ML19241A794
| ML19241A794 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hartsville  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1979 |
| From: | TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19241A787 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907090395 | |
| Download: ML19241A794 (18) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . o HARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLANT, ALL UNITS SPRAY POND CENTRAL AND SUPPORT EARTHFILL
~
MOISTURE CONTENT OUTSIDE OF LIMITS 10 CFR PART 50.55(e) REPORT No. 2 (FINAL) . NCR-HNP-B11 AND NCR-HNP-B12 On October 13, 1978, TVA notified NRC-0IE Region II Inspector, Tom Burdette, of a potentially reportable condition regarding essential setvice water (ESW) spray pond central and support earthfill being placed with moisture content cutside of acceptable limits. TVA followed up this initial notification by submitting a written interim report on this subject to NRC-0IE Region II on November 13, 1978. This is our final report to you on the subject NCR's. Description of Condition , From July 5 to September 15, 1978, approximately 58,000 cubic yards of Category I earthfill was placed in an area between the four essential service water (ESW) spray ponds (see Figure 1). Approximately 75 percent of this earthfill was placed in the central fill area. The remaining earthfill was placed southeast of the northwestern spray pond in a 70-foot-wide area designated to support the 5-foot-thick clay liner (spray pond support fill). No part of the clay liner was constructed. During this period of time, a portion of both the central fill and the support fill was placed with moisture contents outside the specified limits of two percent above and two percent below optimum moisture content. In addition, undisturbed block samples, shear strength tests on the block samples, and Atterberg limit tests for the earthfills were not taken as required in Hartsville Construction Specification N6C-875. Construction control testing consisted of and-cone density tests and 7 007 090 3 9 5T d
moisture content tests to d .armine the degree of fill compactica and the deviation from optimum moisture content. A total of 39 sets of control tests were performed on the 58,000 cubic yards of c{mpacted earthfill as opposed to the minimum requirement of 29 tests-(one test per 2,000 cubic yards). Results from eight of the 39 moisture content tests were outside the specified limits. Three of these tests were performed on samples of the spray pond support fill and five were performed on samples of the central fill. Moisture contents of the support fill samples were between 2.4 and 2.9 percent below optiraum. Results of the tests from the central fill were between 2.1 percent above optimum and 3.2 percent below optimum. The degree of compaction for these eight samples ranged from 102.4 percent to 110.8 percent of the standard maximum dry density. Initial construction control testing revealed the do t.es of compaction of six samples of central fill was below the required 100 percent standard maximum dry density. However, before construction proceeded all of the earthiill in the area of the tests was reworked and rerolled. Retests showed that the reworked earthfill was compacted adequately and had acceptable moisture contents. Cause of Deficiency Mathematical errors made by three construction inspectors in computing moisture contents were the cause for earthfill being placed which did not meet moisture content specifications. The mistakes were subsequently discovered by Hartsville construction personnel during a review of the construction control test reports. At this time, several layers of earthfill had already been placed over the material in question. 310 0817
Investigation of the above nonconformance revealed that undisturbed block samples and Atterberg limit tests for all of the earthfill placed in this construction period had not been taken due to a misinterpretation
^
of the construction specification requirements. , Safety Implications The results of the testing program just completed by TVA have revealed that the as placed earthfill strengths exceed the required design strengths for earthfill in these areas. Subsequently, there are no safety impli-cations associated with the nonconforming earthfill discussed in this report. Testing Program
- a. Scope TVA initiated a program to sample the in place earthfill and to test the shear strengths of undisturbed earthfill samples. Earthfill samples were obtained by five undisturbed borings and five auger borings taken within five feet of the undisturbed borings. The potentially weakest layers of the sampled fill were de*. ermined, and the shear strengths of those undisturbed samples were tested.
- b. Field exploration When sand-cone density tests were made during construction of the fill, horizontal control of the test locations was not recorded but the test elevations were documented. For this reason it was not possible to sample the earthfill at the exact locations wherc the nonconformances were recorded.
Because the area which was backfilled during the 1978 construction season contained'a V-shaped valley, the natural ground contours 90 310 002
provided lateral containment for the area where the nonconforming earthfill was placed. This natural depression (see Figure 1) extended north-south along the full length of the fill area. In the central fill area, the five meisture content tests with nonconfbrming results were taken between elevations 520 feet and 525 feet. The three noncon-forming test results for the spray pond support fill came from between elevations 528 feet and 530 feet. As shown by the contours on Figure 1, the elevations for each respective fill area were confined to a band which varied frem 100 to 200 feet in width. A program of sampling which took advantage of this restricted fill area was devised. Five undisturbed borings near the centerline of the valley encountered most of the affected earthfill. Three undisturbed bortngs, approximately 110 feet apart, were made in the central fill. The average depth of sampling was 11.5 feet. The elevation of the midpoint of the borings was between 520 feet and 522 feet. Two undisturbed borings were made in the spray pond support fill. The average depth of sampling for these two borings was 9.0 feet, and the midpoint elevation of each boring was 528 feet. The midpoint elevation or the elevation of the center of the undisturbed borings was selected to be near the median elevation of the range of elevations from which the nonconforming data for each type of fill was obtained. By selecting the midpoint elevation of each undisturbed boring near the median elevation of the nonconforming construction control tests, a possible deviation from the documented elevation of the nonconformine earthfill layer was taken into account. 310 0%f>
~
- c. Laboratory testing Earthfill samples, both undisturbed and auger samples, were taken to TVA's Singleton Materials Engineering Laboratory and tested in a two-phase testing program. Phase 1 c,f the testing p'rogram was used to examine the undisturbed samples to determine if earthfill nonconformances similar to the ones observed in the construction control tests were encountered in the fill sampled by corings. In addition, most of the required documenting Atterberg limit tests were performed, and unconfined compression tests were performed as index strength tests. Phase 2 of the testing program was used to test the shear strengths of the worst cases of earthfill nonconformance. .
In phase 1 of the testing program, moisture content tests, dry density (unit weight) tests, unconfined compression tests, one-point compaction tests, and Atterberg limit tests were performed on each representative layer of undisturbed earthfill. Results from the one-point compaction tests were used to determine each layer's soil class from the fa ily of compaction control curves. Information from moisture content and dry density tests was then used to compute percent ccc:paction and deviation from optimum moisture content for each earthfill layer. Unconfined compression tests were performed on most undisturbed earth-fill samples to allow a relatively quick check of shear strength. Atterberg limit tests were performed on each representative layer to replace the Atterberg limit tests which were originally om;tted during construction control testing (see Table 7 for a summary .)f the test data). Data from phase l tests indicated that the undisturbed samples contained some material with moisture contents wl.ich were simila 310 Od to those in the
_ ~ nonconforming construction control tests. Moisture contents ranged between 2.9 percent and 2.2 percent below optimum as compared to the nonconformingconstructioncontroltestdatawhichrang{dbetween 3.2 percent and 2.1 percent below optimum. Undisturbed borings US-1 and US-4 contained esrthfill with moisture contents which exceeded the two percent above optimum specification limit. This data ranged from 3.2 percent to 2.7 percent above optimum as compared to a maximum 2.1 percent above optimum for the construction control tests. Phase 1 testing also showed seven representative earthfill layers which were compacted to less than 100 percent standard maximum dry density. Percent compactions for these samples ranged from 96.5 percent to 99.6 percent. All of these layers were compacted in excess of Class A requirements (95 percent) but below tne 100 percent required for Class (A-1) soil. Earthfill samples with less than 100 percent compaction were all placed above optimum moisture content. Tests on four of the seven undercompacted layers indicated moisture contents which exceeded the specified moisture content limit of optimum +2 percent. Results of the unconfined compression tests indicated that the shear strengths of all the nonconforming samples were adequate or exceeded requirements for the unconsolidated-undrained condition. Unconfined compression test data which corresponds to the nonconforming layers
- ranged from 1.6 to 5.3 tons per square foot. This translated to approx-imate cohesion strengths (c) between 0.8 and 2.65 tons per square foot as compared to the 0.S-ton-per-square-foot design requirement.
Undisturbed samples from eight of the representative earthfill layers 93 310 09 1
were selected for phase 2 testing. The worst cases of compaction and moisture content nonconformance were included in the samples selected for phase 2 testing. Three of the samples selected were within specified degree of compaction limits but did not meet moisture content require-ments. One sample conformed to moisture content requirements but did not conform to the degree of compaction requirements. Three samples did not conform to either the moisture content requirements or the degree of compaction requirements. The remaining sample met the specified degree of compaction and moisture content requirements. Four samples were selected from both the central fill and the spray pond support fill for phase 2 testing. PHASE 2 TEST SAMPLES (TABLE 1.0) Deviation from Optimum - Moisture Content Sample No. (Percent) Degree of Compaction (Percent) I +2.9* 98.7* II -1.4 104.4 III +0.7 98.5* IV -2.9* 108.2 V +3.2* 96.5* VI +2.7* 97.3*
~
VII -2.9* 105.0 VIII -2.5* 103.1
*Nonconfor=ing test data 310 09dy
Triaxial compression Q and R tests were performed on undisturbed Failure envelopes samples from each of the eight selected layers. were constructed for the unconsolidated-undrained condition (Q) and Excess pore water pressures the consolidated-undrained condition (R). were monitored during the saturated R tests to measure the materials effective (E) shear strength. (The E strength is comparable to the consolidated-drained (S) strength as defined in the Hartsville Preliminary Safety Analysis Report.) The failure envelopes were plotted on a common graph for comparison with the assumed design propertie_ for each respective consolidation / drainage conditions (see Figures 2 through 4).
- d. Discussion of test results Results of the Q triaxial tests demonstrated that the unconsolidated-undrained shear strength of this fill is acceptable. All samples had angles of internal friction (9) C ich were two to five times greater than the design requirement of eight degrees. S_ix of the eight samples had a greater cohesion strength (c) than required. Although the cohesion strengths for sample III (c = 0.47 ton per square foot) and sample V (c = 0.66 ton per square foot) are below the 0.8-ton per-square-foot cohesion strength used in design, the high angles of internal frictica (42.0 degrees and 25.5 degrees, respectively) show a substantial contribution in raising the shear strength of these samples above the design shear strength for normal stresses exceeding 0.5 ton per square foot. (It should also be noted that
'16 310 09ff
9_ end of construction cases of the stability analysis made during design, based on the Q shear strength (c = 0.8 ton per square foot), had safety factors of approximately 3 or greater.) This fill has also been consolidating for 10 months. All shear strengths measured by the triaxial R tests exceeded the design properties. Cohesions ranged from 0.40 to 1.90 tons per square foot as compared to a 0.3-ton per-square-foot cohesion design strength. The lowest angle of internal friction value was 17 degraes (the design friction angle is 15 degrees). E triaxial test data showed that the earthfills exceeded the design shear strengths through the range of normal stresses which will be experienced in the fill. Seven of the eight samples had friction angles and cohesions which were equal to or be:ter than the design . properties. Sample IV's angle of internzi friction was 24.8 degrees which is 4.2 degrees less than the design friction angle of 29 degrees. However, the cohesion strength (c) of sample IV was 0.48 ton per square foot which exceeds the design value of 0.0 ton per square foot. Because of the combination of high cohesion strength and low angle of internal friction, the failure envelope for sample IV intersected the design failure envelope at a normal stress in excess of 5.0 tons per square foot. Normal stresses in the spray pond fill will act exceed 3.5 tocs per square foot; therefore, the shear strengths are adequate. _ e. Conclusions Although the nonconforming moisture conte nts recorded during construction control testing were drier than the moisture contents recorded in phase 1 testing, the triax;41 testing results indicate 310 09d$'
I that the shear strength of slightly drier earthfill would be acceptable. The lowest moisture content which was :ecorded during construction control testing is 3.2 percent below the o'ptimum. Moisture content for both sample IV and sample VII, as determined during phase 1 testing, is 2.9 percent below the optimum, a 0.3 percent difference f rom the lowest moisture content determined during construction. If the as placed moisture content of earthfill is lowered, the Q shear strengths would tend to increase and the saturated R and 5 shear strengths would decrease slightly. Since the tested Q shear strengths are adequate, the sbear strength at 3.2 percent belos the optimum would also be adequate. The R and E shear strengths would be slightly lower but, based on TVA'r engineering judgment and research studies, would still be adequate. Therefore, the fill is adequate. . lace the Table 2 and Table 1 list the Atterberg limit c cesting. 58 tests which were omitted during construction Table 2 (phase 1) contains plasticity indexes fer 55 sampics all of which exceed the minimum allowable plasticity index of 5. Table 1 (phase 2) contains plasticity index data for an additionai 13 tests. All recorded PI's are adequate. Corrective Action Because of the satisfactory results of the testing program, TVA will proceed No with construction as planned in the area of the ESW spray ponds. corrective action is needed.
t _11_ Action Taken to Prevent Recurrence To prevent recurrence of this type of nonconformance, the CONST QCI Manual is being revised where not previously indicated to include the type of test to be conducted, frequency of inspection and acceptance crfteria as re , ired by the Hartsville Construction Specification N6C-875,
" Earth and Rock Foundation and Fills," and thereby prevent future misinterpretations. The CONST QA Staff will continue to update the QCI Manual as necessary to reflect construction specification revisions.
Site QC inspectors will then be retrained to the revised QCI's to establish their cognizance of applicable requirements including proper recording of test data. In order to prevent mathematical errors in test results on earthfill from going undetected for a long time such that major corrective acti,ons are necessary, the site QC unit will review test documentation in a timely canner to enable errors to be caught before extensive additional work is acce=plished and a " checked by" block was added to compaction test forms to record this review, 310 0916
-~
o- ..
. . ~ . .
b
.-. .~ _.,,
n 1 . S Z ., . S
- II~
. ~ *
- a a
,ld1 y *3 q2,7 i
*j: * "
3 u < I
** t I
M:*d :a 8 o; I-e O 4 a M
- 0~ a
? . -
$'" )
.l ...-....
- ._...... $ $$_ _ -b b 5 $_5 g
$$$5.b$hb . - -
wDTk ,
'~
5 n[ *i*ii di Y**iiiii
$ '~
b.q&
- i. l 5 1 ...
t.o.. 5 b_ _ E . b. b. b b 5_ . e $ $, N_ A ._ L p 1 C A w
-3 p., .
= 2:1 y
sii.iiis s_i_si_s_i_.s_s_ <. QR 3 .... .......~ * *
...-~~..
g a 555dd5_$d. 5_E_d__- 555_5_d_.55_5 . w III;j __ --
#h.f/
.Y
**"v ja
, . **#99999 l! g d E ! *...* *g* ... Wp g
w E 2 .%. 3
, j
* *I * *! *I 9. *. *.I
.___. ~ ._-- - .
---::::=
. g * 's g
;~
g v e c . .
- ~~=====a.
. (Tp"4
'r_ .
s J OI a 3 0 0 c:F.~M. 6 2 I hg 'j !l*.I. . - j
- t. a *: * -
. 7 p- 4 t .. y F. j c c li.F.': j ~ .t 9. . *.! , e .W"TJ"n
- "A g
y ,tt , w 1 . v
- o. . ul= I, I._.. -.. S ,s_.o 2 s 44 ....._ .E*J.3---- 431 - 3 % G 2
; e, .e
~lf.
- 2. - . % 3 3. . M-(d "f' *
** =.
3.
* 'j.
E. k
, 11-a****** 1.
Y " ". *. * ". * *3
~ 7
... .g **:::::21. __.-.. :
"'::: 2S :
.5 y ..
f U:4 *I *i -... ....__... 4444 44 & go ....... 44 . 4 .d.44 e. s g J* : 'I _.4 a4 4 4 .0 4 ea.4 J a a Ie 4 e. l .... _.. .. f. m.A.4.a.a..f a a.f a.J. e 53'* U..i a. -~a....iaa.f
- a. ..
fi4d
..M 8
f r r -.~~ ..
' ' 3 E .... .
4
- 1
- ~~......
8 ; e.4 4 4. :* z' 4
!*** s1,.44 4 4.JJ.
. .. 3 3, 3 e4 3 .
N ......
.1; .
L.-... . .... E55555$$d d* l
~U 2
- Edddi5idi .
-Aj .
.2.44 d ed V
e
.45 me.&WW.4 d u.A d W W W ;
J a .4 J .4 ed .4 WW g wwwwwww t .
... 2 3
9........ =... ; 1wu=u.x -- _... . =w.. a _..au w== -======== .aa. :== ;
======== xaa... aa.
,1 ==
ussa...: us
. y ,24 4a..d4 Ga 4 4 #,a d d ea.44 Qud f 2
Al h $2~222~3~ J422EE $222223%~ = 522 310 OcR> -
- 8. 8 82 t J. x ee de
- I: de o =
.o
;., - ce d aa dd an 1 @
- J J.
a
. .. l , ..
3 $ SE I !5 3l" .,\ S3 JJ d 4 dd.* oo I J!** o o* W . mo 44 - er
. *
- 44 4 a E
==
4 , a-a 2 R *:
. 1.h 02 o=
- =
o - Oa
=
dd
* - eo A A*
- 44 d.
e *
- e. ,
maan-o. e~eneo- f eenen-oe. ; ; 8 ;. .:--- aa 5-5e.u.e.a8e. .o.o. ooo o e. 3 d a
- e. .$..o.a c.
. a .o.a . 8. a. .:
. - Ju' D J r*~
u,
- a. m a -O .* .. e. . , e. . n w a e.ee,
-o . o ,,= . .. .g m
.oo o se .>-e. n o m o We.
- o. . o. .a. = .- .o p, ,a g 7 M V*
se . i e. c. -a...n. . . . y;;y'4-
- o. o.e.o.o*.o *.o *. a.
p d *3 .s 1.
. .. =. . . w e. e.... e. .
n r to . o. o. o. o. o
....e
- .--~~~
1 m.e=nm= .-- .--- 4 .j o. o. o. e. e. e. e.
... .. ..=-= . e Wi m u =
- o. o. o. o. e. e. d. e. d.
- S --- S S.= 3333333 /
1 .g .ad M"E 3
. . :. .*. -3.8. 8--3 8 2 4e~'~+& ,y 2 2 JJ ooooooa e e mee~ .
- g7 >
e e eee * ~ e e e e e e e. e. e * *
- So *a 38a;;83 a g %,-aJ. ,; n e
g g og
- 5. ;;oooo a ; 8 8*J o.:ooa I' eood A .; a d
-- .o.ooo
. ---o.-- o.
N M.g g Do.vui n4 e eeeaene en a .a s
.l s ....eeooe e e eme
' d. .. e 4444444
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . -
e 44444,... d CA" b ., R. 2 -. ,
,e 4
. .4 4 4 4 nn4 4 4.e. E*1M m-
.I.I 2:222 : fr 7
- E 2222222 ~~===~~
p y *q r 2 .*.2 2 2 : 2 2 2
~~~~**=== """:::: %w W.
- 3 O p 7
.j.
. e. Q e.,. .a.
.t.
p . E,g, .
- n. F, o.
. o L
[.2 = a 30 * . o. m. I.f2. ee. o. . o. . . = W, e= e ,. N
=
T. -...,i~. .
~, .
1 - ~g . S "5 W.= .
. 1,, - E.
. u - .t. . , * '
y "' t *g ** :. E u* , 2 e
- E 2 % 2* .
~
5 n Ene. ene ~3"*~ we ee oo g-L h
-2 y du gg oe 3 7
IM 3333s;E; --.-- 0%2 - - - 7-.a.e%33 7.$ .... D j I. i z =a e. - m. e n.a a
=
o.o- m.***e..= n e. . I
= = ,
2
$ 2,1
. o
. m o w e =. =. . e.
g"'"'""*------
.IIao--
-- =
aea* * * *
~-------
~ ~
- q III n
------ e !
c n c e o I, ) w ; = o m. -e . . e. e. a. a e. m. e. e. v. , = = 8 ..e.ee
.- , ,a 4. - e n n n. e n -
- e. oe e..a.s .,,===~e.o
-----.a o
n .
.s .s
=- -e. . - e ==e . .=n-- . .
- a. a I ],
womeaam. a me...o n o E .-f oome, a f" e
%q, qe-one.oe..: a;;AJ .146o
.,a w e e 444 4 e a. t,, s an :s e esewenw
..m e c e e caaa.eN a ;neaea 4.: 6 eav t *
., 3
. ~ . .
. .1 L Lo .
'I
. e. n. n e.
n .
- e. e. e. e. e. e<en 3 .
o e e.~
- n. ee
~ Ws e
o . .e 2 8 .= nma
.em.m. .J=. i emme ee
. ,e . .- ,.:o. .. ~. .
. 8..e =
a ,
- E . .
. .- o.
e o= m .
, e. e. . e o. ., ., .
,.. .......- W. . e Wo. e.
W.
. e. e.
e.
.oo
=
e .m wn-n--o .e. ~ m ]
. ., ~ -e~eeaee.
---- M--- ---
ee M--M-MM M
-.B W o .
.. . e a o **
e
. O OOOONON O &&&Od& u -
wwwwwww u
- OOOOOOOOd wwwwww v dOOOd uuw t'v o u w o o d j .J 2 1
-WMMMMM .
h.,- - - M N N N O. ,,----MH aO4 .' ..W. 2W Jm 5 .a.ao . v aa . ca ... W,,.-.,.
. -J e e e - o e ,, . ** y.N5o a .e f,.r. ,
y eF o,. e h b e. c. c o,a e.q eg h,,,. . W4 es .s e We e We e h .$ bo.b.
** e e Ws We e vs W6 We e... b.
tWeWeWeW%Wg m ** ** W'4 e e 59 h
..h.
,h ,e.,d ~oe h_ d.d.d g Ge . . = - .. .~
- d. e. N. b =-
. . ,. .ot-. e. e. n. e.
- e. .
..b. e. d. e. b.e. d. h. e Jo
=
- h. =.~.,e.= 37% n an seg e p p. 3 4 ,
3 .
..~.. .=
.pe p. c. p. c. M
$W% .i W% W4 W% W% W% W4 99
- s#d% e e W% #9 W9 W% W%
1 . P. c e P c W9 W% W9 W9 e W% 89 de g. gWg vg Wg .4 Wg Wg gg P Wg O i e. p
. M 5
55 5 5 '
~
IT kk $
Table 3
- HARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLA'ITS A A'.D B IN-PLACE EARTHFILL TESTI':C
.- .t. . . .
-ADDITIONAL ArrERBET.C LIMIT TESTS (Phase 2)"
. e
^. . . - .
....a
;. ^ s.: . . >% -
' ~'
.I. '
1.. Boring Approximate IIquid '
Soil Pla::ticity *#~I 7 No. Layer Elevation Limit Index -
, '.i I'.
. . it % % . . . .*' -: .al-
. .:. ?; . .
. w.=,. ..=. - ; :~. .
.. ~.
. f. ..' US-1 1 524 ~37.0 17.6 .."'..
. J. . . . "x~ ,',.
US-1 4 518 38.6 19.5 . US-2 1 526 35.9 19.2 .
~~
US-2 2 520 39.6 19.1
~
US-3 1 527 37.1 17.8
. - - US-3 1 526 34.9 15.2 4 -
US-3 3 519 37.5 18.8 '
~ ~ ~
US--4 2 527.5 42.2 18.1 - ~-
. s-US-4 2 527 39.2 17.1 .
- US-4 2 526 18.6
- 41.3
,, -US-5 1. 532 38.0 19.4 US-5 2 529.5 42.3 19.1 US-5 2 529 40.2 18.0 -
~
.c
, ., .w. . . . ,
5 .
. ., , , r.e,:9 i
.<.- .s1:. > .;. .x
. , S. ; ;.,...
- s. -
. . .. .7..:
. _.s. .
i s- - s m . S
) .
' ~
3 1 0 2 0 11 .
ole f 101 ..
,g Ob. -
NW
- 7 b ~ 7_ -L__. _
- h. .
e#k h,,a (Oib p d f/k ' gb ._ l . . , L t 'I .! Uls( ii g g 3 5 F g ^;!i i! 4 h *=~ , ri"] l fglll mim! a
..liiiiiiiiiii iu, (7-- l >D !
- gwi. .d
' li i'i i i I j
~
,l f"! 8!'
5$ 'lji!!!!!'!!
. 4:
d!!!!?!!ii!: N o
" l I; in -
ill iI h';liiltiliI l !
- l, a.w:C.:..U vas 1.li. . .
c's 5%
- I I i i' i I
'I i ['
- i I .
l f ; l ~ l - I ! ; i
!!'li'll I / !
=
{d .. l ' \_
\ ._ l \
~ - / .-
'3 J
s s' b e
;i * ~. I g ,, _
1 , / x -;
/ 1 l L; l !
/ / -
.4 N N
; 4 ,!i' I
i k !!
! _ V' lll' a s {- .
i. l$1 . l l l l l l l ' l l
! ! I '
'I % I i . . . .
l<\ . . . . p.
!. f f
*t NOTES t 6 LSEE TADLE 2 FOR COMPLETE StMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST ., DATA.
..... O
!!:8-!
" 'l lll / t i!' !F '
!!!l ! 6 H
.;: i '. :t !:. ,
j: i r:L r r: (.t O r- ~
*M: !ili Th i 28:'l Mll' l .ml I!! 1 M !!i .. l . :ii M [.r: v~ N .
SO - -~ ,, g
}i- '.
= E.d ,!.}!. f!-
l
. f!. !.f ,
7
)1
..y:l [-
~
T iP [ Ti] u, jj
. l.l .
- /
/'.:.
g }. . _. 7 h 4.0 ll ! Y k
.L .. . .lE!! = -f ,tF d 4 - ,
i!I :
+
l lI" @ ;! g x[ }MtN Af[+} i I [..I [N[YJ2N tb E i -[ i. DESCN Pft0PERTIES Il:~ 1I M ~!! !.! # s=e'.C 0 8TsF C FILL , M m c' DN gl,j 6 II 3j. I-SAMPLE HO , (TSF) TYPE c
.t y 3
663 ~ g;; ts o [ br 20 b* I Y l'I II:
- i.
{ t k I 23D ZD0 c M #
, [l' '
! l. ll' _
' U BI 42D G47 '
~
c h" ...
'T ll F
7 1J T : c 7/3 0 $ ,- ' { i m leo as
- to s
__a
".~
" ~ --
_1 __ T u " i :
'l i
i YI 23.5 13 s s
,b,?.
[Yn]
' ~
~ ~
s.so t ~ ~
; ; ~ 30 0 _
- C Il ' ;1' nS L25 s
)
- l YIH ili li . _ _
tl I EO
$ C. CENTRAL FILL 20 3JD 40 SO S* SUPPORT FILL O to '
HARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLANT NORMAL STRESS (TSF) INPLACE EARTHFILL TESTING
. ./
Uf& CONSOLIDATED- UNDRAINED (Q) FOURE 2 TRIAXlAL COMPRESSlotJ TEST RESULTS
.k
'e. 4 . p e = .
k _ _ . . _ . . l P e* FOTES l; L OESIGN PROPERTIES LISTED ON THE G8tAPH CORRESPote To CATEGORY I, ! CL ASS (A.1) TRIAklAL R TEST STRENGTHS FOR THE SLFPORT FILL. I 6 TRIAXtAL R 1EST DES 60N PROPERilES FOR THE CEN1H AL FtLL,CAIEF/NT( I, Q. ASS (A), ARE LOWER W
- 15*, C+0 liSF.
** ;l 2.SEE TABLE 2 FM COWLETE SUWARY OF LABORAimY TEST CATA.
v ao ! :' 6E i i 11 i- ' t. a > t +t! O l . I ', f, - * { ,. i E + 1I *! .
- i. ",5 -
i p: J, ' i , i j
,n W c- :i.i ' ,. "
{ O no
-y
. * , - g
.; < p ,.
* :: :: l: [ ll
! 1:
^- l! -
m 1
-, - n
-T T i lij: y- z:M ::
C 43 _
- li
{ j '. : k /p li lpe
".j(;,%
a n f.,p4%[A b I y l1 l 7- 4 m til :.. : ID, v / .I l f
' y M
y 10 --
,' 7 1
,r f, r, j -
.- oEsa moeERTits r
yh,r j-f. e -ll g.. b' p!:-'g/ A ? # 85*. C*o.3 75F C FILL , nr, m _ _ ~ l y ,*) h 1)7 ' g -Y[J
. SAMPLE' O d 092 C t,
x 20
, jj , . p f'I Mhp- I lj - .
M'
- -r
.1 I
f - i Il 87 0
~~ zes 2a2 s.is eso c
c 7 f M
~}TT y
f%E ~ ~ , .- 4
<f .:, i : ::
iv iso ica, c p, Mgr M ;- # #f u. -d i g i.. _ v 250 044 s g s
;: 2 soo ost dj M ] _l _
l1 in u vi vil 87 0 040 s i [ j l 240 ass s , l
- I '*:
Viin ll f]5 i ,_ i , , l ; I . , 10 6.0 8 C.CE g 2D 30 40 , 0 to HARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLANT NORMAL STRESS (TSF) INPLACE EARTHFILL TESTING
- /
CONSOLIDATED -Ut40R Alt 4E 0 (R)
"D TRIAX1AL COMPRESSIOtt TEST RESULTS i
$~
A 4 i,g 3
,!t kl ! .I ,! - kl ,
i ' i l
'l
)
A. G Co* jf ' - N A L G T P A N N T D 4 d R g.bh S I S T U A T E S E D E S T T E L E ) N T i Y I C i( R AT O 6 T A 0 R E O I g y
%,L,h a,
U N E (- L F I N O I S B R , *^ h L H S E A E L T L W f I R R FW OO c , V S A P M O Y L R E T E C S S A B E C C C C 8 5 R E L S MD LP A C M E LY I H A At T U T FT X L S S L E IL ~ P AUS I T SS
~
, . ~ N RE UETS F
I
)
I TR M TR E O Ff 5 08 4 00 0003 0 0 ' E T C P C (S~o 0 5To0000000 R O S O R R F P A 4 2 H E '
) LL E E GH L SI S S
I LL I t R 7 9. 0 FF U B ET A DCE 6RE 03 5.23 S. s 4 63 8 7 3 3 3 8 5 LT G I F S T E O 3 2 AH 4 '- E E itR t E J R0 T E TP O S TO NP NI 2 E EU L . I E I I II I C- S. PO I EII II I CS MN ~YT e A _ S S E If T Rs E T P O ' o
%O.
P C. N 0S2
'9 n E*
n-u 0# O E /s
-! I l
. i l1e
- 5 i.
g)4; .
'yi-
,f
[ . [
- l. 1t.
- t 5.f i ,g p ,f
. l 4
O S i,,. h [,[::.l
!- i . l .
;, h l l . -
- k
. l .
)
g; l ' ' F 1r t1 .l 1 l , i 0 S 1 l - 4 T l (
- 11[. ;
~ -l '
S i S g/'
-/
* . ^
E p. l
-
- rt
- I
.f .i g
0 R
* : 3 T
.j .f i. l -
! }.
. S I
! - tI ;l ; I-L
!- : .
- i. I t i, > A
^ i. I!
l7l lI 7,l M l: yI.. 1 l. l.
;t
.f,
- g. !,
.l7 j
D R
, ' 2
,t, O
N
'I l.
n g# 4 t lit l l3. 'l-l , 8' *
!=!Ml. :' . kM W [[1 e '
- . : h..
. 1 :
- 0 1
!h
' l
' llt!U ai%l.
,k '
l}. it
- .g .
l T , l i . i ' . k k j l.il ;{,
, fI l
[ ["h k
.n .U
- l. !,
N... . . l
- . .- ,T P I
- l.
0 0 0 I O O 3 2
" 5
[@ $y g g t
. L .}}