ML20235E364
Text
~
,q'~ _
.] T
'c 3
U ~
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COWANY l
RALEIGH, NORTH CAA0!DA j !
l
- e ,
] -l y
If a DESIGN REPORT NO. 6 f j I i h FINAL REPORT 1 TEST FILL PROGRAM RESULTS AND l j .k BACKFILL RECOMMENDATIES ,
FOR CLASS II BACKFILL l -
~
BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT SOUTEPORT. NORTH CAROLIMA II
.i W ll I !
k '
]
I I
8 i
!I l I
1
]'
i I ]
.a i E. D'APPOLONIA l CONSULTING ENGINEERS,13C. I'. . ,
l i
PITTSBURGil, PENNSYLVANIA ' i i ..
1 1 NOVEMBER 1970 >
j j
! l 4t 5
,}! }i
.s > t 8709280004 PDR FOIA 870921 a . . ~ ~ ~ .- ,- I - \
)
MENZ87-111 PDR
1 y .-
E. 0'A PPO LO N I A
,1 esasmsme enemaans.ime.
.j.J
. - - TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ;
List of Figures
}'
Introduction g ,
i
,f Laboratory Testing 3
.-- Crain Sise Analyses 3 j Modified Proctor Compaction Tests 4
'i -
Tests on Clast II Soil Other Than Test Fill Material 4 Shear Strength and Consolidation Tests 5 Field Testing 6 l
Band Compactors 10 Conclusions Regarding Field Testing 11 Effect of Chacge in Backfill Procedure on Dynamic Response 12 Conclusions and Recommendations 13 Recommended Backfill Procedure for Class II Tan to Brown l Clayey and Silty Fine Sand 14 i
i Hand Compactors 15 List of References 16 Tables f- ,
Figures t,
t i
t.
I N
- 1-b a
~
f l'
a \\
j _
~
. et
. . . . . . . . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . = . . .
E. D'APPO LO NI A eousut m e essenstes,ime.
, LIST OF TABLES I T e l. no.
_ Description 1
Summary of Craia Size Analyses and Modified Proctor Compaction Test Besults on Class II Test Pill Soil 11 Summary of Craia Stae Analyses and Modified Proctor Compaction Test Results on Class II Soil Other has no Test Fill Soil III Summary of Test Fill Densities - Class 11 Soil IT Seamary of Roller Gnaracterist,1cs T
Summary of Rand Compactor Qiaracteristics t
i
\
-a
\ \
Igi[ ,
^
- WQL. .- _. , y W - ?- - r = g.
_ ___ J
, +
E. D'A PPOLONI A sessanme smossamis.eme.
LIST OF FICMES Finure No.
I' g l namiting Cwves for Crain-Sise Analysis 2~ of Class II Test Fill Material 1
J hics! Moisture-Density Relationships
! See Class II Test Fill Lanes 3
tamiting Curves for Crain-Size Analysis -
et Class Fill II Material other Than Test Material 4
l hical Moisture-Density Relationships 1 af FillC2 ass II Material Other Than Test Material 5
6 tutal Shear Strength vs Dry Density i 1
i 1 EEfective Angle of Friction we Dry 7
Emunity I!
{
{
8 Maid Ratio es Consolidatim Pressure (
9A lacation of Test Fill Lanes Deth vs Density Profile for Lane 1 98 (Bad Four-Feet Lift)
Doch vs Density Profile for Lane 1 M (3od Four-Foot Lift) 11 Caustructice Details of Lanes 1 and 6 12 Construction Details of Lones 12 and 13 .
13 Construction Details of lanes 14,15 and 17 Construction ant 21 Details of Lanes18, 19, 20 ! s 14 1 15 Caustruction Details of Lanes 16 and 2 Awrage Percent of Maximus Density Measured !
16 Que Foot Belsw Surface of Test Fill l Density Increase Due to compaction of Sehsequent IJfts I
i apte: .
.92MSBMMB4Pbh
e E. D'A PPOLONI A sensupues emensses. nee.
1.
FINAL REPORT TEST FIU P30 CRAN RESULTS AND RACEFIU R10000EKDATZCES FOR CLASS II SACKFIll BRIBISWICE STIAM ELECTRIC FIANT SOUI1Ep0tT, NDRIE CAROLINA INfnonocrton i
A test fill has been conducted at the site of the Braswick Steam Electric Plant (BSD) to establish construction control procedures i and optiani compaction methods for backfill material. Optimal conditions '
i are those associated with the attainasst of the required density with the least amoust of work. As discussed in a companion reportf }* tue h
different soils designated as class I and Class II have been tested. i se This report contains appropriate recosasadations for the Class II soil, .I whereas the companica report contains similar information relative o
to the Class I soil. I It la noted that class I soil is that backfill material availste at the BSIP site which has less than 15 peroset by weight passing the No.
200 sieve.
It is essentially granular, free draining, and its compacties is 1
practically independent of water contest. It will be placed in accordmee
((
i with a relative density criterion as suggested by ASTM Designation F206-447. * '
4 Class II soil is c.afined as that backfill material available at the BSD site having a percentage of fines passing the No. 200 sieve in the range j of 15 to 40 percent. It is essentially a granular material, but its degree .
I of cospection is water-content dependent. Iherefore, a Modified Proctor criterion, as suggested by ASTM Designation D-1557-66T, Method A, will be used for field control. {
The Modified proctor criterion, as opposed to the
- t See List of References i
)
W
. l E. O APPOLONIA 1 s e ss
,, i h
)
standard proctor criterias, has been adopted because the energy associated with the laboratory test is a better representation of that being imparted to the soil by the compaction equipment available at the site. '
It' la emphasised that the Class I and Class II designations in no way refer to ABC classification of structures.
Ihe use of I and II to desig-t
}
mate types of sell has been adopted on this project solely for siglicity in '
the field. To fully appreciate this means of classification, an understanding of the enesvaties operattaa is necessary. ifbes the material is being removed from the excavation, a soils engineer is constantly observing the operation I t
and directing the scraper operator with hand signals to the proper stockpile or spoil pile. A "thu6e down" signal indicates spoil while one finger y 1
inMentes Class I soil and two fingers indicates Class 11 soil. The soils f
engianer is able to identify the class of soil by observing the water con-tent, color, greia-size characteristics and a general recognition of the i 1
material as a result of having run nimerous grain eise analyses. His inter-protation is subsequently checked with formal grain-sise analysee later in i
the a or ths G11owing day and will again be checked during placement of .
, the backfill.
[
t lased en the results presented hereia, it is recommended that the $
Class II soil be placed as backfill at a density greater than or equal to -
90 percent of the maximum density as obtained by the Modified Proctor Method i j
s (90% IMPD)* where a relative density of 75 percent had been previously stipu- j lated. The Clasa 11 soils will require moisture content control, and it is recommended that the Class II soil be placed at water contents within the f
j Modified Proctor envelope defined by the 90% 79tPD. Ihe established MMFD for The abbreviation HMPD will be used to designate ". ... Maximus Modified Proctor Density."
G
W .
E. D' APP O LO NI A '
eemsume sneentens.ime.
3*
this soil is based on field laboratory testing
, and field density testing to eealuate the various types of rollars, compacters and laborat ory taats for strength and consolidation characteristics as subsequently scussed.
di I The most successful rollers used on ethe lamagtest 200, fill w the vibroplus CH-43, the fibroplus CA-25, the Ferguso n RT1005, the Ferguson SP-65 the Ferguson SAR-7, and the Modified Rayao 600
. All but the Perguson RT1005 and tbs Fergusea SAR-7, which are rubber-tired rollers i , are vibratory rollars.
Any of the above rollers can be used duringoperations backfilling by alterias the number of passes and lif t thicknees. i However, the Romag 200, l
Vibroplue G-43 and the Ferguson RT1005 are recommended as
, er were able to achieve the required density with the least number .
of passes It is speci-fically rewed that 6 to 8-inch loose lifts be placed {
and compacted with tea (10) penses of one of the above rolle s; cthe compa ti on work may be reduesd if data, which justify a reduction, become available duri tiens. ng backfilling opera- \
LABORAT0tY TESTING Tine laboratory testing orogram on Class II soil inetaded i
tests comeneted at the R$EP field laboratory and testa conducted {
at our soils laboratory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The field laboratory testing program consisted of grain size analyses, Modified Proctor compsetion t cor tent determinations. ests and water Tests performed at our Fittsburgh laboratory include unconsolidated undrained and consolidated drained compression tests triaxial and consolidation tests.
Crain Size Analyses:
,b i
Grain size analyses were perforined in accordance a oratory with L b Procedure BSEP No. 2. and BSEP No. 3 which corresponds t o ASTM D-1140-54
[
V r I 8
.bG - ~ -- - O $
- - _ - _-- ----- O
E. D'A PPOLO N I A comisutne.e (i.easans.exc. 4 and D 422 63. (2,3) respectively, ne data sheets for all grain size analyses associated with the Class II teet fill are maintained at the site. H e test l results indicate that the percentage of fines in the test fill lanes varied from 20.2 percent to 27.8 percent as shown in Table I. De range of grain size distribution is indicated in the grata size boundary curves shown on
-65 Fig 1. 21s figure indicates that the materials used in the Class II test n' : fill consisted of a uniformly graded claysy fine sand and sitty fine sand with an average grain size of 0.2 sua and a average percentage of finas of 23. 7.
Modified proctor Compacties Tests:
tio define the asisture-density sulationship for Class II soil, Modified Proctor compaction tests were perforised in accordsace wi4 ASTM D 1557 66T, Method A. Laboratory data sheets for these taats on file at the site, the maximum dry densities and aptiamm watsr contents are sun.
marised in Table I. The Modified Proctor compaction curves shown on Fig 2 exhibit a typical peak which varies from 118.5 pef to 121.5 pef at optimum water contents, which range from 10 percent to 11.5 percent; the compaction curves show that the water content has a significant influence on the maxisma 1 dry density, and therefore, water content control will be required during con.
struction. Based on the data obtained during this test fill program, the water content at time of placement should be restricted to water contents within the Modified Proctor envelope defined by 9Fi MMPD.
)
Tests on Class II Soil Other than Test Fill Material: {
As indicated above, the percentage of fines passing the No. 200 I l
sieve varied from 20.2 to 27.8 percent in the test fill lanes. However, Class II material is defined as having a percentage of fines varying from 15 to 40
\
4ENW
E. D'A P PO LO NI A comovowee smenssas,ime. 5.
percent. It is expected that some of the backfill material will have a higher percentage of fines. Serefore, to determine the cogaction characteristics of Class II material with a higher percentage of fines, artificial laboratory sasuples were prepared with fine contents ranging from 18.0 to 51.2 percent (Fig 3) by combining on site meterials with varied gradations.
A series of grain sine analyses and compaction tests were performed on these samples to study the compaction characteristics. He cohesive nature of these samples provides the same meisture-density relationship exhibited in the test fill meterials. Se maximum dry density varied from 122.0 pef to 125.5 pef while the associated optimum water content varied from 10 per-cent to 11.5 percent as shows in Table II and rig 4.
{
For the entire range of Class II soil (15 to 40 percent fines),
it appears that the dry density and the optimum water content occur within a limited range. He amount of fine grained soil in Class II material has little effect on the optimum water content, but does have a slight effect, as much as 6%, on the magnitude of the maximum dry density, shear Stremath and Consolidation Tests:
Te determine the strength and consolidation characteristics of the Class II backfill material in its compacted state, unconsolidated.u Jrained and consolidated. drained triaxial compression tests and consolidation tests j
1 were performed on unsaturated and saturated samples. Se samples for the '
various tests were prepared with a range of water contents and densities and were tested at stros and saturation levels anticipated in the field.
I l
1 l
\, i 4
vmSQ '
~< - -
~ . , . . w. ,,, ,
.. - 4 #
E. D'APPO LO NI A consu6nw remas:s,me. 4.
l The results of the testing program, shown on Fig 5, indicate that l r
the strength of the unsaturated samples is affected by the degree of saturation and is considerably higher than the strength of saturated samples. The shear strength increases with a decrease in percent saturation due to the apparent -
cohesion resulting from capillary action. Since most of the fill material will
{
be submerged and eveetually saturated , the strength parameters should be based e
on saturated consolidated drained test results. De results of these tests are presented on Fig 6. These strength tests show that the Class II backfill material is basically a cohesionless soil with an effective angle of frictic...
i, equal to 36.5 degrees at 90% Maximum Modified Proctor Density.
As shcara en Fig 7, consolidation tests on saturated samples show individual e-log P curves with similar compression characteristics for the various densities tested. This implies that only a small improvement is reclised in the compressibility characteristics by increasing the density in the dense state. Any settlemmat that does occur in Class II soil will be relatively small and will occur during construction.
FIELD TESTING The field testing program for Class II soil was similar to the program for Class I soil in that test lanes were constructed and field density tests conducted in three locations within each lane. Major differences in the program for the two different materials include the use of thinner lifts, a greater number of passes, and the use of both static and dynamic compsetion equipment. The Class II test lanes which are located on Fig 8 include Lane Nos . 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21.
.,4 y -
E. D'A PPO LO NI A esme m ane amee w sms. m c. 7.
As esplained in the Class 1 test fill report, it was originally intended to test Class I soil in Laue 1 by *.asing tan fine sand borrowed from the area of the intake canal. It was found that the cisyey sand could not be segregated from the tan fine sand using conventional emesvating equipement.
Therefore, Lane 1 developed into a class II lane and is reported herein.
As a first step, a four-foot-thick loose lift of Class II clayey sand una placed in 14ae 1 to determine the increase in density as a femmetion of dapth for a given compaction procedure.
Figures 9A and 93 shows the density profile in Class II soil after 0,1, 4, 6 and 10 passes with the Raygo 600 vibra-tory roller.
When the Raygo 600 was found to have an unsuitably low acceleration and frequency, Lane 1 was subjected to an additional 10 passes with the Romag 200, a roller with acceptable dynamic properties. However, even after rolling with the Romag 200, the clayey sand did not show any density increase with dep on a thick, loose lift in a manner similar to the Class I gray fine sand tested l in Lane 3.II f From these results, it was established that Class 11 soil could '
act be placed in thick lif ts; therefore, the remainder of the Class II testing program was limited to s/x and eight inch loose lif ts with a variable number of I passes of the roller.
It is saticipated that some drying of the backfill material may be required for the placexet of Class II backfill. Therefore, a method of mixing and drying was investigated on Lane 1 using a rotary pulverizer. The mixing process produced a uniform Class 11 soil with a range of fines (clay and silt) from 21% to 28% and a HMPD ransing from 118.5 to 121.5 pounds per cubic foot.
The water content was lowered to an acceptable range with the pulverizer, and therefore, this piece of equipment is recommended for backfill placement.
mem --
-_ 3
ootesW4 tie 6e teeenasEtne,ie,c. g, The first roller tested on the six to eight inch lif ts was the Essick VF-72 vibratory sheepsfoot roller. The VF-72 equipment rolled three lif ts with ten passes on each lif t in Lane 6. Figures 10 through 14 show the construction of Lane 6 and other Class II test lanes. nree lif ts were rolled with the vibratory mechanism turned on followed by three lif ts with the vibratory mechanism turned off. The average denatties presented as a percentage of NHPD are shown in Table III and Fig 15. Although the VF-72 possesses excellent dynamic properties.
(see Table IV) it only achieved a dersity equivalent to 93% MPD. With the 3- l vibrator turned off, the percentage was no higher than 90%. I G
Rubber-cirs rollers were tested in Lanes 12,15 sad 17. A small tow-type, rubber-tired roller referred to as the " Lincoln Towed Roller", weighing less than ten tons and having an average tire pressure of 25 pai, was tested s
on Lane 12. Ten passes per lif t on three six-inch lif ts produced a density equal to 92% HMPD, as shown on Fig 15. In Lane 15, a larger 25-ton rubber-tired roller, the Ferguson SRR7, was tested on a three lif t section. The highest average density achieved w 931 EPD. ne Ferguson RT1005, a 50-ton rubber-tired roller, was used in Lane 17. This equipment achieved a value of 962 MMPD af ter 10 passes per lift 12 inches below the measured surf ace of the lane.
However, this roller must be towed by a large tractor and, consequently, it is too awkward to be used efficiently in the BSEP excavation.
The first smooth drum vibratory roller to be used on the thin Class II lif ts was the Ferguson SP-65. This roller was tested twice-in Lane 6 with six passes per lif t and in Lane 21 with 10 passes per lif c. In both lanes, the highest average density achieved was 9'3% HMPD.
m r me _. re _.-me -
gwwpA
i E. D'APPO LO NI A 1 esmemnme amonesses.ine. 9, a The Modified Raygo 600 was tested once in Lane 6 and twice in Lans 13. The Modified Raygo 600 differs 'from the stock model in weight l
(one ton heavier) and frequency (increased free 22 to 26 cycles per secced). ;
In Lane 6. the water content of the soil was 51 to 72 wet of optimum which !
o .
apperently limited the possibility of achievise an average density greater l
L than 90% MtPD. The roller was retested in Lane 13 under the same lif t-pass f
combination as Lane 6 or three, six-inch lifts with 10 passes per lift. The results were 911 M90 in the' surface lif e and 942 letPD in the botton lif t.
To determine if each lift received additional compaction from the placing and rolling of subsequent lifts, two more six-inch lifts were placed on the first three lif ts in Lane 13 for a total of five lif ts. Figure 16 shows that the ten passes on additional lifts increase the density to a depth of at j{
least two feet. 3 As for the Modified Rayso 600, the Romag 203 was tested three times on six-inch lif ts--once in Lane 12 and twice in Lanw 14 This roller was successful in achieving 962 DetFD in the bottom lift of a three-lif t section in Lane 12 and 972 letpD in the bottom lif t of three lif ts in Lane 14. After toepacting two more lif ts, with 10 passes in Lane 14. for a total of five lif ts, Lift C increased from 88% to 95% and Lift A remained at 962 to 97% 70fD (see Fig 16). These data again illustrate that with vibratory rollers on clayey sand, compaction is effective below the six-inch lif t that is being rolled.
In Lanes 18 and 19, two Vibroplus rollers were tested on three six-inch lif ts at 10 passes per lif t. The CA-25, which was used on Lane 18, is a self-propelled model with dynamic properties stallar to the CH-43. It was not used in the Class I test fill program because it arrived af ter the comple-i tion of the program. As explained in the Class I test fill report, the 0:-43
\
\
-,p' '
\
i \
Mb- ____, - - .,......,..,.l --..-.. -. m m - /Mmer:#" _ -- M1hniisar MM
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _. _ I
estesWLnes4 Emesuttes.itec.
is a towed roller weighing about five tens and possessing excellent dynamic properties. Although Fig 15 shows that the G-43 achieved a higher denalty (96% !strD) than the CA-25 (94% HMPD) one foot below the surf ace of the three lif t section. the CA-25 compacted the surface lif t to a higher density (942 NtPD) than ag of the rollers used.
The CA-25 was tested again in Lane 20 using only five passes per lift. As with most of the previous tests, the highest everage density (911 NtPD) was measured one foot below the surface lif t. Both this test and the test en the Ferguson IP-65 in Lane 6 suggest that five passes with an approved vibratory roller on a six-inch lif t should satisfy the 90% WPD criterion. l Hand Compactors:
Three hand compactors were tested.with Class 11 soil la Lane 16.
These include the Wacker 550, the Essick VF-24 and the Wacker 130. The first two compactors are the vibraking plate types which will be used on the Class i backfill while the last type is an impact or " rammer" type transmitting high amplitude blows near le cycles per second. A summary of their characteristics j is presented in Table V. A 20-foot by 20-foot area was compacted with each compactor using the "three, six-inch lift--10 pass combination" that was cosanon to the program. The results which are presented in Table III indicate that the vibrating plate compactors exceeded 90% )9(PD in only one of the four lif ts tested while the Wacker 110 reached 93% and 96% MMPD.
An interesting aspect of this segment of the Class II test fill pro-gram is a test made earlier in Lane 2 with the Wacker 110. A pit, five feet by ten feet in plan and three feet deep, was excavated and backfilled in six-inch lif ts with five passes per lif t. Densities obtained were 101%, 95% and 95% MMPD.
\
\
\\ l M
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - - - _ - - - - _ - _ - - - J
l E. D'AP PO LO N I A coassume enesesses.ame. 11' The explanation for the tests in 1.aae 2 having higher densities on the warage with half the number of passes made on I.ame 16 is attributed to the confining effects of the walls of the pit. Therefore, it appears that the densities obtained by the vibrating plate compactors will increase when they are used in a confined area.
Conclusions Regarding Field Testing:
the results of the Class II tant fill program show that Class II soil may be effectively compacted with vibratory rollers. Unlike class I material Class II soil requires placement in thin lifte and compacted with a greater ausber of passes. For a lift thielramas of six inches and 10 passes, three different rollers (Vibroplus G-43, Ferguson RT1005 and gomas BW-200) compacted the soil to an average density greater than 95% MMPD. The Vibro-l plua Q1-43 is less cumbersome and considerably faster to operate than the other two.
Four more rollers, which include the fibroplus CA-25, the Modified Raygo 600, the Ferguson SP-65 and the 25 ton Ferguson SRR-7, compacted the Class II soil to 93% to 94% M1PD with ten passes. For the initial placement of Class II backfill, it was reccamended that any of these seven rollers be used with 20 passes on a six to eight inch loose lift. ThAs specification was reduced to 15 passes af ter the initial results of the field density tests be-came available during backfilling operations. It is suspected that the number of passes might be reduced to as little as five passes on a six to eight inch lift.
l Concerning hand compaction, the Wacker 110 "ranner" type was success- !
ful in obtaining 95% HMPD or higher with tes passes on a six-inch lif t. This l criterion may also be reduced to five passes for compacting in confined areas to produce densities in excess of 90I HMPD.
l
- 3. M
, l i
E. D'APPO LO NI A someuumesuomsses.ame. 12.
During the test fill program, a tractor-drawn rotary pulveriser was used in mixing and dryias the Class !! satorial prior to compaction. It was found that the use of the pulveriser resulted in a uniform fill with a water content close to optimum. The test fill data indieste that the use of the rotary pulveriser was highly successful in maintaining the silt and cisy content within a 6% range and the water content within 22 of the optimum.
EFFBCT OF CRAIGE IN BACKFILL PROCEDURE W DTMANIC RESPoll8E the dynamic response characteristics of the site and the structures have been based on certain asswtions regarding backfill for the SSEP plant.
Since a portion of the backfill will be Class II asterial, it is prudent to compare dynamic properties for the Class II backfill with those used in pre-vious analyses, notably References 4 and 5. ,
The dymanic properties used in References 4 and 5 for the fill above the Miocene sand are summarised below with similar properties for the Class Il material in place.
Onic Weipt the/ft Shear Wave Velocity Poisson's latic Rafs 4 & 5 107 to 130 By Whitman 560 to 900 0.35 Used 750 for best estimate Class II 123 to 130 700 Estimate 0.35 With respect to soil-struct"re interactive, the above values are used in simulating the spring constants which account for forces acting on the st ructures and the relative stif fnesses of the various springs .
It is concluded that the difference in the properties cited above are negligible and that the dynamic response will not be appreciably different with Class II material.
(
l
-. a R,
)
C. D'A P PO LO NI A i esassume tuseesses,me. 13. )
1 00llCLUS10018 AW RE00MIEllDATIml8 Due to the availability of Class 11 soil, a testing program has l
been conducted to determine its esapaction characteristics and engineer-ing properties in the laboratory and in the field. -
The testing has established that C1se 11 soil has a definite moisture-density relationship and should be cetrolled as backfill by IIndi-fied Proctor criteria. Based on the results of the field and laboratory testing, a criteria as determined by ASTM Designation D-1557-667 has been selected for control. The resulting backfill will be adequate to resist both static and dynamic loads and will not significantly alter the dynamic response previously calculated.
. . . =
Dsring the test fill program, three rollers compacted the soil to a density greater than 952 lefD after ten passes on a six to eight inch loose lift. These rollers are:
- 1. Romag 200 (Vibratory - self propelled)
- 2. Vibroplus 01-43 (Tamed Vibratory)
- 3. Ferguson RT1005 (50-Ton Towed Rubber Tire)
Four more rollers were found to compact the soil to 931 and 942
)stPD. They are as follows:
- 1. Modified Raygo 600 (fibratory - self propelled)
- 2. Vibroplus CA-25 (Vibratory - self propelled)
- 3. Ferguson SP-65 (Vibratory - self propelled)
- 4. Ferguson SRR7 (25-Tom Rubber Tire)
All of the above vibratory rollers have the added advantage of being able to compact Class I soil according to Reference 1.
e ..
j
~
E. D'APPO LO NI A l eensuome amensses.ime.
gg, l After testing both ispect and vibrating plate type hand compactors, the former were found to be most esitable for Class 11 soil. The impact or raimner type hand compactor used in the test fill program was the idacker 110.
. Results of the Class II test fill work indicate that compliance with the f allowing backfill procedures will result in a satisfactory structural backfill:
l Recausaended Backfill Procedure for Class II Tan to Brown Clayey and~
$_11ty Fine Sand _:
Rollers:
In areas where a granular material having a relative density of 752 has been previously stipulated and Class II soil will now be used;
' the latter soil shall be spread in six to eight inch loose lifts and compacted with 10 passes of any of the follawing rollers: i Bonas 200 Vibropias 01-43 Ferguson kr1005 !
Modified Rayao 600 Vibroples CA-25 Ferguson SF-65 l Fergusom SRR7 !
If field density tests show degrees of compaction significantly greater than the 90% 19(PD, the number of passcs can be reduced to 7. 1.ikewis e, if high degrees of compaction are still obtained, the number of passes can be further reduced. Ilovever, the number of passes necessary to achieve 90% lefPD on Class II soil shall be held to a minimum of 5. 'i 8
i l .s ~
l -- .
J
.E. D'APPOLONI A mme tusemeens,ine, 13, Nand compactors For Clase II structural fill requiring 902 letD 7onpasses a eix to eight inch loose lift shall be made with a Wacker llo im pact type hand compactor or approved equivalent.
Beepectfully submitted.
E. D'A.POLONIA Ct3tSEM ENCINEIRS, INC.
Te 'C 3.
John A. Deutbek Project Nos.68-118 & 69-239 November 1970 r
\
\ .
M
'-. enmanne amamsens. ins. 16.
LIST OF REFERENCES
- 1. Class 1 - Report. "hral Report. Test Fill Program Results and Backfill Recommendations for Class I Backfill. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Sovuport. North Carolina." E. D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers. Inc. , Revember,1970. ,,, _
, 2. MEno: Lab and Field Testing Procedure. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant.
Southport. North Carolina. April 1970.
- 3. ASTM Standards Part II March 1969
- 4. ~ "The Iffeet of Soil Conditions on the Earthquake Response Spectra for the Site of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plaat" Report by Robert V.
Witoon. November 1968.
- 5. " Soil-Structure Interaction." Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Report by Robert V. hitman. May 1969.
l 1
\
E. D'APPO LO NI A N M S m eses,ses, i, ,
r .
1 0
0 TABLES t
{
.. _ [ Q e
I 11BLE 1 SLDetARY OF OR&IN 811: AIEALYSES AND N0DIFIED PhocTOR I ColfACTION TEST RISULTS CII CLASS 11 TEST FILL S0IL Test Forcent Maaiisin Modi- '
Fill Sample Passing the fied Proctor Optimum I Lane Number Bo. 200 Sieve Dry Density Water l Bo. pcf Contest i 1 5142 25.51 WT NT 1 1 8143 22.6E 1 8144 23.91 1 8145 22.61 " "
1 8146 20.21 1 8147 22.22 " " I 1 8148 27.82 " "
1 8149 25.31 1 5150 " "
7.3.51 1 8151 21.32 " "
l 1 8152 23.5E 1 8153 13. 72 " "
1 8154 25.21 121.0 10.0% '
1 S155 23.81 121.5 10.51 1 8156 25.01 120.5 10.01 13 8193 22.22 118.5 11.51 16 8195 23.71 119.1 10.5Z 18 5199 25.21 121.2 10.01 20 $201 23.31 120.5 10.02 i
NOTE: NT implies "No Test Conducted" i
1 l
. 2 ._ 4 r-a
TABLE 11 StMMARY OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES AND NDDIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST RESULTS III CLASS II SOIL OTHER TRAN TEE TEff FILL S0IL Percent Maximus Modi- Optimum Sample Passing the fied Proctor ! Water Number No. 200 Steve Dry Density Content 8136 18.01 122.0 10.01 8130 22.SE 123.0 11.52 8137 24.21 125.5 11.01 5157 51.21 124.0 11.01 l
{ ,
b i
i L.
4g .
"ei 2 I
r l ta.t .b u.
u I
nt a e e. n t
8e AAAA
~~~~ A
~
gg 4ay4 i s 4i : i i s s i s i e :
u3 ARn*AA e
A n n m
e u
, "Iw3 338833R33023333322ES:
8 E
. Eu .tes. ..
, ga : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : a n g eg l g, -
U . _.
gi o e c. n en . . . ee se n. ~ e m.
p
,5$ k b---b $--$ -- $ $-$ $ .$ $ 3' $ - - - .$. b--b -$ -- $$E
- - oeo< - .. e c.
- * * * * . e e n e- eo = ..
B .u 8 e O a ""
. .A .A .J Q Q .A .A A .& A . . . A J .A A. A A .i .A A J &
S"bN". 6AAA4&444444466444AAA hdg A. .A A- A i .A. A
. . A i .A.. -A A .* A A .A i .i A .A i e . . .
b -IE .
- 1 t, S * :, .1 n Aee;e Ae ee e c. c e ee e e ee ee e AAA&AAAi;AAi;AA4 c0
> E*% g:::
ut &bb bb&666&&&666&&bb iAAAi;AAiAAAa;AAiAAAs
= . . . . . . . . _
n thA 3% oo oo oo oo oooo oo oo oo o oa 4JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ E
u W . . . . . . _ _
W W
.* y g: oo oo n n n n .e . .e .a e e o o k
e e. .o o. . - .
e
.4 p ,1,,,,g,,,,,,,,. ,,,,,
W .
CO
]E .4 M -M .
-- M s .* g .e
_ , , , , , , **.*d****N.* * '
1
. \
M
.h. W 0 $
- d 3 & C . De 8 8 8 2 -
.k
> > be i
- 8. . .-
gg i e i i ai i e i i ii. . . . . i i i i MM
.h
.M a e
" E E" g
.u 3333 2R3RERRR322: **** I 3
3 __ )
. .t b
-~ n. .. . .
V#U 3 3 - 3 S g 3 g 3 3 3 . t 3 3 3 m te C e, e .S 4 , .g .
3 W 3
.g C
n.s .N. 4 - .4 .4 4 j
I Se
., . N m . . .# .. . N . . . . o n .
e
- ?., % '
aA ' *
- A a A *
- E 3 n. 8 .o .o .S. .S S .o -8 .a .s. o o.a.oa a o
. .o .S..a .e
.: a.o .i .a 2
4 .
C b r. e e e e m e, e e e e o e o ~e**N" e *W'
-- *
- A A a 5 .u " ,3. ;
d 3 a
. .6 A. A .& i &. &< 4
. . . A J J .& . . .A. . A. A. A .& .<
A A 4 4 4 & 4 .!. 4 b 4 A A A A A 4 4A44
~
T ?dg **b"E". i .& .A " .d i 4 A d .i .A .J A .J. a s- i . .i .& .& i m , .. . ..
'533 1
E
,a n ee e e oe oe n e o en e ea e s a a x ; a ; ; d a , ; e a s .: s en n e as;a
%. u
- e age
- d;44444;d444d; &b&&AAh&666&b&&&6 dad
&6&6
.; d ; 4 3 *3 o
i ,
"Da o. o. o. o. u e.
u
.n a .
a m
,,,3 ,u,4 , .* *# .t .* te. e. E I E I C 3 tad
- 3 : E E th.
- 7. - '
- c. o - o t 2 e.3 .J I M M en
- - ' - . 9
- o j h ; s,;.,. . .o< .o oe- - .o .o
< .o
.o .o .e o .o o- .o
. .o e- o - .o bd
. . to .ad N h no ) es g3 1
I
'"' g o .NI m in. t 25 . O o O O ena O so om t 3 l
'O l* 3 a E. te.d
.e to o u se ,e o3 3 W e, p 6.t ga g a n a gg e 2 laa e a we se eo In. m;
- - .J al 3: . . . . .
C O
]M .d =< @@@@@@@@
g N.
N
.e .N N
.s M.e M..=
M M m
.g .g
\
l
. - - - - .* i-
__ r --=u-mam. m
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - 2
n ;;.;;;;. ,
i l
n l l
3 l.8x 83 u
w
>U
- 8. '
gg i . . i i i e i i e i i i i e i i e i H es i
h
.o 1 M a. '
up . ~.m
. . . . . n
.m .e a < ~ ~
. . . . < gm. s
- . . i 2
- Et - a a I ME F R S E B 3 3 Mt 8 8 e 2' = 3 8 8 ME
~ j!n' u
d 2 2 -
E
- e oa i
.- .~...~.<-.n.
- - - . n. ..o
- g . r ., 8
~~~--o.s 8 a D a .s- R ;< . .a. s .;. ; 2;o a
. - - - 8oa .a.
4
=
c
- -.~o . o oo.... .
-y, _
o- A ..n .
77 m u
. t. a. - ; *..& .A A .A. .A A.
a .A -d A A a G
a
- =$"A".
A 444A44AAAA44
.d .a. A . -
444A44 g e :$
A -d -a .s .A s i A A d.
. . . d . & i a -a .i d a .i
~ o -
g g
~
%,g e in.: n an an n m en en an in in e
- " ,a 30 44 en e6 e em an en
~ m Jd44 *
- 4d! -
8ta., , 3 &.o. &.n a. dA o
a e. o <b.a&. a. a .
- a .
- a. b.
- e O e<
.< n. a a &. n .* ' .9 -
e.
n "3J "
d* cow j* 3
- k. 3 k. . 3. L. : 3. .n. : : ,
3
.n.
3 n.
3o 3 3 3a3o n n n n n n u . .-
O O y.' #
O g O C et - .O g .O O O 4 .O g .O - .Og .O. .O.ec. .O g .O .O en to O O m 4 g .Og
- u. . E
- E M
M E 3 E
k Eo 4n p O N
-n u.
O
.n N
E p
.n ed N E M *. k i t u 3
.be at (* .o .3 3 3 gg A
- m .- a - > .
9 e
~.~.- x_. .
OO m a } Y. *4 N - - -4 4 4 an en
- - - -~k - 80- .00 .
- O O e. e
. _. ' \,
- ~ ~~
~~~
\
-l \'
1-8 __
i
.3 $ !'
j i
=
I a
l
!:=-
. i.
se m e
w .C a
ug .n gg g .m g g .ee .
g R
un
.30- 1
, wg g g a : : : : :
nua -
' y%
uw en AA ae Ai eo.e J&AA g or a S o o o .
-n y
g 4 . . . . . . . . . . . )
- .- u .. .. .
. . . . =.
3 5
- W E ?. 2 22 20 21**
5 e d ::% " 2 "- 4 44 o
44 4.*22 g -
I o - *.
RW .
i
. ..- U e. n. e. e. e. e. e. e. e.
5g aJ un i
o a. u -
T Ti TT 7777 g.u- o -o -o -o-~
4%a
=
=,
.. {,
3~$ $. : :
i : :
- o ooo ti
__.. ..... . )
o o e o o oe c .n jt:. Se u u u }
~ i 3: O. n .oa : : :
2.h -
s.
.e gC s-I c0 g g g g g g g g .
j V' m -- - - a4
-e. Ape . .e eg.
h
- ___x -
.e;_ _ _ _ _ .
< 11' e
r) tut ese esp 3 Fe( - - - _ .~ - 8 - - - .
r 0
- P . 3 te er _
eu) _
tsi nse eep - - - - . - - 2 2 Cr( 8 9 _
' P '
- eui e
r) rse - - - - .
isp - - 0 5 5 Te( 9 9 2 r
P
- n o
d i e t)
S rkas 0 6 9 5 7 C uer 6 I s e e 'm 5 3 0 1 9 3 - -
T aFl( 1 1 - -
S e e I M c R c .
E A -
T -
C
_ V A ! !
I R
_ A y
.. E dr o L G en) t ren B
A R uuo oqv 88 8 8 2 0 2 0 i' . . T E . 67 7 7 7 9 7 0 L . se( 35 5 5 8 4 8 0 L er 11 1 1 1 2 1 2 O MF R
1 .
F O
s /
T i e) 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
. R A
mcs 0 0 0 0 0m 3 0 erb 0,
. M noI 0, 0, 0, 0, ur 1 0, - -
. M yF ( 5 7 3 4 2d 6 0 l
i D 4 4 2 5 2 1 3 I
S s
laugs mh) t rib t 0 0
5, 0 0 0 0 9, 0, 2'.
0 0
4, 0
0 4,
0 5
2 t e lhr) agi s tiTb oe I 0
0 0,
0 0 0
0, 0
0, ode 1 5 7 0 0 5 '9 9 Twn( 0 0
- !lI
. T W( 1 1 1 1 1 o 5 0 9
1
.. 1
. I 3 5 5 4 3 7 0 si l 0 - = 5 - 0 d e
P 0 GCA 6 0 0
6 F
S 2
7 R
R S
1 T
R e
w o
0 o e s 2 F T D 0 6
g y l u l u
W n o
V n o
n o n r a p p s k s s l e o R o e s u c u u o l g r r m g i g g c l y d b b e r s r r a o n e R o i i e s e e i B M V v B F E F F L
! l )
i l ,
I ,IJ , ' , , f > ,
, b
=
lt tlil
i j R e
- U 8
! al .
i
- #32 %8' 3 i
j l b
,3 0 . )
i i
a gee-821
, j {
E 3
4 1 d" e1ll g
E s
~~
- i. j
- 4
} t k i B N h N 37 B = = w I $5 N
- l EOS as0 E
- 3
- f $
j i j u \
L a ~
I n .a D :
g t d 1 t t
- C & & M
- L,
.Ag__ N-
" ^ '
1
E. D'AP PO LO N i A commwne suomenna.ime.
s l
i 1
nomas .
I l
l l
1 l
I f
L 1
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ J
. _ _ . . _ . _. - i i
-- 4 1
o r O
\
u l
. g . *1 m rt a
m w -
E > w
, i O
,D o, ._ _ . _ . ._ _ _8, y a 4 -
e o
2 3 _ o
< o -
.z.
e _
g_ _ __ . 4 ._ _ __ __ _ _ . _ _ _.. _ _ ._.__. _ _ _. _ _ .
w e -
> o a u w 2 S- --- -- - - ------- -- -- -- -- --
a o e 5 l_'
o o w g_
o2 E a "
c , ,_ _ . . . __ _.. . _ .. _ .._
2 I E -
5 e ... . .
2_
. .. E 1
- mo ._ _
.,- .--'.._,, W
_ . r-.._:_-.
m_. ,. . . L . __ ..t____
z n.
. . F ow z- r
_ t- . . _ _ _
w a mo _ .. - .. 4
=-
O .. ._ -. q
. . _ . . . - .,. . _ _ w- O
, y n_ _ .i _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ ___ ___. _ _ _ ______ _ . _ _
_ m m, 9 m E
>. O_
J. f. I
. _ _ 4 __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . .. = _ _
_ , _ _ .m ,n_,_ oHu_
- n m .
q g ~T y'.
z at tJ ___ 4 4 x o_ _ ___ ___ _ _ .___ ___ _-.___ a, "r'"
w H't .,
3 m c
> y - . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _. . _ . _ ._ _ ._ _.
W W '
' I m 3 . - - . 2 i i.,
- m. ,. .. _ _ _ . .
.=+ . m .p ._ _ _. A .s::. .. _ -_s.. .. 1 m
m o (
- w. 7'.
>m , ,
w.o. m s- . . _.
m . t g - .
et a ?
gw =
q n. j WD j
.J m _ w="",,
- M. , .w_t.'r. L M= . ,. .;.-(. m- '
v . . _ . - - . . .
,._-F . - - - -- f.r.,=yp ed.. .., ..e ary_.
g """,""*"
O O O U O O O O o ..
o e e O O O- '
t _
- o. w o w n m -
' ^
1H Ol3 /A A8 B 3 NI.-l J.N3D B3d S
..=......"..v..<.
.. _ _ _ . ..'_ _ BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT LIMITipp6 CURVES FOR GRAIN SIZE ANALYSl3 Of CLASS E TEST FlLL MATERIAL E
t CAR OLIN A POWER AND LIGHT CO. ' '- -
- N
- . R ALElGH , N.C. f - - -
68 -I l 8 - AIO3 t.
._ . ... __ . _ . __. .R[~f. to.Jo.
FIGURy. E_I l.. . . .
I d
r, 122 ---
5- l ltl A w
'}
ieo 2 \ l
- 7 l\\\
i -
4 '
,,, M/ /M i i,,, M/// \\\k a l L /#/// \\\i \
E /#F/ \M \
i !;' /W / \\ \ l i
5 I,5 /# / \t
- U/ /
1
\ \
- i i ,,,
! ,,, F// / \
1 '- 11 0
/ / \
$ 10 9
$ loe 5 6 7 8 9 10 ,1 12 13 M 15 16 17 j WATER CONTENT , (%)
_,..... E. WAPPOLONIA
.gy c.............. BRUNSWICK STET.M ELECTRIC PLANT LYStS OF *
,,,,,,,',',"f,,",*,,,*,",,,,, ""*"* TYPICAL MolSTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS
' FOR CLASS II TEST FILL LANES
- " 8## ##
CAROLINA '
POWdR AND LIGHT CO. * * * "
- a"a*'~a"*
R ALElGH , N.C. *',* & 7 /4 70. 68 -ll8- A105
-AlO3 N , , *',,
il '
\ F I G U R E" *f*~'"
[ =iF'....u y -_ c n m . ~ ~ --..
,. m ne . pe #** *'** **'*
1 1
}
i g __
I O
P f.- i e 4 M 43 m
t WW ir 4
y W. -
4
.J g 3O, .-
___ w .s:
O 4 . -- _..-
- o ., p 2 M _
o O 4 o ar -
. E_ g _ . _ _ __ _. _ _ . _ __ __ _.._ . . _ .__
w a - . _ . _.-_. _ _ _ .
>. O 1 w E O p m **
w ,.
_ ~ l
.E. O 6. . - - -
^ _ - . 6_8 p )
O W " *- - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - --- -- --- - - --- - -- ' -
~ ~~ ~
C, E c O .~: f O
> W , .. - ., . - . .. -- _.._
3 :
i l Z E -
k 'l Z_ l I O . - -
m -f..
l u *. . . .
I ti u O.
*---*..:..*-..-_..,a W "=
- . .. - .. *j * * "
E W
oW g ao i
.L. N N
_ a. 4 o n. g _ - . ,
,-l_.._
i W
, . . . . - O g y n_ .
W I 1
..._._. _ y a
M ' 4) m" _4 J
> n . . - - * - - M.,.o - _ t,) ,',, p.a g g N _ _ E ._
~. - _ w . 1.;.4 c ~
4 E . 0 >= ..
2 at , -
g :.
n o_
4 _ .. _ _ . _ __ __.._
(
- I g {'
sW $ 1 W
w ' ___ - _' t M U to _
' wa .-_.*-.;,.__s-__ ..
a 2~ . 3 _- .: y-n i.e a
W ._
> in y Wo
._ ~~~
et
- - ~ ----- --- --~ -~~ --- -~~ ~~~
i
- a g 2,' .
t
- e. ri
gw -
_ ti sn
.I et IL ,
a WD -
_j m... r n. . - ,.
g,) .. . I . ., ,. . 4. . . + . ., .. ,+.- -_, , =
.c.a.r. ,n,,,, m .- , --
.. .- . . . . .. . T... .._.
.-.,n O L O O O O (J O m' O O O o-Gr *
- it) V M N
'O - #'
8
.l.H 913 M A R 8 3 N id .LN 3 ) 8 3 d <i
- ' " 'd * . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . ..
I
. - . . . _ _ - . . . . . BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT LIMITING CURVES FOR GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS OF CLASSE MATERIAL OTHER THAN TEST FILL MATERIA:
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT R A LEIGH, N.C.
Co. --
-~
[
Zjj,68-il8-AIO4
]- . . . . ,
i FIGURE 3 i
'E , e' O @ @ .hODN %s %a 84 d W p + qds
-M'M' E '"O M@MO6$
i
+
n :
,,, / \
l
,,, / /N \
/ / A\\
,,, / /r7\ \\
g ,,, /4/ \ \T ,
/ /// \ \\ l 2" / /// \ \\\ :
l"' ,
/ /F \ \\ \
n ,,, // \ M\
,,, // \ \\ \
,,. // N '\ \
SYM BOL %,a200
^
\\ \\
. 18 0
,,, -- O 22.s
(\
f
/ t-- :::* \ \
s D 110 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 M 15 16 (7 WATER CONTENT , (%)
O all HIGH CLAY CONTENT
- t. o arroLomA ca... . ....... .-e- BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLAagT
"" TYPICAL MO,STURE DENS,TY RELATICassHips of 0F ' ' ' a I ~ " '" ' ' *-*'-*****, gn MATERIAL OTHER THANTEST FILL MAT'L.
3AL * " "
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT C O. r"" " * " * ' " *
- R A LEIGH , N.C. * ,,,
8 68-l l 8 -A,06
__ . n.
}
. . _ __ _ ____..-_-,_,...--------:-----=
l g 4 I
lo :-
- \ -
g gi
\ d
\e a
.\
[* .
\ \ -- 8 El
\ \c <1 Xe-Po @
e
- \ \ dEE
\ sa
,h ' m e
- i e *
~
\
\
f\ ' ,
E
\ q\\ a -
i 4
i
\
\
f e >.
\
\ b m
- \ \.2 ; I-a
~
\
N
\ s o
g y o '
\
s\ \ . \ a2 e
eN \ \ -
\ \
- N d
\
hs \
- 4s \
\
s \
h N
\
\ \.=
3 q
\ ma \ ,
g {
~
7 E.
o E. $ $. $. I e 4 = -
i dSd ' nS ' H10N3W1S WV3HS 1V101 r -
anunsmCK 8 TEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
, , , . . . ' ' . " , ,*" ,I'
, " E^
. . . .I,.,,,,.","
HIPS OF
- TOTAL SHEAR STRENGTH vs DRY D E NSITY CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT C O. -~ #d# 8'### oamaaac 36 R A L EIGH , N. C. " * "
7' '#'4 68- 118- All6 a~ a I' 41
. = . ,,
- FIGURf...$,_,,,--
- =~d =~. - -
)
assemeuMEbum 4_.
r- . . . . . . . . R_
e S
3 3
T i
\
l 2_ l I
i 4 '
y g i
& O li
. 8L O: h e >
p en ;i 2 1
> b '
-G E >
tt: j c
3 9
- ,f -
OdWW 30 %06 1N3W33tnd38 ONy '
_ .N97!O@j((pf,30, , , _ _ _ _ ,,,,, 8
~
A11SN30 n11SNI 031VWilS3 l
e e i e e i e e e h
'l E e m o e E E e u o-e e m m m S33WD30
- f 'Nol10lud 30 310NV 3Al103dd3 1
(
' ANT E. D'APMEONIA SRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRfC PLANT I l EFFECTIVE ANGLE OF FRICTION E NSITY ....u._"..... v.... vs DRY 0ENSITY l e en.... ... . .
o CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. *-- "' " *'# # "".,~a o I- All6 R A LEIGH N .C.
04 7 ' ' * 'N 68 - 118 - A117
"...*..". '.1
.e .ies mees wie me a e . seeva a o ee= *e , ree esas-pe.
- 9$D-Fee ~ ! FIGURE 6 z _, . _ . ..
. .. . ,a
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
t
~ '
g u.
f N 4 Q h o = =
, s 4 3 %
o
~/
A*o J- p I
G I -
~
'm r,I t t t W g
3
- 4 -
w f
. - E E
O C-3MnSE341d , N30WnSW3A0 3A1103h3J l Q e 6 - 4 I f S d,
--e ,
i p
t e -
8
- t f - 4
- _ j
- J i
i 1
- <> G G -
_ _ i o O G 8 8 8 H. o a. T. v. R- R Ol.LVW 010A 4T
- c. o areoum** SRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT c .... ... .
. . . = . = . = . . . . . ..an==
. . . =
V010 RATIO vs CONSOLIDATION PRESSURE CAROLINA ' POWER AND UGHT C O. ~ " " " " a"~'aa ao I All7 #^ 7 1 # 78 68 - 118 - A ll8
'R ALEIGH . N.C. J'.*.."...
...... ... ... ..,..... .. l
,,o
. . y.. .
- .1
ew. 'M, 4
h~
, /
0 e
e '
u u j
.M M.
_i _
s s Y (([s g
{ %N3 / -r -
TOE C SLOP ef I -
+*/
I T T ;
W y ,
k E g O it, .
,ENhDYOY*
i.
4i 3 i
tr '
&g l E$$0RE I DEWATSQiNCh pe pg 0
O'/
0 ,
i 8 - A 118 - +
\ rey-~
2 -
-c -
..w
> 4
$ }
D
, o O o
/
i e
I i
N '
4 il !
n m h ij l
~ .
EEAVAT,1 N " .
i EEAV og- p % rop o ss LOPE SLOPE ,
/ i scope i
4 '
4 i tk /\
vN -
i m ;
CAROLINA POWER R AL.EtQH , N b .
E. D'APPOLA EST i AN E comeutn=esmeme ioo o too 2co FEET ,,% ,,....
Esr [3EJ em. e.e CEO . .. ieeee envsswicg stem 1
CI O C"353 CID ptAwy
-- 0 o- " " '
yf-Ndi Yi$t t.
.. ,. <m l
...... in 7, l
FIG,U' i
. :v 13 ,. w..
. . . ~
y
'"~ ~ : - _
_ _--~=e3gz w pw w r~?g**"'_:ca
- t. . - .
E.
f, i
i i
6 l
i t
's 1
(
- r. .
e
! s i t-
{,.. .
L{. '
- d. E g
i r' (a. s i
)
T.
?*
u.
L l BLANK PAGE !
r 9
l l
l NER l gk 1 l
l ppt lMJ s .a
= ===un 484 ANT ou I b I re1- .
7a;6 e
N FIG,tf L ,
m ~r. , . _,...y,._, .. _ . . _ . _ ._ , ,
. , - m. rm . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . , . . , -
Af, .
1;. , ?
t .~
. %c S ;;
- l 4
k -
4 a 4
' j
', I e
l ;
3
.i j ,
s% !
y I I I
I 1
a
) -
4 3, .
2 5
?
> op l
-PE i
I J
CAROLINA POWER AND LIQWTCXI R A LEIC"q H , N .C.
SCA LE m
10 0 O 10 0 200 F E ET
. . -E ,D. APPOLONIA
- - -- ..... . ,s ,
BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTAIC '
PLANT LOCATtou OF
_%%T FtLL LAMES .
see ge.g ~ ~ " * -
. . . . , I c~aun " JD 7xk G8086.mA9
---~~~~~~~~~~-~' - - -
n ,nm i'
)
FIG.URE 8 h m. . . _ .
. ..o -
I O (PCF) AVERAGE 90 95 10 0 10 6 11 0 l' i i i i o ey MVenegg, l.0 -
N p i i
lh.
[ ' 2.0 EL Rnl e rR: RAYW600 0 PASSES O 2 PASSES -
3.0 -
3 PASSES d'0 b E i 1 PERCENT OF MAXIMUM DENSITY {
1 i
l l
.!!9.ll FOR PROFILE AFTER 6 & 10 PASSES SEE FIGURE 98. I i l
i E. D'APPOt.ONIA e...a,............. BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT I OEPTH vs CENSITY PROFILE FOR LANE I f*
. ...' . :' ;.""." . . . . . ... L ~ . ..... ( 2 nd FOUR FOOT LIFT ) l CAROLI N A POWER AND LIGHT C O.
R A LEIGH , N.C. c.. .. En. 7.m.7o 68-118- A I07
........................... ...u._,..
z FIGURE 9A '
.- e. *2.2 '
. .r . P . ..Z . ' '*- . . .
, m
. . . . .mmaw .m.. h
1 f
(o (PCF) AVERAGE 95 00 0 10 5 - 110 11 5 LIM
" h puWrntzte I
ROLLeRi RAYGO600 0 PASETS ---- C 2 PASSES 3.
3 PASSES O 85 90 95 85 PERCENT OF MAXIMUM DENSITY ,
1 l
l 1
1 1.
FOR PROFILE AFTER 6 810 PASSES SEE FIGURE 98.
E. D'APPOL,0NIA BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
. ANT .
- *2E* *.1"* **" * * '"'
DEPTH vs DENSITY PROFILE FOR LANE I ANE 1 ,, .......",".",,... ( 2 nd FOUR FOOT LIFT)
- #*9 " " " ' " * " "
-=
o.
POWER AND LIGHT CO' < **"
. . . . ". Etc. 7./o.7o 68-118- A I07
-AlO7 . RA LEIGH , N.C. \
\
.,,,,,,,,4= FlGUR $~ '9d'~I
. 9A I -
\
- . . - .. . . . .-4 Hmmm . . . . . - _ ,, h
r l
I l
1 (o (PCF) AVERAGE 115 I 100 10 5 110 q 90 96 i i s. I j
{
J 1.0
\ \
! l a
)
D
' /
f2 G.
.0 -
ROLt.ER : RAYGO 600 /
[ l 6 PASSES 0 O PASSES 2. %
3.0 - rn i rR 80WG EDN200 's% (
)'
- --- \
to PASSES s N
40 85 b so PERCENT OF MAXIMUM DENSITY NOTE FOR PROFILE AFTER 2 & 3 PASSES OF RAYGO 600 SEE FIGURE 9A.
E, D'APPOLONS BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT '
e . . . n , . . .. ..e . DEPTH vs DENSITY PROFILE FOR LANE I i .... = ::: ..... .. . ... =:. . . ... < za rwR r=r urr 3
( '
$[ '7,$,~73-E8 l8 $108 l\ l l
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT C O.
R A LElGH , N.C.
........ i !
FlGUR5'*b'B' L .
j __ _
)
i
_ 150' ROLLER LIFT t 40' 10' 1
I \ \ l LIFT I .I 180 COMPACTION 40, !
LANE I ROLLERS (LIFT 2) No 0F PASSES RAYGO 600 2, 4, 6 , 10 BOMAG BW 200 to 15 0' I ROLLER I l ROLLE R I \ i ,
I ROLLER 1 \
// s I ROLLEA 1 ,
\ \ \l 6' 4 n
20,
\ / 15 m ,
_ LANE 6 E EACH 1.5'SECTl0N PLACED IN 0 5' LIFTS AND ROLLER PASSES MADE ON EACH LIFT.
_ ROLLERS No OF PA SS E S ESSICK VF72 ( l at 3 LIFTS) 10 ESSICK VF72 STATIC (2nd 3 LIFTS) 10 FERGUSON SP65 ( 3rd 3 LIFTS) 6 MODIFIED RAYGO 600 (4 th 3 LIFTS) 10
~
E. D'APPOLON4A e...vu........... BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
..... ,'.'"" ,".'. ...., CONSTRUCTION OETAILS
.......","".'."..... OF LANES I AND 6
~
- AROLINA POWER AND LIGHT C O. " " " ' " "I'2 " ^ *"'a a a R A LElGH, N.C.
- 2.f.' ., /A i 7 # 70 68-l18-A109 FIGURE 10
_ m
L --
1 15 0'
\
I RotttR 1 ._ l 9 0'L LE R I I \\ 05-
\ / ,
15' L AN E 12 ROLLER No 0F PESSES BOMAG BW2OO ( l at 3 LIFT 5 ) 10 LINCOLN TOWED (2nd 3 LIFTS) 10 l
EACH SECTION WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 05' LIFTS WITH IO PASSES BElNG MADE ON EACH LIFT.
l
{
l l
j i
I 30 O' i
l IMOLLER IROlfR IROLLER 1 I ROLLE R I ROLL E R I RotLE R I 10'
/ \ ,
I s' L A N E 13
' CED IN ROLLER
. No OF PASSE S MODIFIED RAYGO 600 10 l At.L' 5 LIFTS WERE O 5' AND COMPACTED WITH 10 PASSES.
97 C. D'APPOLONIA c...o6..............e BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
...."."",,'..'...... .......","U'."....... CONSTRUCTION DETAILS OF LANES 12 AND 13 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. " " " * 'T85 a"a-a "a 109 RA L EIGH, N.C. /om 68-1l8-AIIO
- - r ;. .. .. . .. ..... ... .. i (f"* _
.=. FIGURE 11
_... m p = - y g 3 3 - .
_ _1
)
So O'-
s* ,-.,.........,
Inm i e n i nov.r a i mottra l ' t .O' I
/ i X_ ; ts' l
[
- LANE I4 , l
{
ROLLER \
NaOF PASSES i Bold 4G BW200 10 /O.S'LFT I'
7 i v.
{
ImmM IROLLER IROL LEn I !
- l. / __
\ < '.5' i
i 3 i
- 1. LANE IS
. 1
_ R OL LE R__
_ No.OF PASSES \
FERGUSON SRR7 l IO/O.5' LIFT
~~
SAME CONSTRUCTION AS LANE IS
_ LANE 17
=
_ ROLLER
_. No OF PA SSE S FERGUSON RTI005 10 /O.5 ' LIFT l
.T E O'* PO 0 "
e e .n.. ."e..'ee a.e
,,, ,,,, BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT CONSTRUCTION DETAILS CAROLINA OF LANES 14,15 AND 17 I10 - POWER AND LIGHT C O. '"" " #" "#
RALEIGH, N.C. """*"'*"*
I f,*.".. # 00'II0 "I l i' " * -_ t l Mi _.
.,.u.-,..-
FIGURE \l2 NWh
_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - a
M.0' L
smna t ra I RotL E R I RLER I IRot tIR 1 Rt1 LE R IROLLER1 k
~
/f \\ ,
1.S' LANE 18 RO M No.0F PASSES V18@ PLUS CARS 10/0.5 ' LIFT SAME CONSTRUCTION AS LANE I8 LANE m No or PASSES ROLLE R VIBAO-PLUS CH43 10/0.S ' LIFT
[anan rR IROLLER IROLLER I f \ , l.S*
LANE 20 ROLLE R e W PASSES VISAO-PLUS CA25 6 / 0.S' LIFT
$AME CONSTRUCTION AS LANE 20 LANE 21 ROLLE R No 0F PASSES FERGUSON SP65 10 /0.S' LIF T yr s. ora r co t o m a BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
. . . . . . . . . C0NSTRUCT10N OETAILS
. .... . I . .. . OF LANE 5 18,I9,20 AN O 2l l .....[*.Il(((( ... "# "## a"a-a ~a CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. m' ... .". #4. 7so 7e 6 8-Il8- All2
' lll RA LEIG H N.C. . , , . . . . , ;
. - =.
...............~...... x
\ FIGURE 13 12 ,
~ ' -- . .... __ _i _ _. .__ ,
u
'4 i 30 0* 20 0* 20 O' .
r L wHacuta sso tssica vpas wwacutn eso
/ \ : i s' I
~
LANE 16 5 HAND COMPACTORS l l
COMPACTORS No OF PASSES j WACKER 550 WACKER 11 0 10/0 5' U FT 10/Q5' Lift ESSICK VP24 10/05' LIFT g 50' EXCAATED
, PITN
/ ,
o
\ ,10'
=
3.0' sd LANE 2 COM PACTOR No. OF PASSES WACKER l10 S / 0 5' LIFT
~
i E. D'APPOLONIA 7 co..u6,...... ... ..e BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PL ANT
,,,,,,, CONSTRUCT 10N DETAILS
.......... .. . ..... ......... . . ..... OF LANES 16 AND 2 CAR OLIN A POWER AND LIGHT C O. o- a Po dem . . . . . . . .
I2 R A L ElGH , N.C. # ' 'cn 6 8- 118- A 113 5 \ FIGUR E 14
\'
J __ . ... .
_ - - - _ _ - - _ _ _ - - i
1 ' ==amummesm
. PERCENT OF, MAXMLN WOOlFIED PROCTOR DENSITY 80 as so ss 10 0 i i i s i i i s i i i i i : : i i BoMAG BW200 Vl8R0+LUS CH43 FERGUSON RTICOS lemFE RAYGO 600 Vl8RO-PLUS CA2S I
FERGUSON SRR7 FERGUSON SP65 t
g ES$1CK VF72 U
LINC001 TOWED 2
g ESSICK VF72 4 (VIBRATOR OFF) n.
- WACK:R llo
.J O
a:
WACKER 550 ESSICK VP 24 I i i i i l 1 i i i f f I t t i f f I i l
.!!EIL DENSITIES ME AWRED AFTER 10 PASSES OF ;
ROLLER OR HAsuO ComePACTOR ON 6" TO S" i LOOSE LIFT S. j NT E. D'ANWNI A
. . , . . . . ..... BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
.. A/ERAGE PERQENTOF MAXIMUM DENSITY MEASURED 1.0 BEtDW SURFACE OFTEST FILL i;3 CAROLINA POWER AND UGHT CO. .-... N :8 3 N oaa-a o I
\ RA LEIGH , N.C.
_u . .. EA 6 7,/eh 68-il8-All4
' $~
l
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... e . . n.- , . .
FIGURE 15 M _
1
LANE 5 ROLLEM : RAYGO 800 60 PASSES PER LirT FIRST STAGE: 3 8" LIFTS SECGe4D $TAGE:2 6" LIFTS ADDED E 91 %
0 c
91 % C C 94 % 30" 18" g 3 i-94 % A A 95 %
e LANE 14 ROLLER: 80 MAG 200 10 PASSES PER LIFT
)
FIRST STAGE 8 3-6" LIFTS SECOND STAGEi2+6" LIFTS ADDED E 90 %
0 88 % C C 9 5 *4 8 8 l l
i
_ =_
97 % A A g 7 e4 i NT **E'$ IIS+N'U ' , BitUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT TY ** **** DENSITY INCREASE DUE TO pggg .. ... " . ..... .....
.... ."... ... ..... COMPACTION OF SUBSEQUENT LIFTS CAROLINA POWER AND UGHT CO. -- - 0" 83M eaam= =
11 4 RA L EIGH , N.C.
(n 7 m/e 68 -Il8-All5 15 FIGURE 16
_1 - . . .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - i
0" EH l
i I
DATE FILMED li 8
7 S
- l12 /116:'
% J L.
70 i 1 }i 15 I
\ ,. .
.... A6
,