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: DATE: q 4/l6 /!-
C.4t , ix Printed Name Organization VERIFIED BY: Ths }-Lt4 \L tL~- DATE: q/2.) 0 7L 2 !0 tLr %c.
\t W "+ G e S. , ,a Ct >
Printed Name Organization APPROVED BY: DATE: 2 7--
Or1ga-cition Printei Name Organization J- -. ,
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-l of 6'14 Data Report B, Rev. 0
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 Site and Boring Location Plan Figure B-2 Boring Log Explanation Figure B-3 Log of Boring No. 99-1 Figure B-4 Log of Boring No. 99-2 Figure B-5 Log of Boring No. 99-3 Figure B-6 Log of Boring No. 99-4 Figure B-7 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 Page B-2 of 64 Data Report B, Rev. 0
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 Page B-7 of 6 9 t
Data Report B, Rev. 0
BLANK PAGE Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-S of 6q Data Report B, Rev. 0
BLANK PAGE Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-9 of ('t Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Boring B rn Logo Explanation x ln to S SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS C. ~ E z t DESCRIPTION MATERIAL al 3 Moisture Dry
_l) W U) (V.) (Pc_)
I 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 c diameter (with liners) 94 millimeter coring system C
Shelby tube sampler S
Pitcher barrel sampler, 3-inch inside diameter P
21 Blow count for every 6-inches of sample, or as noted 27 35 Distinct contact Gradual or uncertain contact I-Unconfined Compressive Strength in ksf UC=1 .30 Percentage of fine passing No. 200 sieve <200=44%
Grain size distribution test Sieve LL=Liquid limit; PI=Plasticity index LL=27. P1=4 Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Test, shear strength in ksf (confining UU=5.30 (3.10) pressure in ksf) A-Isotropically Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression ICU-TC Consolidation Test Consol NOTES:
- 1. The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types. The actual transitions between materials I-V, may be gradual.
0 2. These logs of the test borings and related information depict subsurface q conditions only at the specific locations and at the particular time the boring el)
LU C,
was made. 7
- a. 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 CL groundwater conditions at these locations.
If-
- 4. Soil colors from Munsell Soil Color Charts GT-2 )98 ci G
XCProject No. 5117.009 Geomatrix Consultants Page B- l of 64 Figure B- IL 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 ring NAo. 9
+12.7 feet, Mean Lower Low Water DRILLING CONTRACTOR: All Terrain Exploration Dniling DATE STARTED: DATE FINISHED:
2110/1999 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 SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS a, -a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- a. a Z m In ASPHALT AGGREGATE BASE SILTY SAND (SM)
Medium dense to dense, yellowish brown (1OYR 5/4),
2 minor subrounded gravel to 1/4 inch in upper 1 foot S #50psl
[FILL]
3 T Gray (2.5Y 5/1) 4-I 6 } SILTY CLAY (CL) 12 5 SANDY CLAY (CL) 18 Very stiff, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), fine sand <200 = 59%
6 21.7 108.7 Sieve S pOOpS SILTY SAND (SM) 7 Very dense, gray (2.5Y 5/1) mottled with brown (1OYR 4/3), moist, fine subrounded sand I
17 8 <200= 39%
24- Sieve 30 9
10-P BOpsi CLAY with SAND (CL) 11 Very stiff, gray (2.5Y 5/1), moist, very fine sand 12-I 6
11 13 16 <200 = 80%
R Sieve
- Few rootlets and plant fragments at 13.5 feet LL = 33 14 - Pl=11 24.5 99.4 LUU.80)
= 2.87 25.4 99.3 Consol 0,I 15 - P 75psi SILTY SAND (SM) 0, Very dense, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), wet, 16- occasional rounded gravel to 114 inch, fine sand at top,
- 0. medium to coarse sand at bottom. Sand consists of Cn U,
17 -
T 17 29 quartz, feldspar, lithics [BEACH/EOLIAN DEPOSITI 20.4
<200 = 14%
Sieve GT-1 719) i Lu Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Figure B- i aJ PageB-12of 64 Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Humboldt County, California Installation Log L go of Boring oigN No..9 99 cont. o t I SAMPLES [ LABORATORY TESTS
- 0. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture rwy 0 _z Content Density Other
_T_,, _, _,_ ..
SILTY SAND (SM): cont.
18 -
0 I 38 19 -
9 P 80psi 20 -
21 -
22 -
23 -
C-WELL GRADED SAND with SILT (SW-SM) 24 - Very dense, dark yellowish brown (1OYR 4/4), wet, rounded gravel to 1-1/4 inches [BEACH]
25 -
I 19 10 27 26 - T More gravel 18.4 27 27 -
<200 = 11%
Sieve 28 - (Composite of Sample #10 and
- 11) 29 -
30-I 18 11 27 T Less gravel 31 - 14.1 33 32 -
33 -
34 -
I Gravel to 1 inch 35 -
I 25 12 36 I POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) 0 36 -
I- 42 0
0 e 37 -
0~
0 02 38 -
39 GT-2 (7159)
&AJ Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-13 of 69 l Figure B-3Cont.
a, Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-1 cont.
LABORATORY TE STS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry Content Dens4 Oth ..
(%6) (pd)
WELL GRADED SAND with SILT (SW-SM): cont.
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) 16.9 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 18.7 <200 = 5%
T Less gravel, medium grained sand 2 Sieve 7
T Fine subrounded sand consisting of quartz, feldspar, lithics a
0 0,
0 0.
0 a
T Fine sand q
F-u-2B7Cn CA, Pject No. 511 9 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-14 of 64L . iueB-3 Cont.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-1 cont.
Humboldt County, California SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS i a cIA MT DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry C- E _ E Content Density Other 5 - Z 9 -8 ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~(%/)
(pdf) 171 POORLY GRADED SAND (SP): cont.
61 - IU 5.5" 62 - P 21.2 106.4 <200 = 3%
Sieve
- Medium sand, occasional rounded gravel, abundant 63 - lithics, feldspar, quartz 64 -
WELL GRADED SAND with GRAVEL (SW-)
65 - Very dense, olive brown (2.5Y 413), wet, medium to 66 -
I 27 50 4"
coarse sand 67 -
68 - Gravel lens 69 -
<200 = 3%
70 - 10.2 Sieve 71 -
I 17 50 4.5, 72 -
73 -
74- POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Very dense, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2), moist, fine 75 - sand, rounded, lithics, feldspar, quartz 76 - I 26 50 5.5" 77 -
e 78 - POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Very dense, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2), moist, fine 0 79 - to medium sand, rounded, lithics abundant, feldspar, quartz 80- 18.6 07 a',. 81 -
I 42 50 4.5" 82 -
GT-2 (79fl9) uJ MU Project No. 5117.009 O Humboldt Bay ISFSI Figure B-3 Cont.
C, Geomatrix Consultants PageB-15of 64f Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log L go of Boring oigN No..9 99 cont. o t SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry uJ zbe E Content 8 8 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,
GT-2 (7199) 0 co ua Project No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geornatrix Consultants Page B-16 of 6' Figure B-3 Con.I Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-2 BORING LOCATION: N 9593.45, E 4715.90 ELEVATION
+40.6AND feet, DATUM.
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: SAMPLING See bonng log explanation, Figure B-1 METHOD: DEPTH ~~~~~~~~~~~~~N/A TO WATER AT COMPLETION (feet, date/time):
HAMMER WEIGHT: 140 pounds HAMMER DROP: 30 inches LOGGED BY:
HAMMERWEIGHT . J. R. Wesl ng SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS a_
- e t @ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture cy- E Eent Cn (%Desit O)er SILTY CLAY (CL)
Soft, black (10YR 211), moist, organic [TOP SOIL]
1-2- CLAYEY SAND (SC)
I S 8opsi Medium dense, reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6), moist, fine 3- sand, subrounded 21.4 105.2 UU=1.74 (0.3) 4-5 2 9 5-10 LEAN CLAY with SAND to SILT with SAND (CL-ML) 26.8 98.0 <200 = 77%
6- Very stiff, light yellowish brown (1OYR 6/4), moist Sieve LL=39 50ps Pi = 15 ICU-TC 7- 3 S B6ops 29.5 94.8 <200 = 77%
Sieve 8- LL=45 Pi = 21 UU = 1.98 (0.9) 3 9-4 9 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 18 Medium dense, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2), moist, 10- fine, subrounded sand, more clayey in upper 6 inches 11 - 22.8 105.7 <200 = 23%
Sieve 5 S po0ps 12-SILT (ML) 13 - Stiff, gray (2.5Y 511), moist, fine sand increasing with 4
depth 6 6 14- 28.2 96.3 8
28.4 96.2 <200 = 99%
LL=43 15 - lops Pi = 16 UU = 2.03 (2.00) 21.8 107.1 Sieve ICU-TC 16- 7 S 29.6 93.5 Consol 17 - 50ps GT-1 (79) mu W Project C, No. 5117.00 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-17 of 6t4 Figure B-O Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Humboldt County, California Installation Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS CL; W 11> D la _ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION MOisture Dry astz} 2 8 Content Density Other -
U) c l ~ _ , 0d 4 SILT (ML): cont.
18 24 102.1 UC = 3.01 11 19 -
6 19 I.-
201 LEAN CLAY to SILT (CL-ML) 33 Hard, brown (7.5YR 5/4), moist 19 111.9 <200 = 86%
Sieve LL = 31 21 - PI = 9 UC = 13.99 22 -
23 -
24-25 -
6 26-27 -
\L 14 22 SILTY SAND (SM)
Very dense, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), moist, fine sand, subrounded to rounded
<200 = 31%
Sieve 28-29 -
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)
Very dense, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) 30-I 36 <200 = 9%
Sieve 46 31 -
50 32 -
33-POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)
Very dense, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), moist, fine 34- subrounded to rounded sand 35 -
a q
Cl 36 -
I 45 50' 5.5 a,
0 37 a.
0 to 38 -
8
- n 39 uJ c,
Projec No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants PageB-18of 6if l Figure B4i Cont. I Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry DU_ Ez E Content Density Other
(%n Xc._._,,(pcl)
SILTY SAND (SM)
Very dense, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), moist 40-41 17.4 111.5 <200 = 48%
Sieve 13 P 75ps!
42-43 -
44- WELL GRADED GRAVEL with SAND (GW) 4-I Dense, dark yellowish brown (1OYR 414), wet, 45 - subrounded gravel to 1 inch (gravel plugged sampler) 29 14 27 46-17 47-SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)-
48- Hard, dark gray (2.5Y 5/1), moist 49.
7 50-10 15 20 51 - CLAYEY SAND (SC) <200 = 32%
30 Dense, dark gray (2.5Y 4/1), moist Sieve 52 -
7 53 -
54- 7 55 - WELL GRADED GRAVEL with SAND (GW) 56-
\ 31 50, 3"
Dense, gravel to 1-1/2 inches 41 50-3" 57 -
I.-
0 0,
58 -
~0 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)
- a. 59 Very dense, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), moist, fine sand 07
_7 60-T GT-2 (7/99)
.^-
l 4uJ Project C, No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants PageB-19of 641 lFigure B-qCont.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humbldt ClifoniaLog ouny, of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS 9! ,L .
~~-a M MATERIALL9DESCRIPTIONCotn Moisture Dry DesyOte W.2_ __6_ _ _ _ _ _Content _ Dens Other_ _
a tom _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Oct_ _ I POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM): cont. <200 = 11%
I 23 Sieve 61 -
16 35 43 62-63 -
64-65 -
66-17 I 39 50.
IS.
67 -
68-WELL GRADED SAND (SW) 69 - Very dense, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), wet, rounded gravel to 1/2 inch 70-71 18 P 50psi 21.6 105.2 <200 = 2%
Sieve 72 -
73.
74 -
75 -
I SO.T 3.5" 76 - I 54 4'
77 -
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM) 78 - Very dense, olive brown (2.5Y 513), moist, medium grained sand, subrounded to subangular, gravel PI-79 - lenses, rounded gravel to 1/2 inch a'
a,1
- 0) 80 -
- 0. 89 <200 = 8%
19 100 Sieve 0.
0 81 - 6" o.S a/-
GT-2 (9)
"I.
UJ t:1 Project No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-20 of 64 lFigure B-LjCont.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry Content Density Other
(%s) (PcO cont.
LEAN CLAY (CL): hard, light yellowish brown (10YR Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-21 of 64f Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
E~O E SAMPLES o-I,z S - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION jMa~insture Content l ABORATORY TESTS IDensity Dry H POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM): cont.
104-105 -
106-107 -
108-109 -
110-111 -
112-113 114 -
115 116-117 -
118 -
119 -
- More silty 120-21 I 70 6"
121 -
Q 9 122-a w
0 41'V -
0 I4J a%
0.
0.
124 -
125 en _ P 2GTa2 C 7299e uJ 0
Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay 1SFSI Geomabtix Consultants Page B-22 of 6zf l Figure &4Cont.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California SAMPLES I z) 0 4-i MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I--w.D W
cn ' ClI)II, -
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 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-23 of 6Lf Data Report B, Rev. 0
Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
LABORATORYlT TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry Content Density Other
(.) (pci)
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 Geomatrix Consultants Data Report B, Rev. 0
Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry Content Density Other
(%h) (pd)
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 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-25 of 614 Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS o.L Xo ' -a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture I Dry ry L- t- E 8 Content Density Other W __I_ ~(%) . , (pef)
SILT with SAND (ML): cont.
190-191 -
192 -
193 -
194 -
195 -
196 -
197 -
198-199 -
SILT with SAND to LEAN CLAY with SAND (ML-CL)
Very dense, dark gray (2.5Y 4/1), moist 200 -
I 31 27 43 201 - 50 26.7 <200 = 88%
~02 -
203 -
204 -
205 -
206 -
207 -
0 CD 208-a) 0)
0) g)
C, 209 -
C, (a
210 -
211 GT-2 (7M99)
Yi CI Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-26 of 6Mt lFigure B-tCont.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
Humboldt County, California
.1 SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS iig c -a@ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry Lu G M DECRPTO Content Density Other en so C (%)__ (p SILT with SAND to LEAN CLAY with SAND (ML-CL):
cont.
212 213 214 -
15 -
16 -
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM) 17 - Very dense, gray (2.5Y 5/1), wet, subangular to subrounded, some small gravel layers 18 -
19 -
20-28 Ij 5.5 [ LEAN CLAY (CL) 21 -
<200 = 7%
Sieve 22- 29 C 23 -
24 -
25 -
26-11In L2I 7 -
228 -
229 IAn 23u -
a-231 -
_Cn ci,-
232-Ca GT-2 (7M) uJ a Project No. 5117.009 1 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-27 of 6- I Figure B-LjCont.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry Content Density Other
(%h) (PM)
)with SILT (SP-SM): cont.
SILTY SAND (SM)
Very dense, gray (2.5Y 5/1)
<200 = 43%
Sieve 30 Humboldt Bay lSFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-28 of Ctj Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
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 -
POORLY and WELL GRADED SAND with GRAVEL 62- 43 C (SP-SW)
Very dense, dark greenish gray (1OGY 4/1), wet, medium to coarse sand, rounded gravel to 1/4 inch, 63 -
shells (silicified) 64-65 -
66-67 -
68-69 -
70-71 -
N I-72-Q Li 73 -
0.
C, 74 -
N 75 -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ GT-2 ( )99)
UJ C,
Project No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-29 of 6qf l igure B-4Cont.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California SAMPLES I-wj] 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0- UM CJ 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 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-30 of 6tL Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
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 -
WELL GRADED SAND with GRAVEL (SW)
Very dense, dark greenish gray (1OGY 411), wet, 301 - rounded gravel to 1/4 inch, minor interbedded poorly 32 C graded sand (SP) 302 -
303 304 -
305 -
306 -
307 308 -
309 -
310 -
311 -
312 -
313-314 -
315 -
316 -
317 -
318-GT-2 (79)
"I 0
Project No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geonatrix Consultants Page B-31 of 64 1Figure B.LCont.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
LABORATORY TESTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry Content Density I Other (ah) (Pm POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)
Very dense, dark greenish grey (1OGY 4/1), wet, fine sand
- Silt content variable, some layers of clean sand
<200 = 11%
34 Sieve Humboldt Bay ISFS] Geomatrix Consultants Page B-32 of 6f4 Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS 0 Dry
- a. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture 4' -4)'& a Content Density Other
(%) I (pd)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM): cont.
Siltier Less silty than above, may be transitional to poorly graded sand Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatuix Consultants Page B-33 of 6-t Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
Humold ConyIalfri SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS I
-a* MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry CO cl.A Content Density Other
(%/) (PMT POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM): cont. <200 = 7' Sieve 362 - C 363 -
364 -
365 -
POOR5Y GRADEDSED SAN with SILT (SP-SM)
Very dense, dark greenish gray (5BG 4/1), wet, fine 366 - subrounded to rounded sand, harder weakly cemented zones 367 -
368 -
369 -
370 -
371 -
37 C <200 = 7%
Sieve 372 -
373 -
74-
<71-376 376 -
377-378 -
379 -
N C:4 W
380 -
o to UJ 0.
381 -
0' 38 C 0
382-a 383 _ GT-2 (7M99I 0,
UH Projec No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-34 of 6 l Figure B-4Cont.
Data Report B,Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
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 -
39 C <200 = 9%
Sieve 392 -
393
[394-395 -
396 -
397 -
398 - 1-SILTY CLAY with SAND (CL-ML)
Hard, dark greenish grey (1OY 4/1), moist, fine 399 subrounded sand 400 -
401 SILTY SAND (SM) 40 C 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 Geomatrix Consultants Page B-35 of 6'-4 I Figure B-q Cont.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-2 cont.
SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS CZ ? MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry 0n Content Density Other to wn I (%) (Pcf) cont.
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-36 of "-f Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-3 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 DRILLING EQUIPMENT: CME 850 CME 850 EQUIPMENT: ~~~TOTAL DEPTH 77.3 (feet): MEASURING POINT:
Ground surface DRILLING METHOD: Mud Mud Rotary DRILLING Rotary ME~~~~hOD: DEPTH TO FREE WATER
~~~~N/A FIRST ENCOUNTERED (feet):
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 E _ . Co e.. Density . d 2 CLAY with SAND (CL)
Stiff, brown (0OYR 4/3), moist, low plasticity IFILLI 1 4 _ . . . _ . . ....... ,
1- CLAYT(CL) 6 Stiff, black (1OYR 2/1), moist, low plasticity [TOP SOIL]
2-loops 2 S 3- loops SANDY CLAY (CL)
Stiff, yellowish brown (10YR 6/6), moist, low plasticity 500ps [TERRACE]
4- CLAYEY SAND (SC) 7 3 8 Loose, strong brown (7.5YR 51), moist 5- SAND TCAYC---
8 Sieve Very stiff, strong brown (7.5YR 5/6), moist, low 23.4 I 101.6 <200 = 57%
?50ps plasticity LL = 30 6- PI = 7 loops UU = 2.0 (1.0) 4 S tOOps CLAYEY SAND (SC) 5OOps Medium dense, grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2), moist, fine 7- sand, rootlets 6 .
-~~ ----
.- _ .. . Sieve 8- 5 10 SILTY SAND (SM) <200 = 40%
Medium dense, grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2), moist, fine LL=23 14 PI = 0 sand, poorly graded 9-t- SILT (ML) 10 - T Becomes pale brown (1OYR 6/3) 11 -
CLAY (CL)
Very stiff, dark greenish gray (1OGY 4/1), moist, low 12 - plasticity [OLD BAY MUD]
13 -
N 14 -
C, a,0 15 -
I0(
a, 4
a.
6 10 Sieve 16 - 22.6 105.5 <200 = 94%
a, 14 LL = 32
-c P1=9 0n UU = 2.2 (2.0) 17 -
EI GT-1 (719) zi a,
a.,
Project No. 5117.009 lHumboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-37 of 6'f IFigure B 5 Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-3 cont.
SAMPLES LLBORATORY TESTS 0Z X s > MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry a- _ Content Density
_cfior n(Pd)
CLAY (CL): cont.
183 19 SILTY CLAY (CL-ML) 20 7
Hard, brown (7.5YR 5/4), moist, low plasticity, fine sand 11 7 22 Sieve 21 23.0 1 104.5 <200 = 90%
23 LL =29 P= 6 UU = 4.5 (2.5) 22 23 1-*
SILTY SAND (SM)
Very dense, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), moist, fine 24 subrounded sand, poorly graded, minor silt, CLAYEY SAND (SC) layers to 1/2 inch 25 26-a I 20 30 34 Sieve
<200 = 35%
LL = 19 PI = 0 UU = 6.9 (4.5) 27 -
28 -
29 -
Sieve 30- <200 = 16%
I 23 LL= 18 P= 0 9 40 31 -
43 32 -
33 -
SILTY SAND (SM)
Very dense, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2), moist, fine 34-subrounded sand, occasional clay laminae Sieve 35 - 15.0 110.2 <200 = 16%
LL = 14 P1=O loops UU = 6.9 (4.5) 36-a, 10 I P to q
SOOps 37 -
a01 38-39 7 I ul LU Project a,
No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-38 of 6L- Iigre B5C o ntj Data Report B, Rev. 0
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.
Sieve
<200 = 46%
Dense, dark greenish gray (5BG 3/1), moist, 1-inch Sieve thick SAND (SW) layer and 1/2-inch thick SILTY CLAY <200 = 34%
(SC-ML) layer LL= 18 Pi = 0 with SAND (ML)
-SILT Very stiff, gray (2.5Y 5/1), moist, rootlets [OLD BAY MUD] Sieve 21.1 106.6 <200 = 84%
LL = 29 Pi = 6 UU = 4.3 (5.5)
Sieve
<200 = 88%
Hard, gray (2.5Y 511), moist [OLD BAY MUD]
Sieve 32.7 89.8 <200 = 99%
LL =47 f SANDY SILT with PEAT (MH) 113.4 38.6 Pi = 17 UU = 2.8 (5.5)
Sieve
<200 = 68%
LL = 180 P =54 UU = 4.5 (5.5) 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 Projed No. 5117.00 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-39 of G5 l Figure B-, Cont.
a, Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-3 cont.
SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS IL _
D MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry u _ E _ E Content Density Other jIS ) _(__ _ .__ __ _ ,
16 SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SP-SM): cont.
61 -
I 47 50 4"
T Becomes brown (1OYR 4/3) below 61 feet Sieve
<200 = 10%
62 - __________________________
GRAVEL with SAND (GW)
Medium dense, mottled light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) to 63 - very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2), moist, well graded gravel, rounded gravel to 1" 64-65 -
5 17 12 66-32 67 -
68-69 -
70 -
71 -
18 7 14 44 50 2"
72-73 -
74-75 I
19 28 50 Sieve 20 GRAVEL with SAND (GP) <200 = 1%
76- 4.5" 15 Very dense, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), moist, poorly 21 graded sand 30 77 -
50 5.5" Bottom of boring at 77.3 feet. Borehole backfilled with cement-bentonite grout.
0 an 0
a-an 0.
0 to N
U, GT-2 (7d) w ILl a?
Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-40 of 6# IFigure B- 5Cont.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-4 Humboldt County, California BORING LOCATION:
BORING LOCATION: N N 9711.29 9711 E 4808.78
__.29, 4808.78 ELEVATION 43.09AND feet DATUM:
Mean Lower Low Water DRILLING CONTRACTOR: All Terrain Exploratory Drilling DATE STARTED:
_______________________________________________________________12/7/1999 DATE FINISHED:
12/8/1999 DRILLING EQUIPMENT: CME 850 TOTAL DEPTH (feet): MEASURING POINT:
63 Ground surface DRILLING METHOD: Mud RotaryDEPTH Rotary TO FREE WATER FIRST ENCOUNTERED
~~~~~~~~~~N/A (feet):
SAMPLING METHOD: See boring log explanation, Figure B-1 TO WATER AT COMPLETION (feet, date/time):
DEPTH N/A HAMMER WEIGHT: 140 pounds HAMMER DROP: 30 inches K LOGGED BY:Wesli g
_____________________________________________J.R.
SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS ULj- ' I D MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture otent aE Density Oher
_ 87 _ = A . . v [ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(%/) (pcf) x 3 SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
I Stiff, very dark gray (10YR 3/1), moist, gravel to 1 inch 5
1- [TOPSOIL]
6 CLAY with SAND (CL) 2- loops Stiff, yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) mottled with light gray 2 S lo~ps (IOYR 7/2), moist, low plasticity [B+ HORIZON?]
3- SAND with CLAY (SW-SC) loops Medium dense, light yellowish brown (1OYR 6/4),
moist, well graded sand 4- 2 CLAY with SAND (CL) 3 3 Stiff, light yellowish brown (IOYR 6/4), moist, low 5 - 6 plasticity, fine sand 6-4 S CLAYEY SAND to SILTY SAND (SC-SM)
Medium dense, yellowish brown (10YR 4/4), moist, 7 - grades to SILTY SAND (SM), medium dense 12 Sieve 5 9 <200 = 25%
8- LL = 19 7 Pi =0 SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
Very stiff, greenish gray (5BG 5/1), moist, low to 9- lOOps medium plasticity [OLD BAY MUD] 7 6 S 10- 28.0 95.9 Sieve 500ps <200 = 99%
LL = 37 PI = 12 11 - UU = 2.3 (1.5) 12 -
13 -
SILT (ML-MH)
Very stiff, greenish gray (5BG 5/1), moist, high plasticity 14- [BAY MUD]
15 -
8 7 9 16- 33.7 89.6 Sieve 9 <200 = 100%
LL = 50 PI = 21 17 - UU = 1.0 (2.0)
GT1 (719i)
W uj Project No. 5117.009 Figure B6 uJ 1 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-41 of 6'f Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Humboldt County, California Installation Log L go of Boring oigN No..9 994 -
cont.
o t x SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS DL 9 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry a_ Content Density Other U WI
- (%) (Pct)
SILT (ML-MH): cont.
18 -
SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML) 19 - Hard, grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) mottled with yellowish brown (11YR 514), moist, low plasticity [OLD BAY MUD]
X 20 -
14 18 21 - 18.7 112.2 Sieve 30 <200 = 75%
LL = 28 PI = 7 22- UU = 5.1 (2.5) 1 23 SAND SILT (ML)
Hard, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), moist, poorly graded I 24 sand, clay binder 25 -
I 6
Sieve 14 <200 = 59%
28-SAND with SILT (SP-SM)
Very dense, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), moist, fine sand 29 -
Sieve 7
30- 9.5 105.1 LL=15 57 Pl=0
<200 = 11%
31 -
50/5" 70 I 8.1 104.8 ICU-TC Sieve
<200 = 12%
68 LL = 16 PI = 0 32- UU = 9.9 (4.0) 33 -
34 -
N 35 - _
I 16 SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
I-V Hard, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), moist M 11 20 Sieve 36 - <200 = 64%
0 21 LL = 22 PI = 4 37 W0 In 0
0 38 -
SILTY SAND (SM): See next page for description
'I 39 EJ, Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B42 of 64 I Figure B 6 Cant. I Data Report B, Rev. 0
I PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Log of Boring No. 99-4 cont.
Moisture LABORATORY TESTS Dry Content Density Other M.) (PY)(
SILTY SAND (SM): cont.
Dense, dark bluish gray (1OBG 4/1), moist, poorly Sieve LL=16 graded sand, large piece of wood in upper part of 19.8 109.0 P1=O sample <200 = 24%
ICU-TC 19.4 110.7 Sieve
<200 = 25%
LL = 17 Pi = 0 UU = 8.5 (5.0)
SILTY SAND (SM)
Dense, very dark gray (5Y 3/1), moist, fine sand, contains wood fragments and peat Sieve
<200 = 35%
LL = 23 Pi = 0 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 21.0 105.5 Sieve LL=17 P1=O
<200 = 16%
ICU-TC 20.3 106.1 Sieve
<200 = 20%
LL = 16 PI= NP UU = 5.6 (5.5)
SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
Hard (?), dark greenish gray (1OY 4/1), moist
. . _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 PEAT (OL)
Very stiff SANDY CLAY with GRAVEL (CL)
Hard, very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2), moist, low plasticity, rounded gravel to 314 inch I.- SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SW-SM)
C, Very dense, olive brown (2.5Y 4/3), moist, well graded sand, rounded gravel to 3/4 inch C,
'C GT-2 (7/99) uJ wj a,
Project No. 5117.00 J Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-43 of 64 7 ~ue B-6 oant.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
Log of Boring No. 99-4 cont.
LABORATORY TESTS 7 T MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry Contenl Density Other (A) I (pd) grout.
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-44 of 6'-f Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-5 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
____________ I HAMMER DROP: 30 inches LOGGED BY:
~~~~~~Wesling
~~~~~~~~J.R.
SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS
-a_MATERIAL
@ E e > DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry ui0 24 Ed tb Conlt ensity Other 3 CLAY with SAND (CL) 4 Stiff, very dark gray (IOYR 3/1), moist, low plasticity 1- [TOPSOIL]
6 OOps CLAY with SAND (CL) 2- Stiff, brown (10YR 3/4), moist [B+ HORIZON]
S loops CLAY with SAND (CULCH) 3- So0ps Very stiff, strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) mottled with light gray (10YR 7/2), moist, high plasticity [B+ HORIZON]
4-5 T becomes low plasticity (CL) 9 5- 23.1 102.9 Sieve 10 <200 = 66%
LL =38 lOOps PI = 19 6- lOOps UU = 2.5 (1.0)
S 7- CLAY (CL) i0ops Stiff, yellowish brown (10YR 5/6), moist, low plasticity 8-8 10 9-15 S
10- SANDY SILT (ML)
Very stiff, gray (N5 ), moist [OLD BAY DEPOSIT]
11 -
SILT (ML) 12- Stiff to very stiff, dark greenish gray (10GY 411), moist
[OLD BAY MUD]
lOOps 13 -
S 14- 50Ops 15 7
4 6 Sieve 16- 26.9 1 97.0 <200 = 94 9 LL 37 PI = 12 UU = 2.3 (2.0) 17 -
GT t (7199)
Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B45 of 6f lFigure B7 Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California Log of Boring No. 99-5 cont.
SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS a I. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry Cl z E °Coe Density Other SILT (ML): cont.
18 -
19 -
20-15 8 12 21 - T becomes hard and brown (10YR 5/3) below 20.75 feet 22.7 1 104.0 Sieve 20 200 = 92%
LL = 38 P11= 13 22- UU= 4.5 (2.5) 23 -
Very stiff, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3), moist, some clay 24- binder 25 -
9 S S00psi 26-27 -
SILT (ML)
Very stiff, dark gray (2.5Y 4/1) mottled with yellowish 28- red (5YR 4/6) bands 29 -
Sieve 30 - <200 = 92%
I 6 LL = 31 Pi = 5 10 6 31 -
10 32 -
33 -
SANDY SILT (ML)
Hard, dark gray (2.5Y 4/1), minor fine sand 34-35 -
7 11 11 18 36- 25.8 100.0 Sieve 01 20 <200 = 87%
37 - UU = 3.1 (4.5) 0.
38 -__
0 'I' GT-2 (/9
_ ~~~~-1 LU CD Project No. 5117.009 Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-46 of 6Mf _IFigure B-7 Cont.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Humboldt County, California of Boring No. 99-5 cont.
SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS
- a. X
,5
-W 6 z_ _
w MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
__I_ ___
Moisture Content
(%)
_ I.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dry Density Other SANDY SILT (ML): cont.
Sieve 401 <200 = 56%
I LL = 21 Pi = 1 41 - some fine sand 42 -
43 -
44 -
45 T decrease in sand 46- 34.2 ; 88.0 Sieve
<200 = 100%
LL = 52 PI 22 47 UU= 1.9 (5.0) 48-SILTY CLAY with SAND (CL-ML) 49 - Hard, dark gray (2.5Y 4/1), moist, some roots and wood fragments, some thin layers of fine sand 50-51 52 - 22.1 106.0 - Sieve LL=25 P1=5
<200 = 73%
53 UU=2.5(7.0) 54- SILT (MH)
Hard, gray to dark gray (5Y4 511), moist, peat layers 55 [OLD BAY MUD]
48.4 76.0 Sieve 56- PEAT LL=67 P1=22
'200 = 90%
UU=3.3(8.0) 57 0,
58 uJ aD 59 SAND withGRAVEL (SW)
Very dense, grayish green (5G 412), moist, well graded 60 sand, rounded gravel to 1 inch T
GT-2 (7A) rE Project No. 5117.009 l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Geomatrix Consultants Page B-47 of 64f Figure B:7 Cont.
Data Report B. Rev. 0
PROJECT: HUMBOLDT BAY Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Log of Boring No. 99-5 cont.
I SAMPLES LABORATORY TESTS L-a EiE DESCRIPTION 8MATERIAL Drnyc>oe vCoten Desity ( %)ther 50 SAND with GRAVEL (SW): cont.
61 3" SO 16 50 13.3 125.1 5".
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)
W U l Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-48 of i64 IFigure a JProject No. 5117.009 Geomnatrix Consultants B--7 Cont.
Data Report B. Rev. 0
ATTACHMENT 1 HUMBOLDT BAY ISFSI DATA REPORT B ENERGY MEASUREMENT REPORT Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-49 of 6 ql Data Report B, Rev. 0
GRL Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc.
March 12,1999 Mr. Eric Chase Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.
100 Pine Street, 10' 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.
Presentationof 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 13% 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 /9I-e-et' Steven K Abe, P.E.
GAL Goble Rausche Likins and Associates. Inc Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-53 of 6'-f Data Report B, Rev. 0
APPENDIX A:
AN INTRODUCTION INTO DYNAMIC PILE TESTING METHODS BACKGROUND
- For concrete piles, both tension and compression stresses are important.
Between 1964 and 1977 research was conducted at Case Institute of Technology in Cleveland, Ohio
- Pile Integrity often must be checked both with the objective of improving pile installation and during and after pile installation.
construction control methods using electronic measurement and modern analysis methods. This
- Hammer Performance must be checked for work was supported by the Ohio Department of productivity and construction control.
Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.
MEASUREMENTS In 1972, the research results were introduced into practice. Professor G. G. Goble, who had been The basis for the results calculated by the PDA are the principal investigator at Case, founded Pile pile top force and velocity signals, obtained using Dynamics, Inc. a company which manufactures - accelerometers and bolt-on strain transducers among other devices - the Pile Driving Analyzer' attached to the pile near its top. The PDA (PDA). Together with his former research conditions and calibrates these signals and assistants he also founded Goble Rausche Likins immediately computes average pile force and and Associates, Inc. (GRL) a consulting velocity. Using Case Method solutions, the PDA engineering firm specialized in the dynamic calculates the results described in the following measurement and analysis methods of piles. section.
Pile Dynamics gradually improved the PDA Other measurements are sometimes also required.
technology, always searching for and utilizing The ram velocity may be directly obtained using advances in electronic and computer technology. radar technology in the Hammer Performance In addition, new devices were built and introduced AnalyzerJ (HPA). For open end diesel hammers, into the market. GRL, on the other hand, the time between two impacts indicates the developed methods and software for the analysis magnitude of the fall height. This information is of the measured quantities. It is the intent of this measured and calculated by the Saximeterr.
paper to summarize both analytical and Furthermore, the combustion pressure may be measurement tools available to the civil engineer. measured in diesels for proper wave equation modeling. Acceleration measurements taken on a helmet in addition to standard pile top force and RESULTS FROM DYNAMIC TESTING velocity measurements yield pile top cushion stiffness information.
The following are the main objectives of dynamic pile testing (or monitoring). The Pile Integrity Tester" (P.I.T.) can be used to evaluate damage to piles which may have occurred
- Bearing Capacity at the time of testing. For during driving or casting. It should also be the prediction of a pile's long term bearing mentioned that this so-called "Low Strain Method" capacity, measurements are taken during of integrity testing requires only the measurement restriking. of acceleration at a pile top. The stress wave producing impact is then generated by a small
- Dynamic Pile Stresses during pile driving. In hand-held hammer.
order to limit the possibility of pile damage, stresses must be kept within certain bounds.
A-1 Humboldt Bay ISFSI B-54 offA6f PageeB-5 GGRL Gobie Rausche Likins and Associates. Inc Data Report B, Rev. 0
ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS R,(t) = J[F(t) + Zv(t) - R(t)] (3)
BEARING CAPACITY and finally to the static resistance by means of Equation 2. This solution is simple enough to be Wave Equation evaluated "in real time", i.e. between hammer blows, using the PDA. However, the assumption GRL has prepared a program, GRLWEAP-, which of a soil damping constant must be made and the provides for a truly analytical solution, i.e. it does time, t, has to be selected. Often, t is selected not require measurements and provides the user such that the maximum static resistance, RMX, is with a functional relationship between both bearing calculated. The damping constant, J, may not be capacity and pile stress and the blow count. These needed if the time, t, is chosen such that the R,(t) results can be adjusted or calibrated if term vanishes. One calls the resulting capacity measurements of pile top quantities are available. value RA2.
However, the real strength of the traditional wave equation approach lies in a prediction of driving CAPWAP behavior and in the selection of an optimal driving system. This method (Case Pile Wave Analysis Program) combines the wave equation pile and soil model Case Method with the Case Method measurements. Thus, the solution includes not only the total and static The Case Method is a closed form solution based bearing capacity values but also the skin friction, on a few simplifying assumptions such as ideal end bearing, damping factors and soil stiffness.
plastic soil behavior and an ideally elastic and The method iteratively determines a number of uniform pile. Given the measured pile top force unknowns by signal matching. While it is F(t) and pile top velocity v(t), the total soil necessary to make hammer performance resistance is assumptions for a GRLWEAP analysis, the CAPWAP program works with the pile top R(t) = t /2{[F(t) + F(t2)] + Z[v(t) - v(t2)I} (1) measurements. Furthermore, while GRLWEAP and Case Method require certain assumptions where regarding the soil behavior, CAPWAP calculates these soil parameters.
z EA/c is the pile impedance (EA/c) t2 time t + 2Uc STRESSES L pile length below gages c (E/p)' is the speed of the stress wave The wave equation and CAPWAP solutions include E elastic modulus of the pile (p c2 ) stresses along the pile. For the PDA, field results include the pile top stress directly from the p pile mass density A pile cross sectional area measurement and, for concentrated end bearing, the stress at the pile toe from Equation 1.
The total resistance consists of a dynamic and a static component. Thus For concrete piles the maximum tension stress is also of great importance. It occurs at some point R5(t) = R(t) - R.(t) (2) below the pile top. The maximum tension stress can be computed from the pile top measurements The static resistance component is, of course, the by considering the magnitude of both upward and desired pile bearing capacity. The dynamic downward traveling waves, W, and Wd.
component may be computed from a soil damping factor, J, and a pile toe velocity, v,(t) which is W.= Y4.F(t) - Zv(t)] (4) conveniently calculated for the pile toe. Using wave considerations, this approach leads Wd= Y2[F(t) + Zv(t)] (5) immediately to the dynamic resistance A-2 Humboldt Bay ISFSI GRL Gotle Rausche Likins and Associates. Inc.
Data Report B, Rev. 0 Page B-55 of 64
If any one of these waves is negative, a tension HAMMER PERFORMANCE wave exists. It must be checked whether the wave traveling in the opposite direction is sufficiently The PDA can very simply calculate the energy compressive to reduce the net tension to allowable transferred to the pile top.
levels. The PDA also performs this calculation.
E(t) = jlJF(t)v(t) dt (8a)
PILE INTEGRITY The maximum of the E, curve is the most important High Strain Tests information for an overall evaluation of the performance of a'driving system. This EMX or Stress waves in a pile are reflected wherever the ENTHRU value allows for a classification of the impedance (Z=EA/c) changes. The reflected hammer's performance, using:
waves arrive at the pile top at a time which depends on the location of the change. The et = EMXIE, (8b) reflected waves cause changes in both pile top force and velocity. The magnitude relative change where E,is the hammer's rated energy.
of the pile top variables allows to determine the extent of the cross sectional change. Thus, with O., The SaximeterTu calculates the stroke from an being a relative integrity factor which is unity for no open end diesel using impedance change and zero for the pile end, the following can be calculated by the PDA. h = (g/8) T2 -hi (9) 5i = (1 - a,)/(1 + a,) (6) where with g earth gravitational acceleration, T time between two blows, a, = /.(WU. - WUd)/(Wdi - Wur) (7) hi a stroke loss value due to gas compression and time losses during impact (usually 0.3 ft where 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 GRL Goble Rausche Likins and Associaies. Inc.
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-56 of 69 Data Report B, Rev. 0
Pile Driving Analyzer System I I; I -
IlI P.
DATA STORAGE - OUTPUT Hard Disk Floppy Disk i
II Printer Plotter DATA ANALYSIS l D. Internal CAPWAP Internal GRLWEAP I _
DATA STORAGE - OUTPUT Internal Memory Tape Recorder Internal Printer 2 Strain Trar Plotter 2 Accelerome Oscilloscope Modem to Computer Memory to Computer DATA ANALYSIS Modem to Computer Memory to Computer A-4 GRL Goble Rauscr~e Likins and Associates. Ina Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-57 of 64 Data Report B, Rev. 0
APPENDIX B DYNAMIC MEASUREMENT RESULTS GRL Goble Rausche Likins and Associates. Inc.
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-58 of 6q Data Report B, Rev. 0
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 depth TYPE #Bls EFV ETR EF2 VMX FMX BPM end bl/ft ft ft-lb ft-lb ft/sec kips bl/min 35 30* 5.50 AVG 34 171 48 292 8.8 33.0 44. 6 STD 34 17 5 25 0.4 2.2 1.3 MAX 34 196 57 332 9.7 36.3 47. 3 MIN 34 130 37 216 7.9 26.2 41.4 80 54* 9.00 AVG 44 176 50 241 9.2 28.4 47.4 STD 44 7 3 9 0.3 0.8 1.4 MAX 44 189 54 257 9.8 30.1 49. 6 MIN 44 159 45 221 8. 6 26.7 43 . 5 113 27* 13.50 AVG 32 180 51 290 9.6 30.3 45.6 STD 32 14 4 21 0.5 1.4 0.9 MmX 32 209 60 330 10.5 32. 6 47. 6 MIN 32 151 42 250 8.6 27.8 44.0 194 67* 18.00 AVG 80 169 48 236 9.5 26.7 48.2 STD 80 13 4 19 0.4 1.0 1.8 80 192 54 269 10.4 28.7 51.0 MIN 80 133 37 183 8.9 23.9 41.3 267 54* 26.50 AVG 72 161 293 8.2 31.0 44. 0 45 STD 72 7 2 13 0.4 0.8 1. 1 MAX 72 180 51 323 9.0 32. 8 46.5 MIN 72 146 42 264 7.4 28.8 40. 5 342 60* 31.50 AVG 74 166 47 240 8.2 26.8 44. 9 STD 74 10 3 11 0.2 0.7 1.3 MAX 74 188 54 277 9.9 28.9 47. 5 MIN 74 138 40 213 8.4 24.9 42. 5 444 78* 36.50 AVG 101 178 50 272 8.7 28.4 41.2 STD 101 11 3 27 0.3 2.2 3.1 MAX 213 60 328 9.5 32. 8 46.9 101 MIN 156 221 8.1 24.7 36.1 101 45 524 200* 40.75 AVG 79 187 53 249 9.5 27 . 0 41.9 STD 79 10 3 15 0.3 0.8 1.0 MAX 79 213 60 282 10.2 28.6 45. 3 MIN 79 165 48 218 8.8 25.4 38. 6 11, Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-59 of 6; GRL Goble Rauscne Likins and Associates. Inc.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
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 GRL Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc.
Page B-61 of 69 Data Report B, Rev. 0
-- . - - *'*J:- 1 "LJ1 - L ¶j U AU - 'Ac' 0..! vvz?.'
Zal ibratior, Data Shcw.t for 5PT rod *:! iAW 0
Cailt r-sited; L-2r po 4. of
- -I I t~r~
Na.
ml5 '-I 1t 60 7E J1Q 24 ~.
Al I 4- 2.
3 4 242. 9'
- 54
-. I..,
6162. I. . 76
-79
. .16
?12=. J.: DC, 1E, .7a' I . 07 1.1. I 00 95 . 2 Brilgi- I Fort~e CA1 Force CP.- St-.%An Col1 Cal pae.Lo- 73e.2_7 2bs/v Offrgat 59 e.6" 1.4.- 45.2Pt
- O .57 Corr CrQ Pormri Steairi E~llbetor-EA Frctor - 05547.44 tbioz i
C-'10 NO. 2 Srl~dgw 2 VO j ts~
E.a ~ .1.-
I 1')4b6. 4E 2042?.0 4
4 L24.17 - 52 5 l55. +/-: a..
6,
.77
- @0 - i~
a C2I 7 1
.1- .)4 I . ;. 7 1. 17 I . '
For-Ca Cali Strain, IZZ C.ulA 5ac+or 76,43:.6? lbs!v 1 2.67 ME:
Cvrr Coo 999 Corr Coe . 1?9'969
'p Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-62 of 641 GRL Goble Rausche Likins and Associates, Inc.
Data Report B, Rev. 0
"laibirt-_10m 06ta Sheet faer SP'T r-Od 0~:5S PA Cijbrat&eca a2-marT:?
P q -- , 0;.
C',-vl* No. '3 prizI L 11rid-cr '_
S,.p1& No. 1lbs M1E
'-i '0 0.'~:
- 3:. 1_4 1 3. -2a .387 4
4 L~ =.7 B4.3 .'i -77 .
8 7Cie2.2t%
6'026. '8
- 1 91. 1.
I.-t I..* -i.
3~ erce CZ1 E4 r -_; n cz -_ 27: Str.ain Ca Cal Factor 730e.47 Jim/,! !: I8. 0z iE , V Thu2.u3Lbn."-' ::.- .64 IE; i
i Ccorr Cc90;p I
Oorce Stmaim -_ziiratjcrt I Corr Coe~ .?9~997 arldoax Eucit;w-tiom: 4.4 volts
,: 5r).4F,: orlin tirtwt rversistar prccit.Lcor.
e-e-z-do-'a I Ev jd~u :
C_,e.j_;br.at.jan Varctizr- Z I P . 4,:? ME:' 4i 2'1-.3 71 ME/ V Etc; ractor. : Z -I ,, 7:1 . !: -L- r i- D x.
- --;,71 -
- -alzoratQ d b-.,
- At
__-m _T4 __\ ':I i Pa 7 _' . :. _-C h,e r,
.- eL1Lb:-*ted onit 12-mar-cB rrazeabla-t to W.1.3.T.
GRL Goble Rausche Likins and Associates. Inc.
Humboldt Bay ISFSI Page B-63 of Data Report B, Rev. 0
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 Page B-64 of 6 L{
Data Report B, Rev. 0