20181245 Ver 2_Report of Hand Auger Boring Exploration_20200911

KESSEL ENGINEERING GROUP
582 HENDERSONVILLE ROAD SUITE ONE | ASHEVILLE NC 28803 | P:[828] 277-6351 F:[828] 277-6355
WWW.THEKESSELGROUP.COM

September 11, 2020

Mr. W. Alec Stillwell, P.E.
Stillwell Engineering, P.A.
P.O. Box 838
Sylva, NC 28779

Report of Hand Auger Boring Exploration
Sylva Tractor Supply – Proposed Bioretention Area
Sylva, North Carolina
KEG Project No. JA20-4003-04

Mr. Stillwell:

Kessel Engineering Group, PLLC (KEG) is pleased to present this report of hand auger boring
exploration for the proposed bioretention area at the Sylva Tractor Supply project in Sylva, North
Carolina. The purpose of this exploration was to determine general subsurface conditions in the area of
the proposed bioretention area and provide geotechnical design and site preparation recommendations.

PROJECT INFORMATION AND SITE CONDITIONS
Project information was provided by Mr. W. Alec Stillwell, P.E. during recent telephone conversations
and email correspondence with our Ms. Courtney King, P.E. We have also been provided with Grading
and Stormwater Plan, Sheet SWP.1, prepared by Stillwell Engineering, P.A. and dated September 9,
2020. Project plans are to construct a bioretention area on the northwest portion of the site with a bottom
of pond elevation of 2147.00. Additional site and subsurface information was gathered during our on-
going performance of construction materials testing services at the site (reference KEG Project No. JA20-
4003-01).

The proposed bioretention area will be constructed in the area of an existing pond that will be abandoned
and filled with earthwork fill to raise site grades. The existing pond reportedly has a bottom of pond
elevation of approximately 2139 and an estimated 8 feet of fill is planned. For the purpose of this
exploration, we have assumed that the bioretention area will be constructed with off-site borrow materials
similar to those currently being imported to the site for use as engineered fill.

At the time of our field exploration, the proposed bioretention area consisted mainly of standing water
associated with the existing pond. A small portion of the proposed bioretention area, on its east and south
periphery, consisted of approximately 1 to 3 feet of newly placed fill associated with the grading currently
taking place at the site.

LABORATORY TESTING
Our construction materials testing services at the site have included performing laboratory testing of three
representative bulk samples of the off-site borrow materials being used as engineered fill at the site.
Laboratory testing of bulk samples has included natural moisture content, percent fines (percent passing
the No. 200 sieve), particle size distribution and maximum dry density testing. The bulk samples were
non-plastic and Atterberg limits testing was not performed. Laboratory test results are included as
attachments to this report.
Report of Hand Auger Boring Exploration September 11, 2020
Sylva Tractor Supply – Proposed Bioretention Area KEG Project No. JA20-4003-04
Sylva, North Carolina

2
FIELD EXPLORATION
The site was explored by performing 3 hand auger borings (HAB-1, HAB-2 and HAB-3) at the
approximate locations as indicated on the attached Field Exploration Plan. The hand auger borings
locations were selected by our Ms. Courtney King, P.E. by refencing field stakes (established by others)
and were positioned in areas with no standing water so that our field exploration by hand auger could be
performed. The project surveyor subsequently documented the location and ground surface elevation of
HAB-1 and HAB-2. The location and ground surface elevation of HAB-3 was not documented by the
surveyor as the borehole was subsequently disturbed by grading activities. The location and ground
surface elevation of HAB-3 presented herein were estimated by our Ms. Courtney King, P.E. by
referencing the provided site plan and survey data.

The materials encountered by the hand auger borings were identified in the field from cuttings brought to
the surface by the auger bucket. Representative samples of the encountered materials were collected and
transported to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the samples were examined by a geotechnical engineer
and visually classified.

At select locations the soil consistency of the encountered materials was measured with a dynamic cone
penetrometer (DCP). The conical point was first seated to penetrate any loose cuttings and then was
driven increments of 1¾ inches with blows from a 15-pound hammer falling 20 inches. The number of
blows required to achieve this penetration was recorded. The penetration resistance, once properly
evaluated, is an index to the soil strength.

In conjunction with our field work, hand auger borings were inspected for groundwater and
measurements of the depth to groundwater were taken. Measurements of the depth to groundwater were
taken again after a stabilization period of approximately 24 hours. Soil descriptions, test data, and
groundwater levels are tabulated on the hand auger boring logs attached to this report.

SITE GEOLOGY
The project site is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. The bedrock in this region is a
complex crystalline formation that has been faulted and contorted by past tectonic movements. The rock
has weathered to residual soils which form the mantle for the hillsides and hilltops. The typical residual
soil profile in areas not disturbed by erosion or grading consists of clayey soils near the surface where
weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty sands.

The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined and there is often a transitional zone, termed
“partially weathered rock” overlying the parent bedrock. Partially weathered rock (PWR) is defined, for
engineering purposes, as residual material with a standard penetration resistance in excess of 100 blows
per foot. Weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints, and the presence of less resistant rock types.
Consequently, the profile of the partially weathered rock is irregular even over short horizontal distances.
Also, it is not unusual to find lenses and boulders of hard rock and/or zones of partially weathered rock
within the soil mantle, well above the general bedrock level.

Quite often, the upper soils along drainage features and in flood plain areas are water-deposited (alluvial)
materials that have been eroded and washed down from adjacent higher ground. These alluvial soils are
usually soft and compressible, having never been consolidated by pressures in excess of their present
overburden.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Hand auger borings HAB-1 and HAB-2 encountered fill underlain by residuum and possible residuum to
their refusal depths of 2’-8” and 1’-7” below the existing ground surface. Hand auger boring HAB-3
Report of Hand Auger Boring Exploration September 11, 2020
Sylva Tractor Supply – Proposed Bioretention Area KEG Project No. JA20-4003-04
Sylva, North Carolina

3
encountered fill from the ground surface to its termination depth of 3’-2” below the existing ground
surface.

The fill consisted of very loose to loose silty sands and soft sandy silts. The fill also contained trace
organics and gravel. The residuum consisted of firm silty sands and refusal materials. Refusal materials
are those materials which are sufficiently hard to prevent the vertical advancement of the auger
equipment. Refusal in may result from very dense soils, partially weathered rock, boulders, lenses,
ledges, or layers of relatively hard rock underlain by partially weathered rock or residual soil; refusal may
also represent the surface of relatively continuous bedrock. Power drilling procedures are required to
penetrate refusal materials and to determine their character and continuity. Power drilling was beyond the
scope of this exploration.

At the time of our field exploration, HAB-1, HAB-2 and HAB-3 encountered groundwater at depths of
2’-6”, 1’-2”, and 3’-2”, respectively. After a stabilization period of approximately 24 hours, HAB-1 and
HAB-2 encountered groundwater at depths of 2’-2” and 1’-3”, respectively. Groundwater levels may
fluctuate several feet with season and rainfall variations. Normally, the highest groundwater levels occur
in late winter and spring and the levels occur in late summer and fall.

The above descriptions provide a summary of the subsurface conditions encountered by the hand auger
borings. The attached logs contain information recorded at each hand auger boring location. The lines
designating the interfaces between various strata represent approximate boundaries and the transition
between strata may be gradual. Subsurface conditions may vary between hand auger boring locations.

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Infiltration Rate
Based on the subsurface information gathered from our field exploration and our experience with similar
borrow materials, we estimate silty sands placed as engineered fill will have an infiltration rate on the
order of 0.45 inches/hour. This estimate assumes the bioretention area will be constructed according to
the recommendations presented in the following Site Preparation and Construction Recommendations
section of this report. As mentioned previously, we have also assumed that the bioretention area will be
constructed with off-site borrow materials similar to those used for engineered fill at the site thus far.

SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Undercutting - Existing Fill
The hand auger borings performed for this exploration encountered very loose and soft fill soils along the
periphery of the proposed bioretention area. Very loose and soft fill will not provide suitable subgrade
support for the additional earthwork fills planned for construction of the bioretention area. We
recommend that very loose and soft fill be undercut to the underlying firm residual soils prior to
placement of earthwork fills. The bottom of the undercut should be observed and approved by our
geotechnical engineer prior to commencement of backfilling.

Undercutting - Alluvium
The hand auger borings performed for this exploration did not encounter alluvial soils. However, it is
likely that alluvial soils are present in the area of the exiting pond. Alluvial soils often contain layers
and/or pockets of clay or clayey soils which could adversely affect infiltration of the bioretention area.
Additionally, alluvial soils are usually soft and compressible, having never been consolidated by
pressures in excess of their present overburden. As such, alluvial soils will generally not provide suitable
subgrade support for the earthwork fills planned for construction of the bioretention area. We recommend
that alluvial soils, if encountered, be undercut to firm residual soils prior to placement of earthwork fills.
Report of Hand Auger Boring Exploration September 11, 2020
Sylva Tractor Supply – Proposed Bioretention Area KEG Project No. JA20-4003-04
Sylva, North Carolina

4
The bottom of the undercut should be observed and approved by our geotechnical engineer prior to
commencement of backfilling.

De-watering
Standing water and shallow groundwater are present within the proposed construction area. De-watering
of the proposed construction area will be required prior to the start of construction. Standing water should
be drained. Additionally, we recommend that groundwater be lowered to an elevation of at least two feet
below the bottom of the exposed ground surface and/or at least two feet below the bottom of the required
undercutting (as described above in the Undercutting – Existing Fill and Undercutting – Alluvium
sections of this report). De-watering has been done effectively by means of gravity ditches and pumping
from filtered sumps. The contractor should also be prepared to promptly remove rainwater from the
construction area.

Clearing and Grubbing
Topsoil, vegetation, and surface soils containing organic matter or other deleterious materials should be
removed from the area of the proposed construction. Topsoil may be stockpiled for later use in areas to
be landscaped. Deleterious materials should be disposed of offsite or in areas of the site that will not be
developed. Further construction in areas containing organics or deleterious materials will first require
that these materials be removed.

Engineered Fill
Engineered fill used for raising site grades should be uniformly compacted in thin (6-inch to 12-inch loose
measure) horizontal lifts to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-
698) and within 3 percent of optimum moisture. Fill slope surfaces should be protected from erosion by
grassing or some other means.

Borrow materials used for fill should consist of silty sands and should be approved by the geotechnical
engineer prior to fill placement. Before filling operations begin, representative samples of each proposed
fill material should be collected and tested to determine the compaction and classification characteristics.
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content should be determined. Once compaction
begins, a sufficient number of density tests should be performed by an engineering technician working
under the direction of the geotechnical engineer to measure the degree of compaction being obtained.
Engineered fill should be free of organic and other deleterious materials.

The surface of engineered fill can deteriorate and lose its support capabilities when exposed to
environmental changes or construction activity. Deterioration can occur from, but is not limited to, the
effects of freezing temperatures, the formation of erosion gullies, exposure to extreme wetting/drying
conditions, long term exposure to natural elements, and rutting/pumping caused by construction traffic.
We recommend that surfaces of the engineered fill that have deteriorated or softened be recompacted
immediately prior to construction of additional engineered fill.

Slopes
Confined excavations such as for underdrain installation should conform to OSHA regulations. For
slopes that are not confined, our experience suggests that temporary excavation side slopes through the
existing soil overburden (i.e. cut slopes) at the site should be laid back at a 1.5H:1V (Horizontal to
Vertical) slope, or flatter. Permanent fill slopes placed on a suitable foundation bench should be
constructed at 2H:1V, or flatter. Shallower fill slope inclinations may be required for dam embankments
to satisfy slope stability requirements. Fill slopes should consist of compacted engineered fill. Slope
surfaces should be protected from erosion by grassing or by other means. Permanent slopes of 3H:1V or
flatter may be desirable for mowing.
Report of Hand Auger Boring Exploration
Sylva Tractor Supply — Proposed Bioretention Area
Sylva, North Carolina
September 11, 2020
KEG Project No. JA20-4003-04
We appreciate the opportunity to offer our professional geotechnical engineering services on this project.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
KESSEL ENGI EE31Q,(NC Firm License No. P-0420)
a�6,
SEAL
�3838
Cou n
ti •°••.'F��` nson,
i , •�s��i•<„GIiVC�Senior Engi�
ggaeef BAUo
Senior Engineer '%� % j�� - ®�:''
Re iste
Registered, North Carolina 3'3 ,, - " g red,
Attachments: Field Exploration Plan
Hand Auger Boring Logs (HAB-1, HAB-2 and HAB-3)
Key to Soil Classifications and Consistency Descriptions
Compaction Test Report Nos. 1, 2 and 3
Particle Size Distribution Report Nos. 1, 2 and 3
P. �
Carolina 39637
Distribution: W. Alec Stillwell, P.E.; Stillwell Engineering, P.A.; [e-mail]
5

PROJECT
i ! h C'1 J.
PROJECT NO. J�2 �' 4y O —a�f
PAGE OF K E B S E L
DATE 1 It I 20 {`
CLIENT E N G I N E E R I N G
- G R ® u P
_ .._...__.._... rox,rd�t �ii j tw4ry
RIP SEE DETAIL
.. ■t•■ - _ ____ ------- -----------E`� �. �RttrQ----- ---
---_ _ 7' 4 2140 --- `
NORMAL WATEP LEVEL
SET IN r —
0 TCB 13
4PcPEE-0 o. 21 .5
............: :::::
.........
;::
:.:.:.:.....: /',
74--INCH A S N12 WT HDP ;: = ;=.
59.5
9.50
OPOSED 6—INCH DIA. UNDERDRAIN
W/ CLEANOUTSi:. r
PRO OSED BIORETEN )N AREA
S DETAIL
°
PROPOSED 6-INCH GRAVITY
SEWER SERVICE SEE SHEET C.4 �. OtiCFb �S9
Sp -
1500 �,9 �00
18. INCH 'ADS N12 WT HDPE
65.29' 2 �9
CB-3 .1:..•s j•,
KESSEL ENGINEERING GROUP
582 HENDERSONVILLE ROAD SUITE ONE I ASHEVILLE NC 28803 I P: 18281 277-6351 I F: 18281 2-77-6355
WWW.THEKESSELGROUP.COM

Very Loose, Reddish Brown, Micaceous, Silty SAND (Fill)
Firm, Red and Reddish Brown, Micaceous, Silty SAND
(Residuum)
Hand auger refusal encountered at 2.7 feet. Groundwater
encountered at 2.5 feet at time of boring and 2.2 feet 24
hours after boring.
n = 4
n = 18
n = 21
n = 25/1.75
4
4
5
9
18
19
21
20
23
25/1.75
2
4
6
8
10
12
CLIENT:Stillwell Engineering, PA
PROJECT:Sylva Tractor Supply - Bioretention
LOCATION:See Figure 1
LOGGED BY:C. King
ELEVATION:2144 (feet)
PROJECT NO.:JA20-4003-04
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
2142
2140
2138
2136
2134
2132
END:9-3-20
AFTER 24 HOURS: 2.2 ft CAVING>DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 2.5 ft
DATE START:9-3-20
DESCRIPTION
HAND AUGER BORING NO. HAB-1
HAND AUGER BORING NO. HAB-1
Sheet 1 of 1SAMPLESSOIL
TYPE
DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Hand Auger
PERFORMED BY:KEG Representatives
HAND AUGER BORING 4003-04 TRACTOR SUPPLY BIORETENTION.GPJ KESSEL GROUP.GDT 9/11/20DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RESULTS
BLOWS/1-3/4 inches
2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5
Loose, Reddish Brown, Micaceous, Silty SAND with Trace
Gravel and Trace Organic Debris (Fill)
Firm, Reddish Brown, Micaceous, Silty SAND (Possible
Residuum)
Hand auger refusal encountered at 1.6 feet. Groundwater
encountered at 1.2 feet at time of boring and 1.25 feet 24
hours after boring.
n = 5
n = 19
n = 25/.5
4
6
5
14
18
21
21
25/.52
4
6
8
10
12
CLIENT:Stillwell Engineering, PA
PROJECT:Sylva Tractor Supply - Bioretention
LOCATION:See Figure 1
LOGGED BY:C. King
ELEVATION:2143 (feet)
PROJECT NO.:JA20-4003-04
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
2142
2140
2138
2136
2134
2132
2130
END:9-3-20
AFTER 24 HOURS: 1.25 ft CAVING>DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 1.2 ft
DATE START:9-3-20
DESCRIPTION
HAND AUGER BORING NO. HAB-2
HAND AUGER BORING NO. HAB-2
Sheet 1 of 1SAMPLESSOIL
TYPE
DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Hand Auger
PERFORMED BY:KEG Representatives
HAND AUGER BORING 4003-04 TRACTOR SUPPLY BIORETENTION.GPJ KESSEL GROUP.GDT 9/11/20DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RESULTS
BLOWS/1-3/4 inches
2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5
Very Loose, Reddish Brown, Micaceous, Silty SAND (Fill)
Soft, Reddish Brown, Wet, Micaceous, Silty SAND (Fill)
Soft, Red, Wet, Micaceous, Sandy SILT with Trace Grass
and with Trace Fingerling Roots (Fill)
Hand auger boring terminated at 3.2 feet. Groundwater
encountered at 3.2 feet at time of boring.
2
4
6
8
10
12
CLIENT:Stillwell Engineering, PA
PROJECT:Sylva Tractor Supply - Bioretention
LOCATION:See Figure 1
LOGGED BY:C. King
ELEVATION:2145 (feet)
PROJECT NO.:JA20-4003-04
ELEVATION/
DEPTH (FT)
2144
2142
2140
2138
2136
2134
2132
END:9-3-20
AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING>DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 3.2 ft
DATE START:9-3-20
DESCRIPTION
HAND AUGER BORING NO. HAB-3
HAND AUGER BORING NO. HAB-3
Sheet 1 of 1SAMPLESSOIL
TYPE
DRILLING EQUIPMENT:Hand Auger
PERFORMED BY:KEG Representatives
HAND AUGER BORING 4003-04 TRACTOR SUPPLY BIORETENTION.GPJ KESSEL GROUP.GDT 9/11/20
Silty Sand
SM
Topsoil
TOPSOIL
Bedrock
BEDROCK
Concrete
AS
Silt
ML
Sandy Clay
CLS
Split Spoon Sample
Cone Penetrometer Resistance
Av erage blows over 3-1/2 in. increment
1 to 4
5 to 9
10 to 29
over 30
Sof t
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Boulder: Greater than 300 mm
Cobble: 75 to 300 mm
Gravel:
Coarse - 19 to 75 mm
Fine - 4.75 to 19 mm
Sand:
Coarse - 2 to 75 mm
Medium - 0.425 to 2 mm
Fine - 0.075 to 0.425 mm
Silts & Clay: Less than 0.075 mm
Very Loose
Loose
Firm
Very Firm
1 to 4
5 to 15
16 to 29
over 30
Relative
Density
SILTS and CLAYS
Consistency
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
KEY TO DRILLING SYMBOLS
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS AND CONSISTENCY DESCRIPTIONS
Silty Clay
CL-ML
Grab Sample
Cone Penetrometer Resistance
Av erage blows over 3-1/2 in. increment
Groundwater Table 24 Hours after Completion of Drilling
Groundwater Table at Time of Drilling
Particle Size Identification
SANDS
Clayey Silt
MH
Sandy Silt
MLS
Sand
SW
Clayey Sand
SC
High Plasticity Clay
CH
Well-graded Gravel
GW
Poorly-graded Gravel
GP
Partially Weathered
Rock
BLDRCBBL
Low Plasticity Clay
CL
Undisturbed Sample
Tested By: NR/LB Checked By: MG
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
Dry density, pcf85
90
95
100
105
110
Water content, %
5101520253035
19.5%, 103.3 pcf
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.75
Test specification:ASTM D 698-12 Method B Standard
- SM - 25.2 - - - 21.3 35.1
Reddish Brown, Rocky, Micaceous, Silty
SAND
JA20-4003-01 Wayne Smith
Standard Manual Rammer
4/1/20
#1
Elev/ Classification Nat.Sp.G. LL PI
% > % <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. 3/8 in. No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No. Client:Remarks:
Project:
Date:
Source of Sample: Offsite Sample Number: 1
Kessel Engineering Group
Asheville, NC Figure
Maximum dry density = 103.3 pcf
Optimum moisture = 19.5 %
Tractor Supply - Sylva
Tested By: HR/LB Checked By: MG
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
Dry density, pcf70
75
80
85
90
95
Water content, %
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
26.5%, 89.3 pcf
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.75
Test specification:ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard
- SM - 34.5 - - - 0.2 33.5
Tan, Silty SAND
JA20-4003-01 Wayne Smith
Standard Manual Rammer
7/15/20
#2
Elev/ Classification Nat.Sp.G. LL PI
% > % <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. #4 No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No. Client:Remarks:
Project:
Date:
Source of Sample: Offsite Sample Number: 2
Kessel Engineering Group
Asheville, NC Figure
Maximum dry density = 89.3 pcf
Optimum moisture = 26.5 %
Tractor Supply - Sylva
Tested By: JV/LB Checked By: MG
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
Dry density, pcf80
85
90
95
100
105
Water content, %
5101520253035
18.2%, 98.6 pcf
ZAV for
Sp.G. =
2.75
Test specification:ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard
- SM - 19.3 - - - 0.4 30.8
Brown, Silty SAND
JA20-4003-01 Wayne Smith
Standard Manual Rammer
8/6/2020
#3
Elev/ Classification Nat.Sp.G. LL PI
% > % <
Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. #4 No.200
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Project No. Client:Remarks:
Project:
Date:
Source of Sample: Offsite Sample Number: 3
Kessel Engineering Group
Asheville, NC Figure
Maximum dry density = 98.6 pcf
Optimum moisture = 18.2 %
Tractor Supply - Sylva
Tested By: NR/LB Checked By: MG
Kessel Engineering Group
Asheville, NC
4/1/20
#1
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Reddish Brown, Rocky, Micaceous, Silty SAND
1"
3/4"
3/8"
#4
#10
#40
#100
#200
100.0
84.6
78.7
74.4
70.2
57.2
43.6
35.1
--
21.3820 19.2334 0.5426
0.2429
SM -
Wayne Smith
Tractor Supply - Sylva
JA20-4003-01
Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: Offsite Depth: -Sample Number: 1 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.
*PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 15.4 10.2 4.2 13.0 22.1 35.16 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report
Tested By: HR/LB Checked By: MG
Kessel Engineering Group
Asheville, NC
7/15/20
#2
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Tan, Silty SAND
3/8"
#4
#10
#40
#100
#200
100.0
99.8
97.8
77.3
47.7
33.5
--
0.8240 0.6061 0.2329
0.1643
SM -
Wayne Smith
Tractor Supply - Sylva
JA20-4003-01
Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: Offsite Depth: -Sample Number: 2 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.
*PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 0.2 2.0 20.5 43.8 33.56 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report
Tested By: JV/LB Checked By: MG
Kessel Engineering Group
Asheville, NC
8/6/2020
#3
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90=D85=D60=
D50=D30=D15=
D10=Cu=Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Brown, Silty SAND
3/8"
#4
#10
#40
#100
#200
100.0
99.6
98.7
81.9
50.7
30.8
--
0.6447 0.4878 0.2012
0.1466
SM -
Wayne Smith
Tractor Supply - Sylva
JA20-4003-01
Material Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Source of Sample: Offsite Depth: -Sample Number: 3 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.
*PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)PERCENT FINER0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 16.8 51.1 30.86 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Particle Size Distribution Report