ML19344A650

Final Assessment of Liquefaction Potential at LACBWR Site, Near Genoa,Vernon County,Wi

ML19344A650
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	07/25/1980
From:	DAMES & MOORE
To:
Shared Package
ML19344A648	List: ML19344A647 ML19344A650
References
TASK-02-04, TASK-2-4, TASK-RR 11166-003-27, 11166-3-27, NUDOCS 8008210403
Download: ML19344A650 (33)

Text

_ _ _. _ _ _

I o-

.I

l i

lI I

h I

I I

I FINAL ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AT LACBWR SITE near Genoa, Vemon County, Wisconsin for Dairyland Power Cooperative j

li166-003-27 July 25,1980 I

Dames & Moore (l

7101 Wisconsin Ave., SuitehWashington, D.C. 20014 M

1g

--e I

eoosu 1 o b3 e

fg

. ~,

n,.

7l ' '....,

'D

, ' " ^ ' '.%

i

...~c s.~..

.4 y"

DADW ES S M O OIKi' E

- m. o, l.T"J:

L',7;.-

~~~~~~~~~~-n

- m n w w xv m n,~ c.

u.

n omen m Twp 7 3 r, - 0 2 4, 3 O i 3 I

July 25,1980 Lacrosse Boiling Water Recctor Dairyland Power Cooperative Post Office Box 135 I

Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 A ttention:

Mr. R. E. Shimshak Plant Superintendent RE: Response to NRC Review Questions Gentlemen:

We have enclosed 10 copies of our report, " Final Assessment of Liquefaction I

Potential at LACBWR site, near Genoa, Vernon County, Wisconsin," for your use. This report contains the data collected at your plant site during our recent test boring program. This test boring program was proposed in partial fulfillment of responses to review questions posed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

NRC technical staff participated in the planning of the test boring program and also witnessed most of the drilling and testing performed at your site. The data obtained at the site mainly consist of results of Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) performed in four locations within the developed crea of the site. The SPT data obtained are consistent with the predictions made by us and are so convincing that the margin of safety against potential for liquefaction at the LACBWR site under an SSE producing 0.12 g acceleration at the surface is much higher than those shown by cny of our previous analyses.

We strongly believe that, with the data presented in this report, we have justified all our previously expressed opinions on the liquef action issue at the LACBWR site and substantiated by means of hard on-site data our post predictions of existing foundation conditions under the developed crea of the plant site.

I I

I onmesa moonc I

Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor Page Two July 25,1980 The scope of services for this report was developed through consultations with Mr. Richard E. Shimshak of Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC).

It has been a pleasure working on this project and a professionally very rewarding and satisfying experience for vs. We look forward to our continued association with DPC.

If you have any questions on the contents of this report please do not hesitate to call us.

Very truly yours, DAMES & MOORE Mysore S. Nataraja Principal-in-Charge I

g9.w Barbara Cook I

Project Engineer MSN/BC:ev Enclosures I

I I

I I

I I

1.0 BACKCROUND in 1973, Dames & Moore (D&M) performed a Geotechnical Investigation of Geology, Seismology, and Liquefact;on Potential at the Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) site (Ref.1).

This study was conducted for Gulf United Nuclear Fuels Corporation.

D&M's report was submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in i974, as part of the application for an operating I

license for the LACBWR plant (Ref. 2). In the study, D&M concluded that the LACBWR plant had adequate factors of safety against potential for liquefaction I

under the design Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) corresponding to a peak ground surface acceleration of.12 g.

NRC initiated a review of the LACBWR site and plant under its Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) in 1978. As a part of SEP, the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) was requested by NRC to review the 1973 D&M soils investigation. After reviewing the data and analyses presented by D&M, l

WES performed its own analyses based on interpretations of the same data. The WES report, submitted to NRC and made public in 1978 (Ref. 3), concluded that the factors of safety against liquefaction potential were considerably lower than those calculated by D&M for a peak ground surface acceleration of.12 g.

Upon request of the Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC), D&M reviewed the WES report and reevaluated its 1973 report in view of the WES analyses. Based on this ef fort, D&M presented to NRC a position which was essentially consistent with its 1973 study. It was decided during the meeting with NRC on February 9,1979, that a written report should be prepared summarizing the meeting, the reviews l

made, and the various analyses on liquefaction potential for the LACBWR site.

I Accordingly, a report (Ref. 4) was submitted to NRC in which D&M reiterated its earlier stand that the LACBWR site had adequate factors of safety against potential for liquefaction under the design SSE. However, certain questions raised l

by NRC regarding the lack of test data on undisturbed samples and the lack of continuous standord penetration test (SPT) results could not be satisfactorily I

answered with the existing data. Therefore, DPC agreed to perform further field and laboratory investigations and analyses.

In its March 1979 report (Ref. 4), D&M recommended a program consisting of a minimum of four test borings, undisturbed sampling, and cyclic triaxial testing lI I

I

I and analyses.

After review of the D&M report, NRC approved the proposed geotechnical program and suggested minor modifications (Ref. S).

D&M performed a fie d and laboratory testing program which included:

f Carefully controlled standard penetration tests e

" Undisturbed sampling" using state-of-the-art procedures and tech-e niques Measurements of cyclic shear strength using state-of-the-art testing e

techniques.

D&M performed an in-dep+h analysis of liquefaction potential at the LACBWR site utilizing the results of the fieid and laboratory testing program and all available procedures. These findings were documented in a report submitted to NRC on September 28,1979 (Ref. 6), which concluded that there was no threat of seissnic l

liquefaction at the LACBWR site due to an acceleration of.12 g at the ground surface.

Based on a review and interpretation of the data presented in the September 28, 1979, report, NRC and its consultant (WES) concluded that the foundation l

material below the water table down to a depth of approximately 40 feet could strain badly it an earthquake with peak acceleration of.12 g occurs. NRC also made an initial estimate, based on a review of probabilistic studies, of a return period of at least 1000 years for an earthquake producing an acceleration of.12 g at the site. This estimate led NRC to conclude that there is a low seismic hazard I

for the facility during the period required to complete evaluation of seismic design parameters of the site (Ref. 7).

A meeting was subsequently held between representatives of DPC and the?

I j

consultant D&M, and NRC and their consultant WES, on October 7,1979. The i

purpose of the meeting was to discuss n+ :entents of the September 1979 report.

NRC and WES reasserted their conclusio,..nat liquefactior. potential exists for the soils below the water table to a depth of at least 3S feet, based upon a more conservative interpretation of the dato presented by D&M. It was contended by i

NRC and WES that densification during samplin9 and testing was not adequately accounted for in the D&M analysis, and that correlations with SPT data at Niigata, Japan, show factors of safety against liquefaction of less than I.

The NRC staff agreed that the site is in a seismically stable region, and indicated that the study I

l 2

l t

I to determine on appropriate design ccceleration level should be complete by early 1980. DPC requested a written summary of NRC concerns in order to adequately respond to them, to which NRC agreed (Ref. 8).

On November 2,1979, NRC and their consultants met with DPC and their consultants to discuss the concerns raised in the meeting of October 17. NRC and WES believed that the soil samples used for Icboratory analysis could be densified 3

up to 3-4 pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft ) from the in situ condition, and contended that this densification was not adequately accounted for in the D&M analysis. On the basis of the effect of this density increase, and an independent comparison of SPT data with that of Niigata, Japan, NRC and WES concluded that liquefaction potential exists at the site for peak accelerations of.08 g or higher. DPC was requested to submit a plan to NRC by November 30, 1979, for mitigating liquefaction at the site (Ref. 9).

In accordance with NRC's request, an assessment of various methods to mitigate liquefaction potential at the LACBWR site was prepared and a report dated November 29,1979 (Ref.10), was submitted to NRC. This report tentatively concluded that a dewatering system appeared to be the most feasible means of reducing the potential for liquefaction at the site, and presented preliminary details for such a plan.

Following submittal of the dewatering plan, an independent review of the September 28,1979, report prepared by D&M was sought and obtained by DPC. Dr.

H. Bolton Seed, professor of Civil Engineering at the University of California at I

Berkeley and an internationally recognized expert on liquefaction, and Dr.

Sukhmander Singh, an in-house D&M specialist on soil properties pertaining to liquefaction, performed the review.

Dr. Seed has developed procedures for performing liquefaction analysis, and these procedures were used by both D&M and WES. In his technical review Dr. Seed evaluated the data using both an analysis-testing approach and an empirical approach based on past performance of different sandy sites during earthquakes. His conclusion was that the site is safe against liquefaction during a local earthquake producing maximum horizontal ground surface acceleration of.12 g, with five equivalent uniform cycles of shaking (Ref. l.).

Dr. Seed's conclusions were discussed during a conference telephone call among Dr. Seed and representatives of OPC, D&M, NRC, and WES on January 18, I

I 3

I l

1980. Even on the basis of Dr. Seed's review, NRC felt that several concerns remained, and the liquefaction issue at the LACBWR site remained unresolved.

As a result of the review of the D&M report of September 29,1979, and the ensuing technical discussions, NRC issued to DPC on February 25, 1980, an " Order to Show Cause" why DPC should not plan and implement a site dewatering system to preclude liquefaction in the event of an earthquake with peak ground surface accelerations of.12 g or less (Ref.12). NRC's conclusion that liquefaction can occur down to a depth of 40 feet was based on a comparison of the LACBWR site with other sites where liquefaction has occurred and on the use of laboratory I

strength data.

In accordance with the deadline specified in the " Order to Show Cause", on March 21,1980, DPC responded with a D&M report enumerating several issues not considered in previous analyses (Ref.13), such as the effect of driven piles. A I

probabilistic analysis of seismicity at the site was also presented, indicating an anticipated return period of 10,000 years for on earthquake producing.!Ig ground surface acceleration. Based on these considerations and on previous analyses, the D&M response of March 1980 reiterated the conclusion that the site is safe against liquefaction under the designated acceleration and that mitigative measures are urnecessary.

Upon reviewing the response to the show cause order, NRC posed several review questions (Ref.14). The answers were provided to NRC in draf t form in May and June,1980, and compiled in final forrn on July 11.1980 (Ref.15). One of the review questions required site-specific data to substantiate the prediction of improved conditions ander the structures supported by driven piles. Subsequently, questions were also raised by NRC regarding the safety of the turbine building during an SSE. This report documents the testing undertaken at the LACBWR site between July 14 and 18,1980, to provide substantiation for the predictions made by D&M and also to assess the liquefaction potential under the turbine building.

I I

'I lI 4

l

I 2.0 FIELD TESTING Guestion 2-d of the NRC Review Questions required that site-specific Standard Penetration Test data be provided to verify the predicted surface conditions under the developed area of the LACBWR site. Five potential boring I

locations were identified and evaluated in Reference 15. Upon agreement with NRC, four borings were actually drilled, at the locations indicated on the Plot Plan, Plate 1.

Procedures followed in the test boring prcgram were as proposed in the I

Project Plan submitted to DPC and NRC on July 3,1980 (Ref.16). The two borings in the truck bay at the northwest corner of the turbine building (DM-12 and DM-13) were drilled through the surface concrete slab by an Acker Ace skid-mounted rig, using the rotary wash method. Both borings extended to a depth of 46 feet below grade. DM-14 and DM-15 were drilled through the 4-foot foundation slab of the chimney by a Mobile B-61 truck-mounted rig and the Acker Ace skid rig, respectively. Both of these borings were advanced to 51 feet below ground surface. (The smaller skid rig-Acker Ace had to be used for drilling DM-12,13 and 15 because the test holes were inaccessible to the truck-mounted drill rig.)

Borings DM-14 cnd DM-15 were carefully located between piles under the chimney slab in order to show the densifying effect of drivan piles. DM-15 was placed between the chimney and reactor cantainment vessel so that the blow counts would be expected to reflect the influence of the reactor piles below about I

30 feet. DM-13 was located within several feet of an isolated group of 7 piles in the turbine building truck boy, but its proximity to the group was limited by obstructions at the surface. DM-12 was located between isolated pile groups and was not expected to reflect any influence from driven piles.

Once soil was encountered below the concrete in each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at 5-foot intervals in accordance with ASTM Procedure Dl586. Care was taken to observe common procedure in the testing, using a flexible unlubricated rope wrapped twice around the cathead. The soil samples were retained for limited laboratory testing to confirm field visual classifications. Each hole was grouted to the surface with a cement /benton-ite/ water mixture upon completion of the boring.

I 5

I The blow counts obtained in the SPT's are. summarized in Plate 2 and I

presented on the boring logs in the appendix.

Gradation curves for selected samples are presented in the appendix, as are Atterberg limits for a sample of the silty soil encountered at about 20 to 25 feet in several of the borings.

Representatives of NRC were present at the site during most of the test I

boring program, and observed the performance of the Standard Penetration Tests in borings DM-12, DM-13 and DM-14.

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

'I s

- = =

E 3.0 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION As discussed in previous reports, one of the approaches to analysis of liquefaction potential is a simplified empirical one of correlating blow counts to those at sites whose past performance during earthquakes is known. Evaluating the I

blow counts from the SPT's in the 1980 borings yields factors of safety much greater than I for all depths of concern, as shown in Plates 3,4 and 5. These plots show a line representing a factor of safety of I at each depth under a ground surface acceleration of.12g from a local earthquake, according to Seed's simplified porcedure (Refs. 6,13,17).

It should be noted that the low blow counts obtained at depths of 20 to 25 feet in some of these and previous borings were in a non-liquefiable layer of sandy silt. (Percent finer than a #200 sieve is typically between 40 to 60 for these silts.

Representative particle size curves are shown in the appendix.) The above fact was presented in all our earlier reports, but was not strongly emphasized. Because of the high percentage of fines these silts are considered non-liquefiable.

In the March,1980 Response (Ref.13) on estimate of increased soil density resulting from the driving of piles under the reactor was quantified. While these estimates could not be directly verified without drilling under the reactor containment itself, the effect of the piles below the reactor can clearly be seen in the dramatic increase in blow counts beginning about 40 feet below grade in DM-15. The high N-values in DM-14 as compared to nearby free-field borings also I

indicate the densifying influence of driven piles.

Although these two borings showed the influence of the piles under the chimney rather than the reactor, it can be concluded that a similar effect and probably better conditions exist under the i

reactor and other structures supported by driven piles.

e

!I

.!I I

!lI I

7 t

I 4.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS in 1973,1979 and 1980 D&M has performed extensive studies of the geology, seismology, and liquefaction potential at the LACBWR site. Each of these studies yielded essentially consistent conclusions that the site was safe against liquefac-tion under the designated SSE. Summaries of the conclusions of each study are given below.

In 1973, as part of LACBWR application for on operating license, D&M made a study of geology and engineering seismology, investigated static and dynamic soil properties and evaluated liquefaction potential (Ref.1). The study concluded that the SSE should be a MM Intensity VI shock with its epicenter near the site and that the associated maximum horizontal ground surface acceleration would be less than I

.12g. An analysis of liquefaction potential indicated a factor of safety greater than about 1.47 for an induced ground motion of ten significant stress cyc.bs.

I in 1979 D&M undertook a review of the liquefaction potential (Ref. 4) in response to NRC's Systematic Evaluation Program. It wcs concluded that although I

the 1973 report was consistent with state-of-the-art of the time, it was approp-riote at this time to make some modifications. The reevaluation of the 1973 data resulted in a minimum factor of safety against liquefaction of 1.45, which compared closely to that calculated in 1973. It was also recommended at this time that a limited program of undisturbed sampling and cyclic triaxial testing be undertaken to substantiate earlier conclusions.

Such a sampling and testing program was implemented and was documented in the D&M report of September 28,1979 (Ref. 6). Using three approaches to liquefaction--one of sophisticated testing and analysis, one of empirical correlation to past performance at other sites, and a semi-empirical one based on Japanese case histories--all yielded factors of safety greater than 1.0 for a surface acceleration of.12g. (D&M weighted most heavily the analysis-testing approach which yielded a minimum factor of safety of 1.50.)

An independent review of the D&M analyses was performed in December, 1979, by Dr. H.B. Seed of the University of California at Berkeley (Ref. Il). His conclusion was that the site was safe against liquefnction during a local earthquake producing peak horizontal surface acceleration of.12g with five equivalent uniform I

cycles of shaking.

I I

e

I On February 25, 1980, NRC issued to DPC on " Order to Show Cause" why a dewatering system should not be implemented to preclude liquefaction at the site (Ref.10).

The D&M Response to the order, dated March 21,1980 (Ref.13)

I quantified for the first time the increase in densities due to the presence of piles under the reactor containment. The response concluded that the conditions under the containment were much better than those under the free-field conditions previously analyzed and therefore had higher margins of safety against liquefaction under the SSE.

NRC raised several review questions, to which DPC and D&M responded in a report dated July ll, 1980.

In it D&M reiterated the contention that soil conditions under the structures on piles were improved with increased densities and increased lateral earth pressure coefficients, and proposed to provide site subston-tiation of increased SPT N-values.

Four borings were subsequently drilled in and around plant structures as described in this present report. High N-values obtained from these borings and consideration of earlier data led to the following conclusions:

Soil conditions beneath the pile-supported structures are better than e

those in the free-field away from the structures.

Testing of the actual soil conditions under existing structures has e

substantiated the improvement anticipated and predicted in previous reports.

Good soil conditions exist at both ends of the chimney / reactor / turbine e

building complex and are expected to be consistent in between.

By any currently-accepted methods of analysis, the soils supporting the e

LACBWR reactor and turbine generator will not liquefy under a peak i

horizontal ground surface accelaration of.12g induced by a local earthquake.

I I

I I

lI

.-...m

..r

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

I REFERENCES 1.

I Dames & Moore, Geotechnical Investigation of Geology, Seismology, and Liquefaction Potential, Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) Near Genoa, Vernon County, Wisconsin (October 1973).

2.

Dairyland Power Cooperative, Application for Operating License for the Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor, Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cummission (1974).

3.

Marcuson, W.F., and W.A. Biegenousky, Liquefaction Analysis for Lacrosse Nuclear Power Station, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (December 1978).

4.

Dames & Moore, Review of Liquefaction Potential, Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) Near Genoa, Vernon County, Wisconsin, Report to the I

Dairyland Power Cooperative (March 1979).

5.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, letter of Aprii~ 30,1979 (Docket No. 50-409), to Dairyland Power Cooperative's General Manager.

6.

Domes & Moore, Liquefaction Potential at Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) Site Near Genoa, Vernon County, Wisconsin, Report to the I

Dairyland Power Cooperative (September 28,1979).

7.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission memorandum of October 25,1979, to D.

I Crutchfield, Chief, DOR, Systematic Evaluation Program Branch.

8.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission memorandum of October 29, 1979 (Docket No. 50-409), summarizing meeiing of October 17, 1979.

9.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission memorandum of November 26, 1979 (Docket No. 50-409), summarizing meeting of November 2,1979.

10.

Domes & Moore, Draft Preliminary Report: Proposed Measure to Mitigate the Potential for Liquefaction at LACBWR Site Near Genoa, Wisconsin, l

Report to the Dairyland Power Cooperative (November 29, 1979).

I 1.

Seed, H.B., letter of December 27,1979, to Dames & Moore.

~

l 12.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Order to Show Cause (Docket No.

50-409), February 25,1980.

13.

Dames & Moore, Response to NRC Concerns on Liquefaction Potential at Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) Site Near Genoa, Vernon County ig Wisconsin, Report to Dairyland Power Cooperative (March 21, 1980).

!5 l

14.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Letter from Ziemann to Frank Linder of Dairyland Power Cooperative (Docket No. 50-409), April 25,1980.

lI I I 10

I I

15.

Dames & Moore, Response to iPC Concerns on Liquefaction Potential at Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) Site Near Genoa, Vernon County Wisconsin, Report to Dairyland Power Cooperative (July 11, 1980).

16.

Domes & Moore, Project Plan, Test Boring Program, Dairyland Power Cooperative (July 3,1980).

17.

Seed, H.B., " Soil Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility Evaluation for Level Ground During Earthquakes," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Divi-sion, ASCE, Vol.105, No. GT2, Proceedings Paper 14380 (February 1979).

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

,lI l

I I

'I o

I

\\

I

\\

g.---

g i

.g sat ste. l IvaWLT g

I em cam.a 9

O M.14 p stacs I

D

+w 3

m.

e N

OM 15 IN h

[

I 5

80fMNG Ots-? *W ocana cu-a ecu*e cena DomiNe cas.c a.pg w

I AAb4 LSacess vC

':.O I

t l

i 6

0FFicts TWtw SLOG.

OFF m

• S.F I

h 90m44 CM-4

- 1.

,0 12 I

[

I(

7 tu

(

J

~

~ %.

2 soecuay I

y steOe0USt v.

of, eMFC DES fr J

)

80ADeat 30418sG Cu te I

AffT SL3G.

A*C QFFCE BLOG CPS arLSE 9(De I

I saanetame ee=ta oop Damets Ls.33, acT. 3. 19e4 PLOT PLAN c.....'

4 TEST BORING FOR D&M I

INVESTIG ATION IN 1973

_ _,.ss.ss.= me=

=ge_.

._=

A TEST BORING BY R AYMOND T

INT *L IN JULY 1962 Y

I 4 TEST BORING FOR D&M INVESTIGATION IN 1979 g TEST BORING FOR D&M INVESTIGATION IN 1980 I

DAmens a hoooses w

PLATE 1

I I

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BLOW COUNTS (N-values) 0 20 40 60 80 100 0

s I

O I

V *ASSUMEO WATER TABLEIN

^^

u m

10 D&M ANALYSIS (1979) h I

O x

E 5

0o 2E g

20 -O O X a

cm -

am gy SILT LAYER I'

^

5 x0 0

E ai 5 5 O

o8 30 XO O

ll-a-

2!

l O

O A

40

O O

A l

Cx 0

A I

^

50

[

I

• WA TER TABLE DEPTH VARIED BETWEEN 8 TO 12 FEETBELOWGRADE IN 1979:

~

E DURING THE RECENT TESTBORING PROGRAM THE WA TER TABLE WAS ABOUT 14 FEETBELOWGRADE.

KEY:

D412 X ow13 O D414 O I

omis a 1

VARIATION OF PENETRATION RESISTANCE WITH DEPTH, ALL 1980 BORINGS I

I l

PLATE 2

I

=

g I

e YR

~

z I

5 O

m o

G m

=

0 e

I z

2 P R i:-

5 O

o t

O O

hr O

8

=

a O

t-I 3:

w

$ 2 W

o O

o 2

E O

p.s.,

I

>9 O

[0x 8

E (14) Hid30 y

I e

&W Z

?

O I

Ow E

b I

O

-z 2

ulu n W

e O

I i

z u

a 9

O.

O 8

F a

m I

5 E

z 9

e E

>- n

. a o=

o e

l w

=

0

=

0 m

O o

o I

w 5 2 O

O OE O

f.1 = t i

l R

R

?

8 (11) H1d30 ommes a moons PLATE 3

I e

'ta tc gt I

O' O

O I

O O

-z O

W e

O M

z O

I O

s in s

5 (O

O W

E I

Lo z

O 2

p 'R O

=

C H

cll p

z A

I W

W Q

z O

W c3 A

A H

Q

~

W I

W 5

C g

8 O

Z 1

p.1 - 1 f

I

=

=W C

z S

R R

?

E O

N) Hid30 ke I

l-W Z

W

^

O v

t'e o$

i I

g e

O O

W

~

C g

O 3

5 O

O u n u.

W e

O z

O Z

l e

o

=

8 5

3 W

E T

E I

z o

3 P R O

. C o

E z

I H

W 5

2=

c3 m

WbS

~

O 3

F.S

• 1 I

g R

e 2

(21) Hid30 l g ommas a moans 3

PLATE 4

-*6.

.. ~.. -

._.,_-..-----v

==-w*-

"*-**"""'"~~#'

' " ' ' ' ~ ' ~ " ' ' '

I I

MODIFIED PENETRATION RESISTANCE, Ng o

to 20 30 40 lI yx o o o o g

a io xx x

x AA Aes n

X Xo@

A A

A/s

,e. exx e e

m g

a

[

@X O O d

O S

Q 30 xX X

A M

xemo o e

m 40 xx@ xM A

A-42 -

m ss 4_8_ 7_3 I

48

'^

^

50 ALL DM BORINGS KEY Q 1973 X 1979 s-I I

VARIATION OF MODIFIED PENETRATION RESISTANCE WITH DEPTH I

I I

PLATE 5

,-a

.a-s a

I

' I I

I I

I APPENDIX I

I iI l

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

I I

I I

I KEY TO LOG OF BORINGS I

I I

12 3 INDICATES DEPTH OF STANDARD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE I

INDICATES NUMBER OF BLOWS REQUIRED TO DRIVE STANDARD SPLIT SPOON ONE FOOT IN STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I

I I

NOTES ELEVATIONS REFER TO THE USGS MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM l

APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF 80 RINGS ARE SHOWN ON PLOT PLAN CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS REFER TO UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DISCUSSION IN THE TEXT IS NECESSARY FOR A COMPLETE UNDERSTAND 6NG OF THE SUBSURF ACE MATERIALS I

I lI

,I PLATE A 1

I l

o I

4 1

ir SOIL k-MAJOR OlVISIONS <

I GAva AND CLEA1 GAVLLLY (LaTT SCILS r

CCARSE

@ AINCD

]

SOILS Mott Taa4 50%

GRAVELS or coaest ranc.

TION # a se (APPRECO U

ON B00.

slEWC l

H SAND Ato CLEAN %

$At4Dy 08 CQ SCILS Moat TMan D Or uaf(RIAL is Q WP THAN NO.

suu selvt size esont Taan 501 SANDS WI or coansc ranc (apeeces flON Pass lts 6 Cr no. 4 satvt FINC

$1LTS

WU GRAINED AND SonLS CLAYS O

uoet Taase 50%

Sitn (IWID i or uaftstat is g

@[ STER I

gwgae Tnam eso.

ggg l

t w &ltvt size I

MICHLY C&VitC SolLS note: cuat s,..ots am GRADAfl0h

• 5 aanga e, eves,

vener....

05 to not coffte.

. 105 to 205 6

sowf..... 20% to 555

=

• • $.......,5% is ';0%

c t

4 < at te s *ar eaow ( **t **'oe, os e rt o ers' o***.

e-e=r a=*tscapte.

e.t= =o

'r s t e e6r. **) *f er o*w( 3. satogs sat i s' a wa f f D.

h t-

\\t l

=

)

KEY TO TEST DATA DIRECT SHEAR AND FRICTION TESTS v

NLN uoisrvar, no r er c>.srs ar armgr reesto arorsw LASSITICATION CHART.

,v, rswa - m n m m oa.s.r,svr,,-a nu = a.m..,.r a.,nor,

.r,.,.e, l- - <<,<<.

n r.

c

,m o.

m~a<. e n u o a-

,e,,s

a. a.a c

- we,.

n u

na as a

..sa.rm a r.a

~ ~, m

- s,.,.c.

s..

n,,

gin-rg m

,-<, = - crr. - = m

r errrnx m i GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTKMS SYMBOL SYMBOL rww

• sa ~ cs=<='t = *w.* * ~r or

'"n uu -

y.. :.

=--,

3. rg)

.t a.seso.co r..a u s. '"*

• c

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TESTS Y'qA w%

no,o.. roe cs. o r n e on Gw san A'"A incs

,A M LS e s,.,c <<., mor raarssa as. a r.cs.r r a r.e.e..r r er m I

e, as.s er r asenssia.

ee.eas are s a,c seer 3 on no l

l

$......... iiriis.;fL

=e n eos,e s.seassa senscus.seasts.

s

n. e -

s**u ".

M"~"

us ovco~ronco cow *erssive sratss ar raiwne

n::r::

GP

=o r i =cv*L s. O r 's E **

s ur rounos ago souant roar gg e.

ppn v TRIAX/AL COMPRESSION TESTS GM "L',",*,y';s'***"*****

~ crts *ns, sun se rousos era savan, c,oo,r (nMe v

ei ms in

.lo,s run to.,,.r a. y o,,,,y,,,,,

>et s a wn, ca or.s,rr rou.os na cuo.c roar w

ris' 'Os ru*E Co*riNr

• n* Cler of onr origny f

7,g4 /

GC cgasts,.seastus, saavLs sa=D.

l cu

.., acs We.h cacancz cacocco us w+ aron senss av raun no rovoos are sovaar voor

.=.,,.;,

co+soscarro soonaxo cc CU ccccocooo

. ELL-seauf D sa=Ds. saa vgtt y Coesotga'fo oAmego CO CD ;;c;gg.ceg sanas. tif fLL Ce eso rents I',^*

CCl.A!3 ZeCoc 3 t*Co*sosCarfo voo8a'*(o PG0e v.se4DLD sa=Ds. saavCkt' s

... rW o 3 rer egre SP saos. u r n t o. s.c r iau nan srw +sr=

... a rmart svnnst" Y5&$

ROCK COMPRESSION TESTS

+;' Q SM s e u.,~ s. sa=~.o i ~ n x rests

~. n.

n

- co--*ess~e s in=< r~ ~ ro es no se an

.C.

att a=ws t r

'"O M W'.

EEY TO SAMPLES 4.fg3.<y,:;

Sc cu c suos, saw-cs < ieves

,s. g ' M, e mocarts oe*rn or voo<sr noto sano e u

s 1 ll j{

j l'-.

a me. carts oerre or o<srv reo ssent o

tecesassic slo t s a=D vtef r s=L

[l pup,gargs pgare op 34eag og a r rgwar appre og agggygmy i

t saws soca rtcue, sitiv c*

yg 3.oc,rgs og,r,,

o, s,g,r.3,,,. 34.gf M!U i'

'sI,'s'.'.'sS E IrYe'ev 1 **u8 i

ora

• • • **r=**c8***

6 ygniz t;a u t:,i ao LIQUI

intf i =c,t a s T. C l i eer.anic crass.or sco p' ' '/,5

'/ - dg/be/.

' /

a Liwif saw, cu,s,su,6tv Claws,, s avt,c,a,s.,can o

e to so ao so ao yo ao po joo CL ff/

.. 50 5/.

CLavs Go

'l.

r ti.!

Ge J'

I' wa-s.Lf OL s u, icv cia,s a=o C.asamlC yb

-b;.l.;

s c, 6c etasticit, n

so 3

4 f

n.co.anic s e t t s.

.cac tous ce hl l

MH istc auves r e=c saw ce o

CH i

l l

sav, sons i

'/

g h 3 **

i f //,'

incecanic ct,a,s c,,

is.

{

g 55 %

e I

imit p' a/

CH v.a. w eussic e r.,a cua,s 1

i g g g 30 hk[ '

• ' * * ' ' C

S OH et a s t i c'i r v. c a ea si c"s u' t s"' '"

CL

.g

p.... /, _...

- t PT

• t.ar.

v-ss, sea== sons ir

.is ossa ic ccare.,s MH & OH O

go BCt..M LJ ML & OL

- usio rc iwicair saast au =s sc u c6 ass is icat io=s.

(

i Q'

l 0

1 PLASTICITY CHART awP AC fNT$$ $

CON 51$II D $

, sano a o/es sea.n c6.==o/o= se6t FOR FINE GR AINED SOILS

.~r-

,, a.. w

.m.....

. s s.....e.,4., s u L,..

o.,s...

. =. -s... s m a.r. u.

,...i m...

io

,o

.o..

m

,HHHTW' F, F F'

..s,-u

.aoa

.. e., o...

to.w e<=$e..*CS to 24 soar.

DO vo 'AC

@ fo 1000

i.s r.

.. A4 to 40s w e. w..

sear = sag = u.uimavans

'N

....'s,,,,.

.:ac,'o *W be.s e, ormst.... T t to 1004 s'ir.

a s.w..r 9'...c

.it u1 r '- -'

o. ace u

.....ia.....=.m PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR COARSE GR AIN E D SOILS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DAMES S MOOst E a**L.f D E A.f sC.f e.C f S PLATE A-2

I BORING DM-12 g

Nm 5 gQ SURFACE ELEVATION *-sas.o FEET u

${ Q $2

$g g

LOCATION' GENOA. WISCONSIN I

Q-bu i$ $

SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION

~~

~

Fj.)'q CONCRETE voIO I

OF SILT. TUCE CF FINE auvEL (IEAY 2 3 3ROWN FINE 70 "CILN SANO dim TUCE

/-

L h i)

- 3

~

SUOING dim mCE ;F COARSE I

4 3 2~

sMD 3-

.fg 33 3 -

180I'iG 70 DSE I

4-SP

-15 22 s -

su 0 na 70 = a ltM :DsE 6- -20

,2 3 -

l I

7-SUY FINE SMO AND CLAYEY SILT g{ii SMg h}ith g_

I W

dlAY FINE TO.*E0ILM SAND WITH TUCE OF

_3g,,, _

E NOM CDSE) 9 I

10 -

-35 is s -

1. 1. ~

SP

-40 20 s -.. -

330!NG WIm xCAsIONAL WIN

/2 -

SEAMS OF CLAYEY SILT 13 -

-45 34 3 -

I4 "

30 RING COMPLETED AT 46 FEET ON 7/15/80 I

I I

LOG OF BORINGS I

g PLATE A-3

I BORING DM-13 5m $

SURFACE EL EVA TIONs +sas.s FEET

$$ $g $g LOCAT/0N8 GENOA,WISCCNSIN g"i gWoh et s a srueOts oesemprios 2

l O~~

O

~

j CCNCREii tCIO I

BROWN FIhE TO ME0!UM SAND WITH TRACE OF

/-

2 3-SILT. TRACE OF COARSE SAND (VERY

- 5 4 s -

LOCSE) g-3RADING WITH TRACE OF FINE I

TO COARSE 3 RAVEL 3 RACING *O MEDIUM OENSE y,

I 4-

- 15 14 3 -

I 5-

' ARK GRAY FINE SAho AND CLAYEY SILT WITH jp!nfM'I TRACE OF CRGANICS I

6-

.go 3 3 -

((' ]

i?

SMgML 7-t

-25 is s -

f 3RA0!NG WITH MORE SAND 8-

-30 20 3 -

GRAY FINE TO ME010M SAND WITH TRACE CF SILT (MEDIUM SENSE)

I 10 -

-35 is s -

II -

SP

-40 21 s --

GRADING WITH TRACE OF FINE TC COARSE GRAVEL I

13 -

-45 a3 3 -

3RA0!NG TO OENSE I

14 -

BORING C::MPLETED AT 16 FEET ON 7/15/80 I

I I

toe or eonises I

I PLATE A-4

e BORING DM-14 m5 C

SURFACE ELEVATIONu +sse.0 vEsr

$[$ $[g g

LOCATION cENOA. WISCONSIN

,O 2 E

o$ oN B$ $

SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION o.

o

[?[;

CONCRETE E

fk

/-

SR0hN FINE TO MEDILN SAND WITH TRACE OF

-5 23 3 -

SIL, TRACE OF COARSE SAND (ME0IUM OENSE) g_

3-

-fg 39 3 -

W O N 70 CENSE SP 4

-/5 as s -

I 5-O~ ~20 8 s y,;

Agg agAy.;ggg3 ;INE SAND AND CLAYEY SIL' h -

ML 7-I Q

-25 22 s -

3RCWN FINE TO *E01UM SAND WITH TRACE CF SILT, TRACE OF COARSE SANO. TRACE 8~

0F FINE GRAVEL (ME0IUM OENSE)

~

~30 34 3 -

GRADING TO GRAY GREEN, CENSE WITH OCCASIONAL SEAMS CF FINE GRAVEL

/0 -

-35 33 s -

// -

I SP gg.

-40 34 s -

I

/3 -

t l

-45 sa 3 -

SRADING 70 WERY DENSE GRAVEL SEAMS 3RADING TO TRACE I4 ~

CF FINE TO C0 ARSE GRAVEL l

l I

15 - -50 4s s -

50 RING CCNPLETED At 51 FEET ON 7/17/80 1

LOG OF BORINGS I

I PLATE A-5

i BORING DM-15

~

5s 5 0

SURFACE ELEVATION * -ess.o FEET

$[$ $g $g LOCATION = annoA.ntsccustu oh gWoW $ ?>

SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION 2

0--

O.

- ap.;

0 CONCRETE l-E.D I

- 5 5 3 -

SRC'.N FINE *0 *E3ILM SAND WI~H TUCE OF 1

C0 ARSE sANo (L csE) 2-

.i I

]

3- ~10 23 3 -

IRADING 73."EDILM OENSE 4-

- 15 33 3 -

2agaING T3 OENSE. WITH TUCE I

5-CF FINE GUVEL I

~

3l 3 '

GUDING T3 $UY-3REEN 7-I

- 25 :s s -

8-SP 8- -30 34 s -

i 10

-35 e 3 -

GRADING WITH TUCE OF C0AASE

// _

GOVEL I

" 3 ~

3RADING *O VERY :ENSE 13 -

- 451o0/11 3 -

I 14 -

15 -

I

- 50 ro 3 -

3CRING COMPLETE] T.T $1 FEET CN 7/18/80 l

I LOG OF BORINGS lI I

PLATE A-6

-it-%m,m

+4 sqrvr.

--uw--w-ar"*gm---my-4-w-e aw--*9-e*==--e-

• • -weeev"we='"'*W

'P--

-A--

- " - - - - ^ " - - - " - - - - ~ ^ ^ ^

^ ^ ^ ^ ' * ~ ~ ^

M M

M q, M M

M M

M

,o,P W

W W

W W

BY DATE BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE PLATE OF E

Y b

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3" 2"1.5" 3/4" 3/8" 4

8 16 30 50 100 200 100 BORING DM-12

~~

~

I 90 DEPTH: 6 Feet Brown fine to medium sand h

I i

I 80

}__ j l.. _3 I

l

._a_

g I

70

_l l

l l

3 60 g

_. _ _)

. l I

I cc 50 I J__

I.

l m

_.! l l

l l

l 40 9

+1 l

-- i l 1

0 3o l

)

-l l

l l

-- l I

a 20 l

I I

1

]

I\\

l I

I I

10

- ------l 3

l l

3 I

I \\l 0

I T-i Il I

l

~

I h

i 1000 100 10 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS i

GRAVEL SAND 0

SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE l MEDIUM l

FINE I:

O o

I GRADATION CURVE

=

E 1

I

=

44

l II1 M

M 1

00 0

M YA L

M C

R O

1 T

0 IL 0

S M

E TAF DO 0

]I l.iI lh, l

l Ill l[

0 M

2 1

1

\\

0 Ll\\l i'

Ii 00

!i

\\I E

1 N

I E

F M,

k V

05 i!l l

i1 I

II l

S R

R E

Z s

I E

l U

o, S 0 T

D E

3

~

E NM C

T E

M A U A.

V Y

I S

I N

BPt E

0. L D

~

E I

6 L

M S

I,il l

,'l I

'I l

1 1

I O

D M

I RA 8

'I I'

I N

l T

E A

S D

I 9

E D

N Z

^

A I

M T 4 I'

-l lij l

I' I

S l'

A S

N R

I E

N S.

A I

G U 8 l

li l

j. i' I;

0R F

/

M 1

3 G

L "4

E

/

! l I~

l il V

EE 3

A TT R

M AA G

"5 E

DD Ii l

,i j

i' I

i S

1 R

A 2

Id

.I-i' '4 iq,i I

lI 1 O

l o

d

~

C M

n

]

-I l

l l

l

'Ii 3

a

~

0 s

0 m

1 u

t i d

2 oe 1 e

. M m

S Y

- F E

B M

o "'

L O

D5 t

O 2

E e

B K

G:

n O

NHi C

f RPy' I T L

M YH a

OE BDG" 0

BC r

~

0

~

0 1

0 9

8

'0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0

. M t

5 4

3 2

1 1

g9'"3>mcWEy0$a c

IE:.la

- M

,P y$IZe

W 1

00 0

W Y

A W

LC R

O 1

T 0

I L

W 0

S E

T i

AF DO 00 I-lil I,iI l.l l

l l

I il, W

2 1

I-

_T I

E 0

00 1

!l!I

,, ii I

l' l

E N

5 I'

l Ii

-1 l

j I

i\\l V

F 0

E

(

S R

s, Z

R l

U I

< i-E o

S 0 I

<)

N~M C

T D

E 3

T, E

T E

_ t M A U A

VL V

I S

I

0. L E

D BP I

6 N

I p'.

l.

iI l

j

i. l I;I I

1 E

L S

N I

M O

1 D

M I

R A 8

'l i'

I N

l T

E D

I S

A R

E N

A Z

O D

M A

I C

T 4 I~

l Ii

-l

!I i'

I S

A S

N R

I E

S.

A I

G N

U 8

!'l l

li l

j l.

ii l;

0R F

M

/3 1

G L

"4

/

l-l ii I-I' E

V EE 3

~

A TT R

M AA G

DD "5

l l

I.

ii j I

l I'

I i

SE f

1

~

R A

2

.I-4'I l

j- !

I i' I O

i

~

C d

M 3

na l

-l I'

l l

,I 1

l 0

s 0

m 1

t u ei 3edt M

- Fet Y

1 i

M 0. m s B

f D

D 0o o t

0 E

4 e

e c K

G:

n a C

NHir f

M BC I T t

E YH R P yh at OE 0

ri BDGw 00 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 o

0 m

0 9

8 7

6 5

4 3

2 i

1 rI9m3 g mw! $ g $a II:. l: =

E9b

,EM P*

m 1

00 0

YA e

L C

R O

1 T

0 I

~

L e

0 S

E TAF DO 0

e 0

I'!il ll l.q l

gi I

I Ill

~

2 1

0 i

00 I'!I!I l.\\I I

I' i

E 1

N

\\

I E

e F

5 I'

'I li

-l gi i\\l II I

V 0

E S

j R

R s

Lg Z

EA I

L 3,

E

]

U S 0 I

.j T

D E

E NM C

3

A_

T E

~

MI S I

~

A U V

YL BP E

0. L D

N E

I 6

I-

'l j

j i'

I

'I I

1 N

L S

I M

O 1

m D

M I

R A 8 Fi IlI I'

I N

l T

E A

D I

SR E

A N

Z O

D e

A I

C S

A T 4 I'

l l'

-1 i.l I'

I' I.

S

~

N R

~

I E

~

S.

~

N A

I G

e U 8 I'I!l li li li I

i' l;

0R F

/

1 3

G L

"4

/

l' l

ii l~

l,

E V

EE 3

A e

TT R

AA "5

G E DD

'!l Ii li li

,I Ii' l

i S

1 H

"2

.l-p'I gi.li' I

I!I OA d

0 3

s l

-L_

l l

l l

'I i

e n

C a

l.

~

0 m

0 u

i 1

t d e e e

m 4 Fmitt 1

S Y

s o

E B

M 0. t f L

o D

D5 e B

E 1 ne K

G: ic f a C

NH g

BC IRP wh r

nt E

T YH OEot 0

ri BDBw 00 1

m 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 O

0 9

7 6

5 4

3 2

1 1

sIem3 g cwzi rZU$

c z

m lI:.l!

g: >b e$e I

).

l

m 1

00 0

e Y

e A

L C

R O

1 T

0 IL e

0 S

E TAF DO 0

e 0

Ij,;l I,'I l.l I

l l

l IlJ 2

1

_.N0 00 Ij,iI i

.il l

IlI Mi E

1 N

e

\\

I E

F 5

l;g l

I1

-l

'\\

l' I

V 0

E l{)

S R

su Z

R l

U E

MT I

g S 0 g

T D

E E

NM C

3

_\\

E A

V M AU BP E

,h YL I

S I

0. L D

N E

I 6

l I.

l l

,. j I

'I I

1 L

S 1

I M

W O

D M

I R

l T

r N

E A 8 J

'I I'

I I

S A

D R

E N

~

I C

A Z

O D

W A

P l

Ii

-I

!I l

l' I

S l[

A T 4 S

N R

I E

S.

A i

G N

W U 8/

Ig; l

i'

,0R F

3 1G

/

I-l i

i I-Il V

L E

4 A

EE 3

W TT R

AA "5

ii l,

l

,l i'

I i

S G E DD d

1 n

R a

A 2

s 3

.l-i

'I l

- q I

I!I O

i W

m C

u 3

i l

-I I'

l l

I

$1 0

d e

0 m

1 t o et W

4 e t

Fel S

Y 1

i B

ins E

M 0. f f

L D

D 5 o

B n

E 4

e B

e K

G: e c

O W

BC I T - t a

C NHrgr C

E YH RP yh 0

at OEri 0

BDGw 0

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

9 7

6 5

4 3

2 1

1 rI9w3 g cyc gggo.

r

. m II!.I5I

'E

>b

f 1

Laboratory Test Results Atterberg Limits (ASTM D423, D424)

Boring DM-13 Depth 20 ft Liquid Limit 39 Plastic Limit 31 l

Classification ML (performed on fines portion of sample)

Percent Possing No. 200 Boring DM-13 Depth 20 f t.

67% passing no. 200 sieve I

I I

-