HomeMy WebLinkAbout015 - Appendix L.1 - Geotech ReportMONTANA | WASHINGTON | IDAHO | NORTH DAKOTA | PENNSYLVANIA
JOB NO. B23-017-003 March 2024
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
CLIENT
ENGINEER
S2K Miller Holding, LLC
Attn: D. Kerry Nickerson
4643 S Ulster St, Ste. 1500
Denver, CO 80237
Craig R. Nadeau, PE
Craig.nadeau@tdhengineering.com
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATION 406.586.0277
tdhengineering.com
234 E Babcock St, Suite 3
Bozeman, MT 59715
CANOPY HOTEL
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
Canopy Hotel Table of Contents
Bozeman, Montana i
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 2
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Geology and Physiography .............................................................................................. 3
3.2 Surface Conditions ........................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Subsurface Conditions ..................................................................................................... 4
3.3.1 Soils ......................................................................................................................... 4
3.3.2 Ground Water ......................................................................................................... 6
3.3.3 FEMA Flood Hazard ............................................................................................... 6
4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 8
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 8
4.2 Site Grading and Excavations.......................................................................................... 8
4.3 Mat Foundation with Micropiles ....................................................................................... 8
4.4 Foundation Walls.............................................................................................................. 9
4.5 Exterior Concrete Flatwork ............................................................................................ 10
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 11
5.1 Site Grading and Excavations........................................................................................ 11
5.2 Mat Foundation with Micropiles ..................................................................................... 12
5.3 Foundation Walls............................................................................................................ 14
5.4 Exterior Flatwork ............................................................................................................ 15
5.5 Continuing Services ....................................................................................................... 15
6.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD & LABORATORY STUDIES ............................................................ 17
6.1 Field Explorations ........................................................................................................... 17
6.2 Laboratory Testing ......................................................................................................... 17
7.0 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 19
Canopy Hotel Appendix
Bozeman, Montana ii
APPENDIX
Boring Location Map (Figure 1)
Logs of Preliminary Exploratory Borings (Figures 2 and 3)
Logs of Final Exploratory Borings (Figures 4 through 6)
Laboratory Test Data (Figures 7 through 17)
Soil Classification and Sampling Terminology for Engineering Purposes
Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
Canopy Hotel Executive Summary
Bozeman, Montana Page 1
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
CANOPY HOTEL
32 SOUTH ROUSE AVENUE
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We acknowledge that the project involves removing the current Salvation Army building located at
32 South Rouse Avenue in Bozeman, Montana and erecting a new multi-story hotel with an
underground parking facility. During the geotechnical investigation conducted, it was found that the
primary soil type is gravel, with overlying and underlying layers of lean clay and sand. Ground
water was detected at depths between 15 to 16 feet in two borings completed in June 2023 and
between 21 to 23.5 feet in three borings completed in February 2024. Detailed boring logs and
laboratory test results are provided in this report.
The main geotechnical concern for this project is that the site is located within a 100-year flood plain
and is proposed to feature an underground parking facility which elicits design specifications as
mandated by FEMA. FEMA’s guidelines necessitate the consideration of uplifting ground water and
flood buoyancy forces in foundation design. Given the proposed building configuration which
incorporates two levels of parking below grade and the FEMA requirements, uplift forces will be
considerable. Therefore, this structure is expected to require support using a mat foundation
incorporating micropiles to resist the uplifting buoyant forces. Detailed recommendations and
preparations for the foundation combination are provided in this report.
Canopy Hotel Introduction
Bozeman, Montana Page 2
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Purpose and Scope
In conjunction with the Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation dated July 2023, this report
presents the results of our recent geotechnical study for the planned hotel located at 32 South
Rouse Avenue in Bozeman, Montana. The purpose of the recent geotechnical study was to
determine the general surface and subsurface conditions at the proposed site, compare to the
preliminary geotechnical study, and to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for
support of the proposed hotel, underground parking facility, and design of related facilities. This
report describes the field exploration process, the surface and subsurface conditions encountered,
laboratory and engineering analyses conducted, and presents our recommendations for the
proposed foundation system and related site developments.
Our fieldwork included drilling five soil borings within the general limits of the proposed project.
Samples were obtained from the borings and returned to our laboratory in Great Falls for testing.
Laboratory testing was performed on selected soil samples to determine the engineering properties
of the subsurface materials. The information obtained during our field investigation, laboratory
testing, and engineering analyses were used to develop design recommendations for the proposed
foundation system.
2.2 Project Description
It is our understanding that the proposed project consists of a six-story hotel featuring an
underground parking facility with two sub-levels. Information regarding the structural design of the
hotel was minimal during the preparation of this report. Therefore, we assume that construction will
consist of concrete walls for sub-levels one and two and wood framing for the remaining levels. The
structure is proposed to be supported on a mat foundation system incorporating micropiles.
Preliminary foundation loads were not available during the time of this report. Referring to our
experience with similar construction, we have assumed that wall loads will be less than 10,000
pounds per lineal foot and column loads, if any, will be less than 500 kips. If the assumed design
values vary from the actual project parameters, the recommendations presented in this report
should be re-evaluated.
Site development will include the demolition and removal of the current Salvation Army structure,
near the west portion of the site, as well as all existing pavements and site infrastructure. New site
development is expected to be limited to exterior concrete flatwork and landscaping as the building
footprint encompasses most of the available lot area. Detailed recommendations and preparations
for site development are provided in this report. If the locations or conditions are significantly
different from those described in this report, we should be notified to re-evaluate the
recommendations contained in this report.
Canopy Hotel Site Conditions
Bozeman, Montana Page 3
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 Geology and Physiography
The site is geologically characterized as alluvial deposits (Qal, Qafo, and Qabo) that are comprised
of variable layering of gravel, sand, and lean clay deposits. The upper layering is comprised of fine-
grained lean clay with a minor sand fraction and this zone was observed to be medium stiff to stiff.
Occasional layers of sand with clay deposits were observed in this zone. The upper lean clay and
sand layers are underlain by a lower gravel layer that was observed to be medium dense to very
dense. According to the geologic map below, bedrock of the Madison Valley member (Tscmv) is
displayed locally which is a conglomeratic material consisting of mostly siltstone, marlstone
(mudstone), and sandstone materials. However, obviously identifiable or competent bedrock
materials were not encountered during the field investigation.
Geologic Map of the Bozeman 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle Southwestern Montana
(Vuke, Lonn, Berg, Schmidt, 2014)
SITE
Canopy Hotel Site Conditions
Bozeman, Montana Page 4
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, the site falls under seismic Site Class D. The
structural engineer should utilize the site classification above to determine the appropriate seismic
design data for use on this project in accordance with current applicable building codes. The
likelihood of seismically induced soil liquefaction or settlement for this project is low and does not
warrant additional evaluation.
3.2 Surface Conditions
At the time of our site investigation, the proposed project site was developed and consisted of a
building, concrete pavement, asphalt pavement, and landscaping. Based on available Google Earth
imagery and site observations, the topography of the site is best described as flat. The surface
materials encountered are summarized below.
CONCRETE AND ASPHALT PAVEMENT
Concrete pavement was encountered at one boring location and asphalt pavement at two
other boring locations. The concrete pavement had a thickness of 3½ inches and the
asphalt pavement had a thickness of 4 inches. The need to completely remove both
pavements during site preparation should be anticipated.
LIGHT VEGETATION AND TOPSOIL
Light vegetation and topsoil were encountered at two boring locations. The topsoil had
thicknesses of 1.0 and 3.8 feet and will warrant complete removal during site preparation.
3.3 Subsurface Conditions
3.3.1 Soils
The stratigraphic profiles typically consist of a variation in layering of native lean clay and
sand which overlay gravel containing varying amounts of cobbles, sand, silt, and clay. The
depth and thickness of these alluvial materials vary significantly across the development
site. Obviously identifiable or competent bedrock materials were not encountered during the
field investigation; however, materials encountered below the native gravels could represent
completely weathered and very soft conglomerate formation materials. The project's
maximum depth explored was 51.2 feet. For the purposes of our summary below and
engineering analyses, materials present at depth have been treated as soils due to their
density and physical properties being more consistent with soil than rock.
The subsurface soils are described in detail on the enclosed boring logs and are
summarized below. The stratification lines shown on the logs represent approximate
boundaries between soil types, and the actual in situ transition may be gradual vertically or
discontinuous laterally.
Canopy Hotel Site Conditions
Bozeman, Montana Page 5
FILL MATERIAL
The pavements overlie a base course that was visually classified as a poorly-graded gravel
with sand. This material extends to depths ranging from 0.8 to 1.1 feet and should
anticipate the need for complete stripping during site preparation.
LEAN CLAY
At depths ranging from 0.8 to 3.8 feet, we encountered a layer of lean clay. This layer varied
in thickness from 2.8 to 7.9 feet. Lean clay was also encountered at a depth of 38.0 feet and
extended below the exploratory depth of 51.2 feet. This zone may represent completely
weathered bedrock formations but should be treated as a soil due to the very soft condition.
The composition of the lean clay varies slightly in terms of percentages of sand and gravel.
The lean clay was medium stiff to very stiff as indicated by penetration resistance values
which ranged from 6 to 26 blows per foot (bpf) and averaged 13 bpf. The natural moisture
content ranged from 14.4 to 43.9 percent, with an average of 25.5 percent. Out of the two
tested samples, the materials contained:
• Gravel: 0.3 and 2.4 percent
• Sand: 31.7 and 33.0 percent
• Fines (clay and silt): 64.6 and 68.0 percent
Based on liquid limits of 35 and 46 percent and plasticity indices of 15 and 25 percent, the
fines in two samples were predominantly lean clay of medium to high plasticity.
GRAVEL
At depths ranging from 3.8 to 9.5 feet, we encountered native gravel. The gravel varied in
thickness from 15.3 to 30.2 feet. The composition of the gravel varies in terms of
percentages of cobbles, gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The gravel was medium dense to very
dense as indicated by penetration resistance values which ranged from 11 to more than 100
blows per foot (bpf) and averaged approximately 85 bpf. The natural moisture content
ranged from 3.3 to 23.4 percent, with an average of 7.5 percent. The proportion of large
cobbles and gravels differed slightly across the site, and not all locations matched the
percentages found in the tested samples. Out of the two tested samples, the materials
contained:
• Gravel: 51.6 and 65.6 percent
• Sand: 24.9 and 38.2 percent
• Fines (clay and silt): 9.5 and 10.2 percent
SAND
At depths ranging from 1.1 to 34.0 feet, we encountered layers of sand. This layer varied in
thickness from 1.5 to 20.5 feet. Sandy materials encountered in B-03 at depths below 24
feet may represent completely weathered bedrock formation materials but should be treated
as soils due to the relatively soft condition. Similar materials extend to a depth of at least
Canopy Hotel Site Conditions
Bozeman, Montana Page 6
51.2 feet in this boring. The composition of the sand varies significantly in terms of
percentages of gravel, silt, and clay. The sand was loose to very dense as indicated by
penetration resistance values which ranged from 5 to 94 blows per foot (bpf) and averaged
34 bpf. The natural moisture content ranged from 9.8 to 46.5 percent, with an average of
22.5 percent. Out of the three tested samples, the materials contained:
• Gravel: 5.2 to 38.5 percent
• Sand: 46.8 to 57.4 percent
• Fines (clay and silt): 14.7 to 40.8 percent
Based on a liquid limit of 44 percent and a plasticity index of 5 percent, the fines in one
sample were predominantly silt of low plasticity.
3.3.2 Ground Water
Ground water was encountered in the five borings at depths ranging from 15 to 23.5 feet
below the ground surface. The ground water was encountered at depths of 15.0 and 16.0
feet in the two borings conducted in June 2023 and at depths of 21.0 to 23.5 feet in the
three borings conducted in February 2024. This indicates the potential for seasonal ground
water fluctuations of at least 6 feet; however, these depths may not reflect the seasonal high
or low level and actual fluctuations could be greater. The issue of ground water being
encountered above the proposed floor elevation of the underground parking facility is
discussed in the recommendation section provided below. The presence or absence of
observed ground water may be directly related to the time of the subsurface investigation.
Numerous factors contribute to seasonal ground water occurrences and fluctuations, and
the evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report.
3.3.3 FEMA Flood Hazard
According to FEMA’s national flood hazard map below, the majority of the project site is
located within the 0.2% chance flood hazard (orange) but portions along the western edge
fall within the 1% chance flood hazard (light blue). The project is proposed to feature an
underground parking facility which elicits design specifications for projects that are within the
flood hazard zone as outlined and mandated by FEMA. This is discussed in the
recommendation section provided below.
Canopy Hotel Site Conditions
Bozeman, Montana Page 7
FEMA’S National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer
SITE
Canopy Hotel Engineering Analysis
Bozeman, Montana Page 8
4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
The main geotechnical concern for this project is that the site is located within a 100-year flood plain
and is proposed to feature an underground parking facility with two subterranean levels which elicits
design to be conducted assuming that ground water level is at ground surface (flood stage) as
mandated by FEMA. Given the depth of the underground parking facility, uplifting buoyancy forces
become a primary concern. It is assumed that the proposed structure weight alone will not provide
adequate resistance to buoyant forces and additional improvements will be needed. Therefore,
significant foundation improvements are necessary to ensure adequate foundation performance.
Our recommended foundation system for this project is a thick mat slab incorporating micropiles
extending into very dense gravel for additional uplift resistance. This system can be designed to
provide sufficient resistance against buoyant forces. Compared to an alternative deep foundation
option to provide uplift resistance, such as drilled concrete piers, the micropiles offer advantages
that we believe makes them ideal for this project. Construction of drilled piers at elevations lower
than the ground water table will experience challenges augering into the very dense gravel with
scattered cobbles and casing would be needed to prevent collapse of the saturated gravel until
concrete placement. These complications combined with the already required dewatering of the
site are likely to add substantial cost, difficulty, and time to drilled shaft construction. For these
reasons, micropiles are our recommended deep foundation system as they are more conducive to
drilling into the dense gravels due to the smaller diameter, the hole is stabilized through the
circulation of neat cement during drilling thus no casing is generally needed. The use of micropiles
will limit construction challenges to the dewatering of the site alone which cannot be avoided given
the planned depth of the foundation, and this system is discussed in the recommendation section
provided below.
4.2 Site Grading and Excavations
The ground surface at the proposed site is flat. Based on our field investigation, lean clay, sand,
and gravel will be encountered in the parking facility and foundation excavations to the depths
anticipated. It is expected that caving challenges and ground water will be encountered during
construction for excavations associated with both foundations and utilities. The need for a
substantial dewatering system is expected for construction as foundations depth are likely to extend
below local ground water levels, especially during seasonally high times. The contractor should be
prepared for continuous dewatering operations while excavations are underway.
4.3 Mat Foundation with Micropiles
The project is proposed to be supported by a feet thick mat foundation incorporating micropiles for
added uplift resistance. Considering the geotechnical conditions and findings for the project at 32
South Rouse Avenue, the implementation of a mat foundation with micropiles presents several
technical benefits. Mat foundations, also known as raft foundations, are effective solutions in areas
Canopy Hotel Engineering Analysis
Bozeman, Montana Page 9
with heterogeneous soil conditions, as they distribute loads across a larger area, reducing
differential settlement risks. Additionally, in flood areas, a mat foundation provides additional
resistance against buoyancy forces due to its mass and continuity while more easily facilitating
watertight construction. These characteristics are particularly crucial in adhering to FEMA
guidelines that require designs against uplifting forces in floodplain areas.
Anchoring the mat foundation using micropiles will provide additional resistance to uplifting forces
beyond the self-weight that the structure can provide. Micropiles (also known as minipiles or pin
piles) consist of a high-strength, threaded bar anchored into the resisting soil/rock mass using
high-strength grout. Typical diameters range from 4 to 10 inches, and the installation method is
ideal for tight areas and areas with low overhead clearance. Micropiles provide resistance to
overturning and uplifting forces, such as the uplifting buoyancy forces expected for this project.
Micropile spacing of at least three diameters (measured center-to-center) should be maintained for
all locations. We have assumed that all micropiles will be Type A – Gravity grouted system utilizing
neat cement grout. Micropile embedment depths will vary depending on the demand for uplift
resistance, selected micropile diameter, and the number and length of piles. If piles extend into the
sandy and clay soils (possible completely weathered bedrock formations) encountered below the
native gravels, reduced bond values will be realized. Thus, it may be beneficial to utilize shorter
piles with larger diameters or tighter pile spacings rather than extending to greater depths.
In accordance with the applicable building codes, full-time construction inspection during micropile
installation should be anticipated to ensure the objectives of the final geotechnical report as well as
the foundation design are achieved and that any changes in subsurface soil conditions are properly
assessed and incorporated into the final foundation. Based on our experience, similar deep
foundation systems utilizing micropiles are not anticipated to experience settlements exceeding ¾-
inch provided they are designed and constructed following our recommendations. Differential
settlements within the building footprint should be on the order of one-half this magnitude.
4.4 Foundation Walls
Foundation walls of the underground parking facility will be subjected to horizontal loading due to
lateral earth pressures. The lateral earth pressures are a function of the natural and backfill soil
types and acceptable wall movements, which affect soil strain to mobilize the shear strength of the
soil. More soil movement is required to develop greater internal shear strength and lower the lateral
pressure on the wall. To fully mobilize strength and reduce lateral pressures, soil strain and
allowable wall rotation must be greater for clay soils than for cohesionless, granular soils.
For this project, no foundation walls are expected to be unrestrained; thus, active design conditions
will not develop and are not advised. When no soil strain is allowed by the wall, this is the "at-rest"
condition, which creates pressures having larger magnitude than normal active conditions but less
than passive conditions. Passive earth pressures are developed when the wall is forced into the
soil, such as at the base of a wall on the side opposite the retained earth side.
Canopy Hotel Engineering Analysis
Bozeman, Montana Page 10
The distribution of the lateral earth pressures on the structure depends on soil type and wall
movements or deflections along with the design wall height. In most cases, a triangular pressure
distribution is satisfactory for design and is usually represented as an equivalent fluid unit weight.
Design parameters are given in the recommendations section of this report.
4.5 Exterior Concrete Flatwork
The near surface lean clay soils which may directly underlie exterior concrete flatwork exhibit
elevated plastic properties and are considered marginally expansive. Concrete flatwork underlain
by potentially expansive soils could be susceptible to deformations caused by soil expansion. In
many cases similar clays do not exhibit significant expansive pressures to impact foundations or
heavily loaded flatwork, but lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction presents a problem because
sufficient dead load cannot be maintained to resist even minor swelling pressures which can be
generated when the subgrade soils moisture is increased. Conventional slab-on-grade
construction consisting of thin base course gravel layer (approximately six inches) directly overlying
native clay soils may experience vertical movements related to the native clay. In many cases the
cost associated with preventing such movements in exterior application far exceeds the
replacement cost of the exterior concrete should movements be considered excessive; thus, similar
construction is acceptable provided the Owner is willing to accept the risk of potential slab
performance issues for exterior concrete. We are available to discuss options to reduce the risk for
exterior concrete if desired.
According to the provided project plans, little to no pavement will be constructed and it is assumed
that the small entrance to the underground parking facility will be concrete. However, we are
available to provide pavement recommendations if required.
Canopy Hotel Recommendations
Bozeman, Montana Page 11
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Site Grading and Excavations
1. All topsoil and organic materials, existing fills, asphalt, concrete and related
construction debris should be removed from the proposed building area and any
areas to receive site grading fills.
2. All fills and backfills should be non-expansive, free of organics and debris and
should be approved by the project geotechnical engineer. The on-site soils,
exclusive of topsoil and existing fill, are suitable for use as backfills and general site
grading fills on this project. Much of the excavated materials, including near surface
clays and gravels at or below the water table, are likely to exhibit elevated moisture
contents and the contractor should anticipate the need for moisture conditioning of
these materials prior to reuse in backfill applications.
All fills should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness for fine-
grained soils and not exceeding 12 inches for granular soils. All materials
compacted using hand compaction methods or small walk-behind units should
utilize a maximum lift thickness of 6 inches to ensure adequate compaction
throughout the lift. All fill and backfill shall be moisture conditioned to near the
optimum moisture content and compacted to the following percentages of the
maximum dry density determined by a standard proctor test which is outlined by
ASTM D698 or equivalent (e.g. ASTM D4253-D4254).
a) Subgrade Below Mat Foundation ................................................. N/A
b) Foundation Wall Backfill and Below Exterior Flatwork ............... 95%
c) General Landscaping or Nonstructural Areas ............................. 92%
d) Utility Trench Backfill, To Within 2 Feet of Surface..................... 95%
For your consideration, verification of compaction requires laboratory proctor tests to
be performed on a representative sample of the soil prior to construction. These
tests can require up to one week to complete (depending on laboratory backlog) and
this should be considered when coordinating the construction schedule to ensure
that delays in construction or additional testing expense is not required due to
laboratory processing times or rush processing fees.
3. Imported structural fill should be non-expansive, free of organics and debris, and
conform to the material requirements outlined in Section 02234 of the Montana
Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS). All gradations outlined in this
standard are acceptable for use on this project; however, conventional proctor
methods (outlined in ASTM D698) shall not be used for any materials containing
less than 70 percent passing the ¾-inch sieve. Conventional proctor methods are
Canopy Hotel Recommendations
Bozeman, Montana Page 12
not suitable for these types of materials, and the field compaction value must be
determined using a relative density test outlined in ASTM D4253-4254.
Native gravels are suitable for use as structural fill when properly moisture
conditioned and processed to remove large cobbles and boulders exceeding six
inches in diameter.
4. Develop and maintain site grades which will rapidly drain surface and roof runoff
away from foundation and subgrade soils; both during and after construction.
5. At a minimum, downspouts from roof drains should discharge at least six feet away
from the foundation or beyond the limits of foundation backfill, whichever is greater.
All downspout discharge areas should be properly graded away from the structure to
promote drainage and prevent ponding.
Downspouts which will discharge directly onto relatively impervious surface (i.e.
asphalt or concrete) may discharge no less than 12 inches from the foundation wall
provided the impervious surfacing is properly graded away from the structure and
continuous within a minimum distance of six feet.
6. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to provide safe working conditions in
connection with underground excavations. Temporary construction excavations
greater than four feet in depth, which workers will enter, will be governed by OSHA
guidelines given in 29 CFR, Part 1926. The contractor is responsible to provide an
OSHA knowledgeable individual during all excavation activities to regularly assess
the soil conditions and ensure that all necessary safety precautions are
implemented and followed.
7. The contractor should anticipate the need for full-time dewatering operations while
excavations are underway.
5.2 Mat Foundation with Micropiles
8. Micropiles beneath the parking facility elevation are anticipated to be constructed
within the very dense native gravels. An ultimate bond strength of approximately 35
psi is appropriate along the length of the micropile in this material. If the micropiles
design extends below the native gravels (depth of approximately 30 feet BGS) into
either sand or clay materials, an ultimate bond strength of no greater than 15 psi is
appropriate in this zone. These values were obtained from published FHWA design
manuals and should consider field verification using load testing during construction
to ensure adequate micropile capacities.
Canopy Hotel Recommendations
Bozeman, Montana Page 13
9. Micropiles should be designed using ultimate bond strengths, as outlined in Item 8
above, along the perimeter of the grouted zone. A minimum safety factor of 2.5 is
typical for non-seismic load combinations and is advised for the design of these
elements provided micropiles lengths remain within the native gravels.
10. Micropiles installed in cohesive soil deposits, such as those present at depth, may
be susceptible to excessive creep deformation at testing and working loads. If deep
micropiles are utilized, comprehensive load testing is recommended and a minimum
safety factor of 3.0 should be used in the design for non-seismic load combinations
and is advised for the design of longer micropile elements.
11. Pile capacities can be increased by using larger diameter or longer grout zones
based on the preliminary bond strengths provided in Item 8. Larger capacities piles
will also require larger steel elements to be designed by others. Load testing during
construction is advised to verify bond values and ensure adequate pile capacities.
12. Micropiles should be installed using centralizers located within five feet of the top
and bottom of the pile and spaced no greater than 10 feet apart along the micropile
length. Centralizers can be omitted when hollow bars are used and grout is
continuously pumped into the pier during drilling.
13. When hollow bars within continuous grout injection are not used, the shaft of the
micropile must be open along the full depth prior to grouting. Casing may be
required to facilitate proper grout placement.
14. Grout consisting of “neat-cement” should be placed via tremie or using the hollow
drill rod. Grout should be mixed with a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.50 and
provide a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 6,000 pounds per square inch
(psi) when tested in accordance with ASTM C39. All “topping off” of the micropiles
to account for shrinkage shall be performed prior to hardening of the initial grout
placed. No load testing shall be performed until grout has cured and obtained the
specified compressive strength.
15. The structural connection between the micropiles and the foundation should utilize a
connection which is cast into concrete foundation elements. A schematic diagram of
this typical connection can be provided for your consideration if needed.
Canopy Hotel Recommendations
Bozeman, Montana Page 14
5.3 Foundation Walls
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for foundation walls which
may retain differential soil heights. The construction details should be considered when preparing
the project documents.
16. Foundation walls which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only
a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure
computed based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of 60 pcf for backfill consisting of
properly moisture conditioned and compacted native gravels. For consideration of
seismic forces, a seismic equivalent fluid unit weight of 85 pcf is appropriate for the
increased lateral forces associated with earthquake motions for similar backfill
conditions. If alternative imported materials are planned for use as backfill, we
should be consulted to provide the appropriate values to be utilized in design.
The above values do not consider lateral hydrostatic forces which need to be
applied to the walls as well throughout the appropriate height for the design ground
water conditions.
17. Backfill placed against the sides of the mat foundation and the base of the walls to
resist lateral loads should be placed and compacted per the requirements of Item 2
above.
18. Backfill should be selected, placed, and compacted per Item 2 above. Care should
be taken not to over-compact the backfill since this could cause excessive lateral
pressure on the walls. Only hand-operated compaction equipment should be used
within 5 feet of foundation walls.
19. Exterior footing drains are required by the applicable building code for all portions of
the structure which retain soil along the foundation walls (i.e. exterior grade is higher
than interior slab elevation) unless the structure is designed to be completely
watertight and to resist associated buoyant and hydrostatic pressures. Drain
systems for this project would need to fully dewater the site given the anticipated
footing depth at or below ground water levels; thus, we anticipate the foundation to
be designed as a water-tight system instead. We can provide details for drain
systems should be necessary.
20. Below grade foundation walls should be entirely waterproofed in accordance with
the applicable sections of the International Building Code (IBC) given FEMA’s flood
zone requirements and the lower-level slab elevation of the underground parking
facility. Water-proofing should also be considered beneath the mat foundation and
will need to consider the micropile penetrations in the design of this element.
Canopy Hotel Recommendations
Bozeman, Montana Page 15
5.4 Exterior Concrete Flatwork
21. For lightly loaded, exterior concrete flatwork, a typical cushion course consisting of
free-draining, crushed gravel should be placed beneath the concrete and compacted
to the requirements of Item 2b above. A cushion course thickness of six inches is
typically utilized but requirements may vary locally.
Conventional construction, as has been described, is not intended to mitigate
settlement or expansion concerns associated with the subsurface conditions
encountered. In most cases, the cost to repair and/or replace exterior flatwork when
excessive movements occur is far more economical than efforts to mitigate these
movements. However, any exterior flatwork which is especially sensitive to vertical
movement or those which would be a significant cost to replace or have detrimental
impacts to the facility operation should consider additional subsurface
improvements.
22. Cushion course materials utilized beneath slab-on-grade applications should
conform to the requirements outlined in Section 02235 of the Montana Public Works
Standard Specifications (MPWSS). All gradations outlined in this specification are
acceptable for this application.
5.5 Continuing Services
Three additional elements of geotechnical engineering service are important to the successful
completion of this project.
23. Consultation between the geotechnical engineer and the design professionals
during the design phases is highly recommended. This is important to ensure that
the intentions of our recommendations are incorporated into the design, and that
any changes in the design concept consider the geotechnical limitations dictated by
the on-site subsurface soil and ground water conditions.
24. Observation, monitoring, and testing during construction is required to document the
successful completion of all earthwork, foundation, and micropile phases. A
geotechnical engineer from our firm should be retained to observe the excavation,
earthwork, and foundation phases of the work to determine that subsurface
conditions are compatible with those used in the analysis and design.
25. During site grading, placement of all fills and backfills should be observed and
tested to confirm that the specified density has been achieved. We recommend that
the Owner maintain control of the construction quality control by retaining the
services of an experienced construction materials testing laboratory. We are
available to provide construction inspection services as well as materials testing of
Canopy Hotel Recommendations
Bozeman, Montana Page 16
compacted soils and the placement of Portland cement concrete and asphalt. In the
absence of project specific testing frequencies, TD&H recommends the following
minimum testing frequencies be used:
Compaction Testing
Structural Fill Beneath Building (If Applicable) 1 Test per Lift per 1,500 SF*
Foundation Backfill 1 Test per Lift per 100 LF† of Wall
* SF = Square Feet † LF = Lineal Feet
Canopy Hotel Summary of Field & Laboratory Studies
Bozeman, Montana Page 17
6.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD & LABORATORY STUDIES
6.1 Field Explorations
The field exploration program was conducted on two separate occasions: June 7 – June 8, 2023
and February 19 – February 21, 2024. A total of five borings were drilled to depths ranging from
24.0 to 51.2 feet at the locations shown on Figure 1 to observe subsurface soil and ground water
conditions. The borings were advanced through the subsurface soils using a truck-mounted
Longyear BK-81 drill rig equipped with 4.25-inch I.D. hollowstem augers. The subsurface
exploration and sampling methods used are indicated on the attached boring logs. The borings
were logged by Travis D. Gilskey, PE and Nic C. Couch, EI of TD&H Engineering. The locations of
the borings were recorded using a Trimble handheld GPS unit with an accuracy within 24 inches of
the actual field location.
Samples of the subsurface materials were taken using 1⅜-inch I.D. split spoon samplers. The
samplers were driven 18 inches, when possible, into the various strata using a 140-pound drop
hammer falling 30 inches onto the drill rods. For each sample, the number of blows required to
advance the sampler each successive six-inch increment was recorded, and the total number of
blows required to advance the sampler the final 12 inches is termed the penetration resistance (“N-
value”). This test is known as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) described by ASTM D1586.
Occasionally, the 2 ½-inch I.D. split spoon sampler was used. This is referred to as a modified
version of the Standard Penetration Test. Penetration resistance values indicate the relative
density of granular soils and the relative consistency of fine-grained soils. Samples were also
obtained by hydraulically pushing a 3-inch I.D., thin-walled Shelby tube sampler into the subsoils.
Logs of all borings, which include soil descriptions, sample types, sample depths, and penetration
resistance values, are presented on Figures 2 through 6.
Measurements to determine the presence and depth of ground water were made in the borings by
lowering an electronic water sounder through the open boring or auger shortly after the completion
of drilling. The ground water levels at the borings are indicated on Figures 2 through 6.
Groundwater monitoring wells were installed following completion of soil sampling at borings B-01
and B-02 on June 7 – June 8, 2023 and as-built information are provided on Figures 2 and 3.
6.2 Laboratory Testing
Samples obtained during the field exploration were returned to our materials laboratory where they
were observed and visually classified in general accordance with ASTM D2487, which is based on
the Unified Soil Classification System. Representative samples were selected for testing to
determine the engineering and physical properties of the soils in general accordance with ASTM or
other approved procedures.
Canopy Hotel Summary of Field & Laboratory Studies
Bozeman, Montana Page 18
Tests Conducted: To determine:
Natural Moisture Content Representative moisture content of soil at the time of
sampling.
Grain-Size Distribution Particle size distribution of soil constituents describing the
percentages of clay/silt, sand and gravel.
Atterberg Limits A method of describing the effect of varying water content on
the consistency and behavior of fine-grained soils.
Consolidation Measurements of the percent compression experienced
under various loading conditions. For use in settlement
analysis and foundation design.
The laboratory testing program for this project consisted of 50 moisture-visual analyses, 7 sieve
(grain-size distribution) analyses, and 3 Atterberg Limits analyses. The results of the water content
analyses are presented on the borings logs, Figures 2 through 6. The grain-size distribution curves
and Atterberg limits are presented on Figures 7 through 16. In addition, one consolidation test was
performed and is presented on Figure 17.
Canopy Hotel Limitations
Bozeman, Montana Page 19
7.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
practices in this area for use by the client for design purposes. The findings, analyses, and
recommendations contained in this report reflect our professional opinion regarding potential
impacts the subsurface conditions may have on the proposed project and are based on site
conditions encountered. Our analysis assumes that the results of the exploratory borings are
representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site, that is, that the subsurface
conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the subsurface study.
Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by a
limited number of soil borings and laboratory analyses. Such unexpected conditions frequently
require that some additional expenditures be made to obtain a properly constructed project.
Therefore, some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs.
The recommendations contained within this report are based on the subsurface conditions
observed in the borings and are subject to change pending observation of the actual subsurface
conditions encountered during construction. TD&H cannot assume responsibility or liability for the
recommendations provided if we are not provided the opportunity to perform limited construction
inspection and confirm the engineering assumptions made during our analysis. A representative of
TD&H should be retained to observe all construction activities associated with subgrade
preparation, foundations, micropiles, and other geotechnical aspects of the project to ensure the
conditions encountered are consistent with our assumptions. Unforeseen conditions or undisclosed
changes to the project parameters or site conditions may warrant modification to the project
recommendations.
Long delays between the geotechnical investigation and the start of construction increase the
potential for changes to the site and subsurface conditions which could impact the applicability of
the recommendations provided. If site conditions have changed because of natural causes or
construction operations at or adjacent to the site, TD&H should be retained to review the contents of
this report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations provide
considering the time lapse or changed conditions.
Misinterpretation of the geotechnical information by other design team members is possible and can
result in costly issues during construction and with the final product. Our geotechnical engineers are
available upon request to review those portions of the plans and specifications which pertain to
earthwork and foundations to determine if they are consistent with our recommendations and to
suggest necessary modifications as warranted. This service was not included in the original scope
of the project and will require additional fees for the time required for specification and plan
document review and comment. In addition, TD&H should be involved throughout the construction
process to observe construction, particularly the placement and compaction of all fills, preparation
of all foundations, and all other geotechnical aspects. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who
prepared your geotechnical report to provide construction observation is the most effective method
of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
Canopy Hotel Limitations
Bozeman, Montana Page 20
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the owner and architect and/or engineer in the
design of the subject facility. It should be made available to prospective contractors and/or the
contractor for information on factual data only and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions such
as those interpreted from the borings and presented in discussions of subsurface conditions
included in this report.
Prepared by: Reviewed by:
Travis D. Gilskey PE Craig R. Nadeau PE & Principal
Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Manager
TD&H ENGINEERING TD&H ENGINEERING
?
?
?B-4
B-3
B-5
B-1
B-2
³
0 30 6015
Feet
?
PROJECT LOCATION
BORING LOCATION 406.761.3010 • tdhengineering.comService Layer Credits: NatGeo_World_Map: National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI,NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.BORE HOLE LOCATION MAP1800 RIVER DR. NO. • GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401K:\2023\B23-017 32 South Rouse\05_DESIGN (Tech & Reports)\GEOTECH\BOREHOLE MAP\B23-017 BOREHOLE MAP.2024.03.05.aprxB23-017 BOREHOLE MAP.2024.03.05.APRX
DRAWN BY:
DESIGNED BY:
QUALITY CHECK:
DATE DRAWN:
JOB NO.:
FIELDBOOK:REVDATEREVISIONCRN
1BOZEMAN, MONTANA32 SOUTH ROUSE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DRW
03/05/2024
B23-017-003
FIGURE
0
4.5
9
13.5
18
22.5
27
31.5
TOPSOIL: Lean CLAY with Sand - very soft to soft,
dark brown to black, moist, organics, trace gravel
Sandy Lean CLAY - soft, brown, moist, organics to 4
feet
- See Figure 9 for consolidation test result
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with Clay and Sand -
medium dense, brown, moist, some red and rusty
brown throughout
Clayey GRAVEL with Sand - medium dense to very
dense, brown, moist to wet, some red / light brown /
white throughout
No Recovery
Bottom of Boring (Groundwater Monitoring Well
Installed Following Completion)
Screen from 24.0 to 14.0 feet
Sand from 24.0 to 10.0 feet
Bentonite from 10.0 to 1.5 feet
Sand, Concrete, and Well Cover from 1.5 to 0.0 feet
3.8
6.8
9.0
24.0
2-1-2
N=3
2-2-2
N=4
PUSH
5-5-6
N=11
5-4-9
N=13
19-32-
50/0.4
25-50/
0.4
50/0.0
T
82/0.9
50/0.4
50/0.0
LEGEND LOG OF SOIL BORING B-01SPT blows per foot Atterberg Limits
Field Moisture content 32 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, MontanaGroundwater Level
Grab/composite sample
1-3/8-inch I.D. split spoon Logged by:Nic Couch, EI
2-1/2-inch I.D. split spoon Drilled by:Haztech Drilling
Truck-Mounted Longyear BK-81 with 4.25-inch I.D. HSA2-1/2-inch I.D. ring sampler GNP = Granular and Nonplastic
3-inch I.D. thin-walled sampler Note: The stratification lines represent approximate
boundaries between soil types. Actual boundaries
may be gradual or transitional.
June 7, 2023 B23-017-001
No sample recovery Figure No.2
SheetGRAPHICLOGSOIL DESCRIPTION
SURFACE:Sodded Lawn
SURFACE ELEVATION:Not Measured
DEPTH (FT)GROUNDWATERSPT BLOWCOUNTSSAMPLEDEPTH (FT)PENETRATION RESISTANCE/MOISTURE CONTENT
0 10 20 30 40 50
= BLOWS PER FOOT
= MOISTURE CONTENT
1 of 1
0
4.5
9
13.5
18
22.5
27
31.5
TOPSOIL: Lean CLAY with Sand - appears soft to
firm, dark brown to black, moist, organics
FILL: Clayey GRAVEL with Sand - relatively dense,
dark brown, moist, cobbles, chunk of concrete
Sandy Lean CLAY - soft, brown, moist
Clayey SAND - medium dense, brown, moist
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with Clay and Sand -
medium dense to very dense, brown, moist
Clayey GRAVEL with Sand - very dense, brown,
moist to wet
- Large cobbles / boulders, and some creme brown
below 15 feet
No Recovery
- Brown to dark gray and some maroon below 25 feet
Bottom of Boring (Groundwater Monitoring Well
Installed Following Completion)
Screen from 25.0 to 15.0 feet
Sand from 25.0 to 10.0 feet
Bentonite from 10.0 to 1.5 feet
Sand, Concrete, and Well Cover from 1.5 to 0.0 feet
1.0
1.5
4.5
6.0
9.5
26.4
3-3-3
N=6
6-7-7
N=14
16-27-
50/0.4
17-42-
23 N=
65
24-42-
50/0.4
50/0.33
35-47-
50/0.4
77/0.9
65
92/0.9
50/0.33
97/0.9
LEGEND LOG OF SOIL BORING B-02SPT blows per foot Atterberg Limits
Field Moisture content 32 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, MontanaGroundwater Level
Grab/composite sample
1-3/8-inch I.D. split spoon Logged by:Nic Couch, EI
2-1/2-inch I.D. split spoon Drilled by:Haztech Drilling
Truck-Mounted Longyear BK-81 with 4.25-inch I.D. HSA2-1/2-inch I.D. ring sampler GNP = Granular and Nonplastic
3-inch I.D. thin-walled sampler Note: The stratification lines represent approximate
boundaries between soil types. Actual boundaries
may be gradual or transitional.
June 8, 2023 B23-017-001
No sample recovery Figure No.3
SheetGRAPHICLOGSOIL DESCRIPTION
SURFACE:Sodded Lawn
SURFACE ELEVATION:Not Measured
DEPTH (FT)GROUNDWATERSPT BLOWCOUNTSSAMPLEDEPTH (FT)PENETRATION RESISTANCE/MOISTURE CONTENT
0 10 20 30 40 50
= BLOWS PER FOOT
= MOISTURE CONTENT
1 of 1
0
4.5
9
13.5
18
22.5
27
31.5
Asphalt Pavement - 4" thick
Base Coarse - Poorly-graded GRAVEL with Sand -
brown, moist, coarse, subrounded
LEAN CLAY with Sand - medium stiff to stiff, dark
brown, moist, medium plasticity, lenses of sand
Poorly-graded GRAVEL with Sand - dense to very
dense, brown, moist, coarse, subrounded and
subangular
Clayey SAND with Gravel - very dense, brown, wet,
coarse
Silty SAND - medium dense, light brown, wet, fine,
homogeneous, moderate oxidation
Poorly-graded SAND with Clay and Gravel - dense,
brown, wet, medium grained, moderate oxidation
0.3
0.8
8.7
24.0
28.0
32.0
3-3-4
N=7
4-4-4
N=8
5-7-8
N=15
11-11-
14 N=
25
23-32-
29 N=
61
45-50/
1"
44-50/
5.5"
8-12-17
N=29
61
95/7"
94/11.5"
LEGEND LOG OF SOIL BORING B-03SPT blows per foot Atterberg Limits
Field Moisture content 32 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, MontanaGroundwater Level
Grab/composite sample
1-3/8-inch I.D. split spoon Logged by:Travis D. Gilskey, PE
2-1/2-inch I.D. split spoon Drilled by:Paul Brey with Haztech Drilling
Truck-mounted Longyear BK-81 with 4.25-inch HSA2-1/2-inch I.D. ring sampler GNP = Granular and Nonplastic
3-inch I.D. thin-walled sampler Note: The stratification lines represent approximate
boundaries between soil types. Actual boundaries
may be gradual or transitional.
2/21/2024 B23-017-001
No sample recovery Figure No.4
SheetGRAPHICLOGSOIL DESCRIPTION
SURFACE:Asphalt Pavement
SURFACE ELEVATION:Not Measured
DEPTH (FT)GROUNDWATERSPT BLOWCOUNTSSAMPLEDEPTH (FT)PENETRATION RESISTANCE/MOISTURE CONTENT
0 10 20 30 40 50
= BLOWS PER FOOT
= MOISTURE CONTENT
1 of 2
36
40.5
45
49.5
54
58.5
63
Clayey SAND - dense, light brown, wet, fine,
homogeneous, moderate oxidation
Poorly-graded GRAVEL with Sand - very dense,
brown, wet, coarse, subrounded and subangular
Poorly-graded SAND with Clay - dense, light brown,
wet, medium grained, moderate oxidation, trace of
gravel
Bottom of Boring
37.0
44.5
47.0
51.2
13-21-
14 N=
35
6-11-19
N=30
13-50/
3"
13-17-
20 N=
37
63/9"
LEGEND LOG OF SOIL BORING B-03SPT blows per foot Atterberg Limits
Field Moisture content 32 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, MontanaGroundwater Level
Grab/composite sample
1-3/8-inch I.D. split spoon Logged by:Travis D. Gilskey, PE
2-1/2-inch I.D. split spoon Drilled by:Paul Brey with Haztech Drilling
Truck-mounted Longyear BK-81 with 4.25-inch HSA2-1/2-inch I.D. ring sampler GNP = Granular and Nonplastic
3-inch I.D. thin-walled sampler Note: The stratification lines represent approximate
boundaries between soil types. Actual boundaries
may be gradual or transitional.
2/21/2024 B23-017-001
No sample recovery Figure No.4
SheetGRAPHICLOGSOIL DESCRIPTION
SURFACE:Asphalt Pavement
SURFACE ELEVATION:Not Measured
DEPTH (FT)GROUNDWATERSPT BLOWCOUNTSSAMPLEDEPTH (FT)PENETRATION RESISTANCE/MOISTURE CONTENT
0 10 20 30 40 50
= BLOWS PER FOOT
= MOISTURE CONTENT
2 of 2
0
4.5
9
13.5
18
22.5
27
31.5
Asphalt Pavement - 4" thick
Base Coarse - Poorly-graded GRAVEL with Sand -
brown, moist, coarse, subrounded
Poorly-graded SAND with Clay - loose, dark brown,
moist, fine
Poorly-graded GRAVEL with Sand - medium dense to
very dense, brown, moist, coarse, subrounded
- light brown
- tan
- wet
Bottom of Boring
0.3
1.1
6.0
26.0
3-2-3
N=5
3-5-6
N=11
6-6-9
N=15
5-10-11
N=21
21-29-
33 N=
62
30-40-
50/4"
23-33-
38 N=
71
62
90/10"
71
LEGEND LOG OF SOIL BORING B-04SPT blows per foot Atterberg Limits
Field Moisture content 32 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, MontanaGroundwater Level
Grab/composite sample
1-3/8-inch I.D. split spoon Logged by:Travis D. Gilskey, PE
2-1/2-inch I.D. split spoon Drilled by:Paul Brey with Haztech Drilling
Truck-mounted Longyear BK-81 with 4.25-inch HSA2-1/2-inch I.D. ring sampler GNP = Granular and Nonplastic
3-inch I.D. thin-walled sampler Note: The stratification lines represent approximate
boundaries between soil types. Actual boundaries
may be gradual or transitional.
2/19/2024 B23-017-001
No sample recovery Figure No.5
SheetGRAPHICLOGSOIL DESCRIPTION
SURFACE:Asphalt Pavement
SURFACE ELEVATION:Not Measured
DEPTH (FT)GROUNDWATERSPT BLOWCOUNTSSAMPLEDEPTH (FT)PENETRATION RESISTANCE/MOISTURE CONTENT
0 10 20 30 40 50
= BLOWS PER FOOT
= MOISTURE CONTENT
1 of 1
0
4.5
9
13.5
18
22.5
27
31.5
Concrete Pavement - 3 1/2" thick
Base Coarse - Poorly-graded GRAVEL with Sand -
brown, moist, coarse, subrounded
LEAN CLAY with Sand - stiff, dark brown, moist,
medium plasticity, lense of sand
Poorly-graded GRAVEL with Sand - medium dense to
very dense, brown, moist, coarse, subrounded and
subangular, scattered cobbles
- wet
0.3
1.0
3.8
18-7-4
N=11
2-3-7
N=10
9-7-6
N=13
4-7-6
N=13
10-14-
15 N=
29
50/4"
33-41-
50/5"
33-48-
43 N=
91
42-38-
50/5"
50/4"
91/11"
91
88/11"
LEGEND LOG OF SOIL BORING B-05SPT blows per foot Atterberg Limits
Field Moisture content 32 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, MontanaGroundwater Level
Grab/composite sample
1-3/8-inch I.D. split spoon Logged by:Travis D. Gilskey, PE
2-1/2-inch I.D. split spoon Drilled by:Paul Brey with Haztech Drilling
Truck-mounted Longyear BK-81 with 4.25-inch HSA2-1/2-inch I.D. ring sampler GNP = Granular and Nonplastic
3-inch I.D. thin-walled sampler Note: The stratification lines represent approximate
boundaries between soil types. Actual boundaries
may be gradual or transitional.
2/20/2024 B23-017-001
No sample recovery Figure No.6
SheetGRAPHICLOGSOIL DESCRIPTION
SURFACE:Concrete Pavement
SURFACE ELEVATION:Not Measured
DEPTH (FT)GROUNDWATERSPT BLOWCOUNTSSAMPLEDEPTH (FT)PENETRATION RESISTANCE/MOISTURE CONTENT
0 10 20 30 40 50
= BLOWS PER FOOT
= MOISTURE CONTENT
1 of 2
36
40.5
45
49.5
54
58.5
63
Poorly-graded SAND with Clay and Gravel - dense,
brown, wet, fine and medium grained
Sandy LEAN CLAY - very stiff, tan, moist, medium
plasticity, homogeneous
Bottom of Boring
34.0
38.0
51.2
8-16-33
N=49
4-5-12
N=17
6-6-8
N=14
26-11-
15 N=
26
LEGEND LOG OF SOIL BORING B-05SPT blows per foot Atterberg Limits
Field Moisture content 32 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, MontanaGroundwater Level
Grab/composite sample
1-3/8-inch I.D. split spoon Logged by:Travis D. Gilskey, PE
2-1/2-inch I.D. split spoon Drilled by:Paul Brey with Haztech Drilling
Truck-mounted Longyear BK-81 with 4.25-inch HSA2-1/2-inch I.D. ring sampler GNP = Granular and Nonplastic
3-inch I.D. thin-walled sampler Note: The stratification lines represent approximate
boundaries between soil types. Actual boundaries
may be gradual or transitional.
2/20/2024 B23-017-001
No sample recovery Figure No.6
SheetGRAPHICLOGSOIL DESCRIPTION
SURFACE:Concrete Pavement
SURFACE ELEVATION:Not Measured
DEPTH (FT)GROUNDWATERSPT BLOWCOUNTSSAMPLEDEPTH (FT)PENETRATION RESISTANCE/MOISTURE CONTENT
0 10 20 30 40 50
= BLOWS PER FOOT
= MOISTURE CONTENT
2 of 2
Tested By: BC Checked By:
Particle Size Distribution Report
ASTM C117 & C136
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.00010.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 2.4 28.7 68.06 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM C117 & C136)Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Test Remarks
Sample Date:Location: B-01
Sample Number: A-28034 Depth: 5.0 - 7.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Sieve Size
or
Diam. (mm.)
Finer
(%)
Spec.*
(%)
Out of
Spec.
(%)
Pct.
of
Fines
Sandy Lean CLAY
3/8"
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#80
#100
#200
100.0
99.7
99.1
98.2
96.7
93.8
90.1
86.1
68.0
21 46 25
0.1786 0.1437
CL A-7-6(16)
Report No. A-28034-206
Report Date: 7-5-2023
F.M.=0.24
6-7-2023
S2K Miller Holding, LLC
32 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana
B23-017-001
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=
D50= D30= D15=
D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*(no specification provided)
7
Tested By: BC Checked By:
Particle Size Distribution Report
ASTM C117 & C136
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.00010.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 22.6 29.0 11.0 14.0 13.2 10.26 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM C117 & C136)Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Test Remarks
Sample Date:Location: B-01 & B-02
Sample Number: A-28035COMP Depth: 6.0 - 9.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Sieve Size
or
Diam. (mm.)
Finer
(%)
Spec.*
(%)
Out of
Spec.
(%)
Pct.
of
Fines
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with Clay and Sand
1.5"
1"
3/4"
1/2"
3/8"
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#80
#100
#200
100.0
89.0
77.4
68.8
62.5
48.4
37.4
29.9
23.4
18.6
16.1
14.6
10.2
Not Tested Not Tested Not Tested
26.1533 22.9579 8.4898
5.2123 0.8560 0.1582
GP-GC
Report No. A-28035COMP-206
Report Date: 6-26-2023
F.M.=4.78
6-7-2023
S2K Miller Holding, LLC
32 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana
B23-017-001
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=
D50= D30= D15=
D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*(no specification provided)
8
Tested By: WJC Checked By:
Particle Size Distribution Report
ASTM C117 & C136
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.00010.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 45.7 19.9 6.5 9.8 8.6 9.56 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM C117 & C136)Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Test Remarks
Sample Date:Location: B-01 & B-02
Sample Number: A-28036COMP Depth: 10.0 - 26.4 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Sieve Size
or
Diam. (mm.)
Finer
(%)
Spec.*
(%)
Out of
Spec.
(%)
Pct.
of
Fines
Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with Silt and Sand
3"
1.5"
1"
3/4"
1/2"
3/8"
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#80
#100
#200
100.0
62.8
59.3
54.3
45.2
41.4
34.4
27.9
22.6
18.1
15.0
13.3
12.3
9.5
Not Tested Not Tested Not Tested
64.3789 59.5153 28.2980
15.7666 2.7038 0.2507
0.0847 334.18 3.05
GP-GM
Report No. A-2036COMP-206
Report Date: 6-29-2023
F.M.=6.05
2-20-2024
S2K Miller Holding, LLC
32 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana
B23-017-001
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=
D50= D30= D15=
D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*(no specification provided)
9
Tested By: BC Checked By:
Particle Size Distribution Report
ASTM C117 & C136
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.00010.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 6.4 3.2 7.4 46.8 36.26 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM C117 & C136)Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Test Remarks
Sample Date:Location: B-02
Sample Number: A-28041 Depth: 5.0 - 6.0 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Sieve Size
or
Diam. (mm.)
Finer
(%)
Spec.*
(%)
Out of
Spec.
(%)
Pct.
of
Fines
Clayey SAND
1/2"
3/8"
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#80
#100
#200
100.0
97.3
93.6
90.4
87.4
83.0
74.6
65.8
58.3
36.2
Not Tested Not Tested Not Tested
1.8031 0.5353 0.1566
0.1175
SC
Report No. A-28041-206
Report Date: 6-26-2023
F.M.=1.07
6-7-2023
S2K Miller Holding, LLC
32 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana
B23-017-001
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=
D50= D30= D15=
D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*(no specification provided)
10
Tested By: WJC Checked By:
Particle Size Distribution Report
ASTM C117 & C136
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.00010.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 13.9 24.6 12.4 21.0 13.4 14.76 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM C117 & C136)Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Test Remarks
Sample Date:Location: B-03
Sample Number: A-29519 Depth: 25.0 - 26.5 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Sieve Size
or
Diam. (mm.)
Finer
(%)
Spec.*
(%)
Out of
Spec.
(%)
Pct.
of
Fines
Clayey SAND with Gravel
3"
1.5"
1"
3/4"
1/2"
3/8"
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#80
#100
#200
100.0
97.1
93.1
86.1
79.0
73.7
61.5
49.1
37.0
28.1
23.5
20.9
19.3
14.7
Not Tested Not Tested Not Tested
22.2291 18.0509 4.3254
2.1370 0.5015 0.0786
SC
Report No. A-29519-206
Report Date: 3-1-2024
F.M.=4.12
2-21-2024
S2K Miller Holding, LLC
32 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana
B23-017-001
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=
D50= D30= D15=
D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*(no specification provided)
11
Tested By: WJC Checked By:
Particle Size Distribution Report
ASTM C117 & C136
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.00010.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 4.9 0.3 0.8 5.8 47.4 40.86 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM C117 & C136)Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Test Remarks
Sample Date:Location: B-03
Sample Number: A-29520 Depth: 30.0 - 31.5 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Sieve Size
or
Diam. (mm.)
Finer
(%)
Spec.*
(%)
Out of
Spec.
(%)
Pct.
of
Fines
Silty SAND
1"
3/4"
1/2"
3/8"
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#80
#100
#200
100.0
95.1
95.1
95.1
94.8
94.0
92.6
88.2
77.3
65.4
57.9
40.8
39 44 5
0.5021 0.3477 0.1588
0.1128
SM A-5(0)
Report No. A-29520-206
Report Date: 2-29-2024
F.M.=0.96
2-21-2024
S2K Miller Holding, LLC
32 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana
B23-017-001
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=
D50= D30= D15=
D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*(no specification provided)
12
Tested By: WJC Checked By:
Particle Size Distribution Report
ASTM C117 & C136
PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.00010.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 2.4 1.0 5.4 26.6 64.66 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM C117 & C136)Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Test Remarks
Sample Date:Location: B-05
Sample Number: A-29545 Depth: 45.0 - 46.5 ft
Client:
Project:
Project No:Figure
Sieve Size
or
Diam. (mm.)
Finer
(%)
Spec.*
(%)
Out of
Spec.
(%)
Pct.
of
Fines
Sandy Lean CLAY
3/4"
1/2"
3/8"
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#80
#100
#200
100.0
99.1
98.9
97.6
96.6
94.9
91.2
85.6
80.2
76.1
64.6
20 35 15
0.3689 0.2400
CL A-6(8)
Report No. A-29545-206
Report Date: 2-29-2024
F.M.=0.54
2-20-2024
S2K Miller Holding, LLC
32 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana
B23-017-001
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=
D50= D30= D15=
D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*(no specification provided)
13
Tested By: NS Checked By:
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
PLASTICITY INDEX0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
CL-ML
C L o r O L
C H o r O H
ML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
WATER CONTENT43.2
43.6
44
44.4
44.8
45.2
45.6
46
46.4
46.8
47.2
NUMBER OF BLOWS
5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
Project No. Client:Remarks:
Project:
Location: B-01
Sample Number: A-28034 Depth: 5.0 - 7.0 ft
Figure
Sandy Lean CLAY 46 21 25 96.7 68.0 CL
B23-017-001 S2K Miller Holding, LLC
14
Report No. A-28034-207
Report Date: 6-30-202332 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana
Tested By: BC Checked By:
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
PLASTICITY INDEX0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
CL-ML
C L o r O L
C H o r O H
ML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
WATER CONTENT43.8
44
44.2
44.4
44.6
44.8
45
45.2
45.4
45.6
45.8
NUMBER OF BLOWS
5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
Project No. Client:Remarks:
Project:
Location: B-03
Sample Number: A-29520 Depth: 30.0 - 31.5 ft
Figure
Silty SAND 44 39 5 88.2 40.8 SM
B23-017-001 S2K Miller Holding, LLC
15
Report No. A-29520-207
Report Date: 2-29-202432 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana
Tested By: BC Checked By:
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
PLASTICITY INDEX0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
CL-ML
C L o r O L
C H o r O H
ML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
WATER CONTENT33.6
34
34.4
34.8
35.2
35.6
36
36.4
36.8
37.2
37.6
NUMBER OF BLOWS
5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
Project No. Client:Remarks:
Project:
Location: B-05
Sample Number: A-29545 Depth: 45.0 - 46.5 ft
Figure
Sandy Lean CLAY 35 20 15 91.2 64.6 CL
B23-017-001 S2K Miller Holding, LLC
16
Report No. A-29545-207
Report Date: 2-29-202432 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana
Tested By: CRN Checked By:
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
Percent Strain17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
-1
-3
Applied Pressure - psf
100 1000 10000
Natural Dry Dens.LL PI Sp. Gr.
Overburden Pc Cc Cr Initial Void
Saturation Moisture
(pcf) (psf) (psf) Ratio
83.0 % 30.8 % 84.9 46 25 2.75 780 3359 0.39 0.03 1.021
Sandy Lean CLAY CL A-7-6(16)
B23-017- S2K Miller Holding, LLC
32 South Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana
Report No. A-28034-219
Report Date: 6-29-2023
17
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO
Project No. Client:Remarks:
Project:
Location: B-01 Depth: 5.0 - 7.0 ft Sample Number: A-28034
Figure