<%BANNER%>

Insitu Measurement of Florida Limestone Modulus and Strength Properties


PAGE 1

INSITU MEASUREMENT OF FLORIDA LIMESTONE MODULUS AND STRENGTH PROPERTIES By SCOTT ALLEN JACOBS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003

PAGE 2

This document is dedicated to my parents and my girl friend, Jennifer.

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank the faculty of the Geotechnical Engineering Group for providing me the knowledge to complete this work and to help me throughout my career in geotechnical engineering, especially, Dr. Paul J. Bullock for convincing me to pursue this field, serving as committee chair, and guiding me through this research. I would also like to thank Dr. Frank C. Townsend and Dr. Michael C. McVay for their help and contributions to the research. A special appreciation is extended to Mr. Carlos Cepero, Dr. Brian Anderson, and Dr. Bjorn Birgisson for their knowledge of the pressuremeter and support during the initial phases of this research. A special thank you is offered to Mr. Danny Brown whose skills I relied on heavily to complete the many hours of laboratory work. I am also greatly indebted to Mr. Chris Kolhoff, Mr. Chuck Broward, Mr. Hubert Martin, and Mr. Bob Konz for their assistance during this work. Without them, I would probably still be testing. I would also like to thank Sam Weede from FDOT District 3 for providing me with drilling assistance. A special thank you is also extended to Mike Suggs, Gary, Henry, and Chad, who worked hard so that I could complete the field tests required for this work. I am also greatly indebted to Roger Failmezger of Insitu Soils Testing L.C., who provided the Probex free of charge. I would like to recognize the many friends that supported me during this work, my Father and Mother who provided the means with which to get where I iii

PAGE 4

am today, and finally, my girl friend, Jennifer Passudetti. Her support and sacrifices during this research have been immense. This would not have been possible had it not been for her. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES...............................................................................................xi 1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................1 1.1 Summary of Progress............................................................................2 1.2 Scope of Research.................................................................................3 1.3 Outline....................................................................................................3 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................5 2.1 The Probex Pressuremeter....................................................................5 2.1.1 Test Procedure..............................................................................6 2.1.2 Test Analysis.................................................................................7 2.1.3 Curve Construction........................................................................8 2.1.4 Limitations....................................................................................10 2.2 Drilled Shaft Design.............................................................................11 2.2.1 Unit Side shear............................................................................12 2.2.2 Strength Parameter Method.........................................................13 2.2.3 Menard/LPC Method....................................................................16 2.2.4 Proposed Method........................................................................19 2.3 Design Parameters..............................................................................20 2.3.1 Direct Test Parameters................................................................21 2.3.2 Tensile Strength...........................................................................24 2.3.3 Shear strength.............................................................................28 2.3.4 Unconfined compressive strength................................................30 2.4 Geology................................................................................................32 2.4.1 Drainage Conditions....................................................................33 2.4.2 Limestone Competency...............................................................33 3 FIELD PRESSUREMETER TESTS.............................................................36 3.2 Limestone Coring.................................................................................37 3.2.1 Coring Equipment........................................................................37 3.2.2 Hole Preparation and Coring Technique......................................37 3.3 PMT Tests............................................................................................41 v

PAGE 6

3.3.1 Calibrations and Corrections........................................................42 3.3.2 PMT Test Procedure....................................................................43 3.4 PMT Analysis.......................................................................................44 3.4.1 PMT Parameter Comparisons.....................................................44 3.4.2 Strength Parameter Correlations.................................................49 3.5 PMT Results.........................................................................................59 4 LABORATORY STRENGTH TESTS...........................................................60 4.1 Core Preparation and Test Setup.........................................................60 4.1.1 FDOT Cores................................................................................62 4.1.2 PMT Field Cores..........................................................................64 4.2 Tests....................................................................................................66 4.2.1 Elastic Modulus Testing...............................................................67 4.2.2 Unconfined Compression Tests...................................................68 4.2.3 Split Tensile Tests.......................................................................69 4.3 Test Analysis........................................................................................69 4.5 Test Results.........................................................................................76 5 UNIT SIDE SHEAR PREDICTIONS............................................................86 6 SITE VARIABILITY......................................................................................95 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................99 7.1 Conclusions..........................................................................................99 7.1.1 Laboratory Strength Measurements............................................99 7.1.2 PMT Tests...................................................................................99 7.1.3 Unit Side Shear Predictions.......................................................100 7.2 Recommendations.............................................................................100 APPENDIX A PRESSUREMETER TESTS.........................................................................102 B PRESSUREMETER DATA ANALYSIS METHODS......................................202 C LIMESTONE STRENGTH TESTS................................................................239 LIST OF REFERENCES..................................................................................314 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...............................................................................316 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Pressuremeter Design Curve Selection Table..............................................18 3.1 PMT Predicted Tensile Strength Comparisons with Core.............................55 3.2 PMT Predicted Unconfined Compressive Strength Comparisons with Core Unconfined Compressive Strength............................................................57 4.1 Summary of Modulus and Unconfined Compression Tests for FDOT Limestone Cores........................................................................................72 4.2 Summary of Modulus and Unconfined Compression Tests for Field Limestone Cores (SR20)............................................................................73 4.3 Summary of Split Tensile Tests for FDOT Limestone Cores........................74 4.4 Summary of Split Tensile Tests for Field Limestone Cores (SR20)..............75 4.5 SR20 Test Data from Entire Site..................................................................78 4.6 Bias and COV Change for E vs. q u Correlation............................................82 4.7 Bias and COV Change for q t vs. q u Correlation............................................84 5.1 Summary of Unit Side Shear........................................................................93 5.2 Predicted vs. Measured Unit Side Shear for Site compared to Test Shafts 5 & 7..........................................................................................................94 6.1 Mean and Mode Calculation of Unit Skin Friction for Test Shafts 5 & 7.......96 6.2 Unit Side Shear Measured vs. Predicted Summary......................................98 A.1 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -28.45..........................................................124 A.2 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -35.9............................................................125 vii

PAGE 8

A.3 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -35.9............................................................126 A.4 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -40.7............................................................127 A.5 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -46.6............................................................128 A.6 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -49.9............................................................129 A.7 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -52.2............................................................130 A.8 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -28.9............................................................131 A.9 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -33.3............................................................132 A.10 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -35.9..........................................................133 A.11 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -38.6..........................................................134 A.12 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -43.5..........................................................135 A.13 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -47.5..........................................................136 A.14 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -48.5..........................................................137 A.15 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -50.5..........................................................138 A.16 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -29.9..........................................................139 A.17 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -31.4..........................................................140 A.18 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -33.75........................................................141 A.19 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -36.5..........................................................142 A.20 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -42.92........................................................143 A.21 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -46.............................................................144 A.22 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -48.5..........................................................145 A.23 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -54.65........................................................146 A.24 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -29.9..........................................................147 A.25 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -31.92........................................................148 A.26 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -36.4..........................................................149 A.27 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -41.15........................................................150 viii

PAGE 9

A.28 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -46.............................................................151 A.29 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -49.............................................................152 A.30 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, 54.65.........................................................153 B.1 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -28.46...........................203 B.2 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -32.55...........................204 B.3 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -35.9.............................205 B.4 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -46.6.............................206 B.5 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -49.9.............................207 B.6 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -52.2.............................208 B.7 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 2, -33.3.............................209 B.8 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 2, -35.9.............................210 B.9 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 2, -47.5.............................211 B.10 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 2, -48.5...........................212 B.11 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 2, -50.5...........................213 B.12 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 3, -29.9...........................214 B.13 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 3, -42.92.........................215 B.14 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 3, -46..............................216 B.15 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 3, -48.5...........................217 B.16 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 3, -54.65.........................218 B.17 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -29.9...........................219 B.18 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -31.92.........................220 B.19 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -36.4...........................221 B.20 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -41.15.........................222 B.21 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -46..............................223 B.22 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -46..............................224 ix

PAGE 10

B.23 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -54.65.........................225 B.24 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -58.6...........................226 x

PAGE 11

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2.1 Probex Rock Dilatometer Diagram.................................................................6 2.2 Typical Pressuremeter Curve.........................................................................7 2.3 Horizontal Stress Linear Intersection Method.................................................9 2.4 PMT Plot with Creep Curve............................................................................9 2.5 Cohesion Approximation for Rock/Shaft Interface Strength.........................14 2.6 Strength Envelope for Florida Limestone.....................................................15 2.7 Unit Side Shear Correlation Chart for Pressuremeter...................................18 2.8 Determination of Limit Pressure by Extrapolation.........................................23 2.9 Idealized Pressuremeter Stress Diagram.....................................................24 2.10 Pressuremeter Tensile Failure Stress Diagram..........................................25 2.11 Mohr Circle at PMT Tension Failure...........................................................26 2.12 Comparison of Peak to Ultimate Shear Strength........................................29 2.13 Excavated Section of Florida Limestone Showing Voids............................34 3.1 Site Location Map.........................................................................................36 3.2 Generalized Stratigraphy for Test Shaft 5....................................................38 3.3 Generalized Stratigraphy for Test Shaft 7....................................................39 3.4 At-Rest Horizontal Pressure Comparison.....................................................45 3.5 Yield Pressure Comparison..........................................................................46 3.6 Limit Pressure Comparison..........................................................................47 3.7 Undrained Shear Strength Comparison........................................................48 xi

PAGE 12

3.8 PMT Test Hole 1 Core and PMT Test Layout...............................................50 3.9 PMT Test Hole 2 Core and PMT Test Layout...............................................51 3.10 PMT Test Hole 3 Core and PMT Test Layout.............................................52 3.11 PMT Test Hole 4 Core and PMT Test Layout.............................................53 3.12 PMT Estimate of Tensile Strength..............................................................55 3.13 PMT Estimate of Unconfined Compressive Strength..................................56 3.14 Comparison of Lab Modulus versus PMT Modulus....................................58 4.1 Limestone sample with compressometer device..........................................63 4.2 LabVIEW Screenshot...................................................................................64 4.3 Triaxial Testing Machine Setup....................................................................65 4.4 LabVIEW Screenshot from SR20 Field Core Testing...................................66 4.5 Blountstown-PMT cores Modulus vs. Unconfined Compressive...................77 4.6 PMT E vs. q u Correlation from SR20 Field Cores Compared to...................78 4.7 SR20 Field Cores Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Averaged Split Tensile Strength.........................................................................................79 4.8 Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Modulus...........................................81 4.9 Unconfined Compression Strength vs. Split Tensile Strength FDOT.........83 4.10 Unconfined Compression vs. Tension Strength, Site Averages.................84 5.1 Unit Side Shear Distribution Estimates, Test Shaft 5, (q t =p cr -2 h )................88 5.2 Unit Side Shear Distribution Estimates, Test Shaft 7, (q t =p cr -2 h )................89 5.3 Unit Side Shear Distribution Estimates, Test Shaft 5, (q t =6.744q u 0.5 )...........90 5.4 Unit Side Shear Distribution Estimates, Test Shaft 7, (q t =6.744q u 0.5 )...........91 6.1 Frequency Distribution for Blountstown PMT q u Predictions.........................95 6.2 Frequency Distribution for Blountstown PMT q t Predictions.........................96 7.3 Frequency Distribution for Pressuremeter Modulus versus Correlated Modulus from Site q u ..................................................................................97 xii

PAGE 13

A.1 Volume Calibrations, Th1 11/18/02............................................................103 A.2 Volume Calibrations, Th1 11/19/02............................................................104 A.3 Volume Calibrations, Th1 11/20/02............................................................105 A.4 Volume Calibratio ns, Th2 11/21/02............................................................107 A.5 Volume Calibratio ns, Th2 11/25/02............................................................109 A.6 Volume Calibratio ns, Th3 12/04/02............................................................111 A.7 Volume Calibratio ns, Th3 12/05/02............................................................112 A.8 Volume Calibratio ns, Th4 12/05/02............................................................113 A.9 Volume Calibratio ns, Th4 12/09/02............................................................114 A.10 Pressure Calibrati ons, Th1 11/ 08/02........................................................115 A.11 Pressure Calibrati ons, Th1 11/ 19/02........................................................116 A.12 Pressure Calibrati ons, Th1 11/ 20/02........................................................117 A.13 Pressure Calibrati ons, Th2 11/ 21/02........................................................118 A.14 Pressure Calibrati ons, Th2 11/ 25/02........................................................119 A.15 Pressure Calibrati ons, Th3 12/ 04/02........................................................120 A.16 Pressure Calibrati ons, Th3 12/ 05/02........................................................121 A.17 Pressure Calibrati ons, Th4 12/ 05/02........................................................122 A.18 Pressure Calibrati ons, Th4 12/ 09/02........................................................123 A.19 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th1 @ .45 ....................................155 A.20 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th1 @ .55 ....................................155 A.21 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th1 @ .9 ......................................156 A.22 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th1 @ .7 ......................................156 xiii

PAGE 14

A.23 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th1 @ .6......................................157 A.24 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th1 @ .9......................................157 A.25 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th1 @ .2......................................158 A.26 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .9......................................158 A.27 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .3......................................159 A.28 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .9......................................159 A.29 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .6......................................160 A.30 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .5......................................160 A.31 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .5......................................161 A.32 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .5......................................161 A.33 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .5......................................162 A.34 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ .9......................................162 A.35 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ .4......................................163 A.36 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ .75....................................163 A.37 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ .5......................................164 A.38 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ .92....................................164 A.39 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ .........................................165 A.40 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ .5......................................165 A.41Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ .65.....................................166 A.42 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ .9......................................166 A.43 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ .92....................................167 A.44 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ .4......................................167 A.45 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ .15....................................168 A.46 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ .........................................168 A.47 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ .........................................169 xiv

PAGE 15

A.48 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ .65....................................169 A.49 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ .6......................................170 A.50 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 1, -28.45..........................................171 A.51 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 1, -32.55..........................................172 A.52 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 1, -35.9............................................173 A.53 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 1, -40.7............................................174 A.54 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 1, -46.6............................................175 A.55 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 1, -49.9............................................176 A.56 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 1, -52.2............................................177 A.57 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -28.9............................................178 A.58 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -33.3............................................179 A.59 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -35.9............................................180 A.60 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -38.6............................................181 A.61 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -43.5............................................182 A.61 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -47.5............................................183 A.62 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -48.5............................................184 A.63 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -50.5............................................185 A.64 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -29.9............................................186 A.65 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -31.4............................................187 A.66 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -33.75..........................................188 A.67 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -36.5............................................189 A.68 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -42.92..........................................190 A.69 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -46...............................................191 A.70 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -48.5............................................192 xv

PAGE 16

A.71 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -54.65..........................................193 A.72 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 4, -29.9............................................194 A.73 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 4, -31.92..........................................195 A.74 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 4, -36.4............................................196 A.75 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 4, -41.15..........................................197 A.76 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 4, -46...............................................198 A.77 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot Test Hole 4, -49................................................199 A.78 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 4, -54.65..........................................200 A.79 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 4, -58.6............................................201 B.1 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -28.46.......................................203 B.2 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -32.55.......................................204 B.3 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -35.9.........................................205 B.4 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -46.6.........................................206 B.5 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -49.9.........................................207 B.6 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -52.2.........................................208 B.7 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 2, -33.3.........................................209 B.8 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 2, -35.9.........................................210 B.9 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 2, -47.5.........................................211 B.10 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 2, -48.5.......................................212 B.11 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 2, -50.5.......................................213 B.12 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 3, -29.9.......................................214 B.13 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 3, -42.92.....................................215 B.14 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 3, -46..........................................216 B.15 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 3, -48.5.......................................217 B.16 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 3, -54.65.....................................218 xvi

PAGE 17

B.17 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -29.9.......................................219 B.18 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -31.92.....................................220 B.19 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -36.4.......................................221 B.20 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -41.15.....................................222 B.21 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -46..........................................223 B.22 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -49..........................................224 B.23 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -54.65.....................................225 B.24 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -58.6.......................................226 B.25 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 1, -28.45................................227 B.26 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 1, -32.55................................227 B.27 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 1, -35.9..................................228 B.28 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 1, -46.6..................................228 B.29 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 1, -49.9..................................229 B.30 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 1, -52.2..................................229 B.31 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 2, -33.3..................................230 B.32 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 2, -35.9..................................230 B.33 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 2, -47.5..................................231 B.34 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 2, -48.5..................................231 B.35 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 2, -50.5..................................232 B.36 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 3, -29.9..................................232 B.37 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 3, -42.92................................233 B.38 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 3, -46.....................................233 B.39 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 3, -48.5..................................234 B.40 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 3, -54.65................................234 B.41 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -29.9..................................235 xvii

PAGE 18

B.42 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -31.92................................235 B.43 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -36.4..................................236 B.44 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -41.15................................236 B.45 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -46.....................................237 B.46 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -49.....................................237 B.47 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -54.65................................238 B.48 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -58.6..................................238 C.1 Modulus Test, Box 3, Sample 2B...............................................................240 C.2 Modulus Test, Box 3, Sample 2F...............................................................241 C.3 Modulus Test, Box 3, Sample 1B...............................................................242 C.4 Modulus Test, Box 3, Sample 1D...............................................................243 C.5 Modulus Test, Box 4, Sample 1A...............................................................244 C.6 Modulus Test, Box 4, Sample 1B...............................................................245 C.7 Modulus Test, Box 4, Sample 1F...............................................................246 C.8 Modulus Test, Box 6, Sample 1B...............................................................247 C.9 Modulus Test, Box 6, Sample 1A...............................................................248 C.10 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 3B.............................................................249 C.11 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 3C.............................................................250 C.12 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 3D.............................................................251 C.13 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 3E.............................................................252 C.14 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 3F.............................................................253 C.15 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 4C.............................................................254 C.16 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -30.97 to -35.97, Core A.............................255 C.17 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -30.97 to -35.97, Core B.............................256 C.18 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -35.86 to -40.86, Core A.............................257 xviii

PAGE 19

C.19 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core A.............................258 C.20 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core B.............................259 C.21 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core C.............................260 C.22 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core D.............................261 C.23 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Core A.............................262 C.24 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Core B.............................263 C.25 Modulus Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Core A.................................264 C.26 Modulus Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Core B.................................265 C.27 Modulus Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Core A.................................266 C.28 Modulus Test, Test Hole 3, -38.9 to -43.9, Core A.................................267 C.29 Modulus Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Core A.............................268 C.30 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -28.65 to -33.65, Core A.............................269 C.31 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Core A.............................270 C.32 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Core B.............................271 C.33 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Core C.............................272 C.34 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core A.............................273 C.35 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core B.............................274 C.36 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core C.............................275 C.37 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core D.............................276 C.38 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core E.............................277 C.39 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -30.97 to -35.97, Core A...............278 C.40 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -30.97 to -35.97, Core B...............278 C.41 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -35.86 to -40.86, Core A...............279 C.42 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core A...............279 C.43 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core B...............280 xix

PAGE 20

C.44 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core C...............280 C.45 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core D...............281 C.46 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Core A...............281 C.47 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Core B...............282 C.48 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Core A...................282 C.49 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Core B...................283 C.50 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Core A...................283 C.51 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 3, -38.9 to -43.9, Core A...................284 C.52 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Core A...............284 C.53 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -28.65 to -33.65, Core A...............285 C.54 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Core A...............285 C.55 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Core B...............286 C.56 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Core C...............286 C.57 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core A...............287 C.58 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core B...............287 C.59 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core C...............288 C.60 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core D...............288 C.61 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core E...............289 C.62 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -35.86 to -40.86, Sample A...................289 C.63 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -35.86 to -40.86, Sample B...................290 C.64 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -35.86 to -40.86, Sample C...................290 C.65 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Sample A...................291 C.66 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Sample B...................291 C.67 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Sample C...................292 C.68 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Sample A...................292 xx

PAGE 21

C.69 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Sample B...................293 C.70 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Sample C...................293 C.71 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Sample D...................294 C.72 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Sample E...................294 C.73 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Sample F...................295 C.74 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -34.26 to -39.26, Sample A...................295 C.75 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Sample B.......................296 C.76 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Sample C.......................296 C.77 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Sample D.......................297 C.78 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Sample E.......................297 C.79 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Sample A.......................298 C.80 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Sample B.......................298 C.81 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Sample C.......................299 C.82 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Sample D.......................299 C.83 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Sample E.......................300 C.84 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Sample F.......................300 C.85 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -33.82 to -38.82, Sample A...................301 C.86 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -38.9 to -43.9, Sample A.......................301 C.87 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -43.82 to -48.82, Sample A...................302 C.88 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -48.9 to -53.9, Sample A.......................302 C.89 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Sample A...................303 C.90 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Sample B...................303 C.91 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Sample C...................304 C.92 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Sample D...................304 C.93 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Sample E...................305 xxi

PAGE 22

C.94 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Sample F...................305 C.95 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -28.65 to -33.65, Sample A...................306 C.96 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -38.65 to -43.65, Sample A...................306 C.97 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Sample A...................307 C.98 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Sample B...................307 C.99 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -49.0 to -54.0, Sample A.......................308 C.100 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -49.0 to -54.0, Sample C.....................308 C.101 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -49.0 to -54.0, Sample D.....................309 C.102 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -59.02, Sample A.................309 C.103 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -59.02, Sample B.................310 C.104 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -59.02, Sample C.................310 C.105 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -59.02, Sample D.................311 C.106 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -59.02, Sample E.................311 C.107 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -59.02, Sample F.................312 C.108 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -59.02, Sample G.................312 C.109 Triaxial Setup Calibration.......................................................................313 xxii

PAGE 23

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering INSITU MEASUREMENT OF FLORIDA LIMESTONE MODULUS AND STRENGTH PROPERTIES By Scott Allen Jacobs May 2003 Chair: Paul J. Bullock Major Department: Civil and Coastal Engineering Deep foundations bearing on limestone support many Florida structures and bridges through weak overburden soils. Drilled shafts, constructed by casting concrete into bored excavations, are high capacity foundations elements that often exceed 3 feet in diameter and 500 ton design loads. The existing design method for side shear capacity of drilled shafts in Florida limestone is based on laboratory tests of rock cores. Two separate tests, compression and tension, are routinely performed. However, these tests represent only the intact portion of the retrieved core, not the rock mass as a whole. An insitu measurement of the side shear should more accurately reflect the mass properties of the rock, and possibly reduce the overall effort. Thirty-one pressuremeter (PMT) tests were performed adjacent to two test shafts, 5 and 7 in diameter, at the SR20 Blountstown Bridge. Osterberg Cell load tests xxiii

PAGE 24

performed on these test shafts, during construction of the new SR20 Bridge, provided unit side shear comparisons for the pressuremeter results. The net limit pressure, yield pressure, and undrained shear strength obtained from pressuremeter results were used to predict the unconfined compressive strength, tensile strength, and modulus for use with the current strength design method. In addition, cores taken during preparation of the PMT test hole provided a comparison of laboratory strength parameters with predicted strength parameters from the PMT. The 70 core strength tests performed during this research reflect the variability of the site, but direct correlations with the PMT tests were poor. Similarly, the PMT overestimated the unit side shear measured by the Osterberg load tests. A separate empirical design method for side shear capacity based on the limit pressure performed fairly well. This empirical method, published by Laboratoire des Ponts et Chaussees (LPC), requires further calibration before design use in Florida. Although direct correlations with the PMT results were not successful, it was concluded that site variability at SR20 had an important effect on the outcome. Further statistical analyses are recommended to obtain better correlation between the pressuremeter results and shaft side shear at SR20. If successful, additional PMT testing at other test sites may provide a valid alternate design method. xxiv

PAGE 25

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Current methods of obtaining parameters for the design of drilled shafts in Florida Limestone involve a combination of boring log information (Standard Penetration Testing and soil profile/layering information) and lab tests on core samples extracted from the field. This process generally provides conservative results. The primary reason for this over-design results from the method used to extract and test the field cores. Coring in Florida limestone generally obtains low recoveries, retrieving only the strongest portions of the limestone for laboratory testing. Insitu testing may improve this design process by obtaining more representative parameters from direct tests performed within rock mass, including defects such as voids (filled or unfilled), fissures, and weathered zones. Insitu measurements should provide design parameters that are closer to actual values, which will improve design efficiency, and reduce material costs while still providing a safe design. The primary goal of this research is to improve drilled shaft design procedures for Florida limestone using insitu tests. With the laboratory portion of the research complete (see Cepero, 2002), the remaining tasks involve field tests and correlation of the results for use in the design of drilled shafts in Florida limestone. This thesis outlines the work performed in the field and laboratory to fulfill these final project tasks. 1

PAGE 26

2 1.1 Summary of Progress The laboratory phase of the project was described in Cepero (2002). It included the development of a synthetic limestone, Gatorock, for controlled laboratory simulation of Florida limestone. The modulus/compressive strength and compressive strength/split tensile strength comparisons in Cepero (2002) indicate that the Gatorock parameters fall within the spread of the data for natural limestone. During lab tests on large samples of Gatorock, the Probex-1 rock dilatometer, a high-capacity pressuremeter test (PMT), was established as a feasible tool for testing in Florida Limestone. The greater working pressure of the Probex is sufficient to induce yielding otherwise not possible with many other commercial pressuremeters. In addition, the Probex is rugged and has less system compliance due to downhole measurement of volume and pressure. The advantages of the Probex outweigh the few flaws the device does have, such as a coarse pressure release control and limited expansion of the membrane. Cepero (2002) developed correlations between stiffness and strength from tests on Florida limestone cores. The results displayed significant scatter and appear to be site specific. Statistical analysis of strength/stiffness correlations improves significantly when considered on a site by site basis. Results obtained from the Probex tests were correlated with strength parameters used for side shear and end bearing design. The data was limited, however, due to the relatively few of tests performed in the laboratory. These relationships require additional confirmation tests to establish or reject their validity for use in design.

PAGE 27

3 1.2 Scope of Research The work included in this research focuses on field tests performed with the Probex Rock Dilatometer. Blountstown SR20 bridge site was identified as a good location for the field tests. Shafts 5 and 7, from the project test program, were readily accessible and were therefore chosen for pressuremeter testing. The test shafts have data from Osterberg Cell (O-Cell) load tests along with numerous boring data with strength parameters from compression and split tensile tests. This data can be found in Sharp (1998). Two core borings were performed near each shaft with pressuremeter tests performed at strain gage elevations in the test shafts as well as test beneath the shaft tip. Compression and split tensile tests were also performed on cores samples from these test holes. Strength parameters obtained from the lab tests are compared to parameters from the pressuremeter tests as well as values from the adjacent shaft O-Cell tests. The completion of this process will show the usefulness of the pressuremeter in predicting the strength parameters, q u and q t used in drilled shaft design in Florida limestone. 1.3 Outline The work performed for this research is presented here, in an outline form, as a reference of the material contained in this thesis. Chapters 1 and 2 introduce and establish the goals of the research and the steps taken to complete the work. Also included in these chapters is existing literature contributing to this work as well as the geological features and factors that influence testing with the pressuremeter. Chapter 3 covers the field pressuremeter tests, which includes the theory, setup, and performance of the

PAGE 28

4 tests, and analysis and interpretation of the results. In addition, the pressuremeter limit/yield pressure will be compared to the ultimate compressive strength, the predicted tensile strength to the actual split tensile strength. Chapter 4 includes unconfined compression tests performed on limestone samples from two bridge sites donated by the FDOT State Materials Office as well as tests performed on the cores recovered from creating the SR20 PMT holes for the field pressuremeter tests. Chapter 5 contains the comparison of parameters obtained from field pressuremeter tests to results obtained from load tests. Parameters compared will be the predicted and measured unit side shear. The last chapter (Chapter 6) will cover the practicality of the correlations and possible design guidelines obtained from the results of this research. Conclusions and recommendations will also be made in this chapter. Appendix A contains data from field pressuremeter tests and calibrations performed at the Blountstown SR20 bridge site. Appendix B contains two interpretation methods performed on the PMT tests. Appendix C includes data from unconfined compression tests performed on limestone from Choctawhatchee SR10, Hallandale, and Blountstown Bridge sites.

PAGE 29

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Insitu tests for the determination of design parameters in soft rock provide an alternative to lab tests, which cannot test the weaker rock lost during coring. However, the number of insitu tests capable of testing rock is very limited. Florida limestone is generally stronger than soil, eliminating penetration tests, and requiring that insitu tests be performed. For tests performed in boreholes, the emphasis shifts from core recovery to minimizing the hole disturbance. The pressuremeter in North America is now better accepted for geotechnical design, and is the focus of this research. This chapter presents background information for the work performed during this research. Pressuremeter performance and analysis procedures and will be discussed first, along with limitations of the test. Methods for the determination of unit side shear for drilled shaft design will also be presented, including both current empirical methods, and the methods proposed herein. Important design parameters will then be discussed along with the pertinent geological factors affecting the outcome of this research. 2.1 The Probex Pressuremeter The Probex rock dilatometer, distributed by Roctest Inc., was the pressuremeter chosen for this research (Figure 2.1). Its high pressure capacity (30Mpa) is well suited for testing in rock. The Probex is a typical pressuremeter type tool with an inflatable membrane which, when inflated with water, applies 5

PAGE 30

6 pressure to the borehole. The thick reinforced rubber membrane is designed to withstand testing in rock where voids or sharp edges may exist. The probe is 2.9 in diameter and requires an NX size borehole. The 30Mpa working pressure of the Probex usually exceeds the yield pressure and often provides a good estimation of the limit pressure. Figure 2.1 Probex Rock Dilatometer Diagram 2.1.1 Test Procedure Pressuremeter systems generally consist of two main parts, a probe and a control unit, connected by pressure tubing. The downhole portion of the system is a radially expandable cylindrical probe that is inserted down the prepared borehole to the desired test elevation. The second portion, the control unit, controls and measures the fluid pressure applied to the expanding probe. The pressure is increased in equal increments, at regular intervals, while recording the volume injected into the probe. Each pressure increment is held for 1 minute, with volume readings at 30 and 60 seconds. The probe is made of a flexible material (rubber) and is expanded by injecting water. Though somewhat time

PAGE 31

7 consuming, the test is relatively easy to perform, requiring only the test device, an experienced operator, and drill rig. 2.1.2 Test Analysis The measurements obtained from a pressuremeter test are volume and pressure. For the Probex, the pressure is measured by a pressure transducer at the surface and the volume injected is measured with an LVDT in the probe. A plot of volume versus pressure typically results in a S shaped curve for pre-bored pressuremeter tests, as shown in Figure 2.2. PressureR/RoABCDPRelative increase in probe radius Figure 2.2 Typical Pressuremeter Curve During the first portion of the curve (AB), in Figure 2.2, the membrane expands to contact the borehole wall. Included in this phase is the contribution of both the membrane resistance to expansion and the drill mud pressure. Somewhere near the transition from the initial flat portion of the curve to the linear elastic phase (BC) lies the initial pressure, p o which represents the horizontal stress (point B).

PAGE 32

8 The linear increase of pressure and volume continues up to the yield pressure, p y at point C. Plastic deformation occurs during the next phase (CD), and the pressure after yielding asymptotically approaches a limit pressure, p L The net limit pressure, p, is obtained by subtracting the horizontal insitu stress (p *L o ). Depending on drainage conditions in the rock this parameter may represent the rocks compressive strength. 2.1.3 Curve Construction The data recorded from a pressuremeter test is the pressure and corresponding increase in volume of the probe. However, this volume increase must be corrected by subtracting the compression of the membrane and the expansion of the system tubing. The volume loss at a given system pressure is determined by pressurizing the probe inside of a thick walled steel pipe prior to testing. The measured pressure must also be corrected by subtracting the membrane expansion resistance and adding the hydrostatic head of fluid above the probe. The total volume of the probe, V, may be found by adding its initial volume to the corrected test volume. The initial probe radius, R o and the change in radius, R, may be calculated from the total volume. Finally, a plot of corrected pressure versus R/R o is prepared for analysis. The at-rest, horizontal stress prior to drilling the borehole, may be obtained from the above curve using several methods: the point of maximum curvature, the beginning of the linear portion (point B), utilizing the creep curve, or the intersection of the initial and elastic straightline portions of the curve. The

PAGE 33

9 last two of these methods were used for this research and the former is shown graphically in Figure 2.3 below. PressureR/RoPRelative increase in probe radius po Figure 2.3 Horizontal Stress Linear Intersection Method The 30-second and 60-second volume readings taken during a PMT test are used as a measurement of the creep during each pressure increment. The difference of these readings is plotted versus pressure to create a creep plot as shown in Figure 2.4. R/RoAP P pyv v60 30B op Figure 2.4 PMT Plot with Creep Curve

PAGE 34

10 During the elastic phase of the test (AB on the creep curve), the creep is relatively constant. However, there is significant plastic deformation occurring both during the initial phase of the test and above the yield limit. The intersection of the lines representing these three test phases provide an estimate of the horizontal stress and yield limit at points B and A respectively. The creep plots created for this research can be found in Appendix B. For the comparison with the PMT curve, the creep curve is shown on the corrected pressure versus R/R o plot by using an offset (0.15) and a multiplier (10). This adjustment did not affect the results, and was performed only for comparison purposes. The results from the two methods of determining p o will be compared in Chapter 5. 2.1.4 Limitations The pressuremeter, like all Geotechnical testing devices, does have limitations. Perhaps the most significant obstacle in pressuremeter testing is the preparation of a satisfactory test hole. This task is complicated by the different drilling techniques required for each type of geomaterial. The most common problem is an over-sized hole. The pressuremeter has a limited expansion, and an oversized hole reduces the amount of probe expansion after it contacts the sidewall. Since the maximum test pressure will also be reduced, an accurate estimate of the limit pressure may be difficult. When the limit pressure cannot be adequately approximated, researchers such as Mair and Wood (1987) suggest taking the limit pressure to be twice the yield pressure. They emphasis that this approximation is merely a lower bound estimate and should be used only as a conservative assessment of strength.

PAGE 35

11 Sidewall disturbance during drilling is also a common problem. The pressuremeter modulus is very sensitive to the quality of the borehole; however, the limit pressure is affected to a somewhat lesser degree (Briaud, 1992). Disturbance may be influenced by the rig down-pressure, the type and rotational rate of the drill bit, the experience of the drillers, the type and flow rate of drilling fluid, the depth of test, and the consistency of the rock. Perhaps the most obvious limitation of the pressuremeter test is the fact that the test is performed in the horizontal direction. The modulus of rock measured in the horizontal direction can vary significantly from that in the vertical direction. Similarly, the probe may not expand adequately to contact discontinuities in the rock sidewall. Consequently, the test will not test the volume of rock assumed. Lastly, field testing and the evaluation of the test results may be affected by the experience level and test techniques of the user. 2.2 Drilled Shaft Design The pressuremeter is used for a variety of shaft design problems, including bearing capacity, settlement, and lateral pile capacity. The primary pressuremeter parameters used are the modulus, and the net limit pressure. The modulus is commonly used for settlement calculations and the net limit pressure for unit side shear and end bearing. Ultimate drilled shaft capacity is commonly expressed as: Q u = Q s + Q p W (2.1) This equation states that the contribution of the ultimate side resistance, Q s and the ultimate point resistance, Q p less the weight of the shaft, gives the ultimate strength of the drilled shaft. The ultimate strength is defined as the ability to

PAGE 36

12 resist load without exceeding excessive displacements. The ultimate side resistance in rock is found from the unit side shear, f s multiplied by the perimeter area of the shaft. The ultimate point resistance in rock is found from a representative value of tip bearing pressure, q tip multiplied by the cross-sectional end area of the shaft. Some designers rely primarily on skin resistance and others more on point resistance. The determination of unit side shear from pressuremeter parameters and strength parameters from lab tests is the focus of this research. 2.2.1 Unit Side shear The design procedures for drilled shafts are different from driven piles, primarily due to installation differences. Where driven piles benefit from the greater lateral stresses and densification caused by soil displacement during driving, drilled shafts often experience a reduction in the lateral stress and shear strength due to excavation disturbance. However, drilled shafts are often preferred for high capacity foundations, especially if lateral loading is significant. Although piles are often driven into Florida limestone, shafts can be drilled and installed to any depth, and typically have greater unit side shear capacity. When constructing drilled shafts in rock, the temporary reduction in horizontal stress becomes less important and side shear may be increased by the concrete penetration into the rough rock surface. An accurate value for unit side shear is required so that the strength of the rock is properly represented, avoiding large safety factors or coefficients that unnecessarily increase the diameter or length of the shaft. Highly variable rock properties, such as those found in Florida limestone, complicate shear strength and design capacity calculations. Site

PAGE 37

13 variability is of major concern to designers, and its impact on the design must be addressed. Two methods for the determination of unit side shear for drilled shaft design will be discussed in this section. The strength parameter method is derived from basic Mohr-Coulomb relationships utilizing strength parameters from two common lab tests on field cores. The LPC method is empirical and is based on the pressuremeter results. The strength parameter method is the current and most common method used in Florida. 2.2.2 Strength Parameter Method This common procedure for the design of drilled shafts in Florida begins with obtaining numerous field cores for the purpose of measuring strength in the laboratory. The goal is to obtain an adequate number of lab tests to accurately estimate the potential side shear capacity for the rock/shaft interface. Typically, in Florida limestone, the shaft concrete is both stronger and stiffer than the rock (McVay et. al., 1992). Therefore, failure along the rock/shaft interface will be highly dependent on shear stress developed in the rock. McVay et al. (1992) found that the shear strength of Florida limestone is approximately equal to its cohesive component, at the relatively low stress conditions existing at the rock/shaft interface. This is shown graphically in Figure 2.5.

PAGE 38

14 Figure 2.5 Cohesion Approximation for Rock/Shaft Interface Strength (McVay et al., 1992) McVay et al. (1992) also point out that more than one laboratory test is required to determine the rocks cohesion due to the nature of the failure criteria. The goal is to define the Mohr-Coulomb failure plane, and in turn, the rocks cohesion intercept. This can be accomplished by performing multiple triaxial compression tests at different confining pressures or, more easily, unconfined compression, q u and split tensile, q t tests. As shown in Figure 2.6, McVay et al. (1992) derives an equation relating the ultimate shear strength, f su of the limestone to these latter tests: tusuqqf21 (2.2)

PAGE 39

15 Figure 2.6 Strength Envelope for Florida Limestone (McVay et al., 1992) The next step in this design process involves the selection of q u and q t values for Equation 2.2. The recommended procedure requires a distribution of q u and q t values representative of the entire bridge site. This is accomplished by using a numerical method known as the Monte Carlo Simulation. This method generates a fully populated distribution of q u and q t Next, a random group (5 to 10 values) of q u and q t values is selected and an average unit shear strength is found, which represents a certain drilled shaft. It should be noted that the estimated unit shear strength is multiplied by the core recovery to account for voids in the rock formation. Next, to account for the site variability, another random sample of q u and q t is selected to obtain another unit shear strength value. The process is repeated to obtain a distribution of unit shear strength values over the site. The standard deviation of this distribution identifies the variability of the unit shear strength over the entire site.

PAGE 40

16 An important consideration when obtaining parameters, such as q u and q t is site variability. Practical economic limits usually restrict the number of samples taken in the field. This is also complicated by the possibility of low recoveries in Florida Limestone. The number of lab tests performed on the samples is again limited by economics. These issues affect the standard deviation and mean for the unit shear strength distribution. If more samples are tested, the degree of dispersion will be better defined, which would lower the sampling error associated with the standard deviation and mean for the q u and q t populations. This in turn will decrease the confidence interval for the unit shear strength chosen for the design. Confidence in a design parameter, such as unit shear strength, results in a lower factor of safety, and will ultimately decrease material and construction costs while still providing a safe design. 2.2.3 Menard/LPC Method The use of the pressuremeter for determination of unit side shear for drilled shaft design began in 1963 by Louis Menard with correlations from a database of eight plate load tests in sand and silt materials. Since then, the load test database has grown considerably, but the basic concepts developed by Menard remain the same. Laboratoire des Ponts et Chaussees (LPC) published the current design procedure, which is summarized by Jean-Louis Briaud (1992). This design procedure, shown in Table2.1, considers different soil types (including rock) for both driven piles and drilled shafts, and their method of insertion. The type of pile/shaft, the method of installation, and the soil type govern the correlation between limit pressure and ultimate shear strength, f L f su

PAGE 41

17 This table specifies which design curve to select in Figure 2.7. An equivalent limit pressure, p Le is used in the figure to find a limit pressure for each like-section, or layer. The equation for the equivalent limit pressure, p Le is given as (Briaud, 1992): aazLLedzpap)(21 (2.3) The (a) in the above equation is the height of the layer. In the case of drilled shafts, it is found from the shaft diameter, B, as a=B/2 for shaft diameters over 3.3ft or a=1.65ft for shafts under 3.3ft. Using Figure 2.7, an average unit side shear value can then be assigned to each layer. Equation 2.4 can then be used to determine the ultimate side resistance for the drilled shaft (Briaud, 1992). dzfpQhsus0 (2.4) p, in the above equation is the perimeter of the drilled shaft. It is possible to address the variability in the limit pressures from the pressuremeter tests, by performing a similar procedure as described for the design of drilled shafts using strength parameters. A distribution of equivalent limit pressures can be created using Monte Carlo Simulation that represents the entire bridge site. A corresponding unit side shear distribution can then generated from Figure 2.7. From this fully populated distribution, groups (5-10 values) of random unit side shears can be sampled and averaged to represent a particular drilled shaft. The final step would be the application of Equation 2.4 for determining the ultimate skin resistance.

PAGE 42

18 Table 2.1 Pressuremeter Design Curve Selection Table (Briaud, 1992) Figure 2.7 Unit Side Shear Correlation Chart for Pressuremeter

PAGE 43

19 By replacing the two step core-lab test process with the more immediate pressuremeter tests, more tests may be performed at the same investigation cost. Also, core recovery does not affect the pressuremeter as it tests the voids, cracks, fissures, soft zones, and hard zones in an unbiased manner. The pressuremeter tests are performed during the drilling operation and the results can be obtained quickly. By contrast, testing rock cores in the lab requires two major expenses: a drilling crew to core the rock and recover the samples, and a lab to perform two different tests on the samples. Laboratory strength tests are typically performed on no more than 8-10 samples per drill hole versus 6-8 PMT tests per hole. However, the volume of rock tested by the PMT is much greater. Since only the best portions of the rock are tested, some engineers conservatively multiply the unit side shear by the core recovery percentage to account for potential voids and weak zones. Lab tests also typically require 2-3 weeks to obtain the results. In summary, if more tests are performed using the pressuremeter, then the standard deviation and mean of the q u and q t distribution are better defined, reducing the sampling error, and increase confidence in the design parameters. This results in a lower safety factor, and decreased foundation costs. 2.2.4 Proposed Method The goal of this research is to use the pressuremeter to facilitate the design of drilled shafts in Florida limestone. As mentioned earlier in this Chapter, side resistance is an important part of the ultimate resistance of the shaft. Using similar methods to those presented in the strength parameter section above, it should be viable to use the PMT test results to obtain ultimate side resistance.

PAGE 44

20 This would be done without reducing the side shear for recovery, however, with the exception of void areas where PMT tests cannot be performed. There are two alternatives at present: Use the PMT cracking pressure to estimate the tensile strength, and either the yield pressure or limit pressure to estimate the compression strength. Use the PMT modulus to estimate the rock modulus. Then use the rock modulus to estimate the unconfined compression strength, and the unconfined compression strength to estimate the tensile strength. The first method is more direct and potentially involves less correlation. A third possibility, direct correlation of unit side shear with the PMT modulus, cracking pressure, yield pressure, limit pressure, or a combination of these with parameters may also be possible due to PMT tests performed adjacent to test shafts with measured unit side shear and end bearing. However, for reliability, direct correlation between PMT results and shaft capacity should of necessity include many more tests than can be performed during this study. 2.3 Design Parameters The pressuremeter test provides good estimates of several design parameters that can be useful and accurate, along with design parameters obtained directly from the test data. These parameters include the pressuremeter modulus (E m ), yield pressure (p y ), the limit pressure (p L ), tensile strength ( t ), ultimate strength (q u ), and shear strength (c u ). These parameters are investigated in the following sections.

PAGE 45

21 2.3.1 Direct Test Parameters Several parameters are taken directly from the pressuremeter data without additional theory or methods. The pressuremeter modulus (E m ), yield pressure (p y ), the limit pressure (p L ) can be taken directly from the corrected pressure/volume or pressure/(R/R o ) plots. Each parameter is briefly discussed below. The pressuremeter modulus, E m is found by analyzing the straight-line portion of the pressure-volume plot of the test data. Briaud (1992) provides Equation 2.5 for E m in terms of relative change in probe radius (R/R o ). 212221221211111oooomRRRRRRRRppE (2.5) The subscripts in the above equation refer to the two pressure and R/R o points required for slope determination. A Poissons ratio, of 0.25 was used in the analyses included herein. Equation 2.5 assumes elastic behavior, which causes equal and opposite changes in the radial and circumferential. In turn, there is no change in bulk stress (mean stress) or volume during this elastic phase, and the resulting modulus is independent of drainage conditions (Clarke, 1995) Since radial cracking occurs in many of the tests, the pressuremeter modulus is determined using the pre-crack portion of the elastic phase. In cases where crack development significantly shortened the pre-crack portion of this curve, the linear slope was extended to get a representative pressure and R/R o

PAGE 46

22 values. The slope prior to cracking is usually greater than the slope after cracking. The yield pressure, as described earlier, is the point at which the test pressure initiates plastic deformation in the rock. This point is obtained from the end of the linear portion of the corrected pressure/volume or pressure/(R/Ro) plot. The creep curve can also be used to estimate the yield pressure. Amongst other correlations, the yield pressure is mainly used to estimate the undrained shear strength for cohesive soils. Previous tests on large lab samples during this research indicated a close relationship with the unconfined compressive strength of Florida limestone, which will be discussed in later sections of this chapter. The limit pressure, introduced earlier, describes the point at which the rock continues to deform without an increase in stress. Theoretically, the limit pressure requires an infinite expansion of the rock cavity. However, this expansion is not practical, and the limit pressure is chosen such that the soil cavity, or V c (the volume of the cavity at p o ), is inflated to twice its initial size ( 1ccccVVVVV ) (Briaud, 1992). That is, the change in volume with respect to the cavity is equal to the volume of the cavity. Briaud (1992) provides the relationship in Equation 2.6 between the relative change in radius at the limit pressure, (R/R o ) L and the relative change in radius at the cavity prior to loading, (R/R o ) c Both of these radial changes are calculated with respect to the initial radius of the probe, R o coLoRRRR41.141.0 (2.6)

PAGE 47

23 From this equation, the relative change in radius required to obtain 1 is approximately ccVV 5.0oRR However, the limited expansion of the Probex in rock makes it difficult to determine the limit pressure as defined above. Tests performed for this research never exceeded 2.0 oRR Therefore, curve fitting techniques and the Gibson and Anderson Method were used to determine the limit pressure. Curve fitting was accomplished using GraphPad Prism version 3.02 for Windows with the following non-linear relationship: CeApLoRRBL (2.7) This is only an approximate model used for estimation purposes. The results can be found in Chapter 5. The Gibson and Anderson Method, described in Mair and Woods (1987), estimates the limit pressure and undrained shear strength from a plot of pressure versus ln( ccVV ) (Figure 2.8). A plot of the pressuremeter data on the log scale should result in a straight line near the end ln V /V1.0ucpPressure, p Lc c Figure 2.8 Determination of Limit Pressure by Extrapolation

PAGE 48

24 of the test that can be extrapolated to the limit pressure. The limit pressure defined by an infinite expansion of the probe occurs when 0.1 ccVV or approximately 5.0oRR The Gibson and Anderson Method is preferred (over the curve fitting method) because of its theoretical basis. The correlations proposed in Section 2.2.4 using the yield and limit pressures are affected by the quality of the borehole, tensile cracking, and drainage conditions. Since the focus of this research is unit side shear, the estimation of q u and q t and undrained shear strength is explored because of the existing relationships given in Equation 2.2 by McVay et al. (1992). 2.3.2 Tensile Strength After the PMT reestablishes the insitu lateral stress (at p p 0 h ) Haberfield (1997) showed that in an elastic-plastic material, the radial stress increase applied by the PMT causes the circumferential stress to decrease by an equal amount (Figure 2.9). The circumferential stress reaches zero at p = p o and Figure 2.9 Idealized Pressuremeter Stress Diagram (Haberfield, 1997)

PAGE 49

25 continues in tension until reaching the tensile yield stress, shown as m After yield, volume changes alter the direction of the circumferential stress, according to the plasticity model chosen. Therefore, ignoring crack formation, the plastic region progresses outward through the material increasing the circumferential stress at the same rate as the radial stress as depicted in Figure 2.9. However, if the tensile strength, t of the rock is reached, prior to the onset of yield ( t < m ), then the circumferential stress will drop to zero and the stress at the borehole wall will be r = h + r = h + ( m + t ) = 2 h + t as shown in Figure 2.10. The stress will then continue to increase in the radial direction as the circumferential stresses are relieved causing the rock wedges between the cracks to be loaded in uniaxial compression. The response of the rock wedges should remain elastic until reaching the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock, q u (Haberfield, 1997). Figure 2.10 Pressuremeter Tensile Failure Stress Diagram (Haberfield, 1997)

PAGE 50

26 The stress diagrams presented in Figures 2.9 and 2.10 may be considered either drained or undrained, depending on the geomaterial. The cavity pressure applied by the pressuremeter, r = p, at which the tensile stress is equal to the tensile strength, is given by: p h = h + t (2.8) Equation 2.8 may be used with either drained or undrained strength and stress parameters as appropriate. It is assumed that pre-yield behavior of Florida limestone is drained, formally discussed in Section 2.3 below; therefore, drained parameters will be used throughout the remainder of this discussion. Based on the Haberfield (1986) postulation shown in Figure 2.10, the PMT follows a stress path with r = starting from the initial stress condition r = = h At the tensile failure, the Mohr circle shown in Figure 2.11 has expanded to the Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope with a radius of (p h ). Shear Stress, Normal Stress, c r = p Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelope h tan (ph) / cos = t h Figure 2.11 Mohr Circle at PMT Tension Failure

PAGE 51

27 For this failure circle: p h = c(cos) + h (sin) (2.9) Then, substituting Equation 2.8, tensile failure will occur for a drained, brittle material when h + t = c(cos) + h (sin) (2.10) By rearranging Equation 2.8, for a linear elastic material, the tensile strength may then be calculated from h and the radial stress at cracking, cr : t = p 2 h = cr 2 h (2.11) If the tensile failure described above is analogous to that created in a split tensile test then the cracking stress may be used to estimate the split tensile strength. The cracking stress may be identified on the pressuremeter curve by the presence of a discontinuous slope change in the linear portion of the curve. The tensile cracks generally reduce the slope of the linear portion of the curve and hence the calculated modulus. Haberfield (1987) concluded that for most soft rock pressuremeter testing, it is likely that tensile cracks will form relatively early in the borehole expansion, before the compression yield pressure is reached. Soft limestone is typically brittle, and cracks that form near the surface of the cavity during pressuremeter testing may propagate extensively into the rock mass. The formation and propagation of these cracks may greatly influence the stresses and strains around the probe and consequently, may significantly affect the test (pressure/(R/R o ) curve).

PAGE 52

28 2.3.3 Shear strength The soft rock found in Florida generally exhibits drained behavior during the elastic phase of the PMT. This statement is supported and further explored in Section 4 of this chapter. However, it is unknown whether this holds true throughout the entire loading with the pressuremeter. More specifically, it is difficult to assume either undrained or drained conditions exist past yield. The drained assumption implies volume change during the test versus excess porewater pressures that would be developed during undrained loading. In addition, a frictional component, is introduced and must be accounted for in the analysis. Due to the additional frictional component, the predicted strength may be greater than that for an undrained analysis (Haberfield, 1987). The volume change that is associated with drained loading may also introduce dilatant behavior. Baguelin (1978) states that, in a general sense, it is possible for dilatancy to have such an effect that the net limit pressure can be more than doubled. Thus neglecting the possibility of dilation can drastically affect the results. However, due to the unknown drainage conditions past yield, an undrained analysis may be appropriate. As discussed previously, the Gibson and Anderson Method can be used to determine the undrained shear strength. However, several of the tests plotted in this manner did not exhibit the linear response as indicated by Figure 2.8. Instead, continuing curvature with an inflection point was seen as illustrated in Figure 2.12. Mair and Wood (1987) describe this curvature as a strain-softening response, in which the peak undrained shear strength at the point of inflection is

PAGE 53

29 followed by the ultimate undrained shear strength during larger strains. Therefore, the peak value of c u (from the initial slope portion) from the plot of pressure versus ln(V c /V c ) is not reliable. ucPressure, p ucultpeakc cln V /V Figure 2.12 Comparison of Peak to Ultimate Shear Strength Mair and Wood (1987) hypothesize that the affect of disturbance and other initial conditions is reduced at larger strains. Therefore, the ultimate shear strength should be favored instead because less uncertainty surrounds the determination of the apparent large strain strength given by the slope of the pressure versus ln(V c /V c ) curve at large deformations (Mair and Wood, 1987). The Gibson and Anderson Method, performed on the PMT results, can be found in Appendix B. Undrained shear strength may also be calculated at the end point, p L as follows (Mair and Wood, 1987): *ln1LuoLupcGppc (2.12)

PAGE 54

30 The denominator of this equation is often approximated as with a coefficient. Rather than an iterative approach for c u which first requires knowledge of the shear modulus, it is common practice to experimentally determine Briaud (1992) states that it is common for this ratio to vary between 100 and 600, which leads to a range of from 5.6 to 7.4. This range gives an average of 6.5, which, during the laboratory PMT tests in Gatorock (see Cepero, 2002), gave excellent agreement between the limit pressure and q u (bias = 1.04, COV = 5%, 4pts.). Generally, stiffer material will give a higher coefficient. It should also be noted that the limit pressure determined from the Gibson and Anderson Method produces a c u that is closer to the residual value, because of the observations made by Mair and Wood (1987) pertaining to the discussion of Figure 2.12. A non-linear power curve fit by Briaud (1992) to a database of c u and p L parameters, assembled by Baguelin et al. (1978), from PMT tests performed in mostly clays is given as: 75.0*67.0Lupc (2.13) Equation 2.13 provides very similar results to equation 2.12 and is not used herein. A summary of the different methods to find the undrained shear strength can be found in Chapter 3. 2.3.4 Unconfined compressive strength Once the circumferential stresses are relieved by cracking, the applied radial stress becomes analogous to an unconfined compression test. Haberfield (1997) states that the response of the rock after cracking should remain elastic until the unconfined compressive strength, q u is reached. The remainder of the

PAGE 55

31 loading response, after q u is modified by the propagation of tensile cracks, which brings about a curved response with decreased stiffness due to plastic shearing of the material (Mair and Wood, 1987). Haberfield (1997) goes on to suggest that when the yield pressure is encountered, plastic shearing begins only after the unconfined compressive strength has been surpassed, thus indicating that q u may be greater than the yield pressure. He further states the curvature in the load deformation response of a pressuremeter in weak rock at pressures below q u is therefore likely to be the result of gradual crack propagation rather than yielding of the rock. However, Cepero (2002) found that the yield pressure can be correlated directly with the unconfined compressive strength. This conclusion is based on only four tests; but the low coefficient of variation (COV = 13%) shows that the correlation is promising. This theory will be verified with field tests performed with the Probex and cores tested in the lab for the unconfined compressive strength. The pre-yield behavior of Florida limestone is assumed to be drained, however, the assumption made for the post yield behavior is undrained. If undrained conditions exist past yield then the undrained shear strength, c u should be: 2uuqc (2.14) Undrained shear strength can also be estimated empirically from the net limit pressure of the PMT test. Combined with Equation 2.14, this relationship is given as follows:

PAGE 56

32 hLuupcq22 (2.15) The is an empirical coefficient sometimes referred to as the pressuremeter constant and varies with the ratio of shear modulus, G, to undrained shear strength (G/c u ) (Mair and Wood, 1987). Two additional methods were investigated to estimate the unconfined compressive strength from PMT results, both of which involve using Equation 2.14 with estimates of c u First, the Gibson and Anderson Method provides an estimate of c u from the slope of the pressure versus ln( ccVV ) plot. Second, a rearranged theoretical expression originally derived for the yield pressure, Equation 2.14 given by Briaud (1992): hyuupcq 22 (2.16) The equation relates q u to twice the net yield pressure. Comparisons of the four different methods for estimating q u can be found in Chapter 3. 2.4 Geology The geological aspects pertaining to this research are briefly discussed in this section, concentrating on features that have direct influence on the PMT results. A more general discussion can be found in Cepero (2002). The main geological factors that require discussion are drainage conditions present during loading and the condition of the limestone.

PAGE 57

33 2.4.1 Drainage Conditions As previously stated earlier in the chapter, Florida limestone is assumed to behave as a drained material. The high clay content often observed and the small particle size would normally contradict this statement. However, according to Johnston and Chiu (1981) the porewater dissipation may be described by the coefficient of consolidation, c v . For a relatively incompressible material such as soft rocks, compared to clays, the magnitude of m v (coefficient of volume change) may be several orders of magnitude smaller than for a clay. The coefficient of volume change (m v ) is defined as the reciprocal of the constrained modulus. The coefficient of consolidation, which describes the rate of consolidation or porewater dissipation, is given by the equation: vwvmkc (2.17) The small value of m v results in a c v value that is several orders of magnitude larger than for clays (Johnston and Chui, 1981). This leads to a porewater dissipation rate that is quite rapid compared to clay. Johnston and Chiu also point out that the laboratory samples tested during the investigation of their findings were performed on specimens that did not contain the fissures, joints and seams encountered in the field. Such effects will certainly lead to a further increase in drainage. Consolidation tests performed on Florida limestone would be helpful to validate the above assumptions. 2.4.2 Limestone Competency The competency of the limestone plays an important role in the quality of the pressuremeter test, which in turn affects the quality of the results. The

PAGE 58

34 competency first depends on the sedimentary nature of the limestone. Florida limestone is a sedimentary carbonate rock that formed over millions of years. During this time, it experienced periods of total submergence as well as dry spells during which the waters receded. These factors contribute to form a rock that is highly heterogeneous in nature. Figure 2.13 shows an excavated section of limestone, at a Newberry quarry, where voids can be readily observed. Figure 2.13 Excavated Section of Florida Limestone Showing Voids Portions of the rock can be made up of coral that is well cemented and strong, while other portions are made up of lightly cemented carbonates. Near the surface, Florida limestone has not generally experienced high consolidation stresses and tends to be relatively weak compared to competent limestone. All four test holes at the SR20 site generally displayed a significant amount of variation over the depths tested. However, virtually all the limestone

PAGE 59

35 encountered after the first twenty feet was of high quality, gave high recoveries, and had the highest strength. The ability to core the test hole, so that a limit pressure could be adequately estimated, was also greatly improved. The higher quality rock in this region was not as easily eroded by the circulation of drilling fluid required during coring.

PAGE 60

CHAPTER 3 FIELD PRESSUREMETER TESTS The focus of this research involves conducting field tests with the Probex pressuremeter. Field pressuremeter tests were performed in Blountstown, Florida (Figure 3.1) at the SR20 Bridge site between November 18, 2002 and December 9, 2002. Figure 3.1 Site Location Map (Sharpe, 1998) Thirty-one pressuremeter tests were performed in four test holes (about 8 tests per test hole) at two different test shaft locations. Drilling assistance was provided by FDOT District 3, including rock coring and pressuremeter testing. Rock strength parameters correlated from the pressuremeter tests will be 36

PAGE 61

37 compared to values obtained from drilled shaft load tests performed during the construction of the new SR20 Bridge. This chapter covers the pressuremeter tests performed to accomplish these tasks. 3.2 Limestone Coring The pressuremeter tests conducted for this research were performed within a pre-bored hole. The depths required to reach limestone necessitated the use of a drill rig and a properly sized coring barrel in order to prepare a relatively proper hole. The finite expansion of the pressuremeter probe requires a hole with precise dimensions and little room for error. The coring equipment used and the quality of the hole preparation may significantly affect the pressuremeter results. These factors are discussed in the following sections. 3.2.1 Coring Equipment The equipment used for coring was a surface-set, diamond-impregnated coring bit with a triple-tube core barrel. The diameter was chosen so the diameter of the hole exactly matched that of the pressuremeter. A triple-tube core barrel assembly, supplied by Boart Longyear, was chosen to create an N-sized, 2.95-inch diameter, hole. The core barrel was attached to NWJ-sized, 2.625-inch diameter, rods so that the rod string remained stiff during drilling. 3.2.2 Hole Preparation and Coring Technique The Blountstown Bridge site has about 70 feet of soil overburden, with both clay and sand layers, underlain by fossiliferous limestone. The generalized soil profile assumed for Test Shafts 5 & 7 can be seen in Figures 3.2 and 3.3, summarized from the Dames and Moore Geotechnical Report (Sharpe, 1998) for the SR20 Bridge. The overburden was drilled with a tri-cone bit and cased with

PAGE 62

38 4flush joint casing to avoid soil infiltration and potential collapse. After installing casing to the top of rock, the core barrel assembly was used to core the limestone. The hole was advanced as the tests were performed. Figure 3.2 Generalized Stratigraphy for Test Shaft 5 The primary concern during coring for pressuremeter tests is the resulting quality of the corehole, with core recovery being secondary. The maximum radial expansion of the Probex is approximately 13.85mm (0.55in), which leaves little room for error when creating a borehole. Problems associated with coring in soft rock depths greater than about 50-feet are wobbling of the coring bit, flushing

PAGE 63

39 fluid disturbing the sides of the corehole, and the relaxation of the sides that occurs when the soil is removed from the borehole (lateral stress decrease). Figure 3.3 Generalized Stratigraphy for Test Shaft 7 The wobbling effect during coring produces a rock core that has a corkscrew appearance. This occurs as a consequence of several contributing factors. The down pressure of the drill rig head applies the pressure necessary for the bit to core through the rock. Inadequate down-pressure will prevent the core barrel from advancing. A large down-pressure will cause the coring bit to walk around the inside of the hole, because the bit is not able to cut the material

PAGE 64

40 fast enough. The pressure must be applied so that the rate of cut is constant, and is only enough to properly core the rock. This procedure is highly dependent on driller experience and technique. The effect of the wobble may also create a corkscrew on the sidewall of the hole. If the sidewall is not smooth, then stress concentrations may occur as the pressuremeter expands are likely to exist. Usually, the only down pressure applied during coring was the weight of the rods. Occasionally, a down pressure of 100psi was applied to the rods during periods of hard drilling. The rotational rate of the core bit is also important. Rates too slow or too fast may generate excess heat and damage the bit. A too slow rate may also gouge the sidewalls. The average rate used in the field for this research was 90-100 rpm. Coring or boring through any geomaterial produces cuttings. Common drilling practice is to flush the cuttings with drill fluid. Typical flushing media include air, foam, water, mineral slurry, and synthetic polymers. Successful removal of cuttings requires a combination of correct velocity and viscosity. If the velocity of the slurry is too high, the pressure created by this flow can damage the borehole. The effect of a high velocity flow in a weathered or vuggy rock can negate the entire test. A low velocity will allow the cuttings to fall out of suspension. This situation causes the hole to be filled with cuttings, which may make target test depths difficult to obtain and cause the hole to be re-drilled, which adds further disturbance. The viscosity must be such that the slurry is thick (dense) enough to suspend the cuttings and retard settling particles. The

PAGE 65

41 optimum circulation rate found during the SR20 tests was relatively slow, essentially at the rate of the drill rig and just enough to obtain flow at the top of the casing. A maximum pump pressure of 25 psi was recorded. The driller also controls the rate of rotation and down-pressure to maintain this flow so that the core barrel does not plug during coring. The pre-coring insitu stresses are reduced to zero at the sidewall of the corehole. This stress removal causes the soil to relax inward, which loosens it, reducing strength and stiffness. The diameter of the borehole may also reduce slightly. This disturbance lengthens the initial phase of the pressuremeter test, affects the overall shape and magnitude of the PMT curve, and may truncate the test before obtaining any useful parameters. This relaxation effect can be reduced using drill mud. The mineral slurry drill mud (Bentonite or Attapulgite) has a greater unit weight than the groundwater, and its fluid pressure helps replace the sidewall stresses. Mair and Wood (1987) suggest that the drilling mud also reduces soil suction effects at the sidewall, which may swell and weaken clays as the water content increases. Mineral slurry coats the sidewall, possibly even forming a filter cake, and prevents the flow of water into the surrounding soil. The high clay content and high frequency of voids and joints in Florida limestone require consideration of these affects, when a more competent rock would not. 3.3 PMT Tests After the installation of the 4-inch casing, the coring and testing procedure began. PMT test depths corresponded to the strain gage elevation in the test shafts. The coring was performed so that the center of the Probex membrane

PAGE 66

42 could be positioned at the desired depth with additional room left below (typically 2.5 to 3 feet) for the lower portion of the testing device and cuttings that might settle out of the drill mud. In addition, the coring sequence was planned so that 1-2 pressuremeter tests could be performed before the next section of rock was cored. This was done in an effort to reduce the amount of time the borehole remained open, to minimize the disturbance caused by raising and lowering the core barrel, and to reduce driller downtime during pressuremeter testing. Lastly, the coring rate and water pressure was monitored continuously for each core followed by careful core inspection and logging. 3.3.1 Calibrations and Corrections The pressuremeter requires several calibrations and corrections to obtain a true pressure-volume curve for the soil cavity. The membrane is flexible and resists expansion in a non-linear manner. It is also compressed during the test by the external pressure of the soil. Therefore, calibrations are required to account for membrane compressibility and resistance. Each effect is subtracted from the raw test readings. The SR20 calibrations can be found in Appendix A. The volume calibration involves inserting the Probex probe in a close-fitting thick-walled steel. The pressure is increased to the maximum capacity of the probe, 30MPa, and released. The Probex instructions suggest that the volume calibration be performed 5 times before and after each test to obtain an accurate calibration. The probe was exercised, inflated and deflated, three times prior to performing any calibrations. Then 2-3 volume calibrations were performed, depending on the variation observed between calibration curves. The expansion of the probe to contact the calibration pipe is ignored because it depends on the

PAGE 67

43 hole size. The remaining portion of the calibration curve is essentially linear and is extrapolate back to zero pressure. The measured volume loss is subtracted from the volume read during the test to remove the effect of the membrane compression. The volume calibrations were averaged for each days testing and applied to all the tests performed on that day (see Appendix A). The pressure calibration is performed to remove the expansion resistance of the membrane from the test pressure. The membrane is inflated in air and the pressure is recorded at fixed volume increments. After correcting the test volume, the pressure correction is subtracted from the test pressure to find the actual pressure acting on the cavity wall. Pressure and volume calibrations were performed together (consecutively). The pressure calibration curve, shown as a dashed line on the pressure calibrations in Appendix A, a best fit second-order polynomial was fit through all the data taken each test day. This curve was then shifted, while keeping the same form, so that the first reading would be (0 cc,0 MPa). This curve is shown on the same plots, along with the equation and a non-linear correlation coefficient, R 2 as a bold line. The pressure calibrations can be found in Appendix A following the volume calibrations. A hydrostatic pressure correction is also necessary when testing below the control unit elevation. The hydrostatic head of oil in the pressuremeters hydraulic lines pressurizes the probe prior to testing and must be added to the transducer pressure measured at the ground surface. 3.3.2 PMT Test Procedure The SR20 PMT tests were performed as stress-controlled tests to better define the linear elastic region and facilitate recognition of the lateral insitu stress

PAGE 68

44 and yield limit. The volume creep (see section 2.1.3) obtained while holding the pressure constant provides a reasonable estimate of these parameters. The tests were performed with 0.5MPa pressure increments to define the pressure-volume curve. Volume and pressure readings were recorded after 30 seconds and 60 seconds to investigate creep. Each PMT test was carefully monitored by plotting the results to insure a good test. Briaud (1992) recommends that an unload-reload cycle be performed after the linear portion of loading. This is done to find an unload-reload modulus for comparison with the elastic phase of the PMT test. An unload-reload test was not be performed on tests that did not reach a yield limit 3.4 PMT Analysis The individual pressuremeter tests can be found in Appendix A. Both uncorrected and corrected pressure-volume curves are included as well as the corrected pressure versus the relative increase of the probe radius (). The dashed portions of the curves in Appendix A represent estimated trends based on expected behavior. The lack of data in these areas is due to reaching the maximum volume of the probe prior to the final 60-second pressure reading. No analyses were performed on these estimated portions of the curves. oRR/ 3.4.1 PMT Parameter Comparisons Parameters from the different interpretation methods will be analyzed and compared so that proper values are used for the correlation to strength parameters. The hand drawn, best-fit trend lines drawn on the pressure versus

PAGE 69

45 oRR/ plots provide the basis for most of the interpretative analysis. Chapter 2 describes the analyses methods used in this section. Two methods were used to find the insitu lateral stress, p o The first estimate used was the intersection of the initial and elastic straightline portions of the pressure versus R/R o curve. Alternatively, the creep plot of pressure versus (V 60 V 30 ) gives p o as the beginning of the vertical portion of the creep plot. As seen in Figure 3.4, the results display a significant amount of scatter. The creep method is a more definitive approximation of p o and is based more on the observed soil behavior than visual interpretation of the test curve. At-Rest Horizontal Pressure Comparison y = 0.5595xR2 = 0.29710.00.51.01.52.02.53.00.00.51.01.52.02.53.0po from Creep Plotpo Intersection of Linear Zones of p:R/Ro 1:1 Figure 3.4 At-Rest Horizontal Pressure Comparison Two different methods were used to estimate the yield pressure, p y This parameter was obtained first as the end of the linear elastic portion of the pressure versus plot, and second, by using the creep plot. Similar to obtaining p oRR/ o from the creep plot, p y is taken at the top of the constant creep

PAGE 70

46 portion of the creep curve where the sidewall loading transitions into plastic behavior. Figure 3.5 shows a comparison of the two methods. As can be seen from the data, the methods gave consistent results. Therefore, the values will be averaged for each test when correlating to strength parameters. Yield Pressure Comparison y = 0.9863xR2 = 0.7730.00.51.01.52.02.53.00.00.51.01.52.02.53.0py from Creep Plotpy from Top of Linear Zone from p:DR/Ro 1:1 Figure 3.5 Yield Pressure Comparison Limit pressure, p L was investigated by two different interpretation methods. GraphPad was used to find a non-linear equation that would represent the plastic response of the pressuremeter curve. This was then used to find p L at R/R o =0.5 (see Equation 2.6 by Briaud (1992)). It is also possible to obtain p L from the Gibson and Anderson Method as the pressure at V c /V c =1.0 on a plot of pressure versus ln(V c /V c ). The non-linear curve fit is probably less accurate because of its approximate mathematical origin opposed to the theoretical basis of the Gibson and Anderson Method. The comparison plot, shown in Figure 3.6,

PAGE 71

47 shows that the two methods are moderately consistent, with the Gibson and Anderson Method giving slightly higher values. However, the Gibson and Anderson Method was chosen for use in the strength correlations based on its theoretical origin. Limit Pressure Comparison y = 0.7592xR2 = 0.67840.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.00.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0pL from Gibson and Anderson MethodpL from GraphPad Curve Fit 1:1 Figure 3.6 Limit Pressure Comparison Undrained shear strength was determined by two different methods. Both assume undrained conditions and plastic behavior. Equation 3.1 provides the first estimate of undrained shear strength, c u uoLucGppcln1 (3.1) This equation is based on p L and requires p o as well as an empirical factor, (equivalent to the denominator in Equation 3.1) which must be determined experimentally.

PAGE 72

48 The Gibson and Anderson Method can be used to obtain c u as the slope of the pressure versus ln(V c /V c ) plot. Figure 3.7 shows a comparison of the two methods for the SR20 tests. The comparison shows that Equation 3.1 Undrained Shear Strength Comparison y = 0.5599xR2 = 0.60310.00.51.01.52.02.50.00.51.01.52.02.5cu from Gibson and Anderson Methodcu from pL* Equation 1:1 Figure 3.7 Undrained Shear Strength Comparison consistently under-predicts the Gibson and Anderson Method. Briaud (1992) states that the Gibson and Anderson Method is based on theory representing the post yield pressuremeter response. Undrained shear strength is taken as the slope of the data past the yield pressure of the geomaterial. If Florida limestone can be viewed as an over-consolidated geomaterial, then there will be both peak and residual representations of strength may been seen. Briaud (1992) indicates that p L is associated with c u residual while the Gibson and Anderson Method gives a c u from the slope, closer to the peak value. This is because the Gibson and Anderson method for determining c u is taken from the slope of the curve after yield, where the peak value occurs. Methods using p L to determine c u such

PAGE 73

49 as Equation 3.1, may result in lower residual values of c u as indicated by Figure 3.7. Uncertainties in the empirical factor used in Equation 3.1 affect the differences between the two methods for obtaining c u It was observed that a lower greatly improves the relationship between the two methods. The factor is directly proportional to the over-consolidation ratio (OCR), represented by G/c u in Equation 3.1. Rock, in general, is seen as a material exhibiting high values of OCR, which translates to a high factor to account for stress history. Florida limestone is commonly found to be of high clay content with many voids, filled with clay and sand, and weathered zones. These facts may result in an aggregate OCR lower than that of an otherwise homogenous rock. A higher (6.5) would then be expected when considering a very homogenous geomaterial, such as Gatorock. Therefore, a lower for use on natural Florida limestone may be more accurate. 3.4.2 Strength Parameter Correlations The remainder of the analyses concerns the correlations of PMT results ( cr p y and p L ) with strength parameters. This step required average strength parameters from laboratory strength tests be assigned for each PMT test depth. Figures 3.8-3.11 were created illustrating the core layout compared to the PMT test depths, along with the strength test specimens, as they were obtained from the recovered core. The RQD and Recovery for each core were also included in these figures for reference.

PAGE 74

50 Figure 3.8 PMT Test Hole 1 Core and PMT Test Layout

PAGE 75

51 Figure 3.9 PMT Test Hole 2 Core and PMT Test Layout

PAGE 76

52 Figure 3.10 PMT Test Hole 3 Core and PMT Test Layout

PAGE 77

53 Figure 3.11 PMT Test Hole 4 Core and PMT Test Layout

PAGE 78

54 Some important notes concerning the figures above are that the strength parameters are all listed in units of (psi), the figures are not to scale in the horizontal direction, poor recovery is abbreviated PR, and bottom of casing is abbreviated BOC. The selection of average values for each PMT test included grouping strength tests from the core at the same elevation of the PMT test. When PMT tests were performed directly in between two cores, strength parameters from both cores were averaged together. Average values are required because an exact depth cannot be assigned to each test specimen if the core recovery is less than 100%. Equation 2.11 gave a relationship between the cracking pressure, cr from the PMT and the tensile strength. This relationship requires an estimate of the insitu lateral stress, obtained from the creep curve. The tests that showed evidence of cracking exhibited a sharp discontinuity in the slope or change in slope, which caused a deviation from the trend of the PMT curve. Figure 3.9 shows the results of the PMT tensile strength estimate along with the lab test performed on the large Gatorock samples (shown with a combined bias=0.82 and COV=122.4%). The results display a considerable amount of scatter, which is thought to be due to an inaccurate estimate of p o cr or both. The values of p o calculated by the creep curve were usually more than half of the yield pressure. Poor estimates of p o will therefore significantly affect the results. Only about 2/3 (15 of 24 usable tests) of the PMT tests displayed noticeable cracking. This is thought to be due to: high lateral stresses induced from testing at depth (high p o ); the circumferential stress never exceeding the tensile strength of the material;

PAGE 79

55 testing in highly weathered or vuggy zones in the limestone. It is also possible that cracking did occur, but was not identifiable on the pressure versus R/R o curve. Predicted Tensile Strength, qt, from Cracking Pressure, cry = 1.1978xR2 = -0.518301002003004005006007008000100200300400500600700800Average Measured Tensile Strength, qt (psi)PMT Estiamte qt = cr 2h (psi) Field PMT Tests Lab PMT Tests Bias = 0.82, COV = 122.4% Figure 3.12 PMT Estimate of Tensile Strength Table 3.1 PMT Predicted Tensile Strength Comparisons with Core Tensile Strength 1-35.90279.21.9288.154.90.1911-49.90232.12.3136.1407.02.9901-52.20166.81.2153.5309.22.0142-33.30257.42.0224.2129.00.5753-46.00181.31.1205.28.90.0433-48.50210.31.0272.711.60.0423-54.65126.91.191.0326.33.5864-29.90261.11.8266.579.80.2994-31.92253.82.1198.779.80.4024-41.15108.81.325.57.50.2941.0441.320126.4%Average BiasStd. Dev. BiasCOVqt bias msd/estEst. qt = (cr-2h) (psi)Msd. qt (psi)Crack Pressure, cr (psi)Test HoleElevation (ft)h est. (psi)

PAGE 80

56 The unconfined compressive strength can be estimated by a number of methods, all of which are covered in Chapter 2. The predicted values of q u are compared to the average values measured in the lab for depths adjacent to the PMT tests. As can be seen in Figure 3.10, all four of the methods gave poor predictions of q u Reasons for the discrepancies include inaccuracies in evaluating p o non-homogeneity of the soil, anisotropy, and borehole disturbance (Baguelin et al., 1978). Table 3.2 tabulates the yield pressures and limit pressures obtained from the PMT tests with the core strength tests. The grayed regions in the table represent instances where no data was obtained with which to apply the method. The bias and COV can be found in this table as well as in Figure 3.10. PMT Estimate of Unconfined Compressive Strength0500100015002000250005001000150020002500Average Measured Unconfined Compression, qu (psi)PMT Estimate qu (psi) from py creep curve from cu = pL*/b cu from Gib. and Anders. cu=py-po qu = py (bias=3.4, COV=115.1%)qu = 2*cu = p*L/ (bias=3.6, COV=158.5%)qu = 2*cu (cu Gib. & Ander.) (bias=3.2, COV=118.7%)qu = 2*cu = 2(py-po) (bias=4.1, COV=159.5%) Figure 3.13 PMT Estimate of Unconfined Compressive Strength

PAGE 81

Table 3.2 PMT Predicted Unconfined Compressive Strength Comparisons with Core Unconfined Compressive Strength 1-28.45226.3340.8776.1340.8169.2229.2265.91-32.55151.6311.8810.589.5311.8202.7320.5331.30.2870.4410.2790.2701-35.90279.2404.41213.588.7404.4287.5250.3575.80.2190.3090.3540.1541-40.701-46.60729.72466.4334.67.3711-49.90232.1292.8755.42116.3292.8161.0121.5267.77.22713.14317.4127.9051-52.20166.8402.5963.91416.0402.5245.3471.4364.83.5185.7733.0043.8812-28.902-33.30257.4349.9858.2349.9184.8184.9370.12-35.90112.4333.6840.1333.6223.9442.4341.32-38.602-43.502-47.50192.2559.42054.4192.2231.410.6908.8772-48.50246.6541.71936.9246.6257.17.8567.5332-50.50155.9212.2485.41702.1212.2101.4112.5169.78.02216.78715.12310.0313-29.90219.4286.4609.4286.4120.0134.0236.33-31.403-33.753-36.503-42.92195.8259.3580.2374.4259.3118.3127.1219.81.4443.1662.9471.7033-46.00181.3285.6695.6285.6158.2208.6290.53-48.50210.3760.7169.4410.13-54.65126.9279.2891.065.3279.2235.1304.6398.50.2340.2780.2140.1644-29.90261.1903.414.4197.7427.80.0730.0344-31.92253.8773.514.4159.9299.20.0900.0484-36.40257.4375.4880.5375.4191.7235.8361.94-41.15108.8362.6870.2362.6234.3507.6329.14-46.00175.9293.7683.7108.9293.7156.2235.5231.30.3710.6970.4620.4714-49.00228.4340.8738.8108.9340.8157.0224.8228.40.3200.6940.4850.4774-54.65580.2199.7222.40.8984-58.60126.9263.0595.1173.4263.0144.1272.1190.40.6591.2040.6370.9112019241619201724Avg. bias3.4043.5554.0923.171196.4307.0754.0808.1307.0180.9257.8306.5 of bias3.9185.6336.5263.76253.959.3164.1939.659.347.1120.292.1COV (%)115.1%158.5%159.5%118.7%# of dataMean (psi) (psi)Yield Press. py (psi)Msd. qu (psi)Test HoleElev. (ft)Bias Est. qu fromyBias Est. qu from p*L (psi)Est. qu fromy (psi)Est. qu from p*L (psi)Est. qu from 2*cu=2*(py-po) (psi)Est. qu from 2*cu(G&A Est.) (psi)po est. (psi)Limit Press. pL (psi)Bias Est. qu from 2*cu (G&A Est.) (psi)Bias Est. qu from 2*cu=2*(py-po) 57

PAGE 82

58 The pressuremeter modulus was calculated with Equation 2.5 in Chapter 2. The modulus comparison, shown in Figure 3.14, shows no correlation between the modulus from the laboratory unconfined compression tests, E, and the PMT modulus, E m The pressuremeter modulus commonly underestimates the modulus determined by laboratory means. Briaud (1992) gives some of the Pressuremter Modulus compared to the Unconfined Compression Modulus02004006008001000120014000510152025Pressuremeter Modulus, Em (ksi)Unconfined Compression Modulus, E (ksi) Figure 3.14 Comparison of Lab Modulus versus PMT Modulus common reasons for this underestimate: E m is measured over a large strain range compared to the lab estimate; Em is influenced by the amount of disturbance of the borehole wall; the pressuremeter measures the horizontal modulus and not a vertical modulus; Equation 2.5 used to calculate E m assumes that the rock has the same modulus in tension and compression. In addition to these common factors, and perhaps the most influential reason for the PMT underestimation of modulus, is that the laboratory compression tests measures

PAGE 83

59 the modulus of the best portions of the rock. The pressuremeter modulus includes the contribution of the 20-65+ percent of rock that was not recovered from the core 3.5 PMT Results The results shown in the previous sections indicate that field PMT tests do not correlate well with the core strength or stiffness measurements, contrary to the initial laboratory predictions from the Gatorock tests. Although Gatorock provided a means of testing limestone properties in a controlled lab environment, it was not used to model the variability, non-homogeneity, and corehole disturbance of a PMT test in a natural limestone deposits. The pressuremeter probe is 18 inches long and tests all of the limestone along its length, including weak material retrieved in the core or not tested in the lab. These issues are discussed further in Chapter 6.

PAGE 84

CHAPTER 4 LABORATORY STRENGTH TESTS Two sets of limestone samples were tested in the laboratory for this research. Testing was performed for compressive strength, elastic modulus, and tensile strength. The first group of samples, donated by the FDOT State Materials Office, was taken from two different bridge sites and tested in the University of Florida Structures Laboratory. The cores were from the Choctawhatchee SR10 and Hallandale Bridge sites. The second group of samples was recovered from the boreholes created during pressuremeter testing and then tested in the University of Florida Geotechnical Laboratory. These cores were obtained from the Blountstown SR20 Bridge site and will be referred to herein as SR20 field cores. 4.1 Core Preparation and Test Setup After careful logging of the core samples from each core run, the cores were cut with a concrete masonry saw using a cylinder-cutting template. The template was used in an effort to obtain parallel ends in accordance with ASTM D 2938. The samples were cut so that a ratio of length to diameter of 2:1 was obtained. When limited by the intact length of the core sample, a minimum ratio of 1.5:1 was accepted in an effort to get as many compression samples as possible. 60

PAGE 85

61 Strain measured directly on a sample is the most accurate method of strain measurement. This is done so that an S-type curve does not result when plotting stress versus strain. A compressometer is the best tool for this because it attaches directly on the sample and was used for this research to obtain measurements. However, the SR20 field cores were too small for commercially available compressometers so the strain was measured between the loading platens. This method was intended to simulate the compressometer test by eliminating stretch of the compression machine yokes, but a calibration was still required because of other influences from the system. The calibration procedure consisted of compressing a steel cylinder of known properties, which a theoretical compression can be calculated for the steel cylinder. The theoretical compression of the steel cylinder is subtracted from the measured deflection. The remaining deflection is attributed to the stretch in the system and is plotted against load (see Appendix C for plot). The stretch expected at a given load is found from the slope of the linear portion of this plot. The calculated stretch in the triaxial setup was 3.42e-07 in/lbs. Both measuring setups were fit with linear variable differential transformers (LVDT) so that the measurements could be digitally recorded for plotting and analysis. Load cells were used in all testing so that the load could be measured accurately. A lubricant was used to reduce end effects created during loading by friction between the load platform and the sample. Friction at the sample ends can produce unintended stresses, which are contrary to the theoretical basis of the test and the intended uniform axial state of stress. Labuz and Bridell (1993)

PAGE 86

62 investigated possible lubricants to lessen or break the frictional constraint during moderate to extreme load and very small displacements. Among the lubricants tested was Stearic Acid, which is a fatty acid. Labuz and Bridell (1993) state that an increased molecular chain length produces better lubrication. Stearic acid displayed the lowest coefficient of friction (0.022) out of the six lubricants tested. This compound was prepared by combining stearic acid flakes with an equal amount of petroleum jelly, by weight, and melting it at 70 o C to ensure proper mixing. The result, after cooling, is a wax-like solid. The petroleum jelly is added to facilitate the application of the stearic acid compound, which leaves a thin film when applied to the steel load platens. LabVIEW 6.0, by National Instruments (a measurement and automation computer program), was programmed to acquire the signals from the LVDT and the load cell, analyze them, and present the measured quantities in a specific format. The system was set to sample every second. This produced enough data points to provide a nearly continuous plot of the stress-strain data 4.1.1 FDOT Cores The FDOT cores were first carefully measured and logged, then submerged for several weeks to prevent the samples from drying out. This was because the cores dried out during storage at the FDOT. The compressometer required minor modifications for use with a LVDT, which can be seen in Figure 4.1. This simply involved machining an aluminum bracket to attach the LVDT to the compressometer, which was designed to use analog dial gauges. The LVDT used with the compressometer was manufactured by Schaevitz Engineering (model GCD-121-125, S/N 3680) and

PAGE 87

63 had an accuracy of 0.000015 inches when used with the data acquisition card connected to the Tinius Olsen testing machine. Polished steel bearing plates were used on each end of the sample to provide a smooth surface for testing. A solid steel cylinder was used above the sample to provide clearance for the LVDT, which extends above the sample. The total added weight of the top polished steel plate and the steel cylinder was 24.60lbs. This added weight was considered negligible when compared to the amount of load applied during the test. Figure 4.1 Limestone sample with compressometer device Figure 4.2 shows a LabVIEW screenshot from a typical test. The green circle, next to the absolute compression reading, indicates whether the LVDT is operating within its linear range. The LVDT used had a useable effective range of inch. The measured deformation is twice the actual deformation of the sample; therefore, the recorded deflection is divided by two.

PAGE 88

64 Figure 4.2 LabVIEW Screenshot 4.1.2 SR20 Field Cores The cores were labeled first according to the test hole (th1, th2, th3, or th4), followed by the core number taken from each hole. The last designation pertains to the position of the core in the core run. Samples were labeled starting with A at the top of the core run. The SR20 field cores were tested using a modified setup of a triaxial testing machine manufactured by Humboldt, Manufacturing Company (model: HM-2605, Triscan-50). The triaxial setup can be seen along with a sample in Figure 4.3 below. The triaxial machine has a capacity of 11,000lbs and with the use of a 10,000lb load cell, provided enough force to adequately test the samples. The triaxial machine allowed the strain rate to be specified for both the loading and unloading of the specimens, which provided complete control of the test. More than one load rate could not be programmed, so that the value could not be

PAGE 89

65 changed conveniently during a test. This did not affect the tests performed, as no post failure behavior was required for this research. Figure 4.3 Triaxial Testing Machine Setup A tremendous effort was taken to ensure the triaxial setup was loading the specimens evenly throughout the loading process. LVDTs were attached on opposing sides of the loading platen so that internal bending, from improper centering or non-parallel ends, could be monitored during the test. Functions were written in LabVIEW so that the difference in the two LVDTs readings was calculated and displayed during the test. The difference of the side to side

PAGE 90

66 measurement selected, 0.005 inches, was never exceeded during testing. In addition, a ball bearing load platen was used as the upper loading platen so that high stress concentrations from non-parallel sample ends could be minimized. Figure 4.4 shows a LabVIEW screenshot from a typical test. Figure 4.4 LabVIEW Screenshot from SR20 Field Core Testing 4.2 Tests Laboratory tests performed on the limestone core samples warranted consideration of all the following ASTM specifications: ASTM D 4543-85 Preparing Rock Core Specimens and Determining Dimensional and Shape Tolerances ASTM C 469-96 Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poissons Ratio of Concrete in Compression ASTM D 2938-95 Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens ASTM D 3148-96 Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock Core Specimens in Uniaxial Compression ASTM D 3967-95a Splitting Tensile Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens

PAGE 91

67 4.2.1 Elastic Modulus Testing A compressometer was used to measure deflection and calculate the modulus of elasticity for the FDOT limestone core samples tested in compression. The SR20 field cores were tested with the LVDTs attached to the upper platen with measurements taken on the lower platen. Both testing methods eliminate several possible sources of testing error, such as the stretch of the compression machine yokes and the compression of the end caps. The ASTM C 469-94 specification for the compressometer was intended for concrete specimens; however, this specification was applied to rock with exception of the load rate. ASTM D 3148-96 specifies a lower load rate for testing rock. The specification further requires a loading rate that causes failure within 2 and 15 minutes. Eight minutes was chosen for the target time to failure, and the load rate was adjusted for the estimated ultimate strength of each sample. This load rate never exceeded 2,500lbs/min. The load rate specified by ASTM D 469-94 (the compressometer with concrete standard) is 35psi/s, which for a 4 diameter core is around 25,000lbs/min, and would cause the samples to fail prematurely. ASTM C 469-94 specifies that samples be loaded to 40% of the ultimate compressive strength for three unload/reload cycles. The 40% limit is intended measure an elastic zone response and prevent any permanent deformation within the sample. The first cycle is thought to contain seating errors and is disregarded in the analysis. The remaining two stress-strain measurements are averaged together to obtain the modulus of elasticity of the material. This test process requires an estimate of the samples ultimate strength prior to the actual test. When testing a nearly homogenous material, such as concrete, test

PAGE 92

68 samples are normally failed without the compressometer first, so that the compressive strength can be estimated for the next sample. With a limited number of samples and the high variability of limestone, significant differences can occur even within the same core, estimating the ultimate strength is difficult. Therefore, rather than sacrificing a specimen, lower load levels were chosen to avoid damaging the compressometer, and the loading was carefully monitored during the tests. Modulus tests are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. 4.2.2 Unconfined Compression Tests ASTM D 2938-95 specifies that the loading rate for the unconfined compression test achieve failure within 2 and 15 minutes. This value is identical to the load rate used during the compressometer testing to obtain the elastic modulus. A time of 8 minutes was again chosen as the target to failure. The use of the compressometer for modulus testing requires that the samples be completely unloaded so that the compressometer device can be removed prior to the unconfined compression test. This was not necessary for the SR20 field cores that used the simulated compressometer setup. The seating load applied to the SR20 field cores prior to modulus testing was maintained through the unconfined compression tests. The stearic acid lubricant and the polished steel load platens were also used when testing the samples in unconfined compression for ultimate strength. Unconfined compression results are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

PAGE 93

69 4.2.3 Split Tensile Tests The split tensile strength of the specimens was obtained in accordance with ASTM standard ASTM D 3967-95a. The split tensile specimens were cut to a L/D ratio of 0.5:1, which for the FDOT cores, a 4 inch diameter core specimen requires a thickness of approximately 2 inches, and for the SR20 field cores, a 1.74 inch diameter core specimen requires a thickness of approximately 1 inch. Both of these L/D ratios (L/D=0.5,0.57) fell within the range specified by ASTM (L/D=0.2-0.75). Plywood bearing strips, as recommended by ASTM, were used in an effort to prevent the high stresses at the loading points above and below the specimen. The plywood was 0.25 inches thick, which is the maximum thickness permitted by ASTM. ASTM specifies that failure occur within 1 to 10 minutes of loading. A lubricant was not used during the split tensile tests. Both the FDOT and SR20 field cores were tested in a similar manner. Split tensile tests are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. 4.3 Test Analysis The parameters measured and recorded by the data acquisition unit during the tests were the applied load and deflection. When using the compressometer, the deflection is divided by two to get the sample deflection, and then by the gauge length to get the sample strain. Alternatively, the field core strain was found by taking the deflection divided by the sample height because no compressometer was used. The load is divided by the cross-sectional area of the sample to get the stress. The stress versus strain plots for all samples can be seen in Appendix C for reference.

PAGE 94

70 The ultimate unconfined compressive strength of the specimen was taken at the peak load attained during loading. Since the elastic modulus tests were performed prior to the unconfined compression tests, microcracking may have weakened the sample, reducing the measured strength. Since the ultimate strength is unknown during the modulus tests, the target 40% loading of ultimate may be exceeded resulting in stress levels much closer to the ultimate strength. If the modulus data show a linear trend in the stress-strain plot then affect is minimal. However, excessively loading the sample during modulus testing may severely affect the ultimate strength results. The number of cores obtained from a typical core in Florida limestone is limited, which necessitates the approximation, however, after three tests a better average ultimate strength will be attained. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 summarize the unconfined compressive and modulus tests for both the FDOT and the SR20 field cores respectively. The split tensile strength, q t of the limestone samples was determined as specified in ASTM D 3967-95a. The compressive force, P, applied on the side of the specimen imparts tensile forces within the specimen causing it to break in half along a vertical plane between the loading points. This force is divided by the area of the material resisting the lateral splitting of the specimen, which is the diameter multiplied by the length: Split tensile strength = q t = LDP2 (4.1) P represents the applied ultimate load, L the sample length, and D the diameter. The (2/) term adjusts for the shape of the stress distribution across

PAGE 95

71 the sample, ranging from compression at the loading points to reasonably uniform tension across the remainder of the split section. For a more detailed account of the mechanics of the split tensile test, consult ASTM D 3967-95a. Tables 4.3 and 4.4 summarize the split tensile data for the FDOT and SR20 field cores respectively. The time to failure was recorded and is also shown in Table 4.3 and 4.4. Several of the tests failed in less than one minute, violating the ASTM specification but possibly still representative.

PAGE 96

Table 4.1 Summary of Modulus and Unconfined Compression Tests for FDOT Limestone Cores BoxSample #Core DesignationPierShaft A pproximate DepthLengthDiameterAreaQquEftininin 2 lbspsipsi32Bb3-261-55.3627.7503.94212.2051,970499.7954,05632Fb3-261-57.6218.1883.96112.3232,725688.0902,19332Ab3-261-54.7796.8753.91012.0073,360859.3 -32Eb3-261-54.9296.6883.94512.2233,730945.5 -31Bb3-161-50.6568.8753.94612.229-1,532,23331Db3-161-52.1778.0003.95012.2541,800455.71,121,21841Ab4-1201-84.4788.1253.96212.3294,0971034.1798,20941Bb4-1201-85.1868.1883.96312.3354,6561174.91,450,73741Fb4-1201-87.3947.1253.96512.3473,568899.91,507,60742Db4-2201-91.0988.0633.96912.372-42Fb4-2201-92.2658.0633.97412.4043,620910.9 -42Bb4-2201-89.9326.1883.96212.329-61Bb6-222-7.3753.93412.1551,564397.6503,63761Ab6-222-8.0003.95312.273-1,399,37661Gb6-222-6.5633.93312.1493,360854.3 -71Bhbb-r133-63.1406.8753.93012.1309,4202396.9 -83Bhbb-r331-81.0128.2503.92212.08112,0203064.83,676,18283Chbb-r331-81.5958.1253.92512.10024,2286172.77,538,93483Dhbb-r331-82.1787.8753.91812.05618,4314704.25,666,63683Ehbb-r331-82.9288.0633.91012.00736,5179339.4914,28783Fhbb-r331-83.6788.0633.92212.08140,06010214.21,094,36184Chbb-r431-87.1408.0633.92712.11222,0905625.29,222,758 b3-b6 are from Choctawhatchee SR10 and hbb are from Hallandale Beach Bridge 72

PAGE 97

73 Table 4.2 Summary of Modulus and Unconfined Compression Tests for Field Limestone Cores (SR20) Core Run Elevations Proximity to BridgeApprox. StationTest HoleCoreSampleTopBottomRecoveryRQDLengthDia.AreaquFailure StrainEEftft%%ininin 2 psiin/inksipsiPier 62, Shaft #5153+6312A-30.97-35.9745.013.33.0261.7102.3087.30.0048721.821,821.9Pier 62, Shaft #5153+6312B-30.97-35.9745.013.33.2991.7212.3391.70.0071814.114,145.1Pier 62, Shaft #5153+6313A-35.86-40.8661.729.23.4881.6452.1387.10.0051523.023,047.0Pier 62, Shaft #5153+6315A-45.89-50.8660.035.03.5041.7602.431104.50.00390448.4448,379.6Pier 62, Shaft #5153+6315B-45.89-50.8660.035.03.4761.7622.442905.00.003741231.91,231,851.0Pier 62, Shaft #5153+6315C-45.89-50.8660.035.03.4741.7662.452573.70.004291463.01,462,965.9Pier 62, Shaft #5153+6315D-45.89-50.8660.035.03.5001.7622.443278.30.003521433.41,433,408.8Pier 62, Shaft #5153+6316A-50.86-55.8641.717.53.5021.7542.411422.20.00381687.8687,768.9Pier 62, Shaft #5153+6316B-50.86-55.8641.717.53.4701.7612.431410.90.00388684.3684,281.0Pier 62, Shaft #5153+6324A-44.30-49.3050.015.03.5151.7612.442447.40.003091425.21,425,235.3Pier 62, Shaft #5153+6324B-44.30-49.3050.015.03.5101.7602.431661.70.001881204.21,204,239.2Pier 62, Shaft #5153+6325A-49.50-54.5045.89.23.1511.7672.451702.10.002511204.51,204,536.3Pier 69, Shaft #7145+9534A-38.90-43.9035.09.23.5261.7572.42374.40.00114466.4466,372.2Pier 69, Shaft #7145+9537A-53.82-58.8273.322.53.4921.7332.3665.30.0014757.257,177.8Pier 69, Shaft #7145+9541A-28.65-33.6530.08.33.5471.6172.0514.40.003033.93,875.5Pier 69, Shaft #7145+9544A-43.75-48.7548.820.83.5461.7062.29127.80.0035386.186,069.0Pier 69, Shaft #7145+9544B-43.75-48.7548.820.83.4641.6422.1286.80.0031162.262,193.2Pier 69, Shaft #7145+9544C-43.75-48.7548.820.82.8041.6912.25112.20.0073351.351,264.8Pier 69, Shaft #7145+9546A-54.02-59.0265.853.63.5291.7592.43316.90.0026331.030,991.8Pier 69, Shaft #7145+9546B-54.02-59.0265.853.63.0271.7332.36101.90.0032364.564,455.4Pier 69, Shaft #7145+9546C-54.02-59.0265.853.63.4881.7502.41182.70.00189130.2130,178.8Pier 69, Shaft #7145+9546D-54.02-59.0265.853.63.5251.7502.41110.80.0015884.484,410.7Pier 69, Shaft #7145+9546E-54.02-59.0265.853.63.5591.7202.32157.10.00162128.5128,455.6 73

PAGE 98

74 Table 4.3 Summary of Split Tensile Tests for FDOT Limestone Cores BoxSample #Core DesignationPierShaftDepthLengthDiameterAreaQqtTime to Failureftininin 2 lbspsisec31cb3-161-51.42.0003.97312.403,235259.224031eb3-161-52.62.0003.95112.2624820.01531fb3-161-53.11.8753.96212.33 -32gb3-261-58.12.0003.95812.301,616130.024032db3-261-56.41.9383.96912.3787772.613532c1b3-261-55.82.1253.94412.2265649.86032c2b3-261-56.02.0003.92012.071,424115.621041a1b4-1201-84.11.6253.96912.371,347133.020041c1b4-1201-85.61.8753.95612.291,04789.915041c2b4-1201-85.91.7503.95712.3080273.711041d1b4-1201-86.22.1253.97312.4055341.77541d2b4-1201-86.52.0003.96712.3680364.410041gb4-1201-87.81.8753.94112.2080169.010441e1b4-1201-86.81.8753.95212.2791578.614042a1b4-2201-89.31.7503.96712.3686879.612042a2b4-2201-89.62.0003.97012.3883466.911542c1b4-2201-90.42.0003.95412.2861349.38042c2b4-2201-90.62.0003.96312.3319615.73042e1b4-2201-91.52.1253.95812.301,07581.421042e2b4-2201-91.72.1253.96412.341,00876.215042g1b4-2201-92.92.0003.97312.401,01181.015042g2b4-2201-93.12.0633.95712.3081263.312061d1b6-222-2.0003.93312.1524820.14061d2b6-222-2.0633.92812.1220215.93861f1b6-222-2.1253.93812.1868352.010061f2b6-222-1.8753.93612.1747440.97361f3b6-222-2.0633.93912.1961948.59061a1b6-222-2.0633.93112.1451640.57261a2b6-222-1.8753.92812.1243937.96561cb6-222-2.3753.92312.0921414.63661e1b6-222-1.8753.93012.1358950.98161e2b6-222-1.7503.94612.231,126103.815971a1hbb-r133-62.41.8753.93212.149,330805.725071a2hbb-r133-62.72.1253.95112.268,126616.224071chbb-r133-63.61.6253.90011.9593593.96571dhbb-r133-64.72.0003.92212.082,872233.118571e1hbb-r133-65.12.5003.92312.091,763114.49571e2hbb-r133-65.42.0633.91612.041,04182.14571f1hbb-r133-65.71.7503.91512.044,827448.530071f2hbb-r133-66.01.6253.91812.061,329132.912572a1hbb-r233-67.41.8753.95312.277,708662.122072a2hbb-r233-67.61.5003.93712.172,325250.614572a3hbb-r233-67.91.8753.94912.253,039261.318072bhbb-r233-68.92.2503.90912.0084661.24072c1hbb-r233-69.01.6253.88511.854,130416.526072c2hbb-r233-69.21.7503.89411.912,111197.212572c3hbb-r233-69.51.8753.86911.7648342.42083ahbb-r331-80.61.7503.92712.112,970275.114583ghbb-r331-84.21.8753.92812.125,704493.015084a1hbb-r431-85.82.1883.91712.058,907661.825584a2hbb-r431-85.91.8753.91412.0310,037870.728584a3hbb-r431-86.21.7503.91712.057,943737.720584bhbb-r431-86.61.8753.91212.028,324722.4220 b3-b6 are from Choctawhatchee SR10 and hbb are from Hallandale Beach Bridge

PAGE 99

75 Table 4.4 Summary of Split Tensile Tests for Field Limestone Cores (SR20) Test HoleCoreRunSampleTop Elev.Bottom Elev.RecoveryRQDLengthDia.Shear AreaQqtFailure StrainTime to Failureftft%%ininin2lbspsiin/insec13A-35.86-40.8661.729.21.0741.7631.8937.212.50.0445912313B-35.86-40.8661.729.21.0211.7171.75407.3147.90.0562823913C-35.86-40.8661.729.21.1061.7261.9113.24.40.04350-15A-45.86-50.8660.035.01.1341.7602.001300.4414.80.0730910215B-45.86-50.8660.035.01.0101.7571.772398.3860.40.0918020615C-45.86-50.8660.035.01.1851.7522.081937.0593.90.1008120216A-50.86-55.8641.717.51.1881.7412.071551.8477.60.0863532016B-50.86-55.8641.717.51.2061.7632.131947.0583.00.0846215016C-50.86-55.8641.717.51.3121.7562.301512.2417.80.0840711016D-50.86-55.8641.717.50.9771.7351.70730.0274.20.0617612016E-50.86-55.8641.717.50.9721.7391.6952.519.80.014192516F-50.86-55.8641.717.51.0881.7581.9173.424.40.021193022A-34.26-39.2630.00.01.0631.7571.87378.6129.00.03501-24B-44.30-49.3050.015.00.9931.7671.751623.8589.20.0828214824C-44.30-49.3050.015.00.9151.7571.611161.9460.10.0914116024D-44.30-49.3050.015.01.1001.7631.942361.0775.00.0848214524E-44.30-49.3050.015.00.9981.7591.76762.1276.40.0517411025A-49.50-54.5045.89.20.9651.7671.711106.2413.00.0749714325B-49.50-54.5045.89.21.1021.7571.942622.9862.40.0978815125C-49.50-54.5045.89.21.0461.7621.843011.71040.30.1057918825D-49.50-54.5045.89.20.8911.7621.57731.4296.60.0521310025E-49.50-54.5045.89.21.0411.7591.831610.0559.70.0956313325F-49.50-54.5045.89.20.8971.7701.59453.4181.80.0689311733A-33.82-38.8212.50.01.0041.7671.77328.3117.80.045238434A-38.90-43.9035.09.21.0541.6971.7922.98.10.022427635A-43.82-48.8218.30.00.9951.6451.6423.08.90.020108936A-48.90-53.9018.30.01.1141.7101.9042.514.20.023998237A-53.82-58.8273.322.51.0631.7571.873852.81313.30.1349020737B-53.82-58.8273.322.51.2041.7692.131554.3464.60.1068720037C-53.82-58.8273.322.51.2271.7612.161469.4432.90.1105621337D-53.82-58.8273.322.51.2211.7512.14145.543.30.0263312537E-53.82-58.8273.322.51.2071.7472.1128.88.70.0250310937F-53.82-58.8273.322.51.2631.7372.1928.38.20.0252711841A-28.65-33.6530.08.31.2611.7592.22278.179.80.0499913643A-38.65-43.6527.50.01.1401.7131.9523.07.50.0458710544A-43.75-48.7548.820.81.2791.6732.1414.94.40.0455012844B-43.75-48.7548.820.81.1621.7141.9922.67.20.0354311645A-49.00-54.0026.76.71.0861.7281.8830.810.40.0249110245C-49.00-54.0026.76.70.9401.6831.5826.710.80.0244616345D-49.00-54.0026.76.71.0131.7591.78466.1166.50.0492312446A-54.02-59.0265.853.61.1701.7492.0547.514.80.024823846B-54.02-59.0265.853.61.1161.7431.9556.618.50.021645246C-54.02-59.0265.853.61.0881.7281.8863.821.60.020284746D-54.02-59.0265.853.61.0501.7551.8434.912.00.014734846E-54.02-59.0265.853.61.0191.7451.7823.88.50.010349046F-54.02-59.0265.853.61.0571.7371.8434.512.00.012449246G-54.02-59.0265.853.61.1021.7211.9037.812.70.01940128

PAGE 100

76 4.5 Test Results The SR20 field cores tested for this research were taken during coring for the PMT test holes. There were a total of 23 unconfined compression tests and 47 split tensile tests performed that were used to show relationships between modulus versus unconfined compressive strength (Figure 4.5) and split tensile strength versus unconfined compressive strength (Figure 4.7). Both correlations indicate high R 2 values with the bias = 1.07, 0.92 and coefficient of variation (COV) = 47.4%, 69.4% respectively. Also of interest is how well the cores taken at Pier locations 62& 69 agree with previous tests performed for the entire site. In Figure 4.7, the two points with question marks represent an unconfined compression sample that failed prematurely; and an extreme mismatch in material type from opposite ends of a core run (recovery=rec.=73.3%). These points were therefore omitted from the statistical analysis. Data obtained from the FDOT State Materials Office (SMO), see Table 4.5, tested along with the site investigation, performed during or prior to the construction of the SR20 Bridge, are used to validate the SR20 field cores taken at Pier locations 62& 69 (from Cepero, 2002). This comparison addresses the potential discrepancy that may exist between the smaller core size (1.75) used for this research versus the larger core size (4 inch) required by the FDOT. These 4 inch cores were tested by the SMO and should not be confused with the cores donated and tested in the Structures Lab at the University of Florida (from the Choctawhatchee SR10 and Hallandale Bridge sites). Figure 4.6 shows that the data from the FDOT falls within the spread of data performed on the SR20 field cores (shown separately in Figure 4.5) and were determined to be

PAGE 101

77 representative of the entire SR20 Bridge Site. The FDOT cores linear trend line (solid line) nearly falls directly on top of the SR20 cores linear trend line (dashed). The combined bias (1.22) and COV (59.8%) can also be found in Figure 4.6. Modulus vs. Unconfined Compressive Strength SR20 Field Cores y = 0.5176xR2 = 0.922402004006008001000120014001600180020000500100015002000250030003500Unconfined Compressive Strength, qu, (psi)Modulus, E (ksi) Lab Test Cores Piers 62 & 69 Bias = 1.07 COV=47.4% Figure 4.5 SR20 Field Cores Modulus vs. Unconfined Compressive Strength

PAGE 102

78 Modulus vs. Unconfined Compressive Strength PMT Test Locations Compared to Entire Site PMT Coresy = 0.5176xR2 = 0.9224 FDOT Coresy = 0.5153xR2 = 0.89910200400600800100012001400160018000500100015002000250030003500Unconfined Compressive Strength, qu, (psi)Modulus, E (ksi) Lab Test Cores Piers 62 & 69 FDOT Core Data Entire Site Linear (Lab Test Cores Piers 62 & 69) Linear (Combined FDOT Cores and PMT Cores) Combined Bias = 1.22 COV=59.8% Figure 4.6 PMT E vs. q u Correlation from SR20 Field Cores Compared to Entire Site Table 4.5 SR20 Test Data from Entire Site Test IdentifierQu (psi)Et (psi)Et (ksi)Blt11424.2114300114Blt21603.7251000251Blt210863.6212100212Blt212737.5715000715Blt213566.7435421435Blt215365.6250000250Blt216389.2107120107Blt217149.64680047Blt218128.62430024Blt219151.35000050Blt22265.58600086Blt222839.7467500468Blt271252.12900029Blt57547.45980060Blt570288.14890049Blt571252.13560036Blt572166.61520015Blt573313.9168300168Blt574389.2238267238Blt575359.8333300333Blt577189.0181200181Blt578126.31780018Blt579129.84000040

PAGE 103

79 Average Split Tensile Strength vs. Unconfined Compressive Strength Lab Test Cores y = 0.2504xR2 = 0.93380100200300400500600700050010001500200025003000Unconfined Compressive Strength qu, (psi)Split Tensile Strength qt, (psi) Lab Test Cores Piers 62 & 69 Bias=0.92 COV=69.4% ?? Figure 4.7 SR20 Field Cores Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Averaged Split Tensile Strength A database of strength and modulus tests for Florida limestone and Gatorock was created by Cepero (2002). From this database, initial correlations between modulus and compressive strength, and between compressive and tensile strength, were developed. The database included rock core tests performed by FDOT consultants during bridge design, tests performed on rock cores at the SMO, and tests performed at UF on both Gatorock samples and rock cores obtained from the SMO. The data came from 5 different bridge sites around Florida, as well as Gatorock and thought to be representative of the variability expected. Field core data from coring the PMT test coreholes (SR20 Field Cores) were included in this database.

PAGE 104

80 The FDOT State Materials Office provided unconfined compression stress-strain data for rock cores from three different drilled shaft projects, including the SR 20 Blountstown Bridge, the US 90 Victory Bridge, and the US 92 Broadway Bridge in Daytona Beach. In addition, strength test results (without strain) were provided for the US 92 Broadway Bridge, SR 10 Choctawhatchee River Bridge, and the SR 30 St. Marks River Bridge. Modulus tests at the UF included Gatorock samples, Gatorock cores, and cores from the Choctawhatchee and Hallandale Beach Bridge (data for the former included in Tables 4.1 and 4.3). As reported by Cepero (2002), most of the limestone from these sites was visually similar in appearance, except for the notable presence of a crystalline structure (probably calcite) in the Hallandale and Victory samples. Figure 4.8 shows the modulus data vs. unconfined compression strength for the sites mentioned above. Trend lines through the data were fit by non-linear least squares regression (not by less accurate regression of linearized data). If the sites containing the visually apparent crystalline structure (Victory and Hallandale) are removed and a new trend line drawn, the correlation coefficient, R 2 improves to 0.62, however, the bias shows no improvement. Due to the large amount of samples contained in this plot (173), and considering the natural variability of different limestone deposits, the scatter of the plot upon the addition of new data is not decreased.

PAGE 105

81 Update Florida Limestone(Includes the Blountstown-PMT Cores) 1 10 100 1000 10000 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Victoryegend Blountstown Broadway Gatorock Choctawhatchee Hallandale All Data (173 pts)Et = 6410 qu0.7549R2 = 0.311bias, = 0.914COV = 106.2%w/o Victory or Hallandale (143 pts)Et = 496.5qu1.050R2 = 0.61bias, = 1.209COV = 144.5%Blountstown-PMT Unconfined Compressive Strength, qu, psiInitial Tangent Modulus, Et, psi Figure 4.8 Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Modulus The comparison highlights the differences between the Victory and Hallandale Bridge Sites from the rest of the Sites. As can be seen from the Table 4.6, the COV increases after the addition of the Blountstown-PMT cores but the bias decreases slightly. However, upon the exclusion of the Victory and Hallandale Bridge Sites, the bias and COV both increase.

PAGE 106

82 Table 4.6 Bias and COV Change for E vs. q u Correlation All Dataw/o Victory or HallandaleAll Dataw/o Victory or HallandaleBias0.9621.3820.9141.209COV (%)103.5151.8106.2144.5Before Updating Plot with Blountstown-PMT Data After Updating Plot with Blountstown-PMT Data Figure 4.9 shows the same Bridge Sites as shown in the previous figure, with the addition of the St. Marks Bridge core data, but as a comparison between tensile and compressive strengths. Contrary to the modulus tests, these tests must be performed on separate samples from the same core. Splitting tensile tests are run on smaller samples also, and results are more greatly affected by discontinuities in the rock, test sample preparation, and test support conditions. Therefore, higher variability is expected. The data are plotted on a semi-log plot with a best-fit power series curve. Despite the scatter in Figure 4.9, the best-fit formula shown is nearly identical to the ACI Building Code formula (ACI 318-95) relating tensile to compressive strength for concrete, as previously pointed out by Cepero (2002). The addition of the Blountstown-PMT data to this correlation plot actually improved the relationship (see Figure 4.9 for equation) given by the power series curve fit to the data as compared to the ACI equation (Equation 4.2): 'cctf7.6f (4.2)

PAGE 107

83 Updated Florida Limestone(Includes the Blountstown-PMT Cores) 10 100 1000 10000 100000 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750Victory Blountstown Gatorock Choctwhatchee Hallandale Broadway St.Marks All Data (401 pts)qt = 6.744 qu0.5R2 = 0.386bias, = 0.908COV = 88.8%Blountstown-PMT Unconfined Compressive Strength, qu, psiSplitting Tensile Strength, qt, psi Figure 4.9 Unconfined Compression Strength vs. Split Tensile Strength FDOT Bridge Sites Table 4.7 shows the change in the bias and COV upon the addition of the Blountstown-PMT data. Both the bias and COV were increased slightly, however, the correlation coefficient, R 2 was also increased. The same data found in Figure 4.10 is alternatively shown as site averages for modulus and strength plotted on an arithmetic scale in Figure 4.10.

PAGE 108

84 Table 4.7 Bias and COV Change for q t vs. q u Correlation BiasCOV (%)Before Updating Plot with Blountstown-PMT Data After Updating Plot with Blountstown-PMT Data 0.89285.60.90888.8 Updated Site Averages for Florida Limestone(Includes the Blountstown-PMT Cores) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500All Data (401 pts)qt = 6.744 qu0.5R2 = 0.386bias, = 0.901COV = 88.8%Victory (70 pts) Blountstown (82 pts) Broadway (110 pts) Gatorock (18 pts) Choctawhatchee (74 pts) Hallandale (4 pts) St.Marks (28 pts) Blountstown (15 pts) Unconfined Compressive Strength, qu, psiSplitting Tensile Strength, qt, psi Figure 4.10 Unconfined Compression vs. Tension Strength, Site Averages

PAGE 109

85 The data correlations in Figures 4.8-4.10 contain considerable scatter, much of which may be unavoidable. Possible reasons for this scatter include: 1. Variability of the limestone samples, especially within the samples matched for each q u -q t comparison. 2. Testing uncertainty, especially in correcting the modulus values for tests performed without a compressometer. 3. Site to site variation in the property correlations. Stiffness and strength are generally considered to be independent variables. While both the q u -q t and q u -E correlations seem reasonable, both also have relatively high variation in their bias. A quick check of the data indicates that the variability can be reduced if each site is analyzed individually. In summary, the strength parameters obtained from testing the Blountstown-PMT cores are consistent with typical values found throughout the state of Florida. The addition of the new data was found either to be consistent with or to improve the existing strength correlations.

PAGE 110

CHAPTER 5 UNIT SIDE SHEAR PREDICTIONS The previous analyses focused on correlating the PMT test results to strength and stiffness parameters from lab tests of rock cores. The PMT field tests were located adjacent to test shafts for comparison with their measured shear capacity. Test Shafts 5 and 7 at SR20 were chosen for this comparison because of relatively easy access for the drill rig. This chapter compares the PMT strength predictions with the measured unit side shear from these two shafts. As shown in Chapter 4, the PMT tests correlated poorly with the strength parameters from the laboratory strength tests. However, this may not affect the potential of the PMT to estimate unit side shear. As discussed in Chapter 2, the strength parameter method for drilled shaft design is reduced by the core recovery when predicting the unit side shear available in the limestone. The PMT tests a larger volume of the rock insitu, so no reduction (to take into account the bias of core testing toward stronger material) is necessary. Aside from the LPC method, all estimations of unit side shear were obtained using Equation 2.2 given by McVay et al. (1992) repeated here as Equation 5.1: tusuqqf21 (5.1) 86

PAGE 111

87 Note that Equation 5.1 is based on the cohesion intercept for a c-f geomaterial and implies at least partially drained behavior. Although analysis of the PMT data in Chapter 3 assume undrained behavior to calculate q u the true drainage conditions surrounding the pressuremeter may be either drained or undrained. Therefore, all methods of predicting q u have been intended for calculation of f su The side shear values reported by Dames and Moore for SR20 Osterberg Load Tests (Sharpe, 1998) are shown in Figures 5.1-5.4 for comparison with the PMT estimates. Each predicted q u from PMT test results was combined with the tensile strength estimated from either the cracking pressure, p cr (Figures 5.1 and 5.2), or the following q u -q t correlation (Figures 5.3 and 5.4): utq6.744q (5.2) Equation 5.2 was the best-fit power series curve through q u and q t data obtained from bridge sites in the state of Florida (see Figure 4.9).

PAGE 112

88 SR20 Side Shear DistributionTest Shaft #5 (6-ft Dia.) Pier 62 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0Measured Unit Side Shear (Dames &Moore) Lab qu & qt to fsu Reduced by Recovery (bias=2.83 COV=N/A) qu=py (bias=0.27 COV=50.7%) qu = 2*cu (cu from Gib. & Ander.) (bias=0.25 COV=46.7%) qu=2*cu=py-po(bias=0.35 COV=54.7%) qu=2*cu from cu=p*L/ (bias=0.35 COV=50.8%) LPC PMT Method (bias=0.73 COV=58.5%) Ultimate Unit Side Shear fsu, (tsf)Elevation, (ft) Figure 5.1 Unit Side Shear Distribution Estimates, Test Shaft 5, (q t =p cr -2 h )

PAGE 113

89 SR20 Side Shear DistributionTest Shaft #7 (5-ft Dia.) Pier 69 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0Measured Unit Side Shear (Dames &Moore) Lab qu & qt to fsu Reduced by Recovery (bias=7.59 COV=83.2%) qu=py (bias=0.27 COV=63.7%) qu = 2*cu (cu from Gib. & Ander.) (bias=0.33 COV=59.4%) qu=2*cu=py-po(bias=0.27 COV=40.8%) qu=2*cu from cu=p*L/ (bias=0.45 COV=57.6%) LPC PMT Method (bias=0.87 COV=63.9%) Ultimate Unit Side Shear fsu, (tsf)Elevation, (ft) Figure 5.2 Unit Side Shear Distribution Estimates, Test Shaft 7, (q t =p cr -2 h ) Inspection of Figure 5.1-5.4 indicates better PMT side shear predictions using Equation 5.2 rather than the cracking pressure. Inaccuracies in the determination of h greatly affect the resulting q t due to the low limit pressures measured at the SR20 Site. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 were included only to illustrate the differences in scatter between the two parameters. The remainder of the discussion will focus on Figures 5.3 and 5.4.

PAGE 114

90 SR20 Side Shear DistributionTest Shaft #5 (6-ft Dia.) Pier 62 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0Measured Unit Side Shear (Dames &Moore) Lab qu & qt to fsu Reduced by Recovery (bias=2.83 COV=N/A) qu=py (bias=0.27 COV=50.7%) qu = 2*cu (cu from Gib. & Ander.) (bias=0.25 COV=46.7%) qu=2*cu=py-po(bias=0.35 COV=54.7%) qu=2*cu from cu=p*L/ (bias=0.35 COV=50.8%) LPC PMT Method (bias=0.73 COV=58.5%) Ultimate Unit Side Shear fsu, (tsf)Elevation, (ft) Figure 5.3 Unit Side Shear Distribution Estimates, Test Shaft 5, (q t =6.744q u 0.5 ) The LPC Method, initially developed by Menard, seems to best approximate the measured unit side shear of the shaft. This empirical method displayed the best bias (0.73 and 0.87) and the lowest COV (58.5% and 63.9%) for Test Shafts 5 and 7 respectively.

PAGE 115

91 SR20 Side Shear DistributionTest Shaft #7 (5-ft Dia.) Pier 69 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0Measured Unit Side Shear (Dames &Moore) Lab qu & qt to fsu Reduced by Recovery (bias=7.59 COV=83.2%) qu=py (bias=0.27 COV=63.7%) qu = 2*cu (cu from Gib. & Ander.) (bias=0.33 COV=59.4%) qu=2*cu=py-po(bias=0.27 COV=40.8%) qu=2*cu from cu=p*L/ (bias=0.45 COV=57.6%) LPC PMT Method (bias=0.87 COV=63.9%) Ultimate Unit Side Shear fsu, (tsf)Elevation, (ft) Figure 5.4 Unit Side Shear Distribution Estimates, Test Shaft 7, (q t =6.744q u 0.5 ) Equation 2.17 from Briaud (1992) produced the best estimation of unit side shear compared to other c u methods. This estimate is not as good as the LPC Method but may be viable with a (bias = 0.64, 0.86) and a (COV = 58.3%, 68.9%) for Test Shafts 5 and 7 respectively.

PAGE 116

92 Table 5.1 shows a summary of the side shear predictions. The average unit side shear measured for Test Shafts 5 &7 was 2.09tsf. This measurement only applies to piers 62 and 67, respectively, and does not reflect the average measured unit side friction for the entire site (a comparison can be found in Table 5.2). The LPC Method of using the pressuremeter limit pressure, p L to predict unit side shear gave to best approximation compared to the other methods. The LPC Method is empirical, but has been well calibrated with five revisions over 25 years, mainly through updates of the load test database from which it was established. Both Test Shafts 5 and 7 were over-reamed because of construction delays (3 days for Test Shaft 5 and 9 days for Test Shaft 7). Due to the relatively long construction times, use of slurry, and unknown over-remaining effectiveness, the SR20 shafts probably represent a lower bound for the potential side shear at the SR20 Site. Additional comparisons at other test sites will be needed to verify the method bias values shown on the plots.

PAGE 117

93 Table 5.1 Summary of Unit Side Shear Measured**fs*Rec.Test HoleElevationfsufsufsufsufsufsufsuftts f ts f ts f ts f tsftsfts f 1-28.450.907.426.165.514.393.261-32.550.906.947.267.085.023.341-35.903.801.348.4310.995.886.534.331-40.701-46.6026.777.313.141-49.9020.056.626.193.424.233.211-52.209.938.407.809.465.793.722-28.902-33.303.807.567.894.694.693.462-35.903.807.307.429.025.413.422-38.603.802-43.502-47.5018.694.835.552.732-48.5018.465.826.002.682-50.5016.035.204.403.232.992.543-29.905.306.515.643.683.392.853-31.405.303-33.755.303-36.501.603-42.921.700.696.045.343.543.352.783-46.001.706.496.585.134.173.063-48.501.708.524.393.223-54.653.856.398.346.825.613.544-29.905.300.378.794.933.574-31.925.300.376.734.203.254-36.401.607.977.765.634.823.524-41.151.607.777.2210.005.603.494-46.001.700.446.635.545.624.133.034-49.001.700.637.425.495.434.153.174-54.651.305.382.784-58.601.186.104.796.263.892.81# of data5155655Avg. bias*-6.800.330.380.420.610.68 of bias-5.970.200.240.380.410.56COV (%)-87.861.362.189.166.881.1 (tsf)1.729.351.001.512.060.900.40Mean (tsf)2.098.016.836.805.914.583.20* bias not shown for each unit side shear calculated above. To find the bias, divide the measuredside shear by the predicted unit side shear. An average of those values are summarized as "Avg. bias"** Measured quantities are from load tests performed on Test Shafts 5 & 7 only.qu=2*cu (G&A)qu=2*cu= 2*(py-po)qu from p*LLPCTest Shafts 5&7qu = py

PAGE 118

94 Table 5.2 Predicted vs. Measured Unit Side Shear for Site compared to Test Shafts 5 & 7 Site Predicted (6 test shsfts)fs*Rec.qu = pyqu=2*cu (G&A)qu=2*cu= 2*(py-po)qu from p*LLPCfsfsfsfsfsfsfstsftsftsftsftsftsftsfMeasured4.32.092.092.092.092.092.09Predicted2.7*8.016.836.805.914.583.20 Predicted unit side shear for the 6 test shafts as performed as decribed in Chapter 2 Section2.2Test Shafts 5 & 7

PAGE 119

CHAPTER 6 SITE VARIABILITY The PMT prediction of core strength was poor. This may be due to high point variability and explains why the estimation of side shear using the strength method proposed by McVay et al (1992) with the SR20 field cores was poor compared to using the entire site measured values. High variability of q u and q t across the site is apparently random. Figure 6.1 shows the frequency distribution of qu from the site along with the qu estimates from the PMT. The figure shows that the frequency distribution of the site is significantly different and lower than the predictions. However, the distribution of the SR20 field cores q u appears to nearly match the mode of the site q u The mode is the most frequently occurring Frequency Distribution for Blountstown qu Predictions051015202530354045020040060080010001200Unconfined Compressive Strength, qu (psi)Frequency Blountstown Site qu qu from py qu from pL qu from cu (G&A) SR20 Field Core qu Figure 6.1 Frequency Distribution for Blountstown PMT q u Predictions 95

PAGE 120

96 of the q u or q t It can be obtained from the frequency distribution plot by taking the q u or q t at the peak of the curve. This may be an indication of the randomness that exists when taking point measurements. The difference between using the mean rather than the mode is illustrated by Table 6.1 where the unit skin friction is calculated using both the mean and the mode of the field core data from Figures 6.1 and 6.2 Table 6.1 Mean and Mode Calculation of Unit Skin Friction for Test Shafts 5 & 7 quqtfsPredicted fsMeasured fspsipsipsitsftsfMode1002022.41.61Mean887.9187.3203.914.682.09Method The frequency distribution of the predicted q t from the PMT is nearly uniform (see Figure 6.2). The q t from the SR20 field cores, consistent with the q u distribution, also shows a similar mode. Frequency Distribution for Blountstown qt Predictions010203040506070800100200300400500600Tensile Strength, qt (psi)Frequency Blountstown Site qt qt from pcr SR20 Field Core qt Figure 6.2 Frequency Distribution for Blountstown PMT q t Predictions

PAGE 121

97 The frequency distribution for the pressuremeter modulus, E m shows a displaced mode (see Figure 6.3). A representative modulus for the site cores was calculated using the correlation shown in Figure 4.6 between the q u and E data from the entire site combined with the SR20 field cores. The lower mode shown from the SR20 field cores may be an indication that the PMT measures the mass modulus instead of a point measurement as the unconfined compression test of cores. Frequency Distribution for Blountstown for PMT Modulus 051015202530050100150200250300Moulus, E, (ksi)Frequecy Correlated Blountstown Site E PMT Modulus Figure 6.3 Frequency Distribution for Pressuremeter Modulus versus Correlated Modulus from Site q u In summary, the frequency distribution of the PMT data does not match that of the site core data or the field core data. The field core data showed a similar mode as the site core data but with a much higher mean. This may be a possible indication of the randomness of the formation as the point values of qu and qt

PAGE 122

98 can be significantly different from the mean of the site cores. This explains the poor predictions of q u q t E, and f s as summarized in Table 6.2. Proper unit side shear predictions should be based on a statistical method that accounts for the frequency distribution. The McVay et al. Method for unit side shear uses a statistical approach for all of the q u and q t data on the site. Table 6.2 Unit Side Shear Measured vs. Predicted Summary Site Predicted (6 test shsfts)fs*Rec.qu = pyqu=2*cu (G&A)qu=2*cu= 2*(py-po)qu from p*LLPCfsfsfsfsfsfsfstsftsftsftsftsftsftsfMeasured4.32.092.092.092.092.092.09Predicted2.7*8.016.836.805.914.583.20 Predicted unit side shear for the 6 test shafts performed as decribed in Chapter 2 Section2.2Test Shafts 5 & 7

PAGE 123

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Conclusions 7.1.1 Laboratory Strength Measurements 1. The NX core lab test correlation between q u and q t at SR20 gave a high correlation coefficient, (R 2 =0.93), a good bias (0.92), and a reasonable COV (69.4%), indicating a good correlation between these two parameters. 2. Lab test correlations between q u and E were similarly successful, giving a correlation coefficient of (R 2 =0.92), a bias of (1.07), and a COV of (47.2%) 3. Strength parameters measured on cores from the Blountstown site were added to the existing q t vs. q u and E vs. q u databases for Florida. The new Blountstown data fell within the original spread of data but general correlations for Florida are much less reliable. 7.1.2 PMT Tests 1. The Probe Pressuremeter test in Florida limestone was successfully used in Florida limestone. Of the 31 tests performed, 24 were interpretable giving a success rate exceeding 75%. The failed tests may be due to improper coring techniques, but may also reflect poor quality of the limestone. 2. The importance of a quality hole for PMT tests is important to the success of obtaining important parameters (c u and p L ) past the yield pressure. The limit pressure, especially, cannot be accurately estimated without sufficient post yield data. When testing in non-homogeneous material, proper coring techniques are essential. The flow rate should be as low as possible, while still maintaining a positive flow out the top of the casing. Cuttings settling to the bottom of the corehole should be expected and accounted for when selecting core depths with respect to PMT test depths (a minimum of 3 feet should be allowed). 3. The Probex Pressuremeter estimates of insitu horizontal did not follow expected behavior. Possibly due to the combined affects of borehole disturbance and stress removal. 99

PAGE 124

100 4. Frequency distributions of q u q t and E indicate significant variability of these limestone parameters at the SR20 site. A depth trend of these parameters was not identified. 5. The mode of the q t and q u frequency distributions for the NX cores is similar to that of the entire site obtained from 4 inch cores. 6. The PMT predictions of q t are widely scattered and the frequency distribution is very poor compared to the site and NX core distributions of q t 7. The PMT methods over predict q u The mode of the p L method is the closest to the modes of the NX and 4 inch cores. 8. The pressuremeter, E m is significantly lower than core measurements. The frequency distributions are similar in shape but the mode of the E m distribution is lower, possibly due to the influence of soft rock not recovered in the cores. 9. Direct comparison of PMT test measurements with adjacent core tests was generally poor. However, the comparison of frequency distributions is better, which is a possible indication of randomness. 7.1.3 Unit Side Shear Predictions 10. The strength parameter method using point estimates did not accurately predict the unit side shear from the Test Shafts. This is probably due to the lack of a fully populated distribution from which to draw q u and q y values that account for the site variability. 11. Of all the pressuremeter predictions, the empirical LPC PMT Method based on limit pressure and construction methods gave the best estimate of unit side shear. The LPC method is an empirical design method that has benefited from 5 updates to the load test database over 25 years. 12. The PMT lab correlations with Gatorock, though limited, seemed to promise good field correlations. This was not realized at the SR20 site through direct correlations. 7.2 Recommendations 13. Perform additional statistical study comparing side shear estimates with test shaft measurements and core estimates. Check whether the PMT tests can be assumed randomly distributed and develop side shear frequency distributions for comparison.

PAGE 125

101 14. If better comparisons are obtained from the statistical study, then perform additional PMT tests at other sites with shaft and core tests for verification of the PMT correlations.

PAGE 126

APPENDIX A PRESSUREMETER TESTS

PAGE 127

BOREHOLE.NAME = FCAL1/003BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 13:54 11-18-2002PressureVolumeV (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.0800.5910.0070.5843.064103.6650.259103.4066.048109.5650.511109.0548.963114.5500.758113.79212.085119.1171.022118.09515.075122.9941.275121.71918.081126.7751.529125.24621.167130.4721.790128.68224.226134.2552.049132.20627.120137.6742.294135.38030.112141.0792.547138.532 Pre-Test Volume Calibration : Th1 11/18/02 y = 0.786x 79.781R2 = 0.99180510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) A verage Slope = 0.786 MPa/cc 103 Figure A.1 Volume Calibrations, Th1 11/18/02

PAGE 128

BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL1/001BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 09:29 11-19-2002PressureVolume V (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.0450.3240.0040.3203.023116.9940.256116.7386.126123.1840.518122.6669.09128.0540.769127.28512.061132.2711.020131.25115.158136.4181.282135.13618.171140.1641.537138.62721.559144.1741.823142.35124.096147.3882.038145.35027.215150.9642.302148.66229.905154.3622.529151.833BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL1/002BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 17:12 11-19-2002PressureVolume V (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.0530.4080.0040.4043.059108.4160.259108.1576.116114.8530.517114.3369.097120.0680.769119.29912.107124.551.024123.52615.008128.7581.269127.48918.032132.641.525131.11521.199136.9011.793135.10824.105140.2112.039138.17227.029143.9012.286141.61530.238147.7262.557145.169 Pre-Test Volume Calibration : Th1 11/19/02 y = 0.7876x 90.468R2 = 0.99260510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Post Test Volume Calibration : Th1 11/19/02 y = 0.7491x 79.58R2 = 0.99110510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) A verage Slope = 0.7684 MPa/cc 104 Figure A.2 Volume Calibrations, Th1 11/19/02

PAGE 129

BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL2/002BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 09:20 11-20-2002PressureVolume (a) V (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.0490.5660.0040.5623.018115.2530.255114.9986.027121.6420.510121.1329.019126.7210.763125.95812.111131.3661.024130.34215.429135.7361.305134.43118.185139.3041.538137.76621.066142.6541.782140.872BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL2/003BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 12:08 11-20-2002PressureVolume (a) V (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.0670.6700.0060.6643.032108.6610.256108.4056.073115.0090.514114.4959.025120.2440.763119.48112.062124.9081.020123.88815.033129.0321.271127.76118.072133.0651.528131.53721.073136.6821.782134.90024.041140.3782.033138.34527.098144.0832.292141.79130.030147.5892.540145.049 Pre-Test Volume Calibration : Th1 11/20/02 y = 0.7026x 78.768R2 = 0.98880510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Post Test Volume Calibration : Th1 11/20/02 y = 0.7524x 80.179R2 = 0.99050510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) 105 Figure A.3 Volume Calibrations, Th1 11/20/02

PAGE 130

BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL2/004BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 12:26 11-20-2002PressureVolume (a) V (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.0611.0800.0051.0752.975109.7550.252109.5036.056116.2420.512115.7309.145121.0140.773120.24112.083125.3301.022124.30814.790129.3311.251128.08018.016133.2651.524131.74120.942137.0321.771135.26126.004142.3682.199140.16927.380144.4692.316142.153 Post Test Volume Calibration : Th1 11/20/02 y = 0.7693x 82.791R2 = 0.98950510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) A verage Slope = 0.741 MPa / cc Figure A.3 Continued 106

PAGE 131

BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL3/002BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 09:54 11-21-2002PressureVolumeV (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.067-0.830.006-0.8363.071108.450.260108.1906.064115.370.513114.8579.066120.5780.767119.81112.451125.9211.053124.86815.069129.2421.274127.96818.165133.131.536131.59421.125137.1781.787135.39124.052140.7432.034138.70927.271144.9432.306142.63730.043148.2092.541145.668BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL3/003BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 10:09 11-21-2002PressureVolumeV (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.2260.490.0190.4713.033110.2390.257109.9825.838116.2860.494115.7929.201121.7030.778120.92512.185126.0711.030125.04115.186129.9851.284128.70118.054133.6581.527132.13121.079137.4741.783135.69124.252141.282.051139.22927.188144.9532.299142.654 Pre-Test Volume Calibration : Th2 11/21/02 y = 0.7407x 78.886R2 = 0.98980510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Pre-Test Volume Calibration : Th2 11/21/02 y = 0.7572x 81.648R2 = 0.99160510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) 107 Figure A.4 Volume Calibrations, Th2 11/21/02

PAGE 132

BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL3/007BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 16:07 11-21-2002PressureVolumeV (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.055-0.350.005-0.3552.998105.0670.254104.8136.069111.4280.513110.9159.023116.7730.763116.01012.128121.2861.026120.26015.084125.2391.276123.96318.371129.3791.554127.82521.047133.0231.780131.24324.127136.8492.040134.80927.116140.3582.293138.06529.99143.9842.536141.448 Post Test Volume Calibration : Th2 11/21/02 y = 0.7555x 77.788R2 = 0.99160510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) A verage Slope = 0.751 MPa/cc Figure A.4 Continued 108

PAGE 133

BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL4/002BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 09:42 11-25-2002PressureVolumeV (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.1860.5450.0160.5293.03897.0790.25796.8226.205103.7860.525103.2619.019108.3330.763107.57012.614113.4091.067112.34215.035116.4611.272115.18918.943121.3021.602119.70021.078123.9891.783122.20624.065127.7322.035125.69727.212131.5692.301129.26830.211134.9212.555132.366BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL4/003BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 09:56 11-25-2002PressureVolumeV (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.0380.3630.0030.3602.99497.6000.25397.3476.593104.4170.558103.8599.519109.2480.805108.44312.049112.9821.019111.96315.008116.8291.269115.56018.049120.8991.526119.37321.126124.5811.787122.79424.051128.2742.034126.24027.002132.1392.284129.85529.882135.6192.527133.092 Pre-Test Volume Calibration : Th2 11/25/02 y = 0.7845x 74.61R2 = 0.99180510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Pre-Test Volume Calibration : Th2 11/25/02 y = 0.7704x 73.39R2 = 0.99390510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) 109 Figure A.5 Volume Calibrations, Th2 11/25/02

PAGE 134

BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL4/007BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 15:41 11-25-2002PressureVolumeV (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.0520.2720.0040.2683.05690.0840.25889.8266.06496.2450.51395.7329.018101.2030.763100.44012.019105.7781.016104.76215.060109.9261.274108.65218.065113.7371.528112.20922.027119.0441.863117.18127.080125.0562.290122.76629.997129.0342.537126.497BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL4/008BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 15:54 11-25-2002PressureVolumeV (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.0980.4650.0080.4573.11890.9920.26490.7285.98697.3670.50696.8618.937102.1930.756101.43712.391106.8631.048105.81515.120110.7011.279109.42217.856114.5291.510113.01924.106122.1142.039120.07526.996125.9882.283123.70530.087129.5902.544127.046 Post Test Volume Calibration : Th2 11/25/02 y = 0.7538x 66.099R2 = 0.99290510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Post Test Volume Calibration : Th2 11/25/02 y = 0.7633x 67.737R2 = 0.99260510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) A verage Slope = 0.768 Mpa/cc 110 Figure A.5 Continued

PAGE 135

BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL5/002BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 09:21 12-04-2002PressureVolume (a) V (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.1840.8150.0160.7993.095106.3850.262106.1235.872112.7120.497112.21511.875121.8201.004120.81615.163126.1951.282124.91318.298129.9591.547128.41220.817133.8421.760132.08224.054137.8262.034135.79227.163141.3102.297139.01329.978144.8022.535142.267BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL5/005BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 16:44 12-04-2002PressureVolume (a) V (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.2860.3350.0240.3113.02896.9170.25696.6616.153103.5300.520103.0109.074108.6140.767107.84712.004113.0891.015112.07414.971117.4381.266116.17218.259121.8491.544120.30521.349125.5631.805123.75824.049129.2282.034127.19427.144132.8602.296130.56430.008136.4732.538133.935 Pre-Test Volume Calibration : th3 12/04/02 y = 0.7583x 78.825R2 = 0.99250510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Post Test Volume Calibration : th3 12/04/02 y = 0.7402x 70.11R2 = 0.99160510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) A verage Slope = 0.749 Mpa/cc 111 Figure A.6 Volume Calibrations, Th3 12/04/02

PAGE 136

BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL6/001BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 08:44 12-05-2002PressureVolume (a)V (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.0250.0060.0020.0043.106105.1020.263104.8396.246111.6820.528111.1548.920116.5200.754115.76612.163121.4971.029120.46814.937125.4031.263124.14021.088133.1221.783131.33924.451137.0862.068135.01828.970143.1132.450140.663BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL6/005BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 16:39 12-05-2002PressureVolume (a)V (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.2520.6050.0210.5843.05698.8610.25898.6035.885105.1950.498104.6978.977110.7910.759110.03212.222115.5571.034114.52317.841123.7591.509122.25020.651127.5851.746125.83927.385135.9262.316133.61030.266139.4292.560136.869 Pre-Test Volume Calibration : Th3 12/05/02 y = 0.7404x 76.023R2 = 0.99010510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Post Test Volume Calibration : Th3 12/05/02 y = 0.724x 69.862R2 = 0.99120510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) A verage Slope = 0.736 Mpa/cc 112 Figure A.7 Volume Calibrations, Th3 12/05/02

PAGE 137

BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL6/001BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 08:44 12-05-2002PressureVolume (a)V (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.0250.0060.0020.0043.106105.1020.263104.8396.246111.6820.528111.1548.920116.5200.754115.76612.163121.4971.029120.46814.937125.4031.263124.14021.088133.1221.783131.33924.451137.0862.068135.01828.970143.1132.450140.663BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL6/005BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 16:39 12-05-2002PressureVolume (a)V (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.2520.6050.0210.5843.05698.8610.25898.6035.885105.1950.498104.6978.977110.7910.759110.03212.222115.5571.034114.52317.841123.7591.509122.25020.651127.5851.746125.83927.385135.9262.316133.61030.266139.4292.560136.869 Pre-Test Volume Calibration : Th4 12/05/02 y = 0.7404x 76.023R2 = 0.9901y = 0.7404x 76.023R2 = 0.99010510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Post Test Volume Calibration : Th4 12/05/02 y = 0.724x 69.862R2 = 0.9912y = 0.724x 69.862R2 = 0.99120510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) A verage Slope = 0.736 Mpa/cc 113 Figure A.8 Volume Calibrations, Th4 12/05/02

PAGE 138

BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL7/001BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 08:55 12-09-2002PressureVolume (a)V (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.2370.8870.0200.8672.422105.7030.205105.4986.186113.8370.523113.3148.885118.6420.751117.89112.145123.2921.027122.26515.219127.4761.287126.18917.729131.0311.499129.53221.162134.8181.790133.02823.986138.8232.028136.79527.471143.2232.323140.90030.446146.7722.575144.197BOREHOLE.NAME = TCAL7/004BOREHOLE.TRANSDUCER = PROBEXBOREHOLE.TYPE = CalibrationDATASET.SYSTEM = MetricDATASET.DEPTH = 1.0DATASET.DELAY = 60DATASET.DATE = 14:34 12-09-2002PressureVolume (a)V (b)Volume (a-b)MPacccccc0.1590.0990.0130.0863.17699.2610.26998.9926.343106.0240.536105.4889.378111.6420.793110.84912.741116.5101.078115.43215.080119.9181.275118.64317.989124.3621.521122.84122.912130.5511.938128.61327.143135.8072.295133.51230.303139.5712.563137.008 Pre-Test Volume Calibration : Th4 12/09/02 y = 0.7459x 78.132R2 = 0.9901y = 0.7459x 78.132R2 = 0.99010510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Post Test Volume Calibration : Th4 12/09/02 y = 0.7256x 70.256R2 = 0.99030510152025300100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) A verage Slope = 0.736 Mpa/cc 114 Figure A.9 Volume Calibrations, Th4 12/09/02

PAGE 139

115 P V MPacc0.30654.2780.563103.7500.754154.9470.961221.0071.078251.7091.219303.7091.317352.7721.426402.4321.511450.8711.603500.1191.700550.9491.791600.3681.875650.83011/18/02 12:18 PMFCAL1/001 Average Pressure Calibration : Th1 11/08/020.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) P = -2.53e-06V2 + 0.00442V R2 = 1.0 Figure A.10 Pressure Calibrations, Th1 11/08/02

PAGE 140

116 P V MPacc0.28652.4250.571100.1020.810155.1110.965200.5201.089252.7951.198306.2781.284352.4221.374400.2501.403450.7201.473513.2961.525552.1011.590605.5241.640649.54111/19/02 5:35 PMTCAL1/003 Average Pressure Calibration : Th1 11/19/020.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) P = -3.53e-06V2 + 0.00472V R2 = 1.0 Figure A.11 Pressure Calibrations, Th1 11/19/02

PAGE 141

117 P V P V MPaccMPacc0.19352.6360.18957.3240.409101.5930.382101.3800.639150.4910.597150.6330.836204.8780.821200.2651.014249.9970.959251.1531.122301.6431.154300.2771.227350.5231.268353.5781.331404.0961.323400.9721.393452.3831.478451.8801.492503.0371.480500.7901.561550.2651.541550.6351.677600.1561.601600.6311.691650.2111.627650.61511/20/02 8:52 AM11/20/02 9:38 PMTCAL2/001CK1/001 Average Pressure Calibration : Th1 11/20/020.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) P = -3.62e-06V2 + 0.00487V R2= 1.0 Figure A.12 Pressure Calibrations, Th1 11/20/02

PAGE 142

118 P V P V P V P V P V MPaccMPaccMPaccMPaccMPacc0.16351.1230.09551.3470.12755.0420.23252.7140.20451.1200.350100.4840.22197.9660.23299.9740.431100.5540.391103.8860.562150.2130.518150.3710.449158.0910.639152.7150.556151.3930.750203.9360.583197.5370.636200.7960.791201.3940.706200.4400.892250.5530.695243.6040.802253.9110.926253.6401.015250.1921.039303.9750.839295.6210.950305.5121.035304.1300.973300.0651.110351.8650.965343.4301.119351.3741.126350.3701.121350.1291.210401.4331.069395.8581.187402.0141.265400.1041.194401.2101.293450.7271.153447.9721.301452.6991.348454.0181.277451.2001.387502.7441.303500.9551.515500.2371.328500.8141.356500.3721.485554.9381.381548.6951.551551.0031.481551.5501.407549.6981.560601.8031.466601.9291.603601.8371.567600.1141.482600.1661.640650.3701.532651.0181.716652.0091.620650.4691.555650.27411/21/02 4:32 PMTCAL3/008TCAL3/001TCAL3/004TCAL3/005TCAL3/00611/21/02 9:14 AM11/21/02 10:25 AM11/21/02 10:43 AM11/21/02 3:31 PM Average Pressure Calibration : Th2 11/21/0200.20.40.60.811.21.41.61.820100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Figure A.13 Pressure Calibrations, Th2 11/21/02

PAGE 143

119 P V P V P V P V P V MPaccMPaccMPaccMPaccMPacc0.21051.2930.20556.5750.22851.0440.14953.0110.13552.1650.437100.5600.402104.1090.433103.3120.329100.6600.288101.2590.673155.9900.671157.2020.617150.3960.530151.3560.472151.4000.844200.5880.856201.5520.760200.7940.693202.3980.665204.8020.990252.2171.008252.1060.893250.1510.823252.2920.825252.8101.112304.6261.112303.5400.999303.6040.937301.6671.027301.1711.226350.6761.202350.5281.074351.6051.036357.2991.085349.9871.313401.7821.307401.4681.166406.4711.095402.7321.180402.0751.362451.7831.386453.0781.221450.7171.182455.0741.250453.8251.493501.2201.491502.1891.264501.4601.247500.8241.329500.8611.554550.4681.537551.7701.329551.1771.326552.8761.367552.5131.645600.2441.627602.9821.351600.8081.406602.1401.401600.2751.666649.1471.731650.2961.436652.5001.466651.492--11/25/02 4:09 PMTCAL4/001TCAL4/004TCAL4/005TCAL4/006TCAL4/00911/25/02 9:09 AM11/25/02 10:14 AM11/25/02 2:50 PM11/25/02 3:10 PM Average Pressure Calibration : Th2 11/25/020.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) P = 2.91e-06V2 + 0.00423V R2 = 1.0 Figure A.14 Pressure Calibrations, Th2 11/25/02

PAGE 144

120 P V P V P V P V P V MPaccMPaccMPaccMPaccMPacc0.14652.0960.14355.5000.12557.3940.12550.5160.09558.3990.276100.1970.231101.7070.234100.4920.212101.5270.153101.9980.494154.1840.422150.3410.379150.2950.376145.9880.304151.5530.686200.0770.594200.8440.604200.6130.557199.4680.476199.9270.870250.6840.750254.4430.800252.3780.675249.9270.601248.0941.028300.4930.897301.9020.949300.7900.751297.4160.695298.3461.120350.5331.156354.6591.049356.6520.892349.8280.804349.2401.236401.0831.235400.8271.161400.2920.921394.3620.899398.5691.326450.7681.328452.9471.290452.7361.006448.1300.985447.7231.403500.8551.397500.2001.293503.2921.146503.4801.065498.3041.465550.5011.472551.7701.370550.9041.334550.2881.174553.2381.595600.5931.541601.5291.439602.7751.359602.1671.186597.2201.614650.8261.624650.5531.503651.7131.325649.6561.251648.53912/4/02 5:20 PMTCAL5/007TCAL5/001TCAL5/003TCAL5/004TCAL5/00612/4/02 8:48 AM12/4/02 9:36 AM12/4/02 4:09 PM12/4/02 5:02 PM Average Pressure Calibration : Th3 12/04/020.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) P = 2.0e-06V2 + 0.00371V R2 = 1.0 Figure A.15 Pressure Calibrations, Th3 12/04/02

PAGE 145

121 P V P V P V P V MPaccMPaccMPaccMPacc0.09951.8960.13250.3020.12751.7990.12050.9180.221101.5300.300100.1740.236101.5870.217109.9950.334154.0320.494149.7210.409153.7720.356149.6280.509200.6870.596201.0300.550198.8210.506199.2320.646250.4860.716250.0100.695252.4610.635253.5350.790298.9700.817300.0800.789299.9110.733298.5700.874348.2290.949359.4200.873348.2210.830347.9760.994399.8630.943395.6650.993399.1400.931399.2351.022446.9571.075451.6581.019447.7811.036450.3881.143498.9291.156499.2521.115498.8201.104500.8211.189549.7881.184547.7261.174548.6011.175549.9691.239597.8551.252599.6951.277599.7441.225599.2241.270645.6081.307648.2601.326647.2621.291650.540TCAL6/002TCAL6/003TCAL6/004TCAL6/00612/5/02 9:05 AM12/5/02 11:31 AM12/5/02 1:03 PM12/5/02 4:59 PM Average Pressure Calibration : Th3 12/05/020.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) P = -1.97e-06V2 + 0.00329V R2 = 1.0 Figure A.16 Pressure Calibrations, Th3 12/05/02

PAGE 146

122 PVPVPVPVMPaccMPaccMPaccMPacc0.09951.8960.13250.3020.12751.7990.12050.9180.221101.5300.300100.1740.236101.5870.217109.9950.334154.0320.494149.7210.409153.7720.356149.6280.509200.6870.596201.0300.550198.8210.506199.2320.646250.4860.716250.0100.695252.4610.635253.5350.790298.9700.817300.0800.789299.9110.733298.5700.874348.2290.949359.4200.873348.2210.830347.9760.994399.8630.943395.6650.993399.1400.931399.2351.022446.9571.075451.6581.019447.7811.036450.3881.143498.9291.156499.2521.115498.8201.104500.8211.189549.7881.184547.7261.174548.6011.175549.9691.239597.8551.252599.6951.277599.7441.225599.2241.270645.6081.307648.2601.326647.2621.291650.540TCAL6/002TCAL6/003TCAL6/004TCAL6/00612/5/02 9:05 AM12/5/02 11:31 AM12/5/02 1:03 PM12/5/02 4:59 PM Average Pressure Calibration : Th4 12/05/020.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) P = -1.97e-06V2 + 0.00329V R2 = 1.0 Figure A.17 Pressure Calibrations, Th4 12/05/02

PAGE 147

123 PVPVPVPVMPaccMPaccMPaccMPacc0.09350.4280.09651.2370.12252.7670.08155.6840.182105.8340.163109.7490.209102.4530.137102.1350.301149.8040.297149.9180.368150.2230.282153.9560.487203.6270.476200.7720.517198.2560.430199.5430.618250.8280.629252.9860.609248.7770.559248.1630.724297.1590.715298.6490.716298.0670.679299.1790.857349.2190.869352.2630.815349.5040.769352.7240.921397.8700.900397.3070.894398.4290.856399.5201.001447.3281.039448.7090.960447.3780.943451.8531.109500.3741.052498.1521.065500.0551.013497.4081.217554.6361.201548.5531.108549.1871.101550.8911.278597.9971.307601.4251.232599.9331.143597.7411.341648.5461.338648.3611.198646.0371.218649.124TCAL7/002TCAL7/003TCAL7/005TCAL7/00612/9/02 2:49 PM12/9/02 3:06 PM12/9/02 9:41 AM12/9/02 9:20 AM Average Pressure Calibration : Th4 12-09-0200.20.40.60.811.21.41.60100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) P = -1.52e-06V2 + 0.003014V R2 = 1.0 Figure A.18 Pressure Calibrations, Th4 12/09/02

PAGE 148

124 Table A.1 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -28.45 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.62641.590.62641.590.7971.0140.580.1750.6221.04789.461.04789.461.1991.5387.930.3690.8301.605147.351.605147.351.7322.20145.150.5891.1432.092202.842.092202.842.1972.80200.040.7841.4132.492258.122.492258.122.5793.28254.830.9631.6162.953296.302.953296.303.0193.84292.461.0771.9423.533330.693.533330.693.5734.55326.141.1742.3994.174372.134.174372.134.1855.32366.811.2822.9034.511414.614.511414.614.5075.73408.871.3863.1215.127482.355.127482.355.0956.48475.871.5323.5635.424566.465.424566.465.3796.84559.611.6833.6965.079653.195.079653.195.0506.42646.771.8033.2474.616652.924.616652.924.6075.86647.061.8032.8044.044646.714.044646.714.0615.17641.551.7972.2642.93620.812.930620.812.9973.81616.991.7661.2312.239590.272.239590.272.3372.97587.301.7250.6121.110349.331.110349.331.2591.60347.731.2320.027Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.53248.970.53248.970.7070.9048.070.2070.5001.114101.981.114101.981.2631.61100.370.4190.8441.507163.951.507163.951.6382.08161.860.6500.9892.03216.262.030216.262.1382.72213.540.8291.3092.537264.982.537264.982.6223.34261.650.9841.6383.172303.393.172303.393.2284.11299.281.0972.1313.532337.693.532337.693.5724.54333.141.1932.3794.128384.664.128384.664.1415.27379.391.3142.8274.538434.444.538434.444.5335.77428.671.4313.1014.967509.334.967509.334.9436.29503.041.5853.3575.525600.565.525600.565.4766.97593.591.7353.7413.97645.853.970645.853.9915.08640.771.7962.1952.915620.412.915620.412.9833.80616.611.7661.2172.093577.932.093577.932.1982.80575.131.7070.4911.049328.901.049328.901.2011.53327.371.1770.02460 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.225-0.057Vo =1950cc3.7300.0450.0121998.07-0.180-0.046Ro =3.685cm3.7780.0940.0252050.37-0.131-0.034(R/Ro)c =0.061cm/cm3.8340.1500.0412111.86-0.075-0.019Vc =2195.16cc3.8810.1970.0532163.54-0.028-0.007Rc =3.909cm3.9240.2390.0652211.650.0150.0043.9570.2730.0742249.280.0480.0123.9870.3020.0822283.140.0780.0204.0270.3430.0932329.390.1180.0304.0690.3850.1042378.670.1600.0414.1330.4480.1222453.040.2230.0574.2080.5240.1422543.590.2990.0764.2470.5620.1532590.770.3380.0864.2270.5430.1472566.610.3180.0814.1930.5080.1382525.130.2840.0733.9820.2970.0812277.370.0730.019Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 149

125 Table A.2 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -35.9 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.47942.630.47942.630.6680.8741.760.1910.4761.094104.591.094104.591.2551.63102.960.4490.8061.348138.011.348138.011.4981.95136.060.5770.9202.081168.772.081168.772.1982.86165.910.6871.5112.475191.822.475191.822.5743.35188.470.7651.8093.055219.423.055219.423.1284.07215.350.8542.2743.589255.253.589255.253.6384.73250.510.9622.6764.049310.964.049310.964.0775.31305.661.1142.9634.606369.684.606369.684.6096.00363.681.2513.3585.111448.345.111448.345.0916.63441.721.3983.6935.469638.485.469638.485.4337.07631.411.5763.8574.768652.304.768652.304.7646.20646.101.5793.1853.791643.383.791643.383.8314.99638.391.5772.2532.960627.082.960627.083.0373.95623.131.5731.4642.011580.572.011580.572.1312.77577.801.5510.5801.094375.641.094375.641.2551.63374.001.273-0.018Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.50954.170.50954.170.6960.9153.270.2420.4551.043113.351.043113.351.2061.57111.780.4840.7221.505142.581.505142.581.6472.14140.440.5941.0542.074172.812.074172.812.1912.85169.960.7011.4902.566196.512.566196.512.6613.46193.050.7801.8803.040227.453.040227.453.1134.05223.400.8792.2343.528266.203.528266.203.5794.66261.540.9942.5854.135328.984.135328.984.1595.41323.571.1593.0004.576395.964.576395.964.5805.96390.001.3063.2755.243508.465.243508.465.2176.79501.671.4823.7363.775642.813.775642.813.8154.97637.841.5772.2382.952626.482.952626.483.0293.94622.541.5731.4562.009579.812.009579.812.1292.77577.041.5510.5781.102374.991.102374.991.2631.64373.341.272-0.00960 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.107-0.028Vo =1950cc3.7350.0500.0142003.27-0.057-0.015Ro =3.685cm3.7890.1040.0282061.78-0.003-0.001(R/Ro)c =0.029cm/cm3.8150.1300.0352090.440.0240.006Vc =2064.74cc3.8420.1570.0432119.960.0500.013Rc =3.791cm3.8630.1780.0482143.050.0710.0193.8900.2050.0562173.400.0980.0263.9240.2390.0652211.540.1320.0353.9790.2940.0802273.570.1870.0494.0360.3520.0952340.000.2450.0654.1310.4470.1212451.670.3400.0904.2450.5600.1522587.840.4530.1204.2320.5470.1492572.540.4410.1164.1940.5100.1382527.040.4030.1064.0220.3370.0922323.340.2300.061Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 150

126 Table A.3 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -35.9 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.54641.830.54641.830.7410.9640.870.1870.5531.081102.301.081102.301.2521.63100.670.4400.8121.579195.391.579195.391.7272.25193.140.7810.9462.046299.232.046299.232.1732.83296.401.0901.0832.541381.932.541381.932.6463.44378.491.2821.3633.020436.513.020436.513.1034.04432.471.3831.7203.589473.533.589473.533.6474.75468.791.4392.2084.026500.014.026500.014.0645.29494.721.4732.5914.552532.644.552532.644.5665.94526.691.5093.0575.074573.575.074573.575.0656.59566.981.5443.5215.560622.075.560622.075.5297.20614.871.5703.9593.649643.153.649643.153.7044.82638.331.5772.1272.672621.212.672621.212.7713.61617.601.5711.2001.612517.651.612517.651.7592.29515.361.4970.262Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.51753.740.51753.740.7130.9352.810.2400.2771.105123.231.105123.231.2741.66121.570.5220.5831.558216.291.558216.291.7072.22214.070.8500.7082.096321.272.096321.272.2212.89318.381.1460.9502.594395.632.594395.632.6963.51392.121.3101.2843.136445.813.136445.813.2144.18441.631.3981.7383.513477.453.513477.453.5744.65472.801.4452.0684.018505.894.018505.894.0565.28500.611.4802.5384.484539.434.484539.434.5015.86533.571.5162.9685.062586.455.062586.455.0536.58579.871.5523.5105.570637.415.570637.415.5397.21630.211.5753.9953.633642.713.633642.713.6894.80637.911.5772.0562.646620.482.646620.482.7463.57616.911.5711.0751.631517.291.631517.291.7772.31514.981.4970.13460 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.340-0.084Vo =1950cc3.7340.0500.0132002.81-0.290-0.072Ro =3.685cm3.7980.1130.0312071.57-0.227-0.056(R/Ro)c =0.0922cm/cm3.8820.1970.0532164.07-0.143-0.035Vc =2326.16cc3.9740.2890.0792268.38-0.050-0.012Rc =4.024cm4.0380.3540.0962342.120.0140.0034.0810.3960.1072391.630.0560.0144.1070.4220.1152422.800.0830.0214.1310.4460.1212450.610.1060.0264.1580.4740.1292483.570.1340.0334.1970.5120.1392529.870.1730.0434.2380.5540.1502580.210.2140.0534.2450.5600.1522587.910.2200.0554.2270.5430.1472566.910.2030.0504.1430.4580.1242464.980.1180.029Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 151

127 Table A.4 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -40.7 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.53035.640.53035.640.7380.9634.680.1600.5791.115112.101.115112.101.2971.69110.410.4790.8181.550207.061.550207.061.7122.23204.830.8200.8932.111343.872.111343.872.2482.93340.941.2001.0482.645574.862.645574.862.7583.59571.271.5471.2111.128361.311.128361.311.3091.70359.611.2420.067Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.55847.620.55847.620.7651.0046.630.2130.5521.119128.561.119128.561.3011.69126.870.5430.7581.529238.681.529238.681.6922.20236.470.9200.7722.097409.182.097409.182.2352.91406.271.3370.8982.587617.412.587617.412.7033.52613.891.5701.1331.127360.781.127360.781.3081.70359.071.2410.06760 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00--Vo =1950cc3.7280.0440.0121996.63--Ro =3.685cm3.8030.1180.0322076.87--(R/Ro)c =-cm/cm3.9020.2170.0592186.47--Vc =-cc4.0500.3660.0992356.27--Rc =-cm4.2250.5400.1472563.89--4.0100.3250.0882309.07--Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 152

128 Table A.5 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -46.6 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.53549.610.53549.610.7590.9948.630.2210.5371.084131.351.084131.351.2831.67129.680.5530.7301.492198.291.492198.291.6732.18196.110.7910.8822.038251.582.038251.582.1942.86248.730.9571.2382.533316.562.533316.562.6673.47313.091.1331.5343.111349.963.111349.963.2194.19345.771.2112.0073.566426.553.566426.553.6534.75421.791.3652.2894.044498.164.044498.164.1105.35492.811.4712.6394.596578.264.596578.264.6376.03572.231.5473.0903.353638.443.353638.443.4504.49633.951.5761.8742.139574.522.139574.522.2912.98571.541.5470.7441.045311.631.045311.631.2461.62310.001.1250.121Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.57063.330.57063.330.7921.0362.300.2810.5121.137149.411.137149.411.3341.74147.670.6210.7131.540208.561.540208.561.7192.24206.320.8240.8942.066268.842.066268.842.2212.89265.951.0071.2142.526325.162.526325.162.6603.46321.691.1541.5063.009371.213.009371.213.1224.06367.141.2591.8633.612440.583.612440.583.6974.81435.761.3882.3094.171519.484.171519.484.2315.51513.971.4962.7363.318638.103.318638.103.4174.45633.651.5761.8402.124573.402.124573.402.2762.96570.441.5460.7301.049311.061.049311.061.2501.63309.431.1240.12660 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.206-0.053Vo =1950cc3.7430.0580.0162012.30-0.148-0.038Ro =3.685cm3.8220.1370.0372097.67-0.069-0.018(R/Ro)c =0.0559cm/cm3.8750.1900.0522156.32-0.016-0.004Vc =2174.10cc3.9280.2430.0662215.950.0370.010Rc =3.891cm3.9770.2920.0792271.690.0860.0224.0170.3320.0902317.140.1260.0324.0760.3910.1062385.760.1850.0484.1420.4570.1242463.970.2510.0654.2410.5570.1512583.650.3510.0904.1890.5040.1372520.440.2980.0773.9660.2820.0762259.430.0760.019Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 153

129 Table A.6 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -49.9 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.51643.030.51643.030.7501.0142.010.1980.5511.022118.951.022118.951.2331.66117.290.5220.7111.516194.601.516194.601.7052.30192.300.8030.9022.050278.422.050278.422.2152.99275.441.0671.1472.542357.162.542357.162.6843.62353.531.2701.4153.013456.593.013456.593.1344.23452.361.4631.6713.534502.563.534502.563.6324.90497.651.5282.1044.085551.294.085551.294.1585.61545.681.5802.5784.568614.434.568614.434.6196.23608.201.6242.9953.385637.443.385637.443.4904.71632.731.6331.8562.494615.022.494615.022.6393.56611.461.6251.0131.453463.361.453463.361.6442.22461.141.4770.16830 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rrVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume Correction PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.56359.150.56359.150.7951.0758.080.2710.5241.020131.581.020131.581.2311.66129.920.5720.6591.523216.491.523216.491.7112.31214.180.8770.8341.949309.561.949309.562.1182.86306.701.1540.9642.505395.452.505395.452.6493.58391.881.3531.2963.011465.943.011465.943.1324.23461.711.4781.6553.547512.863.547512.863.6444.92507.941.5412.1044.021570.054.021570.054.0975.53564.521.5972.5004.554640.434.554640.434.6066.22634.211.6342.9723.361637.213.361637.213.4674.68632.531.6331.8332.491614.582.491614.582.6363.56611.021.6251.0111.455462.821.455462.821.6462.22460.601.4760.170Corrected Pressure, p = rr60 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure Correction R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.385-0.095Vo =1950cc3.7390.0540.0152008.08-0.331-0.081Ro =3.685cm3.8050.1210.0332079.92-0.264-0.065(R/Ro)c =0.1045cm/cm3.8820.1970.0532164.18-0.188-0.046Vc =2378.84cc3.9640.2790.0762256.70-0.106-0.026Rc =4.070cm4.0380.3530.0962341.88-0.032-0.0084.0980.4130.1122411.710.0280.0074.1370.4520.1232457.940.0670.0164.1840.4990.1362514.520.1140.0284.2420.5570.1512584.210.1720.0424.2400.5560.1512582.530.1710.0424.2230.5380.1462561.020.1530.0384.0970.4120.1122410.600.0270.007Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 154

130 Table A.7 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -52.2 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0485.710.0000.000.2630.000.000.0000.2630.52243.010.47437.300.7160.9736.330.1720.5430.998109.850.950104.141.1701.58102.560.4620.7091.555147.001.507141.291.7022.30138.990.6071.0952.007175.381.959169.672.1342.88166.790.7121.4222.543200.652.495194.942.6463.57191.370.8001.8463.039220.452.991214.743.1194.21210.530.8652.2543.527240.493.479234.793.5854.84229.950.9292.6574.082264.864.034259.154.1155.55253.601.0033.1134.568294.634.520288.924.5806.18282.741.0883.4924.974336.684.926330.974.9676.70324.271.1993.7683.409346.883.361341.183.4734.69336.491.2292.2435.008366.884.960361.185.0006.75354.431.2723.7285.507408.945.459403.235.4767.39395.841.3614.1155.970485.045.922479.335.9197.99471.341.4924.4276.627601.446.579595.736.5468.83586.901.6124.9344.237645.074.189639.364.2645.75633.611.6332.6303.576639.903.528634.203.6324.90629.291.6322.0002.939631.392.891625.683.0244.08621.601.6301.3942.467619.362.419613.652.5733.47610.181.6250.94830 Second ReadingsCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rrPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume Correction PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0485.710.0000.000.2630.000.000.0000.2630.53859.810.49054.100.7310.9953.110.2490.4821.088124.181.040118.481.2561.70116.780.5200.7371.546151.971.498146.261.6942.29143.980.6261.0672.019180.191.971174.482.1452.90171.590.7291.4162.515203.122.467197.412.6193.53193.880.8081.8113.040224.252.992218.553.1204.21214.340.8782.2423.513245.013.465239.303.5724.82234.480.9432.6294.088272.754.040267.054.1215.56261.481.0263.0954.493304.364.445298.664.5086.08292.571.1153.3935.047351.584.999345.875.0376.80339.071.2363.8013.409346.833.361341.123.4734.69336.431.2292.2435.053373.175.005367.465.0436.81360.661.2863.7575.544428.735.496423.035.5127.44415.591.3994.1125.891521.495.843515.785.8437.89507.891.5414.3036.580648.766.532643.056.5018.77634.281.6344.8674.219644.974.171639.274.2465.73633.541.6332.6133.557639.743.509634.043.6144.88629.161.6321.9822.936631.132.888625.433.0214.08621.351.6291.3922.467619.102.419613.392.5733.47609.921.6250.948Corrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr60 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume Correction R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.114-0.030Vo =1950cc3.7340.0500.0142003.11-0.064-0.017Ro =3.685cm3.7930.1090.0302066.78-0.005-0.001(R/Ro)c =0.031cm/cm3.8180.1340.0362093.980.0190.005Vc =2072.77cc3.8430.1590.0432121.590.0440.012Rc =3.799cm3.8630.1790.0492143.880.0650.0173.8820.1970.0542164.340.0830.0223.9000.2150.0582184.480.1010.0273.9240.2390.0652211.480.1250.0333.9510.2670.0722242.570.1530.0403.9920.3080.0832289.070.1930.0513.9900.3050.0832286.430.1910.0504.0110.3260.0892310.660.2120.0564.0580.3740.1012365.590.2590.0684.1370.4520.1232457.890.3380.0894.2420.5570.1512584.280.4430.1174.2410.5570.1512583.540.4420.1164.2380.5530.1502579.160.4390.1154.2310.5470.1482571.350.4320.1144.2220.5370.1462559.920.4230.111Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 155

131 Table A.8 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -28.9 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0700.670.0000.000.2020.000.000.0000.2020.55556.220.48555.550.6650.8954.670.2090.4551.104135.981.034135.311.1891.58133.720.4880.7011.509247.061.439246.391.5762.10244.290.8290.7471.936370.521.866369.851.9842.64367.201.1420.8422.423615.082.353614.412.4493.26611.151.5560.8930.04593.67-0.02592.990.1780.2492.760.347-0.16930 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0700.670.0000.000.2020.000.000.0000.2020.53875.250.46874.580.6490.8673.720.2790.3691.036161.680.966161.001.1241.50159.510.5730.5521.541281.991.471281.311.6072.14279.170.9250.6821.959435.731.889435.062.0062.67432.391.2800.7262.473645.622.403644.952.4973.32641.621.5890.90860 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00--Vo =1950cc3.7540.0690.0192023.72--Ro =3.685cm3.8320.1480.0402109.51--(R/Ro)c =-cm/cm3.9400.2550.0692229.17--Vc =-cc4.0730.3880.1052382.39--Rc =-cm4.2480.5630.1532591.62--Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 156

132 Table A.9 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -33.3 PressureVolumeMP a ccMP a ccMpaccccMP a MP a 0.0451.400.0000.000.2130.280.000.0000.2130.55749.400.51248.000.7020.9447.060.1810.5211.089132.381.044130.971.2101.61129.360.4730.7371.503206.871.458205.461.6062.14203.320.7090.8972.010302.651.965301.252.0902.78298.460.9761.1142.490377.722.445376.312.5483.39372.921.1551.3943.019431.372.974429.973.0544.07425.901.2671.7873.523472.823.478471.413.5354.71466.711.3442.1914.100519.144.055517.734.0865.44512.291.4212.6644.561572.034.516570.634.5266.03564.601.4983.0284.991641.014.946639.614.9376.57633.031.5803.3573.624647.273.579645.863.6314.84641.031.5882.0432.756628.992.711627.592.8023.73623.861.5701.2321.993593.801.948592.402.0742.76589.631.5310.5431.173446.121.128444.721.2911.72443.001.300-0.009Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMP a ccMpaccccMP a MP a 0.0451.400.0000.000.2130.280.000.0000.2130.54676.130.50174.730.6920.9273.800.2800.4121.060160.411.015159.001.1831.57157.430.5660.6171.553251.931.508250.521.6542.20248.320.8400.8131.926346.811.881345.402.0102.68342.731.0850.9252.544400.932.499399.532.6003.46396.061.2051.3953.084439.673.039438.273.1164.15434.121.2831.8333.521480.743.476479.333.5334.70474.631.3582.1754.059530.984.014529.574.0475.39524.181.4402.6074.513590.564.468589.164.4805.97583.191.5232.9583.565644.543.520643.133.5754.76638.371.5851.9902.704626.302.659624.902.7533.67621.231.5671.1851.989592.711.944591.302.0702.76588.551.5290.54160 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.316-0.079Vo =1950cc3.7540.0690.0192023.80-0.247-0.062Ro =3.685cm3.8300.1460.0402107.43-0.170-0.043(R/Ro)c =0.0858cm/cm3.9120.2280.0622198.32-0.089-0.022Vc =2298.98cc3.9950.3110.0842292.73-0.005-0.001Rc =4.001cm4.0410.3570.0972346.060.0410.0104.0740.3900.1062384.120.0730.0184.1090.4240.1152424.630.1080.0274.1500.4660.1262474.180.1500.0374.2000.5150.1402533.190.1990.0504.2450.5600.1522588.370.2440.0614.2310.5460.1482571.230.2300.0584.2040.5190.1412538.550.2030.051Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 157

133 Table A.10 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -35.9 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0590.880.0000.000.2210.290.000.0000.2210.48955.470.43054.590.6310.8453.750.2060.4251.005136.150.946135.271.1241.50133.780.4880.6361.478214.791.419213.911.5762.10211.810.7350.8412.061272.802.002271.922.1322.84269.080.8981.2352.481297.362.422296.482.5343.37293.110.9621.5723.089337.473.030336.593.1144.15332.441.0612.0543.579364.683.520363.803.5824.77359.031.1232.4594.027408.163.968407.284.0105.34401.941.2182.7924.623470.514.564469.634.5796.10463.541.3383.2415.063551.265.004550.384.9996.66543.721.4693.5305.490641.465.431640.585.4077.20633.381.5803.8273.691643.693.632642.813.6894.91637.901.5852.1043.156637.253.097636.373.1784.23632.141.5791.5992.620627.102.561626.222.6663.55622.671.5691.0971.824587.081.765586.201.9062.54583.661.5230.383Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0590.880.0000.000.2210.290.000.0000.2210.54579.870.48678.990.6850.9178.080.2950.3901.016165.220.957164.341.1341.51162.830.5830.5511.528231.351.469230.471.6232.16228.300.7830.8402.014281.501.955280.622.0882.78277.840.9211.1662.501312.772.442311.892.5533.40308.491.0011.5513.019343.342.960342.463.0474.06338.401.0751.9723.531375.503.472374.623.5364.71369.911.1482.3884.033421.293.974420.414.0165.35415.061.2452.7714.537493.044.478492.164.4975.99486.171.3783.1195.053585.594.994584.714.9906.64578.071.5163.4743.757643.033.698642.153.7525.00637.151.5842.1683.134636.543.075635.663.1574.20631.461.5781.5792.618626.402.559625.522.6643.55621.971.5681.0961.856586.561.797585.681.9372.58583.111.5230.41460 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.224-0.057Vo =1950cc3.7580.0730.0202028.08-0.151-0.039Ro =3.685cm3.8350.1510.0412112.83-0.074-0.019(R/Ro)c =0.0609cm/cm3.8940.2100.0572178.30-0.015-0.004Vc =2194.74cc3.9380.2540.0692227.840.0290.008Rc =3.909cm3.9650.2810.0762258.490.0560.0143.9920.3070.0832288.400.0830.0214.0190.3340.0912319.910.1100.0284.0580.3730.1012365.060.1490.0384.1180.4340.1182436.170.2090.0544.1950.5110.1392528.070.2860.0734.2440.5590.1522587.150.3350.0864.2390.5550.1512581.460.3300.0854.2320.5470.1482571.970.3230.0834.2000.5150.1402533.110.2910.074Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 158

134 Table A.11 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -38.6 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0450.520.0000.000.2280.300.000.0000.2280.45740.500.41239.980.6210.8139.170.1610.4600.958106.570.913106.051.1001.43104.620.4100.6891.515215.471.470214.961.6322.12212.830.7680.8641.854339.331.809338.821.9552.55336.271.0920.8632.514612.662.469612.152.5863.37608.781.4951.091Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0450.520.0000.000.2280.300.000.0000.2280.55263.160.50762.640.7120.9361.720.2500.4620.993143.670.948143.151.1331.48141.680.5410.5931.595269.671.550269.151.7082.22266.920.9210.7871.934404.721.889404.202.0322.65401.561.2280.8031.902650.491.857649.972.0012.61647.361.5170.48460 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00--Vo =1950cc3.7420.0580.0162011.72--Ro =3.685cm3.8160.1320.0362091.68--(R/Ro)c =-cm/cm3.9290.2440.0662216.92--Vc =-cc4.0460.3620.0982351.56--Rc =-cm4.2520.5680.1542597.36--Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 159

135 Table A.12 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -43.5 PressureVolumeMP a ccMP a ccMpaccccMP a MP a 0.1810.530.0000.000.2410.310.000.0000.2410.53144.780.35044.250.5750.7543.510.1780.3971.005111.630.824111.101.0281.34109.770.4290.5991.589196.811.408196.291.5862.06194.220.7110.8741.959338.231.778337.701.9392.52335.181.0900.8492.311498.552.130498.032.2752.96495.061.3800.8952.588601.652.407601.122.5403.31597.821.4871.0522.061642.451.880641.932.0362.65639.281.5130.5231.637577.431.456576.901.6312.12574.781.4680.1631.336482.961.155482.431.3441.75480.681.360-0.016Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMP a ccMpaccccMP a MP a 0.1810.530.0000.000.2410.310.000.0000.2410.50662.750.32562.220.5510.7261.500.2490.3021.037136.770.856136.241.0581.38134.860.5170.5411.565243.721.384243.191.5632.03241.160.8500.7121.993396.811.812396.281.9712.57393.721.2130.7582.344550.672.163550.142.3073.00547.141.4420.8652.543626.212.362625.692.4973.25622.441.5040.9932.027641.601.846641.072.0042.61638.461.5130.4911.630576.541.449576.011.6252.12573.891.4680.1571.334482.251.153481.731.3421.75479.981.359-0.01760 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00--Vo =1950cc3.7420.0580.0162011.50--Ro =3.685cm3.8100.1250.0342084.86--(R/Ro)c =-cm/cm3.9060.2210.0602191.16--Vc =-cc4.0390.3550.0962343.72--Rc =-cm4.1700.4850.1322497.14--4.2320.5470.1492572.44--4.2450.5610.1522588.46--4.1920.5070.1382523.89--4.1130.4290.1162429.98--Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 160

136 Table A.13 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -47.5 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.1750.560.0000.000.2520.330.000.0000.2520.52257.260.34756.700.5830.7655.940.2270.3560.979112.710.804112.141.0191.33110.810.4330.5871.507154.171.332153.601.5241.98151.620.5740.9502.100192.231.925191.672.0902.72188.950.6951.3952.526234.972.351234.402.4973.25231.150.8221.6753.048302.982.873302.412.9953.90298.511.0031.9933.609363.183.434362.623.5314.60358.021.1402.3912.584412.542.409411.972.5523.32408.651.2421.3113.536457.223.361456.653.4614.51452.151.3162.1453.945507.033.770506.463.8525.02501.451.3882.4644.387626.524.212625.964.2745.57620.391.5032.7713.045653.282.870652.722.9923.90648.821.5181.4752.569647.652.394647.092.5383.30643.791.5151.0222.014620.471.839619.912.0082.61617.301.5010.5071.569524.041.394523.481.5832.06521.421.4130.170Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.1750.560.0000.000.2520.330.000.0000.2520.51168.180.33667.610.5730.7566.870.2700.3031.013125.140.838124.581.0521.37123.210.4770.5751.459166.471.284165.911.4781.92163.980.6150.8632.020205.891.845205.332.0142.62202.710.7371.2762.526254.042.351253.482.4973.25250.220.8761.6213.122323.112.947322.553.0663.99318.561.0512.0153.704405.783.529405.223.6224.72400.501.2262.3962.558412.042.383411.482.5273.29408.191.2411.2873.537463.383.362462.813.4624.51458.301.3262.1364.050544.863.875544.293.9525.15539.151.4332.5193.001652.632.826652.072.9503.84648.231.5181.4332.580647.372.405646.812.5483.32643.491.5151.0332.007620.051.832619.482.0012.61616.881.5000.5011.562523.351.387522.781.5762.05520.731.4120.16460 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.106-0.028Vo =1950cc3.7470.0630.0172016.87-0.044-0.012Ro =3.685cm3.7990.1150.0312073.210.0080.002(R/Ro)c =0.0289cm/cm3.8360.1520.0412113.980.0450.012Vc =2064.34cc3.8710.1870.0512152.710.0800.021Rc =3.791cm3.9140.2290.0622200.220.1230.0323.9740.2900.0792268.560.1830.0484.0450.3610.0982350.500.2540.0674.0520.3670.1002358.190.2610.0694.0950.4100.1112408.300.3040.0804.1630.4780.1302489.150.3720.0984.2530.5690.1542598.230.4620.1224.2490.5650.1532593.490.4580.1214.2270.5430.1472566.880.4360.1154.1470.4630.1262470.730.3560.094Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 161

137 Table A.14 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -48.5 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.1440.160.0000.000.2540.330.000.0000.2540.54943.950.40543.790.6410.8342.950.1760.4651.051110.130.907109.971.1211.46108.510.4240.6961.524175.801.380175.641.5722.05173.590.6460.9262.048235.221.904235.062.0732.70232.360.8251.2482.377277.562.233277.402.3873.11274.290.9411.4462.739342.932.595342.762.7333.56339.201.0991.6332.204353.472.060353.312.2222.89350.421.1241.0981.595302.811.451302.651.6402.14300.511.0080.6322.734360.462.590360.302.7283.55356.751.1381.5903.343429.033.199428.873.3094.31424.561.2702.0393.837533.903.693533.743.7814.92528.811.4222.3594.015638.413.871638.243.9515.14633.101.5102.4412.978646.912.834646.742.9613.86642.891.5151.4462.640635.652.496635.482.6383.43632.051.5091.1292.121582.011.977581.852.1422.79579.061.4720.670Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = r r 30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.1440.160.0000.000.2540.330.000.0000.2540.55759.120.41358.950.6490.8458.110.2360.4131.036127.810.892127.651.1061.44126.210.4870.6191.534192.131.390191.961.5822.06189.900.6980.8842.045253.901.901253.742.0702.70251.040.8781.1922.371295.702.227295.542.3813.10292.440.9871.3942.766355.852.622355.692.7583.59352.101.1281.6312.220353.082.076352.922.2372.91350.011.1231.1141.587301.881.443301.711.6322.13299.591.0050.6272.760367.552.616367.392.7533.58363.801.1531.6003.351456.853.207456.683.3174.32452.361.3172.0003.893573.393.749573.223.8354.99568.231.4632.3723.001646.912.857646.752.9833.88642.861.5151.4682.639635.062.495634.892.6373.43631.461.5091.1282.127581.071.983580.912.1482.80578.111.4710.67760 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = r r R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.124-0.033Vo =1950cc3.7390.0540.0152008.11-0.069-0.018Ro =3.685cm3.8020.1170.0322076.21-0.006-0.002(R/Ro)c =0.0336cm/cm3.8600.1750.0482139.900.0510.014Vc =2083.24cc3.9150.2300.0622201.040.1060.028Rc =3.808cm3.9510.2670.0722242.440.1430.0384.0030.3190.0872302.100.1950.0514.0020.3170.0862300.010.1930.0513.9580.2730.0742249.590.1490.0394.0140.3290.0892313.800.2050.0544.0900.4050.1102402.360.2810.0744.1870.5030.1362518.230.3790.0994.2490.5640.1532592.860.4400.1164.2390.5550.1512581.460.4310.1134.1950.5110.1392528.110.3870.102Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 162

138 Table A.15 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -50.5 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.1290.250.0000.000.2600.340.000.0000.2600.58355.430.45455.170.6930.9054.270.2210.4721.086110.930.957110.671.1741.53109.140.4270.7471.535151.571.406151.321.6022.09149.230.5661.0362.018183.651.889183.402.0642.69180.710.6691.3952.528210.832.399210.572.5513.32207.250.7511.8002.974275.162.845274.912.9773.88271.030.9322.0452.375323.942.246323.692.4053.13320.561.0561.3491.869299.841.740299.591.9212.50297.090.9990.9223.059343.912.930343.663.0583.98339.681.1001.9583.565417.793.436417.543.5414.61412.931.2492.2924.024546.603.895546.353.9795.18541.171.4362.5442.946618.082.817617.822.9503.84613.981.4991.4512.685611.712.556611.462.7013.52607.941.4941.2062.030566.311.901566.062.0752.70563.351.4580.617Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.1290.250.0000.000.2600.340.000.0000.2600.56469.550.43569.300.6750.8868.420.2760.4001.124124.970.995124.721.2101.58123.150.4760.7341.546159.021.417158.771.6132.10156.660.5911.0221.996189.621.867189.372.0432.66186.710.6881.3552.507228.542.378228.292.5313.30224.990.8041.7273.040319.872.911319.623.0403.96315.661.0441.9952.372323.632.243323.382.4023.13320.251.0551.3461.824299.981.695299.731.8782.45297.281.0000.8793.026354.962.897354.713.0263.94350.761.1251.9023.577462.183.448461.923.5534.63457.301.3252.2284.061611.493.932611.244.0155.23606.011.4932.5223.008618.102.879617.853.0093.92613.931.4991.5112.654611.032.525610.772.6713.48607.291.4941.1772.053565.361.924565.102.0972.73562.371.4570.64060 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.088-0.023Vo =1950cc3.7490.0640.0172018.42-0.024-0.006Ro =3.685cm3.7990.1150.0312073.150.0260.007(R/Ro)c =0.024cm/cm3.8300.1450.0392106.660.0570.015Vc =2044.72cc3.8570.1720.0472136.710.0840.022Rc =3.773cm3.8910.2070.0562174.990.1180.0313.9720.2870.0782265.660.1990.0533.9760.2910.0792270.250.2030.0543.9550.2710.0742247.280.1820.0484.0020.3180.0862300.760.2290.0614.0940.4090.1112407.300.3210.0854.2180.5340.1452556.010.4450.1184.2250.5400.1472563.930.4520.1204.2200.5350.1452557.290.4460.1184.1820.4980.1352512.370.4090.108Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 163

139 Table A.16 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -29.9 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0350.360.0000.000.2090.000.000.0000.2090.53363.850.49863.490.6850.9162.580.2250.4601.073143.251.038142.901.2011.60141.290.4850.7161.624233.231.589232.871.7272.31230.570.7500.9772.048316.612.013316.252.1322.85313.410.9681.1642.512385.962.477385.602.5753.44382.161.1271.4482.974448.752.939448.403.0164.03444.371.2561.7613.536515.803.501515.443.5534.74510.701.3752.1783.996602.753.961602.403.9925.33597.071.5052.4873.025640.202.990639.843.0654.09635.751.5531.5122.493629.682.458629.332.5573.41625.911.5411.0152.033602.671.998602.322.1182.83599.491.5080.610Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0350.360.0000.000.2090.000.000.0000.2090.56179.830.52679.470.7120.9578.520.2790.4321.059167.811.024167.451.1871.59165.870.5610.6261.549264.221.514263.861.6552.21261.650.8350.8202.011347.471.976347.112.0972.80344.311.0421.0552.511408.302.476407.952.5743.44404.511.1751.3993.045468.923.010468.573.0844.12464.451.2941.7903.543541.783.508541.433.5604.75536.671.4172.1424.045641.294.010640.934.0395.39635.541.5532.4863.016639.872.981639.513.0564.08635.431.5531.5042.481627.462.446627.112.5453.40623.711.5391.0072.047602.212.012601.852.1312.85599.011.5070.624Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr60 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.310-0.077Vo =1950cc3.7580.0730.0202028.52-0.236-0.059Ro =3.685cm3.8380.1540.0422115.87-0.156-0.039(R/Ro)c =0.084cm/cm3.9240.2390.0652211.65-0.070-0.018Vc =2291.36cc3.9970.3120.0852294.310.0030.001Rc =3.994cm4.0490.3640.0992354.510.0550.0144.1000.4150.1132414.450.1060.0274.1610.4760.1292486.670.1670.0424.2430.5580.1512585.540.2490.0624.2430.5580.1512585.430.2490.0624.2330.5480.1492573.710.2390.0604.2130.5280.1432549.010.2190.055Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 164

140 Table A.17 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -31.4 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0880.080.0000.000.2130.000.000.0000.2130.55163.620.46363.540.6560.8862.660.2250.4311.021141.320.933141.241.1041.47139.760.4800.6241.481227.311.393227.231.5442.06225.170.7350.8091.914371.661.826371.581.9572.61368.971.0980.8592.407527.552.319527.472.4283.24524.221.3981.0312.885623.572.797623.492.8853.85619.641.5341.3512.247642.392.159642.312.2753.04639.271.5570.7181.985631.781.897631.702.0252.70629.001.5450.4801.776616.791.688616.711.8252.44614.281.5270.2981.471575.311.383575.231.5342.05573.191.4720.062Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0880.080.0000.000.2130.000.000.0000.2130.53785.720.44985.640.6420.8684.780.3010.3421.019165.420.931165.341.1031.47163.870.5550.5481.572287.421.484287.341.6312.18285.160.8970.7341.947440.741.859440.661.9892.66438.001.2430.7462.375572.942.287572.872.3983.20569.661.4670.9312.820642.812.732642.732.8233.77638.961.5571.2662.236641.942.148641.872.2653.02638.841.5570.7082.006630.801.918630.722.0452.73627.991.5440.5011.813615.921.725615.841.8612.48613.361.5260.3351.480574.701.392574.621.5432.06572.561.4710.072Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr60 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00--Vo =1950cc3.7640.0790.0222034.78--Ro =3.685cm3.8360.1520.0412113.87--(R/Ro)c =-cm/cm3.9450.2600.0712235.16--Vc =-cc4.0770.3930.1072388.00--Rc =-cm4.1880.5040.1372519.66--4.2460.5610.1522588.96--4.2450.5610.1522588.84--4.2370.5520.1502577.99--4.2250.5400.1472563.36--4.1910.5060.1372522.56--Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 165

141 Table A.18 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -33.75 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.056-0.030.0000.000.2200.000.000.0000.2200.55876.310.50276.340.6990.9375.410.2690.4301.013146.130.957146.161.1341.51144.640.4950.6381.614257.901.558257.941.7082.28255.660.8190.8892.047366.491.991366.522.1212.83363.691.0861.0352.502483.142.446483.172.5563.41479.761.3221.2343.020596.842.964596.873.0504.07592.801.4991.5512.498621.672.442621.702.5523.41618.301.5321.0202.199606.222.143606.252.2663.03603.231.5130.7531.769560.201.713560.231.8562.48557.751.4500.406Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.056-0.030.0000.000.2200.000.000.0000.2200.66092.430.60492.460.7961.0691.400.3230.4741.096185.441.040185.471.2131.62183.850.6150.5981.585296.761.529296.791.6802.24294.550.9210.7592.087414.862.031414.892.1592.88412.001.1910.9682.567528.692.511528.722.6183.49525.231.3991.2183.037623.082.981623.113.0664.09619.021.5331.5342.446621.252.390621.282.5023.34617.941.5320.9702.242605.592.186605.622.3073.08602.541.5120.7951.774559.961.718559.991.8602.48557.511.4490.411Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr60 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00--Vo =1950cc3.7700.0850.0232041.40--Ro =3.685cm3.8540.1700.0462133.85--(R/Ro)c =-cm/cm3.9530.2680.0732244.55--Vc =-cc4.0550.3710.1012362.00--Rc =-cm4.1510.4670.1272475.23--4.2290.5450.1482569.02--4.2280.5440.1482567.94--4.2160.5310.1442552.54--4.1780.4940.1342507.51--Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 166

142 Table A.19 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -36.5 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0540.080.0000.000.2270.000.000.0000.2270.54572.290.49172.210.6960.9371.280.2550.4411.032141.000.978140.921.1611.55139.370.4790.6821.496245.371.442245.281.6042.14243.140.7850.8191.934380.811.880380.722.0232.70378.021.1180.9042.435541.292.381541.212.5013.34537.871.4191.0822.462655.882.408655.802.5273.37652.421.5720.9552.045653.601.991653.512.1292.84650.671.5700.5581.777631.901.723631.821.8732.50629.321.5450.3271.489587.501.435587.421.5982.13585.291.4890.109Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0540.080.0000.000.2270.000.000.0000.2270.53288.500.47888.420.6840.9187.500.3100.3741.065171.321.011171.241.1931.59169.650.5730.6201.516296.261.462296.181.6232.17294.010.9190.7042.011477.111.957477.032.0962.80474.231.3120.7842.484589.032.430588.952.5483.40585.541.4891.0592.010652.831.956652.752.0952.80649.951.5690.5261.836631.001.782630.921.9292.58628.341.5440.3851.517586.781.463586.701.6242.17584.531.4880.137Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr60 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00--Vo =1950cc3.7660.0820.0222037.50--Ro =3.685cm3.8420.1570.0432119.65--(R/Ro)c =-cm/cm3.9530.2680.0732244.01--Vc =-cc4.1080.4240.1152424.23--Rc =-cm4.2020.5170.1402535.54--4.2550.5700.1552599.95--4.2370.5520.1502578.34--4.2010.5160.1402534.53--Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 167

143 Table A.20 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -42.92 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0550.370.0000.000.2440.000.000.0000.2440.59980.660.54480.290.7641.0279.270.2820.4821.044169.600.989169.231.1891.59167.640.5660.6221.461272.951.406272.581.5872.12270.460.8580.7292.027383.751.972383.382.1282.84380.541.1241.0042.581483.062.526482.692.6573.55479.151.3211.3363.149550.493.094550.123.1994.27545.851.4321.7683.568613.663.513613.293.5994.81608.481.5202.0802.828637.782.773637.422.8933.86633.551.5511.3422.568632.912.513632.542.6443.53629.011.5451.0992.226619.062.171618.692.3183.09615.601.5290.7891.971604.441.916604.072.0742.77601.301.5100.564Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0550.370.0000.000.2440.000.000.0000.2440.525104.450.470104.080.6930.93103.150.3620.3311.013202.040.958201.671.1591.55200.120.6630.4961.540315.601.485315.231.6632.22313.010.9670.6962.025422.241.970421.872.1262.84419.041.2050.9212.526504.242.471503.872.6043.48500.391.3581.2463.052568.392.997568.023.1074.15563.871.4591.6483.535637.353.480636.993.5684.76632.221.5492.0192.781637.512.726637.142.8483.80633.341.5501.2982.561632.282.506631.922.6383.52628.391.5441.0932.217618.232.162617.862.3093.08614.781.5280.7821.965603.841.910603.482.0692.76600.721.5100.559Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr60 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.403-0.099Vo =1950cc3.7810.0960.0262053.15-0.307-0.075Ro =3.685cm3.8690.1840.0502150.12-0.218-0.053(R/Ro)c =0.1093cm/cm3.9690.2850.0772263.01-0.118-0.029Vc =2399.57cc4.0610.3770.1022369.04-0.026-0.006Rc =4.087cm4.1300.4460.1212450.390.0430.0114.1840.4990.1352513.870.0960.0244.2400.5550.1512582.220.1530.0374.2410.5560.1512583.340.1540.0384.2370.5520.1502578.390.1500.0374.2260.5410.1472564.780.1380.0344.2140.5290.1442550.720.1270.031Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 168

144 Table A.21 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -46 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0980.1910.0000.0000.2530.0000.0000.0000.2530.58173.5060.48373.3150.7140.95372.3620.2580.4561.032130.1850.934129.9941.1451.528128.4660.4440.7011.468236.5881.370236.3971.5612.084234.3130.7610.8012.033370.8391.935370.6482.1012.805367.8431.0961.0052.575466.8862.477466.6952.6183.496463.1991.2911.3273.020510.4862.922510.2953.0434.063506.2321.3681.6753.517555.0313.419554.8403.5184.697550.1431.4382.0803.976609.5613.878609.3703.9565.282604.0881.5142.4423.098639.0413.000638.8503.1184.163634.6871.5521.5662.890636.7402.792636.5492.9193.897632.6521.5491.3702.647632.4562.549632.2652.6873.588628.6771.5451.1422.271623.2492.173623.0582.3283.108619.9501.5340.7941.849603.6991.751603.5081.9252.570600.9381.5100.415Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0980.1910.0000.0000.2530.0000.0000.0000.2530.53581.6720.43781.4810.6700.89580.5860.2860.3841.087167.3560.989167.1651.1971.598165.5670.5600.6371.507293.1191.409292.9281.5982.134290.7940.9110.6872.048416.7491.950416.5582.1152.824413.7341.1940.9212.515477.3022.417477.1112.5613.419473.6921.3111.2503.030520.4232.932520.2323.0534.076516.1561.3841.6683.499568.5003.401568.3093.5014.674563.6351.4582.0434.005640.9043.907640.7133.9845.319635.3941.5532.4313.133638.8123.035638.6213.1514.207634.4141.5521.6002.920636.5082.822636.3172.9483.936632.3811.5491.3992.651632.0482.553631.8572.6913.593628.2641.5441.1472.272622.3792.174622.1882.3293.109619.0791.5330.7961.871603.3251.773603.1341.9462.598600.5361.5090.437Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr60 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.000-0.360-0.089Vo =1950cc3.7600.0750.0202030.586-0.284-0.070Ro =3.685cm3.8380.1530.0422115.567-0.206-0.051(R/Ro)c =0.0976cm/cm3.9500.2650.0722240.794-0.094-0.023Vc =2349.22cc4.0570.3720.1012363.7340.0120.003Rc =4.044cm4.1080.4230.1152423.6920.0640.0164.1440.4590.1252466.1560.0990.0254.1830.4990.1352513.6350.1390.0344.2430.5580.1512585.3940.1980.0494.2420.5570.1512584.4140.1980.0494.2400.5560.1512582.3810.1960.0484.2370.5520.1502578.2640.1930.0484.2290.5450.1482569.0790.1850.0464.2140.5290.1442550.5360.1700.042Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 169

145 Table A.22 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -48.5 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMp a ccccMPaMPa0.1230.400.0000.000.2590.000.000.0000.2590.58078.570.45778.160.6960.9377.230.2750.4211.044165.890.921165.481.1391.52163.960.5550.5841.579276.591.456276.181.6502.20273.980.8680.7822.041396.861.918396.452.0912.79393.661.1520.9392.498500.702.375500.302.5283.37496.921.3521.1763.085571.692.962571.293.0884.12567.161.4631.6253.519616.983.396616.573.5034.68611.891.5241.9793.837652.913.714652.513.8065.08647.421.5672.2403.031649.642.908649.233.0374.05645.181.5641.4732.792647.172.669646.772.8083.75643.021.5621.2472.529640.882.406640.482.5573.41637.061.5551.0032.138625.562.015625.162.1842.92622.241.5370.647Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMp a ccccMPaMPa0.1230.400.0000.000.2590.000.000.0000.2590.505104.670.382104.260.6240.83103.430.3630.2621.026198.350.903197.941.1221.50196.450.6530.4691.435324.331.312323.921.5122.02321.900.9880.5242.063444.311.940443.902.1122.82441.081.2490.8632.542525.022.419524.622.5703.43521.191.3931.1773.060583.092.937582.693.0644.09578.601.4801.5853.543628.873.420628.473.5264.71623.761.5391.9872.992649.702.869649.302.9994.00645.291.5641.4352.777646.762.654646.352.7943.73642.621.5611.2332.525640.302.402639.892.5533.41636.481.5540.9992.152625.102.029624.692.1972.93621.761.5360.661Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr60 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.350-0.087Vo =1950cc3.7810.0960.0262053.43-0.254-0.063Ro =3.685cm3.8660.1810.0492146.45-0.169-0.042(R/Ro)c =0.095cm/cm3.9770.2930.0792271.90-0.058-0.014Vc =2338.10cc4.0800.3950.1072391.080.0450.011Rc =4.035cm4.1480.4630.1262471.190.1130.0284.1960.5110.1392528.600.1610.0404.2330.5480.1492573.760.1980.0494.2510.5660.1542595.290.2160.0544.2490.5640.1532592.620.2140.0534.2440.5590.1522586.480.2090.0524.2310.5470.1482571.760.1970.049Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 170

146 Table A.23 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -54.65 PressureVolumeMP a ccMP a ccMpaccccMP a MP a 0.0360.570.0000.000.2760.000.000.0000.276070.53052.490.49451.910.7481.0250.900.1620.585481.038105.401.002104.831.2331.68103.150.3180.914541.571133.481.535132.901.7422.37130.540.3961.346062.070157.302.034156.732.2193.01153.720.4591.759312.577177.142.541176.572.7033.67172.900.5102.192733.030213.302.994212.733.1354.26208.470.6002.535033.505261.363.469260.783.5894.88255.910.7132.875963.993317.733.957317.164.0555.51311.650.8343.220924.458385.604.422385.034.4996.11378.910.9643.535183.100414.803.064414.233.2024.35409.881.0182.184534.504432.784.468432.214.5436.17426.041.0443.498794.871491.464.835490.894.8936.65484.241.1313.762145.566566.975.530566.405.5577.55558.851.2244.333693.646618.083.610617.513.7245.06612.451.2762.447412.893609.692.857609.123.0054.08605.031.2701.734912.420599.782.384599.212.5533.47595.741.2611.291792.134588.322.098587.742.2803.10584.651.2501.029361.486527.781.450527.211.6612.26524.951.1840.47645Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMP a ccMpaccccMP a MP a 0.0360.570.0000.000.2760.000.000.0000.2760.53273.770.49673.200.7501.0272.180.2270.5231.071111.331.035110.761.2641.72109.040.3350.9291.564141.831.528141.261.7352.36138.900.4191.3162.047164.282.011163.712.1972.98160.730.4781.7192.543187.842.507187.272.6703.63183.640.5382.1323.043230.063.007229.493.1484.28225.210.6412.5073.500279.813.464279.243.5844.87274.370.7542.8304.050341.234.014340.654.1095.58335.070.8813.2284.547416.124.511415.554.5846.23409.321.0173.5673.070413.013.034412.433.1744.31408.121.0152.1594.545449.354.509448.784.5826.23442.551.0703.5124.982519.814.946519.244.9996.79512.441.1693.8315.624626.035.588625.465.6137.63617.831.2814.3323.470616.443.434615.873.5564.83611.041.2752.2813.043609.323.007608.753.1484.28604.471.2691.8792.583598.472.547597.902.7083.68594.221.2601.4492.054583.142.018582.572.2032.99579.571.2450.9581.468521.881.432521.301.6442.23519.071.1770.467Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr60 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.073-0.019Vo =1950cc3.7520.0680.0182022.18-0.005-0.001Ro =3.685cm3.7860.1020.0282059.040.0290.008(R/Ro)c =0.0197cm/cm3.8140.1290.0352088.900.0560.015Vc =2027.59cc3.8330.1490.0402110.730.0760.020Rc =3.757cm3.8540.1700.0462133.640.0970.0263.8920.2070.0562175.210.1340.0363.9350.2510.0682224.370.1780.0473.9890.3040.0832285.070.2310.0624.0530.3680.1002359.320.2960.0794.0520.3670.1002358.120.2950.0784.0810.3970.1082392.550.3240.0864.1410.4560.1242462.440.3830.1024.2280.5440.1482567.830.4710.1254.2230.5380.1462561.040.4650.1244.2170.5330.1452554.470.4600.1224.2090.5240.1422544.220.4520.1204.1970.5120.1392529.570.4390.1174.1460.4610.1252469.070.3890.104Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 171

147 Table A.24 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -29.9 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMp a ccccMPaMPa0.0730.200.0000.000.2080.000.000.0000.2080.58864.010.51563.810.7000.9562.860.1990.5011.048143.580.975143.381.1391.55141.830.4270.7121.575244.991.502244.791.6432.23242.560.6820.9601.981325.821.908325.622.0302.76322.860.8571.1732.530408.212.457408.012.5553.47404.541.0091.5463.122490.473.049490.273.1204.24486.031.1341.9863.572536.013.499535.823.5504.82530.991.1922.3584.040596.903.967596.703.9975.43591.271.2572.7404.549651.084.476650.884.4836.09644.791.3033.1803.510647.673.437647.473.4904.74642.731.3012.1902.939639.172.866638.972.9454.00634.971.2951.6502.483626.302.410626.112.5103.41622.701.2851.2252.019608.611.946608.412.0672.81605.601.2700.7961.479551.401.406551.201.5512.11549.091.2130.338Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMp a ccccMPaMPa0.0730.200.0000.000.2080.000.000.0000.2080.54789.610.47489.420.6610.9088.520.2760.3851.063179.240.990179.041.1541.57177.470.5220.6321.538276.941.465276.741.6072.18274.560.7550.8521.994360.311.921360.122.0432.78357.340.9241.1192.618438.232.545438.032.6393.59434.451.0581.5813.100505.953.027505.753.0994.21501.541.1551.9443.617557.863.544557.663.5934.88552.781.2172.3764.162616.324.089616.124.1135.59610.531.2752.8393.241645.323.168645.123.2344.39640.721.2991.9343.047637.742.974637.543.0484.14633.401.2941.7552.531622.952.458622.752.5563.47619.281.2821.2732.012601.311.939601.112.0602.80598.321.2630.7961.521544.861.448544.661.5912.16542.501.2050.38660 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.333-0.083Vo =1950cc3.7670.0830.0222038.52-0.250-0.062Ro =3.685cm3.8490.1640.0452127.47-0.169-0.042(R/Ro)c =0.0904cm/cm3.9350.2510.0682224.56-0.082-0.020Vc =2318.50cc4.0080.3230.0882307.34-0.010-0.002Rc =4.018cm4.0740.3900.1062384.450.0570.0144.1310.4470.1212451.540.1140.0284.1740.4900.1332502.780.1570.0394.2220.5380.1462560.530.2050.0514.2470.5620.1532590.720.2290.0574.2410.5560.1512583.400.2230.0564.2290.5450.1482569.280.2120.0534.2120.5280.1432548.320.1940.0484.1660.4810.1312492.500.1480.037Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 172

148 Table A.25 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -31.92 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0400.450.0000.000.2140.000.000.0000.2140.63171.480.59171.030.7781.0669.970.2210.5571.044153.231.004152.771.1721.59151.180.4520.7201.512248.551.472248.101.6192.20245.900.6900.9292.005327.291.965326.842.0902.84324.000.8591.2312.607404.802.567404.352.6653.62400.731.0021.6632.965479.962.925479.513.0074.09475.421.1191.8883.588550.983.548550.533.6024.89545.631.2092.3933.967620.833.927620.383.9645.39614.991.2782.6853.303646.233.263645.783.3304.52641.251.3002.0303.059640.563.019640.113.0974.21635.901.2961.8012.669635.482.629635.032.7243.70631.331.2921.4322.521629.292.481628.832.5833.51625.321.2871.2962.027614.311.987613.852.1112.87610.991.2750.8361.473551.971.433551.521.5822.15549.371.2130.369Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = r r 30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0400.450.0000.000.2140.000.000.0000.2140.48192.470.44192.020.6350.8691.160.2840.3511.052191.061.012190.611.1801.60189.010.5520.6281.582276.791.542276.341.6862.29274.050.7540.9322.068360.852.028360.402.1502.92357.480.9241.2262.516432.832.476432.382.5783.50428.881.0491.5293.050505.053.010504.603.0884.20500.401.1531.9353.543574.223.503573.763.5594.84568.931.2342.3254.075646.744.035646.294.0675.53640.761.2992.7673.329645.833.289645.383.3554.56640.821.3002.0552.985640.542.945640.083.0264.11635.971.2961.7302.776634.542.736634.092.8263.84630.251.2911.5352.521627.592.481627.142.5833.51623.631.2861.2971.971605.581.931605.132.0582.80602.331.2670.7911.569546.371.529545.911.6742.27543.641.2070.46760 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.391-0.096Vo =1950cc3.7700.0850.0232041.16-0.305-0.075Ro =3.685cm3.8590.1740.0472139.01-0.216-0.053(R/Ro)c =0.106cm/cm3.9350.2500.0682224.05-0.140-0.034Vc =2385.31cc4.0080.3240.0882307.48-0.067-0.016Rc =4.075cm4.0700.3850.1052378.88-0.006-0.0014.1300.4460.1212450.400.0550.0144.1880.5030.1372518.930.1130.0284.2470.5620.1532590.760.1720.0424.2470.5620.1532590.820.1720.0424.2430.5590.1522585.970.1680.0414.2380.5540.1502580.250.1630.0404.2330.5480.1492573.630.1580.0394.2150.5310.1442552.330.1400.0344.1670.4820.1312493.640.0920.022Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 173

149 Table A.26 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -36.4 PressureVolumeMP a ccMP a ccMpaccccMP a MP a 0.0340.140.0000.000.2260.000.000.0000.2260.47956.170.44556.030.6510.8855.140.1750.4751.057147.831.023147.691.2031.63146.060.4390.7641.583244.661.549244.521.7052.32242.200.6811.0242.003332.131.969331.992.1062.86329.130.8701.2362.565391.192.531391.062.6433.59387.460.9791.6643.071436.913.037436.783.1264.25432.531.0552.0713.493467.603.459467.463.5294.79462.661.1012.4284.042517.084.008516.944.0535.51511.431.1672.8864.469571.554.435571.424.4616.06565.351.2313.2314.774630.714.740630.574.7526.46624.121.2863.4664.043651.554.009651.414.0545.51645.901.3032.7513.870648.523.836648.383.8895.28643.101.3012.5883.575645.753.541645.623.6074.90640.711.2992.3083.107639.043.073638.903.1604.29634.611.2951.8662.414628.302.380628.162.4993.39624.771.2871.2122.010616.091.976615.962.1132.87613.091.2770.8361.498577.741.464577.601.6242.21575.391.2410.383Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMP a ccMpaccccMP a MP a 0.0340.140.0000.000.2260.000.000.0000.2260.52591.030.49190.890.6950.9489.950.2800.4151.015178.970.981178.831.1621.58177.250.5210.6411.579279.721.545279.581.7012.31277.270.7610.9402.102359.982.068359.852.2012.99356.860.9231.2772.559405.282.525405.142.6373.58401.561.0041.6333.040446.073.006445.933.0964.21441.721.0692.0273.570488.103.536487.963.6024.89483.061.1302.4734.078534.744.044534.604.0885.55529.051.1892.8984.554599.284.520599.144.5426.17592.971.2583.2844.694650.004.660649.864.6766.35643.511.3023.3743.920649.383.886649.243.9375.35643.891.3022.6353.565648.533.531648.393.5984.89643.501.3022.2963.036637.983.002637.843.0934.20633.641.2941.7992.554627.422.520627.292.6323.58623.711.2861.3462.056612.202.022612.062.1572.93609.131.2730.8831.478574.911.444574.771.6052.18572.591.2380.36760 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.313-0.078Vo =1950cc3.7690.0840.0232039.95-0.229-0.057Ro =3.685cm3.8480.1640.0442127.25-0.149-0.037(R/Ro)c =0.0849cm/cm3.9380.2530.0692227.27-0.060-0.015Vc =2295.17cc4.0080.3230.0882306.860.0100.003Rc =3.997cm4.0460.3620.0982351.560.0490.0124.0810.3960.1072391.720.0830.0214.1160.4310.1172433.060.1180.0304.1540.4700.1282479.050.1570.0394.2080.5230.1422542.970.2100.0534.2490.5650.1532593.510.2520.0634.2500.5650.1532593.890.2520.0634.2490.5650.1532593.500.2520.0634.2410.5570.1512583.640.2440.0614.2330.5480.1492573.710.2360.0594.2210.5360.1462559.130.2240.0564.1910.5060.1372522.590.1930.048Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 174

150 Table A.27 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -41.15 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0910.280.0000.000.2380.000.000.0000.2380.54758.270.45657.990.6740.9257.070.1810.4931.125140.601.034140.321.2261.67138.650.4180.8081.672174.131.581173.861.7482.38171.480.5061.2422.019194.441.928194.162.0802.83191.330.5571.5222.507212.832.416212.562.5463.46209.100.6021.9443.074235.382.983235.103.0874.19230.910.6552.4323.601265.203.510264.923.5904.88260.040.7222.8684.105307.004.014306.724.0725.53301.190.8123.2593.508330.683.417330.403.5024.76325.640.8632.6392.862328.712.771328.432.8853.92324.510.8602.0242.616323.862.525323.582.6503.60319.980.8511.7994.004345.493.913345.223.9755.40339.810.8913.0854.606380.024.515379.744.5506.18373.560.9543.5965.107449.335.016449.055.0296.83442.221.0703.9595.538550.805.447550.525.4407.39543.131.2064.2344.067607.453.976607.184.0355.48601.691.2672.7693.344601.483.253601.203.3454.54596.661.2622.0833.052592.622.961592.343.0664.17588.171.2541.8122.478586.462.387586.182.5183.42582.761.2481.2701.947574.061.856573.782.0112.73571.051.2370.7741.507550.751.416550.471.5912.16548.301.2120.379Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0910.280.0000.000.2380.000.000.0000.2380.58094.600.48994.320.7050.9693.360.2900.4151.053150.170.962149.891.1571.57148.320.4450.7121.614181.581.523181.301.6932.30179.000.5261.1671.986198.061.895197.782.0482.78195.000.5671.4812.597218.942.506218.662.6323.58215.080.6172.0153.051241.502.960241.223.0654.16237.050.6692.3963.525278.523.434278.243.5184.78273.460.7522.7654.022329.513.931329.243.9935.42323.810.8593.1343.644331.853.553331.573.6324.93326.630.8652.7672.919327.132.828326.852.9393.99322.860.8572.0822.520322.582.429322.302.5583.48318.820.8491.7093.998351.123.907350.843.9705.39345.440.9023.0684.511409.214.420408.934.4606.06402.871.0063.4545.135490.265.044489.985.0556.87483.111.1303.9265.497606.125.406605.845.4017.34598.501.2644.1383.936607.173.845606.903.9105.31601.581.2662.6443.007593.502.916593.223.0234.11589.121.2551.7692.501584.802.410584.522.5403.45581.071.2471.2931.994571.061.903570.782.0562.79567.981.2330.8221.474545.311.383545.031.5592.12542.911.2060.35360 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.139-0.036Vo =1950cc3.7720.0870.0242043.36-0.052-0.014Ro =3.685cm3.8220.1380.0372098.32-0.0020.000(R/Ro)c =0.0378cm/cm3.8500.1650.0452129.000.0260.007Vc =2100.21cc3.8640.1800.0492145.000.0410.011Rc =3.824cm3.8820.1980.0542165.080.0590.0153.9020.2180.0592187.050.0780.0203.9340.2500.0682223.460.1110.0293.9790.2940.0802273.810.1550.0413.9810.2970.0812276.630.1570.0413.9780.2930.0802272.860.1540.0403.9740.2900.0792268.820.1510.0393.9980.3130.0852295.440.1740.0454.0470.3630.0982352.870.2230.0584.1160.4310.1172433.110.2920.0764.2120.5280.1432548.500.3880.1024.2150.5300.1442551.580.3910.1024.2040.5200.1412539.120.3810.1004.1980.5130.1392531.070.3740.0984.1870.5020.1362517.980.3630.0954.1660.4810.1312492.910.3420.089Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 175

151 Table A.28 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -46 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0710.130.0000.000.2510.000.000.0000.2510.49960.740.42860.610.6600.9059.720.1750.4861.044123.110.973122.981.1811.60121.380.3430.8371.484160.901.413160.781.6012.17158.600.4401.1612.051185.231.980185.112.1422.91182.200.4991.6442.516201.972.445201.852.5863.51198.330.5382.0483.050238.972.979238.843.0964.21234.640.6242.4733.625295.683.554295.563.6454.95290.600.7482.8982.926336.872.855336.742.9784.05332.690.8352.1432.310332.952.239332.822.3903.25329.580.8281.5613.549347.063.478346.943.5734.85342.080.8532.7203.947393.893.876393.773.9535.37388.400.9413.0124.481471.264.410471.144.4636.06465.071.0733.3905.016599.414.945599.284.9746.76592.521.2523.7223.662651.613.591651.483.6815.00646.481.3132.3673.141644.723.070644.603.1834.33640.271.3071.8762.805641.402.734641.272.8623.89637.381.3041.5592.632636.782.561636.652.6973.66632.991.2991.3982.063629.571.992629.442.1542.93626.511.2920.8621.535600.191.464600.061.6492.24597.821.2590.391Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0710.130.0000.000.2510.000.000.0000.2510.57584.630.50484.500.7331.0083.510.2410.4921.076137.261.005137.141.2111.65135.490.3800.8311.587166.991.516166.871.6992.31164.560.4551.2442.049189.841.978189.722.1402.91186.810.5101.6302.553215.202.482215.082.6223.56211.510.5702.0523.110257.103.039256.983.1544.28252.690.6652.4893.527331.723.456331.593.5524.83326.770.8232.7292.913338.112.842337.982.9654.03333.950.8372.1282.286331.042.215330.922.3673.22327.700.8251.5423.548358.323.477358.203.5724.85353.340.8752.6974.014423.293.943423.164.0175.46417.700.9943.0234.605535.594.534535.464.5816.22529.241.1693.4124.797655.724.726655.604.7656.47649.121.3163.4493.508651.583.437651.453.5344.80646.651.3142.2202.990644.682.919644.553.0394.13640.421.3071.7322.772640.742.701640.622.8313.85636.771.3031.5282.410635.442.339635.312.4853.38631.941.2981.1871.932624.681.861624.562.0292.76621.801.2870.7421.535600.191.464600.061.6492.24597.821.2590.39160 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.114-0.030Vo =1950cc3.7630.0780.0212033.51-0.036-0.010Ro =3.685cm3.8100.1260.0342085.490.0120.003(R/Ro)c =0.031cm/cm3.8370.1520.0412114.560.0380.010Vc =2072.77cc3.8570.1720.0472136.810.0580.015Rc =3.799cm3.8790.1950.0532161.510.0800.0213.9160.2310.0632202.690.1170.0313.9810.2970.0812276.770.1830.0483.9880.3030.0822283.950.1890.0503.9820.2980.0812277.700.1830.0484.0050.3200.0872303.340.2060.0544.0600.3750.1022367.700.2610.0694.1550.4700.1282479.240.3560.0944.2540.5690.1552599.120.4550.1204.2520.5670.1542596.650.4530.1194.2470.5620.1532590.420.4480.1184.2440.5590.1522586.770.4450.1174.2400.5550.1512581.940.4410.1164.2310.5470.1482571.800.4330.1144.2120.5270.1432547.820.4130.109Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 176

152 Table A.29 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -49 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0660.090.0000.000.2590.000.000.0000.2590.55461.540.48861.450.7250.9960.460.1770.5491.024140.470.958140.381.1741.60138.780.3890.7851.512228.151.446228.061.6402.23225.840.6031.0372.051329.661.985329.582.1552.93326.650.8221.3332.581427.452.515427.372.6613.62423.751.0041.6573.020468.742.954468.653.0804.19464.461.0722.0083.589506.373.523506.283.6244.92501.361.1292.4954.085556.904.019556.824.0975.57551.251.2002.8984.499619.234.433619.144.4936.10613.041.2773.2163.521648.923.455648.843.5594.84644.001.3112.2483.184646.263.118646.173.2374.40641.781.3081.9292.878641.692.812641.602.9454.00637.601.3041.6412.697638.022.631637.932.7723.77634.161.3001.4722.538633.182.472633.092.6203.56629.531.2951.3252.029623.191.963623.102.1342.90620.201.2850.8491.563580.271.497580.181.6892.29577.881.2340.455Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0660.090.0000.000.2590.000.000.0000.2590.48882.070.42281.990.6620.9081.090.2340.4281.005170.220.939170.131.1561.57168.560.4650.6911.561270.101.495270.011.6872.29267.720.6980.9892.091374.002.025373.912.1932.98370.930.9091.2842.532440.042.466439.962.6143.55436.401.0261.5883.058483.942.992483.853.1174.23479.611.0962.0213.547521.443.481521.363.5844.87516.491.1512.4324.069581.914.003581.824.0825.55576.271.2322.8504.481650.604.415650.514.4766.08644.431.3113.1643.612649.193.546649.103.6464.95644.151.3112.3353.249646.433.183646.343.2994.48641.861.3081.9912.973642.042.907641.953.0354.12637.831.3041.7312.665638.202.599638.112.7413.72634.391.3001.4412.419632.032.353631.942.5063.41628.531.2941.2122.093616.612.027616.522.1952.98613.541.2770.9181.661575.301.595575.211.7832.42572.791.2280.55560 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.385-0.095Vo =1950cc3.7600.0760.0212031.09-0.309-0.076Ro =3.685cm3.8410.1560.0422118.56-0.229-0.056(R/Ro)c =0.1045cm/cm3.9290.2450.0662217.72-0.140-0.034Vc =2378.84cc4.0200.3350.0912320.93-0.050-0.012Rc =4.070cm4.0760.3910.1062386.400.0060.0024.1130.4280.1162429.610.0430.0114.1440.4590.1252466.490.0740.0184.1940.5090.1382526.270.1240.0314.2500.5650.1532594.430.1800.0444.2500.5650.1532594.150.1800.0444.2480.5630.1532591.860.1780.0444.2450.5600.1522587.830.1750.0434.2420.5570.1512584.390.1720.0424.2370.5520.1502578.530.1670.0414.2250.5400.1472563.540.1550.0384.1910.5060.1372522.790.1210.030Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 177

153 Table A.30 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, 54.65 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.0380.750.0000.000.2660.000.000.0000.2660.55449.490.51648.740.7591.0347.710.1400.6181.099133.361.061132.611.2791.74130.870.3680.9111.529216.461.491215.711.6902.30213.410.5741.1161.993302.191.955301.442.1332.90298.540.7641.3682.374401.602.336400.852.4973.39397.460.9581.5393.109494.523.071493.773.1994.35489.421.1112.0883.563592.523.525591.773.6324.94586.831.2452.3873.098630.643.060629.893.1884.33625.561.2911.8972.593625.922.555625.172.7063.68621.491.2861.4202.296618.372.258617.622.4223.29614.331.2781.1442.102609.382.064608.632.2373.04605.591.2680.9691.730595.421.692594.671.8822.56592.121.2520.6301.556571.601.518570.851.7162.33568.521.2220.493Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMP a ccMpaccccMP a MP a 0.0380.750.0000.000.2660.000.000.0000.2660.54980.480.51179.730.7541.0278.710.2280.5261.077163.171.039162.421.2581.71160.710.4450.8131.552251.011.514250.261.7122.33247.930.6541.0582.091346.722.053345.972.2263.03342.940.8551.3722.524439.742.486438.992.6403.59435.401.0241.6163.131537.003.093536.253.2204.37531.881.1732.0463.571630.673.533629.923.6404.95624.971.2902.3502.807632.732.769631.982.9103.95628.031.2931.6172.599624.302.561623.552.7123.68619.861.2841.4272.364616.362.326615.612.4873.38612.231.2761.2122.021605.931.983605.182.1602.93602.241.2640.8961.927589.641.889588.892.0702.81586.081.2440.8251.609562.781.571562.031.7662.40559.631.2110.55560 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.287-0.072Vo =1950cc3.7580.0740.0202028.71-0.213-0.054Ro =3.685cm3.8330.1490.0402110.71-0.138-0.035(R/Ro)c =0.0779cm/cm3.9120.2270.0622197.93-0.060-0.015Vc =2265.64cc3.9950.3110.0842292.940.0240.006Rc =3.972cm4.0750.3910.1062385.400.1040.0264.1570.4720.1282481.880.1850.0474.2340.5490.1492574.970.2620.0664.2370.5520.1502578.030.2650.0674.2300.5450.1482569.860.2580.0654.2240.5390.1462562.230.2520.0634.2150.5310.1442552.240.2440.0614.2020.5170.1402536.080.2300.0584.1800.4950.1342509.630.2080.052Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 178

154 Table A.31 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -58.6 PressureVolumeMPaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.1540.420.0000.000.2850.000.000.0000.2850.59366.960.43966.540.7050.9665.580.1910.5131.135117.430.981117.011.2221.66115.350.3270.8951.530135.991.376135.571.5992.17133.400.3751.2242.035156.871.881156.452.0822.83153.630.4271.6552.517176.202.363175.782.5423.45172.330.4742.0682.914227.072.760226.652.9213.97222.680.5962.3252.500285.682.346285.262.5263.43281.830.7291.7972.010282.211.856281.802.0582.80279.000.7231.3351.540277.561.386277.151.6092.19274.960.7140.8953.004302.382.850301.963.0074.09297.870.7632.2443.466349.073.312348.653.4484.69343.970.8572.5913.992434.663.838434.243.9515.37428.881.0132.9374.351566.764.197566.354.2935.83560.511.2123.0823.594642.003.440641.593.5714.85636.731.3032.2683.223639.233.069638.813.2164.37634.441.3001.9163.104637.842.950637.423.1034.22633.211.2991.8032.650635.262.496634.842.6693.63631.211.2971.3722.477632.842.323632.422.5043.40629.021.2951.2092.011626.411.857626.002.0592.80623.201.2880.7711.533606.351.379605.931.6022.18603.751.2660.337Volume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr30 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For Depth PressureVolumeMpaccMPaccMpaccccMPaMPa0.1540.420.0000.000.2850.000.000.0000.2850.56285.570.40885.150.6750.9284.240.2430.4321.056123.530.902123.111.1471.56121.550.3440.8031.486138.921.332138.501.5572.12136.390.3831.1752.064160.361.910159.942.1092.87157.080.4361.6732.547190.952.393190.532.5713.49187.040.5112.0603.028264.542.874264.123.0304.12260.000.6812.3492.436285.652.282285.232.4653.35281.880.7291.7362.029282.051.875281.632.0762.82278.810.7221.3541.568277.141.414276.731.6362.22274.500.7130.9232.916307.402.762306.982.9233.97303.010.7742.1493.552380.903.398380.483.5304.80375.680.9182.6134.011491.613.857491.193.9695.39485.791.1062.8634.533630.854.379630.444.4676.07624.371.2893.1783.509641.413.355640.993.4894.74636.251.3022.1873.200639.943.046639.523.1944.34635.181.3011.8932.747635.252.593634.842.7623.75631.081.2971.4652.554631.932.400631.512.5773.50628.011.2931.2842.000624.091.846623.672.0482.78620.891.2850.7631.617603.421.463603.001.6822.29600.711.2620.42060 Second ReadingsPressure Baseline CorrectionVolume Baseline CorrectionPressure Adj. For DepthVolume CorrectionCorrected Volume, vPressure CorrectionCorrected Pressure, p = rr R R R/RoVo+ v = V RccmcmcccmLprobe =45.72cm3.6850.0000.0001950.00-0.096-0.025Vo =1950cc3.7630.0790.0212034.24-0.017-0.005Ro =3.685cm3.7980.1130.0312071.550.0170.005(R/Ro)c =0.026cm/cm3.8110.1270.0342086.390.0310.008Vc =2052.72cc3.8300.1460.0392107.080.0500.013Rc =3.780cm3.8570.1730.0472137.040.0770.0203.9230.2380.0652210.000.1420.0383.9420.2570.0702231.880.1620.0433.9390.2550.0692228.810.1590.0423.9350.2510.0682224.500.1550.0413.9610.2760.0752253.010.1800.0484.0240.3390.0922325.680.2440.0644.1180.4330.1182435.790.3380.0894.2340.5490.1492574.370.4530.1204.2430.5590.1522586.250.4630.1224.2420.5580.1512585.180.4620.1224.2390.5550.1502581.080.4590.1214.2370.5520.1502578.010.4560.1214.2310.5460.1482570.890.4500.1194.2140.5290.1442550.710.4340.115Strain Calculations = Rc/Rc

PAGE 179

155 Pressure vs. Volume : TH1 @ -28.45'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Unadjusted Adjusted Figure A.19 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th1 @ .45 Pressure vs. Volume : TH1 @ -32.55'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.20 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th1 @ .55

PAGE 180

156 Pressure vs. Volume : TH1 @ -35.9'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.21 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th1 @ .9 Pressure vs. Volume : TH1 @ -40.7'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Corrected Uncorrected Figure A.22 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th1 @ .7

PAGE 181

157 Pressure vs. Volume : TH1 @ -46.6'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.23 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th1 @ .6 Pressure vs. Volume : TH1 @ -49.9'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.24 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th1 @ .9

PAGE 182

158 Pressure vs. Volume : TH1 @ -52.2'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.25 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th1 @ .2 Pressure vs. Volume : TH2 @ -28.9'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.26 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .9

PAGE 183

159 Pressure vs. Volume : TH2 @ -33.3'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.27 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .3 Pressure vs. Volume : TH2 @ -35.9'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.28 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .9

PAGE 184

160 Pressure vs. Volume : TH2 @ -38.6'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.29 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .6 Pressure vs. Volume : TH2 @ -43.5'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.30 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .5

PAGE 185

161 Pressure vs. Volume : TH2 @ -47.5'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.31 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .5 Pressure vs. Volume : TH2 @ -48.5'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.32 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .5

PAGE 186

162 Pressure vs. Volume : TH2 @ -50.5'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.33 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ .5 Pressure vs. Volume : TH3 @ -29.9'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.34 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ .9

PAGE 187

163 Pressure vs. Volume : TH3 @ -31.4'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.35 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ .4 Pressure vs. Volume : TH3 @ -33.75'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.36 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ .75

PAGE 188

164 Pressure vs. Volume : TH3 @ -36.5'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.37 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ .5 Pressure vs. Volume : TH3 @ -42.92'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.38 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ .92

PAGE 189

165 Pressure vs. Volume : TH3 @ -46'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.39 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ Pressure vs. Volume : TH3 @ -48.5'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.40 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ .5

PAGE 190

166 Pressure vs. Volume : TH3 @ -54.65'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.41Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ .65 Pressure vs. Volume : TH4 @ -29.9'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.42 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ .9

PAGE 191

167 Pressure vs. Volume : TH4 @ -31.92'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.43 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ .92 Pressure vs. Volume : TH4 @ -36.4'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.44 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ .4

PAGE 192

168 Pressure vs. Volume : TH4 @ -41.15'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.45 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ .15 Pressure vs. Volume : TH4 @-46'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.46 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @

PAGE 193

169 Pressure vs. Volume : TH4 @ -49'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.47 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ Pressure vs. Volume : TH4 @ -54.65'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.48 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ .65

PAGE 194

170 Pressure vs. Volume : TH4 @ -58.6'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00100200300400500600700Volume (cc)Pressure (MPa) Uncorrected Corrected Figure A.49 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ .6

PAGE 195

171 Figure A.50 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 1, -28.45

PAGE 196

172 Figure A.51 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 1, -32.55

PAGE 197

173 Figure A.52 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 1, -35.9

PAGE 198

174 Figure A.53 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 1, -40.7

PAGE 199

175 Figure A.54 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 1, -46.6

PAGE 200

176 Figure A.55 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 1, -49.9

PAGE 201

177 Figure A.56 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 1, -52.2

PAGE 202

178 Figure A.57 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -28.9

PAGE 203

179 Figure A.58 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -33.3

PAGE 204

180 Figure A.59 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -35.9

PAGE 205

181 Figure A.60 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -38.6

PAGE 206

182 Figure A.61 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -43.5

PAGE 207

183 Figure A.61 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -47.5

PAGE 208

184 Figure A.62 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -48.5

PAGE 209

185 Figure A.63 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 2, -50.5

PAGE 210

186 Figure A.64 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -29.9

PAGE 211

187 Figure A.65 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -31.4

PAGE 212

188 Figure A.66 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -33.75

PAGE 213

189 Figure A.67 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -36.5

PAGE 214

190 Figure A.68 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -42.92

PAGE 215

191 Figure A.69 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -46

PAGE 216

192 Figure A.70 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -48.5

PAGE 217

193 Figure A.71 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 3, -54.65

PAGE 218

194 Figure A.72 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 4, -29.9

PAGE 219

195 Figure A.73 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 4, -31.92

PAGE 220

196 Figure A.74 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 4, -36.4

PAGE 221

197 Figure A.75 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 4, -41.15

PAGE 222

198 Figure A.76 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 4, -46

PAGE 223

199 Figure A.77 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot Test Hole 4, -49

PAGE 224

200 Figure A.78 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 4, -54.65

PAGE 225

201 Figure A.79 Pressure vs. R/R o Plot, Test Hole 4, -58.6

PAGE 226

APPENDIX B PRESSUREMETER DATA ANALYSIS METHODS

PAGE 227

Table B.1 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -28.46 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7210.0360.0100.0120.00190.16903.7650.0800.0220.0250.00310.18123.8170.1330.0360.0400.00410.19133.8670.1820.0490.0530.00330.18293.9160.2310.0630.0640.00160.16643.9490.2650.0720.0730.00160.16633.9790.2940.0800.0820.00170.16664.0140.3300.0890.0920.00300.17964.0510.3660.0990.1040.00460.19614.1080.4230.1150.1210.00620.21234.1780.4930.1340.1420.00770.22664.2500.5650.1530.152-0.00130.13674.2500.5660.1540.147-0.00680.08214.2460.5610.1520.137-0.01490.00134.2260.5410.1470.080-0.0667-0.5169 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH1 @ -28.45'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.1 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -28.46 203

PAGE 228

204 Table B.2 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -32.55 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7230.0380.0100.0130.00290.17923.7800.0950.0260.0280.00220.17203.8100.1260.0340.0350.00110.16083.8370.1530.0410.0420.00100.16003.8580.1730.0470.0480.00110.16123.8820.1970.0540.0560.00200.16963.9130.2290.0620.0650.00270.17663.9620.2780.0750.0800.00430.19264.0130.3280.0890.0950.00620.21184.0800.3950.1070.1210.01380.28804.2390.5540.1500.1520.00140.16434.2510.5660.1540.148-0.00520.09754.2440.5600.1520.138-0.01370.01264.2320.5470.1490.091-0.0572-0.4219 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH1 @ -32.55'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.2 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -32.55

PAGE 229

205 Table B.3 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -35.9 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7220.0380.0100.0130.00300.18033.7780.0930.0250.0300.00520.20213.8620.1770.0480.0530.00510.20113.9540.2690.0730.0780.00520.20244.0260.3410.0930.0960.00320.18204.0720.3870.1050.1070.00210.17124.1030.4180.1140.1140.00090.15924.1250.4400.1190.1210.00130.16354.1520.4670.1270.1280.00160.16564.1850.5010.1360.1390.00290.17914.2250.5400.1470.1500.00340.18424.2440.5600.1520.152-0.00010.14914.2270.5430.1470.147-0.00020.14844.1420.4580.1240.124-0.00010.1491 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH1 @ -35.9'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.3 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -35.9

PAGE 230

206 Table B.4 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -46.6 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7300.0450.0120.0160.00350.18463.8050.1200.0330.0370.00450.19463.8650.1800.0490.0510.00250.17493.9120.2280.0620.0660.00420.19153.9690.2840.0770.0790.00200.17053.9980.3130.0850.0900.00500.20044.0630.3790.1030.1060.00320.18244.1240.4390.1190.1240.00480.19844.1900.5050.1370.1510.01380.28774.2410.5560.1510.137-0.01420.00764.1900.5050.1370.076-0.0607-0.4573 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH1 @ -46.6'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Note: Significant Scatter, Data Not Analyzed Figure B.4 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -46.6

PAGE 231

207 Table B.5 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -49.9 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7230.0390.0110.0150.00410.19073.7930.1090.0290.0330.00310.18143.8610.1770.0480.0530.00530.20343.9360.2510.0680.0760.00750.22484.0040.3200.0870.0960.00900.24014.0890.4050.1100.1120.00220.17164.1280.4430.1200.1230.00240.17354.1680.4830.1310.1350.00430.19264.2200.5350.1450.1510.00580.20814.2400.5550.1510.1510.00000.14964.2220.5380.1460.146-0.00010.14904.0970.4120.1120.112-0.00010.1488 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH1 @ -49.9'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.5 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -49.9

PAGE 232

208 Table B.6 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -52.2 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7190.0340.0090.0140.00430.19253.7800.0960.0260.0300.00350.18553.8140.1290.0350.0360.00120.16233.8390.1540.0420.0430.00120.16183.8610.1770.0480.0490.00060.15613.8780.1940.0530.0540.00090.15933.8960.2110.0570.0580.00110.16103.9170.2320.0630.0650.00190.16903.9430.2580.0700.0720.00240.17353.9790.2950.0800.0830.00350.18513.9900.3050.0830.0830.00000.14994.0050.3210.0870.0890.00150.16474.0410.3570.0970.1010.00460.19614.1060.4210.1140.1230.00840.23384.2030.5180.1410.1510.01060.25604.2410.5570.1510.1510.00000.14984.2380.5530.1500.1500.00000.14974.2310.5470.1480.148-0.00010.14944.2220.5370.1460.146-0.00010.1494 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH1 @ -52.2'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.6 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -52.2

PAGE 233

209 Table B.7 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 2, -33.3 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7290.0440.0120.0190.00680.21753.8050.1200.0330.0400.00690.21953.8720.1870.0510.0620.01090.25923.9570.2720.0740.0840.01050.25524.0220.3370.0910.0970.00540.20424.0670.3830.1040.1060.00190.16914.1020.4170.1130.1150.00180.16824.1400.4560.1240.1260.00270.17714.1840.5000.1360.1400.00420.19194.2410.5560.1510.1520.00120.16194.2470.5630.1530.148-0.00440.10594.2330.5490.1490.141-0.00790.0709 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH2 @ -33.3'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.7 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 2, -33.3

PAGE 234

210 Table B.8 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 2, -35.9 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7350.0500.0140.0200.00610.21143.8090.1240.0340.0410.00720.22183.8800.1950.0530.0570.00400.19013.9310.2460.0670.0690.00210.17103.9520.2670.0730.0760.00370.18673.9860.3020.0820.0830.00140.16414.0090.3250.0880.0910.00260.17564.0470.3620.0980.1010.00310.18064.0990.4150.1130.1180.00520.20204.1670.4820.1310.1390.00780.22764.2410.5560.1510.1520.00080.15844.2450.5600.1520.151-0.00140.13574.2400.5550.1510.148-0.00230.12734.2320.5480.1490.140-0.00890.0613 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH2 @ -35.9'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.8 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 2, -35.9

PAGE 235

211 Table B.9 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 2, -47.5 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7370.0520.0140.0170.00280.17763.7880.1030.0280.0310.00310.18093.8250.1410.0380.0410.00300.18053.8590.1740.0470.0510.00340.18363.8970.2120.0580.0620.00460.19613.9570.2720.0740.0790.00480.19784.0090.3240.0880.0980.01000.24974.0520.3680.1000.100-0.00010.14894.0900.4050.1100.1110.00140.16424.1310.4470.1210.1300.00860.23594.2300.5460.1480.1540.00620.21204.2540.5690.1540.153-0.00120.13814.2500.5650.1530.147-0.00600.09004.2280.5430.1470.126-0.0218-0.0679 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH2 @ -47.5'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.9 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 2, -47.5

PAGE 236

212 Table B.10 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 2, -48.5 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7250.0400.0110.0150.00380.18843.7860.1010.0270.0320.00440.19413.8450.1610.0440.0480.00400.19003.8980.2130.0580.0620.00450.19523.9350.2510.0680.0720.00430.19353.9920.3080.0830.0870.00300.18054.0020.3170.0860.086-0.00010.14903.9580.2740.0740.074-0.00020.14784.0070.3230.0880.0890.00170.16664.0660.3810.1040.1100.00640.21444.1540.4700.1270.1360.00890.23934.2410.5560.1510.1530.00220.17174.2490.5640.1530.151-0.00250.12464.2400.5550.1510.139-0.01210.0292 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH2 @ -48.5'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.10 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 2, -48.5

PAGE 237

213 Table B.11 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 2, -50.5 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7360.0510.0140.0170.00360.18573.7860.1020.0280.0310.00350.18493.8230.1380.0380.0390.00180.16843.8520.1670.0450.0470.00150.16473.8750.1910.0520.0560.00430.19323.9320.2480.0670.0780.01070.25673.9760.2910.0790.079-0.00010.14933.9550.2710.0730.0740.00000.15053.9930.3080.0840.0860.00260.17624.0560.3710.1010.1110.01030.25294.1650.4800.1300.1450.01460.29624.2250.5400.1470.1470.00000.14994.2200.5350.1450.145-0.00010.14854.1830.4990.1350.135-0.00020.1478 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH2 @ -50.5'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.11 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 2, -50.5

PAGE 238

214 Table B.12 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 3, -29.9 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7430.0590.0160.0200.00400.19023.8160.1310.0360.0420.00610.21073.8960.2120.0570.0650.00750.22513.9700.2850.0770.0850.00730.22334.0300.3450.0940.0990.00520.20234.0830.3980.1080.1130.00460.19644.1390.4540.1230.1290.00590.20914.2110.5260.1430.1510.00860.23604.2430.5580.1520.151-0.00010.14934.2350.5500.1490.149-0.00050.14514.2130.5280.1430.143-0.00010.1489 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH3 @ -29.9'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.12 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 3, -29.9

PAGE 239

215 Table B.13 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 3, -42.92 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7590.0740.0200.0260.00600.20993.8400.1550.0420.0500.00800.22963.9320.2470.0670.0770.01020.25184.0280.3440.0930.1020.00900.23994.1120.4280.1160.1210.00490.19874.1690.4840.1310.1350.00410.19084.2200.5360.1450.1510.00530.20304.2410.5570.1510.1510.00000.14954.2370.5530.1500.150-0.00010.14864.2260.5420.1470.147-0.00020.14824.2150.5300.1440.144-0.00010.1487 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH3 @ -42.92'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.13 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 3, -42.92

PAGE 240

216 Table B.14 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 3, -46 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7520.0680.0180.0200.00210.17073.8040.1190.0320.0420.00920.24173.9000.2150.0580.0720.01360.28604.0170.3330.0900.1010.01070.25744.0990.4140.1120.1150.00240.17424.1350.4510.1220.1250.00230.17274.1720.4880.1320.1350.00310.18054.2170.5320.1440.1510.00700.21994.2420.5570.1510.151-0.00010.14944.2400.5560.1510.151-0.00010.14944.2370.5530.1500.150-0.00010.14914.2300.5450.1480.148-0.00020.14814.2140.5300.1440.144-0.00010.1491 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH3 @ -46'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.14 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 3, -46

PAGE 241

217 Table B.15 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 3, -48.5 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7570.0720.0200.0260.00660.21573.8360.1520.0410.0490.00800.22973.9350.2500.0680.0790.01140.26444.0390.3550.0960.1070.01100.26044.1270.4430.1200.1260.00550.20544.1860.5020.1360.1390.00260.17584.2230.5390.1460.1490.00270.17654.2520.5680.1540.154-0.00050.14534.2510.5660.1540.153-0.00060.14434.2490.5640.1530.152-0.00150.13554.2440.5590.1520.148-0.00340.1159 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH3 @ -48.5'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.15 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 3, -48.5

PAGE 242

218 Table B.16 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 3, -54.65 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7320.0480.0130.0180.00540.20373.7810.0960.0260.0280.00150.16473.8060.1210.0330.0350.00210.17073.8270.1420.0390.0400.00170.16733.8440.1600.0430.0460.00260.17643.8770.1920.0520.0560.00410.19073.9190.2340.0640.0680.00440.19443.9680.2840.0770.0830.00560.20564.0270.3420.0930.1000.00710.22114.0530.3690.1000.100-0.00040.14594.0670.3830.1040.1080.00380.18834.1170.4320.1170.1240.00650.21454.1790.4950.1340.1480.01330.28264.2240.5390.1460.146-0.00030.14684.2180.5330.1450.145-0.00010.14874.2100.5250.1430.142-0.00030.14664.2010.5160.1400.139-0.00110.13864.1510.4660.1270.125-0.00130.1366 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH3 @ -54.65'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.16 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 3, -54.65

PAGE 243

219 Table B.17 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -29.9 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7440.0590.0160.0220.00650.21463.8160.1320.0360.0450.00880.23793.9070.2220.0600.0680.00770.22713.9780.2930.0800.0880.00820.23164.0490.3640.0990.1060.00700.21964.1180.4340.1180.1210.00360.18554.1560.4710.1280.1330.00490.19944.2060.5220.1420.1460.00430.19324.2500.5660.1540.153-0.00090.14104.2490.5640.1530.151-0.00210.12924.2420.5580.1510.148-0.00350.11504.2320.5480.1490.143-0.00550.09544.2180.5340.1450.131-0.01420.0078 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH4 @ -29.9'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.17 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -29.9

PAGE 244

220 Table B.18 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -31.92 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7500.0660.0180.0230.00530.20323.8250.1400.0380.0470.00930.24303.9100.2250.0610.0680.00680.21783.9790.2940.0800.0880.00790.22924.0460.3610.0980.1050.00660.21554.1090.4250.1150.1210.00570.20734.1680.4840.1310.1370.00530.20274.2260.5410.1470.1530.00570.20754.2470.5630.1530.153-0.00010.14904.2430.5580.1520.1520.00000.15024.2390.5550.1510.150-0.00020.14764.2340.5500.1490.149-0.00040.14624.2230.5380.1460.144-0.00190.13064.1710.4870.1320.131-0.00130.1370 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH4 @ -31.92'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.18 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -31.92

PAGE 245

221 Table B.19 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -36.4 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7360.0520.0140.0230.00880.23763.8200.1360.0370.0440.00770.22693.9070.2220.0600.0690.00840.23453.9830.2990.0810.0880.00660.21564.0340.3490.0950.0980.00330.18304.0730.3880.1050.1070.00210.17134.0980.4140.1120.1170.00470.19694.1400.4550.1240.1280.00400.19014.1850.5000.1360.1420.00620.21224.2330.5490.1490.1530.00430.19324.2510.5670.1540.153-0.00040.14554.2490.5640.1530.1530.00010.15094.2470.5620.1530.151-0.00160.13424.2420.5570.1510.149-0.00240.12574.2340.5490.1490.146-0.00350.11514.2240.5400.1460.137-0.00910.0591 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH4 @ -36.4'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.19 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -36.4

PAGE 246

222 Table B.20 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -41.15 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7380.0540.0150.0240.00910.24133.8130.1290.0350.0370.00240.17393.8430.1590.0430.0450.00180.16853.8610.1770.0480.0490.00090.15903.8770.1930.0520.0540.00150.16463.8970.2120.0580.0590.00150.16493.9230.2380.0650.0680.00320.18233.9590.2740.0740.0800.00540.20393.9800.2960.0800.0810.00020.15243.9790.2950.0800.080-0.00040.14613.9750.2910.0790.079-0.00030.14723.9930.3080.0840.0850.00130.16334.0220.3370.0920.0980.00690.21864.0810.3960.1080.1170.00940.24434.1660.4820.1310.1430.01250.27494.2150.5300.1440.1440.00000.14984.2110.5260.1430.141-0.00170.13314.2040.5190.1410.139-0.00160.13404.1990.5150.1400.136-0.00330.11674.1900.5050.1370.131-0.00640.0864 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH4 @ -41.15'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.20 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -41.15

PAGE 247

223 Table B.21 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -46 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7410.0560.0150.0210.00600.20993.7980.1130.0310.0340.00350.18513.8320.1470.0400.0410.00150.16473.8530.1680.0460.0470.00110.16133.8670.1830.0500.0530.00320.18213.9000.2150.0580.0630.00440.19373.9500.2650.0720.0810.00860.23623.9870.3020.0820.0820.00030.15303.9840.2990.0810.081-0.00040.14563.9950.3100.0840.0870.00270.17664.0350.3500.0950.1020.00680.21844.1010.4160.1130.1280.01470.29694.2070.5230.1420.1550.01260.27644.2520.5670.1540.1540.00000.15044.2470.5620.1530.1530.00000.15034.2440.5600.1520.152-0.00010.14864.2410.5560.1510.151-0.00020.14774.2350.5510.1490.148-0.00110.13954.2120.5270.1430.1430.00000.1500 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH4 @-46'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.21 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -46

PAGE 248

224 Table B.22 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -46 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7410.0570.0150.0210.00520.20193.8130.1290.0350.0420.00740.22353.8920.2080.0560.0660.01010.25123.9810.2970.0810.0910.01050.25464.0650.3810.1030.1060.00290.17944.1000.4150.1130.1160.00350.18494.1310.4470.1210.1250.00350.18454.1730.4880.1330.1380.00570.20654.2240.5400.1460.1530.00700.22004.2500.5650.1530.1530.00000.15034.2480.5630.1530.1530.00000.15024.2440.5600.1520.1520.00010.15054.2420.5570.1510.1510.00010.15054.2380.5530.1500.150-0.00020.14784.2300.5460.1480.147-0.00150.13514.1950.5110.1390.137-0.00110.1385 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH4 @ -49'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.22 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -49

PAGE 249

225 Table B.23 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -54.65 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7290.0450.0120.0200.00780.22823.8060.1220.0330.0400.00740.22383.8810.1960.0530.0620.00840.23373.9570.2720.0740.0840.01060.25554.0430.3580.0970.1060.00880.23834.1210.4370.1180.1280.00970.24694.2030.5180.1410.1490.00850.23544.2350.5500.1490.1500.00060.15554.2310.5470.1480.148-0.00040.14644.2250.5410.1470.146-0.00050.14534.2180.5340.1450.144-0.00070.14254.2070.5220.1420.140-0.00140.13644.1870.5030.1360.134-0.00200.1299 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH4 @ -54.65'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Note: Significant Scatter, Data Not Analyzed Figure B.23 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -54.65

PAGE 250

226 Table B.24 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -58.6 RRR/RoR/Ro(R/Ro)60 (R/Ro)30(R/Ro)creep *10 + 0.1530sec, cm30sec, cm30sec60sec60sec-30sec60sec-30sec3.6850.0000.0000.0000.00000.15003.7460.0610.0170.0210.00470.19693.7920.1070.0290.0310.00150.16543.8090.1240.0340.0340.00070.15743.8270.1420.0390.0390.00090.15853.8440.1590.0430.0470.00360.18613.8890.2050.0560.0650.00900.24033.9420.2570.0700.0700.00000.15013.9390.2550.0690.0690.00000.14953.9360.2510.0680.068-0.00010.14893.9560.2710.0740.0750.00120.16223.9960.3120.0850.0920.00750.22474.0700.3850.1050.1180.01310.28144.1810.4960.1350.1490.01430.29344.2440.5590.1520.152-0.00010.14894.2420.5570.1510.1510.00020.15164.2410.5560.1510.150-0.00050.14534.2390.5550.1510.150-0.00070.14294.2370.5530.1500.148-0.00180.13194.2330.5480.1490.144-0.00500.0997 Creep ( 60sec 30sec ) : TH4 @ -58.6'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.00.000.050.100.150.200.250.30R/RoPressure (MPa) Test Data Creep Note: Scale for Creep(R/Ro)creep x 10 + 0.15 Figure B.24 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 4, -58.6

PAGE 251

227 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-245.156-0.112-197.085-0.090-144.787-0.066-83.291-0.038-31.616-0.01416.4900.00854.1280.02587.9880.040134.2310.061183.5190.084257.8810.117348.4330.159395.6130.180371.4570.169329.9780.15082.2110.037 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH1 @ -28.45'0123456789100.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 5.351 3.240 = 0.917 MPa ln[1.0/.1] pL = 5.351 MPa cu Figure B.25 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 1, -28.45 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-114.740-0.056-61.473-0.030-2.963-0.00125.7000.01255.2210.02778.3110.038108.6580.053146.8020.071208.8280.101275.2590.133386.9310.187523.1000.253507.8020.246462.3020.224258.6040.125 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH1 @ -32.55'0123456789100.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 5.588 2.958 = 1.142 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 5.588 MPa cu Figure B.26 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 1, -32.55

PAGE 252

228 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-376.157-0.162-323.345-0.139-254.584-0.109-162.091-0.070-57.779-0.02515.9670.00765.4740.02896.6410.042124.4510.054157.4120.068203.7170.088254.0480.109261.7500.113240.7530.103138.8220.060 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH1 @ -35.9'0123456789100.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 8.367 3.796 = 1.985 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 8.367 MPa cu Figure B.27 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 1, -35.9 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-224.103-0.103-161.807-0.074-76.432-0.035-17.780-0.00841.8430.01997.5900.045143.0390.066211.6600.097289.8670.133409.5500.188346.3340.15985.3310.039 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH1 @ -46.6'0123456789100.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 5.031 2.375 = 1.153 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 5.031 MPa cu Figure B.28 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 1, -46.6

PAGE 253

229 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-428.844-0.180-370.769-0.156-298.927-0.126-214.666-0.090-122.145-0.051-36.966-0.01632.8630.01479.0950.033135.6770.057205.3680.086203.6870.086182.1810.07731.7540.013 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH1 @ -49.9'0123456789100.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 5.208 3.083 = 0.923 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 5.208 MPa cu Figure B.29 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 1, -49.9 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-122.774-0.059-69.660-0.034-5.994-0.00321.2040.01048.8120.02471.1060.03491.5620.044111.7080.054138.7090.067169.7970.082216.2970.104213.6600.103237.8850.115292.8150.141385.1210.186511.5060.247510.7620.246506.3860.244498.5740.241487.1420.235 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH1 @ -52.2'0123456789100.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 6.646 3.75 = 1.258 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 6.646 MPa cu Figure B.30 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 1, -52.2

PAGE 254

230 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-348.975-0.152-275.171-0.120-191.547-0.083-100.654-0.044-6.247-0.00347.0900.02085.1420.037125.6520.055175.2080.076234.2140.102289.3960.126272.2590.118239.5720.104 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH2 @ -33.3'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 5.917 2.979 = 1.276 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 5.917 MPa cu Figure B.31 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 2, -33.3 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-244.742-0.112-166.661-0.076-81.911-0.037-16.439-0.00733.1020.01563.7520.02993.6590.043125.1640.057170.3230.078241.4280.110333.3280.152392.4130.179386.7180.176377.2280.172338.3630.154 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH2 @ -35.9'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 5.772 3.083 = 1.177 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 5.772 MPa cu Figure B.32 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 2, -35.9

PAGE 255

231 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-114.339-0.055-47.470-0.0238.8710.00449.6430.02488.3700.043135.8860.066204.2180.099286.1640.139293.8500.142343.9650.167424.8090.206533.8880.259529.1530.256502.5400.243406.3920.197 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH2 @ -47.5'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 3.857 2.02 = 0.798 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 3.857 MPa cu Figure B.33 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 2, -47.5 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-133.241-0.064-75.132-0.036-7.032-0.00356.6610.027117.8010.057159.1960.076218.8570.105216.7660.104166.3460.080230.5630.111319.1220.153434.9890.209509.6210.245498.2180.239444.8680.214 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH2 @ -48.5'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 3.735 1.694 = 1.536 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 3.735 MPa cu Figure B.34 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 2, -48.5

PAGE 256

232 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-94.723-0.046-26.307-0.01328.4220.01461.9420.03091.9860.045130.2670.064220.9340.108225.5260.110202.5610.099256.0410.125362.5740.177511.2880.250519.2040.254512.5710.251467.6480.229 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH2 @ -50.5'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 3.347 2.0 = 0.585 MPa ln[1.0/0.1] pL = 3.347 MPa cu Figure B.35 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 2, -50.5 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-341.359-0.149-262.840-0.115-175.492-0.077-79.706-0.0352.9540.00163.1500.028123.0890.054195.3150.085294.1810.128294.0730.128282.3480.123257.6500.112 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH3 @ -29.9'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 4.202 2.326 = 0.815 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 4.202 MPa cu Figure B.36 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 3, -29.9

PAGE 257

233 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-449.566-0.187-346.412-0.144-249.442-0.104-136.556-0.057-30.530-0.01350.8290.021114.3080.048182.6560.076183.7710.077178.8290.075165.2100.069151.1500.063 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH3 @ -42.92'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 4.0 2.255 = 0.758 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 4.0 MPa cu Figure B.37 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 3, -42.92 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-399.215-0.170-318.629-0.136-233.649-0.099-108.421-0.04614.5190.00674.4770.032116.9410.050164.4200.070236.1790.101235.1990.100233.1660.099229.0490.098219.8630.094201.3210.086 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH3 @ -46'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 4.796 2.49 = 1.001 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 4.796 MPa cu Figure B.38 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 3, -46

PAGE 258

234 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-388.099-0.166-284.670-0.122-191.653-0.082-66.195-0.02852.9840.023133.0870.057190.4970.081235.6620.101257.1960.110254.5220.109248.3860.106233.6610.100 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH3 @ -48.5'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 5.245 1.990 = 1.414 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 5.245 MPa cu Figure B.39 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 3, -48.5 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-77.587-0.038-5.405-0.00331.4520.01661.3100.03083.1390.041106.0550.052147.6220.073196.7810.097257.4810.127331.7340.164330.5330.163364.9630.180434.8550.214540.2460.266533.4520.263526.8820.260516.6290.255501.9850.248441.4840.218 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH3 @ -54.65'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 6.143 2.98 = 1.374 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 6.143 MPa cu Figure B.40 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 3, -54.65

PAGE 259

235 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-368.496-0.159-279.977-0.121-191.025-0.082-93.939-0.041-11.156-0.00565.9510.028133.0480.057184.2870.079242.0340.104272.2290.117264.9070.114250.7850.108229.8200.099174.0060.075 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH4 @ -29.9'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 6.229 2.833 = 1.475 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 6.229 MPa cu Figure B.41 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -29.9 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-435.310-0.182-344.152-0.144-246.304-0.103-161.262-0.068-77.834-0.033-6.435-0.00365.0930.027133.6170.056205.4500.086205.5100.086200.6620.084194.9390.082188.3190.079167.0210.070108.3300.045 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH4 @ -31.92'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 5.333 2.958 = 1.031 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 5.333 MPa cu Figure B.42 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -31.92

PAGE 260

236 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-345.166-0.150-255.220-0.111-167.914-0.073-67.895-0.03011.6900.00556.3910.02596.5580.042137.8970.060183.8830.080247.8070.108298.3430.130298.7260.130298.3330.130288.4720.126278.5440.121263.9650.115227.4260.099 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH4 @ -36.4'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 6.071 3.198 = 1.248 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 6.071 MPa cu Figure B.43 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -36.4 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-150.206-0.072-56.843-0.027-1.887-0.00128.7910.01444.7910.02164.8750.03186.8470.041123.2570.059173.6040.083176.4280.084172.6510.082168.6150.080195.2370.093252.6660.120332.9060.159448.2980.213451.3760.215438.9090.209430.8630.205417.7790.199392.7050.187 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH4 @ -41.15'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 6.0 3.388 = 1.134 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 6.0 MPa cu Figure B.44 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -41.15

PAGE 261

237 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-122.774-0.059-39.265-0.01912.7190.00641.7860.02064.0370.03188.7410.043129.9190.063203.9910.098211.1770.102204.9290.099230.5710.111294.9280.142406.4620.196526.3500.254523.8760.253517.6470.250513.9980.248509.1640.246499.0270.241475.0470.229 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH4 @-46'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 4.714 2.878 = 0.797 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 4.714 MPa cu Figure B.45 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -46 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-428.84-0.180-347.76-0.146-260.28-0.109-161.13-0.068-57.91-0.0247.560.00350.770.02187.640.037147.430.062215.580.091215.300.091213.010.090208.990.088205.540.086199.690.084184.690.078143.950.061 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH4 @ -49'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 5.094 3.281 = 0.787 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 5.094 MPa cu Figure B.46 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -49

PAGE 262

238 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-315.64-0.139-236.94-0.105-154.93-0.068-67.71-0.03027.300.012119.760.053216.230.095309.330.137312.390.138304.220.134296.590.131286.600.126270.440.119243.980.108 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH4 @ -54.65'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 4.0 2.235 = 0.767 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 4.0 MPa cu Figure B.47 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -54.65 Vc = V VcVc/Vccc-102.72-0.050-18.48-0.00918.840.00933.670.01654.360.02684.320.041157.280.077179.160.087176.090.086171.790.084200.290.098272.970.133383.080.187521.650.254533.530.260532.460.259528.360.257525.290.256518.170.252498.000.243 Gibson and Anderson Method : TH4 @ -58.6'0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.00.010.101.00Vc/VcPressure (MPa) cu = 4.103 2.592 = 0.656 MPa ln[1.0/0.10] pL = 4.103 cu Figure B.48 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -58.6

PAGE 263

APPENDIX C LIMESTONE STRENGTH TESTS

PAGE 264

1P12P2 P EAvg Einlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsipsi0.0005370.440.00151092.740.000505722.316.52E-0559.18908228954,0560.0005370.960.00141032.320.000420661.365.42E-0554.19999884 Stress vs. Strain : Choctawhatchee (SR-10) box3-2B-b02040608010012000.000050.00010.000150.00020.00025Strain, (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.1 Modulus Test, Box 3, Sample 2B 240

PAGE 265

241 1P12P2 P EAvg Einlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsipsi0.0004314.70.00151022.30.00053707.66.41E-0557.42895498902,1930.0005306.50.00151011.00.00052704.56.29E-0557.17908889 Stress vs. Strain : Choctawhatchee (SR-10) box3-1F-b02040608010012000.000050.00010.000150.00020.00025Strain, (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.2 Modulus Test, Box 3, Sample 2F

PAGE 266

242 1P12P2 P EAvg Einlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsipsi0.0016697.90.00261747.90.0005210505.86E-0585.8614653821,532,2330.0021708.20.00311754.80.000471046.65.35E-0585.581599084 Stress vs. Strain : Choctawhatchee (SR-10) box3-1B-b02040608010012014016018020000.000050.00010.000150.00020.000250.00030.000350.00040.00045Strain, (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.3 Modulus Test, Box 3, Sample 1B

PAGE 267

243 1P12P2 P EAvg Einlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsipsi0.00040353.70.00151309.80.00056956.10.00006978.0211246451,121,2180.00038334.30.00151310.30.00057976.00.00007179.641117790 Stress vs. Strain : Choctawhatchee (SR-10) box3-1D-b02040608010012014000.000050.00010.000150.00020.00025Strain, (in/in)Strain, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.4 Modulus Test, Box 3, Sample 1D

PAGE 268

244 1P12P2 P EAvg Einlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsipsi0.00121995.30.00322182.60.00101187.30.00012196.3798464798,2090.00127892.70.00362273.00.00111380.30.000140112.0797955 Stress vs. Strain : Choctawhatchee (SR-10) box4-1A-b05010015020025000.00010.00020.00030.00040.0005Strain, (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.5 Modulus Test, Box 4, Sample 1A

PAGE 269

245 1P12P2 P EAvg Einlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsipsi0.0008926.10.00272951.00.000922024.90.00011164.214688781,450,7370.0008875.60.00262731.70.000861856.10.00011150.51432597 Stress vs. Strain : Choctawhatchee (SR-10) box4-1B-b05010015020025030000.00010.00020.00030.0004Strain, (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.6 Modulus Test, Box 4, Sample 1B

PAGE 270

246 1P12P2 P EAvg Einlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsipsi0.00064923.90.00172238.20.000511314.37.1E-05106.415018371,507,6070.000761009.00.00182359.70.000521350.77.2E-05109.41513376 Stress vs. Strain : Choctawhatchee (SR-10) box4-f-b05010015020025000.000050.00010.000150.00020.000250.0003 (in/in) (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.7 Modulus Test, Box 4, Sample 1F

PAGE 271

247 1P12P2 P EAvg Einlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsipsi0.00258778.70.003881296.00.00065517.38.81E-0542.6482899503,6370.00261713.70.003831240.90.00061527.28.27E-0543.4524374 Stress vs. Strain : Choctawhatchee (SR-10) box6-1B-b02040608010012014000.00010.00020.00030.00040.00050.00060.0007Strain, (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.8 Modulus Test, Box 6, Sample 1B

PAGE 272

248 1P12P2 P EAvg Einlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsipsi0.00070886.40.001852145.90.000581259.57.2E-05102.614278471,399,3760.00075851.00.001952112.90.000601261.97.5E-05102.81370906 Stress vs. Strain : Choctawhatchee (SR-10) box6-1A-b02040608010012014016018020000.000050.00010.000150.00020.000250.0003Strain, (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.9 Modulus Test, Box 6, Sample 1A

PAGE 273

249 1P12P2 P EAvg Einlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsipsi0.000317500.001373599.50.000532849.16.42E-05235.836709963,676,1820.000387860.001353400.40.000492614.65.88E-05216.43681367 Stress vs. Strain : Hallandale Bridge box8-3B-b05010015020025030035000.000050.00010.000150.0002Strain, (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.10 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 3B

PAGE 274

250 1P12P2 P EAvg Einlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsipsi0.000301902.00.00126640.50.000434738.55.29E-05391.673999807,538,9340.000221223.40.00116368.60.000455145.25.54E-05425.27677889 Stress vs. Strain : Hallandale Bridge box8-3C-b010020030040050060070000.000050.00010.000150.0002Strain, (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.11 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 3C

PAGE 275

251 1P12P2 P EAvg Einlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsipsi0.00020874.40.00114772.20.000453897.85.65E-05323.357212665,666,6360.00023945.60.00125155.60.000494210.06.22E-05349.25612006 Stress vs. Strain : Hallandale Bridge box8-3D-b010020030040050060000.000050.00010.000150.0002Strain, (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.12 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 3D

PAGE 276

252 1P12P2 P EAvg Einlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsipsi0.00171509.40.00614588.80.0022253079.40.000276256.5929325914,2870.00151270.10.00725066.80.0028353796.70.000352316.2899249 Stress vs. Strain : Hallandale Bridge box8-3E-b010020030040050060000.00020.00040.00060.00080.0010.0012Strain, (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.13 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 3E

PAGE 277

253 1P12P2 P EAvg Einlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsipsi0.00141098.60.00786284.00.00325185.30.00039429.210882161,094,3610.00201497.70.00806444.80.00304947.10.00037409.51100506 Stress vs. Strain : Hallandale Bridge box8-3F-b010020030040050060070000.00020.00040.00060.00080.0010.0012Strain, (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.14 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 3F

PAGE 278

254 1P12P2 P EAvg Einlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsipsi0.000129010.000573999.70.000233098.42.79E-05255.891668409,222,7580.0001711370.000614203.80.000223066.62.73E-05253.29278677 Stress vs. Strain : Hallandale Bridge box8-4C-b05010015020025030035040045001E-052E-053E-054E-055E-056E-057E-058E-059E-050.0001Strain, (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.15 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 4C

PAGE 279

255 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.00958109.50.0120147.70.0024038.10.0007916.621.021.820.01065116.70.0123144.20.0016027.60.0005312.022.7 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 2 Core A0204060801001200.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.16 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -30.97 to -35.97, Core A

PAGE 280

256 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.016916.30.019844.40.0029028.10.00087912.113.814.120.017113.50.020547.70.0033434.20.00101214.714.5 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown ( SR-20 ) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 2 Core B0204060801001200.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.17 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -30.97 to -35.97, Core B

PAGE 281

257 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsin/2lbsin/inpsiksiksi10.0095116.620.0112141.680.0017025.060.00048410.2921.323.020.0102617.460.0118745.150.0016127.690.00045811.3724.8 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 3 Core A02040608010012000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.18 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -35.86 to -40.86, Core A

PAGE 282

258 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.00863828.90.009201006.70.000569177.80.00016273.1450.0448.420.00883846.10.00929989.20.000461143.10.00013258.8446.8 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 5 Core A0200400600800100012000.00000.00100.00200.00300.00400.00500.00600.0070Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.19 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core A

PAGE 283

259 The ultimate strength test was used for modulus determination because the modulus tests went to only 610psi and did not display a linear zone for modulus slope calculation. However, the sample was loaded to failure immediatley following the modulus tests without removing the seating load.Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.004962673.90.008465702.60.003503028.70.001011242.11231.91231.9 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 5 Core B06001200180024000.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) Ultimate load step (LS) Ultimate LS Modulus Points Figure C.20 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core B

PAGE 284

260 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.004981209.50.006082332.40.001111122.80.000318458.41439.51463.020.005181297.50.006212385.50.001041088.10.000299444.21486.4 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 5 Core C0200400600800100012000.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.21 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core C

PAGE 285

261 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.005751688.30.006552473.00.000802784.70.000229321.81404.61433.420.005951791.00.006532387.90.000586596.90.000167244.81462.2 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown ( SR-20 ) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 5 Core D0200400600800100012000.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.22 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core D

PAGE 286

262 The ultimate strength test was used for modulus determination because the modulus tests setup was discovered to have considerable bending and therefore had to be reconfigured. The sample was loaded to failure after the test frame setup was stiffened.Load1P12P2 PcorrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi0.008101009.20.010021920.10.00192910.90.000548377.2687.8687.8 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 6 Core A0200400600800100012000.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) Ultimate load step (LS) Ultimate LS Slope Points Figure C.23 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Core A

PAGE 287

263 The ultimate strength test was used for modulus determination because the modulus tests setup was discovered to have considerable bending and therefore had to be reconfigured. The sample was loaded to failure after the test frame setup was stiffened.Load1P12P2 PcorrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.008341108.50.01011954.00.00176845.40.000508347.3684.3684.3 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 6 Core B0200400600800100012000.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) Ultimate load step (LS) Ultimate LS Slope Points Figure C.24 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Core B

PAGE 288

264 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.006301799.20.006772295.10.000476495.90.000135203.61504.91425.220.006331767.50.006832241.30.000508473.70.000145194.51345.6 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown ( SR-20 ) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 4 Core A0200400600800100012000.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.25 Modulus Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Core A

PAGE 289

265 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.00669855.90.007991940.50.001311084.60.000372445.81197.21204.220.00683900.20.007921816.00.00109915.80.000311376.41211.3 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field Cores-Test Hole 2 Run 4 Core B02004006008001000120000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.26 Modulus Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Core B

PAGE 290

266 The ultimate strength test was used for modulus determination because the modulus tests went to only 610psi and did not display a linear zone for modulus slope calculation. However, the sample was loaded to failure immediatley following the modulus tests without removing the seating load.Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.002791238.60.003732119.00.000939880.40.000298359.01204.51204.5 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 5 Core A0200400600800100012000.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) Ultimate load step (LS) Ultimate LS modulus points Figure C.27 Modulus Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Core A

PAGE 291

267 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.00448488.10.00522713.50.000733225.50.00020893.0447.4466.420.00494577.30.00537721.10.000431143.80.00012259.3485.3 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 3 Run 4 Core A0200400600800100012000.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.28 Modulus Test, Test Hole 3, -38.9 to -43.9, Core A

PAGE 292

268 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.0173665.60.01897127.60.0016162.00.00046126.357.157.220.0178760.10.01924113.20.0013753.10.00039322.557.3 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown ( SR-20 ) Field CoresTest Hole 3 Run 7 Core A0204060801001200.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.29 Modulus Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Core A

PAGE 293

269 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.0042015.00.010529.20.0063214.20.001786.93.93.9 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 1 Core A0204060801001200.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) Figure C.30 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -28.65 to -33.65, Core A

PAGE 294

270 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.01773105.10.01861152.20.00087447.10.00024620.683.686.120.0182097.40.01935163.40.00115766.10.00032628.988.5 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 4 Core A0501001502002503003504000.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.31 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Core A

PAGE 295

271 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.0122739.60.0133881.50.0011241.90.00032219.861.562.220.0126229.20.0139580.50.0013351.20.00038524.262.9 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 4 Core B0204060801001200.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.32 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Core B

PAGE 296

272 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.0027927.20.0034453.20.00065126.10.00023211.650.051.320.0033924.00.0040451.40.00065127.40.00023212.252.6 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 4 Core C0204060801001200.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.33 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Core C

PAGE 297

273 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.01092314.00.01198494.90.001058181.00.00060218.530.831.020.01148373.60.01215490.00.000670116.40.00038111.931.2 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Core A0204060801001200.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.34 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core A

PAGE 298

274 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.0114577.60.01302153.30.0015675.70.00051732.162.164.520.0119777.40.01332147.40.0013570.10.00044529.766.8 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Core B0204060801001200.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.35 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core B

PAGE 299

275 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.01603192.20.01781347.10.00178154.90.00050964.4126.4130.220.01667198.70.01828347.30.00161148.60.00046161.8134.0 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Core C0200400600800100012000.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.36 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core C

PAGE 300

276 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.00981123.90.01159225.10.00179101.30.00050742.183.184.420.01051132.30.01207223.50.0015691.20.00044237.985.7 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown ( SR-20 ) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Core D0204060801001200.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.37 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core D

PAGE 301

277 Load1P12P2 P corrEAvg ECycleinlbsinlbsinlbsin/inpsiksiksi10.00890188.70.01013289.50.00124100.80.00034743.4125.0128.520.00904181.50.01035294.40.00131112.90.00036848.6131.9 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Core E0200400600800100012000.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.007Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) 1st load step (LS) 2nd load step (LS) 1st LS modulus points 2nd LS modulus points Figure C.38 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core E

PAGE 302

278 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 2 Core A0501001502002503003504000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 87.3 psif = 0.00487 in/in Figure C.39 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -30.97 to -35.97, Core A Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 2 Core B0501001502002503003504000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 91.7 psif = 0.00718 in/in Figure C.40 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -30.97 to -35.97, Core B

PAGE 303

279 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 3 Core A0501001502002503003504000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 87.1 psif = 0.00515 in/in Figure C.41 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -35.86 to -40.86, Core A Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 5 Core A050010001500200025003000350040000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 1104.5 psif = 0.00390 in/in Figure C.42 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core A

PAGE 304

280 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 5 Core B050010001500200025003000350040000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 3374.8 psif = 0.00374 in/in Figure C.43 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core B Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 5 Core C050010001500200025003000350040000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 2573.7 psif = 0.00429 in/in Figure C.44 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core C

PAGE 305

281 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 5 Core D050010001500200025003000350040000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 3278.3 psif = 0.00352 in/in Figure C.45 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Core D Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 6 Core A050010001500200025003000350040000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 1422.2 psif = 0.00381 in/in Figure C.46 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Core A

PAGE 306

282 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 6 Core B050010001500200025003000350040000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 1410.9 psif = 0.00388 in/in Figure C.47 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Core B Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 4 Core A050010001500200025003000350040000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 2447.4 psif = 0.00309 in/in Figure C.48 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Core A

PAGE 307

283 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 4 Core B050010001500200025003000350040000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 1661.7 psif = 0.00188 in/in Figure C.49 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Core B Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 5 Core A050010001500200025003000350040000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 1702.1 psif = 0.00251 in/in Figure C.50 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Core A

PAGE 308

284 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 3 Run 4 Core A0501001502002503003504000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 374.4 psif = 0.00114 in/in Figure C.51 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 3, -38.9 to -43.9, Core A Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 3 Run 7 Core A0501001502002503003504000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 65.3 psif = 0.00147 in/in Figure C.52 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Core A

PAGE 309

285 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 1 Core A0501001502002503003504000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 14.4 psif = 0.00303 in/in Figure C.53 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -28.65 to -33.65, Core A Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 4 Core A0501001502002503003504000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 127.8 psif = 0.00353 in/in Figure C.54 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Core A

PAGE 310

286 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 4 Core B0501001502002503003504000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 86.8 psif = 0.00311 in/in Figure C.55 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Core B Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 4 Core C0501001502002503003504000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 112.2 psif = 0.00733 in/in Figure C.56 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Core C

PAGE 311

287 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Core A0501001502002503003504000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 316.9 psif = 0.00263 in/in Figure C.57 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core A Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Core B0501001502002503003504000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 101.9 psif = 0.00323 in/in Figure C.58 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core B

PAGE 312

288 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Core C0501001502002503003504000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 182.7 psif = 0.00189 in/in Figure C.59 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core C Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Core D0501001502002503003504000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 110.8 psif = 0.00158 in/in Figure C.60 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core D

PAGE 313

289 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Core E0501001502002503003504000.000.010.020.030.040.05Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qu = 157.1 psif = 0.00162 in/in Figure C.61 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -61.02, Core E Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 3 Sample A0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 12.5 psif = 0.0446 in/in Figure C.62 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -35.86 to -40.86, Sample A

PAGE 314

290 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 3 Sample B02004006008001000120014000.0000.0200.0400.0600.0800.1000.1200.1400.160Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 147.9 psif = 0.0563 in/in Figure C.63 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -35.86 to -40.86, Sample B Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 3 Sample C0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 4.4 psif = 0.0435 in/in Figure C.64 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -35.86 to -40.86, Sample C

PAGE 315

291 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 5 Sample A02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 414.8 psif = 0.0731 in/in Figure C.65 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Sample A Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 5 Sample B02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 860.39 psif = 0.0918 in/in Figure C.66 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Sample B

PAGE 316

292 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 5 Sample C02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 593.9 psif = 0.101 in/in Figure C.67 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86 to -50.86, Sample C Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 6 Sample A02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 477.6 psif = 0.0864 in/in Figure C.68 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Sample A

PAGE 317

293 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 6 Sample B02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 583.0 psif = 0.0846 in/in Figure C.69 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Sample B Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 6 Sample C02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 417.8 psif = 0.0841 in/in Figure C.70 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Sample C

PAGE 318

294 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 6 Sample D02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 274.2 psif = 0.0618 in/in Figure C.71 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Sample D Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 6 Sample E0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 19.8 psif = 0.0142 in/in Figure C.72 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Sample E

PAGE 319

295 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 1 Run 6 Sample F0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 24.4 psif = 0.0212 in/in Figure C.73 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86 to -55.86, Sample F Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 2 Sample A02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 129.0 psif = 0.0350 in/in Figure C.74 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -34.26 to -39.26, Sample A

PAGE 320

296 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 4 Sample B02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 589.2 psif = 0.0828 in/in Figure C.75 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Sample B Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 4 Sample C02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 460.1 psif = 0.0914 in/in Figure C.76 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Sample C

PAGE 321

297 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 4 Sample D02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 775.0 psif = 0.0848 in/in Figure C.77 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Sample D Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 4 Sample E02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 276.4 psif = 0.0517 in/in Figure C.78 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3 to -49.3, Sample E

PAGE 322

298 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 5 Sample A02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 413.0 psif = 0.0750 in/in Figure C.79 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Sample A Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 5 Sample B02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 862.4 psif = 0.0979 in/in Figure C.80 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Sample B

PAGE 323

299 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 5 Sample C02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 1040.3 psif = 0.1058 in/in Figure C.81 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Sample C Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 5 Sample D02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 296.6 psif = 0.0521 in/in Figure C.82 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Sample D

PAGE 324

300 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 5 Sample E02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 559.7 psif = 0.0956 in/in Figure C.83 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Sample E Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 2 Run 5 Sample F02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 181.8 psif = 0.0689 in/in Figure C.84 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5 to -54.5, Sample F

PAGE 325

301 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 3 Run 3 Sample A0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 117.8 psif = 0.0452 in/in Figure C.85 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -33.82 to -38.82, Sample A Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 3 Run 4 Sample A0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 8.1 psif = 0.0224 in/in Figure C.86 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -38.9 to -43.9, Sample A

PAGE 326

302 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 3 Run 5 Sample A0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 8.9 psif = 0.0201 in/in Figure C.87 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -43.82 to -48.82, Sample A Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 3 Run 6 Sample A0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 14.2 psif = 0.0240 in/in Figure C.88 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -48.9 to -53.9, Sample A

PAGE 327

303 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 3 Run 7 Sample A02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 1313.3 psif = 0.1349 in/in Figure C.89 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Sample A Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 3 Run 7 Sample B02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 464.6 psif = 0.1069 in/in Figure C.90 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Sample B

PAGE 328

304 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 3 Run 7 Sample C02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 432.9 psif = 0.1106 in/in Figure C.91 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Sample C Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 3 Run 7 Sample D0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 43.3 psif = 0.0263 in/in Figure C.92 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Sample D

PAGE 329

305 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 3 Run 7 Sample E0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 8.7 psif = 0.0250 in/in Figure C.93 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Sample E Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 3 Run 7 Sample F0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 8.2 psif = 0.0253 in/in Figure C.94 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82 to -58.82, Sample F

PAGE 330

306 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 1 Sample A0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 79.8 psif = 0.0500 in/in Figure C.95 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -28.65 to -33.65, Sample A Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 3 Sample A0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 7.5 psif = 0.0459 in/in Figure C.96 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -38.65 to -43.65, Sample A

PAGE 331

307 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 4 Sample A0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 4.4 psif = 0.0455 in/in Figure C.97 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Sample A Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 4 Sample B0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 7.2 psif = 0.0354 in/in Figure C.98 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75 to -48.75, Sample B

PAGE 332

308 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 5 Sample A0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 10.4 psif = 0.0249 in/in Figure C.99 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -49.0 to -54.0, Sample A Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 5 Sample C0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 10.8 psif = 0.0245 in/in Figure C.100 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -49.0 to -54.0, Sample C

PAGE 333

309 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 5 Sample D02004006008001000120014000.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 166.5 psif = 0.0492 in/in Figure C.101 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -49.0 to -54.0, Sample D Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Sample A0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 14.8 psif = 0.0248 in/in Figure C.102 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -59.02, Sample A

PAGE 334

310 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Sample B0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 18.5 psif = 0.0216 in/in Figure C.103 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -59.02, Sample B Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Sample C0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 21.6 psif = 0.0203 in/in Figure C.104 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -59.02, Sample C

PAGE 335

311 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Sample D0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 12.0 psif = 0.0147 in/in Figure C.105 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -59.02, Sample D Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Sample E0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 8.5 psif = 0.0103 in/in Figure C.106 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -59.02, Sample E

PAGE 336

312 Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Sample F0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 12.0 psif = 0.0124 in/in Figure C.107 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -59.02, Sample F Stress vs. Corrected Strain : Blountstown (SR-20) Field CoresTest Hole 4 Run 6 Sample G0204060801001201400.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16Corrected Strain,corr (in/in)Stress, (psi) qt = 12.7 psif = 0.0194 in/in Figure C.108 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02 to -59.02, Sample G

PAGE 337

313 1P12P2 PSlopeAvg. Slopeinlbsinlbsinlbsin/lbsin/lbs0.0059582220.10.0081298538.10.0021706318.03.435E-073.418E-070.0061342509.00.0081318380.80.0019975871.83.400E-07 Calibration Curve for Triaxial Setup0100020003000400050006000700080009000100000.0000.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.010Deflection, (in)Load, P (lbs) Theoretical Deformation Measured Deformation Apparatus Deformation 1st Loading Cycle Slope Points 2nd Loading Cycle Slope Points Machine Stretch Theoretical compression of steel cylinder Measured compression of steel cylinder = machine stretch + tl i Figure C.109 Triaxial Setup Calibration

PAGE 338

LIST OF REFERENCES Baguelin, F., Jezequel, J. F., and Shields, D. H. (1978). The Pressuremeter and Foundation Engineering. Trans Tech Publications, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany. Briaud, Jean-Louis (1992). The Pressuremeter. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Cepero, C. (2002). Insitu Rock Modulus. Masters Thesis, University of Florida. Clarke, B. G. (1995). Pressuremeters in Geotechnical Design. Blackie Academic and Professional, London. Haberfield, C. M. (1997). Pressuremeter testing in Weak Rock and Cemented Sand. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Engineering, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, (125)3, 168-178. Haberfield, Chris M. (1987). The Performance of the Pressuremeter and Socketed Piles in Weak Rock. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Monash, Australia. Haberfield, C. M., and Johnston, I. W. (1986). Concepts for Pressuremeter Interpretation in Soft Rock. Speciality Geomechanics Symposium, Barton,Australia, (86)8, 65-69. Johnston, I. W., and Chiu, H. K. (1981). The Consolidation Properties of a Soft Rock. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, The International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Stockholm, (1), 661-664. Labuz, J. F., and Bridell, J. M. (1993). Reducing Frictional Constraint in Compression Testing Through Lubrication. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstracts. (30)4, 451-455. Lambe, W. T., and Whitman, R. V. (1969). Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Mair R. J., and Wood D. M. (1987). Pressuremeter Testing, Butterworths, England. 314

PAGE 339

315 McVay, M. C., Townsend, F. C. and Williams, R. C. (1992). Design of Socketed Drilled Shafts in Limestone, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 118(10), 1626-1637. Sharpe, M. R. (1998). Final Geotechnical Report, SR20 Over Apalachicola River, Blountstown Bridge. Dames and Moore, Tampa, FL.

PAGE 340

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Scott A. Jacobs is a Florida native from Fort Walton Beach. He began his collegiate career at the University of West Florida where he finished his Associate of Arts degree in the summer of 1998. He then transferred to the University of Florida, enrolled in the Civil Engineering Department, and obtained his Bachelor of Science degree in Spring 2001. Upon completion of his undergraduate degree, he was accepted into the graduate program with the Geotechnical Group at the University of Florida. Mr. Jacobs successfully completed his Master of Engineering degree in Spring 2003. 316


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000861/00001

Material Information

Title: Insitu Measurement of Florida Limestone Modulus and Strength Properties
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000861:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000861/00001

Material Information

Title: Insitu Measurement of Florida Limestone Modulus and Strength Properties
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000861:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











INSITU MEASUREMENT OF FLORIDA LIMESTONE MODULUS AND
STRENGTH PROPERTIES













By

SCOTT ALLEN JACOBS


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2003


























This document is dedicated to my parents and my girl friend, Jennifer.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I would like to thank the faculty of the Geotechnical Engineering

Group for providing me the knowledge to complete this work and to help me

throughout my career in geotechnical engineering, especially, Dr. Paul J. Bullock

for convincing me to pursue this field, serving as committee chair, and guiding

me through this research. I would also like to thank Dr. Frank C. Townsend and

Dr. Michael C. McVay for their help and contributions to the research. A special

appreciation is extended to Mr. Carlos Cepero, Dr. Brian Anderson, and Dr. Bjorn

Birgisson for their knowledge of the pressuremeter and support during the initial

phases of this research. A special thank you is offered to Mr. Danny Brown

whose skills I relied on heavily to complete the many hours of laboratory work. I

am also greatly indebted to Mr. Chris Kolhoff, Mr. Chuck Broward, Mr. Hubert

Martin, and Mr. Bob Konz for their assistance during this work. Without them, I

would probably still be testing.

I would also like to thank Sam Weede from FDOT District 3 for providing

me with drilling assistance. A special thank you is also extended to Mike Suggs,

Gary, Henry, and Chad, who worked hard so that I could complete the field tests

required for this work. I am also greatly indebted to Roger Failmezger of

Insitu Soils Testing L.C., who provided the Probex free of charge.

I would like to recognize the many friends that supported me during this

work, my Father and Mother who provided the means with which to get where I









am today, and finally, my girl friend, Jennifer Passudetti. Her support and

sacrifices during this research have been immense. This would not have been

possible had it not been for her.















TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

A C K N O W LE D G M E N T S ........................................................................ ....... iii

LIST OF TABLES .................................... ........................vii

L IS T O F F IG U R E S ...................................................................x i

1 INTRODUCTION ................................. ............... 1

1.1 Summary of Progress ........ ........ .. .......... ...................... 2
1.2 Scope of Research... ..................... ........................ 3
1.3 O utline...................................... ............... 3

2 LITERATU R E R EV IEW ........................................... ............................ 5

2.1 The Probex Pressuremeter ...... .................... ............... 5
2.1.1 Test Procedure ........................................ ................... 6
2.1.2 Test Analysis ...... ...................................... ............... 7
2.1.3 Curve Construction .................................................. 8
2.1.4 Limitations ................ .... ........ ... ..................... 10
2.2 Drilled Shaft Design ...... ................................. .. ............... 11
2.2.1 Unit Side shear .................................................................... 12
2.2.2 Strength Parameter Method................................... ............ 13
2.2.3 M enard/LPC M ethod......................... ... .............................. 16
2.2.4 Proposed Method ............... ..... .......................... ............ 19
2.3 Design Parameters ........................................ .................. 20
2.3.1 Direct Test Param eters ................................ ...... ...... ......... 21
2.3.2 Tensile Strength................................ .................. 24
2.3.3 Shear strength ...................................................... ........ ............... 28
2.3.4 Unconfined compressive strength.................................... 30
2.4 Geology.................................... ........ ........... 32
2.4.1 Drainage Conditions ...... .................... ............... 33
2.4.2 Limestone Com petency ............... ................................... ........ 33

3 FIELD PRESSUREMETER TESTS......... ................... ....................... 36

3.2 Lim stone Coring ....... .. ..................................................... .. ...... 37
3.2.1 Coring Equipment ............................................... ......... 37
3.2.2 Hole Preparation and Coring Technique.................... ........ 37
3.3 P M T Tests .................. .................. ................ .............. 4 1









3.3.1 Calibrations and Corrections......................... .................. 42
3.3.2 PM T Test Procedure........................................... ........ ....... 43
3.4 PM T Analysis ............. .... ... ..................... .. ................... 44
3.4.1 PMT Parameter Comparisons .............. ...... .................. 44
3.4.2 Strength Parameter Correlations ............................................... 49
3.5 P M T R esults............................................... ........... 59

4 LABORATORY STRENGTH TESTS................ ................. 60

4.1 Core Preparation and Test Setup................................... ............ 60
4.1.1 FDOT Cores ... ................................... .... .............. 62
4.1.2 PMT Field Cores ....................................... 64
4 .2 T ests ....................... ........... .............. ......... 66
4.2.1 Elastic M odulus Testing .................................. ...................... 67
4.2.2 Unconfined Compression Tests.......................... ............. .. 68
4.2.3 Split Tensile Tests .................... ................ ... .............. 69
4.3 Test Analysis ......... .. ........................ 69
4.5 Test Results ............... .... ......................... 76

5 UNIT SIDE SHEAR PREDICTIONS ............. ................. 86

6 S IT E V A R IA B IL IT Y ...................................................................................... 9 5

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................... 99

7.1 Conclusions ....................................................... 99
7.1.1 Laboratory Strength Measurements ................ ........... ........ 99
7.1.2 PM T Tests .............. .......... .... ............... ...... 99
7.1.3 Unit Side Shear Predictions..... ......... .... .................. 100
7.2 Recommendations ................................................ 100

APPENDIX

A PRESSUREMETER TESTS ......................... .................. 102

B PRESSUREMETER DATA ANALYSIS METHODS............... ............... 202

C LIMESTONE STRENGTH TESTS ........ ..... ................... .............. 239

LIST OF REFERENCES ........ ................................................................ 314

BIO G RA PH ICA L SKETC H ........................................................ ................... 316








vi















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

2.1 Pressuremeter Design Curve Selection Table......................................... 18

3.1 PMT Predicted Tensile Strength Comparisons with Core......................... 55

3.2 PMT Predicted Unconfined Compressive Strength Comparisons with Core
Unconfined Compressive Strength .... ................................. .... ........... 57

4.1 Summary of Modulus and Unconfined Compression Tests for FDOT
Lim stone C ores .............................. .......................... . ........... 72

4.2 Summary of Modulus and Unconfined Compression Tests for Field
Lim esto ne C ores (S R 20 )................................................. ... .................. 73

4.3 Summary of Split Tensile Tests for FDOT Limestone Cores ..................... 74

4.4 Summary of Split Tensile Tests for Field Limestone Cores (SR20).............. 75

4.5 SR20 Test Data from Entire Site ........................................... 78

4.6 Bias and COV Change for E vs. qu Correlation ................. .......... ......... 82

4.7 Bias and COV Change for qt vs. qu Correlation ................. .......... ......... 84

5.1 Summary of Unit Side Shear ........................... ...... ... ............... 93

5.2 Predicted vs. Measured Unit Side Shear for Site compared to Test Shafts
5 & 7 .............. ... .......... ...... ............................... 94

6.1 Mean and Mode Calculation of Unit Skin Friction for Test Shafts 5 & 7 ....... 96

6.2 Unit Side Shear Measured vs. Predicted Summary.............................. 98

A. 1 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -28.45'.................................... ................. 124

A.2 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -35.9'.... ................................. ............... 125









A.3 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -35.9'......... ....................... 126

A.4 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -40.7'.......... .............. .. ........... .... 127

A.5 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -46.6'......... ....................... 128

A.6 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -49.9'......... ....................... 129

A.7 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 1, -52.2'......... ....................... 130

A.8 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -28.9'.... ............................ .. ... ............ 131

A.9 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -33.3'.... ............................ .. ... ............ 132

A.10 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -35.9'.............. ....... ............... 133

A. 11 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -38.6'.............. ....... ............... 134

A.12 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -43.5'.............. ....... ............... 135

A.13 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -47.5'.............. ....... ............... 136

A.14 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -48.5'.............. ....... ............... 137

A.15 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 2, -50.5'.............. ....... ............... 138

A.16 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -29.9'.............. ....... ............... 139

A. 17 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -31.4'.............. ....... ............... 140

A.18 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -33.75'........ ........ ..................... ............... 141

A.19 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -36.5'.............. ....... ............... 142

A.20 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -42.92'........ ........ ..................... ............... 143

A.21 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -46'................................... ........ ......... 144

A.22 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -48.5'................. ...................... 145

A.23 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 3, -54.65'........ ........ ..................... ............... 146

A.24 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -29.9'............. ....... .... .............. 147

A.25 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -31.92'........ ........ ..................... ............... 148

A.26 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -36.4'................. ...................... 149

A.27 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -41.15'........ ........ ..................... ............... 150









A.28 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -46'....... .. .... ........... ....................... 151

A.29 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, -49'....... .. .... ........... ....................... 152

A.30 PMT Test Data, Test Hole 4, 54.65'............ ..................................... 153

B. 1 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -28.46' ........................... 203

B.2 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -32.55' ........................... 204

B.3 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -35.9' ................................ 205

B.4 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -46.6' ................................ 206

B.5 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -49.9' ................................ 207

B.6 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 1, -52.2' ................................ 208

B.7 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 2, -33.3' ................................ 209

B.8 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 2, -35.9' ................................ 210

B.9 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 2, -47.5'................................ 211


B.10 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation,

B.11 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation,

B.12 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation,

B.13 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation,

B.14 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation,

B.15 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation,

B.16 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation,

B.17 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation,

B.18 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation,

B.19 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation,

B.20 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation,

B.21 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation,

B.22 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation,


Test Hole 2, -48.5' ........................... 212

Test Hole 2, -50.5'........................... 213

Test Hole 3, -29.9' ........................... 214

Test Hole 3, -42.92'......................... 215

Test Hole 3, -46'.............................. 216

Test Hole 3, -48.5' ........................... 217

Test Hole 3, -54.65'......................... 218

Test Hole 4, -29.9' ........................... 219

Test Hole 4, -31.92'......................... 220

Test Hole 4, -36.4' ........................... 221

Test Hole 4, -41.15' ......................... 222

Test Hole 4, -46'.............................. 223

Test Hole 4, -46'.............................. 224









B.23 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -54.65' ........................ 225

B.24 Creep (60sec 30sec) Calculation, Test Hole 4, -58.6' .......................... 226















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2.1 Probex Rock Dilatometer Diagram ...... .................................. 6

2.2 Typical Pressuremeter Curve ............................................... 7

2.3 Horizontal Stress Linear Intersection Method..... ......... .... ................ 9

2.4 PMT Plot with Creep Curve ............... ........... .. ..................... 9

2.5 Cohesion Approximation for Rock/Shaft Interface Strength ...................... 14

2.6 Strength Envelope for Florida Limestone .................................................. 15

2.7 Unit Side Shear Correlation Chart for Pressuremeter............................... 18

2.8 Determination of Limit Pressure by Extrapolation ............. ............... 23

2.9 Idealized Pressuremeter Stress Diagram ...... ...... .. .... .................. 24

2.10 Pressuremeter Tensile Failure Stress Diagram ............. .................. 25

2.11 Mohr Circle at PMT Tension Failure .............. ..... ................. 26

2.12 Comparison of Peak to Ultimate Shear Strength .............. ............. 29

2.13 Excavated Section of Florida Limestone Showing Voids.......................... 34

3.1 S ite Location M ap ........................................................................... 36

3.2 Generalized Stratigraphy for Test Shaft 5 ................................. .............. 38

3.3 Generalized Stratigraphy for Test Shaft 7 ................................. .............. 39

3.4 At-Rest Horizontal Pressure Comparison.................................. ............... 45

3.5 Y ield Pressure Com prison ............... .................................... ............... 46

3.6 Lim it Pressure C om prison .................................. ..................................... 47

3.7 Undrained Shear Strength Comparison......................................... 48









3.8 PMT Test Hole 1 Core and PMT Test Layout.................... .......... 50

3.9 PMT Test Hole 2 Core and PMT Test Layout.................... .......... 51

3.10 PMT Test Hole 3 Core and PMT Test Layout................... ............ 52

3.11 PMT Test Hole 4 Core and PMT Test Layout................... ............ 53

3.12 PMT Estimate of Tensile Strength ................ .... ...... .... ........ ... 55

3.13 PMT Estimate of Unconfined Compressive Strength............................. 56

3.14 Comparison of Lab Modulus versus PMT Modulus .......................... 58

4.1 Limestone sample with compressometer device ............. ................ 63

4.2 LabVIEW Screenshot ........... ........................................... ............... 64

4.3 Triaxial Testing Machine Setup .............. ..... ............... ............... 65

4.4 LabVIEW Screenshot from SR20 Field Core Testing ................................. 66

4.5 Blountstown-PMT cores Modulus vs. Unconfined Compressive................. 77

4.6 PMT E vs. qu Correlation from SR20 Field Cores Compared to................... 78

4.7 SR20 Field Cores Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Averaged Split
T ensile S strength ........ ........... ......... ...... ................. ........... 79

4.8 Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Modulus................................ ..... 81

4.9 Unconfined Compression Strength vs. Split Tensile Strength FDOT......... 83

4.10 Unconfined Compression vs. Tension Strength, Site Averages ................. 84

5.1 Unit Side Shear Distribution Estimates, Test Shaft 5, (qt=pcr-2 h) ................ 88

5.2 Unit Side Shear Distribution Estimates, Test Shaft 7, (qt=pcr-2o h)................ 89

5.3 Unit Side Shear Distribution Estimates, Test Shaft 5, (qt=6.744qu05) .......... 90

5.4 Unit Side Shear Distribution Estimates, Test Shaft 7, (qt=6.744qu05) .......... 91

6.1 Frequency Distribution for Blountstown PMT qu Predictions....................... 95

6.2 Frequency Distribution for Blountstown PMT qt Predictions ......................... 96

7.3 Frequency Distribution for Pressuremeter Modulus versus Correlated
M odulus from S ite qu.............................................. .............. 97









A.1 Volum e Calibrations, Thl 11/18/02 ................................... ...... ............ ... 103

A.2 Volum e Calibrations, Thl 11/19/02 ................................... ...... ............ ... 104

A.3 Volum e Calibrations, Thl 11/20/02 ................................... ...... ............ ... 105

A.4 Volume Calibrations, Th2 11/21/02 .... ............................ .. ... ............ 107

A.5 Volume Calibrations, Th2 11/25/02 .... ............................ .. ... ............ 109

A.6 Volume Calibrations, Th3 12/04/02 .... ............................ .. ... ............ 111

A.7 Volume Calibrations, Th3 12/05/02 .... ............................ .. ... ........... 112

A .8 Volum e C alibrations, Th4 12/05/02 .......................................................... 113

A .9 Volum e C alibrations, Th4 12/09/02 .......................................................... 114

A.10 Pressure Calibrations, Thl 11/08/02........ ......... ..... ............... 115

A.11 Pressure Calibrations, Thl 11/19/02......... ......................... 116

A.12 Pressure Calibrations, Thl 11/20/02........ ......... ..... ............... 117

A.13 Pressure Calibrations, Th2 11/21/02........ ...... .. ...................... 118

A.14 Pressure Calibrations, Th2 11/25/02........ ...... .. ...................... 119

A.15 Pressure Calibrations, Th3 12/04/02.................................. .................... 120

A.16 Pressure Calibrations, Th3 12/05/02........ ...... .. ...................... 121

A.17 Pressure Calibrations, Th4 12/05/02....................................................... 122

A.18 Pressure Calibrations, Th4 12/09/02 ..................................... ................. 123

A. 19 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th1 @ -28.45' ........ ............... 155

A.20 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Thl @ -32.55' ........ ............... 155

A.21 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Thl @ -35.9' ......... ................ 156

A.22 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Thl @ -40.7' ......... ................ 156









A.23 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Thl @ -46.6' ......................... 157

A.24 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Thl @ -49.9' ......................... 157

A.25 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Thl @ -52.2' ......................... 158

A.26 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ -28.9' ......................... 158

A.27 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ -33.3' ......................... 159

A.28 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ -35.9' ......................... 159

A.29 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ -38.6' ......................... 160

A.30 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ -43.5' .............. ............... 160

A.31 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ -47.5' .............. ............... 161

A.32 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ -48.5' .............. ............... 161

A.33 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th2 @ -50.5' .............. ............... 162

A.34 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ -29.9' ......................... 162

A.35 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ -31.4' ......................... 163

A.36 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ -33.75' ........ ............... 163

A.37 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ -36.5' ......................... 164

A.38 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ -42.92' ........ ............... 164

A.39 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ -46' ..................... 165

A.40 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ -48.5' ......................... 165

A.41 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th3 @ -54.65' ........ ............... 166

A.42 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ -29.9' ......................... 166

A.43 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ -31.92' ........ ............... 167

A.44 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ -36.4' ......................... 167

A.45 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ -41.15' ........ ............... 168

A.46 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ -46' ..................... 168

A.47 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ -49' ..................... 169









A.48 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ -54.65' ........ ............... 169

A.49 Pressure versus Volume Curves, Th4 @ -58.6' ......... ................ 170

A.50 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 1, -28.45' ............................... 171

A.51 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 1, -32.55' ............................... 172

A.52 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 1, -35.9' .............................. ........ 173

A.53 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 1, -40.7' .............................. ........ 174

A.54 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 1, -46.6' .............................. ........ 175

A.55 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 1, -49.9' .............................. ........ 176

A.56 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 1, -52.2' .............................. ........ 177

A.57 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 2, -28.9' .............................. ........ 178

A.58 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 2, -33.3' .............................. ........ 179

A.59 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 2, -35.9' .............................. ........ 180

A.60 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 2, -38.6' .............................. ........ 181

A.61 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 2, -43.5' .............................. ........ 182

A.61 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 2, -47.5' .............................. ........ 183

A.62 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 2, -48.5' .............................. ........ 184

A.63 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 2, -50.5' .............................. ........ 185

A.64 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 3, -29.9' .............................. ........ 186

A.65 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 3, -31.4' .............................. ........ 187

A.66 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 3, -33.75' ............................... 188

A.67 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 3, -36.5' .............................. ........ 189

A.68 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 3, -42.92' ............................... 190

A.69 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 3, -46' .................... ...... ........... 191

A.70 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 3, -48.5' .............................. ........ 192









A.71 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 3, -54.65' ................ ...... ...... .. 193

A.72 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 4, -29.9' ..................................... 194

A.73 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 4, -31.92' ................ ...... ...... .. 195

A.74 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 4, -36.4' ..................................... 196

A.75 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 4, -41.15' ................ ...... ...... .. 197

A.76 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 4, -46' ................... ..... ............ 198

A.77 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot Test Hole 4, -49' ...... .............. .. ... ............. 199

A.78 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 4, -54.65' .............................. 200

A.79 Pressure vs. AR/Ro Plot, Test Hole 4, -58.6' ...... .... ........................ 201

B.1 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -28.46' ........................... 203

B.2 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -32.55' ........................... 204

B.3 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -35.9' .............................. 205

B.4 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -46.6' .............................. 206

B.5 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -49.9' .............................. 207

B.6 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 1, -52.2' .............................. 208

B.7 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 2, -33.3' ...................................... 209

B.8 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 2, -35.9' ...................................... 210

B.9 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 2, -47.5' ...................................... 211

B. 10 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 2, -48.5' .................................. 212

B.11 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 2, -50.5' .................................. 213

B.12 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 3, -29.9' .................................. 214

B.13 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 3, -42.92' ................................ 215

B.14 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 3, -46' ..................... .................. 216

B.15 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 3, -48.5' .................................. 217

B.16 Creep (60sec 30sec) Plot, Test Hole 3, -54.65' ................................ 218









B.17 Creep (60sec 30sec)

B.18 Creep (60sec 30sec)

B.19 Creep (60sec 30sec)

B.20 Creep (60sec 30sec)

B.21 Creep (60sec 30sec)

B.22 Creep (60sec 30sec)

B.23 Creep (60sec 30sec)

B.24 Creep (60sec 30sec)


Plot, Test Hole 4,

Plot, Test Hole 4,

Plot, Test Hole 4,

Plot, Test Hole 4,

Plot, Test Hole 4,

Plot, Test Hole 4,

Plot, Test Hole 4,

Plot, Test Hole 4,


-29.9' ................. ................ 219

-31.92' ................ ................. 220

-36.4' ................. ................ 221

-41.15' .................................. 222

-46' ......................................... 223

-49' ......................................... 224

-54.65' ................ ................. 225

-58.6' ................. ................ 226


B.25 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 1, -28.45' ............... ............. 227


B.26 Gibson and Anderson

B.27 Gibson and Anderson

B.28 Gibson and Anderson

B.29 Gibson and Anderson

B.30 Gibson and Anderson

B.31 Gibson and Anderson

B.32 Gibson and Anderson

B.33 Gibson and Anderson

B.34 Gibson and Anderson

B.35 Gibson and Anderson

B.36 Gibson and Anderson

B.37 Gibson and Anderson

B.38 Gibson and Anderson

B.39 Gibson and Anderson

B.40 Gibson and Anderson

B.41 Gibson and Anderson


Method, Test Hole

Method, Test Hole

Method, Test Hole

Method, Test Hole

Method, Test Hole

Method, Test Hole

Method, Test Hole

Method, Test Hole

Method, Test Hole

Method, Test Hole

Method, Test Hole

Method, Test Hole

Method, Test Hole

Method, Test Hole

Method, Test Hole

Method, Test Hole


1, -32.55' ............................. 227

1, -35.9' .................................. 228

1, -46.6' .................................. 228

1, -49.9' .................................. 229

1, -52.2' .................................. 229

2, -33.3' ................. ............... 230

2, -35.9' ................. ............... 230

2, -47.5' ................. ............... 231

2, -48.5' ................. ............... 231

2, -50.5' ................. ............... 232

3, -29.9' ................. ............... 232

3, -42.92' ............................. 233

3, -46' ............... .................... 233

3, -48.5' ................. ............... 234

3, -54.65' ............................. 234

4, -29.9' ................. ............... 235









B.42 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -31.92' ........................... 235

B.43 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -36.4' ............................... 236

B.44 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -41.15' ........................... 236

B.45 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -46' ................................ 237

B.46 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -49' ................................ 237

B.47 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -54.65' ........................... 238

B.48 Gibson and Anderson Method, Test Hole 4, -58.6' ............................... 238

C.1 Modulus Test, Box 3, Sample 2B....................................................... 240

C.2 Modulus Test, Box 3, Sample 2F .................. ....... .... ......... ......... 241

C.3 Modulus Test, Box 3, Sample 1 B............................. ...... ......... 242

C.4 Modulus Test, Box 3, Sample 1 D......................................................... 243

C.5 Modulus Test, Box 4, Sample 1A................ .......................................... 244

C.6 Modulus Test, Box 4, Sample 1 B...... .................. ...... ......... 245

C.7 Modulus Test, Box 4, Sample 1 F ...... .................. ...... ......... 246

C.8 Modulus Test, Box 6, Sample 1 B...... .................. ...... ......... 247

C.9 Modulus Test, Box 6, Sample 1A................ .......................................... 248

C.10 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 3B.................................... 249

C.11 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sam ple 3C........................................ ............... 250

C.12 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 3D...................................................... 251

C.13 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 3E.................................... 252

C.14 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 3F .................................... 253

C.15 Modulus Test, Box 8, Sample 4C ......... ... ......................... ....... 254

C.16 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -30.97' to -35.97', Core A ........................... 255

C.17 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -30.97' to -35.97', Core B ............................. 256

C.18 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -35.86' to -40.86', Core A........................... 257


xviii









C. 19 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86' to -50.86', Core A ........................... 258

C.20 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86' to -50.86', Core B ........................... 259

C.21 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86' to -50.86', Core C........................... 260

C.22 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86' to -50.86', Core D........................... 261

C.23 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86' to -55.86', Core A ........................... 262

C.24 Modulus Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86' to -55.86', Core B ........................... 263

C.25 Modulus Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3' to -49.3', Core A .............................. 264

C.26 Modulus Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3' to -49.3', Core B .............................. 265

C.27 Modulus Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5' to -54.5', Core A .............................. 266

C.28 Modulus Test, Test Hole 3, -38.9' to -43.9', Core A .............................. 267

C.29 Modulus Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82' to -58.82', Core A ........................... 268

C.30 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -28.65' to -33.65', Core A ........................... 269

C.31 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75' to -48.75', Core A ........................... 270

C.32 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75' to -48.75', Core B ........................... 271

C.33 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75' to -48.75', Core C........................... 272

C.34 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -61.02', Core A ........................... 273

C.35 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -61.02', Core B ........................... 274

C.36 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -61.02', Core C........................... 275

C.37 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -61.02', Core D........................... 276

C.38 Modulus Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -61.02', Core E ........................... 277

C.39 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -30.97' to -35.97', Core A............. 278

C.40 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -30.97' to -35.97', Core B ............... 278

C.41 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -35.86' to -40.86', Core A............. 279

C.42 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86' to -50.86', Core A............. 279

C.43 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86' to -50.86', Core B ............... 280









C.44 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86' to -50.86', Core C............. 280

C.45 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86' to -50.86', Core D............. 281

C.46 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86' to -55.86', Core A............. 281

C.47 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86' to -55.86', Core B ............... 282

C.48 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3' to -49.3', Core A ................... 282

C.49 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3' to -49.3', Core B ................... 283

C.50 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5' to -54.5', Core A ................... 283

C.51 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 3, -38.9' to -43.9', Core A ................... 284

C.52 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82' to -58.82', Core A............. 284

C.53 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -28.65' to -33.65', Core A............. 285

C.54 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75' to -48.75', Core A............. 285

C.55 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75' to -48.75', Core B .............. 286

C.56 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75' to -48.75', Core C.............. 286

C.57 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -61.02', Core A............. 287

C.58 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -61.02', Core B .............. 287

C.59 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -61.02', Core C.............. 288

C.60 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -61.02', Core D............. 288

C.61 Ultimate Strength Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -61.02', Core E .............. 289

C.62 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -35.86' to -40.86', Sample A................... 289

C.63 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -35.86' to -40.86', Sample B................... 290

C.64 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -35.86' to -40.86', Sample C................. 290

C.65 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86' to -50.86', Sample A................... 291

C.66 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86' to -50.86', Sample B................... 291

C.67 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -45.86' to -50.86', Sample C................... 292

C.68 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86' to -55.86', Sample A................... 292









C.69 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86' to -55.86', Sample B................... 293

C.70 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86' to -55.86', Sample C................... 293

C.71 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86' to -55.86', Sample D................... 294

C.72 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86' to -55.86', Sample E................... 294

C.73 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 1, -50.86' to -55.86', Sample F ................... 295

C.74 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -34.26' to -39.26', Sample A................... 295

C.75 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3' to -49.3', Sample B.................... 296

C.76 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3' to -49.3', Sample C.................... 296

C.77 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3' to -49.3', Sample D.................... 297

C.78 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -44.3' to -49.3', Sample E.................... 297

C.79 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5' to -54.5', Sample A.................... 298

C.80 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5' to -54.5', Sample B.................... 298

C.81 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5' to -54.5', Sample C.................... 299

C.82 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5' to -54.5', Sample D.................... 299

C.83 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5' to -54.5', Sample E.................... 300

C.84 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 2, -49.5' to -54.5', Sample F .................... 300

C.85 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -33.82' to -38.82', Sample A................... 301

C.86 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -38.9' to -43.9', Sample A.................... 301

C.87 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -43.82' to -48.82', Sample A................... 302

C.88 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -48.9' to -53.9', Sample A.................... 302

C.89 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82' to -58.82', Sample A................... 303

C.90 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82' to -58.82', Sample B................... 303

C.91 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82' to -58.82', Sample C................... 304

C.92 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82' to -58.82', Sample D................... 304

C.93 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82' to -58.82', Sample E................... 305









C.94 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 3, -53.82' to -58.82', Sample F ................... 305

C.95 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -28.65' to -33.65', Sample A................... 306

C.96 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -38.65' to -43.65', Sample A................... 306

C.97 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75' to -48.75', Sample A................... 307

C.98 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -43.75' to -48.75', Sample B................... 307

C.99 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -49.0' to -54.0', Sample A.................... 308

C.100 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -49.0' to -54.0', Sample C..................... 308

C.101 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -49.0' to -54.0', Sample D..................... 309

C.102 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -59.02', Sample A............... 309

C. 103 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -59.02', Sample B.................... 310

C.104 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -59.02', Sample C.................... 310

C.105 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -59.02', Sample D.................... 311

C.106 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -59.02', Sample E.................... 311

C.107 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -59.02', Sample F .................. 312

C.108 Split Tensile Test, Test Hole 4, -54.02' to -59.02', Sample G............... 312

C. 109 Triaxial Setup Calibration .................... .. .............. ............... 313















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering

INSITU MEASUREMENT OF FLORIDA LIMESTONE MODULUS AND
STRENGTH PROPERTIES

By

Scott Allen Jacobs

May 2003

Chair: Paul J. Bullock
Major Department: Civil and Coastal Engineering

Deep foundations bearing on limestone support many Florida structures

and bridges through weak overburden soils. Drilled shafts, constructed by

casting concrete into bored excavations, are high capacity foundations elements

that often exceed 3 feet in diameter and 500 ton design loads. The existing

design method for side shear capacity of drilled shafts in Florida limestone is

based on laboratory tests of rock cores. Two separate tests, compression and

tension, are routinely performed. However, these tests represent only the intact

portion of the retrieved core, not the rock mass as a whole. An insitu

measurement of the side shear should more accurately reflect the mass

properties of the rock, and possibly reduce the overall effort. Thirty-one

pressuremeter (PMT) tests were performed adjacent to two test shafts, 5' and 7'

in diameter, at the SR20 Blountstown Bridge. Osterberg Cell load tests


xxiii









performed on these test shafts, during construction of the new SR20 Bridge,

provided unit side shear comparisons for the pressuremeter results.

The net limit pressure, yield pressure, and undrained shear strength

obtained from pressuremeter results were used to predict the unconfined

compressive strength, tensile strength, and modulus for use with the current

strength design method. In addition, cores taken during preparation of the PMT

test hole provided a comparison of laboratory strength parameters with predicted

strength parameters from the PMT.

The 70 core strength tests performed during this research reflect the

variability of the site, but direct correlations with the PMT tests were poor.

Similarly, the PMT overestimated the unit side shear measured by the Osterberg

load tests. A separate empirical design method for side shear capacity based on

the limit pressure performed fairly well. This empirical method, published by

Laboratoire des Ponts et Chaussees (LPC), requires further calibration before

design use in Florida. Although direct correlations with the PMT results were not

successful, it was concluded that site variability at SR20 had an important effect

on the outcome. Further statistical analyses are recommended to obtain better

correlation between the pressuremeter results and shaft side shear at SR20. If

successful, additional PMT testing at other test sites may provide a valid

alternate design method.


xxiv














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Current methods of obtaining parameters for the design of drilled shafts in

Florida Limestone involve a combination of boring log information (Standard

Penetration Testing and soil profile/layering information) and lab tests on core

samples extracted from the field. This process generally provides conservative

results. The primary reason for this over-design results from the method used to

extract and test the field cores. Coring in Florida limestone generally obtains low

recoveries, retrieving only the strongest portions of the limestone for laboratory

testing. Insitu testing may improve this design process by obtaining more

representative parameters from direct tests performed within rock mass,

including defects such as voids (filled or unfilled), fissures, and weathered zones.

Insitu measurements should provide design parameters that are closer to actual

values, which will improve design efficiency, and reduce material costs while still

providing a safe design.

The primary goal of this research is to improve drilled shaft design

procedures for Florida limestone using insitu tests. With the laboratory portion of

the research complete (see Cepero, 2002), the remaining tasks involve field tests

and correlation of the results for use in the design of drilled shafts in Florida

limestone. This thesis outlines the work performed in the field and laboratory to

fulfill these final project tasks.









1.1 Summary of Progress

The laboratory phase of the project was described in Cepero (2002). It

included the development of a synthetic limestone, "Gatorock," for controlled

laboratory simulation of Florida limestone. The modulus/compressive strength

and compressive strength/split tensile strength comparisons in Cepero (2002)

indicate that the Gatorock parameters fall within the spread of the data for natural

limestone.

During lab tests on large samples of Gatorock, the Probex-1 rock

dilatometer, a high-capacity pressuremeter test (PMT), was established as a

feasible tool for testing in Florida Limestone. The greater working pressure of the

Probex is sufficient to induce yielding otherwise not possible with many other

commercial pressuremeters. In addition, the Probex is rugged and has less

system compliance due to downhole measurement of volume and pressure. The

advantages of the Probex outweigh the few flaws the device does have, such as

a coarse pressure release control and limited expansion of the membrane.

Cepero (2002) developed correlations between stiffness and strength from

tests on Florida limestone cores. The results displayed significant scatter and

appear to be site specific. Statistical analysis of strength/stiffness correlations

improves significantly when considered on a site by site basis.

Results obtained from the Probex tests were correlated with strength

parameters used for side shear and end bearing design. The data was limited,

however, due to the relatively few of tests performed in the laboratory. These

relationships require additional confirmation tests to establish or reject their

validity for use in design.









1.2 Scope of Research

The work included in this research focuses on field tests performed with the

Probex Rock Dilatometer. Blountstown SR20 bridge site was identified as a

good location for the field tests. Shafts 5 and 7, from the project test program,

were readily accessible and were therefore chosen for pressuremeter testing.

The test shafts have data from Osterberg Cell (O-Cell) load tests along with

numerous boring data with strength parameters from compression and split

tensile tests. This data can be found in Sharp (1998). Two core borings were

performed near each shaft with pressuremeter tests performed at strain gage

elevations in the test shafts as well as test beneath the shaft tip.

Compression and split tensile tests were also performed on cores samples

from these test holes. Strength parameters obtained from the lab tests are

compared to parameters from the pressuremeter tests as well as values from the

adjacent shaft O-Cell tests. The completion of this process will show the

usefulness of the pressuremeter in predicting the strength parameters, qu and qt,

used in drilled shaft design in Florida limestone.

1.3 Outline

The work performed for this research is presented here, in an outline form,

as a reference of the material contained in this thesis. Chapters 1 and 2

introduce and establish the goals of the research and the steps taken to

complete the work. Also included in these chapters is existing literature

contributing to this work as well as the geological features and factors that

influence testing with the pressuremeter. Chapter 3 covers the field

pressuremeter tests, which includes the theory, setup, and performance of the









tests, and analysis and interpretation of the results. In addition, the

pressuremeter limit/yield pressure will be compared to the ultimate compressive

strength, the predicted tensile strength to the actual split tensile strength.

Chapter 4 includes unconfined compression tests performed on limestone

samples from two bridge sites donated by the FDOT State Materials Office as

well as tests performed on the cores recovered from creating the SR20 PMT

holes for the field pressuremeter tests.

Chapter 5 contains the comparison of parameters obtained from field

pressuremeter tests to results obtained from load tests. Parameters compared

will be the predicted and measured unit side shear. The last chapter (Chapter 6)

will cover the practicality of the correlations and possible design guidelines

obtained from the results of this research. Conclusions and recommendations

will also be made in this chapter.

Appendix A contains data from field pressuremeter tests and calibrations

performed at the Blountstown SR20 bridge site. Appendix B contains two

interpretation methods performed on the PMT tests. Appendix C includes data

from unconfined compression tests performed on limestone from

Choctawhatchee SR10, Hallandale, and Blountstown Bridge sites.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Insitu tests for the determination of design parameters in soft rock provide

an alternative to lab tests, which cannot test the weaker rock lost during coring.

However, the number of insitu tests capable of testing rock is very limited.

Florida limestone is generally stronger than soil, eliminating penetration tests,

and requiring that insitu tests be performed. For tests performed in boreholes,

the emphasis shifts from core recovery to minimizing the hole disturbance. The

pressuremeter in North America is now better accepted for geotechnical design,

and is the focus of this research.

This chapter presents background information for the work performed

during this research. Pressuremeter performance and analysis procedures and

will be discussed first, along with limitations of the test. Methods for the

determination of unit side shear for drilled shaft design will also be presented,

including both current empirical methods, and the methods proposed herein.

Important design parameters will then be discussed along with the pertinent

geological factors affecting the outcome of this research.

2.1 The Probex Pressuremeter

The Probex rock dilatometer, distributed by Roctest Inc., was the

pressuremeter chosen for this research (Figure 2.1). Its high pressure capacity

(30Mpa) is well suited for testing in rock. The Probex is a typical pressuremeter

type tool with an inflatable membrane which, when inflated with water, applies









pressure to the borehole. The thick reinforced rubber membrane is designed to

withstand testing in rock where voids or sharp edges may exist. The probe is

2.9" in diameter and requires an NX size borehole. The 30Mpa working pressure

of the Probex usually exceeds the yield pressure and often provides a good

estimation of the limit pressure.













Figure 2.1 Probex Rock Dilatometer Diagram


2.1.1 Test Procedure

Pressuremeter systems generally consist of two main parts, a probe and a

control unit, connected by pressure tubing. The downhole portion of the system

is a radially expandable cylindrical probe that is inserted down the prepared

borehole to the desired test elevation. The second portion, the control unit,

controls and measures the fluid pressure applied to the expanding probe. The

pressure is increased in equal increments, at regular intervals, while recording

the volume injected into the probe. Each pressure increment is held for 1 minute,

with volume readings at 30 and 60 seconds. The probe is made of a flexible

material (rubber) and is expanded by injecting water. Though somewhat time









consuming, the test is relatively easy to perform, requiring only the test device,

an experienced operator, and drill rig.

2.1.2 Test Analysis

The measurements obtained from a pressuremeter test are volume and

pressure. For the Probex, the pressure is measured by a pressure transducer at

the surface and the volume injected is measured with an LVDT in the probe. A

plot of volume versus pressure typically results in a 'S' shaped curve for pre-

bored pressuremeter tests, as shown in Figure 2.2.


P




D


contact the borehole wall. Included in this phase is the contribution of both the
0.

B


A



Relative increase in probe radius AR/Ro

Figure 2.2 Typical Pressuremeter Curve


During the first portion of the curve (AB), in Figure 2.2, the membrane expands to

contact the borehole wall. Included in this phase is the contribution of both the

membrane resistance to expansion and the drill mud pressure. Somewhere near

the transition from the initial flat portion of the curve to the linear elastic phase

(BC) lies the initial pressure, po, which represents the horizontal stress (point B).









The linear increase of pressure and volume continues up to the yield pressure,

py, at point C. Plastic deformation occurs during the next phase (CD), and the

pressure after yielding asymptotically approaches a limit pressure, PL. The 'net'

limit pressure, pL, is obtained by subtracting the horizontal insitu stress (po).

Depending on drainage conditions in the rock this parameter may represent the

rocks compressive strength.

2.1.3 Curve Construction

The data recorded from a pressuremeter test is the pressure and

corresponding increase in volume of the probe. However, this volume increase

must be corrected by subtracting the compression of the membrane and the

expansion of the system tubing. The volume loss at a given system pressure is

determined by pressurizing the probe inside of a thick walled steel pipe prior to

testing. The measured pressure must also be corrected by subtracting the

membrane expansion resistance and adding the hydrostatic head of fluid above

the probe. The total volume of the probe, V, may be found by adding its initial

volume to the corrected test volume. The initial probe radius, Ro, and the change

in radius, AR, may be calculated from the total volume. Finally, a plot of

corrected pressure versus AR/Ro is prepared for analysis.

The "at-rest," horizontal stress prior to drilling the borehole, may be

obtained from the above curve using several methods: the point of maximum

curvature, the beginning of the linear portion (point B), utilizing the creep curve,

or the intersection of the initial and elastic straight-line portions of the curve. The










last two of these methods were used for this research and the former is shown

graphically in Figure 2.3 below.


Relative increase in probe radius

Figure 2.3 Horizontal Stress Linear Intersection Method


ARIRo


The 30-second and 60-second volume readings taken during a PMT test

are used as a measurement of the creep during each pressure increment. The

difference of these readings is plotted versus pressure to create a creep plot as

shown in Figure 2.4.


AR/Ro


V60- V30


Figure 2.4 PMT Plot with Creep Curve









During the elastic phase of the test (AB on the creep curve), the creep is

relatively constant. However, there is significant plastic deformation occurring

both during the initial phase of the test and above the yield limit. The intersection

of the lines representing these three test phases provide an estimate of the

horizontal stress and yield limit at points B and A respectively. The creep plots

created for this research can be found in Appendix B. For the comparison with

the PMT curve, the creep curve is shown on the corrected pressure versus AR/Ro

plot by using an offset (0.15) and a multiplier (10). This adjustment did not affect

the results, and was performed only for comparison purposes. The results from

the two methods of determining po will be compared in Chapter 5.

2.1.4 Limitations

The pressuremeter, like all Geotechnical testing devices, does have

limitations. Perhaps the most significant obstacle in pressuremeter testing is the

preparation of a satisfactory test hole. This task is complicated by the different

drilling techniques required for each type of geomaterial. The most common

problem is an over-sized hole. The pressuremeter has a limited expansion, and

an oversized hole reduces the amount of probe expansion after it contacts the

sidewall. Since the maximum test pressure will also be reduced, an accurate

estimate of the limit pressure may be difficult. When the limit pressure cannot be

adequately approximated, researchers such as Mair and Wood (1987) suggest

taking the limit pressure to be twice the yield pressure. They emphasis that this

approximation is merely a lower bound estimate and should be used only as "a

conservative assessment of strength."









Sidewall disturbance during drilling is also a common problem. The

pressuremeter modulus is very sensitive to the quality of the borehole; however,

the limit pressure is affected to a somewhat lesser degree (Briaud, 1992).

Disturbance may be influenced by the rig down-pressure, the type and rotational

rate of the drill bit, the experience of the drillers, the type and flow rate of drilling

fluid, the depth of test, and the consistency of the rock.

Perhaps the most obvious limitation of the pressuremeter test is the fact

that the test is performed in the horizontal direction. The modulus of rock

measured in the horizontal direction can vary significantly from that in the vertical

direction. Similarly, the probe may not expand adequately to contact

discontinuities in the rock sidewall. Consequently, the test will not test the

volume of rock assumed. Lastly, field testing and the evaluation of the test

results may be affected by the experience level and test techniques of the user.

2.2 Drilled Shaft Design

The pressuremeter is used for a variety of shaft design problems, including

bearing capacity, settlement, and lateral pile capacity. The primary

pressuremeter parameters used are the modulus, and the net limit pressure.

The modulus is commonly used for settlement calculations and the net limit

pressure for unit side shear and end bearing. Ultimate drilled shaft capacity is

commonly expressed as:

Qu = Qs + Qp -W (2.1)

This equation states that the contribution of the ultimate side resistance, Qs, and

the ultimate point resistance, Qp, less the weight of the shaft, gives the ultimate

strength of the drilled shaft. The ultimate strength is defined as the ability to









resist load without exceeding excessive displacements. The ultimate side

resistance in rock is found from the unit side shear, fs, multiplied by the perimeter

area of the shaft. The ultimate point resistance in rock is found from a

representative value of tip bearing pressure, qtip, multiplied by the cross-sectional

end area of the shaft. Some designers rely primarily on skin resistance and

others more on point resistance. The determination of unit side shear from

pressuremeter parameters and strength parameters from lab tests is the focus of

this research.

2.2.1 Unit Side shear

The design procedures for drilled shafts are different from driven piles,

primarily due to installation differences. Where driven piles benefit from the

greater lateral stresses and densification caused by soil displacement during

driving, drilled shafts often experience a reduction in the lateral stress and shear

strength due to excavation disturbance. However, drilled shafts are often

preferred for high capacity foundations, especially if lateral loading is significant.

Although piles are often driven into Florida limestone, shafts can be drilled and

installed to any depth, and typically have greater unit side shear capacity. When

constructing drilled shafts in rock, the temporary reduction in horizontal stress

becomes less important and side shear may be increased by the concrete

penetration into the rough rock surface. An accurate value for unit side shear is

required so that the strength of the rock is properly represented, avoiding large

safety factors or coefficients that unnecessarily increase the diameter or length of

the shaft. Highly variable rock properties, such as those found in Florida

limestone, complicate shear strength and design capacity calculations. Site









variability is of major concern to designers, and its impact on the design must be

addressed.

Two methods for the determination of unit side shear for drilled shaft design

will be discussed in this section. The strength parameter method is derived from

basic Mohr-Coulomb relationships utilizing strength parameters from two

common lab tests on field cores. The LPC method is empirical and is based on

the pressuremeter results. The strength parameter method is the current and

most common method used in Florida.

2.2.2 Strength Parameter Method

This common procedure for the design of drilled shafts in Florida begins

with obtaining numerous field cores for the purpose of measuring strength in the

laboratory. The goal is to obtain an adequate number of lab tests to accurately

estimate the potential side shear capacity for the rock/shaft interface. Typically,

in Florida limestone, the shaft concrete is both stronger and stiffer than the rock

(McVay et. al., 1992). Therefore, failure along the rock/shaft interface will be

highly dependent on shear stress developed in the rock. McVay et al. (1992)

found that the shear strength of Florida limestone is approximately equal to its

cohesive component, at the relatively low stress conditions existing at the

rock/shaft interface. This is shown graphically in Figure 2.5.














Failure stress
state along
rock-sbaf t
in tez'f ae


Figure 2.5 Cohesion Approximation for Rock/Shaft Interface Strength
(McVay et al., 1992)


McVay et al. (1992) also point out that more than one laboratory test is

required to determine the rock's cohesion due to the nature of the failure criteria.

The goal is to define the Mohr-Coulomb failure plane, and in turn, the rock's

cohesion intercept. This can be accomplished by performing multiple triaxial

compression tests at different confining pressures or, more easily, unconfined

compression, qu, and split tensile, qt, tests. As shown in Figure 2.6, McVay et al.

(1992) derives an equation relating the ultimate shear strength, fsu, of the

limestone to these latter tests:


2' = q1 q, (2.2)
2

















Spill
lension
=


Figure 2.6 Strength Envelope for Florida Limestone (McVay et al., 1992)


The next step in this design process involves the selection of qu and qt

values for Equation 2.2. The recommended procedure requires a distribution of

qu and qt values representative of the entire bridge site. This is accomplished by

using a numerical method known as the Monte Carlo Simulation. This method

generates a fully populated distribution of qu and qt. Next, a random group (5 to

10 values) of qu and qt values is selected and an average unit shear strength is

found, which represents a certain drilled shaft. It should be noted that the

estimated unit shear strength is multiplied by the core recovery to account for

voids in the rock formation. Next, to account for the site variability, another

random sample of qu and qt is selected to obtain another unit shear strength

value. The process is repeated to obtain a distribution of unit shear strength

values over the site. The standard deviation of this distribution identifies the

variability of the unit shear strength over the entire site.









An important consideration when obtaining parameters, such as qu and qt,

is site variability. Practical economic limits usually restrict the number of samples

taken in the field. This is also complicated by the possibility of low recoveries in

Florida Limestone. The number of lab tests performed on the samples is again

limited by economics. These issues affect the standard deviation and mean for

the unit shear strength distribution. If more samples are tested, the degree of

dispersion will be better defined, which would lower the sampling error

associated with the standard deviation and mean for the qu and qt populations.

This in turn will decrease the confidence interval for the unit shear strength

chosen for the design. Confidence in a design parameter, such as unit shear

strength, results in a lower factor of safety, and will ultimately decrease material

and construction costs while still providing a safe design.

2.2.3 Menard/LPC Method

The use of the pressuremeter for determination of unit side shear for drilled

shaft design began in 1963 by Louis Menard with correlations from a database of

eight plate load tests in sand and silt materials. Since then, the load test

database has grown considerably, but the basic concepts developed by Menard

remain the same. Laboratoire des Ponts et Chaussees (LPC) published the

current design procedure, which is summarized by Jean-Louis Briaud (1992).

This design procedure, shown in Table2.1, considers different soil types

(including rock) for both driven piles and drilled shafts, and their method of

insertion. The type of pile/shaft, the method of installation, and the soil type

govern the correlation between limit pressure and ultimate shear strength, fL fsu.









This table specifies which design curve to select in Figure 2.7. An equivalent

limit pressure, pLe, is used in the figure to find a limit pressure for each like-

section, or "layer". The equation for the equivalent limit pressure, pLe, is given as

(Briaud, 1992):

1 +a
PLe PL()dz (2.3)
2a

The (a) in the above equation is the height of the layer. In the case of drilled

shafts, it is found from the shaft diameter, B, as a=B/2 for shaft diameters over

3.3ft or a=1.65ft for shafts under 3.3ft. Using Figure 2.7, an average unit side

shear value can then be assigned to each "layer". Equation 2.4 can then be

used to determine the ultimate side resistance for the drilled shaft (Briaud, 1992).

h
Q, = pfdz (2.4)
0

"p", in the above equation is the perimeter of the drilled shaft.

It is possible to address the variability in the limit pressures from the

pressuremeter tests, by performing a similar procedure as described for the

design of drilled shafts using strength parameters. A distribution of equivalent

limit pressures can be created using Monte Carlo Simulation that represents the

entire bridge site. A corresponding unit side shear distribution can then

generated from Figure 2.7. From this fully populated distribution, groups (5-10

values) of random unit side shears can be sampled and averaged to represent a

particular drilled shaft. The final step would be the application of Equation 2.4 for

determining the ultimate skin resistance.








18



Table 2.1 Pressuremeter Design Curve Selection Table
Soil Clay/Sill Sand GrCvel Chalk Martlmarty Weaheed or
Pile limestone fractured
rock
Drilled-dry Ql' Q3' Q4' Q6'
Q2(2) Q3(3) Q6 (2) Q5 (2)
Drilled with mud Qi QI (6) Q2(6) Q3' Q4' Q6'
Q2 Q3 Q6 (2) Q5 (2)
Drilled. with casing Qt Ql"(6) Q2(6) Q3" Q4
(casing retrieved) Q2(4 Q2 Q3 Q4(4)
Drilled with casing Ql Q1 Q2 Q2 Q3'
(casing left in place)
Caissons (1) Q2 Q4' Q5 Q6'
Q3(5)
Driven -mcal QI' Q2 Q3 Q4 Q4 Q4'(7)
(closed end) Q2(5)
Driven concrete Q2 Q3 Q3 Q4' Q4' Q4'(7)
Driven- molded(10) Q2 Q2' Q3 Q4 Q4
Driven coated (1) Q2 Q3' Q4 QS' Q4'
Injected low pressure Q2' Q3 Q3' Q5' Q5' Q6'
Injected high pres- Q5 Q Q Q6 Q6" Q6' Q7'(9)
sure (8)
(1) Without casing left in place (mugh contact).
(2) Reaming and grooving before pouring concrete.
(3) Reaming ad grooving before pouring concrT, for very tiff clays only
(p, 1.5 MP or 15.7 tsf.
(4) Drilling in the dry without twisting the casing.
(5) Stiffclays (p > 1.5 MPa or 157 rs).
(6) Long piles ( > 30 m or 98.4 ft).
(7) If driving is possible.
(8) Selective and repeititve injection at a low rate of flow.
(9) (8) and proper grouting of the fissured mass. Especially for micropile for which load tests
arB recommended
(10) Driven closed-cnd casing once at final penetration the casing is filled with concrete, the
point is left in place and the casing is relieved.
(1 ) Driven pipe or I1 pile with an oversize shoe (50 mm or 1.97 in. oversize): as the pile is
driven, mortar is injected in the annulus.
Probably conservative, but the friction cannot be increased without a verification by
loadtlsting.


(Briaud, 1992)


Figure 2.7 Unit Side Shear Correlation


I 4 I I I-L (kFa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
I I I I I IN -(tsf)
0 10 20 30 40 s L


Chart for Pressuremeter









By replacing the two step core-lab test process with the more immediate

pressuremeter tests, more tests may be performed at the same investigation

cost. Also, core recovery does not affect the pressuremeter as it tests the voids,

cracks, fissures, soft zones, and hard zones in an unbiased manner. The

pressuremeter tests are performed during the drilling operation and the results

can be obtained quickly. By contrast, testing rock cores in the lab requires two

major expenses: a drilling crew to core the rock and recover the samples, and a

lab to perform two different tests on the samples. Laboratory strength tests are

typically performed on no more than 8-10 samples per drill hole versus 6-8 PMT

tests per hole. However, the volume of rock tested by the PMT is much greater.

Since only the best portions of the rock are tested, some engineers

conservatively multiply the unit side shear by the core recovery percentage to

account for potential voids and weak zones. Lab tests also typically require 2-3

weeks to obtain the results. In summary, if more tests are performed using the

pressuremeter, then the standard deviation and mean of the qu and qt distribution

are better defined, reducing the sampling error, and increase confidence in the

design parameters. This results in a lower safety factor, and decreased

foundation costs.

2.2.4 Proposed Method

The goal of this research is to use the pressuremeter to facilitate the

design of drilled shafts in Florida limestone. As mentioned earlier in this Chapter,

side resistance is an important part of the ultimate resistance of the shaft. Using

similar methods to those presented in the strength parameter section above, it

should be viable to use the PMT test results to obtain ultimate side resistance.









This would be done without reducing the side shear for recovery, however, with

the exception of void areas where PMT tests cannot be performed. There are

two alternatives at present:


* Use the PMT cracking pressure to estimate the tensile strength, and either
the yield pressure or limit pressure to estimate the compression strength.

* Use the PMT modulus to estimate the rock modulus. Then use the rock
modulus to estimate the unconfined compression strength, and the
unconfined compression strength to estimate the tensile strength.


The first method is more direct and potentially involves less correlation. A third

possibility, direct correlation of unit side shear with the PMT modulus, cracking

pressure, yield pressure, limit pressure, or a combination of these with

parameters may also be possible due to PMT tests performed adjacent to test

shafts with measured unit side shear and end bearing. However, for reliability,

direct correlation between PMT results and shaft capacity should of necessity

include many more tests than can be performed during this study.

2.3 Design Parameters

The pressuremeter test provides good estimates of several design

parameters that can be useful and accurate, along with design parameters

obtained directly from the test data. These parameters include the

pressuremeter modulus (Em), yield pressure (py), the limit pressure (pL), tensile

strength (ot), ultimate strength (qu), and shear strength (Cu). These parameters

are investigated in the following sections.









2.3.1 Direct Test Parameters

Several parameters are taken directly from the pressuremeter data without

additional theory or methods. The pressuremeter modulus (Em), yield pressure

(py), the limit pressure (PL) can be taken directly from the corrected

pressure/volume or pressure/(AR/Ro) plots. Each parameter is briefly discussed

below.

The pressuremeter modulus, Em, is found by analyzing the straight-line

portion of the pressure-volume plot of the test data. Briaud (1992) provides

Equation 2.5 for Em in terms of relative change in probe radius (AR/Ro).


1+ + 1+ AR
RO R
E, = (1+ v)(p2 1 2 oR1 (2.5)

Ro2 R

The subscripts in the above equation refer to the two pressure and AR/Ro points

required for slope determination. A Poisson's ratio, v, of 0.25 was used in the

analyses included herein. Equation 2.5 assumes elastic behavior, which causes

equal and opposite changes in the radial and circumferential. In turn, there is no

change in bulk stress (mean stress) or volume during this elastic phase, and the

resulting modulus is independent of drainage conditions (Clarke, 1995)

Since radial cracking occurs in many of the tests, the pressuremeter

modulus is determined using the pre-crack portion of the elastic phase. In cases

where crack development significantly shortened the pre-crack portion of this

curve, the linear slope was extended to get a representative pressure and AR/Ro









values. The slope prior to cracking is usually greater than the slope after

cracking.

The yield pressure, as described earlier, is the point at which the test

pressure initiates plastic deformation in the rock. This point is obtained from the

end of the linear portion of the corrected pressure/volume or pressure/(AR/Ro)

plot. The creep curve can also be used to estimate the yield pressure. Amongst

other correlations, the yield pressure is mainly used to estimate the undrained

shear strength for cohesive soils. Previous tests on large lab samples during this

research indicated a close relationship with the unconfined compressive strength

of Florida limestone, which will be discussed in later sections of this chapter.

The limit pressure, introduced earlier, describes the point at which the rock

continues to deform without an increase in stress. Theoretically, the limit

pressure requires an infinite expansion of the rock cavity. However, this

expansion is not practical, and the limit pressure is chosen such that the soil

cavity, or Vc (the volume of the cavity at po), is inflated to twice its initial size

V -V
(AVCY/V = = 1) (Briaud, 1992). That is, the change in volume with respect


to the cavity is equal to the volume of the cavity. Briaud (1992) provides the

relationship in Equation 2.6 between the relative change in radius at the limit

pressure, (AR/Ro)L, and the relative change in radius at the cavity prior to loading,

(AR/Ro)c. Both of these radial changes are calculated with respect to the initial

radius of the probe, Ro.

AR = 0.41+1.41 AR (2.6)
Ro Ro R










From this equation, the relative change in radius required to obtain AV/V, = 1 is

approximately AR/R, = 0.5. However, the limited expansion of the Probex in

rock makes it difficult to determine the limit pressure as defined above. Tests

performed for this research never exceeded AR/R, = 0.2. Therefore, curve fitting

techniques and the Gibson and Anderson Method were used to determine the

limit pressure. Curve fitting was accomplished using GraphPad Prism version

3.02 for Windows with the following non-linear relationship:


PL = A.e l o +C (2.7)

This is only an approximate model used for estimation purposes. The

results can be found in Chapter 5. The Gibson and Anderson Method, described

in Mair and Woods (1987), estimates the limit pressure and undrained shear

strength from a plot of pressure versus In(AVc/V, ) (Figure 2.8). A plot of the

pressuremeter data on the log scale should result in a straight line near the end





P.----------------------/-





Cu
U,
Ua



I -
In AVc Vc 1.0

Figure 2.8 Determination of Limit Pressure by Extrapolation








of the test that can be extrapolated to the limit pressure. The limit pressure

defined by an infinite expansion of the probe occurs when AV/Vc = 1.0 or

approximately AR/Ro = 0.5. The Gibson and Anderson Method is preferred (over

the curve fitting method) because of its theoretical basis.

The correlations proposed in Section 2.2.4 using the yield and limit

pressures are affected by the quality of the borehole, tensile cracking, and

drainage conditions. Since the focus of this research is unit side shear, the

estimation of qu and qt and undrained shear strength is explored because of the

existing relationships given in Equation 2.2 by McVay et al. (1992).

2.3.2 Tensile Strength
After the PMT reestablishes the insitu lateral stress (at p po- oh)

Haberfield (1997) showed that in an elastic-plastic material, the radial stress

increase applied by the PMT causes the circumferential stress to decrease by an

equal amount (Figure 2.9). The circumferential stress reaches zero at p = po and

Elastic Plstic





Fi /i


I
So --o
Fr 2. / dPraerwfe1r
MS pressure
C+ IP m

Figure 2.9 Idealized Pressuremeter Stress Diagram (Haberfield, 1997)









continues in tension until reaching the tensile yield stress, shown as om. After

yield, volume changes alter the direction of the circumferential stress, according

to the plasticity model chosen. Therefore, ignoring crack formation, the plastic

region progresses outward through the material increasing the circumferential

stress at the same rate as the radial stress as depicted in Figure 2.9. However, if

the tensile strength, ot, of the rock is reached, prior to the onset of yield

(ICtl < |oml), then the circumferential stress will drop to zero and the stress at the

borehole wall will be or = Oh + ACr = Ch + (om + Otl) = 2oh + Iotl, as shown in

Figure 2.10. The stress will then continue to increase in the radial direction as

the circumferential stresses are relieved causing "the rock wedges between the

cracks to be loaded in uniaxial compression. The response of the rock wedges

should remain elastic until reaching the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock,

qu, (Haberfield, 1997).

Elastic Plastic



EElOi

o




Io Tensile failure

1 LPOI +
Pi+|I'1 \ /
Se-for undrained clay
c co0'+psmin0'-for I
drained rock

Figure 2.10 Pressuremeter Tensile Failure Stress Diagram (Haberfield, 1997)










The stress diagrams presented in Figures 2.9 and 2.10 may be considered

either drained or undrained, depending on the geomaterial. The cavity pressure

applied by the pressuremeter, or = p, at which the tensile stress is equal to the

tensile strength, is given by:

p- Oh = h + Iot (2.8)

Equation 2.8 may be used with either drained or undrained strength and stress

parameters as appropriate. It is assumed that pre-yield behavior of Florida

limestone is drained, formally discussed in Section 2.3 below; therefore, drained

parameters will be used throughout the remainder of this discussion. Based on

the Haberfield (1986) postulation shown in Figure 2.10, the PMT follows a stress

path with ACr = -Aoe, starting from the initial stress condition or = 0o = oh. At the

tensile failure, the Mohr circle shown in Figure 2.11 has expanded to the Mohr-

Coulomb failure envelope with a radius of (p Ch).

Shear
Stress, Mohr-Coulomb
Failure Envelope

Coh tan 4
(p-Ch) / COS






/ I Normal
S\ Stress, c

Oe = Ct oh or = P
Figure 2.11 Mohr Circle at PMT Tension Failure









For this failure circle:

p- Oh = C(COS ) + Oh (sin4) (2.9)

Then, substituting Equation 2.8, tensile failure will occur for a drained, brittle

material when

Oh + Ot| = C(COS)) + Oh (sin4) (2.10)

By rearranging Equation 2.8, for a linear elastic material, the tensile strength may

then be calculated from oh and the radial stress at cracking, cr:

ot| = P 2Ch = Ocr 2Ch (2.11)

If the tensile failure described above is analogous to that created in a split tensile

test then the cracking stress may be used to estimate the split tensile strength.

The cracking stress may be identified on the pressuremeter curve by the

presence of a discontinuous slope change in the linear portion of the curve. The

tensile cracks generally reduce the slope of the linear portion of the curve and

hence the calculated modulus.

Haberfield (1987) concluded that for most soft rock pressuremeter testing, it

is likely that tensile cracks will form relatively early in the borehole expansion,

before the compression yield pressure is reached. Soft limestone is typically

brittle, and cracks that form near the surface of the cavity during pressuremeter

testing may propagate extensively into the rock mass. The formation and

propagation of these cracks may greatly influence the stresses and strains

around the probe and consequently, may significantly affect the test

(pressure/(AR/Ro) curve).









2.3.3 Shear strength

The soft rock found in Florida generally exhibits drained behavior during the

elastic phase of the PMT. This statement is supported and further explored in

Section 4 of this chapter. However, it is unknown whether this holds true

throughout the entire loading with the pressuremeter. More specifically, it is

difficult to assume either undrained or drained conditions exist past yield. The

drained assumption implies volume change during the test versus excess

porewater pressures that would be developed during undrained loading. In

addition, a frictional component, 4, is introduced and must be accounted for in the

analysis. Due to the additional frictional component, the predicted strength may

be greater than that for an undrained analysis (Haberfield, 1987). The volume

change that is associated with drained loading may also introduce dilatant

behavior. Baguelin (1978) states that, in a general sense, it is possible for

dilatancy to have such an effect that the net limit pressure can be more than

doubled. Thus neglecting the possibility of dilation can drastically affect the

results. However, due to the unknown drainage conditions past yield, an

undrained analysis may be appropriate.

As discussed previously, the Gibson and Anderson Method can be used to

determine the undrained shear strength. However, several of the tests plotted in

this manner did not exhibit the linear response as indicated by Figure 2.8.

Instead, continuing curvature with an inflection point was seen as illustrated in

Figure 2.12. Mair and Wood (1987) describe this curvature as a strain-softening

response, in which the peak undrained shear strength at the point of inflection is









followed by the ultimate undrained shear strength during larger strains.

Therefore, the peak value of Cu (from the initial slope portion) from the plot of

pressure versus In(AV/oN) is not reliable.


Q,.






Cu ut






Cu peak



In AV/VcN

Figure 2.12 Comparison of Peak to Ultimate Shear Strength


Mair and Wood (1987) hypothesize that the affect of disturbance and other initial

conditions is reduced at larger strains. Therefore, the ultimate shear strength

should be favored instead because "less uncertainty surrounds the determination

of the apparent large strain strength given by the slope of the pressure versus

In(AVoNc) curve at large deformations" (Mair and Wood, 1987). The Gibson and

Anderson Method, performed on the PMT results, can be found in Appendix B.

Undrained shear strength may also be calculated at the end point, PL, as

follows (Mair and Wood, 1987):

S= (PL -P _P (2.12)
"1+ln(G/c )-









The denominator of this equation is often approximated as with a P coefficient.

Rather than an iterative approach for Cu, which first requires knowledge of the

shear modulus, it is common practice to experimentally determine p. Briaud

(1992) states that it is common for this ratio to vary between 100 and 600, which

leads to a range of P from 5.6 to 7.4. This range gives an average P of 6.5,

which, during the laboratory PMT tests in Gatorock (see Cepero, 2002), gave

excellent agreement between the limit pressure and qu (bias = 1.04, COV = 5%,

4pts.). Generally, stiffer material will give a higher P coefficient. It should also be

noted that the limit pressure determined from the Gibson and Anderson Method

produces a Cu that is closer to the residual value, because of the observations

made by Mair and Wood (1987) pertaining to the discussion of Figure 2.12.

A non-linear power curve fit by Briaud (1992) to a database of Cu and PL

parameters, assembled by Baguelin et al. (1978), from PMT tests performed in

mostly clays is given as:

0 75
c =0.67 .p, (2.13)

Equation 2.13 provides very similar results to equation 2.12 and is not used

herein. A summary of the different methods to find the undrained shear strength

can be found in Chapter 3.

2.3.4 Unconfined compressive strength

Once the circumferential stresses are relieved by cracking, the applied

radial stress becomes analogous to an unconfined compression test. Haberfield

(1997) states that the response of the rock after cracking should remain elastic

until the unconfined compressive strength, qu, is reached. The remainder of the









loading response, after qu, is modified by the propagation of tensile cracks, which

brings about a curved response with decreased stiffness due to plastic shearing

of the material (Mair and Wood, 1987). Haberfield (1997) goes on to suggest

that when the yield pressure is encountered, plastic shearing begins only after

the unconfined compressive strength has been surpassed, thus indicating that qu

may be greater than the yield pressure. He further states "the curvature in the

load deformation response of a pressuremeter in weak rock at pressures below

qu is therefore likely to be the result of gradual crack propagation rather than

yielding of the rock." However, Cepero (2002) found that the yield pressure can

be correlated directly with the unconfined compressive strength. This conclusion

is based on only four tests; but the low coefficient of variation (COV = 13%)

shows that the correlation is promising. This theory will be verified with field tests

performed with the Probex and cores tested in the lab for the unconfined

compressive strength.

The pre-yield behavior of Florida limestone is assumed to be drained,

however, the assumption made for the post yield behavior is undrained. If

undrained conditions exist past yield then the undrained shear strength, cu,

should be:


c = (2.14)
2

Undrained shear strength can also be estimated empirically from the net limit

pressure of the PMT test. Combined with Equation 2.14, this relationship is

given as follows:










q, =2c = 2 PL h (2.15)
.I=ZZ=Zj-l ^ 1(2.15)


The P is an empirical coefficient sometimes referred to as the 'pressuremeter

constant' and varies with the ratio of shear modulus, G, to undrained shear

strength (G/cu) (Mair and Wood, 1987).

Two additional methods were investigated to estimate the unconfined

compressive strength from PMT results, both of which involve using Equation

2.14 with estimates of cu. First, the Gibson and Anderson Method provides an

estimate of Cu from the slope of the pressure versus In(AVc/Vc ) plot. Second, a

rearranged theoretical expression originally derived for the yield pressure,

Equation 2.14 given by Briaud (1992):

q = 2. c =2.(pY h) (2.16)

The equation relates qu to twice the net yield pressure. Comparisons of the four

different methods for estimating qu can be found in Chapter 3.



2.4 Geology

The geological aspects pertaining to this research are briefly discussed in

this section, concentrating on features that have direct influence on the PMT

results. A more general discussion can be found in Cepero (2002). The main

geological factors that require discussion are drainage conditions present during

loading and the condition of the limestone.









2.4.1 Drainage Conditions

As previously stated earlier in the chapter, Florida limestone is assumed to

behave as a drained material. The high clay content often observed and the

small particle size would normally contradict this statement. However, according

to Johnston and Chiu (1981) the porewater dissipation "may be described by the

coefficient of consolidation, Cv." For a relatively incompressible material such as

soft rocks, compared to clays, the magnitude "of m, (coefficient of volume

change) may be several orders of magnitude smaller than for a clay." The

coefficient of volume change (my) is defined as the reciprocal of the constrained

modulus. The coefficient of consolidation, which describes the rate of

consolidation or porewater dissipation, is given by the equation:

C, = (2.17)
Ywm,

The small value of m, results in "a Cv value that is several orders of

magnitude larger than for clays" (Johnston and Chui, 1981). This leads to a

porewater dissipation rate that is quite rapid compared to clay. Johnston and

Chiu also point out that the laboratory samples tested during the investigation of

their findings were performed on "specimens that did not contain the fissures,

joints and seams encountered in the field". Such effects will certainly lead to a

further increase in drainage. Consolidation tests performed on Florida limestone

would be helpful to validate the above assumptions.

2.4.2 Limestone Competency

The competency of the limestone plays an important role in the quality of

the pressuremeter test, which in turn affects the quality of the results. The









competency first depends on the sedimentary nature of the limestone. Florida

limestone is a sedimentary carbonate rock that formed over millions of years.

During this time, it experienced periods of total submergence as well as dry

spells during which the waters receded. These factors contribute to form a rock

that is highly heterogeneous in nature. Figure 2.13 shows an excavated section

of limestone, at a Newberry quarry, where voids can be readily observed.













S -L ,!









Figure 2.13 Excavated Section of Florida Limestone Showing Voids


Portions of the rock can be made up of coral that is well cemented and

strong, while other portions are made up of lightly cemented carbonates. Near

the surface, Florida limestone has not generally experienced high consolidation

stresses and tends to be relatively weak compared to competent limestone. All

four test holes at the SR20 site generally displayed a significant amount of

variation over the depths tested. However, virtually all the limestone






35


encountered after the first twenty feet was of high quality, gave high recoveries,

and had the highest strength. The ability to core the test hole, so that a limit

pressure could be adequately estimated, was also greatly improved. The higher

quality rock in this region was not as easily eroded by the circulation of drilling

fluid required during coring.














CHAPTER 3
FIELD PRESSUREMETER TESTS



The focus of this research involves conducting field tests with the Probex

pressuremeter. Field pressuremeter tests were performed in Blountstown,

Florida (Figure 3.1) at the SR20 Bridge site between November 18, 2002 and

December 9, 2002.


I-


Figure 3.1 Site Location Map (Sharpe, 1998)


Thirty-one pressuremeter tests were performed in four test holes (about 8 tests

per test hole) at two different test shaft locations. Drilling assistance was

provided by FDOT District 3, including rock coring and pressuremeter testing.

Rock strength parameters correlated from the pressuremeter tests will be









compared to values obtained from drilled shaft load tests performed during the

construction of the new SR20 Bridge. This chapter covers the pressuremeter

tests performed to accomplish these tasks.

3.2 Limestone Coring

The pressuremeter tests conducted for this research were performed within

a pre-bored hole. The depths required to reach limestone necessitated the use

of a drill rig and a properly sized coring barrel in order to prepare a relatively

proper hole. The finite expansion of the pressuremeter probe requires a hole

with precise dimensions and little room for error. The coring equipment used and

the quality of the hole preparation may significantly affect the pressuremeter

results. These factors are discussed in the following sections.

3.2.1 Coring Equipment

The equipment used for coring was a surface-set, diamond-impregnated

coring bit with a triple-tube core barrel. The diameter was chosen so the

diameter of the hole exactly matched that of the pressuremeter. A triple-tube

core barrel assembly, supplied by Boart Longyear, was chosen to create an

N-sized, 2.95-inch diameter, hole. The core barrel was attached to NWJ-sized,

2.625-inch diameter, rods so that the rod string remained stiff during drilling.

3.2.2 Hole Preparation and Coring Technique

The Blountstown Bridge site has about 70 feet of soil overburden, with both

clay and sand layers, underlain by fossiliferous limestone. The generalized soil

profile assumed for Test Shafts 5 & 7 can be seen in Figures 3.2 and 3.3,

summarized from the Dames and Moore Geotechnical Report (Sharpe, 1998) for

the SR20 Bridge. The overburden was drilled with a tri-cone bit and cased with












4"flush joint casing to avoid soil infiltration and potential collapse. After installing


casing to the top of rock, the core barrel assembly was used to core the


limestone. The hole was advanced as the tests were performed.



50 TOP OF SHAFT t5


-40

-7-
- 30


-20


- 10


- 0


- -10


- 20


Clayey Sand (SC)
Very Loose;.






Silty Clay w/ Organcis (CL)
Soft to Medium









l_ r I_. -


I I I I i I I I I I I

Limestone
I l I l Soft to Ho .rd i I I
- 4 0 I I I I I I I I I


Osterberg
Load Cell

+ +
+ +
Osterberg
Load Cell
I I


-60


-70

Figure 3.2 Generalized Stratigraphy for Test Shaft 5



The primary concern during coring for pressuremeter tests is the resulting


quality of the corehole, with core recovery being secondary. The maximum radial


expansion of the Probex is approximately 13.85mm (0.55in), which leaves little


room for error when creating a borehole. Problems associated with coring in soft


rock depths greater than about 50-feet are 'wobbling' of the coring bit, flushing


::I I I I


I I I I
71. I I
I A I I:


- -50













fluid disturbing the sides of the corehole, and the relaxation of the sides that


occurs when the soil is removed from the borehole (lateral stress decrease).




STOP OF SHAFT #7
h" --


-40 ifltld 1 .1 J1 I' I J-1 J1.~~11
- 40 Coayey Sand (SC)


- 30


- 20 Silty Clky w/ Orgoncis dCL)


- 10



0 Meaiur to Fine Sand:::
: Some Gravel (SP):.........
:MecIur Dense to Dense

-2 10 1:: and

-nr 20e1 f11 T


- -30


- 40


- 50


Weathered Fossiliferous
Limestone
Soft to Hard


Osterberg
Load Cell


+ Ostero er+
Locad Cewl


60


_-70


Figure 3.3 Generalized Stratigraphy for Test Shaft 7


The wobbling effect during coring produces a rock core that has a


corkscrew appearance. This occurs as a consequence of several contributing


factors. The down pressure of the drill rig head applies the pressure necessary


for the bit to core through the rock. Inadequate down-pressure will prevent the


core barrel from advancing. A large down-pressure will cause the coring bit to


'walk' around the inside of the hole, because the bit is not able to cut the material


I


..... ......
...........................................
..... ......
..... ......
..... ......
..... ......
..... ......
..... ......
..... ......
..... ......









fast enough. The pressure must be applied so that the rate of cut is constant,

and is only enough to properly core the rock. This procedure is highly dependent

on driller experience and technique. The effect of the wobble may also create a

corkscrew on the sidewall of the hole. If the sidewall is not smooth, then stress

concentrations may occur as the pressuremeter expands are likely to exist.

Usually, the only down pressure applied during coring was the weight of the rods.

Occasionally, a down pressure of 100psi was applied to the rods during periods

of hard drilling.

The rotational rate of the core bit is also important. Rates too slow or too

fast may generate excess heat and damage the bit. A too slow rate may also

gouge the sidewalls. The average rate used in the field for this research was 90-

100 rpm.

Scoring or boring through any geomaterial produces cuttings. Common

drilling practice is to flush the cuttings with drill fluid. Typical flushing media

include air, foam, water, mineral slurry, and synthetic polymers. Successful

removal of cuttings requires a combination of correct velocity and viscosity. If the

velocity of the slurry is too high, the pressure created by this flow can damage

the borehole. The effect of a high velocity flow in a weathered or vuggy rock can

negate the entire test. A low velocity will allow the cuttings to fall out of

suspension. This situation causes the hole to be filled with cuttings, which may

make target test depths difficult to obtain and cause the hole to be re-drilled,

which adds further disturbance. The viscosity must be such that the slurry is

thick (dense) enough to suspend the cuttings and retard settling particles. The









optimum circulation rate found during the SR20 tests was relatively slow,

essentially at the rate of the drill rig and just enough to obtain flow at the top of

the casing. A maximum pump pressure of 25 psi was recorded. The driller also

controls the rate of rotation and down-pressure to maintain this flow so that the

core barrel does not plug during coring.

The pre-coring insitu stresses are reduced to zero at the sidewall of the

corehole. This stress removal causes the soil to relax inward, which loosens it,

reducing strength and stiffness. The diameter of the borehole may also reduce

slightly. This disturbance lengthens the initial phase of the pressuremeter test,

affects the overall shape and magnitude of the PMT curve, and may truncate the

test before obtaining any useful parameters. This relaxation effect can be

reduced using drill mud. The mineral slurry drill mud (Bentonite or Attapulgite)

has a greater unit weight than the groundwater, and its fluid pressure helps

replace the sidewall stresses. Mair and Wood (1987) suggest that the drilling

mud also reduces soil suction effects at the sidewall, which may swell and

weaken clays as the water content increases. Mineral slurry coats the sidewall,

possibly even forming a filter cake, and prevents the flow of water into the

surrounding soil. The high clay content and high frequency of voids and joints in

Florida limestone require consideration of these affects, when a more competent

rock would not.

3.3 PMT Tests

After the installation of the 4-inch casing, the coring and testing procedure

began. PMT test depths corresponded to the strain gage elevation in the test

shafts. The coring was performed so that the center of the Probex membrane









could be positioned at the desired depth with additional room left below (typically

2.5 to 3 feet) for the lower portion of the testing device and cuttings that might

settle out of the drill mud. In addition, the coring sequence was planned so that

1-2 pressuremeter tests could be performed before the next section of rock was

cored. This was done in an effort to reduce the amount of time the borehole

remained open, to minimize the disturbance caused by raising and lowering the

core barrel, and to reduce driller downtime during pressuremeter testing. Lastly,

the coring rate and water pressure was monitored continuously for each core

followed by careful core inspection and logging.

3.3.1 Calibrations and Corrections

The pressuremeter requires several calibrations and corrections to obtain a

true pressure-volume curve for the soil cavity. The membrane is flexible and

resists expansion in a non-linear manner. It is also compressed during the test

by the external pressure of the soil. Therefore, calibrations are required to

account for membrane compressibility and resistance. Each effect is subtracted

from the raw test readings. The SR20 calibrations can be found in Appendix A.

The volume calibration involves inserting the Probex probe in a close-fitting

thick-walled steel. The pressure is increased to the maximum capacity of the

probe, 30MPa, and released. The Probex instructions suggest that the volume

calibration be performed 5 times before and after each test to obtain an accurate

calibration. The probe was exercised, inflated and deflated, three times prior to

performing any calibrations. Then 2-3 volume calibrations were performed,

depending on the variation observed between calibration curves. The expansion

of the probe to contact the calibration pipe is ignored because it depends on the









hole size. The remaining portion of the calibration curve is essentially linear and

is extrapolate back to zero pressure. The measured volume loss is subtracted

from the volume read during the test to remove the effect of the membrane

compression. The volume calibrations were averaged for each day's testing and

applied to all the tests performed on that day (see Appendix A).

The pressure calibration is performed to remove the expansion resistance

of the membrane from the test pressure. The membrane is inflated in air and the

pressure is recorded at fixed volume increments. After correcting the test

volume, the pressure correction is subtracted from the test pressure to find the

actual pressure acting on the cavity wall. Pressure and volume calibrations were

performed together (consecutively). The pressure calibration curve, shown as a

dashed line on the pressure calibrations in Appendix A, a 'best fit' second-order

polynomial was fit through all the data taken each test day. This curve was then

shifted, while keeping the same form, so that the first reading would be (0 cc,0

MPa). This curve is shown on the same plots, along with the equation and a

non-linear correlation coefficient, R2, as a bold line. The pressure calibrations

can be found in Appendix A following the volume calibrations.

A hydrostatic pressure correction is also necessary when testing below the

control unit elevation. The hydrostatic head of oil in the pressuremeter's

hydraulic lines pressurizes the probe prior to testing and must be added to the

transducer pressure measured at the ground surface.

3.3.2 PMT Test Procedure

The SR20 PMT tests were performed as stress-controlled tests to better

define the linear elastic region and facilitate recognition of the lateral insitu stress









and yield limit. The volume creep (see section 2.1.3) obtained while holding the

pressure constant provides a reasonable estimate of these parameters. The

tests were performed with 0.5MPa pressure increments to define the pressure-

volume curve. Volume and pressure readings were recorded after 30 seconds

and 60 seconds to investigate creep. Each PMT test was carefully monitored by

plotting the results to insure a good test. Briaud (1992) recommends that an

unload-reload cycle be performed after the linear portion of loading. This is done

to find an unload-reload modulus for comparison with the elastic phase of the

PMT test. An unload-reload test was not be performed on tests that did not

reach a yield limit

3.4 PMT Analysis

The individual pressuremeter tests can be found in Appendix A. Both

uncorrected and corrected pressure-volume curves are included as well as the

corrected pressure versus the relative increase of the probe radius (AR/Ro).

The dashed portions of the curves in Appendix A represent estimated trends

based on expected behavior. The lack of data in these areas is due to reaching

the maximum volume of the probe prior to the final 60-second pressure reading.

No analyses were performed on these estimated portions of the curves.

3.4.1 PMT Parameter Comparisons

Parameters from the different interpretation methods will be analyzed and

compared so that proper values are used for the correlation to strength

parameters. The hand drawn, 'best-fit' trend lines drawn on the pressure versus










AR/ Ro plots provide the basis for most of the interpretative analysis. Chapter 2


describes the analyses methods used in this section.

Two methods were used to find the insitu lateral stress, po. The first

estimate used was the intersection of the initial and elastic straight-line portions

of the pressure versus AR/Ro curve. Alternatively, the creep plot of pressure

versus (V60 V30) gives po as the beginning of the vertical portion of the creep

plot. As seen in Figure 3.4, the results display a significant amount of scatter.

The creep method is a more definitive approximation of po and is based more on

the observed soil behavior than visual interpretation of the test curve.


At-Rest Horizontal Pressure Comparison




<2.5---
0.








y =0.5595x
<0.5 ------- -+ -- *-- ---- --
W) 20 2 0_ _









C*
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

po from Creep Plot





Figure 3.4 At-Rest Horizontal Pressure Comparison

Two different methods were used to estimate the yield pressure, py. This

parameter was obtained first as the end of the linear elastic portion of the
pressure versus plot, and second, by using the creep plot. Similar to0.2971

obtaining p from the creep plot, p is taken at the top of the constant creep
0.0 . -I-I-*. .-I-I-I- .
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
po from Creep Plot

Figure 3.4 At-Rest Horizontal Pressure Comparison

Two different methods were used to estimate the yield pressure, py. This

parameter was obtained first as the end of the linear elastic portion of the

pressure versus AR/R0 plot, and second, by using the creep plot. Similar to


obtaining Po from the creep plot, py is taken at the top of the constant creep










portion of the creep curve where the sidewall loading transitions into plastic

behavior. Figure 3.5 shows a comparison of the two methods. As can be seen

from the data, the methods gave consistent results. Therefore, the values will be

averaged for each test when correlating to strength parameters.


Yield Pressure Comparison

3.0 1


S2.5-----------------------------





y = 0.9863x
R 2 = 0.773
S1.0-
1-
E
2 0.5


0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
py from Creep Plot

Figure 3.5 Yield Pressure Comparison


Limit pressure, PL was investigated by two different interpretation methods.

GraphPad was used to find a non-linear equation that would represent the plastic

response of the pressuremeter curve. This was then used to find PL at

AR/Ro=0.5 (see Equation 2.6 by Briaud (1992)). It is also possible to obtain PL

from the Gibson and Anderson Method as the pressure at AVcNc=1.0 on a plot of


pressure versus In(AVcNc). The non-linear curve fit is probably less accurate

because of its approximate mathematical origin opposed to the theoretical basis

of the Gibson and Anderson Method. The comparison plot, shown in Figure 3.6,










shows that the two methods are moderately consistent, with the Gibson and

Anderson Method giving slightly higher values. However, the Gibson and

Anderson Method was chosen for use in the strength correlations based on its

theoretical origin.


Limit Pressure Comparison


7.0

6.0 ----- ------ ----- ------
6.0 ------

.5.0
4.o
a-
3".0 I----- -- --- ----------- -


21.0 -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -------- N--


0.0
.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0




PL from Gibson and Anderson Method

Figure 3.6 Limit Pressure Comparison
E
2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
pL from Gibson and Anderson Method

Figure 3.6 Limit Pressure Comparison


6.0 7.0


Undrained shear strength was determined by two different methods. Both

assume undrained conditions and plastic behavior. Equation 3.1 provides the

first estimate of undrained shear strength, cu.


(3.1)


S(PL -Po)
S1+ln(G c )


This equation is based on PL and requires po as well as an empirical factor, p,

(equivalent to the denominator in Equation 3.1) which must be determined


experimentally.










The Gibson and Anderson Method can be used to obtain Cu as the slope

of the pressure versus In(AVoNc) plot. Figure 3.7 shows a comparison of the two

methods for the SR20 tests. The comparison shows that Equation 3.1


Undrained Shear Strength Comparison

2.5






S1.5


2.0 ------ -
o I

0.5 -------- ----
y = 0.5599x
R2 = 0.6031

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
cu from Gibson and Anderson Method

Figure 3.7 Undrained Shear Strength Comparison


consistently under-predicts the Gibson and Anderson Method. Briaud (1992)

states that the Gibson and Anderson Method is based on theory representing the

post yield pressuremeter response. Undrained shear strength is taken as the

slope of the data past the yield pressure of the geomaterial. If Florida limestone

can be viewed as an over-consolidated geomaterial, then there will be both peak

and residual representations of strength may been seen. Briaud (1992) indicates

that PL is associated with Cu residual while the Gibson and Anderson Method

gives a Cu, from the slope, closer to the peak value. This is because the Gibson

and Anderson method for determining Cu is taken from the slope of the curve

after yield, where the peak value occurs. Methods using PL to determine Cu, such









as Equation 3.1, may result in lower residual values of Cu, as indicated by

Figure 3.7.

Uncertainties in the empirical P factor used in Equation 3.1 affect the

differences between the two methods for obtaining cu. It was observed that a

lower p greatly improves the relationship between the two methods. The P factor

is directly proportional to the over-consolidation ratio (OCR), represented by G/cu

in Equation 3.1. Rock, in general, is seen as a material exhibiting high values of

OCR, which translates to a high P factor to account for stress history. Florida

limestone is commonly found to be of high clay content with many voids, filled

with clay and sand, and weathered zones. These facts may result in an

aggregate OCR lower than that of an otherwise homogenous rock. A higher P

(6.5) would then be expected when considering a very homogenous geomaterial,

such as Gatorock. Therefore, a lower P for use on natural Florida limestone may

be more accurate.

3.4.2 Strength Parameter Correlations

The remainder of the analyses concerns the correlations of PMT results

(ocr, py, and p L) with strength parameters. This step required average strength

parameters from laboratory strength tests be assigned for each PMT test depth.

Figures 3.8-3.11 were created illustrating the core layout compared to the PMT

test depths, along with the strength test specimens, as they were obtained from

the recovered core. The RQD and Recovery for each core were also included in

these figures for reference.



















































Figure 3.8 PMT Test Hole 1 Core and PMT Test Layout























































Figure 3.9 PMT Test Hole 2 Core and PMT Test Layout

























































Figure 3.10 PMT Test Hole 3 Core and PMT Test Layout













































Figure 3.11 PMT Test Hole 4 Core and PMT Test Layout


B 11 C









Some important notes concerning the figures above are that the strength

parameters are all listed in units of (psi), the figures are not to scale in the

horizontal direction, 'poor recovery' is abbreviated "PR", and 'bottom of casing' is

abbreviated "BOC". The selection of average values for each PMT test included

grouping strength tests from the core at the same elevation of the PMT test.

When PMT tests were performed directly in between two cores, strength

parameters from both cores were averaged together. Average values are

required because an exact depth cannot be assigned to each test specimen if the

core recovery is less than 100%.

Equation 2.11 gave a relationship between the cracking pressure, ocr, from

the PMT and the tensile strength. This relationship requires an estimate of the

insitu lateral stress, obtained from the creep curve. The tests that showed

evidence of cracking exhibited a sharp discontinuity in the slope or change in

slope, which caused a deviation from the trend of the PMT curve. Figure 3.9

shows the results of the PMT tensile strength estimate along with the lab test

performed on the large Gatorock samples (shown with a combined bias=0.82

and COV=122.4%). The results display a considerable amount of scatter, which

is thought to be due to an inaccurate estimate of po, Ocr, or both. The values of po

calculated by the creep curve were usually more than half of the yield pressure.

Poor estimates of po will therefore significantly affect the results. Only about 2/3

(15 of 24 usable tests) of the PMT tests displayed noticeable cracking. This is

thought to be due to: high lateral stresses induced from testing at depth (high po);

the circumferential stress never exceeding the tensile strength of the material;











testing in highly weathered or vuggy zones in the limestone. It is also possible


that cracking did occur, but was not identifiable on the pressure versus AR/Ro


curve.


Predicted Tensile Strength, qt, from Cracking Pressure, acr


800

700

S 600

* 500
II
400
o*
S300
LU
- 200
0.
100

0


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Average Measured Tensile Strength, qt (psi)


Figure 3.12 PMT Estimate of Tensile Strength



Table 3.1 PMT Predicted Tensile Strength Comparisons with Core Tensile
Strength
Crack Est. qt
Test Elevation (h est. CraMsd. qt qt bias
Pressure, = (cr-2Gh)
Hole (ft) (psi) ( ) (psi) msd/est
7cr (psi) (psi)
1 -35.90 279.2 1.9 288.1 54.9 0.191
1 -49.90 232.1 2.3 136.1 407.0 2.990
1 -52.20 166.8 1.2 153.5 309.2 2.014
2 -33.30 257.4 2.0 224.2 129.0 0.575
3 -46.00 181.3 1.1 205.2 8.9 0.043
3 -48.50 210.3 1.0 272.7 11.6 0.042
3 -54.65 126.9 1.1 91.0 326.3 3.586
4 -29.90 261.1 1.8 266.5 79.8 0.299
4 -31.92 253.8 2.1 198.7 79.8 0.402
4 -41.15 108.8 1.3 25.5 7.5 0.294


Average Bias
Std. Dev. Bias
COV


1.044
1.320
126.4%











The unconfined compressive strength can be estimated by a number of

methods, all of which are covered in Chapter 2. The predicted values of qu are

compared to the average values measured in the lab for depths adjacent to the

PMT tests. As can be seen in Figure 3.10, all four of the methods gave poor

predictions of qu. Reasons for the discrepancies include inaccuracies in

evaluating po, non-homogeneity of the soil, anisotropy, and borehole disturbance

(Baguelin et al., 1978). Table 3.2 tabulates the yield pressures and limit

pressures obtained from the PMT tests with the core strength tests. The grayed

regions in the table represent instances where no data was obtained with which

to apply the method. The bias and COV can be found in this table as well as in

Figure 3.10.


PMT Estimate of Unconfined Compressive Strength

2500 -
qu = Py (bias=3.4, COV=115.1%)
a qu = 2*Cu = P L/p (bias=3.6, COV=158.5%)
2000 A qu = 2*Cu (Cu Gib. & Ander.) (bias=3.2, COV=118.7%)
[ qu = 2*Cu = 2(py-po) (bias=4.1, COV=159.5%)


S1500
,,

w 1000
i-
a-

500


0
i i_________! i i *
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Average Measured Unconfined Compression, qu (psi)

Figure 3.13 PMT Estimate of Unconfined Compressive Strength















Table 3.2 PMT Predicted Unconfined Compressive Strength Comparisons with Core Unconfined Compressive Strength
Yield Limit Bias Est.
Po Yeld mEst. qu Est. qu Est. qufrom Est. qufrom Bias Bias Est. Bias as
Hole (ft) est. Py PL (psi) from y from P*L 2*cu=2*(py-po) 2*cu (G&A Est.) Est. qu q from PL Est. from (G&A Est.)
(psi) i) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) from cy (psi) 2*cu=2*(py-po) (G&A
(psi) (psi) (psi)


1 -28.45 226.3 340.8 776.1 340.8 169.2 229.2 265.9
1 -32.55 151.6 311.8 810.5 89.5 311.8 202.7 320.5 331.3
1 -35.90 279.2 404.4 1213.5 88.7 404.4 287.5 250.3 575.8
1 -40.70
1 -46.60 729.7 2466.4 334.6
1 -49.90 232.1 292.8 755.4 2116.3 292.8 161.0 121.5 267.7
1 -52.20 166.8 402.5 963.9 1416.0 402.5 245.3 471.4 364.8
2 -28.90
2 -33.30 257.4 349.9 858.2 349.9 184.8 184.9 370.1
2 -35.90 112.4 333.6 840.1 333.6 223.9 442.4 341.3
2 -38.60
2 -43.50
2 -47.50 192.2 559.4 2054.4 192.2 231.4
2 -48.50 246.6 541.7 1936.9 246.6 257.1
2 -50.50 155.9 212.2 485.4 1702.1 212.2 101.4 112.5 169.7
3 -29.90 219.4 286.4 609.4 286.4 120.0 134.0 236.3
3 -31.40
3 -33.75
3 -36.50
3 -42.92 195.8 259.3 580.2 374.4 259.3 118.3 127.1 219.8
3 -46.00 181.3 285.6 695.6 285.6 158.2 208.6 290.5
3 -48.50 210.3 760.7 169.4 410.1
3 -54.65 126.9 279.2 891.0 65.3 279.2 235.1 304.6 398.5
4 -29.90 261.1 903.4 14.4 197.7 427.8
4 -31.92 253.8 773.5 14.4 159.9 299.2
4 -36.40 257.4 375.4 880.5 375.4 191.7 235.8 361.9
4 -41.15 108.8 362.6 870.2 362.6 234.3 507.6 329.1
4 -46.00 175.9 293.7 683.7 108.9 293.7 156.2 235.5 231.3
4 -49.00 228.4 340.8 738.8 108.9 340.8 157.0 224.8 228.4
4 -54.65 580.2 199.7 222.4


263.0


144.1


272.1


190.4


0.287 .441 0.279 0.270
0.219 0.309 0.354 0.154

7.371
7.227 13.143 17.412 7.905
3.518 5.773 3.004 3.881





10.690 8.877
7.856 7.533
8.022 16.787 15.123 10.031




1.444 3.166 2.947 1.703


0.234 0.278 0.214 0.164
0.073 0.034
0.090 0.048


0.371 0.697 0.462 0.471
0.320 0.694 0.485 0.477
0.898


0.659


1.204


0.637


0.911


-58.60


126.9


263.0


595.1


173.4


#of data 20 19 24 16 19 20 17 24 Avg. bias 3.404 3.555 4.092 3.171
Mean (psi) 196.4 307.0 754.0 808.1 307.0 180.9 257.8 306.5 o of bias 3.918 5.633 6.526 3.762
G (psi) 53.9 59.3 164.1 939.6 59.3 47.1 120.2 92.1 COV (%) 115.1% 158.5% 159.5% 118.7%










The pressuremeter modulus was calculated with Equation 2.5 in Chapter 2.

The modulus comparison, shown in Figure 3.14, shows no correlation between

the modulus from the laboratory unconfined compression tests, E, and the PMT

modulus, Em. The pressuremeter modulus commonly underestimates the

modulus determined by laboratory means. Briaud (1992) gives some of the


Pressuremter Modulus compared to the Unconfined Compression
Modulus
1400

1200 ---


0
c*
1000


800 ------------------------------------------






S200
E 600--------------------------------------------------



0
0 5 10 15 20 25
a 200 ------------ --------- --------- --------------------


0 5 10 15 20 25
Pressuremeter Modulus, Em (ksi)

Figure 3.14 Comparison of Lab Modulus versus PMT Modulus



common reasons for this underestimate: Em is measured over a large strain

range compared to the lab estimate; Em is influenced by the amount of

disturbance of the borehole wall; the pressuremeter measures the horizontal

modulus and not a vertical modulus; Equation 2.5 used to calculate Em assumes

that the rock has the same modulus in tension and compression. In addition to

these common factors, and perhaps the most influential reason for the PMT

underestimation of modulus, is that the laboratory compression tests measures









the modulus of the best portions of the rock. The pressuremeter modulus

includes the contribution of the 20-65+ percent of rock that was not recovered

from the core

3.5 PMT Results

The results shown in the previous sections indicate that field PMT tests do

not correlate well with the core strength or stiffness measurements, contrary to

the initial laboratory predictions from the Gatorock tests. Although Gatorock

provided a means of testing limestone properties in a controlled lab environment,

it was not used to model the variability, non-homogeneity, and corehole

disturbance of a PMT test in a natural limestone deposits. The pressuremeter

probe is 18 inches long and tests all of the limestone along its length, including

weak material retrieved in the core or not tested in the lab. These issues are

discussed further in Chapter 6.














CHAPTER 4
LABORATORY STRENGTH TESTS



Two sets of limestone samples were tested in the laboratory for this

research. Testing was performed for compressive strength, elastic modulus, and

tensile strength. The first group of samples, donated by the FDOT State

Materials Office, was taken from two different bridge sites and tested in the

University of Florida Structures Laboratory. The cores were from the

Choctawhatchee SR10 and Hallandale Bridge sites. The second group of

samples was recovered from the boreholes created during pressuremeter testing

and then tested in the University of Florida Geotechnical Laboratory. These

cores were obtained from the Blountstown SR20 Bridge site and will be referred

to herein as 'SR20 field cores'.

4.1 Core Preparation and Test Setup

After careful logging of the core samples from each core run, the cores

were cut with a concrete masonry saw using a cylinder-cutting template. The

template was used in an effort to obtain parallel ends in accordance with

ASTM D 2938. The samples were cut so that a ratio of length to diameter of 2:1

was obtained. When limited by the intact length of the core sample, a minimum

ratio of 1.5:1 was accepted in an effort to get as many compression samples as

possible.









Strain measured directly on a sample is the most accurate method of strain

measurement. This is done so that an S-type curve does not result when plotting

stress versus strain. A compressometer is the best tool for this because it

attaches directly on the sample and was used for this research to obtain

measurements. However, the SR20 field cores were too small for commercially

available compressometers so the strain was measured between the loading

platens. This method was intended to simulate the compressometer test by

eliminating stretch of the compression machine yokes, but a calibration was still

required because of other influences from the system. The calibration procedure

consisted of compressing a steel cylinder of known properties, which a

theoretical compression can be calculated for the steel cylinder. The theoretical

compression of the steel cylinder is subtracted from the measured deflection.

The remaining deflection is attributed to the stretch in the system and is plotted

against load (see Appendix C for plot). The stretch expected at a given load is

found from the slope of the linear portion of this plot. The calculated stretch in

the triaxial setup was 3.42e-07 in/lbs. Both measuring setups were fit with linear

variable differential transformers (LVDT) so that the measurements could be

digitally recorded for plotting and analysis. Load cells were used in all testing so

that the load could be measured accurately.

A lubricant was used to reduce end effects created during loading by friction

between the load platform and the sample. Friction at the sample ends can

produce unintended stresses, which are contrary to the theoretical basis of the

test and the intended uniform axial state of stress. Labuz and Bridell (1993)









investigated possible lubricants to lessen or break the frictional constraint during

moderate to extreme load and very small displacements. Among the lubricants

tested was Stearic Acid, which is a fatty acid. Labuz and Bridell (1993) state that

an increased molecular chain length produces better lubrication. Stearic acid

displayed the lowest coefficient of friction (0.022) out of the six lubricants tested.

This compound was prepared by combining stearic acid flakes with an equal

amount of petroleum jelly, by weight, and melting it at 700C to ensure proper

mixing. The result, after cooling, is a wax-like solid. The petroleum jelly is added

to facilitate the application of the stearic acid compound, which leaves a thin film

when applied to the steel load platens.

LabVIEW 6.0, by National Instruments (a measurement and automation

computer program), was programmed to acquire the signals from the LVDT and

the load cell, analyze them, and present the measured quantities in a specific

format. The system was set to sample every /2 second. This produced enough

data points to provide a nearly continuous plot of the stress-strain data

4.1.1 FDOT Cores

The FDOT cores were first carefully measured and logged, then submerged

for several weeks to prevent the samples from drying out. This was because the

cores dried out during storage at the FDOT.

The compressometer required minor modifications for use with a LVDT,

which can be seen in Figure 4.1. This simply involved machining an aluminum

bracket to attach the LVDT to the compressometer, which was designed to use

analog dial gauges. The LVDT used with the compressometer was

manufactured by Schaevitz Engineering (model GCD-121-125, S/N 3680) and









had an accuracy of 0.000015 inches when used with the data acquisition card

connected to the Tinius Olsen testing machine. Polished steel bearing plates

were used on each end of the sample to provide a smooth surface for testing. A

solid steel cylinder was used above the sample to provide clearance for the

LVDT, which extends above the sample. The total added weight of the top

polished steel plate and the steel cylinder was 24.601bs. This added weight was

considered negligible when compared to the amount of load applied during the

test.



















Figure 4.1 Limestone sample with compressometer device


Figure 4.2 shows a LabVIEW screenshot from a typical test. The green

circle, next to the absolute compression reading, indicates whether the LVDT is

operating within its linear range. The LVDT used had a useable effective range

of 14 inch. The measured deformation is twice the actual deformation of the

sample; therefore, the recorded deflection is divided by two.

















LIMESTONE
ASTM C 469
BB-d
01117X02

Anal Luad
F-17 Ibf
Cumpressometerl

m-~oo l 0
E1 00 2Jm1


monI

70091




FAR-
I nIuI,






1WOD


Lond (I4b v- Compresonalar Ci)


Figure 4.2 LabVIEW Screenshot




4.1.2 SR20 Field Cores

The cores were labeled first according to the test hole (thl, th2, th3, or th4),


followed by the core number taken from each hole. The last designation pertains


to the position of the core in the core run. Samples were labeled starting with 'A'


at the top of the core run.


The SR20 field cores were tested using a modified setup of a triaxial testing


machine manufactured by Humboldt, Manufacturing Company (model: HM-2605,


Triscan-50). The triaxial setup can be seen along with a sample in Figure 4.3


below. The triaxial machine has a capacity of 11,0001bs and with the use of a


10,0001b load cell, provided enough force to adequately test the samples. The


triaxial machine allowed the strain rate to be specified for both the loading and


unloading of the specimens, which provided complete control of the test. More


than one load rate could not be programmed, so that the value could not be


k7 lmd









changed conveniently during a test. This did not affect the tests performed, as

no post failure behavior was required for this research.


Figure 4.3 Triaxial Testing Machine Setup


A tremendous effort was taken to ensure the triaxial setup was loading the

specimens evenly throughout the loading process. LVDT's were attached on

opposing sides of the loading platen so that internal bending, from improper

centering or non-parallel ends, could be monitored during the test. Functions

were written in LabVIEW so that the difference in the two LVDT's readings was

calculated and displayed during the test. The difference of the side to side






66


measurement selected, 0.005 inches, was never exceeded during testing. In

addition, a ball bearing load platen was used as the upper loading platen so that

high stress concentrations from non-parallel sample ends could be minimized.

Figure 4.4 shows a LabVIEW screenshot from a typical test.





| l l .
Load (Ib)J
J Displacement West r- ir
J Displacement Ealt '4 .11


















consideration of all the following ASTM specifications:


* ASTM D 4543-85 Preparing Rock Core Specimens and Determining
Dimensional and Shape Tolerances
* ASTM C 469-96 Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio of
Concrete in Compression
* ASTM D 2938-95 Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core
Specimens
* ASTM D 3148-96 Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock Core Specimens in Uniaxial
Compression
* ASTM D 3967-95a Splitting Tensile Strength of Intact Rock Core
Specimens
Specimens









4.2.1 Elastic Modulus Testing

A compressometer was used to measure deflection and calculate the

modulus of elasticity for the FDOT limestone core samples tested in

compression. The SR20 field cores were tested with the LVDT's attached to the

upper platen with measurements taken on the lower platen. Both testing

methods eliminate several possible sources of testing error, such as the stretch

of the compression machine yokes and the compression of the end caps. The

ASTM C 469-94 specification for the compressometer was intended for concrete

specimens; however, this specification was applied to rock with exception of the

load rate. ASTM D 3148-96 specifies a lower load rate for testing rock. The

specification further requires a loading rate that causes failure within 2 and 15

minutes. Eight minutes was chosen for the target time to failure, and the load

rate was adjusted for the estimated ultimate strength of each sample. This load

rate never exceeded 2,5001bs/min. The load rate specified by ASTM D 469-94

(the compressometer with concrete standard) is 35psi/s, which for a 4" diameter

core is around 25,0001bs/min, and would cause the samples to fail prematurely.

ASTM C 469-94 specifies that samples be loaded to 40% of the ultimate

compressive strength for three unload/reload cycles. The 40% limit is intended

measure an elastic zone response and prevent any permanent deformation

within the sample. The first cycle is thought to contain seating errors and is

disregarded in the analysis. The remaining two stress-strain measurements are

averaged together to obtain the modulus of elasticity of the material. This test

process requires an estimate of the sample's ultimate strength prior to the actual

test. When testing a nearly homogenous material, such as concrete, test









samples are normally failed without the compressometer first, so that the

compressive strength can be estimated for the next sample. With a limited

number of samples and the high variability of limestone, significant differences

can occur even within the same core, estimating the ultimate strength is difficult.

Therefore, rather than sacrificing a specimen, lower load levels were chosen to

avoid damaging the compressometer, and the loading was carefully monitored

during the tests. Modulus tests are presented in Appendix C and summarized in

Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

4.2.2 Unconfined Compression Tests

ASTM D 2938-95 specifies that the loading rate for the unconfined

compression test achieve failure within 2 and 15 minutes. This value is identical

to the load rate used during the compressometer testing to obtain the elastic

modulus. A time of 8 minutes was again chosen as the target to failure. The use

of the compressometer for modulus testing requires that the samples be

completely unloaded so that the compressometer device can be removed prior to

the unconfined compression test. This was not necessary for the SR20 field

cores that used the simulated compressometer setup. The seating load applied

to the SR20 field cores prior to modulus testing was maintained through the

unconfined compression tests. The stearic acid lubricant and the polished steel

load platens were also used when testing the samples in unconfined

compression for ultimate strength. Unconfined compression results are

presented in Appendix C and summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.









4.2.3 Split Tensile Tests

The split tensile strength of the specimens was obtained in accordance with

ASTM standard ASTM D 3967-95a. The split tensile specimens were cut to a

L/D ratio of 0.5:1, which for the FDOT cores, a 4 inch diameter core specimen

requires a thickness of approximately 2 inches, and for the SR20 field cores, a

1.74 inch diameter core specimen requires a thickness of approximately 1 inch.

Both of these L/D ratios (L/D=0.5,0.57) fell within the range specified by ASTM

(L/D=0.2-0.75). Plywood bearing strips, as recommended by ASTM, were used

in an effort to prevent the high stresses at the loading points above and below

the specimen. The plywood was 0.25 inches thick, which is the maximum

thickness permitted by ASTM. ASTM specifies that failure occur within 1 to 10

minutes of loading. A lubricant was not used during the split tensile tests. Both

the FDOT and SR20 field cores were tested in a similar manner. Split tensile

tests are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

4.3 Test Analysis

The parameters measured and recorded by the data acquisition unit during

the tests were the applied load and deflection. When using the compressometer,

the deflection is divided by two to get the sample deflection, and then by the

gauge length to get the sample strain. Alternatively, the field core strain was

found by taking the deflection divided by the sample height because no

compressometer was used. The load is divided by the cross-sectional area of

the sample to get the stress. The stress versus strain plots for all samples can

be seen in Appendix C for reference.









The ultimate unconfined compressive strength of the specimen was taken at the

peak load attained during loading.

Since the elastic modulus tests were performed prior to the unconfined

compression tests, microcracking may have weakened the sample, reducing the

measured strength. Since the ultimate strength is unknown during the modulus

tests, the target 40% loading of ultimate may be exceeded resulting in stress

levels much closer to the ultimate strength. If the modulus data show a linear

trend in the stress-strain plot then affect is minimal. However, excessively

loading the sample during modulus testing may severely affect the ultimate

strength results. The number of cores obtained from a typical core in Florida

limestone is limited, which necessitates the approximation, however, after three

tests a better average ultimate strength will be attained. Tables 4.1 and 4.2

summarize the unconfined compressive and modulus tests for both the FDOT

and the SR20 field cores respectively.

The split tensile strength, qt, of the limestone samples was determined as

specified in ASTM D 3967-95a. The compressive force, P, applied on the side of

the specimen imparts tensile forces within the specimen causing it to break in

half along a vertical plane between the loading points. This force is divided by

the area of the material resisting the lateral splitting of the specimen, which is the

diameter multiplied by the length:

2P
Split tensile strength = qt (4.1)
~LD

P represents the applied ultimate load, L the sample length, and D the

diameter. The (2/n) term adjusts for the shape of the stress distribution across






71


the sample, ranging from compression at the loading points to reasonably

uniform tension across the remainder of the split section. For a more detailed

account of the mechanics of the split tensile test, consult ASTM D 3967-95a.

Tables 4.3 and 4.4 summarize the split tensile data for the FDOT and SR20 field

cores respectively. The time to failure was recorded and is also shown in Table

4.3 and 4.4. Several of the tests failed in less than one minute, violating the

ASTM specification but possibly still representative.












Table 4.1 Summary of Modulus and Unconfined Compression Tests for FDOT Limestone Cores

Core Approximate
Box Sample # e Pier Shaft ApLength Diameter Area Q qu E
Designation Depth
ft in in in2 Ibs psi psi

3 2B b3-2 6 1 -55.362 7.750 3.942 12.205 1,970 499.7 954,056
3 2F b3-2 6 1 -57.621 8.188 3.961 12.323 2,725 688.0 902,193
3 2A b3-2 6 1 -54.779 6.875 3.910 12.007 3,360 859.3
3 2E b3-2 6 1 -54.929 6.688 3.945 12.223 3,730 945.5-
3 1B b3-1 6 1 -50.656 8.875 3.946 12.229 1,532,233
3 1D b3-1 6 1 -52.177 8.000 3.950 12.254 1,800 455.7 1,121,218
4 1A b4-1 20 1 -84.478 8.125 3.962 12.329 4,097 1034.1 798,209
4 1B b4-1 20 1 -85.186 8.188 3.963 12.335 4,656 1174.9 1,450,737
4 1F b4-1 20 1 -87.394 7.125 3.965 12.347 3,568 899.9 1,507,607
4 2D b4-2 20 1 -91.098 8.063 3.969 12.372 -
4 2F b4-2 20 1 -92.265 8.063 3.974 12.404 3,620 910.9
4 2B b4-2 20 1 -89.932 6.188 3.962 12.329 --
6 1B b6-2 2 2 7.375 3.934 12.155 1,564 397.6 503,637
6 1A b6-2 2 2 8.000 3.953 12.273 1,399,376
6 1G b6-2 2 2 6.563 3.933 12.149 3,360 854.3-
7 1B hbb-rl 3 3 -63.140 6.875 3.930 12.130 9,420 2396.9-
8 3B hbb-r3 3 1 -81.012 8.250 3.922 12.081 12,020 3064.8 3,676,182
8 3C hbb-r3 3 1 -81.595 8.125 3.925 12.100 24,228 6172.7 7,538,934
8 3D hbb-r3 3 1 -82.178 7.875 3.918 12.056 18,431 4704.2 5,666,636
8 3E hbb-r3 3 1 -82.928 8.063 3.910 12.007 36,517 9339.4 914,287
8 3F hbb-r3 3 1 -83.678 8.063 3.922 12.081 40,060 10214.2 1,094,361
8 4C hbb-r4 3 1 -87.140 8.063 3.927 12.112 22,090 5625.2 9,222,758
b3-b6 are from Choctawhatchee SR10 and hbb are from Hallandale Beach Bridge















Table 4.2 Summary of Modulus and Unconfined Compression Tests for Field Limestone Cores (SR20)
Core Run Elevations
Proximity to Approx. Test Failure
ri ao. e Core Sample Top Bottom Recovery RQD Length Dia. Area qu E E
Bridge Station Hole Strain
ft ft % % in in in2 psi in/in ksi psi

Pier 62, Shaft #5 153+63 1 2 A -30.97 -35.97 45.0 13.3 3.026 1.710 2.30 87.3 0.00487 21.8 21,821.9
Pier 62, Shaft #5 153+63 1 2 B -30.97 -35.97 45.0 13.3 3.299 1.721 2.33 91.7 0.00718 14.1 14,145.1
Pier 62, Shaft #5 153+63 1 3 A -35.86 -40.86 61.7 29.2 3.488 1.645 2.13 87.1 0.00515 23.0 23,047.0
Pier 62, Shaft #5 153+63 1 5 A -45.89 -50.86 60.0 35.0 3.504 1.760 2.43 1104.5 0.00390 448.4 448,379.6
Pier 62, Shaft #5 153+63 1 5 B -45.89 -50.86 60.0 35.0 3.476 1.762 2.44 2905.0 0.00374 1231.9 1,231,851.0
Pier 62, Shaft #5 153+63 1 5 C -45.89 -50.86 60.0 35.0 3.474 1.766 2.45 2573.7 0.00429 1463.0 1,462,965.9
Pier 62, Shaft #5 153+63 1 5 D -45.89 -50.86 60.0 35.0 3.500 1.762 2.44 3278.3 0.00352 1433.4 1,433,408.8
Pier 62, Shaft #5 153+63 1 6 A -50.86 -55.86 41.7 17.5 3.502 1.754 2.41 1422.2 0.00381 687.8 687,768.9
Pier 62, Shaft #5 153+63 1 6 B -50.86 -55.86 41.7 17.5 3.470 1.761 2.43 1410.9 0.00388 684.3 684,281.0
Pier 62, Shaft #5 153+63 2 4 A -44.30 -49.30 50.0 15.0 3.515 1.761 2.44 2447.4 0.00309 1425.2 1,425,235.3
Pier 62, Shaft #5 153+63 2 4 B -44.30 -49.30 50.0 15.0 3.510 1.760 2.43 1661.7 0.00188 1204.2 1,204,239.2
Pier 62, Shaft #5 153+63 2 5 A -49.50 -54.50 45.8 9.2 3.151 1.767 2.45 1702.1 0.00251 1204.5 1,204,536.3
Pier 69, Shaft #7 145+95 3 4 A -38.90 -43.90 35.0 9.2 3.526 1.757 2.42 374.4 0.00114 466.4 466,372.2
Pier 69, Shaft #7 145+95 3 7 A -53.82 -58.82 73.3 22.5 3.492 1.733 2.36 65.3 0.00147 57.2 57,177.8
Pier 69, Shaft #7 145+95 4 1 A -28.65 -33.65 30.0 8.3 3.547 1.617 2.05 14.4 0.00303 3.9 3,875.5
Pier 69, Shaft #7 145+95 4 4 A -43.75 -48.75 48.8 20.8 3.546 1.706 2.29 127.8 0.00353 86.1 86,069.0
Pier 69, Shaft #7 145+95 4 4 B -43.75 -48.75 48.8 20.8 3.464 1.642 2.12 86.8 0.00311 62.2 62,193.2
Pier 69, Shaft #7 145+95 4 4 C -43.75 -48.75 48.8 20.8 2.804 1.691 2.25 112.2 0.00733 51.3 51,264.8
Pier 69, Shaft #7 145+95 4 6 A -54.02 -59.02 65.8 53.6 3.529 1.759 2.43 316.9 0.00263 31.0 30,991.8
Pier 69, Shaft #7 145+95 4 6 B -54.02 -59.02 65.8 53.6 3.027 1.733 2.36 101.9 0.00323 64.5 64,455.4
Pier 69, Shaft #7 145+95 4 6 C -54.02 -59.02 65.8 53.6 3.488 1.750 2.41 182.7 0.00189 130.2 130,178.8
Pier 69, Shaft #7 145+95 4 6 D -54.02 -59.02 65.8 53.6 3.525 1.750 2.41 110.8 0.00158 84.4 84,410.7
Pier 69, Shaft #7 145+95 4 6 E -54.02 -59.02 65.8 53.6 3.559 1.720 2.32 157.1 0.00162 128.5 128,455.6











Table 4.3 Summary of Split Tensile Tests for FDOT Limestone Cores
Core Time to
Box Sample # Des ion Pier Shaft Depth Length Diameter Area Q qt Faile
Designation Failure
ft in in in2 Ibs psi sec

3 1c b3-1 6 1 -51.4 2.000 3.973 12.40 3,235 259.2 240
3 le b3-1 6 1 -52.6 2.000 3.951 12.26 248 20.0 15
3 If b3-1 6 1 -53.1 1.875 3.962 12.33 -
3 2g b3-2 6 1 -58.1 2.000 3.958 12.30 1,616 130.0 240
3 2d b3-2 6 1 -56.4 1.938 3.969 12.37 877 72.6 135
3 2c1 b3-2 6 1 -55.8 2.125 3.944 12.22 656 49.8 60
3 2c2 b3-2 6 1 -56.0 2.000 3.920 12.07 1,424 115.6 210
4 lal b4-1 20 1 -84.1 1.625 3.969 12.37 1,347 133.0 200
4 1cl b4-1 20 1 -85.6 1.875 3.956 12.29 1,047 89.9 150
4 1c2 b4-1 20 1 -85.9 1.750 3.957 12.30 802 73.7 110
4 ldl b4-1 20 1 -86.2 2.125 3.973 12.40 553 41.7 75
4 1d2 b4-1 20 1 -86.5 2.000 3.967 12.36 803 64.4 100
4 1g b4-1 20 1 -87.8 1.875 3.941 12.20 801 69.0 104
4 lel b4-1 20 1 -86.8 1.875 3.952 12.27 915 78.6 140
4 2a1 b4-2 20 1 -89.3 1.750 3.967 12.36 868 79.6 120
4 2a2 b4-2 20 1 -89.6 2.000 3.970 12.38 834 66.9 115
4 2c1 b4-2 20 1 -90.4 2.000 3.954 12.28 613 49.3 80
4 2c2 b4-2 20 1 -90.6 2.000 3.963 12.33 196 15.7 30
4 2e1 b4-2 20 1 -91.5 2.125 3.958 12.30 1,075 81.4 210
4 2e2 b4-2 20 1 -91.7 2.125 3.964 12.34 1,008 76.2 150
4 2g1 b4-2 20 1 -92.9 2.000 3.973 12.40 1,011 81.0 150
4 2g2 b4-2 20 1 -93.1 2.063 3.957 12.30 812 63.3 120
6 ldl b6-2 2 2 2.000 3.933 12.15 248 20.1 40
6 1d2 b6-2 2 2 2.063 3.928 12.12 202 15.9 38
6 ifl b6-2 2 2 2.125 3.938 12.18 683 52.0 100
6 1f2 b6-2 2 2 1.875 3.936 12.17 474 40.9 73
6 1f3 b6-2 2 2 2.063 3.939 12.19 619 48.5 90
6 lal b6-2 2 2 2.063 3.931 12.14 516 40.5 72
6 1a2 b6-2 2 2 1.875 3.928 12.12 439 37.9 65
6 1c b6-2 2 2 2.375 3.923 12.09 214 14.6 36
6 lel b6-2 2 2 1.875 3.930 12.13 589 50.9 81
6 1e2 b6-2 2 2 1.750 3.946 12.23 1,126 103.8 159
7 lal hbb-rl 3 3 -62.4 1.875 3.932 12.14 9,330 805.7 250
7 1a2 hbb-rl 3 3 -62.7 2.125 3.951 12.26 8,126 616.2 240
7 1c hbb-rl 3 3 -63.6 1.625 3.900 11.95 935 93.9 65
7 1d hbb-rl 3 3 -64.7 2.000 3.922 12.08 2,872 233.1 185
7 lel hbb-rl 3 3 -65.1 2.500 3.923 12.09 1,763 114.4 95
7 1e2 hbb-rl 3 3 -65.4 2.063 3.916 12.04 1,041 82.1 45
7 ifl hbb-rl 3 3 -65.7 1.750 3.915 12.04 4,827 448.5 300
7 1f2 hbb-rl 3 3 -66.0 1.625 3.918 12.06 1,329 132.9 125
7 2a1 hbb-r2 3 3 -67.4 1.875 3.953 12.27 7,708 662.1 220
7 2a2 hbb-r2 3 3 -67.6 1.500 3.937 12.17 2,325 250.6 145
7 2a3 hbb-r2 3 3 -67.9 1.875 3.949 12.25 3,039 261.3 180
7 2b hbb-r2 3 3 -68.9 2.250 3.909 12.00 846 61.2 40
7 2c1 hbb-r2 3 3 -69.0 1.625 3.885 11.85 4,130 416.5 260
7 2c2 hbb-r2 3 3 -69.2 1.750 3.894 11.91 2,111 197.2 125
7 2c3 hbb-r2 3 3 -69.5 1.875 3.869 11.76 483 42.4 20
8 3a hbb-r3 3 1 -80.6 1.750 3.927 12.11 2,970 275.1 145
8 3g hbb-r3 3 1 -84.2 1.875 3.928 12.12 5,704 493.0 150
8 4a1 hbb-r4 3 1 -85.8 2.188 3.917 12.05 8,907 661.8 255
8 4a2 hbb-r4 3 1 -85.9 1.875 3.914 12.03 10,037 870.7 285
8 4a3 hbb-r4 3 1 -86.2 1.750 3.917 12.05 7,943 737.7 205
8 4b hbb-r4 3 1 -86.6 1.875 3.912 12.02 8,324 722.4 220
b3-b6 are from Choctawhatchee SR10 and hbb are from Hallandale Beach Bridge













Table 4.4 Summary of Split Tensile Tests for Field Limestone Cores (SR20)

Test Core e Top Bottom y RD L Shear Failure Time to
Sample Recovery RQD Length Dia. h Q qe
Hole Run Elev. Elev. Area Strain Failure
ft ft % % in in in2 Ibs psi in/in sec


29.2 1.074 1.763 1.89 37.2 12.5 0.04459
29.2 1.021 1.717 1.75 407.3 147.9 0.05628
29.2 1.106 1.726 1.91 13.2 4.4 0.04350
35.0 1.134 1.760 2.00 1300.4 414.8 0.07309
35.0 1.010 1.757 1.77 2398.3 860.4 0.09180
35.0 1.185 1.752 2.08 1937.0 593.9 0.10081
17.5 1.188 1.741 2.07 1551.8 477.6 0.08635
17.5 1.206 1.763 2.13 1947.0 583.0 0.08462
17.5 1.312 1.756 2.30 1512.2 417.8 0.08407
17.5 0.977 1.735 1.70 730.0 274.2 0.06176
17.5 0.972 1.739 1.69 52.5 19.8 0.01419
17.5 1.088 1.758 1.91 73.4 24.4 0.02119
0.0 1.063 1.757 1.87 378.6 129.0 0.03501
15.0 0.993 1.767 1.75 1623.8 589.2 0.08282
15.0 0.915 1.757 1.61 1161.9 460.1 0.09141
15.0 1.100 1.763 1.94 2361.0 775.0 0.08482
15.0 0.998 1.759 1.76 762.1 276.4 0.05174
9.2 0.965 1.767 1.71 1106.2 413.0 0.07497
9.2 1.102 1.757 1.94 2622.9 862.4 0.09788
9.2 1.046 1.762 1.84 3011.7 1040.3 0.10579


-35.86 -40.86
-35.86 -40.86
-35.86 -40.86
-45.86 -50.86
-45.86 -50.86
-45.86 -50.86
-50.86 -55.86
-50.86 -55.86
-50.86 -55.86
-50.86 -55.86
-50.86 -55.86
-50.86 -55.86
-34.26 -39.26
-44.30 -49.30
-44.30 -49.30
-44.30 -49.30
-44.30 -49.30
-49.50 -54.50
-49.50 -54.50
-49.50 -54.50
-49.50 -54.50
-49.50 -54.50
-49.50 -54.50
-33.82 -38.82
-38.90 -43.90
-43.82 -48.82
-48.90 -53.90
-53.82 -58.82
-53.82 -58.82
-53.82 -58.82
-53.82 -58.82
-53.82 -58.82
-53.82 -58.82
-28.65 -33.65
-38.65 -43.65
-43.75 -48.75
-43.75 -48.75
-49.00 -54.00
-49.00 -54.00
-49.00 -54.00
-54.02 -59.02
-54.02 -59.02
-54.02 -59.02
-54.02 -59.02
-54.02 -59.02
-54.02 -59.02
-54.02 -59.02


731.4
1610.0
453.4
328.3
22.9
23.0
42.5
3852.8
1554.3
1469.4
145.5
28.8
28.3
278.1
23.0
14.9
22.6
30.8
26.7
466.1
47.5
56.6
63.8
34.9
23.8
34.5
37.8


296.6 0.05213
559.7 0.09563
181.8 0.06893
117.8 0.04523
8.1 0.02242
8.9 0.02010
14.2 0.02399
1313.3 0.13490
464.6 0.10687
432.9 0.11056
43.3 0.02633
8.7 0.02503
8.2 0.02527
79.8 0.04999
7.5 0.04587
4.4 0.04550
7.2 0.03543
10.4 0.02491
10.8 0.02446
166.5 0.04923
14.8 0.02482
18.5 0.02164
21.6 0.02028
12.0 0.01473
8.5 0.01034
12.0 0.01244
12.7 0.01940


9.2 0.891 1.762 1.57
9.2 1.041 1.759 1.83
9.2 0.897 1.770 1.59
0.0 1.004 1.767 1.77
9.2 1.054 1.697 1.79
0.0 0.995 1.645 1.64
0.0 1.114 1.710 1.90
22.5 1.063 1.757 1.87
22.5 1.204 1.769 2.13
22.5 1.227 1.761 2.16
22.5 1.221 1.751 2.14
22.5 1.207 1.747 2.11
22.5 1.263 1.737 2.19
8.3 1.261 1.759 2.22
0.0 1.140 1.713 1.95
20.8 1.279 1.673 2.14
20.8 1.162 1.714 1.99
6.7 1.086 1.728 1.88
6.7 0.940 1.683 1.58
6.7 1.013 1.759 1.78
53.6 1.170 1.749 2.05
53.6 1.116 1.743 1.95
53.6 1.088 1.728 1.88
53.6 1.050 1.755 1.84
53.6 1.019 1.745 1.78
53.6 1.057 1.737 1.84
53.6 1.102 1.721 1.90









4.5 Test Results

The SR20 field cores tested for this research were taken during coring for

the PMT test holes. There were a total of 23 unconfined compression tests and

47 split tensile tests performed that were used to show relationships between

modulus versus unconfined compressive strength (Figure 4.5) and split tensile

strength versus unconfined compressive strength (Figure 4.7). Both correlations

indicate high R2 values with the bias = 1.07, 0.92 and coefficient of variation

(COV) = 47.4%, 69.4% respectively. Also of interest is how well the cores taken

at Pier locations 62& 69 agree with previous tests performed for the entire site.

In Figure 4.7, the two points with question marks represent an unconfined

compression sample that failed prematurely; and an extreme mismatch in

material type from opposite ends of a core run (recovery=rec.=73.3%). These

points were therefore omitted from the statistical analysis.

Data obtained from the FDOT State Materials Office (SMO), see Table 4.5,

tested along with the site investigation, performed during or prior to the

construction of the SR20 Bridge, are used to validate the SR20 field cores taken

at Pier locations 62& 69 (from Cepero, 2002). This comparison addresses the

potential discrepancy that may exist between the smaller core size (1.75") used

for this research versus the larger core size (4 inch) required by the FDOT.

These 4 inch cores were tested by the SMO and should not be confused with the

cores donated and tested in the Structures Lab at the University of Florida (from

the Choctawhatchee SR10 and Hallandale Bridge sites). Figure 4.6 shows that

the data from the FDOT falls within the spread of data performed on the SR20

field cores (shown separately in Figure 4.5) and were determined to be