NFSR_105_Section_C_Exhibit_5_Geotechnical_Report_Phase_2.pdf

Section C

Exhibit 5 – Geotechnical Report

Geotechnical Investigation Project No. 152019SS Forest Road 105 June 7, 2016 – Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a subsoil investigation carried out at the site of the proposed reconstruction of Forest Road 105, which is located Northwest of Arizona State Route 260 and North of Forest Road 300 to Woods Canyon Lake in Coconino County, Arizona.

Preliminary information calls for the reconstruction of approximately 2 miles of a paved and chip sealed roadway and all other associated infrastructure. The pavement at the site will be subjected predominantly to passenger vehicles with and without trailers and occasional low volume service truck traffic. The purpose of this assessment was to make recommendations for reconstruction of the roadway pavement section and to evaluate the excavatablity of subgrade soils for regrading and possible drainage structure installations. Structural loads are expected to be light to moderate and no special considerations regarding settlement tolerances are known at this time. Adjacent areas will be landscaped or paved to support moderate passenger and light truck traffic. Landscaped areas will be utilized for storm water retention and disposal.

If any significant changes are made in the scope of work or type of construction that was assumed in this report, we must review such revised conditions to confirm our findings if the conclusions and recommendations presented hereafter are to apply.

2.0 GENERAL SITE AND SOIL CONDITIONS

2.1 Site Conditions

The area is bounded on the north by Woods Canyon Lake, on the south by Forest Road 300, and on the east and west by campgrounds and vacant forested land. There is an existing partially paved and predominantly chip sealed roadway that leads to Woods Canyon Lake. The roadway is in poor condition with numerous pot holes. At the time of the investigation, the adjacent areas consist of moderate to heavy growth of Ponderosa Pines, Piñon Pines, Junipers, Oaks and Scrub Oaks, Manzanita shrubs, with low-lying grasses and weeds. Site drainage is generally towards the north-northeast, or to the lake, with variable drainage directions dependent upon location along the area of investigation.

Forest Road 105 June 7, 2016 – Page 2

2.2 General Subsurface Conditions

Shallow subsoils beneath the pavements on the site consist primarily of sandy lean clay, silty/sandy gravel, and sand with subordinate amounts of sand, gravel, cobbles, and small trace boulders.

Underlying these soils is limestone with varying degrees of weathering, as labeled in the Boring Logs as silty sand and gravelly clay. Boring refusal was encountered on cobbles or limestone. Based on visual and tactile observation, the soils were in a ‘moist’ to ‘wet’ state at the time of investigation, typically near or above the plastic limits of the soil. A seasonal spring was encountered during this investigation at Boring B-5, indicated on the Log of Test Borings. This spring appears to flow/drain to the North, through the East side of the upper and lower parking lots and boat ramp through the soil to bedrock interface. The chip sealed pavement in these areas show visible signs of distress and move or ‘pump’ when subjected to traffic.

Laboratory testing indicates liquid limits are on the order of non-plastic to 25 percent with plasticity indices ranging from non-plastic to 12. The percent passing the No. 200 sieve ranges from 7 to 58 percent in the upper 4 feet. Volume increase due to wetting of the upper soils is on the order of 0.1 percent when recompacted to moistures and densities normally expected during construction and confined to 100 psf.

3.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Analysis

Analysis of the field and laboratory data indicates that subsoils at the site are generally favorable for the support of the proposed pavement(s) subject to remedial earthworks. The subgrade will provide only marginal support for pavements due to the presence of seasonal springs and perched groundwater on the shallow soil to bedrock interface, thus resulting in low R values. If paved shoulders or curbs are not used, it is recommended to at least provide a thickened asphalt (“Maricopa”) edge to provide some lateral edge constraint and support. Longitudinal cracking is common where high shrink-swell potential clay subgrade are encountered and are subject to wetting and drying/freezing and resulting in movement.

The seasonally perched groundwater and spring(s) located near B-5 will need special attention during construction. It is recommended to design an underdrain system on the uphill sides of the parking lots extending down to the soil-rock interface to cut-off the flow under the new pavement and direct around or through the lots. Depending on the season the pavement is constructed, the saturated subgrade in this and other area may require removal and replacement with suitable subgrade soils. Cinders are not acceptable for this application due to their weak support and breakdown subject to vehicular traffic.

Forest Road 105 June 7, 2016 – Page 3

Groundwater is also expected to be a factor in the design or construction of shallow foundations and underground utilities should they be considered. This office should be contacted for further design if the client/owner should require these elements.

To increase the overall performance of the new pavement some drainage improvements should be considered. Directing water run off around the parking lots and drives in culverts or ditches rather than allow water to flow over the surface as it currently appears to do around the store and boat ramp area.

This may require some catch basins and culverts.

Excavation operations for shallow utilities should be relatively straightforward although dense surface soils and the dense weathered limestone may impede progress and possibly require the use of heavier excavation equipment and/or rock removal techniques where applicable.

It must be noted that all new asphalt pavements will eventually crack. Cracking in asphalt pavement is typical and should be expected over the life of the pavement. In fact, it has been our experience of late that the new asphalt binders that are available, we are seeing the onset or earlier aging and cracking.

These require routine maintenance to prevent accelerated deterioration. Accordingly, it is highly recommended to establish a maintenance program where the cracks are routinely filled as they appear beginning at about the second year of life. It is also recommended that surface fog seal coats be considered beginning at about year 5 and every 5 years after. This will help preserve the pavements, extending the service life.

3.2 Site Preparation

The entire area to be occupied by the proposed construction should be stripped of all existing pavement(s), vegetation, debris, rubble, and obviously loose surface soils.

Depending on final grades and the pavement section selected, it may be possible to salvage the existing chip seal pavement and any existing aggregate base by cold-milling and blending to create a subbase for a new layer of asphaltic concrete and aggregate base course (ABC). Allowance should still be made for at least 6 inches of new ABC under new paving. A volcanic/cinder base product is no longer acceptable as an aggregate base.

The areas for new pavement reconstruction will require the complete removal of the existing asphaltic surface and substandard aggregate base course to be replaced with a new structural section of asphaltic concrete surface on new aggregate base. This process will likely disturb the underlying subgrade.

Forest Road 105 June 7, 2016 – Page 4

After removal of the existing pavement and aggregate base, the subgrade will require fine grading and compaction prior to the placement of new ABC and asphaltic concrete. The subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density per ASTM D-698. The subgrade should be proof rolled with a heavy rubber tired vehicle such as a loaded water truck to locate unstable areas per MAG 301. When existing subgrade that has been covered with pavement is opened up, it is not uncommon to find soft or loose and wet subgrade that will not stabilize or achieve the compaction required. It should be noted that the subgrade soils were moist at the time of the investigation. Depending on site conditions during construction, it is anticipated that some subgrade stabilization will be required. It is recommended to include a (time and materials) budget line to stabilize soft, wet subgrade in the most cost effective method. Several options are available including allowing time for the subgrade to dry out, removal and replacement with additional subbase (usually 2 feet of stockpiled asphalt millings is sufficient), cement treating (MAG Section 311), or the use of geogrid such as Tensar BX1200 or equivalent per 2014 MAG Section 796 Type 2 with an additional 12 inches of aggregate base. Due to the number of methods available, potential for shallow utility conflicts, and other restrictions, there is no one method that may work best. Once suspect areas are stabilized to the satisfaction of the engineer, the ABC should then be installed.

3.3 Pavement Design

If earthwork in paved areas is carried out to finish subgrade elevation as set forth herein, the subgrade will provide marginal support for pavements. Due to the presence of unstable moist to wet soils and resulting low R value, the structural sections are relatively thick. Consideration has been given to reduce the aggregate base thickness by using a high quality geogrid such as Tensar Triax Geogrid TX5 or TX7 designed and validated to allow for such a reduction. Geogrid should be used in the spring and wet soil condition remediation areas. Contact this office or the Arizona Tensar representative for more information. The section capacity is reported as daily ESALs, Equivalent 18 kip Single Axle Loads. Typical heavy trucks impart 1.0 to 2.5 ESALs per truck depending on load. It takes approximately 1200 passenger cars to impart 1 ESAL. In residential subdivisions, the worst offender, construction traffic, is often over looked. The designer/owner should choose the appropriate sections to meet the anticipated traffic volume and life expectancy.

Forest Road 105 June 7, 2016 – Page 5

Pavement Design Parameters:

Assume: One 18 kip Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL)/Truck Life: 20 years Subgrade Soil Profile:

% Passing No. 200 Sieve: 58% (avg) Plasticity Index: 12 (avg) R-value: 27.9 (per ADOT Tables) MR: 8,420 (per AASHTO formula) Serviceability Initial 4.5 Final 2.5 Reliability: 90% Structural Coefficients:

Asphalt <4”: 0.39 Asphalt≥4”: 0.42

Aggregate Base: 0.12

Table 3.3.1 - Asphalt Pavement – Conventional

Area Daily/Lifetime 18kip ESALs

Asphalt Pavement

AC (0.39/0.42) ABC (0.12)

Parking/Roadway 6/40,620 3.0” 6.0” 11/83,300 3.0” 8.0” 22/160,700 3.0” 10.0”

Roadway 43/315,300 4.0” 8.0”

75/546,322 4.0” 10.0”

Note: Designs are based on AASHTO design equations and Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) correlated R-values.

Forest Road 105 June 7, 2016 – Page 6

Table 3.3.2 - Asphalt Pavement – Reinforced with Tensar Biaxial Grid(1)

Area Daily/Lifetime 18kip ESALs

Asphalt Pavement

AC (0.39/0.42) ABC (0.12)

Parking/Roadway

31/232,000 3.0” 5.0” w/ TX5 83/612,000 3.0” 8.0” w/ TX5 62/451,000 3.0” 7.0” w/TX5 52/377,000 3.0” 5.5” w/ TX7

Note 1: Based on Tensar Triaxial geogrids that have been validated in Accelerated Pavement Testing at the US Army Corp of Engineers. No other manufacture substitutions allowed unless material design has been full scale validated for pavement structure optimization.

This assumes that all subgrades are prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the “Site Preparation” and “Fill and Backfill” sections of this report, and paving operations carried out in a proper manner. If pavement subgrade preparation is not carried out immediately prior to paving, the entire area should be proof-rolled at that time with a heavy pneumatic-tired roller to identify locally unstable areas for repair. Site drainage should be designed to ensure positive drainage of the base and sub base materials. Improper grading of sub base materials will drastically reduce the overall life of the pavement.

Pavement base course material should be aggregate base per M.A.G. Section 702

Specifications. Asphalt concrete materials and mix design should conform to M.A.G. 710 (and any Coconino County or US Forest Service modifications) using the Marshall mix design criteria for low volume traffic and PG 64-22 for the asphalt grade. Reducing the air void content to 3 percent will aid in reducing thermal cracking typical in the area. It is recommended that a 12.5mm or 19.0mm mix designation be used for the pavements. While a 19.0mm mix may have a somewhat rougher texture, it offers more stability and resistance to scuffing, particularly in truck turning areas. Pavement installation should be carried out under applicable portions of M.A.G. Section 321 and municipality standards. The asphalt supplier should be informed of the pavement use and required to provide a mix that will provide stability and be aesthetically acceptable. Some of the newer M.A.G. mixes are very coarse and could cause placing and finish problems.

A mix design should be submitted for review to determine if it will be acceptable for the intended use.

3.4 Fill and Backfill

Native soils are considered suitable for use in general grading fills provided material greater than 3” is screened out. The native soils appear to be sensitive to excessive moisture content and will become unstable at elevated moisture contents. Accordingly, it may be necessary to compact soils on the dry

Forest Road 105 June 7, 2016 – Page 7 side of optimum, especially in asphalt pavement areas. The reduced moisture content under slabs-on-grade should only be used upon approval of the engineer in the field.

Fill should be placed on subgrade which has been properly prepared and approved by a Soils

Engineer. Fill must be wetted and thoroughly mixed to achieve optimum moisture content, ±2 percent (optimum to +3 percent for underslab fill). Granular fill (ASTM Classification GW, GP, SW, SP) can be placed on the dry side of optimum at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer on record.

Fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of 8-inch thickness (or as dictated by compaction equipment) and compacted to the percent of maximum dry density per ASTM D-698 as set forth below.

Frozen material shall not be placed, nor shall fill be placed upon frozen grade.

A. Pavement Subgrade or Fill 95

1. Below slabs-on-grade, i.e.: Sidewalks (expansive soils) 90-95 max B. Utility Trench Backfill

1. More than 2.0' below finish subgrade 95

2. Within 2.0' of finish subgrade (non-granular) 95

3. Within 2.0' of finish subgrade (granular) 100

C. Aggregate Base Course 100 D. Landscape Areas

1. Miscellaneous fill 90

2. Utility trench - more than 1.0' below finish grade 85

3. Utility trench - within 1.0' of finish grade 90

3.5 Utilities Installation

Trench excavations for shallow utilities can be accomplished by conventional trenching equipment. However, deeper utilities below 5 feet from existing grade may require heavy duty excavation equipment and/or rock removal techniques. Trench walls should stand near-vertical for the short periods of time required to install shallow utilities although some sloughing may occur in looser and/or sandier soils requiring laying back of side slopes and/or temporary shoring. Adequate precautions must be taken to protect workmen in accordance with all current governmental regulations.

FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION

On March 31, 2016, 8 borings were excavated at the approximate locations shown on the attached Soil Boring Location Plan. All exploration work was carried out under the full-time supervision of our staff geologist, who recorded subsurface conditions and obtained samples for laboratory testing. The test borings were advanced with Bobcat Tracksteer T-180 with a 9 inch auger attachment. Detailed information regarding the borings and samples obtained can be found on an individual Log of Test Borings prepared for each location.

Laboratory testing consisted of grain-size distribution and plasticity (Atterberg Limits) tests for classification and pavement design parameters. All field and laboratory data is presented in this appendix. A Remolded swell test was performed on a sample compacted to densities and moisture contents expected during construction.

- APPROXIMATE SO IL BORING LOCATIONS Draw ing Courtesy of Woodson Engineering & Surveying

4025 E. HUNTINGTON, SUITE 140 FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA 86004

GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL/MATERIALS ENGINEERS

SO IL BORING LOCATION PLAN

DR:SMK CHK:GAC REV: 05-20-16DATE: PROJECT NO. 152019SS

Forest Road 105Forest Rd 300 to Woods Canyon LakeCoconino County, Arizona

TM

PLT

_20 00.

CA

D

10/ 23/

B-1 B-2

B-3B-4 B-5

B-6

B-7B-8

N

SOIL LEGEND

A grab sample taken directly from auger flights.

A grab sample taken from auger spoils or from bucket of backhoe.

Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D-1586) Driving a 2.0 inch outside diameter split spoon sampler into undisturbed soil for three successive 6-inch increments by means of a 140 lb. weight free falling through a distance of 30 inches. The cumulative number of blows for the final 12 inches of penetration is the Standard Penetration Resistance.

Driving a 3.0 inch outside diameter spoon equipped with a series of 2.42-inch inside diameter, 1-inch long brass rings, into undisturbed soil for one 12-inch increment by the same means of the Spoon Sample. The blows required for the 12 inches of penetration are recorded.

Standard Penetration Test driving a 2.0-inch outside diameter split spoon equipped with two 3-inch long, 3/8-inch inside diameter brass liners, separated by a 1-inch long spacer, into undisturbed soil by the same means of the Spoon Sample.

A 3.0-inch outside diameter thin-walled tube continuously pushed into the undisturbed soil by a rapid motion, without impact or twisting (ASTM D-1587).

Driving a 2.0-inch outside diameter "Bullnose Penetrometer" continuously into undisturbed soil by the same means of the spoon sample. The blows for each successive 12-inch increment are recorded.

DESCRIPTION

Auger SampleAS BS Large Bulk Sample

S Spoon Sample

RS Ring Sample

LS Liner Sample

ST Shelby Tube

Continuous Penetration Resistance

DESIGNATION

SAMPLE

80 100 Liquid Limit

CL-ML

CL

20 40 60

CH

B -Line

A-Line

ML & OL

MH & OH

P lasticity Index

0.075 0.420 2.000

4.75

0.42 2.00 4.75

#200 #40 #10

#4 0.75"

#40 #10 #4

0.75" 3"

3" 12"

12" 36" mmmm Lower Limit Upper Limit

PARTICLE SIZE

MATERIAL

SIZE

SANDS

Fine

Medium Coarse

GRAVELS

Fine

Coarse

COBBLES

BOULDERS

Sieve Size Sieve Size

U.S. Standard Clear Square Openings

Very Soft Soft Firm Stiff

Very Stiff Hard

0 - 2 2 - 4 5 - 8

9 - 15 16 - 30

> 30

0 - 0.25

0.25 - 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1 - 2 2 - 4 > 4

Very Loose Loose

Medium Dense Dense

Very Dense

0 - 4 5 - 10

11 - 30 31 - 50

> 50

Clays & Silts Blows/Foot Strength (tons/sq ft) Sands & Gravels Blows/Foot

CONSISTENCY RELATIVE DENSITY

SW

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH

HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS

GRAVELS WITH

FINES

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

CLEAN

GRAVELS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

SILTS

AND

CLAYS

SILTS

AND

CLAYS

MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION

PASSING ON NO. 4

SIEVE

SAND

AND

SANDY

SOILS

MORE THAN 50% OF

COARSE FRACTION

RETAINED ON NO. 4

SIEVE

GRAVEL

AND

GRAVELLY

SOILS

MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS

SMALLER THAN NO.

200 SIEVE SIZE

FINE

GRAINED

SOILS

MAJOR DIVISIONS

LIQUID LIMIT

GREATER THAN 50

LIQUID LIMIT

LESS THAN 50

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT

OF FINES)

SANDS WITH

FINES

MH

OL

CL

ML

SC

SM

SP

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

TYPICAL

LETTERGRAPH

SYMBOLS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH

PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

CLEAN SANDS

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT

OF FINES)

MORE THAN 50% OF

MATERIAL IS

LARGER THAN NO.

200 SIEVE SIZE

COARSE

GRAINED

SOILS

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY

SOILS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY

CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,

LEAN CLAYS

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR

CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES

POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

CLAY MIXTURES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

SILT MIXTURES

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL

- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO

FINES

PT

OH

CH

GC

GM

GP

GW

DESCRIPTIONS

NOTE: DUAL OR MODIFIED SYMBOLS MAY BE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL

CLASSIFICATIONS OR TO PROVIDE A BETTER GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF THE SOIL

SM

10081777519.8NTNT0.1 - 2.9ASAS-1

0.0 - 4.0 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL

NP

NPNPNP10078746925.6NT

NT

B-4

B-1

0.0 - 3.5ASAS-1B-6

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and

GRAVEL

SP-SMNPNPNP

NP

NP

518.9NTNT0.1 - 2.0ASAS-1B-5

SILTY SAND with GRAVELSM

BULK

4616.1NTNT0.5 - 3.0ASAS-2B-2

SANDY LEAN CLAYCL

NT

10097959358.4NTNT0.7 - 2.5ASAS-2 12

NT

BS-2B-3

SILTY GRAVEL with SANDGM119201005654

20.2

NT0.0 - 4.0AS-1AS-1B-3

SILTY GRAVEL with SANDGM31922

42.0

(P er ce nt o f D ry W ei gh t)

TABULATION OF TEST DATA

SO

IL

B

O R

IN

G o r

PL

A

ST

IC

L

IM

IT

IN

-P

LA

C

E D

R Y

D

EN

SI

TY

N A

TU

R

A L

W A

TE

R

C O

N

TE

N T

LIMITS

ATTERBERG

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

SA

M

PL

E

N U

M B

ER

PL

A

ST

IC

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

NT

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

Forest Rd 300 to Woods Canyon Lake Sieve analysis results do not include material greater than 3". Refer to the actual boring logs for the possibility of cobble and boulder sized materials.

NT=Not Tested

SA

M

PL

E

IN

TE

R

VA

L (ft

3" S

IE

VE

#4 S

IE

VE

#1

SI

EV

E

#4

SI

EV

E

#2

S

IE

VE

(P ou nd s

Pe r C ub ic

F oo t) ofSheet Coconino County, Arizona

Forest Road 105

(Percent Finer)

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Project No. 152019SS

AS-1 NPNPNP1003129287.2NTNTAS

B-8

B-7

SILTY SANDSM319221001009894

1.0 - 3.0

NP

TE

ST

P

IT

N U

M B

ER

SPECIMEN

DESCRIPTIONC

LA

SS

IF

IC

A

TI

O N

U N

IF

IE

D S

O

IL

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and

SAND

GP-GM

GP-GM

NP

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and

SAND

1004745448.9NTNT0.2 - 3.0ASAS-1

T A

B U

LA

T

IO

N

O F

T E

S T

D A

T A

S S

.G P

J G

E N

G E

O .G

D

6/

2/

NP

15.010.05.00.0 20.0

ASTM SOIL DESCRIPTION:

Forest Road 105PROJECT:

NPPLASTICITY INDEX:

SAMPLE NO.: BS-2

PLASTIC LIMIT:

SM

D698A

Forest Rd 300 to Woods Canyon Lake

SILTY SAND with GRAVEL

NP

CLASSIFICATION:

LIQUID LIMIT: NP

G E

O T

E C

H P

R O

C T

O R

S S

.G P

J

/2

/1

MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: 115.1 PCF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: 12.4%

SAMPLE DEPTH: 0.001 to 4.001

D R

Y D

E N

S

IT

Y

P C

F)

BORING NO.: B-3

MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

METHOD OF COMPACTION:

DATE: 3/31/16

LABORATORY NO.: TK719

PROJECT NO.: 152019SS

MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONS

LOCATION:

100B-3, BS-2

MAXIMUM

DRY DENSITY

(pcf)

SAMPLE

DEPTH, ft

BORING or TEST PIT No.

SWELL TEST DATA

REMOLDED

DRY DENSITY

(pcf)

0.1

INITIAL

MOISTURE

CONTENT (%)

14.695.610.1110.012.4115.14.0 ofSheet Project No. 152019SS Coconino County, Arizona Forest Rd 300 to Woods Canyon Lake Forest Road 105

OPTIMUM

MOISTURE

CONTENT (%)

S W

E

LL

T E

S

S S

.G P

J G

E N

G E

O .G

D

6/

2/

CONFINING

LOAD

(psf)

FINAL

MOISTURE

CONTENT (%)

TOTAL

SWELL (%)

PERCENT

COMPACTION