HomeMy WebLinkAbout22 - Appendix Q - Geotech Report
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR:
Block 1 of South University
District Phase 3
Bozeman, Montana
June 2023
Project 22-178
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................ I
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
KEY GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................... 1
SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................. 2
GEOLOGY OF THE SITE .................................................................................................................... 3
EXPLORATIONS AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 3
Subsurface Explorations .............................................................................................................. 3
Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................................. 4
Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................................................. 5
Laboratory Testing ...................................................................................................................... 5
FOUNDATION, SLAB, AND DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................... 6
Seismic Design Factors ................................................................................................................ 6
Foundation Design ...................................................................................................................... 7
Foundation Bearing Criteria ........................................................................................................ 7
Option 1: Mass-Excavation Down to Native Sandy Gravels ........................................................ 7
Option 2: Over-Excavation Under Footings Down to Native Sandy Gravels .............................. 8
Lateral Earth Pressures................................................................................................................ 9
Subgrade Reaction Modulus (Under Interior Slabs) ................................................................. 10
Foundation Wall Backfill............................................................................................................ 10
Subsurface Drainage and Damp-Proofing ................................................................................. 10
Vapor Barrier ............................................................................................................................. 11
Soil Corrosion to Metal ............................................................................................................. 11
Surface Drainage Recommendations ........................................................................................ 11
Interior Concrete Slab Recommendations ................................................................................ 11
Exterior Concrete Slab Recommendations ............................................................................... 12
FOUNDATION-RELATED FILL MATERIAL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 14
Excavated Foundation Soils ....................................................................................................... 14
Structural Fill ............................................................................................................................. 14
Clean Crushed Rock ................................................................................................................... 14
ii
FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION ........................................................................................... 14
PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 15
UNDERGROUND UTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 16
Foundation Support of Utility Lines .......................................................................................... 16
Trench Backfill ........................................................................................................................... 17
COLD/WINTER WEATHER CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................. 17
AESI FUTURE INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................ 17
LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 17
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 19
iii
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
• List of Tables
o Table 1. Summary of Subsurface Conditions
o Table 2. Atterberg Limit Results
o Table 3. Standard Proctor Results Per ASTM D-698.
o Table 4. Corrosion Testing Results
o Table 5. Interior Slab Support – Mass-Excavation Down to Gravels (Option 1)
o Table 6. Interior Slab Support – Over-Excavation Down to Native Gravels Under
Footings Only (Option 2)
o Table 7. Exterior Slab Support (Lightly Loaded Exterior Slabs)
o Table 8. Exterior Slab Support (Traffic Loaded Exterior Slabs)
o Table 9. Compaction Recommendations (Application vs. Percent Compaction)
o Table 10. Pavement Section 1 – Private Drives/Parking Lots – Stable Subgrade
o Table 11. Pavement Section 2 – Private Drives/Parking Lots – Unstable Subgrade
• List of Figures
o Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
o Figure 2 – Quadrangle Map
o Figure 3 – Geology Map
o Figure 4 – Groundwater Map
o Figure 5 – Test Pit Location Map
o Figure 6 – Depth to Gravels Map
o Figure 7 – Depth to Peak Groundwater Map
o Figure 8 – Foundation Typical – Slab-On-Grade (Option 1)
o Figure 9 – Foundation Typical – Slab-On-Grade (Option 2)
• List of Appendices
o Appendix A – Test Pit Logs
o Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Results
o Appendix C – Groundwater Monitoring Results Through 6/21/2023
o Appendix D – Pavement Section Design
o Appendix E – Limitations of Your Geotechnical Report
INTRODUCTION
This report and attachments provide our geotechnical recommendations for the future
development of Block 1 of South University District Phase 3 located on the south side of Bozeman,
Montana. The information contained herein is based on an investigation of the property’s
topographical and subsurface conditions, a review of geologic maps and literature for the project
area, and our experience with similar developments in the area. The purpose of this report is to
provide a description of the site’s soil and groundwater conditions as well as recommendations
for the design and construction of future developments proposed for the property.
The 8.2-acre property is located southeast of the intersection of West Kagy Boulevard and South
19th Avenue. The legal description of the property is described as Lot 1 of Block 1 of South
University District Phase 3 (per plat J-695) located in the Southwestern One-Quarter of Section
13, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Principal Meridian Montana, Gallatin County, Montana. The
property is bound to the west by South 19th Avenue, the north by West Kagy Boulevard, the east
by South 17th Avenue, and the south by State Street. See Figures 1 and 2 for site location maps.
The property is comprised of a relatively flat agricultural field that falls slightly to the north at less
than 2 percent. Site vegetation historically consists of native grasses; however, most site
vegetation had been stripped at the time of our test pit explorations. The site is entirely devoid
of trees.
At this time, we understand the zoning of the property will consist of REMU (Residential Emphasis
Mixed-Use). At this time, we have not been provided with any specific site plans or building
details so our geotechnical recommendations can be described as general recommendations for
future development. We ask that we be retained for future work to review proposed
developments to ensure our geotechnical recommendations are appropriate.
KEY GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Below are some of the critical geotechnical conditions encountered at the property that should
be considered in design:
• Depth to “target bearing” native sandy gravels varies from 3.5 to 4.5 feet across the site.
Our geotechnical recommendations are based on placing foundations on the native sandy
gravels or on import granular structural fill that in turn bears on the native sandy gravels.
• We recommend slab-on-grade foundations for this property due to the shallow target
bearing gravels and potential for high groundwater. However, if final site grading will be
raised, crawlspace foundations may be considered. If crawlspaces are preferred, we can
work with the design team to ensure the conditions are met.
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 2
• Based on groundwater conditions at other nearby projects, high groundwater may exist
on this site. Monitor wells were installed in all six test pits for future monitoring
throughout the 2023 high groundwater season (April – September).
• If crawlspace foundations are considered, there may be significant challenges with
pumping out high groundwater that enters crawlspaces and finding a suitable place to
discharge the water. The City of Bozeman does not allow groundwater to be pumped into
city streets or storm facilities. If crawlspaces are considered, we suggest setting the
bottom of footing grades a minimum of two feet above high groundwater elevations
(which will likely put footing grades at roughly 3.0 feet below the existing ground surface).
Road finished grades will need to be elevated accordingly to help limit the depth of
crawlspaces.
• With the potential for high groundwater, please recognize that soft and very moist
subgrade may be present during construction. To achieve proper compaction of the
onsite soils, it may be necessary to dry, re-work, and scarify the soils. If the native soils
cannot be dried enough to achieve proper compaction, import material will be needed to
achieve proper compaction. Two pavement sections have been provided in this report to
account for stable and unstable (soft) subgrade conditions.
• Depending on the time of year, dewatering may be needed during construction activities
including but not limited to road construction, utility installation, and foundation
earthwork.
SCOPE OF WORK
The Scope of Services for this project included:
• Review of the project site information and geologic maps.
• Completion of six (6) test pits across the property. Groundwater monitoring wells were
installed in all six test pits for future monitoring.
• Perform laboratory testing of select samples from the test pits.
• Provide foundation recommendations, allowable bearing capacity criteria, lateral earth
pressures, and foundation earthwork recommendations.
• Perform corrosion testing and DIPRA Analysis.
• Perform weekly groundwater monitoring beginning in April 2023.
• Provide surface and subsurface drainage recommendations.
• Recommend backfill material and compaction recommendations.
• Prepare asphalt pavement section materials and design thicknesses.
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 3
GEOLOGY OF THE SITE
The geologic map for the area prepared by Lonn and English in 2002 indicates the site is underlain
by older alluvium of braid plains (Qabo) which is described as well-rounded, moderately to well-
sorted, bouldery gravel with interbedded silt. An excerpt of this mapping is provided in Figure 3.
Geologic mapping prepared in 1995 by the Unites States Geological Survey also maps the site as
alluvial-fan deposits (see Figure 4). During our test pit explorations across the site, we
encountered fine-grain deposits overlying alluvial deposits of sandy gravel with sub-rounded
cobbles and boulders, which is consistent with the geologic mapping shown in Figures 3 and 4.
In addition, available hydrogeologic information (see Figure 4) roughly indicates that the
groundwater elevation at the site is approximately 4,920 feet with flow primarily in a northerly
to northeasterly direction. Ground surface elevations across the site range from approximately
4,925 to 4,935 feet, suggesting that groundwater ranges from approximately 5 to 15 feet below
the ground surface across the site. Weekly groundwater monitoring will be performed at the site
throughout the 2023 high groundwater season (April – September) to determine the peak
groundwater levels.
EXPLORATIONS AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface Explorations
Subsurface conditions were investigated on March 31, 2023, under the direction of Jessi
Ellingsen, EI, a geotechnical engineer, and Zach Liley, a staff engineer with Allied Engineering
Services, Inc. Six (6) test pit excavations, which are identified as TP-1 through TP-6, were
excavated on the property using a tracked excavator provided by RLS Construction. The test pits
were evenly distributed to provide coverage of the property. Groundwater monitoring wells were
installed in all six test pits for future monitoring. The monitoring wells are identified as MW-1
through MW-6 and correspond to the test pit number. The location of each test pit and
monitoring well is shown in Figure 5.
During the explorations, soil and groundwater conditions were characterized, measured, and
logged. The relative densities of the exposed soils were estimated based on the ease or difficulty
of digging, probing of the test pit walls, pocket penetrometer readings, and overall stability of
the completed excavations. Copies of our test pit logs are provided in Appendix A. The logs
provide assorted field information, such as soil depths and descriptions, groundwater conditions,
relative density data, and a sketch of the soil stratigraphy. Please be aware that the detail
provided in the logs cannot be summarized in a paragraph; therefore, it is important to review
the logs in conjunction with this report. Following completion of the fieldwork, the test pit
locations were backfilled and cleaned up to the extent possible. Each was staked with a wooden
lath that identified it accordingly. If any test pits will underlie future site improvements, they
should be completely re-excavated and backfilled in properly compacted lifts to avoid
undesirable settlements.
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 4
Subsurface Conditions
Soil conditions were very similar in all six test pits across the site. Topsoil consisted of about one
foot of very dark brown, moist to very moist, organic silty clay. Below the topsoil, we encountered
fine-grain deposits consisting of soft to medium stiff, brown, moist, native silty sandy clay. The
fine-grain deposits generally extended to 3.5 to 4.5 feet in depth, depending on location. It should
be noted that the fine-grain deposits became softer with depth in some test pits. Underlying the
fine-grain deposits were alluvial deposits of dense sandy gravel with abundant 6-inch-minus sub-
rounded cobbles and occasional boulders up to 12 to 18 inches in diameter. The sandy gravel
extended to the bottom of all six test pits, which ranged from 11.5 to 13.0 feet in depth. Please
refer to Table 1 for a summary of soil conditions encountered.
Table 1. Summary of Subsurface Conditions
Test Pit # Native Topsoil Native Silty Clay Native Sandy Gravel
TP-1 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 4.0’
4.0’ – 11.5’
TP-2 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 4.5’ 4.5’ – 13.0’
TP-3 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 4.5’ 4.5’ – 12.0’
TP-4
0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 3.5’ 3.5’ – 13.0’
TP-5 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 3.5’ 3.5’ – 11.5’
TP-6
0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 4.5’ 4.5’ – 13.0’
Target foundation bearing is within the native sandy gravel deposits found at depths of 3.5 to
4.5 feet depending on location. Foundation support recommendations provided later in this
report are based on excavation to these gravels and placement of the footings either on the
native gravels or on granular structural fill supported by the native sandy gravels. Please refer to
Photo 1 for details on the native sandy gravel. A map showing the depth to target bearing gravels
across the site is provided in Figure 6.
Photo 1: Native sandy gravel (Target Bearing Material) observed in TP-1.
Native Sandy Gravel
(Target Bearing Material)
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 5
Groundwater Conditions
During the test pit explorations conducted on March 31, 2023, groundwater was encountered in
only one of the six test pits (TP-4) at a depth of 9.5 feet. Monitoring wells were installed in all six
test pits across the site for future monitoring. Weekly groundwater monitoring will be conducted
throughout the 2023 high groundwater season (April – September). A summary of the
groundwater monitoring data to date is provided in Appendix C. Our weekly monitoring will
continue into the fall of 2023. Results can be provided upon request.
Figure 7 attached shows the highest groundwater levels observed during our monitoring during
the 2023 high groundwater season at the time of issuing this report. Groundwater levels rose as
high as 5.32 feet below the existing ground surface across the site.
Based on this information, high groundwater will impact design and construction activities.
Laboratory Testing
Select sack samples were taken in all six test pits for moisture content testing and Atterberg Limit
testing. Moisture contents of the soils during the time of the test pit explorations ranged from
approximately 2.9 to 24.6 percent. The upper fine-grained soils were generally moist and became
softer/moister with depth in some test pits.
The Atterberg Limit testing results determined the upper fine-grained soils are non-plastic,
indicating there is a fair amount of sand within the native silt/clay. The Atterberg Limits results
from samples of the upper fine-grained soils are provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Atterberg Limit Results
Sample
Identification
Plastic Limit
(PL)
Liquid Limit
(LL)
Plastic Index
(PI) USCS Soil Classification
S3-B at 4.0’ (TP-3) N/A N/A N/A Non-Plastic
S6-B at 4.0’ (TP-6) N/A N/A N/A Non-Plastic
In addition to sack samples taken from the explorations, three composite samples were collected
to obtain a range of Standard Proctor densities of soils to be encountered during utility and site
work. Composite 1 consisted of the upper fine-grained soils, Composite 2 consisted of sandy
gravel, and Composite 3 consisted of a 50/50 mix of fine-grained soils and sandy gravel. Table 3
provides the Standard Proctor results.
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 6
Table 3. Standard Proctor Results Per ASTM D-698
Sample Identification Soil Type Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum Moisture
(%)
Composite 1 (2.0’ – 4.0’) Silt/Clay 106.0 17.5
Composite 2 (4.0’ – 8.0’) Sandy Gravel 129.5 5.7
Composite 3 (3.0’ – 5.0’) 50/50 mix 126.3 8.8
Due to the elevated groundwater conditions across the site, the soils may be overly moist
during construction activities and be very difficult to properly compact. The material will likely
need to be dried out to achieve proper compaction or import material will be needed to ensure
proper compaction is achieved.
During the test pit explorations, two additional composite samples were obtained from 4.0 to 8.0
feet for corrosion testing and to perform a DIPRA Analysis for protection of ductile iron water
mains across the site. Composite A consisted of a 50/50 mix of fine-grained soils and sandy gravel
whereas Composite B was purely fine-grained soils. Corrosion testing was performed by Energy
Labs in Helena, Montana. The results are provided in Table 4. Please refer to the DIPRA Analysis
Letter (separate from this report) for recommendations regarding the protection of ductile iron
pipe at this site.
Table 4. Corrosion Testing Results
Sample ID: pH Chloride
(mg/kg)
Conductivity
(mmhos/cm)
Oxidation-
Reduction
Potential
(mV)
Sulfide
(mg/L)
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
Composite A 8.7 4 0.1 288 0.1 7240
Composite B 8.7 3 0.1 276 0.7 6800
All laboratory testing results are provided in Appendix B.
FOUNDATION, SLAB, AND DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS
Seismic Design Factors
Based on our on-site explorations and knowledge of the underlying geology, the site class for this
project is Site Class D (as per criteria presented in the 2021 IBC). Note that this is not the Default
Site Class D.
Site-specific seismic loading and response spectrum parameters can be obtained from a web-
based platform provided by the USGS Earthquake Hazards Programs. The link to the web pages
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 7
is as follows: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/ where the user is directed to
three different interfaces that can be used to obtain seismic information. The user will need to
specify the design code reference document, site soil classification (Site Class D as stated above),
risk category, and site location.
Foundation Design
Due to the presence of high groundwater and shallow target bearing gravels, we recommend
that foundations consist of slab-on-grades. We do not recommend basement foundations for
this site.
As discussed earlier, we understand that final site grading may be raised across the site. If final
site grading is raised and crawlspaces are considered, we recommend maintaining a minimum of
two feet of separation between high groundwater and the bottom of footings. Please recognize
that the City of Bozeman does not allow groundwater to be pumped into streets or storm
facilities, so we recommend elevating the crawlspaces as discussed earlier. This would likely place
footings approximately 3.0 feet below the existing ground surface. Consequently, adjacent
streets and exterior grades adjacent foundations will also need to be brought up to provide
appropriate frost protection.
Recognize that providing appropriate separation to groundwater in crawlspace applications will
also require additional structural fill to extend from the target bearing sandy gravels encountered
at 3.5 to 4.5 feet below existing grade up to footing grade. Clean crushed rock would be
recommended to infill the crawlspace up to the top of footing grade.
Foundation Bearing Criteria
The upper sandy silt/clay found at the site are prone to excessive settlement (over an inch) under
anticipated foundation loads. For this reason, we recommend excavating to the native sandy
gravel (found at depths of 3.5 to 4.5 feet) and bearing footings on this material or on granular
structural fill that is founded on the native sandy gravel. For frost protection, exterior and
perimeter footings should bear at least four feet below the lowest adjacent exterior finished
grade (unless the foundation is insulated and frost-protected in accordance with IBC standards).
In a slab on grade application or an elevated crawlspace, two options exist with respect to the
installation of the structural fill (if needed) to extend from the target bearing native sandy gravels
up to the bottom of footings:
Option 1: Mass-Excavation Down to Native Sandy Gravels
• The first option is to mass-excavate within the footprint of the structures down to the
target bearing native sandy gravels. If needed, compacted structural fill (1.5-inch-minus
road mix or 3-inch-minus pit-run gravel) should be used to build back up to footing grade.
This may be the easiest option if there are a significant number of interior spread footings
that need to be dug out individually.
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 8
• Prior to placing granular structural fill (under footings and throughout the foundation
footprint area), the excavated gravel subgrade surface must be vibratory re-compacted
with a large, smooth drum roller to densify the native sandy gravel subgrade. If any soft
spots are found in the subgrade, they should be removed and replaced with compacted
structural fill.
• For the mass-excavation scenario, the minimum excavated width (beyond the outside
edge of perimeter footings) will depend on the thickness of granular structural fill to be
placed under footings (if needed). To ensure proper load transfer, the excavation should
extend laterally a minimum of one-half (½) the thickness of structural fill needed to build
back up from the native sandy gravel subgrade to footing grade, but at a minimum should
extend 2.0 feet. For instance, if the depth to the native gravel below footings is 5.0 feet,
the excavation should extend 2.5 feet laterally from the outside edge of perimeter
footings. This dimension is measured at the bottom of the excavation. It is important that
adequate compaction is achieved along the edges and corners of the excavation where
access is difficult with large compaction equipment. Please see Figure 8 for details.
Option 2: Over-Excavation Under Footings Down to Native Sandy Gravels
• The second option to perhaps save on foundation preparation costs is to leave the non-
organic sandy silt/clay under the interior slab (or between the interior spread footings in
a crawlspace application) and dig out the footings individually down to the native gravels,
using compacted structural fill as needed to build back up to footing elevation.
• To ensure load transfer occurs in the structural fill, the required width of the excavation
is the width of the footing plus the depth of structural fill measured from the bottom of
footing to the native gravels (essentially a load transfer of 2V:1H). For instance, if the
width of the footing is 2 feet and the thickness of structural fill extending from the bottom
of footing to native gravels is 2 feet, the width of the excavation would need to be 4 feet.
This assumes the footing is centered on the trench. The native sandy gravel subgrade
shall be proof-rolled prior to placing structural fill. It is important that adequate
compaction is achieved along the edges and corners of the excavation where access is
difficult with large compaction equipment.
• With Option 2, lightly loaded interior slabs would be supported by the native non-organic
fine-grained soils and a section of structural fill. We recommend against supporting any
portion of interior slabs on organic soils since these soils will be prone to settlement
depending on the degree of organics present. Organic soils should be completely
removed and the non-organic fine-grained subgrade proof-rolled to a dense, unyielding
condition prior to placing structural fill. Please recognize that the upper sandy silt/clay
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 9
soils may be soft upon excavation. Drying and scarifying of the surface may be needed to
compact the subgrade to an unyielding condition.
• Under interior slabs, we recommend placing 6 inches of crushed drainage rock overlying
18 inches of structural fill, which in turn is placed on compacted subgrade. If widespread
unstable subgrade conditions are encountered, we recommend placing a woven
geotextile fabric (315 lb. woven fabric) on top of the subgrade prior to placing granular
structural fill. Please refer to Figure 9 for details.
Our experience is that there is often a balance between leaving some of the fine-grain soils under
the slabs and individually digging the footings down to the native gravels versus the ability to
utilize larger construction equipment and mass-excavating down to the gravel. In the case of the
latter, more gravel is used; however, the work can proceed much faster with the use of the larger
equipment. We suggest consulting with a foundation excavation contractor to determine which
option will be the most cost-effective for this development.
In the event groundwater is encountered at the bottom of the excavation, clean crushed rock
may be placed to raise the bottom of the excavation above the groundwater before switching
to more traditional structural fill (3-inch-minus pit-run or crushed road mix). Providing
separation from groundwater using the non-moisture-sensitive clean crushed rock will avoid the
saturation of the structural fill and subsequent difficulty with compaction. Clean crushed rock
should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches and vibratory compacted. Clean crushed
rock should be covered with a nonwoven geotextile fabric such as a Mirafi 180N or equal prior to
structural fill placement to prevent the migration of fines into the crushed rock.
Structural fill shall be placed in thin lifts and compacted to 98 percent of its Standard Proctor
Density based on ASTM D-698. Further details on lift thickness and compaction requirements
are provided later in this report.
An appropriate bearing capacity for design assuming conventional spread and continuous
footings is 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Total settlements are estimated to be under 0.75
inches with minimal differential settlements. Allowable bearing pressures during earthquakes
may be increased by 50 percent.
Lateral Earth Pressures
All foundation walls that will be fixed at the top prior to the placement of backfill should be
designed for an “at rest” equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). In contrast,
cantilevered retaining walls may be designed for a lower, “active” equivalent fluid pressure of 45
pcf, provided either some slight outward rotation of the wall is acceptable upon backfilling, or
the wall is constructed in such a way that accommodates the expected rotation. The “at rest”
and “active” design values are only applicable for walls that will have backfill slopes of less than
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 10
ten percent and will not be externally loaded by surface pressures applied above and/or behind
the wall.
Lateral forces from wind, earthquakes, and earth pressures on the opposite side of the structure
will be resisted by passive earth pressure against the buried portion of the foundation wall and
by friction at the bottom of the footing. Passive earth pressures in compacted backfill should be
assumed to have an equivalent fluid pressure of 280 pcf; while a coefficient of friction of 0.4
should be used between cast-in-place concrete and the native gravels or granular structural fill.
Actual footing loads (not factored or allowable loads) should be used for calculating frictional
resistance to sliding along the base of the footing. Please be aware that the friction coefficient
has no built-in factor of safety; therefore, an appropriate safety factor should be selected and
used in all subsequent calculations for each load case.
The lateral earth pressures summarized above are for static conditions and should be factored
for seismic conditions.
Subgrade Reaction Modulus (Under Interior Slabs)
If our recommendations are followed for support of interior slabs, the subgrade reaction modulus
(k) can be assumed to be 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci). The design value assumes the slab will
be underlain by at least 24 inches granular structural fill and clean crushed rock (6 inches of clean
crushed rock over 18 inches of compacted granular structural fill).
Foundation Wall Backfill
Interior foundation backfill shall consist of granular structural fill (3-inch-minus pitrun or 1.5-
inch-minus road mix). The native sandy gravels found onsite contain abundant oversize cobbles
making the material difficult to compact with small compaction equipment under interior slabs
and behind the interior side of walls; therefore, we do not recommend using it for interior
foundation backfill unless rock over 3 inches is screened off.
Exterior wall backfill can consist of any excavated foundation soil, other than topsoil, provided it
is not overly moist, highly plastic, or too rocky in composition. The native soils may require drying
prior to re-use as backfill. All select backfill materials should be placed in multiple thin lifts and
properly compacted to 95 percent of their Standard Proctor density. Foundation walls intended
to be braced should not be backfilled until the bracing (such as floor joists) is in place to prevent
unintended rotation/deflection of the wall. To prevent damaging foundation walls during the
backfilling process, only hand-operated compaction equipment is recommended within three
feet of walls that are not buried on both sides. Finally, the re-use of topsoil as backfill should be
limited to the uppermost four to six inches in landscaped areas.
Subsurface Drainage and Damp-Proofing
Perimeter footing drains for slab-on-grade foundations are not necessary unless the exterior
grade extends above the top of slab (which is rare). Buried foundation walls should be damp-
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 11
proofed with an acceptable commercial product as per the requirements of the International
Building Code (IBC 2021).
If crawlspaces are proposed, the installation of footing drains (while always preferable), may not
be possible unless there is a daylight point (again not likely on a flat site). It is possible to run the
footing drains to a sump and pump, but again, discharging the water to an appropriate location
may not be possible given the City’s stance on groundwater discharge from sump pumps. In
those cases, the only option is to elevate the footings as discussed earlier.
Vapor Barrier
To control moisture vapor, we recommend installing a heavy-duty vapor barrier under interior
slabs or over the top of crawlspace subgrades. We recommend a vapor barrier with a water vapor
transmission rate of 0.006 or lower as established by ASTM E-96, such as a Stego 15-mil Vapor
Barrier. The vapor barrier should be installed as per the manufacturer recommendations and
ASTM E-1643, ensuring it is properly attached to footings/walls and sealed at the seams.
Soil Corrosion to Metal
Resistivity testing conducted by Energy Labs on Composite Samples A and B ranged from 6,800
to 7,240 ohm-cm. NACE classifies soils with resistivity values ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 ohm-
cm as “mildly corrosive.” Based on test results, the soils onsite are “mildly corrosive” to metal.
Surface Drainage Recommendations
No water should be allowed to accumulate against or flow along any exposed foundation walls.
Concrete or asphalt surfacing that abuts the foundation should be designed with a minimum
grade of 2 percent away from the structure, and adjacent landscaped areas should have a slope
of at least 5 percent within 10 feet of the wall (see the IBC building codes). Note that surface
water or roof water should never be routed to foundation drains. To further reduce the
potential for moisture infiltration along foundation walls, backfill materials should be well-
compacted and the upper 4 to 6 inches of backfill should consist of low permeability topsoil.
Except for locations that will be surfaced by concrete or asphalt, finished grades next to
foundation walls should be set no less than 6 inches below the top of the sill plate.
Interior Concrete Slab Recommendations
As discussed earlier, interior slab support will be dictated by how the earthwork contractor
decides to proceed with foundation excavation (mass-excavate down to native gravels or follow
footing lines). Slab thickness for interior slabs will be dictated by the Structural Engineer.
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 12
Table 5 provides our interior slab support recommendations if Option 1 (Mass-Excavation Down
to Native Sandy Gravels) is followed.
Table 5. Interior Slab Support – Mass-Excavation Down to Native Gravels (Option 1)
MATERIAL COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN)
Concrete Slab Determined by Structural Engineer
1”-Minus Clean Crushed Rock 6
Granular Structural Fill As Required to Extend Up from Native
Sandy Gravels
315 lb. Woven Geotextile Fabric Not Required
TOTAL SECTION THICKNESS Slab Thickness + 6” Crushed Rock +
Structural Fill as Needed
Table 6 provides the minimum section under interior slabs if Option 2 (excavate under footings
only) is followed for foundation excavation. The section assumes all footings will be supported
on native sandy gravels or on granular structural fill that in turn bears on native sandy gravels.
Assuming topsoil and organics are stripped from under the foundation, the interior slab would
be supported by the upper fine-grained soils.
Table 6. Interior Slab Support – Excavation to Native Gravels Under Footings Only (Option 2)
MATERIAL COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN)
Concrete Slab Determined by Structural Engineer
1”-Minus Clean Crushed Rock 6
Granular Structural Fill 18
315 lb. Woven Geotextile Fabric As Needed
Stable Subgrade Soils Compacted to 95%
TOTAL SECTION THICKNESS Slab Thickness + 6” Crushed Rock + 18”
Structural Fill + Fabric as Needed
Exterior Concrete Slab Recommendations
Depending on site grading, lightly loaded exterior concrete slabs can either be supported on a
minimum of 6 inches of clean crushed rock overlying 6 inches of granular structural fill that bears
on non-organic, compacted, native soils or on embankment fill material placed above the
stripped subgrade surface to raise design elevations.
Table 7 summarizes the minimum section under lightly loaded exterior slabs. An appropriate slab
thickness will be determined by the Structural Engineer.
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 13
Table 7. Exterior Slab Support – Lightly Loaded Exterior Slabs
MATERIAL COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN)
Concrete Slab Determined by Structural Engineer
1”-Minus Clean Crushed Rock 6
Granular Structural Fill 6
315 lb. Woven Geotextile Fabric Not Required
Stable Subgrade Soils or Embankment Fill Compacted to 95%
TOTAL SECTION THICKNESS Slab Thickness + 6” Crushed Rock + 6”
of Structural Fill
Traffic loaded exterior slabs should be supported by a minimum of 6 inches of clean crushed rock
overlying 12 inches of granular structural fill overlying a woven geotextile fabric (315 lb. woven
fabric) placed on top of the compacted, unyielding subgrade. Table 8 summarizes the minimum
section under traffic loaded exterior slabs. An appropriate slab thickness will be determined by
the Structural Engineer.
Table 8. Exterior Slab Support – Traffic Loaded Exterior Slabs
MATERIAL COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN)
Concrete Slab Determined by Structural Engineer
1”-Minus Clean Crushed Rock 6
Granular Structural Fill 12
315 lb. Woven Geotextile Fabric Required
Stable Subgrade Soils or Embankment Fill Compacted to 95%
TOTAL SECTION THICKNESS Slab Thickness + 6” Crushed Rock + 12”
of Structural Fill + Woven Fabric
We suggest that critical exterior slab areas which cannot undergo any heaving be underlain by
additional clean crushed rock and two inches or more of below grade insulation extending
outward two feet from the edge of the slab to limit frost penetration. Thickening the crushed
rock layer to greater than six inches will improve the drainage capacity under the slab as well as
provide additional separation from the underlying soils. Consequently, the frost heave potential
of the slab should be reduced.
Prior to placing any embankment fill or structural fill, the subgrade surface should be stripped of
organics and proof-rolled to confirm its stability. If soft or wet areas are identified within the
subgrade, they should be over-excavated and replaced with compacted structural fill. Structural
fill and embankment fill should be placed in thin lifts and compacted to a dense, unyielding
condition.
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 14
FOUNDATION-RELATED FILL MATERIAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Excavated Foundation Soils
All topsoil should be stripped and stockpiled for re-use during site reclamation. On-site soils
suitable for re-use as site fill or backfill should be separated from wet, rocky, or otherwise
unsuitable soils during excavation. The suitability of the non-organic excavated soils will depend
on their rockiness, plasticity, natural moisture content, and ability to be re-compacted. The driest
soils containing an even mixture of soil matrix and smaller rock fragments should be selected for
use as compacted fill, while the wettest and rockiest soils should either be hauled off-site or used
for general site grading in non-critical locations. Depending on the time of year, some of the
native soil that is excavated may be wet of optimum and require drying prior to re-use. This may
necessitate the import of easily compacted fill material if work is conducted during the wet or
winter season when drying is not an option.
Structural Fill
If needed, import granular structural fill under foundations and slabs should consist of organic-
free, well-graded 3-inch-minus sandy (pit-run) gravel or 1.5-inch-minus crushed (road mix) gravel.
The gravels shall meet the material and gradation specifications as presented in the Montana
Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS) for sub-base course and base course gravel. The
native gravels may be acceptable for re-use as structural fill assuming rock larger than 3 inches
in diameter is screened off and the moisture content is near optimum.
Clean Crushed Rock
The primary uses for clean crushed rock include placement under concrete slabs and behind
foundation and retaining walls for drainage-related purposes. It may also be used to bring the
subgrade up above the groundwater level in below foundation applications. Crushed rock shall
consist of a clean assortment of angular fragments with 100 percent passing a one-inch screen
and less than 1 percent (by weight) finer than the No. 100 sieve. Over 50 percent of the rock
particles must have fractured faces.
FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION
All fill materials should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts and compacted to an unyielding
condition. The “loose” thickness of each layer of fill prior to compaction should not exceed 10
inches for self-propelled rollers, 6 inches for remote-controlled trench rollers, and 4 inches for
plate compactors. The moisture content of any fill material to be compacted should be within 2
percent of its optimum value. Table 9 provides our compaction recommendations for general site
applications. These recommendations apply to all fill materials and are presented as a percentage
of the maximum dry density of the material being placed as defined by ASTM D-698. A common
misconception is that washed or screened crushed rock does not require compaction. However,
this material does require compaction with a vibratory plate or smooth drum roller.
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 15
Table 9. Compaction Recommendations (Application vs. Percent Compaction)
APPLICATION % COMPACTION
Granular Structural Fill Under Footings and Interior Slabs: 98
Site Fill Under Concrete and Pavement Areas: 95
Exterior Backfill Behind Foundation: 95
Clean Crushed Rock Under Slabs: N/A (Vibration Required)
Sub-base and Base Course Materials for Asphalt Pavement: 95
PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the anticipated soft subgrade conditions across the site and intended uses for roads, we
have recommended separate pavement sections for private drives/parking lots assuming stable
and moderately unstable subgrade conditions. See Appendix D for design calculations.
For local roads including side streets, accesses, parking lots, and private driveways, we assumed
a design ESAL of 150,000 and a 20-year design life. We have not been provided with any
preliminary site plans and layouts at this time, so if our assumptions do not apply, please let us
know so appropriate recommendations can be provided. Table 10 presents the minimum
pavement section for private drives/parking lots assuming stable subgrade conditions (i.e., the
upper 8 inches of native soil can be compacted to 95-percent of ASTM D-698, no rutting or
deflecting, dry subgrade, etc.).
Table 10. Pavement Section 1 – Private Drives/Parking Lots – Stable Subgrade
MATERIAL COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN)
Asphalt 3
Base Course Gravel 6
Sub-Base Course Gravel 15
315 lb. Woven Geotextile Fabric Required
Stable Subgrade Soils (Less Topsoil) Compacted to 95%
TOTAL SECTION DESIGN THICKNESS 24
Please recognize that the section above is only applicable to stable subgrade conditions (no
rutting, deflecting, etc.). If the subgrade is overly moist and/or soft at the time of construction,
the subgrade will need to be dried, scarified, and re-compacted to a stable condition prior to
placing fabric and sub-base gravel. Any saturated materials or soft spots observed in the
compacted subgrade should be re-excavated and replaced with suitable compacted fill.
Should widespread moderately unstable subgrade conditions (minor rutting and deflecting, very
moist subgrade, etc.) occur across the site, an additional pavement section has been provided.
Table 11 presents an alternative section for private drives and parking areas if stable subgrade
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 16
conditions cannot be achieved during road construction prior to placing fabric and sub-base. We
suggest incorporating a bid item within the contract documents in the event unstable subgrade
conditions are encountered. The option for moderately unstable subgrade listed in Table 11
includes 6 additional inches of sub-base gravel and the utilization of a stronger subgrade
stabilization fabric comprised of a combination of geogrid and a non-woven geotextile fabric
placed over subgrade.
Table 11. Pavement Section 2 – Private Drives/Parking Lots – Unstable Subgrade
MATERIAL COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN)
Asphalt 3
Base Course Gravel 6
Sub-Base Course Gravel 21
Tensar TX-190L Geogrid Reinforcement Required
8-ounce Non-Woven Geotextile Fabric Required
Moderately Unstable Subgrade (Less Topsoil) Compacted to Extent Possible
TOTAL SECTION DESIGN THICKNESS 30
We should be retained during construction of roadways/parking areas to evaluate the severity
of any unstable conditions encountered and the use of higher strength fabrics or increasing the
sub-base section. In the event highly unstable subgrade conditions (severe rutting and
deflecting) are encountered we recommend adding 6 to 12 inches of additional sub-base gravel
to the pavement section listed in Table 11.
The sub-base and base course materials that comprise the granular parts of the pavement section
shall consist of 6-inch-minus uncrushed sandy (pitrun) gravel and 1.5-inch-minus crushed (road
mix) gravel, respectively. Both gravel courses shall meet the material and gradation specifications
presented in MPWSS, Sections 02234 and 02235. Under normal circumstances, the gravel
products should be placed in lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness (depending on the size of
the compactor) and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as defined in
ASTM D-698. However, if the subgrade soils are found to be overly moist, soft, or unstable, the
initial lift thickness of the sub-base gravel should be thickened to prevent damaging and tearing
the geotextile fabric with construction equipment and bridge unstable subgrade. Asphalt
pavement shall meet specifications in MPWSS Section 02510 and be compacted to a minimum
of 93 percent of the Rice mix density.
UNDERGROUND UTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundation Support of Utility Lines
Exterior utility lines (water, sewer, and dry utilities) can be adequately supported by the native
gravels. If utility lines will be supported by the upper fine-grained soils that may be very moist
and soft, Type 2 bedding may be required by the Engineer to support the lines. We recommend
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 17
a bid item be included on the bid form in case Type 2 bedding is deemed necessary. We suggest
proper bedding of all utilities following the specifications found in the Montana Public Works
Standard Specifications.
Trench Backfill
Trench backfill can consist of any native material (except materials containing significant
organics) that is not overly wet. Due to the potential of high groundwater and very moist and
soft upper fine-grained soils, we recommend that a bid item be included in the event import
material is needed for trench backfill. We recommend that trench backfill be compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent of ASTM D-698 under pavement/slab areas and 92 percent in landscaped
areas.
Note that development wide construction de-watering may be required (particularly in the
spring/summer). We suggest setting the dewatering in place several weeks in advance of the
utility and road construction. This additional time may help to dry the upper materials.
COLD/WINTER WEATHER CONSTRUCTION
If foundation construction will occur during the cold/winter weather season, the Contractor shall
take all necessary precautions to prevent the earthwork from freezing and/or from being
contaminated with snow. Exposed subgrade and fill materials (under footings, slabs, and walls)
should be adequately covered with concrete insulation blankets to prevent frost penetration and
to protect them from snow. All soils that are used for fill under or around foundation components
should be relatively dry, free of intermixed snow and frozen clods, and must not be placed when
it is snowing. Fill materials or foundations should not be placed over frozen soils, which may be
in a “frost-heaved condition,” or over layers of snow. When earthwork will proceed during the
non-optimal times of the year, we recommend that it be performed expeditiously to minimize
the time that the foundation excavation is open and exposed to the elements.
AESI FUTURE INVOLVEMENT
We suggest that we be retained during the design of the development to ensure that the
recommendations provided herein are followed properly. We further recommend that we be
allowed to view the construction excavations to verify that the appropriate target bearing
materials have been reached and during road construction to verify subgrade conditions.
LIMITATIONS
This report provides our geotechnical-related recommendations for Block 1 of South University
District Phase 3 located in Bozeman, Montana. Please be advised that this report is only
applicable for the above-referenced project and shall not be used for other nearby projects.
The recommendations presented herein are primarily based on observation and evaluation of
the site’s surface and subsurface conditions, along with review and interpretation of geologic
Keyhole Capital, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 26, 2023 Project Number: 22-178
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 19
REFERENCES
1. International Code Council, 2021. “2021 International Building Code”.
2. Montana Contractors’ Association, April 2010. “Montana Public Works Standard
Specifications”, Sixth Edition.
3. Lonn, J. and English, A. (2002). “Preliminary Geologic Map of the Eastern Part of the Gallatin
Valley Montana”, MBMG Open-File Report 457.
4. Slagle, S.E. (1995). “Geohydrology Conditions & Land Use in the Gallatin Valley, Southwestern
Montana,” USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4034.
qa/qc: EGS/JGE
P:\2022\22-178 Block 1 of S University Dist Phase 3\05 Design\Geotech\Report\22-178 - Block 1 SUD - Geotech Report.docx
LIST OF FIGURES
FFiigguurree 11 –– VViicciinniittyy MMaapp
FFiigguurree 22 –– QQuuaaddrraannggllee MMaapp
FFiigguurree 33 –– GGeeoollooggyy MMaapp
FFiigguurree 44 –– GGrroouunnddwwaatteerr MMaapp
FFiigguurree 55 –– TTeesstt PPiitt LLooccaattiioonn MMaapp
FFiigguurree 66 –– DDeepptthh ttoo GGrraavveellss MMaapp
FFiigguurree 77 –– DDeepptthh ttoo PPeeaakk GGrroouunnddwwaatteerr MMaapp
FFiigguurree 88 –– FFoouunnddaattiioonn TTyyppiiccaall –– SSllaabb oonn GGrraaddee
((OOppttiioonn 11))
FFiigguurree 99 –– FFoouunnddaattiioonn TTyyppiiccaall –– SSllaabb oonn GGrraaddee
((OOppttiioonn 22))
FIGURECivil Engineering
Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying
32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com
BLOCK 1 OF S.U.D. PH. 3
VICINITY MAP
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
1
N
FIGURECivil Engineering
Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying
32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com
BLOCK 1 OF S.U.D. PH. 3
QUADRANGLE MAP
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
2
N
FIGURECivil Engineering
Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying
32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com
BLOCK 1 OF S.U.D. PH. 3
GEOLOGY MAP
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
3
N
FIGURECivil Engineering
Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying
32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com
BLOCK 1 OF S.U.D. PH. 3
GROUNDWATER MAP
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
4
N
FIGURECivil Engineering
Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying
32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com
BLOCK 1 OF S.U.D. PH. 3
TEST PIT LOCATION MAP
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
5
TP#N
TP-1
TP-2
TP-3 TP-4
TP-5
TP-6
FIGURECivil Engineering
Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying
32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com
BLOCK 1 OF S.U.D. PH. 3
DEPTH TO GRAVELS MAP
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
6
NTP-#
##'
TP-1
4.0'
TP-24.5'
TP-3
4.5'
TP-4
3.5'
TP-5
3.5'
TP-6
4.0'
FIGURECivil Engineering
Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying
32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com
BLOCK 1 OF S.U.D. PH. 3
DEPTH TO PEAK GROUNDWATER MAP
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
7
NMW-#
##'
MW-1
DRY
@
8.71'
MW-2
10.18'
MW-3
DRY
@
9.13'
MW-45.32'
MW-5
DRY
@
8.71'
MW-6
11.48'
Figure 822-178June 2023Block 1, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3Foundation Typical - Slab-On-Grade (Option 1)Bozeman, MontanaLegendFoundation Backfilland Embankment FillNative Sandy Gravel(”Target” Bearing Material)ConcreteNative TopsoilLow Permeable TopsoilNot To ScaleCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 Discovery DriveBozeman, MT 59718Phone: (406) 582-0221Fax: (406) 582-5770Native Fine-Grained Soil(Sandy Silt/Clay)Granular Structural FillClean Crushed RockGroundwaterFinished Floor Elevation15 mil Polyethylene Vapor Barrier (typ.)ExistingGroundReviewed By:EGS/JGE Jun. 20236” (min.) Clean Crushed Rock Under SlabMass Over-Excavate Entire Foundation Footprint And Place Granular StructuralFill From Excavated Gravel Surface Up To Perimeter And Interior Footing Grades.Perimeter FootingInterior FootingImportant Note: Increase The Level Of Care For Wall BackfillAnd Compaction In Areas That Will Receive Concrete Slabs.Finished Landscape GradeTo Slope Away At 5% (min.).Upper 4” - 6” Of FoundationBackfill Should Consist OfLow Permeable Topsoil.2’ (min.)6” (min.)Raise FF Above Existing Grades As HighAs Site Grading Will Allow.Depth Of Cover ForFrost Protection4’ (min.)Width Of MassOver-ExcavationExcavated Gravel Surface Should Be “Clean” Sandy Gravel. Re-Compact To An Unyielding Condition Prior To Placement Of Structural Fill.3.5’ to 4.5’Depth To“Target” GravelAll Fill Materials Shall Be Placed And Compacted InAccordance With The Specifications In The Report.All Footings Must Bear Directly On Native Gravel Or OnStructural Fill That In Turn Is Supported On Native Gravel.Foundation Walls To Be Damp-Proofed. No Footing Drain IsRequired Unless Exterior Grade Will Extend Above Top of Slab
Figure 922-178June 2023Block 1, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3Foundation Typical - Slab-On-Grade (Option 2)Bozeman, MontanaLegendFoundation BackfillAnd Embankment FillNative Sandy Gravel(”Target” Bearing Material)ConcreteNative TopsoilLow Permeable TopsoilNot To ScaleCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 Discovery DriveBozeman, MT 59718Phone: (406) 582-0221Fax: (406) 582-5770Native Fine-Grained Soil(Sandy Silt/Clay)Granular Structural FillClean Crushed RockGroundwaterFinished Floor Elevation15 Mil Polyethylene Vapor Barrier (Typ.)ExistingGroundReviewed By:EGS/JGE Jun. 20236” (min.) Clean Crushed Rock Under SlabPerimeter FootingImportant Note: Increase The Level Of Care For Wall BackfillAnd Compaction In Areas That Will Receive Concrete Slabs.Finished Landscape GradeTo Slope Away At 5% (Min.).Concrete And Asphalt ToSlope Away At 2% (Min).Upper 4” - 6” Of FoundationBackfill Should Consist OfLow Permeable Topsoil.6” (Min.)Depth Of Cover ForFrost Protection4’ (Min.)Excavated Gravel Surface Should Be “Clean” Sandy Gravel. Re-Compact To An Unyielding Condition Prior To Placement Of Structural Fill.Foundation Walls To Be Damp-Proofed Per IBC Requirements. No FootingDrain Is Required Unless Exterior Grade Will Extend Above Top Of SlabGroundwater Likely To Be Encountered During Foundation Excavation. Dewatering ToBe Anticipated. Clean Crushed Rock May Be Used To Raise Bottom of Excavation AboveGroundwater. See Geotechnical Report for Details.3.5’ To 4.5’Depth To“Target” GravelInterior FootingRaise FF Above Existing Grades As HighAs Site Grading Will Allow.All Fill Materials Shall Be Placed And Compacted InAccordance With The Specifications In The Report.6”-min of Clean Crushed Rock Under Slab18”-min of Granular Structural FillInterior FoundationBackfill To Consist OfGranular Structural FillAll Footings Must Bear Directly On Native Gravel Or OnStructural Fill That In Turn Is Supported On Native Gravel.The Required Width Of Structural Fill Under Interior Footings Is The Width Of The Footing Plus The Depth Of Structural Fill Measured From The Bottom Of The Footing To The Native Gravels. The Footing Needs To Be Centered On The Trench For Load Transfer.The Required Width Of Structural Fill Under Perimeter Footings Is The Width Of The Footing Plus The Depth Of Structural Fill Measured From The Bottom Of The FootingTo The Native Gravels. The Footing Needs To Be CenteredOn The Trench For Load Transfer.Subgrade To Be Proof-Rolled Prior ToPlacing Structural Fill. Soft Spots ShouldBe Removed And Replaced With GranularStructural Fill. A Woven 315 Lb. GeotextileFabric May Be Used To Stabilize Subgrade.
LIST OF APPENDICES
AAppppeennddiixx AA –– TTeesstt PPiitt LLooggss
AAppppeennddiixx BB –– LLaabboorraattoorryy TTeessttiinngg RReessuullttss
AAppppeennddiixx CC –– GGrroouunnddwwaatteerr MMoonniittoorriinngg RReessuullttss
((TThhrroouugghh 66//2211//22002233))
AAppppeennddiixx DD –– PPaavveemmeenntt SSeeccttiioonn DDeessiiggnn
AAppppeennddiixx EE –– LLiimmiittaattiioonnss ooff YYoouurr GGeeootteecchhnniiccaall RReeppoorrtt
APPENDIX A
TTeesstt PPiitt LLooggss
Civil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com123DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetNA22-17811.5'DRYTest Pit Designation: TP-1 Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi 130 Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Dan (RLS Construction) Project: Block 1 of South University District, Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: JGE/ZWL (AESI) Date: March 31, 20233S1-A@2.0'Northwest Corner of Lot;See Test Pit Location Map;45.65964, -111.0618623.0%{0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; very dark brown; organic silty CLAY; moistto very moist.{1.0' - 4.0'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Medium stiff to stiff; brown; silty sandy CLAY;moist.·Pocket Pen @ 2.0' = 2.75 tsf.·Pocket Pen @ 3.0' = 1.5 tsf.·Softer with depth.{4.0' - 11.5'}: Alluvial Deposit:Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with abundant6"-minus sub-rounded cobbles and occasionalboulders up to 12" in diameter; slightly moist.·Target bearing material.·Increased rock size with depth.·Caving test pit walls.Notes:·MW-1 set.121086422468101214161812 1416 18S1-B@4.0'5.6%S1-C@6.0'3.5%S1-D@8.0'4.3%S1-E@10.0'4.6%Target Bearing at 4.0'
Civil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com123DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetNA22-17813.0'DRYTest Pit Designation: TP-2 Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi 130 Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Dan (RLS Construction) Project: Block 1 of South University District, Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: JGE/ZWL (AESI) Date: March 31, 20233S2-A@2.0'21.4%{0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; very dark brown; organic silty CLAY; moistto very moist.{1.0' - 4.5'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Medium stiff to stiff; brown; silty sandy CLAY;moist.·Pocket Pen @ 2.0' = 2.5 tsf.·Pocket Pen @ 3.0' = 1.25 tsf.·Pocket Pen @ 4.0' = 2.25 tsf.{4.5' - 13.0'}: Alluvial Deposit:Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with abundant6"-minus sub-rounded cobbles and occasionalboulders up to 18" in diameter; slightly moist.·Target bearing material.·Increased rock size with depth.·Caving test pit walls.Notes:·MW-2 set (deep well).121086422468101214161812 1416 18S2-B@4.0'12.0%S2-C@6.0'5.7%S2-D@8.0'5.0%S2-E@10.0'4.2%West-Center of Lot;See Test Pit Location Map;45.65918, -111.06185Target Bearing at 4.5'
Civil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com123DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetNA22-17812.0'DRYTest Pit Designation: TP-3 Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi 130 Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Dan (RLS Construction) Project: Block 1 of South University District, Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: JGE/ZWL (AESI) Date: March 31, 20233S3-A@2.0'23.1%{0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; very dark brown; organic silty CLAY; moistto very moist.{1.0' - 4.5'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Medium stiff to stiff; brown; silty sandy CLAY;moist.·Pocket Pen @ 2.0' = 1.25 - 1.75 tsf.·Pocket Pen @ 3.0' = 1.25 - 1.75 tsf.{4.5' - 12.0'}: Alluvial Deposit:Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with abundant6"-minus sub-rounded cobbles and occasionalboulders up to 12" in diameter; slightly moist.·Target bearing material.·Increased rock size with depth.·Caving test pit walls.Notes:·MW-3 set.12108642LAB TESTING RESULTS:Atterberg Limits at 4.0'Soil Classification = Non-Plastic.2468101214161812 1416 18S3-B@4.0'19.7%S3-C@6.0'4.8%S3-D@8.0'5.0%S3-E@10.0'4.9%Southwest Corner of Lot;See Test Pit Location Map;45.65876, -111.06192Target Bearing at 4.5'
Civil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com123DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetNA22-17813.0'9.5'Test Pit Designation: TP-4 Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi 130 Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Dan (RLS Construction) Project: Block 1 of South University District, Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: JGE/ZWL (AESI) Date: March 31, 20233S4-A@2.0'24.6%{0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; very dark brown; organic silty CLAY; moistto very moist.{1.0' - 3.5'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Soft to medium stiff; brown; silty sandy CLAY;moist.·Pocket Pen @ 2.0' = 1.5 - 2.0 tsf.·Pocket Pen @ 3.0' = 0.5 tsf.·Softer with depth.{3.5' - 13.0'}: Alluvial Deposit:Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with abundant6"-minus sub-rounded cobbles and occasionalboulders up to 12" in diameter; slightly moist towet.·Target bearing material.·Increased rock size with depth.·Groundwater encountered at 9.5'.·Caving test pit walls.Notes:·MW-4 set (deep well).12GWT at 9.5'1086422468101214161812 1416 18S4-B@4.0'4.4%S4-C@6.0'4.7%S4-D@8.0'4.1%S4-E@10.0'11.4%Southeast Corner of Lot;See Test Pit Location Map;45.65877, -111.06077Target Bearing at 3.5'
Civil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com231DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetNA22-17811.5'DRYTest Pit Designation: TP-5 Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi 130 Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Dan (RLS Construction) Project: Block 1 of South University District, Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: JGE/ZWL (AESI) Date: March 31, 20233S5-A@2.0'12.6%{0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; very dark brown; organic silty CLAY; moistto very moist.{1.0' - 3.5'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Stiff; brown; silty sandy CLAY; slightly moist.·Drier than other test pits.·Pocket Pen @ 2.0' = 2.25 - 2.75 tsf.·Pocket Pen @ 3.0' = 2.25 - 2.75 tsf.{3.5' - 11.5'}: Alluvial Deposit:Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with abundant6"-minus sub-rounded cobbles and occasionalboulders up to 12" in diameter; slightly moist.·Target bearing material.·Increased rock size with depth.·Caving test pit walls.Notes:·MW-5 set.121086422468101214161812 1416 18S5-B@4.0'2.9%S5-C@6.0'3.5%S5-D@8.0'3.2%S5-E@10.0'2.9%East-Center of Lot;See Test Pit Location Map;45.65924, -111.06092Target Bearing at 3.5'
Civil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com231DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetNA22-17813.0'DRYTest Pit Designation: TP-6 Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi 130 Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Dan (RLS Construction) Project: Block 1 of South University District, Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: JGE/ZWL (AESI) Date: March 31, 20233S6-A@2.0'23.7%{0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; very dark brown; organic silty CLAY; moistto very moist.{1.0' - 4.5'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Medium stiff to stiff; brown; silty sandy CLAY;moist.·Pocket Pen @ 2.0' = 1.25 tsf.·Pocket Pen @ 3.0' = 1.25 tsf.·Pocket Pen @ 4.0' = 2.0 tsf.{4.5' - 13.0'}: Alluvial Deposit:Dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with abundant6"-minus sub-rounded cobbles and occasionalboulders up to 18" in diameter; slightly moist.·Target bearing material.·Increased rock size with depth.·Caving test pit walls.Notes:·MW-6 set (deep well).121086422468101214161812 1416 18S6-B@4.0'21.5%S6-C@6.0'4.4%S6-D@8.0'4.3%S6-E@10.0'5.8%Northeast Corner of Lot;See Test Pit Location Map;45.65963, -111.06091Target Bearing at 4.5'LAB TESTING RESULTS:Atterberg Limits at 4.0'Soil Classification = Non-Plastic.
APPENDIX B
LLaabboorraattoorryy TTeessttiinngg RReessuullttss
MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION (ASTM D-2216)
Project: Block 1 of South University District Ph.3
Project Number: 22-178
Sample Identification: See Below
Soil Classification: Varies
Date Sampled: March 31, 2023
Date Tested: April 3, 2023
Tested By: Zach Liley
Sample Identification:S1-A S1-B S1-C S1-D S1-E S2-A S2-B S2-C S2-D
Exploration Location:TP-1 TP-1 TP-1 TP-1 TP-1 TP-2 TP-2 TP-2 TP-2
Sample Depth (ft):2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Container Number:QQ C G B KK MM LL E I
Weight of Container:31.20 31.75 31.55 31.56 31.20 31.07 31.07 31.65 31.79
Container + Wet Soil:146.79 212.94 210.19 197.96 190.49 158.25 186.76 218.32 214.45
Container + Dry Soil:125.18 203.28 204.20 191.07 183.47 135.81 170.10 208.19 205.73
Weight of Water:21.61 9.66 5.99 6.89 7.02 22.44 16.66 10.13 8.72
Weight of Dry Soil:93.98 171.53 172.65 159.51 152.27 104.74 139.03 176.54 173.94
Moisture Content:23.0%5.6%3.5%4.3%4.6%21.4%12.0%5.7%5.0%
Sample Identification:S2-E S3-A S3-B S3-C S3-D S3-E S4-A S4-B
Exploration Location:TP-2 TP-3 TP-3 TP-3 TP-3 TP-3 TP-4 TP-4
Sample Depth (ft):10.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 2.0 4.0
Container Number:TT F L UU H OO RR D
Weight of Container:30.92 31.70 31.70 30.99 31.58 31.09 31.25 31.75
Container + Wet Soil:215.65 159.29 190.29 212.63 205.88 193.92 157.39 201.32
Container + Dry Soil:208.21 135.38 164.18 204.39 197.57 186.29 132.51 194.24
Weight of Water:7.44 23.91 26.11 8.24 8.31 7.63 24.88 7.08
Weight of Dry Soil:177.29 103.68 132.48 173.40 165.99 155.20 101.26 162.49
Moisture Content:4.2%23.1%19.7%4.8%5.0%4.9%24.6%4.4%
Reviewed By:
32 Discovery DriveBozeman, MT 59718
Phone (406) 582-0221
Fax (406) 582-5770
MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION (ASTM D-2216)
Project: Block 1 of South University District Ph.3
Project Number: 22-178
Sample Identification: See Below
Soil Classification: Varies
Date Sampled: March 31, 2023
Date Tested: April 3, 2023
Tested By: Zach Liley
Sample Identification:S4-C S4-D S4-E S5-A S5-B S5-C S5-D S5-E
Exploration Location:TP-4 TP-4 TP-4 TP-5 TP-5 TP-5 TP-5 TP-5
Sample Depth (ft):6.0 8.0 10.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Container Number:JJ SS J A NN K S BB
Weight of Container:30.92 30.99 31.65 31.96 30.86 31.75 50.42 48.36
Container + Wet Soil:194.52 227.15 290.26 157.00 231.32 206.07 257.47 331.78
Container + Dry Soil:187.12 219.36 263.78 142.98 225.61 200.14 251.08 323.88
Weight of Water:7.40 7.79 26.48 14.02 5.71 5.93 6.39 7.90
Weight of Dry Soil:156.20 188.37 232.13 111.02 194.75 168.39 200.66 275.52
Moisture Content:4.7%4.1%11.4%12.6%2.9%3.5%3.2%2.9%
Sample Identification:S6-A S6-B S6-C S6-D S6-E
Exploration Location:TP-6 TP-6 TP-6 TP-6 TP-6
Sample Depth (ft):2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Container Number:O P EE HH R
Weight of Container:48.94 49.24 48.89 48.29 50.60
Container + Wet Soil:261.04 339.86 284.19 260.01 254.97
Container + Dry Soil:220.41 288.42 274.31 251.33 243.73
Weight of Water:40.63 51.44 9.88 8.68 11.24
Weight of Dry Soil:171.47 239.18 225.42 203.04 193.13
Moisture Content:23.7%21.5%4.4%4.3%5.8%
Reviewed By:
32 Discovery DriveBozeman, MT 59718
Phone (406) 582-0221
Fax (406) 582-5770
STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D-698)
Project: Block 1 of South University District Ph.3
Project Number: 22-178
Sample Identification: Composite 1 - Silt/Clay @ 2.0' - 4.0'
Soil Classification: Sandy Silt/Clay
Date Sampled: March 31, 2023
Date Tested: April 4, 2023
Tested By: Zach Liley
Note: No Oversize Correction Applied
Natural Moisture Content: 12.6 - 24.6 %
Optimum Moisture Content: 17.5 %
Maximum Dry Unit Weight: 106.0 pcf
Reviewed By:
Summary of Lab Test Data
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 19% 21%Dry Unit Weight (pcf)Moisture Content
PROCTOR COMPACTION CURVE
Compaction Curve
Z.A.V. for S.G.=2.50Z.A.V. for S.G.=2.65Z.A.V. for S.G.=2.80Poly. (Compaction Curve)
32 Discovery DriveBozeman, MT 59718Phone (406) 582-0221Fax (406) 582-5770
STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D-698)
Project: Block 1 of South University District Ph.3
Project Number: 22-178
Sample Identification: Composite 2 - Native Sandy Gravel @ 4.0'-8.0'
Soil Classification: Sandy Gravel w/ Cobbles
Date Sampled: March 31, 2023
Date Tested: April 4, 2023
Tested By: Zach Liley
Note: No Oversize Correction Applied
Natural Moisture Content: 2.9 - 11.4 % Optimum Moisture Content: 5.7 %
Maximum Dry Unit Weight: 129.5 pcf
Reviewed By:
Summary of Lab Test Data
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8%Dry Unit Weight (pcf)Moisture Content
PROCTOR COMPACTION CURVE
Compaction CurveZ.A.V. for S.G.=2.50Z.A.V. for S.G.=2.65Z.A.V. for S.G.=2.80Poly. (Compaction Curve)
32 Discovery DriveBozeman, MT 59718Phone (406) 582-0221Fax (406) 582-5770
STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D-698)
Project: Block 1 of South University District Ph.3
Project Number: 22-178
Sample Identification: Composite 3 - Mixed Backill @ 3.0' - 5.0'
Soil Classification: Sandy Silt/Clay with Gravels
Date Sampled: March 31, 2023
Date Tested: April 7, 2023
Tested By: Zach Liley
Note: No Oversize Correction Applied
Natural Moisture Content: N/A % Optimum Moisture Content: 8.8 %
Maximum Dry Unit Weight: 126.3 pcf
Reviewed By:
Summary of Lab Test Data
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%Dry Unit Weight (pcf)Moisture Content
PROCTOR COMPACTION CURVE
Compaction CurveZ.A.V. for S.G.=2.50Z.A.V. for S.G.=2.65Z.A.V. for S.G.=2.80Poly. (Compaction Curve)
32 Discovery DriveBozeman, MT 59718Phone (406) 582-0221Fax (406) 582-5770
ANALYTICAL SUMMARY REPORT
The analyses presented in this report were performed by Energy Laboratories, Inc., 3161 E. Lyndale Ave., Helena, MT 59604, unless otherwise noted. Any exceptions or problems with the analyses are noted in the report package. Any issues encountered during sample receipt are documented in the Work Order Receipt Checklist.
The results as reported relate only to the item(s) submitted for testing. This report shall be used or copied only in its entirety. Energy Laboratories, Inc. is not responsible for the consequences arising from the use of a partial report.
If you have any questions regarding these test results, please contact your Project Manager.
Lab ID Client Sample ID Collect Date Receive Date Matrix Test
Report Approved By:
H23040550-001 50/50 Mix: Composite A 03/31/23 17:00 04/25/23 Soil Conductivity, 1:X Water ExtractableAnions, Water ExtractableOxidation Reduction PotentialpH, 1:X Water ExtractableDI Water Soil Extract ASA10-3ResistivitySoil Preparation USDA1Sulfide, Methylene Blue Colorimetric
H23040550-002 100% Fine Grain: Composite B 03/31/23 17:00 04/25/23 Soil Conductivity, 1:X Water ExtractableAnions, Water ExtractableOxidation Reduction PotentialpH, 1:X Water ExtractableDI Water Soil Extract ASA10-3ResistivitySulfide, Methylene Blue Colorimetric
Allied Engineering Services Inc
Project Name:Block 1 of South University District, Ph. 3
Work Order:H23040550
32 S Discovery Dr
Bozeman, MT 59718-3428
May 03, 2023
Energy Laboratories Inc Helena MT received the following 2 samples for Allied Engineering Services Inc on 4/25/2023 for analysis.
Page 1 of 11
Project:Block 1 of South University District, Ph. 3
CLIENT:Allied Engineering Services Inc
Work Order:H23040550 CASE NARRATIVE
05/03/23Report Date:
Tests associated with analyst identified as ELI-B were subcontracted to Energy Laboratories, 1120 S. 27th St., Billings, MT, EPA Number MT00005.
Page 2 of 11
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT
Client:Allied Engineering Services Inc
Project:Block 1 of South University District, Ph. 3
Lab ID:H23040550-001
Client Sample ID:50/50 Mix: Composite A
Collection Date:03/31/23 17:00
Matrix:Soil
Report Date:05/03/23
DateReceived:04/25/23
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRLMethodMCL/QCLQualifiers
1:X SOIL:WATER
04/26/23 12:57 / jjp0.1s.u.8.7pH, 1:2 ASA10-3
WATER EXTRACTABLE
04/27/23 19:26 / ljs1mg/kg-dry4Chloride, 1:2 E300.0
1:X SOIL:WATER
04/26/23 13:06 / jjp0.1mmhos/cm0.1Conductivity, 1:2 ASA10-3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
04/28/23 11:31 / eli-b23°C19.0ORP Measurement Temp A2580 BM
04/28/23 11:31 / eli-b23mV288Oxidation-Reduction Potential A2580 BM
INORGANICS
H 04/27/23 13:33 / ams0.1mg/L0.1Sulfide A4500-S D
RESISTIVITY OF SOIL
04/28/23 08:58 / jjp1ohm-cm7240Resistivity A2510 B
Report
Definitions:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
QCL - Quality Control Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
H - Analysis performed past the method holding time
Page 3 of 11
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT
Client:Allied Engineering Services Inc
Project:Block 1 of South University District, Ph. 3
Lab ID:H23040550-002
Client Sample ID:100% Fine Grain: Composite B
Collection Date:03/31/23 17:00
Matrix:Soil
Report Date:05/03/23
DateReceived:04/25/23
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRLMethodMCL/QCLQualifiers
1:X SOIL:WATER
04/26/23 12:58 / jjp0.1s.u.8.7pH, 1:2 ASA10-3
WATER EXTRACTABLE
04/27/23 19:55 / ljs1mg/kg-dry3Chloride, 1:2 E300.0
1:X SOIL:WATER
04/26/23 13:07 / jjp0.1mmhos/cm0.1Conductivity, 1:2 ASA10-3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
04/28/23 11:57 / eli-b23°C17.7ORP Measurement Temp A2580 BM
04/28/23 11:57 / eli-b23mV276Oxidation-Reduction Potential A2580 BM
INORGANICS
H 04/27/23 13:33 / ams0.1mg/L0.7Sulfide A4500-S D
RESISTIVITY OF SOIL
04/28/23 08:58 / jjp1ohm-cm6800Resistivity A2510 B
Report
Definitions:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
QCL - Quality Control Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
H - Analysis performed past the method holding time
Page 4 of 11
Client:Allied Engineering Services Inc Work Order:H23040550
QA/QC Summary Report
05/03/23Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Method:A2510 B Batch: R184090
Lab ID:H23040550-002ADUP 04/28/23 08:58Sample Duplicate Run: SOIL EC_230428A
Resistivity 101.0 3.27020ohm-cm
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 5 of 11
Client:Allied Engineering Services Inc Work Order:H23040550
QA/QC Summary Report
05/03/23Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Method:A2580 BM Batch: B_R401195
Lab ID:LCS1 04/28/23 10:09Laboratory Control Sample Run: SUB-B401195
Oxidation-Reduction Potential 101 95 105236mV
Lab ID:H23040550-001A 04/28/23 11:52Sample Duplicate Run: SUB-B4011952
ORP Measurement Temp 18.8 °C
Oxidation-Reduction Potential 101.2291mV
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 6 of 11
Client:Allied Engineering Services Inc Work Order:H23040550
QA/QC Summary Report
05/03/23Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Method:A4500-S D Analytical Run: GENESYS 20_230427B
Lab ID:CCV 04/27/23 13:34Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
Sulfide 98 85 1150.0400.491 mg/L
Lab ID:CCV 04/27/23 13:41Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
Sulfide 98 85 1150.0400.489 mg/L
Method:A4500-S D Batch: R184067
Lab ID:MBLK 04/27/23 13:30Method Blank Run: GENESYS 20_230427B
Sulfide 0.005NDmg/L
Lab ID:LCS 04/27/23 13:31Laboratory Control Sample Run: GENESYS 20_230427B
Sulfide 114 85 1150.0400.287 mg/L
Lab ID:H23040550-001ADUP 04/27/23 13:33Sample Duplicate Run: GENESYS 20_230427B
Sulfide 200.10 3.70.141 mg/L H
Lab ID:H23040644-001HMS 04/27/23 13:33Sample Matrix Spike Run: GENESYS 20_230427B
Sulfide 109 70 1300.0400.273 mg/L
Lab ID:H23040644-001HMSD 04/27/23 13:33Sample Matrix Spike Duplicate Run: GENESYS 20_230427B
Sulfide 114 70 130 200.040 4.30.285 mg/L
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
H - Analysis performed past the method holding time
Page 7 of 11
Client:Allied Engineering Services Inc Work Order:H23040550
QA/QC Summary Report
05/03/23Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Method:ASA10-3 Analytical Run: SOIL EC_230428A
Lab ID:ICV_1_230426_1 04/26/23 13:03Initial Calibration Verification Standard
Conductivity, 1:2 103 90 1100.101.46 mmhos/cm
Lab ID:CCV_1_230426_1 04/26/23 13:04Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
Conductivity, 1:2 99 90 1100.104.97 mmhos/cm
Lab ID:CCV1_1_230426_1 04/26/23 13:04Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
Conductivity, 1:2 99 90 1100.100.992 mmhos/cm
Method:ASA10-3 Batch: 66219
Lab ID:MB-66219 04/26/23 13:05Method Blank Run: SOIL EC_230428A
Conductivity, 1:2 0.05NDmmhos/cm
Lab ID:LCS-66219 04/26/23 13:06Laboratory Control Sample Run: SOIL EC_230428A
Conductivity, 1:2 97 70 1300.101.14 mmhos/cm
Lab ID:H23040550-002ADUP 04/26/23 13:07Sample Duplicate Run: SOIL EC_230428A
Conductivity, 1:2 100.10 3.20.142 mmhos/cm
Method:ASA10-3 Analytical Run: SOIL PH METER - ORION A211_230428A
Lab ID:ICV_1_230426_1 04/26/23 12:49Initial Calibration Verification Standard
pH, 1:2 100 98.6 101.40.107.01 s.u.
Lab ID:CCV_1_230426_1 04/26/23 12:50Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
pH, 1:2 100 98.6 101.40.107.01 s.u.
Lab ID:CCV1_1_230426_1 04/26/23 12:50Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
pH, 1:2 100 97.5 102.50.104.02 s.u.
Method:ASA10-3 Batch: 66219
Lab ID:LCS-66219 04/26/23 12:54Laboratory Control Sample Run: SOIL PH METER - ORION A2
pH, 1:2 100 95 1050.108.25 s.u.
Lab ID:H23040550-002ADUP 04/26/23 13:00Sample Duplicate Run: SOIL PH METER - ORION A2
pH, 1:2 200.10 0.08.70 s.u.
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 8 of 11
Client:Allied Engineering Services Inc Work Order:H23040550
QA/QC Summary Report
05/03/23Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Method:E300.0 Analytical Run: IC METROHM_230427A
Lab ID:ICV 04/27/23 10:48Initial Calibration Verification Standard
Chloride 100 90 1101.0100mg/L
Lab ID:CCV 04/27/23 11:31Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
Chloride 97 90 1101.048.5 mg/L
Method:E300.0 Batch: 66219
Lab ID:MB-66219 04/27/23 18:58Method Blank Run: IC METROHM_230427A
Chloride, 1:2 0.0080.6 mg/kg-dry
Lab ID:LCS-66219 04/27/23 19:12Laboratory Control Sample Run: IC METROHM_230427A
Chloride, 1:2 110 70 1301.0118mg/kg-dry
Lab ID:H23040550-001AMS 04/27/23 19:41Sample Matrix Spike Run: IC METROHM_230427A
Chloride, 1:2 98 90 1101.0249mg/kg-dry
Lab ID:H23040550-002ADUP 04/27/23 20:10Sample Duplicate Run: IC METROHM_230427A
Chloride, 1:2 201.0 112.51 mg/kg-dry
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 9 of 11
Shipping container/cooler in good condition?
Custody seals intact on all shipping container(s)/cooler(s)?
Custody seals intact on all sample bottles?
Chain of custody present?
Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received?
Chain of custody agrees with sample labels?
Samples in proper container/bottle?
Sample containers intact?
Sufficient sample volume for indicated test?
All samples received within holding time?(Exclude analyses that are considered field parameterssuch as pH, DO, Res Cl, Sulfite, Ferrous Iron, etc.)
Container/Temp Blank temperature:
Containers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble that is <6mm (1/4").
Water - pH acceptable upon receipt?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
R £
£
£
R
R
£
R
R
R
R
£
£
£
£
£
£
R
£
£
£
£
£
£
Not Present
Not Present
Not Present
£
R
R
No VOA vials submitted
Not Applicable R
R
12.6°C No Ice
4/25/2023Rebecca A. Tooke
FedEx
wjj
Date Received:
Received by:
Login completed by:
Carrier name:
wjohnson
4/25/2023
Reviewed by:
Reviewed Date:
Contact and Corrective Action Comments:
ID on bag "Composite B 100% silt Clay." Used information from COC. Bags include 22/178.
No times of collection on bags or COC. Estimated time of collection in laboratory. 4/25/23 rt
Temp Blank received in all shipping container(s)/cooler(s)?Yes No£R Not Applicable £
Lab measurement of analytes considered field parameters that require analysis within 15 minutes of sampling such as pH, Dissolved Oxygen and Residual Chlorine, are qualified as being analyzed outside of recommended holding time.
Solid/soil samples are reported on a wet weight basis (as received) unless specifically indicated. If moisture corrected, data units are typically noted as –dry. For agricultural and mining soil parameters/characteristics, all samples are dried and ground prior to sample analysis.
The reference date for Radon analysis is the sample collection date. The reference date for all other Radiochemical analyses is the analysis date. Radiochemical precision results represent a 2-sigma Total Measurement Uncertainty.
Standard Reporting Procedures:
Work Order Receipt Checklist
Allied Engineering Services Inc H23040550
Page 10 of 11
Page 11 of 11
APPENDIX C
GGrroouunnddwwaatteerr MMoonniittoorriinngg RReessuullttss
((TThhrroouugghh 66//2211//22002233))
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Assumed Ground Surface Elevation of 100.0‐ft.
All measurements for this well are in reference to the assumed Ground Surface Elevation.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C. GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev. Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev. Elev. Elev.Surface
(ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (inches) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
3/31/2023 12:00 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 JGE
4/5/2023 4:15 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 JGE
4/12/2023 12:30 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 JGE
4/19/2023 2:30 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 JGE
4/26/2023 1:00 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 JGE
5/3/2023 1:00 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 JGE
5/8/2023 1:30 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 MRW
5/16/2023 3:45 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 OLS
5/22/2023 5:05 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 OLS
5/30/2023 8:45 AM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 OLS
6/6/2023 12:10 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 OLS
6/13/2023 9:10 AM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 ZWL
6/21/2023 9:51 AM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 ZWL
Installed By: JGE/ZWL (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-1
Project: Block 1 of South University District Ph. 3
Project Number: 22-178
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: March 31, 2023
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
3/31/2023 4/28/2023 5/26/2023 6/23/2023ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 1 OF SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22‐178)
MONITOR WELL 1
Ex. Ground Surface Elevation Top of Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' Below EG
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Assumed Ground Surface Elevation of 100.0‐ft.
All measurements for this well are in reference to the assumed Ground Surface Elevation
Peak Groundwater Level
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C. GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev. Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev. Elev. Elev.Surface
(ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (inches) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
3/31/2023 12:00 PM 14.50 2.25 12.25 Dry 12.25 147.00 100.00 102.25 87.75 87.75 96.00 JGE
4/5/2023 4:15 PM 14.50 2.25 12.25 Dry 12.25 147.00 100.00 102.25 87.75 87.75 96.00 JGE
4/12/2023 12:30 PM 14.50 2.25 12.25 Dry 12.25 147.00 100.00 102.25 87.75 87.75 96.00 JGE
4/19/2023 2:30 PM 14.50 2.25 12.25 12.76 10.51 126.12 100.00 102.25 87.75 89.49 96.00 JGE
4/26/2023 1:00 PM 14.50 2.25 12.25 12.43 10.18 122.16 100.00 102.25 87.75 89.82 96.00 JGE
5/3/2023 1:00 PM 14.50 2.25 12.25 12.43 10.18 122.16 100.00 102.25 87.75 89.82 96.00 JGE
5/8/2023 1:30 PM 14.50 2.25 12.25 12.64 10.39 124.68 100.00 102.25 87.75 89.61 96.00 MRW
5/16/2023 3:45 PM 14.50 2.25 12.25 12.99 10.74 128.88 100.00 102.25 87.75 89.26 96.00 OLS
5/22/2023 5:05 PM 14.50 2.25 12.25 13.11 10.86 130.32 100.00 102.25 87.75 89.14 96.00 OLS
5/30/2023 8:45 AM 14.50 2.25 12.25 13.32 11.07 132.84 100.00 102.25 87.75 88.93 96.00 OLS
6/6/2023 12:10 PM 14.50 2.25 12.25 12.88 10.63 127.56 100.00 102.25 87.75 89.37 96.00 OLS
6/13/2023 9:10 AM 14.50 2.25 12.25 12.45 10.20 122.40 100.00 102.25 87.75 89.80 96.00 ZWL
6/21/2023 9:51 AM 14.50 2.25 12.25 12.65 10.40 124.80 100.00 102.25 87.75 89.60 96.00 ZWL
Installed By: JGE/ZWL (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-2
Project: Block 1 of South University District Ph. 3
Project Number: 22-178
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: March 31, 2023
87.00
89.00
91.00
93.00
95.00
97.00
99.00
101.00
103.00
3/31/2023 4/28/2023 5/26/2023 6/23/2023ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 1 OF SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22‐178)
MONITOR WELL 2
Ex. Ground Surface Elevation Top of Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' Below EG
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Assumed Ground Surface Elevation of 100.0‐ft.
All measurements for this well are in reference to the assumed Ground Surface Elevation.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C. GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev. Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev. Elev. Elev.Surface
(ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (inches) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
3/31/2023 12:00 PM 10.00 0.88 9.13 Dry 9.13 109.50 100.00 100.88 90.88 90.88 96.00 JGE
4/5/2023 4:15 PM 10.00 0.88 9.13 Dry 9.13 109.50 100.00 100.88 90.88 90.88 96.00 JGE
4/12/2023 12:30 PM 10.00 0.88 9.13 Dry 9.13 109.50 100.00 100.88 90.88 90.88 96.00 JGE
4/19/2023 2:30 PM 10.00 0.88 9.13 Dry 9.13 109.50 100.00 100.88 90.88 90.88 96.00 JGE
4/26/2023 1:00 PM 10.00 0.88 9.13 Dry 9.13 109.50 100.00 100.88 90.88 90.88 96.00 JGE
5/3/2023 1:00 PM 10.00 0.88 9.13 Dry 9.13 109.50 100.00 100.88 90.88 90.88 96.00 JGE
5/8/2023 1:30 PM 10.00 0.88 9.13 Dry 9.13 109.50 100.00 100.88 90.88 90.88 96.00 MRW
5/16/2023 3:45 PM 10.00 0.88 9.13 Dry 9.13 109.50 100.00 100.88 90.88 90.88 96.00 OLS
5/22/2023 5:05 PM 10.00 0.88 9.13 Dry 9.13 109.50 100.00 100.88 90.88 90.88 96.00 OLS
5/30/2023 8:45 AM 10.00 0.88 9.13 Dry 9.13 109.50 100.00 100.88 90.88 90.88 96.00 OLS
6/6/2023 12:10 PM 10.00 0.88 9.13 Dry 9.13 109.50 100.00 100.88 90.88 90.88 96.00 OLS
6/13/2023 9:10 AM 10.00 0.88 9.13 Dry 9.13 109.50 100.00 100.88 90.88 90.88 96.00 ZWL
6/21/2023 9:51 AM 10.00 0.88 9.13 Dry 9.13 109.50 100.00 100.88 90.88 90.88 96.00 ZWL
Installed By: JGE/ZWL (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-3
Project: Block 1 of South University District Ph. 3
Project Number: 22-178
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: March 31, 2023
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
3/31/2023 4/28/2023 5/26/2023 6/23/2023ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 1 OF SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22‐178)
MONITOR WELL 3
Ex. Ground Surface Elevation Top of Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' Below EG
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Assumed Ground Surface Elevation of 100.0‐ft.
All measurements for this well are in reference to the assumed Ground Surface Elevation
Peak Groundwater Level
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C. GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev. Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev. Elev. Elev.Surface
(ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (inches) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
3/31/2023 12:00 PM 14.65 2.67 11.98 9.5 9.50 114.00 100.00 102.67 88.02 90.50 96.00 JGE
4/5/2023 4:15 PM 14.65 2.67 11.98 10.86 8.19 98.32 100.00 102.67 88.02 91.81 96.00 JGE
4/12/2023 12:30 PM 14.65 2.67 11.98 7.99 5.32 63.88 100.00 102.67 88.02 94.68 96.00 JGE
4/19/2023 2:30 PM 14.65 2.67 11.98 8.99 6.32 75.88 100.00 102.67 88.02 93.68 96.00 JGE
4/26/2023 1:00 PM 14.65 2.67 11.98 8.77 6.10 73.24 100.00 102.67 88.02 93.90 96.00 JGE
5/3/2023 1:00 PM 14.65 2.67 11.98 9.00 6.33 76.00 100.00 102.67 88.02 93.67 96.00 JGE
5/8/2023 1:30 PM 14.65 2.67 11.98 9.18 6.51 78.16 100.00 102.67 88.02 93.49 96.00 MRW
5/16/2023 3:45 PM 14.65 2.67 11.98 9.38 6.71 80.56 100.00 102.67 88.02 93.29 96.00 OLS
5/22/2023 5:05 PM 14.65 2.67 11.98 9.21 6.54 78.52 100.00 102.67 88.02 93.46 96.00 OLS
5/30/2023 8:45 AM 14.65 2.67 11.98 9.64 6.97 83.68 100.00 102.67 88.02 93.03 96.00 OLS
6/6/2023 12:10 PM 14.65 2.67 11.98 9.2 6.53 78.40 100.00 102.67 88.02 93.47 96.00 OLS
6/13/2023 9:10 AM 14.65 2.67 11.98 9.37 6.70 80.44 100.00 102.67 88.02 93.30 96.00 ZWL
6/21/2023 9:51 AM 14.65 2.67 11.98 9.54 6.87 82.48 100.00 102.67 88.02 93.13 96.00 ZWL
Installed By: JGE/ZWL (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-4
Project: Block 1 of South University District Ph. 3
Project Number: 22-178
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: March 31, 2023
86.00
88.00
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
104.00
3/31/2023 4/28/2023 5/26/2023 6/23/2023ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 1 OF SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22‐178)
MONITOR WELL 4
Ex. Ground Surface Elevation Top of Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' Below EG
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Assumed Ground Surface Elevation of 100.0‐ft.
All measurements for this well are in reference to the assumed Ground Surface Elevation.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C. GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev. Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev. Elev. Elev.Surface
(ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (inches) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
3/31/2023 12:00 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 JGE
4/5/2023 4:15 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 JGE
4/12/2023 12:30 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 JGE
4/19/2023 2:30 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 JGE
4/26/2023 1:00 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 JGE
5/3/2023 1:00 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 JGE
5/8/2023 1:30 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 MRW
5/16/2023 3:45 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 OLS
5/22/2023 5:05 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 OLS
5/30/2023 8:45 AM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 OLS
6/6/2023 12:10 PM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 OLS
6/13/2023 9:10 AM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 ZWL
6/21/2023 9:51 AM 10.00 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 ZWL
Installed By: JGE/ZWL (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-5
Project: Block 1 of South University District Ph. 3
Project Number: 22-178
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: March 31, 2023
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
3/31/2023 4/28/2023 5/26/2023 6/23/2023ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 1 OF SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22‐178)
MONITOR WELL 5
Ex. Ground Surface Elevation Top of Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' Below EG
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Assumed Ground Surface Elevation of 100.0‐ft.
All measurements for this well are in reference to the assumed Ground Surface Elevation
Peak Groundwater Level
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C. GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev. Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev. Elev. Elev.Surface
(ft) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (inches) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
3/31/2023 12:00 PM 14.83 1.67 13.17 Dry 13.17 158.00 100.00 101.67 86.83 86.83 96.00 JGE
4/5/2023 4:15 PM 14.83 1.67 13.17 Dry 13.17 158.00 100.00 101.67 86.83 86.83 96.00 JGE
4/12/2023 12:30 PM 14.83 1.67 13.17 Dry 13.17 158.00 100.00 101.67 86.83 86.83 96.00 JGE
4/19/2023 2:30 PM 14.83 1.67 13.17 13.42 11.75 141.04 100.00 101.67 86.83 88.25 96.00 JGE
4/26/2023 1:00 PM 14.83 1.67 13.17 13.15 11.48 137.80 100.00 101.67 86.83 88.52 96.00 JGE
5/3/2023 1:00 PM 14.83 1.67 13.17 13.22 11.55 138.64 100.00 101.67 86.83 88.45 96.00 JGE
5/8/2023 1:30 PM 14.83 1.67 13.17 13.52 11.85 142.24 100.00 101.67 86.83 88.15 96.00 MRW
5/16/2023 3:45 PM 14.83 1.67 13.17 14.00 12.33 148.00 100.00 101.67 86.83 87.67 96.00 OLS
5/22/2023 5:05 PM 14.83 1.67 13.17 14.27 12.60 151.24 100.00 101.67 86.83 87.40 96.00 OLS
5/30/2023 8:45 AM 14.83 1.67 13.17 14.61 12.94 155.32 100.00 101.67 86.83 87.06 96.00 OLS
6/6/2023 12:10 PM 14.83 1.67 13.17 13.91 12.24 146.92 100.00 101.67 86.83 87.76 96.00 OLS
6/13/2023 9:10 AM 14.83 1.67 13.17 13.52 11.85 142.24 100.00 101.67 86.83 88.15 96.00 ZWL
6/21/2023 9:51 AM 14.83 1.67 13.17 13.74 12.07 144.88 100.00 101.67 86.83 87.93 96.00 ZWL
Installed By: JGE/ZWL (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-6
Project: Block 1 of South University District Ph. 3
Project Number: 22-178
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: March 31, 2023
86.00
88.00
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
3/31/2023 4/28/2023 5/26/2023 6/23/2023ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 1 OF SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22‐178)
MONITOR WELL 6
Ex. Ground Surface Elevation Top of Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' Below EG
APPENDIX D
PPaavveemmeenntt SSeeccttiioonn DDeessiiggnn
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN 1 - Private Drives and Parking Lots
(Note: The Option 1 design is applicable for stable subgrade conditions (ie. dry, hard, compacted).
Project: Blk 1, Lot 1 of S.University Dist., Ph. 3
Project Number: 22-178
Date: April 21, 2023
Prepared By: Erik Schnaderbeck
Important Notes:
1) See following pages for an Explanation of the Design Input Parameters.
2) Sub-base course shall be comprised of import 6"-minus, sandy pitrun gravel.
3) Subgrade to be covered with 315 lb. woven geotextile fabric.
4) Design assumes that subgrade is stable (no rutting, deflecting, or yielding)
DESIGN INPUT PARAMETERS
ESALs (total)150,000
Subgrade CBR, (%)2.50
Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)3,750
Reliability, R (%)90
Standard Normal Deviate, ZR -1.282
Overall Standard Deviation, So 0.45
Initial Serviceability, po 4.2
Terminal Serviceability, pt 2.0
Design Serviceability Loss, (PSI)2.2
5.17609 = left side
Required Structural Number, RSN 3.18 5.1746 = right side
(Manipulate RSN such that the left and right side of equation match.)
Asphalt Concrete Layer Coefficient, a1 0.41
Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a2 0.14
Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m2 0.90
Sub-Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a3 0.09
Sub-Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m3 0.90
DESIGN PAVEMENT SECTION
Asphalt Concrete Thickness, D1 (in)3.0
Granular Base Course Thickness, D2 (in)6.0
Granular Sub-Base Course Thickness, D3 (in)15.0
Calculated Structural Number, CSN 3.20
(Manipulate layer thicknesses such that CSN matches or exceeds RSN.)
DESIGN EQUATION
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN 2 - Private Drives and Parking Lots
(Note: The Option 2 design is applicable for unstable subgrade conditions (ie. minor rutting/deflecting).
Project: Blk 1, Lot 1 of S.University Dist., Ph. 3
Project Number: 22-178
Date: April 21, 2023
Prepared By: Erik Schnaderbeck
Important Notes:
1) See following pages for an Explanation of the Design Input Parameters.
2) Sub-base course shall be comprised of import 6"-minus, sandy pitrun gravel.
3) Subgrade to be covered with 8-ounce non-woven fabric and Tensar TX-190L Triaxial Geogrid.
4) Design assumes that subgrade is unstable (minor rutting/deflecting)
DESIGN INPUT PARAMETERS
ESALs (total)150,000
Subgrade CBR, (%)2.00
Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)3,000
Reliability, R (%)90Standard Normal Deviate, ZR -1.282
Overall Standard Deviation, So 0.45
Initial Serviceability, po 4.2
Terminal Serviceability, pt 2.0
Design Serviceability Loss, (PSI)2.2
5.17609 = left side
Required Structural Number, RSN 3.44 5.1782 = right side
(Manipulate RSN such that the left and right side of equation match.)
Asphalt Concrete Layer Coefficient, a1 0.41
Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a2 0.14
Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m2 0.90
Sub-Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a3 0.09
Sub-Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m3 0.90
DESIGN PAVEMENT SECTION
Asphalt Concrete Thickness, D1 (in)3.0
Granular Base Course Thickness, D2 (in)6.0
Granular Sub-Base Course Thickness, D3 (in)21.0
Calculated Structural Number, CSN 3.69
(Manipulate layer thicknesses such that CSN matches or exceeds RSN.)
DESIGN EQUATION
Explanation of Design Input Parameters: Page 1 of 3
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN
(EXPLANATION OF DESIGN INPUT PARAMETERS)
Design Life (yr): 20
ESALs (total): 150,000
Subgrade CBR, (%): 2.0 or 2.5
Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR (psi): 3,000 or 3,750
Reliability, R (%): 90
Standard Normal Deviate, ZR: -1.282
Overall Standard Deviation, So: 0.45
Initial Serviceability, po: 4.2
Terminal Serviceability, pt: 2.0
Design Serviceability Loss, (PSI) 2.2
Asphalt Concrete Layer Coefficient, a1: 0.41
Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a2: 0.14
Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m2: 0.90
Sub-Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a3: 0.09
Sub-Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m3: 0.90
Design Life: A design life of 20 years is typical for new asphalt projects.
ESALs (total): According to Table 18.12 in Reference 1, the estimated design Equivalent
18,000-lb Single Axle Load (ESAL) value for roadways subjected to light vehicle and
medium truck traffic ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000. We have used assumed an ESAL
value of 150,000 for local streets.
Subgrade CBR: The soaked subgrade CBR was estimated to be 2.5, which is generally
applicable to sandy silts/clays in stable subgrade. A CBR value of 2.0 was assumed for
unstable subgrade.
Subgrade Resilient Modulus: For fine-grained soils with a CBR of 10.0 or less, an
accepted correlation between CBR and resilient modulus is MR = 1500 x CBR. Based on
this equation, the design resilient modulus value shall be 3,750 psi for stable subgrade
and 3,000 psi for unstable subgrade.
Reliability: According to Table 2.2 in Reference 2, the recommended reliability level for
local streets (low volume) in urban settings ranges from 50 to 80 percent; while
collector streets (high volume) should be designed with a level of reliability between 80
and 95 percent. We chose an elevated design reliability level of 90 percent.
Explanation of Design Input Parameters: Page 2 of 3
Standard Normal Deviate: According to Table 4.1 in Reference 2, a 90 percent reliability
value corresponds to a standard normal deviate of –1.282.
Overall Standard Deviation: According to Sections 2.1.3 and 4.3 in Reference 2, a
design value of 0.45 is recommended for flexible pavements.
Initial Serviceability: According to Section 2.2.1 in Reference 2, a design value of 4.2 is
recommended for flexible pavements.
Terminal Serviceability: According to Section 2.2.1 in Reference 2, a design value of 2.0
is suggested for roads that will be subjected to small traffic volumes; while a value of 2.5
or higher should be used when designing major highways. We selected a terminal
serviceability of 2.0.
Design Serviceability Loss: This is the difference between the initial and terminal
serviceability. Therefore, the design value shall be 2.2.
Asphalt Concrete Layer Coefficient: According to the table with the revised surfacing
structural coefficients in Reference 4, a design value of 0.41 is recommended for all
asphalt plant mix grades. This value replaces the 0.33 asphalt coefficient that was
provided in Table 3-2 of Reference 3.
Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient: According to the table with the revised
surfacing structural coefficients in Reference 4, a design value of 0.14 is recommended
for new 1.5”-minus, crushed base course gravel. This value replaces the 0.12 crushed
gravel coefficient that was provided in Table 3-2 of Reference 3.
Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient: According to Table 2.4 in Reference 2, a
coefficient of 0.80 to 1.00 should be used when fair to good drainage is anticipated
within the pavement structure. We assume good drainage for this project with a
corresponding drainage coefficient of 0.90 for design.
Sub-Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient: For Pavement Section Design, we are
assuming that imported, uncrushed sandy (pitrun) gravel will be placed for the sub-base
section of the roadway. This is the standard product used in the Bozeman area for sub-
base. According to pavement design charts for gravelly soils, we estimated that pitrun
will have a CBR of between 15.0 and 20.0%, which correlates to a structural coefficient
of 0.09.
Sub-Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient: The drainage coefficients for sub-base
and base course layers are typically the same; therefore, we selected a value of 0.90 for
the design. See the base course layer drainage coefficient section for an explanation.
Explanation of Design Input Parameters: Page 3 of 3
Reference List
1) Traffic and Highway Engineering; Nicholas J. Garber and Lester A. Hoel; 1988.
2) Design of Pavement Structures; AASHTO; 1993.
3) Pavement Design Manual; Montana Department of Transportation; 1991.
4) Pavement Design Memo; Montana Department of Transportation; May 11, 2006.
5) Geotechnical Manual; Montana Department of Transportation; July 2008.
APPENDIX E
LLiimmiittaattiioonnss ooff YYoouurr GGeeootteecchhnniiccaall RReeppoorrtt
LIMITATIONS OF YOUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS ARE PROJECT AND CLIENT SPECIFIC
Geotechnical investigations, analyses, and recommendations are project and client specific. Each project
and each client have individual criterion for risk, purpose, and cost of evaluation that are considered in
the development of scope of geotechnical investigations, analyses and recommendations. For example,
slight changes to building types or use may alter the applicability of a particular foundation type, as can a
particular client’s aversion or acceptance of risk. Also, additional risk is often created by scope‐of service
limitations imposed by the client and a report prepared for a particular client (say a construction
contractor) may not be applicable or adequate for another client (say an architect, owner, or developer
for example), and vice‐versa. No one should apply a geotechnical report for any purpose other than that
originally contemplated without first conferring with the consulting geotechnical engineer. Geotechnical
reports should be made available to contractors and professionals for information on factual data only
and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions, such as those interpreted in the exploration logs and
discussed in the report.
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE
Geotechnical conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Geotechnical
reports are based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration. Construction
operations such as cuts, fills, or drains in the vicinity of the site and natural events such as floods,
earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing
adequacy of a geotechnical report.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE
The site exploration and sampling process interprets subsurface conditions using drill action, soil sampling,
resistance to excavation, and other subjective observations at discrete points on the surface and in the
subsurface. The data is then interpreted by the engineer, who applies professional judgment to render
an opinion about over‐all subsurface conditions. Actual conditions in areas not sampled or observed may
differ from those predicted in your report. Retaining your consultant to advise you during the design
process, review plans and specifications, and then to observe subsurface construction operations can
minimize the risks associated with the uncertainties associated with such interpretations. The conclusions
described in your geotechnical report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that
conditions revealed through selective exploration and sampling are indicative of actual
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582‐0221 Page 2
conditions throughout a site. A more complete view of subsurface conditions is often revealed during
earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe earthwork to confirm conditions
and/or to provide revised recommendations if necessary. Allied Engineering cannot assume responsibility
or liability for the adequacy of the report’s recommendations if another party is retained to observe
construction.
EXPLORATIONS LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT
Final explorations logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled
by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data.
Only final exploration logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical reports. These final logs
should not be redrawn for inclusion in Architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may
commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.
To reduce the likelihood of exploration log misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to
the complete geotechnical report and should be advised of its limitations and purpose. While a contractor
may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss
the report with Allied Engineering and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to
obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes.
OWNERSHIP OF RISK AND STANDARD OF CARE
Because geotechnical engineering is much less exact than other design disciplines, there is more risk
associated with geotechnical parameters than with most other design issues. Given the hidden and
variable character of natural soils and geologic hazards, this risk is impossible to eliminate with any
amount of study and exploration. Appropriate geotechnical exploration, analysis, and recommendations
can identify and reduce these risks. However, assuming an appropriate geotechnical evaluation, the
remaining risk of unknown soil conditions and other geo‐hazards typically belongs to the owner of a
project unless specifically transferred to another party such as a contractor, insurance company, or
engineer. The geotechnical engineer’s duty is to provide professional services in accordance with their
stated scope and consistent with the standard of practice at the present time and in the subject geographic
area. It is not to provide insurance against geo‐hazards or unanticipated soil conditions.
The conclusions and recommendations expressed in this report are opinions based our professional
judgment and the project parameters as relayed by the client. The conclusions and recommendations
assume that site conditions are not substantially different than those exposed by the explorations. If
during construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are
observed or appear to be present, Allied Engineering should be advised at once such that we may review
those conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary.
RETENTION OF SOIL SAMPLES
Allied Engineering will typically retain soil samples for one month after issuing the geotechnical report. If
you would like to hold the samples for a longer period of time, you should make specific arrangements to
have the samples held longer or arrange to take charge of the samples yourself.