HomeMy WebLinkAbout15- FINAL TDH Soils Report
Great Falls • Bozeman • Kalispell, Montana
Spokane, Washington • Lewiston, Idaho
Watford City, North Dakota
SOILS REPORT
SPORTS COMPLEX
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
June 2014
CLIENT: City of Bozeman
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771
ENGINEER: TD&H Engineering
234 E. Babcock Street, Suite 3
Bozeman, MT 59715
Job No. B14-022
SPORTS COMPLEX 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 ............................................................................................................ 4
3.1 GEOLOGY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ............................................................................. 4
3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 5
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 5
4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 7
4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 7
4.2 SITE GRADING AND EXCAVATIONS ....................................................................... 7
4.3 SHALLOW SPREAD FOOTING FOUNDATIONS ...................................................... 8
4.4 FOUNDATION WALLS ................................................................................................. 9
4.5 SLABS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK ........................................................................ 9
4.6 PAVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 10
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 12
5.1 SITE GRADING AND EXCAVATIONS ..................................................................... 12
5.2 SHALLOW SPREAD FOOTING FOUNDATIONS .................................................... 13
5.3 FOUNDATION WALLS ............................................................................................... 14
5.4 FLOOR SLABS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK ........................................................ 15
5.5 PAVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 15
5.6 CONTINUING SERVICES ........................................................................................... 18
6.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LABORATORY STUDIES ............................................. 19
6.1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS ............................................................................................. 19
6.2 LABORATORY TESTING ........................................................................................... 19
7.0 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................. 21
8.0 PLAYFIELD SUITABILITY ............................................................................................ 23
8.1 DRAINAGE ........................................................................................................................ 23
8.2 FERTILIZATION/AMENDMENTS ................................................................................. 24
8.3 AERATION ........................................................................................................................ 24
SPORTS COMPLEX Table of Contents
BOZEMAN, MONTANA ii
APPENDIX
Test Pit Locations (Figure 1)
Logs of Exploratory Test Pits (Figures 2 through 6)
Laboratory Test Data (Figures 7 through 21)
Soil Classification and Sampling Terminology for Engineering Purposes
Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
SPORTS COMPLEX Introduction
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 1
SOILS REPORT
SPORTS COMPLEX
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This soils investigation is for the proposed Sports Complex to be located on the southwest corner
of E. Baxter Lane and Flanders Mill Road, Bozeman, MT. This report comprises two parts. The
first describes the engineering properties of the soils for purposes of constructing roads, parking
lots and structures. The second part is concerned with the soil’s suitability to support vegetation
such as turf grass for play fields and possible amendments to be considered.
From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, we encountered a surficial layer of lean clay
overlying dense poorly-graded gravel with sand. The seismic site class is C and risk of
seismically induced soil liquefaction or settlement is low. The primary geotechnical concern
regarding this project is the presence of compressible lean clay below the anticipated footing
elevation. Based on the loadings and typical allowable settlements, conventional footings and
slab-on-grade which are founded on lean clay will experience objectionable. Structural loads
should be supported by dense native gravel encountered at varying depths. Over excavation of
the upper lean clay within the building footprint is warranted where depths to dense native gravel
are relatively shallow. Consideration should be given to the placement of structures on-site to
avoid excessive over-excavation depths. Building locations overlying questionable clay
thicknesses will require additional investigation to evaluate alternative, cost-effective foundation
systems. The site is suitable for potential structures using standard foundation construction and
associated site improvements provided our recommendations are followed.
As a potential play field, the soil is suitable for producing good turf grass, either as native fields
or sand modified fields. In either case, fertilizer and aeration are recommended. For more
durable professional turf grass fields, sand amendments will also be needed.
SPORTS COMPLEX Introduction
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 2
PART I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of our geotechnical study for the Sports Complex project to be
located at the souwthwest corner of E. Baxter Lane and Flanders Mill Road. The purpose of the
geotechnical study is to determine the general surface and subsurface conditions at the proposed
site and to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for support of the proposed
facilities. This report describes the field work and laboratory analyses conducted for this project,
the surface and subsurface conditions encountered, and presents our recommendations for the
proposed site development.
Our field work included excavating five test pits across the proposed site. The information
obtained during our field investigation was used to develop recommendations for the design of
the proposed facilities.
Our work was authorized to proceed by Mr. Chris Kukulski by his signed agreement dated
February 24, 2014 and amendment dated April 14, 2014.
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is our understanding that the proposed project consists of 70 acres of grass playing field with
associated parking areas, utilities and potential future buildings. Site specific investigations will
be required once the exact building locations are determined. It is assumed any structures would
be supported on conventional shallow spread footings incorporating slab on grade construction.
Structural loads had not been developed at the time of this report. However, for the purpose of
our study, we have assumed that wall loads will be less than 4 kips per lineal foot (kpf) and
column loads, if any, will be less than 60 kips. If the assumed design values presented above
vary from the actual project parameters, the recommendations presented in this report should be
reevaluated.
SPORTS COMPLEX Introduction
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 3
Site development will most likely include landscaping, exterior concrete flatwork, and asphalt
pavement for parking lots and access roads.
SPORTS COMPLEX Site Conditions
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 4
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 GEOLOGY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
The site is geologically characterized as containing upper tertiary sediment according to the
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG), Geologic Map of Montana. Generally, the
surface is composed of varying thicknesses of silt and or clay deposits overlying alluvial fan
deposits of well-graded, gravel with sand. The gravel is predominately subrounded to angular
and contains cobbles and minor amounts of silt and/or clay. Reportedly, the local alluvial fan
deposits extend down to as much as 165 feet.
Figure 1. Geologic Map of Bozeman Area (MBMG 2007)
The appropriate site class, per the 2009 International Building Code (IBC), for this site is Site
Class C. Seismic ground motion values should be determined using the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) recommendations and the above site class. The
likelihood of seismically-induced soil liquefaction or settlement for this project is low and does
not warrant additional evaluation.
SPORTS COMPLEX Site Conditions
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 5
3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The proposed project site is located at the southwest corner of E. Baxter Lane and Flanders Mill
Road in Bozeman, Montana. The majority of the site presently consists of an irrigated planted
field. The site generally slopes downward toward the north at a varied slope. Small areas of
varied, undulating topography are also present on the site. The topography across the site is best
described as nearly level.
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.3.1 Soils.
The subsurface soil conditions appear to be relatively consistent based on our exploratory
excavation and soil sampling. In general, the subsurface soil conditions encountered
within the test pits consist of a thin layer of topsoil overlying lean clay and poorly-graded
gravel with sand at depth. The thickness of topsoil varied from 0.4 to 1.4 feet in
thickness and classified as lean clay with sand. The lean clay varied in thickness from
1.7 to 8.8 feet. The poorly-graded gravel with sand extends to a depth of at least 10.5
feet, which was the maximum depth investigated.
The subsurface soils are described in detail on the enclosed test pit 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.
Lean Clay with Sand Topsoil
Based on our field observations and past experience, we anticipate this material to have a
soft to very soft relative consistency. The topsoil contained significant organic content
and roots. A sample of the material obtained from TP #2 contained 18.1 percent sand,
and 81.9 percent fines (silt and clay). The natural moisture content measured in TP #2
was 27.0%
Lean Clay
The lean clay appeared soft based on observations during excavation of the test pits.
Generally, the relative consistency became weaker with depth. The unconfined
compression strength of the lean clay, as measured using a handheld Pocket
SPORTS COMPLEX Site Conditions
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 6
Penetrometer, measured 0.5 tons per square foot in all testing locations. This material is
considered slightly to highly compressible. A sample of the material obtained from TP
#2 contained 7.2 percent sand and 92.8 percent fines (silt and clay). The lean clay
exhibited a liquid limit of 33 percent and a plasticity index of 14 percent for the sample
obtained from TP #1. The natural moisture contents measured varied from 22.5 to 30.9
percent and averaged 26.8 percent.
Poorly-Graded Gravel with Sand
Based on our field observations and past experience, we anticipate this material to have a
dense to very dense relative consistency. The natural moisture contents varied from
slightly moist to saturated below the water table.
3.3.2 Ground Water
Ground water was encountered in all five test pits. Table 1 summarizes the ground water
measurements observed during our investigation.
Table 1
Ground Water Measurements
Test Pit Depth to Ground
Water (ft)
TP - 1 8.5
TP - 2 8.5
TP - 3 8.5
TP - 4 9.5
TP - 5 4.0
Measured ground water levels are considered approximate due to disturbances caused by
excavating. Accurate ground water levels can only be determined from correctly
installed observation wells. Additionally, the presence 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.
SPORTS COMPLEX Engineering Analysis
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 7
4.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The primary geotechnical concern regarding this project is the presence of weak near surface
clay soils and high ground water. The near surface clay soils have poor strength properties that
are further diminished when wetted. Saturated clay observed at the contact with the native water
bearing gravel had little to no strength. The near surface clay soils are not suitable to support
structural loads; therefore, it will be necessary to extend all load bearing foundation elements
through the weak clay into the dense native gravel. Proper preparation and compaction of the
native gravel subgrade prior to placement of concrete footings and slabs will be critical to the
long-term performance of the structures. Slabs-on-grade and pavements can be constructed on
the weak clay provided they are supported by an adequate granular base underlain by a
geosynthetic and are structurally separated from the foundation walls; however based on the
ever-present potential for increases in soil moisture, it is our opinion that slab-on-grade
construction for interior floors and exterior flatwork may be used, provided the Owner is willing
to accept the risk of some potential slab movement
The only positive method to control, or otherwise prevent, potential floor slab movement is to
construct a structural floor system incorporating a void or crawl space between the subgrade and
the slab or by completely removing all weak soil from within the individual structure footprints.
A properly-supported elevated floor system incorporating a crawl space will negate the
detrimental effects of a weak subgrade. The floor system can be supported by a series of grade
beams in turn supported by a foundation system.
4.2 SITE GRADING AND EXCAVATIONS
The ground surface at the proposed Sports Complex is gently sloping with areas of localized
undulation. Based on our field work, lean clay will be encountered in foundation excavations to
conventional depths. Based on the test pits, ground water may be encountered in excavations to
the depths required to remove all compressible lean clay. Due to the relatively flat area, limited
site grading is anticipated in areas surrounding the structure.
SPORTS COMPLEX Engineering Analysis
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 8
The ground surface at the proposed Sports Complex site is nearly level and slopes between 1 and
2 percent down toward the northwest. Based on our field work, lean clay overlying gravel with
sand will be encountered in foundation and utility excavations to the depths anticipated. Due to
excess moisture, we anticipate the lean clay will not be suitable as backfill for foundations or
utilities; therefore, an excess of this material may be generated during construction. Imported
material will be necessary as backfill around foundation walls and in utility excavations. If fine-
grained material, absent of organics, is used for purposes other than landscaping, extensive
moisture conditioning will be required to remove excess moisture in order to obtain adequate
compaction. Testing indicates the average natural moisture content of the lean clay is
approximately 26.8 percent while the optimum moisture is only 18.6 percent. The long-term
performance of this material will be directly related to the compactive effort applied during
construction. In-place density testing should be conducted to monitor compliance with the
recommendations.
Dense native gravel will also be encountered in foundation and utility excavations to the depths
anticipated. The dense gravel, exclusive of large cobbles and boulders, will be suitable for most
site grading and trench backfill applications. Due to the amount of cobble sized material present
in the native gravel, it will be necessary to follow good utility bedding practices during
construction.
Based on the exploratory test pits, abundant ground water should be anticipated in utility and
foundation excavations. Dewatering should be anticipated in order to construct the proposed
buildings and utilities.
4.3 SHALLOW SPREAD FOOTING FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered and the nature of the proposed construction,
the structure can be supported on shallow spread footings bearing on native gravel with sand or
structural fill extended down to native gravel with sand. The native gravel was encountered
between 3.0 and 10.0 feet below ground surface. Excess native gravel removed from portions of
the project may be recompacted to reduce the overall amount of imported gravel required;
however, some imported structural fill should be anticipated to transmit structural loads down to
the native gravel. The thickness of required structural fill will vary across the site and is
dependent on the finished floor elevation, structure location and the amount of excess gravel
removed to reach adequate frost depth.
Based on our experience, the theory of elasticity, and using an allowable bearing pressure of
3,000 pounds per square foot (psf), we estimate the total settlement for footings will be less than
SPORTS COMPLEX Engineering Analysis
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 9
3/4-inch. Differential settlement across the structure should be on the order of one-half this
magnitude.
The lateral resistance of spread footings is controlled by a combination of sliding resistance
between the footing and the foundation material at the base of the footing and the passive earth
pressure against the side of the footing in the direction of movement. Design parameters are
given in the recommendations section of this report.
4.4 FOUNDATION WALLS
Foundation walls 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.
The lowest lateral earth pressure against walls for a given soil type is the active condition and
develops when wall movements occur. 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.
When no soil strain is allowed by the wall, this is the "at-rest" condition, which creates pressures
having magnitudes between the passive and active conditions.
The distribution of the lateral earth pressures on the structure depends on soil type and wall
movements or deflections. 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 SLABS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK
The natural on-site clay soils are marginally acceptable for support of floor slabs. It will be
necessary to improve the underslab conditions by providing a layer of structural fill capable of
distributing the anticipated slab and construction loads to the subgrade. The actual thickness of
the structural fill layer is dependent on the condition of the subgrade and magnitude of the loads.
For purposes of this analysis, and for constructability reasons, we have assumed 18 inches of
structural fill over the clay subgrade with a Mirafi 600X or equivalent geotextile. In addition to
SPORTS COMPLEX Engineering Analysis
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 10
structural fill, a leveling course of granular fill directly below the slab is recommended to
provide a structural cushion.
Based on the ever-present potential for increases in soil moisture, it is our opinion that slab-on-
grade construction for interior floors and exterior flatwork may be used, provided the Owner is
willing to accept the risk of some potential slab movement. The only way to eliminate the risk of
slab movement is to remove the full depth of native clay below the proposed slabs and replace
with properly compacted structural fill or construct a structural floor system incorporating a void
or crawl space between the subgrade and the slab.
4.6 PAVEMENTS
A pavement section is a layered system designed to distribute concentrated traffic loads to the
subgrade. Performance of the pavement structure is directly related to the physical properties of
the subgrade soils and the magnitude and frequency of traffic loadings. Pavement design
procedures are based on strength properties of the subgrade and pavement materials, along with
the design traffic conditions. We have assumed that traffic for parking lots and access roads will
be limited to busses, passenger-type vehicles, and occasional delivery trucks.
The potential worst case subgrade material is lean clay which is classified as an A-6 soil, in
accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) classification. AASHTO considers this soil type to be a poor subgrade. Typical
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values for this type of soil range from less than 1 percent to 10
percent. The fill should be selected, placed, and compacted in accordance with our
recommendations.
A geotextile acting as a separator is recommended between the pavement section gravels and the
soft clay subgrade. The geotextile will prevent the upward migration of fines and the loss of
aggregate into the subgrade, thereby prolonging the structural integrity and performance of the
pavement section. Proper installation of the geotextile is necessary for the long term
performance of the pavement. The subgrade must have a suitable moisture content and be rolled
to a smooth surface prior to placement of the geotextile. Subgrade which is too wet to facilitate
proper placement of the geotextile and compaction of the overlying base gravel, should
incorporate a geogrid to provide added stability. If a geogrid is utilized, the pavement subbase
section can be reduced. For purposes of this analysis, our design assumes a Tensar TX140
geogrid will be used. Geogrids are not always interchangeable; therefore, any substitution
requests will require an independent pavement analysis.
SPORTS COMPLEX Engineering Analysis
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 11
The pavement sections presented in this report are based on an assumed CBR value of 1 percent,
assumed traffic loadings, recommended pavement section design information presented in the
AASHTO Design Manuals, and our past pavement design experience in the Bozeman area.
SPORTS COMPLEX Recommendations
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 12
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SITE GRADING AND EXCAVATIONS
1. All topsoil and organic material, asphalt, concrete and related construction debris
should be removed from the proposed building and pavement areas and any areas
to receive site grading fill. For planning purposes, a minimum stripping thickness
of 18 inches is recommended. Thicker stripping depths may be warranted to
remove all detrimental organics as determined once actual stripping operations are
performed.
2. All fill and backfill should be non-expansive, free of organics and debris and
should be approved by the project geotechnical engineer. All fill 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 fill and backfill shall be 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) Below Foundations or Spread Footings ............................................. 98%
b) Below Slab-on-Grade Construction................................................... 95%
c) Below Streets, Parking Lots, or Other Paved Areas .......................... 95%
d) General Landscaping or Nonstructural Areas ................................... 90%
e) Utility Trench Backfill, To Within 2 Feet of Surface ........................ 95%
3. Imported structural fill should be non-expansive, free of organics and debris, and
selected per the following gradation requirements:
Screen or Sieve Size Percent Passing by Weight
3-inch 100
1½-inch 80 – 100
¾-inch 60 – 100
No. 4 25 – 60
No. 200 10 maximum
SPORTS COMPLEX Recommendations
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 13
Native gravel which are screened to remove cobbles and boulders larger than 3-
inch should satisfy this gradation requirement for structural fill.
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. Downspouts from roof drains should discharge at least 10 feet from the buildings
or convey directly to a storm drain system.
6. Site utilities should be installed with proper bedding in accordance with pipe
manufacturer’s requirements.
7. 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. For planning purposes, subsoils
encountered in the test pits classify as Type C for the lean clay and wet to
saturated gravel with sand.
5.2 SHALLOW SPREAD FOOTING FOUNDATIONS
The design and construction criteria below should be observed for a spread footing foundation
system. The construction details should be considered when preparing the project documents.
8. Both interior and exterior footings should bear on compacted native gravel with
sand or structural fill extending down to native gravel with sand and should be
designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf provided
settlements as outlined in the Engineering Analysis are acceptable. The limits of
over-excavation and replacement with compacted structural fill should extend
downward and outward laterally from the bottom edges of the footings at a 1:1
(horizontal to vertical) projection. Structural fill should be selected and placed in
accordance with items 2 and 3 above.
9. The top 12 inches of gravel with sand subgrade should be compacted per Item 2
above. Soils disturbed below the planned depths of footing excavations should be
recompacted according to the requirements of Item 2 above.
SPORTS COMPLEX Recommendations
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 14
10. To reduce structural distress cause by slab movements, all interior load-bearing
walls should be supported on separate spread footings bearing on the underlying
native gravel or on structural fill extending to the native gravel. Conventional
slab-on-grade construction consisting of interior walls bearing directly on the slab
or thickened portions of the slab is not recommended for this project and site
conditions.
11. Footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for wall footings and 24
inches for column footings.
12. Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be placed at least 48
inches below finished exterior grade for frost protection.
13. The bottom of the footing excavations should be free of cobbles and boulders to
avoid stress concentrations acting on the base of the footings.
14. Lateral loads are resisted by sliding friction between the footing base and the
supporting soil and by lateral pressure against the footings opposing movement.
For design purposes, a friction coefficient of 0.50 is appropriate for footings
bearing on native gravel or imported structural fill. Lateral resistance pressures of
100 and 350 psf per foot of depth are appropriate for the native clay and gravel,
respectively.
15. A representative of the project geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations and backfill phases prior to the placement of concrete formwork.
16. Alternate foundation systems can be evaluated to help reduce the overall amount
of fill. To evaluate the systems, additional site specific investigation will be
required once building locations have been determined.
5.3 FOUNDATION WALLS
16. 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 on
the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 55 pcf for backfill consisting of the
native gravel.
SPORTS COMPLEX Recommendations
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 15
17. The allowable bearing pressure and lateral resistance of wall footings can be
determined using the parameters given in Items 9 and 14 above.
18. Backfill placed against the sides of the footings and the base of the walls to resist
lateral loads should be placed and compacted per Item 2 above.
19. Backfill should be selected, placed, and compacted per Items 2 and 3 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. Native wet clay
should not be used as backfill due to the high natural moisture and the difficulty
to compact properly. Native gravel with sand, less particles greater than 3 inches,
should be suitable as backfill.
5.4 FLOOR SLABS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK
20. For normally loaded, slab-on-grade construction, a minimum 18-inch cushion
course consisting of free-draining, crushed gravel should be placed beneath the
slabs and compacted to the requirements of items 2 and 3 above. The gravel
should be separated from the native clay using a Mirafi 600X geotextile, or equal.
This material should consist of minus 3/4-inch aggregate with no more than 10
percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Prior to placing the cushion course, the upper
six inches of subgrade should be rolled smooth to facilitate fabric installation.
21. Geotechnically, an underslab vapor barrier is recommended. A vapor barrier is
normally used to limit the migration of soil gas and moisture into occupied spaces
through floor slabs. The use of a vapor barrier should be determined by the
architect and/or structural engineer based on interior improvements and/or
moisture and gas control.
22. If no acceptable risk can be assumed by the Owner, the only positive method to
control potential slab movements is to construct a structural floor system isolated
from the subgrade or remove all lean clay below the slab areas.
5.5 PAVEMENTS
SPORTS COMPLEX Recommendations
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 16
23. The following pavement sections or an approved equivalent section should be
selected in accordance with the discussions in the Engineering Analysis.
SPORTS COMPLEX Recommendations
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 17
Geotextile Option
Section Component Normal
Section
Asphaltic Concrete Pavement 3
1.5-inch minus Crushed Leveling Course 6
4-inch minus Subbase 20
600X Geotextile
Total (inches) 29
Geogrid and Geotextile Option
Section Component Normal
Section
Asphaltic Concrete Pavement 3
1.5-inch minus Crushed Leveling Course 6
4-inch minus Subbase 14
Tensar TX140 Geogrid
600X Geotextile
Total (inches) 23
24. Gradations for the base and subbase courses shall conform to Sections 02234 and
02235 of the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications (MPWSS).
25. Where the existing grades will be raised more than the thickness of the pavement
section, all fill should be placed, compacted and meet the general requirements
given in Items 2 and 24 above.
26. The asphaltic cement should be a Performance Graded (PG) binder having a 58-
28 grade in accordance with AASHTO MP1.
27. Lean clay subgrade should be compacted per Item 2 above
SPORTS COMPLEX Recommendations
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 18
5.6 CONTINUING SERVICES
Three additional elements of geotechnical engineering service are important to the successful
completion of this project.
28. 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.
29. Observation, monitoring, and testing during construction is required to document
the successful completion of all earthwork and foundation phases. A geotechnical
engineer from our firm should 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.
30. During site grading, placement of all fill and backfill 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 a construction materials testing laboratory. We are available to
provide construction inspection services as well as materials testing of compacted
soils and the placement of Portland cement concrete and asphalt.
SPORTS COMPLEX Summary of Field and Laboratory Studies
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 19
6.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD AND LABORATORY STUDIES
6.1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS
The field exploration program was conducted on May 1, 2014. A total of five test pits were
excavated to depths ranging from 6.0 to 10.5 feet at the locations shown on Figure 1 to observe
subsurface soil and ground water conditions. The tests pits were excavated using a CAT 305CR
excavator. The subsurface exploration and sampling methods used are indicated on the attached
test pit logs. The test pits were logged by Mr. Ahren Hastings, P.E. of TD&H Engineering. The
locations and surface elevations of the exploratory test pits shown on Figure 1 were determined
by TD&H Engineering surveying personnel in the field.
Measurements to determine the presence and depth of ground water were made in the test pits
using a measuring tape shortly after excavation. The depths or elevations of the water levels
measured, if encountered, and the date of measurement are shown on the test pit logs.
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.
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.
Moisture-Density Relationship A relationship describing the effect of varying moisture
content and the resulting dry unit weight at a given
compactive effort. Provides the optimum moisture content
SPORTS COMPLEX Summary of Field and Laboratory Studies
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 20
and the maximum dry unit weight. Also called a Proctor
Curve.
Atterberg Limits A method of describing the effect of varying water content
on the consistency and behavior of fine-grained soils.
The laboratory testing program for this project consisted of 10 moisture-visual analyses, one
sieve (grain-size distribution) analysis, and one proctor (moisture-density) test. The results of
the water content analyses are presented on the test pit logs, Figures 2 through 6. The grain-size
distribution curve and proctor (moisture-density) test are presented on Figures 7 and 8.
In addition to the laboratory testing required for geotechnical analysis, representative samples
were also selected for testing to determine the effectiveness of the soil to grow sod for the
playing fields. The results of these tests are presented in Figures 9 through 12.
SPORTS COMPLEX Limitations
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 21
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 are based on site conditions encountered and further
assume that the results of the exploratory test pits 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. If during construction, subsurface
conditions appear different from those encountered during our study, this office should be
advised at once so we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations, when
necessary.
Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by a
limited number of soil test pits. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional
expenditures be made to obtain a properly constructed project. Therefore, some contingency
fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs.
If substantial time has elapsed between the submission of this report and the start of work at the
site, or if conditions have changed because of natural causes or construction operations at or
adjacent to the site, we recommend that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of
the conclusions and recommendations considering the time lapse or changed conditions.
If you desire, we will review those portions of the plans and specifications which pertain to
earthwork and foundations to determine if they are consistent with our recommendations. In
addition, we are available to observe construction, particularly the placement and compaction of
all fill, preparation of all foundations and quality control testing of asphalt paving and Portland
cement concrete.
SPORTS COMPLEX Limitations
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 22
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 test pit logs and presented in discussions of subsurface
conditions included in this report.
Prepared by: Reviewed by:
Ahren Hastings, P.E. Craig R. Nadeuu, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineer
SPORTS COMPLEX Playfield Suitability
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 23
PART II
8.0 PLAYFIELD SUITABILITY
8.1 DRAINAGE
1. Native Soil Field Option- Native soil fields are those developed with the natural soils
existing at the site or in part from topsoil hauled to the site. These fields should be
designed with a turtle-back crown to ensure adequate surface drainage. An engineered
soccer field should have minimum of 1-1.5% slope on fields which are surface drained
and made up of native soil. Because these soils compact readily, especially in the surface
inch, internal drainage within the playing area normally is not recommended; but
perimeter drainage with open catch basins are necessary to rapidly remove the
concentration of surface water coming off the field crown. Native soil fields can be
developed at a lower cost than modified soil fields, but are more susceptible to compaction
and are slower to drain. Regular maintenance and consideration of when and how the
fields are being used helps mitigate some of the compaction problems, but eventual
renovation of the field may be necessary. The existing sand content of the soil is shown in
Figure 7. Note the sand content was measured at different depths in the soil horizon, at
each location. In test pit 1, the natural sand content is 7.2% at a depth of 4 feet. In test pit
2, the natural sand content is 18.1% at a depth of 6 inches.
2. Sand Modified Field Option- Sand modified fields are typically much more durable and
resistant to compaction than native soil fields, so they are often used in professionally
constructed sports complexes. These high quality fields are constructed with a course
physical amendment, such as sand, mixed uniformly with the existing soil. Most of these
types of fields require 50% or more coarse amendment to be added to make an
improvement of these soils and require subsurface drainage systems to remove excess
water between the root zone with the amended soil and the native soil below. This
sand/soil matrix minimizes the potential for canceling games due to standing water or
muddy soil conditions. Sometimes sand modified fields have poor surface stability.
Excess salts and many plant nutrients are more easily leached from sand based root
zones. As a result, sand based fields require more frequent applications of smaller
amounts of fertilizer. Good surface drainage is also necessary for removing excess
rainfall; the field should be crowned and sloped at 1%. The initial construction costs as
well as the recommended drainage and irrigation system costs far exceed those of native
soil fields. In most areas there are few contractors with the expertise to build an effective
sand modified field. Because the maintenance is difficult for a general institutional
grounds keeping crew, it may be necessary to hire a professional turf grass manager
unless one is already on staff.
SPORTS COMPLEX Playfield Suitability
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 24
Note: Information source for native soil fields and modified fields was developed using
research from Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences; Athletic Fields –
Specification outline, construction, and maintenance. Building Sports Fields on
Restricted Budgets by James C. Thomas, David R. Chalmers and James A. McAfee
8.2 FERTILIZATION/AMENDMENTS
1. Introduction-The primary macronutrients required for turf grass growth include nitrogen
(N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). Energy Laboratories conducted soil tests on
three test pits (results provided) on the subject property and based on their findings they
recommend the following fertilizer in actual pounds per acre:
Soil TP-4 TP-1 TP-2
Condition Preplant* Preplant* Preplant* Est. Grass*
Nitrogen 25 32 25 170
Phosphrus 120 150 120 135
Potassium 100 125 115 135
Compost 0 5T 5T 0
Gypsum 0 0 0 0
2. Recommendations-“TP” in the table above refers to the test pit location, where the
sample was taken (see appendix Figure 1). “Pre-plant" fertilizer recommendation above
is the actual nutrients needed per acre. To get these nutrients, use 11-52-0 and 0-0-60
fertilizers. Apply compost as recommended and incorporate 1-2 inches deep along with
pre-plant fertilizer. Once the grass has been mowed, apply the "Est. Grass" fertilizer in
the following manner. The amounts listed are for the actual nitrogen, phosphate, and
potash needed per acre per growing season for medium fertility. To get these amounts,
apply two applications of 75-35-35 fertilizer per acre April 15 and July 1. Then apply 20-
35-35 September 1. There are no salt or sodium issues with the any of the soils. TP-1 is
the least desirable soil due to it being a silty clay loam. The other 2 are silty loams which
will drain better. Recommend planting turf fescue and perennial ryegrass as they grow
slower, take less water, and take more abuse than Kentucky bluegrass.
* “Pre-Plant” refers to the fertilizer required prior to planting; this fertilizer is
incorporated into the soil. “Est. Grass” refers to the fertilizer required once the turf is
established and amounts required per growing season.
8.3 AERATION
Aeration involves the mechanical methods of perforating the soil with small holes to allow air,
water and nutrients to penetrate the grass roots. Aeration is an important practice for maintaining
SPORTS COMPLEX Playfield Suitability
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 25
turf grasses. Aeration also helps in the correction or alleviation of soil compaction, and a
reduction in thatch accumulation. Different methods of aeration include hollow tine aeration,
solid tine aeration, shatter coring, water jet coring, slicing, vertical mowing, spiking, deep tine,
and deep drill/drill and fill. Hollow tine aeration is the most popular type of aeration and is
considered essential for a turf grass area to be successful.
To sustain turf at a desired level of quality, aeration practices should take place only when turf
grasses are actively growing. Aeration should not take place during periods of stress or limited
growth. Cool-season grasses should not be aerated during hot, dry periods as this can cause
extreme stress to plants and inhibit recovery. Cool-season grasses are in a semi dormant state
during the summer and do not have the recovery potential of actively growing plants.
Research indicates that monthly aeration during active turf grass growth is optimal; field use
often makes it difficult for aeration to take place this frequently. We recommend to core aerate
once in the spring and twice in the fall. More frequent aeration will benefit turf grasses,
especially in heavy wear areas, as long as the pitch is not under too much stress and temperatures
are favoring growth.
Note: Information source for aeration recommendations from Sports Turf Managers
Association, STMA’s Guide to International Soccer Pitch Maintenance.
Prepared by: Reviewed by:
Jana Cooper, PLA David J. Crawford, P.E.
Professional Landscape Architect Professional Engineer
SPORTS COMPLEX Appendix
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 26
APPENDIX
Tested By: WH WH/TJ Checked By:
Lean CLAY
Lean CLAY with Sand
Report No. A-9321-206
Report No. A-9322-206
inches number
size size
0.0 0.0 7.2 92.8 CL 33 19 14
0.0 0.0 18.1 81.9 CL 43 22 21
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#80
#100
#200
100.0
100.0
99.8
99.5
98.7
97.9
97.2
92.8
100.0
99.5
98.8
97.8
95.9
93.6
91.2
81.9
Location: TP-1 Depth: 4.0 ft Sample Number: A-9321
Location: TP-2 Depth: 0.5 ft Sample Number: A-9322
City of Bozeman
Sports Complex
Bozeman, Montana
B14-022
PL PI+3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY USCS LL
SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER
Material Description
GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:
D60
D30
D10
COEFFICIENTS
Cc
Cu
Client:
Project:
Project No.:FigurePERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.00010.0010.010.11101006 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report
Tested By: BT Checked By:
Moisture-Density Test Report
Dry density, pcf99
101
103
105
107
109
Water content, %
10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25
18.6%, 106.0 pcf
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.70
Test specification:ASTM D 698-07 Method A
CL 2.7
Lean CLAY (Visual)
B14-022 City of Bozeman
Elev/ Classification Nat.Sp.G. LL PI
% > % <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist.#4 No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No. Client:Remarks:
Project:
Location: Native
Figure
Maximum dry density = 106.0 pcf
Optimum moisture = 18.6 %
Sports Complex
Bozeman, Montana
Tested By: WH/TJ/CS Checked By:
Lean CLAY 33 19 14 99.5 92.8 CL
Lean CLAY with Sand 43 22 21 97.8 81.9 CL
B14-022 City of Bozeman
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
Project No. Client:Remarks:
Project:
Figure
Location: TP-1 Depth: 4.0 ft Sample Number: A-9321
Location: TP-2 Depth: 0.5 ft Sample Number: A-9322PLASTICITY 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 or O LCH or O H
ML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Report No. A-9321-207
Report No. A-9322-207Sports Complex
Bozeman, Montana
ANALYTICAL SUMMARY REPORTANALYTICAL SUMMARY REPORTANALYTICAL SUMMARY REPORTANALYTICAL SUMMARY REPORT
The analyses presented in this report were performed by Energy Laboratories, Inc., 1120 S 27th St., Billings, MT
59101, unless otherwise noted. Any exceptions or problems with the analyses are noted in the Laboratory
Analytical Report, the QA/QC Summary Report, or the Case Narrative.
The results as reported relate only to the item(s) submitted for testing.
If you have any questions regarding these test results, please call.
Lab ID Client Sample ID Collect Date Receive Date Matrix Test
Report Approved By:
B14050439-001 TP-4 0-6 Inches 05/01/14 9:00 05/06/14 Soil Metals by ICP/ICPMS, Water Extract.
Metals, NH4OAc Extractable
Conductivity
Lime
Nitrate as N, KCL Extract
Organic Matter/Organic Carbon-WB
pH, 1:X Water Extractable
Phosphorus-Olsen
Water extraction
NH4AC Soil Extraction
Extraction for sulfate
Sulfate, Water Extractable
Texture
B14050439-002 TP-2 0-6 Inches 05/01/14 9:00 05/06/14 Soil Same As Above
B14050439-003 TP-1 0-6 Inches 05/01/14 9:00 05/06/14 Soil Same As Above
B14050439-004 MSU Int. Field Top Soil 03/26/14 11:00 05/06/14 Soil Same As Above
TD and H Engineering
Project Name:Sports Complex
Work Order:B14050439
1800 River Dr N
Great Falls, MT 59401-1301
May 21, 2014
Energy Laboratories Inc Billings MT received the following 4 samples for TD and H Engineering on 5/6/2014 for analysis.
Page 1 of 15
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT
Client:TD and H Engineering
Project:Sports Complex
Lab ID:B14050439-001
Client Sample ID:TP-4 0-6 Inches
Collection Date:05/01/14 09:00
Matrix:Soil
Report Date:05/21/14
DateReceived:05/06/14
Prepared by Billings, MT Branch
Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRL Method
MCL/
QCLQualifiers
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
05/15/14 09:57 / srmSiLTextureASA15-5
- C = Clay, S = Sand(y), Si = Silt(y), L = Loam(y)
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
05/15/14 10:58 / srm0.02%3.26Organic Matter ASA29-3
05/12/14 16:04 / srmMediumLime, Semi-Quantitative Visual
05/15/14 03:07 / rbf0.3mg/kg4.8Sulfate as S ASA10-3
05/14/14 10:34 / srm1mg/kg20Phosphorus, Olsen ASA24-5
05/12/14 15:27 / srm1mg/kg14Nitrate as N, KCL Extract ASA33-8
METALS, AMMONIUM ACETATE EXTRACTABLE
05/13/14 21:22 / mas10mg/kg340Potassium SW6010B
WATER EXTRACTABLE CONSTITUENTS (1:2)
D 05/12/14 16:04 / srm0.1mmhos/cm0.3Conductivity, 1:2 ASA10-3
05/12/14 16:04 / srm0.1s.u.7.3pH, 1:2 ASA10-3
05/13/14 22:20 / mas0.02meq/100g0.47Calcium Equivalents SW6010B
05/13/14 22:20 / mas0.02meq/100g0.03Sodium Equivalents SW6010B
Report
Definitions:
RL - Analyte reporting limit.MCL - Maximum contaminant level.
QCL - Quality control limit.ND - Not detected at the reporting limit.
D - RL increased due to sample matrix.
Page 2 of 15
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT
Client:TD and H Engineering
Project:Sports Complex
Lab ID:B14050439-002
Client Sample ID:TP-2 0-6 Inches
Collection Date:05/01/14 09:00
Matrix:Soil
Report Date:05/21/14
DateReceived:05/06/14
Prepared by Billings, MT Branch
Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRL Method
MCL/
QCLQualifiers
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
05/15/14 09:57 / srmSiCLTextureASA15-5
- C = Clay, S = Sand(y), Si = Silt(y), L = Loam(y)
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
05/15/14 10:58 / srm0.02%2.52Organic Matter ASA29-3
05/12/14 16:04 / srmNoneLime, Semi-Quantitative Visual
05/15/14 03:52 / rbf0.3mg/kg6.5Sulfate as S ASA10-3
05/14/14 10:35 / srm1mg/kg12Phosphorus, Olsen ASA24-5
05/12/14 15:27 / srm1mg/kg30Nitrate as N, KCL Extract ASA33-8
METALS, AMMONIUM ACETATE EXTRACTABLE
05/13/14 21:26 / mas10mg/kg260Potassium SW6010B
WATER EXTRACTABLE CONSTITUENTS (1:2)
D 05/12/14 16:04 / srm0.1mmhos/cm0.3Conductivity, 1:2 ASA10-3
05/12/14 16:04 / srm0.1s.u.7.0pH, 1:2 ASA10-3
05/13/14 22:28 / mas0.02meq/100g0.28Calcium Equivalents SW6010B
05/13/14 22:28 / mas0.02meq/100g0.05Sodium Equivalents SW6010B
Report
Definitions:
RL - Analyte reporting limit.MCL - Maximum contaminant level.
QCL - Quality control limit.ND - Not detected at the reporting limit.
D - RL increased due to sample matrix.
Page 3 of 15
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT
Client:TD and H Engineering
Project:Sports Complex
Lab ID:B14050439-003
Client Sample ID:TP-1 0-6 Inches
Collection Date:05/01/14 09:00
Matrix:Soil
Report Date:05/21/14
DateReceived:05/06/14
Prepared by Billings, MT Branch
Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRL Method
MCL/
QCLQualifiers
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
05/15/14 09:57 / srmSiLTextureASA15-5
- C = Clay, S = Sand(y), Si = Silt(y), L = Loam(y)
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
05/15/14 10:58 / srm0.02%2.76Organic Matter ASA29-3
05/12/14 16:04 / srmNoneLime, Semi-Quantitative Visual
05/15/14 04:07 / rbf0.3mg/kg4.7Sulfate as S ASA10-3
05/14/14 10:37 / srm1mg/kg19Phosphorus, Olsen ASA24-5
05/12/14 15:29 / srm1mg/kg14Nitrate as N, KCL Extract ASA33-8
METALS, AMMONIUM ACETATE EXTRACTABLE
05/13/14 21:30 / mas10mg/kg290Potassium SW6010B
WATER EXTRACTABLE CONSTITUENTS (1:2)
D 05/12/14 16:04 / srm0.1mmhos/cm0.1Conductivity, 1:2 ASA10-3
05/12/14 16:04 / srm0.1s.u.6.2pH, 1:2 ASA10-3
05/13/14 22:32 / mas0.02meq/100g0.08Calcium Equivalents SW6010B
05/13/14 22:32 / mas0.02meq/100g0.08Sodium Equivalents SW6010B
Report
Definitions:
RL - Analyte reporting limit.MCL - Maximum contaminant level.
QCL - Quality control limit.ND - Not detected at the reporting limit.
D - RL increased due to sample matrix.
Page 4 of 15
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT
Client:TD and H Engineering
Project:Sports Complex
Lab ID:B14050439-004
Client Sample ID:MSU Int. Field Top Soil
Collection Date:03/26/14 11:00
Matrix:Soil
Report Date:05/21/14
DateReceived:05/06/14
Prepared by Billings, MT Branch
Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRL Method
MCL/
QCLQualifiers
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
05/15/14 09:57 / srmSiLTextureASA15-5
- C = Clay, S = Sand(y), Si = Silt(y), L = Loam(y)
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
05/15/14 10:58 / srm0.02%4.00Organic Matter ASA29-3
05/12/14 16:04 / srmNoneLime, Semi-Quantitative Visual
05/15/14 04:22 / rbf0.3mg/kg16.5Sulfate as S ASA10-3
05/14/14 10:38 / srm1mg/kg34Phosphorus, Olsen ASA24-5
05/12/14 15:30 / srm1mg/kg5Nitrate as N, KCL Extract ASA33-8
METALS, AMMONIUM ACETATE EXTRACTABLE
05/13/14 21:34 / mas10mg/kg430Potassium SW6010B
WATER EXTRACTABLE CONSTITUENTS (1:2)
D 05/12/14 16:04 / srm0.1mmhos/cm0.2Conductivity, 1:2 ASA10-3
05/12/14 16:04 / srm0.1s.u.7.0pH, 1:2 ASA10-3
05/13/14 23:10 / mas0.02meq/100g0.24Calcium Equivalents SW6010B
05/13/14 23:10 / mas0.02meq/100g0.04Sodium Equivalents SW6010B
Report
Definitions:
RL - Analyte reporting limit.MCL - Maximum contaminant level.
QCL - Quality control limit.ND - Not detected at the reporting limit.
D - RL increased due to sample matrix.
Page 5 of 15
TO:TD & H Engineering LAB NO.: B14050439-001-004
ADDRESS:Attn: Ahren Hastings DATE: 5/20/14
234 E. Babcock Suite 3
Bozeman, MT 59718
Soil TP-4 TP-1 TP-2 MSU Int Fld
Condition Preplant Preplant Preplant Preplant Est. Grass
Nitrogen 25 32 25 21 170
Phosphrus (P2O5)120 150 120 100 135
Potassium (K2O)100 125 115 75 135
Compost 0 5T 5T 0 0
Gypsum 0 0 0 0 0
COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY: Neal Fehringer, Certified Professional Agronomist, C.C.A., (406) 860-3647.
Sports Complex
FERTILIZER RECOMMENDATIONS
Fertilizer Suggested in Actual Pounds per Acre
"Pre-plant" fertilizer recommendation above is the actual nutrients needed per acre. To get these
nutrients, use 11-52-0 and 0-0-60 fertilizers. Apply compost as recommended and incorporate 1-2
inches deep along with preplant fertilizer. Once the grass has been mowed, apply the "Est. Grass"
fertilizer in the following manner. The amounts listed are for the actual nitrogen, phosphate, and
potash needed per acre per growing season for medium fertility. To get these amounts, apply two
applications of 75-35-35 fertilizer per acre April 15 and July 1. Then apply 20-35-35 September 1.
There are no salt or sodium issues with the any of the soils. TP-1 is the least desirable soil due to it
being a silty clay loam. The other 3 are silty loams which will drain better. The best soil is the the one
from the MSU Int. Field as it has the highest organic matter & fertility and has a neutral pH. I
recommend planting turf fescue and perennial ryegrass as they grow slower, take less water, and take
more abuse than Kentucky bluegrass.
Page 6 of 15
Project:Sports Complex
Client:TD and H Engineering
Work Order:B14050439
QA/QC Summary Report
05/21/14Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Billings, MT Branch
Method:ASA10-3 Batch: 79700
Lab ID:MB-79700 05/15/14 01:51Method Blank Run: IC202-B_140512A
Sulfate as S 0.32 mg/kg
Lab ID:LCS-79700 05/15/14 02:06Laboratory Control Sample Run: IC202-B_140512A
Sulfate as S 84 50 1501.3639 mg/kg
Lab ID:B14050136-001APDS 05/15/14 02:36Sample Matrix Spike Run: IC202-B_140512A
Sulfate as S 100 50 1500.07172.0 mg/kg
Lab ID:B14050136-001ADUP 05/15/14 02:52Sample Duplicate Run: IC202-B_140512A
Sulfate as S 300.067 5.95.47 mg/kg
Method: ASA10-3 Batch: R223656
Lab ID:LCS-R223656 05/12/14 16:04Laboratory Control Sample Run: MISC-SOIL_140512A
pH, 1:2 101 90 1100.107.50 s.u.
Lab ID:B14050136-001A DUP 05/12/14 16:04Sample Duplicate Run: MISC-SOIL_140512A
pH, 1:2 100.10 0.07.30 s.u.
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte reporting limit.ND - Not detected at the reporting limit.
Page 7 of 15
Project:Sports Complex
Client:TD and H Engineering
Work Order:B14050439
QA/QC Summary Report
05/21/14Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Billings, MT Branch
Method:ASA24-5 Batch: 14051401-PS3
Lab ID:LCS 05/14/14 10:18Laboratory Control Sample Run: FIA201-B_140514A
Phosphorus, Olsen 91 50 1501.012.1 mg/kg
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte reporting limit.ND - Not detected at the reporting limit.
Page 8 of 15
Project:Sports Complex
Client:TD and H Engineering
Work Order:B14050439
QA/QC Summary Report
05/21/14Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Billings, MT Branch
Method:ASA29-3 Batch: R223804
Lab ID:B14050136-001A DUP 05/15/14 10:58Sample Duplicate Run: MISC-SOIL_140515A
Organic Matter 300.020 3.86.95 %
Lab ID:LCS-1405151058 05/15/14 10:58Laboratory Control Sample Run: MISC-SOIL_140515A
Organic Matter 87 50 1500.0202.43 %
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte reporting limit.ND - Not detected at the reporting limit.
Page 9 of 15
Project:Sports Complex
Client:TD and H Engineering
Work Order:B14050439
QA/QC Summary Report
05/21/14Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Billings, MT Branch
Method:ASA33-8 Batch: 14051201-NNS2
Lab ID:LCS 05/12/14 15:08Laboratory Control Sample Run: FIA201-B_140512A
Nitrate as N, KCL Extract 103 50 1501.07.61 mg/kg
Lab ID:MBLK-KCL 05/12/14 15:10Method Blank Run: FIA201-B_140512A
Nitrate as N, KCL Extract 0.010.07 mg/kg
Lab ID:B14050141-001AMS 05/12/14 15:22Sample Matrix Spike Run: FIA201-B_140512A
Nitrate as N, KCL Extract 103 50 1502.9348 mg/kg-dry
Lab ID:B14050582-001BMS 05/12/14 15:32Sample Matrix Spike Run: FIA201-B_140512A
Nitrate as N, KCL Extract 108 50 1501.02190 mg/kg-dry
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte reporting limit.ND - Not detected at the reporting limit.
Page 10 of 15
Project:Sports Complex
Client:TD and H Engineering
Work Order:B14050439
QA/QC Summary Report
05/21/14Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Billings, MT Branch
Method:SW6010B Analytical Run: ICP203-B_140513A
Lab ID:QCS 05/13/14 11:59Initial Calibration Verification Standard3
Calcium 103 90 1101.041.0 mg/L
Potassium 102 90 1101.041.0 mg/L
Sodium 103 90 1101.041.2 mg/L
Lab ID:ICSA 05/13/14 12:02Interference Check Sample A3
Calcium 95 80 1201.0477 mg/L
Potassium 1.0-0.0805 mg/L
Sodium 1.00.0179 mg/L
Lab ID:ICSAB 05/13/14 12:07Interference Check Sample AB3
Calcium 96 80 1201.0482 mg/L
Potassium 101 80 1201.020.2 mg/L
Sodium 102 80 1201.020.3 mg/L
Method:SW6010B Batch: 79680
Lab ID:MB-79680 05/13/14 20:40Method Blank Run: ICP203-B_140513A
Potassium 0.020.4 mg/kg
Lab ID: LCS-79680 05/13/14 20:44Laboratory Control Sample Run: ICP203-B_140513A
Potassium 99 50 15010300 mg/kg
Lab ID:B14042490-001A DUP 05/13/14 20:51Sample Duplicate Run: ICP203-B_140513A
Potassium 50108.3260 mg/kg
Lab ID:B14042616-001AMS2 05/13/14 20:59Sample Matrix Spike Run: ICP203-B_140513A
Potassium 110 70 130101900 mg/kg
Method:SW6010B Batch: 79699
Lab ID:MB-79699 05/13/14 22:05Method Blank Run: ICP203-B_140513A4
Calcium 0.010.3 mg/kg
Sodium 0.7ND mg/kg
Calcium Equivalents 6E-050.001 meq/100g
Sodium Equivalents 0.003ND meq/100g
Lab ID:LCS-79699 05/13/14 22:09Laboratory Control Sample Run: ICP203-B_140513A4
Calcium 85 50 1505.0790 mg/kg
Sodium 94 50 1505.01100 mg/kg
Calcium Equivalents 84 50 1500.0243.9 meq/100g
Sodium Equivalents 93 50 1500.0224.6 meq/100g
Lab ID: B14050136-001A DUP 05/13/14 22:16Sample Duplicate Run: ICP203-B_140513A4
Calcium 305.0 0.857 mg/kg
Sodium 305.0 5.010 mg/kg
Calcium Equivalents 300.024 0.80.28 meq/100g
Sodium Equivalents 300.022 5.00.045 meq/100g
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte reporting limit.ND - Not detected at the reporting limit.
Page 11 of 15
Project:Sports Complex
Client:TD and H Engineering
Work Order:B14050439
QA/QC Summary Report
05/21/14Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Billings, MT Branch
Method:SW6010B Batch: 79699
Lab ID:B14050439-001AMS2 05/13/14 22:24Sample Matrix Spike Run: ICP203-B_140513A4
Calcium 94 70 1305.0190 mg/kg
Sodium 110 70 1305.0120 mg/kg
Calcium Equivalents 74 50 1500.0240.93 meq/100g
Sodium Equivalents 88 50 1500.0220.50 meq/100g
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte reporting limit.ND - Not detected at the reporting limit.
Page 12 of 15
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 parameters
such as pH, DO, Res Cl, Sulfite, Ferrous Iron, etc.)
Container/Temp Blank temperature:
Water - VOA vials have zero headspace?
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
Not Present
Not Present
Not Present
No VOA vials submitted
Not Applicable
20.2°C No Ice
5/6/2014Randa Nees
FedEx NDA
mlk
Date Received:
Received by:
Login completed by:
Carrier
name:
BL2000\jklier
5/7/2014
Reviewed by:
Reviewed Date:
Contact and Corrective Action Comments:
None
Temp Blank received in all shipping container(s)/cooler(s)? Yes No 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.
Standard Reporting Procedures:
Workorder Receipt Checklist
TD and H Engineering B14050439
Page 13 of 15
Page 14 of 15
Page 15 of 15
Great Falls, Kalispell, Bozeman, Montana
Spokane, Washington, Lewiston, Idaho
THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINSEngineering Consultants SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND
SAMPLING TERMINOLOGY
FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES
12" 3" 3/4" No.4 No.10 No.40 No.200 <No.200
SILTS & CLAYSBOULDERSCOBBLESGRAVELSSANDS
PARTICLE SIZE RANGE
(Distinguished By
Atterberg Limits)FineCoarse FineMediumCoarse
Sieve Openings (Inches)Standard Sieve Sizes
CL - Lean CLAY
ML - SILT
OL - Organic SILT/CLAY
CH - Fat CLAY
MH - Elastic SILT
OH - Organic SILT/CLAY
SW - Well-graded SAND
SP - Poorly-graded SAND
SM - Silty SAND
SC - Clayey SAND
GW - Well-graded GRAVEL
GP - Poorly-graded GRAVEL
GM - Silty GRAVEL
GC - Clayey GRAVEL
* Based on Sampler-Hammer Ratio of 8.929 E-06 ft/lbf and 4.185 E-05 ft^2/lbf for
granular and cohesive soils, respectively (Terzaghi)
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (ASTM D1586)
RELATIVE DENSITY*RELATIVE CONSISTENCY*
Granular, Noncohesive
(Gravels, Sands, & Silts)Fine-Grained, Cohesive
(Clays)
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
0-2
3-4
5-8
9-15
15-30
+30
0-4
5-10
11-30
31-50
+50
Standard
Penetration Test
(blows/foot)
Standard
Penetration Test
(blows/foot)
PLASTICITY CHART
0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
60
50
40
30
20
107
4
C L or O LC H or O H
ML or OL
MH or OH
CL-ML "U - LIN E""A - LIN E"LIQUID LIMIT (LL)PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)For classification of fine-grained soils and thefine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils.
Equation of "A"-line
Horizontal at PI = 4 to LL = 25.5,
then PI = 0.73 (LL-20)
Equation of "U"-line
Vertical at LL = 16 to PI = 7,
then PI = 0.9 (LL-8)
Great Falls, Kalispell, Bozeman, Montana
Spokane, Washington, Lewiston, Idaho
THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINSEngineering Consultants ASTM D2487
CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS
FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES
Flow Chart For Classifying Coarse-Grained Soils (More Than 50 % Retained On The No. 200 Sieve)
Flow Chart For Classifying Fine-Grained Soils ( 50 % Or More Passes The No. 200 Sieve)
<5% fines
5-12% fines
>12% fines
<5% fines
5-12% fines
>12% fines
Well-graded GRAVELWell-graded GRAVEL with sandPoorly-graded GRAVELPoorly-graded GRAVEL with sand
Well-graded GRAVEL with silt
Well-graded GRAVEL with silt and sandWell-graded GRAVEL with clay (or silty clay)Well-graded GRAVEL with clay and sand (or silty clay and sand)
Poorly-graded GRAVEL with silt
Poorly-graded GRAVEL with silt and sand
Poorly-graded GRAVEL with clay (or silty clay)Poorly-graded GRAVEL with clay and sand (or silty clay and sand)
Silty GRAVELSilty GRAVEL with sandClayey GRAVELClayey GRAVEL with sandSilty, clayey GRAVEL
Silty, clayey GRAVEL with sand
Well-graded SAND
Well-graded SAND with gravel
Poorly-graded SANDPoorly-graded SAND with gravel
Well-graded SAND with silt
Well-graded SAND with silt and gravel
Well-graded SAND with clay (or silty clay)Well-graded SAND with clay and gravel (or silty clay and gravel)
Poorly-graded SAND with siltPoorly-graded SAND with silt and gravelPoorly-graded SAND with clay (or silty clay)
Poorly-graded SAND with clay and gravel
(or silty clay and gravel)
Silty SANDSilty SAND with gravelClayey SAND
Clayey SAND with gravel
Silty, clayey SAND
Silty, clayey SAND with gravel
<15% sand>15% sand
<15% sand
>15% sand
<15% sand>15% sand
<15% sand
>15% sand
<15% sand>15% sand<15% sand>15% sand
<15% sand>15% sand<15% sand>15% sand<15% sand
>15% sand
<15% gravel
>15% gravel
<15% gravel>15% gravel
<15% gravel>15% gravel<15% gravel>15% gravel
<15% gravel
>15% gravel<15% gravel>15% gravel
<15% gravel
>15% gravel<15% gravel>15% gravel<15% gravel>15% gravel
Lean CLAYLean CLAY with sandLean CLAY with gravelSandy lean CLAY
Sandy lean CLAY with gravel
Gravelly lean CLAY
Gravelly lean CLAY with sand
Silty CLAY
Silty CLAY with sand
Silty CLAY with gravel
Sandy silty CLAYSandy silty CLAY with gravelGravelly silty CLAYGravelly silty CLAY with sand
SILT
SILT with sandSILT with gravelSandy SILTSandy SILT with gravel
Gravelly SILT
Gravelly SILT with sand
Fat CLAYFat CLAY with sand
Fat CLAY with gravel
Sandy fat CLAYSandy fat CLAY with gravelGravelly fat CLAYGravelly fat CLAY with sand
Elastic SILT
Elastic SILT with sand
Elastic SILT with gravelSandy elastic SILTSandy elastic SILT with gravelGravelly elastic SILT
Gravelly elastic SILT with sand
%sand > %gravel
%sand < %gravel
<15% gravel>15% gravel<15% sand>15% sand
%sand > %gravel
%sand < %gravel<15% gravel>15% gravel<15% sand
>15% sand
%sand > %gravel%sand < %gravel
<15% gravel>15% gravel<15% sand>15% sand
%sand > %gravel%sand < %gravel<15% gravel>15% gravel<15% sand
>15% sand
%sand > %gravel
%sand < %gravel
<15% gravel>15% gravel<15% sand>15% sand
fines=ML or MH
fines=CL or CH (or CL-ML)
fines=ML or MH
fines=CL or CH (or CL-ML)
fines=ML or MH
fines=CL or CH
fines=CL-ML
fines=ML or MH
fines=CL or CH
(or CL-ML)
fines=ML or MH
fines=CL or CH
(or CL-ML)
fines= ML or MH
fines=CL or CH
fines=CL-ML
<30% plus No. 200
>30% plus No. 200
<30% plus No. 200
>30% plus No. 200
<30% plus No. 200
>30% plus No. 200
<30% plus No. 200
>30% plus No.200
<30% plus No. 200
>30% plus No. 200
Cu>4 and 1<Cc<3
Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3
Cu>4 and 1<Cc<3
Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3
Cu>6 and 1<Cc<3
Cu<6 and/or 1>Cc>3
Cu>6 and 1<Cc<3
Cu<6 and/or 1>Cc>3
CL
CL-ML
ML
CH
MH
PI>7 and plotson or above"A" - line
4<PI<7 andplots on or above"A" - line
PI<4 or plotsbelow "A" - line
PI plots on orabove "A" - line
PI plots below"A" - line
GRAVEL%gravel >
%sand
SAND%sand >%gravel
LL>50(inorganic)
LL<50(inorganic)
GW
GP
GW-GM
GW-GC
GP-GM
GP-GC
GM
GC
GC-GM
SW
SP
SW-SM
SW-SC
SP-SM
SP-SC
SM
SC
SC-SM
<15% plus No. 20015-29% plus No. 200
%sand > %gravel
%sand < %gravel
<15% plus No. 200
15-29% plus No. 200
%sand > %gravel
%sand < %gravel
<15% plus No. 200
15-29% plus No. 200
%sand > %gravel
%sand < %gravel
<15% plus No. 20015-29% plus No. 200
%sand > %gravel
%sand < %gravel
<15% plus No. 20015-29% plus No. 200
%sand > %gravel
%sand < %gravel