ML19344A359

Miscellaneous Tests. Prepared for Bechtel Power Corp

ML19344A359
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	02/29/1980
From:	GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC. (FORMERLY GOLDBERG-ZOINO
To:
References
2190, NUDOCS 8008190590
Download: ML19344A359 (55)

Text

_ _ _ _ _

escura Assoc.eaortssiew. coa sVPPUER CoCUMENT STAMP G-321-D orml8UTION

/

esons., %,a, JOS 7220 CDFY z o o== =v, oena su re,= oacu.s r.

Categorf 14.o V'"

h EoYseNEY

,uEur AAO 1041 722o MELD E

4 Q nevies asso nasuent. noms av notemocrea ANUN-a, O paview not peauinen woes asav emocsaa O son twommarte= ontv.

SEaoESEEcateutarwTuvssa, D

ggg= gag,Lsgv4=g,'gg Please Resubmit Corrected MECH.

meeuance =rw co=rnactua ceuaarm C.sYL Document in its Entirety insp.

}#

Within N/A Weeks U

START.uP pm

.,o,o rno

/ht 6

c w

e, l<f'M 912 (.% -fc.,.4/n /y.1 nncono o i,,

U3 I 3 TO CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY BECHTEL MIDLAND PLANT UNITS I & 2 l

MIDLAND, MICHIGAN MISCELLANEOUS TESTS I

i l

i Prepared for:

Bechtel Power Corocration 777 East Eisenhower Parkway Ann Arbor, Michigan Prepared by:

i Goldberg, Zoi,io, Dunnicliff & Associates, Inc.

I 30 Tower Road i

Newton Upper Falls, Massachusetts 7,q:c C79-19"I f

gh jv File No. 2190 g

U February 1980

$ ob b5 y

t CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 MIDLAND, MICHIGAN MISCELLANEOUS TESTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 4

No. of Pages 1.0 Dispersive Soil' Tests 3

2.0 Cation Exchange and X-ray Diffractic.7 Tests 49

\\

r 1

c c

I i

2 r-7220-C79191 V-V L C-MMZCNC CUWCLFG ASWMS,rc '

' GECTEO-fCAL CCra.CrANTS 6

e-

-+

+

e O-I'6I 643 0324 b

M e

o M

eem f-to f1>

=

N1.

CJ m CL o.a' sa m '

uJ '

C H> -

2

• b;EN'2 i

4 g' 'l y==

N=

e.

q MEX

[,

gr so "

=

hl J

=

_ D _ _ ;-

y

. =rJ. N C-

- ity :

- =.

-m

.c i

Vg w

M l

h

-h

~

-n

~

l

3

.=*

r Os

~~

~

~

- M

_h s q E%EE_3 - -i-u

-u

.i.

q._ N n d-d NJ x

y s

.?f ---

Q_ _ _f*f

~*

m

@j.<

4.

@R:.:45BL-4

.=;m

- --.:=:.4 W

e.

.,g;=-t- - 4,.1

r

3 j_

_j._.,

-2*

1 --

_g

_y._

--Q.- ;

{.

_4

-e--.-

_.g.

-.. ~. - -

- -g.

.._,.. _. _ +

k ---

r---

.t== =1 i _-3 :=.-I--.. cl'--

=:1:i=:= aE=l u=t:-iil~i l'E-F:.r- :g"-

--_ O-

. 0 s._=:.:. _:.: =.o :=:.:.;:._ : o:: m

_ Ec

t. =0 ; ---- - - - - - --

--O).

s---

=.- -- -

=...: g. :. -- T 7 -- --

-. -.... _ =

o-t r=_

_ : o =- -, =....,... =.: =:. ;_a Q =.

.1..

= >-

.t n

- -- q.

=:

=.

.,

...=- u:;

.a

-+ _ ___ ;. :._ _.==.s.

(

q_-

-.=.%

_r - - :. =_- q_.

.m.____.__.__..._.:.-=r=u.,.;.r==.=.=.._=_..._.=._.t.._.=_.>v:__,==.

f...-

..:.._4..._... -.:. n.

(

2. _.._..

m.

= =--- p = = %l i'-'=El5 LOW _,._.._.N_ O_/_SN2dS/1SG~3 o__~E'-D_ N.:V 2.qJ.0D.MQ3. --

,.._,_=_._m..

g ___

_a

u. _ _

m

~

=== k== u = l#V=v=----+-

~

i'=;._ w

.~=E!.:-~ -*== =mm-.=.: = n=- L= =;:. r - -

=

r=

h /$

/ :E U-U /9-1 9-1 D '"

0]

~

D.) S.1 Lnib o o m o M.

s..

t

(

t APPE9DnK CUALITY ASSURANCE PROGR"AM FOR 1

CATION-EXCHANGE CAPACITY TESTS i

k 4

i Soil Mechanics Laboratory Department of Civil Engineering University of Michigan 4

9 1

e

?

i e

13 7220-C79-19-1

gUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR CATION EXCHANGE-TESTS I.

GENERAL I

i This document. describes a quality assurance program for the determination of cation exchange capacity in soilm by conducto-metric titration.

1 Procedures for training, supervision, record keeping, and instrument calibration are described.

Test methods are outlined as well as-procedures to insure that chemical solutions used in the tests are of correct strength and composition.

II.

ORGANIZATION Tests will be performed by a qualified, graduate student in the Department of Civil Engineering who has had previous ex-parience in a soils testing laboratory.

This person also will have taken an advanced, graduate level course in physico-chemical

(

j properties of soils.

i Tests will be supervised and calculations checked by Dr.

Donald H. Gray, Professor of Civil Engineering, The University 1

of Michigan.

Dr. Gray's specialty or expertise lies in the area of physico-chemica1' properties and testing of soils. 'He is also in charge of the physico-chemical soil testing laboratory, Room 2350, GGBL, North Campus, where the tests will be conducted.

III.

TEST PROCEDURE A.

Basis or Theory of Test III There are a nu=ber of methods for determining the cation i

(AI see.for example " Methods of soil Analysis - Part 1," C. A.

l Black (Ed.), American Society of Agronomy, Serial No. 9, (1965).

~

1-1 7220.C79-19-1

i exchange capacity of soils.

All methods basically, consist of saturating the cation exchange sites with a particular cation (e.g., Ba", Ca", Na*, or NH

), displacing this particular 5

cation with another cation, and measuring the amount of the dis-placed cation in the leachate.

The conductometric titration method offers the advantage j

of reliability.and relative simplicity The chemien1 reaction 4

utilized is that between.a barium saturated soil and a stan-dardized sulfate titrating solution such as magnesium sulfate.

{

Ba Soil + Mg

+ SO "

BaSO4 + Mg Soil' 4

4 Before the equivalence point, the conductance remains com-paratively constant as the magnesium sulfate reacts to form in-i soluble barium sulfate.and magnesium soil.

When all of.the i

.i barium saturated soil has been titrated, the conductance of the i

r suspension increases sharply as increments of the magnesium sul-e t

j fate soluti'on are added.

The equivalence point of the reaction is obtained by plotting the data graphically, drawing in the i

two linear portions of the conductance curve, and taking the l

j point of intersection as the equivalence point.

j Conductometric titration eliminates many of the errors and t

difficulties associated with analytical determination of the l

displaced cation.

The purpose of the conde.ctance readings is simply to locate the equivalence point, not to ascertain the absolute conductivity of the suspension and titrating solution.

B.

~ Test Method The theory and test procedure for conductometric titration

\\

15 i

7220.C79-19-1 t

,._x-.

4 l

for cation exchange capacity are described in the following re--

ferenc.e:

l

(

Mortland, M. M. and Mellor, J. L.

(1954), " Conductometric i

Titration of Soils for Cation-Exchange Capacity," Soil i

i Science Society of American Proceedings, Vol. 19, pp. 363-364.

The same step-by-step test procedure as described in the Proceeding reference is adopted herein, viz.,

1.-

Secure a 4 to 10-gram sample (dry weight basis) of soil.

~

Do not dry soil the soil, determine exact dry weight afterwards or calculate water content from-adjacent sam-ple and compute dry weight.

Use higher sample weight (10 gms) for coarser textured or low plasticity soils.

2.

Disaggregate the sample in distilled water (use a 5:1 distilled water to solids ratio).

Measure the pH of the soil suspension with a glass hydrogen electrode and pH meter.

I 3.

Transfer the soil suspension into a 7-cm diameter Buchner funnel mounted in'a glass filtering flask.

Use No. 40 or 42 Whatman filter paper and pre-wet the paper before transferring the suspension into the funnel.

g~

Leach the sample with 150 ml. of a 1 Normal barium 4.

chloride solution over a period of approximately 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.

ALKALINE SOILS:

Use normal, unbuffered solution of barium chloride.

. ACID SOILS:

Use a normal solution of barium chloride buffered to pH 8.1 with triethanolamine.

Further leach with 100 ml. of a normal, unbuffered barium chloride solution.

5.

Wash the sample (still in the Buchner funnel) free of chloride with distilled water as indicated by a silver nitrate test on the leachate.

6.

Transfer the sample from the funnel to a 400 ml. titrating beaker and add 100 ml..of distilled ~ water and 50 ml. of ethyl alcohol.

7.

Titrate the soil-water-alcohol suspension with a 0.2 Normal magnesium sulfate solution.

The suspension should be well stirred with ~a magnetic stirrer (w/ remote rheostat) when the titrating solution is added.

16 v. ^ 79 19-1

a w.

8.

Measure the conductance of the suspension with each added increment of the titrating solution.

Use 1-ml. increments initially and make sure the conductance has reached an equilibrium value before adding the'next increment.

Equi-librium.will be slow near the end point.

The endpoint of the tktration is obtained from the inter-9.

section of the two straight lines (in a plot of conduc-l

. tance vs. milli liters of 0.2N titrating solution).

10.

Conductance values at the very beginning of the titration and near the endpoint should be neglected because they j

represent the effects of hydrolysis, solubility, or dissociation of the products.

The more acute the angle between the two linear portions of the conductance curve, the more accurate the equivalence point.

i C.

Calculations The cation exchange capacity (c.e.c.) of the soil is found from the following relationship:

c.e.c. = 0.2 V (100)

E W*

i where c.e.c. = cation exchange capacity, milli equivalents /100 gms dry so' lid.

V

= " equivalence" volume of.0.2N magnesium sulfate E

solution added, ml.

W

= dry weight of soil sample, gms.

IV.

DOCUMENT CONTROL Documents relating to the conduct of laboratory tests, use i

of test equipment (or instrument manuals), and test results are kept in a locked steel, filing case in Room 2330 GGBL.

These documents are under the control and supervision of Professor i

D. H. Gray.

' Test data and results are recorded in a standard, labora-tory notebook which is indexed and dated.

Duplicated pages from l

k l

17 7220-C7919-1 i

~,.

w.

the laboratory notebook are also included in a project file or folder which is kept in tie locked, steel filing case noted above.

}

V.

IDENTIFICATIOkiANDCONTROLOFMATERIALS, PARTS,ANDCOMPONENTS All laboratory instruments and equipment used in the cation exchange' capacity test are identifi'ed by a number on a label which is affixed to the instrument or test apparatus.

These items are then listed by number in an inventory or property book which is kept (in duplicate) ^in Room 2330 GGBL.

The property book describes each instrument and lists its specifications and capabilities.

Chemicals used in tests are kept in a cabinet in the physico-chemical laboratory, Room 2350 GGBL.

Only reagen't grade chemicals are used.

ACS chemical composition and purity.are indicated by the manufacturer on the container labels.

Standard solutions are made up and kept for limited times in polyethylene or glass bottles.

The name, and strength of these solutions, plus the date of preparation are indicated on a label affixed to the con-tainer.

VI.

TEST CONTROL Adequate test control is insured by careful adherence to well established and accepted test procedure (see Section III).

~

Adequate-test control is further insured by use or employment of appropriate.and calibrated instruments (see Section VII),

reagent grade chemicals, systematic data acquisition and record keeping (see Section.IV), and adequate supervision and checking.

(

IS 4

7220-C79-19-1 e

~.,,. -,,

+.,.,,

a w.

i

.~.

All these control procedures are detailed in other sections of

[,

this document as noted above.

l I

VII. ' CONTROL OF MEASURING AND TEST EQUIPMENT i

Requirements for instrument calibration and standardization i

i differ considerably amnng the~various te'st instruments used in a i

cotion exchange capacity determination by conductometric titra-tion.

The following test instruments are employed:

Analytical bal'nce, Eettler Model'K-77 j

1.

a l

2.

pH meter, Corning Model 10 3.

Conductivity bridge, Serfass'Model RCM 15B1 j

4.

Platinum electrodes, Thomas Mo. 4859-D50.

i Of these only the balance requires certification according to National Bureau of standards on a periodic basis.

Checking and i

j certification of the analytical balance is performed every six i

I.

months.

Date of certification is shown on a label affixed to l

~

the balance.

s The pH meter and conductivity bridge are always calibrated i

anew each time before use.

The pH meter is ' calibrated using standard pH buffer solutions (pH = 4 & 10).

The conductivity l

bridge is calibrated against a standard KCL solution of known j

-electrical conductivity using published values in the Handbook i

}

of Physics and Chemistry.

l I

VIII.

QUALITY ASSURANCE RECORDS-Records pertaining to quality assurance (e.g., instrument j

repair'and maintenance, laboratory' inspection reports, labora-tory notebooks, etc.) will be kept in a steel filing cabinet in J

Room 2330 GGBL.

19

- "C-C 7919-1

=.

CATICW EX CHANG E CAPAC/YY ee&

o orm

....... _.%./e

_ De. lh

&n.b

..Ch.k/.,.L

.k..

............,...a..'_...'...a..

r t

........e.

......-....g........

.m.,o.. e scn on:.

l

/ i7 h/

e W/ o/

n.

ms.

.M...o..f m. o.i.s./. som e..r aa i

. (........WA. o.f.. el.v......

/e +.

evt.

........ o... f..

.-..o...- -.. -. soil W ).

.o o'r i

. M. /e. 4

. /en/ i%.5../c.).

~ l Vo/ o/o.vv

\\

So schr..

(4 )

cc.

Cano' c/ance e

mhos) c.e c.- 0 ?- )f tec w, )

E anic cace M/ IG)-

ec 7

n mm

.=

/CO h; 20 7220-C7919-1

_.m

i

.~

3,.

1 l

4 q%.

j 1

4 q

I

(

m r_

a j

1 I

4 e__

_=

y j

_ u,-

2

~

?=.y 4

NQ 3

=

n_

i

__~

j M

h~

'qq D:==:wsere 4_-

G_

=

~

'r

'4 Its y

~

w

~-

i c

A-4 2

_T*j P_',:

i x:

__?

t 1

-.== c^

tv:

b_

+

j F M-

[-_"_

1 N

t n

-m g

i

\\

_._.._. (9_

~Q 2

n.?-- q, ll

- - =

m

,4

=

e -am 3.

4.

' _; j i : s=eJ h WW

_ FE c'

_ - =. -

gCe

?

4.

5

^

2 v

2

.S---

=u_ _ ce==.

=

e:a i.

y-1_

:o._ a

=

~

W"

_[

g a.,

4 y

.. -g _~ n __

_w

=

,.s g

=

C%1 u.

s s z a3 5 - =_:__

_ _ un

~

r

.e,

=.

v

-sj n!

2

..m 2-g=:W'_.' ^

.t:*~

__ M.d.

x5

~-

m r

GGj.

~_ 4,

.s

.g

@@ Eiti=EE5' __.

4 pJ ap g

c-

~

--6_,

~

g3 u.

- =...

.g,.==_..._...__.,.._.=_..,.=._=__=_=_=.-_._--l=_:

_.e

.t:=. - -

i-

.m._

n:t

_ _. i..

r.:

l.

_a

_g=__. =_=-g _

., - j

_o a_

-_._ _. g -_.. _ _ _.... - - - _

..: _- +

_+ - - -, - -

=:,

-- ::.n :. :2..:.: ; ::_.; _.. : r._c- :-- -- y

._ g,

---

.--.-,-..g.g

..___r..__.

._ :._. _ _ __, ___-_,___-._--w

_. _.: %a c=._

u i==l_~___S'0HW&.. _._RO_I..S).V3350_SEH_o=niDN_W.L._O__O_RHa3.._.___====

== - 3

=-

3E En.-- -i--

.:====.:tuu. : f r' =- - - - * -

---

i----"

--+--.---l

[ E:~~ n EfE 5

.2:=;t.--

f b

7220-C79-19-1

4'

-e s b

~.. = '

.*

• y.

• • ~..e.

I, f

N//8 N

COLLEGE OF ENclNEERINc DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENclNEERING 4

ANN ARSoR. MICHIGAN 48109 December 13, 1978 i

j Mr. D. Schulze Goldberg, Zoino, Dunnicliff & Assoc.

)

30 Tower Road Newton Upper Falls, MA 02164' RE:

Midland Nuclear Project - Review of Soil Mineralogy 1

I

Dear Mr. Schulze:

I have reviewed the results of Professor D. Peacor's x-ray i

diffraction test results transmitted to me on 12/5/78.

The test i

results are consistent with earlier findings and conclusions 1

transmitted to you in my report of 11/13/78.

The soil samples contain small amounts (5% by weight) of low activity clays (illite and kaolin / chlorite).

There were no swelling or mixed layer clays reported present in the samples.

Reported carbonate con -

tents of the soil samples are quite high, ranging from 26 to 31%

(

by weight.

4 The x-ray diffraction test results explain the. low exchange i

capacities (2.0 2.6 mil 11 equivalents /100 gms) measured on the i

soil samples.

Both the low clay content-and relatively low ex-change capacity associated with these types of clay minerals account for the. low exchange capacity.of the soil samples.

There appears to be little.if any variation with depth in this regard.

4 A summary of my earlier pH and' cation exchange capacity telt results is shown in Table 1.

A summary adapted from Professor Peacor's report of the mineralogy and composition of the soil samples is shown in Table 2.

A tendency of soil pH to increase with depth can be observed in Table'l.

This appears to be corre-lated with a decreased ratio of quartz / feldspar with increasing depth.

There ma trend,-however. y be'other causative factors for this observed Based on the clay mineralogy of the samples I would not ex-pect significant problems to arise from the clay fraction present (e.g., volume instability with changes in ' moisture content).

In-i stead problems would most likely be associated with the high silt i

content such-as frost susceptibility and erodibility.

g-Sincerely, h6 Donald H. Gray

. DHG:1ja Professor of Civil ngineering-Enclosures CC:

Austin Marshall /

l-7220-C79-191

.-.y--

.,--e,a QQ Q-QCQ..O aQg e.

e

.m.

s' TABLE 1 -

SUMMARY

OF TEST RESULTS - MIDLAND e

NUCLEAR PROJECT, BORING NO. D6-23 1

Sample Depth Water Fines pH Cation Exchange Number Interval Content Capacity ft

.4 meq/100 gms soil i

l 270 (Block Sample)'

8.8 55.4 7.9 2.6 i

611 1.0-2.6 8.6 57.7 8.0 2.4 612 2.5-3.0 10.0 54.2 8.0 2.5 i

618 1.0-1.7 9.6 57.9 8.2 2.5 620 4.0-5.5 9.4 52.5 8.1 2.0 1

621 12.5-14.0 16.6 55.4 10.1 2.5 1

i i

(

7A BLE 2. -

MIAssRALo&Y

• ct: 201L SAMPLES ~ MIDLAAJD

}

A)ocLSq Rnsart R.AAJr PRO.TECT j

su ptii!

MIMERALOGic COMPcSITioO Yo h LuI*.

RATIO I

O

[

Illde cy,,

Quash Fe.ldsp Cadele g

g,,

2,70 t

3 fo4 5

26 2,4 12,, 8

..6 11 L

.3 6;

5 30 z.o

12.. L

'El L

3 63 11 31 i, 7 4,8 E

g

['

by 6.Ser re af subudled ] v.R. Peacen. It N.%g i

~~ T C 79-19-1 g

.i.

I

-*8 e

e.....

a e.

. ~

S.

e QQl O

D s

b gj Q./

.I

. I... l l. $...

gm

............-4

...-$..+

.9..

.. l..

.. ~.

4......

.. f*...... f.. J..

..4...

.........1..-......

i,....=.-

...4....

4...

.r.

......,..1,...

.........+..e...,...,

...,.. 1....

...s.

.....s

...*L..

..J....

g

.......l.....i

.,...~1...

.....{......,....

..1,...

............L..........

• .4.

...,......... -.....l s..... -..

....4

.4..

....T.

.....I*.........

.1......,....s.

4 i.,

[.....,l....... "1

.. _..............l..,

1....,......... ~...

..1...

...........t'.+...

.. -.a.....

.y

.4.

.. t

.~

4

..l.............J 1

~ *

.. }..

.l...,.

...-...T T"."-....

1.

..j...

l..

..[..,...,.

.....l..............1..4...--....

....s.

..1......

......4...............

.J...

.1.........l....

L..

t

.4_....

......1....L...

{...,l..............

...r..

-a...~..... l

..e..

8 t

-.4 l.

i..

s.

""I...<-....J-

6......

4.

......1...g...I............1...*..-4.**..-

..I........

l-**

.6

.-,.,l.,.._-.L,.... Z

. T,...... ~.........

..-u~.

g

.2....t..

.L......-...

s....

a..

....... +.

...3............

.l....t.....

....1....T.....

I.

-e.

.T...

. e I.

.4

..l...t..

.]

s.

.4 r

........,.....1...............i,.......,t.....2.-.1.......-....

6...

i

.g-u

a....!...............

..........-.,A.. w..--.

.I...

6

..4

. 4

._}........ _.~....**f,*.....

~.,....,_

.J".."".

..J...

1..

14 4,.......r......-..-.--....2

.....,....j......,.....

p.

.i.............!......A.....

4........-.....t 4..

4.

...-)......a

.l..,.'*~!......

...l.~,.....l.....j-......w..-......w....p 1 -. -. -...,e 1

...l...

l.. _... _.

4,

i...

....,...I...

/

.4

......e.

.: -..s...

u...

s.

. 4,.....4..

6

. J.. ]......

.t e

. i.....

.,......l...

)

....,.......s.

.- g

... h....

_......_....L.

..l..

...s..,.......t......,...;_

4.......__..._.,

.J. _..,

..s.

a...-

.....~t..

9......

....l.....L.......4.......~.,..,.g

. ~...

...l...

.l..

...........n...

I...r...............%.....

. t.

........1

......h...

p -.

L....

.......l.....7_.._..........

.I.......,.......e........,..

l.

.4-a..

...4.

. N..

....._..t..~$,.!..........

....1.......g.......-...,

3 l~......

4.".'"."... f...,. + _..

.A,......

..s...

6

.. ~. ~ " ".,.

\\.,._....

g.

.j.....

g...........

.s

.... g

..m

............J,.. -

.}._.......

F...... ~.

N.

...N. _. 1 4,

.. l..

(..

4..

. 1...

t,.......,.......

6 g_.....,

3..

g..

.s

.....r 1%......'%,.

g.._.

5

... ~....

F..

.p

.4 6.

t,..g.

.u........,

......... t..

l e%..

...s

.T i,....... 8 _.

~

t......

6.

.....4..........

.2

.. i.

l....

.........,. i...........,..

...............'.T......_....,....,...,..

_......a

_]

i f

f..

.. J..-- -

.. =. - -

TOS &. ~ ~ '

.~

(

tin hN ~20CLEA I'..

. *J...

/ % -~ = ' :- ' - --- ;--......: =- -I:' - = ~ ~H. '

--W-?%90 t.<J% 92.A/V.~1"

(- -.- +

7 i.

.. i.... _.

r.......i._........1_..

t.

.. _. _....-.... _.,...... _... _..,..i_......... _.

....._i...

I o

4....

..s_...

i,... n....

i

r. -

I f

4 I

s._

T..

.,.. -....R. ATIO GUART FELDSPA.

4......_. _.....

... a.._.... i..

i.

.i

......_._a...

.i i

..., _ _..I_..._.....

2 i..

FQ 1.'}."7ENTA TIVE REL A 7/CN SH/P ' BETWEEN ~ SC/L pf ;.......

~

' DEP77f AND ^ QUARTZ Ml.DSPA R. RA TIG ^ ~ "_.. _ '

t

... ~ _..

. 4.......

.i............

t 7 2 2. _0, C. 7 9...19.1........... }.. _

i L.

a

... _.... _.. : ONG../ R.._/..t. 78.._..

i..___..:

._.i

w.

-s CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY AND MINERALOGY OF SOIL SAMPLES MIDLAND NUCLEAR PROJECT Report prepared for:

Goldberg, Zoino, Dunnicliff and Associates BY:

I.

Donald H. Gray Professor of Civil Engineering 10 February 1979 Ann Arbor, Michigan 25 72.20-C 79-19-1

,.......--~.

.-- -~--

~~~'

l CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY &

MINERALOGY OF SOIL SAMPLES s

SUMMARY

t Cation exchange capacity was. measured on a total of i

12 soil samples submitted for testing.

All samples with l

.the exception of two (Nos. T15-6 and T15-7) were from borings or test pit in the vicinity of the diesel generator building.

The water content, percentage of fines (minus #200 sieve fraction), and pH were determined as well.

The results of mineralogic analyses by X-ray diffraction-of these same samples were provided by Professor D. Peacor, Department of

)

' Geology.

The majority of the samples tested were classified as grey-brown, silty. clays with varying amounts of fine to coarse sand.

Slightly more than half of the soil (53 to 58% by wt) consisted of fines (minus #200 sieve) in eight of the diesel generator building samples.

The clay size fraction in the samples (minus 2 microns) averaged 20I 2% by weight.

Samples T15-6 and T15-7 differed substantially, in their gradation from the diesel generator building samples.

Fines comprised 92 and 84%.by weight respectively of'these samples.

The cation exchange capacities of samples from the generator building borings were low.

Nine of the samples had exchange capacities ranging from 2-3 milliequivalents/100 gms of dry soil.

Slightly higher exchange capacities were measured on samples with higher percentages of fines (Nos. DG12-13 and DG2-8).

Samples T15-6 and T15-7 had -the high 1st measured exchange I

s

-26 7220-C79-19 7

..~

4 capacities, but also had the highest percentage of fines.

Exchange capacity, in fact, appeared to be well correlated

(

with percentage of fines present.

j The results of the X-ray diffraction tests show that i

j very little clay is present.

Clay mineral content of all t

samples ranged from 4-to.5% by weight and consisted primarily of illite and kaolinite / chlorite.

The presence of these f

very small amounts of inactive or non expandable clay minerals l

is consistent with-the low exchange capacities measured on I

j the samples.

Only a trace of swelling or expandable clay 4

I minerals was detected.

The only exception was sample T15-6 which showed 3% by wt. expandable clay content.

i f

Total carbonate content of the samples from the diesel I

generator buildings was fairly high (30 5%).

Quartz averaged

- ('

I 60 S% by weight for these samples, giving an average

~

}

\\

s i

quartz / carbonate ratio of 2.

Samples T15-6 and T15-7 also i

differed from the diesel generator building samples in regard to their non clay, mineralogy.

These samples had extreme j

quartz / carbonate ratios of 1 and 44 respectively.

4 No particularly unusual nor peculiar properties are i.

]'

revealed by the aineralogic analyses and cation exchange capacity tests on samples from the diesel generator building i

4 site.

The tests show that this material is an inactive, low 1.

plasticity sandy clay SILT with a very low clav mineral 1

content (5% by weight).

Such low clay mineral contents appear somewhat inconsistent with classification of the soil ason CL material.

An ML-CL c1assification would seem a

4 f

o 4,s

'*" 0-C7919-1 4

c o

---e, w

em-:

-r

more appropriate.

The plasticity indices measured on the soil samples also appear out of line with compaction char-acteristics of the soil (i.e. optimum water content).

Average, measured liquid and plastic limits were 22-25% and 12%

respectively for an average P1 of 10-13%.

These limits are too high with respect to the optimum water contents (7-8%) measured on compacted samples of the same soil.

s I

l 23

- 7220-C79-191 r

- ~

~

d INTRODUCTION Cation exchange capacity tests and mineralogic analyses were performed on the whole soil ~ fraction of samples obtained from borings in the vicinity of the diesel generator building.

Test were also run on two additional samples (T15-#6 and T15-

1. 7) from borings made to the north of the generator building and on a sample from a test pit.

A preliminary series of tests were conducted on samples from borings Nos. DG23, DG26, and from the test pit.

Results of' these tests were transmitted to Goldberg, Zoino, Dunnicliff and Associates in a report dated 13 November 1978..Results of the earlier tests are also incorporated in the present report.

1 All samples were disturbo ed and furnished for testing in sealed glass jars.

The mineralogic analyses were performed k

{

by Dr. D. Peacor, Department of Geology, University of Michigan.

TEST PROCEDURES Cation Exchange Cacacity and pH 1

Cation exchange capacity was determined by procedures fully described in the Quality Assurance Manual previously submitted to Bechtel Power Corporation (dated February 24, 1977).

Basically exchange capacity was determined by con-ductometric titration in which a barium-saturated soil is titrated against a standarized solution of 0.2 N magnesium sulphate.. The end point of the exchange reaction (or j

titration) is indicated by a sudden increase in conductance j

of the soil ~ suspension.

7220-C79-19-1

f

-pH of the soil samples was determined using a hydrogen electrode in soil suspensions mixed to a 5:1 dilution ratio

(

with distilled water.

The percentage of fines was determined by wet sieving aeighed samples through a #200 sieve.

i Approximately 15-20 grams of soil (dry weight) were used for er.ch of the above tests.

The material selected for testing was removed from both ends of the jar samples.

The various tests were run sequentially on the same subsample in the order: water content, pH, cation exchange capacity, and percent fines.

i Mineralecie Analyses The mineralogy of the samples was determined by X-ray diffraction.

The X-ray diffractisn system consisted of a 4

Philips Norelco powder diffractemeter, X-ray generat or, Geiger counter, and analyzing circuit panel.

A copper-potassium (alpha radiation) X-ray tube was employed together with a graphite monochromating crystal.

The diffracted X-ray beam was picked up by the Geiger counter travelling on a goniemeter track and then fed into a pulse height analyzer in the circuit panel.

The diffraction pattern thus obtained was displayed on a strip chart recorder in terms i

of intensity of diffracted energy versus angle of incidence of the X-ray beam.

4 The X-ray diffraction analysis was performed on oriented mounts which were prepared by sedimenting thin layers of the samples on ceramic tiles or glass slides which had no pattern themselves.

The mounts were prepared by drying portions of 7^70-C7919-1 3 'l

... r s.

w..

the soil samples, grinding them to a fine powder in a steel 9

mortar and pestle, slurrying the powder in a water suspension, and Ehen sedimenting the suspension onto the tiles.

Some samples were glycerol and heat treated to assist in identi-fying certain clay minerals, in particular to identify the presence of " expanding lattice" or swelling type clays, viz., montmorillonite (smeetite) and montmorillonite-type layers present in mixed layer intergrowth with illite (hydrous mica).

Quantitative estimates of each mineral were obtained by comparing diffraction peak heights and peak areas for a particular mineral with the same parameters for standardized 1

reference samples containing different but known amounts of the various minerals.

Mass-absorption coefficients for the various minerals were also used to help calculate amounts present following the procedures described by Carroll.( }

RESULTS The results of exchange capacity tests are summarized in Table 1.

Water content, percent fines, and pH are also tabulated for each of the samples submitted for analysis.

Mineralogic analyses of the samples are summarized in Table 2, based on X-ray diffraction test results provided by Professor Peacor.

The samples are listed in order of decreasing quartz content in the latter table.

The fines content of the diesel generator building samples ranged from 53 to 58 percent for eight of the samples l

l III carroll, D.

(1970). Clay Minerals:

A guide to Their X-Ray Identification, US Geol. Soc. Amer., Special Paper No.126, 80 pp.

gj

~'~

7220-C7919-1

...a c,,,

g.

]

tested.

Samples Ncs. T15-6 and T15-7 had substantially higher fines contents.

The clay size fraction of the samples I

~

(minus 2 micron) averaged 20 2% as shown in Figure 1.

On the other hand, the clav mineral content of all samples was

]

only 4-5% by weight as shown in Table 2.

'the pH of the samples ranged from 7.3 to 8.3.

The only significant i

deviation was sample DG 26-6 which had a pH of 10.1.

2 The cation. exchange capacities of samples from the 1

generator building borings were low.

Nine of the samples j

had exchange capacities ranging from 2-3 milliequivalents per 100 gms of dry soil.

Slightly higher exchange capacities were measured on samples with higher percentages of fines.

(Nos. DG12-13 and DG2-8).

Samples T15-6 and T15-7 had the j

highest measured exchange capacities, but also had the highest 1

(

percentage of fines.

Exchange capacity, in fact, appeared well correlated with percentage of fines present.

This 4

l relationship is shown in Figure 2.

]

The results of X-ray diffraction tests shown in Table 2 l

indicate that very little clay is present.

Clay mineral

~

content ranged frota 4 to 5% by weight and consisted primarily of' illite and kaolinite / chlorite.

The presence of these very 1

small amounts of inactive or non expandable clay minerals is consistent with the low exchange capacities measured on the samples.

Only a trace of swelling or expandable clay minerals i

was detected.

The only exception was sample T15-6 which showed 3% by. weight expandable clay content.

Samples from the generator building site were character-

. ized by a very specific quart / carbonate ratio as shown in i

L

'7 -

' 3 '0 f

7220-C79-19-1

s..

~

l-Figure 3.. Total carbonate of these samples was fairly I

high (30 5%).

Quartz averaged 60 5% by weight for these same

(

samples, giving an average quartz / carbonate ratio of 2.

In contrast, samples T15-6 and T15-7 had extreme quartz /

carbonate ratios of 1 and 44 respectively.

DISCUSSION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF TEST RESULTS i

No particularly unusual nor peculiar properties are 7

revealed by the mineralogic analyses and cation exchange capacity tests on samples from the diesel generator building site.

The tests show that this material is an inactive, low plasticity, sandy clay SILT with a very low clay mineral content ( 5% by weight).

Such low clay mineral contents appear somewhat inconsistent with classification of the soil as a CL material.

An ML-CL classification would seem more t

4 I

appropriate.

The plasticity indices measured on the soil samples l

from the diesel generator building site also appear out of l

line with compaction characteristics of the soil (i.e., optimum water contents).

Average, liquid and plastic limits were 22-25% and 12% respectively for an average PI of 10-13% as shown in Figure 4.

The limits are too high with respect to j

optimum water contents (7-8%) measured on compacted samples of the same soil as shown in Figure 5.

Optimum water contents (2) should fall in the range 11-12% for the limits cited above.

I f

I (2) G.W. Ring and J.R.Sallberg (1962).

Correlation of Compaction I

and Classification Test Data, HRB Bulletin No. 325.

{

l 33

! 750.c79191

T TABLE 1 -

SUMMARY

OF CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY AND pH TESTS - MIDLAND NUCLEAR PROJECT p

\\

~ Boring Sample Ave Water Fines pH Cation Exchange No.

Depth Content Capacity ft meg /100 gms a Test Pit N/A 8.8 55.4 7.9 2.6 DG23 1

1.8 8.6 57.7 8.0 2.4 DG23 2

2.7 10.0 54.2 8.0 2.5 DG26 1

1.3 9.6 57.9 8.2 2.5 DG26 3

4.8 9.4 52.5 8.1 2.0 DG26 6

13.2 16.6 55.4 10.1 2.5 DG7

1. 4 16.6 9.2 54.5 8.3 2.6 DG7

1. 6 20.9 11.7 57.8 8.3 2.0 DG12

1. 13 24.2 13.5 62.7 8.2 3.4 DG2

1. 8 23.8 15.5 74.9 7.8 7.0 T15

1. 6 25.7 21.7 92.3 8.3 7.8 T15

1. 7 30.8 21.3 84.1 7.3 11.7 '

(

TABLE 2 -

SUMMARY

OF MINERALOGICAL ANALYSES * - MIDLAND NUCLEAR PROJECT Boring lSample Mineralogic Composition - 90by Wt.

Ralio No.

M AN-Qtz.7 DABLE ILLITE KAOL/ CHLOR FELDkCARB. QUARTZ Cad T15

1. 7 1

1 2

7 2

8 8 '~

44.0 Test Pit 2

3 5

26 64 2.5 DG23 1

2 3

5

' 30 61 2.0 DG2

1. 8 Tr.

.1 2

7 29 61 2.1 DG7

1. 6.

Tr.

1 2

6 31 60 1.9 DG7

1. 4 Tr.

1 2

7 32 59 1.8 DG12

1. 13 1

1 2

10

. 30 56,

1.9 DG6

1. 5 Tr.

1 4

5 35 55 1.6 DG26

1. 6 2

3 11 31 53 1.7 T15

1. 6 3

Tr.

4 7

43 43, 1.0

• Tests performed by Dr. D. Peacor, Dept. of Geology, University of Michigar 1

34 7220-C 79-19-1

ll1

}

• (.

1.j

- ii i,,.

l i,

4a,34A gk1 l

.i" b

O g

a ;-. !

sO

. ?

i %Q

% t. g g.

3 -

h:iil, :

,.~. /

I :,.

[,p.

.M i

?

F l[

. 1i t

.t

.I e! l I

Ils l.,nl

/

a

. j :

j

1' 7

/

. Q./

'j l-

..j.

e 4: jit 7i.

--p _. i g i _. f*

t j:

i-i l

l-2

., i,';. e e !

+ -

- r'j. ;

wuo

- +ui l

i., e'

,r:.

-. e.g il i,'

8 j,

.iii l'

eg

- h8 t

Ij.

e_ee

'[.

.f;l'

,i

--7_.**-

i j,

i.'

l[. *i-,

lI!.~

I

'w.vo

~

J

,,'e -q t

e l i

'J i+

iIi'

.-l.!i l.

)y

. g j'-

l

.i-t g;

l.

(f

- ~

t, -

i,.

v %oo l

o E

-l.

t y

t

-l

.lg A

3-n

/

t.

E %ao

-. :. r...

l

.I,.l[!

lI i

, 0I

. 3 j I' l

f,-

ji-

e l 6 l'i j,

1il Il

" ?'

.,i i<

g%g i

!l i

.i,.

lj -

3

~Do

, t i:

9*-o

~

6'

' +

i

.*. ji-iI

.i' r.

hp

' b;;;Lgec $, ob,u,gMb n3,,, h.

ob

'g. n cIn <,b QL a

t

'$DbA t e w c: 2,,,x g h k ~ ~ A t '.

M}e, 9 )e 1_)P 4 mm NaMOb' yD.a e..

i es y ?-

b M, 9 CO 9

D?!}g 4 99y m,..,

....e........

NG I

') JgI JiJl I

33292 6

.6'...9..**=.==..'

.=

.4.

w

.3

• ._.=^,e,..._...~_..._,.)...,'....'

...4_......

I. 4,.-.-.*., - -

..e..9

.-f..

..4

.J p.

'7..

6 t

4..

w. m.,..;,_,.*.

e e...e 4...

4

• • .1

...6...-.

...-.4.-.

..,4...

9..

..g m -...

--f

/*

r, v&

_..4..

(.+

..... -....4...$._-_..

,...)

4-

~

.4,g.

k

.,.e

.,...g.

j e

.9.

..a..-.i. =.,. g...._. 9...._. 4.

.. %e...

.._.....'4-[.

u _...

0. ~-. -...

__.-_-.,$.=..

... A...

+..M 4

.....t.........._...........(j...,.-

.J.- -

. _s..

e

. _. -t

.a L.

...g_......-

..,....~.

..g.._

.-..._L..._I._..-........._

4...

-+

._y.-

1.._..

_.....1.._._t....._.4 L _.. ?

D..

.r.

_..I..._...... =

....... _ _... _... _ _.. _., _. - _ + _. _. -

a.

p

-.e.=.=...

-_...J f.

-a

p. __ _

• "*t_.......

.-9._.g....,.

I.

g.

p.

--f'.

. i-4

..-.-.m^ ^ -

--.s

.b.

[h

... - -...~

I w

.....w....e.i.=.........+

...... g. - _. I.

i m

.. e

_-M g".

.. Y I. &... b

.-67..-.

. - = = - =

f....

p

-....I._

...2 6

_ e..

=.. *. -. =... '..

4p

p...

h.

6

.......e............

b...

. g..... g............

,..=.k.....

.g.==.........+8 7,.

6..

6

...e g

.om..-

j.

.. = +....v.

.r e

.......(

..y-.

.............e.

.y -......

4......

............6..

g.

--.....h..,.....

p l

,6e-....

.,6..

.............e..... _

..L--.

e

. -t.

.A. 6..

t..... -....

..4..

.r...

.m..

.4

...5.

.e.&.=-

p

.%,hn, g..

....l..

....g._...

e n..

6 o

5

... 6

.,.1.....

s......

3.....s.....

......5'....-

. d.#

. a

.b g.

_. s

. %s

..........6.

~

....4 l

.a...............a..

6 a

e

.6 g

f 4...

e

....L.

....a.-.

.--. - - -...........e

....4....

J...

G.

.-4

.e.

e.

...d

...{.

. 1.

s.

._.....Y........

g

...g p

.4..

9...

..e.-.

.U....

.1._...

i.

.y........

.e.

.-.e m..

e e..... m.....

...........g.

.p L

......4..............,..

g.

.....p.

.......4 6.

y

...p

....e......

• ,-.... w.--

.b....

t

......_....c p.

. f=-....

6

^.

.t..............

......_...1 4

.=

_a.,4_.........

4 q

w._......

........l......

~..

. _ _....... i*.. _....

.r 6.........

6.

p.........

..... _.... -..... _. ~ _....

._._,._.a

...._,..._._.s l'.._..Q,.._.....

,,Z'....... t...

..r J

6_

.. !p%.

......4..-..... _.. _ -

_.......,....,.-...._..t l.

.....u

t.... -.._._ _.....

...g.

...*S

..s..s.........

...e....... _

........t.-......

..L

.... _..._._..)

....i,__

6.

... l.. T*

1............./.._...6......

.~..T, g, -..

.......i.. _...

4.

._.. 4

..... m...

.... _......J

.._1......

..T

...,e...

. _..._...._a.

=....

O. -.....g..

.y. o

.... GO.. _

...50.

= / O Q -- --

i..-_._...

.......L i.

.. i.... 1... m.

. _..e.

p_

0 C. _.

.. :.... i........ l..... d.

.........L.........1....!.

.i..

.....,,s

.._..t.....

._.....e..._............

.i.

.i....._._._.

..r._....

... t,

.a........

..._........_.4._..._

.i

.i....

.. t

..n

.i.

i.......

.... ~.

g....

• F/G:2. s CAT /CN' EYCHANGE CAPAC/7*Y.

.WTD\\'CEN 7* F/NES. '"D

• m.=

M /Ot.A N D NU, C..LE A R M..,lJER MANT.

-a...... n............

~. :.

s :.

.n.

..i,....... _...

.t..

.t

.:s. _......

. - l

u.. _.._ _..

-.._......i.._.......i..........,

.........u..,.

t.... _........._.... A,......

N

...r...

av w...~

7220-C79-19-1

p..

~

l g[

+

g3Jg3

-..,...'....o,,.i.p.f*....,.,.p.f.......

.~

.. j

.--.w.

.*T.,..,.

.._..-.o.-

_..J...

._..I.

..d. _.

m

.s... 7.

f.

.s 4.

4.<

?

.... =

N i

,...=.

~e._.

4

_5 C..

=.. = =..>

p4.'b

^

.e 9

..6..

e

... -M.

g. -..-

L s.

..4.__.4_..

~.

e..

g

..T~~~ <

4m

.s

... -..,_a t~.

t M' %

. Q g-

^

.e

+.

..__4

,sg 4

a ;-

,,'g 4

+

l-.-.4-=

-- ~.

t, --.~

.=.,

,+

5

,4

• y

g. : -

_.g

-~...4.s,-

s

_t--

y-..._

+

..-.q-

...4............

.4.......

-...s..--

L-.

...w...

. ~. ~..

g-

-..,..-- -..~.

p..-

..._-...~

.V N...*

F ;...

'x

.._+..

....,,. ~..

x.

. _~y

_..... -. ~ _

.s

.... +

4

... ~.

..t--

~~T.-......-__.-...

m..-..-s....,

4,e.

.a T.._.

_-.. +... >,

.. - s

.. _.. N.. _

T-..--

,...--._"T.....,

m

..--.6__

..a L. - - w s-

_g

.a

.L...,

s.......

+.....

...._._... ~... - -a....-

-._.%.._._._....._.-Z_....

...s y.-...

r-n._.

_.r,...

__x.-

.+..s-

,.L.....

a..

.. n.s

..... 4.....e...-....

....Z**-.

..L.-_

-..e...

J""

..-_.s._._- _

~~T

-........... ~_

...-6....,.

_ C

,...C=

.~

..-.s__-..

w

.s

..I............

.......... _ _.3.......

....}..,._...

6

........... ~,.....

.,......,.g

...........4 6..

.1...

. ~....

.6 4..

..... _ -........._.s

......-..l..._..

........ -.. -......... ~...

........... ~.

f...

...,.-...1

.. =....

.. _...............,. s.... _.. _ _....

.......... T..

........ _........,... ~.....

,.... _..~

4...

e y

4...

....-.a i

..._....l........ -........

f.

g

\\t

.. ~.........,

t....

L_.....

.......~.1. _..............

...i.

..... m....

.....J

.4

.1..

.. 1,

~.............,_

........- f

. 1.....

........ a.....

......t 4

e......._.......

.. ~.. _..........

.M,..--.............. _...

..s...

..................s

.......w.....

+..............

s

.4

....5

.8.............

~.

. _ _.4.........

..v.._...

.l

.2........._...

m...........

~...... _

........4

. J...........

....6..._........J.......T*_.._.............

.. 4

....~.

..... &........... 1.

......w.

.......L....L.......g....

.... ~....,-.

.r..

.e..

.t._.

. a.

.1........_..

e.

.._1

.I..

... ~,

.. -j

...1

.........1

............1.......

i..

. -.1

. 4-.

A.

l.

..1.,

.1,.....

4

...6 5..

.....f.

... ~...,.,..

.........4.....L........

....J

.s..

a

.... _..s.

..a

....r....................._t.

..... r..

.. _..1 S.

r...

i i

i g

.4

,.t i

3 s.

.. o

....i..

m_.....

.. _......,o..

t e.

"=.. T.~.

F/6. 3. ' QUARTZ.* Rt d CARB0MA72, CONTENT.~*.SAMPLEEFACM ~L

.'= "

" ; P D NG.4AND '.MOClEM.L&wS8:_BANT V-w

^ K "

i Js l

' ( -~ w a ME-GM91

n i

>e OO O

r

.e i

. s D

D L,t e4 o

L-

.9~

..g,,,

I,=?

j'I

.... ~....

w tw

. - - - - ~ ~ -. -

a l.

. - ~

_s..

~.

.?

g..

g..

..~.

630

'g O

4 C_

t !

O e.i..

e

......p, i

J c

o j

- *' a j

.. ' - gg j

. O,. E_

,y --

C.

a w

_"C Q

o

$/0 g_O 8

y, ;.

9

,e s v

(

4 og l

j 4

--(...

{,

)..

gon 4

g r

J w.

/

.s v

j

(

I n

5po i

.. w...u

{..

\\

3 l

1

... rya 4

.sv

\\

2 s,

d

..s..

p

. s.:,.

e..

a 1

Ra.+

i

. I WerER Convenr/ Arrtum_

^

~

k

+ lQUIQ L

L m rr.s v.r. E t e v m o n. A sset.

i

~-

rusroe.

z,,,,7 Gsvenrog Bun.orwG.%MPLES.

1 WATER COMTENT 0*

9 7220.C79191

Nl

}

(

4

\\

Assud 6., a 2.bo 1sta Asn-voos RArio

\\

Q 136 A

g

/

L 13L

\\

A-d /18 b

/

\\'

s

(

. tag

\\.h s

. I3.0 1-6 8

to I%

/tel37 tite CONTENT (%)

FIG. 5.

Not.srogE-DENS /7Y RELAT10NSM/PS. TDT RY NO.1.

58,000 fn/Slcy pr Eff0R7~. M/DLAND NUCLEA R 39 5

~ ~ T -C 79-19 1

r.

..y g;

f t

CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY AND J

MINERALOGY OF SOIL SAMPLES MIDLAND NUCLEAR PROJECT i

Final Report Prepared For:

Goldberg, Zoino, Dunnicliff and Associates By:

I Donald H. Gray Professor of Civil Engineering

'N 10 May 1979 Ann Arbor, Michigan

\\.,

i 0

7220-C79191

..u

.s

.,....... s;

{

^

CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY'&

f MINERALOGY OF SOIL SAMPLES i

SUMMARY

i j

Cation exchange capacity was measured on a total of 12 soil samples submitted for testing.

All samples with the exception'of two (Nos. T15-6 and T15-7) were from borings or e

. test pit in the vicinity of the diesel generator building.

The water. content, percentage of fines (minus #200 sieve fraction),

i l

and pH were determined as well.

The results of mineralogic i

i

-analyses by X-ray diffraction of these same samples were provided I

by Professor D. Peacor, Department of Geology.

J l

The majority of the samples tested were classified as grey-s.

i l

brown, silty clays with varying amounts of fine to coarse sand.

Slightly more than half of the soil (53 to 58% by wt) consisted i

of fines (minus #200 sieve) in eight of the diesel generator i

building samples.

The clay size fraction in the samples (minus I

2 microns) averaged 20I 24 by weight.

Samples T15-6 and T15-7 i

4 4

differed substantially, in their gradation from the diesel generator l

building samples.

Fines comprised 92 and 844 by weight respectively of-these samples.

l

'The cation exchange capacities of samples from the generator j

building ' borings were low.

Nine of the samples had exchange

]

capacitites ranging from 2-3 mil 11 equivalents /100 gms of dry i-j soil.

Slightly higher exchange capacities were measured on samples f

with. higher percentages of fines (Nos. DG12-13 and DG2-8).

4 Samples.T15-6 and T15-7 had the highest measured exchange capacities, i

but also had the hi'ghest percentage of fines.

Exchange capacity, 1

4-(

t 7220-C79191 e

~

g......

in fact, appeared to be well correlated with percentage of fines present.

The results of the X-ray diffraction tests show that very 3

little clay is present.

Clay mineral content of all samples ranged from 4 to 5% by weight and consisted primarily of illite and kaolinite / chlorite.

The prese,nce of these very small amounts j

of inactive or non expandable clay minerals is consistent with the low exchange capacities measured on the samples.

Only a trace of swelling or expandable clay minerals was detected.

The only exception was sample T15-6 which showed 3% by wt. expandable clay content.

Total carbonate content of the samples from the diesel I

generator buildings was fairly high (30 5%).

Quartz averaged.

I j

60 S% by weight for these samples, giving an average quartz / carbonate i

ratio of 2.

Samples T15-6 and T15-7 also differed from the diesel generator building samples in regard to their non clay, mineralegy.

(

These samples had extreme quartz / carbonate ratios of 1 and 44 respectively.

No particularly unusual nor peculiar properties are revealed by the mineralogic analyses and cation exchange capacity tests on samples from the diesel generator building site.

The tests show that this material is an inactive, low plasticity sandy clay SILT with very low clay mineral content (5% by weight). Although the Unified classification of this material is CL, the clay mineral and gradation analyses suggest that an ML-CL classification would be more appropriate in this case.

t,

42 7220-C79-19-1

.......,.,,7..

s.

. Average. measured liquid and plastic limits were 22% and 12%

" ~

respectively for an average PI of 10%.

Replicate tests established

- the precision-and' reliability of these plasticity results.

These limits, on the other hand, appear somewhat high with respect to optimum water contents of 9.5-10% measured on compacted samples of the same soil as brsed on the Standard Proctor or ASTM D698 compaction test.

The most reasonable explanation for the apparent lack of correlation between 1imit data and other soil test results probably

~

4 lies in the significance or interpretation of plasticity limits for this type of soil.

Extremely low clay mineral contents (less j

than 5% by weight) detected in the soil samples may invalidate some of the empirical correlations commonly invoked between limit 4

data and classification or engineering properties of a soil.

INTRODUCTION Cation exchange capacity tests and mineralogic analyses were performed on the whole soil fraction of samples obtained I

from borings in the vicinity of the diesel generator building.

i Test were also run on two additional samples (T15-#6 and T15-#7) from borings made to the north of the generator building and on a sample from a test pit.

A preliminary series of-tests were conducted on samples from borings Nos. DG23, DG26, and.from the test pit.

Results of these tests were transmitted to Goldberg, Zoino, Dunnicliff and Associates in a report dated 13 November 1978.-

Results of the earlier-I tests are also incorporated in the present report.

f I

l c i 43.

^,q.19 1

a j

All samples were disturbed and furnished for testing in sealed j

~,-~

. glass jars.

The mineralogic analyses were performed by Dr. D.

Peacor, Department of Geology, University of Michigan.

TEST PROCEDURES f

Cation Exchange Capacity and pH 3

Cation exchange capacity was determined by procedures fully

{

described in the Quality Assurance Manual previously submitted j

to Bechtel Power Corporation '(dated February 24, 1977).

Basically j

f exchange capacity was determined by conductometric titration in which a barium-saturated soil is titrated against a standarized j

solution of 0.2 N magnesium sulphate.

The end point of the exchange i

reaction (or titration) is indicated by a sudden increase in l

conductance of the soil suspension.

J i.

_pH of the soil samples was determined using'a hydrogen

,l' j

electrode in soil suspensions mixed to a 5:1 dilution ratio with i

distilled water.

The percentage of fines was determined by wet sieving weighed samples through a #200 sieve.

a Approximately 15-20 grams of soil (dry weight) were used for each of the above tests.

The material selected for testing was removed from both ends of the jar samples.

The various tests

.were run sequentially on the same subsample in the order:

water content, pH, cation exchange capacity, and percent fines.

Mineralogic Analyses i

The minera-?.ogy of the samples was determined by X-ray diffraction.

The X-ray diffraction system consisted offa Philips Norelco power diffractometer, X-ray generator, Geiger counter, and adlyzing circuit a

[ "

44 7220-C79-191 1-

.m

.3

panel, A coppeyhotassium (alpha radiation) X-ray tube was employed

(~

together with a graphite monochromating crystal..The diffracted X-ray beam was picked up by the Geiger counter travelling on a goniometer track and then fed into a pulse height analyzer in the circuit panel.

The diffraction pattern thus obtained was displayed on a strip chart recorder in terms of intensity of diffracted energy versus angle of incidence of the X-ray beam.

The X-ray diffraction analysis was performed on oriented mounts which were prepared by sedimenting thin layers of the samples on ceramic tiles or glass slides which had no pattern them-selves.

The mounts were prepared by drying portions of the soil samples, grinding them to a fine powder in a steel mortar and pestle, slurrying the powder in a water suspension, and then sedimenting the suspension onto the tiles. Some samples were

'(

glycerol and heat treated to assist in identifying certain clay 4

minerals, in particular to identify the presence of " expanding lattice" or swelling type clays, viz., montmorillonite (smectite) and montmorillonite-type layers present in mixed layer intergrowth with' illite (hydrous mica).

Quantitative estimates of each mineral were obtained by 7

comparing diffraction peak heights-and peak areas for a particular i

mineral with the same parameters for standardized reference samples containing different but known amounts of the various minerals.

Mass-absorption coefficients for the various minerals were also used'to help calculate amounts present following the procedures described by Carroll.III~

- p f1) Carroll, D. L (1970).. Clay Minerals:

A guide to Their X-Ray Identification, US Geol. Soc. Amer., Special Paper No. 126, 80 pp.

--s-7220 C79-191 b

w

-4

~ - ~. -

n

-.n--

+

y

-s--

n-w- - - -

s

\\

g.

)

RESULTS

(

The results of exchange capacity tests are summarized in Table 1.

Water content, percent fines, and pH are also tabulated for 4

each of the samples submitted for analysis.

Mineralogic analyses of tha samples are summarized in Table 2, based on X-ray diffraction test results provided by Professor Peacor.

The samples are listed in order of decreasing quartz content in the latter table.

The fines content of the diesel generator building samples ranged from 53 to 58 percent for eight of the samples tested.

j Samples Nos. T15-6 and'T15-7 had substantially higher fines contents.

The clay size fraction of the samples (minus 2 micron) averaged I

20 2% as shown in Figure 1.

On the other hand the clay mineral j

content of all samples was only 4-5% by weight as shown in Table 2.

The pH of the samples ranged from 7.3 to 8.3.

The cnly significant t.

deviation was sample DG 26-6 which had a pH of 10.1.

i The cation exchange capacities of samples from the generator building borings were low.

Nine of the samples had exchange capacities ranging from 2-3 milliequivalents per 100.gms of dry soil.

Slightly higher exchange capacities were measured on samples with higher percentages of fines. (Nos. DG12-13 and DG2-8).

Samples T15-6 and T15-7 had the highest measured exchange capacities, but a

also had the highest percentage of fines.

Exchange capacity,- in fact, appeared.well correlated with percentage of fines present.

This relationship is shown in Figure 2.

.The results~of X-ray diffraction. tests.shown.in Table 2 indicate that very little clay is present.

Clay mineral content

\\. 4G 7'90-C79191

c.

ranged from 4 to 5% by weight and consisted primarily of illite and r

(

kaolinite / chlorite.

The presence of these very small amounts t

of inactive.or non expandable clay minerals is consistent with j

the low exchange capacities measured on the samples.

Only a i

trace of swelling or expandable clay minerals was detected.

The only exception was sample T15-6 which showed 3% by weight expandable 1

l clay content'.

Samples'from the generator building site were characterized by a very specific quartz / carbonate ratio as shown in Figure 3.

Total carobnate content of these samples was fairly high (30+54).

1 l

Quartz averaged 60+5% by weight for these same samples, giving an I-average quartz / carbonate ratio of 2.

In contrast, samples T15-6 1

l and T15-7 had extreme quartz / carbonate ratios of 1 and 44 respectively.

DISCUSSION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF TEST RESULTS i,

(

1k) particularly unusual nor peculiar properties are revealed by the mineralogic analyses and cation exchange capacity tests on samples from the diesel generator building site.

The tests

[

show that this material is an-inactive, low plasticity, sandy clay SILT with a very low clay udneral content

(< 5% by weight).

f-Such low clay mineral contents suggest that'a ML-CL classification is more appropriate than the CL classification which is indicated by the Unified ' soil classification.

Classification of fine grained soils under the Unified system i

-is primarily based on. measured Atterberg Limits.. Average, measured

~ liquid and plastic limits for samples from the diesel generator building site were 22.amd 12% respectively as shown in Table 3

.and Figure 4..

Replication of ' Limit tests summarized in Table 3

\\

7-

' 7220-C7919. -

l

' established the precision and reliability of the liquid and plastic

['

limit test results.

These limits' appear somewhat high with respect to optimum water contents measured on conpacted samples of the same soil.

Optimum water contents'for compacted soil samples from the 1978 test pits fell in the range 9.5 to 10% by weight (Standard Proctor compactive effort) as shown in Figure 5.

According to correlations (2) of og,,

paction and classification test data, optimum water contents should fall in the range 11-12% for a PL=12% and LL=20-25%, Standard Proctor effort.

This optimum (based on measured limit dr.ta) is some 2-3% higher than the optimum actually obtained in compaction tests on these samples.

The most reasonable explanation for apparent lack of correla-tion between limit data and other test results probably lies in i(.,

the significance or interpretation of plasticity limits for this type of soil.

Extremely low clay mineral contents (less than 5%

'by weight) detectedinthesoi}bamplesmayinvalidatesomeofthe

~

empirical correlations commonly invoked between limit data and classification or engineering properties of a soil.

(2) Ring, G.W.

& Sallberg, J.R.

(1962). Correlation of Compaction l

and Classification Test Data, HRB Bulletin No. 325, p. 59.

y.

..8~-

l-

.48 7220-C 79-19-1

~. _

3

)

TABLE 1 -

SUMMARY

OF CATION EXCIIANGE CAPACITY AND

- pil TESTS - MIDLAND NUCLEAR PROJECT Boring Sample Average Water Fines pli Cation Exchange No.

. Depth Content Capacity ft.

meg /100 gms soil Test Pit N/A 8.8 55.4 7.9 2.6 DG23 1

1.8 8.6 57.7 8.0 2.4 DG23 2

-2.7 10.0 54.2 8.0 2.5 DG26 1

1.3 9.6 57.9-8.2 2.5 DG26 3

4.8 9.4 52.5 8.1 2.0 DG26 6

13.2 16.6 55.4 10.1 2.5 DG7 f4 16.6 9.2 54.5 8.3 2.6 DG7 46 20.9 11.7 57.8 8.3 2.0 DG12

1. 13 24.2 13.5 62.7 8.2 3.4 DG2 58 23.8 15.5 74.9 7.8 7.0 T15 56 25.7 21.7 92.3 8.3 7.8 T15 87 30.8 21.3 84.1 7.3 11.7 N

o

'3

. O.

N

?

~

4 C4

=.

r-s v

TABLE 2 -

SUMMARY

OF MINERALOGICAL ANALYSES * - MIDLAND NUCLEAR PROJECT Boring Sample Mineralogic Composition - % by Wt.

Ratio k

No.

EXPAN-KAOLINITE /

FELDS-CARB-QUARTZ QUARTZ':

~

DABLE ILLITE CHLORITE SPAR ONATE CARBONATE T15

1. 7 1

1 2

7 2

88 44.0 Test Pit 2

3 5

26 64 2.5

'DG23 1

2 3

5 30 61 2.0 DG2 98 Tr.

1 2

7 29 61 2.1 E

DG7 46 Tr.

1 2

6 31 60 1.9 DG7 44 Tr.

1 2

7

.32 59 1.8 DG12 113 1

1 2

10 30 56 1.9 DG6 45 Tr.

1 4

5 25 55 1.6 DG26 16 2

3 11 31 53 1.7 T15 56 3

Tr.

4 7

43 43 1.0 b

• Test's performed by Dr. D.

Peacor, Department of Geology, University of Michigan.

4 N

0 N

9 N

i 9

w

.P

~

CJS O

.. =

...u.s

.s

... s n

(

i TABLE 3 - ATTERBERG LIMIT DATA-FOR SAMPLES FROM DIESEL i

GENERATOR SITE, MIDLAND NUCLEAR PROJECT BORING DEPTH ORIGINAL TEST REPLICATE TEST NUMBER INTERVAL RESULTS - 4 RESULTS - %

(ft)

LL PL LL(1) PL(

PL DG-2 19.1-19.6 25 14 25 13 14 DG-10 2.1-2.6 19 12 19 12 12 DG-11 17.8-18.3 21 12 21 DG.12 11.2-11.7 21 12 20 I

DG-16 1.8-2.3 20 12 20 DG-17 17.2-17.7 26 12 27 DG-19 1.3-2.0 22 12 21 11 12 DG-19 13.5-14.0 26 13 25 DG 12.7-13.2 20 12 20 12 12 DG-23 11.3-11.5 19 11 19 k

DG-23 10.7-11.2 20 12 21 11 12 Averages 21.7 12.2 21.6 11.8 12.4 l

NOTES:

(1)

Pre cut groove with spatula.

ASTM grooving tool i

used in both original and replicate tests 1

(2)~ ASTM procedure l

(3)

Corps of Engineers procedure.

use heel of hand for rolling thread of soil.

4 9

Y.

51 L

7220-C79-191 L

, s.

- I

... s -

PtMLENI 0

10 20 30 40 50 l

640 1

EXPLANATION

)

(

J 630 b

o LIQUID LIMIT mj [~

o WATER CONTENT e

CPLASTIC LIMIT

~

1 j

oo 4

620 o o g _m -

m -

i

, g r_

o

'o 0,5~ - _ _-i S E__

~

o o

g' -

o, o

o o

610

~

o e*2 p

o o

o y

o om oo o

w g

l 5

o o

z o

8o 9 600 NOTE:

o j

j cb

1. BASED ON 1978 TEST RESULTS BY GOLDBERG.

j ZOINMUNNICLIFF o

AND ASSOCIATES, 1

/

INCORPORATE

-(

590 2

o I

580 570 52 560 O

A A

A 5-L -19 issvCo

• c.1 r iN AL r.V A L, og X

X NO.

DATE R EVISIONS BY CK'D b$7,y ENG'R

[@.h M(7f p

_(

SCALE eda ag DESIGNED AsM l DRAWN op4 CHIEF ENG'R l

JOB NO.

7220 ANN ARBOR WATER CONTENT, ATTERBURG LIMITS VS ELEVATION DR AWING NO.

57EV.

GEOTECH DIESEL GENER ATO,R BUILDING N@E

/

A l

7220-C 79.19-1 Su-326

i

,e,,=**=-*p,

.e e

• • s

^

• ~*

=

,,~e Jeh*

1; ' ", * {'

l T

+,

.I.

p I _.. _.. f.... _....

... :...j... l..

.....t j- :

I t

i

..._ _.. q _ _.

_._ ;. _ _.n..:.. ; _..... g _.

n.

t

/

( -

1

._.p.

. a g. _:.

.]

j

_.q

g....,._. ;_..

j _.1.a. _.

,g 715 - 7 6 A

fo

~

. 4:.

~

{

7 g

Qr

/ 77 5 - 6

- ' ~~

54 DG2-8 Q t

/

1 I

6 x

N sU sf E,

O 4

3 iu D6 /L-/3 r

Q 9

z T

U i

i e

i i

i i

O LO 40 GO SO

/00

% MINU.S #EOO F/G. 2.

CA7/ON EtCHANGE CAPAC/TY-V5 PERCEN7" f/NES.

Q M/04AND NUCLEAR /CIJER PLANT 7220-C 7919.$

5.3

.... s.

.. s -

G

_. v i._ - (...._7... 90

=.. _.

r 7/5 'T

... l.. :..

. v..

l

t -

s j.

s

\\

go 70

,~ ~

s'

@*k..

g c

n D/ESEL GENERATOR.

BC/ LUNG SAMPLE.S-Q.)

50 W

1- -

of o

O 4

V

(..

T/5-6 a

40 8

30 20 1

10 i

i i

i i

i Oi 10 2.0 30 40 So

\\-

s.

• /o CAR.Bo NATE f/6. 3.

QUARTZ YJC CARBONATE CONTENT. JAMPLES FROM j

N@ LAND NUCLEAR power PLANT..

]t 7'PO-C7919-1

j

.,_...c.

i c.o u n c. T

e. 4 83 6 =-

=

o g4 '.

i 152 a.

.,.f.

i I

I

.A 130 B

4'L iv \\x.

126 2

V/

K N

( 4 N

\\

12 4 p

/

/

/

\\

f

/

/

N e

m 122

/

g f

\\

1 p

p

/

,s s

m a

12 0 N

/

\\

118

\\

\\

II6 i

2 4

6 8

10 12 14

(

% MOISTURE CONTENT 4

EX PL ANATION NOTE:

COMPACTION BASED ON ASTM Dl557 TEST RESULTS MADE BY MODIFIED TO 20,000 FT. LBS.

GOLD BERG -ZOINO - DUN NI CLIFF ON SAMPLES FROM 1978 COMPACTION SASED ON ASTM D698 TEST PITS.

I

~

h.r ?

--..w-.

-./ !

-e--

s.

.=..y-....-.s-.........

-.s i. * :'..,.

...... -... _. _.~-m'

-... t :

..:,tc.

._,,,_; g 3., _ g./

r rn

- -.s

(.

.. -........ _........=.

=.

4.

l:

c u.

t 1

.g

r. : f,.

SUMM ARY OF COMPACTION a---

y pt.,

n TEST RESULTS

• Y. _I..

.. d _

~

( ASTM D698 ond 20,000 F T.- LBS.)

FIG U R E 4-7220-G /919-1 SK*G-333