Text

To GEO.HBIP.02.08, Determination of Potential Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Critical Slide Along Hbip ISFSI Transport Route
	ML033650201
Person / Time
Site:	Humboldt Bay
Issue date:	07/30/2003
From:	Chin C, Cluff L, Makdisi F, Zeechung Wang; Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:	; Document Control Desk, NRC/FSME
References
	+sisprbs20051109, -RFPFR GEO.HBIP.02.08, Rev 1
	Download: ML033650201 (143)
	v • d • e

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY GEOSCIENCES DEPARTMENT CALCULATION DOCUMENT Calc Number: GEO.HBIP.02.08 Calc Revision: 1 Calc Date: 7/18/2003 Quality Related:

ITR Verification Method: A 1.0 CALCULATION TTLE:

DETERMINATION OF POTENTIAL EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED DISPLACEMENTS OF CRITICAL SLIDE ALONG HBIP ISFSI TRANSPOT ROUTE

2.0 SIGNATORIES

PREPARED BY: 2Z~44A-.---

DATE Zhiliang Wang Printed Name Geomatrix Consultants Organization PREPARED BY:

A -c C-~-Z2~

DATE Chih-Cheng Chin Printed Name Geomatrix Consultants Organization DATE 7/1' 4a3

("

VERIFIED BY:

Faiz I. Makdisi Geomatrix Consultants Organization Printed Name APPROVED BY: : 4 Z/7 f

7 DATE Llovd Cluff

-F-6101/03 Printed Name Geosciences Organization I

page 1 of 31

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I I 3.0 RECORD OF REVISIONS I

Rev.

Reason for Revision Revision -

No.

Date 0

Initial Issue 11/27/02 In revision 0 (2002) of this calculation package the program1/2003 QUAD4M was used to compute seismic coefficients of potential sliding masses at BBIP transport ipute. The program QUAD4M had been updated to QUAD4MU and was verified in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.34, Revision 4 in 2003. The updated program QUAD4MU mainly modified the subroutine in QUAD4M for the calculation of seismic coefficient.

In this revision 1, the earthquake-induced displacements at the ISFSI transport route are re-evaluated using the updated program QUAD4MU.

Attachments E, F, G and H are new for revision 1. These are input files and excerpts of output files for dynamic response and deformation calculations.

Attachments A, B, C and D remain unchanged and are copies from revision 0.

4.

I 4

Page 2 of 31 I

GEO.BBP.02.08 Rev. I I 4.0 PURPOSE As required by Geosciences Work Plan GEO 2002-03 entitled, "Development of Slope Stability Calculations for the Humboldt Bay ISFSI," this calculation package estimates earthquake-induced permanent displacements of the most critical potential sliding mass along the proposed HBIP transport route, using field and laboratory data, postulated design ground motions, and a Newmark-type procedure incorporating a finite element model of the site.

In revision 0 of this calculation package, the program QUAD4M was used to compute seismic coefficients of potential sliding masses at the transport route. The program QUAD4M had been updated to QUAD4MU and verified in calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.34, Revision 4 in 2003. The updated program QUAD4MU mainly revised the subroutine in QUAD4M for the calculation of seismic coefficient. Geosciences Department of PG&E requested that the finite element analyses be repeated to obtain the updated seismic coefficient time histories for the potential sliding masses using QUAD4MU. These time histories were also re-integrated to obtain new estimates for the earthquake-induced displacement at the transport route based on the results of the updated program QUAD4MU. Also, the computed acceleration time histories, and the corresponding response spectra were all updated in this revision.

5.0 ASSUMPTIONS

1.

There is no potential for liquefaction along the route. This is a reasonable assumption as concluded on page 8 of calculation package GEO.HBIP.02.02.

2.

For purposes of analyses, stratigraphic layers are assumed to lie near horizontally.

This is a reasonable assumption, as shown on Figure 4-14 of Section 4, Site Geology, of Technical Report TR-HBIP-2002-01.

Page 3 of 31 I

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I I

3.

Groundwater is assumed to be at elevation +6 feet, mean lower low water (MlLW) datum. This is a reasonable assumption, as documented on page 2 of GEO.HBIP.02.02. This elevation is consistent with those measured in monitoring wells installed in the vicinity of the wastewater ponds east of the discharge canal (Figure 4-1 of Section 4 of TR-HBIP-2002-01). Water levels in these wells range between 4 and 7 feet below ground surface and respond only slightly to tidal cycles (White, 2002d).

4.

The undrained strengths of stiff cohesive soils and dense sandy soils along the route are not reduced due to earthquake shaking. This is a reasonable assumption because, as reported by Makdisi and Seed (1976), stiff clays and dense sands do not suffer significant reduction in undrained strength due to cyclic loading; such soils retain most of their initial undrained strength even after being subjected to significant cyclic loading.

5.

Input ground motions used to analyze the response along the route are deconvolved using the 1 -D program SHAKE to the base of the 2-D finite element mesh from the lower "free field" ground surface of the section modeled rather than at the higher surface elevations of the hillside (Figure 8-4). This is a conservative assumption because the ground motions calculated at higher elevations will be greater than the input ground motion due to topographic amplification, thus leading to greater calculated displacements.

6.

The 1-D and 2-D site response analyses described herein used a single velocity profile developed using a factor of +1.22 (as described in Input 12, below) rather than varying the profile by plus or minus this factor to determine the maximum site response. This is a reasonable assumption, because Figures 7 and 8 in GEO.JBIP.02.04 indicate maximum site amplification occurs for the positive (upper bound) factor over nearly all frequencies for both the fault normal and fault parallel components.

7.

Vertical ground motions are not considered in the analyses, as they have been shown to have limited impact on the magnitude of calculated displacements (Yan and others, 1996).

8.

Properties selected for analysis of ISFSI site stability in calculation package GEO.HBIP.02.07 are appropriate for use at the transport route section selected for analyses in this calculation package, with the exception of the uppermost clay layer which is assigned a reduced strength as described in Step 3 of the Body of the Page 4 of 31 I

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I I Calculation. This assumption is reasonable because soil stratigraphy and properties in borings near the transport route section analyzed are consistent with those determined at the ISFSI site, as discussed in more detail in step 1 of the Body of the Calculation.

9.

The centerline transporter load is placed at the centerline of the proposed transport route. This is a reasonable assumption as the most likely location during transport.

6.0 INPUTS

1.

The site map (Figure 8-1) is obtained from Figure 4-2 of Section 4, Site Geology, of Technical Report TR-HBI'-2002-01.

2.

The proposed transport route (a portion of which is shown on Figure 8-1) is obtained from White, 2002a (Attachment A).

3.

The borings nearby the transport route critical section (determined as described in Step 1 of Methodology) are obtained from White, 2002b (Attachment A).

4.

The table of soil properties for stability analyses (Table 8-1) is obtained from Table 7-2 of calculation GEO.HBIP.02.07.

5.

The table of soil properties for site response analyses (Table 8-2) is obtained from Table 7-3 of GEO.HBIP.02.07.

6.

Relationships of modulus and damping ratio with shear strain referenced in Table 8-2 are obtained from Figures 7-11 and 7-12 of GEO.HBIP.02.07 and as described in Step 3 of GEO.BBIP.02.07.

7.

The transporter load and dimensions are obtained from Work Plan GEO 2002-03,.

8.

Design surface ground motions for use in response analyses are obtained from White, 2002c, as confirmed in White, 2002e (Attachment A).

9.

The primary seismic source for ground motions (the Bay Entrance fault) is obtained from Input 9 of GEO.HBIP.02.07.

10.

The positive directions of primary seismic source components (fault normal and fault parallel) are obtained from Input 10 of GEO.HBIP.02.07.

11.

The orientation of the primary seismic source is obtained from Input 11 of GEO.EBIP.02.07.

12.

The stiff soil velocity profile is developed by multiplying velocity values in Input 5 above by 1.22 (as described in Assumption 6 above) or k2, values in Input S by 1.5, as recommended on page 26 of ASCE (1986). (Velocities are related to the Page 5 of 31 I

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I I square root of soil shear modulus, as shown in Step 3 of GEO.EBIP.02.07, so the square root of the 1.5 factor in ASCE is 1.22, and k2mt,,, is proportional to the shear modulus as shown on page 11, below.)

7.0 METHODOLOGY AND EQUATION

SUMMARY

1.

Determine the most critical location along the transport route in terms of slope stability. The most critical location will be that which meets the following two criteria simultaneously: a) closest approach of transporter to slope and b) greatest height of slope.

i.

2.

Determine subsurface stratigraphy at most critical location based on geotechnical data obtained from nearby borings and trenches.

3.

Assign static and dynamic soil properties to subsurface layers based on similarities with those layers having assigned properties.

4.

Perform static slope stability analysis at most critical location along transport route using program UTEXAS4 to obtain short-term static factor of safety of critical slide mass with transporter loading.

5.

Perform pseudo-static slope stability analysis of critical slide mass as determined in step 4 using UTEXAS4 to determine pseudostatic horizontal acceleration that reduces factor of safety to approximately 1.0. Acceleration obtained is the yield acceleration, ky.

6.

Rotate design surface ground motions to direction of cross section and perform preliminary Newmark displacement analyses using program DEFORMP and ky of the critical slide mass as determined in step 5, above, to assess relative magnitudes of displacements for each ground motion (see step 11, below, for fuller description of displacement analyses). Select ground motions giving greatest displacements for further analyses.

For each ground motion selected in step 6, above, the following steps were conducted:

7.

Deconvolve the selected surface ground motion to the base of the finite element mesh using program SHAKE.

Page 6 of 31 I

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I I

8.

Perform a two-dimensional dynamic finite element analysis of the cross section using program QUAD4MIU to determine the seismic response of the slope due to the earthquake motion as determined in step 7, above, placed at base of section.

9.

Calculate seismic coefficient time history (and the maximum seismic coefficient, ko) of the critical slide mass from output of the QUAD4MU analysis. The seismic coefficient is the ratio of the force induced by an earthquake in the slide mass to the weight of the mass.

10.

Obtain surface ground motion calculated at one or more representative nodes in the free field from output of QUAD4MU. Compare calculated motion with input motion.

11.

Perform Newmark-type displacement analyses (after Newmark, 1965), using DEFORMP, to determine earthquake-induced permanent displacements of the critical slide mass. For a specified potential slide mass, the seismic coefficient time history of that mass is compared with the yield acceleration ky. When the seismic coefficient exceeds the yield acceleration, downslope movement will occur along the direction of the assumed failure plane. The movement will decelerate and will stop after the level of the induced acceleration drops below the yield acceleration, and the relative velocity of the sliding mass drops to zero. The accumulated permanent displacement is calculated by double-integrating the increments of the seismic coefficient time history that exceed the yield acceleration. The analysis.

requires the seismic coefficient time history as calculated in step 9, above, and the yield acceleration of the critical sliding mass as calculated in step 5, above.

8.0 SOFTWARE The following computer programs (software) are used in this calculation package:

1. UTEXAS4 (version 4.0.0.8 dated 7/27/01), a commercially available Windows-compatible program to perform slope stability analyses, was verified in calculation package GEO.HBIP.02.09.

2. SHAKE (Geomatrix version dated 8/27/95), a 1-D equivalent linear site response PC DOS-compatible program used in this calculation package to compute base motions for use in finite element analyses, was modified by Geomatrix from the original developed at the University of California, Berkeley to increase the sizes of arrays to Page 7 of 31 I

GEO.HB1P.02.08 Rev. I I accommodate more time history data points and a greater number of layers. The Geomatrix version of the program was verified in GEO.DCPP.02.02.

3. QUAD4MU (updated version dated 3/1/2003), a commercially available PC DOS-compatible program to perform 2-D finite element analyses, was verified in GEO.DCPP.01.34. rev. 4.

4. SPECTRAD (version dated 3/25/98), a PC DOS-compatible program developed by Geomatrix Consultants to calculated response spectra from time histories, was also verified in GEO.DCPP.01.34 in addition to QUAD4MU.

5. DEFORMP (version dated 3/30/2000), a PC DOS-compatible program developed by Geomatrix ConsultAnts to perform Newmark-type displacement analyses, was; verified in GEO.DCPP.01.35.

All programs are proprietary and designed to execute on personal computers under the Microsoft Windows 2000 operating system. No passwords are required to execute these programs.

9.0 BODY OF CALCULATION

1.

The most critical location along the transport route in terms of slope stability is determined by inspection of Figure 8-1, modified to include the proposed transport route from White, 2002a. The selected location shown on Figure 8-1 meets the following two criteria simultaneously: a) closest approach of transporter to slope (in this case, the bank of the Discharge Canal) and b) greatest height of slope.

Beyond this location, the distance between the transport route and the Discharge Canal bank increases as the route continues up the hill, thereby reducing the effect of the transporter load on the bank.

2.

The subsurface stratigraphy at the selected location is determined based on geotechnical data obtained from nearby borings. Logs from nearby borings as provided in White, 2002b, were reviewed and stratigraphy from the logs summarized as shown on Figure 8-2. Selected soil strengths are also shown on Figure 8-2. It is seen that soil stratigraphy consists of the same sequence of stiff clays overlying dense sands and gravels as found in boring 99-2 near the proposed ISFSI site further up the hill, as summarized in Table 8-1, from Calculation Package GEO.IBIP.02.07.

Page 8 of 31 I

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I I

3.

Because available data from nearby borings as summarized on Figure 8-2 indicate soil stratigraphy and properties are consistent with those determined at the ISFSI site, static and dynamic properties of the subsurface soils are selected to be the same as at the ISFSI site as presented in GEO.HBIP.02.07, as summarized in Tables 8-1 and 8-2. One exception, as noted in Table 8-1, is the uppermost approximately 15 feet of the upper clay layer (layer 5 in Table 8-1) which is modeled with a shear strength of 900 psf based on test data from nearby 1973 boring D&M73-2 as shown on Figure 8-2.

Calculation of transporter load to apply in analyses is determined from transporter data as found in Attachment 2 of Geosciences Work Plan GEO 2002-03. The calculation is as follows:

Total weight = vehicle plus loaded cask = 170,000 lbs + 160,000 lbs = 330,000 lbs Area

= (minimum track bearing length) x (track spacing plus track width)

= 294 inches x (182 inches + 29.5 inches) = 62,181 SI = 431.8 SF Pressure = Total weight / Area = 330,000 lbs /431.8 SF = 764 psf; use 800 psf Track width = 182 inches + 29.5 inches = 211.5 inches = 17.625 feet 20-foot roadway - 25 feet wide in cross section 17.625-foot track width - 22 feet wide in cross section

4.

A static slope stability analysis was performed at the most critical location along the transport route as determined above using program UTEXAS4 and Spencer's method to obtain the short term static factor of safety with transporter loading. The section analyzed, with selected effective strength soil properties from Table 8-1 and location of transporter load, are shown in Figure 8-3. It is conservatively assumed that there is no water in the adjacent Discharge Canal but that clay and sand layers are saturated to elevation 6 (normal ground water level as described in Assumption 3). The resulting factor of safety of 1.7 is listed in Table 8-3.

UTEXAS4 input and selected output files are found in Attachment B. All files are also included on the enclosed CD and are listed in Table 8-3.

5.

The slope stability computations were repeated for the slide mass having the lowest static factor of safety by incrementally increasing the horizontal pseudostatic acceleration to determine the yield acceleration, ky, that reduced the factor of safety of the slide mass to 1.0. Yield accelerations were computed using a two-stage approach in UTEXAS4, wherein normal stresses along the failure plane are first calculated under static pre-earthquake conditions and are then held constant during Page 9 of 31 I

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I I application of the horizontal pseudostatic acceleration to estimate the undrained shear strengths during transient earthquake loading. Dynamic (undrained) soil strengths are listed in Table 8-1. As shown on Figure 8-3 and listed in Table 8-3, the resulting yield acceleration for a safety factor of 1.001 is 0.84. UTEXAS4 input and selected output files are found in Attachment B. All files are also included on the enclosed CD and are listed in Table 8-3.

6.

Prior to performing finite element analyses, each horizontal component of the surface ground motion provided (White, 2002c) was rotated to the direction of the cross section. Seismic response due to the vertical component of ground motions was not considered in this analysis (Assumption 7). The amount of rotation was determined by calculating the difference between the azimuth of the cross section as shown on Figure 8-1 and the azimuth of the primary source of the ground motions (the Bay Entrance fault, from GEO.HBIP.02.07) as determined in GEO.HBIP.02.07. For section C-C', the difference between its azimuth of N 840 E and the fault azimuth of N 70 W is 2640.

The rotated component along the section is the sum of the projections of the fault normal and fault parallel components along the direction of the section. The formulation is as follows:

CC' = Fp cos(D) + FN sin((D) where Fp and FN are fault parallel and fault normal components of the acceleration time histories, CC' is the component along the section at each time step, and '5 is the difference between the orientation of the section and the fault. Calculations of rotated components were performed in Excel spreadsheets. Excerpts of the spreadsheets along with related time history input and output are found in Attachment C. All files are also included on the enclosed CD and are listed in Table 8-6. The spreadsheets are verified by the following hand check from SET1ROT.XLS (page 4 of Attachment C):

at +0.000 seconds, set 1 FN = - 0.229294E-03 and EP = 0.846349E-04 Then for section C-C' with ¢ = 264 degrees, CC' = 0.846349E-04

cos (264) + - 0.229294E-03

sin (264) = 2.19191E-04 checks Then a rigid block Newmark-type analysis was performed with each rotated surface ground motion and the yield acceleration for the critical slide mass determined in.

Page 10 of 31 I

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I I step 5, above, using program DEFORMIP. The positive direction of each ground motion component (south for fault parallel and west for fault normal) was obtained from GEO.HBIP.02.07. Calculated displacements are summarized in Table 8-4.

The two ground motions selected in GEO.HBIP.02.07 (sets 1 and 3), were selected as representative of the range of displacements for further finite element analyses.

All DEFORMP input and output files are included on the enclosed CD and are listed in Table 8-6. Excerpts of these files are not attached, as they are similar to those found in Attachment G. Earthquake motions input at the base of the section were developed from the surface ground motions provided by PG&E (White, 2002c) and preliminary Newmark analysis.

7.

Earthquake motions input at the base of the section were developed from the rotated surface ground motions determined in step 6, above. Plots of the rotated surface ground motions are shown on Figures 8-5 and 8-6. The surface motions were deconvolved to approximately 85 feet below ground level using program SHAKE (Geomatrix version) and the dynamic properties for layers 1, 2, 3, and 4 listed in Table 8-2, as modified to obtain a "stiff soil" velocity profile (1.22 times velocities or 1.5 times k2max values in Table 8-2 as described in Input 12) to obtain the motions at depth for use in QUAD4MU analyses. Modulus reduction and damping curves were obtained from GEO.HBIP.02.07 as described in Input 6. The base was modeled as elastic half-space with a shear wave velocity obtained from Table 8-2.

To minimize numerical difficulties encountered in the SHAKE runs as a result of the artificially high energy in the high frequency range of the surface motions, a frequency cutoff of 2.5 Hz was applied during the deconvolution. A second SHAKE deconvolution run was then performed, fixing the soil properties as obtained from the final iteration of the first run, increasing the frequency cutoff applied in the first run to 6 Hz, to obtain the motions at depth for use in QUAD4MU analyses. SHAKE input and selected output files are found in Attachment D. All files are also included on the enclosed CD and are listed in Table 8-6.

8.

The earthquake-induced seismic coefficient time histories (and their peak values ken) for the critical slide mass were computed using a two-dimensional dynamic finite element analysis program QUAD4MU that is an updated version of program QUAD4M. The program uses equivalent linear strain-dependent modulus and damping properties and an iterative procedure to estimate the non-linear strain-Page 11 of 31 I

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I I dependent soil properties. The time-step analysis incorporates a Rayleigh damping approach and allows for variable damping in different elements. The option of computing the seismic coefficient time history of a sliding mass in QUAD4M was modified in QUAD4MU and this option was verified in the calculation package GEO.DCPP.01.34, rev. 4.

The QUAD4M analyses reported in GEO.HBIP.01.08, rev. 0 were repeated in this revision using QUAD4MU. The QUAD4MW analyses were performed at the cross section analyzed using the dynamic properties summarized in Table 8-2 from step 3, above, the velocity profile as modified to obtain a "stiff soil" in step 7, above, and the earthquake motion at the base derived in step 7, above. A finite element representation of the site is shown on Figure 8-4. It includes the potential slide mass having the minimum factor of safety and extends from the ground surface down into the sand layer at a depth of about 85 feet below ground surface. The base of the model is in the dense sand layer and the half-space properties were set the same as in the SHAKE analyses performed in step 7, above. QUAD4MU input and selected output files are found in Attachment E. All files are also included on the enclosed CD and are listed in Table 8-6.

9.

The seismic coefficient time history of the critical slide mass was output from the QUAD4MU analysis. Plots of the seismic coefficient time histories for each input ground motion are shown in Figures 8-5 and 8-6.

10.

The surface ground motion calculated at one surface node (76) near the critical section was obtained from QUAD4MU output. This node was selected because it is in the "free field" and can be compared with the input motion in SHAKE (step 7 above) to assess the reasonableness of the QUAD4MU analysis results. The response spectra for the nodal point and input time histories were calculated using program SPECTRAD. Excerpts of SPECTRAD input and output files are found in Attachment F. All files are also included on the enclosed CD. The response spectra are plotted in Figures 8-7 and 8-8. It can be seen that the nodal point spectra conservatively envelope the input time history spectra, providing high confidence that QUAD4MIU response calculations are conservative.

11.

Newmark displacement analyses, using DEFORMP, were performed to determine the earthquake-induced permanent displacements of the critical section. The analyses utilize the seismic coefficient time histories as calculated in step 9, above, Page 12 of 31 I

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. Il and the yield acceleration of the critical slide mass as calculated in step 3, above.

Results of the Newmark displacement analyses, shown graphically on Figure 8-9 and 8-10, are plotted as values of calculated displacement for ratios of ky to kmax.

For ground motion set 1 and a yield acceleration of 0.84, computed displacements range from 2.6 to 4.7 feet (Figure 8-9). For ground motion set 3, computed displacements range from 2.6 to 9.0 feet (Figure 8-10). Values of computed displacement for each ground motion are listed in Table 8-5. The average displacement for the full range of time-histories used is 4.7 feet. DEFORMP input and selected output files are included in Attachment G. All files are included in the enclosed CD and listed in Table 8-6.

10.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS This calculation package has estimated static stability and earthquake-induced permanent displacements of the most critical potential slide mass identified along the proposed HBIP transport route. Results of short-term static stability analyses listed in Table 8-3 indicate the safety factor against sliding with transporter load is 1.7. Results of Newmark-type displacement analyses, listed in Table 8-5, indicate a range of potential displacements of the critical slide mass at the selected transport route location from 2.6 to 4.7 feet for ground motion set 1, and from 2.6 to 9.0 feet for ground motion set 3. The average displacement for the full range of time-histories used is 4.7 feet.

11.0 LIMITATIONS There are no limitations on the use of the calculation results.

12.0 IMPACT EVALUATION The results of the displacements presented in Section 10 do not impact other Geosciences calculations.

13.0 REFERENCES

1.

ASCE, 1986, Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary on Standard for Seismic Analysis of Safety Related Nuclear Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, September.

Paae 13 of31 I

GEO.BBIP.02.08 Rev. I I

2.

GEO.DCPP.01.25, Determination'of seismic coefficient time histories for potential sliding masses along cut slope behind ISFSI pad, rev. 2

3.

GEO.DCPP.01.34, Verification of computer code QUAD4MU, rev. 4

4.

GEO.DCPP.01.35, Verification of computer code DEFORMP, rev. 2

5.

GEO.HBIP.02.02, Determination of liquefaction potential at HBIP ISFSI site, rev. 0.

6.

GEO.HBIP.02.05, Development of spectrum compatible time histories for the B31P ISFSI, rev. 0.

7.

GEO.HBIP.02.07, Determination of potential earthquake-induced displacements of critical slides at HBIP ISFSI site, rev. 1.

8.

GEO.HBIP.02.09, Verification of computer program UTEXAS4, rev. 0

9.

Geosciences Work Plan GEO 2002-03, "Development of Slope Stability Calculations for the Humboldt Bay ISFSI, rev. 0.

10.

Makdisi, F., and Seed, H.B., 1978, Simplified Procedure for Estimating Dam and Embankment Earthquake-Induced Deformations, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT7, July, pp. 849-867.

11. Newmark, N.M., 1965, Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments:

Geotechnique, v. 15, no. 2, p. 139-160.

12.

Section 4, Site Geology, Humboldt Bay ISFSI Project Seismic Hazards Analysis, Rev. 0, dated 16 September 2002, of Technical Report TR-HBIP-2002-01.

13.

White, R., 2002a, letter from Robert White to Faiz Makdisi, Re: proposed transport route for HBPP ISFSI, dated 19 April 2002, with attached site map.

14.

White, R., 2002b, letter from Robert White to Faiz Makdisi, Re: transmittal of boring logs from previous investigations at HBPP, dated 1 May 2002, with attachments.

15. White, R., 2002c, letter from Robert White to Faiz Makdisi, Re: transmittal of preliminary design surface ground motions for use in response analyses, dated 29 July 2002, with enclosed CD.

16.

White, R., 2002d, letter from Robert White to Faiz Makdisi, Re: excerpt from Humboldt Bay Power Plant December 1985 TPCA HAR, dated 15 November 2002.

17.

White, R., 2002e, letter from Robert White to Faiz Makdisi, Re: transmittal of final approved time histories for Humboldt Bay ISFSI Project slope stability analyses, dated 27 November 2002.

Page 14 of 31 I

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I I

18.

Yan, Liping, Neven Matasovic, and Edward Kavazanjian, Jr., 1996, Seismic response of a block on an inclined plane to vertical and horizontal excitation acting simultaneously, Proceedings, 11 I ASCE Conference of Engineering Mechanics, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Volume 2, pp. 1110-1113.

14.0 ATTACHMENTS A. Geosciences transmittals (11 pages)

White, R., 2002a, letter from Robert White to Faiz Makdisi, Re: proposed transport route for HBPP ISFSI, dated 19 April 2002, with attached site map White, R., 2002b, letter from Robert White to Faiz Makdisi, Re: transmittal of boring logs from previous investigations at HBPP, dated 1 May 2002 (without attachments).

White, R., 2002c, letter from Robert White to Faiz Makdisi, Re: transmittal of preliminary design surface ground motions for use in response analyses, dated 29 July 2002 (without enclosed CD).

White, R., 2002d, letter from Robert White to Faiz Makdisi, Re: excerpt from Humboldt Bay Power Plant December 1985 TPCA HAR, dated 15 November 2002.

White, R., 2002e, letter from Robert White to Faiz Makdisi, Re: transmittal of final approved time histories for Humboldt Bay ISFSI Project slope stability analyses, dated 27 November 2002.

B. UTEXAS4 input and excerpts of output files for static and dynamic stability analyses (12 pages)

C. EXCEL spreadsheet excerpts and related excerpts of time histories for rotations (9 pages)

D. SHAKE input and excerpts of output files to obtain motion at base of QUAD4MU section (32 pages)

E. QUAD4MU input and excerpts of output files for response analyses (21 pages)

F. SPECTRAD input and excerpts of output files for calculating response spectra of time histories (10 pages)

G. DEFORMP input and excerpts of output for calculation of displacements (9 pages)

H..CD-ROM table of contents Page 15 of 31 I

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I I 15.0 LIST OF TABLES Table 8-1 Material properties for post-earthquake stability analyses Table 8-2 Revised shear wave velocity profile for site response analyses Table 8-3 Results of slope stability analyses for Section C-C' Table 8-4 Permanent displacement versus yield acceleration assuming rotated surface motion equal to seismic coefficient time hstory Table 8-5 Permanent displacement versus yield acceleration (seismic coefficients from QUAD4M)

Table 8-6 List of files for ground motion response and displacement analyses I

16.0 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 8-1 Site and boring location plan with proposed ISFSI transport route Figure 8-2 Fence diagram of borings in vicinity of Section C-C' along transport route Figure 8-3 Section C-C': Slide mass having minimum factor of safety Figure 8-4 Finite element mesh and slide mass having minimum factor of safety for sections C-C' Figure 8-5 Time Histories, Section C-C', Set 1 Ground Motion Figure 8-6 Time Histories, Section C-C', Set 3 Ground Motion Figure 8-7 Spectral Accelerations (5% Damped), Section C-C', Set 1 Ground Motion Figure 8-8 Spectral Accelerations (5% Damped), Section C-C', Set 3 Ground Motion Figure 8-9 Permanent Displacement vs. Yield Acceleration, Section C-C', Set I Ground Motion Figure 8-10 Permanent Displacement vs. Yield Acceleration, Section C-C', Set 3 Ground Motion I

17.0 ENCLOSURE CD labeled "GEO.HBIP.02.08, rev. 1, 7/18/2003," containing the files listed in Tables 8-3, 8-4, and 8-6 (all ASCII files unless otherwise noted). The CD is located with this calculation in Geosciences' project-designated file cabinets. The CD table of contents is included in Attachment H.

I I

Page 16 of31 I

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I I TABLE 8-1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR POST-EARTHQUAKE STABILITY ANALYSES Unit Weight Effectie Strength Undrained Strength Laye T."

Cohesion Friction Angle Cohesion Friction Angle Layer No.

Material O

c' (ps)

' (degree) c (psf)

(degree)

(FMn. 8-3) 5 Stiff Sandy Clay 125 125 0

30 900 0

3,4 Very Stiff Clay 123 123 0

30 2000 0

2 Denseto Very Dense Silty 125 128 0

37 1500*

37*

Sand 1

Hard Silt and Silty Clay 128 128 0

30 3000 0

Undsained strngth of dense sand is limited to 9 ksf.

Source: Table 7-2 of Calculation GEO.HBIP.02.07 (except layer 5)

Page 17 of 31

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I I TABLE 8-2 Revised Shear Wave Velocity Profile for Site Response Analysis (based on LM. Idriss Interpretation on May 24, 2002)

Layer Depth Density Shear Wave No. *

(ft)

Description (pc)

Velocity (fps)

K2,,,

Modulus Reduction and Damping Curves I-a (5) 0-15 Silty Clay 125 750 Vucetic and Dobry (1991) P1=15 1-b (5) 15-20 Silty Clay 125 750 Vucetic and Dobry (1991) P1=15 I-c (3) 20-25 Silty Clay 125 1,000 Vucetic and Dobry (1991) PI=15 2-a (2) 25-30 Sand with Gravel 130 1,000 80 EPRI-0l993) Depth = 20-50 feet 2-b (2) 30-40 Sand with Gravel 13Q 1,150 100 EPRI (1993) Depth = 20-50 feet 2-c (2) 40-50 Sand with Gravel 130 1,150 80 EPRI (1993) Depth = 20-50 feet 3 (1) 50-60 Silty Clay

'130 1,500 Vucetic and Dobry (1991) PI=15 4-a 60-90 Sand with Gravel 130 1,500 125 EPRI (1993) Depth = 50-120 feet 4-b 90-135 Sand 130 1,750 130 EPRI (1993) Depth = 50-120 feet 5

135-150 Sand with Gravel 130 2,000 140 EPRI (1993) Depth = 120-250 feet 6

150-215 Silty Clay 130 1,550 Vucetic and Dobry (1991) PI = 15 7

215-260 Silty Sand 130 1,650 100 EPRI (1993) Depth = 120-250 feet 8a 260-320 Gravelly Sand 130 2,000 120 EPRI (1993) Depth = 250-500 feet 8b 320-400 Silty Sand 130 1,800 100 EPRI (1993) Depth = 250-500 feet 9

400-450 Silty Sand**

130 1,900 EPRI (1993) Depth = 250-500 feet 10 450-500 Silty Sand**

130 2,000 EPRI (1993) Depth = 250-500 feet 11 500-600 Silty Sand**

130 2,100 EPRI (1993) Depth = > 500 feet 12 600+

Half space 135 5,000 Notes:

Layer numbers in parentheses are those assigned in Figure 8-3 and fisted in Table 8-1 for stability analyses.

Extrapolated from bottom of boring.

Layers 2b and 2c k2,,, values modified slightly to 90 and 85, respectively, in analyses to be consistent with modifications to the shear wave velocities.

Pane 18 of31 I

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I I Table 8-3 Results of slope stability analyses for Section C-C' Section long term static yield acceleration, UTEXAS4 static UTEXAS4 dynamic factor of safetk, input/output files input/output files transport3.txt transport3(dyn).txt C-C' 1.73 0.84 transport3.out transport3(d

).out All files are ASCII text and are found on the CD enclosed with the calculation. Excerpts are found in Attachment B.

Table 8-4 Permanent displacement versus yield acceleration assuming rotated surface motion equal to seismic coefficient time history Displacement computer inoutroutput files Ikl l

l Displacement (It) spreadsheet rotated motion DEFORMP input DEFORMP output Section C-C j__'.xIs)

('._M)_

('.inp)

(-.dat) 0.84 Set 1 2640 Positive 5.7 setlrot s.co s1cc s1cpc Negative 5.5 setirot sic s1cn s1cn Set 2 2640 Positive 2.1 set2rot s2cc:

s2cp s2Cp Negative 8.5 set2rot s2cc s2cn s2cn Set 3 264e Positive 1.7 set3rot s3cc.

s3cp s3cp Negative 10.8 set3rot s3cc s3cn s3cn et 264 Positive 1.4 set4rot s4cc s4cp

_S Negative 9.8 set4rot 4

s4cc s4cns4cn All files on CD-ROM enclosed with calculation.

Spreadsheet ('.xls) files are Excel files. All others are ASCII text.

Page 19 of 31 I

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. II Table 8-5 Permanent Displacement versus Yield Acceleration (seismic coefficients from QUAD4MU)

Yield Acceleration, Ky Kmax Ky/Kmax Displacement (ft)

F

~~~~~~~08Set 1 -

2640 11.86 1_0.47 42.7 0.4Set 1+-

2640 1.79 0.47 42.7 I

S~~~~~~~~~et 3 +

2640 (2.05 0.41 9.0

£ JJ~~~~~~~~~et.3 2640 1.79 0.47 2.6 Pagm 20 of 31 I

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I I TABLE 8-6 List of files for ground motion response and displacement analyses ROTATED MOTIONS (excerpts in Attachment C) rotated surface motion SHAKE (excerpts in Attachment D)

Section C-C SET I SET 3 Input TRIC.NP TR3CINP SICC.ACS S3CC.ACS rotated surface motion TRICLINP TR3C11NP Output TRIC.OUT T1R3C.OUT TRIC.PUN TR3C.PUN TRICLOUT TR3CLOUT TRICLPUN TR3CLPUN rotated outcrop motion QUAD4MU (excerpts in Attachnt E)

Section C-C' SET I SET 3 Input TRIC.Q41 TR3C.Q41 TRICLO25 TR3CLO25 rotated outcrop motion HBSOILNW.DAT BBSOLNW.DAT Output TRICQ40 TR3CQ4O TRICOO.QSC TR3CO0.QSC seismic coeff. motion Acceleration Time TRICOO.Q4A TR3COO.Q4A node 51 History Outputs at TRICOI.Q4A TR3COI.Q4A node 76 Ground Surface TRIC02.Q4A TR3C02.Q4A node 101 (excerpts not attached)

TRIC03.Q4A TR3C03.Q4A node 765 TRICD4.Q4A TR3C04.Q4A node 821 TRIC05.Q4A TR3CO5.Q4A node 961 TRIC06.Q4A TR3C06.Q4A node 1114 SPECTRAD (excerpts in Attachment F)

Section C-C SET I SET 3 Input SPECTRAI.INP SPECTRALI.NP SPECIRA2INP SPECTRA2.TIP SPECTRA3.INP SPECTRA3.INP Output SICC.050 S3CC.050 rotated surface spectra TRICOOA. 050 TR3C00A. 050 node 51 at free field TRICOIA. 050 TR3COIA. 050 node 76 at free field DEFORMP (excerpts in Attachment G)

Note: All files are ASCII text included on the CD-ROM enclosed with the calculation.

Page 21 of 31 I

Approximate location ol0

\\sa 0\\\\(

/g 2

.. _ -- ~~transport route in vicinity S/i11l R<t1\\1//.........................~>/> =

~(Irom White, 2002a) - &,- -it.:'

.r,,t

>v;,,<C~~ff~e10)0>l@@g/

41t

/Dto~cll-a

\\;

si-,n 0

li^-.1 1 l tIRM-5~"0 1'g a~ l ti2; Xn 2

n

,7.1')1111

,filtl fowl j

lCl; MIIONS VAS ITwRU l5^71

.6. I Note:

'3as map Irom ig. 4-14 o Sectlon 4of TR*HBIP2Al 801A' Fluea1 lt n olg oa~npa wl rpsd SS rnpotrue 4

SIA an-n"Ll)

URN I/A A

7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_

I I /1 (4 Jel I Ir,. I

mu o

O(

t'.)

0 LA 0~I co 0

Q

(

C C

2 C

0 EU a)

C.)

1 0

-1

-2 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 IQ t'30%.

0 0n CU

-Ia) a)

C) 1 0

-1

-2 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2

I--

3; 0

a) a)0 1

0

-1 4,%

-2 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time (sec) ai0 80 P

(1 wD Figure 8-5. Time Histories, Section C-C', Set 1 Ground Motion.

trlcc.grf

2 0) a)

C.)

I 0

-1

-2 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 PQ to"I' 0

M C

0 C) a)

C)

C) 1 0

-1

-2 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 I a I

a a

I ii

[

I I

I I I I

I I I I I

I I I I

I I

9 CD 0

4-a)

C)

I1-.

Rotated Design Motion at Free Field 0

00

-2 I

I I

a I I I Ii II...

I I

I

.I I

I I

0 10 20 30 40 Time (sec) 50 60 70 80 Figure 8-6. Time Histories, Section C-C', Set 3 Ground Motion.

tr3cc.grf i

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I 6

5 0)1 C

0)

C.)

-a C),

C.,

co-4 3

2 1

0 0.01 0.1 I

Period (see) sp-sl cca.grf 10 Figure 8-7. Spectral Accelerations (5% Damped), Section C-C', Set 1 Ground Motion.

Page 28 of 31

GEO.NBIP.02.08 Rev. I 1\\

I I I~ I I it I I

!Il I

6 5

0)

I-0 20I C,,

c1) 3Q0 4

3 2

1 0

0.01 0.1 1

Period (sec) 10 sp..s3cca.grf Figure 8-8. Spectral Accelerations (5% Damped), Section C-C', Set 3 Ground Motion.

Page 29 of 31

GEO.BBIP.02.08 Rev. 1 100.00 Positive Direc Negative Dire 10.00 MA D

E 1.00

_ X

___X_

0.

__X___

0.10

=

0.01 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.

ky/kmax Figure 8-9. Permanent Displacement versus Yield Acceleration Section C-C', Set 1 Ground Motion

.8 1.0 Page 30 of 31

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. I 100.00 10.00 i.

0.

=0 1.00 Positive Direction, Kmax = 2.05 X ZZ

=

Negative Direction, Kmax= 1.79

-\\\\

\\,

AS

=

=~~-A-0.10 0.01 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ky/kmax Figure 8-10. Permanent Displacement versus Yield Acceleration Section C-C', Set 3 Ground Motion Page 31 of 31

GEO.HBIP.02.O0 Rev. 0 Attachment A Attachment A Transmittals (see Attachments section for list of transmittals) page I of II

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. 0 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences Attachment A 245 Market Screet. Room 418 Mail Code N-tC P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco. CA 94177 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778 FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 9461 19 April 2002 Re: Proposed transport route for HBPP ISFSI DR MAKDISI:

As a followup to my letter to you dated 21 March 2002 regarding preparation of preliminary transport route stability calculations for HBPP ISFSI, please find attached one copy of a memo dated 28 March 2002 from Roy Willis to myself and attached figure showing the proposed transport route. Please use this figure to determine location of transporter load.

Also attached is a portion of a figure from an approved PG&E drawing showing the configuration of the discharge canal as constructed adjacent to the proposed transport route. Please use this figure, in conjunction with topography shown on the figure attached to Roy Willis' memo above, to construct the transport route cross section for stability analysis. As shown on the figure, the canal slopes were excavated at a slope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical to a depth of elevation -6 (MLLW). The width of the canal bottom is shown as 20 feet.

If you have any questions, please call.

ROBERT K. WHITE Attachments cc:

Larry Pulley (w/ attachments) paag yo I I le-fmJ.doc:rkw:4119/0

GEO.J Date:

March 28, 2002 File a 72.10.05 To:

Robert White From:

Roy Willis, Project Manager

Subject:

Humboldt Bay ISFSI Project Transmittal of Transport Route Layout Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Dear Rob,

Attached for your use in slope stability investigations concerning the transport route for the Humboldt Bay ISFSI is a transport route layout showing two proposed alternatives.

The existing roadway near the discharge canal is preferred (shown as Alt 1). This roadway is 20 feet wide, and is constrained by the canal on the east and the Unit 3 hillside on the west. The alternate route using a modified roadway inside the Unit 3 restricted area is the second choice (shown as Alt 2). The exact location of the connection of this route to the existing roadway is somewhat flexible, but would be within 20 feet of the plotted location due to the physical constraints of the site.

Please contact Mr. L. Pulley if you have any questions or need additional information on this matter.

oy Wi is Project Manager Humboldt Bay ISFSI Project cc: LBPulley HBPP HBIP File No. 72.10.05

-iBIP.02.08 Rev. 0 Attachment A pagee 3 of I I

)

'\\. I y

. I toil I is.

I knit 110l. 2 I *64sd

1.

I I

II I

i I I

Transport noule Alternatives. 3/20/2002

coOLJ Is

-t

.Hb H8P.02.V6 Rev. 0

-1...- -

I-l-'.

- -,c

1

/o aI l

i Erorr.

Aw-5 A4V 106, e'-

j -JO s,.

2. '10. r!E z*Jf.1Id3DC O

,ky~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3.?

I03/4*

r-s dF

, J J.j.

I-

-J 0

r -p.

. 1.

page 5 of 11

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences 245 Market Street. Room 41 B Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 415/973-2792 Fax 415/973-5778 GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. 0 Attachment A FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRDC CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612 I May 2002 Re: Transmittal of boring logs from previous investigations at HBPP DR. MAKDISI:

Please find enclosed the following items:

Los for borings I through IOA performed in 1973, including boring log key, (14 pages total) from Dames and Moore report entitled 'Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential, Humboldt Bay Power Power Plant, for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company," dated May, 1974 (cover of report preceeds boring logs).

2-page excerpt from boring P4 performed in 1976, from Earth Sciences Associates report entitled "Humboldt Bay Power Plant Site, Geology Investigation, Appendix F m," dated 1976-1977 (cover of report preceeds boring log).

Figure E-29 from Woodward-Clyde Consultants report entitled "Evaluation of the Potential for Resolving the Geologic and Seismic Issues at the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit No. 3, Appendixes," dated October 1, 1980 (cover of report preceeds figure).

Logs for borings CH4 (16 pages) and CH-5 (28 pages) summarized on Figure E-29, above.

Originals of these logs are located in box 24521 at PG&E's Records Center.

Locations of these borings are shown on Figure 4-2 of the Humboldt Bay Power Plant ISFSI Site Seismic Hazards Analysis, Section 4.0, Site Geology, transmitted to me on 18 March 2002 by Bert Swan and John Wesling.

If you have any questions, please call.

ROBERT K. WHITE Attachments page I page 6 of 11 1t2fm4.doc:rkw:S/1/02

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences GEO A

taBP.02.09 Rev. 4 245 Marker Street, Room 4183 Attachment i Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 947 415/973-2792 Fax 41S1973-5778

_ ¶ FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612 29 July 2002 Re: Transmittal-of preliminary ground motions for Humboldt ISFS[ Project slope stability analyses

Dear Faiz:

Please find enclosed a CD with four sets of time histories (fault parallel and fault normal components) for use in Humboldt ISFSI slope stability analyses. These time histories are preliminary until otherwise noted, but you are authorized to proceed with their use in your analyses.

As described in the readme.txt file on the CD, the CD was assembled from the following sources:

fault parallel component of Set 1, Set 3, and Set 4 C:\\hbpp\\motion\\7-24-02\\Source\\setI_ ac C:\\hbpp\\notions\\7-204-2\\Source\\set3_fp.acc C:\\hbpp\\modons\\7-24-02\\Source\\set4_fp.acc fault parallel component of Set 2a C:\\hbpp\\motions\\7-26-02\\Source\\set2afp.acc fault normal component with fling of Set 1, Set 2a, Set 3, and Set 4 C:\\hbpp\\motions\\7-26-02\\Source\\setl fn_flingg bc.acc C:\\hbpp\\motions\\7-26-02\\Source\\set3a_flu_fling bc.acc C:\\hbpp~nuotions\\7-26.02\\.Source\\s*et3 fn_fling jc.acc C :\\hbpp\\motions\\7-26-02\\Source\\setlfl-_flin&..bc.acc page 7 of 1 Icr2fmI2.docrkw

Transmirral of preliminary ground motions F

Attachme Let me know if you have any questions.

ROBERT K. WHITE Enclosure cc:

Larry Pulley w/o page 2 d2fmAcrw page 8 of 11

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. 0 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences Attachment A 245 Marker Screet, Room 4188 Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 4151973-2792 Fax 415/973-S778

!_ FAIZ MAKDISI GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS 21 01 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612 15 November 2002 Re: Excerpt from Humboldt Bay Ppwer Plant December 1985 TPCA HAR FAIZ MAKDISI:

Please find attached a 9-page excerpt from the Humboldt Bay Power Plant December 1985 Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Hydrogeologic Assessment Report for your use as needed in the preparation of slope stability calculations for the HBIP. The excerpt includes a discussion of water levels as determined from monitoring wells installed in the vicinity of the wastewater holding ponds located east of the discharge canal. Page 4-7, in particular, states that "water levels... range between 4 and 7 feet below ground surface," and that "this zone appears to respond only slightly to tidal cycles."

_ If you have any questions regarding this attachment, please call.

Thanks.

ROB WHITE Attachment Irr2fml5.doc page 9ofI I

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Geosciences 245 Market Street, Room 418B Mail Code N4C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 415/973-2792 Fax 4151973-5778 GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. 0 Attachment A FAIZ MAKDISI I lGEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS 2101 WEBSTER STREET OAKLAND, CA 94612 27 November 2002 Re: Transmittal of final approved time histories for Humboldt ISFSI Project slope stability analyses

Dear Faiz:

Please find enclosed a CD with four sets of time histories (fault parallel and fault normal components) for use in Humboldt ISFSI slope stability analyses. These time histories are final and approved as developed in Calculation GEO.HBIP.02.05 and are identical to those provided previously (in my 29 July 2002 letter to you) for your use in your analyses.

The CD includes the-following files:

fault parallel components setlfp.acc set2_fp.acc set3jkp.acc set4_fp.acc fault normal components setl_fif.acc set2_fnf.acc set3_fnf.acc set4_fnf.acc Please verify that these time histories are the same as those used in your analyses.

page 1 page 10 of 11 Irr2fmI7.docrkw

Transmittal of final approved time histories Faiz Makdisi GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. 0 Attachment A Let me know if you have any questions.

rI,-

,ab to-E t b ROBERT K. WHITE Enclosure cc:

Larry Pulley w/o page 2 irr2fmi7.docrkw page 11 of 11

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. 0 Attachment B Attachment B UTEXAS4 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Input and Output Excerpts (see Table 8-3 for listing of files) page. of 12

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. 0 Attachment B transport3.txt GRA HEAding follows -

EST. OF YIELD ACC. (Static Loading, Search)

HBPP ISFSI - Transport Road PROfile line data follow -

1 1 Silty clay

-330

-33 40

-33 2 2 Clayey sand

-330

-12 40

-12 3 3 silty sandy clay (sat)

-330 4

-120 4

-100

-6

-80

-6

-60 4

40 4

- 4 4 Silty sandy clay (unsat)

-330 6

-124 6

-120 4

5 5 Silty sandy clay (weaker)

-330 11.7

-295 11.7

-283 20

-251 20

-235 22

-195 22

-165 20

-154 13

-138 13

-124 6

6 4 Silty sandy clay (unsat) -

II

-60 4

-56 6

40 6

7 5 Silty sandy clay (weaker)

-56 6

-42 13

-26 13

-20 9

40 9

MATerial property data follow (for first stage) 1 Silty clay 128 - unit weight Conventional shear strengths 0

30 Piezometric Line 1

2 Clayey sand 128 - unit weight Conventional shear strengths 0 37 Piezometric Line 1

3 Silty sandy clay (sat) 125 - unit weight Conventional shear strength 0

30 Piezometric Line 1

4 Silty sandy clay (unsat) 125 - unit weight Conventional shear strength Page 1 page 2 of 12

GEO.HBIP.02.0 8 Rev. 0 Attachment B transport3-txt 0

30 No pore pressures s Silty sandy clay 125

unit weight Conventional shear strength o

30 No pore pressures PlEzometric line data follow -

1 Piezometric Line

-330 6

-124 6

-100

-6

-80

-6

-S6 6

40 6

DIS SURface pressures to follow

-330 11.7 0.0 0

-29S 11.7 0.0 0

-283 20 0.0 0

-251 20:

0.0 0

-235 22 0.0 0

-218 22 0.0 0

-218 22 800.0 0

-196 22 goo. o 0

-196 22 0.0 0

-195 22 0.0 0

-165 20 0.0 0

-154 13 0.0 0

-138 13 0.0 0

-124 6

0.0 0

-120 4

0.0 0

-100

-6 0.0 0

-80

-6 0.0 0

-60 4

0.0 0

-56 6

0.0 0

-42 13 0.0 0

-26 13 0.0 0

-20 9

0.0 0

40 9

0.0 0

ANAlysis/computation data follow -

Circle Search 2 50 50

-186.0 152.0

-186.0 52.0

-86.0 52.0

-86.0 152.0 5

331.1

,Point

-218.0 22.0 COMpute Page 2 page 3 of 12

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. 0 transport3.out Atcmn Attachment B TABLE NO.

1 COMPUTER PROGRAM DESIGNATION:

UTEXAS4 Originally Coded By Stephen G. Wright Version No. 4.0.0.8 -

RESULTS OF COMPUTATIONS PERFORMED USING THIS SOFTWARE

SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES UNLESS THEY HAVE

BEEN VERIFIED BY INDEPENDENT ANALYSES, EXPERIMENTAL DATA

OR FIELD EXPERIENCE. THE USER SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE ALGORITHMS *

AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES USED IN THIS SOFTWARE AND MUST HAVE *

READ ALL DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS SOFTWARE BEFORE ATTEMPTING

TO USE IT.

NEITHER SHINOAK SOFTWARE NOR STEPHEN G.

WRIGHT

MAKE OR ASSUME LIABILITY FOR ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR

IMPLIED, CONCERNING THE ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, USEFULNESS

OR ADAPTABILITY OF THIS SOFTWARE.

UTEXAS4 S/N:00107 Version: 4.0.0.8 -

Latest Revision: 07/27/2001 Licensed for use by: Larry Scheibel, Geomatrix Consultants Time and date of run: Wed Sep 11 09:41:51 2002 Name of input data file: L:\\Project\\5000s\\5117.015\\Slope Stability\\UTexas4\\transport road\\transport3.txt EST. OF YIELD ACC. (Static Loading, Search)

HBPP ISFSI -

Transport Road TABLE NO. 3

NEW PROFILE LINE DATA

Profile Line No. 1 - Material Type (Number): 1-

==

Description:==

Silty clay Point X

Y 1

-330.00

-33.00 2

40.00

-33.00 Profile Line No. 2 - Material Type (Number) : 2-

==

Description:==

Clayey sand Point X

Y 1

-330.00

-12.00 2

40.00

-12.00 Profile Line No. 3 - Material Type (Number): 3 -----

==

Description:==

___ Silty_______sandy_______c___ay______sat)___

==

Description:==

Silty sandy clay (sat) page 4 of 12

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. 0 transportlout Attachment B UTEXAS4 S/N:00107 -

Version: 4.0.0.8 -

Latest Revision: 07/27/2001 Licensed for use by: Larry Scheibel, Geomatrix Consultants Time and date of run: Wed Sep 11 09:41:51 2002 Name of input data file: L:\\Project\\5000s\\5117.015\\Slope Stability\\UTexas4\\transport road\\transport3.txt EST. OF YIELD ACC. (Static Loading, Search)

HBPP ISFSI - Transport Road TABLE NO. 38

FINAL

SUMMARY

OF COMPUTATIONS WITH FIXED-GRID

Number of circles attempted: 2500 Number of circles for which F calculated: 2165 Circle with Lowest Factor of Safety:

X coordinate for center: -122.73 Y coordinate for center: 139.76 Radius of circle: 151.465 Factor of safety: 1.732 Side force inclination: -13.70 Time Required for Computations: 108.0 seconds page 5 of 12

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. 0 Attachment B transport3(dyn).txt GRA HEAding follows -

EST.

OF YIELD ACC.

(Dynamic Loading)

HBPP ISFSI - Transport Road PROfile line data follow -

1 1 silty clay

-330

-33 40

-33 2 2 Clayey sand

-330

-12 40

-12 3 3 Silty sandy clay (sat)

-330 4

-120 4

-100

-6 6

-60 4

40 4

4 4 Silty sandy clay (unsat)

-330 6

-124 6

-120 4

5 5 Silty sandy clay (weaker)

-330 11.7

-295 11.7

-283 20

-251 20

-235 22

-19S 22

-165 20

-154 13

-138 13

-124 6

6 4 Silty sandy clay (unsat)

- II

-60 4

-56 6

40 6

7 S Silty sandy clay (weaker)

-56 6

-42 13

-26 13

-20 9

40 9

MATerial property data follow (for first stage) 1 Silty clay 128 = unit weight Conventional shear strengths 0

30 Piezometric Line 1

2 Clayey sand 128 = unit weight Conventional shear strengths 0 37 Piezometric Line 1

3 Silty sandy clay (sat) 125 = unit weight Conventional shear strength 0

30 Piezometric Line 1

4 Silty sandy clay (unsat) 125 = unit weight Conventional shear strength Page 1 page 6 of 12

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. 0 Attachment B transport3(dyn).txt GRA HEAding follows -

EST. OF YIELD ACC. (Dynamic Loading)

HBPP ISFSI -

Transport Road PROfile line data follow -

1 1 silty clay

-330

-33 40

-33 2 2 Clayey sand

-330

-12 40

-12 3 3 Silty sandy clay (sat)

-330 4

-1204

-100

-6

-80

-6

-60 4

40 4

4 4 Silty sandy clay (unsat)

-330 6

-124 6

-120 4

55 Silty sandy clay (weaker)

-330 11.7

-295 11.7

-283 20

-251 20

-235 22

-195 22

-165 20

-154 13

-138 13

-124 6

6 4 Silty sandy clay (unsat)

II

-60 4

-SE 6

40 3

7 S Silty sandy clay (weaker)

-56 6

-42 13

-26 13

-20 9

40 9

MATerial property data follow (for first stage) a Silty clay 128 = unit weight Conventional shear strengths 0

30 Piezometric Line 1

2 Clayey sand 128 = unit weight Conventional shear strengths 0 37 Piezometric Line 1

3 Silty sandy clay (sat) 125 = unit weight Conventional shear strength 0

30 Piezometric Line 1

4 Silty sandy clay (unsat) 125 = unit weight Conventional shear strength Page 1 page 6 of 12

GEO.HBIP.02.08 Rev. 0 Attachment B transport3(dyn).txt 125 - unit weight Conventional shear strength 900 0

No pore pressures PIEzometric line data follow -

1 Piezometric Line

-330 6

-124 6

-100

-6

-80

-6

-56 6

40 6

DIS SURface pressures to follow

-330 11.7 0.0 0

-295 11.7 0.0 0

-283 20 0.0 0

-251 20 0.0 0

-235 22 0.0 0

-218 22 0.0 0

-218 22 800.0 0

-196 22 800.0 0

-196 22 0.0 0

-19S 22 0.0 0

-165 20 0.0 0

-154 13 0.0 0

-138 13 0.0 0

-124 6

0.0 0

-120 4

0.0 0

-100 -6 0.0 0

-80

-6 0.0 0

-60 4

0.0 0

-56 6

0.0 0

-42 13 0.0 0

-26 13 0.0 0

-20 9

0.0 0

40 9

0.0 0

ANAlysis/computation data follow -

Circle