ML19339A356
| ML19339A356 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | West Valley Demonstration Project |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1980 |
| From: | Dana R, Fickies R, Hoffman V NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-B-6008 NUREG-CR-1566, NUDOCS 8011030653 | |
| Download: ML19339A356 (82) | |
Text
7 NUREG/CR-1566 NYSGS/24.01.030 RE, RW Geotechnical Analysis of Soil Samples and Study of a Research Trench at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center West Valley, New York Manuscript Completed: August 1980 Date Published: October 1980 Prepared by V. C. Hoffman*, R. H. Fickies, C.G., R. H. Dana, Jr., V. Ragan
' Consulting Engineer New York State Geological Survey / State Museum New York State Education Department Albany, NY 12230 Prepared for Division of Safeguards, Fuel Cycle and Environmental Research Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wcshington, D.C. 20555 NRC FIN No. B6008 I
go/ /o 3 o 6 5~ 3
l ABSTRACT This report is one in a series of related reports presenting the results of a study to evaluate the containment capability of.a low-level, solid radioactive waste-burial ground at West Valley, New York.
The part of the study presented here is the second part of an investigation involving geotechnical analysis of soil samples from the West Valley burial site.
In general, the results of standard engineering tests in soils from the West Valley site confirm the results.nredicted by 4
testing performed during the first part Of inis study in 1977.
After submersion for almost two years,. soil samples showed some increase in moisture content, accompanied by a decrease in unit weight, indicating a slight swelling of the soil. Any changes in the plasticity of the soil during the period of submersion were not significant.
Shrinkage limits were sig-nificantly different from earlier tests; this is most likely at:ributable to a difference in testing procedure.
The minimum developed cohesion for the soil in the wall of Research Trench III was estimated to be 18.9kN/m2 In shallow softened soils the developed cohesion at failure unde. sub-2 merged conditions was estimated to be 2.54kN/m, and failure under sudden drawdown conditions was estimated to be 4.79kN/m2, l
iii
i
't i
i
SUMMARY
l The New York State Geological Survey is the lead agency in an interdisciplinary research program to investigate the poten-tial pathways of migration of low-level radioactive waste from
)
i a commercial shallow land-burial ground at West Valley, New York.
This report is one in a series of related reports pre-senting the results of this project.
The part of the study presented here is the second part of an investigation involv-ing geotechnical analysis of soil samples from the West Valley.
i site.
l
)
The purpose of the present investigation was to recreate as nearly as possible the moisture conditions found in the flooded waste burial trenches, and to observe changes in pro-perties of the soil in which the waste is buried.
In general, results of standard engineering tests of soils from the West 1
Valley site confirm the results predicted by testing during the first part of this study in 1977.
i Samples from the walls of Research Trench III showed some increase in moisture content after submersion for almost two years, accompanied by a decrease in strength and unit weight.
This indicates a slight swelling of the soil, as would be i
expected.
The small amount of swelling confirms results of swell testing in the 1977 investigation. Atterberg limit re-sults indicate that changes, if any, in plasticity of the soils in Research Trench III during the two year period of sub-mersion are not significant within the precision of the samp-ling and testing methods.
i j
Shrinkage limits show a significant change in test results, and appear to be systematic and occurring at all depths.
Al-i though it is possible that the trench wall soils have under-i gone some changes, it is more likely that there was a difference 1
in testing procedure.
The condition of the sider, and bottom of the trench after de-l watering indicated that, although the overall side slopes remained stable, considerable surface sloughing of the soils 3
i occurred.
The trench partially filled with eroded and slough-I ed soil that was covered by a low-viscosity soil slurry for a total cambined height of 1.5 m above the original trench bot-l tom.
We do not know what the maximum strength for the sloping side 4
of Research Tre9ch III is.
However, a minimum strength for the Research Trench III slope can be estimated, since the slope 1
remained stable under sudden drawdown conditions.
The mini-mum developed cohesion is approximately 18.9kN/m2, i
V i
b
4 l
l I
i i
i The maximum strength of soils of the lowermost bench in I
Research Trench III - in the shallow, softened soils of the trench wall - can be estimated from failure data.
Portions of the lowcrmost. bench that were greater than approximately l
1.2 m above the floor failed.
It is believed that failures occurred both before and after drawdown.
A value was esti-l i
mated for the developed cohesion at failure under submerged conditions (2.54 kN/m2), and a slightly higher.value was j
estimated (orfailureundersuddendrawdownconditions j
(4.79 kN/m ).
i j
The estimated developed cohesion values indicate the sub-i j
stantial difference between the unconfined compressive i
strength test results and those calculated from stability conditions.- In the field, soil strength is limited by the presence of fractures and, in some places softened soils.
These limiting factors were not present in the laboratory 4
samples analyzed.
i In the course of this study a number of possible future ave-j nues of investigation were identified.
These represent approaches that may warrant further investigation as possible r
improvements in the design of shallow land burial sites for radioactive waste.
j In order to help control consolidation of the waste material and decrease the permeability of the burial trench as a whole, void spaces in the waste cell could be filled with a low-permeability grout or slurry, The sides and bottoms of the trenches could be made less permeable by spraying them with a bentonite-containing grout before emplacement of the waste.
Dry bentonite could be incorporated with the waste both as a void filler and to absorb any fluids that might find their
.way into the trench.
One technique that would involve more feasibility studies than the more well-known grouting techniques involves water-3
]
proofing the site.
Anti-wetting agents could be mixed with the soil or with other mineral matter so that these treated materials would repel water.
This could be used to encap-
{
3 sulate the waste material.
The principal interest in this technique, if proved feasible on'other grounds, is the poss-i ibility of developing an inexpensive water barrier that is l
flexible and not subject to cracking or rapid deterioration.
i
)
4 l
vi I
I
l
)
TABLE OF CONTEltTS Abstract.
.iii Summary V
List of Figures
. ix List of Tables.
. Xi List of Abbreviations.
. xiii Acknowledgements.
xv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 3.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY.
3
3.0 CONCLUSION
S.
4 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.
6 5.0 METHOD OF STUDY.
7.
6.0 DISCUSSION 11 6.1 Soil Description.
11 6.2 Research Trench Test Results 11 6.3 Trench Cap Soil Test Results
. 13 6.4 Soil Strengths 14 6.5 Stability of Waste-filled Trench.
15 7.0 AFTLYSIS.
16 7.1 General Considerations.
16 722 Water Transport of Wastes.
16 i
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY.
18
9.0 REFERENCES
20 APPENDIXES A.
Research Trench and Trench Cap Sampling Data.
21 B.
Laboratory Test Data Sheets.
25 C.
Soil Classification Terminology.
67 4
1 i
i vii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure #
Descriptio6.
Page 9 Site Plan, Western N.Y. Nuclear Service Center.
=
Map of Trench Cap Soil Collection Locations 8
e 3
Plan View and Cross Section of Research Trench III.
9 4
Unconfined compression Test of Soil Sample Collected from 11 foot Depth, Research Trench III..
26 5
Unconfined Compression Test of soil Sample (horizontal) Collected from 4-foot depth, Research Trench III.
27 6
Unconfined Compression Test of Soil Sample, Collected from 16-foot depth, Research Trench III.
28 I
Unconfined Compression Test of Soil Sample, 7
Collected from 16-foot depth, Research Trench III 29 8
Unconfined Compression Test of Soil Sample, Collected from 14-foot depth, Research Trench III..
30 9
Unconfined Compression Test of Soil Sample, Collected from 12-foot depth, Research Tren6h III.
31 10 Unconfined Compression Test of Soil Sample l
(horizontal) Collected from 18-foot depth, Research Trench III.
32 11 Unconfined Compression Test of Soil Sample (horizontal) Collected from 18-foot depth, 4
Research Trench III.
33 12 Unconfined Compression Test of Trench Cap Sample, 6-inch depth, Trench 4-5 Septum.
34 13 Unconfined Compression Test of Trench Cap Sample, 12-inch depth, Trench 4-5 Septum.
35 l
14 Unconfined Compression Test of Trench Cap Sample, 3-inch depth, Trench 5.
36 15 Unconfined Compression Test of Trench Cap
' Sample, 13.5-inch depth, Trench 5.
37 16 Unconfined Compression Test of Trench Cap Sample, 4-inch depth, Trench 4 38 17 Unconfined Compression Test of Trench Cap Sample, ll-inch depth, Trench 4.
39 18 Unconfined Compression Test of Trench Cap Sample, 3-inch depth, Trench 4 40 19 Unconfined Compression Test of Trench Cap Sample, ll-inch depth, Trench 4 41 20 Unconfined Compression Test of Trench Cap Sample, 3-inch depth, Trench 2..
42 ix
Figure #
Description Page #
21 Unconfined Compression Test of Trench Cap Sample, 8.5-inch depth, Trench 2 43 22 Grain Size Analysis of Soil Sample Collected 44 from ll-foot depth, Research Trench III.
23 Grain Size Analysis of Soil Sample Collected 4
from 4-foot depth, Research Trench III 24 Grain Size Analysis of Soil Sample Collected 46 from 16-foot depth, Research Trench III.
25 Grain Size Analysis of Soil Sample Collected 47 from 16-foot depth, Research Trench III.
26 Grain Size Analysis of Soil Sample Collected 48 from 14-foot depth, Research Trench III.
27 Grain Size Analysis of Soil Sample Collected 4
49 from 12-foot depth, Research Trench III.
28 Grain Size Analysis of Soil Sample Collected 50 from 18-foot depth, Research Trench III.
29 Grain Size Analysis of Soil Sample Collected from 18-foot depth, Research Trench III.
51 30 Grain Size Analysis of Trench Cap Sample, 14-inch depth, Trench 14,.
52 31 Grain Size Analysis of Trench Cap Sample, 12-inch depth, Trench 12 53 32 Grain Size Analysis of Trench Cap Sample, 54 6-inch depth, Trench 9 33 Grain Size Analysis of Trench Cap Sample, 55 ll-inch depth, Trench 11.
34 Grain Size Analysis of Trench Cap Sample, 56 18-inch depth, Trench 3 35 Grain Size Analysis of Trench Cap Sample, 57 6-inch depth, Trench 4-5 septum.
36 Grain Size Analysis of Trench Cap Sample, 58 12-inch depth, Trench 4-5 septum..
37 Grain Size Analysis of Trench Cap Sample, 59 3-inch depth, Trench 5.
38 Grain Size Analysis of Trench Cap Sample, 60 13.5-inch depth,. Trench 5.
39 Grain Size Analysis of Trench Cap Sample, 61 4-inch depth, Trench 4 40 Grain Size Analysis of Trench Cap Sample, 1
62 ll-inch depth, Trench 4.
41 Grain Size Analysis of Trench Cap Sample, 3-inch depth, Trench 4 63 42 Grain Size Analysis of Trench Cap Sample, ll-inch' depth, Trench 4.
64 43 Grain Size Analy. sis of Trench Cap Sample, 65 3-inch depth, Trench 2.
44 Grain Size Analysis of Trench Cap Sample, l
8.5-inch depth, Trench 2 66 X
, ~;,
l LIST OF TABLES Table #
Description Page #
4 1
Summary of Laboratory Test Results 10 2
Comparison of Test Results, 1977 and 1979 Investigations.
12 3
Burmeister Soil Classification Terminology.
68 i
I 4
Unified Soil Classification System.
69 1
2 1
a s
k l
l l
l xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ft feet kg kilograms kN/m2 kilonewtons per square meter LLRWB Low-Level Radioactive Waste Burial Area m
meters NYSCS New York State Geological Survey i
pcf.
pounds per cubic foot USEPA United States Environn. ental Protection Agency USNRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
?
a 4
I W
)
i xiii n
ACKNCWLEDGEMENTS We wish to thank the following people for their advice and assistance in compiling this report:
Stephen Molello and Steven Potter of the New York State Geological Survey for assistance in the field and for re-viewing early drafts of this report.
We also wish to thank Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc, for pro-viding site access and health physics protection during this i
investigation.
Laboratory analyses of soil samples were performed by Soils and Material Testing, Inc., of Castleton, New York-t 4
1 XV i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The New York State Geological Survey (NYSGS) is the lead agen-cy in an interdisciplinary research program to investigate the pathways of potential migration of low-level radioactive waste from a commercial, shallow, land-burial ground at West Valley, New York.
Begun in 1975, the study was initially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Curre'.itly it is being funded by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory, Commission, and involves cooperative programs with the U.S. Geological Survey, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York Health Department.
The West Valley commercial burial area is located 48 km south of Buffalo, N.Y.,
in northern Cattaraugus County, at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center (Figure 1).
The major installation on the site is a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant not currently in operation.
North and south of the area re-spectively are the high-level waste tanks and the NRC-licensed high-level burial area.
To the east of the latter is the com-mercial. low-level radioactive waste burial (LgRWB) area, with which this study is concerned.
The 224,000 m LLRWB area con-sists of a series of 12 burial trenches each approximately 180 meters long, 11 meters wide, and 6 meters deep.
Between 1963 and 1975, these trenches were dug in a thicn clay-silt till of low permeability and relatively high ion exchange capacity.
As the trenches were filled, the uncompacted waste was covered with a 1 to 5 meter thick cap of soil, consisting of compacted weathered and unweathered till. A more detailed description is available in reference (6).
Geotechnical evaluation of the soils at the Low-Level Radio-active Waste Burial (LLRWB) Site was undertaken as a contin-uation of work begun in 1976 under a contract with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (5) and continued under the present contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1977 and 1978 (7).
1 In August, 1979, samples of the trench cap material at the LLRWB site and the soils at Research Trench III were collected
~~
and analyzed.
Previous sub-su'rface' investigations (1, 2,
3)for the Western New York Nuclear Service Center discuss the design of the facility and the physical characteristics of the soil.
Results of soil tests performed in 1977 (7) are compared to the test results obtained in 1979.
The recently studied research trench was the last of three research trenches excavated in the vicinity of the LLRWB trenches (Figure 1).
Descriptions of Research Trenches I and II may be found in a previous report to the USEPA (9).
(
l I
(
n
""" Drainage
+
'\\
Building
@ Lagoon
)
z, n
++++ Railroad N
'g
(,
" Roadway s
N, k, -.-*- Powerline
=
x-
,+
+
x-x-Fence
\\,\\, +
200_
O 200 400 600 FEET l
E ~6
$)
10 0 150 METERS 4 N 5,-
4i s
h'
\\..)
-u../ 8 o
j Y
yp
\\~~
x M
\\
o,r [ /
/N 1
\\.,_,..
Co
++
2M
+
[RESEARCH
+
+
BURIAL TRENCHES TRENCHES
\\,
/
ld f
^*
'TM Surface water sampling stations G Erdmods Brook Figure 1.
Map of a cortion of the Q Lagoon Road Western New York Nuclear Service Center
@ Becket showing low-level radioactive waste i
burial trenches and research trenches.
E 6*0*P l
Special burial area 7 is the unshaded O e 'in gauges rectangle.
2
4 2.0 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The data presented here represent a geotechnical analysis of soil conditions encountered in a research trench excavated in undisturbed till, approximately 152 m (500 ft.) east of the LLRWB trenches.
The trench had filled with surface water since completion of the earlier soil investigacion there in 1977 (7).
The current investigation was an attempt to recreate as nearly as possible the moisture conditions of flooded waste burial trenches, specifically trenches 4 and 5 that filled to over-flowing in March, 1975 (6) and to observe changes over time.
Thelresearch! trench was left open after the 1977 studies and was allowed to fill with rain water.
The current investigation involved dewatering the research trench to gain access for sampling and raaking measurements.
This study was conducted to determine what. changes had oc-curred in the soil conditions at Research Trench III since the excavation and since the initial soil investigations were con-ducted.
The basic soil engineering properties were determined in the previous investigations; the present study focused on any changds in the_ soils, and changes in the shape of the
. trench..that might have occurred during the interval of flooding.
Trench cap soils, that consist of disturbed, compacted till, both weathered and unweathered, were collected in August, 1979, and in November, 1979. These samples were tested for geotech-nical properties, as well as the presence of radionuclides.*
t
- The significance of the radionuclide data is reported in the 1979-1980 Final Report (NUREG/CR-1565, October 1980).
3
3.0 CONCLUSION
S The more significant conclusions reached during the course of this study are listed below.
These conclusions are dis-cussed in more detail in sections 6.0 and 7.0.
3.1 In general, the results of standard engineering tests in soils from the West Valley site confirm the results predicted by testing performed in 1977.
3.2 Samples from the walls of Research Trench III showed some increase in moisture content after submersion for almost two years, accompanied by a decrease in strength and unit weight.
This indicates a slight swelling of the soil, as would be expected.
The small amount of swelling confirms re-sults of swell testing in the 1977 investigation.
3.3 Atterberg limit results indicate that changes, if any, in plasticity of the soils in Research Trench III during the two year period of submersion are not significant within the precision of the sampling and testing methods.
3.4 Shrinkage limits show a significant change in test re-sults, and appear to be systematic and occurring at all depths.
Although it is possible that the trench wall soils have under-gone some changes, it is more likely that there was a diff-erence in testing procedure.
3.5 The condition of the sides and bottom of the trench after dewatering indicate that, although the overall side slopes l
remained stable, considerable surface sloughing of the soils i
occurred.
The trench partially filled with eroded and i
sloughing soil that was covered by a low-viscosity soil slurry for a total combined height of 1.5 m above the original trench bottom.
3.6 A minimum strength for the Research Trench III wall slopo can be estimated, since the slope remained stable under sudden drawdown conditions.
The minimum _ developed cohesion is 2
approximately 18.9kN/m.
This minimum strength is much less than the values indicated by unconfined compressive strength testing, as would be expected since fractures and swelling at the toe would tend to reduce the strength of these soils in field conditions.
3.7 The maximum strength of soils of the lowermost bench in Research Trench III - in the shallow, softened soils of the trench wall - can be estimated from failure data.
Portions of the lowermost bench that were greater than approximately 1.2 m above the. floor failed.
It is believed that failures occurred both before and after drawdown.
A'value was esti-mated for the developed cohesion at failure under submerged 4
m, e
conditions (2.54 kN/m2), and a slightly higher value was estimated for failure under sudden drawdown conditions (4.79 kN/m2).
3.8 The estimated developed cohr.sion values for surface failures indicate the substantial difference between the uncon-fined compressive strength test results and those calculated from stability conditions.
In the field, soil strength is limited by the presence of fractures and', in some places softened soils.
These limiting factors were not present in the laboratory samples analyzed.
5
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY In the course of this study a number of possible future ave-nues of investigation were identified.
They. represent ap-proaches that may warrant further investigation as possible improvementssin the design of shallow land burial sites for radioactive waste.
These recommendations are discussed in more detail in section 8.0.
4.1 In order to help control consolidation of the waste material and decrease the permeability of burial trench as a whole, void spaces in the waste cell could be filled with a low-permeability grout or slurry.
4.2 The sides and bottoms of the trenches could be made less permeable by spraying them with a bentonite-containing grout before emplacement of the waste.
4.3 Dry bentonite could be incorporated with the waste both as a void filler and to absorb any fluids that might find their way into the trench.
4.4 Anti-wetting agents could be mixed with the soil or with other mineral matter so that these, treated materials would repel water. This could be used to encapsulate the waste ma-terial.
The principal interest in this technique, if proved feasible on other grounds, is the possibility of developing an inexpensive water barrier that is flexible and not subject to cracking or rapid deterioration.
6
5.0 METHOD OF STUDY The research trench studied was excavated in July, 1977, in a manner similar to that of the trenches at the actual waste burial grounds.
Research Trench III was originally approxi='
mately 39 m (130 f t. ) long, 7.9 m (26 f t.) deep, and 6.1 m (20 ft.) wide at the bottom (Figure 2).
A backhoe pit was ex-tended into a portion of the bottom for a total depth below land surface of about 12.5 m (41 ft.).
The trench was allowed to collect surface water.
It filled to land surface during the first two months after excavation, and remained full until August 6, 1979.
At that time, under the direction of personnel of the NYSGS, Benz Construction Co.,
Inc., of West Valley, N.Y.,
began pumping water from the trench.
The pumping was completed on August 10, 1979.
The final drawdown level was approximately 6.3 m (20.6 ft.) below land surface.
On August 14, 1979, personnel of the NYSGS and Vernon C. Hoffman, P.E.,
entered the dewatered trench to take soil samples from the sides and bottom, to make measurements of the shape of the trench, i
and to observe the conditions of the trench.
Seven soil samples were recovered from the trench using a hand-driven, two-inch diameter, thin-wall, tube sampler.
Descriptions of the sampling locations and the orientation of the samples (horizontal or vertical) are given in Appendix A of this report.
On the same day five similar tube samples were taken from the trench cap materials in the LLRWB area.
Five additional tube samples were collected in November, 1979 by personnel of the NYSGS.
The locations of the trench cap sampling points are indicated in Figure 3.
The thin-wall tubes were sealed with rubber caps in the field to prevent moisture loss and shipped to the laboratory of Soil and Material Testing,.Inc.
The following tests were conducted on the samples:
Unit Weight Unconfined Compress'ive Strength Calibrated Penetrometer (to estimate the Unconfined. Strength)
Atterberg Linits Shrinkage Limits Grain-size Distribution Moisture Content A summary of the results of tests made on each sample is shown in Table 1,
" Summary of Laboratory Test Results".
Individual test data sheets have been included in Appendix B.
The results of grain-size distribution tests are-not. included in Table 1, but are indicated in graphical form on the individual test result sheets in Appendix B.
7
+
f O
backhoe pit
, RAMP
)
/
j i
\\
I f
j MUD SJ; g
g L
E EK E
l S
V V
V
, 39, E
E r- -
E L
L RAFT L
]
gi a
e i
G I
_ _ _ _X' l
_X_ _
.g.
J l
RAMP M.
L 1
23m M
X LEVEL 2 n
8 6.27 to mud D
surface 7.8 7m p
kar.s co x_____
Figure 2.
Sketch map and cross section approximately to scale of Research Trench III af ter pur.. ping in August 1979.
Area of mud is where soil above its liquid limit has ponded.
Mud surface is depth to which pumping was done.
Dark areas in cross section are areas of disturbed' soil.
"S" designates area's of slumping prior to filling with rain water.
Circled numbers are sampling locations.
8
\\.
<,/
/,,./
bI e aroe,..,[ c
-+
i W
l.
j
=
~ x... m... ~ x... /
)
f
[
=ra;
/z\\.
! jjim l
e
)
s j
e
*# 5$'
NRC-LICENSED li If BURIAL AREA 1:
.{ [el
_ __ _ _ _. _ _ __ _ __ _ _/aLJ
~
/
...)
n use n
\\.
'j s
3 i
._ _ _.._ _ _ _ __ q c_
Driven well point l l
Trench sump I
g l
I
- -- Fence I
I l
a L_I Hard stand l
g i
i Trench margin I
l Lagoon I
i u
e Ffd_t Filled log.
l l
'-
- Drainage I
e l
l g
}
... <se 3
I
- .' 1 1 2
,'3 a
m_____
Map location
~
?""Ey x;g'(((.f 'f(09, o
u.3 so"f New York State Geological Survey 7/79 Figure 3.
Location map of trench cap samples collected in 1979 Large dots indicate sampling locations.
9
l i
TPBLE 1.
Sumnary of Iaboratory Test Resultis on Samples O)llected at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center. Trench cap soils are from the Low-Ievel Waste Burial Trenches.
C p
n a
8
{
g e
3k
~
~
C v
eg a
a e
e n
y ku h
E
.b f9 e
A*8.f B 8^8 b
h'*@
Q 3
ao
- I
$1~ ja' af !.f 1
d al
- S v
M Soils Frm Research Tre.ch III (August,1979):
1 11-13-17 17.4 30 24 16.1 115.2 2.7 3.8 2
4H**
0-4 15.5 30 30 16.3 117.5 5.2 4.5-5.0 3A 16 0-4 20.6 30 20 18.9 106.0 2.1 2.0 3B 16 16-20 20.7 32 21 18.6 107.0 2.0 4
14 0-4 18.5 32 22 12.2 112.7 2.3 3.5-1.8 5
12 0-4 17.6 29 21 19.4-115.1 3.4 2.5 6A 18H
-4 22.1 41 28 19.9 105.6 1.9 2.0 6B 18H 11 -15 23.4 34 4
16.9 104.4 1.7 1.8 Trench Cap Soils (Atgust,1979) :
7 0
14-18 12.7 30 21 16.3 8
0 9-13 12.5 32 23 18.9 9
0 6-9 12.5 29 19 17.0 10 0
11-15 10.8 31 23 16.4 11 0
18-21 14.1 32 23 17.4 Trench Cap Soils (Noveuber,1979):
12A 0
6-10 22.8 29 23 17.6 107.7 0.8 1.0 12B 0
12-16 30.3 31 20 15.4 118.3 4.4 2.5-4.5 13A 0
3-7 30.3
.30 26 20.8 80.6 0.4 0.5-0.8 13B 0
13 -17 29.8 30 23 23.1 108.9 5.3 1.'5-3.2 14A 0
4-8 28.9 29 19 17.9 106.6 0.6 0.4-1.0-14B 0
11-15 29.4 30 18 17.4 107.0 1.5 1.8-3.8 15A 0
3-7 30.0 30 25 20.1 107.2 0.7 1.0-1.8 15B 0
11-15 16.9 16.8 116.6 2.3 2.2-3.8 16A 0
3-7 36.7 37 28 22.9 86.1 0.3 0.8 16B 0
8 -12 30.3 31 20 17.6 110.0 1.4 1.5-2.8
- Depth below original ground. All samples taken 0 - 2 ft. frm existing grade.
- Sanples are vertical unless indicated as horizontal (H).
l 10
l l
l l
6.0 DISCUSSION l
6.1 Soil Description Soil sample identification has been determined by means of vi-l sual classification and by soil index or classification tests that include Atterberg limits and grain-size distribution.
All of the soil samples removed from the trench have similar j
descriptions, based upon texture and plasticity.
The soils l
are classified as CL and ML, or borderline cases of these categories, under the Unified Soil Classification System (de-scribed in Appendix C).
Within the Burmeister System, they would generally be classified as silt and clay or clay and silt with trace sand and a, trace of gravel.
The compacted trench cap soils are similar except that they have higher per-centages of sand and gravel.
Commonly, the trench cap samples have "a little or trace sand and gravel". The clay soils are generally very stiff in weathered zones and are fractured to depths of up to 4.6 m (15 ft.).
The preserce of fractures that sometimes are filled with silt or fine sand particles may re-sult in the shear strength of the soil being substantially less than that of unfractured portions of the soil.
6.2 Research Trench Tests Results The test results from the current investigation have been com-pared to the test results obtained during the 1977 investi-gation.
A summary of the average values at various depths, and overall averages for both sets of results has been tab-ulated in Table 2.
The depth ranges indicated correspond to the weathered and desiccated soils (shallow), the partially weathered soils (medium), and the relatively unweathered soils at greater depths (deep).
The test results obtained during the two investigations are very close to each other, particularly conside' ring the rela-tively small number.of measurements or test results that were involved in the averages.
The results suggest some increase in moisture content and a i
decrease in strength and unit weight during the two-year inter-val.
This indicates a slight swelling of the soil.
Given the reduction in confining pressure, and water available to main-tain a saturated condition, this is expected. Based on the
]
relatively small changes in moisture content, unit weight, and i
strength, it appears that the amount of swell was small.
This was also indicated by the swell testing in the 1977 investi-gation.
11
i TABLE 2.
Caparison of Test Results,* 1977 and 1979 Investigations.
C 3
2 2
- 3
~
a o-g y
f a
$a a
w w
go
- I g
is
$3 El
~l P
a) 1979 Shallow 4
15.5*
- 30**
21**
16**
117.5**
- 5. 2*
- Medium 19.0 31 22 17 111.2 2.5 Deep 18 22.8 38 16 18 105.0 1.8 Average 19.5 32 20 17 110.4 2.6 1977 Shal".ow 4,8 15.2 30**
19**
13*
- 115.7 I
Medium 12,16 17.4 30 18 13 112.8 5.4 Deep 20 20.0 31**
19 *
- 11*
- 109.5 Greater than 20' 20.1 32 20 11 110.6 2.8 18.5 31 19 12 111.9 3.9 Average
- Results given are average values at each depth range.
- One Sample.
12
..l
The Atterberg limit results indicate that the changes in plaaticity, if any, are not significant within the precision of the sampling and testing methods.
The shrinkage limits indicate a significant change in test results.
This change appears to be systematic and occurring at all depths.
Al-though it is possible that the soils have undergone some changes, it is more likely that there was a difference in test-ing procedure.
The shrinkage limit test is sensitive to oper-ator differences.
There is also some flexibility in the ini-tial moisture content for testing allowed under the ASTM specification, which could have some effects on the results.
It is important to realize that the soils sampled during the recent investigation were removed from within 0.6 m (2 f t.) of the existing sides and bottom of the research trench.
In this surface zone the confining pressure has been reduced to low values and there has been an ample supply of water to keep the surface, soils saturated.
However, soils further from the faces of the slopes (which were not sampled in the current investi-gation) would probably tend to exhibit moisture contents, unit weights, and strengths closer to those measured in 1977.
The confining pressures deeper in the slope have not decreased as much as at the surface, and the swell that has occurred is probably small compared to the swell experienced by the sur-face scils.
6.3 Trench Cap Soil Test Results No detailed description or analysis of the trench cap soils is included here beyond the soil descriptions given in Table 1.
In general, the_significant properties are the low perme-abilities, and the volume changes sufficient to allow the soils to crack upon drying.
The average liquidity index* of trench cap soils that were col-lected during August was -1.05; the average liquidity index of trench cap samples collected in November was 0.87.
This dif-ference reflects a large increase in the average water content from 12.5 to 31.7 percent.
No change in average liquid limit and only minor increase in average plastic limit were observed.
In one sample (13 A in Table 1) the actual water content ex-ceeded the liquid limit by 0.3 percent, however, this may be accounted for by sampling and testing inaccuracies.
The maximum compressive strength of trench cap samples col-lected in November (following a period of precipitation) in-creased significantly with depth.
- Liquidity index, or water-plasticity ratio, relates the water content of the soil to the liquid and plastic limits.
Liquidity Index =
Water Content - Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
- Plastic Limit 13
1 6.4 Soil Strengths The condition of the sides and bottom of the trench after de-watering indicated that, although the overall side slopes re-mained stable, considerable surface sloughing of the soils occurred.
Some of it may have occurred during or immediately after the dewatering.
Runoff, wave action, and frost action caused some surface erosion near the top of the trench.
The trench partially filled with eroded and sloughed soil, that was covered by a low-viscosity soil slurry for a total com-bined height of 1.5 m (5 ft.) above the original trench bot-tom.
The backhoe trench below the trench bottom was entirely filled.'
The sides of the trench above this soft soil fill remained stable, for the most part, except for portions of the level-2 benches,-whose slopes sloughed to the bottom. It appears that this probably happened at the time of dewatering.
Portions of the level-2 benches that were greater than approximately
- 1. 2 m (4 f t. ) above the ramp failed.
Elevations of the slopes described are shown in Figure 12.
i Some estimates of the strength of the soils in'the slopes can be made from observations of the condition of the trench after dewatering.
Slope stability charts'(9) were used.
This type j
of chart solution is adequate for the rough estimates of strength required for this study.
A minimum strength for the greater slope (A to F in Figure 2) can be estimated, since the slope remained stable under sud-den drawdown conditions.
This is done using standard tables developed by Taylor (9)I (The minimum developed cohesion is approximately 18.9 kN/m 394 psf), assuming a slope angle of 27.50, a slope height of 6.0 m (20.6 ft.) and a total 3
(moist) unit weight of 2115 kg/m (132 pcf). For the greater slope (A to F) the cohesion at failure is most probably signif-icantly greater than this minimum strength, but probably does not approach the values obtained by. unconfined compression tests (Table 2).
This is because of the formation of tension cracks at the top of the slopes and some reduction in strength at the toe due to swelling.
The maximum strength of these soils can be estimated from failure data.
Portions of the bench at level 2 (E to F),
whose-heights above the trench bottom exceeded 1.2 m (4 ft.)
failed.
It is believed that failures occurred both before and after drawdown.
One value can be estimated for failure under submerged conditions, and a slightly higher value can r
be estimated for failure under sudden drawdown conditions, which cause higher stress' levels in the soil.
The developed cohesion at failure for suddeW' drawdown would be approximately 4.79 kN/m2, actuming a slope angle of 600 and a unit weight of 14
.~
2115 kg/m3 (132 pcf).
The same slope data and a bouyant unit weinht of about 1122 kg/m3 (70 pcf) forthesubmergedcongi-tioa yield an approximate developed cohesion of 2.54 kN/m (53 psf).
These values correspond to soil strengths reduced by soil cracking, with swelling and reduction of confining pressure to very low values.
Given enough time, more slough-ing of the sides of the trench would occur.
Each failure mass would reduce the confining pressure on the remaining soil and probably expose it to a greater water supply, promoting swell-ing and softening of the~ soil.
The rate of such progressive failure would tend to decrease as the height and angle of the slope lessened.
~
The estimated developed cohesion values suggested above for shallow failures indicate the substantial difference between the unconfined compressive strength test results and those calculated from stability conditions.
The unconfined com-pressive strength tests and calibrated penetrometer tests tend to indicate the strengths of the uncracked (higher strength) portions of the clays.
In the field, the strengths of the clays are limit'ed by the presence of fractures and, at some places, softened soils.
6.5 Stability of Waste-filled Trench The stability conditions for a burial trench, were it filled with waste material, would vary widely depending on the strength and compressibility of the waste material.
If the waste material were of very low strength, the stability con-ditions would approach those of the water-filled trench or of an empty trench.
If the trench fill were of high strength and low compress-i ibility, the sides of the trench would be stable and no slough-ing of the sides would occur.
The actual conditions in the I
burial trenches probably fall between these extremes.
A use-ful analysis of the likely service conditions would not be possible w;ithout knowing at least the approximate mechanical properties of the fill material.
It can be seen that non-compacted wastes could consolidate enough to remove support from the side slopes of the trench, thus allowing shear failure to occur.
It is safe to assume in the long term that all but the most resistant trench fill containers - for example, the few concrete casks that are buried - will eventually degrade, allowing sloughing to occur.
l 15 l
.n,.
w
.u E'
4 7.0 ANALYSIS 7.1 General Considerations The purpose of the waste burial technique is to confine the waste materials and any harmful substances resulting from de-gradation of those wastes.
Soil as the burial medium has three co-existing phases:
a solid, soil particle phase; a liquid phase consisting of soil moisture and substances in i
gas phase consisting of ambient air and solution; and a
other gases or water vapor.
Conceivably, sufficient movement of any one of the constituents of these three phases can re-sult in a ' ass of the effectiveness of the burial medium as a container.
The analysis and the recommendations in this re~
port are directed principally at control of the movements of the liquid phase. The water or liquid phase is a major pro-blem because the water entering the waste material from cracks or breaches in the cover, or to a minimal extent, as seeping groundwater, can then mobilize radionuclides for possible later transport.
7.2 Water Transport of Wastes t
As presently designed, one of the most significant mechanisms for liquid phase migration of contaminants from the burial trenches might be as follows:
the waste material could con-solidate through mechanical compression by weight of the cover 4
material and its own weight, or through decomposition.
This i
would result in the formation of a surface depression if the surface were not sufficiently mounded.
Desiccation cracks in the cover, root holes, or animal burrows could breach the cover also, so that it would not shed all the surface water.
1 The surface water could then move into the voids in the waste j
material.
A lesser amount of groundwater could also move into i
the voids from the surrounding, undisturbed soil, though this contribution is probably insignificant (8).
i Since evaporation of such collected water is impeded by the cover, and drainage to the sides is restricted by the very low permeability soils, the fluid accumulates in the waste mate-rial and builds up a head of free water in the-trench.
Since i
the horizontal permeability ranges from one half to one order i
of magnitude more than the vertical permeability (7), the horizontal movement of collected water from the trench could become comparatively significant given a pressure head of col-lected water within the waste material.
This is particularly so-if the accumulated water level rises above seams or part-ings of more permeable soils.
Depending on the spacing of the 4
j trenches, and given the higher permeability of the waste mate-i
- rial, the contaminated fluid could move from trench to trench, 1
conceivably at a greater. average rate of travel than it would 4
i 16 l
in the undisturbed soil.
On a probability basis, this could increase the chance for contasinat&d material to move out of the LLRWB trenches over the long term.
Any tendency for the sides of the trench to slough from the consolidation of the waste material could accelerate the dev-elopment of roughly vertical cracks in the previously undis-turbed soil at the sides of the trench.
It could also result in a substantial settlement of the surface around the edges of the trench, since small horizontal movements of the sides of a deep trench result in exaggerated vertical movements of the surface of the failure mass.
Any such cracking and sur-face settlement would tend to increase the movement of surface water into the trenches.
Surface water percolating into the waste material could cause a general downward movement of soil materials into deeper voids, enlarging any cracks and openings in the waste or waste cover material.
l 17
J <
c i
4 I
r i
2 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY j
In the course of this study a mudaer of possible future ave-l nues of investigation were identified. -These are presented 2
here as recommendations for future study.
They are general in nature and represent' approaches that may warrant further investigation as possible improvements: in -the design of shal-l low-land burial sites for' radioactive waste.
Alternate recom-l mendations stemming from additional descriptions or definitions of the waste burial problem itself could result from further studies.
Proposed approaches to the solution of the problem described above could include one or more of the following elements:
i 1.
Controlling the consolidation of the waste ma.erial; 2.
Dwnmasbxf the strengths of the individual waste materials 4
or the contents of the burial trench taken as a whole; i
3.
Decreasing the permeability of the waste mater ial or.the contents of the burial trench taken as a whole; and 4.
Encapsulating of the waste material with a low-perme-ability barrier.
One approach to accomf.ishing all four of the elements listed,
above would be to fill the void spaces in the waste cell with a low-permeability grout or slurry, such as those that contain bentonite.
The strength of the grout can be increased, and-the grout made less expensive by-using portland cement, and
~
sand, lime, fly ash, or other mineral fillers.
l
.The grout could be injected into the waste material during or l
after filling of the trenches.
It is also possible that waste processing systems could be devised to compress and cement the
. waste into modules before placement in the trenches.
Spaces between packages or modules could later be grouted to prevent
' movement of fluids in the spaces between the units..The sides and bottoms of~the trenches could be'made less permeable by spraying them with a bentonite-containing grout to provide a low-permeability barrier.around the waste material.
~ A second, related concept utilizes the great affinity for wa-ter and excellent water-retentive properties that dry bent-i onitic clays' display.
If dry bentonite were incorporated with i
shredded waste materials or used as a void filler, it could i
have the effect of absorbing hazardous waste-containing fluids 18
and holding them for an indefinite period.
This concept may have application in a waste processing system applied before burial.
A third concept could be considered which might be very effec-tive in decreasing permeability of the waste material or in encapsulating the waste material.
Anti-wetting agents could be-mixed with soil or with other mineral matter so that these treated materials would repel water.
The treated material could be used to encapsulate the waste material, if found to be effective and feasible on other bases.
This approach would increase the strengths of the waste materials and decrease their compressibility somewhat, but.not nearly as much as would the grouts.
This anti-wetting agent concept would re-quire more feasibility investigations than grouting techniques, that are well-developed in other and related applications.
The principal interest in this technique results from the possibility of developing sminexpensive water barrier that is flexible and not subject to cracking or rapid deterioration.
4 l
4 19 L
l
9.0 REFERENCES
(1)
Dames and Moore, 1963.
Site Investigation, Proposed Spent Nuclear Fuel Process-ing Plant, Near Springville, New York, for Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., 68 p.
(2)
Dames and Moore, 1970.
Report, Soils and Foundation Investigation, Proposed Iodine Recovery Building, West Valley, New York, Nuclear Fuel Services, Incorporated.
Report for Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., 23 p.
(3)
Dames and Moore, 1971. Report, Soils and Foundation Investigation, Proposed High Level Waste Facility, West Valley, New York, for Nuclear Fuel Services, Incorporated, 33 p.
(4)
Dames and Moore, 1974.
Foundation and Hydrology Studies Emergency Water Supply for Cooling at the Spent Fuel Reprocessing Plant, West Valley, New York, 108 p.
(5)
- Dana, R.H., Jr., Fakundiny, R.H.,
- LaFleur, R.G.,
- Molello, S.A., Whitney, P.R.
(in press).
Geologic Study of the Burial Medium at a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Burial Site at West Valley, New York, New York State Geological Survey Open-file Report No.
NYSGS/79-2411, 70 p.
(6)
- Dana, R.H.,
Jr., Molello, S.A.,
- Fickies, R.H.,
and Fakundini, F.H.
1979.
Research at a Low-Level Radio-active Wasta Burial Site at West Valley, New York - An Introduction and Summary.
New York State Geological Survey Open-file Report No. NYSGS/79-2413, 39 pp.
(7)
- Fickies, R.H.,
Fakundiny, R.H., Mosely, E.T.
1979.
Geotechnical Analysis of Soil Samples from Test Trench at Western New York Nuclear Service Center, West Valley, New York.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report No.
NUREG/CR-0644, 21 p.*
(8)
Prudic, D.E. and Randall, A.D.
1979.
Ground Water Hydrology and Sub-surface Migration of Radioisotopes at a Low-Level Solid Radioactive Waste Disposal Site, West Valley, New York.
Management of Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Carter, Moghissi and Kahn, eds.
Pergamon Press, New York, p 853-882.
(9)
- Taylor, D.W. 1958.
Fundamentals of Soil Mechanics.
Wiley Press, 700 p.
- Available for purchase from the NRC/GPO Sales Program, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission, Washington, DC 20555, and the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
20
APPENDIX A RESEARCH TRENCH AND TRENCH CAP SAMPLING DATA l
l 21 l
SAMPLES COLLECTED AUGUST 15, 1979 FROM RESEARCH TRENCH III i
Research trench III is approximately 23 meters x 39 meters, mcjor axis oriented NW - SE.
Original excavation depth 13+
meters, depth to surface of water covering trench floor is approximately 6.3 meters.
Sample #1 Vertical sample removed from floor of level 2, west face, south end of trench.
17" driven 15" recovered Penetrometer (TSF) :
3.25 3.50 Sample #2 Horizontal sample removed from level 1 wall (west face) 15.5 meters from south end of trench, 1.3 meter below land surface.
Brown weathered till.
16" driven 12" recovered Penetrometer (TSF) :
4.50 4.50 Sample #3 Vertical sample removed from south ramp, approximately 1.5 meter above water covering trench floor.
20" driven 15" recovered Penetrometer (TSF):
2.50 2.50 Sample #4 Vertical sample removed from north ramp, approximately 2.1 meters above water covering trench floor.
20" driven 17" recovered Penetrometer (TSF):
2.25 2.50 22
Sample #5 Vertical sample removed from level 2 floor (east face) north-ern end of trench.
16.5"'4 driven 12" recovered Penetrometer (TSF) :
3.50 3.50 3.50 Sample #6 Horizontal sample removed from west face, near south end of trench, approximately 1 meter above water covering trench floor.
16" driven 14" recovered Penetrometer (TSF) :
2.25 2.25 2.25 ADDITIONAL DATA Slump material In Situ penetrometer (TSF):
I 1.50 1.20 0.25 0.75 Tor vein (TSF) :
0.2 0.1 0.2 23
CORE SAMPLES COLLECTED AUGUST 15, 1979 FROM TRENCH CAPS Sample #7 Vertical sample removed 15 feet north of sump 14N on center line.
18" driven 18" recovered Sample #8 Vertical sample removed 12 feet south of south monument on trench 12 on center line.
16" driven 16" recovered Penetrometer (TSF) :
4.50 Sample #9 Vertical sample removed from trench 9, 25 feet south of per-i pendicular to sump 10N.
15" driven 15" recovered Sample #10 Vertical sample removed 125 feet south of north monument, on center line, trench 11.
15" driven 14" recovered Sample #11 Vertical sample removed 15 feet south of south monument, on center line, trench 3.
21" driven 20" recovered 24
APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST DATA SHEETS 25 l
Test Data Location: Research Trench III Collection Date:
8/15/79 Diameter:
1.850 in.
Sample No.
1 Height:
4.008 in.
Approx. Depth of Water Content:
17.4 %
Top of Core:
11 ft.
Sample Interval Dry Density:
115.2 pcf Below Core Top:
13-17 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength:
2.7 tsf Strain at:
10.7 %
5.0 i
4.0 3.0 w
.=
.5 I.
J:
cn 2.0 t.O O
O 5
10 15 20 Strain in %
Figure 4.
Unconfined cxmpression test and failure sketch of soil. sample collected frcm depth of % 12 feet, Research Trench III.
i 26
\\
Location: Research Trench III Test Data Collection Date:
8/15/79 Diameter:
1.850 in.
Sample No.
2 Height:
3.902 in.
Approx. Depth of Water Content:
15.5 %
Top of Core:
4 ft.
Sample Interval Dry Density:
117.5 pcf Below Core Top:
0-4 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength:
5.2 tsf Strain at:
7.5 %
i i
5.0 4.0 i
.0 3
.=
.5 3*
ui2.o l.0 O
O 5
10 15 20 Stroin in %
Figure 5.
Unconfined cmpression test and failure sketch of soil sample collected frdm depth of s 4 feet, Research Trench III.
27
)
1 i
Location: Research Trench III Test Data Collection Date: 8/15/79 Diameter:
1.850 in.
Sample No.
3A Height:
3.935 in.
Water Content:
20.6 %
Approx. Depth of Top of Core:
16 ft.
Sample Interval "ry Density:
106.0 pcf Below Core Top: 0-4 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength:
2.1 tsf Strain at:
18.1 %
5.0 4.0 os E
D
.0 o3
.as
.E ee
?.
52.0
- eG O O O-
/
l.O -
0 O
5 10 I5 20 Stain in %
Figure 6.
Unconfined ocznpression test and failure sketch of soil sample collected frczn depth of N 16 feet, Fesearch Trench III.
I 28 l
i 1
Location: Research Trench III Test Data Collection Date:
3/15/79 Diameter:
1.850 in.
Sample No.
3B Height:
4.033 in.
Approx. Depth of Water Content: 20.7 %
Top of Core:
16 ft.
Sample Interval Dry Density:
107.0 pcf Below Core Top:
16-20 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength: 1.95 tsf Strain at:
19.3 %
5.0 i
4.0
~
mE 3
,o
.=
.5 2
5 t.0 g g-l.0 4
(
0 O
5 10 15 20 Stroin in%
Figure 7.
Unconfined ccmpression test and failure sketch of soil sanple collected frczn depth of s 17 feet, Research tench III.
29
Location: Research Trench III Test Data Collection Date:
8/15/79 Diameter:
1.850 in.
Sample No.
4 Height:
3.992 in.
Approx. Depth of Water Content:
18.5 %
Top of Core:
14 ft.
Sample Interval Dry Density:
112.7 pef Below Core Top: 0 - 4 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength:
2.26 tsf Strain at:
11.0 %
5.0 i
i i
\\
4.0 3.0 RE
.6 E.
h52.0 i.O 0
O 5
10 15 20 Strein in %
Figure 8.
Unconfined cmpression test and failure sketch of soil sanple collected frm depth of N 14 feet, Research Trench III.
30 i
4
)
i Location: Research Trench III Collection Date:
8/15/79 Diameter: ~ Test Data 1.850 in.
Sample No.
5 Height:
3.960 in.
Approx. Depth of Water Content:
17.6%
Top of Core:
12 ft.
Sample Interval Dry Density:
115.1 pcf Below Core Top: 0 - 4 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength:
3.36 tsf Strain at:
19.1 %
5.0 i
i
\\
l 4.0 4
$o 3.0 2
.E 2
Th 2.0 1.0 O
i O
5 10 15 20 25 Strain in%
Figure 9.
Unconfined cmpression test and failure sketch of soil sample collected frcm depth of S 12 feet, Research Trench III.
31
i Location: Research Trench III Test Data Collection Date:
8/15/79 Diameter:
1.850 in.
Sample No.
6A Height:
3.918 in.
Approx. Depth of Water Content:
22.1 %
Top of Core:
18 f t.
Sample Interval Dry Density:
105.6 pcf Below Core Top:
-4 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength:
1.89 tsf Strain at:
18.2 %
5.0
\\
4.0 N
j 3.0 s
.m
.5:.
$1.0 I.0 O
i i
0 5
10 15 20 Strain in %
Figure 10. Unconfined ompression test and failure sketch of soil sanple 18 feet, Research Trench III.
collected frcm depth of S
32
Location: Research Trench III Test Data Collection Date:
8/15/79 Diameter:
1.850 in.
Sample No.
6B Height:
3.955 in.
Approx. Depth of Water Content:
23.4 %
Top of Core:
18 ft.
Sample Interval Dry Density:
104.4 pcf
)
Below Core Top:
11
- 15 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength:
1.73 tsf Strain at:
16.4 %
5.0 i
i 4.0 coE3 M
.0 E
.6 5
ui 2.0 A OO t.O
~
O O
5 10 15 20 Strainin %
Figure 11.
Unconfined ompression test and failure sketch of soil sartple collected fran depth of N 18 feet, Research Trench III.
1 33
.~
i Location: Trench 4-5 Septum Test Data i
Collection Date: 11/28/79 Diameter:
1.uau in.
Sample No.
12 A Height:
3.314 in.
Approx. Depth of Water Content:
21.1 %
Top of Core:
Ground Surface Sample Interval Dry Density:
117.7 pcf Below Core Top:
6 - 10 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength:
.77 tsf Strain at:
13.6 %
l.O I
I I
O.8 J
cu E O.6 E
,e u) 0.4 O,2 i
O O
5 10 15 20 Stroin in %
Figure 12. Unconfined cmpression test and failure sketch of trench cap sample, 6-inch depth, Trench 4-5 septum.
- i
+
34
i Location: Trench 4 -5 Septum Test Data Collection Date:
11/28/79 Diameter:
1.850 in.
Sample No.
32B Height:
3.710 in.
Approx. Depth of Water Content: 16.6 %
Top of Core: Ground Surface Sample Interval Dry Density: 118.3 ocf Below Core Top: 12 - 16 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength:
4.4 tsf Strain at:
13.4 %
5.0 i
i i
4.0
(
- E 3.0 N
H
.E 2
$ 2.0 i.o O
O 5
LO IS 20 Strain in %
Figure 13.
Unconfined compression test and failure sketch of trench cap material, 12-inch depth, Trench 4-5 septun.
35
Location:
Trench 5 Test Data Collection Date:
11/28/79 Diameter:
2.688 in.
Sample No.
13A Height:
3.862 in.
Water Content:
24.2 %
Approx. Depth of Top of Core: Ground Surface Samole Interval Dry Density:
80.6 pcf Below Core Top:
3-7 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength:
.36 tsf Strain at:
22.5 %
0.5 1
0.4
\\V 0.3
.=
.E 2
2m 0.2 O.I 0
O 5
10 15 20 25 Stroin in %
Figure 14. Unconfined cunpression test and failure sketch of trench cap material, 3-inch depth, Trench 5.
36 r
l l
Location:
Trench 5 Test Data j
Collection Date: 11.28.79 Diameter:
1.850 in.
Sample No.
13B Height:
3.775 in.
Approx. Depth of Water Content:
16.8 %
Top of Core: Ground Surface Sample Interval Dry Density: 108.9 pcf Below Core Top: 13 -17h in.
Test Results 1
Max. Comp. Strength:
5.32 tsf Strain at:
12.2 %
i i
i 5.0
\\(
i 4.0 "E 3.0
.=
.5 di 2,o
)
- 1. 0 0
o 5
10 15 to S trein in %
Figure 15. Unconfined compression test and failure sketch of trench cap material, 13.5-inch depth, Trench 5.
37 y
1 Location: Trench 4 Test Data Collection Date:
11/28/79 Diameter:
1.850 in.
Sample No.
14A Height:
3.860 in.
Approx. Depth of Water Content:
22.2 %
Top of Core: Ground Surface Sample Interval Dry Density:
106.6 pcf Below Core Top: 4-8 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength:
.60 tsf Strain at:
25.6 %
l.O
(
)
J.8 N
"E O.6 M
.?
.E 2
e
$5 0.4 O.2 1
I f
a n
O 5
10 15 20 25 Stroinin%
Figure 16.
Unconfined cmpression test and failure sketch of trench cap material, 4-inch depth, Trench 4.
38
Location:
Trench 4 Test Data Collection Date:
11/28/79 Diameter:
1.850 in.
Sample No.
14B Height:
4.241 in.
Approx. Depth of Water Content:
17.7 %
Top of Core: Ground Surface Sample Interval Dry Density:
107.0 pcf Below Core Top: 11-15 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength: 1.47 tsf Strain at:
12.0 %
i
- 2. 5 i
d.O "E
- 1. 5 0A x
.5
$l.0 0.5 0
O.
5 iO 15 20 Strein in %
Figure 17. Unconfined ocmpression test and failure sketch of trench cap material, ll-inch depth, Trench 4.
39
l Location:
Trench 4 Test Data Collection Date:
11/28/79 Diameter:
1.850 in.
Sample No.
15 A Height:
4.136 in.
Approx. Depth of Water Content:
20.4 %
Top of Core: Ground Surface Sample Interval Dry Density:
107.2 pcf Below Core Top:
3-7 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength:
.72 tsf Strain at:
24.8 %
l.0 0.8 cJ E O.6 M
E
.5 250.4 0.2 O
O 5
10 15 20 25 Strain in%
Figure 18. Unconfined cmpression test and failure sketch of trench cap material, 3-inch depth Trench 4.
40
Location:
Trench 4 Test Data Collection Date: 11/28/79 Diameter:
1.850 in.
Sample No.
15 B Height:
3.910 in.
Approx., Depth of Water Content:
16.9 %
Top of Core: Ground Surface Sample Interval Dry Density:
116.6 pcf Below Core Top:
11-15 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength:
2.3 tsf Strain at:
14.0 %
5.0 i
i N
4.0 N
m E
h 3.0
.=
.5 m.*
52.0 --
1.0 i
0 O
5 to 15 to Stroinin %
Figure 19.
Unconfined cmpression test and failure sketch of trench cap material, ll-inch depth, Trench 4.
i 41 j
l
l l
l Location:
Trench 2 Test Data Collection Date:
11/28/79 Diameter:
1.850 in.
Sample No.
16 A Height:
3.820 in.
Approx. Depth of Water Content:
34.5 %
Top of Core:
Ground Surface Sample Interval Dry Density:
86.1 pcf Below Core Top:
3-7 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength:
.32 tsf Strain at:
25.7 %
0.5 r
4
\\
s
.3 oO E
.s E
E 50.2
.i O.1 i
O O
5 10 15 20 25 Strain in %
Figure 20. Unmnfined cmpression test and failure sketch of trench cap l
material, 3-inch depth, Trench 2.
42
o Location: Trenen 2 Test Data Collection Date:
11/28/79 Diameter:
1.850 in.
Sample No.
16 B Height:
3.850 in.
Approx. Depth of Water Content: 20.7 %
Top of Core: Ground Surface Sample Interval Dry Density:
110.0 pcf Below Core Top: 8h-12 in.
Test Results Max. Comp. Strength:
1.44 tsf Strain e.t:
17.0 t 2.5 i
2.0 os E
{ I. 5
^
O A
.s
.5 2e 2:
m 1.0 0.5 O
O 5
10 15 20 Strionin%
Figure 21.
Unconfined cmpression test and failure sketch of trench cap material, 8.5-inch depth, Trench 2.
43
% 3: w e3u.Ee2 O
0 0
0 0
0 W
g 0
0 1
2 3
4 5
7 0I 1W III id m
T h-
,b M
\\-
h:
Y t
O
\\
A n
L' s
L a
w C
a m
-g r
m 1
o a
g 0
0 T
p L
N I
S la L
vre tn W
i 5
h o
0 r
t 0
P p
N e
oc
_u II d
a o
1 0
5 a
w s
s g:
I i
.l
.l
.,^
.i 1
l te r
o o,!
.?
2 s
m 1
e i
r o g,I
?
l
- . 7i l
- i
..^
.i
'e
{
M i
r l
oo w
in 1
D mo, 4,
iz I
'2 e N a
A
- 5. S S m
~
0 1
n wmi
=
ia s.
s r
=
G u
1
_o
.u l
_t 1
o s.
s e w
- s. i
, ~
N
.ss c
e u
lI g
l o
h s
a-e
,m e
S a
i%
F' a
,s 4
5 I
isy l
s 4,
a n
.J, 0
L
+
a 1
E
- e. 6 V u e
i A
z s
R i
a.
G s
f, I
n i
ci a
=
r
=
n G
s t
- e. i a
c s.
S o
i.
2 s
2
- s. s ll e
u r
y u
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0g g
0 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 t
i 1
%5 3EL~h E F
s Aa
%^*3 ~$e3u Yg 2 O
0 0
0 0
0 M
o o
2 3
4 5
7 g
c10 i_4 0
III g
g 5
R 0
h 0
c
,\\
0 Y
n M
h e
g4 r
w T
S 1
0 N,
U t
0 t
S r
aeseR ht 5
p o
0 e
i o
r 0
d o
t, lI
'4 o
1 e
n 0
)
l s
a o
r ol.
i
.l
.e
.e:.
i' t
e t
t e
a.
n m
o i
r o
v
[
-l
.?
i t
z t
os
.s M
r o
n o
i D
h 6o a
iz I
(
e N A
- 5. s S
- m. wi 0
i.
in 2
s.
a s
r
.o G
u
- e. t, l
No w
1
- uss, i
e
.i se l
.s o
e u
c o
t iI C
e a.
s a
r isy a
5 I
la s 2 na e
.J o
L a.
z n
t E
a V
u i
rs1,
A s
R s.
G n
s.i, I
i a.
ar oi G
w s
l ei g
o 3
0 c
- 4. :
5 2
i.s e
- s. s,
ll ur u
g 00 i
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 M
o o1 F
0 8
7 6
5 4
3 t
1
%T,$ A t5.w E3 E Am
w h.s a3e.oU,g g w
0 0
0 0
0 0
o 0
0 6
7 8
9 01 t
3 4
10 l
06 g
6 g
o g
Som Y
\\
o A
,n L
ki C
w ro 3
\\
0 0
T.
PS q
g-W 5
o 0
n r
0 i
p m
v
,u ll h
no tp 1
e o.,
0 d
3 s
o,l e.
.l
.e f.,
l l
e r
o t
t 4
e a,
o g
im r
i l
6 r
l o
i
.i I
f.*
-l j
.i
'e
{
.l M
1 so
-.s i
n i
D e N 6
_o e_a i
it I
1 A
s
- 5. S S 0
ws in o
s.
A a
3 s
r G
u
- o i
l
- e. t 1
o N
sise
~
.i
- s. s a o
e e
v c
lp n
~
lI a
o u
t S
e g
a r
s i
4 5
I s
e y
l 3 4 a
=
n
.A.
0 L
s a
i.
1 E
e
==
V u n
hI A
i R
a.
G s
e.
nti l
b w
a oi r
w G
=
s t
- 4. i i
so e
0 c
4 ia. a 5
2 s
i!.l m
- s. a l1 u
v 0
g 0
0 0
0 0
01 i
0
,o 8
7 6
0 0
0 g
F 0
4 3
2 1
1 2Y*E EcE3E ah m
C
' e ~$eE.hta.
r O
o 0
0 W
0 8
0 7
8 04 t
2 3
!040 III i
?
tt 9
n 4
5
\\
0 e
0 r
0 Y
k A
T L
(
C
'r
'q ro r
1 0
.g T
a 0
L e
S s
I e
g R
s l
avre 5
t 0
0 n
7 0
i 2
0 a
7 lI u
0 Q
1 0,
0 4
1 s
0 i v:
re 0
.!.l' i:.
9.
5 t
1 8
e 0
im r
7 7
ll 1
0
,?;
.l
.l h
e 5
a!
i 0
5, M
0 n
i D
4 e N
- n. 0i
.=
ir I
'7 4
A
- 5. S S 1
n w3 i
ia O
0 n
i.
s.
s r
u B
- s. 7, 1
r G
l 3
- e. 0 s6, 7
i u
e o
s 1
r.
N
- s. le o
,L c
v e
,N iI l
o p
t m
e a
a.
S 4
6 r
9, 5
I i
s 4
s y
3 l
a i.
n
.J 0
L a.
a
.n 1
E V u e
i$,
A e
R z
G i
.s I
s a
n o3 i
w a
r s
i 4.,
I r.
G l
a 0
c
- a. 2 5
i.
s 5
i u
i lI 2
s.1 0
- e 0
r 0
0 0
0 a
w 0
0 0
01 u
0 9
8 7
4 3
1 g
1 5sarzE~ht-i n
F b4
- t. 5 x$e=O Y3 g 3
0 0
0 o
o m
0 g-t 5
7 8
9
]
III i
b' d-
)'
s I
o o.
( 'g o
Y m
A hl L
I' C
i r
K I
w o
o.o TL S
(
la n
s o.
e
,,i o
tn i
i ll h
1 t
i 0
p s
e d
o e;.- j-I 5
l l
I er c
t e
m a
o i
r p
i l
d l
o.
i i; ;-
5 l
. l l
l M
o i
4 in D 1
e N
'o i -
=
ir I
s A
5S S
4
-n
-0 1
o n
w3I ia s.
s r
o C
u wsi _.
l 4
1 s
o sii N
s.
i
.n v
c e
l o
Il p
t ma e
i S
4 a
r
,s 4
5 I
i e
sy s 7 l
a n
- dC 0
L a a
1 E
V u e
sI' A
e R
z s
G i
s 9'
I s
r
- e. :
8 ia a.
l r
s G
6 41 c
e
- s. 2 05 e.
6 s.
2
- s. y e
u l
lI r
0 0
o c
0 0
0 0
o o
0 o3 u
0 g
a 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
g 1
i y,323$ E2Es F
A"
y=..$ g :e3u _hta 0
0
=-
0 w
W M
8 0
1 3
8 08
!0 g
44 III b
l 5
d-y\\
0 q
9
(
0 YA b'
L Y
C iT g
r 1
c N,
4 i
I d
0 TL r
S N
W L
M la g
5 v
o 0
r 7
2 0
e m-t n
o t3 lI i
o o
1 h
=
0 s
t i
p s
_7;-
i
.I l
.s
-i k
i' te o
r e
o t
d e
n.
m o
i r
t l
s i
4 o
l
_s,
- I
,i
- o*
l*
M o
2 n
4 D
1 i
_0 e N
_4 1
it 1
A 5S S
2 m
m 0
1
.o; ia n
o.
.s r
b G
u eo i
l 5
.t 1
s.1 N
.is o
s s
.i 4
..c e
v l
o t
II p
m e
g a
S n
i%
i e
r s
mP 5
I i
a sy s-l a
n w1 0
L a
1 E
a V u eiA,
e AR z
m.
G i
s i,
I n
o.
ia r
i s
s G
t ei 3
.o 0
c
- e. : i 5
i.s 7
2
- s. s v,
ll e
e 0
r 0
0 0
o 01 u
0 0
o 0
M w
M 0
9 s
7 4
3 t
g 1
y.&$ A t5.L ~hta.
i F
b@
,a r
- g a e ~oO y eu e' m 0
W 0
0 0
0 a
a 6
a 1
3 01 1004 I
h I
5 I
n 0
L~
0
[\\4 Y
1 0
M d
mm' s
C w
m L
\\b 1
0 0
T T
N R
i S
d k
r
~
x 5
h o
0 t
r t
0 p
o e
t ll d
o 1
o 0
8 o
1 t
s o
r t,:*
e
)
o
- l t
l e
a.
m a
o i
F r
l d
l o
i n
- ^
..~..
l.
M m.
a o
.s
'o i
D r
e NI o
- n. o,,
it A
.a
- 5. S S h
- m. o 0 n i.
(
is ia de A
s r
0 G
M
- e. 2 i.=
l 6
e a.
I e
o ie s
s N
s re
- t. n o
a v
C e
t il l
o p
um s i.
e s;w i
S n
F e.
s a- >
i S
l sy s
i l
=
a 6.
n
.I.=
0 L
8 a
e 1
E iAv
=
V M
A e
e R
z s.
G i
i i
i s
n c.:
ia
.i.
e r
s s
t r
G a
- i o
0 C
5 s.
8
- s. s ll 2
u i
e 0
r 0
0 0
0 0
0 u
w w
w 0
7 4
3 2
1 0
g 1
yg. y 3 m*cC c* E iF uo n
- u. s. si e se o a'as. 8. saen
- v. s. si e sa n n p
3 7 li I
9
)
J.
3 4
6 8,_ 10 14 1,6 70 30 40
%, e,0 70 8
100 too 700 270 100 i
i 7
4.
i 2
m m
q%
-~.
90 N
10 N
I 80 20
(
70 30 it
. g g
6 l
h 4
E, 60 J,-
40 3 5
l m
x a
=
y b 50 Me
.5 k
3 u
tJi E
a H
$ 40 ME t
e
~~'
E 30 70 e
M e
10 SS
?
l 0
500 100 50 10 5
1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 SODI Grain Site in Millimeters GRAVEL SAND SILT or CLAY c....
I u.a...
I r.
c0.,s.
lu.u I r.
Figure 29. Grain size analysis, Seple No. 6B (horizontal) 18' depth, Itaamartti Trends III.
ius;.,....,. 3 iu.2,.a 2
R R
S S
S R
S S
8 o
/
[
o 1
5 ia u
e-g E
8 b
){
R m
0 r
9 A
2 I
8 e--
f e
g _ -
_J i
I f
,c; 6
,j g
8 R-5 g
g s
S-c M
f
= Q l
e z F
ca s_I
~
o r2--.g E
5 A
e n
o 1
,2 i
o i;g E
e<
5 e
- s -
a e
1' I
C g
a
.0
- L i
A E
~~
2 d 1 if is s
x
+
o i
I e-1
=
a O
O U
o 8
a l-p 8
W ~
8 k
8 8
3 R
R 2
w ly3:ag Aq Jou!J lues,ad b
l l
52 t
i f
l
- u. s. si e e sa om.= ease se easa
- v. s. si e sw m.a m.m een s
it i e A e s a e e io so w
.o wee m ioo i.o too no
>=
i s,e i
i y
i i
is, i
g 90 a
5 NA SS A
i Nk
?
a a0 20
?
m%
70 n
h y
s, 60
,b 40 5 3
l t.
m D
W 2
M k
3
.5 6
Ui E
O w
$ 40---
T 80 g
E E
30 M
e M
E e
10 E
I ne,
100 50 10 5
3 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.03 Om 4408 Grain Size in Millimeters GRAVEL SAND T w NY Coarse l
Me,fi..
l Fine Coarse lu.si l
Fene Figure 31.
Grain size analysis, Sample No. 8,12"-16" depth interval, M 12.
.r. '5 y m::LoUbh*-
..i' o
o g
g 0
0 0
o p
o1 2
2 3
s t0 3
M I
U 5
(
00 Y
h3 M
0 C
,u w
1 0
0 T
\\m I
9 L
S 3
2=
E a
L k
l 5
a r
N II t
o 0
v iri 0
a o
e n
i 1
- o.,
0 h
s s
4 r
o o
i
.1 e.
e t
t e
m i
r o
l r
l o
i
.s i
i
.l!
.I
.e i
M 9
i so n
i D
o ir l
6 e N i
4
- 5. S S A
r 9
m 0
ws; ia n
o a.
r s
G u
o
_o i
g l
N
.z 1
e ssi
.i l
p
- s. n.i c
v m
u t
II S
o e
g s
a.
i e
g r
sy S
I lan 3 4 a
w
.A y
L a.
E m.
V u l
A a
m.i, R
a.
G n
e, I
i ar ti G
w s
t
- e. i i
o 2
c 3
i.:
i g
ea v
1i s
- s. s i o
0 0
0 0
0 9
w 0
0 L
s 4
3 2
1 7
1 Ef3,o;cC5 d'
@A
ggS eg Aq JesJeo3 }we3Jeg t
2 2
R S
S S
R S
S 8.g-7 d
8 r
rA a
f g
8 e
)
(
d
/
R f
8
)
d
~
g
_1 f
6
_E g
.. q p.
e i
E 1
A R-o
=~
a g
8
.. f g
a N
.e.
a g$ h~
k je j
j r
- 2 o
2 g=
~
G 4:-
g a
b*~
h b
2
]
/
c
{
a
)
1
-r s
um o
.; m y
vs 3
f E
s.,i
=o d
}
I-~
=
m 3
m I,.-
S a
i
.i w
=
i g
g 8
8 8
R S
2
?
R R
S
~
~
gyf:ag Aq Jau!J lua3Jaj 55
sys:em eq 4eueoo iuesaea 2
R R
S S
S R
S S
8 l
l
~
}*
l d
O r
3 a
u
=
g r
weo Y
d i
/
8 e
s r
6 J
g
_J I
3 6
e g.
3.,
a R-5 7
g e,
,8-
.s M
e
's-t z 8-GE O_g d
y j
o 2
e-i 32-N d 1 -
3 3
2 7
f l
a d
r
,r 2
E e
e,2
+
4{
g e
s x
L 0
a.
d g
g S
a.
3 g
1 8
S-8 R
S S
S A
R 2
tystag Aq Jouu gues;od 56
111 y=.$
,E 3O,.Ee2 9
o 0
0 0
0 M
M o
0 t
2 3
5 6
s 01 80 l
06 iep..
SO D
5 J
Y O
l A
4 i
LC D
h ro c
3 L
0 n
E 0
T e
A I
T L
r S
i N
m m
k u
t N
5 n
a 0
i ir i
0 h
r, K
n t
o p
Jl N
e 1
d o
0 e
n o
s o
r o
s f
i
.I f
.i e
t l
e n.
o im r
r l
o
~
-I,*
.i
- i i
6 s
l s,
M o
.o i
D n
n w
2 e N
.s it I
1 A
SS S
- m. wi O
n d
o w
ia N
s r
e L
G u
_o i
I l
e
.s l
I p
ss,
.i s,
u
- s. se u
c s
o n
t e
Il s
i c
a l
a y
a r
j lan S
s e
4 z
i
.J o
L a.
s t
E V u n
s4, A
i m.
R G
a
.e r
i.t, l
G
.e
- c. i v
e 5
t s
3
- e. i
.a o
m
- a. a, I
50 c
i.s
- s. s il M
u L'
00 0
0 0
0 m
c 0
0 0
0 01 0
9 8
7 s
4 3
2 1
1 2E$ ; t 5.k h E m4
- y. 5
,.Ioo 73 A 0
o n
O O
3 M
7 s
v 0
a10 lI 4
m tp es 5
5 (E
04 m7 0
4 N
a g
g i.
3 1
g m
0 t
Nu 0
T 1
g lav
\\
M-
.m ir i
s 5
o 0
r 0
h t
t 4
p o
z iI lI e
o 5
d 1
o, h^
e 0
6" v
sr 1
o e
otl.
.I
-I
.l i.
t e
=
m r
o I
2
_sl ;%;'
-l
.l
?
M i
v i
o i
1 5
so n
_e l h i
D B
2
_ o it I
1 e N A
- 5. S S
- m. wl m ia
~
0 n
o
.w s.
N r
s C
u go l
e i I,
.t e
1 1
in.
w q
ss
.i u
- s. s e
o a
c S
v r a
l-II s
i ei s
a.
y ab r
lan I
a.
5 a
3 e
z i.
i 0,
o L
a.
s t
E m.
V u n
a s4, A
i R
a a.
G r
4i I
G ci w
63 s
t
- i 3
o 0
c e
-_2 i
5 ru s.
g
- s. s ll i
u g
F
)
0 o.
m 0
,1 0
o 0
0 0
G 7
6 3
1 0
1
<" S wo 3cE cg.E um n
tyS eg Aq Jesseo3 iue3Jeg t
R R
R S
S S
R S
S SI-F 8
s 8
J 8
8 b
/
r o
I R
f 8
/
6 r
[
e t
S f
d j
,f a
.r.
5 R-E 8
f%
g......
S-M
}
5 o I
~
a a
H jg_
o e
'5 I
e
?g =-1 k C
3 j
i I.
OJh 0
a k E~~
s d i h
l__
e s
i
=o
{-
O
}
=
i=-
i e
u
}~
g a
I 1
8 I
i 8
8 8
R 8
8
?
R R
S o-
~
tyS ag Aq Jauy tua3Jad t
59
ty3:em Aq assaco3 lus3Jed 2
R R
S S
S R
S S
8 9
J g
N 7
6
>3 r
m u
5
/ ~
8 d
s6 b
g E
';il 9
f 5
/
e__
f a
~
g_
n r
nn.
S -
d
.o e
,4 g...
3 E
C in.
R-g m
3 --
'I g
,3
.c_
1 o
.i
. z ga 8 - 7 g 0i s]
Q j
.s 3, g K
r i
e 5
I O
1 S
lg-3 s
- - mm 1
d:
j 3
2l:
M n
m -
N 2
d i
> 1 m
=
s.,
o c
}
=
g g
S a
4 g
Q m
i 1
8 8
8 R
3 S
S A
R 2
~
tystag Aq Jou!J luas;ad 1
l 60 i
i
- u. s. si e e s= oM i each
- u. s. si e e sw wM se e===en s
s
- it i i l
I 3 a a a na is so m ao sonore too nao soo 27o 100
,Ja i
i i
i i
i i
i,,
S 7%
90 le A. h
'.us s
e
\\
M A
1 70 30 N
2 2
.9 gk
- I Em m
Nm t
2 M
f t%
'g ME
.5 l
3 L
m O
$40 l
- 5 H
e E
2 30 70 20 88 k
to 88 i
0
'00 100 50 10 5
1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 4408 Grain size in Millimeters GRAVEL SAND SILT or CLAY co...
I u.a..
I r.a.
co.
Iu.a I
r.a.
Figure 39. Grain size analysis, Saple No.14A, 4"-8 depth interval, Tanch 4.
lyB sM Aq JesJeo3 lue3Jed 2
2 R
S S
S R
S 3
8 k
di 6
s 3
.r o
w 5
Q.
.s g
F d
Hd 0,
m d
n A
8 R_
/
6 1
j-k 3
f g_
9 O
Q a
8,,...
3 s
.-4
.E I
R j
8-..f g
! *g 3 -..
H S
/
I e
2 $-
V cQ (8-P o@ m I H
a I
e JR
'5 1
I2_
c OZ f
1
~
52-3 i
8 e
u n
4 g
O
.,,J k~
~
w
.e 2
a g
3 m
j o
U I
3 a.~
i g
I' o
}.
g a.
J g
I 8
8 8
8 R
8 s
?
a a
a o-A lyfgaM q Jou!J lue3Jed 62
- v. s. si..a sw os
- as. a. e.ne
- v. s. si e e sw m e.,,
se,*==ew i
it i
e, i
l 3
4 s e in te is to w s so no ro too neo too tro
,, g, L, w,o too i
i g
O g
a
- N:
.0 a
w so 20
, hkA, 70 i
30
(
5 h
&E m
- 3 S
4 A
K i
I' M h
a w
Ch u
W Ee l
WE 40 e
E E
30 8
x
?
i to 90
?
i 0
100 100 50 10 5
1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0405 4808 Grain size in Millimeters GRAVEL SAND SILT or CLAY Coarse l
M.d a..
l F.ne Coarse l Meda l
Fine Figure 41. Grain size analysis, Sanple No.15A, 3"-7.5" depth interval, Trench 4.
tysteM Aq Jotato3 lus3aed 2
R R
S S
S R
S S
8 a
h
}
O b
W
/
u ar
/
g B
d 5
D m
a Y
tf 8
R j
O 1
r.;I
_r r
I f
6 m.,
3
(
8...
j.
b j
}.
R r
g a
g r4 g
E
/
o t z m
J g N
Ig_
/
a 0
3 72-jb
~
a>
d'* -
- -(
2 l
3 4
e n
g
- ~
O
.J 5 w
2 e
s x
0 d
c4 g
O U
o Ii a.
3 g
1 8
3 2
R S
S
?
R R
2
~
gysieg Aq Jou!J nuasJed l
1 1
64
U. S. Steaseed $1 e Ope.6 ass se Inches U. S. stease.d sieve westees te dson.sese n
1 2
Il I
l l
l 3
5 8 to le 16 70 30 40 800 1a0 200 270 100
, L, 606,070 8
i i
i i
i i
7q i
i i
i i
i m%
Y%ma i
90 30 l
e
- 'us g
M I
k i
70 30 7
l ye 40i S
~
An 3 50
^
N 50E d
5 m
b40 Wh a
s a
a e
e 30 M
e e
a N
O
.e' e
10 so 5
e 0
'00 100 50 10 S
1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 4401 Grain size in Millimeters GRAVEL SAND SILT or CLAY Coarse l
Medse.
l Fene Coarse l Mede. l Fene Figure 43.
Grain size analysis, Sanple No. 16A, 3"-7" depth interval, Trench 2.
l tuvies Aq aeueoa gues;ea 2
2 R
S S
S R
S S
8g_
Q F
w n
2 e
/
an u
e 3
I Y'
O*
Y
=
r Y
(
e A
8 I
d i
a 1
{
s f
S I
0
=
m 2.,
8 p.
m 1;
ra E
6 I
e
=
s E-
- -j---
}
D 3 - - -
c W
]
- a g5 3 i d
F g-I
.c H
I e
o 1
. 'g --
i 3
e s.
i H
u 2.
o 1
&=
t
- ~
O.
J 5 w
> 2
- r4 m
a.,
oce o_
d e
O o
d.
3 C
8 i
8 8
8 R
S S
?
2 R
2 tysgag Aq Jaug gua Jad 66
4 1
l l
f I
i 4
i 1
i i
4 4
i l
i APPENDIX C SOIL-CLASSIFICATION TERMINOLOGY 1
4 I. Burmeister Classification I
II. Unified Soil classification 4
4 4
.I
!/
1 l
J 4
s i
4
\\
i l
i f
I 1
67 t
1 n
4
,--n.-
-g=,,,.--.,,,
.-..,7 a, - - - -- -
me-,,.,
-,...., ~,,
,-e-nc-~-.c-n-
TABLE 3. BURMEISTER SOIL CLASSIFICATION TERMINOLOGY
- Soil Components based on Sieve Size Gravel - coarse (3" to 1")
- medium (l" to 3/8")
- fine (3/8" to #10)
Sand - coarse
(#10 to #30)
- medi'!m
(#30 to #60)
- fine
(#60 to #200)
Silt or Clay-Silt -
(< #200)
Identification of <#200 Soil based on Plasticity Index (PI)
Silt - PI = 0 Clayey Silt - PI = 1 to 5 Silt & Clay - PI = 5 to 10 Clay & Silt - PI = 10 to 20 Silty Clay - PI = 20 to 40 Clay - PI = > 40 Component Proportions
,and
- 35 to 50% by weight
,some
- 20 to 35% by weight
,little- - 10 to 20% by weight
, trace 1 to 10% by weight and, - 50 to 65% by weight **
some, - 65 to 80% by weight **
little, - 80 to 90% by weight **
trace, - 90 to 99% by weight **
Notes:
1.
+ or - superscripts indicate the upper or lower limits of a proportion.
2.
Predominant component
(> 50% of sample) is written in capital letters.
Based upon procedures outlined by D.M. Burmeister ~
"Special Procedures for Testing Soil and Rock for Engi-neering Purposes", (Fifth Edition), Special Technical Publication 479, ASTM, 1970, pp. 311-323.
Used only in 3 component soils when sand does not predominate.
i 68
TABLE 4.
ASTM Soil Classification System (Unified)
Mejor Divisions
[,
Y,P Classification Critorie 3
/0 Groter than 4 e=
C,. 060 10 Well-yeded gravels and 3]
GW yavel-send mixtures, E
- Dm12
s' Cs
- D108060 littIe or no fines d
Poorly graded gravets and C dTa $
B
=ghz
'E GP ravel sand mixtures, o
9*,
Not meeting both criterie for GW 8
g g3g little or no fines g
jg
{ 9;;;
j g] $
- d gy Silty yavels, gravel sand-Atterberg limits plot below "A"line Attertmg limiss plotting
=
0 j2
- e g silt mixtures u o o so.
or plasticity index less then 4 Iri hatched ares are eg 5
4.T.5
{
'5 borderline classifications I
O' layey grmis, gravel-sand.
.,l E
Atterbeg Hrnits Not above "A" Hne requiring use of dd e7 GC 3e clay mixtures 0, ga,"
and plasticity index yeater than 7 symbols v
0 @#W h 6 Welf-yaded sands and Nd8 Og 8
SW gravelly sands, o
(0 o)2 3
little or no fines j
Cs
- pto N 0
.g gg 60 f
"g 3p Poorly graded sends and gravelty fe d sa ids,littfe or no fines el # E Not rnesting both criterie for SW E *h SM Silty sands, send-sitt mixtures A"w*g Urnits plot Mow "A" Hne Au % Hmi W th 2.,t cg 5,,
or presticity endex less than 4 in hatched era m 3,3 u es borderline classifications 2 a ggg SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures g
l Atterberg mits p%t above "A"line
, requiring use of duel i and plasticity index yester than 7
. symbol'.
f norganic silts, very fine r
ML sands, rock flour, silty or PLasvicirv cuant
.g?
clayey fine sands e
., c we,c u a.e s y a.e
-g3
..a...
se f
)*
gg medium plasticity, gravelly
"",l',$, 'j,(""*" ***,'Of,,1****
h
[A
'E inorganic clays of low to w
j g
. g$
clays, sandy clays, silty "e=w-es.
.e aves.va*ms a
- =
7
$n g
8*
clays, lean clays j
to..a.,ag:
3 Organic silts and organic I 3' h.
sitty clays of low plasticity i
3,
,g inorganic silts, micaceous g,-
MH or d.atomsceous fine sands gg
.s 3
- E O.!,e or silts. etastic sists
/
b f-
]g.
CH Inorganic clays of high j;"l*"X ~, W 7 ag T.
I
,g}
plasticity, fat clays e
5 E Orginic clays of medium to high plasticity Highly Organic Solfs PT Visust-Manual Identification, see ASTM Designation D 2433.
n s
o.s.d on in. m.t.rias p ing tn. a-in. 7s.mm.i.i.v..
]
[
U.S. NUCLEAR cE1ULATORY COMMISSION CIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG/CR-1566
- 4. TITLE AND SUBTtTLE (Add Vo/urne Na,i!appropriatel
- 2. (Leave blask)
Gestechnical Analysis of Soil Samples and Study of a R: search Trench at the Western New York Nuclear Service
- 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
Cinttr. West Valley, New York
- 7. AUTHOR (S)ffman, P.E., R.H. Fickies, C.G., R.H. Dana, Jr.,
- 5. DATE REPORT COMPLETED V.C. Ho
[ YEAR uouru V. Ragan August 1980
- 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (include lip Codel DATE REPORT ISSUED New York State Geological Survey / State Museum N'"
lYEAR New York State Education Department October 1980 Rm 3140, C.E.C., Albany, NY 12230 8''"'6"*>
- 8. (Leave blank)
- 12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION N AME AND MAILING ADDRESS (/nclude lip Codel
- 10. PROJECT / TASK / WORK UNIT NO.
Division of Safeguards, Fuel Cycle and Environmental Of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission FIN No. B6008 Washington, DC 20555
- 13. TYPE OF REPORT PE RIOD COVE RED (/nclusive dates)
Topical Report October 1, 1978 - February 14, 1980
- 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
- 14. (Leave o/ankl 1* ABSTRACT t200 words or lessi This report is the result or a study which was the second part of an investigation, involving geotechnical analysis of soil samples from*the West Valley burial site with respect to containment capability.
In general, the results of standard engineering tests in soils from' the West Valley site confirm the results predicted by testing performed during the first part of this study in 1977.
The soil was submerged for almost 2 years and samples showed some increase in moisture content accompanied by a decrease in unit weight. Shanges in the' plasticity of the soil during this period were not significant, however, shrinkage limits were significantly different from earlier tests. This is probably attributable to a difference in testing procedure.
The minimum developed cohesign for the soil in the wall of R: search Trench III was estimated to be 18.9kN/m.
In shallow softened n ils the 2
developed. cohesion at failure under submerged conditions was estimated to be 2.54N/m 2
and failure under sudden drawdown conditions was estimated to be 4:79kN/m l]7. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMEN ANALYSIS 17a DESCRIPTORS geotechnical ccntainment l
D7b. IDENT:FIE RSloPEN-ENDED TERMS
- 8. AV AILABILITY STATEMENT 19.gC RI S (This report)
- 21. NO. OF F AGES Unlisited
- 20. SECURITY CLASS (This papel
- 22. P RICE Had ?SSi#itd S
.-