ML20235E352
Text
_ _, _ _,.
a : *g ca e
'i i
Projects Nos.68-118 and 69-239 CAROLINA POWER & LICHT COMPANY RALEICH NORTH CAROLINA l
DESIGN REPORT NO. 5 FINAL REPORT TEST FILL PROGRAM RESULTS AND 1ACKPILL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLASS I RACKPILL BR13fSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT S0tfrHPORT. NORTH CAROLINA i
)
I I
1 E. D'APPolDNIA 3
CONSULTING ENGINT.ERS, INC.
]
PITTSBURCil. PENNSYLVANIA a
4 k
NOVDGER, 1970
),
i t
j
$1 Jgvasoo7,g7o,23 MENZBh-ffl PDR
l q
\\
.Re i
l
~
E. D'APPOLO NI A censuome tunnsses.ame.
TABLE OF (ENTElfr$
List of Tables List of Figures Introduction 1
Laboratory Testing 4
Crain-Size Analyses 4
Modified Proctor Compaction Tests 5
j Maximum-Minimum Density Testing 6
Field Testing 11
{
)
Field Testing Involving Four-Foot-Thick tasse Lif ta 12 Field Testing Involving Thin Lif ts 14 i
Field Testing of Hand Compactors 17 Dynassic Instrumentation of the Vibraten Rollars Used for Compaction of Class I Soils 17 Definition of Var
- ables 18 Operating Frequency of Roller Drum 19 4
e Acceleration of Roller Drus 19 g
Static Weight and Radial Dynamic Force of Roller Drum 20 b
Acceleration and Frequency Measurements 21 Conclusions and Recosamendations 24 List of References 28 Tables I
Figures
\\
\\
\\
\\
-s 3
1 l
E. D'A PP O LONI A i
esme4 anno suem son.eec.
LIST OF TA3125 Table No.
Title i
1 Summary of Crain-Size Analyses Related to Test Fill Work II Summary of Test Details and Results of Vibratory and Impact Masinus Density Test Methods on Tan Fine Sand III Particle Breakdown Versus Increasin5 Compacting F.ffort IV Maximum Densities Achtsved with Vibratory Table and Impact Testing V
Comparison of Relative Density from Standard Penetration Test Results with Relative Donalty Free Field and Lab Testing (Msthod 1013 sed for Maximum Donalty)
VI comparison of Belative Density From Standard Penetration Tests Results with Relative Density From Field and Laboratory Testing Where Overburden Was Crester Than One Foot (Method 10 Used For Maximum Density)
VII Record of Test Till Density Tests Y111 Qiaracteristics of Rollers ilsed In Test Fill Frogram II Sassary of Measurements Made On Crest of Roller Drums X
Summaary of Measurements Made In the Soil, hro Feet Below Croemd Surface Beneath the Roller Drum l
I
\\
t
\\
\\
l
\\
y
~ * ~ ~~ ~
I
E. D'A P P O LO NI A consuomes r=sinsess.mc.
LIST OF FIGURES
-Firure No.
Title 1
Range of Crain Sise Analyses Results for Cray Fine Sand (Class 1) 2 Range of Crain Size Analyses Results for Tan Fine Sand (Class 1) i 3
Motsture-Density Reistionship Curves for Cray i
Fine fand (Class 1) i 4
Typical Motsture-Density Relationship Curves for l
Tan Fine Sand (Class I)
{
5 Compactive Effort Versus Dry Density and Particle I
Breakdown for Tan Fins Sand (Class I) k I
6 Relative Density Versus Standard Penetration Test i
Blow Counts as a Function of Overburden Pressure (Raf 11) i 7 - 10 Relative Density Versus Depth 5
h
?
9 11 Location of Test Fill Lanes and Areas 12 - 14 Depth Versus Density Profiles for Four-Foot Leoss Lif ts - Lones 3 and 4 15 Superposition of Depth Versus Density Profiles -
Four-Foot Loose Lift - Vibroplus CH-43 l
16 Superposition of Depth Versus Density Profiles -
Four-Foot Lcose Lif t - Bosag 200 17 Construction Details of Lanes 3 and 4 l
18 Construction Dete11s of Lanes 5, 7, 8, 9,10 and 11 19 Construction Details of Test Area E-1 and Hand l
Compaction Test Areas.
20 Depth Versus Density Profiles for Vibroplus CH-43, Lanes 5 and 7 and Test Area E-2
)
I mu
me
?
e E. D'AP P O L O N I A 90setukkue Esseitettes.imc.
LIST OF FICURES (Castinued)
Piaure No.
I Tit le, t
I 21 Depth Versus Density Profile for Ferguson SP-65 at Lane 4 22 Depth Versua Density Profiles for Vibroplus 01-43 Fergson SP-65 and Modified Raygo 600 for Five Passes Over heo-Toot Lifts 23 Depth Versus Density Profiles for Vibroplus 01-43 Perguson SP-65 and Modified Raygo 600 for 2 and 3 Passes Over hto-Foot Lifts 24 Depth Versus Density Profiles for Hand Compactors 25 Motices of sof t and Container Durina Vertical Vibration With Peak Acceleration Creater Than la l
I
)
I i
3 I
2
~ ~ ~ -
?
t1 l
(2 l
[
f oo
.. t u ss.. c.
1.
5
\\
l FINAL REPORT I
Tt3T TILL PROGRAM RESULTS AND I
BACKTILL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLASS 1 EACKFILL BRrNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT SOUTHPORT, NORTH CAROLIMA i
l i
INTRODUCTION g
A test fill has been conducted at the site of the Brunswick
'l Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) to establish construction control procedures and eptimal compaction methods for backfill material.
d f
Optimal conditions are i
those associated with the attainment of the required density with the least
,{
amount of work. hvo differest types of soils, designated as Class I and lf' d
Class II, b ve been cested and appropriate recommendations have been developed.
)
i Reported htrein are the test results and recommendations for the Class I soil; I
whereas, a companion report contains similar information relative to the i!
Class II soil.*
It is noted that Class I soil is that backfill material available i
i at the BSEP site which has less than 15 percent by weight passing the No. 200 sieve.
It in essentially granular, free draining and its compaction properties cre practically independent of water content. It will be placed in accordance with a relative density criterion as suggested by ASDi Designation D-2049-647.
t Class 11 soil is defined as that backfill material available at the BSEP nite having a percentage of finen passing the No. 200 sieve in the rcnge of 15 to 40 percent. It is essentially granular material also, but its compaction is water-content dependent. Therefore, a Modified Proctor criterion, cs suggested by ASTM Designation D-1557-66T, will be used for field control.
The Modified Proctor criterion, an opposed to the Standard Proctor critorion,
" Final Report, Test till Pror, ram Results and Backfill Recommendations for 3
1 Class 11 Rackfill, Brunswick Stenm Electric Plant, Southport North Carolina," E. D' Appolonia Consult ing Engineers, Inc., November,1970.
I 1
1
E. D'APPOLO N I A eosovou.e sie. asses,is.c.
2.
has been adopted because the energy asesciated with the laboratory test is a better representation of that being imparted to the soil by the com-paction equipment available at the site.
(
It is emphasised that the Class I and Class !! designation in
.i ao way refers to AgC classification of structures. The use of I and II to designate types of soil has been adopted on this project only for sin-plicity in the field. To fully appreciate this means of classification, an understanding of the excavation operation is necessary. When the material is being removed from the excavation, a coils engineer is constantly observing the operation and directing the scraper operator with hand signals to the proper stockpile or spoil pile. A "thsibs down" signal indicates spoil while one finger indicates Class I soil and two fingers indicates Class II soil.
i The soils engineer is able to identify the class of soil by observing the vater content, color, grain-size characteristics, and a general recognition j
for the material as a result of having conducted numerous grain-staa analyses.
gis interpretation is subsequently checked with formal grain-size analyses later in the day or the following day and will again be checked during the placement of the backfill.
As indicated in a previous reportf1I* approximately 1,200,000 cubic yards of backfill will be required at the BSEP site. In an April 1970 report,(2) preliminary estimates were presented which showed that approximately 500,000 cubic yards of clana, I soils are available f or une as backfill from the plant and canal excavation and from nearby borrow I'
To establish a compaction procedure for this material that would areas.
- See List of Ref erences u
]
- i. D'A P PO LO N I A censu ouse sue ncans mc 3,
produce an economical structural fill consistent with the overall foundation design requirements, it was recommended that a test fill program, consistent l
with the PSAR, be undertaken involving both Class I and Class II soils.
The results of the teet fill program on the Class I soils show that this material is most efficiently compacted with a vibratory roller which has cither a high operating frequency or a high drum acceleration. The most cffective vibratory rollers used in the test fill program were the Vibroplus CR-43 towed roller, the self-propelled Modified Raygo 600 and self-propelled Perguson SP-65.
I 1
The test fill results have titown that when the above rollers are l
used for compaction, the class I soils can be compacted to 75 percent rela-tive density or greater with two to five passes over a one to two-foot, leone lif t, depending upon the type of meterial. The gray fine aand (Class I), which has been stockpiled duuring the excavation work, is effectively cospected to 75 percent reistive density with two passes over a two-foot loose lif t1 wh'ile the tan fine sand (Class 1), a local surficial deposit, is best compacted to 75 percent relative density in a one-foot, loose lif t with five passes. Each loose lif t is constructed in layers of approximately six inches with scrapers and dorers. A limited quantity of Class 1 material has recently been backfilled using the above procedures. Tield and laboratory testing have shown that this recently coepscted material meets all require-ments for structural backfill.
Subsequent sections of this report include discussions of the Icboratory and field test results, as well as the results of the instrumentation cf vibratory rollers, which were used in the test fill.
\\
!I
\\
i 8
~-
7 T
E. D'A PPO LO N I A 4.
osmoutnme susiastas.ine.
IABOR.ATORT TESTING 4
i Laboratory testing for this program consisted of grain-size analyses, Modified Proctor compactice testing, water content determina-i j
tions and maximum-minimum denalty tasting. Discussions of the laboratory test work in this work will be limited.to the testing of Class I sotis.
A companion report discusses tha laboratory and field work associated
]
with Class II soila.
1 As mentioned previously, the Class I soils have been defined as so11s avs11able at the SSEP site containing less than 15 percent fines.
These soils consist of a tan fine sand which exists as a relatively thin surficial deposit in the vicinity of the site and a gray fine sand which exists in the BSEP encaration near E1 -11 feet. This gray fine sand has been stockpiled during the excavation operations under the direction of experienced soils engineers. Because of problems with land acquisition and material availability, only limited testing was performed on the tan fine sand during the test fill program. Laboratory testing, however, was per-formed on both materials so that their characteristics could be evaluated and compared with the test fill results. Based upon these comparisons, a specification has been prepared for compacting both the tan fine sand and the gray fine sand.
Crain-Site Analyses:
De percentaar of fines for the Class I soils examined during the test fill work varied from 1.6 to 13.0 percent, as shown in Table I.
De range of results for all grain-size analyses assocaited with the test j
fill material is shown on Pigs 1 and 2.
Base data indicate that the soils obtained from the BSEP exesvation consisted of a gray fine sand of uniform x
I l\\
r
..... - - - - _.... _.. - =... -
i
E. D'A P PO LO N I A consatwee theiwates iwe.
3, gradation; while the surficial tan fine sand located along the canal routes is similar in gradation but with a slightly higher percentage of fines. his suggests that the tan fine sand is not as free-draining as the grey fine sand, f
but its compaction characteristics should still be independent of water con-f tent.
Modified Proctor Compaction Tests:
To determine the effects of water content on the compacted density of the two sands, a series of Modified Proctor compaction tests were per-formed. Results obtained from this testing are summarised as Figs 3 and 4 We results of the compaction tests on the gray fine sand, as presented on Fig 3, show that this material has a typical "S" shaped Proctor curve character-f istic of compaction curves for clean sands.
We "S" shape of the compaction i
curve indicates that lower densities are obtained at a low range of water contents due to capillary forces which resist the rearrangensat of the sand grains during compaction. As the water content increases, this resistance is overcome and a slightly higher density is reached with increasing water 1
contents until saturation occurs, ne Modified Proctor compaction testing on the gray fine sand indicates that the compacted density of this meterial is relatively independent of the water content. Werefore, den the gray fine sand is used for backfill, a relative density backfill control should be used, and no water content control will be necessary other than assuring that a saturated condition does not exist.
l L
_-______N
1 E. D'APPO LO NI A consuume sneineses.inc.
6.
The Modified Proctor curves for the Class I tan fine sand, as II!
I shown on Fig 4, indicate that the compe:ted density of this material is
{
slightly more sensitive to water contest variations than the gray fine sand. ' As the percentage of fines increases, sensitivity to water content is more pronounced. On an overall basis, however, the Modified Proctor compaction curves suggest that the tan sand does not have a well-defined or peaked compaction curve where sigafficant changes in compacted density occur with small changes in water contents. Therefore, the back-filling of the tan fine sand can be effectively controlled under a rela-tive density criteria with a limited water content control.
The water content of the tan fine sand during placement should be restricted to between 2 and 12 percent.
MAXINUM-MINIMUN DERSITT TESTING The structural backfill foundation scheme, as reported in the f
PSAR, requires minimum relative densities of 60 to 75 percent depending upon the location of the backfill with respect to the plant facilities.
I A relative density compaction control, as suggested by ASTM Designation l
D-2049-64T, will apply to the class 1 soils since they are essentially free-draining, cohesionless soils which do not possess a well-defined moisture-density relationship curve. Relative density is a measure of the compacted or field density with respect to the loosest and densest states at which the soil can be placed by laboratory procedures.
I I
I
I E. D'A PPO LONI A comevaime tusiwsees.suc.
I' The percent relative density is computed as follows:
I Y,(y-y,gn)
Dd ' y(ymax ymin)~ * #
where:
Dd = relative denalty in percent y, = dry density of the soil in its densest state pounds per cubic foot.
y,g, a dry density of the soil in its loosest state, pounda per cubic foot.
y = dry density of the soil in its natural state, pounds per cubic foot.
1 The method of determining the minimum density is a standardized AS co-dure which is easily followed in the laboratory. Conversely, the determina-tion of the maximum density for cohesionless soils can be determined b y any f
one of several methods suggested in the available literature (Re s 3-10)
Since the determination of the relative density of the compacted backfil is dependent upon the maximum density as established in the labor t a ory, a program was established as part of the test fill study to determine an appropriate maximum density determination procedure for control of the filling of Class 1 soils.
j To determine a method which would produce the maximum dens without significantly altering the characteristics of the compacted soil s_.
s, impact, vibratory and free-fall techniques were studied.
Initially, impset, vibratory and free-fall testing were performed on the tan fine sand usin!
g the techniques outlined in Table II.
l Results of this testing showed that Method 10. Table 11, produced the highest maximum density In this particular Ia i.
_ _.- - _ L --
E. D'A P P O L.O N I A consvinne ameinsens.ine.
l g,
method, the sample is compacted in a four-inch diameter Proctor mold in ten layers at 50 blows per layer using a 10-pound hammer with an 18-inch drop.
A one-half inch thick, four-inch diameter confining plate is placed over each layer as it is compacted so that the hammer strikes the confining plate rather than the soil. The confining plate was used to reduce the distur-bance of the sand by the hammer blows and to reduce the particle breakdows caused when the hammer strikes the soil directly.
T14 effect of increasing the number of blows to a figure greater than 50 blows was also investigated. As shown on Fig 5, compactive efforts of 10, 25, 50,100 and 150 blows per layer for ten layers were used with the increase in density as indicated. Crain-sise analyses were perforwed before and after impoet testing to determine if particle breakdcrwn oi frac-turing was occurring. From the grain-sise testing, it was found that particle breakdown was occurring during impact testing from the No. 60 sieve size particles down to the No. 200 sieve particles. As shown tu Table III and on Fig 5, the increase in percentage of fines for the can fine sand is slightly over one percent for the 50 blows per layer for 10 layers of compactive effort.
Since the change in the percentage of fines increases with increasing compac-tive effort, the characteristics of the soil are changed to such an extent that densities obtained are not representative of field conditions. Accordingly, the compactive effort used during impact testing was limited to 50 blows per 2
layer for ten layers. In this manner, the increase in fines caused by the relatively high cor.pactive ef fort will be held to a maximum value on the order of one percent.
\\
\\
Tl E. D'A P P O LO N I A I*
l consweee t=sineses.ime.
1 As indicated in the PSAR, the maxinsus density as determined by i
f fold techniques is to be compared periodically with maximus densities
' 1
}
found by using a vibratory table. In accordance with this requirement, a l
t vibratory table conforming to the specifications outlined by ASW Desigma-4
!i tion D-2049-64T was installed at the BSEP field laboratory, and a seriam of tests were performed wherein the maximum densities from the vibratory table and Method 10 were compared. As shown in Table IV, the results
]
l indicate that a higher maxioma density is consistently obtained with Method 10. This higher maximum density is offset somewhat because the minimum density using the vibratory table mold is sligh'ely higher than the minimum densities obtained with the four-inch diameter Proctor mold.
On an overall basis, however, relative densities calculated using Method 10 and typical field density values are five percent lower than the relative densities determined by using the vibratory table results (See Table IV). This implies that the use of Method 10 is more conservative than the ASM procedure.
As an additional check, Standard Penetration Tests were con-ducted in the test fill lanes and the results compared with the relative densities which were calculated using Method 10, minimum density test results and field density test results. The Standard Penetration Tests were conducted by using a utsndard two-inch 0.D. split-barrel sampler, a 1
140-pound hammer with a 30. inch drop and a tripod arrangement. Each test was performed using closely controlled testing methods.
Standard Penetra-tion Test results made within the top foot of the test fill can not be used 1
- ASTM Designation No. D-1586-67.
s, i
\\
lf I
\\
f; I
\\
6
E. D'A P P 01.O N I A l
esmewise smeseisses.i.e..
10 for comparison purposes because the low confining pressures tend to cause the data to be generally unreliable. On the other hand, relative densities obtained frams the Standard Penetration Testa made at depthe greater than one foot should be consistent and were used for comparison.
l The data sheets showing the blow counts from the Standard Penetra-
}
tion Testing are on file at the site. The blow counts were used in conjunc-tion with rig 6, which was developed by Gibbs and Holts,00 to determine 1
relative densities from Standard Penetrative Test blev counts.
The calcea.
i 1sted relative densities are plotted on rigs 7 through 10 along with depth-
- i i
versus-density profiles determined from field and laboratory testing where Method 10 was used to find the maximum density.
Using the depth-versus-density profiles, relative density values, as presented in Table V, were determined for specific depths. Test results where the overburden was greater than one foot are shown in Table VI.
l 1
From the results, as shown in Table VI, it is seen that the rela.
tive density, as determined from the Standard Penetration Testing is on the I
order of three percent higher than the relative density calculated when using the maximum density test result. This implies that if Method 10 is used to determine the maximum density, the relative density of the backfill will be f
three to five percent lower than if Standard Penetration Tests or the vibra-l tory table were used to establish the maxisus density. On this basis,
{
l Method 10 has been chosen for use in controlling the backfill operations for Class I soils at the BSEP site. It is planned to use the vibratory table
\\
h i.
1,.
l
~1 1
E. D'APPO LONI A conswan ensincras,nec.
11.
as a periodic check on the results obtained from Method 10. Should the vibratory table show higher maximum densities, it will govern in that in-stence.
FIELD TESTIIIG Field testing for the BSEP Test Fill Program has included field e
density tests and, as previously mentioned. Standard Penetration Tests at t
the test-fill lanes with varying lif t thicknesses, roller passes and roller types. Field density tests were conducted at various depths with Washington Densometera, which use a water filled balloon to asasure volumes. All field J
data sheets for this testing are maintained on file at the site; the associ.
sted results are summarized in Table VII.
The test fill areas were located as shown on Fig 11. Eight test lanes and one hand compaction area were constructed with Class I soils using a combination of self-loading scrapers, graders and bulldozers. Class I soils were tested in Lane Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,10 and 11, and in Area E-1, while Class II soils were tested in Lanes ties.1, 2 and 6.
In Lane No.1, an attempt was made to test the thin surficial layer of Class I can fine sand which is located along the Intake Canal Route.
It was found, however, that when using standard excavation procedures, this thin layer of Class I can fine sand could not be segregated sufficiently from the underlying Class II clayey sand to produce a Class I backfill material.
At that time, the arean along the Intake Cans 1, where the tan fine sand is relatively thick } vere not available because of land acquisition procedures.
Therefore, all of the material tested in the remaining Cinns I lanes con-sisted of the gray fine sand obtained from the excavation at or below C1 -11 i
fect.
3 i
i I,
i E
}
F w
.u-E. D' APP O LO N I A se me asus ene m u ns. soc.
12.
Field Testina Involving Four-Fest-Thick 1.oose Lif ts:
lattially, four-foot-thick loose lif ts of the gray fine sand were tested to estimate the optimal lift thickness for compacting the gray fine i
l nand to 75 percent relative density. Each four-foot loose lift was con-
' t otructed in eight-inch layers. After each four-foot loose lif t was constructed, a specified number of roller passes was made and density tests were conducted at various depths to asseure the influence of the roller as a function of depth.
l Density tests were takes at the same depth in three different loca-tions in the test lane and averard to arrive at an in-place density for a gives depth. Depth-versus-density profiles were plotted for each roller tested as shown on Fiss 12.13 sad 14. For 75 percent relative density backfill, se optimal lif t thickasse of two feet was established by super-posing the depth-versus-density profiles in the manner outlined on Fiss 15 mad 16.
Each of the four-foot 1sese lif ts was compacted by making all of i
the roller passes in the same path. Therefore, the effects of adjacent rollar passes were neglected.
In Lane No. 3 two, fear-foot looss lif ts, as shown on Fig 17, were built and tested separately.
la the first four-foot life, density profiles were taken prior to compaction and then after two, four, six and ten passes with the Raygo 600 vibratory roller. The characteristics of this roller and all other rollers used in the test fill program are shown in Table VI!!.
No significant increase in density was achieved after ten passes of the Raygo 600 roller; therefore, five additional passes were made with the Raygo 400 vibra-t tory roller. When no improvceent resulted af ter the five pansen with the Raygo 400, the Raygo 600 was instnm.ented to investigate possible defects in 6
1
\\
l t
,L__-
O
C. D'AP PO LO N I A sensuusse susentsas,ime.
13' drum f requency and acceleration. The roller instra:watation program is discussed in detail la a subsegment section of this report.
Results of the instrumentation show that the Raygo 600 produced relatively low drum fregasocies and accelera-tions. Following this instrumentation, five additional passes were made over the same four-foot lift with both a Bros 8FY-76 wibratory roller and the Raygo ted.
600 with the engine speed increased from 1300 to 1600 rys. Density test results, d
as presented on Fig 12, indicate that none of the rollers tested on this first four-foot lif t effectively increased the density of the Class I gray fine sand.
N second four-foot loose lif t was thes constructed at Lane 3 (Fig 17) and compacted with the Somas 200 self-propelled roller. Density testing af ter five and ten passes showed that a significant increase in density occurred between five and ten passes as illustrated on Fig 13. It was found, however, that considerable difficulty was experienced in maneuvering the Somag 200 in Lane 3.
b last faer-foot loose lif t was built in Lane 4 and tested after five and ten passsa with the Vibropies G-43 vibratory roller. The teamits shown on Fig 14 were clailar to those of the gomag 200 in Lane 3 in that a significant density increase occurred between five an1 tea passes.
Based upon the test results involving fcor-toot loose lif ts, it is concluded that a lasse lif t of gray fine sand, approximately two feet in thickness can be compacted to a relative density of 75 percent or more with either a Vibreplus 01-43 or somag 200 vibratory roller. The Bomag 200
) ia roller, however, was jedged as being undesirable because of its inability to j
maneuver in loose sand. The results of the four-foot loose lift testing also indicate that if the Class I gray fine sand is compacted in areas requiring 60 1
\\
\\
\\
j I
+*==8~
L D'A P P O L.O N I A consanne suomesas.iac.
14.
percent relative density, a three-foot loose lif t can be used. This conclusion j
was draum f rom superposing the depth-versus-density profile for five passes per lift of the Vibroplus 01-43 (Fig 12). Subsequent test fill work involved optimal two-foot lifts with the roller type and number cf passes being varied.
Field Testing Involvina Thin Lifts:
During this phase of the testing, the Class I gray fine sand was com-pacted in lif ts two feet thick or less with the Vibroplus QI-43, Ferguson $P-65 and a Modified Raygo 600 roller. The original Raygo 600 roller was replaced with a modified version having a heavier drum weight (2400 pounds) and a rated centrifussi force 7000 pounds greater than the original Raygo 600. These three rollers were used for the final test fill work based upon their maneuverability j
and a comparison of the rollers with the test results from the four-foot loose l
lift test fill. All test fill work involving the gray fine sand placed is lif ts two feet thick or less was performed in Lanes Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 l
and Test Area E-1.
Construction details of each of these lanes and Test Area E-1 are shown on Figs 17,18 and 19.
The Vibroplus 01-43 towed rollsr was used for test fill work at Test Area E-1 and at Lane Nos. 5 and 7.
At Test Area E-1, one-foot thick lif ts were compacted with five passes per lif t over a test area approximately 40 feet wide (See Fig 19). Results of this testing, as indicated on Fig 20 show that everage relative densities on the order of 90 percent are achieved using this technique.
Accordingly, the CH-43 was used at Lane No. 5 where two, two-foot lif ts were compacted in a 30-foot wide strip with five passes per lif t.
The use of five passes produced average relative densities on the order of 85 percent as shown on Fig 20. The final testing with the 01-43 was performed at Lane 7 where two, x
s l
\\
i
_g, j
i O
E. O*A PPOLO N I A geoneUL?tess tsemests. test.
15.
two-foot lif ts were compacted over a 30-foot wide area with two passes per lif t.
Average relative densities on the order of 78 percent were obtained with two passes per lif t as shown on Fig 20.
The Ferguson $P-65 self-propelled vibratory roller was used in testing Lane Nos. 4, 8 and 9.
At Lane llo. 4, two, two-foot lif ts vere compacted with tan passes per lif t.
The width of the esapacted area was equal to one roller width as shown on Fig 17. As indicated en Fig 21. this method resulted in average relative densities on the order of 75 percent; however, this testing does not include the effects of adjacent roller passes. A 30-foot wide strip
{
of two lif ts, each two feet thick, was than constructed at Lane No. 8 and com-pacted with five passes per lif t with the Fergusom SP-65. As shown on Fig 22 five passes per lif t produced an average relative density of 85 percent at depthe greater than one foot. Testing of the Ferguson 57-65 was concluded with two, two-foot lif ts being built at Lane No. 9 and compacted with two passes per lif t.
Average relative densities achieved with the two-pass-per-lif t procedure were found to be slightiy greater than 80 percast as indicated on Fig 23.
The Modified Raygo 600 was used for compaction testing at Lane Nos.
10, and 11. In both cases, two, two-foot-thick lif ts were compacted in a 30-foot wide strip. Five passes and three passes per lif t resulted in average relative densities of 83 and 80 percent, respectively, as indicated on Figs 22 and 23.
Based on the results of the thf a lif t testirs, it appears that the Vibroplus CH-43, Ferguson SP-65 or Modified Raygo 600 will compact the Class I gray fine sand to relative densities greater than 75 percent with two passes l
over a two-foot 1cose lif t.
A relative density of 60 percent can be achieved with two passes over a three-foot loose lif t.
The loose lif t should be con-I structed in eight-inch increments with scrapers and fine-graded with dozers l
l l
\\-
__. i a
i E. D'A P PO LO N I A esemnese smesmasas.ies.
10' and graders on a continual basis. It should be noted that limited diffi-l culties were encountered in maneuvering the Ferguson and Raygo rollers in the gray fine sand.
As pointed out previously, the tan fine sand was not investigated at the test fill lanes.
m 1.aboratory results show that the tan and gray fine j
sands are very similar in grain sise, shape and particle distribution except e
i that the tan material cantains a slightly higher percentage of fines.
This suggests that the tan fine sand should be compacted in thinner lifts and with more passes than required for the gray fine sand. After a study of the i
results from testing the gray fine sand in the test lanes, and after eval-uating the stailarities in the two materials, it is concluded that a relative I
density of 75 percent can be achieved with the tan fine sand if it is com-pacted in one-foot loose lifts with five passes per lif t with the Ferguson i
I SP45 Vibroplua 243 or Modified Raygo 600 vibratory roller.
i It appears that a relative denalty of 60 percent can be achieved with three passes over a two-foot loose lift.
In both cases, the water content of the Class I tan fine send should be maintained between 2 and 12 parcent during placement.
l It should be mentioned that the percentage of particles in samples of the tan fine sand passing the No. 200 sieve will vary to a greater degree than in the gray fine sand.
Since it was not possible to test all variations of Class I material, the compaction procedure should be flexible to account for this variation.
Therefore, the compaction procedures, as recommended, should be subject to modification by the soils engineers at the site based upon the materials encountered and results of daily field and laboratory testing.
At this time, we do not anticipate that any changes of this nature will be necessary.
l
_I i
E. D'A P POLO N I A esusanno amantase.eme.
17.
Field Testina of Rand Compactors:
Two hand compactors, the Wacker 550 and Easick VF 24, were tested in individual areas, approximately 20 feet by 20 feet in plan, as shown on Fig 19. hro and five passes were made with the hand compactors over one-foot-thick loose lif ts with the resulting depth-versus-density profiles as shown on Fig 24. These results show that for two passes, the average rela-tive densities are slightly less than 75 percent and that for five passes all test results except one were significantly above 75 percent.
Based on these tests, both hand compactors should be suitable for backfilling the gray fine sand to a relative density of 75 percent with five passes over a one-foot loose lif t.
A relative density of 60 percent can be achieved with two passes over a one-foot loose lif t.
Also, it appears that the tan fine sand can be backfilled to 75 percent relative density with seven passes over a one-foot loose lift sad to 60 percent relative density with four passes'over a one-foot loose lift. As mentioned previously, these procedures are subject to modification in the field.
~
DYNAMIC INSTRUMENTATION OF TIE VIBRA't0RY B01.1.ERS USED FOR COMPACTION OF CLASS I $011.S Theoretical and experimental investigations cited in the available i
literature (
- have shown that compaction of granular soils by surface vibre-tion is highly dependent upon the dynamic characteristics of the vibratory roller. These characteristics include roller operating frequency, amplitude i
- . fr a om.=
.... ~ ~... -
-~~..=w.=w...-
== ens
~
eenmanns seemessas.ine.
18*
and acceleration.
A brief field test program was conducted at the SSEP site to evaluate the dynante characteristics of the vibratory rollers available for use in the test fill.
These measurements allowed preliminary prediction of the roller's performance before using the roller for compaction and, therefore, served to expedite the selection of the more suitable rollers to be used in the backfill of Class I soils.
I Definition of Variables For all rollers tested at the BSEP site, vibrations are produced i
j by an eccentric weight mounted on a rotary shaf t within the roller drum cylinder.
Rotation of the shaft causes an unbalanced force which results in a dynamic 4
action which can be controlled by the speed of the roller engine.
1 The dynamic i
motion resulting from the unbalanced force is evaluated by the following l
reistionships t
I = A sin 2 e f t I
(1) 7 where:
I = dynamic motion A = maximum amplitude of motion fa frequency ta time The peak velocities and accelerations cf the drum may be erpressed in terms of the maximum amplitude and frequency as follows:
Peak Velocity:
I=2wfA (2) i Peak Acceleration:
I=(2nf)2g (3) where the det indicates differentiation with respect to time, i
)
I a
y_
~~
~
~2 consusn=e sneenstas.ine.
19.
The following characteristics of the vibratory rollers used in the test fill were measured and are discussed in detail in subsequent paragraphs:
Operating Frequenty Acceleration of the Roller Drums Static Weight and Radial Dynamic yorce of the Roller Drum Operatint Frequency of Roller Drum:
To achieve optimal results, past experience indicates that the roller drum should be operated at the resonant frequency of the roller-soil systemi that is, the frequency which produces the maximum drum displacement.
Namely, the rosonant frequency is in the range of 30 eps or higher.
As shown by Eqn (3), the peak drum acceleration increases as the equare of the operating frequency. Therefore, a higher operating frequency for a given roller will result in the higher vertical drum acceleration se long as the frequency remains lower or just slightly above the resonant frequency. Similarly, test results by Whitman and OrtigosaII I indicate that the number of load cycles of the roller drum which is slammed down against the soil, or the magnitude of load applied in a unit of time, is of special importsnee in achieving effective compaction of sand. This effect is especially important in the case of rollers with heavy drums I
but low accelerations, j
Acceleration of Roller Drum:
Laboratory studies Ion vibration of cohesionless soil using a vibra-tory table have shown that very little densification occurs until the accelera-tions are increased to one g and that saximum densification* occurs with the vib-retory table when the acceleration reaches two or three g's. When the peak down-
\\
I
\\
i
\\
o
+>
- L~*~~
- " * * ^
- ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~
t
- - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - -
~~
l E. D'A P P O LO NI A cous ariee se.emstas.mc.
20.
i i
ward acceleration of the vibratory mold eaceeds is, the vertical stress within the soil drops to sero because the individual soil grains are in a state of f ree fall.
Since the sand cannot sustain tension, and is in a state of free-fall, the grains are pushed into a dense arrangement by the subsequent arcin-to-grain impact occurring upon cosyletion of the cycle as shown on Fig 25 The impact stresses under the roller drum are much greater than those in the laboratory test and add to the effectiveness of the compaction in the field.
By drawing upon the results of these laboratory studies, it is possible to define two different conditions which develop beneath a vibratory roller du compaction. These cunditions ares i
Overvibration by violent accelerations at the ground surface.
s.
This overvibration results is a loosening of the upper six inches of the lif t of send immediaely below the roller drum.
b.
Densification by freefell as illustrated on Fig 25.
This densification will occur down to a certain depth depending upon the roller drum and soil characteristics.
Static Weight and Radial Dynamic Force of Roller Drums At a depth where the soil is never in freefall, densification is caused by a repetition of stress resulting from the dynamic impact of the roller drum.
This impact occurs when the drum is raised off the ground during each cycle and then makes contact with the ground surface.
The static weight of the drum is, therefore, an important factor in obtaining efficient com-paction; a heavier roller operating at the same frequer :y and acceleration l
as a lighter roller will perform more efficiently.
i nmwnm-~~
E, D'APPOLONI A co nsutt w o ame<=sses.swe.
21.
Acceleration and Frecuenev Men'aurements:
The peak accelerations and maximum operating frequenelee have been checked for all the vibratory rollers used during the test fill pr gram. The instrumentation included a dual beam storage oscillosc ope (Hewlett and Packard, Model 1201A), a cathode follower and an acceleromet r Research Laboratories.
e, both from Columbia The accelerometer transforms the mechanical inpu into electrical impluses which are recorded by the os ill c
on the oscilloscope screen.
oscope and displayed Accelerations and maximum operating frequencies were obt ained on the roller drum by holding the accelerometer on the creet of the drum All accelera-tien measurements were taken with the roller on th e same base material since the magnitude of the acceleration peak is dependent u pon the rigidity of the material upon wAnich the roller is vibrating.
A susanary of the accelerations, emp11tudes and frequencies measured on the crest of the roller d rusus is shcwn in Table IX.
Acceleration measurements were also made with buried beneath the roller drums, two feet below the gro meter und surface.
A summary of these measurements is included in Table X.
Results of this instrumentation, as presented in Tables 11 and X, show that the Somag 200 and Ferguson $P.65 rollers were f ound to operate at frequencies greater than 30 cps, the approximate resonant frequency of th e roller-soil
_ _ - =
(
m-
_ y,- ogemuy-m ~r: :oaneomonnanEneww:WWW
L g
4 E. D'APPO LONI A I
?
eenev ouse aneinsens.ine.
22.
Both the Bonas 200 and Ferguson 3P-45 also develop sufficient system.
t i
l accelerations in the ground to bring the upper two feet of soil below the roller drum into freefall. As shown on Tiss 22 and 23 the Ferguson produced the kishest densities of the rollers tested over thin lifts. The Romas 200 was met tested with two-foot lif ts because of problems with maneuverability; however, the test fill results on a four-fooc loose lif t, as shown on Fig 13,
)
suggest that the Romag 200 vill produce higher densities than the Ferguson 3P-65.
{
The Vibroplus 01-43 was found to produce the highest accelerations in the ground of all the rollers tested. This implies that the G-43 will bring the soil into freefall to a greater depth than any of the other rollers tested, and will therefore compact a thicker lif t more efficiently.
The operating frequency of the G-43 was found, bewever, to be approximately 26 eps which is slightly less than the resonant fregeency. Consequently, as shown on Fiss 22 and 23, the 3-43 was found to compact the Class I soils to a lower 5
peak density than the Fergusoe SP-65; however, the 3-43 showed a greater effee-tive depth of compaction than the Ferguson roller.
The Raygo 600 vibratory roller, tested as delivered to the BSEP site, was found to be unacceptable for vibratory compaction of cohesionless soils.
l The measured maximum operating frequency of the roller drum was approximately l
l 22 eps, considerably less than the resonant frequency (Table IX).
Accelerations produced by the Raygo 600 two feet below the ground surface were too low to i
I effectively place a lif t of soil into freefall during part of the vibration cycle (Table X).
As indicated on Fig 12, the Raygo roller did not perform adequately. during the test fill work. As a result of these findings, the manu-j facturer modified a stock Raygo 600 by increasing the operating frequency to T.-
s-Y i
{
l
E. D'AP P O i.O N I A 23.
CoseSULhese Essestettet.ieec.
26 cps and the static weight of the drum by 2400 pounds (Table VIII). The l
Raygo 600 roller as altered was designated as the Modified Raygo 600.
Raoults of instrumentation used on the Modified Raygo 600 roller, as provided in Table IX fed I, showed' that it developed slightly lower acceler-ctions in the groimd than the Vibroplus G-43.
The higher static weight of the i
Modified Raygo roller drum operating at 26 eps results in a large dynassic impact i
feree which compensates for the louer drum acceleration so that the Modified Rayso 600 compacts the Class I gray fine sand as effectively as the Vitroplus
)
In summary, the lastrumentation program has verified the results of j
the field testing in that it has shown the Ferguson SP-65, vibroplus ci-43 and
,f Modified Raygo 600 to be acceptable for compaction of the Class I backfill.
The original Raygo 600 roller delivered to the site was found to be unacceptable airce it had a low operating frequency and imparted relatively low accelerations j
into the ground. The Ferguson 8P-65 performs adequately because it has a rela-tivaly high operating frequency and develops sufficient accelerations in the
' j grzund to bring the upper two feet of soil beneath the roller into freefall.
1 Tho Vibroplus compacts effectively since it imparts high accelerations into
. 4
{
i the ground and has an acceptable operating frequency. The Modified Raygo 600 uns found to compact the Class I soil effectively since it has an acceptable f
cperating frequency and produces a large dynamic impact force.
x
\\
\\
_- W WE I
E. O*APPO LONI A onesuomo seemeses.swe.
g, CONCIESIONS Als RECGetENDATIONS hs Class I backfill at the BSEp site is to be compacted under a controlled relative density criteria. Pelative density is a pessure of the esapaeted er field density as compared to a maximum and minimum density deterstmed in the laboratory. Procedures for finding minimum densities are somewhat standardized, whereas several methods exist for finding paxi-asa densities.
Accordingly, a laboratory study was conducted for the purpose of defintag an appropriate maximum density determination technique.
Results of this study abow that an tapact method rather than a vibratory method is more suitable for finding the assimum density of the class I soils at the BSEP site.
he types of Class I soils, a gray fine sand and a tan fine sand, exist in the vicinity of the BSEP site. The gray fine sand which exists in sita at approximately E1 -11 feet has been stockpiled during recent escavation operations. He tan fine sand is a relatively thin surficial layer esisting throughout the Southport area.
i Initially, an attempt was made to separate the relatively thin layer of surticial tan fine sand from the underlyinF Class II materials; however, it was found that when using standard excavation procedures, mixing ot' the Class 1 and underlying Class II soils occurred, resulting in a pre-l dominantly Class II Peterial. Since none of the are&S where the tan fine sand is relatively thick were accessible at that time, the remaininF test fill field work involved the gray fine sand only. Laboratory analyses were performed on both asterials and results from these analyses were used for i
comparison and evaluetion purposes.
\\
~
1 I
'15.
i f
esmeense suomesas.iees.
1 Results of the test fill work on the gray fine sand indicate that compliance with the following backfill procedures will result in a satis-factory structural backfill Recommended Backfill Procedure for t
Class I Gray Fine Sand j
(Class 1 Material Stockpiled During Excavation Operations) 1 2
Vibratory Rollers I
la cross where 75 percent relative density is rowired, the i
)
gray fine sand should be cospected in two-foot, loose lif ts with two passes per lif t by a Fergusan Sp-65. Vibroplus G-43, t
t Modified Raygo 600 or an approved equivalent vibratory roller.
No water content control is necessary during compaction other
}
l than assuring that the material is not saturated.
f 1
i i
Rand Compactors 1
In areas where hand congactors are used and 75 percent relative j
density is required, the backfill should be compacted with five i
passes crver a one-foot, loose lif t with an Essick VP-24 Wacker $50 or an approved equivalent hand compactor. The water content l
control should be the same as for the vibratory rollers.
Laboratory results indicate that both types of Class 1 soils are similar in grain size characteristics with the exception that the tan fine sand has a slightly higher percentage of fines. Accordingly, the compaction procedure for the tan fine sand will require a thinner lift and a greater number of passes than is required for the gray fine sand. We recommend that the following procedure be used to compact the backfill consisting of tan fine sandt i
l
~
me 1
E. D'APPO LO N I A g,
someUL?use ausseettes. test.
Escommended Procedure for Backfillina Class I Tam Fine Sand f
(Class 1 Noterial Excavated From Canal or Borrow Areaa)
Vibratory Rollers in areas where 75 percent relative density is required, the tan fine sand should be compacted in one-foot, loose lif ts with five passes per lif t of a Ferguson SP-65, vibroplus C5-43, Modified Raygo 600 or an approved equivalent vibratory roller. The water content of the tan fine sand during placement should be between two and twelve percent.
Rand Compactors When hand compactors are used in areas where 75 percent relative -
density is required, the backfilled sacerial should be compacted in one-foot, loose lif ts with savea passes per lif t by an Essick I
VP-24, Wacker 550 or an approved equivalent hand compactor. The placement water content of the tan fine sand should be between i
two and twelve percent.
The recessended backfill procedure for the can fine sand is subject to modification since this material was not tested in the test fill lanes and has been found to have varying grain size characteristics. Modifications t
l should be made in the field depending upon field test results.
The recommendations which have been developed based on the test fill results are incorporated into the Backfill and Compaction Section of United Engineers & Constructors Specification No. 9527 01 8-1.
An addi.
I tional revision to this specification has been made to include a backfill
)
procedure for Class 11 soils.
I l
l l
r" S
s __ _ -
J
E. D'APPOLONI A seneethese teemeses, east.
27.
1 It is att anticipated that Class I soils will be compacted to areas requiring relative densities of 40 percent. However, a procedure for compacting the Class I soils to 60 percent relative density has bees included la the suggested specification should the need arise to use class I soils in these areas.
1 anspectfully subsdtted.
j E. D'APPO!ANZA CtatSULTING FNCINEDS, INC.
A^ _ '_
Y arl C. Risso f48 Bonald E. Langston Projects Nos.68-118 and 69-239 November 1970 e
-s
,w_-
,1
,y
,v.,
E. D'AP P O LO NI A 38' consuanes casiasses.ine.
=
List of References (1) Wistory of Excavation and Recommendations for, Test Pill Program, e
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 and 2, Southport, j
North Carolina, E. D' Appolonia Consulting Engineers March 1970.
(2) Preliminary _ Estimates g Backfill Quantities From Canal Excavation and selected Sorrow Areas, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Southport, North Carolina. E. D' Appolonia Consulting Engineers, j
April 1970.
(3)
H. C. Pettibose and J. Hardia, "Rassarch on Vibratory Maximus Density Test for Cohestoaless Soils" Compaction of Soils, ASTM 8tandard
~
Technical Publication No. 377. June 1964.
f (4)
A. W. Johnson and J. R. Sa11 berg " Factors influencing Compaction Test i
Raaalts" Highway Research Board Bulletin 319, 1962.
(5)
D. J. D' Appolonie, R. V. Whitman and E. D' Appolonia, " Sand Compactica with Vibratory Rollers," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, January 1969.
(6)
J. J. Kolbussevski, "An Experimental Study of the Maximum and Minimum Porosities of Sands", Proceedings Second International Conference on soil hechanics and Foundations Engineerias, Vo. I,1948, pp 158-165.
l (7) David Townsend and Walter Dohaney, " Relative Density Tests on Some Ontario Sands", Report No. 20, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, August 1963.
(8)
D. J. D' Appolonia and E. D' Appolonia " Determination of the Maximus Density of Cohesionless Soils," Proceedings from Third Asian l
Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics, September 1967.
(9) Selig, E. T.
Effect of Vibration on Density of Sand," Second Pan-American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation l
Engineerlag, 1963.
(10) ASTM," Tentative Method of Test for Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils," Procedures for Testig Soils, 1964.
\\
\\
i
~,
n I
O E. D'A P P O LO N I A
- )J ess e ntues ena m esas,ime.
29.
L{
Li List of References (continesed) hlio ij (11)
E. J. Gibbs and W. G. Molts, "Research on Determining the Density of Saad by Spoon Penetration Testing," Fourth International Conference on soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. I,
'{j{
}
pg. 35,1967.
)
(12)
L. Forsablad, " Investigation of Soil Compaction by Tibration,"
Acta Polytechnic Scandinavia, C1. 34. Stockbela,1965.
S (13)
R. V. Whitman and F. Ortigosa. "Dansificatica of Sand by Vertical M
Motions with Almost Constant Stresses" Soils Publication No. 206, Department of Civil Regineering MIT, Cambridge, Mass.1968
]
N 1
i i
e!'>t 1,
55.
3 (i
,i
?
i hl
- l l
l t
t.i
\\
\\
\\
f-j s
\\
!J
1 l
l E. D'AP PO LO N I A somem== se*=cens,me.
I is i
i l
l l
l TABLFJ 5
f l
I l
o 1-
'^
4 u
o TA81.E I o
StMetARY OF CRAIN-81ZE ANALYSES RELATED TO TEST FILL WORK Percent Minus Semple No.
Soil Type Sample Origin 3-17-586 Cray Fine Sand' 8SEP Excavation 3.8 3-17-5865 1.6 3-17-S86D1 4.5 4-20-5160 6.3 4-20-5161 5.2 4-20-S162 5.3 4-20-5163 4.8 4-20-8164 4.9 4-20-5165 6.7 4-20-8166 4.3 4-20-5167 6.9 4-20-5168 4.3 4-20-5169 3.6 4-20-5170 3.5 4-22-5171 7.6 4-22-5172 5.9 5-11-5184 7.0 5-11-8185 6.2 l
J 5-11-5186 6.2
~
5-7-S187 6.0 5-2-$200 5.8 3-5-S78 Tan Fine Sand Intake Canal 8.9 3-5-578C 7.0 3-11-584 4.4 3-11-S84A 4.0 3-18-587 6.9 3-18-587A a
6.0 3-18-S87E 3.5 3-18-5871 a
6.0 3-18-S87J1 North of Nancy's 6.2 Creek
- The $ ray fine sand was tested in the test fill lane > and in the laborntory.
- The tan fine sand was tested in the laboratory only (maximum density investigation) and was not tested in the test fill lancs.
1-1 4
l
,---w TABLE I StDeultf 0F CRAIN 412E ANALYSES RELATED TO TEST FILL WORK Forcent Minus Sample No.
Soil Type 8 ample Criatu f'
5-21-3188 fan Fine Sand **
North of Nancy's 12.2 Creek 5-20-3189 9.3 5-20-5190 13.0 5-20-5191 11.3
\\
l I
l a
's
)
I l
t i
The gray fine sand was tested in the test fill lanes and in the laboratory.
The tan finc sand was tested in the laboratory only (maximum density investigation) and was not touted in the test fill lancs.
1-2
(
i
ahi of x.
p pd s w e a g o y n
o w
v oeg n u
ea rh nct i4 d
t n
nd w s h si i
.t d ed hwni ned ut rd s y
c enn goat ys ahadt eunn l oe h oa il s
pt iarvd ae nNf ci ef
,e sl roe sd o
f atd h
r.
W esa afi r ae ti n ee vawAp seey 1
t sa ah vg 4 p ew pd kh r t
i d
ng aos Ten h
sen.aeeatd
.an p
m wi thh ohi r
h o
or val eat sf e Nt n ast r
.h u
t aesl rr oh i
uibf e t
i l ai fd d
s drf l ww l ;
nslfti oh e oen o
yold oe e
i a
nv t md hh o chd l mee hm T
nf e e
un t t c ce e
nv d4ol dd ol a ea hil ernr f
e o
.iaenut o Pre thl roue M T
c thh at vd h
iwi ftf s a oi t
in e
mdt w
f c
b C
s l Nds rl oen oe r
l oao o A
c p dad ep hi r se d es l r P
i Aawnk agt m fuc lk a aPgs M
t s
aamn r
I s
u oaw f
na D
i a
i
,e ssd sh di w s w.de
,h nv sed gt rae sd oes DN r
naee gl ne ewr.
r l.
ti us eo NA e
e a i veroid f
e oeos f
e AS t
'pnsrvahk f eov t vse di yn l
c p
a i el as ivt e ce t
edbi i TE a
m ep4 si yh a de i
RK r
a h seb sw ies rsh n oMd oieu wo f dg OI a
TF s t e.4 h
2sn P
Ti l
ef 5o A
vo aTd rs o4 a
m l at o d
f eN.
een
.hd d
a a
RN e ol i
eeNion.uf ct e oc en.e ol s o SA p
Nnso i oye st us No IT r
p h sdA iaN f
l r ango V
d oet ed ee e
N d
w idlh wiel df th het r FO n
t t t cu
.h d o4 r
d eat r
t e
h/se oct dt e h O
eE a
ansg t
t3i n Manr nesv n
S w hnh nli ann a
SD O t ot opmwii l haTf hi l oo aeai TO Apzf Sf ws Mf p LH 1 UT 1 SEEM t
E R n
L T
ee B DS tl A NE np T AT om Ca 1
1 1
E ST S
0 LT r
0 0
0 II ef AS t o TN a
EE W
DD Tt D
St EM e
TI l
X p.
8 8
8 8
FA mo 7
7 7
7 OM aN 5
S S
5 S
Y R
A te D
y IS t
s id
- u se) m nvf i eee 0 0
1 6
6 x Dip a
h(
5
- . yc 9
6 2
3 0
9 9
9 9
rA D
)y
)
)
)
d r
y y
l r
r l
o o
o o
a t
h.
t t
f t o a
1 r a
a Y. N e
2 r 3 r 4 e S
b i
b b
e V
i i
r V
v f
(
(
(
(
/'
s
iE[!!('
J m
a f
eosr d
ao h
st a
n rd e
wede e
t a
i e n.c tddi dd bd pu ea aew ne el ot l
- ei al y
ldehehd spap ntf r l er el s ct n u
l osie d
aihd inds e
oft eoire a
onps twhiid l e ad ti os cab d
s capnse bt pwe a
Me a
y n
e aer o
cd r
lhel.a arl ns ie 5at
,t ieA pthl s c
eeAancw 2
ra it uet f u.d s
owe won hgep n
sw ft e t
t es ht nt m i
u a
neuw ss.ldue tii eo doero weern dn e i e ql iwnmc mrep teaih eoat onep w
ia t
ey aawcmt pi asrrm sfis ewan olt o
mtdl ufa drnda n
l e b pe s eb a c n pd t s
eeo w
or t
bav l ea n
g sycn er se wid cs easny ua i t T
hyea asd fn es air lA i
t ap d aex a
set at w yd s
s C
il d
a=bnor apabe r
an et A
w sn
=
ob od wil srad we.ha f
rwa
= mi fe ppeievn t sc f
deo at=
i d
hhm a
d enl e pl d tdiadr I
l getcmt oasd ea ons aat ot c o
D l ohii s
be om oatv.
miafeh e
s n4 s DN us s
f=
p=
a d
tboh dw di NA w5 u car = bat AS so2 rse rr t re re df al s
i oeiws t ph o o a a t tl1 a ooep ith oi8no TE RN wbda dfthv e
cpttt ro cp r
nw oat et ou ebb o p gk e OI A5a e
r dm rsf edhi rancy TF 2
dp pb nie P
A d
sl o eoi.at r o oheTv.
P iia 8N odror ntve e
dwu c
es dnl t t
tt glhl BA hnesd o
tdnw eTooe
.t e
eia h
IT t ay eeano i
ttodad iefhc T
e arh dhtl ais f
N Msl oc itepst e i
.t mll u.
fb ca FO r
t n g r al odooptd i
r ne O
Meeci S
T yvo-ircehrp debecs ie drei ot d
elt oem r
SD Sair8 renstbm Mael sesps Mym2 e voaiia 1
TO AlfP1 A o cb w v s lh e ah a m e aa/v LH Apt vwtbat A lh 1 o 1
I UT 1
E R n
L T
B DS ee tl A NE np T AT om Ca SY 1
1 4
8 S
LT r
0 0
2 0
2 Z
II ef 1
O AS t o 1
TN a
EE DD W
TM S!
Elt e
TI l
X p.
8 FA mo 7
7 7
7 7
~O M aN S
g 3
8 8
7 S
5 5
8 Y
s 3
R S
AM IU y
S t
de) vf 7
ee 6
6 3
0 7
i p 7
h(
0 7
5 8
6 yc 1
9 9
9 9
1 rA D
1 1
l
)
)
y d
r y
o
)
o r
h.
t o
t t o c
t
)
a eN 6 a 7 r a
t M
p 8 r c
b m
b 9 a i
p i
I V
(
V m
(
(
I
(
I ll Ilw
r iti t am e
t nc n
a g
w aan eosd n rt e s
l i r
bsu e
eop e
inq hdh rp y
voe tl T a
a cr o
et l
a f
nV
.h
- ~
a e
t e r
n g.
e ot ng t oegt hrs h
p ain tl n d
yi dccih s
ed rt noipt w
ceas art pi o
at ve Praw l
l a t
d at b
prh edp s
bt g t r ye 0
siin aaeb t 5
avwi rdh u
T w
r unt yne C
t ssu t a l im A
p d aed atf l mi P
e l wh sS oa t
M c
o cd t n I
x M e
- t. e t anneh D
e l f s s
oot t DN rp u
roiz i
NA om5 i t ti rw AS 9
t a 0. s f naro cs a
igofd TE d
o 0w s
eh e
RN o
re ad r rs OI h
Phf e w e gd ea TF t
t og ceeme A
e d
r east mr R:
B 'A N
rd ea ll aac andh pperh e IT s
d auc m
sb d
V a
n t r aeuia N
aeiu sl av g
FO e d tll s pc hn O
m e Sb p en sti S
a s amo haoaie SD S
u At aN Tst wwb TO LH I
UT J SEEM t
E R n
L T
ee B DS tl A NE np 1
T AT om 5
C a 1
SY S
0 0
0 1
LT r
2 II ef AS t o TN a
EE W
TI l
X p.
8 7
7 7
- o 7
8 8
8 OM aN S
S S
5 S
YRAM MU y
S t
de)
.vf 3
3 0
0 ec 5
6 8
6 i p 1
0 9
0 h(
1 1
1 c
rA D
)
)
y y
r r
d
)
)
o o
o t
t t
t n
0 c 0 c 1 a 2 a
- o 1 a 1 a 1 r 1 r eM' p
p b
b m
m i
i I
I V
V
(
(
(
(
(
.-.., n n,.a
.6..
..+-
~*
~
~
TABLE III PARTICLE BREAKDOWN VS. INCREASING COMPACTING Ef70RT 3-17-586D; Cray Fine Sand; E1 -11 f t SAMPLES 3-17-587J; Tan Fine Sand; El +17 ft j
FERCENT PASSING $1 EVE NO.
Sample so.
j Layers 10 20 40 60 80 200 0
I 1
100 99.9 99.6 83.3 17.5 4.5 0
II 2
100 99.9 99.6 86.8 18.1 4.9 10 T
j g
f O
3 100 99.9 99.6 82.2 18.6 5.6 10 A
i IN
(
4 100 99.9 99.7 86.7 20.6 6.6 10 0
1 2
100_
99.1 86.2 37.0 6.2 0
2 100 100 99.1 86.9 45.2 7.3 10 b
3 100 100 99.1 86.2 39.9 7.8 100 A
10 0
4 100 100 99.0 87.0 41.5 8.0 10 4
gud
- l'
{
i 1
Tall.E IV M4%IMUM DENSlf!ES ACHIEVED WITil VISRATORY~ TABLE AND IMPACT TESTING VISRATORY TABLE TESTING IMPACT TESTING MFTIl0D 10
- Percent
- Percent Minimum Maximum Relative Minimum Maximum Relative Sample Density Density Density Density Density Density Obtained obtained
.For Ob tained Obtained For (Pcf)
(Pef)
PCI (Pcf)
(PCI)
PCI
= 100
. }oo 5-29-5200 77.6 10'* 9 88%
78.9 105.8 84%
5-16-58A-BF 75.7 104.9 87%
77.1 105.9 80%
5-18-510R-BF 77.1 103.4 90%
75.0 104.4 88%
19-511R-BF 79.5 103.6 88%
77.4,
103.2 90%
5-20-S12R-8F 77.1 104.5 87%
75.6 106.8 84 %
5-21-513R-BF 77.6 103.9 88%
75.6 106.9 84 %
5-22-S14 R-BF 78.5 103.2 89%
76.5 106.6 84%
5-23-S15R-BF 76.4 102.3 94%
74.7 106.6 85%
5-26-S16R-BF 77.1 103.8 89%
75.6 106.6 84%
5-2 7-517R-B F 75.8 102.0 94%
74.1 106.7 84 %
5-28-518R-H F 75.4 106.2 94%
75.9 106.0 84%
NOTE: REl.ATIVE DENSITY BY METil0D 1015 5%
LOWER THAN TilAT 08TAIXED WITil Tile V1DRATING TABl.E.
I
- y 100 per in used for comparir.on since 100 pcf is a representat ive value obtained D = from approximately forty field density tests taken during recent backfilling.
l N
i L
M z m >wa_
-= M Ju,
%)
TA81.E I,V fj MA%!)tM DENSITIES ACHIEVED WITil
'l VISRATORY TA81.E AND IMPACT TESTING 3
.h VISRATORY TABLE TESTING IWACT TESTINC MET 110D 10 l
.I J
- Percent
- Percent bimum Maximum Relative Minious Maximan Relative i}
rasity Density Density Density Density Density 3
- tained Obtained For obtalmed obtained For Y
!Pcf)
(pcf)
PCf (Pcf)
(pct)
PCI
= 100
= 100 l
D7.6 103.9 88%
78.9 105.8 84%
i i
95.7 104.9 87%
77.1 107.9 80%
I
}
i 97.1 103.4 90%
75.0 104.4 88%
1 99.5 103.6.
88%
77.4,
103.2 90%
j 97.1 104.5 87%
75.6 106.8 84%
i P
1 97.6 103.9 88%
75.6 106.9 84%
1 98.5 103.2 89%
76.5 106.6 84%
1 i
D6.4 102.3 94%
74.7 106.6 85%
l 97.1 103.8 89%
75.6 106.6 84%
jl 95.8 102.0 94%
74.1 106.7 842 95.4 102.2 94%
75.9 106.0 84%
DENSITY BY METi!0D 10 IS : 5%
2] TilAT OBTAINED WITil Tile VIDRATINC 2
oosd for comparir.on since 100 pef is a representative value obtained
- 0aistely forty field density tests taken durf ar, recent backfilling.
J I
l
u (
NS ObP
_ e.
EE PR t
p H
td s
o T )T DT eorae Tt I
T RS g
art) s W
AE ahot t we 0
0 0
0 0
I S
DT rt nenf oTe e
S F N
e p a n o (l n
1 3
1 3
1 T E A
vet ei-ef a L
T ADSP t sol D
U S
S P E
m R I
/
'e P
ss I
wt w T K ono)
S>
l ul t 89S 689 97 898 55 Er B o T
C (b f
=
=
P
=
Nn OF e
I et v y TD gnit
=
AE aeti 1
1 5
1
=
RS rcas 3
6 2
0 4
=
TU erl n 7
5 7
7 8
=
E veee N0 APRD E1 P
4 D
)
DO T
hw RH T
t o pf t e)
AT I
pl oosnt 0
0 0
0 0
DE S
eeT eaf NM N
DB TL(
1 3
1 3
1 V A(
E T
T D
E SG R
L N
O M
s B MI T
U y
m e
A OT A
M t
osv T RS RSI i
rurn7 FE OTX s
Fsui-T BLA n) rC 4
Y AUM efde n
5 7
0 0
0 TB LS Dcevyws IA EE pn t og 6
0 6
5 1
SL M R N.
d( ihihi 9
9 9
9 0
N O
I l
at sSF 1
ED RTM e
t pn DN FSR i
bee A
EE F
ODD E
YTT VD T
E IL IDD TE SL AI NEO LF EI T E
ut)
O EDE rif
'F R VNS 0
0 0
0 0
i se
~
OF I AU nnp 5
5 5
5 3
T i e(
7 7
7 7
7 NY A
1 SI E
I S R
D RN O
AE H
PD T
M E
g OE M
CV
(
my I
T iut) 0 0
0 0
0 mif A
isc 8
8 8
8 8
L xnp 0
0 0
0 0
E ae(
1 1
1 1
1 R
?
r l
l.
io o
~
FN N
3 3
4 4
5 r
t eoa g
s n e
ea r
TL A
g 1
~
- h l
j g[_ -
!P L' l'
)
}tF ? hLhpY
,)I
,.m i,
%n.
9 u> >
4 EhU" r
et M
M M
H 6#
- u. w.a n u
a 3
e n
a e
d e
c
=
G 5EEE B
t k*s u,5 i a 4
i c.
~
~.
u..
o u
o n
o n
sw.
b a s. w n
s.
w u.
O.
ww o
es su 40 Fe4""O o.
4" 2
3582b.."3.i a
A A
A A
A o
e o
o o
o
>,u.
i m
9
< o m a. w an o a e
2 u
- b. " $ 2 wee one enn m ee ese
~
gm3
~
.ul u
- a ~ ~x M.
C }
..u~
e e
a e
u m
e n
o a
a t a s. 3 e
~
~
=
=
4 h. N O 2-i u
C 1.
C
- 8 1- &
j 22"4"j0 o
o o
o o
o 8 I 4,20 o
~
6 l
s a
u.
a y
5..
o x
s.
9.
~
u 3 > C h.
2, M-we
.k N-u o
n C
1 c-wu e
N on.
s.
o o.
Du 3%1 o.
o.
o.
w 1
o = > >.
o 1 o
in
- a. c r a v.
m w
.a x
- e e
e o
o w
o o,
usg u.u e. e u.
"DN c
883 C"b ei
-aa
) !
Fdo i
d-I c ia. s u.
lu-x a
taJ Q N 8 - S.
>vm gu o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
oa c.
>MA o,
C O.
e e
e e
e e
a-
- 4 yw n
N N
N N
N c
?
- 6..:
l in o
EA N
i i
to ;
C uI o
m f.,
a5
.3 I
ax 3g.u, m o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
w i
o.
u,
-.u CO CD 00 G3 20 CO g,
M C Q.
O o
o o
o o
u:
w; n.-
l
.e..
KO e
C4
~
,' 2t Ce e
4, G m
m a
.n
.n ci 2
- a. c. u
.s oe o m e--
w 94 4
4 2 l L.
i __
___2 m.-,A 8
NO e
I r
T*
nu) 7 AS
- esi RT rd se 0
TL erep
)
EU vur(
T NS ObP T
EE I
PR t
p HS fd - s o
TN DT eorae Tt IE RS g
art) s WD AE ahdt t we 0
DT rt nenf oTe SM N
e p a n o (l n
1 TU A
ve* ei ef a LM T
ADSPt B oL UI S
/
RM ss wt w TD ono)
SN l ul t 438 EI B obf 111 TF C(
NO OT e
I et vy TD gnit AE aeti 2
RS rcas 5
TU erl n 3
E veee N0 APRD E1 4
P D
)
DO T
h w RH T
t opf t e)
AT I
pl o osnt 0
DE S
eeT eaf NM N
DB TL(
1 V A(
E T
T D
E SG R
L N
O M
s B MI T
U y
m e
A OT A
M t
o sv T RS RSI i
r urn 7 FE OTX s
F sui-T BLA n) rC 4
T AUM efd e
n 0
I A EE pn t og SL MRN d( i hihi 0
1 N
O I
l a t sSF ED RTM e
t pn DN FSR i
b ee A
EE F
O DD E
TTT VD T
E IL I DD TE SL AI KIO LF E;T E
ut)
O EDE mii ER VNS i st 0
OF I AU nnp 5
T ie(
7 NY A
1 SI E
I S R
D RN O
AE H
PD T
M E
OE M
CV
(
my ut) 0 I
T mif 8
A is c 0
L xnp 1
E ae(
R MD l
l.
i o o
FN N
r E
t eoa sn e
ea r
TL A
il ig q.
j ii
er nu) 7
- esi rds s o
erep vur(
ObP t
p fd - s o
eorae Tt g
art) s ahd t t we 0
rt ne nf oT e epan o( l n
1 vet e i
ef a ADS P t
B oL sa
/
e ss r
wt w a
ono) l ul t 4 3 8
l B obi 1 1 1
l C(
i f
e t
e t vy s
g nit e
a et i t
5 r cas e rl n 8
e v eee h
A PRD t
n i
hs i
t o pf t e) e pl oo snt 0
n eeT eaf o
DB TL(
i 1
tac s
o y
m e
l t
os v
i ru rn7 t
s Fs ui-n n) r C 4
e 0
ef d e n
r D c ev ywe e
2 pn t og f
0 d( ih ihi f
1 l
at sSF i
e t p n
d i
b e e
F OD D
eer h
t t
my a
ut) mif n
0 i se e p nnp 5
k ie(
7 ah MD t
i s o t
g s
s e i Tl n3 :
my 0
o ut) i.
mif 8
t g
is e 0
a l.
xnp 1
r.
ae(
t i MD e
l nA e
P.
d bt i
A*W l
r f
a
- t l.
i o o
d FN N
n m
r E
a.
t eoa t
s sn e
S i ea r
TL A
- ~
l L
.! [
)
nevyn4 t
g 1
ecit e(
a,
e rrti e 1
1 5
cy p
eeasw&
8 3
1 7
i t fPl nt d i
+
+
+
f eee) ns S
i nRDB3 i n T
Di
(
e m
L nd U
g p
S i m E
su
)
R I
m
(
ei S
y vx s
TG t
s ia SN idt t m EI srs a
TT nae ge S
edT 1
eh NE Dn nt 4
OT an) 1 1
5 I
T et o4 4
7 5
2
- d e
TTO vSi(
6 6
8 9
t n ARO i
t si ROF t ma ef TT aor T
EAE l rt o
NRN)T eFe nt EOO T A
n o
p PB I
e i d AN S P
t e DLA N as R
R E 0s ru 4
ADT D 1 t t
DN s
~
ni es NAR M ede 3
A E U voT e
TDT N i h P0 I SLAI t t y 1
V EE R aet d
e MIRA l Mi rd r
E OFG M e
s ao 6
L R R mn dh B FMSR oe) nt A
OAO t rD3 2
ae T Y RWF nF
(
6 0
4 5
t M
'4 TF e
d 5
7 8
8 S
I ND c yl e
S TEE r t e yr NTDS eii b e E IRU psf h
DSU n
rw NB0 ed e
EER1 Dn h g VDE A
gn I
VD i i p
TEOO
)
ht AV H
s I I ET pt s
ye ETRE oF a
t t R AEM T(
w i
LH(
o sd p
F EW we nt nl OR on e
ee l a d r di NH eL) ro f
W OT B
2 ui e
0 0
0
- 0. b S I t(
r) vd I W hs rpg in R
t e 3
3 3
1 e n
t a A
pT vdi a
P e
oet l b M
m O
Df d s ea O
d e rl C
'4 at
(
sm eo t r af o
)
c N
d i r n
d e e
a nh 6
n
.S i g ao i
LNe nh n -
g l ai) i y l eF1 st 3
4 5
E i r
(
i fay ss a
un e.
t rr l e sOG Pd
=.
=
e
(
o.
T e
m a
/
/
m i
f I
k
5 TAlt.E VII RECORDOFTESTFIL$DENSITYTESTS Relative Depth of Water Density Number Lift Test Relow Content Average I
t.p20(
Lane Roller of ThicknesaLift Surface Range Yd Max =108 sg,v,'
No.
Type Passes (ft.)
(ft.)
I pet Min = 75 gge g, Remarks 3
None 0
4.0 0.00.5 11.5-19.1 90.2 55 1
3 0
- 4. 0 1.0-1.5 11.4-12.4 96.0 72 3
0 4.0 2.0- 2. 5 13.4-15.0 91.4 59 3
0 4.0 3.0-3.5 10.0-16.1 91.9 60 3
Raygo 2
- 4. 0 0.00.5 10.G-12.3 92.9 64 5.2-6.)
3 600 2
4.0 1.0-1.5 10.6-12.4 96.1 72 4.8-6.7 3
1300 2
- 4. 0 2.0-2.5 11.9-15.1 92.8 63
- 4. 3-6. 0 I
p 3
2 4.0 3.0-3.5 10.7-15.3 89.5 53
- 3. 5-7. 6 3
4
- 4. 0
- 0. 0-0. 5 11.6-13.1 91.4 58 3
4 4.0
- 1. 0- 1. 5 12.0-13.3 95.5 70 3
4
- 4. 0 2.0-2.5 13.2-14.6 92.9 64 3
4
- 4. 0 3.0-3. 5 12.8-13.4 85.8
' 41 3
6
- 4. 0
- 0. 0-0. 5 10.0-12.6 87.5 47 3
6
- 4. 0 1.0-1. 5
- 11. 3-12.3 97.8
, 76 3
6
- 4. 0
- 2. 0-2. 5 12.4-14.0 92.1 61 3
6
- 4. 0 3.0-3.5 11.6-13.8 90.3 55 3
10
- 4. 0
- 0. 0-0. 5 10.3-10.7 94.3 68 3
10
. 4. 0 1.0-1.5 10.8-12.0 95.1 70 3
10
- 4. 0
- 2. 0-2. 5 n.9-13.7 94.5 69 3
10 4.0 3.0-3. 5 10.0-16.0 92.1 61 3
Raygo 5
4.0 0.0-0.5
- 11. 0-12.2 94.9 70 After Raygo 600 3
400 5
4.0
- 1. 0- 1. 5 11.4-12.2 95.3 71 (Same Lif t) 3 5
4.0 2.0-2.5 12.6-13.9 93.2 65 5.9 3
5 4.0
- 3. 0- 3. 5 9.8-13.2 90.5 56 3
Bros 5
4.0
- 0. 0-0. 5 10.5-11.2 96.2 74 After Raygo 400 3
SPv-7 5
4.0 1.0-1.5 11.4-11.7 97.1 75 (Same.l.l f t )
l 3
5 4.0
- 2. 0- 2. 5 12.6-15.9 90.7 55 l
3 5
4.0 3.0-3.5 10.2-11.8 88.5 50 l
3 Raygo 5
- 4. 0 0.0-0. 5 9.5-17.1 94.6 69 After Bros S PV-7 3
600 5
- 4. 0 1.0-1.5 11.2-12.4 97.0 75 (Same Lift) 1600 l
VPM
______.m_
b w_-_______________
TABLE VII RECORD OF TEST FIL1' DENSITY TESTS 2..
Relative Depth of Water Density Number Lift Test Below Content Average 2
8 -f200 1.ane Roller of ThicknessLift Surface Range Td Max =108 Steve No.
Type Passes (ft.)
(ft.)
I pcf Min = 75 Mat'l Remarks 3
1600 5
4.0 2.0-2.5 11.8-17.8 93.0 64 (Same Lift)
VPN 3
5
- 4. 0 3.0-3.5 10.0-11.8 89.8 54 3
somag 5
4.0 0.0-0.5 10.0-12.0 95.2 70 3
200 5
- 4. 0 1.0-1.5 7.5-9.8 97.0 75 3
5
- 4. 0 2.0-2.5 9.9-11.0 95.2 70 3
5
- 4. 0 3.0-3.5 9.6-10.4 97.6 76 3
10
- 4. 0 0.0-0.5 8.4-9.5 96.9 75 3
10 4.0 1.0-1.5 9.1-10.0, 104.2 93 3
10 4.0 2.0-2.5 10.0-10.0 97.0 75 3
10 4.0
- 3. 0-- 3. 5 10.0-10.0 101.4 86 4
Vibro-5
- 4. 0 0.0-0.5 7.5-9.8 92.2 61 4
Plus 5
4.0 1.0-1.5 7.3-10.2 97.2 76 4
01-43 5
- 4. 0 2.0-2.5 8.8-12.3 96.4 74 i
1 4
5 4.0 3.0-3.5 11.5-13.4 94.6 68
~
4 10 4.0 0.0-0.5 7.6-10.2 95.3 71 4
10
- 4. 0 1.0-1.5 8.6-11.6 98.1 78 4
10 4.0 2.0-2.5 9.2-10.4 103.3 91 4
10
- 4. 0 3.0-3.5 L1.2-11.7 98.1 78 4
Fergu-10/ Lift
- 2. 0+2. 0 0.0-0.5 9.6-10.2 97.8 77 Two Lifts son 4
SP-65 1.0-1.5 LO.2-11.2 97.1 75 4
2.0-2.5 9.6-10.0 99.2 80
,o 10 4
a a
a 3.0-3.5 8.4-10.5 94.4 68
't)
Area vibro-5/ Lift
- 1. 0+1. 0 0.0-0.5 9.1-11.5 95.7 72 Three Lifts
+1.0 E-1 Plus 1.0-1.5 9.7-10.1 104.0 92 Loeated in
- 'H-4 3 2.0-2.5 8.0-10.1 101.8 86 Excavation 5
2.0+ 2. 0 0.0-0.5 7.8-8.4 96.7 74 Two Lifts 5
1.0-1.5 7.8-9.6 102.7 88
, c) 5 2.0-2.5 9.8-10.5 99.8 81 5
- 3. 0- 3. 5 LO.7-11.4 101.6 86 7
2/ Lift 0.0-0.5 8.8-9.0 100.6 83
/-7 7
1.0-1.5
- 8. 6 - 9. 6 98.4 79 rt) 7 2.0-2.5 8.5-10.4 98.4 79
- Entimate b_ -
-- _. 2
.i
.. - w w.- C r y
.~.m
TABLE VII RECORD OF TIST F1LL* DENSITY TESTS 3.
Relative Depth of Water Density Number Lift Test Below Content Average I
K-f20<
Lane Rol'er of ThicknessLif t Surface Range yd Max =108 Steve No.
Type Passes (ft.)
(f t.)
per Min = 75 Mac'1.
Remarks 7
CH-4 3 2/ Lift 2.0+2.0
- 3. 0-3. 5
- 8. 2-9. 8 99.6 dl Two Lifts g
8 Fergu-5/ Lift 2.0+2.0
- 0. 0-0. 5
- 9. 0- 9.4 98.9 79 son 8
SP-65 1.0-1.5 9.4-9.8 104.5 93 8
- 2. 0- 2. 5 9.4-10.1
- 99. B 82 s
- 3. 0- 3. 5 9.7-10.5 99.6 81 9
2/ Lift 0.0-0.5 9.7-10.1 100.3 83 9
1.0-1.5 9.8-10.3 102.5 88 I
9 2.0-2.5 9.7-10.2 99.6 81
\\
9
- 3. 0- 3. 5 7.7-9.6 99.0 80 10 Raygo 5/ Lift 0.0-0.5 7.7-9.3 98.0 78 10 600 1.0-1.5 8.8-10.1 100.2 83 10 Modi-2.0-2.5 9.5-11.2 101.9 86 fied i
10
- 3. 0- 3. 5 9.3-10.1 101.2 85 11 3/ Lift 0.0-0.5 6.4-8.0 98.9
- 79 11 1.0-1.5
- 8. 4-9. 7 101.9 86 11 2.0-2.5
- 8. 0- 8. 6 99.2 80 11
- 1. 0 'L 5 9.O-99 00 B A7 Hand Essich 2/ Lift 1.0+1.0 0.0-0.5
- 8. 2-8. [
96.8 75 Three Lifts
+1.0 Compac VP-24 1.0-1.5 8.0-6.9 96.5 74 tion
- 2. 0- 2. 5 5.6-5.6 93.6 66 Areas Wacker 0.0-0.5
- 6. 8-6. 9 95.5 72 500 4.0-1.5
- 8. 0- 8. 4 98.6 79
.s
- 2. 0- 2. 5
- 8. 9-9. 2 93.6 66 5/ Lift 0.0-0.5
- 6. 6-8. 6 99.2 80 1.0-1.5
- 7. 9-8. 0 95.3 70 2.0-2.5 10.2-10.2 104.7 92 Essick
- 0. 0- 0. 5
- 7. 5-7. 8 96.8 75 VP-24 1.0-1.5
- 8. 4-8. 8 99.4 81 i
1 2.0-2.)
- 8. 2-9. 2 97.1 75
}
I i
- Wate r csintent h f rom two test h indentf(aj
)
A
- -.,,sm 1
l
.5 a J,
I 1$85 'H I
5 I
I
!I a
s,,
~a s
a g
.: =; ;
p,
~
- Je_
- s
~
.i, j-
?
3 3
- 3. j g ag i
A2=;
y=
8 5
w --
i
- le2 gm
=
4 s
a 2
e 1-it-e
=
8 e
e i
99$:
a o
a o
a g
g i
1 8
8 2
)
R R
s" O
2
{
=
==
=
i g
[
0 o
8 S g[
88 $$
{
t n
20 4 4
j w
-5 j ":?
- =-
,=%d j
4
.s s
sa n
jjg~
- g g e
di2 i
N_
8 x
2 Ef3 1
j!E
[
NN 88 a5~
A R
8 8
8 0
2
_=
~
w tg-8-
uo^
8 8
8 8
g[
g 3.-
M
%Ed 345
~x x
$b h
h h
at N
3 m
A
-un O
O O
O O
8 b
h wb 4
o O
O e=
a a
a as-a8 2
~
n 1
l e
3 0
R 4
~
m t
8 s
8 8
l '-
S 0
e m
0 n
in 4
1 it t
t a
V a
a a
2 et t
1 8
2
?
2 6
0 a
a n
a m
w
\\
\\
\\\\
1 di Ot h WM. is kd
1 e
~
i F
6
&l?
7 1
7 7
e gtd 9
x a
a a
u i
1 fa
~
l a
x
=
e c
.:s e
e e
e n
1 8
e e
e
'Ig bw O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O b
I
~
E 5
w-sg 2
38
)
t:
"O q
e-m e
e m
O O
=
i A
A f
i
.a A
.i g { ~.
R
~4 E
5 b
e e
j k"
e a
a
=
9 3
6
=
b b
=
8 a
8; e
~
a u
5 l
E E
E4 o
ma m
0 5
ff y
m I
l l
)
i i
_ _ ;=g i
-=m um-ammm,mimmsmy-i sem-i 0
f 9
)
&g^
t J ~a. 5 m
x n
=
)
J l
E i
i go e.
l
.m ab e
a a
i s
a s
a a
~
ea
.a
=
s a
8Y 3g-a o
o a
i a
i i
i
)
Hws J
Rs a"h n gg a
k u
M
>b m
m Q
m m
n w
lP g 3 ~=
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
g Ujk bcu 28 d
5 0
h S
h h
h E
E 1
2 6
L E.
gi 3
C i
a a
=
o o-o I
2
??
?
~
E E
a G
i?
a 8\\
i s
\\
i I
l l
t i
i t
i l
i I
l 4
M 9M
?I 1
g o
r O_
u.t
)
e e
i.
,) W
)
,3 O
O e
o a u o
o
?
a e
l r
=
r_
g_ _ _ _ _.. _ _
e
> m o
vi a
o_
o
)
z_ e
}
o 5
as m_
o2
=
w 2
l f
a_
z_
m m
N.
_ _ ; _._ J _ __.
t:=
W m N 3
o.
- aw n1
__ T _ 1_._
A o
w o_
_1/_
<r
',,,^,,,,,. s i. / / /
s bo py s si n i ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
a o_
w y
o_
_ _ =. _ _
m n
w I
a m
o o_
O p.
N l
o r
e m
et aug o, o_
a, z
r 2
m a
1 m
3 i
c_
m__
_, o s
n w>m we s_
_z m
m_
io z
o e
e w
.J u.
L' h
0 hs O l
. m m,-;
g__,_.____.______
_i n_ __--,_-._...m.
u
.g O
O O
O O
O
,O O
O O
O~
l O
e m
e in a
~
n 1HDl3M A8 83Nl:1 IN33 83d l
i, a
-T i
BRUN$dlCK'~STI M s[ECTRIC PL ANT ~
~
~
n... v.,i n i..,.
RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES RESULTS l
i.
--FOR_ GRAY FINE SAND ( CL ASS I). _ _ _,
RGN 61770 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT C O.
ga 7g,.7o, 68 - II8 - A79 R A L EI G H, N.C_.
= _.
__._.._....-_a FI G U RE I
~
i n.she hh...
i i.
m
, an
,,, see
I x
g I
o r
O lg U
4 m
t'
_m w u
e.
3
_l 3 O I4 O
4 s
Z_
,T -
O J
v z
a u
o 4
o
=
x_
Iw g_
e a
F o d
w z_
O_
e i*
e e
Io 2
o i:i g
e.
e e O2 Io 2
Z 3
a Z
A
)
l k_ _ _. y __ __
-=._ _ __. - - _;
x W
(
z O_
H I
- x
- oW zw O io g.
g/jt,,,,,,,,,........<.n,ij/-
w 4
o I
,- wg O_
w y
i m
a
,4,
_.3 y
o_
I4 N
i
,,,3 o
n 6-i E
)
~
W o
4 4
O_
z a
I W:>
e U
i w
e i
t i
m-3 m_
- u..
--._...o_=.-_
\\
W m
o
> 'm w
I
_a s_
n z
m_
,.,~
z o
gw e
<r n r
WO j
i n
_::.._:u = _.!___. _ ( _ _n _ =.s -.,...__ _-.~ ~~ ~_, o
~, ~
a v
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O-g O
O CD W
d v
M tv
".a 1HDl3M A8 83NU.LN30 83d 8
1 I
7....
IRbNSWICN 57'E AM 'EL'ECTRIC PL NT ~
rs RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES RESULTS
, FOR TAN FINL SAND (CL ASS I)
{
I CAROLIN A POWER AND LIGHT CO.
RGN 617 70 i
~~'
pgc
- 747, l _...._.. _.
__ _ _R A L E l G H, N. C.
68-il8-A 80 3
~~'
FIGURE 2
.g_
m-_:-w"22 W R
5I ',
l
.I s
I 11 0 i
e
}
f L
1 0 105 A
w I
C 4
n W
i A
loo i
U
[
i A
W Vw
\\
i SYMBOL SAMPLE NO % - 200 W - 84 4.4 W - 85 3.1 l
D===C - 86 38 3====G
- l 72 5.9 6 = =4 - 200 -
51 i
1 - 16 BF -
6.1 90 i
0 5
10 15 20 25 l
l WATER CONTENT (%)
i 1
l
{
e, o AreoLAmeA BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PL ANT
)
....uui........'-
MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP l
~' ~*'.....
CURVES FOR GRAY FINE SAND (CLASS T)
~ * *
..o...
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
h" 7+ 7' l
FoShfL6_ l7_7.0 can-mo ne R ALEIGH, N. C.
' * *i. '.,
68-118-A81 l{
i I
-. - - =.
\\.
FIGURE 3
^
4
)
4 i
liS SYMBOL 5 AMPLE NO */.-200 W
78 8.9 j
W 79 10 7 m
M 83 14 5 M
87
- 6. 9 110 i
O 189 93 0
1 198 11 3 E
XM les 12 2 u4.
/j g 105 g
o g
rd Q
a 100 N
I 95 0
5 10 15 20 25 WATER CONTENT (%)
i
)
l C. D'APPOLONI A BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PL ANT co...............
TYPICAL MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
~*
.......'..[*....'......
CURVES FOR TAN FINE SAND (CLASS 1)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
- -?,
FoSieR 617 70 e......
, d'-
747 RALEIGH, N.C.
68-l18-A82 3
FIGURE 4
}
M E9 112.0 m
2-1 O
l10.0 g
0
~
W f
108.0 10.0 g
o O
4 h
106.0 9.0 6-E 8.0 j;
===== """*C 104.0 h
102.0 O
~
7.0 N
b /
2 F
j 2
IL 6.0 y f
3 100.0 I
2 5.0 M
10 50 00 150 us
-4 NO. OF BLOWS / LAYE R l
+
MAXIMUM ORY DENSITY VS. NO, OF BLOWS-O POUND HAMMER-18* DROP.
! PARTICLE BREAKDOWN VS. NO. OF BLOWS-10 POUND H AMMER-18" DROP.
i i
25
=
........ e.
COMPACTIVE EFFORT V5. DRY DENSIFY AND PARTICLE BRE AKDOWN FOR TAN FINE SAND (CLA8S I)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
RG _ 618 70 onamua no.
7
_' 7 '
A82 RALEIGH N.C 68-il8-A83 i
t FIGURE 5 1-
i i
i i
i
[ 40 USSR TEST ON Two SANOS FINE SAND:% =.035MM,
- c. 310 s
COARSE SANO:De.35MM, s
70 C a6 r
AVERAGE RESULTS FOR BOTH SAICS,0RY:
RESULTS FOR FINE SAND SATURATED:
l50 60 - RESULTS FOR COARSE SAND, SATURATED: ------
r a:
?'8
/
Ao f
f
' g 3o
/
4&/
y ememe
.V "
OVER8URDtC1 FRESSURE 3
,!,o 2
y-r -oq,.i
-o--
=
w g%
'74 9-
~
so ao so so ro ao so ioo
% RELATIVE DENSITY NOTE:
CURVE FOR AVERAGE RESULT FOR BOTH SANDS WAS USED FOR ANALYSIS r, o accot.ONIA
- " " " ~
"u'rT0398!!, ids!"! /ulsfi!! #"!?"J*"
2e T-
^
BURDEN PRESSURE (REF lt)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
FOSTER 618 70 naaweaa na 13 R A LE IGH, N.C.
d '^
'% 68 - 118 - A 84 Ti -
5 FIGURE 6
.f-L---_
o k (PCF) AVERAGE 85 90 SS N10 IOS 110 O
1.0 0
i I
ap 2.0 b
I l-A.
W O
3.0 0
C TEST LANE 3-FIRST FOUR FOOT LIFT. ( GRAY FINE
)
SAN D) 4.0 i
t i
e i
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
% RELATIVE DENSITY f
USING
[D M AX
- 108 MF YD MIN. = 75 PCF C
O RAYGO 600 - 10 PASSES (4' LOOSE LIFT) THESE PolNTS WERE PLOTTED FROM RELATIVE DENSITIES CALCULATED BY USING FIELD DENSITY RESULTS AND MAX MIN LABORATORY RESULTS (METHOD 10)
% AELATIVE DENSITY FROM STANDARD PENETR ATION TESTING (11) l L o Arect.omA BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PL ANT
!N RELATIVE DENSITY vs DEPTH
=
=
kGN 4-id /0 *"*""" "*~
CAROLINA POWER AND UGHT CO.
W#
' ' 78 R A L E I G H, N.C.
,i,',.',',,
68-l 18-A85
=............
.--=
FIGURE 7 mab'
o I To (PCF) AVERAGE j
'p 90 95 100 105 l10 l
1.0 0
2.0
.t s
3.0 0
I TEST LANE 4-FIRST FOUR FOOT LIFT
( GRAY FINE SANO )
40 M CH -43 VlBROPLUS - 5 PASSES (4' LOOSE UFT). THESE PolNTS WERE PLOTTED FROM RELATIVE DENSITIES CALCULATED BY USING FIELD DENSITY RESULTS AND MAX-Milt LABORATORY RESULTS (METH00 10) 9
% RELATIVE DENSITY FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (11) 5.0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
% RELATIVE DENSITY USING:TD M AL = 108 PCF YD M IN. = 75 PCF 1
MIN E. D'APPOLONIA BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
~ ' " " ' '
RELAirvE DENSITY vs DEPTH
{
l C AROLiN A POWER AND LlGHT CO.
F sTea s.:a 70 RALElGH, N. C.
l' * ;.*,',,
7'47-68-Il8-A86 s
.n..,..
,=
FIGURE 8
.a L__
. i - - - - - ~ ~ -
~
Vg (PCF) AVERAGE y
so es iOO ios sio l
i IO m_
, 2.0
(
9 Z
4.
W O
i 3.0 4O M CH-43 VIBROPLUS - 5 PASSES (2 O FT LIFT) THESE POINTS WERE PLOTTED FROM RELATIVE DENSITIES CALCULATED BY USING FIELD DENSITY RESULTS AND MAX.-MIN LABORATORY RESULTS (METHODI0l 9
% RELATIVE DENSITY FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (ll)
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 50 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
% RELATIVE DENSITY USING:.g,0 N.'= 75 PCF r.oArroLoNiA BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
.u...............
RELATIVE DENSITY vs DEPTH FOSTER 618,70 on. wi,..
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
R ALEIG H. N. C.
\\
- 68 - 1 I 8 -A 87 s
na== - =
~
\\
FIGURE 9 e
i a4 e
w " r #.-J
}
- u
]
Yo (PCF) AVERAGE il
'p 90 95 100 105 11 0 1
l.0
?
r 20 is a.
W Q
30 TEST AREA E-l'(GRAY FINE SAND) e f
C>==O CH -43 VIBROPLUS -5 PASSES (I O FT L(FTS) THESE PolNTS WERE 40 PLOTTED FROM RELATIVE DENSITIES CALCUL ATED BY USING FIELD _
DENSITY RESULTS AND MAX -MIN LABORATORY RESULTS(METH0010)
% RELATIVE DENSITY FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (ll) 50 I
8 I
I I
I I
I t
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 f
% RELATIVE DENSITY USING: To M AX' = 10 8 PCF Y
MIN. = 75 PCF o
NOTE' STANDARD PENETRATION TEST WAS MADE AFTER FOUR FEET OF OVERBURDEN WAS PLACEO OVER TOP OF TEST ARE A
{
l
..,$7[ $"
DRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
...".o~ " '.".......
RELATIVE DENSITY vs DEPTH 37 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
FOSTER 618 70
- p. m o R ALElGH, N. C.
--l'Z 7' ' 78 68-ll8-A88 x
' f --
\\..........................
22..
FIGURE 10 s,_. omm-
i 44 4
2 e
o O
\\
CEWATERING A
OfSCHARGE
'O Pl#E O
O (WESJ) fv uA A d
\\
4
'hN,
/
\\U S/
TOE OF
[a
['
LOPL r
6 TES EA W
D
/
/
}
l L
0 4
DENttTY TE.tT LANEY I
G/
DEC t, -
qs l
O DEWATEC No o
DISCHARQE Pi p E i
3, (eAs r)
S' f
...9..........
)
f me i_
i
y g
g, k.i w..o b
if o
,l o
0 o
e 1
1 i
l l
m
'7 i
~
M TOA O P8
{
/
scope m
9 a
~
)
I
/\\
]
e f
_w-l, s
2 m
CAROLINA POWER AND L RALElQH, N.C.
SCA LE E. D'APPOLONIA g4ygg commuttano swetasses.swe.
,49 soo o
soo 20o FEET I
...,..e bD'TE $
BAUNSWICK STEAM ELEM i
I6 LAME % \\O \\l Ilk HAND CCMPACTCN A L AN.T'
&u AREA WCRE CCRMROCTED tocMt ton oF TE9hi FILL L n
FROM Son. IN LAME % 5.7.8 4 B.
Ano Ansa =t>
zws dea
"" * * '"I fast 7,44 Gs.I t!
FIGURia i esosam= _
w ARataussi
d a r s 4 % :.e s.,n.
w,., %...
- ....
- a,,2.
.., 7
,., \\
e,...
_,l 4
v.
4Al w
i
. 4 (4a
. es ),
4-m.
_j e
4 f
L I
t
. t
-i'
.4 l
t b'
i 1
6 6
l BLANK PAGE e
i 1
l' 40 6 WO lA
- e. :e, i
ese seg 9?ess. 3 i
LM
=.
t-e.
S.It
-.)
e
)
Y
$e l'
LUMn :
^r.22 g
,,-1,.
E-Ydwww hi e
z i
k O
/
b
/
t I
f I
-4 E op op
/
T
,j st.opa i
3, 4
J
/\\
1
-- s
_4 CAROLINA POWER AND LKel#CO RALE 14 H, N.C.
SCALE L D'APPOLONIA cosesvi.ts.e sweiweems.ewc soo o
soo 200 FEET NOTE 5 BRUNSWICE STEAM ELECAC LAME =d \\o il % HAND COMPCC.TCN DLAN.T ARE A WIRE COMbTRL)CTE D LocEtion os T11%7 FILL t AME%
FROM %Cu IN LAME % 5.1.6 4 B-mo Anw%
Mc
&w;m
/ft 74,4 Gs. iia.e4a
. = =.
\\
FIGURE 11
.i g
-.r,e j
4'
- 1 YO AME ic as 30 se m
m I
I
(
ti l
[
l I
l ROLLER: RAYGO 600 1.0 j
(1500 RPM)
>I l 0 PASSES O----O l 4 PASSES H
10 PASSES O
O
)
l
/
l NOTE: FOUR FOOT LIFT COMPACTED OVER ONE i
I ROLLER WIDTH ONLY 3.0 l IN LANE 3.(15 FT. WIDTH)
[
l ROLLER RLSSES IS EFFECT OF ADJACENT g NEGLECTED.
Hh
_lNITIAL DENSITY RANGE
~
g i
i i
f I
I p
50 60 70 75 80 90 l RELATIVE DENSITY %
,a i
1.0 N
l ROLLER. ADDITIONAL PASSES 2.0 RAYGO 400 5 M--4(
] BROS SPV 7G 5
! RAYGO 600 1
5 l
l (1600 RPM) l l
30 j
g TMAX.
s 108 PCF TMIN.
- 75 PCF I
i I
I 80 85 90 95 l00 10 5 AVERAGE E D'A N 'OMA BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT DEPTH VERSUS DENSITY PROFILES FOR 4.0'
=-
LOOSE LIFTS FOR LANE 3 CAROLIN A POWER AND\\ LIGHT CO.
Ry N 6,it7_O om...
=a M
7+
- 68-il8 - A 89 R ALEIG H, N.C.
C.*,',,
3 t
FIGURE 12
- - = -
. 9 j m______________
l
)
i I
l T (PCF) AVERAGE D
80 85 90 95 10 0 105 I
Q M 5 PASSES 0
0 10 PASSES l
ROLLER-80 MAG 200 l
5 I
( 2O
~
l a
O I
I 30 l
1 i
LINITIAL DENSITY _ l l
1~
RANGE 7
40 I
I I
I I
i 50 60 70 75 80 90
% RELATIVE DENSITY USING:# MAX. = 108 PCF D
T MIN. = 75 PCF D
NOTE:
FOUR FOOT LIFT COMPACTED OVER ONE ROLLER WIDTH ONLY IN LANE 3 (15) FOOT WIDTH. EFFECT OF ADJACENT ROLLER PASSES IS NEGLECTED l
l l
l E. o Arrol.oNIA BRUNSWICK STE AM ELECTRIC PLANT c o.. uo.....c.........c.
DEPTH vERSUS DENSITY PROFILE
'**S.I......
e......","..".'o.....
F0R LANE NO 3 0 0...,.
C AROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
r a_.,
Fo steri 617.0 o n a wn.o R ALEIGH, N.C.
7' 'AQ 68 -ll8-A90 0..c......................
FIG URE 13
.,_- _ w,
}
l VD (PCF) WERAGE ao es so se no os I
NOTE: FOUR FOOT LIFT COMFECTED OVER ONE l
ROLLER WIDTH (15 FI Wl0TH)
EFFECT OF ADJACENT ROLLER
( (
l.0 - PASSES IS NEGLECTED.
H l
h.
w Z
6 2.0 a,
I l
i !
I i
l 3,0 lNITIAL DENSITL RANGE l
l
~
I I
I I
I I
4.0 SO 90 70 75 80 90 RELATIVE DENSITY %
ROLLER:
S s 10 8 M CH-43
?,,10 PASSES O
S 1 M IN.
- 79 PCF
- c. o Arect.c*tA BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
- e.. u.......... e.
DEPTH VERSUS DENSITY PROFILES
.......,.. m....
FOR L ANE 4 y
68'70 CAROLINA POWER 'AND LIGHT 'CO.
M 7'7*
I R ALEIGH, N.C.
68-I l 8-A 91
......m..
ea.sae-ree FIGURE I4 l
L-
-....,. ma.
_,..m--
- s. m e ~ - - -
n -.
1 Y, DRY DENSITY (PCF)
D p
96 10 0 105 108 i
i
! pDEP1H VS DENSITY PROFILE FOR Vl8ROPLUS CH-43 SMOOTH ll WHEEL ROLLER AFTER 10 PASSES OVER A FOUR FOOT LOOSE LIFT g
(NEGLECTS EFFECT OF ADJACENT g
1.0 ROLLER PASSES) j j g
i
- l l
Il t !
tO I
J I
I i
i 3o O
l eq i
/
)
E 1
=
l 2
/
i
>=
- a. 4 0 I
,I
. i l
y u.
l 50
}
SUPERPOSED
/
DEPTH VS.
[ USE, LOOSE j l
DENSITY PROFILE l
i LIFTe2 THICK f
l I
60 p -
/
I l
I 7.0 I
\\
l
\\
1 I
i 70 75 80 90 95 100 i
% RELATIVE DENSITY l
1 1
- r. crAppot.ooe:A l
BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT 4
SUPERPOSITION OF DEPTH VERSUS DENSITY PROFILES
,..',.E"..**((.....
.......""o, FOUR FOOT LOOSE LlFT - V18ROPLUS CH-43
- ~
s FOSTER 618 70
~
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
o.aw o.
'f/4 7 ' 7o RALElG H N.C.68-118 - A92 i
- c.. n.-7..
FIGURE 15 g
_._- ~ e xM,
i
Wo, DRY DENSITY (PCF) p
' 96 100 10 5 108 I
C DEPTH VERSUS DENSITY PROFILE FOR 80 MAG 200 l
SMOOTH WHEEL ROLLER I.0 g
AFTER 10 PASSES OVER A FOUR FOOT LOOSE UFT l
(NEGLECTS EFFECT OF l
ADJACENT ROLLER PASSES) i I
I to b
o N N I
N \\
- g Q 30 j
U I
/>
2 E
/
1
/
1 a,
/ USE e2* THICMj >
l m/
N 1.lFT tal 4o O
/"
u I ss So i
SUPERPOSED DEPTH VS. DENSITY PROFILE
/
i
/
I 6.0 (7
C
\\lN I.\\
l
\\
7.0 l
l l
l 1
70 75 80 90 95 10 0
% RELATIVE DENSITY
~---
}Ti L FAPPO W m BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT PROFILE SUPERPOSITION OF DEPTH VERSUS DENSITY PROFILES et-43 E- [I * '*=
== I*a"'-= a * *,
FOUR FOOT LOOSE LIFT-BOMAG 200
{
~"
FOSTER 619 70_
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
o n... no.
- 4L 7+ 70 68-ll 8 - A93 A92 R ALEIG H, N.C.
l
,,.,o,--
5 FIGURE 1 16 i
L ek m
- - ~ _
i L______________--
1
\\
IS'
)
lNOLLER q
o
- S) 4's LIFT THICKNESS e
x x
i 4's LIFT THlCKNESS.
f LANE @
ROLLERS:
NO. OF PASSES LOWER LIFT:
RAY 60 400 (8300 MPM)
RAYeo 400 2,4,s,10 8
mRos sPV 7-s a
RAYS 0 400 (1800 RPM) 5 UPPER LIFT:
30 mao 200 I
5 AND 10 i
IS' IRGiFRI
\\
E n nuu nw n x
LIFT THICKNESSES
\\
/
/3 LANE @
~
ROLLERS:
NO. 0F PASSES LOWER 4 FT. LIFT l
VISROPLUS CH-43 5 AND'10 UPPER 2 FT. LIFTS l
FERGUSON SP-55 10 PER EACH LIFT
..[.$.#".".I.7."[.,
BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PL ANT ES
- i. ~' am
=
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS OF LANES 3 8 4 CAROLINA POWER AND L8GHT CO.
FOSTER 619 70 l
e.... o no.
R ALEIGH, N. C.
\\
3;',**',,
[#
68-118 - A 94 I*
x 1
FIGURE 17
\\
, _4-i
=-
2 and R aume M i
I ROLLER I ROLLER IROLLER I I ROLLER I ROLLER I ROl_LFR 1
\\
UFT TWKESSES
/b A\\;, 2 '.
ROLLER:
NO. OF PASSES VisROPtus CH-45 8 PER LIFT 30' I RottfR I ROLLER I ROLLER I I Rot i F R I ROL l ER I RDi i FR I LIFT
/
Q
- ,2'. THICKNESSES i
LANE @
i ROLLER:
NO. OF PASSES i
VISROPt.M CH-43 2 PER LIFT LANE @
ROLLER:
(SAME CONAMN 4 WE T )
NO. OF PASSES FERGUSON SP-65 S PER UFT i
iES LANE @
ROLLER (SAME CoNSMNN AS LANE 7 )
NO. OF PASSES FERGUSON SP-65 2 PER LIFT LANE @
ROLLER:
(SAME CONSWCTION As LANE 7)
NO. OF PASSES N00lFIED RAYGO 600 5 PER UFT T
LANE 11 ROLLER:
(sAME C.ONmWTl N AS LANE 7)
NO. OF PASSES MODIFIED RAYGO 600 3 PER LIFT
~
E. D'APPOLON88 4
....n,........"*
BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PL ANT CONSTRUCT 10N DETAILS
..,,..".C."Ill.....
...5"".'.*,......
OF LANES 5,7. 8, 9,10 & II C AROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
FOSTER 619 70 on.
94
\\
RALEIGH. N.C.
- R 7 d' ' 78 68-118 - A95 li y
=
\\
FIGURE 18 n
_ =-
_4 2
assel I
?
- S 40'
=
I ROLLER I rot l E R I ROLLE R I ROli FR I RCM i ER I i
1 Q l.
uvT 1
b m a ESSES i
TEST AREA E-l ROLLER:
NO. OF PASSES VisRom.us CH-43 5 PER UFT I
l t
=
2 o' =[
s hh,f k LIFT THICKNESSES HAND COMPACTION AREAS.
COM PACTOR NO. OF PASSES ESSICK VP-24 2
WACKER 550 2
(
~
EDAP N O*A
....'..........e' BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PL ANT CONSTRUCTION DETAILS OF TEST ARE A E l AND HAND COMPACTION TEST AREAS
~
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO FOSTER,6-19 70
- o......o RALEIGH N C.
. f.".."'..
68-ll8 - A96 a
FIGURE 19
_ ___mwmmmwm 1
l 1'
XD (PCF) AVERAGE a0 as s0 se e0 sos ROLLER: V f 8RDPLUS CH-43 l
(LANE 5) TWO,TWO FOOT LIFTS,
j l.0 FIVE PASSES / LIFT t.,
o
'J a
(AREA E 1) FouR.ONE FOOT LIFTS, l
O (T
(
FIVE PASSES / LIFT O O
l' (LANE 7) TWO,TWO FOOT LIFTG, l
h TWO PASSES / LIFT O---O l
.ES
- a. 2.0 T
E l
r 4
b g
I I
3.0 i
b h
I EITIAL DENSITL l RANGE 7 l I
I I
4.0 SO GO 70 75 80 90 RELATIVE DENSITY %
1 MAX e 108 PCF IS IMIN 75 PCF NOTE! THESE PROFILES WERE I
DEVELOPED FROM TEST LANES OR ARE AS WHERE COMPACTION WAS PERFORMED OVER A 30 FOOT WIDE STRIP.
I i
.i.
4 ;
1 L
...".$.".".20^
BR UNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT IAND DEPTH VERSUS DENSITY PROFILES FDR VfBROPLUS l l CH-43, LANES S AND 7 AND TEST ARE A E-1 i ;
..............u
! jN @ l7-70 ou...
no R
,{
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
E" *'
196 R ALEIG H, N.C.
' TILAI' Ze 68-l18-A 97
............ -.......,....... ~
~. n.- n.
FIGURE 20
.... x d
~~
. gammm;ng,. ; _...
.4-
i I (PCM AVERAGE D
ao as so os Ko 10 5 I
I ICLLER: FERGUSON SP-65 (LANE 4) TWO. TWO FOOT LIFTS, l
TEN MSSES/UFT 9--@
l 1.0 7
I t
t I
I
~z
>- 2.0 IL l
I 3.0 1
1
_ INITIAL DENSIT1 i g RANGE 7
4.0 50 60 70 75 80 90 R EL ATIVE DENSITY %
} MAX a 108 PCF THIS PROFILE WAS DEVELOPED TMIN = 75 PCF NOTE *,
FROM TEST LANE WHERE COMPACTION WAS PERFORMED OVER ONE ROLLER WIDTH ONLY.
L O*APPOLONIA 3
o....
BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PL ANT E-l DEPTH VERSUS DENSITY PROFILE FOR CAROLINA POWER AND POWER CO.
FERGUSON SP-65 AT L ANE 4 7
--kh),h '"68-118-A98 R A LE IG H. N.C.
ea ene-r..
~ -
FIGURE 21 m
1 (PCF) AVERAGE 0
im m
a w
e a
m j
I q
NOTE: THESE PROFILES WERE DEVELOPED FROM TEST LANES l
WHERE COMPACTION WAS PERFORMED N
1.0 OVER A 30 FOOT WIDE STRIP.
i 3
I i
M i
l S
I f 2.0 l
L 4
8 i
i I
3.0 I
l I
c &
i I
, INITIAL DENSITY, l I
I
[ANGE
{l i
g g
4.0 50 60 70 75 80 90 RELATIVE DENSITY %
$ MAX.
s 108 PCF 5 M IN.
=
75 PCF ROLLER (LANE 5) Vl8ROPLUS CH+43 TWO.TWO FOOT LIFTS - 5 PASSES / LIFT O--O (LANE 8) FERGUSON SP 65 TWO,TWO FOOT LIFTS - 5 # ASSES / LIFT C
O (LANE 10) MODIFIED RAYGO 600 TWO,TWO FOOT LIFTS -5 MSSES/ LIFT O
O E D APPOLONIA e.....'.......
BRUNSunCK STEAW ELECTAlC PLAaT OtpTM vtRsul DENSITY PROF 1LES FDR VSROPLU$
+
-... = :::...
....... =.....
c ~."n n Sn a w s w = ~
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
l "-$
'y,7$ *{8 I -A99 198
'..=-7 27_
i FIGURE 22
............-.._-ra
1 l
Yo (PCF) AVERAGE
}
80 85 90 95 100 105 I
l I-NOTE:
THESE PROFILES WERE DEVELOPED l
1.0 FROM TEST LANES WHERE COMPACTION i
I WAS PEWORMED OVER A 30 FOOT WIDE ST1llP.
W I
I 2 2 4
t
.0
(
I 4( (
I.
=*
i l
)
I I
3.0 I
dh L
_ INITIAL DENSITY _
RANGE
~
f 4.0 I
I I
I I
I 50 60 70 75 80 90 f
% RELATIVE DENSITY USING:
0 m.= 108 N 7 MIN. = 75 PCF 0
ROLLER M (LANE II)-MODIFIED RAYG0 600-TWO,TWO FOOT LIFTS - 3 PASSES PER LIFT M (LANE 9)- FERGUSON SP-65-TWO, TWO FOOT LIFTS-2 PASSES PER LIFT U"'"""O ( LANE T)- VISROPLUS CH TWO, TWO FOOT LIFTS - 2 PASSES PER LIFT L D'APPOLo*aA BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT e... n....
. e.
DEPTH VER
""'" $uS DENSff Y PROFILES FOR VIB#0*LUS CH 4 3',
us
~
- MM*4Pf3 WRM '" '
- 3 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
FOSTER 619 70 RA LEIGH, N.C.
\\
- ^
7't!E. 68-Il8 - A100 9
?2
\\
FIGURE 23
.n.- 7..
- - - - - ~ -
- - - ~ ' ' * * * ' ~
105 Y (PCF) AVERAGE o
y-85 90 95 40 0 10 5 NOTE:
0 THESE MIOFILES WERC DEVELOPED y
7 FROM TEST AREAS WHERE g I.0 COMPACTION WAS PERFORMED -
3 OVER A to X 10 FOOT AREA l
D i
=
e l
o 2.0
/
\\
I l
3.0 I
I I
I I
I 50 60 70 75 80 90 Yo M. = 108 PC F
% RELATIVE DENSITY USING: Y MIN.a 75 PC o
COMPACTOR X-X WACKER 550- THREE, ONE FOOT LIFTS,- 2 PASSES PER LIFT LIFT O-O ESSICK VP THREE,0NE FOOT LIFTSr 2 PASSES PER LIFT W
WACKER 550- THREE, ONE FOOT LIFTS-5 PASSES PER LIFT IFT D--O ESSICK VP THREE, ONE FOOT LIFTS - 5 PASSES PER LIFT E
E. D'APPOWWIA 1CH43*,
BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
- W"'"*8'~
l *""
- OEPTH
-..'.. I?.*.....
....E.".'I....
VERSUS DENSITY PRCFILES FOR HAND COMPACTOR $
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
AlOO FOSTER 619 70, onwi R ALElGH, N.C.
[,*.".'.,
7'07 W.6 =
68-l18 A 101 23
............... m
-~
FIGURE 24
--......w. a
\\
1 i
TIME LAPSE DURING WHICH j
Soll EXPERIENCES FREE FALL j
AT EACH vlBRATION CYCLE 0F THE CONTAINER l
a.
I 3
=
=
=
=
I i
e SEPARATION SEPARATION 504.
I 1
\\
h
{
s f
CONTAINER q
!?
(
\\
7 5
L t
I I
I g
j TIME i
)
IMPACT lMPACT CONTAaER V18RAfl0N CYCLE OF THE CONTAINER E
h1 f
=
E F^PM*ow S R U N S WICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT MOTIONS OF SOIL 8 CONTAINER DURING VERTICAL 1
0.7.,$((((.
....I[."I.*,......
VIBRATION WITH PEAK ACm FRATION GREATER THAN Ig CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO.
FoSieR 6 20 70
O 68 - 118 - A 102 RALEIG H,N. C.
FIGURE 25
- - ~ = _.
-ww =m
.. g ROBERT V. WHITN AN M ASS ACH USETT S IN ST8T UT E OF TECHNOLOGY. C A M S RIDGE 3 8. M ASS.
I 1
September 30,1970 Mr. R.W. Press, Jr.
I United Engineers 1401 Arch Street Philadelphia,Pa. 19105 j
Dear Mr. Press.
! have studied the two reports by E. D'Appolonia concerning Class I and Class !! backfill materials for the Brunswick Steam CE Electric Plant. I can state that, from the standpoint of soil-structure interaction, the Class II backfill will beh' ave essentially the same as the Class I backfill. This assertion of course presuus that both materials will be placed in accordance with the specifications stated in the two reports.
Sincerely yours, I
nk Y. &
l Robert V. Whitman i
Professor of Civil Engineering Head of Soll Mechanics and Structures Divisions RYW:pm aT flCAL i
eN Ig 5
BIO 2
-188
~1
- sta-
,sa,_ _ _ -
- mm-
. _. _ _ - _ -. -