Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout020_Geotechncial Report-Bl3_SUDPh3_GWmonitoring GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR: Block 3, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3 Bozeman, Montana January 2022 Project 21-198 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................. 3 GEOLOGY OF THE SITE .................................................................................................................... 4 EXPLORATIONS AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 4 Subsurface Explorations .............................................................................................................. 4 Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................................. 4 Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................................................. 6 Laboratory Testing ...................................................................................................................... 7 FOUNDATION, SLAB, AND DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................... 7 Seismic Design Factors ................................................................................................................ 7 Foundation Design ...................................................................................................................... 7 Foundation Bearing Criteria ........................................................................................................ 8 Lateral Earth Pressures.............................................................................................................. 10 Foundation Wall Backfill............................................................................................................ 10 Subsurface Drainage and Damp-Proofing ................................................................................. 11 Vapor Barrier ............................................................................................................................. 11 Surface Drainage Recommendations ........................................................................................ 11 Exterior Concrete and Garage Slabs .......................................................................................... 12 FOUNDATION-RELATED FILL MATERIAL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 12 Excavated Foundation Soils ....................................................................................................... 12 Structural Fill ............................................................................................................................. 12 Clean Crushed Rock ................................................................................................................... 13 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION ........................................................................................... 13 PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 13 UNDERGROUND UTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 15 Foundation Support of Utility Lines .......................................................................................... 15 Trench Backfill ........................................................................................................................... 15 Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 3, Lot 1 of S.U.D Phase 3 January 10, 2022 Bozeman, Montana Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221 Page 2 COLD/WINTER WEATHER CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................. 16 AESI FUTURE INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................ 16 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 16 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 17 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 – Test Pit Location Map o Figure 4 – Geology Map o Figure 5 – Foundation Typical – Slab-On-Grade (Option 1) • List of Appendices o Appendix A – Test Pit Logs o Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Results o Appendix C – Pavement Section Design o Appendix D – Limitations of Your Geotechnical Report Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 3, Lot 1 of S.U.D Phase 3 January 10, 2022 Bozeman, Montana 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 3, 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 18.85-acre, rectangular-shaped property is located southeast of the Stucky Road and South 19th Avenue Intersection. The property is situated in the Northwest 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 north at less than 2 percent. The property is bound to the west by South 19th Avenue, the north by Stucky Road (currently under construction), the east by South 17th Avenue right-of way, and the south by Lot 1 of Block 1 of Yellowstone Institute Minor Subdivision identified by Plat No. 494. Site vegetation consists primarily of agricultural crops and grasses. An irrigation ditch runs parallel to the western property boundary with sporadic willows and trees adjacent to the ditch. At this time, we understand that the development will be composed of high-density residential housing. We were provided with a preliminary site plan of the development on November 15, 2021, that illustrated high-density residential cottages 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 ten test pits within the proposed development site. Three groundwater monitors were installed in select test pits for future monitoring. The location of each test pit is shown on Figure 3. • Laboratory testing of select samples from the test pits. • Providing allowable bearing capacity criteria. • Surface and subsurface drainage recommendations. • Backfill material and compaction recommendations. • Asphalt pavement section materials and design thickness. Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 3, Lot 1 of S.U.D Phase 3 January 10, 2022 Bozeman, Montana Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221 Page 4 GEOLOGY OF THE SITE The geologic map for the area prepared by Lonn and English in 2002 indicates the site is underlain by older alluvial deposits of braid plains (Qabo) which is described as well-rounded, moderately to well-sorted, bouldery gravel with interbedded silt. An excerpt of this mapping is provided on Figure 4. Our test pit findings were consistent with the geologic mapping. EXPLORATIONS AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface Explorations Subsurface conditions were investigated on November 29, 2021, under the direction of Erik Schnaderbeck, a professional geotechnical engineer with Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Ten test pit excavations, which are identified as TP-1 through TP-10, were excavated on the property using a CAT 315 tracked excavator provided by SIME Construction. The test pits were spatially situated across the property to provide coverage. Three groundwater monitors were installed in select test pits located at the southwest, central, and northeast portions of the property for future monitoring. It should be noted that SIME Construction was dewatering along Stucky Road at the northern property boundary at the time of our test pit explorations. For this reason, groundwater levels are anticipated to be much higher than what was observed during the test pit explorations. 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. Select soil samples were brought back to the laboratory for further testing and classification. Laboratory testing results are provided in Appendix B. Subsurface Conditions Soil conditions were similar in all ten test pits. Topsoil consisted of about a foot of dark brown organic sandy clay and fine roots. Fine roots in all test pits extended to approximately one foot below the ground surface indicating that deep root penetration is not required by vegetation due to high groundwater levels. Below the topsoil from depths of 1.0 to 6.25 feet, the test pits Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 3, Lot 1 of S.U.D Phase 3 January 10, 2022 Bozeman, Montana Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221 Page 5 encountered native, medium stiff to soft, light brown, sandy silt/clay that was very moist. It should be noted that the sandy silt/clay became softer and moister with depth. Underlying the sandy silt/clay deposits were alluvial deposits of dense sandy gravel with rounded cobbles that extended to the bottom of all ten test pits to depths of 12 feet. Please refer to Table 1 for a summary of soil conditions encountered in all ten test pits. All measurements are below existing grade. Table 1: Summary of Subsurface Conditions TEST PIT IDENTIFICATION TEST PIT LOCATION NATIVE TOPSOIL NATIVE SANDY SILT/CLAY NATIVE SANDY GRAVEL TP-1 NE Corner 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 4.25’ 4.25’ – 12.0’ TP-2 East Side 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 3.5’ 3.5’ – 12.0’ TP-3 East Side 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 3.5’ 3.5’ – 13.0’ TP-4 SE Corner 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 2.5’ 2.5’ – 12.0’ TP-5 SW Corner 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 6.25’ 6.25’ – 12.0’ TP-6 S. Central 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 4.5’ 4.5’ – 12.0’ TP-7 West Side 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 6.0’ 6.0’ – 12.0’ TP-8 West Side 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 5.0’ 5.0’ – 12.0’ TP-9 N. Central 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 5.0’ 5.0’ – 12.0’ TP-10 NW Corner 0.0’ – 1.0’ 1.0’ – 5.0’ 5.0’ – 12.0’ Target foundation bearing is within the native sandy gravel deposits found at depths of 2.5 to 6.25 feet depending on location. Foundation support recommendations provided later in this report are based on excavation to these gravels and placement of the footings either on the native gravels or on granular structural fill placed on the native sandy gravels. Please refer to Photo 1 for details on the native sandy gravel. Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 3, Lot 1 of S.U.D Phase 3 January 10, 2022 Bozeman, Montana Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221 Page 6 Photo 1: Native sandy gravel (Target Bearing Material) observed in TP-2. Groundwater Conditions As discussed earlier, dewatering activities were being conducted during our test pit explorations for a nearby utility installation. For this reason, we anticipate that groundwater levels observed in our test pit explorations are not a representative measure of high groundwater at the site. At the time of the excavations in late fall, soil conditions were generally moist to very moist, becoming wet with depth with groundwater encountered at depths of 7.0 to 9.5 feet. While on- site during the test pit explorations, groundwater measurements were also taken in select dewatering wells (depths ranging from 9.0 to 12.0 feet below existing ground surface) and the levels measured appeared to match the conditions found in the test pits closest to the dewatering operations. This leads us to believe the regional dewatering was impacting groundwater levels measured in our test pits. Groundwater levels are typically near the lowest level during late fall and winter conditions. 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. Our groundwater measurements during our test pit explorations do not represent seasonal high conditions since there were completed in the late-fall and dewatering operations were taking place at the site for utility installation. Native Sandy Gravel (Target Bearing Material) Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 3, Lot 1 of S.U.D Phase 3 January 10, 2022 Bozeman, Montana Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221 Page 7 Mottling within the native sandy gravel 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 5.0 to 7.5 feet in all ten test pits. In 2016 we performed a geotechnical investigation at the Yellowstone Theological Site located just south of the property. Our test pit explorations were conducted in early October and groundwater levels varied from 4.0 to 5.5 feet below existing grade. We also reviewed a nearby GWIC well log in the area to help anticipate high groundwater levels at the site. The nearest well log (GWIC ID: 301071) measured a static water level at 5.0 feet on April 17, 2019, prior to the seasonal peak during runoff. This well is located at the Grace Bible Church located just northwest of the property across 19th Avenue. Based on this information, and other information gathered from nearby sites over the years, we anticipate that seasonal groundwater levels may rise above 4.0 feet in the area. Laboratory Testing Select sack samples were taken in all ten test pits for moisture content 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 1.5 to 2.5 feet to obtain a standard proctor of soils to be encountered during utility and site work. The standard proctor results per ASTM D-698 indicated a maximum dry unit weight of 106.9 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and an optimum moisture content of 15.0 percent. It should be noted that moisture contents of the upper sandy silt/clay soils varied from 14 to 24 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 2018 IBC (not Default Site Class D). Foundation Design Due to the presence of high groundwater, we recommend that foundations consist of slab-on- grades with finished floor elevations raised to the extent possible. All foundations should bear on the native sandy gravels or on structural fill that in turn bears on the native sandy gravels. We did consider the use of crawlspace foundations at the site, but do not have enough information currently to provide specific recommendations due to the unknown levels that groundwater may reach (we anticipate it could rise to 4 feet or less). Future groundwater monitoring during the spring runoff would be required to determine proper separation between Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 3, Lot 1 of S.U.D Phase 3 January 10, 2022 Bozeman, Montana Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221 Page 8 footing grades and high groundwater. If possible, we recommend maintaining a minimum of two feet of separation between high groundwater and the bottom of footings (in crawlspace applications). This would likely place footings at no greater than two feet below the native ground surface. Note that providing appropriate separation in crawlspace applications will require additional structural fill to extend from the target bearing sandy gravels encountered at 2.5 to 6.25 feet below existing grade up to footing grade. Achieving this separation will also result in higher finished grades across the site to maintain 4 feet of cover for frost protection, increasing costs associated with fill. 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 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 groundwater and re-routing the water away from the structures to an acceptable location that does not impact surrounding structures. If crawlspace foundations are desired, please let us know so we can be involved with the design process and perform groundwater monitoring. Foundation Bearing Criteria The upper sandy silt/clay found at the site are prone to excessive settlement (over an inch) under anticipated foundation loads. For this reason, we recommend over-excavating to the native sandy gravel (found at a depth of 2.5 to 6.25 feet) and bearing footings on this material or granular structural fill that is founded on the native sandy gravel. For frost protection, exterior footings should bear at a depth of four feet below the lowest adjacent finished grade. In a slab on grade application or an elevated crawlspace, two options exist with respect to the installation of the structural fill (if needed) to extend from the target bearing native sandy gravels up to the bottom of footings: 1. The first option is to mass-excavate within the footprint of the structures down to the target bearing native sandy gravels (and extending outward at least 2 feet) 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. Please refer to Figure 5 for details. 2. A second option to perhaps save on foundation preparation costs is to leave the non- organic sandy silt/clay under the interior slab and only 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 Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 3, Lot 1 of S.U.D Phase 3 January 10, 2022 Bozeman, Montana Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221 Page 9 of the excavation is the width of the footing plus the depth of structural fill measured from the bottom of footing to the native gravels (essentially a load transfer of 2V:1H). For instance, if the width of the footing is 2 feet and the thickness of structural fill extending from the bottom of footing to native gravels is 2 feet, the width of the excavation would need to be 4 feet. This assumes the footing is centered on the 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. On top of the prepared subgrade, we recommend placing a woven geotextile fabric (Mirafi 600X or approved equivalent), followed by 18 inches of structural fill and 6 inches of crushed drainage rock directly under the slab. If the entirety of the building footprint will be excavated to the native gravels and replaced with granular structural fill, fabric reinforcement is not required. 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 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 pouring footings or placing structural fill (if used), the native subgrade should be proof- rolled to an unyielding condition. Any soft or overly moist areas should be removed and replaced Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 3, Lot 1 of S.U.D Phase 3 January 10, 2022 Bozeman, Montana Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221 Page 10 with lifts of structural fill compacted to a dense, unyielding condition. A leveling course of crushed rock or road mix may be used if there are excessive large rocks in the subgrade that would create an uneven bearing surface. An appropriate bearing capacity for design assuming conventional spread and continuous footings is 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Total settlements are estimated to be under 0.75 inches with minimal differential settlements. Allowable bearing pressures during earthquakes may be increased by 50 percent. Lateral Earth Pressures All foundation walls that will be fixed at the top prior to the placement of backfill should be designed for an “at rest” equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). In contrast, cantilevered retaining walls may be designed for a lower, “active” equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pcf, provided either some slight outward rotation of the wall is acceptable upon backfilling, or the wall is constructed in such a way that accommodates the expected rotation. The “at rest” and “active” design values are only applicable for walls that will have backfill slopes of less than 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 0.4 should be used between cast-in-place concrete and the native gravels or granular structural fill. Actual footing loads (not factored or allowable loads) should be used for calculating frictional resistance to sliding along the base of the footing. Please be aware that the friction coefficient has no built-in factor of safety; therefore, an appropriate safety factor should be selected and used in all subsequent calculations for each load case. The lateral earth pressures summarized above are for static conditions and should be factored for seismic conditions. 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. 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 Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 3, Lot 1 of S.U.D Phase 3 January 10, 2022 Bozeman, Montana Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221 Page 11 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. Subsurface Drainage and Damp-Proofing If a crawlspace is used, 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. The drains should be daylighted downslope, or if daylighting is impractical given the flatness of the site, we suggest taking the drains to an exterior sump with a pump. As discussed earlier, it may be difficult to find a suitable area to pump the water given the flatness of the site. 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 (or daylighted if possible). 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. Perimeter footing drains for slab-on-grade foundations 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 2018). 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 to subsurface footing and foundation drains. To further reduce the potential for moisture Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 3, Lot 1 of S.U.D Phase 3 January 10, 2022 Bozeman, Montana Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221 Page 12 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. 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 easily compacted fill material if work is conducted during the wet or winter season when drying is not an option. Structural Fill If needed, import granular structural fill for the project should consist of organic-free, well- Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 3, Lot 1 of S.U.D Phase 3 January 10, 2022 Bozeman, Montana Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221 Page 13 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. Clean Crushed Rock The primary uses for clean crushed rock include placement under concrete slabs and behind foundation and retaining walls for drainage-related purposes. It may also be used to bring the subgrade up above the groundwater level in below foundation applications. Crushed rock shall consist of a clean assortment of angular fragments with 100 percent passing a one-inch screen and less than 1 percent (by weight) finer than the No. 100 sieve. Over 50 percent of the rock particles must have fractured faces. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION All fill materials should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts and compacted to an unyielding condition. The “loose” thickness of each layer of fill prior to compaction should not exceed 10 inches for self-propelled rollers, 6 inches for remote-controlled trench rollers, and 4 inches for plate compactors. The moisture content of any fill material to be compacted should be within 2 percent of its optimum value. Table 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 PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the anticipated soft subgrade conditions across the site and intended uses for roads, we have recommended separate pavement sections for 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. We have not been provided with any Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 3, Lot 1 of S.U.D Phase 3 January 10, 2022 Bozeman, Montana Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221 Page 14 preliminary site plans and layouts at this time, so if our assumptions to do not apply please let us know so appropriate recommendations can be provided. Table 3 presents the minimum pavement section for local streets 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. Should widespread moderately unstable subgrade conditions (minor rutting and deflecting, very moist subgrade, etc.) occur across the site, an additional pavement section has been provided. Table 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 subgrade. Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 3, Lot 1 of S.U.D Phase 3 January 10, 2022 Bozeman, Montana Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221 Page 15 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 construction of roadways/parking areas to evaluate the severity of any unstable conditions encountered and the use of higher strength fabrics or increasing the sub- base section. In the event highly unstable subgrade conditions (severe rutting and deflecting) are encountered we recommend adding 6 to 12 inches of additional sub-base gravel to the pavement section listed in Table 4. The sub-base and base course materials that comprise the granular parts of the pavement section shall consist of 6-inch minus uncrushed sandy (pitrun) gravel and 1-1/2-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 bridge 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 on the bid form in case Type 2 bedding is deemed necessary. We suggest proper bedding of all utilities following the specifications found in the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications. Trench Backfill Trench backfill can consist of any native material (except materials containing significant organics) that is not overly wet. Due to the very moist and soft upper fine-grained soils, we Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC. Geotechnical Report – Block 3, Lot 1 of S.U.D Phase 3 January 10, 2022 Bozeman, Montana Allied Engineering Services, Inc. ● 32 Discovery Drive. Bozeman, Montana 59718 ● Ph: (406) 582-0221 Page 16 recommend that a bid item be included in the bid form should import material be needed for trench backfill. We recommend that trench backfill be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of ASTM D-698 under pavement/slab areas and 92 percent in landscaped areas. 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 3, 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 those interpreted herein. LIST OF FIGURES FFiigguurree 11 –– VViicciinniittyy MMaapp FFiigguurree 22 –– QQuuaaddrraannggllee MMaapp FFiigguurree 33 –– TTeesstt PPiitt LLooccaattiioonn MMaapp FFiigguurree 44 –– GGeeoollooggyy MMaapp FFiigguurree 55 –– FFoouunnddaattiioonn TTyyppiiccaall––SSllaabb--OOnn--GGrraaddee ((OOppttiioonn 11)) FIGURECivil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718 PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770 www.alliedengineering.com BLOCK 3, LOT 1 OF S. UNIVERSITY DIST. VICINITY MAP BOZEMAN, MONTANA 1 N FIGURECivil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718 PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770 www.alliedengineering.com BLOCK 3, LOT 1 OF S. UNIVERSITY DIST. QUADRANGLE MAP BOZEMAN, MONTANA 2 N FIGURECivil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718 PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770 www.alliedengineering.com BLOCK 3, LOT 1 OF S. UNIVERSITY DIST. TEST PIT LOCATION MAP BOZEMAN, MONTANA 3 TP# TP-1 MW#N MW-1 TP-2 TP-7 TP-8 TP-6 MW-2 TP-4 TP-9 TP-3 MW-3 TP-5 TP-10 FIGURECivil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Land Surveying 32 DISCOVERY DRIVE . BOZEMAN, MT 59718 PHONE (406) 582-0221 . FAX (406) 582-5770 www.alliedengineering.com BLOCK 3, LOT 1 OF S. UNIVERSITY DIST. GEOLOGY MAP BOZEMAN, MONTANA 4 N Figure 521-198Jan 2022Block 3, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3Foundation Typical - Slab-On-Grade (Option 1)Bozeman, MontanaLegendFoundation Backfilland Embankment FillNative Sandy Gravel(”Target” Bearing Material)ConcreteNative TopsoilLow Permeable TopsoilNot To ScaleCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 Discovery DriveBozeman, MT 59718Phone: (406) 582-0221Fax: (406) 582-5770Native Fine-Grained Soil(Sandy Silt/Clay)Granular Structural FillClean Crushed RockGroundwaterFinished Floor Elevation15 mil Polyethylene Vapor Barrier (typ.)ExistingGroundReviewed By:EGS Jan. 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.2’ (min.)6” (min.)Raise FF Above Existing Grades As HighAs Site Grading Will Allow.Depth Of Cover ForFrost Protection4’ (min.)Width Of MassOver-ExcavationExcavated Gravel Surface Should Be “Clean” Sandy Gravel. Re-Compact To An Unyielding Condition Prior To Placement Of Structural Fill.2.5’ to 6.25’Depth To“Target” GravelAll Fill Materials Shall Be Placed And Compacted InAccordance With The Specifications In The Report.All Footings Must Bear Directly On Native Gravel Or OnStructural Fill That In Turn Is Supported On Native Gravel.Foundation Walls to be Damp-Proofed. No Footing Drain IsRequired Unless Exterior Grade Will Extend Above Top of Slab LIST OF APPENDICES AAppppeennddiixx AA –– TTeesstt PPiitt LLooggss AAppppeennddiixx BB –– LLaabboorraattoorryy TTeessttiinngg RReessuullttss AAppppeennddiixx CC –– PPaavveemmeenntt SSeeccttiioonn DDeessiiggnn AAppppeennddiixx DD –– LLiimmiittaattiioonnss ooff YYoouurr GGeeootteecchhnniiccaall RReeppoorrtt APPENDIX A TTeesstt PPiitt LLooggss {0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Medium stiff; dark brown to black; organicsandy SILT/CLAY with fine roots; very moist.·Fine roots extend to 12".{1.0' - 4.25'}: Fine-Grained Deposit:Medium stiff; light brown; sandy SILT/CLAY;very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.5 tsf. at 1.5'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.0 tsf. at 2.0'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.0 tsf. at 3.0'.·Becoming softer with depth.·Significant moisture increase below 2.0'.{4.25' - 12.0'}: Alluvium:Dense; dark brown with some orange mottling;sandy GRAVEL with 8"-minus rounded cobbles;moist to wet.·Target bearing at 4.25' .·Mottling observed below 5.5'.·Groundwater encountered at 9.0'·Wet material beginning at 8.0'.Notes:1.Onsite dewatering system in use for utilityinstallation (groundwater anticipated to behigher).2.4" PVC piezometer installed in test pit(MW-1).12DEPTH (FT) SAMPLES % WATER CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA21-19812.0'9.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-1 (NE Corner) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: CAT 315C Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Scott w/SIME Project: Block 3, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS (AESI) Date: November 29, 2021S1-A@2.0'45.65605, -111.06071(See Map)Target Bearing at 4.25'22.8%3691215GW at 9.0'15129631323S1-B@3.0'18.9%S1-C@6.0'4.1% {0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Medium stiff; dark brown to black; organicsandy SILT/CLAY with fine roots; very moist.·Fine roots extend to 12".{1.0' - 3.5'}: Fine-Grained Deposit:Medium stiff to soft; light brown; sandySILT/CLAY; very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.0 tsf. at 1.5'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 0.75 tsf. at 2.0'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 0.5 tsf. at 3.0'.·Becoming softer with depth.·Significant moisture increase below 2.0'.{3.5' - 12.0'}: Alluvium:Dense; dark brown with some orange mottling;sandy GRAVEL with 8"-minus rounded cobbles;moist to wet.·Target bearing at 3.5' .·Mottling observed below 5.5'.·Groundwater encountered at 9.0'·Wet material beginning at 7.5'.Notes:1.Onsite dewatering system in use for utilityinstallation (groundwater anticipated to behigher).12DEPTH (FT) SAMPLES % WATER CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA21-19812.0'9.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-2 (East Side) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: CAT 315C Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Scott w/SIME Project: Block 3, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS (AESI) Date: November 29, 2021S2-A@2.0'45.65528, -111.06064(See Map)Target Bearing at 3.5'24.0%3691215GW at 9.0'15129631323S2-B@3.0'22.0%S2-C@8.0'5.0% {0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Medium stiff; dark brown to black; organicsandy SILT/CLAY with fine roots; very moist.·Fine roots extend to 12".{1.0' - 3.5'}: Fine-Grained Deposit:Medium stiff; light brown; sandy SILT/CLAY;very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.5 tsf. at 1.5'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.0 tsf. at 2.0'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.0 tsf. at 3.0'.·Becoming softer with depth.·Significant moisture increase below 2.0'.{3.5' - 12.0'}: Alluvium:Dense; dark brown with some orange mottling;sandy GRAVEL with 8"-minus rounded cobbles;moist to wet.·Target bearing at 3.5' .·Mottling observed below 5.5'.·Groundwater encountered at 8.0'·Wet material beginning at 7.5'.Notes:1.Onsite dewatering system in use for utilityinstallation (groundwater anticipated to behigher).12DEPTH (FT) SAMPLES % WATER CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA21-19812.0'8.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-3 (East Side) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: CAT 315C Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Scott w/SIME Project: Block 3, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS (AESI) Date: November 29, 2021S3-A@2.0'45.65433, -111.06067(See Map)Target Bearing at 3.5'23.5%3691215GW at 8.0'15129631323S3-B@3.0'18.9%S3-C@6.0'4.3% {0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Medium stiff; dark brown to black; organicsandy SILT/CLAY with fine roots; very moist.·Fine roots extend to 12".{1.0' - 2.5'}: Fine-Grained Deposit:Medium stiff; light brown; sandy SILT/CLAY;very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.5 tsf. at 1.5'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.0 tsf. at 2.0'.·Becoming softer with depth.·Significant moisture increase below 1.5'.{2.5' - 12.0'}: Alluvium:Dense; dark brown with some orange mottling;sandy GRAVEL with 8"-minus rounded cobbles;moist to wet.·Target bearing at 2.5' .·Mottling observed below 5.0'.·Groundwater encountered at 7.0'·Wet material beginning at 6.0'.Notes:1.Onsite dewatering system in use for utilityinstallation (groundwater anticipated to behigher).2.TP-4 is furthest from dewatering system(highest groundwater).12DEPTH (FT) SAMPLES % WATER CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA21-19812.0'7.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-4 (SE Corner) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: CAT 315C Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Scott w/SIME Project: Block 3, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS (AESI) Date: November 29, 2021S4-A@2.0'45.65332, -111.06062(See Map)Target Bearing at 2.5'14.9%3691215GW at 7.0'15129631323S4-B@4.0'4.5%S4-C@8.0'6.3% {0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Medium stiff; dark brown to black; organicsandy SILT/CLAY with fine roots; very moist.·Fine roots extend to 12".{1.0' - 6.25'}: Fine-Grained Deposit:Medium stiff to soft; light brown; sandySILT/CLAY; very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.5 tsf. at 1.5'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.0 tsf. at 2.0'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 0.75 tsf. at 3.0'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 0.5 tsf. at 4.0'.·Becoming softer with depth.·Significant moisture increase below 2.0'.{6.25' - 12.0'}: Alluvium:Dense; dark brown with some orange mottling;sandy GRAVEL with 8"-minus rounded cobbles;moist to wet.·Target bearing at 6.25' .·Mottling observed below 7.0'.·Groundwater encountered at 9.0'·Wet material beginning at 8.0'.Notes:1.Onsite dewatering system in use for utilityinstallation (groundwater anticipated to behigher).2.4" PVC piezometer installed in test pit(MW-2).12DEPTH (FT) SAMPLES % WATER CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA21-19812.0'9.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-5 (SW Corner) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: CAT 315C Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Scott w/SIME Project: Block 3, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS (AESI) Date: November 29, 2021S5-A@2.0'45.65338, -111.06186(See Map)Target Bearing at 6.25'23.0%3691215GW at 9.0'15129631323S5-B@4.0'24.1%S5-C@8.0'6.6% {0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Medium stiff; dark brown to black; organicsandy SILT/CLAY with fine roots; very moist.·Fine roots extend to 12".{1.0' - 4.5'}: Fine-Grained Deposit:Medium stiff to soft; light brown; sandySILT/CLAY; very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer = 2.0 tsf. at 1.5'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.0 tsf. at 2.0'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 0.5 tsf. at 3.0'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 0.5 tsf. at 4.0'.·Becoming softer with depth.·Significant moisture increase below 2.0'.{4.5' - 12.0'}: Alluvium:Dense; dark brown with some orange mottling;sandy GRAVEL with 8"-minus rounded cobbles;moist to wet.·Target bearing at 4.5' .·Mottling observed below 7.0'.·Groundwater encountered at 9.5'·Wet material beginning at 8.5'.Notes:1.Onsite dewatering system in use for utilityinstallation (groundwater anticipated to behigher).2.4" PVC piezometer installed in test pit(MW-3).12DEPTH (FT) SAMPLES % WATER CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA21-19812.0'9.5'Test Pit Designation: TP-6 (S. Central) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: CAT 315C Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Scott w/SIME Project: Block 3, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS (AESI) Date: November 29, 2021S6-A@2.0'45.65416, -111.06131(See Map)Target Bearing at 4.5'22.5%3691215GW at 9.5'15129631323S6-B@4.0'22.8%S6-C@8.0'5.5% {0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Medium stiff; dark brown to black; organicsandy SILT/CLAY with fine roots; very moist.·Fine roots extend to 12".{1.0' - 6.0'}: Fine-Grained Deposit:Medium stiff to soft; light brown; sandySILT/CLAY; very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.5 tsf. at 1.5'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.0 tsf. at 2.0'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 0.5 tsf. at 3.0'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 0.5 tsf. at 4.0'.·Becoming softer with depth.·Significant moisture increase below 2.0'.{6.0' - 12.0'}: Alluvium:Dense; dark brown with some orange mottling;sandy GRAVEL with 8"-minus rounded cobbles;moist to wet.·Target bearing at 6.0' .·Mottling observed below 7.5'.·Groundwater encountered at 9.0'·Wet material beginning at 8.0'.Notes:1.Onsite dewatering system in use for utilityinstallation (groundwater anticipated to behigher).12DEPTH (FT) SAMPLES % WATER CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA21-19812.0'9.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-7 (West Side) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: CAT 315C Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Scott w/SIME Project: Block 3, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS (AESI) Date: November 29, 2021S7-A@2.0'45.65435, -111.06194(See Map)Target Bearing at 6.0'21.2%3691215GW at 9.0'15129631323S7-B@4.0'21.5%S7-C@8.0'5.8% {0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Medium stiff; dark brown to black; organicsandy SILT/CLAY with fine roots; very moist.·Fine roots extend to 12".{1.0' - 5.0'}: Fine-Grained Deposit:Medium stiff to soft; light brown; sandySILT/CLAY; very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.5 tsf. at 1.5'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.0 tsf. at 2.0'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 0.5 tsf. at 3.0'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 0.5 tsf. at 4.0'.·Becoming softer with depth.·Significant moisture increase below 2.0'.{5.0' - 12.0'}: Alluvium:Dense; dark brown with some orange mottling;sandy GRAVEL with 8"-minus rounded cobbles;moist to wet.·Target bearing at 5.0' .·Mottling observed below 6.5'.·Groundwater encountered at 8.5'·Wet material beginning at 7.5'.Notes:1. Onsite dewatering system in use for utilityinstallation (groundwater anticipated to behigher).12DEPTH (FT) SAMPLES % WATER CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA21-19812.0'8.5'Test Pit Designation: TP-8 (West Side)Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: CAT 315CJob Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Scott w/SIMEProject: Block 3, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS (AESI)Date: November 29, 2021S8-A@2.0'45.65531, -111.06193 (See Map)Target Bearing at 5.0'23.6%3691215GW at 8.5'15129631323S8-B@4.0'16.9%S8-C@6.0'7.8% {0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Medium stiff; dark brown to black; organicsandy SILT/CLAY with fine roots; very moist.·Fine roots extend to 12".{1.0' - 5.0'}: Fine-Grained Deposit:Medium stiff to soft; light brown; sandySILT/CLAY; very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.5 tsf. at 1.5'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 1.0 tsf. at 2.0'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 0.5 tsf. at 3.0'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 0.5 tsf. at 4.0'.·Becoming softer with depth.·Significant moisture increase below 2.0'.{5.0' - 12.0'}: Alluvium:Dense; dark brown with some orange mottling;sandy GRAVEL with 8"-minus rounded cobbles;moist to wet.·Target bearing at 5.0' .·Mottling observed below 5.5'.·Groundwater encountered at 9.0'·Wet material beginning at 8.0'.Notes:1.Onsite dewatering system in use for utilityinstallation (groundwater anticipated to behigher).12DEPTH (FT) SAMPLES % WATER CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA21-19812.0'9.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-9 (N. Central) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: CAT 315C Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Scott w/SIME Project: Block 3, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS (AESI) Date: November 29, 2021S9-A@2.0'45.65561, -111.06129(See Map)Target Bearing at 5.0'21.5%3691215GW at 9.0'15129631323S9-B@4.0'23.2%S9-C@7.0'6.5% {0.0' - 1.0'}: Native Topsoil:Medium stiff; dark brown to black; organicsandy SILT/CLAY with fine roots; very moist.·Fine roots extend to 12".{1.0' - 5.0'}: Fine-Grained Deposit:Medium stiff to soft; light brown; sandySILT/CLAY; very moist.·Pocket Penetrometer = 2.0 tsf. at 1.5'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 0.75 tsf. at 2.0'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 0.5 tsf. at 3.0'.·Pocket Penetrometer = 0.5 tsf. at 4.0'.·Becoming softer with depth.·Significant moisture increase below 2.0'.{5.0' - 12.0'}: Alluvium:Dense; dark brown with some orange mottling;sandy GRAVEL with 8"-minus rounded cobbles;moist to wet.·Target bearing at 5.0' .·Mottling observed below 7.0'.·Groundwater encountered at 9.0'·Wet material beginning at 8.0'.Notes:1.Onsite dewatering system in use for utilityinstallation (groundwater anticipated to behigher).12DEPTH (FT) SAMPLES % WATER CONTENTDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALSHorizontal Distance in FeetCivil EngineeringGeotechnical EngineeringLand Surveying32 DISCOVERY DRIVEBOZEMAN, MT 59718PHONE (406) 582-0221FAX (406) 582-5770www.alliedengineering.comNA21-19812.0'9.0'Test Pit Designation: TP-10 (NW Corner) Location:Surface Elevation: Backhoe Type: CAT 315C Job Number:Total Depth: Backhoe Operator: Scott w/SIME Project: Block 3, Lot 1 of South University Dist. Ph. 3Groundwater: Logged By: EGS (AESI) Date: November 29, 2021S10-A@2.0'45.65616, -111.06194(See Map)Target Bearing at 5.0'21.6%3691215GW at 9.0'15129631323S10-B@4.0'24.4%S10-C@6.0'5.0% APPENDIX B LLaabboorraattoorryy TTeessttiinngg RReessuullttss MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION (ASTM D-2216) Project: Block 3, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3Project Number: 21-198 Sample Identification: Varies Soil Classification: Varies Date Sampled: November 29, 2021 Date Tested: November 30, 2021 Tested By: HRT Sample Identification:S1-A S1-B S1-C S2-A S2-B S2-C Exploration Location:TP-1 TP-1 TP-1 TP-2 TP-2 TP-2 Sample Depth (ft):2.0 3.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 8.0 Container Number:SS I TT JJ L D Weight of Container:30.99 31.80 30.90 30.93 31.70 31.75 Container + Wet Soil:143.57 145.58 201.82 164.50 195.98 224.02 Container + Dry Soil:122.66 127.52 195.07 138.69 166.35 214.87 Weight of Water:20.91 18.06 6.75 25.81 29.63 9.15 Weight of Dry Soil:91.67 95.72 164.17 107.76 134.65 183.12 Moisture Content:22.8%18.9%4.1%24.0%22.0%5.0% Sample Identification:S3-A S3-B S3-C S4-A S4-B S4-C Exploration Location:TP-3 TP-3 TP-3 TP-4 TP-4 TP-4 Sample Depth (ft):2.0 3.0 6.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 Container Number:P Q Z T W U Weight of Container:49.30 50.99 49.49 51.58 50.46 51.15 Container + Wet Soil:223.11 262.83 262.56 200.83 265.80 215.82 Container + Dry Soil:190.09 229.21 253.77 181.48 256.46 206.08 Weight of Water:33.02 33.62 8.79 19.35 9.34 9.74 Weight of Dry Soil:140.79 178.22 204.28 129.90 206.00 154.93 Moisture Content:23.5%18.9%4.3%14.9%4.5%6.3% Reviewed By: 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone (406) 582-0221Fax (406) 582-5770 MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION (ASTM D-2216) Project: Block 3, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3Project Number: 21-198 Sample Identification: Varies Soil Classification: Varies Date Sampled: November 29, 2021 Date Tested: November 30, 2021 Tested By: HRT Sample Identification:S5-A S5-B S5-C S6-A S6-B S6-C Exploration Location:TP-5 TP-5 TP-5 TP-6 TP-6 TP-6 Sample Depth (ft):2.0 4.0 8.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 Container Number:S AA V GG R HH Weight of Container:50.43 48.99 50.99 48.32 50.69 48.31 Container + Wet Soil:212.95 245.47 236.03 190.43 299.49 213.25 Container + Dry Soil:182.54 207.34 224.63 164.34 253.32 204.61 Weight of Water:30.41 38.13 11.40 26.09 46.17 8.64 Weight of Dry Soil:132.11 158.35 173.64 116.02 202.63 156.30 Moisture Content:23.0%24.1%6.6%22.5%22.8%5.5% Sample Identification:S7-A S7-B S7-C S8-A S8-B S8-C Exploration Location:TP-7 TP-7 TP-7 TP-8 TP-8 TP-8 Sample Depth (ft):2.0 4.0 8.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 Container Number:EE Y A F KK C Weight of Container:48.91 50.90 31.96 31.71 31.29 31.77 Container + Wet Soil:236.67 238.57 200.54 167.70 177.02 214.84 Container + Dry Soil:203.86 205.36 191.36 141.75 155.97 201.57 Weight of Water:32.81 33.21 9.18 25.95 21.05 13.27 Weight of Dry Soil:154.95 154.46 159.40 110.04 124.68 169.80 Moisture Content:21.2%21.5%5.8%23.6%16.9%7.8% Reviewed By: 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone (406) 582-0221Fax (406) 582-5770 MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION (ASTM D-2216) Project: Block 3, Lot 1 of South University District Phase 3Project Number: 21-198 Sample Identification: Varies Soil Classification: Varies Date Sampled: November 29, 2021 Date Tested: November 30, 2021 Tested By: HRT Sample Identification:S9-A S9-B S9-C S10-A S10-B S10-C Exploration Location:TP-9 TP-9 TP-9 TP-10 TP-10 TP-10 Sample Depth (ft):2.0 4.0 7.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 Container Number:K J DD E B RR Weight of Container:31.74 31.67 30.92 31.70 31.59 31.33 Container + Wet Soil:140.99 184.58 181.57 149.69 175.92 145.62 Container + Dry Soil:121.69 155.82 172.38 128.70 147.65 140.19 Weight of Water:19.30 28.76 9.19 20.99 28.27 5.43 Weight of Dry Soil:89.95 124.15 141.46 97.00 116.06 108.86 Moisture Content:21.5%23.2%6.5%21.6%24.4%5.0% Sample Identification: Exploration Location: Sample Depth (ft): Container Number: Weight of Container: Container + Wet Soil: Container + Dry Soil: Weight of Water: Weight of Dry Soil: Moisture Content: Reviewed By: 32 Discovery Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Phone (406) 582-0221Fax (406) 582-5770 STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D-698) Project: Block 3, Lot 1 of South Univeristy Dist. Ph. 3 Project Number: 21-198 Sample Identification: Composite (1.5 ft - 2.5 ft) Soil Classification: Native Sandy Silt/Clay Date Sampled: 11/29/2021 Date Tested: 12/13/2021 Tested By: JGE Note: No Oversize Correction Applied Natural Moisture Content: 22.5 % Optimum Moisture Content: 15.0 % Maximum Dry Unit Weight: 106.9 pcf Reviewed By: Summary of Lab Test Data 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 108 110 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%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 Note: Native Sandy Silt/Clay Material is Wetter Than Optimum Moisture. (Drying of Material May Be Needed to Achieve Adequate Compaction) APPENDIX C 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 3, Lot 1 of S.University Dist., Ph. 3 Project Number: 21-198 Date: January 4, 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 3, Lot 1 of S.University Dist., Ph. 3 Project Number: 21-198 Date: January 4, 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 D 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.   Date Time Name MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 3/25/2022 1:00 PM JGE 8.55 8.89 7.20 4/6/2022 11:30 AM JGE 8.31 9.42 6.97 4/19/2022 1:45 PM ORB 8.32 9.83 7.49 5/4/2022 8:00 AM ORB 7.72 8.54 6.01 5/17/2022 2:15 PM JGE 7.14 8.70 5.77 5/26/2022 10:15 AM JGE 7.41 9.82 6.67 5/31/2022 12:45 PM ORB 7.07 9.49 6.48 6/8/2022 3:40 PM ORB 7.15 8.96 5.88 6/15/2022 12:40 PM ORB 7.60 9.79 6.63 6/22/2022 1:40 PM ORB 7.88 Dry 7.69 Measure from TOC to GW (feet) Project: Block 3, South Univeristy District Phase 3 Project Number: 21-198 Location: See well location map Date Installed: November 29, 2021 Installed By: EGS (AESI) NOTES: If the well is dry, graph shows the groundwater at bottom of the well casing. Assumed Ground Surface Elevation of 100.0-ft. All measurements for this well are in reference to the assumed Ground Surface Elevation. Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4' Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface (ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet) 3/25/2022 1:00 PM 10 1.13 8.88 8.55 7.43 89.10 100 101.13 91.13 92.58 96 JGE 4/6/2022 11:30 AM 10 1.13 8.88 8.31 7.19 86.22 100 101.13 91.13 92.82 96 JGE 4/19/2022 1:45 PM 10 1.13 8.88 8.32 7.20 86.34 100 101.13 91.13 92.81 96 ORB 5/4/2022 8:00 AM 10 1.13 8.88 7.72 6.60 79.14 100 101.13 91.13 93.41 96 ORB 5/17/2022 2:15 PM 10 1.13 8.88 7.14 6.02 72.18 100 101.13 91.13 93.99 96 JGE 5/26/2022 10:15 AM 10 1.13 8.88 7.41 6.29 75.42 100 101.13 91.13 93.72 96 JGE 5/31/2022 12:45 PM 10 1.13 8.88 7.07 5.95 71.34 100 101.13 91.13 94.06 96 ORB 6/8/2022 3:40 PM 10 1.13 8.88 7.15 6.03 72.30 100 101.13 91.13 93.98 96 ORB 6/15/2022 12:40 PM 10 1.13 8.88 7.6 6.48 77.70 100 101.13 91.13 93.53 96 ORB 6/22/2022 1:40 PM 10 1.13 8.88 7.88 6.76 81.06 100 101.13 91.13 93.25 96 ORB 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 1.13 8.88 0 -1.13 -13.50 100 101.13 91.13 101.13 96 0 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 1.13 8.88 0 -1.13 -13.50 100 101.13 91.13 101.13 96 0 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 1.13 8.88 0 -1.13 -13.50 100 101.13 91.13 101.13 96 0 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 1.13 8.88 0 -1.13 -13.50 100 101.13 91.13 101.13 96 0 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 1.13 8.88 0 -1.13 -13.50 100 101.13 91.13 101.13 96 0 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 1.13 8.88 0 -1.13 -13.50 100 101.13 91.13 101.13 96 0 Installed By: EGS (AESI) Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-1 Project: South University District - Block 3 Project Number: 21-198 Location: See well location map Date Installed: November 29, 2021 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 3/24/2022 4/3/2022 4/13/2022 4/23/2022 5/3/2022 5/13/2022 5/23/2022 6/2/2022 6/12/2022 6/22/2022 7/2/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT BLOCK 3 (PROJECT 21-198) 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. Assumed Ground Surface Elevation of 100.0-ft. All measurements for this well are in reference to the assumed Ground Surface Elevation. Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4' Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface (ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet) 3/25/2022 1:00 PM 10 2.67 7.33 8.89 6.22 74.68 100 102.67 92.67 93.78 96 JGE 4/6/2022 11:30 AM 10 2.67 7.33 9.42 6.75 81.04 100 102.67 92.67 93.25 96 JGE 4/19/2022 1:45 PM 10 2.67 7.33 9.83 7.16 85.96 100 102.67 92.67 92.84 96 ORB 5/4/2022 8:00 AM 10 2.67 7.33 8.54 5.87 70.48 100 102.67 92.67 94.13 96 ORB 5/17/2022 2:15 PM 10 2.67 7.33 8.70 6.03 72.40 100 102.67 92.67 93.97 96 JGE 5/26/2022 10:15 AM 10 2.67 7.33 9.82 7.15 85.84 100 102.67 92.67 92.85 96 JGE 5/31/2022 12:45 PM 10 2.67 7.33 9.49 6.82 81.88 100 102.67 92.67 93.18 96 ORB 6/8/2022 3:40 PM 10 2.67 7.33 8.96 6.29 75.52 100 102.67 92.67 93.71 96 ORB 6/15/2022 12:40 PM 10 2.67 7.33 9.79 7.12 85.48 100 102.67 92.67 92.88 96 ORB 6/22/2022 1:40 PM 10 2.67 7.33 Dry 7.33 88 100 102.67 92.67 92.67 96 ORB 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 2.67 7.33 0 -2.67 -32 100 102.67 92.67 102.67 96 0 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 2.67 7.33 0 -2.67 -32 100 102.67 92.67 102.67 96 0 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 2.67 7.33 0 -2.67 -32 100 102.67 92.67 102.67 96 0 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 2.67 7.33 0 -2.67 -32 100 102.67 92.67 102.67 96 0 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 2.67 7.33 0 -2.67 -32 100 102.67 92.67 102.67 96 0 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 2.67 7.33 0 -2.67 -32 100 102.67 92.67 102.67 96 0 Installed By: EGS (AESI) Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-2 Project: South University District - Block 3 Project Number: 21-198 Location: See well location map Date Installed: November 29, 2021 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 3/24/2022 4/3/2022 4/13/2022 4/23/2022 5/3/2022 5/13/2022 5/23/2022 6/2/2022 6/12/2022 6/22/2022 7/2/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT BLOCK 3 (PROJECT 21-198) 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. Assumed Ground Surface Elevation of 100.0-ft. All measurements for this well are in reference to the assumed Ground Surface Elevation. Total Well Well Measure Depth to Top Bottom 4' Well Casing Casing from T.O.C.GW Depth to Ground of of GW below Measured Date Time Casing Height Bury to GW Below GW Surface Casing Casing Elev.Ground by Length Depth Ground Elev.Elev.Elev.Surface (ft)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet)(inches)(feet)(feet)(feet)(feet) 3/25/2022 1:00 PM 10 1.08 8.92 7.20 6.12 73.40 100 101.08 91.08 93.88 96 JGE 4/6/2022 11:30 AM 10 1.08 8.92 6.97 5.89 70.64 100 101.08 91.08 94.11 96 JGE 4/19/2022 1:45 PM 10 1.08 8.92 7.49 6.41 76.88 100 101.08 91.08 93.59 96 ORB 5/4/2022 8:00 AM 10 1.08 8.92 6.01 4.93 59.12 100 101.08 91.08 95.07 96 ORB 5/17/2022 2:15 PM 10 1.08 8.92 5.77 4.69 56.24 100 101.08 91.08 95.31 96 JGE 5/26/2022 10:15 AM 10 1.08 8.92 6.67 5.59 67.04 100 101.08 91.08 94.41 96 JGE 5/31/2022 12:45 PM 10 1.08 8.92 6.48 5.40 64.76 100 101.08 91.08 94.60 96 ORB 6/8/2022 3:40 PM 10 1.08 8.92 5.88 4.80 57.56 100 101.08 91.08 95.20 96 ORB 6/15/2022 12:40 PM 10 1.08 8.92 6.63 5.55 66.56 100 101.08 91.08 94.45 96 ORB 6/22/2022 1:40 PM 10 1.08 8.92 7.69 6.61 79.28 100 101.08 91.08 93.39 96 ORB 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 1.08 8.92 0 -1.08 -13 100 101.08 91.08 101.08 96 0 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 1.08 8.92 0 -1.08 -13 100 101.08 91.08 101.08 96 0 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 1.08 8.92 0 -1.08 -13 100 101.08 91.08 101.08 96 0 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 1.08 8.92 0 -1.08 -13 100 101.08 91.08 101.08 96 0 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 1.08 8.92 0 -1.08 -13 100 101.08 91.08 101.08 96 0 1/0/1900 12:00 AM 10 1.08 8.92 0 -1.08 -13 100 101.08 91.08 101.08 96 0 Installed By: EGS (AESI) Groundwater Monitoring Results: MW-3 Project: South University District - Block 3 Project Number: 21-198 Location: See well location map Date Installed: November 29, 2021 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 3/24/2022 4/3/2022 4/13/2022 4/23/2022 5/3/2022 5/13/2022 5/23/2022 6/2/2022 6/12/2022 6/22/2022 7/2/2022ELEVATION (FT)DATE SOUTH UNIVERSITY DISTRICT BLOCK 3 (PROJECT 21-198) MONITOR WELL 3 Ground Surface Elevation Top oF Casing Elevation Groundwater Elevation Bottom of Casing Elevation 4' of Separation from GSE