ML20049A165

Rept of Investigation of Ks Gas & Electric Study of Low Concrete Cylinder Strengths of Reactor Containment Bldg Base Mat

ML20049A165
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	02/02/1979
From:	Hamm R HAMM ENGINEERS, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20049A161	List: ML20049A160 ML20049A162 ML20049A164 ML20049A165
References
CON-NRC-05-77-186, CON-NRC-5-77-186 NUDOCS 7903210578
Download: ML20049A165 (50)

Text

-_

• * * " ***" "'^

HAMM ENGINEERS. INC.

CONSULTING ENGIN~ERS RANCHO L/. COSTA. CALIFORNIA 92003 CIVIL. STRUCTURAL (714) 436087I REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION OF KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY STUDY OF THE LOW CONCRETE CYLINDER STRENGTHS OF THE REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING BASE MAT OF WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 LOCATED NEAR BURLINGTON, KANSAS FEBRUARY 2, 1979 Prepared for:

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV NRC Contract 05-77-186 Task Order h Thru:

Parameter, Inc.

Consulting Engineers Eln Grove, Visconsin By:

Rolland C.

Hamm, P.E.

Hamm Engineers San Diego, California

eusa G. Lr.0E,

)

790321oC3

SUMMARY

The investigation of the KG&E Study could not verify the KG&E conclusion that "the in-situ strength of the reactor building base mat is considerably above the 5000 psi design stren6th and that the apparent low strength of a portion of the 90-day cylinders was due to testing conditions in measuring their actual strength."

While the KG&E Study is extensive in scope and depth, it is incomplete and inadequate in that it did not significantly involve strength testing of concrete which did not meet the strength level requirements of the specification as well as the aspects of adverse chemical reaction in concrete and inadequate hydration of cement.

The Study conducted by KG&E does not provide assurance of the structural adequacy of the in-situ base mat concrete.

INDEX PAGE Summary Scope of Investigation

'l

Background

1-3 KG&E Study of NCR#1-0229-C 3-8 Significant Specification Requirements 9-3h"

-and Information from.the KG&E-Study Conclusions and Pertinent Comments 3h APPENDIX Plans and Sections of Base Mat A-1 Index of KG&E Study of NCR#1-0229-C B-1 thru 4 Cylinders Which Did Not Meet Strength C-1, 2, 3 i

Acceptance Criteria Cylinders Which Had 90-Day Test Strengths D-1,2 Less Than 26-Day Strengths Cylinders Not Included in NCR Which Did E-1 i

Not Meet Accentance Criteria f

Cylinders Included in NCR Which Met F-1 Acceptance Criteria Graph of Cement Strength Tests G-1

Scope of the Investigation The purpose of the investigation was to verify the conclusion by Kansas Gas & Electric Company (KG&E) that the Reactor Containment Building base mat concrete of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.

1, located near Burlington, Kansas is above specifications (5000 psi) and that the cause of the apparent lov strength of a portion of the 90 day cylinders was testing machine conditions.

The investigation was conducted by a task force composed of the following:

C.R.

Oberg, Wolf Creek Project Inspector, NRC, Region IV A.B.

Rosenberg, Reactor. Inspector, NRC,. Region IV E.J.

Gallagher, Reactor Inspector, NRC, Region III R.C.

Hamm, Consulting Engineer The task force made announced inspection visits to the site on the following dates:

Nov. 13-17, 1978 Oberg, Rosenberg, Gallagher, and Hamm Dec.

5-8, 1978 Oberg, Rosenberg and Hamm

Background

The Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1 is a nuclear power plant authorized by Construction Permit No. CPPR-lhT issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The power plant-is presently under construction and is jointly owned by Kansas Gas and Electric Company and Kansas City Power and Light Company.

The Architect /

Eagineer for the project is Bechtel Power Corporation, Gaithersburg, Maryland. (Bechtel)

The general contractor is Daniel International Corporation (DIC) who also operate the on-site concrete batch plant and concrete testing laboratory.

2 4

-s The Neactor Containment Building base mit is a concrete foundation measuring 150' in diameter and'1(I feet in thickness.

,i Plans and sections showing the base ma,t can be found in Appendix A.

7 s

4

~

The base mat concrete, involvin6.appro'ximataly 6600 cubic yards of concrete was placed in a continuous placeme <2t from about 9:30:a.m.

on December 12, 1977 to 11:30 p.m.

on Decen ber 13, 1977 The specified design str'ength of the b_ese mat concrete was 5000 psi at 90 days.

The specifications identify cause for rejection

\\l A

of base mat concrete as outlincd in Paragra.ph h.3 3 of ACI 318-71.V' -

y i'

ACI 318 required that the 90 day cylinders tests (average of 2 companion specimens) to meet the following strength levels:

w N'

1.

The averages of all sets of three consecutive 90 day strengt1[ tests results must be equal to or greater than the 5000 psi specified design

\\

strength.

2.

No individual-90 day strength test result could fall than 500 par below the specified 5000 psi design more s

strength or 4500 psi.~

(The strength level values are based on statistical procedures to determine potential i

,v quality and 1 s'tlrength test value in a 100 falling below the 5000 ps( and 4500 psi. values is permitted M

'~

by ACI 318f A set of six test specimens consisting of 6 x 12-inch cylinders required to be taken from every 100 cubic yards of base mat were concrete which was pla:id-Tvc cylinders from each set vere

.g V

A T

s*

3 3

required to be tested at 7, 28, and 90 days.

The concrete cylinders were required to be made and cured in accordance with ASTM C31 and tested in accordance with ASTM C39 The cylinders also vere required to be maintained at a temperature of 60 F to 80 F prior to stripping, stripped within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after casting, marked and stored in the curing room until the designated date for testing.

Cylinders not made or cured in accordance with the required standards were to be discarded.

There were 66 cylinder sets taken from the base mat placement.

The sets represent approximately 1900 cubic yards of concrete placement on December 12, 1977 and approximately 4700 cubic yards of concrete placement on December 13, 1977 The 90-day concrete cylinders were capped on March 10, 1978 and then stored in the curing room.

On S ving 91 and 90-day results for i

March 13, 1978 they were all tested, the December 12 and 13 cylinders respectively.

The 91/90 test re'sults were lover than anticipated and KG&E conducted a study to investigate the 90-day cylinder breaks related to the base nat concrete.

The elements of the study are identified in the index of Hon Conformance Report (NCR) No. I-0229-C which is shown in Appendix B.

Kansas Gas & E]ectric Company (KG&E) Study of NCR #1-0229C The KG&E study indicates an investigation was begun immediately after the March 13, 1978 test results were known and completed en October 26, 1978.

l Analysis of 90-Day Concrete Strength Data.

This analysis, dated March 20, 1978 determined that the average strength of the base mat represented by th; 30 day cylinder strength test results concrete as was 5067 psi vith a standard deviation of 487 psi.

In determining

h the average strength and standard deviation values the analysis references ACI 21h as justification for omitting two lov strength cylinder specimen values of 3270 psi and 2870 psi along with their companion cylinder specimen values of 4830 psi and 5230 pai.

The 3270 psi and 2870 poi values are more than 3 standard deviations from the 5067 psi average strength of all the cylinder test results.

ACI 214 permits discarding a specimen value greater than 3 standard deviations if there are three or more specimens in a test (average of all specimens of a sample).

There are only two cylinder specimens for each 90-day cylinder of the base mat.

ACI 21h states that the practice of arbitrary rejection of test cylinders which appear "too far out of line" is not recommended since the normal pattern of probability establishes the possibility of such results.

The analysis compares the cylinder strength data of the base mat concrete to the specification requirements (Section 4.3 3 of ACI 318-71) and identifies 33 failures.

The comparison used only the higher companion cylinder specimen values of 4830 psi and 5230 psi to identify 33 failures and did not include the lover 3270 psi and 2870 psi specimen valuen as required by ACI 214.

The analysis also states that if the values were only 350 psi greater there would be no failures.

There is no discussion in the analysis of 90-day test strength' results which vere lover than the 28-day test strength results.

Finding:

Discarding of the 3270/h830 psi and 2870/5230 psi specimen values is not a recommended practice and does not conform to the referenced ACI 21h Standard.

The method used in the analysis distorts the conclusions, and did not result in identification A

5 of all of the 36 failures.

Following is a comparison of values:

KG&E Item

_ Analysis Revised Values Values Average Stren6th 5067 psi 5035 psi Standard Deviation 487 psi 435 psi Number of Failures 33 36 Strength of Increase Req'd for No Failures 350 psi 580 psi The 36 failures (i.e. cylinder tests which did not meet strength acceptance criteria) noted above are showninAppendixC)

Of the 66 cylinder tests there were thirty 90-day compression test results which were lover than 28-day results.

The identification of the 30 cylinder tests and the strength values is shown in Appendix D.

Non Conformance Report (NCR) No. I-0229-C.

This report, dated April 4, 1978, of the KG&E Study describes a total of thirty-two (32) cylinder test sets which had 90-day compression test results with strength values less than 5000 psi.

The compression test report I

sheets which vere attached to the NCR identifies 3h cylinder test sets which had 90-day test results that were less than_5000 psi.

(Test sets 532 and 537 vere included in the test report sheets but not described in the NCR).

The NCR listing was compared to the list of cylinders identifying failures (i.e. those which did not meet strength acceptance criteria) found in Appendix C.

Finding:

l Non Conformance Report (NCR) No. I-0229-C does not identify i

8 tests of 90-day cylinders which failed to meet strength acceptance criteria.

(See Appendix E.)

i The NCR identifies 11 tests of 90-day cylinders which met strencth acceptance criteria.

(See Appendix F.)

i

6 KG&E Investigation.

Discussions and meetin6s which involved KG&E, Bechtel Power Corporation, Daniel International Corporation and Portland Cement Association representatives resulted in the followins areas of investigations bein6 identified.

1.

Review of the required testing and investigations by the specifications as follows:

a.

Cement strength tests by Ash Grove Cement Company and Daniel International Corporation b.

Source qualification test for coarse aggregate by Soil Testin6 Services including chemical analysis and petrographic analysis by Erlin Hime Association c.

Source qualification tests for fine ag6regate by Law En6 neerin6 Testing Company includin6 petro 6raphic and 1

chemical analysis d.

Source qualification tests for water by Law Engineering Testin6 Company 2.

Inspection of the testing machine and review of testing practices and procedures 3

Calibration check of machine accuracy h.

Investigation of the effect of testing machine factors on measured concrete cylinder strength by Construction Technology Laboratory (a Division of the Portland Cement Association) l' 5

Investigation and examination by Construction Technology l

Laboratory of 22 selected 90-day cylinder specimen fragment campics as follows:

t

7 a.

Petrographic analysis and air content determination and chemical analysis including cement content, approximate water-cement ratio and $SO determination (4 samples) b.

Chemical analysis for presence of admixtures (4 semples) c.

Compression strenSth testing (1h samples)

(19 of the 22 selected samplea m.L the strenEth level acceptance criteria 3 did not) 6.-

Compression strength testing on the PCA machine of 20 untested companion cylinders (from the same concrete mix from other than the base mat concrete) for comparison with 20 mating cylinders tested on the on-site testing machine 7

Analysis and examination by Construction Technology Laboratory as follows:

a.

Analysis of chemical admixture materials b.

Chemical a'nd physical analysis of two cement samples representative of cement used in base mat concrete Analysis of capping compound and the planeness c.

of cylinder ends d.

Evaluation of the fracture surfaces on broken cylinder specimens 8.

Obtaining measurements of Windsor Probe values of the-vertical peripheral surface of'the in-situ base mat concrete.and developin6 a correlation between Windsor Probe Concrete cylinders and concrete core values

8 9

Analysis of water samples of curing room and batch plant waters 10.

Investigation by Daniel International Corporation of the following:

Review of Central mix plant' batch tickets to verify a.

mix proportion requirements b.

Review of placement of concrete to determine if there was a trend linking low strength cylinders to location or method of placement or to a particular lab technician making cylinders c.

Review of time cast / break data to determine a particular time during placement low strength values were obtained d.

Review of curing room temperature records and the curing room itself e.

Review of compression test reports of cylinders related to the base mat for mathematical errors f.

Review of user tests on cement, admixtures, aggregates, etc. for compliance with specification requirements Testing of rapping compound and checking of g.

capping :ompound temperatures h.

Witnessing of numerous compression strength tests of cylinders for operator technique, including rate of loading, specimen centering, casting techniques and proper recording of dial values 11.

Review of the KG&E Study by Bechtel Power Corporation

9 Significant Specification Reouirements and Infornation from the KG&E Study Significant specification requirements and information obtained during review of the KG&E Study data are the following:

1.

Cement.

The specification required the cement to be Type II Portland Cement conforming to ASTM C150-Th with a maximum percent of the sum of tricalcium silicate and tricalcium aluminate to be 58% and the maximum percent of alkalies 0.658K 0) to be 0.605 Minimum 7-day and 28-day (Na20+

2 cement strengths were required to be 1700 psi and 2800 psi respectively.

The cement supplier was required to furnish mill test reports shoving the chemical composition and physical properties and certifying the cement complies with the above requirements.

To confirm the mill tests and i

compliance certifications the testing laboratory (on site) was required to make the necessary tests for every shipment.

The minimum 3-day strength requirement of ASTM C150 was 1500 psi.

The strength at any age was required to be higher than the preceding age.

No cement was to be used until notice was given by the owner that the mill tests are satisfactory.

(KG&E delegated responsibility for determining that mill test results are satisfactory to DIC on March 1, 1976.)

~

The certified mill test reports from Ash Grove Cement Company and the user test reports vere reviewed by the task force.

The user test reports did not shov 3-day compressive strength values, and identified the specification requirements for 3, 7 and 28 days as 1500 psi, 2500 psi and 3500 or h000 psi respectively.

The user 7-day strength test values decreased k

10 from 3950 psi to 2550 psi between 10/19/77 and 12/19/77 and the 28 day strength test values decreased from 5790 psi to 3680 psi between 10/19/77 and 12/12/77 The 7 and 28-day strength values of Ash Grove Cement Company tests did not show a similar decrease in strength.

The cement samples which remained after the user tests vere completed on 11/19/77(CU-T-16) and 12/12/77 (CU-T-17) were sent to the Construction Technology Laboratory in late March and tested (using cubes) at 7, 28 and h5' days.

The resulting test strength values of the PCA cubes and the 7 and 28-day Ash Grove and user values are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

- Comparison of Ash Grove, PCA and User Tests User 7 Day 28 Day 45 Day Sample Cement Strength Strength Strength Date Sample

, psi psi psi Ash Ash Grove PCA User Grove PCA User PCA 11/21/77 C-UT-16 3531 3625 3260 5317 5525 5180 5900

'I C-UT-17 3531 3720 3570 5317 5600 3370 6020 l12/12/77 I

2860 3680 (retest)

(retest)

PCA test strength values were higher than the user test strength values particularly in C-UT-17 which had a 28 day user test strength of 3680 psi compared to the 5600 psi value from the PCA test.

A graph showing cement strength test values is shown in Appendix G.

i 11 Finding:

The cement mill test reports showed the cement furnished'to the project met the specification requirements.

The user test' reports did not' properly or accurately identify what.the required specification strength values were.

The 3-day values were not identified and the 7 and 28-day values were not identified with the proper specification values.

The user test reports did not include any 3-day strength test values.

The user test reports did shov 7 and 28-day strength values.

These met the specification strength requirements.

The user test results of 12/12/77 are considerably lover than and inconsistent with the Ash Grove and PCA test results.

2.

Aggregates.

The specifications required the aggregate to conform to ASTM C33-71a.

No aggregate was to be used until tested by the o'vner approved testing laboratory and vritten approval was received from the owner.

The a56regate source selected was not permitted to be changed unless approved by the owner.

(KG&E dele 6ated owner responsibility to the general contractor in its letter to DIC, dated March 1, 1976).

Aggregates were to be stored on concrete slabs (unless vaived by owner) in such a manner as to avoid the inclusion of any foreign materials in the concrete.

Muddy or oil leaking equipment was not permitted to operate on the storage pile.

t Suitable drainage was required to maintain the uniformity of

\\

moisture content.

i 4

- w i. - _--,

~___,.~,__,_y

,~._,-,w-r w rn-wn--

--+v

--,---wwwvr.

r-rv-

- - - - + -,

12 Acceptability of aggregates'and source vcs required'to be based on the following tests:

ASTM Test Designation Organic Impurit'ies in Sand C40 Effect of Organic Impurities on Strength of-Mortar C87

' Soundness of Aggregates CBS-Material Finer than No. 200 Sieve C117 Lightweight Pieces in Ag6regate C123 Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate C127 Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate C128 L. A.

Abrasion (Coarse Aggregate)

-C131 Sieve Analysis' C136 Priable Particles C142 Scratch Hardness of Coarse Aggregates C235 Potential Reactivity of Aggregates C289 Petrographic Examination of Aggregates C295 Corps. of Engr. Designation' Flat and Elongated Particles CRD C-119 o

13 Aggregate tests required to be performed during the course of production and the required frequency of testing are as follows:

ASTM Frequency Test Designation Required Sieve or Screen Analysis C136-At beginning and midpoint of placement Organic Impurities in Sand C40 At beginning and midpoint of placement Material Finer Than No. 200 C117-Daily Friable Particles C142 Monthly Lightweight Pieces C123 Monthly Scratch Hardness of Coarse Aggregate C235 Monthly L.

A.

Abrasion (Coarse Aggregate)

C131 Every 6 months Potential Reactivity of Aggregates C289 Every 6 months Soundness of Aggregates C88 Every 6 months Corps of Engrs.

Designation Flat and Elongated Particles CRD C-119 at beginning and midpoint of placement o

14 When aggregates contained montmorillonite clays, top soil and claystone, fine aggregate vas required to have a minimum sand equivalent of 75 when tested in accordance with Test Method No. Calif. 217 and coarse aggregate was required to have a minimum cleanness value of 75 when tested,

s in accordance vith Test Method No. Calif. 227, as specified in the California Division of Highways Test Methods.

a.

Coarse aggregate.

Coarse aggregate was required to be vashed gravel or vashed crushed rock having ha'd, strong durable pieces and rejected if the loss when subjected to the Los Angeles Abrasion Test, ASTM C131-69 using g'rading A, exceeds 40 percent by weight at 500 revolutions.

The particle shape was required to generally be rounded or 4

cubical and not contain, thin, flat and elongated particles.

Soft particles, when tested in accordance with ASTM C235, were not to exceed 5 percent by weight of the total sample.

The source selected for the coarse aggregate used in the base mat concrete was Christie Quarry in Lamont, Kansas, located 30 miles southeast of the site.

b.

Fine Aggregate.

Fine aggregate was required to consist of clean, sharp, Washed natural or vached crushed sand of uniform gradation when delivered to batch plant storage.

The required range of fineness nodulus was 2.5 to 3 1.

The fine aggregate source selected for the concrete used in the base mat concrete was a natural sand from the KAW River located 80 miles northeast _ of the site.

15 Review of information on the aggregate testing for the acceptability of aggregates and source and the required testing of aggregates during production was not completed because all requested information was not received at the time of the preparation of this report.

Complete information was received on the ASTM C289 and C295' tests.

These tests sre performed to indicate the possibil'ity of adverse chemical reactivity in concrete using the aggregates tested.

Finding:

The required ASTM C289 and ASTM.029.5 source qualification tests and the required ASTM C289 tests performed during production indicate that use of the aggregates vould not result in adverse chemical reactivity in the concrete.

The requested additional information is needed to make additional findings.

3 Admixtures.

The specifications required an air entraining admixture capabic of entraining 3 to 6 percent air and conforming to ASTM C260-69 and a water reducing admixture conforming to ASTM C494-71, Types A and D.

Type A was to be used vhem ambient temperatures were belov 70F and Type D when ambient temperatures were above 70F.

Admixtures were required to be stored in their original containers in such.a manner to prevent damage.

Liquid admixtures delivered in tank trailers were to be stored in tanks approved for storage.

The manufacturer of the admixture was required to furnish certification, based on chemical analysis test results obtained from testing a composite sample by,the infared spectrophoto-metry method, for every delivery stating the materials originally approved have not changed.

16 The certification was required to state that the WRA contains no added chlorides.

The contractor was to review the manufacturer's certification and verify compliance with specification requirements.

The manufacturer's certifications were reviewed by the task force for MBVR air entraining admixture and MB-300N vater reducing admixture manufactured by Master Builders.

Finding:

Manufacturers certificates show conformance to specifications for both the air entraining and water reducing admixtures.

h.

Water.

The specifications required the water used in the mixing of concrete to be free of injurious amounts of oil, acid, alkalai, organic matter or other deleterious substances and conform to AASHTO T26.

The 7 and 28 ASTM C109_ day cubes required to be tested by AASHTO T26 could not have a reduction in strength greater than 10% when compared to cubes made with distilled water.

The water was required to be tested and contain not more than 250 ppm of chlorides as c1, nor more than 1000 ppm of sulfates as SO The pH range was to be 4.5 to 8.5 unless g.

otherwise approved.

The physical and themical vater test results were reviewed by the task force.

The 7 and 28 day cube strength values were as follows:

ASTM C109 Cube Strengths Date 7-Day 28-Day of Sample Site Distilled Site Distilled Water Water Water Water 10/h/77 3346 3133 5224 5196 12/29/77 3173 2973 3973 4307

17 Finding:

Based on the information reviewed the water used in the base mat-

-concrete met specification requirements.

5 Concrete Mix.

The base mat concrete was required to bc a i

5000 psi mix at 90 days.

The specification' required the Owner to furnish the contractor with mix designs prior to the manufacture of concrete.

Furnishing'of the mix designs L 7 the owner was not to relieve the. contractor-of his responsibility for compliance with-the specification.

(KG&E delegated owner re sponsibility to DIC in its letter-dated March 1, 1976).

The concrete mix proportions were required to be established according to Paragraph 3.8 of ACI, 301, Method 1.

-The use of Method 1 requires making trial mix batches using at least three different water-cement rat'ios which produce a range of 90-day strengths.

At least three compression test cylinders for each water-cement ratio is required to be made, cured and tested at 90 days.

Also a curve is required to be plotted showing the relationship between water-cement ratio and compressive strength.

From this curve the water cement ratio was to be selected to produce the average strength. required.

The average strength required is determined from a control-record of at least 30 consecutive strength tests of a similar mix or mixes obtained within the past year representing i

I similar materials and conditions to those expected.

The average' strength is required to exceed the 5000 psi design strength from 400 psi to 1200 psi depending on the standard

--- ~ -

18 deviation value established from the record of strength test performance.

If there is less than 30 consecutive strength tests available the average strength must be exceeded by 1200 psi.

While not part of the project specification, and specifically eliminated from it, the referenced ACI 301 also identifies Methods 2 and 3 Method 2 requires use of appropriate field test data with mixture proportions subject to approval by the architect / engineer based on the demonstrated ability to produce concrete meeting all requirements of the specification.

A strength test record of 30 or more tests made during the past year is required to determine the - ability of the mix proportions to produce the required strength.

Method 3 of ACI 301 establishes a maximum vater-cement ratio and is not permitted to be used for concrete with specified design strengths in excess of 4000 psi or concrete containing admixtures other than those used exclusively for the purpose of entraining air.

Finding:

as required by The provision of Paragraph 3.8 of ACI 301, Method 1, the specification, was not followed for the 5000 psi 90-day concrete mix placed in the base mat.

n

19.

Information for the following specification requirements was requested but was not able to be furnished:

The 90 day compression strength tests of three cylinder specimens for each of the three water-cement ratio used in trial mix batches.

The data shoving that the water-cement ratio was selected from the curve showing the relationship between water-cement ratio and compressive strength and could produce the required average 90-day strength.

Control record of at least 30 consecutive 90-day strength tests.

Information for the following requirements for Method 2 of ACI 301 was also requested but was not able to_be furnished.

Approval of mixture proportions by the architect / engineer.

A strength test record of 30 or more 90-day tests to determi,ne the ability of the mix proportions to produce the required average strength.

6.

Compressive Strength Cylinders.

Compressive strength test cylinders were required to be cast from representative concrete samples taken from either the discharge of the j

batch plant stationary mixer or the discharge of the transport system in accordance with Paragraph 3, ASTM C172.

i l

{

1

20 If water was added after mixing cycle in accordance with the provisions of ASTM C9h, compressive strength cylinders vere to be taken at the discharge of the transport system.

Slump, air content, unit weight and temperature of the concrete were to be recorded when cylinders are_being cast.

Sets of six 6 x 12 cylinder specimens were taken at the discharge of truck chutes or the last pump line during base-mat concrete placement.

The cylinders were made by the on-site laboratory quality control technicians.

The cylinders were stored and covered with a plastic sheet in a nearby heated shed which was required to be kept at a temperature 0

of 600F to 80 F, According to lab personnel no temperature records were kept, and the cylinders were moved to the laboratory using a styrofoam padded box in a truck between 16 and 2h hours after casting.

The cylinders were stripped immediately after arrival at the laboratory and placed in the curing room according to lab personnel.

Except for the following instances the curing room records showed the room was kept at the required temperature of 73.h +30F and at a relative humidity of not less than 95%

Length Lovest of Temperature Curing Time Level Period 2 5 days 69.8 F 12/7 to 12/1h/TT 3.0 days 68.0 F 1/5 to 1/12/T8 0

4.0 days 62.0 F 1/12 to 2/2/78 i

L

21 Finding:

The cylinders appeared to be made according to specification requirements.

There is no temperature record of the heated shed used for the temporary storage.

Personnel involved indicated temperatures appeared above 600F and at or near 80 F.

The curing room temperature was below the specification requirement 0

62.0 F.

The for a maximum of 8.0' days and to as lov a temperature as slightly lover curing temperatures for eight days vould not significantly affect the cylinder strength values.

7 Measuring, Batching, Mixing and Delivery.

Measuring materials, batching, mixing and delivery of all concrete was required in accordance with ASTM C94, Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10; to be ACI 30, Chapters 2, 3, 7 and 1h; and ACI 304, Chapters 1, 2, 3, h and 6, unless otherwise noted.

The concrete, batch plant, including the truck fleet, was required to be certified in accordance with standards established by the National Ready Mix Concrete Association, (HRMCA), with the scales tested and scaled by the Bureau qualified independent testing I

of Weights and Measures or a j

agency or laboratory, Tests of scales and metering devices were required to i

be performed at least once every 6 months.

Renewal of the f

batch plant certification was to be in accordance with the requirements of NRMCA.

Test certificates and the test found were required to be submitted reports shoving errors as to the ovner at the completion of each test.

Such tests, equipment, and operations at all times vere subject to owner's approval.

Plant and equipment was required to be I

22 l

capable of a continuous production of 150 cubic yards por hour and at a rated production of 200 cubic yards per hour delivered at point of placement.

Mixer uniformity tests were required to be performed on the stationary mixer at the batch plant initially.and every 6 months thereaf ter, in.

accordance with ASTM C94, Appendix XI.

The batch plant, including the delivery truck fleet, scales and metering devices, received the required NRMCA certification on June 3, 1977 Mixer uniformity tests for the batch plant were made on June 21, 1977, December 19, 197T and June 6, 1978.

The mix time in the mixer uniformity tests was 45 seconds.

The mixer uniformity test on December 19, 1977 shode^d a 6.2%

difference in the 7 day compressive strength comparison of front to back batches in the mixer.

The mix used in.the test was the same mix design as used in the base mat concrete.

Finding:

The information reviewed shows that the batch plant met the specification requirements at the time of base mat concrete placement.

8.

Testing Machine.

The testing machine was required to be a 300,000 pound automatic portable compression cachine and was subject to owners approval for use.

The contractor was required to keep a current list of his testin6 equipment and dates each was calibrated.

A sticker was required to be affixed to the testing equipment to identify the latest calibration and date of l

L

1 23 certification.

The on-site testing machine used in the testing of 90-day cylinders related to the base mat concrete was a Forney Model QC-150 DR, S/H 76011.

The calibration records show that the machine was checked for accuracy as follows:

Accuracy Independent Calibrating Date Found Within 1%

Laboratory Mobile Calibration 3/29/77 yes Mobile Calibration 6/28/77 yes 12/20/77 yes Mobile Calibration Mobile Calibration 2/28/78 yes Southern Calibration ~& Service 3/28/78 yes Manufacturers Inspection, Calibration Check and Investigation of the Testing Machine On March 27, 1978 representatives of Forney's Incorporated, the manufacturer, performed an inspection of the jobsite testing machine i

and the operational procedure by the testing laboratory quality control technicians.

The results of the inspection was as follows:

1.

The testing practices and procedures used by the laboratory quality control technicians was monitored carefully and verified all testing practices conformed to Forney and ASTM. specifications.

2.

The accuracy of the load readout gages were found within the 15 specification limit of ASTM Eh, 3

All load platens vere checked for planeness in accordance with ASTM C39 and found in excellent condition.

i 4.

The 6 " diameter spherically seated top platen was completely disassembled and checked for undue year.

No evidence was found.

5 The testing machine was found out of level front to back by.

1/16" in 8" backwards, well within Forney requirements.

f 6.

Excessive material (crushed fine powder),vas found between the wear plate and the lower platen.

The load readout accuracy was checked with and without the material beneath the wear plate with no affect between accuracy results.

2h PCA Investigation on the Effect of Testing Machine Factors.

The onsite testing unchine was investigated by Construction Technology Laboratories (a Division of the Portland Cement l

Association) for the effect of testing machine factors on measured concrete cylinder strengths.

The investigation resulted in the following findings:

1 i

1.

Strain data obtained from instrumented cylinders during compressive strength tests indicated non-uniform loadin6 for cylinders centered in the machine.

d 2.

Compressive strengths obtained with cylinders centered 4

I under the top swivel head vere 7 5% less than those i

calculated for cylinders loaded uniformly.

}

3 Compressive strengths obtained for misalignments of 1/8 and 1/4 in. due to cylinder positioning were 10 5 and 14.8%, respectively, less than the calculated strength for a cylinder load uniformly.

4 (The values were obtained by adding 3.0% and 7 3%

test data values to the 7 5% value of finding 2) 4.

Probability of improper cylinder positioning during routine testing was high.

Cylinder capping molds had a tolerance of 1/8 in.

Also, the upper machine t

swivel head used to position cylinders was 1/2" larger in diameter than the cylinder.

5 Fixed or locked upper loading head swivel reduced recorded compressive strength by up to 27%.

~. -, -

e 25 6.

oil and grease swivel head lubricants were evaluated; they performed well.

7 IIcither fixed tilts of 1/8 and 1/4 in or rocking action (simulation of excessive material between year plate and the lover platen) had any appreciabic effect on recorded compressive strengths.

8.

Loose threads between the lower base plate and hydraulic piston did not affect recorded compressive strengths significantly.

9 A literature reviev verified findings regarding the machine factor influences obtained in this investigation.

Previous studies indicated 12 to 14.8% reduction in recorded compressive strengths for concrete cubes misaligned by 1/4 in.

Additional Testing Machine Information.

Discussion with the testing laboratory quality control personnel indicated that when the 90-day compression strength cylinder test results from the base mat concrete lover than anticipated the lead quality control technician placement were proceeded to perform the testing operations and experienced the same lover than anticipated compressive strength test results.

The lab personnel indicated the cylinder itself and not the capping was use'd to ali6n the cylinder with the svivel head.

According to lab personnel, the top svivel head did not stick and performed satisfactorily during the testing.

Other than the maintenance involving removal of excessive material between the wear plate and the lover platen, the lab personnel indicated no repairs or modification were made to the testin6 machine

26 after the completion of the testing of the 90-day cylinders related to the base mat concrete placement and prior to the investigation /

inspection and maintenance of the testing machine on March 27/28, 1978.

Between March 15 and 27, 1978, the 90-day cylinder strength test results of other than base mat concrete placements involving the same concrete mix shoved test results with a significant increase in strength test values when compared to the strength test value of.the base mat concrete cylinders.

A comparison of 7, 28 and 90-day cylinder test strength values of concrete placements made before and after the base mat placement is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Date of 91/90 Day Average Max.

Min.

Average Average Placement Test of Test Test of of Date 90 Days Value Value 28 Days 7 Days Tests Test psi psi psi psi psi 12/1/77 3/1/78 5560 5560 5560 5215 3785 12/12/77 3/13/78 5230 6110 4690 h660 3510 12/13/77 3/13/78 4957 5910 4050 50h5 3510 12/15/77 3/15/78 6360 6395 6325 5110 3920 12/20/77 3/30/78 6450 6585 6280 62h5 43ho 12/21/77 3/21/78 5410 5696 5190 4590 3570 12/22/77 3/22/78 5640 5640 56ho h550 3450 l

12/27/77 3/27/78 6090 6240 5955 5280

.4310 12/28/77 3/28/78 6685 6995 6375 h750 4240 As part of the investigation by Construction Technology Laboratory (PCA), a comparison of 90-day cylinder specimens was made involving the testing of companion cylinders on the PCA and on-site Daniel International Corporation (DIC) machine.

The comparison testing was done between April 19, 1978 and May 24, 1978.

The results of the averag ; maximum and minimum strengths e.nd standard deviation vere as follows:

27 Compressive Strength DIC PCA Average Strength 6h67 psi 6219 psi Maximum Strength 6920 psi 6690 psi Minimum Strength 6000 psi 5830 psi Standard Deviation 261 psi 302 psi Finding:

The information reviewed shows that-the testing machine met specification requirements and there is no data which shows the load readout during the 91/90 day testing of base mat concrete cylinders was not within 1% accuracy.

The higher test results of the on-site machine for the comparison testing of Power Block companion cylinders conflict with the PCA finding that the on-site machine test result values should be 7 5% lower than actual.

The PCA finding that the 27% reduction in compressive strength for fixed or locked upper loading head svivel is not applicable to test results' for the base mat concrete cylinders.

The relationship of cylinder positioning of base mat concrete cylinders to the 90-day test result values obtained was not established in the PCA report.

9 Investigation and Examination of 90 Day Cylinder Fragments.

The PCA investigation, involving petrographic examination, chemical analysis and compressive strength testing,-was made on samples from twenty-two 90-day cylinder specimen fragments.

The 22 samples were selected from h2 identifiable fragments which had been picked out of the bone-pile (i.e. place where broken cylinders were dumped after. testing).

m

1 28 The cylinder specimen fragments picksd from the bone pile and selected for testing was almost (xclusively related to the base mat concrete which met the acceptance criteria.

Thirty-five of the 42 fragments picked from the bone pile and 19 of the 22 fragments examined, analyzed or tested were from concrete which met the acceptance criteria.

Only 3 of the 19 fragments examined, analyzed or strength-tested were related to concrete which did not meet the acceptance criteria.

One of the 3 was subjected to petrographic examination and chemical analysis; one was combined with a fragment from concrete which met the acceptance criteria and was analyzed for chemical admixture; one was cut into a 2" cube and strength tested.

A summary of samples involved in the PCA investigation is shown in Table 3 The PCA report does not identify whether cube samples were soaked before testing and tested vet or dry.

(Dry tested values are considerably higher than vet tested values.)

A discussion with PCA personnel indicated that the 2" cubes' vere soaked for 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> prior to testing and tested vet.

The information reviewed indicate cylinder fragments, from which cubes were cut, were sent to the PCA on' April 12, 1978 via a Daniel International Corporation truck.

The PCA report indicates atesting date of April 17, 1978.

The cylinder test values vere obtained from cylinders tested vet.

The PCA report does not indicate whether cubes were cut from fragments which vere the top or bottom of the cylinders.

(Cubes cut from the bottom of cylinders vould have higher test values than cubes cut from the top.)

Table 3. - Summary of Samples in PCA Investigation Cylinder Number Number of Sa=ples Item Nu=bers.

of Examined, Analyzed or Number Samples Strength Tested by PCA of Picked From Samples Bone Pile Petrographic Admixture Strength Not Chemical Analysis Test

~ Total Tested 1

6407-6510 28 2

2 13 17 11 6521-653h 6581-659h 2

6629-6678 h

0 0

0 0

4 6689/90 6778/79 6844-45 3

6850-6857 3

1 1

0 2

1 Total 35 3

3 13 19 16 1

4 6515-6803 7

1 1

1 3

h (except as shown in item 2)

Total h2 h

3 14 22 20 1 Sample 6623 combined with Sample 6414 of Item 1 Description of Items 1.

Base mat concrete placed 12/12/77 which met acceptance criteria 2.

' Base mat concrete placed 12/13/77 vhich met acceptance criteria 3

Concrete placed 12/20/77 vhich met acceptance criteria 4.

Base mat concrete placed 12/12-13/77 which did not meet acceptance criteria

m

.F

' 30 '.

e x_

s y,

[4j

...df s,'

^

N

- 1.

~

D The PCA examinatio;n, analysis and testing resulti.d in' the conclusion that$

1) microscopic analysis reveals no evidence which could c c,nc eivably c aus e'si6nificant strength reduction at 90 days.

2) cylinder strength may have been affected slightly by minor differences in air content and water-cement ratio.

3)

The concrete apped s to be of high quality with strengths apparently well above'the SooG' psi Specification at 90 days.

The PCA determined the aYera6e c'$pressive o

a t

cubes to be 5970(psi with a' strength of the 2" test r

minimum value of.5060 psi and a standard. deviation of

(

752 psi.

The values are 80 pezcent of the actual test s

values to correct for d$fferance between cy1'inder and cube strengths.

The aversCescohf'ressive strength of 4'

the cylinder from which'the 2" cubes were cut was 5370 psi y

with a minimum value of h360 psi and a standard deviation of hT7 psi.

I The PCA chemical analysis fob cement content, approximate l

l-vater-cement ratio and admixture content of hardened concrete showed that 1) the cement contents of tb:

2.;

• saaples selected were f

comparable to the 564 # /y~- 3 sg., tied in the concrete mix design.

2) the approximate water-cement ration for the same samples,

I were below the level indicated in the mix deeign and

/

L t

r f

31 3)

The chemical admixtures specified in the mix design appeared'to be present in the three concrete samples s

at the appropriate dosage levels with no indication of improper admixture formulation (Pozzolith~300-N w s and MBVR) observed.

The PCA analysis of concrete sampl'es for the presence of air entraining admixture concluded that it appears there van not an excess of air-entraining agent present in the as concrete A

\\

The PCA analysis of two samples of Portland cement, A

reported to be Ash Grove Type II (Chanute, Kansas Plant)

Y and identified as C-UT-16 (Bin #36, 11/21/77 and C-UT-17

)4~

(Bin #36, 12/12/77) showed no significant difference in SO 6"

E*

's 3

air permeability) and particle size distribution (Sedigraph 5000).

Finding:

The ce'ection of the 42 fragments from the bone-pile and the PCA investigation of the 22 selected samples was not adequate.

The selection and investigation was deficient as follows:

O-Fragments from cylinders which had test results less than the required h500 psi ctrength level

~

were not strength tested for strength and only one s.

fragment from the 30 cylinder tests, which did not s

meet the required 5000 psi strength level for the a

average of 3 consecutive tests, was strength tested.

Fragments from cylinders which had 90-day test results less than 28-day results were not give a petrographic 4

examination or chemical analysis.

,(

32 The PCA conclusions in regard to its investigation of cylinder

' fragments i t; not applicable to the potentially deficient base mat concrete identified by lov test results of the 90-day cylinders The PCA report did not include the follaving areas of investigation of base mat concrete cylinders:

1)

Investigation of as many failed specimen remnants as possible for mode of failure.

2)

Investigation of capping compound on failed cylinders for possibic defects in s'trength, application, etc.

3)

Evaluation of the planeness of ends.

The first two items above were indicated to have been.. agreed upon at the meeting held at the site on April 7, 1978 involving representatives from KG&E,.Bechtel, Daniel and the PCAs The second and third items were performed accordin6 to DIC letter (Hitt), dated May 24, 1978, to KGLE (Arterburn).

The only specific mention of rounded ends of cylinders in the PCA report is related to the Power Block cylinders.

(Power Block cylinders were not from the base mat concretc.)

The Power Block cylinders with rounded ends had hi6h 90-day cylinder strength values and experienced diagonal or diagonal / cone, or diagonal transverse type breaks.

i l

I

(

1 33 10.

Vindsor Probe Testing Prograu.

A Windsor Probe testing program was conducted by Daniel International Corporation.

The program involved the' placement of two separate concrete test slabs on March 30 and April 11, 1978.

The same concrete mix design was used in the test slabs as in the base mat.

From concrete placement in three locations in each

• test. slabs standard 6 x 12 cylinders were taken and tested at 28 and 90-days.

The. test values obtained were compared to Windsor Probe reading and four (h) inch core specimens taken for the same time periods and the same area.

A correlation was then made using MOH's numbers 3 and h, with MOH's number 4 more closely representing the concrete cylinder strength.

Windsor Probe readings were taken on the circumference of the base mat at 10 degree intervals (except for 3 readings not taken because of accessibility).

Approximately 4300 square feet of vertical circumference area was involved in the Windsor Probe readings.

The average strength for the 33 Windsor Probe readings which were taken around the circumference was 6495 psi.

The corresponding cylinder strength value was determined by Bechtel to be 5896 psi.

Finding:

The Windsor Probe investigation was related to the circumferential surface of the base mat and is not applicabic to interior concrete located further than somewhere around 12 inches away from the exterior

34 circumferential surface. Over 95% of the base mat concrete is located 12 inches or more from the vertical circumferential surface.

Since the Windsor Proba readings are considered of value primarily for co=parisons within the same job rather than as quantitative measures the strength value determinations from Windsor Probe readings do not provide assurance of structural adequacy.

Conclusion and Pertinent Comments:

The KGLE study, while extensive in scope, was not adequate in investigation of the base mat concrete cylinders which did not meet the required strength level of the specification and its conclusion that the base mat met the required 5000 psi concrete strength level is not valid for the total base mat.

The information in the study indicates that the testing machine was probably not the most likely cause of low concrete cylinder strengths.

The KG&E study did not indicate in its investigation of base mat-cylinder fragment samples that there was any evidence which showed a direct relationship between evidence of improper molding and/or testing procedure to low concrete cylinder test values.

The study did not establish a cause of the low concrete cylinder strength and since adverse chemical reactivity is a possible cause, proper attention should be given to future investigation of cylinder fragments which had 90-day strengths less than 28-day strengths.

9

APPErlDIX A l

Analysis of Wear Plate Tilting

APPENDIX A Analysis of Wear Plate Tilting During the investigation ef fort at Wolf Creek, an accumulation of concrete dust was found under the wear plate and the lower platen.

The wear lt Wds 1/8" higher of f the lower platen in the back as in the front.1/ p a e In order to evaluate the magnitude of this condition, calculations were made using the example indicated below.

Note that the dimension of the wear plate and the force is assumed only.

I td E AR PL ATE l

tjg" : ogget i

+'

i Lowegpladew 7

In fw9 F = Co.s p 0) g 1

Example:

If the wear plate is assumed to be 9" long, and an of fset of 0.125 in the Q

0. 795 degrees.

If Fy = 150,000 pounds, then Fp = Cos (0.795) X 150,000 F, =.9999 (150,000) = 149,985.5 lbs.

p Comparing PSI results:

Psi normal = 5305.16 Psi til ted = 5304.65 The conclusion is that any dif ference in comprcssion test resul ts, based on the amount of wear plate tilt, can be neglected.

D~ To rniy' ~liic~. TKa j un d i cl le t te r to Da n i el International (Jones)

~

~

April 4, 1978

Appendix A -l

/

/

I

,./

e l **'" ^ "'"" *"I,,

l n'

4 4

~ ~, -

l a-ro o.,ra - ~ - - --

c,- - -,g,g --

N

-,. _,, s

,f

(

a see.s acuerr eere Aaro-J

1. c.oraeocoor es.s e

a I

tsmer4==sar %

l l

-e r**u se ru or i

I g,,My,***!m p- 0 ******=r**ru L

I r

b I

a t

,u,y i

I t

l 1

n r

i n ~-

( *! /=***. M4 *=, n n*

4 br0 l i

f f

i l.

1. 1. ,8.W4dMe

• g;;g.a y / Mas *** cacs*,nc a

s.

no sace l--).

l

~t ';*:-<- ~'}

• ~"

. :=-

y

"L-Q as - <-

'"~#

a

/"~~3~~'

{

fi I-l.*

\\sL.=

L~., N\\0 h..

{

h **"'Y G

<<s y ra ~. ~.--

.,d, J

~.;; ;,,- g

.v pJ c.

68.Fff / 8'ff*Wer47WW Fb#W## A.WF h J I) steriou m V,."9 S

f g

,/

N,

',[

N

~.~.

,s.r.

, o $s, I

~

L' q A.,.,.,.,.,,.,,.,,..,-,

f t

~

't.

.3 s't m:r g;{~~-<- --

, b La*_

s'.

A

-I u

_I-

$'st

_, Mis,etras

=I I

s g

eserrussrsee swr t,

{

/

,.,,,,, ~,.!

/

':.w M

.s L - >i

?

h ~-.;s=::#,,f I

1

' /,s %ge wse r

es**

f$ bN k?0 $s

Compressive Strength (ISI) /STM C-109 cement Mortar cubes C

8 d

a M

8 3

a a

8 8

8 8

8 8

8 8

8 8

I I

f f

I f

f f

I I

I I

I i

i l

l

[

fSi

1. 36) 9/12/77 --

y-j-

p.

~

a

\\

g

{[t$11,#36)9/20/77--

,.\\y 9

_ g-

~

w 'y

g..

j UT #12

'a

~ ' ~ ~a's c+

~(Silo #34) 9/28/77 ~~

.k.s t

m g

s s

\\

D 8-UT #13

/6/77 --

g.

(Silo #34)

+

m s

fst(g34)10/19/77--

.]

/

O UT #15

/

8

^

(Silo #36) 11/20/77--

,0 g

Y

~

1 A

1. 36)11/21/77--

,.Io si

/

? @

UT #17 w

(Silo #34)12/12/77--

fg g.

g g

0 k

Q

/ f d

h UT #18

• /

(Silo #34) 12/19/77--

g-g

-m

's o

1. 36) 1/23/78 --

e4 Sil e

1. 36) 3/20/78 --

Sil

\\

b UT #21 g

(Silo #36)4/21/78 gi g

g E-1

'.h

.d l

Silo #34) 5/3/78 ---

j UT #23 (Silo #34) 6/2/78 --

gg g

\\

.a

{[1$24#36) 6/27/78 --

i l-2 5

r a

r m

8 k

8

=

g 01

l-(

j

- 'I

' l l

+i:

[

i,j, t

___ j i

i i

o

'4 s.

i l

\\.

.i t

s

s. 4-I l

i, 4

u - __

- s, g z- --

\\

i l

--* \\

. l...

I 1.

i; i:

m i

- - - i k.

- -- - l

!,il

"'*]

l 5

l

.ii c) i

.n 2_.

L.

=

'I!,

l-

\\,

'I N

i!! ';

-4.

l 2 ii

"[

l W

i

\\

4 ie l

' I i

.i.

. l.i.

l

t l

^'

• l l

..i l

jji r1 l

{'

g k

i.

__ ;j.

r;.

l

i; l

A W

..l t

3 j

i

_ ___ h

-. - l: y

. 4-l.

4 li:'

i

\\

..t a.

~

Id !lI!

l1

.l

,4

+

~!

t.'

to lil!

it.

,j;i.

l l

1. --*\\j l.. _ '.

.- - y v--.

4' (A

i

!i ii

.{

l

--).'g ii.,

1:.'

l

,l

[g._

it.

' t

ij-].

.'g !

{

l i

.ji!

i

.ii:

___ _4l'.

N:. -N

~ '~

i. ; !i i l-i i

is: - I!it i;.

-~

i

!I iii I

E l-

!!i ii':

.i-i

__d.-

- c.. ---

-yl i

, i.!.

ej l*

6, is

'i!I lII.

'. lI.

-l l

i

\\.

- ] : P

- ~~-.-

l l

l\\--

Q:':

,ili

!it c'

.l'..

m it 4

--q.,

tlll Il:.

!t;.

',s -

i -

t

.:.6 rsi!

,p.

i l

k.

i'!j lll!

lj!!

\\l

~

,4

t.

. ?IT ~$

i,

i g

i-.

-.LJ '.--

9)!

I

.,t, i

l g _.

ilt ial.

i ii.

Jg l'

I.

!lll lll' l

l l

l) y.

• : i :.

. ",y

~

14 1 l

.l!'

'l;

'd.

i i

9 i

c i

o.

_.m. L. _,. _, _.

si -.} -

.i 13 1 s.

.i l

l k

,Ol l-Nk'il' to W

ID.

i

w\\i -

.a n::

!. _ k 1

L i.

i a.,,4, e.

.I.

9 O.

O i 2 -*>

1 L j

g

,i:

i i

.J mr 4

w l

t li J

. 33:

l

• n.,

i; i

la l9___ _)lJ -.,' :l qg d

,1

_ l

~ ~ ~ -

+%

i,

i.

s L Q.;i

~~

s 1.

I t~

i t

,lt.

!!ii d'

• i.,.

l' g y t.

'j g, y ' ' '

ti i

i l

'l;

_e_ y.J 04 -

l o _+N4ii'i

, I t!

V i

i. l l j llIl l l ;e :

ii al,

{

2 'di;;;

?:

l

.(lllj;ji lllj li;

.I l.

l o

g i w

'3

gl_ uf_',,_

L_k.ii'.

li.. l!

!!!, !!I!

i:.l:

' : l i j----

l LJ a

<_ 5 w t

.jh i:,

. _.--+ \\ ;

it.i

,+;.

6!, -

'!.(-- __g 3 '

I g( V t

'i -

v4 g

w.

..,i

it; g.

i. _

\\,! :.

i '

L

ge O,..

3 R_..,

i + :

i _c,,f_c,' _

l.

3,.

. + -

I

l

ii

,.:l w

al i

t i

--*\\.

' <t b j

i

'l I \\

1 l

j

]-~

+ --- ~~ T

.l l

I \\,-

i I

'I i

.__ _i __._

__1_ _.,__\\

i.

i l

l l

I i~

~

F i

4 l

i

!i

\\,'

1 l..

~~

O 8

O O

o g

g' O

Q h

l' o

o g

4 k

O C

C b

s n

a s

APPENDIX B ACI 211.1 Mix Design Computation Base (0IE Calculations)

APPENDIX B ACI 211.1 Mix Design Computations Base ACI 211.1 computations for Mix Design were based on the following:

Type 11 cement Severe exposure in air ACI 211.1 (Table 5.3.4(b))

Max w/c ratio =.48 Aggregate size = 3/4" Entrained air = 3-6%

Soecified strength = 5000 psi at 90-day Specific gravity fine aggregate - 2.61 Specific gravity coarse aggregate - 2.62 Fineness modules - 2.8 Moisture content of fine aggregate 2.0%

Moisture content of coarse aggregate - 1.5%

Absorption of fine aggregate - 1.5%

Absorption of coarse aggregate - 2.0%

TABLE A CEMENT DELIVERIES This table indicates the amount of cement delivered to the Wolf Creek Site

TABLE A Cement Deliveries INFORMATION FR0fK USER TEST BREAK SHEETS (1)

DELIVERY DELIVERY TOTAL UT TEST il0.

DATE TRUCK N0.

T)NS RECEIVED (2) 10 9/12/77 50247 10,746.18 11 9/20/77 50267 11,856.78 12 9/28/77 50265 13,048.45 13 10/06/77 54021 14,148.34 and 57021 14 10/19/77 50247 15,326.67 15 11/10/77 50277 16,425.43 16 11/21/77 50257 17,664.54 17 12/12/77 50263 18,805.39 18 12/19/77 50249 20,019.92 NOTE:

(1) User tests (UT) are required in Bechtel Specification C-191, paragraph 6.2.1 (2) Cumulative totals indicated.

l TABLE B Comparison of Cement Strength Tests This table assembles information from User Test Reports Cement Manufactures Test Reports PCA Test Reports This table is incomplete in that PCA testing has not been completed on additional cement samples.

i--

.~.

TABLE B COMPARISON OF CEMENT TESTS DATE DATE MILL SILO DATE SILO USER TESTS MANUF. TESTS PCA TESTS UT NO.

SAMPLED TESTED TEST NO.

NO.

FILLED 3/7/28-DAY 3/7/28-DAY 3/7/28-DAY UT-10 9/12/77 9/26/77 8

36 8/23-25/77 MA/2990/5033 2492/3563/5379 UT-ll 9/20/77 9/26/77 8

NA/3110/5267 UT-12 9/28/77 10/04/77 7

34 7/06-10/77 NA/2075/5321 2516/3878/5072 UT-13 10/06/77 10/11/77 7

NA/3133/5196 UT-14 10/19/77 10 34 10/10-14/77 NA/3950/5790 2438/3652/5044 (XFR from SILO #9)

UT-15 11/10/77 11/16/77 NA/3350/5140 UT-16 11/21/77 11/21/77 9

36 9/23-10/5/77 NA/3260/5180 2403/3531/5317

/3625/5525 UT-17 12/12/77 12/20/77 NA/3570/3370

/3720/5600 NA/2860/3680*

UT-18 12/19/77 12/27/77 11 34 11/22-27/77 NA/2550/4110 2076/2950/4841 UT-19 1/23/78 2/06/78 12 36 1/10-18/78 NA/3590/4800 2114/2995/4847 UT-20 3/20/78 3/28/78 11 34 2150/2940/4890 UT-21 4/21/78 4/26/78 13 36 2280/3260/4710 UT-22 5/03/78 5/04/78 11 34 2130/3270/5430 UT-23 6/02/78 6/09/78 11 34 2000/3070/4580 UT-24 6/27/78 6/29/78 13 36 2150/3310/5340

• Retest - NCR l-0146-C

TABLE C 90-DAY CONCRETE CYLINDERS This table is a list of 90-day cylinders in order of their casting (concrete placement order).

The cylinder set numbers, the corre-sponding cylinder numbers, and their 90-day break values are indicated.

The cylinder strength test results per ACI 318 are shown. The cylinders which were submitted to PCA for the original testing (April) are also marked.

Footnotes and a legend for the PCA test codes are at the end of the table.

l TABLE C 90-DAY CONCRETE CYLINDERS (I)(7)

ACI-318-71 CY. SET CY 90-DAY TEST AV./(0)

NOT NO.

NO.

PSI RUN. AV.

ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE PCA TEST 508 6407 5710 6408 5620 5665 X

S,C(6) 509 6413 5550 S,C 6414 5110 5330 X

S,CAA,C(6)(3) 514 6425 4420 S,A 6426 5180 4800/5265 X

515 6431 5300 S,C 6432 5020 5160/5097 X

S CAA 516 6437 5260 6438 6110 5690/5217 X

SC S,C(6) 517 6443 5360 6444 4640 5000/5283 X

S.P.CA 518 6449 5270 S,C 6450 5110 5190/5293 X

S,C 519 6455 5310 6456 5290 5300/5163 X

S,C 520 6461 4640 S

6462 5180 4910/5133 X

S 521 6467 6130 S

6468 5850 5990/5400 X

S S.C(6) 522 6473 4780 6474 4970 4875/5258 X

523 6479 5730 S,C 6480 4710 5220/5362 X

S 524 6485 4800 S

6486 5310 5055/5050 X

S

TABLE C Page 2 ACI-318-71 CY. SET CY 90-0AY TEST AV./(8)

NOT NO.

NO.

PSI RUN. AV.

ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE PCA TEST 525 6491 5390 S

6492 4600 4995/5090 X

S 531 6497 6260 S

6498 5940 6100/5383 X

S,C 526 6503 4190 S,P,CA 6504 5830 5010/5368 X

• 532 6509 4370 S,C(6) 6510 5010 4690/5267 X

S,C 527 6515 4880 6516 4660 4770/4823 X

5 I )533 6521 5920 6522 5410 5665/5042 X

• 528 6527 4700 6528 4920 4810/5082 X

• 534 6533 4810 6534 4660 4735/5070 X

• 529 6539 4940 6540 4320 4630/4725 X

• 530 6545 4830 6546 3270 4050/4472 X

• 541 6551 4290 6552 5110 4700/4460 X

• 542 6557 4180 6558 5380 4780/4510 X

• 543 6563 4620 6564 4440 4530/4670 X

• 535 6569 4160 6570 5020 4590/4633 X

536 6575 5600 6576 5090 5345/4822 X

TABLE C Page 3 ACI-318-71 CY. SET CY 90-DAY TEST AV./(8)

NOT N0.

N0.

PSI RUN. AV.

ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE PCA TEST

• 544 6581 5170 6582 5130 5150/5028 X

• 545 6587 4670 6588 4970 4820/5105 X

• 546 6593 5060 6594 5310 5185/5052 X

• 537 6599 4010 6600 4970 4490/4832 X

• 547 6605 4350 6606 4340 4345/4673 X

548 6611 5180 6612 4690 4935/4590 X

549 6617 5570 6618 5500 5535/4938 X

• 550 6623(3) 2870 S,CAA 6624 5230

' 4050/4840 X

551 6629 6270 6630 5410 5840/5142 X

S 552 6635 5180 6636 5620 5400/5097 X

553 6641 5530 6642 5460 5495/5578 X

554 6647 5480 S

6648 5150 5315/5403 X

• S55 6653 5200 6654 4990 5095/5302 X

556 6659 5390 6660 5530 5460/5290 X

TABLE C Page 4 ACI-318-71 CY. SET CY 90-DAY TEST AV./(8)

NOT NO.

l10.

PSI RUN. AV.

ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE PCA TEST 557 6665 5410 S

6666 5410 5410/5322 X

• 558 6671 4370 7

6672 5230 4800/5233 X

• 559 6677 5130 6678 4620 4875/5028 X

S

• 560 6683 4490 6684 5320 5155/4943 X

• 561 6689 4830 6690 5940 5385/5138 X

• 562 6695 4650 6696 4280 4465/5002 X

563 6701 5040 S

6702 4620 4830/4893 X

565 6707 5620 S,C(6) 6708 5530

' 5575/4957 X

564 6713 4630 6714 4370 4500/4968 X

566 6719 4650 6720 4950 4800/4958 X

• 568 6725 4800 6726 4950 4875/4725 X

• 567 6731 5620 6732 4970 5295/4990 X

S 569 6737 4520 6738 4300 4410/4860 X

570 6743 5240 6744 5080 5160/4955 X

TABLE C Page 5 ACI-318-71 CY. SET CY 90-DAY TEST AV./(8)

NOT NO.

NO.

PSI RUN. AV.

ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE PCA TEST

(

598 6844 5810 6845 6010 5910/5263 X(5) 572 6754 4810 6755 4860 4835/4802 X

• 573 6760 4790 6761 4710 4750/4915 X

• 581 6766 4620 6767 5850 5235/4940 X

• 574 6772 4990 6773 4780 4885/4957 X

• 575 6778 4900 6779 4970 4935/5018 X

576 6784 4780 S,P,CA 6785 4830 4805/4875 X

577 6790 4700 6791 5110 4905/4882 X

• 578 6796 4630 6797 4480 4555/4755 X

579 6802 5340 S

6803 5310 5325/4928 X

See Note (4)

Legend: CAA

- Chemical Analysis S

- Submitted to PCA P,CA - Petrographic and Chemical Analysis C

- PCA Cube day strengths less than 28-day strengths

TABLE C 1

Page 6 (1) Listed in order of concrete placement in base mat.

(2) Start of placement on December 13, 1977.

(3) Sample Combined (6623 & 6t14) for chemical analysis.

(4) 6850 S,P,CA 6851 S

6857 S,CAA The above cylinders were sent to PCA.

However, they were not part of the base mat placement for Wolf Creek.

(5) Cylinder set No. 571 with cylinder Nos. 6745-6749 were cancelled.

Set No. 598 was assigned to cylinders of this set (No. 6840 thru 6845 assigned and used).

Batch plant ticket 4398 refers.

(6) Two cubes made from one cylinder fragment.

(7) One sample sent to PCA was not identified in the correspondence.

(6503)

(8) This column indicates the cylinder tests (average of two cylinders) and running average of three consecutive cylinder tests.

P

TABLE D PCA TEST DATA This table contains specific information on the PCA testing done on the original cylinder fragments submitted to PCA.

TABLE D PCA TEST DATA Ref: J. Shideler (PCA) to C. Phillips (DIC) of April 19, 1978 PETR0 GRAPHIC ANALYSIS CLYINDER N0.

SET NO.

PLACEMENT N0. CYLINDER PSI DATE POUR 6503 526 0C-22151212 4190 12/12 6444 517 OC-221S1212 4640 12/12 6784 576 0C-221S0007 4780 12/13 5920(data)(l)12/20 6850 not base mat Column 11 6640(Itr)

COMPRESSION TEST DATA DATE CYLINDER NO.

SET NO.

PLACEMENT N0(2) CYLINDER PSICUBE PSI POUR 6408 508

' OC221S1212 5620 6680/6700 12/12 6413 509 0C221S1212 5550 6400/7950 12/12 6438 516 0C221S1212 6110 6350 12/12 6443 517 OC221S1212 5360 5700/6440 12/12 2

6449 518 OC22151212 5270 5640 12/12 6450 518 OC221S1212 5110 5280 12/12 6456 519 0C221S1212 5300 6500 12/12 6473 522 0C221S0007 4780 5060/5210 12/12 6479 523 0C221S0007 5730 6380 12/12 6498 531 OC221S0007 5940 6200 12/12

-e i--

TABLE D Page 2 6509 532 0C221S0007 4360 5540 12/12 6510 532 OC221S0007 5010 5160/5180 12/12 6707 565 0C22150C07 5620 5166/5920 12/13 NOTE:

(1) Cylinder fragment 6850 was not part of the base mat, but was of the same design mix. The PCA letter indicates a value of 6640 psi, however, a check of the data indicates the value was 5920.

Fragment 6850 was sub-mitted for comparison purposes.

(2) Placement No. OC22151212 and OC22150007 are the two numbers assigned to the base mat placement. Two numbers were required to accomodate the computer programming used for analysis.

i

=

t TABLE E PORTLAllD CEMENT TESTING TIMES (ASTMC-150-74)

UT NO.

DATE SAMPLED DATE STARTED DATE EilDED 8

3/11/77 8/15/77 9/13/77 9*

8/30/77 9/07/77 10/25/77 10*

9/12/77 9/26/77 10/25/77 11*

9/20/77 9/26/77 10/25/77 I2*

9/28/77 10/04/77 11/01/77 13*

10/06/77 10/11/77 11/16/77 14 10/19/77 10/20/77 11/21/77 15*

11/10/77 11/16/77 12/14/77 16 11/21/77 11/21/77 12/21/77 17*

12/12/77 12/20/77 02/14/77 18*

12/19/77 12/28/77 01/24/78 19*

01/23/78 02/06/78 03/06/78 20*

03/20/78 03/28/78 04/25/78

• Total time for user test limitations exceeded.

TABLE E Portland Cement Testing lime This table contains summary information on the total time (days) used from sampling to completiore of testing.

This data was taken from the Cement User Test Reports.

.-____