolyte Ion-exchange medium (Condor SS) into active and expansive clays on Lot 8-A, Block C, Las Lomas Subdivision, West Lake Hills (Travis County), Texas. 31 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 313 -The Edwards Aquifer Protection Rules. Dear Mr. Leonard: On May 11, 1992, the Texas Water Commission (TWC) received the enclosed request for the use of Condor SS on the above named site. The TWC has reviewed the request and the MSOS sheet for Condor SS and hereby approves its use, with the followinq conditions: 1) No injections shall be made into, or adjacent to, a subsurface cavity; and 2) No injections shall be made within 150 feet of a water well. Should you have any questions reqardinq this matter, please contact Bobb Nelms at (512) 463-7803. · Sincerely, d~~aq~ District 14 BWN:bwn cc: Richard Harqarten, City Administrator, City of West Lake Hills Austan Librach, Environmental ' Conservation services Dept. Bill Aleshire, County Judqe, Travis County Bill couch, Barton Sprinqs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation Dist. REPLY TO: Dlm.ICT 14 / 1700 SOU'11f LUWt, BLDG. 1, NO.IOI I AUSTIN, TEXAS 78704-3360 I AREA CODE SIZ/463-7803 P.O. Box 13087 • 1700 Nonh Congress Avenue • Austin, Tens 78711·3087 • 512/463-7830 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Cate Issued : 1e Jun 94 IDENTITY (As Used on label and list): CONDORS SS • Ion Exchange Resins and Surfactants in Buffered Sulfuric Acid . DOT CIHaific•tion: Corrosive Material NOS UN 1760 Class 8 SECTION I Manufacturer's Name : Earth Science Products Corporation Addrass: 2 Y oridc LaKe Oswego, Oregon 97035-1918 Emergency Tel ephone Number : 1-800-535-5053 (24 Hrs/Day) SECTION II • Hazardous Ingredients/Identity Information Hazardous Component SUifuric Add CAS # 7664-93-9 18 % by weight SECTION Ill • Pl"lysical/Chemical Characteristics Uquid wJcontainer: 150 Lbs (98 Kgs) Gallons: approx. 18 (89 L) Boiling Point: S'1Z' F (30Cre) Specific Gravity: 1. 15 min. Vapor Density: NA Vapor Pressure: NA Soluoility in Water: Completely pH : approx. 0.9 Evaporation Rate: NA % Volatiles by Volume : NA Appearance and Odor: Liquid that ii oily, dark colored with a charadntic odor. SECTION IV· Fire and Explmion Hazard Dala Rash Point: Non-flammable Extingui8hing Media • NA Special Fire Fighting Procedurel: If involved in a firw. uw water abundantly or other euitable agent for firee adjacent to non-leaking containers. If anty a small amount of combustibl• are~ smo1twr with dry chemical. Special Fire Fighting Precautions: Avoid uaing solid water stnlcns near ruplUr8d tanks to prevent fur1h• distribution of liquid. SECTION V • Reactivity Data Stability: Stable Conditions to Avoid : Prmcnged wmperatures above 57z-F (300"C) wiU 9V9ntually evaporDI the water and sulfur 1r1oxide would be given off. Incompatibility (Matsials to Avoid): Contact with reactive metals such u Zinc will r.Ut in the release of hydroger"1. Hazardous Oecompositlon Products: Sulfur Trioxide -see above. Hazardous Polymerization: WiU NOT occur. SECTION VI -Health Hazard om (Cor .... ibatli -drum containers) Route(s) of Entry. lnhlllation of fum• er 8Cid mist can cm.e Irritation or canolive bums 10 tne upper l'9Spiratcry system, including nose, mouth and ttvoat.. Ingestion: Can cm.. imtation to stomach. Skin: Can cause minor bums. Eyw: Uquld contact can cause irritation or comem bums. Miat cantacl may initat8 or bum. Carc:inogeniall NA Signs and Symptoms of ~ n: Possible localized lkin ....n. Cutlscratch MATERIAL SAFETY DAT A SHEET Date Issued: 1e Jun 94 IDENTITY (As Used on label and list): CONDOR!B SS -Ion Exchange Resins and Surfactants in Buffered SUifuric Acid . DOT CIHeificatian: Corrosive Material NOS UN 1760 Class 8 SECTION I Manufacturer's Name : Earth Science Products Corporation Address: 2 Yoridc L.alce Oswego , Oregon 97035-1918 Emergency Telephone Number: 1-800-535-5053 (24 Hrs/Day) SECTION II -Hazardous Ingredients/Identity Information Hazardous Component Sutfuric Acid CAS I 7864-93-9 18 % by weight SECTION Ill -Physical/Chemical Characteristics Liquid wlccn1ainer: 150 Lbs (158 Kgs) Gallons: ~x. 18 (89 L) Boiling Point: S1z-F (:JOQ-C) Specific GraVity: 1. 15 min. Vapor Density: NA Vapor Pressure: NA Solubility in Water: Completely pH: approx. 0.9 Evaporation Rate: NA % Volatiles by Vctume: NA Appearance and Odor: Liquid that is oily, dark colored with a characteristic odor. SECTION IV -Fire and Explo.ion HaDrd Daia Rash Point: Non-flammable Extinguishing Media -NA , Special Fire Fighting Procedures: If involved in a fire. use water abundantly or other euitable agent . for fires adjacent ta non-leaking containers. ff only a small amount of combustl"bles are sir-nt. smother with dry chemical. Special Fire Fighting Precautions: Avoid uming solid water streams near ruplUr8d tanks to prevent ful1her distribution of liquid. SECTION V -Reactivity Data Stability: Stable Conditions to Avoid : Praicnged tamparatures above 5rZ' F (3009C) will 9W1r1tua11y evapora!8 the water and sulfur trioxide would be given oft. Incompatibility (Materials to Avoid): Contact with r•ctive metals such u zinc wilt ...ut in the release of hydrogerl. Hazardous OecomposiUon Products: Sutfur Trioxide -see above. Hazardous Polymerization: Will NOT occur. SECTION VI -Health Hazard Oala (Conc:8ntnlre -drum containers) Route(s) of Enzry: tnhaJation of fumes or acid mist can cause Irritation or c:c1106ive bums= the upper respiratcry system. inducting nose, rnoulh and 1hroal lngeSlion : Can cause irrttation to stomach. Skin: Can cause minor bums. Eyes: Liquid ccntad can cause irritation or com.I bums. Mist ccintad may irritate or bum. Carcinogenially: NA Signs mid Symptoms of Expos n : PCS&ible localized lkin nmh. Cut/Sc:rn:h in skin will give a burning sensation . Medical Conditions Generally Aggravated by Exposure : Erosion of teeth . reddening of the skin , conjunctivitis , or gastritis. Emergency and First Aid Procedures : Skin or eyes : Immediately flush with plenty of water . For eyes continue for at least 15 minutes. If irritation continues , get medica l attention. Ingestion : Do not induce vomiting . If conscious give several glasses of milk (preferred) or water . Inhalation : Remove to fresh air . If breathing has stopped, give artificial respiration . If breathing with difficulty, give oxygen. provided a qualified operator is available . Get immediate medical assistance for ingestion. eye contact. or continued labored breathing . SECTION VII -Precautions for Safe Handling and Use Steps to be Taken in Case Concentr•te Liquid Material is Released or Spilled : 1 . Dilute with water. If in a confined area neutralize residue with alkali such as soda, uh or lime . Adequate ventilation is required due to release of carbon dioxide. No smoking in the spill area. 2 . Major spills must be handled by a predetermined plan for a specific site . Waste Disposal Method : Dilute and waste irrigate as per the Manufacturer's instructions for applications. Notification and Label Instructions: Follow standards for posted signs indicating "CORROSIVE". Normal Handling: Do not get in eyes, on akin. or on clothing. Do not breathe vapors or mist When diluting always add water to container . Use adequate ventilation . Use protective equipment as outlined . Storage : Protect containers from physical damage. Store no higher than standard local code aDows . Store under cover. Protect container from direct sunlight. Protect from free Zing . SECTION VIII -Control Measures Respiratory Protection -type : If mist is present, a fitted mask is recommended. Ventilation : Use mechanical system if in closed storage area. Protective Gloves: Use of rubber gloves is adequate Eye Protection: Goggles or full face shield is satisfactory. Other: Use of rubber clothing is adequate. WorkJHygenic Practices: Always wash hands with soap and w•ter and properly dispose of any work clothes which have been overly exposed to liquid . SECTION IX -Additional Information Environmental Site Assnsment (ESA) -non-diluted concentrate analysis : Extent of possible contamination, Liquid Chemical Analysis : BTEX : 0 .36 mgll., TPH:1200 mgll (EPA Methods #418.1 and 8020) Permissible Concentration for undiluted liquid (sulfuric acid): 1 mg/cu.m . (OSHA Standard for H2S04 @29 CFR 1910.1000) CONDORe SS is diluted before any soil treatment begins; therefore , no soil damage is expected. No warranties , either expressed or implied, are provided by manufacturer. T ProChemical SOIL STABILIZATION Of TEXAS, INC. TECHNICAL NOTES Sep 1994 Most pavement and structural failures are directly related to subgrade soil failure caused by shrinkage and swelling of the clay, due to the migration of water, and the inability of the soil to drain freely . We can treat a problematic soil in three different ways: 1) by changing the original design of the structure, 2) by replacing or removing the existing soil, and 3) by altering the properties of the existing soil. The last method is called stabilization. Soil Stabilization is a chemical, mechanicaJ, or physical treatment of a problematic soil to improve or increase its stability, as well as, other engineering properties . Because all cfay minerals have sheet structures, it is fairly common to find mixed-layer days, a tenn used to describe material that consists of random or regularly alternating layers of two or more cflfferent minerals. Since prasticaJly any combination of minerals can ocaJr, a day material may have practically any composition between the extremes represented by individual cfay minerals. The major cflfferences in composition can be related to 1) the type and ·number of sheets in each mineral, 2) the amount of intersheet water, and 3) the amount of substitution of one ion for another. CONDOR®SS An Ionic Exchange-Resin (IER) manufactured by Earth Science Products Corporation of Portland, Oregon, caJled CONOOR®SS, is an eJeciTOChemicaJ s0il stabilizer. It is differentiated from nonnal chemical stabilizers because of the fact that it contains water-soluble sulphonated oils. The oils per1onn chemically as weak organic bases and when combined with a strong sulphuric acid, the reaction proceeds in the direction of forming a weaker species, resulting in a weaker acid with useful properties. These oils are partic:Jlarly very effective as soil electrolytes because of their high chemicaJ stability, great affinity of ringed structures for metal ions, and their powerful ionizing capability. When CONOOR®SS is injected into the soil in presence of a sufficient amount of water, H ions are released which are h ighly stable, have a double ringed structure and compad size. The H ions travel through the cfay lattice on the osmotic pressure gradient from several inches to several feet from the point of injection depending upon the amount of oxygen introduced by the method of application used. H ions are as effective as a cation of valence 2 such as Ca and Mg because of its higher ionization energy. They can replace Na and K from the inter layers of a clay mineral, thereby making it insensitive to water. The loss of adsorbed moisture often results in a strengthening of the molecular strucuture of the clay with a corresponding Joss of plasticity and a reduction in partide size. The number of positive charges and the size of the cation are the important factors which determine its interaction with a day. The ultimate deposition of soil particles is controlled by hydrodynamic forces and the strength of the aggregated particles present in the deposit. StabiJization of clay partides may be accomplished by 1) compressing the cftffuse layer of charge surrounding the particles by a high concentration of inert electrolyte, 2) by adjusting pH to the point of zero partide surface charge, and 3) by introducing counterions that preferentially absorb onto partides and decrease the net surlace charge so that attractive forces dominate . Surface charge is caused by adsorption of cations rather than being the result of it. This surface charge causes partides to attract or repel each other, and thus can cause the con ti nuation of flocculation and sattling ou t of the material. When the impregnation is complete and the 1 -S'3pterr:bt!r 21 . t 994 P.O. Box 185125 Ft. Worth. Texas 76181 (817) 595--0299 Metro (817) 589-0046 Fax (817) 595-2323 T ProChemical SOIL STABILIZATION Of TEXAS, INC. TECHNICAL NOTES Sep 1994 Most pavement and structural failures are directly related to subgrade soil failure caused by shrinkage and swelling of the clay, due to the migration of water, and the inability of the soil to drain freely . We can treat a problematic soil in three different ways: 1) by changing the original design of the structure, 2 ) by replacing or removing the existing soil, and 3) by altering the properties of the existing soil. The last method is called stabilization. Soil Stabilization is a chemical, mechanical, or physical treatment of a problematic soil to improve or increase its stability, as well as, other engineering properties. Because all clay minerals have sheet structures, it is fairly common to find mixed-layer days, a term used to describe material that consists of random or reguJarfy alternating layers of two or more cfdferent minerals. S ince prastically any combination of minerals can occur, a day material may have prac!icaDy any composition between the extremes represented by individual day minerals. The major cfrfferences in composition can be related to 1) the type and ·number of sheets in each mineral, 2) the amount of intersheet water, and 3) the amount of substitution of one ion for another. CONOOR®SS An Ionic Exchange-Resin (IER) manufactured by Earth Science Products Corporation of Portland, Oregon, called CONOOR®SS, is an electrochemical sail stabilizer. It is differentiated from nonnal chemical stabilizers because of the fact that it contains water-soluble sulphonated oils. The oils perform chemically as weak organic bases and when combined with a strong sulphuric acid, the reaction proceeds i n the direction of fanning a weaker species, resulting in a weaker acid with useful properties. These oils are partic:Jlarfy very effective as soil electrolytes because of their high chemical stabilify, great affinit;' of ringed structures for metal ions, and their powerful ionizing capability. When CONOOR®SS is injected into the soil in presence of a sufficient amount of water, H ions are re leased which are highly stable , have a double ringed structure and compact size. The H ions travel through the ciay lattice on the osmotic pressure gradient from several inches to several feet from the point ot i njection depending upon the amount of oxygen introduced by the method of application used. H ions are as effective as a cation of valence 2 such as Ca and Mg because of its higher ionization energy. They can replace Na and K from the inter layers of a day mineral, thereby making it insensitive to water. The loss of adsorbed moisture often results in a strengthening of the molecular strua.iture of the day with a corresponding loss of plasticity and a reduction in particle size. The number of positive charges and the size of the cation are the important factors which determine its interaction with a clay. The ultimate deposition of soil particles is controlled by hydrodynamic forces and the strength of the aggregated particles present in the deposit. Stabilization of day particles may be accomplished by 1) compressing the arffuse layer of charge surrounding the particles by a high concentration of inert electrolyte, 2) by adjusting pH to the point of zero particle surface charge , and 3) by intr oducing counterions that preferentially absorb onto partides and decrease the net surface charge so th a t attractive forces dominate. Surface charge is caused by adsorption of cations rather than be ing the r esult of it . This surface charge causes particles to attract or repel each other, and thus can cause the co ntinuati on of flocculation and sanling out of the materi al . When the impregnation is complete and the 1 -5'3r;terr:~r 2 1. 1994 P .O. Box 185125 Ft. Worth. Texas 76181 (817) 59~ Metro (817) 589-0:>46 Fax (817) 595-2323 soil is compacted. part of the water is pressed out of the capillaries, or rather drained in a slow diffusion process. The soil particles are brought closer to each other, voids and capillaries are reduced in size . During this process the hydrophob parts of neighboring particles can get so close to each other as to prevent water molecules from absorption. CON O OR® SS stabilization with high pressure injection technique is essentially an oxidation process. and the presence of plentiful oxygen provides for maximum effect. The concentrate is diluted for application to the soil, and undergoes further dilution with soil moistur~. The compact size of tha hydrogen ion permits effective penetration of the clay mineral lattice structure. The higher ionization energy of the hydrogen ion enables it to exert a strong force on the layers in the clay lattice, removing ionized water and dissolving mineral complexes, resulting in a significant increase in density and strength. CONDOR® SS does not work as a binding agent, but it does work as an ion excbange medium . BASIC MECHANISM BY WHICH CONDOR® SS STABILIZES A SOIL A . Ionization -CONDOR® SS contains oils which are water-soluble and when mixed with water, it ionizes into two parts : 1) H cations, and 2) ringed anions. Deep penetration into the soil mass is possible because of the high ionization energy and its smaJI size. 8 . Osmosis: The higher concentrations of cations at the point of injection creates an electrochemical potentiaJ difference with respect to the surrounding soil thereby causing the H cations to migrate outward by osmosis, even while the solution is confined to the injection hole by low permeability. C. Ion Exchange: Replacement of the Na and K ions from the intertayers of the day soil is done by the hydrogen ions. Reaction between the ringed anions and the aJuminum ions in the clay lattice results in the destruction of the lattice. The resulting hydrogen clay does not have high stability and will exchange with aluminum ions present in the lattice to form an aluminum day and further improve the strength. The hydrogen ions will not, however, exchange with the weaker Na and K ions , and thus, the clay cannot revert back to its original ·state. The change is permanent and the clay mass becomes insensitive to variations in moisture. D. Flocculation/Agglomeration/Deposition: Due to the ion exchange, the clay becomes stable aluminum clay and no longer shows the expansive nature because it does not attract water molea.Jles in its intertayers any more. The smaller cations shrink the water layer around the clay particles and aDow agglomeration of the clays into larger aggregates. The physicaJ as w.eU as the electrochemical properties are altogether changed due to changes in media pore size distribution, laminar velocity shear, and Brownian motion. The clay particles are no longer dispersive and densification occurs as a result of physical , chemical , and mechanical bonding of the clay particles. Physical contad among particles increases and mechanical densification/compaction facilitates this phenomenon. E. Oxidation: The injedion process provides the supply of an adequate quantity of oxygen deep into the subgrade clays . Usually, the high velocity jet entraps air and carries it with the solution , thereby sustaining the oxidation process. F. Oewatering/Oraining of Free Water: As a result of physical and electrochemical changes, the clay particles are no longer able to hold the bound water molecules which come ou1 as• free• water . Drai ning of th is free water is important because it may cause delays and rutting on the surface. 2 ·September 21, 1994 ECOLOGIC INNOCUITY OF CONOOR®SS CONDOR®SS is unlimitedly ecologically innocuous in the soil : • The acidic character and the acidic properties are eliminated by the neutralization of the H+ and the H30+ ions so that the groundwater is not loaded with adds. • The balance of sulphonic adds or ions are irreversibly bound to the soil particles by electrostatic forces, so that they cannot be underwashed, and thus represent a load for the groundwater. However, in order to produce a practical evidence that CONDOR®SS substances as a whole do not affect or load the environment, various state or state-recognized expert opinions have been noted to state unanimously: •tt CONDOR®SS is used properly and according to the manufacturer's instructions, the performed examinations and tests give no indications as to unfavorable or inadmissible influences on the groundwater, particularly, since in extraction tests, chlorinated hydrocarbons, pesticides containing chlorinated polyolic connections and toxic heavy metals have NOT been found at alJ or only in the quantities legally permitted for drinking water.• · Further experiences confirm these results where 20 year old roads which have had the subgrade treated by C 0 ND 0 R ®SS do not show any damages to flora and fauna in their immediate environments. 3 -September 21. 1994 ECOLOGIC INNOCUITY OF CONDOR®SS CONDOR®SS is unlimitedly ecologically innocuous in the soil : • The acidic character and the acidic properties are eliminated by the neutralization of the H+ and the H30+ ions so that the groundwater is not loaded with adds. • The balance of sulphonic acids or ions are irreversibly bound to the soil particles by electrostatic forces, so that they cannot be underwashed, and thus represent a load for the groundwater. However, in order to produce a practical evidence that CONDOR®SS substances as a whole do not affect or load the environment, various state or state-recognized expert opinions have been noted to state unanimously: •tt CONDOR®SS is used properly and according to the manufacturer's instructions, the performed examinations and tests give no indications as to unfavorable or inadmissible influences on the groundwater, particularly, since in extraction tests, chlorinated hydrocarbons, pesticides containing chlorinated polyolic connections and toxic heavy metaJs have NOT been found at aJI or only in the quantities legally pennitted for drinking water.• · Further experiences confinn these results where 20 year old roads which have had the subgrade treated by C 0 N D 0 R ®SS do not show any damages to flora and fauna in their immediate environments. 3 -September 21 , 1994 -1 l l (INJECTION CRITERIA SPECS AS ISSUED BY DFW AIRPORT FOR THE TRANS . PAD) ITEM P-161 CHEMICAL INJECTION DESCRIPTION 161-1. 1 This item shall consist of modifying the free swell of the subgrade soil by pressure injecting a sufficient number of applications of a mixture of chemical and water in accordance with the these specifications and to the extenbt designated by the Engineer as required to achieve the specified "target" of an average of one percent free swell. This item is a substitution for lime stabilization if accepted as a Item ate bid . MATERIALS 161-2.1 Water: Water used for mixing shall be clean, fresh, potable, and free of materials deleterious to the chemical/soil reactions, such as high acidity, high sulfate, content, etc. 161-2.2 Chemical: Chemicals used shall be CONDOR SS Earth 161-2.3 Slurry: Slurry used shall be a uniform mixture of commercial grade chemical and fresh, clean water. Slurry shall not exceed 10% acid . COMPOSITION 161-3.1 Slurry: The slurry shall be continously agitated to ensure uniformity of mixture. Composition should be consistent at both mixer tank and injection pipe. The slurry shall be proportioned as recommended by the manufacturer to achieve the specified "target" free swell. EQUIPMENT 1614.1 Injection Pipe: The injection pipe shall be capable of distributing the slurry in a manner which . minimizes pressure loss around the injection pipe . A working pressure gauge shall be provided on the injection pipe. 1614.2 Pressure: Injection pressure shall be adjusted to disperse as great a volume of of the injection material as possible within a pressure range of 500 to 2000 pounds per square inch. The optimum pressure shall be determined in the field by the Board's Testing Representative to assure slurry penetration into soil fractures without refusal. CONSTRUCTION METHODS 161-5.1 General: It is the primary requirement of this specification to secure a subgrade which has free swell potential of an average of one percent. If the above limit is exceeded, the site shall be retreated as directed by the Engineer. The injections shall be performed to a minimum of five feet outside of designated pavement lines. 161-5.2 Workmanship: The contractor shall submit to the Engineer evidence that workmen are competent in pressure injection construction methods. The contractor will ensure that competent , experienced personnel will carry out the operations specified. In particular, and injection specialist shall be used to control the compositi on, mixing and application of the chemical. Evidence of competency shall be a minimum of two years experience in chemical pressure injection and quality control and at least one successfully completed project of similar size and complexity . Supervisory personnel shall be on-site at all times during the work. Ponding of excess slurry shall be prohibited . The slurry shall be maintained within the Immediate injection area area and restricted from .flowing into ditches or other areas off-site . 161-5.3 Slurry Mixing: The slurry shall be introduced into the tank as follows : 1 . One half the required water 2 . Chemical mixture 3 . Remaining half of required water 161-5.4 Injection Depth/Spacing: The injection depth shall be a minimum of seven feet below top of subgrade on a grid pattern to exceed three feet on center. Subsequent injections shall be offset from the initial locations in a pattern which maximizes the distribution of the injected material. Contractor shall coordinate injection operations with the the location of existing underground utilities and installation of proposed underground utilities to avoid damage to both. 161-5.5 Subgrade preparation: After injection is complete and •Chemical Injection• has been verified as described below the top 9 • to 12 • of subgrade, as a substitution for lime treatment, shall be treated with a mixture of 1 gallon of chemical to 300 gallons of water and pulverized to bring soil to between 1 to 5 percent above optimum moisture of the material based on specified compaction requirements . INSPECTION AND TESTING 161-6. 1 Standards: The following publications form a part of this specification to the extent indicated by the references thereto : ASTM 04318 Atterberg Limits ASTM 045468 Standard T est for One Dimensional Swell Potential of Cohesive Soils 161-6.2 Inspection: The Board's materi al Testing Laboratory will provide quality assurance inspections during chemical injection operations. this does not relieve the contractor in any way from providing quality control inspection during chemical injection operations to assure himself of the quality of the work. The contractor shall provide copies of all chemical tickets and other certification from the manufacturer on each shipment of chemical certifying product compliance with the specifications. 161-6.3 Testing: The Board's Material Testing Laboratory will provide a full-time representative for quality assurance testing during chemical injection operations. As a minimum, the quality assurance program shall include a full-time inspection of materials and slurry concentration verifications for each new water/chemical mixture . The contractor shall cooperate with the Board's representative in providing materials for quality assurance testing . The contractor shall provide occasional labor to assist the board in obtaining representative samples of materials to be tested. 161-5.2 Workmanship: The contractor shall submit to the Engineer evidence that workmen are competent in pressure injection construction methods. The contractor w ill ensure that competent , experienced personnel will carry out the operati ons specified . In particular, and i nj ecti on specialist sha ll be used to control the composition , m ix i ng and application of the chemical. Evidence of competency shall be a minimum of two years experience in chemical pressure i njection and qual ity control and at least one successfully completed project of similar size and complexity. Supervisory personnel shall be on-site at all times during the work. Ponding of excess slurry shall be prohibited . The slurry shall be ma i ntained w ithin the Immediate injection area area and restricted from .flowing into ditches or other areas off-site . 161-5.3 Slurry Mixing: The slurry shall be introduced into the tank as follows : 1 . One half the required water 2. Chemical mixture 3 . Remaining half of required water 161-5.4 Injection Depth/Spacing: The injection depth shall be a minimum of seven feet below top of subgrade on a grid pattern to exceed three feet on center. Subsequent i njections shall be offset from the initial locations in a pattern which maximizes the distribution of the injected materia l. Contractor shall coordinate injection operations with the the location of existing underground utilities and i nstallation of proposed underground utilities to avoid damage to both . 161-5.5 Subgrade preparation: After injection is complete and •Chemical Injection· has been verified as described below the top 9 • to 1 2 • of subgrade, as a substitution for lime treatment, shall be treated with a mixture of 1 gallon of chemical to 300 gallons of water and pulverized to bring soil to between 1 to 5 percent above optimum moisture of the material based on specified compaction requirements . INSPECTION AND TESTING 161-6. 1 Standards: The following publications form a part of this specification to the extent indicated by the references thereto: ASTM D431 8 Atterberg Limits ASTM 045468 Standard Test for One Dimensional Swell Potential of Cohesive Soils 161-6.2 Inspection: The Board's material Testing Laboratory will provide quality assurance inspections during chemical injection operations. this does not relieve the contractor in any way from providing quality control inspection during chemical injection operations to assure himself of the quality of the work. The contractor shall provide copies of all chemical tickets and other certification from the manufacturer on each shipment of chemical certifying product compliance with the specifications. 161-6.3 Testing: The Board 's Material Testing Laboratory will provide a full-time representative for quality assurance testing during chemical injection operations. As a minimum, the quality assurance program shall include a full-time inspection of materials and slurry concentration verifications for each new water/chemical mixture . The contractor shall cooperate with the Board 's representative in providing materials for quality assurance testing . The contractor shall provide occasional labor to assist the board in obtaining representative samples of materials to be tested . 161-6.4 Swell Testing: Within 72 hours after completion of •Chemical Injection · operations for a given area, the Board's Material Testing Laboratory shall determine whether the free swell potential of the injection soil is less than one percent. The method of checking the swell of the injected soil shall include the following: a. Seventy-two hour reaction period following completion of the injection operation; b. One continuously sampled soil boring (Shelby tube sampler) to the seven-foot depth for each 10,000 square feet of injected area (minimum two borings); c. One Atterberg Limits test per every two feet of each boring; and d. One Free Swell test per every two feet of each boring. The engineer shall decide on whether additional injection of the subgrade is required within six days of completion of injection operations for each area injected and tested. CONDOR®SS -TEST RESULTS TESTING Conventional laboratory tests with sulfonated stabilizers, such as CONDOR®SS do, not reproduce he action of the stabilizing agent in the field. / No standard laboratory tests to effectively predict the field performance are available for any non-standard chemical stabilizer. For this reason, it is recommended that field tests and soil borings be performed by a recognized, accredited testing laboratory, before, and after soil treatment. Standard testing procedures employed by highway materials laboratories frequently produce mixed results that are considered inconclusive. Because the stabilizers provide properties to the soil or aggregate not normally found in these construction materials, the "standard tests" were not designed to identify these properties and cannot adequately predict actual field performance. An example of this is the tensile strength provided by the binding properties of the stabilizers. The following standard tests are suggested and may be inserted in job specifications: Gradation -200 sieve, ASTM D 1140; Field CSR, ASTM D- 4429; Classification of Soils, ASTM D-2487; Plasticity Index ASTM D-4318, Method A; Moisture Content, ASTM 02216; Unconfined Compressive Strength, ASTM 02166; Swell of Cohesive Soil, ASTM D-4546, Method B; Moisture-Density. Relationship (Standard Proctor) ASTM D-698; and with the field CSR ASTM D-4429 and field nuclear density (ASTM D-2922) tests performed for further verification by the Engineer. Before and after treatment tests are normally selected for specific acceptance criteria. Sufficient tests per boring should be obtained (minimum of 3 is suggested) from the geotechnical firm for making reasonable estimates and reliable soil parameters. Continuous bore sampling to seven (7) feet or more is recommended. Additional tests to verify geomorphology of the soil, such as chemical analysis, CEC, and percentages of minerals present, will provide additional data for project planning. It should be emphasized that standard tests performed in the laboratory on chemical stabilizers often are required to be modified to attempt to simulate the chemical's reaction as they do in the field. The following pages provide recent field test results on various types of soils encountered. November 8, 1993 Arendale Ford c\o Stephenson Associates 10 Legend Road Fort Worth, Texas 76132 Attention: Mr. Jim Stephenson Re: Initial Injection Evaluation Service Area Arlinqton, Texas SwL Report No. 93-436-7 Dear Mr. Stephenson: 5WLT SOUTHWESTERN LADORA TORIES. INC 2575 LDM Star~ P.O. Boz 11'227 O.C. Toas 75212 Ptrn: (21'J 631·17fXJ Ptrn: f211J 1fi3.11:r:J fMlrroJ hr (214) 91191 This report presents our findings of an initial injection evaluation of the Service Area buildinq pad. The injected subgrade was sampled on November 3, 1993. Five borinqs were continuously sampled to a depth of 10 feet. The approximate borinq locations are indicated on the attached Borinq Location Diaqram. Hand penetrometer tests were measured on .cohesive soil samples obtained from each one foot interval. Four one-dimensional swell tests were performed on samples from each borinq for a total of 20 swell tests. Th& results of these tests· are presented on Figures 7 and 8. Review of the 2 o swell tests performed indicate averaqe swells as presented below: Boring No. 15 16 17 18 19 Average SWell Ctl 0.81 0.58 0.38 0.66 0.69 No swell test was in excess o"f 2i. Based on the swell tests performed, the results are within the project specifications. These results were verbally communicated to the project sup4;!rintendent on November 4, 1993. Slab construction should. proceed as soon as possible. Should you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES, :INC. -~Lt# i J«1t:.: P.E. ~~ical Division GEW:em .. _...,.,BIB,_..,......, November 8, 1993 Arendale Ford c\o Stephenson Associates 10 Legend Road Fort Worth, Texas 76132 Attention: Mr. Jim Stephenson Re: Initial Injection Evaluation Service Area Arlinqton, Texas SwL Report No. 93-436-7 Dear Mr. Stephenson: :iWLr i SO(JTHWESTERN l.A80RA TORIES. INC i 2575 U-Slaf OM P.O. 8oz Z1'1:17 DMm. Taz 75222 PIJ:Jtv: (2141 631·17t1J /llrJtw: 111.#J 2fi3.1733 {Mell'OJ Far 121'1 f20.IB91 This report presents our ~ indings of an initial injection evaluation of the Service Area building pad. The injected subgrade was sampled on November 3, 1993. Five borings were continuously sampled to a depth of 10 feet. The approximate boring locations are 'indicated on the attached Boring Location DiaqraJll. Hand penetrometer tests were measured on .cohesive soil samples obtained from each one foot interval. Four one-dimensional swell tests were per~ormed on .samples from each boring for a total of 20 swel1 tests. The results of these tests· are presented on Fiqures 7 and 8. Review of the 20 swell tests performed indicate average swells as presented below: Boring No. 15 16 17 18 19 Average SWell Ctl 0.81 0.58 0.38 0.66 0.69 No swell test was in excess of 2t. Based on the swell tests performed, the results are within the project specifications. These results were verbally communicated to the project sup~rintendent on November 4, 1993. Slab construction should · proceed as soon as possible. Should you have any questions, please cal1. Sincerely, SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES, :INC. ~~Lnl'-l &-:.. P.E. Et~ical Division GEW:em. SWELL TEST RESULTS SERVICE AREA PRE-SWELL FJNAl % BORING OEPTH MOISTURE MOISTURE LOAD VERTICAL NUMBER (FEET) CONTENT CONTENT (PSF) SWELL 15 2-3 37.2 40.5 360 1.89 15 4-5 32.5 34.5 610 0.65 15 6-7 34.5 38.7 860 0.51 15 8-9 36.8 40.2 1110 0.19 16 2-3 29.9 32.5 360 0.55 16 4-5 24.6 29.0 610 1.72 16 29.5 32.1 860 0.03 16 8-9 34.7 40.1 1110 o.o ·: 17 1-2 29.9· 31.9 250 0.39 17 27.0 29.0 500 0.64 17 30.9 32.9 860 0.18 17 9-10 36.0 42.3 PROCEDURE: 1. SAMPLE PL.ACED IN CONF1NING RING, DESIGN LOAD (JNCLUOING OVERBURDEN) APPLIED, FREE WATER MADE AVAIL.ABLE, ANO SAMPLE All.OWED TO SWELL COMPLETEl Y. 2 . LOAD REMOVED ANO ANAL MOISTURE CONTENT OETERMJNEO. SWL REPORT NO. 93-436-7 Figure 1 So1LTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC. 7 415 Whi1:e Hell, Sc.Ji1:e #109 Fcl""1: Wcl""1:h, Texas 76119 Fax 817-595-0709 817-595-006~ October 26, 1993 REPORT NO. PRCH-ARENDALE-93-102 ProChemical Soil Stabilization, Inc. 7415 White Hall, #111 Fort Worth, Texas 76058 RE: PROJECT: Gentlemen; TEST RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE SOILS PRIOR TO AND AFTER STABILIZATION ARENDALE FORD HIGHWAY 360 ARLINGTON, TEXAS We have completed our testinq of the in-situ subqrade soils for the Body Shop, the Showroom, and the Used Car Buildinq. These soils were tested for percent swell prior to and after stabilization with Condor SS. Results of laboratory testinq are attached. Prior to injection, the swells ranqed from 0.3 to 10.0 percent, with an averaqe of 5. 8 percent. Subsequent to injection, the swells were reduced to less than one percent, averaqe. No sinqle swell exceeded 2 percent. We appreciate this opportunity to work with you on this phase of your project. If you have any questions or if we can be of assistance, please contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, SOILTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC. feSSe E. Coleman, P.E. Vice President, Operations JEC/pp So1tTECH ENGINEERING 1 AND TESTING INC. 7415 White Hell, Suite #109 For1: Wol""1:n. Tex8s 76119 Fax 917-595-0709 917-595-006.C:: October 26, 1993 REPORT NO. PRCH-ARENDALE-93-102 ProChemical Soil Stabilization, Inc. 7415 White Hall, #111 Fort Worth, Texas 76058 RE: PROJECT: Gentlemen; TEST RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE SOILS PRIOR TO AND AFTER STABILIZATION ARENDALE FORD HIGHWAY 360 ARLINGTON, TEXAS We have completed our testing of the in-situ subqrade soils for the Body Shop, the Showroom, and the Used Car Building. These soils were tested for percent swell prior to and after stabilization with Condor SS. Results of laboratory testing are attached. Prior to injection, the swells ranged from 0.3 to 10.0 percent, with an average of 5. 8 percent. Subsequent to injection, the swells were reduced to less than one percent, average. No single swell exceeded 2 percent. We appreciate this opportunity to work with you on this phase of your project. If you have any questions or if we can be of assistance, please contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, SOILTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC . .JE;S;e E. Coleman, P.E. Vice President, Operations JEC/pp ~·' '~ Professional Service lndusbies, Inc. Mr. Greg Kimmelman Rockwell Construction December 22, 1992 2420 North Andrews Avenue Extension Suite 200 Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 Dear Mr. Kimmelman: Re: Chemical Stabilization Home Depot Central Parkway South San Antonio, Texas PSI File Number: 312-25253 As requested, PSI performed a laboratory analysis of untreated and chemically treated soils from the above mentioned site. The scope of services included the following: 1. The securing of soil samples from the chemically treated zone, which was conducted by Land Stabilizers on November 19, 199Z. 2. Performance of a swell test on the treated soil sample in general accordance with ASTH 0-4546/method B. 3. Report laboratory test results. Soil Sampling A soil boring was conducted and samples obtained on December 16, 1992 by PSI in the treated and untreated areas. The boring was extended to a depth of 10 feet. Soil samples were obtained using a 3.0 inch 0.0. Shelby tube sampler. The boring lo~ations were selected by a representative of PSI. Laboratory Testing A soil sample from the treated area was submitted to a one- dimensional swell test in accordance with ASTM designation D-4546/method B on December 17, 1992. The sample used for testing was taken from a depth of 4 to 6 feet. Surcharge loads applied were based upon an Three Burwood L.ane • San Antonio, TX 78216 • Pl"IOne: 512/3'2·9377 • Fax: 51213'2·9401 i ,, ~·"':: == Pro~ SeMc8 lndu8tria =======================:,! .I ,, '1 ., !I /i I I i I I . , ~ ~ .. j : I I estimated unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot of the in-situ soil, one foot of select fill at an estimated unit weight of 135 pounds per cubic foot, and a six inch concrete slab at an estimated pressure of 1.0 pound per square inch. Laboratory Results One sample in the treated zone was selected for swell testing which resulted in a percentage of swell of 0.4 percent • TABLE 1 ONE-DIMENSIONAL SWELL POTENTIAL OF COHESIVE SOILS ASTM D-4546/Method B (Sample Depth: 4' to 6') UNTREATED ZONE Swell. ~ 1.65 * 12-day curing period ** 27-day curing period TREATED ZONE Swell.~ 0.9* Swell. i 0 .4** Based upon the results shown in Table 1, it appears that swell was reduced by approximately 46 percent at the depth of 4 to 6 feet after 12 days of curing and 75 percent reduction in swell at .the same depth after a 27 day curing period. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Respectfully submitted, ""I~ ~CE INDUSTRIES, IllC. 611 (cf ffe-- ~I Edward Medrano f't"oject ~ager Ro~4. P.E. Vi~:~~~~nt cc: Larry Heimer -Vickrey & Associates Bob Evans -Home Depot Roland Jary -Pro-Chemical Soil Stabilization i ,, " ·• .I •I '1 .; !/ /I I I j I I . , t: .. j: I I Prof9a6onal SeMce lndustr1a =======================if estimated unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot of the in-situ so i l, one foot of select fill at an estimated unit weight of 135 pounds per cubic foot, and a six inch concrete slab at an estimated pressure of 1.0 pound per square inch . Laboratory Results One sample in the treated zone was selected for swell testing wh i ch resulted in a percentage of swell of 0.4 percent . TABLE 1 ONE-DIMENSIONAL SWELL POTENTIAL OF COHESIVE SOILS ASTM D-4546/Method B (Sample Depth: 4' to 6') UNTREATED ZONE Swell. i 1.65 * 12-day curing period ** 27-day curing period TREATED ZONE Swell, i 0.9* Swell,~ 0 .4*'* Based upon the results shown in Table 1, it app~ars that swell was reduced by approximately 46 percent at the depth of 4 to 6 feet after 12 days of curing and 75 percent reduction in swell at .the same depth after a 27 day curing period. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, please contact our office . Respectfully submitted, nsI~ ~CE INDUSTRIES, INC. {/J ({/' ffe-- ~/ Edward Medrano Pr'oject M.anager Roni:4. P.E. Vi~:~~~~nt cc: Larry Heimer -Vickrey & Associates Bob Evans -Home Depot Roland Jary -Pro-Chemical Soil Stabilization [ . 1. j !I I I r 1j ,i I 'I 1· ! AT Laboratories, Inc. Consulting Engineers • Geotechnical Construction Materials Inspectionnesting Services Environmental Assessments• Quality Control P.O. Box SS52 •Arlington, TX 7600S PROJECT: 547 ELIZABETH/SAN ANTONIO PROJECT NO: 92t129 CLIENT: PRO -CHEMICAL DATE: 3/12/92 REPORT OF PRE/POST INJECTION BUILDING PAD UNCONFINED STRENGTH BORING NO. SAMPLE PRE INJECTION 7. MOIST. 4 POST INJECTION PERCENTAGE TSF 7. 4 DEPTH UNCONFINED TSF MOISTURE SWELL UNCONFINED TSF MOISTURE INCREASE SWELL B-1 0-3 2.51 3-5 2. 19 5-7 2.73 B-2 0-3 2.39 3-5 2.75 5-7 2. 81 D. CARRERA, P.E. 28. 1 2.42 3.01 28.4 2.06 2.75 23.5 2.26 3. 19 26.5 ., ., C' "" • 4."" 2.80 28. 1 2. l(l 3. 15 23. 1 2. 10 ~ .,~ ,) .... ,) .-~"'··'~.,,;-;; l'1f' ·.'''" ... <\. .. "". ; .t · .• , ~~Cl-"; .......... ·.:.,J.. • ,.. "> ••• -~· ~ ..... ..J ~. ". .·' "4--'. --::... ...... •• t . . .,. .• ·~ z. • :" .~ ·~: \ • ~ ii.."' •••••••••••••.•..•••••••••••• •• l ~ Lu :s :::.. '.::/.P.RER.~ I" if····· ......... -................ ~ ~-o·. r.5F";2 :·oc" .. ,~· • ..p ;;.J.., ~:"4.lt t{f...:;·.~f l~j'c. ~':.·~'§-_~ '\J'-f ••••••••L .,., -· ,,.f2:t;;...~-- 30.9 19. 9 30.4 25.5 26.6 16.8 29.9 17. 1 30.5 14. 5 25.9 14. 9 OUR LETTERS AND REPORTS ARE FDR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE CLIENT TO WHOM THEY ARE ADDRESSED. THE USE OF OUR NAME MUST RECEIVE DUR PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL. DUR LETTERS AND REPORTS APPLY ONLY TO THE SAMPLE TEST~D AND/DR INSPECTED ARE NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF THE QUALITIES OF APPARENTLY IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS. 214-988-9401•214-660-5562 Arlinston • Dallas • Ft. Wonh • Garland • Grand Prairie 0.96 0.81 0.85 0. 9 (1 0.86 0.83 52) 53) 54) 55) 56) 57) 58) 59) 60) .:::1 I Hooper Engineering Laboratorie,~~··~~--.-: _, __ . Construction Materials Testing [I~;.;~ ':/ _;; :~ ·~· -: -1 !; ;i OCT l 71 994 ... REPORT OF IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS By ~===-Parkway Construction CLIENT: DATE : 11 October 1 994 PROJECT : Chili's Grill & Bar (Job 2417) JOB NO .: 94 . 11 23 W. Northwest Hwy & 1-35, Dallas. TX MATERIAL DESCRIPTION : 1 l On-Site Fill -Brown Clay & Tan Clayey Sand with Gravel 2) Borrow Fill -Dark Brown Clay ASTM D 698 STANDARD PROCTOR : 1) 106.0 pcf @ 1 6.0% Moisture 2) 98.0 pcf @ 19.0% Moisture MOISTURE DRY LOCATION PROCTOR LIFT CONTENT DENSITY % PCF Parking Area 25' north of north bldg . line 1 Fin . Sub . 17.0 106.7 15' east of east bldg . line 1 5' north of north bldg. line Fin . Sub . 16.4 108.0 20' east of west bldg . line North bldg. line Fin. Sub. 18.7 105 .6 1 5' west of west bldg. line South bldg. line 1 Fin. Sub . 18 .9 103.2 30' west of west bldg . line 1 00 ' south of south bldg . line 2 Fin . Sub. . 20.5 97.5 40' west of west bldg . line 200 ' south of south bldg. line Fin. Sub . 16.9 105 .4 40' west of west bldg. line 250' south of south bldg . line 1 Fin. Sub . 16.6 105.6 1 O' west of east bldg . line 125' south of south bldg . line 1 Fin. Sub. 15.9 108.0 1 O' east o f east bldg. line 40' west of east bldg. line Fin. Sub . 16. 7 107.5 75' south of south bldg . line 20 ' north of south bldg. line 1 Fin. Sub . 21.0 104.3 2 5 • east of east bldg. line PERCENT COMPACTION % 100.7 101.9 99 .6 97 .4 99 .5 99 .4 99.6 101 .9 , 01 .4 98 .4 REQUIRED COMPACTION % 95 + _T E: Dens ity tests taken after injection of chemical stabil i zer . ~1-.~ -c:C HNICIAN : CDJ 2870 Walnut Hill Lane Dallas, Texas 75229 (214) 351-6419 Fax (214) 351-5148 52) 53) 54) 55) 56) 57) 58) 59) 60) 71 ~ Hooper Engineering Laboratorie~~.f.H?..__ _ _ I:;: :c. .. -=; , ': -·-. . • I ,. -·:::/ --" '· --I Construction Materials Testing [' -'/ -~ ~ -=: , !;~i OCT l 7 1994 .... -· REPORT OF IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS By ~===-CLIENT : Parkway Construction DATE : 11 October 1994 PROJECT : Chili 's Gr ill & Bar (Job 2417) JOB NO .: 94 . 1123 W . Northwest Hwy & 1-35, Dallas, TX MATERIAL DESCRIPTION : 1) On-Site Fill -Brown Clay & Tan Clayey Sand with Gravel 2) Borrow Fill -Dark Brown Clay ASTM D 698 STANDARD PROCTOR : 1) 106.0 pcf @ 16.0% Moisture 2) 98.0 pcf @ 19 .0% Moisture MOISTURE DRY LOCATION PROCTOR LIFT CONTENT DENSITY % PCF Parking Area 25' north of north bldg. line 1 Fin . Sub . 17.0 106.7 1 5 ' east of east bldg . line 15 ' north of north bldg. line 1 Fin . Sub. 16.4 108.0 20 ' east of west bldg . line North bldg . line Fin. Sub. 18.7 105 .6 1 S' west of west bldg . line South bldg . line Fin . Sub. 18 .9 103.2 30' west of west bldg. line 100' south of south bldg. line 2 Fin. Sub. . 20 .5 97 .5 40' west of west bldg. line 200' south of south bldg. line 1 Fin . Sub. 16.9 105.4 40' west of west bldg . line 250' south of south bldg . line 1 Fin . Sub. 16 .6 105.6 1 O' west of east bldg . line 125' south of south bldg. line l Fin . Sub. 15.9 108.0 1 O' east of east bldg. line 40' west of east bldg . line Fin . Sub. 16.7 107.5 75' south of south bldg . fine 20' north of south bldg . line Fin . Sub. 21.0 104.3 25' east of east bldg . line PERCENT COMPACTION % 100.7 101.9 99 .6 97 .4 99 .5 99 .4 99 .6 101.9 101 .4 98 .4 REQUIRED COMPACTION % 95 + _T E: Density tests taken after injection of chemical stab il i zer . ~:r.~ -;;CHNICIAN: CDJ 2870 Walnut Hill Lane Callas, Texas 75229 (2i4) 35i-64i9 Fax (2i4) 351-Si48 PERMANENCY OF TREATMENT PERMANENCY OF TREAT11ENT The fact that CONDOR®SS does change the electromagnetic characteristics of the soil where the hydrogen ions will not exchange with the weaker sodium or potassium ions, causes a permanent change in the clay mineral lattice structure. The clay cannot revert back to its original state. This reaction results in the destruction of the lattice and further improvement in density and strength of the soil mass. Field experience of the permanency of the treatment with CONDOR®SS has been documented since 1976. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications of Venezuela provides the oldest information as to its success. In the United States, data has been provided showing no loss of effectiveness for some 10-12 years. The following pages are representative of the reports being provided for indications of permanency of treatment in various pa(ts of the country. No reports have been received indicating the treatment did not last. There is no leaching action with the use of CONDOR®SS as exists with other stabilizers. In the Fort Worth-Dallas Metroplex the treatment permanency is documented by a few of the local projects, also found in the following pages. mULTnOrnRH counTY Ol=iEGon OIV!SION OF OPERATIONS ANO MAINTENANCE 1620 SE t90TH AVENUE PORTLAND. OREGON 91233 (503) 667-0100 June 4, 1984 Richard C. Gearhart Earth Science Produca Corporation 1960 SW 16th Portland, Oregon 97201 RE: PERMANENCY OF TREATMENT OF THE SOILS WITII CONDOR SS Dear Mr. Gearhart: DENNIS BUCHANAN COUNTY EXECUTIVE On several occasions where people have asked about our experience in using Condor SS for stabilizing clay type soils, the questions of permanency of the treatment has arised. From the · observations and experience that we have bad, I think that it is reasonable to conclude that the treatment of the soils with Condor SS pennanendy alters the density of the soil structure as long as the treated section is not altered by any mechanical excavation tools, and may have the permanency on the order of cement or lime that also are being used for stabilizing soils. My reason for this opinion is based on observation and on an actual construction project that took place in 1968-69 during the construction of the Inverness Sewage Treatment Plant. At the time the Inverness Drive, a 1,000' road section that goes from NE 122 into the Inverness Sewage Treatment Plant was constructed, the subgrade in the area bad a 27~ clay content. The ~ to the construction for the sewage plant, which was started late fall of 1968, became a considerable problem. By chance the party that bancDed Condor ~. or as it was known at that time as Reynolds Road Stabilizing Product, became aware of the situation and offered to demonstrate the capacity of their product to stabilize clay soils. The condition around the construction site was such that at the time anything that had a promise of alleviating the situation would be tried. 11le soil stabi1izing product was applied with a water truck, and then covered the construction site as well as the future subgrade for Inverness Drive. The condition around the plant was improved, and when the actual road construction began in the spring of 1969 and the final grade was excavated for the subgrade, the grader operator found that the subgrade was solidified to the extent that they bad a substantial problem grading the material with the blade and the road grader and had to use the scarifier before they could cut the clay soils with a blade. · mULTnOrnRH counTY O~EGon OIVISION OF OPERATIONS ANO MAINTENANCE 1620 se 190TH AVENUE PORTLANO. OREGON 97233 (503) 667~100 June 4. 1984 Richard C . Gearhart Earth Science Products Corporation 1960 SW 16th Portland. Oregon 97201 RE: PERMANENCY OF TREATMENT OF THE SOILS WITII CONDOR SS Dear Mr. Gearhart: OeNNIS BUCHANAN COUNTY EXECUTIVE On several occasions where people have asked about our experience in using Condor SS for stabilizing clay type soils. the questions of permanency of the treatment has arised. From the · observations and experience that we have had. I think that it is reasonable to conclude that the treatment of the soils with Condor SS permanently alters the density of the soil structure as long as the treated section is not altered by any mechanical excavation tools. and may have the permanency on the order of cement or lime that also are being used for stabilizing soils. My reason for this opinion is based on observation and on an actual construction project that took place in 1968-69 during the construction of the Invemes.s Sewage Treatment Plant. At the time the Invernes.s Drive. a 1,000' road section that goes from NE 122 into the Invernes.s Sewage 'Ireatment Plant was constructed, the subgrade in the area bad a 27% clay content. The access to the construction for the sewage plant. which was started late fall of 1968. became a considerable problem. By chance the party that handled Condor SS, or as it was known at that time as Reynolds Road Stabilizing Product. became aware of the situation and offered to demonstrate the capacity of their product to stabilize. clay soils. The condition around the construction site was such that at the time anything that had a promise of alleviating the situation would be tried. Tile soil stabilizing product was applied with a water truck, and then covered the construction site as well as the future subgrade for lnvemes.s Drive. The condition around the plant was improved, and when the actual road construction began in the spring of 1969 and the final grade was excavated for the subgrade, the grader operator found that the subgrade was solidified to the extent that they had a substantial problem grading the material with the blade and the road grader and had to use the scarifier before they could cut the clay soils with a blade. · June 4, 1984 Richard C. Gearhart Page 2 nus road was built to residential standards, which meant that the subgrade was covered with a 7" layer of llh" -O" gravel and al" layer of 314" -O" leveling course. The surface was a 2" class B asphalt pavement and the total section was 16' wide .. In 1974 this section of road was widened and curbs were installed on the south side, the total section was widened to 32'. However, the center section was left undisturbed and nothing was done to the road until 1977 when a llh" asphalt concrete overlay was placed over the whole section. In 1976, Pacific Northwest Bell moved their maintenance yard and their construction facility into the area, their main entrance is off NE Inverness Drive. In 1977, Gresham Transfer and Storage moved their truck yard into the area and their entrance is also off of NE Inverness Drive. This 1,000' stretch of road, basically built to residential specifications, is being exposed to heavy axle loads form freight true.ks, construction vehicles, tank trucks, and the type of traffic that normally goes in and out of freight and construction yards, along with traffic to and from the sewage plant which has a facility for disposal for septic tank trucks. The most recent inspection of the road shows no stress fatigues and there is no indication that this road does not adequately carry the axle loads that it is being subjected to. Other indications that we have on the permanency on the treatment is described in a memo to me from Dick Dusa, dated November 1983 regarding the section of road at our shop facility. " no settlement can be detected in that section and it adequately demonstrates the effectiveness of using the injection method." Even the shoulder treatment along the County roads where the soils have been treated with Condor SS we observe where the material has a sufficient clay content (anywhere from 14% -20%) that we have a remarkable wear and permanency compared to sections where we have had no treatment or where the shoulder gravel has a deficiency in clay particles. I has been our experience and my observation so far that we have yet to find a condition where we have applied Condor SS to soils with sufficient clay content that the stabilization so far has not been of a permanent nature. 4-?f?: Tor Lysbaug~~ Director 'r' ·1 TL:ww COLUMBIA VISTA CORPORATION Dick Gerhart Earth Science Product Corp. P.O. Box 327 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Dear Mr. Gerhart, P.O. BOX 489 VANCOUVER. WASHINGTON 98666 April 21 , 1980 Thank you for the ·time you spent helping us learn the proper use of your soil stabilizer, Condor SS. Condor SS proved extremely effective, saving us about half on our road building costs. We also saved a great deal of money on truck maintenance, as normally our logging roads are built with rock much larger than two inch minus which is much harder on the trucks and tires. We hauled about 250 loads of logs over the road in all kinds of weather. It made even our most pessimisti c people believers to see us haul all winter over two inches and less rock. Thanks again. TS/cv Sincerely, Tom Swarts Logging Manager COLUMBIA VISTA CORPORATION Dick Gerhart Earth Science Product Corp. P.O. Box 327 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Dear Mr. Gerhart, P.O. BOX 489 VANCOUVER. WASHINGTON 98666 April 21 , 1980 Thank you for the time you spent helping us learn the proper use of your soil stabilizer, Condor SS. Condor SS proved extremely effective, saving us about half on our road building costs. We also saved a great deal of money on truck maintenance, as normally our logging roads are built with rock much larger than two inch minus which is much harder on the trucks and tires. We hauled about 250 loads of logs over the road in all kinds of weather. It made even our most pessimistic people believers to see us haul all winter over two inches and less rock. Thanks again. TS/cv Sincerely, Tom Swarts Logging Manager "' September 8, 1986 Mr. Art Renfro Robert 0. Berg OAK COUNTRY RANCH Rte 1, Box 71A Paso Robles, CA 93446 R & R SALES AND SERVICE 7305 Santa Yanez Atascadero, CA 93442 Dear Mr. Renfro: Conce-rning the treating of the five and one-half acre reservoir '~ith the Condor SS Product at the Oak Country Ranch near Paso Robles, California. The objecti,·e for treating the resen·oir was to stabilize the clays that are _prevalent in the soil in this area. Prior to the application of Condor SS, the resen·oir has had a twenty year history of C."<c~h·e seepage and percolation. The reservoir was filled each spring and by late summer was virtually empty. Thi_, of course negated the us~fulness of the reservoir for it's intended purpose of fire protection. In E'arly l\1arch, 1986, I contracted \vith R & R Sales and Service to apply Condor SS to the entire dam area and bottom surface. Upon completion of th~ application the resen·oir was filled to capacity in early May, 1986. In August, 1986, it was evident that the seepage and percolation rate had been drastically reduced. The majority of the water loss can be attributed to evaporation. The project was completed in a timely, organized, and professional manner. Robert 0. Berg ROB:nr BUILDERS, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTORS ProChemical Soil Stabilization, Inc. 7415 Whitehall #lll Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6427 Attention: Mr. Roland Jary Gentlemen: 2716 EAST LANCASTER POST OFFICE BOX 50129 FORT WORTH, TX 76105 817/531 -3913 April 30, 1993 In April 1992 your firm treated the subgrade under exterior paving, walks and swimming pool deck on a large residence in Westover Hills, Texas with Condor SS. The reasons for using this material in lieu of the more conventional lime stabi- lization was due to space limitations and a concern that the lime application would damage the landscaping materials. To this date we have observed no adverse effect on the adjacent vegetation or any movement in the concrete flatwork treated areas. We trust this is the information you requested. MWMcA/js BUILDERS, INC. GENERAL CONTRACTORS ProChemical Soil Stabilization, Inc. 7415 Whitehall 1111 Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6427 Attention: Mr. Roland Jary Gentlemen: 2716 EAST LANCASTER POST OFFICE BOX SO 129 FORT WORTH, TX 76105 817/531-3913 April 30, 1993 In April 1992 your firm treated the subgrade under exterior paving, walks and swimming pool deck on a large residence in Westover Rills, Texas with Condor SS. The reasons for using this material in lieu of the more conventional lime stabi- lization was due to space limitations and a concern that the lime application would damage the landscaping materials. To this date we have observed no adverse effect on the adjacent vegetation or any movement in the concrete flatwork treated areas. We trust this is the information you requested. Very truly yours, I I ~ ifLD£BS, INC I !ti l~:ef«. "i) tf'(l{ 4, t;; I Martin w. McAllister · MWMcA/js RECOMMENDATIONS LETTERS & ARTICLES March 2, 1993 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Re: Pro-Chemical Soil Stabilization by Chemical Injection Pro-Chemical has treated projects for us using chemical injection since May 1991. our first project was in Plano, Texas. The site was a difficult site for construction. We encountered much groundwater and soil conditions showing a P.I. of so+, mostly consisting of clay. Because of the wet condition of the project, lime stabilization would be very difficult. We solicited the help of Bob Horne and his Company to provide soil stabilization. The Structural Engineer had asked us to provide a subgrade condition for his foundation/slab design that required a PVR of l" or less. Pro-Chemical was able to produce this result with written proof of same by an Engineer. This was accomplished under very adverse site conditions caused by weather and groundwater. We have used this chemical injection process on five (5) projects since then with the same proven results. These projects are located · in the Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio areas. We are not aware of any problems or failures on any of our projects on which this process was used. We have used Pro-Chemical to inject under building slabs, parking lots, and one (1) off-street extension area. We know of no negatives in regards to Pro-Chemical or its product. We can say, based on our experience, we intend to continue use of both, anytime a site calls for soil stabilization. Pro-Chemical has always responded to our schedules and in a professional manner completed their work. This process has many advantages over lime stabilization .. It is clean, easy to use and allows us to meet rigid construction time schedules without much regard to bad weather. If I can provide any further information about Pro-Chemical, please let me know. Sincerely, LA/sw EMBREE GROUP, INC. Corporate HcadqmrtCTl • 8050 Airport Road • Georget own . Tczu 78628 8 512 ·869-2626 • FAX 51:?·863-057 WINN ENGINEERING and Testing, Inc. Seo t ember 18. 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 2702 ESTES PARKWAY . P .O . BOX 72:36 LONGVIEW . TEXAS 75607 FAX 903-758-2701 903-758-1 1 7 1 RE: SOIL STABILIZATION USING AN ELECTRO-CHEMICAL ADDITIVE ;)RA NC H OF'C'IC:E su:_;>M U .. SPR INGS. 1"EXAS 903 ·8115·53 I.) Since June 1992 Winn Enqineering oersonnel have been soecifyinq an electro - chemical soil stabilization additive oroduced by Earth Science Products and distributed in Texas bY ProChemical Soil Stabilization in Ft. Worth~ Texas~ to stabilize active clavs. The oroduct •condor SS" essentially works bY changing the electrical CION> charge on the clay oarticles~ and reducing its capacity for the water •olecules to attach to the clay platelets. We have evaluated the effectiveness of the Condor SS with both unconfined comoressive and swell test resul t s taken on ore-stabilization and oost- stab i lization borings. Results on unconfined compressive strength have increased f r om ore-injection test species on the order of 10 to 30 percent with swel l test r esults ·on the highly expansive clays CCH) have reduced to less than 11q of one oercent. This has been verv tyoical results for the stabilization conducted on the highly expansive clays CCH). These results have been directly related to the moisture reduction in t he clay subsurface soils. If you have any soecific questions or need our professional assistance in evaluating your site for i ts feasibility to be stabilized with the •condor ss· oroduct~ please contact us at your convenience. Please note that this letter is written based on our company's professional evaluation of the ·condor ss· product to stabilize the expansive clays on various jobsites under Winn Engineering and Testing~ Inc. contracts. The effectiveness of the oroduct is site dependent and must be evaluated by a licensed Professional Engineer in the geotechnical engineerinq field. Note that Winn Enqineerinq nor its personnel receive any financial consideration for this letter. Our co•ments are solely on test results generated by Winn Enqineerinq personnel. JKlll/nj L_ ______________________ - - WINN ENGINEE~ING and Testing, Inc. 2702 ESTES PARKWAY , P .O . BOX 72:36 LONGVIEW . TEXAS 75607 FAX 90:l-758-270i 903-758-i 171 Seotember 18~ 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: RE: SOIL STABILIZATION USING AN ELECTRO-CHEMICAL ADDITIVE -31=1ANCH <::)F'C'IC'E SU \.?MUA ss:n::t 1NOS. 'TEXAS ll03·M5·53 I.) Since June 1992 Winn Enqineering oersonnel have been soecifying an electro- chemical soil stabilization additive oroduced by Earth Science Products and distributed in Texas by ProChemical Soil Stabilization in Ft. Worth~ Texas~ to stabilize active clays. The oroduct •condor SS" essentially works by changing the electrical CION> charqe on the clay particles~ and reducing its capacity for the water •olecules to attach to the clay platelets. We have evaluated the effectiveness of the Condor SS with both unconfined comoressive and swell test results taken on ore-stabilization and oost- stabilization borings. Results on unconfined compressive strength have increased from ore-injection test species on the order of 10 to 30 percent with swell test results · on the highly expansive clays CCH> have . reduced to less than 11q of one oercent. This has been very tyoical results for the stabilization conducted on the highly expansive clays CCH). These results have been directly related to the moisture reduction in the clay subsurface soils. If you have any soecific questions or need our professional assistance in evaluating your site for its feasibility to be stabilized with the ·condor ss· oroduct~ please contact us at your convenience. Please note that this letter is written based on our company's professional evaluation of the ·condor ss· product to stabilize the expansive clays on various jobsites under Winn Engineering and Testing~ Inc. contracts. The effectiveness of the oroduct is site dependent and must be evaluated by a licensed Professional Engineer in the geotechnical engineering field. Note that Winn Engineering nor its personnel receive any financial consideration for this letter. Our co•ments are solely on test results generated by Winn Engineering personnel. JKlll/nj CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS Pro Chemical Stabilization Company P.O. Box 180775 Dallas, TX 75218 RE: Pro Chemical Stabilization Gentlemen: CITY HAU./1000 THROCICMOlrTON STREET FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102 ca1n 111-61sa January 30, 1992 In October 1989, The City of Fort Worth awarded a ·contract to Bob Moore Construction Company for the reconstruction of Collinwood .Street (Montgomery to owassa Street). The City at that time chose to use Condor SS Chemical in lieu of Line to stabilize the subgrade on the project. Then in February 1991, Austin Paving Contractor encountered serious and ongoning difficulties with excessive water problems on the Myrtle Street Project subgrade. At this time your company was contacted and the decision was made to inject Condor SS into the subgrade of this street. This was accom- plished and the subgrade dried up and allowed the contractor to complete the job. Both of these projects were done under my supervision and have been subjected to periodic inspections, the last being last week, reV'ealed no visible deficiences. I understand your product has been specified in at least one or more upcomming City of Fort Worth projects. Congratulations and best of luck in your future endeavers. ?trQ,,~ J. w. Bishop Construction Inspection Superintendent City of Fort Worth The Al HAMSJIRA Croup, Inc. All.,..rt'll Como.Jl'lf"C; ~rrJ Bu1IC1l"f~. Ir(' WllOl'l'r ~rrJ inc ~rrJ Enrrior.-l'1C' June 3, 1991 Pro Chemical Stabilization Co. P.O. Box 180775 Dallas, TX 75218 Route 3, Box 25 Wheatttetd, IN 4639 219/956·3111 Fax No . 219/956·357 I feel I made a very wise decision in having you do the stabilization with your product in lieu of using lime. The test results on the project you did, the Veterans Administration Outpatient Clinic in Fort Worth, were very favorable from ATL Laboratories. As this project was on fast track your application allowed me to excavate for footings and grade beam walls immediately. This definitely was a big time saving and also allowed me to work on the site immediately after rain, which happened quite often. It has been three months since I poured the concrete parking lot and the concrete floor and I have not observed one crack in the concrete yet. You can be assured that I will contact you on any other project we do where it requires soil stabilization. Respectfully, GROUP, INC. ric Carlson Project Manager EC/jk Volbert Homsao ...._ ~Hoffman -..,,._. ...,ando Cosd• '--- Enc A. Cortson llloi«t-.... . Gteq A. Homscra "'°9«•-.... Jonn p Nike-non A.-c .... D1 DP: 404 l'\ob Pr:ybylsMI ..___..,..,... ~'Hartl~ '--·~ JS060391.0:X: HAMS IRA croup, Inc. Route 3, Box 25 Wheatfletd, IN 4639: I 2i91956·3iii Faz No . 2i9/956·3S71 Allillart'll ComOJ~ ~rrJ 8u11nrr ~. re W1Cll'l'r ~rrJ . lnC "9'n<;rr J Enrl'.'I er ..-.e-; nc J'une 3, 1991 Pro Chemical Stabilization Co. P.O. Box 180775 Dallas, TX 75218 I feel I made a very ~ise decision in having you do the stabi.lization witb your product in lieu of ,using lime. 'l'be test results on the project you did, the Veterans Administration Outpatient Clinic in Fort Worth, were very favorable from ATL Laboratories. As this project was on fast track your application allowed me to excavate for footings and grade beam walls immediately. This definitely was a big time saving and also allowed me to work on the site immediately after rain, which happened quite often. It has been three months since I poured the concrete parking lot and the concrete floor and I have not observed one crack in the concrete yet. You can be assured that I will contact you on any other project we do where it requires soil stabilization. Respectfull,y, GROOP, INC. ric Carlson Project Manager EC/jk V.lb«t Hamsaa ,,,_ ~Hoffman v.c....._.. Wonda C:asd• '-- Enc A. Carlson "'°'9Ct-.... . Gt~ A. Homscra ""°'""' -.... Jenn P. ~eonot! "-£.-.Os oP'*' JS060391.tx:C I ROCKWELL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 2420 N. ANDREWS AVENUE EXTENSION SUITE 200 POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA 33064 ProChemical Soil Stabilization 7415 Whitehall #111 Fort Worth, Texas 76118-6427 Re: Central Parkway Home Depot Soil Stabilization -CONDOR SS San Antonio, Texas Gentlemen: July 29, 1993 During the bid stage of this Project, Rockwell Construction Corporation of Texas contacted Land Stabilizers, Inc. to propose injecting our building pad with CONDOR SS electrochemical. The original specifications called for removing six (6) feet of expansive soil over the entire building pad { 130, 000 SF). This was a very costly procedure. The goal of proposing this alternative process for soil stabilization was to find a more cost effective method of reducing the potential for vertical movement of the building pad to within the limits set by the owner's geotechnical engineer ( 1" or less PVR). When the figures were run, the net cost savings to the owner were about $135,000. To date, there have been no detrimental aspects noted to our structure. It appears that the CONDOR SS stabilization process met or exceeded the geotechnical engineer's requirements for potential vertical movement reduction. Based on our experience with ProChemical's representative in San Antonio, we are very pleased with the performance of the soil treatment . ~~ Gregory D. Kimmelman Project Manager Gene & Carlyn Burks 4308 Oleander Mc,,quite, Tx . 1 5150 . July 5, l 994 Mr. Bob Ham, President Pro-Chemical Stabilization Co . 7415 Whitehall; Suite 111 Ft. Warth, Tx. 7 6118 Dear Mr. Hom : About four yeas ago your firm treated the soil around the slab foundation of our home. It is really interesting that two of our neighbors who had foundation mmpanies to !owl their homes have had to have the WOik done owr this put year. While their homes continue to move up and down OU1'I bu remained lewl. Your product wmb very well in this black clay "Oumbo" toil we haw. Yau suggested that we should haw drilled holes in our large attached gaiage md it,1 ·driveway in order to inject the product under them but we chose not to do that. I rully wiah we had. The ground UDder the garage must still be pumpins u you had indicated it would without treatmmt. I am interested in dilcuaaing tbia additional treatmmlt. I am convinced that this treatment would be all we would need to do to solve this only mna;nins foundation problrm. Thanks again fur yow-help with our past and present problems. Look fmward to hearing from you aoan. Gene & Carlyn Burks 4308 Oleander Me,,quitc, Tx . 15150 July 5 , 1994 lvfr. Bob Ham, President Pro-Chemical Stabilization Co. 7 415 Whitehall; Suite 111 Ft. Worth, Tx. 76118 Dear Mr. Hom : About four yem ago your mm treated the soil around the slab foundation of our home . It is really interesting that two of our neighbors who had foUDdation cwnpimies to lewl their homes ha-w had to have the WOik done owr this past year. While their homes continue to move up aDd down ours has remained lewl. Your product wmks very well in this black clay "Gumbo"' soil we have. Yau suggested that we ahould have drilled holes in our large attached garage and n• 1 ·driveway in order to inject the product under them. but we chose not to do that. l really wiah we had The ground lmder the garage must still be pumping u you had indicated it would without treatmrmt. I am interested in dilcua1ing thia additioal.1 treatmect. I am convinced that this ~tmmit would be all we \VOUld neod to do to solve this only remaining foundation problt:m. Thanks again fur your help with our past and present problems ~ Look .forward to hearing from you aoan. October 5, 1990 Pro-Chemical Stabilization P.O. Box 1aons Dallas. Texas 75218 RE: Grand Prairie Cinema 12 .Prcject No. 8918 I wou!d Ilka to tako thi: opportu:-.ity ti tha.,k ycu for your wc1'" on the Cinema 12 project in Grande Prairie. We found your product to be quick, neat, and cost effective. The results to date have been extremely good. We have found the stabmzation to be far superior to lime or cement stabilization, with no observable deficiencies to date. Based on our experience at this almost 1 O acre site, we would not hesitate to use your product in the future and would recommend it to anyone in need of soil stabilization. Thank you. LANDMARK ORGANIZATION, INC. ,;{:_/'~ Regis Matejcik Vice President RM:ms Landmuk Organization, Inc. 1616 Rio Gr:indc:, Austin, Tcx:is 78701 512 47.t-9720, fa.'( 512 473·8933 ERNEST HEOGCOTH Consulting Engineers. Inc. August 6, 1991 Ron Hayes, Director Public Works Department City of Hurst 1505 Precinct Line Road Hurst, Texas 76054 Ref: North Hills Addition Chemical Stabilization North Hills blvd. Dear Mr. Hayes : PLANNING • DESIGN • ENGINEERING Cannon Contractors, Inc. the contractor for the North Hills Project asked me to review the possibility of using chemical stabilization for North Hills Blvd. The proposed product is Condor SS manufactured by Earth Science Products Corp. of Oregon. ProChemical Stabilization Co. located in Dallas , Texas is the proposed contractor for the installation. I have reviewed the data furnished by Mr. Johnny Sherwood, President ProChemical Stabilization, and contacted the testing laboratory . I also inspected the test section in the City of Fort Worth located on Collinwood Street from Montgomery to Owassa Streets. AT Laboratories, Inc. has tested the material at the North Hills Blvd . site and recommended the Condor SS be injected in the pad for the foundation for the new building. In my conversation with Mr. Troy Looney P .E., Manager Engineering Dept. ATL, I asked if the material in the proposed North Hills Blvd . would be suitable to use The Condor SS in place of the lime stabilization. Mr. Looney indicated the test results from the pad site and the tests on the roadway material indicate the injection of Condor SS would be satisfactory or better than the lime . I have reviewed the specifications used in the City of Fort Worth proj ect. After this review I recommend to the City of Hurst that the Condor SS be used in place of lime stabilization for North Hills Blvd. The same specifications will be used as the City of Fort Worth project. AT Laboratories, Inc. will conduct the testing on the roadway. 6701·C Midway Road Fort Worth. Texas 76117 817-831-7711 ERNEST HEOGCOTH Consulting Engineers. Inc. August 6, 1991 Ron Hayes , Director Public Works Department City of Hurst 1505 Precinct Line Road Hurst, Texas 76054 Ref: North Hills Addition Chemical Stabilization North Hills blvd. Dear Mr. Hayes : PLANNING • DESIGN • ENGINEERING Cannon Contractors , Inc . the contractor for the North Hills Project asked me to rev iew the possibility of using chemical stabilization for North Hills Blvd. The proposed product is Condor SS manufactured by Earth Science Products Corp . of Oregon . ProChemical Stabilization Co . located in Dallas, Texas is the proposed contractor for the installation. I have reviewed the data furnished by Mr. Johnny Sherwood, President ProChemical Stabilization, and contacted the testing laboratory . I also inspected the test section in the City of Fort Worth located on Collinwood Street from Montgomery to Owassa Streets . AT Laboratories , Inc . has tested the material at the North Hills Blvd. site and recommended the Condor SS be injected in the pad for the foundation for the new building. In my conversation with Mr. Troy Looney P .E ., Manager Engineering Dept. ATL, I asked if the material in the proposed North Hills Blvd . would be suitable to use The Condor SS in place of the lime stabilization . Mr. Looney indicated the test results from the pad site and the tests on the roadway material indicate the injection of Condor SS would be satisfactory or better than the lime . I have reviewed the specifications used in the City of Fort Worth project. After this review I recommend to the City of Hurst that the Condor SS be used in place of lime stabilization for North Hills Blvd . The same specifications will be used as the City of Fort Worth project. AT Laboratories, Inc. will conduct the testing on the roadway . 6701 ·C Midway Road Fort Worth, Texas 76117 817-831-7711 I I ·I If you have any questions concerning this recommendation please contact me at (817)831-7711. Please let me know you: decision as soon as possible since the contract~r is preparing to begin construction of North Hills Blvd. and needs to make other arrangements if you do not allow this product to be used. Sincerely, Ernest Hedgcoth, P.E. cc: Cannon Contractors, Inc. ProChemical Stabilization Co . Uni t:ed S t:a ~e• Department o~ A(!i cul. ~?l':_e Forest Servlc:• P 9 I .Engineering Reply To: 7700 Date: July 23, 1990 Subject: Condor s.s. Treatment on Timber Purchaser Roads and Maint.~nance Problems To: Carl F. UaV"I a La.st week I go1. • Sblt.e or L.ou1s1ana drilling rig eo get us acme samples a.long Road 560 where we nad treated the base wi t.h Condo:-S.S. The samples an: i.n the iab now in Alexamfr.Las . It appears that this trel!ltment does what .l t. .i.:;i lllUPPU»e to do on o u r bad clays. nu,, •ection or road I as you know. waa p-.rtial.ly ripped up, leveled, and treated. We have Compartments 10, 22, 24, and 46 Turnbaek completed er in process oc completion now. Road 560 is a hal.ll ruute tor our aaterials desisned tor all ot the above mentioned coepartaenta. Ru.d 560 has not deteriorated any with all the heavy trucks ve nave generated -.lth our proJects. nus in itself tells me that thls treatment hu wor~li. J.n Winn Compar~nL 76, we have Road W076G that was added due to the changl.u~ ur c:utt1nc units . 'nlia road 1• under contract now, but has not ~fm cumpleted. nus road is 24.63 stations lon". This road has some bad c:laya rutted uP now alun~ its entlre lengeh. The Winn Rock surt'ace in the design plan calls tor 700 Ton. @ $14.52/Ton tor a cost of Sl0,164.00. I P'-U.5JU¥e that we try this Condor S .S. Treatment on this road u an ex;>er iment.. n~ coat of the Condor S.S. Treatment would be approximately S600o.OO. Ail other items in the contract w6uld be let't as they are. I believe this tr.,atmant will work 1n areas like this. This could be a very large savings in Pu.t~er Cred1t in the future along most or our old clay :-utted roads 04• Jwit in apots where it is needed. Road 911 acroas the Middle fo'ork bottom on the Caney R.D. continues to wash Mwt:t,Y in spots when th~ bo1.1.u111 is at flood stage, and this will continue as long aa the road is Uwrtt without some help. Kei.th baa spent ~ s2 ,500.oo on sections or thia road since we reconstructed it apprwdmately one year ago. The road is washed out in two . placea iww. l ta.J.ked to the Ranger when we were up there last week on a plan-in-hand and he likes the idea of trying to aet up this area through the bot.t.0111 with the Condor S.S. ao that it won't wash out. This till through t.he bottom 1s iron ore cla,y and should react well to Condor S.S.· Keith baa ~a:.t.iJ111sted c:oMtructing lc,,w water crossings with Winn Rocle at a cost or S 14 • 000. 00 1n the tu ture. I propose we treat the en tire fill through the bottom with Con~r S.S. at a cost or approximately Sl0,000.00. I do not have an exact •~asut'ttllltmt now across the bottom, but will have before this ~ek is over. Th~ tlll »lopes vary ao auch. This treatment could save us aany t.housenda or dulll:U"S yearl,y instead or .continu.1n4r to do what we have doues tor years 111hich is putting back aurface that gets washed off aiain as aoon AS !L tlunrls. Uu! ted Sta t:e• Depart.en t o~ Acri cul 1:~z:e Forest Servlc:• P II I Engineering Reply To: 7700 Date: July 23, 1990 Subject: Conder S.S. Treatment on Timber Purchaser Roads and Maintenance Problems Ta: Carl F. UaV'f s L.a.st ~-I go1. • State or L.ou1s1ana drilling rig eo get us acme samples a.1ong Rofid 560 where we had treated the base with Condor S.S. The samples 1&n= in ehe .Lab now in Alexa.ndd.d. It appears that this treatment does whllt ~ t. .i.:.. a.uppu»c to ao on our bad clays. nu.~ sec:tion of road, as you know. waa p-.rt.ial.ly ripped up, leveled, and treated. We have Comp&rtments 10, 22, 24. and ~6 Turnback completed or in process or completion now. Road 560 is a hau.l ruute tor our materials desiined (or all of the above mentioned compartaenta. rtu.d 560 ha& not deteriorated any with a.11 the heavy trucks ve ha.,,. generated 11r.l t.b our prcJects. 'l1\.1.s in i.tselr tells me that this treatment hu work.;,15. ln Winn Comp&rtJat:nL 76, we have Road W076G that was added due to the ehang.l.u11r uf' c:utt1ng wuts. This road 1• under contract now, but has not ~tm completed. Th1.s road is 24.63 station& lon~. This road has some bad clays ruttad uP now alun~ its ent1re lengdt. The Winn Rock surface in the design plan calls tor 700 Ton.a @ $14.52/Ton for a cost or Sl0,164.00. I J.l'VIJUl:IC th&t we try thi.s Condor S.S. Treatment on this road u an ex;>eri.ah::nL. Tlie:= cost of the Condor S.S. Treatment would be approximately S6000. 00. All other i eems in the contract w6uld be le Ct u they are. I believe this tr~atmant will work 1n areas like this. This could be a very large savings in Pu1~er Credit in the future along most o!' our old clay rutted roe.iis 04• Jwst ill spots where it is needed. Road 911 across the. Middle fo'ork bottom on the Caney R.D. continues to wash Kwtl.)' in spots when th~ boLLum is at flood stage, and this will continue as lcng aa the road is t.lu:=r"' without some help, Keith has apent rou&hl.Y $2,500.00 on sections or thia road aince we reconstructed it apprwd.aaately one year ago. The road is washed out in two . place~ uuw. l talked to the Ranger when we were up there last week on a plan-in-hand and he likes the idea of trying to &et up this area through the bot.t.0111 with the Condor S.S. so that it won't wash out. This fill through Lhe \xltt.om 1a iron ore clay and should react well to Condor S.S. · ICei th has e:i:.ti.mested coMtruc:ting low water crossings with Winn Rock at a cost of Sl4. 000.00 1n the future. I propose we treat the entire till through the bocco• "1th Condo1· S.S. •t a cost or approximately Sl0,000.00. I do not huvc an exact •~asu1"tftlle:nt now across the bottom, but will have before this ~ek is over. Th" (.ill »lopes vary 80 much. This treatment could save us aany tbousenda or dullo.n yearl,y instead or .continuing to do what we have doua tor years lilhich is putting back aurface that gets washed orr a1ain as aoon AS iL tlunns, Pggo 2 Car.J.., a l.ot ot peep.le 1nclud1.nc •yaelt want to try thia -ten.al. 1 bel1.eve we have finally found aomei:hi.nc ~ help wa cut down on our high coat ot aurf'ace on timber purchuer ro&da and our entire maintenance progTua. Road W046a can t>e 1nJectecS or cut 1n aurrace treatment. Road 911 needs injectins and surt'ad.nc apr~1zlC· I bel1eve I can pt Pro Chemical to come over and 1nJect roads with their equipaent tor rouply the prices I •entioned abcve. Carl, 1 would like tor ,you to coaaider theae proposals, We have been trying U) el1.m1nate h1;h costs within our road ayate• in all phases since I have been here over 30 years. th1a 1a the best •aterial tried since 1 have been here. There 1-no doubt troa what we have already treated, that thi.t a&LM&-ial work11 on cla,ya. I would 11.ke to do both ot these project• aoon betore inclement weadler aec.s in. Tiaber purchasers are complaining now about ove1' deslgn or apenclinr on ow-timber pu.rch&ser roads, aa,ybe this can eliminate some or thia and cSo a better Job tor ua in the future. HOWAKl> It. WIL:SOM Engl.u~riu~ Rttpresentaive cc: Marq Webb Ken Crawt'ord Ji• Pace JCeith Fountain Steve Cannell Doug Scholen ProChemical SOI. STABDJZATION OF TEXAS, INC. Mr. Rick caster El Chico Restaurants 12200 Stemmons Frwy. Dallas, TX 75234 (214)888-4355 Mr. Francis Bevier D.S.A., Inc . P. O. Box 72 Cleburne, TX 76035 (817)645-8864 Mr . Larry Ayers Embree Construction Group 8050 Airport Road Georgetown, TX 78628 (512)863-6357 Mr. Alan Kemp Speed Fab-Crete P. 0. Box 15580 Fort Worth, TX 76119 (817)478-1137 REFERENCES P.O. Box 185125 Ft. Worth. Tau 76181 Mr. Alan Jackson D/B Consructors 2400 Great Southwest Pkwy. Fort Worth, TX 76118 (817)626-7300 Mr. John Willingham Poly America, Inc . 2000 w. Marshall Grand Prairie, TX 75051 (214)647-4374 Mr. Michael Faber Exxon Company, U.S.A. 3801 Boston St. ·Baltimore, MD 21224 ( 4 1 0 ) 5 6 3-51 7 4 . Mr. King Buckner Wilson-Barnes, Gen . Cont:rs. 14229 Proton Road Dallas, TX 75244 (214)991-4643 (117) 5954299 Metro (117) 5894>46 :Fax (817) 595-2323 ProChemical SOI. STABILIZATION OF TEXAS, INC. Mr. Rick caster El Chico Restaurants 12200 Stemmons Frwy. Dallas, TX 75234 (214)888-4355 Mr. Francis Bevier D.S.A., Inc. P. o. Box 72 Cleburne, TX 76035 (817)645-8864 Mr. Larry Ayers Embree Construction Group 8050 Airport Road Georgetown, TX 78628 (512)863-6357 Mr. Alan Kemp Speed Fab-Crete P. o. Box 15580 Fort Worth, TX 76119 (817)478-1137 REFERENCES P.O. Box 185125 :Fl Worth. Taaa 76181 Mr. Alan Jack.son D/B Consructors 2400 Great Southwest Pkwy. Fort Worth, TX 76118 (817)626-7300 Mr. John Willingham Poly America, Inc. 2000 w. Marshall Grand Prairie, TX 75051 (214)647-4374 Mr. Michael Faber Exxon Company, U.S.A. 3801 Boston St. ·Baltimore, MD 21 22 4 ( 4 1 0 ) 5 6 3-5 1 7 4 . Mr. Kinq Buckner Wilson-Barnes, Gen. Contrs. 14229 Proton Road Dallas, TX 75244 (214)991-4643 (817) 595-0299 Metro (817) 589-0046 Fax (817} 595-2323 ProChemical SOB. STABILIZATION OF TEXAS, INC. REFERENCES ENGINEERS -ARCH11:ECTS Mr. Frank Neal . Frank Neal & Associates, Inc. 1015 Broadway Ave. Fort Worth, TX 76104 (817)332-1944 Mr. Jesse Coleman SoilTech Engineering/Testing 7415 Whitehall Ste. 109 Fort Worth, TX 75240 (817)595-0064 Mr. Charles Jackson Rone Engineers, Inc. 121 N. Rayner St. Fort Worth, TX 76111 (817)831-6211 Mr. Joe Craddock or Mr. Kyle Bacon SHWC, Inc. 5601 MacArthur Blvd. Irving, TX 75038 (214)550-0700 P.O. Box 185125 Ft. Worth. Tau 76181 Mr. Ernest Hedgcoth Hedgcoth Consul ting Eng. 5701-C Midway Rd. Fort Worth, TX 76117 ( 817 )831-7711 Mr. Ron Mc:Neme RM1 Structures 13140 Coit Rd. Da.11as, TX 75240 ( 214) 918-9181 Mr. Ed Wright E. S. Wright I Associates 603 Tiffany Tr. Richardson, TX 75081 (214)669-8089 (817) ~ Metro (817) 550046 :Fax (817) 595.2323 • -I ..-. ~,. i , -~'::_;.~~~ UifrJfl®? [Ffi)&J00J[l®[fi)----o ....... • An Iowa town's recipe _for snow and ice control • How a county cut roa~side maintenance costs $100,00 • What to expect from Federico F. Pena ~; ~, • f . ' • An Iowa town's recipe _for snow and ice control -I • How a county cut roaqside maintenance costs $100,001 • What to expect from Federico F. Pena Subgrade stabilization method cuts costs by up to 80% WAYS IN WHICH MOISTURE ~N ENTER AOAO SU8CA°"'OES @ TH"OUGM 'INllMl.f SU'"M:I ~~,.---r-;~'r:::;p-~1--~~::..L-..- T here are ways to reduce the sub- irade soil movement ocher than the-standard processes and materials used today. U you do not have to remove the emire pavement surface. consider it as your new base material. Treat the subgrade with the sulfoiwed oil c:hemic:al a mia- imum of 3 ft. below the surf ace. and then place a 2-in. topping over the base. When you do this. you c:ut your costs, and atend the service lite of that par- ticubr sueet or road. Such savings are possa"ble ming a hiJh-preSsure injec:Uon technique with a sulfonated oil chemi- cal eieczroJyie. which when in contact with me soil moisture and the expansjYe clay particles, ionizes the negative charge surroundin& the clay particles. The bonded wacer molecules ~ treed to mOYe ro the surface. ditch liae. a sand Jens. or evea the nearby "-atcz' table. Cay subgndes of new road or meet coaswcDon can be mbilized by dUs method IS well -wirh sinu1ar cost savinp. It is normal dm d1e subgrade be aar.ed a minimum of3-A. deep-below SU~ level. "Ibis prDCeSS CUI n:dac:e lhe dcsi;n section dtic~ the umc or c:onsuuaion. :ind ove~JJ project COSL Whoit cause.~ the cxp:in!iivcncss c:h:lr- actcristic::aJJy seen? h iJ nm the presence or cl:y miner.ab! They h:ve been proven to be one of &he v.-orld • s best construction ~teri:&b. The:-problem is the prc.-w:nc:c or c:xc:ess \l':Jl~r in the :sub- !1tl ~,.,,,.,. R11nf'I • ., JUNE 199:2 grade soil mass. nonnally in the range between 3-and 12-ft. deep. This ran1e is often called me active zone. 'Ibe moisan content varies with lbc en- viroamcsu u w=II as wirh man-made aciivities such u a broken pipe. c:ou- muction. or uu1ity repairs. Uwe can remove orr=fuce the amount of excess soil moisture praent . in our subgrade clays. strengths increase and the amount of swell potential is reduced, effectively providing stability ID me road suucmre. An increasing number of apncies have on-aoin1 pavement management systemS that tcJ1 the cn&incer which road or meet is in need of repair or is expecied ro need repair in the future. From this data. an existin& road that has some disuess but still is passable Chas a few potholes or maybe some heaving or ravelling that =n be spot repaired) may be a prime aia for sta!n1izaLion trut- ment of the subp-ade with the hi1h-pra- sure injection system. When the annual new construction or maintenance bud1et request IQCS for approval. it miJ}lt be well to ~onsidcrthis technique.. How it works The elecuolytc c:hcmic~. ccmmc:rciaJI?' known as Condor $S. is :a surron~ted oal produc:t dc:rived f'rom the n:aphthalenc (~c:tion or peuoleum. h i.< :l d:rk liquid wil.h: ~fie P'=''il)' or 1.15 :and a pH or I~-It is :1 hi~hly soluble prod~c:t. e~ \·i ronmc::it:i ll:1 s:i f :: •he r:i :inui":ic:u r e:- r:port.s. :ind no~lly diluted before in - jection into the clay mass with JOO gal . of water to I gal . of Condor SS. By its chemical composition. Condor SS has an enonnous potc:ntial of ionic e:'tch:inge in the expansive clavs. When small qu:intities or the produ~: are in- jected into the soil. acti va tion of the positive H ions and ne!ativc OH ions take place. In cffcet • .ionization of the negative charges surrounding the clay particle releases the adsorbed water molecules. This process of exchanging the electric charge with the clay soil particle breaks the electrochemical bond with the water, allowin' the free water to drain by gravity. evaporation. migration. and compaction. In common langua1e, Condor SS releases the excess water present in ex- pansive clays. When this actioa takes place. stabilization OC:Utl where sub- srade soil m=gth is inc:rused and ibc amount of swell has been rcduc:ed. The benefits The advantages of this method arc that it does not require the removal. replac:e-· mcnt. and manipulation of the c:lay sub- grade soil: and that it is very cost effci:- tive when compar=! with other means of stabilization. ~ is ao shat-down of the road or meet and the bi~pres sure injection process is rapid, lreating some 30,000 sq.ftJday wilh one crew. This physico:bemicaJ process achieves a beaer oriCIUlliaa of the clay pmiicies in oursubgrade. ~I tbc swell poceatial anc1 permeability. and inaasins the bear- ing m:ngdi. Rachin1 =pansive clays beneath our~orrmdsa rmnimum of 3 ft. Jives much men bearing c:apcity · rather & COiiUUCU 6 to 8 in. wilh ~ materials. Compacdon cesu ba~ shown 98 ro 1 r OCii-ro be rhc norm and sumgth inc:r=ses ia the ranp of 20 ro 68~. depencf'an: on lhc soil. • . This hiJ}\-pressUR inj=tioa tce:hmque with sulfo~ted oil :zllows en:incers ro u.se rhc on·site materi:ils. improve the cn!!ini:::in~ propcrtie.~ or the subgr.sdc · :1nd s:zves $Ubili::ition costs over olhe:- methods. It h:as been reported th:i c s:ivinl:S between 30 to 804it h:vc been re:Hz~ by usin~ thi!\ pmc:e.u. 0 Writt 61o.& on ROAOF'AX card. ,,,..---*---,, ,. Final Primary Filings Set ... 5 Yoe Gridders Honored ... (See~--On~· i.ll (See :~alls :-On Spons, ?~n 18-291 The Cameron Herald TEXAS PRESS I ASSOCIATION i Central Texas' Oldest Newspaper soc Per Copy 'i CL . t 3-1 NC .. lf Cameron. Milam Ccunl'f , Texas . Th ~rsc:av . Ja ~. 6 . 1 S9-' 16 ?a!;eS News , 30 Pages S~:o l e rr.e !"tZ r----*---Fina l Primary Filings Set ... S Yoe Gridders Honored ... (SM O.C.Us ll'ISloe On ~· U ) (S.. Cetall s :l\SICe On Spons, ?1on 1 S-Z!l l The Cameron Herald TE.XAS PRESS I ASSOCIATION i Central Texas ' Oldest Newspaper soc Per Copy 'iCL. 1 ~ NC. J i Cameron . Milam Ceumy . T e:ras . Thi.;r:;c:ay. Ja ~. 6 . 1 S9J 1 S ?ac;es News . 30 ?ages St.:::o l e rr.e ~t SH 36 Undergoing Stabilization Tests Anyone who has driven along State Highway 36 west of Buckholts knows it can b~ an unsettling experience. For ooe thing. a series of waves in the road can at times make you feel almost seasiclc. And lately. worlc crews on this stretch of the highway have produced eveo more slowdowns and fru.stratioas. But take bean. The work aews should be done in about three weeks. And they may have left you a highway that's easier to drive. W orlcers with ProCbemical Soil Stabilization, Inc. of Fort Worth are conducting a test for the Texas Highway Department that's aimed at stabilizing the subsurface soil under me highway. . Though evaluation of tbe test may not be complete for about 12 mootbs, the end result could mean a smoother driving surface for you. and possibly less highway maintenance for the state. -We're buically injecting a chemical mixed with water into the subsurface beaealb me highway,• Milce Horn. a an iojectioc supervisor for Procbemical told TM Camuon Herald. "The chemical will streogtbeo and stabilize the soil under the highway.• CHASES WATER AWAY Hom said the chemical. called CONDOR~. •chases water out of the subsurface clay.• Once the water is gone, me c:hemicll bonds with the clay to keep water or moisture out. Water in the subsurface soil, Hom said, is what causes highway driving surfaces to •nbbon" or rise and fall under normal use by traffic. •Wh41c happens with a clay subsurface is that during wet periods clay absorbs water and it swells ,• Horn said. "Theo, in city periods it loses moisture and shrinks. The two combined actions cause the subsurface to heave and retract, ultimately causing the paved surface above it to do the same. •Once this chemical reacts, the constant shifting stops and highways remain. smoother and more level loager, in fact, virtually forever.• Since CONDOR SS has not been widely used the Texas Highway Dept. bas given the Fon Worth company pennissico to test it on two ooe·balf mile sectioas of SH 36, just west of Buckholts. Witb tbe use of m air track drilling rig, the crew is drilliog holes into the westbound lme of SH36 to points a deep a six feet. High·pressure injecting equipment is then used to force the chemical into the subsurface soil (clay). Horn said soil stabilization ha previously been carried out with such things as lime. However, be aoted that over time, under tbe weigbi of highway rraffic, lime tends to mix with tbe soil and •1eacb • away, causing it to weakeo. The subsurface won't weaken with 1be new process. he said. "We have · two test arus to work with and they are separated by a control section (a section of road that woa't have 1be c:bemical added), •Hom said. •All three sections were surveyed by tht!' state before we began. -we med the state to give us a bad road to work with, md they certainly did. •Hom said. Some 400-plus gallons · of the chemial·water mixture will be injected into the test <lrolS. Once the process is completed, th~ high,vay depllrtment will survey the test acd control area several times to evaluate the outcome, Hom said. While the chemical, Horn said , has been around for some time, it bas not been widely used on state roadways. It bas been used e."Ctensively on driving surfaces in Oregon where the product was initially developed by the Earth. Science Produets Co. of Portlacd. Hom said the chemical bas also beea used nationwide to stabilize subsurface soil for earthworks, railways, airports, parking lots, subdivisions and buildings. Additioeally, Hom said the product is •eoviroameotally friendly.• It has gained the approval of tbe swe's Edward's Aquifer Commission and has passed California's rigid environmental standards. While use of the product could ultimately benefit drivers , and the state, Hom said it would also benefit tbe company. •we're a commercial firm,• he said. •obviously it the state decides to use this product extensively, it would benefit our compmy. 'Ibat's why we're here.• ProCbemical Soil Stabilizatioc, IDc. wa founded in 1987 a m operating company m:ider me auspices of tbe Earth Science Pn>dum Co. It is tbe primary disuiburioa IDd installation rinn for CONDOR SS. "We would :me for the public's pmeuc:e while we complete our project,• Hom said. --------------= . -.. -. ·-·. -.. '" '-'Vl\,IU~l.i --------····· l --·--~------- CITIZEN GROUP PJ<r . i::S TO FIGHT BACK -toc<11QIMwMul•C....,,.,Conlo11 l'DQ• s INDEX i.Mdol"'wtl111Yl .. Alealo~donh l'DQ•. Cloulfted1 Pao• 1 See Special Nollce -Page 6 Chu ch Pagel .. .towr-..01r.t1Co.rirySI-l'ocl•. E<Jilo1~ Puoel The ·~ Proiected savj11gs as 11111c/1 as 50% .. Commissioner solves county road problem with savings lh Joye• PAUN h:t5 cl:iy soil . Cl:iy oll5 llh5111b waler liolcs s1rn1c1lcnlly localcd lnll1c mad 'Ilic rcsull Is i1 new Jcn~c slahh: c:uoo•11u""u W•n•• In lhc wcl scasuns 1nJ lose mols1ure surCace . The chemical defuses Cmm hasc rca1ly for su1fad11g . The pro · OAK 1.1 './\f-•• County C.mnml~-during lhc dry sea5nn5 , crc:11ln1 the lnjec1l11n liolc, pcm1e111ln1 lhc Jcc1eJ,r.avi11g5,11n:111 -Ji11ic111llr11wn , sinner lton llrown, (1(:1 . 4, demon -cycles or swelling and shrinkage . sub -soil , vl1orously frccln1 lonsa111I will be JO% 10 SU·~ over cunvcn · s1ri11cdasavin1sforthccoun1ywhlle This "heave" anti consolltlallon pcnnancntly capturing tl1e charges llonal mcd1ods . solving an age-old road problem In . Involves significant volumetric or the clay platelet, 1ccordln1 to the Ron lhmmn, county cummis- f:lli~ County this past Tuesday . ch11nge ... 1ml Is tl1e cause or billions englneen. sloncr In Johnson County Is lhc flul Wortmanpumpedanewpro-duct or dollars or dama1e to property llomsaldth1tCondorSS1c1ually commissioner 10 USC this rcvolu- lnlo t11e pre -drilled boles on Ubl each yeu. t1ansfom11 the chemical nature lonary 01cthod . Resurfacing of Uhl Road . Condor SS, the product by ofthe clay 1ubsua1e. Dound water Road will begin In approaimatcly "When d1ese county roads were !'~~~.ls ln~cletl !'!t~ drilled . now dralnsaway. ' two weeks . built there WU not 1111e l1l1hway . ' . . ~ . • ,. lnspccdor1 . They were built wilhout 1 base, coqsequenlly repair Is shoo· llrcd . With lhla new product, 1 base ' can be pumped In, allowed to set and l' ·,, then the road laready ror surfacing," , said Drowq . · ., · ·· .. The pmtluct Is a soil Sl:\hllli.er by l'tul'hcmh:nl . lloh limn or Pm- ( '.hcmkal c~rlal11ctl 111.11 I !His Coomy ' ,, PROCHEMICAL WORKMAN PUMP CONDOR SS INTO ROAD SURFACI! -Plclured lell to 1lghl •r• Adam Hallm11k, Couitn•r C•mp•, 8118n Ford 8Rd D•1ln fOfll pumping new 1oad bH• producl lnlo Uhl Roed. The p1oducl wlll be •llowod lo Ht up •nd lhen lh• 1Hurl•clng 1111 begin. Commluloner Ron lrown, pcl. 4 conlr•cltd lo UH lh• mon•r nvlng procen In hie preclncl. (Fe11l1 Prua pholo bJ Jore• llann) l .. -.. -. . . . . ..... . . ·i ..i V V •~I U ~\,;--------····· .... -··------- CITIZEN GROUP Pl<r ; · . CS TO FIGHT BACK -locdQl~MNl•CCM\lyConlotl l'oQ• s INDEX l.Mdol M\11e<y .... A.llOO Ao~deoh Foo•. Clouifted 1 Pa o• J See Speclal Nollce -Page 6 h..to•IMIM•1,.olC........,Med<a ~·· Chur c h Po ge l Et1ilo1 lol Pu o• 1 The * ·~ evtew fiojected savj11gs as 11mcl1 as 50% Commissioner solves county road problem with savings lh JnYt:I DAIAH h:u clay soll . Clay nlls Dhm1h waler holcss11111c1lcnllylocDlcJln1hen1:1J ·111c rcsull Is :1 ucw J cmc stahk t: .... , ... u""u W•11•• In lhe wcl seasons and luse mul51ure 1urr1ce . The chemlcal dduscs hnm hue rca 1ly for su1fodng . The rm- OAK 1.1 '.Ar •• Cmmly f'.nmmb-during 1hc dry sc :mms, crc :11ln1 die lnjccllon hole, ricm1ea1ln1 Ute jcclcJ :\av lugs , an:111 -di11i: to llr11w11 , sinner lt1111 llmwn, rt=•· 4, clcmuu -cycles or swelling anJ shrinkage . sub -sull, vlaorously lrcel111 lonsa11J will be )0% 10 SU •.t over rnnvc11 - SU1dc1l a savin1s for tlte coun1y while This "heave" and cunsolhla1lo11 pennancntly cap1urtn1 lite charges llonal mc1hods . soM111 an age -old road problem In . Involves slgnlrlcanl volumeulc or lhe clay platelet, accordlnJ lo tile Ron I hrntnn , coun1y rnmmis - r:m~ County &his pasl Tuesday . th1mge ... 1ntl Is lite CIUSC or billions englnccn . stoner In Johnson Coun1y Is lhc firsl Wortmanpumpcdanewpro ·dutl or dollars or dam1ge 10 property llomsaldth11CondorSSac1ually commissioner 10 use lhis rcvolu · Into tire pre·drtlled holes on Ubl uch year . 11ansfom11 the chcmlcll nature lonary otcllmd . Resurfacing or Uhl Ro11t.I . Condor SS, the product by orlhe clay 1ubs1111e. Dount.I water Road will bc&ln In 1pprolima1cly "When lltcse counly r01t.11 were !'~hc~~.lsln~cl~!~lc_>drtlled . now .dralnuway. ' two weeks. bulh lime WIS not sl1tc 1t11hway · · · · · i · Inspection . They were bulll without ~·,· a base, consequently repair ls ahoct-1 llfcd . With &his new product, a base ' can be pumped In, allowed 10 sci and :' : ", tltcn lhe ro1d Is rudy for surfaclna,'' Sl&IJ D1owq . . The rrnducl Is I soil Sll\hlllter hy 1'111l'hcmh:11I . lloh llt1111 or I'm- ( :111:mirnl c1111l:1lncd 1ha1 I :ms Cou111 r .•: '. PROCHEMICAL WORKMAN PUMP CONDOR SI INTO ROAD SURfACI! -Plclu11d lell lo rlghl a1e Adam Hallmai•, Courln•w Campa, Brian ford and Da1ln ford pumping new road bH• p1oducl Into Uhl Roed. Th• product wlll be allowed lo HI up and lhen lhe ruu1laclng alH begin. Commlnlon•r Ron Brown, pcl. 4 conhected to uH th• mon•w nvlng procen In hi• prec:lncl . (fe11l1 1'1u1 photo by Joyce lla11nl KILGORE NEWS 1l-111erica's No. 1 s111all city -ca1JJtal of the East 1'exas Oil Ji'ield UHi> 'TMll -tlo . lll cisrs n•.100 KllGOll, TdAS, \ftlhflSDA Y Am.RHOOH; SErTEMll~~ U, 1991 11 l'At;rs. I S~CTION -"' Trustees approve construction contract Dy ANNELLI~ JONES Art.er three anti one-hair hours or tkbet.c over proposed changc~jn lhc consuuclion or Kilgore lligh School, the K ii gore lndcpcndcnl School District board or trustees voted lo award a con~truclion con- trucl to Boone ;mtl Doom: of Tyler. Ourin~ 1hr.ir tlr.hale, the school board pin1l0in1cd S 1,985,050 worth or changes. hr ingin~ the 1uojecl in SSS,000 umkr hmlr,cl.. · The ~chool hmml RWl\hlctl '\ht· conuacl at llu: hid . 1•~icc, SV,998,000. hut imrncdiOtcly is~ncd change onJcr No . I, reducing the controcl by $1,985,050. Boone an4 Boone rcpr~cntntivts -Ron . Boone and his mother, Peggy . Boone -attended the scs- ~ion. Ihm Boone said the contrnctqr !\UKt~cstcd about 80 percent of the 11m1m~d changes and would work · to see . the school came in 'mulcr budget. Originally, there were abo\al 1.00 ideas suggested, with 15~ d~s (usscd and 73 suggested for d1scus- ~ion \'Jill\ tftc·scbool b-Oanl. "We'll "do a goml job," noono promised :· · ·11c· said1)t>Onc'und DoQffc'trics a,., lLCi~ cycry subconlmctot ·locolly that tho: firm can and prcdictcl)· nbout KO renl.of .tlio .subcontraclors on the high .chool·w1U ·be local." Boone and boonc has been ·. in Uusini:ss a\K.:>ut 20 years, he Qddcd. · :pick· r.foJ~n .will oo suptrmtcl1- tlcnt on the .Kl\S job: pml ht; is one or Uac best s\1pcrint~ndcnts .nr~mul, DtKme uddcd One of the . •mnibr changes the school bo:trd ·apprttVcd in the spcd - ric:"imas w:l~ roun(fation mut' stahi · li1.~tion modiricrilions, with the changes expected. to· save. Sl20,60<J . Ujadcr: ·the· cbnn:gc ord.er dae .~mal wuultl be tm11c1I with l'rodll'lll, nnd tht~ fountlatiun woultl he changed f mm :a 11ict ·i1ml-hcam sy stem to a slah. Architect (iiuy Keep or SI IW ln i:. cx11l:iinctl tlmt clay soil hil'i platelets .shapc;d like hot do~ huns with tri:m· gular voids ,with the \llallcts. Lime l'ills ·the voitls l>ut will leach out in 15 ycilfS or so , hut Prochcm cha111~cs ·the soil 10 in ctt matcriol mul climinatc.!s .!h e voill ~. Thursday, TIMES-RECORD A._P_ri_12_a_._1_s_s_4 ____________ r_~_ffi_~~g-~_.e_1ru __ ~_a_s_w_e_s_ee __ it_1e_m_c_e_~_d_~_,_~_c_o_m~p-as_s_~_n_a_r._d~g-cc_d_t_a_s1_e __________ __::•~·-~~~ Volume 6. Num~~ I J 70"..1 -B L.llce Countr:1 Drive. Fort Worth. Te:t:is 7fi I i•J ·----2-<l~p.1~ ~~i~~ Chemical rehabilitation Bailey-Boswell Road receives firstak:lfrCm PrcChemicaJ Soil Stabilization, Inc. employees. The road has suf- fered from swelling and consolidation due to watered down clay underneath the base. Ruts on the surface of the road is one symptom of expanding and contracting. The healing process includes drilling holes four feet deep with a Bobcat. The holes are then injected with a soil stabilizer which pushes the . water out of the way. The clay is compressed and establishes a moisture level and density that will prevent the base of the read from expanding and contracting as temperatures rise and fall. Thursday, TIMES-RECORD A_p_r_il_2_s_._1_s_94 _____________ T_~_m_r.g __ ~_e_rro_r_n_as __ w_e_se_e_i_~_~_m_c_e_~_d_w_n_n_c_om_p_a_s_$_c_n_a_r.d_;;..gc_c_d_ra_s_~ ____________ ~·~·-~~=~ V1J lume 6. Numric~ I J 71T'.2 -B UJce Countr:1 Drive. Fort Worth. Te:t~ 7Fi I i'J ____ 2 -i_p:_~~ _:~i!!'~ Chemical rehabilitation Bailey-Boswell Road receives first aid frCm ProChemicaJ Soil Stabilization, Inc. employees. The read has suf- fered from swelling and consolidation due to watered down clay underneath the base. Ruts on the sur1ace of the road is one symptom of expanding and contracting. The healing process includes drilling holes four feet deep with a Bobcat. The holes are then injected with a soil stabilizer which pushes the. water out of the way. The clay is compressed and establishes a moisture level and density that will prevent the base of the read from expanding and contracting as temperature5 rise and fall. -( I r--,. JULY I. 19tJ . V-•• -· oshua ribune Precinct 2 road construction receives inte.rnational attention 11>· H...ttvJ> r scuc;c;Jtv '' ~ ' Rcprc:s<."llt;i&i\"CS rnin1 Gcnn."111~' . .-· 1'utk•"" :ind lr:in niadc~ ,·isit 10Ron ll:mnon. con1111isi1onc:rPd .2. Tucs- d:I\. Juh <• 10 sec lhc m-olutionaf\· road n:i);iir nicshod bcmg used r0r 1hc first 1inic in the 11:11ion by Har· 111011. The process dC\·elopcd by ProChcmic:al ofFon Worth isClllcd Elcctrochcmic:al Ion lnjcaion. and 1us first llSCd to stabili:.:e the subgrndc: under buildings. "We were the first CIOUlll)' pre- cinct to use this program in the nation. Roads ·ba,'C been carificd using lh is procas. aad -cities 11;i,i: used it. L..1st )'Cal'. ~ c:amc in with the process to inject dOwn into 1hc ~-:1\'S on si..' fool CClllCIS. Tbcn. in tufn. come back aad sur· r;acc treat the IOp si.' inches o( the road surface: in .ctdition to the injcc· 11on process.· Harmon said. •we CIR build :I road appnWlll:lld)' JU pcn:cnr chclpcr using ttus lllClhod. The road 11 under cocsruction ap- pro.'\1m;itcl\· oae-third of the time. :ind "'C feel like "'C c:sn build a better roa4 .· Hamion rebuilt fM miles of CR Y2U in I 'l'll2 using the injcction process. and rcpons tbal die rmd- w:iv is s&ill in e\:ccllc:lll condition c:vCn :iner the tom:nti:al raiA of June 211 . .. •· .·r · : .. •I ,.·:-l.i .,, ......... ~ t' -~' ~~~;..,:' ~.:· ~J •-ere Or Lucfi. rrom Turke\'. :incl Alc.x;indc:r Zolr . rcprac111111ii 1r:ide andclc:v.clopnicn11n 1ho: ~hddle E:asl and Gcmi;1n\ · 'International Interest RON HARMON (r), county comaiainlwr Pct. 2. •ands with All Salmlian.lraniUICcnterorTndcwl~elllpmmtpraidal&.~ Zar, r,_ Ccnun,, ud Dr. Latef'a. r.-Tnl'V)'. RalWDll p,-e tM ~rcxntatiTCs a tour of count~ niads lta.t are e11fftlllly...,.CIMIJlnic- U.. min& a .,.. injccU.. 1&abi1i;.c.ation pnacca · The prOIZSS injcds ;a mbilia· ··~--~·-··=·~lllilllki•iii.i~ ... tio1uolu&ion •"r'OIOW .... ....._ • 111c ro.ia-sun-..: pnor '° R:11Una:• mi;. Aficr the mlia&ioa bu bard-• encd . workers gnd up aad Jlllrfacc ITCll the lop sill iai:bcs of die f'Old surtlcl:. "If '.-c'rc going IO ~ a prob- 1~"11•. ~tcr is wbat buns as lllUdl :as an,-1hi11g. • be said. ~bottom h RC is that WC feel I bat WC Cll1 build ;1 belier road :al less CllSt 10 tbc l&X• p;i~·er." . Bcausc the process rcqwn:s ' k:ss n&:1npowcr. Harmon Im plaa:d •'t>URI\' ''°rkcrs in other arc:as. like ;111 c.~1cnsivc ctc:an ap of ditches ;ilon~ COUii&)' rmds wbidl will :also USW 111 lnO\;nS mn Wmef 11'-:IY from I he raad surixc. The 1hrcc rorcign rcpracnca· '"cs :ire imc:rcsacd in Ille prca:u :i.s ~11 ceononue ~hangs: of idc:as that 1 ha on use in their coun&rics. · ·we .. -:an110 sec the process and dclcnninc ir. :and-. we can usc it '"inn. wc:an:•~illlCICllCdiD Expllll.ning the Process new u:duiology. llld. tiuough the C.'\changc: ofidc:aund mc:1hods. both c:ounlrlCS bcnclil I \\-:lnlcd to ICC the proo;CSS lirsl·hand bccNse I had t1e1rd :\boo11 •·11:11 tbrmon •.:U do- HARMON Hpw•• to "'1tl'ftnlUiWG tram three temp -•ia * -iofi injection proccs.• which is cnn"r11tl7 bcin& med ror tlw tint tiac on c1111nty roads in the United States. 1t --__________________ ____J APPLICATIONS FOR CONDOR®SS SLOPE STABILIZATION RENOVATION/MAINTENANCE OF STREETS PRIVATE HOMES CITY STREETS & ROADS RURAL ROAD SYSTEMS AIRPORTS RESERVOIRS DAMS RAILROAD BEDS STORAGE AREAS -STRUCTURAL BUILDING PADS LOGGING ROADS MINING ROADS OIL DRILLING/SERVICING ROADS PARKING LOTS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PARKS POWER/UTILITY BASE SUPPORT SYSTEMS UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES STORAGE/RETAINER PONDS APPLICATIONS FOR CONDOR®SS SLOPE STABILIZATION RENOVATION/MAINTENANCE OF STREETS PRIVATE HOMES CITY STREETS & ROADS RURAL ROAD SYSTEMS AIRPORTS RESERVOIRS DAMS RAILROAD BEDS STORAGE AREAS · STRUCTURAL BUILDING PADS LOGGING ROADS MINING ROADS OIL DRILLING/SERVICING ROADS PARKING LOTS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PARKS POWER/UTILITY BASE SUPPORT SYSTEMS UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES STORAGE/RETAINER PONDS } l l l ·== l•'-iCONDOR® PRODUCTS CONDOR®SS AN ELECTRO-CHEMICAL SOIL STABILIZER ADDITIONAL SWELL TEST DATA Distributed by: ProChemical Soil Stabilization of Texas, Inc. P.O. Box 185125 Fort Worth, Texas 76181 (817)595-0299 Metro (817)589-0046 Fax (817)595-2323 CONTENTS POLY AMERICA -GRAND PRAIRIE, TX TRANSPORTATION COMPLEX-DFW AIRPORT JMC HOMES -IRVING, TX INDIAN SPRINGS RFS. DEV. -CARROLLTON, TX HEATH AND KNIGHT PROPERTIES, INC. -DALLAS, TX Poly America -Grand Prairie, Tx REPORT OF MOISTURE CONTENT AND SWELL TEST RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE SOILS PRIOR TO STABILIZATION POLY AMERICA GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS PREPARED FOR: ProChemical Soil Stabilization of Texas, Inc. Fort Worth, Texas Soiltech Report No. 95-167 October 16, 1995 SotLTECH .E~GINE£RtNG AND rcsnNG tNc. ---------------- So1LTECH ENGINEERING, AND TESTING INC. October 16, 1995 Mr. Bob Horn 7415 Whot:e Hall. Sui t:e #109 Fort: Wort:h , Texas 76118 Fax 817-595-0708 817-595-0064 ProChernical Soil Stabilization of Texas, Inc. 7415 White Hall, Suite 110 Fort Worth, Texas 76118 Re: Swell Test Results of Subsurface Soils Prior To Stabilization Poly America Grand Prairie, Texas Soiltech Report No. 95-167 Dear Mr. Horn: We have completed our testing of the subgrade soils for the subject - project. These soils were tested for swell and moisture content prior to stabilization with Condor SS. Results of . laboratory testing are attached. The swells ranged from 1.8 to 4.9 percent, with an average of 2.9 percent. The moisture contents ranged from a low of 23.4 percent to a high of 34.7 percent. We appreciate this opportunity to work with you on this phase of your project. If you have any questions or if we can be of assistance, please contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, SOILTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC. esse E. Coleman, P.E. Vice President, Operations JEC So1LTECH ENGINEERING, AND TESTING INC. October 16 , 19 95 Mr. Bob Horn 7415 Whlt:e Hall , Sui t:e #109 Fort: W ort:h , T e x as 7 6 1 1 S Fax 8 17-595-0 7 08 8 17-595-0064 ProChemical Soil Stabilization of Texas, Inc. 7 415 White Ha l l, Suite 110 Fort Worth, Texas 76118 Re: Swell Test Results of Subsurface Soils Prior To stabilization Poly America Grand Prairie, Texas Soiltech Report No. 95-167 Dear Mr. Horn: We have completed our testing of the subgrade soils for the subject - project. These soils were tested for swell and moisture content prior to stabilization with Condor SS. Results of . laboratory testing are attached. The swe l ls ranged from 1.8 to 4.9 percent, with an average of 2.9 percent. The moisture contents ranged from a low of 23.4 percen t to a high of 34.7 percent. We appreciate this opportunity to work with you on this phase of your project. If you have any questions or if we can be of assistance, plea~e contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, SOILTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC. esse E. Coleman, P.E. Vice President, Operations J EC SCOPE OF WORK SWELL TEST RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE SOILS PRIOR TO STABILIZATION POLY AMERICA GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS The scope of work consisted of field sampling and laboratory testing of the subsurface soils at the Poly America Plant located in Grand Prairie, Texas. FIELD OPERATIONS Pre-injection test borings were drilled at the site on October 10, 1995, at the approximate locations shown on the Boring Location - Diagram, Enclosure 1. A truck-mounted auger drilling rig was used to advance these borings and to obtain samples for laboratory evaluation. Undisturbed specimens of cohesive soils were obtained by continuous sampling with standard, thin-walled, seamless tube samplers, in accordance with ASTM D 1587. These specimens were extruded in the field, logged, sealed and packaged to protect them from disturbance and maintain their in-situ moisture content during transportation to our laboratory. LABORATORY TESTING Samples were examined at our laboratory by the pr~ject geotechnical engineer. Selected samples were subjected to laboratory tests under the supervision of this engineer. 95-167 l So1LTECH ENGtNHetNG AND TESTING INC.----~------------ The in-situ moisture contents of the samples were determined. Absorption swell tests were performed using selected undisturbed samples of the cohesive soils. Absorption swell tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4546, Method B except the consolidation portion of the test was not performed. Common tap water was used to inundate the specimens. The results of the laboratory testing program are shown on Enclosure 2. 95-167 2 So1mcH ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC.---------------- The in-situ moisture contents of the samples were determined. Absorption swell tests were performed using selected undisturbed samples of the cohesive soils. Absorption swell tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4546, Method B except the consolidation portion of the test was not performed. Common tap water was used to inundate the specimens. The results of the laboratory testing program are shown on Enclosure 2. 95-167 2 So1mcH ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC.---------------- -d z ~ B-3 NOT TO SCALE cw"' PROPOSED BUILDING 0B-2 PROCHEMICAL SOIL STABILIZATION OF TEXAS PROPOSED BUILDING POLY AMERICA 0 B-1 BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM •••• 95-167 OCT 16, 1995 So1mcH ENGINEERING AND nsnNG 1Nc. _______________ _ Enclosure 2 Soilt ech Report No. 95-167 Boring No. B-1 B-2 B-3 Boring No. B-1 Boring No. B-3 Depth Ft. 5 - 6 1 -2 3 - 4 Depth ft. 0 -1 1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 5 -6 6 -7 Depth f:t. 0 -1 1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 5 -6 6 -7 MC _L 34 .7 27.1 28.7 31.0 31.9 29.8 . 31. 6 MC _L 22.7 26.5 25.7 23.3 26.9 30 . .2 31.5 SWELL TEST RESULTS MC Before 47.1 31.6 27.1 MC Final 51.9 38.0 30.1 Boring No. B-2 Load CTSF) 0.34 0.09 0.22 Swell (%) 2.0 4.9 1.8 Average 2.9 Depth Ft. 0 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5 - 6 6 -.7 MC _L 23.4 23.6 29.2 27.9 30.4 28.0 28.3 So1LTEc~· ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC.----------------- Enclosure 2 Soiltech Report No. 95-167 Boring No. B-1 B-2 B-3 Boring No. B-1 Boring No. B-3 Depth Ft. 5 - 6 1 - 2 3 - 4 Depth ft. 0 -1 1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 5 5 -6 6 -7 Depth Ft. 0 -1 1 -2 2 -3 3 -4 4 -5 5 -6 6 -7 SWELL TEST RESULTS MC MC Load Bef:Qt:e Einal ('.I'.Sf) 47.1 51.9 0.34 31.6 38.0 0.09 27.1 30.1 0.22 Average MC Boring Depth _l__ HQ. f:t . 34.7 B-2 0 -1 27.1 1 -2 28.7 2 -3 31.0 3 -4 31.9 4 -5 29.8 5 -6 . 31. 6 6 -7 MC ---1..:.. 22.7 26.5 25.7 23.3 26.9 30 . ..2 31.5 Swell ( i l 2.0 4.9 1. 8 2.9 MC _L 23.4 23.6 29.2 27.9 30.4 28.0 28.3 So1mcH· ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC.----------------- REPORT OF SWELL TEST RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE SOILS AFTER STABILIZATION BUILDING V GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS PREPARED FOR: PolyAmerica Grand Prairie, Texas . Soiltech Report No. 95-189.102 January 9 , 1996 -SOILTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC.----- So1LTECH ENGINEERING 1 AND TESTING INC. January 9, 1996 Mr_ John Willingham PolyAmerica 2000 Marshall Drive 7415 Wh1r:e Hall. Su1ce ::109 Fort: Wort::h . Te .'<aS 76118 Fax 817-595-0708 817 -595-0064 Grand Prairie, Texas 75051 Re: Swell Test Results of Subsurface Soils After Stabilization Building V Grand Prairie, Texas Soiltech Report No. 95-189.102 Dear Mr. Willingham: We have completed our testing of the subgrade soils for the subject project in areas K, L, M, N, and O. These soils were tested for swell after stabilization with Condor SS. Results of laboratory testing are attached. The swells ranged from 0.0 to 2.0 percent, with averages in each boring ranging from 0.6 to 0.9 percent. No single swell exceeded 2.0 percent. We appreciate this opportunity to work with you on this phase of your project. If you have any questions or if we can be of assistance, please contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, SOILTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC. ~~m*. Vice President, Operations So1mcH ENGINEERING, AND TESTING INC. January 9 , 1996 Mr . John Willingham PolyAmerica 2000 Marshall Drive 7415 Wh1r.e Hall. Su1t:e rt109 Fort: Wort:h . Te :-:as 76118 Fax 817-595-0708 817 -595-0064 Grand Prairie, Texas 75051 Re: Swell Test Results of Subsurface Soils After Stabilization Building V Grand Prairie, Texas Soiltech Report No. 95-189.102 Dear Mr. Willingham: We have completed our testing of the subgrade soils for the subject project in areas K, L, M, N, and O. These soils were tested for swell after stabilization with Condor SS. Results of laboratory testing are attached. The swells ranged from 0.0 to 2.0 percent, with averages in each boring ranging from 0.6 to 0.9 percent. No single swell exceeded 2.0 percent . We appreciate this opportunity to work with you on this phase of your project. If you have any questions or if we can be of assistance, please contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, SOILTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC . b?a2m~· Vice President, Operations I l SCOPE OF WORK SWELL TEST RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE SOILS AFTER STABILIZATION BUILDING V, POLYAMERICA GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS The scope of work consisted of field sampling and laboratory testing of the subsurface soils at the site of Building V, PolyAmerica in Grand Prairie, Texas. F_IELD_.O PERA TLONS Test borings were drilled at the site on December 14 and 27, 1995, at the approximate locations shown on the Boring Location Diagram, Enclosure 1. A truck-mounted auger drilling rig was used to advance these borings and to obtain samples for laboratory evaluation. Undisturbed specimens of cohesive soils were obtained by continuous sampling with standard, thin-walled, seamless tube samplers, in accordance with ASTM D 1587. These specimens were extruded in the field, logged, sealed and packaged to protect them from disturbance and maintain their in-situ moisture content during transportation to our laboratory. 95-189.102 1 -SOILTECH ENGINEERING ANO TESTING INC.---------"'"---------- LABORATORY TESTING Samples were examined at our laboratory by the project geotechnical engineer. Selected samples were subjected to laboratory tests under the supervision of this engineer. Absorption swell tests were performed using selected undisturbed samples of the cohesive soils. Absorption swell tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4546, Method B except the consolidation portion of the test was not performed. Common tap water was used to inundate the specimens. The results of the l aboratory testing program are shown on Enclosure 2. 95-189.102 2 .sQILTECH ENGINEERI NG AND TESTING INC .------------------- LABORATORY TESTING Samples were examined at our laboratory by the project geotechn ical engineer. Selected samples were subjected to laboratory tests under the supervision of this engineer . Absorption swell tests were performed using selected undisturbed samples of the cohesive soils. Absorption swell tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4546, Method B except the consolidation portion of the test was not performed . Common tap water was used to inundate the specimens. The results of the laboratory testing program are shown on Enclosure 2 . 95-189.102 2 .So1rncH ENGINEE~ING AND TESTING INC.------------------ ~ t J i I . w I.:) I <t ~ a ...... (11 ' ! w I C/l ! a = 0 7P I w ~ ' <r ~ I ; 70 0 ?S 0 ; : ~:J ' 0 7N I 0 7 R 7M 0 I 700 ~ z I -a::: 0 7L 0 7H 0 7D ' ;::) I ...... I I u I I <C 7C 0 ' t.. 7K 0 7F' 0 I 2 Ci: :::!: I 0 7J 0 7G 0 78 I . 7[ 0 7E 0 7A ~ ' 600' ~IDT TO SCALE 1::1 ...... P OL YAM ERICA BOP ING LOC A rroN DI~GRMI GRANO PRAIRIE. TC<AS ~Oj-c't ~ ~J .C 'W No. Oet. BUILDING V 95-189 DE C .+. L ':"'?5 ~OIL ill Gl.NHRING~D_illTI~ IHL r.~1r 1 n '"'1 1C'C" I -· LIE_C SWELL TEST RESULTS Boring Depth MC MC Load Swell No. Ft. Before Final (TSF) (%) K 2 I -3 I 27.1 30.3 0.16 0 .2 4 I -5 I 33 .4 36.5 0 .28 2.0 5 I -6 I 3 3 . 3 35.8 0.34 0 .3 L l'-2' 25.0 28.6 0 .09 1 .2 5 I -6 I 29.2 32.2 0.34 0.7 6'-7' 33.5 36.7 0.41 0.8 M 1 1 -2 I 22.3 24.6 .094 1.3 4 I -5 I . 32.8 35.6 .281 0 6'-7' 28.3 30.8 .406 0.4 N 2'-3' 29.7 31.S .156 0.6 4'-5' 19.6 22.5 0.28 0.2 6 I -7 I 28 .2 30.7 .406 0 .1 0 2'-3' 23.8 25.5 .156 0.8 4'-5' 25.S 28.6 .281 0 6'-7' 30.9 32.0 .406 0 .1 Enclosure 1 OILTECH ENGI NEERING AND TESTING INC.------------------- SWELL TEST RESULTS Bor i ng Depth MC MC Load Swell No . Ft . Before Final (TSF) ( % ) K 2 I -3 I 27 .1 30 .3 0.16 0 .2 4 I -5 I 33 .4 36.5 0 .28 2 .0 5 I -6 I 33.3 35 .8 0 . 34 0.3 L l 1 -2 I 25 .0 28 .6 0 .09 1 .2 5 I -6 I 29.2 32.2 0 .34 0 .7 6 '-7' 33.5 36 .7 0.41 0 .8 M l 1 -2 I 22.3 24.6 .094 1.3 4 I -5 I . 32 .8 35.6 .281 0 6 I -7 I 28 .3 30.8 .406 0.4 N 2'-3' 29.7 31.5 .156 0.6 4'-5' 19.6 22 .S 0.28 0 .2 6'-7' 28 .2 30 .7 .406 0 .1 0 2'-3' 23 .8 25.S .156 0.8 4'-5' 25 .S 28 .6 .281 0 6 '-7' 30 .9 32 .0 .406 0.1 Enclosure 2 OILTECH ENG INEERI NG AND TESTI NG INC .------------------- Transportation Complex -DFW Airport So1LTECH ENGINEERING 1 AND TESTING INC. ,"!=. 3cb ~c=:: i=-:;r--: 11'/cr--:.-. 7"~-.3s -:--::;· ·=: i=3~ s ~ 7-::::::;-. .::7CS ?==C~emica_ Seil Sta~ilizatic~ cf Texas, !~c. 7~:..s Wl::.i=e ~all, Sui:: 1:0 ?o=::: We==~. 7:xas 76:1.a Re: Swell Test Results of SL!bsu=face Soils P=io= To Stabilization T=ar:s;ar::atian Complex DFW, Texas Soiltec:i Report: No. 95-171 Dear Mr. Ho!:":!.: We have ccm!=leted au= test:ing of the Subg=ad.e soils far t2:e subjec: .;i=oj ect:. These soils we=e tested fa= moisture content a.r:C. swel.:. p=ior to st:abilizaticr: with Condor SS. testi~g a=e attachec. The swells rar:ged f::-cm O. 2 to 12. O pe=cent, with an ave::-age c: 5. :.: 9e=-ce~t. Maiscu=e contents ranged f=om 15.l ta 32.9 pe=cenc . We appreciate this cppo::-t:unity to work witc you on tl:i.s :;:!:ase c: you = 9rcj ect. If you have any questions or if we ca:: .l:e c: assistance, please contact us at you= convenience. Ve-:::y t::-u_y you::-s, SO!LT~C~ ENGINEERING A.i.'ID TSST!NG, INC. ~~e~ Vice ?resicent, Ope::-ations REPORT OF SWELL TEST RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE SOILS PRIOR TO STABILIZATION TRANSPORTATION COMPLEX DFW, TEXAS PREPARED FOR: ProChemical Soil Stabilization of Texas, Inc. Fort Worth, Texas Soiltech Report No. 95-171 November 8, 1995 So1trEcH ENGINEERING AND TESTING 1Nc. ----------------- 5__C OPE OF WORK SWELL TEST RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE SOILS PRIOR TO STABILIZATION TRANSP ORTATION COMPLEX DFW, TEXAS The scope of work c o ns ~sted of field sampling and l aboratory testing of the subsurface soils at the Transportation Complex at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. FIELD OPERATIONS Pre-injection test borings were drilled at the site on October 13, 1995, at the approximate locations shown on .the Boring Location Diagram, Enclosure 1 . The boring locations were selected by a representative of ProChemical in the field. A truck-mounted a u ger drilling rig was used to advance these borings and to obtain samples for laboratory evaluation. Undisturbed specimens of cohesive soils were obtained by continuous sampling with standard, thin-walled, seamless tube samplers, in 95-171 1 So1mcH ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC.------------------ SCOPE OF WORK SWELL TEST RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE SOILS PRIOR TO STABILIZATION TRANSPORTATION COMPLEX DFW, TEX.AS The scope of work cons~sted of field sampling and laboratory testing of the subsurface soils at the Transportation Complex at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. FIELD OPERATIONS Pre-injection test borings were drilled at the site on October 13, 1995, at the approximate locations shown on .the Boring Location Diagram, Enclosure 1. The boring locations were selected by a representative of ProChemical in the field. A truck-mounted auger drilling rig was used to advance these borings and to obtain samples for laboratory evaluation. Undisturbed specimens of cohesive soils were obtained by continuous sampling with standard, thin-walled, seamless tube samplers, in 95-171 1 So1LTECH ENGINEER!~~ AND TESTING INC.------------------ accordance with ASTM D 1587. These specimens were extruded in the field, logged, sealed and packaged to protect them from disturbance and maintain their in-situ moisture content during transportation to our laboratory . LABORATORY TESTING Samples were examined at our laboratory by the project geotechnical engineer. Selected samples were subjected to laboratory tests under the supervision of this engineer . The in-situ moisture contents of the samples were determined . Absorption swell tests were performed using selected undisturbed samples of the cohesive soils. Absorption swell tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4546, Method B except the consolidation portion of the test was not performed. Common tap water was used to inundate the specimens. The results of the laboratory testing program are shown on Enclosure 2. 95-171 2 .SOJLTECH ENGINEERTNG AND TESTING INC.----------------- -d z ~r-1 43 '-1 w u ........ u. u. 0 a.. 0 I (I) 24 ' ~ NOT TO SCALE .--- B-1 88' --j I B-2 µ t 24' t 37' M B-1 0 ~ROCH E MICAL SOIL STABILIZATION FT \JORTH, TE X AS BORING LD C A TI ON DIAGRAM """"~ -D••• TRANSPORTATION COMPL E X DF\J, T E XAS 95-171 NOV 9, 1995 .::,QILTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC . --------------10E:~1>1 ~Clo.i.CJ~s: .... 11 ~!i!E:--..l -- ~r-143'-l w u -u.... u.... 0 0.. 0 I (/) 24' ~ NOT TO SCALE - B-1 88' --j I B-2 µ t 24' t 37' H B-1 r-- 0 _J L:J z 0 ~ROCHEMICAL SOIL STABILIZATION FT \JORTH, TEXAS BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM p,...,,~- TRANSPORTATION COMPLEX DF\J, TEXAS 95-171 D•t • NOV 9, 1995 ·~OILTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC . ----------------.E:-.NC ..... L .... CJ .... ~ ..... 11...,.R( ........... 1-- ---------- Enclosure 2 Report No.: 95-171 November 14, 1995 Boring Depth Moist. Na Ft Cant B-1 0'-1' 15.1 l'-2' 29.0 2 I -3 I 24.4 3'-4' 27.5 4'-5' 28.9 5'-6' 20.4 B-2 0'-1/2' 21.5 1/2 '-l' 31. 7 l'-2' 25.3 2 '-3' 28.1 3'-4' 22.7 4 '-5' 32.9 5'-6' 23.8 6'-7' 23.8 B-3 0'-1/2' 17.9 1/2'-l' 22.3 l'-2' 25.1 2 I -3 I 24.2 3'-4' 27.2 4'-5' 26.4 5'-6' 20.3 6'-7' 25.3 SHELL_TEST_RESULTS Dry Int. Fin Swell Dens it¥ Ma..is.L Moist .0:1. 97.1 27.6 34.2 10.2 84.7 25.0 27.5 0.2 101.1 22.8 25 .8 2 .2 103.9 21. 9 29.8 12.0 So 1m cH ENG INEE RING AND TE STI NG INC.------------------ ~ or-1-c..cxr. h "([, 11'1 -~~ s- MAXIM ENGINEERS, INC. •W Bivouac AtM/Sldg. 9, OIFW Airport. TX 75261 •Mailing Addreu: P.O. Box 59902 •Oda, TX 752 ~ EnoJine«ing ~ Envlronmenml Consutanlll (21•) 57~1 • F~ (21•) 574-01 ~ SUMMARY OF SWELL TEST REPORT 10/28/95 10/18/95 To Project ~ Dallas/Fort Worth 1ntemational Airport Board, Airport Developmenr Department 1003401284 Project 9500021 -Transportation Complex Relocation -Phase II; Project No. 25187 ldentif1c::11ion Method o( Test Summary of Swell Tests per Item P-161 ASTM D 4546, Method Band ASTM D 4318 1453 ~rn~·~ I I . ubNo T 1 I 19 95 I ::::~ tOsts and Atterberg Limns tests were performed on sam pie borings obtainl :~ P1'\ b~ ·refi>reni::..i project s<e . The results are as follows : ! . __ ..._ •_:..;r.'::::._ __ . __ _;. AFTER INJECTION -BORING N0 ~.2:t :(pfoChem)'~i:S•••:Attached Sketch . DEPTH (fHt) INITIAL : FINAL ·· · >UNrTDRY':: }: APPUEO :'tY£RTICAL ·: .. :,PLASTICITY MOISTURE .···WEIGHT . : /SURCHARGE . ''SWEll.:WmF ,.· INDEX MOISTURE.' ('Jr.) . (%) · .. : (1b.jtt;3,:) .. ·,".'.· .. ·• •.•.•.·.:.·.·::"".:.: .. '>~~~ •. ·::'.·,·.· .. ·· .. ··· ..• Sl1RCH.M:GE (Pl) 11"-i •>< :: (.%). '< •.. 2-3 33.1 35.4 87.2 500.00 1.3 26 4.5 26.4 27.4 93.1 750.00 0 .0 41 6-7 26.9 28.0 93.4 1000.00 0 .2 35 Total Feet DriHed: 7 feet -ProChem Technician: S. Casner J!-J) · /sks Rusty Bowers, SET DFW Airport Board • KVG -Jim Clark Laboratory Manager Sedalco, Inc. -Pies Mitchel ./ ct!:. ~ DFW Planning & Design Dept. -Jim Killebrew · 1 ~ DFW Airport Development Dept. -Mika Hartzler ~ ' DFW Maintenance Department -Jim Franklin ussein H. busaad, P. . File Index No. 8.1.11 Project Manager This report ii for the sole ure f' the dienr 1ddrened. The use of oar company name must receive our prior wrin.en conrenL Thil repon 1pplies only to the sample tested . an d does nor necinnnly represen ideniial or siinilar samples. . 9S-T1006 2 WAlaM ~. IPfC. MAXIM ENGI NEERS, INC. 4W BivolJc AIH/Sldg . 9 . O/FW Airport. TX 75261 • "4ailing Address: P.O. Box 59902 •Calla, TX 152 &19'"-rlnQ ~ Environment.Ill Cone"1ants (214) 57......,...51 • F~ (214) !74-0t sz SUMMARY OF SWELL n:sT REPORT 10/28/95 S•mple Oue 10/23/95 To Proje<:t ' Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board, Airport Development Department 1003401284 Project ldentiliation 9500021 -Transportation Complex Relocation -Phase II; Project No . 25187 Sununary of Swell Tests per Item P-161 Method of Tttt ASTM D 4546, Method B and ASTM D 4318 ubNo 1471 ~ Results , Swell tests and Atterberg Limits tests were perlormed on sample borings obtained from the above referenced project site . The results are as follows: AFTER INJECTION . .: BORING ,NO. 25,Jf?r0Chem):;; See· Attached Sketch· OEPTH (fHt) 1 -2 3 -4· 5 -6 Total Feet Drilled: 14 feet Technician : S . Casner /sks INrTIAL MOISTURE (%) 30.1 24.6 36.9 DF'N Airport Board -KVG -Jim Clark Sedalco, Inc. -Pies Mitchel FINAL:'.: ?iJNrT:.DA"t<: }. ·: APPUEO:: : MOISTURE · WEIGHT .. SURCHARGE (%) · ' : {lb./ft. 3:>.< \ ·· LOAD .. ·· ... . . ...... ,,, .. ,,,.,., ::,.::\.. ,,. · ··<P•tr.,:.:·< . 32.0 91.0 375.00 28 .0 95.9 625.00 37.4 86.2 875.00 ProChem DF'N Planning & Design Dept. -Jim Killebrew DF'N Airport Development Dept. -Mika Hartzler OF'N Maintenance Department -Jim Franklin VERTICAL PLASTICITY. SWEU. WITH ,·.. INDEX SURCHARGE (Pl) . .· "') 0.5 45 1.6 45 -0.1 45 File Index No. 8.1.11 Project Manager This n?port is for the sole 11se ol the dienl •ddressed. The use of our comp•ny ume must receive our prior wrinea C'OllffDL This rtpon1ppliftonly 10 the rample tested . •nd d~ not neoessuily reprennl idcntial or riinilar s.mpltt. 9S ·T''101\6 MAXIM ~. IN<:. 0 MAXIM ENGINEERS, INC. 4W Bivouac Area/Bldg . 9 . D/FW Airport. TX ~261 • Mail ing Address : P.O. Box S9902 •Calla, TX 7szl Engir-in; and Environmental Cons"'1.wrts (214) 574-4451 • F~ ('214) 574-01 ! SUMMARY OF SWELL n:sT REPORT Report Cale 10/28/95 Sample Cate 10/23/95 To Projeci # Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board, Airport Development Department 1003401284 Projeci Identification 9500021 -Transportation Complex Relocation -Phase II ; Project No . 25187 Summary of Swell Tests per Item P-161 Method of Tesr ASTM D 4546 , Method B and ASTM D 4318 !...lb No 1471 ~ Results , Swell tests and Atterberg Limits tests were performed on sample borings obtained from the above referenced project site . The results are as follows : I AFTER INJECTION ~:BORING)lfO• 2$,:JP..OChem):.;; See Attached Sketch· · . DEPTH (fHl) 1 • 2 3 . 4' 5. 6 Total Feet Drilled : 14 feet Technician: S . Casner /sks INrTIAL MOISTURE (%) 30 .1 24.6 36.9 DFW Airport Board -KVG -Jim Clari< Sedalco, Inc. -Pies Mitchel FINAL:'', .. , :t uNrr ·aRv< ·/.:::: APPuEo::·' .:: MOISTURE : WEIGHT ,:: 1 ; SURCHAR(iE :·,(%)/· · ·_.,., .· {Jb./ft.;3: )<.: 1;::.:,,.. LOAD.: :": .. .. · .. :: .. , .... :::.. ... ,: .. . " ......... [::: ':.::. (pst)· .-::.",.,"· 32.0 91.0 375 .00 28.0 95.9 625.00 37.4 86.2 875.00 ProChem DFW Planning & Design Dept. -Jim Killebrew OFW Airport Development Dept. -Mike Hartzler DFW Maintenance Department -Jim Franklin . VERTICAL · · · PLASTICITY · SWELL WITli INDEX SURCHARGE: (Pl) ·.·~) 0.5 45 1.6 45 -0.1 45 File Index No. 8 .1.11 Project Manager I This report is for 1he sole use 0 / the d ient id dressed. The use of our company name musr receive out prior wriuea c:onsenL This repon 1pplies only 10 lhe simple tested . ind does not necessarily r!!presenl idcn1 ial or siinil1r Simples. 9S · T~ 1')0~6 WAJ:lM ~. 111<:. MAXIM ENGINEERS , INC. 4W BIYo4Jac AIM/Sldg. 9 . OIFW Airport. TX 75291 • MaillnQ .Add....s : 1'.0 . Bex 59902 • Oelfas. TX 75 27 ~W-ing and Envitonm.m.I Consultants (21'4) 57~1 • Fl.X. (21'4) 574-0 15 : SUMMARY OF SWELL TEST REPORT 10/28/95 10/20/95 To Project II Dallas/Fort Woru'I. Internati onal Airport Board, Airport De velopment Departme nt 1003401284 Project ldenrific:ation 9500021 -Transportation Complex Relocation -Phase II ; Project No . 25 1 87 Summary of Swell Tests per Item P-161 Method o( Tesc ASTM D 4546 , Method B and ASTM D 4318 ~b N o 1463 Raul ti Swell tests and Atterberg Li mits tests were performed on sample borings obtained from the above referenced project site . The results are as follows: . : : AFTER INJECTION -BORING NO ~. 22::(ProChemy ~:See Attached: Sketch DEPTH .·(feet) 1 -2 3-4 5-6 INmAL MOISTURE (%) 29.4 31 .4 22.S FlNAL MOISTURE (%) 32.1 32.4 24 .1 ··.· UNrT ORY . ;'APPUED 0: VERTICAl:':· WEIGHT ·SURCHARGE : SWEL.LWmt · (lb./ft. 3 ) /LOAD ::/· . SURCHARGE · · .: CP•fh /''·' .. ,: (.%),:/;:::.:.:. 92.1 375.00 2.6 89.5 625.00 0.3 98 .6 875 .00 0.0 PLASTIC IT'( "INDEX . (Pl) 48 48 42 AFTER INJECTION -BORING: NO ~ 23 (ProChem):+ See Attached .Sketch DEPTH (f .. t) 2·3 4-5 6 -7 Total Feet Drilled: Technician: S. Casner INITIAL MOISTURE ·. ("l'} 29 .9 24.1 25.S . FINAL . MOISTURE (%) 32.5 25.0 26 .3 13 feet -ProChem 91 .5 500.00 2.3 97.9 750.00 0.0 96.9 1000.00 0.0 /sks Rusty Bowers, SET OFW Airport Board -KVG -Jim Clari< Laboratory Manager 5 1 31 37 Sedalco, Inc. -Pies Mitchel ~.{f#J· DFW Planning & Design Dept. -Jim Killebrew OFW Airport Development Dept. -Mike Hartzler OFW Maintenance Department -Jim Franklin . saad , P .E. File Index No. 8.1 .11 Project Manager This report ii for the sole use o,.the d ient addrened. The use o( our c:ocnpany name must rtteiveour priorwritiH c:onsenL Tllil nrportappliaonly to Ille sacnple rated, and does noc neceuuily reprcsenc idcn 1ical or similar sainpla. 9S ·T1006 J MAXIM DiCll'IUJtS, IHC. d~fh -.1 -dl..o~ MAXIM ENGINEERS, INC . 4W Bivo\Jac Alea/61dg . 9 , D/FW Airport. TX 75261 • Mailing Address : P.O. Bex 5e902 • o.n.. lX 75 ...... ~Mom · Engineering and Environmental Consultanta (214) 57~1 •FAX (214) S7~! SPECIFIC GRAVI1Y OF SURFACTANT REPORT Report Due 10/19/95 S•mple Date 10/16/95 To Project ii Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board, Airport Development Deparonent 1003401284 9500021 -Transportation Complex Relocation -Phase I~; lr{Ffil~ a~167 specific Gravity of Chemical for Item P-161 I II D a \fl ~ Item P-161 ... ~ CT Q ~ Project ldeatifiation Method o( Test Time Tested 07 :30 Results 0. Ratliff Ticket No.: Sampled by: ·Location: Barrels #071 O and #0712, undiluted Condor (ProChem) to be mixed with water for injection at South Parking, south of building. Sample No.: 1439 ..••.•... SPECIAC::::::::::·\:\ · .. .. ·• ··• GRAVITY >· .. : .·•· ··· ... · .... \·.·:.::;·,::·=:i·.·~A~:~~J°l~~~R~~:+e~H::\: •::·::· ..·.·. : ·csi)8ci11c: Grivlty). · 1.16 At least 1.15 NOTE: llJ From submitted data. Jim Clark, Construction Manager, was notified of test results on 10/16/95 . Technician: D. Ratliff /sks .. DPN Airport Board • KVG -Jim Clark Sedalco, Inc. -Pies Mitchel .,,.. DPN Planning & Design Dept. • Jim Killebrew DPN Airport Development Dept. -Mike Hartzler File Index No. 8.1 .11 1V Rusty Bowers, SET Laboratory Manager c/;~(!.f.i;P Project Manager fi~T r . L:J ; This report is (or 1he sole use of t he diea11ddressed. Tbe ase o( our company oame m111t rtt>eive our pr1or wrinca C'ODSHL This rcpon1ppliaonly 10 the simple tes~d. 1ad does not ne~sarily represeat id e ntical or similar samples. . 9S·T100'40 MAXIM~. INC. ! d1tft -/~A.. MAXIM ENGINEERS, INC . liW Bivouac Area/Bldg . 9, 0/FW Airport. TX 7526 1 • Mailing Address : P.O. Box 5Q9o2 • o.n.. TIC 752, · Engi,...ring and Environmental Consultanta (2 14) 574-4451 •FAX (214) 57~1 1 SPECIFIC GRAVI1Y OF SURFACTANT REPORT Report D•le To Proje ct II Project 10/19/95 Simple Dace 10/16/95 Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board, Airport Development Department 1003401284 9500021 -Transportation Complex Relocation -Phase I~; [ryi~ da1S7 ··;. Specific Gravity of Chemical for Item P-161 I/I D a \fl ~ [n i: Item P-161 . ~ CT Q DE f LJ I ··-..., L:J . l4eo1 ifiation Me1hod o( Te!! Time Te.sled 07:30 : Resu lts Sampled by: ·Location : 0 . Ratliff Ticket No .: n/a Barre ls #071 O and #0712, undiluted Condor (ProChem) to be mixed with water for injection at South Parking, south of building. Sample No.: 1439 .. s· PE. c1Ft· c" :.::: ... '.:.=.·,·=.:·.=.=,::·,'·'·'·' ... '.':·:.:·= .... =:.::-:.·.'.'.:,'.:,·= > :;:::=\;=:::./:= .,M~~.YFA .C:.Tt:J~E~'.S O~!~~}L+:-:=:\, · : =:·>REQUIREMENTS :':}:··, . . ·: GRAVITV ./.: :. . . '·.:· ··:· ": . . :: : (s 'i)8cmc Gravity) : . 1.16 At least 1 . 15 NOTE: 111 Fr om submitted data. Jim Clark, Construction Manager, was notified of test results on 10/16/95. Technician : D . Ratliff /sks DPW Airport Board . KVG -Jim Clark Sedalco, Inc. -Pies Mitchel ....- DPW Planning & Des ign Dept. -Jim Killebrew DPW Airport Development Dept. -Mike Hartzler File Index No. 8 .1.11 Rusty Bowers, SET Laboratory Manager {j;~fE.fP Project Manager . I This report is for che sole use o( che dieot addressed. The ose o( our comp.any oame muse rea:ive our pr1or wrineo coaseaL This repon 1ppliesonly to the sainple le.sud. •od does noc ne~ssaril y represeoc identical or 1iinil1r sainples. 95 -Tl00-40 MAXIM El'ICIHe:JIS, IHC. ! I MAXIM ENGINEERS, INC. 4W Blvouc .AIM/Bldg. 9. C/F'W Allport. TX 75291 • Mu""J .Addrea: P.O. Box 59902 •Callas. TX 75:2 2" Engir-rinQ and Etwlronm.m.I Conautants (214) 574-44.51 • FAX (214) 574-01 5 : SPECIFIC GRAVIlY OF SURFACTANT REPORT Repor t O•lc 10/19/95 S•mple Dote 10/16/95 To Project # Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board, Airport Development Department 1003401284 Jd.,nri/io1ion 9500021 . Transportation Complex Relocation -Phase II; Project No. 25187 Speci fic Graviry of Chemical for Icem P -161 Method of Tes1 Item P -161 Time Tcsied 12:30 Resuhs Sampled by: D. Ratliff Ticket No .: n/a Location: Barrels #0173 and #0175, undiluted Condor (ProChem) to be mixed with water for injection at South Parking, south of building. Sample No.: 1440 SPECIAC · GRAVITY 1.15 NOTE: 111 From submitted data. • MANUFACTURER'S OATA 1'1 · ',REQUIREMENTS · .. · · cspeciflc"C:iravity) ... ·/·.·: At least 1.15 Jim Clark, Construction Manager, was notified of test results on 10/16/95. Technician: D . Ratliff /sks DF'N Airport Board • KVG • Jim Clark Sedalco, Inc .• Pies Mitchel DF'N Planning & Design Dept. -Jim Killebrew DF'N Airport Development Dept. • Mike Hartzler File Index No. 8 .1.11 ,n Rusty Bowers, SET :s;;;;/t?w ~~ein H. Abusaad, P.E. Project Manager T11is '"port is for 1he sole use of the cl ient 1ddressed. The use of our c:omp10y name muu rece ive our pr ior written consent. Thil rtport •ppliesonly ro 1be 11mple 1es1cd. i nd docs no1 necessuily represent id4'ntical or similu s•mples. 95 ·Tl00-4 I MA.XJM ~. IHC. ! JMC Homes -Irving, Tx ( GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENCE 2226 CLEARSPRINGS DRIVE NORTH • IRVING, TEXAS Prepared For JMC Homes Coppell, Texas September 25, 1995 SOILTECH Report No. 95-148 --~S~o~I TECH ENGINEERlNG AND TESTING INC.---------------- , . So1LTECH ENGINEERING 1 AND TESTING INC. September 25, 1995 Mr. Keith Falls JMC Homes 7.a15 \Nh1i::e Hall. Sui r:e =109 Fort: Wcrt:h. Texas 7611 S Fax 817-555-0708 817-595-0064 1330 Bradford Drive Coppell, Texas 75019 Re: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residence Lot 7, Block D, Hackberry Creek Phase III 2226 Clearsprings Drive North Irving, Texas SOILTECH Report No. 95-148 Dear Mr. Falls: Attached is our geotechnical report for the above referenced project. This study was authorized on September 12, 1995. It has been a pleasure to perform this work for you. If, during the course of this project we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call on us. Sincerely, SOILTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC. b.Y.<fi1~t:E. Vice President, Operations JEC: js Attachment GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENCE 2226 CLEARSPRINGS DRIVE NORTH IRVING, TEXAS 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION The project consists of a new single family residence located at 2226 Clearsprings Drive North in the Hackberry Creek Phase III, in Irving, Texas. 2.0 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION The purposes of the study were to: 1) explore the subsurfa.ce c~ndi tions at the site, 2) evaluate the pertinent engineering properties of the subsurface materials, 3) provide recommendations concerning suitable types of foundation systems for the proposed structure including the use of a monolithic, slab-on-grade and 4) provide comments and recommendations concerning site grading. 3.0 FIELD OPERATIONS Two test borings were drilled at the site on September 14, 1995 at the approximate locations shown in the Boring Location Diagram in the Appendix. A truck-mounted auger drilling rig was used to advance these borings and to obtain samples for laboratory evaluation. Undisturbed specimens of cohesive soils were obtained at intermittent intervals with standard, thin-walled, seamless ttibe samplers. These specimens were extruded in the field, logged, sealed and packaged to protect them from disturbance and maintain their in-situ moisture content during transportation to our laboratory. 95-148 1 ~sOILTECH ENGINEE~ING AND TESTING INC.------------------ GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENCE 2226 CLEARSPRINGS DRIVE NORTH IRVING, TEXAS 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION The project consists of a new single family residence located at 2226 Clearsprings Drive North in the Hackberry Creek Phase III, in Irving, Texas. 2.0 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION The purposes of the study were to: 1) explore the subsurface c-:indi tions at the site, 2) evaluate the pertinent engineering properties of the subsurface materials, 3) provide recommendations concerning suitable types of foundation systems for the proposed structure including the use of a monolithic, slab-on-grade and 4) provide comments and recommendations concerning site grading. 3.0 FIELD OPERATIONS Two test borings were drilled at the site on September 14, 1995 at the approximate locations shown in the Boring Location Diagram in the Appendix. A truck-mounted auger drilling rig was used to advance these borings and to obtain samples for laboratory evaluation. Undisturbed specimens of cohesive soils were obtained at intermittent intervals with standard, thin-walled, seam.less ttibe samplers. These specimens were extruded in the field, logged, sealed and packaged to protect them from disturbance and maintain their in-situ moisture content during transportation to our laboratory. 95-148 1. So1LTECH ENG I NEE~IN~ AND TESTING rNc . ------------------ Where very shaly soils were encountered, an indication of their engineering properties was obtained by means of the Standard Penetration Test. This test consists of determining the number of blows required for a 140 pound ham.mer falling 30 inches to drive a standard split-spoon sampler 12 inches into the soil. The resul ts of the boring program are presented on the Records of Subsurface Exploration in the Appendix. 4.0 LABOBATORY TESTING Samples were examined at our laboratory by the project geotechnical engineer. Selected samples were subjected to laboratory tests under the supervision of this engineer. The in-situ unit weight and moisture content of the samples were determined and used in conjunction with the Atterberg Limits tests to evaluate the potential volumetric change of the different strata, and as an indication of the unifornlity of the material. Unconfined compression tests were perforl!led on selected undisturbed samples of the cohesive soils to evaluate the strength of these materials. Absorption swell tests were performed using selected undisturbed sample of the clays. These test were performed for the purpose of evaluating the swell potential of these soils at their in-situ moisture contents. 95-148 2 ~sOILTEC H ENG INEERING AND TESTING INC .----------------- f The results of our testing program are presented on the Records of Subsurface Exploration and Swell Test Results included in the Appendix. 5.0 SUBSQRFACE CONDITIONS 5.1 Stratigraphy The subsurface conditions encountered in the borings are presented on the Records of Subsurface Exploration in the Appendix. Descriptions of the various strata and their depths and thicknesses-. are given. A brief summary of the stratigraphy indicated by the borings is given below. A yellowish brown, olive, and dark brown clay was encountered at the surface and extended to depths of 2.5 to 5.5 feet. Underlying this clay is a yellowish brown and gray shaly clay extending to depths of 14 to 26 feet. Beneath this shaly clay is a dark gray shaly cle extending to the maximum depths explored. 5.2 Physical Properties A tabulation of the physical properties of the various soil ~ is give below: 95-148 3 The results of our testing program are presented on the Records of Subsurface Exploration and Swell Test Results included in the Appendix. 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5.1 Stratigraphy The subsurface conditions encountered in the borings are presented on the Records of Subsurface Exploration in the Appendix. Descri ptions of the various strata and their depths and thicknesses .. are given. A brief summary of the stratigraphy indicated by the borings is given below. A yellowish brown, olive, and dark brown clay was encountered at the surface and extended to depths of 2.5 to 5.5 feet. Underlying this clay is a yellowish brown and gray shaly clay extending to depths of 14 to 26 feet. Beneath this shaly clay is a dark gray shaly cle extending to the maximum depths explored. 5.2 Physical Properties A tabulation of the physical properties of the various soil ~ is give below: 95-148 3 <::~,, ·~.1""11 .,,,..,, .... ._,,,,... . I l t I I '' soil Description LL PL PI Unconfined Compressive Strength (KSF) Yellowish brown, 66 -74 23 -30 41 -44 olive, and dark brown clay Yellowish brown 68 26 42 and gray clay Dark gray shaly 9.0 -11.34 clay Atterberg Limits test and absorption swell test results indicate that the clay soils encountered at this site are highly active . These soils are subject to significant volume changes (expansion or contraction) with fluctuations in their moisture content. 5.3 Groundwater The borings were advanced using continuous flight augers allowing observation of groundwater during drilling operations. Both borings were dry at completion. Groundwater seepage was not encountered during drilling operations and both borings were dry upon completion. Seasonal variations in groundwater levels due to fluctuations in precipitation should be anticipated. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS The moisture induced volume changes associated with the active clay soils present at this site indicate that shallow or near surf ace footings or foundation systems would be subject to differential movements of a potentially detrimental magnitude. 95-148 4 So1mcH ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC.---------------- 7.0 RECOMHENDATIONS 7.1 Foundation System The most positive means of supporting the proposed residence would be a pier and beam type foundation system. The piers should be drilled and underreamed, reinforced concrete shafts founded at a minimum depth of 17 feet below existing or finished grade, whichever is deeper. Moisture fluctuations below this depth should be minor. A net allowable bearing pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot is recommended for use in proportioning these shafts. This value contains a safety factor of 3. Theses shafts will be subject to uplift as a result of heave in the overlying clays. The potential magnitude of these loads varies with the shaft diameter, soil parameters, and particularly the in-situ moisture levels at the time of construction. They can be approximated at this site by assuming a uniform uplift of 1,800 pounds per square foot over the shaft perimeter for a depth of 10 feet. Underreamed shafts should have a base to shaft diameter ratio of between 2 and 3 to 1 to provide adequate anchorage to resist potential uplift loads induced by heaving in the overlying clays. The shafts must contain sufficient continuous vertical reinforcing steel to resist the computed uplift loads. 95-148 5 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Foundation Svstem The most positive means of supporting the proposed residence would be a pier and beam type foundation system. The piers should be drilled and underreamed, reinforced concrete shafts founded at a minimum depth of 17 feet below existing or finished grade, whichever is deeper. Moisture fluctuations below this depth should be minor. A net allowable bearing pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot is recommended for use in proportioning these shafts. This value contains a safety factor of 3. Theses shafts will be subject to uplift as a result of heave in the overlying clays. The potential magnitude of these loads varies with the shaft diameter, soil parameters, and particularly the in-situ moisture levels at the time of construction. They can be approximated at this site by assuming a uniform uplift of 1,800 pounds per square foot over the shaft perimeter for a depth of 10 feet. Underreamed shafts should have a base to shaft diameter ratio of between 2 and 3 to 1 to provide adequate anchorage to resist potential uplift loads · induced by heaving in the overlying clays. The shafts must contain sufficient continuous vertical reinforcing steel to resist the computed uplift loads. 95-148 5 ' ' ~ 7.2 General Considerations for Drilled Shafts Complete installation of individual shafts should be accomplished in one day's operation. Occasional groundwater seepage may be encountered during installation of some of the shafts. Placing the steel and concrete in open shafts immediately after drilling will considerably reduce water and/or soil debris problems. Any excessive water and loose material should be removed prior to placing concrete in the open shafts. Concrete placed in a dry shaft should have a slump of 6 inches plus or minus 1 inch. The concrete should be placed in a manner to avoid striking the reinforcing steel during placement. Complete installation of individual shafts should be accomplished within an a hour period and preferably as rapidly as possible in order to prevent deterioration of bearing surf aces and to reduce the possibility of seepage problems and desiccation of the exposed clays. Allowable bearing capacity recommendations provided in this report are based on proper construction procedures, including maintaining a dry shaft excavation and proper cleaning of bearing surfaces prior to placing reinforcing steel and concrete. 7.3 Grade Beams All grade beams should be supported by drilled shafts and a minimum void space of 8 inches provided between the bottom of these members and the subgrade. This void will serve to minimize I distress resulting from swell pressures generated by the clays. 95-148 6 structural cardboard forms are one acceptable means of providing this void beneath cast-in-place beams. A soil retainer should be provided to help prevent in-filling of the void. The grade beam excavations around the perimeter of the building should be carefully backfilled with on-site soils. The backfill soils should be placed at a moisture content between 1 and 4 percentage points wet of optimum. The fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined .by ASTM D 698 . 7.4 Floor Slabs In conjunction with a "pier and beam" founda~ion system, a structurally suspended interior floor system would be the most positive means of assuring the absence of distress in lightly loaded floor slabs situated over active clays. A minimum void space of 12 inches should be provided between the slab and subgrade. The ground surface beneath suspended floor systems should be shaped and drained to prevent the ponding of water. 7.5 Monolithic. Slab-on-Grade Slabs placed on the ground surf ace will be subject to movements as a result of moisture induced volume changes in the surficial clays. These movements are influenced by the soil properties, overburden pressures, surface drainage, and to a great extent by the in situ moisture levels at the time of construction. We estimate that the existing surf icial soils could subject floor 95-148 7 So1LTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC . Structural cardboard forms are one acceptable means of providing this void beneath cast-in-place beams. A soil retainer should be provided to help prevent in-filling of the void. The grade beam excavations around the perimeter of the building should be carefully backfilled with on-site soils. The backfill soils should be placed at a moisture content between 1 and 4 percentage points wet of optimum. The fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined .by ASTM o 698. 7.4 Floor Slabs In conjunction with a "pier and beam" founda~ion system, a structurally suspended interior floor system would be the most positive means of assuring the absence of distress in lightly loaded floor slabs situated over active clays. A minimum void space of 12 inches should be provided between the slab and subgrade. The ground surface beneath suspended floor systems should be shaped and drained to prevent the ponding of water. 7.5 Monolithic. Slab-on-Grade Slabs placed on the ground surf ace will be subject to movements as a result of moisture induced volume changes in the surficial clays. These movements are influenced by the soil properties, overburden pressures, surface drainage, and to a great extent by the in situ moisture levels at the time of construction. We estimate that the existing surf icial soils could subject floor 7 ~ . ' slabs on the ground to moisture induced movements on the order of 6.5 to 12 inches. If consideration is given to the use of a monolithic, slab-on-grade at this site, the moisture induced volume changes associated with the active clays must be taken into account when designing foundation systems for the lightly loaded residential structure . The floor slab for the residence could consist of a concrete slab designed to bear uniformly on select fill over a chemically stabilized subgrade. Movement of the floor slabs constructed at/or near existing grade could be minimized by improving the subsurface conditions beneath the s~abs by stabilizing with an electrochemical. We recommend the use of Condor SS, HB Electrochem, or approved equal, at this site. It should be clearly recognized that the improvement procedures outlined below may not eliminate future movement of slabs-on- grade. In choosing this method of slab movement reduction, the owner is accepting a degree of risk and some post construction movements of foundations. In the past, evidence has indicated that post construction movement of floor slabs has been reduced following completion of a satisfactory subsurface improvement program as outlined below. Although actual subsurface conditions vary from site to site, it is reasonable to assume that suitable results may be expected on the present site. 95-148' 8 So1LTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC .----------------- ' ,, . . . The exposed subgrade of the residence pad plus five feet outside the perimeter should be chemically injected below the excavated surface. Satisfactory completion of the injection process will have been achieved when the desired moisture content and abatement of the expansive potential in the subgrade clay soils have been reached. The performance of post-injection swell testing and moisture content determinations should be employed as acceptance criteria in engineering analysis to examine the accomplishment of the intended objectives of the injection treatment. See section 7.7 Chemical Injection for additional recommendations regarding injection procedures. Maximum benefits of this procedure can only be hoped for provided the entire process is carefully observed and monitored by Soiltech Engineering and Testing, Inc. Between the period of time the excavated subgrade is chemically injected and the select fill is placed~ it is very important that the surface of the soil not be allowed to dry. A water truck should be maintained on site to keep the ground surface moist. As a further means of maintaining the moisture achieved in the chemical l y injected soils, it is advantageous to install deep grade beams (about 24 to 30 inches deep) around the perimeter of the building. In Table A below, estimated total potential vertical rise (PVR) and differential movements of slabs-on-grade are provided as a function of the thickness of select non-expansive soil placed 95-148 9 ' , \ p I I The exposed subgrade of the residence pad plus five feet outside the perimeter should be chemically injected below the excavated surface. Satisfactory completion of the injection process will have been achieved when the desired moisture content and abatement of the expansive potential in the subgrade clay soils have been reached. The performance of post-injection swell testing and moisture content determinations should be employed as acceptance criteria in engineering analysis to examine the accomplishment of the intended objectives of the injection treatment. See section 7.7 Chemical Injection for additional recommendations regarding in j ection procedures. Maximum benefits of this procedure can only be hoped for provided the entire process is carefully observed and monitored by Soiltech Engineering and Testing, Inc. Between the period of .time the excavated subgrade is chemically injected and the select fill is placed, it is very important that the surface of the soil not be allowed to dry. A water truck should be maintained on site to keep the ground surface moist. As a further means of maintaining the moisture achieved in the chemically injected soils, it is advantageous to install deep grade beams (about 24 to 30 inches deep) around the perimeter of the building. In Table A below, estimated total potential vertical rise (PVR) and differential movements of slabs-on-grade are provided as a function of the thickness of select non-expansive soil placed 95-148 9 ·, I • I between the bottom of the floor slab and chemically stabilized subgrade for a 10 feet injection depth. These estimated movements have been developed assuming that the chemical injection has reduced the potential swell to 2.0 percent within the treated zone. Thickness Table A Estimated PVR (inches) For Select Fill over Chemically Stabilized Subgrade of Select Fill Injected 10' Select Fill Only 0 ·3.s 12.0 2 2.5 10.0 7.6 Select Fill -- The material used as select fill should be a very sandy clay or clayey sand with a liquid limit of less than 35, a plasticity index between 4 and 15, and a minimum dry unit weight of 110 pcf. It should be spread in loose lifts, less than 9 inches thick, and uniformly compacted to a minimum of 9~ percent of maximum dry density within -2% to +3% of optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with ASTM D 698. Prior to placing the select fill, the upper 6 inches of the clay subgrade in the proposed building area should be scarified and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 698, at or to +4% of the optimum moisture content as determined by that test. 95-148 10 ·<-.. ---.. -.. -.. ·---···- ' , ' When installing select fill below existing grades, positive drainage must be provided away from the structure to prevent the ponding of water in the select fill. Care must be taken that backfill against the exterior face of grade beams is properly compacted on-site clay. The select fill should not extend outside the limits of the structure. 7.7 Chemical Injection Chemical injection is recommended at this site to help mitigate the effects of swelling soils. Chemical stabilizers recommended include either sulfonated naphthalene or potassium based stabilizers. General Specifications for the pressure injection processes are included in the Appendix of this report. Compliance with these specifications is essential if maximum benefits are to be gained. However, the use of these materials will not eliminate the risk of unacceptable movements. We recommend the injection process be observed on a full time basis by Soiltech personnel. The pressure injection process increases the moisture levels in the clays, which serves to pre-swell these soils; therefore, some increase in the elevation at the injected surface could occur. 7.8 Building Pad Preparation Any surface water in the building pad area will need to be drained in order to allow these soil·s to dry sufficiently to be properly compacted. If shallow groundwater prevents proper compaction of the subgrade soils, subdrains may be needed to help dry the soils in the building area. 95-148 11 , ----- When installing select fill below existing grades, positive drainage must be provided away from the structure to prevent the ponding of water in the select fill. Care must be taken that backfill against the exterior face of grade beams is properly compacted on-site clay. The select fill should not extend outside the limits of the structure. 7.7 Chemical Injection Chemical injection is recommended at this site to help mitigate the effects of swelling soils. Chemical stabilizers recommended include either sulfonated naphthalene or potassium based stabilizers. General Specifications for the pressure injection -------processes are included in the Appendix of this report. Compliance with these specifications is essential if maximum benefits are to be gained. However, the use of these materials will not eliminate the risk of unacceptable movements. We recommend the injection process be observed on a full time basis by Soiltech personnel. The pressure injection process increases the moisture levels in the clays, which serves to pre-swell these soils; therefore, some increase in the elevation at the injected surface could occur. 7.8 Building Pad Preparation Any surface water in the building pad area will need to be drained in order to allow these soil·s to dry sufficiently to be properly compacted. If shallow groundwater prevents proper compaction of the subgrade soils, subdrains may be needed to help dry the soils in the building area. 95-148 11 .. A minimum of the upper a inches, or more, depending upon the pad subgrade preparation, should be stripped from the building pad area. The exposed subgrade should be proof rolled to identify any soft areas which may exist following stripping of the surf icial soils. Proof rolling should be accomplished with a minimum of 3 passes of a vibratory type roller equipment. Any soft or pumping zones detected should be excavated to firm ground and properly backfilled. After proof rolling and replacement and/or recompaction of any soft areas identified, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of about 6 inches and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of ASTM D 698 near (-1% to +4%) the optim~ moisture content. The proofrolling procedure is also recommended beneath the driveway in order to reduce possible settlement due to vehicle loads. 7.9 Site Grading and Drainage The on-site soils may be used as fills in open areas to establish finished grades across the site. Site grading can affect the potential movements discussed above. Fills constructed using imported active clays will increase the potential movements. Any fill used to establish the desired subgrade elevation beneath a monolithic, slab-on-grade should be a select fill material with a liquid limit of less than 35 and a plasticity index between 6 and 15. 95-148 12 So 1mcH ENGINEERING AND TESTING 1Nc . ----------------- i I • I I Both the areas to receive fill and the fill materials should be free of any vegetation or debris. Prior to placing the fill, the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent density near (-1% to +5%) optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 698. Fill materials should be spread in loose lifts, less than 9 inches thick and uniformly compacted in a similar manner. Proper consideration to surf ace drainage can greatly enhance the performance of structures placed over active clay soils. All grades should be adjusted to provide positive drainage away from the residence. Water should not be allowed to pond near or adjacent to the structure. Ponding water can result in movements which exceed those d i scussed in this report. Rainwater should preferabl y be collected by a system of gutters and downspouts and transported away from the structure. Flatwork can also be subject to significant movements due to the active clay soils at this site. 8.0 LIMITATIONS AND REPRODUCTIONS The foregoing recommendations are based on analyses of the soils from each of the indicated borings with the assumption of uniform variation in the soil ·properties between borings. The recommendations were developed from the information obtained in the test borings which depict subsurface conditions only at the specific boring locations and at the particular time designated on 95-148 13 i l ' I f Both the areas to receive fill and the fill materials should be free of any vegetation or debris. Prior to placing the fill, the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent density near (-1% to +5%) optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 698. Fill materials should be spread in loose lifts, less than 9 inches thick and uniformly compacted in a similar manner. Proper consideration to surf ace drainage can greatly enhance the performance of structures placed over active clay soils. All grades should be adjusted to provide positive drainage away from the residence. Water should not be allowed to pond near or adjacent to the structure. Ponding water can result in movements which exceed those discussed in this report. Rainwater should preferably be collected by a system of gutters and downspouts and transported away from the structure. Flatwork can also be subject to significant movements due to the active clay soils at this site. 8.0 LIMITATIONS AHD REPRODUCTIONS The foregoing recommendations are based on analyses of the soils from each of the indicated borings with the assumption of uniform variation in the soil properties between borings. The recommendations were developed from the information obtained in the test borings which depict subsurface conditions only at the specific boring locations and at the particular time designated on 95-148 13 , ' f ' I the logs. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from those observed at the boring locations. The nature and extent of variations between the borings may not become evident until the course of construction. If significant variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re- evaluate the recommendations of this report after performing on- si te observations during the construction period and noting the characteristics of any variation. This office should be notified immediately so further investigations can be made and/or supplemental recommendations can be provided. The recommendations provided in this report were based on our understanding of information about the characteristics of the project which was provided by the client. If the client notes any deviation from the facts about the project characteristics or if the nature of the proposed project has changed, our office should be contacted immediately since this may materially alter the content of our design recommendations. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This comp.any is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on this data. The information contained in this report is intended for the exclusive use of our client. 95-148 14 # , • I ' f The reproduction of this report, or any part thereof, supplied to persons other than the owner, should indicate that this study was made for design purposes only and that verification of the subsurface conditions for purposes of determining difficulty of excavation, trafficability, etc., are responsibilities of others. This report should not be used as a construction specification but as a guide for developing final building plans and specifications . 95-148 15 , ' .. t ., The reproduction of this report, or any part thereof, supplied to persons other than the owner, should indicate that this study was made for design purposes only and that verification of the subsurface conditions for purposes . of determining difficulty of excavation , trafficability, etc., are responsibilities of others. This report should not be used as a construction specification but as a guide for developing final building plans and specifications. 95-148 15 SOILTECH ENGINEERING AND 7415 WHITE HALL # 109 fORT WORTH . TEXAS ?6118 ( 817) 595-0064 TESTING . INC . RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Clienl JMC HOMES Boring # --~B~-~l'----------~ Arc htlect-Engineer .l ob II 95-t J.8 Project Name 2226 CLEARSPRING DRI VE NORTH Proiect Locat ton HACKBERRY CREEK . I RVING . TEXAS Drawn by 5 \1 Iesa r Approved by Je sse E. Col em~n PE DRILLING and SAMPLING lNFORMATlON NOTE : Sae Boring Locati on Oiagr<im fo r Sor ing Locations Date Started 9 /14 /95 Date Completed .......... 9-../.._14"'""'/"""'9""'5'--- Drill Foreman L CREECH Hammer Wl Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler 140 l bs. 30 in . OD~in . Inspector Boring ~ethod Rock Core Dia . ----in. CF"A Tube 0 . 0 . SOIL DESCRIPTION ~ i: !-------------------;~ ~ SURFACE ELEVATION -~ ~ Yellowish brown CLAY (CH) wi.th iron ore deposits and gravel Yellowish brown and gray shaly CLAY {CH ) with calcite deposits 2.5 14..0 Q. " Q 5 10 1 a in. • ;; a. E . .. r.. • 0 -"'% -1 -2 ~ 3 I 4. "" I ... --- -7 - -A -------I Dark gray shaly CLAY {C H) -a 15 --I I ! I Bott om of Boring at 20.5 ' I I I I i I i I --10 --- 20~ 11 =J __J ___J ----25-------~ 30--1 ~ _J .. .!: Col ~ ..... .. c:: E "' 0 "' .. ' .. . c c 0 .. .... a. ~ a. ::I -< "' ;; ... " 0 a. ST 1.25 l sT 4 .5+ SS ,,., , .... ' 4 .r 4 . -+- 4. + ~,. 4 .5+ "iT 4 .5+ ~,. 4 .5-+- CA SS SAMPU:R TYPE GROUND WATER DEPTH .. .!: .. E 0 !: .. c .. a. ~ ....... .. c ; 0 0 u iil .. .. -.. " .. .. i-I- :5";:) -DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON 'V AT COMPU:TION DRY Fi. -" .. I- c ~ .. .. -u c:: c .. ....... a. ; .., 0 ... iil a -.., c z a iii 29 88 .. -> ;;; .. c: .. .. "' a. "' E ? 0 u 0 .., t:. .. .: ~ c 0 " .. c ... :::> iii 5 . 68il 1. .i.~ >. ·;; c :: .. Q ,; >. ... " Q ' .. .. ~ ... " -;; % 107 .. Q u ! 11 II II : ::i c: c:: I I -17 LL=7'4 PL=30 Pl,. 44 PL=26 18 I LL=68 I Pl=~2 I ! I I I I I ! i 21 I I I i I I I I i I I I BORING METHOD HSA -HOLLOW STrn ALICER ~ I :..; I > w I -'11 0 I 0 ! (\I 'It: I I (/J i (/J I < c.. " ,, I I I I j I I I I ' ' i : I I I i I I I :'T -PRESSED SEAMLESS TUBE L"A -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER RC -ROCK C'ORE y AFTER HRS Fi. AFTER HRS Fi. CFA -CONTINUOL1S f"UGHT ~L ·crn:< DC -ORIVINC CA~ING CAVED AT COMPLETION Fi. MD -MUD DRIWNG TP -TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER CAVED AFTER HRS Fi. ·C\""11 rtl"u rnr:1 ~tto1ll~ HJr1 r;sm.i~ INC _ ------------------------ \ ·l ' -- .... . ' . SO[LTECH ENG!NEERlNC AND TESTING . !NC . 7 4 l5 WHITE HALL # 109 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIO N FORT WORTH. TEXAS "16118 (817) 595-0064 Client JMC HOMES Boring II --~B_-_2 ________ _ Arc hi tee t-E.ng ineer Project Name Project Location 2226 CLEARSPRING DR !VE NO RTH HACKBERR Y CREE K. !P.V1 NG . TEXAS Job .¥ 95-148 Ora wn by 'i ~ Tesar Approved by J esse E. Co leman P E DRILLING and SAMPLING [NFORMAT [ON NOTE : See Boring Locati on Diagram for Bo rin g Locations Dale Started 9 /14 /95 Date Completed __ 9.._/-'--14__./-'9"-"5.___ Drill foreman L CREECH Inspector Boring Method Cf A Hammer Wt. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler Rock Core Dia . Tube O.D. 1+0 lbs. 10 in. OD~in. ____ in. '.1 a in. ~ ,_ ,--------------------.---..----,--~"" SOIL DESCRIPTION ; .:: __ !-----------------....., ~ ~ ~ ~ SURFACE ELEVATION -:ii ~ ~ ~ Yellowish. olive and dark brown CLAY (CH) wtth gravel -i l ST I ; 2 ST 5 - 5 -----1 ...,; """'-i 1-----------------_.;.....=.;·~o_, Yellowish brown and gray sha ly CU Y • (CH) wt th iron ore seams and ca lcite deposits Dark gray shaly CLAY (CH) Bottom of Bori ng at 29.0" 26 .0 ~ I /"I , - 25---i---; ~ ,, C\'T' ~ , 4. c;c; I --, '!"-""' 30_:j :j ~ .. .. .. -e ... 0 C' ... ~ .... ~ ~ a.. -.. .... g a.. 2.5 4 .5+ 4 .5+ 4 .5+ 4 .5+ 4 .~+ 4 .o+ 4..5+ 4 .5+ 4..5+ 4 .5+ 4 .5 3 .25 SAMPLER TYPE: GROUND WATER DEPTH ... .. .. e ~ ..: = ~ c: ......... = ~ 8 0 = .. . -"' .. .... I-I- SS -DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON v AT COMPLETION DRY Fi. 38 80 ~ - ~ :&.. .. .. ... a' "" "' c ...... 0 .. u ; " 1-.. .; -.. 0 c " .. 5 ~ 4.soa 2 .6~ "' ~ ... " Q ...... 'A . ~ ... .: • z: 109 "' L.L:a 66 I PL:o~5 Pt 2 11 I I 14 LL=-68 i I I PL=23 I Pl=45 ! I I ! I ! 21 I I I I I l I I I ?Q ' -i I I I I 1 BORING METHOD HSA -HOLLOW STE!.! AL :GE~ ST -PRESSED SEAMLESS TUBE CA -CONTINUOUS fUCHT AUGER RC -RUCK CORE y AFTER HRS Fi. Cf,\ -CONT!NtIOL!S fUGHT .~L ·c rn ::: AFTER HRS Fi. CAVED AT COMPL.ET!ON Fi. T? -TEXAS CONE PENEiROMETER CAVED AFTER HRS Fi. DC -DRlvtNG C AS!NG MD -MUD DRlWNG .-\ . J ...... ,. ,, SOtLTECH ENG[NEERING AND 74L5 WHITE HALL # 109 FORT WORTH. TEXAS ?6118 (817) 595-0064 TESTING . [NC . RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client JMC HOMES Sor i ng N --~B_-_2 _________ _ Arch t tcc t-£ngtneer Job .¥ 95-I J.8 Project Name 2226 CLEARSPRING DP.!VE NORTH Project Locatton HACKBERRY CREEK. !P.VlNG . TEXAS Ora wn by ) M Iesa r Approved by J esse [ Coleman P E DRILLING and SAMPLING INF'ORMATfON NOTE: See Boring Locati on Diagram (or So rin ~ Locations Date Started 9 /14 /95 Date Completed -""9._/.._!4_./--'9:....:5:...-_ Drill Foreman L CREECH fnspector Boring Method CFA Hammer Wt. Hammer Drop Spoon Sampler Rock Core Dia . Tube O.D. I +o lbs. 10 in . OD....2..JL. in. ____ in. 1 a in. ~ >- .-----------------~--...---.--~I- SOIL DESCRIPTION ~ ~ f--------------------i ~ a. ~ ~ SURFACE ELEVATION -iii ~ ~ ::;_ Yellowish. olive and dark brown CU Y (CH) with gravel --l l ST ~ 2 ST 4 ' ~ <; C::T I ,., :-, 5. 5 5 -~:-..__,,,..... .. ,~ 1--------~ ~ Yellowish brown and gray shaly CLAY • --1 (CH) wtth i ron ore seams and calcite deposits 26 .0 25---------~ 1'.1 C::T Dark gray shaly CU Y (CH) ~ 14 <:<: Bottom of Boring at 29.0 ' ... .. .. i::: E .,. o en ... ~ .. c ~ ~ 0... -.. .... u 0 0... 2 .5 4 .5+ 4 .5+ 4 .5+ 4 .5+ 4 .~+ 4 .::i+ 4 .5+ 4 .5+ 4 .5+ 4 .5+ 4 .5 3 .25 SAMPLER TYPE GROUND WATER DEPTH ... .. .. E 0 ... .. c .. ..; 0... .... ......... c ; 8 0 .. s . -.. .. .... I-I- ~ .. .. I- C: ~ .. ... - ~ c: .. ....... 0... ~ 'O 0 ; e 'O :; z iii 38 80 . -> .. :... .. " .. .,. 0. Cll c ....... 0 .. (.J ; 'O !:. .. ~ • 0 c: u .. c: .. :::i en 4.Soe 2 .6~ ,.. .. c ..; u Q ,... ::i Q ~ .. . ~ .. ::i Cl :z: 109 ~ l..L=66 I PL=45 Pl=ll I I !~ U=68 Ii I PL=23 Pl=45 I I . I I I 1 21 I I I I I 20 21 I 1 BORING METHOD SS -DRIVC::N SPUT SPOON' v AT COMPLETION DRY FT . HSA -HOLLOW STD! .u :cE~ ST -PRESSED SEAMLESS TUBE CA -CONTINUOUS F"UCHT AUGER RC -RUCK CORE .,. AF'TER HRS FT. AF'TER HRS FT . CF'A -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AL·crn::= DC -DRIVING CASING CAVED AT COMPLETION FT. MD -liiUD DR!WNC TP -TEXAS CONE PENETROMETER CAVED AF'TER HRS FT. .·\ -J • <..· _____ _, -----' ... --I r a-25 \ \ \-20 ' I \ \ 50' 36' ' I \ \ .\ ~ N I \ HYORANT "- ' WATER--...,_ 1 _i J------ \---20 ' ~- L------------------------• ------- z 0 ~ Cl.I :::> a: CLEARSPRING DRIVE NORTH SCALE· NONE NOTE• BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROX IMATE JMC HOMES ,., ..... -2226 CLEARSPRING DRIVE NORTH HACKBERRY CREEK. IRVlNG, TEXAS c •··---·· ~ ·-·••••••••• ,,,_ ••••••tA •••- BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM 0.•• 95-148 09/25/95 ,\ -I ,.,. . r '. Report No.: 95-148 September 25, 1995 Page A-4 Boring Depth No. Ft. B-1 7 -8 B-2 3 -4 SWELL TEST RE SULTS MC Before 29.4 14.2 MC Load Swe l l final (TS Fl (%) 36.6 0.47 5.5 23.1 0.22 6.8 -- ,• · r l · Report No.: 95-148 September 25, 1995 Page A-4 Boring Depth No. Ft. B-1 7 -8 B-2 3 -4 SWELL TEST RESULTS MC MC Load Swell Before Final {TSFl ( % ) 29. 4 36.6 0.47 5.5 14.2 23.1 0.22 6.8 -- GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS ELECTROCHEMICAL PRESSURE INJECTION 1. The details of the injection/application rate, injection pressure, and chemical concentration to provide uniform distribution of the chemical mixture will be determined solely by the Applicator. These application procedures will be provided to the Owner and/or Geotechnical Engineer upon request. 2. Equipment shall be suitable for the intended work. Injection equipment shall be self-propelled and constructed to provide stra i ght pipe injection under pressure to the stated treatment depth or may be by means of hand-held injection probes. Both types of injection equipment shall be equipped with flow and/or pressure meters and control valves for monitoring and controlling the amount of chemical injected. 3. Injection rods shall be forced downward (not jetted or washed) in approximately 12 inch vertical intervals, to a total depth of 10 feet. Spacing for the injection holes shall not exceed 3 feet on center, each way. Injection shall be carried outside building lines a minimum of 5 feet. 4. Post-treatment evaluation for building pad injection shall be based on one dimensional laboratory swell tests (ASTM D 4546, Method B) conducted by the owner's Geotechnical Engineer. Soil samples used for testing shall be undisturbed samples retrieved by using thin walled seamless tube samplers to a depth equal to the specified injection depth. 5. Sampling for building pads shall be one sample for each 5,000 square feet, or portion thereof, of treated area, or a minimum of 2 sample borings, whichever is greater. Sample borings shall be taken at an equal distance from injection points. Continuous tube samples shall be obtained from the entire treated depth. Samples shall be extruded from the sampling tube, wrapped in plastic, sealed to prevent moisture loss, and protected from disturbance. 6. A minimum of 3 one-dimensional swell tests shall be performed for each sample boring for injection depths up to 7 feet. The minimum number of one-dimensional swell tests shall be increased to 4 for injection depths up to 10 feet. Test depth ranges shall be: O to 3 feet, 3 to 5 feet, 5 to 7 feet, and 7 to 10 feet. One dimensional swell tests shall be conducted in accordance· with ASTM D 4546, Method B. Test results shall be reported for a swell of 48 hours duration under a single surcharge load simulating overburden pressure after construction of the building. The swell test shall be continued beyond 48 hours if the sample exhibits a 25 percent or greater change in sample height during the 36 to 48 hour test interval. Moisture and hand Penetrometer determinations shall be performed on one foot intervals in all borings. 95-148 A-5 ··------· -----·-~ ·c -··---.. •··-·••••••"'"' '"" ~~~'l'llll"' I l l !' GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS ELECTROCHEMICAL PRESSURE INJECTION 1. The details of the injection/application rate, injection pressure, and chemical concentration to provide uniform distribution of the chemical mixture will be determined solel y by the Applicator. These application procedures will be provided to the Owner and /or Geotechnical Engineer upon request. 2. Equipment shall be suitable for the intended work. Injection equipment shall be self-propelled and constructed to provide straight pipe injection under pressure to the stated treatment depth or may be by means of hand-held injection probes. Both types of injection equipment shall be equipped with flow and/or pressure meters and control valves for monitoring and controlling the amount of chemical injected. 3. Injection rods shall be forced downward (not jetted or washed) in approximately 12 inch vertical intervals, to a total depth of 10 feet. Spacing for the injection holes shall not exceed 3 feet on center, each way. Injection shall be carried outside building lines a minimum of 5 feet. 4. Post-treatment evaluation for building pad injection shall be based on one dimensional laboratory swell tests (ASTM D 4546, Method B) conducted by the owner's Geotechnical Engineer. Soil samples used for testing shall be undisturbed samples retrieved by using thin walled seamless tube samplers to a depth equal to the specified injection depth. 5. Sampling for building pads shall be one sample for each 5,000 square feet, or portion thereof, of treated area, or a minimum of 2 sample borings, whichever is greater. Sample borings shall be taken at an equal distance from injection points. Continuous tube samples shall be obtained from the entire treated depth. Samples shall be extruded from the sampling tube, wrapped in plastic, sealed to prevent moisture loss, and protected from disturbance. 6. A minimum of 3 one-dimensional swell tests shall be performed for each sample boring for injection depths up to 7 feet. The minimum number of one-dimensional swell tests shall be increased to 4 for injection depths up to 10 feet. Test depth ranges shall be: O to 3 feet, 3 to 5 feet, 5 to 7 feet, and 7 to 10 feet.· One dimensional swell tests shall be conducted in accordance· with ASTM D 4546, Method B. Test results shall be reported for a swell of 48 hours duration under a single surcharge load simulating overburden pressure after construction of the building. The swell test shall be continued beyond 48 hours if the sample exhibits a 25 percent or greater change in sample height during the 36 to 48 hour test interval. Moisture and hand Penetrometer determinations shall be performed on one foot intervals in all borings. 95-148 A-5 . ·------ . -------"=-> ' .. ~· ..... ~ \ . . . 7. The average swell from each boring sampled shall not exceed 2.0 percent; arid no swell test from each boring shall have a swell of more than J.O percent. 8. Where the swell criteria is not met in any one of the borings, detennination of the project area to be reinjected will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer. Retreatment and acceptance testing will be performed in accordance with the geotechnical engineer's recommendations. 9. Final acceptance, by the Owner, will be based on an evaluation of the test data by the Owner and the Geotechnical Engineer. The building pad subgrade will not be accepted until the acceptance testing requirements are met. 9S-i48 A-6 So1tTECH ENGINEER ING AND TESTING INC .------------------ REPORT OF SWELL TEST RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE SOILS AFTER STABILIZATION 2226 CLEARSPRINGS DRIVE NORTH IRVING, TEXAS PREPARED FOR : JMC Homes Coppell, Texas Soiltech Repo=t No . 95-179 Novembe= 13, 1995 .So1LTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC.------------------- So1LTECH ENGINEERING, AND TESTING INC. NovemlJe= 13, 1995 M=. :.:e.:..~:i. ?alls JMC :tor:ies 1330 3=adfo=d Drive Coppell, Texas 75019 7415 Whrc:e Hell. Sui t:e =109 F~r':. Wcr-:h. Texas 7611 S Fax 817-595-0708 a~ 7-595-Cosa Re: Swell Test Results of Subsurface Soils ~ter Stabilization 2226 Clearsprings Drive North Irving, Texas Soiltech Report No. 95-179 Dear M::-. Falls: We have completed ou= testing of the su.bg=ade soils for the subject p::::oj ect:. These soils were tested. fo:: swell after stabilization with Condo= SS. Results of laboratory-testing are attached. Subse~em: to injection, the swells ::-anged from O. 4 to 1. 9 percent, with an average swell of 1.28 percent. No single swell exceeded 2 We appreciate this opportunity to work with you on this phase of your project . If you have any questions or if we can be of assistance, please contact us at your convenience. Ve::-y t::--~ly yours, SO!LTEC:.! ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC. b~l~/ Vice ?reside~t, Operations . SCQD-=' OF WORK SWELL TEST RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE SOILS AFTER STABILIZATION 2226 CLE.ARSPRINGS DRIVE NORTH IRVING I TEXAS The scope of work consisted of field sampling and laboratory testing of the subsurface soils at the new single family residence located at 222 6 Clearsprings Drive North, Hackberry Creek Phase III, in Irving, Texas. 'l='Ti::r.n QDt:'BATIONS Test borings were drilled at the site on November 9, 1995, at the approximate locations shown on the Boring Location Diagram, Enclosure 1. A truck-mounted auger drilling rig was used to advance these borings and to obtain samples for laboratory evaluation. Undisturbed specimens of cohesive soils were obtained by continuous sampling with standard, thin-walled, seamless tube samplers, in accordance with ASTM D 1587. These specimens were ex~ruded in the field, logged, sealed and packaged to protect them from disturbance and maintain their in-situ moisture content during transportation to our laboratory. 95-179 '.So1LTECH ENGINEE~ING AND TESTING INC.------------------ SCOD-=' OF WORK SWELL TEST RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE SOILS AFTER STABILIZATION 2226 CLEAR.SPRINGS DRIVE NORTH IRVING I TEXAS The scope of work consisted of field sampling and laboratory testing of the subsurface soils at the new single family residence located at 2226 Clearsprings Drive Nor~h, Hackberry Creek Phase III, in Irving, Texas. FIEI.D O'='S'RATIONS Test borings were drilled at the site on November 9, 1995, at the approximate locations shown on the Boring Location Diagram, Enclosure 1 . A truck-mounted auger drilling rig was used to advance these borings and to obtain samples for laboratory evaluation. Undisturbed specimens of cohesive soils were obtained by continuous sampling with standard, thin-walled, seamless tube samplers, in accordance with ASTM D 1587. These specimens were ex~ruded in the field, logged, sealed and packaged to protect them from disturba~ce and maintain their in-situ moisture content during transportation to our laboratory. 95-179 So1LTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC .------------------- T.ABORJ?."T"QBV T":"STTNG samples were examined at au= labo=atory by the project geot:du:.:.cal eng:nee=. Selected samples we=e subjected to labo:-a:o=-1 :es:s uncle= the supe.=vision of this engineer . Absorption swell tests were performed using selected u..~d.:.stu=~ed samples of the cohesive soils. Absorption swell tests we=e performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4546, Method B except the consolidation po=tion of the test was not performed.. Common tap water was used to inu..~date the specimens. The results of the laboratory testing program a!:': shown on Enclosure 2. 95-179 2 So1mcH ENGINEE~ING AND TESTING INC.-------------------- ______ __, ----\ __ ____....-.. I ~PB -2 ·. i \ ' \ • I \ ' \ • \ I I \ • ' j N I \ WATER--..__ HYDRANT "' ' I PB~ -----------L-~~~~~~~~-L------- SCALE• NONE z 0 .... en :::> a: CLEARSPRING DRIVE NORTH JMC HOMES .... _, -2226 CLEARSPRING DRIVE NORTH HACKBERRY CREEK, IRVING, TEXAS NOTE· BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM 95-179 11108/95 So1mcH ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC.------------------ ------i -----\ __ .--I rPB-2 . i \ I I \ I I \ ~ N I \ \ \ I \ WATER----...,__ HYDRANT ""- I L-~~~~~-----'~-------- PB~ -- SCALE• NONE z 0 .... a:l :::> a: CLEARSPRING DRIVE NORTH JMC HOMES .... _, -2226 CLEARSPRING DRIVE NORTH HACKBERRY CREEK. IRVING, TEXAS -- NOTE· BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM 95-179 11/08/95 So1mcH ENGINEERING AND TESTING 1Nc. ------------------ ENCL I Soiltech Report No. 95-179 Enclosu=e 2 SWEI,L TEST RESULTS Boring Depth MC MC No Et BeFo .... .,. 'l:'jna1 PB-1 4 -5 25.l 28.1 5 -6 24.9 27.1 6 -7 23.6 26.8 8 -9 25.1 26.9 PB-2 5 -6 24.2 26.8 6 -7 23.9 25.7 7 -8 23.2 25.7 8 -9 25.0 27.6 Load Swell (!SE l ( '; l 0.41 l.S 0.47 1.5 0 .53 l.9 0.66 0.9 0.47 1.2 0.53 1.4 0.59 l. 4: 0.66 0.4 So1mcH ENGINEERING AND TESTING INC.-------------------- INDIAN SPRINGS -CARROLLTON, TX ..... SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL INJECTION for ILD, LTD on Indian Springs, Phase 1, Sections 1 ' 2 Off Eisenhower Drive Carrollton, Texas ALPHA Report No. 91211-8 ~lOTf ~ £ ~nR£ GEoTEC~NlCf'.l-L RE P~T O'N. FILf A-I VKOCf-f£M tC.4<.. S01L STAP;f UZ.A-TI~ /TJC ALPHA Report No. 91211-8 6.5 Evaluation of Chemical Injection Results of free swell tests, pocket penetrometer readings and moisture content tests from soil samples obtained from pre- chem i cal injection borings and post-chemical injection borings were compared. Comparison of test results indicate a significant reduction in free swell for similar samples after chemical injection. However, a significant change in moisture content of soil samples between pre-and post-chemical injection could not be detected. Pocket penetrometer readings indicated a general reduction in strength after injection. Review of field and laboratory data indicates slab-orrgr ade foundations constructed on all but 8 lots (L-Ots 29 and 30 of Block A; Lot 9 of Block C; Lots 6, 7 and 8 of Block D, and, L-Ots 4 and 5 of Block E) could be designed for total potential movements of about 4 inch es. Please note this potential movement existed at the time of testing. However, due to lack of h i storical evidence concerning the longevity of the swell abatement within the chemically injected zone, ALPHA TESTING, INC. cannot confirm that the above movement potential can be maintained over an extended period of time. As normal with construction of foundations on expansive soils, movements exceeding those predicted above could occur if positive drainage of surface water is not maintained or if the soils 11 ALPHA Report No. 91211-8 6.5 Evaluation of Chemical Injection Results of free swell tests, pocket penetrometer readings and moisture content tests from soil samples obtained from pre-- chemical inject ion borings and post-ch em ical inject ion borings were compared. Comparison of test results indicate a significant reduction in free swell for similar samples after chemical injection. However, a significant change in moisture content of soil samples between pre-and post-chemical injection could not be detected. Poe ke t penetrorneter readings indicated a general reduction in strength after injection. Review of field and laboratory data indicates slab-on-grade foundations constructed on all but 8 lots (Lots 29 and 30 of Block A; Lot 9 of Block C; Lots 6, 7 and 8 of Block D, and, Lots 4 and 5 of Block E) could be designed for total potential movements of about 4 inch es. Please note this potential movement existed at the time of testing. However, due to lack of historical evidence concerning the longevity of the swell abatement within the chemically injected zone, ALPHA TESTI NG, INC. cannot confirm that the above movement potential can be maintained over an extended period of time. As normal with construction of .foundations on expansive soils, movements exceeding those predicted above could occur if positive drainage of surface water is not maintained or if the soils 11 ALPHA Report No. 91211-8 are subject to an outside water source, such as leakage from a utility line or subsurface moisture migration from off-site locations. It should be noted that the injected soils were not sampled on 4 lots (Lot 25, Block A, and Lots 14, 16 and 19, Block D) due to the presence of new residences under construction. However, these lots were initially accepted prior to construction of the residences based upon satisfactory test results on adjacent lots which were injected at the same time as the referenced lots. As indicated above, the current potential movement on 8 of the lots was in excess of 4 inches. Results of current testing indicate slab-orrgrade foundations constructed on these lots should be designed for movements tabulated below: Es ti mated Swell Boring Lot Block Po ten ti al. inches 4 7 D 4 .25 10 9 c 4 .2 5 33 & 3 3B 5 E 4.3 43 & 43B 6 D 5 48 & 48B 8 D 4.25 5 8, 58A & 58B 29 A 4.5 100 & lOOA 4 E 4.5 101 & 101A 30 A 4.5 12 ALPHA Report No. 91211-8 Several of the lots required re-injection and subsequent re- testing as indicated by the "A" or "E" amended to the boring number. Results provided above are predicated on the last sampling interval 'for that boring. It is our understanding the lots which have not been developed have been re-injected. Further testing on re-injected lots will be reported separately when ALPHA is notified to proceed. Due to the lack of historical records in the Dallas/Fort worth area for chemical injection using Condor SS at this site, it is recommended the chemically injected areas of this project be re-tested in the future to evaluate the continued effectiveness of this soil treatment procedure. 13 ALPHA Report No. 91211-8 Several of the lots required re-injection and subsequent re- testing as indicated by the "A" or "B" amended to the boring number. Results provided above are predicated on the last sampling interval for that boring. It is our understanding the lots which have not been developed have been re-injected. Further testing on re-injected lots will be reported separately when ALPHA is notified to proceed. Due to the lack of historical records in the Dallas/Fort worth area for chemical injection using Condor SS at this site, it is recommended the chemically injected areas of this project be re-tested in the future to evaluate the continued effectiveness of this soil treatment procedure. 13 HEATH & KNIGHT PROP • DALLAS, TX HEATH /K NI GHT T .2 14 -248-9 196 Aug ... 32 1 1 :38 No .007 P.02 _,,,• ~~, ALPHA TESTING, INC. ~ W~ SI. S4h 00 ~!mm!~ 2141620-4911 FM:.;}).tl/~ -------·-1 August 18, 19 92 Beath aiad blight Properties, .Inc. f . I f"')r ~· ~(..;..,"-"'I - i v (?)~ 16660 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1400 Dalla·&,. Texaa 752'8 I At ten tio n: M.r. Craig Knight I ... .Re: CHEMICAL INJEC'l'ION . Gen tlemen1 Indi~n Springs; Phasaa l and ··2 ··· -· Block B: Lots 2, 3 and 1.5 .and . · Block D; Lot 7 · Eisenhower at Prankford Road .. Carrollton, Tex~s ALPEiA Report No. 91211-4 . Submitted herewith are results of our analysis of chemical injection conducted at 4 residential lots (Block BJ IDts 2, 3 and · 15 and Block D1 Lot 7) at the above referenced subdivision.·· The · building pad areas designated above were chemically .treated with . . .. " .. : a solution of Condor SS by PrOChemical Soil Stabilization, _Inc .. · ·on ...... : . July 23 and 24, 1992. Lot; 2, 3 and 15 withln Block :a were .. · : ": . injected to a· ft and Lot 7 in Block B was injected to· 6 ft.· OUr ... · : ... analysis consisted of sampling the soils after . chemical . injection ... , ... and det~rmining the free swell potential of the injected soilB and : · tha correepondin9 potential movement for slabs constructed on grada .. at the ~esignated lots. Since the chemical stabilization process · is reportedly time ~ependent, the moisture content ·· of 'the . stsbilized soils were determined at \rarious times . following .:. injection as an indicator to d low ProChemical Soil Stabilization, Inc. to ·determine when the chemical stabilization p.rocess. was .. suitable for laboratory evaluation. Results of · moisture content tests through August 3, 1992 are tabulated on 'l'abla l at.tache.d to this report. · · · · · · Base~ on the moisture content of soils sampled on August 7, 1992 (see Table 2) / ProChemical Soil Stabilization, Inc. informed AL.l>BA TESTING, INC. that free swell tests could be performed to evaluate the rema ·ining swell potential of the injected sous. The acceptance criteria used waa that the average free swell for the injected soils would be 1 percent, or less, with no fr~e . a~ell . te.st .:. . ·result · greater than 2 percent. Additionally, .th~ potential ~, · .... ''. · move·rnent of slabs on grade should not exceed · 4 inch~e •. ·'.Result• :'of.:. ·:'· '. · . · · . t .h .e · swell ·. tests . ·varied from o. o 4 to i. 97 _percant ···a~~ll::· a~a · .a'~.e :·.:· :~::.~: ::·: :'.~·. ·proYided .in Tables.2thru 4, attached to thie repor~ •. ·.'.: .. · ·· .... -'"~··::..::' .. :: ·."'" . . . ·. .. . . :: ........ ·:.: . .. .. .. ··. :':~-_:··.··.: . __ :·._ ... : ... .::-·_;' .· :·~·<;;. :·.·: .. :··.;~ ·-:. . ·, . . . . . ·: . :: . ~ . . . . . . .. . ·.::., .. ·:~; .......... : ........... :. ':""" .. . _., .... :<:·.::'..· ":"·:~·:·:>:;:·'.\.~:::'."),::~: .. :"··· ".' .~··.~··:.· ... :-. ~:.'. :"· ·. ·:.-:·:.::. '. :·-~~ ·-~~•C00ttrucflonMaffJrlobTt1sl/ng .• COl'Ut/rv ". '-'.i ·::·:~; .• ;: ..... ......,;;;,;.,_~ .... :". -· .. -... : . .. .... . . . .· ....... .:..,.:~~ ... ·"'::-____:,___: . . ~ ...... · ... "•. ·:.. ':'."•' .. ..-' . ----_____ __... HEATH/KNIG HT :21 4-2 43-919 6 Aug ~ 92 11:3 9 No .0 07 P .03 The purpose of the chemical injection process was to reduce the estimated potential vertical movement for .slabs on grade. 48 . previously reported (ALPHA Report No. 91211-3, dated June 22, 1992) from abou t 7 inches to 4 inches. Based upon resulte of free .swell t~sts conducted on t he chemically injected soils, it ia our opinion ·· that the potential movement for slabs constructed on tots · 2, 3 ond 15 within Block B is currently about 4 inches. Please nota that although the average swell potential in Boring l (Block B, Lot 2) w«s about 1.2 percent and above the limits set tor acceptance based ·. on measured ~ree swell in the injected zone, the potential move~nt · for a slab on grade at thi!I lot is still 4 inehes, or lea11.· ·~ · Bor in9 4, the average swell potential in the injected zone w~a · measured a t about 1.5 percent and the current movement potential for .a slab constructed on Block o, Lot 7 is about 4 .25 inches; . However, ae indicated above, th• stabilization proees.s results .in . a gradual ·reduction in swell potential with time. Therefore~ it_. i~ ·possible that future swell tests on Lot 7, Block D may indicate that the goal of 4 inches of movement has been achieved for IDt 7 ., Thi• could only be confirmed by performing a~ditional swell tests ·on · LOt 7 t o determine chanqas in free swe-11 with time. · · We apprec1 ate the opportunity t: o be of service to you on this · project. If we can be of further assistance, plea•e ·cohtact ~ur office . Copies: (3 ) Client ... . \.. . · .. · ... ,,. ·· .. : . . ~ " . . . . . : ... . . . . . · ... . . . •. · .... ,• . : .;, -. .• .. , . . · ... ·. -~. . ....... ·" . . . -: ,.. . . . .. . . .,. ........... .' '· ....... : ·:·.; .. :: .:" ....... ~ · .. -· .. . . . . ,' .• ' ·: . ·. -· -. . . .. · .: ........ :·~ ·::·· .. :;:·: ~.·: ..• · ....... ·' .. ·.: . .-'":,i.:·r.·: •. ~ .. : ... ,'·,. ..... ·.·.·: ~ . . . .. " .. . . .. . . . .. .. . . .. ,. . .. . . . "' ... ; ~-·:..·~~· or.\;."'·. -.. ~~.:··~·-:-f..r ·::·:: .... ~·:-: :·.~ .. ..-... ,. ...... ' ... HE A,TH /KN I GHT :2 14 -2 4 8-9 196 Aug ~ 9 2 11 :39 No.00 7 P .03 The purpose of the chemical injection process was to ·reduce the estimated pot ent.ial vertical movement for !!labs on grade. 4S · previously reported (ALPHA Report No. 91211-3, datea June 22, 1992) from about 7 inches to 4 inches. Based upon re·sultl!I of free swell t&sts conducted on the chemically injected soils, it ie our opinion .·· that the potential movement for slabs constructed on tots 2, 3 ~nd 15 within Block a is currently about 4 inches. Please note that although the average swell potential in Boring l (Block B, tot 2). w&s ~out 1.2 percent and llbove the limits set tor accept~ce based . on m&llsured free swell in the injected zone, the potential movement · fot a slab on grade at thi!I lot is still 4 inches, or lea11. ·:rn · Boring 4, the average swell po ten ti al in the injected zone w~a · ~ea.sured at about 1.5 percent and the current movement potential far .a slab constructed on Block I>, Lot 7 is about 4 .2s inches .... However, as indicated above, the stabilization proc:es.s results ln a gradual ·reduction in swell potential with time. Therefore~ it_. . i~ ·possible that future swell tests on Lot 7, Block D may indicate that the goal of 4 inches of movement has been achieved for Lot 7. This could only be confirmed by performing a~ditional swell tests ·on · tot 7 to determine chanqes in free swell with time. · · · We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on .this project. If we can be of further ~ssistance, plea•e ·cohtact ~ur office. Copie.s: ( 3) C11en t . . . . . :.' ... •. ·' • • • •• ,· •• •.i'· • ~ .: .• • a .•• ::~ ... ,i . .' • '.: ....... . •., . . . . . . :.: ·: -,: .. : . ::: ... ::· .. · ... ·~.·: .. _"···:·. · .. ·.~ ~.·.-........ · .· ·.· ... '.,."' ••. :· ',, •. •::. ,. ' ··ro '' • •.'. ·.a • ... · .. · .·:. ::· .. · .. :· .. ~ " .. ·: . : ... ·. . .: . ", . · ..... · .......... : .. \ ·~· . . • .• . ~·· ···:;::.<:~~~·~::"' : .... :: .:.:..: ... ;·; .. ~.: ..... .'' ... , . . . . ,. : . . .... ~ ., . . . ·' . ... .. .. : .... ,· .. : . ... . . ... . . . :· . ·.·.".-:·.·~.:-;~.-.~.: .. :~,., .. Jc ·~. ~ A ; ···-.· ... :::·.::"."'~',~.-:!t·.~~21911:~ '<1 0 Cl. l'- 0 0 0 z QI t') (\I QI (J1 ::l a: •.{) C]\ ... (J1 I 00 <1 ('j I <1 z ·:1. I f-- 'l . • ., I 0 0 100 200 JOO CllOOCAL DUDm Wl'S . HEATH/KNIGHT -, :21 4-24 8 -9196 Aug • 92 11:41 No.007 P.06 . ' TABLE 2 SlmaBf OP MOXBTQRB TBS%$ ~l.Hll.i~t 1 c 1222 1912 1~~2 Borin9 Dl!pthr Moisture PP Moi.11ture pp Moisture pp No • ft " U-' ' lit ' ~ l ' 0-1 l ~. 6 2 .1 1:-2 23.0 1.6 lot 2 2-3 1 9 .a 2.3 bk B 3-4 l 7.2 2 ... 0 -84 percent swell /, '7 4-5 19.9 3.6 1.47 percent swell 5-6 25. 7 2.3 . tJ <I ~//-, Yc 6-7 22 ,3 2.3 i:? ' J ~ 0 . 2.'f 0 7 -8 29.3 2.4 Jl .'7 '-. 8-9 2 6 .3 2.6 9-10 2~.9 4+ 2 0-1 15 .2 4+ 1-2 ll. 7 4+ 0.57 percent swell lot 3 2-3 14.6 3.1 bk B 3-4 11. 6 l.3 4-5 20 .s l.5 5-6 29. 7 2.1 0.44 percent swell 6-7 3 0 .o 2.0 7-9 28.3 2.0 8-9 2 4 .1 3.5 9-10 2 2 .2 4+ 3 0-1 23.0 3,7 1-2 2 4 . s' 1.6 lot 15 2-3 21.9 2.3 bk B 3 .. 4 19.2 1.8 0 .04 percent swell 4 -5 2 0 .9 1.s 5-6 19-3 1.0 6-7 32.0 1.7 7-8 2. 5 .1 4+ 0.96 percent swell 8-9 28 .3 1.9 9-10 21.0 4+ 4 0-l 15 .7 4+ 1-2 21.3 4+ l.97 petcant swell lot 7 2-3 17 .o . 3.1 bk D 3-(. 25-4 2.0 4-5 22-6 3.3 1.12 percent swell 5:-6 14 .3 2.4 6-7 2 3. 2 3.3 7-8 25.B 3 .3 HEA TH/KNIGHT :21 4-248 -9196 Aug • 92 11 :41 No .007 P.06 ·' . ' , TABLE 2 srmau QP MOIS'Z'tJIUS TEST$ b.U9JJ~t Z, 1222 1992 1222 Boring Depthr Moisture pp Moiature pp Moisture PP No . ft ! ill ¥! .til ' 1il l ' 0-1 19 .6 2.1 1:-2 23.0 1.6 lot 2 2-3 19 .a 2.3 bk B 3-4 l 7.2 2 ... o .a 4 percent liWell /, " 7 4-5 19-9 3.6 1.47 percent swell 5-6 25. 7 2.3 . 0 'I .:::.// , y. 6-7 22 .3 2.3 el ' .J ·. 0 ·2..'f Q 7-8 29.3 2.4 J /. 7 L . 8-9 2 6 .3 . 2.6 9-10 25.9 4+ 2 0-1 15 .2 4+ 1-2 11. 7 4+ 0.57 percent swell lot 3 2-3 14.6 3.1 bk B 3-4 11. 6 1.3 4-5 2 0 .s l.5 5-6 2 9. 7 2.1 0.44 percent swell 6-7 3 0. 0 2.0 7-B 28.3 2.0 8-9 2 4 .1 3.5 9-lO 2 2 .2 4+ 3 0-1 23.0 3.7 1-2 2 4. 5" 1.6 lot 15 2-3 21.9 2.3 bk B 3 ... 4 19.2 1.8 0 .04 percent swell 4-5 2 0 .9 1.5 5-6 19 .3 1.0 6-7 32 .o 1.7 7-8 25 .1 4+ 0.96 percent swell 8-9 28.3 1-9 9-lO 21.0 4+ 4 0-1 15 .7 4+ 1-2 21.3 4+ l.97 percent swell lot 7 2-3 l 7. 0 . 3 .1 bk D 3-4 25.4 2.0 4-5 22.6 3.3 1.12 percent swell 5.-6 1-4. 3 2.4 6-7 2 3. 2 3.3 7-8 2s.a 3 .3 HEATH/K NI GHT :21 4-248 -91 96 Aug . 9 2 11:41 No.007 P.0...;._7 __ . .. , ~ SMF.U. 'l'EST ~ IDll1G R) • .....••.....••.••• 1 1 2 2 3 3 tl!:PIB, Pl'. •······•·•····••·· 3-4 4-5 1-2 5-6 3-4 7-8 Im' tlCI'l' tEICJft' * PCP •••••••• lll 1oe 117 92 109 97 LI(JJID LlMITr I ·••••••·••••• 68 56 23 81 47 83 PLAS'l'lC LlMI'l'. ' ............ 24 24 15 26 16 25 ftA&T!Cl'N DID (PI) ••••••• 44 32 8 SS 31 58 .INlTDL KllS'!tJAE CDflJlf1'' ' • 17. 2 19.9 11. 7 29.7 19.2 25.l FINAL Jll)lS'lURE a::tfl'Dll'' t • •. 22.1 21.6 14.S 32.0 19.7 29 .6 ~ Fin 5ll!:LL •••••••••• 0.84 1.47 0.57 0.44 0.04 0.96 i I .. I l I HB'Nl'B ' .KNIQJr ~ ,, SDM\mf OF SllELl. 'l'ES'!'S ! ~,~ TAJl[E 3 P'llOJ~T ll&ME.IR>IAN SPRINGS TRACTS PllO.JtC T #0. Ml£ 1' 2 91211-4 8/19/,92 ~,~ .. · ... .... -~., r• .'• , .. .. . • .. r .. . . .'.•. : ~ .... . ·~ . . . ...•••• •' ..... _ ... ·"~··"!"" ........ -. .. -~--···"·4 -·--~-·-~-"" ~ HEATH/KNIGHT :214-248-9196 . , . " ····•····•·••·•·•• lllPDf. Fl'. ··-···········~··· Im tMT 'lllEIQl!', PCP •••••••• LQJID I.BUT. I ••••••••••·•• }1£.ASTIC LIMIT, t •••••••••••• PLASTICl"n' llU!X ( PI) ••••••• ••• P£il2hT l'ME ~ •••••••••• 4 1-2 106 .50 20 Aug 4 4-5 104 59 22 30 37 21.3 22.6 21.5 22.9 1.97 1.12 92 11:41 Na .007 P.08 .. =_l'flOJE_tT.....,:-=---:rr-'8......,PRO_S_PRDG:i_P_BR_:J:_~_'lWCl'S _ _._. _ _. ,, 1-l"tOJ-~-lC-T 11-~--N-R_OF_ .. _SllEU.,_.. .. O-~TE-'llS'JS ____ .._.,. 1 ' 2 'f/' 912ll-4 8/19/92 . CARRll..t:tai. TEXM ...... ··1:t. ... ·~·· ·." ,/ Aug 92 11:41 No.007 P.08 HEATH/KNIGHT :214-248-9196 ' kmM'im. ll!PJH. PT• AB90RPl'lCW SMELL '1'EST Dt\%A ···-·············· ··-··············· 4 1-2 4 4-5 le' tMT llEIQI!'. IO' • • • • • • • • 106 104 LI0'1D LJM!T, I ••••••• ••. .. . 50 59 P!ASTIC LOOT, t . . . • . . .. . . . • • 20 2 2 PIAS'TICITY lHEX (PI) •• • • • • • 30 37 . lNlTlAL ~ a::Nl!Nl', I • 21.3 22.6 F!A\L K)lS'ItJR£ C'CNrENI'. t .. -21. 5 22. 9 PER:!ENI' FRliE SilELL •••••••••• 1.97 1.12 MLLAS,, 'l"EXAS TAmB 4 RRm ' QIIGfl' PROPEkl'IES ' &.MWa OF 8'IEU. TES'1'S ' . ....;CT~ DllillN 6PRDG'l "'1C1'11· ,,, """"" DATt ! I \ I I I I 1 " 2 'fl' 912.ll-4 8/19/92 . t CARRJLL'lal,, · ~. ·· .. '.::~7\P;·;;;;sawr.1• .. orw INCCUIBR CITY OJI' OOUBOB STATION COLLSGS S'l'AnON .• nx,AS Dear 81ri ' F . l RE: COMPLETION OF _____ _ Westt1e1a AqqiJ19p 1to~m praip The p~rpQse or o;ar Jetter Is to requesl that the following listed tmprovemcnta be "pprovcd and accepted as bcini constructicd "m.11;;.-!l;'ll.Y tn1pect1on and coroplcted accor<itng to plans . and spcctOcatton• as approved and rcquln:d by the City of College Statton. Tcxa1. This approval and accept:ance by the City ts requested tn order that we may ftnldlliG im.J •wb•contract.t and tc:s afffnn their wacranty on the work. This •pproval and acceptance by the Clty of the lmprovements listed below dM..a hereby vol'2 ui, Jetter of guarantee for the: lt:slic:d lmrro~c1m;11t.:. \.'Jn the above referenced project. The one year w4rranty ls hereby amnned and agreed to !~Ji 1 ~~~Qn•t,rycfd.p,; xnc. and by their sub-contractors by as Inca e if 11gnature1>elow . . WORK COMPLSTEI) 30" ~P §~pr• pt9in I J,,dl};j! ±/zJo/oo tlt1Ut1 Repre1entativo (1) ' ......... 41!~ DA'l'E 1-12-00 _4.,;. I 2-00 Owncr:_wealtf1 al d ~ddJ,J:..f.on, LTD Addrea1: 7702 Sentil\~J..~<:l• s Contractori111f. ott cone~DWtion, Im. AddreHJ p.o. BQ:3$ ,10 ~~~ ~~ CIVIL EN~~!~:i1~~~~:~u'i~:;~ERVICES ~ 7182 Riley Road, Bryan, Texas 77808 \i\() C..~ (409) 589-2457 \} v: J n ENGINEERING SEWERAGE REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED S.S. TRUNKLINE EXTENSION TO WESTFIELD ADDITION INTRODUCTION The WESTFIELD ADDITION project is a proposed development consisting of approximately 52 Acres fronting on Graham Road , between the CSISD Intermediate School Tract and the proposed extension of Victoria Avenue . A proposed sewer trunkline is to be constructed from the end of the Springbrook -Cypress Meadows Subdivision to the proposed Westfield Addition and running along the north side of the South Fork of Lick Creek . It is the intention of the developer to oversize this proposed Trunkline sufficient to sewer the adjacent land and drain field area. GENERAL The sewer will be owned and maintained by the City of College Station and will be constructed with both Developer private funds and City of College Station oversize participation funds . The line is designed Riley Engineering Company, M artin L. Riley, R.P .E , RP.LS . (409) 589-2457 . The proposed sewer line is to be located within the rights-of-way of proposed streets and public utility easements of the City of Coll ege Station. The sewerage flows from this line will flow to the existing wastewater system o f the City of College Station and the existing waste water treatment plant (TNRCC Permit # 10024006) operated by the City of College Station, Texas . The project consists of tying on to the existing 18 " Line at Springbrook -Cypress Meadows Subdivision and extending with approximately 430 ft. of 18 " Sewer Line northwesterly t o a Manhole as shown, and then extendin g with approximat ely 2484 ft . Of 15 " Sewer Line southwesterly e~g at a manhole . Included are additional manholes with maximum sp acing of 500 ft . No horizontal or ve rtical curves are required for this Trunkline . No drop manholes are required because there are no drops greater than 24". All manholes to be a minimum of 4 ' or greater and all manholes lids are a minimum of 24". The slope of the line is to be 0 .25% to insure that no flow velocities are greater than two feet per second and Jess.than ten feet per second. I~ ~ CAPACITY Capacity design for this line is based on existing and projected future service connections in the drainage basin of the South Fork of Lick Creek, which drainage area is shown in the attached Exhibit 1. The total drainage basin area consists of a total of 842 acres , extending from State Highway 6 westward to just past Wellborn Road and mostly between South Graham Road and Barron Road . Some of the area has been developed into parts of Shenandoah and Springbrook-Cypress Meadows Subdivisions with an existing 18" sewer trunkline and a lift station located at State Highway 6 . The following is a summary of the watershed and the various tracts being currently sewered and to be sewered by the proposed trunkline extension . According to the land use plan currently in V"' effect , the entire watershed area is shown to be used as low density residential use . Total Watershed Area -842 Acres -Sewered as follows: A. Areas currently being served (231 Acres): A-1 Area south of Barron Road (Shenandoah Subdivision) .......... 65 Acres / • _,.~rt; 1:i ::: ~~o:ri~7!'~:\~oua~d~~i~~~;~ d;;.;;; ~~UVi~;~;;~ A~ ~~ 1~:::..:, i'tei~ ~,;.--t A-4 Area along Graham,_ CSISD l?termediate School.................. 20 Acres-:-' WJI ~ ',,, ~ A-5 Area to be served with extension of Eagle north ................... 50 Acres · ~ ~~ . ~7 ~ TOT AL AREA ALREADY SERVED ................................... ······ dh\ ~c~~s~I? .,..-_j,:> ~. ~ ~-! ::::: ::.::~ed:b th~ .. ro osed•t~:1ne~~tenS1on ···· l ··· c::s 0 Acres ~ 'r;fi. '.J. !:.y~ B-2 Tracts West of Rivers to Bald Prame ................. ·~~~-·... .. . .. . 66 Acres ~ B -3 Neelley West Tract.. .................................... ~v.:~-..... ,.\ 70 Acres ~ \,·~ B -4 Neelley East Tract.. ............................... !lf W\~······ .. ~f; 30 Acres pi· B -5 CSISD Tract (30 Tract less I 0 Ac park) ........ ~.;nil~J -f.'l? ... tf.'. 20 Acres ~~~ :a~~t~~~~:edsd~~~~i~i~~·&·i·;~~~~-w~~~··~·i ·w~:~·~: .... :::::::: 2!~ ~~~:: • TOT AL AREA TO BE SERVED WITH NEW TRUNKLINE ...... 581 Acres 4-251 == i~z As the proposed trunkline extension courses westward on the north side of the South Fork of Lick Creek as per attached plan, all of th e areas not presentl y served (some 581 Acres) will ill&' eventually be serviceable by the proposed extension. Beginning at the remotest upstream point in the system, to be called Manhole A, the flows at that point will be all of area B1t comprised of 243 Acres . The next point of reference is the point designated Manhole B . This Manhole B will accept all of the flows from Manhole A plus contributory flows from tracts B-2 and BJ.Co The next point of reference is the point desi gnated Manhole C. This Manhole C will accept all of the flows from Manhole B plus contributory flows from tracts B-1, B-3 and B-5 . The Manhole C will accept flows at the Manhole from Area B -4 . The following table summarizes the flows described above and as shown in the attached map showing the sewer alignment and referenced Manholes A, B and C and the attached Exhibit showing the calculations of demand showing flows at each manhole plus flows from Contributory Areas (C.A.) and Q of Pipe . M .H .# @A B @B c @C Property & Area -, B-'f-243 Ac. (fl B-2, Bf-118 Ac Flow A + C .A. B 0 Property Ci.fs) 1.725 0.838 2 .563 ~··~~.1-/""~rv ~ / ~.O·, 9'~1· .\/" =¥ l;ejp~& Slope ~J~)e Remarks F0-15"@0.25% 4 .194 1.725.<4 .194 FI -12" @0.25% ~~ .838 < 2 .315 FO -15"@ 0 .25% 4. 194 .838 < 4 .194 FO -12"@ 0.25% 2 .315 2 .563 > 2 .315 Construct 15" line between Manhole A and B@ .-z.s.0 /0 ~ ----""::ICL~ ~ Flow B + C .A. C 3.791 FI-15 " 0 .25% 4.194 1.349 < 4 .194 FI -15 "@ 0 .25% 4.194 3 .791 < 4 .194 FO -18"@ 0.25% 6 .827 Construct 15 " line between Manhole B and C@ . -z.S°l 0 ru.:,._ Additional Flows at C: B -4 -3 0 Ac. & alternate A-5 -50 Ac . 0 .568 Out of C Flow In C +Additional 4.358 F .O . -15"@ 0 .2 5% 4 .194 4 .358 > 4 .194 F .O . -18 "@ 0 .25% 6 .827 4.358 < 6 .827 Construct 18 " Line between Manhole C and Existing Manhole As has been illustrated above, the proposed line sizes have adequate capacity to handle the projected peak flows of the presently unsewered areas. ,,,_ ~~-t~--~e \oo~/~~ ~I "2.1~/~~~j~ ~ As for the proposed Westfield Addition (52 Ac .), it consists of220 residential lots. Using 3f 200 gallons per day (g.p.d .) with infiltration of 10% and a peaking factor of 4 .0, the peak flow requirements for Westfield Subdivision is : = 44,000 GPD d~ Slf. aJ/:P.~~ = 4,400 GPD r-..µw._ Dl)J-~~~+-~--~17_6~4_0_0~G_PD_ ~ O ~ .r 220 X 200 GPD Total Flow = 222,400 GPD = 0 .343 CFS (Cubic Ft. Per Sec.) . ~ ~~~Wuuuls? / ufilf ~ hjk{b # U-,~ ~ ~-h A 6" Line@ 0.33% Slope will r a Q value of 0.418 CFS, which is of SU~ capacity to handle the entire peak load of Westfield Subdivision . Therefore, the oversize participation should be the cost difference between a 6" line and the proposed oversized pipe shown . If you any further questions, please call me at any time . /uJwM:LA, i q{X) I @ / '-)zf'/~ 0 q q,07'~ 2.14-' 1l -r q,'57')ia-t -?.8 8 ,57' 1[@/Cf~ Wi~'-1&~ I u~#~~ . cf~·-okt r ctJ J};o ~ /W-;;a&~ ~: nw~lo;;_ h-O~o;il/#u- 1;1£. ~h Cr..f& u., f(µ ~ £J a.~ TV~~ 8" n (;«J. O -W ~ rjb ;lMi~ ~ 0 ·f· 6Ai ~ a / EXHIBITC Calculations of Demand and 0 of Pipe A. Demand Calculations: = 1.725 C .F .S. (Cubic Ft. Per S ec.) ~ rrz--/ fo <;J,.-/ S ~ 2 . Manhole B -Contributo 118 Acres: ~ t::~ 118 Acres X 5 D .6°/Ac. "#-590 D .U. r ~ff} · 590 D .U. X 200 G .P .B .~= 118,000 G .P.D . ~ ~lU! Plus Infiltration@ 10° o 11 ,800 G .P .D. "{b ~ ~~~ J Plu s Peak Factor 3 .5 = 413 000 G .P .D . ~ fo '1~--' Total Peak Flow of .A. = 542,800 G .P.D . (Gallons Per D ay) 542 ,800 G.P .D . X 1/24 X 1160 X 1160 X 1/7 .5 = 0 .838 C.F .S (Cubic Ft. Per Sec.) 3 . Manhol e C -Contributory Areas (C.A. C) B-1. B-3 and B-5, 190 Acr es : 190 Acres X 5 D .~./Ac . ~ 950 D .U. 950 D .U. X 200 G .P .D . = 190,000 G .P .D . Plu s Infiltration@ 10 ° 19,000 G .P .D . Plus Peak Factor 3 .5 665 000 G.P .D . Total Peak Flow of .A. = 874,500 G .P .D . (Gallons Per Day) 874,000 G.P .D . X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7.5 = 1.349 C.F.S. (Cubic Ft. Per Sec.) 4 . Additional Flow at Manhole C from B-4 and Alternate A-5. 80 Acres : Sec .) 80 Acres X 5 D .U./Ac . 400 D .U. X'!OO G.P .D . Plus Infiltration @ 10% Plus Peak Factor Total Peak Flow of . . = = 400 D .U . 80,000 G.P.D . 8,000 G .P .D. 280 000 G .P .D. 368,000 G.P .D . (Gallons Per Day) 368,000 G .P .D. X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7 .5 = 0.568 C.F.S . (Cubic Ft. Per B. 0 of Pipe: 1. 0 of Pipe Flowing In at Manhole A -12 " @ 0 .25% Slope: Q = [1.486 AR 2/3 S 1/2] In Q = [I.486 (0 .785) (0 .25)2/3 (0 .0025)1/2] I 0 .01 Q = 148 .6 (0 .785) 0.397) (0 .05) Q = 2 .315 CFS 2 . 0 of Pip e Flowing In at Manhole B -15" @0.25% Slope : Q = [1.48 6 (1.227) (0 .312)2/3 (0 .0025)1/2] I 0 .01 Q = 148 .6 (1.2 2 7) (0.460) (0 .05) Q = 4 .194CFS 3 . 0 of Pipe Flowing at Manhole C -18 "@ 0 .25% Slope : Q = (1.486 (1.767) (0.375)2/3 (0 .0025)112] I 0 .01 Q = 148 .6 (1.767) (0 .520) (0 .05) Q = 6 .827 CFS I • I ~ / \~ ... \ \ ....... ·--· . · •"'!,' . .·.: .. . ..;. ..• -~-.. ~ ...... .. ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATES FOR SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION & OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION Item Description 8" Line 12" Line 15" Line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Easement Cost s 500.00 Clearing & Grubbing S 2,400.00 Sewer Pipe -PVC SDR-26 (D3034) @ 450LF. 2,450 LF. $ 2.22 s 999.00 s 5,439.00 Trenching & InstaJ. @ S 10.00 2,900 LF. (10'-12') $29,000.00 Trench Safety 10'-12'@ S 1.50 2900 LF. $ 4,350.00 Manholes 7 @4' Dia. $ 1,500.00 $10,500.00 7 @5' Dia. $ 2,500.00 Engin., Surv., Plans $ 7,500.00 TOTALS ....••••.•.•..•..•...•...••• $ 60,688.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 5.00 s 2,250.00 $12,250.00 s 18.00 $52,200.00 $ 1.50 $ 4,350.00 $17,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 98,950.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 7.66 $ 3,447.00 $18,767.00 s 20.00 $58,000.00 $ 1.50 $ 4,350.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $112,464.00 18" Line $ 500.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 10.00 $ 4,500.00 $24,500.00 $ 22.00 $63,800.00 $ 1.50 $ 4,350.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $125,050.00 ~ ---~~~m---HT;7%.flo ~o _ r.tc.J. "' fr: C>-1. There will be one crossing of the South Fork of Lick Creek, but the designed depth of the sewer line will ~ . be below the flow of the Creek. ~\ 'isV The portion of the line being built now, some 2,900 ft . Will provide sewer to Phase 1, of Westfield ~~ Addition and the future planned Elementary School. Additional sections of the sewer trunkline will be ~ built with future phases of Westfield Addition until it reaches through the entire property at the future extension of Victoria A venue. Further extensions will be done by others in the future . ENGINEERING SEWERAGE REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION TO WESTFIELD ADDITION 52.019 ACRES ROBERT STEVENSON SURVEY, A-54 COLLEGESTATION,BRAZOSCOUNTY,TEXAS JANUARY 1999 Prepared By RILEY ENGINEERING COMPANY 7182 Riley Road Bryan, Texas 77808 (409) 589-2457 ENGINEERING SEWERAGE REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION TO WESTFIELD ADDITION 52.019 ACRES ROBERT STEVENSON SURVEY, A-54 COLLEGESTATION,BRAZOSCOUNTY,TEXAS JANUARY 1999 Prepared By RILEY ENGINEERING COMPANY 7182 Riley Road Bryan, Texas 77808 (409) 589-2457 RILEY ENGINEERING COMPANY 7182 Riley Road Bryan, Texas 77808 (409) 589-2457 ENGINEERING SEWERAGE REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION TO WESTFIELD ADDITION INTRODUCTION: The WESTFIELD ADDITION project is a proposed development consisting of approximately 52 Acres fronting on Graham Road , between the CSISD Intermediate School Tract and the proposed extension of Victoria Avenue . A proposed sanitary sewer line is to be extended from the Springbrook- Cypress Meadows Subdivision to the proposed WESTFIELD ADDITION . The sewer line will run along the north side of the South Fork of Lick Creek. It is the intention of the developer to oversize this proposed line to provide sanitary sewer service for the proposed Westfield Addition and the remaining area in the drainage system as shown on the attached map . GENERAL: The sewer trunkline proposed to be built will be dedicated to the City of College Station to be owned and maintained by the City . It will be constructed with both Developer private funds and City of College Station oversize participation funds . The proposed sewer line is being designed by Riley Engineering Company , Martin L. Riley , Jr ., R.P.E ., R.P .L.S . The proposed sewer line is to be located within the rights-of-way of proposed streets and public utility easements of the City of College Station. The sewerage flows from this line will flow to the existing wastewater system of the City of College Station and the exis ti ng treatment plant (TNRCC Permit # 10024006) owned and operated by th e Cit y of Colleg e Station . The project begins at the manhole at the termination of the existing 18" line located at the northwest corner of the Springbrook-Cypress Meadows Subdivision . The existing 18 " sewer line will be extended for approximately 430 feet to a manhole as shown . Then a 15 " line will extend for approximately 2484 feet and end at a manhole . Manholes will be installed with a maximum spacing of 500 ft . No horizontal or vertical curves are required for this line . No drop manholes are required because there are no drops greater than 24 inches . All manholes to be a minimum of 4 foot in diameter (or 5 foot ifthe flow line is greater than 8 feet deep). All manhole lids are a minimum of 24 inches . The slope of the line will be 0 .25% to insure that no flow velocities are less than two feet per second nor greater than ten feet per second . CAPACITY: Capacity design for this line is based on exiting and projected future service connections in the drainage basin of the South Fork of Lick Creek. The drainage area is shown as Exhibit "A". The total drainage basin area consists of approximately 842 Acres and extends from State Highway 6 westward to just past Wellborn Road and lies generally between Graham Road and Barron Road . Some of the Drainage basin has been developed into parts of Shenandoah and Springbrook-Cypress Meadows Subdivisions with an existing 18 " sewer line ending at the northwest corner of Springbrook-Cypress Meadows with a Lift Station at Highway 6 . The following is a summary of the watershed and the various tracts of land currently sewered and to be sewered by the proposed sewer line extension . According to the land Use Plan for the City of College Station, the entire watershed area is to be IC ~ ~ 4M/rJ. TOTAL WATERSHED AREA -842 ACRES A. AREAS NOW BEING SERVED OR NOT NEEDED TO BE SERVED (351 Ac. ): A-1 Area South of Barron Road (Shenandoah Subdivisions)...................................... 65 Acres A-2 Area in Springbrook-Cypress Meadows Subdivision ............................................ 86 Acres A-3 Area along Graham Road at 01 Corp down to Victoria Ave . (This area served by Graham Road Line will not contribute to Westfield Line)..... 30 Acres A-4 Area along Graham Road (CSISD Intermediate School) (This area served by Graham Road Line will not contribute to Westfield Line)..... 20 Acres A-5 Area called Alexandria Tract will not contribute to Westfield Line ....................... 100 Acres <:::::---,j A-6 Area to be served with extension of sewer line with extension of Eagle Street A~ to the North......................................................................................................... 50 Acres 4/! 7/:l:'~ TOTAL AREA ALREADY BEING SERVED OR NOT NEEDED TO BE SERVED .... 351 Acre"t ~~ B. AREAS TO BE SERVED BY THE PROPOSED SEWER LINE EXTENSION ( 491 Ac.): B-1 Area west of Rivers tract to Bald Prairie ............................................................... 66 Acres B-2 Neelley East Tract. ............................................................................................... 30 Acres B-3 Neelley West Tract. .............................................................................................. 70 Acres B-4 CSISD 20 Acres Tract (Proposed Elementary School) .......................................... 20 Acres B-5 CSISD 10 Acres Tract (Proposed Park) ................................................................ 10 Acres B-6 Westfield Addition ................................................................................................ 52 Acres B-7 Bald Prairie Subdivision and Tracts west of Westfield Addition ............................ 243 Acres TOTAL AREA TO BE SERVED BY TRUNK.LINE ...................................................... 491 Acres As the proposed sewer line extension is built in a westward direction on the north side of the South Fork of Lick Creek (as per attached plan) all areas not presently served (some 491 Acres) will be serviceable by the proposed sewer line extension . Beginning at the remotest upstream point in the system, called Manhole A, the flows at this point will be all of Area B-7 comprised of243 Acres . The next point of reference is the called Manhole B . The line between Manhole A and Manhole B will handle the flow of all of the Area ofB-7 (243 Acres) plus the Area B-1 and B-6 (118 Acres) for a total area to be served of361 Acres . The next point of reference is the called Manhole C. The line between Manhole B and Manhole C will handle all of the flow of the area mentioned above or 361 Acres , plus Area B-3 , B-4 and B-5 (100 Acres) for a total area to be served of 461 Acres . The line extending from Manhole C to existing Manhole in Springbrook-Cypress Meadows Subdivision will handle all of the flows from the before mentioned 461 Acres plus the remaining Area B-2 (30 Acres) for a total of 491 Acres . The length of the sewer line extension to Westfield Addition is approximately 2900 feet. The flow line at the existing Manhole (Sta. 0 + 00 ') at Springbrook-Cypress Meadows Subdivision is 274 .00 feet. There is a creek crossing at Sta. 22 + 35 '. At a slope of 0.25%, there will be a rise of 5.59 feet , or 5.6 feet plus the 274 feet for a flow elevation at the creek of 279.6 feet. The bottom of the creek at the crossing is 280 . 5 feet , so that the flow line will be below the creek flowline . At the creek, the contractor shall place a 20 feet of ductile iron pipe centered on the creek, with an additional 20 feet of ductile iron pipe on each side of the creek. Standard anchoring on the ductile iron pipe will be provided in accordance with City Standards. The other creek crossing is at Sta . 30 + 60 '. Of this , 2900 feet is @ 0.25% slope , and 160 feet is at 0.33% slope . this will result in a rise of 7.25 feet plus a rise of0.53 feet or a total of7.78 feet plus the 274 feet for a flow elevation at the second creek crossing of 281.78 feet. The creek flowline at this point is 283 . 5 feet, so the sewer flowline will be below the creek flowline . Again as the other creek crossing , the contractor will place ductile iron pipe at the creek crossing . CALCULATIONS: The following table summarizes the flows described above and suggests the size of pipe sufficient to handle the projected flows : MH =Manhole Q-Prop = Flow from Property Q-Pipe =Flow Capacity of Pipe 1. Line from 12"@ 0 .25% Q-Pipe = 2 .315 cfs MHAto:MHB 361 Acres Q-Prop .= 2 .949 cfs 15"@ 0 .25% Q-Pipe = 4 .194 cfs -oK 2 . Line from MHB to:MHC 461 Acres Q-Prop .= 3 .766 cfs 15" @0.25% Q-Pipe = 4 .194 cfs -ov-< 3 . Line from MH C to Existing MH 491 Acres Q-Prop = 4 .010 cfs 18" @0.25% Q-Pipe = 6.827 cfs -OK The recommended size of the sewer line is 15 inch from Manhole A to Manhole C, and 18 inch from Manhole C to the Existing Manhole at Springbrook-Cypress Meadows Subdivision . A 15 inch line would handle the flow ( 4 . 010 cfs < 4 .194 cfs ), but if there are any changes in the future that would contribute at this point, the larger line (18 inch) would offer a greater margin for change . For WESTFIELD ADDITION, the following are the calculations for the amount of flow from the property and the capacity of an 8 inch line : 220 D .U. X 270 GPD = Infiltration @ 10% Peak Factor@4.5 = Total Peak Flow 59,400 GPD 5,940 GPD 267,300 GPD 332,640 GPD Q-Pipe for 8 inch Line@ 0.33%: Q-Property = 0. 513 cfs Q-Pipe = [1.486 (0 .351) (0.2917)2/3 (0.0033)1/2] I O.Ol Q-Pipe 148 .6 (0 .351) (0.438) (0 .05745) Q-Pipe 1.312 cfs V = 2 .3 fps The 8" line is more than sufficient to handle the load from Westfield Addition . The oversize participation will be the difference between the 8" and the larger diameter pipe sizes . This has been previously submitted and approved . .. ) .. "'~ .. _,. ·-. ....... • (' A. DEMAND CALCULATIONS: = Infiltration @ 10% ............................... . Peak Factor(@. 4 .5 .............................. .. = Total Peak Flow .................................. . = 1,911,168 GPD X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7 .5 2 . Line from MH B to C -461 Acres : 461 ACRES 3 D .U./Ac ................. .. 1614 D.U. X 270 GPD.......................... = Infiltration @ 10%................................. = Peak Factor 4 .5................................. = Total Peak Flow.................................... = 2,440,368 GPD X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7 .5 3 . Line from MH C to E 'sting MH -491 Acres : 491 ACRES X . D .U./Ac ................. . 1719 D .U. X 270 GPD ....................... .. Infiltration @ 10% ............................... . = Peak Factor 4 .5 ............................... . = Total Peak Flow ................................. .. = 2,599,128 GPD X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7.5 1264 D .U. 341,280 GPD _ 34,128 GPD f 1 535 760 GPD -f 1,911,168 GPD -::. = 2.949 cfs 1614 D .U. 435,780 GPD 43,578 GPD 1 961 010 GPD 2,440,368 GPD = 3 .766 cfs 1719 D.U. 464,130 GPD + -f -- ,413 GPD -f 2 088 585 GPD f 2,599, 128 GPD ~ = 4.010 cfs B. 0 OF PIPE: 1. Q-Pipe for 12" line@ 0 .25% Slope : Q = [1.486 AR 2/3 S 112] In __..---·-----.__ Q ~ [1.486 (0 .785) (0 .25)2/3 (0.0025)1/2) t~ {), ()/ .3 Q = 148.6 (0 .785) (0 .397) (0 .05) Q = 2.315 cfsV = 2 .7 fps 2 . Q-Pipe for 15" line @ 0 .25% Slope : Q = [1.486 AR 2/3 S 112] In Q = [1.486 (1.227) (0 .312)2/3 (0 .0025)1/2] I Q = 148 .6 (1.227) (0.460) (0 .05) Q = 4 .194 cfsV = 3 .5 fps 3. Q-Pipe for 18" line @ 0 .25% Slope: Q = [1.486 AR 2/3 S 1/2] In Q = [1.486 (1.767) (0 .375)2/3 (0 .0025)1/2 Q = 148 .6 (1.767) (0.520) (0 .05) Q = 6.827 cfsV = 3 .8 fps .... RILEY ENGINEERING COMPANY CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING SERVICES 7182 Riley Road, Bryan, Texas 77808 (409) 589-2457 ENGINEERING SEWERAGE REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED S.S. TRUNKLINE EXTENSION TO WESTFIELD ADDITION INTRODUCTION The WESTFIELD ADDITION project is a proposed development consisting of approximately 52 Acres fronting on Graham Road, between the CSISD Intermediate School Tract and the proposed extension of Victoria Avenue. A proposed sewer trunkline is to be constructed from the end of the Springbrook -Cypress Meadows Subdivision to the proposed Westfield Addition and running along the north side of the South Fork of Lick Creek. It is the intention of the developer to oversize this proposed Trunkline sufficient to sewer the adjacent land and drain field area. GENERAL The sewer will be owned and maintained by the City of College Station and will be constructed with both Developer private funds and City of College Station oversize participation funds . The line is designed Riley Engineering Company, Martin L. Riley , R .P .E , R.P.L.S . (409) 589-2457 . The proposed sewer line is to be located within the rights-of-way of proposed streets and public utility easements of the City of College Station . The sewerage flows from this line will flow to the existing wastewater system of the City of College Station and the existing waste water treatment plant (TNRCC Permit #10024006) operated by the City of College Station, Texas . The project consists of tying on to the existing 18 " Line at Springbrook -Cypress Meadows Subdivision and extending with approximately 430 ft. of 18 " Sewer Line northwesterly to a Manhole as shown, and then extending with approximately 2484 ft. Of 15" Sewer Line southwesterly e ~g at a manhole . Included are additional manholes with maximum spacing of 500 ft. No horizontal or vertical curves are required for this Trunkline. No drop manholes are required because there are no drops greater than 24 ". All manholes to be a minimum of 4' or greater and all manholes lids are a minimum of 24 ". The slope of the line is to be 0 .25% to insure that no flow velocities are greater than two feet per second and 1.-es&than ten feet per second. le:6 ~ CAPACITY Capacity design for this line is based on existing and projected future service connections in the drainage basin of the South Fork of Lick Creek, which drainage area is shown in the attached Exhibit 1. The total drainage basin area consists of a total of 842 ' ' acres, extending from State Highway 6 westward to just past Wellborn Road and mostly between South Graham Road and Barron Road . Some of the area has been developed into parts of Shenandoah and Springbrook-Cypress Meadows Subdivisions with an existing 18 " sewer trunkline and a lift station located at State Highway 6 . The following is a summary of the watershed and the various tracts being currently sewered and to be sewered by the proposed trunkline extension . According to the land use plan currently in V effect, the entire watershed area is shown to be used as low density residential use . Total Watershed Area -842 Acres -Sewered as follows: A. Areas currently being served (231 Acres): A-1 Area south of Barron Road (Shenandoah Subdivision) .......... 65 Acres / ._..~ r c, ~:; ::: ~~o:ri~~:k;o:~d~~i~~~~~ d~;.;; t~UVi~~ri~ A~ . ~~ ~~~= :-, i'tJ~ ~;.-l A-4 Area along Graham,. CSISD I~termed1ate School... ............... 20 Acres ~L .• e>iJJ ~ ~~ A-5 Area to be served with extension of Eagle north................... 50 .Acres · ~ ? ~ TOT ALAREAALREADYSERVED _Zb\~~~s!'ill?~· ~~-I :::: ::.::~ed ~-. th~ ro . os~ t~n~1".e ~e .. Ston ..... I .. c::: Acres ~ ~ ~~P B-2 Tracts West of Rivers to Bald Prairie .................. >~·······.... 66 Acres ~ B-3 Neelley West Tract.. .................................... ~:(}~((· ..... \ 70 Acres ~ \\•,J> B-4 NeelleyEast Tract.. ............................... JtlW\,.~,j f"vM.:q; 30 Acres ¥". ~~~ ~~~~~e~r:~d~~i~;~~~~ .~~.~~ .. ~ ~. ~~ .~.~~.~~·.·.· ........... ~ .... f}t..~ .. ~. ~~ 1~~:: B-7 Bald Prairie Subdivision & Tracts West ofWestfi ............. 243 Acres -TOTAL AREA TO BE SERVED WITH NEW TRUNKLINE ...... 581 Acres .f.Z.51=2>~2 As the proposed trunkline extension courses westward on the north side of the South Fork of Lick Creek as per attached plan , all of the areas not presently served (some 5 81 Acres) will l&'eventually be serviceable by the proposed extension . Beginning at the remotest upstream point in the system, to be called Manhole A, the flows at that point will be all of area B16' comprised of 243 Acres . The next point of reference is the point designated Manhole B. This Manhole B will accept all of the flows from Manhole A plus contributory flows from tracts B-2 and Bf .<o The next point of reference is the point designated Manhole C . This Manhole C will accept all of the flows from Manhole B plus contributory flows from tracts B-1 , B-3 and B-5 . The Manhole C will accept flows at the Manhole from Area B-4. The following table summarizes the flows described above and as shown in the attached map showing the sewer alignment and referenced Manholes A, B and C and the attached Exhibit showing the calculations of demand showing Hows at each manhole plus flows from Contributory Areas (C .A.) and Q of Pipe. . ' \U ~ I" M .H .# @A B ....... @B c @C Property & Area ..., B -'f -243 ~c .. 0 Property (i..f ~ ,rt 1.72~ B-2, Br-118 A..c 0 .838 I tJ-'2 ~ 6 -1; Flow A + C .A. B 2 .5.63 ) Construct 15" line between Manhole A and B @ :z5>0 l0 ~ --~-~~ Flow B + C.A. C 3.791 FI -15 " 0 .25% 4.194 1.349 < 4 .194 FI -15" @0.25% 4.194 3 .791<4.194 FQ -181' @ . -% 6 .82:7 Construct 15 " line between Manhole B and c @ I 'Z.S°lo~ Additional Flows at C : B-4 -30 Ac . & alternate A-5 -50 Ac. 0.568 . - Out ofC Flow In C +Additional 4.358 -15"@0.25% 4 .194 4 .358 > 4.194 k'..lu •. 1-1Jo1 wc1f'.k:---.i.....=::.--. -18 "@ 0.25% 6 .827 4.358 < 6 .827 Construct 18 " Line between Manhole C and Existing Manhole As has been illustrated above, the proposed line sizes have adequate capacity to handle the projected peak flows of the presently unsewered areas . ~-h ... itr..lk.. ... se loo~/~~ w/ "'2 .1~/~ "'1105rJ -z.__· ! :r th ~ proposed Westfield Addition (52 Ac.), it consists of220 residen:i~ U~g ZCbjf 200 gallons per day (g.p .d.) with infiltration of 10% and a peaking factor of 4 .0, the peak flow requirements for Westfield Subdivision is: 220 X {o~ GPD = 44,000 GPD S°9 +o: St.J.. ~ = 4 400 GPD S't ~ ~ Ol)}-~~~~.....__,,~~17~6~4~00~G~' P~D ~ ~ A Ad /' '°2.''1 ~ I~ -Z, C 0 , '-\:$°" 0 {yµ.. Total Flow = 222,400 GPD = 0.343 CFS (Cubic Ft. Per Sec.) . ' ' . . . ~~ ~ <ft.t w.tls ? ui"1 ~ ~ [Jk{b µ-u..~ ~ ~-h A 6 " Line @ lope will r a Q value of 0.418 CFS , which is of SU ~ capacity to hand e e entire peak load of Westfield Subdivision . Therefore, the oversize participation should be the cost difference between a 6" line and the proposed oversized pipe shown . If you any further questions, please call me at any time . "'# e.oJ_ uJ.a;f:L~ '1 >t q(X) I @ I "Y:l/-. to q\ q/si(~ ?.!;/. ZJ 1~ EXHIBITC Calculations of Demand and 0 of Pipe A. Demand Calculations: 1. = 1.725 C.F .S. (Cubic Ft. Per Sec.) ~ ~rz_-/ f<> sJu,P/ 5 .µ....., 2 . Manhole B -Contribu~ _ 11_8 Acres : 2 t::~ 118 Acres X 5 D .U./Ac. ~ 590 D.U. ~~ te 590 D.U. x ~oo G .P .B .~= 118 ,000 G.P .D . ~ Jt Plus Infiltration@ 10°0 = 11 ,800 G .P .D . ~ ~ CfJ.~J. Plus Peak Factor 3.5 . ... 413 000 G .P .D . ~ fo ~ Total Peak Flow of .A. 542,800 G.P.D . (Gallons Per Day) 542 ,800 G.P.D . X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7 .5 = 0.838 C.F.S (Cubic Ft. Per Sec.) 3 . Manhole C -Contributory Areas (C.A. C) B-l, B-3 and B-5, 190 Acres : 190 Acres X 5 D .~./Ac . ~ 950 D .U. 950 D .U. X 200 G .P .D . = 190 ,000 G.P .D . Plus Infiltration @ 10° 19 ,000 G.P.D . Plus Peak Factor 3 .5 = 665 000 G .P .D . Total Peak Flow of .A. 874 ,500 G .P.D . (Gallons Per Day) 874 ,000 G .P.D . X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7 .5 = 1.349 C.F .S. (Cubic Ft. Per Sec .) 4. Additional Flow at Manhole C from B-4 and Alternate A-5. 80 Acres : Sec.) 80 Acres X 5 D.U./Ac. 400 D .U. X "!OO o:r.o . Plus Infiltration @ 10% Plus Peak Factor Total Peak Flow of . . = 400 D .U. 80,000 G.P.D . 8,000 G .P .D . 280 000 G .P .D . 368,000 G .P .D . (Gallons Per Day) 368,000 G .P .D . X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 117 .5 = 0 .568 C .F .S. (Cubic Ft. Per B. 0 of Pipe: 1. 0 of Pipe Flowing In at Manhole A -12 " @ 0 .25% Slope : Q = [1.486AR2/3Sl/2]/n Q = [1.486 (0.785) (0 .25)2/3 (0 .0025)1/2] I 0 .01 Q = 148 .6 (0.785) 0 .397) (0 .05) Q = 2 .315 CFS 2. 0 of Pipe Flowing In at Manhole B -15"@ 0 .25% Slope: Q = [1.486 (1.227) (0 .312)2/3 (0 .0025)112] I 0 .01 Q = 148 .6 (1.227) (0.460) (0 .05) Q = 4 .194 CFS --J ~ 3 . 0 of Pipe Flowing at Manhole C -18"@ 0 .25% Slope : Q = [1.486 (1.767) (0 .375)2/3 (0.0025)1/2] I 0 .01 Q = 6 .827 CFS ./ • :···· .. ENGINEERING SEWERAGE REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION TO WESTFIELD ADDITION 52.019 ACRES ROBERT STEVENSON SURVEY, A-54 COLLEGESTATION,BRAZOSCOUNTY,TEXAS JANUARY 1999 Prepared By RILEY ENGINEERING COMPANY ~o 1i-0~ 7182 Riley Road ~'l'l ~ (,~ Bryan, Texas 77808 C..~\)~~ \ \~~ (409) 589-2457 ~~ 0~1\~ \, ~<j G . \ \) '(j . \ ~~~ .. ·,0\ ,,. ""\ p.. '. .~; .. .. . ·~ .. ~. ',,': E NGINEER'S COST ESTrMA TES FOR OFF-SITE SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION & OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION Item Description Developer's Portion Actual To be Built Oversize Part. 1 Easement Cost s 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 0.00 2 . Clearing & Grubbing s 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 0.00 3 Pipe & Trenching: Sewer Pipe -PVC (SDR-26, D-3034) 435 L.F. 8"@ $15.00 s 6,525.00 435 L.F. 18"@ $36.00 $ 15,660.00 $ 9,135.00 2,485 L.F. 8"@$15.00 S37 ,725.00 2,485 L. F.15"@$34.50 $ 85,732.50 $ 48,007.50 311 L.F. 8"@$15.00 s 4,665.00 $ 4,665.00 s o.ou 4 Trench Safety: 3231 L.F.@ 1.50 s 4,846.00 3231 L.F.@ 2.00 $ 6,462.00 $ 1,616.QO 5 Maholes 7/60"@$2,500 $17,500.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 0.00 6 Hook-up to Existing MH $ 400.00 $ 400.00 $ 0.00 7 Sand Backfill-750CY@$5 $ 3,750.00 Sand Backfill-1125CY s 5,625.00 $ 1,875.00 8 Engineering, Surveying s 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 0.00 9 Legal, Easmt. Prep. $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 0.00 TOTALS ..................................... $ 86,411.00 $ 147,044.50 $ 60,633.50 OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION REQUEST ........•.....•..............................................• $ 602633.50 ~· ENGINEERING SEWERAGE REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION TO WESTFIELD ADDITION 52.019 ACRES ROBERT STEVENSON SURVEY, A-54 COLLEGESTATION,BRAZOSCOUNTY,TEXAS JANUARY 1999 Prepared By RILEY ENGINEERING COMPANY 7182 Riley Road Bryan, Texas 77808 (409) 589-2457 RILEY ENGINEERING COMPANY 7182 Riley Road Bryan, Texas 77808 (409) 589-2457 ENGINEERING SEWERAGE REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE EXTENSION TO WESTFIELD ADDITION INTRODUCTION: The WESTFIELD ADDITION project is a proposed development consisting of approximately 52 Acres fronting on Graham Road, between the CSISD Intermediate School Tract and the proposed extension of Victoria Avenue . A proposed sanitary sewer line is to be extended from the Springbrook- Cypress Meadows Subdivision to the proposed WESTFIELD ADDITION. The sewer line will run along the north side of the South Fork of Lick Creek. It is the intention of the developer to oversize this proposed line to provide sanitary sewer service for the proposed Westfield Addition and the remaining area in the drainage system as shown on the attached map. GENERAL: The sewer trunkline proposed to be built will be dedicated to the City of College Station to be owned and maintained by the City . It will be constructed with both Developer private funds and City of College Station oversize participation funds. The proposed sewer line is being designed by Riley Engineering Company, Martin L. Riley, Jr., R.P .E ., R .P .L.S . The proposed sewer line is to be located within the rights-of-way of proposed streets and public utility easements of the City of College Station . The sewerage flows from this line will flow to the existing wastewater system of the City of College Station and the exi sting treatment plant (Th'RCC Permit # 10024006) owned and operated by th e City of College Station . The project begins at the manhole at the termination of the existing 18" line located at the northwest corner of the Springbrook-Cypress Meadows Subdivision. The existing 18" sewer line will be extended for approximately 430 feet to a manhole as shown . Then a 15" line will extend for approximately 2484 feet and end at a monhole . Manholes will be installed with a maximum spacing of 500 ft. No horizontal or vertical curves are required for this line. No drop manholes are required because there are no drops greater than 24 inches . All manholes to be a minimum of 4 foot in. diameter (or 5 foot if the flow line is greater than 8 feet deep). All manhole lids are a minimum of 24 inches . The slope of the line will be 0 .25% to insure that no flow velocities are less than two feet per second nor greater than ten feet per second. CAPACITY: Capacity design for this line is based on exiting and projected future service connections in the drainage basin of the South Fork of Lick Creek. The drainage area is shown as Exhibit "A". The total drainage basin area consists of approximately 842 Acres and extends from State Highway 6 westward to just past Wellborn Road and lies generally between Graham Road and Barron Road . Some of the Drainage basin has been developed into parts of Shenandoah and Springbrook-Cypress Meadows Subdivisions with an existing 18" sewer line ending at the northwest comer of Springbrook-Cypress Meadows with a Lift Station at Highway 6 . The following is a summary of the watershed and the various tracts of land currently sewered and to be sewered by the proposed sewer line extension. According to the land Use Plan for the City of College Station, the entire watershed area is to be projected as medium density residential use and school and park use . TOTAL WATERSHED AREA-842 ACRES A. AREAS NOW BEING SERVED OR NOT NEEDED TO BE SERVED (346 Ac. ): A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 Area South ofBarron Road (Shenandoah Subdivisions) ..................................... . Area in Springbrook-Cypress Meadows Subdivision ........................................... . Area along Graham Road at 01 Corp down to Victoria Ave. (This area served by Graham Road Line will not contribute to Westfield Line) ..... Area along Graham Road (CSISD Intermediate School) (This area served by Graham Road Line will not contribute to Westfield Line) .... . Area called Alexandria Tract will not contribute to Westfield Line ...................... . Area to be served with extension of sewer line with extension of Eagle Street to the North ........................................................................................................ . 65 Acres 86 Acres 30 Acres 20 Acres 95 Acres 50 Acres TOTAL AREA ALREADY BEING SERVED OR NOT NEEDED TO BE SERVED .... 346 Acres B. AREAS TO BE SERVED BY THE PROPOSED SEWER LINE EXTENSION (496 Ac.): B-1 Area west of Alexandria tract to Bald Prairie ........................................................ 66 Acres B-2 Neelley East Tract.. .............................................................................................. 63 Acres B-3 Alexandria North of Creek................................................................................... 5 Acres B-4 Neelley West Tract.. ............................................................................................. 37 Acres B-5 CSISD 20 Acres Tract (Proposed Elementary School)......................................... 20 Acres B-6 CS I SD I 0 Acres Tract (Proposed Park)............................................................... 10 Acres B-7 Westfield Addition ................................................................................................ 52 Acres B-8 Bald Prairie Subdivision and Tracts west of Westfield Addition ............................ 243 Acres TOTAL AREA TO BE SERVED BY PROPOSED SEWER LINE EXTENSION ... 496 Acres As the proposed sewer line extension is built in a westward direction on the north side of the South Fork of Lick Creek (as per attached plan) all areas not presently served (some 496 Acres) as shown on the attached Map will be able to be served by this proposed sewer line extension . Beginning at the remotest upstream point in the system, called Manhole A, the flows at this point will be all of Area B-8 comprised of243 Acres. The next point of reference is the called Manhole B . The line between Manhole A and Manhole B will handle the flow of all of the Area ofB-8 (243 Acres) plus the Area B-1 and B-7 (118 Acres) for a total area to be served of 361 Acres . The next point of reference is the called Manhole C . The line between Manhole B and Manhole C will handle all of the flow of the area mentioned above or 361 Acres, plus Area B-3, B-4, B-5 & B-6 (20 Acres Proposed Elementary School & 10 Acres Proposed Park) (See Exhibit "C") (72 Acres) for a total area to be served of 433 Acres . The line extending from Manhole C to existing Manhole in Springbrook-Cypress Meadows Subdivision will handle all of the flows from the before mentioned 436 Acres plus the remaining Area B-2 (63 Acres) for a total of 496 Acres . The length of the sewer line extension to Westfield Addition is approximately 2900 feet. The flow line at the existing Manhole (Sta. 0 + 00) at Springbrook-Cypress Meadows Subdivision is 274 .00 feet. There is a creek crossing at Sta. 22 + 35 . At a slope of 0 .25%, there will be a rise of 5.59 feet , or 5.6 feet plus the 274 feet for a flow elevation at the creek of 279 .6 feet. The bottom of the creek at the crossing is 280.5 feet, so that the flow line will be below the creek flow line . At the creek, the contractor shall (1) place a 20 feet of ductile iron pipe centered on the creek, with an additional 20 feet of ductile iron pipe on each side of the creek topped with concrete encasement, or (2) contractor shall maintain the placement of the PVC heavy wall sewer pipe and concrete encase the 60 foot portion at the creek crossing . Standard anchoring at the creek crossing will be provided in accordance with City Standards . The other creek crossing is at Sta . 30 + 60 . Of t his, 2900 feet is @ 0 .25% slope, and 160 feet is at 0 .33% slope. This will result in a rise of7 .2 5 feet plus a rise of0.53 feet or a total of 7 .78 feet B. 0 OF PIPE: 1. 0-Pipe for 12" PVC Pipe Placed @ 0.25% Slope: Q = [1.486 AR2/3 S 1/2] /n Q = [1.486 (0 .785) (0 .25)2/3 (0.0025)1/2] I 0 .013 Q = 114 .31 (0 .785) (0 .397)(0.05) 0 = 1.78 CFS V = 2.7 FPS 2. 0-Pipe for 15" PVC Pipe Placed @ 0.25% Slope: Q = [1.486AR2/3S1/2]/n Q = [1.486 (1.227) (0 .312)2/3 (0 .0025)1/2] I 0 .013 Q = 114 .31 (1.227)(0.460)(0.05) 0 = 3.23 CFS V = 3.5 FPS 3. 0-Pipe for 18" PVC Pipe Placed @ 0.25% Slope: Q = [l.486AR2/3Sl/2]/n Q = [1.486 (1.767) (0 .375)2/3 (0 .0025)112] I 0 .013 Q = 114 .31 (1.767) (0 .520) (0 .05) 0 = 5.25 CFS V = 3.8 FPS 4. Proposed School & Park (30 Acres) Calculations: The sewer line from Manhole B to Manhole C consists of serving an area of 436 Acres which includes some 20 acres for a proposed Elementary School and 10 Acres of Park Land . The Sewer Load for this 30 Acres of land is as follows : For the Proposed Elementary School of 750 Students and upon the following assumptions, the projected load can be calculated as follows : a. Assumptions : Number of Students .......................... 750 Number of Employees....................... 60 Hours of Operation 8 :30 a.m. to 3 :30 p.m. Flow Assumptions (Sanitary Sewer and Water): 8 hours for a School Day X 60 Min ./Hr. = 480 Min./School Day Contributions to Flow (Sanitary Sewer & Water): 20 G.P .D./Capita (Ref. TNRCC 317.4 (a)) per Student I Faculty-Empoyee for a School with cafeteria with showers 5 G .P .D./Capita (Ref. TNRCC 317.4 (a)) per person for Recreational Parks, Day User b . Calculated Sanitary Sewer Demands : 20 GPD X 810 = 16,200 GPD (33 .75 GPM Average Flow) 33 .75 GPM X 4 Peak Demand ..................... . 135 GPM X 480 Min/Sch .Day ....................... .. Infiltration @ 10% ........................................... .. Total School Peak Flow ................................... .. = 135 GPM = 64 ,800 GPD Peak Flow 6.480 GPD = 71,280 GPD 5 GPDX200 = 1,000 GPD (2 .083 GPM Average Flow) 2 .083 GPM X 4 Peak Demand .......................... . 8 .333 GPM X 480 Min/Sch .Day ...................... .. Total Park Peak Flow (With 10% Infil.) ........... .. TOT AL PEAK FLOW -SCHOOL & PARK ...... . 8.333 GPM 4.000 GPD 4,400 GPD 75,680 GPD Total Peak Flow for 30 Acres for School and Park Say ...... = 76,000 GPD NOTE: The Projected Peak Flow in the amount of 76 ,000 GPD for the School and Park Tracts (30 Acres) occurs only during the School day and does not occur, match or interfere with the Peak Flow of the adjacent residential peak flows , which occur either before the School Day starts or after the School Day ends . Thus, the peak flows from the School and Park tracts (30 Acres) would not contribute at all to the Peak Flo w of the other adjacent Residential Area s. pl.us t he 274 feet for a flow elevation at the second creek crossing of 28 1. 78 feet. The creek flo w line at t his point is 283. 5 feet, so the sewer flow line will be below the creek How line . Again as !he previous creek crossing, the contractor will place either ductile iron pipe or continue with t he heavy w all. sewer pipe, w ith appropriate encasement and anchoring as mentioned before at the creel crossing . CALCULATIONS FOR SEWER LINE EXTENSION: The following table summarizes the flows described above (and the calculations more particularly shown in Exhibit "C") and suggests the size of pipe sufficient to handle the projected flows: MH=Manhole Q-Prop =Flow from Property Q-Pipe =Flow Capacity of Pipe ). Line from MH-A to MH-B: MH-A to MH-B drains 361 Acres Q-Prop . = 2.78 CFS 15" @0.25% Q-Pipe = 3 .23 CFS 2. Line from MH-B to MH-C: MH-B to MH-C drains 433 Acres Q-Prop . = 3 .21 CFS 15" @0.25% Q-Pipe = 3 .23 CFS 3. Line from MH-C to Existing MH: MH C to Exist. MH drains 496 Ac. Q-Prop . = 3 .70 CFS 18" @0.25% Q-Pipe = 5 .25 CFS The recommended size of the sewer line extension is a 15 inch line from Manhole A to Manhole B , a 15 inch line from Manhole B to Manhole C, and an 18 inch line from Manhole C to the E xisting Manhole at Springbrook-Cypress Meadows Subdivision . CALCULATIONS FOR WESTFIELD ADDITION: For WESTFIELD ADDITION, t he following are the calculations fo r the amount o f flow from the property will generate and the capacity of an 8 inch line : 220 D .U. X 270 GPD = Infiltration @ 10% = Peak Factor@ 4 .0 = Total Peak Flow 59,400 GPD 5,940 GPD 237,600 GPD 243 ,540 GPD Q-Property = 243,540 GPD X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7 .5 = 0 .376 CFS Q-Pipe for 8 inch Line@ 0 .33%: Q-Pipe [1.486 (0 .351) (0 .2917)2/3 (0.0033)1/2] I 0 .013 Q-Pipe = 114 .31 (0 .351) (0.438) (0 .05745) Q-Pipe = 1.009 CFS V = 2.3 fps The 8" line is more than sufficient (1.009 CFS > 0 .376 CFS) to handle the load from Westfield Addition. The oversize participation will be the difference between the 8" and the larger diameter pipe sizes . This has been previously submitted and approved . Prepared February, 1999 . ............ ,,, .. ,,,, rely , P. ~~ :-;~~ .. 9f. .. ?:~':.''•• :i)'.··· ·';!.~ ,, . ~ •. ·· :\'5' '~ · a;};;;:, . I f ~!<.~~l~~:} Martm L. Riley, Jr., R.P.E., R.P .L.S . / .,,.. 50316 _.·,'!;~ '1 o·.-?~ <)"ii!' 1'1~--~--~/STE?-:,~···~ f ,,ss, ............ ~(>- ,, DNA\. ~ ~-,,,,,,,,,, ........ i \ .) <"'·~.,; EXHIBIT "C" A. DEMAND CALCULATIONS: 1. Line from MH-A to MH-B -361 Acres: (Consists of 361 Acres of medium density (3-6 D.U./Ac. or Ave. of 4.5 D.U./Ac.)) 361 Ac . X 4 .5 D .U./Ac .... 1,624.5 D .U. X 270 GPD Infiltration@ 10% .......... . Peak Factor@4 .............. . Total Peak Flow ............. . 1,624 .5 D .U. = 438 ,615 GPD 43,862 GPD = 1.754,460 GPD = 1,798,322 GPD Total Peak Flow for 361 Acres ......................... . 1,707,130 GPD X 1/24 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7 .5 2. Line from MH-B to MH-C -433 Acres: = 1,798 ,322 GPD = 2.78 CFS (Consists of above 361 Acres plus 30 Acres of School & Park and 42 Acres of Medium Density Residential@ Ave. of 4.5 D.U./Ac.)) Total Peak Flow for 361 Acres ........................ . Total Peak Flow for 30 Acres of School/Park. .. 42 Ac. X 4 .5 D .U ./Ac ......... = 189 D .U. X 270 GPD ........ . 189 D .U. 51,030 GPD Infiltration@ 10%.............. 5, 103 GPD Peak Factor@ 4. .. .. . . .. . .. .... . = 204 , 120 GPD Total Peak Flow for 45 Ac .. = 209 ,223 GPD 1,798,322 GPD = 76 ,000 GPD (See Exhibit "C" A-4) Total Peak Flow for 433 Acres ................. = 2,083,545 GPD Total Peak -403 Ac . = 2,007 ,545 GPD 2,082 ,636 GPD X 1124 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7 .5 = 3.214 CFS 3.098 CFS 3. Line from MH-C to Existing MH -496 Acres: (Consists of above 433 Acres plus 63 Acres of Medium Density Residential@ Ave of 4.5 D.U./Ac) 63 Ac . X 4 .5 D .U./Ac ....... . 283 .5 D .U . X 270 GPD ........ = Infiltration @ 10 % ............ . Peak Factor @ 4 ............... . Total Peak Flow for 63 Ac ... 283 .5 D .U. 76 ,545 GPD 7,655 GPD 306.180 GPD 3 13 ,835 GPD 2,3 97 ,3 80 GPD X 1124 X 1/60 X 1/60 X 1/7 .5 Total Peak Flow for 433 Ac ... = 2,08 3,545 GPD Total Peak Flo w for 63 Ac ... = 3 13 835 GPD Total Peak Flow for 496 Ac ... = 2,397 ,380 GPD = 3.699 CFS UJ /U.i:/!:l!:I 10:54 ·0 ·5u ~;rn 4430 TNRCC WATERSHED ~003 /004 EXHIBIT "D" Texas Natural Resource Conservation Conunission Chapter 317 -Design Criteria for Sewerage Systems Page 30 (D) a plan for ro utine cleaning and inspection . (5) Alarm system . An audio-visual alarm system (red flashing light and horn) shall be provided for all lift stations . These alarm systems should be telemetered to a facility where 24 hour attendance is available. The alarm system shall be activated in case of power outage, pump failure or a specified hig h water level. §3 17 .4. W astewater Trea tment Facilities. (a) General requirements . Whenever possible, existing d ata of flows and raw waste strength from the same plant or nearby plants with similar service areas s hould be used in design of treatment facilities. When using such data for design purposes, the variability of data should be considered and the design based on the highest flows and strengths encountered d uring normal o perating ·periods taking into consideration possible infiJtration/inflow. In the absence of existing data, the following are generally acceptable parameters to which must be added appropriate allowances for inflow and infiltration into the collection system to obtain plant influent characteristics . Figure 1: 30 TAC §3 17.4 (a). Daily Wastewater Wastewater Flow -Gallons Strength Source Remarks Per Person mg/1 BOD5 Municipality Residential 100 200 Subdivision Residential 100 200 Trailer Park (Transient) 2 1h perso ns per trailer 50 300 M obile Horne Park 3 persons per trailer 75 300 School with Cafeteria With Showers 20 300 Without showers 15 300 Recreational Parks Overnight user 30 200 Day User 5 100 Office Building or Factory 20 300 Motel 50 300 Restaurant Per Meal 5 1000 Hospital Per Bed 200 300 Nursing Horne Per Bed 100 300 (1) Effluent quality. Wastewater treatment plants shall be designed to consistently meet the effluent concentration and loading requirements of the applicable waste disposal permit. (2) Effluent quantity . The design flow of a treatment plant is defined as the wet weather, maximum 30 day average flow. The design basis shall include industrial wastewaters which will enter the sewerage system . The engineering report shall state the flow and strength of W3stewaters ;..:'"