J-7 Geotechnical Investigation Report.pdf

Aerial Fire Depot Tarmac Reconstruction, Missoula, MT Morrison-Maierle, Inc.

i July 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

3.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

6.0 SITE CONDITIONS

7.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

7.1 Pavement Section

7.2 Fill

7.3 Clay

7.4 Groundwater

8.0 LIMITATIONS

ii July 2019

APPENDICES

♦ Appendix A: Miscellaneous Figures and Details o Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report (Published by

ASFE/GBA)

o Tetra Tech Boring Log Descriptive Terminology Key to Soil Symbols and Terms o Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes o Drawing No. 5023-1 –Location of Exploratory Borings

♦ Appendix B: Logs of Exploratory Borings o Figures 1 through 6: Logs of Exploratory Borings

♦ Appendix C: Laboratory Testing o Figures 7 through 10

1 July 2019

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The project site is located at the U.S. Forest Service Aerial Fire Depot at the Missoula International

Airport in Missoula, Montana. Proposed improvements will consist of reconstruction of the existing tarmac pavement section. Site topography across the project area is relatively flat. The proposed reconstruction area is currently covered by asphalt pavement, while areas of landscaped grasses surround the tarmac.

The soil profile encountered in the borings at the AFD tarmac reconstruction project site generally consists of a layer of asphalt concrete extending up to 0.9 feet below the surface covering a layer of base course. The base course extended to depths ranging from 1.6 to 4 feet below the surface. A discontinuous layer of poorly-graded sand was encountered in borehole BH-5 from a depth of 1.6 to 1.9 feet. Lean clay with sand was encountered beneath the base course layer and extended beyond the maximum depth explored (5.5 feet). Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings at the time of the field exploration (June 2019).

This executive summary has been prepared solely to provide a general overview and should not be relied upon for any purpose except for that for which it was prepared. The full geotechnical report must be referenced for information about findings and other concerns.

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

Tetra Tech conducted a field exploration program consisting of drilling six (6) exploratory borings to obtain information on subsurface soil conditions for the proposed tarmac reconstruction at the U.S. Forest

Service (USFS) Aerial Fire Depot (AFD) in Missoula, Montana. The investigation was performed in accordance with Tetra Tech’s proposal and scope of work dated May 8, 2019, and contract with Morrison-

Maierle dated June 13, 2019.

Samples obtained during the field investigation were tested in Tetra Tech’s laboratory to determine the physical and engineering characteristics of the on-site soils. This report summarizes the field data for the proposed tarmac reconstruction.

3.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

The project site is located at the USFS AFD at the Missoula International Airport. The project consists of reconstruction of the existing tarmac.

4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

The field exploration was conducted on June 21st, 2019. Tetra Tech conducted a field exploration program consisting of six (6) borings at the locations shown on Drawing No. 5023-1 (Locations of Exploratory

Borings) in Appendix A to explore subsurface conditions. The boring locations were determined in the field by Tetra Tech personnel based on the site map provided by Morrison-Maierle. Prior to mobilization, Tetra

Tech contacted Montana One-Call to request the location and clearance of public underground utilities

2 July 2019 before performing drilling. Private underground utilities were located by Tetra Tech’s private utility locating subcontractor.

Tetra Tech’s coring subcontractor (A-Core) cored approximately 10-inch diameter cores through the existing asphalt at each boring location. Following coring of the asphalt, Tetra Tech’s drilling subcontractor (O’Keefe

Drilling) advanced the borings with a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch outside-diameter, continuous flight, hollow-stem augers. Tetra Tech’s field geologist provided technical oversight during the field investigation, logged the borings, and handled samples. The borings were reclaimed by backfilling with auger cuttings, then patching the top with quick setting, self-leveling grout. Existing elevations at the boring locations were not available at the time of report preparation. The depth of each respective boring is referenced to the ground surface elevation of each boring at the time of drilling.

Samples of the subsurface materials were taken with 2-inch outside-diameter split-spoon samplers driven into the various strata using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler each of three successive 6-inch increments was recorded; the total number of blows required to advance the sampler the second and third 6-inch increments is the penetration resistance (N value). This is the standard penetration test described by ASTM International (ASTM) Method D1586.

Penetration resistance values generally indicate the relative density or consistency of the soils. Disturbed bulk samples of soil were obtained from the hollow-stem auger cuttings at select locations.

Boring logs were prepared noting the borehole location and elevation, equipment and drill methods used, subsurface profile and descriptions per ASTM D2487, and groundwater conditions. Depths at which the samples were obtained along with the penetration resistance values are shown on the logs of exploratory borings. Logs of the exploratory borings are presented in Appendix B (Figures 1 through 6).

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Samples obtained during the field exploration were taken to Tetra Tech's laboratory, where they were observed and visually classified in accordance with ASTM International Method D2488, which is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Representative samples were selected for testing to determine the physical properties of the soils in general accordance with ASTM or other approved procedures. The following list describes laboratory testing performed for this investigation, and their purpose:

Tests Conducted: To Determine:

Natural Moisture Content Moisture content representative of field conditions at the time samples were taken.

Grain-size Distribution Size and distribution of soil particles (i.e., clay, silt, sand, and gravel).

Atterberg Limits The effect of varying water content on the consistency of fine-grained soils.

Field and laboratory test results are presented on Figures 7 through 10 in Appendix C. This data, along with the field information, were used to prepare the exploration boring logs on Figures 1 through 6 in

Appendix B.

3 July 2019

6.0 SITE CONDITIONS

The AFD tarmac reconstruction project lies to the northwest of the Missoula International Airport terminal.

The project area is located to the south of the National Weather Service building and USFS

Smokejumpers Building B, and east of the Northern Rockies Training Center. Current site topography across the project area is relatively flat. The tarmac reconstruction area is covered by asphalt pavement, while areas of landscaped grasses surround the tarmac.

7.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The soil profile encountered in the borings at the AFD tarmac reconstruction project site generally consists of a layer of asphalt concrete extending up to 0.9 feet below the surface covering a layer of base course. The base course extended to depths ranging from 1.6 to 4 feet below the surface. A discontinuous layer of poorly-graded sand was encountered in borehole BH-5 from a depth of 1.6 to 1.9 feet. Lean clay with sand was encountered beneath the base course layer and extended beyond the maximum depth explored (5.5 feet).

The boring logs should be referenced for complete descriptions of the soil types and their estimated depths.

A characterization of the subsurface profile includes grouping soils with similar physical and engineering properties into a number of distinct layers. The representative subsurface layers at the site are presented below, starting at the ground surface.

7.1 PAVEMENT SECTION

Bituminous pavement was encountered in all the borings beneath the surface. The asphalt concrete surface layer ranged from 0.3 to 0.9 feet thick. Table 1 below summarizes the pavement and granular base course thicknesses encountered at each borehole location.

Table 1. Summary of Asphalt Concrete and Granular Base Course Thicknesses Encountered

Boring No.

Asphalt Concrete

Thickness (ft)

Granular Base Course

Thickness (ft)

BH-1 0.3 2.7

BH-2 0.6 2.6

BH-3 0.8 2.2

BH-4 0.9 3.1

BH-5 0.7 0.9

BH-6 0.9 2.6

7.2 FILL

Granular base course was encountered beneath the pavement section in all the borings. The base course extended to depths ranging from 1.6 to 4 feet below existing grade. The base course visually classified as poorly-graded gravel with silt and sand according to ASTM 2488. A discontinuous layer of poorly-graded sand was encountered at the bottom of the base course in borehole BH-5 from approximately 1.6 to 1.9

4 July 2019 feet. Representative samples of the base course material classified as poorly-graded gravel with silt and sand and poorly-graded gravel with silty clay according to the ASTM classification system (Figures 8 and

10). Laboratory testing performed on the samples indicate the material has a liquid limit ranging from 18 to 23 and plasticity index ranging from 3 to 5. Laboratory data of the representative base course samples are summarized in Table 2 below. The moisture content measured in the base course at the time of drilling ranged from 2 to 7 percent. Penetration resistance values recorded in the base course ranged from 11 to 26 blows per foot, indicative of a medium dense soil stratum.

Table 1. Summary of Laboratory Data from Representative Granular Base Course Samples

Boring No.

Gradation (Percent Passing) Atterberg Limits

1.5” 1” ¾” No.4 No.

No.

LL PL PI

BH-3 100 88 61 12 8 6 23 18 5

All Borings

Combined 100 94 85 29 12 7 18 15 3

7.3 CLAY

Natural clay was encountered beneath the base course fill and extended beyond the maximum depth explored (5.5 feet). The clay visually classified as lean clay with sand according to ASTM D2488.

Representative laboratory samples of the clay classified as such according to the ASTM classification system (Figures 7 and 9). Laboratory testing performed on the samples determined the material has a liquid limit ranging from 40 to 44 and plasticity index ranging from 19 to 24. The moisture content measured in the clay at the time of drilling ranged from 24 to 36 percent. Penetration resistance values recorded in the clay ranged from 2 to 10, indicating a soft to stiff soil stratum.

7.4 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings at the time of the field exploration (June 2019).

The borings were backfilled immediately after drilling. Numerous factors contribute to groundwater fluctuations, and evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report.

8.0 LIMITATIONS

This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the region where the work was conducted. The findings submitted in this report are based upon project information provided to Tetra Tech and data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated. The nature and extent of subsurface variations across the site may not become evident until construction. Tetra Tech should be on site during construction, to verify that actual subsurface conditions are consistent with those described herein.

This report has been prepared exclusively for our client. This report and the data included herein shall not be used by any third party without the express written consent of both the client and Tetra Tech. Tetra

Tech is not responsible for technical interpretations by others.

APPENDIX A

Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report (Published by ASFE/GBA)

Tetra Tech Boring Log Descriptive Terminology Key to Soil and Rock Symbols and Terms

Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes

Drawing No. 5023-1 – Location of Exploratory Borings

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

ABOUT YOUR

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

More construction problems are caused by site subsurface conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent have been lessened considerably in recent years, due in large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences.

The following suggestions and observations are offered to help you reduce the Geotechnical-related delays, cost-overruns and other costly headaches that can occur during a construction project.

A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF

PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS

A Geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique set of project-specific factors. These typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; physical concomitants such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities, and the level of additional risk which the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors which change subsequent to the date of the report may affect its recommendations.

Unless your consulting Geotechnical engineer indicates otherwise, your Geotechnical engineer report should not be used:

When the nature of the proposed structure is changed, for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one;

when the size or configuration of the proposed structure is altered;

when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified:

when there is a change of ownership, or for application to an adjacent site.

Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems which may develop if they are not consulted after factors considered in their reports’ development have changed.

MOST GEOTECHNICAL “FINDINGS”

ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES

Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, when they are taken.

Data derived through sampling and subsequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by Geotechnical engineers who then render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions, their likely reaction to proposed conditions, their likely reaction to proposed construction activity, and appropriate foundation design. Even under optimal circumstances actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, because no Geotechnical engineer, no matter how qualified, and not subsurface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time. The actual interface between materials may be fare more gradual or abrupt than a report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their Geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to identify variances, conduct additional tests which may be needed, and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

CAN CHANGE

Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly-changing natural forces. Because a Geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions which existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a Geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the Geotechnical consultant to learn if additional tests are advisable before construction starts.

Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as flood, earthquakes or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.

GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE

PREFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES

AND PERSONS

Geotechnical engineers’ reports are prepared to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a consulting civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor, or even some other consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, this report was prepared expressly for the client involved and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use by any other persons for any purpose, or by the client for a different purpose, may result in problems. No individual other than the client should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer.

A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

REPORT IS SUBJECT TO

MISINTERPRETATION

Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plants based on misinterpretations of a geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid these problems, the geotechnical engineer should be retained to work with other appropriate design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to geotechnical issues.

BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE

SEPARATED FROM THE

ENGINEERING REPORT

Final boring logs are developed by geotechnical engineers based upon their interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel) and laboratory evalution of field samples. Only final boring logs customarily are included in geotechnical engineering reports. These logs should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to minimize the possibility of contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid preparation. When this occurs, delays, disputes and unanticipated costs are the all-too-frequent result.

To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpretation, give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering report prepared or authorized for their use. Those who do not provide such access may proceed under the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate scale.

READ RESPONSIBILITY

CLAUSES CLOSELY

Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical consultants. To help prevent this problem, geotechnical engineers have developed model clauses for use in written transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses designed to foist geotechnical engineers’ liabilities onto someone else. Rather, they are definitive clauses which identify where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your geotechnical engineering report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. your geotechnical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions.

OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO

REDUCE RISK

Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to discuss other techniques which can be employed to mitigate risk. In addition, ASFE as developed a variety of materials which may be beneficial. Contact ASFE for a complimentary copy of its publications directory.

Published by

THE ASSOCIATION

OF ENGINEERING FIRMS

PRACTICING IN THE

GEOESCIENCES

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106/Silver Spring, Maryland 20910/(301)565-2733

Key to Soil Symbols and Terms

Notes

Order of Descriptors

Criteria For Descriptors

- Angularity of coarse grained soils

Consistency of Fine Grained Soils

16 - 30Very Stiff

Apparent Density of Coarse Grained Soils

4 - 10 Loose

31 - 50Dense

-Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch.Dry -Damp, but no visible water.Moist

Angularity of Coarse-Grained Particles

Moisture Condition

- Other relevant notes

11 - 30Medium Dense tures, little or no fines.

Well-graded gravels, gravel sand mix-

Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mix-tures, little or no fines.

Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures.

Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures.

Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.

Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.

Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures.

Clayey sands, sand-clay mixures.

Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity.

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays.

Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity.

Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts.

Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.

Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts.

Peat and other highly organic soils.PT

OH

CH

MH

OL

CL

ML

SC

SM

SP

SW

GC

GM

GP

GW

SYMBOLS

GRAPH LETTER

TYPICAL

DESCRIPTIONS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

SILTS

AND

CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT

GREATER THAN 50

NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE

SMALLER THAN

OF MATERIAL IS

MORE THAN 50%

LIQUID LIMIT

LESS THAN 50

CLAYS

AND

SILTS

FINE

GRAINED

SOILS

OF FINES)

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT

FINES

SANDS WITH

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

CLEAN SANDS

OF FINES)

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT

FINES

GRAVELS WITH

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

GRAVELS

SIEVE

PASSING ON NO. 4

FRACTION

OF COARSE

MORE THAN 50%

SOILS

SANDY

AND

SAND

200 SIEVE SIZE

LARGER THAN NO.

OF MATERIAL IS

MORE THAN 50%

4 SIEVE

RETAINED ON NO.

FRACTION

OF COARSE

MORE THAN 50%

SOILS

GRAVELLY

AND

GRAVEL

SOILS

GRAINED

COARSE

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

MAJOR DIVISIONS

CLEAN

plane sides with unpolished surfaces.

but have rounded edges.

well-rounded corners and edges.

-Particles have smoothly curved sides and Rounded no edges.

Definition of Particle Size Ranges

Boulder Cobble Gravel Sand Silt Clay between silt and clay.

> 12 in (300 mm) 3 in (75 mm) - 12 in (300 mm)

No. 4 Sieve (4.75 mm) to 3 in (75 mm)

No. 200 (0.075 mm) to No. 4 Sieves (4.75 mm)

< No. 200 Sieve (0.075 mm)* < No. 200 Sieve (0.075 mm)* grained soils only)

N-Value (uncorrected)Consistency

Soil Component Size Range

Subrounded-Particles have nearly plane sides, but have

-Particles are similar to angular description, Subangular

-Particles have sharp edges and relative Angular

< 4Very Loose

> 50Very Dense

< 2Very Soft 2 - 4Soft 5 - 8Medium Stiff

9 - 15Stiff

> 30Hard

N-Value (uncorrected)Relative Density

- Group Name

- Consistency or Relative Density

- Moisture Condition

- Color

- Particle size descriptor(s) (coarse

-Visible free water.Wet as deemed appropriate.

they have been modified to reflect results of laboratory tests Descriptions are based on visual observation, except where Also included are the AASHTO group classifications (M145).

Classification System, ASTM D2487 and D2488.

Soil Classifications are Based on the Unified Soil

*Atterberg limits and chart below to differentiate

Example soil description: Sandy FAT CLAY (CH), soft, wet, brown. (A-7)

-200%=percent soil passing 200 sieve, DD=Dry Density

MC=Moisture Content, LL=Liquid limit, PL=Plastic Limit plus the weight of the hammer.

WH denotes a zero blow count with the weight of the rods with the weight of the rods only.

34-50 (0.4 ft), or 100 (0.3 ft)).WR denotes a zero blow count blows in parentheses (ex: 12-24-50 (0.09 m), rounded to the nearest 0.1 ft (0.03 m) follows the number of

(0.15 m) of penetration is achieved, the actual penetration

Note: if the number of blows exceeds 50 before 0.5 ft

(ex: 1-3-9) first 0.5 ft (0.15 m) - second 0.5 ft (0.15 m) - third 0.5 ft (0.15 m)

Written as follows:

penetration.

O.D. Split Spoon sampler for a total of 1.5 ft (0.45 m) of falling 2.5 ft (750 mm) used to drive a 2 in (50 mm)

The number of blows of a 140 lb (63.6 kg) hammer

SPT (Standard Penetration Test-ASTM D1586):

See Soil Boring Information Special Provision.

TETRA TECH

Tetra Tech Boring Log Descriptive Terminology

12/06/12

Key to Rock Symbols and Terms

SymbolRock Type

Argillite

Basalt

Bedrock

Breccia

Claystone

Conglomerate

Dolomite

Gneiss

Granitic

Limestone

Quartzite

Rhyolite

Sandstone

Schist

ShaleSiltstone

SymbolRock Type SymbolRock Type Order of Descriptors

- Other relevant notes

- Color

- Rock Type

Criteria For Descriptors

Coarse Grained

Fine Grained

-Individual grains can be easily distinguished by eye

- Stratification/Foliation (as applicable)

Thickly Bedded

Medium Bedded

Soft

Moderately hard

Hard

Very Hard

-Individual grains can be dis-tinguished with difficulty

(other)

Miscellaneous Soil/Rock Symbols and Terms Concrete

Asphalt

Water

Coal

Fill

Topsoil

Boulders and Cobbles

Explanation of Text Fields in Boring Logs:

Material Description: Lithologic Description of soil or rock encountered.

Remarks: Comments on drilling, including method, bit type, and problems encountered.

General Notes

- Water level observations apply only at the specific boring, and at the time the

- Descriptions on these boring logs apply only at the specific boring, and at the time borings were made. Due to the variability of groundwater measurements given times.

Very Soft -Can be carved with knife. Can be excavated readily with point of rock hammer. Can be scratched readily by fingernail.

Medium -Can be grooved or gouged 0.05 in (2 mm) deep by firm pressure of knife or rock hammer point. Can be excavated in small chips to pieces about 1 in (25 mm) maximum size by hard blows of the point of a rock hammer.

-Can be scratched with knife or pick. Gouges or grooves to 0.25 in (6 mm) can be excavated by hard blow of rock hammer. Hand specimen can be detached by moderate blows.

blows of a rock hammer.

Millings

Notes:

3-10 ft (1-3 m)

Thinly Bedded 2-12 in (50-300 mm)

1-3 ft (300 mm - 1 m)

Very Thinly Bedded < 2 in (50 mm)

Stratum Thickness

Grain Size the time the borings were made. These logs are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.

the type of drilling used, and the stratification of the soil in the boring, these logs are not warranted to be representative of groundwater conditions at other locations or

- Other terms may be used as descriptors, as defined by the profession.

SANDSTONE, gray, fine grained, thickly bedded, Example Rock Log

Operation Types: Auger

Casing

Advancer

Core

Barrel

Drive

Casing

Types:

Split

Spoon

Shelby

Bulk

Sample

Grab

Sample

Penetrometer

Vane Shear

Special

Samplers

Testpit

ConeSample

Description Characteristic

- Field Hardness chips to several inches in size by moderate blows of the point of a rock hammer.

- Grain size (if applicable) appropriate.

results of laboratory tests as deemed they have been modified to reflect on visual observation, except where -Soil and Rock descriptions are based

Rock Field Hardness

UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength obtained from laboratory testing at the given depth.

Unless stated on logs as being surveyed by district survey, all locations are considered approximate.

-Can be grooved or gouged readily by knife or point of rock hammer. Can be excavated in fragments from

-Can be scratched with knife or pick only with difficulty. Hard hammer blows required to detach hand specimen.

-Cannot be scratched with knife or sharp rock hammer point. Breaking of hand specimens requires several hard hard field hardness.

See Soil Boring Information Special Provision.

Tetra Tech Boring Log Descriptive Terminology

TETRA TECH

12/06/12

D50 15 (D30)2 (2.5)- D1e 0.075 D12 x 1036 0.075 x 15

CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES

ASTM Designation: D 2487 – 83

(Based on Unified Soil Classification System)

Cu = = = 200 Cc= + = 5.6 N::\Geotech\Forms\Soil Classifications.doc Rev. 10/03

< 0.75

< 0.75

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP

SYMBOL GROUP NAME

Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3E GW Well graded gravel F Clean Gravels Less than 5% fines Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F G H

Gravels More than 50% coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Gravels with Fines

More than 12% fines

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F G H

Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3E SW Well-graded sand I Clean Sands Less than 5% fines Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E SP Poorly graded sand I

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty Sand G H I

Coarse-Grained Soils More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Sands

50% or more of coarse faction passes No. 4 sieve

Sands with Fines More than 12% fines Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G H I

Pl > 7 and plots on or above “A” line CL Lean clay K L M Inorganic

Pl < 4 or plots below “A” line ML Silt K L M Silts and Clays Liquid limit less than 50 Organic Liquid limit – oven dried

Liquid limit – not dried OL Organic clay K L M N

Organic silt K L M O

Pl plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K L M Inorganic

Pl plots below “A” line MH Elastic silt K L M

Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve Silts and Clays Liquid limit 50 or more Organic Liquid limit – oven dried

Liquid limit – not dried OH Organic clay K L M O

Organic silt K L M O

Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-in.

(75-mm) sieve.

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% require dual symbols:

GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt

GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt

SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc=(D30)2 / (D10 x D90) F If soil contains ≥15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains ≥15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K. If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel”, whichever is predominant.

L If solid contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name.

N Pl ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O Pl < 4 or plots below “A: line.

P Pl plots on or above “A: line.

Q Pl plots below “A: line.

Drawing No. 5023-1 Location of Exploratory Borings

AFD Tarmac Reconstruction Tetra Tech Project No. 117-8225023 Missoula, Montana

Legend

Boring Location

400 ft

N

N © 2018 Google

© 2018 Google

© 2018 Google

APPENDIX B

Logs of Exploratory Borings (Figures 1 through 6)

9 - 12 - 14

1 - 3 - 4

Asphalt.

BASE COURSE, Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with silt and sand (GP-GM), medium dense, slightly moist, light brown, fine to coarse grained, subangular.

Lean CLAY with sand (CL), medium stiff, very moist, brown, low plasticity.

Boring Depth: 5.5 ft, Elevation:

0.3

3.0

5.5

LOG OF BORING

L it h o lo g y

O pe ra tio n

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

R ec ov er y

D D

-2

M C

) Remarks and

Other Tests

B lo w C o u n t

R Q

D

Material Description

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft) P

L

L L

Figure No. 1

T T

L O

G O

F B

O R

IN

G

M

D T

_R E

V

IS

E D

_2

9+ .G

D T

7/

/1

3:

N :\G

E O

T E

C H

\R E

P O

R T

S \R

E P

O R

T

9\

M

IS

S O

U

LA

F S

A F

D T

A R

M A

C R

E C

O N

S T

R U

C T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \M

IS

S

O U

LA

A

F D

T A

R M

A C

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

Water Level Observations After Drilling: Not Recorded

During Drilling: Not Encountered

After Drilling: Not Recorded

Remarks:

Refer to Site MapLocation:

Logger:Conor Sheehy

Datum: NAD83

Sheet 1 of 1

System: Decimal Degrees

Driller: O'Keefe Drilling

Project:

Date Started:

6/21/19

Project Number:

117-8225023

Date Finished:

6/21/19

Rig:Mobile B-61 Hammer:Auto Boring Diameter:

8"

Drilling Fluid:

None

AFD Tarmac Reconstruction - Missoula

Abandonment Method:

Backfilled with Cuttings

Boring Location Coordinates

N: 46.922911 E: -114.090907

2525 Palmer Street, Suite 2 Missoula, MT 59808 Phone: (406) 543-3045 Fax: (406) 543-3088

Top of Boring Elevation:

Boring BH-1

9 - 12 - 13

2 - 2 - 3

Asphalt.

BASE COURSE, Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with silt and sand (GP-GM), medium dense, slightly moist, light brown to gray, fine to coarse grained, angular to subangular.

Lean CLAY with sand (CL), medium stiff, very moist, brown, low plasticity.

Boring Depth: 5.5 ft, Elevation:

0.6

3.2

5.5

LOG OF BORING

L it h o lo g y

O pe ra tio n

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

R ec ov er y

D D

-2

M C

) Remarks and

Other Tests

B lo w C o u n t

R Q

D

Material Description

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft) P

L

L L

Figure No. 2

T T

L O

G O

F B

O R

IN

G

M

D T

_R E

V

IS

E D

_2

9+ .G

D T

7/

/1

3:

N :\G

E O

T E

C H

\R E

P O

R T

S \R

E P

O R

T

9\

M

IS

S O

U

LA

F S

A F

D T

A R

M A

C R

E C

O N

S T

R U

C T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \M

IS

S

O U

LA

A

F D

T A

R M

A C

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

Water Level Observations After Drilling: Not Recorded

During Drilling: Not Encountered

After Drilling: Not Recorded

Remarks:

Refer to Site MapLocation:

Logger:Conor Sheehy

Datum: NAD83

Sheet 1 of 1

System: Decimal Degrees

Driller: O'Keefe Drilling

Project:

Date Started:

6/21/19

Project Number:

117-8225023

Date Finished:

6/21/19

Rig:Mobile B-61 Hammer:Auto Boring Diameter:

8"

Drilling Fluid:

None

AFD Tarmac Reconstruction - Missoula

Abandonment Method:

Backfilled with Cuttings

Boring Location Coordinates

N: 46.923595 E: -114.090039

2525 Palmer Street, Suite 2 Missoula, MT 59808 Phone: (406) 543-3045 Fax: (406) 543-3088

Top of Boring

Boring BH-2

10 - 14 - 9

1 - 1 - 1

Asphalt.

BASE COURSE, Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with silty clay (GP-GC), medium dense, slightly moist, gray, medium to coarse grained, subangular.

Lean CLAY with sand (CL), soft, very moist, dark brown to brown, low plasticity.

Boring Depth: 5.5 ft, Elevation:

0.8

3.0

5.5

LOG OF BORING

L it h o lo g y

O pe ra tio n

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

R ec ov er y

D D

-2

M C

) Remarks and

Other Tests

B lo w C o u n t

R Q

D

Material Description

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft) P

L

L L

Figure No. 3

T T

L O

G O

F B

O R

IN

G

M

D T

_R E

V

IS

E D

_2

9+ .G

D T

7/

/1

3:

N :\G

E O

T E

C H

\R E

P O

R T

S \R

E P

O R

T

9\

M

IS

S O

U

LA

F S

A F

D T

A R

M A

C R

E C

O N

S T

R U

C T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \M

IS

S

O U

LA

A

F D

T A

R M

A C

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

Water Level Observations After Drilling: Not Recorded

During Drilling: Not Encountered

After Drilling: Not Recorded

Remarks:

Refer to Site MapLocation:

Logger:Conor Sheehy

Datum: NAD83

Sheet 1 of 1

System: Decimal Degrees

Driller: O'Keefe Drilling

Project:

Date Started:

6/21/19

Project Number:

117-8225023

Date Finished:

6/21/19

Rig:Mobile B-61 Hammer:Auto Boring Diameter:

8"

Drilling Fluid:

None

AFD Tarmac Reconstruction - Missoula

Abandonment Method:

Backfilled with Cuttings

Boring Location Coordinates

N: 46.923649 E: -114.091088

2525 Palmer Street, Suite 2 Missoula, MT 59808 Phone: (406) 543-3045 Fax: (406) 543-3088

Top of Boring

Boring BH-3

8 - 10 - 9

2 - 5 - 5

Asphalt.

BASE COURSE, Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with silt and sand (GP-GM), medium dense, slightly moist, brown, fine to coarse grained, subangular.

Lean CLAY with sand (CL), stiff, very moist, dark brown, low plasticity.

Boring Depth: 5.5 ft, Elevation:

0.9

4.0

5.5

LOG OF BORING

L it h o lo g y

O pe ra tio n

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

R ec ov er y

D D

-2

M C

) Remarks and

Other Tests

B lo w C o u n t

R Q

D

Material Description

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft) P

L

L L

Figure No. 4

T T

L O

G O

F B

O R

IN

G

M

D T

_R E

V

IS

E D

_2

9+ .G

D T

7/

/1

3:

N :\G

E O

T E

C H

\R E

P O

R T

S \R

E P

O R

T

9\

M

IS

S O

U

LA

F S

A F

D T

A R

M A

C R

E C

O N

S T

R U

C T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \M

IS

S

O U

LA

A

F D

T A

R M

A C

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

Water Level Observations After Drilling: Not Recorded

During Drilling: Not Encountered

After Drilling: Not Recorded

Remarks:

Refer to Site MapLocation:

Logger:Conor Sheehy

Datum: NAD83

Sheet 1 of 1

System: Decimal Degrees

Driller: O'Keefe Drilling

Project:

Date Started:

6/21/19

Project Number:

117-8225023

Date Finished:

6/21/19

Rig:Mobile B-61 Hammer:Auto Boring Diameter:

8"

Drilling Fluid:

None

AFD Tarmac Reconstruction - Missoula

Abandonment Method:

Backfilled with Cuttings

Boring Location Coordinates

N: 46.923967 E: -114.092014

2525 Palmer Street, Suite 2 Missoula, MT 59808 Phone: (406) 543-3045 Fax: (406) 543-3088

Top of Boring

Boring BH-4

9 - 9 - 2

2 - 2 - 3

Asphalt.

BASE COURSE, Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with silt and sand (GP-GM), medium dense, slightly moist, brown, medium to coarse grained, subangular.

FILL, Poorly-Graded SAND (SP), medium dense, slightly moist, brown, fine grained, subrounded.

Lean CLAY with sand (CL), medium stiff, very moist, light brown, low plasticity.

Boring Depth: 5.5 ft, Elevation:

0.7

1.6

1.9

5.5

LOG OF BORING

L it h o lo g y

O pe ra tio n

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

R ec ov er y

D D

-2

M C

) Remarks and

Other Tests

B lo w C o u n t

R Q

D

Material Description

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft) P

L

L L

Figure No. 5

T T

L O

G O

F B

O R

IN

G

M

D T

_R E

V

IS

E D

_2

9+ .G

D T

7/

/1

3:

N :\G

E O

T E

C H

\R E

P O

R T

S \R

E P

O R

T

9\

M

IS

S O

U

LA

F S

A F

D T

A R

M A

C R

E C

O N

S T

R U

C T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \M

IS

S

O U

LA

A

F D

T A

R M

A C

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

Water Level Observations After Drilling: Not Recorded

During Drilling: Not Encountered

After Drilling: Not Recorded

Remarks:

Refer to Site MapLocation:

Logger:Conor Sheehy

Datum: NAD83

Sheet 1 of 1

System: Decimal Degrees

Driller: O'Keefe Drilling

Project:

Date Started:

6/21/19

Project Number:

117-8225023

Date Finished:

6/21/19

Rig:Mobile B-61 Hammer:Auto Boring Diameter:

8"

Drilling Fluid:

None

AFD Tarmac Reconstruction - Missoula

Abandonment Method:

Backfilled with Cuttings

Boring Location Coordinates

N: 46.924881 E: -114.092138

2525 Palmer Street, Suite 2 Missoula, MT 59808 Phone: (406) 543-3045 Fax: (406) 543-3088

Top of Boring

Boring BH-5

11 - 19 - 11

3 - 5 - 5

Asphalt.

BASE COURSE, Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with silt and sand (GP-GM), medium dense, slightly moist, gray, fine to coarse grained, subangular.

Lean CLAY with sand (CL), stiff, very moist, brown, low plasticity.

Boring Depth: 5.5 ft, Elevation:

0.9

3.5

5.5

LOG OF BORING

L it h o lo g y

O pe ra tio n

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

R ec ov er y

D D

-2

M C

) Remarks and

Other Tests

B lo w C o u n t

R Q

D

Material Description

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft)

Depth (ft)

Elev.

(ft) P

L

L L

Figure No. 6

T T

L O

G O

F B

O R

IN

G

M

D T

_R E

V

IS

E D

_2

9+ .G

D T

7/

/1

3:

N :\G

E O

T E

C H

\R E

P O

R T

S \R

E P

O R

T

9\

M

IS

S O

U

LA

F S

A F

D T

A R

M A

C R

E C

O N

S T

R U

C T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \M

IS

S

O U

LA

A

F D

T A

R M

A C

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

Water Level Observations After Drilling: Not Recorded

During Drilling: Not Encountered

After Drilling: Not Recorded

Remarks:

Refer to Site MapLocation:

Logger:Conor Sheehy

Datum: NAD83

Sheet 1 of 1

System: Decimal Degrees

Driller: O'Keefe Drilling

Project:

Date Started:

6/21/19

Project Number:

117-8225023

Date Finished:

6/21/19

Rig:Mobile B-61 Hammer:Auto Boring Diameter:

8"

Drilling Fluid:

None

AFD Tarmac Reconstruction - Missoula

Abandonment Method:

Backfilled with Cuttings

Boring Location Coordinates

N: 46.924369 E: -114.09082

2525 Palmer Street, Suite 2 Missoula, MT 59808 Phone: (406) 543-3045 Fax: (406) 543-3088

Top of Boring

Boring BH-6

APPENDIX C

Laboratory Testing (Figures 7 through 10)

0.0010.010.1110100

M

IS

S O

U

LA

A F

D T

A R

M A

C B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J

-1

7-

T T

_U S

G R

A

IN

S

IZ

E

S

IE

V E

D A

T A

3 16 20

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Specimen Identification

COBBLES

LL PL PI Cc Cu

Location:

Specimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen Identification

Classification

SIEVE SIZE

D100 D60 D30 D10

143/8 100

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

3/4 1/2 41 1403

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

60308104 506 2 406

Revised 1-23-08 (MAT)

Figure No. 7

6.3

% PASSING

BH-1 - (3 - 5 ft)

Refer to Site Map

LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)

Number: 117-8225023

1.5

% Gravel % Silt % Clay% Sand

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

Specimen Identification coarse

SAND

fine coarse fine

SILT OR CLAY

medium

Project:

1/4 in No. 4 No. 8 No. 10 No. 16 No. 30 No. 40 No. 50 No. 100 No. 200

AFD Tarmac Reconstruction - Missoula

23 75

0.0010.010.1110100

M

IS

S O

U

LA

A F

D T

A R

M A

C B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J

-1

7-

T T

_U S

G R

A

IN

S

IZ

E

S

IE

V E

D A

T A

3 16 20

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Specimen Identification

COBBLES

LL PL PI Cc Cu

4.28

Location:

Specimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen Identification

Classification

SIEVE SIZE

D100 D60 D30 D10

143/8 100

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

3/4 1/2 41 1403

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

60308104 506 2 406

Revised 1-23-08 (MAT)

Figure No. 8

12.66537.5 18.753

% PASSING

BH-3 - (1 - 3 ft)

Refer to Site Map

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with

SILTY CLAY(GP-GC) 5

Number: 117-8225023

1.5

% Gravel % Silt % Clay% Sand

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

Specimen Identification coarse

SAND

fine coarse fine

SILT OR CLAY

medium

Project:

9.38

1.5 in 1 in

3/4 in 1/2 in 3/8 in 1/4 in No. 4 No. 8 No. 10 No. 16 No. 30 No. 40 No. 50 No. 100 No. 200

AFD Tarmac Reconstruction - Missoula

6 6

0.0010.010.1110100

M

IS

S O

U

LA

A F

D T

A R

M A

C B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J

-1

7-

T T

_U S

G R

A

IN

S

IZ

E

S

IE

V E

D A

T A

3 16 20

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Specimen Identification

COBBLES

LL PL PI Cc Cu

Location:

Specimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen Identification

Classification

SIEVE SIZE

D100 D60 D30 D10

143/8 100

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

3/4 1/2 41 1403

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

60308104 506 2 406

Revised 1-23-08 (MAT)

Figure No. 9

1.19

% PASSING

BH-6 - (4 - 5.5 ft)

Refer to Site Map

LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL)

Number: 117-8225023

1.5

% Gravel % Silt % Clay% Sand

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

Specimen Identification coarse

SAND

fine coarse fine

SILT OR CLAY

medium

Project:

No. 16 No. 30 No. 40 No. 50 No. 100 No. 200

AFD Tarmac Reconstruction - Missoula

16 84

0.0010.010.1110100

M

IS

S O

U

LA

A F

D T

A R

M A

C B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

.G P

J

-1

7-

T T

_U S

G R

A

IN

S

IZ

E

S

IE

V E

D A

T A

3 16 20

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Specimen Identification

COBBLES

LL PL PI Cc Cu

9.05

Location:

Specimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen IdentificationSpecimen Identification

Classification

SIEVE SIZE

D100 D60 D30 D10

143/8 100

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

3/4 1/2 41 1403

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

60308104 506 2 406

Revised 1-23-08 (MAT)

Figure No. 10

5.02637.5 11.832

% PASSING

Refer to Site Map

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND(GP-GM) 3

Number: 117-8225023

1.5

% Gravel % Silt % Clay% Sand

0.236

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

Specimen Identification coarse

SAND

fine coarse fine

SILT OR CLAY

medium

Project:

50.14

1.5 in 1 in

3/4 in 1/2 in 3/8 in 1/4 in No. 4 No. 8 No. 10 No. 16 No. 30 No. 40 No. 50 No. 100 No. 200

AFD Tarmac Reconstruction - Missoula

22 7

Base Course - All Borings Combined