4
I
i+ I ~
?
c ~w &95L4falA14&~ ~ ~"i '; ~ ~.i,
t'iI
4~C'r
~a
~
i.. I
U.S. ARMYENGINEER DIVISIONLABORATORY
SOUTH ATLANTIC
IIII
h ~
II
)
I
J/ ~
yi
-'$,'
LARGE SCALE TRIAXIALSHEAR AND PERMEABILITY TESTS
SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
f'i"i,„' ),, ™
tT~ ai'3(
~.goo/oo i jot»l<~~
R0gZ4o o &k
jl>W
'AFi" '
APRIL 1975CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MARIETTA, GEORGIARequisition No'.
H-02022~p i
gA
F90 2220 07+~ . fii I
i'i'P i ~>C~~~~Xr~%,
Work Order No.9051
*
*S
I
e
1
r~ ~
I ~
I
w ~ » ~
PREFACE
The Carolina Power and Light Company'CP 6 L), Raleigh,
North C rolina, in.a letter dated 4 October 1974, requested that
the U. S. Army Engineer Division Laboratory, South Atlantic, perform
laboratory tests on material from a random rockfill sample taken from
a test section at Weir Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Site. The test
program was authorized by Office, Chief of Engineers, in the firstindorsement, DAEN-CWO, 11 November 1974, to letter SADEN-L, 25 October
1974, sub)ect: "Request for Approval to Perform 15-In. Triaxial
Shear Test Program for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Carolina
Power and Light Company". Tests conducted were: a 15-in. diameter
consolidated undrained triaxial shear test, grain size analyses, and
14»in. diameter constant head permeability tests.
The work was performed under the general direction of
Mr. Robert J. Stephenson, P.E., Director, South Atlantic'ivision
Laboratory. The laboratory tests were supervised by Messrs.
William L. Tison, Civil Engineer, and Coy A. Colwell, Supervisory
Civil Engineering Technician. The ana]ysis of the data and prep-
aration of this report were performed by Mr. William L. Tison.
~ r
s).=
)l
gr!
r'l~
I~ r y ~
I
Ilr.i,",inc'r'~r ~ ~ 4trr'v.. ~~~1 ahi~ ~ ~ i i~ i',,~~v ~ ". r irag~e.pei~~peyr.-;i~
I
I
t
~ 5
~ .'. 5
~ I ~ I~ M ~I 5 pl
~ ~ +44 « ~ 4 'I<A~ lltk45» I\XLhWb~ka 4«6 I l(4%A 'Nate w c ~, ' tu I,~ 5 ', ~
CONTENTS
~Pa e
reface «» ««««» ««««««««««««««««««»«««««»»«««««««»««»«««jip
Conversion Factors, British to Metric Unitsof Measurement- iv
Ob)ect
References »«««»« .1
Special Equipment «» «««» 1
Description of Sample- «3Scope of Tests-
Test Procedures
Test Results-
Discussion of Test Results
13
13
I~ g
5Conclusions 17
APPENDIX. Individual Test Reports
k~ 4'
«I
5%
'I
Ic, ~
Jp,'«5
IpI iI;I
~ f
~ g ~
~ ~
, ~'5I
l,I/ <,.,+«I «45PyI4lv g, QW/~.tel«~+ $ 4 5 5',I QI " q «,a « ~ / JQ ', P ''5« i,v e ~ * y 5 ~ ~ ~, ~ sI
I
~ ~
~ »I'"t 4crgiry. (55t'f4'yyay~~t'
'A
r
air
i ~ ( a ~' «««'l
e 4~
„~ f~ .» a p'««fax tp«t»«»Lt u A a >e~o,tt 6 ...~.„: > ~ ~ ~ "vr'',. o w ~ ~ av;g... >s «)at '« '4
CONVERSION FACTORS
BRITISH TO METRIC UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
British units of measurement used in this report can be convertedY
to metric units as follows:«
Multi 1 To Obtain
inches
pounds
cubic feet
2.54 centimeters
0.45336 kilograms
0.028317 cubic meters
pounds per square inch(ps i)
703.1 kilograms per square meter
tons per square foot 0.9765
centimeters per second 1.969
kilograms per square centimeter
feet per minute
g'st ~
<'i~)t
1 ~
t ~
S'
e'~ ~
iv
'QP'8<' ) J(4 0 t' 't«i ~ " ~[««~st, 0 t ~ «mitt y «» H \+ I~ p I 'P ~ ) qlPP'P%'0+$ ';l 't ~ 'P '0 gv, ) t' ~ +)» ~fPI
f
5'V
4.
.0I ~
LARGE SCALE TRIAXIALSHIKAR AND PERMEABILI1Y TESTSSHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLAgT
1 OBJECT:
The ob)ect of the test program was to determine the gradation of
the rockfill sample and the triaxial shear and permeability character-
istics of specimens reconstituted from the random rockfill sample.
2. REFERENCES:
Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Engineer
Manual No. 1110-2-1906, Laboratory Soils Testing, 30 November 1970.
+I(
~ 'j
;i>,'
I',
3 ~ SPECIAL EQUI'ENT:
a. Controlled-Strain Triaxial Device (Figure 1). The unit accom-
modates a specimen'15 inches in diameter by 32 inches high and is capable
of a maximum chamber pressure of 400 psi. Axial load is applied by a
14-in. diameter, 200,000 lbs. capacity hydraulic ram fastened to a
5 in. diameter piston. The piston seats in a socket on the specimen
loading cap. Specimen drainage is through a 2.5-in. diameter Norton
porous stone in the pedestal and a similar 1.25-in. diameter stone
in the specimen cap. Drainage lines are 1/4-in. polyethelene tubing
with Whitey needle valves and Swagelok quick-connect couplers. The
interior of the specimen is connected to a 6-in. diameter aluminum
saturation reservoir having a capacity of 19,000 ml with 100 ml
graduations. The chamber fluid is connected to a 5-in. diameter,
11,500 ml aluminum reservoir with 100 ml graduations. During saturation,
'
4t4E
T
h I
0
0
~i
1 ~,,
gj
$~ ~
~ ~r '
~
Fig. 1 « Unassembled triaxial shear test apparatus. In theforeground are the collar, split mold, rubber mem-brane, and membrane stretcher utilized in preparingthe test specimens.
L
Pig. 2 - Equipment set up for constant-head permeabilitytests on.rockfill material.
C g V
ri~r,'
V
: a 2000 ml lucite burette with 10 ml graduations is connected to the
specimen through the upper drainage line.,~
~
S
r,.1
b. Permeameter (Figure 2). The permeameter is open ended and
accommodates a specimen 14 inches in diameter and 18 inches high. A
column of water equal in diameter to the test specimen is the source
of flow through the specimen. The permeameter is constructed with
three overflow pipes at different heights above the specimen top so
the constant head elevation can be varied. The permeameter is placed
inside a larger diameter container with an overflow which maintains
the tail water at a constant height.
pC~I
c. Gradation E ui ment. A large Tylab mechanical shaker con-
taining six screens from the 3-in. to the 3/8-in. sieve sizes was
used. Larger sizes werc separated by hand over a series of screens
with openings up to 8-inches. Rocks over G-in, size were measured
with templates. Conventional equipment was utilized to grade the
No. 4 to the No. 200 sieve sizes.
4. DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE:
All test specimens were reconstituted with material from an
8-ton random rockfill sample taken from a field test section by
CP 6 L personnel (Figure 3). The material classified as brown. siltygravel sizes (GM) with some cobble sizes. All of the sample was finer
than 24-in. size and 17 percent was finer than the No. 200 sieve size
(Plate 1)*. The soil had a liquid limit of 35 and a plastic limit
+All plates are contained in the Appendix.
' C
I ~ 'r r rrrrI I(» ~ ' I (r ~ %)IVl rr'sa't( avr(
\ ~
of 27 CP 6 L furnished the field compacted in-place density and
Ii( ~~
moisture content which were 135.0 pcf dry density and 5.0 percent
water content, respectively.
5. SCOPE OF TESTS:
The gradation of the total sample, air dried, was obtained and
a "replacement gradation" containing minus 3»in. sizes established
for the tests. Three 15-in. diameter triaxial specimens with the
replaced gradation (Plate 2) were compacted to the field density and
moisture conditions and tested "in consolidated undrained triaxial
shear with pore pressure measurements (R Tests). Confining pressures
( g~) of 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 tons per square foot were applied. The
grain size distribution of each specimen after shear was obtained to
determine the degree of particle breakdown due to compaction and
shear forces. Three 14-in. diameter specimens were prepared simi-
h.r
1
r%'
'
larly with various gradations for permeability tests. The grain
size distribution of these specimens after testing were also deter-
mined.
6. TEST PROCEDURES:
a. Gradation. The total sample was spread out and air dried.
The plus 8-in. sizes were separated and graded by hand using a series
of templates. The minus S«in. to plus 3-in. sizes were graded by
I jr r
rr~ .
,"1l,r, ~ (
hand using the large screens. The minus 3-in. sizes were graded
'~(rll+%t 'I t,+~+>IVV;w.pip ~4tlrpr(r g+ 'I) t pv)'I „I l'rtrhs ':, rl'r-~, "",~.'(r(I r, ('Il,II'lr>'(vtr lr err t't re ' ~ r Ir l,tlat rtgtr»(,Ir~ ~ ~ r ~
I@A
~ I ~ ~ 4 III A ~ ~ ' ~ Ar ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ &
Pig. 3 - Sample from random rockfill test section at ShearonHarris Nuclear Power Plant when delivered to SAD
Laboratory.
Cv'cgCrl lL
S.
~f+CTIII
Pig. 4 - Material prepared with the replaced gradation toform one lift in the 15-in. triaxial shear testspecimen.
Ct ( ~4'r1",rl„(-,) P(,4 fIr/44(fig+~ pl~1.Ir i~ I+7+ tP~Prr.~..gg..gr ~ r,II;;7.g ( W,,~' ~ '" ': ~, ~ ~' .-,V(1$
4 01
4W
4
'V =
4
4~
~ ~
«
Vl ~ ~,'a« ~ «4'1 'Q4 ~ 1%+vh» a«« ~ Il'' » ~ » «» 4»atada
~ ~
« ~~ ~
through the Tylab shaker in batches of about 40 lbs. Shaking time
was the minimum required to obtain a "clean" separation without unduly
breaking down the particles further. This was usually about 8 minutes.
A conventional sieve analysis was performed on a representative sample
of the minus No. 4 sieve sizes as outlined in App. V of the reference.
~,J'. Triaxial Shear Test. Except as noted below, the triaxial
shear test procedure was genexally the same as that outlined in paxa-
~ >«graph 7 of Appendix X to the reference.
(1) Preparation of Specimen. For each specimen, four sepa-
x'ate equal-weight batches of air-dry material were prepared by combining
the necessary amount of each sieve size to obtain the minus 3-in. sizes
xeplaced gradation (Figure 4). The replaced gradation was based on a
total gradation furnished by CP & L instead of on the total gradation
«
~ 4
A~4
,'C
~ ~
«.~r'*»r~~~
«p,«
««!r.
~ >V«;
j.ft>
')~,««
ll
'';ty
iC'l .,T;;
«
'
of the sample submitted. The gradation furnished by CP & L had been
developed fry a number of field tests and was believed to be more
representative of the in-situ compacted rockfill without additional
processing. Each batch was mixed at 5 percent water content and
placed in aix tight 'containers until needed for preparation of the
test specimen. Each of the prepared batches was quartered and the
quarter-portions compacted individually into the rubber membrane-
lined mold and collar placed on the .triaxial base. Thus, each specimen
was formed in 16"lifts. Each liftwas spread inside the mold and then
compacted to the required thickness (Figure 5) with a large compaction
-4 ~
)
JS
ll
I
C ~
'C
I
1
5
JP+ 'I
Fig. 5 - Top of one liftafter compaction inside the moldforming the 15«in. Itriaxial shear test specimen.
A;
}«"vl
'i
'7„(
i".'
pi~:.
.,r
)lI
~ .'(p.
Fig. 6 - Prepared specimen for 15-in. diameter triaxial sheartest. inclosed by water tight membrane.
~ ~
~'I
~ lr '
'anNLer previously fabricated for standard compaction tests in a
12-in. diameter mold. The lifts were compacted to obtain a uniform ~
~4,''
dry density of approximately 135.0 pounds per cubic foot at 5 percent
water content. The collar and mold were removed and the specimen cap
secured. Initial dimensions of the specimen were measured and water
tight membranes placed around the specimen (Figure 6).
(2) Saturation Procedure: The apparatus was completely
assembled, (Figure 7), the chamber filled with water, and saturation
of the specimen initiated through the bottom by means of a vacuum on
the top of the specimen. Approximately 2000 cc of water was allowed
\ ~
( I
to flow from the top of the specimen. The vacuum was then replaced
by back pressure. To insure complete saturation, the back pressure
was increased in 14 psi increments to a total of 63 psi.
~L
I
M
.pl 4J
J
(3) Consolidation Procedure: When 100 percent saturation
was indicated, the chamber pressure was increased to the required
test confining pressure (M3). Volume change measurements were
obtained from the interior burette and plotted versus logaritham
of time until primary consolidation was accomplished.
(4) Compression Procedure: The piston was brought into
contact with the specimen cap and the load indicator set to zero.
All valves were closed to prevent drainage and the specimen axially
loaded at a controlled strain rate of about 0 ' percent per minute.
Load, deflection, and pore pressure measurements were taken during
fi 4'. ~
„I„„~ F ~St ~
~ ~
~ e
Fig. 7 - Assembled test chamber for 15-in. diameter triaxialshear test with contxol console on right.
~ ', ~ 4'
P
:I ~ ~ . ~ '
~ I
/ ~
shear. Loading was discontinued at 20 percent axial strain. The
chamber was then dismantled, (Figure 8), the membrane removed, and
the oven-dry weight and after-test gradation of the total specimen
determined (Figures 9, 10, & ll).'.
Permeabilit Test:
(1) Preparation of Specimen: Each specimen was prepared
similar to the triaxial shear specimen using four equal-weight batches
compacted in four lifts to form the specimen inside the permeameter.
-Various gradations were used in an attempt to produce an after test
F
gradation equivalent to the replaced gradation corresponding to the
total gradation furnished by CP & L. This was in order to test a
specimen with gradation as close as possible to the in-situ rockfill
gradation.
IM
I~
(2) Test Procedure: The pezmeameter was placed in the large
container which was filled with water and the specimen saturated by
IL ~
rl'
PJi;rI~
rl'~
jr
seepage through the bottom for 24 hours. Water flow into the perm-
eameter was then regulated to maintain a constant head water elevation
at the first overflow pipe. Flow through the specimen, top to bottom,
produced by the differential head was measured for a given time. This
was repeated for two more increasing differential heads. The apparatus
was then dismantled and the dry weight and after-test gradation of the
entire specimen determined.
10
,r't> 'h+ g'P~Q W~P ~ %f7 'JPP g \O'J ~ f P+Ar ~ % ~ r,,rfV'0» r'J<'L ~ 'Vq, -ra--=:—, W V 'rrral'rrr rr r ~ r V rNyr Jr~r ~ ~err ~
"7
I
r ~
~~, Ar
-.3''I
.I
p='
~ ~ rr 4'I v~ '
'
\
ja,a
..I„rt
~ I
~l
fIl'w;":f
I
'r
r,I
,L,
I
1
3
, 'I~ ~
IIII «r e ~ aery Cr
a ~ IIJ.J
Ieaa «I ae aa
f.\ ~
,t
e
~< r'~ W v v«eaka ah Agf
e1I4 v.;,IrIr
C'
Fig. 8 - Specimen after 15-in. triaxialshear test before the membranehas been removed.
.Pig. 9 - Specimen after triaxial testat 1 tsf confining pressure .
( g).
C M
'I
V'
* „. 5
~ 55
m ««»«..~>~h «. "~~~i »S~.~,i>«'~W„C,pr<„.~«5+'it ~ i 5 V~. ~TA ««,/55>jl)'5 5 5 j i,i, .5,«j «, 5 ) ~ 45 ' . v 55'.
~ ~
CI
if5
S5
5
~ .
'5
t5
5 J r
5'
— '.?
5'
~ ~
'i'«p55««««15 ~ ~0««« ~~ 5 ~ r iff1 I~ ~
57 ~~ ««5 5
~ C
5
I
~5
«
Pig. 10 - Specimen after triaxial testat 2 tsf confining pressure( ~3)
Fig. 11 - Specimen after triaxia1 testat 4 tsf confining pressure( ~j) ~
T
r
f»»
»
7. TEST RESULTS:
The results of all the tests are shown on standard forms in the
»
Appendix hereto as listed below.
~ g
Test
Total Gradation Report (ENG Form 2087)
Plate No.
Gradation Curves for the Triaxial Test(ENG Form 2087)
Triaxial Compression Test Report (ENG Form 2089)
Permeability Test No. 1 Report (SAD Form 1971)
Permeability Test No. 2 Report (SAD Form 1971)
»~
Permeabi.lity Test No. 3 Report (SAD Form 1971)
r'»
'
~ g»
»
V<
g»
» ~
pi„'»
8. DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS:
a. Triaxial Shear (Plate 3). The remolded test specimens aver-
aged 4.5 percent water content and 135.6 pcf dry density. These were
considered satisfactory when compared to the field water content of
5.0 percent and dry density of 135.0 pcf. This density was obtained
in the laboratory without using what would be considered excessive
compactive effort. The procedure did not provide a means to measure
particle breakdown due to compaction alone. Figure 5 indicates the
larger sizes were breaking down somewhat during specimen preparation.
Final saturation computations and pore pressure observations indicated
100 percent saturation was achieved. The strain rate of 0.1 percent'»
per minute was slow enough to allow equalization of the induced pore
13
»~5 j V', »'hr Q ~ . ~ g ~ ~ ~ I „'»»-. ~ »',.« - ~ »» s V. '» . »» V. V»» ~ ~ »», %»i t, ',» 4 rf ~ » h .~.»» . \,.,»»~ll,». '»'; ~ V ~ », 4»»» ~ '"»','g ~ ~,V»».»» t »F'd.l "2), ~
C4
1
~ I ~ ~ « I -9 ~ «4\ ~ L «A 1 c,lk.
pressures throughout the specimens. In each .specimen, the maximum
induced pore pressure was reached at'bout, 4.5 percent axial strain'nd
showed very little dissipation thereafter. Deviator stress
( 8~- 8>) increased with'axial strain i.n each specimen. The shear
strength parameters were arbitrarily computed at 15 percent axial
strain. The total strength envelope thus obtained indicated an. in-
ternal friction angle (g) of 20o and-a cohesion intercept of O.l tsf.
~ ~
The corresponding effective strength envelope (9') is 40.0o with
0.0 cohesion. These strengths are comparable to data. obtained pre-
% ~
viously on 15-in. diameter tests performed on similar materials.
The after»test gradations for the three triaxial test specimens
show there was some breakdown of particles. The percent passing
the No. 4 sieve size increased an average of about 4.5 percent.
The indication that most of the particle breakdown occurred during
specimen preparation rather than during shear was evident since the
specimen at the highest confining pressure (56 psi) did not break
~'I~ ~l
1
'I"
"pl,'1:
P
Nl
SI),
\ ~
~~
< ~1
I
down si.gnificantly more than the one tested at the lowest confining
pressure {14 psi).
were made on each of three separate specimens with different grada-
tions. The results are summarized in Table I.'1) The first gradation was the same as that used in the
triaxial test. It produced consistent permeability coefficients
14
~VW P ~ P f VI~ k )t $ 4+ ~ ~ 8 ~ P '('tW tag 7 ~ yl )4 ~ 4 I 'ft ~ r~ .~ ~ . ~ i ~i ~ >e, .% ~i ~~i ~ awe;egr,w,.%
P
'i
I
e
'I I '
1
Ik t( «.l «4l«h»C1% ~ I » ii I~ " « ~ \ l«%<I ~ I « ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ C «Cl, ~ w, ~ 5 « ~ ~ ' I
~ ~
SUMMARY OF PREMEABILITY TEST
X Passing X PassingTest Ho. 4 Sieve No. 4 Sieve Differential K 0 x 10««*'- *- cm/sec
RunNo.
32.4(1
32 6'2(3
11.418.452.5
14.911.215.4
32.4(1
36.5 (2(3
11. 318.736.3
91.774.621.2
28.0I (134. 1 (2
(3
11. 118.536.1
74.658.513. 9
)«'l
t< ~~«,~ \»
«C«
» 'I „
I
15
~l.C
r% >PL ~ «>l5c'0 +lwFl'"tPwlg~~, »»«Q'P~.rwJ4rgc«icnf5'/ ~ ~ i') ~ ' > ' i ««c«»'I)III«g'ii'<I«,y'I
r.
N
e
tion indicated
breakdown of the gravel-size particles but less than one percent in-
crease in the amount passing the No. 4 sieve. The latter was believed
to be erroneous because of the amount of breakdown in the gravel sizes.
It is likely that when the specimen was oven dried the fines stuck toI
the larger particles making an accurate gradation difficult.
(2) The second specimen was prepared with a coarsergradation'n
the gravel sizes but the same percent passing the No. 4 sieve. The
range of the measured permeability coefficients were significantly
greater (21.2 to 91.7 x 10"4.cm/sec). The apparent decrease in per-
meability during continued testing was attributed to migration of the
fines. The after«test gradation indicated an increase of about four
percent passing the No. 4 sieve size. This was comparable to the
breakdown in the triaxial test. Extra effort was made to obtain a
"cleaner" after-test gradation on this specimen.
(3) The third permeability specimen was much coarser with
28.0 percent passing the No. 4 sieve. This gradation was a further
attempt to obtain an after-test gradation equal to the actual or
theoretical replaced gradation corresponding to the field gradation
obtained by CP & L. The after-test percent passing the No. 4 was
less than two percent higher than desired, but the permeability co-
efficients were slightly less than the values obtained in the second
test, Though somewhat inconsistent with the gradation, this tended
16
!
a
C
"~i'k
to confirm the permeability values in the second hand third tests.
9. CONCLUSIONS:
a. Triaxial Shear. The shear strength parameters measured in
the R Tests are comparable to the strengths obtained previously on
similar materials. In fact, the characteristics of the sample tested
in this program are very much like material tested from the New Hope
Dam in North Carolina. Therefore, the data obtained on this sample
from the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant are considered quite
reliable.
*
in these tests varied, experience indicates their order of magnitude
is reasonable for this type material. It is difficult to obtain con-
sistent permeability data in laboratory tests with relatively small
diameter specimens on very coarse materials that contain significant
quantities of finer sizes, Thc finer particles are often insufficient
to fillall of the voids between the coarser rocks so there is littledoubt that these finer sizes migrate with the flow of water through
the specimen during the test. As a result, they accumulate in spots,
restricting the flow of water and producing rather conservative (low
permeability) data compared to what would be obtained if a true field
'fIe ~
sample could be tested. Nevertheless, the permeability coefficients
measured on the material in these tests are in the range of "good
drainage" suitable for pervious sections of dams and dikes. Typically,
values of this order of magnitude are obtained on clean sands or clean
sand and gravel mixtures.17
I ~, ~ ~ V 'C ~ ~ l~ ~; @PIC@ ~L'. ly. y, jt'lg:~ oC. w ~ ~ Eh ~, ~, „. ~„a f~. ~ l, ~ „,' tl,w l ~ i ~ s» i ll,i Iw t -'' ~ Ã 'l 4~, ~, 0
4
*1 t M ~
~ oA
l
~ I
~ ~ I APPENDIX
~ ~ INDIVIDUALTEST REPORTS
Test
Total Gradation-
Gradation Curves for Triaxial Test ---
~Pa e
Al
A2
Triaxial Compression Test --------«- A3
Permeability Test No. 1
Permeability Test No. 2--A4
~s os m A5
Permeability Test No. 3 A6
E 'I
C
1 JC
'k
t f
CI
DEPART.IBG'F THE'R".fY, SOUTH ATiKELTIC DIVISION LABORATORY,CORPS OF ENGIiIEERS, 611 SOUTH COBB DRIVE, MARIETTA, GA. 30061
WORK ORDER NO. 9051:WEQ "'O H-02022
-1'V
U. S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES24M12 8 6U. S. STANOARO SIEVE NUMBERS
3 4 6 8 10 1416 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200
HYDROMETER
10
C, n
IC-.
n
r.I'~
'
I
-" 60Ã
CN~ 50
IZ
0
BIN
ion—
IX40 ~
CCI
CN
50 I/l
oCP
IX60 CJ
jI
In
hP
0
10
OX ~mpj:
10 5GRAIN QZE IN MILUMETERS
0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005100
0.001
\
'I
't
~ C
SCNICI'C NO.
VR-24-3-7
COBBLES
EIev IN DCgW
210.0'-225.0
GRAVEL
Brown silt ravel sizesGN~w/ao.-..e cobble sizes
Moisture content of sample
GRADATION CURVES
IIGYUIC
~ Wg
5
hen r
LL PL
35 27
ceive ~PI
SILT OR C1AY
earon arr s uc ear overn .~ Plant CP&L
Lab; No. 145/393
Acs Plant Excavation
NNNNN Nnm~l~nNn 4-2-10 January 1975
EHG, ',""„2087 Plate l.
4~
Pl
I''
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION LABORATORY,
CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 611 SOlEll COBB DRIVF., MARIETTA, GA. 30061PORK ORDER NO.
9051'EQ,
NO, CPL NO. H"-02022
U.S. STANOARO SEVE OPENING IN INCHES86 4 2 1 1
U. S. STANOARO SIEVE NUMBERS
3 4 6 8 10 1416 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200HYDROMETER
10
ra 3.on s t
70
603dtIZ
50
I
. fLlrni,Shedb"scdI on C
tda al.
e tg
pl
a at
-grat
03
P RIXId'4l
dt
50 III
%o
8Ia
60 4lCJ
30ra) atio 8 si RT
COBBLES
100 50 10 5 0.5GRAIN SITE IN MILLIMETERS
O.l 0.05 QOl 0.005
SILT OR CLAY
1000.001
SadI."'. No,
..'-24-3-7EIev 'dr tkIc4
210.0'2~0'otalcLaaaIScaod
Bro.:n well graded siltygra:el (Gh'-G:t) w/a littlecobbles
GRADATION CURVES
Nat wg6.0 35
PIPL
27 8
earOn arr3.S uC ear Ower~«alaIII, CP&L
I.ab; No. 145/393 (R Test)
A~ Plant Excavation
ammglaE Sam le No. VR-24-3-7
14 February 1975
EHG ..'.„".",. 2087 Plate 2
~
'\
.; ~ I aaIrISaIatQ:4 4a ~ o i wdkoa ~ ao
I
r
~ ~ ~
0CaS0
0
nI OC2 Ch
~ ~0 0A
~ ~
8 0Or
Ts 4I
TS
a~I
00
S
O
4
0
~ aX ~
4&ii
2 4 6Normal Stress, 0, T/sq ft
10
~o
Cl
Cl
0
Test No.
Water content
Void ratioSaturationry ens ys
1h cu ft
vo
So
yd
4.5 4 4.5
271 .270
135,6 135.7
4.6
. 272
135.5
~ ~
A
0 0
g A
Q 0A O
'al c2
n p%OO
0
e0
00 5 lo 15 20
Axial Strain, $
'Shear Str Pa te s
'Mater content
Void ratioSaturation
n ac pres-sure T s
Mater content
Void ratio
vc
cc
Sc
9.4 $ 9.2
.258 .255100.0 < 00.0 <
4.50 4.5094 4 92. 258 . 255
8.4
.233100.0~
4.508.4.233
20 0
tan e .364 .839Ool 0 ' T/sq
a
Notho4 ot oataoaIIoo
D Controlled stress
Controlled strain
incr priqc pstress T/sq ft 03Max deviatorstress, T/sq ft ( 1 3)max
1.00 2.001.45 1.99
Time to failure, min tfRate of strain,
rcent/min
150
0.10150
0.10~ Strain at(col o3)U)t de i o (cl 0 )
Initial diameter, in. go
Initial height, in. 8
14.87 . 14o86
1.45 l. 99
14.88 14.8832.00 32.00
4.004.49150
0.1014.93
4.4914.8832.00
35 PL 27
~~ l. See labclassifi-'at
on ata on
PI 8 Os 2.76 WtdoAvgearon arr s uc ear owerect Plant CP6L
Lab. No. 145/393Plant Excavation
TyPe of test R TyPe of sPecimen Remolded*
Brown well raded silty gravel (GW-GM) w/a little cobbles
2. +Specimens requested to Boring No. Sample No. VR-24-3"7
be remolded to 135.0 pcfry ens y a wa er
DeP h 210. 0'-225. 0 'ate 15 Feb 1975
KUAXXALCOHPRE!SION TEST REPORT
2089 (EK lf10 2 l902) Plate 3PIICVIOUS COITIONS AIIC OISOI CTC
TRAlVSLUCEN1'3
o 'rt ~ ~ot:rar,oa>a r r 'a, «cor ro a I or ~ Itr oq . r, <a< o> ~ s >»o
J
Hl.
CA
"C
8 f
P
1
~ ~ ~ ~ + v 'w> i + ~
D","AR:i"..'.Q'P T!IE AV.K, SOUTH
CC:PS C: Z GI:CHEERS, 611 SOUTH
ATLANTIC DIVISION LABORATORY,
COBB DR.,MARIETTA, GA. 30061
'
REQN. NO. CPL NO. H-02022W. 0. NO. 9051
~ ~
U.S. STANDAlD SIEVE OPENING fN INCHES U.S. STANDAlD SIEVE NUPABERS
b 4 4 2 Ihh I iA 6 5 3 A b 810141b 20 30 40 5070100I40200HYDROMETER
0
40
,.fter10
20
70
bO
Z 50
V~ 40
30
20
L: ta
rae.'t .
ationpecL?i
r e di
ecire olde
d ns1t
uc.tepc
to
30
9.0 >
500LJ
bo QIJ
70 <
IO
~r~ t
ghee 5
10
0500
coeetxs
100 SO
COAR5L
IO 5 0.5GlAIN SIZE AAIJ.IALETElS
co Abc HkDKJM SINE
0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005
SLT 0% CLAT
1000.001
Type of SpecimenBefore Test
3 I am in. Ht 17 ( 3 in. water content,w
Classi f icat ion;, '-l::l)M/a l.' feLL Gs 2. 76
Void Ratio, eo
Saturation, S
. 272
5
Wf
er
Sf
After Test
9.6. 272
5
~ltctShearon liarris Nuclear Pc':erP ant, OPAL
4S/ 9
Plant Excavation
si~rLt wo. VR-24-3-I
7 'lo= 0." r.-:
SAD rOF41 197!21 J': f 1964
ory oensity. 7d "2o 13.2 " N/sec
p,iriabI.ij!Constant Head PERXEA8ILITY TEST REPORT
14 Tcb 1975 ,","fo.o'-25.0'est
No. 1
Plate 4
'P- I'
~
/
L
DEPARTHEL T OP TIIE A."...'%i, SOUTIi ATLANTIC DEVXSTON LABORATORY,
CORPS OF E!;GI;:EERS, 611 SOUTH CQBB DR.,MRTETTA, CA. 30."61CPL '.:0. If-C 20" 214. 0. M. 9051
r ~
t
U.S. STANOARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMbERS
d 4 2 IYi I la Yi 5 3 4 8 810 14th 20 30 40 50 TO 100 I40 200HYtÃOMETER
0
~ ~
10
s ra a 20
" 80
X~ 50
40
30
io
Grad
Teseen
8 eqtte007. Sfat
r ep aced
r e -R placf Pe m~ "3'»
f.f eretlti! ad(c..
ll.3
18.736.3'l
21
10
cc
30
9
500V
eo trLJ
TO
80
0500
CCIES
100 50
COAt5fGRAVEL
10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05GRAIN SIZE MKLIMETERS
coktsf MtONM
0.01 0.005
Sa,t CÃ CLAY
1000.001
27 OLO
TyPe of SPec i<en Rc olded
Oi~ 13 86 in. Ht 17 ~ 63 in.rown ~-e, gzactc .;-. y graveTotal Classilication (G~'-GIl'jw a ll.litle
LI. Os 2.76
After TestSefore Test
water Content,w
Void Ratio, eo
Saturation, So
Ory Oensity, Td
S leal Dn ii:llris Is c leg rQIttoxo50 5wf Lab..;o. 145/393
plane Excavation
10.0
ef 0.2770.277
49 6 s sf 5AlltLe Igo, I R99.7 Klt4G HO.
13/>.8 lo/ft "zo Abri'e*cm/sec»n 26 pcb 1975 DLFTH ~
..0.0'--:"S0'AD
FORM I 97 I2I JULY I964
XIXXXX/Constant Head PERMEASIL I TY TEST REPORT LCS t fO ~
Plate 5
~,
«*tt
@IV i I K + fP K@V A Vt l%
DKI'ARTHEHT OF TiiE AR!.YtCo"ZS OF a;CZ:;EZRS, 61.1
SOUTV. mls.@AC DXVXST.O:i uZ"m™O"i:.,SCUT!1 COTE DR.,KLRXETZA, Gh. 3006'L
C".-7. '. O. 1'.-0"„C22M. 0. 50. 9051
~ r~
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMbERS
6 4 3 2 I'h I ~A 6 h 3 4 6 810141620 30 40 5070100140200HYDROMETEk
'IO
eo r daeldion
fter G a at on20
70
Q~ 60
~ 50Z
40Used
on
p1 ced
I2
er" c
if.er
1.118.5
74.658.5
30 X9
50
0lJ60 9
yo <
20
10
N TE Tes
cn
s eques,o 5.0 p
80
0SOO
CONLRS
100 SO
GRAVEL
10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005GRAIN SIZE MRLIMETERS
SRT OR CLAY
100.001
Type of SpecimenBefore Test After Test
s.l:ar":1 > a. r Ai:-" 'a ~ ~ '- '
K)jKT 1; ('1 „T
TotalOiam 13.86 in. Ht 17.63 in.
C 1 assi f i cat ion (G;;-Gp!}~/a 1$ t tipLL 35 2. 76
water Content,w
Void Ratio. eo
Saturation, 5
5.8
0.286
56.0
Wf
ef
Sf
10. 1 s
0.286
97.1 s 00tHG HQ. SAlltgt go A 'i ~ i 3
Lab. '.io. 145/393
Plane. Excavation
PI. 27 010 Ory Oensity. 133-9 1 bi f 1 "20 Above* c m/ s ec 10 Peb 1975 OCAYHEI 210.0 -:25.'
Ais i .0 ~
SAD FORM 197121 JULY 1964
X~AAi'.GCe t Cons t ant Head P ERNEAB I L I TY TEST REPORT
plate 6
7
Top Related