ML20069L956
| ML20069L956 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1982 |
| From: | Peck R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028A330 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8211180356 | |
| Download: ML20069L956 (378) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:? l l ( UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00(.KETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USHP.C BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOMtD }gt 17 Pi:06 r-cerFETAP" In the Matter of: ) Docket Nos. 5045E9 ;OM(~sUt."%
) 50'--330;LOM iOH CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) ) 50-330 OL 4
TESTIMONY OF RALPH B. PECK i' '821118d356 ' 82b908 l
-I' PDR ADOCK 05000329 '
T PDR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM
) 50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) ) 50-330 OL I, Dr. Ralph B. Peck, being first duly sworn, state that my accompanying testimony concerning the sur-charge program for the diesel generator building is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Dr. Rhlph B. Peck SUBSCRIBED & SWORN To Before Me This 3d Day of November, 1982 S_' 0 ']'jf *[/ .fg OFFICit.L SEAL O -
. I* STEPHANIE A. f/.ORF'S r wu Cc s s 3 .;.-
- j f W- P.'Cupv r"JS*.!C . N"J./ ..try'C0
'Nohaq Public '
b' . , > j J - N8ce/ c-r.s r: ice v..tr. secretary of sta Commission Expires: l-9-b ! ' '}.[ M/ Commission Expires: /-Q - Q 1
Ralph Peck Testimony Outline Page Qualifications........................................ 1 1.0 Background....................................... 3 1.1 Introduction to Midland Soils Issues........ 3 1.2 Bechtel Investigation....................... 6 2.0 The Surcharge Program............................ 6 2.1 Purpose of Surcharge Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
*2
. Fundamentals of Geotechnical Science Applicable to Surcharge Program............. 8 2.3 Precedents in Support of Surcharging Diesel Generator Building......................... 13 2.4 Organization of Surcharge Program. . . . . . . . . . 18 2.4.1 Background.......................... 18 2.4.2 Choice of Instrumentation........... 19 2.4.3 Pond Level.......................... 26 2.4.4 Placement of Surcharge.............. 27 2.4.5 Data Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 2.4.6 Removal o f Surcharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.0 Analysis of Data from Surcharge Loading Program. 31 3.1 Introduction............................... 31 3.2 Piezometric Data........................... 32 3.3 Surcharge Loading.......................... 33 3.4 Settlement Data............................ 34 3.5 Observation Wells in Plant Area............ 38 3.6 Interpretation of Settlement Data. . . . . . . . . . 39 1
___ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . _ _ I
l 3.7 Interpretation of Piezometric ! Observations............................... 43 ( 3.8 Effectiveness of Surcharge on Plant Fill l Immediately Beneath Foundations............ 59 3.9 Review o f Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 3.9.1 Piezametric Data.................... 65 3.9.2 Settlement Data..................... 67 3.9.3 Significance of Review of Data. . . . . . 67 3.10 Permeability of Plant Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 3.11 Influence of Soft and Hard Inclusions...... 71 3.12 Comparison of Stresses Under Surcharge and Under Operating Conditions................. 73 4.0 Prediction of Future Settlement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 4.1 General Approach........................... 77 4.2 Prediction................................. 79 4.3 Results of NRC-Requested Boring and Testing Program............................ 80 4.4 Monitoring Future Settlements.............. 95 5.0 Conclusion...................................... 95
ATTACHMENT
- 1. Experience Record Ralph B. Peck
( APPENDICES A. Review of Data, by Peter A. Lenzini B. References, with Figs. B1-B6 included. C. Plots of Data, Figs. Cl-C30. D. Table 3.10. Comparison of Piezometer Plots by Peck and Lenzini. E. Woodward-Clyde Consultants Estimates of Maximum Past Consolidation Pressure of Cohesive Fill Materials, Diesel Generator Building, July 22, 1981. F. Surcharge Load Distribution at Ground Level, Stoll, Evans, Woods & Associates. G. Woodward-Clyde Consultants Special Consolidation Test Results Remolded Cohesive Fill Specimen, Diesel Generator Building, October 9, 1981
TESTIMONY OF RALPH B. PECK QUALIFICATIONS This is the testimony of Ralph B. Peck. I reside at 1101 Warm Sands Drive SE, Albuquerque, New Mexico. I graduated from Rensselear Polytechnic Institute in 1934 with the degree of Civil Engineer and in 1937 received the degree of Doctor of civil Engineering with a major in Struc-tures. From April 1938 to January 1939 I attended the Graduate School of Engineering, Harvard University, where I attended the courses in Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering and served as a laboratory assistant to Professor Arthur Casagrande. I am a registered Structural Engineer in the State of l Illinois and was a member of the Illinois Structural Engineer-ing Examining Board from 1959 to 1969. I am registered as a Professional Engineer in Illinois and Hawaii, and as a Civil Engineer in California. My detailed Experience Record is attached (Attachment No. 1). In brief, I was employed for somewhat over three years as Assistant Subway Engineer in charge of soil testing and i field observations by the City of Chicago on construction of the initial system of Chicago Subways, under the direction of Karl Terzaghi. From December 1942 until May 1974, I taught and conducted research in Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering at the University of Illinois, from which I retired as Professor of Foundation Engineering Emeritus. During that time, I developed and intr.oduced the graduate and undergraduate
courses in Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Earth Dams, Stability of Slopes, Tunnels, and Seepage. A list of some 171 technical publications, of which I was author or co-author, is attached (Attachment No. 1). Among these are " Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice", written with Karl Terzaghi, first published in 1948 with the Second Edition in 1967. This book has been translated into over 10 languages. A second text, " Foundation Engineering", written with W. E. Hanson and T. H. Thornburn, appeared in 1953 and was revised in 1973. The latter book has been used as a text in over 100 universities in this country. While a member of the faculty at the University of Illinois, I also engaged in consulting work on foundation and other geotechnical projects. A number of these are listed in the attached Experience Record. Since my retirement from the University of Illinois, I have been engaged on a full-time basis as an individual consultant. To the greatest extent practicable, I chose my consulting engagements to provide the maximum opportunity for field observations and for investigat-ing the applicability and reliability of soil mechanics in the practical problems of foundation and geotechnical engineering. Most of my publications deal with this aspect of the profes-sion. My consulting assignments have been located throughout l the world, and I have served a four-year term, 1969-73, as l President of the International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
~
l l n , , - - - . - - - ,
My professional activities, honors, and awards are listed in the attached Experience Record. They may perhaps best be summarized in the following two citations. The first, accompanying the Outstanding Civilian Service Medal of the Department of the Army, awarded in 1973, reads: "For note-worthy assistance to the Office, Chief of Engineers as a con-sultant from July 1954 to December 1972. As an engineer, consultant, professor, author, and authority in soil mechanics and foundation engineering, he contributed continuously and outstandingly to the advancement of knowledge and proficiency in the application of the principles of soil mechanics by the Co rps . These efforts, and his sense of public responsibility enabled the Corps of Engineers to design and construct earth-works and pavements with a high degree of safety, economy, and reliability, and to accomplish its Civil Works mission in a more efficient manner." The second, accompanying the presenta-tion by President Ford of the National Medal of Science in 1974 reads: "For his development of the science and art of subsur-face engineering, combining the contributions of the sciences of geology and soil mechanics with the practical art of founda-tion design." l
1.0 BACKGROUND
l 1.1 Introduction to Midland Soils Issues. My asso-ciation with the Midland Project began with a meeting at the l site on 28 September 1978 (for Minutes, see Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Tab 1) at which I was briefed on 1 l l
the events leading to concern regarding the geotechnical as-pects of the Diesel Generator Building. The purpose of the meeting, as I understood it, was to acquaint me, as a consultant to Bechtel, and others, with the events that appeared to indicate a potential problem so that the seriousness of the problem could be assessed, the causes investigated, and any necessary remedial actions devel-oped. Since at that ti ae little factual information was yet available, opinions differed as to what might be the causes and the consequences of the observed events. The Diesel Generator Building itself was to be a concrete structure, reinforced for various loading conditions including tornadoes, with plan dimensions of about 155 x 70 feet and a completed height of about 53 feet. Three cross walls would divide the structure into four cells, in each of which would be a concrete pedestal to support a diesel generator unit. The building would have i mezzanine 30 feet above plant grade. At the time of my visit, the pedestals had been cast and the walls had been completed to mezzanine level. The outside walls had a thickness of 30 inches and the inside walls of 18 inches: both were supported by continuous concrete footings with a width of 10 feet. A mud slab of concrete from four to more than 12 inches thick had been cast over the entire area of the building before the foundations or pedestals were constructed. The purpose of the Diesel Generator Building was to provide housing for four emergency generators that could be
utilized during a power failure to supply electricity even in the event of the safe shutdown earthquake. Therefore, the building was designated a Category I structure. The backfill on which the building was being con-structed had been placed from 1975 to 1977. Utilities were placed in trenches and surrounded by granular backfill. ( In July 1978, it appeared that the backfill was settling from beneath portions of the building. The building also appeared to be tilting slightly. By 28 September 1978, I the date of my visit to the side, the maximum settlement had I reached about 3 inches. Various individuals employed at the site described their recollections of the filling operations. In brief, it was reported that the fill consisted principally of clay from the pond area, that it varied from moderately plastic to sandy clay, that it had been excavated by scrapers and had been l stockpiled starting in 1975. Placement started in 1975 by I truck or by scraper. The majority was brought by truck, spread l l by dozer, and compacted. The material was extensively disced, either for drying or wetting it, and was compacted. Placement ! in 1976 was discontinued in October, and in 1977 was started i near the end of April. It was stated that 1977 was a fairly dry year, and that hoses and waterwagons were used most of the summer for moisture conditioning. The concrete mud mat was placed in stages, a little ahead of the footings, during the winter of 1977-78. This winter was said to have been cold, and the foundation was heated while concrete was being placed. The r 1 l l
foregoing account reflects the state of construction and of knowledge in September 1978. 1.2 Bechtel Investigation. An exploration program was initiated at the site of the Diesel Generator Building by Bechtel in August 1978 and continued through Dacember 1978. The explorations included 32 borings, 13 Dutch cone soundings, and one test pit. A further description of the program with details is found in Section 2.5 of the Midland FSAR, Rev. 44. ! 2.0 THE SURCHARGE PROGRAM l 2.1 Purpose of Surcharge Program. The purpose of l l surcharging the area of the Diesel Generator Building was to cause its settlement to occur at an accelerated rate so that under the operating loads of the structure the future settle-ment would be small and within tolerable limits. Furthermore, the procedure would permit a conservative and reliable estimate t of an amount of future settlement that would not be exceeded. Although settlement of the building and pedestals would occur l l during the surcharge period, any measures considered necessary l to assure the integrity of the structure and appurtenant facili-ties could then be taken with full confidence that future l behavior would be acceptable and satisfactory. The surcharge program included three principal ! components: l l A. To produce, under the weight of the surcharge 1 and the completed portions of the building, stresses at all levels in the subsoil no less than those that will exist and l
might produce settlement during the functional lifetime of the structure. B. To maintain these stresses until excess pore pressures had dissipated and thus until primary consolidation under the surcharge had been completed. C. To maintain constant surcharge conditions there-after until the linear relation between settlement and the logarithm of time was established reliably enough to permit an accurate forecast of future settlement if the surcharge load were to remain. Dissipation of the excess pore pressures (1) would be monitored directly by piezometric observations in the con-solidating subsoil, and indirectly by observing the shape of the curve of settlement plotted with respect to the logarithm of time. Reliability of the settlement prediction (2) would be ( assured when the straight-line trend of the settlement curve l became well defined after due allowance was made for the inevit-l l able scatter in the results of the settlement observations. ! These conditions, (1) and (2), constituted the acceptance criteria on which I judged the sufficiency of the duration of
- the surcharge. As will be demonstrated, all the purposes of l
the surcharge program were achieved. These acceptance criteria, in my opinion, are tech-i l nically more conservative than the PSAR commitments regarding composition and degree of compaction of the plant fill beneath f the Diesel Generator Building. Specifying the properties and ( degree of compaction is an accepted but indirect method to. l l
assure that the settlement of a structure placed on the fill will be within tolerable limits; the justification for the method in engineering practice lies in correlations between the specified properties and the observed settlements of buildings where the specifications have been applied. In the case of the Diesel Generator Building the specified composition and degree of compaction become irrelevant because the actual behavior of the soil as it exists beneath the structure has been proof tested under conditions of static loading at least as severe as those to be experienced in the future. The settlement predic-tions are based on actual performance of the actua'l subsoil, without the necessity for reliance on correlations or any other indirect means for judging the behavior of the subsoil in the future.1 2.2 Fundamentals of Geotechnical Science Applicable to Surcharge Program. Under an added load or stress, a clay deposit or a clay fill decreases in volume and its upper surface settles. A building resting on or in the clay settles accordingly. If the clay is saturated or nearly saturated, the applied stress does not immediately cause settlement because the water in the voids of the clay is less compressible than the clay l structure itself and must be squeezed out of the pores and escape from the clay mass. The pressure built up in the water by application of the stress, in excess of the groundwater pressure, is known as the excess pore pressure. As the excess Addresses Stamiris Contention 4A(1), (3).
b- r pore pressure dissipates by drainage, the clay decreases in volume and its surface settles. Because at least some of the voids in a clay are very small, as are the passages between the voids, the settlement takes place not instantaneously but over the period of time required for dissipation of the excess pore l pressure. This phenomenon is known as consolidation. l If the voids between the clay particles contain air, or if larger voids between chunks of clay contain air, applica-tion of stress causes an immediate decrease in volume because of the high compressibility of the air. If the air would be unable to escape from a void, the pressure in the air would increase in accordance with the law of physics, known as Boyle's Law, that states that the pressure in a gas is inversely propor-tional to the volume occupied by the gas. However, clay is also permeable to air, and consequently the air escapes from the voids when it is under an excess pressure. In a partly saturated soil the stress condition is somewhat complex, because the pore pressure consists partly of pore-air pressure and l l partly of pore-water pressure, and these two pressures are not numerically equal. However, the net effect is the same as if the soil were saturated: both air and water escape, and the l clay consolidates until there are no excess pressures in either 1 the air or the water. (This explanation is somewhat oversimpli-fied but adequate for an understanding of the situation). Fundamentally, therefore, there is no difference between the consolidation of a saturated or a partly saturated clay. When an air content is present, part of the settlement
will occur almost instantaneously as the air compresses, and thereafter the settlement will occur more slowly. The mathe-matical theory of consolidation, also known as the classical theory or the Terzaghi theory, is based on the simplifying assumption that no air is present or that, if air is present, it occurs in the form of bubbles that may be dissolved in the water (see, for instance, Theoretical soil Mechanics by Karl Terzaghi, pp. 289-290). The classical theory of consolidation permits predicting the rate at which the excess pore-water pressures will dissipate after application of a consolidation stress or, more usefully, permits predicting the rate at which settlement of the surface of the clay will occur after applica-tion of a load. The classical consolidation theory predicts a rela-tion between settlement and time that has a characteristic shape when time is plotted to a logarithmic scale. This charac-teristic shape is shown in Text Figure 1. When consolidation l tests are made, in which samples are subjected to increments of f an applied load and the settlements are measured, the observed l settlement curves for all but the smallest load increments l agree well with the predicted ones throughout most of the l l settlement range of the curves, but after about 70 percent of the consolidation has occurred, the laboratory curves begin to deviate appreciably from the theoretical ones. Whereas the l theoretical curves approach a horizontal tangent indicating the completion of consolidation, the laboratory curves approach an i inclined tangent indicating that settlement continues at a rate l l l
i f 4
+
E l-1 sq p C - N '
,, \
\
'i \
$ '\
w 8
\
s b- -, _ _ . WEo E o o24o 88% o ue E EE 88R .
*'"'**R TI N1 E - LO G GCALE (.00M uAEIS)
T'H E.O R.E TI C At ~ RE LATIO N BETWEEN S E Ti t.E MENT A40 T(M E Offer Peck, Hanson & Thornburr)
'Founc\ation Engi neering", 2 Ed.
9 12. TEXk' I'IGURE 1 k l i
that is constant with the logar#'hm c of time. That is, the settlement - log time curve becomes a straight line. For convenience, the portion of the observed settlement that agrees with the theory is called primary consolidation. The portion in excess of that predicted by theory, including the linear portion, is called seconC ty consolidation. Secondary consoli-dation is also regarded as the settlement that occurs after the excess pore pressures have dissipated. Field measurements i indicate that stresses from structures or other loads resting above clays produce settlement curves similar to those obtained in the laboratory; that is, field curves also exhibit primary and secondary portions. It should be appreciated that the phenomenon of consolidation does not depend on th, soils being saturated. The requirement of saturation or near saturation applies only to the classical theory of primary consolidation. Whether the soil is saturated or not, it consolidates under increased effective stresses. The linearity of the settlement when plotted as a function of the logarithm of time is not related to the theory of primary consolidation and is not restricted in any theoretical way to full saturation. Primary consolidation, whether or not it takes place in accordance with the classical theory, is characterized by the dissipation of pore pressure and the corresponding transfer of stress to the soil structure. As the stress is transferred, the soil settles. In the field, measurements of pore pressure can be carried out more accurately and readily if the soil is saturated or nearly saturated.
~
L In a typical consolidation test on an " undisturbed" , sample of a compressible clay, the initial increments of pres- _ sure are small and are selected to provide several applications - of load at stresses less than the maximum stress under which the sample had been consolidated in the ground. This stress is '- known as the preconsolidation stress, preconsolidation pressure, or preconsolidation load. The curve of void ratio defined as a function of the logarithm of time for these increments usually _ displays no well defined branches that can be clearly identi-fied as primary or secondary consolidation. Often, after even - a considerable time has e' lapsed, the curves may tend to turn me v: downward, indicating an acceleration of settlement with respect to the logarithm of time. However, at consolidation pressures .- in excess of the preconsolidation load, the laboratory curves hava two distinct branches. The second branch is linear with
- respect to the logarithm of time, and does not display an increased steepness no matter how great the duration of the r
test. Therefore, at stresses near and above the preconsolida- -[ _ tion load, it is customary to proceed to the next increment of load in a consolidation test as soon as the straight-line - portion of the secondary curve has been established, because - the trend of the straight-line curve would continue indefinitely if the previous load increment were allowed to remain.
~ ~
In reality, the concept of two completely separable components, primary and secondary consolidation, is only an approximation, and the processes leading to both components of consolidation are active in different degrees throughout the A
entire time of application of the consolidation stress. Theo-retical understanding of the relations between primary and secondary consolidation has only recently become clarilled. See, Ref. 6, Appendix B. The more refined theory leads to the conclusion, in agreement with laboratory experience, that if the primary portion of the compression curve is clearly identi-fiable, and merges characteristically into the straight-line secondary portion, the straight line so defined will persist and will not, at any advanced time, increase in slope. 2.3 Precedents in Support of Surcharging Diesel Generator Building. Surcharging is a well established technique for accomplishing the purposes set forth in Section 2.1. Numerous examples are available in which surcharging was undertaken. A discussion of a select few of these precedents follows. At the ASCE Conference on the Design of Foundations for the Control of Settlements, held at Northwestern University in 1964, a state-of-the-art paper was presented by Harl P. Aldrich, Jr. on the subject "Precompression for Support of Shallow Foundations" (Ref. 12, Appendix B). The paper refers, among other examples, to surcharging a site for a cathedral in g Baltimore, to surcharging for a boiler house at the Midwest steel mill on Lake Michigan, and to surcharging for a five-story hospital in Japan. Aldrich also mentions the use of precompres-sion for three-story dormitories and a four-story office build-ing in the Albany area, whereupon the buildings were established on shallow spread footings and mats. He adds that the New York
Department of Public Works had used precompression on more than 50 projects, including the entire academic complex for the new State University at Albany. At the Purdue Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, held in 1972, Wheeless and Sowers presented an example of surcharging for a three-to eight-story Veterans Administration complex in Tampa, Florida (Ref. 15, Appendix B). The foundation conditions were complex, including the presence of solution features in the underlying limestone and of a compressible clayey stratum about 20 feet thick beneath the eastern portion of the structure. To avoid stress concen-trations in the solutioned limestone, a pile or pier foundation was considered undesirable. The depth of excavation was adjusted to furnish an essentially floating foundation, but fill required along the east side of the building would have induced objection-able tilting. Therefore, the compressible material was surcharged with 26 feet of sand. The surcharging induced a settlement of about 3.4 inches of which about 67 to 80 percent occurred during the placement of the surcharge, much more rapidly than expected. The structural loads were active by early 1970. By 1972, no noticeable foundation movement had occurred. Two interesting examples of surcharging after the start of construction date from a century ago. The first is the Northwest Miramichi Bridge in New Brunswick, built as part of the Canadian Intercolonial Railway by Sir Sandford Fleming in 1871-75. The primitive borings a*. the time indicated that bedrock underlay the riverbed silt at shallow depth. Conse-
quently, the bridge piers were designed to be founded on open timber caissons floated into place and filled with tremie concrete. During construction, it was found that the supposed bedrock was actually gravel and sand, beneath which were silt and clay to depths of roughly 100 feet. Fleming discontinued construction, enlarged the caissons, continued construction of the piers to approximately their full height, and then built a platform around the masonry on which he placed stones and rails with a weight of 450 tons as compared to the calculated weight of the trusses and bridge deck of 400 tons that the piers would ultimately be obliged to carry. The surcharge remained until, in Fleming's opinion, no further settlement was perceptible. He then completed the bridge (Ref. 19, Appendix B). The second example is the Auditorium Building in Chicago (Ref. 20, Appendix B). This structure, occupying half a city block and underlain by some of the softest clays in Chicago, consisted of a theater, a hotel, and an office build-ing. Most of the building was 10 stories, but a tower of 19 stories, on a large footing approximately 100 by 67 feet, was incorporated in the south wall. General William SooySmith, the foundation consultant, expected that the structure would settle, but hoped to keep the differential settlements as small as possible. Since it was anticipated that the ten-story part of the structure would be completed before the tower reached its full height of 19 stories, SooySmith elected to preload the tower. The bricks to be used for construction of the entire
tower, supplemented by loads of pig iron, were placed on the l l tower footing at such a rate that, when the entire building l reached the height of ten stories, the full weight of the tower rested on its footings. A modern example of surcharging after completion of the foundation for a structure is the Concentrator Building for thc Carr Fork Project of the Anaconda Copper Company, Tooele, Utah. My knowledge of this project, which was constructed by Bechtel, is derived from a review of selected portions of the files for the project furnished to me by Mr. Walter Ferris. The principal structure is a T-shaped building with dimensions of about 150 by 340 feet. It is located in a valley partly filled with loose deposits of free draining materials consist-ing of boulders, sand, and silt, mostly above the groundwater table. Blocks of rock from the adjacent hillsides are also present. Because of the large rocks, conventional subsurface investigations were not practical. Limited information was obtained by means of test pits and geophysical surveys, but the compressibility of the subsoil could not be evaluated reliably in advance. The foundation of the Concentrator Building was completed in the Fall of 1974, after which the plant grade was raised around the footings by placing fill to a depth of about 25 feet. After placement of the plant fill, it was noted that settlements of the foundation had taken place, These settle-ments were reported to be on the order of four inches. Inas-much as the building was not yet completed and additional
settlements were expected under future loadings, the decision was made to place a surcharge on the fill. The surcharging caused settlements that reached from about 11 to 17 inches. Because the groundwater table was at great depth, the compres-sion did not require the expulsion of pore water, and the settlements under the surcharge occurred almost as rapidly as the surcharge load was applied. The remainder of the structure was completed and put into operation. Several other small structures associated with the manufacturing complex were treated similarly. No difficulties have been reported as a consequence of settlements of the finished project. The foregoing examples demonstrate that surcharging for reducing future settlements of buildings is a widely accepted procedure that has been used under a variety of circumstances. It has been effective above miscellaneous fill, peat, loose sands and silts, organic materials, lake bed clays, clays, clayey silt, sand, compressible clays interspersed with silt lenses, and loose deposits of free-draining materials consist-ing of boulders, sand, and silt, with blocks of rock. The success of the procedure derives fundamentally from the fact that the compressibility of all earth materials is much smaller during a second loading cycle than during the first. The required duration of the loading is short if the materials to be loaded are free draining, and longer if time is required for pore pressures to dissipate.2 2 Addresses Warren Contention 1.
As illustrated by this testimony, the adoption of surcharging as a means for reducing future settlements of the completed Diesel Generator Building during its useful lifetime was in no respect unprecedented, unusual, or without ample theoretical and practical bases. It constituted, instead, a proper state-of-the-art application of well-known and well-tried engineering principles and procedures. 2.4 Organization of Surcharge Program. 2.4.1 Background. In accordance with the recommenda-tions of Dr. Hendron and myself, and following a variety of necessary preliminary studies, Bechtel executed the surcharging \' program in 1979. Planning the program required a number of preliminary considerations and decisions regarding instru-mentation, placement of surcharge, observational programs, and control of environmental conditions such as the elevation of the Cooling Pond. [See Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Tabs 14, 18, and 19] It was considered essential to observe settlements in order to determine the shape of the time-settlement curves, to ascertain the slope of the relation between settlement and the logarithm of time, and to permit a judgment as to the appro-priate time to remove the surcharge. It was also considered desirable to install piezometers in the subsoil to provide an independent measure of the progress of consolidation. As far as I know, no estimate was made, in advance, of the rise in piezometric levels that might be anticipated on placement of the surcharge. I took for granted that the piezo-
l , l metric levels could not rise to a level greater than the height of water equivalent to the weight of the applied surcharge; that is to a height of about 40 feet above the groundwater table. This would be the height equivalent to 20 feet of sand, applied suddenly, with a unit weight equal to twice that of water, and with no dissipation of pore pressure. I anticipated the rise would be appreciably less than 40 feet, because I expected the pore pressures to dissipate rapidly, even during the time when the surcharge was being applied. I thought that a rise of five to 15 feet would not be surprising, a rise that could be accommodated by the dimensions of the piezometers. However, since the fill would be applied gradually, the early reaction of the piezometers would indicate in ample time whether the riser pipes of the piezometers might need to be extended. There was, in my judgment, no need to attempt to ca culate the pore-pressure rise in advance, because the instrumentation would have the capability of observing the actual rise, and any calculations would be speculative because of their dependence on the properties of the subsoil, the presence and arrangement of permeable zones in the subsoil, and the actual rate of placement of surcharge. The decision concerning time of removal of the surcharge would depend on the results of the measurements, and would not in any way be altered by any preconceptions or calculations in advance. 2.4.2 Choice of Instrumentation. The principal observations to be made were of settlements under the surcharge loading and of excess pore pressures in the subsoil.
Settlement observations had already been initiated by optical surveys measuring the elevations of scribe marks on the walls of the building and on the pedestals. In addition, before placement of surcharge, settlement plates were estab-lished on the mud slab or on the ground surface to serve as additional reference points. The movement of the plates would be detected by observing the elevations of the tops of rods extending from the settlement plates to elevations above the top of the surcharge fill, where conventional optical surveys could be carried out. To investigate the variation of compressibility with depth beneath the building, subsurface reference points kno:in as Borros Anchors were selected for installation beneath 12 different areas of the building. The anchors were generally to be installed in clusters of four, so that settlements within the subsoil would be measured at four different elevations. These installations would permit judging whether the progress of consolidation differed at different levels below the founda-tion. These anchors were connected to reference rods that could be observed by optical levelling in the same manner as the other settlement reference points. The accuracy of optical levelling, under the circumstances likely to prevail in the field, was considered to be on the order of one-eighth inch. Variations of individual observations of this order of magni-tude from the trend indicated by the settlement curve for a given reference point were expected, and it was anticipated that the surcharge would need to remain in place until the
l l straight-line secondary portion of the settlement curves could be drawn reliably among the observed points. l As the observations progressed, it was concluded that the precision of the data obtained from reference points on the building could be improved if the settlements were observed not only by means of optical levelling, but also by direct measure-ment of the change in vertical distance between building refer-ence points and deep Borros Anchors installed in the natural deposit underlying the fill, where settlement due to the sur-charge could be presumed to be negligible. Such improvement in precision would permit a more refined prediction of settlement by extrapolation of the logarithmic time curves. To this end, four additional Borros Anchors were installed. The settlement of a reference point on the building was then measured _directly with respect to the rod from the anchor by measuring the change in vertical distance with the aid of a dial gage. These four anchora, BA-61, 62, 63 and 64, became operative in the middle of June 1979. The details of installation of the Borros Anchors are contained in the instrumentation repott by Goldberg, Zoino, Dunnicliff & Assoc. of July 1980 (?.esponses, Attachment 27 S-1). Those for the settlement plates are contained in the GZD report of October 1979, Diesel Generator Building Instrumenta-tion, Tab 141. At the meeting of the consultants in Denver on June 28, 1979, the time-settlement plots prepared by Bechtel based on data obtained up to that time were reviewed in some detail
l tResponses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Tab 70). The records being considered at the Denver meeting were gathered over a period of about 150 days. It appeared that the curves had entered the linear or secondary portion, but some scatter was apparent in the data. Inasmuch as appreciable temperature fluctuation had occurred since the beginning of observation, the consultants felt that a temperature correction for the length of steel reference rods might be needed and recommended certain measures for investigating the thermal effects and correcting for them. Steps were taken to reduce the daily temperature variations within the building by protecting the openings to the outside. Subsequently, it became apparent that the rods surrounded by surcharge fill were thereby provided a considerable degree of insulation. Furthermore, the detailed records of the deep Borros Anchors, discussed subsequently in this testimony, which independently and clearly established the trend of the secondary consolidation, indicated negligible scatter. The records of these four anchors are shown in Supple-mental Figure 27-78 of the Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill. Various types of piezometers are available for measuring pore-water pressures. All such piezometers require flow of water into or out of the apparatus in order to permit a measure-ment. The flow requires time and disturbs the equilibrium of the pore pressures around the piezometer tips. The time required for restoration of the equilibrium, and hence for
obtaining a correct reading, depends on the type of piezometer and the permeability of the soil in which it is installed. The time lag that may be tolerated der'nds on the purpose of the installation. If the change in r ess producing the consolida-tion occurs very rapidly or fluctuates, and if an accurate representation of the corresponding changes in pore pressure must be obtained, the permissible time lag is shorter than if the stresses are applied gradually, or will remain for a con-siderable period of time during which the pore-pressure equili-brium can occur. Closed-system piezometers have been devised to provide rapid response by requiring only a small flow of water for their operation. Such devices are more complex than those requiring longer time and are thus generally avoided if simpler devices will serve the purpose. The simplest devices are standpipes in which water level is measured by direct sounding. The time lag of such devices may be excessive for some installations, but by appropriate choice of the dimensions of the piezometer tip itself, of the permeable cavity created around the tip during installation, and of the diameter of the riser pipe, the time lag may be reduced to a value small enough for many purposes. When this can be done, the use of standpipe-type piezometers is preferable because the installations are simpler and more dependable. Beneath the Diesel Generator Building, piezometers of two types were utilized. They are described in the Instrumenta-tion Report by Goldberg, Zoino, Dunnicliff and Associates (Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Tab 141).
Both were of the standpipe-type. Sixteen of the piezometers (Numbers P-1 through P-16) were supplied by Piezometer Research and Development Corporation, and consisted of porous plastic cylindrical tips connected to plastic-tube standpipes. These piezometers were essentially of the type and dimensions devel-oped by A. Casagrande in the 1940's, specifically to provide a reliable instrument with a time lag appropriate for observation of pore-pressure changes in clay soils under load applications occurring over periods of a few days in contrast to a few minutes or hours. One of the first applications was in the design and construction of Logan Airport, Boston, to measure pore-pressure changes in a fill consisting of Boston blue clay dredged and placed hydraulically. This initial application was highly successful and led to the use of the Casagrande piezometer for installations in clay on a multitude of projects. The initial installation is described in the Journal of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers in an article by Arthur Casagrande, in April 1949. l An assessment of the response characteristics of I l various types of piezometers is given on Page 672 of Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, by Dr. Terzaghi and myself, Second Edition. It is seen, for example, that the basic res-ponse time (the time for 90 percent response) for a typical Casagrande open piezometer in a material with a coefficient of
-7 permeability of 10 cm per second is on the order of one day.
It will be shown subsequently in this testimony that the coeffi-l l l l l
cient of permeability of the plant fill was in the range of
-6 -7 10 to 10 cm per second. For this range, the response time would have been smaller than one day.
The remaining piezometers were of the Geonor type. These are also open standpipes. They differ from the Casagrande type principally in that the porous element is a sintered metal cylinder instead of a ceramic tube. Ordinarily, the Geonor Piezometer is pushed or driven into the soil. Thus, the potous tip is not surrounded by a zone of sand that acts as a collection medium. Consequently, the reaction time for a typical Geonor Piezometer installed by pushing it into the soil is roughly 10 times as long as that of a typical Casagrande-type installation. This may also be seen on Page 672 of Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. However, at the Midland installation, the Geonor Piezometers were installed by predrilling a hole, inserting the piezometer, and backfilling around the piezometer tip with sand. The riser pipe was then sealed against the formation. Thus, the collecting area was similar to that for the Casagrande j Piezometers, and therefore the reaction time corresponds to l that of the Casagrande-type. In fact, since the diameter of the riser pipe is smaller for the Geonor installations than for the Casagrande-type, the reaction time is actually somewhat
-8 quicker. Even for a coefficient of permeability of 10 cm per j second, the reaction time would be on the order of only five days.
Thus, the choice of piezometers and method of in-sta11ation were appropriate to the intended purpose and in
accordance with the best practice. A detailed discussion of the influence on the piezometric readings of such factors as lack of homogeneity of clay, permeable zones, or less perme-able masses than average is presented subsequently in this testimony (Section 3.11). In all field-observation programs, consideration must be given to redundancy of observations and ruggedness of equipment, and allowances must be made for the relatively primitive conditions on construction jobs as compared to scientific laboratories. Measurements must be evaluated critically, and occasional anomalies must be expected, studied, and sometimes discounted in view of the weight of the evi-dence. 2.4.3 Pond Level. At the time the remedial measures were being considered, the level of the cooling pond water was at about el 622, about 5 ft. below the maximum anticipated level. Groundwater levels in the plant fill area were a few feet lower. In order to avoid the complexities in measure-ment that would be introduced by pore-air pressures if the i plant fill were to contain large amounty of air, Dr. Hendron and I concurred in the desirability of allowing the pond f level to rise so that the tips of the piezometers and their l surrounding capsules of sand would be below groundwater level. The effect of the presence of air would thus be mini-mized.3 Addresses Stamiris Answer 2A2 to Applicant's [ Interrogatories on Contention 2 (April 20, 1981). l l
If groundwater level beneath the Diesel Generator Building could have been held at a constant high level through-out the surcharge process, constant base conditions for inter-pretation of excess pore pressures would have existed. This would have been an advantage in interpreting the observations of pore pressures. However, it was not possible to raise the pond quickly to a maximum elevation and maintain it at that maximum level, and there was no evidence that, even if this were done, tha grounawater levels beneath the Diesel Generator Building would necessarily reach a stable elevation. It was my opinion that the optimum course of action, taking into account these considerations, would be to proceed with the surcharging in order to reap the benefit of the presence of the surcharge at the earliest practicable time. It was evident that the groundwater level would be high enough to submerge the piezo-meter tips and accomplish the principal benefit of allowing the pond to rise. In addition, since at this early stage of investi-gation the hypothesis was still being entertained that the clays might be dry of optimum, it was considered desirable to submerge as much of the clay as possible. The implications of these decisions in the light of the observed behavior are considered subsequently in this testimony. 2.4.4 Placement of Surcharge. The dimensions of the surcharged area are shown in Text Figure 2. On the north side of the Diesel Generator Building, the extent of the surcharge was , limited by the presence of the Turbine Building. It was neces-
- sary to investigate the effect of the surcharge on the Turbine
l l N n ! A-Tus.aiut Bs.co Scartw WALLQ f Apk'
\ f e 1
e49
-Tiss m ,
I L __ __ _____ _ _ _
~
Ten 4 S FoerftER Q.1 I bog 2 !! Sof $ II S a y 4 11 pap 11 18 si Il 11 il li 11 ll ll L
-' II II II T L/ ,g g;
II II 20h; 18 -
- 11 ti 11 a u u w u.
20 min
' V 7
l A -*- PLAta rs e os.
; Tied refoining r siru c.tu re Ap prom . t Ya -2 m
1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,p r,,,,,s , ,,,
' surcharge l O TURsiuE l
6 roc \e El. f.34 BLos I se ddeds se. Sccrios A-A Be.cnfet Dwg C-104olo) 6ENERAL LAvouT OF o so f4 Sve.cs AeGr LoAo o c:: 6
>o>se TEXT FIGURE 2 fg"3 n gg
w Building and to provide a retaining structure that would pr vent adverse effects of any lateral loading. To the west, south and east, space was available to extend the surcharge beyond the limits of the structure and to provide a stable slope without the need for retaining structures. The dimen-sions in these directions were chosen primarily to assure that surcharge stresses beneath the building would not be less than the stresses that might produce settlement under operating conditions after removal of the surcharge. The height of the fill,was limited by the practical difficulties of filling beneath the mezzanine floor. Preliminary computations demon-strated that adequate surcharge stresses could be obtained with the dimensions shown in Text Figure 2.4 More refined analysis comparing surcharge stresses with subsequent operating stresses are presented subsequently. As a broad generalization, the surcharge was added in two principal increments, the first being placed within the approximate period 26 January-27 February, 1979, and the second between the approximate period March 16 - April 8, 1979. Each increment had a total thickness of about 10 feet. The material was brought to the site by truck, was dumped in piles, and was I spread in such a way as to keep the elevation of the top of the surcharge approximately level. Although the general loading pattern indicated in the previous paragraph was followed, the detailed manner in which 4 Addresses Stamiris Answer 2All to Applicant's Interrogatories on Contention 2 (April 20, 1981).
each increment of surcharge was placed with respect to location or time differed somewhat from the general pattern. Hence, the diagrams relating settlements and piezometric levels to place-ment of surcharge, discussed in detail in the next section, are somewhat idealized with respect to the placement of the surcharge. 2.4.5 Data Observations. A schedule was established by Bechtel, with which I concurred, for frequent observation of the settlement reference points, the Borros Anchors and the piezometric levels. The frequency of all the observations was sufficient to monitor the observed quantities closely, and to provide adequate data for evaluation of the scatter or variabil-ity of the results. The necessity for transferring settlement reference points during the placement and removal of the surcharge intro-duced the need for various corrections. These will be discussed in detail in the analysis in the next section of this testimony. 2.4.6 Removal of Surcharge. The primary objective of surcharging was reached when primary consolidation had been completed at all depths beneath the structure under the surcharge loading. According to the plots of settlement versus logarithm of time, this occurred at about Day 100, when the linear portion of the settlement curves was apparently reached for all settle-ment points. However, the conclusion that the linear portion had been reached could not be drawn until the curve extended as a straight-line far enough beyond Day 100 to assure that the trend was fully established. This will be discussed in the analysis under the next section of this testimony. The trend
I was well defined by Day 200 by means of the observations on the building reference points, the settlement plates, and the Borros Anchors. Furthermore, the four deep Borros Anchors, observable with a much higher precision, clearly indicated the linear trend by Day 200. In addition, the pore-pressure obser-i vations indicated rapid dissipation of pore pressure; indeed, the dissipation was so rapid that the pore-pressure rise was largely dissipated by drainage during and shortly after the period of surcharge addition. This evidence will also be discussed in the next section. On the basis of these two independent types of evidence, it was clear by about Day 200 that primary consolidation had been fully achieved. j A second consideration, however, required that the surcharge remain in place longer than the minimum time for reaching secondary consolidation. By determining reliably the 4 trend of the linear relation between settlement and the logarithm of time, predictions could be made of the future settlement of the structure at the location of each reference point merely by extrapolating the linear relation to the number of years of service life expected for the facility. This extrapolation would reliably permit prediction of the settlement if the surcharge were never to be removed and if no further loads were l to be added to the building. In reality, the surcharge would 3 be removed, resulting in substantial decrease in stresses at all levels, and the load on the building would be somewhat increased, but not to an extent that would compensate for removal of the surcharge. Hence, a prediction of future settle-i
ment based on the extrapolation procedure would necessarily lead to a conservative, and probably highly conservative, settlement forecast. Since the need to make such a forecast was recognized, the surcharge was left in place until a satis-factory extrapolation could be assured. We were satisfied that the surcharge reinoval could begin on August 15, 1979.5 3.0 ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM SURCHARGE LOADING PROGRAM 3.1 Introduction. To permit comparison of the history of surcharge loading, the settlements, and the pore-pressure measurements, the results of the observations have been combined into a series of drawings, Fig. Cl-C17 (Appendix. C), each representative of a limited area within or near the building. All drawings present the data as a function of time to an arithmetic scale. The magnitude of the surcharge is expressed as an equivalent elevation ~ of water above an arbitrary base level, el 626, approximately the elevation of the pond on January 26, 1979, just before surcharging began. Thus, piezo-metric elevations and surcharge can be compared directly. Each of the figures, Cl-C17, contains a small sketch representing a plan of the Diesel Generator Building and the locations of the piezometers or settlement reference points for which the data are plotted on the figure. In general, the groups of observational data are arranged to progress from west to east in ascending order of figure number. 5 Addresses Stamiris Answer 2A3 to Applicant's Interrogatories on Contention 2 (April 20, 1981).
l The data used in the plots, except where noted, have been obtained from the " Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill," $D.5.1. References to the sources in these volumes are made where appropriate. 3.2 Piezometric Data. Supplemental Table 27-1 contains a listing of 48 piezometers installed beneath or in the vicinity of the Diesel Generator Building surcharge fill (Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill). The graphical records of piezometric level of all these piezometers, with a few omissions listed hereafter, have been transferred directly to Figures Cl-C17 and C21 for the period from 1 December 1978 to 31 October 1979, the period encompassing the surcharging activities. Detailed locations of piezometers are given by coordinates in Supplemental Table 27-1, and are shown in plan on Figure 27-4 (Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill). For convenience, I have shown no more than three piezo-metric records on any one figure. The records on a single figure where more than one piezometer is represented include piezometers relatively close together in plan, with their tips at different elevations, in order that vertical hydraulic gradients and isochrones can be investigated. The number of the piezometer, as designated in Supplemental Table 27-1, is shown on the appropriate curve. In addition, the symbols D, M, or S are related to the appropriate curves to designate whether the particular piezometer is relatively deep, of medium depth, or shallow. For this classification, piezometers with their tips below el 610 are considered deep, those between el 610 and
I i 618 are of medium depth, and those above el 618 are shallow. The elevations of the piezometric tips are indicated on the appro- ; priate figures. The elevation of a piezometric tip is considered to be that of the mid-depth of the enen section, which was gener-ally two feet long, but in some instances was five feet. Of the 48 piezometers listed in Table 27-1, eight have been omitted from the plots. Piezometers 11, 19 and 45 are listed in Table 27-1 as having malfunctioned or been inoperative because they remained dry; Piezometers 20, 24 and 46 were similarly listed because they were damaged on 28 March, 1979 and not readable there-after. In addition, the seals in Piezometers 8 and 30 were noted to be questionable. Hence, the records of these piezometers were not used. I reproduced the records of all other piezometers with-out modification from the graphical records in Supplemental Figures 27-5 through 27-49 (Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill). Figures Cl-C17 and C21 also show the elevation of the pond throughout the period of interest. 3.3 Surcharge Loading. The variation of the surcharge loading is shown in idealized fashion on Figures Cl-C17 to the same scales as the piezometric observations. The information was ob-tained from Supplemental Figure 27-5 (Responses), and the loading converted from kips per square foot to feet of water. The load was applied as described in Section 2.4.4 of this testimony and, as indicated therein, the rate of loading at a particular point in the surcharged area may have varied somewhat from that shown in the idealization. The available portion of the record for P-20 is shown in Figure C6.
*l l
3.4 Settlement Data. The settlements of 12 of the l 1 reference points (DG Series) are shown by Figures Cl-C17 (Appen-dix C). In each instance, one or more settlement reference points close to the group of piezometers represented on each sheet have been chosen. The data were taken originally from Supplemental Figures 27-51 through 27-78, in which the time is plotted to a logarithmic scale (Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill). Subsequently, to improve the accuracy of Figures Cl-C17, tabulated values of the settlement were obtained and used for the plots. The semi-logarithmic time plots shown in the " Responses to NRC Requests" are plotted with January 26, 1979, the date of the start of surcharge placement, taken as Day 1. The semi-logarithmic plots show that the relation between settlements and logarithm of time becomes linear at approximately Day 100. For convenience in relating the arithmetic to the semi-logarithmic plots, Day 100 (May 6, 1979) is indicated by an arrow on Figures Cl-C17. During the course of the settlement observations it i was necessary to change reference points on three occasions. The first change occurred about 24 November 1978, when the scribe marks originally installed were replaced by permanent settlement markers. This change has no bearing on the data plotted in Figures Cl-C17 because it occurred before December 1978, the beginning date for the plots. The second change occurred about March 20, 1979, when the presence of the surcharge obstructed the original reference points and temporary points had to be established at a higher elevation in the building. i
l l l l The third change occurred about September 14, when the surcharge was lowered and the permanent settlement markers could again be utilized (except for a few that had been damaged). The plotted settlement curves in some instances show breaks corresponding to September 20, from which it can be inferred that errors were introduced either at the time the higher reference points were established or when the observations were re-initiated on the permanent reference markers. The times at which transfers of reference points were made are indicated by solid inverted triangles on Figures Cl-C17. On each sheet, the settlement data are plotted as given in the curvey records. These plots are. represented by solid lines. A correction has been made, however, in most instances to reduce or eliminate the error. The basis for correction is the record of the four deep Borros anchors, Numbers BA-61, 62, 63, and 64. These are located close to reference points DG-18, 16, 1, and 5 respec-tively. At each of these installations the Borros anchor was located at a great depth, where settlement as a result of the surcharge would be negligible. The settlement of the building or pedestal above the anchor would then be correctly represented by the observations on the Borros anchor installations. The deep anchor installations were not operative until the middle of June 1979. However, they functioned from mid-June through i the period of surcharge removal and for a considerable time thereafter. Hence, their records can be used to fill the gap associated with transfer of reference points and to correct the l
settlement curves. The Borros anchor settlements are plotted on Figures C2, 5, 12, 13, 14, and 17. The method of making the correction is illustrated on Figure Cl2. In mid-August 1979, just before removal of the surcharge, the settlement of the pedestal abcVe BA-62 was a maximum. As the surcharge was removed, the pedestal rebounded through a vertical distance a. Since Reference Point DG-16 must have rebounded through approxi-mately the same distance, the lowest points on the curve in August were raised through a distance b such that the rebound of DG-16 would also have been equal to a. The entire curve for DG-16 through the period March 20-September 14 was raised by the same distance b. The corrected curve is then represented by the dash line. Corrections of this type could be made reliably for Reference Points DG-1, 3, 5, and 16. In addition, reasonably reliable corrections could be made for Reference Points DG-9, 12, 13, and 18 by considering that the rebound on removal of the surcharge was equal to 0.23 in., the average value of rebound for the four deep Borros anchors. Since the actual rebound of the four anchors varied from 0.19 to 0.26 in., the error introduced by using the average value instead of the value that might have been given by a deep Borros anchor close to the reference points is not significant. Furthermore, no correction appeared to be needed for Reference Point DG-24, whereas that for DG-23 appeared obvious. Hence, it is my opinion that the settlement curves shown on Sheets Cl-C17 reliably represent the actual settlements of the permanent
f reference points. The correction procedure did not give consis-l tent results for Points DG-6 and 14, so the curves for these points are shown with gaps representing the two transition periods. /-' The corrections in the settlement curves, although relatively small, are of interest because the breaks in the data occurred at the time the major part of the surcharge was being added and again when it was removed. In particular, the correction is needed to define the shapes of the settlement curves during application of the surcharge. The corrections have no influence, however, on the straight-line portion of the semi-logarithmic plots on which the settlement forecasts are based. The transfer of reference points introduced greater error into measurementu'made on the pedestals (DG-4 through 19) than those made on the walls of the building (DG-1, 3, and 20 through 29) because the pedestal reference points had to be raised through the fill by means of extension rods subject to displacements by the fill. There fore, the reference points on the building walls, even without correction, are the best indicators of the progress of settlement under the surcharge load. The data for all the building settlement markers are plotted on a single sheet, Figure C18, arranged to show the progress of settlement of each of the four walls. Although gaps are shown where the transfers of reference points occurred, it is evident that the data present a remarkably consistent picture. f t
4 Further, Figure C19 shows the average settlement of the building reference points as a function of time. The average settlement has been computed for each date of observa-tion for the 12 perimeter reference points and plotted to full scale (1 inch equals 1 inch). The corresponding log-time plot is shown in Figure C20. Figures C19 and C20 are the only plots of the series in Appendix C in which the settlement scale differs from that elsewhere in this *2stimony. 3.5 Observation Wells in Plant Area. To provide as much background as possible against which to judge the behavior of the piezometers at or near the site of the Diesel Generator Building, records of observation wells throughout the plant have been assembled. These wells were install (d for various purposes and were not designed specifically to provide informa-tion concerning the Diesel Generator Building. In Figure C22 are plotted the locations of observation wells in which read-ings were made during the period of interest. Readings were not initiated until mid-March 1979 or later. Hence, the wells do not provide information regarding groundwater level before or during the first application of the surcharge. Furthermore, in many wells, readings were taken only occasionally if at all ,. ,' during May and June 1979, when the surcharge loading remained constant. Most of the records are reasonably' continuous after i the latter part of June. Unlike the piezometers, the observation wells gener-ally contained pervious sections with vertical dimensions of 10 feet or more. Hence, the wells do not provide information on
piezometric levels at specific elevations in the subsoil, but furnish composite readings from whatever separate aquifers may have been penetrated by the pervious sections. Plots of water level in the observation wells are shown in Figures C23, C24, and C25, to the same vertical scale of elevation and horizontal time scale as those used for the piezometric observations, Figures Cl-C17. It is noted in these figures that the water levels are usually well defined near the end of May 1979. These water levels are indicated in Figure C22. They may be compared with the results of the piezometric observations at the Diesel Generator Building at the same time. The comparison indicates that water levels throughout most of the plant area were close to el 625, except in the vicinity of the Service Water Pumphouse, Circulating Water Intake Structure, and Chlorination Building, where the water levels were as much as about two feet higher. 3.6 Interpretation of Settlement Data. The most significant information concerning the characteristics of the settlement of the Diesel Generator Building under the surcharge loading is contained in the semi-logarithmic plots contained in Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Supplemental Figures 27-52 through 27-77, in which the linear relationship between settlement and logarithm of time is clearly shown between about Days 100 and 200. Similar information is shown for Borros anchors in Supplemental Figures 27-80 through 27-139, and for settlement plates in Supplemental Figures 27-140 through 27-191 (Responses). The data for all the foregoing information
were obtained by means of optical surveys using conventional leveling equipment. Hence, the accuracy of the observations 1 is, at best, in the range of 0.05 to 0.10 in. , and the linear portions of the settlement plots show a typical stairstep assemblage of data points. Nevertheless, particularly with respect to the settlement markers in the DG Series beneath the loaded area the straight-line portions are well defined and permit no doubt that the settlements progressed linearly with the logarithm of time.
- In recognition of the desirability of having more refined data, Borros Anchors 61-64 were installed with refer-ence points at el 535.0, well below the seat of significant settlement due to the surcharge loading. The settlements of the building with respect to the deep reference points were measured directly by means of a dial gage, to an order of accuracy about 100 times as grer.t as that of the optical levels.
4 The results of these observations are shown in Supplemental Figure 27-78, and define precisely and clearly in each instance a linear relationship with respect to the logarithm of time (Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill). The relation remained linear until surcharge removal began. The linear relation, representing secondary con-solidation, nea baan used to predict the settlement that the building would have experienced if the surcharge had remained in place. The procedures and the results are described in Section 4.2. The remainder of this discussion is concerned with the reliability of the concepts and data on which the linear extrapolation is based.
The portj ons of the plots of settlement varsus loga-rithm of time preceding the linear segment have been drawn among the data points in Supplemental Figures 27-52 through 27-77 (Responses) as smooth curves approximating the typical - relation for primary consolidation. Corrections have not been made for the possible discrepancies in changing reference points as discussed previously. Such corrections, if made, would not appreciably alter the shape of the generalized curves, nor would they invalidate the observation that the primary portion, defined as the settlement preceding the linear second-ary segment, is large in comparison to the secondary settlement between approximately Days 100 and 200. The correction has no influence on the slope of the linear segment. However, an examination of Figures Cl-C17 in the present report, wherein the settlement has been plotted as an arithmetic function of time, indicates clearly that the settlement curves prior to about Day 100 are of a composite nature. Many of the curves, such as those for DG-6, Figure C4; for DG-13, Figure C8; for DG-14, Figure C10; for DG-16, Fig-ure C12; or for DG-18, Figure C16; show two separate episodes. l For example, Reference Point DG-18, Figure C16, indicates con-l t j siderable settlement during February and early March, a greatly ! reduced rate of settlement during mid-March, and another epi-sode of settlement beginning about April 1. The two epi-sodes correspond to the two stages of applying surcharge loading, indicated in highly generalized form by the loading diagram, Figure C16. The results lead to the conclusion t
that the application of the first major portion of the surcharge, up to an equivalent water load to about el 639, produced settle-ment very rapidly. When the loading was discontinued for a period of about two weeks, the settlement-time curve flattened considerably. The application of the remainder of the surcharge to about equivalent water el 658 produced another episode of settlement again followed by a flattening of the settlement curve after perhaps one or two weeks. The remaining settlement-time relations tend to show three episodes of settlement. Such relations are shown by DG-1, Figure C5; DG-9, Figure C6; and DG-12, Figure C7. It is probable that the rate of application of the load in the vicin-ity of these reference points differed enough from the general-ized average shown by the idealized surcharge curves to lead to recognizable differences in the rate of settlement. Indeed, detailed studies by Stoll, Evans, Woods & Associates, Appen-dix F, based on inspectors' reports of placement of the sur-charge fill, have led to load-time histories for the bays in l the west half of the building that display three major incre-1 ments of surcharge application after the end of January 1979 l (Figs. 1 and 2, App. F). It may be noted that settlement l reference noints DG-1 and DG-9 are located in the west half, 1 and DG-12 near the east-west centerline. Thus, the three-episode settlement curves probably have their origin in a three-step surcharge application inside part of the building. ( Outside the building the two-step generalized curve was more representative of the loading history, and the rela-
tion between time and average settlement of the perimeter reference points, Figure C18, considered to be the best general representation of the settlement history of the building itself, clearly shows two episodes of settlement associated with the two-stage application of the surcharge. Removal of the surcharge was associated with a rise of the reference points extending over a period of two to three weeks, corresponding closely to the period of surcharge removal. The amount of rebound, as indicated previously, was on the average about 0.23 in. , and varied for the four deep Borros anchors from 0.19 to 0.26 inch. 3.7 Interpretation of Piezometric Observations. Piezometric observations are prone to anomalies arising from various causes, some of which can be identified, whereas others often cannot. Hence, good practice in connection with piezometric observations requires redundancy a'nd considera-tion of all records in order that anomalous behavior can be identified and either explained or excluded from the interpreta-l tions. l I have divided the piezametric records shown in Figures Cl-C17 and C21 (Appendix C) into two portions, the i readings up to about June 1979, and those subsequent to June. This division is convenient because all the piezometric records indicate fairly stable conditions throughout May and June. The portions of the records before June refer principally to the period of surcharging and subsequent settlement for about two months. The period following June includes additional settle-
mente under the eurcharg% the effects of surcharge removal, and the subsequent rebound. Of the forty piezometric records included in the plots, Figures Cl-C17 and C21, 34 are quite similar, without obvious anomalles, in the pre-June period. Six appear to be appreciably different from the remainder. Of these six, Num-bers 43, 32, 4, and 10 indicate unusually low piezometric levels in the first two or three months of the record; Number 22 exhibited a greater and longer pore-pressure response than the others, and Number 38 indicated an anomalously high pore pressure during the end of December and early January before the surcharge was applied. The record of PZ-48, Figure C3, is regarded as typical (Appendix C). It refers to a shallow piezometer, tip el 621.0, just inside the western edge of the Diesel Generator Building. l The piezometric levels rise in a general vay from the first of the year until about May, after which there is a gradual decrease. l The general shape of the curve follows that of the elevation of the pond, which also peaked at about the end of May. However, two rather significant irregular bulges are superimposed on the general curve, one having a maximum at about the end of the first week of March, and the other having a maximum at the end 1 of about the first week in April. These two bulges correspond to two episodes of settlement, indicated by DG-23, which began 1 i at about the beginning of March and the beginning of April. l 1 t Hence, these two bulges in my opinion represent excess pore pressures associated with the two stages of surcharging that l
4 also reaulted in two episodes of sattlement. This matter will be discussed in more detail subsequently. Scme of the otherwise similar piezometric curves, such as that for Piezometer PZ-36, Figure C9, show only one significant bulge. The bulge for PZ-36 occurred near the end of March, at a time when the second episode of settlement was beginning. Also significant in interpretation of the piezometric records is their considerable consistency. For example, PZ-27 and 29, Figure C8, representing a shallow piezometer and one of medium depth, follow each other very closely. The same is true for Piezometers PZ-7 and 12 on Figure C7, and for PZ-23 and 26 on Figure C2. The virtual congruence of many sets of piezo-meters is an indication of the reliability of the data and of the consistency of the results. The choice of piezometers to be plotted on the individual figures was made on the basis of the proximity of the piezometers to each other. Where possible, a figure contains the records of three neighboring piezometers, one shallow, one at medium depth, and one relatively deep. The purpose was to disc, lose I whether any significant upward or downward hydraulic gradients existed in the consolidating mass. In general, it can be r concluded that the vertical gradients were always relatively small, inasmuch as the differences in piezometric level rarely j exceeded two or three feet in vertical distances of 10 or 20 feet. As a rule, the gradient tended to be upward, with the deepest piezometers having the highest piezometric levels. l However, there were many exceptions to this tendency, and a l
i preferred direction of flow, whether upward or downward, was not strongly evident. This behavior is indicative of numerous internal drainage zones. Finally, it may be observed that the excess pore pressures, as represented by the bulges with res-pect to the general trend of the respective piezometric curves, were usually quite small, on the order of two to three feet of head. This would lead to the conclusion that the rate of pore pressure dissipation was generally so rapid that the excess pore pressure commonly reached no more than 10 percent of the consolidation stress. The principal exception to this conclu-sion is PZ-22, Figure Cl, a deep piezometer that indicated an excess pore-pressure on the order of eight feet or roughly one-third of the consolidation stress, and a time of dissipa-tion extending into July. This behavior is anomalous in the sense that no other piezometer shows comparable results. l The least typical of the piezametric records with respect to the Diesel Generator Building is that of PZ-22, , Figure C1 (Appendix C). The general shape of the curve relat-l l ing piezometric elevation and time is similar to that of many I of the others, but the magnitudes, of both positive and nega-I tive excess pressure with respect to groundwater level, are greatly exaggerated. It is noted that this is the deepest piezometer of the entire installation, and terminates in natural l sand at about el 590. The behavior could be explained by the l presence of a relatively impermeable boundary surrounding the l mass of sand containing the piezameter tip. The sand would then act as an accumulator. PZ-22 is located in plan between i PZ-28 and PZ-21, both of which are shallower and which portray l [. w
the consolidation of the plant fill material. Since the behav-ior of these two higher piezometers is in accordance with the general pattern, it may be concluded that the piezometric levels reflected by PZ-22 are not indicative of the consolida-tion of the clayey fill. Piezometers PZ-21 and 28 indicate that the clayey fill consolidated in the same manner as the rest of the fill beneath the Diesel Generator Building, irre-spective of the capsule of sand penetrated by PZ-22. The high reading of PZ-38 prior to surcharging, Figure Cl4, has no known explanation. Similarly, the rela-tively low readings of PZ-43, 4, 32, and 10, near the beginning of the observational period, are also not understood. The piezometers may have been slow to react after construction, because of the nature of the materials immediately surrounding the pervious section, but they appeared generally to respond normally at later dates. Particularly significant is the response of Piezo-meters 17 and 18, Figure C21, which shows the same characteris-tics as those of piezometers beneath the surcharge, although Piezometers 17 and 18 are roughly 145 feet south of the south-l west corner of the Diesel Generator Building. They are, there-fore, at a considerable distance from the edge of the surcharge. l The approximate relations are shown in the cross-section, ! Figure C26. A study of the borings in the vicinity indicates that the plant fill is primarily of a clayey nature in the 1 upper 30 feet except where structural backfill exists, as indicated in Boring PD-19. Underneath the clayey zone is a l
i natural sandy section sorae 15 feet thick underlain in turn by more clayey deposits. Toward the south the sandy zone begins to pinch out and is not present at the southern end of the plant fill. The toe of the dike is only about 30 feet to the south of Boring PD-3, Figure C26. Thus, in my opinion the reaction of PZ-17 and 18 is a pressure effect. Under the I weight of the surcharge the compressible clayey fill beneath the Diesel Generator Building decreased in volume, probably to a considerable extent due to compression of large voids from , which some of the expelled water was forced into the sandy zone. Piezometers located in the sandy zone in the vicinity of the Diesel Generator Building responded therefore to the appli-cation of the surcharge. The response was brief, but definite. An examination of the records of observation wells in the general plant fill area, Figure C22, has been made to i determine whether this pressure effect may have been detected elsewhere. However, the records of the observation wells, with readings seldom more frequent than weekly and with most records beginning about the end of March, make conclusions uncertain. A slight tendency for a rise in piezometric levels in early April can be observed in the records of SW-1 and SW-7 (Figure , C25), and SW-4 and SW-8 (Figure C24). Reference points in the 1 l AX Series, located north of the containment vessels, appear to be unaffected, although the records are admittedly incomplete. Thus, the observation well data are not inconsistent with the implications f PZ-17 and 18, although they constitute meager evidence. l l l
Figurc 022 demonstratcc that piezometric levels in the plant area near the first of June 1979 did not differ markedly from those beneath the Diesel Generator Building. That is, there was no significant piezometric bulge beneath the building or surcharged area that might be interpreted as a zone of undissipated excess pore pressure. This matter has been investigated further with the results shown in Figures C27 and C28. In these figures, piezometric levels at about 1 June are shown for piezometers having tips within the three levels previously designated as shallow, medium depth, and deep. Contours have been drawn representative of each of the depth zones. In general, the contours for each zone represent nearly flat piezometric surfaces and suggest negligible piezo-metric gradients either horizontally or vertically. There is no indication of any bulge in piezametric pressures or of hydraulic gradients tending to cause flow from the surcharged area. Within the zone of plant fill, piezometric pressures beneath the surcharged area are essentially constant and are not significantly different from those in the surrounding areas. This condition would not be possible if excess pore pressures due to the surcharge still persisted in the fill.6 In the diagram at the top of Figure C27, representing i piezometric elevations for the deep zone between el 600 and 610, two values are enclosed in brackets. These values are i 6 Addresses Stamiris Contention 4A(5). l l ( I
I I higher than all the others. They correspond to the deepest piezometers, with tips below el 597 in the natural soils. The higher piezometric levels at depth are compatible with the conception that groundwater flow into the plant area takes place primarily at depth and only secondarily by direct com-munication from the cooling pond. ( In the discussion of the relation between excess pore pressure and settlement under increments of surcharge loading, it was pointed out that the excess pressures are referred to the general piezometric level of the ground water that would have existed if the surcharge were not present. This base level for piezometric pressures is, of course, not known, because the surcharge was present. Inferences can be drawn on the basis of reasonable limiting assumptions. An attempt to do so is represented in Figure C29, in which the piezometric levels for three shallow piezometers, PZ-48, 25, and 27, are reproduced along with the settlement curve for nearby reference points, DG-23, 9, and 13 respectively. Also plotted on the piezometric charts are the elevations of the cooling pond from December 1978 through June 1979. A conservative assumption with respect to the base , piezometric level is that the normal groundwater level without l the surcharge would always have been about three feet below the pond elevation. This level is shown by the dash line in the piezometric charts, and the excess pore-pressure with respect to this level is shown by the single hatching. A second assump-tion, less conservative but more realistic, is that the shape 4
.g -
- of the curve representing groundwater elevation as a function of time from 1 January to 31 May is that of a smooth curve closely approximating the actual variation in pond level and with its extremities coinciding with the actual levels of the respective piezometers on 1 January and 31 May. This assump-tion is equivalent to stating that there was no excess pressure in the piezometric readings on these two dates. The reasons for believing that the excess pressure had fully dissipated by 31 May have been discussed previously. The excess pore pres-sures with respect to the base line determined in this manner are represented by the double hatching in Figure C29.
Irrespective of choice of limiting assumptions, the hatched areas correspond well with the times at which maximum settlements were initiated. Since the settlement curves are influenced by the rigidity of the structure, whereas the piezo-meters represent point measurements, an exact correlation should not be expected. In summary, it may be stated that the curves of settlement versus logarithm of time are linear, as would be expected for secondary consolidation, between about Days 100 and 200; the settlement curves plotted to an arithmetic time scale show that the primary consolidation, largely before Day 100, occurred in two or sometimes three episodes corresponding at least approximately to the times of major application of surcharge load; that excess pressures were registered by the piezometers at times correlating well with the increase in l surcharge loading and of settlement; that the magnitudes of the ! l l
~
i
- excess pressures, generally on the order of 10 to 20 percent of the consolidation stress, indicate rapid pore-pressure dissipa-tion even with respect to the rate of load application; and that no appreciable or detectable excess pore pressure remained beneath the Diesel Generator Building by about the first of June. Hence, the records of settlements and pore pressures are compatible with each other and indicate full consolidation under the surcharge loading.
The foregoing discussion of piezometric records refers to the period until about June 1979. Further conclu-sions may be drawn from a study of the records from June to September, about a month or so after removal of the surcharge. Of the 40 piezonetric records used in this study, 23 may be considered typical of observations during the period June-September 1979. Readings on two of the piezometers (PZ-28 and 38) were terminated before surcharge removal. The records of 13 (PZ-21, 22, 31, 2, 4, 40, 42, 5, 6, 1, 16, 10, and 35) differ significantly from the 23 typical records in one or more respects, and are therefore classified as atypical. The records of two piezometers (PZ-24 and 25) differ only slightly from the ones considered typical. The records of PZ-23 and 26 (Figure C2) may be con-sidered illustrative. The pienometric levels remained fairly constant, decreasing slightly in approximately the same manner as the pond elevation, until about the end of the first week in August. A decrease in level of roughly two feet then occurred, followed by a return to approximately the levels prior to the i
l l decrease. The dips in the two curves had a duration or about two weeks. They occurred at a time corresponding closely to the beginning of surcharge removal, and also corresponding closely to the beginning of the period of rebound indicated by the deep Borros anchor, BA-64. The records of Piezometers 43 and 47, Figure C4, display the same general characteristics, although the tem-porary rise of Piezometer 43 following surcharge removal is somewhat atypical. Records such as that of Piezometer 25, Figure C6, display the same characteristics. Piezometer 25 was not classed among those with typical records only because of the rise indicated in mid-July. Similar rises may be noted in Piezameter 27, Figure C8, and in Piezometer 32, Figure C10. These brief excursions probably represent single erroneous observations. l The removal of the surcharge load affected the pore l pressures at distances of several hundred feet from the Diesel Generator Building, as indicated by Piezometers 17, 18 and 44, Figure C21. l The decrease in piezometric level on unloading is the l typical reaction to application of a negative consolidation t
- stress, and the subsequent rise of piezometric level to the i
l preceding values is representative of dissipation of the nega-tive pore pressure with respect to groundwater level. The theoretical basis for this behavior was set out in detail by Terzaghi in 1948 in a report on the behavior of an iron-ore i storage yard in Cleveland, in which he discussed the pore
pressures in a foundation subjected to several cycles of increas-ing and decreasing loads. The entire report was reproduced in the volume "From Theory to Practice in Soil Mechanics, Selections from the Writings of Karl Terzaghi", published in 1960, pp. l 299-337 (Ref. 3, Appendix B). The theoretical findings are summarized in his Fig. 11, reproduced as Figure B1 (Appendix B). Part (a) of this figure shows the variation in pore pressure l l in a clay mass below an area that is alternately loaded and 1 unloaded; the load is maintained at a constant value for a period of time, is then reduced to zero for the same length of 1 time, is then restored to its original value, and the cycles repeated. The pore pressure rises immediately on application l of the first load to a value somewhat less than the pressure exerted by the load itself and dissipates gradually to a smaller value at the end of the first loading period. Sudden removal of the load causes a drop in pore pressure almost equal to the decrease in load, to a negative value with respect to the initial conditions. The pore pressure then rises gradually as this negative pressure dissipates. Application of the load for i l a second time causes another rise in pore pressure, but not to as high a value as the first time. The second removal of the load causes another drop to a negative value, more negative than the first drop. After several cycles, when the load l l continues to alternate between its given value and zero, the pore pressures alternate between nearly equal positive and negative values. The diagrams (b) and (c) in Figure B1 (Appen-dix B) show comparable behavior if the load is applied in
triangular or sinusoidal cyclic patterns. The pertinent conclu-sion is that, whenever the load is removed, the pore pressures become negative, after which they rise again as the negative pore pressure dissipates. The ore yard in Cleveland was intended to accommodate iron ore to a height of some 70 feet over an area with dimensions exceeding 300 by 1000 feet. The subsoil consisted of glacial lacustrine clays and tills to a depth of about 130 feet. The height of ore was at a maximum in the fall and approached zero in the spring as the ore was used during the winter. The ac-tual variation in loading at several sections is shown by the solid lines in Figure B2 (Appendix B), and the measured pore pressures at points in the subsoil by dashed lines. It can be seen that in April 1944, for example, when the ore load was zero, the pore pressures were negative as indicated by the theory. These field observations on the ore yard, for which I was responsible, were followed by many others described in the literature. Two examples are described in the following para-graphs. At the Conference on Pore Pressure and Suction in Soils, held in London in 1960, Gibson and Marsland presented a i paper describing the pore pressure behavior in soft clays and clayey sandy silts beneath a large oil tank during its first I three loading cycles (Ref. 4, Appendix B). The results of the observations are shown on Figure B3 (Appendix B). It is noteworthy l that the pore pressures increased as the load was applied, but
to magnitudes appreciably smaller than the applied stresses; that pore pressure dissipation continued to occur during the period of constant loading of*approximately three months; and
. that upon removal of the load from the oil tanks, the pore pressure decreased to values generally lower than the original groundwater pressure. Immediately after the load was removed, the negative pore pressure was a maximum, and the dissipation of the negative pore pressure occurred very rapidly at first.
The tendency for negative pore pressure on load removal, fol-lowed by a rise to the groundwater pressure, is evident. l A third set of similar observations was reported by Penman and Watson at the European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering in Wiesbaden in 1963 (Ref. 5, Appen-dix B). The results refer again to two cycles of loading of an oil tank. Their figure 6 is reproduced herein as Figure B4 (Appendix B). The tank was filled in a period of about one-half day, and the pore pressures beneath the center of the tank rose to values about three-quarters of the applied stress. After nearly complete dissipation of the pore pressures in the ensu-ing five days under load, the surcharge was removed within a few hours. The pore pressures correspondingly decreased to a level more than one meter below'that of the groundwater pressure, l but rose again within a day to pressures corresponding to i ! groundwater level. The behavior in the two preceding examples agrees 1
- fully with that predicted by Terzaghi and experienced by the Cleveland ore yard. In my judgment, it may be considered the i
I normal behavior under such circumstances. l t
It should be noted that the magnitude of the peak positive pressure as the surcharge load is increased depends strongly on the rate of pore pressure dissipation in the soil. For low lates of dissipation, as experienced at Cleveland, the rise in pore pressure was a substantial fraction of the applied stress. For more rapid rates of dissipation, as in the subsoil of the tanks described by Gibson and Marsland, the relative rise in pore pressure was smaller. For high rates of dissipa-tion, relatively small pore pressure increases could be expected. Similarly, the amount of negative pore pressure with respect to groundwater pressures, on removal of load, depends on the relative rates of load removal and dissipation of the negative pore pressure. The rate of dissipation, according to theory, is governed by the drainage conditions and the coefficient of consolidation (or swelling). The coefficient of consolidation, in turn, is a direct function of the coefficient of permeability and an inverse function of the compressibility. Thus, the more impervious the soil, for given rates of load application and removal, the greater the initial rise in pore pressure and the greater the initial negative pressure on load removal. Further-more, the softer the soil, the greater the initial rise in pore pressure and the greater the initial negative pressure on load removal. In my judgment, the behavior of the piezometers beneath the surcharge area at the Diesel Generator Building conforms completely with the expectations of Terzaghi's theo-
retical treatment and the behavior of the three sets of observa-tions described above. Pore pressures increased as the surcharge was added, but did not reach values corresponding to the applied stress because of relatively rapid dissipation. This was a result of the relatively high permeability of the clay fill with its sand inclusions, in contrast, for example, to the low permeability of the natural clays at Cleveland. The excess pore pressures at Midland were fully dissipated long before the load was removed. They did not decrease to the original value of groundwater pore pressure, but to the value of pore . pressure corresponding to the groundwater levels that prevailed at the end of the surcharge due to seasonal moi =ture changes and the operation of the reservoir. On removal of the surcharge, the pore pressures decreased below the groundwater pressures pre-vailing at the time, in full accordance with the mechanisms described above. The decrease was small because of the high rate of dissipation of pore pressures. For the same reason, the negative pore pressures disappeared rapidly, and the piezo-meters quickly began to reflect the groundwater pressures. In my view, therefore, there is nothing unusual in the behavior of the pore pressures at Midland. As far as is known, no extraneous activities that should have influenced the position of the groundwater table occurred near the Diesel Generator Building during the period from January to September 1979. Three test wells in the TW Series were pumped briefly during this period. The wells were located at a distance of about 300 feet from the Diesel Generator
Building. Well TW-1 was pumped for 320 minutes at 6.5 gallons per minute on May 15. Well TW-4 was pumped at 10 gallons per minute for 520 minutes at a later date. Well TW-5 was pumped at 11 gallons per minute for 321 minutes on June 27. Drawdowns were measured at distances not greater than 16 feet from the pumping well and did not exceed 6.5 feet. The cone of depres-sion at the end of the pumping period was very limited, and no evidence of the pumping can be seen in any of the piezometric curves. Test pits lA, 2A, 3A, and 4A were excavated at various locations in the plant fill area in June 1979. Three of the pits did not reach groundwater level, and the fourth, Number 4A, was excavated six inches below groundwater table at the time, to a base elevation of 626. This pit was located near the Service Water Building. 3.8 Effectiveness of Surcharge on Plant Fill Imme-diately Beneath Foundations. The position of the free water surface during the surcharge period, in contrast to the elevation of piezometric levels corresponding to various piezometers, is not known exactly. This uncertainty, although small, appeared to raise a concern whether the plant fill between footing level and the water table has been consolidated as effectively as that below. The following discussion demonstrates that the concern was not justified. It is known that the elevation of the water in the cooling pond was a maximum of 627.2 in April and decreased gradually to about 627.0 by the first of June. It is probable
that the free water surface in the vicinity of the Diesel Generator Building lagged somewhat below these elevations. It is also known thet the piezometers having the highest eleva-tions, PZ-21, PZ-31, and PZ-42, were operable during this 4 period. Since their screens were located between about eleva-tions 622 and 624, it is evident that the free water surface was not lower than el 622. The contours of piezometric level corresponding to the shallow piezometers, Figure C28 (Appendix C), are generally at about el 625. Although there is no evi-dence for a significant hydraulic gradient in an upward direc-tion, it may be argued that the piezometric levels could have been somewhat higher than the free water surface. If this argument is accepted, the fill between about el 622 and 628 might have been above the free water surface during the sur-charge period. It might be argued further that the compression of the fill above the free water surface, under the weight of the surcharge, might have been less than if the free water i surface had been as high as the base of the footings, el 628. 4 Instead of being approached on hypothetical bases like the foregoing, this question can be investigated directly by analyzing the settlement observations made on the Borros anchors. At 12 different locations beneath the surcharge fill, clusters of three or more Borros anchors were established, with each point in a cluster at a different elevation. Settlement plates were established on the mud mat or in the fill near the elevation of the mud mat, usually at about el. 628, at the location of each cluster; at some clusters two settlement I { i l
plates were established at somewhat different elevations and locations. The uppermost Borros anchor in each cluster was established at about el 622, and the next lower one at about el 615. Hence, the strain in the plant fill between footing level and el 622, roughly the elevation of the free water surface, can be compared directly with the strain between elevations 615 and 622, an approximately equal thickness of fill directly below the free water surface. The settlement records for each settlement plate and Borros anchor in a cluster are shown in Figures A43-A56 (Appen-dix A). At the right side of each figure is a plot of the vertical strain between successive vertical reference points (settlement plate or Borros anchor) in the cluster to which the reference points belong, for the approximate period of applica-tion of the surcharge. The details of the calculation are described in Appendix A, Section 6.3. The comparison of strains for the 9 clusters located within the building is shown in Figure C30 (Appendix C), arranged in approximate order from west to east as shown in the location sketch on the figure. Each cluster of Borros anchors and its accompanying settlement plate is represented by a vertical line identified at the top by the number of the cluster. The number of each Borros anchor is shown at the proper elevation on the left side of the vertical line. The strain between two Borros anchors at different clevations in the same cluster has been calculated by dividing the difference in settlement occurring between the anchors juring the interval 24 January to 15 August
.~,.-- -, - - , . , , , - - . -
by the vertical distance between the anchors. These numbers are indicated within the circles shown in Figure C30. A few of the Borros anchors indicated obviously erroneous results, in that they showed a vertical stretching between two points instead of a compression. Where this occurred, the readings were ignored and the strains calculated as shown in Appendix A for the total interval extending from the reference point above the defective anchor to the one below. These strains are indicated in parenthesis in Figure C30. (Appendix C). It is apparent from a study of Figure C30 that although there is considerable variation, the vertical strain in the interval above the water table does not differ significantly from that in the interval immediately below. The average vertical compression determined for the zone above water table
-3 whereas that for the interval immediately below is 9.4 x 10 ,
-3 the approximate level of the water table is 5.5 x 10 . For the zones in which defective gages existed, where the average strain over two intervals was calculated, the averages are not inconsistent with the near-by values obtained within the inter-vals themselves. Therefore, the field observations demonstrate that the strain within the zone presumed to be above the free water table is as great as that in the zone immediately below and, indeed, is somewhat greater. Hence, speculation is not warranted concerning the elevation of the free water table, concerning the effect of the elevation of the free water sur-face on the compression under the surcharge loading, and con-cerning possible future settlements associated with a rise of
the free water surface above its level during surcharging. The facts demonstrate that the surcharge loading was as effective in the upper six feet as in the next lower seven feet. Stated otherwise, the fill above water table participated as fully in the consolidation as that below. During the earliest phases of the investigation of the settlement of the Diesel Generator Building, while even speculative causes were being discussed, the possibility was mentioned that the fill might have been placed so dry of opti-mum moisture content as to have, possessed at least locally a collapsible structure that would become manifest upon wetting. This possibility was entertained in part because of an opinion that the placing season had been unusually dry. Subsequent investigations showed that at the time of surcharging the fill was wet of optimum; thus the placement moisture content is irrelevant. The facts have been assembled in the response to Question 40, part 3, page 40-47. In view of the observed vertical strains, Figure C30 (Appendix C), the response to Question 40 in considered only as supplementary evidence, useful to explain why the compression of the uppermost layers of fill beneath the foundation did not differ significantly from that immediately below. During surcharging, the pond level was raised as much as practical, partly to induce any consolidation that might be associated with submergence, but primarily to submerge the piezometers so that the progress of consolidation could be monitored. This purpose was fully accomplished, as indicated by the piezometric records.
3.9 Review of Data. The discussions, Sections 3.1-3.8 inclusive, are based on the data contained in the " Responses", supplemented by a tabulation of settlements as noted in Section 3.4. During the course of my analysis, as indicated at various points in this testimony, several discrepancies or anomalous values were noted in the data. Some of these appeared to be associated with transfers of reference points, and reason-able corrections were made. Others appeared to be isolated anomalous readings or errors. They did not, in my judgment, impair the weight of the evidence and conclusions drawn there-from. Nevertheless, it appeared that a trorough review of the observational procedures and of all steps in the data reduction might disclose possible errors and explain or remove some of the anomalies. Such a review was authorized and was carried out by Mr. Peter A. Lenzini under my general direction and under the closer direction of Dr. Hendron. It included a review of the original settlement data and discussions with some of the surveyors, a review of the procedures used to process the data, a recalculation and replotting of the piezo-metric and settlement data ctarting from the original records, and an examination of the data for consistency. Mr. Lenzini's qualifications are summarized in Sec-tion A.2, Appendix A, and are detailed following p. A50. Appen-dix A contains his statement of the detailed manner in which he investigated and replotted the data. His study resulted in a series of drawings representing what I consideJ.- to be the most
'N . ,.
accurate representation of the settlement (Figs. A13-A56) and piezometric (Figs. Al-Al2) behavior of the Diesel Generator , Building (Appendix A). , A comparison of Figures Al-A56 (Appendix A) with Figures Cl-C21 (Appendix C) of my preceding testimony demon-strates that several errors were indeed present in the data used to construct Figures Cl-C21, but that these errors do not alter the conclusions. For the most part, the errors were responsible for the previously noted anomalies, many of which now can be eliminated. The corrected data permit the conclu-sions to be drawn more firmly, aswillbedemonsgratedinthIe following paragraphs.
\
3.9.1 Piezomet:c ic Data. Near the end of my testi-mony in Sect. 3.7 on the " Interpretation of Piezometric Observa-tions", when dealing witit the pi'ezometric data for the period June-September 1979,' I stated that the records of 13 piezameters (PZ-21, 22, 31, 2, 4, 40, 42, 5, 6, 1, 16, 10, and 35) differed significantlyfrom2.}typicalrecordsinoneormorerespects, and were therefore classed as atypical. The principal differ-ence was the absence, in the plotted curves for these piezometers, of a sharp decreas4 in piezometric level on removal of the-surcharge followed by a prompt return to approximately th'e level before surcharge removal (See Table 3.10, Appendix D). The corrected curves, Figures Al-Al2 (Appendix A), show that such dips were actually measured for Piezom,eters PZ-2, 4, and s 10 during the period of about 15-24 Audust, and that no observa-tions were made during approximately the same period on piezo- +- meters 21, 31, 40, 92, 5, 6, 1, 16, and 35. Thus, a dip could s-r o
have occurred in this period without being recorded. Hence, the foregoing 12 piezometers can be removed from the atypical list as far as the dip is concerned. However, piezometer PZ-10 still retains an unexplained variation, possibly due to flush-l < ing, during the first half of July. The plot of PZ-21, Fig.
~
C1,' showed an anomalously persistent low piezometric elevation after surcharge removal; the corrected plot eliminates this anomaly. The record of PZ-22 remains questionable during August. Thus, 11 of the 13 can be removed from the atypical list. Therefore the 23 typical records noted in the earlier part of my testimony are increased to 34, a remarkably high record of consistency among the 40 piezometers studied.
.i Moreover, as inspection of Figures Al-Al2 (Appen-
, dix A) indicates, the review of the piezometric data showed that the reduction and subsequent restoration of the piezo-metric level associated with surcharge removal were rapid and of larger magnitude, up to 8 or 9 feet, than indicated by most
.of the uncorrected records.
Since the reactions were occurring
. rapidly, the maximum reduction was in all probalAlity not coincident with the time of observation; thus, the observed dips are conservative indications of the actual ones.
The study indicated no explanation for the isolated peak c6 piezometric level in the record of PZ-17 on about 30 March, shown on Figure C21 (Appendix C). The peak probably repre'ehts s 2 single erroneous reading. On the other hand, the record of PZ-32, Figure C10 (Appendix C), omitted a single high reading about 13 March. This reading may also have been an
error, but the review disclosed no positive reason for discounting it. Thus for the most part, the review explained the ap-parent anomalies in or verified the piezometric plots between January and June 1979 and my preceding testimony is supported and strengthened. 3.9.2 Settlement Data. The settlement plots, Figures A13-A56 (Appendix A), reflect corrections described by Mr. Lenzini's account of his investigation and his procedures for adjusting for the changes in reference points to which I have referred in Section 3.4. Most of the plots, Figures A13-A24 (Appendix A), show by separate symbols two possible interpreta-tions of the data during the period when temporary reference points were used. In my judgment, the plots represent the best possible interpretation of the data. They differ slightly from those I have plotted in Figures Cl-C18 (Appendix C), but the differences do not alter in any significant way either the basis for my conclusions or the conclusions themselves. 3.9.3 Significance of Review of Data. My own study of the data contained in the " Responses", as described in Section 3.0 of the testimony, led me, on the basis of r ay years of obtaining, analyzing, and interpreting gectechnical field observations, to the conclusion that the data were ade-quate, consistent, and suitable on the weight of the evidence for drawing proper conclusions. The discrepancies, errors, and need for adjustment were comparable to those on most well organized field-observational programs. Nevertheless, it was evident that a review of the type conducted by Mr. Lenzini would reduce uncertainties and help clarify the distinction
between simple errors and technical questions. In my judgment, the review has served this purpose well and strengthens the conclusions stated. 3.10 Permeability of Plant Fill. The data from the field obscrfations can be used to investigate the coefficient of permeability of the plant fill, as a means to judge the consistency of all the observations. According to the theory of consolidation, the coefficient of permeability k (cm/sec) is equal to k=c y 8, my where c y = coefficient of consolidation (cm2/sec) 7 , = unit weight of water (g/cm3 ) m y = coefficient of volume compressibility (cm 2fg) The value of cy can be determined from c y =H Tgt where H = half-thickness of the consolidating layer if drained top and bottom (cm) Ty = dimensionless time factor corresponding to a degree of consolidation U t = actual time to achieve given degree of con-solidation (sec) and my = p where [ = strain corresponding to stress incrementAp For the DGB surcharge fill, [ is of the order of 7 x 10
-3
,d p for the full surcharge is about 1000 g/cm2, and 2H is roughly 30 ft, whence H is about 450 cm. The value of H assumes that drainage can escape upward or downward into sand; this
assumption is undoubtedly a considerable simplification. It is also implicit in the calculations that the fill is statistically homogeneous; that is, the calculations will furnish k for an equivalent homogeneous material. To give an indication of the variation of k with different rates of consolidation, the following table has been calculated for U = 50%, for which Ty = 0.197 t(days) 0.1 1 5 10 30 cy(cm2 /sec) 4.63 4.63x10
-1 9.26x10
-2 4.63x10 -2 1.54x10 -2 3.2x10 ~7
-5 -6 -7 -7 k(cm/sec) 3.2x10 3.2x10 6.5x10 1.1x10 That is, k is in the range of 10 -6 to 10 -7 cm/sec for t SO between 1 and 30 days. This range for t is compatible with SO the settlement data, as judged by inspection, and in considera-tion of the two-step settlement curves typified by DG-6, 13, 14, 16, and 18, and by Figure C19 (Appendix C). The value of m y was probably smaller during the application of the second increment of surcharge than during the first, but since k is a linear function of my the error in assuming a constant m y is small. The influence of H is as the square and, hence, is more significant, but still does not greatly affect the order of magniture of k.
It has been noted that the pore-pressure bulges representing excess pore pressures due to surcharge applica-tion, Figures Cl-C17 (Appendix C), correspond to only about 10 percent of the consolidation stress imposed by the surcharge. The imposition of the second increment of surcharge required dbout 3 weeks, and the duration of the pore pressure bulge
corresponding to that increment was also about 3 weeks. To account for gradual instead of instantaneous loading, it can be inferred that a degree of consolidation of 90% occurred in about 1.5 weeks. Since Ty = 0.86 for U = 90%, and t is 302,400 sec for 1.5 weeks. c = 450 2 x 0.86 = 5.76 x 10 -1 2 cm /sec 302,400 and k = 5.76 x 10 -1 x 1.0 x 7 x 10 -6 = 4.0 x 10 -6 cm/sec. Hence, the settlement and pore-pressure data agree on a coefficient of permeability within an order of magnitude of 10 -6 cm/sec, a reasonable value for a fill of the available materials consisting of clay of low plasticity with sandy inclusions. The foregoing calculations demonstrate that the average permeability of the plant fill is on the order of 10-6 cm/sec. However, the fill is known to be inhomogeneous. Lenses of less permeable materials may be surrounded by more permeable, possibly thin, drainage zones. The question has been raised whether the piezome'ters, which generally have pervious sections 2 ft long, may have reflected only the pore pressures in the drainage zones and may have left undetected excess pore pressures in lenses of clay of low permeability. It has been argued that such lenses may still have been exper-iencing primary consolidation at the time of surcharge removal and, therefore, may have invalidated the settlement prediction based on extrapolation of the linear secondary log-time plot.
Since all piezometers except PZ-22 showed essentially l the same behavior with respect to pore-pressure response during application of the surcharge load and the ensuing two months, l l this argument would require that the pervious sections of all l piezometers except PZ-22 must have intersected at least one of the drainage zones, whence it follows that the spacing of the drainage zones (seams, layers, or lenses) must have been gener-I ally less than 2 ft. The time required for a lens of imperme- 1 able clay, with a thickness of 2 ft and a coefficient of per-meability of, say, 5 x 10 -9 cm/sec to reach 90% consolidation j
- can be calculated as follows:
H = 30.5 cm my = k/4 p = 7 x 10 -3 /1000 g cm
-2 T = 0.86 90
-9 -3 cy = k = 5 x 10 = 0.714 x 10 cm2/sec I I w"v 1 x 7 x 10
-3 x 10
-3 2
30.5 = 1,120,000 sec = 13 days t90 = 0.86 x -3 0.714 x 10 l l Thus, there is no possibility that a time-lag asso-ciated with fat clay lenses could have invalidated the conclu-sions derived from the piezometers, or that residual excess pore pressures existed during the 100 or more days in which the log-time settlement curve was linear. 3.11 Influence of Soft and Hard Inclusions. Consi-l deration has been given to the influence of softer and harder l portions of the plant fill on the effectiveness of the surcharge, l Among the hard inclusions are conduits, duct banks, backfill l concrete, and possibly local zones of unusually stiff soil. l l I i 1
Stiff or hard inclusions being less compressible than the surrounding materials attract stress and cause a reduction of stress due to surcharge in softer surrounding areas. However, because of the increase in attracted stress, the compression of the soils above and below the hard inclusion, or if the inclu-sion is soil, within the inclusion itself, is greater than average and the settlement of the overlying ground surface is only slightly affected by the presence of the hard spot. Furthermore, after removal of the surcharge, the highly com-pressed zones remain stiffer than the surrounding areas and will continue to attract any increase in stresses due to in-creases in the loading from the structure. Because the at-tracted stresses act on the stiffened material, the increase in settlement is small. The softer zones that may exist nearby, which did not originally attract their share of consolidation stress, continue to remain softer and do not attract the addi-tional stresses from applied loads to the same extent as the hard spots. Therefore the soft spots do not constitute sources of additional unusual settlement. Thus, the application of a surcharge on a heterogeneous fill containing soft and hard portions has a tendency to homogenize the stress-strain behavior of the entire mass. Remaining soft spots do not attract suffi-cient stress to be the seats of disproportionate settlement. Similarly, the rigidity of the walls and foundation of the Diesel Generator Building itself, which alters the otherwise uniform loading that would be transmitted to the soil by the level portion of the surcharge, has a negligible effect
1 1 on the uniformity of stress distribution within the subsurface materials. Where the settlement of the building exceeds that which would occur under a uniform load, stresses at shallow depth in the subsoil are increased and the compressibility of the materials is decreased. Conversely, where the rigidity of the structure reduces the contact pressure, the settlement is less than would be the case under a uniform load and the com-pressibility of the soil remains somewhat greater. When the surcharge has been removed and new loads are applied through the structure, the deformation characteristics of the structure still redistribute the load in the same fashion, the softer portions of the subsoil at shallow depth remain relatively less stressed, and therefore do not experience a disproportionate increase in settlement. Hence, surcharging the subsoil by loading a structure of appreciable stiffness also homogenizes the behavior of the subsoil with respect to settlement when the surcharge is removed and new loads are added to the structure. 3.12 Comparison of Stresses Under Surcharge and Under Operating Conditions. The foregoing testimony has demon-strated that the subsoil of the Diesel Generator Building has been fully consolidated under the surcharge load and furthermore has been carried well into the stage of secondary consolidation under that load. The extent to which any primary consolidation might be initiated in the future depends, therefore, on whether at any depth beneath the structure the stresses might exceed those active during surcharging. Before this comparison is presented, it is necessary to consider what loads are capable of producing additional settlements in a clay subsoil.
l 1 l l l l The loads for which the structure is designed include dead load, live load, and environmental loads such as those due to wind and earthquake. It is well recognized that consolida-tion of clay soils leading to settlement is produced only by loads acting over an appreciable period of time. That is, transitory loads such as those due to wind forces and earth-quakes do not induce appreciable consolidation. By contrast, any addition in dead load on a structure would be fully effec-tive in producing consolidation. The extent to which live load would be responsible for settlement requires careful considera-tion. Some loads classified as live loads are of a long term or permanent nature, such as the equipment in a building. The floors supporting equipment must be designed to serve their function no matter where the equipment is located, but at any given time the equipment is likely to be located on only a small portion of the floor. Therefore, code live loads for floor design, or even reduced code live loads for column design, may grossly overestimate the actual live load that the building will be subjected to at any one time. In connection with the Diesel Generator Building, when the surcharge program was being devised, I requested that a careful evaluation be made of the long-term live loads that could actually be expected to be supported by the building at any one time. These live loads, rather than those for which the floors were designed, were appropriately used in determin-ing the stresses to be expected under operating conditions. The sum of the dead load stresses and the realistic live load
. 1 stresses is to be compared with the stresses produced by the surcharge.
The first portions of the sand-fill surcharge were l placed around and within the partly completed building when the walls had reached mezzanine level and part of the mezzanine floor had been cast. By 22 March (day 56) the concrete struc-ture was essentially completed; 94 per cent of the structural dead load was in place. Fill placement was completed on 6 April 1979 (day 71). Hence, the weight of the 94 per cent of the building is properly considered part of the surcharge. During the surcharge period the pressure beneath the building and the surrounding area at El. 628, the elevation of the base of the footings and pedestals, is shown in Text Figure 3a. The pressures at the same elevation after surcharge removal and under operating conditions are shown in Text Figure 3b. These pressures correspond to the full weight of the completed build-ing, the weight of any backfill left in place, and the pressures due to the equipment, commodities, and occupancy. These latter pressures have been evaluated by Bechtel and are as follows: 408 lb. per sq. ft. under each pedestal, 141 lb. per sq. ft. under the building footings, and 5 lb. per sq. ft. under the grade slab. Inspection of Text Figures 3a and 3b shows that for every area beneath the building and the surcharge, the pressure at El. 628 during surcharging exceeded that on the same area during operating conditions. Under these circumstances, it follows without any computation that the vertical pressure at
f.9 g Shadad oraa undei bting 6.3 Ao.4 ~ ' M',',555SSSSSSS',',5 fi////////j '
///////
5 ,',5,GG',S',',5G',',',',,',' p<///////f G',% //
/, '
/; ,
; M' f/ z., // // / /,
y
/-$ 2., : 2.9 :, 2.9 s:/ // .
$;p ,
v ,</ n$
, M 2.s .
fg 3.i jh ' s.: h!h 3.i hh!. t z.9
~~Y- 29
,np L8 f s ff p i t. B
- i h',
/
s 2.8 1
/ /,
t t.8 f i , 29 I9
, / / / ,
/ ,i ,
i / i / , 6,s s n,,/////i>%,s/ ///, J<///////., /, // // f n , 1,9 % ' 6 lk'/h'e'/' ' 'l '/ < h'i ,/sidi //// <,/b'/ '// , / //2/ l i* ,
*/ _. __ __ _. __ .. __
/ , i i 1.9 to 09 I l
[. . . .. _. __ __ __ oveiw6 s v a c s ^ e s s. __ __\ (a)
,______________________________________7 l O. '7 l (Shaded area under- 00%09 4.0
- o.4 1
l
%,%"S%%",
- //////// ,"Scccc
////////< ccc"Sc <///// / 55','!,S / ,
c sss c s%
//////// o. l
*/ '
t f s ' /'/,s' l l ;? o ., ;$ on v on %, on $$$ I i $ / l v , l$ s f:
/ /
$$f o
I
$ l.4 /,$ l L4 ;/ I4 / - 1.4 ol 1 o
,--] .
-i 6 iA l 1
/,$ 1
- $ \ <
i /
$ s 1 pij g
s i j u i i o.') h,j kN, I4 $l h L4 l'4 o,y I
$l$ $hi' l /s l
/ bl/ / l ,
//
l l pb ///H///w / / / /H/ ,%c//////// ' '!!!,',','N,',', ',','1{G! S'!,',',?h1' -,
' ' '! ' ' O/
i//////'As l l l Due.tN6 PLANT OPERATION o.7 (b) l l l l l l l l t u____ DIESEL 6ENER ATOE SLDG. __J l PeESSURE ON deoONO AT EL.628 KtPS PEE SQ FT' h TEXT FIGURE 3 og 81
~
any point in the subsoil of the structure during surcharging exceeded that which will prevail at the same point during operating conditions. Thus, the basic requirement regarding the magnitude of the surcharge stresses was achieved. However, to eliminate the possibility of liquefaction of any loose sandy zones in the plant fill beneath the build-ing, the decision was made to lower the water table permanently to a level beneath the fill. The added stress due to lowering the water table, which increases from zero at the position of the water table during surcharging to a maximum at the base of the fill, will induce an additional primary consolidation if the sum of the added dead load stresses, live load stresses, and future dewatering stresses exceeds the added stress due to the surcharge. In order to compare the stresses during sur-charging with those under operating conditions, including dewatering, the stresses have been computed at various depths along vertical lines beneath the structure. The calculations have been made in accordance with the theory of Boussinesq. The results are shown in Text Figure 4 for three different conditions: (A) during surcharging with groundwater level at El. 625; (B) under operating loads, with the surcharge removed and with groundwater level still at El. 625; and (C) under operating loads with the surcharge removed and with groundwater lowered to or below El. 603. Since the beaeficial effect of surcharging is least and the relative influence of lowering the water table is a maximum beneath the periphery of the building, the stresses shown in Text Figure 4, calculated beneath the
i 628 i i i i) i i i i i i 13 3
.s 1 u. s- l'-
t 623 I ) - - 6l6 i f l B A B A B A c - 6:3 - C 608 NW Corner N Center N E Corner I II i ;t i i e i i t- t i i i= ,1 go$
- I 4 6o i 2. 3 4 6 60 2 3 4 5 6 D I 7. 3 5 1 i i i i i i 7 628 -
l . i i i i 3 i i i i) I _m. v. A a 2. st 1 - - t
- - -623 i
-G18 A A B s B
-613 C C g
1 608 SW corner S Center SE Corner I I Ik i u L I I I I e i l l I l 1 l 405 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 o i 2. 3 4 6 60 1 2. 'S 4 5 6 Vr eT I C AL Pesssoea - Kips / sq ft A - During SurChargin9 COMPARLSON O F STRES SES o - Operating Loads. Wotee Level f.25 gggow C - OPercrting Loads, Woter Level GoS DIESE L CJEh! ERA rOfEL B i_. o di e[I 27Augh " TEXT FIGURE 4
corners and the midpoints of the long sides of the building, indicate the most unfavorable conditions; the surcharge stresses would be relatively greater beneath interior points. Therefore, it is apparent from Text Figure 4 that the surcharge program produced stresses, at all levels, equal to or greater than those that can be expected during the operating life of the plant. Calculation of the stresses in the subsoil due to the surcharge and to the dead weight of the building during the surcharge period was carried out, in accordance with customary engineering practice, on the assumption that the loads were 1 perfectly flexible (see, e.g., Terzaghi and Peck, 2nd Ed., p. 272). In reality, the building had achieved a measure of rigidity by the time the surcharge was placed in and around it, and this rigidity caused a slight redistribution of the sur-chage loading. Under operating conditions, however, the build-ing will exhibit the same measure of rigidity and will redis-tribute the added loads to the subsoil in a manner comparable to that during surcharging. Thus, zones in the subsoil receiv-ing slightly less than the computed stress during surcharging on account of the rigidity of the building will receive compar-ably less stress under operating conditions and vice versa. The influence of building rigidity on the effectiveness of the surcharge is thus insignificant. 4.0 PREDICTION OF FUTURE SETTLEMENT 4.1 General Approach. Settlement due to the sand component of the plant fill occurred almost immediately on application of the surcharge. Therefore, this testimony is
directed specifically to the estimates of future settlements of the Diesel Generator Building due to primary and secondary consolidation of the clay. The settlement, as indicated pre-viously, will arise from two causes: secondary settlement representing a continuation of the settlement under the dead load of the building and appropriate live loads; and settlement induced by lowering the groundwater level by the permanent drainage system. Each settlement observation point on the building, including each settlement plate, entered onto a mode of settle-ment that became linear as a function of the logarithm of time beginning about Day 100 and extending for about 150 additional days until removal of the surcharge. On the assumption that the surcharge was never removed, the trend of the settlement was extrapolated for each point. The date 31 December 1981 was taken as the effective initial date for predicting future significant settlements. By extrapolating on the observed straight-line trend for each settlement curve to the year 2025, the settlement during the life of the structure after the effective initial date was established for each reference point. It is noteworthy that the linear portion of each settlement curve is independent of any of the transfers of reference points and potential errors associated with the transfers, inasmuch as the surcharge conditions and the utilized reference points remained constant during the entire period of secondary consolidation. Therefore, the validity of the predic-
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING ] xn oil E n 9 d' m oild - oil "x" l It il J 1 I . 1 0 _J . I IJO I 0.79 0.99 0.94 O - as2 - 0.as - i.Os O - k~ ~ ~ ~k O.97 _ {X~ ~ ~ ~2,0.84 _ [ ~ ~ ~ ~N,0.87 _ iyr - -- 9,0.76 _ < l i e i I I 8 I I I I I I e i 1.05 y l : e i e g i J(1.05 I I I I I : 1 I l l k ) L k ) i f I ( ) ( ) r I i i l i I l l 1 I I l 1 I l l
' i l l i i l
! O,gg LX---~j X -
"8 lLXXl -
i.4ak -).<j1.40-1 1.17_l -~~~"0.91] ' "j.X_-- XJ 1.46 ]- 1.10 W % % 1.38d 1.22 1.49 ~ 1.20 I i j LEGEND O DEEP BORROS ANCHOR X BUILDING / PEDESTAL SETTLEMENT MARKER q 1.20 SETTLEMENT IN INCHES l l ESTIMATED SECONDARY COMPRESSION SETTLEMENTS FROM 12/31/81 TO 12/31/2025 l . ASSUMING SURCHARGE REMAINS l
~
TEXT FIGURE 5 {
tion is in no way influenced by any possible errors or discre-pancies associated with transfers of reference points. 4.2 Prediction. The predicted values of additional settlements due to secondary compression between the end of 1981 and the end of 2025 are given on Text Figure 5 (same as Fig. 2.5-127, Revision 44, of the F.S.A.R.). They indicate a range from 0.70 in. to 1.49 in., whence it is concluded that the upper bound of the static 40-year settlement due to secondary compression is about 1.5 in, for the building, and that an upper bound for the differential settlement will be about three-quarter inch. The settlements of the pedestals fall within these limits.7 In my opinion, these results are reason-able. The extrapolation is based on the assumption that the i surcharge was never removed. In reality, of course, the sur-charge was removed and some additions were made to the building and pedestal loads. Throughout much of the subsoil, the reduc-tion in stress due to surcharge removal substantially exceeds the stress due to the added loads. At all places there is at least some reduction. Hence, the prediction is conservative. Inasmuch as settlement observations carried out on the struc-ture since removal of the surcharge and addition of a large portion of the final loads indicate a negligible increase in settlement prior to dewatering, it is apparent that the degree of conservatism in the estimate is substantial. This is illus-7 Addresses Stamiris Contention 4A(2).
trated on Text Figure 6 which shows the average settlements of the building since surcharge removal. Text Figure 6 also shows the histories of surcharge load, along with building and equipment loads, cooling pond water level, and ground water level at the diesel generator building along with the various dewatering events at the plant site. It is also seen from Text Figure 6 that since the start of dewatering, the combined effect of installing four diesel engines and a ground water lowering of 25 feet to elevation 595 produced an average settlement of about one-half inch. Values of about 0.40 to 0.55 inch were obtained at the different points along the building and these are given on Text Figure 7. When measured values (Text Figure 7) are added to the predicted secondary compression settlements (Text Figure 5), the anticipated total building settlement between surcharge removal and the year 2025 is obtained as shown in Text Figure 8. These values are in the range of 1 to 2 inches with a differential of about 3/4 inch. The use of these values in structural calculations is conservative. 4.3 Results of NRC - Requested Boring and Testing Program. Surcharging the subsoil of the Diesel Generator Building not only served the purpose of reducing future settle-ments to a negligible value, the upper limits of which can be predicted with confidence, but it also served as a full-scale test integrating and taking into account all pertinent proper-ties of the subsoil including its heterogeneity. The sandy
O M 8
*- I N ~
ll i lt , i l % x;5 i !
$sli[lI 'i !
I h = - n"J.,j i
! !. in se n
e
= . -
e, i % I f l 9 h 1 ejc{g " . 1,! 11! A[.! oo c= >'l! 1 o ir i i i
.e !r & , ,, r s
' ' i I !; f.j L[~,
, i f b'
- _ t,l - i
,.i O i
I n I 4 l!.!i 1 il
- , r
!l}1 8
! ., i l i l i !l I l ' '
4 I
!f j.
l i} l} \\ ifAl;11 i 1 c Il ! p-;
; l' i J .
8 1 3 j i I ir i I 1 Il' hj i i : f t [ [ i li ! I l i i l i, ! .;
~[ i }. }. I c I
t t a i I [> i I i l \\ I +fs l
]r 1
i el i. i. i ,J
\[< l l ]
7 1
!I I I-I
~ ,I,l n 4
'I
. 3 I l ,'
e
's I,~'- 4 i
5 I I j
' ' I I .
=- u&uw. y .
. . _c
DIESEL GENER ATOR BUILDING 0.51) (0.39 i- i-l lJ lui , i i , i i ,_l
- " ~ ~
0.55 0.47 0.50 0.51 j h~ ~ ~ 0.52 _ h~ ~ ~N,0.49 _ h~ ~ ~ ~ ~9 0.51 _ [ ~ ~ ~90.54 , i i , i l 1 l l l l l i :ca4, a54 x l l I I 8
! l , I l k J l k J i f I ( ) ( ) (
8 I I I I I I i I i e I i I l l I 1 : 1 I I 8 I I I l s 0.47 0.4 71 0.51'X___[ __ 0.468___Xh 0.42 XJ y d (0.43 0.47 0.49 LEGEND , X BUILDING / PEDESTAL SETTLEMENT MARKER 0.42 MEASURED SETTLEMENT BETWEEN 9/14/79 AND 12/31/81. . MEASURED SETTI.EMENT. FROM 9/14/79 TO 12/31/81
- TEXT FIGURE 7 .!
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING [1.29 1.33 )f IL Il J I L-_Il . I I , I IJ 4 c----i r---- , r---- , r--- , I g g g s g _ a i _ 8 1 8 i ' ; I e
- l i g g g I
1.59 )[ l , i 1 e I
)(1.46 8 8 i I k l l 3 L ( j
) f I ( ) ( ) (.
8 I i I i i i 1 I l l l I I l 8 I t I e, i i : I I i- , , I I i i I i i u__ _s u _ _ _ _ .! L____s t__ _ _ _J 1.62)(J Lp (I'00 L 1.67 1,69 1.98 LEGEND
)(- BUILDING SETTLEMENT MARKER 1,33- ANTICIPATED TOTAL SETTLEMENT BETWEEN 9/14/79 AND 12/31/2025 I ANTICIPATED TOTAL SETTLEMENT SINCE SURCHARGE REMOVAL l 19/14/79 TO 12/31/2025) 1
- TEXT FIGURE 8
phases of the subsoil were stressed statically to pressures higher than those they will experience in the future, and their future settlement under static loads will be governed by the reloading modulus of the sand. The linear relation between settlement and the logarithm of time, and the rapid dissipation of measured pore pressures have independently verified that the clayey constituents of the subsoil were fully consolidated under the weight of the surcharge. The upper limiting value of the settlement of the building under future dead and live loads can be predicted reliably and conservatively. For these reasons I consistently took the position that there was no need for further verification of the effec-tiveness of the surcharge, and I pointed out that there is no verification procedure capable of demonstrating the effective-ness of the surcharging program with the degree of reliability inherent in the field observations made during and after sur-charging. The soil is now overconsolidated with respect to future operating loads, because the surcharge has produced consolidation pressures or preloads in excess of future stresses. Had there been no information from settlement observa-tions and piezometers, and if under those circumstances estimates had been required of the state of overconsolidation of the subsoil and of the future settlement of the building, the only recourse would have been to make borings, to obtain undisturbed samples, to perform consolidation tests, to determine the position of the water table at the time of sampling, to deter-mine the unit weight of the materials, and to analyze the
results of the consolidation tests with two objectives. The first objective would have been to ascertain the preconsolida-tion pressure indicated by the tests, and the second to calcu-late the amount and rate of settlement under present or future loads. Any such settlement calculation requires a determina-tion of the preconsolidation pressures; that is, of the maximum previous pressures under which the soil has been consolidated. In some instances the preconsolidation pressures are the result of former overburden subsequently eroded by geologic agents. In others they are the result of the weight of glaciers subse-quently melted. In still others they are the result of desic-cation. The importance of the preconsolidation pressures arises because only stresses higher than the preconsolidation pressures produce significant settlements. Procedures have been developed for estimating precon-solidation pressures on the basis of consolidation tests in the laboratory. The pressures so determined are designated " apparent preconsolidation pressures." The most widely used procedure, and the first one to have been proposed, is that of Arthur Casagrande. Two pages from the original paper in which he described the procedure are included as Figures B5 and BC, (Appendix B). Casagrande's Fig. lb (Appendix B, Fig. B6) shows the characteristic relation, II, between void ratio and the logarithm of pressure (the e-log p curve) obtained from a consolidation test on an " undisturbed" sample from a natural deposit of clay. The relation consists of two branches, a fairly flat one followed by a steeper one.
l l Casagrande noticed that if the consolidation test sample was l unloaded after it reached A, and then loaded again, a second l curve, IV, was obtained that resembled II. The pressure at which the transition occurred from the flatter to the steeper branch in curve IV corresponded in a general way to the maximum previous pressure A on the sample during the first loading cycle. This observation led Casagrande to the construction illustrated in his Fig. 2 (Appendix B, Fig. B6). After select-ing the point of minimum radius of curvature along the transi-tion between the flatter and steeper portions, Casagrande constructed a horizontal line and a line tangent to the e-log p curve at that point. He established the bisector of the angle between these two lines, and projected upward the straight-line portion of the lower steep branch. The intersection C was considered to be the apparent preconsolidation pressure. Casagrande carried out many cyclic consolidation tests, in which the maximum load increased for each cycle, on a variety of clayey materials. He found that this construction, carried out on curves corresponding to IV, permitted a reasonable approximation of the maximum pressure in the preceding cycle. By analogy, he reasoned that the preconsolidation pressures in a natural deposit could be determined in the same way, because the consolidation tests in the laboratory represented a reload-ing cycle for the material taken from the natural deposit. l The procedure has found wide acceptance because of l its simplicity. It gives well defined results when the e-log p curves display sharp breaks between their flatter and steeper i
slopes because the point of minimum radius of curvature is then well defined. For many undisturbed naturally sedimented clays such sharp breaks are obtained. Sharp breaks are also charac-teristic of e-log p curves obtained on tests of clay soils fully remolded at about their liquid limit, a very soft consis-tency, and then consolidated and rebounded in cycles. The results of such a test on a composite specimen of plant fill from beneath the Diesel Generator Building are shown in Text Figure 9. The specimen was constituted from Samples S-3B and C of boring COE-12A; the liquid and plastic limits were 21 and 11 respectively and are typical of the clayey plant fill in the surcharged area. The test was performed by Woodward-Clyde Con-sultants and the results reported in a letter to Consumers Power Company dated 9 October 1981. The report is included as Appendix G to this testimony. Text Figure 9 in this testimony is identical to Figure 4 of Appendix G except that I have plotted the data to a scale of void ratio that permits better visualization of the characteristic shape. The sample was consolidated to 2 tons per square foot, at which it reached a void ratio of about 0.37 (Point A, Text Fig. 9), and was then rebounded to 0.25 ton per square foot (Point R) and subsequently consolidated to 16 tons per square foot. The portion RB of the e-log curve is thus i comparable with respect to both void ratio and pressure with l the e-log p curves for many of the undisturbed samples of plant fill. It is evident that the point of maximum curvature is l sharply defined between a flatter and a steeper slope at a 1
O
, < , . .- o
,-2 4._ ___2 _ L: a %: -- : a .I'sJ . -
- ' ^
l~~~- . y p j - ;. _ 2.; : ; c .:,_ :: _2 : : . : .:. ; 2. ;
}- .: : n : i ixr -
f ;
'[
{.
- 2's r f i E 4 , , , , , , ,
7
, .y g .y . .
. .a c;f 0 g a=-'-. h. E' i-?d-+ . - ~ ; =-^ += ! + =& -r=+ i=+*-- - H -- -: . + * : i:+ i- -t ? 4 f:5E-l 5- N
, ~ - ~
$ - - d rE.r :- 1 IM }-~_Mi a._2 .__ p_ =_ :
d r' - u _m .. .
-I '; ~'- .N55 2
- u. :c_ j .. . :. =
U- D-Ir[
=m . i = n 2: : I f "- g, m,
- ._._ i e :.+._ .g ==. a c_. .
._ _. . _ _ _ . L.-.__. t_ .. . _ _ _ . .T._..._' _C y Tj -- . C *I' g r .3 .NF - --
;. ._ _ _. 2
. . . .Z C , L j ~,.CC
.!/. ~~~ 1;J: ._!_ d
- ~
~~' " I -
~
' J 8,' ;-*_C3L,,'M.; d *-D
*=
, . ./
#I 1 1 :,
I 0,, g'~ O n'i- '
,- - , ami---") s _c - . . - f,_. -
J. .--- - g
._-- . . .a .. .. .
f . i; e g: := 6 ._- - Qu.p.. g .:= :.= :.z; ---=-- . : .-: . - -n t : =) ,- s- --
.f n=- a. : r l ; - =: =-
g'4 0- - a ./ e
. I .
. ,/ l
. -1, o ,C .
, ... o m
- s. m. . O u +; - .i - .. m-l y .:= = i. =
l --
-f i s
--- gy_--O p._
,- _1. .._. = . _ .__a .
4g , f : 2 _: r p
. u. .
t-...
=-...- ._ .:_ > . . . _
,O, J =_.
.H=.._-.--__= ..r. .____t_..-_.___ r,.=_=__ .=__.3 .
i y
. :. bn == _ - . _. _ . {* : -
- :. . __,i
- . _= : 4 --' ^~_. ..
,_._..._= _ . _
.,r.-- __ , _ _ _ ._
. - O ,en
'F :
. ,z
, I-m
! "w
.i e
,__ 1 '/ t, a I I i y e
, t
-- f. . - . .
, 1 ( 1 4 __ _
i t 1 l/ i 1 I' 4
+
I r
' a
_/
. lg._T I
4
.. f . -.
'; .s ;f . :a p ;. c_
- : 2._ -
_/ _ _ _ . , , . . .
;. a _. .
j j
,r r:- ; , .. :[
?
r .:~ l.._..
; _- ~ -
*._}---'._ ..'_{ , ~2 - . 27 } , .
_ " . . :- L -*-
- f '!.1-.'.-.*
"~~
. . .} : : :.= /=- :-- .: =. :====_..._.:- == c====
=- . -P . := L
= -- : = =l . . :_ =_.=.,-f _ . .3 =_ . . . v=_=
. . . . .. . . _ [ ,
. ._. t _._: =___ =_ _.
=.. _ _ _; : =.=_. 3_ __ _ _. _- =___ ,; :__- -- ._ =,i =.l_= _. . .---.
, __-.s.
g - - - - _ . ~_ .-._..y__m. _- . . . . , .~ ._....t _. _- . . . . . . y a y e jr ej "fl g / fi . t
- E I
~
f s y. *
/ -
? --I '
Jn .% 1 5 g .g ,.
., _ -j j i - P .t . . i $2 , -. jg - - - - -
i te - - - _g ; Q - l. . :. II
' 8 3 J n .. . . .
G, . 3~
- ,. =_- . +
i =0 i - a' i t j- t ! - j j k ! ; u_ -
! .i. --; =- -
-; .q - : , ..
- - [ Q. c l . : : = 1.
.c- :
a O V - 1 - i _: _._.:3. . .E=_ : .
- u _ ia.". ^. _ 1'z. . :_=.
. ::= =...- W. b y' - r. =_z!.
~
- =_ .].
~~
~ '
~ T Z __ . *7 :2 _ _ .__- ~2-~~ _~
_ { . . _ .- Z ~{T.2T.*- _._{_.I_*..'. _} _ ~; _
. {~~ ~ - ~_ ~ ] -_ _
o _. v __ _ .__.:_ _. - _ . . _ _ - _ _ . _, _ _ _ _ . . . .. _ -. _
*Ti, . o w. n a
m 9 =a
- .d a un i
in -
-) : 7. T :S E_ ' " M 7 A* 8 6
- ' N '
M ! ~~~d ~
.. .. _ - .:. n:== -
;= -
a-l__ -T _ _t=_. . - - ;.==- -
.io
' M UMQ JI WM. ,_
._I -
i _ .. __ .,. _ :_ .: .: = .; - :.2.j-- ::: :
.f = .4 :_:
.._.: .J. } -= 4.
; p : 2-[-- :-.n. .c=7-?-lr:--f -_-r-:---- .:--- : t i .;rj - : v_:: H1p pE.7 ' y.-j ; pi:--- -- ,H.j - n -: - l~ .:
I D-I-5 . [_ .2 N[-~ ' D-~'_ .NNImE I_NA_2.s NiN ;N5- - D.I N^b; Id!5-Ni M-~ $ I .. i- w . _ - ._e__w -.,,
- ww9 dr+-N-- we M ..-N*
, j , j-_... ; ;
i L -_ e t 5'
pressure corresponding closely to the actual preconsolidation pressure (Point A, Text Figure 9) of two tons per square foot. A similar statement can be made regarding the loading cycle reaching 64 tons per square foot. Thus the apparent preconsoli-dation pressure determined by the casagrande procedure would closely approximate the actual preconsolidation pressure. Unfortunately, however, for many materials, particu-larly for disturbed samples from natural deposits and for samples of compacted fills, the point on the curve correspond-ing to the minimum radius of curvature is not well defined. Under these conditions, application of the Casagrande method is necessarily subjective. Different technicians will select different points as those corresponding to the sharpest curva-ture. Furthermore, disturbance of samples also flattens the steep straight lower branch of the curve. For these reasons, disturbance reduces the accuracy of the determination of the apparent preconsolidation pressure by Casagrande's method, and reduces the value of the apparent preconsolidation pressure as well. Although the graphics of the Casagrande procedure can I be carried out on e-log p curves of samples of compacted clays, the significance or applicability of the procedure with respect to such materials has not been the subject of scientific inquiry. The investigations carried out by Casagrande, which led to the graphical construction bearing his name, involved either intact samples of natural clays or specimens fully remolded at water contents well above the liquid limit. No tests were made to
l q explore what significance, if any, application of the procedure might have with respect to clays compacted at the lower moisture contents customary in fill placement. The efore, it is not known whether apparent preconsolidation pressures derived from tests on samples of compacted clays such as those from the Diesel Generator Building have any relation to the maximum past pressure on the compacted fill from which the samples were , taken. Inasmuch as the constituents of a compacted clay could ,', be expected to retain some of the consolidation characteristics of the original borrow material', ai.d also to'have acquired some characteristics from the process of compaction, it is unlikely that any clear relation would exist between apparent consolida-tion pressures determined from consolidation tests and the -
\ -
consolidation stress actually applied by a surcharge. \
\
Other more complex procedures for determining pre. con-solidation pressures have been devised, particularly those of <
/ -
Schmertmann and Janbu, that sometimes permit more definitive ', evaluations. However, these methods are.not always applicable, / _7 l they too are least reliable when the transition between the two l branches of the e-log p curve is gradual, and they. too wereinot developed for compacted soils. __ l l If, notwithstanding, Casagrande's procedure should be 1 l applied to the Diesel Generator Building fill, boring and sampling disturbance would be expected to reduce the apparent a preconsolidation pressure. Consequently, the preconsolidation -" l pressure would be underestimated, and the stress due,to the building under operating conditions might appear to exceed the j i
s. apparent preconsolidation pressure. A fictitious settlement ' would then be calculated because the calculations would be based on an apparent preconsolidation pressure lower than the true pressure produced by the surcharge. d A second difficulty is inherent in attempting to verify the preconsolidation pressures beneath the Diesel Generator Building by means of boring, sampling, and testing. It resides in the lack of homogeneity of the plant fill. Variations in stiffness lead to nonuniform stress distribution, attract stress to the stiffer elements, and shield softer elements from a portion of the added stress. There fore, a sample from one of the softer elements would show an apparent preconsolidation pressure less than the theoretical value. This would be a correct finding, but it would be compensated in the acEual subsoil by larger than average increases in nearby stiffer elements. With the limited number of samples that could be tested in a practical investigation, or even with several scores of samples, obtaining statistically meaningful Everage values of preconsolidation pressure would be impractical. In spite of these drawbacks, which I anticipated would lead to an erroneous and pessimistic conception of the detual state of precensolidation of the Diesel Generator fill, L the NRC and the Corps of Engineers requested a program of sampling and testing for determination of compressibility and preconsolidation pressures. This program was carried out by Woodward-Clyde Consultants during the period 13 March through 7 July 1981. Borings were made in accordance with a carefully s
planned and executed program, and tests were carried out accord-ing to the best engineering practice. Although I did not observe the boring, sampling, or testing, I have no reason to believe that the work was not expertly done, fully in accord with the best state of the art. In addition to carrying out consolidation tests, Woodward-Clyde Consultants were requested to determine the apparent preconsolidation pressure correspcad-ing to each of the consolidation tests by means of the custo-mary Casagrande procedure. This was done by three different engineers, familiar with the techniques but unfamiliar with the surcharge history and stress conditions at the Diesel Generator Building. Thus, the results of these determinations can, in my judgment, be considered representative of apparent preconsolida-tion pressures that would i'~ determined by experienced and well trained practioners. The results are presented in a report dated 22 July 1981 (Appendix E), together with a summary of the pertinent properties of the materials for the various tests and a description of the manner in which the estimates were made. The estimates are presented in Fig. 4 of the report of 22 July (Appendix E). In order to define the slope of the steeper second branch (or virgin branch) of the e-log p curves, Woodward-Clyde carried the maximum consolidation pressures to values of 64 tons per square foot. This permitted developing a rebound ! curve by unloading and reloading the samples at an intermediat e stage of the tests. The unloading-reloading curves were obtained because they provide an indication of the rebound modulus and l s
they are useful in some of the procedures for evaluating the preconsolidation pressure. The values of preconsolidation pressure given in Woodward-Clyde's Fig. 4 (Appendix E) are based on tests carried out to the full 64 tons per square foot. It may be noted that consolidation pressures as great as 64 tons per square foot are appropriate and fully in accord with Corps of Engineers practice, which calls for pressures great enough to define the straight-line portion of the e-log p curve. For example, Engineer Manual EM 1110-1-1906, Labora-tory Soils Testing, 10 May 1965, p. VIII-8 states, "The follow- 'ing loading schedule is considered satisfactory for routine tests: 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0, and 16.0 tons per square foot, the total load being doubled by each increment. The maximum load should be great enough to establish the straight-line portion of the void ratio-pressure curve . . . " C. K. Smith and J. F. Redlinger, of the Garrison District of the Corps, published the results of studies on the Fort Union clay shale (Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Zurich, 1953, Vol. 1, pp. 62-66) and stated, "To check the preconsolidation load a spe-cial loading device was constructed . . . Loads of 500 tons per square foot were obtained . . . Other tests on more conventional apparatus were performed up to 50 tons per square foot . . . In the Corps' studies of the Panama Canal, tests were conducted, as deemed necessary to define the e-log p curve, to pressures of 200 to 350 tons per square foot in equipment of correspond-ing capacity (Tech. Rep. 5-70-9, Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Engineers, Aug. 1978). Thus the Corps does not 1 1 I 1
hesitate to carry its consolidation tests above the nominal 16 tons per square foot when better definition of the second branch of an e-log p curve is desired. At extremely high pressures, assemblages of sand grains begin to experience corner breakage and to crush; the e-log p curve then tends to steepen. This becomes evident at about 500 to 1000 tons per square foot, but when the sand particles are not in grain-to-grain contact but are embedded in a matrix of clay particles, which are much more flexible and deformable than equi-dimensional sand particles, crushing of sand grains is inhibited. If such an effect were present in the tests on the Midland clayey plant-fill samples at 64 tons per square foot, it would have been represented by a marked steepening of the e-log p curve between 16 and 64 tons per square foot in the test on the remolded sample, Text Figure 9. No such effect can be seen. In addition to the tests made by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (Appendix E), a series of consolidation tests had been carried out by Goldberg-Zoino-Dunnicliff on borings made in 1978, before surcharging. These tests provided an oppor-tunity for a comparison of apparent preconsolidction pressures, as determined from the tests, before and after surcharging. The GZD tests were carried to a maximum pressure, however, of only 16 tons per square foot. Therefore, the apparent precon-solidation pressures determined on the GZD samples by the Woodward-Clyde personnel were necessarily based on maximum test pressures of 16 tons per square foot. For the comparison with
the Woodward-Clyde samples taken after surcharging, the precon-solidation pressures for the Woodward-Clyde samples were also evaluated as if the tests had not extended beyond pressures of 16 tons per square foot. Hence, althc.agh the latter estimates are not the best possible ones for the Diesel Generator Building after surcharging (the best values are shown in Text Fig. 4),
, they are the appropriate ones for comparison with the pre-surcharge values. This comparison is shown in Fig. 3 of the report of 22 July (Appendix E).
The comparison of apparent preconsolidation pressure on the GZD samples taken before surcharging and the WCCO samples taken afterwards, shown in WCCO Fig. 3 (Appendix E), clearly , indicates a gain in preconsolidation pressures as a consequence of surcharging. Nevertheless, the inevitable scatter of results precludes definite conclusions regarding the magnitude of the increase. It will be noted that the data from the consolidation tests are presented in the Woodward-Clyde reports as strain on the vertical axis and pressure to a logarithmic scale on the horizontal axis. The Casagrande construction, as originally , proposed, was based on plotting the void ratio of the sample on the vertical axis. However, since strain is obtained by divid-ing the change in void ratio by the sum of unity and the origi-nal void ratio, a constant for a given test, the construction and conclusion are not altered by the choice of units for the vertical axis. _ _ ~ _ - - _ _. __
A review of the results of the individual consolidation tests, summarized in WCCO's report of 22 July 1981 (Appendix E), demonstrates that all the strain-log pressure curves are smooth curves, without obvious breaks between a flatter upper and a steeper lower branch. Therefore, choice of the point on the curve representing the maximum curvature or minimum radius of curvature, a point that must be determined to carry out the Casagrande construction, leaves wide margin for interpretation. The summary plot, Fig. 4 (Appendix E), shows the average value and also the range of preconsolidation pressures estimated for each test by the three engineers. The best values of apparent preconsolidation pressures estimated by the three Woodward-Clyde engineers and plotted in their composite diagram, Fig. 4 (Appendix E), are replotted in Text Figure 10 of this testimony for each of the five borings. In addition, for each boring, the calculated stresses due to the loading during the surcharge period are plotted as smooth curves. Thus, for each boring, the apparent preconsolidation pressures of the tested samples can be compared directly with the pressures during surcharging. It is evident that some values of the apparent consolidation pressure are lower and some higher than the pressures known to have been acting during the surcharge. In my judgment, the observed degree of scatter of the results is not unusual and is inherent in the processes of boring, sampling, testing, and calculation of the apparent preconsolidation pressure, as well as in the nature of compacted clays as discussed previously. Apparent preconsolidation
9,9A 10A II A 62o - - - - - v-<
& essure under bio - - -
$"r chars '
lood 6, L coc ! ' ' s# o s to o S to o s to Ve stT i c A t. PEESSUR.E kiP5/59 fi 2 O p 6'30 ISA,B 12 A lg
> j - D65 9 - 4
_1
" ! COMPARISON OF tu 670 -
l
- WCC Maximum 1 ,
PAST CONSOU DA-
- ~ Tso N pee 550eE'
~ ~
Awo W '
- Panssver unose 610 -
* - SUR4HAE6E LOAD
+--e e --4
- Reru}s oh velut$ $
precorisolida+ ion pres-sure by WC C.
' ' ' I 600 o 6 to is O 5 10 15 VERTi c A L PREssuee kips /sq ft 3? dei .
TEXT FIGURE 1C
i l pressures less than the pressures during surcharging thus do not justify the conclusion that the plant fill was not fully consolidated under the surcharge. The inferred preconsolidation pressures as plotted by WCCO in their Fig. 4 (Appendix E) include five values from COE Boring 9 (3B, 4A, SB, 6B, and 6C) that are relatively low with respect to the known surcharge stresses. One might infer from these values that the corresponding soils had not achieved one hundred percent consolidation under the surcharge loading. However, the verbal descriptions of the materials according to the boring logs range from stiff, to very stiff, to hard. The corresponding undrained shear strengths would then be on the order of 0.5 to more than 4 tons per square foot. Furthermore, pocket penetrometer tests on the samples indicated equivalent unconfined compressive strengths ranging from 1.1 to 2.2 tons per square foot, or undrained shear strengths from 0.55 to 1.1 tons per square foot. Hence, it is reasonable to infer that the materials displayed undrained shear strengths not less than 0.5 ton per square foot. It is known that an excellent correlation exists for normally loaded clays (that is, clays that are not overconsolidated) between the pressure under which the clays have been consolidated and the plasticity index I The correla-p. tion is expressed by the equation c = 0.10 + 0.004 I p n (See Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn, Foundation Engineering, Second Edition, p. 93). The plasticity index for the five samples under discussion from Boring 9 ranges between eight and
nine percent. The corresponding value of the ratio of shear strength c to consolidation pressure p ranges from 0.13 to n 0.14. For a shear strength of 0.5 ton per square foot, the least value inferred from the foregoing information, the value of consolidation pressure would be computed as 0.5/0.13, or 3.8 tons per square foot. This is larger than any of the apparent consolidation pressures reported and, indeed, is substantially larger than the consolidation pressure applied by the surcharge. If the converse of the foregoing empirical relation is considered, it can be calculated that the value of the ratio of undrained shear strength to consolidation pressure for a plasticity index of eight is 0.13, and the corresponding value of undrained shear strength for a consolidation pressure of 2 tons per square foot is 0.26 ton per square foot. The corres-ponding unconfined compressive strength, equal to twice the undrained shear strength, would be 0.52 ton per square foot, on the borderline between medium and soft clay. No description of the samples obtained in the program, and no values of pocket penetrometer readings, indicated clays of such a soft consis-tency. Therefore, it can be concluded that the actual precon-solidation pressures for the surcharged clays of Boring 9 were substantially greater than those determined by means of sampling and testing. Finally, it is noteworthy that although many of the apparent preconsolidation pressures derived from the tests on samples from the plant fill are lower than the known applied pressures during the period of surcharging, an even greater
number are substantially higher. In particular, in the lower part of the fill, wher- induced stresses due to the dewatering system will be greatest, the excess of the apparent preconsoli-dation pressures above the pressures during surcharging is strikingly large. It is evident that, with the best of techniques for sampling and testing, and with interpretations carried out in accordance with the state of the art, the inferred preconsoli-dation pressures leave much room for interpretation and do not constitute conclusive evidence regarding the actual effective-ness of the surcharge program, which was amply demonstrated by the settlement and pore-pressure observations carried out during and after the program. 4.4 Monitoring Future Settlements. Observations should be continued to detect trends in future settlements in the unlikely event that they may differ unfavorably from those predicted, or to verify the predicted behavior.
5.0 CONCLUSION
In my opinion the surcharge program at the Diesel Generator Building has, in accordance with the best engineering practice, eliminated any potential future settlement problems ! due to the compressibility of the plant fill material and due to its lack of homogeneity. The efficacy of the treatment has been demonstrated by an extensive instrumentation program which showed conclusively that excess pore pressures under the sur-charge were dissipated within a few weeks after surcharge application, and also showed that settlements under the full
surcharge followed the linear settlement-log time relationship characteristic of secondary consolidation for several months before surcharge removal. I consider the estimate of future settlements obtained by extrapolating this log time relationship to be extremely conservative. Indeed, I do not know of any structure of comparable size of which the upper limit of the future settlement could be so reliably predicted, as a conse-quence of the full-scale proof-loading of its actual subsoil. i l
ATTACHMENT 1 EXPERIENCE RECORD RALPH B. PECK Born: Winnipeg, Canada, 23 June 1912. Citizenship: U.S.A. Address: 1101 Warm Sands Drive, S.E., Albuquerque, N.M. 87123 EDUCATION C.E., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1934 D.C.E., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1937 Harvard University, Graduate School of Engineering April 1938 to January 1939 REGISTRATION Structural Engineer, State of Illinois. Member, Illinois Structural Engineering Examining Board 1959-1969 Professional Engineer, Illinois, Hawaii Civil Engineer, California PROFESSIONAL EXI"RIENCE 6/37 to 4/38 Structural Detailer, American Bridge Co., Ambridge, Pennsylvania. 4/38 to 1/39 Laboratory Assistant, Arthur Casagrande, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1/39 to 5/42 Assistant Subway Engineer, City of Chicago. 5/42 to 12/42 Chief Engineer - Testing, Holabird & Root, Marion, Ohio. 12/42 to 5/74 Successively Research Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor of Foundation Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana. 5/74 to date Professor of Foundation Engineering, Emeritus, University of Illinois, Geotechnical Consultant PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES l Honorary Member American Society of Civil Engineers; Board of Direction, 1962-65; member Executive Committee Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, 1954-59; chairman 1957; president Central Illinois Sec-tion 1956. Southeast Asian Society of Soil Engineering; Maxican National Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering; Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Founda-tion Engineering.
_2_ Fellow American Consulting Engineers Council Geological Society of America Member International Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering; president 1969-73. American Railway Engineering Association; chairman subcommittee on foundations, Com-
.nittee 8, 1949-58. National Society of Professional Engineers. U.S. Committee on Large Dams. U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology; chairman 1976. Society of American Military Engineers.
HONORS Member National Academy of Engineering Recipient 1974 National Medal of Science, awarded by President Ford, September 18, 3975; Selected as One of Top Ten U.S. Construction Men of the past 50 years, Constr. Div., American Society of Civil Engineers, 1975; Washington Award, 1976; Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 1975; American Society of Civil Engineers: Norman Medal, 1944; Wellington Prize, 1965; Karl Terzaghi Award, 1969; National Society of Professional Engineers Award, 1972. Moles Non-member Award, 1973. Outstanding Civilian Service Medal, U.S. Army, 1973. Honorary Degree Doctor of Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1974 Lecturer First Karl Terzaghi Lecturer, American Society i of Civil Engineers, 1963. Ninth Rankine I Lecturer, British Geotechnical Society, 1969. l Sam J. Mathis Memorial Lecture, M T, 1973; Second Nabor Carrillo Lecture, Mce.can National Society of Soil Mechanics, 1974; First Martin S. Kapp Memorial Lecture, Metropolitan Section ASCE, 1974; First G. Brooks Earnest Award Lecture, Cleveland Section ASCE, 1978; Fifth Laurits Bjerrum Memorial Lecture, Oslo, 1980. LISTINGS l Who's Who in America, Who's Who in Engineering, American Men and Women of Science, the Blue Book, Who's Who in Technology Today. i
i
- Consultant on Various Projects, 1942 to Present, Including the Following
1 Foundations and stability conditions of ore docks and other heavily loaded structures for U.S. Steel Corp., Republic Steel Corporation, Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., Weirton Steel Co.,- Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co., American Steel and Wire Co., . Bethlehem Steel Co. Nuclear reactors in Wisconsin, Minnesota,
, Illinois, and California. Raft foundat '.ons for north and south Grant Park Underground Garages, Chicago. Over-water runway extensions, LaGuardia Airport, New York.
Investigations of stability conditions on Northern Pacific, i Great Northern, Milwaukee, Penn-Central, Louisville and Nashville, and Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroads; Climax Molybdenum Co.; New York Thruway; Cities Service Oil Co.; Wyandotte Chemicals Co.; Marquette Cement Co.; Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; Lamco Railroad of Liberia; City and County of Honolulu; Seattle Freeway; Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Member of Corps of Engineers Board of Consultants on Landslides Induced by 1964 Alaska Earthquake. Investigations of tunnels including Wilson Vehicular Tunnel, Honolulu; Highbury Sewer Tunnel, Vancouver; Mt. Baker Ridge Vehicular Tunnel, Seattle. Subway tunnels for City of Chicago;
; Bay Area Rapid Transit District, San Francisco; Washington, D.C.
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; New York City Second Avenue Line; Niagara Frontier Transit Authority; Baltimore Region Rapid Transit System. ! Investigations of bracing systems for open cuts for subways and deep excavations including Inland Steel Building, Chicago; Harris Trust Building, Chicago; Latino Americana Building, Mexico City; Rapid Transit Station Structures, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.; Embarcadero Plaza, San Francisco. i l Studies for dams including Rocky Reach Dam, Wenatchee, Washington; Neusa Dam, Bogota, Colombia; Waimea Reservoir, Hawaii; Rio Macho Project, Costa Rica; Peace River Project, British Columbia; Mactaquac Project, New Brunswick; Mica Creek Project, i British Columbia; Kremasta Dam, Greece; Cabin Creek Project, l Colorado; Churchill Falls Project, Labrador; James Bay Project, Quebec; Lower Notch Dam, Ontario; Aslantas Dam, Turkey; Dead Sea Dikes, Israel; Sabaneta Dam, Dominican Republic; Cannelton, Uniontown, Smithland and Mound City Locks and Dams, Ohio River; New Alton Lock and Dam, Missirsippi River; ! Arnprior Hydroelectric Development, Ontario; Itezhitezhi Dam, l Zambia; Bath County Pumped Storage Project, Virginia. t
- t-h -
y,wpg-w-----%p-y- r- y - p.umw, , - - - . '4ey
- u. - . , en 3 yes.,w p,vgui-w-.i-i-.w g- .
wr ---e w-- awe s w
l l Member, Advisory Board on Soil Mechanics, Office of Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army; various other boards for Corps of Engineers including Garrison Dam Test Tunnel, Foundations for Savannah River Project, Cape Kennedy Saturn Causeway; Boards on various defense projects for Rand Corporation, Space Technology Laboratories, Aerospace Corporation. Member, Board of Consultants: Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse and Applegate Dam, Portland District, Corps of Engineers; Miami Conservancy District, Ohio; Boruca Dam, Costa Rica; Lower Churchill Development Corporation on Muskrat Falls and l Gull Island sites; Arkansas River Salt Control Project, Oklahoma, Tulsa District Corps of Engineers. Consultant, USBR and WPRS, Stability of Slopes Downstream from Grand Coulee Dam; Earth and Rockfill Alternates for Auburn Dam. Member, Independent Panel to Determine Cause of Teton Dam Failure. PUBLICATIONS Books With K. Terzaghi, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Wiley, 1948, 566 pp., 2nd Ed., 1967, 729 pp. With W. E. Hanson and T. H. Thornburn, Foundation Engineering, Wiley, 1953, 410 pp., 2nd Ed., 1974, 514 pp. With L. Bjerrum, A. Casagrande and A. W. Skempton, Editors, From Theory to Practice in Soil Mechanics, Selections from the Writings of Karl Terzaghi, Wiley, 1960, 425 pp. Papers
- 1. Discussion: The Shear-Area Method. Trans. ASCE (1936),
l 101:992-993.
- 2. With E. C. Ingalls. Discussion: Analysis of Vierendeel
, Trusses. Trans. ASCE (1937), 102:925-926. l 3. Soil Tests Check Chicago Subway Work. Engr. News-Record, Dec. 7, 1939, pp. 87-88. ! 4. Sampling Methods and Laboratory Tests for Chicago Subway ! Soils. Proc. Purdue Conf. on Soil Mech., July 1940, pp. 140-150.
- 5. Soil Mechanics on the Chicago Subway. Ill. Tech. Engr.,
Oct. 1941, pp. 7-12. l I I
- 6. With R. S. Knapp. Open-Cut Soil Pressures on Chicago Subway.
Eng. News-Rec., Nov. 20, 1941, pp. 739-742.
- 7. The Measurement of Earth Pressures on the Chicago Subway.
ASTM Bull., Aug. 1941, 111:25-30.
- 8. Discussion: Progress Report of the Committee on the Bearing value of Pile Foundation. Pile-Driving Formulas. Proc.
ASCE, Feb. 1942; Harvard Univ. SM Series, 17.
- 9. Factors Entering into the Determination of Allowable Loads on Chicago Subsoils. Journ. Western Soc. Eng. (1942), pp.
69-78.
- 10. Earth-Pressure Measurements in Open Cuts, Chicago (Ill.)
Subway. Trans. ASCE (1943), 108:1008-1036. Discussion: pp. 1097-1103.
- 11. Discussion: Pendleton Levee Failure. Trans. ASCE (1944),
109:1414-1416.
- 12. With M. E. Uyanik. Fifty Years Ago. Ill. Technograph, Oct. 1944, pp. 14-15.
- 13. First Progress Report of the Investigation of Methods of Roadbed Stabilization. Proc. AREA (1946), 47:324-353.
- 14. Second Progress Report of the Investigation of Methods of Roadbed Stabilization. Proc. AREA (1947), 48:491-543.
i 15. Stabilizing Embankment Slides. Rwy. Eng. and Maint., Jan. 1948, pp. 65-66.
- 16. The Mechanics of Small Earth Dams. Agr. Eng., May 1948, pp. 210-214.
l l 17. History of Building Foundations in Chicago. U. of Ill. Eng. Exp. Sta. Bull. 373 (1948), 64 pp. i l 18. With W. V. Kaun. Description of a Flow Slide in Loose Sand. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Rotterdam (1948), II:31-33.
- 19. With O. K. Peck. Experience with Flexible Culverts through Railroad Embankments. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Soil Mech.,
I Rotterdam (1948), II:95-98. l
- 20. With H. O. Ireland and C. Y. Teng. A Study of Retaining Wall Failures. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Rotterdam
( (1948), III:296-299.
- 21. With S. Berman. Measurements of Pressures against a Deep Shaft in Plastic Clay. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Soil Mech.,
Rotterdam (1948), III:300-301.
- 22. With O. K. Peck. Settlement Observations on a Large Water Tank, Salt Lake City, Utah. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Soil Mech. ,
Rotterdam (1984), IV: 1-3.
- 23. With O. K. Peck. Settlement of Foundation due to Saturation of Loess Subsoil. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Rotter-dam (1948), IV:4-5.
- 24. A Study of Retaining Wall Failures. Proc. AREA (1948),
49:660-666. i
- 25. Discussion: Lateral Earth Pressures on Flexible Retaining Walls. Trans. ASCE (1949), 114:507-510.
- 26. Laboratory Studies of Roadbed Stabilization. Proc. AREA (1949), 50:676-683.
- 27. First Progress Report of a Laboratory Investigation of Roadbed Stabilization. U. of Ill. Eng. Exp. Sta. Bull. 82 (1949), 10 pp.
- 28. The Future of Soil Mechanics in Railroad Engineering. Proc.
i AREA (1949), 50:870-872. l l 29. With A. E. Cummings and G. O. Kerkhoff. Effect of Driving Piles into Soft Clay. Trans. ASCE (1950), 115:275-285. Discussion pp. 346-350. , 30. Soil Mechanics: The Simple, Practical Approach Can be j Fruitful. Modern Railroads, July 1950, pp. 59-62. l t 31. Selection of Foundations for Engineering Structures. Proc. 2nd Struct. Conf., U. of Ill. (1952), pp. 113-118. I t 32. The Bearing Capacity of Clays. Proc. AREA (1952), 53:1057-1061.
- 33. Foundation Exploration - Denver Coliseum. Proc. ASCE, 79, Sep. 326, Nov. 1953, 14 pp. Discussion Sep. 478, Aug. 1954, l p.45.
l 34. With F. G. Bryant. The Bearing-Capacity Failure of the Trans-cona Elevator. Geotechnique, March 1953, pp. 201-208. l 35. With H. O. Ireland. Investigation of Stability Problems. l Proc. AREA (1953), 54:1116-1128.
- 36. General Report, Piles and Pile Foundations. Proc. 3rd Int.
i Conf. Soil Mech., Zurich (1953), II:345-348. l 37. With W. E. Hanson and T. H. Thornburn. Foundation Engineering - Footings on Typical Sandy and Clayey Soils. Progressive Architecture, Dec. 1953, pp. 95-101. I l i l I
- 38. Soil Mechanics as Related to Substructure Design. L.S.U.
Eng. Exp. Sta. Bull. 30, (1953), pp. 5-11.
- 39. The Influence of Subsurface Conditions on the Design of Foundations for Waterfront Structures in the Great Lakes Area. Proc. 4th Conf. Coastal Engrg. , Chicago, Oct. 1953, pp. 291-305.
- 40. With L. P. Drew, et al. Specifications for Design of Retaining Walls and Abutments. Proc. AREA (1953), 54:797-813.
- 41. With A. E. Cummings. Local Materials in High Andes Prove Suitable for Rolled-Fill Dam. Civil Eng., May 1953, pp. 293-296.
- 42. Foundation Conditions in the Cuyahoga River Valley. Proc.
ASCE, 81, Sep.513, Oct. 1954, 20 pp. Discussion Sep. 343, Dec. 1955, p. 3.
- 43. With W. C. Reed. Engineering Properties of Chicago Subsoils.
U. of Ill. Eng. Exp. Sta. Bull. 423, 1954, 62 pp.
- 44. Failures Induced by Weight of Fill. Proc. AREA (1954),
55:645-651.
- 45. Lateral Forces Beneath Fills. Proc. AREA (1954), 55:1057-1062.
- 46. With M. E. Uyanik. Observed and Computed Settlements of Structures in Chicago. U. of Ill. Eng. Exp. Sta. Bull. 429, (1955), 60 pp.
- 47. With A. W. Skempton and D. H. MacDonald. Settlement Analyset of Six Structures in Chicago and London. Proc. Inst. C.E.,
July 1955, pp. 525-544. I 48. The Place of Soil Mechanics in Construction. Civil Eng. Bull. ASEE, May 1955, pp. 4-5.
- 49. With Rockwell Smith. Stabilization by Pressure Grouting on l
American Railroads. Geotechnique, Sept. 1955, pp. 243-252. l 50. Illinois Central Relocation at Grenada Reservoir. Proc. AREA l (1955), 56:702-706.
- 51. With J. D. Parsons. Discussion: The Action of Soft Clay along Friction Piles. Journ. ASCE, 82 (1956), SM3, pp.
1028:10-11.
- 52. Stabilization by Electro-Osmosis. Proc. AREA (1956),
57:658-660.
- 53. Relocation of Railroad Embankment, O' Hare Field, Chicago.
j Proc. AREA (1956), 57:649-657.
- 54. With C. C. Cooke et al. Specifications for Design of Spread Footing Foundations. AREA Bull. 533 (1956); Proc. AREA (1957), 58:633-648.
- 55. With T. H. Wu. Field Observations on Sand Drain Construction on Two Highway Projects in Illinois. Proc. Hwy. Research Board (1956), 35:747-753. -
- 56. With K. Terzaghi. Stabilization of an Ore Pile by Drainage.
Journ. ASCE, 83 (1957), SM1, pp. 1144:1-13.
- 57. With H. O. Ireland. Discussion: Experiences with Loess as a Foundation Material. Journ. ASCE, 83 (1957), SM1, pp.
1155:21-34. l
- 58. With D. U. Deere and J. L. Capacete. Discussion: The Allowable l Settlements of Buildings. Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs.,
Part III, (1956), 5:778-781.
- 59. With M. T. Davisson and Vello Hansen. Discussion: Soil Modulus for Laterally Loaded Piles. Proc. ASCE, 83, SM2, (1957), pp. 1228:22-28.
I 60. With H. O. Ireland. Backfill Guide. Journ. ASCE, 83 (1957), ST4, pp. 1321:1-10. i 61. With Don U. Deere. Stability of Cuts in Fine Sands and Varved Clays, Northern Pacific Railway, Noxon Rapids Line Change, Montana. Proc. AREA (1958), 59:807-815. l
- 62. Discussion: Consultants, Clients and Contractors. Journ.
Boston Soc. Civ. Eng., (Jan 1958), 45:34-37; Halvard Univ. SM Series, 54.
- 63. A Study of the Comparative Behavior of Friction Piles. Highway Research Board Special Report 36 (1958), 72 pp.
- 64. A Study of the Comparative Behavior of Friction Piles. Highway Research Abstracts (April 1959), 29:30-39.
- 65. Summary, Bearing Capacity of Structures on Compacted Soils.
Proc. 7th Annual Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Eng., U. of Minn. (1959), p. 25-26.
- 66. The Teaching and Practice of Soil Mechanics - A Second Comparison. Journ. ASEE (Jan. 1960), 50:309-311.
- 67. With Don U. Deere. Investigation of Landslides for Planning l Remedial Measures. Proc. AREA (1960), 61:670-677.
- 68. Discussion: Compressibility as the Basis for Soil Bearing Value. Proc. ASCE, SM1 (1960), 86:79-80.
l
- 69. Discussion: Major Power Station Foundation in Broken Limestone.
Proc. ASCE, SM1 (1960), 86:95-98.
- 70. Discussion: Tests of Steel Tubular Piles Driven near Saigon River, Vietnam. Highway Research Board Bull. 242 (1960),
- p. 40.
- 71. Foundation. Encyclopedia Americana (1960), XI:533-541.
- 72. Soil Mechanics. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1961), 18:851.
i 73. Quicksand. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1961), 18:851. l 74. With H. O. Ireland. Full-scale Lateral Load Tests of a Retaining Wall Foundation. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Paris (1961), II:453-458.
- 75. Discussion: Failure Hypotheses for Soils. Proc. Research Conf. on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils, Boulder, Colo.
(June 1960), pp 987-989.
- 76. With John Lowe, III. Moderators' Report, Shear Strength of Undisturbed Cohesive Soils. Proc. Research Conf. on Shear i Strength of Cohesive Soils, Boulder, Colo. (June 1960),
l pp. 1137-1140.
- 77. With Sidney Berman. Recent Practices for Foundations of High Buildings in Chicago. Symposium on The Design of High Buildings. Golden Jubilee Congress (Sept. 1961). Hong Kong University Press (1962), pp. 85-98.
l 78. Discussion: Engineering Geology on the Job and in the Classroom. Journ. Boston Soc. C.E. (Jan. 1962), 49:73-78.
- 79. Discussion: Past and Future of Soil Mechanics. Journ. Boston Soc. C.E. (Jan. 1962), 49:96-100.
- 80. Records of Load Tests on Friction Piles. Highway Research Board Special Report 67 (1961), 418 pp.
l
- 81. With M. T. Davisson. Discussion: Design and Stability Considerations for Unique Pier. Trans. ASCE (1962), Part IV, 127:413-424.
j 82. Art and Science in Subsurface Engineering. Geotechnique (Mar. 1962), 12:60-66.
- 83. Contributions to Panel Discussion on Pile Foundations. Proc.
- 5th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Paris (1962), III
- 243-244.
- 84. Contributions to Panel Discussion on Earth Pressures. Proc.
Sth Int. Conf. Soil Mech. , Paris (1962 ), III:328. I l
- 85. Discussion: Replies and General Summary, Session II, Foundations.
i Symposium on the Design of High Buildings, Univ. of Hong Kong (1962), pp. 104-125.
- 86. Discussion: General Summary, Special Session on Foundation Engineering. Symposium on the Design of High Buildings, Univ. of Hong Kong (1962), pp. 126-140.
- 87. With M. T. Davisson. Discussion: Friction Pile Groups in Cohesive Soil. Proc. ASCE, SM1 (Feb. 1963), 89:279-285.
- 88. With Tonis Raamot. Foundation Behavior of Iron Ore Storage Yards. Proc. ASCE, SM3 (May 1964), 90:85-122.
- 89. General Report, Field Investigations. Proc. 2nd Panamerican Conf. on Soil Mech, and Found. Eng. , Brazil (1963 ),
II:449-455; 524-525; 548-549.
- 90. Discussion: Piled Foundations. Proc. 2nd Panamerican Conf.
], on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Brazil (1963), II:641-642.
- 91. Editorial on substructure and superstructure design. From the Executive Committee, Structural Division Newsletter, ASCE, ST4, Part 2 (Aug. 1964), 90:1-2.
- 92. Foundations, Structural. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1964),
9:658-661.
- 93. Pile and Pier Foundations. Proc. ASCE, SM2 (Mar. 1965),
91:33-38.
- 94. Reflections on Dr. Karl Terzaghi. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Soil i Mech. and Found. Eng., Montreal (1965), III:77-78.
t
- 95. Statement of Conclusions on Stability of Slopes and Earth i Dams. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Found. Eng. ,
l Montreal (1965), III:596. i
- 96. Bearing Capacity and Settlement: Certaintites and Uncertainties.
l Proc. Symposium on Bearing Capacity and Settlement of
- Foundations, Duke University (1967), pp. 3-7.
I l 97. Philosophy of Foundation Design: Questions and Discussions. l Symposium on Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations, Duke University (1967), pp. 86-88; 89-90.
- 98. Stability of Natural Slopes. Journ. ASCE (1967), SM4, 93:403-417.
! 99. Tunnel. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1967), 22:331-337. 100. Discussion: Portage Mountain Dam: II Materials. Canadian Geotechnical Journ. (May 1967), IV:2:166-172. !f
- , . . - - - - e- -- - - - - - ,-.n.,, , , , . - , .
,,,,,,n._.,...,.-.,n a ,wm. . , ,. -~-,---.w..- ,,m ,,~-n,..4nn,.-men,,_,n-a, ,w--,
101. Discussion: Analysis of Soil Liquefaction: Niigata Earthquake. Journ. ASCE (1967), SMS, 93:265-366. 102. Fundamentals of Compaction. Proc. Montana Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng. (1967), pp. 1-9. 103. Discussions: Proc. Montana Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng. (1967), pp. 26, 27, 41, 42, 61, 62, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87. 104. Conference Summation Comments. Proc. Montana Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng. (1967), pp. 87-89. 105. Earthquakes and Liquefaction. Proc. Montana Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng. (1967), pp. 91-95. 106. With K. Terzaghi. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2 Ed., Wiley, New York (1967), 729 pp. 107. Problems and Opportunities - Technology's Legacy from the Quaternary. Proc. Symp. on The Quaternary of Illinois. U. of Ill. Coll. Agr. Spec. Publ. No. 14 (1968), 138-144. 108. With A.R.S. Bazaraa. Discussion: Settlement of Spread Footings on Sand. Journ. ASCE (1969), SM3, 95:905-909. 109. Deep Excavations and Tunnelling in Soft Ground. State of the Art Volume, 7th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Mexico (1969), 225-290. l 110. Advantages and Limitations of the Observational Method in l Applied Soil Mechanics. Ninth Rankine Lecture. Geotichnique (June 1969), 19:171-187. l 111. With J. R. Salley. Tolerable Settlements of Steam Turbine Generators. Journ. ASCE (1969), PD2, 95:227-252. 112. A Man of Judgment. Second R. P. Davis Lecture on the Practice of Engineering, April 1969. W. Va. Univ. Bull. Series ! 70, No.5-2, Nov. 1969. 1 113. General Report, Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft , Ground. Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Mexico (1969), 3, 147-150. 114. Discussions: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Mexico (1969), 3, pp.328,328,330,359,360,361. 115. Discussion: Representative Sampling in Location, Quality, and Size. ASTM Spec. Tech. Publ. 483 (1970), pp. 107-108. l 116. With V. Pop and S. Birger. Linii de Influenta Pentru Grinzi Torsionate pe Mediu Elastic (Influence Lines for Twisted Beams on Elastic Fodndations). Buletinul Stiintific al Institututlui Politehnic din Cluj, Romania (1970), pp. 435-444. l
. 117. With D. U. Deere, H. W. Parker, J. E. Monsees, and B. Schmidt.
Design of Tunnel Support Systems. Highway Research Record, No. 339 (1970), pp. 26-33. 118. Applied Soil Mechanics, Proc. 2nd Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Singapore (1970), pp. 622-628. 119. Foundations for High-Rise Buildings. Proc. 2nd Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Singapore (1970), pp. 629-638. 120. Tunneling - Where are we Going? Proc. Soil Mechanics and Foundations Engineering Conference, University of Kansas (1971), 5 pp. i 121. With D. J. Hagerty. Heave and Lateral Movements due to Pile Driving. Journ. ASCE (1971), SMll, 97:1513-1532. 122. Discussion: The Standard Penetration Test. Proc. 4th Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Puerto Rico (1971) III, pp. 59-61. 123. Discussion: Slope Stability in Residual Soils. Proc. 4th
; Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Puerto Rico (1971) III, p. 126.
124. Soil-Structure Interaction. Proc. ASCE Conf. on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, Purdue (1972) II, pp. 145-154. 125. Preface to the Penetrometer and Soil Exploration, by G. Sanglerat, ! Elsevier, Amsterdam (1972), pp. vii, viii. 126. Observations and Instrumentation: Some Elementary Considerations. Highway Focus, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1972), pp. 1 - 5. 127. With A. J. Hendron, Jr. and B. Mohraz. State of the Art of ! Soft-Ground Tunneling. Proc. 1st North Amer. Rapid Excavation l and Tunneling Conf., Chicago (1972), Vol. 1, pp. 259-286. l 128. With D. J. Palladino. Slo'pe Failures in an Overconsolidated Clay, Seattle, Washington. Geotechnique (Dec. 1972), 22:563-595. 1 129. Closing Address. Proc. 5th European Conf. on Soil Mechanics and l Foundation Engineering, Madrid (1972), Vol. 2, pp. 349-351. l l 130. Influence of Nontechnical Factors on the Quality of Embankment Dams. Embankment-Dam Engineering, Casagrande Volume, Wiley, New York (1973), pp. 201-208. l 131. Soil-Structure Interaction: Opening Remarks Session V. Proc. ASCE Conf. on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, Purdue (1972) III, pp. 249-250. l
. .-. -- - - ._ ~-
132. With Y.C.E. Chang and B. Broms. Relationships between the Settlement of Soft Clays cnd Excess Pore Pressure due to Imposed Loads, Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Moscow (1973), 1.1, 93-96. 133. Techniques and Equipment for Large Tunnels - Current and Future. AWWA, Dec. 1973, 783 - 785. 134. Preface to the Armenian and Russian Translations, Advantages and Limitations of the Observational Method in Applied Soil Mechanics, Problems of Geomechanics, Yerevan, (1971), Vol. 5, pp. 30-57. (Translation by G. Ter Stepanian.) 135. With K. Flaate. Braced Cuts in Sand and Clay. Veglaboratoriet, Meddelelse No. 41, 0510 (1972), pp. 7-29. Also published as NGI Pub. 96 (1973). 136. The Civil Engineering Mind - Nature and Nurture. Jour. Boston Soc. C.E. (1973), Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 135-144. 137. Opening Remarks. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Moscow (1973), 4.1, p. 153. 138. Presidential Address. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Moscow (1973), 4.1, pp. 156-159. 139. Remarks at Closing Session. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Moscow (1973), 4.1, p. 173, p. 183, p. 184. 140. Comments on Deep Foundations. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., I Moscow (1973), 4.2, p. 73. 141. Comments on Problems in Soil Mechanics and Construction on Soft Clays and Structurally Unstable Soils. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. , Moscow (1973 ), 4.2, pp. 99-100. 142. Discussion: Lateral Pressures of Clayey Soils on Structures. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Moscow (1973), 4.3, p.232. 143. With W. E. Hanson and T. H. Thornburn. Foundation Engineering, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York (1974), 514 pp. 144. The Technology of Underground Construction, Present and Future. l Proc. 2nd North Amer. Rapid Excavation and' Tunneling Conf., San Francisco (1974), Vol. 1, pp. 5-14. , 145. With H. O. Ireland. Experience in Teaching Engineering l Judgment by Case Histories in Foundation Engineering. l Proc. ASCE Conference on Engineering Education, Ohio State l University (1974), Vol. 1, pp. 187-192. r l 146. Analysis and Design in Geotechnical Engineering; Conference Overview. Proc. ASCE Conf. on Analysis and Design in Geotechnical Engineering, Austin (1974), II, 127-131. I
147. Book review: Settlement of Structures Conference, Pentech Press, London 1975, Geotechnique (Sept. 1975), 25: 627. 148. Karl Terzaghi and the Chicago Subway, Journ. ASCE (1975), EI4, 101: 477-484. Discussion 1977, ETI, 103: 64-65. 149. The Selection of Soil Parameters for the Design of Foundations. Second Nabor Carrillo Lecture. Mexican Society for Soil Mechanics (1975), 64 pp. 150. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice: The Story of a Manuscript, 1942-1948. Terzaghi Memorial Lectures, Bogazici" University, Istanbul (1973), pp. 50-79. 151. Landslides and their Prevention. Proc. 4th Guelph Symposium on Geomorphology, 1975, pp. 133-136. 152. With D. U. Deere. The Role of Theory in Geotechnical Field Observations. In Structural and Geotechnical Mechanics, W. J. Hall, Ed. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey (1977), 204-219. 153. Pitfalls of overconservatism in geotechnical engineering, Civil Engineering, ASCE, 47:2, Feb. 1977, 62-66. 154. Rock Foundations for Structures, Proc. ASCE Conf. on Rock Engineering for Foundations and Slopes, Boulder (1977), II, pp. 1-21. 155. Foreward to Award-Winning ASCE Papers in Geotechnical Engineering 1950-1959. ASCE, 1977, p. 111. 156. Advice to a Young Engineer. Military Engineer, 69:450, July-August 1977, pp. 232-234. Reprinted, Jour. Instl. Mil. Engrs, India, 1978, So., 2:39-42. 157. With W. L. Chadwick et al. Failure of Teton Dam. Report to U.S. Department of the Interior and State of Idaho, Dec. 1976. Supt. Documents, U.S. Gov't Printing Off., 219 pp. and 7 Appendices. 158. Lets Get It Straight about Those Dams. Military Engineer, 70:453, Jan.-Feb. 1978, pp. 20-23. 159. Five Lessons from Five Jobs. Edited version, Military Engineer, 70:457, Sept.-Oct. 1978, pp. 323-325. Original version, "A Half Century in Geotechnics, Istanbul, 1978, pp. 85-91. 160. Vignettes of Four Presidents, 1936-1969. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Tokyo (1977), Vol. 3, pp. 285-291. 161. Liquefaction Potential: Science Versus Practice. Journ. ASCE (1979), GT3, 105:393-398. Closing discussion (1980) GT6, 106:729-730. 1
\
162. Foreword to r Walls, by P. P. Xanthakos, McGraw-Hill, New York (19P xiii, xiv. 163. Subsurface pring, Military Engineer, 72:467, May-June 1980, pp. 17 164. Laurits Bjefontributions to Mechanics of Rockslides. Rockslides planches, 2, Barry Voigt (Ed.) Elsevier 1979, pp. 1:. 165. Where has a Judgment gone? Laurits Bjerrum Minneforedrag No. 5, Norgtakniske Institutt, Oslo, 1980, 5 pp.; also Canadit. Jour. (1980), 17:4, pp. 584-590, and NGI Fub (1980); pp. 1-5. 166. Diccussion: Failure in Benefit / Cost Analyses. Journal ASCl), GTA, 107:531-532. 167. Case Histon Soil Mechanics, Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. ,) (1981), Case History Volume, pp. 1-14. 168. Weathered-prtion of the Wilson Tunnel, Honolulu. Soft-Grouncling, Eds. Resendiz and Romo, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 13-22. 169. Investigatsidual Metamorphics for Tunnels. Proc. 10th onf. Soil Mech., Stockholm (1981), I, 341-344. 170. Preface to)ynamics by Shamsker Prakash, McGraw-hill, New York, I xii. t
u APPENDIX A REVIEW OF DATA
^
N ,
' t .'
TABLE OF CONTENTS , l
,1 J A.1 INTRODUCTIO17
,( yt.
A.2 QUALIFICATIONS u
' i
.i A.3 PIEZOMETRIC DATA / q d' A.3.1 Review of Original Data i '
A.3.2 A.3.3 OriginaljDataiPresentation Original,Caleslation of Piezometric Elevition t A.3.4 Results of Review of Piezomet:-ic Data T s A.4 BUILDING SETTLEMENT MARKERS A.4.1 Review of Original 1 Data A.4.2 Recalculation of Settlements A.4.3 Results of ReOlew of Settlement Data
's A.5 PEDESTAL SETTLEMECT'#ARKERS .
- :~
A.S.1 Review of Original. Data' . 'e , A.S.2 Settlement Recalculation and Results ; j
, J A.6 BORROS ANCHOR AND SETTLEMENT' PLATFORMS f.
A.6.1 Review of Original Data A.6.2 Recalculation of. Settlements A.6.3 Results of Review of Original Data and Strain' Calculations! A.7
SUMMARY
/' -/
)
2
LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title A-0 PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS A-1 to A-12 PIEZOMETRIC ELEVATIONS VS. TIME A-13 to A-24 SETTLEMENT VS. TIME, BUILDING MARKERS A-25 & A-26 SETTLEMENT VS. LOGARITHM OF TIME, DG-3 & 28 A-27 to A-42 SETTLEMENT VS. TIME, PEDESTAL MARKERS A-43 to A-56 SETTLEMENT VS. TIME AND STRAIN VS. DEPTH BA & PL MARKERS P n
,e i
l l
~ -r, - - . - - - - . . - - ,w-
- - - , n , .--r,
LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title A-1 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED AND SURVEYED REFERENCE ELEVATIONS A-2
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS OF REANALYSIS OF ORIGINAL PIEZOMETRIC DATA A-3 RESULTS OF SETTLEMENT RECALCULATION FOR 3UILDING MARKERS A-4 RESULTS OF SETTLEMENT RECALCULATION FOR PEDESTAL MARKERS A-5 BA AND PL MARKERS FOR WHICH SETTLEMENTS WERE RECALCULATED l l l I l l
A.1 INTRODUCTION This Appendix to the, testimony of Ralph B. Peck was prepared by Peter A. Lenzini at the request of Dr. Peck. The purpose of the studies described in the Appendix is to determine if some of the anomalous results which are noted in Dr. Peck's testimony can be explained. I arrived in Midland, Michigan on 16 February 1981 and departed on 19 February 1981 during which time I met with the surveyors,who performed the elevation surveys for the settlement markers, field personnel who made a number of the piezometer water level measurements, and field an'd office personnel who collected and plotted the original data. During this site visit I also toured the Diesel Generator Building and personnally inspected several of the settlement markers and piezometers which were still in service. I was furnished copies of original field notes by Bechtel for all of the settlement markers and piezameters and conducted a de-tailed review. For all of the data presented in this Appendix, I personally recalculated and replotted all of the settlement data, recalculated piezcmetric elevations for twenty of the l l functioning piezometers, checked the piezemetric elevations originally reported for the remaining functioning piezometers, and replotted all of the piezometric data. The results of these efforts are explained in detail in subsequent sections of this Appendix.
, , , ~ - ,-,,,-r,,-c----v,-t , , - ~-----,m- ,,, em,. e -
-,n.
A2 A.2 QUALIFICATIONS My detailed biographical, educational and professional record is attached. I completed the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Engineering from Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, in December, 1967 and received my diploma in June, 1968. As an undergraduate student I was employed for three summers by the Illinois Central Railroad as a draftsman and survey party member. Beginning in January 1968 I was employed for nearly four years as a design engineer with Daily and Associates, Champaign, Illinois where I participated in the structural design of a variety of structures including concrete and steel bridges, buildings, and wastewater treatment plants, as well as the foundations for these structures. Also in January 1968, I enrolled in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois where I began part-time study in the Department of Civil Engineering. I received the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering frcm the University of Illinois in June 1971 with a major in Structures and a minor in Foundation Engineering. ! It was at the University of Illinois where I first met Dr. R. B. Peck when I was enrolled in the graduate course in foundation engineering which he conducted. In 1971 I accepted a position with Converse, Davis and Associates in Pasadena, California where I was employed for two years as a project engineer on a variety of geotechnical investigations for building foundations, slope stability analyses, pipelines, and water reservoirs, including field
A3 supervision and inspection of foundation excavatiens and fill compaction. I became registered as a Professional Engineer in Civil Engineering in California in June, 1972. In 1973, I returned to the University of Illinois and again enrolled in the Graduate College for further study in geology and geotechnical engineering. At that time I first met Dr. A. J. Hendron, Jr. when I was enrolled in graduate courses in Rock Mechanics and Soil and Rock Dynamics which he conducted. In 1977 I completed the course requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Civil Engineering. Between 1973 and 1977 I was employed by the University of Illinois as a Teaching and Research Assistant in Civil Engineering; my responsibilities included teaching the undergraduate course Introduction to Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering and the laboratory portion of the undergraduate-graduate course Soil Mechanics and Soil Properties, and conducting research on deformations associated with soft ground tunnelling. Since 1980 I have been employed as a Visiting Lecturer in Civil Engineering, teaching the courses Introduction to soil Mechanics and Foundation l Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering, and Applied Soil Mechanics. From 1973 to the present and especially since 1977, I have also been engaged in consulting work for a variety of geotechnical projects, mostly in association with Dr. Hendron; these assignments are listed in the attached record. Many of
A4 these projects as well as some of my research experience involved geotechnical instrumentation. They included installation and monitoring of a surveying neitwork to observe settlements
. associated with soft ground tunnelling for the Washington, D.C.
Metro; long-term monitoring and analysis of ground movements, associated with sulphur mining in Texas, which were observed by horizontal strain lines, bench marks, and inclinometers; recommendations for subsidence monitoring networks to detect ground movements associated with solution mining of salt at several sites in Louisiana and Kansas; recommendations, supervision of installation, and analysis of the results, for piezometers to measure artesian water pressures and the effectiveness of the dewatering. system during foundation construction for a nuclear power plant in the Republic of Korea; layout and supervision of the installation of surface settlement points and deep extensometers to monitor differential settlement of the containment vessel for the Korea power plant, as well as analysis of the results. 1
--------,~--,,,-n , . - - , - - - , ,
i A5 A.3 PIEZOMETRIC DATA A.3.1 Review of Original Data The available piezometric data which I reviewed consisted of:
- 1. Supplemental Figures 27-5 through 27-49, the graphical record of piezometric level versus time;
- 2. Piczometer Computation Sheets, (Form PZ-R-3), summaries of the field data which show the reference mark elevation, average depth to water level, and calculated piezometric elevation for each piezometer for the pariod from the installation date to about 29 August 1979; 4 3. Piezometer Field Data Sheets (Form PZ-R-1) , the original field records of water level depths from the installation date to 13 February 1981; from 16 June 1979 to 13 Feb-ruary 1981, these sheets also show the reference eleva-tion and the calculated piezametric elevation;
- 4. Piezometer installation logs;
- 5. Tabulation of Piezometer Reference Elevations, a summary of the date each piezometer tube was lowered, the amount lowered, and the new reference elevation after lowering.
This tabulation was prepared by field personnel at the time each piezameter tube was lowered.
- 6. A list which summarized for each piezometer the refer-ence elevation when the surcharge was at its maximum
, height, the reference elevation calculated by sub-tracting the total amount lowered (after the surcharge was completely removed), the reference elevation obtained by surveys made in 1980 (on the lowered pie-zometers) for fifteen of the piezameters, and the dif-ference in the calculated and surveyed reference elevation I for fifteen piezometers which were surveyed. The basic procedure followed in obtaining and presenting the original piezometric data was to take two consecutive measurements of l water level depth below a reference elevation, to average the two depth measurements provided the difference in the two was less than 0.20 ft (if the first two measurements differed by more than i l
~ - - - , .,, - - - - - - . ~ - - - . , . -, .. , - . . . , - - . . - - ,--,n. - - - . -.,- , ,-
A6 0.20 ft, measurements were to be repeated until two successive measurements which differed by not more than 0.20 ft were obtained), to subtract the average water level depth from the reference elevation to obtain the piezometric elevation, and to plot the
~
piezometric elevation versus time for each piezometer. As the surcharge level was raised, the piezometer tubes were extended and new reference elevations were calculated; the procedure was reversed as the surcharge was removed. A minor variation was employed for piezometers 7, 26, 40, and 42 :Nere the final extension of these piezometers was entered in the field data tables as a correction factor, rather than added to the prior reference elevation to obtain a new reference elevation. These correction factors were subtracted from the water level depth measurements before calculating the piezometric elevations from the last recorded reference elevation. The correction factors were 4.00 ft applied from 27 March 1979 onward for pie-l zometer 7, 10.00 ft applied from 30 March 1979 onward for piezem-l eter 26, 2.32 ft applied from 27 March 1979 onward for piezameter i i 40, and 7.00 ft applied from 27 March 1979 onward for piezameter ( l 42. The frequency of the piezometric observations varied l throughout the surcharge period (26 January 1979 to 30 August 1979) but was generally at one to three day intervals from the beginning of surcharge placement until early May, one to two weeks from early May until mid-August when surcharge removal ( (
A7 began, two to five days during the period of surcharge removal, and about two weeks after surcharge removal was complete. From ! time to time during surcharge removal, various piezometers were inaccessible due to construction activitias and for these a period of one week or more between obse rations was common during the last half of August 1979. ) A.3.2 Original Data Presentation The original plots of rie7anet21.c elevation versus time showed that 15 of the 40 funct:catnc, azometers (numbers 3, 12, 17, 23, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 30, I' . 43, 44, 47, 48) experi-enced a sharp decrease of one foot or rcre and then a rapid recovery in piezametric elevation durim: :he'airiod of sur-charge removal, 15 to 30 August 1979, uharean 1.La remainder did not. An inspection of the original plots in Supp' ental Figures 27-5 through 27-49 showed plotted piezometric elevations in the approximate time period 15 to 30 August 1979 for twelve of the remaining piezometers (numbers 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 18, 27, 29, 39), which were as much as several feet lower than the prevailing elevations before surcharge removal began; however, the curves of piezometric elevation versus time were not drawn through these points at the low elevations. Inspection of the piezometer field data sheets confirmed that these lower piezometric levels were in fact observed. Furthermore, the piezometer field data sheets showed that twenty-two piezometers (numbers 1, 3, 5, 1
-,,.e.-,-. . - - , - . . . . , - .,.-,.------+.-n - - - - . - -n ---n- - - - . . , - , , ar----+,--.-- , - - - - - , . . - ,
A8 6, 12, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31, 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48) were inaccessible during a part of surcharge removal for the approximate period 15 to 30 August 1979. Nine of these twenty-two (numbers 3, 12, 23, 25, 30, 40, 43, 47, 48) showed a decreased piezometric level during the surcharge removal period on the dates they were accessible whereas the remaining thirteen did not. Therefore, of the 40 piezometers which functioned at least through the approximate period of surcharge removal of 15 to
'O August 1979 (piezometers 11 and 19 were dry since installation, .
niezometer 45 was dry after 4 March 1979, piezometers 20, 24, and 46 were destroyed 28 March 1979, piezometer 28 was destroyed 7 August 1979, and piezometer 38 was destroyed 16 August 1979), 27 indicated a decrease in piezometric level upon surcharge removal and 13 were inaccessible during a part of the period when the others showed the decrease. A.3.3 original Calculation of Piezometric Elevations The piezometric elevations for twenty piezometers (numbers 1, 3, 10, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 40, l 43, 44, 47) were recalculated beginning with the field data for j the period generally from April /May 1979 to at least the end of 1979. Originally reported piezemetric elevations for all of l the other piezometers were checked in detail. Table A-1 is a j l i
A9 summary of the piezometer reference elevations calculated from the amount the piezometer tube was lowered as the surcharge was removed and obtained by surveys made up to several months after surcharge re.noval was complete, for the 15 piezometers which were surveyed. The elevatior.s shown in the table are as I received them directly from Bechtel field personnel. The cal-culated reference elevations shown in the table were used in the original calculations of piezometric elevations, except for piezometer 27,'until the piezometers were surveyed in 1980. Except for piezometers 21, 22, and 27, the difference in cal-culated and surveyed reference elevations is on the order of one foot or less. A detailed review of the available records of lowering of the piezometer tubes was carried out and indicated: a) The Tabulation of Piezometer Reference Elevations shows that the reference elevation for piezometer 21 was lowered a total of 20.38 feet on 18 August 1979. Subtracting this length from the reference elevation during the surcharge period of 657.50, gives a final calculated reference elevation of 637.12, , not 633.12 as shown in Table A-1. This revised elevation gives better agreement with the surveyed reference elevation, the difference reing 1.17 ft compared with 2.83 ft shown in Table A-1. The curve of piezametric elevation versus time is raised accordingly from the 20 August 1979 reading onward. b) The Tabulation of Piezometer Reference Elevations shows that the reference elevation for piezometer 22 was lowered 7.27
- ft on 25 August 1979 to give a final calculated reference ele-vation of 630.04. This reference elevation is about four feet below plant grade of elevation 634 and would indicate 4
the piezameter tube was cut below ground surface. If the piezometer tube was not lowered after 18 August 1979 when the reference elevation was 637.31, the final reference ele-vation would be 637.31 which gives better agreement with the surveyed reference elevation, the difference being 0.62
- _ - . __. . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ ~ __._ _ , __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ .-
A10 Table A-1 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED AND SURVEYED REFERENCE ELEVATIONS (Data as received from field) Calculated Recorded Surveyed Reference Date of Reference Difference, ft Piezometer Elevation, Last Elevation, + surveyed higher Number ft Lowering ft - calculated higher 9 633.04 8/30/79 633.74 +0.70
- 10 632.58 8/30/79 633.62 +1.04 21 633.12 8/18/79 635.95 +2.83 22 630.04 8/25/79 636.69 +6.65 23 635.72 8/24/79 634.92 -0.80 24 636.83 8/29/79 636.83 0.00 25 636.86 8/29/79 636.86 0.00 27 642.66 8/29/79 635.60 -7.06 i
30 635.21 8/29/79 634.75 -0.46 33 636.65 8/30/79 636.67 +0.02 35 636.75 8/30/79 635.54 -1.21 44 636.40 (Not 636.35 -0.05 lowered) 17 635.30 (Not 635.19 -0.11 lowered) 18 635.60 (Not 635.52 -0.08 lowered) l 19 635.60 (Not 635.56 -0.04 lowered)
4 All ft compared with 6.65 ft shown in. Table A-1. The curve of piezometric elevation versus time is raised accordingly on 29 August 1979. c) The Tabulation of Piezometer Reference Elevations shows that the reference elevation for piezometer 23 was lowered a total of 21.18 ft from the reference elevation during the surcharge period of 656.40, to give a final calculated reference elevation of 635.22 instead of 635.72 shown in Table A-1. This correction also gives better agreement with the surveyed reference elevation, the difference being 0.30 f t compared with 0.80 f t shown in Table A-1, but has only a minor effect on the curve of piezometric
- elevation versus time.
d) According to the Tabulation of Piezometer Reference Elevations and to Table A-1, the reference elevation for piezometer 27 was last lowered on 29 August 1979 to give a final calculated reference elevation of 642.66, or more than 8 ft above grade at the piezometer loca-l tion. It is believed that the 7.27 ft lowering on 25 August 1979 was inadvertantly entered in the Tabulation of Piezometer Reference Elevations for piezometer 22, as noted in b), and should have been entered for piczem-eter 27. Therefore, the calculated reference elevation - for piezometer 27 becomes 642.66 - 7.27 = 635.39 which gives better agreement with the surveyed reference ele-vation, the difference being 0.21 ft compared to 7.06 ft. In the particular case of piezometer 27, the surveyed reference of 635.60 was used to calculate the original
- piezometric elevations from 29 August onward so the corrected reference elevation of 635.39 has little effect on the piezometric elevation versus time ~ curve as originally presented.
i Although calculated reference elevations could be compared with surveyed elevations for the fifteen piezometers listed in Table A-1, reference elevations were rechecked for all of the remaining piezometers to see if some of the isolated anomalous points in the plots of piezometric elevation versus time could i l l
-mm ,,.. _. ,_-_, ,y_ , - - , - - y_._. ..--y .-. _r..,_ . . . . ~ _ . , --,,,__,,_,,.,._.__.--y__ ,,. - -..w . . . . - , _ , , . _ . , , , .
A12 be explained. The rechecking of field records of the appro-priate reference elevation to be used with a given day's water level depth measurement indicated: a) The tube for piezometer 1 was shown in the Tabulation of Piezometer Reference Elevations to have been lowered 6.66 ft on 29 August whereas the field records showed the actual amount lowered was 4.41 ft. Therefore, anoma-lously low piezometric elevations on 29 August and there-after are raised by 6.66 - 4.41 = 2.25 ft. b) The original data showed an anomalously high piezometric elevation of 628.07 on 29 August for piezometer 30 al-though the curve of piezometric elevation versus time was not drawn through this point. The Tabulation of Piezometer Reference Elevations shows the piezometer tube was lowered 4.58 ft on 29 August. It is not clear from the available records whether the 29 August lowering took place before or after the day's water level measure-ment; however, it is reasonable to assume the lowering to have taken place before the measurement. On the basis of this assumption, the 29 August elevation is reduced to 628.07 - 4.58 = 623.49 and the anomalous point is eliminated. c) The original data showed an anomalously high piezometric elevation of 631.87 on 24 August for piezometer 42 although the curve of piezometric elevation versus time was not drawn through this point. The Tabulation of Piezometric Reference Elevations shows the piezometer tube was lowered 5.91 ft on 24 August. If the lowering is assumed to have taken place before the water level measurement on 24 August, the piezometric elevation is reduced to 631.87 - 5.91 = 625.96 and the anomalous point is eliminated. d) The original data showed an anomalously high piezo-metric elevation of 627.63 on 29 August for piezometer
- 43. The Tabulation of Piezometer Reference Elevations
A13 shows the piezometer tube was lowered 0.86 ft on 29 August. If the lowering is assumed to have taken place before the water level measurement on 29 August, the piezometric elevation is reduced to 627.63 - 0.86
= 626.77 and the anomalous point is eliminated.
e) The original data showed an anomalously high piezo-metric elevation of 629.70 on 24 August for piezometer 48, although the curve of piezometric elevation versus time was not drawn through this point. The Tabulation of Piezometer Reference Elevations shows the piezometer tube was lowered 6.68 ft on 22 August, 5.17 ft on 23 August, and 4.92 ft on 24 August from the reference elevation of 656.80 while the surcharge was in place. However, the reference elevation originally used to calculate the piezametric elevation on 24 August was 645.20, which apparently had not included the 23 August lowering. If the 23 August lowering of 5.17 ft is accounted for, the piezometric elevation on 24 August is reduced to 629.70 - 5.17 ft = 624.53 and the anomalous point is eliminated. In addition, piezometric levels over a part of the record of piezameters 21 and 40 were recalculated as explained in the following paragraphs. The water level depths measured in piezometer 40 were to have been reduced by subtracting 2.32 ft from the depths measured on 27 March 1979 and onward as explained in Section A.3.1. However, beginning with the 13 September 1979 measurement, the 2.32 ft correction factor was applied to piezometer 21 instead of piezometer 40. Elimination of this error combined with the already noted revision to the reference elevation used for piezometer 21, results in an upward shift of the piezometric elevation versus time curve.
A14 The 2.32 ft subtraction from water level depth was correctly applied to the piezometer 40 measurements up to and including the 15 August 1979 measurement. On 24 August, 2.32 ft was incorrectly added to the measured water depth (instead of subtracting) so that the resulting piezometric elevation on this date is 4.64 ft too low. On 29 August, the 2.32 ft was correctly subtracted from the measured water depth so the piezometric elevation on that date is correct as originally reported. However, beginning with the next measurement on 13 September 1979 and for all additional measurements until 21 February 1980 inclusive, the 2.32 ft correction factor was omitted. The portion of the piezometric elevation versus time curve is therefore 2.32 ft too low as originally reported for the period 13 September 1979 to 21 February 1980. Anomalous piezometric levels were measured during July 1979 for nine piezometers (numbers 5, 10, 12, 13, 25, 27, 32, 41, 42). The piezometer field data sheets for 17, 18 July include a note that piezometers were flushed during the first week of July 1979. The anomalous high piezometric levels occur on 2, 3 or 17, 18 July readings (and 25, 31 July readings for piezometer 5); these are interpreted to be the result of residual pore pressures from the flushing operation and are not plotted in the revised piezometric elevation versus time curves which are discussed in Section A.3.4. The fact that only some of the piezameters
A15 show the high piezometric levels after flushing is probably indicative of the local-permeability characteristics of the soil around a given piezometer. A.3.4 Results of Review of Piezometric Data The original piezometric data have been reanalyzed and replotted in Figures A-1 to A-12. Anomalous points in the original data plots have been eliminated by reasonable assumptions re-garding the correct piezometer reference elevation as explained in Section A.3.3 of this Appendix. Where other anomalous points exist in the records, but which are not explained in Section A.3.3, the anomalous points have been plotted and the curves have been drawn through these points. Table A-2 summarizes the results of my reanalysis of the original piezometric data.
A16 Table A-2
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS OF REANALYSIS OF ORIGINAL PIEZOMETRIC DATA Piezometer (all dates 1979 unless noted) 1 Indicate no readings 17-23 Aug; correct reference elevation from 29 Aug onward is 2.25 ft higher than used for original data reduction. 2 Plot decreased piezometric level on 22 Aug. 3 Indicate no readings 17-23 Aug. 4 Plot decreased piezometric level on 22 Aug. 5 Indicate no readings 16-23 Aug; flushed first week of July, anomalous-high piezametric levels on 17, 25, 31 July are disregarded. 6 Indicate no readings 16-2'3 Aug. 7 Plot decreased piezometric level 22 Aug. 8 Plot decreased piezometric level 22 Aug. 9 Plot decreased piezometric level 20 Aug. 10 Plot decreased piezometric level 20 Aug.: flushed first week of July 1979, anomalous piezometric levels on 2, 7 July are disregarded. 11 (Inoperable) 12 Indicate no rea' dings 17-23 Aug; flushed first week of July, anomalous high piezometric level on 17 July is disregarded. 13 Plot decreased piezometric level 22 Aug; flushed first week of July; anomalous high piezometric level on 17 July is disregarded. 14 Indicate no readings 16-23 Aug. 15 Plot decreased piezametric level on 17, 20 Aug.
)
1 A17 i Table A-2 (continued) ! Piezometer (all dates 1979 unless noted) 16 Indicate no readings 17-23 Aug; anomalous high piezometric levels on 24, 29 Aug. cannot be ex-plained. 17 Plot decreased piezometric level 20 Aug; anomalous high piezometric level on 30 Mar. cannot be ex-plained. 18 Plot decreased piezometric level 20 Aug. 19 (Inoperable) 20 (Inoperable after 28 March). 21 Indicate no readings 16-23 Aug; anomalous low pie-zometric level on 17 July may be related to flushing first week of July; correct reference elevation from 24 Aug onward is 4 ft higher than used for original data reductien; 2.32 ft in-correctly subtracted from water level depths from 13 Sept. onward for original calculation.
- 22 Indicate no readings 1-19 Aug; anomalous high piezo-metric levels through July cannot be explained; correct reference elevation for 29 Aug reading is 7.27 ft higher than used for original calculation.
23 Indicate no readings 18 Aug-12 Sept. except for one reading on 24 Aug; correct reference elevation from 24 Aug onward is 0.50 ft lower than used for original calculation. 24 (Inoperable after 28 March). 25 Indicate no readings 18-23 Aug; flushed first week of July, anomalous high piezometric level on 17 July is disregarded. 26 Indicate no readings 18-23 Aug. 27 Plot decreased piezometric level 22 Aug; flushed first week of July, anomalous high piezometric level 2 July is disregarded; correct reference elevation from 29 Aug onward is 0.21 ft lower than used for original calculation. 28 (Inoperable after 7 Aug). 29 Plot decreased piezometric level on 22 Aug.
A18 Table A-2 (continued) Piezometer (all dates 1979 unless noted) 30 Indicate no readings 18-28 Aug; use reference ele-vation for 29 Aug. reading 4.58 ft lower than for original calculation. 31 Indicate no readings 16-23 Aug. 32 Anomalous high piezometric level 13 March cannot be exple'ned; flushed first week of July, anomalous high piezometric level on 2 July is disregarded. 33 No revisions. 34 No revisions. 35 Indicate no readings 16-24 Aug. 36 No revisions. 37 Indicate no readings 17-23 Aug. 38 No revisions; anomalous high piezometric level Dec. 1978, Jan. 1979 cannot be explained; inoperable after 16 August. 39 Plot decreased piezcmetric level 20 Aug; one reading 29 Aug, otherwise no readings af ter 20 Aug. 40 Indicate no readings 19-23 Aug; 2.32 ft correction factor erroneously applied on 24 Aug - revised piezometric level is raised 4.64 ft; 2.32 ft correction factor omitted on 13 Sept. onward until 21 Feb. 1980 - revised piezometric level is raised 2.32 ft. 41 Indicate no readings 17-28 Aug; flushed first week of July, anomalous high piezometric level on 3 July is disregarded. 42 Indicate no readings 16-23 Aug; use reference ele-vation for 24 Aug reading 5.91 ft lower than for original calculation; flushed first week of July, anomalous high piezometric level on 18 July is disregarded. 43 Indicate no readings 18-23 Aug; use reference ele-vation for 29 Aug reading 0.86 ft lower than for original calculation.
A19 Table A-2 (continued) Piezometer (all dates 1979 unless noted) > 44 No revisions. 45 (Inoperable after 4 March). 46 (Inoperable after 28 March). 47 Indicate no readings 18-23 Aug. 48 Indicate no readings 18-23 Aug; use reference elevation for 24 Aug reading 5.17 ft lower than for original calculation.
A20 A.4 BUILDING SETTLEMENT MARKERS A.4.1 Review of Original Data The building settlement data which I reviewed included:
- 1. Supplemental Figures 27-51 and 27-68 through.27-77, plots of settlement versus logarithm of time for building markers DG-1 and 20 through 29; and Supp-lemental Figure 27-6, settlement versus logarithm of time for marker DG-3.
- 2. Settlement record table which summarized the settle-ment of each marker for each week ending on Friday and which was used to prepare the settlement-log time plots.
- 3. Copies of field books in which the project surveyor kept a record of the elevation of each of the building markers for each day the marker was surveyed; these elevation records began with 24 March 1979.
- 4. Copies of calculation sheets, prepared by the -
surveyors on site, which showed settlements of each marker for the period from 26 Jan 1979 up to 22 March 1979. Prior to installation of the permanent building markers (DG markers 1, 3, 20 through 29) settlements had been monitored by surveys on construction scribes which were elevation marks placed on the inside of the building exterior walls three or four feet above final grade. A total of twenty-six such construction scribes were placed between 28 March 1978 and 12 May 1978. Elevation surveys of these scribes began on 10 July 1978 and continued at weekly intervals until 24 November 1978.
A21 The first permanent building settlement marker, DG-3, was installed on 9 May 1978, marker DG-1 was installed on 9 Septem-ber 1978, and markers DG-20 through 29 were installed 15 November 1978. The permanent markers were installed on the outside of the building walls one to four feet above final grade and consisted of short steel rods grouted into the walls. When the surcharge was placed, these permanent markers were no longer accessible and temporary markers were set in the mezzanine floor at elevations 663.5 to 664. The temporary markers con-sisted of nails set in the concrete in locations generally above the corresponding permanent markers. The settlement record table I reviewed included settle-ments monitored by the construction scribes which had occurred up to 24 November 1978. The settlements shown in the table had been calculated by setting the settlement of a given DG marker on 24 November equal to that which had been recorded for the scribe for that particular area of the building. Beginning 1 December 1978, and up to and including 22 March 1979, only the perm-anent DG markers were surveyed. Placement of the surcharge prevented the use of the permanent markers after 22 March 1979 and temporary I markers were installed to continue monitoring the settlements. The first survey on the temporary DG markers was made on 24 March 4
A22 1979 (2 days af ter the final survey of the permanent markers)
. except for temporary markers DG-23 and 29 which could not be surveyed until 9 April 1979 (eighteen days after the final survey of the permanent markers). Temporary DG markers were surveyed during surcharge and surcharge removal until 14 September 1979, according to the settlement record table, by which time the permanent DG markers were again accessible.
To summarize, the procedure used to obtain and calculate the original settlement data was to:
- 1. Set the settlements of the permanent DG markers on 24 November 1978 equal to the settlements measured by construction scribes up to that date, for the particular area of the building where a given DG marker was located.
- 2. Obtain the elevations of the DG markers by optical surveys and calculate the settlement of a marker on a given day by adding the settlement of the marker on 24 November 1978 to the change in ele.vation of the marker between ' 24 November 1978 and the day of the survey. This procedure continued until 22 March 1979 when the permanent DG markers were no longer accessible.
- 3. Install temporary DG markers above the level of the surcharge and obtain their elevations on 24 March 1979 (except for temporary markers DG-23 and 29 which were not surveyed until 9 April 1979). The settlements of the permanent markers on 22 March 1979 were added to the elevations of the corre-sponding temporary markers on 24 March 1979 to establish base elevations for the temporary markers.
Because temporary markers DG-23 and 29 were not eurveyed until several days after the final survey on the permanent markers, settlements of these markers between 22 March and 9 April were estimated from the behavior of near-by markers and these estimated set:1ements were added to the 9 April. 4 elevations to establish base elevations for these two markers.
A23
- 4. Calculate the settlements of the temporary DG markers on a given day by subtracting the marker elevation determined by surveys from the base elevation established on 24 March 1979 (9 April in the case of markers DG-23 and 29). Settlements of the temporary markers were calculated in this manner until 14 September 1979.
- 5. Obtain elevations of the permanent markers on 14 September 1979 and calculate settlements of the permanent markers on that date by subtracting the marker elevations from base elevations for the permanent markers. The base elevations for the permanent markers were established for 2 December 1978 by adding the settlements which had occurred up to that date (note that these settlements were estimated from scribes up to 24 November 1978) to' the elevations of the markers obtained from surveys on 2 December 1978.
When the settlements on 14 September 1979, calculated by the procedures summarized in the foregoing paragraphs, are compar'ed for the permanent and temporary DG markers, an average difference of 0.1 inch, with a maximum dif ference of,0.2 in. , results. For example, for marker DG-3, the permanent marker shows about 0.2 in, more settlement than the corresponding temporary marker; for marker DG-27, the temporary marker shows about 0.2 in. more settlement than the permanent marker; and for marker DG-20, the temporary and permanent markers show identical sett.'ements on 14 September 1979. Supplemental Figures 27-51 and 27-68 through 27-77 show this difference between settlements measured by the temporary and permanent markers as a discontinuity in the settlement-log time plots on about Day 230.
i s s i A24 \ t
\
~
A.4.2 Recalculation of Settlements ,. My review of the procedures used to calculate the settle '.,,
. 1 ments suggested that alternative procedures could be employed ,
which might explain some of the anomalous results and improve s
~
the consistency. Specifically: ,
- 1. The data included in the settlement record table -
showed settlements at the end of each week (Fri- -- day), even though the actual level surveys were 3;
^
conducted at more frequent intervals. Consider- ' ation of the actual, more frequent, observations 's ~ might more accurately define the settlement-time - - relationship. ,
- 2. The method originally used to calculate temporary marker settlements implicitly assumed the temporary -
marker settlement on 24 March 1979 equalled the perm- - anent marker settlement on 22 March 1979 except for' , 4 markers DG-23 and 29. In other'words, the settlements ,'<l which occurred between 22 March and 24 March were assumed to equal zero. For markers DG-23 and 29, not installed until 9 April 1979, the settlements which would have occurred up to 9 April were es-timated from the behavicr of the other narkers. 1
\'
- 3. The magnitude of the rebound of theDbuilding settle- .
ment markers upon surcharge removal'; according to the settlement-log timq plots, differed by as much ( as a factor of two from the rebound measured by the four deep Borros Anchors (BA-61, 62, 63, 64). The Borros Anchor rebounds varied from 0.19\to 0.26 in. ^ whereas the settlement markers showed rebounds over the same period as great as 0.50 ing The rebound portion of the settlement-log time curves includes the discontinuity between temporary marker and permanent markers settlement on 14 September 1979. This suggested that if the discrepancy between temporary marker and permanent marker settlements could be resolved, then perhaps the rebounds measured by the deep Borros Anchors and the building settlement markers might be in closer ugree- ' ment. \ , m i I i N
\j
,-. - ---- - - , . - - - - . . - - - - - - - . * , - . , + + - , - -
r m
^
A25 Therefore, I recalculated settlements for all of the markers from 26 January 1979 through the end of September 1979, beginning with marker elevations and settlement data as origin-a'11y recorded in the field. My review of tne field records of marker elevations showed that the actual final survey of the temporary markers was on 12 September 1979 except for temporary marker DG-21 which was last surveyed on 10 September 1979. Moreover, the first surveys of the permanent markers after surcharge removal were actually on 20, 22, or 23 August, depending on the marker. Therefore, from the period 20, 22, or 23 A'ugust r ; 12 September, (' elevations.were obtained on both the temporary and permanent markers. .During this period, when the surveys were conducted
;_ at one to ' four day intervals, a given set of temporary and permanent markers were surveyed on the same day an average of eleven times (range of eight to twelve).
The availability of elevations on both temporary and s permanent markers on the s_ame days during the period of about i 20 August to 12 September 1979 permits a second method of calculating -i
\
settlements for the temporary markers. Whereas the original C' calculations began by settin'g ' the temporary marker settlements on 24 March 1979 equal to the permanent marker settlements on 22
- March 1979 (or equal to the estimated settlement on 9 April 1979 -y ,s - ,
G m for markers DG-23 and 29), a second method would be to set the "l
\
s s a 1
A26 , e V temporary marker settlements equal to the pernanent marker settlements over the period of common surveys, about 20 August to 12 September, and then to calculate camporary marker settle-ments for the period from 20 August 1979 back to 24 March 1979. This was accomplished by determining a base elevation for each temporary marker such that when the surveyed elevation of the temporary marker b subtracted from the base elevation, the resultingtemporarymarkersettlempntagreeswiththepermanent marker settlement over the period of common surveys, about 20 August to 12 September 1979. The base elevation so determined is then used to calculate the temporary marker settlement for all of the surveys prior to 20 August 1979. The general procedure used to recalculate the building marner settlements is summarized in the following paragraphs:
- 1. Permanent Markers, 26 January through 22 March 1979-The data available from the field for the period 26 January to 22 March 1979 consisted of the settlement of each permanent DG marker relative to zero settle-ment on the date the marker was installed and included no settlement from the construction scribes. These settlement values were converted to the base of zero settlement on 26 January 1979 by subtracting the reported settlement on 26 January from all successive values. At the same time, the elevation of each permanent marker on 26 January 1979 was determined by subtracting the reported 26 January 1979 settlement from the installed elevation of the marker. The 26 January 1979 elevation then becomes the base elevation from which any later surveyed elevations are subtracted to obtain settlement relative to zero settlement on 26 January 1979.
- 2. Permanent Markers, 20 August through September 1979-The data available from the field, beginning with about 20 August 1979, consisted of permanent marker elevations from surveys made at about one,to four day
. . . . _ _ - - .. _ . _ _ - . ~ _ _
4 4 i > f A27 F intervals. These. elevations were subtracted from the ! base elevaticn (the marker elevation on 26 January 1979) to obtain settlement relative t.o 26 January 1979.
- 3. Temporary Markers, 24 March through 12 September 1979, Metsod 1- The data available from the field for this period consisted of temporary marker elevaticns from surveys made at about one to four day intervals. The 1
procedure for calculating settlements by Method 1 is , similar to that used for the original settlement cal-i culations: establish a base elevation for each temporary marker by adding the settlement (relative to 26 January 1979) of the corresponding permanent marke. on 22 March , l to the elevation of the temporary marker on 24 March.
- All temporary marker elevations from subsequent surveys were subtracted from the base elevation so determined to obtain settlements relative to 26 January 1979. Note that this base elevation is the one which gives tem-l porary marker settlement on 24 March equal to permanent 1 marker settlement on 22 March 1979.
f 4. Temporary Markers, 24 March through 12 September- 1979, Method 2- This method sets the temporary marker settle-ment equal to the ccrresponding permanent marker settlement over the period of common surveys, approxi-
! mately 20 August to 12 September 1979. For each day when surveys were made on both temporary and permaner.t markers, the settlement (relative to 26 January 1979) j calculated for the permanent marker was added to the elevation of the temporary marker on the same day.
The average of these sums then became the base eleva-tion from which all temporary marker elevations were subtracted to obtain settlements relative to 26 January 1979. Note that this base elevation is the one which gives the best agreement between temporary and permanent j marker settlements over the period 20 August to 12 September 1979. Because of construction activities and damage to permanent l markers at various times during the surcharge period, the general
! procedure outlined in the foregoing paragraphs could not be fol-i lowed for every building settlement marker. Temporary markers DG-23 and 27 were not installed until 9 April 1979; for these two markers i
a
-m, , . . - . , . -.-+,-- .-- ,,- - . , , , , . - - - . . - - - - , , , - , , . .,, - -...,-.. - . ,_m.--.--, , . _ _ . g-w-- , y -
w.- , - - . .
A28 Method 2 only was used to calculate the temporary marker settle-ments. Settlements of permanent markers DG-25, 26, and 27 could not be measured on 26 January 1979 because of construction ac-tivities, but were evailable for 1 February 1979. Settlements of these markers on 26 January were estimated from the 1 February 1979 values considering the behavior between 26 January and 1 February for all other building settlement markers. Since settle-ments during this peri ,a were small for all of the markers (averag-ing only about 0.05 in. for the entire building), the estimated settlements for D. -25, 26, and 27 have little effect on the resulting settlement-time relationship. Permanent markers DG-28 and 29 were destroyed sometime after the 1 February 1979 reading and were reinstalled on 10 February 1979. In order to calculate the settlement-time relationship relative to 26 January for the 4 reinstalled markers, settlements on 10 February were estimated from the behavior of markers DG-3, 20, and 27 which are located at three corners of Bay 4 (DG-28 is located at the fourth corner of Bay 4 and DG-29 is located on the exterior wall midway between DG-3 and 28). The estimate was based on the assumption that Bay 4 remained plane as settlement occurred between 1 February and 10 February. Again, since settlements of the structure were small during the period 1 to 10 February, the estimated settlements for DG-28 and 29 on 10 February, even if Bay 4 did not remain perfectly plane, have little effect on the resulting settlement-time relationship. 1
A29 Table A-3 is a comparison of pertinent points on the settlement-time relations calculated by the two different methods. The difference in permanent marker settlement on 22 March and temporary marker settlement on 24 March is an indication of how closely the two calculation methods match the temporary to the perma-nent portion of the settlement-time relation early in the surcharge pm iod; the difference is by definition zero for Method 1. Method 2 gives essentially the same result as Method 1 for markers DG-1, 20, 21, and 24. For markers DG-3, 22, and 25, Method 2 indicates settlement between 22 and 24 March of 0.11 to 0.22 in. Method 2 gives anomalous results for markers DG-26, 27, and,28 since the calculated settlements on 24 March are about 0.1 in. less than on 22 March. The comparison of temporary and permanent marker settlements on 12 September indicates how closely the two calculation methods match the temporary to the permanent portion of the settlement-time relation at the end of the surcharge period; Method 2 by definition gives the best match over this part of the record. Method 1 gives temporary marker settlements about 0.1 to 0.2 in. less than permanent for markers DG-3, 22 and 25 and about 0.1 to 0.2 in greater than permanent for markers DG-26, 27, and 28 on 12 September. The difference in temporary marker settlement on 13 August (just before surcharge removal) and permanent marker settlement on 12 September (after surcharge removal) is an indication of the rebound over this period. Both methods give about the same
3* LJ O Table A-3 RESULTS OF SETTLEMENT RECALCULATION FOR BUILDING MARKERS Perm 4nent Temporary-Method 1 Temporary-Method 2 S S S AS$3/22 S temp AS S Asis /13 S temp AS(3/22 S perm aS S temp AS(8/13 gern perm temp temp MfLiff 83/32) (9/I21__1}/143 - 3/243 (9/12) (9/12) (8/139 - 9/123 (3/24) - 3/24) (9/123 19/123 (8/l]) - 9/121. DC-1 1.44 2.75 1.44 0 2.70 0.05 3.02 -0.27 1.49 -0.05 2.75 0 3.07 -0.32 3 1.44 3.12 1.44 0 2.93 0.19 3.18 -0.06 1.66 -0.22 3.14 .02 3.40 -0.20 20 t.57 3.16 1.57 0 3.47 -0.01 3.42 -0.26 1.57 0 3.11 .01 3.42 -0.26 21 1.50 3.00 1.50 0 3.02 -0.02 3.22 -0.22 1.49 +0.01 3.01 .01 3.20 -0.20 (9/108 (9/10) 22 1.40 2.86 1.40 0 2.74 0.12 3.00 -0.14 1.55 -0.15 2.00 .02 3.14 -0.20 23 0.94 2.05 - - - - - - 1.68 -
- 2. 0,4. . .01 2.32 -0.27 (4/95 24 0.61 1.27 0.61 0 1.22 0.05 1.51 -0.24 0.66 -0.05 1.27 0 1.56 -0.29 25 0.62 1.37 0.62 0 1.27 0.10 1.49 -0.12 0.73 -0.11 1.30 .0L 1.60 -0.23 26 0.71 1.40 0.71 0 1.54 -0.14 1.60 -0.20 0.59 +0.12 1.42 .02 1.56 -0.16 27 R.85 1.50 0.05 0 1.67 -0.17 1.04 *0.34 0.78 *0.14 1.52 .02 1.69 -0.39 28 0.84 1.4e 0.04 0, 1.66 -0.18 1.05 -0.37 0.70 +0.14 1.51 .03 1.70 -0.22 29 1.82 2.21 - - - - - -
1.88 - 2.21 0 2.40 -C.19 I 14/99 Notess 1. All settlements sicwn are in inches. 3 Method I not used for DG-23 and 29 because first reading on temporary marker not until
- 2. as dettned ass ASt3/22-3/24) =5 pes e( 3/22) -S temp (3/243 4/9/19 a$l9/128
- Sp,,,(9/129 - S g,,p(9/12) 4. Final reading on temporary marker DG-21 was aS(0/13-9/128 =
Sp ,,,(9/128 - S,,,p(0/L3) 9/10 instead of 9/12 i
A31 average rebound value for the entire' group of markers (0.23-0.24 in.) but the range in values is much larger by the Method 1 cal-culation. The rebound resulting from the Method 2 calculation should be more accurate since it is based on the difference in temporary marker settlement on 13 August, which is calculated by matching the temporary and permanent marker settlements over the period 20 August to 12 September, and permanent marker settlement on 12 September. A.4.3 Results of Review of Settlement Data Figures A-13 through A-24 are plots of settlement versus time for the building settlement markers. Points corresponding to the permanent markers, the temporary markers fitted to permanent on 24 March 1979 (Method 1 calculation, similar to the original calculation method), and the temporary markers fitted to permanent over the period 20 August to 12 Setpember 1979 (Method 2 calculation) are identified in these figures. The settlement-time plots show temporary marker settlements calculated by Method 2 only for markars DG-20 and 21, since both methods give the same results for these two markers, and for markers DG-23 and 29, since these temporary markers were not installed until 9 April 1979. Also shown on these figures is the approximate surcharge level with respect to time. As explained in Section A.4.2 and shown on Figures A-13 to A-24, the settlements of the temporary markers calculated by Method 2 match the settlements given by the permanent markers better over the latter part of the record for all of the markers.
A32 For marker DG-3, the temporary marker settlement, calculated by Method 1, is 0.19 in. more than the permanent marker settlement on 12 September, and for marker DG-28, the temporary marker settlement calculated by Method 1 is 0.18 in. less than the perma-nent marker settlement on 12 September. The two calculation methods give the greatest difference for these two markers. Figures A-25 and A-26 are plots of settlement versus logarithm of time for
.these two markers and show settlements for the temporary markers calculated by both methods. Whichever method is used has no effect on the slope of the straight-line portion of the settlement-log time plots on which settlement forecasts are based. The two methods give slightly different results for the time corresponding to the end of primary consolidation but the difference is hardly discernable for either of these markers.
Therefore, temporary marker settlements calculated by fitting the temporary portion of the record to the permanent por-tion over the period 20 August to 12 September 1979 give an overall more consistent portrayal of the settlement-time history because:
- 1. The temporary and permanent marker portions of the record agree over the period after surcharge removal;-
- 2. Both methods give the same slope of the straight-line portion of the semi-logarithmic plots;
- 3. Both methods give essentially the same value of time for the end of primary consolidation; and,
- 4. The rebound over the period 13 August to 12 September 1979 averages 0.24 in, for all of the markers and ranges from 0.16 in. for DG-26 to 0.32 in. for DG-1.
A33 A.5 PEDESTAL SETTLEMENT .ARKERS A.S.1 Review of Original Data The data I reviewed for the pedestal markers were similar to those for the building markers: the settlement record table, Supplemental Figures 27-52 through 67 which are plots of settle-ment versus logarithm of time, field records of pedestal marker elevations for each survey, and tables prepared by the field surveyors which showed the settlement or'each permanent pedestal marker from installation up to 19 or 20 April 1979. The permanent pedestal markers were installed in May 1978 and consisted of short steel rods anchored near the corners of the pedestals perpendicular to the pedestal face at approximately elevation 634.5. Elevations of the markers were determined by optical surveys made at intervals ranging from a few days to a week until 19 or 20 April 1979 when the surcharge made them inaccessible. On 19 or 20 April, temporary pedestal markers were installed. The temporary markers consisted of 0.5 in. diameter steel rods which were supported on steel plates anchored to the top surface of the pedestals and which extended about 30 f t upward to above the mezzanine floor. The' rods passed through holes drilled in the mezzanine floor and were isolated from the surcharge by 3 or 4 in. diameter casing of steel or P.V.C. Initially, the tops of the temporary marker rods were cut at
A34 elevations ranging from about 663.5 to 667.5. Elevations of the temporary markers (tops of rods) were determined by optical surveys during the surcharge period at intervals of one to four days. The last survey of the temporary markers was made on 17 August 1979 except for markers DG-18 and 19 which were last sur-veyed on 13 August. After surcharge removal was complete, the permanent pedestal markers were again surveyed beginning on 29 or 30 August 1979. The pedestal settlements shown in the settlement record table and used to prepare Supplemental Figures 27-52 through 67 were calculated in a similar manner to the settlements of the building markers. On the same day the final survey of the permanent pedestal markers was made, 19 or 20 April 1979, the initial survey on the corresponding temporary marker was made. The elevation of the temporary marker on that day then corresponded to the settlement for the permanent marker on the same day. The permanent marker settlement was added to the elevation of the corresponding temporary marker to establish a base elevation from which successive temporary marker elevations were subtracted to obtain settlement. As originally installed, the red tops of the temporary markers were not cut perfectly square, the rods extended variable heights of up to about 3 ft above the mezzanine floor, and the rods were not centered but were free to move
. ~ _ . -_ _ __ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ __. - , . .
4 A35 within the casing pipes. Therefore, on 4 or 5 June 1979 all of the rods were cut to a more uniform height of about 0.5 to 1.0 l ft above the mezzanine floor, capped to give a level top surface, and centered in the casings. Elevations of all of the markers were obtained immediately before and after the cutting ard capping operations so that a new base elevation for the cut rods could I be determined. Prior to cutting and capping, elevations had been recorded to the nearest 0.01 f t and the estimated accuracy of the elevations was 1 0.12 in. After cutting and capping, elevations were recorded to the nearest . 001 ft and the estimated accuracy of these elevations was t .06 in., the same as for the building-markers. Final surveys of the temporary pedestal markers were made on 17 August 1979 (13 August in the case of DG-18 and 19) and the first surveys on the permanent markers after surcharge i removal were made 29 or 30 August 1979. Therefore, a gap of about 12 to 16 days exists in the pedestal settlement record during the surcharge removal period. Five of the permanent pedestal markers were destroyed during surcharge removal (one on the Bay 2 pedestal and two each on the Bay 3 and 4 pedestals) and new markers could not be reinstalled until 29 August 1979. In the original data presentation, settlements which had occurred up to 29 August were estimated #or the reinstalled markers from the undamaged markers remaining on a pedestal to continue the settlement-time plots after 9 August. Rebounds of the pedestals during surcharge removal, measured j as the difference in settlement of the temporary markers on 17 t
- . . ~ , .... , , - , , , , - . , . , , , -
, , _ . , , . . , . , , . . . . . . , ,- -..,---.m
A36 August (13 August in the case of DG-18 and 19) and the permanent markers on 29 or 30 August, differed somewhat from those for the , building over the corresponding period. Pedestal rebound ranged from about 0.1 to 0.9 in. and averaged about 0.3 in. However, rebounds of the pedestals are calculated as the difference in settlement for two different types of markers (permanent and temporary) for which the accuracy of the measurements is probably not the same. A.S.2 Settlement Recalculation and Results Settlements for all of the pedestal markers, relative to 26 January 1979, were recalculated and the results are shown in Figures A-27 through A-42; settlements measured by temporary and permanent markers are identified in these plots. Table A-4 summarizes pertinent results of the recalculations. The procedure used to recalculate settlements was similar to that used in the original calculations except that settlements were calculated for each day the markers were actually surveyed rather than for the week ending on Friday, and were calculated relative to zero settlement on 26 January 1979. The settlements l
A37 Table A-4 RESULTS OF SETTLEMENT RECALCULATION FOR PEDESTAL MARKERS Marker S temp (8/13 S perm /12) as (8/13-9/12) DG-4 2.04 1.76 0.28 2.00
- 5 -
6 3.01 2.53 0.48 7 2.77 2.60 0.17 2.06 * - 8 9 2.21 * - 10 2.88 2.68 0.20 , 11 3.16 2.74 0.42 12 2.27 - l 13 2.63 - 14 3.37 2.89 0.48 15 2.96 2.87 0.09 16 2.90 1.98 0.92 17 2.22 1.98 0.24 18 3.04 2.88 0.16 19 3.32 2.93 0.39
- Permanent marker destroyed during surcharge removal
A38 calculated for the permanent markers on 19 or 20 April were added to the elevations of the temporary markers on the same day to establish base elevations from which subsequent elevations were subtracted to obtain settlements directly. New base elevations for the temporary markers were similarly established on 4 or 5 June when the rods were cut and capped. Settlements for the permanent markers after surcharge removal were calculated by subtracting the surveyed elevations from the 26 January 1979 marker elevations. For the five permanent markers destroyed dur-ing surcharge removal, the settlement-time plots in Figures A-27 to A- 4 2 end with the final survey on the temporary markers. Figures A- 27 to A-42 illustrate the reduced accuracy of the surveys on the temporary markers prior to their cutting and capping on 4 or 5 June 1979. More scatter in th'e results is present and settlement appears to progress in a stairstep fashion over this part of the record. Generally, the progress of settle-ment measured by the capped rods is more consistent after 5 June. Table A-4 summarizes the settlement recalculation by showing settlements on 13 August 1979, based on the permanent markers from 26 January to 19 or 20 April and the temporary markers from 19 or 20 April to 13 August, and settlements on 12 September, based on the difference in permanent marker elevation on 12 September and 26 January 1979. If the different survey accuracies associated with the permanent and temporary markers and the pos-sibility of disturbance to the temporary markers during surcharge w w . s , - - - , - - , - - - - m - .-,--+ r, --y. m , - , , . ,,-p w -
A39 placement is discounted, the difference in settlements on 13 August and 12 September indicates the rebound during this period. Table A-4 shows the rebound measured by the pedestal markers ranges from about 0.09 to 0.92 in, and averages about 0.35 in., or about 45 percent more than the average of 0.24 in. for all of the building markers over the same period. The calculated settlement on 13 August, however, ranges from 2.00 in. to 3.37 in, and averages about 2.68 in., only about 10 percent more than the average settlement of 2.42 in. measured by the building markers on the same day. For the building settlement markers, a two day gap in the record existed when the transfer from permanent to temporary mar-kers occurred; however, simultaneous surveys on both markers were available over a three week period when the transfer from temporary back to permanent markers occurred. On the other hand, the gap in the record between temporary and permanent markers occurs for the pedestals during the approximately two week period of surcharge removal. Whereas two different methods for cal-culation of the temporary marker settlements were described in Section A.4.2 for the building markers, only one method is available for the calculation of temporary marker settlements for the pedestals. That is to match the temporary to the perm-anent portions of the record on 19 or 20 April 1979, as was done for the original settlement calculation. Without intro-ducing assumptions into the calculations, such as expected rebound based on behavior of near-by settlement markers or
A40 Borros Anchors, the observational data alone do not permit any other interpretation of the temporary marker portion of the record or re-establishment of the permanent marker portion of the record for those markers destroyed during surcharge removal. Accordingly, the revised settlement-time plots shown in Figures A-27 to A-42 correspond to those originally presented. J e b
A41 A.6 BORROS ANCHOR AND SETTLEMENT PLATFORMS A.6.1 Review of Original Data The Borros Anchor (BA) and settlement platform (PL) data I reviewed included a surmary table showing settlements for the BA and PL markers relative to the installation date; Supplemental Figures 27-80 through 27-191, which are plots of settlement versus logarithm of time for all of the BA and PL markers; and field records of BA and PL elevations for all surveys made on the markers. Details of the BA and PL markers are described in the Diesel Generator Building Instrumentation report prepared by Gold-berg, Zoino, Dunnicliff and Associates, Vol. 5, Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill; 10 CFR, 50.54(f). The markers were installed in November and December 1978 with anchor eleva-tions ranging from 634.0, on the surface of the fill, to as deep as 586.0, several feet into natural ground. Elevations of the marker rod tops were obtained by optical surveys which were typically conducted at intervals of one to four days; occasionally as much as one week passed between surveys. As the surcharge was placed, the marker rods were extended upward in two to four increments. Marker rods inside the building were extended through the mezzanine floor as were the pedestal settlement markers. On 4 or 5 June 1979, these marker rods were cut to an approximately uniform height above the mezzanine floor and capped to provide a
A42 level surface. Final surveys on the BA and PL markers were made on 14 or 17 August 1979 before surcharge removal. The markers were surveyed again on about 30 August 1979 when sur-charge removal was complete and the marker rods had been lowered to near their original elevation. Settlements of the BA and PL markers shown in the summary table were calculated as the difference in elevation of the rod tops as originally installed.and the elevation on subsequent dates. On the day a marker rod was to be extended upward, the ele-vation was determined, a coupling and length of rod were added, and the elevation of the extended rod was determined. As for the building and pedestal settlement markers, the settlement summary table shows total settlements fros installation for each week ending on Friday. The settlement-log time plots in Supplemental Figures 27-80 through 27-191, however, show settle-ments relative to zero settlement on 26 January 1979, which are obtained by subtracting the settlement shown in the summary table for 26 January from all subsequent values. Inspection of the settlement-log time plots showed anomalous results for several of the BA markers such as BA-3, 9, 17, 20, 33, 38 and 49 where considerable amounts of heave were indicated early in the record. A portion of the BA-3, 17, and 49 records were checked in the field by comparing the plotted points directly with the differences in elevations as
A43 recorded in the survey field books for the corresponding dates. The check indicated that many of the suspect points were plotted incorrectly. Further checking indicated that BA-3, 17, and 49 had actually recorded heaves of .01 to .03 ft between their installation date and 26 January 1979 which were shown in the settlement summary table with a (+) sign. Settlements were shown in the summary table with no sign. The value of heave shown in the settlement summary table on 26 January 1979 should have been added to all subsequent settlements in the table to give settlements relative to 26 January but was subtracted. In other words, the heave recorded on 26 January 1979 was treated as if it were a settlement. The result was that the settlement-log time curves were displaced upward (plotted settlement less than correct value) by an amount equal to twice the heave re-corded on 26 January relative to the installation date. Anomalous results were also noted for BA-46, 47, 48, 59, and 60 which the settlement-log time plots showed to have rebounded back to nearly zero settlement (from a settlement of as much as 1.5 in.) after surcharge removal. Checking the field survey records for these markers showed they were inaccessible or damaged after 28 March 1979 (plots indicated 20 April 1979) and were not surveyed again until 30 August 1979. The settlements which had occurred between 28 March and 30 August were of course unknown so the settlement-log time plots could not be extended through this period and the 30 August 1979 survey was taken to
l A44 correspond to zero settlement. The original settlement-log time plots thus appeared to show large rebounds when in fact the por-tion of the curve after 30 August 1979 is not related to the earlier portion. A.6.2 Recalculation of Settlements Settlements relative to zero settlement on 23 to 25 January 1979 (BA and PL markers were not surveyed on 26 January but on 23, 24 or 25 January, depending on the marker) were recalculated for 53 of the 60 Borros Anchors and 14 of the 52 settlement platforms. Since the primary purpose of the BA and PL markers was to monitor strains occurring in the fill under the surcharge load, the markers were grouped into clus.ters, each of which consisted of at least three markers located wi-hin an area of about 15 ft diameter in plan, and with their anchors set at different elevations. The markers for which settlen.ents were recalculated are listed in Table A-5. Settlements were calculated for each date a survey was made as the difference in surveyed elevation and elevation on 23, 24 or 25 January 1979. In other words, the 23, 24 or 25 January elevation is taken to correspond to zero settlement. The final surveys prior to interference caused by surcharge re-moval were made on 14 or 17 August 1979. The markers were generally not surveyed again until 29 or 30 August (or for some
A45 Table A-5 BA AND PL MARKERS FOR WHICH SETTLEMENTS WERE RECALCULATED Cluster Location Markers Anchor Elevation 1 West side of DG PL-44 634.0 Building BA-28 622.0
- 26 617.0 27 612.8 45 606.0 2 Bay 1 PL-22 628.0 45 626.0 BA-43 621.0 40 615.0 41 608.0 42 591.4 3 Bay 1 PL-23 628.0 BA-29 622.0 4
30 615.3-33 609.0 4 Bay 1 PL-21 628.0 BA-47 621.9 46 617.8 60 612.8 48 606.0 5 Bay 2 PL-19 628.0 47 626.0 BA-39 622.0 38 613.0
- 37 606.2 44 599.1 6 Bay 3 PL-16 628.0 BA-18 622.9 19 618.0 20 612.0 17 584.5 7 Bay 3 PL-17 628.0 48 626.0 BA-32 621.8 31 615.0 25 611.0 49 599.5
A46 Table A-5 (continued) Cluster Location Markers Anchor Elevation 8 Bay 3 PL-12 630.5 BA-04 623.0 02 616.0 03 606.5 9 Bay 4 PL-50 626.0 BA-23 622.0 22 , 614.9 , 21 607.0 52 586.0 10 Bay 4 PL-10 630.5 49 626.0 BA-ll 621.0 10 615.0 09 607.4 12 591.5 11 NOT RECALCULATED, CONSISTS OF FEWER THAN 3 MARKERS 12 South side of DG BA-50 622.0 Building 51 615.0 54 607.0 53 598.0 13 Southeast corner of BA-07 620.8 DG Building 06 615.0 05 608.0 08 594.3 14 NOT RECALCULATED, CONSISTS OF FEWE1 THAN 3 MARKERS 15 Outside of surcharge, BA-34 624.7 southwest of DG 35 615.0 Building 36 607.2 16 Outside of surcharge, BA-13 627.0 southeast of DG 14 622.9 Building 15 617.0 16 612.2
)
}
A47 l markers located outside of the DG Building, 20 August) when sur-charge removal was complete and the rods had been lowered back to near their originally installed elevation. When the 29 or 30 August 1979 surveyed elevations are compared with the elevations of the marker rods on 23, 24, or 25 January 1979, the resulting settlements are in some cases typical of those recorded by build-4 ing or pedestal markers over the same period; however, in other cases, the settlements are several times greater than typical for the other types of markers. In these latter cases, apparently the marker rods were not lowered to their 23, 24, or 25 January I' position, but to some other elevation such as originally installed or as first raised. Furthermorc, disturbance to the marker rods caused by the lowering, such as loosening of lower couplings, is unknown. Since the elevations to which the 29 or 30 August surveyed elevations are to be compared to obtain settlements relative to 23-25 January are unknown, as is the possibility of disturbance to the markers caused by lowering, settlements of the markers have been calculated only for the period 23-25 January to 14-17 August 1979. A.6.3 Results of Review of Original Data and Strain Calculations Figures A-43 through A-56 are plots of settlement versus ) time for all of the markers listed in Table A-5. The recalculated settlements on which the plots are based correspond to the origi-nally calculated settlements ; however, for the aforementioned markers where heave was not properly accounted for, Figures A-43 (
A48 through A-56 differ appreciably from the settlement-time records as originally presented since the heave is properly accounted for in the revised plots. Recalculated settlements for three markers, BA-12, 51, and 52 show anomalous results in that discontinuities in the settlement-time plots exist on 19 March 1979 for markers BA-12, I and 52 and on 6 February 1979 for marker BA-51. All of the dis-continuities in the revised plots occur at a time when markers were raised, and therefore may be the result of incorrect readings just before or just after raising. However, the recal-culated settlements are based on the surveyed elevations as originally recorded and no corrections have been made. Figures A-43 through A-56 also show vertical strains.for i each cluster, calculated from the settlements recorded by the markers on 14 or 15 August 1979. The strain between two markers i anchored at different elevations in a cluster has been calculated , by dividing the difference in settlement occurring between the markers during the interval 23, 24 or 25 January and 14 or 15 August by the vertical distance between the anchors. Figures A-43 through A-56 show a subsurface profile at each cluster location; where an anchor is located above the mud-me.t, the thickness of the mud-mat or the sand fill above the mud-mat and below the anchor has been neglected and strains have been assumed to have occurred only in the plant fill. A few of the markers indicated 1 e , ,-.g,. , , , . . - - , . - - . - - , ,,n , , - - , - . , , . . _ , -
A49 obviously erroneous results by showing a vertical extension rather than compression between their anchors and those located immediately above or below. Where this occurred, strains were
, calculated for the total distance from the anchor above the suspect anchor to the one below. Strains calculated in this manner are shown in Figures A-43 through A-56 with a dashed line over the interval in question.
A50 A.7
SUMMARY
The review of the original data and recalculation of pie-zometric elevations and settlements are summarized in the following paragraphs:
- 1. Piezometers - In addition to the fifteen piezameters for which the original data presentation showed a sharp decrease in piezometric level upon surcharge removal, 12 of the 40 piezometers which functioned through the surcharge removal period were found to also have re-
, corded the expected decrease in piezometric level over the same period, and 13 were inaccessible or were not monitored during a part of the period when the others showed the decrease. Anomalous piezometric elevations over a part of the record of nine piezometers can be ex-plained on the basis of different reference elevations than were used to calculate the original piezometric elevations.
- 2. Building Settlement Markers - An alternative procedure was used to calculate the temporary marker settlements.
This procedure matched the temporary and permanent por-tions of the record over the two to three week period between about 20 August and 12 September 1979 when both types of markers were surveyed simultaneously, whereas the original procedure had matched the temporary marker settlement on 22 March 1979 to the permanent mar-ker settlement on 20 March 1979. The recalculated settlement versus time plots show rebounds over the period of surcharge removal which are consistent with those recorded by the four deep Borros Anchors.
- 3. Pedestal Settlement Markers - Recalculated settlements correspond to the data as originally reported.
, 4. Borros Anchor and Settlement Platforms - Anomalous settlements were eliminated for several of the BA mar-kers where the original plots of settlement versus log-time had not properly accounted for heave early in the record. Apparent heaves upon surcharge removal for five BA markers were eliminated because it was shown they were the results of different reference elevations before and after surcharge removal. m m _ . . - _ _ - _ _ _
October 1981 PETER A. LENZINI PERSONAL Home: 5051/2 S. Race, Apt. #1 Office: 2204 Newmark Civil Engineering Urbana, Illinois 61801 Laboratory Phone: 217-328-1927 University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois 61801 Phone: 333-4938 Citizenship: U.S.A. Birthdate: August 11, 1945 Marital Status: Single EDUCATION B.S. in Engineering, Southern Illinois University, December 1967 M.S. in Civil Engineering (tiajor - Structural; liinor - Geotechnical), University of Illinois, June 1971 Courses for Ph.D. completed in Civil Engineering (Major-Geotechnical) University of Illinois, May 1977; PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Registered Professional Engineer in Civil Engineering, California, June 1972 3 HONORS AND AWARDS Tau Beta Pi Outstanding Senior in Engineering, Southern Illinois University, 1967 EXPERIENCE , 1977 to Date: Geotechnical Consulting and Visiting Lecturer in Civil Engineering,
}
University of Illinois. Major consulting projects in associa-tion with Dr. A. J. Hendron included:
) Geotechnical Manager - Site investigation for additional units at Wolsung Nuclear Power Plant, Republic of Korea, for Canatom, Montreal, Canada: Planned and supervised field exploration conducted by personnel of Korean geological survey; responsible for sections of P.S.A.R. on Geotechnical Engineering and Vibratory Ground Motions; conducted subsurface investigation for emergency water supply N reservoir /or Unit I and prepared recommendations for design and
/ construction (1980).
PETER A. LENZINI Page -Two-Site Geotechnical Engineer _- Wolsung Nuclear Power Plant, Republic of Korea, for Canatom, Montreal, Canada: Respon-sible for all on-site geotechnical engineering, including _ approval of all foundations for concrete, dewatering system including instrumentation, settlercent monitoring instrumen-tation, on-going geologic investigation including mapping and drilling, recommendations to designers on rock proper-ties for foundation design, preparation of foundation ' record report. Project Manager _- Salt Dome Geology and Cavern Stability Studies, U. S. Department of Energy Strategic Petroleum Reserve, for Parsons Brinckerhoff/KBB, New York: Planned and coordinated subcontractor's and consultant's work which included drilling, geophysical exploration, analytical studies on cavern stability, subsidence monitoring, labor-atory testing, for two salt dome oil storage sites in Lt .isiana; prepared final report for D.O.E.; prepared proposal for additional geotechnical investiga'tions. Field Engineer and Geologist - Investigation of Ground Subsidence caused by Salt Mining at Two Sites in Kansas, for Solution Mining Research Institute and U. S. Bureau of Mines: Plenned subsurface investigations including drilling and coring, laboratory testing, field instrumen-l tation for three sinkholes caused by salt mining; super-vised and conducted field investigation including geologic logging; prepared reports on investigation results. Other Projects - Evaluation of present mining scheme and recommendations for future mining, Morton Salt Co. , Kansas and Ohio plants; evaluation of ground movements resulting from sulphur mining near Houston, Texas; recommendations for design of off-shore oil pipeline in Gulf of Mexico. I 1973 to 1977: Graduate Teaching and Research Assistant, Ph.D. student, and consulting, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Ph.D. Courses: Courses in geology and geotechnical engineering. I Teaching: Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (dr.-Sr. level) for 3 years; Soil Mechanics Laboratory (Sr.- Grad level) for 1 1/2 years; Geotechnical Engineering (Sr. level); organized grad seminar in Geotechnical Eng. for 1 year. Research: Participated in research program on soft ground tunneling, sponsored by U.S. Department of Transportation: model studies for tunnels in sand; field instrumentation program to monitor displacements associated with tunneling on Washington, D.C. Metro; survey of ground stabilization techniques for soft ground tunneling. Participated in re-search program on deterioration of shales and prepared report on literature survey on shales, sponsored by National Science i Foundation.
n . a PETER A. LINZINI . Page -Three-Consulting: Laboratory full-scale load tests of piles for Alaskan Pipeline: responsible'for selection and testing of :: oil backfill, and installation of piezometers and lateral-load cells fo'r- frozen soil backfill; feasibility and changed condition studies for tunnels in soil and rock.
~
1974-Summer: Civil Engir.eer - Site Investigation, Islote Nuclear Power ' Plant, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, for Fugro, Inc. , Long Beach, California: Planned and supervised portions of drilling, sampling, and field and laboratory testing programs; prepared portions of PSAR. , 1973-Summer: Civil Engineer - G otuhnical Group, CH2M/ Hill, Corvallis, Oregon: Geotechnical innstigations for building and tank foundations, waste treatment ponds, and existing earth dams and dikes. 1971-1973: Project Engir.eer - Converse, Davis and Associates (now Converse, s Ward, Davis,Dixon),Pa:adena,Califctnia: Planned and conducted
, geotechnical investigations and design for structure foundations, -
landslides, dams and reservoirs, remedial work for earthquake d6 mage, pipelines, land develoot.ent projects, and other projects; experience ranged from preposa' preparation to construction
~
supervision. 1968-1971: De'sig'n Engineer - Daily and Associates, Champaign, Illinois: Structural analysis and. design of highway bridges, buildings, sewage treatment plants and other types of structures; design and construction supervision of building foundations; general civil engineering for highways, drainage projects, reservoirs,
~
and other types of projects. 1
.5 um
- --mummmmme
PETER A. LENZINI Page -Four-PUBLICATIONS
" Ground Stabilization: Review of Grouting and Freezing Techniques for Underground Openings," by P. A. Lenzini and B. Bruss, Final Report by University of Illinois Department of Civil Engineering for Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., August, 1975. " Displacements Around Tunnels in Soil," by E. J. Cording, W. H. Hansmire, H. H. MacPherson, P. A. Lenzini, and A. P. Vonderohe (Section III "Model Studies" by Lenzini and Vonderohe), Final Report by University of Illinois Department of Civil Engineering to Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., August 1976. " Ground Stabilization: Review of Grouting and Frec7ing Techniques for Underground Openings," by P. A. Lenzini, Underaround Space, Vol. 1, Pergamon Press, 1977. " Field Investigations of North Subsidence Area, Cargill Salt Plant, Hutchinson, Kansas," by A. J. Hendron, Jr. , G. Fernandez, and P. Lenzini, Solution Mining Research Institute. January 1979. " Study of Sinkhole Formation Mechanisms in the Area of Hutchinson, Kansas,"
by A. J. Hendron, Jr., G. Fernandez, and P. Lenzini, Solution Mining Research Institute, January, 1979. ) {
oTE
?A2 N & 8 4 44
- o e
2* m z o w b U 2 O o 3
., rk u . -=w m c:
ca w O N ca e-o c. 48 22 e 4* i {4ik h c . . . . . ,6 .e 4 4,,- L
'! T ;'t O ,!==i . ;i e
- l r *s e 4 L.. . _ _ --- - ; etg v ? - gee w ]
[F !< =s <-c 8 2%.*g*11,i , o l _
" $. r .r------ _ . m i
- l ?
0**:*I . j !
-34. e u ...... q --- g El!!n- ',gt ----- -____.,.
b ! 3
< a l
_ i e (,,,,,,-- ...J G
=
t O
@ =.
. a" !. $. LD ]
. . . _ _ _ . , a 4 4 4 II
~~ . e L... ..Nk"*** k i "I 4 p. - O
- c. - c. -
@S A 7 23 N
1 41 M O 4% e
- 2 N
- s =
.O
P E S
~ x G
r U 7 A L U J s N n U o J ll o c o L r e
~
t _ eO m-oA 9 Y 7A r eg ii gM PF g re oe
" " FS
^ _ :
- t e
o R h P A > V r d ; R A O. h e sd lue d
- e it s
/
M Fr s a e sg c ae c wrs i l m a
- rD e r
_ te g ten e ke B m m mo E od r o oT e o r F iR e s s
- P Pg M_ s
- - su teloa sd leo m
a cm o e io dn n iA cR ido inn N A J
- Y E
K f 'y L
)
E - d - 8 1T ip - \ h e s lu 7 C E - 5 25 5 5
/ 5
\ F ,,
( 9 1 2 8t Z0 8 1 8 P6 P6 0 5 00 5 0 0
- m 0 5
- h-0 5 3 2 23 2 2 3 6 6 66 6 6 6 '6
' 2 2 6
2 6 1 6 ubJ.Id 9 @ 1
.t .
P E E M S I T I' . S N V
. 4
_ N G U _ k O
~
I A x 2T AV A E
- .L
)
d - e GE v h - I L s - u FC l I U F - R J (
- T
- E
- M
~ O Z
- E I
v N P U J 9y 7g 9u 1 a R w_ P A 1 R A M Q M
/ - -
B E v F
~~
s N _ A J /_ _ l E T p i 4 r 55 6' 75 8 5 E 8 - 9 Z0 Z Z0 Z16 P6 - P' P6 P6 0 3
~
00
~
5 00 5
.- 0 5 0 5 23 2 23 2 2 2 2 1 6 66 6 66 6 6 6 6 6 E_ $J.W O j2 4gn.r
x 1 ) E P E S le b or le b a r N M I e p e p T o o in I n , ( ( S x V
/ Y - N G \ -
O U I A
% _x m\
3T AV A E
.L GE
~ N I FC L I U )
R J ~ d h e T s E u M lF ( O Z E I N P U J 9Y 7A 9M 1 . V 4 R P A
^-
.' N w ^
^
~ J R
A M s, .> B E A_ - - F d - N A J - t E
' )
le b o r e _ ip p
\ o N W
T n _ 8C 5 U$ i 2 ^ 3 _ 7E ~8 ~7
; 15 15.
9D l 0 2g i~ i Z1 3 Z1 3 1 6 - P6 P6 Z 5 2 0 2
$5 t
2 0 5 P ( - 5 w00 6
% 0 2 1 2 23 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 6 2
6 8 k>tl aJ.- oEF13 2 Nwn.
' ' , :)
)
P le E E b S o M
\x r I ep T o
i n . ( S ( V G _
'f N U i O A I T 4T m
A AV E _~ .L GE I L U - FC I J V R T E
% M O
Z E I N U P J m 9 Y
~ ~
7A gM _ g r -
~- N R
P A 4 A N R A , M M > d_ v B E F
/ -
N A J
/ -
l 7 - - E e y _ 8C 7E 91 4 12 Z1 P6 T 5 5 15 Z0 P6 7 m 6 16 Z9 P5 5 0 b 0 5 0 5 00 $ 0 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 6 6 6 6 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 29 F9i3 "h 9xF$ONWQ . 4 '
P E E S M I N T m '- S V G U A
~ .
T
\ r\ -
N O I a -
'v 5T AV A
E
,L L
U
~ w GE I
FC J I R p ' T E M w O Z E N I U P J
~
9Y
~
7A 9M 1
^- ,
^ ^
R P 1 - A le - b o r e j A - i ( p o n R
^
A M B E F
=
N A J
)
le b l
- a r
e E p p o n i T i 8 C 7 8 0 l 7 E 16 13 25 25 9D - 4 - 9 9 20 22 M - 2 1 1 P6 1
- 20 Z2 P6 Z P6 P6
- - (P - -
5 0 5 5 0 O 5 00 5 0 2 2 1 2 2 2 23 6 6 6 6 2 2 6 6 6 66 6 6 29F$w w Qm[2Oy
x
)
P le E b o E S r e M p - I o In T ( S j " V G U s'y . N A O g
's N 6T I
A m'\ AV E
.L GE L I U
J FC I R T E M O Z E N I U P J 9 Y 7A 9M N 1 ( 4
/
4 8 ^
~
3 R ) P le A t b e - c r
~ e p
f ~~ m- I ( o n R A M g B E F N A 7 J l' E - ip - - 2T 3 4 8 C 7E 21 25 25 0 9D 1 Z9 P$ Y Z0 P6 9 _ Z0 P6 2 5 0 5 0 0 $ 3 3 2 2 3 2 o0 0 23 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 m 2 6 2o &>JJ.h k .3 ) Ltr g !'
~
P E E S M I T
) .
le S
%, N -
V b a V G
/, - r e
p N U o A i n O ( I 7T A AV E
)
~ GE
.L L
U J d~ e hs ~~ J f I 7 I FC lu M b-I R F~ ( h T
- $ E
- - M O
Z N E I U J P 9Y - 7A 9M 1
, -- - ~
m y ^ R - P A f t u 7 v R A M [' A
/
B E F 7 P, N A - J
'v l
E - T p i 8 7E C 5 6 7 8 25 22 28 2 5 9D - 1 Z1 9 P6 C Z1 8 P6 Z8 8 P6 F Z1 3 P6 0 5 00 5 0 5 0 50 5 0 3 2 23 2 2 2 2 8 3 2 2 6 6 66 6 6 6 6 66 6 6 QB J_li t 6 g_ hNW n.
P E 3 E M S I T S N- _ -. V G N
\ ._
U O A y I x 8T
% % AV
,L A
E GE I L U FC J I
)
d R e h-T E s lu-F M O ( -
- Z E
J N U ~ P J 9Y - 7A - 9M 1 H - P A - v 8 7
/
1 1
/
2) M f R 19 A m7 o/ M r7 F/ y 4 r o (DT B E F
~ y N
A J , El ep
~ -
8 7 CE 91 D 9T 2 Z1 P68 5 i 0 30 Z0 P6 2 W 1 35 Z2 P6
- 2 2
3 5 Z5 P61 y 0 5 3 2 0 0 5 00 5 05 6 2 3 2 2 3 2 0 5 6 6 6 6 66 22 2 1 6 66 6 6 2oEy"id L !! f'* h N 3h 3
)
P lee E t E S a M ( i r e p o n N I T S G U v y
~
~
N V A T
~
~
V 9T AV O I A E
,L L
' A GE I
U -
- -- FC J I R
T
~ , E
~
M O Z N E l l - I J P
~ ~ ~
9Y 7A 19M
~
^
~
- r R
P A
^
~~
R A M [ 0- ' B E F 7 _~
~
~ - -
j N A J / - . l 7 -, E p i 8 C 7 E 19 D 3T 35 Z2 P6 1 U 4 33 Z0 P6 6 W 5 30 Z0 P6 9 6 38 Z0 P6 5 0 00 3 6 - 23 66 00 23 66 5 2 6 00 2 3 66 s z s 0 2 6 2O ai co_m iio 2 ga. s
P E
)
le b E S - a
)
r e M p I le o T b n a r i ( , e f , p S
, o / V
, n G -
I ( U \ N A N ] 0I O 1T
~ A AV E
,L L
GE I U FC J I R m T E M
^ O Z
N E U _ I J P w y 9Y 7A 9M 1 e A R P A
- { -
R A M [1 M
/
B E F
~
~
~
=
N 1* A J W W3 l. 9 - E p i 8 7T 7 C 8 9 9D 1 E 37 Z18 P6 30 20 7 N 3 0 Z1 2 P6 P6 0 ' 0 0 5 3 ' 2 3 0 5 0 5 6 ' 6 2 2 2 2 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 797d" I lERgn. t i a
- j
)
P le E E b S ar M e p I o n T
\
i ( . S G - 7., /; V N U _ A O w 1I
\ ^
1T AV A E
.L GE I
L U J
)
d-e
~ ~
FC I h~ R s~ u T l~ E F~ ( M
~
O Z E N I U P J N _ 9Y 7A BM
~ -
R _ . P A ( _[ [ 7 R A M
/
l f f F d_
/
N A J l E
~ --
f( ip T r 8 C 0 1 2 3 7 E 45 4 5 40 45 9D 1 Z0 9 Z82 Z2 3 Z 01 P6 - P6 P6 P6
- ~
0 3 5 2 23, 0 5 2 00 23 5 2 00 23 5 2 0 2 5 4 6 6 6 5 8 6 6 66 6 66 6 6
$~ ld h 9 NW'
, l
P E
~
~ E S
^
M I T S F
/ ' . V G
U y - N A N _ N s 2I 1T O A
- AV E
.L L m ~
GE I FC
~
U J I R T E
, M O
Z E N I U P J
- ~
9Y
~
7A 9M 1 - R P A
- )
le b o w r e p o i n - [ (
^
R A M w - N " v.
/ /-
/
B E F
~
- )
9
- 7
/
4 f3 _ - ,
/
- r N te A f J A le b o r l E = W 6-p - e
~
4T 87E C 49 5 4 8 A 7 40 8 40 9D 1 Z13 {- 4
- Z10 V Z2 1
Z2 8 P6 Z P6 P6 P6 P
- ( - - - -
2 5 5 2 00 23 g 00 23 5 2 0 2 6 6 6 66 66 6 6
$ =>4>j n a OEHd2 i E
.Ifi. l2J2scyM
- 1 2
O , 2 3 4
)
2 - d P h o - E te S M) ~
,1 d
2o 1
/ h ~
, 9t e T
oM 04 22 G // U 83 ; E A . mm r r
= M ee IS PP --
TR
, oo - E TT a 3 .K dd 7 1SR lee l t t ;
VA L i i FF A M T (( ; U _ J tnr yy . ngl eoa r GEr nr r " I MI 1- aco m4p - FED
,Geee r rr m LL DPTT ^ TI
+ **
TU
;" EB N
U J
/.
S
,'i n
la
/.
,'i P
n io
,'t
- l. lo c
u 9 Y o 7A 1L 9M !. G 1 D R P A
\
L-(1 /, e R dg . A er f M N.% izo lat eu h c
\ d iS B
E F
\,
A*
/
N A J 8 7 E C 9D 1 5 5 0 5 ' 0 6 6 g 5 6 5 4 4 ' 0 3 5 2 0 2 6 6 6 ' 6 6 6 b 9md
mI !..H2t2to oIF . O , 2 4
)
2
- d "
o P h "* E te - S M )I
+
2 d o - 1
/ h .
3 9t e T oM I 04, ' 22 G // U 83 A . E mm r r M ee - IS PP - TR
, oo . E TT 4 .K dd 1SR tee t
- VA ta it -
L FF( A M U ( _ T J yy tnr r .NG eaar nr
* , GEN ooo _
IMI mpp
,mm FED eee LI eTT
- TI
. *
- TU
_ 9 EB N
- S U . ,
} .'3-J .
. G Dna l
l
. l P
n
, io ta c
9 Y 7A
^
L o 9M !. 1 . R P A . j
=*
e R A gg,a r j M ;h
\ gac r gSu s
\
B E F N
/
N A J 8 7 E C 9D 1 5 5 5 6 6 g 5 6 M 0 4 0 3 5 2 0 2 6 6 6 6 ZO 9dd t
i v*Ib. HzW2w2HW O l 2 4
, ~
P 2 E S 1
/
9 o - T
' 0 2 \
/
8 tn f G e U n E A o m M r e IS
- TR Po )2 - E Td -
S .K do ISR tteh t
^
- VA i e A M L
U (FM _ T J t y
.NG nr ea
_ GEN 0nr IMI 2ao
- mp FED LL Gee m r
DPT
~ TI
+ * ~
~
TU _ 1" EB N 0 2 S U - - } - J - 0 r! o
.' an
^ : l
* - P r!
' n e
' o
, i t
r! a
- c o
9Y L 7A 9M 1 m! R P A k i _h* dg e R A _. e r za f M ih lac e r
\~ d iS u
\
B E ' F ' N A J 8 7 E C 9D 1 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 6 6 5 4 4 3 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ZOH9w ij ,i
;' )' 'J
1978 1979 DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP CGS w , , , O DG- 21
. + Permanent hN
- Temporary (Fitted To Permanent 8/20 To 9/10, Method 2) y e
\ .!
CSS
~% ,-
\ ..
2w J z 1 w J l-
/ - .. ....... 3t; eSO . . . .
' -^^ -
-^ -
M idealized Surcharge 4 b MS j n 9 w d 640
/ 'll '!.I ji/ ,!! "t
'DG-21
\
Locotion Plan 630 n 0 625 620 FIG. A-16 SETTLEMENT VS. TIME BUILDING MARKERS
1978 1979 DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 665 s O DG-22
+ Permanent
- Temporary (Fatted To Perm 8/20 To 9/12, Method 21 m 660 = Temporary (Fitted To Perm 3/24, Method 1) E
\s. l o
.e
. b 655 -g Z 1 2 ad 2
- W
*
- J F
s,o / % ~ ~ '
. . J~ ' ' ~ ~ ,y idealized M
Surcharge _b Mb j 4 9 w d 640
- ... 7. ,.., j N
i !.! 'i.l !.J g OG-22 Locolum Plan 630 625 620 FIG. A-17 SETTLEMENT VS, TIME SUILDING MARKERS n
e28 i wJ.FvwM O I 3 4 P 2 E 1 S / 9 - o T 0 2
- i
/
8 t n G e U n E A a m . M r e _. IS P) _ TR
, o2 _ E T d _ 8 .K do _ 1SR teh t -
VA L ta e FM A M U ( T J y .NG tnr GEN ea _ 3nr IMI 2oo np FED
, Gee r
r m . LL DPT TI
+
- TU t" EB N _. S U ,
J . ./t n io
.'i
/. P n
. i o
- ./
.'t ta c
9 Y o 7A / L 9M 1
't 3"
2 6 o R P A
\ /
s s / R dg e A et 7 M N zo ih la c
\' d e r iS u
B E F s
\
/
N A J 8 7E C 9D 1 5 6 6 0 6 6
'6 0
5 5 M 0 4 6 0 3 6 S 2 6 0 2 6 Os9hh h
1978 1979 DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 665 , , , O
-s% + .~ DG-28, h + Permonent i
m%g
- Temporory (Fitted To Perm. 8/22 To 9/12. Method 2) .
660 %
- Temporary (Filled To Perm. 3/24 Met 5cd I) ,.E
._a.. , e
_, _g # ~*~* , F-2 655 2W 2
> t-i 650 ,/ 3w F-idealized to Surcharge f Mb , 4 9
m d 640
,,0G-24 e- . , - , , - .
g--, j
'" I ~~ '
Ll 'Ll 'Ll 't l " \ Location Plan 630 4 625 620 i l FIG. A-19
. SETTLEMENT VS. TIME BUILDING MARKERS l
- n. E. - .gZw2 HHwW O , 2 3 4
) -
2 d P E S h o te M )I
,d t 2o -
/1 h t m
, 9e oM \
G T . 44 22
//
y. U 83 -
- E A .
mm r r . - M IS ee PP _ TR
, oo _ E TT . 0 .K dd 2SR tee t
- VA A
t t _ ii FF M L U J (( yy
.TNG tnr r eaa r GEN 5nr , IMI 2aoo
- mpp FED
,Geee r mm . LL DPTT TI a ** . TU l" EB N _
S U ,
. 1 J - l g
. n
. la g'l I. P 5 n
- 2 o
- G - ita
;'! c D.. o 9
7A Y - L 9M 1
; I R
P A
/
\
R e A
- N dg er za M ih
, la cr de u iS N
B E F % I N A J 8 7E C 9D 1 5 5 0 b 0 0 5 0 6 5 5 4 3 2, 2 6 E 6 M 6 6 f 6 hs9m
i vI .dp2t2wJ >=wM F O , 2 3 4
)
2 d o w P h
- E te
- S M1 1
- 2o
,d M, 1 h
/t 9e ' \
oM T , 74 22 M ; G / / U 83 _ _ E A . M mm r r _. IS ee TR PP oo E TT . . 1 .K dd _ 2SR ee t
. VA 6 ti tt .
A M L FF( (
. T U yy .NG J tnr r eaa r
. GEN 6nr _
IMI 2ooo npp FED r mm , LL
,G reee . TI DPTT :
TU
+ * = gN EB S
N U - * ,l!. J - . g' i a 6 n 2 la
- )1
-
- G .
.,8'l P
D n o
.l
,[l it o
c o 9 Y _
.* l L 7A 9M 1
r*
- 7:i
~-
R P A *
/ f
/
R dg e A er 7 M za ih lac e r d u _ iS B E F N
~ '
N A J 8 7E C 9D 1 S 5 0 5 0 5 0 g 5 5 2 3 2 2 M 6 6 M 6 6 6 6 O69W
.I ?. gzw2wJ.FrwM _
O , 2 3 4
)
2 " d o -- h P te E M) - S ,I 2 d 1
/ h 9t e oM o
7 i T . G U A 44 22
/ /
83 mm r r
- x. _.
E M IS ee PP TR
, oo .
E TT . 2 .K dd 2SR tee t ll VA L i i FF . A M U J t yy (( nr r .
.TNG eaa . GEN 7nr r IMI 2ooonpp FED
,Geee r
r mm LL DPTT _ TI
+ *
- _. TU
_ 9" EB N S U , J -
.'u 7,
,]' n
. , a.
- 2
. /.
G .'t D n
- o
/. ito
.'I c
_ l o 9 Y _ L 7A , l 19M , R P A .
/
/
M. e R
- dg A . er ,
M zo ih la e r c u N d IS B E F
~
N m / N A J 8 7E C 9D 1 5 5 0 5 0 ' 0 5 0 6 6 g 5 6 5 6 M 4 6 3 6 2 6 2 6 bs9wd
!' i! ,' ];; ; ,1 - ;l i t i ia 1
vI X .g2w2wI.Hrwm O , 2 3 4
)
2 d h o ~ P E te S M) .-
,I ,
2 d 1 o -
/ h
, 9t e
- ToM I
G U 24, 22
/ /
83
- g. \ E' A M m m.
r r . IS ee TR PP oo E TT _. 3 .K dd 2SR lee t VA la it FF . A M L U J (( t yy _. .TNG nr r eaa GEN 8nr r _ IMI 2aoo mpp FED r mm . LL
,Geee TI DPTT _
TU
, l" EB N
S U - 8 2
}
J - G n
- D , la
-g I. P m
. u c !
lo c 9 Y o 7A - L 9M - .
- l r
1 e. R w'. P A *
%. /
/
R dg e A e r , M izo h N
\ lac er du IS B %
E F m N A J 8 7E C 9D 1 5 5 0 5 0 6 6 g 5 6 5 6 M 4 0 3 5 2 0 2 6 6 6 6 bGNwd
;I 1 4 ] } II! ,1 ' ! ' , i: ,
a.j 8._ . WZW2 J_"hwo t O 2 3 4 P 2 E 1 S / 9 o w T
' 0 -
2 i
/
8 7 t n G e n U , E A ur M e IS P1 _ TR
' o2 _
E Td 4 .K do 2SR teh t t VA i e L FM A M U ( _ T J snr y .NG 9nreo GEN 2oonp IMI
- r n FED Geer r LL CPT 9 TI
+
- 2- jN TU
, G D'
EB N _ S U ,i l J gt U n
- ,I 1
io
- 1 P
- n
- ,I io
- I. ta gt!
9 Y - c 7A - o
.I L 9M 1
;t R
P A A- 7
/
\ /
s R dg e A er j M iza h lac - e ru d iS B E
~
F ~
/
- / _ N A J - 8 7E C 9D - 1 5 5 0 5 0 5 _ 6 5 5 4 3 0 5 0 6 6 4 3 2 2 _ 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ol9Wd - a ;: ',
0 0 ) 3 2 . h _ te _ E 0 M.)i 5 g 2 M _ 2 I h I _
/ t . _
9e . .. T _ oM T . ., 04 . .j,. G Og O R 22
//
83 mm r r i.g ~ O L ee PP e S _ V _ oo _ TT T O S I g 3- FF Gt yy dd ttee ii (( t t
%g N E
M E L T w%.. nr r _ Deaa r nrr .%
. T eooo k npp E r eee a ri mm w* S MPTT >* '
0 0 0
* < * *. 5 2
0 A 9 N'Q.~
.s.%*N G
3 C
. I l,\41 {.h F S 0 \ (\g\
7 1,\ Y \ t A \ \ D _- 0 6 , . E . *
- V I
T 9 7 A 0 il 91 L 5 . U nI oy M Ja U 6D . C 2 n 0 il =O 4 iyO a= DS . te o 0 gl N 3 -
+
0 2 , 0 1O O O 0 0 S 5 0 Q 1 i 0 2 w z 0. 3 5 3 n iC f _ zu2U ," u
0 0 ) 3 2 h t e 0 5 I M,) E 2 21 1h M
/ t Be s'- I T
To M, 'p. ^
- e 0 04 22 - >t :. % G 0 l / /
83 O 2 L PP mm r r ee %% S V
~.
oo % TT 0 dd ee ,, T 5 i 8 t t N 1 2 tii t E FF
- (( M G
Dnr r t yy eaa :. % *- E L T rnr eaoo mpp r
% T r %*
k r mm E a reee S MPTT a 0 . * * = ? '&. 0 1 0 f .,~' 6 2 9 A D '* d a G C 4 't I 9 . . ~ * "; F S 0 Y 7 A 7 9 1 I g
*\A\
=
\
ny D aa JD .
%\ \I \
0 E 6 6 n < V' 2O I T i0 y A 0 a= L 5 DS . U : M e U to . C N 0 4 0 3 0 2 01 0 0 5 N 0 0 0 0 I 0 5 0 5 2 2 3 3 O5E' ,.zw2wJF6t(
, lO a
i - 1 I i i
ge8..
- 2w2 tbM 0 i 2 3 A
)
9 P 7
/ *
- E 0 ^
2 S / 3 ^
^
t n ' e - i n a \ e m r 7, P ' G U o E A T d M e - IS tt i TR _. i F E ( ,K
^ 7 t y nr ^ 2SR ea nr - VA L ao A M U mp T J r ee m .NL PT GEA
+ .
IMT FES _ LE _ TD j" TE EP N , S U . -
}
J . !
. n
. i o
l g l P
. n
, io
- t a
c
- o 9Y 7A 4.
L 9M G ! 1 Oe R P _ A .
. /
R . A d. , z e. M liu a e r l N d. is B E F N N A J 8C 7E 9D 1 5 0 5 S 0 0 5 0 6
' 6 6
5 6
% M 4 3 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 O 'i>wjG
, ' i! \ 1 j ,'
~
.E.E_.y w2W j jo
. gt O I 2 3 4
)
9 7 P / r la E 0 egv S 2 hino
/ s r 3 o ue r t t
n MDR
, e n
tnde e eg \ o nyr n r aoa rh r e mt r s r c G P eeu U PDS A T o ck E M d IS te t TR g iF E ( 8 ,K t y nr 2SR ea VA nr oo A M L U 5np r T J
- r m ,NL Gee GEA DPT IMT
+ * .
FES LE
~ TD TE lN EP N .
S U } J : ! n j l a I. P r! n _ i o 1
!.! ta l
c o 9Y 5 L 7A - G- T!. 9M 1 D; l w R P A - R e A dg er j M zo ih lac e r du iS yI B E F s N A J 8 7E C 9D 1 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 6 0 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 l4
>sJau h
,l i!
il, l! ,! ,
g:8E.*v2w2s
- pyW O l 2 3 4
)
9 7
/
P 0 - E 2 S / ' 3 t n e . n G P a m r e .- - 1 o U T - E A - M d IS e l TR il F - E ( 9 ,K t y 2SR nr ea VA nr ao A M L 6mp ,T U - r m NL J Gee DPT GEA
- IMT
+ * - FES LE TD
. TE l" EP N - S U ,/.
J .i n _ .' io
'u P n
, I io t
,'L 6a c
Go w. 9Y D L 7A .d 9M 1 e't R P A .
\ A [ /
3
=
R - e A dg er j M - zo ih lact eu
'\ dis B
E F *
/
N A J 8C 7 E 9D 1 5 0 5 0 5 0 ' 6 6 5 5 4 ' 0 5 0 6 6 4 3 2 2 6 6 6 6 ' 6 6 6 gi9wJm
g6s ~Fzwaa_F- wm O I 2 3 4
)
9 7 .
/
P 0 E 2 _ S / 3 ._ t n . e g n a . \ - m r e P G U o 1 \ E A T ' _ M d e IS t TR i F t E l ( 0 .K t y 3SR nr eo VA nr A M L 7mp ao T U - r m .NL J Gee GEA DPT IMT
. . FES LE TD
, ' TE jN EP
_ S N
, )
U - g' i_ J . n
, lo
- j [
P
. . n i
o
. t g'[ a c
- 7o 9 Y -
.f G L 7A D 9M 1 _
e
.m
. ~ '
R P A VT
. /
m R dg e A er j M za ih lacr de u iS B E . F
- N A
J 8 C 7 E 9D 1 5 5 0 0 5 0 6 2 % 4 4 3 2 2 6 # 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
$- w'm
!i;iii
; ! ' ,l ,
' 1
g4 . .-F f,aFrwu) - O 1 ' 2 3 4
) d 9 eyl 7 o av P /
0 r t o E S 2 sm e
/
3 DeR r t n ee kg e r r n aa a 1 m Mhcr r t P e n eS u G n U T o - iog\ v n E A - ri M r r d - eu IS te - PD TR t i F E ( 1 .K y 3SR tnr VA e nro - A M ao L U J mp reem
^
.T-NL PT - GEA IMT
+ * -
FES LE
^ TD
^
^ TE
^ la EP N
^
^
S U "
/
J " - ei i n
^ , la
^ . /. P c'!
n o 8 .I
- t i
Gr
- e't a
- D c 9Y o
- L 7A ,
/
9M 1 c't R P A
/
/
R , e A dg er j M za lihc
, a r eu d
iS B E F
/
N A J 8 7E C 9D 1 5 6 6 0 6 6 5 5 6 0 5 6 5 4 6 0 4 6 '
" 0 3
6 5 2 6 0 2 6 mj
gc. c. . ,jpEgm O I 2 3 4
)
d 9 e 7 yl a P / o r v E 0 t o S 2
/ sm e
3 DeR t r n ee e h g g n r r a oa m r Mhc t r e nu P eS G o _ n I E U ag A T mm M d r r IS e . eu TR t it
.PD E y
F ( 2 . K 3SR t y nr ea
- VA nr A M L 9mp oo _
T U - r m
- .NL J Gee GEA DPT -
- IMT
. . . FES LE
. TD TE j" EP S
N _ U - J - e m l lo I
. P e
n
- o
=
9e G. ! i t a O. c
- o 9
7A Y ^
^
L l 9M 1
^
~
R P A
/
/
e R dg A er f M za ih la cr deu iS B E F . s N A J 8 C 7 E 9 D 1 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 6 5 4 4 3 2 2 M 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Ft>W
< d l
' i
a N.. _ Zw3 $ , wM i ,
' 2 3
) ~
9 7 P / 0 E S 2 3
/ -
t n e 3 n \ a m r e s_- G P U o E A T _' M d . IS e t t TR i F
. E 8
( - 3 .K y 3SR tnr _ VA ea nr A M ao L U J mp re me -
.TNL PT - GEA IMT
*
- FES
_ LE
. TD
. TE
{ " EP N . S
']
U .
-g'L J
n
*I O lPla
-r'L -
Gn Do
- l
;'l i
lo c _ o 9 Y . L 7A .
- l 9M 1
l'l
~
R P A T /
/
- e R dg A er f M
za ih
,Y lac er du iS B
E F
- N
/
N A J 8 C 7 E 9D 1
" "6 5
5 0 5 6 5 4 6 0 4 6
"' 0 3
6 5 2 6 0 2 6
$i$wd
'! l
a.E.E._ ZtEwa>b , l i O l 2' 3 4
) . _
9 . _ 7 P E S
/
0 2
/
~
3 _ t n e
- n . i .
a . mr e ' . P - . G o U A T d E M e - IS - tt
- TR i F i
E ( - 4 .K tnr y - 3SR ea
- VA L
nr ao - A M U mp -
.TNL J r m ee GEA PT -
IMT FES LE
- . TD jN TE
- EP N
- S U = /.
-g't J
n la
./. i P
,l l in- o
./ Git
.i Dac o
9 7 A Y -
- j L 9 M - .'t 1
- ~
R P A .
/
j R ,e g A ,r
,a 7
M ,h
,,c
,r
,Su
\
B E F *
\
, /
N A J 8 C 7 E 9 D 1 5 ) 5 0 5 0 $ 0 5 0 i 5 5 4 4 ' 3 2 2 M u 6 6 6 6 ' 6 6 6 Z t4>iJW h-
) , l
.I N. $ZWE $ F wM
@ I 2 3 4
)
9 d 7 e yl P / 9 oa r v E s o 1 t S / em 3 t DeR n r e n ee kg a r r m oa r Mhc e P tnur G o ,hS\ _ E U T og e A , mi n M d , r r IS te t eu PD TR i F _ E y ( 5 .K t y 3SR nr ea VA nr A M L 2o s- mp o T U r m . .NL J Gee DPT _ GEA _ IMT
+ . _
FES LE TD TE j EP S N . U . . I. l J g n
- 2 . l la t
P GS O l n
, io ta c
o 9 Y - . L 7A - - !. 9M 1
=
e-
- w R -
P A *
/
R dg e A er 7 M zo N- lh i a c e r du iS B \ E
- F N*
N A J 8 7E C 9D 1 S 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 M 6 5 6 2 6 4 4 3 6 2 6 2 6 6 6 6 D>dd s
gfE. ~F2 y wa F y O I 2 3 .
) d-el 9 yo 7
/
ow r o P 9 t sm E 1 ee S / 3 DR r t ee h g n r r e oa n a Mhc -
\
m t r e r n eS u P n og G o nn E U T \ _ri A _ ir eu M d . PD IS ie . TR i t E F 6 .K ( y _ 3SR tnr ea . VA nr . A M L U 3ao 1 mpn _. . T J r r - .NL Gee . GEA DPT ._ IMT
. . - FES LE
- TD
- TE l" EP N - S U - .l J -
- .'t n
la 3e 1 - l.
- P G eh D n
, io
. -l eh ta
- , c 9 Y o 7 A -
,!. L 91 M eh
^
R P A s w g .I /
/-
R e g A r , M a h c r u N S B E F h - l N A J 8 C 7 E 9D 1 5 0 s 0 , 0 ' 0 b 0 6 6 s 5 . 4 ' 3 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 ' 6 6 6 8 >T>
< d t d
;; < ll
gc.M-- 5 2wJ>=h I 2 3 4
)
9 7 P , E
/
91
~
S /
- 3 t "*
n
' e n " g a
m r e , G P U A T o \ - E d M e ._ IS t t TR i F E ( - 7 .K t n y r
- 3SR e
n a VA 4a mp o r A M L U 1
.- T J
r Ge em .NL DPT GEA IMT
+
- _
FES LE TD
- TE
{N SP N S U - ' J - - 4 1
- r't -
Gn
. Oo i .
-g'l P n
, io to c
9 Y 1 o 7A L 9M l l 1
~
R P A t
, /
R A d, e j M w iz la e N d ig 8 E
- F
\
N A J 8 C 7 E 9D 1 0 5 0 5 0 C 5 0 6 6 a 5 6 4 6 4 6 3 6 2 6 2 6
$Wd
g# 5 &ZWy ~gM O 1 2 3
) .
9 . 7
/
P 9 . E 1
/ .
S 3 - t n - e g n - o n r r e ._ P _ G o U T
\. E A _
M d _ IS e tt _ TR i F _ E g ( . 8 .K t n yr - 3SR e VA n a r A M L 5ao 1 mp - T U - r m
.NL J Ge e DPT
- . GEA
. IMT FES LE TD
- TE
- t" EP
- S N -
U - } J - , !
. 5- n 4
a Gl DP
. . r o
i
. l ta c
o 9Y x L 7A . 9M 1
. l R
P A
\
u\ j e R dg r A ea z f M ih lacr deu IS B E F
\ f N** - N A
J 8 C 7 E 9D 1 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 6 0 5 3 4 4 3 2 2 ._ 6 0 6 g 6 6 6 6 6 ys>wg
] l ii j# . i
EsE. ,HZg wm O I 2 3 4
+
) +
+
_ 9 7 _ P / - 9 E S 1 v
/ +
_ 3 + t
- n
- _ e g
n a - I m r e P G o
-\
E U T A M d IS ie TR F t i E g ( 9 .K t y nr 3SR V L 6aomp ea nr A.AT M U 1
. .NL Gee m J r
- DPT GEA
. . IMT
_ + + _ FES LE _ TD TE l EP S e - f U J s. -, } cr ! loe n _
. , lo g
l P n
, io to c
8Y 7A o
. L 9M - .
1 r _ R P A ( j R e A dg er j M zo ih lc ar eu N d iS _ B E F . _ s N A J 8 7 C E - 9D 1 5 0 5 5 6 5 % 0 0 5 0 E 6 6 6 4 6 4 3 2 2 6 6 6 6 hF$udg
g4Y. H5,oJ.Hhgm t O ; 2 3 4
)
9 P 7 .
/
E 9 S !
/
3 g t e n n - o .
)
n r . r . e . G P . U o E A T . M d . IS te .
. TR t
i
. E g F 0 .K
( t y . 4SR nr . - VA ea nr = A M L 7oonp . U J 1
- rr n
. ,TNL e
Gee . GEA DPT .
. IMT
+ - . FES
_ LE _ TD TE _ lN EP N
. S U 7 14 }
J .
. Ge !
O n
. , io
.- I.
l P g n
, io e l ta
_ c 9 Y - o 7A . s L 9M 1
=.
r l R P A
/
R dg e A er 7 M zo ih toc eru _ d iS B E Fq ' 1 N A J 8 7 EC 9D 1 5 0 5 5 l 4 6 5 % 4 0 0 5 0 ( 6 c 4 3 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 h a ex>td
,IE . W2 W:. .
wV 8 O l 2 3 4
) A 9
7
/
w e P 9 E e. 1 S / 3 e t ,- n g e n , a m r
' \
I e P - G o U T E A M d IS te t TR i F
- E i
( 1 .K t y nr 4SR ea VA nr A M L 8ao mp -
,T U 1
- ^
NL J r m Gee GEA DPT - IMT
+
- FES
- LE
- TD TE j" 8 EP 1
N . G S U d J - . g ! n a
.l la L- - - l P
n
, io to c
9 Y o 7A .
- , L 9M 1 c l R
P
- A *
\
l R A M % dg er iza lh ac e j
\
\ d er iS u '
B E F , N A J 8 7 CE 91 D S 0 5 0 5 0 0 $ 0 6 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 E 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
!! WJW
. { c ;. s 3 ,_F g .
O 1 2 , .
)
9 7 P E S
/
9 1
/
3 . t n e n - a , \ i m r
\
e P . G U A T o 3 - E M d - IS te -
- TR i
F t
- E
( 2 .K t y . 4SR nr ea . VA nr . A M L 9ao 1 mp T U .NL r rn J Gee DPT
. GEA
. IMT
* . . FES LE TD TE 1" 9 EP
. 1 S N -
U / G J ri D
. n
. la
-l. P
- r't n o
s _~.
,/ l r'! o c
9 Y o
- L 7 A - ,!. 1 91 M - g R
P A - R
. y.
/
Jg e A ,o , M ,h
,ar
~- c r
.oSu B
E F *
/
N A J 8 C 7 E 9 D 1 s 0 s , , 0 ' 0 s 0 6 6 s , 4 ' 3 2 2 6 6 e , 6 ' 6 6 6 3 r4>W>"
a, 2 1
)
s 5 a L o,8 1 3 S
, 4 R
,~4 1 E
8 1 K 1 R O - -
- DA 6 C 2 8 4 0 )
0 182 8 4 0 NM 3 4 3 5 3 6 2 6 2 6 " 2 6 6 1 2i
- s 6
1 0 6
= 0 6
0 6 A L
- // 7 ///f/j////fy ,/,/ EP
~* - M
, I &
3T 1 4 A a - .BR G U l e AS E P ,T A - ' __ _ n .V l iS io l GTTU
^ _ . o c
INPL
, o FEEC
^
. L MD lN E a L .
L TS U _ - - . TV J E SN I A g _ - . - - R T
- - . _ S N - " -
U J -
^ _
^ . _
i '
" ^ . . -
^ ^
^
^ . .
Y A , - . M - _ . . - 9 - . . - . e 7 g e 9 1
- s n
R - o P
^~
i) ta o A n(
~
o3
= i p4 m-
*- EA
_ rg oe x _ R A *
- FF M
^ -
i r -
=-
3 E F i *
* )
N
)
) _
. 8 0 5 .m 4 2 7 e 3 2 2 1
6( 6 ( 6 1 61 ( m N O 4 2 3 l i . A 2 2 t 2 O , 2 J
- a o k. 3~ 4 ,y y
$.c 5
s 6 2 8 4 0 6 2 8 3 C 3 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 6 8 6 0 4 o 0 0 g 6 s 6 $ r thN4 k _ G 4yLd d
ey x 103 636 DG Building / First Floor Slob H h 632 Sand Fill ',
- n Mud Mot 'jg (628.0) 628
~2 (12% -) n 7 eVertical Strain x 10 3
/ (4.8)/
/
/ 624
/
/
/ (620.0) d f ndicates i Suspect Result For
/ 620 ,
/
Intermediate Anchor. Strain Calculated Over Interval From
/ c' o l y Anchor Above To One Below
/ Z I Intermediate Anchor.
/ E l(5.6)
Plant [ h 616 l Fill / (614.0) l
/ l
/ I
/ 612
/ l
/ l
/
& (6080) . 608 rindicates Strain is Averaged
/ ( Over Plant Fill And g / / Natural Ground
~
f (604.0) 604 . Natural o Ground g f So d_ Elevation of Anchor Method of Calculation; e, = 03 Where e, = Vertical Strain AS = Difference in Settlements L = Vertical Distance Between Between Successive Anchors Successive Anchors On 8/14/79 or 8/15/79 Except As Noted EXPLANATION OF PL a BA SETTLEMENT PLOTS S STRAIN CALCULATIONS FIG. A-43(a)
l
~
2 1 ) -
- i l t "l(
6 8 1
- lI !
^ N
- 8 S 4 4
- R E
')6 - K 0 - ^- R l '(g I t 1,il'
;!3 O 2 8 c 4
) )
2 0 4 8 DA 3 2 6 2 0 1 20 0 5 1 6 0 0 4 8 NM 6 6 2 6 26 6 4 6 6s 6 5 A s' ( ( ( L C'2 . ' A 4' 7/ /y 3 /// f ////f ///P/ ' ' a y) EP M i I&
)
1 4T 2 9 4 A 9 - .BR G , .. _ _ 5 ' AS E U f
,T A ,
, ^
oE1 mt
.V l iS
, ^
loa GTTU l INPL FEEC i loi l BF
^ _
( MD
._ E
_ - L . L
^ _ '- TS U
~-
_ TV J _ ! _ ~ E _ - _ n _ SN
^
io I
^ - ' P .
n A o R it a T _ . c o
. S L
N U r . J . - . nl N .
. ~ _ .
i
^ , se _ _
^ . = . _
^ . _ _
^ . = _ .
Y . - A ^ M - . -
~ - _
~ - - _ -
9 ^~ - 7 ' - 91 " - - R - -
^ .
P ^ _ A -- Y - m
\' .
D % R _ . _ A . _ * ; 5% M _
~
4" M w S r ^
^
8 ^ E h F ~
) '
i 0 ' ' g ) 0 ) 4 8 8 2 6 ( . - p 0 6 N*- 1 9 5 . N O ' ( ( A 20 a 2 O , 3 I 2 0 2 ,2 J = d' nTd 5* o y$ ,2 3CE{5 i 2 4 0 6
% 3 2 8 4 8 6 6 m 2 6
2 6 1 6 1 6 0 6 0 6 8 5 EOI 3O zO d t
n i 2 1 o
)
s 8 3 ( 6 '
- S h -
R E
- K
- R g
2 8n D 0 65 1 2 8 DA 3 6 2a
- 2 2
2 6 8 65 8 6 0 O NM
*6 4
6m 0 6 ( A 5-- E 4y/ k' j': / /#/'/ >///// ' g ' rg L s EP M I& 5T 3 G n a 4
- .ABR U _ , l P
AS E A - _ n o
.V iS,T l
_ _ _ it a GTTU c INPL FEEC o L
^ MD E
t" L . L U TS J _ TV E SN I _ A R T S N - U - . J _
. = -
Y _ - _ - A _ M - 9 7 s-9 1
=_ _
R - P A 8 h _ .^ - R _ A - M -
- +
- B NI
- E _ F
)
0 8 r
)
3 2*
% )
3-U _ 2 2 5- - 8 6 (^ 1 6 6 _
- 1 . _.
- O l 2 , i 2 O , 2 O i2 Nh gh 2eg o,',4' m
* ~* gE. =d i 6 2 8 4 3 3 0 6 2 s 6 6 2 2 2 1 o 6 6 6 6 61 6 0 6 o c 9 5
gh tf z q> h h a>3 l
1 3 3 2-6 1
")
5 ,g t
- 2 - - 3mni P
( 8
- 4, roly p R 2 7Fi O 1
4 t l F du )
'o ' AeM' 8ay' t
8 2 x 8 ") /
, 6 floB op 3
( e Lf 4 o5 S S 4 ll tsr1t/ y R nx8 b eE E m o ) 8 K O ) , le8t 8 /2 R 2 3 8io 2 4 ) 9 0 8 6 ) 81 2 t4,2 3 DA 2 2 a 0 NM 1 6 6 1 2 6 I 6 26 6 te0/ ( 6m g 61 l t ( i 8 6 ( - S63 S A
- L 77 i:
. 7 // f /f///l/7f/7/[ / 8 -
t e EP
- o M N I&
m 6T 4 u 4 A
- ,BR G
U - AS E
,T A - ,V HS GTTU n
INPL la FEEC P MD n E o L . L it a TS J U c o TV _ O L E SN I aJN A R
^
^
T
^
S N ^ U ^ J ^
^
^
^
~
~
^
Y A ^ M ^
^
9 7 - 9 1
) ) ) )
^
le le le le H ^ b i b b i b P s s i s s s is A e s e s c e c e c c c o c o o i ( n i ( n ( in 1w. (
. ^ .-
- R A
M - -
~
s
=
" u 4
B
*w _
E ; F _
)
) ) )
0 9 8
)
0 8 , . 8 2 1 2 n 2 m 6 N 6 (: O 6 6 1^ m 1 6 (- 0 6 ( A 3O I O I 20 , 2 , 2 J d $*$ g,g m1m d .hE$%m 2 8 4 0 2 3 2 2 61 4 6 6 6 2 6 6 4 6 e O e g 65 O b Gt>aaI < d d i , i < j
21
)
6 7 ( 8
'0 l 2 )
5
- lIh!J 5
L
- 4 4
- - S 44 R g
E K O
- R n DA w2 64 1
6 2 0 6 02 8 4 0il 6 3 b '/=,7///m._ 0 N6 0 0 9 NM 1 3 2 6 3 1 6 6 6
=6 6 6N- 5 A
L 3 / //jf//// 7// /[ jegr,4 yg+ f EP M I& 7T S 4 A G
- .BR U " = _- _ AS E A *
^
=
.V iS,T l
=
GTTU
~ - _ , _ INPL i
N 8" 1 l FEEC MD _ _ _ E
~
L . L ~ - - a _ _ TS U ~ - J
^
TV
^
E SN
~ - _ N I
~ _ A g
^ , _
R
^ ^ ._
_ _ T
^
~
^
S N ~ U _ J _ i Y - _ - A - - M - - - 9 . -- . 7 9 i
. 1 l 1
R _ - P - A
,w g
X _ m .
\
,~
R - . A _ ~ M _ _ 4 y B E F N -
%)O_
)_ -
)
, O 0 )-
)
2 ) 8 2 0- 1-6 6 _ N A 2 6 ( O I
~(
2 2 6 > , 2 ( 2 6 3 1 6-( O
- 0 6
(^ - 9 9 5 (- O 1 J l 1 2 0 1 e S' ~ v m7$ g m s72 54= l g E$e. >_*-
- 6 2 8 4 0 6 2 0 4 0 6 3 3 2 2 2 8 0
6 6 6 6 6 68 6 0 0 9 6 6 6 5 rOO2 t aO Zo k h t
i 0 2 6 1 5 2 1 o m. e 8 - - S t li. l y R
) E 4 1 K
_") 2 s ( i l
,. R O
- - . - DA 2 4 0 3 9 6 [3 4 #4 0 NM y, g A i
3 2 2 G 0 8 6 6 6 3, g 3 6 5 L EP nu 7/p/ //yyy x/4Q/7/[/p FI ([g M I& 8T 6 4
- .ABR G
U _ m
^
AS ,TE
.V iS
^ _ _-
A _ l
~
GTTU _ INPL FEEC MD
- _ - n _
E la L . r _ - _ P TS L U u
^ n
_ TV J _- _ io _ E t a c _ SN o _ I
. . ' _ L _ A
. . - _ R iN --
T S _ ~ N _ U _
~ _
J -_ ~ _
~
~
_ : ~ - - Y A - M - 9 - - 7 91
-l _-
R _- _ P _ A . L % % %
,\
K R _ A - - _ M _
% m' B
E F ._
)
0 , ') - 8 l0 2 _ 2 (6- G _ N O i2 2o A O o i 2 i2 J 1 2
- e
?m $g o9g s 4m d - EmOj j 2 8 3 2 4 0 6 2 4 6
2 2 1 t 4 0 6 6 6 6 6 W 0 6 8 5 8 5 g@V3 2Oi- <t > 8 1 2
0 2 6 1 2 -
'O 1 )
0 )
" 9 5 v 4 ,I. 7
(
- 8 S R
4
- =)
s E K
- t Ip 1- R
- l ,l 3 ' 8 DA g 2 5
8n 2n 4 2 m 02 61 0 1 65 2' 1 8 0 4 0 6 9 NM A 6 6 6o gr f/ 6 a6 * ['//p/!'/////f/,/y
'~6" 6 6 N
e5 9 EP M L I& 9T 7 4 A
- - .BR G AS E
,T U
A _~
~
.V l iS
~
. GTTU
_~ - _ INPL
- ~ - . n o
_ FEEC i P _ MD E _ - _ _ - _- n o _ L . TS i TV L - _ - _- ta _ _' c _ U J L o _ E SN
- . - . _ I
- _ A lN _
R _ - ~ - _. _ T
~
~ u_ -
S N - - U - - . J . - : _
^ _ - - _ _
^
Y - - - _ A - M _ - -- - _ 9 - 7 , _ 9 1
~ - -
~ ' - -
_ R - - _ P A W K A %
~
R - . ~ A . -
- M . -
w'- Y w- _ _ _ B E F b
)
8 .
)
6
-d
) .
d.
)
)
- 5 ~ 2
- 2 1
_ 9 1 1 6 6 6 _( f6 _ ( - (
. [5 N O i 2 g g 2 5O 1 2 0 g 2O 2 A 8 2
J ~ e:es a y$ 75 n?4m o* _ - - Ee_ ~ e) u _ - - - - - ~ - - % 2 3 8 2 4 2 0 2 6 1 2 8 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 6 0 0 9 6 6 b y$ %9p4b s 1 2 _ j l11 ,, 1 I
0 2 E s 2 bl-l i
- I lo n
lldIl P m
'8 8N o S c R 1
- o. E 4 ) K
- 06 _ jN DA R
6 n
- - - NM 2
3 8 4 2m 0 6) 1 O 2 s A 3 6 6 m 2 6 6-2 6 6Sa 64 o s g EP L
- 361 aL. // /~'//!/'/4////,///// ' chW Y 0T M
I& 8 5
- .ABR G AS E
.V iS T U _. -
A _ l GTTU INPL _ FEEC MD E L . TS L TV U . 3
- E J .
SN _ . I _ _ A R _ - T S N . U _ J . . t Y . - . A . - M - . 9 - 7 , 9 1 R
~__
^
P W_
^
A h
^
^
^
- ^
, X N
~
R A M 4 s . B E F
)
5
)
O -%) m, 0 }
- 6 3
6 (
, ~
2 6-(
~
-(
1 6 ;w N 0 I 3 O i
, O 8 2
A '2 _ J f O "
' . ,[E Og meg eN'
_ 6 2 8 4 0 3 6 6 3 2 2 2 1 8 4 o 6 6 6 6 6 612 0 6 0 6 o s 5 8 7,,2O'd,1 J'8 4 1 2
)
0 4 2 1 1 ( s - o8 i ') S 6 m,
,4
)
4 2
- 4 1
R E i ,!l,ljilIli ( - _. 3n K R
- - DA 6 2 8 4 a 0 6i3 2 8o NM 3 3 2 2 2 :
0y g
'l"*
1 2 4 A 6 MA' 6
~ $
6 %, 6 96/y////p?
//j#
6 s i 6
,,//{/ /r 6og ,
EP L M
~
s I& I 1T 9 5 A
- .BR AS E 2
.V iS,T l
a n GTTU a - INPL l P FEEC i _ _ n o I MD o E
- ~
t o _ L .
- ~ c o
TS L TV E
- SN
- - I A
f R
. - , .- T s
S
~~
i - ,= . - - - 9 - _ 7 i 9 1
- . = - -
= - -
- = -
s. I % _ (- - 1
~" _
I + % , I. I
)
0 6-2 6-(
% )0.Tw 2 2
6 (
)
9 614=
)
0 7 0 6:
- I o'
( ( o ~ ,
* ,2 l 2 0 1 ,
_}m ui r_ .* g <m g . c . ie[- 4S 6 2 8 4 0 6 s s 6 3 3 2 2 2 : 2 o 4 o 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 c 0 6 c e e s 8b24 o zo Bj: " u 1 I .
0 2 61
^
2
'O 1 w ) ' 8 6 5
S
- ( .
)
R
- . E 4 ,.
3' l l K I' lII I b }, el 1 R
]
_ DA O6 2 s e 4 ,0 g 6 ,o 2 s 4 0 g 0 NM 3 2 ,2 1 oa 0 3 A 3 n2 9 1 6 3, 6 0 g L 6 6 6 6 ,6 g i so a 6 6 g g 5 EP l 5i , .f f ,/p f /,/// j ,I' h5 L M I&0 q i _~_ 2T 1 5 A
- .BR G AS E
.V iS,T
= '
U =_ l A - - _ n - a = GTTU p l P n o l-_1 INPL FEEC MD it a _- E _ c _- L . t
- o. -
TS TV L = _ _ _- U -
=_
_ _ E J - - lN _ SN _ - _ _- I _ _ _- A t li R
- _ - T S
N U _
= -
J _ -
, ^ . - _ _
_ ^ . - . _ j lI Y _ - . - . -. A - - - M - - _ _ - _ _ = _ 9 7 , y - i 9 . _ ^- - 1 R = ~
==
W P - A p
, ~ .
~
=
R A
\_
M . _ = m " w_ [ r[ _~ r _ B ",, E F -
) - ,
_ 5
, )- ) ,
0= 0= S e 3 5 ' t ( 6-0
. - Q y ,
6-( 9 6; ( N I 30 2 o O{ i A O y J o3 - ?S N 4m
-.,$E5 6 2 8 4 6 2 0 3 3 2 2 4 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 61 .. 0 0 0 9 6 6 0 5 /
a h , aO!>ja i j t i ~ l!'
a 6 1
- o< - -
2 1
'0 1
m 8
. S 4
)
8 W R E 1 ( - K o
- 1 8a 0 0 6 DA R
2 8 4 C 0 6 0 2 4 8 9 NM 3 2 2 2 2 1 66 1 6 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 2 E 6 0 6m E 6 6 9 5 5 A I L
?//// /// / / /// / //f/$/' yj /// [ //-
' - f. 7gQ(. EP M
l] I &2 i 3T 1
- 5 A
.BR G AS E
,T U
A
' - ~
~
.V HS p A - GTTU
, INPL
,, li' FEEC MD c
E L L . TS L _ _
$N
_ TV U E J _ _ ~ _ SN I A a _ _ ~ _ R l_' T S N _ U _ _ _ _ J _ i {' Y - A _ M _- - - 9 = 7 i (, 9 1 R P A N- - C.
+ 4 R
A , = M _ * - ~ B E F . *
)
)
, D 2
. .0
-7 0l
* *
- 0 2 0 9 6 6 b
- : -(
. :(_
N O 1
- 3O g 2 O i 2 O I A g s" y,m ,c ,$ ay,m J
G i$E
% 2 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 6 3 2 2 2 1 8 0 0 0 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 j
o]5 u.O 2 ggd s W.
0 2 N 6 1 2
'O' 1
1 2
' - s
- p 8!1
' jI' I s 8'
'8 . S 3, R 3
i E I K 4 R D DA O NM 2 8 4 o c01 2 A 6 6 3 2 6 2 6 s 685 6 l 2 s @ g o *5 9 EP M L 7'/[/// ////[/f
' /# f///y/// //y//l*$dN .
I&3
- - Jl 4T 1 5 A
- .BR AS E G
U A _' - , a = .V HS,T GTTU _- - _ ~ INPL FEEC
- l1 MD E
' L .
TS L TV _ U ~ ; . E J l" SN
. -- - . I
. A R T ll
~
~
~
S N . - . . _ U . - _ J - -
~
~
1_l Y . A - M 9 : 7 , - 9 II 1 - - _ R V - P M A
, k A -
- 7 R
M A N ^
^
~
~
* ~
B
- E
- F '
)
- s l '
O_ _6 ')O s 2 5
- 8 4~
6 1 6 0 9 ( (6 5 . _ ( :
, (
N g , 2 0 2 0 A I 2 O ; J 7g 75 Ng {m g~ p{Z%c 2 - -
% 8 4 6 2 6
3 6 2 6 2 6
- 1 6
1 6 8 0 6 4 0 6 e' 2 9 5
$h4 a_
4 9FNmJ1 1 4
a
)
7 11 ( 2 1 5 O8 i S m, R e 4 E l o K o R O . ( DA 6 3 3 2 8 2 74 42 0 2 6a 1 2 1 8 4 0 NM 6 6 6 26 s 6 6is s 6 0 ,7 6 6 A
- - L 7)/////////H/// ///////pf///////
//j EP M
- I &5 5T 1
)
e 5 A g - .BR r o AS E
,T W
A h n cr io .V l iS S uP n GTTU _ . . INPL oelo f _ FEEC _ . . . ac MD l sL
.o E t
u L . . O ( TS TV L . A . U . . f E SN J _ . . I _ A
. . . R T
. . S N
U J - . . Y A - . . M _ 9 7 , l_.l . . 9 1 R . . . P A R N A _ M . . B . E F . .
)
)
, 7 )
2 4* 0 7 2 5 6 8 0 ( _ 6 (
; 6
" ( ~
N A O , o o l J 74m b km e 5EE._ E 6 2 8 4 0 6 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 8 8 4 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 9 6 6 6 5 oxoz4to L g h j2shu
)
2 1 8 D ) x 0 S 4 R 4 4
)
6 ( E 1
-_ )
K ( 0
- - 0
( R o,6 2 8a 4g 0 l 1 s DA 3 2 0g 22 NM 3 6- 2 2 1 6 7 26 0 6 6m 6 A t : 5 6/ 1 6_ L
?/ / / / /f 7j / !/7 /// /f7pf#//7ISy '
EP _ M
; I&6 6T 1 5 A
- .BR
_ G a AS E U ,T A
. l e
g
.V l i S
- ' _ o e GTTU h
c n INPL i
- ,] wla FEEC sP MD f n E
- - , o io L ,
e t L id o TS U
- _ - , s c o TV J
t u L E
- _ - , O SN
( [1 N
- _ . , A R
T S - N U J - _ _ Y A - _ _ M _ 9 7 9 g
, ,]
1 R _ P A g R _ A M B _ E F . ,
) 1 9 ) )
0 ,l l 2 - - 7 0_ 7
- 2. -
2 2 2 1 8 6 6 (6: ( - (: 6-( N l 0 I O O O. h i i A J 1 g4m gS
'c cl!.J ! i 6 ~
2 8 4 0 6 2 3 3 2 2 2 8 4 0 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 6 0 0 0 6 6 6 EOgZ ( i t 29F$gd
APPENDIX B Includes References And Figures B1 - B6 l l I l t i I l I r i i r I l l l
APPENDIX B - REFERENCES
- 1. Terzaghi, K. (1943). Measurement of pre-water pressure in silt and clay. Civil Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 33-36.
- 2. Peck, R.B. (1944). Discussion: Pendleton Levee Fail-ure. Trans. ASCE 109: 1414-1416.
- 3. Bjerrum, L., Casagrande, A., Peck, R.B., Skempton, A.W.
(Eds.) (1960). From Theory to Practice in Soil Me-l chanics, Selections from the Writings of Karl Terzaghi. l Wiley, 425 pp.
- 4. Gibson, R.E. and Marsland, A. (1961). Pore-Water Pressure Observations in a Saturated Alluvial Deposit Beneath a Loaded Oil Tank. Pore Pressure and Suction in Soils, London, pp. 112-116.
- 5. Penman, A.D.M. and Watson, G.H. (1963). Settlement Ob-servations on an Oil Tank, Proc. European Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Weisbaden, Vol. 1, pp. 163-171.
- 6. Mesri, G. and Godlewski, P.M. (1977). Time- and Stress-Compressibility Interrelationship. GT Jour. ASCE, j 103:GTS, pp. 417-430.
- 7. Peck, O.K. and Peck, R.B. (1948). Settlement Obser-t vations on a Large Water Tank, Salt Lake City, Utah.
! Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Soil Mech., Rotterdam, Vol. 4, pp. I 1-3. Reprinted in Eng. Exp. Sta. Circular Series No. l 55, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, pp. 22-28.
- 8. Peck, R.B. and Uyanik, M.E. (1955). Observed and l Computed Settlements of Structures in Chicago, Eng.
! Exp. Sta. Bull. 429, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, 60 pp. l i 9. Crawford, C.B. and Sutherland, J.B. (1971). The Em-press Hotel, Victoria, British Columbia. Sixty-Five i Years of Foundation Settlements. Canadian Geot. Jour. j Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 77-93.
- 10. Peck, R.B. (1956). Relocation of Railroad Embankment, O' Hare Field, Chicago. Proc. AREA 57:649-657.
- 11. Wilson, S.D. (1353). Control of Foundation Settlements by Preloading. Jour. Boston Soc. C.E. Jan. 1953, No.
- 1. Reprinted in Contributions to Soil Mechanics 1941-1953, Boston Soc. C.E., pp. 396-410.
- 12. Aldrich, H.P. (1965). Precompression for Support of Shallow Foundations. Proc. ASCE Conf. on Design of Foundations for Control of Settlement, Evanston, Ill.,
pp. 471-486.
- 13. Goodman, L.J. (1965). Discussion: Precompression for Support of Shallow Foundations. Proc. ASCE Conf. on Design of Foundations for Control of Settlement, Evanston, Ill., pp. 486-499.
- 14. Johnson, S.J. (1970). Precompression for Improving Foundation Soils. ASCE Journ. SMI, Vol. 96, Jan., pp.
111-144.
- 15. Wheeless, L.D. and Sowers, G.F. (1972). Mat Foundation
! and Preload Fill, VA Hospital Tampa. Proc. ASCE Conf. j on Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, Purdue, pp. 939-951.
- 16. Rabinovici, A. (1971). Settlement observations during the pre-loading of a silt. Geot. Abstracts 40.03 (Abstract only).
- 17. daGroot, W. (1974). Subsoil compaction for the founda-tion of a warehouse for the Esso-Chemie N. V. at Rosenburg (Europort). Geot. Abstracts 84.66 (Abstract only).
l
- 18. Williamson, A.B. and Patin, D.B. (1978), Foundation Soil Preload Saves $164,000. Civil Engineering ASCE,
( March, pp. 61-63.
- 19. Legget, R.F. and Peckovar, F.L. (1973). Foundation l Performance of a 100-year-old Bridge. Can. Geot.
Journ. Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 504-519. 1 i
- 20. Peck, R.B. (1948). History of Building Foundations in Chicago. Eng. Exp. Sta. Bull. 373, Univ. of Illinois,
- Urbana, 64 pp.
l l 21. Casagrande, A. (1936). The Determination of the Pre-Consolidation Load and its Practical Significance. Proc. Int. Conf. Soil Mech, and Foundation Eng., Cambridge, Mass., Vol. 3, pp. 60-61. l i i i
318 SELECTED PROPE5510NAL REPCRTS
+
A (d.) . u g Effective Lead t ,i- '!/ i ; 3: N"i ' j' m ,,(' . l .
, .! . , .: lt O
c
% \, ; i '.j li 1
i; l s ! O , y l - l: E Porewaf$ d'j b' s 's., o , Pressure - T
.i e
!.I.M V,
j' ' j l l Tim S ' Swellin g
'i JI,
; r
- (Porewoter Tension) p
- g. -
1 + ( [ ,h / 'h j f 3 f,,s\ \ / \ / s
\ / ,3A \
l
/
( / L s ", L fp I s / s
/ t / ( / ,,s '. :\/l p v" ' * -
' i i \ / ,.'
\s),c'}s.
\ ,' ;
\/ / ,
s u s , N/ . s
's,e 'q f -
/ Time-8t sj
_' [.
+- ,-,
~
(C) ,- - 3
\
j l ly i l \ r e r
- / / /
( r 4 j - -
\ L i
~I ^r
)
o ' GV A shl
\ / \
/ \ U' Time
;_l s ,_)
n DIAGRAMS ILLUSTRATING EFFECT OF VARIABLE
- LOADS ON AVERAGE POREWATER. PRESSURE IN LOADED CLAY STE ATUM FIG.11 FIGURE 31 -
i 322 lICTED PROFESSIONAL REPORTS so - To
- = m
, o . n -
g - N N 6/ i=8%*" F
,, & T A N 3, f?' % . l h ,a L @
,, in '. % ~
.* " 7dl W.a M ""7 4,. P % .
a i/f/ .<.. %mL _ s
, Th M/ _
1 A \\ ,. 5a nn -
-ei. \ \
2 20 g Qi . A x1 zu I a su sv v vi ' vulve iz A xi x10 i u, us iv y vi vu vej is x: st .xn i s
; e,.. i,.. .
i,., i,.. J.
- ( b)( l 3 8 i e t
o\ -l p L
?,
n\ ,L ** *. ( ! / 0 / \ / X. rl i ,,
~
- H I V ~ \ ~i \
}" !
h , / ,--~ .
/ \ v g / / ,
li \
~ '
\ \ !!
f ,,,, ., ) , [" *s.I i / v h f,'
& '-.5 /; '..
v l
?;.,a l
l-ro .
=
_ .= l x xi xn i n a iv v vi vu a ix x zilin i n e iv v vi vu vo ix x xi is i n
- i- i,+3 i,+4 i,4s teu
' ~ l 3. tc) 4 @ - l .' _i_l - 3 ,, IO k '\ N ' i'
! ., A fh T- '. . _
t / \\ v0 ft . 'e i " K \k ) V >& ! i ,1 ;Mn
" ! I '. g ? .li
\ N i ,, ,
I iM 'l!4 % br% ! !i W " Iid .iN1 li !f/ I Lii UJil l l l l Ih M l/ _
! l l' '-{. l )ll. Ill l ' l. _ .l l l:
,i -T' :
ll ll l ll ix j x lx lxu jn un j ivl v vijvnlvnpx l x lx lxn ilals iv l v lyi jvnlvaj ixl x lxi an iln i,.. ,,++ is.r itu RELATION SETWEEN CEE LOAD AND ?O2ENATER. PRESSURE READINGS CM ELECTRIC ST2AINMETER GAUGES FIG.14 1 l
~
FIGURE B2
30 4 s t 7* *
, 6 IS 1 l
1 I C .
! . .J ,
I
- w l !
O $ - - - - 1 ! SEPT,953 oCT Nov OCC JAN 1954 FES. was a8st *L MAY JUNL
*s .-
l .. I re i _ sa*1 i
., i
{f - __
'N li P 96 i \1 __
l i e s< l 4
,p' AS '
%,,,,,,,, p t, - .. ,. .
-..-.,.- .-.. ,p .-
t a n O' l C' Pa i ! e, j l t 1'
! W j g i
-s _
1
.. l.. - C,2 g l
02 m2 l_- . - . r k -
~
, r---*w.~ . m r.
o l I << l 7 i i 2, i g s h -s I
, f ,
n '
. ..c _..
\ l l
., o D
, ,.3, k A.
f j a l
)
*%(D 83 I.k g
, C3 % .
i O I t
$ [
- a w r
.5 l
Fig. 2 Pore pressure readinss during loading of oil tank l
!!4 1
i FIGURE B3 - 4 s t
- - - -. - ,- , , ,, - . - - - . , , - - - - - - , e
~
4 Es e sente=ee sad pero pe== re o_ . . . verses time 7 mese u m m ne tama. ,i 3 I Es 5 ys_ am, S'
)t l I
- I,
- I \ g 8'
g 4 ,
- JJ
- r. ,/ I W a =
I y n ni g. = s e eye a a J
' T
. i M ' i j~
s - 3_a K%o==m m .e g
- ~
-m g
5 YY" _% le!eY N - u l . r_ s i s% ( Vl M g nok %
~
%QAlg f-Qy . , , , .-
p = '.
\
\ M -
l I.' to increase in the unloaded soil outside the tank, and by practical problems of water supply. It was decided [ to raise the water level in the tank at a rate of about 45 cms / hour by pumping from the river, and a 13 cm J 1.D. pipe was taken from the tank through the bund wall to a ditch so that the water could be discharged ' from the tank fairly quickly if necessary. Three dumpy levels were set up around the tank so that all the observation and heave points could be referred to the two reference points without having to move any ; i instrument. Initial readings we's taken for several days before commencing the loading test: pore pressure j and overflow level readings were taken over the preceding two weeks. . Two cycles loading and unloading were carried out, as shown by the upper port of fig. 6. Tonk filling . 5 for the first loading began of midday so that it would become full during the next working day when more people would be available for any emergency action which might become necessary.The gasket of a blanking h,. plate was found to be lookmg when 40 cms height of water had been putin the tank and some had to be let out
- to replace the gasket. Filling began again at 19.00 hours on the 19th June 1962 and was stopped at 14.00
} hours on the following day when the floating roof wcs of the top oithe tank and the water surface was 8.10 m obove the lower edge of the tank. Pore pressures began to rise in the soit not loaded directly by the tank.
'? , but none of the heave points moved upwards and there no signs of excessive differential settlement at the edge of the tank. Readings were continued every hour for a further 22 hours and subsequently were taken at more irregular periods for a further & days. Unfortunately during this time the water surface recording the settlement of the sand fell below the base of the standpipe, which was already on the gauge house floor and could not be easily lowered, so that settlements of the sand surface greater than 13.2 cms were not measured during this first filling. The tank was almost emptied in 10 hours (9.00-19.00 hours) on 25th June; when there was only 26 cms of water left the rate of discharge was very slow and the outlet
,f valve was closed. Pore suctions developed (see fig. 6) but dissipated quickly.
$ The tonk was refilled for the second fooding 3 days later to a height of 8.2 m (the floating roof was
[f slightly above the top of the tank) in 18.45 hours, starting at 11.30 in 29th June. The tank then remained full until 16th July when it was emptied completely for painting. The water surface re-appeared in the k 168 t, FIGURE E4 - P > 4
60 a-55 ocagutations, and finally tank (L5 + f/2) which determines the ultimate bearing espacity for surfas loading. nelative h nela tan y Belatin tan (h5+}) Change ten 2(k5-{} Change e 1.0 2.2 a.35 1.0 f sin = 29' o.554 0 347 f naz ar h6 5' 1.053 19 0.159 1.0 39 7 47 In view of evoh variations and unoortainties one can well sympathise h statement by Mr. l j Iasarus White in his Discussion D-31. determines W stability of However, the angle of internal fricti m is not W only faetor c mass of soil when it is subject to saturation. Let us consida t volume changes which take place l during a shearing test. A fine loose sand undergoes a reduction volume when subjected to shear, l Fig. 2, while the same sand in its denseet state expands dur ear, Fig. 3. When the voids of the 1 sands are ocupletely filled with water then the voliams o during shear oause in the loose sand r of additional water. Since in a very l the squeezing out of water sad in the dense send the infl i largs mass, time is required for flow of water to take oe, see mdary stresses are introduced in the I ceil. If the volume has the tendeney to doorsase, yod drainage results in a transfer of the stres-ses from the solid to the water. In W osse of expanding maas the reverse takes place, that is i cdditional pressure is set up in the solid port . In the loose state the shearing resistance of the I ma:s is reduced during the process of det e and in the dense state it is increased. ht the reduction in shearing reais ce of a bose saturated fill can cause entire loss of sta-bility and flow slides, is amply d-ma he has ted by r.perience. Professor Torsashi was the first one to I I analyse the mechanios of these slide described many examples in his publications. h fr.ct that a mass of sand in a loos state when exposed to saturation, may be in an unstable condition, i liable to flow out when a dist s of utmost e like an earth quake, occurs, has so far not been considered in I earth das design. And yet i importanoe, particularly where W construction unterial l 4ensists largely of fine . In such a case a safe dam oan only be built by compacting W an-t: rial into a sufficie dense state, so that any deforsation will produce erInnaion. I wish to emphasize that safe gainst such internal loss of stability cannot be increased by flatter slopes. It is entirely f le to make a fi13 of fine sand stable with slopes of 1 on 2, when sufficiently d:nss, and on its stabilit other flow hand,(a out. fillwriter's See the of thepapersameonsand in a looseofstate
" Characteristics with slopes Cohesionless of 1 on 5 ma Soils Af-festing th tability of Slopes and Earth Fills, Jouron1 Boston Soc. Civ. Eng. Jan., 1936).
Ackn ed monts b investigations, of which paper D-13 and this are progress reports, are greatly ai by the co-operation of the Casaittee on Earths and Foundations of the American Society of Civil in:ers, and by the Metropolitan Distriot Water Supply Casaission of greater Boston.
/ .
l DISCUSSICN(ByLetter) Ns. D-3h EE DETERMINATICE CF THE PRE-CCNSOLID&TICI LO&D AND ITS PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE Dr. Arthur Casagrande, Graduate School of Engineering, Harvard Uninreity, Cambridge, Mass. In reply to numerous questions on this subject which were addressed to W writer from Members of l ths Conference, the following notes were written.' 1 Deter aination of the Pre-consolidation Imad. Professor Tersaghi's early investigations on the mechan-ice cf consolidation of fine-grained soils" led him to the conclusion that the relationship between void ratio and pressure for the primary or virgin branch of the costpression ourve could be orpressed by a 1ccarithmio ourn. Detensin testing of undisturbed olay semples during the past five years have shown that such a logarithnio relation holds true at least up to 20 kg/sq om, ht is for the entin load range in which the civil engineer is interested. Any important deviations from tbe virgin l empr:ssion ourve of an undisturbed olay sample seem to be caused by the variations in loading whiah I ths soil underwent during its geologio history and by its remove,1 from the ground. h reason for this can be understood frena the shape of a rebeund and re-compression ourve obtained by loading a samplo in increments well beyond the stress under which it was consolidated in the ground, taen deoroasin6 the load to zero and again gradually increasing it to an even larger lead. h compression diegram for such a test is shown in Fig. 1. h left diagram is plotted to an arithmetio scalal and in the diagram to the right the pressures are plotted on a logarithmio soals. h semi-log P ot lends itself readily to an analysis of the history of W sample. h first portion (II) of the compression ourve is in reality a re-ompression ourve which meets the virgin branch (Ib) and then ocatinues along that branch as a straight line. At the arbitrary load, corresponding to point 1, ths load is again reduced in the sans increments to sero, whereby a rebound ourn (III) is obtained. The renewed application of the load follows the re-compression ourn (IT) which meets the virgin branch (Io) at a load higher than point A, to continue along h t line. FIGURE B5 -
p __ D.3l4 61 I\ ........ b L2 L1' E % D g
'Y- kC 9
k @s ke i.i u ....... s 2 \ \ o 4
\
\
I
% N l3 g
s s o up g (qq 's s 's hs f ml g\' ia { s ' f P. ,
- s. t&TIMATED l 09 ^
PRE C0tt$0L.LD40 % 0'S \ l
\
' \ k , 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Ai al 0.$ La 2A 58 60 to 1 PRES $URE 9t K4]$4.CM. FRESSURE N1 KG./34.Ch (LD6 SCALE) l tt) b) 1 Fl6.1 l The diagram shown in Fig. Ib is typical for all very fine-i; rained soils. The angnitude of W drop in the position of the virgin branch after each rebound loop depends ohlefly on h structural oharacteristios of the soil. For a ny glacial olays this drop is very small. The azaot position of the virgin branoh obtained from a laboratory test, depends also on the time-inoraments which were ellowed for emoh load-inorsment, and on the temperature. The olose similarity in the shape of branch (II) and the relative position of branch (II) and (I b), with h shape of the recongression ourve (IV) and the relative position of (IV) and (I o ),- suggests that it should be possible to estimate W load po under which the soil was consolidated in tha ground, W so-oalled pre-consolidation load, frcus a properly conducted oonsolidation test. Since ths theoretical shape of h rebound and recompression ourves is not sufficiently investigated, such estimates met be based on experience. From a large number of tests on different types of soils it was found that for W majority of olays h pre-consolidation load oan be derived with a satisfactory d: gree of moeuracy by means of the empirical method shown in Fig. 2. One determines first h position of the virgin ocupression line (I) with a sufficient number of points. Ihan one determines on the preceding branch
\1 (II) that point (T) which oorresponds to the smilest radius g of eurvature, and draws through this point a tangent (t) to g the eurve, and a horizontal line (h). The angle c4 between g
th.se two lines is then bisected, and W point of inter. tien T \ s b (C) of this bisecting line (o) with the virgin line (I) iC 89j determined. Point (C) oorresponds approxis tely to the pro-s c consolidation load (po) of the soil in the ground. s i The question imediately arises whether the drop in the 2 d position of the virgin compression line, due to the temporary I g I I
\
t renoval of W load and the inevitable defora tion of the sem-a Pe Pl e during its removal from the ground and preparation for h l 5 test, affects the magnitude of the estimated pre-consolidation I
> load. So far, experience seems to indicate that this is not W onse. In other words, W partial break-down in the internal strueture of the soil, due to a se ll amount of de-fo m tion, or alternate swelling and eampression, does not 4 obliterste or seriously distort the impression created in the material by the largest previous load.
(11 L0 isto Theoretical oonsiderations, based on the writer's hypo-PRES $uRE MG./SQ.cM. thesis of W structure of olays (Journal of the Boston Soc. of Civ. Eng., April 1932), lead to the same conclusion. The slight increase in oompressibility is probably due to the FIG. 2 desakde of a s=n p.roentag. of seu arch.s. no.rever, in h major portion of the soil the struoture is still intaot and, therefore, the impression produced by the pre-consolida- ! tion load enn be assumed to be unohanged
. FIGURE B6 -
APPENDIX C Includes Figures C1 - C30
-a e - --
., -.-_ - . . . . - _ . . __ . .. . . - - . -.,0
s ,------ - --
i 4, l. -- -
~~
o a,.--.~........__ _ _ _7 _ 'jf -
' x s :. '- .
! D6-24 i !'
- I D 6-23 i ggg _ . l, i
- . ? '.-- - - - .
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~- - ~ ~ . { 8- -- -_ - - 12. i t -
. 06-2", Correc hc!
(o G O --- - ' '^r- ~ T
~~ " ~ ~ ~ ~
3 I
/ Do' ts too
. i i 645- i , ! 4 I
Id ea ti b d S u rc h a r g e n - PZ 21.22,28 i I 6 4 0 ---
- l 1 i I t i / i t I g g .- ; r -+
/ '
l l
- , (
, i, i v
__, , 'i, 9 _ , , g 8 f . - . 2 8'9- =. , , ~ ~ ~ . ---------~**f- -< 4=
-~
I o. f,,n . - _ .. i Ponci p.
~ . . . . ,.
I I i-
,,, i ,, l 625 F, ~ g '.N k 7f.. .s..j .. J# ="~~~* ""i"'~" '" "l % Q ' W '
^
,.h. -
. . ; I w., ,-- gf .
\ : y; g jaw
_ _ _ . I. . . _ - . . . . . _ . __ _ ._.___....2 . . - _ _ _ _ ._._ i ._ 4 I _l DEc F t.e MAe A PR. MAY J0u JUL AUh,$ S E. P 19'74 g ~ Ti p E.L Pas 2 21: 6 22. C sos-34 : 7.2: 590.1 (deepest of all pica.'in D68 area)
's 28 = (el 5.6 os e s. ;
- 5. Shallow i M= Medium Dep4h; D= Decp i e +
C6P l's l' , b6. ( l tooec %.
w
- w cn n (*NG*'13S y
- o. ., ._. .. .
6 i O m $ - t 7 ' r= N. (i p d ,ts g (
-- - - - ,+- ,
1,.
- i. . . . .
.....l._.,i t
- g o
.N/
e i 1
? 4. =a j ' ' s jw i
I i l ' ./ tW a.
. t .
8_. e g_ i' 9 , '
- C '
gp P , _ _ . - J
) .p#. #*
?s. / 'D
' .s l ,a j '-~
{_' . _ . g l', I'
, u, .\, .;
e l $0 * ' 'l
)
Ic , o ,' in G) ( , I
- 7. -. . i._ . _ . ._.
* "o
- UD' M l ti +8 ) _o -
C' ] 3 66 8 4 ' l j,'
.t .
j !
' o
' k f ; ! @
4
- o ' d l O
- e i s e rO! $.
,g- .
. . _: c_- 1o 1 ,
t' it !at M t C . , _ o
.. x SA i s y e 4N .
, i g C i, %-
0 l
'\
1
} -
~
g . . , . . . . . , e
^*.
I e f E i 8 '! a' eM 6@ s t s f . ._ O-M 1 44 1 6 o, e i M J f i . N ,
' ',.2( NN
- - g ,
i
.m d m -
{' .9
. . . - . _ . _ . . . . . . . ..\ _--
i,
! - s.,
i
, o l ,
, ,e y n
. ! * - > v E
, !
- W 6
, 1 1 .
._ e >o f i
...___._._._)
i .' O p vi 2 3 , I_ . _ . . . . 8 m O L1 o m O O T V3 O N O d O O W 4 O M M N W O J O 4 J J J c
)
o i 2 3 4 ny.v . gtWv - I 3
*;';., iii '
. .* '1 :i. { g
~
8 ~ m p 4 - g- r e z _f- t p i . tI! .+ c i { , -
^ ,
= e
-- e.
,_ S
.i j; !! .
4.i- p a
'f
.I'j.
j' ili k _ w r, 3,
. , _ o 1 A E D
~,*
~ . .
_~ _
.~ .
L
~ J U
~
_. ibd ; e ~
- ~
. t.
- c d- ..
._e n .
M u
. r r
o b-f - ~
~
J
' :c .
. - : ;.. :i , i L<
~,s '
j.i;,t ^
. 3-2 3 . -
2- - 60 - M 6 - 0 c M
- ' ,; \,
' ! it
~! -# . *
~
+ e p
w' - . A
\ i i g .l / L!lI - _
- s i1 .
, / /
, - t s
, A N n
].
~
x ii l .}; .- eg : i r
- . ;'.f ..!
ft-m'M
/
~ a [ J. 8 h S.
c c [ . E F 0 u 1
- i. ,. { - t . !' ! !S !' ' llII
- 2 b
d _ e _ = i l z a e
/ 8 4
d z e
,-.,):
{ ;: i f 8 - i ' - . i t,.- l y. P i t
._ - E C- p
'f - i T
j ._ : H ,, ,! ,* lI l, 0 5 0 g 0 r o, 5 o 5 4 3 3 p 2 8, P e t g 5 s 4 6 6 6' G r 6 C 9 Ef E g, b e 6 3C&
EL ~0 m T; -= - N l ,
!~
- x. .
i 6c0 ' a ,t , it i I
. . , , i , .
[ ; 656[-- i -2
-l i
i I
- i !
OG te { l 650 - -- : - I
- - - - - =- - -
3 .3 i i 1 -
.L : s l
! l 1 g i t 645-; . .
1 - : 4 i i i ca.3 oo p2-4 3,47 1 l ,IdeaN2ed Sur-charge l
- ~
gso. . + +
. \. ..
e
, i
!N
/ 4 N.#
63G i -
~ + -.
. ', '. r i .
, i-
+ \ .w
- , 1 In 63o 1 ! i- -i I- m i i
pond . .. _ -- -%. j t
~ ~ - - -
626 j ~~' _ __ _i-- - - - - - ---- _., -# - - ..
'- 5 ._~----'- - - c, ~_. . . .
l
-- r- M~
43
, e ~.~~.L.-, s- . ~ ~
_. y
->*-, c
, - 47
+ I (oQQ ..
jaw FEB t<1 A c ape kris y Just JUL AU6 SEP 1979 Tip. E:.I. P'i,2. 43 b10.5 - 4 ~1 : fo*L \ .h Ps OG be J958
~so
" 45 8 ~4 d N
4* __ . _ i_
-. _ _. _ . .l-
- s. . ..
5
, j E A-4 3
, , N -
4
' l . -t 660; ; -- 'I ~
l ! h,- .._. _ _ _ .. . _ .-- 2-655 " '
-{ \ '
' N ! ,
m ; w g
- I i l
i : % _
-- w /_ , a
.3 g go .---- ---e i i
06-t ! _ _ s- . j j gag -- i twy =
)
I
-4
!Ide.als' z ed Surcharfe '
l P2- 15,'58)
. i 640 ~ ~ ~ . . ,
, ) .l , i y
,/ i .
v _...'...-. h
~ ~ ' ' ' ^ ~ ~
/ :
i
! : F l i j : , ai
; -u 6 3 0 r -~ '
~
1 l l i f._;. ; - - Pond i
, l i
626*-
-a, . _ . --
%..'~ '
,. }
y ' ~ ~~ ~ 9. - 1s[N gt7^' ^y %# IC=*\ *.] ~ j
~: , Wo .: ,
f-( t -
~ i ; -
l ,! b20 - A PE Jot AU6 GEP Osc JAN F E O, M a c. M AY J u tJ l Q ~79 Tip El. Piet is 601s 39: 612.0 06-l 9-4-19 7m' B A 43 - o "'8 '
~
91479 7.~l so ' U1 034 " .
., ,pfget 014i e%> c' 3 M5' Ode -l e s P -
a.
, r, Fts. C G
o.._...,.....,.....s.....-....-.-(*N1).L.t.33 w ci * . - . , . . . . . . , . . $. a.n b O
. N. e.
'e O O n-l N . __
7p. . . -- m, N J h j k
. W -
l .
.O g
..l i
.j.
8 5 - - --+- _ _ .. ku e
/-
8
/
.i n t
, .m.= i.we===*
( i i F < J t
,* 2
' d
- l ,O
? .
...h . ._.___2._.. k .h.~. ..__
l t
%- s v
. c' , 3 S 'i t
o Ii > o i
. L
. . . ... L __
- \ l t
j cv a 8
. (s <
s4 . ___......_,...._.7 / _.
'f
.N, i
,1 s -
2 L . U \ c' ._ .- _ y i / i. ( t,. v - u b * ~ t,1. o m. O 3 \ CO o-4 . ... . i,
.S 9 i 'U g I
=
W i s.
.N : 't OO
= , ; f, NG i
- O \ *
'G \ 'O
-g ._ . p IN 6 7.~..._ '
t Q. i
, i
'O -
i
% M i i
' s % g
.-.._.._4..... _ _ . . . - . . . . ..__1_-_.._._... 8 o
a o in O La O to e o in o S o o m v v e a w wo 3 J G E O O O Q Q Q Mhg
7 O
]: I!lt; I 2 : , ' i1 3 . . ; .i 4. : : , . S2 O . .) p wV)'l.i . .44 .y4
. C.
- s 2 .
F i 3 1 g p 91 2 7- . te o .g 9' _. A E . 1
. P. s.
=.
=
P .
~;l l
- e a o
. 4 i .
.~
, i .- '
j !
-- . .P
_E S
.y
_ ;l
~ 5
_ l . .
,iil- . l . }5.
_ it. ,
...': 4m.
i}j , .i 6
)t y,
A 7
- . _3 i
.! i tI - .
' :.?
~
. M. .D
-- 2 t
~
1 u j
~ 6 - .
de ~ rD . i1 ;
-_4 cr.
e __~ r , . a o d~ n t o
- c. .
o , j 2. 1 P.- _
;- l '
6-
- i. -- -
0- - y A o r r o t M
" g -
- o - ; '-,;i
_ D _ r. s
- . P s' -
- A
- i glI g'!- 4'
/,
i . i; i ' -
, ip. .; .
E., R
.-** . ,. 1 A
. Y
( r .i' - e. ' ' t j . 3
;
- i g
r '
.a _
_ .. 6 E h / c r _ F
,~
5, C. u ,.. 9t l- i '! , , -. ; ...S i * , 1 i!i. .$ 1
~
r 66 p'oi
- de . .
M
~-
h ta A 7 2
'I
/
) ,
e t
- ld e i/,li
- .i -l. t;+;,i ;,,i. i.!iiiI'
;;, }
i P
. l E .n C a.
- E p 7"
.- i
_D "T 5* 9 ll!i :,!:- . !, , , . iii8 i ' J*. . g g o o t 6 0 5 5 5, 0 g 4 0 3 3 g
] l'o E 6 6 ( G 6 h l ! : ' ;. l,
. ---,O N
! ; i i g _ __ _ _ . . . _ _ ._
f -j j
--d -- i - - -- - - - I t s p _. _
' s, ; . .
' ! H I i^
t i I b j2
-l b55 4 g-
= _ . . -
. o
+
l . - . - j 3
/ l' . $
'-' i-G50 -------------l-------t
. i
.t l 06-13
, '. <9 l !
./ n
, i
/ i i
- i i , ---Dag too j ,
M6 - - -
-- - j --- - - - - -
i
/ ;
t ', - t
'} -- - - -1
* } ' -
idealued iSurcharg e ; i : ( PE-2 U 9 c I , , , . 2 i i 3 Qg . . _ .p . . . . . . _. . . . . . .. ; ., . . .
.c
! /!
.[! l i
l ' 6 i N w 6'35 - - ----- j - --- - -- --- ! 7
/
-j 3.
i ; f r----- - - - - -- #
- l. , t t.
1 . I l
-~~-----'-----'----'-'-----i-~~~~-~- '--'---~-- " -~~~'
'l~
~
MD
- - ~ ~ ' ' ~- ~ ' - ' '
1 i
,, i, - - - - . Ponct , i
.ui j..';
~
r- { i
.. ,p 2 . . _ . _. -_j - .,,.
. . . . . a y -g, _ -p -- .
(p
..:: ,- .- M
= - . r- -
hZO _ . _ . . . - . . . - . - . . . . . . - - . . _ . - - - - - . - - - - . . - - - - DEC .) A ki FE6 MAe A Pe. MAY JUN Jut AUG Sep 1979 Tip El. Re2 z'l = 618.7 ' 2 *> a s t i,5 , V. nn-n. os- o J c)St3
- c. w 2 4 ** Fis. C8
r O s*- f ; ., ! i ; j -
* ~! .i 660 ,i---t---- I T :
/
i . .i i -
' ; ! ! < 06-l'2 Correcha .
655 --
. --- -1
~ 3m - -
.. ;_ -=- =1o. w 4 w -
. j ~
os- i2 I i '. I i' { l lo 60 p ' -- .
; 8 '- -3
{ ,
, 1 i ;
i ! .
; Day too - - - i ;
; 4 44gr.
. t ; .
i . iPZ-3G , [ldealized ! Surcharge ;
- l. 1, ,
6 4 D - ----- - i i. .) ! [. c . i
/i -
; t 2
< 3 l
.V
/ I : .
i i . (,c" y I__ ._ ' i t, i . - I F'" w i h3O i
'. 'O Ponel '\ , ,
__p. ~~~~~~*
; -~ . 3-- . . . .. ... .
.j - g,
' ~ ~ - - -
gg - . . - 7
; ,f ..
~q. 3 L. -- i
-~
3, , 4 ; l
/. .D !
i t
' l --}
l I 6'ZO " - - Ft e MAe ape Meet Johs JUL Aus SEP (979 Tip El. Piet %: 6 03.6 . . . . I% sP l M58 etw o - rs 4- ns. c.9
--- ---- - - --- - - - ----- ~ ~ - - 'O EL. 2
, i. .
i gg,o i _.2 __._. j.._..
, x
. _ _ . _ . f_ . - - .
_ - . . .- . -. _- I - e
- - -- - p j
i - ,
\' l . i s - -
...4----.
\ ,,
~ + - - . . . - -
. . . . - , - _..- ~. - . .._
h
! i l .
!. 1 i i
- !. 4 t 1 , t .
t 1 . . I' ,
...t.__.
6go
...._.+..
j . .. i
._.i__....4..._..
i . 3. e . . i . i, l. 1 i
, i D6-14 I t
_...._____._...;.......,_...... __._ . _ __ ,.. _ .. }_t. _ ._. .j ._____j......__. _ . 4 . . . .. __.L . . .;4 gg! ' j j kI ipa-2 3'-) l l Ideoh r.ed! Surchach. e -
. t$apoo - .
l 44.g _..._-.l......._.'.........l . . . . ..
.} .
l f . ._.. .. . [ . . . 1.. _ . [ .._ _ l y . ii 9
; I . ! '
S G35 - '----- - t 1 - ; -- -+
, , '.-- w
' M l l l .-
> . i :
l _ . j . . _. . . ' L_ p, . . . . . . . . . ..
.._.4...__.... . . . . . . . . .
r 6 i I fo Q !
' ^ - k - ---- . ;
_....__...i._,_. ,_, ._-. Io' . . . . _ . _ _ _ . . t 625- -d C'- g<' K g7 %,.7Ze;__=- ,
. . , , ,,.7. .. . , .w. . . ry.
,_ ;_ l
;.,..... .s > ..
32 670 -1,' .. . . .
..v't .;.,,; N .L _ . . . .l....-._. 1
.?.,- - . .
ic> sq
..,. ,,, sine APR M A'1 Jos Jut A v e. See Tip El. Pier. t: 60s.5 32= 615.6 31a 622.6 D d..,_44 --
/. ,
E* B P J4 No V Id() R 6. CiG
O,
- w . _ .t.o 4.r
( "' ) *113 b h
- i ; i 9 1 Q.
co ; . e Li. t r s 4 i C w e m, t i .-
, l ,. *
. tv i ! ~
, .. . ;. _ . _ ... - e. .. 4 . . . . -- _ - - . - E -- - ! .
, m
! ; ... o
, j e
g d 1 h
; s'
- p' _. : ... . . . . . l ~. ....a-..
':**g, i
?
- _#~~~- I .ge....
l : I
- p ..* ~ . ,
!,..- f o
- l. .
t 1
! .f r ;
. ,I a
- 1. !
(
/
, L J
o C ' t t 7
,O i i
.p t
- g. 4- ._ . t __ _
. .. . .g
, g
> .I .
l
- ! . 3 7 i I !
.is a
; - ~'
\.iI
.l t i : Ti
- I j l !l,a >'
4
!m
+
o : ! 8 9 i C' 't I 3 e
.d_ _ _ . .
I
$ s;I'
- i l
i !
. . .I t !' '<
,,hut I . i
! i <
i
. i , ,
;_. . . I __ _L s_.q____ _ _ ;-_ . p . N -
', I , .! tT b. . .,
g \ j N ,t., pt
! l .,
j I ! f ! - ..
; I tt l ' -- i V _l. ......__!._..
- 1
, . . s t L b
- t o I
, , C , . I Nmb N
, * .M. ,
sn e' 5d N
'o
., l c.
- i 3 ' 404 I g -+-
s 2; . 3 . ._-: - - t : ! g i I i TMT
; i 4 ,
i { i ne l i
,i
~.
1 g,
}M" 0 '
!. . OI. (f .
i 8
.N.
1 l t
. e L
. . _ _ _ _ _ .- _ , ,- . .. d . . . . . . _ _ 4._ _ _
. ._.}. .,, ,
i . f
- us i a i )
r G.
! o h
c 8 I 6 4 w e ss i lod
.-L M g.n Q
\o o 01
- ._ .t_..
o in o "v " O m I a gn m T T O to N N W a J J J d d O J
C4 O - N en v'- (* NI) '.L LDS w r-- 7,----' i tv*- I ' -~-- - ~ --
--~~-'---*
i f, v l i i 9- : i i r ** =& - t i i es o- .*. di i : - O - i is
'" ,a L
'd 'd ! i ; t
~;l. .~ 4 v.
=
i e g' ' O - 4 D a h I O l l: 1
< Q' i
f - .- . _ . .
. .-.._.v l
. . , ._.. 4_ _ .1.l E, 6
- l '
6
, l e, o.
6 l yl' na t 9\ l l h'frv \() ____1 y .__w.__I ...y....-. .
.3, ,
O _- l. ' i6> f I .._#G ! t
,; r*-
i i y" #
' .r <. ' ' 4' 3
! Ie ; . .
i
-. 3 .;
.t.._. ..;.__..a..-....._.. i 4 . , I
' d i e
' J
! +t ,a '
y- - . i .J d J % ig i ' f i iD l ~ d O .[ gOi f7
- e:.o i , !l ,
G v. P i
.iy _. w - t .a
. . . - . . . ,, + ,t. .p..--.. - ....._a-.
i
<: -o-u . -
Od d l g ,} J l l Ji ' 5 tl 2 i ! i '$ 3 N. l $. s ' 8
'o )
l-j il! j C' j .. 7 _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . . .. . 7 .i, l, m
.l 'g; 'i :
4
. & s l I
>> co I ! . O i: , d. $cc 9
! , 5. N d h: l '
T
,I ; .n..-..-.. . . .
l g c-eCC
) l' - O .
/ ,,,
;; g w -
i
. - <- w sc Al
/.
i -j s N' 4 s .
.3 p aC la O
' N Jk lo(.
i te ,
'f. +' .
p- -. .. ( i i
' i L N
; hy '. ' O Q
,s' 8
- su
! t (( .a uO
) . ......4 . . . . _ . l . . . d_$ _. _. ._p..._..._._.... ..
*' l
.1 I dM o eJ 1
- 4 J 1
l .g l l W - !- 8 ei >' i i ; . 3 , 1) ON i ! 1 . ( 99
}
e i ;
! . N i g
. ~ . . . .
3.--.-._,. ; , 1 : ! 1 I J: - s
! j i i 5.1 I e
.a j ,
- l. i , 1 e ! u.
I i
, P
- I i ,
o e o e o M O g o , -1 3 J O v v (O e4 e, oh3 e a in o e e o o a e a w
Et. ,--- - - - - - - - - - - - - . - g -[- - :- r-- ---------.- _ _ _ -
-O t
i 4 i BA-42 t
- i. 1 , I t.
t
. : ,. t : !
!- .c g, gg- h-- - - - - - -- - --- h - -
1 6 6 0 f ---- -------- I-- . . 4 5, . . 6 l !
, N~~4. 06-16 Cor;racffd ! ,
G55 +- - - ----- - - - - - ~'- -. J--: - - - - i, 1 _ _ - .4 . _ _ _ _ - g i-1 . D G- 16 t j f g . _. _ i G50 --- 1 . ii ~ 3 idealized Surcharge 1 'L
, l j i
' i
! i ; .
I, 645!i 4
---j -
,4.
i. i Da4 , 10 0 P2 S.14.f. i8 e*
} 6 6 4 0 --- --- l -- - - - - -
-----------l-------l-------- - - - - - - -
-42 - v
; i i .
' i i* ; i I .
, .e .
. . a i
1 . 3 5
- i .
630 - i,
- -d --
I ----- - - t - - --- - r -
- -f j_
I !, I . Fbnci) : , !
.------ha-Y..-----__,--------.-..:. n ..
" ~ ~ ~ ~ ' *~L
* -t --
. . .- - - - ~ ' - , _ p . - -- - - --e " - ; w
--,..e*j-6'26 g-t - ~
- 6 9 ...
...r j
. . . .g . . . .-
-- ~
-Qf---- .I4,g Q< c . - . _ __ _ _ . .
Dec Jpa pg5 vlAe Aps' yl o-( Jow Jut Av6 sep t o; 79 Tip E l. Piez b 608.s _ _ _ . _ 14 6 l'2.5 to 6: ( 16.6 h6.i.-es J958 ew Al t.* v ** Fis, c 13
Et. ~ 1 --- - ' ' T
' ' ' ' ~ '
'O l i
~ ii ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ /"- .
I-a
, I .
an.ci j ,
! 1 66.o - -
-F - - , 4-
- "- - -+- - - - - - -
----- I 2____ ._,._ i
- , I : ,
3 ; - t t r t i
....q.._'
4 g% _. . . . - . . . {. . , , .
., .. {
i . . . I : : , , i I ' i
.23
--- W . ,, - } ~ ~ ~ iT~j:~~ .
GSO - - } -- - - -
- - ---- - - -- (- ~ ~ -4 f
f
' os-is ,
{ :
- Lidealizect Surcharge 1* .
i i
. g .
&hGlt - f- ~ -
0- -
,, ~ ~ <
y .. .
. . . ~ .
g , 3
! Dag 100 : !
1 i i ,- I. 'P2-38,1,37: G4o' I- -
- ~
!i -
i- !- : i, l-I ! s.- i.. - iz I i -g a j e 635 : - - - - - !- i t -- i !
'hs- I'i --t I'
+t ,.o, e ,
i i *
; ; 1 i t-
^
~
, J '
- ;. ,, i ! ui v .-
! ,h .
I ?
'm g._.
g . . .--6 . ..
..f...... .. ! 4 o . . - . . . . . _ . . ..
,. ,, } . s. .
3 4 , - g j'
,o . j s. . _ 2. a . .=. ....:.-x..... -~ +- -. ., ,
-p.ong ,
t p*. m.2 .;.
~. -
m -n, M*( - T~":-
- , , . . _ . . . . * . . . _ , - yr
__..* ? - x[
~
62C , ..', ; ys ?"~~~- , _
- f. Q . ;,;.. .
.x .
as ..'
.j ' -
s 4.~.... v , O_. .. .
. _ . / .. : .-.-- - -. . .. ~... s. .z l. .. .......~.
DE(. JAN FE.8 tilAe ape MAY. JUN JUL A 06, SEP 1979 Y
.)
- Tip El. nez 38- solo ~
~
, is (,1 l. s / -
, *^., ~7 c (, t 8. *1 w a
>'s i
ggg -
- - - J --- oa:.ieg,f e rep
- .4%vSO p gg
. .s -
i .s - s . g ss%
/
D o
,....r...,
- N
. m . .. e .
(-
.'Nt)*1.L3C _ -
g . . to.
- O 3
- I . .,. ~g e.
T s ' en i T. I: I g- 1.L (.I
- q '
,. . w a
Q o O
. ,. . . 1 .
IL (SJ
!., g
- i. a, .
}'. ,4 .~
1 ' 1 j ! 3 'h ; e
", I
'-l- 1
?
i Ts' 1 ; 4.
; ; 4 cl 1 i tu i
- I ,
d ', ,3 $@ t . . . :
~
~
I
"[' { ,
(h Li .- i . c > [. ,;,r- o 1 ,
; f a
} A t
s .
- - - . -: - -i, - - -:. }i
. : / '
i 9 l 1
.i
, c ! .,,,,h
' ~
> l '
<\ J V/ .3
; 3 E 1
< O l l . t >
. ~l' st
- g. .. .
i
* - .- f i -
. . . - . . _l - .#
- j:/
t s i 2 l
. ./-(:
i . .m o I ". I
.. ._ .- .. . ... . . . _ . - . _. tg. .
f*
~
i i y o );; ~}-
> o ,. .<
' I" 2 l .)
. .. . . ..{,t ';
, . _ . . -....? .
7
.-.q t 2 De *<
I , i a) f :
/*
/ !
C' ! Of
!L
;/ >
,.,b,' .(
. ._ ._i.. _.
i
'.. g _ . . . -
. l \ i 1 !
h, ' l j-
'h lq
, e L
1
,s
./ , !<
v I U e L. :E A - ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - ~ b.
, . . . _ . . . .~u e-
\ % l .-
/ '
3 .
, 10 to. ga. t.s m 4
.m 4 tv 80 e ' ' u_
. t 7~~
. in 4 o
.. . _ - _ . _.a ;
i L i O , C I .. 1 88 si se
! J .J3 - 80 1
< -v i
i i f > : U-i m u
..- .-. -.-...,! _.3..--.___
i
,..-L-., . .s_.._ t. - I
{
. i - ..
i
' i '
I e c 1 W i l. . s 5
, ; lt . e a.
\
w i-
.Q r e" t w
ed:y 8 ' 9Cah4
- l. _. _ .. _. .~.
3 0 % O O O m O o M N o u; o e m W T (" N O O O O O d O 4, O
o B __.._._o... . w Qu._n .u.a s (, o i
.i 6 a'i9 li f ; ,II a.
- e. *'
i :e ~ o m y
- o. , .a ,
. g 9-- . . . -,
j I..i 8 I
! l k i ' :lj// l l iW
,D
! P t
, . g J
' Ll7
~ ~ _ _
f 7 I g,___._. ,
<~ j !
> '. 7 ,j @ TI '. > J C'
, o h,J(i
- /\
." f Iei I l ^2
' l . ,o I
l ,i
' I . , 1.._
, , i
'i i 's >
o i ( o e 1 i g 2 v . I
. .. . _ . . . .. . u . .. -
....w-.,.
O I /
, \ l &
e e
, n.
N
'1
-{o , .I fi e O
- 3 L r ,4 C I g 1 . (.g_
l
. .2. u .. . .
a . 9, W '
'N { \,
1 l ! t W O ') '\ U. U. N j '
~
! EI
,O 4,.
.}_' .i oO~a i 1 l' .. "
i eO
' I
. e N
\ l M
- - -. _. .--.. .. ... e . .
.[ ,
\
.' i t
i
,) . >
W i , j [ d# 0 i i i i g 2
- i. .. . . _ . . .._. .. _ . . _ _ . . . .
O u o to o to o tn o a.a 5 8 G la to v T M to N tv $d a' W G J $4 @ 4 G G 4 @ f u) D.
3 0 i 2 3 4 c2 %
*o 9# 3 lI
!,i ;
O gd
; 'T: ' '
ti ' i
,, l y
,ja,i 8nl (,.
( 9 1 i f n %. 7 - G 9 _ D' g' 1 j;- ,i 1,;.i: iIi,.q . _
- - P
. L-E
- -S t' ;i i;
,,t' , e
- ! ,+ j;\ ' .i
- c. ; ; ;- -
- .i1 I ! \ \ _-
6 3i\ 'k._ 0
. -A
't
_I: ! ii...-_ _l- _G a t
- _p ,
___~s s t
.A - '
u 6 4 *~ J
.S 0: D _
3 l e v , . . ; 7I
- n....:
o ..
. - P.
w 9*'
. u J
.s _
i
-P' ! i : ;
1
~. " Y A
m' o 4 s_ a..N
. . , . i ,l M
, _ , D r
_ . = s os._S _.., E
.- N ,
P N
._n-A s --
,: t
.t
- ; ,! . ;lf!^
.'Ij .
e A
, 2_
- s, M e
, e;. - ,
g r
/
/'
~
.3_
_ a / hc t
.. e
.. o r e u
.F 5. ci 1
5 . .. _ . - 2 60 l.:.
- 6 d
e : : yi. - i z . 3 5 l . 3 3
~ n..
a. e d t
,-it i I
, ye L_.
P i e
.. o, _ up
- . i T
o
. 3
- - - -* 7 g 5 0 G 0 5 0 gP n g ec.too
,5c g
- 1. g 5 5 4 4 3 3
[ g 6 6 (o 6 6 6 (o 1 !
<1 , <' i '
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AU6 SEP 19 79
-r- - ~~
'O i
i i
'l
- h. .
fNoeTH ace 'k. .....-,.....f E4 ; 22f /*' . /f -}
} ,- g
-.-_,2__..~
....... ... ...-.. ...._, ................. ,.k=.I g.- .C .
i i _ u---.+- 0 , , ; t' i2
'%g l 24 25 26 8.' 2s
.u w
t e . . - ..
%. _ os -1s- L 3
1 ~ s- . Id l i. . , . 3 g3.__. 1 SOUTH FACE .
. zt 1: 20
' p I i
. t r-22. -
3 __
~u<4:.2 :t- f...#" t
" '
- ts - - - ;"
- ^ *
- , - . ; u - -+-=.t.iaus=j:rg p*..--- -g-a --
-0 l
f . 3 23 .i - 2 -. [ WEST FACE _ y - > 2
. 1 s .
I ' i i . t- c. ! f, 3 i 1 7 O i--- t Mh l k i
~ , ".] l i g
N,s ' ' {- I h1 EAST Fact
%s'y i 28
=- __......_. #
i i o 2 ;; ' - ' I i
=**- I t
- ~~"'
. 4 - _ _ _ , _ _
- p - T*-'
~~ - .
. /
SET TLEMENT OF D60
,9g BUILDING S ETT L E M E NT hAARKERS .
W .. FIG.CIS
O 3 ; , , , n
}
! . i i <
t I ; o i l l
-. , . g 3 '
- w g !
i
!. (4 3,
l 7 l , . O
. t 5 g --
t j ~ o S ETT LEMEtJT us
' ~~
l [ [ 1 . M, i lo i
~' -
a t, - 660 O i I D E A'U 2. E D SURCHAQC.C lbAD z . C ' t i l i : t- i
- t
- i g . _ . . .
640 1 / . ! ( u,
/ l I
; i.
D i l 1 l l l 62o DEC J A h! FEB MIAR APR M AY J U Nt Jul Au6 SEP 19 '79 PLAN z4 zs zp e7 r,s AVERAGE SETTLEM ENT 06-23 i-
.m PERIMETE R REFEREWC E PotNTS DIESEL GEt4ERATOR BUILDIM6 I 22 28 2o 3 J%8 'lf :.. ..
ns. c m
g-_ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ . . . , .. _ . . _ . . . . . . .. .. _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . . - - - . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ , N i e n
~
i { i i o j - S ETTLEM ENT! ,
. ! ,N
}i_...._._..._____ _
(J i l-I $
! 5 g l
'. O ha u .
a I l J
?
i i W 3r ' --- -- , - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - MO C 5 h
]7 tIDEAll7ED SURCHARGE LO/s0 ,a _ .. . . . .
640 5 . ut ! la
<n
_ ..__I_ .l___i i I . .l. 1 I. _ . . , . . . . l . . . ._ . . _.. l . . . _1. . . l .. I . l L.. l. .-. I .. _ _l.. _ L._.L_._.I. I .1 .I 620 l I to 10 0 1000 TI M E (. DAvs) DAY l = 2.6 J AW 19~19 AVERA6E SETTLEMENT PEEIMETE R REFE 52CNcc PotNT5 g,g D)ESEL 6ENER.AToe SUILDING tee 2SJ " 81 Ft6. c 2O
g* 7
/* ~; .
i M, I : .!, O' 4l c i
'c C* g- k. iP LI."
w . *- j c* P N i ti .- l c- -__.O.._._._.. . . . . _ . - (;s,y ._ _ [ -~. 3 e !2 : :l se
*O A e ll ms 4 1.* / @
O ILy 3
*J
, _ . . . . _ . . - . . . . &,. . - . ..~..-4.. ,
.g c t.
l w [ $ b >2. e b,, .Iw- .' ;e a3 I
+q e l
+
*=
r0 ,
, I'
.e M Y4 & g a .. -. ... . . . .
! \. i
$ !las E5 ) 2[
g mc - 6 l,. d. 1I b.}I I . a. C3 f 7 i in io s . v jr C j 8
.,{.. . . . .
i ,e : , I 1.li i < l F l
*2 4 !O
- i * *: - *"7
$ Pit rW ! y s8* '
! n. a h- : i j 4 .a e *- .._..+......t.__._..I
, f.( .
9 . . l ' i e: , i, l . e .: ,I i i !
'g ')
' l i i: ><
f l } l'. . l, i. s - .. . .~..._...p.._..4
,1* .
- V. '*
l
- r 8 8 d 1
i ,
!' t *vs'; i
- 4 t
l . *s L . _. _ ; _. - L .__{.--.... -* _' ,
- _
i : i.
- g' l : \ . El
, x b i 2
e i t i ! N. .s-t .. . . . . . . .a .
' g i ; i : ,. . r,.
4 , 0 [ f
- ; I .
l L - I w
~
* ; LL i
l f
- i l l ! I 1
_ . ' . _ . ._ .. . 4 - _ _ . . . . . . . _.. ., .,.. . . p _ _ , __ . ,,%i : - j - l' . { I . s. I i
' l
\I, I
, i , s.;
i l i i i ;' n: ,
, . ! . ,1 it
. * \i is i i i l
' I
~
'*~
l ...l_.__.. .......-_4__i \ _ _7 d ' /i i Yst g i e'8 . i l
* ; , *-L!
l ' *g N l \ o
. ~
o__ -_..1_ . _ _ - . . - . . . _ -_. o u o w o % o m o di a,,,
; w w n n w w u o ca w a S S 4 '
J 4 4 4 4 @
i I ( PiezGN1ETEtc LEvrts
~lJVN l 9 7 8) l 26.3 'ndicc+ 3 pin. level of b2k3 l
Cata from observohon w alls anet pie wmeters E N 8 g 8 4 8 s 3 O as y 6 w sJ
+ 4- t 4- -l- -t- $ 440 C 4
/ / J / /_ - - - - -
[f f -~ //////////
/ // / / / I ' f f fli i / f f / / / s.
O ooo g-E pra +~e k av-. S, ^*.2. ^ %"I [ V
. ew.c 26.'4 24.6
- s. s$
k AS-8 249 0 /, j -i [ .Q -l-S 4SCO E
- As t
! 2Ti2 ,
p i i 3-h 5W-4
,1- 5*-7 S a-s t6.9 + s 50o0 2M. \,
0"1 3 * *'
< . g s.6
? ,,- - - terr 71 h D.6.BldQh (,25tl l e,,.......s 9
, (Over 7.0 pktometers) , , , g4 C6 M'let I/ as.s s '
-). Qo ,,g_gg7,o
, f2 6192 46 P2- q 25T2s.2
"+
g l'I' " lltl51' O 'lIl8111 4 +3 y ,, ASB lua Fio. C 12 1pheb
.-T eJ 9
U ' e e c2 Y h-y)k< d b k <
,. e ___
,. ; 1 . -
. 4 e S. 4
- ll <
a l s' 1 .- i 1. a 5 l ,' 0! L.- . ._ - _ . [ . [.,, /, .. s - ( 'S
- ti i /
E I O
~
l-W
\ 1 . -
l- tal f 4 i
>I 1 g M
=4 I . . _ _ . ./ 1...,_._
g W e a
. gg s
a 's . j .. ~.J g}
's \*
J 7 Q
* '. }
'e e a
'a
- _ e..,....
g
. . 1 . s ,,
l
\
\
}
I [J s i i ,/
\ \ .
. g g, 4
, I ,
e s i I < s ~7 j #
}
_ h, - E qe w + I' g ,Q < U s,** a T ,d n'
,"t ,
' 0,'
<,
- e a s g r
A
}
\ -. . - - - x [~~.. - R.
< a, i.s .. *v
=
<< s '
3 < n Ci M 4 . I I Cd al 11 2 4. e =4
- I e
d i W j i O , e ! l l l 6 it i i L. _ __ J i . _. 4 . ..a ~ 4 1. V o V) O M g g O ep a,, s > N s s $ W
- s Y hi L . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ ..__ _.._______. ..,_ _..___ _ ._ _ _ . -- ,_ _ . _ . - _ , . _ . _ . .
m
~
b Y U$ g en - C
>= i:i '..
e< < < nw I ! O s ., a
, J 1
s g ,# y w r
/ 'L e'
{j 3
\
7 N
/ t *,
e --
. E i O
e
*~ ; e a
- l-S 4 I v
. F
( y W
- e
\
_ > I
, 'e -
Of VI o w k e# -- b)
~.
r h :, e
. O 2
! I, '. . .
' 3
[+,i s' h a I I
- 2 l g I
,l ;
l l J, t lI 7 l' l Ti i 1, i f 5 ., c l
- C (
o , 5 M N.. i : t
'i
\ \ . . . _
3 . u i .
-e.
li a
- y 1 . . _
3 e i4 3 5 2 a C J , w g g
~
C C a W D 6 ef , en
- e 3
'l C, y
V e O
- 3 O
';.c r i m a
u o o ,#ol se v c vi o o w w ,eo 'e"
- N ,c u <~
_; en N w y o o ,3 .5r -S y a f., a 3
i
* - . k 6 2
q C. j 6t l 7-- n ni f Wh 5
' 2 eu 1 2 3 g
- _ 6 _.
. e L- s
(\ -
- s.
t
. i l t
1 - G e
/
- A / .- .
f
,, W f, i s _.. .
D ., i
\
v 3
/ w
. g. . i - .+
oT i E T E I
+
#, A vH
=
t u aS E _ J
- c
- s O
- - N u
J
* ,- - t e - , ? n os-ni pe- .
- l
- ~
i I t 9 et-e H 4
.{
S I- - 6 ~
~
Y
*L N ?
C
- ' P
' A
- 3' 9
-_ 7 -
- (' ,!
~
f, C e .
'e l N'
,l e
E
'F 3 3 , ,'
(,
. 1 0
- 6
- 5 1 %
- N A
_ 6 l G J _l E L
- E
_ ,' in* e
- l. ,i l6t n ':
e e _. r e ~
- S c .
- r c c
. S
- I N
l w . L 'n
) -
_S .
- C -
'r e
T - F p g s *[ o e , , g
!e {
y 0
; it g 2
( ePr c ( 5 et E L 3 6 g [p g 3 (c a t g (o l b 3 b w [r m R 'v ' ii ; ,' } l
;!i.I. , i , i i1i; .i ' ,! < 5 :'! -
N S
'" ~
E t..(FTT o ci s
-bbD
.. o,. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..
.., .,. *e .*, ' *. .*** . . . '.. , , . .. .', . ' , *
- 640 [,,; . j . *.,' . ,,,,,.., *
- l . , ',_ , ' , ,.
. , . , PD-19 pg g
- r - "
4, sw C**C x -. Nad r,H et
- 620 c, {", o ct sw ct se CL M PE-e o siltySenJ sgo
>m :
J: ~ I
' ~ p Af- ,- Pt.17 6 5 4 CIe~
q _g GP Sr.3tt 06-t8 1 _s.t __ _ _ _ , _ _ __ _ __ ct ct , et c t.
-5go 10 0 50 0 Ero too 15 0 2oo Di st. ( FT) Toe of dike abt '240 0+ -+-
I APPL 2OKgMATC NoeTH - sooth StcT tow ) N EAlt WEST EMO OF D. 6 BLOG sgowing RELATIDW TO P 2 17 ^wo is JMr EeP 3 0 \'r e 'd D Fi6. C2f.
[ ] Piez.teps below El. 597 2 s.s
~
--, MI
- -=1 1 -
s i M1 , bel la1 10 ,
,tal c_ ; - ,i t,,a i ,
iaO , e- - / hl' -f, M
,- - - - - ,I l '
,-.-- 9 s
/i i
, i lf- l l i
' I / i / '
l ig i
- l. l i\
i s l i - /li 1 i
/ !
', c. '
ts.4 - 25 4 . i , l l i I {2><3 e 3 l i l i i in > i i i ( l.-w4 y a4
/
J/J '----~" 1 t _ _ _.i d C '- -- ' D l'--- a u u - w
/
,. -a
'Ft- r.2 s__ - , _ gg. , _ .7,gG Piez. Tips between Els. Goo old 610 '
25 6
--i $ 3 l D b-
[-V-Il,_j - ii il / i" li il . l' 'I J 0
%.q '
2l;.$,
;_ _ q p-., r- - - - - .i .--_-i i
i ; - i- ;
; l I l I l l 1 1 ,
l i I I I e i e i l i i i I i 1 i
' l l15.s l l l l l 15 5 l , e i i 1 25 s n .e I i I 12T*'I i l t I ! I ,
I s l I y l 1 8
- q t _ _ _ _I --
- - , _ ; q_--
/ t T
_l I _, t_J 4-.J 8-foh 1 15 1. l 1.1*3 I Piez. Tips between Els. 610 and GIS l Ponct E l.= r,2 7 l PIEzoME TRt C LEVEL 5 I JUN 19 19 L se, D. 6. B. Fic,.cr7 h4 ,,.,
__, m m _ m\ \ s g ,9 l I' '! 1 I [! i ,I ti 0! U !
- 25 1 . .
r--- . i , r-- . i i
=
i i l i i l l i I I i ' i e , l l I I I is(.} '
, tf.*I ', 5, y %, .
s / i ' lM !
, l l 26 i I i i i / i z>s ny L _ __ J L _ _ _ _i gt_ _ _ .; __0 n.3]
- u j m j
5 uj$ y Piez.Tip s above Ei. 618 Ponci El. = ( ?7 25 3 andicater, p'iez, level of 62 C.3 a4 locc+ ion of dscimal point 4 PiezoueTec LEVELS t Jow 1979 D. G. t3. - asse
$huws 63 VIG.CI0
Dec JAu Fa0 MAC _ . , A PO MAY JuN 1319
, . _ - . ~ .-
b25" .,,, -^ \ t . wm f 4, , _ - -- - u uu a%g
,,-n-
's' W 6 '2 0 - ,,- ( .0G-23 pg.4e, i
G 15 .. - p pa . - - - . - . . . . n- - a - * *- j p.-- .#*pe - , v ld e,s* ' _ __ m. , uww [ [ d i w W LM b kkk h b Q Q Q (\
,7 ' ' cef,ps.9) PZ-25
- 62o - . . . . - . .
w w' d fo l $ -- .- _ .- . . . . . __. . . , o_ of F u fp 3 0 r -
- - - - - ~ - - - - - - ' - -- - - - - - ^ - - - - ' ~
---~---------t E -
o .- - - .-
~
y g g$ -. ,. ~ *
- ' f., ,
2
*_ u .
(- (d.os-19
'~~
- - - _, m w.2
+
pg.27 : h20 ' - i i
' l- --------'--------------
GI5
- O r-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
e l . _ _ . . . .__ . . _ . . . - . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ z
.~,s tu , . 2S
- E i i$
tu s 3 .. . . F F . vi j 4 ___._..__ i . l. _.____' . . . _ _ . . ..
' se E" Esc.ce s Pont Pats s u ets 3 TypicoL Sn A L t.cw R E::.o M e.i ER3 Fi6, c 2 9
I ct.u sT a e N o.
- 2. 3 4 s c. 7 8 9 to ;
I I I I I I I I I 630 - P2Z n P25 Pil ; Pl9 -- T *' 7 T 2 P 6.3 h -% 44 g 15.3 643 "(8.@_ sa
-- - - s4y .(4,Q--ew g 16. 4 B122
~~
(d'8I'8h N i
'his e
foto-
,e* d b W u b
s4o - [--ew I h., ,
, k'h s'gi 2F 'I M 822 -(2.# -910 ---I h 668 '3' 6te h
i - - - ets - r u. eo-e4 -
.ss at @ @ g
,,, e4(, "
as1 -
, , e.L M azi H 69 -
f (0.Q - y . tu 600 - s49- ; b f G v est. J 590 - P = 5e441emen+ Pla+e e.: Sorece Ancher- aE2 I st1 J: e e g e p O s+c;wn .is's .-;ide, ver+ica in+,~a semc m re- e re n c e points g g ( ) S4 rain overaceo cver 4wc intervals betwccr. LOCATION OF Ct.UST E R$ reference points DCCoure of susogCi redding I
" Lost rdq on Borros Anchers of Clustu 4 on 22 N1frch,. Vabes CompAetsow or STG Ai u S increased bu ratio or se tt fe-ment of P2.1 'si AuS /tr hur ELEV5. 622- fo ZS ( Appeox.') vs. (al5 -lo 7 2 ( ^0300 * -
angg (- 2 7.-7 9 To 8 -t S -7 c) ceo taan ti b 4Jeait Fi6.cso
i l
- APPENDIX D -
Table 3.10 Comparison of Piezometer Plots Piez. No. Plots by Peck Plots by Lenzini PZ-1 Smooth decline after Drop of abt 1 1/2 ft be-early Aug fore 24 Aug and recovery by 29 Aug. No rdgs 17-23 l Aug l PZ-2 Slight decline during and 5-ft drop and rise between after surcharge removal 15 and 24 Aug PZ-3 No modifications except... No rdgs 17-23 Aug PZ-4 Slight decline mid-Aug to 4-ft drop and rise between 1 Sept 15 and 23 Aug l PZ-5 Small dip during period No edgs 16-23 Aug of load renoval l PZ-6 Small dip during period No rdgs 16-23 Aug of load removal i PZ-7 Minor variations (abt 1 5-f t drop and rise tetween ft) between 7 and 29 Aug 16 and 24 Aug , PZ-8 Not plotted, poor seal 6-ft drop and rise between ! suspected 16 and 24 Aug i l PZ-9 Minor variations (abt 1 8-f t drop and rise between ft) between 7 and 29 Aug 15 and 24 Aug PZ-10 Little change last half 3.5-ft drop and rise be- , Aug twacn 15 and 24 Aug PZ-12 No modifications except... No rdgs 17-23 Aug l PZ-13 Slight declins mid-Aug to 4.5-ft drop and rise be-l 1 Sept tween 15 and 24 Aug 1 _ _ . _ - . , , - - , - _.y _ __ . -- ._~ , ,
l i Table 3.10 (Continued) i Piaz. No. Plots by Peck Plots by Lenzini PZ-14 Slight decline last half No rdgs 16-23 Aug Aug PZ-15 3-ft drop 15-24 Aug 12-ft drop between 15 and 20 Aug, 9-ft rise by 25 l Aug, inoperable after 29 Aug PZ-16 Slight declins last half No rdgs 17-23 Aug. Next Aug two rdgs higher than on plot by Peck PZ-17 Small drop and rise last 8-f t drop and rise between half Aug 15 and 25 Aug PZ-18 Small dip during period 6-ft drop and rise between of load removal 15 and 25 Aug PZ-20 No modifications l PZ-21 Drop of abt 3 ft after 15 No rdgs 16-23 Aug. Grad-Aug and remained at that ual decline 24 Aug to abt level thru Oct El 623 by 27 Sept PZ-22 Linear drop of abt 7 ft No rdgs 1 Aug-19 Aug, risa j between 31 Jul and 20 Aug, to abt El 621 on 24 Aug, rise to abt El 621 on 24 continued rise to abt El Aug, sharp drop there- 622 on 29 Aug, inoperable after thereafter ( PZ-23 No modification except... Inoperable 18-24 Aug and i 24 Aug-12 Sept, but one reading on 24 Aug PZ-24 No record after 30 Mar No record after 28 Mar. PZ-25 No modifications except... No cdgs 18-23 Aug PZ-26 No modifications except... No rdgs 18-23 Aug
l l l Table 3.10 (Continued) ! Piez. No. Plots by Peck Plots by Lenzini l PZ-27 Plot ends 16 Aug Dip to abt El 616 on 22 Aug, rise to abt El 624.5 ( on 29 Aug, decline of abt ! 2 ft by 27 Sept ! PZ-29 Rise of abt 2.5 ft be- Dip of abt 5 ft between ! tween 16 and 24 Aug 16 and 22 Aug followed by rise of abt 7.5 ft by 24 Aug PZ-30 Not plotted, poor seal No rdgs 18-29 Aug suspected PZ-31 No mcdifications except... No rdgs 16-23 Aug PZ-32 No modifications except... Shows 6-ft spike on 13 Mar PZ-33 No modifications except... Dip and rise of abt 4 ft/ 3 ft between 15 and 25 Aug I PZ-34 No modifications except... Dip and rise of abt 3 ft/ l 4 ft between 15 and 24 l l Aug l l PZ-35 No modifications except... No rdgs 16-24 Aug PZ-36 No modificaticna except... Dip and rise of abt 2.5 ft/2 ft between 7 and 29 Aug l PZ-37 No modifications except... No rdgs 17-23 Aug PZ-38 No modifications PZ-39 Abt 1-ft decline last Abt 6.5-ft drop between 15 half Aug and 20 Aug, and rise to abt El 623 by 29 Aug. No rdgs 21-28 Aug l
Table 3.10 (Continued) Piez. No'. Plots by Peck Plots by Lenzini PZ-40 Dip of abt 4.5 ft approx Gradual decline thru Aug 25 Aug, rise by 31 Aug to and Sept to El 623.5. No abt El 626, 2-week decline rdgs 19-23 Aug to abt El 622, maintained last half Sept. PZ-41 No modifications except... No rdgs 17-28 Aug PZ-42 No modificaticns except... No rdgs 16-23 Aug PZ-43 No modifications except. . . No rdgs 18-23 Aug
~
PZ-44 No modifications PZ-47 No modifications except... No rdgs 18-23 Aug PZ-48 No modifications excspt... No rdgs 18-23 Aug
Arram1x r bR g,,Ste*= S""' Woodward Clyde Consultants Chicago, litinois 60603 312 939-1000 Telex 253875 (WOODWARD CGO) FtNAL ESTIMATES OF MAXIMUM PAST CONSOLIDATION PRESSURE OF C0HESIVE FILL MATERIALS DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING MIDLAND PLANT - UNITS 1 and 2 MIDLAND, MICHIGAN for Consirners Power Company & 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan by e ames W. Stenborg and Larry M. Campbell 22 July 1981 81C217 Consulting Engineers. Geologists and Envirormental Scientists 4 Offices in Other Pnncipal Cities
Ul"'#*'" S""' Woodward Clyde Consultants Chicago, !!hnois 60603 312 939 1000 Telex 253875 (WOODWARD CGO) 22 July 1981 81C217-4 Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road ' Jackson, Michigan 49201 Attention: Dr. T.R. Thiruvengadam Section Head - Civil Engineering Mail Code F-14-400
Subject:
Estimates of Maximum Past Consolidation Pressure Of Cohesive Fill Materials Diesel Generator Building Midland Plant - Units 1 and 2 Midland, Michigan Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is our report dated 22 July 1981 entitled the same as the subject of this letter. This report presents estimates of the maximum past consolidation pressure of cohesive fill materials from the vicinity of the Diesel Generator Building as determined from the results of laboratory censolidation tests. This report supersedes our previoJs draft report on this topic which was issued on 14 July 1981 for review by CPCo, Becntel, WCC, and the consultants, Dr. Peck and Dr. Hendron. Comments from Dr. Peck and - personnel of CPCo and WCC have been received and incorporated in this report. Very truly yours, f@$ Larry'M. Campbel Project Manager LMC/bfc Enclosure cc: Mr. N. Ramanujam (2 copies) Mr. T.C. Cooke/D.S. Sibbald Dr. R.B. Peck Dr. A.J. Hendron, Jr. Dr. S.S. Afifi, Bechtel Mr. A.J. Boos, Bechtel Dr. H.M. Horn, WCC Mr. R.S. Ladd, WCC Mr. D.M. Hendron, WCC Consultmg Engineers GeNogists anc Environmental sc entists AIb)b off:ces m other Pnncipal Cit.es
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
- 1. INTRODUCTION 1
- 2. DATA SOURCES 1
- 3. DATA PREPARATION 2
- 4. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE 3 4.1 Casagrande Technique 3 4.2 Other Techniques 3
- 5. DATA PRESENTATION 4
- 6. CONCLUSIONS 4
- 7. REFERENCES 6 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Index Properties of Consolidation Test Specimens, Tested by WCC in 1981 Table 2 Index Properties of Consolidation Test Specimens, Tested by GZD in 1978 Table 3 Estimates of Maximum Past Consolidation Pressure, p'c From Consolidation Tests by WCC in 1981 Table 4 Estimates of Maximum Past Censolidetion Pressure, p*c i From Consolidation Tests by GZD in 1978 LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1 Boring Location Plan (WCC), Borings Drilled in 1981
, Fig. 2 Boring Location Plan (GZD), Borings Drilled in 1978 Fig. 3 Estimates of Maximum Past Consolidation Pressure From Tests by GZD and WCC (For Maximum Test Load of 16 tsf) Fig. 4 Estimates of Maximum Past Consolidation Pressure From Tests by WCC (For Maximum Test Load of 64 tsf) LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Consolidation Test Results, Tested by WCC in 1981 Appendix B Consolidation Test Results, Tested by GZD in 1978
. Strain-log p' plots (by WCC from GZD data)
. Void ratio-log p' plots (original GZD data)
Woodward Cligie Consultants
- 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents estimates of the maximum past consolidation pressure cf cohesive fill materials obtained at the Diesel Generator Building (DGB) at Consumers Power Company (CPCo) Midland Plant - Units 1 and 2.
Estimates of maximum past consolidation pressure (p') were determined from the results of laboratory tests performed on specimens of cohesive fill materials obtained using undisturbed sampling techniques. These specimens were tested in 1981 by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) and in 1978 by Goldberg, Zoino, Dunnicliff & Associates, Inc. (GZD). The samples tested by GZD were obtained prior to the surcharge program fer the DGB, while those tested by WCC were obtained after the surcharge program had been completed. Estimates of maximum past consolidation pressure was determined from one-dimensional consolidation test results by using the Casagrande (1936) graphical lechnique. The applicability of other techniques (Janbu,1969; Schmertmann, ' 1955) was also investigated.
- 2. DATA SOURCES Test results from 27 one-dimensional consolidation tests performed by WCC.
were obtained from Appendix E of a report (WCC,1981) to CPCo concerning the test results of the Soil Boring and Testing Program for the DGB. These tests ,,ere performed on specimens of cohesive fill samples obtained above el. 600 from seven borings located outside of the DGB, but inside the crest of the surcharge fill, as shown on Fig.1. At the time the borings were drilled, the ground surface was at approximate el. 634. Index properties of these WCC test specimens are pre-sented in the order of decreasing elevation in Table 1. Test results from 14 one-dimensional consolidation tests performed by GZD were obtained from a report to Bechtel prepared by GZD (1980). These tests were performed on specimens of cohesive fill samples obtained above el. 600 from nine Woodward Clyde Consultants
2 borings located inside and one boring (DG-7) located outside of the foundation area of the DGB, as shown on Fig. 2. As recorded on the boring logs (CPCo,1980), the ground surface at the time the borings were drilled was at approximate el. 628 for the interior borings and approximate el. 631 for boring DG-7. Index properties of these GZD test specimens are presented in the order of decreasing elevation in Table 2.
- 3. DATA PREPARATION The data used to estimate maximum past consolidation pressure were all presented as volumetric strain (cy) plotted vs the logarithm of applied pressure (logp'). The shape of the compression curve on a strain-log p' plot is the same as that on a plot of void ratio (e) vs 100 of pressure (e-log p') because the ordinates (cy and e) are proportional. The strain-log p' form of presentation, therefore, is equally applicable for determining various consolidation charac-teristics such as compression indices and maximum past consolidation pressure.
The WCC data were preserted in the forre of strain-log p' plots. Therefore, they were used directly for the determination of maximum past consolidation pressure. Copies of the WCC consolidation data are presented in boring / sample-number order in Appendix A. The GZD data, however, were presented in the form of e-log p' plots. From these data, we estimated the value of the void ratio at each load by scaling directly from the plots. The initial void ratio (e ) gand the scaled void ratio for each test load were used to calculate the volumetric strain by dividing the change in void ratio (eg - e) by the quantity (1 + eg ). The resulting values were then plotted on strain-log p' plots, as had been done for the WCC data. Copies of the transformed (strain-l'og p') and original (e-log p') GZD compression curves are presented in boring / sample-number order in Appendix B. Woodward Clyde Consultants
3
- 4. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE 4.1 Casegrande Technique Estimates of the maximum past consolidation pressure were made using the Casagrande graphical technique for each of the 27 WCC and 14 GZD consolidation test results. In an effort to assess the levei of unccccainty inherent in performing this construction (resulting primarily from the selection of the point of maximum curvature of the compression curve), we have utilized the estimates made by three geotechnical engineers, each working independently of the others. Each engineer was instructed to review the Casagrande technique and to provide his/her best estimate of the maximum past consolidation pressure utilizing this technique and the consolidation test results provided (as in Apcendices A and B).
For the WCC data, two estinates of maximun past consolidation pressure were made by each engineer. One estimate was made assuming that the maximum test load on the specimen was 16 tons per square foot (tsf), the same as had been used in the GZD testing; the engineers, therefore, disregarded the test data at pressures greater than 16 tsf. The other estimate, however, was made utilizing the entire comoression curve to the maximum test load of 64 tsf. 4.2 Other Techniques istimates of maximum past consolidation pressures were also made using other techniques. Using the WCC data only, six tests were evaluated using a technique described by Janbu (1969) and four tests were evaluated using a tech-nique proposed by Schmertmann (1955). For the test results evaluated, these techniques were judged to be not applicable. The test data evaluated did not exhibit the characteristic shape (form) described by Janbu. For the test data evaluated by the Schmertmann technique, the resulting curves of " void-ratio reduction" were all quite symetrical and did not, therefore, provide a definitive estimate of the maximum past consolidation pressure. Evaluation of additional test data using these techniques, therefore, was discontinued. Woodward Clyde Consultants
4 l l
- 5. DATA PRESENTATION !
The estimates of the maximum past consolidation pressure are summarized for the WCC and GZD data in Tables 3 and 4, respectively, in the order of decreasing elevation of the specimens. For each test, the estimated value of the maximum past consolidation pressure by each engineer is tabulated, as is the average of these three estimates. For the WCC data, the three estimates and the average are presented in Table 3 for both conditions of maximum load of 16 tsf and of 64 tsf. - The estimates of the maximum past contolidation pressure from the WCC and GZD test results are presented graphically on Fig. 3 for the condition of maximum load of 16 tsf. For each test, the minimum, maximum, and average of the estimates are plotted at the elevation of the test specimen. Also shown for , eeference are in-situ e'fective overburden pressure distributions for the ranga of ground surface elintions that existed in 1973 and 1981 when the samples were obtained. A totai univ. weight of 132.4 pounds per cubic f oct (pcf) and a
- submerged unit weight af 70 pcf were assumed to calculate the overburden pressures. The ground water level was assumed to be equal to that of the maximum cooling pond operating level, el. 627.
The estimates of maximum past consolidation pressure from the WCC test results for the condition of maximum load of 64 tsf (Table 3) are similarly plotted vs elevation on Fig. 4. The minimum, maximum, and average of the esti-mates are plotted. Also shown is the in-situ effective overburden pressure distribution that existed in 1981, calculated using the assumptions previously described.
- 6. CONCLUSIONS This report presents estimates of the maximum past consolidation pressure of cohesive fill materials as determined by three geotechnical engineers using the Casagrande graphical technique. These estimates are based solely on the results of one-dimensional consolidation tests performed in the laboratory.
1
\
5 For samples at the same elevation, 'the estimated maximum past consolidation pressures of specimens tested by WCC in 1981 are, in all but three cases, larger than those for specimens tested by GZO in 1978 (Fig. 3).
\i 1 In addition, the maximum past consolidation pressures e'stimated from the results of tests having maximum loads of only 16 tsf are smaller than are those estimated from the results of tests having maximur loads 'of 64 tsf. For the data '
in Table 3, the difference in the average' estimates for the two maximum loading - conditions ranges from 0 tsf to 3.37 tsf and averages about 1.0 tsf. Beca' tis'e of the better definition of the virgin portion;of the cornpression curve,Ithe esti ! 1 mated maximum past consolidation pressures determined from the results of tests A . , having maximum loads of 64 tsf are considered better estimates of the maximum . past consolidation pressure. , i The Janbu technique for estimating maximum past consolidstion pressure was judged to be not applicable because the data did not exhibit the characteristic form described by Janbu. Similarly, the Schmertmann ; technique was not appropriate for these test results because a definitive value of the maximum past consolidation pressure could not be determined. ,
l 4 ! 6 l
- 7. REFERENCES Casagrande, A. (1936). The determination of the pre-consolidation load and its practical significance. In Proceedings, First International Conference on SoilMechanics, Cambridge 7MA,y3,pp60-64.
Consumers Power Company (1980). Interim report - settlement of diesel generator foundations and building, Midland plant - units 1 and 2. In Response to 10 CFR 50.55(e) submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commissi5ii. ^. t Goldberg, Zoino, Dunnicliff & Associates, Inc. (1980). Consolidation tests. Report prepared for Bechtel Associates, Ann Arbor, MI, by Goldberg, Zoino, i Dunnicliff & Associates, Inc., Newton Upper Falls, MA, February 1980, 81 p. (Bechtel Report No. 7220-C79-17-1). h Consumers Power Company (1980). Janba, N. (1969). The resistance concept applied to deformations of soils. In Seventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation EngT-neering, Mexico City, Mexico, v 1, pp 191-196. Schmertmann, J.H. (1955). The undisturbed consolidation of clay. M Trans-actions, American Society of Civil Engineers, y 120, p 1201. Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1981). Test results, diesel generator building, soil boring and testing program, Midland plant - units 1 and 2, Midland, Michigan. Report prepared for Consumers Power Company, Jackson, MI, by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Chicago, IL, 8 July 1981 9 p, 8 appendices. Woodward Clyde Consultants}}