ML033650381
| ML033650381 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 05/10/2002 |
| From: | Cluff L, Narayanan K, White R Geomatrix Consultants, Pacific Gas & Electric Co |
| To: | NRC/FSME |
| References | |
| +sisprbs20051109, -RFPFR | |
| Download: ML033650381 (64) | |
Text
HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT DATA REPORT B BORING LOGS HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT ISFSI PREPARED BY:
VERIFIED BY:
DATE:
Printed Name Ths }-Lt4
\\L tL~-
DATE:
q 4/l6 /!-
C.4t
, ix Organization q/2.) 0 7L G e
,a S.
, Ct >
Organization 2 !0 tLr
\\t %c.
W "+
Printed Name Printei Name APPROVED BY:
DATE:
2 7--
Or1ga-cition Organization J -
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Page B-l of 6'14
DATA REPORT B BORINGS LOGS HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT ISFSI SITE TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION
3 2.0 METHODOLOGY...............................................
4 2.1 DRILLING..............................................
4 2.2 SAMPLING............................................
4 2.3 ENERGY MEASUREMENTS................................................
6 2.4 MISCELLANEOUS..............................................
6 3.0 RESULTS..............................................
6
4.0 REFERENCES
7 FIGURES Figure B-I Figure B-2 Figure B-3 Figure B-4 Figure B-5 Figure B-6 Figure B-7 Site and Boring Location Plan Boring Log Explanation Log of Boring No. 99-1 Log of Boring No. 99-2 Log of Boring No. 99-3 Log of Boring No. 99-4 Log of Boring No. 99-5 ATTACHMENTS Energy Measurement Report
\\\\oakl\\dcptdata\\Project5000s\\51 17.009\\Data reports\\ReportB\\Data Report B.doc Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Page B-2 of 64
HUMBOLDT BAY ISFSI DATA REPORT B BORINGS IN ISFSI SITE AREA HUMBOLDT BAY ISFSI
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Subsurface conditions at two of the potential ISFSI sites S-2 and S-4 (Figure B-1) were characterized by drilling five exploratory borings in February and December, 1999.
Borings were drilled and sampled to depths ranging from about 62 to 420 feet. Downhole shear wave velocity measurements were made in two of the borings. Upon completion, boring locations were surveyed (PG&E, 1999, PG&E, 2000). Boring locations are shown on Figure B-1.
Soil samples were collected from the borings to aid in characterizing subsurface conditions and for subsequent geotechnical laboratory testing. Soil samples were collected using the following sampler types:
a modified California drive sampler (2.0-inch inside diameter [ID], 2.5-inch outside diameter [OD]);
a large modified California drive sampler (2.5-inch ID, 3.0-inch OD);
a 94-millimeter (mm) core barrel with a modified California sampler (2.0-inch ID, 2.5-inch OD);
a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler (1.375-inch ID, 2.0-inch OD);
a 3-inch-diameter thin-walled Shelby tube advanced by pushing or Pitcher drilling.
The modified California samplers were lined with thin, segmented brass tubes. Sampler types are indicated on the boring logs and on the boring log explanation sheet.
When samplers were withdrawn from the borings, the soil samples were removed and sealed to preserve their natural water content. Preliminary visual soil classifications were made in the field in general accordance with ASTM Method D 2488 (ASTM, 1999) and Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-3 of 6q Data Report B, Rev. 0
verified by further inspection in the laboratory and by test results. Final boring logs were developed from the laboratory test results and from conditions recorded on the field logs.
A boring log explanation sheet is presented on Figure B-2, and final boring logs are shown on Figures B-3 through B-7 of this data report.
2.0 METHODOLOGY Five borings were drilled in February and December, 1999. Prior to commencing the field exploration program, a work plan was developed by Geomatrix Consultants (Geomatrix) and approved by PG&E. PG&E reviewed the work plan and subsequent revisions were made to the plan. In addition, as required by law, Underground Service Alert (USA) was contacted to help locate utilities at the site prior to performing the field exploration program. Personnel at the Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) also helped to clear existing utility locations in the vicinity of the planned exploration locations.
During drilling operations, Mr. John Wesling, Senior Geologist with Geomatrix Consultants, maintained a record of field activities, classified the soils encountered, and prepared a continuous log of each boring. Drilling was performed by All Terrain Exploration Drilling Company of Pleasant Grove, California (All Terrain) using mud rotary drilling techniques.
2.1 DRILLING Boring 99-1 (Figure B-3) was drilled on February 10 and 11, 1999 and was advanced to a total depth of 95 feet using a 4 7/8-inch diameter tricone bit. Boring 99-2 (Figure B4) was drilled from February 12 to 19, 1999, to a total depth of 420 feet, using a 4 7/8-inch diameter tricone bit in the upper 200 feet, and a 94-mm core barrel with a 5 1/2-inch diameter bit used in the lower 220 feet. The drilling was performed by All Terrain using a truck-mounted Failing 1500 drill rig.
Boring 99-3 (Figure B-5) was drilled on December 6 and 7, 1999 and was advanced to a total depth of 77.3 feet. Boring 99-4 (Figure B-6) was drilled on December 7 and 8, 1999 and was advanced to a total depth of 63 feet. Boring 99-5 (Figure B-7) was drilled on December 8 and 9, 1999 and was advanced to a total depth of 61.9 feet. All borings were advanced using mud rotary drilling and a 4 7/8-inch diameter tricone bit. The drilling was performed by All Terrain using a track-mounted CME 850 drill rig.
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B4 of 04 Data Report B, Rev. 0
2.2 SAMPLING Soil samples generally were collected continuously in the upper 20 feet, at 5-foot intervals between 20 and 80 feet, and at 20-foot intervals below 80 feet. Additional samples were collected between the specified 5-and 20-foot intervals if a change in soil type or consistency was detected during drilling, when the geologist needed additional samples to assess variability in a particular soil unit, or at the geologist's discretion to ensure that enough samples from a particular soil unit were obtained for testing. Sampling was performed to a depth of 200 feet using modified California drive samplers, a Standard Penetration Test sampler, a pushed Shelby tube, or a Pitcher sampler. Below a depth of 200 feet, in Boring 99-2, samples were recovered using the 94-millimeter coring system equipped with a modified California sampler lined with brass tubes as the inner-sampling barrel.
In borings 99-1 and 99-2, modified California and SPT samplers were driven into the soil with a 140-pound safety hammer falling 30 inches. The hammer was raised using a rope and cathead arrangement. In borings 99-3, 4, and 5, modified California and SPT samplers were driven with an automatic-trip hammer. Samplers were driven 18 inches or to refusal (defined as either 50 blows in 6-inches or until no advancement of the sampler was observed for 10 successive blows), whichever occurred first. In some instances where refusal occurred, the sampler was advanced using more than 50 blows to obtain sufficient sample for identification and description purposes. The blowcounts for each 6-inch interval of the drive, or portion thereof, are presented at the corresponding sample depths on the boring logs.
Shelby and Pitcher tubes and brass liners from modified California samplers were sealed by placing plastic caps on each end and then securing each cap with duct tape. Caps for samples from 99-3, 4, and 5 were sealed with hot wax. SPT samples were placed in ziplock plastic bags. Soil samples were stored in a secure, locked area and logged onto a sample list in order to track the location and presence of each sample. The samples were transferred from the site to the Geomatrix warehouse in San Leandro, California for further inspection, and then to Cooper Testing Laboratory in Mountain View, California for laboratory testing.
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-5 of Data Report B, Rev. 0
2.3 ENERGY MEASUREMENTS During the collection of drive samples from Boring 99-1, Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc. (GRL) recorded measurements of hammer energy in drive samples from the ground surface to a depth of 40 feet using a pile driver analyzer. A detailed report of GRL's findings appears in Appendix 1 of this data report.
2.4 MISCELLANEOUS Soil cuttings and drilling fluid generated during drilling were collected on a trailer. They were then disposed of as directed by PG&E. Material from Boring 99-1 was disposed of at the plant's fill site on the north side of the plant. Cuttings from Borings 99-2, 99-3, 99-4, and 99-5 were spread on the ground surface near the borings. After completion of drilling, sampling and logging boreholes 99-1 and 99-2, downhole geophysical logging (shear and compression wave velocity measurement) was performed by GEOVision. The borehole walls were stable and did not require casing to facilitate suspension logging. The results of the downhole geophysical logging are contained in Data Report C, "Downhole Geophysics in ISFSI Site Area." Borings 99-1 and 99-2 were backfilled to the surface with cement grout upon completion of the downhole geophysical logging. Borings 99-3, 99-4, and 99-5 were backfilled to the surface with cement grout immediately upon completion of drilling, sampling, and logging activities.
3.0 RESULTS The subsurface conditions at site S-2, as observed from boring 99-1, generally consists of 15 feet of medium dense to dense silty sand (SM) and very stiff clay with sand (CL) containing little to no gravel, overlying dense to very dense gravelly, well to poorly graded sand (SW, SP) to the depth explored (95 feet).
Subsurface conditions at site S-4, as observed from borings 99-2, 99-3, 99-4, and 99-5 consist of medium dense clayey sand and stiff sandy clay in the upper 8 to 12 feet. Below the upper layer, very stiff silts and clays were encountered to depths of about 20 feet. This layer is underlain by 3 to 6 feet of hard silty clay. Underlying the cohesive soils in the upper 24 to 26 feet are very dense sand and silty sand extending to depths of 50 to 53 feet.
In boring 99-5, the sand grades to very stiff to hard sandy silt and silt. A relatively thin layer (less than 10 feet thick) of hard silt and silty clay with a thin stratum of very stiff peat was encountered at a depth of approximately 55 feet. The borings were terminated in Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-6 of 6A-Data Report B. Rev. 0
the dense to very dense sand and gravel below this layer - at depths ranging from 62 to 420 feet.
Blowcount energy measurements made by GRL for borings 99-1 and 99-2 indicated a hammer efficiency of approximately 50%. For these two borings, drive samplers were advanced using a rope and cathead arrangement. Such energy measurements were not made in borings 99-3, 99-4, and 99-5, in which drive samplers were advanced with an automatic trip hammer. Energy measurement data and results are presented in Attachment 1 of this data report.
4.0 REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1999, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4, Volume 04.08.
PG&E, 2000, Report of Survey for Geotechnical Drilling Locations for the BBPP ISFSI Site, January 4.
PG&E, 1999, Report of Survey for Geotechnical Drilling Locations for the HBPP ISFSI Site, July 13.
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Page B-7 of 6 9t
BLANK PAGE Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Page B-S of 6q
BLANK PAGE Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Page B-9 of ('t
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Boring Log Explanation Humboldt County, California B
rn o
x ln to S
SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS C.
~
E z t al 3 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry
_l)
U)
W (V.)
(Pc_)
I c
C S
P Standard penetration split spoon drive sampler, 2-inch outside diameter, 1 318-inch inside diameter (without liners)
Modified California drive sampler, 2 1/2-inch outside diameter, 2.0-inch inside diameter (with liners)
Modified California drive sampler, 3-inch outside diameter, 2 1/2-inch inside diameter (with liners) 94 millimeter coring system Shelby tube sampler Pitcher barrel sampler, 3-inch inside diameter Blow count for every 6-inches of sample, or as noted 21 27 35 Distinct contact Gradual or uncertain contact I -
Unconfined Compressive Strength in ksf Percentage of fine passing No. 200 sieve Grain size distribution test LL=Liquid limit; PI=Plasticity index Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Test, shear strength in ksf (confining pressure in ksf)
Isotropically Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Consolidation Test NOTES:
- 1. The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types. The actual transitions between materials may be gradual.
- 2. These logs of the test borings and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and at the particular time the boring was made.
- 3. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the soil and groundwater conditions at these locations.
- 4. Soil colors from Munsell Soil Color Charts UC=1.30
<200=44%
Sieve LL=27. P1=4 UU=5.30 (3.10)
ICU-TC Consol A-I-
V, 0
q el)
LU C,
a.
CL If-7 ciG XC GT-2
)98 Page B-l of 64 Figure B-IL Project No. 5117.009 Geomatrix Consultants Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-1 Humboldt County, California BORING LOCATION:
N 9446.82, E 4496.22 jELEVATION B r ing NAo.
9
+12.7 feet, Mean Lower Low Water DRILLING CONTRACTOR: All Terrain Exploration Dniling DATE STARTED:
2110/1999 DATE FINISHED:
211111999 r-,
DRILLING EQUIPMENT:
Failing 1500 TOTAL DEPTH (feet):
Top of asphalt DRILLING METHOD:
Mud Rotary DEPTH TO FREE WATER FIRST ENCOUNTERED (feet):
SAMPLING METHOD:
See boring log explanation, Figure B-1 DEPTH TO WATER AT COMPLETION (feet, date/time):
HAMMER WEIGHT:
140 pounds HAMMER DROP:
30 inches J. R. Wesling X
a, SAMPLES
-a
- a.
a Z
In m
LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ASPHALT 2
3 4-5 6
7 8
9 10-11 12-13 14 -
15 -
16-17 -
AGGREGATE BASE S #50psl I
6 12 18 S pOOpS I
P I
17 24-30 BOpsi 6
11 16 75psi 17 29 SILTY SAND (SM)
Medium dense to dense, yellowish brown (1OYR 5/4),
minor subrounded gravel to 1/4 inch in upper 1 foot
[FILL]
T Gray (2.5Y 5/1)
}
SILTY CLAY (CL)
SANDY CLAY (CL)
Very stiff, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), fine sand SILTY SAND (SM)
Very dense, gray (2.5Y 5/1) mottled with brown (1 OYR 4/3), moist, fine subrounded sand CLAY with SAND (CL)
Very stiff, gray (2.5Y 5/1), moist, very fine sand
- Few rootlets and plant fragments at 13.5 feet SILTY SAND (SM)
Very dense, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), wet, occasional rounded gravel to 114 inch, fine sand at top, medium to coarse sand at bottom. Sand consists of quartz, feldspar, lithics [BEACH/EOLIAN DEPOSITI 21.7 108.7
<200 = 59%
Sieve
<200= 39%
Sieve R
0,I 0,
0.
Cn U,
Lu aJ P
24.5 25.4 20.4 99.4 99.3
<200 = 80%
Sieve LL = 33 Pl=11 LU = 2.87 U.80)
Consol
<200 = 14%
Sieve T
i GT-1 719)
Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants PageB-12of 64 Figure B-i
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-1 cont.
Humboldt County, California L go oigN
.9 o
t I
SAMPLES
[
LABORATORY TESTS
- 0.
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture rwy 0
_z Content Density Other
_ T _,, _,
0 I 18 -
19 -
38 SILTY SAND (SM): cont.
9 P
20 -
21 -
22 -
23 -
24 -
25 -
10 26 -
27 -
28 -
I 80psi 19 27 27 18 27 33 25 36 42 29 -
30-31 -
32 -
C-WELL GRADED SAND with SILT (SW-SM)
Very dense, dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4), wet, rounded gravel to 1-1/4 inches [BEACH]
T More gravel T
Less gravel I
Gravel to 1 inch I
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) 18.4 14.1
<200 = 1 1%
Sieve (Composite of Sample #10 and
- 11) 11 I
33 -
34 -
I-0 e
0 0
0~
0 02
&AJ a,
35 -
36 -
37 -
38 -
39 12 I GT-2 (7159)
Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-13 of 69 l Figure B-3Cont.
PROJECT:
HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-1 cont.
LABORATORY TE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Content
(%6)
Dry Dens4 (pd)
STS Oth WELL GRADED SAND with SILT (SW-SM): cont.
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Very dense, dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), moist, occasional gravel to 3/4 inch
- No recovery in pitcher sample
- Rounded gravel to 112 inch at 44 feet
- No recovery in pitcher sample T Olive brown (2.5YR 5/3), wet, occasional rounded gravel to 114 inch, medium to coarse sand, subrounded to rounded T Less gravel, medium grained sand 16.9 18.7 2
7
<200 = 5%
Sieve T
Fine subrounded sand consisting of quartz, feldspar, lithics a0 0,
0 0.
0 a
q CA, T Fine sand Pject No. 511 9
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 F u -2 B 7C n
. iueB-3 Cont.
Geomatrix Consultants Page B-14 of 64L
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-1 cont.
Humboldt County, California SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS i
a MT cIA DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry C-E _ E Content Density Other 5 -
Z 9 -8
~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~(%/)
(pdf) 171 IU 5.5" POORLY GRADED SAND (SP): cont.
61 -
62 -
63 -
64 -
65 -
66 -
67 -
68 -
69 -
70 -
71 -
72 -
73 -
74-75 -
76 -
77 -
78 -
79 -
80-81 -
82 -
P I
I 27 50 4"
17 50 4.5, 26 50 5.5"
- Medium sand, occasional rounded gravel, abundant lithics, feldspar, quartz WELL GRADED SAND with GRAVEL (SW-)
Very dense, olive brown (2.5Y 413), wet, medium to coarse sand Gravel lens 21.2 10.2 18.6 106.4
<200 = 3%
Sieve
<200 = 3%
Sieve POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Very dense, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2), moist, fine sand, rounded, lithics, feldspar, quartz I
e 0
07 a',.
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Very dense, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2), moist, fine to medium sand, rounded, lithics abundant, feldspar, quartz I
42 50 4.5" uJ MU C, Project No. 5117.009 O
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 GT-2 (79fl9)
Figure B-3 Cont.
Geomatrix Consultants PageB-15of 64f
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-1 cont.
Humboldt County, California L go oigN
.9 o
t SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry uJ be z
E 8 8 Content Density Other
'U
(%)
I (pcn POORLY GRADED SAND (SP): cont.
83 84 -
85 -
86 -
87 -
88 -
89 -
90 -
91 -
92 -
93 -
94 -
95 -
Bottom of boring at 95.0 feet. Boring backfilled with cement-bentonite grout.
0 C,0 a0, 0~
0, 0
IL CD U) 0 U,
0 GT-2 (7199) 6' Figure B-3 Con.I co ua Project No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geornatrix Consultants Page B-16 of
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-2 Humboldt County, California BORING LOCATION:
N 9593.45, E 4715.90 ELEVATION AND DATUM.
+40.6 feet, Mean Lower Low Water DRILLING CONTRACTOR: All Terrain Exploration Drilling DATE STARTED:
DATE FINISHED:
2112/1999 2/19/1999 DRILLING EQUIPMENT:
Failing 1500 TOTAL DEPTH (feet):
MEASURING POINT:
420 Ground surface DRILLING METHOD:
Mud Rotary DEPTH TO FREE WATER FIRST ENCOUNTERED (feet):
N/A SAMPLING METHOD:
See bonng log explanation, Figure B-1 DEPTH TO WATER AT COMPLETION (feet, date/time):
SAMPLING METHOD:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~N/A HAMMER WEIGHT:
140 pounds HAMMER DROP:
30 inches LOGGED BY:
HAMMERWEIGHT J. R. Wesl ng SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS
- e t a_
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture cy-E Cn Eent
(%Desit O)er SILTY CLAY (CL)
Soft, black (10YR 211), moist, organic [TOP SOIL]
1 -
2-3 -
4 -
5 -
6-7 -
8-9-
10-11 -
12-13 -
14-15 -
16-17 -
I 2
3 4
5 6
7 S 8opsi 5
9 10 50ps B6ops 3
9 18 CLAYEY SAND (SC)
Medium dense, reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6), moist, fine sand, subrounded LEAN CLAY with SAND to SILT with SAND (CL-ML)
Very stiff, light yellowish brown (1OYR 6/4), moist CLAYEY SAND (SC)
Medium dense, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2), moist, fine, subrounded sand, more clayey in upper 6 inches S
21.4 26.8 29.5 22.8 28.2 28.4 21.8 29.6 105.2 98.0 94.8 105.7 96.3 96.2 107.1 93.5 UU=1.74 (0.3)
<200 = 77%
Sieve LL=39 Pi = 15 ICU-TC
<200 = 77%
Sieve LL=45 Pi = 21 UU = 1.98 (0.9)
<200 = 23%
Sieve
<200 = 99%
LL=43 Pi = 16 UU = 2.03 (2.00)
Sieve ICU-TC Consol S po0ps SILT (ML)
Stiff, gray (2.5Y 511), moist, fine sand increasing with depth 4
6 8
lops 50ps S
mu W
C, Project No. 5117.00 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 GT-1 (79)
Page B-17 of 6t4 Figure B-O Geomatrix Consultants
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
Humboldt County, California SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS CL; W 11>
D la _
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION MOisture Dry a s tz}
2 8
Content Density Other U) c l
~
0d 18 19 -
201 21 -
22 -
23 -
24-25 -
26-27 -
28-29 -
30-31 -
32 -
33-34-35 -
36 -
37 38 -
4 11 6
19 33 6
14 22 36 46 50 SILT (ML): cont.
24 19 102.1 111.9 I.-
LEAN CLAY to SILT (CL-ML)
Hard, brown (7.5YR 5/4), moist UC = 3.01
<200 = 86%
Sieve LL = 31 PI = 9 UC = 13.99
<200 = 31%
Sieve
<200 = 9%
Sieve
\\L SILTY SAND (SM)
Very dense, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), moist, fine sand, subrounded to rounded I
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)
Very dense, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Very dense, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), moist, fine subrounded to rounded sand aq Cl a,
0 a.0 to 8
- n I
45 50' 5.5 39 uJ c,
Projec No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants PageB-18of 6if l Figure B4i Cont. I
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
Humboldt County, California SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry DU _
E z E Content Density Other
(%n Xc._._,,(pcl)
SILTY SAND (SM)
Very dense, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), moist 40-41 42-43 -
44-45 -
46-47-48-49.
17.4 111.5 13 14 15 P
I 50-51 -
52 -
53 -
7 75ps!
29 27 17 10 20 30 31 50, 3"
50-3" 4-WELL GRADED GRAVEL with SAND (GW)
Dense, dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 414), wet, subrounded gravel to 1 inch (gravel plugged sampler)
SILTY CLAY (CL-ML) -
Hard, dark gray (2.5Y 5/1), moist CLAYEY SAND (SC)
Dense, dark gray (2.5Y 4/1), moist
<200 = 48%
Sieve
<200 = 32%
Sieve 7
54-55 -
7 56-
\\
41 I.-0 0,
~0 a.
07 57 -
58 -
59 60-WELL GRADED GRAVEL with SAND (GW)
Dense, gravel to 1-1/2 inches POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)
Very dense, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), moist, fine sand T
_7 GT-2 (7/99)
.^-
l 4uJ C, Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants PageB-19of 641 lFigure B-qCont.
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humbldt
- ouny, ClifoniaLog of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS 9!
M L9 Moisture Dry
,L
~~-a MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONCotn DesyOte W.2_
__6_
_Content Dens Other_
a tom
_Oct_
I 61 -
62-63 -
64-65 -
66-67 -
68-69 -
70-71 72 -
73.
16 17 18 I
23 35 43 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM): cont.
<200 = 11%
Sieve I
39 50.
IS.
WELL GRADED SAND (SW)
Very dense, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), wet, rounded gravel to 1/2 inch P 50psi SO.T 3.5" 54 4'
21.6 105.2 74 -
75 -
76 -
77 -
78 -
79 -
I I
<200 = 2%
Sieve
<200 = 8%
Sieve PI-a' a,1 0) 0.
0.0 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)
Very dense, olive brown (2.5Y 513), moist, medium grained sand, subrounded to subangular, gravel lenses, rounded gravel to 1/2 inch 80 -
19 89 100 6"
81 -
o.S a/-
GT-2 (9)
"I.
UJ t:1 Project No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-20 of 64 lFigure B-LjCont.
Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Content
(%s)
Dry Density (PcO Other cont.
LEAN CLAY (CL): hard, light yellowish brown (10YR Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-21 of 64f
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
Humboldt County, California SAMPLES l ABORATORY TESTS S
Content IDensity E~
O E
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION jMa~insture Dry H
o-I, z POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM): cont.
104-105 -
106-107 -
108-109 -
110-111 -
112-113 114 -
115 116-117 -
118 -
119 -
120-121 -
122-41'V
- More silty I
21 70 6"
Q 9
a 0w a%
0 0.
0.
I 4J 124 -
125 en P 2GTa2 7299e C
l Figure & 4Cont.
uJ 0 Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay 1SFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomabtix Consultants Page B-22 of 6zf
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California I z)
W 4-i I-- w.D SAMPLES 0
cn '
ClI)II, -
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL (SP)
Very dense, dark gray (2.5Y 4/1), wet, rounded gravel to 1-1/2 inches
- No recovery in pitcher sample
<200 = 3%
Sieve 42 22 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-23 of 6Lf
Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
LABORATORY TESTS lT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Content
(.)
Dry Density (pci)
Other POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL (SP): cont.
Hard, dark gray (2.5Y 4/1), moist, abundant shell fragments 23 24 21.3 108.3
<200 = 98%
Sieve LL = 35 Pi 14 Consol Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants
Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Content
(%h)
Dry Density (pd)
Other LEAN CLAY WITH SILT (CL-ML): cont.
LEAN CLAY (CL)
Hard, dark gray (2.5Y 4/1), moist, some fine sand 26 35 SILT with SAND (ML)
Hard, dark gray (2.5Y 4/1), moist, clayey, shell fragments Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-25 of 614
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
Humboldt County, California SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS
- o.
L Xo
-a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture I ry Dry L-t-E 8
Content Density Other
__I_
W
~(%)
(pef)
SILT with SAND (ML): cont.
190-191 -
192 -
193 -
194 -
195 -
196 -
197 -
198-199 -
200 -
201 -
~02 -
SILT with SAND to LEAN CLAY with SAND (ML-CL)
Very dense, dark gray (2.5Y 4/1), moist 27 I 31 43 50 4.5" 26.7
<200 = 88%
204 -
205 -
206 -
207 -
208-209 -
210 -
0 CD a) 0)
0)g)
C, C,(a 211 GT-2 (7M99)
Yi CI Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-26 of 6Mt lFigure B-tCont.
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
Humboldt County, California SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS iig
-a@
c MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry Lu G M
DECRPTO Content Density Other en so C
__.1
(%)
(p SILT with SAND to LEAN CLAY with SAND (ML-CL):
cont.
212 213 214 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
20-21 -
22-23 -
24 -
25 -
26-POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)
Very dense, gray (2.5Y 5/1), wet, subangular to subrounded, some small gravel layers 28 29 Ij 5.5 [
LEAN CLAY (CL)
<200 = 7%
Sieve C
11In 7
L2I -
228 -
a-
_Cn ci,-
Ca uJ a
229 I An 23u -
231 -
232-GT-2 (7M)
Project No. 5117.009 1 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-27 of 6-I Figure B-LjCont.
Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Content
(%h)
Dry Density (PM)
Other
) with SILT (SP-SM): cont.
SILTY SAND (SM)
Very dense, gray (2.5Y 5/1)
<200 = 43%
Sieve 30 Humboldt Bay lSFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-28 of Ctj
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
Humboldt County, California SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS
- 0. *E X
c
§-MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dy o
E E
Content Density Other U2 (fl'U
(%)~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(pcf)
SILTY SAND (SM): cont.
255 256 257
~58 59 60 61 -
62-63 -
64-65 -
66-67 -
68-69 -
70-71 -
72-73 -
74 -
75 -
43 C
POORLY and WELL GRADED SAND with GRAVEL (SP-SW)
Very dense, dark greenish gray (1OGY 4/1), wet, medium to coarse sand, rounded gravel to 1/4 inch, shells (silicified)
N I-Q Li 0.
C, N
GT-2 ( )99)
UJ C, Project No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-29 of 6qf l igure B-4Cont.
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California I-wj]
0-SAMPLES 0
UM CJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION POORLY and WELL GRADED SAND with GRAVEL (SP-SW): cont.
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)
Very dense, dark greenish gray (10GY 411)
<200 = 8%
Sieve 31 Silt with fine sand lens Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-30 of 6tL
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
Humboldt County, California SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS IL e
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry cm Content Density Other co_
_._(
)
(pct)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM): cont.
298-299 -
300 -
301 -
302 -
303 304 -
305 -
306 -
WELL GRADED SAND with GRAVEL (SW)
Very dense, dark greenish gray (1 OGY 411), wet, rounded gravel to 1/4 inch, minor interbedded poorly graded sand (SP) 32 C
307 308 -
309 -
310 -
311 -
312 -
313-314 -
315 -
316 -
317 -
318-
"I 0 Project No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 GT-2 (79)
Page B-31 of 64 1 Figure B.LCont.
Geonatrix Consultants
Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Content (ah)
Dry Density (Pm I
Other POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)
Very dense, dark greenish grey (1 OGY 4/1), wet, fine sand
- Silt content variable, some layers of clean sand
<200 = 11%
Sieve 34 Humboldt Bay ISFS]
Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-32 of 6f4
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
a.
4'
-4)
SAMPLES 0
a LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Content
(%) I Dry Density (pd)
Other POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM): cont.
Siltier Less silty than above, may be transitional to poorly graded sand Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatuix Consultants Page B-33 of 6-t
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
Humold ConyIalfri SAMPLES
-a*
CO cl.A LABORATORY TESTS I
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Content
(%/)
Dry Density (PMT Other 362 -
363 -
364 -
365 -
C POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM): cont.
POOR5Y GRADEDSED SAN with SILT (SP-SM)
Very dense, dark greenish gray (5BG 4/1), wet, fine subrounded to rounded sand, harder weakly cemented zones
<200 = 7' Sieve 366 -
367 -
368 -
369 -
370 -
371 -
372 -
373 -
74-37 C
<200 = 7%
Sieve
<71-376 376 -
377-378 -
379 -
380 -
C:4 N
W o
to UJ 0'
0.
0 0,
UH a
381 -
38 C
382-383 Projec No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 GT-2 (7M99I 6
l Figure B-4Cont.
Geomatrix Consultants Page B-34 of
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
Humboldt County, California SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS
- a.
-a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry W _0 E
Content Density Other 9n r(%)
(pdf)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM): cont.
384 -
385 -
386 -
387-388-89 -
90-91 -
392 -
393
[394-39 C
<200 = 9%
Sieve 395 -
396 -
397 -
398 -
399 400 -
401 1-SILTY CLAY with SAND (CL-ML)
Hard, dark greenish grey (1OY 4/1), moist, fine subrounded sand 40 C
SILTY SAND (SM)
Very dense, dark greenish grey (5G 3/1), moist 402 -
403-404 -
GT-2 (7/99)
C,y Project No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-35 of 6'-4 I Figure B-q Cont.
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
0n SAMPLES CZ ?
to wn I LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Content
(%)
Dry Density (Pcf)
Other cont.
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-36 of "-f
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-3 Humboldt County, California BORING LOCATION:
N 9683.76, E 4788.95 ELEVATION AND DATUM:
42.92 feet Mean Lower Low Water DRILLING CONTRACTOR: All Terrain Exploratory Drilling DATE STARTED:
DATE FINISHED:
12/6/1999 12/7/1999 DRILLING EQUIPMENT:
CME 850
~~~TOTAL DEPTH (feet):
MEASURING POINT:
DRILLING EQUIPMENT:
CME 850 77.3 Ground surface DRILLING METHOD:
Mud Rotary DEPTH TO FREE WATER FIRST ENCOUNTERED (feet):
DRILLING ME~~~~hOD:
Mud Rotary
~~~~N/A SAMPLING METHOD:
See boring log explanation, Figure B-1 DEPTH TO WATER AT COMPLETION (feet, date/time):
N/A HAMMER WEIGHT:
140 pounds HAMMER DROP 30 inches LOGGED BY:
HAMMER ines J.R. Wesling SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS
- 0. t E
.E 8-MATERIAL DESCRIPTION f
Moisture Dry Co E
e..
Density d
1-2-
3-4-
5 -
6-7-
8-9-
10 -
11 -
12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
1 2
3 4
5 6
2 4
6 CLAY with SAND (CL)
Stiff, brown (0OYR 4/3), moist, low plasticity IFILLI S
S loops loops 500ps 7
8 8
?50ps loops tOOps 5OOps 6
10 14 4
10 14 CLAYT(CL)
Stiff, black (1 OYR 2/1), moist, low plasticity [TOP SOIL]
SANDY CLAY (CL)
Stiff, yellowish brown (10YR 6/6), moist, low plasticity
[TERRACE]
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
Loose, strong brown (7.5YR 51), moist SAND TC AYC-Very stiff, strong brown (7.5YR 5/6), moist, low plasticity CLAYEY SAND (SC)
Medium dense, grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2), moist, fine sand, rootlets 23.4 I 101.6
-~~
SILTY SAND (SM)
Medium dense, grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2), moist, fine sand, poorly graded t-SILT (ML)
T Becomes pale brown (1OYR 6/3)
CLAY (CL)
Very stiff, dark greenish gray (1OGY 4/1), moist, low plasticity [OLD BAY MUD]
Sieve
<200 = 57%
Sieve
<200 = 40%
LL=23 PI = 0 Sieve
<200 = 94%
LL = 32 P1=9 UU = 2.2 (2.0)
N C,
a,0 I0(
a, a.
a,
-c 0n EI 22.6 105.5 GT-1 (719)
- zia, a., Project No. 5117.009 lHumboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-37 of 6'f I Figure B 5
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-3 cont.
Humboldt County, California SAMPLES LLBORATORY TESTS 0
X Z
s MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry a-Content Density
_cfior n(Pd) 18 3 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26-7 CLAY (CL): cont.
SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
Hard, brown (7.5YR 5/4), moist, low plasticity, fine sand 7
a I 27 -
28 -
11 22 23 20 30 34 23 40 43 loops to SOOps SILTY SAND (SM)
Very dense, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), moist, fine subrounded sand, poorly graded, minor silt, CLAYEY SAND (SC) layers to 1/2 inch SILTY SAND (SM)
Very dense, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2), moist, fine subrounded sand, occasional clay laminae 23.0 1 104.5 1-*
Sieve
<200 = 90%
LL =29 P= 6 UU = 4.5 (2.5)
Sieve
<200 = 35%
Sieve
<200 = 16%
LL= 18 P= 0 Sieve
<200 = 16%
LL = 14 P1=O UU = 6.9 (4.5) 29 -
30-31 -
32 -
33 -
34-35 -
36-9 I a,
q a01 15.0 110.2 10 I P 37 -
38-7 I
39 ul LU a, Project No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-38 of 6L-I igre B5C o ntj
I PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-3 cont.
LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture rwy Content Densty Other
(%)
(Pm)
SILTY SAND (SM): cont.
SILTY SAND (SM)
Dense, dark greenish gray (5BG 3/1), moist, 1-inch thick SAND (SW) layer and 1/2-inch thick SILTY CLAY (SC-ML) layer Sieve
<200 = 46%
LL= 18 PI = 0 Sieve
<200 = 34%
LL= 18 Pi = 0 Sieve
<200 = 84%
LL = 29 Pi = 6 UU = 4.3 (5.5)
Sieve
<200 = 88%
LL = 31 Pi = 7 Sieve
<200 = 99%
LL =47 Pi = 17 UU = 2.8 (5.5)
Sieve
<200 = 68%
LL = 180 P =54 UU = 4.5 (5.5)
-SILT with SAND (ML)
Very stiff, gray (2.5Y 5/1), moist, rootlets [OLD BAY MUD]
SILT (ML) -
Hard, gray (2.5Y 511), moist [OLD BAY MUD]
21.1 32.7 113.4 106.6 89.8 38.6 f
SANDY SILT with PEAT (MH) 0 LU 0
\\
L0,C SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SP-SM)
Very dense, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2), moist, poorly graded sand, rounded gravel to >1.5 inches
-I GT-2 (71M A
wU a,
Projed No. 5117.00 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-39 of G5 l Figure B-, Cont.
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-3 cont.
Humboldt County, California SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS IL D
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry u _
E E
Content Density Other jIS
)
_(__ _.__ __ _
16 61 -
62 -
63 -
64-65 -
66-67 -
68-69 -
70 -
71 -
72-73 -
74-75 -
76-77 -
I 47 50 4"
SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SP-SM): cont.
T Becomes brown (1 OYR 4/3) below 61 feet GRAVEL with SAND (GW)
Medium dense, mottled light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) to very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2), moist, well graded gravel, rounded gravel to 1" 17 18 19 20 21 7
5 12 32 14 44 50 2"
28 50 4.5" 15 30 50 5.5" Sieve
<200 = 10%
Sieve
<200 = 1%
I GRAVEL with SAND (GP)
Very dense, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), moist, poorly graded sand Bottom of boring at 77.3 feet.
cement-bentonite grout.
Borehole backfilled with 0
an 0
a-an 0.0 toN U,
w ILla? Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-40 of 6#
GT-2 (7d)
IFigure B-5Cont.
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-4 Humboldt County, California BORING LOCATION:
N 9711.29 E 4808.78 ELEVATION AND DATUM:
BORING LOCATION:
N 9711
__.29, 4808.78 43.09 feet Mean Lower Low Water DRILLING CONTRACTOR: All Terrain Exploratory Drilling DATE STARTED:
DATE FINISHED:
_______________________________________________________________12/7/1999 12/8/1999 DRILLING EQUIPMENT:
CME 850 TOTAL DEPTH (feet):
MEASURING POINT:
63 Ground surface DRILLING METHOD:
Mud RotaryDEPTH TO FREE WATER FIRST ENCOUNTERED (feet):
Rotary
~~~~~~~~~~N/A SAMPLING METHOD:
See boring log explanation, Figure B-1 DEPTH TO WATER AT COMPLETION (feet, date/time):
N/A HAMMER WEIGHT: 140 pounds K
HAMMER DROP:
30 inches LOGGED BY:
_____________________________________________J.R. Wesli g SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS UL I
D MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture j-aE otent Density Oher 87
=
A v
[
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(%/)
(pcf) 1 -
2 -
3 -
4-5 -
6-7 -
8-9 -
10-11 -
12 -
I 2
3 4
5 6
x 3
5 6
SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
Stiff, very dark gray (10YR 3/1), moist, gravel to 1 inch
[TOPSOIL]
S S
S loops lo~ps loops 2
3 6
12 9
7 lOOps 500ps 8
9 9
CLAY with SAND (CL)
Stiff, light yellowish brown (IOYR 6/4), moist, low plasticity, fine sand CLAYEY SAND to SILTY SAND (SC-SM)
Medium dense, yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), moist, grades to SILTY SAND (SM), medium dense CLAY with SAND (CL)
Stiff, yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) mottled with light gray (IOYR 7/2), moist, low plasticity [B+ HORIZON?]
SAND with CLAY (SW-SC)
Medium dense, light yellowish brown (1OYR 6/4),
moist, well graded sand SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
Very stiff, greenish gray (5BG 5/1), moist, low to medium plasticity [OLD BAY MUD]
SILT (ML-MH)
Very stiff, greenish gray (5BG 5/1), moist, high plasticity
[BAY MUD]
7 13 -
14-15 -
16-17 -
7 28.0 33.7 95.9 89.6 Sieve
<200 = 25%
LL = 19 Pi =0 Sieve
<200 = 99%
LL = 37 PI = 12 UU = 2.3 (1.5)
Sieve
<200 = 100%
LL = 50 PI = 21 UU = 1.0 (2.0)
W uj uJ Project No. 5117.009 1Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-41 of 6'f GT1 (719i)
Figure B6
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 994 cont.
Humboldt County, California L go oigN
.9 o
t x
SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS DL 9
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry a _
Content Density Other WI U
(%)
(Pct)
SILT (ML-MH): cont.
18 -
19 -
20 -
21 -
22-X 1 23 I 24 25 -
26-27 -
28-29 -
30-31 -
32-33 -
34 -
I 14 18 30 6
14 24 57 50/5" 70 68 16 20 21 SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
Hard, grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) mottled with yellowish brown (11 YR 514), moist, low plasticity [OLD BAY MUD]
SAND SILT (ML)
Hard, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), moist, poorly graded sand, clay binder SAND with SILT (SP-SM)
Very dense, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), moist, fine sand 18.7 9.5 8.1 112.2 105.1 104.8 Sieve
<200 = 75%
Sieve
<200 = 59%
LL = 21 PI = 1 Sieve LL=15 Pl=0
<200 = 11%
ICU-TC Sieve
<200 = 12%
Sieve
<200 = 64%
I 35 -
N I-V M
0 W0 In0 0
'I 36 -
37 11 I SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
Hard, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), moist SILTY SAND (SM): See next page for description 38 -
39 EJ, Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B42 of 64 I Figure B 6 Cant. I
I PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-4 cont.
LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry Content Density Other M.)
(PY)(
SILTY SAND (SM): cont.
Dense, dark bluish gray (1 OBG 4/1), moist, poorly graded sand, large piece of wood in upper part of sample SILTY SAND (SM)
Dense, very dark gray (5Y 3/1), moist, fine sand, contains wood fragments and peat SILTY SAND (SM)
Very dense, very dark gray (5Y 3/1), moist, well graded, minor subrounded gravel to 1/4 inch, contains wood fragments and peat SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
Hard (?), dark greenish gray (1OY 4/1), moist 19.8 19.4 21.0 20.3 109.0 110.7 105.5 106.1 Sieve LL=16 P1=O
<200 = 24%
ICU-TC Sieve
<200 = 25%
LL = 17 Pi = 0 UU = 8.5 (5.0)
Sieve
<200 = 35%
LL = 23 Pi = 0 Sieve LL=17 P1=O
<200 = 16%
ICU-TC Sieve
<200 = 20%
LL = 16 PI= NP UU = 5.6 (5.5)
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 PEAT (OL)
Very stiff I.-
C, C,
'C SANDY CLAY with GRAVEL (CL)
Hard, very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2), moist, low plasticity, rounded gravel to 314 inch SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SW-SM)
Very dense, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), moist, well graded sand, rounded gravel to 3/4 inch uJ wj a,
Project No. 5117.00 J Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-43 of 64 GT-2 (7/99) 7 ~ue B-6 oant.
Log of Boring No. 99-4 cont.
LABORATORY TESTS 7
T MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Contenl (A)
I Dry Density (pd)
Other grout.
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-44 of 6'-f
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-5 Humboldt County, California BORING LOCATION:
N 9651.23, E 4716.87 ELEVATION AND DATUM:
_________________________________________________________44.23 feet Mean Lower Low Water DRILLING CONTRACTOR: All Terrain Exploratory Drilling DATE STARTED:
1 129/1999 DRILLING EQUIPMENT:
CME 850 TOTAL DEPTH (feet):
MEASURING POINT:
61.9 Ground surface DRILLING METHOD:
Mud RotaryDEPTH TO FREE WATER FIRST ENCOUNTERED (feet):
SAMPLING METHOD:
See boring log explanation, Figure B-1 DEPTH TO WATER AT COMPLETION (feet, date/time):
HAMMER WEIGHT: 140 pounds HAMMER DROP:
30 inches LOGGED BY:
I
~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~J.R.
W esling SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS
-a @
E e >
_MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry ui0 24 Ed tb Conlt ensity Other 1 -
2 -
3 -
4-5-
6-7 -
8-9-
10-11 -
12-13 -
14-15 16-17 -
S S
S 3
4 6
OOps loops So0ps 5
9 10 lOOps lOOps i0ops 8
10 15 lOOps 50Ops 4
6 9
CLAY with SAND (CL)
Stiff, brown (10YR 3/4), moist [B+ HORIZON]
CLAY with SAND (CULCH)
Very stiff, strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) mottled with light gray (10YR 7/2), moist, high plasticity [B+ HORIZON]
T becomes low plasticity (CL)
CLAY (CL)
Stiff, yellowish brown (10YR 5/6), moist, low plasticity SANDY SILT (ML)
Very stiff, gray (N5 ), moist [OLD BAY DEPOSIT]
102.9 23.1 Sieve
<200 = 66%
Sieve
<200 = 94 LL 37 PI = 12 UU = 2.3 (2.0)
CLAY with SAND (CL)
Stiff, very dark gray (IOYR 3/1), moist, low plasticity
[TOPSOIL]
SILT (ML)
Stiff to very stiff, dark greenish gray (10GY 411), moist
[OLD BAY MUD]
S 7
26.9 1 97.0 GT t (7199)
Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B45 of 6f lFigure B7
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-5 cont.
Humboldt County, California SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS a
I.
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry Cl z
E
°Coe Density Other SILT (ML): cont.
18 -
19 -
20-21 -
22-23 -
24-25 -
26-27 -
28-29 -
30 -
31 -
32 -
33 -
34-35 -
36-37 -
8 9
10 11 S
15 12 20 S00psi 6
6 10 11 18 20 T becomes hard and brown (10YR 5/3) below 20.75 feet SIT (ML)
Very stiff, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), moist, some clay binder SILT (ML)
Very stiff, dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) mottled with yellowish red (5YR 4/6) bands SANDY SILT (ML)
Hard, dark gray (2.5Y 4/1), minor fine sand 22.7 1 104.0 Sieve 200 = 92%
LL = 38 P11= 13 UU= 4.5 (2.5)
Sieve
<200 = 92%
LL = 31 Pi = 5 Sieve
<200 = 87%
I 25.8 01 C,
(I, 0.
0 LU CD 7
100.0 38 -__
Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0
'I' Geomatrix Consultants GT-2 (/9
~~~~-1
_IFigure B-7 Cont.
Page B-46 of 6Mf
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation of Boring No. 99-5 cont.
Humboldt County, California SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS
- a. X MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry
-W
,5 6
Content Density Other z_
__I_
_ I.
w
(%)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SANDY SILT (ML): cont.
401 41 42 -
43 -
44 -
45 46-47 48-49 -
50-51 52 -
53 54-55 56-57 58 59 60 I
- some fine sand T
decrease in sand SILTY CLAY with SAND (CL-ML)
Hard, dark gray (2.5Y 4/1), moist, some roots and wood fragments, some thin layers of fine sand 34.2 ;
88.0 Sieve
<200 = 56%
LL = 21 Pi = 1 Sieve
<200 = 100%
Sieve LL=25 P1=5
<200 = 73%
UU=2.5(7.0)
Sieve LL=67 P1=22
'200 = 90%
UU=3.3(8.0) 22.1 48.4 106.0 76.0 0,
uJ aD SILT (MH)
Hard, gray to dark gray (5Y4 511), moist, peat layers
[OLD BAY MUD]
PEAT SAND withGRAVEL (SW)
Very dense, grayish green (5G 412), moist, well graded sand, rounded gravel to 1 inch T
rE Project No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B. Rev. 0 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-47 of 64f GT-2 (7A)
Figure B:7 Cont.
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-5 cont.
I SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS L-a EiE 8MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Drnyc>oe vCoten Desity
(
%)ther 61 50 3"
SO 50 5".
SAND with GRAVEL (SW): cont.
16 13.3 125.1 Bottom of boring at 61.9 feet. Borehole backfilled with cement-bentonite grout.
Q
!Zl M
C C'q a,
cn UJ 0
0.0 8
1 G
GT-2 t7199)
Page B-48 of i64 I Figure B--7 Cont.
W UJ a Project No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B. Rev. 0 Geomnatrix Consultants
ATTACHMENT 1 HUMBOLDT BAY ISFSI DATA REPORT B ENERGY MEASUREMENT REPORT Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Page B-49 of 6 ql
GRL Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc.
March 12,1999 Mr. Eric Chase Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.
100 Pine Street, 1 0' Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Re:
SPT Energy Measurements February 10. 1999 PG&E, Humbolt Bay Power Plant Eureka, CA GRL Job No. 998006 Gentlemen:
This report presents the results of dynamic energy measurements taken during SPT sampling for soil boring G899-1 for the above referenced project on February 10, 1999. GRL (Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc.) made dynamic measurements with a POA (Pile Driving Analyzer] at SPT sample depths ranging from 4 to 40 ft.
We understand that the primary test objective was to measure the energy transfer ratio (ETRJ of the SPT system. The measured energy transfer ratio will be used to normalize the SPT N values to a standard efficiency of 60% [Na]. Our dynamic testing methods and equipment are described in Appendix A, the dynamic measurement results are presented in Appendix B. and calibration reports for our equipment are included in Appendix C.
DYNAMIC TESTING AND FIELD DETAILS Drill Rig and SPT Hammer Description The drilling and SPT sampling was performed by AllTerrain Inc using a Holemaster drill rig and APIF drill rod manufactured by Failing Exploration. It was reported to us that the APIF drill rod had a nominal diameter of 2 3/8 inches and a cross sectional area of 1.8 in'. The hole was advanced using a mud-rotary drilling method. SPT sampling was performed at depth intervals of approximately 5 ft using a 140-lb safety hammer. The hammer operator, Ron Manley, used a rope and cathead with 2.5 wraps to operate the hammer with a nominal drop height of 30 inches.
The safety hammer has a nominal rated energy of 350 ft-lbs. This rated energy value was used in computing the hammer energy transfer efficiency, ETR, that is presented in the dynamic test results. The total rod lengths below the dynamic test instrumentation, including the split spoon sampler, ranged from 9.0 ft to 44.0 ft during SPT sampling. Rod lengths and other information regarding the drilling operation are noted in the dynamic test results in Appendix B. For further information regarding the drill riq and hammers. olease refer to the manufacturer's literature.
mboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-50 of 6 4 ta Report B, Rev. 0 MAIN OFFICE: 4535 Renaissance Parkway. Cleveland, OH 44128 *)(216) 831-6131
- Fax (216) 831-0916 CALIFORNIA COLORADO FLORIDA ILLINOIS NO. CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA WASHINGTON 925-944-6363 303-666-6127 407-826-9539 847.670.7720 704-593-0992 610-459-0278 360-871.5480
GRL Job No. 998006 March 12, 1999 Page 2 Dynamic Test Instrumentation Dynamic measurements of strain and acceleration were taken on a 2-ft long section of AW rod (Rod number 58) which was attached to the top of the SPT rod string, just below the hammer. Rod number 58 has a nominal cross sectional area of 1.2 in'and is instrumented with two strain bridges and two piezoresistive accelerometers. The calibration reports for the instrumented rod are included in Appendix C. By averaging the measurements taken from opposite sides of the rod, the effects of non-uniform hammer impacts to the recorded signals were minimized. Strain and acceleration signals were conditioned and converted to forces and velocities by a PAK Model, Pile Driving Analyzer' (POA].
This dynamic testing equipment is the same equipment that is routinely used for conventional pile driving analysis. The dynamic force and velocity records were the basis of the computed energy results presented in this report.
In the field the force and velocity records from the PDA were viewed on a graphic LCD screen to evaluate data quality. Further descriptions of the PDA equipment and theory are included in Appendix A.
DISCUSSION OF DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS Calculation of Energy Transfer The energy transferred to the instrumented rod section was computed from the dynamic force and velocity records by two different methods, EFV and EF2. The first method, EFV, uses both the force and velocity records to calculate the maximum transferred energy as:
EFV= f F~t]V(t] dt The integration is performed over the time period from which the energy transfer begins [non-zero) and terminates at the time when the energy transfer reaches a maximum value. This method is theoretically correct for all rod lengths regardless of the 2L/c stress wave travel time [L is the rod length and c is the stress wave speed in the rod] and the number of non-uniform rod corrections. This calculation is the method we use to compute the energy transfer ratio, ETR, which is computed as:
ETI= EFV / Rated Hammer Energy Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. O Page B-5 I of GRL Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc.
GIRL Job No. 998006 March 12,1999 Page 3 The second method of computing energy transfer, EF2, uses only the force record in the calculation for the first 2L/c travel time and is computed as:
EF2= c/EA l [F[t))2dt where E is the Modulus of Elasticity of the rod, A is the rod cross sectional area, and c is the stresswave speed of the rod. In this equation the integration time starts at the hammer impact time and ends at the first occurrence of a zero force after impact. We report this method because it occurs in the original ASTM standard 04633-86 entitled "Standard Test Method for Stress Wave Energy Measurement for Dynamic Penetrometer Testing Systems", which is now expired. At the present time, the Revised Version of the ASTM 04633 standard is pending approval; however, there is no ASTM recognized standard for Energy testing at this time. We do not advocate use of the EF2 energy calculation method due to numerous errors associated with rod connections, rod non-uniformities, and rod length.
The original ASTM D4633-86 standard required that for the EF2 Method to be valid, the integration cut-off time and the first zero force must occur between 0.9(2L/c] and 1.2(2L/c]., where 2L/c is the travel time for an impact generated stress wave to travel from the sensors, down the rod string to the sampler tip and back. Data that does not meet these criteria should not be used. ASTM D4633-86 lists different empirical correction factors which should be applied to the equation to account for variations in rod length below and above the measurement location and to account for variations in theoretical versus measured stress wave velocity. The EF2 energy values we reported have not been corrected using the K factors described in ASTM D4633-86. Although we have presented the EF2 values to conform to the old ASTM standard, we do not advocate their use due to the many inaccuracies that are inherent in the computation. The EFV energy computation is preferred because it is valid for non-uniform rod cross sections and does not require corrections for variation in rod length.
Presentation of Dynamic Test Results In addition to energy transfer (EFV) and energy transfer ratio (ETR), the PDA also computed values for the hammer blow rate (6PM]. the maximum impact force [FMX], and the maximum rod velocity (VMX]. These results are tabulated in Appendix B. For each sample depth interval the average, maximum, minimum, and standard deviation of each value is given along with final sample depth for each 1.5 ft sample interval, the field reported SPT blow count, N, the final blow number for each depth interval, and the sample number for each depth interval.
Humboldt Bay 1SFS1 Page B-52 of 6 GRL Goble Rausche Likins ano Associates. Inc.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
GRL Job No. 998006 March 12. 1999 Page 4 Hammer Performance According to the EFV method, the average energy transfer from the safety hammer for all eight sample depth intervals was 173 ft-lbs and the average energy transfer efficiency was 49.4% of the rated energy. The average energy transfer for individual depth intervals ranged from 161 ft-lbs to 1.97 ft lbs and average transfer efficiencies ranged from 45% to 53%. These results indicate that the field observed SPT blow counts should be increased from 1 3% to 33% to normalize to field blow counts to standard efficiency of 60% (Ne]. The reported SPT blow counts (N] ranged from 27 blows/ft to 50 blows/3 inches.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service.
Very truly yours, GOBLE RAUSCHE LIKINS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
S
>-hz
/9 I-e-et' Steven K Abe, P.E.
GAL Goble Rausche Likins and Associates. Inc Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Page B-53 of 6'-f
APPENDIX A:
AN INTRODUCTION INTO DYNAMIC PILE TESTING METHODS BACKGROUND Between 1964 and 1977 research was conducted at Case Institute of Technology in Cleveland, Ohio with the objective of improving pile installation and construction control methods using electronic measurement and modern analysis methods. This work was supported by the Ohio Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.
In 1972, the research results were introduced into practice.
Professor G. G. Goble, who had been the principal investigator at Case, founded Pile Dynamics, Inc. a company which manufactures -
among other devices - the Pile Driving Analyzer' (PDA).
Together with his former research assistants he also founded Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc.
(GRL) a consulting engineering firm specialized in the dynamic measurement and analysis methods of piles.
Pile Dynamics gradually improved the PDA technology, always searching for and utilizing advances in electronic and computer technology.
In addition, new devices were built and introduced into the market.
GRL, on the other hand, developed methods and software for the analysis of the measured quantities. It is the intent of this paper to summarize both analytical and measurement tools available to the civil engineer.
RESULTS FROM DYNAMIC TESTING The following are the main objectives of dynamic pile testing (or monitoring).
Bearing Capacity at the time of testing.
For the prediction of a pile's long term bearing capacity, measurements are taken during restriking.
Dynamic Pile Stresses during pile driving. In order to limit the possibility of pile damage, stresses must be kept within certain bounds.
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page Data Report B, Rev. 0 For concrete
- piles, both tension compression stresses are important.
and Pile Integrity often must be checked both during and after pile installation.
Hammer Performance must be checked for productivity and construction control.
MEASUREMENTS The basis for the results calculated by the PDA are pile top force and velocity signals, obtained using accelerometers and bolt-on strain transducers attached to the pile near its top. The PDA conditions and calibrates these signals and immediately computes average pile force and velocity.
Using Case Method solutions, the PDA calculates the results described in the following section.
Other measurements are sometimes also required.
The ram velocity may be directly obtained using radar technology in the Hammer Performance AnalyzerJ (HPA). For open end diesel hammers, the time between two impacts indicates the magnitude of the fall height.
This information is measured and calculated by the Saximeterr.
Furthermore, the combustion pressure may be measured in diesels for proper wave equation modeling. Acceleration measurements taken on a helmet in addition to standard pile top force and velocity measurements yield pile top cushion stiffness information.
The Pile Integrity Tester" (P.I.T.) can be used to evaluate damage to piles which may have occurred during driving or casting.
It should also be mentioned that this so-called "Low Strain Method" of integrity testing requires only the measurement of acceleration at a pile top.
The stress wave producing impact is then generated by a small hand-held hammer.
A-1 B-54 of 6f GGRL Gobie Rausche Likins and Associates. Inc eB-5 fA
ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS R,(t) = J[F(t) + Zv(t) - R(t)]
(3)
BEARING CAPACITY Wave Equation GRL has prepared a program, GRLWEAP-, which provides for a truly analytical solution, i.e. it does not require measurements and provides the user with a functional relationship between both bearing capacity and pile stress and the blow count. These results can be adjusted or calibrated if measurements of pile top quantities are available.
However, the real strength of the traditional wave equation approach lies in a prediction of driving behavior and in the selection of an optimal driving system.
Case Method The Case Method is a closed form solution based on a few simplifying assumptions such as ideal plastic soil behavior and an ideally elastic and uniform pile.
Given the measured pile top force F(t) and pile top velocity v(t), the total soil resistance is R(t) = t/2{[F(t) + F(t2)] + Z[v(t) - v(t2)I}
(1) where and finally to the static resistance by means of Equation 2. This solution is simple enough to be evaluated "in real time", i.e. between hammer blows, using the PDA.
However, the assumption of a soil damping constant must be made and the time, t, has to be selected.
Often, t is selected such that the maximum static resistance, RMX, is calculated. The damping constant, J, may not be needed if the time, t, is chosen such that the R,(t) term vanishes.
One calls the resulting capacity value RA2.
CAPWAP This method (Case Pile Wave Analysis Program) combines the wave equation pile and soil model with the Case Method measurements.
Thus, the solution includes not only the total and static bearing capacity values but also the skin friction, end bearing, damping factors and soil stiffness.
The method iteratively determines a number of unknowns by signal matching.
While it is necessary to make hammer performance assumptions for a GRLWEAP
- analysis, the CAPWAP program works with the pile top measurements.
Furthermore, while GRLWEAP and Case Method require certain assumptions regarding the soil behavior, CAPWAP calculates these soil parameters.
STRESSES The wave equation and CAPWAP solutions include stresses along the pile. For the PDA, field results include the pile top stress directly from the measurement and, for concentrated end bearing, the stress at the pile toe from Equation 1.
z t2 L
c E
p A
EA/c is the pile impedance (EA/c) time t + 2Uc pile length below gages (E/p)' is the speed of the stress wave elastic modulus of the pile (p c2) pile mass density pile cross sectional area The total resistance consists of a dynamic and a static component. Thus R5(t) = R(t) - R.(t)
(2)
The static resistance component is, of course, the desired pile bearing capacity.
The dynamic component may be computed from a soil damping factor, J, and a pile toe velocity, v,(t) which is conveniently calculated for the pile toe.
Using wave considerations, this approach leads immediately to the dynamic resistance For concrete piles the maximum tension stress is also of great importance. It occurs at some point below the pile top. The maximum tension stress can be computed from the pile top measurements by considering the magnitude of both upward and downward traveling waves, W, and Wd.
W.= Y4.F(t) - Zv(t)]
(4)
Wd= Y2[F(t) + Zv(t)]
(5)
A-2 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Page B-55 of 64 GRL Gotle Rausche Likins and Associates. Inc.
If any one of these waves is negative, a tension wave exists. It must be checked whether the wave traveling in the opposite direction is sufficiently compressive to reduce the net tension to allowable levels. The PDA also performs this calculation.
PILE INTEGRITY High Strain Tests Stress waves in a pile are reflected wherever the impedance (Z=EA/c) changes.
The reflected waves arrive at the pile top at a time which depends on the location of the change.
The reflected waves cause changes in both pile top force and velocity. The magnitude relative change of the pile top variables allows to determine the extent of the cross sectional change. Thus, with O.,
being a relative integrity factor which is unity for no impedance change and zero for the pile end, the following can be calculated by the PDA.
HAMMER PERFORMANCE The PDA can very simply calculate the energy transferred to the pile top.
E(t) = jlJF(t)v(t) dt (8a)
The maximum of the E, curve is the most important information for an overall evaluation of the performance of a'driving system.
This EMX or ENTHRU value allows for a classification of the hammer's performance, using:
et = EMXIE, (8b) where E, is the hammer's rated energy.
The SaximeterTu calculates the stroke from an open end diesel using h = (g/8) T2 -hi (9) 5i = (1 - a,)/(1 + a,)
(6) where with a, = /.(WU. - WUd)/(Wdi - Wur) where g earth gravitational acceleration, T time between two blows, (7) hi a stroke loss value due to gas compression and time losses during impact (usually 0.3 ft orO.1 Im).
We, is the upward traveling wave at the onset of the reflected wave.
It is caused by resistance.
Wu, is the upwards traveling wave due to the damage reflection.
Wdj is the maximum downward traveling wave due to impact.
Low Strain Tests (P.I.T.)
The pile top is struck with a held hand hammer and the resulting pile top velocity is measured, displayed and interpreted for signs of wave reflections.
In general, a comparison of the reflected acceleration leads to a relative measure of extent of damage, again the location of the problem is indicated by the arrival time of the reflection.
An approximate pile profile can be calculated from low strain records using the P.I.T.WAP.
A-3 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-56 of 69 Data Report B, Rev. 0 GRL Goble Rausche Likins and Associaies. Inc.
Pile Driving Analyzer System I
I I;
IIl I
I I
i DATA STORAGE -
OUTPUT Hard Disk P.
Floppy Disk Printer Plotter DATA ANALYSIS l
D.
Internal CAPWAP Internal GRLWEAP 2 Strain Trar 2 Accelerome DATA STORAGE -
OUTPUT Internal Memory Tape Recorder Internal Printer Plotter Oscilloscope Modem to Computer Memory to Computer DATA ANALYSIS Modem to Computer Memory to Computer A-4 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-57 of 64 Data Report B, Rev. 0 GRL Goble Rauscr~e Likins and Associates. Ina
APPENDIX B DYNAMIC MEASUREMENT RESULTS Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-58 of 6q Data Report B, Rev. 0 GRL Goble Rausche Likins and Associates. Inc.
Boring: GB99-1 Pro;: PG & E-HBPP EFV: Max Energy by F*V VMX: Max Measured Velocity ETR: Efficiency (EFV/Erated)
FMX: Max Measured Force EF2: Energy by F'2 Method 8PM: Blows Per Minute BL#
N end bl/ft depth ft TYPE #Bls EFV ft-lb ETR EF2 ft-lb VMX ft/sec FMX BPM kips bl/min 35 30*
5.50 AVG STD MAX MIN 80 54*
9.00 AVG STD MAX MIN 113 27*
13.50 AVG STD MmX MIN 194 67*
18.00 AVG STD MIN 267 54*
26.50 AVG STD MAX MIN 342 60*
31.50 AVG STD MAX MIN 444 78*
36.50 AVG STD MAX MIN 524 200*
40.75 AVG STD MAX MIN 34 34 34 34 44 44 44 44 32 32 32 32 80 80 80 80 72 72 72 72 74 74 74 74 101 101 101 101 79 79 79 79 171 17 196 130 176 7
189 159 180 14 209 151 169 13 192 133 161 7
180 146 166 10 188 138 178 11 213 156 187 10 213 165 48 5
57 37 50 3
54 45 51 4
60 42 48 4
54 37 45 2
51 42 47 3
54 40 50 3
60 45 53 3
60 48 292 25 332 216 241 9
257 221 290 21 330 250 236 19 269 183 293 13 323 264 240 11 277 213 272 27 328 221 249 15 282 218 8.8 0.4 9.7 7.9 9.2 0.3 9.8
- 8. 6 9.6 0.5 10.5 8.6 9.5 0.4 10.4 8.9 8.2 0.4 9.0 7.4 8.2 0.2 9.9 8.4 8.7 0.3 9.5 8.1 9.5 0.3 10.2 8.8 33.0 2.2 36.3 26.2 28.4 0.8 30.1 26.7 30.3 1.4
- 32. 6 27.8 26.7 1.0 28.7 23.9 31.0 0.8
- 32. 8 28.8 26.8 0.7 28.9 24.9 28.4 2.2
- 32. 8 24.7 27. 0 0.8 28.6 25.4
- 44. 6 1.3
- 47. 3 41.4 47.4 1.4
- 49. 6 43. 5 45.6 0.9
- 47. 6 44.0 48.2 1.8 51.0 41.3
- 44. 0
- 1. 1 46.5
- 40. 5
- 44. 9 1.3
- 47. 5
- 42. 5 41.2 3.1 46.9 36.1 41.9 1.0
- 45. 3
- 38. 6 11, Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Page B-59 of 6; GRL Goble Rauscne Likins and Associates. Inc.
Notes:
- BLC USER INPUT BL#
COMMENTS 1 BELOW LE=
9.0, LP=4.0-5.5 35 BELOW LE= 14.0, LP=7.5-9.0 80 BELOW LE= 19.0, L'=12.0-13.5 113 BELOW LE= 24.0, LP=16.5-18.0 194 BELOW LE= 29.0, LP=25.0-26.5 267 BELOW LE= 34.0, LP=30.0-31.5 342 BELOW LE= 39.0, LP=35.0-36.5 444 BELOW LE= 44.0, LP=40.0-41.5 524 REFUSAL e LP=40.75, 50BL/3 INCHES DRIVE TIME
SUMMARY
(10-Feb-99 : GB99-l.QOO)
DRIVE WAIT
minutes BN 1 ->
35, START 14:12:20 ->
14:13:05 STOP, 0.75 34.07 BN 36 ->
80, START 14:47:09 ->
14:48:05 STOP, 0.93 28.87 BN 81 ->
113, START 15:16:57 ->
15:17:39 STOP, 0.70 23.70 BN 114 ->
194, START 15:41:21 ->
15:43:01 STOP, 1.67 63.42 EN 195 ->
267, START 16:46:26 ->
16:48:05 STOP, 1.65 17.23 BN 268 ->
342, START 17:05:19 ->
17:06:58 STOP, 1.65 18.43 BN 343 ->
444, START 17:25:24 ->
17:27:52 STOP, 2.47 22.23 BN 445 ->
524, START 17:50:06 ->
17:51:59 STOP, 1.88 Total Elapsed time 219.65 minutes Total Time 11.70 minutes 207.95 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-60 of 69 GRL Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
APPENJIX C SPT Rod Calibration Reports Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Page B-61 of 69 GRL Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc.
- '*J:-
1 L
¶j "LJ1 U
A U Zal ibratior, Data Shcw.t for 5PT rod *:!
iAW Cailt r-sited; L-2r 0
po
- 4. of
'Ac' 0..!
vvz?.'
Na.
Al 3
ml5 J1 Q 24 ~.
4 242. 9' 6162. I.
?12=. J.:
I 00 9 5. 2 60 7E I
4 2.
DC, 1E, 1.4.-
-. I..,
.7a'
- -I I t~r~
'-I 1 t
- 54
. 76
-79
..16 I. 07 1.1.
Brilgi-I Fort~e CA1 Cal pae.Lo-73e.2_7 2bs/v Offrgat 59 e.6" Corr CrQ Pormri Steairi E~llbetor-EA Frctor - 05547.44 tbioz Force CP.-
45.2Pt St-.%An Col1 O.57 i
C-'10 NO.
2 I
4 a
C2I 1')4b6. 4E 2042 ?.0 4 L24.17 5 l55. +/-:
7 1
@0 E.a ~
.1.-
a..
6, i~
I. ;. 7 I.
Srl~dgw 2 VO j ts~
- 52
.77
.1
-.)4
- 1. 17 C.ulA 5ac+or 76,43:.6? lbs!v Cvrr Coo 999 Corr Coe
. 1?9'969 For-Ca Cali Strain, IZZ 1 2.67 ME:
'p Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Page B-62 of 641 GRL Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc.
"laibirt-_10m 06ta Sheet faer SP'T r-Od 0~:5S PA Cijbrat&eca a2-marT:?
P q 0;.
C',-vl*
No.
'3 S,.p1& No.
4 8
- 1 1lbs
- 3:. 1_4 4 L~
=.7 7Cie2.2t%
6'026. '8 9 1. 1.
I.-t M1E 1 3. -2a B4.3.'i prizI L
'-i
'0
-77 11rid-cr '_
- 0. '~:
.387 I..* -i.
3 ~
erce CZ1 Cal Factor 730e.47 Jim/,!
Ccorr Cc90;p Oorce Stmaim
-_ziiratjcrt Corr Coe~
.?9~997
!: I8. 0z iE, V E4 r -_; n cz -_
27:
i i
I I
Thu2.u3Lbn."-'
Str.ain Ca
.64 IE; arldoax Eucit;w-tiom:
4.4 volts
,:
5r).4F,: orlin tirtwt rversistar prccit.Lcor.
e-e-z-do-'a I
C_,e.j_;br.at.jan Varctizr-Z I P. 4,:? ME:' 4i Etc; ractor.
Z -I,, 7:1. !: -L-r i-D x.
Ev jd~u 2'1-.3 71 ME/ V
- --;,7 1 -
i d b-.,
__-m
__\\
- -alzoratQ At
_T4
':I P a 7
:. _- C h, e r,
.- eL1Lb:-*ted onit 12-mar-cB rrazeabla-t to W.1.3.T.
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Page B-63 of GRL Goble Rausche Likins and Associates. Inc.
Calibration Dam Show tor SPT rm 4:58 AW Calibrated: March 12,198 PaGe 3 of 3 The calibration data furnished herein (the 'Caliration Dala") ws obtained uting load calts that were caefbrated acccrdIng t traceable N.I.
T. Standars.
Thomas P. Kkchr & Co. makes no represermtations ani gives r acvics as to the ue of te Calibration ODta or the use o1 any squipment alitrted 4sing tU Calibration Data.
Thomas P. KIcher & Co. is providing no professional, engineering or other advice or services other snan omiaining the Calibration Dam.
THE UABIUTY OF THOMAS P. KICHER & CO. AS TO TfE CALiBRATION DATA SHALL BE LIMITED TO, AT THE SC LE CHICE OF THOMAS P. KJCHER & CO.. EITHER (1) RECALIBRATION OF THE DEVICE CALIBRATED BY THE CAUBRATION DATA OR (2) A REFUND OF THE FEE PAID FOR THE CALIBPAT'ON OF THAT DEYIqE. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THOMAS P. KICHER & CO. BE LIABLE FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES CA FOR'LOST PROFITS.
USE OF THE CAUBRATION DATA CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THE A13OVE TERMS AND COND;TONS.
mT &.. F. IC
'P GRL Goble Rauscre Likins and Associates, Inc, Humboldt Bay ISFSI Data Report B, Rev. 0 Page B-64 of 6 L{