ML19308D667
| ML19308D667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1973 |
| From: | GILBERT/COMMONWEALTH, INC. (FORMERLY GILBERT ASSOCIAT |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 1807, GAI-1807, NUDOCS 8003120732 | |
| Download: ML19308D667 (140) | |
Text
- _ _ - - _ _ . . -- -- - ---- _ -
l . . .
i CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 HURRICANE STUDY l
l l
FLORIDA ',c, l.
l POWER - i 1
CORPORATION !
I 1
1 l .
i
?
i l8HT- l L
a33gcigg3iggo O s25 LANCASTER AVENUE, READING, PENN5YLVANIA 8 0 0 3120 72_Q 8
___ _ _ __ _ _ =
July 11, 1973 GAI REPORT NO. 1807
)
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT NO. 3 HURRICANE STUDY i
i l
r
- i i
I i l' i
I I i
Prepared by Gilbert Associates, Inc.
525 Lancaster Avenue Reading, Pennsylvania 19607 j l gg g $ 7 ( y % , g 4, ) g 7 ( g, . y *,
- * * * * * * * (.'
d '# w8h*WuWe*MWh-gwsp w .9w_ e . g p r .% g ,,,,,,_ap. ,,, , ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.7.,
P.,a ge, t
1.0
SUMMARY
, 1
2.0 CONCLUSION
S 1
3.0 INTRODUCTION
2 3.1 Current Studies 2
- 3. 2 - AEC Questions 2 4
, 4.0 PMH CONDITIONS AT PLANT 6 4.1 Storm Surge Level 6 4.2 Wave Action and Runup 6 5.0 VITAL EQUIPMENT AND ITS PROTECTION 11 5.1 Continuous Power Generation 11 p- 5.2 Equipment Necessary for Safe Shutdown 12
' 6.0 DETAILED FLOOD PROTECTION 14 i 6.1 Protective Assumptions 14 6.2 Component Protection 14 6.3 Structural Integrity 16 6.4 Rainfall Protection 16 6.5 Sump Ptsops 17 7.0 WATER-TIGHT DOORS 19 8.-0 PROTECTIVE EMBANKMENT 20 8.1 General Description 20 8.2 Foundation Material 22 8.3 Zone III Fill 23 8.4 Soil-Cement 23 8.5 Reinforced Concrete Armor 25 9.0 PROTECTION AGAINST A SURGE LEVEL OF 33.4 FEET 27
- 9.1 Design Conditions 27 1, 9.2 Alterations to Plant Protection 27 9.3 Likelihood of Surge to Elevation 121.4 28 REFERENCES l
i ,
l TABLES j-FIGURES
- ATTACHMENTS i
C a l. R E R T A 5 5 0 C . 4 T E S t M C.
w wwhm = * . . . . a mem. . e -*w e -+ = , . . - % . .=+ , , _ , ..
. - . . - - . . . - - ~ . . . . - - . . - .. .-. .-.. . - . - - ~ ---- - ~-
l LIST OF TABLES i
t Table No. Title 1 Wave Ruaup Model Tests, Profile 3 2 Wave Runup Model Tests, Profile 4 c ..
'. 3 Wave Runup Model Tests, Profile 5
\
4 Soil-Cament Design Mixes, October 1969
, 5 Comparison of Soil-Cement with 1500 PSI Concrete in Splitting Tension f.,
6 Soil-Cement Design Mixes, November,1969 ~
7 Soil-Cement Design Mixes, July 29, 1970 4
LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title 1 Hurricane Study, Section of 14aximum Wave Attack i
2 Sheet 1 Model Profiles Tested, Results of Interest 2 Sheet 2 Results of Model Tests i ,
, 3 Runup and Overtopping vs. Tide Level 4 Storm Surge Hydrograph, PMH 5 Wind and Wave Characteristics vs. Time i
6 Design Waves and Water Levels vs. Time 7 Plot Plan 8 Plan - Water Seals and Water-Tight Door Locations 9 Soil-Cement Mixes - Soil Gradation Curves 4
l 10 Soil-Cement Design Mixes I
')
C IL B L R T A, SOC R A T E S, IN C A.m . % we.,p.- -sw. -,,ew.--=--w--w.,,m-%, m p.-
- -q ' p, g ,,: p Ay
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
Figure No. Title 11 Soil-Cement Design Mixes 12 Soi3.-Cement Nixes - 7 Day Compressiva Strength 13 Plan - Water Seals and Water-Tight Door Locations 14 Plot Plan l'
l 15 Design Waves and Water Levels vs. Time
- r. -.
1 i
4 4
3 I
b O
l i !
l
! j t.' I t
t G I L B E R T A S S O C I A T E S, li C.
u .
i
ATTACHMENTS a-Soil Cement Test Data, October, 1969 Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Soil Cement Test Data, November, 1969 Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory e Soil Cement Design for klave Protection Berm, July, 1970 Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory
,.. Compaction Data, Zone III Material, November, 1972
} Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Triaxial Shear Test Results, December, 1972 Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Letter from Dr. R. G. Dean, April 3, 1972
[ University of Florida to Mr. Joel Caves, Gilbert Associates, Inc.
Reading, Pa.
Letter from Dr. R. G. Dean, April 11, 1973 University of Florida to Mr. Herber Newton, Gilbert Associates, Inc.
Reading, Pa.
I e
9 2
6 .
i l
t
)
1 i l l
I 1
1
1.0 SyfMARY The purpose of this report is to present the method of protecting Crys tal est Unit No. 3 from the Probable Maximum Hurricane (PMH) r whose parameters were obtained from ESSA Memorandum HUR 7-97 and
[
described in detail in " Report - Verification Study of Dames and
\
Moore's Hurricane Storm Surge Model with Application to Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Plant - Crystal River Florida - for' Florida Power Corporation". Conjunctively, this report responds to r- .
_l questions asked by the Atomic Energy Comission in their letter
(
2.0 CONCLUSION
S
{ It is concluded without reservation that with the protection described herein, Crystal River Unit No. 3 will be completely and l
conservatively protected against the PMH and that safe shutdown conditions can and will be effected and maintained during the PMH.
d I
i f
l.
i
\
i i.
( GILB E R T A S SOCla T E S, IMC wu,3 A- -,e ab-j = -
2 I
3.0 INTRODUCTION
3.1 Ciarrent Studies As a result of , studies completed in October 1972, Crystal River
(
s
) No. 3 was designed to safely withstand a PMH which would produce
. a surge level of 29.6 feet above the mean low water (MLW) elevation I. of 88 feet. A more current study has been completed recently by
( Dames and Moore and the results are included in their report titled, " Report - Verifiqation Study of Dames and Moore's Hurricane s
} Storm Surge Model with Application to Crystal River Unit No. 3
\ dated July 13, 1973 hereinaf ter referred to as the Dames and Moore Report. The new report includes the PMH parameters along with substantiation and justification of the results if such a PMH should occur. Primary information includes a surge level of
, 29.4 feet above MLW elevation of 88 feet and a resulting "wavelsss"
)
surge to elevation 119.5 feet over ths top of the embankment whose design elevation is 118.5 feet. The hurricane would track from southwest to northeast.
3.2 AEC Questions
{ On March 12, 1973 the Atomic Energy Commission advised Florida Power Corporation that additional information was required t regarding the Probable Maximum Hurricane (PMH) surge level and the
, associated wave runup. This report therefore also addresses itself to the following questions which were presented in Enclosures (1) and (2) of the AEC letter. Questions 1 through 5(c) of Enclosure l.
s .
citarer 4ssoc 4 r t s. a x c 4,, g f. <fe .m e s me =
.w -
3 (1) are addrecaed in the aforementioned Dames and Moore report dated July 13, 1973.
{
Enclosure (1)
( 5(d) For each safety-related structure, system, and r component identified as necessary for plant protection (see Request 2.16 in enclosure (2)),
! and based on both a stillwater level of 33.4 ft.
MLW and your fully verified stillwater elevation estimate, provide tabulations of the height of the r most significant (average of the highest one-third)
- and the maximum (1 percent) waves, or the breaking
! waves (whichever is the most severe) and the associated runup for each case.
I l
J 5(e) Discuss the applicability of your hydraulic model
! studies for estimating runup on and over the soil-I !
j l
cement protected embankment and on interior facilities for both water levals and wave conditions discussed b-rein.
3 Enclosu>:e (2) f' 2.15.3 Identify those safety-related structures, systems, and components necessary for safe operation (see t
Safety Guide 29). Compare the conditions identified in Request 2.15.1 above with the design bases and .i i
general adequacy of each facility to perform its required function, mad indicate any action requf red 7
to assure functionability for hurricane conditions i-up to those requiring shutdown.
GIL R E R T A S SOCl 4 7 E s, INC I
i....,_. . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ -
. . . sm 4
4 f
2.16 For hurricane conditions more severe dran those for f' which operation would be allowed, up to and including EKH conditions that both you and the staff have i
estimated, identify those safety-related structures,
, systems and components necessary to assure maintenance of shutdown conditions. Discuss the ability of each
[' structure, system and component to withstand both the r
static and dynamic consequences of hurricanes up to and including those of PMH severity for both still-water level estimates.
I'
{ 2.17 Provide the minimum submergence levels for both circulating and service water pumps.
2.18 We understand that the soil-cement protected
] embankment is required to maintain the function-j ability of safety-related facilities during i
I
[ hurricane conditions. Substantiate its dbility to i
withstand the static and dynamic consequences of water level and frontal wave action for both PMH Pl es timates . Documentation may consist of reference i
to other control facilities which have experienced
\
conditions similar to those postulated for the Crystal River site, to full-scale hydraulic model studies, or its analytical studies of static and dynamic forces. Also, discuss the ability of the l
protection and the embankment to withstand wave i
L. overtopping. If the embankment is not required for t-68LRERT ASSOCIATE $.INC t
. ~ ,
5 1
hurricane protection, provida your assumption of its failures during such events and the consequences of failure on required safety-related facilities.
P 2.19 Prov".de substantiated assurance of the ability of
- m ety-related structures, systems, and components necessary for safe operation, and those required for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof, to withstand rainfall and spray; either associated with severe hurricanes, or independently thereof.
(
For instance, discuss the ability of site drainage, including the roofs of safety-related structures and exterior penetrations, to safely store or i
pass runoff without a loss of function.
I i
4 k
I
- C I L s E R T A S S O C I A T E 4, f 4 C.
, . . , n.. _ , . . . -
a
. .-- ~ ~ ..
6 i
4.0 PMH CONDITIONS AT PLANT 4.1 Storm Surae Level
- ne maximum storm tide level provided by Dames and Moore is elevation 117.4 feet (MLW is at elevation 88.0 feet). This
( determination considered the topography of the site along the i
approach path and the critical section shown on Figure 1. The f' maximum storm tide level also considered a two-foot reduction due to tb effects of backwater storage resulting from the i .
i extensive flooding of the surrounding countryside some five hours prior to the peak of the surge hydrograph and runoff into peripheral areas not directly affected by the hurricane surge.
The site in this extreme circumstance becomes analogous to a small island in a rountain of water. The storm surge hydrograph
, is shown on Figure 4, and includes the combined effects of the hurricane surge and the astronomical tide.
4.2 Wave Action and Runup t
L 4.2.1 Figure 6 summarizes the relationships between the stillwater level, wind-generated wave height, breaking wave height and wave runup.
The maximum (highest 1 percent of the waves) and significant t
(average of the highest one-third) wave heights were determined
, by wind vectors normal to the coast along the traverse, and were
< i calculated using the storm surge computer output. Figure 5
( presents a summary of this analysis for wind-generated waves L. .
approaching the site. On Figure 6, the intersection of the breaking wave curve and the generated wave height curves show that with the highest 1 percent of the waves breaking, the s.
i I
i G I L B E R T A 5 5 0 C l 4 F t s. I N C.
w s
..-.e,e # -..%vi. w .
_ _ _ . . . , . . , - - - . s - - - . , . . . . . ..-,
_ . . ._ . m a. . - .
.~
7 _l marinann height of the waves that can travel across the fill approaching the plant is 15.0 feet. With the average of the
' highest 33 percent (shown as Hs) of the waves breaking, the maximum height of the waves that can reach the protective embankment with-r out breaking is 13.9 feet.
s.
. 4.2.2 Maxi:num tidal setup will be produced by winds blowing onshore
! along a traverse normal to the offshore bottom contours.
i Consequently, the critical approach path for a hurricane was ,
from the southwest, tracking on a aortheasterly course. However, f the approach path of wave trains that will produce maximum runup at the site is along a north-south section with the waves approaching the plant from the south. This critical traverse of i the wave train is across a reach of natural ground about one
- (
mile wide, then over 600 feet of compacted fill (elevation 98),
i and against an embankment slope (berm) rising to a top elevation of 118.5 feet, which protects the plant. This concept of i
! maximum wave action occurring perpendicular to the hurricane winds i was considered to be a conservative assumption for this already extremely severe condition.
i 4.2.3 The effects of breaking waves and wave runup on the embankment I
slope were evaluated from the model tests previously conducted at 4 - l, the University of Florida. Before performing the runup tests, e experiments were conducted to determine the most adverse test conditions (i.e., the combination of wave period and height which
. caused the maximum runup over the tidal range of interest). From
(
L
[ c a t a r a r a s s oc A T E S, I N C, L
-~ ' -
, - -. . . .-- ~ a ,.w.~.
r^
8 these pre-test experiments and periodic checks during the tests, it was found that the maximum runup occurred with a 7rototype wave period of 5.4 seconds, and prototype wave amplitudes of 10 to 15 feet, the specific height depending on the test case.
The wave action testing was conducted at prototype tide levels from elevation 104 to 120 feet in two-foot increments. Unlike -
the spectrum of wind-generated waves, the model t;sts were conducted with waves essentially uniform in height.
4.2.4 Initial tests were conducted on a smooth slope embankment.
Subsequent tests simulated the runup effects against the stepped embankment. The test results indicated no overtopping of the
, j smooth slope below tide levels of 110 feet, with occasional overtopping starting at a tide level of 112 feet and becoming J
continuous above elevation 114. Tests on the stepped slope
, revealed no -overtopping below tide elevation 112 feet, slight I
i
. overtopping at 114, and more continuous overtopping above i
t elevation 116 feet. Pertinent results of the model tests are shown on Figures 2 and 3 and on Tables 1, 2 and 3.
4.2.5 The applicability of the model tests for the 29.4-foot surge level
.t is illustrated by Figure 3 and amplified by two letters from Dr. R. G. Dean dated April 3,1972, and April 11, 1973, contained in the Attachments. As- indicated by Figure 3, the median and s
maximum runup elevations occurring at a tide level of 117.4 feet are 122.5 and' 123.5, respectively on Profile 5, the profile
- i. corresponding to the stepped slope that will be constructed at i
i.
GILRERT 46 SOC 4.tTES..MC b
' - - + - -
_ _ _ _ __.m.__._s_ .
.; 9 _
Crystal River Nuclear Station. The actual elevation of th i water '
overtopping embankment at elevation 118.5 will be somewhat less than the elevation of the runup on the test slope because with the limited slope height '(the steps above 118.5 used in the model I l
, do not exist in the actual design) the surging water will reach -
r elevation 118.5 and merely fall over on the embankment, r
6 4.2.6 For a slope of unlimited height, the maximum and median runup corresponding to the indicated stillwater hydrograph were developed ' ~
using Figure 3 and are shown on Figure 6. When the height of the
( wind-generated waves reaching the protective embankment becomes 1
10 to 15 feet (the range of wave heights found from the model tests to cause the greatest runup), the results of the model tests become applicable. Until that time, the wind-generated waves would produce less runup than indicated; the runup from the test results is therefore shown as a dotted line. Employing the~
s conservative assumption that the wave height in the model tests was
( the " maximum" generated wave height (i.e. , assucing that all of the waves attacking the embankment are " maximum" waves), Figure 6 shows that the model results become applicable at 23.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> af ter the center of the hurricane crosses the continental shelf. This 1 is also the time of maximum stillwater level.
I It is estimated that overtopping of the embankment by the maximum runup begins about hour 22.7 and continues until hour 24.2. For the reasons described, the elevation of the water overtopping' the
!_ edge of the actual embankment will be less than the runup i
i.
6ttataf pasocI4TEs,INr.
. 1..
.w..~,u........_.
10-elevations shown in Figure 6. In this 1.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> period, the
. maximum depth of stillwater at the safety class structures nearest the edge of the embankment (a distance of about 100 feet)
.due to overtopping, is estimated to be one foot. At locations along the plant embankment that are not exposed to direct wave
- t. attack, overtopping shou .d not occur. Water th'at does overtop the embankment on the windward side of the plant will drain off the embankment on the lee side.
a I
f I
f i
i
. I
('
s
(~
l
^L.
- CIL B E R T A S SOCI A TE S. IMC Y.=
n-
---~---w ,.._._m,_ , , _ . _ _ . ._ __ __ _ , _
._ . _ . _ ~
P 11 .
t 5.0 VITAL EQUIPMENT AND ITS PROTECTION 5.1 Continuous Power Generation 5.1.1 Under any conditions, the equipment necessary for power generation is as follows:
r- 1. On-site diesel power generators, and their support equipment (fuel systems, cooling systems, switchgear).
- 2. Reactor decay heat removal equipment
- a. Nuclear services closed cycle cooling system.
(
- b. Decay heat removal system.
- c. Decay heat closed cycle cooling system.
- d. Decay heat ces water system.
- e. Nuclear services sea water system.
- 3. Circulating water pumps.
, 4. Electric transmission facilities (switchyard).
- 5. Turbine-generator support equipment.
5.1.2 Power generation at sea levels above elevation 98 is not possible since the circulating water ramps, located at the intake canal, and the transmission facilities in the sw1; ayard will begin to flood.
5.1.3 The circulating water pumps begin to cavitate when the water level drops below elevation 81 feet; however these pumps do not m.
serve any equipment necessary to maintain the reactor in a safe
, condition.
l.
l.
G I L R E R T A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. -
_ i
. - ~ - . . . - . . - - . . . - . . . - - . - - - - - - . - . _ . . - - -
i 12 I
5.2 Equipment Necessary for Safe Shutdown 5.2.1 Systems listed under items 1 and 2 Subaection 5.1.1 must remain s.
functional during storms of any degree of severity up to and including the PMH. Ability of this equipment to remain functional i
is assured by the facility design discussed herein.
t
, 5.2.2 On-site emergency power generation equipment is located within the main structure, and is protected from flooding by concrete i barriers. Fuel storage tanks are located underground, and are .
restrained against damage from their own bouyancy by hold down
- straps and concrete anchor slabs. Tank vents are 'above postu-
, laced wave tops to prevent sea water from entering the tanks via s
the vent lines. Diesel engine cooling is provided by a self-j contained air radiator system within the structure.
t ,
4 r l 5.2.3 The nuclear services closed cycle cooling system, decay heat removal system, and decay heat closed cycle cooling system are located within the auxiliary building, which is protected from i
flooding by water-tight doors where necessary.
5.2.4 Pumps and heat exchangers serving the decay heat sea water and i
nuclear services sea water systems are also located within the protected auxiliary building. Sea water is admitted to the
- s. pump sump chambers via two conduits connected to the intake structure at the intake canal. Although this intake structure will be inundated at the postulated hurricane sea levels , no active equipment necessary to maintain the reactor in a safe l , condition is located at the structure.
- 1. r -
c i t. c a n t A s s o C 0 A T E $. I N C.
-. . ..a.-. . . . - -- + - . ---.--. ---- - - -
13 5.2.5 The sea water pumps located within the auxiliary building, take suction from a chamber designed for a static sea level of 140 feet, which is well. ia excess of the postulated hurricane sea levels.
These pumps require a minimum pump submergence level of elevation 70 feet, 10-1/2 inches (water surface elevation) for satisfactory i
operation. The increase in static pressure on pumps, piping, .
heat .exchangers, and other components in the sea water systems .
due to the increased pump suction pressure, are less than the design conditions for these components. '
s 5.2.6 The above equipment is powered by the emergency diesel generators.
In addition, if power should be lost, sump pumps can be operated from the emergency diesel generators, to dispose of any leakage, through water-tight door seals.
I i
j i
i
\,
f.
L.,
7 G I L B E S T A D S oC i t r L S. INC
- g. gr s h .
we m..r -
vi* P 4-seBDW- 4 N.+*-N4M ^
^*" **. M = '--*^^'
. . . _ _ . . __. .. _ __ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . _ - - . ~ _ _ >_
14 6.0 DETAILED FLOOD PROTECTION 6,1 Protective Assumptions I
6.1.1 Figure 8 indicates the locations of seals, water-tight doors,
, j concrete barriers'and walls which have been included in the l
design to protect access openings in the structure which may }
be subjected to flooding during the peak of the PMH (about 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />).
6.1.2 It should be noted that although the anticipated water level during the peak of the PMH is only to elevation 119.5 on the south decreasing to elevation 117.4 on the north, protection has -
been conservatively provided as though the maximum wave runup i
to elevation 123.5 exists over the entire south embankment.
6.2 Component Protection
, Component protective facilities required for local protection l
l are shown on Figure 8 and are as fullows :
i I
- 1. Turbine building (already protected to elevation ,
121'-10" except at door openings whose thresholds are at elevation '119 feet) .
- a. Five water-tight doors at door openings will be provided to elevation 122 feet.
- b. Water-tight doors will also be provided for the two air shafts located on the west and east sides of the turbine building to elevation 122 feet.
l G IL R E A T A S SOCI A T E S. INC
. ~ . _ , , . . - _ - _ , - - , -- -- ' - _ _ . - - - , -
..-. - - - - .. ~
'15
- 2. Auxiliary building (thresholds of door openings are at elevation 119 feet) .
- a. Three water-tight doors at door openings will be i
provided to elevation 122 feet on the east and to elevation 124 feet on the south. !
3.- Diesel generator building (thresholds of openings are at elevation 119 feet) .
l a. Two concrete barriers will be constructed at the outer side of the air intake enclosure walls to -
elevation 124 feet.
I.
- 4. Reactor building
- a. A concrete water barrier will be constructed up to l elevation 124 feet, approximately three feet outside the present reactor building wall between the equip-ment access hatch and the intermediate building, and between the equipment hatch and the auxiliary building. Each wall will have a water-tight seal at its extremeties.
- b. Equipment access hatch will be provided with a
! water-tight door at the entrance to elevation 124 feet.
I
- 5. Water-tight seals will be installed on:
- a. Tendon gallery access hatch t
- b. Heat exchanger room hatch
- c. At reactor building barrier walls
- d. At interfaces between the diesel generator and F
auxiliary buildings.
GIL BE A T A S 3 0CI A T E S. INC
..~ . - - . . . _ , - . , - . , - - - .-
-n 16
- e. Underground electrical conduit entering the building below grade
- 6. The v'ent pipes on diesel fuel tanks will be raised to
. prevent the entrance of excessive amounts of water.
- 7. Water-tight door will be provided at the entrance to the borated water storage tank area to elevation 124 feet.
, (Threshold elevation is at 119 feet) .
6.3 Structural Integrity l All safety-related structures have been checked for both new high
, water criteria (surge levels of 117.4 feet and 121.4 feet) and found to be structurally adequate to sustain the forces, both static and dynamic, caused by the PMH. The intake structure was also found to be structurally adequate to sustain the forces caused by the PMH.
6.4 Rainfall Protection l
1 6.4.1 With the exception of the diesel generator, all other components l are protected from rainfall and water spray created from high winds. l l
6.4.2 In the diesel generator building it is possible for spray to be driven into the air intake opening; however, this contingency has been prepared for by providing suitable floor drainage to intercept
, the water and conduct it away from the area.
1 l
l i
G I L R E R T A S S O C I A.T E S. I N C y -
. _ _- nc.,,,.. .: m
- ,y x. w
- :: --
J
. .- , . - _ . __ _._ , _ _ ,.m_.._
f 17 i.
6.4.3 Outside the structure, the site drainage system has been designed to preclude ponding, even during the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP). The design utilized the Rational Method with the following i
-f
,, parameters:
- Rainfall Intensity - 10 inches per hour Runoff Coefficients: 0.95 for roof surfaces 0.80 for paved areas 0.40 for soil
-r .
i 6.4.4 The greatest overland distance that runoff must travel to reach a catch basin is only 200 feet, at a minimum ground slope of 0.5%.
f 6.4.5 Roof drains discharge directly into the storm drainage system, and were designed to accommodate a rainfall intensity of 6 inches per hour. For this design capac'.ty, no roof ponding will occur up
, to a 1000-year rainfall. In the event of the PMP, ponding could i i
! occur up to a maximum of three inches around the eaves of the structures, and buildup beyond this would overflow the eaves.
The roof structures have been adequately designed to support the f
ponded water.
i 6.5 Sump Pumps t-Internal sump pumps are located as follcws:
Pump Locations Quantity Capacity Discharge to:
j Turbine Room 2 500 gpm Industrial Waste i Treatment Pond Nuclear Service 2 250 gpm Sea Water Cooler Area Discharge Canal
- i. Condensate Pump Pit 2 50 gpm Turbine Room Sump i
i l
G I L B E R T A S $ O C I A T E S, I N C l '
L._
_ _ . , , _ . ,, __ .,__..mm,_ _ _ _ _ .
,)
r.
! 18 1-r-~
I Pump Locations Quantitiy Capacity Discharge to:
p Tendon Access Gallery 2 50 gpa Saa Water j Discharge Canal Auxiliary Building 2 125 gpm Misc. Waste I. .
Storage Tank Reactor Building 2 100 gpm Misc. Waste Storage Tank Decay Heat Pit 2 30 gpm Misc. Waste J' Storage Tank i Laundry and Shower 1 30 gpm Neutralizer or Misc.
Waste Storage Tank Turbine Room 2 150 gpm . Sewage System -
e a
k I t 1
l I
l 2 f k
i
.l
-1 i
t ..
a
-M 1
f~
w C I L B E R T A 8 5 0 C I A T t s. I N C.
i e
v.w f- - %e - v a. *W,4,,% S. w e. - 4,.e- , ha a w. *we***+- 'he.
/ s
.h '#.P* m e* E l#* * ~"N#n '
. . . , . - ~- a .- - - - - - - - ~ ~ - = -
19
. 7.0 WATER-TIGHT DOORS
-l-- With the exception of the large turbine room door where the track 6
enters and the two large openings on the south in the fuel handling area, permanent doors will be installed on thi structure ready to be closed in the event of an emergency. These doors will feature i fail-proof, leak-proof, compression-type seals that are activated when the door is closed and latched. The remaining three large openings mentioned above will require mounting of flood panels I
when the need arises. These panels will feature expandable seals that compress against the door casement. In the unlikely event f
of a seal failure, these panels will have a compressi6n-type seal as a backup measure. If the main seal should fail, hydrostatic pressure will force the panel against the back face of its guide j slot compressing the backup seal.
I
\
l l
's i
b i
ka 1
+
GIL BE RT A S SOCI A T ES, IMC
. . - - ..;, . - - ~ , , , ..->~n_.,.--,..-,- , , . . . ,a,. - . . - - - - - - _.
,_ . . . - . _ _ _ _ . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - ~~-
20
, 8.0 PROTECTIVE EMBANKMENT 8.1 General Description 8.1.1 The plant structure is protected by a surrounding embankment constructed to elevation 118.5, which will be placed upon in-situ material at elevation 98. (See Figure 7) . Because it is vital to the protection of the plant, the embankment along the south r- and west sides of the plant has been designed to withstand the c
I dynamic forces of the maximun met and ensuing runup for the f
Probable Maximum Hurricane. The usual type of protection for this condition would be an adequate thickness of large size e
dumped riprap. Because of the absence of suitable riprap material in the area, soil-cement was originally considered as an effective i
means of preventing erosion of the slopes of the protective
{ embankment. The original selection of soil-cament as the means l
for providing protection for the embankment was predicated on I
( four basic considerations:
- 1. The absence of rock or other suitable similar material in r
the area.
{ 2. The availability of native limerock with a very high calcium carbonate content, which will permit the soil base to react 5
l chemically in a soil-cement mixture, developing an extremely
- coherent internal structure. (The results of tests on this l-limerock material are contained in the Attachments.)
f
- 3. The results of scil-cement design mixes and tests conducted t
by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory utilizing local native limerock and cement. (The tests results are contained in three reports included in the Attachments.) '
1 I
GIL B E R T A S S OCI A T E S. ING
-. ,,_s _ , , . _ -._ . ,_, - .. s . - - - . mv ..-m-, v--- -
I
i 21 i'
, 4. Documentation of its successful use in Bonny and Merritt Dams r- by the Bureau of Reclamation.
8.1.2 Due to revised . hurricane criteria and analyses, the surge level has been changed from an original elevation 112.6 to elevation 117.4.
Wave heights have correspondingly increased from an initial height -
of 11.4 feet to 15.0 feet. To provide greater resistance against the increased wave. forces, an armor covering of 3000 psi reinforced
, concrete over 1500 psi soil-cement is planned. The reinforced concrete will provide .c.istance to erosion and dynamic impact
, and the 1500 psi soil-cement will provide a stiff backing and act as a rigid material that the concrete covering will be keyed into.
7he criterion of 1500 psi for the soil-cement is based on a 90-day compressive strength. Thus, referring to Figure 7, it can be seen that the current design employes a layered system of in-situ lime-rock, compacted Zone III fill, soil-cement and reinforced concrete.
8.1.3 Stability analyses were undertaken for the enbankment in order to establish the degree of stability the embankment possesses against a hypothetical failure along a circular are passing through both the foundation and the embankment. Using the following parameters, the minimum factor of safety against failure is 4.3.
I Friction Angle (d) Cohesion (c) 1 Embankement 45.5 0 tsf
. Overburden 37.0 0 tsf Upper Foundation 47.0 5 tsf Lower Foundation 49.0 5 tsf a
GIL R E R T A S S OCI A T E S, IN C l
y m m.. ,- ~s , g,pp.
._ _ . 2_. ....._.1. _ - --
f-
,. 22 r*
8.2 Foundation Material
[' 8.2.1 The foundation material upon which the embankment will be constructed was placed in 1964 from construction excavations on-site. This
(
j material has had nine years to consolidate, with considerable r- construction activity surcharge. No significant settlement is
}
\ anticipated from this material or from the Zone III material placed j'
in the embankment under 95 percent of Maximum Modified Proctor density compaction criteria required by GAI Specification SP-5901.
( -
i Any potential settlement will occur prior to the placement of the concrete cover since the full weight of the embankment will be I*
imposed on the foundation first during construction.
8.2.2 The characteristics of the limerock material existing as foundation j material, and proposed for the embankment, are documented in the FSAR and in the Attachments of this report. The material is a l
f friable limerock with a high magnesium carbonate and calcium carbonate content and the following general characteristics:
I.
Specific Gravity 2.57-2.72
,( Liquid Limit 26 Plasticity Index NP I
i Absorption 29.5%
Compacted Void Ratio 0.38 Compacted Coeff. Permeability -5
{ 10 cm/sec
( Maximum Dry Density 112.8-121.6 pcf s
Optimum Moisture 11.1-14.1%
$ Triaxial Shear Strength 0 = 45.5 c=0 L.
- Average Compaction during 98.4% Maximum Modified
, j : Placement on Site Proctor L
i G I L B E R 7 A S S OCI A T E S,14C 1
t_ .
_ . . . . . . _ _~._-____-4..-r-... _ _ - _._
. _ . _ . . - - - ~ - .
. . - - - ~ ~ ~
23
.t~
, 8.3 Zone III Ffil p 8.3.1 The general characteristics of Zone III fill were mentioned in Subsection 8.2.2. When compacted to 95% of Modified Proctor density, I as required by Specification SP-5901, "one III becomes a very dense
,, and stable material.
8.3.2 The gradation of the material is shown on Figure 9 as a range
(
f covering samples tested during placement in the embankment and in soil-cement design mix tests. It should be noted that in 40 tests of field density, the compaction averaged over 98 percent of maximum Modified Proctor density.
t 8.3.3 The compacted Zone III material has a low permeability of 1 x 10 -5 I
cm/sec and it was noted in conducting triaxial shear tests that I; difficulty was experienced in attempting to saturate the samples.
This characteristic will be beneficial in preventing potential uplift forces from developing beneath the surface materials. ae embankment mass will not respond quickly to saturation from
(
increasing tide levels that have a duration of only 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> since
{ several weeks would be required to totally saturate the mass.
4 I 8.4 Soil-Cement I -
8.4.1 'Ihe design of the soil-cement section was based upon the results f
l of its use and documentation in Bonny and Merritt Dams by the
-- Bureau of Reclamation, and also on the results of three design-mix s
programs conducted by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory, which are
( included in the Attachments to thf.s report. The use of soil-
'("
cement in these cases was for the actual armor protection, t
s t L a E n T A S $ 0 C I A T E S, I N c.
t u_ _
(-----
.. - . . - - - . - . . . . . . - . . .. -- . - ~ - - ~ ~ ~
l t'
24 ,
l r ,
$ whereas now it is being used only as' the backing for the concrete armor. However, soil-cement has been successfully used on the following dams:
- Dam Location Date Agency Bonny Dam Colorado 1951 Bureau of Reclamation 6
- Merritt Dam Nebraska 1961 Bureau of Reclamation
- Cheney Dam Kansas 1962 Bureau of Reclamation l~
Ute Dam New Mexico 1963 N.M. Interstate Stream Commission Holiday Dam Pennsylvania 1963 Holiday-Pocono Land Inc.
f Okay Levee Arkansas 1964 Corps of Engineers Glen Elder Dam Kansas Bureau of Reclamation
(
) 8.4.2 The results of the three test programs conducted using Crystal River materials are contained in the Attachments. Mixes A and B f
were tested in October of 1969 utilizing Zone III material and 3 Type II cement in proportions of 9 and 10 percent by weight.
Average 28-day compressive strengths for Mixes A and B were f 1140 and 1420 psi, respectively. The second program in November
, 1969 used also Zone III Material and Type II cement in three t
mixes containing 3, 4 and 4.5 bags /cu. yd. These mixes developed i average 90-day compressive strengths of 1850, 2150, and 2960 psi, I
respectively. The third program in July 1970 used Type I cement f in proportions of 7, 8 and 9 percent by weight with Zone III N-material. Average 90-day compressive strengths for Mixes 1, 2
( and 3 were 930,1100 and 1240 psi, respectively. The test results for all three programs are summarized in Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7 and on Figures 10, 11 and 12.
)
C I L 8 E a 7 A S S O C I A T E S, I N C.
1
_ _ . _ - _ _ . - . _ . _ . _ . .__-___m _m.._ _ .
1 25 t
l' 8.4.3 Placement of soil-cement shall be in accordance with GAI
Specification SP-5901 and will yield a 90-day compressive strength of 1500 psi.
i 8.5 Reinforced Concrete Armor 8.5.1 The use of concrete as protection is quite common. Concrete has t
been used to pave dans and levee slopes , used as shore protections f along coast lines, used as dams to contain lakes and reservoirs,
, and used as spillways which are su';jected to a degree of abuse which could never be equaled in its use as the embankment protection at Crystal River 3.
8.5.2 During a PMH, the concrete armor would be subjected to a maximum I
dynamic load of 32 psi. Although the probability of a washout f ever occurring beneath the armor is nearly zero, for design pur-posed it was assumed that the individual concrete panels, whose f maximum size will be 20 feet square, had a washout occur beneath them. It was also assumed that the washout lef t a 15-foot square area unsupported, thus introducing bending stresses. Based on
} working stress design, the concrete reinforcement was designed to resist the bending stresses in this unsupported condition. Both the concrete and reinforcing stresses are within thu allowable
- tolerences provided by ACI-318-63, based on working stress design.
,. 8.5.3 Since the chances of a washout are unlikely, the armor will
\
i always be continuously supported. The only induced stresses, therefore, will be purely compressional. This , then, indicates that the armor is very conservatively designed.
1 r GI L B E RT A S SOCI A T E S, IN C l Li -
~. - . . . .-_:. . . . . --. :, . .
.p+7
)
26 o,
t
-I ,
i 8.5.41 - The =4ving and place ===t of concrete shall be in accordance with.
GAI Specifications SP-5569 and SP-5618...
'l 4
r i
k r .-
I' t
t 1 -
I .
I f
.f I
I l
l
(
'I i
s' i
4
\:
-.(
L c
.f, ..
- '; _ C I L B E R T ' A S S O C I A T E S. I N C.
. .}'-
t
_ _ , _ . , , , . . _ , _ ,_..m.__ _...... , , ;.., .._ , , , , , , , , , . _ _ , , , _,_
_.-. . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _. . ~ m.m..m__.__._.
f 27 9.0 PROTECTION AGAINST A SURGE LEVEL OF 33.4 FEET 9.1 Desian Conditions If it is required to use the 33.4 foot surge level, the stillwater level hydrograph, generated wave height, breaking wave height and wave runup would be approximately as shown on Figure 15. As can
! be seen from Figure 15, the intersection of the breaking wave curve and the~ generated wave height curves shows that with the highest 1 percent of the waves breaking, the maximum height of a the waves that can travel across the fill approaching the plant "
, is 18.0 feet. With the average of the highest 33 percent (shown
\.
as Hs) of the waves breaking, the maximum height of the waves that can reach the protective embankment without breaking is 15.5 feet.
9.2 Alterations to Plant Protection l
If one must consider protection against a surge level of 121.4 feet, f the following changes would need to be made to the existing
, protection scheme: l
),
q 1. The embankment on the south and west sides would be increased I l
in height to elevation 127 feet (Refer to Figure 14). This would be necessary in order to intercept waves and floating )
{ debris such as an oil barge before the structure is struck.
s
- 2. Barriers and water-tight doors with a top elevation of 124 f feet would increase in height to elevation 127 feet.
- 3. Water-tight doors with a top elevation of 122 feet would increase in height to elevation 127 feet except openings on I - - -
the east side of structure which would increase to elevation L.
124 feet.
9
\ , #
COLBERT ASSOCI A TEE ING
'l t.
. . - ~ . .
,, . ,+ _
o
_ . _ . ., J.
.-L $ .,-
t 28 l
< 4. A concrete barrier with a top elevation of 127 feet must be
~
( - built at _ a distance of about 2 feet outside the present turbine room wall (See Figure 13). This barrier would extend from the main transformers toward the west and around to the air shaf t located on the west side of the turbine room.
(
[ 5. Prior to high water, the neutralizar tank, condensate storage 4* tank and fire water storage tanks must be filled for stability.
I 4
9.3 Likelihood of Surge to Elevation 121.4 9.3.1 The unlikelyhood of the surge reaching a level of 121.4 feet is
( is verified in the Dames and Moore Report dated July 13, 1973.
Because of this confidence, Shetion 9.0 of this report has been i included only to answer question 5(d) of Enclosure 1 of the AEC
, letter to Florida Power Corporation dated March 12, 1973.
,I 9.3.2 It is concluded that the protection described above for a surge level of 121.4 feet represents the same assurance of safe pro-tection as described for the 117.4 foot surge level. However, it is further concluded that a lesser but. safe level of protection j could be accomplished, based on AEC requirements , by elimination of protection item 1 above and increasing the height of water-(
tight doors and concrete barriers to elevation 129 feet, thus i
< liminating a significant cost penalty in protection schemes i
5-between surge levels of 117.4 and 121.4 feet.
4 I
1 h
s a
GILBE R T A S S OCI A T E S. INC g-wm~--
.-~.a- + e- .. e,
-.q- -,w,
,m,___- -,
-. -. ~~
7..
REEERENCES l Report - Verification Study of Dames & Moore's Hurricane Storm Surge Model with Application to Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Plant, Crys tal River, Florida, Dames and Moore , -Inc. for Florida Power Corporation.
, Report of Model Tests to Determine Fxtreme Runup at Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River Site, Department of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering, Florida Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station, University of Florida, April, 1969.
Holtz, W. C. and Walker, F. C. Soil-Cement as Slope Protection for Earth Dams, Journal of the toil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE Proceeding, Vol.- 88, SM-6, December, 1962.
t Wilder, C. R. and Koller, E. R. Soil-Cement Protection for Earth Dams ,
World Dams Today, Japan Dar. Association, p. 260-264, Novembe r, 1967.
i Soil-Cement Slope Protection for Earth Dams, Portland Cement Association g
1965.
i 4
G I L B E R T A S S O C I A T E S. I N C w
' - we r s - -*~w - , ..s , .+ .
...; . , . . . _ . _ , m_ .
..%,y_, ye..m,,,__ __
.-:w= -
- n. g T
r to 7..
t L
4 f
4
'I r
i i .-
l
\
i 1
b 8
L t._
i l
1 1
i
)
l
.n. .-. . . - .
. , , , 7 .. ,,j y ,
- . , m 4 .
- ,'e7 .w w e% spa .
, _.---;~~-- -
---w.
d
^
g,-.iy '- ,
r -
-7, ,
..1 * -
.2~ e
_ -a v .?(_,--
L-Q'
- _
t'
+ s 2
,.?..., ;.
's jr c --
' , g? "
- 1 ,
A #
- h
_x 1.F.b v
- i. 1-
..p',
M -
j t
+
, '?
1' l 1
+~' ..
r g-w
}.
e
- t
, 't 4-t
-- l.
i
-4.
u
(. .
f - s-1 1
+
J
, m .
), ,'
4 1 I
-\
-[
r t ' (.
3 t ..
i.l' s: :,
t -
si G I L B E R T A S S OC I A T E S.' I N C.
- - - --1. s I. ^
h r _ ?.2'- * ***
- 4- n. -.3 ',-+c._,64.
,g g y,. , ,j__
g.
4 WAVE RUNUP AND OVERTOPPING FOR PROFILE 3 TESTS (Stepped Slopes , Maximum Elevation 118.5 Feat) f Depth Depth Elevation Elevation- lof Max. of Median Median Tide of Max of Median Over- Over- Wave 5' Level Runup Runup topping. topping Height t '
Run No. (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (In.) (In.) (Ft.)
i 29 118 118.5* 118.5 66 45 13.4 30 118 . 118.5 118.5 56 '45 13.4 j 31 116 118.5 118.5 25 20 12.9 e 32 116 118.5 118.5 31 21 12.9 i
33 114 118.5 118.5 8 1 12.6 34 114 118.5 118.4 6 0 12.6 :
I ! l-35 112 117.8 116.4 0 0 13.1 l l
' i 36 112 117.3 116.3 0 0 13.0 l
37 110 115.4 114.3 0 0 12.4' i
t 38 110 115.6 114.7 0 0 12.2 1 39 108 114.0 112.1 0 0 12.4
(. 40 108 113.3 112.1 0 0 12.3 t
l 41 106 110.0 - 109.2 0 0 12.5 42 106 110.0 209.6 0 0 12.6 f
, ! 43 104 106.2 105.4 0 0 12.1 44 104 106.2 105.4 0 0 12.1 i
I j
- Runup in excess of 118.5' , shown as overtopping in Columns 5 and 6 j TABLE 1 4
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3
! WAVE RUNUP MODEL TESTS l PROFILE 3 l TEST RESULTS i .
I WLRERT AS40014tte. 91t -d
.ey www- **
g .
- p. ,
- nTe ,, =,c _, .. .
.g37 p y , ,; .
gg,e
. - . ~ . . - - . - . . _ . . . . - - . - - . - - . . . - - . . ..
RUNUP AND OVERTOPPING FOR PROFILE'4 TESTS (Stepped Slopes, Maximum Elevation 124 Feet)-
Depth Depth Elevation Elevation of Max. of Median Median Tide of Max of Median Over- Over- Wave I f Level Runup- Runup topping topping Height t] Run No. (Ft.) (Ft.) (Ft.) (In.) (In.) (Ft.)
- - 45 120 124.0* 124.0 40 31 16.2 46 120 124.0 124.0 40 30 16.2 47 118 124.0 124.0 11 3 15.4 .
48 118 124.0 124.0 7 0 14.5 49 116 122.8 121.8 0 0 14.8 50 116 122.9 121.8 0 0 14.8 51 114 120.1 118.6 0 0 14.8 52 114 119.5 118.6 0 0 15.0 53 112 117.9 116.6 0 0 14.5 54 112 '117.6 116.6 0 0 14.8
- Runup in excess of 124.0' shown as overtopping, in Columns 5 and 6
(
\
s TABLE 2 CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3-WAVE RUNUP MODEL TESTS
, PROFILE 4 L
TEST REF'"TS 4 t a
C i t h E R T A S $ 0 C I A T E S, I N C
. , f",WT - 1.P' *fI
, . . . '"$ T.{Q IWKP @#
r -
u; RUNUP FOR PROFILES 5 TESTS (Layout No. 3, Section B.by GAI)
Elevation Elevation Median Tide of Max of Median Wave Level Runup Runup y*]
Run No. (Ft.) (Pt.) (Ft.)
Height (Ft.)
l4 4 55 118 124.2 123.1 12.2 56 118 123.8 123.1 12.2 57 116 122.1 121.0 11.6 58 116 122.2 121.0 11.6 59 114 119.8 119.1 12.9 60 114 119.5 118.9 12.9 61 112 117.1 116.1 11.9 62 112 116.1 115.1 11.2 i
63 110 114.4 113.3 10.5 64 110 113.9 113.0 11.0 t
i f
(
i
, TABLE 3 CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3
, WAVE RUNUP MODEL TESTS PROFILE 5
- ~
TEST RESULTS i
CitaE RT AS$0Ci tTE$ INC
% 6
- --ews**erewm = r- *we . - y ++y- , ~ee -. y .+ 7
, ,y ya p -+7]g
., g,. -,, -
- a .,_a.n u _ -- - - - -- -- - -
- = " " - " " ~
r
.f "
t i
Max. Dry Optimum Compressive Design Mix Density, PCF Mois ture , % Strength, psi gg,ngu
- , 7-Day Cylinders' 113.1 14.9 865 112.6 5
14.5 955 112.6 14.5 845 1 I' 14-Day Cylinders 113.3 14.9 1070
._. 113.3 14.9 1030 113.5 14.7 1040 j 28-Day Cylinders 1150 1095 1180 -
i Mix "B" f' ; 7-Day Cylinders 113.0 14.7 885 t i 113.1 14.7 1040
, 112.8 14.8 960 14-Day Cylinders 111.1 14.8 1250 110.9 15.2 1170 111.4 15.6 1230 28-Day Cylinders 1420 l 1360 i 1475 1 ,
I
- j. Note: Design "A" 286 lb. Type II cement @ Max. Density with OW/C + 1-2%
Design "B" 312 lb. Type II cement @ Max. Density with OW/C + 1-2%
a s
h 6
i TABLE 4 CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 i
'L-SOIL-CEMENT DESIGN MIXES OCTOBER, 1969 I.
G IL R E R T A 5 8 0CI A T E S, INC '
L
we-<- w y x , ra y.mw.t;,# . ww c2 aw.:~ u .. - d. 4w :C~Mww/meahs.'
f .;
- . Li y 4 4
(c Specimen Age (Days) Size Strength - psi i <
' l .
1500; psi concrete 7 .6" x 12" 155
?. .
- 1500~ psi concrete- ,
7 -6" x'12"' 175 9
Soil-Cement Mix A 14 4" x 4.6" .185 r:
. Soil-Cement Mix B. 14' 4" x 4.6'- 215
.I' Soil-Cement Mix A 28 -
210 1
f Soil-Cement Mix B 28' -
-235
.i, f
4 4
I I k ,
l i
s
'i ,
'$ n 1 e r
s 1
.\.
, a I
i TABLE 5 i COMPARISON OF. SOIL-CEMENT t'
WITH 1500 PSI CONCRETE ~IN SPLITTING. TENSION (ASTM C-496)
Gainer T 458081 ATE 4 I N C.
l k
l i
1
a.~; a ,- -a , s. - w x .a ~ ,,,a :a _ ~. . .. ~ ..c . -.~>v-. u.we.w w ww w m m r~
-i Mix No. 1 Mix No. 2 Mix-No. 3 i Property 3.0 Bags /cu yd 4.0 Bags /cu yd 4.5 Bags /cu yd Compressive Strength 7-Day cylinders (Av).
1025 psi 1800 psi -
, 14-Day cylinders (Av) 1060 psi 1600 psi -
28-Day cy11nders (Av) 1460 psi .1935 psi 2800 psi 90-Day cylinders (Av) 1850 psi- 2122 psi 2960 psi f
i Moisture Content
- 7
- 7-Day cylinders (Av) 11.2% 11.5% -
14-Day' cylinders (Av)
~
10.9%- 11,8% -
7 28-Day cylinders (Av) 11.1% 11.1% 10.5%
} 90-Day cylinders (Av) 10.8% 11.4% 11.2%
~
f l Molded Weight i
7-Day cylinders (Av) 117.5 per 120.6 pcf -
i t
14-Day cylinders (Av) 116.3 pcf. 120.0 pcf -
28-Day cylinders (Av) 117.8 pcf 120.3 pcf 120.0 pcf 90-Day cylinders (Av) 118.6 pcf- 120.3 pcf 120.1 pcf i
-i
(
- l.
f
(.
I a
(
i V. :
.{ TABLE 6 CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 t SOIL-CEMENT DESIGN MIXES NOVEMBER, 1969 t
C I L B F R T A S $ c c l 4 T E s, I M r.
U k 4
,, - g n =,s,
.(?
-(
( n. .
Property Unit Mix No. 1. Mix'No. 2 Mix No. 3 Cement Content lbs/cu yd 219- .251 282-1-
Cement Content % by Wt. 7 8 9 Density (ASTM D558) PCF 117.3 118.5 117.9 Optimum Moisture % 13.5 13.4 13.7
.s Vol. Change-(ASTM D559) % 1.2 1.1 1.1
('
i Wt. Loss (ASTM D559) '% .1.5 .1.8~ 0.6
(.
Compressive Strengths r
I' ' ,
7-Days 490 560 650
'28-Days 720 960 1080
! 90-Days 930 1100 1240 I.
i i
i f
4 r
i
'I. TABLE 7 CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 i'
SOIL-CEMENT DESIGN MIXES
(- JULY 29, 1970 i ,-
g.
l.
{
- f. I t a E R T A S $ 0 C I A T E 9, I N C.
{
,, ,~ n . .
3.,.,, w., .y ; n n peny,,,mmme,.-7
.y. --
MM,.. 'mM' O
+
w C
C D
r 4
O e
N e
m nu 4
4 b
i
- -- - . . , , _ ..- ,_ m ,,,,_ ~ _ ,
e- v _
_ - -- . ?*- . . _ . _7:=%em-qm , ,
_ , _ , _ , ,_ (,,,
,~
FIGURES I'
I 4
l r
t I
i k
I h
i G I L B E R T A S S O C I A T E S, a er i
9 4
-,r a
.--h
i '
- i ,' i , , ,
}
1 q
< . I MILE + TO 4
i ,
~
ll1 _
11 2.5' _
112.5' _
VARIES m
_ 6 6' _
800'1 _
_ BULKHEAD LINE WVWAVE DIRECTION ROAD
}
AUX. BLDG.
ELil9.0
-l b
EL. ll9 ELil33 EL. [l17.4 STILLWATER LEVEL I
g.. a Ith 1 HEAT '
{ EL EL. LOO ATURAL GROUND i EXCH. 98 EL.98 MEAN LOW WATER wecueva 4, Si r :2 \ EL921
~l lNTAKE EL.88
-. DETAIL A weg EL.73 BOTT. INTAKE DENSELY COMPACTED AND STRUCTURE _ _ JR _ _ _ EXISTING E L.67 LIMESTONE RECEMENTED LIMESTONE
\ ti/R/UkHMM VERY HARD AND COMPETENT 4
j 3,000 RS.I. REINFORCED [. Ad' 4
CONCRETE Qig5ggsf nf4 e us yp;7:e:sQipe >
m
~
SOIL CEMENT %v W _F n <* N d a$j)J o . $(@w f
/ ; -- -
H 1
z o '~ y ,.v9 2
o zy
- ss c u, 8: h j, U - 4'TYR-
.3 f ! . , ,
x n -e pgy x w;, y
- y- . g .;
\ hy5C Nb'
" ' T
=2EE=m tkQ}d@h d!,$$h
-. x c
... > C 1 mo<qz -
U u
-e
'j1 $
x DETAIL A
?
l PROFILE TESTED RESULTS OF INTEREST 37.5' 35' 608 TID E *
- MAXIMUM I " " ! I T LEVEL OVERTOPPING
.- E L.118.5 1A (FT.) LEPTH (IN.)
.112
- k. EL.98 E L.100 118 88 112 8 ERODABLE SOIL SURFACE, PRIOR TO HEAVY WAVE ATTACK l
37.5' , 35' . , 60s _
TID E MAXIMUM LEVEL OVERTOPPING 1
,. E L.124 (F T.) DEPTH (IN.)
2
, E L.112 1 E L.98 E L.100 114 7 .
ERODABLE SOIL SURFACE, PRIOR TO HEAVY WAVE ATTACK
?
i ,
37.5' 35' 60' TIDE MAXIMUM LEVEL OVERTOPPING E L.118.5 % (FT.) DEPTH (IN.)
h E L.95 E L.100 118 66 114 6 STEPPED SLOPES, AFTER SOIL SURFACE ERODED ADDITIONAL STEPS NECESSARY TO ELIMINATE OVERTOPPING E L.132.4 % -
m 35' 60' TIDE MA M M LEVEL
- OVERTOPPING
[ (FT.) DEPTH (IN.)
, E L.110
, 120 40 00 E L.95 118 7 STEPPED SLOPES, AFTER SOIL SURFACE ERODED STEPS CONTINUE ABOVE 118.5 TO OBTAIN ACTUAL RUNUP PEAKS 42.5' 30' 120 ' TIDE
, _ ELEY.OF LEVEL MAX.RUNUP N (FT.) (FT.)
E L.118.5
.e 116 122.2 h
EL.96.5 E L.100 114 119.8 LAYOUT NO. 3, SECTION B, WITH STEPPED SLOPES 112 117.1
- PROTOTYPE DIMENSIONS CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 6
l
- TIDE LEVEL AT WHICH OVERTOPPING STARTED MODEL PROFILES TESTED, RESULTS OF INTEREST FIGURE 2 5HEET 1 n,_----
.,ng- vg ,y p-.
l
, ; , r:- - -,
a _yvyg w y~
I l
PROFILE 1 - SMOOTH SLOPES WITH MAXIMUM BERM ELEVATION 118.5 FT.:
i NO OVERTOPPING OCCURRED FOR TIDE LEVELS RANGING FROM 104 TO 110 FT.
OCCASIONAL OVERTOPPING STARTED WHEN THE TIDE LEVEL WAS 112 FT., BECOMING CONTINUOUS FOR TIDE LEVELS FROM 114 TO 118 FT. MAXIMUM OVERTOPPING DEPTH DEPTH NOTED WAS 88 INCHES.
PROFILE 2 - SMOOTH SLOPES WITH MAXIMUM BERM ELEYATION 124.0 FT.:
{ NO OVERTOPPING OCCURRED FOR TIDE LEVELS UP TO 112 FT. SLIGHT OVERTOPPING WAS RECORDED WITH A 114 FT. TIDE LEVEL. CONTINUOUS OVERTOPPING OCCURRED I
~
I FOR TfDES OF 116 TO 120 FT., WITH A MAXIMUM DEPTH OF 40 INCHES.
[ PROFILE 3 - STEPPED SLOPES WITH MAXIMUM BERM ELEVATION 118.5 FT.:
NO OVERTOPPING OCCURRED FOR TIDE LEVELS FROM 104 TO 112 FT. SLIGHT OVER-TOPPING HAPPENED WITH A TIDE LEVEL OF 114 FT., BECOMING CONTINUOUS AT TIDES OF 116 AND 118 FT. MAXIMUM OVERTOPPING DEPTH RECORDED WAS 66 INCHES.
PROFILE 4 - STEPPED SLOPES WITH MAXIMUM BERM ELEVATION 124.0 FT.:
SLIGHT OVERTOPPING BEGAN WHEN THE TIDE LEVEL WAS 118 FT. AT A 120 FT. TIDE, THE MAXIMUM OVERTOPPING DEPTH WAS 40 INCHES. IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE ALL OVERTOPPING (NEGLECTING SPLASH-UP), IT WAS NECESSARY TO INCREASE THE 124 FT.
ELEVATION WITH STEPS UP TO AN ELEVATION OF 132.4 FT.
PROFILE S - STEPPED SLOPES, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT DESIGH THAN PREVIOUSLY
( TESTED (LABELED LAYOUT NO. 3, SECTION B BY gal):
, STEPS WERE CONTINUED ABOVE THE BASE ELEVATION OF 118.5 FT. IN ORDER TO
- PREVENT OVERTOPPING FOR THIS SERIES OF TESTS. MAXIMUM RUNUP PEAKS WERE SLIGHTLY LESS FOR THIS PROFILE THAN FOR OTHERS TESTED.
t t
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 RESULTS OF MODEL TESTS i FIGURE 2 SHEET 2
~
-___________- __- -_ _ I_ T _ _ -__ T -
~ " ~ ~ ^ ~
-. . - * , - --. . .-. . -...re% . , __...# _
%. . . ...a....,2a.JL'. 'am._
. ,... g f= 'l-S - -
r T
.II. m . - - --. .
9** a. "R-I .: .F .N QQT*,-1.:--
++++ $ *:T.
444: ? -P; :=
- m:r .
-.. 2
.++++a, 2;+:.- +
, .m.
-- r
+14..u__
++++a : :+++b++: ::. - +: +
t+++ ,
.Eg ++9g.++ , ,-
m_ : .... -.
l' 44+yh,1 i - T' :
++++a,++. +,,'
~_ g
+.+,- ++. --
.g w D. - +**t 54n,,,+4+. .+++ g4. &. - t : .- -
- m.+4 w
- '_ y. 9
,:'- - +*t-+'*+
++;---
- +
- i: :- : ; _ .k++\ +++& ++++ -x _ -
4*+t+.**+*1
.1..
1 i.tA
- t.,-
- 1:
- s. : -
- - .r -
i 1
u4. z: . :
- I!! "
w1 _-s ,
m 1.. - _ _ __
- s
"==u.+am -
=su pg . _ .. M. _ _ l( ( +4. . g ,. . . . . , . '. :
-m,.w-4.5+-.4.+; ..y.3 v.3
..+++ -
e i 11b+ AW-
- e. .
,. im ;- _ .. . 1 w
^*'g_ g p.+.M 5-i. hf f___ -
- 44. :
'M ?k-T :== i E !
.:.:s_a :
.-b-e-H t1-+4*t ~i'hk+ ' N* Eh *
!N !b '
444+ 4++ :
a44h.*t- k !
im *2'r :
M..+;:: :
- *.++ ;
- i. 1---- .- .
j u.. d.--@i'&.*.
--.4 & .+ .;
t+t -
- .y g
. ,,e4:,,,
.4 4 kI, '
N
.+
T : .. ,
- ~?
+511 +4+4 : ^- #**$**'( ;'+:
p y
---11
'++*++++. ; .' ;'+.. i+' H iE
(; :gg ; g ; ^
- m. . - - e
.o*
+++.<+,++ : . .:* ' -
---\.++ . + + ' , . 4g.,..
.*;. +,'
'*++y- . .+f*4 ,-.+++
^
b V+++.' +
si : .
.s' : -t v
++.+ ----+++.+++; * '
.+-+++.- .. .+ +
- +, ..-
^ ;:_ .
- .+ .++ .
++++ : ..:
.'...I N J
+
+. + - .*. +++ --
.+ + + . .. + + + .y.+ ++ .
, y
~+** L***
Y 5g,)i%
.2.
i a++ ;p ..
a kai-++4 h
Lh8 i - 1,s t_m ; '_..
.+.+ ,
+ - -
s i.---
a
++^
++ # :: . _. - e_--
hM
'N $:
---'+bh**i- ;;: --* .. .,o. +M...$--
-6
', . , W e--.
' * + + + +++j
+v. . :
+,+. . - -:::; .g
+- ++, y ; , w
".-.\..4-.*k. +e-
^ .
.?+! f++++'+ .+9++
- aar -- s - i
- **+;
[f -
'**+k*+*+b'?
41+.- *a+.-+*. 11+1.M *II':4* !~ +
+++. :-- --\5 I
,I.
- s I
- ad
- mum
, L :i::su..
- : u- 1 -em -
g 1 _s I i nE-W
.~
tt-++4 '
I'r i !
- i
- . ?. : l.: T -
o i - t 11 ....
++& -
1
..t:i s:11.
<s.
1 1
- 4. .,444- 3 1 : -
- i
.1 1,1'11 ss ;7 g: .
w 1
- 1
.. ,1 r 4. .
1 I
q - . -.s-1 :: [
-.s'M'%hE_ _ _:
^ ^ -
Ys 1:
.Nii -
's! I i^i s
'tt*+ 4 i 'sN N:
i' 1 to
': 1 4
r 1
[hN- NN ! '
("bmE:
- m1
..I
+9,.4 :
7 i:i_:s,.mN
- N .
. N ._N
^-
s : I aN d I;'d .
l: -
. iI 11 ...
.s:.,g;g ;,
._g..s-
.m4u-.24. ..tw i
-g.g gy 4m44 4 4+ L.-. ! i aaAa -
g wue g Y O CO N D Y w N N = w O O w w wi= w w== w o-RUNUP & OVERTOPPING ELEVATION (FT.)
- u. CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 RUNUP AND OVERTOPPlHG VS TIDE LEVEL FIGURE 3 w -en we +s-a% -.i-ow,e % ,%-a , , , , _ __ _ , , ,, ,,, _, ,_ .
L
_ 3e , , , , , ,
i ! i i f f I .
l 29.4' uly^,
4 -,
i .
..'I
! \
! I I II i
' ' ! I- is 28 PUX PARAMETERS '
!/
! I ' i ! \ l 1
I ! I 'I ) 3 R = 24 NAUTICAL MILES '
! i i / s i V,= 20 KNOTS i
l !! ! l / \, , -
i , /
! ! l ! f 1i a i i i i J A y
- I I i i / / iX 1
' ! ' ' 3 ' E . /~ t 11 1.
{ g4 ! I \
t ii t i i i ! i ! ! . . t r/ 1 i ! i . 6 i , # 4 . i, I i ;Ii ;f i f g g TOTAL STILLWATER LEVEL. iii /
i: if i
' ' i (A+B) i Y , !
- -f r
/1 1
\
\
i ! i! / ! 3 J 1 m
I i ! ! I~i! / T 3: ! l . i ! !/ i i/ 11
' ! ' ' ! I' 't
'E 20 ! i ! 'I t
! , if t/ g j y '
l l l l /A-/' j' am i *
! !/ Ir
- ' ! ./ / i
' ! I fii W
w ,l .
/ /!l .
! i i j l I ~~)
' ' i ' ' ' i '>) - I 'i I~%, i t HURRICANE SURGE ( A).
= 16 . * ,' , !/ 1 + ,i i
, ca i i
!/'
~
! . I! f [f t I
= '
' ' i ! t/ 1R ! !
> I i i /: i / i i. i i t j
3i ' ! / ~ f /t i i ii l
, ud ' ' ! ' I fi 4 !) . i t i, ,
1 m ! l ' i'i ' i /i!/ +1 !!
l w !
' . t '
i i / I/ 1 ei j ! ,l ! ! ,' lf / ,l!
. $g II i lil !! M-/ ? Ii ij l
= '
!' i il! a. 1 i I
i i,
! !+" Y/l!l .,
i i i i
i!
(w a /
i
! i Ii i
i
!! !! * ; ! t i i ! 1 l l l! ! A ll li l!
8 I I llI!, ! -'
d,ili i i Il !
! l
. tif
. , i ! i, ,
i I I ! l i *i j j
' ' ! ' i tf i 5 ! , , , i ,
i e i / ' i i r i i i M ii . ! , l,ASTRONOMICALTIDE(B) t i t /I i; i ! i ifi .
iijil l l fii i
++;
i !! i~ i iiitil ',
f I I f ]
4
/ ii , i i a irt,l f i w _ 'l ;
4 f! I i if ? I i i / ,t . g -
!M /ii
'! Ii ! i ii 6 L, ir i '
! i ii 7 j
, ,, K it i i ! p# i f
l i
i 0
14 16 18 20 22 24 28 TIME (H00M) SINCE HURRICANE CROSSED CONTINENTAL SHELF CRYSTAL RIV3R UNIT 3 STORM SURGE HYDROGRAPH, PMH g_
FIGURE 4 i
s-
- ~~ -~r~~---c ....,n . . _ . , _ _ , . _
., .._ _ ._ ._ ,_ _. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ . . . _ . . . . _._.m.;_. _ . . ~ .
t t
180 , , , ,, , .,,,,
, ,.,,,,. , 1 , , , . ; , 30 14 i .WlHD COMPONENT i! ' i *
.! 6ii' i t ! Iii ! - i ! ! 'i i
~i i ..ii . , i . . ; 1 .
'i i i w
^
FOR F = 9 NAUT. MILES j - ,
i
- i; I l l!'l f . ,
l i . ,
. i I i e ,.. i i
- [M *'* I M,e i I I N.i y1 i
i 8 !I N l2
! f f
! i i
l t
i
- ; WIND COMPONENT
- i i FOR F = 5 NAUT. MILES A' Q' '~H7l 6 '
, i l
i t
i i I
i 150 j ; 1 f_f , , ,
ii ; ! rg!i i , ; i .i i , , ! ! i i i ; , ,
' 8! i . I (: i i ! !
! i! . i ! ! i . I I
i I
I
- p. _
p! ' ii ! t ii i i i 2
i . ' _!
i
!ii I
i
_L I #
! ii !ii i !, H$ = SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT.
ll:l; y _ gi l j l l l T.$ = $1GNIFICANT WAVE PERIOD ii r,N/i i ii , i F = FETCH LENGTH ----
E g 120 , ,;j , ,, , ,, , ,,,, , , , , , ,
20 p o
} n. . i 1, -
i ia 4 i iiii ii,i i .
i ,
i wz a j ii
~
I i
'. a.
i
. 1 i
ii i .ii r I i !
i i
i
__ "8
-w z%
i_ I! i i wo ri ! i r i ! i
.fia , ,
.i ,
i i . .i. .i 4 . . z o zz i i ! .it . + i ;H FCR F = 9 NAUT. MILES:::: oo -
.f Ow i i .
4 I
s
'/
I q: . 1 !!
i i 1 !i i!
!! t i
! ii t i
i f. . $. , , i 1 , , i , . -
gJE i i i l i _ . i i !
~
i .
i t
- f
- iI!! ' .i i i i
!e i
! i 1 w$.
z O 90 -
! ! ' 'I ! W Q-
$$ i b/l i, i i . 1 ! ii L bddd lM l l $"
! ='
Dg ,
i
~i-l
+/! f
- 'i': -
i
+---
i -
/* &- !:
xi!
j l l'%'illN!
i . ~ ^ ii x i- i h
z g 5 73 i!i i ll [1. i '
"/ # , , i iHS FOR F = 5 NAUT. MILES j l ,
l 5Z i
w i 1 -
ifLf;!i
, 4
, j ifi t i
.t
+
! i i !. i.! I i
! EM i
i . ! i 1 , i
, i! ! . ! i i ! 4 , i i zu 60 ,' , i 9Z
- - 7: ' '.,
! ' ! i '
!/ i r' i i 1 i
!i ' 10
- O
!i : is ji .!
I ! t i /
.T5 FOR F = 9 NAUT. MILES ' 'i l ,
m i f.[I M i 1
! .I ii i i '! '!! [l . ! ! / *///I l ' -n
- _ - -- . . .-- s e_ - -- _
s/i.
, \\
w
\
i
==, e , ,p ',' y,/ ,/ _! l ;i v<.oo _ .. } / / "'"*'"'t _
- ,"c^ ,C _
d';; / j 1-[
~
i . ... d[/[g'
$t m ,. . .
[
p
/
r..=: :r - \
,r A
---w -- . . /_
~~ i , ,; . s
/ E l_L / 5l;--
F--
- -= '
-,n-,n--
. .oo O m g ~_ ,
m .-- ,
e -_
. c-- ;
.mo.ns
%_- / __ _ -
wa.: ' ' ... wm vue.in s - ; p . .
wa.? . ]
~
^
i ! .
G u, . .
[ g e .s n - , . . . . , -
co m =
> ==
. B.*00
[
- c-- ---
( .. ,.. T . .
. i ..co i !
. : .e I=:='l n
==
=
.K i
(
i -- - -
3, j . e, n .
....;; ! 4 p. .
- g / I Ct ,
4 +' q ~. - Pdw, \ r Q' ! {' s . e. ' V ,I '
,/'/ \
f, \ <
_ _ ., . w .,.
\
~.1 u u- ,----
--- ,n, ,
i.
\ p, 3 STEPPED CONC.ETE SLOPE b-- . _
g
-~g y 1 s er.co _x -p 1 qq--- _.-- A_-- _ -
O m ,.
j~ -" ^
go g s_
/) -
%d zowE O A219- _ _ ._ir.?M i
\
o h *
, w :
in :
I '].t -
~
. -- S 4*00 5 ~ ' '
t2" rg: j , . +
M0 s i
g 4
g I ; \
~ ,' j w
V s n oo
- I I
.. _ 8 p
=m ,.-
2 m 00
. n .l?- =7,-~ / y ,q
>~
,J.,, .bY we W _
i
/ /
/
J
/
/ sg-
!/[/[
n
/ H,
/
f W 4 Estv.arer ,
l[*
E
// Efl s f[
/
l .
/ J1 ll i'
/
/ y
/1 ){5:
3 20 00
-l OBUQUE PRO,7ECTON Or TERIMtNub or STEPeto CONCMTE EMBANKMENT we ma6s a
1 s
y . - i ,
n ai g i 1 [
1
,,,,,,, i m at. .~ _
ru m e, oct s ..... :
Fu T,*
- g i
, . - yg - I g
t
- MU _ - [- 4 cA $
u.mv w.,"r :
i.
h ~M lomes m reLL m EL hos I'9T** **^OE IL8*** }
u.w .J um. . SFCTtute C-C r ILL
.e kDE *M Lmt_ _ g acao pg.g ogsseromCEO NI v .,,-
-8 m .
a w u .n O moasaen l ;;:-
"!r
^
'I DETAlt. t
"~
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 PLOT PLAN j FIGURE 7 l 4
e 0 N
) 9 9 e 4 9 9 8 9 @
U ~* ~
4 ,
(~~
g l _n_ . , g I1 r,. .., s.,+ .
c, c.
l -
~r "
r_
e l7u ll r., , s- ,w ---
3 3 a,- e- o v it
\) , --
4%
u ne- N 7 ,
N ,
c--
,_,..s<..
- M WE 6F.
t..,'u.'a c u. '".J'.*J."' I'6
- ((f _
[ __
h r- . ..
D** 3 !. i.
cw w , :s I I I,I l l . ________...;
(,
l.*
i a s..
. Jp ~~e 6-
,-m='=~=
1: - . ~ - -
AM L_
~*
T
-m ~
.a... x[g f ... g .,
--a
~
e ~4 ..
==*. . ._ e c__ j E i '.- :
e s,..~ r.r s,,m r, t S g
O c @
4 V ..~e c_ - ,- -m g
__J "h :s c .
I
%m C m R ~~
4 L-
_q lb .m n_._
b IL
_v--
r
<W.
.D n_J Ln
_.g
- -O .
" 4 0*T D *D'T A W6 b CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 PLAN WATER SEALS WATER. TIGHT DOOR LOCATIONS FIGURE 8 I p
HYDROMETER AN ALY SIS SIEVE AN A LY SIS TIME READINGS NOS. U.S. ST AND ARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 25 Hrs.4 5' 7 Hrs. IS' 60 Men 19 Min 4 Men I Man- 200 10 0 50 30 16 10 8 4 3/8" 3/4" l- l/2" 3" 5"6" 8" c0 -_
< s O y
,s - ,- -.. - -
~
90 ~l ' ~~ ' ~~~~
~' ' -
'O BONNY AVERAGE -/V' - j
' f / - -
~
80 DURING CONSTRUCTION <A. ' '
1 r i -
20
~' -
i l Sk s" ;
70 I
/ /
Y
/W -
s 3o i ,'
- s -si s"- s s
60 is e s s 4o O - 11 l
/
s' s/ g s'
i O
W
$ so il FW I y
40
/
/ ! ,
-Y~ CRYSTAL RIVER 8- -
ZONE 111 l _ so[$
so w y MERRITT __ // // 5 w
- 11. 2 , o hEDIUM ~- s --f,f / r; E 30 v 1 - 7o$
W vi if i a L '. u r I r 'y i e
E g
20 /, I ,' 80 r, - er .
F FA , l 1 i / __ E 10 'f, _ " ,' -
', 90 g i O
80 0 h h 5, k o ho,0 N 9I 9 D9 " " ' ** 9 OO O
.002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .149 .297 .590 1.19 2.38 4.76 9.52 19 .1 38 1 76.2 127 152 200 OfAMETER OF PA R TICL E IN MILLIMETERS b wO F o .a<
O r" m m ~4 vi > g >
-oOF O m C
2-m<
>.4Ea-mMZm e 1 -4 m QEC m xE
< m -<
m*u m
- C _ ___ _ _ ___ ___ _ __ _______ _ __ __ _ _ _ - - - - - - ---
{
1 l
.-.,.m ..w -
[
I i
~~~~~~ ~
3.000 l a
m-!.
~ ' " ~
~f:f.:
- 2: e .- i
" 4 m 2.000 m -
= _
.. c[: c.
p jr - - . ...
- 4. . ..
CD :
= -
=
m .-
.2: .
.. .--- i
= .. , . --.-
d
---L 2
,. r -.- .. -
w ---- -- .. .
,...7 .g.,
g,,. ......d
=
-~
~
- - 'a ---=_.. . -
..t-.
w 1*000- :==:rr -
..- -- 4-.
m ----...&-
- ,w ","..-
, xt' -:T[ , .
- [I4!:-
a ;:::1.0:: -: y .#
a ---
C3 a'~.-
~~~~'" ~ "
,((2-
--s',2i 5 l
I ,,,,
4
".-' , .1_..*.=
@ a" p
-...-- p d# p [ ,,M
_a.-e
- 22. ,.m F
( ..,.
p 'd
-2:'CfhP .
- .ZZ]".a""'_ZZZZ"-~' ' ' : ~C
'p,a ~"
=== ~~
l 500 n-. __.
I I
7 14 28
(
l
P 4
l L: :.t:':::.t.
$ .: 121:i!!!~.":::. ~
p: } r:r"".jfft: w_.,
- 7:tt:!jn:::
u}..4-..}._.. m _ q,g g_ggggj gg_ q.
.9, ...u- ..
=._._ ,;==
y
.gi _____=
__ ___ _ [ _;._ - _ y 33333: :g P ' 1 jil ij W~ :.$ ::
~
r+, p - 4.0 BAGS - 376 f/cy 12%
- t~::
- p __~-~ ::=
4fLl! i::ti !!!! z.. 1 m_-.:u- titin----- -- -
'-~
y.,!!'ji,!L}.i.i:-_1c_.:.!.b:-a.t?
.a t -- g3 ____.: . ;7- - 3.0 8AGS - 282 f/cy 9%
- --p-- -
a c..4,., ___. m --
.g4 -:e --'_.
.. .kg.....p =
= ;g.... , ...f..p
- -x::._2_ --
_ 74. .jn. 4-e
!:h - _o.---- -
- B - 312 f/cy 1 1
1
^---
}. t..J:'._:::::1.7_
=- !
--;4__m_.-.
i .- - A - 286 f/c
- #3 - 282 f/ycy 9%
w m. _.--
-.m n 9 fL,,.._ ____--
-~__-.....
1 u u __ ~,t3. .6, __.__--
- :::n: --
g.._---- __..--- - #2 - 251 f/cy 8%
,.,.--==r _p, . + ;--
;,, s --a
...a_.____..-- - fl - 219 f/cy 7%
i_ _jp.-- ,,,.n-. _j 3 , --- -
.e----
y -
,. . eme
'""~" """~__ f #.:IT).--- ........g,,,,-j. " .d
;g;p., r .--p_M
- I ...... '....
.t II::
.: .::: mf:. -
, _ :: :{.
W~ 'N;.. b,_ ?
"~ ~~~ ~ ~
h...?"' *_ 1Y
.j ::x::.
.-- f 7th :
- tt.1 :x.
..g, -.
} ...-- -._-... .,-.
2((
'!$':'-Z .
~~~"
~
- .tt:: ::
. .. . EI f
- tr : t... +.--.. -
1 i 90 365 TIME IN DAYS CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 Soll- CEMENT DESIGN MIXE5 FIGURE 10 I
i "" l an A
.-_l 'N ( "
-\
N i\ h th
\ i N
( \ iN \. c1 s A , - T. A i A 'ti t A
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ T
\ T
;T. % N
'\ Mt -
N \l
\ \
\ \
\ <
Aa X ryp ____hs Z2 Ye[I I'p, k$,, N 5 i
'tI N
\
't C
M
\
T't \ >
\ < =
\ \
\ \
g t, :., x
=
=
3 's W
\ *
\,.
\
\
\
E CJ t \
\ 1 H L *\ E
\
ep
\
\
@ 1
= 0 1
\
\ \
\ 't
\
\'t 1
\ \
t \
^
\ =
\ 3
\ k i \
\ 1 i L 1
\
\ \
\ 'i h L m m
)
=
3000 2000 1000 l
)
CollPRESSIVE STRENGTH - PSI l l CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 Soll - CEMENT DESIGN MIXE5 FIGURE 11 r _ , _ . , ...-_%._- -
-+- ~ .-
A_m. *_e-Ae . CEMENT CONTENT - BBLS/C.Y. 471 . 539 .675 .81 0 .945 i i
! 1 I
9 1000 m JL s i /
,f
'f' AL f -
R / b / / F e '/ _ _h ) .l 800 g,7;t,- ,g j - m -/ 1 ..c/ 1 1 y
- h, .r ,
r
- /
M / / Z _#! . J w ( 9F' .3 / g p
#i 7 .1 a ' ' '
600 / f jr { f f f w 'w' ik /
/
k y A V/ dW
~
o
" 400 ,
7 1 L i gC' '
/
/
200 1 0 6 8 10 12 14 CEMENT CONTENT % BY VOLUME CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 Soll - CEMENT MIXE5 7 DAY COMPRE551YE STRENGTH FIGURE 12
r
'(
N h n ,_ C l j
._.._ _. y
- c. 9 TURBINE butLOeseG e
sati .,,w trw%^
# l i u
INTERWFOfATE ORLDNG
]
3 f QEACTOR .', BU5LOtNG W ' e ~._ v\
'. 'f AURTLI A RY l
l -
-!. \ _
- =-- m -
1 l
<%'#d' ops I r.jgpain :: :
2
' e V
l l
, Le 8 '
IIII,IIt_____.__________________' { Wsai*"O l { ( '
'b l
4 N h h
-- A -- c, e es w, eir
- ~
1 9.- .a u a,. -r . EstguS Gmeutett aMsne g gg t , I (', - h i 4m ,w.-. -. .u $' g
*I u
7 Univ rai av t 'o o
~*
e ; g ,,g. ELIV tt9' O' V gLaw sig' o' g _ i f]_10
^
@ A
.t J
" ).,
J l .% A
@ SECTION B R __
SFCTION E-E CECTION F-F SECTION 8,-8,, w ,,,,,,) p ...
-l e CONToot cowotru S
G
+ -
e a ( ,
..e. , -
euitoi e (j 13 O t-l -
-e l
otut c.rweatoe mor. L-OI Ik IL r --a rJLo n _g
.,,,_ _v .e 'I D I gI Irgt Ky D, T(M)Mdb'Ih
\ ,
_ _J CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 PLAN - WATER SEALS - WATER. TIGHT DOOR LOCATIONS FIGURE 13 i
8 8 7 8
; , e .
O"
~
w U E f;
<. g.t .
,/ \. - ~
n i S e co
* \
( s_ __- - _. \', - {--
.au._, i V/' --
._.. a .[
y,a=, g
, > p;H.j{
~
t' 4 c f .. p.. is *i g
,/ t. i x
1;1 (I-i
.- a A'
n, ' ,'/ / . ~~ ,8 gr i
'" wit *"t , -
L . / ',
, so
~
, /- ~'
.a. 1
-a.
e6 ,. . . -. .n .._,# l. l~ : p , n.:::n" .\
, s x
at i.a s s
~
< n i+.is an
- - \ '
/ .
. .I { - ~i 7
_g- .. _ m / ,[ - ,, l ,, k [ed[j[i h ,,. '
' " " * ' ' ~
, 0 g
\
r^ ,_, . M 2
*wa_.; e ,= u s T [I
~
g vv s .a metoies v=. , s g $ g % F h f , E
- s. *e I I
{ _ l'
==
=. %
- ;l -
a, . . . . . i . son.ptc. s 1so so 1
; V \ LL eoo
{ nwi 7 mencvon j e*to*6 e f
]
i , I=.=.1 n= I
\ s .
s$ *1 auseuamv m ustenst t # t
- h. h,w A s reaco i "
; tu ,J m.+ -
n - n
'e*IEit D%N~ ~
-' , ! / I h
5' ', {
\
- E -=3
=- :5 -- = - = fEC j? '
% N
's....__
t'"'5-a ,,,..co _.,_.ygj.. _
,1
=Q.
tar.co .\. _A _M#j ____'s' t..__ - if ]I._ outaas 8 ag. % a vave rwen. a
% W 8 w D - ' - - VM
- { ,,- f zoast c- ELsao tratt'at tj SECTIO' sreco / ;' .
$/ )
% w-a=},/[' V i
bi .h .ss zoeat stoon _ _ 11'St* SECTeo" ot 4 k
)D " D T T
]D ho )m e E2dDSlo
\ l
o g et 8 $
; i
==
a h R e> *
- bl U ~
- j 4f 11 s it.oo
-- K X
. . s ,
z..k y.~ rt t.*L~ r ~. es ~.._ un I h
~ ..
W %* J .l c s
*l
~_ l I V l s ** oo I l t 4 / I
- . . ~' r IY x - -.
/
y,y_j._L f
~-
'// j . 00 V
.im
, , ' / ' '-'/ ]
/,, /
/
f '" //' fi ff8
// <F
'j,4
- ~n aa , ,,, ,_
- .J::
j::'
~
/5 I e
[$*
/_, [ /
l < . "'
/
l 1' i D 2
,' f ;:-
- to 09
/
N 08tequC PROJCCicN Or T IMINW ar Sitppg0 h it cMSANKMENy
/
ws aw wq [gs,2 ^ I E f"m,. c u,, , 9 . _ f,,j . p 'I 2 u ne i b o" % g " "' ' , *;
*'u L*'.. z , g
-n
. j - ,
. 4.x u ..., b ,
< m,,* f** =,r,p,,, .
j h i% g v m...,
$CCTeng q,g h ..o g T_
- m. w mna Act
. * ! . Q acco ms a<>=ro.uo co, c.,,,
(&ggg , ~ 6- - ' B-B M ~ C 5% (a n., 4t % %,' # "C"E E 8 %
,.,. . . l q'{;
k DETAst g CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3
' I PLOT PLAN FIGURE 14 F
**isg, hh.
~ ---- - . ___ _ %+%
f i MXIMUMRUNNELEVATI0Nk. i - riiiirri i .i ,,, , i rii , .i. !x;p.M. 'l l l
.i i iiiil i ! I i i ! I ji i ! TYp*eN 6 X '
d l NEDIANRUNUPELEVAg0h
.! i i i i . iii
! ! ,, iii.
-{' i i
fYxl
! ! _ i
' ' ' ' ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ! '
35 i!4 !
!! ! !,! i .
i l t,+i,'i ri i l, i .
"i '33.' 4 '
MLW-H,+44 i 1 i li ! , ! !!: l '.., MR! , ,- i!.i - . , i, e , ,- 2.- hu.
. i,,,
,iI i i i
i
!;e; i ii:
. i i i
. ' i ! . # i it !
1
!r i , ,
! i V v -4 4-b4! 3. 'N:x i 4'EMBANKhENTELEV.118.5 i 4 !! ! ! ! !
30 a._, ; ; _2 _ _ g' , , i . 1n iiiI LLt ' ' ' p ._ g _i._. ! ' I f_/_L._.
-th,. TOTAL STILLWATER LEVEL L -
A l . li
, i .! , , i 5 Fet -t r ;i, i ;-
lll H+ +H, iF9+ ++-
++ 4' '
- i! i i li ! :; v%,
ii: . -+i r+ r. 41++r i w ii; i .i , l4 /(;, i
.. .. 4, iii--1 .
lll !j: f. 44-4 ba4---
- - +-+_ 4 ,
.4+ . . t 4, - 4 lll FL-4 ;! l ,j m 5 .; ;.
y
- 4. g. .m_gu .3,, ,.
p ,i. ,
- f. x,i _
Q 9 Q [4..gt+ar ,:j4 _h._ ._1 4_p f _._ 4 ! _._j 1- M m p. ~_tg4 %. 7 .~ _. .
- 9. ,_._
l m w ;HF . H r+F lH+ s on > : - . -
-!- l.' i !l /j !,. 1#
2 M C I '
._4 h4 . 7.Q4 , !! ' I
!! ! I!! i i i '
I 8d3 l
** _p49.
m- Hi 'i; ': ,' ; !l rH r 4:'+i'-m. ! i !E, 1 . i , ww , MV W
- w t- i-- T- *-? ,'W ! ii ttbb - -
!l !;; , i4 l 20 oEE li Hr +H/
owv i i lit + r ,1
+t i-F+Ht- i, ,r1 jii !! i i;
, 1 ii. , ~
i, - i . , i f.i - t M+ i M- +r 1 t- ii ! i ii . i
%! i,i i
$yg i
~
- i. --v. : j i j .r r--- .J,i i i
i
'wp ,
i i t-4. '< ' lljf wwe -Nd4-+- 1,Hs
><> i - ir ,1 ,1 i,c
.ac g
m gw ,
,i.
- ~
.r.rn.+-
+- i -
a, ;i 1,
- i ,
i
/ (- +t i
, , ,: i i ;,4 ,
i i
.I 1
J i < 5 i _ ll it i-" H-r+H+-- , i F+ ll i!!i ii'f . X ' ll ! ; i k- rbH ++i !
. !!! ! li ![!i;/.!; !! f !
O m ii
.r ii;rm: ;
i - iir i i i, ; i ii.I iii! i , 10
~
_H b=BREAKINGWAVEHEIGHT!l Hs = SIGNiflCANT WAVE HEIGHT',, ,
;l l,l U N %
p' 'i : llll 'l
.i
.3 .
ys l- _-__ - Hm = MAXIMUM WAVE HEIGHT
; ;;l l'__ a' l!'!. ji l l
.' +
_._-_t (1 PERCENT WAVE IN THIS !ll t t , . N n .' 'I
+.- F ANALYSIS) l ~
!l
-m f+rTr
-f_4-4. Ts = SIGNIFICANT WAVE PERIOD ; ! l l , !i l !! , l 5 4 .
Tr , 1 .i .
- 2. 1 ., . .
! ! i i ii J
! i +
1 /- !! ! , i I 'i i i ! i i I : ii I i I r l ! !"! i i i l A/ ! !
# 1 i
._____,i ! i i I i i ll I I I O
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 TIME (HOURS) SINCE HURRICANE CROSSED CONTINENTAL SHELF CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 l DESIGN WAVES AND WATER LEVELS VS TIME FIGURE 15
-9w
* * * *-4+i ene 4 a_-pg. e n.w g . .#. . ,q ,,, .,, ,,, , ,, ,
eme e H g O G c W 3 n M e h O
-- - -. ._ . >s 3
.- . r
>>e4 FLORIDA Pr'*R CORP.
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 L I 4 i. i SOIL-CEMENT TESTS OCTOBER, 1969 MIX A - 286 #/CY mix B - 312 #/cy 6 ( L-. i L. I i
- ,... ._%.. ~. ., _
, .s_
o .... ..
- ,%. b W ltd.'Af al9 %o 1
i Paarasso Aferxeos ,,e Cwe 6asar 7;sru,g
- .T/ m.s 4// ./ha/ 'Psna ~ s/<e,>y// .f race ess' i can.psesshe s/ sea,M a.sas e./ *afhe/7 sp p kw A A /e
.j \ mix dessya ce, Ar,,;r Me deem ao asi;/ar,ay#1*s/ sai/comm/
e fe ,- asa ve pe/edoa . iusay/ mix cre.s ao4i.h wt// sdis/kherh or I ui<--an/s
\wsreg // de .f osm om sad osso*
/o'end A dove adegonle en=ps.rs've
!sheay//, /*'< use as a deo a o r s e l h o s e m /a r k.
der sq99es/'ao is J. des <3 Me ook osiay fAe aloen4il'/y wdea4 sepased4 med!'ay -
' Ars/(Asrm
!This .s4.o/d 9asi.)d tve /ess/ seaps,' c.asstve is/remyHe coden des /e/4 secardoace ai/ #srmDAs:
l lwe ,Ga/ /he shue me/Aed a// 9 i<e o me e
.- l/Am odepa/e he<a. :
fo Ker /hoa ese o 4 ve mo/Ji ssrm lotsae u., e us e//es e 4"sp/,/c b.a o id ~,s inss es.,. c. ,e, ,s., .c .Z. )a i i- s . ,, m <. m n,s.b e./o.ta,mg
.s.).
L er.uo
!r. - e a.isp/.,i.,a(a de >
, u, J -, -./x.s .cm.a , .,, ,w.~s. ; K:1:R 3R s . @ .. v. u cnaa ,, s e.
,_ , , , a_. .- +---.-..---~'-*w--~* - ' ~ " ' '
I'^#"'# "
- V
* \ %h .
."r --' N t S-QMNe j '
. N
~
i e 3 w 3_.
.-A .%,&L
_h. AA t . L c% -ASL
'A' _ m h_ A .' c l 1 @ .d _. % S L w yAO
.A l' 4. + % E A ~ A ,. -
~
whh e 1PM& LA J a L.44 3O!i
,s'eostd 4 M $mo,WJL d s.
; &-c
;,a .-
.r p a ~ u
- g. .;3t A ._ . 1 y k . wL2.t A 4- % g _d w M w -
.I A d - A ~ _ e 3/4 },n a
,s nu m x l- Am.s anw_adtdJL.%h~ bq m-t .
. x tu t .
bb5(t h W u 1 I kk .d?Mk dQs)3g k 7 b t
;%cs .%%k ~
i i ! . I em f - - 4~ ~ % . m . , L ECrh .~%ss. p .~ & L_ &Q kA +%.- kk, [ f ,d'Mb
- P54R e-{ 22,350 (3/Ah,4 OD* M- "
( M w- ' _. [ o .1. o, , ,
~- ;
} J.._ : _ ___.._ _ ,_.
w
~ ..
/.: .
D
- i ;CL L Ls L f 'il h 4-4~ s A l' L
!!LLo,%1. %
E
!,& & M J b RcAJA.%
kO m 99 3A wl%ykL
-G , /l Of e UWa LML;L A Jh9 &
i m'- , . % & A "c" ~ J.m J i m wm- cA b -
/ L g d %-Q g '6"aN c%g4 t
a. Qv n~
~, A, .
~~-
A wu 9 w y,-oy n -- p-2w ,, s 4.?l.w. A. - w.g-uk m.+6 s
=
f S- AL i A +b- As 1 m -S.32 MwL -*L.4 e
%q A u Am mA a g s .ct 9 {
az- ~ u 3. p + l- M 'a 2MJ- k yS'o g db tsW e- 3 mm
- j. ~ C ~Q k- e AFsTrn _AL L SLa c-- 6 2 i
p b m y *L,Q A h m.nk
- a a &,
'L yI,I. l./5'aJ14 A q a % g,C,_ .
cA2; (t 4.J%% t & c- pAdi 7 o325 u = xDmw , ( . M M A f
a .*me *f 6
--=N'e==e*.msme , ei e- eun g m an. rem,.%.4 mm- m ._.C em %w us agem W h
~~~ -
w w llr . N N%' . -w W d B. 0%Q(, L ,.t 3- ,,~N Lu&'%J 2 s c,
- d) L A 2 4
[ . n L 3 =) *
%4B cA ew,.kA31- fr +.qL J c +& a/.-2 % '
~_L c,-g mA.4M ~~b-c4 2N;xl
~
h~y; ji "f 3 7 '
+ . h 4 . L _. dk 4 At ~
i i . A oM di- 2.e
%,pA_, D 9.J-A whin~%
~
__-Ek - 16i J am ccE .kL m L ~ec ~ aJte
& A .,_
.- 1s ec, es, D&cast '
3 A. 10 I
.u:& & kwh '>,, s '%
A"- C~.h cdr L._t o ~ m,,&. dk wg-.. i. s mb- g . m
!., % o n'~Ws~ k y c:e ~ a.n-,' , wk
- h p' t .- ~ AM ~J.NUL, bm -
-Ab- ~ J stro P si % ~ m-._) a
- e f -
f
^
l - R f R[ . . . . g g= , - - , - - -w--. - . - -, -
. ---,y - -- _ - - - - - ,, - - *,
!~
~ ~ ~
( Fcr intro Offica Use Only) n , 's v # er No. 69 Date - lO 2. ff PTL Order No.TA T732 li:nt R P (1. - R t s/,s a . Fe A . - C. A KS T~A L ( liu r " 3 escription of Inspectiort $ p A D jy; In 8] a ir C N .% ( T Ff I: x ( % \/.\ Y t N 4AAATP RlAs ( . I <, .': IS 1 A) <n i L (' P.M in.N T NA A ' DEN IG 61 - t . 1 % P A % si R C-, -
'$1zu t
C,a u o k\ Qu o *? ' I V2. . I? " . l4 - t 00 n i n'O, 0 ' Y2 Ap.. P. R4 D
!_3/a" 9 c, =t, 955
+4
' A76 A (, 2.
~8 79.4 77 P,' -
;al(o 'l I . 7- 70 0 "SO 6 l . F> GDIO '
s Mo 467-44.'O l Von 23.0 i P3. 9 . 02Do - 2.3 . P,..s -
. C. M . - -
. J . T,it S hAA'YtE R: L DO_ik$ s DOIKS At0 T A&fi ~T S P GC i t=lCA T L O M S i . . l
. Time: . hours -
Mileage: Miles r l
! Other Expenses $
D**
- MT i Y '
i.ws <R t\
. ,p
...~_
, ,7 s _ . - , - -, .
"'-mmnem ~ m cr ....; .
* * ~- ~ ~ -* ** ~~---- ~ ~--*~- ~ - ~ ~ o ~ '
- t. t 9I 9i Fi C3 Zl iI Ol .i e t. o "G t. C,_
b
- I
..yg d' g. I
.._.T._._..__.;....._.__.. _ . d~. g . ; , _ _e. . -, .
)
_..4,...._ 1,. ..g ... .. y. ..1 5- .
. . . . _ . . . , , ... .p., .
.. .. _. g.. g:t
. -...g , . , .,.p,.,.,__
. ,,._ .. , . , . . ._= , i.__ .
g i
. . . . e . .. . . . . . .- . . . s .. . . . . .e. *
. . I" _ . __
.,._....o._. %.e .... , . .. . . , _ . . ... . . . . .
.... p. . }
p* '. . n*C..- , _ g ;
.o.j 1 _ g
. . _ _ ..._. _ . . . ._ ... _ .c .
_ . _ .c.J _ y- .~... q_ a., ..@ g4._
....).. _p.....
[... . . . _
. . . . . ._...-4.__.4.....
. ...._~ . _ . .
_. ..; . c.,
..f., . . .. ..
. . a. r.,s;
.J s.
=
.w- ......_m. . . . _
...._4... .
. _ . _ . _ _ _.- c .
, .j . . . ~. . . . . . . . . i . . .g. s, ) _ L,-
. i ..
......m...
.,,g...
. .c, g,, _.. ,-,4.
..s. . .._...g.4._
.g.
. . . g p_... ,,, g.. ..u3.
...% a 3,
.Q 7. g .. Q. .. .
rf I,,',,. - _. ~} . . . _ . f_r { , #'s 'd..V.,Q
. . . . . ...L,._.. . .
. a . Og. . *s .' d rf Y.''_.',y .
. .. ....g.....4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .
. _ , ......_...,..2 . . f ps y c4 .Q y. s . .... ._. , Q -
s
. c. 2%
. . ! .. . .j _ .. .
.. _. 4.. . . _ . . . . .....a..__.
. . _ . . ; .A
. N C" . . . . -
_.,..._...t** [. . . . _ . _ . ._ l .. . .
- _ - .' . - . . . . ' * ' ...-*...._.4....-. eq_
.,...s3 :, .g - :* * . .=.! = . N _.. __.
l _ p..o ,' .-Q g .(t'. _g .Q . 5%g .
....n.. . g
- p'_ ...._._......._._._3,.x..v. p . . ..s. _ y . . . . .
, .... . _... .._..g. ,
_ . . . . . . . . . . . h. l.. . ....b.
- .[ . . . . _ . _
..- . . . . . p J.
. .g.
y .
. . . _ _ . . . . l . . .. . . ; . . 3. . .- . . f. 9. ,g . . . . g .._ gy. -J
_t i t
. . . . ...g _ . . ., . . . _
- s. . . , . . . . . . . _. . ... .. .
Q ..... ...1
. S., _...._
. . . . .... ..8. ,_... _ . _ .
......[....
____.7
. _. p.. . c .... ... ..q
___. . _ . . , - .. .. .._.1'. . . _ _ .. o. .
..--o w u_. . . J . ,p,. . e i
_ t. ._. . . . . . . . . . . , .- n ... r,_,=f..,
. . _ . , . . . , .- ..- - - t
.Cf..
4.... . . .
.-..t..
. ._. p . .- ..
5:
- 4. . L. . ..- .- i- . . _*_-
. r ...._..
i
'_ 4 '
6
... _ _ ..f..
..l. ..j . ,.. ... ;.. . . _ . .l._......
. . . ..; ._ a. . . ....A__. . . .
. . . ..s. . ..
e f"""d _ _]. . . _
. 4. . ... .... , .
. ...3._../~"_*....
...[
1,- (r __. . . . . g . . . g*.
.%~ , . . .
i r
...._ _. t . . i .. . . .
o
. .; . ._ .. -.. .. J... . . .. ...g_. ., . . .
. . . . . . _ , _3 ...._%..._.
4.___..q, _.. ..
. . .j ._ .. . . . .
.t.
_. ._ _ i
. g .. .. . . .. .. ..,........
.3,._. _. __. .... .;. _. _..
. .... . .) _ _ . . ..
a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4_ . . . , . ... _
...,g ..
l'
.;.. ......g..._!...: ..4.
- i. . . . . J .
.4
.3... .
L... ... . . .
.._.t..... . .. . j
- 1
. ...l.....;...j...
. l. . .. j . . .. . ,
.... ...._. j . . . ..L'. ..t....._
... e ._.
-].
..J 4
. _ m __ _ _ , . . . . . .
_.m_..*_-..., [ . . . . . . . . _ _. 3;. ... . . _ ._ . .
. ...i
.T. . ; g .
.t. . . , . . . . . .
. . ..o. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . _...... .
(-
.!...3 ._ . .4. . .v... . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .... ..
C8
. . . ..l.
....- . g. ..-..
.. . . ......l .....!,.. . . . . . . . . .
. . ..s..
i ..,_.. . . . . . . .. .
...l..
.. . p .,. i..... ... . , . ~ . .. .. . . .
...g... .. . -
{ _...l_... .. . . _ _ . . . r.....--.._.-..-.... . . _ . - .. __. - . ... . . _ _ . . . ._ . i' i
..... ... .j .. .. _. ..
.. . .. I . .. . . . . .. .
.. . p . ... . I;_. . .. l.' .
_ , .a.. gg
.--}....._ ..... ...._ . . . . . .
.. , . .. . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . ._.6 . _ . .
,..s. .
....l...
. . . . . .. . g .. . l.. . ..
. . .o, . ->
.- ... ,i.,
4,...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . N. . .. . .. . . . . .
(.
.. . .. . {. .. . .. . . . .. . _ - . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. .. .
. . . . .. .7,...
....,, .. . .. . . . . . . .. ....g... . _ . . _ ... . . .
. .. __j_
. . . _ ' ,qg..Q. .
... . f, g .. <
_3 .e......... .T.1....
. . . . . _..i.....
s.
. . . . p
.,. i ~
.....f_ ...,.. . . . . .
. ._ t . _ . , .J.. OI
..a
... .... {.. .. .. ..
s
......}.....
- 4. . g.
.m . . .
ei
. ... . ......{....
.].......
. ; . . _.. (. . . .
. . . g ._ . . . . . ' . . .. . ._ .- - . ..
.3..
. g. ...
, -,....., _. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. 1. ..
3.......... -_..._.-.3.. _ _ . .._ _ q_ o3 - . p..,....
..u.
. . , . . . .. . . .g...... .... . . . .. ;. __.. .. . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .
ac
...m. . . . .
i
. . . . .,t . . .. . . . . . . . l.. .. . . . . . . . .._. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . _ _.
, - Z3
- _ . .. . . . . . .t... .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . j... ....4.. .
.! .. . .. . . . . . _.. . . . . . . . . .., _.y. . . . . . . . + . . . . . ....,+ ..s...l............... . . . . . .. . ...
.u.. f .F.... . . . . ... .. . . . . . .
...g....,....
. .. .. . 4 m .. ..
_...n.....4._. . . . . . ,... . . . . , - . .
... ..-.. . . . . .. . . . . ... .3....... . . .4 CZ
.l'. ..l.
. . . . ;. .. .. . . .. ..L.
. .Q. .
m.,. .,,,,_1 i.._ _. . ......l.-....
.2 .. . . . ..
. . . . . . .l.m.
-~ -.- -- .- _ . . - . - - . . _ __ _ _ _ _
. _ .. - - - ~
> . ~,
( Fer intro Office the Only) ,
"/. .
J r o .- Date { - 2 /'. - d', C) PTL Order No.
' .at FL ' ?r.wr= R Ce p -- ( Nr * % ~ 0 2 5 s r n L R sve=. m , Fo ,1 p, cription of Inspection M ig ,g . D; .q.y ;-v A N D opt t Ati.@.. M ,..sv.i90.
%. cu Co.s.mgr Mh o <
ta n.u r r- n r nm imAn Desstih" - M v . D.av \ % c rv Cortuo %<q: l1SI Lns/ci.,i:- 14. 9 7,-
~
l n A v sr>ac u n .c .- I- -
" ~
I 2_.- t ( z.6 " 14 5 % 3- I l 2.6 - " I 4. 5 N.
.j 4 n,+,v <.r>EFE,uaNS l- I 13. 3 L.-). ; /O: [~:- .
l4.9 % 14.9 %
~ '
2.- 1133 ( 4. 7 % l - 3- 11 3.5 . m
~
pm swa "e" - -
! 7n.w .sm;rnams 1- 1 i 3. n L n.. /O .. F--.. I 4 '. ~/ %
._- 2- t 13. ( " I 4 .~7 %
- s- - Il 2.. A " I 4. 8 %
l 4.8 %
.I 4'nav s5r.cm=.ms I- (l I .i Lo.s[C[.10 r-
~
2.- (10.4 " 1 5. 2. %
' I 5 . 6, 7,.
~
3- I l 1. 4 s
. 1 j Time: hours .
Milcoge: . Miles W
~
{ . lns ector-D
- p*
- Other Expenses 5 {
Wo o .. u_U..R.]hi' s' ,, _ ,
.),
q - q .
-; ( Fcr intro Offico tha Only) -
v
'$ * ~
, No. Date
/ l - l 3 - [3-9 PTL Order No.
/ta' b C_. ~ O R M 4 'h A L. )VNQ
, scription of Inspection b c rn 90) Et 4 eM OF
~
9TR E.4 C-a T"M .5 OF 'S c l L.
/
# C E M EiJT- 2 /fo o fRs l C-o RC.n.E i E. IN SPLin ~)t c C, i _ .~. i H E N S l c 2 0, ' i t a Ac c_o. nTb%0C33 Wti il PrATM C- 4%. .
16PEc-ime.R h G Ey [ D. .R.' u. d.j . 5 3-i. ,_ s $rnesex_it[F~s.2 - 1600 Psi Ccac.. '7 - d " X l 2." ~~/ 6'f ~ 6 00, C.ameslM J,1 4- t " x 4. C' 2 .C
. . N /
IKoo Psi Ccae-. '7 C' X l 2 ) '7[ borL CEMER.T N l% d"M h.N l f317 -
/
. i v. 8 )_. ($ -
13 k 'i s b, ~2.9 '11O
. . n. . :
Time: hours
. - . T .- .
~ Milcoge:
/
Miles - i . ws
~ ' '
. ~ Inspe'e tor ,
Other Expenses 5 - D .
.p. . . , - - - -
r . ;,. .y f s.u ne. o ises G ' 1l
! PITTODtJI1GH. PA. v Order Ns. TA 7732
/
H/e/l "/."07,^,d*e' *37a",J7. !!,'".',0*,'.*J" ',".'? J"J" */#4.*, 'c'a.*No. ? "' ?. '."; o",t .3,0
"" '"*'na'.*0."!.".'Afa"*t0l0'.0
, . '"'"'"* Report
*S an0 V REPORT Dete I I ~ .I l - d
. REPORT OF TEST ON CONCRETE CYLINDERS .
6" DIAMETER BY 12" LENGTH , , IEPCRTED TO: FLORIDA POWER CORP. ~ -
<>ROJECT: CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT UNIT NO 3 Concrete suppIIer: West Coast Concreta, Inc.
iicle Engineer: Gilbert Assoc., Inc. J:neral Contractor: J. A. Jones , I' *
' or:ation of Concrete Placement-OIL E M E ld' t
t tte Cast I O '2.6-bConCrete Class P.S.I. Area 28.27 Sq. In. '
, Cement Factor Bread Type -
Aggregate Size 1 DEL. CYLIN DER W/C SLUuP CONCRETE ACE TOTAL LOAD COf.tP. ST. SPECIFIC S/N. GAL. SACK I DATE TESTED iDENT. INCHES TEM P. 'F. DAYS LSS. P.S.I. LOC ATION Dh 14
- 11 -
9 PISTI 86
- s. .,
9 ( ' y 9.:r.r' n u
. ** G f .M 64- T
( li-fi 14 1000 n i. j n n. l4- j ,. .. in 1 4- t c Ao
. I hhy R I l . O BB.C se .* r) to40 '
Il n 9 960
. Il 11-1l 14- 12 90 i- 88 n 14- 1100 es n 'I A. g y_ m a
{ _
. f-
; D k, d if- 11 6'h
. u n ] c 9.T o .i l# No db r C
~
~
ti - 14-7.c. o e 19 G ra 6 - it i 4574' .I { WARKS: m. I 1. - - 1
'l - Florida Power Corp., H. C. Bennett -
- PiTTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY
.2
- Florida Power Corp., E. E. FrootS A
- PTL - Tampa mm o i -- PTL - W. T. Hurst 9 q- - -
\.
t'i WSA
,1,.
oa w. . .. . ._ ;' ' . . . l . . J .- PTL - P A. .
.- .,= .- . . -
a.... , ..
W t' 4 i FLORIDA POWER CORP. CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 f
?
L i i SOIL-CEMENT TESTS L NOVEMBER, 1969 (. I t I MIX 1 - 3 Bags Cement /CY l MIX 2 - 4 Bags Cement /CY MIX 3 - 4.5 Bags Cement /CY i l' t E t ~\ . L ,- 1 m . L. , _ _ _ . . . . ~ . - , . _ - _ . . . _ . _ . - - _ _ _ .
. _ . _ _ _ . _ _ , . , . _ _ . s._.__.
W- W . FLORIDA TESTING LABORATORIES. INC. Pbme 531 1446 - P. O. Box 11064 st. Petersburg, Florida 33733 r_z Client F 1 o ri da pnwee Cnennratinn Submitted By FPC _ Pre [ect Crystal River. Unit #3 Sampled 8y FPC _ Material 5 of 1 Cement. Sp eci me n 6"x12 " Sampled From On Site material Identification Marks As Shown Date Sampled Quantity Represented Date Received ,_. . Centractor Date. Tested . Source of Supply Na ti ve Li me roek on Site - Date Reported or Lab. No. 3425 Tust aEsutis .
~ ~
Tested By -
-1 3.0 Bags /cu.Yd. 4.0 bags /cu. Yd. 4.5 8ag/Cu. Yd Molded Psi 9 Molded Psi 9 Ho l de-d Psi t Weight Moi s t u re 7 day Wei gh t Moi s tu re 7 day Wei ght - Moisture' 7 Da-118.1 11.7 . 972 12 1.0 11.1' 2369 -
118.1 11.2 1007 120 .5 11.9 1786 -- - - gl 116 .8 10 .7 1098 -119.5 11.5 1821 - - - 1 Psi 9 ' Ps i 9 Psi 9 4
, 14 days .I4 diys 14 da l 116 .0 11.1 1131 120 .6 11.6 1697 - - - -
117.2 10 .7 1202 1 19 .4 11.9 1379 - - -
,116 .2 11.0 843 . 119 . 7 11.9 1732 - - -
Psi 9 Psi 9 Psi 9 . 28 days 28 days' 28 da 116.2 12 .3 990 120 .7 11.2 2758 12 1.0 10 .7 3129 118.9 l 10 .3 1520- 120 .3 11.1 1962 119.8 .10.9 2440 - 118.6 10 6 1856 120 .1 11.0 1909 119.4 10.1 2829 Ps'i 9 Psi 9 Psi 9 4 90 days 90 days 90 da-118.8 10.7. 1839 121.8 11.0 2298 120.2 11.2 3041
. 118.8 10.6' 1927' 119.3 11.7 2033 120 .1 1112 2846 118.2 11.1- 1786 119.9 11.5 2122 120.0 11.2 2988 1 .
- u. *
- By _ h
, FLORIDA TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.
cc: FPC/Edw Fr' oats (3) Peses PTL.4 aty.
- l
FLORIDA TESTING LABORALRIES, INC. ( . ST. PETERSBURG. FLORIDA l SOIL COMPACTION CURVE SHEET Laboratory No.: 3425 Tested By: Date: Client: Florida Power Corooration p,,;,cc. Crystal River, Unit #3 Location: Soil Cement Be rm Material-Soil Cement Method of Compaction: AASHO T-180 Mod. 122 , , , , ,,, , , ,, ,
!
- I i! !
=
. 4 i j i I i i it I e ae 8 s 6 i I
I ! i ,I a \/ t !! l eie I " V-. ! 'N 1 120 ri
.i i i -
>> i i m ' I i.
1 i ' I i / i A i a i I ( / 6 T, e i i s r N l I
- [l
- g
' / \<_
t . '/ R i i t IA e .\ t ' ' ! I i Al e , IX g q .n i a i6- .
&10 i 3 i 6 i i '/i eI
- I e1 i / t i i e i .
g, ,/ i i
- g
!I ef 8
. 6 / , , ;
l i i I I a 8 in { p , ).- !l ! /
- f 6 L &
* ' t i
g i e i f.
/ i I Z
3 l ! 116 I!'. l e E * *,e e f e .. 6
>= t I f I
. /
i i i f i {
! i i f ~"
!. ! / t I ! If , , t i
. 6 i /! 1 I 114 . . f. > e i i I I I t/r e i i I ! i/ I I s t i+.i . !
-K ' l -
,t
, , i
' i 4 i
! 1 ,
112 I!! , t - ---- ir 7 . 8 9 10 11 12 13 L MOISTURE CONTENT */. t i-- Maximum Dry Density: 120.4 #/ f t3 Optimum Moisture Content: 11.4% e [_ - cc: FPC/Edw.Froats (3) FLORIDA TESTING LABORATORIES. INC. By 5 5 _.$____ ___ _____________ L. -
.ma- m s. e. .*--n- ..-ee . -
,y ., e 9
e.. .__ DEC 111969 FLORICA POV.IR CC3P. FLORIDA TESTING LABORATORIES. INC. CRYSTAL RIVER C0iisin 10:1 Phone 531 1446 - P. O. Box 11064 ,
- St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Clien, F 1 o ri da Power Corooration submitted By FPC Project C r_ys t a 1 Ri ve r. Uni t #3 s.mpt.d ay FPC Material On Site Limerock sampled From Identification Marks Date sampled Quantity Represented Date Received
, Contractor Date Tested On Site Source of supply Date Reported
! Lab. No. 3425 Test REsutis Tested By k
GRA DAT ION Sieve % Passing 3/4" 100.0 { LIMEROCK ANALYSIS 1/2 " 99.8 Carb. of Ca & Mg = 98.55
,- 3/8" 99.1
#4 97.0 ii
#10 92.9 ABSORPTION
. #40 73.7 29.5%
l :' ! '
#60 61.1
#140 25.9
#200 22.2
#270 20.4 .
I l Mate rial run through crusher
- o prior to delivery to Laboratory. ,
t
- cc: Florida Power Corp. (3) sy A_ //
PLORIDA TESTING LAsORATORIES, INC. l l
. . m.. = v.
e 4 -
= - - . a. - _ . - - _ . _ . _. - __
- y. .. ..
g.. 1
'TA-7 ,.h 5
+ . . e. - - , .. m em.
&s.g;x .
, v r -
- 3. -
, , _ .m~ r. er.x. - . . -
.. - - r .i. .
~
D,
'r.
r.. e e .. . , .
- - .-, .'3 g ,,~, y g.J O.
*ot
. . ...~..,.:.w,e.aa w.. i ? . A. :.:.?: e .nv. . ... v. . .. r- u.
"V.A T * . 'l *M oge.1 F1-*J*!T7 I*3 h . -
g FMif.T. HnciiT Ti .TJ O' C .lJ .
,..m to/ 5/ 0 69
- ' low. ;
ca J . .:.>.:.i.r:r . - . M._N enco.*1'2.+ . Im m... :mrui.e6
, .noner C rys t a 1 Riy.g.t _.Un i t d 3 i .,n e.r o P o r_t.l a._n.d. - _ _ rnoe.- -
...c o emen 3 w tei:i m ime M7fM C-130 yYn I .I
'. n :.n. . ._..-a. .
ew.r..
- :m. . . . n. .,m.-
r .r.u ait= w to_,-- we~e= -waur=== ===.srs,a wa-r i. _. .. . m.r - t, or,.. . , ~ .r m w .er..~,-., -c=, v .= I y-Wr.'e _. _ . . . p t. ;' N. c. .A..f . . 7. r. . . . . . - -
~ ~ .3. .. i ...,..
~ . ...m. . t.m. . .s.. " 9 T .;
e,... 4 ...~.- . : . r .. .. - 7 . g
.: . . .. t .+ I c .. e. a. rt it : .
, -..,..,.n g.nny"gyy g .y-. . , , ,
.g....:.. . .n......
w x. , p:::._p.e.r. go s. ,.e.st)
- p. ' e .. s I
, u..c. . s.v ,., ;
. . . . .......,,... v . s , . . .. .g,. . , . ,
~.. __ - *iY VOL.
,_lhty B.__ r < ! *,,_1.lP.yU g .
I l _30. CWCN.
.m:r s.i:.m._w_.t..
.,.t_%_ %h.Dr'i _li&*.1 . _ . _ Mis - ._ ._i, e
U.l7._3. _f_ . 70 _ 6370 I. 3922 2
, i i.
e
.e....a i. 4
,u - Vdn : _ 'cb' i
._; _O=. ff I
i e f e i t s ;
._.
- 8 1 1
i i. l ! h !
. .._ J
- f f
- i. t .
l il T l - . I
, e t i . !
1 l __I' I _. .!.. . , l l 7 ;. _ . i _l , O I I. -_ - _ _ . 1 1 ! I i I. _ _ _ .
- 1 1 1.
n i i I t. l I
- i i i ! .
l f _. r . . . . . , . . I. _i . - . . . _ - - - m_ 1,'t bOOMN _
.- ,,x J. . . .
- .-...m,.44 . .
. % t .1 m..m. , ,' 0 "rs '4 .n.A.'.,8.,.c00,.F.d.,.,w,. m
.. ,, 13S00 % F3 n,,. ic-m UMx . , , .
8: 1I . _8:. . i.. I C A f. A N A L Y .*> 1 S =-- _ . _ . . i.. t i ; I ! 4A/ls j g r.< 0:3 i. w .
. : n ? ,c , ,, ,,,,gi ., pg.i. .bs. C1 % C19 i C.1 .',
t I -
- I l i _,, ........_.s......
. t ... _. > ^.. .
. *.:* * ; 8 l l @' e ;) '.
.. '<. - e d . p I .f'
., . ' 4.k. (.i
. t j
,.. . , 5'[
a.. /. P._ . 3..
! j f
g l .i. ) . L..
- . .. . .. . ... ,. . ! .. l.. . ..
l l l l A __ i . . _.. _ s ... . _ _ . . . . ._. .
! )
I g i j 8 1 i
- = -
i
! l l. . . _ . . . . . _ . , . . . . . ._ I,.
1
! J ! l l ..4; .
f .
- 1. . . .. .!
I l ' i
...-_i. i l.
-._l.__..._.___...,._,=---.,_.....
4 ( lu . .!. _ . _ ..
'.. i.
l I_. ,
- ' t. _ .
- i. _ _.i.
'._l _
.. . .. l 1
-&....._.,.._.. ! _ . . l.; ,
' ' ' '_ ._. _j '
J. .1....._..'. . . !., _ _ , {, , , e u i ~ . _ - . . . . _ . . _ . . ... i ' .,i I, . . .a r. . n. . . .
. i
._...l.... y
. s7_. M,_. . _ -x.tSis. Ova.x1'.
I d , p. W.
.. ,2, , g .; , r; . ,M . ! b . 0 Mx B O A.. c . :. ...Q.i ,m t 3 ,.8 o'A.x .
1..... . ma.rw :. 3
. . . ... .. ....-. .. . n. .-r.. ..ru. p jygg;RC.H TETiGC ' ,W'r!a'T. 'i r c. : .w.i. . 1.nor g_; COMM.Y ti! W *-rFur.tcr.Y 'om, g ,.
i
' R .::.8/nb.' 4 ..K'.widr. Toslaing Laboraiwina , Inc ,#.! ' r- ~1' . . .
t. e - h"' 2.. W6 '. aspa .
- t. / % h.. . G,ard mr . n.A, w:.q.v, t
; D 99 D a 3.g: . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . _ .
t time m: ..: '.oncreto Dep.mt .:. S mb w u . u. .m e -- - -
. . , . _ _ _ . ._ " Y s a w u.m.- _
.- _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - . _ _ _ _ . . _ _. ...~. _
i l l l i 1 l l l l FLORIDA POWER CORP. I CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 I i i SOIL-CEMENT DESIGN MIX TESTS JULY 29, 1970 t t {' MIX 1 - 219 f/CY MIX 2 - 251 #/CY
, MIX 3 - 282 #/CY t
f f i L I l n (
- k. c 4
= * - - - - - - - - - - . . _ _ _ ,,.... __, ,_, , , , , , , ,, , _, _ _ , _ .
- _ . . .. , _ . _a.. . %.
Ab PITTSBURGH TESTING LABOHATORY ef-3 ,s,!! 5
,a - .. ....
PITTSBURGH, PA.
- M s %" as a eeUTUab PeOTSCTIOse TO CL4ENTS. TMC PUSbse aNO Ouestkvas. ALL mePeefs
%, a
- am agg sugasITTED as fMC CONF 80tMfta6 PeoptmTT OF CLItsef t. amo aufwenttattose ress pueucat30s. OP etartessors. CO=ctusions om sarmaces anO.s On macanoisse OWII RSPORTS IS S$$E4WSO PENO8see OWS W NI TT EM appeewak.
REPORT SOIL-CEMENT DESIGN FOR WAVE PROTECTION BERM Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Unit #3 Index:
- p. 1-3 Discussion and Recommendations
- p. 4-5 Summary of Tests
- p. 6 Wetting and Drying Test
- p. 7 Compressive Strength Test
- p. 8 Gradations ;
i 1
- p. 9-10 Maximum Density Determinations i
t l l l t
F 02c3 (OF NEV. [# N4'$ r/ PITTSELRGH- TESTING LABJATORY
.....u.... ....
PITTSBURGH PA.
- .. a muru.6 r.or.crion to cu.nv.. va. ev.uc ano ow.e.tv... .LL ..po.v.
%y,,,f.# O :;; ;"::=?.:'
....o.....~.;;,1.~:.....~'a..':".:.:.::.':o::.
.. .:~::. ::::";".* =~
.......-o..m.
CLIENTS No. P.O. No. PR3-1106 REPORT ORDER No. TA-7732 REPORT FOR: FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION P.O. Box 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 i REPORT OF: Soil Cement Design Mix.
, DATE: 7-29-70
, At the request of Florida Power Corporation, a series of tests were performed to develop a soil-cement design acceptable for the wave protection berm on Crystal River Unit #3.
The PSAR section on soil-cement berm construction references the Bonny Dam project of the US Bureau of Reclamation on which a test section of soil-cement was constructed for wave erosion protection in 1951. (Report EM-630) Thuefore it was felt that research into the design and testing methods used by BUREC on that project should provide guidance for the berm construction
, on Unit #3.
; An in-depth look at the BUREC reports on the Bonny Dam and a j subsequent project, the Merritt Dam, revealed a basically differ-ent approach from that detailed in the PSAR. The PSAR establishes compressive stren8th of the soil cement mixture as the basic de-sign criteria while BUREC on the above projects follows basically L- the Portland Cement Association recommendations for design of soil-cement mixtures subject to erosive action. This involves a series of wetting and drying and/or freezing and thawing tests to
' ^ ~ ~
establish minimum acceptable cement content. The Merritt Dam report, written 16 196'1," stat s', " Compressive ' strength ~ is. generally ~ - ~ considered supplementary to the freeze-thaw and wet-dry soil-cement tests." (EM 611, p.7) one very basic difference between the Bonny Dam project and Crystal River Unit #3 is the nature of the soil from which the soil cement will be manufactured. On the Bonny Dam job , soil used was quartz sand with 207.-357. sile. This basically forms a matrix type structure with the cement and develops its coherence through an internal physical type bond between the individual soil particles and the hydrated cement gel. Conversely, the
~
material to be used on this project as a soil base is native excavated,vell weathered limestone with a'very high calcium carbonate content. This composition permits the, soil base it- ! self to react chemically in the soil-cement mixture, forming Page 1.
,_._ __ ___ __,w.,. _
Fom (Ut Na v . r[.%,s ,I PITTSLRGH TESTING LAEvRATORY .... ..N.. .... PITTSBURGH. PA. 5.
,. p as A asuruab PeOTECTION TO CLIENT., TNE PusLIC ANO OURSELVES. ALL ARPORTS
* ' * " * " * * * ' "" * "* "' " "** ** * ^" "*
Sano OVE REPORTS 19 RESERVED PENGING OUR WWiffEN a PPROv a"k."" REPORT cement-like bonds between individual particles and, along with the cement gel, developing an extremely coherent internal struct-ure. Results of the wetting and drying tescs which were performed verify this point quite graphically. One further point concerning the compressive strength criteria of the PSAR section should be made. Reference is made in that section to the 2,000 PSI strength of cores taken from the Bonny Dam test section. It should be clearly understood that these cores were taken some 10 years af ter construction of the test section and - that normal PCA procedures require only that compressive strength of a soil-cement mix be at least 450 PSI and increasing at age 7 days. 28 day strength at Bonny Dam were in the range of 900-1100 PSI, which is roughly comparable to 28 day strengths obtained here at Crystal River. In consideration of the above, it was decided that the PCA recom-mendations for soil-cement wave protection design would produce an acceptable structure with a more economical mix than the orig-inal PSAR recommendations. 1 Portland Cement Associacion design criteria as followed by BUREC l on the Bonny Dam project are as follows:
- 1. Soil-cement losses during either 12 cycles of vet-dry or of freeze-thaw tests shall not exceed 14 percent.
- 2. The maximum volume change during either the wet-dry or f freeze-thaw tests shall not exceed 2 percent of the volume at the time of molding.
- 3. The maximum moisture content during the wet-dry or freeze-thaw test shall not exceed that quantity which will completely fill the voids of the specimen at the time of molding.
' I 4 Compressive strengths shall increase with age and with .
increases in cement content. 1
- 5. The cement content, as indicated by the criteria of 1 l l
through 4 above which were formulated for highway purposes,
- shall be increased 2 percent by -volume-.co provide a surface .
resistant to water erosion. . _. . Test methods for mix design were as follows: Page 2. .:_==___-___-__--,= -- -
FoMe Et1 Rts. 8." ~*4 PITTSBeRGH TESTING LAEhs/RATORY f/ g .....u.... .... PITTSBURGH PA.
- 5. ,
A. A feufU AL P.OT.CTION TO CLI.MT., TM. PU .LIC A.e 5 OU ...L. ... ALL ..PO.T.
,'J 'O 20",'R',*. ".!".'L*f."'.'#'."'r' A"3!.'.".'.' o*l .*,'/J.".',*o ,'."J '"'"#,"#3'*",
.U. .. ..... .... ... ....... .U. .....P...L.
REPORT Soil samples were taken from excavated native limerock material stockpiled at the site. No attempt was made to selectively grade the samples, other than to screen all material over a 3/4" sieve ' for purposes of laboratory testing. (- Cement contents of 77., 87., and 97. by weight were used in prepar-ation of the test specimens. These mixes were designated respect-ively for test purposes as Mix #1 containing 219 lbs. of cement
, per. cu. yd. of soil-cement mixture, Mixf2 containing 251 lbs.
per.cu. yd., and Mixf3 containing 282 lbs. per cu. yd. . Maximum density and optimum moisture of soil-cement mixtures i were determined in accordance with ASTM D558, except compactive l effort was modified to 5 layers, 25 blows with 19 lb. ranuner falling 18". 5'.5 Test specimens were prepared at moisture contents slightly above optimum and compacted in 4" diameter molds in the above described
, manner. These samples were then removed from the mold and cured for 7 days in a temperature and humidity controlled curing room, after which they were used for wetting and drying and compressive strength tests.
Results of the wetting and drying tests show extremely low weight losses for all specimens, indicating a very coherent and durable structure. Compressive strengths at 90 days were in the range of 1000 PSI or higher and steadily increasing. Several specimens of Mix #3 were were arbitrarily tested for splitting tensile strength 7 , in accordance with ASTM C-496 and developed a range of 200 PSI, which is higher than concrete of comparable quality. As all speci-
---mens easi-ly met -the PCA requirements,- the .one..with lowest -cement - -
factor,i.e. Mix #1, was selected ~ s a base for design. This-then ---- was adjusted for cement content on the bases of 27. by volume in accordance with recommended procedure. ( In consideration-of--the-above,--it-is-recommended _that the . soil-ce- I ment design mix consist of 270 lbs of type I cement per cu. yd. of native limerock material excavated on-site. This corresponds to a . cement content -of -10. 67. -by volune -and-6.-57.--by weight.- This mixture would--be p-laced -and compacted-to- at-least--987. -of- maximtsu density as- ddwmined-by-ASTM method -B-558vas -modified- in this report. c_- . __, _ _ --__.,__,,2,2,_. ._ , Report prepared by: Respectfully submitted, W.T. HURST, PTL- -[~~ G ' " " -
-FITT B H TESTING LABORATORY l
{ P.E.'Kornman,P.E.
~~~
.. .._. _ . N' , ////4/
,_,.___ E _.' 7 .;^._~_ ;.ii." McGillivr'ay, Manager
_ .T. ,2.
' ' ' ' ~.
-_.,__ Tampa Dis t;ric t._____ . ._, ,
3~.~~~~'-'-'~'~ l 4 '
.e,.._ , ,.mm. ,.__ - ,... ,,. . . . . _ . . . _ _ , . _ _ , , , . , , , _ , ..
- r. , a,, .6..
g,%' ' PITTSEwRGH TESTING LAELRATORY
,t ..,..u.... ....
he .~ . ," PITTSBURGH, PA.
## .. a mu,u a6 ...,.cri.m v. cu.m,.. ,=, .u.uc an. ov..s6v ... a6L .....,.
kg$0' ::::"::"::'?.:'.:":,:,1"::."'t.'.::::'"::::::,'::::. ::: '::"?:.':: "
. . . . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . , - . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . ~ .
CLIENIS No. P.O. No. PR3-1106' REPORT ORDER NO. TA-7732 REPORT FOR: FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION P.O. Box 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF: Soil Cement Design Mix DATE: 7-29-70
?
' ~
~
SUMMARY
OF SOIL TESTS Gradstion #4 79.6% PASSING
#40 47.4% PASSING
#200 4.7% PASSING ATIERBERG LIMITS L.L. 26 P.I. NP SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.57 MAXIMUM DENSITY 116.2 PCF OPTIMUM MOISTURE 13.0 %
VOID RATIO (COMPACTED) 0.380 COEFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY 8 X 10 CM/SEC. (COMPACTED) or 2.4 Ft./YR . l f SOIL TYPE AASHO A-1-b l 6..,... b ec: 1 Client, Mr. Bennett Respectfully submitted, 2 Client, Mr. Froats PITISBURGH TESTING LABORATORY 1 Ma. T. Hurst hisswuv. . . . . _
.,. rf; ,k f'/)/.gm Ta pa District Page 4. j
..n e &w s . < . Fore 407 EEv.
/
PITTS&esRGH - TESTING LAEwRATORY [s/P4 f,
/ 3
,I
..T..L..... ....
PITTSBURGH, PA.
', .# as A seuTW AL PmOTECTION TO CLIENTS. THE PumblC AND OURSELVES. ALL REPORTS
'%,,;;$4' *
';*. '";",'e':',O,.P .', A" c*"'a'%".'O'
- u" ,'":::: ;':."e'n , :. ;". ,ll: "
Oum nrPORTS is nessaysm PENoswa Oust WRITTEN APPROWab
,- , Clients No. P.O. No. PR3-1106 REPORT ORDER No. TA-7732 B
REPORT FOR: FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
- P.O. Box 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF: Soil Cement Design Mix.
i DATE: 7-29-70 - i.
SUMMARY
OF TESTS ON SOIL-CEMENT MIX #1. MIX #2. MIX #3. PERCENT CEMENT BY VOLUME 8.6 9. 9 11.1 PERCENT CEMENT BY WEIGHT 7 8 9 MAXIMUM DENSITY PCF 117.3 118.5 -117.9 OPTIMUM ?DISTURE 7. 13.5 13.4 13.7 I i WET-DRY TEST MAXIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT 7. ---- ---- 14.2 SATURATION MOISTURE 7. ---- ---- 14.8 MAXIMUM VOLUME CHANGE 7. 1.2 1.1 1.1 WEIGHT LOSS 7. 1.53 1.18 0.61 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH r 7 DAY (PSI-Avg. ) 490 560 650 l' 28 DAY (PSI-Avg. ) 720 960 1080 90.. DAY -(PSI-Avg..) . ._ _ . _ . . . _ . . . . .. ._ _ 93 0 1100.. 1240
, Respectfully submitted, t-PITT BURGH TESTING LABORATORY
[ cc: 1 Client Mr. Lennett t bh%uw P.E. Kornman,P.E. H.
$l!W McGillivray, Manager f/
Pwy 2 Client , - Mr. -Froa t s - ---.--- - ---: . _ . - - . - - _ . Tampa District _ (/ 1 Mn. T. Hurst { 3 i
~
Page 5.
..=o,..
gg
,37 " % PITTSBJGH TESTING LABJATORY ,, fp/ h "
E. . . .L, .. E O ..., PITTSBURGH. PA. .
, 5 ,
' 9, 49 4 asufUAL PROTECTIO *8 TO CLBENTS. TME PUSLIC AND OuRSELwES. ALL REPORTS
- ;"' :":",'J","O !"." '?J,'*f.".'rO !23!,'*JJ # E.'.'.'."C!. .""J "";"#O';* ".
4/4 O OUR REPORf 5 49 mESERVED PFhOeNG OUR WROTTEM APPff0Vak. CLIENTS No. P.O. No. PR3-1106 REPORT OEER No. TA-7732 I REPORT FOR: FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION P.O. Box 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF: Wetting and Drying Test (ASTM-D559) DATE: 7-29-70
$) CYCLE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1 MIX #1
;. VOLUME CHANGE 0.87. 1.07. 0.9% 0.7% 0.6% 1.2%
{I WEIGHI LOSS 0.21% 0.347. 0.45% 0.567. 0.67% 0.84% f MIX #2 i VOLUME CHANGE 0. 97. 0. 97. 0. 67. 1. 17. 0.7% 1.0%
' 0.96%
WEIGHT LOSS 0. 3 97. O. e27. O.84% 0.847. O.90% I MIX #3 { VOLUME CHANGE 1.07. 0.8% 0.7% 0.9% 0.5% 1.17. WEIGHT LOSS 0.177. 0. 397. 0.50% 0.56% 0.56% 0.56% 4 i CYCLE 7. 8. 9. 10, 11. 12. MIX #1 VOLUME CHANGE 0.9% 0.7% 0. 97. O 3% 0.57. O.77.
' 1.467. 1.537.
WEIGHT leSS 0.957. 0. 907. 1.35% 1.40% g . . .. . ._ . . .. . _
~ ~
V'OLUME CHANGE 0. 97. 0. 5f. ~ 0.37. 0.57. 0.5% 0.3%
! WEIGHT LOSS 1.07% 1.07% 1.12% 1.127. 1.18% 1.18% ; MIX #3 VOLUME CHANGE 1.17. 0.57. 0.77. 0.37. 0.47. 0.6%
WEIGHT LOSS 0. 617. 0.617. 0.61% 0.617. 0. 617. 0.617.
. ._ ... Respectfully submitted, cc: 1 Client, Mr. Bennett PI H TESTING I, ABO TORY
'~ 2 Client', Mr. Frosta / #'
~~ '
1 W. T. Hurst ' - #/
* * #1' "## H.J cGillivray, Manager P.E. Kornman,P.E. Tampa District Page 6.
i ......... PITTSBl. v 'GH TESTING LABO~ v% TORY ...,
..r..u....
s r- % PITTSBURGH. PA. Order No. TA-7732
\*, /' i' ".UTJr'Al".7'f' c"o0,o'e','.'"l'*J."Jifr7*,'2" 0".*?'o**L,'#a,"'lr"J'
' $8 a.0*#
' " "'*"#Z "..,'o *J"','.".'a".'*iivco"lNo,'U'o " "l,"tr'*l.'J" .g,f" "'**""'"* Report No.
. REPORT Date 3-27-70 t
REPORT OF TEST ON CONCRETE CYLlHDERS 6d DIAMETER BY 12" LENGTH ( CEPORTED TO: FLORIDA POWER CORP.
. *ROJECT: CRYSTAL RIVER !'LANT UNIT NO. 3
~
oncrete Supplier: West Coast Concrete, Inc. l Arcle. Engineer: Gilbert Assoc., Inc.
, General Contractor: J. A. Jones I
.oC tion of Concrete Placement SOIL CEMENT DESIGN MIX f
D:t3 Cast 3-27-70 C.oncrete Class - - - - - - - - - - - - - P.S . I . Area bSq. In. Brand Tve Aggregate Size ---- - - -- -- ---- -- f :ement Factor ------------- ------------- -------------- DEL. CVLINOEA W/C SLU MP CONCRETE AGE TOTAL LOAD COMP. ST. SPECIFIC
'. S/N. IDENT. GAL. SACK INCHES TEMP. 'F.
I O DAYS LSS. P.S.I . LOCATION I Mtv #1 4-4 7 6400 510
" i " 7 5900 470 Miw #2 " 7 6700 535
'f~' I i Mtv #1 l
I 7 7 7300 7600 580 605 i
,- I " i i
" 7 8800 l 700 t
' i l i i I I
Mix #1 I i 4-25 28 I 8600 l 685 I I l 28 9500 1 755 Mix #2 I " 28 11500 l 915 ! 28 13700 l 1010 ! Mix #3 28 12600 1000 i
/ " " 28 14500 1155 !
l ! I
---)
- Mt v #1 - - -
_ 6-26 90 i 12100 '980 I
. - n. .
_ _ }. _ . . . - _ n. 90 l 11100- I 885 I Mtv #2 " 90 1 12900 1 1030 I
'- " " 90 i 14800 1 1180 !
! Mix #3 " 90 i 16200 l 1290 I
, I " '
" 90 l 15000 l 1195 l i, i 1
, . - . . . -. . . . _ _ _ _ . . .._...l.__-.,_._._. . _ . _ . . ._
, \ .TEMARKS: ' I. .
. I - Florida Power Corp., H. C. Bennett PITTSB RGH TESTING LABORATORY 2 - Florida Power Corp., E. E. Froats ,1 - PTL - Tampa
- M*U '
-* g,y} (
i - PTL - W. T. Hurst P.E. Kornraan,P.E. I - PTL - Pgli. Pare 7. __._ _H((. MCGillivray, Manager / _ _
Forts 407 Rt v.
/<g $2 PITTSLRGH TESTING LA LRATORY' . pi ,3 ..... ..E. ....
5 ," PITTSBURGH, PA. 7'- ." p ..A WTU AL P40TECTtOM TO CLIENTS. TME POSLIC .NO OVitSELVES. ALL REPORTS
*/hJgg O Ele iou 0r" vavtEE=v's". c'O=e"Lus" ds' E Es'e'=."II. [."Ou'0n [Eo'IRo'. ."
OW4 REPORTS IS RESERVED PEND 4NG Ouft was??EN APPitOV AL. CLIENTS No. P.O. No. PR3-1106 REPORT ORDER No. TA-7732 REPORT FOR: FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION P.O. Box 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF: Maximum Density Tests on Soil-Cement Mixtures. DATE: 7-29-70 Test for maximum density and optimum moisture on Mixes #1,
#2, #3 were performed in accordance with ASTM D-558 modi-fled as follows: Compactive effort was increased to 5 layers, 25 blows per layer with 10 lb. rammer falling 18".
Results were as folicis: Mix #1 ---------------117.3 PCF @ 13.5% Mix # 2---------------- 118.'S PCF @ 13. 47. Mix #3----------------117.9 PCF @ 13.7% ca: 1 Client, Mr. Bennett ,nguy 2 Client, Mr. Froats 1 W. T. Hurst P.E. Kornman,P.E.
/. , //jf,& 49 H.J. McGillivray, Manager District, Tampa
& gmus.- e Page 9.
. ~ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
v J PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY PROCTOR DENSITY TESTS Lab No.: TA No.: 7732 CLIENT: F1.0ttTDA POWER CORPORATION REPORT OF: *(W""WM Proctor Density Test of 1.imerock for soil-cement (Modified)
- Mark out one PROJECT: crvsest Rfver. Unie A3 SAMPLED BY: th. T. Hurst DATE: 7-29-70 SPECIFICATION: **(See below) ASTM D1557 Method: C l
RESULTS: Wet Density Moisture Dry Density _Lb s/Cu . F t . Per Cent Lbs/Cu. Pt.
- l. 123.5 10.1 112.3 2 130.5 12.3 116.1
- 3. 11?_2 14.6 115.5 4 17R_O 15.0 111.3 ,
l 1 11
- i li i i
i ti l 4 L __ __
. i * . . ! I
/t f'e; i
K .,, N
- t
! i e I
t
/ i i it i 1 I i ? ! I i
/ e . . iN 4 i 4 eie i .
E i /t ii ! t i 6 ! a , t i\r i i i i ! ' I *I t
, 1/ t I !1 i e i 6 i \ i ' i i a /i ii i i ! i 1 e i - ! T i.
U /I!! I' i 6 i i r i i \ 8
- 6 g /4. s i 1 .i i 6.J Li . 1 .. 4 4 Ii i I
. 1 ! * *.- e i ! t i. t re i\. t . . e i +
j I: 1 i ' I
- f. . * *t I i i e
!I ii . . 4 i i ll IF t t iiii I
j i
- 1 i fiI i i i i ! 6 Ii I! ' i ii i1 i t i 4 1 pii . . ii ie --,6 + i . .
i ii . ... 311 3 t , , , . , , . _
>- niI , ,
. i r F 1_ .! ! t !t 3 _ il r .
- i l_, i i i ! r.
I t z g e i i i i i .
. . I
, i _
I i#i e i r i i i ! i
- .- g. .--
- i i I't i 6 I i ti e
! I i i 4 . . J
>- , , , .; i t i i - , i , , , !
D: 4 ,I Jl l t j l l l i 1t i ! l l o gg; - - . r go . . _.t2-.- --
. 44 . ..--.---h.- .
MOISTURE CONTENT % i 1
. .. . I OPTIMUM MOISTURE itn ~
. MAXIMUM DENSITY 116.2 i
. . . . , . . e. . . . - .. .. ,
. NTd2)RS,E ESEYEx LAEUMMW f- ,3 tsususneo see.
T'
~
'3 INSI'ECTING ENGINEEltS AND CIIEMISTS r, [~ 512 NORTH DELAWARE AVE.
'~
' TAMPA, FLORIDA 33606 AREA CODE 813 PHONE: 253.3485 48 A BUTUAL Pe0TECTien 10 CLithTS. Tet PWOLet Ast3 099$f LVf $, ALL REPORTS ARE $UteITTED AS tnt CoupestufiAL reerteTT OF CLeg=TS. ano AirtsscalTAfton FOR FUSUCaff0m 0F sf af tsthTS. CDe-3 CLUS40nl Os BataaCT5 FROW Os RE6antl#4 OUR Rf Potts is stStartp Ptm0ame OWS W81TTEm APPh0v4L November 22, 1972 PTL Ref: TA-7732 Mr. James Harris
- Gilbert Associates 525 Lancaster Avenue Reading, Pennsylvania 19602 Re: Compaction Data Florida Power Corporation
Dear Mr. Harris:
Enclosed you will find data on laboratory compaction and field density testing of the limerock fill compacted as Zone III material. Figure I summarizes compaction to date. The figure #2 entitled Compaction Characteristics was made up for J. A. Jones Company at the request of Gus Packos when the compaction difficulties arose with the only available limerock material. After consideration of the data on this figure, we ad-vised J. A.' Jones to use a tamping foot roller for initial com- k paction followed by the 30 ton rubber tyne roller. The field
)
results have borne out the conclusions drawn from the laboratory 1 i testing; in other words, that high stress kneeding type compaction would be required to achieve the required density. All of the field data indicates that the compaction water contents are well j wet of optimum for the high energy comgaction now being used, but drying the material has not be practical.
#1TTISUNSM NRW TORE SOSTON PMsL AD E LPui A CLEvtLANO OttmCi? ST. Lout $ SUFFALO CRttNSSONO LOUISv8LLE M t MPMts SALT LAKE CITY SAN F RANCtSCO ttw G4 LEANS SE ATTL E POSTL ANO DenMINGwAM DATON ROUGE LAFAvtTTE McLWAU At t 6NDI AN APOLIS ATLANTA HOUSTON DALL AS JAC K SONVILL t TAMPA FI A MO CMtCA80 97#4CU$t TALLAMassit EUSINE DU4MAM NASHylLLE ROANOut CH ATT ANOOO A DAVTONA canNsytLL t 20Cutsfra SPotANE MORCAN CeTY WINSTON SattM ASSOCIATLS AT s LOS ANGELES TORONTO MONT a t AL LONDON.ENGLANO
-___c.- . . z .__ _ . . _ . . ._ __ _. ._ ._ -. ._z 1. _ _ . . __.
. Mr. James Harris November 22, 1972 Page 2 TA-7732 The laboratory study indicates that the controlling perameter in the moisture-density relationship for any limerock sample appears to be the specific gravity of particles. This factor seems to be a highly variable quantity and determines the maximum density to which
. that sample can be compacted. We also found that the specific gravity of the particles scalped according to ASTM D-1557, Method c, was higher than the specific gravity of particles for the remaining material. The reduced field average specific gravity leads to the need for increased compaction effort in order to reach the requirements established in terms of Method C.
The results of triaxial testing are being sent under seperate cover. We apologize for the delay, but the requirement for the measure-ment of pore pressures in compacted samples made our own equipment inadequate for accurate testing. Due to the necessity for high back pressures in order to prevent pore water cavitation due to dialation,
- none of our usual sources were adequate either. Since we were in the process of up-grading our own equipment, we decided to rush the re-building rather than try to squeeze in on someone else's time schedule for tests in which little faith could be put in the results. The test series is now complete and will follow this data immediately.
We appreciate the opportunity of handling this testing for you and shall be glad to discuss the results witih you at any time. Respectfully submitted, PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY c-1 -
)
Ross T cG 11 r y, I Tampa District Engineer
~, -. _
_= .a .
.- . x - z- .-
.: .- 2 - . = -
Comme rvou L%rA
.ns. swee cana , ccysrat 2,vaiz , nwas
.RANGG of MOO!r/C D gg PAoc 704 O*k YA dour .2EC MArER A L.
b - o .- . N of % FICr 4 k feo . . . . . - . f \ /
, AYRAGE resrs or tuss,u can.wy
- 0 i 7 \ /
6 g:, a ,..\ u -
/
\
s
.'; \
j u . . . .. ,
, . , N.
k - - s \ s, g . \ '. a I 1 .
't o
l- /
'\
g izo .. 2.i. 7 s.c x 5.G
- 2h k /
m i \ Q \ i w:.,. ain v>=s h s,G. -0. E5 q Q ym _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . _ _ _ . . . . .
. . + 4
\
\\ l
\
' \
1 9o o fo ^ 20 M0/SruRE CONTENT c/o OF dry WEIG M r mm 9 YKI ivrrs suasa resrius tseasta,any g' 3 3w I s . 4 1\ w rrmes , noaios i - 1
,-w .-
V , iso Courpacrio a cann?cr nIsncs
- EONE .ZZZ' Marca I A t.
FL ORI DA POWER CORP. CRYSTA L RIVER, FLORID *.
~~~
SAW1PL E 8 - x, s i.,.. x~eco m c p.., ..
- c. e ,m T= 1. L-y. n=. o %
JSo use T*.m sma c s
,.y s Jo "a-m er f6 ys m.
l 20 . ' y . . . . _ . o s, q ,'
..n:'g U " 0 W^ "' d
~ 2% D-1857C . 8 passes 7~4 mes,s4 eb br-
. . S pas s v4 .Co f &%44eq Tyer 9 F'/GLD CGA14e C Ytas.) O=G*
1 e .h
~
q .f.f0 ASTM - D. /SS7C ,I s 750 PSI ST l sos \ O \ l
/
Soo PS/ S / \
\
h 1 n
' 1 Q
M ' 2 SE l ?eno ma voas
~
, .f00 . .. .- B STM D-698C , . - . - . .
T l ' j Q l , i i I i
..._._...___._.d.-..._...___._,. __ . ! . _ . . .
I l i
. i.
90 I o lo 20 MOI.S TURE CONTENT PERC EN T O F' DRY WEIGHT l\ P// / B ul?SH TESTIN G LABORATORY D ra m p s , ft.o Rio n
. '" ' NN D'9* . aq -#<w... .
__.~ ___ __._. F04w . ' Rty. PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY y, '% ,. .L, . E. ...,
- i. ,I PITTSBURGH, PA.
*, As A MWTWAL PaoTECTtoM To CLIENTS. THE PUBLIC AND ouRSELwas. ALL stEPORTs
(*3ARO R se som o eTATEu tmTs. oncLus one on EXTRACTS* Ro R REe$R$sN OWR REPORTS as RESERVED PENDING OWR WR877EM APPROVAL. LABORATORY No. 11-66
' cucNrs No.
REPORT CLIENT: Florida Powcr Corporation P. O. Box 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF: Sieve Analysis of Zone III LimcBock Fill Sample "B" TESTED BY: J. Byrno, PITTSBURGII TESTING LABORATORY DATE TESTED: March 22, 1972 Sieve Analysic: Sieve Si m Cumule.tive % Passina 3/4" 97.0 1/2" 91.8 3/8" 84.4 No. 4 73.5 No. 10 65.0 No. 20 55.3 No. 40 49.8 No. 60 44.8 No. 80 40.7 No. 140 34.7 No. 200 30.8 Pan O Respectfully submitted, PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORI. TORY r
%T R. T. McGillivray, P Tampa District Engineer cc: 1 Client ATTN: H. L. Bennett 1 Client ATTN: E. F. Froats 1 G. B. Browne sa: 11-13-72
.w- +m, - ,w . _ -
-s.._
3.u.e t.t.: (50) PITTSOURGH TESTING LABORATORY Ordor N 1
"" ~
n; , . [# I i - I
*$ J I { t i
- l t Q ,jg! l i 6 i . e i _
[ t i I I 0 l l I g 8m 1 I t i 6 i i i i 1 e l l t' l l l e
-~ ~-
g y ~ 'b c a s h \ Q > _ _ _ ,.,, __
. gw ,r.-:e u- a _. . -- ----u- - - . ;=z-.r=
- u -- - ~9 m.=m ... q 'a,
'D \ l '
C 34 4 . I N- '
- 1 1
- j l
*. . \ l i t *
--i e t ! t '
I SA e ,
- x. . i i ,
o kl ll
' ' N a \ _ _ _ _
o C r N ,
\1 e
e sm ; y 0 ' g % _ ________-d - ,__ ,.. m y _ . - _ _ _
,m._____,.m a
g i i
,x 1 . . . i ,_-
3
- i
- ' i +\t 4 i , 6 . t :,
g g -! ' __ _ ____L_ X i- _1 ' t .___i L.._. g -: Ek i l i \i i l i e a ,, 4
, i i v .
_g - O u *k m
'
- k u w
h ,t; e . K H 3 m .-l- - 7
- l k, _- a g 3 23
.a
_ ___w._ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . __.,___ _ .hL_ __ ___ ,__ __ . _ . __ . . __ . . L. S .$ _ H ;; i o
,__, i . - . i i
_aa M = i t ! . I t i
- C C .!? b g .",y
_.) 2 o W tl a ; *- N S
~
m g
. q n a.
u ' 0 2 -B u , l . :
- r i i i e i , i E : . . . . i . e i . i Q'
- i i i 6 t i O 1 i 1
- - p -
"o n
?! l.
yl . ; <t ' l d
, O C , d
,C lM 3, . , , , , , , .,
I1ai _; l 1 . i i e i i .
' . . . i 1 4 i i gl)
I I 8 l ; c; . i l ! I
,K i l l l l 1 I
,[q C1 1 I
, ic gI i e I't _. i o
. -- o 10 0 90 00 70 60 $O 40 30 20 10 00 o l PERCENT FINER BY V/EIGHT
a ~-;- - Ft;;1 407 fcy.
. g*5 ' ,
PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY
- 5. ,i PITTSBURGH. PA.
. %;;*sn..f$ ::.=.; :::=. ,:= =:=':,'=:."::: z===
oc = =uc';*;;;,,;;^';",,=;'; =a"ll;;l;;* ,a",,';";c;* ;;;;,;;Ja'aa'"* LABORATORY No. 11-65
-- CUENTS No.
REPORT CLIENT: Florida Pouer Corporation P. O. Box 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF:
- Sieve 7.nylsis of Zone III Lime Rock Fill Samplo "A" TESTED BY: J. Byrne, PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY DATE TESTED: March 22, 1972 Sieve Analvsis:
Sieve Size Cumulative *? Passinc 3/4" 98.4 1/2" 87.5 3/8" 80.7 No. 4 72.4 No. 10 65.2 No. 20 55.8 No. 40 50.4 No. 60 46.3
. No. 80 42.2 No. 140 36.3
_ No. 200 33.2 Pan O Respectfully submitted, N PITTSBURGH TESTING APORT. TORY
,t 1
, o->oT '
R. T. McGillivrey, P. . E . Tampa District Engineer
~
cc: 1 Client ATTN: H. L. Dennett 1 Client ATTU: E. F. Froats . 1 G. B. Browne sa: 11-13-72
,4 w , - =
~ . , :.- . _ . ~ . . ..--A_. - _.... - -
n m PITTSOURGH TESTING LABORATORY . Ordor No. n ,. 8 I g I) 1 ad J i i t 1 4
- i N _f;_ i ! l
- f ,,
O e p l l
) l 6 l {
Y1 % i k-c 3i 1 # i 6 h d l
' l I 4 e'
_ -5 c
. N x
.% > m: . r. .~. -% aw s .- ar .=.s == ,==:.u.~ - -- - --- u - - -- - =w .rs.: .p. _rs.:.=u. . . n e,
*C % 1 X e i i P
- r i \' '
f f f I i j I
** _j \ l I . t t i 1 ,' j 6 S ff ~ 7- 7 i . 'g, i 9- 4 *F"~ ~'
O. i ,\! I o
~
l
,j i \\ o N
e" b C \ o g m wri -- - -- -
~~.mr. == , -- - \. r.m.wam ae- .
.ep ar.4 - - - - -- -pE ~ e3 g % '
.\ t s __ _ t s.,-
3 _ a q - Ne + . ' i . q g , g
* ' ' ' __ _ -.-L_ X ! _! _ _ I _ .
_ , _ o *- Eh l l l I '\I I l c a ,, 3 h y I i i i i s
\
. , _g -
Q t.2 ! Cd UN T W
)-- ,5.t ,- >-
D D M 1 g --- \ ,, c[g ! *11 d
" _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ ..__.._t. _
.___=____.g..___. . . . .
{} F ;; i . . i - i . , i i g o M = $ I I I .I 4 ! *
- O g -W O .*! F Es ,,,3 I $O LO Il J 3-d 6 h$
e - _e4 O , t r-- a s A M, ' ' ' O 2 E g p r . > i > i , ; i i i 4 c ! e a e e 4 e . , s . a
$ N t I 1 I i l
~ O I I i
- - p o I n ,
E i ) .. g; .
- <: 3 O
C c M . I o
)
gi l 8 t I i 4 i l'{' 8 '
. i ! e lC glela l l 8 I $ l i
. . .e .q j U C
'E k g,g
.c e
i s..
.G .
O O 100 90 00 70 60 60 40 30 20 10 00 o PERCENT FINER BY Y/EIGHT
. a e
- n. -. - - . - - - - -. - - . .
Fs = co7 atv.
~
s/@gyn,,7%u PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY E, ,5 PITTSBURGH PA. n:==.: :: = :.: := :==':,= =. -
= =.:,=:
- %h' w. .ff
~' ~~:=:: ====: . , == =.:::~~~ -
LABORATORY No, 11-60
- CUENTS No.
REPORT _. CLIENT: Florida Power Corporation P. O. Boc 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OP: Modified Proctor Density Test of Lime Rock Sample "A" PROJECT: Florida Power SAMPLED BY: R. McGillivray, PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY SPECIFICATIONS: ASTM D-1557-70 Method "C" DATE: March 21, 1972 RESULTS: Uet Density Moisture Dry Density Lbs/Cu. Pt. Por Cent Lbs/Cu. Ft. 122.7 9.7 111.9 129.6 12.0 115.7 129.0 15.2 111.9 Maximum Dry Density 115.8 pounds per cubic foot. Optimum Moisture 12.5 per cent. Respectfully submitted, PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY o-sot s'f4 R. T. McGillivray, P. E. Tampa District Enginccr cc; 1 Client ATTN: H. L. Dennett ~ 1 Client ATTN: E. F. Froats l G. D. Browne , sa: 11-13-72
,4m ,w+4.-- - s+== -
m _.m .
~
.. _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . . _ . . --_ l Fm W RM.
Z /r'gSt'ac4?a.PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY
....u.. .... ~
- 5. ,E PITTSBURGH, PA.
~
#M as a murvat p.or.evion v. cu.=v.. vu. ru.uc a.. .u...tv... att ..e v.
#*%'e;;,;,W ;:: ::::','m..., :' ,~:::=....:'=..
.::::=..:.:.:.. :..:.:.:.:
. ..... a
- .:::=: "
,aa 4 ABCRATORY No. 11-64 cuENTS No.
REPORT
. CLIENT: Florida Power Corporation P. O. Eox 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF: Double Energy Modified Proctor Density Test of Lime Rock Sample "A" PROJECT: Florida Power SAMPLED BY: R. McGillivray, PITTSBURGH TESTING L'.3 ORATORY SPECIFICATIONS: 2X ASTM 1557-70 Method "C" DATE: March 21, 1972 PISULTS:
Wet Dens.ity Moisture Dry Density Lbs/Cu. Ft. Per Cent Lbs/Co. Ft. 132.6 11.4 119.0 Respectfully submitted, PITTSEURGH TES" JING L'iEORATORY WY '/1
- R. T. McGillivray, P. E.
Tampa District Engincer cc: 1 Client A'F2N : H. L. Bennett
'1 Client ATTN: E. F. Froats
- 1 G. B. Browne sa: 11-13-72 y>..%%.w-m w
v' FCC2 /.07 Rt v.
= g,"ggte g4% PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY
- . . es .....<,.... ...,
E ,5 PITTSBURGH, PA.
".:: M*::":: :.1:=t,;":::,v':.*: . ;.",':n:,%'.:,'=:
's.';pno . I ~ ~;;': ::::,i:=t:,:~;=::'. " ':::::::.::w""'""
L.ABORATORY No. 11-63 curNT s No. REPORT ,- CLIENT: Florida ?ower Corporction P. O. Eo:c 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629
~
REPORT OF: Standard Proctor Density Test of Lime Rock Samplc "A" T PROJECT: Florida Powcr SAMPLED DY: R. McGillivray, PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY SPECIFICATIONS: ASTM D-698-58T Method "C" DATE: March 21, 1972 RESULTS: Wet Density Moisture Dry Density Lbs/Cu. Pt. Per Cent Lbc/Cu, Pt. 118.8 13.6 104.6 Respectfully subnitted, PITTSBUhGH TESTING LAEORI. TORY r
~r 9' di R. T. McGillivray, P. E. ~
Tampa District Engineer cc: 1 Client ATTN: H. L. Dennett 1 Client . WPM : E. F. Froats ~' e, - 1 G. B. Browne sa: 11-13-72 wmep8b + M N. = " w , . , , ,
_ , . - - - - _ . . . . - . - - - - - _ . ~ . _ - - . - Fonu 407 Rtv. 4 PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY
~ /ggy,q , , 'n .staeusu.o sees
- 5. .. , 5 PITTSBURGH, PA.
'- ::.=.: ::= :.:,:= =:,r:, :3.=:. =::.:=
'+h. %+ .ff ~ ~~= :.::.,r :=,n~:::::= . =':::::.:: ~~-
1.ABORATORY No. 11-59 CUENT'S No. ORDER No. TA-7732
-- CLIENT: Florida Power Corporation P. O. Box 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF: Modified Proctor Density Test of Lime Rock Sample "B" ~
PROJECT: Florida Power SAMPLED BY: R. McGillivray, PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY SPECIFICATION: ASTM D-1557-70 Method "C" DATE: March 21, 1972 RESULTS: Wet Density Moisture Dry Density Lbs./Cu. Pt. Per Cent Lbs./Cu. Pt. 123.3 12.0 110.1 132.6 13.6 116.7 130.8 15.7 113.1 l Maximum Dry Density 116.7 pounds per cubic foot. l 1 optimum Moisture 13.7 per cent, Respectfully submitted, PITTSBURCII TESTING LABORATORY r NT /.b7 l R. T. McGillivray, P. E. Tampa Distritt Engineer cc: 1 Client ATTN: H. L. Dennett 1 Client ATTN: E. F. Froats 1 G. B. Browne sa: 11-13-72
~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ -- - - - -
.= ._w.
--~ .~. w--.--
_ es'inc Fons 407 Rtv. 9% PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY _/ 0
,f PITTSBURGH, PA.
~
".',l."EUte."f.T=*fo%3%IU 4"AOfl,'."6 ". ,0."IJE*1!,W.!,74.,'
*i*+ -*5a'a'["#
'"' ~~**"*"JJ "'?!",".".",i,n"l10'!"* *",, */"'*a' 10.".O ""'"""*
LABORATORY No. 11-62 cuswrs No. REPORT CLIENT: Floridt Power Corporation P. O. Box 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF: Double Energy Modified Procti3r Density
. Test of Lime Rock Sample "B" -
PROJECT: Florida Power SAMPLED BY: R. McGillivray, PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY SPECIFICATIONS: 2X-1557-70 Method "C" _ DATE: March 21, 1972 RESULTS: Moisture 1.'et Density Dry Density Lbs/Cu. Pt. Per Cent 'Lbs/Cu. Ft.
, 133.2 12.4 118.5 Respectfully submitted, PITTSBUEGH TE.cTING LABOPJ. TORY r t W T f t)/y R. T. McGillivrcly, P. E. /
Tampa District Engineer . r
- h cc: 1 Client J.TTN: H. L. Dennett 1 Client .'.TTS: E. E. Fronts
_ J G. D. Browhe - ca: 11-13-72 l
~
l
~
--- - ~ ~ ~ --..-_. _ _ _ _ _ ,
(' . Fica 407 Rev.
-/
N% PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY
.5 ..u . ....
E. ,E PITTSBURGH. PA.
.. . mvvu.6 .rser. v. cuenv.. we eu.uc ... ....=6Vs.. au. . v.
P_ T4,%g #*lc,/,g %.', % E0.!'". .,".'.fr*r"le'#.r'."."'.'e**u*."*"'.' .*l .*='llEv". ^"!=.'V.L.#".*.".'*%;*" WR RSP.RT 1. Rd ERVED PENDING .WR rAITTEN . PPA l.ABoRATORY No. 11-61 CUENT'S Nt,. p
, _ CLIENT: Florida Power Corporation P. O. Box 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF: Standard Proctor Density Test of Lime Rock Sample " B" PROJECT: Florida Power SAMPLED BY: R. McGillivray, PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY SPECIFICATIONS: ASTM D698-58T DATE: March 21, 1972 RESULTS:
Wet Density Moisture Dry Density Lbs/Cu. Ft. Per Cent Lbs/Cu, Ft. 119.4 14.4 104.4 . Respectfully submitted, PI'm iRGH TESTING 'BORATORY o-po T f '
~
R. T. McGillivray, P. E.
**Y Tampa District Engineer cc: 1 Client I.TTN: H. L. Bennett 1 Client ATTN: E. F. Froats ~
l G. B. Browne sa: 11-13-72
*M N89 #y N , , , , , , ,
_....m.._.._ ._
- ~
.. - ~.~ -~
~ l F3na co? Rt v, i e Agg in .PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY y ' '4%a I
- 5. PITTSBURGH, PA.
- %g;== ..y, E n:. =,: ::::.==u :::..=:::n.=:. =: =.:=:
+ ~ ~~= :.::.m:~:.=:~:=='. =v:::::.:::~~~-
ORDER NO. TA-7732 LAB NO. 11-101 ; REPORT I
. i CLIENT: Florida Pos.er ~ Corporation P.~O. Box 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF: Unit Ueight by Static Compaction PROJECT: Florida Power .
DATE: March 23, 1972 SAMPLE A - 5 Layers at 500 PSI 3 Layers at 500 PSI Ueight of Materials 8.09 8.09 Ueight of Mold 4.04 4.04 reight of soil 4.05 4.05 Uet Unit V7eight 121.5 121.5 Percent Moisture 13.0 13.0 Dry Unit Ueight 107,3 107.5 Respectfully submitted, PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY r e-jot Ross T. McGillivray, P. E Tampa District Engineer cc: 3 Client sa: 11-21-72 M Wee 9 Wump 'W
._4.g. .
. . ~ . . ,,
- y. .m_ . _ - _._ . . _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ___
r. 6 i _ romu 4o7 new. e/$gy,,,h PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY a ..?. ..N.O .... _ 5; ,7 PITTSBURGH PA.
# e AS A esWTUAL PROTECTaON TO CLIENTS. tnt PWSLIC AND OURSELVES, ALL REPOctTS I"%;&k+" ::: :".::::::?O . :~:,:,1~';::~' ::::::::::: cy::::a::.'":~::::=
OWS REPOeft IS AstteTED PENDING Ove welf?tN APPeovAL, ORDER NO. TA-7732 LAB NO. 11-102 REPORT
~ ~
CLIEUT: Florida Dover Corporation P. O. Box 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF: Unit Weight by Static Compaction W PROJECT: Florida Power DATE: March 25, 1972 SAMPLE A i 1 5 Layers at 500 PSI Wet Unit Weight Moisture Percent Dry Unit Ueight l 124.8 14.6 108.9 3 Layers at 750 PSI Wet Unit Weight Moisture Percent Dry Unit Ueight 127.2 14.6 111.1
~
Respectfully submitted,
~
MITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY r
- e '
7 Mg Ross T. McGillivray, P. E/ Tampa District Engineer cc: 3 Client sa: 11-21-72 a W W b W g anr, .9y% e ew- .e.-te-S.m-- ,- -- .
p- -__ _ . . _ ~ . - _ . - _ . . , , . - . _ . F oot' 407 Rev. PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY
- e. T' .h E. ,f
.....u.... ....
PITTSBURGH. PA.
-- O. // .. . , ,u . 6 .. ,... v. e u .. ... .. . .. .Je . .. . . 6. . . . .u. . . ..
%dy,;,'M
. O *",'O...,*.. .'.' '."/,.
*,*.J ' !".'l.'.' '.63..!'"'.'.#..
,.*t..,'J.
. ".c.'I ORDER NO. TA-7732 LAB NO. 11-104 REPORT CLIENT: Florida Pouer Corporation P. O. Box 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF: Kneeding Compaction 10 Layers 350 PSI Tamper 30 Tamps / layer
-~
SPECIFIC?.TIONS : ASTM D-1557 Method C RESULTS: SAMPLE B 1.*et Density Moisture Dry Density
^-
Lbs/Cu. Pt. Per Cent Lbe/Cu. Ft. 116.9 1.2. 115.1 122.8 5.4 116.2
. 128.5 9.3 117.3 135.0 11.6 121.0
_ 130.9 14.0 114.6 Respectfully submitted, PITTSDURGII TESTING LAEORATORY WT h^w Ross T. McGillivray, P. F Tampa District Engineer
~
cc: 3 Client sa: 11-21-72 W.S W
. my.mv m m, ,- w.n ao ---m- e u .e...-w -..a m m.- ,m.r.,e~ ,,mem-~~,- . - . - - - , - - - ~ -
~- re:a co7 new.
' A PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY
; ! A ,. ..... ...,
j . PITTSBURGH. PA.
%.';;*s=..y, o' E :: . '= :::= . :,,=t .
'** "*' i*"::."'i "lN';,2": ::::'.; '
- ..=,'=:~.':: :=.:=:
,'L' '"".2.'"'**'"
ORDER No. TA-7732 LAB NO. 11-103 REPORT CLIENT: Florida Power Corporation , P.O. Box 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF: Kneeding Compaction 5 Layers . 350 PSI Tamper - 30 Tamps / layer SPECIFICATIONS: ASTM D-1557 Method C RESULTS: Wet Density Moisture Lbs/ Cu. Ft. Por Cent Dry Lbs /Cu. Density Pt. 113.5 1.4 111.8 118.4 5.7 112.0 126.7 9.9 115.5 132.4 12.3 117.9 128.5 14.3 113.3 l Respectfully submitted, l PITTSBURGH TESTING t.ABORATORY j r WT d4,!tr Ross T. McGillivray, P. E. Tampa District Engineer cc: 3 Client _ sa: 11-21-72
=ep a,
4 g@q dup-Nwer e+A& --4 4m4ee p ee p9 4.g = e,gy.p.e .- . opm,,,.wp..,,j,,, , , , , ,
__ _ - _ _ ._ . . _ . . . . . ._. _._.._...__.._.-...._________u__ l r- , 4. I ,
- Fonu 407 Rev. '
was PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY rfi.Mo%b
. ..e.... ....
,I- PITTSBURGH PA.
r-
- a. a seutu.L .aot.eview to cu..v.. tu. .ueue ..o ous. 6va.. .LL ...omt.
%,;,/j.# # ::: :== ... .n..
.... =.. ....=.... .=.. =.. .:u:. .=::a..:.:e.===
. ...... ...m CLIENTS No. P.O. NO. PR3-1106 REPORT ORDER No. TA-7732 REPORT FOR: FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION P.O. Box 276 Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF: Modified Proctor Density Test of ZONE III.
PROJECT: Crystal River Unit #3, Nuclear Generating Plant. SAMPLED BY: G.B. Browne, PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORA'iORY SPECIFICATION: ASIM D 1557, Method C.
- DATE: 10-24-70
_. RESULTS: I
' MOISTURE DRY DENSITY
- WET DENSITY
~
lbs/ Cu. Ft. Per Cent 1bs/ Cu. Ft. 10.5 i 116.3 128.9 130.0 11.5 116.6 132.1 12.6 117.2 132.0 13.2 116.5 ' 132.1 14.3 115.3 o Maximum Dry Density 117.2 Pounds per cubic foot. Optimum Holsture 12.6% Respectfully submitted, cc: 1 Client, Mr. Bennett PITTSdiJRGH TESTING LABOKATORY 2 Client, Mr. Froats .h)'s ,,k ,,'i;.,9l} Qh,*..y.:az.a . 1 En. T. Hurst / p/"', H .McGillivray,Managerg Tampa District I fmw.4 y P.E. Kornman,P.E. e.up gf T.duW *,-gM*=' @ P-
.-W WWW-4+_ ^
4 **'-=er=.m*a * - =* = sam e * *-meer
- 4.m- we<*===am- .=4esewm
. ~ . - - - ~ . . ___ ,_
... . .:v ~ . .. - 1._. .
- --- a _ . -
..~e..- _. . .
t
~ . , . . ~. .y db?,, PITTSBil GH TESTING BOR TOR mo { , El PITTSBURGH. PA.
l I_ I.' as a eiv.uat e.o,.c, sow ,o cu.=,.. .n. ev.uc ano ou.s.. v... aLL ..r ..
%,J,$.Y
# .".,'.'".c.',*.
.a!,? '.".J"#.'!%;*"
**'. T . ..
. '" . ." l,*. . '"/.,.a*,*."f'*f ".".'.' .!.!.*.it.".~'.'.#..
.. . . . . . .m
_ . CLIENTS No. P.O. NO PR3-1106 REPORT ORDER NO: TA-7732 REPORT FOR: FLORIDA F :ER CORPORATION P.O. Box 276
~
. Crystal River, Florida 32629 REPORT OF: Modified Proctor Density Test of ZONE III PROJECI: Crystal River Unit #3, Nuclear Cencrating Plant.
SAMPLED BY: G.B. Browne SPECIFICATION: ASTM D 1557, Method C.
~
DATE: 3-(-71 _
. i ,
RESULTS: WET DENSITY MOISTURE DRY DENSITY lbs/ Cu. Ft. Per Cent 1bs/ Cu. Ft. i 132.6 10.4 120.0 10.6 P' 120.2 133.0 . 134.6 10.8 121.2 136.9 11.4 121.6 136.5 12.8 121.0
\
5' I Jr l Maximum Dry Density 121.6 PCF
~
Optimum Moisture 11.47. a cc: 1 Client: Mr. Bennett 2 Client: Mr. Froats Respectfully submitted, 1 Mn. T. Hurst T U CH TESTING IABORATORY i , l . I
. i&M" H.J.'McCt111vray, Manage Tampa District 1
.i P.E. Kornman,P.E. .
-. .- . . . _ -. ~. _ - . - _ . . -- . - - --
[l 4. [' I p I w. - ro.is 407 Rcv.
. d,, i% PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY
._F.r a *
- i. , PITTSBURGH. PA.
)%,.,#[ ill."v"dWi.l"L"#'*e".'",,E',"" 4"!,T."#%'."t,. .U."N!'1/#."la"J.".
+ * *
= *=.'yJ,;*;;;gg A;;;;~=;;;*ga, ;;;g,;;;;;,,;ca^aa'a*
LABORATORY No. curwrs No. PORT
. Page 1 of 2 REPORT FOR: FIARIDA POWER CORPORATION P.O. Box 276 '
Crystal River, Fla. , 32629 REPORT oft Modified Proctor Density Test of ZONE III
~
PROJECI: CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT #3, Generating Plant SAMPLED BY! C.B. BROWNE SPECIFICATION: ASTM D,1557, Hethod C DATE: 8-8-72 RESUi.TS: i , WET DENSITY MOISTURE DRY DENSITY Ibs/Cu Ft. Per Cent Ibs/ Cu.Ft. 118.6 7.6 i 110.2 123.4 8.3 114.0 127.8 9.4 116.8 133.1 12.4 118.4*-
. 133.4 12.9 118.2 132.6 15.0 115.3 ~
- Maximum Dry Density: 118.4 PCF > ,.
Optimum Hoisture 12.47. l cet 1 Client: Mr. II.L.Bennett Respectfully submitted, 1 C1.ientV fr ( ',E. Proats'
's- Td 4 19 -
PI SBPGH TESTING IABORATORY
- /s ,/ -
S'-
. ,/,
- u. . .y, .wn ,, l E.J. AMSLEY. P.E. _H . licCILLTVRAY. MAIMCER
/ l
./ v mm
,, ,y q s ..p- en. ~m n .,.m-< e.- -
-m-.-
W -= w
_w..<=. . _ _ . a: . - . . _ _ . . . . . - - - . Fse:s C7 Et v. 1 f[Tse,"%. .PITTSBURGHPITTSBURGH, TESTING LABORATORY PA. 1 .. [/'* **.." """#.."N",".*" !*, .%'rl't X'.0#'t,'"* 0"."?!!';o'#.".',':*,";" 4 ' aao "" """*O*.".*!#.'T*".".".7.,4"*NJl*"'O "J'"#. I"!.".Ou""'"*'"* LABORATORY No.
.- cumfrs No. ORDER No.
REPORT Page 1 of 2 REPORT FCE FIARIDA P0vER CORPORATION F.O. Box 276 Crystal River, Fla., 32629
.3EPORT OF Modified Proctor Density Test of ZONE III FRQJECT: CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT #3, Generating Plant SAMPLED BY: G.B. Browne, F.T.L. ,
3FECIFICATION: ASTM D 1557, Nethod C DATE: 4-3-72 RESULTS: , WET DENSITT MOISTURE DRY DENSITY lbs/Cu Ft. Per Cent Lbs/ Cu.Ft. 120.5 8.4 111.2 126.2 9.7 115.0 129.8 11.4 116.5 131.3 12;4 116.8 132.5 14.2 116.0 Maximum Dry Desnity: 116.8 PCF Dptimum Moisture 12.4 cc 1 Client: Mr. H.L. Bennett Respectfully submitted, 1 C,lient:.Mr/ E.E. Froats
.T.L'. / 4 PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY s
- //s%r s a..j 7,, W,0 2?t? k au,
- x. . vinsttT. 1.E. .
$,f' N.
bj'A$'k 9 N MecILLIVRAT MANAGER [
/ U e
.me.
' Megas %
2 .u . -. . y w% , t ronia 4o7 ncv. p,,,,It PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY
.f .s ..,.. ..... ....
. i. ,5 PITTSDURGH, PA.
%,% /n' .. . . . ...,..... . . .. ... , . ... .. . . ..... .... . .. ...
- :":=,.:'.:::,*:.':::.'n.o',.::::,'::::
..a m.r.n . s. mas.sv v::::. :: '":".:=::
r.w..no ..n wann. ares. vat LABORATORY No. WEm No. ORDER No. REPORT FOR: FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION F.O. Box 276 ,. .
- Crystal River, Els.'32629 REPORT FOR: hodified Proctor Density Test of ZONE III ~
PROJECT: CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT #3, Generating Plant SAMPLED BY: G.B. BROWNE SPECIFICATION: ASTM D 1557, Method C > _ DATE: 9-28-72 . 1 REDULTS: WET DENSITY -M01STUh3 DRY DENSITY Ibs/Cu Ft. Per Cent 1bs/Cu Ft. 129.6 10.0 117.8 132.0 11.1 , 118.8 132.3 15.1 114.9 132.9 17.3 113.3 133.1 12.8 118.0 _ Maximum Dry Density: 118.8 PCF
- Optimum Moisture: 11.17.
ces 1 Client: Mr. H.L.-Bennett Respectfully submitted,* 1 Client: He .E. Jroats 1 , . PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY
?/W W
/ h'. ,y '
E.J. WAMSLEY. P.E. H. . McGILLIVRAY MANAGER 3 l 1 6 N* 4 I h * * .3 1. *%,., 4 * *. g 1 ah , e , ,, ,. , _ , , _ ,. _ , , _ _ _ _
__.- _ - ~. . . .. - -. -.-._ .-
- e. - - . - - .
. . ..s... .
recs 407 atv. c 4.Ici T%
~
PITTSBURGH' TESTING LABORATORY .....<,..t. ....
.I
"/ g 4 l
~PITTSDURGH. PA. ;
- t. .
.-- . 6 ./.e? 3 as a eivvv.s e orse.. ,o etec=,. 5-c ev.6.c . . oun.a.6 rs. a,tt m.e...r.
ans evo.etene as var couriosave.6 roo* cave or eteents. mo
. g
" * "av ' woe . vion j,i-,g '""'"**"""*'*
A" "" " 1I"t."**""""'
#** #''*"*" '.'A,'8 .
' AhDY *
.*, , UR RtP IS S Clt R'otD PE N 4Mf.o'V W W I,, E
.' PPA ..g
~. .. .. -, ..
s
. n .. . . .
65.. '. s ' '[.C , 'i ~ . .'Date //> 4 7~)
.. c.' .
.. REPORT .
.' .t
- - 4 .. .,- . .
**. .. .... e. ,
~
,,,. , 77[
Hatbial: * [.. ,; ' . : ' .
.. Sampled by: M j. ;/ h M /i h
- I Date: /&2 Us 7 ? *) .
' '~'
1'
, .- ( Fuelear Guage)
' Specification: 98 *
, '/. of Maximum Dry Density ,
(Sand Cone)
. Test No.1 -ft. - of Column Line b/, -Cit. r- of Column Line --
Elev: 2 C b " M N ' * -
'~*
Of*
~
.i.: , ' . .O 9..Q . . .
. Test No. 2 -- - it /f* f Column Line 8 M , - ft. - of Column Line 8.
Elev: /#I4 # '9 gf4 pggy ,
,g
..//L.?( .' '<. .' /t. . f.g.. ~, ,
o) y, n g .,
.j. .
f* Jof Column Line 3 0/ , of Co'1umn Line A
Test No. 3 ,
ft. -
-. ft.
.Elev: /c? ' 20 7 4'*/d My ' 'I" N3## '70 C/ *
., . jj -), 7g ...'
~h*7.?C
'2
%p,.
' Test No. 4 ' it 'of Column Line e
_, ft. of Column Line
. . Elev: ,
All above' test meet specification requirement.
~
. Test-DNet~M- i2fand meetspecificationrequirementafterrecomp$ction. .
( 111.2) PCF f ( l'3170)
. Maximon Dry Density:* "
\'
I
//f} -
D"
- Tm )fl W. lu o .m
_c c 7- j
- * . l
. fW A ---o-wn-w.,,m .
~ ., - _ - . _ ... . - . _ .. .u..- . - . . . . .
~,__._ -
.y;, ...,...s....-
.;g . . . . . . . .. s . .
, o'- m u,...
r..
-__ y"c %y Pli ISBURGH TESTING LABORATORY 3 j b... ., .. . m .<,... ....
%,, .,- .*,?' -
. ' PITTSBURGH. PA.
.~ , . ..- .
. m,....... ,. ....... . ... ..,..., . m..m. .. ..
,... .. .. .m..
.. .. mm.. ..m.,............m ...< .....,... ..... .. .....
,..m... . .
. . . m.
s. e ..
.= . ..,. . . i ; > 3. . .- . - .- M .. .., .
.....y. ._;,. //) /M72 ..
.. . r ,..
, REPORT ,
..Date u
.s
~ .
Material': . . W S'-
. o .-
,j. ' Sampled ' by: "
<[2[. [ -
~
Date;
/g., 7p -
sr
, r
' Specifica tior.: 987. of Maximum Dry Density *
( Nuclear Guage) .
.- / .
. (Sand Cone)
- Test No.1 --.p I sft. --
s G zz of Column Line 7,1
----ft. ---- of Column Line c D
*P ---
Elev:-~~fgy yuYP ~ , 6,,: . f.s g, - m Q
~~---- - Pe><") # w
?/( .
f f p ( ",, . D. 9 To
.,. . ..r . ,. .-. .
~. Test No. 2 --
-ft e N f Column Line N, -
ft. of Column Line b. Elev:__ M/ Ny '
. N9. o .' /.).f0 *D "g
', Test No. 3 ft. of Column Line ft. ~o f Column Line w
Elcy: - i..,. . e- - . U Test No. 4 ' ft_ .of Column Line ft. of Column.Line -
. Elev: "
. .- . . 3 .- -
. ., s
. i
. All above' test meet specification requirement. .
~
Test No. and meet speci ication requirement after recompaction. I
'. Maximon Dry Density: ( YJ170) ( 11) .1) PCF . >=
. /t 'fp -
. _d 1 -
, .- f- .
\
- 1 . .
g g.n. . - - - - . - - . - . . =b .
- -- . _M
_ _ . _ _ . . . _ .. . . . _ _ . . _ m._ . .._ . ~
.. .,j 7. y ,
F nm 407 arv. g, -
.r. *.<
PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY o e- ,.
. .....u...o .... ;
.. i I PITTSDURGH. PA. I W o., " $e ,
as a eiutuat enoveerio s to curuts twc puotse ano ownsrove.. att stronts . anc sueueitto as wwc c >wreatwveat enoncove or eteents, ano aute.oneration 4(g g ., r oel Pu.44Cou at.io.8e. o.F.S.f.a)( s. M.E mvo N T S C.o4.C.a.u.s.to,se
. ov. t Ust E.s..tan.m.tom.
aCi r,eo.ne om A LG amotMS
..(
=... .
l...'
. Q .,..'
' f .'-
REPORT Date /5 -/O #72-.
.o .
~ ' '
.Matbrial': *
- W/? ' ' ' '. s.*:.".; . . ,. ' h.h .
t M,
, Sampled by: '"'> '.' .. .
c .
.c.
lor /0. Date: '7-)
. K
. s' 1
.' ' Specification: 987 of Maximum Dry Density ( Nuclear Cuage) .
... . (Sand Cone) ',,
. - - < "A Test No. 1 . 9'S-----f t. M- of Column Line so7-- , ------ft. ---- of Column Line -----
'~
gley:.. E .... [ elp d
' 7M :n 3e
[d.. . ' , . ' Pc44 $. WP gz 3.. . 4 . ,
~; -
Test No. 2 ' h '--ft fad of Column Line .PU , M ft. ,e> m[of Column Line #.
~
~
Etex: // 2.
~
. Jaid j.AM AA. . ,?owf
. it(c;&p o L~. . '
..~ /L 3o ,
H. s~Q .
' i .k .
.j .. . , . " .
n . .- - M
$ . Test No. 3 /f f t.Mof Column Line R/ ,
, W f t. FfColumnLine ,,
' " gi.v: -
/// 78 .//S.S % A
%h>M.
/$7f -
, 9 ['7 N-
, ' , W Wo
~
. . .:, . . - .u . . .
. .'. Test No. 4 ft of Column Line , ft. of Column Line !
~ .
- s I .
s., . . . . . , All above test meet specification requirement.
. Test o. and meet specification requirement af ter recompaction.
. 1
( l' m))
~ '
. Maximon Dry Density: ( 111.2) PCF .
e- .
, f.
. . - e . .
/
,. n ~ .. -
s _ -s .. ._ _ . .- . _ . . _ , . _ _ _ . . _
--e m . - --.- .-. . . . .... . . . . . , , . . . . . . _ . .
s..._ ...,g-102ns 407 arv.
- / pieN% S~~ PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY '
;/'TJ' g .d.. ..... ,...
T . ," PITTSBURGH. PA.
.','e. jf .. . ,, .
.t......<,.. ,. c.ie..... ,-c. .... .... . .. ..........
.l~.
., 4 . .
sm ,C,..
. a. .......
. E,P' m.
ig g tf
..................,s....<....
F.st PutteC UA.t.4StP e.rR .,...Eut es OS .CoeCLuS t.E R ING vt. PWRE M. stem EN. PPA . .t.om .5 .F Alewe L. a.se.T.n e t s ....
. .c - -
. REPORT ,
Date /d -/C '72
, .. ,. . e: . ,
/M M ,'
- ' Haterial': *
' ~ . ' ,i ' J y -
.. , Sampled by: Mc< c '
Date: ,
. /g? d - 7.) .
' . . 8 98*/. of Maximum Dry Density ( Nuclear GuaBe) .
. . - .' Specification: *
, (Sand Cone)
,9,
- w M Y g- of Column Line3--- . ------f t. ---- of Column Line m Test No. 1 -----ft. ,
Elev:- f eb ------- Y$ cA. AA. Y$SV - - .
& c f --%
., lH8 o' .. . ' . . , .\.
/2a>T~ , . . .
S'<%
.w .
. Test N'o. 2 - -- f t _ ce.e [, of Column Linc _3oe, ?Nt. ,> Column Line .5" .
E1ev; lo6 ?dllk clM SY '
, "Y*"
'*lh ' F '
Of . f c' _k , ' Test No. 3 // ft. Afof Column Line Fe/ ,'. M 'f t. . s v$lCo'lumnLine l g1ey: jg 9Cei k . .' fYo d'Y S '' Af D .
.. Ws r No NJ%
j
. .s .
' Test No. 4 ft of Column Line , ft. of Column Line
. .. Elev:- *
. All above' test meet specification requirement.
- . Test ro, and meet specification requirement after recompaction.
. Maximun Dry Density: ( r,WB) ( 111.2) PCF .
. . llEf .
YIN bu '
~ .
s . i . p l m .my . ,a ., . y .. 1.._. . . . _ . _ . . t.___ _., _. . %' . a _ . _ _ .
- . ~ . - - . . . --.- . . - . - . _ . .
.....a.___-- .. _
m 4.
. . . . r .. .. . , . .
r... . o.
~ N ; N,.
. PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY -
ii./ 'vJ ,.
.....<,.M.. ....
.3, .
PITTSBURGH. PA.
*, A9 4 MUTUAL PtOf fCT6090 TO CLfENTS. TMC PVSklC AND OURSELVI$. ALL REPORTS . .
ARE SUtesIf f tD AS THC CONFIDCoef 0 AL PetOPC AT T OP CLGENTS. 49 9 auf teOutI AftON , Fem PuttsCavsOss OP st AftsetN:s. COHcLussoses un ta vnACTS FROtt OR NEG ARDIf66 OUR AtPORTS OS JIESERVED PENDeteG Oum wsITTEM APPAOfAL. ..
.-.. .n'f - '.,-
4, . . . . ..
- s. REPORT . Date /O-N) *? 7
. . . s. .
.S.. ,
3
. . . . ..s .. . .
......f..
Material': '2-,.uT '
~
47e . .7d 1 : Sampled by: n ., ,
/O-
.' . Date:
- 7.1 . . .
' Specifica tior.: 987. of Maximum Dry Density ( Nuclear Guage) .
.- yl .
. (Sand =4cne) -y
. . a Test No.1 --- -ft. N of Column Line 3- , /P- -ft. D i of' Column Line -
.Elev: . //0 7@ d.,,,
.. 7. .M/d. Ets<Eil..
- 70 evi 4N ,
. . ., , O/. 4,~. 7 . '- . t a . ;r.s .
' . T s y e;;>*
,.....,..y .
.. ,. 1 ,
s-
.w.,
..r. , .
. ,. . ~
.
- Test No. 2
. ao' f t; ua/' - of Column Line 30/ ,
----- f t . - ~' ' of Column Line E .
Elev: HD 78 0 cW _ f.jeff & ~ ~ Cfo %R
.!W ...p. 19 %
, . /). 0 0 -
..,. 7. , , .
s . .
; - *- .-, p ft. of Column Lina ft. 'of Column Line ,
- '. Test No. 3
~
Elev: -
. .~ .
. .~
Test No. 4' 'ft of Column Line , ft. et Column Line -
.* . s .;
Elev: . . .o. - 9 . All above test meet specification requirement. .
.s .
. Test No. and meet specification requirement after recompaction.
~
'. Waximon Dry Density: ( 12n4) ( 111.2) PCF *{
Ufg '
^
. k D g ,
. . y- .
. .i,- .
- . . - , . , . - a . .-._ . _ . _ . . . . . . .
. . . _ _ , _ _ _ . _,_ _ .._ s _ ,.
m
.__m_.= -
To . . .. .
- i. :.. . .m .:...
rco m d..
>n,,,M, i% PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY !
- i. g .. .. . . .u s . . o . . . , e.
$ . ,I PITTSBURGH, PA. '
*6 .# #
a as. a a eivtuaL enovecesom to .uswis int Pueuc ano ovestters. att .r*onte . 4 an0 3 ~ ro.c swousvero as vac courioewreat enoecare or cucuts. ano avinoassavsom . Pusuc.at.io.w..or . o. s.t.a.r.tu.t.uts s .o c.oa.c.t.usv>=s oi.. o o.n.u. t.a.vn..acis
.o s..r.no.u .o.n escanoimo
. - 1
.. . . .. . ~ . .. .
~. :,. *l ,
h,}~ ; . ,', . . , ' . ..'C , ' n ~ ' ' . , . - ggpayy -
', Date df' ) /W ~)2 ~j[. Haterial:
- v Md M ~ ', ' .
, j ."i ' - ..- -
S'ampled by: z.,"sur 6b /J.'d b '
.* ? ~~.i Date: # M - /& 2' 1.
(/ . - - . '.. *
^ . . l.
~? '
f'S pecification: 987. of Maximum Dry Density ( Nuclear Guage) .
. .*k ,
. (Sted t :1) '
cu.25 cf Column Line d , 24--ft.d Y
. Test No. 1 -f t. ofk:olumnLit -
Eley:---/y-- -
%We ..
A - f- Lf/d.M. - ..
- '7e a.7, .no:
4/ke ..'. . ., W.s D. , . . 9, 7 2 <?,
.s.. ,
' ,. *- Test No. 2 -- -ft .w . d of Column Line # ,' - ft. -
of Column Line 2n .L N
~
Elev:' . /o/ 'Y M c4 ,,6-~ fW mO 7 *
-l'O.00 , , . .
. f'). -SO b,
.i'.. ..,. .
., .c , . .
,. ' .'. Te s t No. 3 .
ft. of Column Line- ,~' ft. of Column Linc 3 Elcy:. -
/* -
.- ..v-,- ., . . , .' .
. . , ,,' Test No. 4 ft of Column Line , ft. 'of Column Line b'
[Elev: .
.. y.. ,-
. All above test meet specification requirement.
. Test No. and meet specification requirement after recompaction.
'. Maximun Dry Density: ( T2:M3) .. .
( 111.2) PCF .
//Eg 3)rP P
' ' ~
'nn 7 3 , ,
f WJ 3 u u .a
. e .. s
- . w 2et - m a kw -_---ym,
- o - , ._ L' _ - . . -- - -- .
l . ... .. ....<. .. .. rc a ao7 civ. Mu, . PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY .
~
,, 3, c
- CSTADLfSMCO 9806
. E. . @ - PITTSBURGH. PA. ** 8, et & SUS.eITTf D.UTuaL PereftCTIO.8 TO CLetesTS.,T C FUSLet emp OURSgtygg. AL.L ATIOedpg,Omfg . , . AGE D AS Test CONFIDENTeat ROpteT T OF CLSCNT9. pseg AUfe 0403 , Sno
.'**'"''.'.'.'*.','0.'.'...'."S.'.'.'....'.'..'.#."'O..'.'.'"."T..#".'.".*.*'..'."L.""*'"*
4
. s s .. .
/d I'2 j.',..,l,'~,.'
. . REPORT Date
- q. . .
~ Haterial.: h.v .
/N - **
d' .
, sampled by: M rT.2- d..' .22.'./
' ' Dste: *
$ /n-9 7.1 ' '
~
, )
Sp.ccification: 987 of Maximum Dry Density ( Huclear unge)
, (serar:Uoiie)
~
- c -
. Test No.1 ---ft. -
- of Colum Line - 8 ' ,
-';'--f".. ~;-- of Column Li -- /
'7.d//
, g -
f4Q
- ay, ,;.,, g Elev:-- lCl--- * ,
- m. ., . ef - .
(, 9,
- ., . . /J. 4. ,o-
.y . -
- /. .
. / Test No. 2 ' - Y--f t ->.n /t of Column Line A, -
ft. - of Column Line fe 2 Elev:
/u
'F.M 4 ' .6.,
//.f. ;_$ -
u 7W n ,;/, A >
- 0*C .
~%
M[ 9 1
.r- , . .
-, ~ Te st No. 3 ,
ft. of Column Line ,. ft. of Column Line ,,,
.'Elev: - - -
- ~
~ '
Test No. 4 'ft of Column Line , ft. of Column Line
. . Elev: . .
All above test meet specification requirement. Test No. and meet specification requiE cment af ter recompaction.
. l
. Maximen Dry D.nsity: ( 22MG) ( 111.2) PCF **
~
//$,27 .
D"" lD'3'
, , M mo
. oM N.dL.
Ds- _--. , vrw -- nm s_ . m*.m
.n
s - %. ; _.e., ,. . . . ~ . . .. _ - . . . . _ . - .... . . . - - . -
'sou
=
- g. :. .-
rc:a 407 pcv. J- ,,,, O, . PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY - e
,. revamLelwco toes I . r,/ re we )
o
. 2
' PITTSBURGH, PA. -
j . ,
& A.L.L .s.t.P.OnTS.
7,0
* . A.s.C .99V.1p A,LT CPh.e.fCo P .f rTIOef LP OTO C .? LI EN. m .TS. S. T.M . C..P.U.
.O SLO.C,A N D,.O.U.R S C' '<E,S
... . . - . . 80 FOR P&$&fC ef f0M OF$. ST CONCLUll')eet 084 CRTR CTSImeneOn atGanDtMS A1CMCM,..TDWR REPORTS Is stESamTCO Pgsspesso Ove wel,
( gg( ,,, TEN &PPSOW AL. ,, _ _ , , , ,
. %;~ .. . , . - . .
?, . c .- , , .
N b).l .. '... " ~
..,{ ~
! . i. .
REPORT , Date - Material': N,,, M
. I ' * .I ' . ' ' .-
f,,
. Sanpled by:
R ,4fi. $$r, . . .- C
." ' Y. .
Date: Nn 9 D ' . ( Nuclear Guage) . Specificatior.: ' 987, of Maximum Dry Density ' * (Suno-wme)
.g .
C ,'- b--ft of Column Lin -d-Test No.1 f t. b - of Column Line 9o wi e* 4 L td r- - - -7.:n ,,A , s Elev:-- #M --- Vo.
. ,, N w 7.f
././
c f e? S' - . . ,.
. .x .
- n
.. Test N'o. 2 - - -ft .r a.d of Colu. n Line 70 / , ' M' f t. .e/2'of Column Line 2 _.
Elev /# . 9 [v. 7 '?,
/, g. .
' , /s t o . -
c
.'. 3
. ~.,. ,.
m ,
-5/ 6 'ft. Aid of Column Linc 8e[, - ft.
of Column Line #
' Test No. 3 p.~
"Y
' Elev:
/// Ya0d ckn '
?$ 5(
- 9 i 70
//C 44c -
~
of Column Line 'f t . of Column Line
' - ' Test No. 4 ' ft ,
*u s.
' . Elev:
., e -
All above' test meet specification requirement.
. Test No. and meet specification requirement after recompaction. .
Haximen Dry Density: (' rz1W) ( 111.2) PCF
^
US$ , l q e
*p D= 3 " * ' ' - " * * - _ . _ . . . w . __.. ,, ,, , ,, , " --- - . . _ _ ._
m n ~ w vmn z. z . ~.a: -. ' .- c. a .. . n :..- -. . ,- ._ .. _. 1 - 2 .._... 3 A --. --. .
.l .i., .
t *
,, .y . . , , e . , . y= ..y.., . .
FC:ss 407 at v. o ; # - - - gt;g Mh PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY - .....<,..s.o .... o
- r. 2 ml ' -
.. .~
PITTSDURGH PA. 1 y as a mutwaL Ps.otections to esecuts. t.et Pustic ano ownsE6vre, aLL acPonte j s '*,- - .#.f anc sueuettao as tut couriotestest Paoecure or c6 sato ano murmoniseriose
, .e I gg g ', Fog PtASLtC OWR REPORTS ATBo86 IS RESTor 4WED stattestuf PCMof No OWR t Co.r AITTEM eChutt APPAof Jest46.gg gaisuaC19 F Aoes on REsanOsmo ,
s
.<. .~ ..
.a . . . .: .... . !
.~ e :,
Date *10/9/72 c. REPORT . e.... . ... .., .
.c Zone III
.- ' Haterial': * ~
.r *:. . .
- r l Sampled by: Timothy Gibboney u .:.
' ,' .f . . . -. 't-
'10/9/72
,' Date: .
98% of Maximum Dry Density ( Nuclear Guage) .
' Specification: *
. (Esmixeaned
.~ . .
' 2$---f t. - N- of Column Line EJ , N---f t."EN of bolumn Line - A,,,
- s Test No.1 1.Conipaction
' Field Dry Den.' -
Field Moisture * ** 10.50 100.1% Elev:-- 100 ------ 119.10 -
't .
s
, . , , , +
. ,i.. 3.,...,.a.. .
. . . . 3.y- .. .
.~
. ,- A gg, Northof Column Line of Column Line 301 ,. 45 ,
. ' Te st N'o. 2 *.18---- f t West
'% Compaction
'--Elev: 100 '.Rield Dry. Den.
'.F4&ld Moisture '
100.9% 119.95 14.25
'* . .~
- r. -
, .g
. . . . . ,/, . .
, - .\ .
'of Column Line i'> Test No. 3 ft. of Column Line , ft.
- . y.. 9
.e
- .Elev: .
. .% ?, .- , ,- ,
, ~:
....(
s . . . , . . , .. . - .
~ft of Column Line _ , ft. of Column Line
- Test-No. 4 . . .
Elev: 1 All above test meet specification requirement. , 4 2 1 meet specification requirement after recompaction.
. Test No. and .
l , '. 'Haximon Dry Density: (g g,jO ( IM M - fcfp 9m% m '['; q . . s L-
. w w 11,u
["
.t. . ,. .
6M w.
. , . .' g w_.4..-. _ - . _ ...:, . *- . _. .,+ , , , _ , _ . _ _
-n.a-_=
~~
x __a , _ _ . .. __ , . . . . _ . . . . _ '-Li_ ~ LL W.* L. . .:: .~.7 1.i,z.:. . . .: ,..._..,......2.:. ._,_ _
~w
.- . . .;...... '. 2 ;. . . . . . .
'- ' romu 407 aiv.
I-/.F."omN.7% PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY, .'
; gf 9j % ,"
C. ..u...O
'PITTSBURGH, PA.
il .
)
l
*.F 9 ,.
"," /(f q ,,
- 4. a e,v, vat e.0,rC,iO= 50 e uc=,.. $w e ,W ooe . O Ou..atv,e . a ac Oav.
ABC &WDeelTTfD AS TME CONF 90testeak FAOPLRT OF ChlC Ass AUTMOel3 4 flON
- l. ,
k 440 $ . F OR PW 5 6 0C,af,lo,se ,O,F,S,T,AT,E Mt est S ,C O,** CL,Wi,s9,4.T,Um, C,a,f m,.N T S, ,C1, ,F v g , og,g g ,g ,, y g ,,,6, , ,
..a.....-
.. . .f . .
.3, f.-
.... . .. e. .
.s. . .. .. . .
, ,7 * ,. ;;, ., , ,
,- , REPORT
. Date M ~ 7 7 *2
- Haterial': ,
_ fl. / 7//[ '
,,,7 7 '. , ' , . ,
. s
_- . Sampled by: M,, M '[hu',; '. -
/' h- 9 f7T .'.
- Date:
e
.. ~
' Sp'ecifica tior.: 987. of Maximum Dry Density ( Nuclear.Cuage) -
q., . .. .f
. gs@ Gene-)- ,
- - ' , Test No. I f t.' %2d of Column Line 2#- 24-ft.O Column Line 8# --
31 ey : .M.'.. 'h/ N,I '
.h - .
3 @* h)rQ
- ... /,4 r -
; /2.:o o
, ,, .... .)f**>o c .
- 7. . .. ......- . .
of Column Line /# .
~
.. -- it J a of Colemn Line 7 u , - f t. -
. .'.' Test No. 2 .
.Elev: l0 4 b 7,'f/ sd N
' V&.-nd b y "' 4
< .J . . ;.'-.
' lfg. ,p.c -
fc) N C*
~~_ V).Jf-
- a. - s...
3, ,
', '. Test No. 3 ff'f ty-j of Column Line 70/, ft. -of Column Line // ,- Elcy: ~ /c 9 7M ,
dk *
%M . myf n , r- -
.' 7+
.cfq.y<7,
",'7 4 l
.wt. .r
\
.. . s
.- ' Test No. 4 'ft of Column Line .. , ft.. of Column Line ..
.Elev: .- .. ,
All above' test meet specification requirement. .
. 3-Test No. and meet specification requirement afte,r recompaction.
1,. Maximen Dry Density: ( r:1TO) ( 111.2) PCF ' '
~
//'N,,7 6 ,- s 2' g -
7
._ . . 23 e .
t . [ 1 . ** . - *
/
t
.l ' _ _
-,% we-r.w:,m _ 4... w ; 2. _ . _ .. m . . . .; _ _ . _ . _ _ _ - . _ ..
" u ~. .
., j-.. . .
i
. . . ~ . , . , . -l. ~ . . - .: . .
r... m u .. 7-r- ' I i PITTSBURGH TESTING LABOR 4 TORY e. t, bsi,,"$j )A . c..a.u.... .... , , [; y ," PITTSBURGH. PA. as a eivtwaL rootreveoes to cuswes. vac ev.uc amo osasttere, att accoate l ( ,'., " / /# - anc susineetto as vns couriotuteak revacmer or cuswee, ano avvwomisariose r o. ats anoisis
. a (q g .rea ructic.at.io.es.,or.s.t.ai..su.c.=s.s
. o mo. coo.o oo. .s ==
c.t.us.so uec.avn. ar om. a,cis e s,o -- .-
.~ },.- ,,..- _
s ... . ... . 76 h !
'" : .4
-~
REPORT D' ate a- - u, ~ ~
- Material':
L, , /7/
.. tim A *A /. u
#*~' -
dampledby: . _. Date: / h.." O ,_ . 7.- . . 987. of Maximum Dry Density ( Nuclear Cuage)' .
' Sp'ecifica tion: * -
. (-Gama-. cane)
-- of Column Line - d , '-T--f t. - :: of Column Line 2C d
.Tcst No.1 YP--ft. -
. .Elev - M '-- b od, ,
,s 7N
*? ;> 2 7o
, ,. . . e ..: - . . */o9 . . .f ). 6 t?
.._. . .' . s .
--ft.- _of Column Line M,/
Test No. 2 ' b---f t os.ctr/of Column Line // Elev: /pr' f'.df] g. '7b ,,.Q_ . Vo n'y%. h 3'8
~^
~
7/g. y . . V/. f e ,
.. , . . ..e - .
- g. .
of Column Line ft. 'of Column Line , ft.
\
,' , , . . Te s t No. 3 . ..,..
w . y. . - - i, Elev: .. 4 ,
. . t . .
ft of Column Line . , ft. of Column Line ..
. .' Test No. 4 ,
Elev i All above test meet specification requirement. .
*e
. . Test No. and meet specification requirement after recompaction.
Maximon Dry Density: ( 15'l%) ( 111.2) PCF .
/7 mm m D
q - l , D .* D .$ 3
' . . W@ . 1
- 7. -
- < - .,.n.~. -. _..% . ~4. . . . - . . , - _
_w % -- w_n -
. .. m ...m_ . . _ _ . _ . _ ._. ._
r..-_4. j
.-*. . .. . . . - . .= ..
.3 , .,'. Fcc:s 417 Riv.
.,,ij ,*g
~
V PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY
.^j,
..... .s..o ....
.f . ~
'{ .
,f ' .
PITTSEURGH, PA.
- AS A p.ti1Wah Paof tCTeoes To C%8ENTs. TMC PVOLBC Aho oun9ELWts, aLL StPoRTS .
==o avinomination g..
e ans postocaveo son swe=sitro .as or vac courmanteas startistuts. conc 6us.oa.s DUlt arronts 40 RCstavto FENDING oba mesettEN arraofab. raceta ton e or escitnacioer.mts. taou on naeanoisse D' a te /M / 22'
'4~
. . ~;.-
. ' ' . , ' . .. ' , . REPORT
.s
~
$ ..., * ,[.
IHaterial':
' b,U .,
7/7 ' * * . ydJ,td A_ 64a,.' * " ' .'
- _. Sampled by: ,
V Date: /d $ 72 f . 4'
' Spccificatior.: 987. of Maximu:n Dry Density ( Nucicar Guage) .
.(Sand Cone)
.l .
. Test No.1 - c. I- -- of Column Line - - --#E-- f t . 4*t' of Column Line d---
W6' d .ML,. l- . .wd . ,% - .n:.
- ' Elev:- /o 9r..y..' M r. n o..
...- .... /,..
?:@- ^ 9 2 2a c . .
,, e
~
. ' Test N'o. 2 b---it A .# of Colu:nn Line ?c/, - ft. - of Column Line 8 .
Elev: /s + '7 M*. M/m'*5' .
" " 'Y
.//4 7,f
/.? 3d' 7 d3 j
I',fTestNo.3 M ft. Mof Column Line IV , .- f t . -- of Column Line #
.1, ' , ,' El ev : /n I d eb o
- NO '.
' ' Y'
/oO'h
.. Q0- .
. .' / 3 .50 .
.' Test No. 4 ft of Column Line v , 'f t . of Column Line .
_. . ., Elev: .
;. All above test meet specification requirement. .
. Test No. and meet specification requirement after recomp' action.
Haximon Dry Density: T31 1) ( 111.2) PCF .
~
'/E;f 9 m & ~6)
~4 9 Y J3. Qlblika w s h\ w m . .
- 1 .
.. r. ,- ,.
\
--. " ~ ' ' ' - ' * * * * ' ' ** ar- ..I- , , , , , , ,
=-- ~ _ - . .-.w,_.._..._ -- ..- --
[....._. .
.,,..}.
r= m ay.
,,,,,y
~,/ r h his PITTSBURGH . TESTING LABORATORY . ,s
.o,f a = ggg '
... PITTSBURGH. PA.
.....u..m. .... ~
j ,' "' g /.j ,
* .....<.....,..,...............,.....,......,,m.....,..
0.e.s
.et C U,u.8.e.f.f t .S.. R.C. .C.F f.D.t f.s A.L ....C f.T .o...C.L.t t es . ,. ... ..A.L.H. m.et
. . . . . . . ..........u... . . . . . . . . . , , , . ...m.
- a. . :, ...
"Nd ~ D
, , , ' . . :,'j: ,[-
.. . . y '.' ', . . ' ., . ,,-} R E P O R T : . Date
- ' i,V . .
. '.
- l. .' .
, , f , , ' ' , . * .,
Mat rial:
- Y NC' Y[._ "
~
1' Ah, e, * *
.' [ -
. Sampled by: .
y . '* !
' ~ .' '
'V
/N h 7'1 '.
.' Date:
y 98% of Maximum Dry Density ( Nuclear Guage) .
~
' Specification: '
(Sand Cone) . c g/'
./ of Column Line !y--- , ------ f t . ---- o f Column Line __ __,_.
, f b.d-- -----
Test No. 1 -----f t.
': .,' Z% v 4/ -
% y.&.w.
.Elev: U- d- F#g/c, y 4A . .
pp .,w
/,.p. ~7.s .,
,.... e
.. , -t.... , , . . .,. .
. . .c . . .
.c. .
~. Test No. 2 -.M. '-ft .
- d f Column line W , ft. of Column Line 2
- @ d'dc. 4 ,7;p, ,,y >;3. ,,,,. A i Elev: /c9 @ +
3y. .; o Po 2
- .? ~.sf.,. >. 0 -
. ..c y
s *
. ,g .
*-) , '
2N, of Co'1umn Line .8
" , Test No. 3 Y ft. A di Column Line C, f ~ f t.
[ .'
- Ency: /cq
.4~ : .'
Dfkrf. . gsp.&
/T 00 Pg. p
, . . H94 c, 4 .,. --
of Column Line ft. of Column Line
. , ,' Test No. 4 ft ,
.9 **
Elev:
- s. .
s ; . -
- All above' test meet specification requircipent. ,
. Test No. and meet specification requirement after recomp' action. ,
'. Maximun Dry Density: ( Tm70) ( 111.2) PCF . .
//al'h _ ,
Q >, v A/.~
, . ji - ~
- om 1.
, 9 9 m3)-
JU k/fd
~
+o o Ju ,
-- - . - "' W Tum -= , ,
.s.-e==p-. . -
-- - - c4 - .m - u m.s.. ,.m.m__-..__._._..
. . . _ . _ . . .z._._ .
Fenis 407 Civ. g-y sm, " PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY - [Jmry.,nl . ,s PITTSDURGH. PA. 4
. . -y .
anc .u. ...,m.t v a
.m.e as v
.....o,<,....
c co r oo,e at mo..av ,. . . ...,o ..,... eter .es. .m p...u m autaes arro. 6 I.0 "##*'".*."c'.'."...'"'n"'*..*.*.".C.'.".*.".#.***.".".C.'..'".'.'.'.'a',".*.".m*""""'
/M- [-~82 J . .' . S.D .
, " ',.} ,. .,
, . .,.'R E P O R T .
Date
~. . .
~ '
E+ ' W ' '
~
Material': .
~~
s'anpled by: w/ %l .A:?/$.l4 * -
/O-- ' '
Date: . 72 '/ .
. - v v .
987. od Maximu:n Dry Density ( Nuclear Guage) .
' Sp,ccification: '
. .(Sand Cone)
Test No.1 EF '-f t. UM-- of Colum Line , : C--ft. I-- of Column Line - --- M-
- - - , N
$ 9.) *P;
.Elev:---
}f.. .:7 .' ' ., . * ./t,4' g . . .. .. ,. '. .
. . , s.
C
'~
. Test No. 2 I--ft ' AoMof Colu:nn Line '&/, - f t. _of Column Line .
Elev: /['[ ?$d k- . 'V.o*h , N b*f $*?.9f;
'. .j,
~ '
, g y:7 ~. y . .
. ,r s
.y. ..y. 4 .
.p .
of Co'1umn Line [,TestNo.3 It. of Column Linc ,- ft.
.,Elcy:
.' 4
[
.,- .- . .t . . , .
of Column Line i
-' Test No. 4 ' ft of Column Line _, ft.
Elev
~
All ab'ove test meet specification requirement.
- . Test No, and meet specification requirement after recomp' action.
Maximen Dry Density: ( 171%) ( 111.2) PCF , M8 , o .
. ., .e.+ . o
- a. M .m-g% 4c -~ - - - - . - . . ~ . _ . , , , _ . . _ _ .
; .. A - ., .1 a -n . x_. . .a .~ _ a. . G _. x.a - _.._.... . , _ - . . . - ~ _ . . . -
- f. .
).-... ..
....7 FdM 407 RC v.
, ,e. .
Sim PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY
'. o , 'f'Tj- .-
3 PITTSBURGH. PA. . El . .. .t
. ., m.............. .. . ...... ... . ....,. . ... m...J
......... .o.
9' .
. . . .. .. ... ........... ........ ....................m.....,................
...........m.
~
. ' . . ' . ;. R E P O R T D'ste M'h . Y - 22
[.
. : /
. 9, ,.-
M, / /I
- I .' . ,[ .,
Haterial': * : . . y @* " hf, -
. . . Sanpled by: 4,.lM M7/Nr. -
~ ~ '
7..) 70-Date: .
* . g-98*/. of Maximum Dry Density ( Nuclear.Cuage) .
- ' Specification: (Sand-Cone)
/
Test No.1 - -f t. A1N-- of , Column Line .7t' , M -ft. D - f Column Line A -- 1 d ' 7<W Swf? 9c b- < - M,AE ziey:../d2 .
~
' ., ,:.. f7. o o ' . .jp e, . z, g jig. .c w..
'~~
_of Columni L ne / _.
- Test No. 2
-- -ft c ,/c!f Colu:nn Line .2d , t it.
*?" +y@.
/Of 4,s -Liumw.d M}7 xlev:
. 4.So 98.g<y,
.. Jl'- *
- s. *
. . ,j .
ft. 67,Mf Column Line .70 ' ,' " ft. of Column Line 2
-" Test No. 3 s M .mv'd
- 9a+ n:)
'z1ey:
so 9 L 9%)
. HG. 0?
clY J,'.** , 9 y, _of Column Line _
.- ft.
of Column Line ft N'
. .' Test No. 4 ,
. . ziev:
s . . .
~
All above test meet specification requirement. . . and meet specification requirement after recompaction. l . Test No.
. Maximon Dry Density: ( T3M-0) ( 111.2) PCF
' -.~-
, //f} -
~
. p.' .s ) y
*Me.g. % .y ~ > - .
,w - - v - -.y -m.-
7
se _ _ _ . _ _ - - _ _ r-- ,,te- --.w.-- -
- . : __ .~ u r t; . .m%
r._.- .. __. _ ._..._.... ..
.. " * . .,j , , ,
, . .- Fcces 407 ftiv.
* .e.'
+=i.,..*. .
+ ..
y ,. PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY - - 1
.. . .., m .. m o .... . .. l
'T- . '
. ~ *'
PITTSDURGH. PA. 6 ,f . W, .
" .t .. . .. 46.....e.,.c.ocoarro<=rea6 raoatas.,ue vo cutav.. ,=
o< ano cut =vs. ou..ctvr.,au ano ave oaination . co.v. I ' l
. ameevsucatio=
rea .u.=evice OWR ptPomTS oras v .iai..t=c=v.. atttavtD PCNotf.6 coactuse oWA wkITTEN >=s va esimacio rac,.e on accano =e aPPAofab. ,
~ . . .i
- r.
*/6- 4/- 73 .'
Date
.,' . . $. , "l* 5 , [ ~ , . . ~ " .
- - - REPORT
.~i.,
.l *
- Haterial': .h ' .7 77
)]$&.A N.;., *$* .
., Sanpled by: ..
v
~ .
. ~
/O- - 7,.1 .
Date . , 98*/. of Maximum Dry Density ( Nuclear Guage) '
- - Sp'ecificatior.: (Sand Cone)
~
'.) .
_ 19 -f t. Ad- of. Column Line Eh, /A
'-f t. No- f Column Line - ---
Test No. I . .
'75M kca./ - c, a fr, ,
Elev:-/OY--- - %..//l,.<% . cu k ..'.
, ., ft. o o .
, g y a,.
.v.
,, . .g _
, . .~ . - .
_of column Line C. . Test No. 2 - - --ft ; d of Column Line 3o/, f t. -
- Elev,: /07 f
' 7.JM of " yg) , .7, ,,,,
- * /(Cob foo..; Q N ././ 9. 0 0
.q. .
~ ft. 'of Column Line Test No. 3 ft. _of Column Linc ,
, )
d Elev: .. , , , ft. ~o f Column Line Test No. 4' 'ft of Column Line , Elev: .
~ -
i All above' test nicet specification requirement. , and meet specification requirement after recompaction. Test No.
. .Haximon Dry Density: (' T2'1%) ( 111.2) PCF
_- M8 .
- 1 .
p U-
.-s . 4 w e - . . . ~-- -- - - . - - . - - . _ . - . . . . - ,
w -.A.m m m m m- ._ . _-._..a_ _ . . _ . . _ . _ . . _ __ . _ . _ _ .
'~
.,e
( q
,e -
Q sw- .s.,,e u y r f/[9.h'<,g 23TT333URG31'l'ESTICYS estaeus co sees M3DRXMRf i 12* 'i INSPECTING ENGINEEIts AND CIIEMISTS M, is s12 NORTH DELAWARE AVE.
'+M3A noL'IE TAMPA. FLORIDA 33606 .
AREA CODE 813 PHONE: 253 3485 u . ..nu nonen.. ,. cus.n. Tu n.uc A.. ..unn.. as un n us ....mi. a un u.nn. vin ne,on ., cus.n. u. napinnes n. neuun.. ., suun.n. c .. etn .n a uincu ... u .un .. .o n,..n n n uus e n..... en ..mi. on u. December 7, 1972 PTL Ref: TA-7732 Mr. James Harris Gilbert Associates 525 Lancaster Avenue Reading, Pennsylvania 19602 Re: Triaxial Testing Florida Power Corporation
Dear Mr. Harris:
Enclosed please find the results of triaxial testing con-ducted by us on Zone III compacted limerock. fill. The triaxial sample size was 1.40" p x 2.985". Due to the small sample size, the air dried limerock was scalped on a #8 sieve and compacted by a 1/2" Gf kneading tamper in 5 layers. We believe that this will result in, a conservative estimate of insitu strength since greater particle interlocking c.ould be expected insitu. Both drained and undrained tests with pore pressure measure-ments were run to assure the determination of the proper effective stress failure envelope. Difficulties were experienced with the undrained tests due to the extreme sample rigidity and negative pore pressure change generated by the shear stress. The tests were run in a Wykeham-Parrance triaxial cell with a dead load lever apparatus used to apply the deviator stress. Pressure measurements were made using a Tyco 200 PSI piezoelectric j pressure transducer. PIT T bTWSGet htw venet .0S704 PMtL ADELPoe6A CLtvtLAND DETRolf S t. Louts DW,FAto GREEN 6etomo Louisville p t MPMsS 6 ALT LAKE Cl?Y SA*8 7 # A8eCet-C0 hfw OALIANS **ATTLE Po.TL AhO host,seseGMAM g ATON ROUGC LAFATCTTt usL
- Aua ",I GNOGA*4 APOLeb ATLANTA HOUST ON OALLAS JAC E 50NV9LL C TAWPA Dac A 60s fNoCAG) STRACU$C T ALL AMAS$tt tuGCht DumMAne WASMwiLLC poANORf C 9tA TT ANOOG A D A T T O fe A CAINSveLL E ROCMCSTER SPhet ANE MOpGAN CITY weselT0N. sag g ae
! AssoceAf te Ar, Los A= Gross To oNTo moNincAL tonooN. r=GLANo
-. - . - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . , ~ _. __. _ _ _ _ , .__ _ . . . . _,
T
m....- - _ .m _ ._ _ _ . . _ _ o o . Mr. James Harris December 7, 1972 Page 2 TA-7732 The cell pressure and back pressure were applied through air-water interchange system with the pressure control supplied by Bellofram having a sensitivity of one part in 5000 air regu-lators. The minimum back pressure was 40 PSI. Data reduction was done by programs written by PTL for , the Wang 600 programmable calculator. Figure 1 shows the triaxial test densities and their re-lationship to field density and compaction characteristics of the Zone III limerock. Figure 2 is the stress path results from the drained triaxial tests and Figure 3 the stress path results of undrained triaxial testing. Figures 4 and 5 are the stress-strain data. The following is a sunanary by sample number of test con-ditions and results. . LR-1 Undrained triaxial test with pore pressure measurements Vd = 118.9 PCP
** = 10.38%
W-/ = 14.9 % r,e = 60 PSI 11g = 40 PSI (07 eJ)p = 12.73 TSF
$ = 45.5 0 E = 0 .
6p = 2.4% LR-2. Drained triaxial test Yd = 113.08 PCF (Dm = 11.2% > l
&c = 37.3 PSI ,
,/; = 29.6 PSI .
( cg -g -g ,); = c
= 45.5 2.65 TSF e = 0
= .82%
67 , l l
..--- ~-
T :. :- o o I Mr. James Harris '
. December 7, 1972 P"
Page 3' TA-7732 Drained Triaxial Test LR-3
} '
/d = 11i'.4 PCF We = 11.0%
WF = 17.6% Cc = 62.8 PSI u# = 30.4 PSI (&-Bi)p f = 10.56 TSF gc =
=
45.50 0 6p = 1.74% LR-4 Undrained Triaxial Test with Pore Pressure Measurements Yd = 115.9 PCF We = 13.9% Wf = 17.1% O~ = 61.17 PSI 4,e = 38.25 PSI 15.2gTSF I 6 .-@6 C_
= ).f 52.0= Pore water cavitation
= 0 results too high '
6F = 2.48% LR-5 Unconfined compression Test . Yd = 114.6 PCF ltl = d4- = 10.1% q = 0 lig = 0
* ( q-q)g = 2.568 TSF e, p = 1.07%
Where Fd is the dry unit weight of sample ' 4th is the moding water content lor is the final water content
- Oh is the cell pressure Ug is the back pressure (o;- r,)f is the maximum deviator stress fF is the effective stress angle of internal friction' is the effective stress cohesion intercept 6p is the strain at failure The angle E' from the stress path drawing is related to 7 by the following relationship tanc< = sin F where 7 is the Mohr-coulomb
~
l angle of internal friction used to define shcar strength, i.e. \ l T = Er r 5'~ dnN y
--= _~ . , ; -
=- - -.. - . ~ - . - - . - - - - - - . - ~. ..
I: ;- o o I' Mr. James Harris December 7,
- 72 Page 4 TA-7732 ,
e l . Where 8 is the normal stress ori any shear plane. I . The test results can be summarized as follows:
~
[d = 113 to 119 PCF . G = 0 K= 45.50 , The soil will generate negative pore pressure drops except
'under very high consolidation stresses when sheared undrained.
Test LR-4 shows pore pressure drops less than should have occurred due to incomplete saturation and should be corrected , back to -d , = 35'. 5 . , We appreciate the opportunity of handling this testing for ypu and shall b'e glad to discuss the results with you at any time. .
, Respectfully submitted, -
PITTSDURGH T"ESTING LADORATORY r
/
~7 RossT.MgGillivray,P.E.y f' JA Tampa District Engineer RTM/jhv l
~
= . . . . - - - - - .. _ .- - - - .~- -
- .. g
- FZ* ' %wcM CoRA , CL'ytr4L '<svli4. s fseQ O A .
r ~1 A30 RAWGG OF /*foOfflGA
. PRocroe DArs
~doesG" 5 MATER AL
}
5 . r I I (0 i
- f. fgg
\ Avr2AGs* Of % FIELO
~I \
- resrs air in sivu cswy
<1 D I % \
D If s
~ +
.U , i* %
- y '
_/, h's .f. \ n
/ \\s ,
~
\.$
o b' ffo
./*.:l.f'*Knes \
.. f t _ . - --
,V - . '
l* 4%vs4G pr: baax.:ro aS rost. ASrM o IS".I'ir - C j S.L ~ ' ?.7o A . p A . !
. i p -
S.c 2.f.o 8 y . i l . j
\ -
.; ZEs*O AIR vc!.:s i ;
- S.G. 'E. 65 foo _. = -
i .
~ i .
l 8
. I
. t -
s
.. l-l.
t I 2
' 1 tya
- s o .fo 20 i
t
. t M0/SruRG CONTENY l
% on oar weic.er
- i
/ */77*5 CL)NG // TEGY/^fG ftG>URC l Lt\eio A2470Q)* .
rw^mA , 7:o4/oa D**D " WT 3f Of
, _oo o N.2 JGuba ;
t
,. t , - --
t
, . .r.
.n,, , .....c,., 1 -3
. . >.. . aa ..>.. .
. . . g,o . . _ . . _ . . . . ... .. _ . . . . , , . .
. : . . l .
- l-- t .s g ,g. l- -
. e g
e a
- . . e..
O t.st-2. Ow.sc.o % i ff.r.f , u, . jf,;, g
; . .:.-.. ..i' . . . . g .
g , I i. - O n.p.- 3 n%;Nw .t(r=115? ,M '11.0%>.Nr'_ 17. C/. ,. I: -
'i ;
- j *
.ot * $5.5* :
. .. .,.;.:. ja, .; :
g
'Q s o , ., ,.
.. ; ..g
$ , VS.s' * '
'.i i
- ', . i. .i
- . l.
n 6 t
. g. ..
i
..g e
,. t -
4
. . . . .; - e, . a.
1
.)
6.o. 2
,i ,
.... .. . . . . . .4.t . . .
.....,...._..... t, i
- t - - ,. . .
1, . e t - } 4
- l. .
s j . .
.. ..i
.. t. ..
. .!. * *i 9.,....g......f.,.....
.l* .; .
- . *
- i. . .-, ;.' t.
g ( ,, . . . ,
. . .: g ) .
g .
- l. .
- 8- !
},. .
3 t
, . . . . .! . . . . .l, . . . . s .
. i. . g.
- i. . s- , -
.j. - :.. .
.l :
.. . t.
;- i.. .
i f .
- t. .i . ; . . . :': .;
! *. i
- e. * -
- t
- - .. .- :- ..:-i.. . i g:;. -
. s . . . .
.! t.: a
- e '
.i
.: .' i
- s. .I
. t -
- :;- ? g n 4 . 3. , .* - . * * * * * -,
en ' * , g , g 4.O i ',;
' 'p ' . ' ' .;
...I..'........'.'.*....**...'.' . -
h, l.', . . . . . , ';, . t... - : - i- ij- ; r l, .:( ,e ;.;. :j - l'6:-{
- I gp.
. . ,[.. . ... : . ,. ;;- .i ,..v..
b- -
. :- . .I I-... g.
N/ * *
- e.. . I? , *
.
- 6 ga ..;...;g I a-rv
.- .i . . . . i . . .e- . ., .
. l . . . ., . : . . : . . . .
t
.l n....
e
+. i : ..
~N s. l. . .,.:. .
, 3. , . l . ., ... -
. ,.. . . . . .. . ...;.. . . s. : ..
-i ,. . . . -. . g. i
. i.
. } , ,
. . -; : .. ; i . .
,. -,1 r
BNA/NED . 7 4/AX,/AL ,.:. . . -.
.' . j. .. a ' l.. . .t'. . t. :".. ,
' g.
*; , .. g' i .
. i -t 3 1
'~,.: -
TE ST~ . RESU4 7 S j . . .
.. . .; .'y *' *
- t. P.0 - . .. . . . . . . . ...._.i' '
E'ONE .ZZZ CO'# PAC TE~f.) . . bMEr ,,
- i , .
I ' .
., .e, . r'totoD *.- knevern Catv waa.t.. A:N CA /t A.Ji*
g ' , i- . ..
-}}