ML20215B741
| ML20215B741 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1986 |
| From: | Beck J TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197E251 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-272, FOIA-86-454 NUDOCS 8610080491 | |
| Download: ML20215B741 (32) | |
Text
P 'e i
t COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM RESULTS REPORT ISAP: II.b
Title:
Concrete Compression Strength REVISION 1 l
$/Al/k Iss e Cdorfinitor '
Date/ /'
- d)'A R(vied'Teins Leabr" V aluka Date8 '
4
_ 4.). _ < e t L 1F G JohyW. Beck, Chaircan CPRT-SRT Date l
l
~
I 8610080491 860228 PDR FOIA GARDE 86-272 PDR ,
i f*h
_ . _ . _ . . .__ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ~ . ._ ._. __ _ __ _ _
Revision: 1
. Pege 1 of 31 l
RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b Concrete Compression Strength
1.0 DESCRIPTION
OF ISSUE The TRT investigated allegations that concrete strength tests were falsified. The TRT reviewed an NRC Region IV investigation (IE Report No. 50-445/79-09; 50-446/79-09) of this matter that included interviews with fifteen individuals. Of these, only the alleger and one other individual stated they thought that falsification occurred, but they did not know when or by whos. The TRT also reviewed slump and air entrainment test results of concrete placed during the period the alleger was employed (January 1976 to February 1977) and did not find any apparent variation in the uniformity of the parameters for concrete placed during this period. Although the uniformity of the concrete placed appears to minimize the likelihood that low concrete strengths were obtained, other allegations were raised concerning the falsification of records associated with slump and air content tests. The Region IV staff addressed these allegations by assuming that concrete strength test results were adequate. Furthermore, a number of other allegations dealing with concrete placement problems (such as deficient aggregate grading and concrete in the mixer too long) were also resolved by assuming that concrete strength test results were adequate. l The TRT found that the preponderance of evidence' suggests that l falsification of results did not occur. However, since a number of i other allegations were resolved on the basis of concrete strength results, the TRT believes that action by TUEC is required to provide confirmatory evider.ce that the reported concrete strength test results are indeed representative of the strength of the concrete placed in the Category I concrete structures.
2.0 ACTION IDENTIFIED Accordingly, the NRC outlined the following action: TUEC shall determine areas where safety-related concrete was placed between January 1976 and February'1977, and provide a program to assure acceptable concrete strength. The program shall include tests, such as Schmidt Hammer tests, on a random sample of the concrete in areas where safety is critical. The program shall include a comparison of the results with the results of tests performed on concrete of the same design strength in areas where the strength of the concrete is not questioned, to determine if any significant variance in strength occurs. TUEC shall submit the program for performing these tests to the NRC for review and approval prior to performing the tests.
a .
Rsvision: 1
. Pagt 2 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b
, (Cont'd)
3.0 BACKGROUND
Falsification'of concrete strength tests is alleged to have
! occurred between January 1976 and February 1977. Air content and slump data were reviewed by the TRT and no apparent variations were found in the the uniformity of the parameters for concrete placed during the allegation time frame. However, concrete compressive strength tests have been used by the NRC to resolve previous allegations of falsifications of slump and air entrainment tests and allegations dealing with concrete placement problems (such as t
deficient aggregate grading and concrete in the mixer too long).
Due to the importance of concrete compressive strength tests in assessing the allegations the TRT requested that additional testing
! be performed by TUEC to confirm that concrete strength tests performed on the concrete in question are representative of the actual concrete strength. Therefore, TUEC implemented a program to
. test the conertte-at-issue for verification of acceptable strength.
i 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN 4.1 Scope and Methodology This action plan was designed to verify the_ quality of the concrete-at-issue. It was proposed that the relative strengths of concrete poured during the period in question (concrete-et-issue, or CAI) and concrete poured during the six months immediately following this period (control concrete, or CC) be compared using the Schmidt Hammer test as l
a relative measure of strength. This time period for the CC i j was selected to minimize any effect of aging on the comparison of the two sets of hammer data and to provide approximately equal volumes of concrete for the CAI and CC. The Schmidt (Rebound) Hammer test, a non-destructive test, was conducted 3
in accordance with ASTM-C805-79 " Standard Test Method For i
Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete".(Reference 7.1). The Schmidt Hammer is essentially a concrete hardness tester which measures the rebound of a spring loaded plunger after it has struck a smooth concrete surface.
Using this indirect test of strength, those portions of the two populations of concrete that were accessible for surface testing have been compared empirically and statistically. In 1
addition to recording the raw rebound number data and average indication for each test, statistical summaries, such as means and variances, have been computed for both CAI and CC
- - - -. -- - - - - - - . - - . , --.w., - -- , --- .,..,.-----..,--,,-.--n-.- - - , - - , - - - - - - - - - - . ., .-- - , . . .
i' Revision: 1
. Pass 3 of 31
} RESULTS REPORT ISAP II,b (Cont'd) l 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd) i populations. Both normal and unspecified (non-parametric) l distributions have been considered for the populations. For the normal distribution assumption, goodness-of-fit tests of
- j. the sample data were performed.
1 j Concrete cylinder data for the two populations have also been obtained, reviewed, and used for reference (see Section 4.4).
2 .
The two populations of average hammer indications have been compared at the tenth percentile level. The tenth percentile is selected as a point of comparison based on the American
- Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 214-65, " Recommended
- Practice for Evaluation of Compression Test Results of Field Concrete" (Reference 7.2), which gives the general guideline that no more than one out of ten cylinder compression tests
' shall fall below the design strength. The population of averate hammer indications for the control concrete was used to establish a tenth percentile target and the tenth
( percentile average hammer indications for the concrete-at-1 issue was then compared with this target value. Other CC target values (i.e., fractions of the CC tenth percentile)
- were also used for comparison. Hypotheses that the tenth I percentile for the CAI is greater than or equal to various target values were tested at a minimum significance level of
! five percent. In addition, the significance level at which an
. hypothesis is just accepted was determined. A hither j significance level passed indicates a greater confidence that j the hypothesis is true.
j i 4.1.1 Test Program i 4.1.1.1 TUGC0 Nuclear Engineering Civil Structural
! (TUCCO) determined the areas where concrete
! was placed in Category I structures between
! January 1976 and February 1977 (Reference 7.3).
i 4.1.1.2 Trom these areas. TUCCO determined the number of truckloads of concrete for which part of
! the concrete of that truckload is exposed and ,
testable (Reference 7.3).
i 4.1.1.3 Each truckload identified as exposed and i
testable was assigned a unique number i (Reference 7.3).
L__,____.-_-_ _ - . _ _ - _ . . ~ . . - _ . _ . _ _ _ . . - , _ _ _ _ _ . -
Rovision: 1 Pcgs 4 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd)-
4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN -(Cont'd) 4.1.1.4 Grid volumes corresponding to these truckloads were selected at random to be tested (Reference 7.3).
4.1.1.5 The concrete surface for each selected volume was prepared by Brown & Root Craft personnel for testing per ASTM C805-79. Southwest Research Institute (SVRI) personnel were responsible for inspecting and accepting the
-prepared surfaces before testing.
4.1.1.6 The prepared areas were tested by SWRI personnel (Reference 7.4) in accordance with ASTM C805-79.
4.1.1.7 TUGC0 determined the areas where concrete was placed in Category I structures between Maren 1977 and August 1977 (Reference 7.3).
4.1.1.8 From these areas, TCGC0 determined the number of truckloads of concrete for which part of the concrete of that truckload is exposed and testable (Reference 7.3).
4.1.1.9 Each truckload identified as exposed and testable was assigned a unique number (Reference 7.3).
4.1.1.10 Grid volumes corresponding to these truckloads were selected at random for testing (Reference 7.3).
4.1.1.11 The concrete surface for each selected grid volume was prepared by Craft personnel for testing per ASTM C805-79 and inspected by
- SWRI prior to testing.
4.1.1.12 The prepared areas were tested by SWRI (Reference 7.4) in accordance with ASTM C805-79.
4.1.1.13 Third-party overview consisted of review and check of activities in 4.1.1.1 through 4.1.1.5 and 4.1.1.7 through 4.1.1.11 (Reference 7.5).
I Ravisien: 1
. Page 5 ef 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b
, (Cont'd) 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd) a 4.1.2 Sampling Plan 1
At Comanche Peak, concrete placement quality procedures were based on the required air content and slump tests being performed on each truckload. Test cylinders from the first truckload and every tenth truckload thereafter were required to verify quality. These procedures were based on ACI-ASME 359 and ACI 3 8 (References 7.6 and 7.7, respectively), which reference appropriate ASTM standards. Since the original quality control program was based on the unit of a truckload, the truckload was employed as the unit to be tested in the present quality evaluation. This is consistent with the inherent assumption in the ACI code that a truckload represents the smallest unit of concrete with uniform material properties.
Since Schmidt Hammer tests can only be perfor=ed on exposed surface area, the determination of the number of truckloads which were placed as exposed testable concrete was determined as follows:
- For slabs on grade, the nu=ber of truckloads was calculated as:
(l' depth X Surface Area)/10 yd3 per truck A depth of one foot was used, because, during placement, vibrators caused the concrete to flow and level out. Thus, only truckloads placed in the last foot of the slab would be exposed.
For columns and walls the number of truckloads was calculated as:
4 Total Volume /10 yds per truck For suspended slabs up to 28 inches thick, the number of truckloads was calculated as:
Total Volume /10 yd8 per truck Each truckload was considered to be accessible on either surface for slabs less than 18 inches thick. For slabs between 18 i
Rovision: 1
. Page 6 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II b (Cont'd) 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd) and 28 inches the total number of truckloads were distributed equally between the top and bottom halves of the slab.
- For suspended slabs between 28 and 46 inches thick, the volume of concrete was split into three equal quantities, with one third at the top, one third on the bottom and one third in the middle of the slab. The top and bottem layers were considered as exposed and testable. The middles layer was included if it could be tested from the side.
Slabs not falling into the above categories were handled on a case by case basis. For example, a i portion of a thick slab on grade below the one foot depth was accessible from a tunnel and hence was included.
Of the 326 Category I concrete pours placed between January 1976 and February 1977, 103 were for seal slabs, shoterete, grout, or concrete backfill, and are inaccessible for surface testing. Of the remaining 223 pours, 197 were found to be at least partially
, accessible for Schmidt Hammer testing (Reference 7.3),
which corresponds to a testable CAI population of approximately 1300 truckloads. A total of 119 randomly selected truckload units was tested from this population. Table 1 gives a breakdown of the Category I concrete pours placed in the allegation time frame.
l Comparable numbers of truckloads define the population j of testable control concrete and the sample of the
' truckload units that were tested (see Table 2).
i 4.1.3 Concrete Cylinder Data The 28-day cylinder strength data (Reference 7.8) were obtained from the TCGC0 Records Center for'the time period in question and the control concrete. time frame.
The data, which represents all Category I concrete pours except seal slabs, etc., were statistically evaluated and used as reference information in the hammer data evaluation. The completeness of the data list was checked by the third-party (Reference 7.5).
1 I
~
Revision: 1
. Page 7 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd) 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd) 4.2 Participants Roles and Responsibilities The organizations and personnel that have participated in this effort work.
are described below with their respective scopes of ,
4.2.1 .TUCCO Nuclear Engineering Civil Structural 4.2.1.1 Scope Concrete population determination Sample selection I
Location of test areas and preparation of operational traveler Acquisition of 28-day cylinder data Assistance in evaluation of test data and preparation of Results Report 4.2.1.2 Personnel Mr. R. Hooton Project Discipline Supervisor Mr. R. k*illiams Supervising Engineer Mr. C. Corbin Civil Engineer 4.2.2 Brown & Root 4.2.2.1 Scope 1
Prepare concrete test surfaces !
4.2.2.2 Personnel
\
Craft personnel as required 4.2.3 Third-Party Activities 4.2.3.1 Scope Review of sample selection l
l l
Ravision: 1
. Page 8 of 31
'RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd) 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd)
Perform hammer tests (SWRI)
- Document tests (SWRI)
Review test data Review and statistical evaluation of test results
- Preparation of Results Report 4.2.3.2 Personnel Mr. H. A. Levin TERA, CPRT Civil /
Structural Review Team Leader Dr. J. R. Honekamp TERA, Manager TRT Issues Dr. F. A. Webster JBA. Associate (Engineering Statistical Consultant)
Dr. D. Veneziano MIT, Professor.of Civil Engineering (Engineering Statistical Consultant)
Mr. G. Lagleder SWRI. Manager (Testing and Inspection) 4.3 Oualifications of Personnel Where inspections required the use of certified inspectors, qualification were to the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6 (Reference 7.9) at the appropriate level. CPSES personnel were qualified in accordance with applicable project requirements. Third-party inspectors were certified to the requirements of the third-party employer's quality assurance program and in accordance with USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.58, Revision 1 (Reference 7.10). The third-party inspectors were specifically trained to the requirements of SWRI Procedure X-FE-108-1, Revision 1 (Reference 7.11). j l
Other participants were qualified to the requirements of the CPSES Quality Assurance Program or to the specific requirements of the CPRT Program Plan (Reference 7.12), as appropriate.
Revision: 1 Pcge 9 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd) 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd) 4.4 Acceptance Criteria A review of the historie 28-day cylinder strength data for both time frames (see Figure 1 or Table 3) indicated that, regardless of whether falsification of data occurred during the allegation period or not, it is likely that the CAI is lower in strength than the CC. This observation is not unusual, since under normal construction processes, there is only a 50 percent chance that the concrete strength (and hammer indication) in the allegation period would be equal to or greater than that in any other comparable period. There is also a 50 percent chance that it would be less than that in any other comparable period. Therefore, the appropriate acceptance criterion was determined to be that of accepting the CAI population if the tenth percentile hammer indication was not "significantly lower" than that of the CC population.
In this case, "significantly lower" means not more than about ten percent. This is based on the fact that the de' sign strength of 4000 psi is 18.6 percent lower than the CC tenth percentile 28-day cylinder strength (see Table 3), and this change in compressive strength (psi) corresponds to a relative change in hammer indication of approximately ten percent (see References 7.13 and 7.14). Thus, the hypothesis that the Schmidt Hammer indication tenth percentile for the CAI is not "significantly lower" than that of the CC was tested at a minimum statistical significance level of five percent.
4.5 Decision Criteria Three hypothesis tests were considered for the comparison of the Schmidt Hammer data, with the understanding that the one (or ones) with the most power
- would be used to test the two populations. The three test methods include:
1 4.5.1 Method A tests whether the tenth percentile hammer indication of the CAI is greater or equal to the target value of the CC. where both populations are assumed to be normally distributed (see Reference 7.20). Note, the target value is defined as the CC population tenth percentile or a fraction thereof.
l
- Power is defined as the probability of rejecting the hypothesis when it is not true. The power function gives the power as a function of disparity with the hypothesis.
Revision: 1 Page 10 of 31
- r RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd) 4.0 CPRT ACTION PLAN (Cont'd) 4.5.2 Method B tests whether the percentage of ha:mer indications in the CAI population above the target value of the CC is greater or equal to 90 percent. In this test the CC population is assumed to be normally distributed for purposes of establishing the target value (which may be defined as the tenth percentile or a fraction thereof), but the distribution of CAI hammer indications is unspecified.
4.5.3 Method C tests whether individual CAI hammer indication data values belong to.the same distribution as the control concrete rebound values. No assumptions are made regarding either population distribution.
Although the power functions for these three methods are not directly comparable, Methods A and B are of similar power and are better than Method C (References 7.15, 7.20, and 7.21) .
Therefore, both Methods A and B were retained to compare the two populations.-
Based on the sample outcomes for the two concrete populations, test statistics were computed and the hypotheses regarding the CAI population were either accepted or rejected at the 5 percent level of significance. In addition, the levels of significance at which the hypotheses are accepted were also determined.
The action identified by the.NRC (Section 2.0) is considered ,
complete now that all Schmidt Hammer tests have been co=pleted, the results statistically analyzed, and the two concrete populations compared.
Since the comparison indicates that the CAI population of l hammer indications is not "significantly lower" than the CC, no further evaluation of the CAI is necessary, nor is it '
necessary to calibrate the Schmidt Hammer test to concrete of known strength and age or test cores from the CAI.
5.0 1MPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 5.1 Summarv of Implementation The implementation of this action plan followed the flow chart shown in Figure 2, with the four major aspects of the program being: 1) identification of all CAI and CC Category I pours 1
- . . , n-
Revisien: 1 Page 11 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) and surface testable truckload populations; 2) the randem selection of truckloads; 3) the preparation and testing of selected areas; and 4) the test data evaluation.
Detailed descriptions of the population identification and random selection processes are contained in Reference 7.3. In summary, all Category I concrete pours in the two tine frames were identified and an estimate of how many and which truckloads are surface testable was made. These estimated testable truckload populations were randomly sampled for testing with the Schmidt Hammer, their accessibility verified..
and the selected accessible areas were prepared for testing.
Once the test areas were prepared, certified SWRI personnel
- verified the surface preparation. performed the Schmidt Ha==er tests, summarized the hammer readings, determined the average hammer indication for each test area, and submitted a report (Reference 7.4) to TUGC0 containing these data.
The third-party statistically evaluated the hammer data (Reference 7.16), and performed the hypothesis tests which were used to ecmpare the two testable populations (References 7.17). A copy of the average ham =er indications, as summarized from the SWRI raw data sheets, is listed in Appendices A and B of this Results Report. Cumulative frequency plots of the two sample data sets are shown in ,
Figure 3.
In addition to the hammer data, the repotted 28-day concrete cylinder strength data for both populations were obtained from the TUCCO Records Center (Reference 7.8) and statistically evaluated (Reference 7.18). Cumulative frequency plots for these two data sets are shown in Figura 1.
5.2 Data Evaluation Before comparing the two populations using Methods A'and B, the hammer data were first evaluated (Peference 7.16) by calculating mean values, standard deviations, coefficients of variation (see Table 4), and cumulative frequencies (see Figure 3). The two data sets were tested for goodness-of-fit to the normal distribution (References 7.17 and 7.19).
Normality of the two populations is accepted at the five percent significance level.
e- -- - - ,, . - - - -.
Revisien: 1 Page 12 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd)
To compare the two testable concrete truckload populations,-
Methods A and B hypothesis tests were performed using target values of 1.0, 0.975, and 0.95 times the CC population tenth percentile value. The hypothesis that the CAI population tenth percentile is greater or equal to 1.0 times the CC population tenth percentile is rejected at the five percent significance level. The hypothesis that the CAI population tenth percentile is greater than or equal to 0.975 times the CC population tenth percentile is accepted at the five percent significance level, and is also accepted at the ten percent significance level. The hypothesis that the CAI population tenth percentile is greater than or equal to 0.95 times the CC population tenth percentile is accepted at the five percent significance level, and is also accepted at-the 95 percent significance level. This means that, although there,is not a high confidence that the CAI population of hammer indications is equal to or better than the CC population,'there is a high confidence that the CAI is within five percent of the CC population at the tenth percentile value and therefore well within the ten percent range required by the acceptance criteria (see Section 4.4.).
The 28-day cylinder compressive strength data for the 223 Category I concrete pours.(see Section 4.1.2) in the CAI time frame and comparable data in the CC time frame were statistically analyzed. The mean values, standard deviations, and coefficients of variation are listed in Table 3. These data were also ordered and cumulative frequency plots were constructed (see Figure 1). The results of the cylinder data evaluation are consistent with~the Schmidt Hammer tests in that both show a slightly higher mean value and tenth percentile value for the control concrete. In fact, the cylinder data indicate that the compressive strength of the l i I
CAI is 9.3 percent lower than that of the CC at the population tenth percentile value (see Table 3). This corresponds approximately to a five percent difference in hammer indications (Reference 7.13). Thus, the results show that, not only are the conpressive strengths of both the CC and CAI well above the 4000 psi design value but that the reported 28-day cylinder data truly represents the CAI at the population tenth percentile value.
Regarding potential falsification of 28-day cylinder records, there are two general categories of interest. Of greater concern is the masking of out-of-specification concrete by recording it to be within specification. Of lesser concern is the recording of within-specification concrete when the tests
Revision:
1 Pago 13 of 31 RESULTS REPORT l ISAP II.b (Cont'd) 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN t.ND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS (Cont'd) were not performed. Neither of these two types of falsification appears to have occurred in.a systematic way, since there is no obvious bimodal behavior in the hammer indication data and the shift between the CC and CAI populations for the cylinder data is consistent with that of the hammer indication data.
During third-party review (Reference 7.5) of the Schmidt Hac=er test program development, some errors were found due to arithmetic, accessibility determinations, and volume modeling assumptions. A portion of these errors, if corrected, would result in fewer truckloads being included in the populations; the other portion would result in more truckloads being added to the population. However, no systematic errors were found.
The total error in the CAI truckload volume is three percent underestimated. For the CC population the estimate is less than half of one percent overestimated. Considering only those truckloads which were not included in the testable populations, but should have been (i.e., were not in the population from which the sample was drawn), the error rate is about six percent for the CAI and less than one percent for the CC. The semples do not strictly represent the excluded truckloads. However, these error rates are not significant, and even if additional samples were obtained to represent the excluded truckloads, the conclusions would not be affected.
6.0 CONCLUSION
S Although the present strength of the concrete in question has not been measured directly, based on the ha==er indication data obtained, in association with the 28-day cylinder data for the control concrete, it is concluded that the tenth percentile value of the CAI testable concrete is well above the design strength of 4,000 psi. The 28-day cylinder strength data are consistent with the hammer indication data. There is no evidence that systematic falsification of cylinder data or the non-performance of required tests cccurred. Finally it is concluded that the reported 28-day cylinder strength data represents the testable CAI population, thus validating the utilization of these data to address other allegations of concrete records falsification.
Ravision: 1 Page 14 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd)
7.0 REFERENCES
7.1 ASTM Committee C-9, " Standard Test Method for Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete", (ASTM C805-79), American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia..PA, 1979.
7.2 ACI Committee 214 " Recommended Practice for Evaluation of Compression Test Results of Field Concrete", (ACI 214-65),
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1965.
7.3 " Test Program Development Report". CPRT File No. II.b.6.C.1, October, 1985.
7.4 " Testing to Confirm Acceptability of Concrete Strength Data for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2",
Final Report, Project 8478, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, September, 1985. (CPRT File No. II.b.6.C.2) 7.5 " Third-Party Review and Verification of Sampling Activities and Procedures for CPRT Issue II.b Concrete Compressive Strength", CPRT File II.b.6.C.3, October, 1985.
~ 7. 6 ACI-ASME Committee 359, " Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments", (ACI-ASME 359-83), American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, 1983.
7.7 ACI Committee 318, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete", (ACI 318-83), American Concrete Institute . Detroit, i MI, 1983. l 7.8 " Cylinder Data" CPRT File No. II.b.6.C.1.1.
7.9 .ASME Committee on Nuclear Quality Assurance, " Qualifications of Inspection, Examination, and Testing Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants", (ANSI /ASME N45.2.6-1978), American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, 1978.
7.10 Office of Standards Development, " Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Inspection, Examination, and Testing Personnel",
(USSRC Regulatory Guide 1.58, Revision 1), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, September, 1980.
7.11 "Schmidt Hammer Test on Concrete at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station", Nuclear Projects Operating Procedure X-FE-108-1. Revision 1. Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, January, 1985. (CPKT File No. II.b.6.A)
Revision: 1 i
- Page 15 of 31 1
RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd)
7.0 REFERENCES
(Cont'd) 7.12 " Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan and Issue-Specific Action Plans", Revision 3 TUGCO, Glen Rose. TX, January 24, 1986. (CPRT File No. II.b.1) 7.13 Operat'ing Instructions Concrete Test Hamrer Tvpes N and NR, Copyright 1977 PROCEQ, Zurich, Switzerland. . (CPRT File No.
II.b.11) 7.14 Attachment A of F. Webster, " Target Tenth Percentile" -CPRT File II.b.4a-003, February, 1985.
7.15 F. Webster, " Slides on Data Evaluation Methods Presented at NRC-TRT Meeting of 1/7/85", Memo to File, CPRT File II.b.10-004, January, 1985.
7.16 A. Boissonnade, "Schmidt Hammer Data Statistical Evaluation",
CPRT File II.b.4a-010, August, 1985.
7.17 F. Webster, " Ham =er Data Hypothesis Tests", CPRT File II.b.4a-011, July, 1985.
7.18 A. Boissonnade, " Statistical Evaluation of Cylinder Data",
CPRT File II.b.4a-012 August, 1985.
7.19 F. Webster, " Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit Test of Ham =er Data",
CPRT File II.b.4a-013, September, 1985.
7.20 D. Veneziano, " Comparison of the Fractiles of Two Normal Populations: A Large Sample Test and Its Power", CPRT File II.b.4a-001, December, 1984 7.21 F. Webster " Additional Background for TUCCO-NRC Meeting of 3/6/85", CPRT File II.b.4a-008, May, 1985.
Revision: -1 Pcgs 16 of'31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II,b (Cont'd)
TABLE 1 CHARACTERIZATION OF CATEGORY I CONCRETE PLACED IN ALLEGATION TIME FRAME NUMBER OF NUMBER OF POURS TRUCKLOADS All Category I- 326 31 SOG* 1780 SOG Category I (Other Than 223 4,080 l
Seal Slabs, Shoterece, 192 C.W,ES* 2300 C W.ES 1 Grout, or Backfill) 19 SOG 315 SOG Testable Category I 197 1,305 178 C.W.ES 990 C,W,ES
- SOG = Slabs on Grade C = Colue.ns V = Walls ES = Elevated Slabs l
Ravision: 1 Page 17 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd)
TABLE 2 CHARACTERIZATION OF CATEGORY I CONCRETE PLACED IN CONTROL CONCRETE TIME FRAME 2
d NUMBER OF NUMBER OF POURS TRUCKLOADS All Category I 324 24 SOG* 920 SOG Category I (Other Than 291 2,715 Seal Slabs, Shoterete, 267 C.W,ES* 1,795 C,W,ES Grout, or Backfill) i 24 SOG 353 SOG Testable Category 1 282 2,090 258 C W,ES 1,737 C,W,ES
- SOG = Slabs on Grade C = Columns W = Walls i
ES = Elevated Slabs l
l 1
Revision: 1
- Page 18 of 31-RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd)
TABLE 3 28-DAY STANDARD CURE CYLINDER DATA STATISTICAL SLT ARIES Concrete at Issue Control Concrete Nu=ber of Data 509 372 Mean Value 5158 psi 5441 psi Standard 475 psi 383 psi Deviation
' Coefficient of 0.09 0.07 Variation Tenth 4457 psi 4913 psi Percentile Minimum 4047 psi 4540 psi
Revision: 1 Pega 19 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP.II.b (Cont'd)
TABLE 4 SCHMIDT HAMMER DATA STATISTICAL St.*MM. ARIES Concrete at Issue Control Concrete Number of Data 119 132 Mean Value 48.57 49.14 Standard 3.13 2.87 Deviation Coefficient of 0.06 0.06 Varlaeion Tenth 44.1 45.3 Percentile
'Minimu= 38.5 '39.7
Revision: 1
. Page 20 of 31 l l
l RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd)
FIGURE 1 CAI and CC CYLINDER DATA CUMULATIVE FREQUENCIES I. ,s
- s"
~
r I /
. (
- /
.8 -
p mws f
>.7 N -
CAL ,' _ CO 1
y -
5 .e - /
p : /
w : /
w .S -
f 3
w
- e
. j
<.,4 -
l /
u .3 - /
! : I
.2 -
/
CAI CYL Streat? '
10tn Perceebele=4451
.I --- '*#- ,' CC Cvt Strengt%
. /
/ 10th Percentile =4913 m et " t , t , f , f , t , t , ? , f , t , ! , ' , ! ,
k000 4200 4400 4000 e400 5000 5200 S400 S800 5000 6000 8200 8400 6000 6800 7000 28 DAY STD CURE CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Revisier,: 1
. Page 21 ef 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd)
FIGURE 2 ISSUE II.b FLO'a' CHART
_ ittu_ vuota e n ee= carte eewartsso. statuct at aca tc' t- . . . . . .
circa~au - -.
- 1 * *' ..... i nNTEmpa:E p_. .. .
.. m T.7. ;.'
..... ., . T
.y, - ,'in
.E. ...t.t.'.' "
Ic ..a,F
.o.... * (B-si. ..
~
@ 7,r:',3 Ii I.I.*'*.. " *.
pi40gcCT c c,~cc . s . .g O (
u,r .. * ==
t vaLyaf cps , , , ,,
w ES*"** 8 _
ah0 a p,,,mt
& as.ars e
'I S 8 C '
- ahaLT$l$
ac tivitits k I
W 89.'.E 4 6. 6,84..
s p"g s, l
6l l
pac.gt? l C 6.t. a' v a si r sac: tic i '.j ::' .'.'"'
f t s tik". "
I*.'.".' 7 activifits
{
fptiaQ ... _ _ .3 .s e.a'.L. se e, - . - _
s.. g oos, ,pe
,p c6 . . . . * ,u .. ,
!.a " -s..# g d,
[
aCTivifitt i 'i * *
- 9 i's t )
l . eme. 4 0 f B i
- 6amL.a i.
j I
Revisien: 1
- Page 22 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd)
FIGURE 3 CAI and CC HA.W.ER DATA CUMULATIVE FREQUENCIES 1 ,
.9 -
~ !
S: 1 A : cAI feet Cato ---=/
O ~
- J " * ' "
C .7 ~ ***#
G j D -
~ l
{.6 ~
cc 1.., :. .
j 2 ; , -
l g .5 -- (
p J
4 '4 -
C -
f D : (
E .3 -
f 3
U : 1 CA! Ma w e $a* ole /
.2 -
- 10th Percentile =44.1/
> CC wa w e $ ample
- 3 - / ' ICtm Ferceattle=45.3
/
l l ' '
0'30 ' '''" ' ' ' '
63 40 45 50 55 35 Avercge Schmidt Hommer Indicction
. Revision: 1 Page 23 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd)
APPENDIX A CAI AVERAGE HAMMER INDICATIONS HAMMER TEST DATA SHEET POUR PACKAGE No.- MEAN REBOUND VALUE No. GRID AREA TEST LOCATION HORIZ. UP DOWN 8 002-2790-004-H TR-85-066-8904 44.38 10 002-4790-005-I TR-85-005-8904 47.67 13 002-4790-037-HH TR-85-100-8704 44.0 24 002-4792-005-B TR-85-029-8904 38.5 37 002-2778-002-WW TR-85-060-8904 46.1 46 002-5778-001-D TR-85-123-8904 43.9 72 002-4792-008-F TR-85-001-8904 42.9 73 002-5778-001-Q TR-85-079-8904 47.4 74 002-5778-001-R TR-85-098-8904 46.0 76 002-5778-001-Z TR-85-095-8904 46.6 77 002-5778-001-AA TR-85-096-8904~ 46.6 79 002-6778-005-A TR-84-204-8904 43.8 80 002e2778=002-X TR-85-056-8904 42.0 81 002-2778-002-KK TR-85-120-8904 44.1 88 105-4785-003-C TR-84-101-8903 48.2 89 002-4790-016-I TR-85-009-8904 48.3 92 002-6778-010-A TR-85-122-8904 48.3 118 002-6790-001-A TR-85-017-8904 44.6 127 002-7792-003-B TR-85-103-8904 44.4 128 002-2778-002-L TR-85-119-8904 42.8 129 002-4792-018-A TR-85-028-8904 39.1 130 002-4790-037-0 TR-85-188-8904 44.1 131 002-4790-037-C TR-85-104-8904 43.0 145 101-5805-003-M TR-85-162-8902 49.3 153 002-4778-001-D TR-85-149-8904 48.2 154 002-5778-007-C TR-85-092-8904 49.4 157 101-5805-003-D TR-85-161-8902 48.4 163 002-5790-002-A TR-85-207-8904 47.4 165 002-4792-003-A TR-85-146-8904 43.0 166 002-7792-001-P TR-85-150-8904 46.4 i 167 002-4792-009-A TR-85-191-8904 47.4 168 002-7792-001-BB TR-85-151-8904 45.8 169 002-5778-006-A TR-85-099-8904 47.6 j 211 105-5790-005-I TR-85-113-8903 50.4 214 101-5805-002-P TR-85-160-8902 50.7 215 101-5805-003-Q TR-85-163-8902 49.0 j 217 002-2778-002-T TR-85-057-8904 44.4 ,
218 002-2778-002-P TR-85-058-8904 46.1 l 219 002-2778-002-Q
~
TR-85-059-8904 43.4 '
220 002-577B-001-X TR-85-094-8904 49.9 i
, R0 vision: 1 Page 24 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd)
APPENDIX A (Cont'd)
CAI AVERAGE HAMMER INDICATIONS (Cont'd)
HAMMER TEST DATA SHEET POUR PACKAGE No.- MEAN REBOUND VALUE No. GRID AREA TEST LOCATION HORIZ. UP D0k'N 226 101-2808-004-A TR-85-105-8902 44.3 230 101-2808-003-N TR-85-110-8902 42.0 236 002-4790-046-A TR-85-006-8904 44.2 238 002-4790-037-AA' TR-85-101-8904 47.0 239 002-5790-009-B TR-85-091-8904 47.7 240 002-6790-012-B TR-85-014-8904 49.7 248 002-4792-008-D TR-85-192-8904 44.0 249 002-4792-001-G TR-85-121-8904 44.8 262 105-5773-001-U TR-85-329-8903 45.9 263 105-5773-001-N TR-85-331-8903 47.4 264 105-5773-001-T TR-85-328-8903 54.2 265 105-5773-001-X TR-85-330-8903 50.6 266 105-7765-001-4 TR-55-263-3903 49.3 267 105-5773-001-KK TR-85-341-8903 50.4 268 105-5773-001-JJ TR-85-342-8903 52.2-269 105-5773-004-N TR-85-267-8903 50.4 270 105-4785-001-D TR-85-269-8903 47.8 271 105-5773-001-RRRR TR-85-338-8903~ 46.2 272 105-4773-003-B TR-85-332-8903 49.0 273 105-5773-001-LLL TR-85-333-8903 52.8 274 105-5773-001-BBBB TR-85-334-8903 43.3 275 105-5773-001-DDDD TR-85-335-8903 48.7 276 105-5773-001-NNNN TR-85-336-8903 48.5 277 105-5773-001-ZZ TR-85-343-8903 52.3 278 105-5773-001-DDD TR-85-366-8903 47.6 279 105-5773-001-FFF TR-85-344-8903 50.3 280 105-5773-001-GGG TR-85-345-8903 56.1 282 105-5790-001-BB TR-85-350-8903 47.8 283 105-5790-001-T TR-85-339-8903 47.1 288 105-5773-004-F TR-85-327-8903 52.6 289 002-2790-001-WW TR-85-315-8904 44.0 290 002-5790-001-E TR-85-323-8904 50.8 291 002-2790-001-YY TR-85-325-8904 48.4 293 002-2790-001-UU TR-85-320-8904 45.4 294 002-4790-004-Q TR-85-314-8904 48.2 296 002-4790-016-A TR-85-319-8904 51.8 297 002-4790-026-B TR-85-318-8904 49.3 298 002-4790-038-C TR-85-317-8904 50.1 299 002-2790-001-II TR-85-316-8904 43.3 300 002-4790-004-J TR-85-322-8904 49.7.
303 002-7792-001-X TR-85-353-8904 46.6
Revision: 1
. Pega 25 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd)
APPENDIX A (Cont'd)
CAI AVERAGE HAMMER INDICATIONS (Cont'd)
HAMMER TEST DATA SHEET POUR PACKAGE No.- MEAN REBOUND VALUE No. GRID AREA TEST. LOCATION HORIZ. UP D0k'N 304 002-7792-001-B TR-85-354-8904 47.3 306 101-5805-001-T TR-85-265-8902 50.2 307 101-5805-001-S TR-85-278-8902 53.6 308 101-5805-002-V TR-85-363-8902 51.0 309 101-5805-002-X TR-85-361-8902 51.9 310 101-5805-004-N TR-85-371-8902 53.4
'313 101-5805-004-U TR-85-373-8902 50.8 314 101-5805-003-X TR-85-360-8902 50.9 315 101-5805-005-S TR-85-372-8902 51.2 317 002-2785-001-KK TR-85-368-8904 51.1 318 002-2785-001-YY TR-85-369-8904 53.3 319 002-2785-001-Q TR-85-260-8904 51.6 320 002-2785-001-BB TR-85-266-8904 51.1 321 002-2785-001-SS TR-85-270-8904 50.5 322 002-2785-001-BBB TR-85-263-8904 53.0 323 002-2785-001-Z TR-85-262-8904 52.6 324 035-5782-003-F TR-85-280-8906 50.8 325 035-5782-003-C TR-85-279-8906 49.1 326 035-5782-001-L TR-85-264-8906 50.9 327 035-5782-001-1 TR-85-259-8906 49.6 328 002-4790-038-G TR-85-324-8904 45.7 330 002-2790-001-R TR-85-321-8904 45.8 333 002-5778-013-H TR-85-358-8904 43.4 334 002-5778-013-B TR-85-359-8904 55.7 370 101-5805-004-BB TR-85-364-8902 48.5 374 101-5805-004-FF TR-85-362-8902 52.4 377 -101-5805-001-M TR-85-275-8902 49.7 378 101-5805-001-P TR-85-276-8902 50.3 379 101-2808-003-L TR-85-349-8902 50.0 383 101-2808-003-E TR-85-348-8902 45.8 390 101-2808-002-F TR-85-370-8902 50.0 391 101-2808-002-C TR-85-347-8902 48.5 394 002-7807-001-P TR-85-356-8904 46.8 395 002-7807-001-W TR-85-357-8904 47.0 396 002-7792-001-MM TR-85-351-8904 44.8 397 002-7792-001-FF TR-85-352-8904 44.3 398 105-5773-001-GGGG TR-85-337-8903~ 55.0 50.0
~
405 101-5805-005-J TR-85-365-8902
Rovision: 1
, Pegs 26 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd)
APPENDIX A (Cont'd)
CAI AVERAGE HAMMER INDICATIONS 8
~
.9 .-
~
.8 x
C 4 7 - AW'*8 """"*I -
"'N o - : %i ,
3 0
- N(48.57.3.13 )
cL QoC .e C'" -
7 _
- r. g cas.
W -
O O >g -
> ~ -
a -
d~
- 0.049 4 0 4 -
Q -
- 3 -
3 E .
E D .3 -
3 U -
U
.2 -
.1 -
,,,,,,,f,,,,,,-- ,f'ii i' '''' '
0 50 55 60 3o 35 40 45 Average Schmidt Hommer Indication
Revision: 1
. Page 27 of 31 RESULTS REPORT ISAP II,b (Cont'd)
APPENDIX B' CC AVERAGE HAMMER INDICATIONS SNEET CONCRETE POUR MEAN REBOUND VALUE No. PACKAGE No. TEST LOCATION HORIZ. UP DOWN OTHER 15 002-7810-002-X TR-85-078-8904 40.7 20 002-7810-001-EE TR-85-126-8904 42.3 25 002-4792-007-B TR-85-030-8904 41.3 34 002-7810-003-DD TR-85-127-8904 44.2 35 105-4810-021-J TR-85-051-8903 45.5 54 105-4790-016-C TR-85-038-8903 43.9 57 101-5805-012-P TR-85-186-8902 49.9 96 105-4790-015-C TR-85-114-8903 45.7 110 105-4810-021-D TR-85-048-8903 43.4 115 101-5805-010-E TR-85-169-8902 48.2 116 101-5805-012-E TR-85-176-8902 49.0 124 002-5807-002-G TR-85-157-8904 48.1 125 002-5807-002-E TR-85-027-8904 40.9 137 003-4785-002-III TR-85-200-8901 47.8 139 003-4785-007-U TR-85-201-8901 46.9 140 003-4785-002-FF TR-85-202-8901 45.6 141 003-4785-002-0 TR-85-204-8901 43.7 142 003-4785-002-N TR-85-203-8901 48.6 143 003-2310-004-E TR-85-141-8901 46.6 144 105-5790-002-E TR-85-196-8903 46.2 148 002-5810-004-H TR-85-116-8904 45.3 149 101-5805-012-0 TR-85-185-8902 52.1 150 101-5805-012-K TR-85-184-8902 49.1 151 101-5805-006-F TR-85-168-8902 50.3 155 003-2810-005-D TR-85-093-8901 49.7 156 003-2810-002-D TR-85-040-8901 48.4 158 101-5805-010-G TR-85-171-8902 48.7 162 105-4810-021-S TR-85-208-8903 43.9 164 002-5810-001-GG TR-85-019-8904 46.5 170 201-5805-002-F TR-85-190-8902 48.2 171 002-5807-002-Y TR-85-156-8904 39.7 179 101-5805-013-U TR-85-179-8902 50.6 180 101-5805-012-V TR-85-183-8902 50.6 182 101-5805-013-BB TR-85-180-8902 53.0 185 105-4810-021-B TR-85-050-8903 45.9 186 003-4785-002-RRR TR-85-206-8901 50.9 187 003-4785-002-B TR-85-205-8901 48.5 188 101-4808-009-I TR-85-158-8902 52.2 191 101-4812-005-J TR-85-135-8902 50.0 193 105-7810-002-N TR-85-229-8903 51.3 194 105-7800-001-B TR-85-210-8903 48.1
Revision: 1 Page 28 of 31 RESULTS REPORT.
ISAP.II.b (Cont'd)
APPENDIX B (Cont'd)
CC AVERAGE HAMMER INDICATIONS (Cont'd)
SHEET CONCRETE POUR MEAN REBOUND VALUE No. PACKAGE No. TEST LOCATION HORIZ. UP DOWN OTHER 199 002-7810-003-LL TR-85-222-8904 48.5 200 002-7810-001-W TR-85-220-8904 53.0 207 105-7810-001-D TR-85-227-8903 45.6 209 105-7810-007-A TR-85-133-8903 52.9 210 105-5790-002-1 TR-85-039-8903 46.4 212 105-4810-021-1 TR-85-049-8903 49.8 213 105-4810-021-G TR-85-148-8903 50.7 221 101-5805-011-G TR-85-173-8902 49.7 222 101-5805-011-K TR-85-174-8902 -50.8 223 101-5805-011-L TR-85-175-8902 52.0 225 101-4808-004-D TR-85-139-8902 48.5 241 105-4790-011-B TR-85-043-8903 47.8 244 002-4807-002-F 'TR-84-153-8904 47.7 245 201-5805-002-D TR-85-187-8902 53.4 252 002-7807-002-G TR-85-085-8904 50.4 255 002-7807-003-A TR-85-086-8904 46.8 256 002-7807-002-Q TR-85-155-8904 48.0 257 002-4810-020-1 TR-85-020-8904 47.9 281 105-4790-008-G TR-85-236-8903 48.3 284 105-4800-001-F TR-85-235-8903 48.5 285 105-7810-007-S TR-85-237-8903 58.8 286 105-5790-003-L TR-85-238-8903 - 48.9 287 105-7790-002-D TR-85-306-8903 48.5 292 002-7810-001-000 TR-85-300-8904 49.2 295 002-7810-001-CCC TR-85-305-8904 52.1 301 002-5830-001-N TR-85-312-8904 47.7 302 035-3790-001-B TR-85-257-8906 49.4 305 002-5807-003-L TR-85-242-8904 49.9 311 101-5805-007-U TR-85-378-8902 53.0 312 101-5805-008-Z TR-85-272-8902 52.4 316 002-7810-001-WW TR-85-301-8904 52.9 329 002-7810-002-00 TR-85-302-8904 49.9 331 002-7810-003-SS TR-85-303-8904 44.6 332 002-4790-027-P TR-85-258-8904 43.1 335 002-7810-001-RR TR-85-291-8904 49.9 336 002-5810-001-A TR-85-367-8904 53.2 337 002-7810-001-I TR-85-295-8904 43.2 338 002-4810-015-H TR-85-284-8904 49.1 339 002-4810-015-M TR-85-283-8904 50.8 340 002-7810-002-M TR-85-285-8904 46.1
Rcvision: 1 Pego 29 of 31 4 .
RESULTS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd)
APPENDIX B (Cont'd)
CC AVERAGE HAMMER INDICATIONS (Cont'd)
SHEET CONCRETE POUR MEAN REBOUND VALUE No. PACKAGE No. TEST LOCATION. HORIZ. UP DOWN' OTHER 341- 002-7810-003-DD TR-85-294-8904 47.3 342 002-5810-002-MM TR-85-232-8904 50.7 343 002-5810-002-S TR-85-282-8904 48.8 344 002-7810-003-CCC TR-85-290-8904 44.9 345 002-7810-003-EEE TR-85-281-8904 47.9 346 002-7810-003-XX TR-85-293-8904 48.7 347 002-4810-002-V TR-85-233-8904 48.1 348 002-7810-002-C TR-85-286-8904 45.9 349 002-4810-002-H TR-85-288-8904 46.5 350 002-7810-002-EE TR-85-292-8904 44.2 352 002-5810-014-C TR-85-287-8904 48.6 353 003-2810-007-H TR-85-326-8901 46.7 354 003-2813-002-AA TR-85-254-8901 46.5 355 003-2810-007-BB TR-85-246-8901 48.2 356 003-2810-001-M TR-85-253-8901 48.7 357 003-2610-002-T TR-85-249-8901 51.3 358 003-2810-002-VV TR-85-248-8901 51.6 359 003-2810-002-L TR-85-251-8901 51.2 360 003-2810-002-AA TR-85-250-8901 51.2 361 003-2810-007-CC TR-85-247-8901 51.7 362 003-2813-001-N TR-85-252-8901 52.8 363 003-2813-001-U TR-SS-244-8901 54.4 364 003-2813-001-T TR-85-243-8901 52.9 365 003-2810-004-R TR-85-245-8901 47.8 366 201-5805-002-V TR-85-374-8902 52.4 367 201-5805-001-R TR-85-377-8902 52.0 368 003-2813-002-G TR-85-256-8901 48.7 369 003-2813-001-AA TR-85-255-8901 52.2 371 101-5805-010-HH TR-85-376-8902 52.7 372 101-5805-012-LL TR-85-375-8902 53.4 373 101-5805-009-JJ TR-85-274-8902 51.4 375- 105-7810-001-B TR-85-304-8903 44.3 i 376 105-2810-001-D TR-85-234-8903 48.2 380 101-2812-001-BBB TR-85-239-8902 50.5 381 101-6808-008-A TR-85-355-8902 48.4 382 101-2812-001-00 TR-85-241-8902 48.7
, 384 101-2812-001-C TR-85-240-8902 53.3 385 101-4812-001-M TR-85-309-8902 51.2 386 101-4812-001-J TR-85-310-8902 50.3 387 101-4812-001-B TR-85-311-8902 52.3
Revision: 1 Pagt 30 of 31 l
RESULTS REPORT ISAP II b (Cont'd)
APPENDIX B (Cont'd)
CC AVERAGE HAMMER INDICATIONS (Cont'd)
SHEET CONCRETE POUR _MEAN REBOUND VALUE No. PACKAGE No. TEST LOCATION HORIZ, UP DOWN OTHER 388 101-4812-002-H TR-85-307-8902 49.6 389 101-4812-002-K TR-85-308-8902 51.3 392 002-5807-001-L TR-85-346-8904 49.3 393 002-5807-001-E TR-85-296-8904 47.4 399 101-5805-008-K TR-85-271-8902 51.1 400 101-5805-009-0 TR-85-273-8902 53.2 401 002-6807-008-A TR-85-297-8904 51.0 402 002-6807-009-C TR-85-313-8904 50.2 403 002-7807-002-0 TR-85-299-8904 47.3 404 002-7807-002-R TR-85-298-8904 48.6 406 002-7810-002-A TR-85-289-8904- 47.7 I
Revision: 1 l Pege 31 of 31 i REST.1TS REPORT ISAP II.b (Cont'd)
AVERACE SCNMIDT HAMMER INDICATION l
.9 .-
.0 -
A :
U A '
C a .7 - unr1 o : mer =
O th .
C- C -
@ W =I ~
t c. .
- u. -
~
C > O .5 ; feet Coto A. v e mer et -
, p . model o
4 oa3 .
N (49.14. 2. 0/ )
D E :
E D .3 -
I h ,
4 = 0.C03
.2 -
~
.I 0
30 35 40 45 50 55 50 Average Schmidt Hommer Indicotton I
l J