ML17277B056

Forwards Addendum to 831031 Response to Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-397/83-38 Re Evaluation of Concrete & Reinforcing Steel,In Response to 831108 Telcon W/Nrc

ML17277B056
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	11/15/1983
From:	Sorensen G WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:	Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
GO2-83-1057, NUDOCS 8311220173
Download: ML17277B056 (70)

Text

REGULATORY IN RMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS) t ACCESSION NBR:8311220173 DuC.DATE: 83/11/15 NOTARIZED: No DOCKET FACIL:50-397 NPPSS Nuclear Projects Unit 2~ 1'tashington Public Powe 05000397 AUTH, NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION S6RENSENgG,G ~ Washington Public Power Supply System REC IP ~ NAME AEC IP IENT AFF ILIATION SCHNENCERgA ~ , Licensing Branch 2

SUBJECT:

Forwards addendum to 831031 response to violations, noted in IE Insp Rept 50~397/83 38 re evaluation of concrete 8 reinforcing steeliin response to 831108 telcon w/NRC ~

DISTRIBUTION CODE: IEOIS COPIES RECEIVED:LTR TITLE: General (50 Dkt)-Insp Rept/Notice of Violation j ENCL l SIZE:

Response

gg NOTES:

REC IP IENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL NRA LB2 BC 1

'1 1 AULUCKeRD'LD/HDS2 INTERNALS AEOD 1 1 1 IE ENF STAFF 1 1 IE F ILE 1 1 IE/DQAS IP/ORPB 1 IE/ES FILE 1 1 NRR/DSI/RAB 1 EXTERNAL: ACRS 2 2 LPDR t<RC PDR I 1 NSIC NT/S 1 1

)k TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED ~ LTTR M ENCL

~ ~

0 Il Eli >> ~ '>>'J I" N ,'* tr II

') C ,i ~

" 'v E e I H'

'> r ~ ~fr>>ff) a<<cur ) <<<<>> r ,TP ~, E), I ~ P I)JE) )')<<lr ) )r) P) )r) ~ <<>>l<< fI'>> ~). r c l'1 e

,)>>)') 4 if),f" ~>>l q'>>>0 >>e',EI>> ">> I f) l E ,f )E>>E I ~ ~

IEE ~ & )ltd.'ktttl I) P"' <<T II Eh<<>> 10 l>>P')<<')P) f ~F>> l ) r 4 )0>>g r $ O it T ffl'g )I ]I P f ~

iTI J ll q 9 I IE jiPfi

'f I

>> f >>E fI<< I E fl v,

Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352 (509) 372-5000 November 15, 1983 G02-83-1057 Docket No. 50-397 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. A. Schwencer:

Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 INSPECTION REPORT 83-38, NOTICE OF VIOLATION - CONCRETE

Reference:

Letter, G02-83-996, C. S. Carlisle (SS) to J. B.

Hartin (NRC), same subject, dated October 31, 1983 As requested by a phone conversation on November 8, 1983, between Messrs.

R. Auluck and K. C. Leu (NRC) and P. Powell and H. Crisp (SS), the attached documents (3) are provided in clarification and support of the reference.

Should you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. P. L. Powell, Manager, WNP-2 Licensing.

Very truly yours, G. C. Sorensen, Manager Regulatory Programs PLP/tmh Attachments cc: R Auluck - NRC WS Chin - BPA KC Leu - NRC AD Toth - NRC Site 8311220173 831115 PDR ADOCK 05000397 Q PDR

J P

t n.

)'

ATTACHMENT I WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-397 LICENSE NO. CPPR-93 ADDENDUM TO RESPONSE TO INSPECTION REPORT 83-38 NOTICE OF VIOLATION EVALUATION OF CONCRETE AND REINFORCING STEEL FOR WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM UNIT 2 This attachment restates each question recorded by the Supply System at the October 14,,1983, meeting with the NRC and ref'erences the part of the Supply System response, G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, which addressed the question.

1. What was the disposition of NCRs written for questions raised during visual reinspections of beam bioshield wall connections?

~Res onse: Last paragraph, first bullet, of Attachment l to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, states:

"Visual reinspections were made of the beam-bioshield wall connections for 37 beams (framing into the bioshield wall),

which represent 56Ã of the principal beams in the Reactor Building. Eight minor questions recorded were dispositioned

'accept as is'y the engineer."

2. Explain the background of the sampling plan.

~Res ense: The first bullet of the attachment to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question.

"Concrete Sam lin Pro ram Beams 2B3, 2B11 and 2B25 were the subject of nonconformance report (NCR) 6426-1851. This NCR identified honeycombing on each beam, which was subsequently repaired. When these patches were reinspected and sounded (by tapping) in patches were deficient and it was decided to 1983, it appeared perform destruc-tive examination of these beams. Removal of these patches showed that there were reinforcing steel placement deviations and honeycombing/voids existed in areas of congested rebars.

Concerns were expressed by the Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) that similar conditions might exist elsewhere and additional destructive examination of concrete structural components was undertaken.

Page 1 of ll

I h

l,'l

A total of 17 members with 23 excavation locations known to have congestion were selected for evaluation. These structures (with congested rebars) are the ones most likely to exhibit misplaced rebars and honeycombing. The sample was thus biased in the direction of those components and locations most susceptible to be affected by the deviations mentioned above.

Reinforced concrete design drawings were reviewed and it was established that the areas most likely to have a similar problem would be the beam-bioshield wall intersections where the main rebars are spliced with dowels. There are 66 such beam bioshield intersections; six of these intersections were excavated. The sample was further biased by selecting 2Bll and 2B25, which represent all of the- beams with three layers of bottom reinforcement at the beam-bioshield intersections.

Also excavated were beams 2B3 and 2B5, with two layers of bottom reinforcement, and beams 3B18 and 6B9, with single layers of bottom reinforcement. In addition to beams framing into the bioshield wall, two beams (3B10 and 4B30) framing into column/exterior walls were also excavated. The total sample excavated is representative of the reinforced concrete in the remainder of the plant.

Reinforced concrete design drawings were also reviewed in order to include other type structures in the sample program.

Again, congested areas were selected in order to obtain representative samples of columns, walls, slabs and mats.

The pour records were examined for each structure included in the sample to insure that RFIs and NCRs, which might have been issued on the structure, were considered in the analysis.

The selection and extent of each excavation also included evaluation of each member for the excavated condition to assure that the excavation did not weaken the member.

The sample selected for investigation was not based on a random nor a statistical approach. Rather it was selected to provide a conservative biased sample of representative types of construction. It included beams, columns, walls, slabs and mats. Each excavation was selected at an area most susceptible to construction problems where rebar congestion might lead to honeycombing, voids, rebar spacing deviation or misplacement of rebar."

3. Provide calculation to substantiate disposition of spent fuel pool wall.

~Res onse: This calculation was transmitted initially to Nr. Auiuck during the week of October 24, 1983. A second copy is attached herewith.

Page 2 of 11

4. Speak to why no other areas of congested reinforcing bar exist in the plant.

~Res ense: The second, third, and sixth p.aragraphs of the first bullet of the attachment to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question.

"A total of 17 members with 23 excavation locations. known to have congestion were selected for evaluation. These struc-tures (with congested rebar s) are the ones most .likely to exhibit misplaced rebars and honeycombing. The sample was thus biased in the direction of those components and locations most susceptible to be affected by the deviations mentioned above.

Reinforced concrete design drawings were reviewed and it was established that the areas most likely to have a similar problem would be the beam-bioshield wall intersections where the main rebars are spliced with dowels. There are 66. such beam-bioshield intersections; six of these intersections were excavated. The sample was further biased by selecting 2811 and 2825, which represent all of the beams with three layers of bottom reinforcement at the beam-bioshield intersections.

Also excavated were beams 283 and 285, with two layers of bottom reinforcement, and beams 3818 and 689, with single layers of bottom reinforcement. In addition to beams framing into the bioshield wall, two beams (3810'and 4830) framing into column/exterior walls were also excavated. The total sample excavated is'representative of the reinforced concrete in the remainder of the plant."

"The sample selected for investigation was not based on a random nor a statistical approach. Rather it was selected to provide a conservative biased sample of representative types of construction. It included beams, columns, walls, slabs and mats. Each excavation was selected at an area most suscep-tible to construction problems, where rebar congestion might lead to honeycombing, voids, rebar spacing deviation or mis-placement of rebar."

The last bullet also addressed this question.

"Conclusion The Supply System has confirmed the adequacy of concrete construction at HNP-2 by performing a detailed investigation of selected as-built structural members. The investigation included 23 excavations in 17 structural members at locations of congested rebar in representative beams, columns, walls and Page 3 of 11

II I'

1 I

I

slabs. Such locations are difficult to construct and there-fore provide a conservative sample of the. plant structures.

The investigation included three structural beams (2B3,"2Bll and 2B25) where the congestion had been so severe that honey-combing and voids had been identified during construction and had been repaired in accordance with approved construction procedures.

Results of the evaluations are summarized in Table 1. The excavations demonstrated acceptable construction quality in columns, walls, slabs and mats. The excavations in beams indicated a significant number of locations where the spacing of rebar was less than that specified in the code. This occurred primarily in areas where the main reinforcement was lap spliced. The code requirement on clear spacing between reinforcement is primarily imposed to assure good concrete consolidation. With the exception of the three beams where honeycombing and voids had already been identified during construction, all excavation locations showed good consolida-tion of the concrete, thereby demonstrating the adequacy of concrete construction in these locations.

All discrepancies from the design requirements were evaluated.

In every case the structures were found to be adequate. The results show that for two cases some bond. was not available on all the bars. This inadequacy occurred in beams at dowel splice locations where honeycomb and voids were most likely.

Both of these beams have already experienced construction loads in excess of those specified during plant operation, and performed well. Of all the cases studied, only one dowel that should have been located in the excavation was not uncovered.

This beam was conservatively evaluated assuming the dowel was missing and not just misplaced, and was found to be adequate..

In summary, all structural members excavated during the investigation were demonstrated to be adequate for all speci-fied loads.

The investigation demonstrated that structural members speci-fically selected for their difficulty in construction met the intent of the code for all design conditions. This biased sample provides confidence that the conclusion may be extended to all Category I concrete structures of WNP-2 since they were designed and constructed to the same quality procedures as those included in this investigation."

5. What was the statistical basis for the number of beams selected'

~Res ense: Paragraphs two, three and se,ven of the first bu11et of Attachment I to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this Page 4 of ll

li l

question.

"A total of 17 member s with 23 excavation locations known to have congestion were selected for evaluation. These struc-tures (with congested rebars) are the ones most likely to exhibit misplaced rebars and honeycombing. The sample was thus biased in the direction of those components and locations most susceptible to be affected by the deviations mentioned above.

Reinforced concrete design drawings were reviewed and it was established that the areas most likely to have a similar problem would be the beam-bioshield wall intersections where the main rebars are spliced with dowels. There are 66 such beam-bioshield intersections; six of these intersections were excavated. The sample was further biased by selecting 2Bll and 2B25, which represent all of the beams with three layers of bottom reinforcement at the beam-bioshield intersections.

Also excavated were beams 2B3 and 2B5, with two layers of bottom reinforcement, and beams 3B18 and 6B9, with single layers of bottom reinforcement. In addition to beams framing into the bioshield wall, two beams (3B10 and 4B30) framing into column/exterior walls were also excavated. The excavated is representative of the reinforced concrete total'ample in the remainder of the plant."

"The sample selected for investigation was not based on a random nor a statistical approach. Rather, it was selected to provide a conservative biased sample of representative types of construction. It included beams, columns, walls, slabs and mats. Each excavation was selected at an area most suscep-tible to construction problems where rebar congestion might lead to honeycombing, voids, rebar spacing deviation or mis-placement of rebar."

6. In Sketch 17, clarify that splice is equivalent to a contact splice; i.e., that no greater than six inches separates the two bars.

~Res onse: The second bullet of Attachment I to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question.

"Clarification of La S lice SK-17 of Reference 1 ACI Code 318-71, per paragraph 7.5.4, allows the use of non-contact lap splices, provided the bars to be spliced are not spaced transversely farther apart than one-fifth the required length of lap nor six inches. At column line M on the East Exterior Mall, the wall thickness is 3'-0" on the north side of the pilaster and 2'-6" on the south side of the pilaster.

Page 5 of ll

~ f s

0 The horizontal bars for 3'-0" and 2'-6" walls were terminated within the pilaster with C-1 splice, which is in full confor-mance with code requirements, because the difference in wall thickness is six inches and the horizontal bars are spaced transversely only six inches apart."

7. Certify that RFIs were considered in the re-evaluation of the concrete beams.

~Res onse: The fifth paragraph of the first bullet of Attachment l to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, contains this certification.

"The pour records were examined for each structure included in the sample to insure that RFIs and NCRs, which might have been issued on the structure, were considered in the analysis."

8. Summarize the findings on mix substitution. How does it affect other locations? Assess possible impact on other structures.

~Res onse: The fifth bullet of Attachment I 'to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addresses these questions.

"-Mix Substitution Contract drawing S749, note II2, specified concrete mixes. The mix for use in beams cast integral with floor slabs is based on the slab thickness. For beams"4B30 and 6B9 the required mix was 4SA-P (maximum size of aggregate equal to 3/4") based on the adjacent slab thickness of 12 inches. The beams and slab were constructed using mix 4MA-P (maximum size aggregate equal to 1-1/2"). The mix substitution was approved by the Burns and Roe Field Engineer prior to concrete placement.

This substitution in no way affected the structural integrity of the beams because of the following:

(a) Both classes of concrete (i.e., 4MA-P and 4SA-P) have the same required minimum 28-days strength of fc'=4000 psi.

(The actual 28-day strength of these pours was over 5000 psi.)

(b) Concrete bond and consolidation in the excavations made in these two beams was excellent, without honeycomb and voids.

(c) Beams 4B30 (3'-0" x 3'-0") has seven bottom bars and beam 6B9 (2'-0" x 3'-0") has four bottom bars, which provides a minimum average clear space of four inches between the rebars. This spacing meets the requirements of paragraph 3.3.2 of the ACI Code 318-71."

Page 6 of ll

9. Enhance credibility of Westinghouse as "independent" reviewer.

Provide original charter if necessary.

~Res onse: The sixth bullet of Attachment I to 802-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question.

"Westin house Charter The Westinghouse Corporation was given direction under a Basic Ordering Agreement with the Supply System to provide an inde-pendent overview of the Supply System effort to resolve the questions raised by the NRC CAT. Westinghouse reported their assessments through the Director of Technology to the Managing Director; however, there was daily contact between project people and the Westinghouse Team. Westinghouse was specifi-cally asked to provide a third-party review of the concrete issue. Initially, this review was to have been a broad overview of the facts and conclusion reached by the Supply System. Direction to Westinghouse was expanded, however, after the inspection conducted by Messrs. Albert and Herring on July 25-27, 1983,'to provide for a more detailed review of the facts being developed by the excavations related to the concrete issue. The detailed scope of the Westinghouse review is stated in their September 15, 1983, letter to the Supply System (Appendix D to reference (1))."

10. Discuss the misalignment of reinforcing bars in layers. Summarize industry studies with references.

~Res ense: Bullets three and four of Attachment I to 802-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, address these questions. Paper No. 3047 of the 1960 ASCE Transactions was transmitted to Mr. Auluck during the week of October 24, 1983; a second copy is attached herewith.

"RRbAli R Paragraph 7.4.1 of ACI 318-71 stipulates that where parallel reinforcement is placed in two or more layers, the bars in the upper layers shall be placed directly above those in the bottom layer. The commentary to ACI 318-71 code further clarifies that these spacing limits were developed from successful practice to permit concrete to flow readily into spaces between bars and between bars and forms without honey-comb. Rebar placement with some misalignment in layers (bars in different layers not directly above each other) meets the intent of the code and is acceptable, as .long as rebar s are placed to allow concrete to flow readily through the spaces without honeycombing. The excavation of beam 2B5 (SK-2 of Reference 1), which originated this concern, showed fully--

consolidated concrete tightly bonded to the rebar with no Page 7 of ll

honeycomb."

u~Rb S The spacing of rebar has received considerable attention among structural engineers and constructors for decades. The ASCE has a committee to study the problems related to nuclear power plants. The various codes (ACI 301, ACI 318, ACI 349, and ACI 359) specify clearances that are desirable. It is desirable that the maximum size aggregate pass between the rebar. This is rarely practical on all parts of the plant. Sometimes the spacing between bars is actually designed to be zero. This

'bundling'as been studied,and tested.

Some results of tests have been published in the 1960 ASCE Transactions in Paper No. 3047, "Concrete Beams and Columns with Bundled Reinforcement", by N. W. Hanson and Hans Reiffenstuhl. As the title states, both beams and beam--

columns were tested. Bars were placed with zero clearance, both vertically and horizontally, so that 'bundling'ccurred in part of the cross section of the member. In all cases, 'no significant difference in behavior or ultimate strength was found for bundled as compared to spaced reinforcement'.

The tests showed that 'there was no systematic difference in ultimate bond stress developed between spaced and bundled bars'. Zero spacing in bundled areas was determined to be satisfactory for both tension and compressi've areas. Examina-tion of the structures after testing indicated mortar had penetrated into and filled the cavity between the bars of the bundle.

Thus, it is concluded that the spacing of rebar can be less than specified if adequate concrete consolidation (without honeycomb) is obtained.

In examining the various structural members, there were only two cases where lack of bond was experienced. These were in the compressive areas on beams 2Bll and 2B25. The detailed structural evaluation showed that construction loads dominated and the beams had been"'-'.tested'y the construction loads, which indicated that the systems met the design requirements."

11. Mix substitution l-l/2" vs. 3/4" aggregate size. What effect does aggregate size have on strength of beam?

~Res ense: This question is the same as question 8.

Page 8 of ll

12. Di.scuss proof tests of beams with construction loads.

~Res ense: The third paragraph of the final bullet of Attachment I to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question.

"All discrepancies from the design requirements were eval-uated. In every case the structures were found to be ade-quate. The results show that for two cases some bond was not available on all the bar s. This inadequacy occurred in beams at dowel splice locations where honeycomb and voids were most likely. Both of these beams have alread ex erienced construc-tion loads in excess of those s ecifsed dugan lant o eration and erformed well. Of all the cases studied, only one dowel that should have been located in the excavation was not uncovered. This beam was conservatively evaluated assuming the dowel was missing and not just misplaced, and was found to be adequate. In summary, all structural members excavated during the investigation were demonstrated to be adequate for all specified loads." (Emphasis added)

13. Did sample excavations weaken structures?

~Res ense: The sixth paragraph of the first bullet of Attachment I to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question.

"The selection and extent of each excavation also included evaluation of each member for the excavated condition to assure that the excavation did not weaken the member."

14. Discuss the statistical basis for the selection of the sample.

~Res onse: The question is the same as question 2.

15. Discuss the safety margins in the beams; use worst case assumptions.

~Res onse: The fourth paragraph of the last bullet of Attachment I and Table I of Attachment I to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question.

"All discrepancies from the design requirements were evaluated.

In every case the structures were found to be adequate. The results show that for two cases some bond was not available on all the bars. This inadequacy occurred in beams at dowel splice locations where honeycomb and voids were most likely.

Both of these beams have already. experienced construction loads in excess of those specified during. plant operation, and performed well. Of all the cases studied, only one dowel that should have been located in the excavation was not uncovered.

Page 9 of ll

This beam was conservatively evaluated assuming the dowel was missing and not just misplaced, and was.found to be adequate.

In summary, all structural members excavated during the in-loads' vestigation were demonstrated to be adequate for-all specified

16. Characterize the sample (conservative, representative) with rationale. Considering the deviations recorded, did the construc-tion exposed by excavation meet the intent of the code?

~Res onse: The last bullet of Attachment I and Table I of Attachment I to G02-83-996 dated October 31, 1983, addressed this question.

"Conclusion The Supply System has confirmed the adequacy of concrete construction at WNP-2 by performing a detailed investigation of selected as-built structural members. The investigation included 23 excavations in 17 structu'ral member s at locations of congested rebar in re resentative beams, columns, walls and slabs. Such locations are difficult to construct and there-.

fore rovide a conservative sam le of the lant structures.

The snvestigation included three structural beams 2B3, 2Bll and 2B25) where the congestion had been so severe that honey-combing and voids had been identified during construction and had been repaired in accordance with approved construction procedures'esults of the evaluations are summarized in Table 1. The excavations demonstrated acceptable construction quality in columns, walls, slabs and mats'he excavations in beams indicated a significant number of locations where the spacing of rebar was less than that specified in the code. This occurred primarily in areas wher e the main reinforcement was lap spliced. The code requirement on clear spacing between reinforcement is primarily imposed to assure good concrete consolidation. With the exception of the three beams where honeycombing and voids had already been identified during construction, all excavation locations showed good consolida-tion of the concrete, thereby demonstrating the adequacy of concrete construction in these locations'll discrepancies from the design requirements were evaluated.

In every case the structures were found to be adequate. The results show that for two cases some bond was not available on all the bars'his inadequacy occurred in beams at 'dowel splice locations where honeycomb and voids were most likely.

Both of these beams have already experienced construction loads in excess of those specified during plant operation, and performed well. Of all the cases studied, only one dowel that Pa'ge 10 of ll

0 should have been located in the excavation was not.uncovered.

This beam was conservativel evaluated assuming the dowel was missing and not just misplaced, and was found to be adequate.

In summary, all structural members excavated during the investigation were demonstrated to be adequate for all speci-fied loads.

The investi ation demonstrated. that structural members s eci-ficall selected, for their difficult in construction met the intent of the code for all desi n conditions. This biased sample provides confidence that the conclusion may be extended to all Category I concrete structures of WNP-2 since they were designed and constructed to the same quality procedures as those included in this investigation." (Emphasis added)

17. Provide calculation to substantiate acceptability of East Wall.

~Res onse: This calculation was transmitted initially to Rr. Auluck during the week of October 24, 1983. A second copy is attached herewith.

18. Discuss the rebar spacing problem.

~Res ense: Response to this question.was included with the response to question 10.

Page ll of ll

t, I

SUMMARY

OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS EVALUATED Design Margin(See Footnote) Observed Discrepancies Member Maximum Haximum Rebar 'ebar/ Conclusi ons five -ive Spacing Dowel Honey- Remarks Moment ~

Moment Shear Missing/ combing

+H -H His/ aced jK-1 2B3 2.1 1.4 1.5 Yes None None Concrete consolidation is Meets the intent of excellent. the code.

SK-2 285 3.5 1.5 1.2'one None None Rebars were p] aced in 3 1 ayers Meets the the code.

intent of instead of two layers.

SK-3 2811 3.6 1,9 1.3 Yes None Yes Honeycombing and rebar spacing Meets the intent of~~

deviations were found in con- the code.

gested area where main bars were spliced with dowels.

-SK-4 2825 3.0 1.5 Yes None Yes Honeycombing and rebar spacing Meets the intent of deviations were found in con- the code.

gested area where main bars were spliced with dowels.

SK-5 3B10 2.5 1.4 1,5 Yes None None Concrete consolidation is M eets the code excellent. requirement.

l SK-6 3818 2.5 1.0 1.6 Yes Yes None One dowel not',found. Dowel not Meets the intent of needed per code. Consolidation the code.'

is excellent.,

SK-7 4B30 4,3 2.4 2.1 None None 'one Meets the code requirement.

Footnote to Table: Design margin as used herein is the capacity provided above that of the originql gesign requireyentg.

comtn>Tmen~s,)

with ACI 318 code requirements anu 1>censing (A design margin of 1.0 signifies compliance

k 1,

f I

I

SUMMARY

OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS EVALUATED Design Margin(See Footnote) Observed Discrepancies SK. E Member Maximum Maximum Rebar Rebar/

-ive Spacing Dowel Honey- Remarks Conclusions

+jve Moment Moment Shear Hissing/ combing

+M -M His/aced .

SK-8 GB9 4.8 4.2 2.1 Yes None Hone Concrete consolidation is Meets the intent of excellent. the code.

SK-9 Pilaster Hot Not Hot None Hone Hone None. I Meets the Code..

Calcu-lated Calcu-lated Calcu-lated requirement.

~

SK-1 West Not Not Hot None Hone Hone None Meets the code Exterio Calcu- Calcu- Calcu- requirement.

Wall lated lated lated 1

SK-11 Dryer Not Not Hot -None None 'one None Meets the code Separa- Calcu- Calcu- Calcu- requirement.

tor Pool lated lated lated SK-1 Fuel Hot 5.6 Not Yes None Hone Construction aid rebars at El. Meets the code Pool Appli- Appl i- 588'-2>><< were not placed per requirement fo~

Wall(N,) cable cable drawings. operating con~ons El .

6K-1 Mat El.

422'-0<<

at Not Calcu-lated Hot Calcu-lated

'ot Calcu-lated Yes None Hone Trim additional rebar deviate spacing requirements.

consolidation excellent.

Concrete Meets the code requirements, K-1 Mat.at Hot Not Hot None None 'None None Meets the code El, Calcu- Calcu- Calcu- requirements.

422 I P<<

lated lated lated Footnote to Ta bl e: Design margin as used herein in the capacity provided above that, of the or i g inal desi gn requlr

'rne n s.

t ACI 318 code requirements and lscens>ng commitments )

(A design margin of l.p signifies compliance with 4

fM I~+

0 ly t

r LI

age" SUHHARY OF STRUCTURAL HEHBERS EYALUATED Design Margin(See Footnote) Observed Discrepancies Hember Haximum Haximum Rebar Rebar/

-ive Spacing Dowel. Honey- RemarRs Conclusions

+ive Moment Moment Shear Missing/ combing 4H -H Hisplaced .

Hone Additional rebars. deviate Meets the code Mat at Hot Not Yes requirements.

Calcu- spacing requirements. Concrete El. Cal cu- Calcu- .

422'-0" lated lated lated consolidation excellent.

\

I 471'ot Slab Not Hot Hot None None None Meets the code requirements~

at El. Calcu- 'Calcu- Calcu-lated lated lated Hone Meets the code K-1 East Not Not 2.2 Hone None Calcu- Calcu- requirements.

Ext.

Wall lated lated

ootnote to Table: it Design Margin as used her'ei n i n the capac y p rovided above that'of the ori g inal desi g n re q uirement s.

(A design margin of 1.0 signifies compliance with ACI 318 code requirements and licensing commitments.)

e

HIIIEN ANO,KUCHENREUTHER,ON SUROE FORCES When the solutions to Eq. 44 are extended over those presented in Table 3 and the results plotted, curves of the type given in Fig. 11 are obtained which show strikingly the tendency of. the ship movement and restoring for e t b-AMERICAN'OCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS infinite whenthe naturalperlodof vibration(when Ao = 0) is approached. Founded Novcmbei 5, 1852 e

Of course, no such thing can occur due to the "fuze'n the system in the form of the mooring lines which tend to break and thereby ruin what elegance there TRANSXCTIDNS /g ( D is in this problem.

Fig. 11 shows the relationship between period and amplitude of a moored ship (and standing wave) oscillation in su'rge with standing wave amplitude as Paper No 3047 a parameter. Note that both negative as well as positive dlsplacements are plotted where this rather unconventional presentation Is made to emphasize those situations where the oscillation (x0) Is 180'ut of phase with th it- BUNDLED REINFORCEMENT on( o). Usually this phase'relation Is conslderedof slight interest In com- CONCRETE BEAMS AND COLUMNS WITH parison with the amplitudes. However, at the precise point of phase switching Hans Relffenstuhl2 many ships couldreceive a jolt at a level high enough to rouse evenn theeseep- slee- By Norman W. Hanson,1 M. ASCE and ie 8 t seaman and, even worse, to break the ropes. Therefore, the negative signs are usuallydisregarded so a presentation is made entirely inthefirstquadrant.

The writers have obtained a record of such a shift correlated with changes n mooring fbrces, bjj a landing ship tank (LST),as spread moored in the open Witli Discussion by hiessr Homer ht Hadley Gulf of Mexico. This. ship shifted the phase of its pitching motion by 180'- as theperlodof the lncldentwave changedln a very short tlmefrom 4 to I 1/2 sec where the point of shift is computed as about 6 sec.

The system, depending on its period of excitation will be subject to stable-I'VNOPSIS mottuns, fro example, branch 1, 3, 4, and 5 In Fig. 11 and unstable-motions J 7

ranch 3 and.4-b. Some damping, however slight, must be present in order to beams with conventionally spaced bran This paper reports on tests of pairs of large The bundles of reinforcement permit the ship to cross from In-phase oscillation, periods greater than free and with bundled longitudinal reinforcement.

No. 8, or three No. 9 touching bars.

period, to out-of-phase oscillation across the, zone of transition. (from 4-a to used comprised groups of four No. 6, four 2 In Fig. 11, for example). ". width of flexural cracks, steel Pairs of beams were compared with respect to No significant difference lt would appear that the free'period of oscillation, line designated A = 0 In stress distribution, deflection, andultiinate strength; Fig. 11, of the ship-line system Is one of the dominantdesignparameters where strength was found for bundled as compared to spaced

. in behavior or ultimate care should be exerctsed toward avoiding period coincidence between this pe- reinforcement. to compare spaced and riod and that of the excitation. A likely operational period of oscillation which Tied columns were tested by concentric loading twelve No. 6 or twelve No. 8 ls less than rather than greater than the free period would seem desirable. bundled longitudinal reinforcement consisting of strength indicated that bundling is A number of investigators, including Abramson and Wilson,33 havediscuss- bars. Comparison with respect to ultimate are provided. This true even for ed surge oscillation of a ship moored at the node of a standing wave, although a safe detailing procedure when adequate ties none appear to have stretched the mechanical analogy as far as the writers 6.6% longitudinal reinforcement. Splicing of bundled reinforcement incolumns herein. Other modes are not at all well covered. Another examination of the was explored and found to be feasible.

problem was made by Wilson.34 The writers hope that this closure has provided In some measure answers to and amplification of the questions raised by Mr. Wilson In his much appre-ciated discussion of their paper. INTRODUCTION Bundled reinforcement in structuralconcrete refers to reinforcement placed In groups of touching bars. As compared to the mlnlmum bar spacings com-monly used in beams, for instance those given by the 1965 American Concrete October, 1958, in the Journal of the 334 A F urther Analysis of tho LoagttudtnalRosponso ofh'Ioorod Vessels to Sea Osctl- Note.-Published, essentially as printed hero, in Positions and titles given are thoso 1818.

laflon,~ by H. N. Abramson, and B, W. WHson, Proceedings, Joint hiid-West Conf., Structural Division, as Proceedings Paperwas approved for pubflcation In Transactions.

Solid and Fluid Mechanics; Purdue UnivSeptember, 1955. In effect when the paper or discussion Roses'rch and Dovolopmont Div., Portland Cement Assn.,

34 "The Energy Problem in tho hioortng of Ships Exposed to Waves," by B.W. Wilson, I Assoc. Development Engr.,

Proc. of Princeton Conference on Borthing and Cargo Handflng in Exposed Locations Chicago, Ill. Portland Cement Assn., Chicago, Octobor, 1958, pp. 1-87.

9 Visiting Engr., Research and Development Div.,

Hl.

889

a t

I I

r l) f

890 BUNDLING ~

BUNDLING 891 Section 505(a))1 bundling yern)its'the necessary +rs,to be phced.in much,nar-Sl before the flexural ultimate strength ls developed. Therefore, the test speci-rower sections. As a 'result, bundling permits construction of lighter, inore mens for this investigation were short, deep beams, with the tension steel at graceful and more economtcpl-,beams. of,box,-.channel or T-B6, section. In the top as cast.

beams of normal width, the clear distance between bundles will beconslderably .In the beam, designations to follow, the first number shows the number of:

greater than the distance',betw4efi individual evenly spaced bars. Bundling bars and the second number their size;. the letter S indicates spaced bars and greatly facilitates concrete placement and insertion of spud vibrators, par- B indicates bundled bars; H indicates high-strength steel.

ticularly" wlien heavy negate'moment reTnfbrcement must be ehibedded ihthe The test beams 8-SSy 8 SSHp 8 SSH and 6-9S, with spaced reinforcement, top of beams. In columns, bundled reinforcement permits a reduced concrete shown in Fig. I, were designed by first determining the minimum beam width for a chosen group of bars. By the ACI code previously mentioned, this width cross section, which maybe an important advantage in the lower storiesof tall buildings. Bundling also permits interior ties to be omitted, so that concrete f f is governed by a minimum protective cover of 1- in. and, for 1- in. maxi-mum size aggregate, a clear distance of 2 ln. between parallel bars. The beam placement is facilitated. Finally, bundled bars ln beams and columns may be a satisfactory. alternate.to!large sizes of specially rolled~reinforcing depth was chosen so that the ratio of reinforcement was 1.5%. Finally, the bars that distance from the face of a centrally located column stub to the beam support are occasionally used in very large, structures.

was chosen as twice the effective beam depth. Thus, the test span L is 85 in.

Practical use of ibundledirelnforcement in beams has been pioneered, and several structures with bundled reinforcement have been builtP>>i4Ãi6 for for the beams with No. 6 bars,-134.5 in. for the beams with No. 8 bars, and 151.8 in. for those with No. 9 bars. The beams and all bars were extended 6 in.

which good service records have been reported.

beyond the supports. The gross concrete dimensions of beams 8-6S, S-SS and Laboratory tests that have been reported>> concern principally bundles of 6-9S, excluding the column stubs, wex'e 13 in. by 21 in. by 97 in., 14.5 in by four j-tn. square bars in beams,and there maybe somequestion regardingthe 33.5 in. by 146.5 fn., and 11.5 in. by 38.8 in. by 163.8 in., respectively.

performanceof bundlesof larger bar sizes. No tests of bundled reinforcement The beams with bundled reinforcement, beams 8-6B, 8-SB and 6-9B we in columns have been reported. An experimental investigation was therefore carried out 1n the Research and Development Laboratories of the Portland identical.to the corresponding beams with spaced bars except fo'r the bar rangeme'n7. The effect of decreasing the beam width for bundled reinforcement Cement Association during 1955-57 to inyestigate the performanceof largede-formed bars placed in bundles as longHudfnai beam andcolumn reinforcement. was investigated through beams 8-SBH and 8-8 BH. For these two beams,and Nolaffon.-The letter symbols adapted for use in this paper are defined their companions with spaced reinforcement, high-strength reinforcement was used to delay flexural faQure and develop very high bond stress.

where the) first afloat', lri the text'or in'the illustrations, and are arranged The column stubs of all beams were reinforced with four bars of the same alphabetically, for chnvehte'nce of reference, in the Appendix. size as the'longitudinal beam reinforcement, and these bars vlere extended I

y

~~

g Jf I through the beam, Vertical stirrup reinforcement was provided to prevent di-

~ gl TEST BEAM ARRANGEMENT ~

.. ~

agonal tension and shear failures, The stirrups also served the function of

) ) v- $ A,f, t ~ ~ a gg v r preventing horizontal splitting that might otherwise have been caused by high As compared to spaced bars, bundling may be questioned primarily with bond stress. Beams 8-6SH and 8-SBH had two No. 6 bars placed as compress respect to the bond integrity'of beams: The most serious conditions may then sion reinforcement toprevent flexuralcompresston failure. Beams 8-SSH and be expected for bars plac'ed ast negative reinforcement near the top of 8-8BH had two No. 8 bars placed as compression reinforcement.

deep and short beams. 'Previous tests> have clearly indicated that, due to adverse ef- ProPerffes of Bundfes.~e external perimeter for a bundle of four bars fects of settlement, 'the bond resistance of top bars is less than that of bottom as shown for be'am 8-6B and 8-SB in Fig. 1 is 38D, that is, 25% less than for bars. They have also indicated that'a short beam span leads to high bond stress the same bars spaced in the usual manner. On the other hand, a single large bar with the same cross-section area as a bundle of four bars with diameter D 2'Unusual Concrete Roof of Hollow Girdera and Precast Slabs, by H. hL Hadloy, would have a diameter of 2D and a perimeter of 2nD. Accordingly, the bundle Journah A,C.I., Proceedings Vol, 37, February, 1941, pp. 453-460. of four bars has anexposed perimeter 50%greater than that of thesingle large Braall'a Wonder Hotel. and Casino,'y A, J. Boaae, Engineering News-Record, bar. The bundle of three bars used for beam 6-9B similarly.has an expos Vol. 136, January, 1946, pp. 112-116, perimeter'16.'I% less than that for the same spac'ed bars, and 55% greater t 4 ~Bundle Reinforcing Savea hiatoriala," Engineering Nowa-Record, Vol. 140, AprQ, that of a larger bar of the same area.

1948, pp, 609-610.

5 ~Bridge with 'Bundled'otnforoement,~

by H. M. Hadley< Weatern Construction,. These geometric properties indicate that bundling leads to only a moderate l~ 26, Juno1951, pp, 69;90,:

increase ln bond stress as compared to spaced bars. Replacing a single large

'Bundled'Reinforcement,",by H hL Hadloy, Journal, A.C.IProceedings Vol..49,

~ bar by a bundle with the same area, leads to a reduced bond stress. It should October, 1952, pp. $ 57-159. be noted, however, thht the deformation of lug height, as defined by ASTM Precast Box Beams for High Strength,~ by H. hi, Hadiey, Engineering News-Record, A-305-53T, would be greater for a single large bar than for a bundle of bars, Vol. 125, Doo1940, pp, 383-839>

a d bo nd r'esistance for top b rs 18 k own9 to 1 crease with tncreasi g lug

~ ~

8 'Tests of Beams Retnforoed wHh'Bundle Bars',~

by H. hi, Hadley, Civil Engtneer-Ing, VoL 11, February, 1941; pp: 90-93. height.

9 'An InvestlgaHon of Bond, Anchorage and Related Factors in Reinforced Concrete Materials.-A laboratory blendof Type I cements was used. Sand and gravel Beams,'y C. A. htenzol and W. M. Woods, BuHeHn 42, Research Dept., Portland Ce- aggregates were combined to gradations within- the limits given by ASTM ment Assn., November~ 1952, p. 114; j

C-33-.55T for 1- in. maximum: size. The concretes were mixed in 6 cu ft

1 g>>i o r Cl ceo e el I m Q e 'ce m dl

>>CCt ce m O e Cl 04 MIDih0000

~ 0 ID CI >>0 00 iD O CC 04>>4 CI O C 4J>>J

~CD 'g C

~0O~

5 04 CI Cl 00,04 04 IA ID CI CI 0 g QCI ce c 0 r m a ~ u 4 '0 ~ 04 c N53$ ~ O

&gal mo 'g ce g r m>> ci ID O C4 CI >>I 0 I e m g e o oD"0 e co.,

g 4 4~>>

g g P p cl O

e 04 QDI CI e bb~ 0 r~~ g< e 4 Clg>>

~ e3 m CD C4 CD M C4>>li + '"0 '0e 0e 4C>>>>>>0%

Qi 0 e>>0 Cerl 0'8 r-. '8 rce~emcermvt e ~ g be '0e~r0 0'~I e m ce ce 'ts 8 8 E ~~

ce Q ca" ce g Sl w0 0 g e g wm>>C

'IS ~ ee ID' Rom oe'ee ~ CCI r~~

Cl

.BF r QCI O>>C CII O CD>>C O IA O CD 8 m Q,r 8 m~ ce~"

re ~cer CO ce e ID O 0 ~e r ce

~ 0 CD>>C>>li O CD cl Ir e O 0 8 >>4>>4 CI CI CI 04

>>4 Q

el ce m ~ ~ e 4 Q 4

C~ Ri g g CI 4e m ID A Q e $ 04 ce Q Ce g e e ~

c-c oooo e s"" '4d 0 3~~

I P Cl r~

e ea >>>> O I CI Cl CD CD>>Ci A>>00404

'CIC C4 0 ro CI e QI m C

$ e clclr&

ea Cl ID 00>>ci ID ce rg r

CI rCl IC1ICC mre 4J 6 m 4-8' >>C>>I CD CD C4 Dl >>4>>4 Q, 4 o e m 0 yc ce m cl e ) roe ce O

o m m ce ce e el4 P

r%r" o O o me m'ce g o o ce e r eer Ce 8C r ~ ID O CD CICDC>>CCDO OOO A O CI 04 % CD W,'00M O

O ID O O CD O C>>>>li 00 00 00 e

CD r

b0

~

g e eg~ e O~~m m '0>>m 04 0 r '6 0 Cl m '

C4 00 'CC >>C CI W CI ce m Qi r 00 Cl Oooooo OOOO 0 0 CI Cl CD 0) OOOO O io O O O O ce 04 04 0 O.

cD

~O m

rre >>

be el e i >>0 I 0 C4 c c m00 ID co XI9 O ~C 0 g~0 ~

mo4 ID Ce oe Io I CI Cl 4 ~e00 m o 4 e KOb0 "0 e~g cn cQ cn lC I bb '0 ce g <<0 03 CD Dl Dl ceeCQce rm CP

~O bore e 99 ~-m m>>4 r ~r>>

el Ce RR iD CD ED CO CD CD be aI

'X Cl C0 E9 00 00 CO

.cl i0 Q>>

'It

.5 d Z 'lt d

d X

CD x

al C

~ 0 00 I

X I

I I

I

0 t

t I

t It t

BUNDLING QUNDJ2gG $ 95 stub through a 2-in. steel plate. The total duration of each beam test was ap-proximately two hours. flections and final crushing of the concrete compression zone at the column Deflection dial. gages were mounted directly below the two faces.of the column face. As shown in Fig. 2; both flexural and diagonal 'cracks tended to extend stub and mid-way between these points and the supports. The widths of all upward toward the corner at the column stub so that lt-was hardly possible to cracks were measured by a graduated microscope at the level of thy centroid differentiate behveen flexural and diagonal ~cktt'- po indication. of bond fail-of the longitudinal reinforcement. ure was found 1n any of these beams, and noijisual difference in behavior was noted for beams with bundled as compared t'o'spaced bars.

To minimize the amount of bar surface area isolated from bond by the waterproofing of the electric strain gages, SR-4 Type A-12 gages were placed Three beams with high strength reinforcement failed ln bond as indicated in the intermediate grade bars in milled slots.3/32 in.,wide,r 3/8 in. de.p, and by large amounts of bar slip at the beam ends. For bream 8-6SH the tension approximately 6 in. long. The high-strength bars could not be milled. Thus, steel yielded following bar sflp at the beam ends.

the location of the strain gages in Fig. 1(a) does not refer to tha,beamsuslng Steel Stress and Deflection.-Measured steelstressanddeflectionatvarlous high-strength steel rods. A gage was cemented ta the sideof each slot, lead load levels for the three beam pairs with intermediate grade steel are shown in Figs. 3(a),(b)and(c). Both steel stress and deflection are given as an aver-age of two measurements symmetrical about mldspan for each beam.

Distribution, of measured steel stress along a longitudinal reinforcing bar, P~~>3 in a beam specimen, may be expected to reflect bong distress. Preceding a p~

(r final destruction of bond, an abnormal rise of steel stress should take toward the beam ends. Fig. 3 shows that. the distribution of steel stress very similar for the two members of each pair of test beams even at high

~

p steel-stress..lt may be noted, on the other hand, that the steel-stress for all I

beams was practically uniform at high loads in the middle third of the span.

This was certainly caused by a stress redistribution resulting from the deep-

- beam type of crack pattern seen in Fig. 2. 'It is also seen that the overhangs rr~> r'r(,I'(g." r . contributed to the bonding action because the steel-stress'of all beams is not

~

( (i (r r

zero over the supports at high loads. It is felt that this behavior ls related to

~

yr ~

<<4k>Pt local stress disturbances in the support region where heavy reaction forces entered the abnormally short beams.

4 The deflection curves are also similar for all beam pairs. Accordingly, both steel stress and deflection measurements indicate that there was no sig-C(rC r h

'rr(r" r: j rf,It nificant difference in behavior between bundled and spaced reinforcement.

Crach IVidth.-Crack patterns were closely similar within pairs for all tests.

Q.@+

Bond distress maybe expected toopenup a few wide cracks near the beam ends rg rather than to increase the widthof all cracks. Crackwidths are therefore r given in Fig. 4, as the average width of the three widest cracks in the beam.

Steel stress is given in the figure asvalues computed fromapplied moment at the column face section, taking'the internal moment arm as 7/8 times the ef-FIG. 2.-TESTING ARRANGEhIENT FOR BEAhIS fective depth. It is seen that there ls no systematic difference between~

wires were attached, and the slot was filled to the bar surface with wax water- crack widths for bundled and for spaced reinforcement, Furthermore, noes~

proofing. Tension tests indicated that gages so placed yielded measurements opened suddenly before yielding of the reinforcement was ln progress. This in close accord with mechanical strain measurements over the same reduced indicates that'even the high local bond stress<<whioh acts near cracks, resulted section. The stress at any bar load was 5% to 9% higher in"the sloffed section only in the normal minor bond slip for bundled as well as for spaced reinforce-than in the full bar section. Eight strain gages for each beam multiplying were located as ment.

shown ln Fig. 1(a). Two gageswer'e placed on eachof four barS symm'etrlcally For the four beams with high strength reinforcement, a similar lack of about mid-span. The measured strainwlthout correctionwas ass'umed to'ep- systematic difference was observed between 'crack widths for bundled and

'(

reseq) the average strain'n all bars at the location of the gage'. Therefore, spaced reinforcement. However, for beams 8;,6BH, 8-8SH, and 8-8BH, as the measured strain is reported heryin a's stress obtains'd by 'the'aver- ultimate load was reached,a few cracks near the beam ends became very wide age strain in the two half sparis by the modulus of elasticity for the full section shortly before final bond failure took place.

of the various bar sixes as obtained Flexural Strength, Beams uVth Intermedtate Grqde Steel.-Itis seen In Table

'r'5 in te'nsion r(,'( ~

tests.'- ' J 1 that some of the beams with intqrmediate grade steel carolled loads consider-(J "rl r '.( r ~ . ~ (( ably above their. yield-loads. These yield loads'are'listed as detected by strain TEST RESULTS ~ r 0 I

~

'r

( rrr . ~

..I r., r I I~

beamswith,intermedtaty-grade(steel, beams 8;,L'I,through 6-9p 1nTable

.('ll 1, fa1led by yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement, followed by large de-u t r((038

~ l l ~ - <<rr(4(lrr(<<4(Z . ~ ~ I'I

r V

(

I

'I 1

4

)~I II k

PI fI k

I

896 BUNDLING BUNDLING 49$

P P

Fsosh silos h Mcsos and crack width measurements. Considering the external moment at the face 00 IO 40 SO 40 of the column the computed flexural ultimate loads, Pcalcs were abtained by the equation for ultimate internal moment 'I 25Kl ps r

2SKIPs r Mu = b d2 fc q(1-0 IO ro I SO ~ r P q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (1)

~ 50 ~ / I I ss C /I in which fc is the concrete cylinder strength, and q is the factor pfy /fc in I

8 20 II I FS ~

/ which p equals As (the effective cross-sectional area of reinforcement) divided

//

O.IO cn ss o

cn rr r II IOO ~

P by bd, and fy is the yield point of reinforcement. This 'equation is given in ACI

• hc r I OIS A605(b). The ratio of measured tocomputed ultimate load exceeds one s'18-56, rr o 4 IOO ~

(1) for all beams. The average ratio for the three beams with spaced bars is 3 or

/r 1.13, and the average ratio for the beams with bundled bars is also 1.13. This x ~ // P ISO Kiss 2 0.20

<<Spocs4 Soss indicates that there was no systematic difference in ultimate flexural strength ispn Kl, -~a'4II4 ben developed by spaced and by bundled bars except that the beams with bundled b~

42,000psl 4 bars were slightly stronger by virtue of the slight increase in effective (0) BEAMS 8 BS ond 8 88 depth. sf s P

Fcshi ISIISPOh Ihollo ~ 50 f -47000 pcl II -48300 ps>

I f <<46800 ps) o ~ h g 40 COKlp ~

/ R 8.68 6.9S vs 8

I

/ // I I c OI E B.SS cn I 20 I/ I I

IZ0 ~

I I 8 30 I 802 I.

rr I

~I I 6.98

'u ISO ~ 9

/I 8-6S rr s

In cs 8.88 8

so ss 0. 40- 20

~s ISO' ~s I

~s r

cs X 40

~ SOO Klps 10 240 4 Spo44i SCAptroo th 0 0.004 0.008 OA)12, 0 OI004 OA)08 0412 0 OA)04 OA)08 JO12

-cs- scdlidlsohI Pi240 Kins Clock widths, ln (nchos

+fp ~4SWpsl 4.-CRACK 1VIDTH htEASUREhiENTS

'IG.

(h) BEAMS 8 BS opd 8-88 The average ratio of 1.13 also confirms previous findings that the equa~

I'O for ultimate moment, which was developed essentially by tests of small bea~

is also applicable to the large beams of this investigation. It is believed that the excess of measuredultimate loads over the computed load resulted princi-

/ I pally from strain hardening of the reinforcement.' biaxial state of stress at

//II Kiss COKlps IO 8 r/ the column stub appeared to delay crushing of the compression zone so that Ir/

vs

/ // OI large steel strains were developed locally at the ma)or flexural cracks.

r rr ///

g P I20 8 Bond stresses are given in Table 1 as computed at ultimate load, by dividing 20

/I 8 ~4/ /// the shearing force by the external perimeter of the bars times 7d/8. These cn sI o

I20

,p / ~

0.2 rSO bond stresses, for the beams with intermediate'rade steel, were sustained OI without any indication of bond failure. " They are'in no way to'e regarded as rr r rrI 7 220 ultimate bond stresses. To develop higher bond stresses with intermediate-c40 grade steel it would have been necessary to make'special test beams with part

~s aS P 240 Klps

<<0 f40 of thetension zone removed, or to make the beams so short that theywould act o/

~Spocso Sos ~

w Oohoiso nosh as walls rather than beams. Both of these cases were thought not to represent II ~ 44,000 psl practical conditions under which bundled bars may be used." High-strength (c) BEAMS B-SS ond 6-88 steel was therefore used to study ultimate load stress; FIG. S.-h(EASURED STEEL STRESS AND DEFLECTIONS =s s.illll ~ ~ I'I I ~ ssl ~ ~ ~ II

I I

jl f

t f

If f I

'+

898 BUNDLING BUNDLING 899 Bond Strength, Beams with Hfgh-Strength Steel.-Table 1 shows that the beams with high-strength reinforcement failed at ultimate loads close to the IS ~ F I flexural strengths computed by ACI 318-56, A606(a), 8-6SH l'l: ~

(p- p') f I Mu " (As As) fy d I

~1

- 0.59 )

As fy (d - d'),... (2) c 400 ln which As ls the area of tensile reinforcement, As ls 'he area of compres- X n

8-68H sive reinforcement, d etluals the distance from the extreme compressive fiber to the centroid of tensile reinforcement, whereas d's the distance from this 4 l

F F! ~

fiber to the centroid of compressive reinforcement and p ls the factor As/bd.

Beam 8-6SH failed ln flexure after bond slip had been observed at the beam n 300 ends. The remaining three beams failed at loads below the computed ultimate Fr 8.8SH flexural strength. Failure was ln bond, as indicated by large amounts of bar I FnIF slip observed by dial gages as a relative movement between bar ends and the concrete surface at the beam ends.

Bar slip ls plotted as a function of computed bond stress ln Fig. 5. Bond ':m stresses at ultimate strength, calculated by dividing shearing force by external- I bar-perimeter times 7d/8, are also shown. It ls seen that bond slip was ln progresswhen beam8-6SH failed ln flexureatabond stressof 520psl(Table1).

r3

/

By comparlsonwlth the slip records for beams 8-8SH and 8-8BH ln Fig. 5,both l00 of which failed ln bond, lt must be expected that beam 8-6SH would have failed 0 OA$4 0.008 OA)12 OAI I 6 0.020 ln bond at a stress only slightly greater than 520 psl lf flexural failure had been 'Average bar srlp et beam ends, tn Inches prevented bya higher yield point for the steel. Hence,theultlmate bond stress for spaced No. 6 bars must be expected to exceed only slightly the value of 513 FIG, 6.-BAR SLIP MEASUREMENTS psl observed for bundled bars. For No. 8 bars, the ultimate bond stress for lr spaced bars was 337 psl, which ls slightly less than the stress of 391 psl ob-served for bundled bars. However, lt should be noted from Fig. 5 that bond stress fora given slip value was always lower for bundled than for spaced bars.

It can be concluded that, when only external bar perimeter was used to cal-culate bond stress, there was no systematic difference ln ultimate bond stress developed between spaced and bundled bars.

Thus, the beam tests indicated that bundling of tension reinforcement ls a Il satisfactory detailing procedure. ~

TEST COLUMN ARRANGEMENT A series of ten tied columns was designed to study bundled compression re-inforcement. Concentric loading was chosen..An outline of, the test program ' I ~ trcoromn' ,.I" ls shown ln Fig. 6. Allcolumnswere12-1n.-by-12-ln. W>th a height Alf 6 ft. Two I VI F la ~ O FF IF' amounts of longitudinal reinforcement were used. These were 6.58% and 3.67%,

made up of 12 po. 8 and 12 No. p bars, respectively. The 1/4-ln, tie-diameter "~

used ls tile minimum permitted by ACI 318-58, 1104(c). The corresponding maximum tie spacing of forty-eight tie diameters ln 12 ln., whtgh ls also the maximum spacing as governed by the 12,-+. colure size and by sixteen times the diameter of the No. 6 bars.

Five columtts with 12 No. 8 bars were tested. Column 12-8S contained bars 4 spaced ln'the nOrmal manner and surrounded by a squarp tie. The interior I,F V barswere hefd firmly by two interior rectangular ties. All ties of this column were spaced at 12 ln. Column 12-8B-1 contained bars bundle) at the corners, Interior ties were omitted, and the exterior tie spacing its maiqtained at 12 ln. For column 12-8B-2, the exterior tie spacing was decreased to 6 fn, A splice was provided at mid-height of column 12-8B-3 as shown ln Fig. 6. The S column spliced bars were cut by a saw, and each bar was touching its longltut(tnal ex- ,I I F tension. The tie spacing In both columns 12-8 B3 and 12-8 B4 was 6 lns. The ~

FIG, S,-TEST COLUMNS

t ~

"e

900 BUNDLINg BUNDLING 901 bars of column 12-8B-4 were cut at the splice with a hydraulic bar cutter so the ACI column investigations in the 193Ps. The equation used is '>

that the bar-ends were wedge-shaped. A clear spacing of 1/4 in. was provided between the two parts of each longitudinal bar. It should be noted that the P~ = 0.85 fc (Ag - AST) + AST fy,.......... ~ . (3) splice lap is only ten bar-diameters as compared to the minimum amount of fn which Ag is the gross area of the section an'd AST fs the total area of longi-twenty diameters given by ACI 318-56, 1103(c). A similar group of five col- tudinal reinforce ment.

umns with 12 No. 6 bars was tested. This equation has been confirmed by several recent fnvestfgations10 and is Materials.-A laboratoryblend of Type I cements wasused. Sand and gravel used in Section A608(b) of ACI 318;56. A comparison of measured and calcu-aggregates were combined to gradations within the ASTM C-33-55T limits for lated ultimate loads is given in Table 2 together with concrete and steel prop-3/4-in. maximum size. The mix ratio of cement to sand to gravel was 1 to 3.58 erties. A to 2.38 by weight, and the water-cement ratio was from 0.64 to 0.68 by weight. >>y 1 ~j, Two concrete batches were used for each column. In previous column tests it has been found10 that failure generally takes place near the top of vertically TABLE 2,-COLUMN STRENGTH cast columns. To explore this phenomenon, the bottom batch of some columns J

was made with a slightly higher water-cement ratio than the top batch. Com-Column hfain Test hfeasured Calcu- Location pressive strengths, representing averages of three to four 6-in.-by-12-in. Desig- Steel, ge> Uftimat'e lated cylinders for each batch, made and cured with the corresponding columns, are nation (>>p i In Cylinder Strength, fg, In ays Load, tfinate Ptest given in Table 2. '>test>) Load Pcafc All reinforcement was intermediate-grade steel and was tied into cages per pounds per square inch in kips >all~I without welding. The ties were 1/4-in. plain bars. The longitudinal reinforce- square Top Bottom Avera in Yips inch ment conformed to ASTM A-305-53T for deformations and had the yield points reported in Table 2. All reinforcing bars were cut by a saw to a length toler- 12-8S 49,610 3220 3290 3250 5 915 842 1,09 Top ance of 1/32-in. Bearing plates, 3/4-in. thick, were placed touching the bars 12-8B-1 49,500 3290 3150 3220 8 -'83 836 0.94 Top at the top and bottom of the columns. The lower plate was placed in the form 12-8B-2 49,800 3930 3680 3800 6 i9.09 906 1.00 TOp before casting, the upper plate was set 1n a thin layer of high-strength plaster 12-8B>>3 50,000 3550 3150 3350 6>>,889

"'.789 856 1.04 Top 12-8B-4 48>470 3280 3360 3320 7 839 0.04 hiiddle after the concrete was cured. The heavy t1e reinforcement shown in Fig. 6 prevented failure at the column ends by possible local non-uniform stress 12-6S 48,510 3970 3470 3720 726 695 1.04 Top conditions. 12-6B-1 49,300 3840 3310 3570 . 7b2 681 1.03 Top Casting. All columns were cast in a vertical position, fn plywood forms 12-6B- 48,800 4200 3820 4010 - ~758 730 1,04 Top protected by an epoxy resin paint. Concrete was placed in columns and com-12-6B-3 50,200 3270 2540 2900 '02 607 1.16 Bottom 12-6B- 48,230 2960 2860 2910 '626 597 1.05 Middle panion cylinders with the aid of spud vibrators. It was noted that the absence of interior ties in the columns with bundled reinforcement eased the concrete placing operation substantially. By fnspectfon after testing the columns, ft was found that mortar had filled the cavity between the bars of all bundles. The test The test data were also studied ln terms of the relationship between applied columns and their companion cylinders were cured four to five days under wet load and total column shortening expressed as strain.. The load-shortening burlap. They were then stored in the laboratory until they were tested at the durves for the columns with 12 No. 8 bars are given in Fig. 8.

ages given in Table 2.

Test Method.-Alf columns were tested under concentric loading as shown in Fig. 7, with both ends fixed against rotation. Spherical bearings permitted Type of Failure.-Aff columns failed. through the crushing of the con~e followed by the buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement. Except for columns, failure took place in the upper half of th'e columns. Tffe typical nature of such a failure 1s shown in Ffg. 7(a). /he Iftrength of the concrete placed fn

~

rotation at both column ends until a load of 20 k was applied, after which the hearings were blocked by steel wedges. Electric strain gages applied at mid- the lower half of some columns was reduced to explore the phenomenon of top height of all four column faces were monitored by a continuous strain recorder. failure, which had been observed10 fn numerous prevfous4ests. Though the Even at ultimate strength, the spread between the four gage readings was less cylinder strength of the bottom batch for columns 12-8B-1, 12-8B-2, 12-8B-3, than 15%, which indicates that a closely concentric loading was obtained for all 12-6S, 12-6B-1 and 12-6B-2, was from 4% to 14% less than that of the top batch, columns. In addition to electric strain measurements, the total shortening failure took placein theupper halfof the columns. For column 12-6B-3,cylin-over the entire column-hefghtwas measured by a dial gage. A continuous load- der strength of the bottom batch was 22% below that of the top batch, and in ing speed of 160 k per min was maintained for all columns. this case failure took place in the lower half of the column as shown fn Fig. 9(c).

Even so, the measured ultimate load exceeded by 24% the value calculated on COLUMN TEST RESULTS the basis of the cylinder strength for the bottom batch.

The column test results were evaluated essentially in terms of the equation for ultimate strength of concentrically loaded tied columns established during "A Study of Combined Bonding and Axial Mad in Reinforced Concrete hiembors,'y E. Hognestad, Bulletin No. 399, Engrg, Experiment Sta., Univ. of Illinois, 1951.

I I 0 I

t V

I I

1 c ~

1i ljl I

I I

1 I

II 1

W

902 BUNDLING BUNDLING 903 These findings confirm the previously reported observatio'n that the column strengthof the concrete placed in the lower half of columns is Increased;proba~

bly by the'improved compaction afforded when the upper half is cast. Similar-

",; >@0.IT ly, the'column strength of the concrete placed in the upper half may decrease J'

somewhat by water gairi from below. To evaluate effects of bundling, there-y4'>flj r

fore, measuredultlmate loads were compared to calculated values based on the average cylinder strength for the top and bottom batches for each column.

A>>'Qtrt>>, .Yr ~Q ( ( ~ 'tu>>+ The two spliced columns 12-8B-4 and 12-6B-4 which had I/4'n. clear be-4

>jg )s 1 bg tween bars at the splice, failed in the-splice region at mid-height as shown in

!~ >

,>>4u,g. 8 >)f- Fig. 'r(b). ~~

(((g+ Effect of Bundling.The ratios between measured and calculated ultimate u>

"~4>> -

+ ()(Ik&b)41, ijjpptt' load given in TabIe 2 exceed one (1) for all except two columns. 'll'hits confirms previous findings that led to the ACI column investigation equation.j t i ') 'lJ ">8 r+>' . r. ~ >'t . ~

u I I>'J ~ i r ~ >>>>> l 'lr r jt'- '-})>> '

Yield point or steel

~. >6 ~

)rrr, 4~; .I>>> J "J j9 6f

.'I ~ ~ 4 ~ J' eQ$ ) 2-88-3 I' ~

600 J bep t()ucrjnd)

'spliced JC 8 +)2.88-2 )2-88.4 ~

i a (t>(ts at 6 in (spdced bars $ ln. clear), >

2

.'Jgg i.: ',y 400 12-8 8.1 s+J YP is'. (ties at 12 ln.)

\

• >>r 200 12-8S 12-8S J ~i /@+I".

'r (spaced bars)

( r>>, >>8> 0.001

>r>>>

J ~ J ~ ~J J

$8 'j',:, 0 Total column shor>ann>d. ih incttespei~

41 FIG. 8.-LOAD-SHORTENING CURVES\'FOR COLUMNS

" ~,

J The load ratios of columns 12-6B-1 and 12-8Bn2 jr(ere 1.03 and 1.04 r ypectively as cpmpared to a value of 1.04 for column 12-68 that had convention-ally spaced Iprs. Fpr 3.6'l% longitudinal reinforpen)*ents,. therefore, no detri-(>>J(fi'gQ>'- & j mental )feet of btmdling was found regardless oftie spacing. .,-.

For the columns with 6.58% reinforcement, which(eltpceds,the maximum value of 4% given by ACI 318-56, 1104(a), the 12-in. tie spacing of column No. )2- 8B - I NO. l>) -BB-4 . No. l2-6B-3 12-8B-1 led to a load ratio of 0.94 as compared to 1.09 for column 12-88 with spaced bars. By reducing the tie'spa'cing to 6 ln:"for column 12-8B-2, the load (o) (b) . (c,), ratio increased to 1.00. Furthermore, column 12-8B-3, which had a 6-in. tie-spacing andufailed above the splice, had a load ratio of'1:04.'-Therefore; even FIG. 7,TYPICAL COLUMN FAILURES for 6.68% reinforcement, no detrimental> effect of bundling l))as found when the tie spacing for'bundle'd bars was reduced" tb 6(in."which is>>eslual'to or-one"-half of'the least dimension-of the'column. > 24'tie-'iameters, not" significantly affect'- the'relatk4sliipr between applied load "-'undling:did and'column'(ihorte)iing.- Thlhris"shuwrilforthe'dollimtis'4th'No."8&Ps"fii(Fig.8:

J r

I I

'l t

II

~

BUNDLING HADLEY ON BUNDLING 905 The results for the columns with No. 6 bars indicated a similar lack of effect for spaced bars, 3. Each bar in a bundle is a deformed bar and is individually of bundling. well anchored, and 4. Stirrup reinforcement ls provided"in regions of high Sp/fang.-Bundled reinforcement placed in the corners of a column section bond stress.

maybe spliced in the ~me manner as single corner bars. The bars from be- Bundling of compression reinforcement in tfed columns can also be used low may be offset to a position inside the bars above the splice, and a proper even for high ratios of longitudinal reinforcement, if the'provisions of ACI amount of lap may then be provided. The bars may also be-butted and welded'n 318-56 regarding other details are strictly complied wfth. For large amounts these testy, a splice particularly suitable for bundled bars yes explored. of longitudinal bundled reinforcement, it is advisable to reduce the maximum As shown in Fig. 6 the splices of the three bundled corner bars were staggered tie-spacing to about one half of that given by the ACI Building Code.

a distance of five bar-diameters, and a fourth splice-bar, 35 bar-diameters Because bundling of refnforcementwas found to be saf'e in tests involving long, was added at each corner. For columns 12-8B-3 the bars were cut by a the extreme cases of bending alone and compression alone, bundling should saw, and each bar was touching its longitudinal extension. The contact was not also be satisfactory for members subject to combined bending and axfal load.

perfect and after testing, a mortar layer 1/32 in. to 1/16 fn. thick was found between the bars. Both of these columns failed outside the splice, and the measuredultimate loads exceeded the computed values by 4% and 16@, respec-tively.

To simulate less accurate manufacture of reinforcement, the bars of col- APPENDIX.-NOTATION umns 12-8B-4 and 12-6B-4 were cut at the splice by a hydraulic bar cutter with 60 cutting edges. The bar ends were wedge-shaped by the cutting to an angle of 90, and a clear distance of 1/4 in. was provided between the bars when the The following symbols, adapted for use in the'paper and for the guidance of reinforcing cages were tied. Both columns failed at mid-height in the splice. discussers, conform essentially with "American Standard Letter Symbols for However, in spite of the unfavorable conditions for a direct stress transfer be- StructuralAnalysis" (ASA A10.8-1949), prepared bya committeeof theAmeri-tween bars in the longitudinal direction, the No. 6 bar column developed an can Stanthrds Associatfon with Society representation, and'approved ultimate strength 5% over the computed value. The ultimate strength of the by the Association in 1949:

No. 8 bar column was only 6% below the computed value. As shown for the No. 8 bar columns in Fig. 8, the splicedid not significantly change the relation- Ag =Gross area of section; ship between load and column shortening. As = Area of tensile reinforcement; It was planned in subsequent tests to strengthen the splice by longitudinal welds between the four bars at each splice. Even without welds, however, As = Area of compressive reinforcement; three out of four spliced columns developed an ultimate strength in excess of AST= Total area of longitudinal reinforcement; the computed values. It is obvious that the strength of splices with longitudinal welds would exceed that of the three bars outside the weld. Therefore, no d = Distance from extreme compressive fiber,.to centroid of tensile rein-columns with welded splices were made. forcement; It is believed that the short lap used in the splices did not suffice to trans- d'Distance from extreme compressive fiber to centrqfd of compressive fer stress by bond. The mortar between meeting bar ends was probably sub- reinforcement; 4 jected to a triaxial stateof stress so that acompressive strength far inexcess of the cylinder strength could be developed. To assure that the longitudinal fy = Yield point of reinforcement not to exceed 60,000 psl; bars do not buckle in the splice, the reduced tie-spacing used in the tests, I fc = Concrete cylinder strength of test specimen; twenty-four tie-diameters or one-half the column dimension, may be neces-sary. If a splice of the type studied is used in eccentrically loaded columns so As/bd necessary.'>

that tensile stress may be developed in the longitudinal bars,'the mortar be- p'At/bd;and k tween bars cannot be expected to transfer stress and welds, or a longer lap, are obviously q (pfy)/fc.

CONCLUDING REMARKS The test results reported confirm the previous findings that the use ofbun- DISCUSSION dled reinforcement is a sound detailing procedure. It can be expected that bundling of tension reinforcement in beams will not lead to,detrimental conse-quences as compared to spaced bars, for the following conditions: 1. Thery HOMER JN. HADLEY,11 F. ASCE.-The writer'was pleased to read are not more than four touching bars in each bundle, 2, Bong stress computed this on the basis of external bar perfmeter fs limited tp the vafuqs now permitted paper on the'testing of bundled reinforcement fn both beams a'nd columns." On

>> Cons. Engr., Seattle, Wash.

\

I' I

> ~ F r

jj l

t

906 HADLEY ON BUNDLING HADLEY ON BUNDLING numerous occasions, he has found bundling highly advantageous in beams par- latter case the twovertical tiers were not incontact with oneanother but there ticularly in precast channel-shaped concrete sections for short-span bridge was considerably less than orthodox spacing between the tiers.

decks, for which A, C. L or AASHO bar spacing is peculiarly ill-adapted. There In the writer's mind it has been the long-held and continued concept that if are probably several hundredof such short spans ft-to-30-ft long and ten the bars in a large bundle are successively well anchored in the concrete at or fewer years old - installed and in service in various parts of the state of their ends, so that they can develop their designed stress at these ends, it then Washington. These have been made,wifh four bundled bars in each leg of the matters little how much or how little bond they have between these terminal channel. The bar size depends on the span. length, with single-be stirrups zones. It is at these endzones thatanchorage is indeed vital. The intermediate looped around the bundle at the bottom. The stems of the channel webs are concrete is simply fireproofing or weatherproofing. With a dozen bars in a usually given a 6-in. bottom thickness, with a 7-in. top thickness at the under- bundle, withgood plastic concrete and with vibration, the fines of the mortar side of the slab. These over-all web thicknesses, except inthe case of theouter will penetrate and fillthe interstitial spaces of the bundle and afford all needed curb units, are initially reduced to approximately 4 in. by notcldng with a 2-in. protection. But the dozen bars must be well anchored at their several ends.

plankon their outer faces. Thenotchstarts approximately 6 in. above the bottom About that necessity there must be no misunderstanding.

of the stem. When the units are placed aide by side, these notched spaces, and The writer is particularly pleased to see bundling applied to columns, where any additional spaces are filled with concrete and thereafter there is full cover it willunquestionably effect marked improvement in economy and quality. The-of the bundle everywhere. contrasting column cross-sections in Fig. 6 convincingly show this, The authors There have been a few such small bridges on Federal Aid projects. After and whoever elseparticipated in this development are to be congratulated u n quite a number of small county bridges had been successfully installed, per- its excellence.

mission was granted on a project having twenty-eight ft trestly spans to use the precast units with four bar bundled reinforcement in, each web. This pro-ject was likewise successfully installed and 4 the best of the writer's know-ledge has proven entirely satisfactjry. Unfortunately', an engin'eer from Wash-ington, D. C. visited the project during construction and voiced some misgivings about bundling. This brought ona local reactionof rejectionto'thepractice'a'nd prospects to bundle reinforcement was withdrawn for several years, lt is the permission writer's understanding that currently three bars may be bundled on local Fed-eral Aid projects but not four bars. He is unable to explain the rationale of this ruling. The California Highway Department has bundled four bars'on Federal Aid since 1949 and continues to do so;.

Not mentioned by theauthors among thenuqed advantages of bundlingis the fact that it affords opportunity for having the quantity of beam reinforcement conform roughly with the moment diagram, by stopping unneeded steel areas somewhere near the points at which they become unneeded. In these days of high-priced reinforcement, such savings can total a considerable sum. The original use of 1/2 in. square bars fn contrast with 1-in. square bars was in demonstration of this fact. In the beam with the single 1-in',-'square bar, that bar had to run through from end to end of -the. beam; .whereas with.the bundled four 1/2-in. square bars only two of them carried through from end to end, and slightly offset longitudinally in the beam, provided as much eHective bond area as the 1-in.-square bar offered. li The authors state in their conclusion that 'bundling of tension reinforce-ment in beams willnot lead to deterimental consequences as compared to spaced bars for the following conditions: 1. There must not be more than four, touch-ing bars in each bundle; 2. Bond stress computed on the basis of external bar perimeter must be limited to the values,now permitted for spaced bars... "

Strictly limited to their test findings these statements are correct. However, attention should be drawn to the fact that they did not test five or six bars in a bundle and that there is nothing to be found in these tests to indicate or imply that a larger number of bars should not be bundled if that is desirable. The writer has used stx No. 10 bars in a bundle, stacked 1-2-3 from top down in one bridge in beamy of 9 in. width, and 2-2-2 from top doggy qyeqond bridge in beams of the same 9 in. width., No,ill;effect haye pen,;qbspzyed, In the

j 4

l I

l ll d

I I

ab

@1 II

'I

e e

e V/.0. No.

Drawing N .

PO-0 3 o..

C~d l'"~

Q BURNS AND ROE. lNO.

No.

s..sH. J'ale.

Page No.

Sheet~et Sy Title d2'-4 r Approved Pr' nzet/Pr zfri'~ AAzX~+Sriar Ps////Eric/prZ/c'sr

/g/CrCWCX,+/+rjPZJC~/ QCpyrr/// SuN S~Er//ere'4 ~45- Jr ~

CJre JAeeJ- 84 Y~

(g /

Pre jp JggfcA ~T Jgocsz/// cg~tct wag j~z//dgpJ, (gee J"/te-7/P) orle'cd'; /7'oxggggl~yt gf 7 /h ~rrc-'

~~ra>~/o/

E~j Vs.-J'eP rn

~~gdrJ gj'/C/erOt/" /PAL/

~ /, /jc P/wc<

dr l ><r~u/o a-'C Worl/

e Cr/OCCn ~

Co/ /inc rl/, +

P: 47r'-'o~d/-'O" ~e A'r Wider'r "

~porc'~ Z/"C ///PWZP~g er~d<J CZ/r/~ or Zn guP/ig +get@'rc/ssg tf- 74" 7 roooA'u 8roJ//c~ AcuDri i' 77O jOV'/Z'O//~4~/r Cfcf P O Ce/ Wi/ Plr// j/

/% 4

~>> ~c e/tr

/~

//e/C

/VCgux~~~e>ddo'V ju/c ~c g~,/did~

>f j

Jg r ~glluorig+ d/

rd'/yncg~rl/<~i~j gJ~g~

//

u /jci/v ltd/I .nor/Yiu/ -'"'

f/4 /o/felrrerifJ par OgcP 4'VCR Ct +//c'ndiekar Ji'Iles'O/

k c)/'~~/i n.~ggcoi

/d')pc'P/o/rcu(R/ 74 vr/P44g IJ'Ji le) d/ra .

wo/ co//fru//ri/r g +67+cojgclrl /D~lWg f'cA ht//

Cce QrH//cv'"A/

rc

&//O /PI cd/

I t/fag"J 7, z;.

biz-.7i)

//n

/+JJ rc /o~g 4n/ O, t/

Q/~zc,ny-.4'c/vc/y

/p//ere 4~ rp/gxl+g~ ctctpp~//e

~j M vcJJ'n peoi t.

e 8</"

o/ y ~lj rJ c/jrcr4gK k/"zgurrclrrc

/id'$ ye o.s dg z4u I

..Z,, Z/ rrc/ ppeor c s'/j z.'ses

/cc rp e/

8c/rz 4/"c /o . z rcc// wigi$c/ f~/rrvc r/ /enny<,

p//earl~//riled ~ rcypuuyr~gi or Cur/gp/li seee sssees.

p/' /Ay) ATTACHMENT 3

BURNS AND ROE,,INC.

dO ~03 +

c'age I

~

I V/.0. No. Date / Book No. J ~4 No.

I Drawing N . Gale. No. J7 Sheets~of By Ch ed App oved Title

/ v~// ~/~-' crrui'g//

c/'k~J/l~~ /4 t ~gJ~/qc ada'c wg/I z/-c c"/~//- 8'plica- pp=/zJa3 oner///un:

/-cJ4c'p Jyyr'c c /pz ///,///n /<caT c +4/J/ c jib.c ~ / W~/

c-4~ Ferrite ~///f /t t uA PiJ

+HAJJ ~

dCcc/kb'/~ uc

/~~ =/13 H~/-

g) 'Ws /~i//+gal~g~jlc < //

+CJXII 7-/ ~cud'c~

r, ~ 4 M >,z z'.

/c~/i~~i'.c.

age 7iIu~r~g ~r/cu/.P/~x X~X>J<<ii~4 Ae~

mrzrwccm pu~Qufcg rwlu~gtncig /Z /~Xi'>a Form BR 8002-2

BURNS AND ROE, INC.

il ~

, l ~ ~

N.O. 'etio. / /'ate I ~~ Book No.

Graviing Gale. No. Sheet~ of kd By Ch Apltro ed Title a I l i Jl

~ '

! Zj/EX/ pg/7~+/~ I~~~ Cgg.j 4/A>C 6HZ C // A'/7dAZ I I

~

~

~

'l BVRNS AND ROE, INC.

ceceeccc, le J, ~ l4cerewt, cc, 7, ~ ere Angel~ ccclt.

t

~,l SHIPp.g ~

I4 t~rot -~/g, pegeHo.

gyes Dreretntt No. Ce 0, Sh tty Checked Attrroored

'8tte 177 )cia.

~H)PP~@ NG

~ 'C

~cr~)nerf@ 'mcr I/& 1 rtos'/S-7/ - //.<

fico '/c/~

cI~ I/u p~~c7 V'ee)'Ii('g) A

.V>>

6S~Afr)/4+

~h rl Jew Ie -'

8 (Q'W CC/NAOS,C E Mki/7 /i/ kac'C,C

'eL I ~

'" '- C4

>fan U>>

t/d r 2ig

~ ~ r /Zc 'C ac/~!g-N) //./d4 /OP(' crSa p~r li

/D'OR/ZOrI r4L Sf'R EgZ~~CpgMW/Cttn 'r tlCI'~%/gal) u'/C.>./

Ar > eCO~+uZSC) g.V .. Ay (CP- ac)gS;

'//C))e72 XgPW Zk)Hr- cP<CX P 4A'pSS 'gecr . Ccr~c' Ace.>>w/ g 'aox5 VaerrC~~ S ffa~~ 4~rW~ HCC'e:rI ///C.4.x Vr p'I r+ g~)afar )1) PK oPAS+Ct'5 g6'

(/ 'crba J c OKSSC thee). ~ (A I:,

~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

~ l .

~ l 1

I

~

I t

J ~

l' et tr

~

0 1E I

0 ~

~ BURNS AND ROE, INC.

a

+ +~

h WO. No. ~+ ~ Daaa d ~ <<r~ Booh Na. O Pago No.

Drevking lo. N ghaat0 Mof gy Title

~

Ch k r ~ ~i ~ r ved

'n~ ~ a / ~~ ar//p WAlzvr~v-/+~i I:: PgjcreyPziu'~

I

/~f<NiPr ~ ~ I

>>P"/YcfJ /~ 4g~PQ//

I

,. i ~

\

j6&cdcC '.. ~K-.:&g>> l .: .i I

~/cP 7./"...dcujiun //4',6

} ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~

I fi n ..//= .

'.",::..' P~=.: > ~vZc. ~ 7.u a

~L ) ~ 0, ~ . ~

a ~~

1

' ~

1 k~gfiw~ .. //2Z ~

1

~

g 0 a L o tv' .,7 Spy (/Q ~Pm F z,i A 0

~ O I

'I ZA

~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ' .

~ r

. ~

~ 1

~

1 4

o~ gPr~'~+/. -

W aC' I

~ ~ ~ ~'

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

~ 4 ~

~ ~

~ 00 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~

Form BR 8002.2

~~ 0~ 0 ~ 0 00

't

~~

~ Q

~

S AND ROE, tNC.

Vf.Q.No. + o.~. ~ Boak No.

Drmving By C ec Gale. Nn. 27 I'UR Page Sheet ~

No, et Appr ed Itic r

.. jill/CJfi shan AJf ~Zg~riucf4.'~d"i~iJ' 4/ a~/i ilier, ccnrrnqfrj'- vr'l'ororg~lc

/

.~

OA e o cr orno ro"'r . oorcr; W/o.or 4'77->

-'g7C Won A..~/CclCC',

occofrin '. 'ec -O'P>7'//Zor<)

g 4Pjrlgo Zgr/7/'gc Z..., ... /"/>

~e J34',/', lt",d'dd,,'Pl rl.-7/: />'7 ldt p O >

AGRIC..... X .: .:

'.,perry':

/1~54-//JKr/ g +7?-rrt7/:.:'Qg Cr.>> (, d gP.

"/op( f', . '7g~pizj~)r<Jrp

~ < ..

Gal'lrj y~) i oS d'+p

/f~gi '.. <.::: :.:, /clr./Ig-/.7768'c WzZ-,g7/...,..., 7 Z~'k lf

't

NljS'Z;/c//Ir/< So/-f.7/ 7/ 7clo r

.(z0qQ c Jo) 23Oy,lSC/ f

' t

~ ~ ~ ~~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ '

~ ~

~ t

~ ~

j

., Crlotrilnfirlc..SJZcrrr" .~ ~C .<o?/u = Z/da'Z~ .,

~ ~ ~ e

) )>>w 4 j l

. '..0/c,"..', /~~Ac'4< @8'd@rAX ~!ye".~ d/<kJcXg4'".

o P ~ggrcrol/r Sg~i o.>/r .~gaerrm.. //-ZZ oggcrzy'~7 cocr :.CgJZ.Z~.~.J /c'V,Z.p~qe '.4Z...4ekrg cor H V4r>c./.

rrrtrcitrorl j':cg z boa&.J....='voo+PJ P.-r'oc"d.odor ocJ'c o>>-

.. 7.'.. ob Ac. g'cnr rr/rorL rlZ 8>zYzocrr~tdl<g.l<c/Pr cor.o.

o rcrc>~inc', ugjfci'.,ltr/c govt .rn Z4 gq/crnrrr'eo/co ore Acr<

erne rkrrim.> ...:or. mc.,vt.ri.Marco/rocl //-gg err,C'O/rZ ocro~rl/ 8r coo"-.

m+'A" con/erg+~~/rorioni4p d~/wccrr.moorcC.r.use>ader. v /c.r e- pr/o/rrrrrrt -5@87co>> .. l/-Zz..or J /rcodg, roti) /fr'crrrlui /I-3Z. .

. gOVcNrlr, Pjc~'lcCg-'

~ ~ ~

~ e ~ ~ ~ e ~ w ~

For~ OR 8002 2 ~ ~

e

~W

II ~

II IV 1

BURNS AND ROE, 1NC.

tjtj.o. No. 39 O O Data V at D Book No. Pago No, Dr'awing'. IC. Nrt. Shoat iaa ot - -

By" < ch cd

' r j"/C Title Wlf ggi jPxj~~.u Ngrr" .

':, j4j~l jjUUjjjvPZUjt Q /J/.M~lic J jag Fjr~ lg Jg~r Pgj

'tt.  :

Scrv~cs A j.'j'j/cv (Conscruc/7i UO e

at

~

I Ij

~ I

~

~

~

~

VZ/a-

\'C/:

3 3 ja 32~UjcOato, ~ 2C'g+S'C.

a o

~ ~, ~ a ~, ~ r a

lg4wc

~ ~

OpCjsCCrg jf Ir5 (Cdj/isMvgfijc fjrjcc SS+fj j a

r t ~

~

a a

/NJ jg ar ahAZ

~ ~

g~ .ji..i.(S~~Z~y8W33 '.' ~

a r

a ~ a

'- j@s- 5~ r.a/tor j jjjait (wc/~su~ )

ttjjeta ot I

~

~ J a jta Jjrjt'ij L

t ~ ~ r ~ " r ~

I

'. t :3F 4 /zan /73 .O'Z + z$0 Z ~d izing-79' t ~

I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

r I ~~ ~

a ~

~

~ ~

a j

gj j cr 4Cg  !! i~ Z >" gk.'~ai~ /vor//~

- Pcs iQ: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ 0 e ~

~

~ ~

o 0~~

>> ~ ~ 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \

~ ~ 0 ~ ~

Form GA 8002.2 4 ~e ~ 0

~ ~

$.0. No. ~POD 0 Date BURNS AND ROE) INC.

Book No.

e Page No.

Drawing Noi Calo. No Sheet~>>f

.j gp)

By Tile

~

hec ed Ap roved

/pe CÃrlrz I //

/

cr

. - ~

c>>F C

> chuck~ Ezyccccr~~n

&zP~ezwv z//

7o)~J g/g gt~~v cp W/ ~7/s = 8 Z, 77/g /Prc~cc.:

Ci/cap ZP-'roe ICa/egg lY-zov/

P~/yah. 4 lF-ill Pre//Z g= Rulc/ Jcc//a/xgy J /ceo g~/i/err 7o c'z/crzur ag5 P 4 cretic~: Cz c 8>> Z4'Z7gp~c zs-)

Cg 7'/h>Ar.P~J o a+x'bP<

7o c~Pri.- ~Zji~

Z7,774 XZ, 9yz, jAc'~r g~jjuciQ tu P~z7W~//= gp &'z -I'l,SC Z

/dcjarA Qo+fd&n/ J <(" = I 7o~~z-fcg-cd/>Jo~"

,gg'ward zA+

pc~ >IS (kE~~~~cc, Pu/egg gP'XTp~pc wZ) zap'cc (d'~c Jg +)

(z07)

Y~-y xl>>Z +Wc -Soy) <Zo x>p /yq>>

gg~110O 4 all xf~~f+~oucdca/ = + jcufz = g x',g6 = > zz i-;

57<cSX J~o'clare darS I PZ O.pg Z> I Z

( O,X+7 FOtm BR 8002.2

0

~ J lj

~ e C .

BURNS AND ROE, tNC..,

'g.C', 4 ~ + +

Q~ ~

! i'to'. Cgte agate No. Page Ma .

Growing o r Cole. Na. gtteet~at

,.By

. 'itle h k~

~ra r .. ' prov r/z~ pr i r o r~ <~a~ floor. "/~~/rr~~~rrC%7-re I: \ a \ ~ ~

a ~ ~ ~

\ ., ~

.j%rc.ni' iform 2Nj J"-7 Z tfcifin JZd dS~aS j+c,. .8 vizonfi/ ~4cC r devi ur":j ~g8. @Pc Aciv//! ~g//rrr

....,:..:: <a'c

<ac ~ f d4 />>'8/gttg HA'c/icdd/ P4// gd'+C

~'oiri7 aP...e cc(~ ion rrz-'rc "c Wg ecPrsiZr r~J. conPi<j pcs/ P~><>j'i ns>rcP<c erst>

.elr ~g'P~ Sd//<4'crt re//d dgng MP at v/dp 3certt~ c/col/a

//WrO inc

.: .: -.goZ-'Z>~'! Agchc~ P~c(gers j~rcro 4c'vwcr7/~~>'no

,: . pgvrjpg A~oc rcr(c//4 6d'd dd c1ogF oov7<u wo// f p cmz. vryno'err,jn~ gp gc Spore psucr%j,

-:ab~@.C<i5 C S'g~W 8/e/~7itt rg> d4g.rtrr+

/nfl~.rubric'~ rp ~ S~neccrq ..rr! rr C urer'rri7

</eeg n. ~W Z-Z~-'Zg<"~+~ io c~rczc77p< ~dec~~~

r/iuvt~orr7rs./ Hive) roo/ 4g/l gegz rfcjv;iir:-(~- p9cc2

-'-':. +ri@VS+I'&rC-Mge(rOOJWg(//gggrSfr irO/7>~ 'poS~r.

r/rg cs'cto pgPrpdzgArv /<jr ggjgu/qlccn retd eig ~g . /ic p ized et ji(-/"c/Aorcrrr- jrr

.-': -, ay// rw ~ sci~rP rr~.~ivrr Wee-'4 ri He~evi.>.-~J c +i.

a6O<<...

rppcv ylzcj ~

rrp pc ~/A'd<g WZ~~e/='pi

~c'l'4r u"Q'crt 79iJ + jul@ flu ./ah>S

/rr Wc ~r'Ccrgryl

/'nI 75 Werc/~C.VW wee sv'd'd ~> ~/oc<Z ore gov ops'( rcc/rhea rrrupprgcl hd'f'gp rcpt i7/

cg~ vcricr.rrr o r c')ccz c ~rc <g7 rro

..-'-Crrfc uov'&

S

-, j4 nx 8 ue Drs>rrrc'71~>

JccfAo ZZo > dig 7 rb7crrcg/e Igi AY@- /~r~icm.

.%is wo/I dcev resn Pcs gy J"$ <rsrn err A eh~ Xicclj/~)rr'(d cwWJrv~gi, gee'........

~ ~

1

~e ~

P Ae oa a ~ ~

~ a ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ a ~ ~1 form SA 800M

0 Oh VM ~ hp Oy C

~ oo

~ ~ ~

g ~

I i

~ ~ gr

~M lttIN! ~ LIOT etOOtNH ' CCIOII+o l4OT 0 SCC D+4'o 01CT eCCT 4>>TO 040 0000 ~

~

00 O PQ Ot>>OWN OCC OW4>>

~T Doe:iri4) jercr.bio ye(< t FOAL eTDILA4$ MTl etCT>> 404 S04 4bh+

1 LAYClte ICI I'OOL RCII4K OYIOI ~ AbTJ l Q.N>> i f

'I CA>> LAYCR ov 00 tll IICY IC A l ~ O ~

.v

~ ~ CL.COO'IOC .

~ I

~ at 000 ~e

~ 0 00>>0 ~0 ~

~0 ~ (~

~ q>.0>>0

~Q ho

~ ~

3-' ~ ~

~

~ Q J ~ 0>> s.l OCC LICC4. Oil>>4 ~

4Y r.l et I'.

I I

't

..~T IIC4+

. I OtnT Ar'Cg>>I IA>>CQ LTD.) ~ <<e+>>

I plr>>Yo (OO Ir )

~ II 8 9' 0 ~

POOL

~~

Q I'VOL ~ ~ p QT 41JORL4L

&tl t --xCV I'Rrnb~

',I

~

~

(TYlo) LI l4 Q4

. >>CONST JT y I CL.Slhlh"Ot Z

COO,Ct 4 'IO t tLTCot ~ ~

00 ~ O ~ 0>>

~ 000 ~ O ~

Q:.J 0 O'b llCtOItO. n ~ ~ ~

aCC CT>> Cr>>0>>$ 'oo D<l,bt>>c erat)

~0 C "I I m

gn ~ tg AYCRS

/I5'7Tt r gn 0 I

~ ~J ~ ~

II CS.LI Y"IL I R J ~a J>>o Q 0 LAYCIts ~ Ilsgv

<<~

nh ~ ~ o ~ >>C CA, I A'YCIL t fl a'A $ ~~ ~

I!0 tH ~2 CLA>cps $

II ~ i 0

0 IICX.LA'tCC '

Clttito~p( p~ I ~2lhLAVERS LAVEC,

~llf$

I I

~ 00 0 I ~ 00>>otoo 0 p4>>+ II

~ 00 ~

~IIQ 0 ~ I 4LVTr.) LIlICIC 4V

~ 00 ~ ~ ~

4ST Jr ~ oo Qi I . ~

4 LAYCILS 4 Ch. LXYCC poo LAYCILS a.. sea-A' I

~ ~ ~ ~ C/I

$ II'K ~

~ ~ ~ ~

TtltollC l 1 ~ 0 ~ ~

tO g

~

~ '

~ ~ ~

o ~:,4Cplbo 14 I4 J. ~ ~ ~ ~

~0 P

0 Ioe. 5' v I>>

~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ . ~ ~~~ >>

v 4)olg ~ . ~

~ ~ oo ~ oooo>>

~ oooo>>oooo>> J . 0 ~, ~ 0 ~

~

~

~

~ ~

~

" I

] FOR. REINlt IN 5Lh& P.KYOH~C't 0

Ct.'CL >OH I,"i~< $ 1Q

~ COI Ll MJ.

I

&ECTIOkl 030-SSO

~ op ~

I ~J o ~o I

5/Z-A I~

0 ~ ~

~ 0 + ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ \ ~

j /

I%

85 R

g

~ ~

I f,,

I

~ . // J ~ ~ ~

a . //ARRP' ÃRW~SI r 1 ~

/.

~~~g H

I i

I I ~

PI ~

~ ~

0

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

o) o r

r~ CF %mr

/

J p /r

/I jr r

/

~ ~

0 ~ ~

,W.O, No.

-

tPrIIWillg oole /d /g)d~took~/

Ic. No.

Me, Page Sheol~el No,

." Sy Cg~e Approved Thf a O ~ r

~ ~

0 la ~ ~ ~

I ~ ~

I 0 ~

~ I .l I ~ ~

~

I I~ t

~ 40 ~ ~ t 0I ~ I . 0

~

~ ~ ~

~~

0

~ J'. ~

,~

~

4  ; ~ et

~ ~

~ ~

0 ~

0

~ ~

~

~ 0 I~ ~a

~ ~

~

~a Ie

~ 14 ar ~

I ~

C,I.. CO> Ios.

~ ~

~

~ ~

V' ~

~

I

~

jul-SC///ended

..I l "L ~~

I, e, r'

~ ~

dr C~~/ifdd//o>> .,

see- 8

~

t ~

~

~

I ..

~

~ ~

e.Z PO Cu~>g I ~

. ~

i ','. j dncrgXc'Pnsm'.

..: +dan

~

~0 '~ l '0 .J ~ ' .

'gg.'z74'oy. ~ ~

/Od<<j, +de';

~ a ~

~ 0

~ ~ . ~ ~ tS fid6.

fy<<et C I CO SCe-'Ia rt d~ 0 I '

jqr gcziy>>

J, t ~ ~

~ ~ ~ e e ~

t~ ~

t ra ~

~

~

4 WzclPyo) A'))'-/rdnP~udp'~n 0

~

W~

I ~ ~

J Se '/<z~c-".

I aa ~ I ~ 1

~

t

~

~ aa

~0 rI 0

~0 I 'rt ~~

0 r t ara

~ ~

eaa ~

.d'4

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

f.'l I 0

.I.

~

~

~ ~

L d

} <<

t )

~

~ I I

~ ~

~ ~ ~

re 0

~

~ ~ I

~

r 004 ~

~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

>..L.

0 ~

I ~ I 000 ~ - at ~ ~

dEcj P'td ./.IlI.I. +/der/4 ',. +<.,e)d'7 r,n rt 0 ~ ~

t p~~/'I /Porn ~Z~~/rr/ 7<'g prrrrrr~~~,

I

~ C a

wisp.'s-,pz-z6,...!>>/hatt /fi P/me//rdna/ /t!Jc'r/ ~.~

J'~drtfrrjl8+ ~c'I/>>'r cd/7c'r~~c Pd/// rr4dr<

~cdr~gI gg 'd//d ~/j //r'd+g/n/! /c ji'>>//>>re r/r

.I::. c2ndt/:, d rccv ~r ptr",r/nor'/ //lc'rm 7hcl. '.careen . '::~r/r'. csnp urer//r ri'Zu/r/>>I drt

.o/$ d~.'; 7I /., e6/ld:lg /4 ~3'.gdlt Q, r/ 7 r/<f2 /S ',

-.Ji// ja5w<~/. /.. u'%e id'/l."r't r '..l/ /.c'dorctyp

.J'g>>ted P~" e//dr/Par/fg .: dr'd'I/ .yC'/ >/Cygne >

cyA c n.'//7/r

//. 8, y,p/~Py, 0\

dt .d d'.C'a> d//Zuni, p~<<S2. ~

e r

'vi'nt

'I ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

I ~ ~

' ' ~ 1 I

r ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

I I 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0

~ ~ ~ 0

'.,I ~0

~ ~

I S. ~

~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ l.. I

~.

l ",. j I I ,t l I t

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

I 0 I

~ ~

00 ea ~ ~ ~ e ~ ee ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~~ 0 r ~0 ~

0 a.

E

~

I 1

'l 1

l t'

r,

BURNS AND ROE, INC.

'W.O.No. ~ 4 4 Date /'o ~ Book N Page No.

Drawing ~glr fl Gale. No. S/X Sheet~of By Title ~ <'

Ch ked Z. ws r r A roved r

/Ac g~ gc 44/

/r g)f / ~S~ k)Zaire ~l~S ZZZ-'C 'aZ Z-S~

//Jfp~j//c// IJ cc c"4'/Q4'/@ @joel c'dP&~/sc'df //~+oJh J'o c+P"I ~< wc 7 'l&

Co/rc<oIcgo/r/ do Jere r< c/ou'<cog Z. $ &pep gc>Z-to~ P5c/A a)

S'/ W~j-'/u,' WZS Pk~

=, ~SF/dcl~S-= /) 7J

/-aogrr/ lo~l=O. t// Arly.S /"- jg 83'p sgz-FJHI~S/r Jg-/Z) Ci s~jo//~J Pgj

=4 ff/z,]J ~/34)) 7J =,rrxldZ<S=- /g,ZJ IC/90 WAS ZZ jc J/~Z-u

= asizfhf~

zc zi Z

f&gJ=/F/)//// ~ SC.Z/<2/ cfog Jgf lZ

~--

FEr//Jc=Fi>8=<S='a,z/xz7

//Z H/3 -Rc3 wJaq -31J$ u/'

-7n/ -/god 7Z'f O' zg z3g h274 S' $ 598 c(+>> =/,r// Pc/i

. ~~ac)

= /8 /

g PJ /rh-~ = /ii'I gq Pgr<<-- I -,u

'=

4'c z(gJ Z<~iXE8 W~gz l2Jdud lz yd p Odr fc'fNlo ~/ Cooo s= S 4+$< rgb

. Form BR 8002-2

V ~

\ f oo '

~ o os ~ o BUR SAND ROE, INC. !

WO Dra win Ne+ fru + Dele~fr /

Gale. No.

. 7 BeekNe S rd~L PegeNe.

SheetMf ef By Cel A proved

.r .~Title r r r.>r/ ee,r rr i r/Wr'r/ji'giurf +fr~rWrc'c/Heiefr/P+Wf

.'e '

rc's.merry.

rfcnrcZ /q rjilg7ifrr cd if'/rcr/7 rp rrrrcnpcur 8r Xitrpb/r ifr g gc/r rl crrdn B

i idion I' o~ pVrrlfr/rcir / dr ii-

. f

'/<c/~a~/ m~r/r'. rn.. We... VrC/err~

rj".....4. r rr-

',,:: "'-::.-:: '.:::g~

r ccrPPcn7

..3rrP gr er& rrree P cc'/ rrrrÃBBr zz W/0

'f:.':":-',.':::: ".:.".'~y'Cg jl-

= ZZM c 7= Z7r/P

~ ~ r ~ ',-. ~ e e .r ~

4,

<':, e.

&rj7g/PZ/CurrCid %

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ e Q/d Z~gr guru neer /7

~i):::,:.:

: ~ @AC

">( 4g'lee 7

~ .

e "W4/I:

=. > '77. rrr rt rcrirlrlr~/'..

'-:.:: .':as%

ggcl ..:.:. ':,...:: gfrg<gg rr'Pire/Ccrnrfr'qcFzs~ co>JiliB>>

crV~ruP~ +

/Q '.-::-:: .

hg:= d ~7 . "

Af

.':.: -: .. r.'./i W4/ t"Cghl r C",fi.

rrJ- 0

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'e

". ji>~ J/lcsI K.> Z,fdJ rcpt/rrrr

rrrC/rrr~P ~r WZZ-Z

.:. f'/rrr.'< 4Z I g>> 4'i/zJlc ),8/2 m~l ge/rrn

.:.::.'....: --: " /n squirrel c >i>I~i ZL J'Zg-Z

' 'oO'o

.j. grrrrA~ iver..

~ ~ ef ~ i o <<o J ~ ~ e ~ ~ e ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

i

~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~~ ~

~i ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~

~ S C ~~

~ I~

~~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

e ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~

~

o ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ eo ~ ~ <<ooe o oe r~ ~ I ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

e~ o

~

~ ~ 0 v ~ os 0 ~ ~ oo 0~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

e ee>> o>> ~ ~ oo ~ o ~ ~ oo <<

o p ~ .

~e ~

~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o~ o ~~ ~ >> ~ ~ o ~. ~ S o ~ ~ ~e

~ ~

~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ee ~ 'I~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ A% ~ o Form BR 80024 e

L