ML16147A178

Seabrook Station, Revision 17 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 2, Appendix 2L, Geologic Investigation of Soils and the Bedrock Surface at Unit 2 Containment Site. Seabrook Station Through Appendix 2R, Short-Term (Accident) D

ML16147A178
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/29/2016
From:	NextEra Energy Seabrook
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML16260A369	List: ML16147A155 ML16147A156 ML16147A157 ML16147A158 ML16147A159 ML16147A160 ML16147A161 ML16147A165 ML16147A169 ML16147A170 ML16147A171 ML16147A172 ML16147A174 ML16147A175 ML16147A176 ML16147A177 ML16147A178 ML16147A179 ML16147A180 ML16147A181 ML16147A182 ML16147A183 ML16147A185 ML16147A186 ML16147A187 ML16147A188 ML16147A189 ML16147A190 ML16147A191 ML16147A192 ML16147A194 ML16147A195 ML16147A196 ML16147A200 ML16147A202 ML16260A121 ML16260A122 ML16260A123 ML16260A124 ML16260A125 ML16260A126 ML16260A127 SBK-L-16048, Revision 17 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 8 - Electric Power. Redacted Version
References
SBK-L-16048
Download: ML16147A178 (218)

Text

UPDATED FSAR APPENDIX 2L GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION OF SOILS AND THE BEDROCK SURFACE AT UNIT 2 CONTAINMENT SITE.STATIONThe information contained in this appendix was not revised, but has been extracted from the original FSAR and is provided for historical information.

GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS ofSOILS AND THE BEDROCK SURFACE at2SITESTATIONPUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW HAMPSHIRE October 24, 1974 CONTENTS1.Purpose of I nvc stigations 2.Borings Investigationsto Boring 3.Trench Excavations 4.Bedrock* Exposed in Trenches A.FaultingB.Jointing5.Unconsolidated Glacial Deposits 6.Conclusions Figure 1Public Service Company of NewSite Survey Figure 2Geologic Map Unit 2 Trenches Figure 3Soils ProfilesUnit 2 Trenches Appendix IBoring Log Boring Appendix IIGeotechnical Report, Reactor Borings Geotechnical Engineers, Inc.

Page12334456 Geological ofSoils and the Bedrock Surface Unit 2 Containment Site StationNew Hampshire August and early September, 1974, four trenches in length were excavated to bedrock on anconfiguration across the area of the Unit 2 containment site at theStation,Hampshire.

The bedrock in the floor of these trenches is gneissoid quartz diorite of the pluton, which is commonly fractured at than 3* intervals in this area by an intersecting pattern of angle and low-angle joints. The most prominent and continuous joint se; within the containment area appears to b one which strikes dips steeply to the north, and is by smooth coated joint surfaces.

Unconsolidated overburden in the area ranges to a maximum of 16* in thickness, and is characterized by a deposit of sand-silt-cobble till locally overlain by a blanket of fine sand. Glacial-marine clay lies between the till and wash to the east of the containment. covered by sand, the upper surface of the till is beveled to a gently undulating, planar erosion surface upon which rest isolated boulders ranging toin diameter.

No evidence of Recent fault displacement was observed on the surface in the Unit 2 trenches. The sub-planar contact horizon, which occurs in three of the four trenches, shows no evidence in these areas of static or dynamic deformation.

1. Purpose of Investigations Bedrock at the site of the proposed Unit containment is largely obscured by glacial till, glacial-marine clay andsand. Bor-ingdrilled in December 1972 to a depth of 159.2* on the vertical centerline of Unit 2, encountered thinof structural weakness in the diorite bedrock at intervals between elevations -75* and These zones are characterized bychlorite-rich high-angleandclosely jointed zones in chlorite-rich of the bedrock. High-angle joints indip fromtoand most commonly dip Trenching investigations over the Unit 2 site werein1974 for precautionaryto ascertain the of thedeposits in the urea and to examine the nature of jointing in the underlying bedrock surface.

2.Investigations Subsequent to Boring During April 1974, Eoringwas drilled to a depth of 97.8*

at a iocatior, 33*(True) of the centerline of2 (see Appen-dix I for boring log) . This boring encounteredwith minor chlorite coatings a variouswith a zone of smooth coated joints-64 to -79* elevations. These joints diptoand frequently show pyrite crystal growths over the chlorite surfaces.

During 1974, four inclined borings, and 18, were down around the periphery of the Unit 2 containment site to develop information relative to engineering of the containment Logs and orientation data for these borings are presented in a July 31, 1974 report prepared by Engineers, Inc., Winchester, Massachusetts (see II) .

Boringsandalong the west and south edges of the containment, respectively, encountered very few chlorite-coated joints.polished joint atdepth inappears likely to re-present the projection to depth of a prominent chlorite-coated angle joint which is observed on the bedrock surface to trend through the centerline of Unit 2. There are no anomalously polished joints in Boring Boringdrilled northerly across the east edge of the con-tainment site, encountered polished chlorite-coated joints intermittently at depths of137* and 152-156*. Some of these joints appear tothe prominent east-west joint which trends through the centerline of Unit 2. This prominent joint appears to split into a number of high-angle branches as it passes east into the zone of influence of Boring

,and(see Figure 1) .

encounteredindividual joints havecoatings.anomalously polished or richfound,in thedepth drilled.

injoint mapping of the bed-rock surfaceBoringsanddo not indicate the presence of a through-going faultinthe area of Unit 2. These borings do appear,tothat the most prominent orchlorite-coated joint system in thearea trends (True) through the central part of theand dipsto the north.

3. Trench Excavations During August 1974, four trenches were excavated with a back-hoe to bedrock across the 'Unit 2 site, to form anwhose legs are each203' long and intersect at right angles at the vertical centerline of the Unit. The legs trend approximately True North,Ground surfacein the area oftrenches range from aboutto. The elevation of the bedrock surface in the floor of the trenches rangesabout -3'Stationin the East trench toat Stationin the South trench. Profiles of the bedrock face along the centerlines of the trenches, as surveyed by Public Service Company 'of Newpersonnel, are shown on Figuresand 3.4.Exposed in the Trenches Figure 2 shows by half-tonethe areas of bedrock mapped by J. R. Rand in the several trenches. Although the trenches were to bedrock, throughout, the bedrock in theelevation areas too obscured byand mud to permit the observation of joints or other pertinentfeatures. Although much of the bedrock surface is rough and irregular due to glacial plucking or breaking by the backhoe, wide areas of the bedrock are locally smooth and show glacial striations.

Throughout the area exposed by the trenches the bedrock con-sists predominantly of gneissoid, sometimes quartzitic, quartz diorite which ranges in grain size from fine- to orientations:

StrikeDipStrikeDipStrikeDipNoofof'bedrock surface or the overlying glacialin thebreccia fab-ric,isin drill corein the Unit 2 area and throughout thearea, can beon a smooth 5'ofi nThis breccia is dips steeply, is annealedcompact,andof the glaciated bedrock surface.

B. Jointing on Figure 2, jointing in the bedrock is closely spaced 2 containment area,a:andat less than 3' joints (greater thandips) occur in three prominent At the centerline of Unit 2, the most continuoustrend is This set is seen----tohavechlorite-coated surfaces. __Thejointstos e t ,thejoints arestriations whichdirections of Low-angle joints (less thanclips) appear to be somewhat more than high-angle joints, and occurinprominent orientations:

to t'ne north.

characteristic&v short

__lent.StrikeStrikeStrikeand SENE andand terminate against the occur onof p l a n a r, showstriations, with no consistent striation orientation from joint to joint.

Fromtoin the East trench, the bedrock is subject to closely-spaced jointing, and theof the bed-rocksufficiently fractured toexcavation by t'ne backhoe.

Joints in this areand smooth, and show some polishing on conchoidal surfaces. Thin gray clay fillings occur lo-cally in discontinuous patchessome joints.showno preferredand no strike direction could be determined for this zone.

5. Unconsolidated Glacial Deposits As shown on trench profiles on Figure 3, cobble till directly overlies the bedrock surface throughout the area exposed by the four trenches. Tillto ground surface through-out the length of the South trench, and rises locally to ground sur-face in the North trench and in the area of the Unit 2 centerline.

the till does not rise to ground surface in the trenches, the upper surface of theis a gently undulating, sub-planar erosion surface on which a layer of medium-fine sand.

At the east end of the East trench, a sequence of interbedded, layered marine clays and sands lies between the and the over-lyingsand iayer. At scattered intervals in the West, North and East trenches, isolated boulders ranging toin diameter lie enclosed insand and rest on the upper surface of the till.

Subsequent to backhoe excavation of the trenches, the contact horizon between the till and overlyingsand was exposed and cleaned by hand throughout the length of its exposure in the West, North and East trenches. The contact was inspected and photographed by J.Rand throughout its exposed length in these trenches, and its elevation determined by transit leveling along bothof each of these trenches. The extent of thesand deposits in the trench and the elevations of thecontact from place to place are shown on Figure 2.

featuresobservedthiscontact in any of the trenches to suggest either static or dynamic deformation sub-sequent to deposition of the sand on the beveled till surface. Through-out the zone of close and slippery bedrock jointing between Stations andin the East trench, the overlyinghorizonis sub-planar and continuous.

Glacioverlying the bedrock surfacetheSouth trcrich are limited to unsorted, non-layered sand-silt-cobble till.locallya crude stratification, and nowhere exhibit structures suggestive of podeformation.

6.Examination of the overburden, bedrock surface and bedrock joints in the Unit 2 trench excavations has revealed several distinc-tive featuresare indicative of the tectonic stability of the bed-rock at the site:

A.Intermittentratified horizons in the glacial till are not displaced over joints in the underlying bedrock.

B.The undulating, sub-planar erosion surface at the top of the till is through-going and not subject to structural offsets or other deformations suggestive of faulting, C.Local exposures of glacially-scoured bedrock surfaces are smooth across joints in the bedrock.

D.Slickenside striations on closely-spaced bedrock joints ex-hibit widely divergent orientations, with no preferred attitude or orientation.

John R. Rand Consulting Geologist FIGURES

,o7BOULDERS ON TILL SURFACE OUTiASH AND BEACH SAND E SAND.SIL1

.C2EBLE TILLLT: BENCIC IN TRENCH FLOCR SURVEYED ELEV. -.3,ASE CF SAN TOP OF TREHCH BATE oF TAENT 8 SL),**'\letak*,5e:frock ccpbisis prederninactly of pissoid Newburgort Vetdiorite, fine-to mediurr.graine(

locally ccarse hornblende

\diorite, No diabase dikes WMnoted in the trench floor.PAC URVICE COUNAY Cr KW HAIPPIli

&AIWA 51A10 GEOLOGIC MAP UNIT 2 TRENCHES I Ow Codui MIMI 10 UPDATED FSAR APPENDIX 2M GEOTECHNICAL REPORTPRELIMINARY REPORT. COMPRESSION TESTS ON STRUCTURAL BACKFILL AND SAND CEMENT,STATIONThe information contained in this appendix was not revised, but has been extracted from the originaland is provided for historical information.

PRELIMINARY REPORT

'COMPRESSION TESTS ON STRUCTURAL BACKFILL AND SAND-CEMENT STATIONJanuary 24, 1978 Prepared for PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE andUNITED ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS, INC.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.

1017 Main Street Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 Project 77386 1.INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Scope

1.3 Schedule

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES 2.DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL BACKFILL AND RESULTS OF INDEX TESTS

2.1 Description

2.2 Grain-Size Distribution Tests

2.2.1 Procedure

2.2.2 Results 2.3 Specific Gravity Test 2.3.1 Procedure.2.3.2 Results 3.MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATION TEST 4.CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED, S, TRIAXIAL TESTS

4.1 Procedure

4.2 Stress-Strain Curves For S Tests 4.3 Moduli and Poisson's Ratios For S Tests

5.1 Procedure

5.2 Stress-Strain Curves ForTests5.3 Moduli and Poisson's Ratio ForTests6.TESTS ON SAND-CEMENT 7.COEFFICIENT OFREACTION7.1 Structural Backfill NOTATIONS TABLESFIGURESAPPENDIX ASTRESS-STRAIN CURVES FOR DRAINED TESTS APPENDIX BSTRESS-STRAIN CURVES FOR UNDRAINED TESTS Page No.243.1 Procedure

3.2 Results

5. CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED,TRIAXIAL TESTS 910101344 LIST OF TABLES Table 1Schedule of Tests on Sand-Cement Table 2Consolidated-DrainedTriaxial Tests Structural BackfillBeard Pit 5 Sand Table 3Consolidated-UndrainedTriaxial Tests Structural BackfillBeard Pit 5 Sand Table 4Unconfined Tests on 2-in. Cube Samples of Sand-Cement, 5% Cement .

TableCompression Tests on 2.8-in.-diameter Samples of Sand-Cement, 5% Cement.*To be added when tests are complete. 2. DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL BACKFILL AND RESULTS OF INDEX TESTS 2.1 Description Beard Pit No. 5 soil is a yellowish-brown gravelly sand containing about two percent fines.

2.2 Grain-Size Distribution Tests Two sieve analyses were performed.The grain-size dis-tribution of Beard Pit No. 5 soil as received was first

, determined. The entire sample wassieved on a NO. 4 (4.75 mm) mesh and a grain-size distribution of soil passing the No. 4 mesh was determined.The minus No. 4 mat-erial was used for triaxial testing.

2.2.1 Procedure

To determine the grain-size distribution of the original soil, a representative sample was selected, weighed and air-dried.Thesample was sieved on a mesh and ag-gregates retained were removed, weighed and separately sieved. A representative sample of aggregates passing the mesh was weighed, oven-dried and washed on a No. 200 mm) sieve.The soil retained on the No. 200 sieve was oven-dried, weighed and mechanically sieved.

The entire quantity of soil was then sieved on a No. 4 (4.75 mm) mesh and aggregates re-tained were removed. A representative sample of soil passing the No. 4 mesh was oven-dried and washed on a No. 200mm) sieve.Soilretained on the No. 200 sieve was subsequently oven-dried, weighed and mechanically sieved to determine the grain-size distribution of the soil to be used for compaction and triaxial testing.2.2.2 Results The grain-size distribution curve of Beard Pit No. 5 soil is presented in Fig. 1.

The grain-size distribution curve of the soil passing the No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve is presented in Fig. 2. 4.CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED, S, TRIAXIAL TESTS Six S tests were performed on compacted specimens of Beard Pit No. 5 soil.Only soil passing a No. 4 sieve was used.Specimens were compacted to 90% and 95% of the maxi-mum dry unit weight as determined by ASTM Designation D1557, Method A (Section 3).Tests were performed at effective consolidation pressures of 0.5, 2.0 and 6.0 ksc (7.1, 28.4, 85.3 psi).Test specimens typically had a diameter of and a height of 6.6-in.

4.1 Procedure

A predetermined quantity of air-dried soil was thoroughly mixed with distilled water to a water content of 14%.Themixture was divided in seven portions of equal weight and placed in covered containers.

The compaction was performed in seven layers within a split mold. The mold was lined with a rubber membrane which was held tightly to the inside of the mold by a small vacuum.

The first soil layer was placed in the mold and leveled off.

A l-psi surcharge was lowered onto the soil and vibrated vertically using an Ingersoll-Rand pneumatic hammer.Thehammer provided low frequency-high amplitude vibrations.Thelayer was compacted to a predetermined height to achieve the desired unit weight.The surcharge was removed and the soil surface scarified. Subsequent layers were added and compacted in the same manner to form a test specimen of the desired size and unit weight.

The mold and specimen assembly was then mounted on the bottom platen of a triaxial cell. A vacuum of approximately of Hg was applied to the specimen to provide support to the specimen. The mold was removed and the diameter and height of the specimen were measured. A second membrane was placed around the specimen and O-rings attached to seal the membranes to the top and bottom platens.

The triaxial cell was subsequently assembled and flooded with water. A chamber pressure of 0.5 ksc was applied and the vacuum released to distilled water at atmospheric pressure.

When the vacuum had dissipated, distilled water was permeated through the specimen to improve saturation by displacing air voids. A back pressure of approximately 10 ksc was utilized to complete saturation.B-values of 0.90 or higher were measured.

..a.normalized shear stress on theplane,vs. axial strain, and The specimen was then consolidated to the desired effective consolidation pressure. Volume changes during consolidation were measured by monitoring the flow of pore water through the drainage system.

The test specimen was subsequently loaded axially at a constant rate of strain of approximatelyDuringshear the specimen was allowed to drain through both ends.

Volume changes were measured by monitoring the flow of pore water. Axial loads were measured with a proving ring and deformations were monitored with an axial dial.The testwas terminated at 20% axial strain.The specimen was then removed and oven-dried to determine the weight of solids.

4.2 Stress-Strain Curves For S Tests Results of the consolidated-drained triaxial, S, tests are plotted in terms of

b. volumetric strain,VS. axial strain.

The results of individual S tests are presented in Appen-dix A and Table 2 contains the details of each S test performed.

A summary of S tests performed on specimens initially com-pacted to a specific 90% compaction are plotted in Fig. 4, and 95% compaction in Fig. 5.

4.3and Poisson's Ratios For S Tests Figs. 6 and 7 are plots of secant modulus and Poisson's ratio, respectively, as a function of axial strain from the triaxial S tests.

Fig. 8 (top) is a plot of the initial tangent modulus and the secant modulus at 50 of the compressive strength versus the effective consolidation pressure,At the bottom in Fig. 8 is a similar plot for the values of Poisson's ratios. 6. TESTS ON SAND-CEMENT We herewith forward results of tests on 2-in. cube specimens of sand-cement, so that thewill be avail-able early in this preliminary form.

In Fig. 13 are plotted the stress-strain curves for un-confined tests on three replicate specimens cured for 7 days, and in Fig. 14 are the stress-strain curves for unconfined tests on three replicate specimens cured for 28 days. De-tails of these tests are given in Table 4.

The sand-cement specimens were prepared using the same sand and cement that were used at thesite for test batches.The mixtures are shown in Figs. 13'and 14.

It may be seen that the strength increased rapidly with cure time. A strength increase that is logarithmic with time would lead to the predition of an average strength of 180 psi for the specimens cured modulus would increase to 33,800 psi.

Similarly, the average

7. COEFFICIENT OFREACTION7.1 Structural Backfill To determine reasonable values for the coefficient of reaction of buried pipes, the following procedure may be used:

1.Determine whether the loading condition is "drained" or "undrained." That is, will volume changes take place during loading (drained), or will volume changes not occur during loading (undrained) .

2.Establish the allowable diametral strain of the pipe. That is, select a diameter-strain that the pipe can withstand with an adequate factor of safety. That strain may be as low as 0.1% for stiff, brittle pipes,to 3% or 4%

for flexible pipes.

3.Compute the vertical effective stress in the ground at the level of the middle (springline) of the pipe.

4.Choose whether the expected degree of compaction of the structural backfill is 90% Modified or 95% Modified.

5.Given the above data, enter the appropriate table below, and interpolate to obtain a value ofi.e., the coefficient of times the pipe diameter (in psi).

6.Divideby the pipe diameter to obtain the value ofin pci (pounds/cubic inch).

TABLE 2CONSOLIDATED-DRAINEDTRIAKIAL TESTS STRUCTURAL BACKFILLBEARD PIT 5 SAND STATIONPercent Compaction, PEffectiveBAt Max. Compressive StressModuli ASTM D1557, AConsoli-ValueDeviator AxialVolumeInitial At 50%

InIn Triaxial CelldationStressStrain Strain Compac-InitialAftertionConsoli-MolddationMax.Stress0Stresspcf--13.8100.7s213.8100.9s313.8101.0s413.8106.413.5106.3S613.7106.3Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 77386 23, 1978pcfksckscpsip si100.8100.889.990.090.00.500.971.641.310.416,2604,0500.310.43101.0101.590.190.290.62.000.955.882.380.0814,22011,0900.170.23101.3102.390.290.491.46.000.9515.057.28-0.6623,75018,7700.220.23106.4106.495.095.095.00.500.952.341.310.9213,5109, 6000.330.35106.4106.894.995.095.32.000.977.960.9221,33016,1400.170.27106.4107.394.995.095.86.000.9519.354.000.3429,15024,7400.200.27Test InitialDry Unit Weights No.WaterInIn Triaxial Cell ContentInitialAfterConsoli-MolddationPoisson's Ratio Initial At 50%

Stress3ca STATIONSTRUCTURAL BACKFILLBEARD PIT 5 SAND Effective ASTMA Consoli-Value Deviator AxialEffectiveInitialAt 50%InIn Triaxial CelldationMinorCompac- InitialStressPrincipaltionConsoli-StressMolddationTest InitialDry Unit Weights Percent Compaction, P 13.7101.0101.2101.290.290.490.40.500.966.869.532.635,8303,13013.5100.6100.6100.989.889.890.12.000.907.948.333.1112,7305,760ii313.8100.8101.1102.290.090.391.26.000.9911.326.69.4.4638,11018,63013.6101.0101.2102.390.290.491.36.000.9512.245.734.7724.46019,05013.8106.3106.5106.594.995.195.10.500.9519.9113.837.2311,8707,180ii513.6106.3106.3106.694.994.995.22.000.9521.8714.537.9319,7708,39013.5106.3106.4107.294.995.095.76.000.9627.8811.58io.3544,01014,220Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project77386January 23,1978p pcf cfpcf- ksc -ksckscpsiCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL TESTS No.WaterInIn Triaxial Cell Content Compac- Initial AfterConsoli-MolddationBAt Maximum Compressive UnitWeightWetUnconfined StrengthpsiStrainModulusAtofPeakElasticity*

psiCureTimedaysTestNo.TABLE 4UNCONFINED TESTS ON 2-IN. CUBE SAMPLES OF SAND-CEMENT, 5% CEMENT STATION77-1124.066.70.8010,600123.972.50.9210,110126.285.30.8313,650Avg 74.82828-1127.4141.60.67126.2133.80.77126.8130.00.87Avg 135.0 Avg 11,450 33,33019,13022,760Avg 25,070 9090-290-3*Modulus computed for the straight line portion of the stress-strain curve, neglecting any curvature at origin, which may be affected by initial seating strains.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 77386

.January 23, 1978 FIGURES Lab. 4-3 rev. 0 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHESU.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERSHYDROMETER 50050IOI0.5GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS COBBLESSANDCOARSEFINECOARSEMEDIUMIFINEI IGRAIN-SIZEDISTRIBUTION TriaxialTestsBEARD PIT NO. 5 SOILStructural BackfillProject77386Jan.23,1978Fig.1New Hampshire Public Service Company of Engineers Inc.

Winchester,Massachusetts Lab. 4 - 3 rev. 028 May 74 500100505I0.50.10.05GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS ISILT OR CL AY COARSEFINECOARSEMEDIUMIProject 77306 Jan. 23, 1978Fig. 2II\-10go-20I-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJ - 7 0809020IO0IIIIIU.S. STANDARO SIEVE OPENING IN INCHESU.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERSHYDROMETER 64 3I1420 30 40 50 70200II*IIIIIIIIIIIIIII\IIIIIIITriaxial Tests StructuralBackfillGRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION BEARD PIT NO. 5 SAND NO. 4 MATERIAL Public Service Company of New Hampshire Geotechnical Engineers Inc. .

Winchester, Massachusetts WATER CONTENT,As mixed before compaction 0 After compaction 1051 1 31 1 11 0 91 0 704122 024TESTSSTRUCTURAL BACKFILL MOISTUREDENSITYRELATION TEST BEARD PIT No.5 SOIL January1978 Fig. 3 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PROJECT 77386 ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77366 DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

43024681416182006.0AXIAL STRAIN, %

ENGINEERS INC.

VI NCH ESTER, M ASSACHUS ETTS 2.51.5.1.0TESTs40.5s52.0S66.006420-2024681416 1820AXIAL STRAIN,%

TRIAXIAL TESTS SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAM SSV IR

^EUC T U R A L B A C K F I L L DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

5PROJECT 77386 ISUMMARY OF DRAINED TRIAXIAL TESTS COMPACTION ENGINEERS INC AXIAL STRAIN, F O RW0III30,0002 5,00020,00090% Modified Compaction 10,000.IIIII00.40.60.81.01.21.42.0IIIW000.40.60.81.21.41.61.82.0IIIII95Compact ion IPUBLIC SERVICE gCOMPANYOF NEW TARPUSHfI2RET U R ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77386JANUARYTESTSA LB A C K F I L L DRAINED LOADING 1.61.82.000.20.40.60.81.01.21.4AXIAL STRAIN, TESTS90% Modified Compaction 7.1psi0.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.62.0III95% Modified Compaction psi .PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PROJECT 77386 JANUARYFig. 7,ENGINEERS INC.

MASSACHUSETTS 1.21 .o0.80.60.40.201.2.o0.80.60.40.20STRUCTURAL BACKFILL POISSONS RATIOS FOR DRAINED LOADING 10020300E modulus compaction Emodulus50%peakcompaction E modulus 95% compaction E modulus at peokcompaction 95% compaction vat 50%peak95%90% compaction at 5 00.50.40.30.20.10kg(Multiply by 14.22 for psi)

SERVICE COMPANY qF NEI HAMPSHIRE CENGINEERS INC.

YINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS TRIAXIAL TESTS SUMMARY OF FSTRUCTURAL ILLDRAINEDTESTSPROJECT 77386 FIG. 8 4678910TEST NO.0.502.0002468141618206.006.00AXIAL STRAIN , %

SERVICE COMPANY SUMMARY OF TRIAXIAL TESTS OF NEW H'WWHIJRCET UR A LB A C K F I L L UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TESTS 90% COMPACTION ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER,1977 FIG.

9 TEST NO.*3c kg/cm2kg/cm2R40.50R52.00R66.0006421214R6STRESS-STRAIN

R63024681012141618 20AXIAL STRAIN,%

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS TRIAXIAL TESTS STRUCTURAL BACK FILL PROJECT 77386 SUMMARY OF CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TESTS 95% COMPACTION DECEMBER,1977 FIG. 10 SECANT MODULUS,psiundrained loading SECANT MODULUS, Es, , psi undrained loading0DXriI I.II ENGINEERS INC.

• WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77386DECEM 8FIG.(Multiply by 14.22 for psi) 00 90% Compact ion 90% Compaction Compaction 95% Compaction NOTE POISSONS RATIO FOR UNDRAINED TESTS MAY BE TAKEN AS 0.49 TO 0.50

,12080400I2345AXIAL STRAIN Sand-Cement Mixture (by weight):

1 part cement 16.18 parts sand (oven-dry) 2.79 parts water Prepared as per ASTM Specimens Tested:

2 in. cube specimens 7 daysUnit weight after cure 7-1 124.0 7-2 123.9 7-3 126.2 Strain control. loading at 1.5 mm/min PublicCompanyof New Hampshire Engineers Inc.

Winchester,Massachusetts COMPRESSION TESTS 7-DAY CURE 5% CEMENT January 1978Fig. 13Triaxial Tests StationSand-CementBackfillProject 77386

.,AXIAL STRAIN Sand-Cement Mixture (by weight):

1part cement 16.18 parts sand (oven-dry) 2.79 parts water Prepared as per ASTM Specimens Tested:

2 in. cube specimens Cured 28 days Unit weight after cure 28-1 127.4 28-2 126.2 28-3 126.8 Strain control loading at 1.5 Public Service Company of New Hampshire Triaxial Tests COMPRESSION TESTS Sand-CementBackfill28-DAY CURB Station5% CEMENT Geotechnical Engineers Inc.

Winchester,Massachusetts Project 77386 January 1978Fig. 14..

APPENDIX A SERVICE COMPANY PROJECT 77386 ENGINEERS INC.

10121618201.0VOLUMESTRESS STRAIN AXIAL STRAIN,%

TEST90% Compaction TRIAXIAL TESTS ITRAL BACK F I L L CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

OF NEW HAMVTHIRITC T 2.50.5STRESS STRAIN 002468101214161820AXIAL STRAIN,%

TEST S290% Compaction= 2.0PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY TRIAXIAL TESTS OF ^EW RHAUMPCS4IR15 R A LB A C K F I L L GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS INC.PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

A21.50-0.5VOLUME STRAIN CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST S2 2.5STRESS-1.5,VOLUME-2.0.02468101214161820AL STRAIN,%

TEST S3 90 Compaction3c = 6.0SERVICE COMPANY CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TESTS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TRIAXIAL TEST STRUCTURAL BACKFILL ENGINEERS INC.

PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER, 1977 2.51.51.00.5064202VOLUME STRAIN 681012141618AXIAL STRAIN,%

TEST S495% Compaction3c = 0.5T R I A X I A L^aSERVICE COMPANY ICONSOLIDATED-DRAINED OF NEW HAMPSHIRE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL PROJECT 77386 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS INC .

YINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS DECEMBER, 1977 1.5.1.00.5 . .STRESS0VOLUME STRAIN 2461012141620AXIAL STRAIN,%

TEST95% Compaction2.0SERVICE COMPANY CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TESTS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TEST,STRUCTURAL BACKFILL ENGINEERS INC.

PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER, 6PROJECT 77386I DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

A2.5STRESS STRAIN

-1.024681012741618 20VOLUME STRAIN AXIAL STRAIN,%

TEST S695% Compaction= 6.0PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

,SEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS INC.1 TRIAXIAL TESTS STR UCTURAL BACKLL 4.03.02.0I>3=1.64E6260 psi4050 psi.1.00.60.40.200.40.81.21.6AXIAL STRAIN,%

TEST90% Compaction= 0.5CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST Expanded Scales PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER,1977 FIG.

A7ENGINEERS INC.

MASSACHUSETTS SERVICE COMPANYOF NEW HAMPSHIRE TESTSSTRUCTURAL BACKFILL 8.0= 5.883E014220 psi 11090 psi 6.04.0I2.00-0.1-0.2-0.3-0.400.81.21.62.0AXIAL STRAIN,%

TEST S290% Compaction= 2.0SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE T R I A X I A L TESTS STRUCTURAL BACKFILL ENGINEERS INC.

VVINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST S2 Expanded Scales PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER,!977 FIG.

AXIAL STRAIN TEST S390% Compaction6.0PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

,STRUCTURAL BACKFILL PROJECT 77386 TESTSTEST S3Expanded Scales ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 3= 2.34E013510 psi E9600 psi= 0.3350= 0.3500.40.81.2162.0AXIAL STRAIN TEST S495% Compaction= 0.5SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TESTSSTRUCTURAL BACKFILL ENGINEERS INC.

MASSACHUSETTS CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST S4 Expanded Scales PROJECT 77386IFIG.

TEST95% Compaction3c = 2.0TESTSSKTRUCFTURALILLPROJECT 77386 CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST S5 Expanded Scales F I G .SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HBAMPSAHIRECMASSACHUSETTS ENGINEERS INC.

-0.20.40.2AXIAL STRAIN,%

32133016140=7.96kg/cm-psipsi8.062.I4.

I-0.1-0.3,1 6 . 012.04.08.0 .AXIAL STRAIN TEST95% Compaction= 6.0PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER,1977 FIG.

CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST Expanded Scales PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ENGINEERS INC.

NINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS TESTSSTRUCTURAL BACKFILL APPENDIX 246814161820AXIAL STRAIN , %

-SSPA81012141618TEST90%Compaction a3c1412108606PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE STRUCTURAL TRIAXIALPROJECTTESTSBACKFILL77386IDECEMBER,1977 CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST 3.53.02.51.5STRESS PA 0.5TEST90% Compaction a 3c002468101214161820AXIAL STRAIN , %

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TESTS OFSHf %P ^ H^R f U R TRIAXIAL TEST A LB A C K F I L L ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER,1977 FIG.

B2 1.25"1.0DO.750.25STRESS-S TRAIN SPA01.00.500.751.001.251.501.752.002.252.TEST90% Compaction 6.0.. 2524681214161820AXIAL STRAIN ,

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HOMPSMIRE CPROJECT 77386 DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

T R I A X I A L TESTS STKRUCTFURALILLCONSOLIDATED-UIJDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS STRESS PA STRESS0.250.500.751.001.251.501.752.002.25TESTCompaction 3c6.002468101214161820AXIAL STRAIN ,

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIALTESTSOF NEW HAMPSHIRE TRIAXIAL TEST BACKFILLSTRUCTURAL

,ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS FIG. B4PROJECT 77386 s TRESS PA STRESS-S05101520253035404550TEST90% Compaction a 3c0024681012 14 1618 20AXIAL STRAIN, %

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY TRIAXIAL TESTS CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED O F N E ^l 0 A LY PCS1^I RUE R ATRIAXIAL TEST LB A C K F I L L ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

B5 S ESS PA-S10121416TEST90% Compaction a 3c= 2.02468101214161820AXIAL STRAIN , %

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY TRIAXIAL TESTS OS TF RNEU CHATP UHIRREA LTRIAXIAL TEST B A C K F I L L ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS FIG.PROJECT 77386 0.502468lo14161820AXIAL STRAIN ,

ENGINEERS INC..

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS 00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.PROJECT 77386 TEST90% Compaction 6.0DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

BSTRESS PA TRIAXIAL TESTS STRUCTURAL BACKFILL PROJECT 77386 0.40 . 81.21.6AXIAL STRAIN, 4.01.03 . 020TEST90% Compaction

= 0.53cCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST EXPANDED SCALES PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 4.03.0bI20.1.0AXIAL STRAIN, %

TEST90% Compaction a 3c = 2.0PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY TRIAXIAL TESTS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TRIAXIAL TEST STRUCTURAL BACKFILL EXPANDED SCALES ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS1PROJECT 77386DECEMBER,1977 CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST EXPANDED SCALES DECEMBER,1977 8.00.40.81.2AXIAL STRAIN,.%

TEST90% Compaction ,

6.0PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE E N G I N WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS T R I A X I A L TESTS STRUCTURAL BACKFILL E E R SI N C;PROJECT 77386 AXIAL STRAIN, ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER,1977 FIG 00.40.81.21.68.0TEST90% Compaction

= 6.0.6.03c PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED T R I A X I A L TESTS TRTAXTALISTRUCTURAL BACKFILL SCALESTEGEOTECHNICAL CHNICA L ENGI ENGINERSNEER SINC.

INC.WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77386DECEMBER,1977 AXIAL STRAIN, 8.02.0TEST90% Compaction

.3c= 0.5 00.40.81.21.62.0AXIAL STRAIN, 20164I12TEST90% Compaction 3 c = 2.0PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ENGINEERS WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS TRIAXIAL TESTSCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST STRUCTURAL BACKFILLEXPANDED SCALES PROJECT 77386IDECEMBER, 1977 AXIAL STRAIN, 20.016.04.012.08.000.81.21.62.0TEST90% Compaction

= 6.0 kg/cm.CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST EXPANDED SCALES DECEMBER, 1977 3c ENGINEERS INC.

1017 MAIN STREETWINCHESTERMASSACHUSETTS 01890729-1625February 14, 1978 Project 77386 File No. 2.0 Mr. JohnPublic Service Co. of New Hampshire 1000 Elm Street 11th Floor Manchester, NH 03105

Subject:

Interim Test Results on Sand-Cement Backfill Station

Reference:

Preliminary Report, Compression Tests on Structural Backfill and Sand-Cement Station,January 24, 1978 Dear Mr.The purpose of this letter is to present data on moduli deter-mined on sand-cement backfill at the request of United Engineers and Constructors Inc. The data herein supplements the data in the reference and will be incorporated in the completed version of that report.Themodulus values were submitted to Mr. Pate1 ofby telephone on February 13, 1978.

The stress strain curves for three unconfined compression tests on cylindrical specimens are shown in the enclosed Fig. 15 and the test data are summarized in the enclosed Table 5.

The following values of the coefficient ofreactionwere computed for the cube and cylindrical specimens cured for 28 days..

Mr. JohnFebruary 14, 1978 FOR SAND-CEMENT BACKFILL 28-DAY CURE Tabulated values are in psi Effective VerticalStress at Allowable Diameter Strain, Springline0.020.10.30.5CUBE SPECIMENS100,000CYLINDRICALSPECIMENS200,00089,00060,00036,000The stress strain curves for the cylindrical specimens show an initial straight line portion withhigh modulus of elasticity.

At axial strains of about 0.03% there is a break in the curves and a second straight line is followed up to near the peak strength.Thetangent modulus of this second straight line portion of the curves is about one-third of the initial modulus.Fig. 16 shows the variation of the secant modulus with axial strain for the unconfined tests on cylin-drical specimens.

Seating problems occurred in the tests on the cube specimens, as seen in Figs. 13 and 14 of the above reference, and thus the high initial modulus observed for the cylindrical samples was not observed for the cubes. However, the second straight line slope for the cylindrical specimens in Fig. 15 is in good agreement with the straight line portion of the curves for the cube specimens.The compressive strength of the cube specimens is somewhat higher than that of the cylindrical specimens, probably as a result of the more significant end restraint of the cube specimens.For these two reasons we feel that the results of tests on cubes and cylinders are consistent with each other, but that the results for tests on cylinders are more reliable and should be used to establish moduli ofreaction.

Mr. JohnFebruary 14, 1978 We have also provided by telephone various friction coefficients and estimates of shear wave velocities in the compacted soil. These data will be confirmed in writing at a later date.

Sincerely yours, Steve J. Poulos Principal Encl.cc:R.YAEC w/l encl.

D.w/l encl.

A. Desai,w/l encl.

Confining Compressive StrainInitialStressStrengthAtModulus of PeakElasticity kscpsi%psiCureTestUnitTimeNo.WeightWetdaysTABLE 5 COMPRESSION TESTS ON 2.8-IN.-DIAMETER.SAND-CEMENT SPECIMENS, 5% CEMENT STATION2828-O-l126.20.002828-O-2124.80.002828-O-3124.10.0091.00.6588.8.0.58106.10.8075,00052,20034,30095.3Avg 50,500 Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 77386 February 7, 1978 StationTriaxial Tests Project 77386 February 1978Fig. 15Engineers Inc.

Winchester, Massachusetts Public Service Company of Sand-CementBackfillSpecimens Tested:

specimens 28-day cure Unconfined tests Strain control loading at 1.10.81.6AXIAL STRAIN ,

Sand-Cement Mixture:

Xa1part cement 16.18 parts sand (oven-dry) 2.79 parts water COMPRESSION TESTS 2.8-IN.-DIAMETER SPECIMEN 5% CEMENT, 28-DAY CURE Winchester, Massachusetts Project 77386 600 .00.20.40.81.01.2STRAIN AT PEAK AVERAGE= ksAXIAL STRAIN,

,Triaxial Tests Sand-CementBackfillStationPublic Service Company of New Hampshire Geotechnical Engineers Inc.

February 197816SECANT MODULUS VS STRAIN SPECIMENS 5% CEMENT,CURE 203060500AXIAL STRAIN,, %0.20.4=

ENGINEERS INC.

1017 MAIN STREET. WINCHESTERMASSACHUSETTS 01890 Mr. JohnPublic Service Co. of New Hampshire 1000 Elm Street-11th floor..Manchester, NH 03105

Subject:

Interim Test Results on Sand-Cement'Backfill Station

Reference:

Preliminary Report, Compression Tests On Structural Backfill and Sand-Cement Station, GEI, January 24, 1978 Bear Mr.The purpose of this letter is to present additional data on moduli determined on sand-cement backfill.These data supplement the data in the reference and in our letter of February 14.

These triaxial tests were performed on cylindrical specimens of sand-cement. The specimens were cured for 33 days instead of the intended 28 days because of the February 6, 1978 blizzard here in Boston. The test data are summarized in a revised Table 5 and the stress strain curves are presented in Fig. 17.

The modulus and strength data were estimated for 28-day curing on the basis of the rate of change of modulus and strength with time as measured using the cube specimens (see referenced report).

The estimated values of strength and modulus for 28-day cure also are shown in Table 5.

The values of the coefficient ofreaction were com-puted for several strain levels in the same manner as those shown in the preliminary report of January 24 and the letter of February

14. The following table lists all values obtained to date for the sand-cement specimens.

FOR SAND-CEMENT BACKFILL CURE, 5% CEMENT GEOTECHNICALINC.cc:R. Pizzuti, YAEC w/l encl.

w/l encl.

A. Desai,w/l encl.

D.. Patel,w/l encl.

Mr. JohnFebruary 27, 1978 Tabulated values are in psi Effective Allowable Diameter Strain, %

VerticalStressatSpringline psi0.10.30.5.CUBESPECIMENS 0100,000.CYLINDRICALSPECIMENS 0200,00089,00060,00036,00042.7138,000163,000129,600Sincerely yours, Steve J. Poulos Principal GC:msEncl.

TABLE 5COMPRESSION TESTS ON SAND-CEMENT SPECIMENS, 5%

STATION372.3652.1035,00033,6003762.4033,30036931,7003641.4040,00035738,40042.742.7124.8332833283328EstimatedTestNo.days28-O-lUnitWeightWetConfiningCompressiveStrengthpsiStrainInitialatModulus of PeakElasticity psi126.20.00910.6575,0002828-O-2124.80.00890.5852,200.2828-O-3124.10.001060.8034,300NOTE: 1) The percentage of cement is computed as the ratio of the weight of cement to the total weight of sand, cement, and water, and then multiplying that ratio by 100.

2) The strengths and moduli for 28-day cure was estimated based on the rates of change measured for the cube specimens.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 77386 February 7, 1978 Revised February 24, 1978 3= 42.7 psi 0.8 IIII 0051.0I.52.02.53.03.54 . 0AXIAL STRAIN, %

Project 77386 Feb. 23, 1978Fig.17StructuralBackfillTriaxial Tests 2.8-IN.-DIA., 5% CEMENT 33-DAY CURE,=SAND-CEMENT SPECIMENS Public Service Company of New Hampshire Engineers Winchester,Massachusetts 1017 MAIN STREET. WINCHESTER. MASSACHUSETTS 01890729-1625March 10, 1978 Project 77386 File No. 2.0 Mr. JohnPublic Service Co. of New Hampshire.1000 Elm Street11th Floor Manchester, NH 03105Interim Test Results on Sand-Cement Backf ill StationPreliminary Report, Compression Tests On Structural Backfill and Sand-Cement Station, GEI, January 24, 1978 Dear Mr.The purpose of this letter is to present additional data on moduli determined on sand-cement backfill.These data supplement the data in the reference and in our letters of February 14 and 27.Three triaxial tests were performed on cylindrical specimens of sand-cement. The specimens were cured for 28 days and were tested under a confining stress of 7.1 psi.The test data are summarized in a revised Table 5.

The values of the coefficient ofreaction were com-puted for several strain levels in the same manner as those shown in the preliminary report of January 24 and the letters of February 14 and 27. The following table lists all values obtained to date for the sand-cement specimens:

Mr. JohnMarch 10, 1978 FOR SAND-CEMENT BACKFILL 28-DAY CURE, 5% CEMENT Tabulated values are in psi Effective VerticalAllowable Diameter Strain, Stress at Springline psi0.10.30.5CUBE SPECIMENS 01 0 0, 0 0 0 CYLINDRICAL SPECIMENS 0200,00089,00060,0007.1115,000106,00079,60042.7138,000163,000129,600*Modulus value determined at strains greater than the strain at peak compressivestrength.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 77386 Revised March 6, 1978 Mr. JohnMarch 10, 1978, GEOTECHNICALINC.GC/SJP:ms Encl.cc: R. Pizzuti, YAEC D.A. Desai, D. Patel, Three unconfined tests were performed on cube specimens of sand-cement cured for 90 days. The test data are summarized in a revised Table 4.

The stress-strain curves for the additional tests will be transmitted as soon as they have been drafted.

Sincerely yours, Steve J. Poulos Principal UnitWeightWetCureTimedaysTestNo.TABLE 4 UNCONFINED TESTS ON 2-IN. CUBE SAMPLES OF SAND-CEMENT, 5 % CEMENT STATIONUnconfined StrengthpsiStrainModulusAto fPeakElasticity*

%psi28907-l124.07-2123.97-3126.228-l127.428-2126.228-3126.890-l124.490-2124.590-30.8010,6000.9210,1100.8313,650Avg 11,450141.60.67.33,3300.7719,1300.8722,760 Avg 135.00.951.080.84Avg 28,200 Avg 25,070 26,32027,03031,250*Modulus computed for the straight line portion of the stress-strain curve, neglecting any curvature at origin, which may be affected by initial seating strains.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 77386 January 23, 1978 Revised6, 1978 126.2124.8124.175,00052,20034,3002828-O-l2828-O-22828-O-30.0910.650.0890.580.0.1060.80TABLE 5--COMPRESSION TESTS ONSAND-CEMENT SPECIMENS, 5%

CureTimeNo.daysUnitWeightWetConfiningCompressiveStrengthpsiStrain.InitialatModulus of PeakElasticity psi283333283342.742.7423722.1035,00028282 8281)372.3762.4033,3001.4040,00039,6007.11197.1134124.3The percentage ofthe ratio of the weight of cement to the total weight of sand, cement, and water, and then multiplying that ratio by 100.

The strengths and moduli for 28-day cure was estimated based on the rates of change measured for the cube specimens.

34,60037632,9003643640.6032,6000.9022,9000.9717,400Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 77386 February1978Revised-February 24, 1978 Revised March 6, 1978 UPDATED FSAR APPENDIX 2N GEOTECHNICAL REPORT TEST FILL STUDY OF QUARTZITE MOLE CUTTINGS The information contained in this appendix was not revised, but has been extracted from the original FSAR and is provided for historical information.

William R.

Senior Engineer StevePrincipal TEST FILL STUDY OFQUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS Submitted to Public Service Company of New Hampshire Submitted by Geotechnical Engineers Inc.

1017 Main Street Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 July 13, 1979 Project 76301 81010101111111314TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES 1.INTRODUCTION

1.3 Summary

2.CONSTRUCTION OF TEST FILLS 2.1 Gravelly Sand 2.2 Molecuttings (Controlled Placement) 2.3 Molecuttings (No Special Controls) 2.4 Stratified Molecuttings and Gravelly Sand 3.PERCENT COMPACTION OF TEST FILLS 3.1 Gravelly Sand 3.2 Molecuttings (Controlled Placement) 3.3 Molecuttings (No Special Controls) 3.4 Stratified Molecuttings and Gravelly Sand 4.PLATE LOAD TESTS

5. PLACEMENT AND FIELD CONTROL OF MOLECUTTINGS 5.1 Grain-Size Limits 5.2 Lift Thickness 5.3 Determination of In-Place Dry.Density 5.3.1 Gravelly Sand 5.3.2Molecuttings 5.4 Determination of Percent Compaction 5.5 Water Content Control TABLESFIGURESAPPENDIX ARECOMMENDEDFOR PLACEMENT AND FIELD CONTROL OF MOLECUTTINGS APPENDIX BPLATE LOAD TESTS LIST OF TABLES Table 1Summary of Field Density Tests Gravelly Sand Test Fill Table 2Summary of Field Density Tests Molecuttings (Controlled Placement) Test Fill Table 3Summary of Field Density Tests Molecuttings (No Special Controls) Test Fill Table 4Summary of Field Density Tests Stratified Molecuttings and Gravelly Sand Test Fill Table 5Summary of Plate Load Tests Results LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1Plan View of Test Fills Fig. 2Profile of Test Fills Fig. 3Profile of Test Fills Fig. 4Compaction CurvesGravelly Sand Fig. 5Grain Size CurvesGravelly Sand Test Fill Fig. 6Compaction CurvesMolecuttings

.Fig. 7Grain Size CurvesSamples of Molecuttings Fig. 8Modulus of Elasticity vs Percent Compaction Molecuttings

.Fig. 9Water Content Sand ConeNuclear Density Meter Gravelly Sand Fig.Sand Cone vs Nuclear Density Meter Det. In-Place DryGravelly Sand Fig.Water Content Sand Cone vs Nuclear Density Meter Det., Molecuttings Fig.Sand Cone vs Nuclear Density Meter Det. In-Place DryMolecuttings the same percent compaction.

problem was addressed by Investigation of the resistivity INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The intake and discharge tunnels atStation are being excavated using a tunnel boring machine, more commonly termed a mole. The excavated material from the mole is a widely-graded crushed stone commonly termed tunnel muck, which, for this report, shall be termed "molecuttings."

The purpose of the test fill study was to determine if the quartzite molecuttings obtained from-the tunnel excavations could be used for Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Fill.

Construction of the test fills provided the opportunity to ob-serve the behavior of the molecuttings during placement and obtain data necessary to develop procedures to control the com-paction of the molecuttings during placement.

1.2 Background The molecuttings from the quartzite bedrock in the tunnels are widely-graded crushed stone containing up to 13% passing the No. 200 sieve.The grain size curve of the molecuttings plots below the lower limit of the Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Backfill specification.The resistivity of the cuttings is generally below the specified minimum value of 10,000Thus, although the molecuttings appeared superior to the gravelly sand structural fill as a backfill material, it was rejected because the gradation and resistivity requirements did not comply with the specifications.Useofthe molecuttings for Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Fill required that selected tests be performed which would demon-strate that the molecuttings were as good or better than the presently used gravelly sand when both materials were placed at The Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Fill is used for backfill around pipes and conduits, under floor slabs, roads, etc.For these applications the deformation characteristics of the backfill will control the soil support of the pipes and settlements of structures. One method of determining the defor-mation properties of a soil is by determining the soil modulus by the use of a plate load test.Plate load tests were performed on carefully constructed test fills consisting of (a) gravelly sand, (b) molecuttings, anda test fill of essentially alter-nating layers of gravelly sand and molecuttings which herein will be referred to as the stratified gravelly sand and molecuttings test fill The modulus from each test fill was used as a means of comparing the desirability of the molecuttings versus the gravelly sand for use as Safety and Nonsafety-Related Backfill.

The molecuttings are widely graded and contain high percentages of stone retained on thesieve.In manycases the percentretained on thesieve exceeds the allowable limits for the Modified AASHO compaction test Thus, it was necessary to determine by means of field and labora-tory tests performed during construction of the test fill how construction control of the placement of the molecuttings should be handled.

., 1.3 Summary The results of the plate load tests indicate that the cuttings will provide superior support for pipes and structures than the gravelly sand currently accepted for Safety and safety-Related Structural Fill when both materials are placed at the same percent compaction.The molecuttings and gravelly sand will provide about equivalent deformation properties when the percent compaction of the molecuttings is as much as 2 to 3%

lower than the gravelly sand.Therefore, the use of molecuttings for Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Fill is recommended.

Further, it is recommended that the percent compaction of the molecuttings for Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Fill be 95% andrespectively.

The molecuttings used in constructing these test fills were widely graded crushed stone with up to 7% passing the No. 200 sieve.The water content of the material varied from 3 to 4% up to 10% during placement.Because of the grain-size distribution compaction of the molecuttings was sensitive to fluctuations in the water content of the material. Based on data obtained from tests performed during construction of the test fills, limitations on the grain-size distribution and water content'of the cuttings during placement have been recommended in Section 5.

Construction of the test fills indicated that placement of the molecuttings can be controlled by modifying standard testing procedures.The in-place dry density can be measured using the nuclear density meter and the laboratory reference dry density determined by modifying the currently specified compaction tests.

Details of the construction of the test fills, performance and results of the plate load tests, and procedures for control of placement and compaction of molecuttings are presented in the following sections. 2.CONSTRUCTION OF TEST FILLS Four test fills were constructed for this study.Theorientation of the test fills is shown in Fig. 1.The soils and details of placement for each test fill is presented below.

2.1 Gravelly Sand Gravelly sand satisfying the requirements for Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Fill Specifications 9763-8-5 and9763-8-4 was placed in 8-in. -thick loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557, Method D.Satisfactory compaction was generally achieved by applying water to the surface of the loose lift and compacting with six coverages with the Mikasa double drum roller.

Eight lifts of gravelly sand were placed and compacted, result-ing in a total height of about 4 ft.

2.2 Molecuttings (Controlled Placement)

The construction of this test fill was controlled to achieve the compaction requirements of Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Fill (i.e., 95% of the maximum dry density as deter-mined by ASTM Molecuttings were placed in 8-in. loose lifts and compacted to 95% compaction. To achieve 95% compaction, control of the water content to within a few percent of the optimum water con-tent, and numerous coverages with the Mikasa double drum roller was required. Attempts at controlling the water content included mixing of wet and dry molecuttings and adding water to cuttings with water contents 2 to 3% below optimum. Molecuttings placed at water contents several percent higher than optimum could not achieve 95% compaction until sufficient drainage had reduced the water content to near the optimum value.Eight lifts of molecuttings were placed and compacted resulting in a total height of about 4 ft.

2.3 Molecuttinqs (No Special Controls)

Construction of this test fill involved the placement of the molecuttings with limited control of water content and a specified compactive effort. The molecuttings were generally placed in G-in. loose lifts and compacted by six coverages with the Mikasa double drum roller.In some instances, water content control was limited to permitting drainage of a compacted layer overnight be-fore placement of the succeeding layer.Eight lifts of cuttings were placed and compacted. 2.4 Stratified Molecuttings and Gravelly Sand The first three lifts of this test fill were constructed the same way as the test fill of Molecuttings (No Special Con-trols). The water content of the molecuttings placed for the third lift was about 3% higher than optimum. The surface of the third lift was saturated and became severely rutted during compaction.Sandwiching layers of gravelly sand between layers of molecuttings was done to determine (1) if the gravelly sand provided drainage of sandwiched layers of molecuttings and (2) the feasibility of constructing a backfill of stratified gravelly sand and molecuttings (which may be required in the zone of frost penetration).Therefore, lifts 4 and 6 were con-structed using gravelly sand.Lift 4 was compacted with six coverages of the Mikasa double drum roller and lift 6 was com-pacted to at least 95% compaction. Molecuttings for lifts 5, 7 and 8 were generally placed in 8-in. loose lifts with limited water content control and compacted with six coverages of the Mikasa double drum roller. 3. PERCENT COMPACTION OF TEST FILLS 3.1 Gravelly Sand The percent compaction of each lift was determined by per-forming in-place density tests and laboratory compaction tests.

The average percent compaction of the gravelly sand test fill was 97.4%.

The in-place density for each lift, after compaction, was determined by performing two 6-in. -diameter Sand Cone (SC) tests and three Nuclear Density Metertests.Theplace density determined by the NDM was generally performed at probe depths of 4 in. and 8 in.The two SC tests were performed adjacent to two of the NDM tests to provide a comparison of the water content and dry density measured by each 'method.The SCand NDM tests were generally performed within a 5-ft radius of the plate load test location.

.One-point compaction samples were obtained adjacent to the SC and NDM test locations. The one-point samples were compacted in accordance with ASTM D1557, Method D.The maximum dry density for the one-point sample was determined by plotting the one-point dry density on a family of curves for the gravelly sand and in-terpolating the maximum dry density.The percent compaction was computed by dividing the in-place dry density by the corresponding one-point compaction determined maximum dry density.Table 1presents the summary of the percent compaction achieved in the test fill.A profile of the test fill and the average percent compaction for each lift is shown on Fig. 2.

Three compaction tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1557, Method D, on bag samples of gravelly sand obtained from material placed in lifts 2, 4 and 7.The compaction curves and related grain-size curves performed by Pittsburgh Testing Labs are shown on Figs. 4 and 5, respectively.

3.2 Molecuttings (Controlled Placement)

The average percent compaction achieved for this test fill was 96.7%.The in-place density of each lift after compaction was determined by performing several NDM tests and, when the soil conditions were acceptable, oneSC test.The SC test was performed adjacent to a NDM test to provide a comparison of the water content and dry density measured by each method. Observations in the field and data from tests indicated that the hole excavated for the SC test tended to squeeze in or reduce in volume when the molecuttings were placed and compacted at water contents above or near optimum.Results from the SC tests when these conditions existed gave unreasonably high dry densities, and, as a result, SC tests were considered valid only when they were performed in areas where the water content of the molecuttings was less than 5%. A more complete discussion of this problem is presented in Section 5.The SC and NDM tests were generally performed within about a 5-ft radius of the plate load test.

Generally, several NDM tests were required before a lift of the molecuttings was compacted to a dry density that was esti-mated to provide 95% compaction. One-point compaction samples were obtained adjacent to the series of NDM and SC tests that

, indicated about 95% compaction had been achieved.The one-point samples were compacted in accordance with ASTM D1557, Method C, except the minusmaterial was included for compaction.

The maximum dry density for the one-point sample was determined by plotting the one-point dry density on a family of compaction curves for molecuttings and interpolating the maximum dry density.

Correction of the in-place dry density to account for the plusmaterial, which was removed for the laboratory test, was necessary in order to determine the percent compaction. De-tails of the correction procedure are presented in Appendix A.

The percent compaction was computed by dividing the corrected in-place dry density by the corresponding maximum dry density determined by the one-point compaction technique.Table 2 pre-sents the summary of the percent compaction achieved in the test fill. A profile of the test fill and the average percent compaction for each lift is presented in Fig. 2.

Two compaction tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1557, Method C, except the minusmaterial was included and there was no limit on the percent retained on l&-in. sieve on bag samples of molecuttings from lifts 4 and 6.The compac-tion curves and related grain-size curves are shown on Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.

3.3 Molecuttings (No Special Controls)

The average percent compaction of this test fill was 93.0%.

The water content of the molecuttings during placement was gen-erally above optimum and was not controlled during compaction.

Sand Cone tests to determine the in-place dry density were not performed because of the inaccuracy in performing the test in molecuttings compacted at water contents near or above optimum.

The in-place dry density was determined by performing at least two and most usually three to five NDM tests at probe depths of 4 and 8 in.The NDM tests were generally performed within a 5-ft radius of the plate load test location.

One-point compaction samples were obtained adjacent'to the series of NDM tests that indicated the next lift of molecuttings could be placed.In some cases after a lift had been compacted, NDM tests performed, and one-point samples obtained, the lift was permitted to drain overnight and additional NDM tests taken in the morning. One-point compaction samples generally were not obtained for the NDM tests performed after drainage. The pro-cedure to compute the percent compaction for each in-place den-sity test was the same as described in the previous section.

Table 3 presents the summary of the percent compaction achieved in the test fill. A profile of the test fill and the average percent compaction for each lift is presented in Fig. 3.

Two compaction tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1557, Method C, except the minusmaterial was included and there was no limit on the percent retained on the sieve on bag samples obtained from lifts 2A and 7A. The com-paction curves and the grain-size curve for lift 2A are shown on Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.

3.4 Stratified Molecuttings and Gravelly Sand The average percent compaction of the gravelly sand and molecuttings test fill was 92.8%.Molecuttings were used forlifts 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 for this test fill.The in-place dry density and percent compaction of the molecuttings was deter-mined in accordance with the procedure described in the previous section. Lifts 4 and 6 of the test fill were constructed using gravelly sand. The in-place density for lift 4 was determined by four NDM tests. One SC test and 3 NDM tests were performed in lift 6. The maximum dry density and computation of the per-cent compaction at each in-place density test location was as described in the section for gravelly sand.Table 4 presents the summary of the percent compaction in the test fill. A pro-file of the test fill and the average percent compaction of each lift is presented in Fig. 3. 4.PLATE LOAD TESTS Five plate load tests were performed on the four test fills.The plate load test number, test fill and date of the test is presented below.

Plate Load Test No.Test FillDate of Test 1Gravelly SandJune 7, 1979 2MolecuttingsJune 14, 1979 (No Special Control) .

StratifiedJune 15, 1979 cuttings and Gravelly Sand MolecuttingsJune 18, 1979 (Controlled Placement) 5Molecuttings (No Special Control)The locations of the tests are indicated on Fig. 1 and de-tails of the procedure are presented in Appendix B.In briefthe procedure was as follows:an-diameter steel plate was generally placed 12 in. below the surface of the test fill and loaded to produce contact stresses to 4 tsf and then to 12 Deflections of the plate were measured and recorded.

The results of the plate load tests are presented in Figs.

B2 through B6. Values of Young's Modulus, E, were calculated from the results of the plate load tests using elastic theory.

A description of the analysis is presented in Appendix B. A summary of the modulus calculated for each test is presented in Table 5.The percent compaction indicated in Table 5 represents the average percent compaction of lifts within the zone of signi-ficant stress increase due to the load on the plate.For anin. -diameter plate this zone is aboutto 36-in.-thick.

The soil modulus determined by the plate load test vs per-cent compaction is plotted on Fig. 8.The results indicate that the molecuttingshave a much higher modulus than the gravelly sand when both materials are compacted to the same percent compaction.

In fact, the modulus of the molecuttings compacted to 93% compac-tion is approximately equivalent to the modulus of the gravelly sand placed at 97% compaction.Plate Load Test No. 5 (PLT-5) was performed 13 days after and about 4 ft away from Plate Load Test No. 2 (PLT-2).The soil modulus for PLT-5 was about two times June 27, 1979 the modulus for PLT-2. The increase in modulus may have been caused by densification of the molecuttings as a result of drainage over the 13 day period between the performance of the two tests. Assuming that the molecuttings were saturated after PLT-2 and the water content reduced by 1% during a period of 13 the in-place dry density would have increased by 2 to 3 pcf or about a 1 to 2% increase in the percent compaction.Themodulus for PLT-5, as a result of the densification, nearly plots on the line from PLT-2 to PLT-4.

Test PLT-3 was performed on the stratified molecuttings and gravelly sand test fill. The average percent compaction of the molecuttings and gravelly sand was 92.5 andrespectively.

, Plate load tests, PLT-2 and PLT-1, were performed on separate test fills of molecuttings and gravelly sands compacted to about the same percent compaction and the moduli were 7,300 psi and 10,100 respectively.The moduli determined for the stratified test fill, however, was 17,000 psi.Based on the results of PLT-1 and PLT-2 the anticipated modulus determined by FLT-3 was between 8 and 10,000 psi.The high modulus measured by PLT-3 may have been caused by one or more of the following factors:

1.Distribution of the load may have been more rapid for the layered fill than in a homogeneous fill, and 2.Drainage of the molecuttings and related increases in dry density and modulus may have accelerated faster in the stratified test fill than in the homogeneous cuttings (No Special Controls) test fill due to drainage through the gravelly sand layers.

5. PLACEMENT AND FIELD CONTROL OF MOLECUTTINGS The purpose of this section is to present recommendations for the placement and field control of molecuttings based on field and laboratory data obtained during construction of the test fills.

Review of the data obtained provided the information neces-sary to make recommendations on the limits for grain size, lift thickness, determination of in-place density and percent compac-tion, and control of water contents of the molecuttings. A discussion of each of the items is presented below.

5.1 Grain-Size Limits Grain-size analyses were performed on thre'e samples of the molecuttings used for the test fills.The grain-size curves are presented on Fig. 7.The molecuttings were generally widely graded with uniformity coefficients of 45 to 100.The maximum particle size was generally less than 3-in.-diameter and the percent by weight passing the No. 200 sieve was from 5 to 7%.

Based on these and other grain-size analyses recommendations for gradation requirements were developed and are presented in Appendix A.

5.2 Lift Thickness The molecuttings were placed in 8-in.-thick loose lifts during construction of the test fills. Observations made during placement of the molecuttings indicated that the ability to achieve a specific percent compaction was mostly affected by the water content of the material rather than the thickness of the lift. When the molecuttings were placed at water contents above optimum, a specific degree of compaction generally was notachieved until the water content was reduced to'or below the optimum water content as a result of drainage.The time required for drainage is a function of the lift thickness and, therefore, where 95% and 93% compaction is required, lift thicknesses of 8-in. andare recommended.Thethick loose lift in areas where 93% compaction is required was recommended based on the fact that the average percent compaction of 93.0% was achieved for the molecuttings (No Special Controls) test fill without the benefit of extensive compactive efforts.

5.3 Determination of In-Place Dry Density The nuclear density meterprovides a much faster determination of the field in-place dry density and water con-tent than the sand cone (SC).The accuracy of the NDM tests performed in the gravelly sand and molecuttings was verified by comparing the results of adjacent NDM and SC tests.

5.3.1 Gravelly Sand Generally, two SC tests were performed adjacent to two NDM tests on each lift of the test fill to com-pare the in-place dry density and water content measured by each method.. The in-place water con-tent determined by the sand cone versus nuclear den-sity meter is plotted on Fig. 9.The data indicate that both methods measure essentially the same water content at values less than 8% and, as the water con-tent increases, the NDM measures a lower value than the SC. As a result, a correction was applied to the water content measured by the NDM to compute the in-place dry density... A plot of sand cone versus nuclear density meter determined in-place dry density is shown on Fig. 10.The correlation of the densi-ties determined by each method was considered to be poor.The correlation may have been improved if more frequent moisture checks had been performed dur-ing construction of the test fill.

5.3.2Molecuttings Twelve-inch-diameter sand cone tests were performed in the molecuttings to reduce the effects that the maximum particle size and percentage of material larger than thesieve would have on in-place dry density determination. The in-place dry density and water content determined by the SC test was compared to the results from adjacentNDM tests.

Comparison of the results indicated the water content determined by the NDM averaged 1.7% higher than that determined by the sand cone.The 1.7% difference in water contents was confirmed by performing water con-tent checks at random NDM test locations. A 1.7% bias correction was applied to the water contents determined by the NDM. A plot of sand cone determined water con-tent versus nuclear density meter water content (with a 1.7% bias correction) is presented on Fig. 11.

The plot shows there is a good correlation between the sand cone and nuclear density meter (after bias correction) water content determinations.A secondwater content check was made on molecuttings. after the test fill was completed which indicated that the bias had increased to 2.5%.Because the water content bias changed significantly within a period of two weeks periodic checks of the bias are recommended.

The in-place dry density determined by the sand cone test and the 8-in. NDM test after correction for the water content bias is plotted on Fig. 12.The solid dots and dashed circles represent in-place dry den-sity measurements at water contents less than 5% and greater thanrespectively.The data indicate that there is good correlation of dry densities deter-mined by both methods at water contents less than 5%

and that the SC measured higher dry densities than the NDM at water contents above 5%.For this test fill the SC tests performed in molecuttings compacted at water contents above 5% are not considered valid for the reasons presented in the following discussion.

When the molecuttings were placed at water contents above aboutthe compacted surface would exhibit a spongy behavior when one walked across the surface.

The degree of sponginess increased as the moisture increased above the optimum water content.Thesponginess is believed to be caused by water and air pore pressures. The net effect was that as the sand cone hole was excavated the pore pressures at the walls of the hole were relieved by the walls moving laterally into the hole until an equilibrium of the pore pressure at the walls of the hole was reached.

Thus, by the time the volume of the hole was measured a significant decrease in the volume of the hole had occurred but the quantity of soil excavated was from the original volume.The result was that the dry soil excavated was divided by awhich re-sulted in an inaccurately high computed dry density.

The SC and NDM test results indicate that the NDM can be used to determine the in-place dry density and water content of molecuttings. The water content bias should be checked periodically to account for changes that occur in the molecuttings. Details of a recommended placement procedure arepresented in Appendix A.

5.4 Determination of Percent Compaction The field and laboratory data indicated the nuclear density meter could be used to determine the in-place dry density after the appropriate water content bias had been determined for the molecuttings being tested.

The preferred field procedure for determing the percent com-paction of compacted soil is as follows:

1.Gbtain a one-point sample of the soil before compaction.

2.Perform the' one-point compaction test in the lab and determine the maximum dry density from a family of curves.3. Perform the in-place dry density of the compacted lift using the nuclear density meter at or near the location of where the one-point sample was taken.

This procedure can be used for the molecuttings if at least three nuclear density meter determinations of the in-place dry density are made. The average of the three tests should be used to represent the in-place density for computation of the percent compaction. The above procedure will reduce the effect that minor in the character of the molecuttings will have on the in-place dry density determination.

The use of a standard laboratory compaction test or one which was slightly modified was considered the best method of deter-mining the maximum dry density of the molecuttings.The Modified AASHG Compaction Test, ASTM D1557, permits the use of minus material to be compacted in 6-in. molds.Grain-size analyses performed on molecuttings indicate that nearly 50% of the sample is retained on thesieve, and, as a result, the material passing thesieve would behave much differently than the total sample during compaction. A sample of the molecuttings that would represent the compaction behavior of the material was con-sidered possible if the amount of coarse material removed was limited to about 20% by weight of the total sample.This could generally be achieved by removing material retained on the sieve.For the test fill the laboratory compaction used was ASTM D1557, Method C, except the plusmaterial was removed.

Because this compaction test, as modified above, was used for the test fill and gave reasonable results its use is recommended for performing laboratory compaction tests on the molecuttings.

5.5 Water Content Control The laboratory compaction curves for compaction tests per-formed on samples of molecuttings show a sharp peak in dry density at the optimum water content, Fig. 6.The dry density drops as the water increases or decreases from the optimum value.Thelaboratory data show that small variations in water content sig-nificantly affect the degree of compaction that can be achieved in the molecuttings. This behavior was also observed during placement and compaction of the molecuttings in the test fills.

In the test fill where placement of the molecuttings was con-trolled, the required percent compaction generally could only be achieved by controlling the water content, by either wetting or drying, of the molecuttings.The most efficient compaction of the molecuttings was when the water content was from about 4 to 6%.

Therefore, the water content of the molecuttings should not differ from optimum by more than +for most efficient tion.

TABLES TABLEOF FIELD DENSITY TESTS.GRAVELLY SAND TEST FILL QUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY STATIONPage 1 of 2 LiftNo.SampleNo.PercentND-1One-point 120.9ThiscolumnND-2samplesnot123.7doesnotap-ND-3obtained121.1plyforcompac-SC-1118.1tiontestper-formedusing2SC-111.19.7120.9123.0115.0ASTM93.5ND-24.810.0116.8120.5117.1Method D97.2SC-39.49.0120.1123.0120.397.88.19.2117.9122.0119.5N.A.13.0122.31 2 2 . 3 119.23ND-1One-point 123.0SC-2samplesnot126.0ND-3obtained121.4122.5N.A.I5.2I115.5122.1121.548.54.9117.8125.5119.194.98.54.9117.8125.5120.596.05.07.4119.1124.0124.1100.05.0.7.4119.1124.0118.895.8ND-55.8I7.0121.5126.0119.094.4NOTES:One-point compaction sample performed by Pittsburgh Testing Labs.

One one-point compaction sample obtained for sand cone and nuclear density test performed adjacent to each other.

Percent compaction computed using maximum dry density determined by Pittsburgh Testing Lab.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 76301 July 12, 1979 TABLEOF FIELD DENSITY TESTS GRAVELLY SAND TEST FILL QUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY STATIONPage 2 of 2 NO.SampleNo.One-Point Laboratory MaximumDry Density In-PlaceDrDensitypcfPercentCompaction PercentMaterialWaterContent%DensityForMaterial4.89.7124.5125.0125.5100.44.89.7124.5125.0123.899.05.810.3123.1124.0120.997.513.09.3126.4127.0124.998.013.09.3126.4127.0121.395.53.910.0122.3123.2117.895.613.28.4126.0127.0118.793.513.28.4126.0127.0125.799.09.17.6123.3126.5123.097.29.17.6123.3126.5126.699.75.96.8120.5126.5122.596.85.9120.5126.5123.897.910.77.8121.0124.8121.697.410.77.8121.0124.8123.298.711.37.6121.5125.8121.996.9ND-lOne-point 119.6SC-2samplesnot118.9ND-3obtained120.2SC-4118.8IN.A.13.8117.9120.9116.2.NOTES:(1) One-point compaction sample performed by Fittsburgh Testing Lab.

One one-point compaction sample obtained for sand cone and nuclear density test performed adjacent to each other.

(3) Percent compaction computed using maximum dry density determined by Pittsburgh Testing Lab.

Geo technical Engineers Inc.Project 76301 July 12, 1979 PLACEMENT)FILLTABLEOF FIELD DENSITY TESTS QUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY STATIONPage 1 of 2 LiftNO.SampleNo.One-Point Compaction Laboratory MaximumDryDensityIn-Place Dry Density, pcf Percent%PercentMaterialWaterContento0DryDensityTotalCorrected ForMaterial1ND-12One-point N.A.145.5N.A.N.A.ND-13samplesnotN.A.144.0N.A.N.A.ND-14obtainedN.A.142.6N.A.N.A.ND-15N.A.146.9144.5N.A.2ND-810.85.1145.4151.0150.0146.997.324.95.1146.0151.5149.5140.993.0(1)7.3.7153.0161.5152.4150.5158.498.43ND-1011.44.6145.9152.0143.1139.091.4ND-1110.4.14.4144152.5151.8145.5152.4.150.7142.8149.898.293.999.24ND-l7.35.0151.2154.0149.4147.495.78.24.6148.3154.0148.3145.994.76.84.3144.9142.792.6.149.797.2NOTES:One one-point compaction sample obtained for sand cone and nuclear density test performed adjacent to each other.

Laboratory one-point compaction test results and interpolated maximum dry density are from adjacent nuclear density meter one-point compaction samples and test results.

In-place dry density measured is in error for reasons discussed in the text.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 76301 July 12, 1979 MOLECUTTINGS (CONTROLLED PLACEMENT) TEST FILL QUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY TABLEOF FIELD DENSITY TESTS STATIONPage 2 of 2 LiftNo.SampleNo.One-PoirMaximumDensityIn-PlaceDensity,MaterialWaterContent%DensityCorrected ForMaterial5ND-85.64.9148.7155.0150.6149.17.74.1146.5155.0148.0145.714.54.7146.0149.4145.0.162.3160.66ND-416.94.0146.0155.0152.6146.0ND-57.84.5147.9153.0150.2148.17.54.2148.3154.0152.3150.4148.3154.07ND-412.54.9145.21 5 1 . 0 147.1143.1ND-512.25.0147.5152.0149.5145.9ND-610.44.6146.3152.0147.6144.48ND-lOne-point 146.0N.A.ND-2samplesnot146.5N.A.ND-3obtained146.1N.A.PercentCompaction 96.294.094.895.596.897.794.896.095.0N.A.N.A.N.A.NOTES: (1) One one-point compaction sample obtained for sand cone and nuclear density test performed adjacent to each other.

Laboratory one-point compaction test results and interpolated maximum dry density are from adjacent nuclear density meter one-point compaction samples and test results.

In-place dry density measured is in error for reasons discussed in the text.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.

July 12, TABLE 3OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS MOLECUTTINGSSPECIAL CONTROLS) TEST FILL QUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY STATION 2LiftNo.SampleNo.One-Point Compaction Laboratory MaximumDryDensityIn-Place Dry Density, PercentCompaction PercentMaterialWaterContent%DensitySampleCorrected For +Material1ND-4One-point 146.3N.A.ND-5samplesnot142.4N.A.ND-6obtained145.5N.A.ND-7149.1149.1N.A.2ND-412.34.6147.7155.0149.4145.794.0ND-510.65.8149.0152.0145.8144.595.1ND-614.55.5149.6152.0145.8142.393.6SC-712.34.6147.7155.0157.8154.591.03ND-56.06.7147.0151.0143.7141.793.8ND-69.26.2147.8151.0141.9.138.591.74ND-l10.66.5148.8151.1144.7141.193.3ND-215.56.6146.0151.0143.0137.190.85ND-l12.34.9148.9153.0150.9147.596.4ND-212.35.0148.1152.0152.2149.098.0ND-324.84.7147.7153.0140.5129.084.36ND-523.54.3153.3156.0154.2147.794.7ND-68.53.6145.1153.0145.1142.393.0ND-79.45.6153.6155.0143.3140.090.3Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 76301 July 12, 1979 3OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS.SPECIALTEST FILLQUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY STATIONPage 2 of 2 Compaction Laboratory MaximumDryDensityIIn-Place Dry Density, pcf PercentCompaction

%WaterContentDryDensityCorrected ForMaterial78ND-7ND-8ND-9ND-1ND-2ND-35.14.07.5One-point samplesnotobtained3.13.43.9141.2140.1143.6149.0148.0151.0140.0139.2148.8144.4125.0144.3138.1137.7146.6N.A.N.A.N.A.92.793.097.1N.A.N.A.N.A.Geotcchnical Engineers Inc.Project 76301 July 12, 1979 4OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS STRATIFIED MOLECUTTINGS AND GRAVELLY SAND TEST FILL QLJARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY STATIONPage 1 of 1 LiftNo.SampleNo.One-PairnLaboratory MaximumDryDensityDensity, pcf PercentPercent+Material%WaterContentDryDensityTOY-11Corrected ForMaterial3ND-715.05.7149.3153.0148.8144.194.2ND-812.26.0148.8152.0145.9141.893.35.6118.3125.0114.3N.A.91.4ND-42.7122.2124.0108.1N.A.87.2ND-53.0115.1123.0108.2N.A.88.0ND-64.9116.9124.5N.A.88.85ND-410.44.3145.7151.0151.3148.5ND-516.33.8144.8153.0138.1130.8N.A.N.A.123.31.27.5123.8N.A.97.17.2123.3127.5121.1N.A.95.0ND-36.8118.8124.5119.3N.A.95.8ND-48.3120.3124.0119.6N.A.96.57ND-104.82.7137.5148.0140.2138.493.58ND-4Onepoint147.3N.A.N.A.ND-5samplesnotobtained140.8N.A.N.A.NOTES :construction or Lift.(2)Values represent percentmaterial.

(3)Nuclear density probe may have penetrated gravelly sand layer below.

(4) One one-point compaction sample obtained for SC-1 and ND-2.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 76301 July 12, 1979 TABLE 5SUMMARY OF PLATE LOAD TESTS RESULTS QUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY STATIONLoadNo.SoilAtTestSoilModulus,psiAveragePercentCompaction 1R e m a r k s VirginReload1GravellySand97.12Mole92.6(NoSpecialControl)3Stratified Ave. Percent MoleCuttingsandGravellyCompaction 93.7Sand4Mole95.3(Controlled Placement) 5MoleCuttings(NoSpecialPerformed13daysafterControl)PLT-2Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 76301 July 11, 1979 FIGURES PLAN VIEW TEST FILLS ic ServiceofProjectStudyMolecuttings PLT-3GravellycuttingsSandStratified Mole-cuttings and Gravelly Sand (Controlled Placement)

LT-5PLT-4PLT-1PLT-2cuttings(No Special Not To Scale PROFILE OF GRAVELLY SAND TEST FILL Steel Plate Lift 7 Ave.Comp. = 97.5 Lift 6 Ave.Comp. = 97.0 Lift 5 Ave.Comp. = 98.1

. Lift 2Ave.% Comp. = 97.4 Lift 1 Ave.Corns. = 99.0 Lift 4 Ave.= 96.2Lift 3 Ave. % Comp. = 100.6 Scale:= 2.5'1. One-point compaction samples not obtained.Average percent compaction is based on maximum dry density provided by PTL.

PROFILE OF MOLECUTTINGS (CONTROLLED PLACEMENT) TEST FILL Steel Plate Ave.Comp. = 95.3 Lift 6 Ave. %= 96.7Lift 5 Ave.Comp. = 95.0 Lift 4 Ave. % Comp. = 95.1 Lift 3 Ave.= 95.7Lift 2 Ave.96.2Lift 1 Ave.Comp. = N. A.

Scale:= 2.5'Molecuttings l

-PROFILE OF TEST

_ FILLSProject 76301 11, PROFILE OF MOLECUTTINGS (NO SPECIAL CONTROLS) TEST FILL Lift 1 Ave.Comp. = N.A.

Scale:= 2.5'PROFILE OF STRATIFIED MOLECUTTINGS AND GRAVELLY SAND TEST FILL ServiceofIMolecuttingsIPROFILE OFFILLSStudyProject11, 19g .Steel Plate (PLT-2 and 5)Lift 8 Ave.=Lift 7 Ave.= 94.3Lift 6 Ave.Comp. = 92.7 Lift 5 Ave.Comp. = 92.9 Lift 4 Ave.Comp. = 92.1 Lift 3 Ave. % Comp. = 92.8 Lift 2 Ave.Comp. = 94.7

.Steel Plate (PLT-3)

Lift 8 Ave. % Comp. = N.A.

Lift 1 Ave.= N.A.Scale:2.5' U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHESU.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERSHYDRCMETER 6432IofLabs.Pro-iIGrain-size analyses per 'formed

,..COBBLES COARSEIFINECOARSEMEDIUMIFINEWINCHESTERMASSACHUSETTS 3 4 6 GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS SIZEQuartziteMolecuttingsGRAVELLY SAND StudyITEST FILL IIi11, 1979 NOTE: 1. Compaction test performed inwithC,the plusmaterial.

was discarded and no limitation placed on the percent retained on thePublic Service Company of NewhireQuartzite Molecuttings StudyProject 76301

. COMPACTION CURVES Molccuttings July 12, 1979Molecuttings

- V W - -

Controlled Molecuttings (No Special Controls)

(Controlled Placement)

Lift 4s = 100%-Gave = 2.83 (De152..02468IOWater Content, U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHESU.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERSHYDROMETER GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS COBBLESSANDFINE GRAIN SIZE SAMPLES OF MOLECUTTINGS QuartziteMolecuttings studyICOARSE FINE COARSEMEDIUMWINCHESTER . MASSACHUSETTS analyses performed using successive elutriation.

MOLECDTTINGS MOLECUTTINGS LIFT 2LIFT 4I -I - -500100505I0.561(No Special Controls 4 32I820 30 40 50 70200MOLECUTTINGS (Controlled Placement)

(ControlledPlacement) 0.050.001

.MOGravelly Sand 302520151050PERCENT COMPACTION VERSUS9092349698100Percent ofof Modified AASHO, %

NOTES: 1. Modulus of elasticity computed using theory of elasticity for semi-infinite, isotropic soil.

2.Modulus of elasticity value plotted is minimum value from virgin loading curve.

3.Percent compaction is the average percent compaction of the first three layers of soil under the plate.

4.Percent compaction the average percent compaction of two layers of molecuttings and one layer of gravelly sand.

5.Range in percent compaction is estimated.See discussion in text.

Public Service Company of QuartziteMolecuttings Study76301 4.06.08.014.0Nuclear Density Meter Determined In-Place Water Content, WATER CONTENT SAND CONE VS DENSITY METER GRAVELLY SAND Ju98 . 06 . 0Estimated Line of Gravelly SandBest Fit Gravelly Sand r11114116118122124126Density Meter Determined In-Place Dry Density, pcf NOTES: 1. In-place dry density includes plusmaterial. .

2.In-place dry density based on 8-in. deep nuclear test.Densities have been corrected for water content bias according to plot of versusnuclear for gravelly sand:

conedevice3.Cone and Nuclear Density Meter determinations were performed to each other (about 6-12 in. apart).

SAND CONE VS NUCLEAR DEN SITY METER DET.DRY DENSITY GRAVELLY SAND 10.-.--.----PublicCompany of

.Elcwi L-CIIIIIQuartzite studyProject 76301 Nuclear Density Meter DeterminedWater Content, (after bias was corrected) 8 . 07 . 06 . 0Molecuttings3.04.05.06.07.08.0NOTES: 1. In-place water content is baseddeep nuclear test.

135145150155160Nuclear Density Meter Determined In-Place Dry Density,NOTES: 1. In-place dry density is uncorrected for the plusmater2.

.except where noted.

3.Water content of Sand Cone was greater than 5.0%.

4.In-place density is based on 4-in. deep nuclear test.

Molecuttings Public Service Company of SAND CONE VS NUCLEAR iSITY METER DET. IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY MOLECUTTINGS I.QuartziteMolccuttings StudyProject 76301 11, APPENDIX A SAFETY-RELATED STRUCTURAL FILL A.MATERIAL1.Gradation for molecuttings should meet the following criteria:100100-70100-35in.75-1032-O22-o10-O2.The uniformity coefficient,should be not less than 5.

B.PLACEMENT 1.Molecuttings should be placed in 8-in.-thick loose lifts and compacted to 95% of maximum dry density as determined by ASTMwith exceptions for testing noted in Section C.2.

2.The water content of the molecuttings should be at optimum1% during placement. The water content duringof quartzite molecuttings should be stockpiled or otherwise treated to reduce the water content to less than 6%.If the water content is less thanthe addition of water during com-paction will be necessary if satisfactory compaction is to be achieved.

3.Molecuttings should not be placed in direct contact with pipes, culverts, or other structures sensitive to abrasion and/or high point loads.

4.The pore fluid of the molecuttings is brackish and, as a result, the resistivity of the muck is likely to be below the minimum limit of 10,000 United Engineers is to develop recommendations for placement of the molecuttings in areas when high resistivity of backfill material is required.

C.TESTING AND FIELD CONTROL Due to anticipated variations in rock type the cuttings should be monitored daily by determining the grain-size distribution, water content, and rock type for at least one typical sample.The grain-size analysis should be performed by using a wet sieving technique and every tenth test should be performed by using the elutriation method, without pre-drying of the sample. The frequency of testing may be re-duced in time after those testing become familiar with the material and thus capable of judging when the material is or is not acceptable.

a.If the percent passing thesieve material is greater thanthe material should not be used.b.If the water content is greater than 1% above optimum, the molecuttings should be stockpiled or treated to reduce the water content to optimum.

2.A family of at least three compaction curves should bc developed using ASTM D1557, Method C, except that the minusmaterial shall be used. Each compaction curve should be accompanied by a grain-size analysis.

Additional compaction curves should be performed once every 7,500 yards or earlier if visual changes in the molecuttings grain size is observed.

3.A bag sample of the molecuttings should be obtained after the loose lift has been placed and before com-paction begins. The sample should be large enough to perform a laboratory one-point compaction test and to measure the percent material retained on the l&inch sieve.4.Separate the plusmaterial and calculate its percentage by weight of the entire sample.

5.A one-pointtest should be'performed on the bag sample of molecuttings in accordance with ASTM D1557, Method C, except that the minussievematerial shall be used.The maximum dry density for this sample, yd , is determined by plotting the point dry on the family of curves and inter-polating the maximum dry density for the minus material.

6.The in-place dry density should be determined by per-forming at least three nuclear density meter tests.

The average dry density should be used to compute the percent compaction.This method should reduce the effects of sharp variations in the molecuttings on the in-place dry density determinations.

a. The water content bias for the nuclear density meter should be corrected for use in molecuttings.

The water content bias should be checked weekly.

7.The percent compaction is determined by dividing the corrected in-place dry density by the laboratory maxi-mum dry density as determined in 6. above. A formula to compute the corrected in-place dry density, to correct for the quantity of plusmaterial, is presented below.

= 1-Rwhere= corrected in-place dry density for the minussieve material

= average in-place dry density determined by using nuclear density meter

= unit weight of water G = specific gravity of molecuttings R = percent, by weight of the total sample retained on thesieveThe percent compaction is computed as follows:

Percent Compaction P(%) =x 100.= Maximum dry density of minusmaterialdetermined in Step 5. from the family of curves and the one-point compaction.

YND NONSAFETY-RELATED STRUCTURAL FILL A.MATERIAL1.Gradation for molecuttings should meet the following criteria:100100-70100-35100-1775-10No. 2022-o10-O2.The uniformity coefficientnot be less than 5.B.PLACEMENT 1.Molecuttings should be placed inlooselifts and compacted to 93 of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 with exceptions noted in Section C.2 for Safety-Related Structural Fill.

2.Molecuttings can be sandwiched between presently ac-cepted gravelly sand structural fill. When cuttings and gravelly sand are alternated in the back-fill, the following limits are recommended.

a.Molecuttings should be placed in 8-in.-thick loose lifts and compacted to 93maximum dry density as determined by ASTM b.Gravelly sand should be placed in accordance with the present specification for structural fill (i.e.,

8-in. loose lifts compacted to 95% of ASTM

3. The water content of theshould be optimum1% during placement if no gravelly sand layers are present. When the molecuttings and gravelly sand are placed in alternating layers, the water content of the molecuttings may be permitted to be as high as 2%

above optimum.If the water content of the molecuttings exceeds the suggested limits of water content, the cuttings should be stockpiled or otherwise treated to alter the water content.If the water content is low, say 2 tothe addition of water during compaction may be necessary to achieve satisfactory compaction.

RANDOM FILL A.MATERIALThe molecuttings to be used asFill should comply with the present specification as described in Specification No.

9763-8-4, Section 3.2.2 dated September 27, 1974.

B.PLACEMENT 1.Molecuttings should be placed inlooselifts and compacted to 90 of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Dl557 with exceptions noted in Section C.2 for Safety-Related Structural Fill.

2.Although limits on the water content of the cuttings are not necessary, the most efficient com-paction will occur at optimum water content1%.C.TESTING AND FIELD CONTROL Testing and field control for use of molecuttings as Ran-dom Fill should be the same as outlined for Safety-Related areas with the following exceptions:

The gradation of the molecuttings should comply with present specifications for Random Fill.

No limit on the water content of the molecuttings is recommended.The maximum permissible water content in the field will be dictated by the ability to achieve the required percent compaction.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX B PLATE LOAD TEST B-l Purpose The plate load tests were performed to determine the de-formation characteristics of gravelly sand and molecuttings.

The results of the plate load tests provided the basis for comparison of the two materials and to determine the effect that percent compaction has on their deformation characteristics.

. B-2 Procedure For each test a 24-in. -diameter hole was excavated to a depth of 12 in., except for test PLT-3 which was 6 in. deep.

An -diameter, thick steel plate was placed on a thin layer of liquid hydrous stone which was placed directly on the bottom surface of the test hole. Additional steel platesandin diameter were placed in a pyramid arrangement on top of theplate.After the hydrous stone and plates were in place, the plate was loaded by a hydraulic jack reacting against the under-side of a loaded, flat-bed trailer, as illustrated in Fig. B-l.

The loads were measured using a calibrate pressure gage.

Deformations of the plate were measured using three dial indicators attached to a reference beam as illustrated in Fig.

B-l. The dial indicators were graduated to mm. The ref-erence beam supports were separated from the center the plate by about 72 in., which was a sufficient distance for deflections under the supports to be negligible during loading of the plate.

The loading sequence for each test was as follows:

1.Applied load to develop contact stress of 4 tons per square foot (tsf) in four equal increments.

2.Unload to zero load in two equal increments.

3.Repeat load-unload cycle to 4 tsf.

4.Load to develop contact stress of 12 tsf in six equal increments.

E DS-2-5.Unload to zero load in three equal increments.

6.Repeat load-unload cycle to 12 tsf two more times.

Each loading or unloading increment was held constant until the rate of deformation of the plate was less than

.001The air temperature when the plate load tests were per-formed was aboutF.B-3 Results The load versus displacement curves for the five plate load tests are illustrated in Figs. B-2 through B-6.The slope of the virgin load curve was generally straight except for test PLT-2 and PLT-3 where slight curvature was observed.The slope of the reload curves were much flatter than the virgin curve and the slopes of the repeated reload-unload cycles were parallel as would be expected.

Values of Young's Modulus, E, were calculated from the re-sults of the plate load tests using elastic theory.The solution for the settlement of a loaded, rigid circular plate on an elastic half space is as follows:

where s = settlement q = average stress on the plate P = load on the plate D = diameter of the plate

Poisson's ratio I = influence factor

E = Young's Modulus Assuming a value v = 0.3 and rearranging to compute E, yields:

The modulus calculated is the average modulus within the zone of significant stress which for anplate would extend between 18 to 36 inches beneath the plate.

The moduli calculated using this method are presented in Table For each test tangent moduli were calculated using the straight segments of the load and reload curves.

PLATETEST EQUIPMENT WINCHESTER

.Project 76301 Julv 12, 1979 PublicofNew Hampshire Reaction Structure (Loaded Flat-bed Trailer)

\ LiquidHydrousStoneBearing Plates Dial Indicator BeamRefBeamSupportof Test Fill NOTE: 1.Depth for PLT-3 was about 6-in.

Schematic Illustration of Plate Load Test Equipment

--(Not ToDialSteel Bearing Plate Dial"Ear" Welded To Bearing Plate Dial indicatorsandmonitored displacement of "ears" attached to circumference of bearing plate.

Plan---Locations of Dial Indicators (Not ToStudy 6 . 07 . 08 . 002.06.08.0. 10.012.0Vertical Stress. tsf Date Performed:June 7, 1979 By:Fisher/R. Gardner Plate Diameter:

VERTICAL STRESS VS DEFORMATION PLATE LOAD TEST GRAVELLY SAND

...11I 802.04.06.010.012.0icof.Quartzite Project 76301 StudyPLATETEST PLT-2 11.Vertical Stress, tsf Date Performed:June 14, 1979 By:GardnerPlate Diameter:

VERTICAL STRESS VS DEFORMATION CON.)

41.2.3.04.06.08.0Vertical Stress, tsf Date Performed:June1979By: W. Fisher/R. Gardner Plate Diameter:

Company of 10.012.0VERTICALVSMolecuttings StudyPLATE LOAD TEST PLT-3 ST.GR.76301i 04 . c04.06.08.010.012.cVertical Stress, tsf Date Performed:June 18, 1979 By:Fisher/R.GardnerPlate Diameter:

Molecuttings PLATE LOAD TEST PLT-4

. . . . --a.---1.02.03.0DEFORMATION Study 02.04.06.08.010.012.0..Vertical Stress, tsf Date Performed:June1979By:FisherPlate Diameter:

- -.STRESS VS DEFORMATION PLATE LOAD TEST PLT-5 MOLECUTTINGS

-(NO SP. CON.

-July 11,g .1 . 0.2 . 04 . 05 . 06.07.0IIIIIQuartzite Study TABLESUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS PageLiftSampleOne-PointCompactionLaboratoryIn-Place Dry Density, pcfNo.No.PercentWaterMaximumTotalCorrectedCompaction MaterialContentDensityDry DensitySampleForMaterialoa00%

UPDATED FSAR APPENDIX 20 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT DISCUSSION OF DERIVATION OF COEFFICIENTS OFREACTIONThe information contained in this appendix was not revised, but has been extracted from the original FSAR and is provided for historical information.

March 22, 1978 Project 77386 File No. 2.0 1017 MAIN STREET. WINCHESTER. MASSACHUSETTS Mr. JohnPublic Service Co. of New Hampshire 1000 Elm Street 11th Floor.Manchester, NH 03105

Subject:

Discussion of Derivation of Coefficients ofReactionDear Mr.In the following we describe some techniques that we have developed to convert the moduli obtained from triaxial tests to moduli ofreaction for various loading conditions. We present this information to complement various telephone con-versations with D. Pate1 of Computation of Coefficients ofReactionThe coefficient ofreaction,represents soil deformation, due to pressure acting along a boundary surface, as if the soil were composed of independent springs, each repre-senting a unit of area with a spring constantThe spring constant is defined as a pressure divided by a displacement.

Such a representation is convenient for analytical purposes but neglects the influence of adjacent loaded surface areas on the displacement of any given point on the boundary surface.Thus,the coefficient ofreaction is not a unique number for an elastic material but is a function of the size of the loaded area, the pressure distribution, and the geometry ofmaterial.

For a soil, the modulus ofreaction is also dependent on the method or sequence of loading, i.e., the stress path.

On the basis of the theory of elasticity, wecomputedcoefficients ofreaction for the structural backfill and the sand cement for three geometries of loading using the modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio data obtained in the triaxial test results. The geometries of loading studied are illustrated in Figs. 1 through 9 and are as follows:

Mr. JohnMarch 22, 1970 1.Circular or square footing subjected to vertical load.

2.Pressure inside a cylindrical cavity in the soil mass assuming a plane strain condition.This istive, for example, for the loading produced by thermal expansion of the cross section of a buried pipe.

3.Pressure inside a cylindrical cavity with simultaneous application of a vertical surcharge, p, and a horizon-tal pressure,This loading is an approximate re-presentation of the placement of fill over a buried which deforms to produce an increased lateral stress around the pipe.A plane strain condition was

.assumed.The modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio used in the compu-tations are strain dependent and were selected for the average strain in the region of the soil mass that contributes most to the displace-ments, namely, within a distance of one diameter from the pipe and one footing width below the footing base. These strains were correlated with the displacements which, in turn, were expressed in terms of footing settlement divided by6/B, or in terms of the diameter strain of the pipe,In Figs. 1 through 9, the values of the coefficient ofreaction are plotted as a function of (T/B orand confining pressure. Confining pressure is to be taken as the effective overburden pressure computed at the elevations shown in the figures. An exception to the above procedure is that for the sur-charge type loading, a constant Poisson's ratio of 0.3 was used.

The elastic modulus E and Poisson's ratio v used as a basis for the coefficient of reaction computations were obtained from triaxial compression tests in which the minor principal stresses were kept constant and the major principal stress was increased monotoni-cally until the specimen failed. Such a stress path would be sufficient to determine E and v for an elastic material.However, soil is not elastic and E and v are dependent on the stress path or stress history.

In particular, higher values of E would be obtained for repeated or cyclic loading. For the static load conditions, we feel that the values ofreaction presented are reasonable estimates for the in-situ loading conditions. As shown in the next section, the values compare well with values given in published literature.We recommend, however, that when these values are used, sensitivity analyses should be made to assure that the designs are safe for a range 25% above and below the given values.

Comparison With Published Coefficients ofReactionThe coefficients ofreaction obtained from thetestswere compared with data presented by K. Terzaghi in the paper entitled Principal GC/SJP:ms Encl.ccR.YAECD.A. Desai, D. Patel, Mr. JohnMarch 22, 1978 "Evaluation of Coefficients ofReactionGeotechnique, vol. 5, 1955, pp. 297-326.

For shallow footings the vertical coefficient ofre-action for a one square foot plate, is estimated by Terzaghi to range between 300 and 1,000 ton/cu ft for dense sands, i.e., a range for x B of 4,000 to 14,000 psi. These values are intended for shallow footings,a typical depth of embedment, Dof 4ft, and for a width, B, of one foot.Thus, they are of confining pressures equivalent to a depth of 4.5 ft or about 4 psi.

The coefficient of horizontalreaction is given by Terzaghi for a 1 sq ft vertical area at a given depth, and it is assumed to be proportional to the effective stress at that depth.

For example, for dense sands at a confining pressure of 10 psi, a range ofof 7,000 to 14,000 psi is indicated..Thedata for structural backfill, for strains of about Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 5, agree with Terzaghi's data.No specific infor-mation on strain level is given by Terzaghi for his data, but he indicates that the data are applicable to a factor of safety against bearing capacity failure that is larger than two.It is also implicit that the factor of safety would not be much more than 2.Perhaps it lies in the range of 2 to 4.For such factors of safety, the results of plate load tests on sands (1 sq ft plate) would indicate typical settlements of 0.1 in. to 0.3 in., which would be equivalent to a vertical strain on the order of 1% in the soil adjacent to the plate.

Thus, the data for the structural backfill obtained from the triaxial tests correspond to coefficients ofreaction within the range given by Terzaghi.

Sincerely yours, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS INC.

Steve J. Poulos Principal FIGURES ReactionGeotechnical Engineers Inc.

Winchester,Massachusetts Project 77386 Public Service Company of New Hampshire

=March 13, 3.978Fig. 1SETTLEMENT EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS AT DEPTH t462347Sand and Sand-Cement BackfillPRESSURE ON BACKFILL90% COMPACTION ReactionSETTLEMENT EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS AT DEPTH t B/2)..4IO'986544567 8 910234568sProject,.77386 FOOTING PRESSURE ON STRUCTURAL BACKFILL 95% COMPACTION March 13, 1978Fig. 2Public Service Company of New Hampshire GeotechnicalInc.Winchester, M a s s a c h u s e t t Sand and Sand-Cement Backf ill 96SmSETTLEMENT k9765= EFFECTIVE VERTICA STRESS AT DEPTH 445679102346789100Public Service Company of ReactionFOOTING PRESSURE ON New Hampshire Sand and Sand-Cement SAND-CEMENT Backf ill BACKFILLEngineers Inc. ,

Winchester,Massachusetts Project 77386 March 13, 1978Fig.

ReactionSand and Sand-Cement Backf ill Engineers Inc Winchester, Massachusetts Project 77386 Public Service Company of New Hampshire March 13, 1978Fig. 4INTERNAL PRESSURE PIPE BURIED IN STRUCTURAL BACKFILL COMPACTION IO'9765976541456 7 8 91023456 7 65489467 8 9102346ReactionProject 77386 March 13, 1978Fia. 5Sand and Sand-Cement Backf ill INTERNAL PRESSURE PIPE BURIED IN STRUCTURAL BACKFILL 95% COMPACTION Public Servide Company of New Hampshire Geotechnical Engineers Inc.

Winchester,Massachusetts EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS AT DEPTH Z 2U=I IO986987463456 7 8 91023456 7 8Public Service Company of NewGeotechnical Engineers Inc.

Winchester,Massachusetts ReactionSand and Sand-Cement BackfillProject 77386 March 13, 1978Fig. 6= EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS AT DEPTH SAND-CEMENT BACKFILL INTERNAL PRESSURE PIPE BURIED IN DISPLACEMENT ReactionDISPLACEMENT

=98765= EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS AT DEPTH 4452346 7 8 9 0 0 SURCHARGE PRESSURE ON PIPE IN STRUCTURAL BACKFILLCOMPACTION March 13, 1978Fig. 7Project 77386 Sand and Sand-Cement Backf ill Public Service Company of Geotechnical Engineers Inc.

Winchester, Massachusetts New Hampshire 4567 8 910234564ReactionSand and Sand-Cement Backf ill Project 77386 BACKFILL'95% COMPACTION March 13, 1978Fig. 8ON PIPE IN STRUCTURAL SURCHARGE PRESSURE Inc.DISPLACEMENT

= EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS AT DEPTH Z Public Service Company of New Hampshire Winchester, Massachusetts UPDATED FSAR APPENDIX 2P STATION CONTAINMENT AIRCRAFT IMPACT ANALYSIS The information contained in this appendix was not revised, but has been extracted from the original FSAR and is provided for historical information.

FSARAPPENDIX 2P STATION CONTAINMENT AIRCRAFT IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared by UNITED ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTORS INC.

OCTOBER 1975 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SEABROOK, NEWHAMPSHIRE CONTENTSABSTRACTl-ll-ll-12l-14l-15FSARCONTENTS1.0 Structural Analysis ofStation Containment for Aircraft Impact l-l1.1Introduction

---

1.2Forcing Function for Impacting Aircraft 1.3Behavior of Containment

---

1.4Response of the Enclosure Building

---

1.5Shear Capability of the Containment

---

1.6Requirements to Prevent Perforation

---

1.7Conclusions 1.8References for Section 2.0 Fire Hazard Analysis ofStation 2-l2.1CombustibleVaporProduction 2-22.2FireAnalysis2-22.3Evaluation of Various Safety Related Areas 2-42.4Hazards from Smaller Aircrafti 2-62.5Conclusion2-72.6References for Section2-7l-18 SBFSARABSTRACTResults are presented which verify the adequacy of the containment to resist the impact of an FB-111 type aircraft.Includedis a description of the dynamic forcing function, the elastic-dynamic analysis, the elastic-plastic analysis, an estimate of reinforcement and liner strain and a verification of the punching shear capability of the containment.

It is shown that there existsmechanism by which spilled fuel from the impacting aircraft can access theThe ensuing fire is, therefore, postulated to start in thevicinityexternal toenclosure and it is demonstrated that these external fires do not, in any way, inhibit or handicap the safe shutdown cap-ability of the plant following the postulated crash.

It is concluded, that under the aircraft impact, the containment structure is able to withstand postulated impact and that the consequences of the aforementioned fire hazard is mitigated by the inherent design features ofStation.

1.0 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OFSTATION+2l-ldxFSARAIRCRAFT IMPACT

1.1 Introduction

TheStation containment has been analyzed for the effects of a-postulated impact by an FB-111 type aircraft with a speed at impact of 200 mph.Based on the analyses performed;-the of the containment to withstand the postulated impact is verified.

TheStation containment and enclosure building is described in Section 3.8.1 of thePSAR. The FB-111 aircraft, the missile in the postulated73.5 feet long, has a wingspan oosition) of 70.0 feet and weighs 81.800 Dounds (See Reference 1).

In order to perform the analyses,a force-time relationship is developed from the mechanical properties of the impacting aircraft.

An elastic dynamic analysis indicates that an elastic-plastic dynamic analysis is required to predict theresponse of the structure.From this analysis of the structure,is madeof the strains experienced by the reinforcing bars and liner.

Subsequently, an analysis is performed to verify the adequacy of the containment against punching shear and penetration.

1.2 FORCING FUNCTION FOR IMPACTING AIRCRAFT The time variation of the load on a rigid surface due to an impacting aircraft may be developed using the momentum principle.The governing equations which are used to determine thevariation of the force experienced by the target are (Reference 2):

FSARwhereR(t) is the force acting on the target (positive for compression),

is the extent of crushing at any time t as measured from the leading edge of nose of the missile, is the load required to crush the cross section of the missile at any distance n from the nose,(positive for compression) is the mass density per unit length of the missile as a function of the distance from the nose.

These equations are used to determine the two unknowns, the crushing length,and the reaction, R(t), as functions of time.Theinformation required to determine these variables consists of the initial impact velocity, weight or mass distribution and crushing load distribution of the aircraft.

The first equation is integrated numerically to obtain the velocity time history. The reaction force is then determined from the second equation.

Figureshows three views of the FB-111 aircraft. Figure the one dimensional idealized model of the same aircraft. Figure 2b describes the weight distribution for an FB-111 with a total weight of 81,800 pounds.The sketch and the weight distribution are obtained from Reference 1.The particular configuration used is essentially the same as that summarized on P. 1.3.3 of Reference 1 with the wing stores and wing useful load removed.

This configuration is consistenttheof the FB-111 at Pease AFB. The value of 81,800 pounds is the l-2 FSARweight before the airplane has warmed up and taken off.

flights the aircraft would fly a mission and return to Pease AFB with approximately 10,000 pounds of fuel.On this basis, the landing weight would be approximately 59,000 pounds.For those missions when the aircraft is flown with wing tanks the maximum take-off weight ispounds. The FB-lllis not allowed to land with fuel in these wing tanks; therefore in all cases the maximum landing weight is 81,800 pounds.

Thus, the 81,800 lbs weight of the FB-111 used in the impact analysis was the fully loaded FB-111 without wing tanks.This weight is conservatively large for any configuration of the aircraft flying out of Pease AFB, but it was used because it represented a maximum upper bound on the weight of the FB-111 in the landing pattern.

The exact crushing load distribution foran PB-111 is not available.

The crushing load distribution shown onis arrived at by scaling the known values for ais demonstrated in this report that the peak value of the reaction is relatively insensitive to reasonable variations ofthe crushing load.

Figure 3 shows the reaction-time relationship for the FB-111 striking a rigid wall at an impact velocity of 200 mph. The peak value of the reaction is 8.2 x pounds. This peak value occurs when the wing structure is in the process of collapsing.This peak reflects the l-3 PC8.5 x8.2 xpounds7.1 xpoundsFSARmass in the wing structure fuselage in the vicinitythenoted that the cross-sectional area over largerthe area of fuselage secondaryof 4.2106 pounds (at the vicinity of the engines.

The determination of the sensitivity of theto the magnitude the crushing load is investigated bytheforvalues of one-fifth and fivethis crushing load.Theseresults are shown in Figure 4.From Figure 4,peak values of the reactions are:

The peak value of the reactionrelativelv insensitive to variations in' the magnitude of the crushing load, and the scaled value of P Cjudged to give accurate results.

1.3Behavior of Containment 1.3.1 Elastic Dynamic Analysis For the elastic dynamic analysis, the finite element method was chosen as the analytical method, and a computer program for axisymmetric structures subjected to arbitrary static and dynamic loads was used.(See Reference 3 for the basis of the mechanics of the program.) Damping was not considered. Thus, the predicted structural response is slightly larger than that which does occur.

l-4 FSARTo accomplish the analysis, several assumptions were made.

They are as follows:

i)Theis fixed at the base of the cylinder.

ii)Impact loads are uniformly distributed over the loading zones.iii)In the axisymmetric analysis (impact at apex of dome), the loading zone is a circle with a radius of 52.77 inches and an area of 8748.3 square inches.

iv)In the asymmetric analysis (impact at springline), the loading zone is a square,93.53 inches on a side and 8748.3 square inches in area.

v)The stiffness of the reinforcing steel is neglected; only the gross concrete volume is considered.The modulus of elasticity was taken as 3.0 xin., Poisson's ratio was taken as 0.15, and the weight density was taken as 150 pcf.

vi)The effect of the enclosure building is neglected. It can be shown that the enclosure absorbs approximately 4%

of the energy of the impacting aircraft.

The containment structure is modeled with axisymmetric conical shell elements, a plot of this model is shown in Figure 5.

Two impact positions, the apex of the dome and the springline, are considered. The impact at the dome is uniformly distributed over the first seven (7) elements, and the impact at the springline is uniformly distributed over the six (6) elements nearest to the springline.By means of a half-range cosine series, the load at the springline is confined to a l-5 FSAR6.18' arc.(30) terms were used to represent this Fourier series which is shown, normalized to 1.0, in Figure 6.

Experience with loadings similar to the loadings here, has demonstrated that twenty (20) terms of the series were found to be too few and ninetyterms were found toresultsvery close to those generated by thirtyterms.Selected maximum results for the axisymmetric and asymmetric analyses are given in Tablesand l-2, respectively. These moments will cause cracking of the concrete and yielding of theTherefore, an elastic-plastic dynamic analysis is required.

1.3.2' Elastic-Plastic Dynamic Analysis The procedure followed for the elastic-plastic analysis of the response of the containment under aircraft impact follows that of(Reference 4). In this procedure, knowing the load-time relationship, the first natural frequency of that part of the structure participating in the energy absorption, and the allowable ductility ratio (defined as the ratio of the maximum deflection to the deflection at yield), the ratio of the maximum value of the load-timeto themaximum value of the resistance function can be determined. This 1-6 SBFSARcan then be compared with the actual estimated maximum values of the load-time relationship and resistance function.

The force-time relationship, given in Figure 3 is approximated by a triangular load-time curve with the same total impulse and peak force.This ideal and the actual force-time relation-ships are compared in Figure 7 .It is assumed that a circular region of radius "a" will participate in the energy absorption.

The natural frequency, associated with this participating region, is estimated on the basis of the first natural frequency of a flat circular plate of radius "a" clamped at the edges.The assumption of clamped edges, in that it gives a smaller period for the first natural frequency than in the actual case, is a conservative simplification. This follows because, in general the value of the maximum allowable forcing function decreases as the first natural period decreases (Ref. 4,

p. 78, Figure 2.26).Conversely, ignoring the curvature is non-conservative in that it gives an estimate*of the period which is larger than the actual case.For small values of the radius "a", the curvature effect is minimal.

All calculations are based upon thedome section configuration.The first natural frequency of a flat circular plate, clamped at the edge is:

PX.17whereis therigidity and M is the mass density per unit surface area (See, for example, Ref. 5).

l-7 FSARthethick concrete plate with a Young's modulus of psi and a unit weight of 150 pounds per cubic foot, period is:

sectioncracked section"a" in feet T 15.94 x12.86 xUsing Fig, 2.26 of Reference 4the ratioas afunction of the radius of the participating material of the containment,can be determined for various values of ductility ratio.

For the purpose of this investigation, two (2) ductility ratios, 3 and 10 are used. For plates and shells, the lower value is conservative, the larger value reasonable. The results of the calculations are shown in Table l-3 and Figure 8.Although the range of Fig. 2.26 of Reference 4 is limited to aof 20, it can be observed that for a ductility ratio greater than two and of 20, is greater than unity. Therefore, the allowable peak force, F, can be than the maximum value of the resistance, Rm.

1.3.3 Resistance Function In the vicinity of the impact region, the response of the structure is assumed to have the characteristics shown in FigureFor values of the force less than Rm, the displacements are limited in magnitude even though the response may be inelastic.

As the load reaches the valuethe deformations are able l-8For3xthe 2+=FSARto become arbitrarily large, i.e.,the collapse load has been reached.The collapse load for a concentrated load on a curved shell is not readily accessible.As a conservative estimate, the collapse load for a flat plate with reinforcement the same as the dome is used to estimate the collapse load for the shell..

Expecting the yield line formation shown in Figureobservation suggests that the clamped boundary condition case should be used. The value of the collapse load, Rm, is then (Reference whereis the ultimate moment capacity and the notation + and refers to the outside and inside reinforcement respectively.

The ultimate moment capacities and collapse loads of the containment are:

dome= 643 k-ft. /ft.

651 k-ft./ft.

springline= 1,235 k-ft./ft M-643 k-ft./ft At the dome, the collapse load and peak load are approximately equal.However, from Figure 8 , the dynamic effect allows the structure to withstand loads in excess of the capacity.

From Figurethe allowable load is 10% larger than the resistance or collapse load.Therefore,the apex will not l-9 FSARcollapse.Since the maximum load,less than the capacity of the dome in the springline,collapse will not occur at the springline.

The dome will not collapse, under the applied load.

1.3.4 Estimation of Rebar and Liner Strains While plastic analysis techniques are useful for finding collapse loads, they cannot be directly used to find the strains and displacements corresponding to collapse loads.

However, a procedure making use of the ductility ratio can be used to approximate the maximum strains in the structure subject to dynamic loading when nonlinear material behavior is encountered.This procedure is described below.

A typical load-displacement curve for reinforced concrete section is shown in Figure 10.This curve is linear up to the load causing crackingafter which a straight line of somewhat flatter slope is obtained until the loadisreached which causes yielding of the steel.

Any increase in load beyondcauses the displacement to increasedisproportionately.Further increase in load causes extensive displacements to occur,resulting in eventual collapse.

This actual behavior of the structure was idealized as shown in Figureand was used for the elastic-plastic dynamic analysis previously discussed.Thiscurve represents theresistance function of the structure.

l-10 Y60 0.002FSARThe ductilityreferred to in the elastic-plastic dynamic analysis represents the ratio of the maximum displacement of the structure to the deflection established as yieldforthe structure.

While it is recognized that the ductility ratio is not an exact measure of the maximum strain at a particular point of the structure, it can be used as an approximation because the at yield in the actual structure is very nearly the straincorresponding to yield for the idealized structure.

The procedure used herein is based on the peak of the actual forcing function resulting from the-aircraft impact, the durationof loading, theresistance function for the structure and the first natural period of the responding part of the structure.By using the above known quantities, the corresponding ductility ratio for the structure may be determined.

For a peak in the forcing function of and a in the resistance function of 8,130 k, the maximum ductility ratio for all ratios of is Fig. 2-26, Ref. 2).

Thus, regardless of the natural period of the responding part of the structure, the largest displacement that will occur under the aircraft impact loading is the same as that to yield for the idealized structure.

The yield strain for the reinforcing steel is SBFSARIf it is assumed that thecorresponding to yieldforthe idealized structure is 50% larger than this (actuallymuchless than this),, then an upper bound for the strain in the reinforcing steel will be:x 1.5 x 0.002 in/in =in/inSince the liner and the tension reinforcing steel are only several inches apart in a 42" thick containment dome, they will bestrained to nearly the same values.Hence, there will be no possibility of impairing the leak tight integrity of the liner.

1.4 Response of the Enclosure Building During the early stages of the impact process, the enclosure building will deform until it comes into contact with the containment. The enclosure building must deflect five feet in order to come into contact with the containment dome.Such a deformation will involve an inelastic response.This inelastic response will involve both flexure and shear.

The 15" thick enclosure building is reinforced with both ways and both faces.The collapse load is 635k.

The allowable shear load will depend upon the shear area over which the transverse shear stress acts. This shear area is determined by multiplying the average shear periphery by the effective depth of the shell. The average shear periphery is determined by a contour which is at a distance of one-half the effective depth away from the contour of the contact area (Figure 12 to 21 show the impact area and shear periphery associated with various locations 1-12 FSARalong the aircraft and for the effective depths of the enclosure building (9") and containment (37").

The reaction as a function of the cross section being crushed is determined from the reaction-time and crushing distance relationship and is shown in Figure 22.

From this information, it is possible to examine the effect of the aircraft impact on the enclosure building as a function of the distance being crushed.Figure 23 shows the average shear stress on the enclosure as a function of distance being crushed.Forexample, using a shear strength of 4.25the enclosure building will fail by shear when the aircraft is crushing at 7.25 feet.Alsoshown on Figure 23 is the reaction as a function of the distance being crushed.For a collapse load ofthe enclosure building will collapse when the aircraft is crushing at 9.75 feet.It wouldappear that, usingas a shear strength,the enclosure would fail by shear before collapse, however, the two events would occur at a time difference of 0.0086 sec.

Any increase in actual shear strength abovewould increase the possibility ofand collapse happening simultaneously. Asbedomonstrated in Section 1.5, the actual shear strength can vary considerably above a value ofNo clear conclusion can be drawn as to whether punch through or collapse occurs first. Based on the above discussion, the failure of the enclosure building will involve both extensive shear and flexure damage and it will deform until it comes into contact with the containment.

1-13 FSAR1.5 Shear Capability of the Containment The enclosure building will deform until it comes into contact the containment dome.The dome will then resist the impact force and experience transverse shear stress in the vicinity of the impact area. The maximum average shear stress is determined by defining a shear perimeter and thickness over which the impact force is acting.

Figure 24 describes the procedure by which the shear perimeter for the maximum average shear stress acting on the containment dome is determined.The shear perimeter for the containment is at a distance(effective depth of enclosure) + ( effective depth of containment 2away from theof the impact area.

The values of the shear perimeter for various cross sections of the aircraft are given in Table l-4.Also shown are the shear area, impact force and average shear stress for the containment building.

The values of average shear stress as a function of the cross section crushed is shown in Figure 25. The shear stress is given in terms of psi andThe maximum value of the average shear stress occurs when the aircraft is crushing at a distance of 35 feet from the nose. The value of this maximum average shear stress is 229 psi orVarious shear strengths have been proposed.A tabulation of these shear strengths, for parameters similar to the aircraft and structure under discussion is shown in Table l-5.It is seen that the maximum nominal shear stress ofis less than all the other proposed values except the conservative value ofas proposed by the 1-14 G1.01-15B2.570.454dmxeVWKFSARXI-Committee 326.Hence, it is concluded the the containment will not fail by punch through.

1.6 Requirements to Prevent Perforation The velocity of the engines as they impact on the enclosure building and containment is 250 fps.

The FB-111 has two Pratt Whitney(Military designation jet turbo fan engines with an outside diameter of 50.22 inches.Each engine has a dry weight of 4,121 pounds (Ref. 1).

The thickness of the dome required for no performation was determined using procedures reported in Reference 7.

The pertinent nomenclature is :

penetration thickness for infinitely thick slab (inches) perforation thickness for reinforced concrete (inches) diameter of missile (inches) velocity of impact (feet per second) weight of missile 180ultimate compression strength of concrete (psi)

FSARSince a jet engine is not completely solid (thin shells for torque transmission, blades for fan, compressor and turbine, burner cans for combustion) the engine was assumed to behave similarly to a hollow pipe missile.

For a fan-jet, the outside diameter is slightly larger than the gas generator.Two values of dm (the diameter of the gas generator) were used, SO.23 inches and 40 inches. The results are:

dm (inches)21.822.8These values can be compared with the dome thickness of 42 inches.

From these calculations,can be concluded that there will be no perforation.

1.7 Conclusions

From the above results of the analysis of theStationContainment,the following conclusions can be made:

1.The enclosure building will fail and will come into contact with the containment building.The mode of failure will not be by shear or flexure alone, but will involve both types of damage.2.The containment building will not fail.Thestrength will prevent collapse.The shear strength will prevent.punch There will be permanent damage to the structure, but the extentof this damage will not be sufficient to cause loss of the integrity of the building.

l-16 FSAR3.The linerinelastic, will be sufficiently small so that tearing of the liner will not occur.

4.The engines will not perforate the containment.

These conclusions can be made even though the above analysis was performed with considerableThe conservative aspects of the analysis are:

1.The reaction-time relationship was determined for impact on a rigid target. A realistic, flexible target would reduce the peak value of the reaction.

2.Normal impact was assumed.Any impact angle other thanreducesthe impact forceand increase the area over which the impact force acts.

3. The arcing effect of the doubly-curved dome was ignored. Arching increases the collapse and punching load capacities.

4.The shear stresses can be computed more accurately using the effective forceduring the time necessary for the structure to respond rather than the peak instantaneous force.

The peak instantaneous force will give larger shear stresses than the effective force.

5.The actual concrete compression strength will be larger than the specified strength of 3,000 psi.This would result in a larger value for the shear strength.

6. A conservative estimate of the shear periphery used to calculate shear areas and shear strengths wasThe1-17 FSARfailure cone was assumed to be through the containment only and not through the combined thicknesses of the containment and enclosure building,The latter would be more accurate.

The integrity of the containment buildingnot be impaired in the occurrence of the postulated aircraft impact.

1.8 REFERENCES

FOR SECTION 1.0 1."FB-111 Unit Inertia Data, "General Dynamics, Fort Worth Division, Report FZS-12-6010, Revision "A", January, 1968.

2.Riera, J.O., "On the Stress Analysis of Structures Subjected to Aircraft Impact Forces" Nuclear Engineering and Design, North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Holland, 8p. 415-426.

3.Ghosh, S., and Wilson, E., "Dynamic Stress Analysis of Axisymmetric Structures Under Arbitrary Loading", University of California, Berkeley, CA., Revised Sept., 1975.

4.Biggs, J. M., Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,

1964, pps. 69-84.

5. Meiorovitch, Analytical Methods in Vibrations, The Macmillan Company, 1967, p. 183.

6.Save and Massonnet, Plastic Analysis and Design of Plates, Shells and Disks, North Holland, 1972, p. 245.

7.Kennedy, Effects of an Aircraft Crash Into a Concrete Reactor Containment Building.HolmesNarver, Inc., July, 1966.

1-18

-478-478FSARTABLE l-l MAXIMUM RESPONSE ANALYSIS(IMPACT AT DOME)

Meridional Circumferential Element 36 is elementabove springline.

FSARTABLE 1-2 RESPONSEASYMMETRIC ANALYSIS (IMPACT AT SPRINGLINE)

Meridional

-1139Ft-K/FtCircumferential

-1309Meridional 383Circumferential 442Meridional

-1148.Ft-K/FtCircumferential 1350Meridional*

378Circumferential 431Element 37 is element immediately below springline.

SectionTABLE l-3 ALLOWABLEFORCE, MAXIM?? RESISTANCE RATIO FOR VARIOUS DUCTILITY RATIOS AND PARTICIPATING TARGET MATERIAL RADII31.121.2331.151.1231.201.3331.251.47Participating Radius; since this is notdefined, a range of values is included.

• • By observation, Pigure 2.26,"Introduction to StructuralRiggs-3( 1.00 x 10

-29.03 x1.61 x 10 4.92 x 10

-2T4.01 x 10

-33.61 x 10

-26.42 x 10

-24a12162024322.51 xCracked Section 41.24x137.1a4.92x10-334.2121.12x10-215.2161.99x10-2a.53-210203.11x105.43-210244.48x3.8310286.09x2.83-210327.96x102.131011.101.201.101.301.171.361.231.471.251.70170.042.418.810.6 1-4AVERAGE SHEAR STRESS LocationShear Perimeter ft.ft.Shear Area ReactionpoundsAverage Shear Stresspsi*If the wings were assumed to have sheared-off at the time that the aircraft were crushing at this location the shear perimeter and reaction would-be reduced to 64.6 ft. andrespectively. The average shear stress then becomes 198 psi.

the horizontal and vertical stabilizers were assumed to have sheared-off at the time that the aircraft were crushing at this location the shear perimeter and reaction would be reduced to 42.1 ft. and respectively. The average shear stress then becomes 209 psi.

average shear stress for the case were the crushing strength is reduced by 5 is 245 psi.

32.614,47437.016,42841.818,55950.222,28899.844,31145.520,20249.221,84449.221,84415193541505889229178686,00032 Ultimate Shear Strength psiUltimate Shear Strength 71765560752752552344539138336335129221913.111.911.089.629.589.557.146.996.626.415.334.00SBFSARTABLE l-5 COMPARISON OF ULTIMATE SHEAR STRENGTH CAPACITY*

equation 5-2, equation 5-1,=equation S-10,=equation 5-5,=equation 5-2,= 1equation 5-3,=equation 5-1,= 1equation S-10,= 1equation 5-5,1equationequationequation 5-6 equation 5-9,326shear stress at distance d/2 from periphery = 1

• "The Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Member-Slabs",JointTask Committee 426, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Aug., 1974.

c = 93"= 3,000 psip = 0.0099 d37"Y60,000 psi

• • Adjusted for circular region,evaluated at d/2 away from periphery.

10 FT 3 IN I.133FT., II IN.

STA270.50STATICGROUND LINE STA562.97 704020Figure 2B E I G H T SB 1 2FSAR73.5---FigureI I I60040 8622FSAR TIMESECONDSFIGURE 3REACTION-TIME RELATIONSHIP 5PFSARP denotes the scale crushing load used in the calculation.

and5 denotes that one-fifth and five time the crushing load used,'respectively.

1086T I M ESECONDSFIGURE 4Reaction-Time Relationship for FB-111 with impact velocities of 200 mph.

SB 1 & 2FSARFIGURE 5FINITE ELDIENT MODEL FSARNO.3S T A T I O N FIGURE.6FOURIER SERIES REPRESENTATION OF SPRINGLINE LOADING 00.050.100 . 1 50.200.250.30FIGURE 7 ACTUAL AND IDEAL REACTION TIME RELATIONSHIP

MATERIAL, FSARFIGURE 8ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM FORCE, MAXIMUM RESISTANCE RATIO FOR VARIOUS DUCTILITY RATIOS AND PARTICIPATION TARGET MATERIAL RADII SBFIGUREBEHAVIOR ANDLINE CONFIGURATION FSARFIGURE 10.

LOAD-DISPLACEMENT CURVE FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE SB 1FSAR

- 15.2 ft.

30.2 ft.Shear Perimeter SBFSARFigure 13, Impact Area and Shear Perimeter at 8.5 Feet From Nose SBShear Perimeter Enclosure17.8 ft.Containment31.8 ft.Figure 14, Impact Area and Shear Perimeter at 9.9 feet From Nose SBShear Perimeter

- -ft.Containment 32.6 ft.

FigureImpact Area and Shear Perimeter at 15 Feet From Nose FSAR\\IShear Perimeter Containment37.0 ft.Figure 16, Impact Area and Shear Perimeter at 19.0 Feet From Nose Shear Perimeter Containment37 ft.FSARFigure 17, Impact Area and Shear Perimeter at 27 Feet From Nose FigureImpact Area and Shear Perimeter at 35 Feet from Nose Shear Perimeter

'Containment 50.2 Ft.

SBFSAR

...

Containment - 99 8 ft Shear Perimeter m.MIN********.*1.

Figure 19, Impact Area and Shear Perimeter at 41.0 Feet From Nose Shear Perimeter Containment II43.2 ft.SB2FSARFigure 20, Impact Area and Shear Perimeter at 50.0 Feet From Nose Shear Perimeter Containment 49.2 ft.

Figure 21Impact Area and Shear Perimeter at 58.0 Feet From Nose FSAR IDISTANCEFEET1010304050602FIGURE 22, REACTION-CRUSHING LOCATION RELATIONSHIP JPSI6.005.0025010012345671750DISTANCE CRUSHED-FT.

Figure 23 Average Shear Stress-Distance Crushed and Reaction Distance Crushed Relationship for the Enclosure Building.

2Effective Shear Area 24 SCHEMATIC FORSHEAR 25STRESS-DISTANCE CRUSHED RELATIONSHIP FOR CONTAINMENT DISTANCE CRUSHED 229 PSI FSAR2.0FIRE HAZARD ANALYSIS OFSTATION CONTAINMENT FOR AIRCRAFT IMPACT A highly unlikely chain of adverse events is postulated in the following manner:

An FB-111 with a weight of 81,800 lbs and initial speed of 200 mph impacts on one of the two double containment complexes of the brook plant.The enclosure building deforms locally under the initial impact,and the local deformation continues with little to no perforation until the enclosure building comes into contact with the containment building.This fact, plus the fact that if any penetration should occur it would be only the nose of the aircraft, will preclude the spilling of significant amounts of fuel into thespace. Thespacecontains no equipment,and all penetrations both mechanical and electrical are isolated from missiles and fuel by reinforced concrete slabs,Theenclosure building acts as a barrier and directs the spilled fuel to the exterior area near the enclosure building.The following effects were then studied:

Possible production of combustible vapor, its prompt ignition and the ensuing pressure pulse, and the possibility that the combustible vapor may be sucked into the plant areas and be cause for delayed ignition or toxic atmosphere in habitability systems.

The fuel spilled and its transport to various areas of the plant. An ignition is then postulated, and the effect of the ensuing fire studied in order to evaluate 2-l FSARthe safe shutdown capability of the plant.

The effect of smoke and/or toxic gases as may be generated by the fire, with particular reference to control room habitability.

The effects as detailed in (1) and (3) for all smaller air-craft.2.1COMBUSTIBLE VAPOR PRODUCTION The FB-111 carries approximately 32,000 lbs of type JP-4 fuel. As indicated in Reference 1, the process of combustible vapor production is as follows:the crashing aircraft drags along the ground in a relatively slow deceleration (0.4 g) which lasts for a 'long' time (20and thefuel issuing from the wing after some postulated leakage mechanism is atomized to mist by the air as a result of its velocity relative to air.

For the direct impact considered here,the decelerations are very high (peak value of 29 g) and of very 'short' duration (0.3 sec.).The atom-izing process under these conditions is not significant.It is, there-fore, concluded that the combustible vapor production and the associated hazards can be considered to be mitigated.

2.2FIRE ANALYSIS Various spill mechanisms are postulated either on the roofs or on the ground adjacent to the containment structure:

The various roof areas adjacent to the containment enclosure with their elevation approximate areas, etc., are detailed in Table 2-1.As stated in PSAR Section 2.4, most of these roofs have parapets, and the roof drainage systems are designed to drain at least 3 inches per hour rain. It is 2-2 FSARnoted further that 1 inch of fuel takes 10 minutes to Using the minimum area in Table 2-1, and a catastrophic instantaneous mode of fuel release, the maximum expected duration of the fire is 17.9 minutes.

For ground areas adjacent to the containment, there is approximately 1.5 acres of land, the total drainage of which is approximately 6 cfs.The spreading of the fuel over this area and the adequate drainage would result in a film fire with width comparable to the roughness of the pavement, e.g.,inch.The resulting fire would last only for 1 minute at the most.

The mechanism of fire propagation was examined. No flamm-able material is normally expected to be present next to the containment which can serve as the propagator of the fire. The range of the fire has very conservatively estimated to be 200 ft. from its point of origin.

Smoke is postulated to be traveling from this centre fire location carried by the wind.Its effect on the habitability systems was then studied.

The possible hazard of fuel getting into the PAB Building through the vent stack is considered remote due to the follow-ing reasons:

The mechanism is improbable.

The entering fuel will be drained off at the base of the vertical stack, just as rainwater would be.

The possible hazard of fuel getting into the main steam line tunnels through the side vent openingsconsidered not probable since the vent openings are above grade.

2-3 FSAR2.3 EVALUATION OF VARIOUS SAFETY RELATED AREAS The various intake points to the safety related areas and their description8 are detailed in Table 2-2,including the missile shields when applicable, under the accident conditions detailed in Subsection 2.3. All buildings other than the control room and the PAB residual heat removal area are either not needed for safe shutdown or are redun-dant.However, the conservative analysis below includes the reaction of these areas to the postulated fire.

(a) Control Room There is no mechanism for the fire to endanger the habitability of the control room, since the split intake vents are at a distance of at least 300 ft. from the containment; therefore, it is beyond the reach of the direct fire. However, in the remote event that the fire finds its way into the intake structure, the temperature and smoke sensors will sense it the intake opening will be closed. Under these conditions, the other intake will be used for ventilating the control rooms.

Primary Auxiliary Building (PAB)

The air intake is located on the east wall of the primary auxiliary building at an elevation ofThe area in front of the intake has the containment enclosure roof elevation ofand the east wall of the PAB faces the containment and the fuel storage building.There may be a fire lasting 12.5 minutes at most on the roof of the containment enclosure area, a part of which may be injected into theair intake, as its height is 3 ft. above the 2-4 FSARroof of containment enclosure area.The inside of the PAB has roll-type filters after the intake and heating coil panels after the filter.Therefore,the flame and the hot gases would have to penetrate the filter and the coils before reaching the fans.

As indicated in Subsection 2.2, the roof surface of the containment enclosure area will be finished smooth and with proper drainage to drain off the spilled fuel quickly.

Smoke and heat sensors will be located at the air inlet so that on a signal from them the operator can stop the fans.

Diesel Generator Building The diesel generator building intakes are on opposite sides of the building and are located at least 180 ft. from the containment structures.It is considered improbable that the spilled fuel will find its way underneath one of these intakes.Furthermore,the intakes are 28.5' above grade level, and it is unlikely that the fire will rise to that height.In addition, one of the intakes is shielded by the diesel generator building and it is thus not considered credible that the fire could reach that intake.Althoughit may be postulated that the hot gas from the point may cause momentary oxygen starvation of generator, the shielded intake will ensure the other diesel generator and of one train.

Service Water Building direct intake one diesel integrity of The intake for the service water building is approximately 280 ft. from the containment'and should be out of reach of the postulated fire.Furthermore,the air intake is located 2-5 FSARin the east wall of the building.Consequently, the building serves as a shield for the spilled fuel flow.

Additionally, there is a missile shield in front of the structure, which should inhibit any possible fuel flow and subsequent fire.The fire effects are, therefore, considered minimal. However, a minute amount of hot gas may enter the facility, but since the pumps are located at the west end of the building, it will not critically threaten their operation due to rise of temperature.

Vent Stack The vent stack is not a safety related item and, as in-dicated in Subsection 2.2, it does not furnish a significant pathway for the fuel to get into the primary auxiliary build-ing. This mechanism of fire propagation is, therefore, con-sidered incredible.

Cable Spreading, Battery Room, Switch Gear Room and Cable Tunnel The air intake for cable spreading, battery room, switch gear room and cable tunnel areas is through the mechanical equip-ment room of the diesel generator building, and the various safety aspects discussed for the diesel generator room hold for this case.

2.4HAZARDS FROM SMALLER AIRCRAFT The smaller plane crashes were examined for the various areas, as detailed in Subsections 2.2 and 2.3. The fuel in general may be JP-1, kerosene and JP-4.Since the fuel carrying capacity for all these planes is smaller than that of FB-111, and their burning temperatures are of the same order of magnitude, it was concluded that the effect would be enveloped by those in the case of FB-111.

2-6 FSARCONCLUSIONS In view of the results in Subsectionsandit was con-cluded that the hazard toStation from direct fire after the postulated crash of an FB-111 or smaller aircrafts on the containment represents only very minimal potential hazard to the plant.The present design of the plant has inherent safety features so that the consequence of this minimal hazard is mitigated.

REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 1.Appraisal of Fire Effects From Aircraft Crash at Zion Power Reactor Facility, I. Irving Pinkel,Consultant, Atomic Energy Commission, July 17, 1972.

Flammability Characteristics of Combustible Gases and Vapors, Bulletin 627, U. S. Bureau of Mines, 1965, Michael Zabetakis.

BUILDINGS ROOFAREA(SQ.FT.)ELEVATION REMARKSCONTAINMENT ENCLOSURE 4,10053'WITH PARAPET EMERGENCYFEEDWATERPUMPBLDG.3,00047'WITH PARAPET FUEL STORAGE BUILDING 9,20084'WITH PARAPET PRIMARYAUXILIARYBUILDING8,14481'WITH PARAPET PAB Filter Room 2,856108'WITH PARAPET TABLE 2-l ROOF DESCRIPTIONS NOTE:GRADE ELEVATION 20' TABLEVENTILATION SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS OF THE BUILDING SURROUNDING THE CONTAINMENT

.,SHEET 1 OF BUILDINGBUILDINGSURFACEFACING THE CONT.

LOCATIONS OF THEINTAKESTYPE OFSHIELDING REMARKSSURFACEPATHWAYFROMCONT.WALLELEVATION DieselGen.South wall SouthWall200 ft.28.5ft.above gr.

Other Bldg.

at 40'dist..Ventilation air;notnecessaryforsafeshutdown.

NorthWall240 ft.(thruroof)28.5 ft.aboveOther Bldg.

at40PABEast wall EastWall20 ft.3aboveadjacentroof.Shielded by the Cont.

F.Stg.Bldg.Normalventilation air;only RHRpump area safe shutdownrelated.NorthWall95ft.(thruroof)29ft.above gr.

thickshield.Ventilationairtosafety related mary component cool, ing water pump area and Boron injection pump area.

Emergency Feedwater Pump Bldg.

South Wall NorthWall30 ft.(thruroof)18ft.above gr.

2'thickconcretemissileshieldVentilationairtothe emergency water pump area.

TABLE 2-2 (CONT.)

SHEET 1 OF 2 BUILDINGBUILDINGSURFACEFACING THE CONT.

LOCATION OF THE INTAKES TYPE OFSHIELDING REMARKSSURFACEPATHWAYFROMELEVATION CONT.WALLServiceWaterPumpHouseWest Wall EastWall290ft.(throof)ru45 ft.above2'thickmissileshield.Ventilationairtotheservice water pump house.

WestWall180ft.13.5above2'thickmissileshield.Air intake to the electricalareas.ControlRoomComputerRoomSouth 6EastWallsRemoteIntakePorts300ft.least)At gr.levelCoveredwithgrating.Ventilationairtothe habitable areas of the control and computer room.

SEABROOK STATION UFSAR ACCIDENT ANALYSIS EAB and LPZ Short Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates for AST Revision 10 Appendix 2Q Page 2Q-1 APPENDIX 2Q EAB AND LPZ SHORT TERM ACCIDENT DIFFUSION ESTIMATES FOR AST 2Q.1 OBJECTIVE Conservative values of atmospheric diffusion at the site boundary (EAB) and the low population zone (LPZ) were calculated for appropriate time periods using meteorological data collected onsite during the time period 1998 through 2002. 2Q.2 METHODOLOGY The methodology used for this calculation is consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.145 as implemented by the PAVAN computer code (Referen ce 2). Using joint frequency distributions of wind direction and wind speed by atmospheric stability, the PAVAN computer code provides relative air concentration (CHI/Q) values as functions of direction for various time periods at the site boundary and LPZ. Three procedures for cal culation of CHI/Qs are utilized for the site boundary and LPZ; a direction-dependent approac h, a direction-independent approach, and an overall site CHI/Q approach. The CHI/Q calculations are based on the theory that material released to the atmosphere will be normally distributed (Gaussian) about the plume centerline. A straight-line trajectory is assumed between th e point of release and all distances for which CHI/Q values are calculated. The theory and implementing equations employed by the PAVAN computer code are documented in Reference 2. 2Q.3 CALCULATIONS/PAVAN COMPUTER CODE INPUT DATA The boundary distance used in each of the 16 downwind directions from the site was set to 914 m. The LPZ boundary distance was set to 2,011 m.

All of the releases were considered ground leve l releases because the highest possible release elevation is from the plant stack at 185 ft above plant grade. From Section 1.3.2 to Reference 1, a release is only considered a stack release if the release point is at a level higher than two and one-half times the height of adjacent solid struct ures. For the Seabrook plant, the elevation of the top of the containment is 199.25 ft. Therefor e, the highest possible release point is not 2.5 times higher than the adjacent containment buildi ngs, and thus all releases were considered ground level releases. As such, the release height was set equal to 10.0 meters as required by Table 3.1 of Reference 2. The building area used for the building wake term was 2,416 m

2.

SEABROOK STATION UFSAR ACCIDENT ANALYSIS EAB and LPZ Short Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates for AST Revision 10 Appendix 2Q Page 2Q-2 The tower height at which the wind speeds were measured is 10.05 m above plant grade. The windspeed units are given in miles per hour, th erefore the PAVAN variable UCOR was set equal to 101 to convert the windspeeds to meters per second as described in Table 3.1 of Reference 2. The maximum windspeed in each windspeed category was chosen to match the raw joint frequency distribution data, which conforms to the windspeed bins in Table 1 of Reference 3. 2Q.4 RESULTS PAVAN computer runs for the EAB and LPZ boundary distances were performed using the data discussed previously. Per Section 4 of Reference 1, the maximum CHI/Q for each distance was determined and compared to the 5% overall site value for the boundary under consideration. For dose calculations, the most limiting 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> CHI/Qs were combined with the worst 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> EAB doses to maximize calculated EAB doses (conservative approach). The maximum EAB and LPZ CHI/Qs that resulted from this comparison are provided in the table below:

Offsite Boundar y /Q Factors for Anal ysis EventsTime Perio d EAB /Q (sec/m3)LPZ /Q (sec/m3) 0-2 hours 3.17E-041.54E-04 0-8 hours 2.08E-048.63E-05 8-24 hours 1.68E-04 6.46E-05 1-4 days 1.06E-04 3.45E-05 4-30 days 5.51E-05 1.40E-05 2Q.5 REFERENCES

1. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.145, "Atmospheri c Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 1, November 1982, (Reissued February 1983 to correct page 1.145-7).

2. NUREG/CR-2858, "PAVAN: An Atmospheric Dispersion Program for Evaluating Design Basis Accidental Releases of Radioactive Materials from Nuclear Power Stations," November 1982.

3. Safety Guide 23, "Onside Meteorological Programs," February 17, 1972.

SEABROOK STATION UFSAR ACCIDENT ANALYSIS Control Room Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates for AST Revision 10 Appendix 2R Page 2R-1 APPENDIX 2R SHORT-TERM (ACCIDENT

) DIFFUSION FOR THE CONTROL ROOM 2R.1 OBJECTIVE Conservative values of atmospheric diffusion to the Control Room were calculated for appropriate time periods using meteorological data collected onsite during the time period 1998 through 2002.

2R.2 METHODOLOGY The ARCON96 computer code is used by the USNRC staff to review licensee submittals relating to control room habitability (Reference 1). Therefore, the ARCON96 computer code was used to determine the relative concentrations (CHI/Qs) for the control room air intakes and inleakage locations. The ARCON96 computer code uses hourly meteorological data for estimating dispersion in the vicinity of buildings to calculate relative concentrations at control room air intakes that would be exceeded no more than five percent of the time.

These concentrations are calculated for averaging periods ranging from one hour to 30 days in duration. The theory and implementing equations employed by the ARCON96 computer code are documented in Reference 1. 2R.3 CALCULATIONS/ARCON COMPUTER CODE INPUT DATA Five years of meteorological data (1998-2002) were used for the ARCON96 computer code runs. The percentage of valid data over this time period was 98.8% which exceeds the minimum value of 90% data recovery specified in Reference 2. A number of various release-receptor combinations were considered for the control room CHI/Qs. These different cases were considered to determine the limiting release-receptor combinations for the various events. The case matrix for these combinations is provided in Table 2R-2.

The distance and direction inputs for the ARCON96 runs may be found in Table 2R-1. The distances were converted from feet to meters with a factor of 0.3048 m/ft. The distances in meters were then rounded down to the nearest tenth for conservatism. The elevation difference term was set equal to zero for each case since all elevation points are taken with respect to the same datum.

SEABROOK STATION UFSAR ACCIDENT ANALYSIS Control Room Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates for AST Revision 10 Appendix 2R Page 2R-2 The lower and upper measurement heights for the meteorological data were entered as 10.05 m and 60.66 m, respectively, for each case. The mph option was selected for the windspeed units.

A ground level release was chosen for each scen ario since none of the release points are 2.5 times taller than the closest solid structure as called out in Section 3.2.2 of Reference 3 for stack releases. The top of the containment structure is at an elevation of 199.25 ft. The highest release point is from the top of the plant stack at an elevation of 185 ft., which is not 2.5 times higher than the nearby containment structure. The vertical velocity, stack flow, and stack radius terms were all set equal to zero since each case is a gr ound level release. The vent release option was not selected for any of the scenarios.

The actual release height was used in the cases.

No credit was taken for effective release height due to plume rise; therefore, for the releases from the stacks, the release elevations were set equal to the stack top elevation. The release hei ghts were taken as the release elevations less the plant grade elevation of 19 ft.

The only cases in this analysis that take cred it for the building wake effect are the scenarios where the release is from the containment building, the tank farm, or the waste processing building. Some of the other scenarios have buildings between the release and receptor points, but for these cases the building wake was not credited for the sake of conservatism. Not crediting wakes was accomplished by setting the building area term equal to 0.01 m 2 as stated in Table A-2 of Reference 3. The first building area used is a conservatively determined containment cross sectional area. The area is calculated as the sum of the cross sectional areas created by the cylindrical portion of the containm ent structure above the highest nearby roof and the hemispherical area of the dome. The width used is equal to the diameter of the containment structure. The height of the cylindrical portion is taken as the distance between the top of the cylinder portion of the containment structure (re presented by the spring line elevation) and the primary auxiliary building roof elevation. The radius of the hemispherical dome is taken as one half of the calculated diameter. The containment area was determined to be 1,506 m

2. The second building area is calculated as the product of the minimum roof height of the waste processing building and tank farm and one half the width of the waste processing building and tank farm. The minimum roof height and one half of the width are used for conservatism. This building area was determined to be 337 m

2. All of the default values in the ARCON96 code were unchanged from the code default values with the following exceptions. Table A-2 of Refe rence 3 suggests use of a value of 0.2 for the Surface Roughness Length, and use of a value of 4.3 for the Averaging Sector Width Constant. These two changes were made for each case. The minimum wind speed was left at 0.5 m/s per the guidance instruction in Table A-2 of Reference 3.

SEABROOK STATION UFSAR ACCIDENT ANALYSIS Control Room Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates for AST Revision 10 Appendix 2R Page 2R-3 2R.4 RESULTS ARCON96 computer runs for the various release points and control room intake locations were performed using the data discussed previously. Per Reference 3, the 95 th percentile CHI/Q values were determined. The resulting CHI/Qs are listed in Table 2R-2.

2R.5 REFERENCES

1. NUREG/CR-6331 PNL-10521, "Atmospheric Rela tive Concentrations in Building Wakes," May 1995, with Errata dated July 1997. 2. Safety Guide 23, "Onside Meteorological Programs," February 17, 1972. 3. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.194, "Atmospheric Relative Concentrations for Control Room Radiological Habitability Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants," June 2003.

UPDATED FSAR APPENDIX 2L GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION OF SOILS AND THE BEDROCK SURFACE AT UNIT 2 CONTAINMENT SITE.STATIONThe information contained in this appendix was not revised, but has been extracted from the original FSAR and is provided for historical information.

GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS ofSOILS AND THE BEDROCK SURFACE at2SITESTATIONPUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW HAMPSHIRE October 24, 1974 CONTENTS1.Purpose of I nvc stigations 2.Borings Investigationsto Boring 3.Trench Excavations 4.Bedrock* Exposed in Trenches A.FaultingB.Jointing5.Unconsolidated Glacial Deposits 6.Conclusions Figure 1Public Service Company of NewSite Survey Figure 2Geologic Map Unit 2 Trenches Figure 3Soils ProfilesUnit 2 Trenches Appendix IBoring Log Boring Appendix IIGeotechnical Report, Reactor Borings Geotechnical Engineers, Inc.

Page12334456 Geological ofSoils and the Bedrock Surface Unit 2 Containment Site StationNew Hampshire August and early September, 1974, four trenches in length were excavated to bedrock on anconfiguration across the area of the Unit 2 containment site at theStation,Hampshire.

The bedrock in the floor of these trenches is gneissoid quartz diorite of the pluton, which is commonly fractured at than 3* intervals in this area by an intersecting pattern of angle and low-angle joints. The most prominent and continuous joint se; within the containment area appears to b one which strikes dips steeply to the north, and is by smooth coated joint surfaces.

Unconsolidated overburden in the area ranges to a maximum of 16* in thickness, and is characterized by a deposit of sand-silt-cobble till locally overlain by a blanket of fine sand. Glacial-marine clay lies between the till and wash to the east of the containment. covered by sand, the upper surface of the till is beveled to a gently undulating, planar erosion surface upon which rest isolated boulders ranging toin diameter.

No evidence of Recent fault displacement was observed on the surface in the Unit 2 trenches. The sub-planar contact horizon, which occurs in three of the four trenches, shows no evidence in these areas of static or dynamic deformation.

1. Purpose of Investigations Bedrock at the site of the proposed Unit containment is largely obscured by glacial till, glacial-marine clay andsand. Bor-ingdrilled in December 1972 to a depth of 159.2* on the vertical centerline of Unit 2, encountered thinof structural weakness in the diorite bedrock at intervals between elevations -75* and These zones are characterized bychlorite-rich high-angleandclosely jointed zones in chlorite-rich of the bedrock. High-angle joints indip fromtoand most commonly dip Trenching investigations over the Unit 2 site werein1974 for precautionaryto ascertain the of thedeposits in the urea and to examine the nature of jointing in the underlying bedrock surface.

2.Investigations Subsequent to Boring During April 1974, Eoringwas drilled to a depth of 97.8*

at a iocatior, 33*(True) of the centerline of2 (see Appen-dix I for boring log) . This boring encounteredwith minor chlorite coatings a variouswith a zone of smooth coated joints-64 to -79* elevations. These joints diptoand frequently show pyrite crystal growths over the chlorite surfaces.

During 1974, four inclined borings, and 18, were down around the periphery of the Unit 2 containment site to develop information relative to engineering of the containment Logs and orientation data for these borings are presented in a July 31, 1974 report prepared by Engineers, Inc., Winchester, Massachusetts (see II) .

Boringsandalong the west and south edges of the containment, respectively, encountered very few chlorite-coated joints.polished joint atdepth inappears likely to re-present the projection to depth of a prominent chlorite-coated angle joint which is observed on the bedrock surface to trend through the centerline of Unit 2. There are no anomalously polished joints in Boring Boringdrilled northerly across the east edge of the con-tainment site, encountered polished chlorite-coated joints intermittently at depths of137* and 152-156*. Some of these joints appear tothe prominent east-west joint which trends through the centerline of Unit 2. This prominent joint appears to split into a number of high-angle branches as it passes east into the zone of influence of Boring

,and(see Figure 1) .

encounteredindividual joints havecoatings.anomalously polished or richfound,in thedepth drilled.

injoint mapping of the bed-rock surfaceBoringsanddo not indicate the presence of a through-going faultinthe area of Unit 2. These borings do appear,tothat the most prominent orchlorite-coated joint system in thearea trends (True) through the central part of theand dipsto the north.

3. Trench Excavations During August 1974, four trenches were excavated with a back-hoe to bedrock across the 'Unit 2 site, to form anwhose legs are each203' long and intersect at right angles at the vertical centerline of the Unit. The legs trend approximately True North,Ground surfacein the area oftrenches range from aboutto. The elevation of the bedrock surface in the floor of the trenches rangesabout -3'Stationin the East trench toat Stationin the South trench. Profiles of the bedrock face along the centerlines of the trenches, as surveyed by Public Service Company 'of Newpersonnel, are shown on Figuresand 3.4.Exposed in the Trenches Figure 2 shows by half-tonethe areas of bedrock mapped by J. R. Rand in the several trenches. Although the trenches were to bedrock, throughout, the bedrock in theelevation areas too obscured byand mud to permit the observation of joints or other pertinentfeatures. Although much of the bedrock surface is rough and irregular due to glacial plucking or breaking by the backhoe, wide areas of the bedrock are locally smooth and show glacial striations.

Throughout the area exposed by the trenches the bedrock con-sists predominantly of gneissoid, sometimes quartzitic, quartz diorite which ranges in grain size from fine- to orientations:

StrikeDipStrikeDipStrikeDipNoofof'bedrock surface or the overlying glacialin thebreccia fab-ric,isin drill corein the Unit 2 area and throughout thearea, can beon a smooth 5'ofi nThis breccia is dips steeply, is annealedcompact,andof the glaciated bedrock surface.

B. Jointing on Figure 2, jointing in the bedrock is closely spaced 2 containment area,a:andat less than 3' joints (greater thandips) occur in three prominent At the centerline of Unit 2, the most continuoustrend is This set is seen----tohavechlorite-coated surfaces. __Thejointstos e t ,thejoints arestriations whichdirections of Low-angle joints (less thanclips) appear to be somewhat more than high-angle joints, and occurinprominent orientations:

to t'ne north.

characteristic&v short

__lent.StrikeStrikeStrikeand SENE andand terminate against the occur onof p l a n a r, showstriations, with no consistent striation orientation from joint to joint.

Fromtoin the East trench, the bedrock is subject to closely-spaced jointing, and theof the bed-rocksufficiently fractured toexcavation by t'ne backhoe.

Joints in this areand smooth, and show some polishing on conchoidal surfaces. Thin gray clay fillings occur lo-cally in discontinuous patchessome joints.showno preferredand no strike direction could be determined for this zone.

5. Unconsolidated Glacial Deposits As shown on trench profiles on Figure 3, cobble till directly overlies the bedrock surface throughout the area exposed by the four trenches. Tillto ground surface through-out the length of the South trench, and rises locally to ground sur-face in the North trench and in the area of the Unit 2 centerline.

the till does not rise to ground surface in the trenches, the upper surface of theis a gently undulating, sub-planar erosion surface on which a layer of medium-fine sand.

At the east end of the East trench, a sequence of interbedded, layered marine clays and sands lies between the and the over-lyingsand iayer. At scattered intervals in the West, North and East trenches, isolated boulders ranging toin diameter lie enclosed insand and rest on the upper surface of the till.

Subsequent to backhoe excavation of the trenches, the contact horizon between the till and overlyingsand was exposed and cleaned by hand throughout the length of its exposure in the West, North and East trenches. The contact was inspected and photographed by J.Rand throughout its exposed length in these trenches, and its elevation determined by transit leveling along bothof each of these trenches. The extent of thesand deposits in the trench and the elevations of thecontact from place to place are shown on Figure 2.

featuresobservedthiscontact in any of the trenches to suggest either static or dynamic deformation sub-sequent to deposition of the sand on the beveled till surface. Through-out the zone of close and slippery bedrock jointing between Stations andin the East trench, the overlyinghorizonis sub-planar and continuous.

Glacioverlying the bedrock surfacetheSouth trcrich are limited to unsorted, non-layered sand-silt-cobble till.locallya crude stratification, and nowhere exhibit structures suggestive of podeformation.

6.Examination of the overburden, bedrock surface and bedrock joints in the Unit 2 trench excavations has revealed several distinc-tive featuresare indicative of the tectonic stability of the bed-rock at the site:

A.Intermittentratified horizons in the glacial till are not displaced over joints in the underlying bedrock.

B.The undulating, sub-planar erosion surface at the top of the till is through-going and not subject to structural offsets or other deformations suggestive of faulting, C.Local exposures of glacially-scoured bedrock surfaces are smooth across joints in the bedrock.

D.Slickenside striations on closely-spaced bedrock joints ex-hibit widely divergent orientations, with no preferred attitude or orientation.

John R. Rand Consulting Geologist FIGURES

,o7BOULDERS ON TILL SURFACE OUTiASH AND BEACH SAND E SAND.SIL1

.C2EBLE TILLLT: BENCIC IN TRENCH FLOCR SURVEYED ELEV. -.3,ASE CF SAN TOP OF TREHCH BATE oF TAENT 8 SL),**'\letak*,5e:frock ccpbisis prederninactly of pissoid Newburgort Vetdiorite, fine-to mediurr.graine(

locally ccarse hornblende

\diorite, No diabase dikes WMnoted in the trench floor.PAC URVICE COUNAY Cr KW HAIPPIli

&AIWA 51A10 GEOLOGIC MAP UNIT 2 TRENCHES I Ow Codui MIMI 10 UPDATED FSAR APPENDIX 2M GEOTECHNICAL REPORTPRELIMINARY REPORT. COMPRESSION TESTS ON STRUCTURAL BACKFILL AND SAND CEMENT,STATIONThe information contained in this appendix was not revised, but has been extracted from the originaland is provided for historical information.

PRELIMINARY REPORT

'COMPRESSION TESTS ON STRUCTURAL BACKFILL AND SAND-CEMENT STATIONJanuary 24, 1978 Prepared for PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE andUNITED ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS, INC.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.

1017 Main Street Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 Project 77386 1.INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Scope

1.3 Schedule

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES 2.DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL BACKFILL AND RESULTS OF INDEX TESTS

2.1 Description

2.2 Grain-Size Distribution Tests

2.2.1 Procedure

2.2.2 Results 2.3 Specific Gravity Test 2.3.1 Procedure.2.3.2 Results 3.MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATION TEST 4.CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED, S, TRIAXIAL TESTS

4.1 Procedure

4.2 Stress-Strain Curves For S Tests 4.3 Moduli and Poisson's Ratios For S Tests

5.1 Procedure

5.2 Stress-Strain Curves ForTests5.3 Moduli and Poisson's Ratio ForTests6.TESTS ON SAND-CEMENT 7.COEFFICIENT OFREACTION7.1 Structural Backfill NOTATIONS TABLESFIGURESAPPENDIX ASTRESS-STRAIN CURVES FOR DRAINED TESTS APPENDIX BSTRESS-STRAIN CURVES FOR UNDRAINED TESTS Page No.243.1 Procedure

3.2 Results

5. CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED,TRIAXIAL TESTS 910101344 LIST OF TABLES Table 1Schedule of Tests on Sand-Cement Table 2Consolidated-DrainedTriaxial Tests Structural BackfillBeard Pit 5 Sand Table 3Consolidated-UndrainedTriaxial Tests Structural BackfillBeard Pit 5 Sand Table 4Unconfined Tests on 2-in. Cube Samples of Sand-Cement, 5% Cement .

TableCompression Tests on 2.8-in.-diameter Samples of Sand-Cement, 5% Cement.*To be added when tests are complete. 2. DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL BACKFILL AND RESULTS OF INDEX TESTS 2.1 Description Beard Pit No. 5 soil is a yellowish-brown gravelly sand containing about two percent fines.

2.2 Grain-Size Distribution Tests Two sieve analyses were performed.The grain-size dis-tribution of Beard Pit No. 5 soil as received was first

, determined. The entire sample wassieved on a NO. 4 (4.75 mm) mesh and a grain-size distribution of soil passing the No. 4 mesh was determined.The minus No. 4 mat-erial was used for triaxial testing.

2.2.1 Procedure

To determine the grain-size distribution of the original soil, a representative sample was selected, weighed and air-dried.Thesample was sieved on a mesh and ag-gregates retained were removed, weighed and separately sieved. A representative sample of aggregates passing the mesh was weighed, oven-dried and washed on a No. 200 mm) sieve.The soil retained on the No. 200 sieve was oven-dried, weighed and mechanically sieved.

The entire quantity of soil was then sieved on a No. 4 (4.75 mm) mesh and aggregates re-tained were removed. A representative sample of soil passing the No. 4 mesh was oven-dried and washed on a No. 200mm) sieve.Soilretained on the No. 200 sieve was subsequently oven-dried, weighed and mechanically sieved to determine the grain-size distribution of the soil to be used for compaction and triaxial testing.2.2.2 Results The grain-size distribution curve of Beard Pit No. 5 soil is presented in Fig. 1.

The grain-size distribution curve of the soil passing the No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve is presented in Fig. 2. 4.CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED, S, TRIAXIAL TESTS Six S tests were performed on compacted specimens of Beard Pit No. 5 soil.Only soil passing a No. 4 sieve was used.Specimens were compacted to 90% and 95% of the maxi-mum dry unit weight as determined by ASTM Designation D1557, Method A (Section 3).Tests were performed at effective consolidation pressures of 0.5, 2.0 and 6.0 ksc (7.1, 28.4, 85.3 psi).Test specimens typically had a diameter of and a height of 6.6-in.

4.1 Procedure

A predetermined quantity of air-dried soil was thoroughly mixed with distilled water to a water content of 14%.Themixture was divided in seven portions of equal weight and placed in covered containers.

The compaction was performed in seven layers within a split mold. The mold was lined with a rubber membrane which was held tightly to the inside of the mold by a small vacuum.

The first soil layer was placed in the mold and leveled off.

A l-psi surcharge was lowered onto the soil and vibrated vertically using an Ingersoll-Rand pneumatic hammer.Thehammer provided low frequency-high amplitude vibrations.Thelayer was compacted to a predetermined height to achieve the desired unit weight.The surcharge was removed and the soil surface scarified. Subsequent layers were added and compacted in the same manner to form a test specimen of the desired size and unit weight.

The mold and specimen assembly was then mounted on the bottom platen of a triaxial cell. A vacuum of approximately of Hg was applied to the specimen to provide support to the specimen. The mold was removed and the diameter and height of the specimen were measured. A second membrane was placed around the specimen and O-rings attached to seal the membranes to the top and bottom platens.

The triaxial cell was subsequently assembled and flooded with water. A chamber pressure of 0.5 ksc was applied and the vacuum released to distilled water at atmospheric pressure.

When the vacuum had dissipated, distilled water was permeated through the specimen to improve saturation by displacing air voids. A back pressure of approximately 10 ksc was utilized to complete saturation.B-values of 0.90 or higher were measured.

..a.normalized shear stress on theplane,vs. axial strain, and The specimen was then consolidated to the desired effective consolidation pressure. Volume changes during consolidation were measured by monitoring the flow of pore water through the drainage system.

The test specimen was subsequently loaded axially at a constant rate of strain of approximatelyDuringshear the specimen was allowed to drain through both ends.

Volume changes were measured by monitoring the flow of pore water. Axial loads were measured with a proving ring and deformations were monitored with an axial dial.The testwas terminated at 20% axial strain.The specimen was then removed and oven-dried to determine the weight of solids.

4.2 Stress-Strain Curves For S Tests Results of the consolidated-drained triaxial, S, tests are plotted in terms of

b. volumetric strain,VS. axial strain.

The results of individual S tests are presented in Appen-dix A and Table 2 contains the details of each S test performed.

A summary of S tests performed on specimens initially com-pacted to a specific 90% compaction are plotted in Fig. 4, and 95% compaction in Fig. 5.

4.3and Poisson's Ratios For S Tests Figs. 6 and 7 are plots of secant modulus and Poisson's ratio, respectively, as a function of axial strain from the triaxial S tests.

Fig. 8 (top) is a plot of the initial tangent modulus and the secant modulus at 50 of the compressive strength versus the effective consolidation pressure,At the bottom in Fig. 8 is a similar plot for the values of Poisson's ratios. 6. TESTS ON SAND-CEMENT We herewith forward results of tests on 2-in. cube specimens of sand-cement, so that thewill be avail-able early in this preliminary form.

In Fig. 13 are plotted the stress-strain curves for un-confined tests on three replicate specimens cured for 7 days, and in Fig. 14 are the stress-strain curves for unconfined tests on three replicate specimens cured for 28 days. De-tails of these tests are given in Table 4.

The sand-cement specimens were prepared using the same sand and cement that were used at thesite for test batches.The mixtures are shown in Figs. 13'and 14.

It may be seen that the strength increased rapidly with cure time. A strength increase that is logarithmic with time would lead to the predition of an average strength of 180 psi for the specimens cured modulus would increase to 33,800 psi.

Similarly, the average

7. COEFFICIENT OFREACTION7.1 Structural Backfill To determine reasonable values for the coefficient of reaction of buried pipes, the following procedure may be used:

1.Determine whether the loading condition is "drained" or "undrained." That is, will volume changes take place during loading (drained), or will volume changes not occur during loading (undrained) .

2.Establish the allowable diametral strain of the pipe. That is, select a diameter-strain that the pipe can withstand with an adequate factor of safety. That strain may be as low as 0.1% for stiff, brittle pipes,to 3% or 4%

for flexible pipes.

3.Compute the vertical effective stress in the ground at the level of the middle (springline) of the pipe.

4.Choose whether the expected degree of compaction of the structural backfill is 90% Modified or 95% Modified.

5.Given the above data, enter the appropriate table below, and interpolate to obtain a value ofi.e., the coefficient of times the pipe diameter (in psi).

6.Divideby the pipe diameter to obtain the value ofin pci (pounds/cubic inch).

TABLE 2CONSOLIDATED-DRAINEDTRIAKIAL TESTS STRUCTURAL BACKFILLBEARD PIT 5 SAND STATIONPercent Compaction, PEffectiveBAt Max. Compressive StressModuli ASTM D1557, AConsoli-ValueDeviator AxialVolumeInitial At 50%

InIn Triaxial CelldationStressStrain Strain Compac-InitialAftertionConsoli-MolddationMax.Stress0Stresspcf--13.8100.7s213.8100.9s313.8101.0s413.8106.413.5106.3S613.7106.3Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 77386 23, 1978pcfksckscpsip si100.8100.889.990.090.00.500.971.641.310.416,2604,0500.310.43101.0101.590.190.290.62.000.955.882.380.0814,22011,0900.170.23101.3102.390.290.491.46.000.9515.057.28-0.6623,75018,7700.220.23106.4106.495.095.095.00.500.952.341.310.9213,5109, 6000.330.35106.4106.894.995.095.32.000.977.960.9221,33016,1400.170.27106.4107.394.995.095.86.000.9519.354.000.3429,15024,7400.200.27Test InitialDry Unit Weights No.WaterInIn Triaxial Cell ContentInitialAfterConsoli-MolddationPoisson's Ratio Initial At 50%

Stress3ca STATIONSTRUCTURAL BACKFILLBEARD PIT 5 SAND Effective ASTMA Consoli-Value Deviator AxialEffectiveInitialAt 50%InIn Triaxial CelldationMinorCompac- InitialStressPrincipaltionConsoli-StressMolddationTest InitialDry Unit Weights Percent Compaction, P 13.7101.0101.2101.290.290.490.40.500.966.869.532.635,8303,13013.5100.6100.6100.989.889.890.12.000.907.948.333.1112,7305,760ii313.8100.8101.1102.290.090.391.26.000.9911.326.69.4.4638,11018,63013.6101.0101.2102.390.290.491.36.000.9512.245.734.7724.46019,05013.8106.3106.5106.594.995.195.10.500.9519.9113.837.2311,8707,180ii513.6106.3106.3106.694.994.995.22.000.9521.8714.537.9319,7708,39013.5106.3106.4107.294.995.095.76.000.9627.8811.58io.3544,01014,220Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project77386January 23,1978p pcf cfpcf- ksc -ksckscpsiCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL TESTS No.WaterInIn Triaxial Cell Content Compac- Initial AfterConsoli-MolddationBAt Maximum Compressive UnitWeightWetUnconfined StrengthpsiStrainModulusAtofPeakElasticity*

psiCureTimedaysTestNo.TABLE 4UNCONFINED TESTS ON 2-IN. CUBE SAMPLES OF SAND-CEMENT, 5% CEMENT STATION77-1124.066.70.8010,600123.972.50.9210,110126.285.30.8313,650Avg 74.82828-1127.4141.60.67126.2133.80.77126.8130.00.87Avg 135.0 Avg 11,450 33,33019,13022,760Avg 25,070 9090-290-3*Modulus computed for the straight line portion of the stress-strain curve, neglecting any curvature at origin, which may be affected by initial seating strains.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 77386

.January 23, 1978 FIGURES Lab. 4-3 rev. 0 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHESU.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERSHYDROMETER 50050IOI0.5GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS COBBLESSANDCOARSEFINECOARSEMEDIUMIFINEI IGRAIN-SIZEDISTRIBUTION TriaxialTestsBEARD PIT NO. 5 SOILStructural BackfillProject77386Jan.23,1978Fig.1New Hampshire Public Service Company of Engineers Inc.

Winchester,Massachusetts Lab. 4 - 3 rev. 028 May 74 500100505I0.50.10.05GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS ISILT OR CL AY COARSEFINECOARSEMEDIUMIProject 77306 Jan. 23, 1978Fig. 2II\-10go-20I-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJ - 7 0809020IO0IIIIIU.S. STANDARO SIEVE OPENING IN INCHESU.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERSHYDROMETER 64 3I1420 30 40 50 70200II*IIIIIIIIIIIIIII\IIIIIIITriaxial Tests StructuralBackfillGRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION BEARD PIT NO. 5 SAND NO. 4 MATERIAL Public Service Company of New Hampshire Geotechnical Engineers Inc. .

Winchester, Massachusetts WATER CONTENT,As mixed before compaction 0 After compaction 1051 1 31 1 11 0 91 0 704122 024TESTSSTRUCTURAL BACKFILL MOISTUREDENSITYRELATION TEST BEARD PIT No.5 SOIL January1978 Fig. 3 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PROJECT 77386 ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77366 DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

43024681416182006.0AXIAL STRAIN, %

ENGINEERS INC.

VI NCH ESTER, M ASSACHUS ETTS 2.51.5.1.0TESTs40.5s52.0S66.006420-2024681416 1820AXIAL STRAIN,%

TRIAXIAL TESTS SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAM SSV IR

^EUC T U R A L B A C K F I L L DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

5PROJECT 77386 ISUMMARY OF DRAINED TRIAXIAL TESTS COMPACTION ENGINEERS INC AXIAL STRAIN, F O RW0III30,0002 5,00020,00090% Modified Compaction 10,000.IIIII00.40.60.81.01.21.42.0IIIW000.40.60.81.21.41.61.82.0IIIII95Compact ion IPUBLIC SERVICE gCOMPANYOF NEW TARPUSHfI2RET U R ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77386JANUARYTESTSA LB A C K F I L L DRAINED LOADING 1.61.82.000.20.40.60.81.01.21.4AXIAL STRAIN, TESTS90% Modified Compaction 7.1psi0.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.62.0III95% Modified Compaction psi .PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PROJECT 77386 JANUARYFig. 7,ENGINEERS INC.

MASSACHUSETTS 1.21 .o0.80.60.40.201.2.o0.80.60.40.20STRUCTURAL BACKFILL POISSONS RATIOS FOR DRAINED LOADING 10020300E modulus compaction Emodulus50%peakcompaction E modulus 95% compaction E modulus at peokcompaction 95% compaction vat 50%peak95%90% compaction at 5 00.50.40.30.20.10kg(Multiply by 14.22 for psi)

SERVICE COMPANY qF NEI HAMPSHIRE CENGINEERS INC.

YINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS TRIAXIAL TESTS SUMMARY OF FSTRUCTURAL ILLDRAINEDTESTSPROJECT 77386 FIG. 8 4678910TEST NO.0.502.0002468141618206.006.00AXIAL STRAIN , %

SERVICE COMPANY SUMMARY OF TRIAXIAL TESTS OF NEW H'WWHIJRCET UR A LB A C K F I L L UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TESTS 90% COMPACTION ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER,1977 FIG.

9 TEST NO.*3c kg/cm2kg/cm2R40.50R52.00R66.0006421214R6STRESS-STRAIN

R63024681012141618 20AXIAL STRAIN,%

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS TRIAXIAL TESTS STRUCTURAL BACK FILL PROJECT 77386 SUMMARY OF CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TESTS 95% COMPACTION DECEMBER,1977 FIG. 10 SECANT MODULUS,psiundrained loading SECANT MODULUS, Es, , psi undrained loading0DXriI I.II ENGINEERS INC.

• WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77386DECEM 8FIG.(Multiply by 14.22 for psi) 00 90% Compact ion 90% Compaction Compaction 95% Compaction NOTE POISSONS RATIO FOR UNDRAINED TESTS MAY BE TAKEN AS 0.49 TO 0.50

,12080400I2345AXIAL STRAIN Sand-Cement Mixture (by weight):

1 part cement 16.18 parts sand (oven-dry) 2.79 parts water Prepared as per ASTM Specimens Tested:

2 in. cube specimens 7 daysUnit weight after cure 7-1 124.0 7-2 123.9 7-3 126.2 Strain control. loading at 1.5 mm/min PublicCompanyof New Hampshire Engineers Inc.

Winchester,Massachusetts COMPRESSION TESTS 7-DAY CURE 5% CEMENT January 1978Fig. 13Triaxial Tests StationSand-CementBackfillProject 77386

.,AXIAL STRAIN Sand-Cement Mixture (by weight):

1part cement 16.18 parts sand (oven-dry) 2.79 parts water Prepared as per ASTM Specimens Tested:

2 in. cube specimens Cured 28 days Unit weight after cure 28-1 127.4 28-2 126.2 28-3 126.8 Strain control loading at 1.5 Public Service Company of New Hampshire Triaxial Tests COMPRESSION TESTS Sand-CementBackfill28-DAY CURB Station5% CEMENT Geotechnical Engineers Inc.

Winchester,Massachusetts Project 77386 January 1978Fig. 14..

APPENDIX A SERVICE COMPANY PROJECT 77386 ENGINEERS INC.

10121618201.0VOLUMESTRESS STRAIN AXIAL STRAIN,%

TEST90% Compaction TRIAXIAL TESTS ITRAL BACK F I L L CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

OF NEW HAMVTHIRITC T 2.50.5STRESS STRAIN 002468101214161820AXIAL STRAIN,%

TEST S290% Compaction= 2.0PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY TRIAXIAL TESTS OF ^EW RHAUMPCS4IR15 R A LB A C K F I L L GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS INC.PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

A21.50-0.5VOLUME STRAIN CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST S2 2.5STRESS-1.5,VOLUME-2.0.02468101214161820AL STRAIN,%

TEST S3 90 Compaction3c = 6.0SERVICE COMPANY CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TESTS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TRIAXIAL TEST STRUCTURAL BACKFILL ENGINEERS INC.

PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER, 1977 2.51.51.00.5064202VOLUME STRAIN 681012141618AXIAL STRAIN,%

TEST S495% Compaction3c = 0.5T R I A X I A L^aSERVICE COMPANY ICONSOLIDATED-DRAINED OF NEW HAMPSHIRE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL PROJECT 77386 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS INC .

YINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS DECEMBER, 1977 1.5.1.00.5 . .STRESS0VOLUME STRAIN 2461012141620AXIAL STRAIN,%

TEST95% Compaction2.0SERVICE COMPANY CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TESTS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TEST,STRUCTURAL BACKFILL ENGINEERS INC.

PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER, 6PROJECT 77386I DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

A2.5STRESS STRAIN

-1.024681012741618 20VOLUME STRAIN AXIAL STRAIN,%

TEST S695% Compaction= 6.0PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

,SEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS INC.1 TRIAXIAL TESTS STR UCTURAL BACKLL 4.03.02.0I>3=1.64E6260 psi4050 psi.1.00.60.40.200.40.81.21.6AXIAL STRAIN,%

TEST90% Compaction= 0.5CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST Expanded Scales PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER,1977 FIG.

A7ENGINEERS INC.

MASSACHUSETTS SERVICE COMPANYOF NEW HAMPSHIRE TESTSSTRUCTURAL BACKFILL 8.0= 5.883E014220 psi 11090 psi 6.04.0I2.00-0.1-0.2-0.3-0.400.81.21.62.0AXIAL STRAIN,%

TEST S290% Compaction= 2.0SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE T R I A X I A L TESTS STRUCTURAL BACKFILL ENGINEERS INC.

VVINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST S2 Expanded Scales PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER,!977 FIG.

AXIAL STRAIN TEST S390% Compaction6.0PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

,STRUCTURAL BACKFILL PROJECT 77386 TESTSTEST S3Expanded Scales ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 3= 2.34E013510 psi E9600 psi= 0.3350= 0.3500.40.81.2162.0AXIAL STRAIN TEST S495% Compaction= 0.5SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TESTSSTRUCTURAL BACKFILL ENGINEERS INC.

MASSACHUSETTS CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST S4 Expanded Scales PROJECT 77386IFIG.

TEST95% Compaction3c = 2.0TESTSSKTRUCFTURALILLPROJECT 77386 CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST S5 Expanded Scales F I G .SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HBAMPSAHIRECMASSACHUSETTS ENGINEERS INC.

-0.20.40.2AXIAL STRAIN,%

32133016140=7.96kg/cm-psipsi8.062.I4.

I-0.1-0.3,1 6 . 012.04.08.0 .AXIAL STRAIN TEST95% Compaction= 6.0PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER,1977 FIG.

CONSOLIDATED-DRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST Expanded Scales PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ENGINEERS INC.

NINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS TESTSSTRUCTURAL BACKFILL APPENDIX 246814161820AXIAL STRAIN , %

-SSPA81012141618TEST90%Compaction a3c1412108606PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE STRUCTURAL TRIAXIALPROJECTTESTSBACKFILL77386IDECEMBER,1977 CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST 3.53.02.51.5STRESS PA 0.5TEST90% Compaction a 3c002468101214161820AXIAL STRAIN , %

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TESTS OFSHf %P ^ H^R f U R TRIAXIAL TEST A LB A C K F I L L ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER,1977 FIG.

B2 1.25"1.0DO.750.25STRESS-S TRAIN SPA01.00.500.751.001.251.501.752.002.252.TEST90% Compaction 6.0.. 2524681214161820AXIAL STRAIN ,

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HOMPSMIRE CPROJECT 77386 DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

T R I A X I A L TESTS STKRUCTFURALILLCONSOLIDATED-UIJDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS STRESS PA STRESS0.250.500.751.001.251.501.752.002.25TESTCompaction 3c6.002468101214161820AXIAL STRAIN ,

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIALTESTSOF NEW HAMPSHIRE TRIAXIAL TEST BACKFILLSTRUCTURAL

,ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS FIG. B4PROJECT 77386 s TRESS PA STRESS-S05101520253035404550TEST90% Compaction a 3c0024681012 14 1618 20AXIAL STRAIN, %

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY TRIAXIAL TESTS CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED O F N E ^l 0 A LY PCS1^I RUE R ATRIAXIAL TEST LB A C K F I L L ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

B5 S ESS PA-S10121416TEST90% Compaction a 3c= 2.02468101214161820AXIAL STRAIN , %

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY TRIAXIAL TESTS OS TF RNEU CHATP UHIRREA LTRIAXIAL TEST B A C K F I L L ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS FIG.PROJECT 77386 0.502468lo14161820AXIAL STRAIN ,

ENGINEERS INC..

WINCHESTER,MASSACHUSETTS 00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.PROJECT 77386 TEST90% Compaction 6.0DECEMBER, 1977 FIG.

BSTRESS PA TRIAXIAL TESTS STRUCTURAL BACKFILL PROJECT 77386 0.40 . 81.21.6AXIAL STRAIN, 4.01.03 . 020TEST90% Compaction

= 0.53cCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST EXPANDED SCALES PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 4.03.0bI20.1.0AXIAL STRAIN, %

TEST90% Compaction a 3c = 2.0PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY TRIAXIAL TESTS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TRIAXIAL TEST STRUCTURAL BACKFILL EXPANDED SCALES ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS1PROJECT 77386DECEMBER,1977 CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST EXPANDED SCALES DECEMBER,1977 8.00.40.81.2AXIAL STRAIN,.%

TEST90% Compaction ,

6.0PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE E N G I N WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS T R I A X I A L TESTS STRUCTURAL BACKFILL E E R SI N C;PROJECT 77386 AXIAL STRAIN, ENGINEERS INC.

WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77386 DECEMBER,1977 FIG 00.40.81.21.68.0TEST90% Compaction

= 6.0.6.03c PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED T R I A X I A L TESTS TRTAXTALISTRUCTURAL BACKFILL SCALESTEGEOTECHNICAL CHNICA L ENGI ENGINERSNEER SINC.

INC.WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS PROJECT 77386DECEMBER,1977 AXIAL STRAIN, 8.02.0TEST90% Compaction

.3c= 0.5 00.40.81.21.62.0AXIAL STRAIN, 20164I12TEST90% Compaction 3 c = 2.0PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ENGINEERS WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS TRIAXIAL TESTSCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST STRUCTURAL BACKFILLEXPANDED SCALES PROJECT 77386IDECEMBER, 1977 AXIAL STRAIN, 20.016.04.012.08.000.81.21.62.0TEST90% Compaction

= 6.0 kg/cm.CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL TEST EXPANDED SCALES DECEMBER, 1977 3c ENGINEERS INC.

1017 MAIN STREETWINCHESTERMASSACHUSETTS 01890729-1625February 14, 1978 Project 77386 File No. 2.0 Mr. JohnPublic Service Co. of New Hampshire 1000 Elm Street 11th Floor Manchester, NH 03105

Subject:

Interim Test Results on Sand-Cement Backfill Station

Reference:

Preliminary Report, Compression Tests on Structural Backfill and Sand-Cement Station,January 24, 1978 Dear Mr.The purpose of this letter is to present data on moduli deter-mined on sand-cement backfill at the request of United Engineers and Constructors Inc. The data herein supplements the data in the reference and will be incorporated in the completed version of that report.Themodulus values were submitted to Mr. Pate1 ofby telephone on February 13, 1978.

The stress strain curves for three unconfined compression tests on cylindrical specimens are shown in the enclosed Fig. 15 and the test data are summarized in the enclosed Table 5.

The following values of the coefficient ofreactionwere computed for the cube and cylindrical specimens cured for 28 days..

Mr. JohnFebruary 14, 1978 FOR SAND-CEMENT BACKFILL 28-DAY CURE Tabulated values are in psi Effective VerticalStress at Allowable Diameter Strain, Springline0.020.10.30.5CUBE SPECIMENS100,000CYLINDRICALSPECIMENS200,00089,00060,00036,000The stress strain curves for the cylindrical specimens show an initial straight line portion withhigh modulus of elasticity.

At axial strains of about 0.03% there is a break in the curves and a second straight line is followed up to near the peak strength.Thetangent modulus of this second straight line portion of the curves is about one-third of the initial modulus.Fig. 16 shows the variation of the secant modulus with axial strain for the unconfined tests on cylin-drical specimens.

Seating problems occurred in the tests on the cube specimens, as seen in Figs. 13 and 14 of the above reference, and thus the high initial modulus observed for the cylindrical samples was not observed for the cubes. However, the second straight line slope for the cylindrical specimens in Fig. 15 is in good agreement with the straight line portion of the curves for the cube specimens.The compressive strength of the cube specimens is somewhat higher than that of the cylindrical specimens, probably as a result of the more significant end restraint of the cube specimens.For these two reasons we feel that the results of tests on cubes and cylinders are consistent with each other, but that the results for tests on cylinders are more reliable and should be used to establish moduli ofreaction.

Mr. JohnFebruary 14, 1978 We have also provided by telephone various friction coefficients and estimates of shear wave velocities in the compacted soil. These data will be confirmed in writing at a later date.

Sincerely yours, Steve J. Poulos Principal Encl.cc:R.YAEC w/l encl.

D.w/l encl.

A. Desai,w/l encl.

Confining Compressive StrainInitialStressStrengthAtModulus of PeakElasticity kscpsi%psiCureTestUnitTimeNo.WeightWetdaysTABLE 5 COMPRESSION TESTS ON 2.8-IN.-DIAMETER.SAND-CEMENT SPECIMENS, 5% CEMENT STATION2828-O-l126.20.002828-O-2124.80.002828-O-3124.10.0091.00.6588.8.0.58106.10.8075,00052,20034,30095.3Avg 50,500 Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 77386 February 7, 1978 StationTriaxial Tests Project 77386 February 1978Fig. 15Engineers Inc.

Winchester, Massachusetts Public Service Company of Sand-CementBackfillSpecimens Tested:

specimens 28-day cure Unconfined tests Strain control loading at 1.10.81.6AXIAL STRAIN ,

Sand-Cement Mixture:

Xa1part cement 16.18 parts sand (oven-dry) 2.79 parts water COMPRESSION TESTS 2.8-IN.-DIAMETER SPECIMEN 5% CEMENT, 28-DAY CURE Winchester, Massachusetts Project 77386 600 .00.20.40.81.01.2STRAIN AT PEAK AVERAGE= ksAXIAL STRAIN,

,Triaxial Tests Sand-CementBackfillStationPublic Service Company of New Hampshire Geotechnical Engineers Inc.

February 197816SECANT MODULUS VS STRAIN SPECIMENS 5% CEMENT,CURE 203060500AXIAL STRAIN,, %0.20.4=

ENGINEERS INC.

1017 MAIN STREET. WINCHESTERMASSACHUSETTS 01890 Mr. JohnPublic Service Co. of New Hampshire 1000 Elm Street-11th floor..Manchester, NH 03105

Subject:

Interim Test Results on Sand-Cement'Backfill Station

Reference:

Preliminary Report, Compression Tests On Structural Backfill and Sand-Cement Station, GEI, January 24, 1978 Bear Mr.The purpose of this letter is to present additional data on moduli determined on sand-cement backfill.These data supplement the data in the reference and in our letter of February 14.

These triaxial tests were performed on cylindrical specimens of sand-cement. The specimens were cured for 33 days instead of the intended 28 days because of the February 6, 1978 blizzard here in Boston. The test data are summarized in a revised Table 5 and the stress strain curves are presented in Fig. 17.

The modulus and strength data were estimated for 28-day curing on the basis of the rate of change of modulus and strength with time as measured using the cube specimens (see referenced report).

The estimated values of strength and modulus for 28-day cure also are shown in Table 5.

The values of the coefficient ofreaction were com-puted for several strain levels in the same manner as those shown in the preliminary report of January 24 and the letter of February

14. The following table lists all values obtained to date for the sand-cement specimens.

FOR SAND-CEMENT BACKFILL CURE, 5% CEMENT GEOTECHNICALINC.cc:R. Pizzuti, YAEC w/l encl.

w/l encl.

A. Desai,w/l encl.

D.. Patel,w/l encl.

Mr. JohnFebruary 27, 1978 Tabulated values are in psi Effective Allowable Diameter Strain, %

VerticalStressatSpringline psi0.10.30.5.CUBESPECIMENS 0100,000.CYLINDRICALSPECIMENS 0200,00089,00060,00036,00042.7138,000163,000129,600Sincerely yours, Steve J. Poulos Principal GC:msEncl.

TABLE 5COMPRESSION TESTS ON SAND-CEMENT SPECIMENS, 5%

STATION372.3652.1035,00033,6003762.4033,30036931,7003641.4040,00035738,40042.742.7124.8332833283328EstimatedTestNo.days28-O-lUnitWeightWetConfiningCompressiveStrengthpsiStrainInitialatModulus of PeakElasticity psi126.20.00910.6575,0002828-O-2124.80.00890.5852,200.2828-O-3124.10.001060.8034,300NOTE: 1) The percentage of cement is computed as the ratio of the weight of cement to the total weight of sand, cement, and water, and then multiplying that ratio by 100.

2) The strengths and moduli for 28-day cure was estimated based on the rates of change measured for the cube specimens.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 77386 February 7, 1978 Revised February 24, 1978 3= 42.7 psi 0.8 IIII 0051.0I.52.02.53.03.54 . 0AXIAL STRAIN, %

Project 77386 Feb. 23, 1978Fig.17StructuralBackfillTriaxial Tests 2.8-IN.-DIA., 5% CEMENT 33-DAY CURE,=SAND-CEMENT SPECIMENS Public Service Company of New Hampshire Engineers Winchester,Massachusetts 1017 MAIN STREET. WINCHESTER. MASSACHUSETTS 01890729-1625March 10, 1978 Project 77386 File No. 2.0 Mr. JohnPublic Service Co. of New Hampshire.1000 Elm Street11th Floor Manchester, NH 03105Interim Test Results on Sand-Cement Backf ill StationPreliminary Report, Compression Tests On Structural Backfill and Sand-Cement Station, GEI, January 24, 1978 Dear Mr.The purpose of this letter is to present additional data on moduli determined on sand-cement backfill.These data supplement the data in the reference and in our letters of February 14 and 27.Three triaxial tests were performed on cylindrical specimens of sand-cement. The specimens were cured for 28 days and were tested under a confining stress of 7.1 psi.The test data are summarized in a revised Table 5.

The values of the coefficient ofreaction were com-puted for several strain levels in the same manner as those shown in the preliminary report of January 24 and the letters of February 14 and 27. The following table lists all values obtained to date for the sand-cement specimens:

Mr. JohnMarch 10, 1978 FOR SAND-CEMENT BACKFILL 28-DAY CURE, 5% CEMENT Tabulated values are in psi Effective VerticalAllowable Diameter Strain, Stress at Springline psi0.10.30.5CUBE SPECIMENS 01 0 0, 0 0 0 CYLINDRICAL SPECIMENS 0200,00089,00060,0007.1115,000106,00079,60042.7138,000163,000129,600*Modulus value determined at strains greater than the strain at peak compressivestrength.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 77386 Revised March 6, 1978 Mr. JohnMarch 10, 1978, GEOTECHNICALINC.GC/SJP:ms Encl.cc: R. Pizzuti, YAEC D.A. Desai, D. Patel, Three unconfined tests were performed on cube specimens of sand-cement cured for 90 days. The test data are summarized in a revised Table 4.

The stress-strain curves for the additional tests will be transmitted as soon as they have been drafted.

Sincerely yours, Steve J. Poulos Principal UnitWeightWetCureTimedaysTestNo.TABLE 4 UNCONFINED TESTS ON 2-IN. CUBE SAMPLES OF SAND-CEMENT, 5 % CEMENT STATIONUnconfined StrengthpsiStrainModulusAto fPeakElasticity*

%psi28907-l124.07-2123.97-3126.228-l127.428-2126.228-3126.890-l124.490-2124.590-30.8010,6000.9210,1100.8313,650Avg 11,450141.60.67.33,3300.7719,1300.8722,760 Avg 135.00.951.080.84Avg 28,200 Avg 25,070 26,32027,03031,250*Modulus computed for the straight line portion of the stress-strain curve, neglecting any curvature at origin, which may be affected by initial seating strains.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 77386 January 23, 1978 Revised6, 1978 126.2124.8124.175,00052,20034,3002828-O-l2828-O-22828-O-30.0910.650.0890.580.0.1060.80TABLE 5--COMPRESSION TESTS ONSAND-CEMENT SPECIMENS, 5%

CureTimeNo.daysUnitWeightWetConfiningCompressiveStrengthpsiStrain.InitialatModulus of PeakElasticity psi283333283342.742.7423722.1035,00028282 8281)372.3762.4033,3001.4040,00039,6007.11197.1134124.3The percentage ofthe ratio of the weight of cement to the total weight of sand, cement, and water, and then multiplying that ratio by 100.

The strengths and moduli for 28-day cure was estimated based on the rates of change measured for the cube specimens.

34,60037632,9003643640.6032,6000.9022,9000.9717,400Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 77386 February1978Revised-February 24, 1978 Revised March 6, 1978 UPDATED FSAR APPENDIX 2N GEOTECHNICAL REPORT TEST FILL STUDY OF QUARTZITE MOLE CUTTINGS The information contained in this appendix was not revised, but has been extracted from the original FSAR and is provided for historical information.

William R.

Senior Engineer StevePrincipal TEST FILL STUDY OFQUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS Submitted to Public Service Company of New Hampshire Submitted by Geotechnical Engineers Inc.

1017 Main Street Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 July 13, 1979 Project 76301 81010101111111314TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES 1.INTRODUCTION

1.3 Summary

2.CONSTRUCTION OF TEST FILLS 2.1 Gravelly Sand 2.2 Molecuttings (Controlled Placement) 2.3 Molecuttings (No Special Controls) 2.4 Stratified Molecuttings and Gravelly Sand 3.PERCENT COMPACTION OF TEST FILLS 3.1 Gravelly Sand 3.2 Molecuttings (Controlled Placement) 3.3 Molecuttings (No Special Controls) 3.4 Stratified Molecuttings and Gravelly Sand 4.PLATE LOAD TESTS

5. PLACEMENT AND FIELD CONTROL OF MOLECUTTINGS 5.1 Grain-Size Limits 5.2 Lift Thickness 5.3 Determination of In-Place Dry.Density 5.3.1 Gravelly Sand 5.3.2Molecuttings 5.4 Determination of Percent Compaction 5.5 Water Content Control TABLESFIGURESAPPENDIX ARECOMMENDEDFOR PLACEMENT AND FIELD CONTROL OF MOLECUTTINGS APPENDIX BPLATE LOAD TESTS LIST OF TABLES Table 1Summary of Field Density Tests Gravelly Sand Test Fill Table 2Summary of Field Density Tests Molecuttings (Controlled Placement) Test Fill Table 3Summary of Field Density Tests Molecuttings (No Special Controls) Test Fill Table 4Summary of Field Density Tests Stratified Molecuttings and Gravelly Sand Test Fill Table 5Summary of Plate Load Tests Results LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1Plan View of Test Fills Fig. 2Profile of Test Fills Fig. 3Profile of Test Fills Fig. 4Compaction CurvesGravelly Sand Fig. 5Grain Size CurvesGravelly Sand Test Fill Fig. 6Compaction CurvesMolecuttings

.Fig. 7Grain Size CurvesSamples of Molecuttings Fig. 8Modulus of Elasticity vs Percent Compaction Molecuttings

.Fig. 9Water Content Sand ConeNuclear Density Meter Gravelly Sand Fig.Sand Cone vs Nuclear Density Meter Det. In-Place DryGravelly Sand Fig.Water Content Sand Cone vs Nuclear Density Meter Det., Molecuttings Fig.Sand Cone vs Nuclear Density Meter Det. In-Place DryMolecuttings the same percent compaction.

problem was addressed by Investigation of the resistivity INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The intake and discharge tunnels atStation are being excavated using a tunnel boring machine, more commonly termed a mole. The excavated material from the mole is a widely-graded crushed stone commonly termed tunnel muck, which, for this report, shall be termed "molecuttings."

The purpose of the test fill study was to determine if the quartzite molecuttings obtained from-the tunnel excavations could be used for Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Fill.

Construction of the test fills provided the opportunity to ob-serve the behavior of the molecuttings during placement and obtain data necessary to develop procedures to control the com-paction of the molecuttings during placement.

1.2 Background The molecuttings from the quartzite bedrock in the tunnels are widely-graded crushed stone containing up to 13% passing the No. 200 sieve.The grain size curve of the molecuttings plots below the lower limit of the Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Backfill specification.The resistivity of the cuttings is generally below the specified minimum value of 10,000Thus, although the molecuttings appeared superior to the gravelly sand structural fill as a backfill material, it was rejected because the gradation and resistivity requirements did not comply with the specifications.Useofthe molecuttings for Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Fill required that selected tests be performed which would demon-strate that the molecuttings were as good or better than the presently used gravelly sand when both materials were placed at The Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Fill is used for backfill around pipes and conduits, under floor slabs, roads, etc.For these applications the deformation characteristics of the backfill will control the soil support of the pipes and settlements of structures. One method of determining the defor-mation properties of a soil is by determining the soil modulus by the use of a plate load test.Plate load tests were performed on carefully constructed test fills consisting of (a) gravelly sand, (b) molecuttings, anda test fill of essentially alter-nating layers of gravelly sand and molecuttings which herein will be referred to as the stratified gravelly sand and molecuttings test fill The modulus from each test fill was used as a means of comparing the desirability of the molecuttings versus the gravelly sand for use as Safety and Nonsafety-Related Backfill.

The molecuttings are widely graded and contain high percentages of stone retained on thesieve.In manycases the percentretained on thesieve exceeds the allowable limits for the Modified AASHO compaction test Thus, it was necessary to determine by means of field and labora-tory tests performed during construction of the test fill how construction control of the placement of the molecuttings should be handled.

., 1.3 Summary The results of the plate load tests indicate that the cuttings will provide superior support for pipes and structures than the gravelly sand currently accepted for Safety and safety-Related Structural Fill when both materials are placed at the same percent compaction.The molecuttings and gravelly sand will provide about equivalent deformation properties when the percent compaction of the molecuttings is as much as 2 to 3%

lower than the gravelly sand.Therefore, the use of molecuttings for Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Fill is recommended.

Further, it is recommended that the percent compaction of the molecuttings for Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Fill be 95% andrespectively.

The molecuttings used in constructing these test fills were widely graded crushed stone with up to 7% passing the No. 200 sieve.The water content of the material varied from 3 to 4% up to 10% during placement.Because of the grain-size distribution compaction of the molecuttings was sensitive to fluctuations in the water content of the material. Based on data obtained from tests performed during construction of the test fills, limitations on the grain-size distribution and water content'of the cuttings during placement have been recommended in Section 5.

Construction of the test fills indicated that placement of the molecuttings can be controlled by modifying standard testing procedures.The in-place dry density can be measured using the nuclear density meter and the laboratory reference dry density determined by modifying the currently specified compaction tests.

Details of the construction of the test fills, performance and results of the plate load tests, and procedures for control of placement and compaction of molecuttings are presented in the following sections. 2.CONSTRUCTION OF TEST FILLS Four test fills were constructed for this study.Theorientation of the test fills is shown in Fig. 1.The soils and details of placement for each test fill is presented below.

2.1 Gravelly Sand Gravelly sand satisfying the requirements for Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Fill Specifications 9763-8-5 and9763-8-4 was placed in 8-in. -thick loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557, Method D.Satisfactory compaction was generally achieved by applying water to the surface of the loose lift and compacting with six coverages with the Mikasa double drum roller.

Eight lifts of gravelly sand were placed and compacted, result-ing in a total height of about 4 ft.

2.2 Molecuttings (Controlled Placement)

The construction of this test fill was controlled to achieve the compaction requirements of Safety and Nonsafety-Related Structural Fill (i.e., 95% of the maximum dry density as deter-mined by ASTM Molecuttings were placed in 8-in. loose lifts and compacted to 95% compaction. To achieve 95% compaction, control of the water content to within a few percent of the optimum water con-tent, and numerous coverages with the Mikasa double drum roller was required. Attempts at controlling the water content included mixing of wet and dry molecuttings and adding water to cuttings with water contents 2 to 3% below optimum. Molecuttings placed at water contents several percent higher than optimum could not achieve 95% compaction until sufficient drainage had reduced the water content to near the optimum value.Eight lifts of molecuttings were placed and compacted resulting in a total height of about 4 ft.

2.3 Molecuttinqs (No Special Controls)

Construction of this test fill involved the placement of the molecuttings with limited control of water content and a specified compactive effort. The molecuttings were generally placed in G-in. loose lifts and compacted by six coverages with the Mikasa double drum roller.In some instances, water content control was limited to permitting drainage of a compacted layer overnight be-fore placement of the succeeding layer.Eight lifts of cuttings were placed and compacted. 2.4 Stratified Molecuttings and Gravelly Sand The first three lifts of this test fill were constructed the same way as the test fill of Molecuttings (No Special Con-trols). The water content of the molecuttings placed for the third lift was about 3% higher than optimum. The surface of the third lift was saturated and became severely rutted during compaction.Sandwiching layers of gravelly sand between layers of molecuttings was done to determine (1) if the gravelly sand provided drainage of sandwiched layers of molecuttings and (2) the feasibility of constructing a backfill of stratified gravelly sand and molecuttings (which may be required in the zone of frost penetration).Therefore, lifts 4 and 6 were con-structed using gravelly sand.Lift 4 was compacted with six coverages of the Mikasa double drum roller and lift 6 was com-pacted to at least 95% compaction. Molecuttings for lifts 5, 7 and 8 were generally placed in 8-in. loose lifts with limited water content control and compacted with six coverages of the Mikasa double drum roller. 3. PERCENT COMPACTION OF TEST FILLS 3.1 Gravelly Sand The percent compaction of each lift was determined by per-forming in-place density tests and laboratory compaction tests.

The average percent compaction of the gravelly sand test fill was 97.4%.

The in-place density for each lift, after compaction, was determined by performing two 6-in. -diameter Sand Cone (SC) tests and three Nuclear Density Metertests.Theplace density determined by the NDM was generally performed at probe depths of 4 in. and 8 in.The two SC tests were performed adjacent to two of the NDM tests to provide a comparison of the water content and dry density measured by each 'method.The SCand NDM tests were generally performed within a 5-ft radius of the plate load test location.

.One-point compaction samples were obtained adjacent to the SC and NDM test locations. The one-point samples were compacted in accordance with ASTM D1557, Method D.The maximum dry density for the one-point sample was determined by plotting the one-point dry density on a family of curves for the gravelly sand and in-terpolating the maximum dry density.The percent compaction was computed by dividing the in-place dry density by the corresponding one-point compaction determined maximum dry density.Table 1presents the summary of the percent compaction achieved in the test fill.A profile of the test fill and the average percent compaction for each lift is shown on Fig. 2.

Three compaction tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1557, Method D, on bag samples of gravelly sand obtained from material placed in lifts 2, 4 and 7.The compaction curves and related grain-size curves performed by Pittsburgh Testing Labs are shown on Figs. 4 and 5, respectively.

3.2 Molecuttings (Controlled Placement)

The average percent compaction achieved for this test fill was 96.7%.The in-place density of each lift after compaction was determined by performing several NDM tests and, when the soil conditions were acceptable, oneSC test.The SC test was performed adjacent to a NDM test to provide a comparison of the water content and dry density measured by each method. Observations in the field and data from tests indicated that the hole excavated for the SC test tended to squeeze in or reduce in volume when the molecuttings were placed and compacted at water contents above or near optimum.Results from the SC tests when these conditions existed gave unreasonably high dry densities, and, as a result, SC tests were considered valid only when they were performed in areas where the water content of the molecuttings was less than 5%. A more complete discussion of this problem is presented in Section 5.The SC and NDM tests were generally performed within about a 5-ft radius of the plate load test.

Generally, several NDM tests were required before a lift of the molecuttings was compacted to a dry density that was esti-mated to provide 95% compaction. One-point compaction samples were obtained adjacent to the series of NDM and SC tests that

, indicated about 95% compaction had been achieved.The one-point samples were compacted in accordance with ASTM D1557, Method C, except the minusmaterial was included for compaction.

The maximum dry density for the one-point sample was determined by plotting the one-point dry density on a family of compaction curves for molecuttings and interpolating the maximum dry density.

Correction of the in-place dry density to account for the plusmaterial, which was removed for the laboratory test, was necessary in order to determine the percent compaction. De-tails of the correction procedure are presented in Appendix A.

The percent compaction was computed by dividing the corrected in-place dry density by the corresponding maximum dry density determined by the one-point compaction technique.Table 2 pre-sents the summary of the percent compaction achieved in the test fill. A profile of the test fill and the average percent compaction for each lift is presented in Fig. 2.

Two compaction tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1557, Method C, except the minusmaterial was included and there was no limit on the percent retained on l&-in. sieve on bag samples of molecuttings from lifts 4 and 6.The compac-tion curves and related grain-size curves are shown on Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.

3.3 Molecuttings (No Special Controls)

The average percent compaction of this test fill was 93.0%.

The water content of the molecuttings during placement was gen-erally above optimum and was not controlled during compaction.

Sand Cone tests to determine the in-place dry density were not performed because of the inaccuracy in performing the test in molecuttings compacted at water contents near or above optimum.

The in-place dry density was determined by performing at least two and most usually three to five NDM tests at probe depths of 4 and 8 in.The NDM tests were generally performed within a 5-ft radius of the plate load test location.

One-point compaction samples were obtained adjacent'to the series of NDM tests that indicated the next lift of molecuttings could be placed.In some cases after a lift had been compacted, NDM tests performed, and one-point samples obtained, the lift was permitted to drain overnight and additional NDM tests taken in the morning. One-point compaction samples generally were not obtained for the NDM tests performed after drainage. The pro-cedure to compute the percent compaction for each in-place den-sity test was the same as described in the previous section.

Table 3 presents the summary of the percent compaction achieved in the test fill. A profile of the test fill and the average percent compaction for each lift is presented in Fig. 3.

Two compaction tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1557, Method C, except the minusmaterial was included and there was no limit on the percent retained on the sieve on bag samples obtained from lifts 2A and 7A. The com-paction curves and the grain-size curve for lift 2A are shown on Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.

3.4 Stratified Molecuttings and Gravelly Sand The average percent compaction of the gravelly sand and molecuttings test fill was 92.8%.Molecuttings were used forlifts 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 for this test fill.The in-place dry density and percent compaction of the molecuttings was deter-mined in accordance with the procedure described in the previous section. Lifts 4 and 6 of the test fill were constructed using gravelly sand. The in-place density for lift 4 was determined by four NDM tests. One SC test and 3 NDM tests were performed in lift 6. The maximum dry density and computation of the per-cent compaction at each in-place density test location was as described in the section for gravelly sand.Table 4 presents the summary of the percent compaction in the test fill. A pro-file of the test fill and the average percent compaction of each lift is presented in Fig. 3. 4.PLATE LOAD TESTS Five plate load tests were performed on the four test fills.The plate load test number, test fill and date of the test is presented below.

Plate Load Test No.Test FillDate of Test 1Gravelly SandJune 7, 1979 2MolecuttingsJune 14, 1979 (No Special Control) .

StratifiedJune 15, 1979 cuttings and Gravelly Sand MolecuttingsJune 18, 1979 (Controlled Placement) 5Molecuttings (No Special Control)The locations of the tests are indicated on Fig. 1 and de-tails of the procedure are presented in Appendix B.In briefthe procedure was as follows:an-diameter steel plate was generally placed 12 in. below the surface of the test fill and loaded to produce contact stresses to 4 tsf and then to 12 Deflections of the plate were measured and recorded.

The results of the plate load tests are presented in Figs.

B2 through B6. Values of Young's Modulus, E, were calculated from the results of the plate load tests using elastic theory.

A description of the analysis is presented in Appendix B. A summary of the modulus calculated for each test is presented in Table 5.The percent compaction indicated in Table 5 represents the average percent compaction of lifts within the zone of signi-ficant stress increase due to the load on the plate.For anin. -diameter plate this zone is aboutto 36-in.-thick.

The soil modulus determined by the plate load test vs per-cent compaction is plotted on Fig. 8.The results indicate that the molecuttingshave a much higher modulus than the gravelly sand when both materials are compacted to the same percent compaction.

In fact, the modulus of the molecuttings compacted to 93% compac-tion is approximately equivalent to the modulus of the gravelly sand placed at 97% compaction.Plate Load Test No. 5 (PLT-5) was performed 13 days after and about 4 ft away from Plate Load Test No. 2 (PLT-2).The soil modulus for PLT-5 was about two times June 27, 1979 the modulus for PLT-2. The increase in modulus may have been caused by densification of the molecuttings as a result of drainage over the 13 day period between the performance of the two tests. Assuming that the molecuttings were saturated after PLT-2 and the water content reduced by 1% during a period of 13 the in-place dry density would have increased by 2 to 3 pcf or about a 1 to 2% increase in the percent compaction.Themodulus for PLT-5, as a result of the densification, nearly plots on the line from PLT-2 to PLT-4.

Test PLT-3 was performed on the stratified molecuttings and gravelly sand test fill. The average percent compaction of the molecuttings and gravelly sand was 92.5 andrespectively.

, Plate load tests, PLT-2 and PLT-1, were performed on separate test fills of molecuttings and gravelly sands compacted to about the same percent compaction and the moduli were 7,300 psi and 10,100 respectively.The moduli determined for the stratified test fill, however, was 17,000 psi.Based on the results of PLT-1 and PLT-2 the anticipated modulus determined by FLT-3 was between 8 and 10,000 psi.The high modulus measured by PLT-3 may have been caused by one or more of the following factors:

1.Distribution of the load may have been more rapid for the layered fill than in a homogeneous fill, and 2.Drainage of the molecuttings and related increases in dry density and modulus may have accelerated faster in the stratified test fill than in the homogeneous cuttings (No Special Controls) test fill due to drainage through the gravelly sand layers.

5. PLACEMENT AND FIELD CONTROL OF MOLECUTTINGS The purpose of this section is to present recommendations for the placement and field control of molecuttings based on field and laboratory data obtained during construction of the test fills.

Review of the data obtained provided the information neces-sary to make recommendations on the limits for grain size, lift thickness, determination of in-place density and percent compac-tion, and control of water contents of the molecuttings. A discussion of each of the items is presented below.

5.1 Grain-Size Limits Grain-size analyses were performed on thre'e samples of the molecuttings used for the test fills.The grain-size curves are presented on Fig. 7.The molecuttings were generally widely graded with uniformity coefficients of 45 to 100.The maximum particle size was generally less than 3-in.-diameter and the percent by weight passing the No. 200 sieve was from 5 to 7%.

Based on these and other grain-size analyses recommendations for gradation requirements were developed and are presented in Appendix A.

5.2 Lift Thickness The molecuttings were placed in 8-in.-thick loose lifts during construction of the test fills. Observations made during placement of the molecuttings indicated that the ability to achieve a specific percent compaction was mostly affected by the water content of the material rather than the thickness of the lift. When the molecuttings were placed at water contents above optimum, a specific degree of compaction generally was notachieved until the water content was reduced to'or below the optimum water content as a result of drainage.The time required for drainage is a function of the lift thickness and, therefore, where 95% and 93% compaction is required, lift thicknesses of 8-in. andare recommended.Thethick loose lift in areas where 93% compaction is required was recommended based on the fact that the average percent compaction of 93.0% was achieved for the molecuttings (No Special Controls) test fill without the benefit of extensive compactive efforts.

5.3 Determination of In-Place Dry Density The nuclear density meterprovides a much faster determination of the field in-place dry density and water con-tent than the sand cone (SC).The accuracy of the NDM tests performed in the gravelly sand and molecuttings was verified by comparing the results of adjacent NDM and SC tests.

5.3.1 Gravelly Sand Generally, two SC tests were performed adjacent to two NDM tests on each lift of the test fill to com-pare the in-place dry density and water content measured by each method.. The in-place water con-tent determined by the sand cone versus nuclear den-sity meter is plotted on Fig. 9.The data indicate that both methods measure essentially the same water content at values less than 8% and, as the water con-tent increases, the NDM measures a lower value than the SC. As a result, a correction was applied to the water content measured by the NDM to compute the in-place dry density... A plot of sand cone versus nuclear density meter determined in-place dry density is shown on Fig. 10.The correlation of the densi-ties determined by each method was considered to be poor.The correlation may have been improved if more frequent moisture checks had been performed dur-ing construction of the test fill.

5.3.2Molecuttings Twelve-inch-diameter sand cone tests were performed in the molecuttings to reduce the effects that the maximum particle size and percentage of material larger than thesieve would have on in-place dry density determination. The in-place dry density and water content determined by the SC test was compared to the results from adjacentNDM tests.

Comparison of the results indicated the water content determined by the NDM averaged 1.7% higher than that determined by the sand cone.The 1.7% difference in water contents was confirmed by performing water con-tent checks at random NDM test locations. A 1.7% bias correction was applied to the water contents determined by the NDM. A plot of sand cone determined water con-tent versus nuclear density meter water content (with a 1.7% bias correction) is presented on Fig. 11.

The plot shows there is a good correlation between the sand cone and nuclear density meter (after bias correction) water content determinations.A secondwater content check was made on molecuttings. after the test fill was completed which indicated that the bias had increased to 2.5%.Because the water content bias changed significantly within a period of two weeks periodic checks of the bias are recommended.

The in-place dry density determined by the sand cone test and the 8-in. NDM test after correction for the water content bias is plotted on Fig. 12.The solid dots and dashed circles represent in-place dry den-sity measurements at water contents less than 5% and greater thanrespectively.The data indicate that there is good correlation of dry densities deter-mined by both methods at water contents less than 5%

and that the SC measured higher dry densities than the NDM at water contents above 5%.For this test fill the SC tests performed in molecuttings compacted at water contents above 5% are not considered valid for the reasons presented in the following discussion.

When the molecuttings were placed at water contents above aboutthe compacted surface would exhibit a spongy behavior when one walked across the surface.

The degree of sponginess increased as the moisture increased above the optimum water content.Thesponginess is believed to be caused by water and air pore pressures. The net effect was that as the sand cone hole was excavated the pore pressures at the walls of the hole were relieved by the walls moving laterally into the hole until an equilibrium of the pore pressure at the walls of the hole was reached.

Thus, by the time the volume of the hole was measured a significant decrease in the volume of the hole had occurred but the quantity of soil excavated was from the original volume.The result was that the dry soil excavated was divided by awhich re-sulted in an inaccurately high computed dry density.

The SC and NDM test results indicate that the NDM can be used to determine the in-place dry density and water content of molecuttings. The water content bias should be checked periodically to account for changes that occur in the molecuttings. Details of a recommended placement procedure arepresented in Appendix A.

5.4 Determination of Percent Compaction The field and laboratory data indicated the nuclear density meter could be used to determine the in-place dry density after the appropriate water content bias had been determined for the molecuttings being tested.

The preferred field procedure for determing the percent com-paction of compacted soil is as follows:

1.Gbtain a one-point sample of the soil before compaction.

2.Perform the' one-point compaction test in the lab and determine the maximum dry density from a family of curves.3. Perform the in-place dry density of the compacted lift using the nuclear density meter at or near the location of where the one-point sample was taken.

This procedure can be used for the molecuttings if at least three nuclear density meter determinations of the in-place dry density are made. The average of the three tests should be used to represent the in-place density for computation of the percent compaction. The above procedure will reduce the effect that minor in the character of the molecuttings will have on the in-place dry density determination.

The use of a standard laboratory compaction test or one which was slightly modified was considered the best method of deter-mining the maximum dry density of the molecuttings.The Modified AASHG Compaction Test, ASTM D1557, permits the use of minus material to be compacted in 6-in. molds.Grain-size analyses performed on molecuttings indicate that nearly 50% of the sample is retained on thesieve, and, as a result, the material passing thesieve would behave much differently than the total sample during compaction. A sample of the molecuttings that would represent the compaction behavior of the material was con-sidered possible if the amount of coarse material removed was limited to about 20% by weight of the total sample.This could generally be achieved by removing material retained on the sieve.For the test fill the laboratory compaction used was ASTM D1557, Method C, except the plusmaterial was removed.

Because this compaction test, as modified above, was used for the test fill and gave reasonable results its use is recommended for performing laboratory compaction tests on the molecuttings.

5.5 Water Content Control The laboratory compaction curves for compaction tests per-formed on samples of molecuttings show a sharp peak in dry density at the optimum water content, Fig. 6.The dry density drops as the water increases or decreases from the optimum value.Thelaboratory data show that small variations in water content sig-nificantly affect the degree of compaction that can be achieved in the molecuttings. This behavior was also observed during placement and compaction of the molecuttings in the test fills.

In the test fill where placement of the molecuttings was con-trolled, the required percent compaction generally could only be achieved by controlling the water content, by either wetting or drying, of the molecuttings.The most efficient compaction of the molecuttings was when the water content was from about 4 to 6%.

Therefore, the water content of the molecuttings should not differ from optimum by more than +for most efficient tion.

TABLES TABLEOF FIELD DENSITY TESTS.GRAVELLY SAND TEST FILL QUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY STATIONPage 1 of 2 LiftNo.SampleNo.PercentND-1One-point 120.9ThiscolumnND-2samplesnot123.7doesnotap-ND-3obtained121.1plyforcompac-SC-1118.1tiontestper-formedusing2SC-111.19.7120.9123.0115.0ASTM93.5ND-24.810.0116.8120.5117.1Method D97.2SC-39.49.0120.1123.0120.397.88.19.2117.9122.0119.5N.A.13.0122.31 2 2 . 3 119.23ND-1One-point 123.0SC-2samplesnot126.0ND-3obtained121.4122.5N.A.I5.2I115.5122.1121.548.54.9117.8125.5119.194.98.54.9117.8125.5120.596.05.07.4119.1124.0124.1100.05.0.7.4119.1124.0118.895.8ND-55.8I7.0121.5126.0119.094.4NOTES:One-point compaction sample performed by Pittsburgh Testing Labs.

One one-point compaction sample obtained for sand cone and nuclear density test performed adjacent to each other.

Percent compaction computed using maximum dry density determined by Pittsburgh Testing Lab.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 76301 July 12, 1979 TABLEOF FIELD DENSITY TESTS GRAVELLY SAND TEST FILL QUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY STATIONPage 2 of 2 NO.SampleNo.One-Point Laboratory MaximumDry Density In-PlaceDrDensitypcfPercentCompaction PercentMaterialWaterContent%DensityForMaterial4.89.7124.5125.0125.5100.44.89.7124.5125.0123.899.05.810.3123.1124.0120.997.513.09.3126.4127.0124.998.013.09.3126.4127.0121.395.53.910.0122.3123.2117.895.613.28.4126.0127.0118.793.513.28.4126.0127.0125.799.09.17.6123.3126.5123.097.29.17.6123.3126.5126.699.75.96.8120.5126.5122.596.85.9120.5126.5123.897.910.77.8121.0124.8121.697.410.77.8121.0124.8123.298.711.37.6121.5125.8121.996.9ND-lOne-point 119.6SC-2samplesnot118.9ND-3obtained120.2SC-4118.8IN.A.13.8117.9120.9116.2.NOTES:(1) One-point compaction sample performed by Fittsburgh Testing Lab.

One one-point compaction sample obtained for sand cone and nuclear density test performed adjacent to each other.

(3) Percent compaction computed using maximum dry density determined by Pittsburgh Testing Lab.

Geo technical Engineers Inc.Project 76301 July 12, 1979 PLACEMENT)FILLTABLEOF FIELD DENSITY TESTS QUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY STATIONPage 1 of 2 LiftNO.SampleNo.One-Point Compaction Laboratory MaximumDryDensityIn-Place Dry Density, pcf Percent%PercentMaterialWaterContento0DryDensityTotalCorrected ForMaterial1ND-12One-point N.A.145.5N.A.N.A.ND-13samplesnotN.A.144.0N.A.N.A.ND-14obtainedN.A.142.6N.A.N.A.ND-15N.A.146.9144.5N.A.2ND-810.85.1145.4151.0150.0146.997.324.95.1146.0151.5149.5140.993.0(1)7.3.7153.0161.5152.4150.5158.498.43ND-1011.44.6145.9152.0143.1139.091.4ND-1110.4.14.4144152.5151.8145.5152.4.150.7142.8149.898.293.999.24ND-l7.35.0151.2154.0149.4147.495.78.24.6148.3154.0148.3145.994.76.84.3144.9142.792.6.149.797.2NOTES:One one-point compaction sample obtained for sand cone and nuclear density test performed adjacent to each other.

Laboratory one-point compaction test results and interpolated maximum dry density are from adjacent nuclear density meter one-point compaction samples and test results.

In-place dry density measured is in error for reasons discussed in the text.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 76301 July 12, 1979 MOLECUTTINGS (CONTROLLED PLACEMENT) TEST FILL QUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY TABLEOF FIELD DENSITY TESTS STATIONPage 2 of 2 LiftNo.SampleNo.One-PoirMaximumDensityIn-PlaceDensity,MaterialWaterContent%DensityCorrected ForMaterial5ND-85.64.9148.7155.0150.6149.17.74.1146.5155.0148.0145.714.54.7146.0149.4145.0.162.3160.66ND-416.94.0146.0155.0152.6146.0ND-57.84.5147.9153.0150.2148.17.54.2148.3154.0152.3150.4148.3154.07ND-412.54.9145.21 5 1 . 0 147.1143.1ND-512.25.0147.5152.0149.5145.9ND-610.44.6146.3152.0147.6144.48ND-lOne-point 146.0N.A.ND-2samplesnot146.5N.A.ND-3obtained146.1N.A.PercentCompaction 96.294.094.895.596.897.794.896.095.0N.A.N.A.N.A.NOTES: (1) One one-point compaction sample obtained for sand cone and nuclear density test performed adjacent to each other.

Laboratory one-point compaction test results and interpolated maximum dry density are from adjacent nuclear density meter one-point compaction samples and test results.

In-place dry density measured is in error for reasons discussed in the text.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.

July 12, TABLE 3OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS MOLECUTTINGSSPECIAL CONTROLS) TEST FILL QUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY STATION 2LiftNo.SampleNo.One-Point Compaction Laboratory MaximumDryDensityIn-Place Dry Density, PercentCompaction PercentMaterialWaterContent%DensitySampleCorrected For +Material1ND-4One-point 146.3N.A.ND-5samplesnot142.4N.A.ND-6obtained145.5N.A.ND-7149.1149.1N.A.2ND-412.34.6147.7155.0149.4145.794.0ND-510.65.8149.0152.0145.8144.595.1ND-614.55.5149.6152.0145.8142.393.6SC-712.34.6147.7155.0157.8154.591.03ND-56.06.7147.0151.0143.7141.793.8ND-69.26.2147.8151.0141.9.138.591.74ND-l10.66.5148.8151.1144.7141.193.3ND-215.56.6146.0151.0143.0137.190.85ND-l12.34.9148.9153.0150.9147.596.4ND-212.35.0148.1152.0152.2149.098.0ND-324.84.7147.7153.0140.5129.084.36ND-523.54.3153.3156.0154.2147.794.7ND-68.53.6145.1153.0145.1142.393.0ND-79.45.6153.6155.0143.3140.090.3Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 76301 July 12, 1979 3OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS.SPECIALTEST FILLQUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY STATIONPage 2 of 2 Compaction Laboratory MaximumDryDensityIIn-Place Dry Density, pcf PercentCompaction

%WaterContentDryDensityCorrected ForMaterial78ND-7ND-8ND-9ND-1ND-2ND-35.14.07.5One-point samplesnotobtained3.13.43.9141.2140.1143.6149.0148.0151.0140.0139.2148.8144.4125.0144.3138.1137.7146.6N.A.N.A.N.A.92.793.097.1N.A.N.A.N.A.Geotcchnical Engineers Inc.Project 76301 July 12, 1979 4OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS STRATIFIED MOLECUTTINGS AND GRAVELLY SAND TEST FILL QLJARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY STATIONPage 1 of 1 LiftNo.SampleNo.One-PairnLaboratory MaximumDryDensityDensity, pcf PercentPercent+Material%WaterContentDryDensityTOY-11Corrected ForMaterial3ND-715.05.7149.3153.0148.8144.194.2ND-812.26.0148.8152.0145.9141.893.35.6118.3125.0114.3N.A.91.4ND-42.7122.2124.0108.1N.A.87.2ND-53.0115.1123.0108.2N.A.88.0ND-64.9116.9124.5N.A.88.85ND-410.44.3145.7151.0151.3148.5ND-516.33.8144.8153.0138.1130.8N.A.N.A.123.31.27.5123.8N.A.97.17.2123.3127.5121.1N.A.95.0ND-36.8118.8124.5119.3N.A.95.8ND-48.3120.3124.0119.6N.A.96.57ND-104.82.7137.5148.0140.2138.493.58ND-4Onepoint147.3N.A.N.A.ND-5samplesnotobtained140.8N.A.N.A.NOTES :construction or Lift.(2)Values represent percentmaterial.

(3)Nuclear density probe may have penetrated gravelly sand layer below.

(4) One one-point compaction sample obtained for SC-1 and ND-2.

Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 76301 July 12, 1979 TABLE 5SUMMARY OF PLATE LOAD TESTS RESULTS QUARTZITE MOLECUTTINGS STUDY STATIONLoadNo.SoilAtTestSoilModulus,psiAveragePercentCompaction 1R e m a r k s VirginReload1GravellySand97.12Mole92.6(NoSpecialControl)3Stratified Ave. Percent MoleCuttingsandGravellyCompaction 93.7Sand4Mole95.3(Controlled Placement) 5MoleCuttings(NoSpecialPerformed13daysafterControl)PLT-2Geotechnical Engineers Inc.Project 76301 July 11, 1979 FIGURES PLAN VIEW TEST FILLS ic ServiceofProjectStudyMolecuttings PLT-3GravellycuttingsSandStratified Mole-cuttings and Gravelly Sand (Controlled Placement)

LT-5PLT-4PLT-1PLT-2cuttings(No Special Not To Scale PROFILE OF GRAVELLY SAND TEST FILL Steel Plate Lift 7 Ave.Comp. = 97.5 Lift 6 Ave.Comp. = 97.0 Lift 5 Ave.Comp. = 98.1

. Lift 2Ave.% Comp. = 97.4 Lift 1 Ave.Corns. = 99.0 Lift 4 Ave.= 96.2Lift 3 Ave. % Comp. = 100.6 Scale:= 2.5'1. One-point compaction samples not obtained.Average percent compaction is based on maximum dry density provided by PTL.

PROFILE OF MOLECUTTINGS (CONTROLLED PLACEMENT) TEST FILL Steel Plate Ave.Comp. = 95.3 Lift 6 Ave. %= 96.7Lift 5 Ave.Comp. = 95.0 Lift 4 Ave. % Comp. = 95.1 Lift 3 Ave.= 95.7Lift 2 Ave.96.2Lift 1 Ave.Comp. = N. A.

Scale:= 2.5'Molecuttings l

-PROFILE OF TEST

_ FILLSProject 76301 11, PROFILE OF MOLECUTTINGS (NO SPECIAL CONTROLS) TEST FILL Lift 1 Ave.Comp. = N.A.

Scale:= 2.5'PROFILE OF STRATIFIED MOLECUTTINGS AND GRAVELLY SAND TEST FILL ServiceofIMolecuttingsIPROFILE OFFILLSStudyProject11, 19g .Steel Plate (PLT-2 and 5)Lift 8 Ave.=Lift 7 Ave.= 94.3Lift 6 Ave.Comp. = 92.7 Lift 5 Ave.Comp. = 92.9 Lift 4 Ave.Comp. = 92.1 Lift 3 Ave. % Comp. = 92.8 Lift 2 Ave.Comp. = 94.7

.Steel Plate (PLT-3)

Lift 8 Ave. % Comp. = N.A.

Lift 1 Ave.= N.A.Scale:2.5' U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHESU.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERSHYDRCMETER 6432IofLabs.Pro-iIGrain-size analyses per 'formed

,..COBBLES COARSEIFINECOARSEMEDIUMIFINEWINCHESTERMASSACHUSETTS 3 4 6 GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS SIZEQuartziteMolecuttingsGRAVELLY SAND StudyITEST FILL IIi11, 1979 NOTE: 1. Compaction test performed inwithC,the plusmaterial.

was discarded and no limitation placed on the percent retained on thePublic Service Company of NewhireQuartzite Molecuttings StudyProject 76301

. COMPACTION CURVES Molccuttings July 12, 1979Molecuttings

- V W - -

Controlled Molecuttings (No Special Controls)

(Controlled Placement)

Lift 4s = 100%-Gave = 2.83 (De152..02468IOWater Content, U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHESU.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERSHYDROMETER GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS COBBLESSANDFINE GRAIN SIZE SAMPLES OF MOLECUTTINGS QuartziteMolecuttings studyICOARSE FINE COARSEMEDIUMWINCHESTER . MASSACHUSETTS analyses performed using successive elutriation.

MOLECDTTINGS MOLECUTTINGS LIFT 2LIFT 4I -I - -500100505I0.561(No Special Controls 4 32I820 30 40 50 70200MOLECUTTINGS (Controlled Placement)

(ControlledPlacement) 0.050.001

.MOGravelly Sand 302520151050PERCENT COMPACTION VERSUS9092349698100Percent ofof Modified AASHO, %

NOTES: 1. Modulus of elasticity computed using theory of elasticity for semi-infinite, isotropic soil.

2.Modulus of elasticity value plotted is minimum value from virgin loading curve.

3.Percent compaction is the average percent compaction of the first three layers of soil under the plate.

4.Percent compaction the average percent compaction of two layers of molecuttings and one layer of gravelly sand.

5.Range in percent compaction is estimated.See discussion in text.

Public Service Company of QuartziteMolecuttings Study76301 4.06.08.014.0Nuclear Density Meter Determined In-Place Water Content, WATER CONTENT SAND CONE VS DENSITY METER GRAVELLY SAND Ju98 . 06 . 0Estimated Line of Gravelly SandBest Fit Gravelly Sand r11114116118122124126Density Meter Determined In-Place Dry Density, pcf NOTES: 1. In-place dry density includes plusmaterial. .

2.In-place dry density based on 8-in. deep nuclear test.Densities have been corrected for water content bias according to plot of versusnuclear for gravelly sand:

conedevice3.Cone and Nuclear Density Meter determinations were performed to each other (about 6-12 in. apart).

SAND CONE VS NUCLEAR DEN SITY METER DET.DRY DENSITY GRAVELLY SAND 10.-.--.----PublicCompany of

.Elcwi L-CIIIIIQuartzite studyProject 76301 Nuclear Density Meter DeterminedWater Content, (after bias was corrected) 8 . 07 . 06 . 0Molecuttings3.04.05.06.07.08.0NOTES: 1. In-place water content is baseddeep nuclear test.

135145150155160Nuclear Density Meter Determined In-Place Dry Density,NOTES: 1. In-place dry density is uncorrected for the plusmater2.

.except where noted.

3.Water content of Sand Cone was greater than 5.0%.

4.In-place density is based on 4-in. deep nuclear test.

Molecuttings Public Service Company of SAND CONE VS NUCLEAR iSITY METER DET. IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY MOLECUTTINGS I.QuartziteMolccuttings StudyProject 76301 11, APPENDIX A SAFETY-RELATED STRUCTURAL FILL A.MATERIAL1.Gradation for molecuttings should meet the following criteria:100100-70100-35in.75-1032-O22-o10-O2.The uniformity coefficient,should be not less than 5.

B.PLACEMENT 1.Molecuttings should be placed in 8-in.-thick loose lifts and compacted to 95% of maximum dry density as determined by ASTMwith exceptions for testing noted in Section C.2.

2.The water content of the molecuttings should be at optimum1% during placement. The water content duringof quartzite molecuttings should be stockpiled or otherwise treated to reduce the water content to less than 6%.If the water content is less thanthe addition of water during com-paction will be necessary if satisfactory compaction is to be achieved.

3.Molecuttings should not be placed in direct contact with pipes, culverts, or other structures sensitive to abrasion and/or high point loads.

4.The pore fluid of the molecuttings is brackish and, as a result, the resistivity of the muck is likely to be below the minimum limit of 10,000 United Engineers is to develop recommendations for placement of the molecuttings in areas when high resistivity of backfill material is required.

C.TESTING AND FIELD CONTROL Due to anticipated variations in rock type the cuttings should be monitored daily by determining the grain-size distribution, water content, and rock type for at least one typical sample.The grain-size analysis should be performed by using a wet sieving technique and every tenth test should be performed by using the elutriation method, without pre-drying of the sample. The frequency of testing may be re-duced in time after those testing become familiar with the material and thus capable of judging when the material is or is not acceptable.

a.If the percent passing thesieve material is greater thanthe material should not be used.b.If the water content is greater than 1% above optimum, the molecuttings should be stockpiled or treated to reduce the water content to optimum.

2.A family of at least three compaction curves should bc developed using ASTM D1557, Method C, except that the minusmaterial shall be used. Each compaction curve should be accompanied by a grain-size analysis.

Additional compaction curves should be performed once every 7,500 yards or earlier if visual changes in the molecuttings grain size is observed.

3.A bag sample of the molecuttings should be obtained after the loose lift has been placed and before com-paction begins. The sample should be large enough to perform a laboratory one-point compaction test and to measure the percent material retained on the l&inch sieve.4.Separate the plusmaterial and calculate its percentage by weight of the entire sample.

5.A one-pointtest should be'performed on the bag sample of molecuttings in accordance with ASTM D1557, Method C, except that the minussievematerial shall be used.The maximum dry density for this sample, yd , is determined by plotting the point dry on the family of curves and inter-polating the maximum dry density for the minus material.

6.The in-place dry density should be determined by per-forming at least three nuclear density meter tests.

The average dry density should be used to compute the percent compaction.This method should reduce the effects of sharp variations in the molecuttings on the in-place dry density determinations.

a. The water content bias for the nuclear density meter should be corrected for use in molecuttings.

The water content bias should be checked weekly.

7.The percent compaction is determined by dividing the corrected in-place dry density by the laboratory maxi-mum dry density as determined in 6. above. A formula to compute the corrected in-place dry density, to correct for the quantity of plusmaterial, is presented below.

= 1-Rwhere= corrected in-place dry density for the minussieve material

= average in-place dry density determined by using nuclear density meter

= unit weight of water G = specific gravity of molecuttings R = percent, by weight of the total sample retained on thesieveThe percent compaction is computed as follows:

Percent Compaction P(%) =x 100.= Maximum dry density of minusmaterialdetermined in Step 5. from the family of curves and the one-point compaction.

YND NONSAFETY-RELATED STRUCTURAL FILL A.MATERIAL1.Gradation for molecuttings should meet the following criteria:100100-70100-35100-1775-10No. 2022-o10-O2.The uniformity coefficientnot be less than 5.B.PLACEMENT 1.Molecuttings should be placed inlooselifts and compacted to 93 of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 with exceptions noted in Section C.2 for Safety-Related Structural Fill.

2.Molecuttings can be sandwiched between presently ac-cepted gravelly sand structural fill. When cuttings and gravelly sand are alternated in the back-fill, the following limits are recommended.

a.Molecuttings should be placed in 8-in.-thick loose lifts and compacted to 93maximum dry density as determined by ASTM b.Gravelly sand should be placed in accordance with the present specification for structural fill (i.e.,

8-in. loose lifts compacted to 95% of ASTM

3. The water content of theshould be optimum1% during placement if no gravelly sand layers are present. When the molecuttings and gravelly sand are placed in alternating layers, the water content of the molecuttings may be permitted to be as high as 2%

above optimum.If the water content of the molecuttings exceeds the suggested limits of water content, the cuttings should be stockpiled or otherwise treated to alter the water content.If the water content is low, say 2 tothe addition of water during compaction may be necessary to achieve satisfactory compaction.

RANDOM FILL A.MATERIALThe molecuttings to be used asFill should comply with the present specification as described in Specification No.

9763-8-4, Section 3.2.2 dated September 27, 1974.

B.PLACEMENT 1.Molecuttings should be placed inlooselifts and compacted to 90 of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Dl557 with exceptions noted in Section C.2 for Safety-Related Structural Fill.

2.Although limits on the water content of the cuttings are not necessary, the most efficient com-paction will occur at optimum water content1%.C.TESTING AND FIELD CONTROL Testing and field control for use of molecuttings as Ran-dom Fill should be the same as outlined for Safety-Related areas with the following exceptions:

The gradation of the molecuttings should comply with present specifications for Random Fill.

No limit on the water content of the molecuttings is recommended.The maximum permissible water content in the field will be dictated by the ability to achieve the required percent compaction.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX B PLATE LOAD TEST B-l Purpose The plate load tests were performed to determine the de-formation characteristics of gravelly sand and molecuttings.

The results of the plate load tests provided the basis for comparison of the two materials and to determine the effect that percent compaction has on their deformation characteristics.

. B-2 Procedure For each test a 24-in. -diameter hole was excavated to a depth of 12 in., except for test PLT-3 which was 6 in. deep.

An -diameter, thick steel plate was placed on a thin layer of liquid hydrous stone which was placed directly on the bottom surface of the test hole. Additional steel platesandin diameter were placed in a pyramid arrangement on top of theplate.After the hydrous stone and plates were in place, the plate was loaded by a hydraulic jack reacting against the under-side of a loaded, flat-bed trailer, as illustrated in Fig. B-l.

The loads were measured using a calibrate pressure gage.

Deformations of the plate were measured using three dial indicators attached to a reference beam as illustrated in Fig.

B-l. The dial indicators were graduated to mm. The ref-erence beam supports were separated from the center the plate by about 72 in., which was a sufficient distance for deflections under the supports to be negligible during loading of the plate.

The loading sequence for each test was as follows:

1.Applied load to develop contact stress of 4 tons per square foot (tsf) in four equal increments.

2.Unload to zero load in two equal increments.

3.Repeat load-unload cycle to 4 tsf.

4.Load to develop contact stress of 12 tsf in six equal increments.

E DS-2-5.Unload to zero load in three equal increments.

6.Repeat load-unload cycle to 12 tsf two more times.

Each loading or unloading increment was held constant until the rate of deformation of the plate was less than

.001The air temperature when the plate load tests were per-formed was aboutF.B-3 Results The load versus displacement curves for the five plate load tests are illustrated in Figs. B-2 through B-6.The slope of the virgin load curve was generally straight except for test PLT-2 and PLT-3 where slight curvature was observed.The slope of the reload curves were much flatter than the virgin curve and the slopes of the repeated reload-unload cycles were parallel as would be expected.

Values of Young's Modulus, E, were calculated from the re-sults of the plate load tests using elastic theory.The solution for the settlement of a loaded, rigid circular plate on an elastic half space is as follows:

where s = settlement q = average stress on the plate P = load on the plate D = diameter of the plate

Poisson's ratio I = influence factor

E = Young's Modulus Assuming a value v = 0.3 and rearranging to compute E, yields:

The modulus calculated is the average modulus within the zone of significant stress which for anplate would extend between 18 to 36 inches beneath the plate.

The moduli calculated using this method are presented in Table For each test tangent moduli were calculated using the straight segments of the load and reload curves.

PLATETEST EQUIPMENT WINCHESTER

.Project 76301 Julv 12, 1979 PublicofNew Hampshire Reaction Structure (Loaded Flat-bed Trailer)

\ LiquidHydrousStoneBearing Plates Dial Indicator BeamRefBeamSupportof Test Fill NOTE: 1.Depth for PLT-3 was about 6-in.

Schematic Illustration of Plate Load Test Equipment

--(Not ToDialSteel Bearing Plate Dial"Ear" Welded To Bearing Plate Dial indicatorsandmonitored displacement of "ears" attached to circumference of bearing plate.

Plan---Locations of Dial Indicators (Not ToStudy 6 . 07 . 08 . 002.06.08.0. 10.012.0Vertical Stress. tsf Date Performed:June 7, 1979 By:Fisher/R. Gardner Plate Diameter:

VERTICAL STRESS VS DEFORMATION PLATE LOAD TEST GRAVELLY SAND

...11I 802.04.06.010.012.0icof.Quartzite Project 76301 StudyPLATETEST PLT-2 11.Vertical Stress, tsf Date Performed:June 14, 1979 By:GardnerPlate Diameter:

VERTICAL STRESS VS DEFORMATION CON.)

41.2.3.04.06.08.0Vertical Stress, tsf Date Performed:June1979By: W. Fisher/R. Gardner Plate Diameter:

Company of 10.012.0VERTICALVSMolecuttings StudyPLATE LOAD TEST PLT-3 ST.GR.76301i 04 . c04.06.08.010.012.cVertical Stress, tsf Date Performed:June 18, 1979 By:Fisher/R.GardnerPlate Diameter:

Molecuttings PLATE LOAD TEST PLT-4

. . . . --a.---1.02.03.0DEFORMATION Study 02.04.06.08.010.012.0..Vertical Stress, tsf Date Performed:June1979By:FisherPlate Diameter:

- -.STRESS VS DEFORMATION PLATE LOAD TEST PLT-5 MOLECUTTINGS

-(NO SP. CON.

-July 11,g .1 . 0.2 . 04 . 05 . 06.07.0IIIIIQuartzite Study TABLESUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS PageLiftSampleOne-PointCompactionLaboratoryIn-Place Dry Density, pcfNo.No.PercentWaterMaximumTotalCorrectedCompaction MaterialContentDensityDry DensitySampleForMaterialoa00%

UPDATED FSAR APPENDIX 20 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT DISCUSSION OF DERIVATION OF COEFFICIENTS OFREACTIONThe information contained in this appendix was not revised, but has been extracted from the original FSAR and is provided for historical information.

March 22, 1978 Project 77386 File No. 2.0 1017 MAIN STREET. WINCHESTER. MASSACHUSETTS Mr. JohnPublic Service Co. of New Hampshire 1000 Elm Street 11th Floor.Manchester, NH 03105

Subject:

Discussion of Derivation of Coefficients ofReactionDear Mr.In the following we describe some techniques that we have developed to convert the moduli obtained from triaxial tests to moduli ofreaction for various loading conditions. We present this information to complement various telephone con-versations with D. Pate1 of Computation of Coefficients ofReactionThe coefficient ofreaction,represents soil deformation, due to pressure acting along a boundary surface, as if the soil were composed of independent springs, each repre-senting a unit of area with a spring constantThe spring constant is defined as a pressure divided by a displacement.

Such a representation is convenient for analytical purposes but neglects the influence of adjacent loaded surface areas on the displacement of any given point on the boundary surface.Thus,the coefficient ofreaction is not a unique number for an elastic material but is a function of the size of the loaded area, the pressure distribution, and the geometry ofmaterial.

For a soil, the modulus ofreaction is also dependent on the method or sequence of loading, i.e., the stress path.

On the basis of the theory of elasticity, wecomputedcoefficients ofreaction for the structural backfill and the sand cement for three geometries of loading using the modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio data obtained in the triaxial test results. The geometries of loading studied are illustrated in Figs. 1 through 9 and are as follows:

Mr. JohnMarch 22, 1970 1.Circular or square footing subjected to vertical load.

2.Pressure inside a cylindrical cavity in the soil mass assuming a plane strain condition.This istive, for example, for the loading produced by thermal expansion of the cross section of a buried pipe.

3.Pressure inside a cylindrical cavity with simultaneous application of a vertical surcharge, p, and a horizon-tal pressure,This loading is an approximate re-presentation of the placement of fill over a buried which deforms to produce an increased lateral stress around the pipe.A plane strain condition was

.assumed.The modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio used in the compu-tations are strain dependent and were selected for the average strain in the region of the soil mass that contributes most to the displace-ments, namely, within a distance of one diameter from the pipe and one footing width below the footing base. These strains were correlated with the displacements which, in turn, were expressed in terms of footing settlement divided by6/B, or in terms of the diameter strain of the pipe,In Figs. 1 through 9, the values of the coefficient ofreaction are plotted as a function of (T/B orand confining pressure. Confining pressure is to be taken as the effective overburden pressure computed at the elevations shown in the figures. An exception to the above procedure is that for the sur-charge type loading, a constant Poisson's ratio of 0.3 was used.

The elastic modulus E and Poisson's ratio v used as a basis for the coefficient of reaction computations were obtained from triaxial compression tests in which the minor principal stresses were kept constant and the major principal stress was increased monotoni-cally until the specimen failed. Such a stress path would be sufficient to determine E and v for an elastic material.However, soil is not elastic and E and v are dependent on the stress path or stress history.

In particular, higher values of E would be obtained for repeated or cyclic loading. For the static load conditions, we feel that the values ofreaction presented are reasonable estimates for the in-situ loading conditions. As shown in the next section, the values compare well with values given in published literature.We recommend, however, that when these values are used, sensitivity analyses should be made to assure that the designs are safe for a range 25% above and below the given values.

Comparison With Published Coefficients ofReactionThe coefficients ofreaction obtained from thetestswere compared with data presented by K. Terzaghi in the paper entitled Principal GC/SJP:ms Encl.ccR.YAECD.A. Desai, D. Patel, Mr. JohnMarch 22, 1978 "Evaluation of Coefficients ofReactionGeotechnique, vol. 5, 1955, pp. 297-326.

For shallow footings the vertical coefficient ofre-action for a one square foot plate, is estimated by Terzaghi to range between 300 and 1,000 ton/cu ft for dense sands, i.e., a range for x B of 4,000 to 14,000 psi. These values are intended for shallow footings,a typical depth of embedment, Dof 4ft, and for a width, B, of one foot.Thus, they are of confining pressures equivalent to a depth of 4.5 ft or about 4 psi.

The coefficient of horizontalreaction is given by Terzaghi for a 1 sq ft vertical area at a given depth, and it is assumed to be proportional to the effective stress at that depth.

For example, for dense sands at a confining pressure of 10 psi, a range ofof 7,000 to 14,000 psi is indicated..Thedata for structural backfill, for strains of about Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 5, agree with Terzaghi's data.No specific infor-mation on strain level is given by Terzaghi for his data, but he indicates that the data are applicable to a factor of safety against bearing capacity failure that is larger than two.It is also implicit that the factor of safety would not be much more than 2.Perhaps it lies in the range of 2 to 4.For such factors of safety, the results of plate load tests on sands (1 sq ft plate) would indicate typical settlements of 0.1 in. to 0.3 in., which would be equivalent to a vertical strain on the order of 1% in the soil adjacent to the plate.

Thus, the data for the structural backfill obtained from the triaxial tests correspond to coefficients ofreaction within the range given by Terzaghi.

Sincerely yours, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS INC.

Steve J. Poulos Principal FIGURES ReactionGeotechnical Engineers Inc.

Winchester,Massachusetts Project 77386 Public Service Company of New Hampshire

=March 13, 3.978Fig. 1SETTLEMENT EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS AT DEPTH t462347Sand and Sand-Cement BackfillPRESSURE ON BACKFILL90% COMPACTION ReactionSETTLEMENT EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS AT DEPTH t B/2)..4IO'986544567 8 910234568sProject,.77386 FOOTING PRESSURE ON STRUCTURAL BACKFILL 95% COMPACTION March 13, 1978Fig. 2Public Service Company of New Hampshire GeotechnicalInc.Winchester, M a s s a c h u s e t t Sand and Sand-Cement Backf ill 96SmSETTLEMENT k9765= EFFECTIVE VERTICA STRESS AT DEPTH 445679102346789100Public Service Company of ReactionFOOTING PRESSURE ON New Hampshire Sand and Sand-Cement SAND-CEMENT Backf ill BACKFILLEngineers Inc. ,

Winchester,Massachusetts Project 77386 March 13, 1978Fig.

ReactionSand and Sand-Cement Backf ill Engineers Inc Winchester, Massachusetts Project 77386 Public Service Company of New Hampshire March 13, 1978Fig. 4INTERNAL PRESSURE PIPE BURIED IN STRUCTURAL BACKFILL COMPACTION IO'9765976541456 7 8 91023456 7 65489467 8 9102346ReactionProject 77386 March 13, 1978Fia. 5Sand and Sand-Cement Backf ill INTERNAL PRESSURE PIPE BURIED IN STRUCTURAL BACKFILL 95% COMPACTION Public Servide Company of New Hampshire Geotechnical Engineers Inc.

Winchester,Massachusetts EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS AT DEPTH Z 2U=I IO986987463456 7 8 91023456 7 8Public Service Company of NewGeotechnical Engineers Inc.

Winchester,Massachusetts ReactionSand and Sand-Cement BackfillProject 77386 March 13, 1978Fig. 6= EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS AT DEPTH SAND-CEMENT BACKFILL INTERNAL PRESSURE PIPE BURIED IN DISPLACEMENT ReactionDISPLACEMENT

=98765= EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS AT DEPTH 4452346 7 8 9 0 0 SURCHARGE PRESSURE ON PIPE IN STRUCTURAL BACKFILLCOMPACTION March 13, 1978Fig. 7Project 77386 Sand and Sand-Cement Backf ill Public Service Company of Geotechnical Engineers Inc.

Winchester, Massachusetts New Hampshire 4567 8 910234564ReactionSand and Sand-Cement Backf ill Project 77386 BACKFILL'95% COMPACTION March 13, 1978Fig. 8ON PIPE IN STRUCTURAL SURCHARGE PRESSURE Inc.DISPLACEMENT

= EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS AT DEPTH Z Public Service Company of New Hampshire Winchester, Massachusetts UPDATED FSAR APPENDIX 2P STATION CONTAINMENT AIRCRAFT IMPACT ANALYSIS The information contained in this appendix was not revised, but has been extracted from the original FSAR and is provided for historical information.

FSARAPPENDIX 2P STATION CONTAINMENT AIRCRAFT IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared by UNITED ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTORS INC.

OCTOBER 1975 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SEABROOK, NEWHAMPSHIRE CONTENTSABSTRACTl-ll-ll-12l-14l-15FSARCONTENTS1.0 Structural Analysis ofStation Containment for Aircraft Impact l-l1.1Introduction

---

1.2Forcing Function for Impacting Aircraft 1.3Behavior of Containment

---

1.4Response of the Enclosure Building

---

1.5Shear Capability of the Containment

---

1.6Requirements to Prevent Perforation

---

1.7Conclusions 1.8References for Section 2.0 Fire Hazard Analysis ofStation 2-l2.1CombustibleVaporProduction 2-22.2FireAnalysis2-22.3Evaluation of Various Safety Related Areas 2-42.4Hazards from Smaller Aircrafti 2-62.5Conclusion2-72.6References for Section2-7l-18 SBFSARABSTRACTResults are presented which verify the adequacy of the containment to resist the impact of an FB-111 type aircraft.Includedis a description of the dynamic forcing function, the elastic-dynamic analysis, the elastic-plastic analysis, an estimate of reinforcement and liner strain and a verification of the punching shear capability of the containment.

It is shown that there existsmechanism by which spilled fuel from the impacting aircraft can access theThe ensuing fire is, therefore, postulated to start in thevicinityexternal toenclosure and it is demonstrated that these external fires do not, in any way, inhibit or handicap the safe shutdown cap-ability of the plant following the postulated crash.

It is concluded, that under the aircraft impact, the containment structure is able to withstand postulated impact and that the consequences of the aforementioned fire hazard is mitigated by the inherent design features ofStation.

1.0 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OFSTATION+2l-ldxFSARAIRCRAFT IMPACT

1.1 Introduction

TheStation containment has been analyzed for the effects of a-postulated impact by an FB-111 type aircraft with a speed at impact of 200 mph.Based on the analyses performed;-the of the containment to withstand the postulated impact is verified.

TheStation containment and enclosure building is described in Section 3.8.1 of thePSAR. The FB-111 aircraft, the missile in the postulated73.5 feet long, has a wingspan oosition) of 70.0 feet and weighs 81.800 Dounds (See Reference 1).

In order to perform the analyses,a force-time relationship is developed from the mechanical properties of the impacting aircraft.

An elastic dynamic analysis indicates that an elastic-plastic dynamic analysis is required to predict theresponse of the structure.From this analysis of the structure,is madeof the strains experienced by the reinforcing bars and liner.

Subsequently, an analysis is performed to verify the adequacy of the containment against punching shear and penetration.

1.2 FORCING FUNCTION FOR IMPACTING AIRCRAFT The time variation of the load on a rigid surface due to an impacting aircraft may be developed using the momentum principle.The governing equations which are used to determine thevariation of the force experienced by the target are (Reference 2):

FSARwhereR(t) is the force acting on the target (positive for compression),

is the extent of crushing at any time t as measured from the leading edge of nose of the missile, is the load required to crush the cross section of the missile at any distance n from the nose,(positive for compression) is the mass density per unit length of the missile as a function of the distance from the nose.

These equations are used to determine the two unknowns, the crushing length,and the reaction, R(t), as functions of time.Theinformation required to determine these variables consists of the initial impact velocity, weight or mass distribution and crushing load distribution of the aircraft.

The first equation is integrated numerically to obtain the velocity time history. The reaction force is then determined from the second equation.

Figureshows three views of the FB-111 aircraft. Figure the one dimensional idealized model of the same aircraft. Figure 2b describes the weight distribution for an FB-111 with a total weight of 81,800 pounds.The sketch and the weight distribution are obtained from Reference 1.The particular configuration used is essentially the same as that summarized on P. 1.3.3 of Reference 1 with the wing stores and wing useful load removed.

This configuration is consistenttheof the FB-111 at Pease AFB. The value of 81,800 pounds is the l-2 FSARweight before the airplane has warmed up and taken off.

flights the aircraft would fly a mission and return to Pease AFB with approximately 10,000 pounds of fuel.On this basis, the landing weight would be approximately 59,000 pounds.For those missions when the aircraft is flown with wing tanks the maximum take-off weight ispounds. The FB-lllis not allowed to land with fuel in these wing tanks; therefore in all cases the maximum landing weight is 81,800 pounds.

Thus, the 81,800 lbs weight of the FB-111 used in the impact analysis was the fully loaded FB-111 without wing tanks.This weight is conservatively large for any configuration of the aircraft flying out of Pease AFB, but it was used because it represented a maximum upper bound on the weight of the FB-111 in the landing pattern.

The exact crushing load distribution foran PB-111 is not available.

The crushing load distribution shown onis arrived at by scaling the known values for ais demonstrated in this report that the peak value of the reaction is relatively insensitive to reasonable variations ofthe crushing load.

Figure 3 shows the reaction-time relationship for the FB-111 striking a rigid wall at an impact velocity of 200 mph. The peak value of the reaction is 8.2 x pounds. This peak value occurs when the wing structure is in the process of collapsing.This peak reflects the l-3 PC8.5 x8.2 xpounds7.1 xpoundsFSARmass in the wing structure fuselage in the vicinitythenoted that the cross-sectional area over largerthe area of fuselage secondaryof 4.2106 pounds (at the vicinity of the engines.

The determination of the sensitivity of theto the magnitude the crushing load is investigated bytheforvalues of one-fifth and fivethis crushing load.Theseresults are shown in Figure 4.From Figure 4,peak values of the reactions are:

The peak value of the reactionrelativelv insensitive to variations in' the magnitude of the crushing load, and the scaled value of P Cjudged to give accurate results.

1.3Behavior of Containment 1.3.1 Elastic Dynamic Analysis For the elastic dynamic analysis, the finite element method was chosen as the analytical method, and a computer program for axisymmetric structures subjected to arbitrary static and dynamic loads was used.(See Reference 3 for the basis of the mechanics of the program.) Damping was not considered. Thus, the predicted structural response is slightly larger than that which does occur.

l-4 FSARTo accomplish the analysis, several assumptions were made.

They are as follows:

i)Theis fixed at the base of the cylinder.

ii)Impact loads are uniformly distributed over the loading zones.iii)In the axisymmetric analysis (impact at apex of dome), the loading zone is a circle with a radius of 52.77 inches and an area of 8748.3 square inches.

iv)In the asymmetric analysis (impact at springline), the loading zone is a square,93.53 inches on a side and 8748.3 square inches in area.

v)The stiffness of the reinforcing steel is neglected; only the gross concrete volume is considered.The modulus of elasticity was taken as 3.0 xin., Poisson's ratio was taken as 0.15, and the weight density was taken as 150 pcf.

vi)The effect of the enclosure building is neglected. It can be shown that the enclosure absorbs approximately 4%

of the energy of the impacting aircraft.

The containment structure is modeled with axisymmetric conical shell elements, a plot of this model is shown in Figure 5.

Two impact positions, the apex of the dome and the springline, are considered. The impact at the dome is uniformly distributed over the first seven (7) elements, and the impact at the springline is uniformly distributed over the six (6) elements nearest to the springline.By means of a half-range cosine series, the load at the springline is confined to a l-5 FSAR6.18' arc.(30) terms were used to represent this Fourier series which is shown, normalized to 1.0, in Figure 6.

Experience with loadings similar to the loadings here, has demonstrated that twenty (20) terms of the series were found to be too few and ninetyterms were found toresultsvery close to those generated by thirtyterms.Selected maximum results for the axisymmetric and asymmetric analyses are given in Tablesand l-2, respectively. These moments will cause cracking of the concrete and yielding of theTherefore, an elastic-plastic dynamic analysis is required.

1.3.2' Elastic-Plastic Dynamic Analysis The procedure followed for the elastic-plastic analysis of the response of the containment under aircraft impact follows that of(Reference 4). In this procedure, knowing the load-time relationship, the first natural frequency of that part of the structure participating in the energy absorption, and the allowable ductility ratio (defined as the ratio of the maximum deflection to the deflection at yield), the ratio of the maximum value of the load-timeto themaximum value of the resistance function can be determined. This 1-6 SBFSARcan then be compared with the actual estimated maximum values of the load-time relationship and resistance function.

The force-time relationship, given in Figure 3 is approximated by a triangular load-time curve with the same total impulse and peak force.This ideal and the actual force-time relation-ships are compared in Figure 7 .It is assumed that a circular region of radius "a" will participate in the energy absorption.

The natural frequency, associated with this participating region, is estimated on the basis of the first natural frequency of a flat circular plate of radius "a" clamped at the edges.The assumption of clamped edges, in that it gives a smaller period for the first natural frequency than in the actual case, is a conservative simplification. This follows because, in general the value of the maximum allowable forcing function decreases as the first natural period decreases (Ref. 4,

p. 78, Figure 2.26).Conversely, ignoring the curvature is non-conservative in that it gives an estimate*of the period which is larger than the actual case.For small values of the radius "a", the curvature effect is minimal.

All calculations are based upon thedome section configuration.The first natural frequency of a flat circular plate, clamped at the edge is:

PX.17whereis therigidity and M is the mass density per unit surface area (See, for example, Ref. 5).

l-7 FSARthethick concrete plate with a Young's modulus of psi and a unit weight of 150 pounds per cubic foot, period is:

sectioncracked section"a" in feet T 15.94 x12.86 xUsing Fig, 2.26 of Reference 4the ratioas afunction of the radius of the participating material of the containment,can be determined for various values of ductility ratio.

For the purpose of this investigation, two (2) ductility ratios, 3 and 10 are used. For plates and shells, the lower value is conservative, the larger value reasonable. The results of the calculations are shown in Table l-3 and Figure 8.Although the range of Fig. 2.26 of Reference 4 is limited to aof 20, it can be observed that for a ductility ratio greater than two and of 20, is greater than unity. Therefore, the allowable peak force, F, can be than the maximum value of the resistance, Rm.

1.3.3 Resistance Function In the vicinity of the impact region, the response of the structure is assumed to have the characteristics shown in FigureFor values of the force less than Rm, the displacements are limited in magnitude even though the response may be inelastic.

As the load reaches the valuethe deformations are able l-8For3xthe 2+=FSARto become arbitrarily large, i.e.,the collapse load has been reached.The collapse load for a concentrated load on a curved shell is not readily accessible.As a conservative estimate, the collapse load for a flat plate with reinforcement the same as the dome is used to estimate the collapse load for the shell..

Expecting the yield line formation shown in Figureobservation suggests that the clamped boundary condition case should be used. The value of the collapse load, Rm, is then (Reference whereis the ultimate moment capacity and the notation + and refers to the outside and inside reinforcement respectively.

The ultimate moment capacities and collapse loads of the containment are:

dome= 643 k-ft. /ft.

651 k-ft./ft.

springline= 1,235 k-ft./ft M-643 k-ft./ft At the dome, the collapse load and peak load are approximately equal.However, from Figure 8 , the dynamic effect allows the structure to withstand loads in excess of the capacity.

From Figurethe allowable load is 10% larger than the resistance or collapse load.Therefore,the apex will not l-9 FSARcollapse.Since the maximum load,less than the capacity of the dome in the springline,collapse will not occur at the springline.

The dome will not collapse, under the applied load.

1.3.4 Estimation of Rebar and Liner Strains While plastic analysis techniques are useful for finding collapse loads, they cannot be directly used to find the strains and displacements corresponding to collapse loads.

However, a procedure making use of the ductility ratio can be used to approximate the maximum strains in the structure subject to dynamic loading when nonlinear material behavior is encountered.This procedure is described below.

A typical load-displacement curve for reinforced concrete section is shown in Figure 10.This curve is linear up to the load causing crackingafter which a straight line of somewhat flatter slope is obtained until the loadisreached which causes yielding of the steel.

Any increase in load beyondcauses the displacement to increasedisproportionately.Further increase in load causes extensive displacements to occur,resulting in eventual collapse.

This actual behavior of the structure was idealized as shown in Figureand was used for the elastic-plastic dynamic analysis previously discussed.Thiscurve represents theresistance function of the structure.

l-10 Y60 0.002FSARThe ductilityreferred to in the elastic-plastic dynamic analysis represents the ratio of the maximum displacement of the structure to the deflection established as yieldforthe structure.

While it is recognized that the ductility ratio is not an exact measure of the maximum strain at a particular point of the structure, it can be used as an approximation because the at yield in the actual structure is very nearly the straincorresponding to yield for the idealized structure.

The procedure used herein is based on the peak of the actual forcing function resulting from the-aircraft impact, the durationof loading, theresistance function for the structure and the first natural period of the responding part of the structure.By using the above known quantities, the corresponding ductility ratio for the structure may be determined.

For a peak in the forcing function of and a in the resistance function of 8,130 k, the maximum ductility ratio for all ratios of is Fig. 2-26, Ref. 2).

Thus, regardless of the natural period of the responding part of the structure, the largest displacement that will occur under the aircraft impact loading is the same as that to yield for the idealized structure.

The yield strain for the reinforcing steel is SBFSARIf it is assumed that thecorresponding to yieldforthe idealized structure is 50% larger than this (actuallymuchless than this),, then an upper bound for the strain in the reinforcing steel will be:x 1.5 x 0.002 in/in =in/inSince the liner and the tension reinforcing steel are only several inches apart in a 42" thick containment dome, they will bestrained to nearly the same values.Hence, there will be no possibility of impairing the leak tight integrity of the liner.

1.4 Response of the Enclosure Building During the early stages of the impact process, the enclosure building will deform until it comes into contact with the containment. The enclosure building must deflect five feet in order to come into contact with the containment dome.Such a deformation will involve an inelastic response.This inelastic response will involve both flexure and shear.

The 15" thick enclosure building is reinforced with both ways and both faces.The collapse load is 635k.

The allowable shear load will depend upon the shear area over which the transverse shear stress acts. This shear area is determined by multiplying the average shear periphery by the effective depth of the shell. The average shear periphery is determined by a contour which is at a distance of one-half the effective depth away from the contour of the contact area (Figure 12 to 21 show the impact area and shear periphery associated with various locations 1-12 FSARalong the aircraft and for the effective depths of the enclosure building (9") and containment (37").

The reaction as a function of the cross section being crushed is determined from the reaction-time and crushing distance relationship and is shown in Figure 22.

From this information, it is possible to examine the effect of the aircraft impact on the enclosure building as a function of the distance being crushed.Figure 23 shows the average shear stress on the enclosure as a function of distance being crushed.Forexample, using a shear strength of 4.25the enclosure building will fail by shear when the aircraft is crushing at 7.25 feet.Alsoshown on Figure 23 is the reaction as a function of the distance being crushed.For a collapse load ofthe enclosure building will collapse when the aircraft is crushing at 9.75 feet.It wouldappear that, usingas a shear strength,the enclosure would fail by shear before collapse, however, the two events would occur at a time difference of 0.0086 sec.

Any increase in actual shear strength abovewould increase the possibility ofand collapse happening simultaneously. Asbedomonstrated in Section 1.5, the actual shear strength can vary considerably above a value ofNo clear conclusion can be drawn as to whether punch through or collapse occurs first. Based on the above discussion, the failure of the enclosure building will involve both extensive shear and flexure damage and it will deform until it comes into contact with the containment.

1-13 FSAR1.5 Shear Capability of the Containment The enclosure building will deform until it comes into contact the containment dome.The dome will then resist the impact force and experience transverse shear stress in the vicinity of the impact area. The maximum average shear stress is determined by defining a shear perimeter and thickness over which the impact force is acting.

Figure 24 describes the procedure by which the shear perimeter for the maximum average shear stress acting on the containment dome is determined.The shear perimeter for the containment is at a distance(effective depth of enclosure) + ( effective depth of containment 2away from theof the impact area.

The values of the shear perimeter for various cross sections of the aircraft are given in Table l-4.Also shown are the shear area, impact force and average shear stress for the containment building.

The values of average shear stress as a function of the cross section crushed is shown in Figure 25. The shear stress is given in terms of psi andThe maximum value of the average shear stress occurs when the aircraft is crushing at a distance of 35 feet from the nose. The value of this maximum average shear stress is 229 psi orVarious shear strengths have been proposed.A tabulation of these shear strengths, for parameters similar to the aircraft and structure under discussion is shown in Table l-5.It is seen that the maximum nominal shear stress ofis less than all the other proposed values except the conservative value ofas proposed by the 1-14 G1.01-15B2.570.454dmxeVWKFSARXI-Committee 326.Hence, it is concluded the the containment will not fail by punch through.

1.6 Requirements to Prevent Perforation The velocity of the engines as they impact on the enclosure building and containment is 250 fps.

The FB-111 has two Pratt Whitney(Military designation jet turbo fan engines with an outside diameter of 50.22 inches.Each engine has a dry weight of 4,121 pounds (Ref. 1).

The thickness of the dome required for no performation was determined using procedures reported in Reference 7.

The pertinent nomenclature is :

penetration thickness for infinitely thick slab (inches) perforation thickness for reinforced concrete (inches) diameter of missile (inches) velocity of impact (feet per second) weight of missile 180ultimate compression strength of concrete (psi)

FSARSince a jet engine is not completely solid (thin shells for torque transmission, blades for fan, compressor and turbine, burner cans for combustion) the engine was assumed to behave similarly to a hollow pipe missile.

For a fan-jet, the outside diameter is slightly larger than the gas generator.Two values of dm (the diameter of the gas generator) were used, SO.23 inches and 40 inches. The results are:

dm (inches)21.822.8These values can be compared with the dome thickness of 42 inches.

From these calculations,can be concluded that there will be no perforation.

1.7 Conclusions

From the above results of the analysis of theStationContainment,the following conclusions can be made:

1.The enclosure building will fail and will come into contact with the containment building.The mode of failure will not be by shear or flexure alone, but will involve both types of damage.2.The containment building will not fail.Thestrength will prevent collapse.The shear strength will prevent.punch There will be permanent damage to the structure, but the extentof this damage will not be sufficient to cause loss of the integrity of the building.

l-16 FSAR3.The linerinelastic, will be sufficiently small so that tearing of the liner will not occur.

4.The engines will not perforate the containment.

These conclusions can be made even though the above analysis was performed with considerableThe conservative aspects of the analysis are:

1.The reaction-time relationship was determined for impact on a rigid target. A realistic, flexible target would reduce the peak value of the reaction.

2.Normal impact was assumed.Any impact angle other thanreducesthe impact forceand increase the area over which the impact force acts.

3. The arcing effect of the doubly-curved dome was ignored. Arching increases the collapse and punching load capacities.

4.The shear stresses can be computed more accurately using the effective forceduring the time necessary for the structure to respond rather than the peak instantaneous force.

The peak instantaneous force will give larger shear stresses than the effective force.

5.The actual concrete compression strength will be larger than the specified strength of 3,000 psi.This would result in a larger value for the shear strength.

6. A conservative estimate of the shear periphery used to calculate shear areas and shear strengths wasThe1-17 FSARfailure cone was assumed to be through the containment only and not through the combined thicknesses of the containment and enclosure building,The latter would be more accurate.

The integrity of the containment buildingnot be impaired in the occurrence of the postulated aircraft impact.

1.8 REFERENCES

FOR SECTION 1.0 1."FB-111 Unit Inertia Data, "General Dynamics, Fort Worth Division, Report FZS-12-6010, Revision "A", January, 1968.

2.Riera, J.O., "On the Stress Analysis of Structures Subjected to Aircraft Impact Forces" Nuclear Engineering and Design, North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Holland, 8p. 415-426.

3.Ghosh, S., and Wilson, E., "Dynamic Stress Analysis of Axisymmetric Structures Under Arbitrary Loading", University of California, Berkeley, CA., Revised Sept., 1975.

4.Biggs, J. M., Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,

1964, pps. 69-84.

5. Meiorovitch, Analytical Methods in Vibrations, The Macmillan Company, 1967, p. 183.

6.Save and Massonnet, Plastic Analysis and Design of Plates, Shells and Disks, North Holland, 1972, p. 245.

7.Kennedy, Effects of an Aircraft Crash Into a Concrete Reactor Containment Building.HolmesNarver, Inc., July, 1966.

1-18

-478-478FSARTABLE l-l MAXIMUM RESPONSE ANALYSIS(IMPACT AT DOME)

Meridional Circumferential Element 36 is elementabove springline.

FSARTABLE 1-2 RESPONSEASYMMETRIC ANALYSIS (IMPACT AT SPRINGLINE)

Meridional

-1139Ft-K/FtCircumferential

-1309Meridional 383Circumferential 442Meridional

-1148.Ft-K/FtCircumferential 1350Meridional*

378Circumferential 431Element 37 is element immediately below springline.

SectionTABLE l-3 ALLOWABLEFORCE, MAXIM?? RESISTANCE RATIO FOR VARIOUS DUCTILITY RATIOS AND PARTICIPATING TARGET MATERIAL RADII31.121.2331.151.1231.201.3331.251.47Participating Radius; since this is notdefined, a range of values is included.

• • By observation, Pigure 2.26,"Introduction to StructuralRiggs-3( 1.00 x 10

-29.03 x1.61 x 10 4.92 x 10

-2T4.01 x 10

-33.61 x 10

-26.42 x 10

-24a12162024322.51 xCracked Section 41.24x137.1a4.92x10-334.2121.12x10-215.2161.99x10-2a.53-210203.11x105.43-210244.48x3.8310286.09x2.83-210327.96x102.131011.101.201.101.301.171.361.231.471.251.70170.042.418.810.6 1-4AVERAGE SHEAR STRESS LocationShear Perimeter ft.ft.Shear Area ReactionpoundsAverage Shear Stresspsi*If the wings were assumed to have sheared-off at the time that the aircraft were crushing at this location the shear perimeter and reaction would-be reduced to 64.6 ft. andrespectively. The average shear stress then becomes 198 psi.

the horizontal and vertical stabilizers were assumed to have sheared-off at the time that the aircraft were crushing at this location the shear perimeter and reaction would be reduced to 42.1 ft. and respectively. The average shear stress then becomes 209 psi.

average shear stress for the case were the crushing strength is reduced by 5 is 245 psi.

32.614,47437.016,42841.818,55950.222,28899.844,31145.520,20249.221,84449.221,84415193541505889229178686,00032 Ultimate Shear Strength psiUltimate Shear Strength 71765560752752552344539138336335129221913.111.911.089.629.589.557.146.996.626.415.334.00SBFSARTABLE l-5 COMPARISON OF ULTIMATE SHEAR STRENGTH CAPACITY*

equation 5-2, equation 5-1,=equation S-10,=equation 5-5,=equation 5-2,= 1equation 5-3,=equation 5-1,= 1equation S-10,= 1equation 5-5,1equationequationequation 5-6 equation 5-9,326shear stress at distance d/2 from periphery = 1

• "The Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Member-Slabs",JointTask Committee 426, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Aug., 1974.

c = 93"= 3,000 psip = 0.0099 d37"Y60,000 psi

• • Adjusted for circular region,evaluated at d/2 away from periphery.

10 FT 3 IN I.133FT., II IN.

STA270.50STATICGROUND LINE STA562.97 704020Figure 2B E I G H T SB 1 2FSAR73.5---FigureI I I60040 8622FSAR TIMESECONDSFIGURE 3REACTION-TIME RELATIONSHIP 5PFSARP denotes the scale crushing load used in the calculation.

and5 denotes that one-fifth and five time the crushing load used,'respectively.

1086T I M ESECONDSFIGURE 4Reaction-Time Relationship for FB-111 with impact velocities of 200 mph.

SB 1 & 2FSARFIGURE 5FINITE ELDIENT MODEL FSARNO.3S T A T I O N FIGURE.6FOURIER SERIES REPRESENTATION OF SPRINGLINE LOADING 00.050.100 . 1 50.200.250.30FIGURE 7 ACTUAL AND IDEAL REACTION TIME RELATIONSHIP

MATERIAL, FSARFIGURE 8ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM FORCE, MAXIMUM RESISTANCE RATIO FOR VARIOUS DUCTILITY RATIOS AND PARTICIPATION TARGET MATERIAL RADII SBFIGUREBEHAVIOR ANDLINE CONFIGURATION FSARFIGURE 10.

LOAD-DISPLACEMENT CURVE FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE SB 1FSAR

- 15.2 ft.

30.2 ft.Shear Perimeter SBFSARFigure 13, Impact Area and Shear Perimeter at 8.5 Feet From Nose SBShear Perimeter Enclosure17.8 ft.Containment31.8 ft.Figure 14, Impact Area and Shear Perimeter at 9.9 feet From Nose SBShear Perimeter

- -ft.Containment 32.6 ft.

FigureImpact Area and Shear Perimeter at 15 Feet From Nose FSAR\\IShear Perimeter Containment37.0 ft.Figure 16, Impact Area and Shear Perimeter at 19.0 Feet From Nose Shear Perimeter Containment37 ft.FSARFigure 17, Impact Area and Shear Perimeter at 27 Feet From Nose FigureImpact Area and Shear Perimeter at 35 Feet from Nose Shear Perimeter

'Containment 50.2 Ft.

SBFSAR

...

Containment - 99 8 ft Shear Perimeter m.MIN********.*1.

Figure 19, Impact Area and Shear Perimeter at 41.0 Feet From Nose Shear Perimeter Containment II43.2 ft.SB2FSARFigure 20, Impact Area and Shear Perimeter at 50.0 Feet From Nose Shear Perimeter Containment 49.2 ft.

Figure 21Impact Area and Shear Perimeter at 58.0 Feet From Nose FSAR IDISTANCEFEET1010304050602FIGURE 22, REACTION-CRUSHING LOCATION RELATIONSHIP JPSI6.005.0025010012345671750DISTANCE CRUSHED-FT.

Figure 23 Average Shear Stress-Distance Crushed and Reaction Distance Crushed Relationship for the Enclosure Building.

2Effective Shear Area 24 SCHEMATIC FORSHEAR 25STRESS-DISTANCE CRUSHED RELATIONSHIP FOR CONTAINMENT DISTANCE CRUSHED 229 PSI FSAR2.0FIRE HAZARD ANALYSIS OFSTATION CONTAINMENT FOR AIRCRAFT IMPACT A highly unlikely chain of adverse events is postulated in the following manner:

An FB-111 with a weight of 81,800 lbs and initial speed of 200 mph impacts on one of the two double containment complexes of the brook plant.The enclosure building deforms locally under the initial impact,and the local deformation continues with little to no perforation until the enclosure building comes into contact with the containment building.This fact, plus the fact that if any penetration should occur it would be only the nose of the aircraft, will preclude the spilling of significant amounts of fuel into thespace. Thespacecontains no equipment,and all penetrations both mechanical and electrical are isolated from missiles and fuel by reinforced concrete slabs,Theenclosure building acts as a barrier and directs the spilled fuel to the exterior area near the enclosure building.The following effects were then studied:

Possible production of combustible vapor, its prompt ignition and the ensuing pressure pulse, and the possibility that the combustible vapor may be sucked into the plant areas and be cause for delayed ignition or toxic atmosphere in habitability systems.

The fuel spilled and its transport to various areas of the plant. An ignition is then postulated, and the effect of the ensuing fire studied in order to evaluate 2-l FSARthe safe shutdown capability of the plant.

The effect of smoke and/or toxic gases as may be generated by the fire, with particular reference to control room habitability.

The effects as detailed in (1) and (3) for all smaller air-craft.2.1COMBUSTIBLE VAPOR PRODUCTION The FB-111 carries approximately 32,000 lbs of type JP-4 fuel. As indicated in Reference 1, the process of combustible vapor production is as follows:the crashing aircraft drags along the ground in a relatively slow deceleration (0.4 g) which lasts for a 'long' time (20and thefuel issuing from the wing after some postulated leakage mechanism is atomized to mist by the air as a result of its velocity relative to air.

For the direct impact considered here,the decelerations are very high (peak value of 29 g) and of very 'short' duration (0.3 sec.).The atom-izing process under these conditions is not significant.It is, there-fore, concluded that the combustible vapor production and the associated hazards can be considered to be mitigated.

2.2FIRE ANALYSIS Various spill mechanisms are postulated either on the roofs or on the ground adjacent to the containment structure:

The various roof areas adjacent to the containment enclosure with their elevation approximate areas, etc., are detailed in Table 2-1.As stated in PSAR Section 2.4, most of these roofs have parapets, and the roof drainage systems are designed to drain at least 3 inches per hour rain. It is 2-2 FSARnoted further that 1 inch of fuel takes 10 minutes to Using the minimum area in Table 2-1, and a catastrophic instantaneous mode of fuel release, the maximum expected duration of the fire is 17.9 minutes.

For ground areas adjacent to the containment, there is approximately 1.5 acres of land, the total drainage of which is approximately 6 cfs.The spreading of the fuel over this area and the adequate drainage would result in a film fire with width comparable to the roughness of the pavement, e.g.,inch.The resulting fire would last only for 1 minute at the most.

The mechanism of fire propagation was examined. No flamm-able material is normally expected to be present next to the containment which can serve as the propagator of the fire. The range of the fire has very conservatively estimated to be 200 ft. from its point of origin.

Smoke is postulated to be traveling from this centre fire location carried by the wind.Its effect on the habitability systems was then studied.

The possible hazard of fuel getting into the PAB Building through the vent stack is considered remote due to the follow-ing reasons:

The mechanism is improbable.

The entering fuel will be drained off at the base of the vertical stack, just as rainwater would be.

The possible hazard of fuel getting into the main steam line tunnels through the side vent openingsconsidered not probable since the vent openings are above grade.

2-3 FSAR2.3 EVALUATION OF VARIOUS SAFETY RELATED AREAS The various intake points to the safety related areas and their description8 are detailed in Table 2-2,including the missile shields when applicable, under the accident conditions detailed in Subsection 2.3. All buildings other than the control room and the PAB residual heat removal area are either not needed for safe shutdown or are redun-dant.However, the conservative analysis below includes the reaction of these areas to the postulated fire.

(a) Control Room There is no mechanism for the fire to endanger the habitability of the control room, since the split intake vents are at a distance of at least 300 ft. from the containment; therefore, it is beyond the reach of the direct fire. However, in the remote event that the fire finds its way into the intake structure, the temperature and smoke sensors will sense it the intake opening will be closed. Under these conditions, the other intake will be used for ventilating the control rooms.

Primary Auxiliary Building (PAB)

The air intake is located on the east wall of the primary auxiliary building at an elevation ofThe area in front of the intake has the containment enclosure roof elevation ofand the east wall of the PAB faces the containment and the fuel storage building.There may be a fire lasting 12.5 minutes at most on the roof of the containment enclosure area, a part of which may be injected into theair intake, as its height is 3 ft. above the 2-4 FSARroof of containment enclosure area.The inside of the PAB has roll-type filters after the intake and heating coil panels after the filter.Therefore,the flame and the hot gases would have to penetrate the filter and the coils before reaching the fans.

As indicated in Subsection 2.2, the roof surface of the containment enclosure area will be finished smooth and with proper drainage to drain off the spilled fuel quickly.

Smoke and heat sensors will be located at the air inlet so that on a signal from them the operator can stop the fans.

Diesel Generator Building The diesel generator building intakes are on opposite sides of the building and are located at least 180 ft. from the containment structures.It is considered improbable that the spilled fuel will find its way underneath one of these intakes.Furthermore,the intakes are 28.5' above grade level, and it is unlikely that the fire will rise to that height.In addition, one of the intakes is shielded by the diesel generator building and it is thus not considered credible that the fire could reach that intake.Althoughit may be postulated that the hot gas from the point may cause momentary oxygen starvation of generator, the shielded intake will ensure the other diesel generator and of one train.

Service Water Building direct intake one diesel integrity of The intake for the service water building is approximately 280 ft. from the containment'and should be out of reach of the postulated fire.Furthermore,the air intake is located 2-5 FSARin the east wall of the building.Consequently, the building serves as a shield for the spilled fuel flow.

Additionally, there is a missile shield in front of the structure, which should inhibit any possible fuel flow and subsequent fire.The fire effects are, therefore, considered minimal. However, a minute amount of hot gas may enter the facility, but since the pumps are located at the west end of the building, it will not critically threaten their operation due to rise of temperature.

Vent Stack The vent stack is not a safety related item and, as in-dicated in Subsection 2.2, it does not furnish a significant pathway for the fuel to get into the primary auxiliary build-ing. This mechanism of fire propagation is, therefore, con-sidered incredible.

Cable Spreading, Battery Room, Switch Gear Room and Cable Tunnel The air intake for cable spreading, battery room, switch gear room and cable tunnel areas is through the mechanical equip-ment room of the diesel generator building, and the various safety aspects discussed for the diesel generator room hold for this case.

2.4HAZARDS FROM SMALLER AIRCRAFT The smaller plane crashes were examined for the various areas, as detailed in Subsections 2.2 and 2.3. The fuel in general may be JP-1, kerosene and JP-4.Since the fuel carrying capacity for all these planes is smaller than that of FB-111, and their burning temperatures are of the same order of magnitude, it was concluded that the effect would be enveloped by those in the case of FB-111.

2-6 FSARCONCLUSIONS In view of the results in Subsectionsandit was con-cluded that the hazard toStation from direct fire after the postulated crash of an FB-111 or smaller aircrafts on the containment represents only very minimal potential hazard to the plant.The present design of the plant has inherent safety features so that the consequence of this minimal hazard is mitigated.

REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 1.Appraisal of Fire Effects From Aircraft Crash at Zion Power Reactor Facility, I. Irving Pinkel,Consultant, Atomic Energy Commission, July 17, 1972.

Flammability Characteristics of Combustible Gases and Vapors, Bulletin 627, U. S. Bureau of Mines, 1965, Michael Zabetakis.

BUILDINGS ROOFAREA(SQ.FT.)ELEVATION REMARKSCONTAINMENT ENCLOSURE 4,10053'WITH PARAPET EMERGENCYFEEDWATERPUMPBLDG.3,00047'WITH PARAPET FUEL STORAGE BUILDING 9,20084'WITH PARAPET PRIMARYAUXILIARYBUILDING8,14481'WITH PARAPET PAB Filter Room 2,856108'WITH PARAPET TABLE 2-l ROOF DESCRIPTIONS NOTE:GRADE ELEVATION 20' TABLEVENTILATION SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS OF THE BUILDING SURROUNDING THE CONTAINMENT

.,SHEET 1 OF BUILDINGBUILDINGSURFACEFACING THE CONT.

LOCATIONS OF THEINTAKESTYPE OFSHIELDING REMARKSSURFACEPATHWAYFROMCONT.WALLELEVATION DieselGen.South wall SouthWall200 ft.28.5ft.above gr.

Other Bldg.

at 40'dist..Ventilation air;notnecessaryforsafeshutdown.

NorthWall240 ft.(thruroof)28.5 ft.aboveOther Bldg.

at40PABEast wall EastWall20 ft.3aboveadjacentroof.Shielded by the Cont.

F.Stg.Bldg.Normalventilation air;only RHRpump area safe shutdownrelated.NorthWall95ft.(thruroof)29ft.above gr.

thickshield.Ventilationairtosafety related mary component cool, ing water pump area and Boron injection pump area.

Emergency Feedwater Pump Bldg.

South Wall NorthWall30 ft.(thruroof)18ft.above gr.

2'thickconcretemissileshieldVentilationairtothe emergency water pump area.

TABLE 2-2 (CONT.)

SHEET 1 OF 2 BUILDINGBUILDINGSURFACEFACING THE CONT.

LOCATION OF THE INTAKES TYPE OFSHIELDING REMARKSSURFACEPATHWAYFROMELEVATION CONT.WALLServiceWaterPumpHouseWest Wall EastWall290ft.(throof)ru45 ft.above2'thickmissileshield.Ventilationairtotheservice water pump house.

WestWall180ft.13.5above2'thickmissileshield.Air intake to the electricalareas.ControlRoomComputerRoomSouth 6EastWallsRemoteIntakePorts300ft.least)At gr.levelCoveredwithgrating.Ventilationairtothe habitable areas of the control and computer room.

SEABROOK STATION UFSAR ACCIDENT ANALYSIS EAB and LPZ Short Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates for AST Revision 10 Appendix 2Q Page 2Q-1 APPENDIX 2Q EAB AND LPZ SHORT TERM ACCIDENT DIFFUSION ESTIMATES FOR AST 2Q.1 OBJECTIVE Conservative values of atmospheric diffusion at the site boundary (EAB) and the low population zone (LPZ) were calculated for appropriate time periods using meteorological data collected onsite during the time period 1998 through 2002. 2Q.2 METHODOLOGY The methodology used for this calculation is consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.145 as implemented by the PAVAN computer code (Referen ce 2). Using joint frequency distributions of wind direction and wind speed by atmospheric stability, the PAVAN computer code provides relative air concentration (CHI/Q) values as functions of direction for various time periods at the site boundary and LPZ. Three procedures for cal culation of CHI/Qs are utilized for the site boundary and LPZ; a direction-dependent approac h, a direction-independent approach, and an overall site CHI/Q approach. The CHI/Q calculations are based on the theory that material released to the atmosphere will be normally distributed (Gaussian) about the plume centerline. A straight-line trajectory is assumed between th e point of release and all distances for which CHI/Q values are calculated. The theory and implementing equations employed by the PAVAN computer code are documented in Reference 2. 2Q.3 CALCULATIONS/PAVAN COMPUTER CODE INPUT DATA The boundary distance used in each of the 16 downwind directions from the site was set to 914 m. The LPZ boundary distance was set to 2,011 m.

All of the releases were considered ground leve l releases because the highest possible release elevation is from the plant stack at 185 ft above plant grade. From Section 1.3.2 to Reference 1, a release is only considered a stack release if the release point is at a level higher than two and one-half times the height of adjacent solid struct ures. For the Seabrook plant, the elevation of the top of the containment is 199.25 ft. Therefor e, the highest possible release point is not 2.5 times higher than the adjacent containment buildi ngs, and thus all releases were considered ground level releases. As such, the release height was set equal to 10.0 meters as required by Table 3.1 of Reference 2. The building area used for the building wake term was 2,416 m

2.

SEABROOK STATION UFSAR ACCIDENT ANALYSIS EAB and LPZ Short Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates for AST Revision 10 Appendix 2Q Page 2Q-2 The tower height at which the wind speeds were measured is 10.05 m above plant grade. The windspeed units are given in miles per hour, th erefore the PAVAN variable UCOR was set equal to 101 to convert the windspeeds to meters per second as described in Table 3.1 of Reference 2. The maximum windspeed in each windspeed category was chosen to match the raw joint frequency distribution data, which conforms to the windspeed bins in Table 1 of Reference 3. 2Q.4 RESULTS PAVAN computer runs for the EAB and LPZ boundary distances were performed using the data discussed previously. Per Section 4 of Reference 1, the maximum CHI/Q for each distance was determined and compared to the 5% overall site value for the boundary under consideration. For dose calculations, the most limiting 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> CHI/Qs were combined with the worst 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> EAB doses to maximize calculated EAB doses (conservative approach). The maximum EAB and LPZ CHI/Qs that resulted from this comparison are provided in the table below:

Offsite Boundar y /Q Factors for Anal ysis EventsTime Perio d EAB /Q (sec/m3)LPZ /Q (sec/m3) 0-2 hours 3.17E-041.54E-04 0-8 hours 2.08E-048.63E-05 8-24 hours 1.68E-04 6.46E-05 1-4 days 1.06E-04 3.45E-05 4-30 days 5.51E-05 1.40E-05 2Q.5 REFERENCES

1. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.145, "Atmospheri c Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 1, November 1982, (Reissued February 1983 to correct page 1.145-7).

2. NUREG/CR-2858, "PAVAN: An Atmospheric Dispersion Program for Evaluating Design Basis Accidental Releases of Radioactive Materials from Nuclear Power Stations," November 1982.

3. Safety Guide 23, "Onside Meteorological Programs," February 17, 1972.

SEABROOK STATION UFSAR ACCIDENT ANALYSIS Control Room Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates for AST Revision 10 Appendix 2R Page 2R-1 APPENDIX 2R SHORT-TERM (ACCIDENT

) DIFFUSION FOR THE CONTROL ROOM 2R.1 OBJECTIVE Conservative values of atmospheric diffusion to the Control Room were calculated for appropriate time periods using meteorological data collected onsite during the time period 1998 through 2002.

2R.2 METHODOLOGY The ARCON96 computer code is used by the USNRC staff to review licensee submittals relating to control room habitability (Reference 1). Therefore, the ARCON96 computer code was used to determine the relative concentrations (CHI/Qs) for the control room air intakes and inleakage locations. The ARCON96 computer code uses hourly meteorological data for estimating dispersion in the vicinity of buildings to calculate relative concentrations at control room air intakes that would be exceeded no more than five percent of the time.

These concentrations are calculated for averaging periods ranging from one hour to 30 days in duration. The theory and implementing equations employed by the ARCON96 computer code are documented in Reference 1. 2R.3 CALCULATIONS/ARCON COMPUTER CODE INPUT DATA Five years of meteorological data (1998-2002) were used for the ARCON96 computer code runs. The percentage of valid data over this time period was 98.8% which exceeds the minimum value of 90% data recovery specified in Reference 2. A number of various release-receptor combinations were considered for the control room CHI/Qs. These different cases were considered to determine the limiting release-receptor combinations for the various events. The case matrix for these combinations is provided in Table 2R-2.

The distance and direction inputs for the ARCON96 runs may be found in Table 2R-1. The distances were converted from feet to meters with a factor of 0.3048 m/ft. The distances in meters were then rounded down to the nearest tenth for conservatism. The elevation difference term was set equal to zero for each case since all elevation points are taken with respect to the same datum.

SEABROOK STATION UFSAR ACCIDENT ANALYSIS Control Room Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates for AST Revision 10 Appendix 2R Page 2R-2 The lower and upper measurement heights for the meteorological data were entered as 10.05 m and 60.66 m, respectively, for each case. The mph option was selected for the windspeed units.

A ground level release was chosen for each scen ario since none of the release points are 2.5 times taller than the closest solid structure as called out in Section 3.2.2 of Reference 3 for stack releases. The top of the containment structure is at an elevation of 199.25 ft. The highest release point is from the top of the plant stack at an elevation of 185 ft., which is not 2.5 times higher than the nearby containment structure. The vertical velocity, stack flow, and stack radius terms were all set equal to zero since each case is a gr ound level release. The vent release option was not selected for any of the scenarios.

The actual release height was used in the cases.

No credit was taken for effective release height due to plume rise; therefore, for the releases from the stacks, the release elevations were set equal to the stack top elevation. The release hei ghts were taken as the release elevations less the plant grade elevation of 19 ft.

The only cases in this analysis that take cred it for the building wake effect are the scenarios where the release is from the containment building, the tank farm, or the waste processing building. Some of the other scenarios have buildings between the release and receptor points, but for these cases the building wake was not credited for the sake of conservatism. Not crediting wakes was accomplished by setting the building area term equal to 0.01 m 2 as stated in Table A-2 of Reference 3. The first building area used is a conservatively determined containment cross sectional area. The area is calculated as the sum of the cross sectional areas created by the cylindrical portion of the containm ent structure above the highest nearby roof and the hemispherical area of the dome. The width used is equal to the diameter of the containment structure. The height of the cylindrical portion is taken as the distance between the top of the cylinder portion of the containment structure (re presented by the spring line elevation) and the primary auxiliary building roof elevation. The radius of the hemispherical dome is taken as one half of the calculated diameter. The containment area was determined to be 1,506 m

2. The second building area is calculated as the product of the minimum roof height of the waste processing building and tank farm and one half the width of the waste processing building and tank farm. The minimum roof height and one half of the width are used for conservatism. This building area was determined to be 337 m

2. All of the default values in the ARCON96 code were unchanged from the code default values with the following exceptions. Table A-2 of Refe rence 3 suggests use of a value of 0.2 for the Surface Roughness Length, and use of a value of 4.3 for the Averaging Sector Width Constant. These two changes were made for each case. The minimum wind speed was left at 0.5 m/s per the guidance instruction in Table A-2 of Reference 3.

SEABROOK STATION UFSAR ACCIDENT ANALYSIS Control Room Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates for AST Revision 10 Appendix 2R Page 2R-3 2R.4 RESULTS ARCON96 computer runs for the various release points and control room intake locations were performed using the data discussed previously. Per Reference 3, the 95 th percentile CHI/Q values were determined. The resulting CHI/Qs are listed in Table 2R-2.

2R.5 REFERENCES

1. NUREG/CR-6331 PNL-10521, "Atmospheric Rela tive Concentrations in Building Wakes," May 1995, with Errata dated July 1997. 2. Safety Guide 23, "Onside Meteorological Programs," February 17, 1972. 3. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.194, "Atmospheric Relative Concentrations for Control Room Radiological Habitability Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants," June 2003.