S02 BD03252022 -Slope Stability Report.pdf

R E P O R T

19-0829 S

September 6, 2019

Explorations and Geotechnical Engineering Services

VAMC Building 10 Slope Stability Assessment 830 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, Rhode Island

Prepared For:

Miller-Remick LLC Attention: Mr. Anthony Pacaro 1010 Kings Highway South, Building Two Cherry Hill, New Jersey 18034

Prepared By:

S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc.

10 Centre Road Somersworth, NH 03878-2696 T: 603-692-0088

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope and Purpose

1.2 Site and Proposed Construction

2.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING

2.1 Explorations

2.2 Field Testing

2.3 Laboratory Testing

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Soils

3.2 Groundwater

4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 General Findings

4.2 Global Stability

4.3 Building Addition Foundations

4.4 Design Review and Construction Testing

5.0 CLOSURE

Appendix A Limitations Appendix B Figures Appendix C Exploration Logs & Key Appendix D Laboratory Test Results

Miller-Remick LLC Attention: Mr. Anthony Pacaro 1010 Kings Highway South, Building Two Cherry Hill, NJ 08034

Subject: Explorations and Geotechnical Engineering Services VAMC Building 10 Slope Stability Assessment 830 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, Rhode Island

Dear Tony:

In accordance with our Proposal dated June 25, 2019, the following presents results of our geotechnical assessment of global stability of the existing slope south of Building 10 in anticipation of an addition and renovation work for the building. This report summarizes our findings and geotechnical recommendations, and its contents are subject to the limitations set forth in Appendix A.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope and Purpose

The purpose of our services was to explore subsurface conditions at the site in order to assess global stability of the bank and provide geotechnical recommendations relative to remedial measures as needed to attain an adequate safety factor against global failure.

Our scope of services included coordinating and observing one test boring exploration, soils laboratory testing, a global stability analysis regarding the adjacent down sloping terrain, and preparation of this report. Our scope of services did not include an assessment of bearing capacity relative to foundation design for the building addition.

1.2 Site and Proposed Construction

Based on our discussions with you in conjunction with the information you forwarded to us, we understand Building 10 was constructed in the 1940’s. The terrain to the south has a terrace at about elevations 70 to 72 feet having a minimum width of about 25 feet between the building and the crest of a steep slope approximately 50 feet in height.

Steeper portions along the crest approach a 1:1 (H:V) inclination in a few areas, however the overall slope character, crest to toe, is generally about 1.5:1. The toe of the slope terminates along a railroad tie retaining wall about 5 feet in height. There is a paved parking lot occupying the adjacent property south of the retaining wall.

From a geotechnical investigation report prepared by others in 2009, we understand that a test boring made along the slope crest encountered fills overlying native sands. A test boring made in the parking lot to the south encountered sands, with groundwater measured about 8.5 feet below parking lot level during drilling. The investigation included an assessment of slope stability that calculated an adequate safety factor against global slope failure, however since that time, you have expressed concern the slope has experienced near surface sloughing resulting in a steeper incline along upper portion of the slope and a narrower terrace between the crest and Building 10. We understand an approximately 75-foot long by 10-foot wide addition is planned along the southerly slope facing side of the building, prompting your request for a re-assessment of slope conditions.

The approximate location of the building addition is depicted on “Exploration Location Plan,” attached as Sheet 1 included in Appendix B.

2.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING

2.1 Explorations

One test boring (B-1) was advanced along the terrace overlooking the slope on July 22, 2019 by S. W. Cole Explorations, LLC, a subsidiary of S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc.

(S.W.COLE). The exploration location was selected and established in the field by S.W.COLE by measuring from existing site features.

The approximate test boring location is shown on the “Exploration Location Plan,” attached in Appendix B. Our test boring log and a key to the notes and symbols used on the log is attached in Appendix C.

We have included the approximate locations of two test borings from the 2009 report on Sheet 1 in Appendix B, as well as the logs in Appendix C.

2.2 Field Testing

Boring B-1 was drilled using hollow stem augers, and carried to a depth of 82 feet. The soils were sampled where shown on the logs using a split spoon sampler and Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) procedures. SPT blow counts are shown on the logs.

2.3 Laboratory Testing

Soil samples retrieved from the test boring were visually classified in our laboratory. We performed four laboratory gradation and moisture content tests on selected samples to assist in our evaluation. We have attached results from the gradation tests in Appendix D. Moisture content test results are presented on the boring log.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Soils

Beneath surficial topsoil, Boring B-1 encountered granular fill overlying native granular soils.

The fill encountered within about 15 feet of the ground surface is loose to medium dense dark brown silty gravelly sand with sporadic concrete and pavement fragments. From a depth interval of about 15 to 26.5 feet, the soils transition to a loose to medium dense dark gray sand with traces of silt and gravel. It was difficult to ascertain whether or not these materials are definitively fills or native sands based on observation of the soil samples.

The native soils at depth are medium dense sands with varying amounts of silt and minor amounts of gravel extending to a depth of approximately 70 feet. Below this depth, the native sands are comparatively dense.

Please refer to the attached logs for more detailed subsurface information.

3.2 Groundwater

Boring B-1 encountered saturated soils at a depth of 65 feet, corresponding to approximately elevation 6 feet. Previous Boring JW2, made in the parking lot to the south, noted groundwater at a depth of 8.5 feet, which upon review of the topographic information from Sheet 1 appears to at a comparable elevation to that of Boring B-1.

It should be anticipated that groundwater levels will fluctuate, particularly in response to periods of snowmelt and precipitation, as well as changes in site use.

4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 General Findings

The new addition is planned where the crest of the slope is comparatively close to the building and upon completion, the terrace between the addition and the crest will be reduced to about 15 feet in width. Given the terrain in conjunction with the soil conditions that were encountered, post-construction conditions raise concern relative to slope stability. The current standard of care applicable to slope stability requires a factor of safety of at least 1.50 against global failure where potential failure surfaces impact the building. Our analyses have indicated the factor of safety against deep seated failure is below this criterion. The proximity of the proposed construction to the crest will require means to improve slope stability accordingly. In the course of our analyses and discussions with Miller-Remick LLC prior to report preparation, we have recommended installation of sheet piling along the crest to address the factor of safety against global failure. Slope stability is discussed further in Section 4.2.

The existing slope is steep and you have noted there is concern for near surface distress along portions of the slope crest. It remains possible that further near surface instability can occur. While the installation of sheet piling should adequately address the potential for global failure beneath the proposed building addition and adequately support the building, the slope remains vulnerable to near surface instability in the future due to its steep incline. Reconstruction of the slope with geogrid reinforcement can address near surface stability, however, this will require removal of vegetation and considerable excavation of embankment soils; and subsequent re-placement of soils with compaction and installation of geogrid reinforcement at regular intervals. In the absence of this undertaking or a comparable action, the design team and the VA need to be aware of the continued potential for surface sloughing.

We acknowledge the existing building was constructed in the 1940’s and has remained stable from a global slope perspective since that time. An advantage of the sheet piling is that a surficial slough in front of the sheeting should not impact the building, allowing slope repair work to be undertaken as needed. East of the addition footprint, the crest veers from the building and it is apparent that localized shallow slope instability has not impacted the building to date. In our opinion, given the sheet pile installation described below, the risk of building damage associated with near surface sloughing is mitigated.

However, such sloughing should be readily addressed and repaired should it occur. It is apparent that the vegetated cover has provided some protection against near surface sliding over time. We suggest the project civil engineer review site conditions, and consideration may be given to a brow trench along the crest or other means to reduce runoff directly downslope and the potential for erosion that could produce localized gullying and near surface instability.

4.2 Global Stability

We performed a global stability analysis along a cross-section that represents the addition construction relative to the slope and toe retaining wall configuration (see Sheet 1 for the cross section location). The analysis was performed using the SLOPE/W software and Spencer’s method of analysis.

We assumed that sheet piling would be installed along the slope crest, our approach being to recommend installation depths that would achieve a factor of safety of at least

1.5 against deep seated failures extending to the proposed building addition footprint. The results are presented graphically on Sheet 2 in Appendix B, and indicate the sheet piling would need to be driven to a depth of at least 27 feet below the ground surface to achieve the required safety factor against global failure.

Given this result, we recommend the sheeting be driven to a depth of at least 27 feet or refusal if shallower. Sheet piling should be SCZ 14 cold formed 50 ksi steel or equivalent.

The sheet piling should be installed along the crest directly in front of the full length of the addition, plus projecting an additional 10 feet to the east and west. The recommended limits of sheet pile installation are shown on Sheet 1. The contractor will need to consider the impact of vibrations on the adjacent building while assessing means and methods in sheet pile installation.

4.3 Building Addition Foundations

Geotechnical recommendations relative to building foundations were not part of our scope of work, and are therefore not discussed herein. At the time the test boring was undertaken, we were not aware of the addition location. As of report preparation, it is apparent the test boring was performed in a fairly central location for this addition. The test boring encountered deep fills. If desired, we can address foundations, however, we would recommend consideration be given to excavation of one to two test pits in an attempt to distinguish fills from native sandy soils.

4.4 Design Review and Construction Testing

S.W.COLE should be retained to review the construction documents prior to bidding to determine that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented.

S.W.COLE is available to meet with the contractor prior to commencement and observe sheet pile installation work upon request.

5.0 CLOSURE

It has been a pleasure to be of assistance to you with this phase of your project. We look forward to working with you during the construction phase of the project.

Sincerely, S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc.

Anthony J. Hersh, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Chad B. Michaud, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer

AJH:tsd:cbm

Digitally signed by Chad Michaud DN: cn=Chad Michaud, o=S.

W. Cole Engineering, Inc., ou, email=cmichaud@swcole.co m, c=US Date: 2019.09.06 15:21:46 -04'00'

APPENDIX A

Limitations

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Miller-Remick LLC for specific application to the VAMC Building 10 Slope Stability Assessment on 830 Chalkstone Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island. S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc. (S.W.COLE) has endeavored to conduct our services in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

The soil profiles described in the report are intended to convey general trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and are based upon interpretation of exploration data and samples.

The analyses performed during this investigation and recommendations presented in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from subsurface explorations made at the site. Variations in subsurface conditions may occur between explorations and may not become evident until construction. If variations in subsurface conditions become evident after submission of this report, it will be necessary to evaluate their nature and to review the recommendations of this report.

Observations have been made during exploration work to assess site groundwater levels.

Fluctuations in water levels will occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors.

S.W.COLE’s scope of services has not included the investigation, detection, or prevention of any Biological Pollutants at the project site or in any existing or proposed structure at the site. The term “Biological Pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and the byproducts of any such biological organisms.

Recommendations contained in this report are based substantially upon information provided by others regarding the proposed project. In the event that any changes are made in the design, nature, or location of the proposed project, S.W.COLE should review such changes as they relate to analyses associated with this report. Recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by

S.W.COLE.

APPENDIX B

Figures

B-1

JW-1 JW-2

STABILITY SECTION

ANALYZED

APPROXIMATE

LIMITS OF DRIVEN

SHEET PILING

APPROXIMATE

LIMITS OF 10' WIDE

ADDITION

MILLER-REMICK, LLC.

VMAC BUILDING 10 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT

830 CHALKSTONE AVENUE

PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND

EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN

Job No.:

Date :

19-0829 09/06/2019

Scale:

Sheet:

1" = 40'

S.W.COLE

E N G I N E E R I N G , I N C .

LEGEND:

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

NOTES:

1. EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN WAS PREPARED FROM A

1"=40' SCALE PLAN OF THE SITE ENTITLED "EXISTING

CONDITIONS PLAN," PREPARED BY WOODARD & CURRAN,

DATED SEPTEMBER 11, 2015.

2. BORING B-1 WAS LOCATED IN THE FIELD BY TAPED

MEASUREMENTS FROM EXISTING SITE FEATURES

3. BORINGS JW-1 AND JW-2 WERE PERFORMED UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF OTHERS IN 2009.

4. THIS PLAN SHOULD BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE

ASSOCIATED S. W. COLE ENGINEERING, INC.

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.

5. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS ONLY TO DEPICT THE

LOCATION OF THE EXPLORATIONS IN RELATION TO THE

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.

Feet

0 40 80

R:

\2

9\

-0

9\

C A

D \D ra w in gs

\1 9-

E

LP

.d w g, /6 /2

2:

:4

PM

, 1

:1 , C

EM

, S

. W . C ol e

En gi ne er in g, In c.

1.53

Sand 115 pcf Phi = 30

Fill 125 pcf Phi = 30

Sand 120 pcf Phi = 32

Sand 120 pcf Phi = 34

400 psf existing bldg surcharge

27 Ft deep sheetpiling

400 psf addition surcharge

Retaining wall at toe

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200

Sheet 2

APPENDIX C

Exploration Logs and Key

1D

2D

3D

4D

5D

6D

7D

8D

9D

10D

24/12

24/10

24/6

24/0

24/12

24/6

24/16

24/12

24/8

24/12

0-2

2-4

5-7

10-12

15-17

20-22

25-27

30-32

35-37

40-42

1-6-9-5

2-4-3-4

4-3-6-7

3-3-3-4

3-3-3-4

3-3-5-5

7-7-9-

6-8-10-

5-7-9-

5-6-9-

2” Grasssed Topsoil Loose to medium dense, dark brown Silty Gravelly SAND with concrete and asphalt (Fill)

Loose to medium dense, dark gray fine to medium SAND some silt trace gravel (Possible Fill)

Medium dense, light gray Silty fine to medium SAND with silt seams

Medium dense, gray Silty fine to medium

SAND

Medium dense, gray fine to medium SAND some silt w =9 %

Pen. = Penetration Length Rec. = Recovery Length

LOGGED BY: Tyler Demers

CORE BARREL: N/A

At time of Drilling At Completion of Drilling After Drilling

D = Split Spoon Sample

CASING ID/OD: 4 in / 4 1/2 in

Water Level

AUGER ID/OD: N/A / N/A

ELEVATION (FT): 71' ±

bpf = Blows per Foot

TOTAL DEPTH (FT): 82.0

U = Thin Walled Tube Sample

LOCATION: See Exploration Location Plan

DRILLER: Corey Culligan

HAMMER EFFICIENCY FACTOR:

KEY TO NOTES

AND SYMBOLS:

WATER LEVEL DEPTHS (ft): 65 ft Soils appear saturated below 65 feet

Sv = Field Vane Shear Strength, kips/sq.ft.

Drilling Information

RIG TYPE: Truck Mounted Diedrich D-50

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic / Automatic

GENERAL NOTES:

HAMMER WEIGHT (lbs): 140 / 140

R = Rock Core Sample V = Field Vane Shear mpf = Minute per Foot

WOR = Weight of Rods WOH = Weight of Hammer RQD = Rock Quality Designation

HAMMER DROP (inch): 30 / 30

DRILLING CO.: S.W.Cole Explorations, LLC

PID = Photoionization Detector N/A = Not Applicable

SAMPLER: Standard Split-Spoon qU = Unconfined Compressive Strength, kips/sq.ft.

DRILLING METHOD: Cased Boring

Ø = Friction Angle (Estimated)

G ra ph ic

L og

Elev.

(ft)

(Continued Next Page)

Sample No. T yp e

Depth (ft)

Casing Pen.

(bpf)

Stratification lines represent approximate boundary between soil types, transitions may be gradual. Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated.

Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due to other factors than those present at the time measurements were made.

Pen./ Rec.

(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

H20 DepthDepth

(ft)

Blow Count or

RQD

Sample Description & Classification

Field / Lab Test Data

Remarks

CLIENT: Miller-Remick, LLC.

PROJECT: VAMC Building 10 Slope Stability Assessment LOCATION: 830 Chalkstone Ave, Providence, RI

BORING LOG

DATE START: 7/22/2019

DATE FINISH: 7/23/2019

BORING NO.: B-1

BORING NO.: B-1

PROJECT NO. 19-0829

SHEET: 1 of 2

B O

R

IN

G

W E

LL

9-

.G

P J

S W

C E

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/3

0/

0.2

15.0

26.5

35.0

40.0

11D

12D

13D

14D

15D

16D

17D

18D

24/12

24/12

24/12

24/12

24/16

24/16

24/12

24/14

45-47

50-52

55-57

60-62

65-67

70-72

75-77

80-82

8-7-9-

7-8-12-

13-11- 12-15

10-12- 16-17

5-6-8-

15-15- 17-18

27-16- 17-16

9-12- 12-19

Medium dense, gray-brown fine to medium SAND some silt trace gravel

Medium dense, brown-gray Silty fine to medium SAND some gravel

Medium dense, dark gray Silty Gravelly

SAND

Dense, gray-brown Silty fine to medium SAND some gravel

Dense, gray Silty fine to medium SAND trace gravel

Medium dense, dark gray Silty fine to medium SAND some gravel

Bottom of Exploration at 82.0 feet w =9.7 % w =11.6 % w =17.1 %

G ra ph ic

L og

Elev.

(ft)

-5

-10

Sample No. T yp e

Depth (ft)

Casing Pen.

(bpf)

Stratification lines represent approximate boundary between soil types, transitions may be gradual. Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated.

Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due to other factors than those present at the time measurements were made.

Pen./ Rec.

(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

H20 DepthDepth

(ft)

Blow Count or

RQD

Sample Description & Classification

Field / Lab Test Data

Remarks

CLIENT: Miller-Remick, LLC.

PROJECT: VAMC Building 10 Slope Stability Assessment LOCATION: 830 Chalkstone Ave, Providence, RI

BORING LOG

DATE START: 7/22/2019

DATE FINISH: 7/23/2019

BORING NO.: B-1

BORING NO.: B-1

PROJECT NO. 19-0829

SHEET: 2 of 2

B O

R

IN

G

W E

LL

9-

.G

P J

S W

C E

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/3

0/

45.0

54.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

KEY TO NOTES & SYMBOLS

Test Boring and Test Pit Explorations

Stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil types and the transition may be gradual.

Key to Symbols Used:

w - water content, percent (dry weight basis) qu - unconfined compressive strength, kips/sq. ft. - laboratory test Sv - field vane shear strength, kips/sq. ft.

Lv - lab vane shear strength, kips/sq. ft.

qp - unconfined compressive strength, kips/sq. ft. – pocket penetrometer test O - organic content, percent (dry weight basis) WL - liquid limit - Atterberg test WP - plastic limit - Atterberg test WOH - advance by weight of hammer WOM - advance by weight of man WOR - advance by weight of rods HYD - advance by force of hydraulic piston on drill RQD - Rock Quality Designator - an index of the quality of a rock mass.

γT - total soil weight γB - buoyant soil weight

Description of Proportions: Description of Stratified Soils

Parting: 0 to 1/16” thickness Trace: 0 to 5% Seam: 1/16” to 1/2” thickness Some: 5 to 12% Layer: ½” to 12” thickness “Y” 12 to 35% Varved: Alternating seams or layers And 35+% Occasional: one or less per foot of thickness With Undifferentiated Frequent: more than one per foot of thickness

REFUSAL: Test Boring Explorations - Refusal depth indicates that depth at which, in the drill foreman's opinion, sufficient resistance to the advance of the casing, auger, probe rod or sampler was encountered to render further advance impossible or impracticable by the procedures and equipment being used.

REFUSAL: Test Pit Explorations - Refusal depth indicates that depth at which sufficient resistance to the advance of the backhoe bucket was encountered to render further advance impossible or impracticable by the procedures and equipment being used.

Although refusal may indicate the encountering of the bedrock surface, it may indicate the striking of large cobbles, boulders, very dense or cemented soil, or other buried natural or man-made objects or it may indicate the encountering of a harder zone after penetrating a considerable depth through a weathered or disintegrated zone of the bedrock.

APPENDIX D

Laboratory Test Results

Project Name PROVIDENCE RI - BOILER HOUSE RETROFIT PROJECT -

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

Project Number 19-0829 Lab ID 18668S

Material Source B-1, 8D, 30.0'-32.0' Date Completed 7/29/2019 Tested By BRADLEY GERSCHWILER

Date Received 7/24/2019

ASTM C-117 & C-136

Client MILLER-REMICK LLC

Report of Gradation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00100.01000.10001.000010.0000100.0000

SIEVE SIZE - mm

AM

O

U N

T

PA

SS

IN

G

3" 2" 1" #10 #20 #40 #100 #2001/2" 1/4"

SIEVE SIZE AMOUNT PASSING (%)STANDARD

DESIGNATION (mm/µm)

No. 4 0% Gravel1004.75 mm No. 10 1002.00 mm No. 20 99850 um No. 40 87.5% Sand90425 um No. 60 62250 um No. 100 31150 um No. 200 12.5% Fines12.575 um

Comments: Moisture Content = 9.0% Sheet

Project Number 19-0829 Lab ID 18669S

Material Source B-1, 11D, 45.0'-47.0' Date Completed 7/29/2019 Tested By BRADLEY GERSCHWILER

Date Received 7/24/2019

ASTM C-117 & C-136

Client MILLER-REMICK LLC

Report of Gradation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00100.01000.10001.000010.0000100.0000

SIEVE SIZE - mm

AM

O

U N

T

PA

SS

SIEVE SIZE AMOUNT PASSING (%)STANDARD

DESIGNATION (mm/µm)

1/4" 1006.3 mm No. 4 0.7% Gravel994.75 mm

No. 10 982.00 mm No. 20 93850 um No. 40 87.9% Sand72425 um No. 60 44250 um

No. 100 23150 um No. 200 11.4% Fines11.475 um

Comments: Moisture Content = 9.7% Sheet

Project Number 19-0829 Lab ID 18670S

Material Source B-1, 15D, 65.0'-67.0' Date Completed 7/29/2019 Tested By BRADLEY GERSCHWILER

Date Received 7/24/2019

ASTM C-117 & C-136

Client MILLER-REMICK LLC

Report of Gradation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00100.01000.10001.000010.0000100.0000

SIEVE SIZE - mm

AM

O

U N

T

PA

SS

SIEVE SIZE AMOUNT PASSING (%)STANDARD

DESIGNATION (mm/µm)

1-1/2" 10038.1 mm 1" 9725.0 mm

3/4" 9019.0 mm 1/2" 8212.5 mm 3/8" 789.5 mm 1/4" 736.3 mm

No. 4 29.2% Gravel714.75 mm No. 10 632.00 mm No. 20 55850 um No. 40 53.6% Sand48425 um No. 60 38250 um No. 100 26150 um No. 200 17.3% Fines17.375 um

Comments: Moisture Content = 11.6% Sheet

Project Number 19-0829 Lab ID 18671S

Material Source B-1, 17D, 75.0'-77.0' Date Completed 7/29/2019 Tested By BRADLEY GERSCHWILER

Date Received 7/24/2019

ASTM C-117 & C-136

Client MILLER-REMICK LLC

Report of Gradation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00100.01000.10001.000010.0000100.0000

SIEVE SIZE - mm

AM

O

U N

T

PA

SS

SIEVE SIZE AMOUNT PASSING (%)STANDARD

DESIGNATION (mm/µm)

3/8" 1009.5 mm 1/4" 976.3 mm

No. 4 3.6% Gravel964.75 mm No. 10 932.00 mm No. 20 80850 um No. 40 84.5% Sand56425 um No. 60 31250 um

No. 100 18150 um No. 200 11.9% Fines11.975 um

Comments: Moisture Content = 17.1% Sheet