Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFlanders Mill Geotechnical Investigation Report 01-26-20 Engineering and Surveying Inc. 1091 Stoneridge Drive • Bozeman, Montana • Phone(406)587-1115 • Fax(406)587-9768 www.chengineers.com • E-Mall:info@chengineers.com January 24, 2018 Walt Wolf 123wwolf@gmail.com Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Geotechnical Investigation — Lot 1, Flanders Mill Subdivision Phase 7, Bozeman, Montana (180016) Dear Walt, Thank you for the opportunity to serve your geotechnical engineering needs. Per your request, C&H Engineering and Surveying, Inc. has completed the Geotechnical Investigation Report for the Lot 1 of the Flanders Mill Subdivision Phase 7 in Bozeman, Montana. Please find the attached Geotechnical Investigation Report to contain the results of the site investigation, geotechnical evaluation, and recommendations. The recommendations were made for the design and construction of the foundation elements, slabs-on-grade, and pavements for the proposed development. Please call if you have any questions or if we can assist you during the future phases of your project. Respectfully Submitted y MiRAEL, j. Reviewed by 4 3 PCL-P& tG238t8 �• O Noah J. Schaible, E.I. � ENS � y Michael J. Welch, P.E. N� G:\c&W 8\180016\Report Documents\Cover Letter(180016).doc Civil/Structural Engineering and Surveying GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Lot 1, Flanders Mill Subdivision Phase7 Bozeman, Montana Prepared For: Walt Wolf 123wwolf@gmail.com Bozeman, MT 59715 Prepared By: Engineering and Surveying Inc. 1091 Stoneridge Drive • Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone (406) 587-1 115 • Fax (406) 587-9768 www.chengineers.com • info@chengineers.com Mt WEL J. January 2018 WELCH .x Project Number: 180016 "a ltG�1e w' .� T� ��CENSEp �' FOX F..O.......­j Sw-""� ` GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 2.0 PROPOSED STRUCTURES........................................................................................... 1 3.0 INVESTIGATION............................................................................................................ 1 3.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION...................................................................................................... 1 3.2 LABORATORY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 2 4.0 SITE EVALUATION....................................................................................................... 2 4.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 2 4.2 SUBSURFACE SOILS AND CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 3 4.3 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE SOIL SURVEY ...................................... 4 4.4 GEOLOGIC SETTING ......................................................................................................... 4 4.5 SEISMICITY...................................................................................................................... 5 4.5.1 Regional Faults........................................................................................................... 5 4.5.2 Liquefaction................................................................................................................ 6 4.5.3 Lateral Spreading....................................................................................................... 6 4.6 GROUNDWATER............................................................................................................... 6 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS......................................................................................7 5.1 ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY.................................................................................... 7 5.2 SETTLEMENT.................................................................................................................... 7 5.2.1 Collapsible Soils......................................................................................................... 8 5.3 LATERAL PRESSURES....................................................................................................... 8 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................9 6.1 FOUNDATION ................................................................................................................... 9 6.2 FOUNDATION EXCAVATION ........................................................................................... 10 6.3 STRUCTURAL FILL ......................................................................................................... 10 6.4 FOUNDATION WALL BACKFILL...................................................................................... 11 6.5 INTERIOR SLABS-ON-GRADE......................................................................................... 11 6.6 EXTERIOR SLABS-ON-GRADE........................................................................................ 12 6.7 ASPHALT PAVING IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................ 13 6.8 SITE GRADING............................................................................................................... 13 6.9 FOUNDATION DRAINAGE ............................................................................................... 14 6.10 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES............................................................................................. 14 6.11 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION................................................................................. 15 7.0 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................. 15 8.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS............................................................................................. 16 9.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 17 #180016-LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA i C� GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT List of Appendices Appendix A—USGS Topographic Map.....................................................................................A-1 Appendix B—Test Pit Location Map.........................................................................................A-2 Appendix C—NRCS Web Soil Survey Map..............................................................................A-3 AppendixD—Geology Maps.....................................................................................................A-4 AppendixE—Test Pit Logs........................................................................................................ A-5 Appendix F—Typical Foundation Detail ................................................................................... A-6 Appendix G—Report Limitations .............................................................................................A-7 #180016-LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA 11 CV-1=1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 1.0 Introduction C&H Engineering and Surveying Inc., (C&H Engineering) has conducted a geotechnical investigation for Lot 1, Flanders Mill Subdivision Phase 7. The project area is found in the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, in Bozeman, Montana. The site location is shown on a United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle map in Appendix A, "USGS Topographic Map." The scope of services was to conduct a site investigation, evaluate the site, and provide a geotecluiical investigation report. The report documents the sites' soil and groundwater conditions, subsurface soil properties, and provides foundation design and construction recommendations for multi-family structures to be constructed within the subdivision. 2.0 Proposed Structures Phase 7 of Flanders Mill will consist of 27 multi-family structures and I public use club house. Site development for each structure has been assumed to consist of the excavation for the foundation elements, installation of exterior concrete slabs, and also the installation of either rigid or flexible parking pavements. It has been assumed that each residence will be constructed with either a slab-on-grade with frost walls foundation or a crawl space foundation. Basement foundations are not recommended due to seasonally high groundwater elevations across the subdivision. It has been assumed that each structure will be constructed utilizing typical wood framing. It has also been assumed that the foundation footings will not be subjected to unusual loading conditions such as eccentric loads. A footing is eccentrically loaded if the load transferred to the footing is not directed through the center of the footing. This creates a bending moment in the footing and results in a non-uniform load transfer to the underlying soil. If any of the foundation footings will be eccentrically loaded please contact this office so we can appropriately revise our allowable bearing capacity and settlement estimates if necessary. 3.0 Investigation The investigation is separated into two parts; the field investigation and the laboratory analysis. While the scope of this project focuses more on the field investigation, we feel it is important to spend time verifying our field observations and conducting tests that will aid in the geotechnical analysis. 3.1 Field Investigation On January 11, 2018 a site visit was made to the subject property to conduct a subsurface soils investigation and to observe ground features. The subsurface conditions were investigated across the subject property under the direction of Noah J. Schaible, E.I., of C&H Engineering. The subsurface soils investigation consisted of examining fourteen test pit excavations. The exploratory test pits were excavated with a Komatsu PC 228 US tracked excavator provided by #180016-LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA I 1007-ml F-,r­°" o '" °" GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Sime Construction. The test pit locations were chosen based on site topography, accessibility, the location of underground utilities, and the site plan prepared by Madison Engineering. The soil profiles revealed by the excavations were logged and visually classified according to ASTM D 2488, which utilizes the nomenclature of the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Representative samples of each soil layer were collected from the trench sidewalls at varying depths for further classification in the lab. The relative density of each soil layer was estimated based on the amount of effort required to excavate the material, probing of the excavation sidewalls with a rock hammer, and the overall stability of the excavation. Any evidence of seepage or other groundwater conditions were also noted. The locations of the test pits (TP) are shown on the Test Pit Location Map included in Appendix B. The subsurface soil conditions encountered in the test pits are described briefly in Section 4.2 and in more detail in Appendix E, "Test Pit Logs." 3.2 Laboratory Analysis The representative soil samples collected from the excavation sidewalls during the field investigation were labeled, stored in a sealed container, and transported to the C&H Engineering soils laboratory. While each soil interval was visually classified during the field investigation, the classifications were verified and further refined in the laboratory using the following procedures: Table 1.Laborat ry Testing Methods and Purpose Laboratory Test Purpose of Test Moisture Content (ASTM D2216) Used to detennine the natural (in-situ) moisture content of the soil Amount of Material in Soils Finer than Used to determine the amount of fine grained soil the No. 200 Sieve(ASTM D 1140) present 4.0 Site Evaluation The site evaluation is based on both the field investigation and research of the sites' surface geology, soil survey information, and seismic history. 4.1 Site Description Prior to the field investigation the subject property was stripped down to native "pit-run" gravel and structural fill was placed and compacted to bring the area up to the existing grade. The subject property is bordered by Northwestern Energies transformer station on the south. Flanders Mill Road borders the subject property to the west, and internal subdivision roads border the north and east boundaries. The site is relatively flat with no significant topographical or geological features present across the subdivision. #I SOO16-LOT I,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PFIASH 7,Bomm^MONTANA 2 10-SR-101 E,,-, '"" "", "° GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 4.2 Subsurface Soils and Conditions The following paragraphs briefly summarize the subsurface soils and conditions observed in the fourteen test pits excavated for the field investigation. Please refer to Appendix E, "Test Pit Logs" for more detailed descriptions and to the Test Pit Location map in Appendix B for the test pit locations. The first soil horizon encountered in test pits 1-6 was a Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP). This material brown in color, and moist. This material was encountered to dep' 'ths ranging from approximately 4.0 to 6.0 feet below grounds surface (bgs). This material is -composed of approximately 5 percent clayey fines with medium to low plasticity and no dilatancy, approximately 50 percent fine to medium grained sand, and approximately, 45 percent subrounded gravels. This Material is suitable for foundation support. The first soil horizon encountered in test pits 7-9 was an Organic Soil of low plasticity (OL). This material was dark brown to brown in color, moist, and soft. This material was encountered to depths ranging from approximately 1.0 to 1.5 feet below grounds surface (bgs). Organic soils are highly compressible and are not suitable for foundation support. This material must be removed from beneath all interior and exterior slabs as well as beneath all asphalt paving. This material may be stockpiled onsite and used for final site grading purposes. The first soil horizon encountered in test pits 10-14 was a Poorly Graded Sand with clay and Gravel (SP-SC). This material was light brown to brown in color, and moist. This material was encountered to a depth of approximately 3.0 feet below grounds surface (bgs) in each test pit. This material is composed of approximately 10 percent clayey fines with medium to low plasticity and no dilatancy, approximately 50 percent fine to medium grained sand, and approximately 40 percent subrounded gravels. This material is suitable for foundation support. The second soil horizon encountered in test pits 1-9 was a Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC), which was encountered to depths ranging from 5.0 feet bgs to 7.0 feet bgs. This material was brown in color, moist, and composed of approximately 15 percent clayey fines with medium to low plasticity and no dilatancy, approximately 45 percent fine to medium grained sand, and approximately 40 percent subrounded gravels. This material is suitable for foundation support. The second soil horizon encountered in test pits 10-14 was a Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel (SP). This material brown in color, and moist. This material was encountered to a depth of approximately 5.0 feet below grounds surface (bgs). This material composed of approximately 55 percent fine to medium grained sand, and approximately 45 percent subrounded gravels. This material is suitable for foundation support. The third soil horizon encountered in each of the excavations was a Well Graded Gravel with Sand and Cobbles (GW). This material was dark brown to brown in color, and moist. This material was encountered to the end of each excavation ranging in depth from approximately 9.0 to 14 feet below grounds surface (bgs). This material composed of approximately 25 percent fine to medium grained sand, and approximately 75 percent subrounded gravels. This material is suitable for foundation support, provided the recommendations in this report are properly implemented. #180016-LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7.BommAN,MONTANA 3 CAMI GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT It will be acceptable to utilize typical strip and spread footings to support the loads from the residential structures. All soils encountered with the exception of the organic soils are suitable for foundation support. 4.3 Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Because the near surface soils have been stripped from the majority of the site, a correlation to the NRCS mapping of the near surface soils could not be determined. It should be noted that the NRCS typically only describes the soils located within 5 feet of the surface. NRCS Soil Survey information of the area was taken from the NRCS WSS, Version 2.0. For more information please visit the NRCS Web Soil Survey on the World Wide Web, at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/. The NRCS Soils Survey identifies three soil types near the subject property. The soil types are 542A — Blossberg Loam, 457A—Turner Loam, and 53B — Amsterdam Silt Loam. The NRCS describes these soils types as loess (53B) and alluvium (457A) and (542A). The soils encountered in exploratory excavations 7-9 correlate best with the NRCS description of the Blossberg Loam. All soils encountered in the upper 5 to 7 feet of exploratory excavations 1-6 and 10-14 appeared to be undocumented fill and do not correlate well with any of the mapped NRCS soils. It should be noted that the NRCS indicates that groundwater for the Blossberg Loam soil type is located at depths ranging from 12 inches to 24 inches below the grounds surface. 4.4 Geologic Setting The following paragraphs discuss the geologic setting in the direct vicinity of the subject property. The geologic setting is determined from a review of surface geology maps and reports published by the United States Geological Survey and others that contain the subject property. This information is especially helpful in determining any geologic hazards that may be present in the immediate area (such as landslide deposits) and what types of soil and rock may be present in the area. Additional information regarding the parent material and depositional environment of a given soil type can also sometimes be obtained or inferred from these maps and reports. The local surface geology in the direct vicinity of the subject property was detennined from the USGS Geologic Map of Eastern Gallatin County. Please refer to Appendix D, "USGS Geologic Map" for a complete geologic description and map. The USGS Geological Map identifies two geologic formation mapped near the subject property. This geological formations are named Qafo, alluvial fan deposit, older, and Qabo, braid plain alluvium, older. For a narrative description of this formation see the USGS Geologic Map of Eastern Gallatin County in Appendix D. The fourteen test pits excavated for the field investigation correlate well with the USGS descriptions of the alluvial fan deposit, older. All soils encountered, with the exception of the organic soil, and the material imported to bring the site up to existing grade appeared to be alluvial in origin. #180016-LOT 1.FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA 4 C-N-101 """" " GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 4.5 Seismicity The Bozeman area is located in an earthquake zone known as the intermountain seismic belt, which is a zone of earthquake activity that extends from northwest Montana to southern Arizona. In general, this zone is expected to experience moderately frequent, potentially damaging earthquakes. With that in mind, it is important that the structure be designed to withstand horizontal seismic accelerations that may be induced by such an earthquake, as is required by the International Building Code. The USGS provides seismic design parameters for the design of buildings and bridges across the United States. These parameters are based on the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Seismic Provisions. The primary intent of the NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions is to prevent, for typical buildings and structures, serious injury and life loss caused by damage from earthquake ground shaking. The following seismic design parameters were detennined for the subject property using the USGS Seismic Design Application: Approximate site Location: Latitude= 45.6940 N Longitude= 111.096' W Maximum Considered Earthquake(MCE) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters: Short Period (Ss) = 0.718g I-Second Period (S 1) =0.222g Site Coefficients and Adjusted MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters: SMS= 0.880 SM1 =0.479g Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters: SDs =0.587g SDI = 0.320g Based on the criteria in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2012 IBC, the Site Class is D. 4.5.1 Regional Faults The USGS and Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) have compiled a map of Quaternary Class A faults and earthquake epicenters in western Montana; a Class A fault is one that is associated with at least one large magnitude earthquake within the last 1.6 million years. The earthquake epicenters shown on the map (yellow circles) are associated with earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 or greater, with stars indicating epicenters of earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 5.5. A review of this map indicated that there are 4 Class A faults located within 15 miles of the subject property and 16 earthquake epicenters have been recorded within 10 miles of the subject property. The four faults mapped near the subject property are the Central Park Fault, Bridger Fault, Elk Creek Fault, and the Gallatin Range Fault. Each of these faults is described as #180016-LOT 1,FI.ANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7,BO7.EMAN,MONTANA 5 10KRIMI e,,,."—u..'� su—_r"Okv GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT a normal fault, indicating that one side of the fault will move downward into the earth relative the other side during an earthquake. The Central Park Fault is located approximately 10.3 miles northwest of the subject property and runs east to west through the middle of the Gallatin Valley. The Bridger Fault is located approximately 5.2 miles northeast of the subject property and runs along the western side of the Bridger Mountains. The Gallatin Range fault is located approximately 7.10 miles south of the subject property and runs along the northern border of the Gallatin Range. The Elk Creek Fault is located approximately 13.4 miles west-southwest of the subject property and extends from Goose Creek (southwest of Gallatin Gateway) to approximately 13.3 miles northwest of where Norris Road crosses the Madison River. See the Quaternary Fault and Seismicity Map of Western Montana in Appendix D for more information regarding the location of these faults and nearby earthquake epicenters. 4.5.2 Liquefaction In general terns, liquefaction is defined as the condition when saturated, loose, fine sand-type soils lose their support capabilities due to the development of excessive pore water pressure, which can develop during a seismic event. Loose silty sandy soils, if located below the groundwater table, have the potential to liquefy during a major seismic event. Our subsurface investigation did not encounter any loose silt or sand horizons within the depth of excavation. It is our opinion that the potential for differential settlement resulting from liquefaction during a moderate seismic event is low. 4.5.3 Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading is the slow-to-rapid lateral extensional movement of rock or soil masses. The primary cause of lateral spreading is liquefaction, usually induced by an earthquake, and subsequent flowage of a weak soil layer within a slope. The potential for, and magnitude of, lateral spreading is dependent upon many conditions, including the presence of a relatively thick, continuous, potentially liquefiable sand or sensitive clay layer, and the slope of the site. As stated previously, our subsurface investigation did not reveal any loose silt or sand horizons and also did not encounter any potential slip planes within the depth of excavations. It is our opinion that any structure built on the subject property is at a low risk of sustaining damage due to lateral spreading. 4.6 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in each of the fourteen excavations, at depths varying from 4.0 feet bgs to 7.0 feet bgs. Evidence of seasonally high groundwater, such as mottling, lack of calcium carbonate deposits, and termination of roots, could not be observed due to the presence of imported fill across the site. Based on groundwater monitoring perfonned by C&H Engineering from December 2013 to November 2014, the seasonally high groundwater elevation can be expected to rise 2.0 to 2.5 feet above the elevation encountered in the exploratory test pits. #180016—LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA 6 C&� U'V—Ir"­dSu 1_N. "" GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Because of the potential for seasonally high groundwater across the subdivision, basement foundations are not recommended. If crawlspace foundations are utilized, it is recommended that the bottom of footing elevation be limited to 2.0 feet bgs; on the west to southwest portion of the subject property and 2.5 feet bgs across the rest of the subject property. 5.0 Geotechnical Analysis The geotechnical analysis takes into account the field investigation and site evaluation to make engineering recommendations pertaining to bearing capacity, lateral pressures, settlement, and slope stability. 5.1 Allowable Bearing Capacity The allowable bearing capacity of a soil is defined as the maximum pressure that can be pennitted on a foundation soil, giving consideration to all pertinent factors (such as settlement and seismic considerations), with adequate safety against rupture of the soil mass or movement of the foundation of such magnitude that the structure is impaired. The allowable bearing capacity is determined from the geotechnical analysis, the field investigation, available soil and geology information, and our experience in the project area. Based on the site investigation and the assumption that all recommendations made in this report will be property implemented, it is recommended that all foundation footings be dimensioned for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot(psf). The allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one third for short term loading conditions such as those from wind or seismic forces. 5.2 Settlement While the soil at the site may be able to physically support the footings, it is also important to analyze the possible settlement of the structures. In many cases, settlement determines the allowable bearing capacity. When a soil deposit is loaded by a structure, defonnations within the soil deposit will occur. The total vertical deformation of the soil at the surface is called total settlement. Total settlement is made up of two components: elastic settlement and consolidation settlement. Elastic settlement is the result of soil particles rearranging themselves into a denser configuration due to a load being imposed on them and usually occurs during the construction process and shortly after. Consolidation settlement occurs more slowly and over time as water within the pore spaces of a soil are forced out and the soil compresses as the stress from the load is transferred from the water molecules to the soil particles. Consolidation settlement is more of a concern with fine- grained soils with low permeability and high in-situ moisture contents. The degree of settlement is a function of the type of bearing material, the bearing pressure of the foundation elements, local groundwater conditions, and in some cases determines the allowable bearing capacity for a structures' footings. #180016—LOT 1,FLANDERS MILT.SUBDIVISION PIIASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA 7 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT In addition to analyzing total settlement, the potential for differential settlement must also be considered. Differential settlement occurs in soils that are not homogeneous over the length of the foundation or in situations where the foundation rests on cut and fill surfaces. If the foundation rests on structural fill overlaying properly prepared soils with rock, differential settlement is expected to be well within tolerable limits. Areas that have significantly more fill under the foundation footings (four feet of more) create greater potential for differential settlement. In these cases the structural fill must be installed properly and tested frequently. Compaction efforts and structural fill consistence are vital in minimizing differential settlement. For this project it is not anticipated that significant quantities of structural fill will be required. A settlement analysis based on conservative soil parameter estimates, the allowable bearing capacity recommended in Section 5.1, and the assumption that all recommendations made in this report are properly adhered to, indicates the total and differential settlement are expected to be '/z-inch or less. Structures of the type assumed can generally tolerate this amount of movement, however, these values should be checked by a structural engineer to verify that they are acceptable. Please note that the settlement estimates are based on loads originating from the proposed structure. If additional loads are introduced, such as the placement of large quantities of fill, our office should be contacted to re-evaluate the settlement estimates. 5.2.1 Collapsible Soils Collapsible soils are soils that compact and collapse after wetting. The soil particles are originally loosely packed and barely touch each other before moisture infiltrates into the soil. As water infiltrates into the soil it reduces the friction between the soil particles and allows them to slip past each other and become more tightly packed, often resulting in a radical reduction in volume; this radical reduction in volume can occur without any additional loading of the soil. Another term for collapsible soils is "hydrocompactive soils" because they compact after water is added. The amount of collapse depends on how loosely the particles are packed originally and the thickness of the soil layer susceptible to collapse. Soils with dry densities of less than 80 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), generally silts deposited by the wind, are considered to be susceptible to collapse. Soils with dry unit weights greater than 90 pcf are not considered susceptible to collapse. Using this correlation it is our opinion that the proposed structure is not at risk of sustaining damage due to collapsible soils. 5.3 Lateral Pressures It is recommended that all foundation and retaining walls be backfilled with well-draining granular material. Well-draining granular backfill has a more predictable behavior in terms of the lateral earth pressure exerted on the foundation or retaining wall and will not generate expansive related forces. If backfill containing significant quantities of clayey material is used, the seepage of water into the backfill could potentially generate horizontal swelling pressures well above at- rest values. Additionally, seepage into a clayey backfill material will also cause significant hydrostatic pressures to build up against the foundation wall due to the low permeability of clay #180016-LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA 8 IC-NE1 mw..x,...,o,,.,,,s­M.v M< GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT soils and will make the backfill susceptible to frost action. Lateral pressures imposed upon foundation and retaining walls due to wind, seismic forces, and earth pressures may be resisted by the development of passive earth pressures and/or frictional resistance between the base of the footings and the supporting soils. If a foundation or retaining wall is restrained from moving, the lateral earth pressure exerted on the wall is called the at-rest earth pressure. If a foundation or retaining wall is allowed to tilt away from the retained soil, the lateral earth pressure exerted on the wall is called the active earth pressure. Passive earth pressure is the resistance pressure the foundation or retaining wall develops due to the wall being pushed laterally into the earth on the opposite side of the retained soil. Each of these pressures is proportional to the distance below the earth surface, the unit weight of the soil, and the shear strength properties of the soil. Any subsurface walls that are allowed to move away from the restrained soil, such as cantilevered retaining walls, are recommended to be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 31 pounds per cubic foot (active pressure). For passive pressures, an equivalent fluid pressure of 400 pcf is recommended, and the coefficient of friction between cast-in-place concrete and the native granular soil is estimated to be 0.5. These recommended values were calculated assuming a near horizontal backfill and the native soils with the exception of the organic soils, are used as backfill. Also, please note that these design pressures do not include a factor of safety and are for static conditions, they do not account for additional forces that may be induced by seismic 6.0 Recommendations The following recommendations are given as guidance to assure for a safe and effective foundation for the proposed structure. These recommendations are determined by the geotechnical analysis, code requirements, our experience, and local construction practices. 6.1 Foundation Based on the site evaluation and geotechnical analysis it will be acceptable for the foundation elements to consist of typical strip and column footings. Please find the following as general recommendations for all foundation elements: • In order to keep the footing out of the active frost zone it is recommended that the bottom of all footing elevations be a minimum of 48 inches below finished grade. • All foundation footings may be dimensioned for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf. • It is recommended that typical strip footings for this structure have a minimum width of 16 inches and column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches, provided the allowable soil bearing capacity is not exceeded. 0180016-LoT I,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA 9 C&� GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT • Foundation footings shall have a maximum depth of 2.0 feet below existing grade for all structures located along the west to southwest portion of the subject property if a crawl space foundation is utilized. • Foundation footings shall have a maximum depth of 2.5 feet below existing grade for all structures located along the north and east portion of the subject property if a crawl space foundation is utilized. • A foundation drain must be installed around the perimeter of each structures foundation if a crawl space foundation is utilized. • The subgrade must remain in a dry condition throughout construction of the foundation elements. 6.2 Foundation Excavation In general, the excavation for each foundation must be level and uniform and, at a minimum, extend down through any organics. If any soft spots, saturated soils or boulders are encountered, they will need to be removed and backfilled with structural fill. The excavation width must extend a minimum of one footing width from the outer edges of the footings. Once the excavation is complete the native subgrade must be proof rolled until it no longer yields with each pass. Once proof rolled, the foundation footings may be fonned and cast on the native subgrade or, if required, structural fill may then begin to be placed and compacted. The subgrade must be kept dry throughout construction. At no time should surface water runoff be allowed to flow into and accumulate within the excavation for the foundation elements. If necessary, a Swale or berm should be temporarily constructed to reroute all surface water runoff away from the excavation. Excavation should not proceed during large precipitation events. If the subgrade does become excessively moist or saturated, construction should not proceed until C&H Engineering has inspected the subgrade and determined it has sufficiently dried. If any of the foundation footings are found to be located on a test pit, the area will need to be excavated down to the full depth of the test pit and structural fill be placed and compacted in lifts to bring the area back up to the desired grade. 6.3 Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as all fill that will ultimately be subjected to structural loadings, such as those imposed by footings, floor slabs, pavements, etc. The soils encountered in the exploratory excavations with the exception of organic soil may be utilized as structural fill if all particles larger than 6 inches in size are removed. Structural fill may also be imported if desired. Imported structural fill is recommended to be 3-inch minus Well Graded Gravel with Sand. Imported structural fill is recommended to be a well graded gravel with sand that contains less than 20 percent material that will pass a No. 200 sieve and that has a maximum particle size of 3 #180016-LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7.BOZEMAN,MONTANA 10 FC-N-1=1 """"""111-d 5 """"''T GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT inches. Also, the fraction of material passing the No. 40 sieve shall have a liquid limit not exceeding 25 and a plasticity index not exceeding 6. If another material is to be used it must be approved by C&H Engineering. The well-graded gravel with sand must be placed in lifts no greater than 12 inches (uncompacted thickness) and be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 97 percent of its theoretical maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D698, at + 3 percent of the materials optimum moisture content. The structural fill must be compacted with a large vibratory smooth drum roller; a sheeps foot roller will not be adequate for this purpose. Achieving proper compaction is imperative, as it will insure no additional settlement of the structure occurs. 6.4 Foundation Wall Backfill Approved backfill material should be placed and compacted between the foundation wall and the edge of the excavation. All soils encountered in the exploratory excavations with the exception of the organic soil are suitable for use as foundation wall backfill. Approved backfill material may also be imported. Imported foundation wall backfill is recommended to be a well-draining granular material. Structural fill is recommended as backfill in all areas that will support concrete slabs on grade, or paving improvements. The backfill shall be placed in uniform lifts and be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D698. The foundation wall backfill will need to be compacted with either walk behind compaction equipment or hand operated compaction equipment in order to avoid damaging the foundation walls. If walk behind compaction equipment is used, lifts should not exceed 8-inches (uncompacted thickness) and if hand operated compaction equipment is used, lifts should not exceed 4-inches (uncompacted thickness). Backfill should not be placed and compacted against foundation walls until the concrete has achieved acceptable compressive strength. A 6 to 12 inch cap of low pen-neability topsoil should be placed, compacted, and appropriately graded above the approved foundation wall backfill on the outside of the foundation wall. This will effectively cap the backfill and redirect surface water away from the structure. Please note, if the foundation wall backfill is not compacted properly it will settle and positive drainage away from the foundation will not be maintained. See Appendix F, "Typical Foundation Details" for more information. 6.5 Interior Slabs-On-Grade In preparation for any interior slabs-on-grade, the excavation must continue through any overlying topsoil to a minimum of 6 inches below the proposed bottom of slab elevation. If required, structural fill can then be placed and compacted to 6 inches below the bottom of slab elevation. For all interior concrete slabs-on-grade, preventative measures must be taken to stop moisture from migrating upwards through the slab. Moisture that migrates upwards through the concrete slab can damage floor coverings such as carpet, hardwood and vinyl, in addition to causing musty odors and mildew growth. Moisture barriers will need to be installed to prevent water #180016-LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHA$E7,B07.EMAN,MONTANA I I ic-S-101 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT vapor migration and capillary rise through the concrete slab. Capillarity is the result of the liquid property known as surface tension, which arises from an imbalance of cohesive and adhesive forces near the interface between different materials. With regards to soils, surface tension arises at the interface between groundwater and the mineral grains and air of a soil. The height of capillary rise within a given soil is controlled by the size of the pores between the soil particles and not the size of the soil particles directly. Soils that have small pore spaces experience a higher magnitude of capillary rise than soils with large pore spaces. Typically soils composed of smaller particles (such as silt and clay) have smaller pore spaces. In order to prevent capillary rise through the concrete slab-on-grade it is recommended that 6 inches of 3/-inch washed rock (containing less than 10 percent fines) be placed and compacted once the excavation for the slab is complete. The washed rock has large pore spaces between soil particles and will act as a capillary break, preventing groundwater from migrating upwards towards the bottom of the slab. Water vapor is currently understood to act in accordance with the observed physical laws of gases, which state that the water vapor will travel from an area of higher concentration to that of a lower concentration until equilibrium is achieved. Because Earth contains large quantities of liquid water, water vapor is ubiquitous in Earth's atmosphere, and, as a result, also in soils located above the water table (referred to as the vadose zone). Typically the concentration of water vapor in the vadose zone is greater than that inside the residence. This concentration difference may result in an upward migration of water vapor from the vadose zone through the concrete slab-on-grade and into the building. In order to prevent this upward migration of water vapor through the slab, it is recommended that a vapor barrier (such as a 15-mil visqueen moisture barrier) be installed. The vapor barrier should be pulled up at the sides and secured to the foundation wall or footing. Care must be taken during and after the installation of the vapor barrier to avoid puncturing the material, and all joints are to be sealed per the manufactures recommendations. Once the excavation for the interior slab-on-grade is completed as described in the first paragraph of this section, and the washed rock and vapor barrier have been properly installed, it will be acceptable to form and cast the steel reinforced concrete slab. It is recommended that interior concrete slabs-on-grade have a minimum thickness of 4 inches, except garage slabs have a recommended minimum thickness of 6 inches. 6.6 Exterior Slabs-On-Grade For exterior areas to be paved with concrete slabs, it is recommended that, at a minimum, the topsoil and any organics be removed. The subgrade soils then need to be compacted to an unyielding condition. Then for non-vehicular traffic areas, a minimum of 6 inches of 3/-inch minus rock needs to be placed, and 4 inches of 4000 pounds per square inch concrete placed over the 3/-inch minus rock. For areas with vehicular traffic, a minimum of 9 inches of 3/-inch minus rock should be placed, followed by 6 inches of 4000 pounds per square inch concrete. #180016-LOT I,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA 12 IM&N-MI E""­ ,.,.-, c" _'""° GEOTECHN[CAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Exterior slabs that will be located adjacent to the foundation walls need to slope away from the structures at a minimum grade of 2 percent and should not be physically connected to the foundation walls. If they are connected, any movement of the exterior slab will be transmitted to the foundation wall, which may result in damage to the structure. Additionally, any exterior columns (such as those for patios or decks) should not bear on exterior slabs. Any movement of the exterior slab will be transmitted to the column, which may also result in damage. If concrete slabs are to be placed on foundation wall backfill, the backfill must be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as detennined by ASTM D698. It is recommended the backfill be placed in unifonn lifts and compacted as described in Section 6.4. 6.7 Asphalt Paving Improvements For areas to be paved with asphalt, it is recommended that, as a minimum, the topsoil and any organics be removed. The native subgrade then needs to be rolled at f 2 percent of its optimum moisture content to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D698. Following compaction of the Native Subgrade a 9-inch layer of compacted 6-inch minus gravel needs to be placed (sub-base layer), followed by a 3-inch layer of compacted 1-inch minus road mix (base layer). Both gravel courses must be compacted at f 2 percent of their optimum moisture content to a minimum of 95 percent of their maximum dry density. A 3-inch thick layer of asphalt pavement can then be placed and compacted over this cross-section. It is recommended that following compaction of the native subgrade, a loaded dump truck or other heavy piece of equipment should be driven over it to detennine the stability of the subgrade. If any isolated soft spots are found, these areas should be sub-excavated and replaced with compacted fill. If widespread unstable conditions are present (i.e. significant rutting or pumping is observed) the sub-base component of the road section will need to be increased and a geotextile may also be required, especially if moisture related issues are the cause of the instability. If asphalt paving is to be placed on foundation wall backfill, it is imperative that the backfill be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D698. The backfill must be placed in uniform lifts and compacted as described in Section 6.4. 6.8 Site Grading Surface water should not be allowed to accumulate and infiltrate the soil near the foundation. Proper site grading will ensure surface water runoff is directed away from the foundation elements and will aid in the mitigation of excessive settlement. Please find the following as general site grading recommendations: Finished grade must slope away from the building a minimum of 5 percent within the first 10 feet, in order to quickly drain ground surface and roof runoff away from the foundation walls. Please note that in order to maintain this slope; it is imperative that any backfill placed against the foundation walls be compacted properly. If the backfill is not compacted properly, it will settle and positive drainage away from the structure will not #180016-LoT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA 13 --A- 0 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT be maintained. • Permanent sprinkler heads for lawn care should be located a sufficient distance from the structure to prevent water from draining toward the foundation or saturating the soils adjacent to the foundation. • Rain gutter down spouts are to be placed in such a manner that surface water runoff drains away from the structure. • All roads, walkways, and architectural land features must properly drain away from all structures. 6.9 Foundation Drainage It is recommended that a foundation drain be installed around each perimeter of the structure's foundation if a crawl space foundation is utilized. The drain will aid in reducing the risk of moisture damage to lower levels of the structure. A gravel drain is recommended for this application. The foundation drain system should consist of 4 inch diameter perforated PVC pipe encased in a minimum of 6 inches of'/-inch minus washed rock. The drain pipe should be located adjacent to the foundation footings and should be sloped in such a manner to provide sufficient hydraulic head to gravity drain to daylight or a sump. Non-woven filter fabric should be installed around the perimeter washed rock to effectively stop the migration of fine-grained soils into the pipe, which could eventually lead to clogging. The pipe must drain either to daylight or a sump. If the pipe is drained to daylight, the drain should daylight down slope and away from the home. The drainpipe must be protected from the entry of small animals and/or debris by a screen or gate and the location marked so it can be easily located for inspection. It is also recommended that cleanouts be installed at all 90 degree bends to help facilitate future maintenance of the foundation drain and for inspection. Care must also be taken not to crush the drain pipe during backfilling of the foundation walls. A geo-composite drain system would also be acceptable. If used, the drain should be installed per the manufacturer's instructions. If there are any questions about these prefabricated drainage systems our office should be contacted. 6.10 Underground Utilities The onsite soils contain some clayey material. Clayey material can be moderately corrosive to metallic conduits. We recommended specifying non corrosive materials or providing corrosion protection unless additional tests are perfonned to verify the onsite soils are not corrosive. It is recommended that '/-inch minus gravel be used as a bedding material, where bedding material is defined as all material located within 6 inches of the utility pipe(s). The bedding #180016-LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA 14 CI] °-" ' GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT material should be thoroughly compacted around all utility pipes. Trench backfill shall be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density in landscaped areas and a minimum of 97 percents of its maximum dry density beneath foundation footings. Backfilling around and above utilities should meet the requirements of Wyoming Public Works Standard Specifications. 6.11 Construction Administration The foundation is a vital element of a structure; it transfers all of the structures dead and live loads to the native soil. It is imperative that the recommendations made in this report are properly adhered to. A representative from C&H Engineering should observe the construction of any foundation or drainage elements recommended in this report and should verify proper compaction has been achieved in all structural fill lifts. The recommendations made in this report are contingent upon our involvement. If the soils encountered during the excavation differ than those described in this report or any unusual conditions are encountered, our office should be contacted immediately to examine the conditions and re-evaluate our recommendations. If construction and site grading take place during cold weather, it is recommended that approved winter construction practices be observed. All snow and ice shall be removed from cut and fill areas prior to site grading taking place. No fill should be placed on soils that are frozen or contain frozen material. No frozen soils can be used as fill under any circumstances. Please note that not following the preceding recommendations may potentially result in foundation settlement issues in the spring when the frost thaws and the snow melts. Additionally, concrete should not be placed on frozen soils and should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM C 94. Any concrete placed during cold weather conditions shall be protected from freezing until the necessary compressive strength has been attained. Once the footings are placed, frost shall not be permitted to extend below the foundation footings, as this could heave and crack the foundation footings and/or foundation walls. It is the responsibility of the contractor to provide a safe working environment with regards to excavations on the site. All excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety and in accordance with local and federal regulations, including the excavation and trench safety standards provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). According to OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1926 Subpart P Appendix A) the subsurface soils encountered in the test pit excavations can be generally classified as Type C. For Type C soils, OSHA regulations state that cut slopes shall be no steeper than 1.5H:1 V for excavations less than 20 feet deep. A trench box may also be used, provided the system extends at least 18 inches above the top of the trench walls. Please understand the preceding OSHA soil classification is provided for planning purposes only and the actual classification of the onsite soils will need to be determined by the contractor onsite during excavation. 7.0 Conclusions The soils present at the site will be adequate to support the proposed structure, provided the recommendations made in this report are properly followed. Please find the following #180016-LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA 15 IC7&---Iml EIKVI" Iu..A 5-,Yr Q%- GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT recommendations as particularly crucial: • The foundation footings may be dimensioned for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf. • Foundation footings shall have a maximum depth of 2.0 feet below existing grade for all structures located along the west to southwest portion of the subject property if a crawl space foundation is utilized. • Foundation footings shall have a maximum depth of 2.5 feet below existing grade for all structures located along the north and east portions of the subject property if a crawl space foundation is utilized. • A foundation drain must be installed around the perimeter of the structures foundation if a crawl space foundation is utilized. • All site grading and drainage recommendations must be properly implemented. • The exposed subgrade must remain in a dry condition throughout construction of the foundation elements. • If construction takes place during the colder months of the year, the subgrade must be protected from freezing until all foundation elements are properly covered with the required 48 inches of soil. 8.0 Report Limitations This report is for the exclusive use of Walt Wolf and his authorized agents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding the use of this report. The recommendations made in this report are based upon data obtained from test pits excavated at the locations indicated on the attached Test Pit Location Map. It is not uncommon that variations will occur between these locations, the nature and extent of which will not become evident until additional exploration or construction is conducted. These variations may result in additional construction costs, and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose. If the soils encountered during the excavation differ than those described in this report or any unusual conditions are encountered, our office should be contacted immediately to examine the conditions and re-evaluate our recommendations if necessary. This report is applicable to the subject property only and is not applicable to other construction sites. Under no circumstances shall a portion of this report be removed or be used independently of the rest of the document, this report is applicable as a full document only. The preparation of this report has been performed in a manner that is consistent with the level and care currently practiced by professionals in this area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Please review Appendix G, "Report Limitations." This Appendix has been prepared to relay the risks associated with this report. #18001 b-LOT I,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA 16 I GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 9.0 References Das, Braja M., "Principles of Foundation Engineering" 511i ed., Pacific Grove, CA, Brooks/Cole- Thompson Learning, 2004. Day, Robert W., "Foundation Engineering Handbook," McGraw-Hill, 2006. International Code Council, Inc., "2009 International Building Code (IBC)," International Code Council, Inc., 2009. Kehew, Alan, "Geology for Engineers and Environmental Scientists," 3rd ed., Prentice Hall,2006. Das, Braja M., "Principles of Geotechnical Engineering," 3rd ed., Boston, MA, PWS Publishing Company, 1994. Vuke, Susan M., Lonn, Jeffrey D., Berg, Richard B., and Schmidt, Christopher J, "Geologic Map of the Bozeman 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Southwestern Montana," USGS and Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Open File Report MBMG 648. 2014. #180016-LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA 17 C&� E.-411- j rk.-v-I- GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Appendix A IISGS Topographic Map #180016 -LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION,PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP NW 1 /4. SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST, P.M.M. z J O _ T CATAMOUNT ST a 3 -CATRON sT x � v � a _ y -- 33 _ 34 CA�A��54 35 x T—Bisel _ W EQUESTRIAN LN 0 BAXTER LN F1 I PROJECT LOCATION = o � 0 A O 4 a 3 2 W OAK ST ; ^W OAK ST W OAK ST SAXON WAY j6URSrON u 3 -� ANNIE STW rLILY ORZZ apSE 51OLIVER STLD c roOLE sI T W BROADW- ATEA W'BABCOCK 2 w RAVA c ; W Scale In Feet V ° 2000 0 2000 W fAILON SrFC a - V1 300 0 300 Scale In Meters Engineering and Surveying Inc. Countour Interval = 20 Ft 1091 Stonaridge Drive•Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone(406)587-1115•Fax(406)587-9768 wwwchengineers corn •mfo@chengineers.cam SOURCE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP # 18001 6 C&�I] GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Appendix B Test Pit Location Map #180016 -LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION,PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA p d w �\ ol: co 00 ai 11 OJ ti O O C p� H n 11 ~' Sheet 1 of 1 \ pV) (D Dot N � �' � L G) OJT 11 cm� o r' N -}-Lt U) F co r- cn_ U - m m ,rt ( M � NLL psf � msm pM HM M `-N Oo Jf` -` l•M SS T�o rl� 9EF . JIB Oo O^ - '�cc N m�u J ^ co u N N to v> `m "o s` • M„ 5 ..8� / HJr7 � LoM OJ � p C� O � O00 0 0 po M ! J 0O O 5 moJ J Wre) M M o N �� It 14 OD o i, o t� � ( Q o � 0� x � U 0 Z 0 p N < � w � U) W Lli I , N aa � 1— I L x il Ico _ x Drnuring Date: f/23/2018 � U o x j 11,, 0 C&� GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Appendix C NRCS Web Soil Survey Map #180016 -LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION,PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA m / coo / 3 « m 3 U I E n Z � § . . . - - - Z { ] A ! @ , ) k \ cc s 2 a k g 0 2 a co . k � w � ( g ; & 2 ) x - ©m CO\ j § }\ G- . � / \ � \ 0 � c- \\ } »Q j§ O � Z % % )\ \ ? O E o [ e £ o 0 E E U) o E LLI -i 2 k o = ■ / / \ � / O O j / ƒ 2 / _ hi E � k? @e J 7 EC7&'-'7=1 Enfr,—"1.1'S.-1 ,v 1' GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Appendix D Geology Maps #180016-LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION,PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA b 5 E _ co J o olio (A LL s O o r O Z ESE C E o Q 3 ° CM-0 / 0 p Ur / � Q h N Z 0-0 v � 5 � SEA z Z o r t u v Ll� E,c— E, v O m •'I � _0 •Q U CD 9� _9 G ul 0 / r v i a a Q z E L Q. u U ° v ° ° o o -oc m W E a,uES- W > ° °C C C��!.G F•' t9 C O y Z • p 0 4 ! LL G. nbj p p.E Z to - _ __ ___ _ C1 C•v F o 4 J� LL o o b N h 0 •� � p C U Q 7 O c W `M c � X ro W N a r J W U � �R � o W 00 IV z it ILI kill too 00 Q. CJ �`-` N 1`� %1 z' Q Q ,rlt _ _ * � r _ i it 7 44 a ` •-� Jam," + � i '�' � � 5 1 v y m F co 06 ■ O i �+. a H Qv .. J o o + -t o N O 7 O7 Z V) J W v +1 7 .. N 2 N 2 ' Y v C c' f- W o ovo v o o �- v W J LV X X Q o (U C Z ,� J o os— m v, U v o) v �, N v Y C3 a Q QW� U m U W C' 0 L ' c O � N 6 c0 tD c0 p c FCA-7-ml GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Appendix E Test Pit Logs #180016 -LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION,PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA r. M" �°'""�'•'"'°� TEST PIT NUMBER TP 1 �Y frtl•.wvq •IW.11.1•M'•ab1 ro e.rae.e..r.,q PAGE 1 OF 1 I....t.�r�. C......,a.... .4upaYwm My. .[p.yNyrVaIEM Mu•vnwnY Y�.�••�Yi rld Sh. rvY^11.hc. .Wa�SY.eni Ow�r .W G rY.J t O�.rvN F1v.. iMICWrpi•,..arwwrr eire•(w.i m/.i,il .S.pm SYuamGWn .Wain W,i•1'i.nr lWrr/'1 u. n W...•ra�ur.•+i.i,ygtro ape CLIENT Walt Wolf PROJECT NAME Lot 1,Flanders Mill Subdivision,Phase 7 PROJECT NUMBER 180016 PROJECT LOCATION SW 1/4,Lot 1R-4,Plat J-615 DATE STARTED 1/11/18 COMPLETED 1/11/18 GROUND ELEVATION EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Sime Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Komatsu PC 228 US U AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 7.00 ft LOGGED BY NJS AT END OF EXCAVATION --- NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION --- w f—w x w TESTS a-O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 p.� j fJ Q Z (� U) 0.0 0 TO 5.5 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SP); brown; moist; approximately 45 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 50 percent fine to medium grain sand; approximately 5 percent clayey fines. G13 MC=7% 1-1 Fines=4% 2.s 5P 5.0 5.5 TO 6.5 FEET: CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SC-SM); brown; moist; a sM approximately 40 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 45 percent fine 6.5 to medium grain sand; approximately 15 percent clayey fines. g •�. 6.5 TO 9 FEET: WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GW); brown; moist; approximately 75 percent subrounded gravels; 0 7.5 approximately 25 percent fine tc medium grain sand. o GW •P• s ^° ► 9.0 Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet. N O_ a N F- 0 F J J a m J W Z W TEST PIT NUMBER TP 2 •Gn[.y.w..p .p.,ras..iJ[yw.ip .v,,,°•J[,.;.,,,, . m.x,.n �..J�, PAGE 1 OF 1 p... .. •fw�0•.nn do y. •[n.•rnnwJfi.Aavum+^:. make rwC and SuRv��yng,Inc. sn^'ry Wwln •.n.❑r,.•tipad..r y.An• .w.p Dew y,rrn,fll f,fla•lW.at.r,lf •b.f rsf.rnm Da.p• •4.m Wfx PW�ISW°PPI CLIENT Walt Wolf PROJECT NAME Lot 1,Flanders Mill Subdivision Phase 7 PROJECT NUMBER 180016 PROJECT LOCATION SW 1/4,Lot 1R-4, Plat J-615 DATE STARTED 1/11/18 COMPLETED —1/11/18 GROUND ELEVATION EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Slme Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Komatsu PC 228 US V AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 4.00 ft LOGGED BY NJ AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES _ AFTER EXCAVATION --- w = >- U z w Co � TESTS Q O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o CL QZ rn 0.0 0 TO 5.5 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SP); brown; moist; approximately 45 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 50 percent fine to medium grain sand; approximately 5 percent clayey fines. 2.5 JF V 5.0 GB MC= 10% 2-1 Fines= 15% 5.5 TO 6.5 FEET: CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SC-SM); brown; moist; SM approximately 40 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 45 percent fine q 6.5 to medium grain sand; approximately 15 percent clayey fines. ��. 6.5 TO 10 FEET: WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; N (GW); brown; moist; approximately 75 percent subrounded gravels; 0 7.5 approximately 25 percent fine to medium grain sand. 0 GW O 10.0 10.0 Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. 0 cn 7) 0 J WSJ T a S m QJ K W Z W 0 TEST PIT NUMBER TP 3 •wtN'�•.9 •G.nwiwr Gytwry ems,etn. ro •ratrwo....wn PAGE 1 OF 1 .lnN.unM'•9 •7ttLC�aeetwry 1— •Gtuw G••T •�II.YOM.tIIUI by Au•••..••, Cll0if1B0fX10 and�OyIf10.x L. .MAM Otero OwP •LM N�Yb L6un,n i} . ^.x+a•w.'twN•R�co��tii,�iro,.ve 'Syx LNw,tltipi .bfm,vNr rw.lcer , CLIENT Walt Wolf PROJECT NAME Lot 1,Flanders Mill Subdivision,Phase 7 PROJECT NUMBER 180016 PROJECT LOCATION SW 1/4,Lot 1 R-4,Plat J-615 DATE STARTED _1/11/18 COMPLETED 1111/18 GROUND ELEVATION EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Sime Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Komatsu PC 228 US 5L AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 6.00 ft LOGGED BY NJS AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION -- w � _ °?a 9 w�- _ w v W m a-O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION n a� Qz O to 0.0 0 TO 5 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SP); brown; moist; approximately 45 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 50 percent fine to medium grain sand; approximately 5 percent clayey fines. 2.5 SIP 5.0 5.0 sc- _ 5 TO 6 FEET: CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SC-SM); brown; moist; approximately 40 SM percent subrounded gravels; approximately 45 percent fine to medium grain sand; s.o approximately 15 percent clayey fines. �`. 6 TO 10 FEET: WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GW); brown; moist; approximately 75 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 25 percent fine to g 40 medium grain sand. •�� 0 7.5 • ' 0 y - G W .'• S m � m '• N 10.0 •�� 100 m Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. a N H H N H 7 J J W S IL S m J W Z W U C� �MYwmY•a°�°° C110N TEST PIT NUMBER TP 4 PAGE 1 OF 1 •Gp+"w d,qn •Inwd.n•r.Y W Nrl,m.nll [.r.l .t:riflp OrY7 �,hlC. .W.Yiiq„"n o-»cn .u•a.wga a..•.w 1".,s v.M u'w N,�.n Yl,.,la•,..,°I4t1.11 .L"u i„ern,d,ryi •G'w,n WY••'Wwl°KITI.1 .. "W..,w.M u, ntl IIMIlt°•,ul CLIENT Walt Wolf PROJECT NAME Lot 1,Flanders Mill Subdivision,Phase 7 PROJECT NUMBER 180016 PROJECT LOCATION SW 1/4,Lot 1R-4,Plat J-615 DATE STARTED 1/11/18 COMPLETED 1/11/18 GROUND ELEVATION EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Sime Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Komatsu PC 228 US -VAT TIME OF EXCAVATION 5.00 ft LOGGED BY NJS AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION --- W HW _ a- W CO TESTS a-O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION p CLZ ff Q (D U) 0.0 0 TO 4 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL;(SP); brown; moist; approximately 45 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 50 percent fine to medium grain sand; approximately 5 percent clayey fines. _ GB MC= 10% 4-1 Fines=11% 2.5 _ 4.0 4 TO 5 FEET: CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SC-SM); brown; moist; SM Sc- approximately 40 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 45 percent fine - 5.0 . 5.0 to medium grain sand; approximately 15 percent clayey fines. �'. 5 TO 11.5 FEET: WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GW); brown; moist; approximately 75 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 25 percent fine to medium grain sand. a .®• U e � � 0 7.5 :b J O GW b o = r N 10.0 'b O_ • O • N . ' f- • 0 Bottom of test pit at 11.5 feet. m c� J J W 3 a z m J W T_ W C FFr'W TEST PIT NUMBER TP 5 •CMFp.v^q .�.Hwr.yrF.q.Vwrq PAGE 1 OF 1 .r,r,a n..wro •Facv.,r.r«wq �hf"^-`�^ 'FI Or1C�6lY'1IOy111Qr�. .MY.SI.rem O.�Vr ...M O+F^OFdw�o l'lu� .�wo-.....,r..«.�nnu.,,arvr.nu .-.r, ,,,.r„o..yr .ewm,w..wr•neanFM CLIENT Walt Wolf PROJECT NAME Lot 1,Flanders Mill Subdivision,Phase 7 PROJECT NUMBER 180016 PROJECT LOCATION SW 1/4,Lot 111-4, Plat J-615 DATE STARTED 1/11/18 COMPLETED 1/11/18 GROUND ELEVATION EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Sime Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Komatsu PC 228 US VAT TIME OF EXCAVATION 4.00 ft LOGGED BY NJS AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION W }_ a��W V U . _ W j� Uj a O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION p n Z) o Q Z (� U) 0.0 0 TO 5 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SP); brown; moist; approximately 45 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 50 percent fine to medium grain sand; approximately 5 percent clayey fines. 2.5 SP 5.0 f u 5 TO 6 FEET: CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SC-SM); brown; moist; approximately 40 SM percent subrounded gravels; approximately 45 percent fine to medium grain sand; 6.0 approximately 15 percent clayey fines. �'. 6 TO 12 FEET: WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GW); brown; moist; approximately 75 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 25 percent fine to m i medium grain sand. 0 7.5 o 10 G W V 10.0 o � � all 0 0 y 12U H _ Bottom of test pit at 12.0 feet. J J W } a m J W Z W 0 TEST PIT NUMBER TP 6 & H srf�� .• �fnt PAGE 1 OF 1 •f.tro.wrfaua •f.wwwrrW 6..Aw+vnwn+ F Ord �r� •Wn.rr Ln'.r.Mpn .•Jnn IMPIry U•Nte Mn• »Sv�.rOwa,PMn.N f1111•IblIfllIr.1 •Lpn fr+•n p••q+ •fUm WM•'IiN11T'R'1'1 W. •r•r W+4 p1 PI!ul.•I.MIt1p.+v CLIENT Walt Wolf PROJECT NAME Lot 1,Flanders Mill Subdivision Phase 7 PROJECT NUMBER 180016 PROJECT LOCATION SW 114, Lot 1R-4,Plat J-615 DATE STARTED 1/11/18 COMPLETED 1/11/18 GROUND ELEVATION EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Sime Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Komatsu PC 228 US p AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 5.00 ft LOGGED BY _NJS AT END OF EXCAVATION --- + NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION --- w a w _j 2 Q O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION i).0 Cn 0 TO 6 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SP); brown; moist; approximately 45 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 50 percent fine to medium grain sand; approximately 5 percent clayey fines. 2.5 SP 5.0 au Sc 6 TO 7 FEET: CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SC-SM); brown; moist; approximately 40 sM percent subrounded gravels; approximately 45 percent fine to medium grain sand; 8 7.0 approximately 15 percent clayey fines. 75 A.`• 7 TO 10 FEET: WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GW); brown; moist; approximately 75 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 25 percent fine to o • medium grain sand. 8 GW m U � ' C� • N 10.0 • 10.0 Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. a c� D 0 J WJ } a x m w z w c9 TEST PIT NUMBER TP 7 PAGE 1 OF 1 , Sw�.a•a...•u.,..ur e•r..iimr rr.irn .Na4 trM.w dror •nsruww ru,.iswrrrr •l+..n i W....�4.•r teo•i.M>iAaL CLIENT Walt Wolf PROJECT NAME Lot 1, Flanders Mill Subdivision,Phase 7 PROJECT NUMBER 180016 PROJECT LOCATION SW 1/4,Lot 1 R-4,Plat J-615 DATE STARTED 1/11/18 COMPLETED 1/11118 GROUND ELEVATION EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Sime Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Komatsu PC 228 US VAT TIME OF EXCAVATION 5.50 ft LOGGED BY NJS AT END OF EXCAVATION --- _ NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION --- w }� U �� wm v za(D w -j j <O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0.0 0 TO 1 FEET: ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to brown; moist; soft. oL _ 1.0 1 TO 5 FEET: CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SC-SM); brown; moist; approximately 40 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 45 percent fine to medium grain sand; approximately 15 percent clayey fines. 2.5 SC- SM 5.0 50 _ 5 TO 14 FEET: WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GW); brown; moist; approximately 75 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 25 percent fine to medium grain sand. a •'� a . a N 0 7.5 J Q •'• � • 11 O • m a� G W •�. N 10.0 • o � cn o •'• • 12.5 •'• I? • J O J � m • 14.0 Bottom of test pit at 14.0 feet. z Z W C TEST PIT NUMBER TP 8 •ly.•[rwyw.ry •0•«wrv,ui[rq+wrvq .ans-arylEp•.ny . brq..w peYr«m •..v;°. G a a�..,r,, PAGE 1 OF 1 .aea...o,avn •em.,m.r..l sn.•,.n.P..n, �t7�noExinp Grid SurveYhpr lrc .w,«sn..na•ur .:wawrqorw•ru:. MY�a•�w N�rl.•u+n uE+•ti.•N°•Ixr.I,rE .4t,ry S,u«n W.q, •LWim Wn••11.n•I+1WY'PI M of SWr.lun,)N.r< CLIENT Walt Wolf PROJECT NAME Lot 1, Flanders Mill Subdivision Phase 7 PROJECT NUMBER 180016 PROJECT LOCATION SW 1/4,Lot 1 R-4,Plat J-615 DATE STARTED 1111/18 COMPLETED 1/11/18 GROUND ELEVATION EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Sime Construction _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Kornatsu PC 228 US V AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 5.00 ft _ LOGGED BY NJS AT END OF EXCAVATION --- NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION --- w d U L ui z .rtil CO 1 L �? O w < MATERIAL DESCRIPTION " o �_j 0.0 0 TO 1 FEET: ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to brown; moist; soft. OL = 1.0 1 TO 5 FEET: CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SC-SM); brown; moist; approximately 40 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 45 percent fine to medium grain sand; approximately 15 percent clayey fines. 2.5 SC- SM GB MC=5% 8-1 Fines=2% 5.0 5.0 F 5 TO 14 FEET: WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES (GW); brown; moist; approximately 75 percent subrounded gravels; • approximately 25 percent fine to medium grain sand. g • m 0 7.5 _J • 0 �. N G W �. N 10.0 • ' • a • o O N , 12.5 '•• ' J • uJ ®• a • � efike 14.0 Bottom of test pit at 14.0 feet. W Z w C& HTEST PIT NUMBER TP 9 .Lrua•4INninny .fm�+an0.+.w•.w uow wv s.fa.�«ol n.p I'A(,L I OF 1 •fwbwwm M.-M .lnwvnwin G.Iw°.."vmf LrVlw p my d S✓vwy*v.Ina. .wnw en•,°a•.n ...ar.ry f a,n.r n,.+ iay.•^nA P...Nr.+w Ml.nf.wMee.•rr,f .S°°Ik 6,a+n D.p •Lwm Www Yurn llYTYYi •l.n ..W..,°.•.e...ul•ftl,•I,wJ>f0•vw CLIENT Walt Wolf PROJECT NAME Lot 1,Flanders Mill Subdivision Phase 7 PROJECT NUMBER 180016 PROJECT LOCATION SW 1/4,Lot 1R-4,Plat J-615 DATE STARTED 1/11/18 COMPLETED 1/11/18 GROUND ELEVATION EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Sime Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Komatsu PC 228 US -V AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 5.00 ft LOGGED BY NJS AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION -- W }Z a 6 U_ _ S W x _ obi Q O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 n- Qz � 0.0 0 TO 1.5 FEET: ORGANIC SOIL; (OL); dark brown to brown; moist; soft. OL 1.5 TO 5.5 FEET: CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SC-SM); brown; moist; approximately 40 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 45 percent fine to medium grain sand; 2.5 approximately 15 percent clayey fines. SC- SM 5.0 p J.�l 5.5 TO 12 FEET: WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND AND COBBLES; (GW); brown; • moist; approximately 75 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 25 percent fine to 40� medium grain sand. 7.5 o •�. o S •�' GW .�III N 10.0 N r o � � vi o •ILO 12.0 Z Bottom of test pit at 12.0 feet. J m J W Z W TEST PIT NUMBER TP 10 M.4ln°n•✓vq .Iboq+.�M.wim ✓ z „q smaa q PAGE 1 OF 1 .4RO..an b.+y .[nnnm••-41:nn 4rrvr...v Er*ioo rV and Surveying,Ine. ... •.•M Dv.a•,...a ur avir•I+ml>e•n,,. .Lon f,•mn P••yy, .Lm W.M nwlfwrrrl ,ne✓....✓. ......yr•+.,,..wrro.r CLIENT Walt Wolf PROJECT NAME Lot 1, Flanders Mill Subdivision,Phase 7 PROJECT NUMBER 180016 PROJECT LOCATION SW 1/4,Lot 1R-4,Plat J-615 DATE STARTED 1/11/18 COMPLETED 1/11/18 GROUND ELEVATION EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR She Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Komatsu PC 228 US V AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 5.50 ft LOGGED BY NJS AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION --- w >- U _ 2 ow J 2 uU a.i Q O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q Z (� 0.0 0 TO 3 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL; (SP-SC); light brown to brown; moist; approximately 40 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 50 percent fine to medium grain sand; approximately 10 percent clayey fines. SP- Sc 2.5 3.0 3 TO 5 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SP); dark brown to brown; moist; approximately 45 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 55 percent fine to medium sP grain sand. 5.0 5.0 5 TO 12 FEET: WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND; (GW); dark brown to brown; moist; approximately 75 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 25 percent fine to medium grain sand. 8 in • 0 7.5 ®� 0 J O ,e� W C� IIL• o N 10.0 o � 4 I'• a • 0 12.0 Bottom of test pit at 12.0 feet. J J W 5 a x m J W Z w 0 Cr. —°M°�m°n�°�"Yn''•"°°' TEST PIT NUMBER TP 11 Y,,,YiM..,nro .imey.�a .eo PAGf 1 OF 1 •lY.,6w.vyrV IW 1 GYna.v inrrq .R.te.4.:n 0.vp+ .[n.vww.i.%,.n NY4urvm. ErX*Xmr*V and SIXHeycQ.fine. . wSi>•nn Dn 4• .Wuu.Yyt or..up Ani Nr bwgH Dw.IW�w Yl Nll4•�10Y W-I.r4 .BWY fi.nrn DnW'r .Llrm W.r lYrv�4HT1V CLIENT Walt Wolf PROJECT NAME Lot 1, Flanders Mill Subdivision Phase 7 PROJECT NUMBER 180016 PROJECT LOCATION SW 1/4,Lot 1R-4,Plat J-615 _ DATE STARTED 1/11/18 COMPLETED 1/11118 GROUND ELEVATION EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Sime Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Komatsu PC 228 US VAT TIME OF EXCAVATION 6.00 fl LOGGED BY NJS AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION --- W r F w c_ a d Wm v 9 W _j? uj <O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION n a. cr 2z 0.0 0 TO 3 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL; (SP-SC); light brown to brown; moist; approximately 40 percent Subrounded gravels; approximately 50 percent fine to medium grain sand; approximately 10 percent clayey fines. SP- SC 2.5 3,0 3 TO 5 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SP); dark brown to brown; moist; approximately 45 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 55 percent fine to medium SP grain sand. 5.0 s.o 5 TO 11 FEET: WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND; (GW); dark brown to brown; moist; b approximately 75 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 25 percent fine to medium _ 0 grain sand. C7 0 7.5 �► J u_, - G W p� b O � tlt N 10.0 'b O • V • 11.0 Bottom of test pit at 11.0 feet. N 1— N 2 IL z m w z w 0 1CK-- -Mi °°`rc°m°•�°�•'bn'•" TEST PIT NUMBER TP 12 •Q•Lry...+q •OwrMvty.rw.y PAGE 1 OF 1 •.rw w»rw •dncw..ir.r E gcaa U erw Survey V,Ina .W,w aw.•r wl°t�^n4 aw.e.r...ltt Yll°•ILOel Melr,° ,y,nn 6p.r.m dr.y, ...tr,+W.rr.l•m.11vTVP1 ru ur,.rw.,,ur...ununr.uceiap..e CLIENT Wall Wolf PROJECT NAME Lot 1,Flanders Mill Subdivision,Phase 7 PROJECT NUMBER 180016 _ PROJECT LOCATION SW 1/4,Lot 1R-4,Plat J-615 DATE STARTED 1/11/18 COMPLETED 1/11/18 GROUND ELEVATION EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Sime Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Komatsu PC 228 US V AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 6.50 ft LOGGED BY NJS AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION --- W = F-W wJ g TESTS Q UU MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 e_ Q: Q Z (� U) 0.0 0 TO 3 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL; (SP-SC); light brown to brown; moist; approximately 40 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 50 percent fine to medium grain sand; approximately 10 percent clayey fines. GB MC=9% SP- 12-1 Fines=10% SC ' 2.5 3.0 3 TO 5 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL;(SP); dark brown to brown; moist; approximately 45 percent subrounded gravels; SP approximately 55 percent fine to medium grain sand. GB MC - 61114r 12-2 Fines= 5.0 5.0 '• 5 TO 11 FEET: WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND; (GW); dark brown to brown; moist; approximately 75 percent subrounded gravels; 0 approximately 25 percent fine to medium grain sand. w � � V o 7.5 • 0 • 0 GW S• S • � 8 U_ N 10.0 • Q • v � N • 6 110 Bottom of test pit at 11.0 feet. 0 Z J J W 3 a m J W W W ""° ° TEST PIT NUMBER TP 13 a— CLIENTi11��JJ •.wrvY[pwmrinJ ..aap.n D.+n.Ym�YY� .wn . .� ..,., PAGE 1 OF 1 Wall Wolf PROJECT NAME Lot 1, Flanders Mill Subdivision,Phase 7 PROJECT NUMBER 180016 PROJECT LOCATION SW 1/4,Lot 1R-4,Plat J-615 DATE STARTED 1/11118 COMPLETED 1/11/18 GROUND ELEVATION EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Sime Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Komatsu PC 228 US VAT TIME OF EXCAVATION 55011 LOGGED BY NJS _ AT END OF EXCAVATION -- ` NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION W a.� U �� w m U T- ui -j 2 Q O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ❑ �" �J Z (� Q 0.0 0 TO 3 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL; (SP-SC); light brown to brown; moist; approximately 40 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 50 percent fine to medium grain sand; approximately 10 percent clayey fines. SP- SC 2-5 3.0 3 TO 5 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL; (SP); dark brown to brown; moist; approximately 45 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 55 percent fine to medium SP grain sand. 5.o s.o 5 TO 11 FEET: WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND; (GW); dark brown to brown; moist; V approximately 75 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 25 percent fine to medium e grain sand. 4 .'• $ e m 'VI ' • 0 7.5 �► J 9 - G W g - e e' 10.0 e � 6 li0 o Bottom of test pit at 11.0 feet. En 0 J WJ T m J W Z W Ur TEST PIT NUMBER TP 14 PAGE 1 OF 1 01 Eryiwa-wig and SaxveWlO, iaii s.rW.D...w...u.wri y.wi ur.4 ri .N°ea b.wx o..J" .Gsr,Wv.r rtan l'WMYI q'..4r.r W.x ax.,n..41 r.w4•IM1b.W CLIENT Walt Wolf PROJECT NAME Lot 1,Flanders Mill Subdivision Phase 7 PROJECT NUMBER 180016 PROJECT LOCATION SW_1/4,_Lot 1 R-4,Plat J-615 DATE STARTED 1/11/18 COMPLETED 1/11/18 GROUND ELEVATION EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR She Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Komatsu PC 228 US AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 6.00 ft LOGGED BY NJS _ AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES AFTER EXCAVATION --- W Q. �^ Hw z w W m TESTS Q J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION J p Z cc Q 0 0.0 0 TO 3 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL; (SP-SC); light brown to brown; moist; approximately 40 percent subrounded gravels; approximately 50 percent fine to medium grain sand; approximately 10 percent clayey fines. SP- I;c 2.5 3.0 3 TO 5 FEET: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL;(SP); dark brown to brown; moist; approximately 45 percent subrounded gravels; SP approximately 55 percent fine to medium grain sand. GB MC=7% 14 1 Fines=4% 5.0 5.0 5 TO 10.5 FEET: WELL GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND;(GW); dark brown to brown; moist; approximately 75 percent subrounded gravels; 0 _V approximately 25 percent fine to medium grain sand. C7 • 1 O N � 7.5 • o GW o .�• S - 0 U N 10.0 o ' 10ti v Bottom of test pit at 10.5 feet. O Ur J O u! J J a x m J W Z w C�1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Appendix F Typical Foundation Detail #180016-LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION,PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAIL Flanders Mill Subdivision, Phase 7, Bozeman Montana FRAMED FLOOR P CRAWL SPACE J;;;:LOW,PERMEABI,LITY TOPSOIL_•'•'• ' ♦ ♦ ♦ .' COMMERCIAL FOUNDATION COATING—,,'. • , w • w VAPOR RETARDER R/BACKFILL MATERIAL NATIVE SOIL Z 6" OF 3/4" MINUS 'Z j WASHED ROCK 4" DIA. PERFORATED P PVC DRAIN PIPE B.O.F. POORLY—GRADED SAND OR WELL—GRADED GRAVEL 16" MIN. B B Ic&-=I CRAWLSPACE CROSS SECTION SCALE: NITS Engineering and Surveying Inc. #1 8001 6 ION-El E"'"". """"'"'"1' GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Appendix G Report Limitations #180016 -LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION,PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA IC-NE1 E.,p.vnnp nM SInYI_lY1(J Nr;. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use This appendix has been prepared to help the client understand the risks associated with the use of this report and provide guidelines an the proper use of this report. This report was prepared to be used exclusively by Walt Wolf and his authorized agents for residential improvements to be constructed within the Flanders Mill Subdivision Phase 7 in Bozeman, Montana. All of the work was performed in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices used by geotechnical engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. This report should not be used by anyone it was not prepared for,or for uses it was not intended for. Field investigations and preparation of this report was conducted in accordance with a specific set of requirements set out by the client, which may not satisfy the requirements of others. This report should not be used for nearby sites or for structures on the same site that differ from the structures that were proposed at the time this report was prepared. Any changes in the structures(type,orientation,size,elevation,etc.)proposed for this site must be discussed with our company for this report to be valid. Our services consist of professional opinions based on subsurface exploration at specific points,surface observation of the site,and the review of available published data. These data arc then extrapolated by geologists and geotechnical engineers to give an opinion of the overall subsurface conditions. Based on the subsurface conditions that are thought to occur at the site, we evaluate how those conditions would respond to the construction that is proposed, and give recommendations on foundation design and subgrade improvement. Our subsurface exploration is limited to visual observation of the materials uncovered in an open test pit dug by an excavator. Soil testing was minimal in this investigation so conservative soil parameters have been estimated for bearing capacity and potential settlement from visual observation of the soil. Sampling and testing necessary for a local and global slope stability analysis have also not been completed for this site.Catastrophic events and other structures can contribute to the global stability of a slope,and have not been analyzed. If a more in depth subsurface investigation is desired, please contact our office to discuss your options. It is important to note that subsurface exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at specific points under the conditions present at the time of exploration. Because of this, actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist. The transitions between materials observed may be much more gradual or abrupt than inferred and subsurface materials may be uncovered during construction that were not thought to occur when the initial subsurface investigation was carried out. Conditions at the site can also change with time due to natural processes and construction practices on the site or on adjacent sites. With these limitations in mind, it is recommended that our services be retained for observation of the materials encountered during construction and that we are informed of any changes that occur on the site and any unexpected conditions that are encountered. This report is only a preliminary recommendation, which may change if unexpected conditions are encountered during construction. We cannot be held responsible for damages due to constructing on a site with conditions that are different from conditions thought to occur from our investigation. The only way to verify if the conditions encountered during construction are the same as expected in our report is to have us inspect the subgrade materials during construction. We cannot be held responsible for constructing on materials that we have not seen in person. The scope of our investigation did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials on the site. If information regarding the potential presence of hazardous materials on the site is desired,please contact us to discuss your options for obtaining this information. This report is valid as a complete document only. No portion of this report should be transmitted to other parties as an incomplete document. Misinterpretation of portions of this report (i.e, test pit logs) is possible when this information is transmitted to others without the supporting information presented in other portions of the report. If any questions arise with regards to any aspects of this report, please contact us at your convenience to avoid misinterpretation. Costly mistakes due to misinterpretation of geotechnical reports can usually be avoided by a quick phone call. #180016—LOT 1,FLANDERS MILL SUBDIVISION,PHASE 7,BOZEMAN,MONTANA