ML19030A661

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Part 08 Enclosures (Rev. 2) - Part 08 - Enclosures - Subsurface Data Report - Appendix B.3 - Pages 1-38
ML19030A661
Person / Time
Site: Clinch River
Issue date: 01/18/2019
From: James Shea
Tennessee Valley Authority
To:
Office of New Reactors
Fetter A
References
TVACLINCHRIVERESP, TVACLINCHRIVERESP.SUBMISSION.6, CRN.P.PART08, CRN.P.PART08.2
Download: ML19030A661 (38)
v • d • e


Text

APPENDIX 8.3- Rock Pressuremeter Report No Change for Rev. 4 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-1 of 63

ame

  • DOCUMENTATION OF TECHNICAL REVIEW SUBCONTRACTOR WORK PRODUCT Project Name: Clinch River SMR Project Project Number: 6468-13-1072 Project Manager: Steve Criscenzo Project Technical Leads: AlTice, Carl Tockstein The material described below has been prepared by the named subcontractor retained in accordance with the AMEC QAPD. The plotted data have been reviewed by an AMEC technically qualified person. Comments from the technical review have been appropriately incorporated by the subcontractor. The report is accepted for use on the Clinch River SMR Project.

MATERIAL: Report of In Situ Pressuremeter Testing, Clinch River SMR, .Oak Ridge, TN dated October 29, 2013 SUBCONTRACTOR: In Situ Engineering DATE OF REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE :_~N_,_,o'-'-v=em=b=e""-r"""'1,_,2=0'""'1~3_ _ _ __ _ __ _

TECHNICAL REVIEWER: J. Allan Tice PROJECT TECHNICAL LEAD: J. Allan Tice 17 ame&

420 I Stn*rup Creek Dr. DurhR!l\ NC 2 7703 RCN: CRP-0886.0 Page 1 of 1 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-2 of 63

Report of In Situ Pressuremeter Testing Clinch River SMR Oak Ridge, TN Submitted to:

AMEC E&I, Inc.

4021 Stirrup Creek Drive, Suite 100 Durham, NC 27703 Project #6468131072 Work Order #C012502145 In Situ Engineering Project Number: 1149 October 29, 2013 Testing conducted and report prepared by:

In Situ Engineering 6232 1951h Avenue SE Snohomish, W A 98290 360-568-2807 1

In Situ Engineering RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 1 of 61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-3 of 63

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ....... 3 2.0 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................. 3 3.0 PRESSUREMETER TESTING ................................................................................. 3 3.1 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Hole Formation ............................................................................................................... 7

3. 3 Test Procedure ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ........ 7
3. 4 Testing Issues .................................................................................................................. 9 3.5 Range and Repeatability ofData .................................................................................... 9 3.6 Standard Method of Analysis of the Shear Modulus .... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... 11
3. 7 Comments on Rock Strength ........................................................................................ 14

4.0 CONCLUSION

S ...................................................................................................... 14

5.0 REFERENCES

........................................................................................................ 14 FIGURES Figure 1 Schematic details of the pressuremeter instrument .................................................... 6 Figure 2 PM205-2A. ................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 3 PM205-2A and PM205-B ........................................................................................ 10 Figure 4 Modulus analysis of test PM205-2A. ....................................................................... 12 Figure SA Unload-reload in more plastic rock. .......... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ..... 13 Figure 5B Unload-reload in stiffer rock .................................................................................... 13 TABLES Table 1A- Pressuremeter Test Summary .................................................................................... 16 Table 1B - Pressuremeter Test Depth Details and Material Summary ........................................ 17 Table 2- Pressuremeter Shear Modulus ...................................................................................... 19 APPENDICES Appendix I Pressuremeter Data Tables .......................... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ..... .. ....... 15 Appendix II Pressuremeter Modulus Interpretation ..................................................................... .20 Appendix III Membrane Corrections ............................................................................................. 37 Appendix IV Interface Box Comparison Tests ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ..... .40 Appendix V Full Field Curve Plots .............................................................................................. .45 2

In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 2 of 61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-4 of 63

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report contains the test results for electronic pressuremeter testing (PMT) performed at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Clinch River site which is located approximately 15 miles south of Oak Ridge Tennessee on a peninsula formed by a bend in the Tennessee River. The project is called the Clinch River SMR. Our work was performed at the direction of AMEC E&I (AMEC), Durham, NC. AMEC's project number is 6468-13-1072. Our work was authorized under AMEC's purchase order #C012502145.

The work was performed under AMEC's Nuclear Safety Related Quality Assurance Project Document, Clinch River SMR Project, Revision 2. Training in the document was provided via teleconference by Mr. Al Tice who also documented the training. Work instructions (WI) were subsequently issued for pre-field work calibration of instruments (WI-026), field work (WI-034) and post field work calibration check of instruments (WI-039).

Quality assurance submittals included personnel qualifications, test procedures, commercial grade dedication of the computer program and calibration procedures with supporting documents. Calibration of instruments was performed by Cascade Engineering Services of Redmond, Washington which is an A2LA accredited laboratory with NIST traceable standards.

Cascade Engineering Services was procured under AMEC's QA program. Calibration was performed in accordance with our "TP-03-02, Standard Technical Procedure for Calibrating Electronic Pressuremeter Instruments Manufactured by In Situ Engineering". AMEC approved project submittals for use on the project.

Safety and orientation training was provided onsite by Mr. Bill Deobald of AMEC.

2.0 PURPOSE The Clinch River SMR site is being developed to construct a nuclear power plant using Small Module Reactor (SMR) technology. Two reactors are planned. The proposed design involves placing the reactors in the site bedrock. To better understand the engineering properties of the natural site rock materials, electronic pressuremeter testing was used to develop shear modulus information.

3.0 PRESSUREMETER TESTING A total of 17 pressuremeter tests were attempted in the two boreholes, of which 16 produced useable data. The one instance where no data was produced was due to an excessive noise in the instrument signal and the test was terminated early prior to recording any relevant data. No shields or membranes were damaged during field testing. The testing was performed using our "TP-01-04, Technical Procedure for Collecting Borehole Pressuremeter Data in Soil and Rock".

Field data was corrected for membrane effects using our "TP-02-03 Standard Technical Procedure for Correcting Electronic Pressuremeter Data for Membrane Effects". The details of 3

In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 3 of 61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-5 of 63

the pressuremeter testing and interpretation are included in the following sections. Plots of all the corrected field curves are shown in Appendix V.

4 In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 4 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-6 of 63

3.1 Instrumentation The instrument used for this study was a prebored monocell. The pressuremeter has three electronic displacement sensors ("arms") spaced 120 degrees apart and located at the center of the pressuremeter. A flexible rubber membrane is placed over the sensors and clamped at each end. The membrane is covered by a protective sheet of stainless steel strips referred to as a shield. The unit is pressurized using compressed air which expands the membrane and shield and deforms the adjacent material. The electronic signals from displacement sensors and the pressure sensor are transmitted by cable to the surface. An electronic circuit board in the instrument converts the analog signal to a digital output. The digital output is sent via the data control wires which are inside and part of the high pressure supply hose. The hose helps protect the fragile data wires and also supplies the high pressure gas for inflation of the instrument.

During the test, the average expansion versus pressure is displayed on a computer screen. The pressuremeter is expanded by regulating the flow of compressed air to the PMT unit with a control panel operated by the field engineer. The prebored pressuremeter is placed down a prebored hole before expansion commences. All testing performed on this project was with our instruments numbered 4 and 6.

Figure 1 presents the essential details of the pressuremeter. Depths reported on Table 1A and Table 1B are depth from the ground surface to the bottom of the instrument. As shown in figure 1, the pressuremeter test interval is 16.25 inches, and is centered 14.75 inches above the bottom of the instrument. Thus, the depths at the middle of the test interval are 1.23 feet less than the test depths indicated in the summary tables and figures herein.

The instrument readings on the soil and rock include effects of the response due to the strength and compressibility of the rubber membrane. To correct for these effects, membrane correction tests are run each time a membrane is replaced on the instrument.

To correct for the strength of the membrane, an air correction test is performed. The air test is run with the instrument in a vertical position with no lateral constraint. Thus the strain verses pressure is a record of only the amount of resistance to expansion caused by the membrane. The instrument is cycled several times from zero strain to near the maximum strain limit of the instrument which is about 16%.

To correct for the compressibility of the membrane and the effect of pressure on the electronics, a tube test is performed. This test is run with the instrument placed horizontally on the ground inside a thick walled steel tube. The instrument is cycled several times up to a high pressure which is usually between 1500 and 2000 psi.

The applicable membrane correction files are noted on Table 1A and are included in Appendix III.

5 In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 5 of 61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-7 of 63

Signal Fft:ss:lJf:jit lle Co ing iJ A ** rn<l hose Oute-r meta]

s11" d uter metal shie (se m out away)

Arrp if~er~u1fip .er irouit s i d *O:ispla.arne: se!JIS()T 1(tlTm iindep01dmt 30 i 1 6.25 ~ smsars at 1 20 d~~ l Pres.s.ll re sm:sar Figure 1 Schematic details of the pressuremeter instrument 6

In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 6 of 61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-8 of 63

3.2 Hole Formation The drilling on the project was performed by two different drilling firms. Premier Drilling of Loganville, Georgia performed drilling at borehole MP-105 using a CME-550 drilling rig.

Conetec of Clayton, North Carolina performed drilling on borehole MP-205 using aCME-55 drilling rig. Both drilling crews used HQ coring techniques to advance the hole and NQ-3 coring techniques to drill the test pockets. The borehole name, test depths and material descriptions supplied by AMEC are presented in Tables IA and lB. The field work was carried out from August 13 - 18, 2013.

Hole formation was accomplished using diamond core drilling techniques. An HQ core barrel was used to drill the hole to just above the desired test level. At this point, the HQ core barrel was changed out for an NQ core barrel and a 5-foot test zone was drilled. In some instances, a second 5-foot core run was drilled and both sets of core information were reviewed by a representative from Bechtel who approved the intervals. After completion of the test the NQ core barrel was removed and the HQ core barrel was continued to just above the next test level.

3.3 Test Procedure Testing was carried out in accordance with our test procedure "TP-01-04, Technical Procedure for Collecting Borehole Pressuremeter Data in Soil and Rock" which is summarized below.

The membrane was expanded by controlling the flow of compressed gas into the pressuremeter, increasing the pressure in smoothly until the membrane starts to expand against the borehole wall. Once the instrument has deformed the borehole sidewall and the response curve appears to be deforming intact material, the pressure is reduced to no more than 40% of the highest applied pressure, then increased again to form an unload-reload loop. The point at which an unload-reload loop is initiated is an operator judgment based upon test response and the goal of performing a series of equally spaced unload-reload loops within the strain and or pressure range limits expected.

The resulting unload-reload loop can be used to evaluate the elastic behavior of the material. In materials which behave in a plastic manner such as clay, the loops will exhibit a hysteretic behavior. That is, the unloading path will follow the "mirror" image of the reloading path. In more linear materials such as sands, and especially rock, the loops will be very tight exhibiting little hysteretic behavior.

The pressure is then advanced in steps and a second unload-reload cycle is performed. If the drilling disturbance is small, the slopes of the loops will tend to be parallel.

Figure 2, test PM205-2A, is a typical example of a test using the pre-bored pressuremeter in the rock at the site. This test has three unload-reload test loops with little hysteresis. The unload-reload loops were initiated at about 500, 1000 and 1500 psi. These can be better seen in Figure 3.

7 In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 7 of 61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-9 of 63

The borehole was slightly larger than the instrument diameter and the pressuremeter expanded about 5.5% until it began to contact the borehole sidewall. From 0 to 5.5% expansion, the membrane was pushing against the water pressure in the borehole. This can be observed by where the load deformation curve breaks away from the vertical axis at about 55 psi.

After the stress reached 2000 psi which is the safe working limit of the instrument, then the pressure was reduced to zero. The exact maximum stress or strain at which the pressure is reduced is in general a judgment call from the operator based on the behavior of the three arms, instrument response and other limiting conditions. Tests may be terminated before the failure of the material if the limit of any one strain arm is reached, the maximum pressure of the pressure bottle is reached, the membrane ruptures or instrument response is such that membrane rupture may be imminent. In all instances of successful tests on this project, the test was terminated at the maximum safe pressure.

2000 BOO Hole No: Pr\1205- A Test: Pivl20 5-. A 1600 Depth: 16 5FI osn ..on 1400 00 000 BOO 601) 400 200 ft 0

..-..-/ '~hi.ft 0 0 1 2 J 4 6 1 Radial Dispbcement. I Radius (%)

Figure 2 PM205-2A Another observation that can be made, is that the rock material tested follows a different stress-strain path on final unloading than during initial loading, This is probably due to some plastic deformation of the matrix as well as the squeezing shut of any fractures present.

Tables IA and IB contain a summary of the test number, tip depth of the instrument, test depths, borehole number, material type and membrane correction file names.

8 In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN : CRP-0885.0 Page 8 of 61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-10 of 63

3.4 Testing Issues Two problems occurred during the testing. The first problem occurred when a different interface box was used with the instrument 6 than the one used during calibration. The second problem was due to a noisy signal on instrument 6.

The calibration procedure we used and hence the calibration certificates which were issued were based upon a whole instrument system for each set of instruments. Thus a calibration certificate was issued for instrument 4, interface box 1 and Toshiba laptop computer #Z9212397K. A second calibration certificate was issued for instrument 6, interface box 2 and Dell laptop computer 18143 54 7013. The first 6 tests were performed using Instrument 6, interface box 1 and the Dell laptop computer 18143547013. Interface box 2 should have been used with this set. This error occurred during tests PM105-1A, PM105-1B, PM105-2A, PM105-2B, PM205-1A and PM205-1B.

The interface boxes should have no numerical effect on the data as their function is as a power supply to the instrument and a convertor for the digital data to USB format. A demonstration test was conducted where interface box 1 and 2 were switched back and forth using instrument 6 and the Dell laptop. Each combination was run two times in the heavy walled steel tube. The tests showed that no significant variance existed by switching between the two boxes, At 495-500 psi, the maximum difference in strain was .017% from the average of the four strains. Plots of the field tests are shown in Appendix IV. To further resolve any question of the data, a post field work calibration was performed with instrument 6, the Dell laptop computer 18143547013 and using both interface box 1 and interface box 2. This post field work calibration showed that switching between boxes had no effect on the calibration results.

Instrument number 6 developed a noisy signal during test PM105-3B. After this test was completed, an attempt to fix the condition was made and the instrument was run back into the hole at the same depth (188.6 feet) and test PM105-3C was attempted. It was immediately realized that the problem was not corrected and test PM105-3C was terminated before obtaining any useful information. Instrument 4, which was onsite as a backup was then put into use and tests PM105-3D and PM105-3E were run at the same depths as PM105-3A and PM105-3B.

The shear modulus results from test PM105-3D (1,091,000 psi) showed a much higher modulus than the initial noisy test PM105-3B (713,000 psi). It was therefore decided to rerun the tests at another interval, so tests PM105-3F and PM105-3G were run at depths of 194.9 and 192.5 feet.

3.5 Range and Repeatability of Data In general, the goal of the testing is to conduct PMT in pairs as close together as possible and against intact sides of the borehole. After the 5-foot long and 3-inch diameter test pocket is drilled, the pressuremeter is lowered down the hole and a test conducted. A second test is conducted by raising the instrument approximately 1.5 feet. Sometimes a different interval is 9

In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 9 of 61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-11 of 63

selected for technical reasons. In this manner, two tests are performed as close together as possible.

If the results of the two tests are similar, and follow the anticipated form for ideal materials, then there is reason to believe that the results are representative of the formation. If the two tests are distinctly different, then either one of the tests is influenced by drilling disturbance, or there is a geological reason for the difference.

2000 1800 I Hole No : PM205-2A Tes.t : PM205-2A 1/ Depth: 165 FT 1600 08117 0 13

/I I!

1400 0

"'0..

If

...__... 1200 I!)

500 1000

"'0 1 1I I I L 800 P-.

I 600 I

/)

400

/ I /

200

/

/

/

~ ~

0 Shift = O 6 6 .1 6.2 6, 6 .4 6. :. 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 1 R adial Displacement I Radius (%)

200 0 I SO0 Hole _ o: PM205-2 B 1600 II Test: PM205 -2 B Depth: !635FT II 08!17 0 13 140 0 8UJ 1200 0

5rn 1000 R

"'0 It If I

~ 800 600 1/ }

vr/

/),

400 v

200

/

0

~

Shifi = O 6 6. 1 6.2 6.> 6.4 6 .5 6.6 6. 7 6 .8 6.9 7 R adial Displacement I Radius (%)

Figure 3 PM205-2A and PM205-B 10 In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN : CRP-0885.0 Page 10 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-12 of 63

Figure 3, shown above, is a pair of tests, PM205-2A and PM205-2B, which were performed in rock adjacent to each other at depths of 165.0 feet and 163.5 feet respectively in test hole MP205. The results are very similar. Hence, in this situation, the tests probably reflect consistent material behavior at that level. As a further indication of the quality of each individual test, the slope of the unload-reload loops should be parallel. In both tests, the slopes are nearly parallel, resulting in shear moduli of 796,000 psi and 725,000 psi for tests PM205-2A and PM205-2B, respectively. These two tests are a good example for the rock at the site.

3.6 Standard Method of Analysis of the Shear Modulus If the material surrounding the pressuremeter is assumed to extend to infinity, and assumed to behave as an idealized linear elastic, homogeneous material, which does not fail under shear or tension, then the displacement on the boundary of the pressuremeter, ua, for a given pressure, P, is given by:

Ua = P(a) (1 +~-t) IE 1) where "E" is the Young's Modulus, "a" the radius of the pressuremeter cavity, and "~-t" the Poisson's ratio. As the shear modulus, "G", and the Young's modulus, "E", are related by the following relationship:

E=2(G)(1 +~-t) 2)

Equation 1 reduces to:

3)

Ua =0.5P(a) I G Hence, the shear modulus G is given by:

G= 0.5 *L1Pressure/ L1(radial displacement/radius) 4)

Figure 4 shows test PM205-2A, which was conducted in limestone.

The shear modulus for the average slope of the initial part of the pressuremeter expressed as a Young's modulus (assuming a Poisson's ratio of 0.33) is the same as the "pressuremeter modulus" defined in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D4719, Section 9.5 (Modulus line 1 of Figure 4). For tests in competent rock, the stress strain curve has no straight portion, therefore, the modulus is dependent upon the stress level at which it is analyzed.

For the purposes of this report, the initial curve was analyzed in all tests at 1000 psi.

11 In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 11 of 61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-13 of 63

The modulus determined from the unload-reload loops (Modulus lines 2, 3 and 4 of Figure 4),

which is often higher than the initial loading modulus, is more accurately defined and is probably more representative of the modulus for the in-situ material. This data is summarized in Table 2.

2000 Shear 1\llodulus Plot

( HoleN o: PI\4205-2A BOO TeE-t : Pivf205-2A 4

Depth: 165FT f

. 600 08/1 {) 13 400 .. DATA --------.,

0 # 1 = 76000 psii f

U)

. 200 8

u # = 336000 psi

...J 1000 U) #3 = 578000 psi

U)

L!l .

liJ

,_.... I BOO #4 = 96000 psi P-i

)1 I 600 400 V f/ I 00 ./ 1/

------------ 6A Shif! = O

~ 6~ 62 6~ 6.8 R adial Displacement I Radius (%)

Figure 4 Modulus analysis of test PM205-2A Typically by performing multiple unload-reload loops during a test in sand or clay, two or more of the loops tend to be parallel, confirming a particular shear modulus value. On this project, it is obvious that the shear modulus is dependent upon the stress level at which the test is initiated.

In test PM205-2A, the three unload-reload cycles were initiated at about 500 psi intervals and show approximately a 200,000 psi increase for each test. At higher stress levels successive unload-reload loops may become parallel which is suggested by the steepening of the stress-strain slope as the pressure is increased.

Two types of behavior were observed in the unload-reload loops as shown below in Figures SA and 5B.

12 In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 12 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-14 of 63

2000 ,

Hole No: MP-205 I

ISOO Te:st: PM205 -l B Depth: 3_ FT I

160 0 08/1 4 0 13 1400 I f )

I !

UJ 1200 8

0 IY J b

,..J lOOil UJ UJ 0

soo

(:)..;

I I j ldI 600

/

/ /

400 200

~

~

~ ~

0 Shift 0

- .'6 5.7 ).S ).9 6.0 6. 1 6 .2 6 .3 '6. 4 RadiaJ Displacement I Radius (%)

Figure 5A Unload-reload in more plastic rock 031 Hole N o: M P-1 05 931 Te;;t: Pr\lf1 05 -1B Depth: 83_ FT 83 ]

08/ 14 0 13

,......, .H UJ 0..

0 631 b,..J UJ UJ 0

Bl p...

4H Bl 231 H Shift = 0 3.'6 3. 3.8 .3 .9 Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

Figure 5B Unload-reload in stiffer rock 13 In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN : CRP-0885.0 Page 13 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-15 of 63

In Figure SA, the rock is deforming or creeping as the pressure is unloaded and reloaded during the loop. This is probably due to a more plastic type of rock mass but could also be influenced by fractures. In Figure SB, the loops show more of a loop rather than the open "V" of the previous example. The limestone response shown in Figure SB probably less plastic and more competent than the siltstone response shown in figure SA

3. 7 Comments on Rock Strength All of the tests were run to approximately 1900-2000 psi without failure of the rock mass. This should be considered a minimum value for shear strength of the rock.

4.0 CONCLUSION

S The test program was successful. The tests in the two boreholes show that the rock has minimum shear strengths of 1900-2000 psi. None of the tests resulted in plastic failure of the material which would have been exhibited by increasing incremental strain per increment of stress increase. Unload -reload testing shows that the shear modulus increases with increasing stress.

The moduli range from 91,000 psi in test PM10S-2A initiated at 2SO psi to 1,372,000 psi in Test PM10S-2B initiated at 1SOO psi. Post testing calibration showed that the instruments were still in calibration after the project was completed and that interchanging of interface boxes had no effect on the testing performed with instrument 6.

It is our opinion that even though the test PM1 OS-3B showed noise, the instrument was within calibration tolerances and we believe the data is useful and representative of undisturbed rock.

Tests PM10S-3D and PM10S-3E were conducted in material which had been pre-compressed by tests PM10S-3A and PM10S-3B and then allowed to relax for some time before being tested. The moduli from the later set of tests do not match the earlier results.

5.0 REFERENCES

Mair, R.J. and Wood, D.M. 1987. Pressuremeter testing: methods and interpretation. CIRIA Ground Engineering Report. Butterworths, London.

ASTM D4719. 2007. Standard tests method for pressuremeter testing in soils.

14 In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 14 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-16 of 63

Appendix I Pressuremeter Data Tables 15 In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 15 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-17 of 63

Table lA- Pressuremeter Test Summary Tip Membrane Correction Note Test Date Boring Depth M&TEA File Name (ft) Air Tube PM105-1A 8/14/13 MP-105 85.2 5,1,6 M6A0813A M6T0813A PM105-1B 8/14/13 MP-105 83.7 5,1,6 M6A0813A M6T0813A PM205-1A 8/14/13 MP-205 75.2 5,1,6 M6A0813A M6T0813A PM205-1B 8/14/13 MP-205 73.7 5,1,6 M6A0813A M6T0813A PM105-2A 8/15/13 MP-105 142.5 5,1,6 M6A0813A M6T0813A PM105-2B 8/15/13 MP-105 139.8 5,1,6 M6A0813A M6T0813A box1 run1 8/16/13 N/A N/A 5,1,6 M6A0813A M6T0813A box2, run1 8/16/13 N/A N/A 5,2,6 M6A0813A M6T0813A boxl, run2 8/16/13 N/A N/A 5,1,6 M6A0813A M6T0813A box2, run2 8/16/13 N/A N/A 5,2,6 M6A0813A M6T0813A PM105-3A 8/16/13 MP-105 190.1 5,2,6 M6A0813A M6T0813A PM105-3B 8/16/13 MP-105 188.6 5,2,6 M6A0813A M6T0813A B PM105-3C 8/16/13 MP-105 188.6 5,2,6 M6A0813A M6T0813A D PM105-3D 8/16/13 MP-105 188.6 3,1,4 M4A0816A M4T0816A c PM105-3E 8/16/13 MP-105 190.1 3,1,4 M4A0816A M4T0816A c PM105-3F 8/17/13 MP-105 194.9 3,1,4 M4A0817A M4T0817A PM105-3G 8/17/13 MP-105 192.5 3,1,4 M4A0817A M4T0817A PM205-2A 8/17/13 MP-205 165.0 3,1,4 M4A0817A M4T0817A PM205-2B 8/17/13 MP-205 163.5 3,1,4 M4A0817A M4T0817A PM205-3A 8/18/13 MP-205 210.4 3,1,4 M4A0817A M4T0817A PM205-3B 8/18/13 MP-205 208.9 3,1,4 M4A0817A M4T0817A Notes- Instrument tip depths (column 4) measured from the surface.

A- Measurement and Test Equipment (M&TE) Codes

1. Interface Box 1
2. Interface Box 2
3. Toshiba Laptop Z9212397K
4. Instrument 4
5. Dell laptop #181143547013
6. Instrument 6 B Noise in signal C Repeat of noisy test interval D No data file 16 In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 16 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-18 of 63

Table lB- Pressuremeter Test Depth Details and Material Summary Material Tip Center Bottom Top of Test Date Boring Depth of test of Test Test (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)

Limestone (Wackestone PM105-1A 8/14/13 MP-105 and some Micrite) Benbolt 85.2 84.0 84.7 83.3 Formation (Unit E)

Limestone (Wackestone PM105-1B 8/14/13 MP-105 and some Micrite) Benbolt 83.7 82.5 83.2 81.8 Formation (Unit E)

Calcareous Siltstone PM205-1A 8/14/13 MP-205 Lincolnshire Formation, 75.2 74.0 74.7 73.3 Fleanor Member (Unit B)

Calcareous Siltstone PM205-1B 8/14/13 MP-205 Lincolnshire Formation, 73.7 72.5 73.2 71.8 Fleanor Member (Unit B)

Limestone (Wackestone)

PM105-2A 8/15/13 MP-105 Rockdell Formation (Unit 142.5 141.3 142.0 140.6 D)

Limestone (Wackestone)

Benbolt Formation (Unit PM105-2B 8/15/13 MP-105 139.8 138.6 139.3 137.9 E) to 13 9 ft then Rockdell Formation (Unit D)

Siltstone Rockdell Formation (Unit D) to 189 PM105-3A 8/16/13 MP-105 ft then Limestone (Micrite) 190.1 188.9 189.6 188.2 Rockdell Formation (Unit D)

Siltstone Rockdell PM105-3B 8/16/13 MP-105 188.6 187.4 188.1 186.7 Formation (Unit D)

Siltstone Rockdell PM105-3C 8/16/13 MP-105 188.6 187.4 188.1 186.7 Formation (Unit D)

Siltstone Rockdell PM105-3D 8/16/13 MP-105 188.6 187.4 188.1 186.7 Formation (Unit D)

Siltstone Rockdell Formation (Unit D) to 189 PM105-3E 8/16/13 MP-105 ft then Limestone (Micrite) 190.1 188.9 189.6 188.2 Rockdell Formation (Unit D)

Limestone (Micrite)

PM105-3F 8/17/13 MP-105 Rockdell Formation (Unit 194.9 193.7 194.4 193.0 D) 17 In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 17 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-19 of 63

Limestone (Micrite)

PM105-3G 8/17/13 MP-105 Rockdell Formation (Unit 192.5 191.3 192.0 190.6 D)

Limestone (Micrite)

PM205-2A 8/17/13 MP-205 Lincolnshire Formation, 165.0 163.8 164.5 163.1 Eidson Member (Unit A)

Limestone (Micrite)

PM205-2B 8/17/13 MP-205 Lincolnshire Formation, 163.5 162.3 163.0 161.6 Eidson Member (Unit A)

Limestone (Micrite)

PM205-3A 8/18/13 MP-205 Lincolnshire Formation, 210.4 209.2 209.9 208.5 Eidson Member (Unit A)

Limestone (Micrite)

PM205-3B 8/18/13 MP-205 Lincolnshire Formation, 208.9 207.7 208.4 207.0 Eidson Member (Unit A)

Note. Depths rounded to nearest 1/10tn of a foot and measured from the surface.

18 In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 18 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-20 of 63

Table 2 - Pressuremeter Shear Modulus Test tip Initial Modulus Unload-Reload Shear Modulus (psi)

Test Depth (psi)

(ft)

PM105-1A 85.2 122100 175300 272000 667400 PM105-1B 83.7 376500 201452 646552 1118352 PM205-1A 75.2 261000 254000 434000 564000 PM205-1B 73.7 316000 466000 866000 1176000 PM105-2A 142.5 565000 91000 466000 973300 PM105-2B 139.8 414000 370000 957000 1372000 PM105-3A 190.1 295000 208000 575000 715000 PM105-3B 188.6 340000 220000 530000 713000 PM105-3C 188.6 No Data PM105-3D 188.6 115000 123000 358000 1091000 PM105-3E 190.1 185000 305000 760000 665000 PM105-3F 194.9 85000 253000 423000 823000 PM105-3G 192.5 193000 136000 339000 589000 PM205-2A 165.0 276000 336000 578000 796000 PM205-2B 163.5 365000 276000 506000 725000 PM205-3A 210.4 82000 252000 366000 404000 PM205-3B 208.9 228000 268000 538000 710000 Unload-Reload shear moduli were based upon tests initiated at approximately 500, 1000 and 1500 psi, but variation exists and individual tests should be examined for exact pressures.

19 In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 19 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-21 of 63

Appendix II Pressuremeter Modulus Interpretation 20 In Situ Engineering October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 20 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-22 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMEC Clinch River SMR Boring: MP-105 Test: PM105-1A Depth: 85.2FT Date: 08/14/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 06 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP 2000 4

1800 1600 I I

1400 1200

/;, v f!J

""0..

s b AI

(!)

I 1000 I

I 1// f

(!)

p.,

800 I

f 600 I

/ I I 400 200 0

2.7 2.9

-- ~

3.1 33

____-/

3.5

/

3~

Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

39 4.1 Shift~ 0 4.3 DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 122100 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus= 175300 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus = 272000 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus= 667400 psi October 29, 2013 RCN : CRP-0885.0 Page 21 of 61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-23 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMEC Clinch River SMR Boring: MP-105 Test: PM105-1B Depth: 83.7FT Date: 08/14/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 06 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP 2000 4

1800 v

1600 I 1400 I

~

1200

""0..

s I

(!)

t 1000

(!)

p.,

2 J

  1. 1 /

800

/

600

'/

1 //

400

__/

200

~

Shift~ 0 0

3.3 3.4 3.5 3~ 3~ 3.8 39 4.0 4.1 Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 376500 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus= 201452 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus= 646552 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus= 1118352 psi October 29, 2013 RCN : CRP-0885.0 Page 22 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-24 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMEC Clinch River SMR Boring: MP-105 Test: PM105-2A Depth: 142.5FT Date: 08/15/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 06 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP 2000 1800 r

/J 1600 .d I V,I 1400 1200

  • ~

""0..

3 s

(!)

1000

"""" 8'1

(!)

p.,

r; 800

)

A 600 If-

-~ /

400 200 0

3.1 3.2 33

~

3A 3.5 3~ 3~ 3.8 Shift~ 0 3.9 Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 565000 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus= 91000 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus = 466000 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus= 973300 psi October 29, 2013 RCN : CRP-0885.0 Page 23 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-25 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMEC Clinch River SMR Boring: MP-105 Test: PM105-2B Depth: 139.8FT Date: 08/15/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 06 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP 2000 4

1800 1600 v

I 1400 3 l)t

/;JI/

If 1200

~l

""0..

II s

.J I

(!)

1000

(!)

p.,

1

//

800

/ I J 600 1/

400 200 0

~ -- Shift~ 0 3.4 3.5 3~ 3~ 3.8 Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 414000 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus= 370000 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus= 957000 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus= 1372000 psi October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 24 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-26 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMEC Clinch River SMR Boring: MP-105 Test: PM105-3A Depth: 190.1FT Date: 08/16/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 06 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP il 1800 f/1 1600

/AI 1400 flI 1200

""0.. 1000

( I I

'-" I s

(!)

!J j/J'I I

(!)

800 p.,

1/ I 600

/,

/

400 200 --------- ~;

Shift~ 0 0

3.1 3.2 33 3A 3.5 3.6 3 .7 Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 295000 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus = 208000 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus= 575000 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus= 715000 psi October 29, 2013 RCN : CRP-0885.0 Page 25 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-27 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMEC Clinch River SMR Boring: MP-105 Test: PM105-3B Depth: 188.6FT Date: 08/16/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 06 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP 1751 . - - - - - - - - - - -. -- - - - - - - - - -. -- - - - - - - - - -- .- - - - - - - - - -- . - . . -- - - - - - - .

1151

""'0..

s

(!)

951

(!)

p.,

751 Shift~ 0 3.2 33 3A 3.5 3.6 Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 340000 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus = 220000 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus= 530000 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus= 713000 psi October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 26 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-28 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMECE&I Clinch River SMR Boring: MP-105 Test: PM105-3D Depth: 188.6FT Date: 08/16/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 04 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP 2000 4 I 1800 1

., I II I 1600

/; 0 1400 I p 2

1/

1200

""0..

s r; I/_/I A

(!)

1000 I

(!)

p.,

/I 800 I

4 I 600

/

400

~ /

/

200

- Shift~ 0 0

4.6 4.8 sn s2 sA 5.6 5.8 Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 115000 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus= 123000 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus= 358000 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus= 1091000 psi October 29, 2013 RCN : CRP-0885.0 Page 27 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-29 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMECE&I Clinch River SMR Boring: MP-105 Test: PM105-3E Depth: 190.1FT Date: 08/16/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 04 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP 1973 I

v 1773 4 1573 I AVI I ~~ 'r/

3 1373 I If

""0..

1173 s

(!)

(!)

973

~

p.,

/; I II ./

773 2

I I

I 573

~

/ -

1

/

373 Shift~ 0 173 4.6 4.7 4.8 49 sn s.1 s2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 185000 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus= 305000 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus= 760000 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus = 665000 psi October 29, 2013 RCN : CRP-0885.0 Page 28 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-30 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMECE&I Clinch River SMR Boring: MP-105 Test: PM105-3F Depth: 194.9FT Date: 08/17/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 04 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP 2000 L 1800 I 3

1600 I I

~I v

1400 I v

,--., 2 I

""0..

1200 s

(!)

I ! !:'

(!)

1000 p.,

I Ia 800 600 I I

/ )l v~

I

--- /

400

/ v Shift~ 0 200 3.6 3.8 4.0 42 4A 4~ 4.8 5.0 5.2 SA Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 85000 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus= 253000 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus= 423000 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus= 823000 psi October 29, 2013 RCN : CRP-0885.0 Page 29 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-31 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMECE&I Clinch River SMR Boring: MP-105 Test: PM105-3G Depth: 192.5FT Date: 08/17/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 04 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP 2000 1800 4

I I

1 v

1600 I 1400

/

3 1200 I~

""0..

s

(!)

j 1000

(!)

..... 2 p.,

1/ 1 800 I

600 f

/

I v

/f /

400 200 0

4.9 5.1

-- ~

5.3

~

5.5

/

5.7 5.9 6.1 Shift~ 0 6.3 Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 193000 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus= 136000 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus= 339000 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus= 589000 psi October 29, 2013 RCN : CRP-0885.0 Page 30 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-32 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMEC Clinch River SMR Boring: MP-205 Test: PM205-1A Depth: 75.2FT Date: 08/14/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 06 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP

)

2000 vI 1800 4; I

,if 1/

1600 1400

""0..

1200

};'I I I s

It

(!)

1000

(!)

I ifl lj I p.,

800 L.

/1 / ' /

600

/ v/

400 200

~

Shift~ 0 0

4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 261000 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus = 254000 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus = 434000 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus = 564000 psi October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 31 of 61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-33 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMEC Clinch River SMR Boring: MP-205 Test: PM205-1B Depth: 73.7FT Date: 08/14/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 06 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP 2000 II 3 4 I

I 1800 2, I 1600 I

I II 1400 vf 1200

....... I

""0..

I s

I~

(!)

1000 J

(!)

p.,

I

!J I

800 I

jJ 600 I )

/

/ I', /

400 200 0

5.6 5.7 5.8

- ___-/

59 6n 6.1 Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

62 6.3 Shift~ 0 6.4 DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 316000 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus = 466000 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus = 866000 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus= 1176000 psi October 29, 2013 RCN : CRP-0885.0 Page 32 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-34 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMECE&I Clinch River SMR Boring: PM205-2A Test: PM205-2A Depth: 165FT Date: 08/17/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 04 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP 2000 1800

/

4 ,J 1600 r/,

1400 I 3

1200

""0..

s

(!)

1000

(!)

p.,

I

/l I

800

)/ I 600 400

/ f!1/ I 200 /

____/

0

Shift~ 0 5.6 5.8 6n 62 6A 6.6 6.8 Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 276000 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus= 336000 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus= 578000 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus = 796000 psi October 29, 2013 RCN : CRP-0885.0 Page 33 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-35 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMECE&I Clinch River SMR Boring: PM205-2B Test: PM205-2B Depth: 163.5FT Date: 08/17/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 04 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP 2000 1800 /

I 4 rl' r

1600 1400 3

1200

""0..

s

(!)

1000

(!)

p.,

~

h

?

800 600 I

~~

/ fJ 400 200 /

~-- ~ Shift~ 0 0

5.8 6.0 62 6A 6~ 6.8 7 Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 365000 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus= 276000 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus = 506000 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus = 725000 psi October 29, 2013 RCN : CRP-0885.0 Page 34 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-36 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMECE&I Clinch River SMR Boring: MP-205 Test: PM205-3A Depth: 210.4FT Date: 08/18/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 04 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP 2000 I

4 1800 I I

I v

1 I I 1600 3

/

~/ /

I 1400

!/;

""0.. 1200 2 /

I s

(!)

/)

I I

/ 'I

(!)

..... 1000 p.,

v I

800

/J 600 A I I I

/j /

400 200 6 6.2

/

6.4 6~ 6.8 7n

/ 12 7.4 7.6 Shift~ 0 7.8 Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 82000 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus = 252000 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus= 366000 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus = 404000 psi October 29, 2013 RCN: CRP-0885.0 Page 35 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-37 of 63

In Situ Engineering - Shear Modulus Plot AMECE&I Clinch River SMR Boring: MP-205 Test: PM205-3B Depth: 208.9FT Date: 08/18/2013 Oper: Brown Job# 1149 Inst: 04 HP Pavilion Elite #MXX0440NFP 2000 4

I/ I 1800 I

/ I 1600 3/ ~ I 1400 f I 1200

""0..

'-" 2 s

/!J ' (

(!)

1000

(!)

p.,

/ '! l I 800 AI / /

600 I I

/ f<

400 200 0

6.9 7.0 7.1 72 73

/

7A Radial Displacement I Radius (%)

7.5 7.6 7.7 Shift~ 0 7.8 DATA --------------------------------------------------~

  1. 1 Shear Modulus= 228000 psi
  1. 2 Shear Modulus = 268000 psi
  1. 3 Shear Modulus= 538000 psi
  1. 4 Shear Modulus= 710000 psi October 29, 2013 RCN : CRP-0885.0 Page 36 of61 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8.3-38 of 63
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19030A661&oldid=2525303"