HomeMy WebLinkAbout020_GeotechnicalReportandGroundwaterMonitoringGEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR:
Block 4, Lot 1 of South University
District Phase 3
Bozeman, Montana
June 2022
Project Number: 22-061
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3
SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................. 3
GEOLOGY OF THE SITE .................................................................................................................... 4
EXPLORATIONS AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 4
Subsurface Explorations .............................................................................................................. 4
Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................................. 5
Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................................................. 7
Laboratory Testing ...................................................................................................................... 8
FOUNDATION, SLAB, AND DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................... 8
Seismic Design Factors ................................................................................................................ 8
Foundation Design ...................................................................................................................... 8
Foundation Bearing Criteria ........................................................................................................ 9
Option 1: Rammed Aggregate Piers ............................................................................................ 9
Option 2: Over-Excavation and Replacement ........................................................................... 11
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Under Slabs ............................................................................. 12
Lateral Earth Pressures.............................................................................................................. 13
Foundation Wall Backfill............................................................................................................ 13
Subsurface Drainage and Damp-Proofing ................................................................................. 14
Vapor Barrier ............................................................................................................................. 14
Surface Drainage Recommendations ........................................................................................ 14
Exterior Concrete and Garage Slabs .......................................................................................... 15
FOUNDATION-RELATED FILL MATERIAL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 15
Excavated Foundation Soils ....................................................................................................... 15
Structural Fill ............................................................................................................................. 16
Clean Crushed Rock ................................................................................................................... 16
FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION ........................................................................................... 16
PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 17
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 2
UNDERGROUND UTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 18
Foundation Support of Utility Lines .......................................................................................... 18
Trench Backfill ........................................................................................................................... 18
COLD/WINTER WEATHER CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................. 19
AESI FUTURE INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................ 19
LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 19
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 20
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
• List of Tables
o Table 1. Summary of Subsurface Conditions
o Table 2. Compaction Recommendations (Application vs. Percent Compaction)
o Table 3. Pavement Design for Stable Subgrade – Option 1
o Table 4. Pavement Design for Unstable Subgrade – Option 2
• List of Figures
o Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
o Figure 2 – Quadrangle Map
o Figure 3 – Geology Map
o Figure 4 – Test Pit Location Map
o Figure 5 – Depth to Gravels Map
o Figure 6 – Foundation Typ. – Slab-On-Grade (Rammed Aggregate Piers)
o Figure 7 – Foundation Typ. – Slab-On-Grade (Over Excavation and Replacement)
• List of Appendices
o Appendix A – Test Pit Logs
o Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Results
o Appendix C – Groundwater Monitoring Measurements Through 6-22-2022
o Appendix D – Pavement Section Design
o Appendix E – Limitations of Your Geotechnical Report
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
This report and attachments provide our geotechnical recommendations for the future
development of Block 4, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3 on the south side of Bozeman,
Montana. The information contained herein is based on an investigation of the property’s
topographical and subsurface conditions, a review of geologic maps and literature for the project
area, and our experience with similar developments in the area. The purpose of this report is to
provide a description of the site’s soil and groundwater conditions as well as recommendations
for the design and construction of future developments proposed for the property.
The 11.89-acre, rectangular-shaped property is located southwest of the Student Drive and South
11th Avenue Intersection. The property is situated in the Northeast ¼ of the Northwest ¼ of
Section 24, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Principal Meridian Montana, Gallatin County,
Montana. See Figures 1 and 2 for site location maps.
The property is comprised of an undeveloped agricultural field that is mostly flat, with grades
slowly dropping to the east at less than two percent. The property is bound to the west by South
14th Avenue right-of-way, the north by Student Drive, the east by South 11th Avenue right-of way,
and the south by Arnold Street. Site vegetation consists primarily of agricultural crops and
grasses. The northern portion of the project has recently served as a construction laydown yard
and is covered by import pitrun gravel placed over woven geotextile fabric.
At this time, we understand that the development will be composed of high-density, student
multi-story housing. We received a site plan dated March 25, 2022, that shows a mixture of two,
three, and four-story buildings being constructed throughout the development. We have not
been provided with structure specific details at this time. Please keep us updated on
development planning so we can ensure our recommendations are appropriate and applicable.
SCOPE OF WORK
The Scope of Services for this project included:
• Excavation of eight test pits within the proposed development site. Groundwater
monitors were installed in each test pit for future monitoring. The location of each test
pit is shown on Figure 4.
• Laboratory testing of select samples from the test pits.
• Providing allowable bearing capacity criteria and other applicable geotechnical
recommendations for the design and construction.
• Surface and subsurface drainage recommendations.
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 4
• Backfill material and compaction recommendations.
• Asphalt pavement section materials and design thickness.
GEOLOGY OF THE SITE
The geologic map for the area prepared by Lonn and English in 2002 indicates the site is underlain
by the Sixmile Creek Formation (Tsc). It should be noted that older alluvium of braid plains (Qabo)
is mapped adjacent to the property to the west. An excerpt of this mapping is provided on Figure
4. Due the presence of alluvial gravels encountered in our test pits at depths of 7.5 to 11.0 feet;
we believe the site is underlain by the alluvial braid plains (Qabo) with the Sixmile Creek
Formation (Tsc) present at depth below the alluvial deposit. The Qabo deposit can be described
as well-rounded, moderately to well-sorted, bouldery gravel with interbedded silt. We did
encounter sandy silt/clay present over the alluvial gravels that we believe are windblown
deposits (loess). Tsc can be described as predominantly light brown to light gray, poorly
stratified, poorly sorted tuffaceous siltstone and contains discontinuous and lenticular beds of
fluvial channel conglomerates, unaltered white volcanic ash, and mudstone.
EXPLORATIONS AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface Explorations
Subsurface conditions were investigated on May 19, 2022, under the direction of Erik
Schnaderbeck, a professional geotechnical engineer with Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Eight
test pit excavations, which are identified as TP-1 through TP-8, were excavated on the property
using a Hitachi 160LC tracked excavator provided by RLS Construction. The test pits were spatially
situated across the property to provide coverage. Groundwater monitors were installed in each
test pit for future monitoring.
During the explorations, soil and groundwater conditions were characterized, measured, and
logged. The relative densities of the exposed soils were estimated based on the ease or difficulty
of digging, probing of the test pit walls, pocket penetrometer readings, and overall stability of
the completed excavations. Copies of our test pit logs are provided in Appendix A. The logs
provide assorted field information, such as soil depths and descriptions, groundwater conditions,
relative density data, and a sketch of the soil stratigraphy. Please be aware that the detail
provided in the logs cannot be summarized in a paragraph; therefore, it is important to review
the logs in conjunction with this report. Following completion of the fieldwork, the test pit
locations were backfilled and cleaned up to the extent possible. Each was staked with a wooden
lath that identified it accordingly. If any test pits will underlie future site improvements, they
should be completely re-excavated and backfilled in properly compacted lifts to avoid
undesirable settlements.
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 5
Subsurface Conditions
Soil conditions were similar in all eight test pits. Approximately 0.5 to 2.0 feet of dark brown to
black, organic silt/clay was encountered overlying stiff, light brown, native sandy silt/clay that
was very moist and became softer with depth. The light brown, sandy silt/clay deposits extended
to depths of 7.5 to 11.0 feet and were underlain by very dense, brown, sandy gravel with
abundant 6-inch minus rounded cobbles that became wetter with depth as the pits encountered
groundwater. We anticipate that the upper fine-grained sandy silt/clay are remnants of a loess
(windblown) deposit as pinholes were observed in the layer across several test pits. Further
details are provided in this report with respect to the loess deposit. The native sandy gravels
extended to the bottom of all eight test pits to depths of 10.5 to 13.0 feet.
It should be noted that some random fill was encountered in TP-1 located in the northwest corner
of the property. The random fill was approximately 1.5 feet thick and consisted of brown to dark
brown, silt/clay with abundant 6-inch minus rock and organics. All random fill should be
removed from under building foundations. While we only found random fill in TP-1, there may
be more material present across the site, especially since it appears that the property was
previously used as a construction staging area.
Photo 1: Native sandy gravel (Target Bearing Material) observed in TP-1 at 7.5 feet below existing
ground. Please note the random fill located at 0.0 to 1.5 feet.
Random Fill Observed in
TP-1 from 0.0 to 1.5 feet.
Native Sandy Gravel
(Target Bearing Material)
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 6
As noted earlier, there was some import pit run gravel with rounded cobbles placed along the
north portion of the property placed for a staging pad for past construction. Two areas were
potholed during the test pit explorations and the depth of the import pit run gravel varied from
1.0 to 1.75 feet thick and was placed over a woven geotextile fabric. The top of the pad appears
to have become contaminated with organics and fine-grained soils. Provided the organics and
fine-grained soils can be stripped off the top, there is a possibility that the import pit run gravel
onsite can be used for subbase under future parking areas and roads provided the material is
laboratory tested and meets the required specifications for sub-base. We suggest the material
be tested to ensure that it meets MPW specifications for sub-base prior to being used onsite.
Please refer to Table 1 for a summary of soil conditions encountered in all eight test pits. All
measurements are below existing grade as of May 19, 2022.
Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Conditions
TEST
PIT ID
TEST PIT
LOCATION
RANDOM
FILL
IMPORT
PITRUN
GRAVEL
NATIVE
TOPSOIL
NATIVE
SANDY
SILT/CLAY
NATIVE
SANDY
GRAVEL
TP-1 NW Corner 0.0’ – 1.5’ -- 1.5’ – 2.25’ 2.25’ – 7.5’ 7.5’ – 13.0’
TP-2 SW Corner -- -- 0.0’ – 0.5’ 0.5’ – 7.75’ 7.75’ –11.5’
TP-3 South Central -- -- 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 8.0’ 8.0’ – 10.5’
TP-4
South Central -- -- 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 9.5’ 9.5’ – 12.5’
TP-5 SE Corner -- -- 0.0’ – 0.75’ 0.75’ – 8.0’ 8.0’ – 10.5’
TP-6
NE Corner -- 0.0’ – 1.0’ 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 8.5’ 8.5’ – 12.5’
TP-7
North Central -- -- 0.0’ – 1.25’ 1.25’ – 11.0’ 11.0’ – 12.0’
TP-8 North Central -- -- 0.0’ – 2.0’ 2.0’ – 9.0’ 9.0’ – 10.5’
Some consideration was given to an over-excavation and replacement option that would bear
foundations in the upper fine-grained soils since the gravels are somewhat deep. Taking into
consideration that the fine-grained soils became moister and softer with depth we would be
concerned about the possibility of excessive settlements underneath the multi-story structures.
As discussed earlier, we observed pinholes within the upper fine-grained soils in several test pits.
See Photo 2 for an example of soil conditions encountered in TP-3. Low-density soils containing
a “pinhole structure” are generally windblown in nature and can be subject to significant collapse
(in excess of an inch) if they become saturated while under typical foundation loads. For that
reason, we do not consider the upper fine-grain soils to be suitable bearing for multi-story
structures even if we replace multiple feet of this material with compacted granular structural
fill. Rather, we have provided two foundation options to support the units.
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 7
Photo 2: Pinhole soil structure observed in TP-3. Pinhole structure may be the result of a loess deposit
and may be subject to collapse with the addition of water.
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater levels encountered in our explorations ranged from 9.5 to 12.0 feet on May 19,
2022. Groundwater levels are generally highest in the late spring to early summer (following the
spring melt) and can also rise during irrigation season in July, August, and September. We have
been performing weekly groundwater monitoring at the site using the monitoring wells installed
in each of the test pits. To-date, we have seen groundwater levels rise to approximately 8 feet
in several of the groundwater monitors. While several of the wells have not had any signs of
water there is a possibility that groundwater levels are being impacted by nearby
construction/dewatering at Stucky Road and Block 2 of the South University District (located
northwest of the site) and south of the site near construction operations of the newly extended
Cambridge Drive. Our groundwater monitoring to date (June 22, 2022) are provided in Appendix
C.
Mottling within the fine-grained deposits was observed in the test pits. Mottling can be a result
of oxidation, attributed to the presence of groundwater. Mottling was observed at depths of 5.5
to 7.5 feet in several of the test pits across the property. We have worked on other projects in
the immediate area (Allison Subdivision, West University, Block 3 of the South University District,
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 8
the Yellowstone Theological Institute) and have encountered high groundwater across these
sites. For these reasons, we suspect the groundwater levels are being artificially impacted by area
construction and true groundwater levels in a typical year may rise to within four feet of the
ground surface.
Laboratory Testing
Select sack samples were taken in all eight test pits for moisture content testing and Atterberg
Limit testing. In addition to sack samples taken from the explorations, a composite sample was
taken of the upper fine-grain sandy silt/clay soils at 1.0 to 2.0 feet to obtain a standard proctor
of soils likely to be encountered during utility and site work. The standard proctor results per
ASTM D-698 indicate a maximum dry unit weight of 103.0 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and an
optimum moisture content of approximately 17.0 percent. It should be noted that moisture
contents of the upper sandy silt/clay soils varied from 13 to 30 percent (higher than the
optimum moisture content). Drying and reworking of the material may be required to achieve
proper compaction. The laboratory results are provided in Appendix B.
FOUNDATION, SLAB, AND DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS
Seismic Design Factors
Based on our on-site explorations and knowledge of the area’s geology, the project site class is
Site Class D per the 2021 IBC (not Default Site Class D).
Foundation Design
Due to the possibility of elevated groundwater levels in more typical years we recommend that
foundations consist of slab-on-grades with finished floor elevations raised to the extent
possible. We did consider the use of crawlspace foundations at the site but would like to review
footing elevations and site grading plans if crawlspaces are being considered before providing
further recommendations. At a minimum, would likely recommend a minimum of two feet of
separation between high groundwater and the bottom of footings in addition to implementing
subsurface drainage measures provided later in this report. This would likely place footings for
crawlspaces at no greater than two feet below the native ground surface.
Substantial subsurface drainage measures will also likely need to be implemented in crawlspace
applications given the possibility of water intrusion into the crawlspace. Clean crushed rock
would be recommended to infill the crawlspace up to the top of footings. Given the flatness of
the site, perimeter footing drains and sub-drains in the crawlspace will need to connect to an
exterior sump to pump out any water. Based on our experience with other projects in the City
of Bozeman and surrounding area, there are associated challenges with pumping out
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 9
groundwater and re-routing the water away from the structures to an acceptable location that
does not impact surrounding structures. In short, the City of Bozeman does not allow
groundwater to be pumped to city streets or stormwater ponds. If crawlspaces are being
considered, we would like to be consulted during design.
Foundation Bearing Criteria
The upper fine-grained soils found at the site are prone to excessive settlement (over an inch)
under anticipated foundation loads of two to four story structures.
For this reason, we have recommended two options with regards to foundation bearing. The
first option is to bear foundations on a ground improvement system comprised of rammed
aggregate piers that bear in the native sandy gravels. The second option is to over-excavate
down to the native sandy gravel (found at a depth of 7.5 to 11 feet) and bear footings on import
granular structural fill that is founded on the native sandy gravel. For frost protection, the bottom
of exterior footings should bear at a depth of four feet below the lowest adjacent finished grade.
Further details are provided for each option below.
Option 1: Rammed Aggregate Piers
Under this option, we recommend the installation of rammed aggregate piers under all
perimeter, interior, and exterior footings. The target end bearing for the piers is the native sandy
gravel found at depths of 7.5 to 11.0 feet. All piers must be designed to extend/bear a minimum
of 1.0-foot into the native sandy gravels. Shorter rammed aggregate pier systems that are
designed to “float” in the silt/clay and end bear above the “target” bearing gravel stratum will
not be accepted/approved.
All footings shall be underlain by a 12-inch-thick layer of granular structural fill (load transfer
platform). The purpose of the load transfer platform is to protect the sandy silt/clay subgrade
during construction and allows for the use of a higher friction coefficient (0.5) for foundation
design. The load transfer platform should be compacted to 98 percent of its Standard proctor
density defined by ASTM D-698. The interior slab of the building shall be underlain by a 24-inch
gravel section consisting of an upper 6-inch layer of clean crushed rock and a lower 18-inch
section of granular structural fill compacted to 98 percent of its Standard Proctor Density defined
by ASTM D-698. It should be noted that the subgrade will likely need to be scarified-worked and
compacted to an unyielding condition prior to placement of structural fill. Any soft spots should
be removed and replaced with granular structural fill. Considerations should be taken to avoid
damaging/rutting the building pad during pier installation.
Assuming the use of rammed aggregate piers, foundations may be designed for an allowable
bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) assuming the piers extend 1.0 foot into
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 10
the native sandy gravels. Allowable bearing pressures from transient loading (due to wind or
seismic forces) may be increased by 50 percent. The recommended rammed aggregate pier
stiffness modulus is 200 pounds per square inch, per inch (pci). The stiffness modulus should
be confirmed in the field prior to pier installation with a full-scale modulus test conducted on a
test pier. The test pier shall be considered sacrificial and not be situated under any buildings. We
suggest locating the test pier in the area of the worst soil conditions where native sandy gravels
are the deepest (near TP-7).
Rammed aggregate piers shall be designed for total settlements less than 1 inch under footings
and for differential settlements less than 0.5 inch. It should be noted that rammed aggregate
piers provide no lateral resistance so lateral capacities but be provided from friction under
footings and from lateral earth pressure against foundation walls.
Rammed aggregate piers are typically comprised of 1.5-inch minus crushed road mix sandy gravel
placed and compacted in 24 to 30-inch drilled diameter holes. The pier designer/contractor will
specify sizing of the piers. In the event groundwater is encountered during pier installation, we
recommend the use of clean crushed rock to bring the level of the structural fill in the pier above
the groundwater. Road mix gravel may be used above that point. We suggest either installing
the piers in the winter when groundwater levels are lowest or dewatering the site prior to the
installation of the piers if the work will be completed in the spring/summer.
A common issue we have found during rammed aggregate pier installation is that piers are often
left short during installation creating a void between the load transfer platform and the top of
the compacted pier. For this reason, we recommend that the top of the piers after installation
extend up to footing grade and then later shaved down one foot to allow the installation of the
load transfer platform. A foundation typical is provided in Figure 6.
The pier contractor shall be responsible for full-time, quality control inspection and daily testing.
This requirement shall be stated in the project specifications. In addition to the stiffness modulus
test prior to installation of piers, base stabilization testing (BST) and dynamic cone penetrometer
testing (DCPT) should be conducted. The typical frequency of BST testing is to complete the
testing on the first five production piers, followed by at least five production piers every day
during installation. DCPT testing should be conducted on at least five percent of the total
production piers installed on the project. Test results should be provided to the project
geotechnical engineer. We also recommend that pier locations be staked, and a post-
construction survey of pier locations be provided to ensure all piers were installed.
We ask that we be involved in the design to ensure our recommendations are being followed and
implemented correctly. We also ask that we be retained for part-time quality assurance
inspection on behalf of the owner during pier installation and be provided with the contractor’s
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 11
daily records and test results.
Option 2: Over-Excavation and Replacement
The second option is simply the removal of all unsuitable soils down to the native gravels and
replacement with compacted granular structural fill. The removal/replacement may encompass
the entire footprint of the structure or be limited to under foundations as outlined below.
The first option is to mass-excavate within the footprint of the structures down to the target
bearing native sandy gravels and replace with compacted structural fill (road mix or pit-run
gravel). This may be the easiest option if there are a significant number of interior spread
footings that need to be dug out as well. The structural fill should extend a distance of one-half
the structural fill thickness beyond the outside edge of perimeter footings. For example, if 5 feet
of structural fill is required to extend from the native sandy gravels back up to footing grade, the
structural fill should extend a minimum of 2.5 feet outside the outside edge of perimeter
footings. See Figure 7 for details.
A second option to perhaps save on foundation preparation costs is to leave the non-organic
sandy silt/clay under the interior slab and dig out the footings individually down to the native
gravels, using compacted structural fill as needed to build back up to footing elevation. To ensure
load transfer occurs in the structural fill, the required width of the excavation is the width of the
footing plus the depth of structural fill measured from the bottom of footing to the native gravels
(essentially a load transfer of 2V:1H). For instance, if the width of the footing is 2 feet and the
thickness of structural fill extending from the bottom of footing to native gravels is 5 feet, the
width of the excavation would need to be 7 feet. This assumes the footing is centered on the
structural fill.
With Option 2, lightly loaded interior slabs would be supported by the native non-organic fine-
grained soils and a section of structural fill. We recommend against supporting any portion of
interior slabs on organic soils since these soils will be prone to settlement depending on the
degree of organics present. Organic soils should be completely removed and the non-organic
fine-grained subgrade proof-rolled to a dense, unyielding condition. Please recognize that the
upper sandy silt/clay soils were very moist and may be soft upon excavation. Drying and
scarifying of the surface may be needed to compact the subgrade to an unyielding condition. Any
soft spots should be removed and replaced with structural fill. If widespread soft conditions are
found, the subgrade may be covered with a woven geotextile fabric (Mirafi 600X or equal). Over
the top of the prepared subgrade, we recommend placing 18 inches of structural fill followed by
6 inches of crushed drainage rock directly under the slab.
Our experience is that there is often a balance between leaving some of the fine-grain soils under
the slabs and individually digging the spread footings and perimeter footings down to the native
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 12
gravels versus the ability to utilize larger construction equipment and excavating everything
down to the gravel. In the case of the latter, more gravel is used; however, the work can proceed
much faster with the use of the larger equipment. We suggest consulting with a foundation
excavation contractor to determine which option will be the most cost effective for this
development.
In the event groundwater is encountered at the bottom of the excavation, clean crushed rock
may be placed to raise the bottom of the excavation above the groundwater before switching to
more traditional structural fill (pit-run or crushed sandy gravel). Providing separation from
groundwater using the non-moisture-sensitive clean crushed rock will avoid the saturation of the
structural fill and subsequent difficulty with compaction. Clean crushed rock should be placed in
lifts not exceeding 12 inches loose and vibratory compacted. Clean crushed rock should be
covered with a nonwoven geotextile fabric such as a Mirafi 180N or equal prior to structural fill
placement to prevent the migration of fines into the crushed rock. Structural fill shall be placed
in lifts and compacted to 98 percent of its Standard Proctor Density based on ASTM D-698.
Further details on lift thickness and compaction requirements are provided later in this report.
Prior to placing structural fill, the native subgrade should be proof-rolled to an unyielding
condition. Any soft or overly moist areas should be removed and replaced with lifts of structural
fill compacted to a dense, unyielding condition.
Note that if groundwater levels are significantly elevated, large-scale dewatering may be
required. The contractor may also consider conducting the work in the winter when groundwater
levels are lowest.
Under Option 2, an appropriate bearing capacity for design assuming conventional spread and
continuous footings is 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) provided our foundation support
options are followed. Total settlements are estimated to be under 1 inch with minimal differential
settlements. Allowable bearing pressures during transient loading (due to wind or seismic forces)
may be increased by 50 percent.
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Under Slabs
Assuming our interior slab support recommendations are followed (as presented later in the
report), the subgrade reaction modulus (k) can be assumed to be 200 pounds/cubic inch (pci).
This is a modified design value that uses the subgrade reaction modulus (k) of the native silt/cay
and factors it (increases it) based on a minimum section thickness of imported gravel to be placed
under the slab. This design value assumes the slab will be underlain by at least 24 inches of
import structural fill (18 inches of granular structural fill and 6 inches of clean crushed rock).
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 13
Lateral Earth Pressures
All foundation walls that will be fixed at the top prior to the placement of backfill should be
designed for an “at rest” equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). In contrast,
cantilevered retaining walls may be designed for a lower, “active” equivalent fluid pressure of 45
pcf, provided either some slight outward rotation of the wall is acceptable upon backfilling, or
the wall is constructed in such a way that accommodates the expected rotation. The “at rest”
and “active” design values are only applicable for walls that will have backfill slopes of less than
ten percent and will not be externally loaded by surface pressures applied above and/or behind
the wall. These lateral earth pressures also assume proper subsurface drainage provisions
(footing drains) are installed to prevent the development of hydrostatic pressures.
Lateral forces from wind, earthquakes, and earth pressures on the opposite side of the structure
will be resisted by passive earth pressure against the buried portion of the foundation wall and
by friction at the bottom of the footing. Passive earth pressures in compacted backfill should be
assumed to have an equivalent fluid pressure of 280 pcf, while a coefficient of friction of 0.5
should be used between cast-in-place concrete and the native gravels or granular structural fill.
Actual footing loads (not factored or allowable loads) should be used for calculating frictional
resistance to sliding along the base of the footing. Please be aware that the friction coefficient
has no built-in factor of safety; therefore, an appropriate safety factor should be selected and
used in all subsequent calculations for each load case.
The lateral earth pressures summarized above are for static conditions and should be factored
for seismic conditions.
Foundation Wall Backfill
Exterior wall backfill can consist of any excavated foundation soil, other than topsoil, provided it
is not overly moist, highly plastic, or too rocky in composition. Interior foundation backfill should
consist of import structural fill. The native soils may require drying to re-use as backfill. All select
backfill materials should be placed in multiple lifts and properly compacted to 95 percent of their
Standard Proctor density. Foundation walls intended to be braced should not be backfilled until
the bracing (such as floor joists) is in place to prevent unintended rotation/deflection of the wall.
To prevent damaging foundation walls during the backfilling process, only hand-operated
compaction equipment is recommended within three feet of walls that are not buried on both
sides. To minimize the potential for future settlement problems, the level of care (with respect
to the selection of dry backfill materials and the compactive effort that is used) should be
increased significantly in those areas that will receive concrete/asphalt surfacing or that will
support a retaining wall. Finally, the re-use of topsoil as backfill should be limited to the
uppermost four to six inches in landscaped areas.
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 14
Subsurface Drainage and Damp-Proofing
As discussed earlier, we recommend foundations consisting of slab-on-grades due to the
possibility of high groundwater and the difficulty of finding suitable areas to pump out
groundwater in crawlspace applications. The City of Bozeman will not allow pumping into streets
or stormwater ponds. We would like to be involved to review site plans and provide input if
crawlspace foundations are used.
For slab-on-grade foundations, perimeter footing drains are not necessary unless the exterior
grade will extend above the top of slab (which is normally not likely). Buried foundation walls
should be damp-proofed with an acceptable commercial product as per the requirements of the
International Building Code (IBC 2021).
If crawlspaces are used, we recommend that a minimum of two feet of separation be provided
between high groundwater and the bottom of footings. We recommend installing a footing drain
around the perimeter of the foundation consisting of a 4-inch perforated pipe encased in clean,
crushed rock and burrito-wrapped in a nonwoven drainage fabric. Since daylighting is impractical
given the flatness of the site, we suggest taking the drains to an exterior sump with a pump
(assuming a suitable place to pump the water to is determined).
In addition, a network of perforated 4-inch subdrain pipe should be placed within the free-
draining crushed rock infill in the crawlspace. The subdrain pipe should likewise be taken to a
sump with a pump. The network of pipe in the crawlspace should be covered with the free-
draining clean crushed rock placed to the top of footing and covered with a vapor barrier as
described below. A rat slab could be constructed on top of the vapor barrier and crushed rock if
desired.
Vapor Barrier
To control moisture vapor, we recommend installing a heavy-duty vapor barrier under interior
slabs or over the top of crawlspace subgrades. We recommend a vapor barrier with a water vapor
transmission rate of 0.006 or lower as established by ASTM E 96, such as a Stego 15-mil Vapor
Barrier. The vapor barrier should be installed as per the manufacturer recommendations and
ASTM E 1643, ensuring it is properly attached to footings/walls and sealed at the seams.
Surface Drainage Recommendations
No water should be allowed to accumulate against or flow along any exposed foundation walls.
Concrete or asphalt surfacing that abuts the foundation should be designed with a minimum
grade of 2 percent away from the structure, and adjacent landscaped areas should have a slope
of at least 5 percent within 10 feet of the wall (see the IBC building codes). Do not route water
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 15
to subsurface footing and foundation drains. To further reduce the potential for moisture
infiltration along foundation walls, backfill materials should be well-compacted. The upper 4 to 6
inches of backfill should consist of low permeability topsoil. Except for the locations that will be
surfaced by concrete or asphalt, finished grades next to foundation walls should be set no less
than 6 inches below the top of the sill plate.
Exterior Concrete and Garage Slabs
Depending on site grading, lightly loaded exterior concrete slabs can either be supported on a
minimum of 6 inches of clean crushed rock overlying 6 inches of granular structural fill that bears
on non-organic, native soils or on embankment fill material that is placed above the stripped
subgrade surface to raise design elevations. Traffic loaded exterior slabs should be underlain by
a minimum of 6 inches of clean crushed rock and 12 inches of granular structural fill with a woven
geotextile fabric (315 lb. woven fabric or approved equivalent) placed over compacted and
unyielding subgrade.
Thickening the crushed rock layer to greater than six inches will improve the drainage capacity
under the slab as well as provide additional separation from the underlying soils. Consequently,
the frost heave potential of the slab should be reduced. We suggest that critical exterior slab
areas which cannot undergo any heaving be underlain by additional crushed rock and two inches
or more of below grade insulation extending outward two feet from the edge of the slab to limit
frost penetration. Prior to placing any embankment fill or structural fill, both of which must be
adequately compacted, the subgrade surface should be proof-rolled to confirm its stability. If
soft or wet areas are identified, they should be over-excavated and replaced with compacted
structural fill.
FOUNDATION-RELATED FILL MATERIAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Excavated Foundation Soils
All topsoil should be stripped and stockpiled for re-use during site reclamation. No topsoil shall
be present under buildings. On-site soils suitable for re-use as site fill or backfill should be
separated from wet, rocky, or otherwise unsuitable soils during excavation. The suitability of the
non-organic excavated soils will depend on their rockiness, plasticity, natural moisture content,
and ability to be re-compacted. The driest soils containing an even mixture of soil matrix and
smaller rock fragments should be selected for use as compacted fill, while the wettest and
rockiest soils should either be hauled off-site or used for general site grading in non-critical
locations. Depending on the time of year, some of the native soil that is excavated may be wet
of optimum and will require drying prior to re-use. This may necessitate the import of compacted
fill material if work is conducted during the wet or winter season when drying is not an option.
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 16
Structural Fill
If needed, import granular structural fill for the project should consist of organic-free, well-
graded 4-inch-minus sandy (pit run) gravel or 1.5-inch-minus crushed road mix gravel. The gravels
shall meet the material and gradation specifications as presented in the Montana Public Works
Standard Specifications (MPWSS) for sub-base course and base course gravel. Structural fill for
rammed aggregate piers should be specified by the pier designer/contractor.
Clean Crushed Rock
The primary uses for clean crushed rock include placement under concrete slabs and behind
foundation and retaining walls for drainage-related purposes. It may also be used as structural
fill to bring the subgrade up above the groundwater level in below foundation applications.
Crushed rock shall consist of a clean assortment of angular fragments with 100 percent passing
a one-inch screen and less than 1 percent (by weight) finer than the No. 100 sieve. Over 50
percent of the rock particles must have fractured faces.
FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION
All fill materials should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts and compacted to an unyielding
condition. The “loose” thickness of each layer of fill prior to compaction should not exceed 10
inches for self-propelled rollers, 6 inches for remote-controlled trench rollers, and 4 inches for
plate compactors. The moisture content of any fill material to be compacted should be within 2
percent of its optimum value. Table 2 below provides our compaction recommendations for
general site applications. These recommendations apply to all fill materials and are presented as
a percentage of the maximum dry density of the material being placed as defined by ASTM D-
698. A common misconception is that washed or screened crushed rock does not require
compaction. However, this material does require compaction with a vibratory plate or smooth
drum roller.
Table 2. Compaction Recommendations (Application vs. Percent Compaction)
APPLICATION % COMPACTION
Granular Structural Fill Under Footings and Interior Slabs: 98
Embankment Fill Under Exterior Slabs: 95
Backfill Behind Foundation: 95
Clean Crushed Rock Under Slabs: N/A (Vibration Required)
Sub-base and Base Course Materials for Asphalt Pavement: 95
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 17
PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the anticipated soft subgrade conditions across the site and intended uses for roads and
parking lots, we have recommended separate pavement sections for local streets and parking
areas assuming stable and moderately unstable subgrade conditions. See Appendix C for design
calculations.
For local roads including side streets, accesses, parking areas, and driveways, we assumed a
design ESAL of 150,000 and a 20-year design life. Table 3 presents the minimum pavement
section for local streets and parking areas assuming stable subgrade conditions (i.e., the upper 8
inches of native soil can be compacted to 95-percent of ASTM D-698, no rutting or deflecting, dry
subgrade, etc).
Table 3. Pavement Section 1 – Local Streets/Parking Areas – 150,000 ESALs – Stable Subgrade
MATERIAL COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN)
Asphalt 3
Base Course Gravel 6
Sub-Base Course Gravel 15
315 lb. Woven Geotextile Fabric (Mirafi 600X) Yes
Stable Subgrade Soils (Less Topsoil) Compacted to 95%
TOTAL SECTION DESIGN THICKNESS 24
Please recognize that the section above is only applicable to stable subgrade conditions (no
rutting, deflecting, etc). Given the subgrade was very moist (wet of optimum) and became
softer with depth, it should be anticipated that the subgrade will likely need to be dried,
scarified, and re-worked to achieve adequate compaction to a stable condition prior to placing
fabric and sub-base gravel.
We have observed multiple projects over the years near the project site that have encountered
very moist and soft subgrade conditions during road and parking lot construction. Should
widespread moderately unstable subgrade conditions (minor rutting and deflecting, very moist
subgrade, etc.) be found across the site, an additional pavement section has been provided.
Table 4 presents an alternative section for local roads and parking areas if stable subgrade
conditions cannot be achieved during road construction prior to placing fabric and sub-base. We
suggest incorporating a bid item within the contract documents in the event unstable subgrade
conditions are encountered. The option for moderately unstable subgrade listed in Table 4
includes 6 additional inches of sub-base gravel and the utilization of a stronger subgrade
stabilization fabric comprised of a combination of geogrid and a non-woven geotextile fabric
placed over the subgrade.
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221
Page 18
Table 4. Pavement Section 2 – Local Streets/Parking Areas – 150,000 ESALs – Unstable
MATERIAL COMPACTED THICKNESS (IN)
Asphalt 3
Base Course Gravel 6
Sub-Base Course Gravel 21
Tensar TX-190L Geogrid Reinforcement Yes
8-ounce non-woven geotextile fabric (Mirafi 180N) Yes
Moderately Unstable Subgrade (Less Topsoil) Compacted to Extent Possible
TOTAL SECTION DESIGN THICKNESS 30
We should be retained during the construction of roadways/parking areas to evaluate the
severity of any unstable conditions encountered and the use of higher strength fabrics or
increasing the sub-base section. In the event highly unstable subgrade conditions (severe rutting
and deflecting) are encountered we recommend adding 6 to 12 inches of additional sub-base
gravel to the pavement section provided in Table 4.
The sub-base and base course materials that comprise the granular parts of the pavement section
shall consist of 4-inch minus uncrushed sandy (pit run) gravel and 1-1/2-inch minus crushed (road
mix) gravel, respectively. Both gravel courses shall meet the material and gradation specifications
presented in MPWSS, Sections 02234 and 02235. Under normal circumstances, the gravel
products should be placed in lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness (depending on the size of
the compactor) and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as defined in
ASTM D-698. However, if the subgrade soils are found to be overly moist, soft, or unstable, the
initial lift thickness of the sub-base gravel should be thickened to prevent damaging and tearing
the geotextile fabric with construction equipment and allow bridging of the unstable subgrade.
UNDERGROUND UTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundation Support of Utility Lines
Exterior utility lines (water, sewer, and dry utilities) can be adequately supported by the native
gravels. Should utility lines be supported by the upper fine-grained soils that were very moist and
soft, Type 2 bedding may be required by the Engineer to support the lines. We recommend a bid
item be included in case Type 2 bedding is deemed necessary. We suggest proper bedding of all
utilities following the specifications found in the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications.
Trench Backfill
Trench backfill can consist of any native material (except materials containing significant
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D. Phase 3
June 27, 2022 Project Number: 22-061
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221 Page 19
organics) that is not overly wet. Due to the very moist and soft upper fine-grained soils, we
recommend that a bid item be included that allows the import of backfill material where needed.
We recommend that trench backfill be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of ASTM D-698
under pavement/slab areas and 92 percent in landscaped areas.
COLD/WINTER WEATHER CONSTRUCTION
If foundation construction will occur during the cold/winter weather season, the Contractor shall
take all necessary precautions to prevent the earthwork from freezing and/or from being
contaminated with snow. Exposed subgrade and fill materials (under footings, slabs, and walls)
should be adequately covered with concrete insulation blankets to prevent frost penetration and
to protect them from snow. All soils that are used for fill under or around foundation components
should be relatively dry, free of intermixed snow and frozen clods, and must not be placed when
it is snowing. Fill materials or foundations should not be placed over frozen soils, which may be
in a “frost-heaved condition,” or over layers of snow. When earthwork will proceed during the
non-optimal times of the year, we recommend that it be performed expeditiously to minimize
the time that the foundation excavation is open and exposed to the elements.
AESI FUTURE INVOLVEMENT
We suggest that we be retained during the design to ensure that the recommendations provided
herein are followed. We further recommend that we be allowed to view the construction
excavation to verify that the appropriate target bearing materials have been reached.
LIMITATIONS
This report provides our geotechnical-related recommendations for Block 4, Lot 1 of the South
University District Phase 3 located in Bozeman, Montana. Please be advised that this report is
only applicable for the above-referenced project and shall not be used for other nearby projects.
The recommendations presented herein are primarily based on observation and evaluation of
the site’s surface and subsurface conditions, along with review and interpretation of geologic
maps, and previous engineering experience within the project area. If during earthwork
construction, soil and groundwater conditions are found to be inconsistent with those described
in the report, we should be advised immediately so the situation can be analyzed, and
recommendations can be modified as needed.
All individuals associated with this project should consult this report during the planning, design,
and construction of the site improvements. It should be made available to other parties for
information on factual data only and not as a warranty of actual subsurface conditions such as
LIST OF FIGURES
FFiigguurree 11 –– VViicciinniittyy MMaapp
FFiigguurree 22 –– QQuuaaddrraannggllee MMaapp
FFiigguurree 33 –– GGeeoollooggyy MMaapp
FFiigguurree 44 –– TTeesstt PPiitt LLooccaattiioonn MMaapp
FFiigguurree 55 –– DDeepptthh ttoo GGrraavveellss MMaapp
FFiigguurree 66 –– FFoouunnddaattiioonn TTyypp.. ((RRaammmmeedd AAggggrreeggaattee PPiieerrss))
FFiigguurree 77 –– FFoouunnddaattiioonn TTyypp.. ((OOvveerr--EExxcc.. aanndd RReeppllaacceemmeenntt))
FIGURECivil Engineering
Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying
32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com
BLOCK 4, LOT 1 OF S. UNIVERSITY DIST.
VICINITY MAP
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
1
N
FIGURECivil Engineering
Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying
32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com
BLOCK 4, LOT 1 OF S. UNIVERSITY DIST.
QUADRANGLE MAP
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
2
N
FIGURECivil Engineering
Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying
32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com
BLOCK 4, LOT 1 OF S. UNIVERSITY DIST.
GEOLOGY MAP
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
3
N
FIGURECivil Engineering
Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying
32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com
BLOCK 4, LOT 1 OF S. UNIVERSITY DIST.
TEST PIT LOCATION MAP
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
4
TP#
TP-1
MW#N
MW-1
MW-2TP-2 MW-3TP-3
MW-4TP-4 MW-5TP-5
MW-6TP-6
MW-7TP-7MW-8TP-8
FIGURECivil Engineering
Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying
32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com
BLOCK 4, LOT 1 OF S. UNIVERSITY DIST.
DEPTH TO GRAVELS MAP
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
5
TP#
TP-1
#.#'N
7.5'
7.75'TP-2 8.0'TP-3
9.5'TP-4 8.0'TP-5
8.5'TP-6
11.0'TP-79.0'TP-8
Figure 622-061June 2022Block 4, Lot 1 South University District Phase 3Foundation Detail - Slab-On-Grade (w/ Rammed Aggregate Piers)Bozeman, MontanaLegendNot To ScaleCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 Discovery DriveBozeman, MT 59718Phone: (406) 582-0221Fax: (406) 582-5770LandscapeAreas To Slope Away@ 5% (min.) Within 10’ Of Wall.Upper 4” - 6” Of Backfill ShouldConsist Of Low Permeable Topsoil.Note: Concrete Surfacing PlacedAdjacent ToFoundation Walls Shall SlopeAway @ 2% (min.).6” (min.)Slab-On-Grade ElevationEx. GroundReviewed By: __________________7.5’ - 11’ DepthTo “Target”Bearing MaterialStrip TopsoilPrior To FillingAll RAPs Must Extend1.0’ (min.) Down Into“Target” Sandy Gravel.Foundation Backfilland Embankment FillNative Sandy Gravel(”Target” Bearing Material)Low Permeable TopsoilNative Fine-Grained Soil(Sandy Silt/Clay)Native TopsoilGranular Structural Fill(3” Minus Sandy Gravel)Rammed Aggregate Pier(1.5” Minus Roadmix Gravel Typ.)(Specified by Pier Designer)1” Minus CleanCrushed RockGroundwaterConcrete Slab15-mil Vapor Barrier Under Slab6” (min.) Crushed Rock Layer18” (min.) Structural Fill LayerA Large, Smooth Drum RollerMust Be Used To VibratoryCompact Subgrade SoilsAnd Granular Structural FillWherever Possible.PerimeterFootingRammed Aggregate Pier(RAP) Ground ImprovementRammed Aggregate Pier(RAP) Ground ImprovementRAPSAre24” to 30”Dia. (typ.)Interior Wall Backfill(Structural Fill)24” (min.) Gravel SectionUnder Slab Areas (typ.)Strip/Remove All Topsoil From TheBldg’s Foundation Footprint Area.Re-Compact Silt/Clay Subgrade ToA Dense And Unyielding Condition.4’ (min.) For FrostProtection (typ.)12” (min.) Structural FillLayer Under All Footings12” (min.) Structural FillLayer Under All FootingsInteriorFootingEGS, Jun. 2022The Sandy Gravel Is Defined AsThe “Target” Bearing StratumFor All Rammed Aggregate Piers.All Piers Must Be Designed ToEnd Bear In The Native Gravel.A Short Length RammedAggregate Pier SystemThat “Floats” And EndBears In The Silt/ClayIs Not Allowed.Interior FoundationBackill Shall Consistof Import GranularStructural FillPier Contractor ShallPlan For EncounteringGroundwater Prior ToReaching TargetBearing Gravels
Figure 722-061June 2022Block 4, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3Foundation Typical - Slab-On-Grade (Over-Excavation and Replacement)Bozeman, MontanaLegendFoundation Backfilland Embankment FillNative Sandy Gravel(”Target” Bearing Material)ConcreteNative TopsoilLow Permeable TopsoilNot To ScaleCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 Discovery DriveBozeman, MT 59718Phone: (406) 582-0221Fax: (406) 582-5770Native Fine-Grained Soil(Sandy Silt/Clay)Granular Structural FillClean Crushed RockGroundwaterFinished Floor Elevation15 mil Polyethylene Vapor Barrier (typ.)ExistingGroundReviewed By:EGS Jun. 20226” (min.) Clean Crushed Rock Under SlabMass Over-Excavate Entire Foundation Footprint And Place Granular StructuralFill From Excavated Gravel Surface Up To Perimeter And Interior Footing Grades.Perimeter FootingInterior FootingImportant Note: Increase The Level Of Care For Wall BackfillAnd Compaction In Areas That Will Receive Concrete Slabs.Finished Landscape GradeTo Slope Away @ 5% (min.).Upper 4” - 6” Of FoundationBackfill Should Consist OfLow Permeable Topsoil.SeeReport6” (min.)Raise FF Above Existing Grades As HighAs Site Grading Will Allow.Depth Of Cover ForFrost Protection4’ (min.)Width Of MassOver-ExcavationExcavated Gravel Surface Should Be “Clean” Sandy Gravel. Re-Compact To An Unyielding Condition Prior To Placement Of Structural Fill.7.5’ to 11.0’Depth To“Target” GravelAll Fill Materials Shall Be Placed And Compacted InAccordance With The Specifications In The Report.All Footings Must Bear Structural Fill That In Turn IsSupported On Native Gravel.Foundation Walls to be Damp-Proofed. No Footing Drain IsRequired Unless Exterior Grade Will Extend Above Top of SlabSee Report forDetails If GWIs EncounteredDuring Exc.
LIST OF APPENDICES
AAppppeennddiixx AA –– TTeesstt PPiitt LLooggss
AAppppeennddiixx BB –– LLaabboorraattoorryy TTeessttiinngg RReessuullttss
AAppppeennddiixx CC –– GGWW MMoonniittoorriinngg RReessuullttss TThhrroouugghh 66--2222--22002222
AAppppeennddiixx DD –– PPaavveemmeenntt SSeeccttiioonn DDeessiiggnn
AAppppeennddiixx EE –– LLiimmiittaattiioonnss ooff YYoouurr GGeeootteecchhnniiccaall RReeppoorrtt
APPENDIX A
TTeesstt PPiitt LLooggss
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06113.0'12.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-1 (NW Corner) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65430, -111.05605(See Test Pit Location Map)36912151512963LAB TESTING RESULTS:Atterberg Limits at 4.0'PL = 18.1, LL = 35.0, PI = 16.9Soil Classification = CL (Lean CLAY)34{0.0' - 1.5'}: Random Fill:Soft; brown to dark brown; SILT/CLAY withabundant rounded to sub-angular 6"-minus rock;very moist.{1.5' - 2.25'}: Buried Topsoil:Stiff; dark brown; organic SILT/CLAY with somerock; moist.{2.25' - 7.5'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Stiff; brown; sandy SILT/CLAY; very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.5' = 2.0 - 3.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Softer and moister with depth.·Oxidation observed at 6.0'.{7.5' - 13.0'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; moist to wet.·Target bearing material.·Increased moisture and density with depth.·Wet below 11.0'.·Groundwater encountered at 12.0'.Notes:·MW-1 installed.12S1-A@2.0'18.9%S1-B@4.0'25.3%S1-C@6.0'30.3%S1-D@8.0'9.8%1234GW at 12.0'Target Bearing at 7.5'
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06111.5'10.5'Test Pit Designation: TP-2 (SW Corner) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65327, -111.05606(See Test Pit Location Map)369121515129633{0.0' - 0.5'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; dark brown to black; organic SILT/CLAYwith roots; very moist.{0.5' - 7.75'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Very stiff; light brown; sandy SILT/CLAY;slightly moist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.0' = 2.5 - 3.5 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 2.5 - 3.5 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 4.0' = 2.5 - 3.5 tsf.·Not as moist at TP-1.{7.75' - 11.5'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; moist to wet.·Target bearing material.·Increased moisture with depth.·Wet below 9.0'.·Groundwater encountered at 10.5'.Notes:·MW-2 installed.12S2-A@2.0'13.7%S2-B@4.0'16.4%S2-C@6.0'19.5%S2-D@8.0'9.9%GW at 10.5'Target Bearing at 7.75'123LAB TESTING RESULTS:Atterberg Limits at 6.0'PL = 19.4, LL = 38.8, PI = 19.4Soil Classification = CL (Lean CLAY)
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06110.5'9.5'Test Pit Designation: TP-3 (South Side) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65330, -111.05493(See Test Pit Location Map)369121515129633{0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; dark brown to black; organic SILT/CLAYwith roots; very moist.{1.0' - 8.0'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Stiff; light brown; sandy SILT/CLAY; slightlymoist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.0' = 1.5 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 4.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Softer and moister with depth.·Pinhole structure observed below 6.0'.·Moisture increase at 7.0'.·Oxidation observed at 7.0'.{8.0' - 10.5'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; moist to wet.·Target bearing material.·Increased moisture with depth.·Wet below 9.0'.·Groundwater encountered at 9.5'.Notes:·MW-3 installed.12S3-A@2.0'23.5%S3-B@4.0'15.9%S3-C@6.0'11.3%S3-D@8.0'8.8%GW at 9.5'Target Bearing at 8.0'123
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06112.5'12.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-4 (South Side) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65327, -111.05366(See Test Pit Location Map)369121515129633{0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; dark brown to black; organic SILT/CLAYwith roots; very moist.·Roots to 18".{1.0' - 9.5'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Stiff; light brown; sandy SILT/CLAY; slightlymoist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.0' = 1.5 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 4.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Softer and moister with depth.·Moisture increase at 4.0'.·Oxidation observed at 5.5'.{9.5' - 12.5'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; moist to wet.·Target bearing material.·Increased moisture with depth.·Wet below 11.0'.·Groundwater encountered at 12.0'.Notes:·MW-4 installed.12S4-A@2.0'21.9%S4-B@4.0'22.2%S4-C@6.0'17.0%S4-D@8.0'16.8%GW at 12.0'Target Bearing at 9.5'123LAB TESTING RESULTS:Atterberg Limits at 6.0'PL = 18.7, LL = 36.3, PI = 17.6Soil Classification = CL (Lean CLAY)
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06110.5'9.5'Test Pit Designation: TP-5 (SE Corner) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65332, -111.05267(See Test Pit Location Map)369121515129633{0.0' - 0.75'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; dark brown to black; organic SILT/CLAYwith roots; very moist.{0.75' - 8.0'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Stiff; light brown; sandy SILT/CLAY; slightlymoist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.0' = 1.5 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 4.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Softer and moister with depth.·Oxidation observed at 6.0'.{8.0' - 10.5'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; wet.·Target bearing material.·Groundwater encountered at 9.5'.Notes:·MW-5 installed.12S5-A@2.0'23.2%S5-B@4.0'20.6%S5-C@6.0'11.5%S5-D@8.0'4.5%GW at 9.5'Target Bearing at 8.0'123
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06112.5'11.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-6 (NE Corner) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65427, -111.05262(See Test Pit Location Map)369121515129633{0.0' - 1.0'}: Imported Pitrun Gravel:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; slightly moist.·Only present on north side of test pit.·Gravel pad on the north side of the site·Topsoil was stripped.·Woven geotextile fabric observed betweenthe subgrade and the imported pitrun.{0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; dark brown to black; organic SILT/CLAYwith roots; very moist.·Only present on south side of test pit -topsoil on north side of test pit was stripped.{1.0' - 8.5'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Stiff to medium stiff; brown; sandy SILT/CLAY;very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.0' = 1.5 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 4.0' = 0.5 tsf.·Softer and moister with depth.·Softer and moister than previous test pits.{8.5' - 12.5'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; moist to wet.·Target bearing material.·Increased moisture with depth.·Wet below 10.0'.·Groundwater encountered at 11.0'.Notes: MW-6 installed.12S6-A@2.0'22.9%S6-B@4.0'24.4%S6-C@6.0'27.9%S6-D@8.0'10.9%GW at 11.0'Target Bearing at 8.5'1North123LAB TESTING RESULTS:Atterberg Limits at 6.0'PL = 19.1, LL = 37.2, PI = 18.1Soil Classification = CL (Lean CLAY)
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06112.0'11.5'Test Pit Designation: TP-7 (North Side) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65421, -111.05378(See Test Pit Location Map)369121515129633{0.0' - 1.25'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; dark brown to black; organic SILT/CLAYwith roots; very moist.{1.25' - 11.0'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Stiff to medium stiff; brown; sandy SILT/CLAY;very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 0.75 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 4.0' = 0.5 tsf.·Softer and moister with depth.·Moisture increase at 3.0'.·Moistest test pit.{11.0' - 12.0'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; wet.·Target bearing material.·Groundwater encountered at 11.5'.Notes:·MW-7 installed.12S7-A@2.0'22.7%S7-B@4.0'25.8%S7-C@6.0'27.0%S7-D@8.0'28.3%Target Bearing at 11.0'GW at 11.5'123
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06110.5'10.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-8 (North Side) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65425, -111.05485(See Test Pit Location Map)369121515129633{0.0' - 2.0'}: Topsoil/Fill?:Soft; dark brown to black; organic SILT/CLAYwith roots; very moist.·Possible fill?·Upper 1.5' appears to be fill.{2.0' - 9.0'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Stiff to medium stiff; brown; sandy SILT/CLAY;very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.0' = 2.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 4.0' = 0.75 tsf.·Softer and moister with depth.·Moistest test pit (similar to TP-7).{9.0' - 10.5'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; wet.·Target bearing material.·Groundwater encountered at 10.0'.Notes:·MW-8 installed.12S8-A@2.0'23.4%S8-B@4.0'23.9%S8-C@6.0'27.7%S8-D@8.0'24.1%GW at 10.0'Target Bearing at 9.0'123LAB TESTING RESULTS:Atterberg Limits at 8.0'PL = 19.1, LL = 36.6, PI = 17.5Soil Classification = CL (Lean CLAY)
APPENDIX B
LLaabboorraattoorryy TTeessttiinngg RReessuullttss
MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION (ASTM D-2216)
Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061Sample Identification: See Below
Soil Classification: Varies
Date Sampled: 05/19/2022
Date Tested: 05/23/2022
Tested By: MRW
Sample Identification:S1-A S1-B S1-C S1-D S2-A S2-B S2-C S2-D
Exploration Location:TP-1 TP-1 TP-1 TP-1 TP-2 TP-2 TP-2 TP-2
Sample Depth (ft):2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Container Number:E I A G J C D NN
Weight of Container:31.65 31.81 31.97 31.54 31.65 31.75 31.74 30.85
Container + Wet Soil:155.25 149.63 173.82 201.52 98.75 117.39 116.25 162.52
Container + Dry Soil:135.62 125.85 140.84 186.31 90.64 105.34 102.46 150.64
Weight of Water:19.63 23.78 32.98 15.21 8.11 12.05 13.79 11.88
Weight of Dry Soil:103.97 94.04 108.87 154.77 58.99 73.59 70.72 119.79
Moisture Content:18.9%25.3%30.3%9.8%13.7%16.4%19.5%9.9%
Sample Identification:S3-A S3-B S3-C S3-D S4-A S4-B S4-C S4-D
Exploration Location:TP-3 TP-3 TP-3 TP-3 TP-4 TP-4 TP-4 TP-4
Sample Depth (ft):2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Container Number:MM L B QQ RR KK TT OO
Weight of Container:31.05 31.69 31.55 31.20 31.27 31.19 30.91 31.07
Container + Wet Soil:127.94 122.72 139.62 164.18 153.32 135.78 130.80 134.00
Container + Dry Soil:109.48 110.24 128.61 153.43 131.37 116.79 116.26 119.17
Weight of Water:18.46 12.48 11.01 10.75 21.95 18.99 14.54 14.83
Weight of Dry Soil:78.43 78.55 97.06 122.23 100.10 85.60 85.35 88.10
Moisture Content:23.5%15.9%11.3%8.8%21.9%22.2%17.0%16.8%
Reviewed By:
32 Discovery DriveBozeman, MT 59718
Phone (406) 582-0221
Fax (406) 582-5770
MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION (ASTM D-2216)
Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061Sample Identification: See BelowSoil Classification: Varies
Date Sampled: 05/19/2022
Date Tested: 05/23/2022
Tested By: MRW
Sample Identification:S5-A S5-B S5-C S5-D S6-A S6-B S6-C S6-D
Exploration Location:TP-5 TP-5 TP-5 TP-5 TP-6 TP-6 TP-6 TP-6
Sample Depth (ft):2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Container Number:LL KK SS F EE S AA T
Weight of Container:31.05 31.72 31.00 31.69 48.93 50.50 48.97 51.56
Container + Wet Soil:125.35 145.73 140.45 198.79 262.78 313.67 309.77 357.36
Container + Dry Soil:107.57 126.28 129.13 191.59 222.94 261.98 252.93 327.28
Weight of Water:17.78 19.45 11.32 7.20 39.84 51.69 56.84 30.08
Weight of Dry Soil:76.52 94.56 98.13 159.90 174.01 211.48 203.96 275.72
Moisture Content:23.2%20.6%11.5%4.5%22.9%24.4%27.9%10.9%
Sample Identification:S7-A S7-B S7-C S7-D S8-A S8-B S8-C S8-D
Exploration Location:TP-7 TP-7 TP-7 TP-7 TP-8 TP-8 TP-8 TP-8
Sample Depth (ft):2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Container Number:Q GG W HH R Y M P
Weight of Container:50.92 48.35 50.46 48.32 50.68 50.89 50.69 49.29
Container + Wet Soil:298.39 278.40 306.99 306.47 246.80 348.73 318.91 283.35
Container + Dry Soil:252.64 231.24 252.45 249.55 209.60 291.26 260.68 237.84
Weight of Water:45.75 47.16 54.54 56.92 37.20 57.47 58.23 45.51
Weight of Dry Soil:201.72 182.89 201.99 201.23 158.92 240.37 209.99 188.55
Moisture Content:22.7%25.8%27.0%28.3%23.4%23.9%27.7%24.1%
Reviewed By:
32 Discovery Drive
Bozeman, MT 59718Phone (406) 582-0221Fax (406) 582-5770
ATTERBERG LIMITS DETERMINATION (ASTM D-4318)
Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Sample Identification: S1-B @ 4.0'
Soil Classification: Lean CLAY (CL)
Date Sampled: May 19, 2022
Date Tested: May 31, 2022
Tested By: Zach Liley
Test Results
Plastic Limit:18.1
Liquid Limit:35.0
Plasticity Index:16.9
Reviewed By:_________________
A-Line
CL
ML or OL
CH
MH or OH
CL-ML
ML0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Plasticity IndexLiquid Limit
PLASTICITY CHART
32 Discovery Drive
Bozeman, MT 59718
Phone (406) 582-0221
Fax (406) 582-5770
ATTERBERG LIMITS DETERMINATION (ASTM D-4318)
Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Sample Identification: S2-C @ 6.0'
Soil Classification: Lean CLAY (CL)
Date Sampled: May 19, 2022
Date Tested: May 31, 2022
Tested By: Zach Liley
Test Results
Plastic Limit:19.4
Liquid Limit:38.8
Plasticity Index:19.4
Reviewed By:_________________
A-Line
CL
ML or OL
CH
MH or OH
CL-ML
ML0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Plasticity IndexLiquid Limit
PLASTICITY CHART
32 Discovery Drive
Bozeman, MT 59718
Phone (406) 582-0221
Fax (406) 582-5770
ATTERBERG LIMITS DETERMINATION (ASTM D-4318)
Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Sample Identification: S4-C @ 6.0'
Soil Classification: Lean CLAY (CL)
Date Sampled: May 19, 2022
Date Tested: May 31, 2022
Tested By: Zach Liley
Test Results
Plastic Limit:18.7
Liquid Limit:36.3
Plasticity Index:17.6
Reviewed By:_________________
A-Line
CL
ML or OL
CH
MH or OH
CL-ML
ML0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Plasticity IndexLiquid Limit
PLASTICITY CHART
32 Discovery Drive
Bozeman, MT 59718
Phone (406) 582-0221
Fax (406) 582-5770
ATTERBERG LIMITS DETERMINATION (ASTM D-4318)
Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Sample Identification: S6-C @ 6.0'
Soil Classification: Lean CLAY (CL)
Date Sampled: May 19, 2022
Date Tested: May 31, 2022
Tested By: Zach Liley
Test Results
Plastic Limit:19.1
Liquid Limit:37.2
Plasticity Index:18.1
Reviewed By:_________________
A-Line
CL
ML or OL
CH
MH or OH
CL-ML
ML0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Plasticity IndexLiquid Limit
PLASTICITY CHART
32 Discovery Drive
Bozeman, MT 59718
Phone (406) 582-0221
Fax (406) 582-5770
ATTERBERG LIMITS DETERMINATION (ASTM D-4318)
Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Sample Identification: S8-D @ 8.0'
Soil Classification: Lean CLAY (CL)
Date Sampled: May 19, 2022
Date Tested: May 31, 2022
Tested By: Zach Liley
Test Results
Plastic Limit:19.1
Liquid Limit:36.6
Plasticity Index:17.5
Reviewed By:_________________
A-Line
CL
ML or OL
CH
MH or OH
CL-ML
ML0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Plasticity IndexLiquid Limit
PLASTICITY CHART
32 Discovery Drive
Bozeman, MT 59718
Phone (406) 582-0221
Fax (406) 582-5770
STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D-698)
Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Sample Identification: Composite Sample A from 1.0' - 2.0'
Soil Classification: Lean Silt/Clay
Date Sampled: May 19, 2022
Date Tested: May 31, 2022
Tested By: Zach Liley
Note: No Oversize Correction Applied
Natural Moisture Content: 23.8 %
Optimum Moisture Content: 17.3 %
Maximum Dry Unit Weight: 103.0 pcf
Reviewed By:
Summary of Lab Test Data
90
95
100
105
110
115
10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 22% 24% 26% 28%Dry Unit Weight (pcf)Moisture Content
PROCTOR COMPACTION CURVE
Compaction Curve
Z.A.V. for S.G.=2.50
Z.A.V. for S.G.=2.65
Z.A.V. for S.G.=2.80
Poly. (Compaction Curve)
32 Discovery Drive
Bozeman, MT 59718
Phone (406) 582-0221
Fax (406) 582-5770
APPENDIX C
GGrroouunnddwwaatteerr MMoonniittoorriinngg MMeeaassuurreemmeennttss TThhrroouugghh 66--2222--
22002222
Date Time Name MW- 1 MW- 2 MW- 3 MW- 4 MW- 5 MW- 6 MW- 7 MW- 8
5/26/2022 10:30 AM JGE Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry
5/31/2022 12:10 PM ORB Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry
6/8/2022 3:15 PM ORB Dry Dry 9.74 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry
6/15/2022 12:10 PM ORB Dry Dry 9.67 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry
6/22/2022 1:15 PM ORB Dry Dry 9.74 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry
Measure from TOC to GW (feet)
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 1.54 8.46 Dry 8.46 101.50 100.00 101.54 91.54 91.54 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.54 8.46 Dry 8.46 101.50 100.00 101.54 91.54 91.54 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 1.54 8.46 Dry 8.46 101.50 100.00 101.54 91.54 91.54 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.54 8.46 Dry 8.46 101.50 100.00 101.54 91.54 91.54 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 1.54 8.46 Dry 8.46 101.50 100.00 101.54 91.54 91.54 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-1
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
104.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)
MONITOR WELL 1
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-2
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)
MONITOR WELL 2
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 1.19 8.81 Dry 8.81 105.75 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.19 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.19 8.81 Dry 8.81 105.75 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.19 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 1.19 8.81 9.74 8.55 102.63 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.45 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.19 8.81 9.67 8.48 101.79 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.52 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 1.19 8.81 9.74 8.55 102.63 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.45 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-3
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)
MONITOR WELL 3
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-4
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)MONITOR WELL 4
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 1.19 8.81 Dry 8.81 105.75 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.19 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.19 8.81 Dry 8.81 105.75 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.19 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 1.19 8.81 Dry 8.81 105.75 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.19 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.19 8.81 Dry 8.81 105.75 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.19 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 1.19 8.81 Dry 8.81 105.75 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.19 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-5
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)
MONITOR WELL 5
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-6
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)MONITOR WELL 6
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 1.08 8.92 Dry 8.92 107.00 100.00 101.08 91.08 91.08 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.08 8.92 Dry 8.92 107.00 100.00 101.08 91.08 91.08 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 1.08 8.92 Dry 8.92 107.00 100.00 101.08 91.08 91.08 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.08 8.92 Dry 8.92 107.00 100.00 101.08 91.08 91.08 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 1.08 8.92 Dry 8.92 107.00 100.00 101.08 91.08 91.08 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-7
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)MONITOR WELL 7
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 0.96 9.04 Dry 9.04 108.50 100.00 100.96 90.96 90.96 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 0.96 9.04 Dry 9.04 108.50 100.00 100.96 90.96 90.96 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 0.96 9.04 Dry 9.04 108.50 100.00 100.96 90.96 90.96 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 0.96 9.04 Dry 9.04 108.50 100.00 100.96 90.96 90.96 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 0.96 9.04 Dry 9.04 108.50 100.00 100.96 90.96 90.96 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-8
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)
MONITOR WELL 8
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE
APPENDIX D
PPaavveemmeenntt SSeeccttiioonn DDeessiiggnn
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN 1 - Local Streets/Parking Areas
(Note: The Option 1 design is applicable for stable subgrade conditions (ie. dry, hard, compacted).
Project: Blk 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D., Ph. 3
Project Number: 22-061
Date: June 23, 2022
Prepared By: Erik Schnaderbeck
Important Notes:
1) See following pages for an Explanation of the Design Input Parameters.
2) Sub-base course shall be comprised of import 6"-minus, sandy pitrun gravel.
3) Subgrade to be covered with 315 lb. woven geotextile fabric (Mirafi 600X)
4) Design assumes that subgrade is stable (no rutting, deflecting, or yielding)
DESIGN INPUT PARAMETERS
ESALs (total)150,000
Subgrade CBR, (%)2.50
Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)3,750
Reliability, R (%)90Standard Normal Deviate, ZR -1.282
Overall Standard Deviation, So 0.45
Initial Serviceability, po 4.2
Terminal Serviceability, pt 2.0
Design Serviceability Loss, (PSI)2.2
5.17609 = left side
Required Structural Number, RSN 3.18 5.1746 = right side
(Manipulate RSN such that the left and right side of equation match.)
Asphalt Concrete Layer Coefficient, a1 0.41
Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a2 0.14
Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m2 0.90
Sub-Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a3 0.09
Sub-Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m3 0.90
DESIGN PAVEMENT SECTION
Asphalt Concrete Thickness, D1 (in)3.0
Granular Base Course Thickness, D2 (in)6.0
Granular Sub-Base Course Thickness, D3 (in)15.0
Calculated Structural Number, CSN 3.20
(Manipulate layer thicknesses such that CSN matches or exceeds RSN.)
DESIGN EQUATION
Pavement Section Design: Page 1 of 1
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN 2 - Local Streets/Parking Areas
(Note: The Option 2 design is applicable for unstable subgrade conditions (ie. minor rutting/deflecting).
Project: Blk 4, Lot 1 of S.U.D., Ph. 3
Project Number: 22-061
Date: June 23, 2022
Prepared By: Erik Schnaderbeck
Important Notes:
1) See following pages for an Explanation of the Design Input Parameters.
2) Sub-base course shall be comprised of import 6"-minus, sandy pitrun gravel.
3) Subgrade to be covered with 8-ounce non-woven fabric and Tensar TX-190L Triaxial Geogrid.
4) Design assumes that subgrade is unstable (minor rutting/deflecting)
DESIGN INPUT PARAMETERS
ESALs (total)150,000
Subgrade CBR, (%)2.00
Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR (psi)3,000
Reliability, R (%)90
Standard Normal Deviate, ZR -1.282
Overall Standard Deviation, So 0.45
Initial Serviceability, po 4.2
Terminal Serviceability, pt 2.0
Design Serviceability Loss, (PSI)2.2
5.17609 = left side
Required Structural Number, RSN 3.44 5.1782 = right side
(Manipulate RSN such that the left and right side of equation match.)
Asphalt Concrete Layer Coefficient, a1 0.41
Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a2 0.14
Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m2 0.90
Sub-Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a3 0.09
Sub-Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m3 0.90
DESIGN PAVEMENT SECTION
Asphalt Concrete Thickness, D1 (in)3.0
Granular Base Course Thickness, D2 (in)6.0
Granular Sub-Base Course Thickness, D3 (in)21.0
Calculated Structural Number, CSN 3.69
(Manipulate layer thicknesses such that CSN matches or exceeds RSN.)
DESIGN EQUATION
Pavement Section Design: Page 1 of 1
Explanation of Design Input Parameters: Page 1 of 3
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN
(EXPLANATION OF DESIGN INPUT PARAMETERS)
Design Life (yr): 20
ESALs (total): 150,000
Subgrade CBR, (%): 2.0 or 2.5
Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR (psi): 3,000 or 3,750
Reliability, R (%): 90
Standard Normal Deviate, ZR: -1.282
Overall Standard Deviation, So: 0.45
Initial Serviceability, po: 4.2
Terminal Serviceability, pt: 2.0
Design Serviceability Loss, (PSI) 2.2
Asphalt Concrete Layer Coefficient, a1: 0.41
Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a2: 0.14
Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m2: 0.90
Sub-Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient, a3: 0.09
Sub-Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient, m3: 0.90
Design Life: A design life of 20 years is typical for new asphalt projects.
ESALs (total): According to Table 18.12 in Reference 1, the estimated design Equivalent
18,000-lb Single Axle Load (ESAL) value for roadways subjected to light vehicle and
medium truck traffic ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000. We have used assumed an ESAL
value of 150,000 for local streets.
Subgrade CBR: The soaked subgrade CBR was estimated to be 2.5, which is generally
applicable to sandy silts/clays in stable subgrade. A CBR value of 2.0 was assumed for
unstable subgrade.
Subgrade Resilient Modulus: For fine-grained soils with a CBR of 10.0 or less, an
accepted correlation between CBR and resilient modulus is MR = 1500 x CBR. Based on
this equation, the design resilient modulus value shall be 3,750 psi for stable subgrade
and 3,000 psi for unstable subgrade.
Reliability: According to Table 2.2 in Reference 2, the recommended reliability level for
local streets (low volume) in urban settings ranges from 50 to 80 percent; while
collector streets (high volume) should be designed with a level of reliability between 80
and 95 percent. We chose an elevated design reliability level of 90 percent.
Explanation of Design Input Parameters: Page 2 of 3
Standard Normal Deviate: According to Table 4.1 in Reference 2, a 90 percent reliability
value corresponds to a standard normal deviate of –1.282.
Overall Standard Deviation: According to Sections 2.1.3 and 4.3 in Reference 2, a
design value of 0.45 is recommended for flexible pavements.
Initial Serviceability: According to Section 2.2.1 in Reference 2, a design value of 4.2 is
recommended for flexible pavements.
Terminal Serviceability: According to Section 2.2.1 in Reference 2, a design value of 2.0
is suggested for roads that will be subjected to small traffic volumes; while a value of 2.5
or higher should be used when designing major highways. We selected a terminal
serviceability of 2.0.
Design Serviceability Loss: This is the difference between the initial and terminal
serviceability. Therefore, the design value shall be 2.2.
Asphalt Concrete Layer Coefficient: According to the table with the revised surfacing
structural coefficients in Reference 4, a design value of 0.41 is recommended for all
asphalt plant mix grades. This value replaces the 0.33 asphalt coefficient that was
provided in Table 3-2 of Reference 3.
Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient: According to the table with the revised
surfacing structural coefficients in Reference 4, a design value of 0.14 is recommended
for new 1.5”-minus, crushed base course gravel. This value replaces the 0.12 crushed
gravel coefficient that was provided in Table 3-2 of Reference 3.
Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient: According to Table 2.4 in Reference 2, a
coefficient of 0.80 to 1.00 should be used when fair to good drainage is anticipated
within the pavement structure. We assume good drainage for this project with a
corresponding drainage coefficient of 0.90 for design.
Sub-Base Course Layer Structural Coefficient: For Pavement Section Design, we are
assuming that imported, uncrushed sandy (pitrun) gravel will be placed for the sub-base
section of the roadway. This is the standard product used in the Bozeman area for sub-
base. According to pavement design charts for gravelly soils, we estimated that pitrun
will have a CBR of between 15.0 and 20.0%, which correlates to a structural coefficient
of 0.09.
Sub-Base Course Layer Drainage Coefficient: The drainage coefficients for sub-base
and base course layers are typically the same; therefore, we selected a value of 0.90 for
the design. See the base course layer drainage coefficient section for an explanation.
Explanation of Design Input Parameters: Page 3 of 3
Reference List
1) Traffic and Highway Engineering; Nicholas J. Garber and Lester A. Hoel; 1988.
2) Design of Pavement Structures; AASHTO; 1993.
3) Pavement Design Manual; Montana Department of Transportation; 1991.
4) Pavement Design Memo; Montana Department of Transportation; May 11, 2006.
5) Geotechnical Manual; Montana Department of Transportation; July 2008.
APPENDIX E
LLiimmiittaattiioonnss ooff YYoouurr GGeeootteecchhnniiccaall RReeppoorrtt
LIMITATIONS OF YOUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS ARE PROJECT AND CLIENT SPECIFIC
Geotechnical investigations, analyses, and recommendations are project and client specific. Each project
and each client have individual criterion for risk, purpose, and cost of evaluation that are considered in
the development of scope of geotechnical investigations, analyses and recommendations. For example,
slight changes to building types or use may alter the applicability of a particular foundation type, as can a
particular client’s aversion or acceptance of risk. Also, additional risk is often created by scope‐of service
limitations imposed by the client and a report prepared for a particular client (say a construction
contractor) may not be applicable or adequate for another client (say an architect, owner, or developer
for example), and vice‐versa. No one should apply a geotechnical report for any purpose other than that
originally contemplated without first conferring with the consulting geotechnical engineer. Geotechnical
reports should be made available to contractors and professionals for information on factual data only
and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions, such as those interpreted in the exploration logs and
discussed in the report.
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE
Geotechnical conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Geotechnical
reports are based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration. Construction
operations such as cuts, fills, or drains in the vicinity of the site and natural events such as floods,
earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing
adequacy of a geotechnical report.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE
The site exploration and sampling process interprets subsurface conditions using drill action, soil sampling,
resistance to excavation, and other subjective observations at discrete points on the surface and in the
subsurface. The data is then interpreted by the engineer, who applies professional judgment to render
an opinion about over‐all subsurface conditions. Actual conditions in areas not sampled or observed may
differ from those predicted in your report. Retaining your consultant to advise you during the design
process, review plans and specifications, and then to observe subsurface construction operations can
minimize the risks associated with the uncertainties associated with such interpretations. The conclusions
described in your geotechnical report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that
conditions revealed through selective exploration and sampling are indicative of actual
Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582‐0221 Page 2
conditions throughout a site. A more complete view of subsurface conditions is often revealed during
earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe earthwork to confirm conditions
and/or to provide revised recommendations if necessary. Allied Engineering cannot assume responsibility
or liability for the adequacy of the report’s recommendations if another party is retained to observe
construction.
EXPLORATIONS LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT
Final explorations logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled
by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data.
Only final exploration logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical reports. These final logs
should not be redrawn for inclusion in Architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may
commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.
To reduce the likelihood of exploration log misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to
the complete geotechnical report and should be advised of its limitations and purpose. While a contractor
may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss
the report with Allied Engineering and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to
obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes.
OWNERSHIP OF RISK AND STANDARD OF CARE
Because geotechnical engineering is much less exact than other design disciplines, there is more risk
associated with geotechnical parameters than with most other design issues. Given the hidden and
variable character of natural soils and geologic hazards, this risk is impossible to eliminate with any
amount of study and exploration. Appropriate geotechnical exploration, analysis, and recommendations
can identify and reduce these risks. However, assuming an appropriate geotechnical evaluation, the
remaining risk of unknown soil conditions and other geo‐hazards typically belongs to the owner of a
project unless specifically transferred to another party such as a contractor, insurance company, or
engineer. The geotechnical engineer’s duty is to provide professional services in accordance with their
stated scope and consistent with the standard of practice at the present time and in the subject geographic
area. It is not to provide insurance against geo‐hazards or unanticipated soil conditions.
The conclusions and recommendations expressed in this report are opinions based our professional
judgment and the project parameters as relayed by the client. The conclusions and recommendations
assume that site conditions are not substantially different than those exposed by the explorations. If
during construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are
observed or appear to be present, Allied Engineering should be advised at once such that we may review
those conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary.
RETENTION OF SOIL SAMPLES
Allied Engineering will typically retain soil samples for one month after issuing the geotechnical report. If
you would like to hold the samples for a longer period of time, you should make specific arrangements to
have the samples held longer or arrange to take charge of the samples yourself.
Civil Engineering ● Geotechnical Engineering ● Land Surveying ● Construction Services
ALLIED ENGINEERING
32 Discovery Dr.
Bozeman, MT 59718
Ph: (406) 582-0221
www.alliedengineering.com
July 6, 2022
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC
c/o: Parker Kinzer
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, AL 35223
pkinzer@capstonemail.com (Issued via email only)
RE: DIPRA Analysis – Block 4, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3
Bozeman, Montana
Dear Mr. Kinzer:
Please find enclosed an electronic PDF copy of our soil corrosivity testing and DIPRA analysis for
the above-referenced project.
Based on typical water main depths at approximately six to eight feet, the pipe will primarily run
through sandy silt/clay. The soil conditions across the site were very consistent, with sandy
silt/clay overlying gravels that extended to the bottom of all test pits. Groundwater levels ranged
from 9.5 to 12.0 feet below ground surface at the time of our explorations, however, several
other nearby project sites were/are dewatering for construction which is likely impacting the
groundwater levels at the site. We anticipate high groundwater levels normally impact the site,
particularly in the spring and early summer following the spring melt. Trench backfill during water
main installation will consist of native sandy silt/clay with some of the gravels mixed in. Three
composite samples were collected from across the site at typical water main depth to test the
corrosivity potential to ductile iron pipe of the anticipated backfill. Composite samples were
collected at depths of four to eight feet. Composite Sample A was collected from the western
third of the property, Composite Sample B was collected from the middle third of the property,
and Composite Sample C was collected from the eastern third of the property. Each composite
sample was formed from the combination of samples from several test pits in the vicinity at
typical water main depth. The composite samples were tested by Energy Laboratories in Helena,
Montana for resistivity, sulfides, chlorides, oxidation-reduction potential, conductivity, and pH.
Based on laboratory testing results, all three composite samples were non-corrosive. Please
refer to the attached laboratory testing results for details.
According to the DIPRA Decision Model, the likelihood score is the deciding factor for most
projects regarding whether a soil is corrosive and to what extent corrosion protection is
recommended. Consequence scores (the second input to the decision matrix) must reach a
medium to high threshold value before they affect the corrosivity and protections assessment.
FIGURECivil Engineering
Geotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying
32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.com
BLOCK 4, LOT 1 OF S. UNIVERSITY DIST.
TEST PIT LOCATION MAP
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
4
TP#
TP-1
MW#N
MW-1
MW-2TP-2 MW-3TP-3
MW-4TP-4 MW-5TP-5
MW-6TP-6
MW-7TP-7MW-8TP-8
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06113.0'12.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-1 (NW Corner) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65430, -111.05605(See Test Pit Location Map)36912151512963LAB TESTING RESULTS:Atterberg Limits at 4.0'PL = 18.1, LL = 35.0, PI = 16.9Soil Classification = CL (Lean CLAY)34{0.0' - 1.5'}: Random Fill:Soft; brown to dark brown; SILT/CLAY withabundant rounded to sub-angular 6"-minus rock;very moist.{1.5' - 2.25'}: Buried Topsoil:Stiff; dark brown; organic SILT/CLAY with somerock; moist.{2.25' - 7.5'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Stiff; brown; sandy SILT/CLAY; very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.5' = 2.0 - 3.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Softer and moister with depth.·Oxidation observed at 6.0'.{7.5' - 13.0'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; moist to wet.·Target bearing material.·Increased moisture and density with depth.·Wet below 11.0'.·Groundwater encountered at 12.0'.Notes:·MW-1 installed.12S1-A@2.0'18.9%S1-B@4.0'25.3%S1-C@6.0'30.3%S1-D@8.0'9.8%1234GW at 12.0'Target Bearing at 7.5'
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06111.5'10.5'Test Pit Designation: TP-2 (SW Corner) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65327, -111.05606(See Test Pit Location Map)369121515129633{0.0' - 0.5'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; dark brown to black; organic SILT/CLAYwith roots; very moist.{0.5' - 7.75'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Very stiff; light brown; sandy SILT/CLAY;slightly moist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.0' = 2.5 - 3.5 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 2.5 - 3.5 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 4.0' = 2.5 - 3.5 tsf.·Not as moist at TP-1.{7.75' - 11.5'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; moist to wet.·Target bearing material.·Increased moisture with depth.·Wet below 9.0'.·Groundwater encountered at 10.5'.Notes:·MW-2 installed.12S2-A@2.0'13.7%S2-B@4.0'16.4%S2-C@6.0'19.5%S2-D@8.0'9.9%GW at 10.5'Target Bearing at 7.75'123LAB TESTING RESULTS:Atterberg Limits at 6.0'PL = 19.4, LL = 38.8, PI = 19.4Soil Classification = CL (Lean CLAY)
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06110.5'9.5'Test Pit Designation: TP-3 (South Side) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65330, -111.05493(See Test Pit Location Map)369121515129633{0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; dark brown to black; organic SILT/CLAYwith roots; very moist.{1.0' - 8.0'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Stiff; light brown; sandy SILT/CLAY; slightlymoist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.0' = 1.5 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 4.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Softer and moister with depth.·Pinhole structure observed below 6.0'.·Moisture increase at 7.0'.·Oxidation observed at 7.0'.{8.0' - 10.5'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; moist to wet.·Target bearing material.·Increased moisture with depth.·Wet below 9.0'.·Groundwater encountered at 9.5'.Notes:·MW-3 installed.12S3-A@2.0'23.5%S3-B@4.0'15.9%S3-C@6.0'11.3%S3-D@8.0'8.8%GW at 9.5'Target Bearing at 8.0'123
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06112.5'12.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-4 (South Side) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65327, -111.05366(See Test Pit Location Map)369121515129633{0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; dark brown to black; organic SILT/CLAYwith roots; very moist.·Roots to 18".{1.0' - 9.5'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Stiff; light brown; sandy SILT/CLAY; slightlymoist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.0' = 1.5 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 4.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Softer and moister with depth.·Moisture increase at 4.0'.·Oxidation observed at 5.5'.{9.5' - 12.5'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; moist to wet.·Target bearing material.·Increased moisture with depth.·Wet below 11.0'.·Groundwater encountered at 12.0'.Notes:·MW-4 installed.12S4-A@2.0'21.9%S4-B@4.0'22.2%S4-C@6.0'17.0%S4-D@8.0'16.8%GW at 12.0'Target Bearing at 9.5'123LAB TESTING RESULTS:Atterberg Limits at 6.0'PL = 18.7, LL = 36.3, PI = 17.6Soil Classification = CL (Lean CLAY)
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06110.5'9.5'Test Pit Designation: TP-5 (SE Corner) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65332, -111.05267(See Test Pit Location Map)369121515129633{0.0' - 0.75'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; dark brown to black; organic SILT/CLAYwith roots; very moist.{0.75' - 8.0'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Stiff; light brown; sandy SILT/CLAY; slightlymoist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.0' = 1.5 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 4.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Softer and moister with depth.·Oxidation observed at 6.0'.{8.0' - 10.5'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; wet.·Target bearing material.·Groundwater encountered at 9.5'.Notes:·MW-5 installed.12S5-A@2.0'23.2%S5-B@4.0'20.6%S5-C@6.0'11.5%S5-D@8.0'4.5%GW at 9.5'Target Bearing at 8.0'123
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06112.5'11.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-6 (NE Corner) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65427, -111.05262(See Test Pit Location Map)369121515129633{0.0' - 1.0'}: Imported Pitrun Gravel:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; slightly moist.·Only present on north side of test pit.·Gravel pad on the north side of the site·Topsoil was stripped.·Woven geotextile fabric observed betweenthe subgrade and the imported pitrun.{0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; dark brown to black; organic SILT/CLAYwith roots; very moist.·Only present on south side of test pit -topsoil on north side of test pit was stripped.{1.0' - 8.5'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Stiff to medium stiff; brown; sandy SILT/CLAY;very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.0' = 1.5 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 4.0' = 0.5 tsf.·Softer and moister with depth.·Softer and moister than previous test pits.{8.5' - 12.5'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; moist to wet.·Target bearing material.·Increased moisture with depth.·Wet below 10.0'.·Groundwater encountered at 11.0'.Notes: MW-6 installed.12S6-A@2.0'22.9%S6-B@4.0'24.4%S6-C@6.0'27.9%S6-D@8.0'10.9%GW at 11.0'Target Bearing at 8.5'1North123LAB TESTING RESULTS:Atterberg Limits at 6.0'PL = 19.1, LL = 37.2, PI = 18.1Soil Classification = CL (Lean CLAY)
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06112.0'11.5'Test Pit Designation: TP-7 (North Side) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65421, -111.05378(See Test Pit Location Map)369121515129633{0.0' - 1.25'}: Native Topsoil:Soft; dark brown to black; organic SILT/CLAYwith roots; very moist.{1.25' - 11.0'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Stiff to medium stiff; brown; sandy SILT/CLAY;very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 0.75 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 4.0' = 0.5 tsf.·Softer and moister with depth.·Moisture increase at 3.0'.·Moistest test pit.{11.0' - 12.0'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; wet.·Target bearing material.·Groundwater encountered at 11.5'.Notes:·MW-7 installed.12S7-A@2.0'22.7%S7-B@4.0'25.8%S7-C@6.0'27.0%S7-D@8.0'28.3%Target Bearing at 11.0'GW at 11.5'123
DEPTH (FT)
SAMPLES
% WATER
CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA22-06110.5'10.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-8 (North Side) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: Hitachi Zaxis 160LC Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Neil (RLS Construction) Project: Block 4, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS/JGE (AESI) Date: May 19, 202245.65425, -111.05485(See Test Pit Location Map)369121515129633{0.0' - 2.0'}: Topsoil/Fill?:Soft; dark brown to black; organic SILT/CLAYwith roots; very moist.·Possible fill?·Upper 1.5' appears to be fill.{2.0' - 9.0'}: Fine-Grain Deposit:Stiff to medium stiff; brown; sandy SILT/CLAY;very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 2.0' = 2.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 3.0' = 1.0 tsf.·Pocket Penetrometer @ 4.0' = 0.75 tsf.·Softer and moister with depth.·Moistest test pit (similar to TP-7).{9.0' - 10.5'}: Alluvium:Very dense; brown; sandy GRAVEL with6"-minus rounded cobbles; wet.·Target bearing material.·Groundwater encountered at 10.0'.Notes:·MW-8 installed.12S8-A@2.0'23.4%S8-B@4.0'23.9%S8-C@6.0'27.7%S8-D@8.0'24.1%GW at 10.0'Target Bearing at 9.0'123LAB TESTING RESULTS:Atterberg Limits at 8.0'PL = 19.1, LL = 36.6, PI = 17.5Soil Classification = CL (Lean CLAY)
ANALYTICAL SUMMARY REPORT
The analyses presented in this report were performed by Energy Laboratories, Inc., 3161 E. Lyndale Ave., Helena, MT 59604, unless otherwise noted. Any exceptions or problems with the analyses are noted in the report package. Any issues encountered during sample receipt are documented in the Work Order Receipt Checklist.
The results as reported relate only to the item(s) submitted for testing. This report shall be used or copied only in its entirety. Energy Laboratories, Inc. is not responsible for the consequences arising from the use of a partial report.
If you have any questions regarding these test results, please contact your Project Manager.
Lab ID Client Sample ID Collect Date Receive Date Matrix Test
Report Approved By:
H22060382-001 Composite A (west 1/3)05/19/22 17:00 06/13/22 Soil Conductivity, 1:X Water ExtractableAnions, Water ExtractableMoistureOxidation Reduction PotentialpH, 1:X Water ExtractableDI Water Soil Extract ASA10-3Preparation, Dissolved Filtration MCAWWResistivitySoil Preparation USDA1Sulfide, Methylene Blue Colorimetric
H22060382-002 Composite B (middle 1/3)05/19/22 17:00 06/13/22 Soil Conductivity, 1:X Water ExtractableAnions, Water ExtractableMoistureOxidation Reduction PotentialpH, 1:X Water ExtractableDI Water Soil Extract ASA10-3Preparation, Dissolved Filtration MCAWWResistivitySulfide, Methylene Blue Colorimetric
H22060382-003 Composite C (east 1/3)05/19/22 17:00 06/13/22 Soil Same As Above
Allied Engineering Services Inc
Project Name:Block 4 of South University District
Work Order:H22060382
32 S Discovery Dr
Bozeman, MT 59718-3428
June 28, 2022
Energy Laboratories Inc Helena MT received the following 3 samples for Allied Engineering Services Inc on 6/13/2022 for analysis.
Page 1 of 12
Digitally signed bySkyler T. PesterDate: 2022.06.28 13:16:21 -06:00
Project:Block 4 of South University District
CLIENT:Allied Engineering Services Inc
Work Order:H22060382 CASE NARRATIVE
06/28/22Report Date:
Tests associated with analyst identified as ELI-B were subcontracted to Energy Laboratories, 1120 S. 27th St., Billings, MT, EPA Number MT00005.Prep
Page 2 of 12
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT
Client:Allied Engineering Services Inc
Project:Block 4 of South University District
Lab ID:H22060382-001
Client Sample ID:Composite A (west 1/3)
Collection Date:05/19/22 17:00
Matrix:Soil
Report Date:06/28/22
DateReceived:06/13/22
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRLMethodMCL/QCLQualifiers
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
06/13/22 13:20 / jjp0.2wt%15.8Moisture D2974
1:X SOIL:WATER
06/15/22 09:36 / sah0.1s.u.8.5pH, 1:2 ASA10-3
WATER EXTRACTABLE
06/21/22 07:43 / SRW1mg/kg3Chloride, 1:2 E300.0
1:X SOIL:WATER
06/15/22 10:01 / jjp0.1mmhos/cm0.1Conductivity, 1:2 ASA10-3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
06/21/22 12:38 / eli-b23mV300Oxidation-Reduction Potential A2580 BM
INORGANICS
06/21/22 16:35 / JAR0.04mg/LNDSulfide A4500-S D
RESISTIVITY OF SOIL
06/16/22 12:03 / jjp1ohm-cm7160Resistivity, Sat. Paste A2510 B
Report
Definitions:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
QCL - Quality Control Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 3 of 12
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT
Client:Allied Engineering Services Inc
Project:Block 4 of South University District
Lab ID:H22060382-002
Client Sample ID:Composite B (middle 1/3)
Collection Date:05/19/22 17:00
Matrix:Soil
Report Date:06/28/22
DateReceived:06/13/22
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRLMethodMCL/QCLQualifiers
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
06/13/22 13:21 / jjp0.2wt%18.5Moisture D2974
1:X SOIL:WATER
06/15/22 09:38 / sah0.1s.u.8.4pH, 1:2 ASA10-3
WATER EXTRACTABLE
06/21/22 07:57 / SRW1mg/kg3Chloride, 1:2 E300.0
1:X SOIL:WATER
06/15/22 10:02 / jjp0.1mmhos/cm0.1Conductivity, 1:2 ASA10-3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
06/21/22 12:44 / eli-b23mV306Oxidation-Reduction Potential A2580 BM
INORGANICS
06/21/22 16:35 / JAR0.04mg/LNDSulfide A4500-S D
RESISTIVITY OF SOIL
06/16/22 12:03 / jjp1ohm-cm7390Resistivity, Sat. Paste A2510 B
Report
Definitions:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
QCL - Quality Control Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 4 of 12
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT
Client:Allied Engineering Services Inc
Project:Block 4 of South University District
Lab ID:H22060382-003
Client Sample ID:Composite C (east 1/3)
Collection Date:05/19/22 17:00
Matrix:Soil
Report Date:06/28/22
DateReceived:06/13/22
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRLMethodMCL/QCLQualifiers
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
06/13/22 13:21 / jjp0.2wt%17.7Moisture D2974
1:X SOIL:WATER
06/15/22 09:39 / sah0.1s.u.8.2pH, 1:2 ASA10-3
WATER EXTRACTABLE
06/21/22 08:11 / SRW1mg/kg2Chloride, 1:2 E300.0
1:X SOIL:WATER
06/15/22 10:02 / jjp0.1mmhos/cm0.1Conductivity, 1:2 ASA10-3
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
06/21/22 12:50 / eli-b23mV310Oxidation-Reduction Potential A2580 BM
INORGANICS
06/21/22 16:35 / JAR0.04mg/LNDSulfide A4500-S D
RESISTIVITY OF SOIL
06/16/22 12:03 / jjp1ohm-cm8670Resistivity, Sat. Paste A2510 B
Report
Definitions:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
QCL - Quality Control Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 5 of 12
Client:Allied Engineering Services Inc Work Order:H22060382
QA/QC Summary Report
06/28/22Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Method:A2580 BM Batch: B_R383460
Lab ID:LCS1 06/21/22 12:33Laboratory Control Sample Run: SUB-B383460
Oxidation-Reduction Potential 102 95 105239mV
Lab ID:H22060382-001B 06/21/22 12:42Sample Duplicate Run: SUB-B383460
Oxidation-Reduction Potential 100.7302mV
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 6 of 12
Client:Allied Engineering Services Inc Work Order:H22060382
QA/QC Summary Report
06/28/22Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Method:A4500-S D Analytical Run: GENESYS 20_220621A
Lab ID:CCV 06/21/22 16:35Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
Sulfide 99 85 1150.0400.495 mg/L
Method:A4500-S D Batch: 61958
Lab ID:MB-61958 06/21/22 16:35Method Blank Run: GENESYS 20_220621A
Sulfide 0.005NDmg/L
Lab ID:H22060382-001AMS 06/21/22 16:35Sample Matrix Spike Run: GENESYS 20_220621A
Sulfide 86 70 1300.0401.14 mg/L
Lab ID:H22060382-001ADUP 06/21/22 16:35Sample Duplicate Run: GENESYS 20_220621A
Sulfide 200.0400.0163 mg/L
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 7 of 12
Client:Allied Engineering Services Inc Work Order:H22060382
QA/QC Summary Report
06/28/22Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Method:ASA10-3 Analytical Run: SOIL EC_220616B
Lab ID:ICV_1_220614_1 06/15/22 09:57Initial Calibration Verification Standard
Conductivity, 1:2 96 90 1100.101.35 mmhos/cm
Lab ID:CCV_1_220614_1 06/15/22 09:58Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
Conductivity, 1:2 92 90 1100.104.61 mmhos/cm
Lab ID:CCV1_1_220614_1 06/15/22 09:58Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
Conductivity, 1:2 96 90 1100.100.959 mmhos/cm
Method:ASA10-3 Batch: 61845
Lab ID:MB-61845 06/15/22 09:59Method Blank Run: SOIL EC_220616B
Conductivity, 1:2 0.1NDmmhos/cm
Lab ID:LCS-61845 06/15/22 10:00Laboratory Control Sample Run: SOIL EC_220616B
Conductivity, 1:2 91 70 1300.101.07 mmhos/cm
Lab ID:H22060382-003ADUP 06/15/22 10:03Sample Duplicate Run: SOIL EC_220616B
Conductivity, 1:2 100.10 0.20.116 mmhos/cm
Method:ASA10-3 Analytical Run: SOIL PH METER - ORION A211_220616A
Lab ID:ICV_1_220614_1 06/15/22 09:30Initial Calibration Verification Standard
pH, 1:2 100 98.6 101.40.107.01 s.u.
Lab ID:CCV_1_220614_1 06/15/22 09:31Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
pH, 1:2 100 98.6 101.40.107.00 s.u.
Lab ID:CCV1_1_220614_1 06/15/22 09:33Continuing Calibration Verification Standard
pH, 1:2 100 97.5 102.50.104.00 s.u.
Method:ASA10-3 Batch: 61845
Lab ID:LCS-61845 06/15/22 09:35Laboratory Control Sample Run: SOIL PH METER - ORION A2
pH, 1:2 101 95 1050.108.32 s.u.
Lab ID:H22060382-003ADUP 06/15/22 09:44Sample Duplicate Run: SOIL PH METER - ORION A2
pH, 1:2 200.10 0.78.23 s.u.
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 8 of 12
Client:Allied Engineering Services Inc Work Order:H22060382
QA/QC Summary Report
06/28/22Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Method:D2974 Batch: PMOIST_220613_A
Lab ID:H22060382-002A DUP 06/13/22 13:21Sample Duplicate Run: SOIL DRYING OVEN 2_22061
Moisture 200.20 1.518.2 wt%
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
Page 9 of 12
Client:Allied Engineering Services Inc Work Order:H22060382
QA/QC Summary Report
06/28/22Report Date:
Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount
Prepared by Helena, MT Branch
Method:E300.0 Batch: 61845
Lab ID:MB-61845 06/21/22 07:14Method Blank Run: IC METROHM_220620A
Chloride, 1:2 0.0080.2 mg/kg
Lab ID:LCS-61845 06/21/22 07:28Laboratory Control Sample Run: IC METROHM_220620A
Chloride, 1:2 104 70 1301.0111mg/kg
Lab ID:H22060382-003ADUP 06/21/22 08:26Sample Duplicate Run: IC METROHM_220620A
Chloride, 1:2 201.0 272.10 mg/kg R
Lab ID:H22060382-003AMS 06/21/22 08:40Sample Matrix Spike Run: IC METROHM_220620A
Chloride, 1:2 99 90 1101.0248mg/kg
Qualifiers:
RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL)
R - Relative Percent Difference (RPD) exceeds advisory limit
Page 10 of 12
Shipping container/cooler in good condition?
Custody seals intact on all shipping container(s)/cooler(s)?
Custody seals intact on all sample bottles?
Chain of custody present?
Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received?
Chain of custody agrees with sample labels?
Samples in proper container/bottle?
Sample containers intact?
Sufficient sample volume for indicated test?
All samples received within holding time?(Exclude analyses that are considered field parameterssuch as pH, DO, Res Cl, Sulfite, Ferrous Iron, etc.)
Container/Temp Blank temperature:
Containers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble that is <6mm (1/4").
Water - pH acceptable upon receipt?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
R £
£
£
R
R
£
R
R
R
R
£
£
£
£
£
£
R
£
£
£
£
£
£
Not Present
Not Present
Not Present
£
R
R
No VOA vials submitted
Not Applicable R
R
17.0°C No Ice
6/13/2022Arianah M. Sargent
FedEx Ground
RMF
Date Received:
Received by:
Login completed by:
Carrier name:
BL2000\spester
6/28/2022
Reviewed by:
Reviewed Date:
Contact and Corrective Action Comments:
No collection date or time on bottles or COC. Sample collection time estimated in lab. ams 6/13/22
Temp Blank received in all shipping container(s)/cooler(s)?Yes No£R Not Applicable £
Lab measurement of analytes considered field parameters that require analysis within 15 minutes of sampling such as pH, Dissolved Oxygen and Residual Chlorine, are qualified as being analyzed outside of recommended holding time.
Solid/soil samples are reported on a wet weight basis (as received) unless specifically indicated. If moisture corrected, data units are typically noted as –dry. For agricultural and mining soil parameters/characteristics, all samples are dried and ground prior to sample analysis.
The reference date for Radon analysis is the sample collection date. The reference date for all other Radiochemical analyses is the analysis date. Radiochemical precision results represent a 2-sigma Total Measurement Uncertainty.
Standard Reporting Procedures:
Work Order Receipt Checklist
Allied Engineering Services Inc H22060382
Page 11 of 12
Page 12 of 12
FIGURE 1
C 0 N .,
s E
Q u E N .,
C"E
LIKELIHOOD
TABLE 1
2
3
4
Recommendations
As manufactured with shop coat
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement, or
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement with Joint Bonds
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement with Metallized Zinc Coating, or
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement with Life Extension Cathodic Protection
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement with Metallized Zinc Coating, or
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement with Cathodic Protection
• Recommendations io Zones 4 and S recognize a practical difference between distribution and transmission mains. Distribution mains are generally smaller sized pipes. with the final classification to be defined by the pipeline owner. Cathodic protection should be considered where externat corrosion i,s a significant risk or where pipe repairs/replacements woul-d be cost prohibitive.
3
FIGURE 1
C 0 N .,
s E
Q u E N .,
C"E
LIKELIHOOD
TABLE 1
2
3
4
Recommendations
As manufactured with shop coat
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement, or
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement with Joint Bonds
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement with Metallized Zinc Coating, or
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement with Life Extension Cathodic Protection
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement with Metallized Zinc Coating, or
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement with Cathodic Protection
• Recommendations io Zones 4 and S recognize a practical difference between distribution and transmission mains. Distribution mains are generally smaller sized pipes. with the final classification to be defined by the pipeline owner. Cathodic protection should be considered where externat corrosion i,s a significant risk or where pipe repairs/replacements woul-d be cost prohibitive.
3
FIGURE 1
C 0 N .,
s E
Q u E N .,
C"E
LIKELIHOOD
TABLE 1
2
3
4
Recommendations
As manufactured with shop coat
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement, or
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement with Joint Bonds
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement with Metallized Zinc Coating, or
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement with Life Extension Cathodic Protection
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement with Metallized Zinc Coating, or
V-Bio® Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement with Cathodic Protection
• Recommendations io Zones 4 and S recognize a practical difference between distribution and transmission mains. Distribution mains are generally smaller sized pipes. with the final classification to be defined by the pipeline owner. Cathodic protection should be considered where externat corrosion i,s a significant risk or where pipe repairs/replacements woul-d be cost prohibitive.
3
Date Time Name MW- 1 MW- 2 MW- 3 MW- 4 MW- 5 MW- 6 MW- 7 MW- 8
5/26/2022 10:30 AM JGE Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry
5/31/2022 12:10 PM ORB Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry
6/8/2022 3:15 PM ORB Dry Dry 9.74 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry
6/15/2022 12:10 PM ORB Dry Dry 9.67 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry
6/22/2022 1:15 PM ORB Dry Dry 9.74 Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry
Measure from TOC to GW (feet)
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 1.54 8.46 Dry 8.46 101.50 100.00 101.54 91.54 91.54 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.54 8.46 Dry 8.46 101.50 100.00 101.54 91.54 91.54 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 1.54 8.46 Dry 8.46 101.50 100.00 101.54 91.54 91.54 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.54 8.46 Dry 8.46 101.50 100.00 101.54 91.54 91.54 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 1.54 8.46 Dry 8.46 101.50 100.00 101.54 91.54 91.54 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-1
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
104.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)
MONITOR WELL 1
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 1.29 8.71 Dry 8.71 104.50 100.00 101.29 91.29 91.29 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-2
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)
MONITOR WELL 2
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 1.19 8.81 Dry 8.81 105.75 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.19 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.19 8.81 Dry 8.81 105.75 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.19 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 1.19 8.81 9.74 8.55 102.63 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.45 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.19 8.81 9.67 8.48 101.79 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.52 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 1.19 8.81 9.74 8.55 102.63 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.45 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-3
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)
MONITOR WELL 3
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-4
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)MONITOR WELL 4
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 1.19 8.81 Dry 8.81 105.75 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.19 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.19 8.81 Dry 8.81 105.75 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.19 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 1.19 8.81 Dry 8.81 105.75 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.19 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.19 8.81 Dry 8.81 105.75 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.19 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 1.19 8.81 Dry 8.81 105.75 100.00 101.19 91.19 91.19 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-5
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)
MONITOR WELL 5
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 0.83 9.17 Dry 9.17 110.00 100.00 100.83 90.83 90.83 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-6
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)MONITOR WELL 6
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 1.08 8.92 Dry 8.92 107.00 100.00 101.08 91.08 91.08 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.08 8.92 Dry 8.92 107.00 100.00 101.08 91.08 91.08 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 1.08 8.92 Dry 8.92 107.00 100.00 101.08 91.08 91.08 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 1.08 8.92 Dry 8.92 107.00 100.00 101.08 91.08 91.08 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 1.08 8.92 Dry 8.92 107.00 100.00 101.08 91.08 91.08 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-7
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)MONITOR WELL 7
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE
NOTES:
If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing.
Ground Surface Elevation assumed to be 100.00 ft.
Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4'
Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured
Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by
Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface
(ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)
5/26/2022 10:30 AM 10 0.96 9.04 Dry 9.04 108.50 100.00 100.96 90.96 90.96 96.00 JGE
5/31/2022 12:10 PM 10 0.96 9.04 Dry 9.04 108.50 100.00 100.96 90.96 90.96 96.00 ORB
6/8/2022 3:15 PM 10 0.96 9.04 Dry 9.04 108.50 100.00 100.96 90.96 90.96 96.00 ORB
6/15/2022 12:10 PM 10 0.96 9.04 Dry 9.04 108.50 100.00 100.96 90.96 90.96 96.00 ORB
6/22/2022 1:15 PM 10 0.96 9.04 Dry 9.04 108.50 100.00 100.96 90.96 90.96 96.00 ORB
Installed By: EGS/JGE (AESI)
Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-8
Project: Block 4, South University District Phase 3
Project Number: 22-061
Location: See well location map
Date Installed: May 19, 2022
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
5/24/2022 5/29/2022 6/3/2022 6/8/2022 6/13/2022 6/18/2022 6/23/2022 6/28/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE
BLOCK 4 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PH.3 (PROJECT 22-061)
MONITOR WELL 8
Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE