DYNAMIC LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS NORTHANNA …

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA REPORT NO.1

DYNAMIC LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS

NORTH ANNA POWER STATION COL PROJECT

REV. 0OCTOBER, 2007

MACTEC PROJECT NO. 6468-06-1472

DCN NACOL 253

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting MACTEC Project 6468-06-1472North Anna Power Station COL Supplemental Data Report No.1, Rev. 0 October 2007

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA REPORT No.1, Rev. 0DYNAMIC LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report is a supplement to the MACTEC Geotechnical Data Report issued as Rev. 0 onJanuary 23, 2007. The Resonant Column/Torsional Shear laboratory testing was not completewhen the Geotechnical Data Report Rev. 0 was issued. It was agreed by all parties that the testresults would be issued as a supplemental report, not as a revision to the Geotechnical DataReport. The information in this supplemental data report is submitted for entry into the projectdocument system and release for use.

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK

The attached test results were obtained from a laboratory study performed at Fugro Consultants(Fugro) laboratory in Houston, Texas. The dynamic properties of 3 intact soil samples from theNorth Anna site were evaluated. Combined resonant column and torsional shear (RCTS)equipment was used to perform the measurements. The dynamic characteristics evaluated withthe RCTS equipment are the shear modulus (G), and the material damping ratio in shear (D).Dynamic testing of each specimen involved the evaluation of G and D over a range of isotropicconfining pressures. Five isotropic confining pressures were used for each specimen, rangingfrom below to above the estimated in-situ mean effective stress.

Remaining material in the undisturbed sample tubes was used by Fugro to perform particle sizedistribution tests (ASTM D 422-63 (2002) and ASTM D 6913-04).

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Locations

Samples for testing were obtained from Borings B-901(1 sample) and B-911A (2samples), both located within the Power Block area. The samples were undisturbedsamples obtained using techniques of ASTM D 1587 -00. The undisturbed tubes wereplaced upright in protective boxes and transferred under chain of custody from the NorthAnna site to Fugro's laboratory following methods of ASTM D 4220-95 (2000) forGroup C samples. The samples were received by Fugro personnel and set aside in climatecontrolled storage.

The samples to be tested were listed on a laboratory testing assignment issued by Bechtel.Twelve samples were assigned for testing. Bechtel later reduced the number of samplesfor testing to 4. Three samples were tested successfully; the testing on the fourth samplewas problematic due to material changes in the sample, and Bechtel determined thattesting on that sample was not to be completed.

3.2 Subcontractors

The RCTS testing was done by Fugro under subcontract to MACTEC. Dr. Ken Stokoe ofthe University of Texas Austin reviewed and approved the test reports prior to their issueby Fugro.

NACOL253


3.3 Technical Procedures

3.3.1 . RCTS Tests

The RCTS testing was performed in accordance with "Test Procedures and CalibrationDocumentation Associated with the RCTS and URC Tests at the University of Texas atAustin, Geotechnical Engineering Report GR06-4, DCN: UTSD RCTS GR06-4 REV 0,dated April 25, 2006." A copy of the procedure is maintained in MACTEC project QAfiles.

3.3.2 Particle Size Distribution Tests

Brief descriptions of the particle size distribution tests assigned by Bechtel, performed byFugro and contained in this Supplemental Report are given in the paragraphs below.

3.3.2.1 Particle Size Analysis

3.3.2.1.1 Sieve Analysis (ASTM D 6913-04) - The dried soil sampleis separated into a series of fractions using a standard set ofnested sieves. The sieving operation is conducted by meansof a lateral and vertical motion of the nest of sieves,accompanied by jarring action to keep the sample movingcontinuously over the surface of the sieves. The weightsretained on each of the set of nested sieves are used tocalculate the percent of the sample passing each sieve size.

3.3.2.1.2 Combined sieve and hydrometer Analysis (ASTM D 42263(2002» - The sieve analysis is performed as describedabove. The portion of the soil sample passing the No. 200(75 f..Lm) sieve is soaked in water and dispersed using adispersing agent. The solution is placed in a cylinder andstirred, and the density of the solution is monitored over timewith a hydrometer to observe the settling out of suspendedsoil particles. Diameters corresponding to the readings ofthe hydrometer are then calculated using Stoke's law.

4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

4.1 Procurement

Fugro was procured for the work in accordance with the procedures in section QS-7 ofthe MACTEC Quality Assurance Project Document (QAPD).

Page 2 of3 NACOL253


4.2 Personnel

Fugro personnel were qualified and operated under the Fugro Quality Assurance plan.Qualifications for the RCTS reviewer, Dr. Ken Stokoe were reviewed and accepted byMACTEC in accordance with MACTEC Quality Assurance Procedure QAP 20-1 asincluded in the MACTEC QAPD. Qualifications information is maintained in MACTECQA files.

4.3 Equipment Calibration

Equipment in the Fugro laboratory was calibrated in accordance with the Fugro QualityAssurance Program. Copies of the calibration records furnished by Fugro are maintainedin MACTEC QA files.

4.4 Surveillances

MACTEC QA personnel conducted surveillances of the Fugro laboratory during thecourse of the RCTS testing. Records of the surveillances are maintained in MACTECQA files.

5.0 RESULTS

The test results report from Fugro was reviewed and accepted by MACTEC. The report isattached.

Page 3 of3 NACOL253

A MACTEC

DOCUMENTATION OF TECHNICAL REVIEWSUBCONTRACTOR WORK PRODUCT

Project Name: North Anna COL

Project Number: 6468-06-1472

Project Manager: Steve Criscenzo

Project Principal: Al Tice

The test results described below have been prepared by the named subcontractor retained inaccordance with the MACTEC QAPD. The test results have been technically reviewed by Dr.Ken Stokoe of the University of Texas Austin by agreement between Fugro and MACTEC.Comments on the work or report, if any, have been satisfactorily addressed by the subcontractor.The attached test results are approved in accordance with section QS-7 of MACTEC' s QAPD

The information and data contained in the attached test results are hereby released by MACTECfor project use.

REPORT: RCTS Test Results for B-901-UD-I, B-91IA-UDI and B-91IA-PBI - Fugro reportdated August 10, 2007 supplemented by revised tables and test reports dated September 27, 2007.

SUBCONTRACTOR: Fugro Consultants, Inc.

DATE OF ACCEPTANCE: 9-28-07

TECHNICAL REVIEWER: Dr. Ken Stokoe

PROJECT PRINCIPAL

DCN NACOL - 253

~ MACTEC:BO J Atlanlic A"eIlUl":. Raleig.h. NC 276114

FUGRO CONSULTANTS, INC.

August 10, 2007

Mr. Michael P. Sufnarski, P.E.Principal Engineer/Project ManagerMACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.2801 Yorkmont Road ICharlotte, NC 28208

RE: Three (3) RCTS Reports For The North Anna Project

Dear Mr. Sufnarski:

6100 Hillcroft (77081)P.O. Box 740010

Houston, Texas 77274Tel: 713-369-5400

Fax: 713-369-5518

Fugro has completed three (3) RCTS tests for the North Anna project. The finalreports and the associated RCTS Test Approval by Dr. Kenneth Stokoe havebeen attached.

Please let us know if you have questions. Thanks.

Very truly yours,

Fugro Consultants, Inc.

Jiewu Meng, PhD, P.E.Project Engineer

Cc: Dr. Kenneth Stokoe

Enclosures

1!~:.YLaboratory Department Manager

...t:J:A A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world.

-W------------


September 27, 2007

Mr. J. Allan Tice, P. E.Senior Principal Engineer/Assistant Vice PresidentMACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.3301 Atlantic AvenueRaleigh, NC 27604

6100 Hillcroft (77081)P.O. Box 740010


Fax: 713-369-5518

RE: Revised Tables, Particle Size Distribution Curves, and ClarificationLetter of Transmittal August 10, 2007 for the North Anna Project

Dear Mr. Tice:

Per your request, Fugro has enclosed the above referenced items for thefollowing specimens for the North Anna Project:

1. B901-UD1

2. B911A-UD1

3. B911A-PB1


Very truly yours,



Enclosures

Bill DeGroff, P.E.Laboratory Department Manager

..t:J:A A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world.

-W------------

RCTS TEST APROVAL

PROJECT SITE/NAME I~N--..:o_rt_h_Ann----:a-=------ _

Test ID

RCTS#ARCTS#BRCTS#CRCTS#

Sample ID

B901-UD1B911A-UD1B911A-PB1~

Depth B.S.(Ft)9.511.721.7

The RCTS tests for the site referenced above were tested, and a report was prepared, byFugro Consultants, Inc.

I have reviewed the data and associated results listed above and found them to bereasonable.

Dr. Kenneth Stokoe


September 27, 2007

Mr. J. Allan Tice, P. E.Senior Principal Engineer/Assistant Vice PresidentMACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.3301 Atlantic AvenueRaleigh, NC 27604

6100 Hillcroft (77081)P.O. Box 740010


Fax: 713-369-5518

RE: Clarification of Three {3} RCTS Reports, Transmitted August 10,2007, For The North Anna {NA} Project

Dear Mr. Tice:

Fugro has incorporated, as needed, Dr. Kenneth Stokoe's comments into thefinal reports, which were transmitted on August 10, 2007, of three (3) RCTS testsfor the North Anna project.


Very truly yours,



Bill DeGroff, P.E.Laboratory Department Manager

~ A member of the Fugro group of companies with offices throughout the world.

-'6¢i-----------------

1"£;1-(x,1)-

cQ

APPENDIX A

Specimen NA B901-UD1

Borehole B901Sample UD1

Depth =9.5 ft ( 2.9 m)

Total Unit Weight =120.5 Ib/ft3

Water Content =17.9 DID

Estimated In-Situ Ko =0.5Estimated In-Situ Mean Effective

Stress =4.3 psi

FUGRO JOB #: 0401-1662Testing Station: Re5

NOTE: Visual classification, if not specifically statedotherwise, was practiced in determining the soil types.

4000Silty SAND - NA B901-UD1 .1.1 psiTest Station: RC-5

Shearing Strain: <0.001 % 1IIil2.2 psi

A- 4.3 psi.... 150en ~ 8.7 psi r-.lll::

30000

>< =eeu )I( 17.4 psi :i>E 3

C> "'C

en ;:::;::s l:

c.:s CD

"'C en0 )I(~ )I( )I()I()I( :::r

)I( 100 CD~ 2000

I»eu .,(]) 3:J:en 0

c.(])

~l:

"'C ~~:s I@ I@ ~ l:

~en

c. I@ G)

E A A A- AA A- 3e:r: A- I»

A- .?<3= 1000 500 IIIil IIIil IIIil IIIil ,1IIil1llil IIIil 3:

...J • • • • •• • ""CI»

o1 10 100

o1000

Duration of Confinement, t, minutes

Figure A.1 Variation in Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus withMagnitude and Duration of Isotropic Confining Pressure fromResonant Column Tests

15

t:

Eco~ 100:::C)t:a.EC'lSC

C'lS'i:SC'lS:EQ)

-g 5:!:a.E~3=o

..J

o1

Silty SAND - NA B901-UD1

Test Station: RC-5

Shearing Strain: <0.001 %

10 100

• 1.1 psi

11II2.2 psi

A 4.3 psi

~ 8.7 psi

::K 17.4 psi

1000


Figure A.2 Variation in Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio withMagnitude and Duration of Isotropic Confining Pressure fromResonant Column Tests

1.0Silty SAND - NA B901-UD1 • 1.1 psiTest Station: RC-5

Shearing Strain: <0.001 % lIiIII2.2 psi

A 4.3 psi

~ 8.7 psi

)I( 17.4 psi0.8

0+:lnsa::'00>'0(I)-nsE+:ltJ)w I I I IIII I0.6 )I( )I( )I( )I( )I()I( )I( )I(

0.4

1 10 100 1000


Figure A.3 Variation in Estimated Void Ratio with Magnitude andDuration of Isotropic Confining Pressure from Resonant ColumnTests

10000

•••••

Silty SAND - NA 8901-UD1

Test Station: RC-5


(.) Time=60 min at each pressure(I)

~t/)

>~(.)o(I)

>(I)

>C'CI3: 1000...

C'CI(I).cen(I)

"C::J~

c.E

<J:3=o

...I

100

1 10 100

Isotropic Confining Pressure, 0'0' psi

Figure A.4 Variation in Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity withIsotropic Confining Pressure from Resonant Column Tests

10000


Test Station: RC-5


Time=60 min at each pressure-~><euEC)

ur::::s •::::s

"C0 •:E... 1000 •eu •Q)

.s::::enQ)"C

::::s:!:c.E~3=0

..J

100

•

1 10

Isotropic Confining Pressure, (fo, psi

100

Figure A.5 Variation in Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus with IsotropicConfining Pressure from Resonant Column Tests

100Silty SAND - NA B901-UD1

Test Station: RC-5


~ Time=60 min at each pressure0

s:::::

Ec0

':j:iC'lS

0::C)s:::::

CoEC'lSc 10C'lS'i:SC'lS:EQ)'0:::s:!::CoE

e:t:3: • •0

...J • ••

1

1 10


100

Figure A.6 Variation in Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio withIsotropic Confining Pressure from Resonant Column Tests

1.0


Test Station: RC-5


Time=60 min at each pressure

0.80~col:r:"C0>"CJBcoE~tn

W • • •0.6 • •

0.4

1 10


100

Figure A.7 Variation in Estimated Void Ratio with Isotropic ConfiningPressure from Resonant Column Tests

4000Silty SAND - NA B901-UD1 A 4.3 psiTest Station: RC-5

Time> 60 min at each pressure )K 17.4 psi

1503000

'I- en~

:::T(I)

><S».,

ctI s:E 0C) )K )K )K )K )K )K

)K )KC.

III 100 =-~ 2000 )K l:

~til

'C )K G)0 3:!:... )K S»

ctI .?<CI) s:.cen )K 'C

A A A A AS»

AA 501000 A

)K

A)K

A

A

o1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01

o1.E+00

Shearing Strain, y, %

Figure A.8 Comparison of the Variation in Shear Modulus withShearing Strain and Isotropic Confining Pressure from the ResonantColumn Tests

1.2

1.0 )I( )I( )I(~ )I(~ )I(~ )I(~)I(~

)I(~

>< )I(eu ~

EC) )I(- 0.8C) ~

tn )I(::::s::::s

"C ~0:e: 0.6 )I(I-euCI)J:en ~

"C )I(CI)

.!:::! .&.eu 0.4 )I(

EI-0 Silty SAND - NA B901-UD1z

Test Station: RC-5

0.2 Time> 60 min at each pressure

.&. 4.3 psi

)I( 17.4 psi

0.0

1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00


Figure A.9 Comparison of the Variation in Normalized ShearModulus with Shearing Strain and Isotropic Confining Pressure fromthe Resonant Column Tests


Test Station: RC-5

Time> 60 min at each pressure

A 4.3 psi

)I( 17.4 psi

~0

6 10

0+:i

C'IS0::C)s::::c.EC'IScC'IS

"i:Q)- 5C'IS

::E

o1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00


Figure A.1 0 Comparison of the Variation in Material Damping Ratiowith Shearing Strain and Isotropic Confining Pressure from theResonant Column Tests

4000

3000

....In~

><C'llE

C)

In2000:s

:s"C0:E...C'll(1).cen

1000


Test Station: RC-5


• RC (60 Hz - 93 Hz)

11III TS 1st Cycle (0.5 Hz)

A TS 10th Cycle (0.5 Hz)

•11III

150

en:sCI)su.,s:oc.

100 =.cIn

G)

3su1<s:"'0su

50

o1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01

o1.E+00

Shearing Strain, ¥, %

Figure A.11 Comparison of the Variation in Shear Modulus withShearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 4.3 psi fromthe Combined RCTS Tests

1.2

III!.

•

1.0 • m...._.

~~

><nsE

C) 0.8-C)

t/)~

~

"C0:!: 0.6...ns(1)J:en"C(1)

.!:::!ns 0.4E...0z

0.2

•III!.•


Test Station: RC-5


• RC (60 Hz - 93 Hz)

l1li TS 1st Cycle (0.5 Hz)

~ TS 10th Cycle (0.5 Hz)

'.

I.•

0.0

1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00


Figure A.12 Comparison of the Variation in Normalized ShearModulus with Shearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of4.3 psi from the Combined RCTS Tests

15


Test Station: RC-5


5

?ft.6 10

o~eu0:::C)s::::CoEeuceu'i:.seu:E

• RC (60 Hz - 93 Hz)


b. TS 10th Cycle (0.5 Hz)

•

• • • •• .. f

•• • It

Il!l

i

•

o1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00


Figure A.13 Comparison of the Variation in Material Damping Ratiowith Shearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 4.3 psifrom the Combined RCTS Tests


Test Station: RC-5

• Shearing Strain =0.001 %

lIIII Shearing Strain =0.01 %150

3000

.... en~

:::r(I)

><II).,

ctI s:E 0C) c.

100 l:en l:::::s 2000 en::::s

"C G)0 3:!E II)... ,?<ctICI> s:.cen ""C

• II)

• • • 501000 •lIIII

lIIII lIIII lIIII lIIII

o0.01 0.1 1 10 100

o1000

Loading Frequency, f, Hz

Figure A.14 Comparison of the Variation in Shear Modulus withLoading Frequency at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 4.3 psifrom the Combined RCTS Tests


Test Station: RC-5


11II Shearing Strain =0.01 %

~010c

0+:ico0:::C)r::::c.Ecocco.~

(1)- 5co11II

11II11II

11II~

•• • ••

0

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000


Figure A.15 Comparison of the Variation in Material Damping Ratiowith Loading Frequency at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 4.3psi from the Combined RCTS Tests


Test Station: RC-5


• RC (77 Hz - 123 Hz)

III TS 1st Cycle (0.5 Hz) 1503000


.... (/)t/) ::r

.lIl:: (I)

><$I)""I

eu 3:E 0C> • • • • • • • a-t/) • 100 =-::::J 2000 A • s::::

11II II t/)::::J III

"C II·G')

0 3:E $I)... • .?<eu IICI) 3:.s::::en 1\ "tJ

$I)

1000 • 50

•

o1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01

o1.E+00


Figure A.16 Comparison of the Variation in Shear Modulus withShearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 17.4 psi fromthe Combined RCTS Tests

1.2 ,--------------------...............

1.0 • • • • • , I11III

..&.~

.&.

>< .I11III

co .&.E(!) •- 0.8(!) I11III

(fJ.&.

:::s •:::s I11III

"C -.0:!:

.&.

a.. 0.6 •coQ)J:en"C •Q)

.~

co 0.4 •E Silty SAND - NA B901-UD1a..0 Test Station: RC-5z


0.2 • RC (77 Hz - 123 Hz)

I11III TS 1st Cycle (0.5 Hz)

.&. TS 10th Cycle (0.5 Hz)

0.0

1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00


Figure A.17 Comparison of the Variation in Normalized ShearModulus with Shearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of17.4 psi from the Combined RCTS Tests

15


Test Station: RC-5


~0

ci 10

0+:leu0::C)s:::c.EeuCeu.t:.s 5eu:E

• RC (77 Hz - 123 Hz)

II1II TS 1st Cycle (0.5 Hz)

.4. TS 10th Cycle (0.5 Hz)

•

.. .it

I ••••

• •

o1.E-05

• ••

1.E-04

• ••

1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00


Figure A.18 Comparison of the Variation in Material Damping Ratiowith Shearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 17.4 psifrom the Combined RCTS Tests


Test Station: RC-5


IiIIII Shearing Strain =0.01 % 1503000

.... en~

:::rCD

><$I)..,

C'lS s:E 0

(!) • a.100 t:

l/) t:::::J 2000 • • • • til::::J •"C G)0 3:E $I).. IiIIII IiIIII .?<C'lS IiIIII IiIIIIG) s:J:en ""C

$I)

1000 50

o0.01 0.1 1 10 100

o1000


Figure A.19 Comparison of the Variation in Shear Modulus withLoading Frequency at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 17.4 psifrom the Combined RCTS Tests

15


Test Station: RC-5

• Shearing Strain = 0.001 %

II Shearing Strain = 0.01 %

~010c

0~ns0:::C)ca.EnsCns'i:CD+" 5ns:!:

11IIII

11IIII11IIII

11IIII 11IIII

11IIII

•• • • •

•0

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000


Figure A.20 Comparison of the Variation in Material Damping Ratiowith Loading Frequency at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 17.4psi from the Combined RCTS Tests

Table A.1 Variation in Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity, Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus, Low-AmplitudeMaterial Damping Ratio and Estimated Void Ratio with Isotropic Confining Pressure from RC Testsof Specimen NA B901-UD1

Low-Amplitude Shear Low-Amplitude Low-Amplitude EstimatedIsotropic Confining Pressure, 0"0

Modulus, GmaxShear Wave Material Damping VoidVelocity, Vs Ratio, Dmin Ratio, e

(psi) (psf) (kPa) (ksf) (MPa) (fps) (%)1.1 158 8 919 44 495 2.45 0.6162.2 317 15 990 48 514 2.44 0.6154.3 619 30 1226 59 571 2.14 0.6128.7 1253 60 1574 76 646 1.92 0.60517.4 2506 120 2140 103 750 1.63 0.594

Table A.2 Variation in Shear Modulus and Material Damping Ratio with Shearing Strain from RC Tests ofSpecimen NA B901-UD1; Isoptropic Confining Pressure, cro= 4.3 psi (0.6 ksf =30 kPa)

Peak ShearNormalized + Material

Shear AverageShearing Modulus, Modulus, Shearing DampingStrain, % G, ksf G/Gmax

Strain, % RatioX, D, %

6.70E-05 1248 1.00 6.70E-05 2.221.32E-04 1248 1.00 1.32E-04 2.212.66E-04 1242 0.99 2.66E-04 2.345.24E-04 1233 0.99 5.24E-04 2.391.06E-03 1211 0.97 1.05E-03 2.632.03E-03 1167 0.93 2.01 E-03 2.793.66E-03 1094 0.88 3.57E-03 3.236.90E-03 972 0.78 6.74E-03 3.831.38E-02 816 0.65 1.29E-02 4.943.05E-02 635 0.51 2.73E-02 6.295.42E-02 522 0.42 4.67E-02 7.84

+ Average Shearing Strain from the First Three Cycles of the Free Vibration Decay Curvex Average Damping Ratio from the First Three Cycles of the Free Vibration Decay Curve

Table A.3 Variation in Shear Modulus, Normalized Shear Modulus and Material Damping Ratio with ShearingStrain from TS Tests of Specimen NA B901-UD1; Isotropic Confining Pressure, 0"0= 4.3 psi (0.6 ksf= 30 kPa)

First Cycle Tenth CyclePeak Shear Normalized Material Peak Shear Normalized Material

Shearing Modulus, Shear Modulus, Damping Shearing Modulus, Shear Modulus, DampingStrain, % G, ksf G/Gmax Ratio, D, % Strain, % G, ksf G/Gmax Ratio, D, %

1.05E-04 1103 1.00 1.73 1.03E-04 1083 1.00 1.931.81 E-04 1103 1.00 1.70 2.01 E-04 1083 1.00 1.773.76E-04 1103 1.00 1.72 3.58E-04 1083 1.00 1.528.76E-04 1050 0.95 1.75 8.74E-04 1056 0.97 1.931.79E-03 1026 0.93 2.44 1.78E-03 1031 0.95 2.423.87E-03 945 0.86 2.55 3.94E-03 927 0.86 2.719.86E-03 740 0.67 4.83 9.82E-03 743 0.69 4.752.46E-02 593 0.54 6.51 2.51 E-02 580 0.54 6.703.96E-02 501 0.45 8.63 4.09E-02 485 0.45 9.10

Table A.4 Variation in Shear Modulus and Material Damping Ratio with Shearing Strain from RC Testsof Specimen NA B901-UD1; Isoptropic Confining Pressure, cro= 17.4 psi ( 2.5 ksf =120 kPa)


Shear Average DampingShearing Modulus,

Modulus, ShearingRatioX

, D,Strain, % G, ksfG/Gmax

Strain, %%

1.30E-05 2200 1.00 1.30E-05 1.612.70E-05 2200 1.00 2.70E-05 1.645.20E-05 2200 1.00 5.20E-05 1.771.03E-04 2200 1.00 1.03E-04 1.891.98E-04 2189 1.00 1.98E-04 2.063.92E-04 2183 0.99 3.92E-04 2.217.93E-04 2155 0.98 7.93E-04 2.401.51 E-03 2094 0.95 1.49E-03 2.592.81 E-03 1987 0.90 2.74E-03 2.865.17E-03 1819 0.83 4.81 E-03 3.209.78E-03 1592 0.72 9.42E-03 3.442.03E-02 1313 0.60 1.89E-02 3.934.44E-02 1015 0.46 3.96E-02 5.187.14E-02 875 0.40 6.10E-02 6.77+ Average Shearing Strain from the First Three Cycles of the Free Vibration Decay Curvex Average Damping Ratio from the First Three Cycles of the Free Vibration Decay Curve

Table A.5 Variation in Shear Modulus, Normalized Shear Modulus and Material Damping Ratiowith Shearing Strain from TS Tests of Specimen NA B901-UD1; Isotropic ConfiningPressure, 0"0=17.40 psi (2.5 ksf = 120 kPa)


Shearing Modulus, Shear Damping Shearing Modulus, Shear DampingStrain, % G, ksf Modulus, Ratio, D, Strain, % G, ksf Modulus, Ratio, D, %4.04E-04 1959 1.00 0.99 3.91 E-04 2028 1.00 0.909.01 E-04 1965 1.00 1.00 9.05E-04 1956 0.96 1.281.87E-03 1886 0.96 1.41 1.87E-03 1887 0.93 1.653.99E-03 1764 0.90 2.30 4.03E-03 1749 0.86 2.369.28E-03 1519 0.77 4.09 9.26E-03 1523 0.75 3.951.75E-02 1340 0.68 4.75 1.76E-02 1333 0.66 4.922.14E-02 1283 0.65 5.27 2.14E-02 1283 0.63 5.39

II II II II II - I I IIt\.~

r-...

"\\

\\

\"I

t--ltI--..

N I-e-l\a.

• -I-.N'-.r.N --; •

0.1GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

100

80

lIQw$: 60>co0:::wzLi:I-as 40()0:::Wn.

20

o100

3

U.S. STANDARD SIEVESIZES IN INCHES1.5 3/4 3/8

10

4

U. S. STANDARD SIEVENUMBERS

10 20 40 100 200

HYDROMETERANALYSIS

0.01100

0.001

GRAVEL

Coarse Fine

SYMBOL BORING DEPTH, FT

• B-901-UD1 9.5 5.73

Medium

158.30

SAND

0.1766

Fine

0.53

SILT or CLAY

CLASSIFICATION

Silty Fine Sand, tan

'lJs:-lm

GRAIN SIZE CURVE

TEST METHOD ASTM D422-63 (2002)

------------------------------======--

APPENDIX B

Specimen NA B911A-UD1

Borehole B911ASample UD1

Depth =11.7 ft ( 3.6 m)


Water Content =16.6 o~

Estimated In-Situ Ko =0.5Estimated In-Situ Mean Effective

Stress =5.6 psi


--@------------------------

NOTE: Visual classification, if not specifically statedotherwise, was practiced in determining the soil types.

6000SAND - NA B911A-UD1 • 1.4 psiTest Station: RC-5

Shearing Strain: <0.001 % 11III2.8 psi

.& 5.6 psi-en it 11.2 psi I~ 0

>< :Ens ~ 22.5 psi :i>E 200 3

C) 4000 "C

en ;:::;::::s s::::

Co:::s CD

"C en0:E :::r

CD... Sl)

ns ...CI) :s:.s::en ~ ~~~ ~

0~ Co

CI) s::::"C s:::::::s~

enCo 2000

100 G)E it

it it it it it 3« Sl)I .?<3=0

.& .&.&.& .& :s:-I .& .& ""C

& Sl)

11III 11III 11III 11III11III11III 11III11III• • ••• ••

•

o1 10 100

o1000


Figure 8.1 Variation in Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus withMagnitude and Duration of Isotropic Confining Pressure fromResonant Column Tests

15

SAND - NA B911A-UD1 • 1.4 psi

Test Station: RC-5 Ii 2.8 psiShearing Strain: <0.001 %

I. 5.6 psi~0

s:::: ~ 11.2 psi

E )I( 22.5 psic0+:i 10ca0:::C)s::::a.EcaCca'i:(1)-ca

:i!E(1)"C 5::::J •~ •a. 18 t •• , IE 11III

~ )I( t ~ II~~ •::.)1( )I(

0...J

o1 10 100 1000


Figure 8.2 Variation in Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio withMagnitude and Duration of Isotropic Confining Pressure fromResonant Column Tests

1.2

1.0

o+:i

C'lS0::"Co~ 0.8S

C'lSE

+:ienW

SAND - NA B911A-UD1

Test Station: RC-5


.1.4 psi

II 2.8 psi

.t. 5.6 psi

~ 11.2 psi

)I( 22.5 psi

0.6

0.4

1

I

10

I IIII !

100 1000


Figure 8.3 Variation in Estimated Void Ratio with Magnitude andDuration of Isotropic Confining Pressure from Resonant ColumnTests

10000

••

•••

SAND - NA 8911A-UD1

Test Station: RC-5


() Time=60 min at each pressureQ)

~

~

~()

oQ)

>Q)

>ca3: 1000r.caQ)

.s:::U)Q)

"C:J~

c.E

<J:3=o

..J

100

1 10 100


Figure 8.4 Variation in Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity withIsotropic Confining Pressure from Resonant Column Tests

10000

SAND - NA B911A-UD1

Test Station: RC-5


Time=60 min at each pressure....~

><euE

C>tn •::::s::::s •"C0:!: •... 1000eu •(1)J:en(1)

"C::::s:!:c.E~3=0

...J

100

•

1 10


100

Figure 8.5 Variation in Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus with IsotropicConfining Pressure from Resonant Column Tests

10

•••

••

SAND - NA B911A-UD1

Test Station: RC-5


'#. Time=60 min at each pressure

s::Ec6+:lnl

0:::C)s::c.EnlCnl'i:~nl:ECI)

"C::J:!:C.E

1o..J

1

1 10 100


Figure 8.6 Variation in Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio withIsotropic Confining Pressure from Resonant Column Tests

1.2

SAND - NA 8911A-UD1

Test Station: RC-5



1.0

o+::(}."Co~ 0.8.eeuE+::t/)w

0.6 -

0.4

1

• • • •

10

•

100


Figure 8.7 Variation in Estimated Void Ratio with Isotropic ConfiningPressure from Resonant Column Tests

6000

~ 4000.lII::

><euEC)

ur::::l::::l"Co:E...euCI>

~ 2000

SAND - NA B911A-UD1

Test Station: RC-5


45.6 psi

~ 22.5 psi

200 en:::r(I)ll)..,s:oCol:l:III

G')

3ll)

.?<100 s:

"Cll)

o1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01


o1.E+00

Figure B.8 Comparison of the Variation in Shear Modulus withShearing Strain and Isotropic Confining Pressure from the ResonantColumn Tests

1.2

1.0 )K )K4.~~~~~~

~

>< )K~nsE

C> )K- 0.8C> ~

tn;j

)K;j

'0~0

~ 0.6ns(1) )K.cen'0 ~(1)

.~ns 0.4 lE"'-

SAND - NA B911A-UD10zTest Station: RC-5

0.2Time> 60 min at each pressure

~ 5.6 psi

)K 22.5 psi

0.0

1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00


Figure B.9 Comparison of the Variation in Normalized ShearModulus with Shearing Strain and Isotropic Confining Pressure fromthe Resonant Column Tests

15SAND - NA B911A-UD1

Test Station: RC-5


~ 5.6 psi

:t( 22.5 psi

~0

ci 10

0+:0ns0:::C)I:a.EnsC'iii-i:Q)- 5ns:!:

Shearing Strains in RC Test werecorrected to the average of the first 3free-vibration cycles

o1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00


Figure 8_10 Comparison of the Variation in Material Damping Ratiowith Shearing Strain and Isotropic Confining Pressure from theResonant Column Tests

6000

SAND - NA B911A-UD1

Test Station: RC-5

Time >60 min at each pressure

~ 4000

><euE

C)

tn:::s:::s

"Co:El-eu(I)

~ 2000

+ RC (62 Hz - 100 Hz)

mTS 1st Cycle (0.5 Hz)

& TS 10th Cycle (0.5 Hz)

+ + + + + + + ++..... , 'III +III +

III

200 en:::r(l)D)..,3:oc.cCtn

G)

3~

100 3:""0D)

++

o1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02


o1.E-01 1.E+00

Figure 8.11 Comparison of the Variation in Shear Modulus withShearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 5.6 psi fromthe Combined RCTS Tests

1.2

1.0 • • .... .- II IIIIll• • IIIIll

>< •ctl &.EC) 0.8- •C) IIIIll

In:::s &.:::s

't:I0 •:E 0.6...ctl(1)J:en't:I •(1)

.~

ctl 0.4 SAND - NA B911A-UD1 •E... Test Station: RC-50z Time >60 min at each pressure

0.2 • RC (62 Hz - 100 Hz)

IIIIll TS 1st Cycle (0.5 Hz)

'" TS 10th Cycle (0.5 Hz)

0.01.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00


Figure 8.12 Comparison of the Variation in Normalized ShearModulus with Shearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of5.6 psi from the Combined RCTS Tests

15

?fi!.ci 10

o;

~C)cc.EeuCeu'i:.seu 5:E

SAND - NA B911A-UD1

Test Station: RC-5


• RC (62 Hz -100 Hz)

IlIIi TS 1st Cycle (0.5 Hz)

&. TS 10th Cycle (0.5 Hz)

•• ••• • • • •

•

•

•

•

o1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00


Figure 8.13 Comparison of the Variation in Material Damping Ratiowith Shearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 5.6 psifrom the Combined RCTS Tests

6000SAND - NA 8911A-UD1

Test Station: RC-5

• Shearing Strain = 0.001 %

IIIi Shearing Strain =0.01 %

'Ui 4000~

><n:lE

C)

Ii::::s::::s

"Co

:iEIn:l(1)

ti 2000

o0.01

•

0.1

• •

1

• •

10

•

100

200 (J):::r(I)A).,s:oCol:l:enG)

3A)

.?<100 ~

A)

o1000


Figure 8.14 Comparison of the Variation in Shear Modulus withLoading Frequency at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 5.6 psifrom the Combined RCTS Tests


Test Station: RC-5


IiII Shearing Strain =0.01 %

~010ci

6'~ns0:::C)s:::0-EnsCns IiII'i: IiII IiII(1) IiII- 5ns:i:

•

o0.01

•

0.1

••

1

• •

10 100 1000


Figure 8.15 Comparison of the Variation in Material Damping Ratiowith Loading Frequency at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 5.6psi from the Combined RCTS Tests


Test Station: RC-5


• RC (86 Hz - 136 Hz)



] 4000

><CISE

C)

en::J::J

"Co:!:"CISQ)

~ 2000

• • • • • • • • •

•

200 (J)

:r(I)D).,:s:oc.s::::s::::enG)

3D)

)<

100 :s:"'0D)

o1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01


o1.E+00

Figure 8.16 Comparison of the Variation in Shear Modulus withShearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 22.5 psi fromthe Combined RCTS Tests

1.2 --.-----------------------,

1.0

><euE

§ 0.8

ur~

~

"Co

:iiEL- 0.6euC!).cen"CC!)

.~

eu 0.4EL-oZ

0.2

• • • • III • •

II

•

SAND - NA B911A-UD1

Test Station: RC-5


• RC (86 Hz - 136 Hz)

II TS 1st Cycle (0.5 Hz)


•

•

•

o.0 -!--'--l.....J...L.J...l.Ll.j--i-.!-W...J..J.J.Jt-..l......J...J.-.J...W.J..lt--.L-J....J...W.J,..Uf--L.-J....w...J..l.l.l.j---l-...l-L.J...J...UJ.j

1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00


Figure 8.17 Comparison of the Variation in Normalized ShearModulus with Shearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of22.5 psi from the Combined RCTS Tests

15

SAND - NA B911A-UD1

Test Station: RC-5


';fl.C 10

• RC (86 Hz - 136 Hz)



•

5

• ••• • • • • • •

•

•

•t

..I

.l I I.

o1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00


Figure 8.18 Comparison of the Variation in Material Damping Ratiowith Shearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 22.5 psifrom the Combined RCTS Tests


Test Station: RC-5


III Shearing Strain = 0.01 %

'; 4000200 en

::::T~ CD

><l»""I

co s:E 0C) c-ur C

::::J Ctil

::::J"C G)0 • 3:E l»l- • • .?<co • •(1) • 100 s:.c

2000tn ""CIII III IIIIR III l»

IIIIR

o0.01 0.1 1 10 100

o1000


Figure 8.19 Comparison of the Variation in Shear Modulus withLoading Frequency at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 22.5 psifrom the Combined RCTS Tests

15

SAND - NA B911A-UD1

Test Station: RC-5


iIIII Shearing Strain =0.01 %

~010ci

0'~

C'CI0::tnCc.EC'CIC

iIIIIC'CI'i:CI)- 5C'CI

:EiIIII iIIII iIIII

iIIII iIIII

•

•• •• •

0

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000


Figure 8.20 Comparison of the Variation in Material Damping Ratiowith Loading Frequency at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of22.5 psi from the Combined RCTS Tests

Table B.1 Variation in Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity, Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus, Low-AmplitudeMaterial Damping Ratio and Estimated Void Ratio with Isotropic Confining Pressure from RC Testsof Specimen NA B911-UD1

Low-Amplitude ShearLow-Amplitude Low-Amplitude Estimated

Isotropic Confining Pressure, cro Modulus, GmaxShear Wave Material Damping VoidVelocity, Vs Ratio, Dmin Ratio, e


Table B.2 Variation in Shear Modulus and Material Damping Ratio with Shearing Strain from RC Tests ofSpecimen NA B911A-UD1; Isoptropic Confining Pressure, °0 = 5.6 psi (0.8 ksf = 39 kPa)


Shear AverageShearing Modulus, Modulus, Shearing DampingStrain, % G, ksf

G/G maxStrain, % RatioX

, D, %

1.50E-05 1422 1.00 1.50E-05 3.512.80E-05 1422 1.00 2.80E-05 3.515.70E-05 1422 1.00 5.70E-05 3.551.14E-04 1422 1.00 1.14E-04 3.592.29E-04 1422 1.00 2.29E-04 3.554.56E-04 1415 1.00 4.56E-04 3.849.44E-04 1396 0.98 9.44E-04 3.881.86E-03 1357 0.95 1.44E-03 4.043.65E-03 1268 0.89 2.78E-03 4.537.18E-03 1124 0.79 5.13E-03 5.741.49E-02 920 0.65 9.57E-03 7.893.51 E-02 678 0.48 1.99E-02 10.846.00E-02 555 0.39 3.29E-02 12.35


Table B.3 Variation in Shear Modulus, Normalized Shear Modulus and Material Damping Ratio with ShearingStrain from TS Tests of Specimen NA B911A-UD1; Isotropic Confining Pressure, 0"0= 5.6 psi (0.8ksf = 39 kPa)


Shearing Modulus, Shear Modulus, Damping Shearing Modulus, Shear Modulus, DampingStrain, % G, ksf G/Gmax Ratio, 0, % Strain, % G, ksf G/Gmax Ratio, 0, %

1.12E-04 1076 1.00 0.78 9.87E-05 1130 1.00 1.021.99E-04 1076 1.00 1.20 1.87E-04 1130 1.00 0.923.72E-04 1076 1.00 1.12 3.65E-04 1130 1.00 0.949.17E-04 1076 1.00 1.83 8.99E-04 1130 1.00 2.101.97E-03 1076 1.00 2.60 2.00E-03 1084 0.96 2.784.35E-03 994 0.92 3.14 4.41 E-03 982 0.87 3.371.05E-02 823 0.77 5.23 1.07E-02 806 0.71 5.34

Table BA Variation in Shear Modulus and Material Damping Ratio with Shearing Strain from RC Testsof Specimen NA B911A-UD1; Isoptropic Confining Pressure, 0"0= 22.5 psi ( 3.2 ksf =155 kPa)


Shear Average DampingShearing Modulus, Modulus, Shearing

RatioX, D,Strain, % G, ksf G/Gmax

Strain, %%

6.00E-06 2670 1.00 6.00E-06 3.091.20E-05 2670 1.00 1.20E-05 3.062AOE-05 2670 1.00 2AOE-05 3.244.80E-05 2670 1.00 4.80E-05 3.279.50E-05 2670 1.00 9.50E-05 3.271.91 E-04 2670 1.00 1.91 E-04 3.243.80E-04 2663 1.00 3.80E-04 3.277.81 E-04 2636 0.99 7.81 E-04 30411.53E-03 2555 0.96 1.23E-03 3.592.93E-03 2423 0.91 2.32E-03 3.735.58E-03 2204 0.83 4.21 E-03 4.721.13E-02 1860 0.70 7.94E-03 6.132A8E-02 1465 0.55 1.57E-02 8.526.29E-02 1077 0040 3.55E-02 11040+ Average Shearing Strain from the First Three Cycles of the Free Vibration Decay Curve

x Average Damping Ratio from the First Three Cycles of the Free Vibration Decay Curve

Table 8.5 Variation in Shear Modulus, Normalized Shear Modulus and Material Damping Ratiowith Shearing Strain from TS Tests of Specimen NA 8911A-UD1 ; Isotropic ConfiningPressure, 0"0=22.5 psi (3.2 ksf = 155 kPa)


Shearing Modulus, Shear Damping Shearing Modulus, Shear DampingStrain, % G, ksf Modulus, Ratio, D, Strain, % G, ksf Modulus, Ratio, D, %9.36E-05 2230 1.00 --- 9.88E-05 2211 1.00 1.171.86E-04 2230 1.00 1.25 1.81 E-04 2211 1.00 1.093.52E-04 2230 1.00 1.13 3.60E-04 2211 1.00 0.989.60E-04 2230 1.00 1.22 9.52E-04 2211 1.00 1.501.96E-03 2209 0.99 1.46 1.96E-03 2208 1.00 2.004.13E-03 2096 0.94 2.15 4.18E-03 2073 0.94 2.219.36E-03 1850 0.83 3.73 9.33E-03 1856 0.84 3.671.33E-02 1783 0.80 4.12 1.34E-02 1770 0.80 4.281.92E-02 1644 0.74 4.85 1.93E-02 1638 0.74 5.04

II II II II IT ---. I I II

"f\

\.,\\

"\'.

i' ...~~

·1'14

100

80

lI<.9WS 60>-co0::WZu:::l-rQ 40<.)0::wa.

20

3

U.S. STANDARD SIEVESIZES IN INCHES1.5 3/4 3/8 4


10 20 40 100 200

HYDROMETERANALYSIS

;:0CD

"00;:+

z0 <:>

0.;>.0,

--"(J)(J)N

20

-0m;:00m

40z-I00»;:0(flm;:0

60 OJ-<~mQI-I

80

o100 10 0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS0.01

1000.001

GRAVEL

Coarse Fine

SYMBOL BORING DEPTH. FT

• B-911A-UD1 11.7

MediumSAND

~

0.215

Fine

.Q~

0.66

SILT or CLAY

CLASSIFICATION

Sand, tan

\Js;:-Im

GRAIN SIZE CURVE

TEST METHOD ASTM 0422-63 (2002)

APPENDIX C

Specimen NA B911A-PB1

Borehole B911ASample PB1

Depth =21.7 ft ( 6.6 m)


Water Content =15.1 0/0Estimated In-Situ Ko =0.5

Estimated In-Situ Mean EffectiveStress =11.4 psi


NOTE: Visual classification, ifnot specifically statedotherwise, was practiced in determining the soil types.

6000SAND -NA B911A-PB1 .2.9 psiTest Station: RC-5

Shearing Strain: <0.001 %II 5.7 psi

A 11.4 psi

.... ~ 22.8 psien r~ 0><~ )I( 45.6 psi ~nl »E 200 3

C) 4000 "C

en ;:::;:~

cc.

~ (I)"C en0~

:::r)I( )I()I( )I( )I( (I)

L. )I( s:unl ..,G) s:.c

CJ) 0c.

G) C"C C~

:!::: enc. 2000 fj]l ~ ~~ ~ 100 G')E

~

3~ s:u~

1<0 s:-I

A A AA A "'tI~

~A s:u

II II IiIIl II IiIIl 1111 IiIIl

• • • ••• ••

0 0

1 10 100 1000


Figure C.1 Variation in Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus withMagnitude and Duration of Isotropic Confining Pressure fromResonant Column Tests

5

20

cE 15co

+:ica0::C)ca.EcaC 10ca'i:~ca:E(1)

'0~

:t::a.E

1o..J

SAND -NA 8911A-P81

Test Station: RC-5


•

• 2.9 psi

II 5.7 psi

A 11.4 psi

Iij 22.8 psi

::':45.6 psi

o1

I I

10

, Ilii

100 1000


Figure C.2 Variation in Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio withMagnitude and Duration of Isotropic Confining Pressure fromResonant Column Tests

1.0SAND -NA B911A-PB1 • 2.9 psiTest Station: RC-5

Shearing Strain: <0.001 % IIIlI 5.7 psi

A 11.4 psi

0.8 ~ 22.8 psi

): 45.6 psi

0..C'll

0:::"00> 0.6"0Q)-C'llE a • • •••• •..t/) A A A .& .&.&.& .&W

@Jl ~ ~ @Jl ~ ~~ ~

): ): ): ): ):):): ):

0.4

0.2

1 10 100 1000


Figure C.3 Variation in Estimated Void Ratio with Magnitude andDuration of Isotropic Confining Pressure from Resonant ColumnTests

10000

••

•••

SAND -NA B911A-PB1

Test Station: RC-5


(.) Time=60 min at each pressure(J)

~!j~(.)o(J)

>(J)

>~ 1000lns(J)

.s::en(J)

"C::s~

c.E

1...J

100

1 10 100


Figure C.4 Variation in Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity withIsotropic Confining Pressure from Resonant Column Tests

10000

SAND -NA B911A-PB1

Test Station: RC-5


Time=60 min at each pressure....til

.lIl:::

><C'lSE

C)

til::::s::::s

"C •0:EL. 1000C'lSQ) •J:enQ) •"C::::s:!:c.E~3=0

...J

100

•

•

1 10


100

Figure C.S Variation in Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus with IsotropicConfining Pressure from Resonant Column Tests

100SAND -NA B911A-PB1

Test Station: RC-5


Time=60 min at each pressure~0

c:Ec0

+:iC'lS

0::C)c:a.EC'lSC 10

C'lS.i:

SC'lS:E(J)"C:::J:!:a.E~;:0

...J

1

1

• • •

10

• •

100


Figure C.G Variation in Low-Amplitude Material Damping Ratio withIsotropic Confining Pressure from Resonant Column Tests

1.0

SAND -NA 8911A-P81

Test Station: RC-5



0.8

0+:ieu

0:::"C0> 0.6"CSeuE •+:i •tn •W • •

0.4

0.21 10

Isotropic Confining Pressure, (jo, psi

100

Figure C.7 Variation in Estimated Void Ratio with Isotropic ConfiningPressure from Resonant Column Tests


Test Station: RC-5


A 11.4 psi

:t( 45.6 psi

'Ui 4000.llI::

><~

raE

C>In::::s::::s

"Co:ElraQ)

~ 2000

200 (J):::TCDl».,:s:oa.l:l:enG)

3l».?<

100 :s:"Cl»

o1.E-05

o1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01


Figure C.B Comparison of the Variation in Shear Modulus withShearing Strain and Isotropic Confining Pressure from the ResonantColumn Tests

1.2

1.0 ;(;(.il(~.il(~

~~

><~eu

EC)

0.8&.- ;(

C)

tn~ &.

~

"C0:E 0.6...euQ)

.s::::en"C ,j(Q)

.!:::! ;(

eu 0.4E &....

SAND -NA 8911A-P810zTest Station: RC-5

0.2Time> 60 min at each pressure

&. 11.4 psi

;( 45.6 psi

0.0

1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01


Figure C.9 Comparison of the Variation in Normalized ShearModulus with Shearing Strain and Isotropic Confining Pressure fromthe Resonant Column Tests


Test Station: RC-5


15

~0

C~

0~co0::C)s:::: 10CoEcocco'i:(1)-co

:i!E

5

Shearing Strains in RC Test werecorrected to the average of the first 3free-vibration cycles

~ 11.4 psi

)K 45.6 psi

o1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01


Figure C.10 Comparison of the Variation in Material Damping Ratiowith Shearing Strain and Isotropic Confining Pressure from theResonant Column Tests

6000

SAND -NA B911A-PB1

Test Station: RC-5


~ 4000

><nsE

C)

tn:::s:::s

"Co:ElnsCI)

c75 2000

• RC (36 Hz - 61 Hz)

IlIlI TS 1st Cycle (0.5 Hz)

j, TS 10th Cycle (0.5 Hz)

••••••.~ ~ ~ ..II •

II •II •

II •

200 en:::s(I)p)..,:s:oa.r::::r::::tn

G)

3p)

.?<100 :s:

-0p)

o1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01


o1.E+00 1.E+01

Figure C.11 Comparison of the Variation in Shear Modulus withShearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 11.4 psi fromthe Combined RCTS Tests

1.2

1.0 • • • GIl III• •><n:sE~ 0.8

In::s::s

"'Co:E... 0.6n:s(1)

.cen"'C(1)

.!:::!

E0.4...oz

•, .

,.SAND -NA B911A-PB1

Test Station: RC-5 •


0.2 • RC (36 Hz - 61 Hz)

IIIIi TS 1st Cycle (0.5 Hz)


0.0

1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01


Figure C.12 Comparison of the Variation in Normalized ShearModulus with Shearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of11.4 psi from the Combined RCTS Tests

20

15

~o

co:;:;

C'lS0:::C)

.5: 10c.EC'lScC'lS'i:.s

C'lS:!E

5

SAND -NA B911A-PB1

Test Station: RC-5


• RC (36 Hz - 61 Hz)


&. TS 10th Cycle (0.5 Hz)

I

•

•I••

• ·11

• • • •• I

IlIIll

0

1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01


1.E+00 1.E+01

Figure C.13 Comparison of the Variation in Material Damping Ratiowith Shearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 11.4 psifrom the Combined RCTS Tests


Test Station: RC-5


11IIII Shearing Strain =0.01 %

'Ui 4000200 en

:::T~ (1)

><D).,

C'l:I :s:E 0C) c.

s::(/) s:::::s (/):::s'0 G)0 3:!E D)... .?<C'l:IQ)

100 :s:.s::2000en ""D

D)

o0.01

•II

0.1

• •11IIII II

1

•

10

•11IIII

100

o1000


Figure C.14 Comparison of the Variation in Shear Modulus withLoading Frequency at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 11.4 psifrom the Combined RCTS Tests


Test Station: RC-5


II!i1 Shearing Strain = 0.01 %

15

5

II!i1 II!i1 II!i1II!i1

o0.01

•0.1

•••1 10

•

100 1000


Figure C.15 Comparison of the Variation in Material Damping Ratiowith Loading Frequency at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 11.4psi from the Combined RCTS Tests


Test Station: RC-5


• RC (60 Hz - 93 Hz)

IIIlI TS 1st Cycle (0.5 Hz)

" TS 10th Cycle (0.5 Hz)

~ 4000

><ctIE

C)

(/)::s::s"0o~L.ctIQ)

t5 2000

• • • • • • • • ••

II

Iii •~ .

•

200 en:::r(1)S».,s:oc.cc(/)

G)

3S».?<

100 s:""0S»

o1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01


o1.E+00 1.E+01

Figure C.16 Comparison of the Variation in Shear Modulus withShearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 45.6 psi fromthe Combined RCTS Tests

1.2 .--------------------.......

1.0 • • • .. , 11III

~,

><C'lS •E 11III

C)0.8 •-C)

tn I::::s::::s

"C0 ~:e 0.6... •C'lS(1)J:en"C •(1)N

0.4 •C'lS

E... SAND -NA B911A-PB10zTest Station: RC-5

Time >60 min at each pressure0.2

• RC (60 Hz - 93 Hz)

ill TS 1st Cycle (0.5 Hz)


0.0

1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01


Figure C.17 Comparison of the Variation in Normalized ShearModulus with Shearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of45.6 psi from the Combined RCTS Tests

20

SAND -NA B911A-PB1

Test Station: RC-5


• RC (60 Hz - 93 Hz)

15 11II TS 1st Cycle (0.5 Hz)

';fl. £ TS 10th Cycle (0.5 Hz)

co~eu

0:::C)

,: 10c.Eeuc

C\i'i:.eeu

::a!:

5

••

lIB

•• • II

•• lib• • • • •II 11II• £

0

1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01


1.E+00 1.E+01

Figure C.18 Comparison of the Variation in Material Damping Ratiowith Shearing Strain at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 45.6 psifrom the Combined RCTS Tests


Test Station: RC-5


III Shearing Strain =0.01 %

't) 4000200 en

:::r~ CD

><D)...

co s:E 0C) a.

• c(/)::::J C

::::J(/)

"0 G)0 11III 3:E • • • • D)I- .?<coCI> 100 s:J:

2000 11III 11III 11III IIIen 1JD)

o0.01 0.1 1 10 100

o1000


Figure C.19 Comparison of the Variation in Shear Modulus withLoading Frequency at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of 45.6 psifrom the Combined RCTS Tests

20SAND -NA 8911A-P81

Test Station: RC-5


11IIII Shearing Strain =0.01 %15

co

;.;:;C'IS0::C)

.= 10c.EC'IScC'IS.i:

SC'IS

:!E

5

11IIII

11IIII

11IIII 11IIII •• • • •

0

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000


Figure C.20 Comparison of the Variation in Material Damping Ratiowith Loading Frequency at an Isotropic Confining Pressure of45.6 psi from the Combined RCTS Tests

Table C.1 Variation in Low-Amplitude Shear Wave Velocity, Low-Amplitude Shear Modulus, Low-AmplitudeMaterial Damping Ratio and Estimated Void Ratio with Isotropic Confining Pressure from RC Testsof Specimen NA B911A-PB1

Low-Amplitude ShearLow-Amplitude Low-Amplitude Estimated

Isotropic Confining Pressure, 0"0Modulus, Gmax

Shear Wave Material Damping VoidVelocity, Vs Ratio, Dmin Ratio, e


Table C.2 Variation in Shear Modulus and Material Damping Ratio with Shearing Strain from RC Tests ofSpecimen NA B911A-PB1; Isoptropic Confining Pressure, 0'0= 11.4 psi (1.6 ksf =79 kPa)


Shear AverageShearing Modulus,

Modulus, Shearing DampingStrain, % G, ksf

G/GmaxStrain, % RatioX

, D, %

1.02E-04 1300 1.00 1.02E-04 1.742.10E-04 1300 1.00 2.10E-04 1.714.11 E-04 1300 1.00 4.11 E-04 1.948,46E-04 1300 1.00 8.46E-04 1.951.621::-03 1272 0.98 1.36E-03 2.253.07E-03 1230 0.95 2.55E-03 2.595'.72E-03 1155 0.89 4.63E-03 2.951.06E-02 1067 0.82 8.36E-03 3.342.061::-02 930 0.72 1.53E-02 4.404.23E-02 776 0.60 2.87E-02 5.929.47E-02 613 0.47 5.96E-02 7.892.24E-01 468 0.36 1.25E-01 10.44


Table C.3 Variation in Shear Modulus, Normalized Shear Modulus and Material Damping Ratio with ShearingStrain from TS Tests of Specimen NA B911A-PB1; Isotropic Confining Pressure, 0'0= 11.4 psi (1.6ksf =79 kPa)


Shearing Modulus, Shear Modulus, Damping Shearing Modulus, Shear Modulus, DampingStrain, % G, ksf G/Gmax Ratio, D, % Strain, % G, ksf G/Gmax Ratio, D, %2.05E-04 1073 1.00 0.84 1.96E-04 1089 1.00 0.973.80E-04 1073 1.00 0.87 3.75E-04 1089 1.00 0.689.71 E-04 1073 1.00 0.54 9.50E-04 1089 1.00 0.541.95E-03 1073 1.00 1.30 1.97E-03 1089 1.00 1.114.22E-03 938 0.87 2.47 4.26E-03 930 0.85 2.461.02E-02 774 0.72 3.84 1.02E-02 773 0.71 3.772.42E-02 650 0.61 5.84 2.46E-02 640 0.59 5.776.22E-02 506 0.47 7.96 6.28E-02 501 0.46 7.80

Table CA Variation in Shear Modulus and Material Damping Ratio with Shearing Strain from RC Testsof Specimen NA B911A-PB1; Isoptropic Confining Pressure, G o= 45.6 psi ( 6.6 ksf =314 kPa)


Shear Average DampingShearing Modulus,

Modulus, ShearingRatioX

, D,Strain, % G, ksfG/Gmax

Strain, %%

3.10E-05 3178 1.00 3.10E-05 1.886.20E-05 3178 1.00 6.20E-05 1.921.23E-04 3178 1.00 1.23E-04 1.912A7E-04 3178 1.00 2.47E-04 1.844.89E-04 3178 1.00 4.89E-04 1.959.92E-04 3137 0.99 9.92E-04 2.131.90E-03 3069 0.97 1.60E-03 2.413.56E-03 2951 0.93 2.99E-03 2.736.60E-03 2779 0.87 5.41 E-03 2.941.23E-02 2543 0.80 9.73E-03 3.374.84E-02 1887 0.59 3.39E-02 5.831.04E-01 1523 0.48 6.77E-02 7.411.65E-01 1330 0.42 1.01 E-01 8.92+ Average Shearing Strain from the First Three Cycles of the Free Vibration Decay Curve

x Average Damping Ratio from the First Three Cycles of the Free Vibration Decay Curve

Table C.5 Variation in Shear Modulus, Normalized Shear Modulus and Material Damping Ratiowith Shearing Strain from TS Tests of Specimen NA B911A-PB1 ; Isotropic ConfiningPressure, 0 0 =45.6 psi (6.6 ksf = 314 kPa)


Shearing Modulus, Shear Damping Shearing Modulus, Shear DampingStrain, % G, ksf Modulus, Ratio, D, Strain, % G, ksf Modulus, Ratio, D, %4.07E-04 2396 1.00 0.87 4.06E-04 2409 1.00 1.039.86E-04 2396 1.00 1.33 9.75E-04 2409 1.00 1.181.99E-03 2378 0.99 1.34 2.02E-03 2342 0.97 1.054.13E-03 2283 0.95 2.24 4.16E-03 2265 0.94 2.299.22E-03 2044 0.85 2.73 9.18E-03 2051 0.85 2.712.06E-02 1825 0.76 3.89 2.08E-02 1810 0.75 3.834.94E-02 1527 0.64 5.74 4.88E-02 1547 0.64 5.54

II II II IT _____ II I I II

1Ir-,

't\"'-

l"'-\

i

•,

\

\'\

100

80

lICJWS 60>-en0::LUZu::I-d'i 40o0::LUQ. .

20

3

U.S. STANDARD SIEVESIZES IN INCHES1.5 3/4 3/8 4


10 20 40 100 200

HYDROMETERANALYSIS

;:0CD"00;::l.

z0 !"

0.j>.0~,~

(J)(J)N

20

"Um;:0(")m

40z-l(")0:t>;:0(j)m;:0

60OJ-<~mGiI-l

80

o100 10 0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS0.01

1000.001

GRAVEL

Coarse Fine

SYMBOL BORING DEPTH, FT

• B-911A-PB1 21.7

Medium

SAND

.Qil!

0.2285

Fine

.Qml

0.67

SILT or CLAY

CLASSIFICATION

Sand, tan

IJs;:-lm

GRAIN SIZE CURVE

TEST METHOD ASTM D 6913.04

Documents

DYNAMIC LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS NORTHANNA …