PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION MIDWAY ROAD BELT UNE ROAD TO UNDBERGH DRIVE ADDISON, TEXAS HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. engineering geoscience consuUants '---_c.1fa 
j I I . J PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION MIDWAY ROAD BELT LINE ROAD TO LINDBERGH DRIVE ADDISON, TEXAS For Town of Addison, Texas Through Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea, L.L.P. Dallas, Texas INTRODUCTION
In general accordance with notice to proceed and the authorization of our 8 March 1999 proposal, we have completed a Pavement Investigation of Midway Road from Belt Line Road to Lindbergh
Drive in Addison, Texas. Information relative to the scope of this project was provided through a meeting at the site and through discussions with Mr. Jonn W. Birkhofi, P.E., of Shimek,
Jacobs & Finklea, L.L.P. We understana that this section of Midway Road has experienced difficulties with seepage through the joints in the pavement and vertical displacements at the
joints in a longitudinal direction. The pavement was milled to create a smooth surface within the last two or three years. The vertical displacements have re-occurred to the point that
many panels have vertical offsets of one inch, or more, at the present time. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this investigation was to develop specific geotechnical data at the site
by means of subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and engineering and geologic analyses of the resultant data from six soil borings. Shallow (less than four feet) HENLEY JOHNSTON
& ASSOCIATES, INC. l'tl!JlIi('t'rin[l 􀁾􀁗􀁏􀁾􀀨􀀧􀁦􀀨􀀧􀁮􀀨􀀢􀁣􀀠COIISllftt1III.'>l -1
groundwater observation elements were to be setin four boreholes to observe the water levels under the pavement and two monitor wells were to be set to observe water levels and provide
access for water sampling in the deeper strata at the site. This report presents the results of the basic field and laboratory data developed and provides findings and recommendations
to guide remediation of pavement. Recommendations to facilitate design and construction were made based on geological conditions encountered and geotechnical parameters obtained from
this investigation. The interpretation of these data is considered appropriate to the extent that the investigated locations are typical of conditions present at the project site. Ii
FIELD INVESTIGATION The field or subsurface investigation conducted consisted of advancing six (6) soil borings to depths varying from about 3.5 to 20.5 feet below ground or pavement
surfaces. These borings were advanced by means of a truck-mounted rotary drilling rig which employs dry sampling techniques to advance the borings. Five (5) of the borings were drilled
through the pavement section of Midway Road; the concrete was cored using a 9-inch diameter diamond concrete coring bit. The drilling was performed by a Henley-Johnston & Associates,
Inc., drill crew. The approximate locations ofthe borings drilled are indicated on Plate 1. The borings were located on the site by an HJA Engineer, using a measuring wheel and measuring
from existing landmarks (roadways, railroads, curbs, etc.). The borehole locations indicated on Plate 1 are considered accurate to the degree implied by the method used. Samples of cohesive
soils and the upper strata of the weathered limestone were obtained using conventional Shelby-tube sampling techniques (ASTM D 15S7) whereby a thin-walled tube is advanced into the formation
by a rapid, continuous thrust from balanced hydraulic rams on the drilling rig. Disturbed, representative samples of the weathered and unwe.athered primary limestone strata were obtained
from from the auger cuttings. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES,INC. CIIf}iI!('('nllg {Jt"Q<;rienn' COIl!'>tdSWIIS -2
I All soil and limestone samples obtained from the borings were encased in polyethylene plastic to prevent changes in moisture content and to preserve in situ physical properties. All
samples were classified as to basic type and texture in the field by an experienced Engineering Geologist. labeled as to appropriate boring number and depth. and placed in core boxes
for transport to the laboratory. The concrete cores were returned to the laboratory where 2-3/4-inch diameter cores were cut for compressive strength testing of the concrete. Groundwater
was not encountered during the course of this investigation. Upon completion of drilling, temporary groundwater observation elements were set in each open borehole. The risers and wellscreens
set in Boring Nos. MW-i and MW-2 were sealed from surface infiltration of water by a i0-foot grout section over a 2-foot bentonite section. Below the grout/bentonite seal, the wellscreen
was surrounded by 20/40 silica sand. Valve covers were grouted over the tops of these installations. In the shallow borings (B-1 through B-4) through the pavement, the wellscreens extended
up to approximately the bottom of the pavement and were surrounded by 20/40 silica sand. Above that level, grout seals which also hold valve covers in place, were formed to prevent surface
water from accessing the observation units. Details depicting each specific installation are appended hereto following the report illustrations. LAi30RATORY TESTiNG All soil samples
were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Rock samples of the primary strata were described using standard geologic terms. Terms and symbols used on
the boring logs are described on the enclosed sheet entitled "Legend, Lithology, Soil Consistency & Relative Rock Hardness." To aid in the classification process, Atterberg Limits, Moisture
Content and Dry Unit Weight tests were performed or. representative samples. Aii of the above test data are summarized on Plate 2. Atterberg Limits also are presented on the Plasticity
Chart on Plate 3. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. (,rtnir;('('rinn gCOS{,lell(,(, ('01'-"1 (/1(1111." -3
Compressive Strength tests were performed on cores from the concrete pavement at each boring located in the pavement section. The results of these tests are presented on Plate 4. The
strength of each cohesive sample was estimated using a hand penetrometer. The results of these estimates are tabulated on Plate 5. The strength properties of selected soil samples were
investigated by Unconfined Compression tests. In this test, axial load is applied to a laterally unsupported cylindrical sample until failure occurs within the sample. This test is conducted
fairly rapidly (failure within about 10 minutes) and generally conforms to ASTM D 2166. The Elastic Modulus values were interpreted from the stress-strain curves of the Unconfined Compression
tests using a tangent modulus at 50 percent of peak strength. The soil strength test data are summarized on Plate 5. Stress-strain data for the Unconfined Compression tests are presented
graphically on Plates 6 through 11. Water samples obtained from each boring location location and from a nearby source of tap (municipal) water were tested by Southern Spectrographic
Laboratory, Irving, Texas. The results of those tests and a brief statement from Southern Spectrographic about the anticipated sources of the water are presented on Plate 12. SUBSURFACE
CONDITIONS The site of this investigation is in Addison, Texas, along the northbound lanes of Midway Road between Belt Line Road to the south and Lindbergh Drive to the north, as shown
on Plate 1. A section of the "ADDISON" USGS quad sheet topographic map which includes this area is presented on Plate 13. This indicates that the roadway drops about 10 feet in elevation
from Belt Line Road to the creek/railroad track, and remains fairly level or slightly uphill from the railroad track to Lindbergh Drive. Primary sediments at the site have been identified
as lim-astone strata of the Austin Chalk Formation of Cretaceous Age. The specific types, depths, and thicknesses of materials penetrated by the borings are reflected on the individual
"Log of Boring" illustrations. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIIUI/W{'n'f1fJ {Jl"OSci('ll("(' C(lfISllitWli!' -4
I Five of the borings were drilled through the concrete pavement of Midway Road. The concrete was found to be between 0.65 and 0.7 feet in thickness. Fill materials were encountered
below the pavement in all borings except Boring No. B-1 and below ground surface in Boring No. MW-1. These fill materials extend to depths ranging from about 1.1 feet in Boring No. B-2
to about 3.0 feet in Boring No. B-3. The upper portion of the fill in Boring No. B-3 and the fill in Boring No. B-4 is clay which is believed to have been lime-treated. The remaining
fill is silty clay with calcareous nodules, and probably is on site material which was relocated to fil! low areas. Below the fill or pavement in Boring Nos. MW-1, B-1 and B-3 are thin
zones of silty clay which the Atterberg Limits indicate to be low to moderate plasticity materials. In Boring Nos. MW-2 and B-4, slightly silty clays were found below the fill materials.
These materials are indicated to be high plasticity clays; this may explain why these materials were were lime-treated. All of the clay strata encountered are dark shades of brown or
gray in color. These materials are stiff to very stiff in consistency and contain varying amounts of calcareous nodules. Below the surficial clays, limestone strata of the primary formation
(Austin Chalk Formation of Cretaceous Age) were encountered. The uppermost portions of the limestone were found to be Variably weathered, having been leached by percolating waters over
time. These weathered materials are generally severely to moderately weathered, jointed and fractured and contain occasional soft clayey seams. The weathered section is typicaily firm
to moderately hard in rock hardness and light brown and tan in color. The weathered sections of limestone materials encountered ranged in thickness from about 8.5 feet in Boring No.
MW-2 to about 14.5 feet in Boring No. MW-1. Unweathered limestone strata were encountered below the zone of differential weathering at depths varying from about 13 feet in Boring No.
MW-2 to about 17 17 feet in Boring No. MW-1. Once encountered, the unweathered limestone strata continued to at least the 20.5-100t maximum depth explored. Data from other investigations
nearby' indicate that the unweathered limestone is in excess of 30 feet thick in this Vicinity. The unweathered limestone is moderately hard to hard in rock hardness and gray in color.
HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 􀀱􀀧􀁬􀁉􀁩􀁊􀀡􀁬􀁉􀁾􀀠'C'n'llf} fwos('i('fl('(' nmsu/rOH/S -5
Groundwater was not encountered during the course of this investigation prior to the installation of the water level observation elements and monitor wells. Groundwater in this vicinity
is typically perched on top of the unweathered limestone and is contained within jOints and fractures present within the weathered limestone materials and within the silty clay overburden
soils. Groundwater levels at this site can be expected to fluctuate with seasonal variations in rainfall. Water levels were measured in each observation element installation. The following
table provides the results of these water level readings. Location 6-25-99 7-28-99 MW-1 8.9 9.5 B-1 2.6 2.6 B-2 0.5 1.6 I B-3 0.4 0.8 B-4 0.7 0.7 I MW-2 4.6 6.2 All of the elements,
except Boring No. B-1, were bailed to within a few inches of the bottom of the installation on 25 June 1999 after water level readings were obtained. The water found in the elements
on 28 July 1999 had entered the instaliations since the 25 June readings. WATER LEVELS AND SOURCES Based on approximate elevations from the topographic map on Plate 13, we estimate that
the surface elevation at Boring No. MW-1 is about Elevation 625 and the suriace elevation at Boring No. MW-2 is about Elevation 622. The flow line of the creek south of the railroad
is astimated to be at about Elevation 610 to 620. The water level measurements in Boring Nos. MW-1 and MW-2 ("deep" installations) indicate that these levels are probably near the flow
line elevation of Rawhide Creek. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. t'nJ]lrH'{'ring gCQsd('w.'e consulinnl...; -6
I The water level observed in Boring No. B-1 has remained relatively constant, indicating that water has not been coming into the installation during the observation period. The other
three "shallow" installations have shown increases in water level during a time when little or no rain has fallen in the area; consequently, these elements indicate water infiltration
from sources other than rainfall. During the same period of time, the water levels in Boring Nos. MW-1 and MW-2 have decreased. The data from Southern Spectrographic indicate that the
chemistry of water found in Boring Nos. B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4 is very close to that of the referenced tap (municipal) water. The elevated potassium levels, we understand, are generally
related to water migrating through fertilized areas (landscaped areas, etc.). The chemistry of water sampled from Boring No. MW-1 is similar to that of the tap water, but has higher
concentrations of sodium, chloride, and sulfate, and less fluoride than tap water. The chemistry of water from Boring No. MW-2 appears to be predominantly from some source other than
tap water. Based on the information from the water observation and sampling installations, water chemistry tests, and our observations at the site; it is our opinion that water which
has emitted from the joints in the pavement on Midway Road probably is related to tap water (irrigation or water from nearby businesses) or surface run-off. It would be advantageous
to be able to observe these installations and obtain samples of water during a rainy period. Water has easy access to the subgrade soils through open joints in the pavement. Water can
flow from landscaped areas in the median or along the outside of the pavement through open joints in the curbs and pavement to the subgrade soils. We have observed water flowing into
the street from one of the businesses near Belt Line Road; this water flows downhill on Midway Road, encounters open joints and travels transversely until it can soak into the subgrade.
l HENLEY JOHNSTON 8. ASSOCIATES, INC. (,Ilfjint'('rin!) Yl'OS('(('lIC(' ('ol!suIUmfS -7
PAVEMENT ANALYSES Traffic counts on Midway Road for Tuesday and Wednesday, 30 and 31 March, 1999, were provided to us. The 24-hour traffic volume in one northbound lane (outside) was
divided into thirteen types of vehicles. We have used the program "Concrete Pavement Technology, Version 2.0" from the American Concrete Pavement Association to perform pavement analyses
based on available information from this investigation. This program is based on the 1986 "AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures." We have used the following general design
parameters: Serviceability Initial 4.5 Terminal 2.25 Design Life 20 Years Reliability 90 percent Overall Deviation 0.35 Load Transfer 3.2 -assuming edge support and aggregate interlock
for existing pavement 2.7 -assuming edgesupportand dowelled reinforced pavement for future pavement Orainage Coefficient Variable for existing pavement -O.B, 1.0, 1.1 For potential future
pavement -1.0 Traffic Growth Rate 0.325 percent/year For analysis of the existing pavement, we estimated the flexural strength of the concrete from the compressive strength values of
the concrete cores. These flexural strength values varied from about 640 to 700 psi. For concrete near the south end of the site, we used a value of 660 psi; for the pavement near Lindbergh
Drive, we used a value of 640 psi. For potential future pavement sections, we used a value of 650 psi. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. eltyim't>rill!] !J{'Osc'ieIlCl' COIISlli/wlls
-8
For analyses of existing and future pavement, we have assumed that the subgrade materials have a CBR value of about 3, and have used a Resilient Modulus of 4500 psi. For lime-treated
soils we have used a Resilient Modulus of 20,000 psi, and for asphalt treated base, we have used a Resilient Modulus of 350,000 psi. For 8-inch (0.65 to 0.7-foot) thick pavement, the
total ESAL's for 20-year life of the pavement is about 14,100,000 assuming the traffic volume indicated by the March traffic count. For existing conditions, with a Drainage Coefficient
of 0.8, indicating poor drainage as observed in place, the design life of the pavement is slightly more than one year. Assuming better drainage conditions with a Drainage Coefficient
of 1.0, the design life increases to about 2.3 years and with good drainage conditions, a Drainage Coefficient of 1.1, the design life increases to about 3.2 years. This indicates that
the traffic volume currently using Midway Road is significantly in excess of the volume that would be expected for a 20 or 30-year design life for. the pavement in place. The moisture
contents of the near-surface soils (subgrade materials) are relatively high at all boring locations. Indications are that these soils have been saturated and remain saturated over long
periods of time. We believe that this has resulted in softening of the soiis at the south end of each pavement panel and settlement of that end of the panel. In some cases, this has
resulted in a reverse rocking of the panel and the creation of a void under the north end of the panel. Because of these physical movements of some of the panels and the deterioration
of the subgrade under the panels, we recommend that the existing pavement be removed, the subgrade be reworked and new pavement be placed. Recommendations for the replacement of this
pavement are contained in subsequent paragraphs. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ('llfliI1perlno f/('osri(!IIC(' ('onsldWnls -9l 
Pavement analyses indicate that the following seCtions could be used as replacements for the pavement along Midway Road. 20-year Life 10-inch Reinforced Concrete Paving 12-inch Compacted
Lime-Treated Subgrade or 10-inch Reinforced Concrete Paving 4-inch Compacted Asphalt-Treated Base 3D-year Life 11-inch Reinforced Concrete Paving 12-inch Compacted Lime-Treated Subgrade
or 11-inch Reinforced Concrete Paving 4-inch Compacted Asphalt-Treated Base An alternative to complete replacement is to provide remediation of the loss of support under the panels and
a concrete pavement overlay. Loss of support may be remediated by removal and replacement of the ends of the panels (with appropriate subgrade conditioning and compaction) or by selective
grouting under the ends of the panels. The concrete overlay should be jointed, reinforced concrete with a 9-inch overlay for 20-year life and a 10-inch overlay for 30-year life. This
will require transition zones where the pavement has to meet existing grades at intersections, railroad tracks and other features. In the event concrete is to be removed and replaced,
after the soil surrace in each area has been brought to grade, the perrormance of pavement can be enhanced by treating the clay soils exposed at grade with lime-slurry for use as SUb-base.
Subject to modification during construction, a lime content of six (6) percent by dry soil weight (approximately 6 pounds of lime per cubic foot of soil treated) would be expected to
effectively treat the subgrade soil. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. {'Ilf/ille('ring fit'OS('j('IIC(' CQllsulUt1Il." -10
Soils treated with lime-slurry for use as sub-base should be compacted to a dry density at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as defined by ASTM D 698 and at a moisture content
at least 2 percentage points above Optimum Moisture content. Good surlace drainage and treatment of adjacent landscaping areas to control irrigation water are necessary to minimize moisture
changes in the subgrade. We recommend that the irrigation water be collected in a drain along the median and the sidewalk on either side of the pavement, and directed into storm drains
or Rawhide Creek, as permitted. Alternatively, a moisture barrier may be formed at the backside of the curb on both sides of the pavement. We recommend that such a barrier extend at
least two feet below grade. All joints should be sealed and the sealant maintained throughout the lifetime of the pavement. For reinforced concrete paving, it is essential that any and
all reinforcing be placed so as to insure a minimum of 1'/2-inches of cover. Selection of the proper section should be based on anticipated traffic loads, frequency and long term maintenance,
as well as project economics. EARTHWORK Earthwork recommendations are as follow: 1. Excavate and waste, or store for future use, surficial organic, deleterious, and concrete materials
encountered at the surface. 2. Scarify subgrade soils exposed in fill areas and transitional areas (cut to fill and fill to cut) to a depth of approximately eight (8) inches, add moisture
(if required), mix and recompact to a density between 95 and 98 percent of maximum density obtained by a Standard Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D 698). The moisture content of the compacted
soils should be maintained between optimum and plus four percent of the optimum value (determined by ASTM D 698) until covered by fill or pavement. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
f.'HyiTll'("rlflg {J£'o}lcknct" 􀁃􀁏􀁦􀁬􀁓􀁴􀁤􀁲􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁴􀁾􀀠 -11
3. Place fill soils for pavement in loose lifts not exceeding eight (8) inches and compact to the moisture/density values specified in No.2 above. 4. We recommend that imported select
fill material consist of inert sandy clay (material with greater than 50 percent passing the No. 200 mesh sieve) with a Liquid Limit less than 35 and a Plasticity Index between 6 and
15, or flexible base materials meeting the requirements of Texas Department of Transportation Item 247, Type 1, Grade A. QUALIFICATIONS In the event that any changes in the nature, design
or location of the proposed pavement are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions
of this report modified or verified in writing. The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from six borings. The nature and extent
of subsurface variations at the site may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it may be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report.
It is recommended that the soil and foundation engineer be provided the opportunity for general review of final design drawings and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation
recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design drawings and specifications. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. CHulJWt'rittfl 􀁦􀁊􀁬􀀧􀁯􀁾􀁣􀁬􀁴􀀧􀁲􀀧􀁬􀁴􀁣􀀠C()Jl!'ldtarl[
S ·12· l 
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this phase of the project. Please call us when we can be of further service during later stages of design or during construction. Respectfully
submitted, John W. Johnston, P.E. Henley-Johnston & Associates, Inc. JWJ HJA No. 7025 9 September 1999 ., ·1 I t HENLEY JOHNSTON 8. ASSOCIATES, INC. t'119{tl('("rlllg geo.<;cief'lcc
􀁲􀁯􀁬􀁬􀀺􀀻􀀻􀁵􀁮􀁡􀁴􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀠 -13
LEGEND􀁾􀁌􀀠" MONITOR WELLLINDBERGH DRI'{L c-@CORE BORING SPRR 8-3 8-2 􀁾􀁾􀀠CENTURION Wi{( -􀁾􀁗􀀭􀁬􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀿􀁪􀀸􀀠1 BELT LINE ROAD __ 1 􀁉􀁉􀁾􀁾􀀠I MIDWAY ROAD ADDISON TEXAS BORING
LOCATION PLAN .,i o 100 200 400 HENLEY-JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀽􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁾..􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠engineering geoscience consultants SCAlE FEET 􀁉􀁈􀀮􀀽􀁊􀁁􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁏􀁾􀀮􀀺__􀁾􀀷􀁾􀀰􀀲􀁾􀀵____􀁾􀀠r-
PLATE 1 DATE: SEPTEMBER 1999 
BORING NUMBER MW-i MW-l MW-l MW-l MW-l MW-1 DEPTH (ft.) 0.0-1.8 1.8-2.5 2.5-4.0 9.0-10.0 14.0-15.0 19.0-20.0 MW-2 MW·2 MW·2 MW·2 MW·2 0.6·2.2 2,2-3,8 3,8·5.0 9,0-10,0 14,0·15,0 B·l 8·1
0,8-2,0 2,0·3.5 B-2 8-2 0.S-1.7 1.7-3,5 8-3 8·3 8-3 0,S-1.4 1,4·2,2 3.0-3.5 8-4 8-4 0.6-1.3 1.3-2,2 MIDWAY ROAD BELT LINE ROAD TO LINDBERGH DRIVE ADDISON, TEXAS SUMMARY OF INDEX PROPERTIES
LL PI MC DUW (%) (%) (pet) 15.9 48 25 19.0 16.3 17.2 17.6 17.4 40.4 79,1 69 36 39.3 79.0 23.1 103.2 15,3 11,9 37 14 21,0 105,5 16.S 32 12 21,3 14,3 37.0 59 32 29,6 101.4 47 25 23.3 23.7
63 34 32.4 90.5 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CL CH CL CL CH CL CH HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. t'nyir\i't'ring [1('0....('«(·11("(· 􀁣􀁭􀁬􀁓􀁬􀁲􀁬􀀧􀁮􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀠 PLATE 2 
70 /' /'//60 V,... ...--.. /􀀬􀁾􀁾􀀯a.. 50 /"/''-" //,"X 􀀮􀁾􀀧􀀼􀀬􀀯􀁲􀁾//􀁾􀀴􀁻􀀩􀀠Z /./v/􀁾􀀠30 () t= 1///; /.. V'"520 //MH or CH/a.. ///I*/'10 ",.../,//ML c r OL 0 /I i I 0 10 20
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 􀁈􀁾􀁏􀀠􀀱􀁾􀀰􀀠LIQUID LIMIT ell) SUMMARY OF ATIERBERG LIMITS BORING SAMPLE LIQUID PLASTICITY UNIFIED SOIL NUMBER DEPTH,ft. LIMIT INDEX CLASSIFICATION MW-l 1.8-2.5
48 25 CL MW-2 2.2-3.8 69 36 CH B-1 0.8-2.0 37 14 CL B-2 0.6-1.7 32 12 CL B-3 1.4-2.2 59 32 CH B-3 3.0-3.5 47 25 CL 8-4 1.3-2.2 63 34 CH MIDWAY ROAD ADDISON, TEXAS SUMMARY OF AITERBERG
LIMITS HENLEY-JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES,INC engineering 9etn1chtncf> consultants HJA NO.: 7025 PLATE 3 !DATE . OS/28/99 
MIDWAY ROAD BELT UNE ROAD TO UNDBERGH DRIVE ADDISON, TEXAS SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTS ON CONCRETE CORE PAVEMENT SAMPLE SAMPLE COMPRESSIVE BORING THICKNESS HEIGHT DIAMETER STRENGTH NUMBE8
(in,) (in.) (in,) (psi) MW-2 7.8 5.594 2,777 5018 B-1 8.4 5,679 2.775 5610 B-2 7,8 6,094 2.778 5378 B-3 7,8 5.502 2.773 5728 B-4 7,8 4,114 2,772 6060 HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC
• •>llyifli'l'ring H;'{lSC"len('c 􀀨􀀧􀀨􀀩􀁉􀁬􀁓􀁈􀀧􀁦􀀨􀁾􀁉􀁈􀁎􀀠PLATE 4 
MIDWAY ROAD BELT LINE ROAD TO LINDBERGH DRIVE ADDISON, TEXAS SUMMARY OF LABORATORY STRENGTH TESTS POCKET PEAK FAILURE TANGENT BORING DEPTH PENETROMETER STRESS STRAlN MODULUS MATERIAL
NUMBER (fl.) (tsl) (psi) (%) (ksi) TYPE MW-2 0.6-22 3.0 9.6 3.7 0.35 CLAY, slightly silty, dark gray MW-2 22-3.6 3.0 16.0 12.0 0.15 CLAY, slightly sitty, dark gray MW-2 3.6-5.0 4.5+
15.2 4.7 0.46 CLAY, slightly silty, dark gray B-1 0.6-2.0 3.5 (top) 22.1 3.0 0.94 CLAY, silty, brown 4.5+ (bottom) B-2 0.6-1.7 4.5+ LIMESTONE, weathered, light brown, brown, and tan
B-3 1.4-2.2 35.1 2.6 2.76 CLAY, silty, dark brown (FILL) B-3 2.2-2.6 4.5+ CLAY, silty, dark brown (FI LL) B-4 1.3-2.2 3.0 25.6 14.3 0.94 CLAY, slightly silty, dark gray B-4 2.2·3.8 3.75
CLAY, slightly silly, dark gray HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. {'l1!1inl'i"rlIlO !}COSdf.'IlCl' 􀀨􀀧􀀨􀁊􀁬􀁉􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁤􀁴􀁗􀁉􀁉􀁓􀀠PLATE 5 
12.5 BORING NO.: MW-2 DEPTH (FT): 0.6-2.2 CLAY, slightly silty, dark gray ---10.0 --,....... (/) 0. '-/7.5 en (/) W IX l(/) -.J 5.0 « -􀁾􀀠· · · 2.5 · · TANGENT MODULUS AT 50% -ULTIMATE
STRESS: 0.35 KSI · 0.0 Ti' "T I I , I, I I I 0.0 , 2.'0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 AXIAL STRAIN (%) TEST lYPE: UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST (PSTM D 2166) MOISTURE CONTENT (\1;): 40.4DRY UNIT WEIGHT
(PCF) 79.1 MIDWAY ROAD ADDISON, TEXAS UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST STRESS-STRAIN PLOT HENLEY-JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES,INC engineering g1ttC1ftcianco conBUfu:mta HJA NO.: 7025 PlATEDATE'
' nc /"" /00 6 
20.0 BORING NO.: MW-2 DEPTH (FT): 2.2-3.8 CLAY, slightly silty, dark gray ---15.0 -......... U) \0... '-" (f) (f) 􀁾􀀠10.0 tii ...J « -􀁾􀀠-5.0 . -TANGENT MODULUS AT 􀀵􀁾􀀠ULTIMATE STRESS:
. 0.15 KSI 0.0 I I I L I " -' I I I -' j j j I 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 AXIAL STRAIN 􀀨􀁾􀀩􀀠MIDWAY ROAD TEST 1YPE: UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST ADDISON, TEXAS(ASTM D 2165) UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
TEST STRESS-STRAIN PLOT MOISTURE CONTENT 􀀨􀁾􀀩􀀺􀀠39.3 HENLEY-JOHNSTON &: ASSOCIATES.INC. DRY UNIT WEIGHT (ptF): 79.0 engineerin9 980lSciftf1C4' consultanb!i !-'.JA NO.: 7025 PLATEI1'">.11"
• os 􀀬􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀬􀁾􀀠 7 
I BORING NO.: MW-2 20.0 15.0 (f) (f) 􀁾􀀠10.0 t:i ....J « 􀁾􀀠5.0 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀠􀁯􀀮􀁯􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠6.0 DEPTH (FT): 3.8-5.0
CLAY, slightly silty, dark gray TANGENT MODULUS AT 􀀵􀁾􀀠ULTIMATE STRESS: 0.46 KSI 8.0 10.0 (S!5) MiDWAY ROAD ADDISON, TEXAS UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST STRESS-STRAIN PLOT HENLEY-JOHNSTON
& ASSOCIATES.INC. engineering gecnscience conrsultonbl HJA NO.: 7025 99 PIJI1E 8 0.0 2.0 4.0 AXIAL STRAIN TEST "TYPE: UNCONFlNED COMPRESSION TEST (ASTM D 2166) MOISTURE CONTENT 􀀨􀁾􀁬􀀺􀀠23.1
DRY UNIT WEIGHT (ptF): 103.2 
BORING NO.: B-1 DtPTH (FT): 0.8-2.0 CLAY. silty, brown 25.0 -,--------------------...., · · · · 20.0 · · ........ · &1 · 0...'-" 15.0 C/l · C/lW · 0::: I-C/l -l 10.0 « -􀁾􀀠---5.0 ·
-TANGENT MODULUS AT 􀀵􀁾􀀠-ULTIMATE srRESS: 0.94 KSI-I I I I IQO "" l" I '.l' I 'l' I. 0.0 1.0 2.0 I 3.0 4.0 5.0 AXIAL STRAIN (s:e;) TEST lYPE; UNCONFlNED COMPRESSION TEST (ASTM D 2166)
MOISTURE CONTENT 􀀨􀁾􀀩􀀺􀀠21.0 DRY UNIT WEIGHT (PCt): 105.5 MiDWAY ROAD ADDISON. TEXAS UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST STRESS-STRAIN PLOT HENLEY-JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES,INC. enginoering gao8cience
consultanbs HJA NO.: 7025 DATF' TESiF11: OR/?6/99 PLATE 9 
I 􀀭􀁾􀀠BORING NO.: B-3 DEPTH (FT): 1.4-2.2 (f) (f) 􀁾􀀠tilCLAY. silty, dark brown (FILL) 40.0 -,---------------------, 30.0 20.0 10.0 TANGENT MODULUS AT 􀀵􀁾􀀠ULTIMATE STRESS: 2.78 KSI 0.0 +-r-..--.--.---r--r--r-t---.--.--,--,.---,---r-,--..,...-....--.--r-
,-..,.--....--.--r-l 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 AXIAL STRAIN (%) TEST lYPE: UNCONFlNED COMPRESSION TEST (ASTM D 2166) MOISTURE CONTENT (51)): 29.6 DRY UNIT WEIGHT (PCP): 101.4. MIDWAY ROAD
ADDISON. TEXAS UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST STRESS-STRAIN PLOT HENLEY-JOHNSTON .& ASSOCIATES,INC ong;"".rinq l1,"""c",n"" conoultonbl HJ.4. NO.: 7025 PLA1E 10 
BORING NO.: B-4 DEPTH (FT): 1.3-2.2 CLAY, slightly silty, dark gray 30.0 -.---------------------, -----C' 20.0 -Vl .e:, -Vl Vl W cr: t1 .....I « 􀁾􀀠'0.0 ---TANGENT MODULUS AT 􀀵􀁾ULTIMATE
STRESS: -0.94 KSI ',", 0'°0-.I-O--r---r-.....-...-,---,-,---,'--,-1'01-,--,..-,--.'5".'0-.'.0-',-.-'.-"'-5'1.'1,---10200 AXIAL STRAIN 􀀨􀁾􀀩􀀠MIDWAY ROAD TEST lYPE: UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
TEST ADDISON. TEXAS(ASTM D 2166) UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST STRESS-STRAIN PLOT MOISTURE CONTENT (!Ii): 32.4HENLEY-JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES,INCDRY UNIT WEIGHT (PCF): 90.5 engineering QU(,H!Jcianoe
consultonUs. HJA NO.; 7025 ID..iTF • nR/?S/99 PLATE 11 
􀀧􀀮􀁏􀀮􀁉􀁉􀁏􀀡􀁜􀀬􀁬􀁾􀀠IRVING, fEJWI 'TG015-_ 'n!I.. (172) _17"" IU'I'lIIO (t1:I) _,1m September 7,1999 FAX (S?2) -.,""" Henley Johutou & Associate.!, Iue. Attn: Jolm W. Johi»ton
235 MOl"gllli Ave. DaUas, Te1U 75203-1088 Reporl#: 0737-28-160 Re: Evaluation ofw.ter samples Date Taken (712S199 ) MgIl SampleID Sodium Potu.lum C/llorid. Sulfau fbwrid. Total q!lorine
7025 B-1 (06U) 19.1 15.3 17 48 0.6 <0.1 7025 B-2 (062") 17.8 9.0 .21 56 0.4 <0.1 702.5 B-3 (0637) 17.7 4.0 17 53 1.0 < 0.1 7025 B-4 (0703) 15.5 6.7 19 37 0.4 <0.1 7025 MW-l (0600) 22.5
3.2 24 68 0.3 <0.1 7025 MW-2 (0654) Hi8 5.0 17 351 0.8 <0.1 Reference Tap Water 12.1 3.9 17 35 0.7 <0.1 Comments The above lUted ion ratios indicate tbat the water in sample!! B-l, B-2,
8-3, & B-4 are very similar to those of the tap water. MW·l appears to be rcasonably .imUal' to the tap WlIter with the possibility o(some evaporative concentration lUId/or influence
from resldual soluble saIU in the soU. Another sample from MW·l may show a cloae match to the tap water. MW-2 appears to be IIlIiJOrly from a solU"l!e other tIum tap water. PLATE 12

j 􀁎􀁾􀁭􀀢􀀺􀀠ADDISON 􀁾􀀠.􀁾􀀧􀀢􀀠􀁾􀁴􀁥􀀮􀀺􀀠9/7/99 =ale:' j il1ch equH1s tOOl} /eat PLATE 13 
CLASSIFICATION CONSISTENCIES ANDABBREVIATIONSSYMBOLS HARDNESS DESCRIPTIONS " I I GM CL OL MH SOIL Concrete Sil-ty Grevel or Silly Sandy Gravel Orgonic Silts ot le<m Organic Clays Micaceous
Cloys or Diatomaceous Soil Fat Clay. Fot Organic Clay. ROCK limestone Shale Marl Sandstone Fracture Zone Weathered lone obnt. abundant ong. angular FOR SANDS, GRAVELS. & SANDY SILTS
oren. arenaceous Peek. HaMon &; Thomtmm (1974)org. argillaceous bdd. bedded Standard Penetrationbdg. 􀁢􀁥􀁤􀁤􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀠Consistency Resistance Nbent. bentonite bldr. boulder Very Loose
Less than 4BT Brazil Tensile loose 4 to 10calc. calcareous Medium 10 to 30corbo carbonaceous uense .30 to 50cbl. cobble Very Dense Greater tho n 50cgl. conglomerateelst. claystone emt.
cemented FOR CLAYS & SANDY CLAYS die. diameter (COHESIVE SQILS)dk. dark Peck, Homilon. & Thcrl1burn (1974)DUW Dry Unit Weighl EI. elevalion fossil. fossiliferous Unconfined Standard
Penetration froe. frocture Consistency Compression tsf Resistance N gyp. gypsiferous incl. inclusion Very Soft Less than 0.25 Less than 2 intbdd. interbedded Soft 0.25 to 0.5 2 to 4
jnt. joint Medium 0.5 10 1.0 4 to B 10m. laminated Stiff 1.0 to 2.0 B \0 15 LL Liquid Umit Very Stifl 2.0 to 4.0 15 to 30 It. light Hard Greater than 4.0 Greoter thon 30 MC Moisture
Content ME Modulus of Elasticity RELATIVE HARDNESS MODIFERS (ROCK)med. medium min, minutes (RElATED TO FRESH SAMPLE) mad. moderately ;.!;xIified from SCS EWP. Tech Cuide No. -4 nod.
nodule occ. occasional Hardness Rule of Thumb Test port. particle Pen. Penetrometer Soft Permits denlin9 by mode rote pho•. phosphatic finger pressurePi Plasticity Index py. pyrilized
Firm Resists denting by fingers but Qu Unconfined con be penetrated by pencil Compression point to medium to shollow Rec. recover" depth (No. Z pend) md. rounded ROD Rock Oualily Mod.
Hard Very shollow penetration of Designation pencil point. con be scratched sot. saturoted by knife and in some sept. septorion instances cut with knife sev. severely sil. siliceous
Hard Na pencil penetration. can be .Ii. slightly scratched with knife, can be slk. slickensided broken by light to moderater.D. Total Depth hammer blows v. very weQ, weathered Very Hard
Cannot be soratched by knife, con be broken by repeated heavy hommer blows MIDWAY ROAD ADDISON, TEXAS LEGEND. LITHOLOGY, SOIL CONSISTENCY, & RELATIVE ROCK HARDNESS HENLEY-JOHNSTON &
ASSOCIATES, INC. engineering geoscience consultants HJA No.: 7025 DATE: SEPTEMBER 1999 
HENlEY-JaiNSTON & A'>SOC/AlES, INC. engineering 􀁾􀁥􀁯􀁳􀁣􀁩􀁥􀁮􀁣􀁥􀀠amsulionts LOG OF BORING /MONITOR WELL MIDWAY ROAD DRILL DATE: 06/19/99, 􀁯􀁾􀁮􀀢􀀠I!ETHOO: :!HElH( ME /SPIJI orvun
'Ii) 20.5' BELT LINE RD. TO LINDBERGH DR. 􀀱􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁉􀀺􀁊􀀻􀁾􀀻􀁵􀀱􀀠/r= I2.5 t//I/􀁾􀁉􀀯􀀠I-5,0 􀀭􀁾􀀠I7.5 -p!= P= 􀁾􀀯-10.0 -f ...L, -12,5 -􀁾􀀠-15,0 I--17,5 -P ...L, -20,0 􀁾􀁉􀀯y
I-22.5 -ADDISON, TEXAS MATERIAL DESCRIPTIOI'l CLAY, silty, with calcareous nodules, weathered limestone fragments, and or . c. very stiff, dark brown ond brown (Fill) /CLAY, silty, with
occasional calcareous J nodules. very stiff. brown LIMESTONE, moderately to severely weathered, with occasional soft clayey seams, firm to moderately hard, light brown, brown, and tan
LIMESTONE, moderately hard to hard, gray TOTAL DEPTH: 20.5' ! PROJECT No.: BORING No.: 7025 MW-l SHEET 1 of 1 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀺􀀢􀁓􀁅􀁅􀀠PLATE 1 z 􀁾􀀠:s COMMENTS􀀺􀀺􀀡􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠Bentonite
Seol 
, , HOUY-JOHNSTOO & ASSOCIIJES, INC. engineering geosciellC/! CQMtdtonts LOG OF BORING I MONITOR WELL MIDWAY ROAD DRILL DATE: 􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁾􀀹􀀱􀀬􀀻􀁾,METHOD: 􀀧􀁾􀀬􀀠/SPUT SPOON BELT LINE
RD. TO LINDBERGH ADDISON, TEXAS f2.5 􀁾􀀠., f.7.5 􀀭􀁾􀀠f-10.0 f.12.5 -fE f.15.0 L 17.5 -r:;; \-L, f-20.0 -gJ f-22.5 -MATERIAL DESCRIPTION CLAY, lime treated sUv>J' 􀁹􀁾􀁾􀀠(FILL) CLAY.
slightly silty, stiff, dark gray LIMESTONE, moderately to severely weathered, with occasional soft clayey seams. firm to moderately hard. light brown. brown, and tan LIMESTONE, moderately
hard to hard, gray TOTAL DEPTH: 20.5' DR. PROJECT No.: 7025 MW-2BORING No.: SHEET 1 of 1 LOCA1l0N: SEE PLATE 1 GROUND ElEVATION: COMMENTS ... :. :-.r: Valve cover.:..•. .-' . installed
􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀠.. /(::', .:. I! 􀀺􀁾I· ; 􀀺􀀻􀁾i􀀺􀁾􀀠H"f-2" pvc pipe . I'; . ,'.: I: ;: I> ' " ;!-Grout.:..' . I· ..1:.-.. ,I:"" I::.' 1-· 􀀮􀁾􀀠.... t.•􀁾... .::􀁉􀀧􀀮􀁾􀀠I::. !': : I· ":
􀁾􀀠Bentonite Seal 
.. 􀁈􀁅􀁎􀁉􀀮􀁉􀁙􀁾􀀨􀂻􀁬􀀠& ASSOCIATES, INC. engineering l:Jeoscience consultants LOG OF BORING /MONITOR WEll MIDWAY ROAD DRILL DATE: 06/19/99 I.!ElHOD: SHEUl\' lUBE /SPllT SPOON m3.5'
BELT LINE RD. TO LINDBERGH DR. 􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢􀁾􀀢􀀡􀀠1----";' 􀁾􀁟􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀧􀁩􀀬􀀠-􀁾􀁾I0.5 I1.5 I2.0 I-L 􀁾􀀠I2.5 -􀁾􀀠!-........ _--g:. 􀁾􀀠3.0 -􀁾􀀠, rr II r.;L I-3.5 I:t , I4.0 -I4.5
-i ADDISON, TEXAS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION CONCRETE CLAY, silty, with occasional calcareous nodules, very stiff, brown LIMESTONE, moderotely to severely weathered, with occasional soft clayey
seams, firm to moderately hard, light brown, brown, and ton TOTAL DEPTH: 3.5' PROJECT No.: 7025 B-1BORING No.: SHEET 1 of 1 LOCAll0N: SEE PLATE 1 GROUND ELEVATION: -COMMENTS Valve cover
installed h;'-::#.! 􀁾􀀠􀀺􀁾􀀧􀀭Grout '" ...' •..•' f':+\f-2 pvc pipe -"'.1." -.",.1-20-40 􀁾􀀮􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀠􀂷􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁩􀁜􀀧􀀠Silica sand 􀁾􀀧􀀺􀁾􀀠􀀺􀁴􀀺􀀧􀀺􀁾􀁪􀁾􀁲􀀺􀀭.01 C Slot 􀁾􀀢􀀧􀀺􀁾􀁩􀀢􀀢􀀠Screen
!i': 
I I HENLEY-JOONSTCtI '" ASSOClAlIS, INC. engineering geoscience consultants LOG OF BORING /MONITOR WELL MIDWAY ROAD DRill DATE: 06/19/99 METHOO: SHElEY ruBE !SPIlT SPOON ro J.5' BELT
LINE RD. TO LINDBERGH DR. ADDISON, TEXAS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION CONCRETE >-----1". 􀁾􀁾􀀠1------1 ". L 05 -􀁾􀁩􀀠I • ,.' , 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁴􀁾􀀫􀀧􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀡􀀠rW§1
i CLAY, silty, with calcareous nodules and 31 weathered limestone fragments, stiff, F dark brown and brown (FILL) I1.0 􀀭􀁾􀀠I1.5 -p I2,0 􀀭􀁾􀀠Ii, I2,5 -$ I3.0 􀀭􀁾􀀠I-3.5 I4,0 -I I4,5
-LIM ESTONE, moderately to severely weathered, with occasional soft clayey seams, firm to moderately hard, light brown, brown, and tan TOTAL DEPTH: 3,5' PROJECT No.: 7025 8-2BORING No,:
SHEET 1 of 1 1.000TlON: SEE PLATE 1 GROUND ELEVATION: 􀁾􀀠!, ::I g COMMENTS w'"􀀬􀀮􀀮􀁾􀀠Valve cover installed I 
HrnlEY..,JOHNSTON & ASSOCWES. INC. engineering geoscience consultants LOG OF BORlNG /MONITOR WELL MIDWAY ROAD DRILL DATE: 06/19/99 "ElliOD: SHEl.BY ME /SPLIT SPOON 10 3.5' BELT LINE
RD. TO LINDBERGH ADDISON, TEXAS ..J [l ! [:1::-:;:;0 ..J MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONCD 0.. 0..'" ::;: ::;:w'" .ii; <t:0':::if> '"'; CONCRETE'. .' , .' :: 􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀮􀀠!I0.5 -.' • NOTE: 1/2" VOID
UNDER PAVEMENT.. " . M CLAY. lime treated subgrade (FILL) 31 III1.0 -i m 􀁾􀀠. I1.5 􀁾􀁲M CLAY, silty, with calcareous nodules, lIT limestone fragments, and gravel, very 􀁾􀀠stitt, dark
brown (FILL) I􀁾􀀠I2.0 -! 1lI : Ii'ii !!:! HI -2.5 -ill 111 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭Im-3.0 -􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠CLAY, silty, with occasional calcareous I nodules, very stiff. brawn 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠f3.5 i TOTAL
DEPTH; 3.5' : . f4.0 ] I! I4.5 -DR. PROJECT No.: 7025 8-3BORING No.: SHEET 1 of 1 LOC'-1l0N: SEE PlATE 1 GROUND ELEVATION: COMMENTS Valve cover installed I-:-:, . . 􀀬􀁾􀀧􀁉􀀭Grout '..
􀁾-J+!,' pvc pipe 􀁩􀀧􀀺􀀻􀁾􀀠=':< i-20-40􀁾􀀺􀀢􀀮􀀻􀀺􀁾􀀮􀀠= 􀁾􀁾􀀢􀀬􀀻􀁾􀀻􀀠, . 􀀬􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀠􀀭􀀧􀁾􀀢􀁜􀀧􀀠Sllica sand 􀀻􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠= 􀁴􀀺􀀺􀀻􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁉􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠,010 Sict Screen I
! , 
HENlEY-JOHNSTOH & ASSOClilTES, INC. LOG OF BORING /MONITOR WELL PROJECT No.: 7025 engineering geoscience coosulfClllts MIDWAY ROAD BORING No.: B-4 DRILL DATE: 05/19/99 BELT LINE RD.
TO LINDBERGH DR. SHEEr 1 of 1 METHOD: SH8JlY ruBE ISPUT SPOON ADDISON, TEXAS LOCA1l0N: SEE PLATE 1 TO 3.8' GROUND ElEVATION: :Z. :z 0 -' ffl 0 􀁾i=::r: --. 0 -' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
􀁾􀁾􀀠COMMENTSI-􀁾􀀠CO ! t:L 􀁾􀁾􀀠t:L'" ::::;: ::::;:w'" Gi 17\ -,'"0;:::;' w;:::;. . of: CONCRETE Valve, cover .-" installed .' 􀁾􀀢􀀠-", : 􀁾􀀠'-::,.' 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀺􀁳I0.5 -' . " -Grout,
.. NOTE: 1/2" VOID UNDER PAVEMENT i ! " • ' ,., 􀁾􀀬􀀠-#􀁾􀀠CLAY, lime treated subgrade (FILL) IT II 􀁽􀁾􀀰􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠_I IT 􀀺􀀮􀁴􀀬􀁾􀀻􀀬􀀠I1.0 􀁾􀁽􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀺􀀻􀀻􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀀧􀀬􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠􀀮�
�􀀭􀁾􀀬􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾iT :_;;.1 -2" pvc pipe 􀁾􀀠CLAY, slightly siily, stiff to very stiff, 􀂷􀀬􀁾􀀺􀁴􀀠_';:>,l> I-dark gray 􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀭􀀢􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀠􀀮􀀺􀀢􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀢􀀬􀀬􀀧􀀢􀀠1.5 􀁾􀀮􀀻􀀻􀁾􀁾􀀠-:<,..'!:"
􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠I2.0 􀁾􀀠sand • 􀁾􀀠I2.5 􀁾􀀠􀀭􀁾􀀠􀀧􀁾􀀻􀀻􀀧􀀠== £;:i 􀀬􀁾􀀮:-.. 􀁾􀀧􀀮􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀠=":"f .0 I v Slot : ;•.􀀬􀁾􀀺􀀠',;;.;. Screen I3.0 􀁾􀀠I3.5 -􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠TOTAL DEPTH: 3.8' I4.0
i : I: I4.5 -, 
, , PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION MIDWAY ROAD BELT LINE ROAD TO LINDBERGH DRIVE ADDISON, TEXAS I I,, HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. engtneetfng geoscience consultants I1214} 941·3808 /",,1214)
943-7645 235 Morgan Ave .. Dallas. Texas 􀀷􀀵􀀲􀀰􀀳􀁾1025 
PAVEMENT INVESTIGATION MIDWAY ROAD BELT LINE ROAD TO LINDBERGH DRIVE ADDISON, TEXAS For Town of Addison, Texas Through Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea, L.L.P., Dallas, Texas INTRQDUCTION In
general accordance with notice to proceed and the authorization of our 8 March 1999 proposal. we have completed a Pavement Investigation of Midway Road from Belt line Road to lindbergh
Drive in Addison. Texas. Information relative to the scope of this project was provided through a meeting at the site and through discussions with Mr. John W. Blrknofi. P.E.. oi Shimek.
Jacobs & Finklea. LL.P. We understana mat this section of Midway Road has experienced difficulties with seepage through the joints in the pavement and vertical displacements at the joints
in a longitudinal direction. The pavement was milled to create a smooth surface within the last two or three years. The vertical displacements have re-occurred to the point that many
panels have vertical offsets of one inch, or more, at the present time. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this investigation was to develop specific geotechnical data at the site by means
of subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and engineering and geologic analyses of the resultant data from six soil borings. Shallow (less than four feet) HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES,
INC. ('Ufjlru'('rillg nC'OSC1('nCt' consllftan!s 
groundwater observation elements were to be serin four boreholes to observe the water levels under the pavement and two monitor wells were to be set to observe water levels and provide
access for water sampling in the deeper strata at the site. This report presents the results of the basic field and laboratory data developed and provides findings and recommendations
to guide remediation of pavement. Recommendations to facilitate design and construction were made based on geological conditions encountered and geotechnical parameters obtained from
this investigation. The interpretation of these data is considered appropriate to the extent that the investigated locations are typical of conditions present at the project site. FIELD
INVESTIGATION The field or subsurface investigation conducted consisted of advancing six (6) soil borings to depths varying from about 3.5 to 20.5 feet below ground or pavement surfaces.
These borings were advanced by means of a truck-mounted rotary drilling rig which employs dry sampling techniques to advance the borings. Five (5) of the borings were drilled through
the pavement section of Midway Road; the concrete was cored using a 9-inch diameter diamond concrete coring bit. The drilling was performed by a Henley-Johnston & Associates, Inc., drill
crew. The approximate locations of the borings drilled are indicated on Plate 1. The borings were located on the site by an HJA Engineer, using a measuring wheel and measuring from eXisting
landmarks (roadways, raiiroads, curbs, etc.i. The borehole iocations indicated on Plaie 1 are conSidered accurate to the degree implied by the method used. Samples of cohesive soils
and the upper strata of the weathered limestone were obtained using conventional Shelby-tube sampling techniques (ASTM D 1587) whereby. a thin-wal/ed tube is advanced into the formation
by a rapid, continuous thrust from balanced hydraulic rams on the drilling rig. Disturbed, representative samples of the weathered and unweathered primary limestone strata were obtained
from the auger cuttings. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ('l1!Jim'('rillg gc'os('{('nt'(" cOfl$ul{aIl{1{ -2l 
All soil and limestone samples obtained from the borings were encased in polyethylene plastic to prevent changes in moisture content and to preserve in situ physical properties. All
samples were classified as to basic type and texture in the field by an experienced Engineering Geologist, labeled as to appropriate boring number and depth, and placed in core boxes
for transport to the laboratory. The concrete cores were returned to the laboratory where 2-3/4-inch diameter cores were cut for compressive strength testing of the concrete. 􀁩􀀮􀁇􀁦􀁑􀁕􀁛􀁩􀁤􀁗􀁡􀁴
􀁾􀁲􀀠was not encountered during the course of this investigation. Upon completion of drilling, temporary groundwater observation elements were set in each open borehole. The risers
and wellscreens set in Boring Nos. MW-1 and MW-2 were sealed from surface infiltration of water by a 10-foot grout section over a 2-foot bentonite section. Below the grout/bentonite
seal, the wellscreen was surrounded by 20j40 silica sand. Valve covers were grouted over the tops of these installations. In the shallow borings (B-1 through 8-4) through the pavement,
the wellscreens extended up to approximately the bottom of the pavement and were surrounded by 20/40 silica sand. Above that level, grout seals which also hold valve covers in place,
were formed to prevent surface water from accessing the observation units. Details depicting each specific installation are appended hereto following the report illustrations. LABORATORY
TESTING All soil samples were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Rock samples of the primary strata were described using standard geologic terms. Terms
and symbols used on the boring logs are described on the enclosed sheet entitled "Legend, Lithology, Soil ConSistency & Relative Rock Hardness." To aid in the classification process,
Atterberg Limits, Moisture Content and Dry Unit Weight tests wete performed on representative samples. All of the above test data are summarized on Plate 2. Atterberg Limits also are
presented presented on the Plasticity Chart on Plate 3. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. engftlt"l'ring gt'osr{,'n('c rom;llit(lUiS 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠-3l 
Compressive Strength tests were performed on cores from the concrete pavement at each boring located in the pavement section. The results of these tests are presented on Plate 4. The
strength of each cohesive sample was estimated using a hand penetrometer. The results of these estimates are tabulated on Plate S. The strength properties of selected soil samples were
investigated by Unconfined Compression tests. In this test, axial load is applied to a laterally unsupported cylindrical sample until failure occurs within the sample. This test is conducted
fairly rapidly (failure within about 10 minutes) and generally conforms to ASTM D 2166. The Elastic Modulus values were interpreted from the stress-strain curves of the Unconfined Compression
tests using a tangent modulus at SO percent of peak strength. The soil strength test data are summarized on Plate 5. Stress-strain data for the Unconfined Compression tests are presented
graphically on Plates 6 through 11. Water samples obtained from each boring location location and from a nearby source of tap (municipal) water were tested by Southern Spectrographic
Laboratory, Irving. Texas. The results of those tests and a brief statement from Southern Spectrographic about the anticipated sources of the water are presented on Plate 12. SUBSURFACE
CONDiTiONS The site of this investigation is in Addison, Texas, along the northbound lanes of Midway Road between Belt Line Road to the south and Lindbergh Drive to the north, as shown
on Plate 1. A section of the "ADDISON" USGS quad sheet topographic map which includes this area is presented on Plate 13. This indicates that the roadway drops about 10 feet in elevation
from Belt Line Road to the creek/railroad track, and remains fairly level or slightly uphill from the railroad track to Lindbergh Drive. Primary sediments at the site have been identified
as limestone stiata of the Austin Chalk Formation of Cretaceous Age. The specific types, depths, and thicknesses of materials penetrated by the borings are reflected on the individual
"Log of Boring" illustrations. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ('tl.rJi1!t'('rif19 f/{'oscieon:' ronsUU(HU$ 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭-4l 
If It"1,9 elf ElYe of !he bm"" we", driOed 􀁉􀁨􀁾􀁹􀀻􀀺""j"ei' p".moot ot Midway Rood.The I I I i \' concrete was found to be between 0.65 n@eet in thickness. Fill materials were encountered
below the pavement in all borings except Boring No. B-1 and below ground surface in Boring No. MW-1. These fill materials extend to depths ranging from about 1.1 feet in Boring No. B-2
to about 3.0 feet in Boring No. B-3. The upper portion of the fill in Boring No. B-3 and the fill in Boring No. B·4 is clay which is believed to have be"en lime-treated. The remaining
fill is silty clay with calcareous nodules, and probably is on site material which was relocated to fill low areas. Below the fill or pavement in Boring Nos. MW-1, B-1 and B·3 are thin
zones of silty clay which the Atterberg Limits indicate to be low to moderate plasticity materials. In Boring Nos. MW-2 and B-4, slightly silty clays were found below the fill materials.
These materials are indicated to be high plasticity clays; this may explain why these materials were lime-treated. All of the clay strata encountered are dark shades of brown or gray
in color. These materials are stiff to very stiff in consistency and contain varying amounts of calcareous nodules. Below the surficial clays, limestone strata of the primary formation
(Austin Chalk Formation of Cretaceous Age) were encountered. The uppermost portions of the limestone were found to be variably weathered, having been leached by percolating waters over
time. These weathered materials are generally severely to moderately weathered, jointed and fractured and contain occasional soft clayey seams. The weathered section is typically firm
to I n00tlldtely' hard in rock hardness and iight Drown and tan in color. The weathered sections of limestone materials encountered ranged in thickness from about 8.5 feet in Boring
No. MW·2 to about 14.5 feet in Boring No. MW-1. Unweathered limestone strata were encountered below the zone of differential weathering at depths varying from about 13 feet in Boring
No. MW-2 to to about 17 feet in Boring No: MW-1. Once encountered, the unweathered limestone strata continued to at least the 2O.5·foot maximum depth explored. Data from other investigations
nearby indicate that the unweathered limestone is in excess of 30 feet thick in this Vicinity. The unweathered limestone is moderately hard to hard in rock hardness and gray in color.
HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. "'15Jill<'i'ring !J('Osci('I1(,,(' COrtsUIU1JIt.s -5l 
II 􀁾􀀬􀀠il Groundwater was not encountered during the cOurse of this investigation prior to the installation of the water level observation elements and monitor wells. Groundwater in
I ' this vicinity is typically perched on top of the unweathered limestone and is contained I I' within joints and fractures present within the weathered limestone materials and within
the silty clay overburden soils. Groundwater levels at this site can be expected to i'I " I fluctuate with seasonal variations in rainfall. '! i , i !, I i Water levels were measured
in each observation element installation. The following table provides the results of these water level readings. , , , -f::, 􀁷􀁾􀁫􀀧􀁴􀁶􀁬􀁜􀁜Location 6·25·99 7·28·99 􀁓􀁜􀀢􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀨􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠MW.1
.j...O.!c8.9 9.5 Go'(\ 􀁾􀁾􀀨􀁜􀁨􀁬B-1 2.6 2.6􀁜􀁊􀀧􀁉􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁇􀁜􀁾􀀩􀀧􀀡􀀮􀀠􀁾􀁜􀂫􀀻􀀠+1,1B-2 0.5 1.6􀀮􀁉􀀮􀁁􀁾􀀠'S'olG. :r B-3 0.4 0.8 􀀭􀁴􀁾􀀴􀀠 \.13-4 0.7 0.7 con)-\ OW.\. 􀀬􀀬􀀼􀀻􀁜􀁾􀁜􀀻􀁉􀁉􀁬
􀀮􀁜􀀺􀁦􀁾􀀠MW-2 4.6 6.2 -\.1, 'G, All of the elements, except Boring No. No. B-1. were bailed to within a few inches of the bottom of the installation on 25 June 1999 after water level
readings were obtained. The water found in the elements on 28 JUlY 1999 had entered the installations since the ;25 June readings. WATER LEVELS AND SOURCES Based on approximate elevations
from the topographic map on Plate 13. we estimate that the surface elevation at Boring No. MW-1 is about Elevation 625 and the surface elevation at Boring No. MW-2 is about Elevation
622. The flow line of the creek south of the railroad is estimated to be at about Elevation 610 to 620. The water level measurements in Boring Nos. MW-1 and MW-2 ("deep" installations)
indicate that these levels are probably nearthe flow line elevation of Rawhide Creek. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES. INC. £"CI!/11I{'('ritlg geoSCit'lU'" ('ruISldUill!S -6
I The water level observed in Boring No. B-1 has remained relatively constant, indicating that water has not been coming into the installation during the observation period. _ other
three "shallow" installations have shown increases in water level during a time when little or no rain has fallen in the area; consequently, these elements indicate water infiltration
from sources other than rainfall. During the same period.of time, the water. levels in Boring Nos. MW-1 and MW-2 have decreased. The data from Southern Spectrographic indicate that the
chemistry of water found in 'Boring Nos. B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4 is very close to that ofthe referenced tap (municipal) water. The elevated potassium levels, we understand, are generally
related to water migrating through fertilized areas (landscaped areas, etc.). The chemistry of water sampled from Boring No. MW-1 is similar to that of the tap water, but has higher
concentrations of sodium, chloride, and sulfate, and less fluoride than tap water. The chemistry of water from Boring No. MW-2 appears to be predominantly from some source other than
tap water. Based on the information from the water observation and sampling installations, water chemistry tests, and our observations at the site; it is our opinion that water which
has emitted from the joints in the pavement on Midway Road probably is related to tap water (irrigation or water from nearby businesses) or surface run-off. It would be advantageous
to be abie to observe these installations and obtain samples of water curing a rainy period. Water has easy access to the sub grade soils through open joints in the pavement. Water can
flow from landscaped areas in the median or along the outside of the pavement through open joints in the curbs and pavement to the subgrade soils. We have observed water flowing into
the street from one of the businesses near Belt Une Road; this water flows downhill on Midway Road, encounters open joints and travels transversely until it can soak into the subgrade.
, I I I I I I HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. t'utJ!m'('ring geOSCience conNtdtc:mf.s -7
I I ..􀁾􀀠r PAVEMENT ANALVSES Traffic counts on Midway Road for Tuesday and Wednesday, 30 and 31 March, 1999, were provided to us. The 24-hour traffic volume in one northbound lane (outside)
was divided into thirteen types of vehicles. We have used the program "Concrete Pavement Technology, Version 2.0" from the American Concrete Pavement Association to perform pavement
analyses based on available information from this investigation. This program is based on the 1986 "AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures." We have used the following general
design parameters: Serviceability Initial 4.5 Terminal 2.25 Design Life 20 Years Reliability 90 percent Overall Deviation 0.35 Load Transfer 3.2 -assuming edgesupportand aggregate interlock
for existing pavement 2.7 -assuming edge support and dowelled reinforced pavement for future pavement urainage Coefficient Variable for existing pavement -0.8, 1.0, 1.1 For potential
future pavement -1.0 Traffic Growth Rate 0.325 percent/year For analysis of the existing existing pavement, we estimated the flexural strength of the concrete from the compressive strength
values of the concrete cores. These flexural strength values varied from about 640 to 700 psi. For concrete near the south end of the site, we used a value of 660 psi; for the pavement
near Lindbergh Drive, we used a vaiue of 640 psi. For potential future pavement sections, we used a value of 650 psi. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. {>1¥1!'tl('('rillfJ geO!>Ci("flC{'
("on.sullnnf.s -8
For analyses of existing and future pavement, we have assumed that the subgrade materials have a CBR value of about 3, and have used a Resilient Modulus of 4500 psi. For lime-treated
soils we have used a Resilient Modulus of 20,000 psi, and for asphalt . treated base, we have used a Resilient Modulus of 350,000 psi. For 8-inch (0.65 to O.7-foot) thick pavement, the
total ESAL's for 20-year life of the pavement is about 14,100,000 assuming the traffic volume indicated by the March traffic count. 􀁾􀁥􀁸􀁩􀁳􀁴􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠conditions, with a Drainage Coefficient
of 0.8, indicating poor drainage as observed in place, 􀁩􀁟􀀡􀀡􀁩􀁳􀁩􀁟􀁦􂂬􀀢􀀶􀁲􀁴􀁬􀁩􀁥􀀭􀀺􀀺􀁰􀀧􀁡􀀢􀁶􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀺􀁉􀁳􀁦􀁳􀀱􀁬􀁾􀁮􀁴􀁬􀁲􀁭􀀨􀀵􀁲􀁥􀀾􀁦􀁴􀁮􀁡􀁮􀁊􀀮􀀩􀁴􀁬􀁬􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁃􀁩􀁦􀁵􀁩􀀶􀀡􀀻
􀁦􀁢􀁥􀁴􀁴􀁥􀁲􀀠drainage conditions with a Drainage Coefficient of 1.0, the design life increases to about 2.3 years and with good drainage conditions, a Drainage Coefficient of 1.1,
the design life increases to about 3.2 years. This indicates that the traffic volume currently using Midway Road is significantly in excess of the volume that would be expected for a
20 or 30-year design life for the pavement in place. The. moisture contents of the near-surface soils (subgrade materials) are relatively high at all boring locations. Indications are
that these soils have been saturated and remain saturated over long periods of time. We believe that this has resulted in softening of the soils at the south ena of each pavement panel
and settlement of that end of the paneL In some cases, this has resulted in a reverse rocking of the panel and the creation of a void under the north end of the panel. Because ofthese physical movements of some of the panels and the deterioration of the subgrade under the panels, we recommend that the existing pavement be removed, the subgrade be reworked and
new pavement be placed. Recommendations for the replacement of this pavement are contained in subsequent paragraphs. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. enf/int','nng g('OSCit.'1!C'L'
C'On!luitaIW' -9l 
􀁥􀁩􀁩􀁡􀁖􀀻􀀭􀁾􀁭􀁩􀁦􀁬􀁴􀀠analyses indicate that the following seCtions could be used as replacements for the pavement along Midway Road. 2()..year life 10-inch Reinforced Concrete
Paving 12-inch Compacted Lime-Treated Subgrade or 10-inch Reinforced Concrete Paving 4-inch Compacted Asphalt-Treated Base 3Q..year Life 11-inch Reinforced Concrete Paving 12-inch Compacted
Lime-Treated Subgrade or 11-inch Reinforced Concrete Paving 4-inch Compacted Asphalt-Treated Base An alternative to complete replacement is to provide remediation of the loss of support
under the panels and a concrete pavement overlay. Loss of support may be remediated by removal and replacement of the ends of the panels (with appropriate subgrade conditioning and compaction)
or by selective grouting under the ends ot the panels. 1 he concrete overlay should be jointed, reinforced concrete with a 9-inch overlay for 20-year life and a 10-inch overlay for 30-year
life. This will require transition zones where the pavement has to meet existing grades at intersections, railroad tracks and other features. In the event concrete is to be removed and
replaced, after the soil surface in each area has been brought to grade, the performance of pavement can be enhanced by treating the clay soils exposed at grade with lime-slurry for
use as sUb-base. Subject to modification during construction. a lime content of six (6) percent by dry soil weight (approximately 6 pounds of lime per cubic foot of soil treated) would
be expected to effectively treat the subgrade soil. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. f!rt!l(tI('t'ling gt'OSci('nce consulfantst -10
Soils treated with lime-slurry for use as sub-base should be compacted to a dry density at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as defined by ASTM D 698 and at a moisture content
at least 2 percentage points above Optimum Moisture content. 􀁾􀁡􀀺􀁤􀁥􀁣􀀺􀁤􀁲􀁾􀁉􀀱􀁟􀁬􀀡􀁧􀁥􀀢􀁰􀀺􀁮􀁱􀁊􀀡􀀺􀀮􀁥􀀺􀁡􀁴􀁬􀀧􀁊􀀱􀁾􀁴􀀩􀁍􀁦􀁡􀀼􀀻􀁬􀀮􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁬􀁴􀀮􀁾􀁧􀀺􀀮􀁲􀀺􀀻􀁐􀀮􀁬􀁑􀁧􀁾􀁾􀁲􀀮􀁧􀀬
􀁾􀁳􀀭􀁴􀁑􀀷􀁪􀀻􀁑􀀮􀁧􀁩􀁪􀁬􀁏􀁬􀁩􀁴􀁲􀁩􀀱􀁧􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁩􀁲􀁥􀁲􀀨􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁩􀀺􀁩􀂧􀁩􀀮􀁦􀁥􀁾􀁳􀀺􀀢􀀧􀁴􀁙􀁬􀁴􀀿􀁊􀁬􀀱􀁩􀁮􀁩􀁬􀀱􀀱􀁩􀁺􀁥􀀠􀁲􀁲􀁩􀁯􀁩􀁳􀁴􀁵􀁲􀁾􀀮􀁣􀁨􀁡􀁮􀁧􀁥􀁳􀁊􀁮􀀮􀁴􀁨􀁥􀁾􀁾􀁟􀁱􀁧􀀮􀀹􀁉􀁬􀁩􀁦�
�􀀡􀀱􀁾􀁓􀁬...rp!Dj/f&lRaw 􀀮􀁽􀁪􀁲􀁛􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀩􀀧􀀾􀀧􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁲􀀺􀀬􀁢􀁥􀀠collected in 􀂷􀂷􀁡􀁤􀁲􀁡􀀡􀁾􀁡􀁾􀁬􀀱􀁾􀀮􀀱􀀼􀁴􀀡􀀱􀁉􀂥􀀮􀁊􀁈􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁾􀁑􀁡􀁬􀀤􀁴􀁨􀁥􀀺􀁣􀀿􀁩􀁣􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁴􀀼􀀾􀀬􀁬􀁭􀁟􀁥􀁩􀁦�
�􀁥􀁲􀁾􀀠-!'"side' of the-pavemetit,II<ana l::Iirectedintostorm..qrairis(fiir􀀬􀀭􀁅􀀳􀀡􀀡􀀮􀀺􀀡􀁩􀀡􀀺􀀡􀁩􀁣􀁊􀁾􀁽􀀻􀁩􀀮􀁲􀀮􀁥􀂧􀁫􀀮􀁩􀁡􀁳􀀻􀁰􀁥􀁦􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁬􀁴􀁴􀁥􀁤􀁴􀀠Alternatively, a
moisture barrier may be formed at the backside of the curb on both sides of the pavement. We recommend that such a barrier extend at least two feet below grade. All joints should be
sealed and the sealant maintained throughout the lifetime of the pavement. For reinforced concrete paving, it is essential that any and all reinforcing be placed so as to insure a minimum
of 1'/2-inches of cover. Selection of the proper section should be based on anticipated traffic loads, frequency and long term maintenance, as well as project economics. j:ARTHWORK Earthwork
recommendations are as follow: 1. Excavate and waste, or store for future use, surficial organic, deleterious, and concrete materials encountered at the surface. 2. Scarify subgrade
soils exposed in fill areas and transitional areas (cut to fill and fill to cut) to a depth of approximately eight (8) inches, add moisture (if required), mix and recompact to a density
between 95 and 98 percent of maximum density obtained by a Standard Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D 698). The moisture content of the compacted soils should be maintained between optimum
and plus four percent of the optimum value (determined by ASTM D 698) until covered by fill or pavement. HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. C:'1I9Iftt'('rtnf; gt'OSci('Il("e COltSUllants
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭-11l 
3. Place fill soils fOi pavement in loose lifts not exceeding eight (8) inches and compact to the moisture/density values specified in No.2 above. kOl.lldnf-l 􀁮􀁥􀁾􀀠4. We recommer:ld
that imported select fill material consist bf inert sandy clay (material with greater than 50 percent passing the No. 200 mesh sieve) with a Liquid Limit less than 35 and a Plasticity
Index between 6 and 15, or flexible base materials meeting the requirements of Texas Department of Transportation Item 247, Type 1, Grade A. 􀁑􀀮􀀱􀁉􀁾􀀱􀀭􀁊􀁅􀀱􀁃􀁾􀁉􀁉􀁏􀁎􀁓􀀠In the
event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the proposed pavement are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid
unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon the data
obtained from six borings, The nature and extent of subsurface variations at the site may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it may be necessary
to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. 􀁬􀁛􀁩􀁳􀀩􀁥􀁣􀁯􀁲􀁬􀀩􀁭􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁤􀁾􀀡􀀺􀁬􀁊􀁨􀁡􀁴􀀠the soil and foundation engineer be provided the op portunity for general review of
final design drawings and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design drawings and specifications.
HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ,'nfJfr!('en-ng g!'osciC'I1<"t' ("OnseuUnnt." -12
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this phase of the project. Please call us when we can be of further service during later stages of design or during construction. Respectfully
submitted, John W. Johnston, P.E. Henley-Johnston & Associates, Inc. JWJ HJA No. 7025 C9 September 1999) HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. engineering geo.sci("nce consullanls -13
-" 􀀬􀁾--_.--LEGEND􀁾􀁌􀀠o MONITOR WELLLINDBERGH DRIVE @CORE BORING MW-2 -4 SPRR 8-3 BELT LINE ROAD BORING LOCATION PLAN o 100 200 4()O HENLEY-JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES. INC.,,.",.;engineering
geoscience ccnsultanis SCALE FEET 􀁾􀁈􀁾􀁊􀁁􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁇􀀮􀁾􀀻__􀀷􀁾􀁏􀁾􀀲􀀵􀁾__􀁾􀁐􀁾􀁔􀁅􀀠1DATE: SEPTEMBER 1999 _--.l CENTURION "JAY ___ 8-2 W-1 : I :, ," : ! 
I BORING NUMBER MW-1 MW-l MW-1 MW-1 MW-1 MW-1 DEPTH (ft.) 0.0-1.8 1.8-2.5 2.5-4.0 9.0-10.0 14.0-15.0 19.0-20.0 MW-2 􀁦􀁶􀁬􀁶􀂷􀁙􀁾􀀲􀀺􀀠MW-2 MW-2 MW-2 0.6·2.2 2.;<-3.8 3.8-5.0 9.0-10.0
14.0-15.0 B-1 B-1 0.8-2.0 2.0-3.5 B-2 B·2 0.6-1.7 1.7-3.5 B-3 B-3 B-3 0.6-1.4 1.4-2.2 3.0-3.5 B-4 B-4 0.6-1.3 1.3-2.2 MIDWAY ROAD BELT LINE ROAD TO LINDBERGH DRIVE ADDISON, TEXAS SUMMARY
OF INDEX PROPERTIES LL PI MC DUW (%) ('Yo) (pel) 15.9 48 25 19.0 16.3 17.2 17.6 17.4 40.4 79.1 69 36 39.S 79.0 23.1 103.2 15.3 11.9 37 14 21.0 105.5 16.6 32 12 21.3 14.3 37.0 59 32 29.6
101.4 47 25 23.3 23.7 63 34 32.4 90.5 ., UNIAED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CL CH CL CL CH CL CH HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES. INC. 􀀨􀀧􀁲􀁦􀀡􀀱􀁩􀀷􀁬􀀨􀀧􀁦􀀾􀁲􀁩􀁮􀁾􀁽􀀠!J('o!>cien('(' consLdrants
l 
70 60 " i:L 50 "-" x w040 z 􀁾􀀠30 (.) i= 􀁾􀀠20 0.. 10 o BORING NUMBER 1///L /i-" V􀀢􀁾􀁾􀀯􀀠/􀁾􀀠/' V/􀁲􀁾􀀠.,*,y' /.y?V //V ////􀁲􀁾􀀠.. " 􀁾􀀠/' V MH or CH /02' //'" /'" ML or OLv-I
I o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT ell.) SUMMARY SAMPLE DEPTH,ft. OF ATTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID PLASTICflY UNIFIED SOIL LIMIT INDEX CLASSIFICATION MW-l 1.8-2.5 48 25 CL
MW-2 2.2-3.8 69 36 CH 8-1 0.8-2.0 37 14 CL 8-2 0.6-1.7 32 12 CL 8-3 1.4-2.2 59 32 CH 8-3 3.0-3.5 47 25 CL 8-4 1.3-2.2 63 34 CH MIDWAY ROAD ADDISON, TEXAS SUMMARY OF ATTERBERG LIMITS
HENLEY-JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES,INC engineering 􀁾􀁥􀁯􀁂􀁣􀁩􀁥􀁮􀁣􀁥􀀠cone:ultonbs HJA 􀁎􀁏􀀮􀁾􀀠7025 PLATE 3 
MIDWAY ROAD BELT LINE ROAD TO LINDBERGH DRIVE ADDISON, TEXAS SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTS ON CONCRETE CORE PAVEMENT SAMPLE SAMPLE 'OOMPRESSIVE . BORING THICKNESS HEIGHT DIAMETER STRENGTH
NUMBER (in.) (in.) (in.) (psQ MW-2 7.8 5.594 2.777 5018 B-1 8.4 5.679 2.775 5610 B-2 7.8 6.094 2,778 5378 B-3 7.8 5.502 2.773 5728 A-4 7,8 4.114 ?772 6060 HENLEYJOHNSTON 8. ASSOCIATES,
INC. ('t1!Jitlt'C'rif1g gt'OSc{('flC'(' ronsulrom." PLATE 4 
.! MIDWAY ROAD BELT LINE ROAD TO LINDBERGH DRIVE ADDISON, TEXAS SUMMARY OF LABORATORY STRENGTH TESTS POCKET PEAK FAILURE TANGENT BORING DEPTH PENETROMETER STRESS STRAIN MODULUS MATERIAL
NUMBER (ft.) (1st) (psi) ('>'0) (l<:sO TYPE I i MW·2 0.6·22 3.0 9.6 3.7 0.35 CLAY, slightly silty, dark gray MW-2 2.2-3.8 3.0 16.0 12.0 0.15 CLAY, slightly silty, dark gray Ii MW-2 3.8-5.0
4.5+ 15.2 4.7 0.46 CLAY, slightly silty, dark gray B-1 0.8-2.0 3.5 (top) 22.1 3.0 0.94 CLAY, silty, brown 4.5+ (bottom) 8-2 0.6-1.7 4.5+ LIMESTONE, weathered, light brown, brown, and
tan 8-3 1.4-2.2 35.1 2.6 2.78 CLAY, silty, dark brown (FILL) 8-3 2.2-2.6 4.5+ CLAY, silty, dark brown (FILL) 8-4 1.3-2.2 3.0 25.8 14.3 0.94 CLAY. slightly silty, da;k gray 8-4 2.2-3.8
3.75 CLAY. slightly silty. dark gray HENLEY JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES. INC. ('I!YlrU'('tiug J}('osciertn' CO!ll'ltdlCltH,<,: l 
------.. _-12.5 -,----------------------, BORING NO.: MW-2 DEPTH (FT): 0.6-2.2 CLAY, slightly silty. dark gray TANGENT MODULUS AT 5Q5 ULTIMATE STRESS: 0.35 KSI 8.0 10.0 􀀨􀁾􀀩􀀠MIDWAY
ROAD ADDISON TEXAS UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST STRESS-STRAIN PLOT HENLEY-JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES,INC engineerin'a' geozscienca CClnlNlb:tnta HJA NO.: 7020 PLATE 6 10.0 ,... U'i a. '-'
7.5 en en wa::: l-en ...J « 5.0 􀁾􀀠2.5 0.0 􀀭􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀁾􀁟􀀬􀁟􀁟􀁟􀁟􀁲􀁟􀀭􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀭􀁟􀁟􀁲􀁟􀁟􀁟􀁲􀁟􀁟􀀮􀁟􀁟􀁲􀁟􀁟􀁲􀁟􀁟􀁲􀁟􀀬􀁟􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀮􀁟􀁟􀁲􀁟􀁲􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀮􀁟􀁟􀀬􀁟􀀭􀀭􀁲�
�􀁟􀁬􀀠0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 AXIAL STRAIN TEST 1YPE: UNCONRNED COMPRESSION TEST (ASTM D 2166) MOISTURE CONTENT (SIi): 40.4DRY UNIT WEIGHT (Pc!"): 79.1 
BORING NO.: MW-2 DEPTH (FT): 2.2-3.8 CLAY. slightly silty. dark gray '" (f) a.. ......... (/) (/) 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠..J « 􀁾􀀠20.0 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀠--· 15.0 --\-·
10.0 · · · · 5.0 · -TANGENT MODULUS AT 􀀵􀁾-ULTIMATE STRESS: 0.15 KSI-0.0 -1--...--,...--,-.--,....-,...,.1.-r,---.,--r'---.'---,.Ir--1r-'r-'r--r-,.r-,r-,.-,,--,...,----1, 0.0 5.0 10.0
15.0 20.0 AXIAL STRAIN (Sf;) MIDWAY ROADTEST lYPE: UNCONANED COMPRESSION TEST ADDISON. TEXAS(ASTM D 2166) UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST STRESS-STRAIN PLOT MOISTURE CONTENT (lII): 39.3
HENLEY-JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES,INC.DRY UNIT WEIGHT (PCr'): 79.0 engineering 'Q'ltOeicience consultcnbJ HJA NO.: 7025 InATE • nil /..." /"" PLATE 7 
BORING NO.: MW-2 DEPTH (FT): 3.8-5.0 CLAY, slightly silty, dark gray 20.0 -.--------------------..., 15.0 CIl CIl 􀁾􀀠tii 10.0 -l « 􀁾􀀠5.0 0.0 TANGENT MODULUS AT 􀀵􀁾􀀠ULTIMATE STRESS:
0.46 KSI _.__,__r__,_-I__ _________r___ 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 AXIAL STRAIN (5&) MIDWAY ROADTEST lYrE: UNCONFlNED COMPRESSION TEST ADDISON, TEXAS(ASTM 0 2166) UNCONfiNED COMPRESSION
TEST STRESS-STRAIN PLOT MOISTURE CONTENT (lIi): 23.1 HENLEY-JOHNSTON &: ASSOCIATES,INCDRY UNrr WEIGHT (Pc!"): 103.2 engineering; geoacifll'lCll consultant. HJA NO.: 7025 PLATE 8 
I BORING NO.: B-1 DEPTH (IT): 0.8-2.0 CLAY, silty, brown 25.0 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀠20.0 ....-(/) 0'-'15.0 C/lU'l W 􀁾􀀠<i! 10.0 􀁾􀀠5.0 TANGENT MODULUS AT
5Cl15 ULTIMATE STRESS: 0.94 KSI 0.0 􀀭􀁦􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁟􀁾􀁟􀁾􀁟􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀭􀀢􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀁲􀀭􀁔􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁪􀀠 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
5.0 AXIAL STRAIN (%) MIDWAY ROAD TEST 1YPE: UNCONFlNED COMPRESSION TEST ADDISON. TEXAS(ASTM D 2166) UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST STRESS-STRAIN PLOT MOISTURE CONTENT (1111; 21.0 HENLEY-JOHNSTON
& ASSOCIATES,INCDRY UNIT WEIGHT (PCF); 105.5 Gngln••􀁲􀁬􀁮􀁾􀀠,,"OIIC",""" ""n""lmnb! HJA NO.: 7025 PLATE 9 
I BORING NO.: B-3 DEPTH (rr): '1.4-2.2 CLAYt silty, dark brown (FILL) 40.0 -,----------------------, 30.0 I ,I TANGENT MODULUS AT 􀀵􀁾􀀠ULTIMATE STRESS: 2.78 KSI 4.0 5.0 MIDWAY ROAD
ADDISON, TEXAS UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST STRESS-STRAIN PLOT HENLEY-JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES,INC ongine.tinll geoscience consultanla HJA NO.: 7025 PLATE 10 􀁾􀀡􀀠I ,til til 􀁾􀀠20.0 ftil
....I « 􀁾􀀠10.0 0.0 +--.--.,.-,r--r---r---.-.,.-,,....,-,-,.-.,--,--r--r-c-,.-.-.-,-.-....,,,--.---1 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 AXIAL STRAI N ($&) TEST 1YI'E: UNCONRNED COMPRESSION TEST (ASTM
D 2166) MOISTURE CONTENT 􀀨􀁾􀀩􀀺􀀠29.6 DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pbF): 101.4
BORING NO.: B-4 DEPTH (FT): 1.3-2.2 CLAY, slightly silty, dark gray 30.0 -,-------:---------------.., ----C' 20.0 (/). S (/) (/) W 􀁾􀀠...J « 􀁾􀀠10.0 ---TANGENT MODULUS AT 5Q6 ULTIMATE
STRESS: -0.94 KSI 0.0 "I' 1_ I I I '10-1.0 I I .' I -' ' , , , 0.0 5.0 15.0 20.0 AXIAL STRAIN (5E) i " I MIDWAY ROAD TEST lYPE: UNCONFlNED COMPRESSION TEST ADDISON, TEXAS(ASTM 0 2166)
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST STRESS-STRAIN PLOT MOISTURE CONTENT ("'): 32.4HENLEY-JOHNSTON &: ASSOCIATES,INC DRY UNIT WEIGHT (PCF): 90.5 engineering lI<tOlIoience oonllUltanbl HJA NO.:
7025 .DATE • OS/26/99 PLATE 11 I i 
".0. lIOlI: !_. IRVING, T£XAS 7S01S._ 'IU. Ifn) _1709 MmIO (tn) _112*"AX (t72) _,....September 7 J 1m Heuley Jowwn & AMociates, he. Attn: John W. Johnston 235 Mort:u; Ave. DaHas, Texu
75203-1088 Reporl#: 073'1-28-160 .".'Re: EvalWltlon ofWilter 􀁳􀁡􀁭􀁰􀁬􀁾􀀠Date Taken ( 7128199 ) MgIl SampieID SqQ!um I'om..ium ClIlorid. S"lfate fuorid. Iotal Cblorine 7025 B-1 (06U)
19.1 15.3 17 48 0.6 <0.1 7025 B-2 (062<1) 17.8 9.0 21 56 0.'" <0.1 7025 B-3 (0637) 11.7 4.0 17 53 1.0 <0.1 7025 B-4 (0703) 15.5 6.7 19 37 0.4 <0.1 7025 MW-l (0600) 22.5 3..2 24 68 0.3
<0.1 7025 MW-2 (0654) 168 5.0 11 351 0.8 <0.1 Reference Tlip Water 12.1 3.9 17 35 0.7 <0.1 Comment.. The above lUted ion ratio! indicate that the water in samples B-1, B-2, B-3, & B-4
are very ain:rlIar to Ibe>ae of the tap water. MW-l appears to be rtilsonllbly similar to the tap water with the possibility orsome evaporative collcentration and/or inftueoc:e from
reddllIl. soluble &alto; in the soil. Another sample [rom MW-l may show. dose DUlteh to Ibe tap 'W1Itrr. MW-l appears to be majorly from *,oune other than tap water. PLATE 12 
• • ,•• I; • i I I 
CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS SOIL Asphalt or li<,lnite Concrete FUI GW , GP SP Silty Gravel or Silty Sanoy Gravel SM ABBREVIATIONS aOOt. ong. oren. argo bdd. bdg. bent. bldr. 8T calc. ·carb.
cbl. cgl. cfst. cmt. dia. dk. DUW EI. fossil. fmc. gyp. incl. intbdd. jnt. 􀀡􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠LL It. Silty Sand or MCSal)! Gravelly Sand ME med. min. mod. nod. oee. port. Pen. phas. PI py. Qu
Rec. md. ROO sot. sept."ev. sil. sli. slk. T.O. v. wee. abundant angular arenoceaus argillaceous bedded bedding bentonite boulder Brazil Tensile calcoreous c:orbcncceous cobble conglomerate
claystone cemented diameter dork Dry Unit Weight elevation fossiliferous fracture ilypsiterous Inclusion interbedded joint 􀀡􀁾􀀡􀀧􀁲􀀮􀁩􀀺􀀱􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀠liquid limit light Moisture Content
Modulus of Elasticity medium minutes moderately nodule occosi<'iOQI particle Penetrometer phosphatic Plasticity Index pyritized Unconfined Compression recovery rounded Rock Quality Designation
saturated septarian severely siliceous slightly slickensided Total Depth very weathered CONSISTENCIES AND HARDNESS DESCRIPTIONS FOR SANDS, GRAVELS, & SANOY SILTS Peci<. Hanson 8< Thornburn
(1974) Standord Penetration Consistency Resistance N Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Very Dense FOR CLAYS Less than 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 Greoter thon 50 & SANOY CLAYS (OOHESIVE
SOILS) Pock. Hanson. & 'Thornburn (1974) Unconfined Standard Penetration Consistency Compression tsf Very Sott Soft Medium Stiff Very Stiff Hard Lass than 0.25 0.25 to 0.5 0.5 to 1.0
1.0 to 2.0 2.0 to 4.0 Greater than 4.0 Resistance N Less than 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 10 15 15 to 30 Greater than 30 , ,, , , : OL MH CH OH Organic Slits or lean Orgonic Clays MicQceaua Crays
or Diolom<lceaus Soil Fat Clay. Fat Organic Cloys ROCK Ls limestone Sh Shale Marl Ss Sand.tone Fracture Zone Weathered Zone heavy hommer blows MIDWAY ROAD ADDISON, TEXAS LEGEND. LITHOLOGY,
SOIL CONSISTENCY, & RELATIVE ROCK HARDNESS HENLEY-JOHNSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. engineering geoscience consultants HJA No.: 7025 DATE: SEPTEMBER 1999 RELATIVE HARDNESS MODIFERS (ROCK)
(RElATED TO FRESH SAMPLE) },loOmed Hardness Soft Firm Mod. Hard Hard Very Hard from SCS f.WP. Tech Cuide No. 04 Rule of Thumb Test Permits denting by moderate finger pressure Resists
dentin9 by fingerS but can be penetrated by pencil point to medium to shallow depth (jo.,io. :L pt:rLcii) Very shallow penetration of pencil point. Can be scratched by knife and in some
instances cut with knif. No pencil penetration. oon be scratched with knife, con be broken by light to moderate hommer blows Connot be scratched by knife, con be broken by repeoted -
un" & ASSOClAltS. INC. LOG Of BORING /MONITOR WELL PROJECT No.: 7025 """,ullDnls MIDWAY ROAD 􀁂􀁏􀁒􀁉􀁎􀁜􀁾􀁤􀀠MW 1DRILL DATE: 06/19/99 BELT LINE RD. TO LINDBERGH DR. SHEET 􀁬􀁟􀁰􀁟􀁾􀁔􀁅IIE1HOD:
!lillII'f ME /SPUT SPOON 􀁁􀁄􀁄􀁉􀁓􀁏􀁎􀀬􀁾􀀠TEXAS '" 110 2O.S' z :z: I::.l 0 􀁾􀀠....I MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ;:: 􀁾􀁩􀁾􀁯􀀠0 ....I 􀁾􀁾􀀠COMMENTSCO 00..'" ::;; ::;;w'" 􀁾􀀠(1i -'v 􀁾􀁾0'::::.
w.::::-Tn II CLAY, silty, with calcareous nodules, J:: r:': Valve cover 􀁾􀀠-. ,weathered limestone fragments. (lnd ":-.. i " , installed .. ' 􀁾􀀠organics 􀀨􀁆􀁾􀁾􀀳􀀠stiff. dark brawn
and 􀁩􀀬􀁾􀀺􀀭I·ibrown /" ..'" 0 1/1::< 􀁉􀁾􀀮􀁾I2.5 ; \ CLAY, silty, with occasional calcareous firI'-'II:::r nodules. very stiff. brown 1/He-2" pvc pipeJ-I-, LIMESTONE. moderately
to severely [, t,/f-lA weathered. with occasional soft clayey ." I:::I5.0 -􀁾􀀠seams, firm to moderately hard, light I: ;'brown. brown. and tan 1"Ii:,: I. -;,.' I-GrouttI; t·· .'; 􀁾􀀠,..
\" ' [,"I7.5 -I-"r' t·:; 1/' J-I-, I>': 􀁲􀁾􀀢,J..., II 1'-10.0 "1'<: fT1 'Boo"Boo"ot;,Seal 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁦􀁾􀁪􀁬􀀭c';-12.5 -􀀧􀀬􀁉􀀽􀁾􀁽􀀠􀀧􀁾􀀺􀀠I􀁾􀁒􀀻􀁾􀁊􀀮􀁾􀀠20::40f..!-, l-L.V
'" :-" 􀁾􀀻􀁾􀀠SIlica sand -IS.0 It:: 􀁾􀀱􀀺􀁾􀀠:;;,:era , 􀀻􀁾􀁬􀀺􀀺􀀻􀀧􀀠􀁾􀀠:If'='' 􀀧􀁾􀁲􀀺, kl-, ,::; ;'::, .010 Slot I-17.5 ..I:I: LIMESTONE. moderately hard to hard, gray 􀁾􀀱􀀻􀁾􀁉􀀽􀁴􀁾􀀺􀁾�
�ScreenI-r' , ,..􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁦􀁩􀁾􀀡􀁾􀀠,',J-'-, l-L.II " 1=I .. I-20.0 I-r-' 􀁛􀁾􀀺􀀧􀀠TOTAL DEPTH: 20.5' I-22.S -
.3.4. HflJI: Ii ASSOCIlJES. INC. LOG Of BORING! MVNllvn WELL PROJECT No.: 7025 I 'l""scienco "'l\Sullonb MIDWAY ROAD BORING No.: MW-2 DRILL.!?ATP_ BELT LINE RD. TO LINDBERGH DR. SHEEr
1 of 1 METHOD' 􀁾TIlBE/SJiUT SPOON A[JI 􀀮􀁾􀀬􀀠TEXAS 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁎􀀺􀀠SEE PLATE 1'ro ElEVATION: z :z: -' f:3 0 􀁾;::;::I:.--.. 0 -' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 􀁾􀁾􀀠COMMENTS1-.... 00 0.. 􀁾􀁾0..<1)
:::;; :::;; 􀁷􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠tii 􀁩􀀺􀁩􀁬􀁾􀀠.0 ....... r; " CONCRETE ,.:;. ;:r V?lve cover.. CLAY, 􀁾􀁭􀁥􀀠treated 􀁾􀀬􀀮􀀧􀀭.., (FILL) I'" Installed . ill 􀀮􀁾􀀺􀀧􀀮􀀠' I·; 􀁾􀀠CLAY, 'ilgr\!j
silty, stiff, dark gray :': ." -2.5 􀁾􀀠:. .;::. 􀁾􀀠i 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾... 􀁾􀀠-2" pvc pipe rJ .... :::. :K LIMESTONE, moderately to severely .. :'., r 5.0 .:/rf1 weathered. with occasional
soft clayey :': 􀀮􀁾􀀠i 􀀢􀁾􀀠seams, firm to moderately hard, light ( .. ,'1: -Grout:" .. r-r brown, brown. and tan ,.;: 􀁾􀀠.:. r 7.5 -I" ..􀁾􀀠,., t':.: <"􀁾􀀠. '." t {j...L,V::rs
."'. . I-10.0 rr Bentonite f-L, Seal f-L, : 􀁾􀀠. 􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁾􀁾r 12.5 -i .... =., . LIMESTONE, moderately hard to hard, gray ,= .'. .. ---f-L, .010 Slotp:.;ll .:= .' Screentr::' ' r 15.0
IT' :,t: 􀁾􀀻􀁾:: 􀀧􀀺􀀺􀁩􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺",:... f-Lr \:";-;' . ...L, 􀁾􀁾r 17.5 -:c; 􀁾􀀺􀀻􀀠0' .. 1'< 20-40 f-J-. 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀢􀀮􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀠i,[: Silica sand f-L, 􀀺􀁩􀀻􀀡􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀡􀁪􀀠r
20.0 -p:; , 􀁦􀁾􀁩􀁊􀀺􀀻􀀬􀁾􀀺􀀬􀁾􀀠t-r' ,.:.> . TOTAL DEPTH: 20S I-22,5 -J 
2 HENI£l'..,JCHNSlOO .I< ASSOCIA'l£S, INC. LOG OF BORING /MONITOR WELL PROJECT No,: 7025 .ngi ....... g geo:sciente consullanb MIDWAY ROAD BORING No.: B-1 DRILL DATE: 06/19/99 BELT LINE
RD. TO LINDBERGH DR. SHEET 1 of 1 MEiHOO: SHB..BY ruBE /Sl'UT SPOOl! ADDISON, TEXAS LOC'.1l0N: SEE PLATE 1 1\) 3.5' GROUND El£VATION: Z % 9 -' !:3 0 􀁾􀁾􀀠I ....... 0 .....I MATERIAL
DESCRIPTION 􀁾􀁾􀀠COMMENTS..... lD 0.. 􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁉􀁾0..<1> ::; ::;w., (i) Vi -,'" 􀁾􀁾0'::::" w.::::.. 􀁾􀀠.. ! CONCRErE Valve cover i ,.:" instoiled " ;" -•:'., 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠'0.5 -􀀧􀀡􀁾􀀠..
􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾I'--Grout..' ! • ..'. , i : I 6:: -􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠CLAY. silty. with occasional calcareous 􀁩􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀧􀀧􀁬􀁾•.; 􀀺􀁲􀁾􀀬􀁲􀀠nodules. very stiff. brown 􀀧􀀮􀀻􀁾􀁾.. ,1<..,;.' 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁦􀀠'1.0
-􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾?3 \':"'1. b" 􀁾􀀠􀀬􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀠',/" :It ...;-..:􀀺􀀬􀀺􀀻􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠-2" pvc pipe 􀁾􀀠..􀀺􀀻􀀮􀀬􀀬􀁾'.-.' . -􀁾•.? :{..􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀻􀁾-1.5 -􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀻􀀬􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀠-􀀻􀀭􀀻􀀻􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠
LIMESTONE, moderately to severely c... 2,0 ::rs weathered, with occasional soft clayey 􀁗􀁾􀀺􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠-fl seams, firm to moderately hard. light ,r' '" '-20-40 brown, brown, and tan 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁽􀀻􀁽􀁾�
�􀀠Silica sand 􀁾􀀮􀀠-l, 􀀢􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀠...L, 􀀮􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀻􀀮􀁾􀀠-􀁾􀀻􀀺􀀩􀀡􀀠-2.5 -􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁲􀀻􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠-l, 􀁆􀁾􀀻􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀧􀀻􀀮􀀠r010 􀁓􀁬􀁾􀀧..J..., 􀀮􀁾􀀺􀀬􀀬􀀡􀀮􀁯􀀠-􀀺􀀬􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀧􀀠•
'v,,;" := 􀁾􀀬􀀺􀀻􀁾􀀠Screen -3,0 -􀁾􀀠'll -r -_. ,......, .p:.., ,-3.5 ;;r TOTAL DEPTH: 3.5' I -4.0 -4.5 i . ' I i 
HEIUY..,JOONSTOO " ISSOCI/JES. INC. LOG Of BORING /MOIlITOR WELL PROJECT No.: 7025 engineering 900seence eonsuUanls MIDWAY ROAD BORING No.: B-2 DRILL DATE: 05/19/99 BELT LINE RD. TO
LINDBERGH DR. SHEET 1 of 1 IIETHOO: HI.Jl'( 11lBE /SPUT SPOOIl ADDISON, TEXAS LOCAllON: SEE PLATE 1 10 J.5' GROUND ELEVATION: Z :z: 0 ..J Kl 0 􀁾i=;::t:--. a ....J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
􀁾􀀱􀁬􀀧􀀠COMMENTS􀁉􀀭􀁾􀀠co 0.. 􀁾􀁾􀀠0..<1> ;::;: ;::;:w<l> 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠....J'"0'::;" w,::;.. i .. t CONCRETE Valve cover .: " installed.. 􀁾. c., .,..,..... i-::".... .. 􀁾􀀻􀁾:... 0.5
-•• " "-Grout..' ; "" 􀁾􀀠..' I.L CLAY. silty. with calcareous nodules and 􀁪􀁾􀀠iweathered limestone fragments, stiff. dark brown and brown (FILL) f1.0 -I p:::; LIMESTONE, moderately
to severely {irf. 􀁬􀁲􀁾􀀠,weathered. with occasional soft clayey 1-:::'1 _ .::'1..,," i. pipe􀀮􀁾􀀢􀀮􀀠-J'P.' 􀁾􀀠2 pvc􀁾􀀬􀀠􀁦􀁩􀁲􀁾􀀧􀀠to 􀁭􀁣􀁤􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁾􀀡􀁹􀀠........ 􀁾􀀬􀀮􀀮􀁬􀀠light
"':";: 􀀭􀀬􀀡􀀺􀀬􀁾Stc:"n!:, ..... ""J -:;-;" 􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀮..􀁾􀀠I1.5 -[$ brown. brown, and tan 0:.. p:; f2.0 􀀭􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀧􀀻􀀧􀀠-·'c.'.· Silica sandW-. 􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀠_ 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀢􀁾􀀱􀂷􀀠g:;
􀁉􀁾􀀭􀁴􀁾I2.5 􀀭􀁾􀀠W-. 􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀧􀁦􀀺􀀠-􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠" ... W; 􀁾􀀬􀀺􀀬􀀠-􀁾􀀮􀁦􀀭.0' u ;,Iot 􀀻􀀺􀀻􀀻􀁾􀀬􀀺􀀠=􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀠Screen I3.0 􀀭􀁾􀀠􀁬􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀡􀀠= 􀀺􀀧􀁾􀀢􀁬􀀠􀀱􀁾􀁾􀀱W-.
t;Jf3.5 TOTAL DEPTH: 3.5' f4.0 -. f4.5 -, 
􀁈􀁅􀁎􀁬􀁅􀁙􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁏􀁈􀁎􀁓􀁔􀁾􀀠& ASSOCWES. INC. engineering geoscience consunants LOG or BORING /MONITOR WELL MIDWAY ROAD DRILL DATE: 06/19/99 IIE'lHOD: SHElBY ruSE ,SPill SPOON TO
J's' BELT LINE RD. TO LINDBERGH DR. ADDISON, TEXAS l-__􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁪􀁾􀀴􀁦􀀠1----1,/\. '-----<.. :' 1----1.:", L. 0.5 -􀀺􀁾􀀮􀀠'-1.5 -HI L. 2.0 -m 2.5 -III-----'m L. 3.0 􀀭􀁾􀀠MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
.CONCRETE NOTE: 1/2" VOID UNDER PAVEMENT CLAY, lime treated subgrade (FILL) CLAY, silty. with calcareous nodules. limestone fragments. and grovel. very stiff. dark brown (FILL) 􀁾􀁜􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭CLAY. silty. with occasional calcareous nodules, very stiff, brown􀀺􀀽􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀽􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠it 3.5 -'"',􀀺􀀮􀁌􀁪􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀁔􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁔􀁁􀀭􀁌􀀭􀁏􀀭􀁅􀀭􀁐􀁔􀀭􀁈􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀳􀀭􀀮􀀵􀀭􀀬􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀱3 I4.0 􀁾􀀠i-c-----1 1-----1 1---' 􀁴􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀠PROJECT No.: 7025 8-3BORING No.: SHEET 1 of 1 LOCATION: SEE PLATE 1 GROUND ELEVATION: f-;COMMENTS Valve cover iristalled 􀁾􀀠::'1-Grout.
.," ' 􀀧􀁦􀁦􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀭􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀻􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀻􀁾􀀧􀀢􀀧􀀠􀁙􀀻􀁾􀀠($. 􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀠=􀁰􀁾􀁾􀀱􀀠.. -pvc pipe ',.'.., ,-,f-20-40::::...!, =􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀾􀀠.. .􀀻􀁾􀀻􀀮􀀠=􀁇􀀺􀁾􀀻􀁾􀁾􀀠SIlica
sand 􀁾􀁾􀁉􀀠􀁊􀁬􀁾􀁉􀁏􀁳􀁬􀀻􀁾􀀻􀀻􀁏􀁬􀀠􀁦􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁪􀀮􀀢􀁩􀀭􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀧􀀺􀁾..􀀻􀀺􀁾􀀻􀁾􀁾􀀡􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀡􀀻􀀭􀁾􀀠
􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀠 I I I I I I I I I I I I I HElW-JOflNSTCN I< ASSOCilllES. INC. LOG OF BORING /MONITOR WELL PROJECT No.: 7025 engineering geo!loellce cotlSlJfLonts MIDWAY
ROAD BORING No.: 8-4 DRILL DAlE: 06/19/99 BELT LINE RD. TO LINDBERGH DR. SHEET 1 of 1 !.IETHCO: ffiEJ.BY ruaE /SPUl SPOON ADDISON, TEXAS LOCATlON: SEE PLATE 1 10 J.B' GROUND ElEVATION:
Z % --' 13 0 􀁾􀀠1= 􀀺􀁪􀁾i!:-o 0 --' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 􀁾􀁾􀀠COMMENTSlD 00-.. :::E :::E LoJ" lii 􀁾􀀠--,'" 􀁬􀁩􀀺􀁬􀁾i 􀁯􀁾􀂷􀀠􀁷􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀢􀀻􀀠CONCRETE Valve cover It') installed ;.,
:. . r•". 􀁾􀀠i--:-;,.. 􀁜􀁾􀁾I0,5 -•• " !-Grout.,"', NOTE: 1/2" VOID UNDER PAVEMENT ; . . .., 􀁾􀁉􀁉􀀠CLAY, lime treated subgrade (Fill) 􀀺􀁾I1.0 -i I-2" pvc pipeCLAY. slightly silty,
stiff to very stiff, I1.5 dark gray ,. L ........ -..... 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠2.0 -20-40 Silica sand r r. 􀁾􀀠2.5 --I 􀁦􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀭.010 Slot 􀀢􀁭􀀧􀁾: Screen i-3.0 􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀠􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁴􀀠r 􀁾􀀠i-3.5
r 'r' TOTAL DEPTH: 3.8' I4.0 -􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠I4,5 -I-----,".". 􀁾•. 
Steve Chutchian From: Jim Pierce Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 3:05 PM To: 'HILL, JOHN' Cc: Carmen Moran; Steve Chutchian; Chris Terry Subject: RE: Airport John: Thanks -Please send
a copy of Exhibit 1. Jim. -----Original Message----From: HILL, JOHN [rnailto:jhill@cowlesthompson.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 1:15 PM To: 'jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us' Subject:
Airport Jim--below is Section 2.A. (definitions) from the agreement with Washington Staubach relating to the Airport description: Airport means the Addison Airport. Attached hereto as
Exhibit 1 is a description of the Airport. Prior to the end of December, 2000, the City shall obtain an updated description of the Airport which shall be substituted as Exhibit· 1 in
place of the description attached at the time of execution of this Agreement. 1 
Engineers, Inc. Grantham. Burge & Waldbauer July 25, 2000 Mr. Jim Pierce, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Town of Addison Post Office Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001 Re: Agreement for Engineering,
Surveying and Geotechnical Services Midway Road Reconstruction -Phase One Design Dear Mr. Pierce: Pursuant to your request, GBW has prepared this agreement for engineering, surveying
and geotechnical services for the reconstruction of Midway Road from Belt Line Road to Keller Springs Road in the Town of' Addison. Our subconsultants on this project will be HNTB Corporation
(construction sequencing and traffic control) and Alpha Testing, Inc. (geotechnical). The work described in this proposal represents Phase One of what is anticipated to be a two-phase
design process. Phase One consists of the preparation of all the construction plans and specifications necessary for the reconstruction work (see Exhibit A) except for construction sequencing
and traffic control,landscaping and irrigation, storm water pollution prevention plan and erosion control, signalization, and temporary lighting, and sidewalks. All median opening widths,
turn lane lengths, and street and driveway radii will be reviewed and design changes made where appropriate. The engineering report to be prepared with Phase One will provide a basis
for the Town to establish a construction phasing and funding approach for this project. Phase Two will consist of completing the remaining construction plans along with separating the
plans prepared in Phase One into a separate bid package for construction phasing purposes. Poblic notification and coordination with other cities, DART and affected businesses will be
included in Phase Two. Bidding and construction services will also be provided. Ifit is detemtined during Phase One that the Midway Road reconstruction project will precede the Arapaho
Road extension. the design of the box culvert crossing at Midway Road will be included in the Phase Two design. This proposal consists of tbe following Scope of Services: Scope of Services
Surveying for Design and Construction • Establish horizontal and vertical control for the project including monumentation which shall be tied to Town of Addison horizontal and vertical
datum. • Research Town. County, State, or other documents as necessary to establish the location of existing boundary lines and easements for the project. Furnish copies of all real
estate documents to the Town. • Prepare a right-of-way strip map for the project detailing all existing right-of-way and easement lines along with property owners. 1919 S. Shiloh Road,
Suite 530, L.B. 27, Gorland, T= 75042 Tel (972) 840-1916 Fax <!17Z) 840-2156 
Mr. Jim Pierce July 25,2000 Page 2 • In cooperation with the Town and other franchised utilities, determine the approximate locations and elevations of existing underground utilities.
• Locate soil borings and furnish survey data to the geotechnical consultant. • Perform a detailed topographic survey of the project including all driveways and intersecting streets.
Geotechnical Services • Explore subsurfacesoil andlor rock conditions and groundwater seepage along Midway Road by drilling 22 test borings up to a depth of 10 feet/Borings shall be spaced approximately 250 feet apart on alternative
sides of the street. • Perform laboratory tests to evaluate the classification. gradation and other physical characteristics of the subsurface soils. ' • Use the results of the field
exploration and laboratory tests to prepare an engineering report which will address the following items: engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials encountered recommended
pavement sections including alternative subgrade stabilization and base materials, and the pavement thickness required to achieve the targeted pavement life evaluation of the life expectancy
of the existing pavement sections recommendations regarding earthwork including grading and excavation. backfilling and compacting. the treatment ofin-place soils for support ofpavement.
and possible construction problems Project Management and Preliminarv Plan Preparation • Prepare a schedule for the project work and provide updates as requested by Town staff. • Attend
project coordination meetings with Town staff and subconsultants. • Review the geotechnical report results and coordinate with Town staff to determine recommended pavement sections for
the project. In addition, underdrain andlor root barrier locations will also be determined. • Prepare preliminary specifications and contract drawings for the project including the following:
Title Sheet with index and project location General Notes and Quantities Existing Right-of-Way Map including all property owners Typical Sections Horizontal and Vertical Control Sheet
Jointing Plans Roadway Plan and Profiles Intersection Layouts Pavement Markings Roadway Cross-sections Underdrain Profiles at street crossings Details 
,. &/(p ij'1Ifl1-,6 t+f?\.. (JwJ-ft-􀁾􀀧􀀴􀀼􀁊􀀠& Waldlbauer Engineers, Inc. May 21. 2001 Mr. Steve Chutchian. P.E. Town of Addison Post Office Box 90 I 0 Addison, Texas 7500 I Re: Draft
Letter Report for Mid way Road Pavement Section GBWNo.238 Dear Steve: This letter report sum •the Midway Road pavement condition performed by GBW s epared by Alpha Testing. Inc. In addition,
this report iI :ives included in the Alpha Testing report and an opinion IS that utilize a1ternati ve base materials. Description of Probl I Alpha Testing, Inc. sq letermine how subsurface
conditions were affecting the 􀁬􀁥􀁾􀀠•the freld inspection and soil boring data, we have the folI • Thepavemen ! nounced than the southbound lanes. • The worst se.:! the railroad crossing
near the Belt Line Road end oft • The cross-sloy...................uv u .....-IU"-" 􀀱􀁾􀀠UlUi.3U) III \.lte 118 to 1I4-inch per foot range" is ............ IVV'•.nlu """'u.....,,• significantly
less than the southbound lanes. where it is mostly in the lf4 to II2-inch per foot range. • The difference between the northbound and southbound lane cross-slopes appears to have resulted
from an attempt to match the existing ground at the east and west right-of-way lines when the current Midway Road pavement was designed in 1982. • The flatter cross-slope on the northbound
lanes increases the likelihood that surface water will pond or runoff slowly, resulting in a higher infiltration rate into the subgrade through pavement joints and cracks. • In addition
to rainfall, sprinkler systems in the medians and adjacent parkways are other sources of water which can infiltrate the subgrade. • Flat longitudinal slopes along some sections of Midway
Road also slow that rate of storm water runoff; for example, in the vicinity of tbe railroad crossing. • Poor surface drainage appears to be the primary reason why pavement distress
has been more rapid along most of tbe northbound lanes when compared with the southbound lanes. • The poor condition of many pavement joints, some of which may have been widened when
the pavement was milled and resealed in 1994, provide conduits for surface water to reach the subgrade: • The plasticity index of the underlying clay soil is generally in the 18 to 55
range, which indicates a high potential to shrink and swell. • The soil borings do not provide evidence ofa ground water problem. • Only eight of the 22 soil borings showed evidence
of lime in the subgrade, which suggests that the lime stabilized subgrade was not unifonnly constructed. • A combination of moisture penetration over time and nonuniform lime stabilization
during construction has probably reduced the bearing capacity of the subgrade. 1919 S. Shiloh Road. Suite 530. LB 27. Garland, Tex.s 75042 www.gbwengineers,c;om Tel (972) 840-1916. Fax
(972) 84{j·2156 
Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. May 21, 2001 Page 2 • The load transfer capability of the transverse contraction joints has been insufficient to support the heavy traffic volume, resulting
in a difference in pavement elevation at the front and back ends of adjacent slabs. • This difference, which results in a bump at the pavement joints on the northbound lanes in particular.
has also resulted in a transverse crack at the midpoint of some slabs. • Exhibit A contains a summary of data from the field inspection and the geotechnical report. Comparable Pavement
Alternatives We received a copy of your letter to Jerry Holder dated March 23. 2001 in which you authorize the design team to proceed with pavement section Alternative 3 which included
Portland Cement Concrete (PeC) on a Cement Treated Penneable Base (CTPB) with edge drains. Pursuant to our previous discussions. it is understood that the Town intends to use the same
type of pavement section for both the Midway and Arapaho Road projects. given that the depths of of the concrete and base layers may differ. In a similar manner to the Terra-Mar. Inc.
report for Arapaho Road, the Alpha Testing report for Midway Road analyzes several alternative pavement sections. These alternatives, which assume a 30-year project life, are summarized
in the following section. • Ifthe load transfer between joints is through aggregate il1lerlock and the subgrade is compacted: either 11.5 inches PCC 6 inches Crushed Limestone Base 6
inches Compacted subgrade OR 10.5 inches PCC 6 inches crPB 6 inches Compacted subgrade • Ifthe load transfer between joil1ls is through aggregate il1lerlock and the subgrade is lime
stabilized: either 11 inches PeC 6 inches Crushed Limestone Base 6 inches Lime stabilized subgrade OR 10 inches PeC 6 inches crPB 6 inches Lime stabilized subgrade 
Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. May 21, 2001 Page 3 • Ifthe load transfer between joints is through dowels and the subgrade is compacted; either lOinches 6 inches 6 inches OR PCC Crushed Limestone
Base Compacted subgrade 9 inches 6 inches 6 inches PCC CTPB Compacted subgrade • Ifthe load transfer between joints is through dowels and the subgrade is lime stabilized; either 9.5
inches PCC 6 inches Crushed Limestone Base 6 inches Lime stabilized subgrade OR 9 inches 6 inches PCC CTPB 6 inches Lime stabilized subgrade Review of Alternatives Upon a review of the
pavement sections listed above, it is evident that each of the following alternatives reduce the required PCC thickness by Y. to 1 inch: • The use ofCTPB in lieu ofCrushed Limestone
Base. Given the Town's selection of CTPB for the Arapaho Road project, it is anticipated that erPB will also be the base material of choice for the Midway Road project. • The use oflime
stabilized subgrade in lieu ofcompacted subgrade. In Section 5.4 of the Terra-Mar report, it states that 'If construction proceeds during wet weather, a lime stabilized subgrade in lieu
of a compacted subgrade may be desirable in order to provide a more stable and less moisture sensitive working platform.' A representative with Jackson Brothers, the contractor on the
Post and Paddock paving project for the City of Grand Prairie, strongly recommended that a lime stabilized subgrade be used with CTPB due to constructabilily problems which they experienced
on Post and Paddock with a compacted subgrade. If the Town of Addison is willing to consider lime stabilization on Midway Road, it could be bid as an alternate 10 a compacted subgrade.

Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. May 21, 2001 Page 4 • The use ofdowels in lieu ofaggregate interlockfor load transfer between joints. In Section 5.5 of the Terra-Mar report, it states that
'Steel dowels should be used for load transfer at all joints transverse to traffic.' This recommendation applies to transverse contraction joints which they indicate should typically
be placed at 15 feet on-center. The Terra-Mar report does not provide 􀁾􀀠an alternative pavement section for load transfer through aggregate interlock between joints. Locally, 0 aggregate
interlock is most commonly used on municipal roadways; nevertheless, botb load transfer options could be bid as alternates on Midway Road. Cost Comparison of Alternatives If lime stabilization
is bid as an alternate to a compacted subgrade, and dowels are bid in lieu of aggregate interlock for load transfer between joints, the contractors that bid the Midway Road project will
determine tbe cost effectiveness of these alternatives. IfOne or more or these alternatives is not acceptable to the Town we would be pleased to do the research necessary to prepare
an opinion of probable cost for each alternativ , 􀁾􀁉􀀠Although it is anticipated that the pavement section on Midway Road will incorporate CTPB, Exhibit B 􀁾􀀱􀀠;<1provides an opinion
of probable cost for informational purposes to compare it witb a pavement section that incorporates Crushed Limestone Base. This comparison, which indicates a $866,805· increase in cos.t
to use fJ1; \r;CTPB, is contained in that attached spreadsheet. 􀁜􀁜􀀩􀁾􀀠CTPB Design Memo 􀁉􀁽􀁬􀁾􀀠t\V 􀁾􀀠Given the limited use of CTPB as a base material for urban pavements in the
metroplex, we have 􀁰􀁲􀁥􀁰􀁡􀁲􀁥􀁤􀁾􀁾0 • design memo based on our research of this material. The attached design memo on CTPB has been prepared following conversations with a supplier,
a contractor, other local and state agency representatives, and other engineers. This memo is to providJ'an evaluation of CTPB along with technical data for consideration prior to developing
consistent pavement section design standards and specifications for the Midway and Arapaho Road projects. Fly Ash The Town of Addison's staff has expressed an interest in using fly ash
in the mix design of the PCC pavement for the Midway and Arapaho Road projects. Mr. Michael Caldarone. P.E. with TXI indicated that fly ash is used in concrete paving by number of local
cities including Dallas. Fort Worth Arlington, Plano and Grand Prairie, and by TxDOT on the majority of their concrete paving projects. I also contacted the City of Garland's construction
manager and confirmed that they permit fly ash in concrete paving mix designs. although tbe amount is limited to the lesser of 15% of the cement weight or 100 Ibs. Mr. Caldarone furnished
our office with sample concrete mix designs. with and without fly ash, which achieve 3,000 psi in 3 days and 7 days respectively. These mix designs are attached for you information.
If the Town wishes to utilize fly ash on the subject projects, we can include appropriate limits for its use in the technical specifications. \JiA..J t-L-􀁾􀁰􀀮&t10 l0 l--t O}-l 􀁾􀀠rk
Ga?-t􀁏􀁾v-?Jbns . 
Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. May 21,2001 Page 5 After reviewing the enclosed geotechnical report for Midway Road and this letter, please contact me if you any comments. I will then request
that Alpha Testing finalize their report. Very trul yours, ruce R. Grantham, P.E. President Attachments cc: Jerry Holder, HNTB Dave Lewis, Alpha Testing BG/gg 1:\WPDOCS\PROJECTS\ADDISONVJO.238\Olurch
ian.tlr 
EXHIBIT A MIDWAY ROAD -SOIL BORINGIFIELD OBSERVATION SUMMARY Boring No. Pvm't Station Traffic Direction Panel Point PI Lime Stab. Rock Depth Pvm't Thickness Pvm'tCross Slope Joint Width
Pavement Distress B-1 6+30 North Front 49 No · 8' -1.32% Moderate High B-2 6+27 North Back 31 No -7 3/. -1.32% Moderate High B-3 6+49 North Front 21 Yes · 8' -1.35% Moderate HiQh B-4
6+45 North Back -No -7 3/4" -1.34% Moderate High B-5 6+56 South Front 21 Yes -8" -3.86% Moderate High , 8-6 6+60 South 8ack . No · 8" -3.78% Moderate High B-7 10+03 North Back -No 8'
S 1/4" -1.72% Moderate Medium B-8 10+08 North Front 17 Yes 8' a 1'2" -1.79% Moderate Medium 8-9 10+33 South Front 23 Yes · 8' -2.93% Moderate Medium B-l0 10+36 South. Back 17 Yes -8"
-2.95% Moderate Medium B-ll 24+33 North Center -No · 8' -1.35% Moderate Medium 8-12 24+45 North Center 37 Yes -8" -1.28% Moderate Medium 8-13 26+01 South Center 41 Yes 8' 8" -3.71% Small
Low 8-14 27+54 South Center -Yes 5' 8' -3.75% Small Low B-15 27+32 North Front 55 No -8 'I. -0.92% Moderate Medium B-16 27+28 North Back 29 No -8 'I. -0.99% Moderate Medium B-17 47+47
North Center 55 No 5' 6 1 /2-1.43% Large High B-18 47+47 North Center 46 No 5' 6"1 ·1.43% Large High B-19 48+14 South Center 45 No 6' 6 'II -2.43% Moderate Medium B-20 50+74 South Center
38 No 2' 7'1. -2.02% Moderate Medium 8-21 50+88 North Center -No 2' 6'I. -1.24% Moderate Medium 8-22 50+88 North Center 18 No 2' 6°1. -1.24% Moderate Medium 
EXHIBITB OPINION OF PROBABLE COST MIDWAY ROAD. ALTERNATIVE PAVEMENT SECTIONS Bid Item Description Thickness (Inches) Alternate 1 Portland Cement Concrete 11.5 Crushed Limestone Base
6 Compacted Subgrade 6 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST Allernale2 Portland Cement Concrete 10 Cement Treated Permeable Base 6 Lime Stabilized SubQrade 6 Lima (@33IbslS.Y.) . Geotaxtlla Fabric -Concrete
Toe Wall (6" x 18") -Edge Drains (6" PVC) . TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ADDITIONAL COST FOR ALTERNATE 2 Unit S.Y. S.Y. S.Y. S.Y. S.Y. S.Y. TON S.Y. L.F. L.F. Estimated Unit Price Quantity Total
Item ($) ($) 55 53,500 2,942,500 15 57,000 855,000 1.5 57,000 85,500 $3,883.000: I i 50 53,500 2,675,000 15 57,000 855,000 2 57,000 114,000 110 941 103,455 13 62,000 806,000 10 3,060
30,600 15 11,050 165.750 $4.749.805 $866.805 Notas: 1. Edga Drains are proposed behind both outside curbs. 2. Concrete toe walls are proposed along the inside ourb lines of wider landscaped
medians only. 3. Lime Stabilization is included with CTPB for constructability purposes. 
Engineers, Inc. DESIGN MEMO Date: April 2, 2001 Job No. 00·238 From: GBW Job Name: Midway Road/Arapaho Road To: Steve Chutehian, P.E.; Jerry Holder, P.E. Re: General Notes on Cement
Treated Permeable Base EVALUATION • • • • • • • • • • • CTPB has the potential to increase the life of a roadway by providing a conduit for subsurface water to flow out from under the
pavement, thereby, reducing the rate at which subgrade support is likely to deteriorate. CTPB slightly reduces the required concrete pavement thickness when compared with an equally
thick crushed limestone base. CTPB has been used extensively in other states including California, Louisiana and Wisconsin. CTPB is more commonly used where the subsurface water flows
to open road side drainage ditch; however, it is also used in conjunction with edge drains on curb and gutter roadways. CTPB has been used on a very limited basis locally; consequently,
contractors are not as familiar with the construction requirements as they are with more commonly use non-drainable base lI'.aterials such as crushed limestone. Grand Prairie rebid the
Post and Paddock roadway reconstruction project, which utilized CTPB, because they received usually high bids at the first bid opening. A mandatory prebid meeting was scheduled prior
to the second bid opening, which resulted in lower bids, in order to provide contractors with more detailed information about the uSe of CTPB. A representative of Jackson Brothers, the
contractor on Post and Paddock, informed our staff that they would be prepared to bid another CTPB project; however, they would include money to lime stabilize the 􀁳􀁾􀁧􀁲􀁡􀁤􀁥􀀠even
jf jt was not required. \J,J 'if\:; 􀁾􀀠The compacted subgrade which was specified on the 􀁾􀁯􀁳􀁴and Paddock project created constructability problems for the contractor, especially
when it rained. Typically. where non-drainable bases are used. the goal is restrict the flow of water under the pavement. A drainage base permits the free flow of water under the pavement.
As CTPB promotes the flow of water under the pavement, it increases the potential for future pavement problems if the drainage system does not function as designed. For example: Over-roIling
the CTPB can cause degradation of the material with a reSUlting loss of permeability. Tel.: (972) 840-1916 t FAX: (972) 840-2156 t E-mail: info@gbwengineers.oom 
Design Memo, Page 2 An uneven or inadequately sloped subgrade can cause water to pond in the CTB. Any break in the filter fabric layer, either during construction or during later pavement
repairs, can provide a conduit for, water to migrate into the subgrade. . The CTB must be@9freeofdirtduringconstruction and during later pavement repairs. In addition, pavement repairs
must be closely monitored to insure that the CTPB is correctly installed so that the free flow of water is not interrupted. . The edge drains must be kept clear of dirt and debris during
construction and, if they are located under the pavement, construction equipment must be monitored to insure that the pipes are not crushed. The edge drains must be consistently checked
and cleaned out if necessary, during the pavement design life. • As storm sewers, culverts or creeks are the most likely outfall points for edge drains, the depth of flow in these outfalls
must be checked to determine if storm water will back up through the edge drains into the CTPB, and in what storm event this will occur. • The back up of storm water from an outfall
into the CTPB introduces a significantly higher volume of 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠water under the pavement than would result from infiltration through the pavement joints'£' (Ott'-vi! .'-{v • The CTPB
pavement section, which includes edge drains, filter fabric, and root barriers altng 􀁾􀀭􀁲􀀧􀁬􀁾􀁾􀀠median curbs, is significantly more expensive than an equivalent pavement section
which utilizes a non-4.-I\. drainable base. 􀀶􀀧􀀭􀁾􀁹blJ • There are no local examples of CTPB pavement section that have been in place on a curb and gutter roadway over the design
life to quantify any improvement in durability over a non-drainable base. BASE COURSE NOTES General • If construction traffic will be allowed on the permeable base, cement stabilization
is generally needed to avoid the substantial cost of constructing a temporary adjacent haul road for side delivery of concrete to the paver. Aggregate • Quality of crushed aggregates
is the single most important factor for the stability of a permeable base. Aggregate should be stored, handled, and placed in a manner to keep segregation to a minimum. • The most popular
aggnegate gradations are AASHTO No. 57 and No. 67, which are characterized by having very little material finer that No.8 sieve. • The aggnegate material should have at least two mechanically
fractured faces to ensure gaud mechanical interlock. This will require a crushed material. Permeability • Cement-treated bases have coefficients of permeability in the range of 3,000
to 15,000 ft per day. Untreated permeable bases range from 500 to 2,000 ft per day. Tel.: (972) 840-19161 FAX: (972) 840·21561 E·mail: Info@gbwengineers.com 
Design Memo, Page 3 • Edge drains are usually filled with the same highly penneable material that is used for the base or a material with even higher penneability. Cement • While 200
Ib cement per cubic yard has been the amount most generally specified, agencies have used amounts varying from 150 to 300 lb. • Mixes with 150 lblc.y. cement content should be restricted
to areas subjected to only a few truck hauls over stable subgrade. • Mixes with 200 Ib/c.y. cement content are appropriate for general use (average trucking and subgrade conditions.)
• Mixes with 250 lblc.y. cement should be used where heavy trucking will occur or where support conditions are questionable. • From the low to the high cement content, 7 day field compressive
strengths varied from 150 to 600 psi; however, cement content rather thsn strength should be used to select the most appropriate mix. Water Content • Water contents for workable mixtures
are usually in the range of 100 to 120 Iblyd3. Water content should be based on the contractor's assessment of the mix workability. • A water/cement ratio at the higher end of the range
may encourage the cement paste to flow to points of aggregate contact where its cementing action is needed. The FHWA recommends this design approach. Pavement Section • The thickness
of penneable bases used has varied from 3 to 6 inches, with 4 inches being !be most common. The thickness should be adequate to overcome any construction variances and provide an adequate
hydraulic conduit to transmit the water to the edge drain. • A minimum resultant slope of 2 percent is recommended wherever possible. Construction • Most commonly, the base is compacted
by vibratory plates or screeds. The objective is to solidly seat the material. • Over-rolling can cause degradation of the material with a resulting loss of penneability • Cement-treated
permeable bases are cured by water misting several times a day or by covering with polyethylene sheets for 3 to 5 days. • The need for curing is one of the least understood aspects of
of constructing cement treated penneable bases. • Some agencies are studying the cost-effectiveness ofcuring; Wisconsin found little difference between material covered with polyethylene
and that left exposed. Tel.: (972) 840-19161 FAX: (972) 840-21561 E-",ail: Info@gbwengineers.com 
Design Memo, Page 4 • During construction, care must be taken to prevent contamination ofthe permeable base from mud and dirt carried by truck tires. Construction traffic should be kept
to a minimum and sharp truck turning should be avoided. SEPARATOR NOTES General • Beneath the permeable base course, a separator or filter layer prevents fine particles in the subgrade
soil from infiltrating the open-graded base. • An asphalt prime coat placed on the stabilized subgrade/subbase would provide additional protection. • A separator layer can be provided
by an aggregate separator layer or by a geotextile. Aggregate Layer • The aggregate layer must be strong enough to provide a stable working platform for constructing the permeable base.
• The gradation of this layer must be carefully selected to prevent fines from pumping up from the subgrade into the permeable base. • The aggregate layer must have a low permeability
to deflect infiltrated water over to the edge drain. • The FHWA recommends the percent of fines passing the No. 200 sieve should not exceed 12 percent and the coefficient of uniformity
should be greater the 20 (preferably greater the 40.) • A minimum thickness of 4 inches is recommended for the aggregate separator layer. Geotextile • In subgrades with a high percentage
of fines, a geotextile might be a preferred choice. • The geotextile must have enough strength to survive the construction phase. • The principal advantage of a geotextile is its filtration
capability. A geotextile will allow any rising water, due to capillary action or a rising water table, to enter the permeable base and rapidly drain to the edge drain system. The main
disadvantage is if the geotextile becomes clogged, rising water will be trapped under the geotextile, saturating the subgrade and reducing subgrade support. Pore openings should be sized
to retain larger soil particles and pass smaller soil particles. Large numbers ofopenings should be provided in case there is some clogging. The geotextile should have a permeability
several times greater than the subgrade so that any vertical draining water will not be unduly impeded by the geotextile. The geotextile should be specified based on performance rather
than type (woven or non-woven). • • 
Design Memo, Page 5 • Geotextiles are subject to degradation when exposed to sunlight for extended periods of time. To prevent this, geotextiles should be placed and covered as quickly
as possible. LONGITUDINAL EDGE DRAIN NOTES General • For crowned pavement, edge drains are installed along both the inner and outer pavement edge. For uncrowned sections, only one edge
drain is installed at the low side. • For the longitudinal edge drain pipe, most agencies use 6-inch diameter flexible corrugated polyethylene tubing (perforated and meeting AASHTO M252.)
Rigid PVC pipe (slotted, AASHTO M278-PC50) has also been used but is more expensive. If the pipe is to be installed in trenches that are to be backfilled with asphalt-stabilized permeable
material, the pipe must be capable of withstanding the temperature. • The trench backfill material should be of the same material as the penneable base course to ensure adequate capacity.
• The preferred location for the edge drain is 2 or 3 feet outside the curb to avoid settlement problems or crushing the collector pipe beneath construction equipment. Sometimes, the
permeable base is extended under the shoulder with the edge drain placed at the outside shoulder edge. • The suggested minimum pipe size is 4 inches and the minimum slope should be 0.0035
Nft. • Depending on the pipe size, the trench width should be between 8 and 10 inches. The trench should be deep enough to allow the top of the pipe to be located 2 inches below the
bottom of the penneable base. • The edge drain trench should be lined with a geotextile, but the top of the trench adjacent to the permeable base is left open to allow a direct path
for the water into the edge draln pipe. • The ability to flush or jet rod the system is important in the maintenance scheme. The edge drain and outlet pipes must have proper bends (2
to 3-feet radii) and vents to facilitate this operation. • Videotaping the completed edge drain with flexible fiber optic equipment is suggested for final acceptance of the project.
Lateral Pipes • Lateral outlet pipes are rigid PVC or metal. Rigid pipe provides more protection against crushing due to construction operations. • The Federal Highway Administration
recommends a maximum outlet spacing of 250 feet to ensure rapid drainage. The pipes should be placed On a 3 percent grade with the outlet at least 6 inches above the 1O-year design flow
in the ditch or stonn sewer. • Pipe outlets into open ditches are usually protected by concrete headwalls and are equipped with rodent screens. Tel.: (972) 840-19161 FAX: (972) 840·21561
E-mail: Info@gbwengineers.com 
Design Memo, Page 6 Construction • Edge drains may be installed before or after construction of the permeable base and concrete surface. This will affect the edge drain location and
geotextile placement. • Pre-pavement installation of the edge drain may be necessary in some urban situations, bUl in general, the option should be given to the contractor. • Post-pavement
installation has several advantages: less threat of pipe damage and trench cave-ins due to construction traffic, less susceptibility to bad weather delays. and better line and grade
because these are taken off the previously constructed concrete pavements. Ma intenance • Flushing and rodding of the edge drain system should be done on a routine schedule. • Edge drain
outlets and pipe systems should be inspected at least once a year using flexible fiber optic video equipment to determine their condition. • If regular maintenance is not done, the pavement
section will become flooded, increasing the rate of pavement damage. DESIGN NOTES • When rainfall events occur that are greater than the design storm, the permeable base will fill with
water and excess water will simply run off on the pavement surface. After the storm event. the permeable base will drain as designed. • A time to drain 50 percent of the drainable water
of I hour is recommended for the highest class roads with the greatest amount of traffic. For most other highways and freeways, a time to drain 50 percent of the drainable water of 2
hours is recommended. • Construction traffic on the completed base course is the single most important parameter in the selection of the type of permeable base to be used. CONSTRUCTION
NOlES • Central plant mixing of permeable cement-treated base course is essentially the same as that for con ventional concrete. • The City may want to construct a test strip of the
base course to determine which curing method to employ as well as which method of compaction should be used. Requirements for moist curing should be investigated to see if they might
be eliminated without substantial loss of performance under actual job conditions. • The FHWA recommends that a control strip be constructedat the beginning of construction so that the combination of aggregate materials and construction practices be tested, and if necessary. adjusted to produce a stable permeable base with
adequate drainage characteristics. A minimum length of 500 feet is recommended, and this section can become part of the finished roadway if found to be acceptable. ';WPDOCSIPR01ECI'S\i\DDlSON\OO-2J8I
DES1GNMEMO.CTPB 
Mix#: 9053 Description: 7.00SK ADMIXIAEA 1 "CS Strength: 5000 psi @28 Days 3000 PSI @3 DAYS Maximum Size Coarse Aggregate: 1" -#4 CRUSHED STONE Maximum Water/Cement Ratio: 0.3921bs/lb
CementiCementitious Content: 7.00 sacks (per cubic yard) Maximum Placement Slump: 4.00 inches Air Entraining Agent: ASTM C-260 Admixture: ASTM C-494 Type A or D MATERIAL QUANTITIES PER
1.0 CUBIC YARD AT S.S.D 6581bs. ASTM C 150 TYPE I CEMENT 18401bs. 1" -#4 CRUSHED STONE 1193 Ibs. CONCRETE SAND 2581bs. or 31.0 Gallons of Water 2.0 to 4.0 ozlcwt of ASTM C-494 Type A
Specified Air Content: 3.0% -6.0% Placement Slump: 3.00 + or -LOO inches 
--------------------------TEXAS INDUSTRIES CONCUTE DESIGN EVALUATION oate: 04/04/01 •• Stat1st1cs Comp11ed From Independent Laboratory Test Specimens •• Mix 􀁎􀁾􀀺􀀡􀀩􀀰􀀵􀀮􀀹􀀠Strength1
3000 psi 􀁾􀀠3' Days J Day Test Data Temperature Test I?"lant: {Fahrenheit; I?"lacement Percent 3 Day --------Cumulative Moving Numbe.;: N1,1mber Slump (in) of Air Average Avg of 3D<tte
Ambient Concrete PSI 1 PSI 2 PSI lWG Range 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭----------------------------------􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭-------1 04/18/97 43 72 80 4.50 5.8% 3170 3170 3170 2 06/24/97 91 4.25
5.0t 3610 3610 3390 3 03J11/98 31 56 66 2.00 4.0' 3e90 3890 3551 3557 4 08/25/98 43 88 5.00 "/A 3050 3050 3430 3517 5 08128/!HI' .3 86 93 4.50 􀀱􀀮􀀸􀁾􀀠3760 3760 3496 3561 6 09/04/98
.3 96 8. 5.00 N/A 3680 3680 3527 3497 7 09/18/9B 31 72 8' 5.15 4.8t 3500 3500 3523 3647 8 10/05/98 50 82 80 4.75 N/A 4630 4630 3661 3937 9 08/09/99 .3 es 96 5.00 N/A 4220 4220 3723 4117
10 08/23/99 31 92 86 5.00 4.8% 4400 4400 3791 4417 11 02/08/00 18 43 58 4.75 N/A 2960 2960 3715 3860 ••• Averages ••• 76 4.59 4.4%82 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num: 9053 Strength: 3000 psi @3 Days Paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-89 provides that as data becomes available during construction,
the amount by which (F'cr) must exceed the specified value of (F'c) may be reduced, provided: (a) 30 or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (b) 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with section 5.3.1. 2 . ************************************************** * * * Unable to calculate standard
deviation due * * * * to the fact that less than 15 tests exist * * * ************************************************** SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 3 Day Test Data •Number of Tests
......................... . 11 Maximum Value ........................... . 4630 psi Minimum Value ........................... . 2960 psi Range ................................... . 1670
psi Average Strength........................ . 3715 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.2.1.............. . Design excess
beyond code requirements .. . 
TEXAS INDUSTRIES CONCRE'TE DESIGN EVALUATION Date: 04/04/01 •• Statistics Compiled From Independent Laboratory Test Specimons ** Mix Number: 9053 Strangth; 5000 psi i! 28 Days 29 Day
􀁾􀀤􀁴􀀠Data Temperature Test Number Oate Plant Number (Fahrenheitl Ambient Concrete P1acenent Slump!in) Percent of Air 􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠PSI 1 28 Day Psr 2 -------PSI AVe; 􀁃􀁵􀁮􀁵􀁬􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁶􀁥􀀠Aver
age Moving Avg 0 f 3 Range 08/09/99 .3 65 96 5.00 NIA 62eo 6110 6195 6195 170 2 OB/11/99 31 90 91 5.00 NIA 5SS0 5920 5900 6048 40 3 08/13/99 <3 92 9' 3.15 NIA 6050 6150 6100 6065 6065
100 08/16/99 31 92 95 6.00 NIA 5410 53S0 5410 5901 5803 120 5 08/23/99 31 92 86 5.00 4.8% 6560 6420 6490 £019 6000 1<0 £ 09121/99 41 92 88 5,00 4.3% 6520 6490 6505 £100 6135 30 7 09/21/99
41 62 a. 5.25 4.1\ 6090 6110 6100 6100 6365 20 8 09/21/99 41 69 .2 5.50 3.3% 5820 5130 5115 6059 6121 90 9 09/21/99 41 74 83 5.00 3.8\ 6510 6480 6495 6109 6123 30 10 09/29/99 <1 66 84
5.00 NIA 6160 6220 6190 6116 6153 60 11 09/29/99 41 " 90 5.00 "/A 6100 6650 £615 6161 6453 SO 12 09/29/99 41 10 85 5.00 NIA 6320 6400 6360 £183 6408 80 13 09/29/99 41 62 6£ 4.50 NIA
6660 6580 6620 6211 6552 SO 14 10/01/99 41 16 82 6.00 5.6\ 5520 5490 5505 6166 6162 30 15 10/01/99 41 62 85 6.00 5.3% 5750 5680 5115 6136 5941 70 16 10/01/99 <1 70 60 5.50 6.0% 5640
5110 5105 6109 5642 130 17 10/06199 41 eo 6< 5.25 "/A 5240 5290 5265 6059 5562 50 16 10/0£/99 41 13 61 5.00 NIA 5110 5210 5160 6009 5311 100 19 10/06/99 ., 66 76 5.50 NIA 5440 5210 5325
5973 5250 230 20 10/13/99 41 16 a< 6.00 NIA 5410 5200 5305 5940 5263 210 21 10/28/99 43 " ?9 4,50 H/A 5450 5550 5500 5919 5311 100 22 10/28/99 43 70 16 5.00 NIA 5430 5350 5390 5895 5398
ao 23 11/11/99 41 66 ,. 5.50 3.31 5110 5550 5630 5883 5507 160 2< 11/1£/99 41 67 15 5.50 ','1.8'11 5490 5490 5490 5861 5503 o 25 01/05/00 13 <8 60 5.00 -1.0% 5000 5110 5055 5834 5392
110 26 01/05/00 13 52 63 5.25 3.9% 5SeO 6000 5940 5838 5495 120 21 01/05/00 13 <3 59 6.00 3,91 5510 6160 5935 5838 5610 650 28 02108100 18 43 58 4.15 NIA 5020 5110 5065 5811 5613 90
29 02123/00 13 17. " 5.75 N/A 5110 5390 5580 5803 5493 380 30 06/21/00 31 eo 95 5.00 4.0\ 6110 6220 6195 51316 5613 50 􀁾􀀪􀀪􀀠Averages 􀁾􀁾􀀪􀀠13 61 5.22 4.n 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num: 9053 Strength: 5000 psi @2B Days paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-99 provides that as data becomes available during construction,
the amount by which (F'cr) must exceed the specified value of (F'c) may be reduced, provided: (a) 30 or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (b) 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1. 2. The required average compressive strength has been calculated using a standard deviation
calculated in accordance with ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.1.1 or Section 5.3.1.2 and is the larger value of these calculations: F'cr = F'c + 1. 34 (SO) 5000 + 1. 34 ( 485 ) 5650 F'cr F'c
+ 2.33 (SO) 500 = 5000 + 2.33( 485 ) 500 5630 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 2B Day Test Data Number of Tests ......................... . 30 Maximum Va 1ue ...........................
. 6675 psi Minimum Value ........................... . 5055 psi Range ................................... . 1620 psi Average Strength........................ . 5816 psiStandard Deviation.............
......... . 485 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318-99 Section 5.3.2.1.............. . 5650 psi Design excess beyond code requirements
.. . 166 psi 
Mix#: 9567 Description: 658# ADMIXIAEA 1 "CS Strength: 5000 psi @28 Days 3000 PSI @3 DAYS Maximum Size Coarse Aggregate: I" -#4 CRUSHED STONE Maximum Water/Cement Ratio: 0.406 Ibsllb
CementlCementitious Content: 7.36 sacks (per cubic yard) Maximum Placement Slump: 5.00 inches Air Entraining Agent: ASTM C-260 Admixture: ASTM C-494 Type A or D MATERIAL QUANTITIES PER
1.0 CUBIC YARD AT S.S.D 5261bs. ASTM C ISO TYPE I CEMENT 1321bs. ASTM C 618 FLY ASH 1840 Ibs. I" -#4 CRUSHED STONE 1148 100. CONCRETE SAND 2671bs. or 32.0 Gallons of Water 2.0 to 6.0
ozicwt of ASTM C-494 Type A Specified Air Content: 3.0% -6.0% Placement Slump: 4.00 + or -LOO inches 
TEXAS INDUSTRIES CONCRETE DESIGN EVALUATXON Dato: 04/04/01 *if Statistics Comp,iled From lndependent Laboratory Test Specimens .. Mix NWllIl;)Qr: 9567 􀁓􀁴􀁾􀁯􀁮􀁧􀁴􀁨􀁺􀀠3000 psi 􀁾􀀠3
DaY$ 3 Day 'rOBt Data 􀁔􀁾􀁭􀁰􀁾􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁵􀁲􀁥􀀠Test Plant {Fahrenheit) placement Perceot -------3 Day 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭Cumulative MOVi09 Number Date Number J\mbient Concrete -------Slump(1nJ
--------of Air --------PSI 1 PSI 2 PSI AVG -------}i,verage ----------A\l9 of 3 -------Range 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭1 Oa/ll/9a 38 85 98 5.00 2.5\ 3910 3910 3910 2 08/11/98 38 83 96 4.50 2.5%
4.230 4230 4070 3 08/11/98 38 eo 95 5.00 2.5\ 396D 3960 4033 4033 4 08/11/98 38 80 98 5.50 3.5\ 4330 4330 HOS 4173 5 01/06/99 38 41 61 5.50 NIA 2840 2840 3854 3710 6 01/06/99 38 46 6'
5,25 NIA 3320 3320 3765 3497 7 01/06/99 38 .7 63 5.25 NIA 2680 2680 3610 2947 8 01/06/99 38 " 60 5.00 NIA 3020 3020 3536 3007 9 01/06/99 38 45 61 5.25 NIA 3710 3710 3556 3137 10 02/11/99
38 65 55 5.00 NIA 4230 4170 4200 3620 3643 60 11 02/11/99 38 68 55 7.00 NIA 01230 4170 4200 3673 3673 4037 60 -----------------------.** Averaqes *** 63 73 5.30 2,8t 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num: 9567 Strength: 3000 psi @3 Days Paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-89 provides that as data becomes available during construction,
the amount by which (F'cr) must exceed the specified value of (F'c) may be reduced, provided: (al 30 or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (bl 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.2. ************************************************** * * Unable to calculate standard deviation
due ** * * to the fact that less than 15 tests exist* * * * ************************************************** SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 3 Day Test Data Number of Tests ........................
. . 11 Maximum Va1ue ........................... . 4330 psi Minimum Value ........................... . 2680 psi Range ................................... . 1650 psi Average Strength.................
....... . 3673 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.2.1. ............. . Design excess beyond code requirements .. . 
TEXAS INDUSrRIES CONCR£!rE DESIGN EVALUATION Date: 04/04/01 ** Stati.$tiofJ Compiled From 􀁉􀁮􀁤􀁇􀁰􀁥􀁮􀁾􀁮􀁴􀀠Lal::Xlratory Test Specimens .... Mix NllIlI.ber; 9567 Strength: 5000
psi e 28 Days 28 Day Teat Data TGmperature Test Plant tFahrenheit) P1ace::.ent PerC(;nt 􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠28 Day --------Comulacive Moving Number Date Number Ambient Concrete Slump (in)
of Air PSI 1 PSI '2 PSI AVG Average Avg of 3 1 11/25198 35 65 69 5.00 7.1% 6330 6470 6400 6400 140 2 11/25/98 35 65 10 5.00 6.0t 5590 5730 5660 6030 140 ., 11/25/98 35 65 6. 5.00 5.8%
5610 5750 5680 5913 5913 140 11125/99 35 65 6. 5.00 7.1\ 5360 5460 5410 5788 5583 100 5 11/25/99 35 60 68 5.00 6.8% 5490 5650 5570 5744 5553 160 6 12131/98 38 .5 6. 5.25 NIA 5220 1\880
5050 5628 5343 340 1 8 12/31/98 12131198 38 38 .6 41 68 .6 5.50 5.25 N/A MIA 5480 5550 5900 5360 5690 5455 5631 5614 5437 5398 '20 190 • 02104/99 38 52 63 5.00 NIA 5510 5590 5550 5607
5565 80 10 02/04/99 38 53 6. 5.25 NIA 6590 6380 6465 5695 5830 210 11 02111/99 38 65 55 5.00 NIl'. 5870 6020 5945 5118 5993 150 12 02111/99 38 6e 55 7.00 NIA 500 5620 5525 5102 5995
190 13 02116/99 38 68 54 7.50 5.$\ 6430 􀀶􀁓􀁾􀁏􀀠6485 5762 5985 110 14 02116/99 38 60 •• 8.50 5.B,\ 5130 5470 5300 5729 5770 340 15 05/19/99 35 " 10 6.00 4.2\ 5800 5730 5765 5731 5850
10 16 06/03/99 35 90 " 6.00 KIA 5210 5150 5180 5697 5415 60 " 06/04199 35 a, 13 5.00 4. 6% 6090 6370 6230 5728 5725 2BO 18 07/06/99 35 92 90 5.50 LO%; 5750 5660 5705 5127 5705 90 19
07/09/99 35 16 81 6.00 2.2\ 􀁾􀀹􀀴􀀰􀀠4810 4905 5684 5613 10 20 10128199 38 80 .2 5.50 4.1\ 5960 6130 6045 5702 5552 110 21 11/05/99 38 ., 89 4.50 KIA 6970 7010 6990 5763 5980 .0 22
12/01/99 3. 6. 10 5.00 NIA 6000 6110 6055 5716 6363 llO 23 12103/99 3. 72 71 4.00 1I.41r 5610 5320 5465 5763 6170 290 2' 12101/99 31 5. 65 4.00 NIA 6680 6770 6725 5603 6082 90 25 26
12/09/99 12/14199 38 31 60 54 65 .2 5.00 3.75 NIA 3.8\ 6080 5940 59110 .000 6010 5970 5811 5817 6061 6235 140 60 2? 12/17/99 <1 60 '5 5.00 H/A 6420 6330 6375 5838 6118 90 28 1212:1J99
31 '2 55 4.00 N/A 6600 6720 6720 6660 5867 6335 120 29 06122100 " 100 g. 4.00 II .1% 5660 5650 5655 5860 6230 10 30 08124100 􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠Averaqes 􀀪􀁾􀀪􀀠" 99.' .2 10 5.00 5.25 NIA 6050
6120 6085 5868 6133 70 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num: 9567 Strength: 5000 psi @28 Days Paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-99 provides that as data becomes available during construction,
the amount by which (F'cr) must exceed the speci ed value of (F'c) may be reduced, provided: (a) 30 or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (b) 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.2. The required average compressive strength has been calculated using a standard deviation
calculated in accordance with ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.1.1 or Section 5.3.1.2 and is the larger value of these calculations: 􀁾F'cr F'c + 1.34 (SD) 5000 + 1. 34 ( 513 ) = 5688 F'cr = F'c
+ 2.33(SD) 500 = 5000 + 2.33( 3 ) -500 = 5696 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 28 Day Test Data Number of Tests ......................... Maximum Value ........................... Minimum
Value ........................... Range ................................... Average Strength........................ . . . . . 30 6990 4905 2085 5868 psi psi psi psi Standard Deviation...............
.. ..... . 513 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318-99 Section 5.3.2.1 .............. . 5696 psi Design excess beyond code requirements
.. . 172 psi 
Mix#: 8274 Description: 6.00SK ADMIX!AEA I"CS Strength: 4000 psi @28 Days 3000 PSI @7 DAYS Maximum Size Coarse Aggregate: I II -#4 CRUSHED STONE Maximum Water/Cement Ratio: 0.4571bsllb
CemenUCementitious Content: 6.00 sacks (per cubic yard) Maximum Placement Slump: 5.00 inches Air Entraining Agent: ASTM C-260 Admixture: ASTM C-494 Type A or D MATERIAL QUANTITIES PER
1.0 CUBIC YARD AT S.S.D 564 Ibs. ASTM C 150 TYPE I CEMENT 18401bs. 1II -#4 CRUSHED STONE 1273 Ibs. CONCRETE SAND 258 Ibs. or 31.0 Gallons ofWater 2.0 to 4.0 ozlcwt of ASTM C-494 Type
A Specified Air Content: 3.0% -6.0% Placement Slump: 4.00 +or -1.00 inches 
TEXAS INDUSTRIES 􀁃􀁏􀁎􀁃􀁒􀁅􀁾􀀠DESIGN EVALUATION Date: Q4/04/01 ** 􀁓􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁳􀁴􀁾􀁣􀀤􀀠Compiled From Independent Laboratory Test Specimens ** 􀁾􀁸􀀠Number: 8274 Strength: 3000 psi
@7 Days 1 Day 'X'est Data Temperature Test Number Oate Plant Number (Fahrenhoit} Ambient Concrete 􀁐􀀱􀁡􀁣􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀠Slump (in) Percent of Air -------PSI 1 1 Day PSI 2 PSI AVe; Cumulative
Average 1 09128/00 87 9. 4.00 H/A 3480 3660 3570 3570 2 09}29/00 80 3.15 3.5% 3950 3950 3760 3 10/04100 38 82 90 6.00 NIA 3040 3020 3030 3517 • 5 • 10/05/00 10/06/00 10/10/00 38,. 38
90 68 68 92 79 " 5.75 5.50 4.00 NIA N/A NIA 4060 4220 4800 3830 4000 4820 3945 4110 4810 3624 3721 3903 7 10/13/00 ,6 60 82 4.00 NIA 3810 3590 3700 3874 e 10/13/00 38 83 87 3.50 NIA
3910 4120 4045 3895 9 10/16/00 38 73 83 4.00 NIA 3900 3920 3910 3897 10 10/17/00 38 74 61 4.50 NIA 3940 4000 3970 3904 11 10118/00 38 83 66 5.25 NIA 3670 3610 3883 12 10/19/00 50 82
78 3.00 NIA 3840 3960 3900 3884 13 10/19/00 38 79 82 4.75 NIA 4200 4100 4150 3905 l' 10nO/OO 77 4.50 H/A A 4400 4400 3940 15 10}20/00 3. 74 76 4.75 NIA 4170 4170 4170 3955 1. 10125/00
38 80 79 4.00 NIA 4040 4040 3961 n 10/21/00 74 3.75 5.9% 4310 4400 4355 3984 18 11/20/00 55 4.00 25.0% 4120 4000 4060 3988 19 11121100 52 65 4.75 5.8%: 3960 3960 3987 20 11/22/00 56
60 5.00 5.5\ 3990 3990 3987 21 11/22/00 50 50 62 2.50 NIA 4350 4350 4004 n 11/29/00 65 3.15 5.0% 4920 5110 5015 4050 23 12/01/00 25 63 NIA 3180 31BO 4012 " 12/07/00 59 5.00 4:.7%: 3340
3340 3984 25 12/14/00 ,0 57 5.25 H/A 4780 41aO 4016 26 12/15/00 53 5.00 4.5% 4010 4010 4016 27 12/15/00 53 5.00 4.6\ 3540 3540 3998 28 29 12120/00 12/22100 '0 .0 65.. 67 51 4.15 5.25
NIA H/A 4130 3900 4130 3900 4003 3999 30 03105/01 39 69 77 4.50 4.0\ 4870 4800 4026 •• * Averages *** 70 73 4.47 Moving Avg of 3 3517 3642 3695 4288 4207 4185 313135 3975 3850 3847 3907
4150 4240 4203 4188 4152 4125 4003 4100 4452 4182 3845 3767 4043 4110 3893 31357 4211 Range 180 20 230 220 20 220 150 20 60 120 100 o 90 120 190 140 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num: 8274 Strength: 3000 psi @7 Days Paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-99 provides that as data becomes available during construction,
the amount by which (F'cr) must exceed the specified value of (F'c) may be reduced, provided: (a) 30 or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (b) 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.2. The required average compressive strength has been calculated using a standard deviation
calculated in accordance with ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.1.1 or Section 5.3.1.2 and the larger value of these calculations: F'cr = F'c + 1.34 (SD) 3000 + 1. 34 ( 458 ) = 3614 F'cr = F'c
+ 2.33(SD) 500 3000 + 2.33 ( 458 ) -500 = 3568 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 7 Day Test Data Number of Tests ......................... . 30 Maximum Value ...........................
. 5015 psi Minimum Va 1ue ........................... . 3030 psi Range ................................... . 1985 psi Average Strength........................ . 4026 psi Standard Deviation...........
.... ....... . 458 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318-99 Section 5.3.2.1 .............. . 3614 psi Design excess beyond code requirements
.. . 412 psi 
TEXAS INDUSTRIES CONCRETE DESIGN 􀁅􀁾􀁏􀁁􀁔􀁉􀁏􀁎􀀠Date! 04/04/01 •• Statistics Compiled From Independent 􀁌􀁡􀁢􀁯􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁯􀁾􀀠Test Specimens •• Mix Number: 8214 Strength: 4000 psi G
29 Days 29Day Tast Data Temperature Test Number Date Plant Number i Fahrenheit 1 Ambient Concrete Placement slump(in! Percent Q£ Air -------PSI 1 28 Day PSI 2 -------PSI AVG CUmulative
Average Moving A\I'9 of 3 Range 1 09/28/00 87 96 4.00 NIA 4340 4500 4420 4420 160 Z 09/29/00 BO 3.75 3.5\ 4110 1110 4140 4580 60 3 10/04/00 36 82 90 {).OO NIA 4010 4130 11100 4420 4420
60 , 10/05/00 36 90 92 5.15 N/A 4130 4640 4685 4486 4508 90 5 10/06/00 .6 66 79 5.50 NIA 5340 55BO 5460 46B1 4748 240 6 10/10/00 36 66 74 LOa NIA 5270 5350 5310 4186 5152 80 7 10/13/00
46 60 82 4.00 NIA 4560 45$0 4570 4155 5113 20 6 10/13/00 36 83 81 3.50 NIA 5290 5390 5340 4828 5073 100 9 10116/00 38 13 83 4.00 NIA 4310 4480 l1li25 4763 4118 110 10 10/17/00 38 " 81
4.50 NIA 50BO 5090 5085 4814 4950 10 11 10/18/00 3. 83 86 5.25 NIA 4640 4510 4605 4195 4105 10 12 10/19/00 SO B2 '8 3.00 NIA 4290 4440 4360 415B 4683 160 13 10/19/00 38 79 82 4.15 NIA
5250 4160 5005 4111 4651 <90 14 10/20/00 " 4.50 NIA 5250 5360 5305 4815 4890 110 15 10/20/00 38 " '6 4.15 NIA 5280 ·%50 5465 4858 5258 310 16 10/25/00 36 80 19 4.00 NIA 4990 4960 4915
4866 5248 30 11 10/21/00 " 3.15 5.8\ 5310 5210 5260 4889 5233 100 16 11/20/00 55 4.00 25.0% 4150 4920 4795 4883 5001 10 19 20 11/21/00 11/22100 52 56 65 60 4.75 5.00 5.$\ 5.5\ 4940 5060
4970 4910 4955 5015 4$131 4893 5000 4918 30,0 21 11/22/00 50 50 62 2.50 NIA 5000 5190 5095 4903 5:022 190 22 11/29/00 65 3.15 5.01 6310 6350 6330 4968 5480 '0 23 12/01/00 25 5. 63 NIA
4560 4400 4480 4941 5302 160 2' 12101/00 59 5.00 40 1, 4390 4490 4440 4925 50B3 100 25 12114/00 40 51 5.25 NIA 5110 5:iOO 5155 4935 4.692 90 26 12115/00 53 5.00 4.5% 5510 5210 5420 4953
5005 300 27 12/15/00 53 5.00 4.6% 5000 5100 5050 4951 520$ 100 26 12/20/00 ,0 65 61 4.15 MIA 5180 5010 5125 4963 519$ 110 29 12/22/00 40 <9 51 5.25 NIA 5130 5200 5165 4.910 5113 10 30
03/05/01 38 69'. 69'. 77 4.50 4.41 4,0\ 6.8\ 5730 5190 5160 4996 5350 60 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num: 8274 Strength: 4000 psi @28 Days Paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-99 provides that as data becomes available during construction,
the amount by which (F'cr) must exceed the specified value of (F'c) may be reduced, provided: (a) 30 or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (b) 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with 􀁓􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁾􀀠5.3.1.2. The required average compressive strength has been calculated using a standard deviation
calculated in accordance with ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.1.1 or Section 5.3.1.2 and is the larger value of these calculations: F'cr F'c + 1. 34 (SO) = 4000 + 1. 34 ( 471 ) 4631 F' cr = F'c
+ 2.33(SD) 500 = 4000 + 2.33( 471 -500 = 4598 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 28 Day Test Data Number of Tests ......................... . 30 Maximum Value ...........................
. 6330 psi Minimum Value ........................... . 4100 psi Range ................................... . 2230 psi Average Strength........................ . 4996 psi Standard Deviation
...................... . 471 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318-99 Section 5.3.2.1 .............. . 4631 psi Design excess beyond code
requirements .. . 365 psi 
Mix #: 8206 Description: 564# ADMIX! AEA 1 "CS Strength: 4000 psi @28 Days 3000 PSI @7 DAYS Maximum Size Coarse Aggregate: I" -#4 CRUSHED STONE Maximum Water/Cement Ratio: 0.4571bsllb
CementiCementitious Content: 6.31 sacks (per cubic yard) Maximum Placement Slump: 5.00 inches Air Entraining Agent: ASTM C-260 Admixture: ASTM C-494 Type A or D MATERIAL QUANTITIES PER
1.0 CUBIC YARD AT S.S.D 451 Ibs. ASTM C 150 TYPE I CEMENT 1131bs. ASTMC618FLY ASH 18401bs. 1" -#4 CRUSHED STONE 1254 Ibs. CONCRETE SAND 2581bs. or 31.0 Gallons of Water 2.0 to 6.0 ozlcwt
ofASTM C-494 Type A Specified Air Content: 3.0% -6.0% Placement Slump: 4.00 + or -1.00 inches 
TEXAS :tNDUS'l'RIES Dato: 04/()4/01 CONCRETE DESIGN EV1.LUATION •• Statistics Compiled From Independent 􀁌􀁡􀁢􀁯􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁯􀁾􀀠Test Specimens .* Mix Number: 9206 Strength: 3000 psi (J 7
Days 7 Day Teet Oata Temperature Test Number Date Plant NUmber i Fahrenheitl Ambient Concrete Placement Slump(in) Percent of Air 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾PSI 1 ? Day PSI 2 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭PSI AVG
Cumulative Average Moving AV9 of 3 1 10/03/00 e, 83 4.00 4..3\ 3560 3180 3670 3670 220 2 10/03/00 " 85 4.75 4.3% 3130 3650 3690 3680 80 3 10/03/00 8' a, 5.00 4.3% 3740 3820 3180 3713
3713 80 4 10/03/00 81 83 4.00 3.5\ 3730 3830 3"180 3'1J0 3750 100 5 10/04/00 87 90 2,75 4. " 3850 3850 3154 3803 6 10/06/00 31 55 73 5.00 4.9\ 􀁾􀀱􀁬􀀰􀀠4220 4165 3823 3932 110 7 10/09100
38 47 64 4,50 4.6% 3700 3910 3a05 3920 3940 210 8 10/12/00 7e 84 5.25 iI. 5\ 3B50 3590 3720 3808 3897 260 9 10/12/00 78 83 4.25 4.0% 4880 020 4800 3918 4109 160 10 10/12100 19 83 4.75
4.0\ 4670 4700 HaS 3995 4402 30 11 10/12/00 79 B4 4.50 4.0\ 4130 4080 HOS 4005 4530 50 12 10/12100 78 78 e3 6.50 3.5\ 4060 4120 4090 4012 4293 60 13 10/12/00 31 82 80 5.50 5.U 3120 3780
3150 3992 3982 60 " 10/19/00 31 15 89 5.25 Nfl'. 3SBO 3650 3615 3965 381S 70 15 10120100 31 69 72 4.00 4.4\ 4370 4540 4455 3997 3940 170 16 11/02/00 38 SO 84 6.00 N/A 4440 4160 4300
4016 4123 280 17 11/16100 31 52 65 5.25 N/A 4090 3970 4030 4017 4262 120 18 11116/00 31 52 67 4.75 NIl'. 4120 4660 4(190 4054 4340 60 19 11128/00 31 69 71 5.50 N/A 3570 3440 3505 4026
4075 130 20 12/04/00 31 53 63 5.00 NfA 3700 3810 3755 4012 3993 110 21 12/05/00 31 SO 63 5.00 N/A 4460 4420 4440 4032 3900 40 22 12105/00 31 53 62 4.50 5.3\ 4020 4000 4010 4031 4068
20 23 12106/00 31 " 61 5.00 N/A 4350 4720 4535 4053 4329 370 2. 12/07/00 30 60 5,50 NfA 3590 3590 4034 4045 25 12107100 40 32 73 5.50 " .5% 4620 4620 4057 4248 26 12/07/00 40 33 68 5,50
4.5% 4280 4280 4066 4163 27 12/07100 40 2. 68 5.75 4.6\ 3960 3960 4062 4287 28 12/07/00 31 49 65 <1.00 NfA 4060 3990 4025 4061 401313 70 29 12/0B/00 39 55 60 5,50 NIA 4020 4070 4045
4060 4010 50 30 12/19/00 12 60 58 5.00 4.5\ 4640 4640 4080 4237 63 74 4.93 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num: 8206 Strength: 3000 psi @7 Days Paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-99 provides that as data becomes available during construction,
the amount by which (F'cr) must exceed the specified value of (F'c) may be reduced, provided: (al 30 or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (b) 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.2. The required average compressive strength has been calculated using a standard deviation
calculated in accordance with ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.1.1 or Section 5.3.1.2 and is the larger value of these calculations: F'cr = F'c + 1.34(SD) = 3000 + 1.34 ( 382 ) = 3511 F'cr = F'c
+ 2.33(SD) 500 = 3000 + 2.33( 382 ) -500 = 3389 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 7 Day Test Data Number of Tests ......................... . 30 Maximum Value ...........................
. 4800 psi Minimum Value ........................... . 3505 psi Range ................................... . 1295 psi Average Strength ........................ . 4080 psi Standard Deviation
...................... . 382 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318-99 Section 5.3.2.1 .............. . 3511 psi Design excess beyond code
requirements .. . 569 psi 
TEXJIo.S INDUSTRlE.S CONCRETE DESIGN EVALUATION Date: 04/04/01 M.i.x Number: 8206 Strength: 4000 pai e 28 Days 290ay '1'Qst Data Temperature Test Plant {Fahrenheit) Placcr:<.ent Percent
28 Day Cumulative Movin9 Number Date Number Ambient Concrete Slump {in) of Air PSI 1 PSI :2 PSI AVG Average Avg of 3 Range 1 2 10/03/00 10/03/00 ., .2 as 83 4,15 5.00 4.3% 4.0" 5300
4620 5200 4120 5250 4610 5250 4960 100 100 3 10/03/00 81 .3 5.00 4.0%4660 4110 .pIS 4878 4818 110 5 10/03/00 10/04/00 .,.7 83 90 4.00 :20 75 3.511 4.7% 5240 5130 S320 5060 5280 5095
4919 5002 4888 5030 80 70 6 10/06/00 31 55 73 5.00 4.911 4910 50aO 4995 5001 5123 170 7 6 , 10/09/00 10/12/00 10/12/00 38 47 797, 6,., .3 4.50 4.50 tj.75 4.6%4.0% 4.i.1%5140 5460 5730
5430 5250 5120 5285 5355 5725 5041 50Bl 5152 5125 5212 5455 290 210 10 10 10/12/00 78 ., 5.25 4.5\ 5010 5090 5050 5142 5311 80 11 12 10/12/00 10/12/00 '8.,. 83 a3 4.25 6.50 4.0% 3.5%
5880 5440 5710 5330 5795 5385 5201 5217 5523 5410 170 110 13 10112/00 31 82 80 5,50 5.1\ 5080 5170 5125 5210 5435 90 " 10/19/00 31 75 ., 5.25 "/A 4440 4620 4530 5161 SOD 180 15 10120100
31 6a 12 4.00 4.4% 5020 5350 5185 5163 4941 330 16 11;02100 3. 80 84 6.00 "/A 5200 5250 5225 5167 4980 50 17,. 11/16/00 11/16/00 31 31 52 52 65 67 5.25 4.15 "fA "/A 5740 6030 5680 5950
5710 5990 5199 5243 5313 5642 60 80 19 11/28/00 31 69 11 5.50 "/A 5120 􀁾􀀸􀀴􀀰􀀠49BO 5229 5560 280 20 12/04/00 31 53 63 5.00 "/A 5610 5280 5445 5240 5472 330 21 12105100 31 50 63 5.00
NIA 5730 51310 5800 5266 5408 140 22 12/05/00 31 53 62 4.50 5.3% 5260 5420 5340 5210 5528 160 23 " 12/06/00 12/01/00 31 41 30 61 60 5.00 5.50 "/AN" 6650 4550 6650 4.810 6650 4660 5330
5303 5930 5557 o 260 25 12/07/00 ,0 33 6a 5.50 4.5% 5900 5990 5945 5328 515S 90 26 12/07/00 '0 32 73 5.50 4.5% 5910 5B50 5880 5349 5502 60 27 12/01100 '0 29 68 5.75 4.6% 5480 5560 5520
5356 5182 80 282, 12/07/00 12/08;00 31 3. 49 55 65 60 4.00 5.50 "/A N" 5420 5620 5250 5870 5335 5145 5355 5368 5578 5533 110 250 30 12119;00 12 60 sa 5.00 4.5% 6240 6020 6130 5394 5737
220 63 4.96 4.4% 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num: 8206 􀁓􀁴􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁱􀁴􀁨􀀺􀀠4000 psi @28 Days Paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-99 provides that as data becomes available
during construction, the amount by which (F'cr) must exceed the specified value of (F'c) may be reduced, provided: (a) 30 or more test results are available and average of test results
exceeds that required by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (b) 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results
exceeds that required by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.2. The required average compressivestrength has been calculated using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.1.1 or Section 5.3.1.2 and is the larger value of these calculations: F'cr
= F'c + 1. 34 (SO) 4000 + 1. 34 ( 480 ) = 4643 F'cr = F'c + 2.33(SD) 500 4000 + 2.33( 480 ) -500 = 4617 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 28 Day Test Data Number of Tests .........................
. 30 Maximum Value ........................... . 6650 psi Minimum Value ........................... . 4530 psi Range ................................... . 2120 psi Average Strength ..................
...... . 5394 psi Standard Deviation...................... . 480 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318 99 Section 5.3.2.1. .............
. 4643 psi Design excess beyond code requirements .. . 751 psi 
EXHIBITC Date: June 27, 2000OPINION OF PROBABLE COST (For Design Contract) Midway Road Reconstruction Project Belt Une Road to Keller Springs Town ofAddison y.' • ";;' . 􀀻􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀺􀀬􀀠􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀼􀁔􀁴􀁾�
�􀀢􀀧􀀢􀀠􀀺􀁾􀁜􀀺􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀮􀀬􀀧􀁾􀀠:," 􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀠.: 􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀭􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀺􀀭􀀧􀀺􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀺􀀺...-.::. Item No. Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Item Total ($) ($) 1 55.00 STA ROW Preparation 5000.00
275000.00 2 10,000.00 C.Y. Unclassified Excavation (lor 4" Base) 12.00 120000.00 3 1.00 L.S. Barricade, Sign, Traffic Control 0.00 0.001 4 53,500.00 S.Y. Remove Concrete Pavement, Haul,
Dispose 10.00 535000.00 5 700.00 S.Y. Remove Concrete Drive, Haul, Dispose 15.00 10500.00 6 2,000.00 S.Y. Remove/Aeplaee 6" Concr. Median Pavemt. 40.00 80000.00 7 14,000.00 L.F. Sawcut
Breakout Groove 4.00 56000.00 8 57,000.00 S.Y. 4" Asphalt Treated Base 570000.00 9 700.00 S.Y. 6" Reinforced Concrete Drives 40. 28000.00 10 53500.00 S.Y. 11" Rein!. Coner. Pavement
(4,000 psi) 55.00 1 2942500.00 11 8,900.00 L.F. 6" Integral Curb 3.00 26700.00 12 12 3,000.00 S.Y. Temporary Asphalt 0.00 0.00 13 10,000.00 S.Y. Block Sodding Disturbed Areas 5.00 50000.00
14 20.00 EA. Reconstruct Inlet Tops 1500.00 30000.00 15 24.00 EA. Remove and Replace Street Lights 0.00 0.00 16 2,200.00 EA. 4" Buttons 5.00 11000.00 17 10,000.00 L.F. Geocomposite Edge
Drain 20.00 200000.00 18 1.00 L.S. Pavement Markings 50000.00 50000.00 19 1.00 L.S. Traffic SignaVLoop Adiustments 0.00 0.00 20 1.00 L.S. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 0.00 0.00
21 1.00 L.S. Replace Landscape 0.00 0.00 22 1.00 L.S. Utility Ad; ustments 100000.00 100000.00 Subtotal: $4984700.00 20% ContinQencv: $996940.00 TOTAL: $5 981 640.00 Noles: 1. No sidewalk
cost is included. 2. Existing inlet bases will remain in place while the top is reconstructed. 3. The edge drain will be placed behind the outside curbs for the length of the project.
4. Early strength concrete would add about $500,000 to the project cost. 5. Phase Two design items have been excluded from the total cost. 
􀁉􀁾􀁁TESTING, INC. 2209 Wisconsin Sf.. Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 9721620-8911 -9721263-4937 (Metro) FAX: 972/406-8023 GBW ENGINEERS, INC. 1<) 19 Shiloh S. Road, Suite 530, LB 27
Garland, Texas 75042 Attention: Mr. Bruce R. Grantham, P.E. Attached is the report of the remedial April 2,2001 ****DRAFT COPy*** Re: Remedial Geotechnical Ex p loration MIDWAY ROAD
RECONSTRUCTION Beltline Road to Keller Springs Road Addison, Texas ALPHA Report No. 00988 geotechnical exploration performed for the project referenced above. This study has been authorized
by Mr. Bruce Grantham, P.E. on December 28, lOOO and performed in accordance with ALPHA Proposal No. GT 7371 dated June 27, 2000. This report contains results of field explorations and
laboratory testing and an engineering interpretation of these with respect to available project characteristics. The results and analyses have been used to develop recommendations for
remedial design and reconstruction of a segment ofMidway Road in Addison, Texas. ALPHA TESTING, INC. appreciates the opportunity to be of service on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, such as providing materials testing services during construction, please conl,lct our office. Sincerely yours, ALPHA TESTING, INC. David A. Lewis, P.E. Manager of Engineering
Services Jim L. Hillhouse. P. President OAL .ILH dal Copies: (3) Cliellt Geotechl1icol Engineering • Construction Materials Testing • Environmenlol Engineering • Consulting 
TABLE OF CONTENTS on MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION BeItline Road to Keller Springs Road Addison, Texas ALPHA Report No. 00988 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ......................................................
.............................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................... 2 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
..................................................................................................... 2 4.0 LABORATORY TESTS ..........................................................................
............. , ............ .3 5.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................... , ....................... " .................. 3 6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS, ...........................
, ..................... ,...............4 6.1 Pavement. ............................................. ,............................. ,......... .4 6. 1,1 Pavement Subgrade Preparation
......... ,." ........... ,.... ,., ........ ,... ,... ".5 6.1.2 Pavement Section Options .... ,.................................................... 5 6, L3 Pavement Specifications .............
,..... ,.........................................7 6.2 Drainage. , ............................,......... , , .................. ,......... , .. , ...... " ....... 11 7.0 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
PROCEDURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS" ............8 7.1 Site Preparation and Grading, .................. ,.................. ,.........................8 7.2 Fill Compaction ....... ", ..................
,................................ ,.................9 7.3 Groundwater................................................................................. ,.1 0 APPENDIX A-J Methods of Field
Exploration General Location ." Figure I Boring Location Plans -Figures 2 7 8-1 Methods of Laboratory Testing Moisture Density Relationship .. Figures 8 & 9 Mechanical Lime Stabilization
-Figure 10 Record of Subsurface Exploration Key to Soil Symbols and Classifications 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this remedial geotechnical exploration is to evaluate some of the physical and engineering properties of subsurface
materials at the subject study area with respect to design and reconstruction of a segment of Midway Road in Addison, Texas. The field exploration has been accomplished by securing subsurface
samples (including concrete pavement) from widely spaced test borings performed along the study area. Engineering analyses have been performed from results of the field exploration and
results of laboratory tests performed on representative samples. The analyses have been used to develop recommended pavement section options for the subject reconstructed roadway. Also
included is an evaluation of the site with respect to potential construction problems and recommendations concerning earthwork and quality control testing during construction. This information
can be used to verify subsurface conditions and to aid in ascertaining all construction phases meet project specifications. Recommendations provided in this report have been developed
from information obtained in test borings depicting subsurface conditions only at t'pe specific boring locations and at the particular time designated on the logs. Subsurface conditions
at other locations may differ from those observed at the boring locations. The scope of work is not intended to fully define the variability of subsurface materials that may be present
on the study area. The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become evident until construction. I f significant variations then appear eVident, our office should be
contacted to re-evaluate our recommendations after performing on-site observations and tests. Professional services provided in this geotechnical exploration have been performed, findings
obtained, and recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. The scope of services provided herein does not include
include an environmental assessment of the site or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous materials in the soil, surface water or groundwater. ALPHA TESTING, INC. is
not responsible for conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on this data. Information contained in this report is intended for exclusive use of the Client (and
their design representatives) and design of the specific pavement outlined in Section 2.0. Recommendations presented in this report should not be used for design of any other pavements
except those specifically described in this report. Further, subsurface conditions can change with passage of time. Recommendations contained herein are not considered applicable for
an extended period of time after the completion date of this report. It is recommended our office be contacted for a review of the contents of this report for construction commencing
more than two (2) years after completion ofthis report. Recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of information provided by the Client about characteristics
of the project. If the Client notes any deviation from the facts about project characteristics, our office should be contacted immediately since this may 1 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT materially alter the recommendations. Further, ALPHA TESTING, INC. is not responsible for damages resulti ng from workmanship of designers or contractors
and it is recommended that the owner retain qualified personnel to verify work is performed in accordance with plans and speci lications. 2.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS It is proposed to
reconstruct a segment of Midway Road located between Beltline Road and Keller Springs Road in Addison, Texas. A site plan illustrating the general outline of the study area is provided
as Figure I, the Location Plan, in the Appendix of this report. At the time the field exploration was performed, the study area was developed with the existing concrete roadway. Present
plans provide for reconstruction of the existing pavement. The existing pavement has experienced some distress. The distress is generally in the form of depressed areas adjacent to the
existing pavement joints and generally occur in the direction of traffic flow from the pavement joints. Joints in the pavement were noted to be unusually large (up to about Y," wide)
and in some areas it appears surface water is entering the pavement sub grade through these wide joints. At the north end of the study area (north of Borings 21 and 22; north-bound lane)
in particular, water was actually noted emerging from the joints immediately after passage of large trucks. In general, transverse cracking was noted across the pavement panel near their
midpoint in areas where significant pavement distress was noted. 3.0 FIELD EXPLORA nON Subsurface conditions along the study area have been explored by drilling 22 test borings in general
accordance with ASTM D 420 to a depth of lOft using standard rotary drilling equipment The approximate location of each test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plans, Figures 2-7,
enclosed in the Appendix of this report. Some borings were drilled in distressed areas while others were drilled in non-distressed areas for comparison. Details of drilling and sampling
operations are briefly summarized in Methods of Field Exploration, Section A-J of the Appendix. Soil and rock (shaly limestone) types encountered during the field exploration are presented
on Record of Subsurface Exploration sheets included in the Appendix of this report. The boring logs contain our Field Technician's and Engineer's interpretation of conditions believed
to exist between actual samples retrieved. Therefore, these boring logs contain both factual and interpretive information. Lines delineating subsurface strata on the boring logs are
approximate and the actual transition between strata may be graduaL Fill materials have been encountered at some boring locations as will be discussed in Section 5.0. There may be fill
in other borings than noted or at other locations, but could not be readily identified. Composition of the fill has been evaluated based on samples retrieved from 6-inch maximum diameter
boreholes. It is anticipated this fill was placed and compacted 2 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT during construction of the existing concrete roadway. However, since no records were made available of fill placement, compaction or uniformity, subsurface
conditions immediately adjacent to test borings could be substantially different than conditions observed in test borings. 4.0 LABORATORY TESTS Selected samples of the subsurface materials
have been tested in the laboratory to evaluate their engineering properties as a basis in providing recommendations for pavement design and earthwork construction. A brief description
of testing procedures used in the laboratory can be found in Methods of Laboratory Testing, Section B-1 of the Appendix. Individual test results are presented either on Record of Subsurface
Exploration sheets or on summary data sheets also enclosed in the Appendix. 5.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS In general, the existing concrete pavement is underlain by soils derived
from the Austin Chalk formation. Within the IO-ft maximum depth explored during this study, study, subsurface materials consist generally of clay (CH) underlain by calcareous clay (CL)
and deeper shaly limestone. In the southern and central portions of the study area (Borings 1-16), the existing pavement sectiongenerally consists of about 8 inches of Portland cement
concrete overlying lime treated subgrade soils. (It should be noted that lime treated subgrade soils were not encountered in all of these boring locations.) In the northern portion of
the study area (Borings 17-22), the existing pavement section generally consists of 6.5 to 7 inches of Portland cement concrete overlying a clayey (CH/CL) subgrade. The letters in parenthesis
represent the soils' classification according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2488). More detailed stratigraphic information is presented on the Record of Subsurface
Exploration Sheets attached to this report. Most of the subsurface materials are relatively impermeable and are anticipated to have a slow response to water movement. Therefore, several
several days ofobservation will be required to evaluate actual groundwater levels within the depths explored. Also, the groundwater level at the study area is anticipated to fluctuate
seasonally depending on the amount of rainfall, prevailing weather conditions and subsurface drainage characteristics. During field explorations, free groundwater has been noted in Borings
1-4 on drilling tools and in open boreholes upon completion at depths of 4.5 to 8 ft. Free groundwater was not observed in the other borings during drilling or in the other open boreholes
upon completion. In our opinion, the current groundwater level on the study area may be located below the bottom of the borings and water within the depths explored may be "perched"
groundwater which has percolatcd downward through desiccation cracks in the clayey type soils. It is not uncommon to detect seasonal groundwater either from natural fractures within
the clay matrix, near the soil/rock interface or from fractures in the rock, particularly after a a wet seasoll. Ifmore detailed ground\, ate I' infon11ation is required, monitoring
wells or piezometers can be installed. 3 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT Further details concerning subsurface materials and conditions encountered can be obtained from the Record ofSubsurface Exploration sheets provided in the
Appendix of this report. 6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The following design recommendations have been developed on the basis of the previously described Project Characteristics (Section
2.0) and Subsurface Conditions (Section 5.0). If project criteria should change, our office should conduct a review to determine if modifications to the recommendations are required.
Further, it is recommended our office be provided with a copy of the final plans and specifications for review prior to construction. 6.1 Pavement Clay or calcareous clay encountered
near the existing ground surface will probably constitute the subgrade for the new pavement. Therefore, it is recommended these materials be improved prior to construction of pavement.
Due to the wide spacing of the borings, division of the study area into areas with similar subgrade conditions was not possible. Delineation of areas with similar subgrade conditions,
if required, should be performed during construction after the subgrade material has been exposed. The specific type of improvement procedures required in given pavement areas wi II
be dependent upon the type of subgrade material present after final subgrade elevation has been achieved. Calculations used to determine the required pavement thickness are based only
on the physical and engineering properties of the materials and conventional thickness determination procedures. Related civil design factors such as sub grade drainage, shoulder support,
cross-sectional configurations, surface elevations. reinforcing steel, 􀁾􀀠joint design and environmental factors will significantly affect the serVice life and must be included in preparation
of the construction drawings and specifications, but were not included in the scope of this study. Nomlal periodic maintenance will be required for all pavement to achieve the design
life of the pavement system. Please note, the recommended pavement section options provided below are considered the minimum necessaa to provide satisfactory performance based on the
expected traffic •loading. In some cases, City minimum standards for pavement section construction may exceed those provided below. The following design information has been provided
by the Client: • New pavement will consist of Portland-cement concrete and the design life is 30 years. • Daily traffic based on 1999 information for the study area is about 51,000 vehicles
per day. 4 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT • The projected daily traffic volume by Year 2020 wi II be up to about 60,000 vehicles per day. • It is anticipated the new pavement will be subject to significant
truck traffic. • Truck traffic will be about 20 percent of the daily traffic volume. Therefore, the design traffic used for the new pavement is 15,118,000 IS-kip equivalent axle load
applieations for a 30-year design life. 6.1.1 Pavement Subgrade Preparation Due to the relatively heavy truck traffic expected, it is recommended a non-erodable base material be provided
immediately below the Portland-cement concrete pavement. The non-erodable base material could consist of either a crushed limestone base material or a cement treated permeable base.
The non-erodable base should be supported on an improved subgrade consisting of either are-compacted subgrade or a mechanically lime stabilized subgrade. It should be noted that a geotextile
fabric (e.g., Marafi 180N or equivalent) should be provided between the improved subgrade soils and the cement treated permeable base to prevent fines from the improved soils from penetrating
into the permeable base material. If a permeable base is used, the subgrade must be carefully graded (i.e., no birdbaths and minimum slope of 1.5 percent) to provide positive flow of
percolated water through the pcnl1cablc base to collection points at the extreme perimeter of the pavement. Collected water at the perimeter of the pavement should be drained to an appropriate
receptacle. If the subgrade soils are mechanically lime stabilized, it is recommended lime stabilization procedures extend at least 1 ft beyond the edge of the pavement to reduce effects
of seasonal shrinking and swelling upon the extreme edges of pavement. The soil-lime mixture should be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM
D 698) and within the range of ato 4 percentage points above the mixture's optimum moisture content. In all areas where hydrated lime is used to stabilize subgrade soil, routine Atterberg-limit
tests should be performed to verify the resulting plasticity index of the soil-lime mixture is atlor below 15. 􀁾 Mechan.i!;.alli!!J!f stabilization of th7 gavement subgrade soil will_not
􀁰􀁾􀁥􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁴􀀠n0r:!!al seasonal movement of the underlymg w;ltreated materials. Nornlal maintenance or... 􀁾􀁌􀀾􀀺􀀱􀀴􀀠• -.... .... 1IIklW,: pavement should be expected over the pavement
design Ii fe. 6.1.2 Pavement Sections Options California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests perfornled on composite samples from the test borings indicate the CBR value for the existing clay
subgrade soils will be about 3 IVhereas the CBR value for the same material after mechanical lime 5 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT stabilization would increase to about 20. Using the above values and assuming nonnal traffic for a 30-year project life, the following pavement sections
are recommended if load transfer between joints is through aggregale interlock: Compacted Subgrade I J5 inches Portland-cement concrete 6 inches crushed limestone base material 6 inches
compacted subgrade OR 105 inches Portland-cement concrete 6 inches cement treated penneable base 6 inches compacted subgrade Lime Stabilized Subgrade J J inches 6 inches 6 inches OR
10 inches 6 inches 6 inches Portland-cement concrete crushed limestone base material lime stabilized subgrade Portland-cement concrete cement treated penneable base lime stabilized subgrade
If dowels are provided for load transfer at the joints In the new pavement, the following pavement section options are provided: Compacted Subgrade 10 inches Portland-cement concrete
6 inches crushed limestone base material 6 inches compacted subgrade OR 9 inches Portland-cement concrete 6 inches cement treated penneable base 6 inches compacted subgrade 6 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT Lime Stabilized Subgrade 9.5 inches Portland-cement concrete 6 inches crushed limcstone base material 6 inches lime stabilized -subgrade OR 9 inches Portland-cement
concrete 6 inches cement treated permeable base 6 inches lime stabilized subgrade 6. 1.3 Pavement Specifications Pavement shou Id be specified, constructed and tested to meet the following
requirements: I. Portland-Cement Concrete: Texas SDHPT Item 360. Specify a mllllmum flexural strength of 650 Ibs per sq inch at 28 days. Concrete should be designed with 5 ::I: I percent
entrained air. 1. Crushed Limestone Base Material: Texas SDHPT Item 247, Type A or B, Grade 2 or better. The material should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of standard Proctor
maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) and within three percentage points ofthe material's optimum moisture content. 3. Cement Treated Permeable Base Material: Cement treated permeable base
should have a minimum hydraulic conductivity of 3,000 feet per day after compaction. Permeable base material shall consist of coarse aggregate with no fine aggregate (sand, etc.) and
shall be treated with 6 percent Portland cement by dry weight of the aggregate. The material should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM
D 558) and within three percentage points of the material's optimum moisture content. The material supplier shall submit an acceptable mix design for approvaL 4. Lime Stabilized Subgrade:
Texas SDHPT Hem 260. An estimated 3 and 8 percent of hydrated lime (by dry soil weight) should be applied to existing calcareous clay and clay soils, respectively, which have been scarified
to a depth of 6 inches. The actual amount of lime required should be confirmed by additional laboratory tesls prior to construction. 7 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT a. The soil-lime mixture should be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) and within the range of 0 to 4 percentage
points above optimum moisture. The moisture content of the subgrade should be maintained until the 􀁒􀁱􀁹􀁾􀁲􀁕􀁥􀁮􀀮􀁴􀀮􀀮􀁳􀀮􀁜􀁉􀀡􀀺􀁦􀁩􀁩􀁣􀁥􀀠is 􀁾􀀭 ..􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭-􀁾􀀢􀀧􀀮􀁾�
�􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀢placed . .... 􀁾􀀧􀀮􀁾􀀧􀁐􀀭•. _ ........ ,. b. In all areas where hydrated lime is utilized to stabilize the subgrade soil, routine Atterberg-limit tests should be performed
prior to completion of construction to assure the resulting plasticity index of the soil-lime mixture will be at/or below 15. Gradation, Atterberg-limits and density tests should be
performed at a frequency of 1 test per 5000 sq n of pavement. 5. Re-compacted Subgrade: On-site materials should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches and re-compacted to at least
95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) and within the range of I percentage point below to 3 percentage points above the material's optimum moisture content.
The moisture content of the sub grade should be maintained until the pavement surface is placed. Density tests should be performed at a frequency of I test per 5000 sq ft of pavement.
7.0 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Variations in subsurface conditions could be encountered during construction. To permit correlation between test boring data and
actual subsurface conditions encountered during construction, it is recommended a registered Geotechnical Engineer be retained to observe construction procedures and materials. Some
construction problems, particularly degree or magnitUde, cannot be anticipated until the course of construction. The recommendations offered in the following paragraphs arc intended,
not to limit or preclude other conceivable solutions, but rather to provide our observations based on our experience and understanding of the project characteristics and subsurface conditions
encountered in the borings. 7.1 Site Preparation and Grading All areas supporting pavement should be properly prepared. After completion of the necessary stripping, clearing, and excavating
and prior to placing any required fill, the exposed subgrade 􀁾􀁉􀁤be c![cfully inspected. by probini,i ang 􀁊􀁅􀁬􀀮􀀡􀁾􀀠Any undesirable material (organic material, wet, son: 'Or loose
soil) still in place should be removed. 8 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT The exposed subgrade should be further inspected by proof-rolling with a heavy pneumatic tired roller, loaded dump truck or similar equipment weighing approximately
10 tons to check for pockets of soft or loose material hidden beneath a thin crust of possibly better soil. Preor-rolling procedures should be observed by the project geotechnical engineer
,-------, ,or his representative. Any unsuitable materials exposed should be removed and replaced with well-compacted material as outlined in Section 7.2. Slope stability analysis of
embankments (natural or constructed) was not within the scope orlhis study. Trench excavations should be braced or cut at stable slopes in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) requirements, Title 29, Items 1926.650-1926.653 and other applicable building codes. 7.2 Fill Compaction Calcareous or sandy materials with a plasticity index below
25 should be compacted to a dry density or at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) and within the range of I percentage point below to 3 percentage points
above the material's optimum nlOisture content. Clay soils with a plasticity index equal to or greater than 25 should be compacted to a dry density between 95 and 100 percent of standard
Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). The compacted moisture content of the clays during placement should be within the range of 0 to 4 percentage points above optimum. Clay fill
should be processed and the largest particle or clod should be less than 6 inches prior to compaction. Limestone or other rock-like materials used as random fill should be compacted
to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density. The compacted moisture Content of limestone or other rock-like materials used as random fill is not considered crucial
to proper perfomlance. However, if the material's moisture content during placement is within 3 percentage points of optimum, the compactive effort required to achieve the minimum compaction
criteria may be minimized. Individual rock pieces larger than 6 inches in dimension should not be used as fill.However, if rock fill is utilized within I n below the bottom of the pavement, the maximum allowable size of individual rock pieces should be reduced to 3 inches. 9 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT In cases where either mass fills or utility Jines are more than 10 ft deep, the fill1backfill below I 0 It should be compacted to at least 100 percent of
standard Proctor maximum , dry 􀁾􀁳􀁩􀁴􀁹􀀧(A'STM 0-698) and within 2 percentage points of the material's optimum moisture content. The portion of the fill1backfill shallower than 10
ft should be compacted as outlined above. Compaction should be accomplished by placing fill in about.. 8-inch thick loose lifts and compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum
dry density. Field density and moisture content tests should be perfonned on each lift. As a guide, a test frequency of one test per 5000 sq ft or greater per lift may be used. Utility
trench backfill should be tested at a rate of one test per lift per each 300 lineal feet oftrench. 7.3 Groundwater No significant de-watering problems are anticipated during pavement
excavations. However, if any minor water seepage is encountered during construction, pumping from excavations with pumps or other conventional de-watering equipment should be sufficielll.
In allY areas where significant cuts (1.5 ft or more) are made to establish final grades for the pavement, attention should be given to possible seasonal water seepage that could occur
through natural cracks and fissures in the newly exposed stratigraphy. Subsurface drains may be required to intercept seasonal groundwater seepage. The need for these or other de-watering
devices on the pavement subgrade should be carefully addressed during construction. Our office could be contacted to visually observe the subgrade to evaluate the need for such drains.
10 
APPENDIX 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT A-I METHODS OF FIELD EXPLORATION Using standard rotary drilling equipment, a total of 22 test borings have been performed for this geotechnical exploration
at the approximate locations. shown on the Boring Location Plans, Figures 2-7. The test boring locations have been staked by either pacing or taping and estimating right angles from
landmarks which could be identified in the field and as shown on the site plans provided during this study. The location of test borings shown on the Boring Location Plan is considered
accurate only to the degree implied by the method used to locate the borings. The surface elevations provided on the Record of Subsurface Exploration sheets have been obtained by plotting
the boring locations on the site plans and interpolating the surface elevation. Surface elevations given on the boring logs are approximate. Relatively undisturbed samples of the cohesive
subsurface materials have been obtained by hydraulically pressing 3-inch O.D. thin-wall sampling tubes into the underlying soils at selected depths (ASTM D 1587). These samples have
been removed from the sampling tubes in the field and examined visually. One representative portion of each sample has been sealed in a plastic bag for use in future visual examinations
and possible testing in the laboratory. Modified Texas Cone Penetration (TCP) tests have also been completed in the field to determine the apparent in-place strength characteristics
of the rock type materials. A 3-inch diameter steel cone driven by a 170-pound hammer dropped 24 inches is the basis for Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation
strength correlations. In this case, ALPHA TESTING, INC. has modified the procedure allowing the use of a 140-pound hammer droppIng 30-inches for completion of the field test Depending
on the resistance (strength) of the materials. either the number of blows of the hammer required to provide 12 inches of penetration, or the inches of penetration of the cone due to
100 blows orthe hammer are recorded on the field logs and are shown on the Record of Subsurface Exploration sheets as TCP (reference: Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation,
Bridge Design Manual). using the modified procedure. Logs of all borings have been included in the Appendix of this report. The logs show visual descriptions of all soil and rock (shaly
limestone) strata encountered using the Unified Soil Classification System. Sampling information, pertinent field data. and field observations are also included. Soil and rock samples
not consumed by testing will be retained in our laboratory for at least 30 days and then discarded unless the Client requests otherwise. 
􀁾􀁾􀁣􀁊0 Study Area 􀁇􀁂􀁾􀀡􀀺􀀡􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁃􀀮􀀠JI'􀀱􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁤􀁾􀁷􀀭􀁡􀀭􀁙􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁯􀁡􀁾􀁤􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁴􀁴􀀭􀀭􀁯􀀭􀁮􀁳􀀭􀁴􀀭􀁲􀁵􀀭􀁣􀀭􀁴􀁩􀁾􀁯􀀭􀁮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁩􀀠􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀧􀀠Addison, Texas
􀁇􀁥􀁮􀁾􀁾􀁵􀁾􀁾􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁡􀀠00988 4/02101 
, N /3NIl 􀁈􀀺􀁊􀀱􀁖􀁾􀀠IIjIg . f ' " , f I /I , .)1 1/fi ,/I /I I I ff B-S. 1/"/f 1/f/I I /I ::: /!I, :f;l. I,; /I. I I II I I /II U II 1[' f' /-r(;' , 􀀯􀁾􀀡􀁩􀀠,//-" I II I G iI .:
II /I 11 II I/: I II ..) c: 1 t ._____&\& 􀀧􀀯􀁾􀁔",", /.1 __619-,,!/./, ,, o 20 40 Graphic Scale In Ft. 􀀱􀀡􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀭􀁍􀁾􀁩􀁤􀀭􀀺􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁗􀀢􀀬􀁾􀁟􀁲􀀡􀁟􀀺􀁟􀀺􀀢􀀬􀁾􀀻􀀮􀀺􀀭􀀺􀁥􀁟􀁾􀀭􀀷􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀺􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁴
􀀭􀁩􀁯􀀭􀁮􀀭􀁉􀁾􀀧􀀠1-__􀀰􀁟􀀰􀁟􀀹􀁟􀀸􀁟􀀺􀁟􀀰􀁟􀁲􀁩􀁟􀀻􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀻􀁩􀀡􀀻􀀢􀁾􀁔􀁲􀁏􀁟􀁥􀁣􀁟􀀻􀁟􀁴􀁩􀁟􀁯􀁟􀁮􀁟􀁰􀁟􀁬􀁡􀁟􀁮___􀁾􀀱􀀠Addison, Texas 4/02/010/' 
N 0 20 L 40 • (." .. 􀁾􀀠...􀀭􀁾􀀠ST. LOt ; &snR, , I': :I , , , ,, II r J I'i i: r r' r r, II ! I " 􀁾􀀠:;t " 1 ' ,B-I0 , rL:9:· n /i I l III, I' II I: Graphic Scale In Ft. GBW Engineers,
Inc. 􀁾􀀠Boring Location Plan Garland, Texas I􀁾􀀠Figure 3 􀀱􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁤􀁾􀁗􀀭􀁡􀀭􀁙􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁏􀀭􀁡􀁾􀁤􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁥􀀭􀁣􀀭􀁯􀀭􀁮􀁳􀁾􀁴􀀭􀁲􀁵􀀭􀁣􀀭􀁴􀁩􀁾􀁯􀀭􀁮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁉􀀠Addison, Texas 'f 00988 4/02101 
N o 20 40 Graphic Scale In Ft. 􀀮􀁾􀀠. o /-a 3NIl HJlV'V'l ,, I ;,, , , , , Ie'11"1 􀁉􀁾􀁉􀀠I , , I , I ( 􀁾􀀠I I 1·,::\ I 1 • I , I , 1\ r I., ,􀁉􀁜􀁉􀁾􀀡􀀠II',l , 1\ ' 'I'j 1.1 I I:,
, 'II [ r· 1\ 􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀭11--....􀁍􀀭􀁩􀀭􀁤􀀭􀀺􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀺􀁟􀀺􀁟􀁡􀀺􀁟􀁾􀁟􀁾􀁟􀀺􀀭􀀺􀀻􀀮􀀬􀀺􀀭􀀺􀁯􀀭􀀻􀀺..􀁓􀀭􀀺􀀭􀁾􀁕􀀭􀁃􀀭􀂷􀁴􀀭􀁩􀁏􀁟􀁮__􀀢􀀧􀁾􀁴􀀭___􀀰􀁟􀀰􀀹􀁟􀀸􀁟􀀺􀁟􀁯􀁟􀁲􀁟􀁾􀁟􀁾􀁧..􀀮􀀬􀁾􀁲􀀺􀁟􀁃􀀴
􀁟􀁡􀁟􀁴􀁩􀁟􀁯􀁟􀁮􀁟􀁰􀁟􀁬􀁡􀁟􀁮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁪􀁬􀀠Addison, Texas 'fI' 4/02/01 i' 
L i ,L :.:. 1 • 'S. , .􀁾􀀠. I ."'I I • 􀁾􀀠I. ·.u --I+--L' ; ! : N o 20 40 Graphic Scale In Ft. GBW Engineers, Inc. , Boring Location Plan Garland, Texas Figure 5 J􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁍􀁾􀁩􀁤􀀭􀁗􀀭􀁡􀁙􀀭􀁒􀀭􀁏􀀭
􀁡􀀭􀁤􀀭􀁒􀁾􀁥􀁣􀀭􀁯􀀭􀁮􀁳􀀭􀁴􀁲􀀭􀁵􀀭􀁣􀁴􀀭􀁩􀁯􀀭􀁮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀠􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁉􀀠 Addison, Texas 00988 4/02101rp' 
-,H, 3NIJ rH01'1V-l d \,II I/, I \I 􀁀􀁾j' ,, \ I /',. \, f I I \ B-19 I\ J j !l : \ \ , 􀁦􀁾I ,I 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠II 􀁾􀁬􀀠􀁾􀀠,(, ' " 8-17 B-18 \.1; i , 􀁾􀀠--1.1I ,g . , J I J iq 1 , I ! c-r
, , , I , I ,􀀮􀁾• 􀁾•" I , , J!(',\J 􀁾􀀠1\, \ I 􀁾,,,!j! @. ,! , I i i \ I,. ,-' 􀁾􀀠,\i 1 \ ! i \ V b"\,, IIi'IN L I ,t11 } 􀁾􀀠§ I 􀁾\.""i' •.... (􀁾􀁬I'll !I\ ! 0 20 40 II Graphic
Scale In Ft. GBW Engineers, Inc. Boring Location Plan Garland, Texas Figure 6 Midway Road Reconstruction 􀁾􀀬􀀠 00988 4/02/01Addison, Texas 
N o 20 40 Graphic Scale In Ft. .i· 1\ ' \ I -•I r:=1 I \ I 􀁾􀀠\ I I I 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠)I( \ • i! i ! I I I I!r\ \ 􀁾􀀠I /! iII I I I 􀀯􀁲􀁾! I l ! ) /I ,I t rB-2J.B.-22 , .. I.' /;: I I "1.
\ \ I\ B-20• I I : \ I Fg!! I , I \ I, , I 􀁉􀁾􀀠GBW Engineers, Inc. , Boring Location Plan Garland, Texas" Figure 7 􀁉􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁍􀀭􀁩􀁤􀀭􀁗􀀭􀁡􀀭􀁙􀀭􀁒􀀭􀁏􀀭􀁡􀁤􀀭􀁒􀁾􀁥􀀭􀁣􀀭􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁳􀁾􀁴􀁲􀀭􀁵􀀭􀁣􀁴
􀀭􀁩􀁯􀀭􀁮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁨􀀠􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁉􀀠 Addison, Texas 00988W' 4/02/01 I 
ALPHA Report No, 00988 DRAFT 8-1 METHODS OF LABORATORY TESTING Representative samples are inspected and classified by a qualified member of the Geotechnical Division and the boring logs
are edited as necessary, To aid in classifying the subsurface materials and to determine the general engineering characteristics, natural moisture content tests (ASTM D 2216), Atterberg-limit
tests (ASTM D 4318) and dry unit weight determinations are pcrfomled on selected samples, In addition, unconfined compression (ASTM D 2166) and pocket-penetrometer tests are conducted
on selected soil samples to evaluate the soil shear strength, Results of all laboratory tests described above are provided on the accompanying Record of Subsurface Exploration sheets
or on summary data sheets as noted, 
I:\A rESTING. INC. 2209 Wisconsin St" Suite 100 Dallas. lexas 75229 972/620·8911 -912/263-4937 (Metro) FAX: 912/406-8023 Client: BGW ENGINEERS, INC. Garland, Texas Project: Midway Road
Reconstruction Addison, Texas Our Report Number,: Material Description: Classification: Sample Location: Method of Test: Soil Identification Number: Maximum Dry Unit Weight: Optimum
Moisture Content: Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index' 00988 Date: 1/29101 Dark Brown Clay (CO 1) Composite Sample B-3 to B-16 ASTM-D-698-A Composite 91,0 pcl 24,5 % 77 48 MOISTURE DENSITY
RELATIONSHIP 120 115 110 105 -100 .t; ::J..,-fII :9 95 -IJ: C> 90 W !i: IZ 85 ::J 􀁾􀀠Ir C 80 75 65 \ 􀁾􀁜􀀠\\1\ \ 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES l\ FOR SPECIFIC GRAVITIES OF: 􀁜􀀨􀁾􀀠2.60
2.70S\ 2.80 , "\􀁾􀀠/" 􀁾􀁾􀀠;:1 ' , '\ 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀽􀀳􀀠􀁾Soaked 􀁾􀁾􀀠I , 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠60 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% MOISTURE CONTENT Figure -8 70 
􀁉􀁾TESTING, INC. 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite UXl Dallas, Texas 75229 9721620-8911 -9721263-4937 (Me/ro) FAX: 9721406-8023 Client: GBW ENGINEERS, INC, Garland, Texas Project: Midway Road
Reconstruction Addison, Texas Our Report Number.: Material Description: Classification: Sample Location: Method of Test: Soilldenlif,cation Number: Maximum Dry Unit Weight: Optimum Moisture
Content: Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: 00838 Date: 1/29/01 ! ':,1, Brown Clay V'IIIn H percent lime added Composite Sample B-3 to B-16 ASTM-O-698-A Composite 84,5 pcl 32,0 % 61 14
120 115 110 105 100 􀁾􀀠:l 0-<II 95,g-I:r: C> 90 jjj :s: l-Z S5 ::! >a:: CI so 75 70 65 60 MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP \ 􀁾􀁜􀀠\\\ \ 􀁾􀀠i ! I » ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES [\ FOR , , SPECIFIC
GRAVITIES OF: 􀁲􀀺􀁜􀁾􀀠2.60 1\\\ 2.70 2.80 \ 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠, " ;r; ...... 􀁾􀀠-. . ., , , 􀁾􀀠;or , 􀁾! CBR : 20 􀁾􀀠! ! , 1 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠5% 10% 15% 20% 25°/0 30% 40% 50% 55% MOISTURE CONTENT
Figure -9 
__ MECHANICAL LIME 􀁉􀁾􀁁TESTING, INC. STABILIZATION 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 700 Oollos, Texas 75229 9721620-897 7 -9721263-4937 (Metro) FAX: 972/406-8023 􀀴􀀰􀁾35§±t§i 30 P L A S
25T I C I Y 20Y I 15N D E X 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PERCENT HYDRATED LIME SAMPLE NO, Composite Sample (Borings 3-16) DESCRIPTION: Brown Clay CLIENT: LABORATORY TEST: GBW ENGINERRS, INC, LIME
SERIES GARLAND, TEXAS Figure 10 PROJECT NAME: ALPHA PROJECT NODA TE: MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION 00988 April 3, 2001 ADDISON, TEXAS Geotechnical Engineering {] Cons/ruction Materials
Testing {] Environmental Engineering {] Consulting I 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION B-1 Architect/Engineer 􀁾..___... .______________ Job No. ________􀀭􀀢􀀰􀀢􀁏􀀢􀀧�
�􀀢􀀧􀀸􀁾􀀸􀁃􀁟_______ Project Name ____􀀭􀀧􀁍􀀽􀁉􀀢􀁄􀀢􀁗􀀢􀀧􀁁􀀢􀁙􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁏􀀢􀀧􀁁􀁉􀀩􀀽􀀭􀀢􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁅􀀢􀀧􀁃􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀢􀀧􀁓􀀢􀀺􀁔􀁒􀀽􀀢􀁕􀀢􀀧􀁃􀁃􀀡􀁔􀀢􀀧􀁉􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁏􀀢􀀧􀁎􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀠Drawn
By AM' Project Location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By Client GBW ENGINEERS, INC..,__.. ___ Boring No. DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer WL Ibs. ill
Dale Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop in. 􀁾􀀭...􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭..... .. . 0(111 Foreman EDI Spoon Sample OD in. 􀁾􀀠, 􀁾􀀠! 00> -a; InspeCHl( Rock Core Dia in. 􀁾􀀠, 􀁾􀀭'" 􀁾􀀭..3 0 >-:;;
BOring Method CFA Shelby Tube OD in. 0 ! c· N 0>-;::; c 6 eiz '" ij::".SOil ClASSIFICATION c, 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠.􀁾􀀠::; • 􀁯􀁾1--'--_.. 0. ;;) w w 􀁯􀁾􀀠SURFACE ELEVATION >-:1: :rw 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠c
􀁵􀁾􀀠,,>􀀾􀀭􀁾􀀠0. 􀁾􀁷􀀠• 􀀮􀁾􀀠",0. 0.< ::; ::;0. 􀁾􀀠-e "ci ,618± f-W wu ",. • 􀁾􀀭",0 ""' "''' "'I0. f-'" -8rown very stiff CLAY (CH) with 0 some sand and gravel. :B" of concrete
at surface. !--:: 1 ST .. -I ---2'-I-------------1--2 -Reddish Brown very stiff , CLAY (CH/CL) with some sand, 2 i ST--calcareous nodules and gravel. --hard 2' 􀁾􀀠3' . -. stiff below
5' , :--3 ST--_. 4 , -4 ST-----: 5 ST --6 • -----------I-6 -Tan firm CALCAREOUS CLAY (CLi :with some silty sand and 6 ST limestone gravel. -:: -stiff 6 1 -7! . -7 1ST:--8 -: : -8 i ST--.-.
9 ST ---r 10 -.. BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10' , : I --: : ---:: i -: -:-I-12 -I 􀁾􀀠'" !1i 􀁾􀀠:;;•>00 g '" 'a "' : ,, ! •>., 􀁾􀀠􀁾•;; ;; if.E E 100 g ! c ><..> '" 􀁾􀀧􀁲􀁧o . •• •
􀁾􀀠u: c_ 􀁾􀁾􀀠C• 􀁾􀁾􀀠4§£J}" ';::g -2'"": 0 a'"u :;:::,0:1£c "'_ 􀁾􀀭;;)600_ 􀁾􀀭",-' 􀁾􀀠II II 11 􀁧􀁾􀁧􀀠uc ;00 ,;; 􀁾􀁾􀀭;;)"'1o.f-OD 􀁾􀁯􀀮􀁯􀀮􀀠2.2 39 LL.76 PL.27 PI=49 4.5+
26 2.7 26 LL.53 PL=20 pr=33 2.2 25 1.7 24 1.0 28 LL=33 PL.15 PhIS 0,7 27 0.5 28 0.5 46 : , i I BORING METHOD HSA • HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC -DRIVEN CASINGS
MD ·MUD DRILLING GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONSSAMPLER TYPE 55 . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION 5 FT, ST . SHELBY TUBE AFTER HRS. FT,CA ' CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION
TEST WATER ON RODS a FT. 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION C!;ent _______􀀭􀀧􀁇􀁾􀁂􀀲􀁗􀀡􀀡􀁟􀀽􀀺􀁅􀁎􀁇􀁾􀀢􀁉􀀧􀀮􀀧􀁎􀁬􀀡􀀢􀀡􀀡􀀡􀁅􀀢􀀧􀁒􀁾􀁓
􀁟􀀧􀁟􀀬􀁾􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀧􀁟􀁟􀀭􀀽􀁟_______ Boring No. B-2 Architect/Engineer Job No. ________-"0,,0"'9,,8,,8'-_______ ProJect Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By Project Location
_______:.AD"DISON, TEltA""'S'-______ Approved By ________􀀭􀀽􀁄􀁾􀁁􀁌􀀡􀂱􀀡􀀮________ TEST DATA = ---------􀁾􀀠----: ----.. --: -------DRILLING ANO SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Srarted
l-2l-0l Hammer Wt. Ibs. Date Completed l-2l-01 Hammer Drop in. ,;;• Dill! Foreman EDI Spoon Sample OD in. • -􀁾-_.... 00> -a;Rock Core Dia. In. • 􀁾􀀠Inspector -----_.... in 􀁾􀀭0. ...
" Bonng Method CFA Shelby Tube OD 3 in. a c· •0 " 􀁾N 0'" 0 -e 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠• 􀁾􀀮􀁧􀀠• •2 􀀮􀁾􀀠0. 􀁾􀀠iI' 􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀠" e -" E ! E E SOIL CLASSIFICATION 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁬􀁾􀀠• 0 e c>9' 􀀭􀁾􀀠>U
Oi. • 􀁾􀀠-• .-e • 􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁧::; • c .. 2 " .;: c_ ll:" c --_..• .. 0" • 􀀭􀁾􀀠0 ::> w w <:; .:eSg"a e"'": g.!!' :: SURFACE ELEVATION. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠" 􀁵􀁾􀀠U -lG.O;>-J: l:w Jl Oil!!,,>􀀾􀀭􀁾􀀠..
"w • -" 5 g',;;; 􀁾􀁾􀀠•"' .. ..'" ::;. ::E .. u ·e u_e 􀁾􀁾􀀠:;; Ii U II 618± ,,0 :r -. 'S ue ,. >-w wU ;7;/: ". 􀁣􀁾􀁯􀀠00 ," ll: :JitlrrnO , 0U> rn2 ... '" rn ::>rn>..... 0'" Brown
hard CLAY(CH) with some 0 sand and gravel. ·7.75" of concrete at surface. ! -:: l ST 4.5+ 33 LL=68 PL=37 = i PI;)1 2' -f------------.--2 Reddish Brown and Tan very -stiff CLAYICH!CL)
with some 2 1 ST 4.5+ 26 sand, calcareous nodules and gravel. -hard 2 ! -3' . -stiff below S' , : 3 : ST 3.5 22 I 4 -4 1 ST 2.5 20 5' I-----. ----. ---f--5 2.2 I ST 2l -Tan firm CALCAREOUS
CLAY (CL) 6 =with some silty sand and 6 ST 1.2 24 limestone gravel. --very stiff 5 j -6' . . -stiff 6 ' 􀁾􀀠7 I • 7 ST 0.5 29 8 _ I : : 8 ST 0,5 30 --, ----.. -_.. ----BOTTOM OF TEST
BORING AT 10' _ ! I 9 ST 10_I -:: I : l2 -. 0.5 32 ! ! i ! I BORING METHOD HSA .. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA -CONTINUDUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC . DRIVEN CASINGS MD ·MUD DRILLING GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS
SS . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLER TYPE AT COMPLETION 5 FT. ST . SHElBY TUBE CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS" FT. TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS 8 FT. 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St.. Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client _____􀁾􀁟􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁂􀀡􀀮􀀧􀁗􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁎􀀡􀀧􀀡􀁇􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁓􀁾􀀬􀀧􀁟􀁉􀀢
􀀧􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀢􀀮__􀁾___􀁾􀁟􀀠80rong No. Architect/Engineer _____􀁾__________􀁾__ Job No. 00988 Project Name ____􀀭􀀢􀁍􀁾􀁉􀀡􀀺􀀡􀁄􀁾􀁗􀁾􀁁􀁾􀁙􀀢􀀭􀁾􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁏􀀧􀀡􀁁􀁄􀁾􀁟􀀧􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁅􀀢􀀧􀁃􀀽􀁏􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁎􀀢􀀧􀁓�
�􀁟􀀧􀁔􀀢􀀧􀁒􀀢􀁕􀀢􀁃􀀢􀀧􀁔􀀢􀁉􀁾􀁏􀀢􀁎􀀢􀀧􀁟____ Drawn 8y _________􀀭􀀧􀁾________.__ ________D"'AL=____..__􀁾Project Location ADDISON#" TEXAS Approved By DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION
TEST DATA Date Started 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀀱􀀮􀀭􀀰􀁾􀀠Hammer Wt. Ibs. Date Completed 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀁾􀀭􀀰􀁾􀀠Hammer Drop in. ,;; " = .. -.. ---= ----... -.. -.. = ...:: -.. ----.. ----------Drill Foreman
EDI Spoon Sample 00 in, 􀁾􀀠" .00> -iil InspeCtor Rock Core Dia. in. J5 􀁾􀀭_. ... Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube 00 -3 in. g o 􀁾􀀠N 0'" 0 'g.g! Ii z 􀁾􀁯􀀠'" 0" SOIL CLASSIFICATION
􀀮􀁾􀀠-Ii "0 : • -.:E • 􀁯􀁾􀀠:;, w w .. ! 0"SURFACE ELEVATION 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠-' 􀁾􀀠u. i IW ... 􀁾􀀠... ..w 0 .",ro. .. « :E. :E ... 􀁾􀀠." 618± 􀁾􀁾􀀠x."'w wu ..> 0<nO 0", "'... .. HI>
Brown hard Lime Treated 0 CLAY (CH) with some sand and : calcareous nodules and gravel. ...::_au of concrete at surface. 􀁾􀀠ST i 2 : i2 1 ST 3.. --------------..-Brown very stiff CLAY
(CH) wi th i some sand, calcareous nodules 3 1 ST and gravel. -reddish brown below 44 :-stiff below 5' : 4 ST : 5 ! ST 6:-------------.. --6 Tan firm CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) : -with some
silty sand and 6 ! ST limestone gravel. -stiff 6' -7' . 7 i ; ST -8 a ST 9 ; ST -i 10 -= ._,BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10! _ -! 12 .. I u. ".. ;; to :;;•... 0 g <;,'"􀁾􀀠0 '" i i •>••
􀁾-" -*E E E0 g i 􀁾􀀠> i rnU -.; 􀁾􀀠"eg'Sr1. "." 0_ ;:. 0 '5 ;j ';;;'􀁾􀀠.... £.s& .. " -" 0 00 fl'c . '-' 􀁾􀁩􀁩􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀢􀂧􀁾􀂢􀀠0􀀺􀀺􀀾􀁾􀀠.e i :". n II H􀁴􀀻􀀩􀁾􀁣􀀺􀀺􀀠gg >. •
I"_0 􀁯􀁾􀀠:lite:: !=><1>1..... ;: 4.5+ 3B LL.57 PL=36 PI=21 4.0 31 2.7 30 3.2 22 1.7 22 1.5 25 0.5 26 0.7 32 0.5 35 I i I -i SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD S5 STANDARD
PENETRATION TEST ST . SHELBY TUBE AT COMPLETION 5.5 FT. HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CfA -CONTINUOUS fLIGHT AUGERS CA -CONTINUOUS fLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS. FT. DC • DRIVEN CASINGS TCP-TEXAS
CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS 8 FT. MD ·MUD DRILLING 
ALPHA TESTING. INC, RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client _______"G"'B'''w'--'E"N"'G"'I"NE"""'E"'R"S"',c....cI"'N=C.::.,________
Boring No. B-4 Architect/Engineer _____________________ Job No, 00988 Project Name ____􀁾􀁍􀁉􀀽􀀡􀀺􀁄􀀢􀀧􀁗􀀢􀁁􀀢􀁙􀀧􀁟􀀧􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁏􀀢􀁁􀁄􀀽􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁒􀁅􀀢􀀢􀁃􀁏􀀽􀁎􀀢􀀭􀁓􀀢􀀧􀁔􀀽􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁕􀀢􀀧􀁃􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁔􀀢􀁉
􀀢􀁏􀀢􀀧􀁎􀀢􀁟____ Orawn By ________-"AM.'-________ Project Locat.on ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By ________􀁄􀁾􀁁􀁌􀁾_______ TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS
BORING METHOD HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUGERS SAMPLER TYPE 55 . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION 4 ,5 FT. CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERSST . SHELBY TUBE AFTER HRS. FT. DC • DRIVEN CASINGSCA
-CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER TCP-TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST MD ·MUD DRILLINGWATER ON RODS 7 FT. ----.:: --.. -Date Stafted 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀀱􀀭􀀰􀀱􀀠Hammer Wt. lb•. Dale Completed 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀀱􀀭􀀰􀀱􀀠Hammer
Drop in. 􀁾􀀠Dnl! Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. • -􀁾􀀠.0> tn iil Inspector _____.. Rock Core Dia, in. a 􀁾􀀠<ii 􀀻􀀡􀁾􀀠"-3 a :g 􀁾􀀠Bonng Method CFA Shelby Tube 00 in. a o· •N 01-•􀀮􀁾􀀠c
E • !l.; '0 t:: • ! : z i;'j a II 0> 0-;;; E E 1: If-SOIL CLASSIFICATION i 􀀮􀁾􀀠• g􀀬􀁾􀀠..􀁾􀀠I-0. 0> C > u .. • • v,':: , 􀁾􀀠•• 0 " .i c_ 􀀳􀀺􀁾􀀠C 't:I'-u ::; • co. 02 • 􀀮􀁾􀀠's
􀁾􀀧􀁴􀀻􀀠:> "' w .. o." ;; 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠.... 'e": • g..!! 1\1: SURFACE ELEVATION 􀁵􀁾􀀠u :(" "'" 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠c , '"-. -'" .Ja..c: I;::i! 0. "", • 􀁾􀀢􀀠0_ ",' ::;. ::;o. e",I;: 'c 􀁯􀀮􀁣􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠.....
OD" 􀁾􀀠II II II 618± <0 'a 􀁾􀁾􀀵􀀠uc >. 1-"' uru 􀀻􀁬􀀻􀁾􀀠• oo. ," 3: 􀁾􀁾􀀭<1>0 0<1> <1>" .. .-1-'" <II ::1<1> ... 􀁾.... Brown hard CLAY (CH) with some o -sand and calcareous nodules
and : gravel. -7.75" of concrete at surface. -1 ST 4.5+ 31 , 2 2 1ST: 4.0 33 3' --I---_. -.----------1----Reddish Brown and Tan ---very -and gravel. -hard 3' 4' . ---..::. -----f---------,
------Tan firm CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL)-with some silty sand and ---------, --limestone gravel. -BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 j -: --! stiff stiff CLAY (CH/CL) with some silty sand, calcareous
nodules -stiff below 5' . • --1---3 ST 4 : 4 ST -5 S'l' 6' 6 , i I I = 6 S'l' -7 ST B 􀁾􀀢-= : : 9 : ST 10 --' -i-12 I , 4.0 25 3.2 20 3.2 23 0.7 26 0.7 29 0.5 30 0.5 28 , I : i 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client ___....􀁾􀁬􀀧􀁬....􀁅􀁎􀁇􀀮􀀺􀁲􀁎􀁅􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁅􀀧􀀢􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁓􀀢􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀽􀁉􀁾�
�􀁾􀁃􀀢􀀮􀀧􀀭_______ Boring No. Architect/Engineer Job No. Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By Project Location ADD.ISON I TEXAS Approved By DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION
TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT, B-5 00988 DAL TEST DATA Date Started 1-21-01 HammerWt. Ibs. Dale Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop tn. i 􀁾􀀠! 0 Drill Foreman EDI
Spoon Sample 00 in. • -􀁾􀀠00> -iii Rock Core Dia. in. i 􀁾􀀠Inspector '" 􀀮􀁾􀀭3 0 .... 􀁾􀀠Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube OD in. c <. N 0 .... 0 "< 􀁾􀀮􀁧z 􀀮􀁾􀀠'" C" SOIL CLASSIFICATION
.S .w .. 􀁾􀀠0 􀁾􀀦::E 􀁾.. 􀁯􀁾" w w SURFACE ELEVATION l' u.... '" :X:W 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾<n.... 􀁾􀀠0. "w • i::E.0:0. .. 0: ::Eo. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾617± .... w wu 􀁾􀁾􀀠0:>wO ov> "'.... 0. .... '"
= Brown hard Lime Treated o -CLAYICH) with some 􀁳􀁾􀁮􀁤􀀠and -= -calcareous nodules. ---8" of concrete at surface. -1 ST --= 2' ---i-'. --.... --.---,-2 -Dark Brown stiff CLAY (CH)
------....., j :: ---= ---------.. ---very with some sand. -brown with calcareous nodules below 4' . -tannish brown below 8' . BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT SAMPLER TYPE S5 -STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST ST . SHELBY TUBE 10 I • CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER i ! --2 ST --! --4 : : ---c 3 ST -4--6 : ...:: 4 ST --i 8 _ i i =-5 ST ! 10 -, ! i -= : 12 -GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS AT COMPLETION
DRY FT. AFTER HRS. FT. 􀁾􀀠"'ii 􀁾􀀠to 􀁾􀀠! 􀁾􀀠.... c 0 11 􀁾􀀠'" (5 "' i I I I i i•>."w !l x• •0. • #. 􀀬􀁴􀀺􀀧􀁾􀁾E E E0 e 􀁾􀀠l;;:l";.. U •• .!? 􀁾􀀠-􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁧"0 􀁾􀀠c_ ""
;:• .... 0;§;£g "0􀀧􀀲􀁾􀀠0'.0U ':.:JCL£,.<11c "'_ ! ::>5 !loC w 􀁾􀀰0·0 gg >" II II II 􀁣􀁾􀁯􀀠o.l! • ::la:o:""'.... 0. .... ;l: 4.5+ 37 LL=56 PL=35 PI=21 3.0 40 3.2 29 I 3.2 28 , 3.0
2si , I i BORING METHOD HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC . DRIVEN CASINGS MD ·MUD DRILLING 
B-6 ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas. Texas 75229 (9721 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client ____"'GBw ENGINEERS, INC. BO'ing No. Architect/Engineer
_____________________ Job No. 00988 Proje« Name ____􀀭􀀧􀁍􀁾􀁉􀀡􀀧􀁄􀀧􀀡􀁗􀁾􀁁􀁾􀁙􀀧􀁟􀀡􀁒􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁁􀁄􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀡􀀺􀁒􀁅􀁾􀁃􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀢􀀧􀁓􀁾􀁔􀁒􀁾􀁣􀀡􀀺􀁕􀁾􀁃􀁔􀁾􀁉􀀺􀀡􀁏􀁾􀁎􀁾____ Drawn
By _________-'AM""'_________ Project Location ADDI: SON# TEXAS Approved By DAL TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD HSA • HOllOW STEM AUGERS
SAMPLER TYPE SS STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. CFA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS ST -SHELBY TUBE CA CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HR&. FT. DC -DRIVEN CASINGS TCP-TEXAS
CONE PENETRATION TEST MD ·MUD DRILLINGWATER ON RODS NONE FT. ----:. --------= ----= =--: ------_. --------I ------Date Started 1 21-01 Hammer Wt. lb•., Hammer Drop in. i "Dale Completed
1-21-01 '$i Drill FOreman EDl Spoon Sample 00 ' ! " 􀁾In. , • 00, -0; Inspector Rock Core Dia. in. in. i .E 􀁾􀀭'"0 􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀠Boring MethOd CFA Shelby Tube 00 3 in. c c· N 0'-z ." Brown
very Dense SAND (SPI with 􀁾􀀠8 J' of concrete at surface. .; 􀀮􀁾􀀮􀂧􀀠i Q;iO " C" SOIL CLASSIFICATION e 􀁴􀁦􀁾􀀠i • 􀁾􀀮􀁦:! ro ::> W W 0. 0" SURFACE ELEVATION >-I IW -' -' 􀁾􀀠C:-ii-<>-:.:;1
0. 􀁾􀁾􀀠0:0. :!. 1 me 􀁾􀀠Xro 617± >-w wu «0 ..:> .-"'0 ew (1)2: "'>-.. Hn o -some gravel and clay. : -= 11 ST 13 -I2'I-􀁾􀀠--------------f---2 IBrown very stiff CLAY (CH) with some
sand. : tannish brown with calcareous -=nodules and gravel below 4' _ 2 ST -tannish brown below 8' . : : 4 -= ! 3 ST : i-6 ! -= 4 i ST : =8 1 -:. 5 51' i: 1 -10 !BOTTOM OF TEST BORING
AT 10' . -i-i -! 1 12 -􀁾􀀠'" iii, to •C. 􀁾•>-E e i0"g, '" :a '" ! i •,'"• 􀁾􀀠••., 􀀧􀁾􀀧􀁅􀁾E E• g E !::i-;U rn 􀀧􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠..-!􀁾􀁾􀀠"0 􀁩􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠.. 􀁾􀀧􀁴􀀻􀀧􀁾• Ii: 0." --0 gi:ii!􀁾􀁬􀀡􀀱􀀠􀂧􀁾􀀠
u oc:Vi li 􀁧􀁾􀀵􀀠i 􀁾􀀮􀀠,.'" U 11 H.oe •00 " 􀁾􀀠::lita:""'.-.. >-en -30 1.2 2.7 80 34 LL=80 PL=30 PI=50 3.7 26 3.0 24 LL=66 PL=24 PI=42 2.2 29 ! 1 i i 
--ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St" Suite 1 00 Dallas. Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Chent _______􀀭􀀭􀀢􀁇􀀢􀀡􀁂􀁾􀁗􀀧􀀡􀀮􀀮􀁣􀁅􀁾􀁎􀁇􀁾􀀢􀀧􀁬􀀺􀀢􀀧􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀀢􀀧􀁒􀀢
􀁓􀀲􀀮􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀢􀁬􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀧􀁟􀀧􀀮􀀧􀀭_______ Boring No, Architect/Engineer _____________________ Job No, 00988 Project Name _____􀁍􀁬􀀺􀁾􀀽􀁄􀀡􀀡􀀺􀁗􀀡􀀡􀁁􀁾􀁙􀀧􀁟􀁟􀀡􀁒􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁁􀁄􀀡􀀡􀀺􀀮�
�􀀺􀀧􀁟􀀢􀁒􀁅􀁾􀁃􀁯􀀺􀀮􀀡􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀡􀀡􀁓􀁾􀁔􀁾􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁕􀁾􀁃􀁾􀁔􀀧􀁟􀀧􀁬􀀺􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁎􀁾____ Drawn By ________􀀭􀀭􀀧􀁬􀁜􀁍􀁾􀀧􀁟___....____ Project Location _______. ADDISON. TEXAS Approved By
DAr. DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA = ---Date Started 1-21-01 Hamrner WL Ibs. .il iDate Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop in. ! Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample OD in. • 􀁾􀁾􀀠:>
Inspecto( Rock Core Dla, in. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀠I'"0 􀀾􀀭􀁾􀀠•Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube OD 3 in. 0 o· ;0 􀀮􀁾0>N "'0 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠! 0 􀁾􀀠•ci 􀁾􀀬􀁑􀀠a " •z 􀁑􀀻􀁾􀀠'" 􀀡􀁾􀁪'" 0,; E E .ESOIL
CLASSIFICATION c .􀁾􀀠0 g c" .. 􀁾􀀠u 􀀮􀁾􀀠0 •• c .. :'l ::E m co. .2 .2 􀁾􀀠<i c_ if;", c.. 0" • 􀀮􀁾􀀠0 , ::JY:lli) SURFACE ELEVATION " w w i 􀁵􀁾􀀠t; £.c (7 "0U !35:i.>-:1: rw 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠,
􀁣􀁾􀀠_U> c . <if-I;::;! "o.w 􀁾􀀧􀁏􀀠"' 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠0; "'''::E, ::Eo. £ 􀁾􀁣􀀠OC0 􀁾􀀰􀀠II 'I 'Ix. '5 􀁧􀁾􀁡􀀠vc 􀁾􀀠, 􀁾619± I-W wu <{o :AI:: .00 _ 0 :::ito::, UlO 0", "'z >-V> '"
""'f.. I0.0 Brown very stiff CLAY(CH) with 0 some sand and gravel, : 􀁾􀁓􀁟􀀲􀀵􀀢􀀠of concrete at surface. -= 1 ST 2.5 26 2' ------.. -----'-.. 2 , Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) with
some sand, calcareous :nodules and a trace of gravel. -brown below 6' , -: 2 ST 3.7 27 -tannish brown below B' • 4 I -: 3 ST 3.2 28 = 6 ! -= 4 ST 3.0 24 : -I8' --------'" --------B :
! i ! Tan weathered SHALY LIMESTONE. I : -5 TCP l.QQ 3.3 11 5 -, : I 10 ! !BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10! . : ! ----SAMPLER TYPE SS . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ST -SHELBY TUBE CA -CONTINUOUS
FLIGHT AUGER TCP-TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST --i 12 I -= --------:: ---...-----.. --.. -------GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS AT COMPLETION DRY FT. AFTER HRS" FT, WATER ON ON RODS NONE FT.
BORING METHOD HSA HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC . DRIVEN CASINGS MD -MUD DRILLING 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION B-a Architect/Engineer _____________________ Job No. 00988 Project
Name ____􀀭􀀧􀁍􀀡􀀧􀀡􀀺􀁉􀀽􀁄􀁗􀀧􀀡􀀢􀁣􀀧􀁁􀀺􀁾􀁙􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁏􀀡􀀬􀀡􀀻􀁁􀁄􀁾􀁾􀁒􀀧􀀽􀁅􀁾􀁃􀁾􀁏􀀺􀀡􀀡􀁎􀀡􀀡􀁓􀁾􀁔􀁒􀁾􀁾􀁕􀁾􀁃􀁔􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁏􀁎􀁾____ Drawn By Project Location ADDISONl--'T"E"'XA="S_______
Approved By Client _______􀁇􀁾􀁂􀁾􀁗􀁃􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀡􀁂􀁎􀁾􀁇􀁥􀁣􀁉􀀽􀁎􀁅􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁅􀁾􀁒􀀧􀁟􀀧􀁓􀀢􀀬􀀧􀁟􀁟􀀧􀁉􀀽􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀮________ BOling No. DAL TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION
Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. 140 I __---.!=___ Ibs.,--,--,--,---r--,:---,-,----, Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop 30___􀀭􀀽􀁾___ in" 􀁾􀀠• Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00_. Inspector
Rock Core Dla. Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube OD SOIL CLASSIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION 619± -Brown hard Lime Treated -CLAY (CH) wi th some sand and=r gravel. -8.5" of concrete at --=
􀁜􀁳􀁾􀁲􀁊􀁾􀁣􀁾􀀺􀀠_ _ ________ _ I Dark Brown very stiff CLAY(CH) 􀁾􀀠with sand laminations. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁷􀁩􀁴􀁨􀀠limestone seamS below 6 1 , 2'f--8'--,----!-.= Tan weathered SHALY LIMESTONE.
-BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10' . 􀁾􀀠...:: --______ 'n. 3 :rw1;:': 􀁾􀀦􀁬􀀠0 --:: : 5"': ---10 : -: 15 -:: : --20 -:: : -2S -:: : ...: 30 w 􀁾􀀠a.;:;. ",0,,'" 1 2 -3 4 5 i in. in. w 􀁾􀀠o.w
;:;0."',.11)1ST ST ST ST rcp •>•in 0 0 N ci z '"􀀬􀁾•􀁾􀀠a. C 0 􀁾􀀠a. I .􀁾􀀠o¢ 􀁾􀁩􀁩􀁬!; 􀁧􀁾􀀠';;;;: C ·0 P'Z••< -􀁾􀁾􀀠.0 􀁾􀁯􀀮0"u_ 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠1-11) 100 3" a 0. .. : 􀁾􀀠;;;•I-c
.e " 0 II) ·0 "' w 􀀬􀁾􀀠¢• 􀁾􀀠0 <.> Ii" 0 􀁾􀁕􀀠􀂢􀁣􀀺􀁾􀀠owc C!;;o::>11)1! 􀁾􀀠• "'E .Eg C, .!l0 􀁾c-' 􀁾􀀢􀀢oa c 0.0􀁾􀀭0 􀁾􀁉􀁉􀀩􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠<.> oil􀁾􀂢􀀠>'"'􀁬􀀮􀁾􀀠•.¢CD 􀁾􀀠23 3.7
29 2.7 28 2.7 26 9 LL;46 PL;29 Phl7 SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD 55 . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ST ' SHELBY TUBE CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AT COMPLETION DRY
FT. AFTER HRS.. FT. HSA • HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC -DRIVEN CASINGS TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRA TlON TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. MD ·MUD DRILLING 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St" Suite 1 00 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Cher'\t _______􀀧􀀢􀁇􀀺􀀽􀁂􀀧􀀭􀀢􀁗􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁅􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁎􀁾􀁇􀀢􀁉􀀽􀁎􀁅􀁾􀀺􀀽􀁅􀀼􀀮􀀡􀀺
􀁒􀀢􀁓􀀡􀁊􀀬􀀧􀁟􀁟􀀧􀁉􀀢􀁎􀀽􀁃􀀮􀀧􀁟􀀮________ Boring No. B-9 _____________-:-_____ Job No. 00988ArchllectfEngineer Project Name __􀀭􀀢􀁍􀀢􀁉􀀢􀁄􀀧􀀡􀁗􀀡􀀡􀁁􀁾􀁙􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀁒􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁁􀁄􀁾􀁟􀁒􀁅􀁾􀀧
􀀺􀀺􀁃􀁾􀁏􀀡􀀡􀀡􀁎􀁅􀁓􀁾􀁔􀂣􀁒􀁾􀁕􀁾􀁃􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀡􀁔􀁾􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀡􀀮􀀮􀁟___ Drawn By ________-"""-________ Project Location ______􀀭􀀧􀁁􀁄􀁾􀁄􀀢􀀧􀁉􀀡􀁣􀁓􀀢􀀢􀁏􀀢􀀧􀁎􀀼􀀺􀀧􀀮􀁌􀀬􀁟􀁔􀀺􀀡􀀺􀀺􀀡􀀡􀁅􀀮􀀡�
�􀁁􀁾􀁓􀀧􀁟______Approved By DAL DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA -----: -􀀮􀁾􀀠------: -= ---... --------= ----------Date Started 1.-21.-01 Hammer Wt. Ibs. Date Completed 1-21-01. Hammer
Drop in, 􀁾􀀠Drill Foreman ED! Spoon Sample 0 D in, 􀁾􀀠• • 00> -iilRock Core Dia. in. 􀁾􀀠Inspector 0; ! ,!!i 3 cBoring Method CFA Shelby Tube 00 in. c 􀁣􀁾􀀠N 0>SOIL CLASSIFICATION
SURFACE ELEVATION 618± Dark Brown stiff Lime Treated CLAY (CH) with some sand, calcareous nodules and gravel. -8" of concrete at surface -----------,-----Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH)
with sand laminations and a trace of calcareous nodules. BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 I. i ci ',0;:. c f.Q z (jiQ 􀀮􀁾􀀠c· 􀁬􀁾• ••:2 M co."0..,'" w w E w.>-'" :I:W 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠"􀁨􀁾:lit:
.... 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠"..,:2. 􀁾􀁥"-.: 􀁾􀀠",0 􀁾􀀠x. .... w wu ':" 􀁾􀀭<I'" 0'" "'Z <lHo. ....1> 0 : -= 1. ST : 2 ' --2 _ : I -:: 2 ST : 4 -I -:: 3 ST : -6 !---:: 4 i ST : ! -8 _ --5 ST i :
1.0 : !: -12 I I u. "7i <; !:: ;;; 􀁾􀀠>e .2 tl as '5 '" ! i I 􀁾􀀠! !>': ! 􀁾􀀠x• !il. " 􀁾􀀠;jl 􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾E E l'0 0 ;:w " , .'" 􀁾􀀠-.., 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀠• • 􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀺􀁧c_ ,,-' E 􀁾􀀠u. .u.
0 ""$ "-0if"": ,W ,\:r.!!.! :; .<e 􀁾􀁯􀀮􀁯􀀺e rn_ :l,Qoc. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀠II Il IIo·c oe 􀁾􀀠,...C;'o &.{:. . " 􀁾􀁾􀀭"''''... CD 􀁾.... 0.9 1.2 79 37 LL=55 PL=32 PI=23 2.2 33 2.2 35 2.2
Jl 2.2 Jl , ! SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD S5 . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ST -SHELBY TUBE AT COMPLETION DRY FT. HSA . HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT
AUGERS CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS. FT. DC • DRIVEN CASINGS Tep· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. MD ·MUD DRILLING 
-----ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 {972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Chent _______􀀻􀀬􀀻􀁇􀁾􀁂􀁾􀁷􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀲􀁅􀁎􀁾􀁇􀀢􀁲􀁾􀁎􀁅􀀡􀀺􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀺􀀽􀁅􀁃􀀡
􀀺􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁳􀀢􀀬􀀧􀁟􀁟􀀧􀁲􀀽􀀧􀁎􀀧􀀡􀁃􀀡􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀮________ Boring No. 􀁂􀀭􀁾􀁏􀀠Arch!tect/Engineer ______________--------Job No. 00988 Project Name _____􀁍􀁾􀁲􀀽􀁄􀁾􀁗􀀡􀀡􀁁􀁾􀁙􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁏􀀢􀀧􀁁􀁄􀁾􀁃􀀲
􀁒􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁅􀁾􀁃􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀺􀀡􀁓􀁏􀀡􀁔􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁕􀁾􀁃􀀺􀀮􀀧􀁔􀀢􀀧􀁲􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀺􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀮____ Drawn By ________􀀭􀀧􀁁􀁍􀁾______ PrOject location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By ____....____D..,AL""'__...___
TEST DATA Date Started 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀁾􀀭􀁏􀁾􀀠Hammer Wt. DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION Ibs.. ....--, !.;;Dale Completed 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀁾􀀭􀁏􀁬􀀠Hammer Drop in. I !. 􀁾􀀠Drill Foreman EDr Spoon
Sample 00 in. 00> -a; 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠w ! .:!nspector Rock Core Dia. in. .... 􀁾􀀠c·8Boring Method CPA Shelby Tube 00 3 in. .. 0􀀮􀁾•N 0'" ! 1> •x .. 􀀮􀁾􀀠.-􀁾􀀠§ , 8 􀁾e !::l-;;;;; to .. 􀁾􀀠z
􀁾􀁭􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀢􀁧<IlI Ec· 􀁾􀀠E 1" 􀀮􀀻􀀻􀀳􀁾e m J c 􀁾􀀠-SOIL CLASSIFICAnON -Ii m 0;; •• 􀁾􀀮􀀻􀀻􀀮􀁧•• 􀁾􀀠c ." c"co. .!l • ;f: 􀀮􀁾􀀠;s:":ll ..• • 0." a·"w "a 􀀮􀁧􀁾􀀠UU· :.::JO::£-V>-'
m-' c•:tw 􀁾􀁾SURFACE ELEVATION '" ...'" ..w 0-l!;"w oc. 􀁾􀀮􀀠􀀻􀁾􀀠U II U􀁾􀀱􀀧􀀠" ::E.I;:;i ::E..􀁾􀁴􀀠x m "' :s 􀁾􀀠􀁧􀁾􀁳􀀠00 i ! o1i ;s:OC -,j.l!;«0... w "'u 􀁾....618± ! ",0 .......
u 􀁾􀁲􀁁􀁾􀁩􀀺Ow "'z ""'... " '" 0-Brown hard Lime Treated 3B LL=534.5+ST1-CLAY (CH) with some sand, PL=38-calcareous nodules and gravel. -PhI?3'--8" of concrete at surface 2.5 35ST2r
-with lime to " 􀁲􀁾􀀠--'--J-: -Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) --36 LL=83-with sand laminations. 3.03 ST5-:: -·stiff with limestone gravel PL=31 bela..... 8' . PI=52-292.04 ST -! !--,
: 331.5ST-5 .. 10 •-BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 I -= ...: ----_... 15 -:: ---= -----. 20 -:: : --,25 -,--i i-! = -!!-,-! i I-30 I I GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD HSA • HOLLOW
STEM AUGERS SAMPLER TYPE SS -STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. CFA -CONTINUOUS FLiG HT AUGERSST . SHELBY TUBE AFTER HRS.. FT. DC . DRIVEN CASJNGSCA ' CONTINUOUS FLIGHT
AUGER MD ·MUD DRILLINGTCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. i 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ClIent _______􀁾􀁇􀀢􀀧􀁂􀀢􀀧􀁗􀀢􀀭􀀧􀁅􀀢􀀧􀁎􀀢􀀧􀀺􀁇􀀢􀀧􀁉􀀽􀁎􀁅􀀽􀁟􀀢􀁅􀀢􀀧􀁒􀀢􀀧
􀁓􀁃􀀡􀀮􀀬􀁟􀀽􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁎􀀢􀁃􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀧􀁟􀁟_______ Boring No. 􀁂􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠___________________________ JobNo. _____________􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁏􀁾􀀹􀁾􀁂􀁂􀁾____________Architect/Engineer Project Name
MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION.. Drawn By AM ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By _______􀀮􀀲􀀡􀁄􀁁􀁌􀁾􀀧􀀭_______Project Location DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA .. 00-0: -= 0---:: :
-_. -0--:: 000Date Started 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀁾􀀭􀁮􀀠Hammc(Wt. Ibs. Date Completed 􀁾􀀠􀀰􀀭􀀺􀀲􀀱􀀭􀀰􀁾􀀠Hammer Drop in. if• EDIDfil! Foreman Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠-􀁾􀀠00> 􀁾􀁥Inspector Rock
Core Oia. in, 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠'" 1-0. Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube OD 3 in. g 􀁣􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠'iii > N 01􀁾''::;' c: "0 • il x0 :! .2 t:: 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠! z '4>; a 􀁾􀀠If!. 􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀡'" c);; E E SOIL CLASSIFICATION
c A:! 􀁾􀀠I 0 E E !, ., IU ll. 􀁾􀀠-• 􀁾􀁁􀀺􀀠I c !l 􀁾􀀮􀁧􀀭􀁧􀀠::E 􀁾􀀠0 " u:: c_ c.. 0" .f; 􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠a ,". ::> w w 􀁾􀁾􀀠.. ", 􀁃􀀧􀁾􀀠ttl SURFACE ELEVATION 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠E u_ 􀁬􀁾􀀠U
1-:1: rw 􀀽􀁾􀀠, .111 :Jfl...d: ':1􀁉􀀭􀁾􀀠.. "w • II) g c:-;;; !l"'.. fht5 ::E. ::E .. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀂧􀀠􀁧􀁾􀁧􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀠II U K '6 uC 632± ;-w «0 .. >00 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀭",0 0(1) (l)Z (1)1.. 1-(1) '"
::>(1)1"-I-'''-''Dark. Brown stiff CLAY (CH) with 0 some sand . : surface--8" of concrete at -= 1 ST 1.7 34 --02' .. -------.. ----I--2 Dark. Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) -2 ST 2.5 31
with some sand and a trace of calcareous nodules and gravel. -4 : : -3 ST 3.0 32, 6 I -= 4 ST 2.5 38 : 8' : -0-------------I--8 -00-.0. -.--.--Tan and Gray hard CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL)
with some silty and gravel_ BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT sand 10' . 0-5 ST0010 : --:: : 12 4.5+ i18 ! I : I BORING METHOD HSA . HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA· CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC . DRIVEN
CASINGS MD ·MUD DRILLING SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS 5S . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST A T COMPLETION DRY FT. ST . SHELBY TUSE CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS. FT. TCP·
TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Chen. ______-=G"'BW"'--"E"'N"G"I"NE=E"'R"'S•..!..'_I"'N""C..:.._______
Boring No. Archltec./Engineer ____________________ Job No. ________0=0""9,,6,,6____ PloJec. Name MIDWAY ROADRECONSTRUCTJ:ON Drawn By ________􀁾􀁾________ Project Location ______􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀡􀁁􀁄􀀡􀀺􀀡􀀺􀀡
􀀡􀁄􀁾􀁉􀀡􀀺􀀺􀁓􀀻􀀿􀁃􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀡􀀡􀁌􀀬􀀭􀀢􀀧􀁔􀀮􀀽􀀬􀁅􀁾􀁘􀁁􀁾􀁓􀀧􀀭______ Approved By DAL TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD
HSA .. HOLLOW STEM AUGERS SS . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. CFA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS ST . SHELBY TUBE CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS.. FT. DC DRIVEN
CASINGS TCP.. TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST MD -MUD DRILLINGWATER ON RODS NONE FT. Date Started 1-21-01 HammerWt. lb•. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop in. 􀁾􀀠Drill Foreman EDI Spoon
Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠􀀭􀁾􀀠00> -iii Inspector Rock Core Oia. in. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀭<n Shelby Tube 00 3 0 1-. 80ring Method CFA in. 0 c· N 01-";:; c: .; .0. z 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀠'" c -SOIL CLASSIFICATION c 􀀺􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀦􀀺􀀠
f---:; •.. 0." SURFACE ELEVATION :;, w w u:.1-:1: :1:'" J -' l' 􀁾􀁾􀀠I-J .. "w 􀁾􀀠-":;. :; .. ·c.." x. 632± 0-'" wU ,,0 (}if:: &: 0-<nO 0<1) Q)Z ",<1) -Dark Brown stiff Lime Treated
0 =-CLAY (CH) with some sand. -.8 II of concrete at surface = --1 ST -------2' ---!--------E: --------2 -Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) : --with sand laminations. :-stiff 2 I 􀁾􀀴􀀠I
• --: 2 ST --= = --4 : -----3 ST -.. :----6 _ -----=-4 ST .--7.5' ----------------.. Tannish Brown very stiff --::.' silty and and gravel. CALCAREOUS CLAY (CLl with some B ---.. ----:
5 ST --.. :-I10 !-BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 I. I I .. -.. ....::._. .. : i .. --12 -􀁾􀀠"-.. •􀀮􀁾􀀠0 •" I;;!::. •Ii ;; " E E E 11' •I-0 c l' IfU i.; '" c 􀀮􀁾􀀠::" "=c 0 􀁾􀀠0""..
c Z a u 􀁾􀀧􀁍􀀠u, " .!'1 §a'" c _ I;; a " 􀁾􀀢􀀠II II 11 􀁵􀁾􀁣􀀠uc >-" "c:;o 􀁤􀀺􀁾􀀠-" " J-' _ <I) 􀀺􀁈􀁮􀁾􀀠0" J .... 0.6 1.2 78 40 LL.60 PL=23 PI=37 1.7 35 2.0 34 LL;46 PL=29 PI=17
2.0 34 : : : 3.0 22 LL=38 PL;18 I PI=20 I I I 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client 􀁾______􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁂􀀢􀀬􀁗􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀁅􀀢􀀬􀁎􀀢􀀢􀁇􀁃􀀡􀀡􀁾􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁒􀀢􀁓􀀬􀀬
􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀬􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀬􀀭_______ Boring No. B-13 An::hitectJEnglneer _____________________ Job No, 00988 PrOlect Name _____􀁍􀁾􀀡􀀽􀁄􀁾􀁗􀁾􀁁􀁾􀁙􀁾􀁒􀀡􀀺􀀢􀁏􀁾􀁁􀁄􀁾􀁃􀀲􀁒􀀻􀀺􀁅􀁾􀁃􀁾􀁏􀀺􀀡􀀺�
�􀁾􀁓􀀽􀁔􀀢􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁕􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁃􀁾􀁔􀀢􀁉􀁾􀁏􀀢􀀧􀁎􀁾____ Drawn By Project location __..._ ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By DAL DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA = : ----------: --:: :
---------------------Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. 140 lb•. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Dtop 30 in. iZ "Drill Foreman ED! Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀠00> -0;Inspector Rock Core
018. in, 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀻􀀠Shelby Tube 00 3 cBoring Method CPA ln, c 􀂧􀁾N ';::; c 0 􀁾􀁯􀀠I I I z iH& m 􀁣􀁾􀀠SOil CLASSIFICATION C -" " "c i • 􀁾􀀺;;; If 0." : ::> w 􀀻􀁾SURFACE ELEVATION
􀁾􀀠liE u,":I: rw .. I"w 􀀺􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁴􀀻􀀺􀀠􀀧􀀢􀁾􀀠􀁾0..'" ;;;. ,;;;.. 􀁾􀀠xC 633± ,"w wu ,,0 .;Jij: .J'! ",0 0", "'Z '"to Dark Brown stiff Lime Treated o -CLAY (CH) with some sand. :
􀁾􀀸􀀱􀁬􀀠of concrete at surface. -= 1 ST : 2' -----.-------2 _ Dark Brown stiff CLAY (CH) with sand laminations. : -= 2 1 ST -4 : -= 3 ST : : I r----------------6'!---6 Tan and Gray
hard CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) with limestone seams. -= 4 ST : -8' ----.. ---.-------8 -' Tan weathered SlffiLY LIMESTONE. :: 100 ! : 5 TCP 1" I 10 BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 I. -: I 12
􀁾􀀠"'" 􀁾􀀠"•'" c g 0, "' " "' : I j -􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠: 􀁾􀀠•• :S., 􀁾􀀠! If. ....1::: '0 E E E : i 'E §..E0 0 􀀮􀁾􀀠C .-....1:>U " 􀁾􀀠-." .i -􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁧c-' ;:"• .u. 0 􀁾􀁾􀀠"0􀀬􀁾􀀭􀀺􀀠􀀬􀀲􀀧􀁾􀀠;U
.!!! ::>il 􀁾􀁯􀀮􀀮􀁯􀀺􀀠OC¢" !goc 􀁾􀀮􀀠>-' n II 11yC "0 􀁾􀁻􀀺􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀠" ;: 􀁾􀁾􀀭:;)(1)>0.0 􀁾.... 1.1 1.2 70 42 LL=79 PL=38 PI=41 1.5 35 1.5 34 4.5+ 24 !, 18 : I BORING METHOD HSA
-HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC . DRIVEN CASINGS MD -MUD DRILLING SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS SS . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. ST .
SHELBY TUBE AFTER HRs.. FT.CA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER TCP-TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client _-:-_____􀁾􀁇􀀡􀀮􀀡􀁂􀁾􀁗􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀱􀁅􀀻􀀡􀀮􀀡􀁎􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁉􀀡􀀬􀀡􀁎􀁅􀀢􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀮
􀁅􀀡􀀡􀀮􀁒􀁾􀁓􀀮􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀭􀀽􀁉􀀮􀀡􀀺􀀡􀁎􀁾􀁃􀁣􀀺􀀮􀀧_______ Boring No. _______􀁾􀁂􀁾􀀭􀀺􀀺􀀧􀀱􀀬􀀬􀀴􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Architect/Engineer ___...__ . ______________ Job No. _______􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀨􀀩􀁥�
�􀀰􀀢􀀧􀀹􀀺􀀡􀀮􀀸􀁾􀀸􀁾_____ Project Name ____􀀮􀀽􀀺􀁍􀀢􀀧􀁉􀀧􀀭􀀡􀁐􀀢􀀧􀁗􀀢􀁁􀀢􀁙􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁒􀀢􀁏􀀢􀀧􀁁􀁐􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀭􀀧􀁒􀁅􀀽􀁃􀀽􀁏􀀺􀀺􀁎􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀁓􀀺􀀺􀀧􀁬􀀧􀁒􀀽􀁕􀀢􀀧􀁃􀁔􀀽􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Drawn
By AM Proiect location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION GROUNDWATER DBSERVATIONS BORING METHDD H5A • HOLLOW STEM AUGERS SAMPLER TYPE S5 . STANDARD
PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. CFA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERSST • SHELBY TUSE AFTER HRS. FT. DC .. DRIVEN CASINGSCA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER Tep· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST
WATER ON RODS NONE FT. MD ·MUD DRILLING -􀁾􀀠--Date Started J.-21-01 Hammer Wt. 140 Ibo., Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop 30 in. 􀁾􀀠Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠.􀁾􀀠00>
1;;@Inspector Rock Core Dla. in. • 􀁾􀀠m 􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀻􀀠'" 3 c •Bonng Method CFA Shelby Tube OD in. c §,! 'iii l: N ";:: c: ;; •• 􀁾􀀠x,; g,g t: 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠i ! :z a Ii< n i wm ;;; E E "0> c·
E SOIL CLASSIFICATION c 􀁾􀀭• 0 E C >.. " ... 􀀮􀁾." .Ii u ,. 􀁾􀀺􀀠1,),0;::• C ::;; • c"-.0 n 􀁾􀀠c-' li:" 􀁾􀀮􀁴􀀻􀁾"-On • 􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠0 SURFACE ELEVATION " w w E "-0' 2' 􀁵􀁾􀀠g 􀁾􀁈􀀠.C
:3'fi:£:§a U >-'" ",w J J -'".,... !i::;;' "-"'w • -n m o-J!! II II II"' .. ::ii. ::ii .. 􀁾􀀠·c ."0 􀁾􀁾􀀠>""Xm 􀀧􀁾􀀠•634± ,..w wu ",0 .,,. If. .-C:':o 􀂣􀁾􀀠.-li: 􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁬􀁾􀁡􀀺me
em "'z mI-l-'" '" ""',.. do! Dark Brown very stiff Lime 0 Treated CLAY(CH) with, some = sand. _8'1 of concrete at ..:: ! surface. 1 ST 2.0 36 : I -􀁾􀀠.. -----.-.. --------1---2 ---..
-.. ..:: ---.. --.. -----􀁾􀀠.. ..--: .. -.. .. .. ---. --.. .. -Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) with sand laminations. ··brown below 4' . .. ... -..􀁾􀀭􀀭-----------Tan weathered SHALY
LIMESTONE. BOTTOM 01' TEST BORING AT 10' . : -:: 2 ST : -4 5' ;-= 3 ST ! i : : 6 --:: = -i8-:: I i TCP4 100 -i 1.5" 10 I; : i : ! ; -i i I : I12 , i I ! 2.2 30 2.2 30 18 I ; 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-891 1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client 􀁟􀁾􀁾􀁾___􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀡􀁇􀁾􀁂􀀢􀁗􀀢􀀭􀀬􀀬􀁅􀁾􀁎􀁇􀁾􀁉􀀺􀀺􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀀬􀀽􀁒􀁾􀁓􀁌�
�􀀭􀀽􀁉􀀺􀀡􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀽􀀭􀀮􀀬􀀭􀀭______􀁾Boring No. B-15 ArchltecllEngineer Job No, 00988 Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By __􀁾_____􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀁁􀁍􀁾_________ Project Location
ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By DAL DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFDRMATION TEST DATA Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. Ibs, I Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop in, :f 􀁾􀀠Drill Foreman EDI Spoon
Sample OD in, 􀁾􀀠-􀁾􀀠00>􀁾􀁏􀁩􀀠Inspector Rock Core Dia. in. 􀀬􀁾􀀠􀀢􀁾􀀭a I'" "Shelby Tvbe 00 3 in_ 0 ..... 􀁾􀀠!Boong Method CFA 0 o· " >N 0>•􀀢􀁾􀀭􀁧􀀠: <; • 􀁾d !:: 􀁾􀀠I I z ..
! 􀁾􀀮􀀠,. IS E '"'" 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀠.ESOIL CLASSIFICATION i 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠g ;;:􀀢􀀭􀁾􀀠.... u '" 􀀧􀁬􀁾􀀺􀁾" 􀁾􀀠i• 􀁾􀀮􀀠0 " 􀁾􀀠. 3:. c:E • c .. g 􀁾􀀠u:: c.a ::;, w w "0" ;; 􀁾􀀧􀀻􀀻􀁧􀀠"-a
-" 0 am· SURFACE ELEVATION 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠c 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀂧􀁾􀀠u ;;;0:. i. .... '" :!:w , -<n ci!t: .... 􀁾􀀠""-w • <n c "'_ .:E. :E.. oc. 􀁾􀀮􀀠lil II " II..« 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁥􀀠'5 􀁧􀁾􀀵􀀠00 >-.,635± ....
w ::'lb! «0 «,. • 00 _0 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀭<1>0 "'z "'.... a. .... '" '" ::;''''1...... 0<> 􀁾..a. Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) 0 :: with some sand and a trace of --= : --.􀁾􀀠-= ------􀁾􀀠-:
.--.--------􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠-------..---gravel. -8,25" of concrete at surface -brown with calcareous nodules below B' . BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10! . -1 ! ST I2 : = -2 ST 4 = -:: 3 ST 6 -=
4 ST = , -8 -:: 5 i ST --110 : : -!i 12 I I i I 3.5 37 LL=85 PL=30 PI=55 2.0 32 2,2 37 2.5 32 2,7 34 : BORING METHOD HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC . DRIVEN
CASINGS MD ·MUD DRILLING SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS 5S . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT,ST . SHELBY TUBE CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS., FT. rcp·
TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas. Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client _______-'G"'B"'W"-E"'-"N"G"'I"NE""'E"'R:ocS"-'-'􀀭􀀽􀁉􀁾􀁎􀀢􀁃􀁯􀀺􀀮􀀧􀀭􀀭_
______ Boring No. Architect/Engineer _____________________ Job No, 00988 Proiect Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By ________􀀭􀀧􀁁􀁍􀁾_________ ProJect Location _______􀁾􀁁􀁄􀀧􀀽􀀧􀀡􀁄􀁾􀁉􀀽􀀮�
�􀀡􀁓􀀬􀀻􀀺􀁏􀀺􀂣􀁎􀀡􀀮􀀡􀀬􀁟􀀧􀁔􀀡􀀮􀀡􀁅􀀢􀀧􀁘􀁁􀁓􀀡􀀺􀀡􀀡􀀺􀀢􀀭_______ Approved By DAL TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION SAMPLER TVPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD
HSA . HOLLOW STEM AUGERSSS -STANDARD PENETRAnON TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERSST . SHELBY TUBE AFTER HRS. FT. DC . DRIVEN CASINGSCA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER
TCP· TEXAS CONE PENHRAnON TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT, MD ·MUD DRILLING ---------------= -::: = --------------------Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. Ibs, Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer
Drop in. a:.. Drill Foreman Erii--Spoon Sample 00 in. • " 􀁾􀀠00> gravel, gravel, -8.2SU of concrete at -f-------_. ---1D Inspector Rock Core Dia. in. 􀁾􀀠"-􀁾􀁴􀁬􀀠3 0Boring Method
CFA Shelby Tube 00 in. 0 c· N I 0>-􀀮􀁾􀀠50 I 2 iriii '" c" SOIL CLASSIFICATION {j 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁴􀁌􀁾􀀠! 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀡􀀧:E 􀁾􀀠'" ... 0" SURFACE ELEVATION :::;, 􀁵􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁩􀀽􀀠J:W 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠c 􀁉􀀭􀁾􀀠..
tLw W .'0"'.. M :E, :Eo. 􀁾􀀠·0".635± 1-'" ",0 􀀻􀀩􀁩􀁾􀀠t!Vi<1)0 0"' <1)2 tL Dark Brown hard CLAY (CH) with o -some sand and a trace. of : 􀁾􀀠surface -very stiff below 4' . 1 ST =
-2 -􀁾􀀠2 ST = = 4 "'".., -: 3 ST = -6' 6 􀁾---.------Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) with some sand. --::: 4 ST S' : f------------------8 Tannish Brown stiff CALCAREOUS -CLAY (CL/CHl
with petro-chemical -I -odor. --5 ST -=-BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10' . I 10 : ---I 12 --, : 􀁾􀀠I" ;;; i5 !:: 􀁾•>-c0 􀀮􀁾􀀠0 " <n ! 􀁾􀀠"' I •••• 􀁾• x•l5. • iI' 􀀽􀀬􀁾􀀭􀁧E E .E0 0
C 􀀮􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁩􀀻􀀠u I " .", ...J 0''1:w, w •" ;i 􀁯􀁾􀀠􀁳􀀺􀁾􀀠E 􀁾􀀢􀁩􀁩􀁬􀀧􀁾􀁷􀁾􀀠."<1! "• .. 􀁾􀀭0 ",".uC'" 􀁾􀀼􀁮􀀠'c . ..:iCi:o:.-􀀺􀀺􀀧􀀩􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠00. 􀁾􀀮􀀠U II IIoWc gg ,..c::'o
"" 􀁾􀁾􀀭:::;'(1)1-tL>-o£ J .... 4,5. 35 LL=65 PL=36 PI;29 1.7 33 2,2 31 LL=83 PL;30 PI=53 2,2 32 : 1.5 22 ! I I I 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Chent A{chltect/Engineer GBW ENGINEERS. INC. Boring No. _____________________
Job No. 00988 Project Name Project Location MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ADDISON, TEXAS Drawn By Approved By AM DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA Date Started 1-21-01 HammerWt.
140 Ibs. Date 􀁃􀁯􀁭􀁾􀁥􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀠1-21-01 Hammer Drop 30 Iii, u: ;;; Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. • ' 􀁾􀀠00> -iORock Core Dia. in. ••Inspector "' 􀁾􀀻􀀺􀀻􀀠Bonng Method Shelby
Tube 0 D 3 0CFA In. c 􀁡􀁾N 􀀮􀁾􀀮􀂧,; I z ! -••'" 􀁾􀀡􀀺􀀮SOIL CLASSIFICATION 􀀬􀁾􀀠􀁯􀀮􀁾, " w􀁾􀀠• co. => w W 0. 0" SURFACE ELEVATION f-J: 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠C thJ:W •<:1... 􀁾􀀠.. "W -"":E."'0.
o.« 􀁾􀁯􀀮􀀠E ·c••644± f-W wu ..:0 «>rf. .",0 0", "'''' "'f-HI) -Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) 0 : ! 􀁾􀀠--􀁾􀀠-------:: : --------.. ------.. ----􀁾􀀠.. -with calcareous deposit and
some sand -poss. fill -6.5" of concrete at surface. -1 ST 2 : : 2 , ST 3 ' I-------------1--Tannish Brown and Gray very stiff CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL!CH) 3 ST with clay zones. -hard with
limestone seams 4 :below 4' . : 4 , ST 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭5'I---Tan weathered SHALY LIMESTONE, ---6-: : --! -8' --.. .. -.. --.. ------8-.--Tan weathered SHALY LIMESTONE.
BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10' , : I i .. I -5 iTCP 100 -! 1" 10 -' I -i ---.. ! 􀁾􀀠12 ..; I I 􀁾􀀠0. ! •'iii > ;; 􀀮􀁾􀀠" •t: il. 0; •" 􀁾􀀠"'E i E :E '" 0 0 c... u " 􀀮􀁾􀀠>e .. w 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁧••
" 􀁾􀀠e_ ll:.o c-􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠g 􀀺􀂧􀂣􀁾􀀠0.0-0 ".'c ' u 􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁪􀀿􀁌􀁾􀁾􀁜􀁑"' c "'_ 􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁬􀁾􀀠􀁾oc. 􀁧􀂧􀀺􀁾􀀠;j2 II II II '5 ,.' •00 ," :1 a:a::'" =>"'10.10" ll: 2.0 27 LL;85 PL=30
PI_55 2.7 38 2.5 27 4,5+ 15 : 15 I !, i SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD 55 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST HSA . HOLLOW STEM AUGERS AT COMPLETION DRY FT, CFA CONTINUOUS
FLIGHT AUGERSST SHELBY TUBE CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS.. FT, DC DRIVEN CASINGS rcp, TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. MO ,MUD DRILLING 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION B-18Chent ____􀀭􀀢􀁇􀀢􀁂􀀢􀁗􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁅􀁎􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁇􀀽􀁉􀀢􀁎􀁅􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁅􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁒􀀢􀁓􀁾􀀬􀀧
􀁟􀁟􀀢􀀧􀁲􀁎􀀽􀁃􀁣􀀡􀀮________ Boring No. 00988Architect/Engineer Job No. Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By AM Projec( Location AlJDrSON, TEXAS Approved By DAL TEST DATADRILLING
AND SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started 1-21-01 Hammel' Wt. 140 lb•. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop 30 in, Il;• Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. v .􀁾􀀠00 -.---" > -0; Inspector
Rock Core Dia. in. v -in .!i Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube 00 3 in, 0 C V0 '" 0>ci 􀀧􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀠, Z 􀀭􀁾v. '" c_ SOil CLASSIFICATION .S 􀁶􀁾􀀠• 􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁡􀀺•;E •:w a. 0'0'" wSURFACE ELEVATION
􀁾􀀠-' c u. >-:1: , :1:w •.H: >-.... 0. ; D.. w V .'0 0.« 􀁾􀁤􀁬􀁾􀁾􀀠0 • c 644± i t -.>-w "'U {!;n",0 0", rn;Z'tr.I ..... '" Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) 0 = 1 IST-with some sand
and calcareous ---nodules -pass. fill --=1--_6:...S 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁦􀀠􀁣􀁾􀁮􀁅􀁲􀁲􀁾􀁴􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀿􀁴􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀠􀁳􀁵􀀡􀀺􀁦􀁾􀁣􀁾􀀮􀀠3' -2 ST ----Tan and Gray hard CALCAREOUS 3 ST -CLAY (CL!CH) with
limestone 5' 4 ST -seamS.-,.. f--5 _------------Tan weathered SHALY LIMESTONE. : : -..:.-8'+.-----------/---------------------._. -------..:. -------Gray SHALY LIMESTONE. BOTTOM OF TEST
BORING AT 10' . , 1905 TCP 10 1" ..:. = -15 --􀁾􀀠-20 --= 25 --: i -30 ".. " ;; t: t; v >c .2 ;;, '" 'a '" , 􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠:• 􀁾􀀠•1i 􀁾􀀠v '0 E E .. .f1:0 􀁾􀀠c >U ! .!1> 􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀺􀁧v e'0
i 􀁣􀁾􀀠􀀻􀀻􀀺􀁾􀀠<v v"0 􀁾􀁾􀁧􀁲􀀠"'a '2"": a.U ';;Jo.:;'􀁾􀀢􀀧v_ ",a II0< • 􀁾􀀮􀀠>'" II 11 11 􀁧􀁾􀀵􀀠0< 􀁾00 ." -'-'"''''.... a. ... CD -'0.0. 3.2 32 LL:73 PL:27 3.2 38 PI=46 4.5+
19 4.5+ 14 14 ! i , i BORING METHOD HSA • HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC • DRIVEN CASINGS MD ·MUD DRILLING SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OSSERVATIONS 5S . STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. ST . SHELBY TUBE CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS. FT. TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Chen! ______􀁾􀁇􀁾􀀸􀀡􀀮􀀡􀀺􀁗􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁎􀀡􀀮􀀧􀁇􀀢􀀧􀁉􀁏􀀡􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀀧􀀢􀁒􀁾􀁓􀀢􀀧􀁟􀀬
􀁌􀁟􀁉􀀺􀀡􀀺􀀻􀁎􀁾􀁃􀁾􀀮_______ 80ring No, _______-=8:..-..:1,,9'-___ Archnect/Eng;neer ______________------Job No, _______􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀰􀀢􀀧􀀰􀀢􀀧􀀹􀁾􀀸􀀢􀁟􀀸􀀢􀁟___ Project Name
____􀁍􀀺􀁉􀀡􀀢􀀡􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁄􀀡􀀡􀁗􀁾􀁁􀀢􀀧􀁙􀀲􀁒􀁴􀀡􀀺􀀰􀀡􀀡􀁁􀁄􀁾􀁾􀁒􀁅􀁾􀁃􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀧􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀢􀀭􀀧􀁓􀁾􀁔􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁕􀁾􀁃􀀢􀁟􀁔􀀺􀀡􀀺􀀻􀁉􀀺􀀡􀀺􀀻􀁏􀁾􀁎􀁾____ Drawn By ________-=AM=________
Project Location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By ________D"'AL""'_____􀁾􀀮􀀠DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA -------= -: -------.---------= -----. ----------Date Started 1-21-01
Hammer Wt. 140 lb. 1-21-01 30 :> Date Completed Hammer Drop in. !/, 􀁾􀀠Drm Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. • " 􀁾􀀠> Co. Rock Core Dia. in. • 􀁾􀀱􀁬􀁬􀀠Inspector Vi 􀁾􀀻aBoring Method
CFA Shelby Tube 00 3 in. a c· N 0.1";;;;; c ci .0. Z 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀠·f < -SOil CLASSIFICATION .􀀢􀀭􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠0liE • c""0"'" 􀁾􀀠WSURFACE ELEVATION 􀁾􀀠E w. I-I IW "Ow -Il::iii: 􀁉􀀭􀁾􀀠liE· 0
·c0" liE,,E x.644± I-W wu ,,0 "',. 0 􀁾􀁹􀀬",0 Ow "'Z "'I"Brown and Tan hard CLAY (CH) o -with calcareous deposit, gravel =and some sand. -poss. fill -=-6.5" of concrete at surface.
1 ST , 2 2 1ST: -4' : 1------------f-4 Tan and Gray hard CALCAReOUS CLAY (CL) with limestone seams. 3 ST -, = -6' I--------------f-6Tan weathered SHALY LIMeSTONE. -: I= ---------------8'f--8-=
i Gray SHALY LIMESTONE. 4 TCP 100 1.311 -, 10 = BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 I • =---12 u. 0. t !:: '"•l-c 0. " a, '" '5 W , I 􀀮􀁾•• 􀁾􀀠x•" 0 E E l' if!. 􀁾􀀠0. g Ev ,,," >o . • • 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁾"ll
u: c_ 􀀻􀀻􀁾􀀠Eou. 0;§,sg 0" 􀁅􀁾􀀠"'.U 􀀧􀀮􀀺􀀺􀁊􀁯􀀺􀀮􀁾5 􀁾􀁕􀁩􀀠􀁾􀀼􀁥􀀠􀀻􀁾􀀠;; 􀁾􀀭Ij II II 􀁧􀁾􀀵􀀠cc 􀁾0.0. .:::liCe.::"'(I)I"-I0-"4.5+ 21 LL=73 PL=28 PI=45 4.5+ 32 4.5+ 20 LL=48
PL=20 PI=28 , 13 , : i i i SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD SS . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ST . SHELBY TUBE CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AT COMPLETION DRY FT. AHER
HRS., FT. HSA HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC . DRIVEN CASINGS TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. MD ·MUD DRILLING 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dalias, Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client GBW ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. B-20 ArchitectJEngineel _
...___􀁾... _______________ Job No. 00988 ProiecT Name ____􀀭􀀢􀁍􀀢􀀧􀁉􀁃􀀡􀁄􀀢􀀧􀁗􀀢􀀧􀁬􀁜􀀢􀀢􀁙􀀢􀀭􀀧􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁏􀀢􀁬􀁜􀁄􀀽􀁟􀁒􀁂􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁃􀀧􀀢􀁯􀀡􀀺􀁎􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁓􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁲􀀮􀀡􀁏􀁒􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁕􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁃􀀬􀀬
􀀧􀁲􀁾􀁉􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀧􀁟􀁟___ Drawn By Project Location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By ________D"'AL='--___..􀁟􀁾..._ TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION -· -------:: .--------------·
-· · · ------------Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. 140 Ibs. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop 30 in. '" Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. -􀀭􀁾􀀠00 Inspector Rock Core Dia. in.
􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁩􀁩􀁬􀀠􀁾􀀠'" . :3􀁾􀀠BOring MethOd CFA Shelby Tube 00 3 0 >-. •in. c c· 􀁾􀀠.. '" . 2>􀁾􀀠ci "5 0 l;;•I :-";:; 0. ;; :z 􀀮􀁾􀀠SOIL CLASSIFICATION '" Iii;::; • E E 􀀮􀁾􀀠• 0
􀁾􀀠i 􀁯􀀮􀁾􀀠... U 􀁾􀀠.c ::; 􀁾􀀠co. '0 u: 􀁣􀁾.. 0'0 Q " 􀀮􀁾􀀠::> w . w u ,§£M "0SURFACE ELEVATION >-J: 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠E u'J:w 􀁾􀁾􀀠, ;;«! 􀁾􀁴􀀺􀀠... 􀁾􀀠Q. "-w • '" c "'_ o.<t :E. :Eo.
􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀸􀁾􀁾􀀠". 643± ",0 '5 uc ... w wo 􀁾􀁾􀀠i 􀁃􀁾􀁏􀀠QQ ",0 0<1> "'Z o. ... '" "' ::>"' ... ..... Tannish Brown and Gray hard o -CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) 􀁷􀁾􀁴􀁨􀀠: limestone seams.
􀁾􀀷􀀮􀀲􀀵􀀡􀀱􀀠of concrete at surface. -1 1 ST 4.5+ 2' ----------------1--2 : Gray SHALY LIMESTONE. ...:: ! . 4 : 2 TCI' 100 1.3" : -6...:: -: 8, i I: ! 3 TCI? 100 : 1.311 I OF 10 -..
'IBOTTOM TEST BORING AT 10' . i i -:1 I I I12 E .!>•"'"E"":::>j!> .,"0-" •x "I '0 􀁾􀁉􀀠'"> 11 1..1'0,;:"0'-05 :1"0:􀁯􀂷􀁾;Ja:.£ , " n1; " 3: ::lilt LL=59 I I'L=21 1'1=38 13 ; I I I
I, i , I , I SAMPLER TYPE SS . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 5T . SHELBY TUBE CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS AT COMPLETION DRY FT.
AFTER HRS_ FT. WATER ON RODS NONE FT. BORING METHOD HSA . HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC -DRIVEN CASINGS MD -MUD DRILLING 15 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St" Suite 100 Dallas. Texas 75229 (972l 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Clien, _______􀀭􀀧􀁇􀀢􀀧􀁂􀁾􀁗􀀡􀀡􀁟􀀡􀀡􀁅􀁣􀂣􀁎􀀡􀀮􀀾􀁇􀀢􀁉􀀢􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀀡􀁣􀁒􀁾􀁓􀁌
􀀧􀁟􀀢􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀢􀁟􀀮􀀧􀁟_______ Bot;ng No. Acchirect/Engineer Job No. Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By Project Location ADDISONI TEXAS Approved By DRILLING AND SAMPLING
INFORMATION Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. 140 lb•. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop 30 in. \!, Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample OD in. • -< > 00 Rock Core Die, in. •• -a;inspector
V> 􀁾􀁾􀀠Boring Method Shelby Tube 00 3 0CFA in. 0 􀁧􀁾N --= ---i 􀁾􀀠-----:: ---= ----􀀮􀁾􀀠-SOIL CLASSIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION 643± Tannish Brown very stiff to hard CALCAREOUS CLAY
(CLl with limestone seams. -6.7501 of concrete at surface. ----------------Gray SHALY LIMESTONE. 􀁾􀁣􀀠I ci 􀁾􀀬􀁧Z Oro '" 􀁾􀁾􀀠! •• 􀀢􀀭􀁾: 0::E 􀁾􀀠co. :::> w 'w °u 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠E uc1-);
xw 􀁾􀀮􀁴􀁊«I􀁉􀀭􀁾􀀠.. "w •"' .. 0.« ::E. ::Eo. 0 􀁾􀁾I-W wu «0 "'> i;; ",0 0'" v>Z "'... 0. 1-'" 0 : -:: 1 S1' -2' ----2 --= = i 􀁾􀁊= 4-:: ! 2 ,'rCP 100 1.5" : = 6--. i 􀁾􀀠"'"<1
!:: ;; 􀁾􀀠e ,2;; 0 V> (5 '" , B-21 00988 AM DAL TEST DATA • 􀀮􀁾• 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠;;"E E E0 ! e '"u v. '.i'l: , o-S:..;􀁯􀁾􀀠􀁾􀂣􀁾􀀠o. a 􀀧􀀲􀁾-V>§ 􀁾􀁾􀀠0􀀺􀀾􀁾􀀠g 􀁾􀀠g 􀁾􀀮􀀠00 ,... 00
cO :::>"'1"-ion 2.7 , ;j1 ;; m ;; 0 u 􀁾􀀠ms: 22 13 x 0 ·t:!'S'g.5:.J ;. 􀁾􀀢􀀡􀁬􀀵stP:; aro • 􀀺􀀮􀁊􀁬􀁴􀁾􀀠I II II 􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁴􀁾􀀠-----------------. --i BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10' .
, I I -: =B-:: ------10 : -= -12 -3 ! ! ''rCP ! I ! 100 1.3*' . i , ! I 16 i SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD 5S STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ST . SHELBY TUBE CA -CONTINUOUS
FLIGHT AUGER AT COMPLETION DRY FT. AFTER HRS. FT. HSA . HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC -DRIVEN CASINGS TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. MD
-MUD DRILLING 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St" Suite 100 Dalias, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPlORATIOl\l Chent ______􀀮􀀮􀀻􀁇􀁾􀁂􀀧􀀡􀀡􀁗􀁾􀁅􀀡􀁥􀁎􀁾􀁇􀁣􀀻􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀀢􀀧􀁒􀀢􀁓􀀢􀁟􀀧􀁟�
�-":I."N!!:C".'-_______ Boring No. Architect/Engineer Job No. Projec. Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By Protect location ADDI SON􀁾􀀠TEXAS Approved By DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION
GROUNOWATER OBSERVATIONS 5S . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLER TYPE AT COMPLETION DRY FT. ST • SHELBY TUBE AFTER HRS. FT,CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST
WATER ON RODS NONE FT. B-22 00988 DAL TEST DATA Date Started 1-21-01 HammerWt. 140 lb•. '"Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop 30 in. 􀁾􀀠Dril! Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠􀀭􀁾􀀠00>
-iii Rock Core Dia. in, 􀁾􀀠Inspector '" !i 3 a Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube 00 in. c 􀁥􀁾􀀠N 0;􀁾􀂷􀀲ci " 􀁾􀀮􀀠'" e -SOIL CLASSIFICATION s 􀁾􀀮Q. e•• 􀁾􀀺:; 􀁾􀀠0"w w SURFACE ELEVATION
'" -' 􀁾􀀠E u_ i ;-I Iw 􀁾􀀮􀁡«;;-J Q. 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠:;."'0. Q.« e 􀁓􀁾643± 643± .... w wu «0 «> 􀁾􀀠"''' 0", ",z "'''' ""'''' -Tannish Brown and Gray hard 0 -CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) with--limestone
seams. 􀁾􀀮􀀠-6.75 11 of concrete at surface. -1 ST -:--. -2' --=i-􀁾􀀠----􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭f--2 -2 CA--Gray SHALY LIMESTONE. -----: -4 -:-3 TCP 100 --1" -i --------------------------.-BOTTOM
OF TEST BORING AT 10 1 • ! 6: : -8-: : : -I 4 TCP 100 1.511 I10 : -= I ! : II : 12 􀁾􀀠'" 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠>'.• "t:: 􀁾􀀠'0'" " E E "' ;:􀁾􀀠0 g 􀁾􀀠: >;U '".. '0.2 '5e .. 0 " u: e,,-'E 􀁧􀀮􀁾􀀧􀁾B
􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁵􀀮􀀠0 􀁾􀀭􀁓􀁍􀀠.. " "E'"": u 􀁾􀁏􀀺􀂣0 -", '" e "'_ 􀁾􀀭:Ji1 ;;oeo 􀁾􀁯􀀠II II II 'S 􀁧􀁾􀀵􀀠􀁾􀁣􀀠,.. 􀁾00 _0 ::lo:a::<II "'<11;0.;CD 4.5+ 18 LL=35 PL_1? PI-18 13 12 16 , !
i . I I I : . BORING METHOD HSA . HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC DRIVEN CASINGS MD ,MUD DRILLING 
, ALPHA TESTING, INC ' A 2209 Wisconsin St., Sulle 100'It, Dallas, Texas 75229 r (972) 62(}-8911 [EY TO SOil SynOOlS RHD ClRSSIFICRTIOHS THE ABBREVIATIONS COMMONLY EMPLOYED ON EACH "RECORD
OF SUBSVRFACE EXPLORATION", ON THE FIGVRES AND IN THE TEXT OF THE REPORT, ARE AS FOLLOWS: I1lIJl CLAY SILT SOILOR ROCK TYPES 􀀨􀁓􀁈􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀠IN SYMBOLS COLUMN) till 􀁾􀀠SAND LIMESTONE rn􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀠SHALE 􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀡􀀺􀁣􀀡􀀺􀀠• '. 􀁾􀁪􀀠ASPHALT/CONCRETE I . II. SOIL DESCRIPTION III. RELATIVE PROPORTIONS
(A) COHESIONLESS SOILS DESCRIPTIVE TERM PERCENT RELATIVE DEliSITY N, 􀁂􀁌􀁏􀁾􀁓􀀯􀁆􀁔􀀠VERY LOOSE 0 TO 4 LOOSE 5 TO 10 COMPACT 1 I TO 30 DENSE 31 TO SO VERY DENSE OVER SO <B) COHES IVE
SOILS CONSISTENCY Qu, TSF VERY SOFT LESS THAN .25 SOFT .25 TO .50 FIRM .50 TO 1.00 STIFF 1.00 TO 2.00 UERY STIFF 2.00 TO 4.00 HARD OVER 4.00 TRACE I -10 LITTLE 11 -20 SOME 21 -35 AND
315 -SO IV. PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION BOULDERS: COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY -8 INCH DIAMETER OR MORE -3 TO 8 INCH DIAMETER -COARSE -3/4 TO 3 INCH -FINE -5.0 MM TO 3/3/4 INCH -COARSE
-2.0 MM TO S.O MM -MEDIVM -0.4 MM TO 2.0 MM -FINE -0.07 MM TO 0.4 MM -O.OOZ MM TO 0.07 MM -0.002 MM PLASTICITY V. DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS DEGREE OF PLASTICITY NONE TO SLI GHT SLIGHT
MEDIUM HIGH TO VERY HIGH PLASTICITY INDEX o -4 5 -10 11 -30 OVER 30 NOTE: ALL SOILS CLASSIFIED RCCORDING TO THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM 0-2487) AU: RC: TCP: SS: ST'
WS: HSA: CFA: MO: AUGER SAMPLE ROCK CORE TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST SPLIT-SPOON 1 3/8" I D. Z" 0.0 EXCEPT WHERE NOTED SHELBY TUBE = 3" 0.0. EXCEPT WHERE NOTED WASHED SAMPLE HOLLOW STEM
AUGERS CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS MUD DR ILLI NG -,-
.. CJalm# Vendor Name Address "':': Address /flf £. S!fl,c.e.# 􀁦􀁚􀁾􀀠I .$"<>/#'310./> t:i3 g'. .' ,Address 7SZ?4-2. ',' --....." ." -..... ,': Zip Code ", :.,' .' . ,,'. ;, '"' ...
, 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠Authorized Signature Finance .. '",: ,:" 
kt,.=....________􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁟􀀮􀀮􀀺􀁇􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁲􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁡􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁴􀀺􀀺􀀮􀁨􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁡􀀺􀀻􀁭􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀦􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁁􀁳􀀽􀁳􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁏􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁣􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁩􀀻􀀻􀁡􀁾􀁴􀁥􀀻􀀻􀀻􀁳􀀺􀀻􀀮􀁺􀀬􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀻􀁉􀀺􀀮􀀻􀀺􀁮􀀽􀁣􀀮􀀠
Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. . Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, Texas 75001 INVOICE Invoice No.: 9003 pate: October 1, 2002 G&A Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction
--Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 8/1/02 to 9/21/02 Total Contract Amount $313,700.00 Total Due This Invoice $ 18,815.55 . Total Previous Invoices $293,248.93 Total Billed to Date
$312,064.48 Less Payments/Credits. ($293,248.93), Total Amount Now. Due . $ 18,815.55 Amount This Invoice $ 18,815.55 Please Retain This Page For Your Records 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite
310, L.B. 8 • Garland, Texas 75042 WW'VIf. gra-ce,net Tel. (972) 864.-2333 • Fax (972) 864-2334 
Invoice No.: 9003 Date: October 1, 2002 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 1 . Design Survey ••___ 􀁾_________􀁾􀀮􀁷__􀁾_________ Total Phase Amount $ 29,681.47 100%
complete $ 29,681.47 2. Geotechnical Services 􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾Total Phase Amount $ 19,440.00 Billed Previously $ 20,038.75
3. Preliminary Plans _.________ • ____􀁾____________􀁾􀁟􀁷__ Total Phase Amount $ 231,409.23 100% complete $ 231,409.23 4. Design Report 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠To
tal Phase Amount $ 29,384.12 Billed Previously $ 26,021.85 HNTB (See attached invoice) $ 1,128.00 5. Reimbursables 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase
Amount $ 3,785.18 100% complete $ 3,785.18 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE > > > $ 312,064.48 
􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀠.,' ., 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮__􀁾􀁾________________􀁾__􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁲􀁾􀁡􀀽􀁮􀁾􀁴􀀽􀁨􀀽􀁡􀀽􀁉􀁕􀁾􀀦􀁬􀁾􀁁􀁳􀁾􀁓􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁃􀀽􀁩􀀽􀁡􀀽􀁴􀁥􀁾􀁳􀁾􀀬􀁾􀁉􀀽􀁮􀁾􀁣􀀮􀀠Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Town of Addison
16801 Westgrove .Drive Addison, Texas 75001 Invoice No.: 9003 Date: October 1, 2002 G&A Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total
Current Invoice $ 18,815.55. TOTAL'AMOUNT ENCLOSED '$ -;-----.j Pay to the Order Of: Grantham & Associates, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh Road Suite 310 L.B.8 Garland, Texas ·75042 Please Return
This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit .. 􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭1919 S, Shiloh Road.
Suite 310. L.B. 8 • Garland. Texa. 75042 www.gra-ee.net Tel. (972) 864·2333 • Fax (9i2) 664-2334 
..":: 􀂷􀀺􀂷􀁜􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁾􀂷􀁩􀂷􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁜􀀺􀀺􀁴􀀺􀂷􀀮􀁾􀂷􀀻􀀻􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀠";;' ::. : , . 􀀧􀀺􀁾􀀿􀀾􀀺􀀢􀀠􀀺􀀺􀀼􀀯􀁾􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀠:: :".. '...... ',. "" ,"' .. Vendor. N.0;. .. .;.. .'. . ;' 􀀮􀀬􀀺􀀯􀀮􀀼􀀺􀀾􀀨􀀬�
�􀀺􀀬􀀮􀀬􀀠,:' " 􀀭􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀬􀀭􀀧􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀺􀀬􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀭􀀻􀁾􀀻􀀢􀀬􀀬􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀧􀀺􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀺􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀻􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀢􀀢􀀭􀀻􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀮􀀺􀀻􀀠". 4!3tv E,¥t;(,k€B?.5I.T&e.
,:" ..... '. '" Vendor Name -Address Address .', .....: 75"04-2··.·, ," I,.Address " .... ,Zip Code . " TOTAl.: ./1;12.3. a; EXPLANATION -,,A-H P4;:!r'R-:p:::f?!. ee;,"fI-:im:/..--C!.17
"";";':'1 P:/-l...1s#-.:x:· " . .􀁾􀁦􀀭􀁴􀀮􀀠pAr 􀁾􀁤􀀺􀀢􀀠.' .' ..... 􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀠Authorized Signature Finance :. .
Grantham. & Wa!dlbauer Engineers, Inc. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, Texas 75001 INVOICE Invoice No.: 1796 Date: August 15, 2002 GBW Project
No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 7/1/02 to 7/31/02 . TotaL 􀁣􀁾􀁨􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁣􀁴􀁁􀁭􀁯􀁵􀁮􀁴􀀠$313,700.00 ,-' 􀁾􀀢.. .' :' Total Due
This Invoice $ 1,128.00 Total Previous Invoices $292,120.93 Total Billed to Date $293,248.93 Less Payments/Credits {$292,120.93) Total Amount Now Due $ 1,128.00 Amount This Invoice $
1,128.00 &.!C. -fo I""Ay! 5ZC gh-, /p 2-. , .. ' .. ____ 􀁾􀁷􀁾____ 􀁾____􀁾􀁟􀁾􀁟􀁾__________ 􀁾-. ' Please Retain. This Page For Your Records 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite SOO, L.B. 27,
Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (!172) 84()'1916 Fax (!172) 84().21s6 
Invoice No.: 1796 Date: August 15, 2002 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 1. Design Survey 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭..􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount
$ 29,681.47 100% complete $ 29,681.47 2. Geotechnical Services ___________••________pw_____________􀁾􀁟􀀮􀁟􀀠Total Phase Amount $ 19,440.00 Billed Previously $ 20,038.75 3. Preliminary
Plans -.----...􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭..􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount $ 231,409.23 92% complete $ 212,896.49 4. Design Report --...------_.---------------Total Phase Amount $
29,384.12 Billed Previously $ 22,779.14 HNTB (See attached invoice) $ 1,128.00 5. Reimbursables 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭.. Total Phase Amount $ 3,785.18
92% complete $ 3,482.37 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE > > > $ 293,248.93 
Grantham, 8< Waldlbauer Engineers, Inc. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1796 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: August 15, 2002 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.:
00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 1,128.00 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______ Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc.
1919 S. Shiloh Road Suite 500 L.B. 27 Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite 500, L.E. 27. Garland, Texas
75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (972) 840-1916 Fax (972) 840-2156 
I : I 􀁾i i =JARCIIITECTS ENC;INEERS PLANNERS Suit\! .!(}ir i'lmHL 1i'SI:!Y "1S09J 1'J;,}J 􀁦􀁤􀁩􀁊􀂷􀁾􀀯􀀬􀁊􀁲􀀮􀀠July 16, 2002 GBW Engineers, Inc. Bruce Grantham, P.E. 1919 S. Shiloh
Road Suite 530, L.B. 27 Garland, Texas 75042 Re: Midway Road Replacement -Belt Line to Keller Springs Roadway Dear Mr. Grantham, We are enclosing the original and one copy of our Invoice
No. 2-32921-PL-001 in the amount of $1,128.00. This is for professional engineering services rendered on the above referenced project. We trust you will find this invoice in proper order
and place in line for further processing. Very truly yours, IlliIB CORPORATION Benjamin J. Biller Vice President, Central Division BJB:lgb Enclosures cc: Finance Department TIJc flNTlJ
C(Jlllpnnles ur:l'lO;$: ,\I.J:i'\,'Nlll!M, VA; "".X,,!'UI.IS. 􀁾􀁪􀁕􀀺􀀠"rUNT:'. f"1. "PSTI,.,., "rJl;: IIATON 1:(}IICf.. IA: Ul)lIToN. MAo 􀁮􀁪􀀬􀁜􀁊􀀨􀁵􀁾..T{]N. !iC: Uli\IU.f.SH;'\:.
';l'Y, um:\\ifl. II" (!.nfl.\":I'. 011: t:Ulr."uU's, (111: Inl,I-",;\, 􀁾!)ENn:1<, 1:0; J)1,Ofl,;n', MI; 􀁅􀁕􀀻􀁉􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠'''Y: 􀁉􀁾􀁲􀀬􀀠W<tm1I. TX; IIAlffH)I!I). 1:1': IIICI(,M(JIJ.E.
NY: !-lOIIS'lnN, T=-. INOIARwutb, 􀁬􀁾􀀺􀀠I: \Y:-.\"; (l'lY. W). 􀁉􀀺􀀻􀀧􀀺􀁜􀁾􀀧􀀢􀁊􀁈􀁅􀀮􀀠rN, LIlIII;.!:\,{;. ,\11: LOS ANW:U:-I. CA, H,IIIS\'IlU:' liY: 􀁾􀁉􀁴􀁉􀀡􀁬􀁉􀀩􀀬􀀨􀁊􀀱􀀧􀁉􀀮􀀠\'{'j,
􀁾􀁉􀀢􀀢􀁍􀁉􀀬􀀠.1" ,,'It.\\'I>l:I\a-:. ",'1; 􀁾􀁉􀁉􀁎􀁎􀁪􀀱􀀢􀀢􀁬􀀧􀁻􀁽􀁉􀁊􀁾􀀬􀀠􀁾􀁉􀁎􀀻􀀠NASIIYII.I.l:, 􀁾􀀱􀀧􀀴􀀺􀀠􀁾􀁬􀁩􀁗􀀠\UlI,,_ :,\Y: lHJ\I.I'n. L.... '111."':(a' 􀁜􀁾􀁊􀁉􀀺􀁋􀁲􀁜􀀧􀀮􀀠t:h:
OIU.,;'I:I)O,l'k ()\liIllN'<Il 1'11";(, 􀁨􀁾􀀻􀀠I'IIIIAnUJ'IIIA,I''\: l'Olm.....NI), 􀁾􀁉􀁉􀀺􀀻􀀠1'OltllA/\,'jJ, nit: IIA1.ElGII. NC :IT, tOnlS, Mil.: SIII.T I.","h',ln', trf: j>.\'.!
\'\"I'{),\,II}, 􀁬􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀁜􀁜􀀺􀀠􀀱􀁕􀀺􀀱􀀡􀁉􀀬􀀮􀀬􀁜􀁬􀁭􀀡􀁴􀂫􀀩􀁟􀀱􀀺􀁾􀀬􀀠",I,,, I'HM.(t:lSC(J, 􀁃􀁾􀀬􀀵􀁁􀁎􀀬􀀡􀁜􀁬􀁓􀁉􀀱􀀮􀀠(:A, 􀀬􀁾􀁉􀀺􀂷􀁜􀂷􀁮􀁬􀁊􀀬􀀠,,'A; r,\!>II'A. 􀁾􀁬􀀮􀀻􀀠TOW!)\),
011; ,£-\';':0>1:, :0:), ...."'I'IH.'\'1:'f()N. DC 
BILLING STATEMENT lfiXAS DEPARTMetfr OF lAANSPORlAfiOH FORM 132 REV 9·'90 BILLING 􀀡􀀡􀁩􀁓􀁔􀁒􀁕􀁾􀁉􀀱􀀰􀁈􀀤􀀺􀀠To facililate haf\d!109 and prompl payment ,how the Wotmalion ir"I the
spaces pruvlded below. Submit five cop;e$ Submil a separa1e Slalement /of each requ'$ition Ch.nges for frejght Of c)!pfes$, d atI)\ must be suPJ)cmed by the prepaid Ireiglll or(/)lP!ess
tih This 51alemen1 tMlf\C:! be prOCe£5flO for payme(l1 wilhoul a valid vendor 10 OOmber. Name ot Payee: HNTB CORPORATION DATE July 16,2002 Address: ..::5:=9c;1,"0..!W:.!.'-.,􀀡􀀺􀀮􀁐􀁉􀀡􀀡􀀺􀁡􀀡􀀡􀁃�
�􀁾􀁯􀀭􀀬􀁐􀁾􀁡􀁾􀁲􀁫􀁾􀁷􀀢􀁡􀁥􀀻􀁙􀁌􀂷􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀻􀁓􀀢􀀬􀁵􀁾􀁩􀁾􀁴􀁥􀀢􀀲􀀢􀀬􀀰􀀬􀀬􀀬􀀰􀀬􀀬􀀭____________City & Stato' Plano, TX 75093 DELIVERY DATE JulV 16, 2002 VENDOR 10 NUMBER 14316230920008
S INVOICE SOURCE LINK W DATE NUMBER FYS UNIT DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNtTPRICE AMOUNT 7116/2002 2-32921-PL-001 02 051 Period Covered: For Period 5126101 through 6/28102 Total Earned to
Date S 6,294 Less Previously Invoiced S 5,166 i Due this invoice $ 1,128 : i Work Work Authorization No.1 , This aQreement authorized bv Article 664-4 VSC CASH DISCOUNT % DAYS TOTAL
$ 1,128 :lAC or Mise SDHPT PURCHASE ,CONTRACT NO: 22-M5P5004 REO. NO; HW ORDER NO: DATE: CARD CODE 3 INFORMATION SEG. ± OHTITEM NO ILD. MMIS Tracked DETAIL AMOUNT , EQUIPMENT I TRADE-IN
1 TRAOED :1 Functions Only 2. S NUMBER ALLOWANCE EQUIP NO os ± ! AeTY·1 IOHT ITEM NO DIS! DETAil AMOUNT : MOO, LINK SEQ OR 10 IEQUIPNO I DtV ± tCOST CENTEJ08J, SFI 70 OF EQUIP NO, I
F ACTY THRU DETAIL AMOUNT rUNe. EXP. I REF. AMT.OF 19 TASK I HIGHWAY MARKER WORK WORK S PERF. ORDER Co SYS. NUMBER U Cl F 1.5 11): 11 18 19 20 21 2l! " ,." 414. III S' 55 56 $1 S6 59
60 61 􀀶􀁾􀀠6:) &4 tilS 􀁾􀀠67 && 6& 70 l' 12 '13 74 15 16' 11 18 BEG <NO 22 76 0031-03-D63 1.128 162 423 Agency Verificalfon/Audit has been performed, the serviCeS rendered and/or goods
received. and the lnvofce(s) correctly corresponds with the aulhorlty under which procurement was made. The involce(s) is (are) (fue and IJnpald. By ..􀁾􀀢.. I 
I : I 􀁾i i =JARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS July 16, 2002 GBW Engineers, Inc, 1919 S, Shiloh Road Suite 530, LB 27 Garland, Texas 75042 In Account With HNTB CORPORATION Dallas, Texas
Invoice No, 2-J292J-PL-OO J Project: Midway Road Replacement Work Authorization No, 1 W,A No, I Contract Maximum: $10,530.00 Invoice Summary: From: OS/26/01 To: 06128102 Total Contract
Amount Total Due This Invoice Total Previous Invoices 59.8% Complete $10,530.00 $6,294,00 $5,166.00 Total Billed to Date Less Previous Invoices Total Amount Now Due $6,294,00 $5,166.00
$1,128.00 Tbtt HNTH Cfimpllllil!S 
-'. : ........... , ,"TOWN OF ADDISON .. :"••; f • • "." .PA.YMENTA.UTHORlzATION·MEMO ......" ' .. -.. 􀂷􀀺􀀮􀀯􀀬􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁩􀁾􀂷􀁾􀁴􀀧􀀻􀀠􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀬􀀠',' '"! "'. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠Cla.lm#. Check
$" ..;-􀀧􀀧􀁪􀀻􀁩􀀻􀀱􀁦􀀲􀁾􀀺􀀷􀁐DATE: 􀂷􀁾􀁴􀁦􀂷􀁽􀁅􀀺􀀾􀀮􀀺􀀺􀂷􀀻􀀠. Vendor No: . '. . ..,:,.• ' :';".' ,. , . 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀺􀀢􀀧􀀺􀀢􀀻􀀢􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀻􀀧􀀧􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧..,..􀁾�
�􀀬􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀬􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀮􀀬-,-'»'"'.,.;..:.,-'--:,:-... :.....,.-... Vendor Name t'i Bw .' E􀁴􀁖􀀦􀀺􀁦􀀢􀀧􀁲􀁯􀁾􀀠Irt<, " " Address Address :'.': -, Address
.:. ," Zip Code ! TOTAL .f.-t 2t}-2./7l EXPLANATION 􀁤􀁁􀀭􀁾􀀬􀀠\ Authorized Signature Finance .. 
Engineers, Inc. Grantham. Burge & Waldlbauer INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1757 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: July 3, 2002 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project
No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction INVOICE SUMMARY From 6/1/02 to 6/30/02 Total Contract Amount .. Total Due This lnvoice Total Previous Invoices Total Billed to Date' Less
Payments/Credits Total Amount Now Due Amount This Invoice .",: __________..__:..w.....;; _________.:.:.'__'_ { :. Please Retain This Page For Your' Rec'ord's . 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite
500, L.B. 27, Garland, Texas 75042 --Phase One Design $313,700.00 $ 3,242.71 $288,878.22 $292,120.93 ($288,878.22) $ 3,242.71 $ 3,242.71 www.gbwengineers.ccm I!l,j::, 1t> PA-Y! 5ZC 􀀷􀀨􀁬􀁲􀁬􀁴􀀩􀁾􀀠
Tel (97Z) 84().1916 Fax (97Z) 84().2156 
Invoice No.: 1757 Date: July 3, 2002 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 1. Design Survey Total Phase Amount $ 29,681.47 100% complete $ 29,681.47 2. Geotechnical
Services Total Phase Amount $ 19,440.00 Billed Previously $ 20,038.75 3. Preliminary Plans Total Phase Amount $ 231,409.23 92% complete $ 212,896.49 4. Design Report Total Phase Amount
$ 29,384.12 Billed Previously $ 22,779.14 GBW Standard Rate Schedule 2000: Project Manager 18 @$ 127.25/hr $ 2,290.50 Project Engineer 6.5 @$ 60.32/hr $ 392.08 CADD Technician 3 @$ 41.38/hr
$ 124.14 CADD Technician 2.5 @$ 33.40/hr $ 83.50 CADD Technician 4 @$ 30.49/hr $ 121.96 Clerical 3.5 @$ 47.19/hr $ 165.17 Clerical 2.5 @$ 26.14/hr :r..$_-",6""5.,,,,3-".5 Total Labor>
> $ 3,242.71 5. Reimbursables Total Phase Amount $ 3,785.18 􀁾􀀠9'2% complete $ 3,482.37 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE > > > $ 292,120.93 
Engineers, Inc. Grantham, Burge & Waldlbauer Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1757 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: July 3, 2002 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.:
00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 3,242.71 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______ Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc.
1919 S. Shiloh Road Suite 500 l.B.27 Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit , ------------------------------------------------------1919
S. Shiloh Road, Suite 500, L.B. 27, GlIrl2nd, Texas 75042 Wl+W.gbwengineers.com Tel 􀁾􀀷􀀲􀀩􀀠840-1916 Fax 􀁾􀀷􀀲􀀩􀀠840-215< 
. :-, .:, ' -. ---..-. ,. TOWN OF ADDISON .-, ,:PAYMENT AUTHORIzATION MEMO DATE: Claim # Vendor NO: <􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀧􀁟􀀭􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀢􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀭􀁣􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀺
􀀭􀁾􀀢􀀧􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀼􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀭<_<< " .' ':" 􀀮􀁾􀀠: ::.:. :.' ..... "" Vendor Name of5W . 􀁅􀁍􀀧􀀨􀁩􀀧􀁉􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀼􀀠..I;¥C,. Address (fir s. !(;/f/L&# ) SVI'Tc so ", B. 27 Address
Address Zip Code EXPLANATION Ae-􀁾􀀮􀀠Authorized Signature Finance 
Engineers, Inc. Grantham, Burge & WaldJlbauer INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1722 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: June 12, 2002 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project
No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 5/1/02 to 5/31/02 rotal Contract Amount Total Due This Invoice Total Previous Invoices Total Billed
to Date Less Payments/Credits Total Amount Now Due Amount This Invoice : .. ',. 1:. '. $313,700.00 $ 2,705.38 $286,172.84 $288,878.22 ($286,172.84) $ 2,705.38 $ 2,705.38 Please Fletaln-This
-', ',. Page For Your Records 1919 S, Shiloh Road, Suite 500, L,B. 27, Garland, Texas 75042 1+'WW.gbwengineers.com Tel (97Z) 840-1916 Fax (972) 840-215( 
Invoice No.: 1722 Date: June 12, 2002 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 1 • Design Survey Total Phase Amount $ 29,681.47 100% complete $ 29,681.47 2. Geotechnical
Services Total Phase Amount $ 19,440.00 Billed Previously $ 20,038.75 3. Preliminary Plans Total Phase Amount $ 231,409.23 92% complete $ 212,896.49 4. Design Report Total Phase Amount
$ 29,384.12 Billed Previously $ 20,073.76 GBW Standard Rate Schedule 2000: Design Engineer 34 @$ 79.57/hr $ 2,705.38 Total Labor> > $ 2,705.38 5. Reimbursables Total Phase Amount $ 3,785.18
92% complete $ 3,482.37 TOTAL' BILLED TO DATE > > > 288,878.22 
• Grantham, lBurge Be 􀁗􀁡􀁾􀁤􀀱􀁢􀁡􀁵􀁡􀁲􀀠Engineers, Inc. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1722 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: June 12, 2002 Addison, Texas 75001
GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 2,705.38 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ____􀁾__ Pay to the Order Of:
GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh Road Suite 500 L.B.27 Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite 500. LB.
27, Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (972) 84().1916 Fax (972) 84()'215 
.. DATE: Vendor !'lo: . . .' Vendor Name Address Address Address Zip Code . ,.,'TOWN OF ADDISON .' .' '"" .....PAYMENT AUTHORIzATION MEMO Cla.lm# .;:-c.." • . 􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀧􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀬􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀻􀀮􀁾􀀭􀁣􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀬􀁾􀀠.. ' .. . tiBtv' EtV{((flrE6?.> 􀁉􀁉􀁉􀀧􀁉􀁲􀁾􀀾􀀢􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀻􀀺􀀧􀀢􀀠,:.'.1'11
'1 S. >H(£..P/fJ SvlTc 'Sd) 'i..£,;;'1 6'A-.et.1.vO ) TEXAS 7.>"4-2..·· '... .I EXPLANATION '-'" . 􀁾􀀠au: Authorized Signature Finance 
Engineers, Inc. Grantham, & Waldlbauer INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1695 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: May 8, 2002 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.:
00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 4/1/02 to 4/30/02 Total C.ontract Amount Total Due This Invoice Total Previous Invoices Total Billed
to Date Less Payments/Credits Total Amount Now Due Amount This Invoice .., : $313,700.00 $ 8,126.25 $278,046.59 $286,172.84 ($278,046.59) $ 8,126.25 $ 8,126.25 (fl, (C. 10 P''7' .szc.
S-/t"􀁾2.Please Retain 'This Page For Your Records 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite 500, L.B. 27, Garland, Texas 75042 WWI\I,gbwengineers.com Tel (97Z) S4IH916 Fax (972) 84()'Z156 
Invoice No.: 1695 Date: May 8, 2002 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 1. Design Survey .. Total Phase Amount 100% complete 2. Geotechnical Services Total Phase Amount
Billed PreViously 3. Preliminary Plans Total Phase Amount 92% complete 4. Design Report Total Phase Amount Billed Previously GBW Standard Rate Schedule 2000: $ 29,681.47 $ 29,681.47
$ 19,440.00 $ 20,038.75 $ 231,409.23 $ 212,896.49 $ $ 29,384.12 19,003.35 Project Manager Design Engineer Clerical Support Clerical Support 5. Reimbursables Total Phase Amount 92% complete
5@4 @2 @1 @$127.25/hr $ 636.25 $ 79.57/hr $ 318.28 $ 44.87/hr $ 89.74 $ 26.1 4/hr :L$􀁟􀀮􀀶􀀮􀀲􀁾􀀶...!.14::t Total Labor> > $ 1,070.41 $ 3,785.18 $ 3,482.37 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE> >
> $ 286,172.84 
Engineers, Inc. Grantham, Burge & Waldbauer Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1695 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: May 8, 2002 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.:
00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 8,126.25 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ _____ Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc.
1919 S. Shiloh Road Suite 500 L.B. 27 Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 s. Shlloh Road, Suite 500, LB, 27, Garland, Texas
75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (972:) .B40-1916 Fax (972) B40-2156 
TOWN OF ADDISON < : '-. PAYMENT AUTHORIzATION MEMO ".'" .'.>'DATE: ClaIm # " ',,: .' " . ;'. Address frff s. SlfiLol/J 􀁓􀁦􀀯􀁬􀁲􀁅􀁾􀀬􀀠£, B.2/, Address 794-2 Address Zip Code Vendor
Name :: -." . '" '. .'. , TOTAL EXPLANATION" ,1'1.1 ptvAr' 􀁦􀁚􀀮􀁄􀀮􀀮􀁒􀁡􀀮􀀮􀀬􀁯􀁉􀁴􀀺􀀺􀀤􀁔􀁥􀁶􀁴􀀷􀀷􀁾􀀻􀁩􀀯􀀱􀁐􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁊􀀺􀀺􀂷􀂷􀀠f&,·fl,. /Ar 􀀯􀁲􀀭􀁴􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀺􀁥􀀧􀀭􀂷􀁾􀀷􀀮􀁣􀀮􀂷􀀺___
􀁾􀁾􀀠Authorized Signature Finance 
8. WaldbalJler Engineers, Inc. INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1654 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: April 2, 2002 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238
PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 2/1/02 to 3/31/02 $313,700.00 Total Due This Invoice $ 9,407.77 Total Previous Invoices $268,638.82 Total
Billed to Date $278,046.59 Less Payments/Credits ($268,638.82) Total Amount Now Due $ 9,407.77 ( 10 /flyAmount This Invoice' $ 9,407.77 v.lt. 􀁾􀀢􀀲􀁻􀀮􀀠4-{ 􀁾􀀠It) '_. c' " .: . -'.'
. : ':"' ", " Please 􀁒􀁥􀁾􀁩􀀡􀁬􀁊􀁨􀁩􀀮􀁳􀀢􀀠. . '·t Page For Your Records ,! 1919 S. Shiloh Road. Suite 500. L.B. 27. Garland. Texas 75042 www,gbwengineers.CQm Tel (972) 84()'1916
Fax (972) 84()'2156 i i 
-----------------------------Invoice No.: 1654 Date: April 2, 2002 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction •• Phase One Design 1. Design Survey 􀁾____􀁾••__􀁾􀀮_______􀁍􀁟􀁾􀁾_______ Total
Phase Amount $ 29,681.47 100% complete $ 29,681.47 2. Geotechnical Services 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢....􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀁾Total Phase Amount $ 19,440.00 Billed
Previously $ 20,038.75 3. Preliminary Plans 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭..-----------..--Total Phase Amount $ 231,409.23 89% complete $ 205,954.21 4 • Design Report ._-----_._._----------------Tota
l Phase Amount $ 29,384.12 Billed Previously $ 19,003.35 5. Reimbursables Total Phase Amount $ 3,785.18 89% complete $ 3,368.81 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE> > > $ 278,046.59 
-----􀀮􀁾􀀢􀀮􀀠􀀭􀁾􀀠􀁾---......􀀭􀀭􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁾􀀭•• Engineers, Inc. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, Texas 75001 Invoice No.: 1654 Date: April
2, 2002 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 9,407.77 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______ Pay to the Order
Of: GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh Road Suite 500 l.B.27 . Garland, Texas ·75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit Tel (972) 84()'1916 Fax (972)
S4()'2156 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite 500, LB. 'l:7. Garland, Texas 75042 WW'N.gbwengineers.com 
',;-<' ,;' , TOWN OF ADDISON ., .' "".' PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO DATE: Claim # '-', '.-.:. ."' .. '; .; Vendor Name Address I rI r .s. 'S;/frL&/I fZ.£); , " Address Address Zip Code
7S04-2 i EXPLANATION , , 'rt I () tvAy , ,.' ,1.5-+4. f't+r-/tt 􀁅􀁾􀀠,.,' 􀁾􀁾􀀠Authorized Signature Finance 
Engineers, Inc. INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1617 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: February 7, 2002 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT:
Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 1/1/02 to 1/31/02 Total Contract Amount .. ,.', ..􀁾􀀠Total Due This Invoice Total Previous Invoices Total Billed to
Date Less Payments/Credits Total Amount Now Due Amount This'lnvoice .. I" " -------------..􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀠Please Ret!;li,n This. ,"; .' Page For Your Records' $313,700.00
$ 7,055.83 $261,582.99 $268,638.82 ($259,444.08) $ 9,194.74 $ 7,055.83 t:J, K. -fo ?'/IfSZc z..(hl/t;21919 S. Shiloh Road, Suire 500, L.B. 27, Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com
Tel r:;n) 84().191o Fax (972) 􀀸􀀴􀀨􀀩􀀧􀀺􀁚􀀱􀀵􀁾􀀠
---------------------------------Invoice No.: 1617 Date: February 7, 2002 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction -Phase One Design 1. Design Survey 􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount $ 29,681.47 100% complete $ 29,681.47 2. Geotechnical Services 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠Total Phase Amount
$ 19,440.00 Billed Previously $ 20,038.75 3. Preliminary Plans Total Phase Amount $ 231,409.23 85% complete $ 196,697.85 4. Design Report ___••____________________ft___ Total Phase Amount
$ 29,384.12 Billed Previously $ 19,003.35 5 . Reimbursables .---------------------------Total Phase Amount $ 3.785.18 85 % complete $ 3,217.40 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE> > > $ 268,638.82

Engineers, Inc. Grantham, Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1617 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: February 7, 2002 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT:
Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 7,055.83 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______ Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh
Road Suite 500 L.B.27 Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. ShlIoh Road, Suite 500, L.B. 27, Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com
Tel (972) 840-1916 Fax (972) 840-2156 
TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO . ... . . Ctieck$ ••.. 2/'}S,r/:DATE: Claim # Vendor No: . 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠Vendor Name GBW Address
,e.f) . Address SV/TE St:Jt)) c: _/3, 2? Address Zip Code TOTAL 2,f3'!,'1/EXPLANATION foe ckL· Authorized Signature Finance 
Engineers, Inc. & INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1590 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: January 8, 2002 Addison, Texas 15001 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT:
Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 12/1/01 to 12/31/01 .􀁾􀀢􀀠:rotalCorifract Amount Total Due This Invoice Total Previous Invoices Total Billed to Date
Less Payments/Credits Total Amount Now Due Amount This Invoice ..'" I,' 'i 􀀮􀀬􀁾􀀮􀀠'; 􀁾􀀠, .: ," " • Please Retain·1"his ; ...;:: ",',> : Page For Your Records 1919 S. Shiloh Road,
Suite 500, L.B, 27, Garland, Texas 75042 $313,100.00 $ 2,138.91 $259,444.08 $261,582.99 ($259,444.08) $ 2,138.91 $ 2,138.91 www.gbwengineers.com 1" f o. t:'. f"11'j . 5'K t{Z-J!tI l.
Tel (972) 840-1916 Fax (972) 840-2156 
Invoice No.: 1590 Date: January 8, 2002 Project: Midway Road Reconstr.uction --Phase One Design 1. Design Survey --._---.-----._--------------Total Phase Amount $ 29,681.47 100% complete
$ 29,681.47 2. Geotechnical Services __ w. ____ 􀁾________________􀁾____________«_ Total Phase Amount $ 19,440.00 Billed Previously $ 20,038.75 3 . Preliminary Plans .􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠Total Phase Amount $ 231,409.23 82% complete $ 189,755.57 4. Design Report ----------------------------Total Phase Amount $ 29,384.12 Billed Previously
$ 16,864.44 Standard Rate Schedulji! (2000) Professional Staff 17 @Technical Staff 19 @$ $ 79.57hr 41.38hr $ 1,352.69 $ 786.22. Total Labor, Task 04 »> $ 2,138.91 5. Reimbursables 􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount $ 3,785.18 82% complete $ 3,103.85 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE> > > $ 261,582.99 
,& Engineers, Inc. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1590 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: January 8, 2002 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No:: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway
Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 2,138.91 . TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______ Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh Road
Suite 500 L.B. 27 Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. Sbiloh Road, Suite SOD, LB. 27, Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com
Tel (!)7Z) S4(H916 Fax (!)72) S4().2156 
TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO 􀁾􀀠\ ' '. 􀀧􀁾􀀮􀀠PATE: Claim # Check $ /) /2347 Vendor No: . _-:-___--'_-,.-_-,---,----,------:---'-.-.-.'.,..:_ Vendor Name Address Address
Address Zip Code TOTAL I) /23·4-7 EXPLANATION 􀁾􀁬f} U-rty/2P_ . /3+/" f-*y""e.,..::::r Authorized Signature Finance 
Engineers, Inc. INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1574 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: December 7,2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT:
Midway Road Reconstruction -INVOICE SUMMARY From 11/1/01 to 11/30/01 ,0.,:'.":_.' Totai' Con'tract Amount Total Due This Invoice Total Previous Invoices Total Billed to Date Less Payments/Credits
Total Amount Now Due Amount This Invoice Phase One Design $313,700.00 $ 1,123.47 $258,320.61 $259,444.08 ($258,320.61 ) $ 1.123.47 $ Please Re'tiiin'·:fhis· ':, \'; ,... ". , . , Page
For Your Records 1919 S. ShlIon Road. Suite 500. LB. 27. Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (972) 840-1916 Fax (972) 840-2156 
·' Invoice No.: 1574 Date: December 7, 2001 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction _. Phase One Design 1. Design Survey 􀁟􀂷􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁟􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮__•• ___ _______ ______ w_ Total Phase Amount
$ 29,681.47 100% complete $ 29,681.47 2. Geotechnical Services 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount $ 19,440.00 Billed Previously
$ 20,038.75 3. Preliminary Plans 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭TotalPhase Amount $ 231,409.23 82% complete $ 189,755.57 4. Design Report 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount $ 29,384.12 Billed Previously $ 15,740.97
Standarg Bate Schedule (2000) Professional Staff Professional Staff Technical Staff 1 @$127.25/hr 12 @$ 79.57hr 1 @$ 41.38hr $ 127.25 $ 954.84 $ 41.38 Total Labor, Task 04 »> $ 1,123.47
5. Reimbursables 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount $ 3,785.18 82% complete $ 3,103.85 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE > > > $ 259,444.08 
Engineers, Inc. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1574 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: December 7,2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road
Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 1,123.47 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______ Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh Road Suite
500 L.B.27 Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. ShlIoh Road, SUite 500, L.B. 27, Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com
Tel (972) 840-1916 Fax (972) 840-2156 
TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO , ' DATE: Claim # Vendor No. Vendor Name I'll? S. SI((Lt7/fl SvITG' S3P)LB 27 Address OA-RLrM--O) T€XA-.s. . 75'"tJ'42. Address Address Zip
Code TOTAL 311 r. ()z EXPLANAnON 􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀠Authorized Signature Finance 
8. Engineers, Inc. , ' •.• :.:: "I INVOICE . , :. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1548 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: November 9, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project
No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 10/1/01 to 10/31/01 Total Contract Amount Total Due This Invoice Total Previous Invoices Total
Billed to Date Less Payments/Credits Total Amount Now Due Amount This Invoice Please Retain This Page For Your Records $313,700.00 $ 3,119.02 $255,201.59 $258,320.61 ($244,317.21) $
14,003.40 $ 3,119.02 6', /C. --/l:.> PAt szc /1/t4-/& I 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite 530. LB 27, Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (9n) 840-1916, Fax (972) 840-2156 
-----------------------------Invoice No.: 1548 Date: November 9, 2001 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 1. Design Survey 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭�
�Total Phase Amount $ 29,681.47 100% complete $ 29,681.47 2. Geotechnical Services 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭Total Phase Amount $
19,440.00 Billed Previously $ 20,038.75 3. Preliminary Plans 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount $ 231,409.23 82% complete $ 189,756.57
4 . Design Report .􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount $ 29,384.12 Billed Previously $ 12,621.95 Standl!rg Bate SchegYi!l (2000) Professional Staff
" 2 @$127.26/hr $ 264.50 Professional Staff 36 @$ 79.57hr $ 2,864,52 Total Labor, Task 04 »> $ 3,119.02 5. Reimbursables Total Phase Amount $ 3,785.18 82% complete $ 3,103.85 TOTAL BILLED
TO DATE> > > $ 258,320.61 
& Waldlball.ler > 'Engineers, Inc. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1548 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: November 9. 2001 Addison. Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238
PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 3,119.02 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______ Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919
S. Shiloh Road Suite 530 L.B.27 --Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S_ Shiloh Road. Suite 530. LB 27. Garland. Tex.s 75042
www.gbwengineers.com Tel (9n) 840-1916. Fax (m) 840-2156 
TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO •• '< ' .<.. ' DATE: /Cl(2..?f I Claim# Check$· /t?/J??1}-,;3,f' Vendor No. Vendor Name Address 1'119' s. SHIL.e?/f SvITt:: S3t:?{ t!..13 Z
7I Address ([A-/C'{At«f) j TexAS 7501-2 Address Zip Code EXPLANATION I14-It. JZP, d:4 􀁾􀀬􀀠Authorized Signature Finance 
8< Engineers, Inc. INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1511 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: October 8, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT:
Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 9/1/01 to 9/30/01 Total Contract Amount Total Due This Invoice Total Previous Invoices Total Billed to Date Less Payments/Credits
Total Amount Now Due Amount This Invoice $313,700.00 $ 10,884.38 $244,317.21 $255,201.59 ($244.317.211 $ 10,884.38 $ 10,884.38 Please Retain This Page For Your Records 1919 S. Shiloh
Road. Suite 530.lB 27. Garland. Texas 75042 W\'IW,gbwengineers.com Tel (972) 840.1916, Fax (972) 840·2156 
Invoice No.: 1511 Date: October 8, 2001 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 1. Design Survey Total Phase Amount $ 29,681.47 100% complete $ 29,681.47 2. Geotechnical
Services Total Phase Amount $ 19,440.00 Billed Previously $ 20,038.75 3. Preliminary Plans Total Phase Amount $ 231,409.23 82% complete $ 189,755.57 4. Design Report Total Phase Amount
$ 29,384.12 Billed Previously $ 11,145.35 Standard Rate Schedule (2000) Professional Staff 9 @$127.25/hr $ 1.145.25 Professional Staff 4 @$ 79.57hr $ 318.28 Clerical Staff 0.5 @$ 26.14/hr
$ 13.07 Total Labor This Invoice »> $ 1,476.60 5. Reimbursables Total Phase Amount $ 3,785.18 82% complete $ 3,103.85 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE> > > $ 255,201.59 
Engineers, Inc. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, Texas 75001 Invoice No.: 1511 Date: October 8, 2001 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road
Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 10,884.38 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______ Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh Road Suite
530 L.B. 27 ··Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite 530. LB 27. Garland. Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.,om
Tel (972) 840-1916, F"" (9n) 840-2156 
􀁾􀁍􀁅􀁍􀁏􀀠Engineers, Inc. Date: September 13, 2001 GBW No. 00·238 To: Steve Chutchian, P.E. From: Bruce Gmntbam Re: Smmnary of September 12, Midway Road Meeting I have prepared the
following summary ofour discussion with Jim Pierce and Robin Jones yesterday on the Midway Road project: The Midway Road reconstroction project has a bUdget of approximately $4.75 million
which includes the engineering design. • Steve will check with Slade, and Bruce will contact Dave Baldwin, to detennine ifthe landscape and irrigation design and construction cost needs
to be included in the budget. • The base bid for this project will consist of the northbound lanes from Belt Line Road to Keller Springs Road, and the southbound lanes from Belt Line
Road to Lindberg Drive provided that the opinion ofprobable cost for this work is less than the budget. • The proposed constroction sequence where the adjacent northbound and southbound
lanes are being reconstrocted has previously been approved by the Town. This constroction sequence includes the removal and replacement of the entire median. Where the northbound lanes
only are to be reconstroctedand the adjacent southbound lanes are to remain, GBW proposed a constroction sequence which includes removing a portion of the median only in order to reconstroct
one lane at a time. Bid alternate No. I will consist of the southbound lanes from Keller Springs Road to Boyington Drive. Bid alternate No.2 will consist of the southbound lanes from
Boyington Drive to Lindberg Drive. • GBW will prepare an opinion of probable cost for the project which will include the base bid and the two bid alternates. • GBW will complete an analysis
of the Midway Road drainage system and include an estimate to bring the system up to current Town standards in the opinion of probable cost. The project is scheduled for constroction
in 2004; the bid process may begin in 2003. • GB W will need to recheck the plans prior to bidding the project. In addition. the scope of work items which were not included in GBW's
current engineering contract, such as constroction sequencing, will need to be completed, • GBW will furnish the Town with a finallet!er report which will document the results of the
aforementioned work Please contact me ifyou have any questions or comments. Regards, cc: Liz Metting, HNTB 
BIRKHOFF, HENDRICKS & CONWAY, L.L.P. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 7502 Greenville Ave., #220 Dallas, Texas 75231 Fax (214) 361-0204 Phone (214) 361-7900 JOHN W. BJRKHOFF, P.E.. RONALD V, CONWAY.
P,E, GARY C. HENDRICKS, P.E. JOE R, CARTER, P.E. PAUL A. CARLINE. P.E. MAIT HICKEY> P.E. ROSS L JACOBS. P,E. L C. FINKLEA, P.E. September 4, 200 I Mr. Steven Z. Chutchian, P.E. Assistant
City Engineer P. O. Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001-9010 Re: Driveway Improvements Beltline Road and Midway Road Dear Mr. Chutchian: Our original scope of services for the driveway improvements
at the intersection ofBeltJine Road and Midway Road did not include the preparation of construction plans, specifications, bidding documents or the distribution of plans during the bidding
phase. The original scope was for a study of alternatives. The alternatives envisioned was limited to one, once the Town had discussions with the property owner. We attempted to complete
our services for the construction phase within the limits ofthe study; however, we exceeded the contract amount by $2,950.00. Accordingly, we request that the contract be amended to
increase the contract amount for the increase in scope. Ifyou are in agreement, please have one copy ofthis letter agreement signed by the Town ofAddison and returned to our office.
We are available at your convenience to discuss this request further and appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, 􀁃􀁽􀁌􀁶􀁾􀀠John W. Birkhoff, P£ APPROVED FOR THE 􀁔􀁏􀁗􀁾􀀠fJJ ADjISON
􀁂􀁹􀀺􀀮􀁾􀁊􀁾?/Date: __􀀭􀀢􀁦􀀬􀀧􀀮􀀮􀁌􀀡􀁾􀁣􀁲􀀮􀀬􀀭􀀯􀀼􀁟􀀨􀁪􀀡􀀭􀀧􀀮􀁉_____ 
MEMO 􀁾􀁾Engineers, Inc. Date: September 13, 2001 GBW No. 00·238 To: Steve Chutchian, P.E. From: Bruce Grantham Re: Summary of September 12, Midway Road Meeting I have prepared the followlllg
summary of OU( discussion with Jim Pierce ttnd Robin Jones yesterday on the Midway .Road project: • The Midway Road reconstruction project h.s a budget of approximately $4.75 million
which includes the 􀁥􀁮􀁧􀁩􀁮􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠design. • Steve will check with Slade, and Bruce will contact Dave BItldwin. to determine if !he landscape and inigation design and construction
cost needs to be iru::Juded in the budget. • The base bid fO.r this project will consist of the northbOtllld lanes from Belt Line Road to Keller Sprin,gs Road, and the southbound lane,
from Belt Line Road 10 Lindberg Drive provided that tl,e opinion of probable cost for this worll: is less thall the bUdget. The proposed construction sequence where the adjacent northb(JU1jd
and southbound lanes are being reconstructed has previously been approved by the Town. This construction sequellCe inclUdes the rem)'val and replacemmt of the entire =tlian. Where !he
northbound lanes only are to be reconstructed and the adjacent $outhboUJld lanes nre to remain, GBW proposed a construction sequence which includes removing a porti.on of the median
only in order to reconstruct one lane at a time. • Bid alternate No. I will comist of the southbound lanes from Keller Sprin,gs Road to Boyjllgton Drive. Bid aIteroole No.2 will consist
of !he southbound lanes from Boyington Drive to Lindberg Drive. GBW win prepare an opinion of probable cost for the project which wiU iru::lude !he base bid and the two bid Wtemates.
GBW will complete an analysis of the Midway Road drainage system and include an estimllte to bring the system up to current Town standards in the opinion of probable COSI. • The project
is scheduled for construction in 2004; !he bid process may begin il12003. • GBW will need to recheck the plans prior to bidding the project. In addition. the scope of woxk uems which
were Dllt included mGBW's CUJ:rcnt engineering contract, such as construction seqwlI\clng. will need to be completed. • GBW will furnish the Town with n fmalletter repo.rt which will
document the results of the aforemelltioned work. Please COlltact me if YOll bave any questions or comm::nts. Regards. cc: Liz Melting. HNTB T.l.: (972) 840-19161 FAX: (972) 840·21561
15·matl: Wo@gbwt11J;ineas.QQ/Il 
Facsimile Transmittal Date: C\ ,iJ0/0 I Fax To: iVk SkAte. Q,hukhi tU\ Of: Iol!.)D 0rr AM iSDb Fax# Cj]g, -lj.$D-Ol1S.9C! Rei: ___________ # of Pages (including this sheet): 􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁤􀁾􀁟􀀠C
ommcnts: From: GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh Rd. Suite 530. L.B. 27 Garland, Texas 75042 Tcl. (972) 840-1916 Fax (972) 840·2156 Fax From: Thit message is inttnded only foc Ihe U!t
oflhc: indi<widval or entiry tb which it i.li sddrdstd,.and mOi)' 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁑􀁩􀁾􀀠infcrmlltion tha! lSI privile,ed, «mfidenlial lAd Cllitmpt (rom di,cto:,uue undw 4Pplicabfe 􀁾􀁷􀀬􀀠trthe
Tesder ofth" mc:s!age jl nOI the intended re;ipfent. or the empJo)'U Of agent mponslbk for dcJiwring the 􀁭􀁥􀁳􀁳􀁡􀁾to mt lnlende:d teCipienl. you are hereby notified tbilt an)' dissemination..
disUibuUM or copying ofthis communiellion is strictly prohibited. {tyou hive 􀁮􀀺􀁴􀀺􀁥􀁬􀁾􀁤􀀠thi, comml.1t1ieath;,m in tttQt, plcue notify us lfl\mcdialely tty IOlcpbonc. and teCurp
the: original fftl'lSPSC to US At die obove at1dr1:ss \Ira the U,S. Pos.ru Service. Tflank you. 
􀁲􀁾􀁮􀁭􀁩􀁮􀁡􀀠BELTLINE ROAD TO KELLER SPRINGS ADDISON, TEXAS OBWJob 1\'0: OTHER ITEMS: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST' SUB-TOTAL $0.00 10 % CONTINGENCY $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 quantities
xls. COMPLETE QUANTITIES 9/51()1 
" ." : " , , .claiiri;(._.''--=-_.,..--...:-_ " ': > .' -' '.' 􀁖􀁥􀁮􀁾􀁯􀁲􀁎􀁯􀀻􀀠_.'_,."--_____.. .."-:--,.....:,..;",.:"_'􀁾􀁾􀁟􀀮"'-'::_'..;.'.,;..-'--'-.'--:--t .... . " .-. '.
.. . 􀁖􀁥􀁮􀁤􀁾􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁭􀁥􀀠,_--!'G':2.-!::e:...;tv:'::"-·_':,..:6:='􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀧􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀮􀁲􀁦􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀧􀁴􀁶􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀺􀁅􀀺􀀮􀁅􀁝􀀲􀁾􀀧􀀻􀀺􀀾􀀺􀀻􀀢􀀮􀁌􀀮􀀬􀁊􀀭􀀽􀀮􀁌􀀺􀀮􀀧􀀡􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀮􀀺􀁣􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀧..:,.''_"
_. _. ,_'_:-_"_.._:'-::-.􀀧􀁟􀁾􀀧􀀠" Address' , !tfIrS, SI{IL..t?/f (2j), I 5'{,;(Tf S.3t:1,' e.i.2 7 ,Address QA,eLAtvP , ffXA5 7YtJ42 Addrf!$$ , ZipCode " , '. , : .,', ..",'-"-'-";..:.,-.--,.,.---
--'-' • • 0" " . .... . 􀁾􀀧􀀬􀀠􀁾􀀠... oP;5T,g¥.f: " , ; , EXPLANATION :". . , , . ','PI? :'jjB1!f:V,tJFl'1if)ti--At j;:'p': 􀀻􀁥􀁥􀁩􀀾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀮􀁊􀀬􀀮􀀴􀀺􀀺􀁩􀁺􀂢􀀩􀀧􀁙􀁊􀀠. ,i • .."
I, • PIfA,Y'c .r ' :' . i' "I" " : ,i .' Authorized Signature Finance , ; 
& WaldJlbauer Engineers, Inc. INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1480 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: September 6, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.:
00·238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 8/1/01 to 8/31/01 . Total Contract Amount . Total Due This Invoice Total Previous Invoices Total Billed
to Date Less Payments/Credits Total Amount Now Due Amount This Invoice. $313,700.00 $ 7,055.82 $237,261.39 $244,317.21 ($237,261.39) $ 7,055.82 $ 7,055.82 Please Retain This Page For
Your Records 1919 S. Shiloh Road. Suit. 530. LB 27. Garland. Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (972) 840·1916. Fax (972) 841).2156 
Invoice No.: 1480 Date: September 6, 2001 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 1. Design Survey Total Phase Amount 100% complete 2. Geotechnical Services $ 29,681.47
$ 29,681.47 Total Phase Amount Billed Previously $ 19,440.00 $ 20,038.75 3. Preliminary Plans Total Phase Amount 78% complete 4. Design Report $ 231,409.23 $ 180,499.20 Total Phase Amount
Billed Previously 5. Reimbursables $ 29,384.12 $ 11,145.35 Total Phase Amount 78% complete $ 3,785.18 $ 2,952.44 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE > > > $ 244,317.21 
Engineers, Inc. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1480 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: September 6, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway
Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 7,055.82 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______. Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh Road
Suite 530 L.B.27 Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. Shiloh Road. Suite 530, LB 27, Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com
Tel (972) 840-1916. Fax (972) 840-2156 
' ..... :.-.,"< " . TOWN OF ADDISON,· , .' .:,-.;, 􀂷􀁾􀁾􀁖􀁍􀁅􀀺AUntO",""nON 􀁍􀁅􀁍􀁏􀀧􀁘􀀮􀁩􀁜􀀮􀁾􀁩􀁩􀁾􀀡􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀠" ":"" .···t/JS/O{ 􀀧􀁃􀁦􀀢􀁾􀂷􀀧􀁩􀀠......•.. '. 􀁃􀁨􀀢􀀮􀀬􀁴􀀧􀀻􀀻􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀻􀁦􀀠'"
􀁖􀁥􀁮􀁾􀁯􀁲No:'.· . .. , " Vendor Name . ',': .' . .".' .' . " :': , .. ' ...',':,:{::y(;; : . '. .. 􀁾􀀠Address Ifl? 'Address Address . Zip Code . _________􀁾___ -:. '. , . :... "£.
;, 􀁾􀀠EXPLANATION fit. i. 􀀿􀁁􀀧􀁊􀀮􀀮􀁲􀁴􀁲􀁾􀁔􀀠'(l>C84-' E/f/,(('.(a:.Ee:;ir " '. )::(7)::.... fMc·..r " ... , .. "'------I , , ;'3Sj 􀂷􀁾􀀷􀁦􀀺􀀮􀀯􀁦􀀻􀁲􀀠'. . ; '. '\.' " ". .
i " 􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀠.. Authorized Signature Finance ! ", ." 
Grantham. 8< WaDdlbauer Engineers, Inc. INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1461 􀀮􀁾􀀮Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: August 6, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW
Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 7/1/01 to 7/31/01 􀀧􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀮􀁪􀁾􀁴􀁡􀁩􀀧􀁃􀁯􀁮􀁴􀁾􀁡􀁣􀁴􀀠Amount $313,700.00 Total Due
This Invoice $ 35,279.17 Total Previous Invoices $201,982.22 Total Billed to Date $237,261.39 Less Payments/Credits ($201,982.22) . Total Amount Now Due $ 35,279.17 Amount This Invoice
$ 35,279.17 . ' . .' 􀀮􀀧􀁾􀀠: 􀀮􀁾􀀠.";: . '. ;'":,, ----......---......"::-------,-::"....􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠. ". Please 􀁒􀁥􀁴􀁾􀁩􀁮􀀠􀁔􀁨􀁩􀁾􀀧􀀠" Page For Your Records 1919 S. Shiloh
Road, Suite 530, ll! 27, Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com () ,t:-.fv I'/hf, 5ZC 􀁧􀁬􀁴􀁾􀀮􀁴􀀯􀀠Tel (972) 840·1916, Fax (972) 840-2156 
Invoice No.: 1461 Date: August 6, 2001 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction .-Phase One Design 1. Design Survey -----------------------------Total Phase Amount $ 29,681.47 " 100% complete
2. Geotechnical Services ---------------------------------------$ 29,681.47 Total Phase Amount $ 19,440.00 Billed Previously $ 20,038.75 3. Preliminary Plans --------------------------------Total
Phase Amount $ 231,409.23 75% complete 4. Design Report 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭$ 173,556.93 Total Phase Amount $ 29,384.12 Billed Previously 5. Reimbursables
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭$ 11,145.35 Total Phase Amount $ 3,785.18 75% complete $ 2,838.89 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE > > > $ 237,261.39 
Engineers, Inc. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1461 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: August 6, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road
Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 35,279.17 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______ Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh Road Suite
530 L.B.27 Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite 530, LB 27, Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel
(972) 840·1916, Fax (972) 840·2156 
TOWN OF ADDISON . pAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO ",T ,.' .... /'1.," 􀀬􀀧􀀢􀁾􀀺􀀠.• ' DATE: __7-.;1.,-'_"_/f?...;.I_'_ 'ClaJm# Check$ 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀁟􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀧􀁾􀀺􀀺':r ..'.' Ven!lor No;'
'.' . .' " . Vendor Name ,__C:::s......·􀁂􀁾􀁗􀀡􀀺􀀻􀀮􀀧_:'_'...l6::::.:.::/V:....::Iott...!./:.;./V..;:eI:..:t:::::.::J?::.;'.S:::;....IIc.;...i...=.fi-C..-::::...·•__"'_-::-•. _ Address'
. Iff? S. .9frc..C'f( /Zp. 1 St--ITc 530.;1...827, 'Address . t7A}2cAlV'lJ.) TCXA.5 7StJt{-2 Address Zip Code , ,-􀀬􀁾􀀭".. , " ,.EXPLANATION • Pf%t!7If/S i,e 􀁾77t!7/V. 1 .. :.. .􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀠.
:-:" '> -----I' " '.,: ......L ....:...:.;;:...,._--,.___--..c.. . ",.' " 􀀻􀀧􀀯􀀷􀀯􀀻􀀥􀀯􀁾􀀠f)'" . ; E:v.t;lrv ez:7;?.s . Jij.P,' ." . . . , 􀁾􀀠. 􀁁􀁾􀀠'. -i=---------"" .Authorized
Signature Finance ! 
& Engineers, Inc. INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1424 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: July 5, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway
Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 6/1/01 to 6/30/01 Total Contract Amount $313.700.00 Total Due This Invoice $ 17,561.97 Total Previous Invoices $184,420.25
Total Billed to Date $201,982.22 Less Payments/Credits ($184,420.25) Total Amount Now Due $ 17,561.97 Amount This Invoice $ 17,561.97 􀁯􀁤􀁾􀀧􀀠10 1"'1 s-z-L. 1 (I qI" I Please Retain
This Page For Your Records 1919 S. Shiloh Road. Suite S30. LB 27. Garland. Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (9n) 840-1916. Fax (9n) 840·2156 
Invoice No.: 1424 Date: July 5, 2001 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 1. Design Survey Total Phase Amount $ 29,681.47 100% complete $ 29,681.47 2. Geotechnical
Services Total Phase Amount $ 19,440.00 Billed Previously $ 20,038.75 3. Preliminary Plans. Total Phase Amount $ 231,409.23 60% complete $ 138,845.54 4. Design Report Total Phase Amount
$ 29,384.12 Billed Previously $ 5,343.10 GBW Standard Rate Schedule: Professional Engineer 5 @$127.25/hr $ 636.25 HNTB Invoice No. 1-32921-PL-001 (attached) $ 5,166.00 Total Labor Charges,
Task 4 > > $11,145.35 
Invoice No.: 1424 Date: July 5, 2001 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 5. Reimbursables Total Phase Amount 60% complete $ 3,785.18 $ 2,271.11 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE>
> > $ 201,982.22 
·. & Waldbauel" Engineers, Inc. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1424 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: July 5, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT:
Midway Road Reconstruction -Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 17,561.97 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______ Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh
Road Suite 530 L.B.27 Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. ShilohRoad. Suite 530.lB 27. Garland. Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com
T'li (972) 840-1916. Fax (9?2) 840·2156 
f.ill-llJalhlsI : I 􀁾i i =JARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS 􀁐􀁵􀁾􀁓􀁵􀁕􀁉􀁬􀀶􀁊􀁑􀀠􀁄􀁡􀁬􀁦􀁦􀁕􀀮􀁔􀁾􀀠7'S110-1jHl (97Z) G6t·1(JJ6 􀁆􀁁􀀮􀁾􀀠W::J} tMlMS<lH June 22, 2001 GBW Engineers,
Inc, Bruce Grantham, P,E, 1919 S, Shiloh Road Suite 530, LB, 27 Garland, Texas 75042 Re: Midway Road Replacement -Belt Line to Keller Springs Roadway Dear Mr. Grantham, We are enclosing
the original and one copy of our Invoice No, 1-32921-PL-001 in the amount of $5,166,00. This is for professional engineering services rendered on the above referenced project We trust
you will find this invoice in proper order and place in line for further processing. Very truly yours, HNTB CORPORATION Benjamin J, Biller Vice President, Centrel Division BJB:lgb Enclosures
cc: Finance Department 1'111.1 U,vTfJ CfJmlJ"'"II!'S L)ffK:a Al(.'t.I;\[JII:I.\" 􀁜􀁾••\11..\;-..,\. "'\' ,-\t !In:'>, 11:. llhl');\ xOl:GE. 􀁌􀁾􀀮􀀠uu:,rD:o.., 􀁾􀁈􀀬􀀠17.i1,.\!l.L£:j.'ro:-..
II,"\', LtW':'\(;I). II.. 􀁴􀀺􀀡􀀮􀁦􀀺􀁖􀂣􀁕􀁾􀁏􀀮􀀠Oil, DAU.,I.S, 1);;, Uf.;';\I:II. co, IWrllurr. ,II! !',\IRFIUU, :>'1; 􀁾􀀧􀁲􀀠\\")IITH...... 11.\I<n-i)!!I). L", 􀀱􀁉􀀰􀁴􀀮􀁾􀀧􀁏􀀢􀀧􀀬􀀠'f):,
􀁉􀀻􀀺􀀧􀀻􀁄􀀡􀁁􀀢􀀮􀁾􀀨􀀩􀁾􀁬􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀠IX. \:II\I:-f. .,;." 􀁾􀀮􀁜􀀮􀀢􀀾􀁁􀁩􀀠en"l:. MO. 􀁌􀁜􀀬􀀬􀀧􀁾􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁴􀀻􀀬􀀠􀁾􀁉􀀬􀀠L\!ii vJ;t,AS, X\', [.• )$ ",,"';"U'-S, C\, LlW\SVIL:'l'.. h:\'
. .>t1.\,\I1. 1'1.. \11:,\1"1'1\1:/,. WI. ,\.U:.;-.l:,Wl)t:s.. ,\1". 􀁓􀀮􀁾􀁓􀁬􀁬􀁮􀁴􀁬􀁾􀀮􀀠TS; S€\l' YoJit!\;, Sl\ 􀀧􀀩􀀧􀁜􀁬􀀾􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁜􀁓􀁏􀀮􀀠\:.\, nXI..\IIU).{,\ CITY, OK, f)RI..\SOO,
r'L, OVEI!L\;>')) !"'It!'_ 􀁫􀁾􀀮􀀠l'IIOES1'\ AL 1't'OI.)l 'Iii 􀀬􀀧􀁉􀁬􀀺􀀡􀁦􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀮􀁴􀀺􀀠!',\. j'<,,'{fU,",U, ,\11: i(,.Ul!:!l.lI. .'i\:. un';KI..'."'U con..-n'. \.\', 􀁾􀀬􀀧􀁾􀀠.,..
􀁾􀀬􀀬􀀺􀀬􀀬􀀻􀁯􀀢􀀠TX-􀁾􀀢􀀭􀁜􀁭􀀡􀀨􀀬􀀠"", 1'.\.'1(1',\, ft.. (':'l$A.I;JI\., WlUIIT;\. KS 
BILLING STATEMENT FORM 132 REV 9-90 BlltlNG INSTRUCTIONS: To !kll!t:ltll hand"19 and promPlP3pnen! sI1(M1!he information m!tle $paeet provided below $ut)mrt five ecpiBi'L Submit a separate
itatemanl for eae:t 􀁾􀀠Charges for treight or e:x;reu, If any. must be 5l.JJ',lPOf(ed by (he 􀁰􀁴􀁥􀁾fnli9ht 􀁯􀁲􀁾􀀮􀁵WI, Thts Stl:!1!fN:lfI( CSI'lOOt be 􀁾fer 􀁰􀁡􀁹􀁭􀁴􀁾without
a 􀁾vtW'I(!()r to nutn\)6( Name of Payee: HNTB CORPORATION DATE: Jun 22. 2001 Address' 85 N E Loop 410 -Suite 304 City & State' San Antonio TX 782165866.. DELNERY DATE: Jun. 22. 2001
VENDOR ID NUMBER: 14316230920006 LINK 􀁾􀀠DATE NUMBER UNIT UNIT PRICE _nQ1 F'I lou I IPeriod Covered: For Period 2124/01 throuoh 5125101 ITotal Earned to Date 01 051 $ 5.166 . Less $
Is 5,166Due this invoice tI Work. , No.1 . . IThis , by Article 664-4 VSC CASH 􀁮􀀧􀁾􀁎􀀩􀀢􀁎􀁔. % nAVS '0 TOTAL $ 5.166 lACorMISC SOHPT PURCHASE 22.a45P5004 REO. NO: HW ORDER NO: DATE:"'V'""""'.
NO: I SEG. I1.11"1 " , OM NU! MMIS Tra"ked1.0. I -I Functions OnlyDETAIL AMOUNT 􀁅􀁾􀀧􀀻􀁾􀁾􀀢􀀬􀀻􀀧􀁏􀀠1:126 􀁉􀁾􀀠09 un. 􀀮􀁾i!AMOUNT MOD.lOIS'! .DETAIL ACTY·I LINK SEQ OR 10 EQUIP
NO I ON I II! 06.1. SFI OF ACTY'NU. I AMT.OF WORK REF.􀁾􀁾􀁕􀀠OETA1L FUNC. EXP. 􀁾AMOUNT MARKER WORK TASKI7" PERF.IS CLORDER NUMBERCO SYS. 􀁾􀀠...nn " ....",. " , ,." """... "" '" '''rf
􀁾􀀠Agency Verification/Audit has been performed, the SeMces rendered andlor good, received, and the involce(s) eorrectty corresponds with the authority undet which procuremenl was made.
The invoice{$} is {are} true and unpaid. By 
I : I􀁾i j =JARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS June 22, 2001 GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh Road Suite 530, LB 27 Garland, Texas 75042 In Account With HNTB CORPORATION Dallas, Texas
Invoice No. 1-32921-PL-ool Project: Midway Road Replacement Work Authorization No.1 W.A. No.1 Contract Maximum: $10,530.00 Invoice Summary: From: 02124101 To: 05125101 Total Contract
Amount Total Due This Invoice Total Previous Invoices 49.1 % Complete $10,530.00 $5.166.00 $0.00 Total Billed to Date Less Pre vious Invoices $5.166.00 $0.00 Total Amount Now Due $5,166:00
Tv!! f/,"TI1 (.',mp.4tll'·!J, 
. TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO DATE: 􀁾􀀨􀁦􀀲􀀭􀀡􀁯􀀨􀀠Claim # Check $ (6) tfif£iS7 " Vendor No;' ..' ..' . . . Vendor Name eIVi/(>vE'I?Ji?.5:,( ..1:«c .. Address' . ·Address
(fff > Address Zip Code . '. ' .. 􀁌􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀻􀁾__􀁾___...;.. "t • 􀁾􀀠EXPLANATION 7-M.,. fAr-"'l EII--T TO 6:/3 tvE(Vt(􀁦􀁾􀂣􀀺􀀭􀀭􀁗􀁳􀀢􀀠IA<.. F(Jr<:, e tV Ii , 􀀱􀁖􀀮􀁾ftV''i 􀁾􀀠c
J?HC 8 " ..' .." 􀀮􀁾􀀠g E:6A-reP ..}. " 7ZJ. 7lfE' 􀁾1)(5(((0/dlF:: (P/v-/lt J2 􀁐􀀮􀁬􀀿􀁥􀁲􀀮􀀧􀀻􀀧􀀻􀁾􀂷􀁴􀁒􀁵􀀭􀀩􀀬􀁡􀁾􀁴􀀠P&r/ri-....l:: . ., . 􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀠. ., . : 􀁾􀁾􀀬Authorized
Signature finance 
Grantham, & Engineers, Inc. INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1387 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: June 5, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238
PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 5/1/01 to 5/31/01 Total Contract Amount Total Due This Invoice Total Previous Invoices Total Billed to Date
Less Payments/Credits Total Amount Now Due Amount This Invoice $313,700.00 $ 16,466.57 $167,953.68 $184,420.25 ($167,953.68) $ 16,466.57 $ 16,466.57 tJ, ;:. "., PAy· .5 z-c 􀁾􀀠//l/"
I Please Retain This Page For Your Records 1919 S. Shiloh Road. Suite 530.lB 27. Garland. Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (972) 840-1916, Fax (972) 840-2156 
Invoice No.: 1387 Date: June 5, 2001 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 1. Design Survey _.__• ___􀁾􀁾___ 􀁾􀁟􀁷__ 􀁾􀁾__________ Total Phase Amount $ 29,681.47 100%
complete $ 29,681.47 2. Geotechnical Services 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount $ 19,440.00 Billed Previously $ 20,038.75
3. Prelhilinary Plans 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾..􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount $ 231,409.23 55% complete $ 127,275.08 4. Design Report 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭
􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount $ 29,384.12 Billed Previously $ 636.25 Standard Rate Schedule: Professional En9ineer 30 @$127.25/hr $3,817.50 Design Technician 14 @$ 60.32/hr $ 844.48
Clerical Staff 1 @$ 44.87/hr $ 44.87 Total Labor Charges> > $4,706.85 
Invoice No.: 1387 Date: June 5, 2001 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 5. Reimbursables Total Phase Amount 55% complete $ 3,785.18 $ 2,081.85 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE
> > > $ 184,420.25 
Engineers, Inc. & Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.:. 1387 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: June 5, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road
Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 16,466.57 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______ Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh Road Suite
530 L.B.27 Garland, Texas 70042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. Shiloh Road. Suite 530. LB 27. Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengjneers.com Tel
(972) 840-1916. Fax (972) 840-2156
& WSlldibauer Engineers, Inc. May 21, 2001 Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Town of Addison Post Office Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001 Re: Draft Letter Report for Midway Road Pavement Section
GBWNo.238 Dear Steve: This letter report summarizes data from an in-depth field inspection of the Midway Road pavement condition performed by GBW staff and the enclosed draft geotechnical
report prepared by Alpha Testing, Inc. In addition, this report includes a review of the pavement section alternatives included in the Alpha Testing report and an opinion of probable
cost for two of the pavement sections that utilize alternative base materials. Description of Problem Alpha Testing, Inc. strategically selected boring locations in order to determine
how subsurface conditions were affecting the level of pavement distress. Following an analysis of the field inspection and soil boring data, we ha ve the following observations: • The
pavement distress along the northbound lanes is more pronounced than the southbound lanes. • The worst section of the southbound lanes is in the vicinity of the railroad crossing near
the Belt Line Road end of the project where a sag is located. • The cross-slope on the northbound lanes, which is mostlH 'S 114-inch per foot range, is ' J J significantly less than
the southbound lanes, where it is mostly fn the 1/4 to I12-inch per foot range. • The difference between the northbound and southbound lane cross-slopes appears to have resulted from
an attempt to match the existing ground at the east and west right-of-way lines when the current Midway Road pavement was designed in 1982. • The flatter cross-slope on the northbound
lanes increases the likelihood that surface water will pond or runoff slowly, resulting in a higher infiltration rate into the subgrade through pavement joints and cracks. • In addition
to rainfall, sprinkler systems in the medians and adjacent parkways are other sources of water which can infiltrate the subgrade. • Flat longitudinal slopes along some sections of Midway
Road also slow that rate of storm water runoff; for example, in the vicinity of the railroad crossing. • Poor surface drainage appears to be the primary reason why pavement distress
has been more rapid along most of the northbound lanes when compared with the southbound lanes. • The poor condition of many pavement joints, some of which may have been widened when
the pavement was milled and resealed in 1994, provide conduits for surface water to reach the subgrade. • The plasticity index of the underlying clay soil is generally in the 18 to 55
range, which indicates a high potential to shrink and swell. • The soil borings do not provide evidence of a ground water problem. • Only eight of the 22 soil borings showed evidence
of lime in the subgrade, which suggests that the lime stabilized subgrade was not uniformly constructed. • A combination of moisture penetration over time and nonuniform lime stabilization
during construction has probably reduced the bearing capacity of the subgrade. 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite 530, LB 27, Garland, Tex.s 75042 www.gbwengineers.com T01 (9n) 840-1916, Fax
(972) 840-2156 
Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. May 21, 2001 Page 2 • The load transfer capability of the transverse contraction joints has been insufficient to support the heavy traffic volume, resulting
in a difference in pavement elevation at the front and back ends of adjacent slabs. • This difference, which results in a bump at the pavement joints on the northbound lanes in particular,
has also resulted in a transverse crack at the midpoint of some slabs. • Exhibit A contains a summary of data from the field inspection and the geotechnical report. Comparable Pavement
Alternatives We received a copy of your letter to Jerry Holder dated March 23, 2001 in which you authorize the design team to proceed with pavement section Alternative 3 which included
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) on a Cement Treated Permeable Base (CTPB) with edge drains. Pursuant to our previous discussions, it is understood that the Town intends to use the same
type of pavement section for both the Midway and Arapaho Road projects, given that the depths of of the concrete and base layers may differ. In a similar manner to the Terra-Mar, Inc.
report for Arapaho Road, the Alpha Testing report for Midway Road analyzes several alternative pavement sections. These alternatives, which assume a 30-year project life, are sununarized
in the following section. • If the load transfer between joints is through aggregate interlock and the subgrade is compacted; either 11.5 inches PCC 6 inches Crushed Limestone Base 6
inches Compacted subgrade OR 10.5 inches PCC 6 inches CTPB 6 inches Compacted subgrade • If the load transfer between joints is through aggregate interlock and the subgrade is lime stabilized;
either 11 inches PCC 6 inches Crushed Limestone Base 6 inches Lime stabilized subgrade OR 10 inches PCC 6 inches CTPB 6 inches Lime stabilized subgrade 
Mr. Sieve Chutchian, P.E. May 21, 2001 Page 3 • Ifthe load transfer between joints is through dowels and the subgrade is compacted: either 10 inches PCC 6 inches Crushed Limestone Base
6 inches Compacted subgrade OR 9 inches PCC 6 inches erPB 6 inches Compacted subgrade • If the load transfer between joints is through dowels and lhe subgrade is lime stabilized: either
9.5 inches PCC 6 inches Crushed Limestone Base 6 inches Lime stabilized subgrade OR 9 inches PCC 6 inches CTPB 6 inches Lime stabilized subgrade Review of Alternatives Upon a review
of!he pavement sections listed above, it is evident that each of the following alternatives reduce lhe required PCC thickness by liz to I inch: • The use of CTPB in lieu ofCrushed Limestone
Base. Given lhe Town's selection of erPB for !he Arapaho Road project, it is anticipated that erPB will also be the base material of choice for lhe Midway Road project • The use oflime
stabilized subgrade in lieu ofcompacted subgrade. In Section 5.4 of the Terra-Mar report, it states that 'IT construction proceeds during wet wea!her, a lime stabilized subgrade in lieu
of a compacted subgrade may be desirable in order to provide a more stable and less moisture sensitive working platform.' A representative with Jackson Bro!hers, the contractor on the
Post and Paddock paving project for !he City of Grand Prairie, strongly recommended that a lime stabilized subgrade be used wi!h CTPB due to constructability problems which they experienced
on Post and Paddock with a compacted subgrade. Ifthe Town of Addison is willing to consider lime stabilization on Midway Road, it could be bid as an alternate to a compacted subgrade.

Mr. Steve Chutchian. P.E. May 21, 2001 Page 4 • The use ofdowels in lieu ofaggregate interlock for load transfer between joints. In Section 5.5 of the Terra-Mar report, it states that
'Steel dowels should be used for load transfer at all joints transverse to traffic.' This recommendation applies to transverse contraction joints which they indicate should typically
be placed at 15 feet on-center. The Terra-Mar report does not provide an alternative pavement section for load transfer through aggregate interlock between joints. Locally, aggregate
interlock is most commonly used on municipal roadways; nevertheless, both load transfer options could be bid as alternates on Midway Road. Cost Comparison of Alternatives If lime stabilization
is bid as an alternate to a compacted subgrade. and dowels are bid in lieu of aggregate interlock for load transfer between joints, the contractors that bid the Midway Road project will
determine the cost effectiveness of these alternatives. If one or more or these alternatives is not acceptable to the Town, we would be pleased to do the research necessary to prepare
an opinion of probable cost for each alternative. Although it is anticipated that the pavement section on Midway Road will incorporate CTPB. Exhibit B provides an opinion of probable
cost for informational purposes to compare it with a pavement section that incorporates Crushed Limestone Base. This comparison, which indicates a $866,805 increase in cost to use CTPB,
is contained in that attached spreadsheet. CTPB Design Memo Given the limited use of CTPB as a base material for urban pavements in the metroplex, we have prepared a design memo based
on our research of this material. The attached design memo on CTPB has been prepared following conversations with a supplier, a contractor, other local and state agency representatives,
and other engineers. This memo is to provides an evaluation of CTPB along with technical data for consideration prior to developing consistent pavement section design standards and specifications
for the Midway and Arapaho Road projects. Fly Ash The Town of Addison's staff has expressed an interest in using fly ash in the mix design of the PCC pavement for the Midway and Arapaho
Road projects. Mr. Michael Caldarone, P.E. with TXI indicated that fly ash is used in concrete paving by number of local cities including Dallas, Fort Worth Arlington, Plano and Gmnd
Prairie, and by TxDOT on the majority of their concrete paving projects. I also contacted the City of Garland's construction manager and confirmed that they permit fly ash in concrete
paving mix designs, although the amount is limited to the lesser of 15% of the cement weight or 100 Ibs. Mr. Caldarone furnished our office with sample concrete mix designs. with and
without fly ash, which achieve 3,000 psi in 3 days and 7 days respectively. These mix designs are attached for you information. If the Town wishes to utilize fly ash on the subject projects,
we can include appropriate limits for its use in the technical specifications. 
Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. May 21, 2001 Page 5 After reviewing the enclosed geotechnical report for Midway Road and this letter, please contact me if you any comments. I will then request
that Alpha Testing finalize their report. ruce R. Grantham, P.E. President Attachments cc: Jerry Holder, HNTB Dave Lewis, Alpha Testing BG/gg ]:\WPDOCS\PROJEcrs\ADDISON\OO-238\ChulChian.ltr

EXHIBIT A MIDWAY ROAD -SOIL BORINGIFIELD OBSERVATION SUMMARY Boring No. B-1 Pvm't Station 6+30 Traffic Direction North Panel Point Front PI 49 Lime Stab. No Rock Depth · Pvm't Thickness
8" Pvm'tCross Slope -1.32% Joint Width Moderate Pavement I Distress! Hiah B-2 6+27 North Back 31 No -7'1/-1.32% Moderate High ! a·3 6+49 North Front 21 Yes -8' -1.35% Moderate High B·4
6+45 North Back -No -7 3//-1.34% Moderate High B-5 6+56 South Front 21 Yes · 8" -S.86% Moderate Hiah B-6 6+60 South Back -No -8" -3.78% Moderate High B-7 10+03 North Back -No 8' 8 '1/-1.72%
Moderate Medium B-8 10+06 North Front 17 Ves 8' 8 '/. -1.79% Moderate Medium B-9 10+33 South Front 23 Yes · 8" -2.93% Moderate Medium B·l0 10+36 South Back 17 Yes -8" -2.95% Moderate
Medium B-l1 24+33 North Center -No -8" -1.35% Moderate Medium B·12 24+45 North Center 37 Yes -8" -1.28% Moderate Medium B-13 26+01 South Center 41 Ves 8' 8" -3.71% Small Low B-14 27+54
South Center -Yes 5' 8" -3.75% Small Low B-15 27+32 North Front 55 No -8 "4' -0.92% Moderate Medium B·16 27+28 North Back 29 No -8 1/4", -0.99% Moderate Medium B-17 47+47 North Center
55 No 5' 6 1/2 11 -1.43"10 Large High B-18 47+47 North Center 46 No 5' 6 1 /2 u -1.43% Large High B-19 48+14 South Center 45 No 6' 6 1hll -2.43% Moderate Medium 8·20 50+74 South Center
38 No 2' 7 '/4 " -2.02% Moderate Medium B-21 50+88 North Center -No 2' 6 1 //-1.24% Moderate Medium B·22 50+68 North Center 18 No 2' 6 '/4" -1.24% Moderate Medium 
EXHIBIT B OPINION OF PROBABLE COST MIDWAY ROAD -ALTERNAnVE PAVEMENT SECTIONS Bid Item Description . Thickness Unit Unit Price Estimated Quantity Total Item (inches) ($) ($) Alternate
1 Portland Cement Concrete 11.5 S.Y. 55 53,500 2,942,500 Crushed Limestone Base 6 SY 15 57,000 855,000 Compacted Suborade 6 S.Y. 1.5 57,000 85,500 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $3,883,000 Alternate
2 Portland Cement Concrete 10 S.Y. 50 53,500 2,675,000 Cement Treated Permeable Base 6 SY 15 57,000 855,000 Lime Stabilized Subgrade 6 S.Y. 2 57,000 114,000 Lime (@33IbslS.Y.) -TON 110
941 103,455 Geotextile Fabric -S.Y. 13 62,000 806,000 Concrete Toe Wall (6" x 18") -l.F. 10 3,060 30,600 Edge Drains (6" PVC) -L.F. 15 11,050 165,750 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $4,749.805
ADDITIONAL COST FOR ALTERNATE 2 $866,805 Notes: 1. Edge Drains are proposed behind both outside curbs. 2. Concrete toe walls are proposed along the inside curb lines 01 wider landscaped
medians only. 3. Lime Stabilization is included with CTPB for constructability purposes. 
EngIneers. Inc. DESIGN MEMO Date: April 2, 2001 Job No. 00·238 From: GBW Job Name: Midway Road/Arapaho Road To: Steve Chutehian, P.E.; Jerry Holder, P.E. Re: General Notes on Cement
Treated Permeable Base EVALUATION • crPB has the potential to increase the life of a roadway by providing a conduit for subsurface water to flow out from under the pavement, thereby,
reducing the rate at which subgrade support is likely to deteriorate. • CTPB slightly reduces the required concrete pavement thickness when compared with an equally thick crushed limestone
base. • crPB has been used extensively in other states including California, Louisiana and Wisconsin. • crPB is more commonly used where the subsurface water flows to open road side
drainage ditch; however, it is also used in conjunction with edge drains on curb and gutter roadways. • CTPB has been used on a very limited basis locally; consequently, contractors
are not as familiar with the construction requirements as they are with more commonly use non·drainable base Il'.aterials such as crushed limestone. • Grand Prairie rebid the Post and
Paddock roadway reconstruction project, which utilized CTPB, because they received usually high bids at the first bid opening. • A mandatory prebid meeting was scheduled prior to the
second bid opening, which resulted in lower bids, in order to provide contractors with more detailed information about the use of crPB. • A representative of Jackson Brothers, the contractor
on Post and Paddock, informed our staff that they would be prepared to bid another CTPB project; however, they would include money to lime stabilize the sub grade even if it was not
required. • The compacted subgrade which was specified on the Post and Paddock project created constructability problems for the contractor, especially when it rained. • Typically, where
non-drainable bases are used, the goal is restrict tbe flow of water under the pavement. A drainage base permits the free flow of water under the pavement. • As crPB promotes the flow
of water under the pavement, it increases the potential for future pavement problems if the drainage system does not function as designed. For example: Over-rolling the crPB can cause
degradation of the material with a resulting loss of permeability. 
Design Memo, Page 2 An uneven or inadequately sloped subgrade can cause water to pond in the CfB. Any break in the filter fabric layer, either during construction or during later pavement
repairs, can provide a conduit for water to migrate into the subgrade. The CfB must be keep free of dirt during construction and during later pavement repairs. In addition, pavement
repairs must be closely monitored to insure that the crPB is correctly installed so that the free flow of water is not interrupted. The edge drains must be kept clear of dirt and debris
during construction and, if they are located under the pavement, construction equipment must be monitored to insure that the pipes are not crushed. The edge drains must be consistently
checked and cleaned out if necessary, during the pavement design life. • As stonn sewers, culverts or creeks are the most likely outfall points for edge drains, the depth of flow in
these outfalls must be checked to determine if stonn water will back up through the edge drains into the CTPB, and in what stonn event this will occur. • The back up of stonn water from
an outfall into the CTPB introduces a significantly higher volume of water under the pavement than would result from infiltration through the pavement joints. • The CfPB pavement section,
which includes edge drains, filter fabric, and root barriers along wider median curbs, is significantly more expensive than an equivalent pavement section which utilizes a nondrainable
base. • There are no local examples of CfPB pavement section that have been in place on a curb and gutter roadway over the design life to quantify any improvement in durability over
a non-drainab1e base. BASE COURSE NOTES General • If construction traffic will be allowed on the permeable base, cement stabilization is generally needed to avoid the substantial cost
of constructing a temporary adjacent haul road for side delivery of concrete to the paver. Aggregate • Quality of crushed aggregates is the single most important factor for the stability
of a permeable base. Aggregate should be stored, handled, and placed in a manner to keep segregation to a minimum. • The most popular aggregate gradations are AASHTO No. 57 and No. 67,
which are characterized by having very little material finer tbat No.8 sieve. • The aggregate material should bave at least two mechanically fractured faces to ensure good mechanical
interlock. This will require a crushed material. Permeability • Cement-treated bases have coefficients of penneability in the range of 3,000 to 15,000 ft per day. Untreated penneable
bases range from 500 to 2,000 ft per day. (972) 
Design Memo, Page 3 • Edge drains are usually filled with the same highly permeable material that is used for the base or a material with even higher permeability. Cement • While 200
Ib cement per cubic yard has been the amount most generally specified, agencies have used amounts varying from 150 to 300 lb. • Mixes with 150 Ib/c.y. cement content should be restricted
to areas subjected to only a few truck hauls over stable subgrade. • Mixes with 200 Ib/c.y. cement content are appropriate for general use (average trucking and subgrade conditions.
) • Mixes with 250 lb/c. y. cement should be used where heavy trucking will occur or where support conditions are questionable. • From the low to the high cement content, 7 day field
compressive strengths varied from 150 to 600 psi; however, cement content rather than strength should be used to select the most appropriate mix. Water Content • Water contents for workable
mixtures are usually in the range of 100 to 120 Ib/yd3. Water content should be based on the contractor's assessment of the mix workability. • A water/cement ratio at the higher end
of the range may encourage the cement paste to flow to points of aggregate contact where its cementing action is needed. The FHW A recommends this design approach. Pavement Section •
The thickness of permeable bases used has varied from 3 to 6 inches, with 4 inches being the most common. The thickness should be adequate to overcome any construction variances and
provide an adequate hydraulic conduit to transmit the water to the edge drain. • A minimum resultant slope of 2 percent is recommended wherever possible. Construction • Most commonly,
the base is compacted by vibratory plates or screeds. The objective is to solidly seat the material. • Over-rolling can cause degradation of the material with a resulting loss of permeability
• Cement-treated permeable bases are cured by water misting several times a day or by covering with polyethylene sheets for 3 to 5 days. • The need for curing is one of the least understood
aspects aspects of constructing cement treated permeable bases. • Some agencies are studying the cost-effectiveness of curing; Wisconsin found little difference between material covered
with polyethylene and that left exposed. 
Design Memo, Page 4 • During construction, care must be taken to prevent contamination of the permeable base from mud and dirt carried by truck tires. Construction traffic should be
kept to a minimum and sharp tmck turning should be avoided. SEPARATOR NOTES General • Beneath the permeable base course, a separator or filter layer prevents fine particles in the subgrade
soil from infiltrating the open-graded base. • An asphalt prime coat placed on the stabilized subgradelsubbase would provide additional protection. • A separator layer can be provided
by an aggregate separator layer or by a geotextile. Aggregate Layer • The aggregate layer must be strong enough to provide a stable working platform for constructing the permeable base.
• The gradation of this layer must be carefully selected to prevent fines from pumping up from the subgrade into the permeable base. • The aggregate layer must have a low permeability
to deflect inftltrated water over to the edge drain. • The FHWA recommends tbe percent of fmes passing the No. 200 sieve should not exceed 12 percent and the coefficient of uniformity
should be greater the 20 (preferably greater the 40.) • A minimum thickness of 4 inches is recommended for the aggregate separator layer. Geotextile • In subgrades with a high percentage
of fines, a geotextile might be a preferred choice. • The geotextile must have enough strength to survive the construction phase. • The principal advantage of a geotextile is its filtration
capability. A geotextile will allow any rising water, due to capillary action or a rising water table, to enter the permeable base and rapidly drain to the edge drain system. • The main
disadvantage is if the geotextile becomes clogged, rising water will be trapped under the geotextile, saturating the sub grade and reducing subgrade support. • Pore openings should be
sized to retain larger soil particles and pass smaller soil particles. Large numbers of openings should be provided in case there is some clogging. • The geotextile should have a permeability
several times greater than the subgrade so that any vertical draining water will not be unduly impeded by the geotextile. • The geotextile should be specified based on performance rather
than type (woven or non-woven). Tel.: (972) 840·19161 FAX: (972) 840-21561 E-mail: Info@ghwengineers.com 
Design Memo, Page 5 • Geotextiles are subject to degradation when exposed to sunlight for extended periods of time. To prevent this. geotextiles should be placed and covered as quickly
as possible. LONGITUDINAL EDGE DRAIN NOTES General • For crowned pavement. edge drains are installed along both the inner and outer pavement edge. For uncrowned sections, only one edge
drain is installed at the low side. • For the longitudinal edge drain pipe. most agencies use 6-inch diameter flexible corrugated polyethylene tubing (perforated and meeting AASmO M252.)
Rigid PVC pipe (slotted. AASmO M278-PC50) has also been used but is more expensive. Ifthe pipe is to be installed in trenches that are to be backfilled with asphalt-stabilized permeable
material, the pipe must be capable of withstanding the temperature. • The trench backfill material should be of the same material as the permeable base course to ensure adequate capacity.
• The preferred location for the edge drain is 2 or 3 feet outside the curb to avoid settlement problems or crushing the collector pipe beneath construction equipment. Sometimes, the
permeable base is extended under the shoulder with the edge drain placed at the outside shoulder edge. • The suggested minimum pipe size is 4 inches and the minimum slope should be 0.0035
ftlft. • Depending on the pipe size. the trench width should be between 8 and 10 inches. The trench should be deep enough to allow the top of the pipe to be located 2 inches below the
bottom of the permeable base. • The edge drain trench should be lined with a geotextile, but the top of the trench adjacent to the permeable base is left open to allow a direct path
for the water into the edge drain pipe. • The ability to flush or jet rod the system is important in the maintenance scheme. The edge drain and outlet pipes must have proper bends (2
to 3-feet radii) and vents to facilitate this operation. • Videotaping the completed edge drain with flexible fiber optic equipment is suggested for final acceptance of the project.
Lateral Pipes • Lateral outlet pipes are rigid PVC or metal. Rigid pipe provides more protection against crushing due to construction operations. • The Federal Highway Administration
recommends a maximum outlet spacing of 250 feet to ensure rapid drainage. The pipes should be placed on a 3 percent grade with the outlet at least 6 inches above the 1O-year design flow
in the ditch or storm sewer. • Pipe outlets into open ditches are usually protected by concrete headwalls and are equipped with rodent screens. Tel.: (972) 840·19161 FAX: (972) 840-21561
E-mail: Info@gbwengineers.com 
Design Memo, Page 6 Construction • Edge drains may be installed before or after construction of the permeable base and concrete surface. This will affect the edge drain location and
geotextile placement. • Pre-pavement installation of the edge drain may be necessary in some urban situations, but in general, the option should be given to the contractor. • Post-pavement
installation has several advantages: less threat of pipe damage and trench cave-ins due to construction traffic, less susceptibility to bad weather delays, and better line and grade
because these are taken off the previously constructed concrete pavements. Maintenance • Flushing and rodding of the edge drain system should be done on a routine schedule. • Edge drain
outlets and pipe systems should be inspected at least once a year using flexible fiber optic video equipment to determine their condition. • If regular maintenance is not done, the pavement
section will become flooded, increasing the rate of pavement damage. DESIGN NOTES • When rainfall events occur that are greater than the design storm, the permeable base will fill with
water and excess water will simply run off on the pavement surface. After the storm event, the permeable base will drain as designed. • A time to drain 50 percent of the drainable water
of 1 hour is recommended for the highest class roads with the greatest amount of traffic. For most other highways and freeways, a time to drain 50 percent of the drainable water of 2
hours is recommended. • Construction traffic on the completed base course is the single most important parameter in the selection of the type of permeable base to be used. CONSTRUCTION
NOTES • Central plant mixing of permeable cement-treated base course is essentially the same as that for conventional concrete. • The City may want to construct a test strip of the base
course to determine which curing method to employ as well as which method of compaction should be used. Requirements for moist curing should be investigated to see if they might be eliminated
eliminated without substantial loss of performance under actual job conditions. • The FHW A recommends that a control strip be constructed at the beginning of construction so that the
combination of aggregate materials and construction practices be tested, and if necessary, adjusted to produce a stable permeable base with adequate drainage characteristics. A minimum
length of 500 feet is recommended, and this section can become part of the fmished rOadway if found to be acceptable. J,\WPDOCSIPROlEcrsIADDISOl;'\(j()·238IOESlGNMEMO.C'J'PB Tel.: (972)

Mix#: 9053 Description: 7.ooSK ADMIX!AEA 1"CS Strength: 5000 psi @28 Days 3000 PSI @3 DAYS Maximum Size Coarse Aggregate: 1" -#4 CRUSHED STONE Maximum Water/Cement Ratio: 0.3921bsllb
CementJCementitious Content: 7.00 sacks (per cubic yard) Maximum Placement Slump: 4.00 inches Air Entraining Agent: ASTM C-260 Admixture: ASTM C-494 Type A or D MATERIAL QUANTITIES PER
1.0 CUBIC YARD AT S.S.D 658 Ibs. ASTM C 150 TYPE I CEMENT 18401bs. 1" -#4 CRUSHED STONE 1193 Ibs. CONCRETE SAND 258 Ibs. or 31.0 Gallons ofWater 2.0 to 4.0 ozlcwt ofASTM C-494 Type A
Specified Air Content: 3.0% -6.0% Placement Slump: 3.00 + or -1.00 inches 
---------------------------------------------------------------TEXAS INDUSTRIES CONCRETE DESIGN EVALUATION Date: 04/04/01 ** Statistics Compiled From Independent Laboratory Test Specimens
** Hi.:.:: Number: 9053 Strength: 3000 psi @3 Day!! 3 Day hst Data Temperature ___􀁾􀁟􀁷__ Test Plant (fahrenheit) Placement Percent 3 Day --------Cumulative Moving Number Number Slump(in)
of Air Average Avg of 3Date Ar.,bient Concrete PSI 1 PSI 2 PSI AVG Range ----------------􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭04/19/97 43 72 aD 4.50 5.9% 3170 3110 3170 2 06/24/97 4.25 5.0% 3610 3610 3390"
3 03/17/98: 31 56 66 2.00 -LOt 3a90 31)90 3557 3557 , (1)/25/98 ,3 68 5.00 N/A 3050 3050 3430 3517 5 08/28/98 43 86 93 4,50 1.8% 3760 3760 3496 3567 S 09/04198 43 96 a, 5.00 N/A 3680
3690 3527 34))7 , 0911e/9S 31 72 a, 5.75 4.8:% 3500 3500 3523 3647, 10/05/98 50 a2 So 4.75 "/A 463(} 4630 3661 3937 9 06/09/99 43 .5 96 5.00 N/A 4220 4220 372'3 -411'1 10 Oa/23/99 31 n 6. S,OO 4.8% 440'0 4400 3791 4-417 11 02108/00 16 43 5. 4.75 N/A
2960 2960 3715 3860 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠Averages *•• 7. 4.59 4.4%62 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num: 9053 Strength: 3000 psi @3 Days Paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-89 provides that as data becomes available during construction,
the amount by which (F'cr) must exceed the specified value of (F'c) may be reduced, provided: (a) 30 or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (b) 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.2. ************************************************** * * * Unable to calculate standard deviation
due * * * to the fact that less than 15 tests exist* * * * ************************************************** SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 3 Day Test Data Number of Tests .........................
. 11 Maximum Value........................... . 4630 psi Minimum Value ........................... . 2960 psi Range ................................... . 1670 psi Average Strength....................
.... . 3715 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.2.1 .............. . Design excess beyond code requirements .. . 
TEXAS INDUSTRUS CONCRETE DESIGN EVALUATION Date: 04/04/01 •• Statistios COMpiled From Independent Laboratory Test Specimens •• Mix NUttlber; 9053 Strength: SOOO psi @28 Days 28 Day TQst
Data Temperature Test Plant (filhrenheitl Placement Percent -------28 Day -------Cill:\u1ative Moving Number Date Number A.ntbient Concrete Slump{in) of Air PSI 1 PSI 2 PSI AVG Average
Avg of 3 Range 1 08/09/99 <3 85 96 5.00 NIA 6280 6110 61956195 170 2 08/11/99 31 90 91 5.00 NIA 5880 5920 5900 6048 40 3 08/13/99 43 92 .99 3.1S NIA 6050 6150 6100 606S 6065 100 08/16/99
31 92 95 6.00 NIA 5470 5350 SHO 5901 5803 120 5 08/23/99 31 92 86 5.00 4.8% 6560 6420 6490 6019 6000 140 6 09/27/99 <1 92 •• 5.00 4.3% 6520 649D 6505 6100 6135 30 7 09/27/99 <1 82 a.
5.25 4.n 6090 6110 6100 6100 6365 20 S 09/21/99 ., 89 ., 5.50 3 • .:n: 5820 5730 5775 6059 6127 90 9 09127J99 41 74 .3 5.00 3,91: 6510 6480 6495 6108 612:3 30 10 09/29/99 41 6e e, 5.00
H/A 6160 6220 6190 6116 6153 60 11 09129199 " 74. 90 5.00 N/A 6100 6650 6615 6167 6453 SO 12 09/29/99 " 70 85 5.00 NIA 6320 6400 6360 6183 6408 aO 13 09/29/99 41 62 86 -L50 NIA 6660
6580 6620 6217 6552 so 14 10/01/99 41 78 82 6,00 5.8% 5520 5490 5505 6166 6162 30 15 10/01/99 " 82 85 6.00 5.3\ 5750 5680 S715 6136 5941 70 16 10/01199 41 70 80 5.50 6.0\ 5640 5110 5105
6109 5642 130 17 10/06/99 41 80 8. 5.25 N/A 5240 5290 5265 6059 5562 50 ,. 10/06/99 41 73 81 5.00 H/A 5110 5210 5160 6009 5377 100 19 10/06/99 41 66 7e 5.50 H/A 5440 5210 5325 5913 5250
230 20 10/13199 41 76 e. 6.00 H/A 5410 5200 5305 5940 5263 210 21 1012:8/99 " 7, 79 4.50 N/A 5450 5550 5500 5919 5371 100 22 10/2B/99 43 70 76 5.00 NIA 5430 5350 5390 5695 5398 SO 23
11111/99 41 66 76 5,50 3,3% 5710 5550 5630 5983 5501 160 24 11/16/99 41 67 75 5,50 'L81t 5490 5490 5490 5961 5503 o 25 01105/00 13 .s 60 5.00 4,0% 5000 5110 5055 5834 5392 110 26 01/05/00
13 52 63 5.25 3.9\ 5880 6000 5940 5839 5495 120 27 01/05/00 13 43 59 6.00 3.9' 5510 6160 5835 5638 5610 650 28 02108100 ,8 43 58 4.75 NIP. 5020 5110 5065 5811 5613 90 29 02123/00 13
12 7, 5.75 NIP. 5iiO 5390 5580 5803 5493 3ao 30 Oe/21/00 31 .0 95 5,00 4.0i 6170 6220 6195 5816 5613 50 􀀪􀁾􀀪􀀠Averages 􀁾􀀠•• 81 5.22 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num:9053 Strength: 5000 psi @28 Days Paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-99 provides that as data becomes available during construction,
the amount by which (F'cr) must exceed the specified value of (F'c) may be reduced, provided: (a) 30 or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (b) 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.2. The required average compressive strength has been calculated using a standard deviation
calculated in accordance with ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.1.1 or Section 5.3.1.2 and is the larger value of these calculations:. F'cr = F'c + 1. 34 (SO) 5000 + 1. 34 ( 485 ) = 5650 "cr F'c
+ 2.33(SD) 500 5000 + 2.33( 485 -500 = 5630 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 28 Day Test Data Number of Tests ......................... . 30 Maximum Value ...........................
. 6675 psi Minimum Value ........................... . 5055 psi Range ................................... . 1620 psi Average Strength........................ . 5816 psi Standard Deviation.....
................. . 485 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318-99 Section 5.3.2.1. ............. . 5650 psi Design excess beyond code requirements
.. . 166 psi 
Mix#: 9567 Description: 658# ADMIX!ABA 1 "CS Strength: 5000 psi @28 Days 3000 PSI @3 DAYS Maximum Size Coarse Aggregate: 1" -#4 CRUSHED STONE Maximum Water/Cement Ratio: 0.406lbsllb
CementiCementitious Content: 7.36 sacks (per cubic yard) Maximum Placement Slump: 5.00 inches Air Entraining Agent: ASTM C-260 Admixture: ASTM C-494 Type A or D MATERIAL QUANTITIES PER
1.0 CUBIC YARD AT S.S.D 5261bs. ASTM C 150 TYPE I CEMENT 1321bs. ASTM C 618 FLY ASH 1840 Ibs. 1" -#4 CRUSHED STONE 1148 Ibs.. CONCRETE SAND 2671bs. or 32.0 Gallons of Water 2.0 to 6.0
ozlcwt ofASTM C-494 Type A Specified Air Content: 3.0% -6.0% Placement Slump: 4.00 + or -1.00 inches 
TEXAS INDUSTRIES 􀁃􀁏􀁎􀁃􀁒􀁅􀁾􀀠DESIGN 􀁾􀁕􀁁􀁔􀁉􀁏􀁎􀀠􀁄􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁾􀀠04/04/01 •• Stat.istics CompilQd From Indepondont. Laboratory Test $pec:ilD.Gns .... Mix Number: 9561 Strength: 3000
psi e .3 Days .3 Day Test Data Temperature Test Plant (Fahrenheit) Placement Percent -------3 Day -------Cumulative Moving Numb.:!r Date -------Number Ambient Concrete -------Slumptin)
--------of Air PSI 1 PSI 2 PSI AVG -------Average Avg of .3 -------Range 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠1 08/11/98 38 85 98 5.00 2.5\ 3910 3910 3910 2 08/11/98 3S 83 96 'I.
SO 2.5\ 4230 4230 4010 3 OS/11/98 38 80 95 5.00 2.5% 3960 3960 4.033 4033 08/11/98 38 80 98 5.50 3,5%: 4330 4330 4106 4173 5 6 01/06/99 01/06/99 38 38 41 46 61., 5.50 5.25 NfA NfA 2S010
3320 2840 3320 3854 3165 3710 3491 7 8 01/06/99 01/06/99 38 38 " .. 63 60 5.25 5,00 NfA N/A 2680 3020 2680 3020 3610 3536 2941 3001 9 01/06/99 38 '5 61 5.25 "fA 3710 3110 3556 3131 10
02/11/99 38 65 55 5,00 NfA 4230 4110 4200 3620 3643 60 11 02/11/99 ••• Averages .*. 38 68 63 55 -------73 1.00 --------5.30 NfA --------2.8t 4230 4170 4200 3613 4031 60 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num: 9567 Strength: 3000 psi @3 Days Paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-89 provides that as data becomes available during construction,
the amount by which (F'cr) must exceed the specified value of (F'c) may be reduced, provided: (a) 30 or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (b) 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.2. ************************************************** * * * Unable to calculate standard deviation
due * * * * to the fact that less than 15 tests exist * * * ************************************************** SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 3 Day Test Data Number of Tests ........................
. . 11 Maximum Value ........................... . 4330 psi Minimum Value........................... . 2680 psi Range ................................... . 1650 psi Average Strength.
................... .... . 3673 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.2.1 .............. . Design excess beyond code requirements
.. . 
TEXAS INDUSTRIES CONCRETE DESIGN EYhLUATION Date: 04/04/01 it 􀁓􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁾􀁡􀁴􀁾􀁣􀁳􀀠Compiled From Independent Laboratory Teat Specimens ** Mill: Number: 9567 Strength: 5000 psi a 28
Days 28 Day 'teat Data Temp{uature Test Plant fFahrenhe;Lt) Placement Percent -------28 Day 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Cumulative Moving Number Date Number Ambient Concrete Slump!ini of Air PSI 1
PSI 2 FSI AVG Averiige Avg of 3 Range 1 11125/98 35 65 69 5.00 1.1% 6330 6470 tHOD 6400 140 2 11/25/98 35 65 10 $,00 6.0% 5590 5130 5660 6030 140 3 11/25/98 35 65 69 5.00 5.6% 5610 5150
5680 5913 5913 140 , 11125/98 35 65 6a 5.00 1.1% 5360 .5460 5410 576B 5583 100 5 11125/98 35 60 68 5.00 6.8% 51\90 5650 5570 5744 5553 160 6 1 12/31/98 12/31/98 3B 3B 45.. 68 68 5.2$
5.50 NIA NIA 5220 5460 4860 5900 5050 5690 .5626 5637 5343 5437 340 .20 8 12/31/98 35 47 66 5.25 NIA 5550 5360 5455 5514 5396 190 9 02/04/99 38 52 63 5.00 NIA 5510 5590 5550 5601 5565
80 10 02/04/99 3B 53 " 5.25 NIA 6590 6380 646S 5695 5830 210 11 02111/99 38 65 55 5.00 NIA 5670 60Z0 5945 5718 5993 ISO 12 02/11/99 3a 6a 55 7.00 NIA 5430 5620 5525 5702 5985 190 13
02/16/99 38 6a 6' 7.50 5.5%. 6430 6540 6485 5762 5985 110 14 02/16/99 3B 60 66 8.50 5.6%. 5130 5470 5300 5729 51"10 340 15 05119/99 35 18 10 6.00 4.2't 5800 5730 5765 5731 5850 10 16
06/03/99 35 90 6' 6.00 "/A 5210 5150 5180 5697 5415 60 n 06/04/99 35 a. 13 5.00 4.6% 6090 6370 6230 5128 5725 2BO 18 07/06/99 35 92 90 5.50 4.0% 5750 5660 5705 5721 5105 90 19 07/08/99
35 16 B7 6.00 2.2% 4940 4910 4905 5684 5613 70 20 1012S199 3B BO B2 5.50 4.1%. 5960 6130 6045 5102 5552 110 21 11/05/99 3B Bl a9 4.50 NIA 6970 7010 6990 5763 5980 '0 22 12/01199 3. 6a
10 5.00 "/A 6000 6110 6055 5176 6363 110 23 12/03/99 38 12 77 4.00 4.41: 5610 5320 546.5 5763 6170 290 2. 12107/99 31 sa 65 4.00 NIA 6680 6110 612:5 5e03 60B2 90 25 12/09/99 3B 60 65
5.00 N/A 6080 5940 6010 5811 6067 140 26 12/14199 31 " 62 3.75 3.6% 59010 6000 5970 sel? 6235 60 21 12/17/99 ." 60 65 5.00 NIA 6420 6330 6375 5838 6116 90 2B 12/21199 31 '2 55 " .00
"/A 6600 6720 6660 5867 6335 6335 120 29 08/22/00 " 100 •• 4. 00 01 .1% 5660 5650 5655 5e60 6230 10 30 08/24/00 " 99 82 5.00 "/A 6050 6120 60as 5868 6133 10 *.* Averages 􀀪􀁾􀁾􀀠61 10
5.25 5.0% 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num: 9567 Strength: 5000 psi @28 Days Paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-99 provides that as data becomes available during construction,
the amount by which (Ftcr) must exceed the specified value of (Ftc) may be reduced, provided: (a) 30 or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (b) 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.2. The required average compressive strength has been calculated using a standard deviation
calculated in accordance with ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.1.1 or Section 5.3.1.2 and is the larger value of these calculations: F'cr = F'c + 1.34(SD) 5000 + 1. 34 ( 513 ) 5688 P'cr = F'c
+ 2.33 (SO) 500 = 5000 + 2.33( 513 -500 5696 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 28 Day Test Data Number of Tests ......................... . 30 Maximum Value ...........................
. 6990 psi Minimum Value ........................... . 4905 psi Range ................................... . 2085 psi Average Strength........................ . 5868 psi Standard Deviation............
.......... . 513 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318-99 Section 5.3.2.1 .............. . 5696 psi Design excess beyond code requirements
.. . 172 psi 
Mix#: 8274 Description: 6.00SKADMIXIAEA I"CS Strength: 4000 psi @28 Days 3000 PSI @7 DAYS Maximum Size Coarse Aggregate: I" -#4 CRUSHED STONE Maximum Water/Cement Ratio: 0.4571bs/lb
CementlCementitious Content: 6.00 sacks (per cubic yard) Maximum Placement Slump: 5.00 inches Air Entraining Agent: ASTM C-260 Admixture: ASTM C-494 Type A or D MATERIAL QUANTITIES PER
1.0 CUBIC YARD AT S.S.D 564 Ibs. ASTM C 150 TYPE I CEMENT 1840Ibs. I" -#4 CRUSHED STONE 1273 Ibs. CONCRETE SAND 258 Ibs. or 31.0 Gallons ofWater 2.0 to 4.0 ozlcwt ofASTM C494 Type A
Specified Air Content: 3.0% -6.0% Placement Slump: 4.00 + or -1.00 inches 
ttxAS INDUSTRIES CCiNCRETE DESIGN EVALUATION Dat.e: 04/04/01 ** Statist.ics Compiled From Independent. Laboratory Test 􀁓􀁰􀁥􀁣􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁳􀀠** Mix Nw:nl:>er; 9214 Strength: 3000 psi @7
Days 1 Ih\y Test. Data Test Number Date Plant Number 􀁔􀁥􀁭􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁵􀁲􀁾􀀠(Fahrenheit) Ambient Concrete Placement 􀁓􀁬􀁾􀁯􀁜􀁩􀁮􀀩􀀠Percent of Air -------PSI 1 7 Day PSI 2 -------PSI
AVG Cumulative Average Moving iWg of 3 Range 1 2 3 5 • 7 8 , 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 09/28/00 0912:9/00 10/04/00 10/05/00 10/06/00 10/10/00 10/13/00 10/13/00 10/16/00 10/17/00 10/18/00
10/19/00 10/19/00 10/20/00 10/20/0(1 10/25/00 10127100 38 38 38 '6 38 .6 38 3B 3B 3B 50 38 38 39 87 82 90 69 68 80 B3 73 " .3 .2 " " 80 96 80 90 92 79 74 82 87 83 81 86 78 62 77 " 79
" 4.00 3,75 6.00 5.75 5.50 4.00 4.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.25 3.00 4. 75 4.50 4. 75 4.00 3.75 lilA 3.5% lilA lilA NIA lilA NIA lilA lilA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA lilA NIA 5.B\ 3480 3950 3040 4060
4220 4800 3810 3970 3900 3940 3670 3840 4200 4400 4170 4040 4310 3660 3020 3830 4000 4820 3590 4120 3920 4000 3960 4100 4170 4400 3570 3950 3030 3945 4110 4810 3700 4045 3910 3910 3610
3900 4150 4400 4170 4040 4355 3570 3760 3511 3624 3121 3903 3874 3895 3897 3904 3883 3a84 3905 3940 3955 3961 3984 3517 3642 3695 4288 4201 4.185 38B5 3915 3850 3847 3901 4150 4240 4203
4188 180 20 230 220 20 220 150 20 60 120 100 o 90 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2' 30 11120/00 11/21/00 11/22/00 11/22/00 ll/29/00 12/01/00 12/07/00 12/14/00 12/15/00 12/15/00 12120/00
12/22/00 03/05/01 50 25 .0 40 .0 38 52 56 50 41 65 49 69 55 65 60 62 65 63 59 51 53 53 61 51 77 4.00 4.75 5.00 2.50 3.75 5.00 5.25 5.00 5.00 4. 75 5.25 4.50 25.0% 5.S% 5.5% NIA 5.0%
NIA 4.71 NIA 4.5% 4.6% NIA NIA 4,0\ 4.120 3960 3990 4350 4920 3180 3340 4180 4010 3540 4130 3900 4870 4000 5110 4730 4060 3960 3990 4350 5015 3180 3340 4180 4010 3510 4130 3900 4800
3988 3981 39B7 4004 4050 4012 3984 4016 4016 3998 4003 3999 4026 4152 4125 4003 4100 4452 4182 3845 3767 4043 4110 3893 3857 4277 120 190 70 73 4.47 6.8% 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num: 8274 Strength: 3000 psi @7 Days Paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-99 provides that as data becomes available during construction,
the amount by which (F'cr) must exceed the specified value of (F'c) may be reduced, provided: (a) 30 or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (b) 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.2. The required average compressive strength has been calculated using a standard deviation
calculated in accordance with ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.1.1 or Section 5.3.1.2 and is the larger value of these calculations: F'cr = F'c + 1. 34 (SO) 3000 + 1. 34 ( 458 ) 3614 F'cr = F'c
+ 2.33(SD) 500 3000 + 2.33( 458 -500 3568 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 7 Day Test Data Number of Tests ......................... . 30 Maximum Value ........................... . 5015
psi Minimum Value ........................... . 3030 psi Range ................................... . 1985 psi Average Strength........................ . 4026 psi Standard Deviation...................
... . 458 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318-99 Section 5.3.2.1 .............. . 3614 psi Design excess beyond code requirements .. .
412 psi 
'l'EXAS INDUSTRIES CONCRETE DESIGN EVALUATION Date: 04/04/01 •• Statistics Compiled From InclapendEint Laboratory Test Specimens .. Hlx Number: 6274 strength; 4000 psi @28 Days 28 Da.y
Tes t Data Temperature Test Number Date !illa-nt Number (fahrenheit) Ambient Concrete Placement Slump(in) Percent ot Air -------PSI 1 28 Day PSI 2 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠PSI AVG Cumulative
Average Mov.lng Avg of 3 Range 1 09128100 39 87 96 4.00 NfA 4340 4500 4420 4420 160 2 09/29100 ao 3.75 3.5% 4770 i110 4740 4580 60 3 10/04/00 38 92 90 6,00 MIA 4010 4130 4100 4420 H20
60 10/05/00 38 90 92 5.75 NfA 4130 46iO 4685 H86 4508 90 5 10/06/00 <6 69 19 5.50 NfA 5340 5580 5460 4691 4748 240 6 10/10100 38 68 " 4.00 NfA 5210 5350 5310 4186 5152 SO 7 101l3100
.6 BO .2 II .00 NfA 4560 45SQ 4510 4155 5113 20 8 10/13/00 38 83 81 3.50 NfA 5290 5390 5340 4828 5013 100 9 10/16100 3B 73 83 4.00 NfA 4310 44 at) 4425 4183 4118 110 10 11 10/17/00 10/18100
39 38 " 83. 81 .6 4.50 5.25 NfA NfA 5080 4640 5090 4510 5085 4605 4814 4795 4950 4105 10 10 12 10/10/19/00 50 92 18 3.00 MfA 4280 4440 4360 4158 4683 160 13 10/19/00 38 79 82 4,75 NfA
5250 4160 5005 4177 4651 490 H 10120100 11 4 􀀮􀁾􀁏􀀠N", 5250 5360 5305 4815 4890 110 1S 10120100 38 " 76 4.15 NfA 5280 5650 5465 4858 5258 370 16 10125/00 39 80 19 4.00 NfA 4990 4960
4975 4866 5248 30 11 10/27/00 " 3,75 5.f!% 5310 5210 5260 4889 5233 100 18 11/20100 55 4.00 25.0% 4750 4820 4185 4883 5001 10 19 11/21100 52 65 4.75 5.8% 4940 4970 4955 4887 5000 30
20 11/22/00 56 60 5.00 5.5\ 5060 4970 5015 4593 4918 90 21 11122/00 50 50 62 2.50 NfA 5000 5190 5095 4903 5022 190 Z2 11/29/00 65 3.75 5.0% 6310 6350 6330 4969 5480 ,0 23 12101/00 25
63 HfA 4560 44.00 4480 4941 5302 160 2< 12/07/00 59 5.00 4.1% 4390 4490 4440 4925 5083 100 25 12114/00 '0 51 5.25 KIA 5110 5200 5155 4935 4692 90 26 12115/00 53 5.00 4.5% 5570 5210 5420
4953 5005 300 27 12/15/00 53 5.00 4.6% 5000 5100 5050 4957 5208 100 28 12/20100 '0 65 67 4.15 HfA 5180 5010 5125 4963 5198 110 29 12122100 .0 49 51 5.:25 NfA 5130 5200 5165 4910 5113
70 30 03105/01 38 69 17 4.50 -'I.O'%: 5130 5790 5760 4996 5350 60 70 73 4.47 6.8% 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num:8274 Strength: 4000 psi @28 Days Paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-99 provides that as data becomes available during construction,
the amount by which (F'cr) must exceed the specified value of (F'c) may be reduced, provided: (a) 30 or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (b) 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.2. The required average compressive strength has been calculated using a standard deviation
calculated in accordance with ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.1.1 or Section 5.3.1.2 and is the larger value of these calculations: F'cr F'c + 1. 34 (SO) = 4000 + 1. 34 ( 471 ) 4631 F'cr = F'c
+ 2.33 (SO) 500 4000 + 2.33( 471 -500 = 4598 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 28 Day Test Test Data Number of Tests ......................... . 30 Maximum Value ...........................
. 6330 psi Minimum Value ........................... . 4100 psi Range ................................... . 2230 psi Average Strength........................ . 4996 psi Standard Deviation............
.......... . 471 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318-99 Section 5.3.2.1 .............. . 4631 psi Design excess beyond code requirements
.. . 365 psi 
Mix#: 8206 Description: 564# ADMIX/AEA I"CS Strength: 4000 psi @28 Days 3000 PSI @7 DAYS Maximum Size Coarse Aggregate: I" -#4 CRUSHED STONE Maximum Water/Cement Ratio: 0.457 Ibs/lb
CementiCementitious Content: 6.31 sacks (per cubic yard) Maximum Placement Slump: 5.00 inches Air Entraining Agent: ASTM C-260 Admixture: ASTM C-494 Type A or D MATERIAL QUANTITIES PER
1.0 CUBIC YARD AT S.S.D 451 Ibs. ASTM C 150 TYPE I CEMENT 113 Ibs. ASTM C 618 FLY ASH 18401bs. I" -#4 CRUSHED STONE 12541bs. CONCRETE SAND 2581bs. or 31.0 Gallons of Water 2.0 to 6.0
ozlcwt ofASTM C-494 Type A Specified Air Content: 3.0% -6.0% Placement Slump: 4.00 + or -1.00 inches 
!'EXA.S INDUSTRIES CONCRETE DESIGN EVALUA'X'ION Date: 04./04./01 ** Statistics Comp11ed From Independent Laboratory 􀁾􀁳􀁴􀀠SpecimGns ** Mix Number: 8206 Strtmgth: 3000 psi @7 Days 7
Day 'rest Data Temperature Test E'lant iFahrenheitJ Placement Percent 1 Day Cumulative MQving Number Date Number Ambient Concrete Slump Un} of Air PSI 1 PSI 2 PSI AVO Averi;lge Avg of
3 Ranqe 1 2 10/03/00 10J03/00 ••S. .3 85 4.00 4.'15 4.3% 4.3% 3560 3"130 3180 3650 3670 3690 36'10 3630 220 80 3 10J03/00 8' " 5.00 4.3% 3'140 3820 3'180 3'113 3713 eo • 5 10/03/00 lOJ04/00
81 ., 83 90 ';,00 2.75 3.5% 4. i% 3'130 3950 3830 3180 3850 3730 3154 3150 3803 100 6 10/06/00 31 55 13 5.00 4.9\ 4110 4220 4165 3823 3932 110 1 10/09/00 38 " 6. 4.50 4.6\ 3700 3910
3805 3820 3940 210 B 10/12100 78 " 5.25 4.5\ 3850 3590 3'120 3808 3897 260 9 10112/00 78 83 4.25 4.0% 48130 4720 4800 3918 4108 160 10 10/12/00 19 .3 4.75 4.0% 4670 4700 4685 3995 4402
30 11 12 10/12100 10/12JOO 19 7. 8< 83 4.50 6.50 4,0\ 3.5% 4130 4060 4080 4120 4105 4090 4005 4012 4012 4530 4293 SO GO 13 10/12100 31 82 80 5.50 5.n 3720 3190 3'150 3992 3982 60 14
10/19/00 31 75 89 5.25 NIl'. 35aO 3650 3615 3965 3818 10 15 10120JOO 31 68 72 4.00 4.4% 4310 4540 4455 3997 3940 110 16 11J02l00 38 80 8' 6.00 NIl'. 4440 4160 4300 4016 4123 280 17 11/16/00
31 52 65 5.25 NIl'. 4090 3970 4030 4011 4262 120 18 11/16/00 31 52 61 4.75 NIl'. 4720 4660 4£90 4054 4340 60 19 11/28/00 31 69 71 5.50 NIA 3570 3440 3505 .;026 4075 130 20 12/04/00 31
53 63 5.00 N/A 3700 3810 3155 4012 3983 110 21 12/05JOO 31 50 63 5.00 NIl'. 4460 4420 4440 4032 3900 40 22 12/05/00 31 53 62 4.50 5,3% 4020 4000 4010 4031 4068 20 23 1i/06/00 31 " 61
5.00 NIl'. 4350 4720 4535 4053 4328 310 24 12101/00 30 60 5.50 NIA 3590 3590 4034 4045 25 1210'1/00 .0 32 13 5.50 4.5% 4620 4620 405'1 4248 2' 12101/00 40 33 68 5.50 4.5% 4290 4280 40£6
4163 27 12/0"lJ00 40 29 68 5.'15 4.6% 39£0 3960 4062 4287 2. 1210'1/00 31 49 65 4.00 NIA 4060 3990 4025 4061 4089 10 29 12108/00 38 55 60 5.50 NIl'. 4020 40'10 4045 40:60 4010 50 30
12/19/00 12 60 60 58 5.00 4.5% 4640 4640 4080 4231 63 " 4.93 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num: 8206 Strength: 3000 psi @7 Days Paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-99 provides that as data becomes available during construction,
the amount by which (F'cr) must exceed the specified value of (F'c) may be reduced, provided: (a) 30 or more test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (b) 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.2. The required average compressive strength has been calculated using a standard deviation
calculated in accordance with ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.1.1 or Section 5.3.1.2 and is the larger value of these calculations: F'cr F'e + 1. 34 (SD) = 3000 + 1. 34 ( 382 ) = 3511 F'cr =
F'c + 2.33(SD) 500 3000 + 2.33 ( 382 -500 = 3389 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 7 Day Test Data Number of Tests ......................... . 30 Maximum Va 1 ue ...........................
. 4800 psi Minimum Value ........................... . 3505 psi Range ................................... . 1295 psi Average Strength........................ . 4080 psi Standard Deviation
...................... . 382 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318-99 Section 5.3.2.1 .............. . 3511 psi Design excess beyond code
requirements .. . 569 psi 
TEXAS INDUSTRIES CONCREXE DESIGN EVALUATION Oatel 04/04/01 􀁾􀁾􀀠Statistics Compiled 􀁆􀁲􀁾􀀠Independent Laboratory Test Specimens 􀀮􀁾􀀠Mix NIlII:Iber: 8206 Strength: 4000 P$1 @28 Days
29 Day 'i'l;!!st Data Temperature Test 􀁐􀁬􀁡􀁣􀀺􀁥􀁲􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁮􀁴􀀠􀁐􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁮􀁴􀀠28 Day Cumulative(Fahrenheit) Number Date Slump!in) of Air AverageAmbient 􀁃􀁯􀁮􀁣􀁲􀁥􀁴􀁾􀀠PSI 1 PSI 2
PSI AVG 1 10/03/00 8' 85 L 75 4.3% 5300 5200 5250 5250 2 10/03/00 82 B3 5.00 400% 4620 4.720 4670 4960 3 10/03/00 81 83 5.00 4.0% 4660 4770 4115 4876 10/03/00 81 83 4.00 3.5% 5240 5320
5290 4979 5 10/04/00 87 90 2.75 4. it 5130 5060 5095 5002 6 10/06/00 31 55 73 5.00 4.9% 4910 5oao 4995 5001 7 10/09/00 38 64 4.50 4.6\ 5140 5430 5285 SOH" 8 10/12100 79 B. 4.50 4,0%
5460 5250 5355 5081 9 10/12/00 79 a3 4,75 4.0\ 5na 5120 5725 5152 10 10/12/00 78 a. 5.25 4.5\ 5010 5090 5050 5142 11 10/12/00 78 83 4.25 4.0\ saeo 5110 5795 5201 12 10112/00 78 83 6.50
3.5% 5440 5330 53B5 5217 13 10/12/00 31 82 80 5,50 5.1\ 5080 5170 5125 5210 14 10/19/00 )1 75 B. 5.25 5.25 NJA 4440 4620 4530 5161 15 10/20/00 31 68 12 LOO L4% 5020 5350 5185 5163 16
11/02/00 38 80 B' 6.00 NJA 5200 5250 5225 5167 17 11116/00 31 52 65 5.25 NJA 5740 5680 5110 5199 ,. 11/16/00 31 52 61 4.75 NfA 6030 5950 5990 5243 19 11/28/00 31 69 71 5.50 NJA 5120
4840 4980 5229 20 12/04/00 31 53 63 5.00 NJA 5610 5280 5445 5240 21 12/05/00 31 50 63 5.00 NfA 5730 5870 5800 5266 22 12/05/00 31 53 62 4.50 5.3\ 5260 5420 5340 5270 23 12/06/00 31 "
61 5.00 NfA 6650 6650 6650 5330 2. 12/07/00 30 60 5.50 "fA 4550 4810 4680 5303 25 12/{)7/00 40 33 68 5.50 4.5% 5900 5990 5945 5328 26 12/01/00 '0 32 73 5.5D 4,5% 5910 5850 5880 5349
27 12/07/00 '0 2. 68 5.75 4.6'1 5480 5560 5520 5356,.2B 12/07/00 31 65 LOO NfA 5420 5250 5335 5355 2. 12108/00 3B 55 60 5.50 NfA 5620 5870 5145 5368 30 12/19/00 12 60 5B 5.00 4.5% 6240
6020 6130 5394 63 4. 96 4.4% Moving Avg of 3 4B78 48BB 5030 5123 5125 5212 5455 5377 5523 5410 5435 5013 4947 4980 5373 5642 5560 5472 5408 5528 5930 5557 5158 5502 5782 5578 5533 5737
Range 100 100 110 80 70 170 290 210 10 80 170 110 90 180 330 50 60 80 260 330 140 160 o 260 90 60 BO 170 250 220 
COMMENTARY OF STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DESIGN RESULTS Mix Num:8206 Strength: 4000 psi @28 Days Paragraph 5.5 of ACI 318-99 provides that as data becomes available during construction,
the amount by which (F'cr) must exceed the specified value of (F'c) may be reduced, provided: (a) 30 or more test: results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.1, or (b) 15 to 29 test results are available and average of test results exceeds that required
by Section 5.3.2.1, using a standard deviation calculated in accordance with Section 5.3.1.2. The required average compressive strength has been calculated using a standard deviation
calculated in accordance with ACI 318-89 Section 5.3.1.1 or Section 5.3.1.2 and the larger value of these calculations: F'cr = F'c + 1.34 (SD) = 4000 + 1.34 ( 480 ) = 4643 F'cr = F'c
+ 2.33(SD) 500 4000 + 2.33( 480 -500 = 4617 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 28 Day Test Data Number of Tests ......................... . 30 Maximum Value ...........................
. 6650 psi Minimum Value ........................... . 4530 psi Range ................................... . 2120 psi Average Strength........................ . 5394 psi Standard Deviation............
.......... . 480 psi Required Average Strength to satisfy minimum probability conditions of ACI 318-99 Section 5.3.2.1 .............. . 4643 psi Design excess beyond code requirements
.. . 751 psi 
􀁉􀁾􀀠 ALPHA TESTING, INC. 2209 Wisconsin St" Suite 1 00 Da//as, Texas 75229 9721620-8911 -9721263-4937 (Metro) FAX: 9721406-8023 GBW ENGINEERS, INC. 1919 Shiloh S. Road, Suite 530,
LB 27 Garland, Texas 75042 Attcll1ion: Mr. Bruce R. Grantham, P.E. Attached is the report of the remedial Apri I 2, 200 I ****DRAFT COPy*** Re: Remedial Geotechnical Exploration MIDW
A Y ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Beltline Road to Keller Springs Road Addison, Texas ALPHA Report No. 00988 geotechnical exploration performed for the project referenced above. This study has
been authorized by Mr. Bruce Grantham, P.E. on December 28, 2000 and performed in accordance with ALPHA Proposal No. GT 7371 dated June 27,2000. This report contains results of field
explorations and laboratory testing and an engineering interpretation of these with respect to available project characteristics. The results and analyses have been used to develop recommendations
for remedial design and reconstruction of a segmem of Midway Roadin Addison, Texas. ALPHA TESTING, INC. appreciates the opportunity to be of service on this project. If we can be of further assistance, such as providing materials testing services
during construction, please contact our office. Sincerely yours, ALPHA TESTING, INC. David A. Lewis, P.E. Manager of Engineering Services Jim L. Hillhouse, P.E President DAL .II.H dal
Copics: (3) Client Geotechnical Engineering • ConslnJclion MaJeriaIs Testing • Envilonmenfal Engineeting • Consulfing 
TABLE OF CONTENTS on MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Beltline Road to Keller Springs Road Addison, Texas ALPHA Report No. 00988 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ......................................................
.............................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................... 2 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
..................................................................................................... 2 4.0 LABORATORY TESTS ..........................................................................
.......................... .3 5.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................... 3 6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................
.................................4 6.1 Pavement.. .....................................................................................4 6.1.1 Pavement Subgrade Preparation ..........................
.........................5 6.1.2 Pavement Section Options .........................................................5 6.1.3 Pavement Specifications ....................................................
.........7 6.2 Drainage.........................................................................................11 7.0 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............
8 7.1 Site Preparation and Grading ................................................................8 7.2 Fill Compaction ..............................................................................
.9 7.3 Groundwater. .................................................................................. ] 0 APPENDIX A,] Methods ofField Exploration General Location -Figure I Boring
Location Plans -Figures 2 7 B,] Methods ofLaboratory Testing Moisture Density Relationship .. Figures 8 & 9 Mechanical Lime Stabilization Figure 10 Record of Subsurface Exploration Key
to Soil Symbols and Classifications 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this remedial geotechnical exploration is to evaluate some of the physical and engineering properties of subsurface
materials at the subject study area with respect to design and reconstruction of a segment of Midway Road in Addison, Texas. The field exploration has been accomplished by securing subsurface
samples (including concrete pavement) from widely spaced test borings performed along the study area. Engineering analyses have been performed from results of the field exploration and
results of laboratory tests performed on representative samples. The analyses have been used to develop recommended pavement section options for the subject reconstructed roadway. Also
included is an evaluation of the site with respect to potential construction problems and recommendations concerning earthwork and quality control testing during construction. This information
can be used to verify subsurface conditions and to aid in ascertaining all construction phases meet project specifications. Recommendations provided in this report have been developed
from information obtained in test borings depicting subsurface conditions only at the specific boring locations and at the particular time designated on the logs. Subsurface conditions
at other locations may differ from those observed at the boring locations. The scope of work is not intended to fully define the variability ofsubsurface materials that may be present
on the study area. The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become evident until construction. If significant variations then appear evident, our office should be
contacted to re-evaluate our recommendations after performing on-site observations and tests. Professional services provided in this geotechnical exploration have been performed, findings
obtained, and recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. The scope of services provided herein does not include
an an environmental assessment of the site or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous materials in the soil, surface water or groundwater. ALPHA TESTING, INC. is not responsible
for conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on this data. Information contained in this report is intended for exclusive use of the Client (and their design representatives)
and design of the specific pavement outlined in Section 2.0. Recommendations presented in this report should not be used for design of any other pavements except those specifically described
in this report. Further, subsurface conditions can change with passage of time. Recommendations contained herein arc not considered applicable for an extended period of time after the
completion date of this report. It is recommended our office be contacted for a review of the contents of this report for construction commencing more than two (2) years after completion
of this report. Recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of information provided by the Client about characteristics ofthe project. If the Client notes
any deviation from the facts about project characteristics, our office should be contacted immediately since this may I 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT materially alter the recommendations. Further, ALPHA TESTING, INC. is not responsible for damages resulting from workmanship of designers or contractors
and it is recommended that the owner retain qualified personnel to verify work is performed in accordance with plans and spect Iications. 2.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS It is proposed to
reconstruct a segment of Midway Road located between Beltline Road and Keller Springs Road in Addison, Texas. A site plan illustrating the general outline of the study area is provided
as Figure I, the Location Plan, in the Appendix of this report. At the time the field exploration was performed, the study area was developed with the existing concrete roadway. Present
plans provide for reconstruction of the existing pavement. The existing pavement has experienced some distress. The distress is generally in the form of depressed areas adjacent to the
existing pavement joints and generally occur in the direction of traffic flow from the pavement joints. Joints in the pavement were noted to be unusually large (up to about y," wide)
and in some areas it appears surface water is entering the pavement subgrade through these wide joints. At the north end of the study area (north of Borings 21 and 22; north-bound lane)
in particular, water was actually noted emerging from the joints immediately after passage of large trucks. In general, transverse cracking was noted across the pavement panel near their
midpoint in areas where significant pavement distress was noted. 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions along the study area have been explored by drilling 22 test borings in general
accordance with ASTM D 420 to a depth of lOft using standard rotary drilling equipment. The approximate location of each test boring is shown on the Boring Location Plans, Figures 2-7,
enclosed in the Appendix of this report. Some borings were drilled in distressed areas while others were drilled in non-distressed areas for comparison. Details of drilling and sampling
operations are briefly summarized in Methods of Field Exploration, Section A-I of the Appendix. Soil and rock (shaly limestone) types encountered during the field exploration are presented
on Record of Subsurface Exploration sheets included in the Appendix of this report. The boring logs contain our Field Technician's and Engineer's interpretation of conditions believed
to exist between actual samples retrieved. Therefore, these boring logs contain both factual and interpretive information. Lines delineating subsurface strata on the boring logs are
approximate and the actual transition between strata may be gradual. Fill materials have been encountered at some boring locations as will be discussed in Section 5.0. There may be fill
in other borings than noted or at other locations, but could not be readily identified. Composition of the fill has been evaluated based on samples retrieved from 6-inch maximum diameter
boreholes. It is anticipated this Iill was placed and compacted 2 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT during construction of the existing concrete roadway. However, since no records were made available of fill placement, compaction or uniformity, subsurface
conditions immediately adjacent to test borings could be substantially different than conditions observed in test borings. 4.0 LABORATORY TESTS Selected samples of the subsurface materials
have been tested in the laboratory to evaluate their engineering properties as a basis in providing recommendations for pavement design and earthwork construction. A brief description
of testing procedures used in the laboratory can be found in Methods of Laboratory Testing, Section B-1 of the Appendix. Individual test results are presented either on Record of Subsurface
Exploration sheets or on summary data sheets also enclosed in the Appendix. 5.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS In general, the existing concrete pavement is underlain by soils derived
from the Austin Chalk formation. Within the lO-ft maximum depth explored during this study, study, subsurface materials consist generally of clay (CH) underlain by calcareous clay (CL)
and deeper shaly limestone. In the southern and central portions of the study area (Borings 1-16), the existing pavement section generally consists of about 8 inches of Portland cement
concrete overlying lime treated subgrade soils. (It should be noted that lime treated subgrade soils were not encountered in all of these boring locations.) In the northern portion of
the study area (Borings 17-22), the existing pavement section generally consists of 6.5 to 7 inches of Portland cement concrete overlying a clayey (CH/CL) subgrade. The letters in parenthesis
represent the soils' classification according to the l,1nified Soil Classification System (ASTM 02488). More detailed stratigraphic information is presented on the Record of Subsurface
Exploration Sheets attached to this report. Most of the subsurface materials are relatively impermeable and are anticipated to have a slow respollse to water movement. Therefore, several
days ofobservation will be required to evaluate actual groundwater levels within the depths explored. Also, the groundwater level at the study area is anticipated to fluctuate seasonally
depending on the amount of rainfall, prevailing weather conditions and subsurface drainage characteristics. During field explorations, free groundwater has been noted in Borings 1-4
on drilling tools and in open boreholes upon completion at depths of 4.5 to 8 ft. Free groundwater was not observed in the other borings during drilling or in the other open boreholes
upon completion. In our opimon, the current groundwater level on the study area may be located below the bottom of the borings and water within the depths explored may be "perched" groundwater
which has percolatcd downward through desiccation cracks in the clayey type soils. It is not uncommon to detect seasonal groundwater either from natural fractures within the clay matrix,
near the soil/rock interface or from fractures in the rock, particularly after a wet seasoll. [fmore detailed groundwater infornlation is required, monitoring wells or piezometers can
be installed. 3 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT Further details conceming subsurface materials and conditions encountered can be obtained from the Record of Subsurface Exploration sheets provided in the
Appendix ofthis report. 6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The following design recommendations have been developed on the basis of the previously described Project Characteristics (Section
2.0) and Subsurface Conditions (Section 5.0). If project criteria should change, our office should conduct a review to determine if modifications to the recommendations are required.
Further, it is recommended our office be provided with a copy of the final plans and specifications for revicw prior to construction. 6. I Pavement Clay or calcareous clay encountered
near the eXlstmg ground surface will probably constitute the subgrade for the new pavement. Therefore, it is recommended these materials be improved prior to construction of pavement.
Due to the wide spacing of the borings, division of the study area into areas with similar sub grade conditions was not possible. Delineation of areas with similar sub grade conditions,
if required, should be performed during construction after the subgrade material has been exposed. The specific type of improvement procedures required in given pavement areas will be
dependent lIpon the type of subgrade material present after final subgrade elevation has been achieved. Calculations used to determine the required pavement thickness are based only
on the physical and engineering properties of the materials and conventional thickness determination procedures. Related civil design factors such as subgrade drainage, shoulder support,
cross-sectional configurations, surface elevations, reinforcing steel, joint design and environmental factors will significantly affect the service life and must be included in preparation
of the construction drawings and specifications, but were not included in the scope of this study. Normal periodic maintenance wi II be required for all pavement 10 achieve the design
life of the pavement system. Please note, the recommended pavement section options provided below are considered the minimum necessary to provide satisfactory performance based on the
expected traffic loading. In some cases, City minimum standards for pavement section construction may exceed those provided below. The following design information has been provided
by the Client: • New pavement will consist of P0l1land-cement concrete and the design life is 30 years. • Daily traffic based on 1999 information for the study area is about 51,000 vehicles
per day. 4 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT • The projected daily traffic volume by Year 2020 will be up to about 60,000 vehicles per day. • It is anticipated the new pavement will be subject to significant
truck traffic. • Truck traffic will be about 20 percent of the daily traffic volume, Therefore, the design traffic used for the new pavement is 15,118,000 18-kip equivalent axle load
applications for a 30-year design Iife, 6,1.1 Pavement Subgrade Preparation Due to the relatively heavy truck traffic expected, it is recommended a non-erodable base material be provided
immediately below the Portland-cement concrete pavement. The non-erodable base material could consist of either a crushed limestone base material or a cement treated permeable base.
The non-erodable base should be supported on an improved subgrade consisting of either are-compacted sub grade or a mechanically lime stabilized subgrade. It should be noted that a geotextile
fabric (e.g., Marafi 180N or equivalent) should be provided between the improved sub grade soils and the cement treated permeable base to prevent fines from the improved soils from penetrating
into the permeable base material. Ifa permeable base is used, the subgrade must be carefully graded (i.e., no birdbaths and minimum slope of 1,5 percent) to provide positive flow of
percolated water through the penneable base to collection points at the extreme perimeter of the pavement. Collected water at the perimeter of the pavement should be drained to an appropriate
receptacle, If the subgrade soils are mechanically lime stabilized, it is recommended lime stabilization procedures extend at least I ft beyond the edge ofthe pavement to reduce effects
of seasonal shrinking and swelling upon the extreme edges of pavement. The soil-lime mixture should be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM
D 698) and within the range of°to 4 percentage points above the mixture's optimum moisture content. In all areas where hydrated lime is used to stabilize subgrade soil, routine Atterberg-limit
tests should be performed to verify the resulting plasticity index of the soil-lime mixture is at/or below 15. Mechanical lime stabilization of the pavement subgrade soil wiIl not prevent
normal seasonal movement of the underlying untreated materials. NOmlai maintenance of pavement should be expected over the pavement design life. 6. I,2 Pavement Sections Options California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests performed on composite samples from the test borings indicate the CBR value for the existing clay sub grade soils wiIl be about 3 whereas the CBR value for
the same material after mechanical lime 5 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT stabi lization would increase to about 20. Using the above values and assuming nonnal traffic for a 30-year project life, the following pavement sections
are recommended ifload transfer between joints is through aggregate interlock: Compacted Subgrade 11.5 inches Portland-cement concrete 6 inches crushed limestone base material 6 inches
compacted subgrade OR 10.5 inches Portland-cement concrete 6 inches cement treated permeable base 6 inches compacted sub grade Lime Stabilized Subgrade II inches 6 inches 6 inches OR
I() inches 6 inches 6 inches Portland-cement concrete crushed limestone base material lime stabilized subgrade Portland-cement concrete cement treated permeable base lime stabilized
subgrade If dowels are provided for load transfer at the joints III the new pavement, the following pavement section options are provided: Compacted Subgrade 10 inches Portland-cement
concrete 6 inches crushed limestone base material 6 inches compacted subgrade OR 9 inches Portland-cement cement concrete 6 inches cement treated penneable base 6 inches compacted sub
grade 6 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT Lime Stabilized Subgrade 9.5 inches Portland-cement concrete 6 inches crushed limestone base material 6 inches lime stabilized -sub grade OR 9 inches Portland-cement
concrete 6 inches cement treated permeable base 6 inches lime stabilized subgrade 6.1.3 Pavement Specifications Pavement should be specified, constructed and tested to meet the following
requirements: 1. Portland-Cement Concrete: Texas SDHPT Item 360. Specify a minimum flexural strength of 650 lbs per sq inch at 28 days. Concrete should be designed with 5 ::: I percent
entrained air. 2. Crushed Limestone Base Material: Texas SDHPT Item 247, Type A or B, Grade 2 or better. The material should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of standard Proctor
maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) and within three percentage points ofthe material's optimum moisture content. 3. Cement Treated Pelmeable Base Material: Cement treated permeable base
should have a minimum hydraulic conductivity of 3,000 feet per day after compaction. Permeable base material shall consist of coarse aggregate with no fine aggregate (sand, etc.) and
shall be treated with 6 percent Portland cement by dry weight of the aggregate. The material should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM
D 558) and within three percentage points of the material's optimum moisture content. The material supplier shall submit an acceptable mix design for approval. 4. Lime Stabilized Subgrade:
Texas SDHPT [tern 260. An estimated 3 and 8 percent of hydrated lime (by dry soil weight) should be applied to existing calcareous clay and clay soils, respectively, which have been
scarified to a depth of 6 inches. The actual amount of lime required should be confirmed by additional laboratory tests prior to construction. 7 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT a. The soil-lime mixture should be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) and within the range of 0 to 4 percentage
points above optimum moisture. The moisture content ofthe subgrade should be maintained until the pavement surface is placed. b. In all areas where hydrated lime is utilized to stabilize
the subgrade soil, routine Atterberg-limit tests should be performed prior to completion of construction to assure the resulting plasticity index of the soil-lime mixture will be at/or
below 15, Gradation, Atterberg-limits and density tests should be performed at a frequency of I test per 5000 sq ft of pavement. 5, Re-compacted Subgrade: On-site materials should be
scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches and re-compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) and within the range of I percentage point below
to 3 percentage points above the material's optimum moisture content. The moisture content of the subgrade should be maintained until the pavement surface is placed. Density tests should
be performed at a frequency of 1 test per 5000 sq ft of pavement. 7,0 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Variations in subsurface conditions could be encountered during
construction. To permit correlation betv,een test boring data and actual subsurface conditions encountered during construction. it is recommended a registered Geotechnical Engineer be
retained to observe construction procedures and materials. Some construction problems, particularly degree or magnitude. cannot be anticipated unti I the course of construction. The
recommendations offered in the following paragraphs are intended, not to limit or preclude other conceivable solutions, but rather to provide our observations based on our experience
and understanding of the project characteristics and subsurface conditions encountered in the borings. 7.1 Site Preparation and Grading All areas supporting pavement should be properly
prepared. A fter completion of the necessary stripping, clearing, and excavating and prior to placing any required fill, the exposed subgrade should be carefully inspected by probing
and testing, Any undesirable material (organic material, wet, soft. or loose soil) still in place should be removed. 8 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT The exposed subgrade should be further inspected by proof-rolling with a heavy pneumatic tired roller, loaded dump truck or similar equipment weighing approximately
10 tons to check for pockets of soft or loose material hidden beneath a thin crust of possibly better soil. Proof-rolling procedures should be observed by the project geotechnical engineer
or his representative. Any unsuitable materials exposed should be removed and replaced with well-compacted material as outlined in Section 7.2. Slope stability analysis of embankments
(natural or constructed) was not within the scope of this study. Trench excavations should be braced or cut at stable slopes in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) requirements, Title 29, Items 1926.650-1926.653 and other applicable building codes. 7.2 Fill Compaction Calcareous or sandy materials with a plasticity index below 25 should
be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) and within the range of 1 percentage point below to 3 percentage points above
the material's optimum moisture content. Clay soils with a plasticity index equal to or greater than 25 should be compacted to a dry density between 95 and 100 percent of standard Proctor
maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). The compacted moisture content of the clays during placement should be within the range of 0 to 4 percentage points above optimum. Clay fill should
be processed and the largest particle or clod should be less than 6 inches prior to compaction. Limestone or other rock-like materials used as random fill should be compacted to at least
95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density. The compacted moisture content of limestone or other rock-like materials used as random fill is not considered crucial to proper perfomlance.
However, if the material's moisture content during placement is within 3 percentage points of optimum, the compactive effort required to achieve the minimum compaction criteria may be
minimized. Individual rock pieces larger lhan 6 inches in dimension should not be used as fill. However, if rock fill is utilized wilhill I rt below the bottom of the pavement, the maximul11
allowable size or individual rock pieces should be reduced to 3 inches_ 9 
ALPHA Report No, 00983 DRAFT In cases where either mass fills or utility lines are more than lOft deep, the fillIbackfill below lOft should be compacted to at least 100 percent of standard
Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM 0-698) and within 2 percentage points of the material's optimum moisture content. The portion of the fillibackfi II shallower than 10 ft should be compacted
as outlined above. Compaction should be accomplished by placing fill in about 8-inch thick loose lifts and compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. Field density
and moisture content tests should be performed on each lift. As a guide, a test frequency of one test per 5000 sq ft or greater per lift may be used. Utility trench backfill should be
tested at a rate ofone test per lift per eaeh 300 lineal feet of trench. 7,3 Groundwater No sign! ficant de-watering problems are anticipated during pavement excavations. However, if
any minor water seepage is encountered during construction, pumping from excavations with pumps or other conventional de-watering equipment should be su fficienl. In any areas where
significant cuts (1,5 ft or more) are made to establish final grades for the pavement, attention should be given to possib Ie seasonal water seepage that could occur through natural
cracks and fissures in the newly exposed stratigraphy. Subsurface drains may be required to intercept seasonal groundwater seepage. The need for these or other de-watering devices on
the pavement subgrade should be carefully addressed during construction, Our office could be contacted to visually observe the subgrade to evaluate the need for such drains. 10 
APPENDIX 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT A-I METHODS OF FIELD EXPLORATION Using standard rotary drilling equipment, a total of 22 test borings have been performed for this geotechnical exploration
at the approximate locations. shown on the Boring Location Plans, Figures 2-7. The test boring locations have been staked by either pacing or taping and estimating right angles from
landmarks which could be identified in the field and as shown on the site plans provided during this study. The location of test borings shown on the Boring Location Plan is considered
accurate only to the degree implied by the method used to locate the borings. The surface elevations provided on the Record of Subsurface Exploration sheets have been obtained by plotting
the boring locations on the site plans and interpolating the surface elevation. Surface elevations given on the boring logs are approximate. Relatively undisturbed samples of the cohesive
subsurface materials have been obtained by hydraulically pressing 3-inch 0.0. thin-wall sampling tubes into the underlying soils at selected depths (ASTM 0 1587). These samples have
been removed from the sampling tubes in the field and examined visually. One representative portion of each sample has been sealed in a plastic bag for use in future visual examinations
and possible testing in the laboratory. Modified Texas Cone Penetration (TCP) tests have also been completed in the field to determine the apparent in-place strength characteristics
of the rock type materials. A 3-inch diameter steel cone driven by a 170-pound hammer dropped 24 inches is the basis for Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation
strength correlations. [n this case, ALPHA TESTING, INC. has modified the procedure allowing the use of a 140-pound hammer dropping 􀀳􀁾􀀭􀁩􀁮􀁣􀁨􀁥􀁳􀀠for completion of the field test.
Depending on the resistance (strength) of the materials. either the number of blows of the hammer required to provide 12 inches of penetration, or the inches of penetration of the cone
due to 100 blows of the hammer are recorded 011 the field logs and are shown on the Record of Subsurface Exploration sheets as TCP (reference: Texas State Department of Highways and
Public Transportation, BridgeDesign Manual). using the modified procedure. Logs of all borings have been included in the Appendix of this report. The logs show visual descriptions of all soil and rock (shaly limestone)
strata encountered using the Unified Soil Classification System. Sampling information, pertinent field data, and field observations are also included. Soi I and rock samples not consumed
by testing will be retained in our laboratory for at least 30 days and then discarded unless the Client requests otherwise. 
􀁾􀁾􀁌􀀭􀁉D Study Area .. GBW Engineers, Inc. & General Location 􀁉􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁷􀀭􀁡􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀻􀁾􀀺􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀧􀁥􀁣􀀭􀁔􀀭􀀺􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁴􀀭􀁲􀁵􀀭􀁣􀀭􀁴􀁩􀀭􀁯􀀭􀁮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾___88____􀁆􀁾�
�􀁧􀁾􀁕􀀭􀁲􀀭􀁥􀀭􀁬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀱􀀠Addison, Texas ffl 4/02/01 
I I-3 II , ... _-/-{ tf '" JI <JI I r , /I I " .JI .." " " ./I B-S /6:!i'l "l?" '" Q « o I" > « 􀁾􀀠:;; 􀁾􀀠1\1 " "II 'l...r:, I ' , I!. I !. IN/., "'· .... v"E,v, 3NIl 􀁈􀁊􀀱􀁖􀁾􀀠"'
!l:j"'=v ..! • ----..Olt(, .///N I .' /􀀧􀁾" " " 􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀢􀁬􀁴􀁾􀁾􀀠,.􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁌􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁾. o 20 40 Graphic Scale In Ft. GBW Engineers, Inc. , Boring Location Plan Garland, Texas"A Figure
2 Midwav Road Reconstruction 􀁾􀀮􀀠'Addison, Texas r 00988 4/02101 
I II GBW Engineers, Inc. , Boring Location Plan Garland, TeXaSj􀁾􀀠Figure 3 Midway Road Reconstruction ", Addison, Texas '{I 00988 4/02/01 . " ,, , ; 1 11i Iii I : III I II I,IUI I\nI
' . I It 1 : \ , , I" '\'I , , I If;\ I 'I' I " II 11 􀀯􀁉􀁴􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀠ii ii PI I I 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀢􀀬􀀠:: 􀁾􀁾􀀠-􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀠, j • .. 􀀭􀁾􀀠>!..._I.j...j.+f.,,4 ST. Lot; & WESTER! RAILRO , " ... II
' '" I I \ j I' ..' /U'lnI'!" I 􀁲􀁾􀀠I " , , ,,.. , ! ! jB-8 􀀭􀁾􀀠,I􀁥􀁾􀀧􀀡􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀻􀀻􀀹􀀧􀀬􀀠. B-7.'''-'' : ' I ___ II, 1\ I', 1\ I, I' II I: 􀁾􀀠.I II ! I ," .\ \'I "I I r , 'I 􀁳􀀮􀀮􀀬􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠I
1111, , , I' I N .... ..!. o 20 40 Graphic Scale In Ft. .1' I' 1\ I: 1\ 􀁾􀀬􀀠I' II " I:;1 , r ,I I I' 
/j ' -l:: 􀀢􀂢􀀬􀀧􀁦􀁽􀁬􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀢􀀧􀁩􀀠, r'" -::.",'" 1 ,-::.",'" ! /. . * ","'... '" '].....􀁾􀁲.... ", ","'",'" ",...... ", (.. ·,;;;" ,0, 3NIl 􀁈􀁊􀁉􀁖􀁾􀀠". , ,"'f ,' &' Jtl i ,.----_.
l " 􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀠"",'--, " , 􀁾" 1 ' , , '\ 􀁦􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀬8-12 /􀁾􀀠' ,1 '\II 1 1 , ! .V·'" b1 ,, , \ ,. 11 i I I J i I' I I: \I : \ ! j \ 11 "18-I i \ 1 1 \ /: I I \ .vej I., II \ 1 I .• I I
1\ :: I.􀁾􀀠1 1 I'1 1 Iil!i J I 'I I 􀁾􀀠I j • , JI I \,, I ,j 1 , .I i I I \1 I I I 1 ) i I 1\1 I I , , I 1 1 IJ􀀱􀁉􀁩􀁾􀁲􀁜􀀠:1 ' 􀁾􀀬􀀠, 1 1 , J'Ii r\ ,, I...l 􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀠I I :'tt 􀁾􀁩􀁾􀁬􀁾􀀠':--+,'
If. I ,J • , ( ;/' 1 , 1 , ,I , I j \ "\ \ \\ <g N -o 20 40 Graphic Scale In Ft. GBW Engineers, Inc. , Boring Location Plan Garland, Texas Figure 4 I.4 Midwav Road Reconstruction ,,<Addison,
Texas 00988'f 4/02101 
1 .\ I I I I . ). I , 􀁾􀀠j I , I I \ II , I I \ I I \, I I. 􀁜􀀺􀁾􀀠I ...1 \1 ( 'I't..i /, /////////􀀬􀁪􀀬􀀬􀀡􀁾􀁾/, , 􀀬􀁾􀀠I i 􀁉􀁾􀀧􀀠:."i •i ',r, 11 '(.Jl.lI," , I,,,, N L HI '1
, I ; f[J t 􀁾􀁉􀀯I I Graphic Scale In Ft, GBW Engineers, Inc, , Boring Location Plan Garland, Texas 􀁾􀀠Figure 5 Midwav Road Reconstruction 􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀬􀁪Addison, Texas 'fI' 00988 4/02/01
o 20 40 
I lH, 3NIJ \" \I I./,I, , \ \, I, \􀁉􀁂􀁾􀀱􀀹􀀠'I 􀁾, I lII ifl :I II I r g , i/􀁾􀁉􀀠, 􀁾I 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁉􀀠g, .' 4 .' { i 1 ! i i ! N 􀁾􀀠• f I t 􀁾􀀠> 􀁾􀀠0 20 40 [ Graphic Scale In Ft.
\ \ \ \ \ \ 􀁰􀀮􀁾􀀠i r, ,B-17 B-18 " .1: ;--/;//I􀁾􀀠:I 􀁾􀁾􀀠/, 􀁦􀁾􀀠 \ \. , \ \, ',; 􀁾􀀠\ \. \ '.. \,, I /, 􀁀􀁾􀀠/, , Y I,II 1/, , f 􀁾􀁾􀀠GBW Engineers, Inc. , Boring Location
Plan Garland, Texas Figure 6 IA Midwav Road Reconstruction ". Addison, Texas P 00988 4/02/01 
I !0-\!, , i I { I i ,I t 0L 􀁾􀀠t N o 20 40 Graphic Scale In Ft. J I ;J I 􀁾􀀠..1 􀁲􀁦􀀽􀁜􀁾􀀠\ \ , ! ( ) ! 􀁾􀀠\ I I I' I 􀁴􀀭􀀭􀁾i /J ( I ) I 􀁩􀁾􀁾I • l J rB-2lB-22 II' I i· 􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁌􀀠I
I I ;> I \, 􀁾􀀠II J I Ii 􀀺􀁾􀁬􀀠I \ I I : \ fi I I I, '\\ I I \ I i),..f= GBW Engineers, Inc. , Boring Location Plan Garland, Texas, Figure 7 #t Midwav Road Reconstruction 􀁾􀀬􀀠Addison,
Texas 'f 00988 4/02101 
ALPHA Report No. 00988 DRAFT B-1 METHODS OF LABORATORY TESTING Representative samples are inspected and classified by a qualified member of the Geotechnical Division and the boring logs
are edited as necessary. To aid in classifying the subsurface materials and to detennine the general engineering characteristics, natural moisture content tests (ASTM D 2216), Atterberg-limit
tests (ASTM D 4318) and dry unit weight determinations are perfom1ed on selected samples. In addition, unconfined compression (ASTM D 2166) and pockel-penetrometer tests are conducted
on selected soil samples to evaluate the soil shear strength. Results of all laboratory tests described above are provided on the accompanying Record of Subsurface Exploration sheets
or on summary data sheets as noted. 
􀁉􀁾􀁁TESTING, INC. 2209 Wisconsin St.. Suite 100 00/105, Texas 75229 972/620-8911 -972/263-4937 (Mafro) FAX: 972/406-8023 Client: BGW ENGINEERS, INC. Garland, Texas Project: Midway
Road Reconstruction Addison, Texas Our Report Number.: Material Description: Classification: Sample location: Method of Test: Soil Identification Number: Maximum Dry Unit Weight: Optimum
Moisture Content: Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: 00988 Date: 1/29/01 Dark Brown Clay lei I) Ct'!l1posite Sample B-3 to B-16 ASTM-D-698-A Composite 91.0 pcf 24.5 % 77 48 MOISTURE DENSITY
RELATIONSHIP 120 115 110 105 _ 100 􀁾􀀠:::l 􀁾􀀠II! 95.c 􀁾􀀠l-J: Cl 90 jjj 􀁾􀀠!:: 85Z ::J >0: C 80 75 70 65 \ \\ \\1\ \ 􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀠ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES FOR .\ SPECIFIC GRAVITIES OF:
'\\. 2.60 \\\ 2.70 􀁾􀀠2.80 "\􀁾􀀠/"􀁾􀁾􀀠;:1 . . .. .'\ 􀁉􀁾􀀠CBR = 3 􀁾Soaked 􀁾0-􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠60 Oll/O 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35"/0 40% 45% 50% 55% MOISTURE CONTENT P.igw.'" -8 
;; :i) 􀁉􀁾TESTING, INC. 2209 Wisconsin st., Suite J00 0011= Texas 75229 972/620-8911 -972/263-4937 (Metro) FAX: 972/400·8023 Client: G8W ENGINEERS, INC. Garland, Texas Project: Midway
Road Reconstruction Addison , Texas Our Report Number.: Matenal Description: Classification: Sample Location: Method of Test: Soil Idenfification Number: Maximum Dry Unit Weight: Optimum
Moisture Content: Liquid Umit: Plasticity Index: 00838 Date: 1129/01 􀁾􀀠i"". i)rown Clay "!If" H percent lime added Composite Sample B-3 to 8-16 ASTM-D-698-A Composite 84.5 pet 32.0
% 61 14 MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP 120 115 110 105 _ 100 t; :I U "III 95.CI :::. I:r: (!) 90 iii;: I85Z :::l >0: 0 80 75 70 65 \ \\ \\1\ \ 􀁾􀀠! I 􀁜􀁾􀀠ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES \ FOR
SPECIFIC GRAVITIES OF: . 􀀺􀁜􀀧􀁾􀀠2.60 \\\ 2.70 2.80 \ 􀁾􀀠. . I . 􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀠7 ..... 􀁾􀀠. . ....... 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠"\ 􀁾I CBR = 20 􀁾􀀠! 􀁾􀀠I , 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠. . , .. , 60 0% S°/a 10°/" 15% 20%
25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%· 55% MOISTURE CONTENT Figw:e -9 
MECHANICAL LIME􀁉􀁾􀁁TESl1NG, INC. STABILIZA TION 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dal/as. Texas 75229 9721620-8911 -9721263-4937 (Metro) FAX: 972/406-8023 40 3 5 3 ) P L A S 2 ,T I C I
Y 20 Y I 15 N D E X 10 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PERCENT HYDRATED LIME SAMPLE NO. Composite Sample (Borings 3-16) DESCRIPTION: Brown Clay CLIENT: LABORATORY TEST: GBW ENGINERRS, INC. LIME SERIES
I GARLAND, TEXAS r Figure 10 PROJECT NAME: ALPHA PROJECT NODA TE: r MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ADDISON, TEXAS 00988 i April 3, 2001 1 Geotechnical Engineering IJ Construction Materials
Testing IJ Environmental Engineering IJ Consulting 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 􀁾􀀬(972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client GSW ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. Arch!tect/Englneer Job
No. UU!I'OO P,oiee t Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION D,awn By Project Location ADDISON1 TEXAS Approved By UA1..l DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA uale ,c,ldl ,e:v ""'-J:,.
... -v ... .,...."',,.....' .. 􀁾􀀮􀀠Ibs. ! 􀁾􀁉􀀠,.Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop in. Dnll Foreman ._.. EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. • -􀁾􀀠, , 0.3' I Rock Core Dia. in. : 􀁾􀀠-a> '
aInspector 􀁾􀀭"3 0 .... 􀁾􀀠SOling Mefnod CFA Shelby Tube 00 in. 0 c· m > ! N .... ': i 􀁾􀀮􀂧􀀠<; " <0 to • • ! I z Gin:; i'i ;;; ;i! 􀁲􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀬􀁾􀀠c_ ii E & .l'SOIL CLASSIFICATION
! 􀀺􀁾􀀠... 0 " .0' C 􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀾􀀠t,) 􀁩􀁩􀀺􀁾• •• c i:: o . 􀁾􀀮􀀠• ;< ro co. g '" c_ C1----. o. .", • .a • SURFACE ELEVATION ::> w w 􀁾􀁾􀀠13 􀁅􀁾􀀠'!:S'i§"": t,) 􀁾􀁇􀀻􀀶􀀺>-::1: :tw
􀁾􀀠J C , 􀁾􀀻􀁾« ... 1;:;1 o. "w 0 '" .::>5 !;teo. ;<. :;;o. i roc wOc 􀁾􀀠. 􀁾􀀭􀀬􀀠" II II<. '5 wc ro618± ro618± >-w WI,) «0 «>0e:!;:.o 􀁾􀁻􀀿􀀠dB ;: 􀁾􀁾􀀭",,, "'" "'''' "' ... >-'"
'" "'<n'" 􀁾.... Brown very stiff CLAY(CH) with I o -i ! ! : , -some sand and gravel. ! i ..:. 8" of concrete at surface . i , -1 ST i 2.2 39 LL=76 -PL=27 -PI=49 2' --" -------------------2
_ -Reddish Brown very stiff -CLAY (CH/CL) with some sand, 2 ST 4.5+ 26--calcareous nodules and gravel. -·hard 2' 3' . -·stiff below 51, : 3 ! ST 2.7 26 LL=53 I PL=20 -4 PI=))-I-4 IST
2.2 25---I--5 ST 1.7 24 􀁾􀀠-------------6' : ---6 -Tan flrm CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) : with some silty sand and 6 i ST 1.0 28 LL=33 ..:. limestone gravel. -PL=15 --stiff 6! -7 I . : ! PI=18
-7 ! ST 0.7 27--i-8 ---8 ST 0,5 28 ---9 IST --0.5 46-! ! 10 I-BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10'. --: ! -! --.: -=-I -12 -SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD HSA • HOLLOW STEM
AUGERS i i SS . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION 5 FT. CFA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS CA CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS.. FT. DC . DRIVEN CASINGS Tep· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION
TEST WATER ON RODS 8 FT. MD -MUD DRILLING ST . SHELBY TUBE 
I ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION,,, Date Started -_. JI I I TDate Completed 1-21-0l Hammer Drop
in. Drill Foreman -"---j;,nT --Spoon Sample 00 to. 􀁾􀀠0. 0. . ! !> 􀁷􀁾􀀠I ! Rock Core Oia, •Inspector in. u; 􀁾. , 0 , CFA Shelby Tube OD 0 ... ;; •80rlog Method 3 in. 0 o· ;; N ....
•"0 ;; • "a 􀁾􀁧􀀠!:: 􀁾􀀠;; ! z •• 0 E ;J! i 0> c' 5 E E SOIL CLASSIFICATION , 􀁾􀁾􀀠0. g C > , ... u .'", 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀦􀀠3 .. • • 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁾• il u: c_ 􀀺􀀻􀀺􀁾􀀠E -_.::;; .. 8'E 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠0
SURFACE ELEVATION " w w .§-sg .. " -U q.!!'111 ... :>; ;z:w 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠c • , ;;I!! "2 . 􀁾􀀢􀁡􀀺.,,... 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠-: 􀁾􀁾􀀠• ·u '" g g'i4 :;,g 􀁾,,""-"" ·0 000 􀁾􀀮􀀠>'" II II IIx. $ 00 618±
I-W wu ;;\0 <0• 0c;:;o .0. ,. :;: 􀁾􀁾􀀭<1>0 0'" Z <1>'" .. ...'" :;,"' ... ..... OD 􀁾􀀢􀀭.. Brown hard CLAYICH) with some I 0 -sand and gravel.---7. 7S" of concrete at surface. -=
-:: 1 ST 4.5+ 33 LL=68 -= i PL=37 ., PI=31 2 ' -----------'-------2 Reddish Brown and Tan very-stiff CLAYICH/CL) with some :2 ST 4.5+ 26 --sand. calcareous nodules and tiSTgravel. -hard
2' 3' . :-sti ff belov, 5' . ... -3.5 22 i-4 I -4 ! ST-2.5 20 5' -, -------------i -5 : ST 2.2 21 Tan firm CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) 6 = with some silty sand and : 6 , ST 1.2 24 limestone
gravel, -very stiff 5'-6 1 • -I -stiff 6' -7'. -l 7 ,ST 0.5 29 I-S _ -: 8 ST 0.5 30 -9 ST 0.5 32--10 _ -BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10'. = . ---12 -.--.. BORING METHOD HSA -HOLLOW STEM
AUGERS ! Cllen' GBW ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. Architect/Engineer Job No. Proiee' Name . MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By Project Location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By DRILLING AND
SAMPLING INFORMATION 1-21-0l. Hammer Wt. Ibs. ------------------------GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS SS -STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLER TYPE AT COMPLETION 5 FT. ST -SHELBY TUBE CA . CONTINUOUS
FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS. FT. TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS 8 FT. B-2 00988 DAL TEST DATA CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC • DRIVEN CASINGS MD -MUD DRILLING 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client _______􀁾􀁇􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁂􀁾􀁗􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁎􀁇􀁾􀀺􀀽􀁉􀁥􀀧􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁓􀁾􀀬􀀧􀁟􀀽􀁉�
�􀁎􀀢􀀧􀁃􀀢􀀮________ Boring No. Architect/Engineef 􀁾____._________________ Job No, B-3 00988 Proiect Name _____􀁍􀁾􀁉􀂱􀁏􀁾􀁗􀀡􀀡􀁁􀁾􀁙􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁏􀀡􀀺􀀡􀁁􀁕􀁾􀁾􀁒􀀻􀀡􀀧􀁅􀀾􀀮􀀺􀁃􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀢􀁓􀀾􀀡􀀮􀁔􀀽
􀁒􀁾􀁕􀀢􀀧􀁃􀁾􀁔􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁏􀀺􀀡􀀡􀁎􀁾____ Drawn By Prolect Location --,____-"AUDI SON, TEXAS Approved By DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA Date Started 1-2I-01 Hamme( Wt. Ibs.
Date Completed 1-2I-Ol Hammer Drop in. '" Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. • -􀁾􀀠00> -iO Inspector Rock Core Dia. in. •• ;V>--.0 .... ;;; Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube 00 3 in.
0 eO _ .. N 0 .... 0 􀀧􀁾􀀵􀀠I i z .:::';:;••en e-SOIL CLASSIFICATION I .S .􀀢􀀭􀁾􀀠i : .::i • e""0",::> w wSURFACE ELEVATION 􀁾􀀠u_ .... '" 1:"' 0: 􀁾􀀠􀀺􂂬􀁾".... t:;! "-w •:!E :!E,,"'''􀁾􀀠.e
618± .... w wu ,,0 ."> .l' .e V>o 0'" "'z ."'.... .... '" : Brown hard Lime Treated o -CLAY (CH) with some sand and -􀁾􀀠calcareous nodules and gravel. --=:--8" of concrete at surface.
I ST -: -:--2 _ 1ST -2---3' ! -----------------1--Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) with -some sand, calcareous nodules-and gravel. --reddish brown below 4' . -stiff below 5' . --=--f------------hrm
CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) =---.-----.-··1-. _. -------Tan with some silty sand and limestone gravel. -stiff 6' -7' . BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10! , = = 3 ST 4->-l--= 4 . ST i : -5 ST 6' -'--6
_ : 6 ST ----7 ST -8 : : 8 ST 1 ST --9-i -10 -=-l􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠-" I. I 12 􀁾􀀠! -4 -" 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠'ii; " !::; 􀁾􀀠0 .... e .9 i",V> '0 '" I I 0 􀀮􀁾-􀁾􀀠x• •a -;II. -;'E'gE E l"0 0 E {;::J ;.
u 􀁾􀀠.2' .J ().'.::! .i -. • j'" c_ ;;. 􀀧􀁾􀀧􀁚􀁩􀀬􀁧-􀀭􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠"-" 'g'"': ".:::HL:cC-V>-::>0 !ioc. 􀁾􀀮􀀠II II IIo·c oe >-., •C!:>o 8;{:. -" ;; 􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀭"''''.... oB 􀁾􀀢􀀭􀀢􀀭4.5+
38 􀁌􀁌􀁾􀀵􀀷􀀠􀁐􀁌􀁾􀀳􀀶􀀠􀁐􀁉􀁾􀀲􀀱􀀠4.0 3I 2.7 30 3.2 22 1.7 22 I.5 25 0.5 26 0.7 32 0.5 35 i i I BORING MI':THOD HSA . HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC -DRIVEN
CASINGS MD -MUD DRILLING SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS 55 -STANDARD PENETRA TION TEST AT COMPLETION 5.5 FT.ST . SHELBY TUBe CA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS. FT. TCP· TEXAS
CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS 8 FT. 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION B-4Chent ______􀁾􀁇􀀡􀀡􀁂􀀢􀀭􀀧􀁗􀁾􀁅􀁎􀁇􀀡􀀺􀀡􀀡􀀧􀀡􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁅􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀮􀀡􀁅􀀡􀀡�
�􀁒􀁾􀁓􀀢􀁟􀀮􀀧􀁟􀀢􀀧􀁉􀀡􀀢􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮________ Boring No. -------"---'---_.__.00988Architect/Engineer Job No. Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn Sy AM DALProject Location
ADDISONt TEXAS Approved By TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started l.-21-0l. H,ammer Wt. Ib, Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop rn. 􀁾􀀠Orm Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00
in. • 􀀭􀁾00> -0; Inspector Rock Core Dia, in. Jl 􀁾􀀻􀀠Shelby Tube OD 0 Boring Method CFA 3 in. 0 o· '" 0>';::; c; I .; 􀁾􀀬􀁧􀀠I z --• •'" i!:.SOIL CLASSIFICATION c .. 􀁾'ij 􀁾􀀦􀀺􀀠I
:z ! m ::> w w .. 0" SURFACE ELEVATION >-:r: :!:w 􀁾􀀠· 􀁾􀀠1: 􀁵􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠, i 􀁾􀁧􀀺􀀠􀁾􀀭􀁧,,>t:;;' 8 618± 0:0. «0:«>􀁾􀀠Xm>-w wU "00 C'" (l)Z ' wI0. HI> -Brown hard CLAY (CHI with some
o --sand and calcareous n9dules and :--gravel. --=: --= -7.75" of concrete at surface. 1 ! ST .. 􀀭􀁾􀀠---2-..-: 2 i ST -3 ' -f.. ----.... ---.... ---L .. !-Reddish Brown and Tan very
stiff CLAY (CH/CL) with some 3 ! ST--silty sand. calcareous nodules . 1 -and gravel. -hard 3) -4 ' . 4 --stiff below 5' . :--4 ST =-.. : 5 · ST .. -6' i -.. ---.. -.. --.. -.. ---6 Tan
firm CALCAREOUS CLAY (CLi --with some silty sand and 6 ST--limestone gravel. --7 ST.. .--8 8 1ST. --. -.1 I = 9 ST -• 10 -BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 1 • .. --:: --i :12 · 􀁾􀀠"e 0 to
;;•>c 0 􀀮􀁾􀀠,0 '6 '" . i I . 􀁾􀀠.>--li x 􀁾􀀠􀀧􀁅􀁾􀁒a • "'E E E0 E C.0' ,--.I >u Ii. • 􀁩􀀧􀁾􀀺􀁧-0 .i c_ 􀁾􀀮􀀻􀀠c• 􀁬􀁾,E.;;& 􀀢􀁾􀀭<3 .,..-U) c . ;:ji:ra:0"'_ 0::lil00. 􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀠,
",0 0 0 00 > . mC!:;o J::? 0 11 !f; 􀁾􀁾􀀭""'>􀁾􀁯􀀮􀁯􀀮􀀠4.5+ 31 4.0 33 4.0 25 3.2 20 3.2 23 0.7 26 0.7 29 O.S 30 0.5 28 I II ! I BORING METHOD HSA . HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA· CONTINUOUS
FLIGHT AUGERS DC -DRIVEN CASINGS MD ·MUD DRILLING GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS SS . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLER TYPE AT COMPLETION 4.5 FT. 5T SHELBY TUBE CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER
AFTER HRS. FT. TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS 7 FT. 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dalias, Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Chent Architect/Engineer GBW ENGINEERS. INC. Project Name ____􀀭􀀡􀀺􀁍􀀢􀁉􀀺􀀡􀀺􀁄
􀀡􀀡􀁎􀁾􀁁􀀢􀀧􀁙􀀧􀁟􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀡􀁒􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁁􀁄􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀁒􀀬􀁯􀁅􀁾􀁃􀀻􀀺􀀺􀁏􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁓􀀺􀀡􀀮􀀧􀁉􀀧􀀡􀀧􀀺􀁒􀀻􀀬􀁯􀁕􀀧􀀽􀁃􀀺􀀡􀀮􀀧􀁉􀀧􀀽􀁉􀀮􀀺􀁥􀁏􀀢􀀢􀁎􀀧􀁟􀁟___ Project Location _______􀀭􀀧􀁁􀁄􀁾􀁄􀀡􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁉�
�􀁓􀀢􀁏􀀢􀀧􀁎􀀢􀀬􀀧􀁟􀁟􀁟􀀧􀀧􀁉􀀧􀀧􀀢􀀧􀁅􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁘􀁁􀀽􀀢􀁓_______ Boring No, Job No. Drawn By Approved By B-S 00988 AM DAL ._-DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA ----. --. : ...:
-.= --------.-.. ---Date Statted 1-21·01 Hammer Wt. lb•. 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀮􀀭􀁾Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop in. -Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠" 􀁾􀀠00> 􀁾􀁭􀀠Rock Core Dia.
in. •Inspector '" 􀁾􀀭... " Shelby Tube 00 3 in. 0 Boring Method CFA 0 0'" 0'" SOIL CLASSIFICATION SURFACE ELEVATION I 617± Brawn hard Lime Treated CLAYiCHl with some 􀁳􀁾􀁮􀁤􀀠and calcareous
nodules. -8" of concrete at surface. --. ------_. ------Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CHi with some sand. 􀁾􀁢􀁲􀁯􀁷􀁮􀀠with calcareous nodules below 4' -tannish brown below 8' . BOTTOM
OF TEST BORING AT 10 I. i a -0;; c.: 00,::.';z ••m 􀁡􀁩􀁾0 .., 􀁮􀀮􀁾• 􀁾􀁾􀀠::E •.. 􀁯􀁾'" w w 􀁵􀁾';;1':' , :x;w -' -' E ... -' n. "w 0" "." ",0. n.« 􀁾􀀠. , :En. 􀁾􀀠o c ... w wu
<0 I <ox.• i 􀀭􀁾",0 0", WZ:(J)j.. ...'" 0 : -1 ST 2' iL. __ 2 • : -2 ST : 4 : -3 ST 6 -4 ST : . 8 ...: s ST : , 10 ...: ! : Ii 12 : 􀁾􀀠n '"􀁾􀀠J;; 0 ... 0 .e 0 " '" ii 15 '" , • 􀀬􀁾-􀁾􀀠<0
• •is. 􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾E E if'.c0 􀁾􀀠! E :5:;;U 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀠• 􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀺􀁧􀁾􀀠􀁩􀁬􀀺􀁾􀀠E􀁾􀀠u: ou. 0 􀀧􀁅􀁾􀁾􀀠"a -U 0'0􀁾􀀧􀀢􀀠c ::Jfi:.6!. i -"'!! 􀁾00. 􀁾􀀢􀀠􀁧􀁾􀁧􀀠iii n II Itglj
> ., . Jl; ->-'"''''... n. ... 0" -,n.n. 4.5+ 37 LL;56 PL;35 PIe21 3,0 40 3.2 29 3.2 28 3.0 28 i I i I I I BORING METHOD HSA • HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC •
DRIVEN CASINGS MD ·MUD DRILLING GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS S5 . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLER TYPE AT COMPLETION DRY FT. ST • SHELBY TUBE CA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS. FT.
TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 1972J 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Chent ____..___􀀭􀀭􀀧􀁇􀁾􀁂􀀡􀁥􀁗􀀡􀀧􀀮􀁟􀀽􀁅􀀢􀀧􀁎􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀬􀁇􀀢􀁉􀀢􀁎􀁉􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀧�
�􀀻􀁅􀀡􀀧􀀺􀁣􀁒􀁾􀁓􀁌􀀬􀁟􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀡􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀢􀁟􀀮􀀧􀁟_______ Boring No. Architect/Engineer _____________________ Job No. _________O"-"O"-9"S.!:S'-_______ Project Name ____􀀭􀀧􀁍􀁾􀁊􀀺􀁾􀁄􀁾􀁗􀁾􀁁􀀭
􀀮􀀻􀁙􀁣􀀲􀁒􀀡􀀡􀁏􀀢􀀢􀁁􀁄􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀡􀀡􀁒􀀽􀁅􀁾􀁃􀀢􀀧􀁏􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁓􀁾􀁔􀀡􀀮􀀧􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁕􀀡􀀡􀁃􀁾􀁔􀀽􀁊􀀺􀁾􀁏􀀡􀂣􀁎􀁌􀁟____ Drawn By AM PrOject Location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By DAL DRILLING
AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. Ibs. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop in. 􀁾􀀠Dfill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. • c 􀁾􀀠> 00 Inspector Rock Core
Dia. in. • 􀁾􀀧􀀢􀀠􀁾u; 􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀠0 >-. •Shelby Tube 00 3Boring Method CFA in, 0 e· 􀁾􀀠.e N 0>0 ----_. --.. -----.-.. -􀁾􀀠----.. ----: -.. --. -.---.. i-' -, SOIL CLASSIFICATION SURFACE
ELEVATION 617± Brown very Dense SANDISP) with some gravel and clay.. clay.. ·8" of concrete at surface, ---------------.. Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) with some sand, -tannish brown with
calcareous nodules and gravel below -tannish brown below 8' , BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 4' , 1.0' . I i I i j j I 􀀮􀁾􀀠c: ci g.g:z ••'" e.􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁯􀀮􀁾• 􀁾􀁤􀀺::t • w w o. 0"::> 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠E
u>-:t IU> •"'>, 􀀾􀀭􀁾􀀠o. o.w • ." 331\ ::t, ::to. 0 ·ca:o. x. >-w ;;Ill "',. " .",0 0", .<n>o. >-'" 0 = -:: 1 ST 13 = 2'--2 : : -2 ST -.. 4 : --3 ST -.. .. 6 : : -4 ST -: -8 _ .. -,
-5 ST -: .. 10 ---.. ---, j -1 -1 II 12 􀁾􀀠'::: :;;•>e .9 t; Ji '0 '" • I> ••a ;; • ;fI 􀀧􀁲􀁾􀁾E E 􀁾􀀠g0 .!1' E --....I >U 􀁾􀀠-.r .. • , 11 :2.g:§" ell:,;• 􀀮􀁾􀀠,0􀀮􀂧􀁾􀀠':01 .g'":
0 􀁣􀁲􀁾􀂷u 􀀬􀁪􀁾􀁦􀀡􀀺􀀠_ .􀀽􀀭􀁾􀀠􀀸􀁾􀀡􀀡􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀠II U 110_ >. 􀁣􀀮􀀺􀁾􀁯􀀠00 i cO ;: 􀁾􀁾􀀭::>U>>"-0OD Jo.o. -30 1,2 2.7 80 34 LL:80 PL=30 PI:50 3.7 26 3.0 24 LL=66 PL=24 PI=42
2,2 29 j , BORING METHOD HSA . HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC • DRIVEN CASINGS MD -MUD DRILLING SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS 55 . STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. ST . SHELBY TUBE AFTER HRS, FT.CA ' CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUG ER TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATlON TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT, 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 1972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client _______􀁾􀁇􀀢􀀧􀁂􀀢􀀡􀁗􀀧􀀡􀁟􀁣􀁅􀁎􀁾􀁾􀁇􀁣􀀡􀁉􀁯􀀡􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀀧􀀺􀀡􀁒􀁾􀁓􀀲􀀮
􀁌􀀬􀁟􀀽􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀢􀀮________ Boring No. B-7 Architect/Engineer ____________________ Job No. _______-'0"'0"'9=8"'8_____..__􀁾􀀠 Pro,ect Name ___􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀡􀁍􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁄􀀡􀁥􀁗􀁾􀁁􀁯􀀺􀁙􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁏􀀡􀀡􀁁􀁄􀁾􀀭
􀀧􀁒􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁃􀁏􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁓􀀡􀀮􀁩􀁔􀁾􀁒􀀡􀁃􀁕􀁾􀁃􀀧􀀽􀀮􀁔􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁎􀁾____ Drawn By ________􀀭􀀭􀀡􀁁􀁍􀁾____􀁾􀀠􀁾___ Project Location _""_ ADDISON" TEXAS Approved By DAL TEST DATADRILLING
AND SAMPLING INFORMATION -------------.:: ---,,-----􀁾􀀠---.---􀁾􀀠------􀁾􀀠---Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. lb•., Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop In. ' ;!; 􀁾􀀠Drlll Foreman EDI
Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠􀀭􀁾􀀠00_. -;;; Jospector Rock Core Dia. io. .. 􀁾􀀭'" Shelby Tube OD 3 In. 0 1-;; BOring Method CFA " 􀂧􀁾N 􀀧􀁾􀀠§QI 20 ;"';:::Gro '" c-SOIL CLASSIFICATION
•• 􀀺􀁾M• 􀁾􀁬, :; ro '" w w .. 0.., SURFACE elEVATION c u-I-I xw 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠ro"I-􀁉􀁩􀀺􀁾􀀠.. "w G 􀁾􀀧􀁬􀀡:;. :; ..0: .. e , . 619± 1-'" '"0 ..0 ..,.. 0 0",,, "'" ",20 "'I.. HIl Brown
very stiff CLAY (CH) with 0 some sand and gravel. , 8.25" of concrete at surface. --:: 1 . ST 2' I---------------e-2 Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) with some sand, calcareous nodules
and a trace of gravel, -brown below 6' . -.:: 2 ST -tannish brown below 8' . 4 : 􀁾􀀠3 ST 6 : -4 ST -.------.-----8'e-8-: , i Tan weathered SHALY LIMESTONE. i ! 5 iTCP !QQ 3.3"-1BOTTOM
OF TEST BORING AT 10· . 10 -.:: : I -i 12 I 􀁾􀀠" 􀁾􀀠;; 0 I-c .2 , t> 􀁾􀀠'" 'ai '" I, i 0 􀁾􀀠0 S , 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠" • 􀁲􀁲􀁾E i E 'iJli.c0 g E-If '-..,J >U .. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁧" ;;, c_ >=.0•
􀁾􀁾􀀠.E£g "0' 􀀮􀁾􀀬􀀬􀀢􀀺􀀠0 O'ro 0 0 :Jo:.£,-'"§ 􀁾􀀱􀁉􀁩􀀠0􀀺􀀺􀁬􀁾􀀠0;􀁾􀀮􀀠II U IIggg oc >. 􀁾00 -. :fO::ii.""'I..I"", 2.5 26 3.7 27 3.2 28 3.0 24 5 , i , II , BORING METHOD HSA
-HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA .. CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC -DRIVEN CASINGS MD -MUD DRILLING SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS SS . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. ST
. SHELBY TUBE CA CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HAs'. FT. TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
----------------ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ';;; c o §.gz 􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁚SOIL CLASSIFICATION 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾I
:. It. ¢"Oww􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠.... 􀁾􀀠U 1&SURFACE ELEVATION "':1: Q. "w 8_ 􀀺􀁾x.::E, ::Ell..􀁴􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠wu 􀁾􀁯􀀬􀁾􀀾619± 􀁴􀀻􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠f!Ui
0 0", wZ ' tln-Brown hard Lime Treated 23 LL=46􀁾􀀠1STCLAY (CH) with some sand and :2' PL=29gravel. -8.S" of concrete at --PI=17Isurface. -l ST 3,7 292 Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH)
!: with sand laminations. ! 􀁾􀁷􀁩􀁴􀁨􀀠limestone seams below 6' . 2.7 285-3 i ST , : 2.7 26 8' 4 i ST ------+-100Tan weathered SHALY LIMESTONE. 9TCP 3"...􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀹10 -BOTTOM
OF TEST BORING AT 10' . -...:: = -15 --:: 5 _ = ...:: : ..: :: ----:: --20 .. -25 -: = -I I I I30 Client ______􀀭􀀢􀁇􀁾􀁂􀀢􀁗􀀧􀁟􀀧􀁅􀀮􀁎􀀽􀁇􀀽􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁎􀁒􀀽􀁅􀀢􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁓􀀢􀀧􀀬􀀧􀁟􀁉􀀢􀁎􀀽􀁃􀀢􀀮________
Boring No. B-6 Architect/Engineer Job No. 00988 P,oject Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By c-_______􀀮􀀭􀀡􀁁􀁍􀁾__________ PrOject location ADD!SONI TEXAS Approved By DAL TEST
DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION __-=.:!-"-140 ___ Ibs.r--r--r--,,---,----r---r-..----,Date Statted 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. ___􀁾􀀢􀀧􀁟___ in. 􀁾Date Completed 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀀱􀂷􀀰􀀱􀀠Hammer
Drop 30 ________ .m. !g -00􀁾􀀠Dnl! Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 -. 􀀻􀁾􀀠;;iil ________ In. ... 􀁴􀀡􀁾􀀠___2-____ in. 􀁾􀀠􀁡􀁾􀀠Inspector Rock Core Ola. Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube
00 3 SAMPLER TYPE SS . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ST . SHELBY TUBE CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS AT COMPLETION DRY FT. AFTER HRS.. FT. BORING METHOD HSA -HOLLOW
STEM AUGERS CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC -DRIVEN CASINGS TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. MD ·MUD DRILLING 
--ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Chent _____􀀮􀀮􀀺􀁇􀀢􀀧􀀺􀁂􀁾􀁗􀁾􀁅􀀡􀀡􀁎􀀡􀀺􀁯􀁇􀀢􀀧􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁅􀀺􀀧􀀡􀀡􀀧􀀡􀁅􀁾􀁒�
�􀁓􀁃􀀡􀀮􀁟􀀽􀁉􀁾􀁎􀀢􀁃􀀢􀁟􀀧􀁟􀀮________ Boring No. B-9 ArchItect/Engineer Job No, 00988 Prolect Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By lIM P'Oject Location ADDISON. TEXAS Approved
By _______....cD"AL!!:C-._______ TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION ---= Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. Ibs. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop in. 􀁾􀀠Orill Foreman EDI Spoon
Sample OD in. Q 􀁾􀁾􀀠Co.> 􀁾􀁩􀁩􀁬􀀠Inspector Rock Core Dia. in. •• 􀀡􀁾"' CFA Shelby Tube 00 3 080ling Method in, 0 c Q OJ 0.1i SOIL CLASSIFICATION 􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀭.. SURFACE ELEVATION 618±
Dark Brown stiff Lime Treated CLAY (CH) with some sapd t calcareous nodules and gravel._a" of concrete at surface --------------Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) with sand laminations
and a trace of calcareous nodules. BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT lQ t • ci '':; I: e,9 z Gi(ii I rn ".•• 􀁬􀀺􀁾•• Q. 􀁾􀀠• co. "0."i?", w w :rw -' -' E 􀁯􀁾􀀠«I, tot .. .. w • i .""'0. 􀁾􀁯􀀠􀁾􀁯􀀮􀀠•
·c iI-W wu 􀀬􀀻􀀩􀁩􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠x.0",0 0", "'Z "I-'" 0 : -= 1 ST 2' i:.. -2 i , i I : -= 2 ST 4 _ = -3 ST -6 _ -4 • ST : a -5 ST =10 -I i II 12 -, 􀁾􀀠0li " !:: iil IC g g '" :a '" i Q >•••
􀁾􀀠x 􀁾􀀠lil Q 0'" 􀁾􀁆E 􀁾􀀠.E E· -0. 􀁾􀀠rn 􀁾􀀠'-....I >u , 'iii 􀁾􀀠-:2,g:§-0 􀁣􀁾􀀠i S:.; c• 􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠0. :'0;.) 􀁾􀁾􀀠.. 'e"": 3£5:􀁩􀀩􀁾􀀠0 :lil 218 c • 􀁾􀀮􀀠i II II gOc • c1'::;'0
cO. > . •􀁾􀀮􀀠.s: 􀀺􀀱􀁾􀁯􀀺􀀺:lv>1"-I0" 0.9 1.2 79 37 􀁌􀁌􀁾􀀵􀀵􀀠PL=32 PI=23 2.2 33 2.2 35 2.2 31 2.2 31 I BORING METHOD HSA • HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA -CONTINUOUS FliGHT AUGERS DC
-DRIVEN CASINGS MD -MUD DRILLING ----..:: ------.--------= ------------_. --SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS SS . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. ST SHELBY TUBE
CA . CONTINUOUS FliGHT AUGER AFTER HRS. FT. TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
-----ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION (972) 620·8911 Client -=-_____􀀭􀀢􀁇􀀢􀀧􀁂􀀢􀀧􀁗􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢􀁅􀁎􀀽􀁇􀀢􀀧􀁉􀀢􀁎􀁅􀀽􀁅􀁾􀁒􀀢􀀧�
�􀁾􀀬􀀧􀁟􀀧􀁉􀀧􀀢􀁎􀀢􀀧􀁃􀀽􀁟􀀮_______ Boring No. B -10 Architect/Engineer ____________________ Job No. _______-'0"'0"'9""8"'8"--_____ Project Name ____"M"'I"'D"'W"'A"Yc...!R""O"'AD=c'R"'E"'C"'O"'N",
S"'T"'I1."U"-C"'T=.I=.O"'N"----__ Drawn By AM Prolee. Location ADDISON. TEXAS DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started ..􀁾􀀢􀀠1-21-01 Hammer Wt. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer
Drop Dnll foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 Rock Core Dia. Approved By _______􀁾􀁄􀀢􀀧􀁁􀁌􀀢􀀢􀀢____ TEST DATA lb•. io. in. 􀁾􀀠> in. ; J5 􀁾0 􀀬􀁾00 -iii 􀁾􀁾Inspector 􀂷􀁾􀀰􀀠c 􀁾􀀠􀁥􀁾0
" Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube OD 3 in. iii.9>_e 􀁾e'" II•ci 􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁧􀀠to 0.z 􀁑􀁾􀀠;III r 0;• EEc· .E 􀁾0 £'" E.!?•.. l! SOil CLASSIFICATION U Q.􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮I c e_ 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁧;;.; E I 􀀡􀀱􀁾􀀠.Q􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁾
􀀠,,_0 > ::;; .' 0'.. 􀁯􀁾􀀠"• u: .,,ill W u.ui ::> . e .u·􀁾􀁾􀀠"...lrre.􀁾􀀠E i 0>-:t :w 􀁾􀁴􀁾􀀠. 􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀡SURFACE ELEVATION oe. :;}.£􀁾􀀭􀁴􀀵.. "w􀁲􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀠II U II•:E. ::0.. ve
> .;l!li: nA '" 􀁾􀁧􀀵􀀠i 00 i ,"'«0:<>􀁾􀁾􀀠:awurW ! ;;::H1H-, 0.1-0" ::la:!o::618± 􀁾􀀠>-In",0 til%: ' un0'" ° -1 *'" -Brown hard Lime Treated 4.5+ 38 LL=531ST-CLAY (CH) with some
sand, :-PL=38 -calcareous nodules arid gravel. PI=173'-_810 of concrete at surface 35r-2.5 -= --􀁾􀁓􀁔--with lime to 1711 , _ ------------J -Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) --with sand
laminations. 3.0 36 LL=83---;1 ST5-·stiff with limestone gravel PL=31 -belo.." 8' . PI=52: 2.0 294 1ST--. -.· ---1.5 33--IslST I 10 BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 j • : : --: -------15
-: -j--􀁾􀀠-􀁾􀀠: -'---. 20 -: -------.-· ----I25 -I :--I--.-! · --I I-􀁾􀀠I I I30 I SAMPLER TYPE SS . STANDARD PENETRA TION TEST ST . SHELBY TUBE CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER GROUNDWATER
OBSERVATIONS AT COMPLETION DRY FT. AFTER HRS.. FT. BORING METHOD HSA HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC . DRIVEN CASINGS TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS
NONE FT. MD ·MUD DRILLING I 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 !972} 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Chent ____􀀭􀀭􀀧􀁇􀁾􀁂􀁾􀁗􀀢􀀭􀀭􀁅􀀻􀁅􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀀢􀀧􀁒􀀡􀀡􀀮􀁓􀁾􀀮􀁟�
�􀁉􀁾􀁎􀀡􀀡􀁃􀀢􀀧􀀮􀀧􀁟_______ Boring No. B-ll Architect/Engineer Job No. 00988 Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By ________􀀮􀀭􀀡􀀮􀁁􀁍􀁾_________ Project Location ADDISON,
TEXAS Approved By DAL TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION ----: --------:::' 􀁾􀀠-􀁾􀀠--------.. .. _. -.. ---..---Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. Ibs. Date Completed 1-21-01
Hammer Drop in. 􀁾􀀠OrHi Foreman EDI SpoonSample OD in. " .􀁾􀀠00 > i1?§Inspector Rock Core Dia. in, 􀁾􀀠3 a 􀀾􀀭􀁾􀀠Boring Method CllA Shelby Tube OD in. a c· _. N 0>􀀧􀁾􀀮􀁧¢ I , I '" ••'" c' SOIL CLASSIFICATION I c ,,! 􀀮􀁾􀀠...
􀁾􀀠0 ! ."::!i I • co. o. 0"::> w .:!jSURFACE ELEVATION 􀁾􀀠C u. >-'" xu> •C2t 􀀾􀀭􀁾􀀠o. 􀁩􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠.".... ::!i. ·c 632± >-w wu ..0 􀁾􀁾􀁩􀀺􀀠i§e (1)0 0'" v>2 ... .... '" Dark Brown
stiff CLAY (CH) with o -some sand. 8" 8" of concrete at surface 􀁾􀀠1 ST : --2' -r ------------I-2 _ : 􀁾􀀠Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) 2 ST -with some sand and a trace of calcareous
nodules and gravel. --4 : : 􀁾􀀠3 ST -' -6-::: --' = 􀁾􀀠4 ST -: --------------8' ---I-8 Tan and Gray hard CALCAREOITS _CLAY (CL) with some silty sand and gravel. -5 ST -: 10 -: TEST
BORING AT 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠BOTTOM OF 10 I, --.--! --, I-! . 12 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠" 'iii " to 􀁾􀀠I >c, 0 "8, v> '5 v> ! I • 􀁾-􀁾􀀠,"a • E E If'. 􀀺􀀺􀀡􀁲􀁾E0 0 " ,s:; >u 􀁾􀀮􀀠'" 􀁾􀀠-.. Il 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁧'0
u: c􀁾􀁾􀀠c" "... i Q 􀀻􀂧􀁾􀀠"cr .i§""": ".u 􀁾􀀻􀁲􀀺􀁾-<n ar:,,;; ,,::>6 II􀁾􀀰􀀠>"' II jj II 􀁧􀁾􀁩􀀵􀀠gil 􀁯􀁾􀀠• ::1zro:::>"' ... ..... 􀁾􀀠1.7 34 2.5 31 3_0 32 2.5 38 4.5+ 18 I
: ! I I I i BORING METHOD HSA . HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC .. DRIVEN CASINGS MD ·MUD DRILLING ! SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS SS . STANDARD PENETRATION
TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. ST . SHELBY TUBE CA CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS. FT. TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRA TlON TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT, 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client ___..____􀁇􀁾􀁂􀁾􀁗􀀡􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀡􀀡􀁅􀁾􀁎􀀢􀀧􀁇􀀽􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁒􀀬􀁯􀀻􀁓􀁾
􀀬􀁟􀁟􀀽􀁉􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀧􀁟􀀧􀀮􀀧􀁟_______ Boring No. B -􀁾􀀲􀀠 Arch"ecliEngineer 􀁾____________________ Job No, 􀁾_______􀀭􀀬􀀰􀁾􀀰􀁾􀀹􀀮􀀡􀀧􀀸􀀮􀀡􀀧􀀸􀀬􀀭_______ PrOlect Name 􀁾___􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀁍􀁉􀁾􀀡􀀡
􀁄􀀢􀀬􀁗􀁾􀁁􀁾􀁙􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀲􀁒􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁁􀁄􀁾􀁾􀁒􀀺􀀡􀀬􀁅􀀢􀀬􀁃􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀬􀀡􀀡􀁓􀁥􀀮􀁔􀀢􀁒􀀻􀀻􀁕􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀺􀀺􀁃􀀽􀁔􀀮􀀺􀀡􀁉􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀡􀀮􀀭􀀭____ Drewn By Project location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved
By DAL DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA ------..:. --: -􀁾􀀠---􀀮􀁾􀀠---􀁾􀀠---􀁾􀀠: --. .. --.. -----Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. IbS1Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop
,", i£ 􀁾􀀠Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. i • 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠00> -iii Inspector Rocl< Core Dia. in. : Jj 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀠"0 •Bonng Method CFA Shelby Tube 00 3 in, 0 c· 'iii 􀀮􀁾N 01'::;::'
c:: 􀁾􀀠¢ 􀁾􀀠, I " b.g 􀁾􀀠I •! i z • 􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁀􀀭􀁧•• • E E ;!'rn c 􀁾􀀠ESOIL CLASSIFICATION .s 􀁴􀁦􀁾􀀠• 0 0 " 􀀮􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀻􀀠;. i ! IU 􀁾􀀠rn 􀁾􀀠-• 􀀮􀁾􀀠•• 􀁾􀁾􀀠c ., 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁧'0
c;;" E::; • ,9 • ii 􀁯􀁾􀀠::> w w .. 0" u S.c t7 .. ", '2'"": 0 o· • SURFACE ELEVATION c 􀁵􀁾􀀠u 􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀧􀁩􀂣􀁾1-" :z:w 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠.j'! J 􀁧􀁾􀀠-<h !iii: 􀁉􀀭􀁾􀀠""-w • '" 0􀀺􀁊􀁾􀀠􀁾....
::;, ::1 .. 􀁾􀀠·0 x. 1I II II 632± ;-w wu .:0 "',. x. $ 􀁧􀁾􀀵􀀠, oc 􀁾􀀠, :;; 􀁾􀀠.􀁾􀁩􀀳􀀮􀀠0 11 ;; 􀀺􀀺􀁉􀁾􀁡􀀺􀀺<h0 0", "'z "'>I-<h ""'I-Dark Brown stiff Lime Treated o • CLAY (CH)
with some sand, : 􀁾􀀠8 1' of concrete at surface ..:. 1 ST 0,6 􀁾􀀮􀀲􀀠78 40 LL=60 PL=23 PI=37 2' .. -----, ----􀁾􀀠.. .. ---.. .. -2 _ Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) with sand laminations_
-stiff 2 ,_ 4 ! • -2 ST 1.7 35 4 : -3 ST 2.0 34 LL=46 PL=29 -􀁐􀁉􀀽􀁾􀀷􀀠6 : -4 ST 2.0 34 -.. -7.5' :---------.... --Tannish Brown very stiff -CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) with some 8 silty
and and gravel. -5 ST 3,0 22 LL=38 PL=18 i -I, PI=20 10 BOTTOM OF TEST SORING AT 10' , ! I: , -! : , I=1 , i12 -GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS AT COMPLETION DRY FT. AFTER HRS, FT, WATER ON
RODS NONE FT, BORING METHODSAMPLER TYPE HSA . HOLLOW STEM AUGERSSS . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST CFA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERSST . SHELBY TUBE DC . DRIVEN CASINGSCA CONTINUOUS FLIGHT
AUGER TCP, TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST MD ·MUD DRILLING 
ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client ______􀀮􀁟􀀢􀁇􀀢􀁂􀀢􀀧􀁗􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁅􀁎􀀽􀁇􀁥􀀺􀁉􀀺􀀺􀀻􀁎􀁅􀁾􀀢􀁅􀀢􀀧􀁒􀀢􀁓􀀧􀁟�
�􀀮􀀧􀁟􀀧􀁉􀀧􀀢􀁎􀀢􀁃􀀽􀀮________ Boring No. B-13 ArchItect/Engineer ______________________ Job No, 00988 Prolecl Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By ________--=AM=________ Project
Location ADDISON. TEXAS Approved By DAL DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA = : ------:: ------: ---:: -----· --· · -· _. -----.. ------Date Started 1-2l-01 HammerWt. 140 Ibs,
Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop 30 in. 􀁾􀀠Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠􀀬􀁾00 􀁾..> -a;Inspector Rock Core Oia. in. 􀁾􀀠:􀁾􀀠_..>-l;; "3 0 􀁾􀀠Boring Method CFA Shelby
Tube 00 io, c 􀁥􀁾􀀠'if > N 0>'.d 􀀧􀁾􀀮􀂧􀀠:; •to 􀁾􀀠l! % -􀁾􀀠'JI􀁾􀁾􀀠,. E E 1;0> e' SOIL CLASSIFICATION .G 􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀠0 0 Eo.:tt >u il 􀀬􀁾􀀠"• 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀧􀁧:f. 􀁾􀁾􀀠0 :; 00. 0 'C
􀁾􀀠, 􀁣􀁾􀀠:;:, E 1 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠_ ...W I", 0", ·z :§£bj o.u -" 0 55:£SURFACE ELEVATION " 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠E (,), u ;§:i u >-:r Iw 􀁬􀁜􀁬􀁾􀀠, -", ;lit;: 􀀾􀀭􀁾􀀠Q. 􀁩􀁾􀁾􀀠• '" e "'_ 􀁾􀀭!:;,
oe. 􀁾􀀭.\! II U II:"-'" 0 • c 'li 􀁧􀁾􀀶􀀠ue ",633± I-W WI,) .,0 􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀠• 􀁾􀀡􀁬􀀠00 ,",0 Q", "''' .. HI' '" :1)"'10.>On :;: 􀀺􀀺􀀱􀁾􀀠0: Dark Brown stiff Lime Treated 0 = CLAYICH)
with some sand. 􀁾􀀠8 11 of concrete at surface. -1 ST 1.1 1.2 70 42 􀁌􀁌􀁾􀀷􀀹􀀠PL=38, 􀁐􀁉􀁾􀀴􀀱􀀠---------.. 􀁾􀀠----2'--2 Dark Brown stiff CLAY (CH) with 􀁾􀀠sand laminations. --2
i ST 1.5 35 -: , 4 : ....:: 3 ST 1.5 34 : 6'--,..---------_. ----6 _ Tan and Gray hard CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) with limestone seams. = ....:: 4 ST 4.5+ 24 : I-!8' ----.. ---.--------8 I
, I-, Tan weathered SHALY LIMESTONE. : 5 ITCP l.QJ)18:: 1" ! 10 -BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 1 • 1 -, i ---1 I -1 i !12 -! I SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD 55 ,STANDARD
PENETRATION TEST ST . SHELBY TUBE AT COMPLETION DRY FT. HSA • HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS CA ' CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS. FL DC -DRIVEN CASINGS TCP, TEXAS
CONE PENETRA TION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. MD -MUO DRILLING 
ALPHA TESTING, INC, RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas. Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client _______􀀭􀀧􀁇􀀢􀀧􀁂􀀧􀀢􀁗􀀢􀀭􀁅􀀽􀁎􀁇􀁾􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁎􀁅􀀽􀁉􀁬􀀢􀀧􀁒􀀢􀁓􀀢􀁟􀀧􀁟􀀮
--=I"'N"'C",'-_______ Boring No. B-14 Architect/Engineer Job No. _________􀁏􀁾􀁏􀀽􀀹􀀲􀀸􀀢􀀢􀀸􀀧􀁟􀁟_____􀁾􀀠Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By AM Project Location ADPI:SON#
TEXAS Approved By DAL TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION Date Started 􀀱􀀭􀀲􀀱􀀭􀀰􀁾􀀠Hammel Wt, 􀁾􀀴􀀰􀀠Ibs. Date C ompfeted 􀀱􀀭􀀲􀀱􀀭􀀰􀁾􀀠Hammer Drop 30 in. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀠0 Drill
Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠, 􀁾􀀠00 􀁾􀀮􀀠> -@Inspector Rock Core Ora. in. Jf :Shelby Tube 00 3 8 .... ;.; Soring Method CFA in. 􀁣􀁾􀀠'" 0 .... 􀀮􀁾􀀮􀂧ci , z 􀀮􀁾􀀠'" c "
SOIL CLASSIFICATION I .􀀬􀁾􀀠.. 􀁾􀀠j• 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁆􀁁􀁃􀁅􀀠ELEVATION :i' /i'. I ::> w w 0" .... 0; XW -' -' c u. < .... ....-' ""w 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀢"' .. Bit) ::0. ::0 .. 0 􀁾􀁣􀀠634±
􀁾􀁾􀀠<> ; 􀀮􀁾􀀠.... w , 0"'0 0'" "' .... "-Hil : Dark Brown very stiff Lime o -Treated CLAY (CHl with. some -: sand. _8 11 of concrete at --surface. -= 1 ST -=----2' --I---------.----I--2
-Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) -with sand laminations. ----brown below 4' . ---2 ST =--= --:; 4 -􀁾􀀠:---=; -5' ...:--------------3 ST j Tan weathered SHALY LIMElSTONE. : ---6 : -:
--=--. -----8--=.. -----, --4 TCP 􀁾􀁏􀁏􀀠.. -1,5"-10 -BOTTOM OF TElST BORING AT 10 j , --= --= --I -! 􀁾􀀠I---i 12 '1 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠!:: . 􀁾􀀠.... C .2 g '" ! " en 􀁾􀀠>•􀁾􀀠; x 􀁾􀀠;
! •a ., 􀀧􀁲􀁾􀁾E E l'E0 rn C '-..J >U • •• 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠-" cu:: 􀀻􀀺􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀺􀁧􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠0 􀁊􀂧􀁾􀀠ti'. .. '2""": 0 jl..!! 􀁾􀀠I • I!! u 􀁾.. o: co=>.2 !􀀸􀁷􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀰􀀠I II IIuc >.c'::;o
00 ,0 ;: ja:o::>"' .... ...... 0" 2.0 36 2.2 30 2.2 30 18 , i I , BORING METHOD HSA . HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC -DRIVEN CASINGS MD -MUD DRILLING SAMPLER TYPE
GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS 5S . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. ST . SHELBY TUBE AFTER HRS.. FT.CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER TCP-TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS
NONE FT. 
----ALPHA TESTING. INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St.. Suite 100 Dalias, Texas 75229 (972) 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client _______􀀺􀀺􀀡􀁇􀀺􀀽􀁂􀁾􀁗􀀧􀁟􀁟􀀧􀁅􀁾􀁎􀁩􀀡􀀺􀁇􀁾􀁉􀀽􀁎􀁅􀀧􀁯􀀧􀀮􀀢􀁾􀁅
􀁾􀁒􀀢􀀢􀁓􀀧􀁟􀀧􀀬􀀧􀁟􀀧􀁉􀀧􀀢􀁎􀀢􀀧􀁃􀀽􀀮________ Baring No. B-15 ArchltectJEngineer _____________________ Job No. 0=0"'9.::8.::8'--_____________ _ Project Name _____􀁍􀁉􀀡􀀧􀀡􀀺􀀡􀀺􀀽􀁄􀁾􀁗􀁾􀁁􀁾􀁙
􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀧􀁒􀁏􀁾􀁁􀁄􀁾􀀧􀁟􀁟􀀢􀁒􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁃􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀧􀁏􀀢􀁎􀀢􀁓􀀢􀀧􀁔􀀽􀁟􀁒􀀽􀁬􀀱􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁃􀀢􀁔􀀢􀁉􀀢􀁏􀀢􀁎􀀧􀁟____ Drawn By AM Project location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By DAL DRILLING AND
SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA Date Started 1-21.-01 Hammer Wt. Ibs. 1-21.-01 in. '"Date Completed Hammer Drop '" 0 Drill foreman BPI Spoon Sample OD in. • " 00> -0;Inspector Rock Core
Dia. in. Vi ;􀁾􀀠0. Shelby Tube 00 3 in. c .... ;; •Boring Method CFA a c· 􀁾􀀠> N 0 .... 􀀮􀁾-:;:. c: 􀁾􀀠x" 􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀠to • I a •Z iI' 􀂷􀁲􀁾􀁾•• ;; € 􀁾􀀠'" c ' ESOIL CLASSifiCATION
􀀬􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠• 0 ".... '" --oJ >U • 􀀮􀁾􀀠II ..J (,I,t:• i!&: ·1 oi ::: • 􀁾􀀠􀁣􀁾􀀠,><. c . 􀀺􀁑􀀧􀁩􀀧􀁾.. 8-e • 􀀮􀁾􀀠13 :;')tn Ul SURfACE ELEVATION I " W W 􀁾􀁾􀀠I .. " -5it;i....
;z; ;z;w 􀁾􀀠Itw " .-11 􀁾􀀼􀁉􀀺􀀠'r.: •"'... 􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁾􀀠.. 􀁾􀀠! '" OC0 :,:,.1! II"'.. ..'" ::. ::.. ·c 􀁧􀁾􀁧􀀠". II II II ! x. '0 gg >. •635± .... w WI,) ",0 <>0_0 􀁾􀁾􀀭",0 C><I>
<nZ "' .... ... '" '" ,,<n .... ...... 􀁏􀁾􀀠'>< 􀁾.... Dark Brown very stiff CLAY(CH) o -i with some sand and a trace of j gravel, -=-8,25 11 of concrete at surface 1 ST 3.5 37 LL=85
􀁾􀀠PL=30 -brown with calcareous nodules ..; ! 􀁐􀁉􀁾􀀵􀀵􀀠below B' . -2 : --2 ST 2.0 32 ----4 _ : ...:: 3 ST 2.2 37 -6 : : -4 ST 2.5 32 -i 8 -I BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10 I • i I I
-5 ST . : I 10 -12 ! i i 2.7 34 I i ! i I i BORING METHOD HSA HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC • DRIVEN CASINGS MD ·MUD DRILLING -= : -----------: -= --:: --------.
-----------SAMPLER TYPE SS . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ST . SHELBY TUBE CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER TCP· TeXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS AT COMPLETION DRY FT. FT.
AFTER HRs'. FT. WATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
ALPHA TESTING, INC_ RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St" Suite 1 00 Dailas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION C lien! _______--'G"'B"'W"-'E"'N"'G"'I"'NE""'E""'R"S-'-,-=I"'NC=--------Boring
No. B -16 Architect/Engineer Job No. _______􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀁏􀀧􀀡􀀭􀀧􀁏􀀢􀀧􀀹􀀢􀀧􀀸􀁾􀀸􀀡􀀼􀀭_______ Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By AM Project location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved
By _______􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀡􀁥􀁾􀁾_______ TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION ---------= -----------:: -= ----= ---------Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. Ibs. 􀁾􀀢..Date Completed 1-21-01
Hammer Drop in. ti: -;, Drrll Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. 0 -.o.____M > 􀁾􀁩􀁬􀁩􀀠Inspector Rock Core Dia. in. 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁩􀀠􀁾􀀠ID 03 0 0 Bonng Method CFA Shelby Tube 00 in. c c·
" • I'" .2><; 0 . ci ';iC " 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀁧􀀠t; . •, z " • *􀀮􀁾􀀠;; E E EO> c -SOIL CLASSIFICATION . 6 􀀺􀁾􀀠• 0 g c>f o·?􀁾􀀠u .. 􀁾•• c i '1':)-(.,) " • , en. .9 ti: c_ e 􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾'---..
.. 0" 􀀮􀁾􀀠•" w w u 􀁾􀁾􀁴􀀡􀁦􀀠.. 􀁾􀀠SURFACE ELEVATION 􀁾􀀠J 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠u 􀀻􀀻􀁯􀀺􀁾>-:< J:w , 0 􀁾􀁉􀁄􀀠,; 􀁾􀀠. ' 􀀺􀁺􀁾􀀠."... >-J • '" oc. j 􀁾􀀰􀀠0 * II II 1\",n. .." 0 ,.'"􀁾􀀠K.
i "'5 􀁧􀁾􀁧􀀠oe 635± >-w wu «0:<>.00 _. :;:: 􀁾􀁊􀁟􀀠<nO 0", tnZ 1(I)t.. >-ID '" "<J)'" n.>on J .... Dark Brown hard CLAY(CH) with o -some sand and a trace, of --gravel. 􀁾􀀸􀀮􀀲􀀵􀀢􀀠of
concrete at ..::.surface -very stiff below 4' . 1 ST 4.5+ 35 LL=65 = PJ:,=36 = PI=29 2 --..::. 2 ST 1.7 33 = = 4 -i -i.., ----, 3 ST 2.2 31 LL=83 􀁾􀀠PL=30 􀁾􀀠PI=53 ------6' '-------1--6
Dark Brown very stiff CLAY(CH) with some sand. -4 ST 2.2 32 = S' -r---------------8 Tannish Brown stiff CALCAREOUS CLAY (CLI CH) wiLh petro-chemical =! odor. ---------BOTTOM OF TEST
BORING AT 10' . , i i -5 • ST -I 10 ---:: ----! ..::. II 12 I ! i 1.5 22 ! I BORING METHOD HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC • DRIVEN CASINGS MD -MUD DRILLING
GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS SS -STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLER TYPE AT COMPLETION DRY FT. ST • SHELBY TUBE AFTER HRS.. FT.CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST
TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Cl,ent _______􀁾􀁑􀀺􀀡􀀧􀁂􀁾􀁗􀁾􀀢􀀻􀁅􀁾􀁎􀁇􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁅􀀡􀁟􀀢􀀧􀀡􀁅􀀢􀁒􀀡􀀻􀂣􀁓􀁌􀀬
􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀢􀀮􀀧􀁟_______ Boring No. Architect/Engineer Job No. 00988 Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By ----------'='-c--------Project Location ADDISON,. TEXAS Approved
By DAL DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA ----.. ----------_. ------. Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt, 140 Ibs. IDate Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop 30 in. u: "Drill Foreman EDI
Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠_.. -"", > 00 ,-ffi Inspector Rock Core Dia. in. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀻􀀻􀀠u! 0Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube 00 3 in. c • ! 0 e· 'iii > N or'ii'';:; c: '0 0 􀁾􀀠•ci °0
to 􀁾􀀠􀁩􀀻􀁾􀀠•Z 0"' 􀀮􀀽􀀮􀁾􀀭􀁧'" Ii" m E E ESOIL CLASSIFICATION .5 0 0 " 􀀵􀁾-;... 􀁾􀀠r-u " 􀀢􀁾􀀠J _ 􀁾􀀠.e " .i .. J!l 􀁾􀀧􀁲􀁧:; 0 cD'e i c_ ;!: .. e -.. 0" -􀀮􀁾􀀠•:> W w 􀀮􀂧􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀤􀀠"E-'
rro0 SURFACE ELEVATION J 􀁾􀀠II u. u 􀁾􀁯􀀺􀀮􀁾1-:1: :l:W .. 0 " C«I􀁴􀁴􀀺􀁾􀀠"w 􀁾􀀱􀀡􀀠'" OCw -:>6 !(Co. :;. :;.. 0 􀁾􀁾􀀵􀀠i 􀁾􀀮􀀠>-c II II n <0 • Xo '5 oe 644± I-W wu ",.. vi 2.{:
􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀭<1)0 0", "';Z "'I0. ...., '" :>"' ... OD 􀁾.... Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) o -with calcareous deposit and 􀁾􀀠some sand -poss. fill -=-6,5" of concrete at surface. 1
ST 2.0 27 LL=S5 --PL=30 -i PI=55 2 2 1ST = 2.7 3S --3' -I-------I--= Tannish Brown and Gray very stiff CALCAREOUS CLAY(CL/CH) -3 ST 2.5 27 with clay zones. --hard with limestone seams
4 below 4' . 4 ST 4.5+ 15 5' --------------f--Tan weathered SHALl' LIMESTONE. 􀁾􀀠6-=: -8' -----. ---------.-_. --S--.. ..---.. -= ------Tan weathered SHALl' LIMESTONE. BOTTOM OF TEST
BORING AT 10 I. i ! i i ! i : 5 TCP 100 1"-10 _ -! ! i ! -Ii 12 i 15 i I ! i ii BORING METHOD HSA . HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC -DAIVEN CASINGS MD ·MUD DRILLING
SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS 55 . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT.ST . SHELBY TUBE CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HAS. FT. TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST
WATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
Dallas. Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION G8W ENGINEERS, INC. Boring No. 8-18􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭.....--ArcoltecllEngrneer Job No. 00988 Chent ALPHA TESTING,
INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Project Nome ____􀀮􀀮􀀻􀁍􀀽􀁉􀀢􀁄􀀢􀀧􀁗􀀢􀀧􀁁􀀢􀁙􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁯􀀢􀁁􀁄􀀽􀁾􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁅􀀧􀁟􀀧􀁃􀀧􀁟􀀧􀁏􀀢􀀧􀁎􀀢􀀧􀁓􀀢􀀧􀁔􀀢􀁒􀀢􀁕􀀽􀁃􀁔􀀽􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁏􀀢􀁎􀀧􀁟____
Drawn By Project location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By DAL TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION ----------. -Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. 140 IbS' 1 Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer
Drop 30 .n. 􀁾􀀠Dnll Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in., 􀁾􀀠-􀁾􀀠􀁾..00 lnspector Rock Core Dia. in. . 􀁾􀀠-iii 􀁾􀀠i in 􀁾􀀭08 􀀾􀀭􀁾􀀠u Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube OD 3 in. o· ;;􀀭􀁾􀀠N
J:i! I5 ci 􀁥􀀮􀁾􀀠° * x to • •'" 􀁾􀁬􀁩􀀩􀀠" . iI' 􀂷􀁏􀀻􀀻􀀺􀀧􀁅􀁾" 􀁩􀁩􀁾􀀠;;; E E :cSOIL CLASSIFICATION 􀀮􀁾􀀠• a e E 􀁾􀀺􀁉􀀻.. 􀁾􀀠>I '-' 􀀮􀁾􀀠« 0 ;; • 􀀺􀁧􀀭􀁧􀁉􀁾􀀠:E /1. or>.
.Q " u: 0-' ;::. E• tt':;. I ,0" w w a" t; :1§£& 􀁾􀀼􀀧􀀠c 0·· SURFACE ELEVATION >-:z: :z:w 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠E u. , 􀁾􀀧􀀢􀀠'c . U :::ii5:ct «>􀁉􀀭􀁾􀀠a. ..w 8 ." '" c a _ <􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀠􀁾::;. :E<L
·0 oc. 􀁾􀀮􀀠U II II «a. ..« gt:i:i >-' 644± >-w wu «0 «>􀁾􀀠x. 'a g§ 􀁾<_0 􀁾􀁾􀀭<1>0 0", "'Z w ... a. ...'" '" "''''... <LIoB 􀁾..o.. Dark Brown very stiff CLAY (CH) o -1 STwith some
sand and ca.lcareous :: 1 3.2 32 LL=73 nodules -pass. fill PL=27 _ 􀁾􀁟􀀶􀀠􀁾􀀵􀀠II 􀁾􀁦_􀁣􀁾􀁮􀁾􀁲􀁾􀁴􀁥􀀠_at:.. 􀁾􀁵􀀽􀀺􀁦􀁾􀁣􀁥􀀠'__ 3' -2 ST 3.2 3B PI=46 --Tan and Gray hard CALCAREOUS
.., 3 ST 4.5+ 19 CLAY (CL/CH) with limestone 5' 􀁾􀀠4 ST 4.5+ 1.4 seams. /--5------------Tan weathered SHALY LIMESTONE. = B' --------------------1------------= ------... -------------Gray
SHALY LIMESTONE. BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT SAMPLER TYPE SS • STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ST . SHELBY TUBE lO I. CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER rcp· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST -. -5 TCI?
1.00 10 _ 1" :: --1.S --:: --􀁾􀀠20 --: 25 i -30 = I GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS AT COMPLETION DRY FT. AFTER HRS. FT. WATER ON ROOS NONE FT. i I I 1.4 . I ! ! I I I BORING METHOD HSA --HOLLOW
STEM AUGERS CFA -CONTINUOUS FliGHT AUGERS DC -DRIVEN CASINGS MD ·MUD DRILLING 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .. -.. ---: --..:: = -----------.. -: -------: -------.. .. -...􀁾􀀠---Date
Started J.-21-0J. HammerWt. J.40 Ibs. Date Completed 1-21-0J. Hammer Drop 30 in. 􀁾􀀠DriU Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. • 􀀭􀁾􀀠00> 􀁾􀁓Inspector Rock Core Dia, in. '*Shelby Tube 00
3 in. c f-. Boring Method CFA 0 o· '" of􀀧􀁾􀀠c: ! .; i! .2 j Z 􀁾􀁩􀁄􀀠m 0SOIL CLASSIFICATION c .i 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁯􀀮􀁾• 􀁾􀁯􀀠:E 􀁾􀀠00. n. 0" SURFACE ELEVATION ::> '" w u, 􀁾􀁾􀀠;rw J J E
􀁾􀁾.... J .. ..w •"'.. .." :E. :Eo. 0 644± .... w wu ,,0 ,,>􀁾􀀠"N0rI>" 0", rl>Z <M" .. ....'" Brown and Tan hard CLAY (CH) 0 with calcareous deposjt, gravel :and some sand. .. poss
. fill ·6.S" of concrete at surface. -:: 1 ST !: 2 i 2 ! ST .. i -i --4' if--------f--4 Tan and Gray hard CALCAREOUS i STCLAY (CL) with limestone seams. = 3 ---6' 6-::f-----------1--Tan
weathered SHALY LIMESTCNE. = -= --8' ------------------8-:: : ! ,-Gray SHALY LIMESTONE. 4 TCP TCP 1-'!.Q. ! 1.3" 10 BOTTCM OF TEST BORING AT 10' . : : -, ! I -i12 -'a 􀁾􀀠t:i 0 i" C
0 􀁾􀀠, rI> '6 rI> ! I , •••􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠"5. ;:; • * 􀁾􀁲􀁧E E .c0 e 􀀮􀁾􀁾;.U ;; . _S!' C J _ "0 • E }2.g.gIi: c_ 3:.,• ou. 8 , .. 􀁾􀂣􀁴􀁦􀀠"a .g-: 􀁧􀁾􀂣-rI>g 􀁾VI .::>0 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀵􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀠>"
􀁾􀀬􀀠II II II.0 􀀲􀀮􀁾􀀠Cl.!l JJ_ ::>"'f-J .... 4.5+ 21 􀁌􀁌􀁾􀀷􀀳􀀠􀁐􀁌􀁾􀀲􀀸􀀠PI=45 4.5+ 32 4.5+ 20 􀁌􀁌􀁾􀀴􀀸􀀠PL=20 PI=28 13 ! I, I BORING METHOD HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA -CONTJNUOUS
FLIGHT AUGERS DC . DRIVEN CASINGS MD ·MUD DRllLlNG Chent _______􀁇􀁾􀁂􀁾􀁗􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁉􀀡􀀺􀀻􀁎􀁅􀁾􀀡􀀧􀀡􀁅􀀡􀀧􀁒􀀢􀀧􀁓􀀧􀀮􀀡􀀬􀁟􀀧􀁉􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁃􀀽􀀮________ Boring No. ArchItect/Engineer
_____________________ Job No. PrOject Name ____􀀭􀀧􀁍􀁾􀁉􀁟􀀢􀁄􀁾􀁗􀀡􀀡􀁁􀁾􀁙􀀧􀁟􀀧􀁒􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁁􀁄􀁾􀁟􀀡􀀧􀁒􀁅􀁾􀁃􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀡􀀡􀁓􀁾􀁔􀀡􀀺􀀻􀁒􀁾􀁕􀁾􀁃􀀺􀀻􀀻􀁔􀀮􀀡􀀡􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁏􀀧􀀡􀀡􀁎􀀡􀀮􀁟____
Drawn By Project Location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS S5 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION DRY FT. ST -SHELBY
TU8E CA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS.. FT. TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. 00988 AM ________􀁾􀀢􀀧􀁟_______ TEST DATA 
ALPHA TESTING, INC. RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St.• Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (9721 620·8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Chent __.___..___􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁂􀁾􀁗􀀡􀀮􀀲􀁅􀀺􀀡􀀬􀁎􀀡􀀢􀁇􀁾􀁉􀀺􀀮􀀡􀁎􀁅􀀡􀀡􀀧􀁣􀀧􀁅􀀬􀀼�
�􀁒􀁾􀁓􀁾􀀬􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀁉􀀽􀀺􀁎􀀼􀀺􀀼􀁣􀁃􀀬􀀬􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀬_______ Bo,;ng No. Architect/Engineer ____________________ Job No. _______􀁾􀁏􀀢􀀧􀁏􀀢􀁟􀀹􀀢􀀧􀀸􀀢􀀧􀀸􀀢􀁟___..____ Proiect Name ____􀀮􀀡􀀧􀁍􀁾􀁉􀁾�
�􀀧􀀡􀀮􀁗􀁾􀁁􀁾􀁙􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁏􀁥􀀡􀁁􀁄􀁾􀁟􀀧􀁒􀀢􀁅􀁾􀁃􀀡􀀽􀀺􀁏􀀢􀀧􀁎􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀮􀁓􀀡􀀺􀁣􀁔􀁾􀁒􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀁕􀁾􀁃􀀮􀀽􀁔􀀮􀀽􀁊􀀺􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁎􀀡􀀮􀁟___ Drawn By AM PrOject location ADDISON1 TEXAS Approved
By _______..cD"'AL!"'_____. TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS BORING METHOD HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUGERS SS STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION
DRY FT. CFA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS 5T . SHELBY TUBE AFTER HRS. FT. DC . DRIVEN CASINGS CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. MD ·MUD
DRILLING -----....:: ---: ------: ----------------Date Started 􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀲􀁾􀀭􀁏􀁾􀀠Hammer Wt. 􀁾􀀴􀀰􀀠lb. Date Completed 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀁾􀀭􀁏􀁬􀀮􀀠Hammer Drop 30 in. if 􀁾􀀠Drill Foreman ED:!:
Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠c 􀁾􀀠00, -0; InspectOr Rock Core Dia. in. 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀀬􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀠'" 􀁾􀀠Shelby Tube 00 3 g I-lO 􀁾􀀠IBoring Method CFA in. o· 􀁾􀀠, N 0>-..';;; c • 􀁾􀀠"I.; e,g !:::.
: 15. I Z 􀁾􀁾􀀠i'" lO E E .E _I 􀁾." CALCAREOUS CLAY (CLI 􀁷􀁾􀁴􀁨􀀠SOIL CLASSIFICATION I .< 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠0 g>-u 􀁾􀁉􀀠> 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁩􀁬􀀺􀀠0 0 􀁑􀀧􀁾􀀠" .i 􀁣􀁾􀀠!l..;. 􀁾't; :5:> • ! t:.
3" Q ... 8w w 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠"cr 􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀺:;) a'-SURFACE ELEVATION 1-3: J:w 1£ j E u-􀁾􀁏􀀺􀂣• 􀁾􀁾􀀠" _U> «I-􀁉􀀭􀁾􀀠"w <I> 0-"'5-. 􀁾􀀠l!.. l!... 8 0 • 􀁾􀀮􀀠II II II<c .. fri6 l x. '0 􀁣􀁾􀁦􀁓􀀠gg
>'" " 643± I-W <:0 'D· ! 0-!l.1-'" jj-<1>0 0", <l>Z <1>1-"' =>",1-0.1-0'" j .... Tannish Brown and Gray hard 0 1imestone seams. ....::-7.25" of concrete at surface. 1 ST 4,5+ LL=59 :
IPL=21 -PI=38 2' ------'------􀁾􀀠-2 Gray SHALY LIMESTONE. ....:: 4 : 2 TCP 100 131.3" i6-:: : I I ....:: i I-!8-:: , I I -3 TCP lJl.Q. IS!1.3 11 -, I -----BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10
I • I 10 _ -i -: , i 12 i I ! I I,, i : I i I i 
ALPHA TESTING, INC, RECORD OF2209 Wisconsin St,. Suite 100 Dallas. Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Client _____􀀭􀀧􀁇􀀢􀀧􀁂􀀢􀀧􀁗􀀢􀀭􀀭􀀢􀁅􀀢􀁎􀀢􀀧􀁇􀁾􀁉􀀺􀀡􀁎􀁅􀀧􀁟􀀢􀀢􀁅􀀢􀀧􀁒􀀢􀀧
􀁓􀀢􀁟􀀧􀁟􀀬-=I"'N"'C'-','-_______ Boring No. B -2J. Architect/Engineer Job No. 00988 Project Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By AM Proiect location ADDISON, TEXAS Approved By
_______-'D=AL""-____".__􀁾___ DRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION TEST DATA ----= -: -= --:: : --.------: --------... ... Date Started J.-2J.-0J. Hammer WL 140 Ibs, Date Completed 1-21-01
Hammer Drop 30 in. \!,• Drill Foreman EDI Spoon Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠􀀭􀁾􀀠00 Inspector Rock Core Dla. in. 􀀮􀁾􀀠j3e'" .... Boring MethOd Shelby Tube 00 3 in. 0CFA 0 " '" of-I SOil CLASSIFICATION
SURFACE ELEVATION 643± Tannish Brown very stiff to hard CALCAREOOS CLAY (CLi with limestone seams. 􀁾􀀶􀀮􀀷􀀵􀀡􀀱􀀠of concrete at surface. ------------Gray SHALY LIMESTONE. BOTTOM OF
TEST BORING AT 10' . . i , I I -;.§I I ! .; % ••G " ' c 􀀮􀁾• .. 􀁾􀀠• -:; • co., .. 0."::> w w u'r'" :tw 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠c 􀀺􀁧􀁾i'H: !i::;! .. "w •:;. :; .. 0 x"rW wU ",0 "'> • .e ",0 0",
"'Z "'f0. ,...'" 0 : -1 ST 2'---2 _ : -= 4 _ : 2 TCP 100 1.511 6--:: -: 8-:: : 3 TCP lQQ 1.3" 10 : i I -I 12 i 􀁾􀀠Oo iii ;; to ;;;• .r " 0 g '" '5 '" . •••􀁾􀀠• , 􀁾􀀠• 􀁾Oo '"E E l'
;; 0 II cu '" >!..; • 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀺􀁧" u: ;:..; c• 􀀮􀁾􀀠0 􀁾􀁾􀀠0. 0 􀁾􀀭U 0..le " . ::Hi:>l oc:';;i ::>0 ! 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀭.",􀁧􀁾􀀵􀀠oc ,.""00 oil • 􀁾􀁾􀀭:>"'r o.f;: 􀁾.. o. 2.7 22 13 16
I BORING METHOD HSA -HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA ' CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC -DRIVEN CASINGS MD -MUD DRILLING SAMPLER TYPE GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS 5S . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AT COMPLETION
DRY FT. ST -SHELBY TUBE AFTER HRS.. FT.CA -CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER TCP-TEXAS CONE PENETRATION TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT, 
ALPHA TESTING. INC, RECORD OF2209 WisconsinSt" Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75229 (9721 620-8911 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Chent _____􀁾􀁑􀁾􀁂􀁾􀁗􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀡􀁅􀀢􀁟􀀡􀁎􀁾􀁑􀁾􀁉􀀢􀁟􀀧􀁎􀁅􀁾􀁅􀀡􀀺􀁃􀁒􀁾􀁓􀁾􀀮_
I:N!!!:;C-'-,_______ Boring No. _______􀀭􀀽􀁂􀁣􀀺􀀭􀀺􀀻􀀲􀁾􀀲􀀧􀁟_____ Architect/Engineer Job No. 00988 Projec, Name MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Drawn By 11M Project Location ADDISONI
TEXAS Approved By DAL TEST DATADRILLING AND SAMPLING INFORMATION ----: -Date Started 1-21-01 Hammer Wt. 140 lb•. Date Completed 1-21-01 Hammer Drop 30 in. J: "Drill Foreman EDI Spoon
Sample 00 in. 􀁾􀀠" 􀁾􀀠00 . > -a; lnspector Rock Core Cia. in. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁴􀀻􀀻􀀠u"0 •Boring Method CFA Shelby Tube OD 3 in. a 􀁣􀁾􀀠" 􀀮􀁾-N 0>'0ci 􀀮􀁾􀀮􀂧􀀠• 􀁾􀀠x to • •I z t'lO 5.
Ii< n I '" 􀁾􀁾􀀠;; E E E '"SOIL CLASSIFICATION 􀀭􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠0 0 c >􀀢􀀭􀁾􀀠>u " 0> !, w 􀁾􀁉􀁦􀀠C . 􀁾􀀮􀀠" e 􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀬􀁧::E m .0 '0 J: i.r 0:", C 􀁾.. "0", • 0 OJ w w U 􀁾􀁾􀀠"-" '2 "':
"m" SURFACE ELEVATION. 􀁵􀁾􀀠, u 􀁾􀁇􀀺􀂣>-0: , o:w 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠c , -<n <C>􀀾􀀭􀁾􀀠"o.w • "n '" '" 0::>.Q 􀁾􀀠o.'" ::E. ::Eo. 0 ·c 􀁾􀁾􀀠p II II 643± 0:"wu <cO "',.. t -. '5 􀁧􀁾􀂧􀀠oC >
. " >-w .00 "" 0: 􀁾􀁾􀀭"'0 ow <nZ "'>">-'" '" ::)(">0.0OD 􀁾􀀢􀀭􀀢􀀭Tannish Brown and Gray hard o -CALCAREOUS CLAY (CL) with : 1irnestone seams. -6.75" of concrete at surface. -= 1
• ST 4.5+ IB LL=35 i PL=17 PI=18 2'--􀁾􀀭-------------2 ---􀁾􀀠---􀁾􀀠---------: ----------, ..! -----I-=, Gray SHALY LIMESTONE. BOTTOM OF TEST BORING AT 10' . . I : 2 i CA i I 4 i :
i 3 ,TCP 100 1" : 6':: : --:: --8, = 4 TCP 100 -, 1.5" 10 -! : . l2 -I I 13 12 16 , I I BORING METHOD HSA . HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFA • CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS DC -DRIVEN CASINGS MD ·MUD
DRILLING GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS SS . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLER TYPE AT COMPLETION DRY FT. ST SHELBY TUBE CA . CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER AFTER HRS.. FT. TCP· TEXAS CONE PENETRATION
TEST WATER ON RODS NONE FT. 
--ALPHA TESTING, INC. 2209 Wisconsin St., Suite 100 􀀬􀁾, Dallas, Texas 75229 I/h, '(I (972) 620-8911 [EV TO SOIL SVnOOLS AHD CLASSIFICATIOHS THE ABBREVIATIONS COMMONLY EMPLOYED ON EACH
"RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION", ON THE FIGURES AND IN THE TEXT OF THE REPORT, ARE AS FOLLOWS: SOIL DR ROCK TYPES (SHOWN IN SYMBOLS COLUMN) ',f);".o;,• • /)-,D',[§] [ff] 􀁾􀀠I1IDl
􀁾􀀠rn ."'. '. CLAY SILT SAND LIMESTONE SHALE ASPHALT/CONCRETE I . SOIL DESCRIPTION I II . RELATIVE PROPORTIONS (A) COHESIONLESS SOILS DESCR IPTI VE TERM PERCENT RELAT IVE DEliS ITY
N, BLOi.JS/FT TRACE 1 -10 LITTLE 11 -20 VERY LOOSE 0 TO 4 SOME 21 -35 LOOSE 5 TO 10 AND 315 -50 COMPACT 11 TO 30 DENSE 31 TO 50 VERY DENSE OVER 50 IV. PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION <B)
COHESIVE SOILS BOVLDERS: -8 INCH DIAMETER OR MORE CONSISTENCY VERY SOFT SOFT FIRM STIFF VERY STIFF HARD Qu, TSF LESS THAN .25 .25 TO .50 .50 TO 1.00 1.00 TO 2.00 2.00 TO 4.00 OVER 4.00
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY -3 TO 8 INCH DIAMETER -COARSE -3/4 TO 3 INCH -FINE -5.0 MM TO 3/4 INCH -COARSE -2.0 MM TO S.O MM -MEDIUM -0.4 MM TO 2.0 MM -FINE -0.07 MM TO 0.4 MM -0.002
NN TO 0.07 MM -0.002 MN II. PLASTICITY V. DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS DEGAEE OF PLASTICITY AV: RVGER SAMPLE PLASTICITY INDEX RC: ROCK CORE TCP: TEXRS CONE PENETRATION TEST NONE TO
SLI GHT o -4 SS: SPLIT-SPOON 1 3/8" I.D. 2" O.D. SLIGHT 5 -10 EXCEPT WHERE NOTED ST: SHELBY TVBE = 3" O.D. EXCEPTMEDIUM 11 -30 HIGH TO VERY HIGH OVER 3D WHERE NOTED WS. WASHED SAMPLE
HSA: HOLLOW STEM AUGERS CFR: CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS MD: MUD DRILLINGNOTE: ALL SOILS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM 0-2487) 
Engineers, Inc. WBldbauer May 21, 2001 Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Town of Addison Post Office Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001 Re: Draft Letter Repon for Midway Road Pavement Seclion GBW
No. 238 Dear Steve: Tbis leuer report summarizes data from an in-depth field inspection of the Midway Road pavement conditioll performed by GBW staff and the enclosed draft geotec.hnical
report prepared by Alpha Testing, Inc. In addition. this report .includes a review of the pavement section alternatives included in the Alpha Testing repon and an opinion of probable
cost for two of the pavement sections that utilize alternative base rnarerials, Deseriplion of Problem Alpha Testing. Inc. strategically selected boring locations in order 10 determine
how subsurface conditions were atrecting rhe level of pavement distress, Following an analysis of the field inspection and soH boring data. we bave the following observations: • Tbe
pavement dist(ess aloog the northbound lanes is more pronounced than the southbound lanes, • The worst worst section of tbe southbound lanes is in the vicinity of the railroad Classing
nea{ tbe Belt Line Road end of the project where a sag is located. • The cross-slope on the northbound lanes, which is mostly in tIle 1/8 to 1I4·inch per foot range, is si8llifica.ntly
less than the southbound lanes, where it is mostly in the 1/4 to II2-inch pel foot range. • The difference between tbe northbound and southbound lane cross-slopes apperu:s to have resulted
from an attempt to match tbe existing ground at the east and west right-of. way lines when tbe current Midway Road pavement was designed in 1982. The flatter cross-slope on the northbound
lanes increases the likelihood that surface water will pond or runoff slowly. resulting in a bigber infiltl'ation rate into tbe subgrade through pavement joims and cr.acks. • In addition
10 rainfall. sprinkler systems in the medians and adjacent parkways are other sources of water which can infiltrnte the subgrade. • Flallongitudinal slopes along some sections of Midway
Road also slow Iha! rate of sto.nn water runoff; for example. in the vicinity of the railroad crossing. . • Poor. surface drainage appears to be the primary reason why pavement distress
has been more rapid along mo.st of the northbound lanes when co.mpru:ed with the southbound lanes. • The poor condition of many pavement joints. some of which may have been widened when
the pavement was milled and resealed in 1994, provide conduits fo.r surface water to reach the subg.:ade. • The plasticity index of the underlying clay soil is generally in rbe 18 to
S5 range. wltich indicates a bigh potential to shrink and swell. • The soil borings do not provide evidence of a ground waler problem. • Only eight of the 22 soil borings showed evidence
of limein the subgrade. which suggests that the lime stabilized subgrade was not uniformly constructed. • A combination of moisture penetratjon over time and nonunifo.rm lime stabilization
during co.nstruction has probably reduced the bearing capacity of the subgrade. 1919 S. Shiloh 􀁾􀁾􀁯􀀮􀁤􀀮􀀠Suite 530. 􀁌􀁾􀀠27, Ci.rland, Tex.. 7SOH www.gbwengineen.cam Tel (972.)
840·1916. FlIX (972.) 􀁾􀂷􀀲􀁉􀁓􀀶􀀠
Mr. Steve Chutdlian, P.E. May 21. 2001 Page 2 • The load transfer capability of the 􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁮􀁳􀁶􀁾􀁲􀁳􀁥􀀠contraction joints has been insufficient to support tbe heavy traffic volume.
resulting in a difference in pavemenr elevation at the frOnt and back ends of adjacent slabs. • This difference, wIlich results in a bump at the pavement joints on the northbound lanes
in particular, has also resulted in a transverse crack 311he midpoint of some slabs. • Exhibit A contains a sul!l!l1lfly of data from the field inspection and the geotechnical report.
Comparable Pavement Alternatives We received a copy of your letter to Jerry Holder dated March 23, 2001 in which you authori:re the design team to proceed with pavemen! section Alternative
3 which inclUded Portland Cemel1t Concrete (pee) on a Cement Treated Permeable Base (CTPB) with edge drains. Pursuant to our previous discussions, it is understood that the Town intends
to use [he same type of pavement section for both the Midway and Arapaho Road projects. given that the depths of the concrete and base layers may differ. In a similar manner to the Terra-Mar.
Inc. report for Arapaho Road. the Alpha Testing report for Midway Road analyzes several alternative pavement sections. These alternatives, which assume a 30-year project life. are summarized
in the following section. • Ifthe load transfer betwemjo/ntE it through acsrega/e inleriocl, and the subgrade is compacted: either 11.5 inches PCC 6 inches C11lshed Limestone Base 6
inches Compacted subgrade OR 10.5 inches PCC 6 inches CTPB 6 inches Compacted subgrade • If/he load transfer between joints is through aggregate interlock and the subgradc is lime Iitabilized:
eillu:r 11 inches PCC 6 inches Crushed Limestone Base 6 inches Lime stabilized subgrade OR 10 incbes PCC 6 inches CTPB 6 inche. Lime stebilized subgrade 
Mr. Steve Chutcl1ian, P.E. May 21, 2001 Page 3 Iflhe load transfer /)etweenjoints is through dowels and the sulJgrade is compacted' aither 10 inches 6 inches 6 inches OR PCC Crushed
Limeslone Bas", Compacted subgrade 9 illehes 6 inches 6 inches PCC CTPS Compacted subgrade • Ifthe load cransfer between joims is chrough dowels and the subgrade is lime stabili.t.ed·
either 9.5 inches PCC 6 inches Crushed UmestQne Base 6 inches Ume stabilized subgrade OR 9 inches PCC 6 inches CTPB 6 inches Lime stabilized subgrade Review of Alternatives Upon a review
of the pavement sections listed above, it is evident that each of the following alternatives (educe the required PCC thickness by v.. to 1 incb: • The use of CTPB in lieu of Crushed
Lime.,cone Base. Given the Town's selection of CTPB for the Arapaho Road project, it is anticipated that CTPB will also be the base trultetial of choice for the Midway Road project.
• The use oflime stabilized subgrade in lieu ofcompacted subgrade_ In Section 5.4 of the Terra·Mar report, it states that 'Ifconstruction proceeds during wet weather, a lime stabilized
subgrade in lieu of a compacted subgrade may be desirable in order to provide a mO(e stable and less moisture sensitive worlcing platform: A representative witb Jackson Brothers, the
contraclor On the Post and Paddock paving project for (he City of Grand Prairie, strongly recommended that a lime stabilized subgrade be used with CTPB due to conslructability problelllS
which they experienced on Post and Paddock with a compacted subgrade. tf the Town of Addison is willing to consider lime stabilization on Midway Road, it could be bid as an alternate
tc) a compacted subgrade. 
Mr. Steve Chutcbian, P.E. Msy 21, 2001 Page 4 • The use ofdowels in lieu of gggrelJare inrerlockfor load transfl!r between joims . In Section 5.5 of the Tem;·Mar repon, i.1 slates that
'Steel dowels should be used for load transfer at all joints transverse to lraffic.' TIns recommendation applies to transverse contraction joints which tlleY lodieate should typically
be placed at 15 feet on-center. Tbe Terra-Mar repol1 does not provide an alternative pavement section for load transfer through aggregate interlock between join.rs. Locally, aggregate
interlock is most commollly used on municipal roadways; nevertheless, bOlh load transfer options could be bid as alternates on Midway Road. Cost Comparis{Jo of Allernathres Iflime stabiUution
is hid as an alternate to a compacted sUbgrade, 􀁾􀁮􀁤􀀠dowels are bid in lieu of aggregate interloc.l<. for load transfer between joints, the contracl'OfS that bid the Midway Road project
will delennine the cost effectiveness of tbese alternatives. If one or more or these alternatives is not acceptable to the Town. we would be pleased to do the research necessary to prepare
an opinion of probable COSt for each alternative. Although it is anticipated tharrhe pavemenr section on Midway Road will incorporate CTPB, Exhibit B provides an opinion of probable
cost for informational purposes to compare it with a pavement section that incorporates Crushed Limestone Base. This comp"f.ison. which indicates a $866.S05 increase in coslto use CTPB,
is contailled in that attached spreads.h.ee\. CTPB Design Memo Given the limited use of CTPB as a base material for urban pavements in the mettoplex, we have prepared a design memo based
on OUI researcb of Lhis material. The aUached design memo on CTPB has been J?repared following conversations with a supplier, a contractor, other local and state agency representatives,
and other engineers. This memo is [0 􀁾􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁩􀁤􀁥􀁳􀀠an evaluation of CTPB along with technical data for consideration pdo; to developing consistent pavement section design standards
aod specificatioIls for the Midway and Arapaho Road projects. Fly Ash The Town of Addison's staff has expressed an interest in using fly asb in the mix design of the PCC pavement for
the Midway and Arapaho Road projects. Mr. Michael Caldarone, P.E. with TXI indicated that fly ash is used in concrete paving by number of local cities including Dallas, Fort Worth Arlington.
Plano and Grand Prairie, and by TxDOT OD the II1lIjority of their concrete paving projects. I also contacted the City of Garland's construction manager and confitmed thaI they permit
fly ash in concrete paving .mix designs. although the amount is limited 10 the lesser of 15% of Ihe cement weight or 100 Ibs. Mr. Caldarone fWllished our office with sample concrete
mix desigos. with and without fly ash, which acbieve 3,000 psi in 3 days and 7 days respectively. These mix designs are attached for you information. If the Town wishes to utilize fly
ash on the: subject projects, we cao include appropriate limits for its use in the teclmical spec
ifications. Mr. SIeve Chutchian, P.E. May 21.1001 Page 5 After review.ing Ihe enclosed geotechnical report for Midway Road and this letter, please contact me if you any comments. I will
!lien requesl that Alpha Testing finalize their report. 􀁾􀁲􀁳􀀬􀀠Z R. Grantham. P.E. President Attachme!llS ce: Jell)' Holder, liNTB Dave Lewis, Alpha Testing BGlgg 1:\\VllOOCS\PROJECTS\AODISON\oO.:
i38\CbutwllD.ltt 
EXHIBIT A MIDWAY ROAD -SOIL BORINGIFIELD OBSERVATION SUMMARY Boring Fvm't Traffic Panel lime Rock Pvm't Pvm't eroS<! Joint Pavement No, Stallon Direction Point PI Stab, Depth Thicknes$
Slope Width Disuess 8-1 6+S0 North Front 49 No -8" -1.32% Moderale' High B-2 6+27 North Back 31 No -y JJ4 u -1.32% Moderate High B-3 6+49 North Front .21 Yes -e" -1.35% Moderate Hiah
B-4 6+45 Nonh Back -No -7 3 /," -1.34% Moderate High B·5 6+56 South Front 21 Yes · 8' -3.86% Moderate Hiah B-6 6+60 South Back -No 8' ·3.78% MOderate High 8-7 10+03 North Back , -No
8' a 1/411 -1.72% Moderate Medium 8-S 10+06 North Front 17 Yes 8' 8 1/2,'1 "1,79(1/0 Moderate Medium 8-9 10+33 South Front 23 Yes -8' -2.93% Moderate i Medium B-10 10+36 South Sack 17
Yes · S' -2.95% Moderate Medium B·11 24+33 North Center . No · S' -'.35% Moderate Medium 8·12 24+45 North Center 37 Yes -8" ·1.28% Moderate Medium 8-13 2"...01 South Center 41 Yes 8'
6' -3.71% Small Low 8-14 27+54 South Center -Yes 5' 8' -3.75% Small Low 8·15 27+32 North Front 55 No · 8 1/d· ·0.92"", Moderate Medium B-16 27+28 North Back 29 No -8 '/: -0.99% Moderate
Medium 8-17 47+47 North CElnter 55 No 6' 6 1 /./·1.43% large High 8·18 47+47 North Cenrer 46 NO 1;' 6 1 /2 " ·1.43% Large High B-19 48+14 South Center 45 No 6' 6 ",' -2.43% Moderale
Medium 8·20 , 50+74 South Centar 38 No 2' 7'/4 H -2.02% Moderate Medium B-21 SO+SS North Center -No 2' 6'" -1.24% Moderate Medium 8·.22 50+88 North Center 18 No .2' 6'1, ·1 . .24% .
Moderate Medium 
EXHIBITS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST MIDWAY ROAD -ALTERNATIVE PAVEMENT SECTIONS Bid Item Description . Thic:kness (inches) Alternate 1 Portland Cement Concrete 11.5 Crushed Limestone Base
6 Compacted Subgrada 6 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST Alternate 2 Portland Cement Conorete 10 Cement Trealed Permeable Base I) Lime Stabilized Subarade 6 Lima (@33Ibs/S.Y.) · Geotextile Fabric
· Concrete Toe Wall (6" x 18") . · Edge Drains (8" PVC) · TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ADDITIONAL COST FOR ALTERNATE.2 Unit S.Y. S.Y. S.Y. S.Y. S.y. S.Y. TON S.Y. L.F. LF. Estimated Unit Price
Quantity ($) , 55 53,500 15 57,000 1.5 57,000 50 53,500 15 57,000 2 57,000 '10 941 13 62,000 10 3,060 15 11,050 .. Total Item ($) 2,942,500 855000 85,500 $3.883,000 2,675,000 855,000
114,0001 103.455 806,000 30,600 185,750 $4,149,805 $86B,805 Notes: 1. Edge Drains are proposed behind both outside ourbs. 2. Concrele toe walls are proposed along the inside curb lines
of wider landscaped medians Dilly. 3. Ume Stabilization is included with CTPB for cOllstruclabilily pu
rposes. Engineers, Inc. DESIGN MEMO Date! April 2, 2001 Job No. 00·238 From: GBW Job Name: Midway R.oad!Arapaho R.ood To: Steve Cbutchian, P.E.; Jerry Holder, P.E. Rc: General Notes
on Cement Treated Permeable Base .EVALVATION • CTPB has the potential to increase the life of a roadway by providing a conduit for subsurface water ro flow oUt from under the pavement,
thereby, reducing the rate at which subgrade support is likely to deteriorate. • CTPB slightly reduces the required concrete pavement thickness when compared with an equally thick crushed
Iimesto.ne base. • eTPS has been used eKtensively ill other states including California, Louisiana and Wisconsin. • erPB is more commonly used where the subsurface water flows to open
road side drainage ditch; however. it is also used in conjunction with edge drains on curb and gutte( roadways. • eTPB has been used on a very limited basis locally; consequently, contractors
are not as familiar with the construction requirements as they are with more commonly use non-arainable base lI'.aterials such .s crushed limestone. • GTand Prairie rebid the Post and
Paddoc.k roadway reconstruction project. whicn utilized CTPB, because they received usually high bids at the first bid opening. • A ITllllldatory prebid meeting was scheduled prior to
the second bid opening. which resulted in lower bids, in order to provJde contractors with more detailed .information about the use of erps. A representative of Jackson Brothers, the
contractor on Post and Paddock. infonned our staff that they wOlJld be prepared 10 bid another CTPB project; however, they would include money to lime stabilize the subgrade even if
it was not required. . • The compacted subgrade which was specified on the Post and Paddock project created constructabillty problems for the contractor. especially when itrained. •
Typically. where non·drainable bases are used. the goal is restrict the flow of water under the pavement. A drainage base permits the free flow of water under the pavemelll. As CTPB
promotes the flow flow of water under the pavement. it increases tbe potential for future pavement problems if the dra.iDage system does not function as designed. For example: . Over·rolling
the erPB can cause degradation of the material with a resulting 􀁬􀁯􀁳􀁾􀀠of permeability. 
Design Memo, Page 2 An uneven 0.( Inadequately sloped subgrade can cause waler to pond in the CTE. Any break in the tiller fabric layer, either during construction or during later pavement
repairs, can provide a conduit. for water to migrate into the sllbgrade. The CTB must be keep tree of dirt during construction aod during later pavement repairs. In addition, pavement
repairs must be closely monitored to Insure that the CTPB is correctly installed so thai the free flow of water is not interrupted. The edge drains must be kept clear of dirt and debris
during construction and, ifthey are located under the pavement, construction eqUipment must be monitored 10 insure that the pipes are not crushed. The edge drains must be consistently
checked and cleaned OUI if necess3Jy, during the pavement design life. As storm sewers, culverts or creeks are the most likely outfall points for edge drains, the depth of flow in these
outfalls must be checked to determine if storm Wllter will back up through the edge drains into the CTPB, and in what storm event this will occur. • The back up of storm water from an
outfall into the CTPB introduces a significantly higher volume of water under the pavem.ent than would result from infiltration through the pavement joints. • The CTPB pavement section,
which includes edge draills, filter fabric, and root barriers along wider median curbs, i,s significantly more expensive than an equivalent pavement section which utilizes a nondrainable
base. . • There are no local examples ofCTPB pavement section that have been in place on a curb and gutter roadway over the design life to quantify lillY improvement in durability over
a non-<lrainable base. BASE COURSE NOTES General • Ifconstruction traffic will be a\lowed on the permeable base, cement stabilization is generaUy needed to avoid the substantial cost
of constructing a tempor3Jy adjacent haul road for side delivery of concrete to the paver. Aggregate • Quality of crushed aggregates is the single most important factor for the stability
of a a permeable base. Aggregate should be stored, bandied, and placed in a manner to keep segregation to a mi:nimum. • The most popular aggregate gradations are AASHTO No. 57 and No.
67, which al'e characterized by having very little material finer that No.8 sieve. • The aggregate 􀁭􀁡􀁾􀁡􀁬􀀠should l1a\'e at least two mechani.caUy fractured faces to ensure good
mechanical iDteriOCk. This will require a. crushed material. Permeability • Cement-treated bases have coefficients of permeability in the range of 􀁾􀀬􀀰􀀰􀀰􀀠to 15,000 ft per day. Untreated
permeable we. range ttomSOO to 2,000 flper day. 
Design Memo, Page 3 • Edge drains are usually filled with the same highly permeable material that is used for the base or a material with even higher permeability. Cement • While 200
Ib cement per cubic 'yard has been the amount most generally specified, agencies have used amoUIlts varying fTOm 150 to 300 lb. • Mixes with 150 Iblc.y. cement conteJlI should be reslricted
to areas subjected to only a few truck hauls over stable subgrade. • Mixes with 200 Iblc.y. cement content are appropriate for general use (average trucking and subgrade conditions.)
• Mixes with 250 Iblc.y, cement should be used where heavy trucking will occur or where suppor! conditions are questionable. • Fl"Dm the low to the high cement content, 7 day field compressive
strengths varied from 150 to 600 psi; however, cem.ent conteD! rather than slrength should be used to seJect the most appropriate mix. Water Conlent • Water contents for workable mixtures
are usually in the range of 100 to 120 Ih/yd3. Water content should be based ot! the contractor's assessment of the mix workability. • A water/cement ratio at the higher end of the range
may encourage the cement paste to flow to points of aggregate contact where. its cementing action is needed. The PHWA recommends this design approach. Pavement Section • The thiclmess
of permeable bases used has varied from 3 to 6 inches, with 4 inches being the most common. The thiclmess shQuld be adequate to overcome any construction variances and provide an adequate
hydraulic conduit to transmit the water to the edge drain. A minimum resultant slope of 2 percent is recommended wherever possible. Constructi.on • Most commouly, the base is compacted
by vibratory plates or screeds. The objective is to solidly seat the materia). • Over-rolJ.i'll!: can cause degrad.tion of the material with a resulting loss of permeability • Cement-treated
permeable bases arc cured by water misting several tUnes a day or by cover.lng with polyethylene sheets for 3 10 5 days. The need for curing is one of Ihe least understood aspects of
constructing cement lreated permeable bares. • Some agencies are studying the cost-effectiveness of curing; Wisconsin found little difference between /lIllterinl coveNd with polyethylene
and thatlef! exposed. Te ... 􀀨􀁾􀀱􀀲􀀩􀀠S4().1916 1FAX.. (912) 840·21561 E-mqi/: Info@gbwengin.tts.coll\ 
Design 􀁍􀁾􀁭􀁯􀀮􀀠Page 4 • During construction, care .must be lakeD to prevent contamination of the pel1IlflabJe base from mud and dirt cmied by truck tires. Constttlction traffic sbould
be kept to a minimum and sharp truck turning should be avoided. . SEPARATOR NOTES General • Beneath the penneabJe base course, a separator or filter layer prevents fine particles in
the subgrade soil from infiltrating the open-graded base. An aspbalt prime coat placed on the stabilized subgrade/subbase would provide additional protection. • A separator layer can
be provided by an aggregate separator layer Or by a geotextile. Aggregate Layer • The aggregate layer must be strong enougb to provide a stable working platform for constructing the
penneable base. . The gradation of this layer must be carefully selected to prevent floes frompllmping up from the subgrade Into the penneable base. • The aggregate layer must have a
low permeability to deflect infiltrated water over to tbe edge drain. • The FHW A recommends the percent percent of fines passing fhe No. 200 sieve should not exceed 12 percent and the
coefficient of unifonnity should be greater tbe 20 (preferably greater the 40.) • A minimum thickness of 4 inches is recommended for the aggregate separator layer. Geotextile • In sllbgrades
with a high percentage offines, a geotexlile :might be a preferred choice. • The geotexlile must have enongh strength to survive the construction phase. The principal advantage of a
geotex(ile is its filtration capability. A geotextile will allow any rising water, due to capillary action or a rising water table, to enter the penneabJe base and rapidly drain to the
edge drain system. • The main disadvantage is if the geotexllle becomes clogged, rising water will be tJ:apped under tne geotextile, saturating the subgrade and reducing 5ubgrade support.
(>{)re openmgs should be sized to ret.in larger soil particles and pass smaller soil particles. Large numbers of openings should be provided in case there is some clogging. The geolextile
should have a permeability several limes greater than [he subgrade so that any vertical draining water will not be unduly impeded by the geotextile. • Tbe gemextile should be specified
based on performance rather than type (woven or non-woven). T,I.: (912) 840·19161 FAX, (972) 840-2156/E·mail: Info@gbwengine"",.com 
Design Memo, Page 5 Geotextiles are subject to degrAdation when exposed to SUnlight fOT extended periods of time. 10 prevent this, geotextiles should be placed and covered as quickly
as possible. LONGITUDINAL EDGE DRAIN NOTES General. • Por crowned pavement, edge drains are installed along both the inner anel outer pavement edge. For uncrowned sections, only one
edge drain is installed at the low side. • For the longitudinal edge drain pipe, most agenCies use 6·inch diameter flexible corrugated polyethylene tubing (perforated and meeting AASHTO
M252.) Rigid PVC pipe (slotted, AASHTO M27S-PC50) has also been used but is more expensive. If the pipe is to be illstalled in trenches that are to be backfilled with asphalt-stabilized
permeable matedal, the pipe must be capable of withstallding the temperature. • The trench backfIll material .hould be of the same material as the permeable bas" course to ensure adequate
eapacity. • The preferred location for the edge drain is 2 or 3 feet outside the curb to avoid settlement problems or crushing the eollector pipe beneath conslroction equipment Sometimes,
the permeable base is extended under !he shoulder with the edge drain placed at the outside shoulder edge. • The suggested minimum pipe size is 4 inches and !he minimum s.lope should
be 0.0035 ftlft. • Depeuding on the pipe size, the trench width sh.ould be between 8 anellO inches. The trench should be deep enough to allow the top of !he pipe to be located 2 inches
below the bottom of the permeable base. The edge drain trench should be lined with a geotextile, but the top of the trench adjacent to the permeable base is left open to allow a direct
path for the water into the edge drain pipe. • The abillry to flush or jet rod the system is important in the mainte.nance scheme. The edge drain and outlet pipes must have proper bends
(2 to 3-feet radii) aD.d vents to facilitate this operation. • Videotaping the completed edge drain with flexible fiber optic equipment is suggested for final acceptance of the project.
Lateral Lateral Pip\iS • Lateral outlet pipes are rigid PVC or metal. Rigid pipe provides more protection against crushing due to collStrUction operations. • The Federal Highway Adminislration
recommends a maximum outlet spacing of250 feel to ensure rapid drainage. The pipes soould be placed on a :> percellt grade wi!h the outlet at least 6 inches above the IO-year design
flow in the ditch or stonn sewer. ; • Pipe outlets into open dltl:nes are uSllally protected by eoncrete headwalls and are equipped with rodent screens. TtL (972) 840·19161 FAX; (912)
840-21561 E·"",ii; In[o@gQwengineer,.com 
Design Memo, Page 6 Const!l!ction • Edge drains may be installed before or after conslrUclion of the permeable base;and COncrele surface. Tbis will affect the edge drain location and
geotextile placement. • Pre-pavement installation of the edge drain may be necessary ill some urban situations. but in general. tbe option should be given 10 the contractor. • Post -pavement
installation has several ad vantages: less threat of pipe damage and trench cave-ins due to cOnSI(1ICI;.on traffic. less susceptibility to bad weather delays. and better line and grade
because these are taken off the previously const\lIcted concrete pavements. Maintenance • Flushing and rodding of the edge drain system should be done on a {Outine scbedule. • Edge drain
outlets and pipe systems should be inspected at least once a year usi.ng .flexible .fiber optic video equipment to determine their condition. • If regular maintenance is not done, the
pavement section will become flooded. increasing the rate of pavement damage. DESIGN NOTES • • When rainfall events occur that are greater than the design stann, the permeable base will
fill with water and excess water will simply run off on the pa'vemenl surface. After tile storm event. the permeable base will drain as designed. • A time to drain 50 percent of the
drainable water of I hour is recommended for the highesl class roads with tbe greatest amount of traffic. For most other highways and freeways, a time to drain 50 percent of the drainable
water of 2 hours is recommended. • Construction traffic On the completed base course is the single most imponant parameter in the selection of the type of permeable base to be used CONSTRUCTION
NOTES • Central plant mixing of permeable cement-treated base course is essentially the same as that for conventional concrete. • The City may want to construct a test su:ip of the base
COUrse to determine which curing method to employ as well as which method of compaction should be used. Requirements for moist curing should be investigated to see ifthey might be be
eliminated without substantiaJ loss of perfotmance under actual job conditions. • The FHWA recommends that a comeo! strip be constructed at the begiDning of construction so that the
combination of aggregate materials and construction practices be tested, and ifnecessary, adjusted to produce a stable permeable b= with adequate draillage characteristics. A minimum
length of 500 feet is recolll!nended. and this section can become part of the finished roadway iffound to be acceptable, 􀁊􀁾􀁗􀁬􀀧􀁏􀁏􀁃􀁓􀁉􀁐􀁒􀁏􀁊􀁬􀀡􀁃􀁔􀁓􀁉􀁁􀁄􀁄􀁬􀁓􀁏􀁎􀁜􀁏􀁏􀂷􀀲􀀳􀀧􀁉􀁄􀁅􀁓􀀡
􀁵􀁎􀀧􀁍􀁅􀁍􀁏􀀮􀁃􀁔􀁐􀁂􀀠(972) 
Facsimile Transmittal Date: From:1J/,1 rIo J Fax To: 􀁳􀀫􀁷􀁾􀀠􀁃􀁫􀁾􀀫􀁣􀁨􀁬􀁡􀁬􀁴􀀩􀀯􀁊􀀢􀁾􀁲􀁙􀁉􀀯􀀠Holder Of: F􀁉􀁗􀀴􀁉􀁾􀁑􀁖􀀱􀀠" Faxl# ____________ Ref: flIllctWttj Roa.t1 1# of
Pages (including this sheet): _'=-tL-_ GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh Rd. Suite 530, L.B. 27 Garlaud, Tens 75042 Tel. (972) 840·1916 Fax (972) 840·2156 'This: mt:.ss.age i.s inlended
only for the: U$C' ofthc individual or enlity to Which it is addre5sed, :wi may tonl9in information 1Mt is prlviJesod, cQnfidential !)nd t'Atmpl ftOm dis-ciosure under appliclble jaw.
lithe fcader of Inis me$$&ge is flot lilC intended r«ipienl. or the employee or ugenl n:t;ponsible for dclivedng !.he ml2S8.Se to 1M lnumdcd n:ciplcnt, y(1l.l an:::: here-by notified
that 􀁾􀁮􀁹􀀠di$$¢m\n:llion, distlibLllion or copyin& ofthi& communication is striCtly ptohibiled. Ifyou havt r'C!ccived thi' communication in error, pleaze nOlify us immoolate!y by
telephone. and fttum the origin.,,! me.tsage to us &Ilhc. above Addtu$ via 1hc V,S. 1'0$(11 ServilOC:. ServilOC:. Thlnk you. 
f"'.e. 􀁲􀁾􀀠I I!fVf.(Lv. $7-C MEMO Engineers. Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh Rd., Suite 530, L1I27, Garland. TX 75042 Date: May 7, 2001 To: Steve Chutehian, P.E. ce: Jerry Holder, P.E. (lINTB)
From: Bruee Grantham Re: Ductbank This memo provides a summary to a meeting I recently had with Catherine Lisenbee, Utility Franchise Coordinator for the City of Irving, and Mike Lisenbee,
Construction Manager for Future Telecom Inc. • Irving has adopted Ordinance No. 7533 (attached) which govems right-of-way construction. • Ms. Lisenbee communicates the ordinance requirements
with all franchise utility companies that plan to install utilities within the City's right-of-way. • Irving investigated the viability of the City installing ductbanks with street construction
projects but rejected this notion for the following reasons: After reviewing House Bill 1777, the City attorney ruled that Irving would assume liability for future maintenance of the
ductbank and for potential damages if fiber service were disrupted due to problems problems with the ductbank. HB 1777 does not allow the ductbank owner to profit from the sale or lease
of ducts. • HB 1777 no longer allows cities to collect pennit fees for reviewing. and processing requests from franchise utility companies to insta[! ducts within their right-of-ways.
• Irving is currently having discussions with two companies that install and sell ducts to detennine their interest in installing ductbanks in conjunction with future City street projects.
Another approach Irving is considering involves contacting all known utility companies that operate in the region and infonning them that no future franchise utility construction will
be allowed in a right-of-way after the street is constructed; consequently, sufficient ducts must be installed by and for these utility companies prior to construction. The downside
of this approach is that new utility companies may enter the region in the future and require service along the right-of-way. According to Ms. Lisenbee, many businesses today require
that comprehensive fiber facilities be available in the right-of-way near their bui [dings. The availability of these facilities assists in the economic development of commercial sectors
of the City like Las Colinas. Mr. and Ms. Lisenbee recommended that any ductbank installation be designed by a qualified firm that is currently working in the industry and knows the
requirements of the fiber companies such as: 
Memo, Page 2 Mr. Steve Chutchian May 7, 2001 • Manholes are typically spaced 800' to 1,000' apart unless a Central Bell Office is located along the corridor, in which case more manholes
are required. Three or four manholes are typically installed at each location so that the ducts can be separated and routed through different manholes. • For security purposes, the fiber
companiesprefer to have their own 3' x 5' x 4' (deep) manholes installed and reserved for the use of one company; however, larger 8' x 6' x 4' (deep) manholes are used on ductbanks where the
future users are not known and the manholes will need to be shared. These larger manholes will have security partitions installed inside the manhole and, whenever a utility needs to
access the manholes, all the utilities with services in that manhole are called so that their inspectors can be onsite when the manhole is accessed. • Service laterals are typically
installed from the ductbank to the back of curb at the manhole locations. • The type of duct used in ductbanks can vary; a form of ribbed PVC pipe is typically used for fiber. • The
size of ducts used for fiber has increase from 1.25" to IS' diameter recently. • Mr. and Ms. Lisenbee suggested that 12 -6" ducts would be a good choice for a ductbank where the future
users are unknown. A 6" duct would allow for several smaller 1.5" fiber ducts inside in addition to providing a larger duct for other types of cable such as telephone or electric. •
Ms. Lisenbee supported Addison's proposal to have a ductbank installed prior to street . construction. Fort Worth also has also taken a progressive approach to franchise utility management
within its right-of-ways. Mr. Mitch Montgomery at (817) 998-0937 is the utility coordinator. Ms. Lisenbee and Mr. Montgomery are members of a Right-of-Way Management committee which
meets every second Thursday at 2 p.m. in Irving's City Hall. This committee is open to City representatives who have questions regarding the issues summarized in this memo. 
@IRVING Catherine Lisenbee Utility Franchise Coordinator Cily of Irvi(\g rutifi" WorksIEngineering 825 W. Irving Blvd. (rl(ing. Texas 75060 972.402.8694 972A02,0765 (ax 972.824.6848
mobile e-mail: CU<;enbe@airrnail.nel I EMAIL: .'1 ftelecom@airmaJl.net .·,.... FlJTURE. .... " . ,.TELEcom lNC. . -. . OFF.lCE: (972) 222'9j1?4P,O:BOX8s2728 . .'. !I FAX: (972) 222-9102
I MESOUITE;1'X 75.185:2728 MOBILE: (817) 298-79441 
ORDINANCE NO. 7533 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34A OF THE CODE OF CIVJL AND CRIMINAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF IRVING, TEXAS, BY ADDING SECTIONS PROVIDING FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION;
PROVIDING FOR REGISTRATION AND CONSTRUCTION PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, PROVIDING FOR "PLANS OF RECORD" PLANS; PROVIDING FOR CONFORMANCE WIlli PUBLIC JMPROVEMENTS;
PROVIDING FOR JMPROPERLY INSTALLED FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR TYPE OF FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR RESTORATION OF PROPERTY; PROVIDING FOR REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PERMIT AND PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE. BE IT ORDAINEO BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRVING, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That Chapter 34A the Code of Civil and Criminal Ordinances ofthe City ofIrving, Texas, is amended
by amending Section 34A-7 and Section 34A-8 and adding Section 34A-9 through Section 34A-16 to read as fullows: Sec. 34A-7. Right-or-way construction. No person shall commence or continue
with the construction, installation or operation of facilities within the right-of-way in the city except as provided by the ordinances ofthe city and the directives ofthe public works
department. All construction activity in city right-of-way will be in accordance with this chapter. Sec. 34A-8. Registration and Construction Permits (a) Registration. In order to protect
the public health, safety and welfare, all users of the right-of-way will register with the City of Irving. Registration and pennits will be issued in the name of the person who will
own the facilities. Registration must be renewed every five (5) years. For utilities with a current franchise or license, the franchise or license will be evidence of renewal. Ifa registration
is not renewed and subject to sixty (60) day notification to the owner, the facilities of the user will be deemed to have been abandoned. When any information provided for the registration
changes, the user will inform the City of Irving of the change no more than thirty (30) days after the date the change is made. Registration shall include: (1) The name ofthe user ofthe
right-of-way; (2) The name, address and telephone number of people who will be contact person(s) for the user; (3) The name, address and telephone number ofany contractor or subcontractor,
ifknown, who will be working in the right-of-way on behalf ofthe user; (4) The name(s) and telephone number of an emergency contact who shall be available twenty-four (24) hours a day;
(5) Proofofinsurance and bonds; 
a. An applicant must provide acceptable proof of liability insurance in the total amount of six million dollars ($6,000,000); one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) primary plus five million
dollars ($5,000,000.00) umbrella if requested by the owner of the facilities, or other provisions as acceptable to the director of financial services or his/her designee. b. The coverage
must be on an "occurrence" basis and must include coverage for personal injury, contractual liability, premises liability, medical damages, underground, explosion and collapse hazards.
c. Each policy must include a cancellation provision in which the insurance company is required to notify the city in writing not fewer than thirty (30) days before canceling, failing
to renew, or reducing policy limits. d. The applicant shall file the required original certificate of insurance prior to any commencement of work. The certificate shall state the policy
number; name of the insurance company; name and address of the agent or authorized representative of the insurance company; name, address and telephone number of insured; policy expiration
date; and specific coverage amounts. e. Applicant shall file an annual surety bond which will be valid each year construction will occur through one (1) full year after the completion
of the construction from a surety company authorized to do business in the State of Texas in the amount of the estimated amount of the cost to restore the right-ofway for the work anticipated
to be done in that year, in the event the applicant leaves a job site in the right-of-way unfinished, incomplete or unsafe or other provisions as acceptable to the director offinancial
services or his/her designee. f The above requirements may be met by utilities with a current franchise or license if their current franchise or license adequately provides for insurance
or bonds or provides an indemnity in favor ofthe city. (b) Construction penni/so (1) No person shall perform any construction or installation offacilities in the right-of-way without
first obtaining a construction permit, except as provided herein. The permit will be in the name of the person who will own the facilities to be constructed. The permit must be completed
and signed by a representative of the owner of the facilities to be constructed. a. Emergency responses related to existing facilities may be undertaken without first obtaining a permit;
however the public works department should be notified in writing within two (2) business days of any construction related to an emergency response; including a reasonably detailed description
ofthe work performed in the right-of-way and an updated map of any facilities that were relocated, if applicable. -2
b. The phrase "construction or installation of facilities" does not include the installation of facilities necessary to initiate service to a customer's property, or repair or maintenance
of existing facilities unless such repair or maintenance requires the breaking of pavement; the closure of a nonresidential traffic lane; excavation or boring. (2) The permit shall state
to whom it is issued, location ofwork, location offacilities, dates and times work is to take place and any other conditions set out by the director of public works or his/her designee.
(3) The person requesting a permit will provide the director of public works or his/her designee with documentation in the format specified by the public works department describing:
a. The proposed, approximate location and route of all facilities to be constructed or installed and the applicant's plan for right-of-way construction. b. Engineering plans which will
be on a scale of one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet unless otherwise approved by public works department. c. Detail of the location of all right-of-way and utility easements which applicant
plans to use. d. Detail ofall existing city utilities in relationship to applicant's proposed route. e. Detail of what applicant proposes to install, such as pipe size, number of interducts,
valves, etc. f. Detail of plans to remove and replace aspbalt or concrete in streets (include City of Irving standard construction details). g. Drawings of any bores, trenches, handholes,
manholes, switch gear, transformers, pedestals, etc. including depth located in public right-of-way. h. Handhole andlor manhole typicals oftype of manholes andlor handholes applicant
plans to use or access. i. Complete legend ofdrawings submitted by applicant. j. Five (5) sets ofengineering plans must be submitted with permit application. k. The name, address and
phone numbers ofthe contractor or subcontractor who will perform the actual construction, including the name and telephone number of an individual with the contractor who will be available
at all times during construction. Such information shall be required prior to the commencement of any work. -3
I. The construction and installation methods to be employed for the protection of existing structures, fixtures, and facilities within or adjacent to the right-or-way, and the dates
and times work will occur, ail ofwhich (methods, dates, times, etc.) are subject to approval ofthe director ofpublic works or hislher designee. m. A statement that the requirements of34A-8
(a) (5) are met. (4) All construction and installation in the right-of-way shall be in accordance with the permit for the facilities. The director of public works or histher designee
shall be provided access to the work and to such further information as he or she may reasonable require to ensure compliance with the permit (5) A copy of the construction permit and
approved engineering plans shall be maintained at the construction site and made available for inspection by the director of public works or his/her designee at all times when construction
or installation work is occurring. (6) All construction or installation work authorized by permit must be completed in the time specified in the construction permit If the work cannot
be completed in the specified time periods, the permittee may request an extension from the director or public works or hislher designee. The director of public works or his/her designee
will use his/her best efforts to approve or disapprove a request for permit as soon as possible. (7) A copy of any permit or approval issued by federal or state authorities for work
in federal or state right-of-way located in the City of Irving, if requested by the public works department. (8) A request for a permit must be submitted at least ten (10) working days
before the proposed commencement of work in the request, unless waived by the director of public works or msther designee. (9) Requests for permits will be approved or disapproved by
the director ofpublic works or hislher designee within a reasonable time or receiving all the necessary information. The director ofpublic works or hislher designee will use hislher
best efforts to to approve or disapprove a request for permit as soon as possible. (10) The public works department or the applicant can request a pre-construction meeting with the permittee
and their construction contractor. (11) Permit applications are required for construction on new, replacement or upgrading of the company's facilities in the right-of-way either aerial
or underground. -4
Sec. 34A-9. Construction standards. (a) Department of public works must be notified twenty-four (24) hours in advance that construction is ready to proceed by either the right-of-way
user, their contractor or representative. At the time of notification, the right-of-way user will inform the public works department ofthe number (or other information) assigned from
the one-call system. (b) All construction shall be in conformance with all city codes and applicable local, state and federal laws. (c) Three by three (3 x 3) feet information signs
stating the identity ofthe person doing the work, telephone number and permittee's identity and telephone number shall be placed at the location where construction is to occur forty-eight
(48) hours prior to the beginning ofwork in the right-of..way and shall continue to be posted at the location during the entire time the work is occurring. An informational sign will
be posted on public right-of-way one hundred (100) feet before the construction location commences and each one hundred (100) feet thereafter, unless other posting arrangements are approved
or required by the public works director. (d) Erosion control measures (e.g. silt fence) and advance warning signs, markers, cones and barricades must he in place before work begins.
(e) Lane closures on major thoroughfares will be limited after 8:30 a.m. and before 4:00 p.rn unless the public works department grants prior approval. Arrow boards wilI be required
on lane closures, with all barricades, advanced warning signs and thirty-six (36) inch reflector cones placed according to the specifications ofthe public works department. (f) Permittees
are responsible for the workmanship and any damages by a contractors or subcontractors. A responsible representative ofthe permittee will be available to public works at all times during
construction. (Ii) Permittee shall be responsible for storm water management erosion control that complies with city, state and federal guidelines. Requirements shall include, but not
be limited to, silt fencing around any excavation that wilI be left overnight, silt fencing in erosion areas until reasonable vegetation is established, barricade fencing around open
holes, and high erosion areas will require wire backed silt fencing. Upon request permittee may be required to furnish documentation submitted or received from federal or state government.
(h) Permittee or contractor or subcontractor will notify the public works department immediately ofany damage to other utilities, either city or privately owned. (i) It is the city's
policy not to cut streets or sidewalks; however, when a street or sidewalk cut is required, prior approval must be obtained by the public works department and all requirements ofthe
public works department shall be followed. Repair ofall street and sidewalk removals must be made promptly to avoid safety hazards to vehicle and pedestrian traffic. -5
G) Installation of facilities must not interfere with city utilities, in particular gravity dependent facilities. (k) New facilities must be installed to a depth approved by the public
works department. (1) All directional boring shall have locator place bore marks and depths while bore is in progress. Locator shall place mark at each stem with paint dot and depth
at least every other stem. (m) The working hours in the right-of-ways are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Work that needs to be performed after 6:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday must be approved in advance. Any work performed on Saturday must be approved twenty-four (24) hours in advance by the public works department. Directional boring is permitted
only Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., unless approved in advance. No work will be done, except for emergencies, on city holidays. (n) People working in the right-of-way
are responsible for obtaining line locates from all affected utilities or others with facilities in the right-of-way prior to any excavation. Use of the Geographic Information System
or the plans ofrecords does not satisfY this requirement. (0) Permittee will be responsible for verifYing the location, both horizontal and vertical, of all facilities. When required
by public works, permittee shall verifY locations by pot holing, hand digging or other method approved by the public works department prior to any excavation or boring with the exception
ofwork involving lane closures, as discussed above. (P) Placement of all manholes and/or hand holes must be approved in advance by public works department. Handholes or manholes will
not be located in sidewalks, unless approved by the public works director. (q) Locate flags shall not be removed from a location while facilities are being constructed. (I') Construction
which requires pumping ofwater or mud shall be contained in accordance with City of Irving ordinances and federal and state law and the directives ofthe public works department. Sec.
34A-IO. ''Plans of record" plans. (a) Right-of-way users will provide the public works director or his/her designee with "plans of record" within ninety (90) days of completion of facilities
in the right-of-way. Users which have facilities in the right-of-way existing as ofthe date ofthis ordinance who have not provided "plans of record" plans shall provide one (1) quarter
of the information concerning facilities in city right-of-way within one (1) year after the passage of the ordinance and one (1) quarter each six (6) months thereafter. The plans shall
be provided to the city with as much detail and accuracy as required by the public works director. All the requirements specified for the plans submitted for the initial permit, as set
forth in Section 34A-8, shall be submitted and updated in -6
the plans of record. The detail and accuracy will concern issues such as location, size of facilities, materials used, and any other health, safety and welfare concerns. The detail will
not include matters such as capacity oflines, customers, or competitively sensitive details. Submittal of"plans ofrecord" shall be in digital format. (b) This requirement, or portions
of this requirement, may be waived by the director of information services and the director ofpublic works for good cause. Sec. 34A-ll. Conformance with public improvements. Whenever
by reasons of widening or straightening of streets, water or sewer line projects, or any other public works projects, (e.g. install or improve storm drains, water lines, sewer lines,
etc.) it shall be deemed necessary by the governing body of the city to remove, alter, change, adapt, or conform the underground or overhead facilities of a right-of-way user to another
part of the right-of-way, such alterations shall be made by the owner of the facilities at their expense (unless provided otherwise by state law or a franchise in effect on August 26,
1999 until that franchise expires or is otherwise terminated) within the time limits set by the public works director or his/her designee working in conjunction with the owner of the
facilities, or if no time frame can be agreed upon, within ninety (90) days from the day the notice was sent to make the alterations, unless a different schedule has been approved by
the public works director or hislher designee. Facilities not moved after ninety (90) days or within the approved schedule, as same may be extended from time to time, shall be deemed
abandoned after thirty (30) days notice. Sec. 34A-I2. Improperly installed facilities. (a) Any person doing work in the city right-of-way shall properly install, repair, upgrade and
maintain facilities. (b) Facilities shall be considered to be improperly installed, repaired, upgraded or maintained if: (1) The installation, repairs, upgrade or maintenance endangers
people; (2) The facilities do not meet the applicable city codes; (3) The facilities are not capable of being located using standard practices; (4) The facilities are not located in
the proper place at the time of construction in accordance with the directions provided by the public works department. Sec. 34A-13. Restoration of property. (a) Users ofthe right-of-way
shall restore property affected by construction of facilities to a condition that is equal to or better than the condition ofthe property prior to the performance of the work. Restoration
must be approved by the public works department. -7
(b) Restoration must be to the reasonable satisfaction of the public works department and the property owner. The restoration shall include, but not be limited to: (1) Replacing all
ground cover with the type of ground cover damaged during work or better either by sodding or seeding, as directed by public works; (2) Installation of all manholes and handholes, as
required; (3) Backfilling all bore pits, potholes, trenches or any other holes shall be filled in daily, unless other safety requirements are approved by public works; (4) Leveling of
all trenches and backhoe lines; (5) Restoration of excavation site to city specifications; (6) Restoration of all landscaping, ground cover, and sprinkler systems. (c) A1llocate flags
shall be removed during the clean up progress by the permittee or hislher contractor at the completion ofthe work. (d) Restoration must be made in a timely manner as specified by approved
public works schedules and to the satisfaction ofpublic works director or hislher designee. Ifrestoration is not satisfactory and performed in a timely manner all work in progress, except
that related to the problem, including all work previously permitted but not complete may be halted and a hold may be placed on any permits not approved until all restoration is complete.
Sec. 34A-15. Revocation or denial of permit. Ifany of the provisions of this ordinance are not followed, a permit may be revoked by the public works director or designee. Ifa person
has not followed the terms and conditions of this ordinance in work done pursuant to a prior permit, new permits may be denied or additional terms required. Sec. 34A-16. Appeal from
denial or revocation of permit. Appeal from denial or revocation of permit or from the decision of the public works director shall be to the City Council. Appeal shall be filed with
the city secretary within fifteen (15) days from the date ofthe decision being appealed. SECTION 2. That the terms and provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable and
that if the validity of any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be declared to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of any other section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase ofthis ordinance. -8
SECTION 3. The fact that the present ordinances and regulations of the City of Irving, due to state legislation, have become inadequate to control right-of-way management within the
corporate limits ofthe City ofIrving, creates an emergency for the immediate preservation ofthe public business, property, health, safety and general welfare ofthe public which requires
that this ordinance shall become effective from and after the date of its passage as provided by the Charter ofthe City ofIrving. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF IRVING, TEXAS, this 26th day ofAugust, A.D., 1999. ..-􀁾􀀧􀁬􀀠AtTEST: . I I 'Cl Carroll, CMC . cD'secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Caylor City Attorney -9
Engineers, Inc. Date: April 30, 2001 To: Steve Chutchian, P.E., Town of Addison cc: Jerry Holder, P.E., HNTB From: Bruce Grantham Re: Ductbank along Arapaho and Midway I spoke willl
Robert Cure at (504) 416-5339 recently regarding typical ductbank installation require.tnents. Robert's comments arc summarized below: • The ductbank which his firm designed through
Addison is part of a 40 mile loop. • This ductbank was designed to be used by three different telecommunication companies. • Of Ille 20 • I W' ducts in Ille ductbank, two companies own
four each and Ille third company owns Ille remaining sixteen. • The company which owns sixteen ducts has some spare for future sale or lease. • These docts, which were bundled togelller,
are designed exclusively for Ille installation of fiber. • It is typical for each telecommunication company to have its own manhole details; consequently, there is no industry standard
fur manholes. • Manholes are typically located 700' to 1,000' apart. • The typical minimum depth of 42"-48" to the top of the ductbank is regulated by the City having jurisdiction. •
Some companies require Ille use of spacers to separate the conduits although Ille ductbank installed through Addison did not include spacers. • Robert initially suggested the installation
of a single, larger carrier pipe, 12"·18" in diameter, rather than a ductbank, so that different duct sizes could be pulled through the carrier pipe in the future. However, he later
discounted this suggestion because the telecommunication companies do not want to share manholes for security reasons. When a company constructs a manhole, it is built alongside the
ductbank and only those ducts owned or leased by the company are pulled into the manhole. • Robert is not familiar willl ductbanks being installed for cable olller Illan fiber; for example,
electric cable. He suggested contacting TXU to find out what Illeir future duct needs might be, and whelller or not Illeir cable would be compatible willl fiber. I have a lunch meeting
on Tuesday, May 1 willl Mike Lisenbee to obtain a contractor's input into ductbank construction. In addition, I will contact TXU this week to get their input on this matter. Tel.: (972)
840-19161 FAX: (972) 840-21561 E-mail: Info@gbwengineers.com 
FROM GBW ENGINEERS PHONE NO. 972 840 2156 May. 02 2001 04:32PM P2 MEMO Engln.eers, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh Rd., Soli. 530, LB 7fI, Garland, TX 75042 Date: April 30, 2001 To: Steve ChutdJian,
P.E.,. Town of Addison cc: Jerry Holder,·P:E., HNTB, From: Bruce Grantham Re: Ductbank along Arapaho and Midway I spoke with Robert Cure.t (504) 41 6·5339 Tecently regarding typical
ductballk installation reqWretnetlts. Robert's coIIlltlCnts are sUJllIllIlrize,lbe\ol'/:" ',' • The ductban1c which his firm designed through Addison is part of a '40 mile loop, • This
ductballk was designed to be used by'three different telecomn:!llll.ication companies. Of the 20· 􀀱􀁾􀀢􀀠duels in the ductbank, two'coinpanies'PW1l foUl each.and the third company owns
the remaining sixteen, The company which OWIlS sixteen ducts has some spareJcir filn!,re sale or lease. • These ducts, which were bundled together, are desiiJped <lXclusively for tbe
installntion of fiber. • It is typical for each telecoll1!ll1lDication compallY to 􀁨􀀮􀁶􀁾its own fDlInhOle details; consequently. mere is IlIlindustry sttllldard for mailhoies, . .
Manholes are typically located'70P' to 1,'000' apart. • The typicaimioilll1ltn depth of 42"·48" io th.;".top of the duetbnDk is. regulnted by the City having jurisdiction, Some companies
require the 11$c ofspacers to separate the conduits ;,lthough the ductbank installed through Addison did not include sPacers. • Robert initially SllggestocJ the installation ala single,
JargeLcarriet' pipe, 12"·"18" in diameter. rather tban a ductbllllk, so that differe))t duct siUs eould'b" pulled through the carrier pipe in the futuro, However, he later discounted
this suggestion because the·ielecoll1!ll1lDication companies do not want [a share manholes for security reasollS, Wlloin a company C01l$trucls a manhole, it is built alongside the duclbank
and only those.ducts ,owned orJeas<;d by the comparly afe pulled into the manhole. '.: . " • Robert is 110t fumiliar with ductban1cs,being installed for cable oilier than fiber: for
example, electric cable. He suggested contacting TXU,to fiIl(! out what their future duct needs might be, and wheth.er or not their cable would be COlnpatiblewith fiber. I have a lunch
mooting on Tuesday, May 1 with Mike Usenbee; If' obtain a contractor's input into ductbaDk construction. 111' nddiliOIl, rwill contact TXV this week to get their input on tllis matter.

Page 1 of2 Steve Chutchian From: Bruce Grantham [Bgrantham@gbwengineers.comj Sent: Monday. April 30. 2001 5:49 PM To: schutchian@ci.addison.tx.u5 Subject ductbank To: Steve Chutchian
From: Bruce Grantham Re: Ductbank I spoke with Robert Cure at (504) 416-5339 recently regarding typical ductbank installation requirements. Robert's comments are summarized below: The
ductbank which his finn designed through Addison is par1 ofa 40 mile loop. This ductbank was designed to be used by three diffurent telecommunication companies. Ofthe 20 -1 '12" ducts
in the ductbank, two companies own four each and the third company owns the remaining sixteen. The company which owns sixteen ducts has some spare for future sale or lease. These ducts,
which were bundled together, are designed exclusively for the iosta11ation of fiber.It is typical fur each telecommunication company to have its own manhole details; consequently, there is no industry standard for manholes. Manholes are typica1Iy located 700' to 1,000'
apart The typical minimum depth of42"-48" to the top ofthe ductbank is regulated by the City having jurisdiction. Some companies require the use ofspacers to separate the conduits although
the ductbank iostalled through Addison did not include spacers. Robert initially suggested the installation ofa siogle, larger carrier pipe, 12-18" in diameter, rather than a ductbank,
so that different duct sizes could be puIIed through the carrier pipe in the future. However, he later discounted this suggestion becanse the telecommunication companies do not want
to share manholes for security reasons. When a company constmcts a manhole, it is built along side the ductbank and only those ducts owned or leased by the company are puIIed into the
manhole. Robert is not fiuniliar with ductbanks being installed for cable other than fiber; for example, electric cable. He suggested contacting 1XU to find out what their future duct
511101 
STEVEN Z. CHUTCmAN, P.E. (Itt.. I Assistant City Engineer (972) 450·2886 (972) 450-2837 I<'AX (214) 673-2518 Mobile sclmtcbian@ci.addison.tx.us E-mail Town ofAddison 16801 Westgrove
Dr. P.O. Box 9010, Addison, Texas 75001-9010 A-LTCl(p/1r{vE' .s FtfA( ,A 􀁾􀀬􀀼􀀡􀁢􀁲􀁷􀁓􀀨􀀢􀀠£) ( tJ/U"t.£ pO"1.,/S Ct:Pve"-'C c (ltv r"t (p tv/'t;; e.D:,/􀁾􀀠f.ee f'.-1..e'e1J l!y
9'8(" 711"'-T B. -L-"'7111 tvt: /'I C-fatt--/l T I t.--e.1 1.5 71I-e. u" E ., F./O -n:J aVA£' ,AP/c.t TY 􀁧􀁾􀀵􀁔􀀠J!!rl-1C ) .10'...-= 1-'r p 􀁾􀀨􀀢􀀭􀀧􀁔􀀻􀀴􀁦􀀠M A ReC-A {/?-f'c.y
if/flY [.. -( "-e L c; I:::: TR/tPfoC F 􀁾'-t.-) tv{ VI LeFT CoN57P'< -rz,:>",-,./JJvT TJ2A"PRc t-vac:L.P Ie 5et.--t..ety HIIf./l)('A?.,ep, /fLY; 3 f,e; /<t PC> A."7Zc "J'lf-.et? t/tif!
T1?APRc /I.v(LLI3crr /T Be v<'tey ex;'e'1..-.JI <e fz> &IVS TJ? K. T • Vo l.tl( u,vc v£ ?,... I 7?f AL /V<p'.Ajfve I? mfl.! 
Town ofAddison Midway Road Reconstruction Beltline to Keller Springs Sequence of Alternatives Construction Alternative 1: Maintain 2 lanes of traffic each direction plus a continuous
left turn lane Provide safer turning movements Pros • Removes left turning vehicles from through traffic lanes • No splits in same direction traffic • Curb offsets in stages 1 and 2
Cons • 100foot lanes • Left turns in stage 3 in very few locations • Vertical panels in stage 3 do not provide positive protection from pavement drop off • No curb offsets in stage 3
• Some driveways may be closed temporarily Alternative 2: Maintain 2 lanes of traffic each direction Maximum construction area Pros • Lower construction costs likely • Shorter duration
project likely • Safer construction process due to positive protection for pavement drop offs • No splits in same direction traffic • Curb offSets in stages I and 2 Cons • Left and right
turning movements will impede through traffic • Lower capacity than other two options (due to turns) • • lO·foot lanes • No curb offSets in stage 3 • Good signing and sign maintenance
is critical Alternative 3: Maintain 3 lanes oftraffic each direction Maximum traffic capacity Pros • Allows for 3 lanes oftraffic each direction throughoutconstrnction • Curh offsets
in stages 2, 3, 4, and 5 Note: All alternatives remove center median illumination, Cons • Splits same direction traffic during construction process causing safety concerns and potential
to confuse motorists • Vertical panels do not provide positive protection for pavement drop off • 10-foot lanes in most steps • No curb offsets in stages I and 6 • Longer duration construction
likely • More costly construction likely If temporary lighting is necessary, each alternative wonld require special detailing fur CI'B-mounted lighting or permanent lighting behind curb.
04/10/01 G:\32921\MldwayOutline.doc iiioiii........;;;;;.......!!iiiooii..., 
---------Midway Road Reconstruction Be It line Road to Ke Iler Springs AL TERNATIVE 1 34' 13' 34' 11' 11 ' 10' 10' 11' 11' Step 1 􀁾􀀠􀁾I' I 􀁾􀀠I I I t I t I t 'I 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀮􀁉􀁉􀀠--------------__I'--------------34' 13' 11.5' 22.5' 􀀱􀀮􀀵􀁾􀀠,10' 10' 13' J 10' 110, -1' Step 2 􀁉􀁾􀁉􀀧􀁉􀀠􀁾􀁬􀁬􀁴􀁬􀁴􀁬11􀁾􀀭--:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
=--=:::--:-'1--..... 115' 115'. . 13' 225'. . 13' 225' .J.,5' Step 3 􀀴􀁾􀁊􀁾􀀢􀀬􀀠10' 1'; 1';' 1􀁾􀀠fI , NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION
THIS STEP __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP 􀁾􀀠__ :::::::::J EXISTING PAVEMENT N 􀁾􀀠􀀻􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾"

Midway Road Reconstruction Beltline Road to Keller Springs AL T E R I\J AT I V E 2 34 13 34 11 11 10 10 11 11 Step 1 + + + t t t IL _______________ L ______________ 34' 1, 􀁾􀀠Step 2
L _______________ 34' Step 3 , 10' 11' 11' 10' 4' + + t t L _______________ 4 -----------__ -R ---------___ 􀁾􀁟􀀱􀀠13' 34' 5 13' 34' l'--'4' 10' I 11 ' 11' 10' , + t t ,4 . 335' Step
4 , , 34' 13' . 11' 11' 11' 􀁏􀀮􀀵􀁾􀀠_I 'I' I',' I';'I' , I , I ' I .&, NOTE: WIDTHS LEGEND: < G V !l g i <; 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠/J 5 __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION __ PERMANENT
CONSTRUCTION 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁊􀀠EXISTING PAVEMENT N 􀁾􀀠ARE TO BACK OF CURB THIS STEP PREVIOUS STEP 􀀬􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾
" 
---< 􀁾􀀠o " o 􀁾􀀠j' 􀁾􀀠/•Jl 􀁾􀀠/N 􀁾􀀠Midway Road Reconstruction Beltline Road to Keller Springs AL TERNATIVE 3 34' 13' 34' Step 1 1'; 1';' 1"1' I J'1' 1';' 1'; II 1L _______________.....􀁟􀁾􀀺􀀺
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁊􀀱􀀠L _______________ 􀁾􀀠-----------____I 34' 13' 22.5' 11.5' Step 2 1';' 1';' 1';' 1'\ 1';' 1';' I IL ___________ -􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁪􀀱􀀧􀁾..1 L _______
------􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀠34' 13' 115'. 11' 115'. 3' 10'11' 11' 11' 11' I'1;Step 3 tI I t 􀁉􀁾􀁃􀀢 l I l I l 1\.. ____________ L ____________ 􀁾􀀠-34' 13' 11.5' 225'. Step 4 11' 11'
11' 11' Iel,5' 10' I I I I t I, 10' l l l t n.. _______ 􀁾􀀠__ 􀁾􀀠__ L _______________ (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB t LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT __ PERMANENT
CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP •ADDIsoN __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP 􀁾􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀺􀁟􀁪􀀠EXISTING PAVEMENT 􀀬􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾" 
c o u .; 8 􀁾􀀠, 􀁾􀀠o + /•U )l Midway Road Reconstruction Beltline Road to Keller Springs AL TERNAT IVE 3 (CONT INUED) 11.5' 22.5' 13' 34' Step 5 , 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀠=-...._--115'
11' . 13'. 115' 34' Step 6 225'. 115'. 13' 34' Step 7 34' 13' 34' Step 8 NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP _ ... PERMANENT
CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀠􀁾􀀠EXISTING PAVEMENT 4'1'1' 1'1' 1'1' 11'( 1'( I';' I 10' 3' 10' I. 10' 11' I'; I';' I􀁾􀀠--,[ifill t --10' 10' 10' 1'( I'; 1'( I􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁊􀁾􀀠
• I';' I';' I';' I :c /N,L-________________________________________________ 􀁾􀁾􀀠 5 
Town of Addison Midway Road Reconstruction Beltline to Keller Springs Sequence of Alternatives Construction Alternative 1: Maintain 2 lanes of traffic each direction plus a continuous
left turn lane Provide safer turning movements Pros Cons • Removes left turning vehicles from through • IO-footlanes traffic lanes • Left turns in stage 3 in very few locations • No
splits in same direction traffic • Vertical panels in stage 3 do not provide positive • Curb offsets in stages I and 2 protection from pavement drop off • No curb offsets in stage 3
• Some driveways may be closed temporarily Alternative 2: Maintain 2 lanes of traffic each direction Maximum construction area Pros Cons • Lower construction costs likely • Left and
right turning movements will impede o Shorter duration project likely through traffic o Safer construction process due to positive • Lower capacity than other two options (due to protection
for pavement drop offs turns) • No splits in same direction traffic • 10-foot lanes • Curb offsets in stages 1 and 2 • No curb offsets in stage 3 • Good signing and sign maintenance
is critical Alternative 3: Maintain 3 lanes of traffic each direction Maximum traffic capacity Pros Cons • Allows for 3 lanes oftraffic each direction • Splits same direction traffic
during construction throughout construction process causing safety concerns and potential to o Curb offsets in stages 2, 3, 4, and 5 confuse motorists • Vertical panels do not provide
positive protection for pavement drop off o IO-foot lanes in most steps o No curb offsets in stages 1 and 6 • Longer duration construction likely • More costly construction likely Note:
All alternatives remove center median illumination. If temporary lighting is necessary, each alternative would require special detailing for crB-mounted lighting or permanent lightiog
behind curb. 04110101 G:\32921\,\1idwayOutline.doc 
--Midway Road Reconstruction Be Itline Road to Ke Iler Springs AL TERNATIVE 1 34' 13' 34' 11' 11' 10' 10' 11' 11' II Step 1 l l l t t t ! (L ______________I I 􀁾􀀠/' I I I L ___ 􀁾􀀠__________
------------__ ..11--------------_1 " 1.5, Step 2 , 34' 13' 115'. 225'. '1' 1 10' 13' 10' 110, 4' 􀁾􀁉􀀠l I 􀁾􀀠I ___ A t I t I r' f\.. ______________ L _________ ---225' 115' 115'.
.. . 13' 225' 􀀭􀁾NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: g __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT " := o '1; __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP 1 2 --PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀡􀀠􀁾􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀺􀁟􀁊􀀠E
XISTING PAVEMENT􀁾􀀬􀀠/N 􀁾􀀠,,:'-----------------------------' " Step 3 4'. 1';" 110' 13' 1';-􀀱􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀠IIl ffL __, ----J,5' °1Step 4 . I 
Midway Road Reconstruction Be Itline Road to Ke Iler Springs AL TERNATIVE 2 Step 1 34 13 34 11 11 10 10 11 11 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠t t t '\I \ \ \ \ 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠----------_____1 '-------------34' 13' 34' 1, 10' 11' 11' 10' 4''􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠t t I'L _____ --------A , Step 2 L _____ -------34' 13' 34' 4' 10' I 11' 11' 10' l'--' Step 3
􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠t t , ,4 13' 335'34' . 11' Step 4 1'1' I 􀁾􀀠1';' I 􀁏􀀮􀀵􀁾􀀠1-1 'j I T1'; I , ,• .& NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION
THIS STEP __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁊􀀠EXISTING PAVEMENT 
------Midway Road Reconstruction Be Itline Road to Ke Iler Springs AL TERNATIVE 3 34' 13' 34' Step 1 L _______________ 11 ' 11' 10' 10' 11' 11' I l l l 􀁾􀀠1 1 t I t I t 'I [L _______________
I-------------__ ..JI --------------__1 34' 13' 22.5' 11.5' Step 2 34' 13' 115'. 11' 115' 11' 11' 11' 10'11' Step 3 l t1'; ( . I I l l l I t n.. ___ __ __􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠L ________
------n.. ____ 􀁾􀀠__ _ L ________ -----34' 13' 115'. 225'. 11' 11' 11' 11' r1-.5' 10' 10' Step 4 l l l t t t 􀁾􀀮iL ___________ --•L ___________ --(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGEl NOTE: WIDTHS
ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP ADDisoN __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP 􀁾􀀭􀀽􀀭􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀺􀀧􀀭􀀽􀀭􀁊􀀠EXISTING PAVEMENT
I:I-:! i i =J 
---Midway Road Reconstruction Beltline Road to Keller Springs AL TERNAT IVE 3 (CONT INUED) 11.5' 22.5' 13' 34' 4' 10' 10' 10' 11' 11' 11'.1 'I 􀁾􀀠I 􀁾􀀠I 􀁾􀀠II t I t I t IStep 5 ,
􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀭....---... 115' 11' . 13'. 115' 34' 3' 10' 11' 11,110,110' 􀁾Step 6 --,rIlJllI' 1'; I t I 225'. 115' 13'. 34' Step 7 10' 10' 10' 1'; 1';' 1'; I􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁊􀁾􀀠•
34' 13' 34' Step 8 NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT ,.􀁾􀁌__ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP ADDisoN__ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺�
�􀀮􀁾􀀠EXISTING PAVEMENT 
Town of Addison Midway Road Reconstruction Beltline to Keller Springs Sequence ofAlternatives Construction Alternative 1: Maintain 2 lanes of traffic each direction plus a continuous
left turn lane Provide safer turning movements Pros Cons • Removes left turning vehicles from through • 10-footlanes traffic lanes • Left turns in stage 3 in very few locations • No
splits in same direction traffic • Vertical panels in stage 3 do not provide positive • Curb offsets in stages 1 and 2 protection from pavement drop off • No curb offsets in stage 3
• Some driveways rnay be closed temporarily Alternative 2: Maintain 2 lanes of traffic each direction Maximum construction area Pros Cons • Lower construction costs likely • Left and
right turning movements will iropede • Shorter duration project likely through traffic • Safer construction process due to positive • Lower capacity than other two options (due 10 protection
for pavement drop offS turns) • No splits in same direction traffic • 10-footlanes • Curb offsets in stages 1 and 2 • No curb offsets in stage 3 • Good signing and sign maintenance is
critical Alternative 3: Maintain 3 lanes of traffic each direction Maximum traffic capacity Pros Cons • Allows for 3 lanes oftraffic each direction • Splits same direction traffic during
construction throughout construction process causing safety conCerns and potential to • Curb offSets in stages 2, 3, 4, and 5 confuse molorists • Vertical panels do not provide positive
protection for pavement drop off • lO-foot lanes in most steps • No curb offSets in stages 1 and 6 • Longer duration construction likely • More costly construction likely Note: All alternatives
remove center median illumination. Iftemporary lightiog is necessary, each alternative would require special detailing for CTB-mounted lighting or permanenllighting behind curb. 04110/01
G:\32921\MidwayOutline.doc 
------------------------Midway Road Reconstruction Be Itline Road to Ke Iler Springs AL TERNATIVE 1 34' 13' 34' Step 1 11' 11' 10' 10' 11 ' 11 ' , , , t t t 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭--------__
_ ..JtL __ 􀁾􀀠____________ -------------' 34' 13' 225'11.5' . , 10' 13' 10' 110, 4' Step 2 '\' 1 1.5'-I 􀁾􀀠t 1 t 1 􀁾I ___ 11 IL ' I ,L _____ 22.5' 11.5' 13' 11.5' 22.5' Step 3 22.5'
10' 10' Step 4 , I , • NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: g __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT 􀁾􀀠o i o __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP --PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠EXISTING
PAVEMENT􀁾􀀠:;; 􀀬􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾5 
Midway Road Reconstruction Be Itline Road to Ke lIer Springs AL TERNATIVE 2 34 13 34 11 11 10 10 11 11 Step 1 l l ' I 􀁾􀀠t t t rt. ______________I I J I I I I 1.-_______________ 􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭___ ...J1 -------------___1 34' 13' 34' 1, 10' 11' 11' 10' 4''-t t t t 4 Step 2 L __ _____􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭----1 34' 13' 34' 4' 10' I 11' 11' 10' l t t t ,4 .J Step
3 , 34' 13' .335' 11' 11' 11' 􀁏􀀮􀀵􀁾􀁾􀀱􀀠';. 1'(" 1';-IStep 4 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠I I I I ,, ,& I NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS
STEP __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP _J EXISTING PAVEMENT 
-----------Midway Road Reconstruction Be Itline Road to Ke Iler Springs Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 LEGEND: AL TERNATIVE 3 34' 13' 34' 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭-------------_.J11.-____________
__ -----------___ -1 34' 13' . .225' 115' 11' 11' I 10' 10' 11' I 11' I + I + , t I t t I􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠11'11' 11' 11' , , ';' 'I';' I+ t I I I I I' ,􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭--------]I...
-----------34' 13' 115' 11' 115'. . 11' 11' 11' 11' 1 11 , 3' 10' I' I I' I I t 'I --'" + , , t t 􀁾􀀬􀀠"------------L._ ------􀁾􀀠-􀀭􀁾􀀠34' 13' 11.5' 22.5' l.-____ _ 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭(CONTINUED
ON NEXT PAGE) NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB 10''j I g,5' 10' ttI,.-----:: =--"'-"---' __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT8• g 􀁾􀁥􀀱􀁌􀀠__ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP • 1 􀁾􀀠ADDisoN __ PERMANENT
CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEPu 􀁾􀀠i'l u /􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀠EXISTING PAVEMENT 5 N /􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠5

Midway Road Reconstruction Beltline Road to Keller Springs AL TERN AT I V E 3 (C ON TIN U ED) 11.5' 4'Step 5 22.5' 13' 34' [';' ['1''['1'[['; [';' '[';' [ III'􀁟􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺11.5' 11' 10'
3''Step 6 ---::......_--..... 11.5' 13' 34' 10' 1 10'ITfITlI --....1 ":,::_: :: ; 115'225'. . 13' Step 7 34' 13' 11' 11'. 11' t It It '[ 34' 10' 10' 10' ['; [ 11' ['; [, , , t 34' 1
11' 11' 11,1 Step 8 I t I t I t I NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT i ! __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP 8 __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁊􀀠E
XISTING PAVEMENTj 􀁾􀀠;; 􀁾􀁌􀀭􀀭______________________________________________ ? a 􀁾􀀠
Town of Addison Midway Road Reconstruction Beltline to Keller Springs Sequence of Alternatives Construction Alternative 1: Maintain 2 lanes of traffic each direction pIns a continuous
left turn lane Provide safer turning movements Pros • Removes left turning vehiclcs from through traffic lanes • No splits in same direction traffic • Curb offsets in stages I and 2
Cons • 10-foot lanes • Left turns in stage 3 in very few locations • Vertical panels in stage 3 do not provide positive protection from pavement drop off • No curb offsets in stage 3
• Some driveways may be closed temporarily Alternative 2: Maintain 2 lanes oftraffic each direction Maximum construction area Pros • Lower construction costs likely • Shorter duration
project likely • Safer construction process due to positive protection for pavement drop offs • No splits in same direction traffic • Curb offsets in stages I and 2 Cons • Left and right
turning movements will impede through traffic • Lower capacity than other two options (due to turns) • • 10-foot lanes • No curb offsets in stage 3 • Good signing and sign maintenance
is critical Alternative 3: Maintain 3 lanes of traffic each direction Maximum traffic capacity Pros • Allows for 3 lanes oftraffic each direction throughout construction • Curb offsets
in stages 2, 3, 4, and 5 Note: Cons • Splits same direction traffic during construction process causing safety concerns and potential to confuse motorists • Vertical panels do not provide
positive protection for pavement drop off • IO-foot lanes in most steps • No curb offsets in stages I and 6 • Longer duration construction likely • More costly construction likely All
alternatives remove center median illumination. Iftemporary lighting is necessary, each alternative would require special detailing for CTB-mounted lighting or permanent lighting behind
curb. 04110/01 G:\32921\MidwayOutline.doc 
-------------Midway Road Reconstruction Beltline Road to Keller Springs AL T E RNAT I V E 1 Step 1 34' 13' 34' 11' 11' 10' 10' 11' 11' 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠t t t 1\... ___________ --------------_..fl
------------------___ ...J 34' 13' 115' 225'. . , J 10' 110, 4'1.5 Step 2 􀁾􀁉􀀠'II 'I I13' t I t I􀁾􀀧􀀠􀁾􀀠II ___ A/'L ____________ -, 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭225' 115' 115'. ..
. 13' 225' 4' 10" 10' 13' 􀁾􀀠Step 3 􀀧􀁉􀀧􀁾􀀠􀁉􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀠I 5' 􀁾-JI I I f , °lStep 4 . I NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS
STEP __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP 􀁾􀀠--::J EXISTING PAVEMENT 
Midway Road Reconstruction Beltline Road to Keller Springs AL TERI\JAT IVE 2 34 13 34 Step 1 L 11 11 10 10 11 11 I I I 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠t t tJ I I In.. ______________ 􀁾􀀠______________ ------------__
Jl -------------__1 34' 13' 34' L _______________ 34' 13' 34' 34' 13' . 10' 10' 10' Step 4 I';' I';' I';' I 􀁏􀀬􀀵􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁉􀀠335' t I t I t I , • ,B , NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB
LEGEND: < 􀁾􀀠__ TEMPORARY ASPHALT 􀁾􀁟􀁌" 8 •__ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP"-ADDisoN'; 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠__ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠/􀁾􀀭􀀽􀀭􀀭􀀽􀀭􀀭􀀽􀀭􀀭􀀽􀀭􀀭􀀽􀀭􀁊􀀠EXISTING
PAVEMENT5 N?L-________________________________________________􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠5 10' 11' 11' 10' 4' Step 2 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠t t 4n.. _______________ , 4' 10' I 11' 11 ' Step 3 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠t ,4, 10' 􀁾􀀠t

-------------------Midway Road Reconstruction Be Itline Road to Ke Iler Springs AL TERNATIVE 3 34' 13' 34' 11' 11' 10' 10' 11' 11' Step 1 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠t I t I tI _____________I I􀁮􀀮􀀮􀁾􀀠J
I􀁾􀀠L __ 􀁾􀀠____________ -----------___ ....11 ___I 34' 13' 22.5' 11.5' 11' 11' 11' .1 11' Step 2 l l ! t 'I I';' III I II In.. _____ ___ ----􀁾􀀠-----__11 ,L ______ -34' 13' 115'.
11' 115'. Step 3 11' 11' 11' 11' 111' 3' I ,! I' " ! , t I, 􀁾􀀠t t ------fL ___________ L _________ -----10' t 34' 13' 11 5'. 225'. Step 4 11' , 11' I 11' I'; 1.£·5' 10' I ! t t t I¥LfL
_______________ L __________ --10' t (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION
PREVIOUS STEP 􀁾􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁊􀀠EXISTING PAVEMENT 
------Midway Road Reconstruction Beltline Road to Keller Springs AL TERNATIVE 3 (CONTINUED) III'􀁟􀁾-::::::::::::::::......_--...... 10' 3' 10,1 10' --1TfrTl1 I 􀁾____ 11' t I'1 1'1
􀁾􀀠 115' 11' 115' 34'. 13'. step 6 I • Step 7 225'. 115' 13'. 34' 10' 10' 10' 1'1 1'1 1'1 I􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠34' 13' 34' • NOTE: WIDTHS ARE TO BACK OF CURB LEGEND: __ TEMPORARY ASPHALT __
PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION THIS STEP __ PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS STEP ADDisoN 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀠􀁾􀀠EXIST ING PAVEMENT 􀁾􀀠􀀿􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠11 5'. 225'. 13' 34' 4''10' 10' 10' 11 ' tStep 5 1'1 1'1 II 􀁾􀀠I 􀁾􀀠I 􀁾􀀠I I 1 11' 11,1 Step 8 I 􀁾􀀠 5 
. TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO DATE: 3> 􀀯􀁉􀁾􀁊􀀬􀀠I ClaIm # Check $ 3 7; 'l43,Y.3, Vendor No;" Vendor Name Address Address Address Zip Code 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁛􀁒􀁩􀁲􀁥􀀨􀁃􀁲􀁥􀁾􀁗􀁬􀁾􀀱􀁑􀀩􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀠MAR 192001 Authorized Signature fOWN \)r AUUI;)QN Finance I 4CCOUNTING 􀂩􀂩􀁾􀁗􀁩􀀠. " II 
TOWN OF ADDISON , PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO '.' " ., ;'; :''. DATE: Claim # Vendor Name ," Address 19ff s. Sf/tLI1I1 /21>. SVi'TF 530I .e..8 2 '1I, Address 7..1>174-2. Address Zip Code
􀁌􀀭􀀻􀀢􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀧􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀭􀁟􀁾___-,. f , ."', .TOTAL 43j;3P􀀲􀀬􀁾􀀮􀀶􀀠'C 􀁾􀀠',--",., " ' .. ',' EXPLANATION '. 􀁾􀀠.􀁾􀀺􀀠. 􀀧􀁾􀀠; < . , ! A-􀁾􀀮􀀧􀀠, Authorized Signature finance

Engineers, Inc. & INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1350 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: May 7, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway
Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 3/1/01 to 4/30/01 Total Contract Amount Total Due This Invoice Total Previous Invoices Total Billed to Date Less Payments/Credits
Total Amount Now Due Amount This Invoice Please Retain This Page For Your Records $313,700.00 $ 43,392.26 $124,561.42 $167,953.68 ($124,561.42) $ 43,392.26 $' 43,392.26 0, f:C. + fit-(
t S'Z-( §h(9/af 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite 530, LB 27. Garland. Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (972) 8-40-1916. Fax (972) 8-40-2156 
" Invoice No.: 1350 Date: May 7,2001 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction -Phase One Design 1. Design Survey 􀁾􀁾..􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount
$ 29,681.47 100% complete $ 29,681.47 2. Geotechnical Services • _____________􀁾__* ___􀁾􀁾____» __________w_ Total Phase Amount $ 19,440.00 Billed Previously $ 14,613.75 Alpha Testing,
Inc. (lnv. 23045) $ 5,425.00 3. Preliminary Plans Total Phase Amount $ 231,409.23 50% complete $ 115,704.62 4. Design Report Total Pl1ase Amount . $ 29,384.12 Standard Rate Schedule:
Professional Engineer 5 @$127.25/hr $ 636.25 " Total Labor Charges> > $ 636.25 
Invoice No.: 1350 Date: May 7,2001 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 5. Reimbursables Total Phase Amount 50% complete $ 3,785.18 $ 1,892.59 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE>
> > $ 167,953.68 
" Engineers, Inc. Grantham, & WaldilbalJer .Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1350 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: May 7, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.:
00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 42,256.71 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______ Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc.
1919 S. Shiloh Road Suite 530 L.B. 27 Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite 530, LB 27, Garland. Texas 75042
www.gbwengineers.com Tel (972) B4O·1916, Fax (972) 840-2156 
,.. , 􀁁􀁌􀁐􀁈􀁁TESTING, INC. 2209 Wisconsin St, Suite 100 0/, Dallas, Texas 75229 (972) 620-8911JI􀁾􀀠Fax: (972) 406-8023 MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTIONPROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO: 00988BELTLINE
ROAD TO KELLER SPRINGS ROAD ADDISON,'IX Apr 6, 2001CLIENT: INVOICE DATE: I I TERMS: Net 10 days BRUCE R.. GRANTHAM GBW ENGINEERS, INC. 1919 SHILOH ROAD, SUITE 530 LB27 GARLAND, 'IX 75042
CUSTOMER P.O. NO: L 972-840-1916 CLOSING DA1E OF THIS INVOICE Apr 2, 2001 IIWOlCENO: 23045 QUANTIlY DESCRIPTION OF WORK STAFF ENGINER, 22HRS AT 60$@HR SENIOR ENGINEER,34HRS AT $95@HR
PRINCIPLE EMP., 7HRS AT 1251HR TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT. PLEASE INCLUDE INVOICE NUMBER ON ALL REMITTANCES. UNIT PRICE Invoice T olal PER EXTENSION 1,320.00 3,230.00 875.00 $ 5,42.5.00
WhHa-ORIGINAL INVOICE --Green-SECOND --Canary-ALE --PinI<-ACCCUNTING --GoIderirod-800KKEEPINGCGOl083-17 
TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO DATE: Claim # Check $3> /Ir;/o /Vendor No;' Vendor Name Address' 1911 S. 5liILlJf{ {i?p.! SvlTE .5'30, L8 2 7 ; > Address 7SOC}2 Address Zip
Code L-:...;;.::-'______-',:" . 􀀭􀁾. TOTAL _ ;: l. -t EXPLANATION AFTIf OeS{q,-..-, . i?At""1 E /1--1' Tl? >, . : : 􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀠Authorized Signature Finance 
Engineers, Inc. & INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1301 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: March 7, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT:
Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 2/1/01 to 2/28/01 Total Contract Amount Total Due This Invoice Total Previous Invoices Total Billed to Date Less Payments/Credits
Total Amount Now Due Amount This Invoice $313,700.00 $ 37,943.93 $ 86,617.49 $124,561.42 ($ 86,617.49) $ 37,943.93 $ 37,943.93 Please Retain This Page For Your Records 1919 S. Shiloh
Road, Suite 530. LB 27. Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (972) 840-1916. Fax (972) 840-2156 
Invoice No.: 1301 Date: March 7,2001 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 1 . Design Survey • 􀁾__________________________w_ Total Phase Amount 95% complete $ 29,681.47
$ 28,197.40 2. Geotechnical Services ---------------------------------------Total Phase Amount $ 19,440.00 Alpha Testing (Invoice #22971) $ 14,613.75 3. Preliminary Plans ----------------------------
----. Total Phase Amount 35% complete $ 231,409.23 $ 80,993.23 4. Design Report ----------------------------Total Phase Amount 0% complete $ 29,384.12 $ 0.00 5. Reimbursables 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount 20% complete $ 3,785.18 $ 757.04 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE > > > $ 124,561.42 
, . Engineers, Inc. Grantham, 8. Waldlbausr Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1301 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: March 7, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.:
00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 37,943.93 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______ Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc.
1919 S. Shiloh Road Suite 530 L.B. 27 Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Sui,e 530. LB 27, Garland. Texas 75042
www.gbwengineers.com Tel (972) 840-1916, Fax (972) 840-2156 
TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO DATE: ;z./lJr/tJ /Claim # Vendor No;' Vendor Name GBw Address /'1rf s, .I:/fIC-e:;1I /2])" S"ITE 530.1 {",/3.275 Address G'ARLAIVP } TEXA,S
7S?J42 Address Zip Code ',TOTAL , , EXPLANATION Fov-,e 71f fAr""1E/V-T Tt? r:'1!tv-E/I/<r(/'Vff.e:S,..t:-/t-C.. Ee1R, Erv ti IIVEER r;v£f .5 E pt.-fe EX R 1:=-&4-rEP ,l"&'7#E , ." 􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀠Authorized
Signature finance 
<, & Waldbauer Engineers, Inc. INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1267 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: February 1, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.:
00·238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction •. Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 1101/01 to 1/31/01 Total Contract Amount Total Due This Invoice Total Previous Invoices Total Billed
to Date Less Payments/Credits Total Amount Now Due Amount This. Invoice $313.700.00 $ 34,900.65 $ 51,716.84 $ 86,617.49 ($ 36,988.97) $ 49,628.52 ,.......=,0$ 34,900.65 2/<"/,,i J<!EPC...eCT3vALtceP1
1}1. /1Vu>(Ce 􀀽􀁉􀁦􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀧􀀲􀀭􀁾TlY"T MTEP 1/'fItlY) (0/71fe 14"'1 􀁴􀁬􀁶􀁾T " F /II f) 72 7.cf7 tMs ,;t-,? 􀁦􀀡􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀠12(?( I:,t--E7 T1f E' E(L.-tj /"",ECl< 􀁉􀁾􀀠FI R"1 • Please
Retain This P!lge For Your Records 1919 S. Shiloh Road. SU;I<> 530, LB 27, Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (9n) &I(}·1916. Fax (9n) 840-2156 6 
--------------------------------------------------------------InvoiceNo.: 1267 Date: February 1, 2001 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 1. Design Survey _a ____________________________ Total Phase Amount $ 29,681.47 95% complete $
28,197.40 2 . Geotechnical Services .--------------------------------------Total Phase Amount $ 19,440.00 0% complete $ 0.00 3. Preliminary Plans Total Phase Amount $ 231,409.23 25%
complete $ 57,852.31 4. Design Report 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount $ 29,384.12 0% complete $ 0.00 5. Reimbursables Total Phase Amount $
3,785.18 15% complete $ 567.78 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE> > > $ 86,617.49 
Engineers, Inc. Grantham & WaldJll>auer Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1267 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: February 1; 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.:
00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 34,900.65 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______ Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc.
1919 S. Shiloh Road Suite 530 L.B.27 Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment 􀁆􀁾􀁲􀀠Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite 530, UI21, Garland, Texas
75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (972) 840-1916, Fax (972) 840-2156 
TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO Claim # Check $ If/72.7.17DATE: Vendor No. Vendor Name Address 1'111 S, .51ftLp/{ ref). I SvtTc S3CJ I C-., B, 27 Address oltRL.1IVP I TEiV'I.s
791-2. Address Zip Code TOTAL Ilf/72. 7.97 EXPLANATION 􀁐􀁥􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠Authorized Signature Finance 
Burge & Wal<dJbauer Engineers, Inc. INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1252 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: January 9, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.:
00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 12/01/00 to 12/31/00 Total Contract Amount $313,700.00 Total Due This Invoice $ 14,727.87 Total Previous
Invoices $ 36,988.97 Total Billed to Date $ 51,716.84 Less Payments/Credits ($ 36,988.97) Total Amount Now Due $ 14,727.87 Amount This Invoice $ 14,727:87 \ O''{.--􀁾􀁲􀁬􀀧􀀠l' -r.'1'V"',
\ 1l0 \ l \ Please Retain This Page For Your Records 1919 S. Shiloh Road. Suite 530. LB 27. Garland. Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (972) 840-1916. Fax (972) 840·2156 
Invoice No.: 1252 Date: January 9, 2001 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 1. Design Survey -----------------------------Total Phase Amount 95% complete $ 29,681.47
$ 28,197.40 2. Geotechnical Services ---------------------------------------Total Phase Amount 0% complete $ 19,440.00 $ 0.00 3. Preliminary Plans --------------------------------Total
Phase Amount 10% complete $ 231,409.23 $ 23,140.92 4. Design Report ----------------------------Total Phase Amount 0% complete $ 29,384.12 $ 0.00 5. Reimbursables ----------------------------Total
Phase Amount 10% complete $ 3,785.18 $ 378.52 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE> > > $ 51,716.84 
& Engineers, Inc. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1252 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: January 9, 2001 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway
Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 14,727.87 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ ______ Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc. 191 9 S. Shiloh Road
Suite 530 L.B. 27 Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite 530, LB 27, Garland. Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com
Tel (972) 840-1916, Fax (972) 840-2156 
Steve Chutchian From: Randy Moravec Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 6:58 PM To: Steve Chutchian Subject: Project Numbers Steve, I noticed you submitted PAMs with incorrect fund and
project numbers. Please note the following: Arapaho Road Phase 111111 Fund 46 Project # 83300 Midway Road Reconstruction Fund 46 Project # 04300 Please contact me should you have any
questions. 1 
Midway Roadway Reconstruction -. IProject Schedule ....-,.:,. E -Grantham, I3urge & WalClo.auer.., At>i)isoN 􀁾􀀠Engineers, Inc. 2000 2001 September October November December January
February March April May June Nofice fo Proceed --Collect City Data Utility Coordination f.. r-Survey (ontrol iflopographic Survey "" I I---""" I-Base Sheets Coordinatio!1""Meefing Geotechnical
Services Geotechnical Report Preliminary Plan/Profile "" ............ Right of Way Map 􀁾􀁥􀁶􀁩􀁥􀁷􀀠Related Projects P·ref1minary Opinion of Probable Cost i-.. ---.-,Coordination Meeting
-City Review Underdrain Analysis "J-Pavement Section Analysis construction Sequence Analysis Consfrucfion 􀁐􀁦􀁩􀁡􀁳􀁬􀁮􀁾􀁚􀁣􀀺􀁯􀁳􀁦􀁁􀁮􀁡􀁬􀁹􀁳􀁬􀁳􀀠-" I emporary Rehabilitation AnalysIs
Coordination Meeting Design Report Coordination Meeting .. J-I.lty Review 90% Plansj::'(>eciTications Updafe Opinion of ProbabTe I.ost L oordinatlon Meetinq .I.ity Review Final Plans/Specifications
􀁾􀀮􀀠,council Presentation 
-. Midway Roadway Reconstruction Project Schedule , ..,.-.r--:'AJ)DiSON..I. Grantham. Burge & WaJdba_ _ 􀁾􀀠Engineers, Inc. 2000 2001-...-----September October November December January
February March April May June Notice to Proceed Collect City Data Utility Coordination Survey Control 􀁾􀀠------Topographic Survey -Bose Sheets Coordination Meeting f-ueotechnical Services
Geotechnical Keport Preliminary Planl Profile ---Right of Way Mae Review Related Projects ----. Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost 􀁾....-_ (.;oordinalion Meelin£!_ -City Review Underdrain
Analysis Pavement Section Analysis (;onstructlon Sequence Analysis --,\.,onstruction PhaSing/Cost Analysis Iemporary t(ehabilitaTlOn AnalYSIS (;oordination Meeting Design t(eport Coordination
Meeting . --City Review 􀁾􀀠-90% Plans/Specifications UEdate Opiniol1__()f PrObable Cost -􀁾􀀠-1-Coordination Meeting City Review Final Plans/Specifications Council Presentation 
---Midway Roadway Reconstruction -Project Schedule II/1,1 ! II -L-1,vE -fp KcLc..ER SpR/-v.-.( ..,.-1';,. :i3EL-T ADDisONGrantham. Burge & Waldbauer Engineers, Inc. 2000 2001 September
October November December January February March April May June U dote Finol 
July 31, 2000 MEMORANDUM To: Chris Terry, Assistant City Manager Through: Mike Murphy, P,E" Director ofPublic Works From: Jim Pierce, P ,R, Assistant City Engineer Subject: Proposal
from GBW Engineers, Inc, for Engineering, Surveying and Geotechnical Services, Midway Road Reconstruction, Phase One Design Attached is a proposal from GBW Engineers, Inc, for engineering
services for the reconstruction ofMidway Road from Belt Line Road to Keller Springs Road, The proposal represents Phase One ofwhat is anticipated to be a two-phase design process, Phase
One consists of the preparation of all the construction plans and specifications necessary for the reconstruction work except for construction sequencing and traffic control, landscaping
and irrigation, storm water pollution prevention plan and erosion control, signalization, temporary lighting, and sidewalks. All median opening widths, tum lane lengths, and street and
driveway radii will be reviewed and design changes made where appropriate. The engineering report to be prepared with Phase One will provide a basis for the Town to establish a construction
phasing and funding approach for this project. Phase Two will consist ofcompleting the remaining construction plans along with separating the plans prepared in Phase One into a separate
bid packages for construction phasing purposes. Public notification and coordination with other cities, DART and al.fucted businesses will be included in Phase Two. Bidding and construction
phase services will also be provided. Ifit is determined during Phase One that the Midway Road reconstruction project will precede the Arapaho Road extension, the design ofthe box culvert
crossing at Midway Road will be included in the Phase Two design. The total proposed cost for the Phase One Design is $313,700.00. The design is estimated to take 200 calendar days exclusive
of review time. Funding for this project will come from the 2000 Bond Sale. Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with GBW Engineers, Inc.
for Phase One Engineering Design for $313,700.00. 
TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO Claim # Check $ 13) 7tM'.S,?DATE: . Vendor No; . ___________􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀬􀁟􀁾􀁟􀀺􀁟􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀺􀁟􀀭􀀧􀀭Vendor Name Address Iflr s, SI/(LI7f{
i?-D, ,I sure S30,£.8, 27 Address Address Zip Code TOTAL /3) 70J>.S,{ f2. [J , 􀁾􀁾􀀠Authorized Signature Finance \ 
Engineers, Inc. Grantham, &Waldbauer INVOICE Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1212 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: December 1, 2000 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project
No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 11/01/00 to 11/30/00 Total Contract Amount Total Due This Invoice Total Previous Invoices Total
Billed to Date Less Payments/Credits Total Amount Now Due Amount This Invoice $313,700.00 $ 13,708.59 $ 23,280.38 $ 36,988.97 ($ 0.00) $ 36,988.97 $ 13,708.59 Of (C. >2--(... I 1;"'(J
t<J Please Retain This Page For Your Records 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite 5)0. LB 27, Garland. T """s 75042 \WIW,gbwengineers.com Tel (972) 840-1916. Fax (972) 840·2156 
Invoice No.: 1212 Date: December 1, 2000 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 1. Design Survey 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭...􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount
85% complete $ 29,681.47 $ 25,229.25 '" 2. Geotechnical Services 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total Phase Amount 0% complete $ 19,440.00
$ 0.00 3. Preliminary Plans ________________________M ________ Total Phase Amount 5% complete $ 231,409.23 $ 11,570.46 4. Design Report 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Total
Phase Amount 0% complete $ 29,384.12 $ 0.00 5. Reimbursables ----------------------------Total Phase Amount 5% complete $ 3,785.18 $ 189.26 TOTAL BILLED TO DATE> > > $ 36,988.97 
&Waldlbauer Engineers, Inc. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Invoice No.: 1212 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Date: December 1, 2000 Addison, Texas 75001 GBW Project No.:. 00-238 PROJECT:
Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 13,708.59 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ 13,7o!f.S'f Pay to the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc. 191 9 S.
Shiloh Road Suite 530 L.B.27 Garland, Texas 75042 Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. Shiloh Road. Suite 530. LB 27. Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengjneers..com
Tel (972) 84().1916. Fax (972) 840-2156 
TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO Claim # Check$ 23) Z8'CI.3!lDATE: Vendor No; Vendor Name Address /'1/'1 S, Sf/ft.tJ/l !20, I S&ITe 530 /L8, 27 Address Address Zip Code TOTAL
23)28'0.38' EXPLANATION /.5T-PAtA €,,--T P ([8w crvti'/I't-t;:E]eS I .L/t--(. P"'R 6,o/£/.vcFJi?/"""t:f SF/?h'Cf5 RELATED 70 mE 􀁏􀁦􀀳􀁬􀀧􀁴􀁆􀁾􀀠dE ,At{ owA f: g Q. Re=C"tt-.sT72l-C
r-I'04-J 􀁐􀁉􀁦􀁾􀁅􀀠...I:, .• 􀁁􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀻􀀠Authorized Signature Finance 
Grantham. & Waldbauer Engineers, Inc. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, Texas 75001 INVOICE Invoice No.: 1184 Date: November 2, 2000 GBW Project
No.: 00-238 PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design INVOICE SUMMARY From 9/07/00 to 10/31/00 Total Contract Amount $313,700.00 Total Due This Invoice $ 23;280.38 Total
Previous Invoices $ 0.00 Total Billed to Date $ ;23.:280.38 Less Payments/Credits 0.00); Total Amount Now Due $ 23,280.38 Amount'This Invoice $ 23,280.38 _____􀁾__________􀁾__ 􀁾􀀴______􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁟􀀮􀀠,
Please Retain This Page For Your Records 1919 S. Shiloh Road, S<Jite 530, LB 27, Garland, Texas 75042 www.gbwengineers.com Tel (972) 840-1916, Fax (972) 840-2156 
________ Invoice No.: 1184 Date: November 2, 2000 Project: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design 1. Design Survey 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭..􀀪􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭..-Total Phase
Amount $ 29,681.47 70% complete $ 20,777.03 2. Geotechnical Services __􀀮􀁾􀁍􀁟..􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁟􀁾􀁟􀁾..􀁾__________.___ 􀁾􀀠Total Phase Amount $ 19,440.00 0% complete $ 0.00 3. Preliminary
Plans 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀭Total Phase Amount $ 231,409.23., 1% complete , $ 2,314.09 I: < ! ,.:: 4.',; . Design Report j ; ! 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀠Total Phase Amount $ 29,384.12 0% complete .$ 0.00 5. Reimbursables ----------------------.-----Total Phase Amount $ 3,785.18 5% complete $ 189.26 TOTAL
BILLED TO DATE:> > > $ 23,280.38 
• • Gl'lllrltl'lam, Engineers, Inc. Mr. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, Texas 75001 Invoice No.: 1184 Date: November 2, 2000 GBW Project No.: 00-238
PROJECT: Midway Road Reconstruction --Phase One Design REMITTANCE PAGE: Total Current Invoice $ 23,280.38 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ 2 􀁾􀀯􀀲􀀮􀀸􀀧􀁯􀀮􀀠33 {-p flLJ { //.;:. . .. Pay to
the Order Of: GBW Engineers, Inc. 1919 S. Shiloh Road Suite 530 L.B. 27 Garland, Texas 75042 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭Please Return This Page With Payment For Prompt And Accurate Credit 1919 S. Shiloh Road. Suite 530. LB 27. Garland. Texas 75042 􀁷􀁷􀁷􀀮􀁧􀁾􀁷􀁥􀁮􀁧􀁩􀁮􀁥􀁥􀁲􀁳􀀮􀁣􀁯􀁭􀀠Tel (972)
840-1916. Fax (972) 840·2156 
7-2s-trc) :"iL I!. " , '" . i j" ", ,.; .􀁾􀀠. 
#2h -Award of bid in the amount of $35,775.00 to August Industries for purchase of a Mobile Compressor, Fill Station &Air Storage to replace bottled air compressor that currently refills
the SCBA (Self Contained Breathing Apparatus) for the Addison Fire Department. #2i -Award of bid in the amount of $25,227.00 to Motorola for purchase of nine mobile radios for the Police
Department. #2j -Rejection of all bids for Bid #00-42, Swimming Pool Resurfacing for Athletic Club. #2k -Award of a contract in an amount not to exceed $313,700.00 for engineering, surveying
and geotechnical services to GBW for Midway Road Reconstruction -Phase One Design. #21-Approval of a Hangar Development and an Amendment to the Ground Lease for Addison Express. #2m
-Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Clarence A. West of the law firm of Dow Cogburn & Friedman to address right-of-way issues.
City Council Agenda 08-08-00 
Public Works I Engineering 16801 Westgrove' P.O. Box 144 Addison, Texas 75001 Telephone: (2141 450·2871 • Fax: (2141 931·6643 DATE ;F-lr-d7J ATTENTION RE: 􀀯􀁲􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀮􀀠(j IJOB NO. /"l
)'C,I. 􀀯􀁤􀁾􀀮􀀠TO GENTLEMAN: WE ARE SENDING YOU 􀁾􀁣􀁨􀁥􀁤􀀠D Under separate cover via ______the following items: D Shop Drawings D Prints D Plans D Samples D Specifications D______________________
___D Copy of letter D Change order COPIES I DATE NO. .,c::;;, AA 0 ffJlA 6 t> 􀁾" . u DESCRIPTION 􀁲􀀭􀁾􀀠r -'LA :L () . , THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: D For approval D Approved
as submitted D Resubmit ____copies for approval DForyouruse D Approved as noted D Submit copies for distribution D As requested D Returned for corrections D Return corrected prints D
For review and comment D ___________________________ D FOR BIDS DUE __________________ 1"'____ D PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO ________________________________ SIGNED: 􀀭􀀬􀂣􀀮􀁾􀁦􀀭􀀺􀀭􀁾
􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀢􀀢􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭If enclosures are not as noted, please n tit); 
Grantlhiam. Burge & 􀁗􀁡􀁾􀀼􀁤􀁬􀁬􀁢􀁡􀁵􀁥􀁲􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭Engineers, Inc. July 25, 2000 Mr. Jim Pierce, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Town
of Addison Post Office Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001 Re: Agreement for Engineering, Surveying and Geotecb Midway Road Reconstruction -Phase One Design Dear Mr. Pierce: Pursuant to your
request, GBW has prepared this agreement 􀁾􀀠··c. ---. -J ---c ----c------.... --. services for the reconstruction of Midway Road from Belt Line Road to Keller Springs Road in the Town
of Addison. Our subconsultants on this project will be HNTB Corporation (construction sequencing and traffic control) and Alpha Testing, Inc. (geotechnical). The work described in this
proposal represents Phase One of what is anticipated to be a two-phase design process. Phase One consists of the preparation of all the construction plans and specifications necessary
for the reconstruction work (see Exhibit A) except for construction sequencing and traffic control, landscaping and irrigation, storm water pollution prevention plan and erosion control,
signalization, and temporary lighting, and sidewalks. All median opening widths, tum lane lengths, and street and driveway radii will be reviewed and design changes made where appropriate.
The engineering report to be prepared with Phase One will provide a basis for the Town to establish a construction phasing and funding approach for this project. Phase Two will consist
of completing the remaining construction plans along with separating the plans prepared in Phase One into a separate bid package for construction phasing purposes. Public notification
and coordination with other cities, DART and affected businesses will be included in Phase Two. Bidding and construction services will also be provided. Ifit is determined during Phase
One that the Midway Road reconstruction project will precede the Arapaho Road extension, the design of the box culvert crossing at Midway Road will be included in the Phase Two design.
This proposal consists of the following Scope of Services: Scope of Services Surveying for Design and Construction • Establish horizontal and vertical control for the project including
monumentation which shall be tied to Town of Addison horizontal and vertical datum. • Research Town, County, State, or other documents as necessary to establish the location of existing
boundary lines and easements for the project. Furnish copies of all real estate documents to the Town. • Prepare a right-of-way strip map for the project detailing all existing right-of-way
and easement lines along with property owners. 1919 S. Shiloh Road, Suite 530, L.B. 27, Garland, Texas 75042 Tel (972) 84()'1916 Fax (972) 84()'2156 
Mr. Jim Pierce July 25, 2000 Page 2 • In cooperation with the Town and other franchised utilities, determine the approximate locations and elevations of existing underground utilities.
• Locate soil borings and furnish survey data to the geotechnical consultant. • Perfonn a detailed topographic survey of the project including all driveways and intersecting streets.
Geotechnical Services • Explore subsurface soil andlor rock conditions and groundwater seepage along Midway Road by drilling 22 test borings up to a depth of 10 feet. Borings shall be
spaced approximately 250 feet apart on alternative sides of the street. • Perfonn laboratory tests to evaluate the classification, gradation and other physical characteristics of the
subsurface soils. • Use the results of the field exploration and laboratory tests to prepare an engineering report which will address the following items: engineering characteristics
of the subsurface materials encountered recommended pavement sections including alternative subgrade stabilization and base materials, and the pavement thickness required to achieve
the targeted pavement life evaluation of the life expectancy of the existing pavement sections recommendations regarding earthwork including grading and excavation, backfilling and compacting,
the treatment of in-place soils for support of pavement, and possible construction problems Project Management and Preliminary Plan Preparation • Prepare a schedule for the project work
and provide updates as requested by Town staff. • Attend project coordination meetings with Town staff and subconsultants. • Review the geotechnical report results and coordinate with
Town staff to determine recommended pavement sections for the project. In addition, underdrain andlor root barrier locations will also be determined. • Prepare preliminary specifications
and contract drawings for the project including the following: Title Sheet with index and project location General Notes and Quantities Existing Right-of-Way Map including all property
owners Typical Sections Horizontal and Vertical Control Sheet Jointing Plans Roadway Plan and Profiles Intersection Layouts Pavement Markings Roadway Cross-sections Underdrain Profiles
at street crossings Details 
Mr. Jim Pierce July 25, 2000 Page 3 • Review other proposed construction projects, including CMAQ intersection improvements, and account for these improvements in the contract drawings.
Design Report • In partnership with Town staff, prepare an engineering design report, including an opinion of probable construction cost, to address the following project issues: a recommended
construction sequencing and traffic control approach for the project phasing alternatives for the reconstruction work the limits of reconstruction work which can be accomplished with
available bond funds identify temporary rehabilitation measures, if necessary due to funding constraints, to prolong existing pavement life. • Attend a Council meeting to assist Town
staff in presenting the fmdings of the design report. Schedule It is anticipated that the proposed scope of services will be complete within 200 calendar days after the issuance of a
Notice to Proceed, exclusive City review time. Proposed Fee A manhour projection (see Exhibit B), which has been prepared for the scope of services described in this proposal, provides
the basis for the fees listed below. In addition, Exhibit D provides an estimated fee based on TSPE Curve A for reference purposes. The construction cost used for this calculation (see
Exhibit C) has no cost for those items which will be designed with Phase Two. Survey $ 29,681.47 (Fixed Fee) Geotechnical Services -Soil borings $ 5,305.00 (Fixed Fee) -Laboratory Tests
$ 5,535.00 (Fixed Fee) -Engineering Report $ 8,600.00 (Time and Materials) Preliminary Plans $231,409.23 (Fixed Fee) Design Report $ 29,384.12 (Time and Materials) Reimbursables $ 3,785.18
(Fixed Fee) TOTAL FEE $313,700.00 All of the scope of services referenced above have been proposed as a fixed fee except for the Geotechnical Report and the Design Report. As the extent
of the work effort required for these reports is difficult to define at this time, it is proposed that they be completed on a Time and Materials basis in accordance with the Standard
Rate Schedules of the respective finns. The estimated fee for these reports will not be exceeded without written approval from the Town ofAddison. 
Mr. Jim Pierce July 25, 2000 Page 4 Assumptions This proposal is based upon the following assumptions: • Traffic counts will be furnished by the Town of Addison. • No railroad gate design
will be performed. Terms and Conditions • Access to Site: Unless otherwise stated, GBW Engineers, Inc. (GBW) will have access to the site for activities necessary for the performance
of the services. GBW will take precautions to minimize damage due to these activities, but has not included in the fee the cost of restoration of any resulting damage. • Dispute Resolution:
Any claims Or disputes made during design, construction or post construction between the Client and GBW will be submitted to nonbinding mediation. Client and GBW agree to include a similar
mediation agreement with all contractors, subcontractors, subconsultants, suppliers and fabricators, thereby providing for mediation as the primary method for dispute resolution among
all parties. • Billings/Payments: Invoices for GBW' s services will be submitted on a monthly basis. Invoices will be payable within 30 days after the invoice date. • Indemnification:
The Client will, to the fullest extent permitted by law. indemnify and hold harmless GBW, its officers, directors. employees. agents and subconsultants from and against all damage, liability
and cost including reasonable attorney's fees and defense costs, arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of the services under this agreement by any of the parties
above named. excepting only those damages, liabilities or costs attributable to the sole negligence or willful misconduct of GBW. o CertificationslResponsibilities: GBW will not be required
to execute any document that would result in its certifying, guaranteeing or warranting the existence of conditions whose existence GBW cannot ascertain. Furthermore, GBW will not be
responsible for the means, methods, procedures, techniques. Or sequences of construction. nor for safety on the job site. o Termination of Services: This agreement may be terminated
by the Client or GBW should the other fail to perform its obligations hereunder. In the event of termination. the Client will pay GBW for all services rendered to the date of termination,
all reimbursable expenses and reimbursable termination expenses. • Ownership of Documents: All documents produced by GBW under this agreement will remain the property of GBW. unless
otherwise stated, and may not be used by the Client for any other endeavor without the written consent of GBW. Please contact me if you need any additional information. Approved by:
ce R. Grantham, P.E. 􀀭􀁲􀁾....... 􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁑􀀨􀁤􀀠cf-l1-S() President Town of Addison Date Attachments BG/gg J:\WPDOCS\PROPOSAL\ADDlSON\MIDWA Y'iPhaseOne.ltr 
EXH1BIT A Midway Road Reconstruction from Belt Line Road to Keller Springs Road Phase One Design Sheet lodes Sheet Description No. of Sheets Title 1 General Notes & Quantities 1 Right-of-way
Map I Survey Control 3 Typical Sections 2 Demolition 3 Jointing Plans 3 Paving Plan and Profiles 12 Intersection Layouts 3 Pavement Markings 3 Roadway Cross Sections 15 Underdrain ProfIles
(at street crossings) 2 Details 2 TOTAL SHEETS 50 
EXHIBIT B·l MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION FROM 􀁂􀁅􀁾T LINE ROAD TO 􀁋􀁅􀁾􀁾􀁒SPRINGS ROAD PHASE ONE DESIGN MANHOUR ESTIMATE -30.20(1) 
EXHIBIT B-2 MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION FROM BELT LINE ROAD TO KELLER SPRINGS ROAD r PHASE ONE DESIGN MANHOUR ESTIMATE !{HNTIl 􀁾􀁾􀁒􀀠CADO TOTAL LABOR I ( CL CAL HOURS COST 􀁾􀁾􀁐􀁌􀁁􀁎􀁓􀀠4
4 8 $900.0 • CT I '31 8 11I Ii ,(IO)'CTlON. 2 m(LIGHT 􀁌􀁾􀀠I 4 I IN' 4 16 􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠2 10 $960.00 16 $1.5411.00 WRITE. 2 4 j 8 $1242.00 . HOURS "u "u lti ij TOTAL LABOR COST $2,100.00
$4J2.00 I June 30, 2000 J:\WPDOCSlPROPOSALIADDISONIMIDWAYlMANHOUR-HNTB.wb3 
EXHIBITC OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Date: June 27, 2000 (For Design Contract) Midway Road Reconstruction Project Belt Line Road to Keller Springs Town ofAddison Item No. Quantity Unit
Item Unit Price IlemTotal ($) 1 55.0 STA ROW Preparation 5,000.00 $275,000.00 2 10,000 C.Y. Unclassified Excavation (for 4" Base) 12.00 120,000.00 3 1 L.S. Barricade, Sign, Traffic Control
0.00 0.00 4 53,500 S.Y. Remove Concrete Pavement, Haul, Dispose 10.00 535,000.00 5 700 S.Y. Remove Concrete Drive, Haul, Dispose 15.00 10,500.00 6 2,000 S.Y. Remove/Replace 6" Concr.
Median Pavemt. 40.00 80,000.00 7 14,000 L.F. Sawcut Breakout Groove 4.00 56,000.00 8 57,000 S.Y. 4" Asphalt Treated Base 10.00 570,000.00 9 700 S.Y. 6" Reinforced Concrete Drives 40.00
28,000.00 10 53,500 S.Y. 11 " Rein!. Concr. Pavement 55.00 2,942,500.00 • 11 8,900 L.F. 6" Integral Curb 3.00 26,700.00 12 3,000 S.Y. Temporary Asphalt 0.00 0.00 13 10,000 S.Y. Block
Sodding Disturbed Areas 5.00 50,000.00 14 20 2,200 iEA. Reconstruct Inlet Tops 1,500.00 30,000.00 15 15 24 EA. Remove and Replace Street Lights 0.00 0.00 16 4" Buttons 5.00 11,000.00
􀁲􀁬􀁾􀁲􀁲1 1 ..L.S. L.S. Geocomposite Edge Drain 20.00 200,000.00 Pavement Markings 50,000.00 50,000.00 Traffic Signal/Loop Adiustments 0.00 0.00 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Replace Landscape 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22 1 L.S. Utility Adiustments 100000.00 100000.00 Subtotal: $4 984700.00 20% ContinQency: $996,940.00 TOTAL: $5,981,640.00 Notes: 1. No sidewalk
cost is included. 2. Existing inlet bases will remain in place while the top is reconstructed. 3. The edge drain will be placed behind the outside curbs for the length of the project.
4. Early strength concrete would add about $500,000 to the project cost. 5. Phase Two design items have been excluded from the total cost. 
'..,. .... ·' -, ", '" -.-....􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀬..,. 􀀢􀀧􀀡􀀭􀀢􀀢􀀢􀁾􀀧􀀠􀀭􀀮􀀧􀁾􀀢􀀭-• ,-Bruce R. Grantham, P .E . . , .􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀬􀀻􀀮􀀠􀀢􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀠'. '.' 􀁾􀀧􀀮􀀠'..;: 􀁾􀀮􀀠-'. .., Grantham, Inc.
&. Wefdhauer } 1919 S. Shiloh Rood Suite 530, L.B. 27 Tel (972) 840-1916 -Carland. 􀁔􀁾􀁧􀀠75042 Fax (972) 840.2156 '. 
Grantham. Burge & Waldbauer July 5. 2000 Mr. Jeff Markiewicz Project Manager Town of Addison Post Office Box 9010 Addison. Texas 75001 Re: Proposal for Engineering. Surveying and Geotechnical
Services Midway Road Reconstruction -Phase One Design Dear Mr. Markiewicz: Pursuant to your request, GBW has prepared thisproposal for engineering. surveying and geotechnical services for the reconstruction of Midway Road from Belt Line Road to Keller Springs Road in the Town of Addison. Our subconsultants
on this project will be HNTB Corporation (construction sequencing and traffic control) and Alpha Testing, Inc. (geotechnical). The work described in this proposal represents Phase One
of what is anticipated to be a two-phase design process. Phase One consists of the preparation of all the construction plans and specifications necessary for the reconstruction work
(see Exhibit A) except for construction sequencing and traffic control. landscaping and irrigation. storm water pollution prevention plan and erosion control, signalization. and temporary
lighting. and sidewalks. All median opening widths, tum lane lengths, and street and driveway radii will be reviewed and design changes made where appropriate. The engineering report
to be prepared with Phase One will provide a basis for the Town to establish a construction phasing and funding approach for this project. Phase Two will consist of completing the remaining
construction plans along with separating the plans prepared in Phase One into a separate bid package for construction phasing purposes. Public notification and coordination with other
cities, DART and affected businesses will be included in Phase Two. Bidding and construction services will also be provided. If it is determined during Phase One that the Midway Road
reconstruction project will precede the Arapaho Road extension. the design of the box culvert crossing at Midway Road will be included in the Phase Two design. This proposal consists
of the following Scope ofServices: Scope of Services Surveying for Design and Construction • Establish horizontal and vertical control for the project including monumentation which shall
be tied to Town of Addison horizontal and vertical datum. • Research Town, County, State. or other documents as necessary to establish the location of existing boundary lines and easements
for the project. Furnish copies of all real estate documents to the Town. • Prepare a right-of-way strip map for the project detailing all existing right-of-way and easement lines along
with property owners. 1919 S. Shiloh Road. Suite 530. L.B. 27. Garland, TelOiS 75042 Tel (972) 84G-1916 Fax (972) 84G-2156 
Mr. Jeff Markiewicz July 5, 2000 Page 2 • In cooperation with the Town and other franchised utilities. determine the approximate locations and elevations of existing underground utilities.
• Locate soil borings and furnish survey data to the geotechnical consultant. • Perform a detailed topographic survey of the project including all driveways and intersecting streets.
Geotechnical Services • Explore subsurface soil andlor rock conditions and groundwater seepage along Midway Road by drilling 22 test borings up to a depth of 10 feet. Borings shall be
spaced approximately 250 feet apart on alternative sides ofthe street. • Perform laboratory tests to evaluate the classification, gradation and other physical characteristics of the
subsurface soils. • Use the results of the field exploration and laboratory tests to prepare an engineering report which will address the following items: engineering characteristics
of the subsurface materials encountered recommended pavement sections including alternative subgrade stabilization and base materials, and the pavement thickness required to achieve
the targeted pavement life evaluation of the life expectancy of the existing pavement sections recommendations regarding earthwork including grading and excavation, backfilling and compacting,
the treatment of in-place soils for support of pavement, and possible construction problems Project Management and Preliminarv Plan Preparation • Prepare a schedule for the project work
and provide updates as requested by Town staff. • Attend project coordination meetings with Town staffand subconsultants. • Review the geotechnical report results and coordinate with
Town staffto determine recommended pavement sections for the project. In addition. underdrain andlor root barrier locations will also be determined. • Prepare preliminary specifications
and contract drawings for the project including the following: Title Sheet with index and project location General Notes and Quantities Existing Right-of-Way Map including all property
owners Typical Sections Horiwntal and Vertical Control Sheet Roadway Plan and Profiles Intersection Layouts Pavement Markings A.A 1/,";./.Iz Roadway Cross-sections 􀁾􀁕􀀢􀀢􀁔􀀺􀀭􀁾􀂷..
'? Underdrain Profiles at street crossings _ 􀁾􀀡􀁾􀀠. Details I /1 
Mr. Jeff Markiewicz July 5, 2000 Page 3 • Review other proposed construction projects, including CMAQ intersection improvements, and account for these improvements in the contract drawings.
DesilID Report • In partnership with Town staff, prepare an engineering design report, including an opinion of probable construction cost, to address the following project issues: a
recommended construction sequencing and traffic control approach for the project phasing alternatives for the reconstruction work the limits ofreconstruction work which can be accomplished
with available bond funds identify temporary rehabilitation measures. if necessary due to funding constraints. to prolong existing pavement life. • Attend a Council meeting to assist
Town staff in presenting the findings of the design report. Schedule It is anticipated that the proposed scope of services will be complete within 200 calendar days after the issuance
of a Notice to Proceed, exclusive City review time. Proposed Fee A manhour projection (see Exhibit B), which has been prepared for the scope of services described in this proposal. provides
the basis for the fees listed below. In addition, Exhibit D provides an estimated fee based on TSPE Curve A for reference purposes. The construction cost used for this calculation (see
Exhibit C) has no cost for those items which will be designed with Phase Two. Survey $ 29,681.47 (Fixed Fee) Gectechnical Services Soil borings $ 5,305.00 (Fixed Fee) -Laboratory Tests
$ 5,535.00 (Fixed Fee) -Engineering Report $ 8,600.00 (Time and Materials) Preliminary Plans $216,685.39 (Fixed Fee) Design Report $ 29,384.12 (Time and Materials) Reimbursables $ 3,609.02
(Fixed Fee) TOTAL FEE $298,800.00 All of the scope of services referenced above have been proposed as a fixed fee except for the Geotechnical Report and the Design Report. As the extent
of the work effort required for these reports is difficult to define at this time. it is proposed that they be completed on a Time and Materials basis in accordance with the Standard
Standard Rate Schedules of the respective flITl\S. The estimated fee for these reports will not be exceeded without written approval from the Town of Addison. 
Mr. Jeff Markiewicz July 5, 2000 Page 4 Assumptions This proposal is based upon the following assumptions: • Traffic counts will be furnished by the Town of Addison. • No railroad gate
design will be performed. Please contact me if you need any additional information. 􀁾􀀠Bruce R. Grantham, P.E. Project Manager Attachment BG/gg HWPDOCS\PROPOSAL\ADDlSON\MIDWAY\Ptoposal.ltr

EXHIBIT A . Belt Line Road to eUer Springs Road Midway Road Reconstruction from K Phase One Design Sheet Index Sheet Description No. of Sheets Title General Notes & Quantities Right-of-way
Map I Survey Control Typical Sections Demolition Paving Plan and Profiles Intersection Layouts PavenruentMarkings Roadway Cross Sections Underdrain Profiles (at street crossings) Details
1 1 3 2 3 12 3 3 15 2 2 TOTAL SHEETS 47 
EXHIBIT B-1 MIDWAY ROAD RECOHSTRUC110H FROM BELTUHE ROAD TO KELLER SPRIHGS ROAD PHASE ONE DESIGN MANHOUR ESTIMATE June 30, 2OClO J:\WPOOCS\PAOPOSAL\.6.0D1SOMMIDWAY\MANHOUA,wb3 
EXHIBIT B-2 MIDWAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION FROM BELT UNE ROAD TO KELLER SPRINGS ROAD PHASE ONE DESIGN MANHOUR ESTIMATE June SO, 2000 J:\WPDOCSIPROPOSALIADDISON\MIDWAYlMANHOUR-HNTB,wb3 
EXHIBlTD TSPE Charges for Engineering Services Construction Cost (from Exhibit C without contingency) $4,984,700 Curve A (for Urban Streets) 6.35% Fee Based on Curve A $316,528 85% of
Curve A (No Construction Services) $269,049 Note: TSPE Curve A excludes surveying and geotechnical services. 
EXHIBITC OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Date: June 27, 2000 (For Design Contract) Midway Road Reconstruction Project Belt Line Road to Keller Springs Town of Addison UemNo. Quantity Unit Item
Unit Price Item Total-1 55.0 STA ROW 􀁐􀁲􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠2 10,000 C.Y. Unclassified Excavation (lor 4" Base) 3 1 L.S. Barricade. Sign. Traffic Control 4 53,500 S.Y. Remove Concrete
Pavement. Haul, Disf:lose 5 700 S.Y. Remove Concrete Drive. Haul. Disf:lose 6 2.000 S.Y. Remove/Replace 6" Coner. Median Pavemt. 7 14,000 L.F. Sawcut Breakout Groove 8 57.000 S.Y. 4"
Asphalt Treated Base 9 700 S.Y. 6" Reinforced Concrete Drives 10 53,500 S.Y. 11" Reinl. Concr. Pavement (4.000 £:lSi) 11 8,900 L.F. 6" Integral Curb 12 3000 S.Y. Tempor,!!}, As£halt
13 10,000 S.Y. Block Sodding Disturbed Areas 14 20 EA. Reconstruct Inlet Tops 15 24 EA. Remove and Replace Street Lights 16 2,200 EA. 4' Buttons 17 10,000 L.F. Geocomposite Edge Drain
18 1 L.S. Pavement Markin.gs 19 1 L.S. Traffic Signal/Loop Adiustments 20 1 L.S. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 21 1 L.S. Replace landscape 22 1 L.S. Utility Atljustments Subtotal:
20% Contingency: 􀀭􀁾􀀠TOTAL: -􀀨􀁾􀀩􀀠5,000.00 12.00 0.00 10.00 15.00 40.00 4.00 10.00 40.00 55.00 3.00 0.00 5.00 1,500.00 0.00 5.00 20.00 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100000.00 $275.....000.00
120000.00 0.00 􀀵􀀳􀀵􀀮􀀰􀀰􀀰􀁾􀁏􀁏􀀠10.500.00 80.000.00 56,000.00. 570,000.00 28,000.00 2 942,500.00 26,700.00 0.00 50,000.00 30,000.00 0.00 11,000.00 200,000.00 5(h000.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 10(h000.00 $4,984,700.00 $996,940.00 􀁾􀀵􀀮􀀹􀀸􀀱􀀬􀀶􀀴􀀰􀀮􀀰􀀰􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀠1. No sidewalk cost is included. 2. Existing inlet bases will remain in place while the top is reconstructed.
3. The edge drain will be placed behind the outside curbs for the length of the project. 4. Early strength concrete would add about $500,000 to the project cost. 5. Phase Two design
items have been excluded from the total cost. 
EXHIBlTD TSPE Charges for Engineering Services Construction Cost (from Exhibit C without contingency) $4,984.700 Curve A (for Urban St(eelS) 6.35% Fee Based on Curve A $316,528 85% of
Curve A (No Construction Services) $269,049 Note: TSPE Curve A excludes surveying and geotechnical services. 
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Date: May 26, 2000 McMahon Contracting, Inc. Midway Road Reconstruction Project Belt Line Road to Keller Springs Town ofAddison lIemNo, Quantity Unit Item Unit
Price Hem Total . i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 55.0 STA ROW Preparation 10,000 C.Y. Unclassified Excavation (for 4" Base) 1 L.S. Barricade. Sign, Traffic
Control 53,500 S.Y. Remove Concrete Pavement, Haul, Dispose 700 S.Y. Remove Concrete Drive, Haul, Dispose 2,000 S.Y. Remove/Replace 6" Concr. Median Pavemt. 14000 L.F. Sawcut Breakout
Groove 57,000 S.Y. 4" Asphalt Treated Base or C.T.S 700 S.Y. 6" Reinforced Concrete Drives 53,500 S.Y. 11" Reinl. Concr. Pavement (4.000 psi) 8,900 L.F. 6" Integral Curb 3,000 S.Y. Temporary
Asphalt 10.000 S.Y. Block Sodding Disturbed Areas 20 EA. Reconstruct Inlet Tops 24 EA. Remove and Replace Street Lights 2200 EA. 4" Buttons 10,000 L.F. Geocomposite Edge Drain 1 L.S.
Pavement Markings 1 L.S. Traffic Signal/Loop Adjustments 1 L.S. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 1 L.S. Replace Landscape 1 L.S. Utility Adjustments Subtotal: 20% Contingency &
Escalation: TOTAL: ($ 5,000.00 6.00 25000.00 5.50 6.00 34.00 2.75 9.90 29.00 39.00 1.00 25.00 4.50 1,600.00 900.00 5.00 29.00 50,000.00 150000.00 20,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 275,000.00
60,000.00 • 25,000.00. 294250.00 I 4200.00 : 68,000.00 38500.00 564,300.00 . 20,300.00 2,086 500.00 8900.00 : 75000.00 45000.00 32,000.00 : 21,600.00 i 11,000.00 290,000.00 I 50,000.00
: 150,000.00 i 20,000.00 . 150,000.00 I 100,000.00 . . $4,389,550.00 $8n,910.00 $5,267,460.00 Notes: 1. No sidewalk cost is included. 2. Existing inlet bases will remain in place while
the top is reconstructed. 3. The edge drain will be placed behind the outside curbs for the length of the project. 4. Early strength concrete would add about $500,000 to the project
cost. 
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Date: May 26, 2000 Ed Bell Construction Midway Road Reconstruction Project Belt Line Road to Keller Springs Town ofAddison nom No. Quantity Unit Item Unit Price
nem Total 1 55.0 STA ROW Preparation 2 10000 C.Y. Unclassified Excavation (for 4" Base) 3 1 L.S. Barricade, Sign, Traffic Control 4 53.500 S.Y. Remove Concrete Pavement, Haul, Dispose
5 700 S.Y. Remove Concrete Drive, Haul. Dispose 6 2.000 S.Y. Remove/Replace 6" Concr. Median Pavemt. 7 14,000 L.F. Sawcut Breakout Groove 8 57.000 S.Y. 4" Asphalt Treated Base orC.T.B
9 700 S.Y. 6" Reinforced Concrete Drives 10 53,500 S.Y. 11" Reinf. Concr. Pavement (4.000 psi) 11 8,900 L.F. 6" Integral Curb 12 3,000 S.Y. Temporarv Asphalt 13 110,000 S.Y. Block Sodding
Disturbed Areas 14 EA. Reconstruct inlet Tops 15 EA. Remove and Replace Street Ughts 16 2200 EA. 4" Buttons 17 10,000 L.F. Geocomposite EdQe Drain 18 1 L.S. Pavement MarkinQs 19 1 L.S.
Traffic SignaVLoop Ad:ustments 20 1 L.S. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 21 1 L.S. Replace Landscape 22 1 L.S. Utility Adjustments Subtotal: 20% Contingency & Escalation: TOTAL:
($) 5,000.00 10.00 250,000.00 10.00 12.00 50.00 5.00 12.00 40.00 33.00 1.00 25.00 4.00 1,500.00 2,500.00 7.00 25.00 50,000.00 150,000.00 20,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 275,000.00 100,000.00
250,000.00 535.000.00 8,400.00 • 100.000.00 • 70000.00· 684000.00 28,000.00. 1,765,500.00 . 8,900.00 . 75,000.00 ' 40,000.00 30,000.00 60,000.00 15,400.00 250,000.00 50,000.00 I 150,000.00
20,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 $4.765,200.00 $953,040.00 $5,718,240.00 Notes: 1. No sidewalk cost is included. 2. Existing inlet bases will remain in place while the top is reconstructed.
3. The edge drain will be placed behind the outside curbs for the length of the project. 4. Ear1y strength concrete would add about $500,000 to the project cost. 
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Date: May 26, 2000 Composite of Bids from Other Projects Midway Road Reconstruction Project Belt Line Road to Keller Springs Town ofAddison Item No. Quanlity
Unit Jtem 􀁕􀁮􀁾􀀠Plica Item Total I . i I , i 1 55.0 STA ROW Preparation 2 10,000 C.Y. Unclassified Excavation (for 4" Base) 3 1 ' L.S. Barricade, Sign, Traffic Control 4 53,500 S.Y.
Remove Concrete Pavement, Haul, Dispose 5 700 S.Y. Remove Concrete DrIVe, Haul. Dispose 6 2000 S.Y. Remove/Replace 6' Concr. Median Pavemt. 7 14,000 L.F. Sawcut Breakout Groove 8 57,000
S.y. 4' Asphalt Treated Base or C.T.B . 9 700 S.Y. 6' Reinforced Concrete Drives 10 53,500 S.Y. 11' Rein!. Concr. Pavement (4,000 psi) 11 8,900 L.F. 6" Integral Curb 12 3,000 S.Y. Temporary
Asphalt 13 10,000 S.Y. Block SoddinQ Disturbed Areas 14 20 EA. Reconstruct Inlet Tops 15 24 EA. Remove and Replace Street Li!lhts 16 2,200 EA. 4" Buttons 17 10,000 L.F. Geocomposite
Edge Drain 18 1 L.S. Pavement Markings 19 1 L.S. Traffic SjgnaVLooy Adjustments 20 1 L.S. Stomn Water Pollution Prevention Plan 21 1 L.S. Replace Landscape 22 1 L.S. Utility Adjustments
Subtotal: 20% Contingency & Escalation: TOTAL: ($) 6,000.00 12.00 100,000.00 10.00 10.00 35.00 3.00 15.00 35.00 55.00 2.00 25.00 4.00 1,600.00 1,000.00 5.00 30.00 50,000.00 150,000.00
20,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 330000.00. 120,000.00 I 100,000.00 535..,000.00 7000.00 70000.00 42,000.00 855,000.00 24,500.00 2,942,500.00 H,800.00 I 75000.00 i 40000.00 32,000.00
, 24 000.00 • 11000.00 • 300,000.00 I 50,000.00 i 150,000.00 : 20,000.00 150,000.00 100000.00 $5,995,800.00 $1,199,160.00 $7,194,960.00 Notes: 1. No sidewalk cost is included. 2. EXisting
inlet bases will remain in place while the top is reconstructed. 3. The edge drain will be placed behind the outside curbs for the length of the project. 4. Early strength concrete would
add about $500,000 to the project cost. 
----------· SHIMEK, JACOBS & FINKLEA, L.L.P. Project No. 1999137 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Client: Town ofAddison Date: 7/14/99 Project: Midway Road Paving Improvements Spring Valley Road
to Beltline Road (5,100 Linear Feet) By: PAC/JWB _c.....:...'-'--.c:.-.-_ ENGINEER'S OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST litem No Description I Quantity I Unit I Price Amount 1 Furnish and
Install IO-Inch Reinforced Concrete Pavement 41,389 SoY. $ 60.00 $ 2,483,340.00 2 Furnish and Install 6-lnch Crushed Stone Free Draining Subgrade 7,500 C.Y. $ 55.00 $ 412,500.00 3 Furnish
and Install Street Light and Base 28 EA. $ 4,750.00 $ 133,000.00 4 Furnish and Install 6-Inch Monolithic Curb 17,600 LF. $ 2.00 $ 35,200.00 5 Furnish and Install lO-lnch Reinforced Concrete
Driveway Return 1,750 S.Y. $ 40.00 $ 70,000.00 6 Furnish and Install Barrier Free Ramp 102 S.Y. $ 50.00 $ 5,100.00 7 Furnish and Insta1l4-Inch Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk 4,133 S.Y.
$ 30.00 $ 123,990.00 8 Furnish and Install Landscaping (Medians and Parkways) 4,325 LF. $ 35.00 $ 151,375.00 9 Unclassified Roadway Excavation 12,9(}7 C.Y. $ 15.00 $ 193,605.00 10 Furnish
and Install 3-lnch Traffic Signal Conduit 1,300 L.F. $ 20.00 $ 26,000.00 I II Furnish and Install 4-lnch Street Light Conduit 5,100 LF. $ 22.00 $ 112,200.00 12 Furnish and Install Traffic
Buttons 4,080 EA. $ 5.00 $ 20,400.00. 13 Furnish, Install and Maintain Traffic Control 5,100 LF. $ 18.00 $ 91,800.00 14 Remove Existing Reinforced Concrete Pavement Inc. Curb and Gulte
41,389 S.Y. $ 15.00 $ 620,835.00 IS Remove Existing Concrete Sidewalk 4,133 S.Y. $ 8.00 $ 33,064.00 16 Furnish and Install Solid Sad 5,600 S.Y. $ 9.00 $ 50,400.00 16 Drainage @15% ofPaving
Cost I L.S. 15% $ 684,421.35 Subtotal: $ 5,247,230.35 
----------SHIMEK, JACOBS & FINKLEA, L.L.P. Project No. 1999137 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Client: Town of Addison Date: 7/14199_--,,-,c.:.:..:..;__ Project: Midway Road Paving Improvements
Spring Valley Road to Beltline Road (5,100 Linear Feel) By: PAC/JWB ENGINEER'S OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST litem No. I Description I Quantity I Unit I Price AmountI I I Contingencies
and Miscellaneous Items: 20% $ 1,049,446.07 I Engineering: 8% $ 503,734.11 • Quality Control: 4% $ 251,867.061 Total: $ 7,052,277.59 USE: $ 7,100,000.00 
-----SHIMEK, JACOBS & FINKLEA, L.L.P. Project No. 1999137 CONSULTING ENGINEERS 􀀭􀁾􀁾Client: Town ofAddison Dateo 7114/99-....;.;..;;..;;..:..:--Projeet: Midway Road Paving Improvements
Beltine Road to Keller Springs (5,240 Linear Feet) By: PAClJWB ENGINEER'S OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST .1 Item No. I Description I Quantity I Unit I Price I Amount I I Furnish and Install
IO-Inch Reinforced Concrete Pavement 42,245 S.Y. $ 60.00 $ 2,534,700.00 . 2 Furnish and Install 6-Inch Crushed Stone Free Draining Subgrade 7,500 C.Y. $ 55.00 $ 412,500.00. I 3 Furnish
and Install Street Light and Base 30 EA. $ 4,750.00 $ 142,500.00 : 4 Furnish and Install 6-1nch Monolithic Curb 18,600 L.F. $ 2.00 $ 37,200.00 : • 5 Furnish and Install IO-Inch Reinforced
Concrete Driveway Return 2,028 S.Y. $ 40.00 $ 81,120.00. 6 Furnish and Install Barrier Free Ramp 136 S.Y. $ 50.00 $ i6,800.00 : 7 Furnish and Insta1l4-Inch Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk
4,196 S.Y. $ 30.00 :5 125,880.00 ! 8 Furnish and Install Landscaping (Medians and Parkways) 4,550 L.F . $ 35.00 $ 159,250.00 . • 9 Unclassified Roadway Excavation 13,262 c.Y. $ 15.00
$ 198,930.00 10 Furnish and Insta1l3-Inch Traffic Signal Conduit 400 L.F. $ 20.00 $ 8,000.00 • II Furnish and Install4-Inch Street Light Conduit 5,240 L.F. $ 22.00 $ 115,280.00 : 12
Furnish and Install Traffic Buttons 4,192 EA. S 5.00 $ 20,960.00 13 Furnish, Install and Maintain Traffic Control 5,240 L.F. $ 18.00 $ 94,320.00. 14 Remove Existing Reinforced Concrete
Pavement Inc. Curb and Gutte 42,245 S.Y. $ 15.00 $ 633,675.00 ) i 15 Remove Existing Concrete Sidewalk 8 S.Y. $ 8.00 $ 64.00 16 Furnish and Insiali Solid Sod 5,800 S.Y $ 9.00 $ 52,200.00
17 Drainage @10% ofPaving Cost 1 L.S. 10% $ 462,337.90 Subtotal: $ 5,085,716.90 midway,)!.I, 
-----------SHIMEK, JACOBS & FINKLEA, L.L.P. Project No. 1999137 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Client: Town ofAddison Date: 7114/99 Project: Midway Road Paving Improvements Beltine Road to Keller
Springs (5,240 Linear Feet) By: PACIJWB 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀽􀁾􀁾􀀠ENGINEER'S OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COST Item No. Description Quantity Unit Price Amount : Contingencies and Miscellaneous
Items: Engineering: 20% 8% $ $ 1,017,143.38 , 488,228.82 • Quality Control: 4% S 244.114.41 Total: $ 6,835,203.51 Ii USE: $ 6,850,000.00 .