ML14339A656

Updated Safety Analysis Report (Usar), Rev 25 - Appendix E - Foundation Design Criteria

ML14339A656
Person / Time
Site:	Kewaunee
Issue date:	11/24/2014
From:	Dominion Energy Kewaunee
To:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML14339A626	List: ML14339A613 ML14339A614 ML14339A615 ML14339A616 ML14339A618 ML14339A621 ML14339A622 ML14339A624 ML14339A648 ML14339A649 ML14339A650 ML14339A651 ML14339A652 ML14339A653 ML14339A654 ML14339A655 ML14339A656 ML14339A674 ML14339A676
References
14-572
Download: ML14339A656 (122)

Text

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-i The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Appendix E Foundation Design Criteria

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-ii Intentionally Blank

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-iii The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Appendix E: Foundation Design Criteria Table of Contents Section Title Page E.1 Foundation Concept.................................................

E-1 E.1.1 Subsurface Exploration...............................................

E-1 E.1.2 Foundation Conditions...............................................

E-2 E.1.3 Structural Considerations.............................................

E-2 E.1.4 Settlement Calculations..............................................

E-3 E.2 Report on Foundation Conditions1......................................

E-9 E.2.1 Subsurface Conditions...............................................

E-9 E.2.1.1 General........................................................

E-9 E.2.1.2 Detailed Stratigraphy.............................................

E-10 E.2.1.3 Strength of Glacial Clays..........................................

E-11 E.2.1.4 Compressibility of Glacial Clays....................................

E-13 E.2.1.5 Properties of Outwash.............................................

E-15 E.2.1.6 Nature of Bedrock................................................

E-15 E.2.2 Types of Foundations................................................

E-16 E.2.2.1 Structural Requirements...........................................

E-16 E.2.2.2 Deep Foundations................................................

E-16 E.2.2.3 Shallow Foundations..............................................

E-19 E.2.2.4 Recommendations................................................

E-20 E.3 Settlement Measurements During Construction............................

E-28 E.3.1 Introduction........................................................

E-28 E.3.2 Settlement Reference Points...........................................

E-28 E.3.3 Settlement Readings.................................................

E-28 E.3.3.1 Summary.......................................................

E-31

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-iv The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Appendix E: Foundation Design Criteria List of Tables Table Title Page E.2-1 Stratigraphic Units...........................................

E-22

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-v The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Appendix E: Foundation Design Criteria List of Figures Figure Title Page E.1-1 Plan of Soil Borings.........................................

E-4 E.1-2 Preliminary Estimate of Settlements - Stage 1.....................

E-5 E.1-3 Location of Isolation Joints....................................

E-6 E.1-4 Calculated Settlements - Stage 1...............................

E-7 E.1-5 Calculated Settlements - Stage II...............................

E-8 E.2-1 Stratigraphic Units - Glacial Clays..............................

E-23 E.2-2 Unconfined Compressive Strengths.............................

E-24 E.2-3 Approximate Dead and Operating Loads.........................

E-25 E.2-4 Simplified Soil Conditions....................................

E-26 E.2-5 Estimate of Settlement of Containment Vessel....................

E-27 E.3-1 Location of Primary Reference Points...........................

E-32 E.3-2 Settlement Detection Reference Point...........................

E-33 E.3-3 Settlement Readings - Reference Point A.......................

E-34 E.3-4 Settlement Readings - Reference Point B.......................

E-35 E.3-5 Settlement Readings - Reference Point C.......................

E-36 E.3-6 Settlement Readings - Reference Point D.......................

E-37 E.3-7 Settlement Readings - Reference Point E.......................

E-38 E.3-8 Settlement Readings - Reference Point F.......................

E-39 E.3-9 Settlement Readings - Reference Point G.......................

E-40 E.3-10 Settlement Readings - Reference Point H.......................

E-41 General Notes..............................................

E-42 Log of Boring No. B-13......................................

E-43 Log of Boring No. B-14......................................

E-44 Log of Boring No. B-15......................................

E-45 Log of Boring No. B-16......................................

E-46 Log of Boring No. B-17......................................

E-47 Log of Boring No. B-18......................................

E-49 Log of Boring No. B-19......................................

E-50

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-vi The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Appendix E: Foundation Design Criteria List of Figures (continued)

Figure Title Page Log of Boring No. B-20......................................

E-52 Log of Boring No. B-21......................................

E-53 Log of Boring No. B-22......................................

E-54 Log of Boring No. B-23......................................

E-55 Log of Boring No. B-24......................................

E-57 Log of Boring No. B-25......................................

E-58 Log of Boring No. B-26......................................

E-60 Log of Boring No. B-27......................................

E-62 Log of Boring No. B-28......................................

E-64 Log of Boring No. B-29......................................

E-66 Log of Boring No. B-30......................................

E-67 Log of Boring No. B-31......................................

E-68 Log of Boring No. B-32......................................

E-69 Log of Boring No. B-33......................................

E-71 Log of Boring No. B-34......................................

E-73 Log of Boring No. B-35......................................

E-75 Log of Boring No. B-36......................................

E-76 Log of Boring No. B-37......................................

E-77 Log of Boring No. B-38......................................

E-79 Log of Boring No. B-39......................................

E-81 Log of Boring No. B-40......................................

E-83 Log of Boring No. B-41......................................

E-85 Log of Boring No. B-42......................................

E-86 Log of Boring No. B-43......................................

E-87 Log of Boring No. B-44......................................

E-88 Log of Boring No. B-45......................................

E-89 Log of Boring No. B-46......................................

E-90 Log of Boring No. B-47......................................

E-91

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-vii The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Appendix E: Foundation Design Criteria List of Figures (continued)

Figure Title Page Log of Boring No. B-48......................................

E-92 Log of Boring No. B-49......................................

E-93 Log of Boring No. B-50......................................

E-94 Log of Boring No. B-51......................................

E-95 Log of Boring No. B-52......................................

E-96 Log of Boring No. B-53......................................

E-97 Log of Boring No. B-54......................................

E-98 Log of Boring No. B-55......................................

E-99 Log of Boring No. B-56......................................

E-100 Log of Boring No. B-57......................................

E-101 Log of Boring No. B-58......................................

E-102 Log of Boring No. B-59......................................

E-103 Log of Boring No. 60........................................

E-104 Log of Boring No. 61........................................

E-105 Log of Boring No. B-63......................................

E-106 Log of Boring No. B-64......................................

E-107 Log of Boring No. B-65......................................

E-108 Log of Boring No. B-67......................................

E-109 Log of Boring No. B-68......................................

E-110 Log of Boring No. B-69......................................

E-111 Log of Boring No. B-70......................................

E-112 Log of Boring No. B-71......................................

E-113

Intentionally Blank Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-viii

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-1 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Appendix E Foundation Design Criteria The purpose of this Appendix is to present the results of the final phase of subsurface explorations, soil testing, and other investigations which have culminated in the decision to use a raft-type foundation. The criteria used in determining the arrangement of foundation slabs, their design, and their construction sequence are discussed. Settlement measurements, which were made during the construction period, are presented.

Professor Ralph B. Peck of the University of Illinois was engaged as a consultant to evaluate foundation conditions and to provide guidance during final foundation design. His report is given in part E.2 of this Appendix.

E.1 FOUNDATION CONCEPT E.1.1 Subsurface Exploration Preliminary site investigation, preliminary earthwork and foundation evaluations were performed by Dames & Moore. Their report on this phase of the work is included in Appendix A.

In order to obtain more detailed information on subsurface conditions, a comprehensive program of test borings and laboratory testing was conducted by Soil Testing Services of Wisconsin, Inc.,

as directed by Pioneer Service & Engineering Co., in collaboration with Professor Ralph B. Peck.

Sixty additional soil borings were made, of which forty were in the area of the plant buildings, twelve were in the switchyard area (B46 through B57), four at the location of transmission towers (B58 through B61), and four were located along the cooling water intake conduit in Lake Michigan (B63, 64, 65, and 67). The location of the borings in the area of the plant buildings is shown on Figure E.1-1. Twelve borings (B17, B19, B20, B25, B26, B27, B28, B30, B37, B38, B39, and B40) were drilled into rock. Relatively undisturbed soil samples at selected borings were obtained by means of 3-inch diameter thin-walled tube samplers and a 3-inch diameter Osterberg piston sampler.

Testing included pocket penetrometer tests, which are reported on the Logs of Borings (attached to this Appendix), unconfined compression tests reported in Figure E.2-2 of this Appendix, and consolidation tests. Water content and Unit Dry Density were determined for each unconfined compression test sample and for each consolidation test sample. The Liquid Limit and the Plastic Limit were determined for each consolidation test sample.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-2 E.1.2 Foundation Conditions Professor Peck, in his report Report on Foundation Conditions recommended that the foundation be of the soil-bearing type. The ultimate bearing capacity of the soil is given as 9 tons per square foot, and the following allowable maximum bearing pressures were recommended, as discussed in part E.2.2.

Loading Condition Factor of Safety Allowable Bearing Pressure Normal Loads 3.0 6000 psf Earthquake Loads 2.0 9000 psf The report also states that careful consideration must be given to the effects of differential settlements, and recommends that settlements be calculated by two methods. One method is the consolidation method using a compression index Ch = 0.042, as discussed in part E.2.1. The other method is to assume that the soil is elastic with a modulus of deformation of 1,200,000 pounds per square foot and calculate settlements according to the elastic compression of the clay layers as discussed in part E.2.1. The report states that most of the settlement will occur during construction, with very little settlement taking place after construction, and that it is likely that the high degree pre-compression indicated by a pre-consolidation load on the order of 8 tons per square foot will be associated with a much smaller settlement, probably on the order of one-quarter of the calculated value, as discussed in part E.2.2.

E.1.3 Structural Considerations As indicated in the following table, the allowable soil-bearing pressures are attainable with a raft-type foundation.

Building Approximate Average Soil Pressure Reactor Building 5300 psf Auxiliary Building, Except Fuel Storage Area 3000 psf Fuel Storage Area of Auxiliary Building 4000 psf Turbine Building, Except Turbine Support 2000 psf Turbine Support Portion of Turbine Building 3000 psf Administration Building 1500 psf Since soil-bearing pressures are within allowable limits, the principal structural consideration associated with a raft-type foundation is the stresses, which would be induced in each structure by differential settlement between its various parts.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-3 Preliminary studies indicated that the major portion of the soil pressure would be due to the weight of the building structures and very little would be due to the weight of equipment or to operating loads. Since Professor Peck predicted that most of the settlement would occur during the construction period, it was decided to construct the buildings in separate blocks so that each could settle separately. After the settlement had essentially ceased, the blocks would be interconnected so that the structure would act as an integrated unit in resisting equipment, operating, and seismic loads.

Because of the importance of determining when settlement has ceased, settlement of each block was accurately measured during the construction period, as reported in part E.3.

By allowing the differential settlement to take place before the structures were interconnected, stresses within the completed structure due to differential settlement would either be eliminated or kept within the limits, which the structures could tolerate.

E.1.4 Settlement Calculations For a first approximation, the structures were subdivided into five blocks. Settlements were calculated by both the elastic and the consolidation methods. The results of this study, for three of the five blocks, are shown on Figure E.1-2. The study showed that:

1. The blocks were still too large as indicated by the stresses caused by unequal loading within the blocks.

2. Settlements calculated by the consolidation method were less than those calculated by the elastic method.

The unequal loading conditions of the larger blocks were reevaluated. This entailed the division of the larger blocks into smaller units, increasing the number of blocks from five to a total of nine, as indicated on Figure E.1-3. Settlements and stresses were recalculated for the newly divided areas using the elastic method, since it gave the most conservative results.

Detailed studies and calculations were made to determine the most compatible division of the building blocks relative to loading conditions, calculated settlements and the placement of settlement detection points within certain blocks. Information and data developed from these studies were referred to Professor R. Peck for confirmation.

The final location of isolation joints is shown on Figure E.1-3, together with the average soil pressure, which was estimated, would occur under each block before they were interconnected.

The estimated settlements which would occur under each block before interconnection (Stage I) are shown on Figure E.1-4. The estimated total settlement of the completed structure after the blocks have been interconnected (Stage II), the equipment installed, and the plant in operation, is shown on Figure E.1-5.

Following completion of the construction, the isolation joints were all connected together to form a solid block.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-4 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.1-1 PLAN OF SOIL BORINGS

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-5 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.1-2 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF SETTLEMENTS - STAGE 1

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-6 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.1-3 LOCATION OF ISOLATION JOINTS

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-7 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.1-4 CALCULATED SETTLEMENTS - STAGE 1

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-8 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.1-5 CALCULATED SETTLEMENTS - STAGE II

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-9 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

E.2 REPORT ON FOUNDATION CONDITIONS1

- By Professor Ralph B. Peck, Dec. 13, 1967 A preliminary study by Dames & Moore, consultants in applied earth sciences, is described in their Report, Geological and Seismological Environmental Studies, Proposed Nuclear Power Plant, Kewaunee, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (see Appendix A). The report was based on information derived from several sources including the results of 12 test borings, 2 of which were carried out by Dames & Moore and the remainder by Soil Testing Services of Wisconsin, Inc.

The present report is based on more detailed information obtained from a series of 54 additional soil borings and 4 borings for obtaining rock cores. Various laboratory tests were carried out on samples obtained from the borings. Most of the borings were made at the site of Plant No. 1, which represents the southern half of an ultimate two-plant development.

The information contained in the Dames & Moore report, as well as their recommendations, are considered pertinent and appropriate except insofar as they are specifically modified by the results of the supplementary investigation described herein.

E.2.1 Subsurface Conditions E.2.1.1 General According to the report by Dames & Moore (Appendix A), the site is underlain by a deposit of glacial till generally between 15-and 40-feet thick, which rests on a deposit of lacustrine materials with a similar range of thickness. The lacustrine materials rest upon bedrock, consisting of Niagaran dolomite, although in many instances a deposit of glacial outwash of granular characteristics is found between the latter two formations.

The additional subsurface exploration was planned to permit a better definition of the subsurface materials, to provide detailed information concerning their strength and compressibility and to obtain a more definitive description of the bedrock.

The locations of the borings are shown on the Plan of Soil Borings prepared by Pioneer Service

& Engineering Company shown in Figure E.1-1. Beneath the principal areas to be occupied by the first plant and its appurtenant structures, the borings were located on a rectangular gridwork with spacing usually ranging from 50 to 70 feet.

1. This part (E.2) is Professor Pecks report essentially verbatim except for parenthesized editorial comments.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-10 Most of the borings were drilled to investigate the degree of continuity of the subsurface conditions. These borings were made by means of standard drive sampling techniques in which split-spoon samples were recovered at spacings of 5 feet or less. The standard penetration resistance was determined for all split-spoon samples. In addition, the unconfined compressive strength of the clayey materials was judged on the basis of readings made on a pocket penetrometer.

In selected borings, less disturbed samples were obtained by means of thin-walled tube samplers of 3-inch diameter, or by means of an Osterberg piston sampler, also of 3-inch diameter.

Selected samples from the borings of larger diameter were used for determination of pertinent physical properties of the materials, including the consolidation characteristics and unconfined compressive strengths.

To permit evaluation of the quality of the bedrock for carrying large concentrated loads, four borings were made in the reactor area to recover NX rock cores for depths of 30 feet into the rock. In one of these (B69), BX cores were actually obtained. NX coring was carried out in the other three (B68, B70, and B71).

All the borings in the supplementary detailed series were carried out by Soil Testing Services of Wisconsin, Inc., under the direction of Pioneer Service and Engineering Company on the basis of general consultation with the writer. The results are attached at the end of this Appendix.

E.2.1.2 Detailed Stratigraphy The stratigraphy of the glacial deposits at the site proved to be considerably more complex than indicated by the preliminary borings. Several tills and several lacustrine deposits, sometimes with transitional zones, appear to be present. Because of the fairly similar color of most of the materials, correlation proved to be difficult and could not be made satisfactorily on the basis of the usual field and office descriptions contained in the borings logs. Therefore, all the samples were reexamined by the writer or under his direction and further classified primarily on a geological basis. The results of the studies are shown in cross sections, Figure E.2-1.

According to Figure E.2-1, the primarily cohesive materials beneath the site may be divided into five fairly consistent stratigraphic units designated as subsurface units. These are numbered consecutively from the top down as indicated in Table E.2-1. Table E.2-1 contains not only a verbal description of the materials but also characteristic values of some of the pertinent physical properties. The assignment of these values to the various stratigraphic units is discussed under the next subheading.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-11 Of the five stratigraphic units listed in Table E.2-1, and shown graphically in Figure E.2-1, the most definite and consistent are the uppermost (No. 1), undoubtedly a glacial till, and the lowermost (No. 5), an almost grit-free clay of great uniformity, unquestionably of lacustrine origin. A very similar unit (No. 3) occurs near mid-depth of the section, although the presence of occasional grains of sand and pebbles is noted in the otherwise grit-free clays. The two intervening units (Nos. 2 and 4) may be regarded as transitional. They may have been deposited very close to the ice front at a time when the melting edge of the glacier was resting in and was buoyed up by a glacial lake. What would otherwise have been lacustrine materials may have become contaminated by the deposition of coarser materials from the melting glacier-resting overhead or from large blocks of floating ice containing coarser materials. Hence, for the most part, subsurface units 2 and 4 are similar in physical characteristics to the more typical lacustrine deposits 3 and 5 but contain substantial quantities of coarser materials interspersed throughout a matrix of clay.

Careful attention was given to the occurrence of the outwash material below the till and lacustrine deposits and above the bedrock. The thickness of outwash was found to be extremely variable. A total thickness as small as 2 feet (Boring 17) was encountered beneath the west half of the site for Plant No. 1. The thickness beneath Plant No. 1 appears to range between about 2 and 15 feet. However, there may be areas where no outwash occurs at all, as suggested by Boring 11, at a distance of only about 150 feet from the edge of Plant No. 1.

The significance of the alluvial deposit, and the character and significance of the underlying Niagaran bedrock, will be discussed in following sections.

The strength and other physical characteristics of the five subsurface stratigraphic units consisting of tills and lacustrine materials will be discussed under the next subheading. Since the materials comprising all the units, except the silts and sands associated with unit 2, are primarily clays, the five stratigraphic units will be referred to briefly as the glacial clays.

E.2.1.3 Strength of Glacial Clays By far the largest proportion of the data concerning the strength of the glacial clays consists of the results of pocket penetrometer readings on samples obtained in the 2-inch split spoon. The results are reported in terms of the unconfined compressive strength of the material. The pocket penetrometer is manufactured to read compressive strengths directly, on the basis of a statistical correlation carried out by the manufacturer of the instrument. There is considerable evidence that, for ordinary types of clays such as those at the Kewaunee site, the calibration is reasonably valid. Strengths in excess of 4.5 tons per square foot are beyond the capacity of the penetrometer.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-12 The results of penetrometer-obtained unconfined compressive strengths are shown on Figure E.2-2 for most of the borings in the vicinity of Plant No. 1. The figure may be regarded as a pair of east-west cross sections, one through the northerly and the other through the southerly portion of the buildings. Borings not on a section have been projected to the line of one of the sections. The quantities are plotted as a function of elevation with respect to mean sea level.

It is apparent that the strength of most of the borings, except for a stiff upper crust, appears to range between about 1 and 2 tons per square foot with occasional values outside these limits.

The tests were carried out, however, on samples inevitably disturbed by the driving of the split spoon. Moreover, the penetrometer was pushed into the surface zone of the sample where the effect of disturbances was likely to be a maximum. Hence, it is very likely that the recorded compressive strengths are appreciably smaller than those that would be obtained by means of either penetration tests or unconfined compression tests on more nearly undisturbed materials.

Those borings from which 3-inch thin-walled tube or Osterberg samples were obtained are indicated separately in Figure E.2-2. In some of these borings, notably Nos. 17 and 26, considerable difficulty was encountered in sampling through the lacustrine layers the samples were probably disturbed to a marked degree. In most of the other borings, particularly Nos. 20 and 38, many of the samples appeared to be relatively free from disturbance. The unconfined compressive strengths of these samples, as determined directly by unconfined compression tests, are indicated in Figure E.2-2 to the left of the lines representing the borings. The unconfined compressive strengths as deduced from the penetration tests are shown on the right side of the lines.

After completion of the unconfined compression tests on many of the relatively undisturbed samples, the samples were completely remolded at unaltered water content and again subjected to unconfined compression tests. The remolded compressive strengths were usually on the order of 0.8 to 1.0 ton per square foot, substantially less than those obtained on the undisturbed specimens. Hence, the degree of sensitivity of the lacustrine materials is on the order of 4. It is to be expected, therefore, that the degree of disturbance associated with the driving of 2-inch samplers would reduce the unconfined compressive strength to about one-half its undisturbed value, and that there should be a substantial difference in the unconfined compressive strength of samples obtained in 2-inch drive samplers as contrasted to those taken in the 3-inch thin-walled or Osterberg samplers.

The strengths of the glacial clays established as outlined in the foregoing paragraphs, and as shown in Table E.2-1, will serve to permit the evaluation of the factor of safety of soil-supported footings or rafts on any of the materials. The adequacy of a soil-supported foundation is determined, however, by the compressibility of the soils as well as by their strength. This property is considered in the next subsection.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-13 E.2.1.4 Compressibility of Glacial Clays The compressibility of clay-like soils is determined most directly by laboratory one-dimensional consolidation tests. Unfortunately, the results are seriously influenced by relatively minor disturbances in sampling and testing. Moreover, the settlement having its seat in the compressible clay is determined to a very great extent by the value of the maximum pressure, known as the pre-consolidation load, to which the deposit has previously been subjected.

Increases in stress smaller than this value produce relatively little settlement as compared to those greater than the pre-consolidation load. Unfortunately, considerable interpretation and judgment are required to establish appropriate values for the pre-consolidation load.

The e-log p curves for the four consolidation tests carried out on samples from Boring 20 and for two tests from Boring 26A were analyzed on the basis of graphical constructions proposed by Casagrande and by Schmertmann, and by other techniques for evaluating the pre-consolidation load. The resulting values varied within a range from about 1.8 to 7 tons per square foot. Inasmuch as the unconfined compressive strengths of the best samples of the same materials were much less variable, it is likely that the scatter in pre-consolidation load is due to varying degrees of sampling disturbance. Moreover, since all the clays below the upper till deposit, stratigraphic unit No. 1, were probably consolidated under the ice sheet responsible for the upper till, it seems most probable that stratigraphic units 2 through 5 were consolidated under the same load and that the appropriate value for the pre-consolidation load is the highest one measured on any of the samples.

The pre-consolidation load can also be estimated on the basis of the unconfined compressive strength. It has been noted that an excellent statistical correlation exists between the undrained shear strength (half the unconfined compressive strength for saturated clays) and the pre-consolidation load at any depth in a deposit of clay of uniform plasticity. The ratio of undrained shearing strength to effective overburden pressure (commonly known as the c/p ratio) is a function of the plasticity index. Values of plasticity index have been determined in some detail on Boring 20. For all the glacial clays below the uppermost till, the average value is about

20. The corresponding c/p value, according to the statistical relationship, is 0.18. The value of c for the glacial clays is one-half the average unconfined compressive strength or approximately 1.5 tons per square foot. The maximum previous overburden pressure should then have been on the order of 1.5/0.18 = 8.3 tons per square foot. This value agrees well with the maximum obtained from any of the consolidated test samples.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-14 Thus, it would appear that the value of the pre-consolidation load can be taken on the order of 8 tons per square foot. The present overburden pressure at elevation 540, approximately the bottom of the clay strata, is about 2.53 tons per square foot. The increase in soil pressure at any depth due to the proposed construction is not likely to exceed 1.1 tons per square foot. Hence, the pre-consolidation load of 8 tons per square foot is well in excess of the pressure of 3.63 tons per square foot that will act at this level after completion of the structure.

For values of pressure appreciably less that the pre-consolidation load, a conservative but reasonable estimate of settlements can be made on the assumption that the compressibility corresponds to the slope of the hysteresis loop formed when the loading at any stage in a consolidation test is reduced to a small value and then increased to its former maximum value.

The slope of the hysteresis loop corresponds approximately to that of a reloading curve in a consolidation test. In the field it is reasoned that the additional load on the soil caused by the structure is also associated with a reloading curve because the pressures that produced the pre-consolidation load were reduced by erosion or by melting of the ice sheet before the weight of the structure was added.

Rebound and reloading loops were obtained on three consolidation tests from Boring 20 (samples 14, 17, and 21). The value of compression index Ch = 0.042 is considered to be a satisfactory approximation for investigating the order of magnitude of settlement of the structure and, particularly, for investigating the differential settlements among various portions of the structure in the event the foundation is soil-supported.

The relatively large magnitude of the pre-consolidation load compared to the final pressures after construction is also significant with respect to the rate at which the settlement will develop.

It has consistently been observed that the time lag of settlement due to the expulsion of water from the pores of a saturated clay becomes important and takes place in accordance with the conventional theory of consolidation only for pressures at or substantially greater than the pre-consolidation load. Below the pre-consolidation load the settlements occur rapidly, with little hydrostatic lag. It is anticipated that the time lag of the settlements associated with the glacial clay layers beneath the structure would be on the order of weeks rather than years, as might be the case if the pressures were substantially above the pre-consolidation pressure.

Hence, most of the settlement due to the construction of the initial parts of the structures will have occurred before subsequent portions are built.

Elastic movements may be estimated on the premise that the modulus of deformation of the glacial clays in a truly undisturbed state is on the order of 200 times the unconfined compressive strength. This correlation is well established and is far more reliable than the use of module derived from stress-strain curves on disturbed or even slightly disturbed samples. For an unconfined strength of 3 tons per square foot, the corresponding modulus is 1,200,000 pounds per square foot.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-15 E.2.1.5 Properties of Outwash The outwash resting upon the bedrock surface, wherever encountered, is extremely resistant to the standard penetration test. In most locations, 100 blows of the standard hammer produced a penetration of only a fraction of a foot. The outwash is unquestionably a competent and virtually incompressible material capable, in sufficient thickness, of developing intense skin friction along the lower portion of a pile embedded in it. However, the deposit appears to have been distributed non-uniformly over the surface of the rock or to have been eroded non-uniformly after its deposition. In any event, it is known to be as little as 2-feet thick beneath Plant No. 1, and to be missing altogether at other places in the vicinity. Therefore it must be assumed that the outwash is not present everywhere beneath the building site.

The field records of the boring foremen and inspectors were reviewed carefully to check on the accuracy of information concerning the thickness of the outwash deposit. The information appears to be reliable.

E.2.1.6 Nature of Bedrock Several of the soil borings made in connection with the present investigation were extended by coring a distance of some 10 feet into the Niagaran dolomite. The rock was usually described as moderately highly weathered, bleached white due to leaching, containing calcite replacement in vugs and on incipient fractures, and as being severely fractured with crushed zones.

Occasionally instances of weathering were reported as indicated by discoloration. Although sampled in a double-tubed core barrel, core breakage and core loss were high.

The fractured nature of the upper part of the rock and the possibility of weathering and of solution led to the making of four additional borings for the specific purpose of obtaining NX double-tube core barrel samples through about the upper 30 feet of the rock.

The supplementary cores are also highly fractured throughout their length and recovery was poor. The breakage of the one hole cored with BX equipment was not notably greater than that of the NX cores. Most of the fractures appear fresh as if they had been caused during coring.

Nevertheless, the quality of the rock is suspect because at most locations the upper part of the Niagaran can be sampled readily with high recovery and with substantial lengths of single pieces. Present knowledge of the quality of the rock does not demonstrate the existence of solution cavities or of a collapse structure, but strongly suggests an inherent weakness possibly associated with nearby solution. There is no question that the rock is fractured or very susceptible to fracturing at close intervals not only at the surface but for some depth.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-16 E.2.2 Types of Foundations E.2.2.1 Structural Requirements The foundation for the power plant must everywhere have an adequate factor of safety against a possible failure or rupture of the supporting medium whether it be soil or bedrock. In addition, the differential settlements between various portions of the structure must be tolerable. It is understood that the settlement must be minimized between the reactor and the fuel storage unit.

It is also understood that a considerable part of the total load on various elements of the foundation will be active before it is necessary to make the connections where differential movements are to be minimized.

The gross features of the loading are shown in Figure E.2-3. The simplified load diagrams shown in Figure E.2-3 are adequate for preliminary estimates of total and differential settlement necessary to investigate the feasibility of soil-supported foundations. More detailed studies will, of course, be required before a soil-supported design can be finalized.

For investigating the general stability and settlement of the proposed structure, the set of simplified soil conditions shown in Figure E.2-4 has been adopted. These conditions are an idealization of those shown in the cross sections, Figure E.2-1, and represent to a reasonable degree of approximation one actual condition beneath the site. Figure E.2-4 also shows the approximate elevations of the base of the reactor slab and of the foundation for the turbine.

Several types of foundations have been given consideration. The advantages and disadvantages of each will be discussed under the following subheadings. At appropriate places in the discussion further details concerning the requirements of the structure will be brought out.

In addition to the normal static requirements, consideration in the design of the nuclear plant must be given to the possibility of earthquake damage. None of the foundation materials at the site is subject to decrease in strength as a consequence of earthquake motions. Therefore, the only items of concern with respect to earthquake design are the ability of the subsurface materials to carry increased vertical loads associated with rocking motions caused by the earthquake, and the magnification of the movements of the base of the structure with respect to those of the bedrock on account of the intervening soil materials.

E.2.2.2 Deep Foundations As a rule, heavily loaded structures with small tolerable differential settlements can be supported most satisfactorily and economically on pile or pier foundations extending to firm material even the bearing stratum is at a considerable depth. Economic considerations usually require that the load per pile or pier be relatively high. Consideration has been given to establishing the plant on piles or piers supported by the bedrock and to piles supported on the outwash deposit.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-17 The present state of knowledge does not permit a recommendation of high-capacity piles driven to the surface of the bedrock. The highly fractured condition of the rock has been noted wherever the rock has been penetrated by core drilling and the possibility of solution along joints and bedding planes has not been positively eliminated. The degree of disintegration of the surface of the rock is undoubtedly substantially greater at some locations than at others.

Inasmuch as no driven piles can be expected to penetrate appreciably into the rock, the support for some piles is certain to be much less satisfactory than that for others. Piles intended to carry high loadings but resting above locally inferior rock will not accept their share of the load but will transfer it to neighboring piles on better support. The neighboring piles are then likely to be overloaded. Unless a large number of piles is furnished, so that the statistical chance of overloading any single pile is small, the settlement of the foundation locally may be excessive.

Furthermore, the pattern of settlement is likely to be erratic and unpredictable. The risk of settlements of this sort can be diminished only by reducing the nominal load per pile to a comparatively small value such as 50 or 60 tons.

It is doubtful if piles of a displacement type could be driven to contact with the bedrock surface without pre-excavation or pre-coring to reduce resistance and to reduce heave. Steel pipe piles closed with re-enforced flat plates without an overhang or mandrel-driven shell piles with large point diameters would have the best chance of developing bearing on the surface of the bedrock.

Even beneath such piles the area of contact between the plate or point and the rock could be small; if the rock were heavily jointed and shattered, considerable settlement might occur before the pile achieved resistance.

Steel H-piles could probably be driven without the necessity for pre-coring and could possibly be driven through the dense alluvial materials to bedrock. However, the flanges of the piles are almost certain to be damaged while being forced through the outwash, and the piles may become so distorted as not to reach bearing on the rock at all. The high intensity of stress beneath the small area of contact between the H-pile and the underlying rock would undoubtedly lead to local settlements where the rock is most severely shattered or suffers other defects.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-18 Piers could be drilled through the glacial clays and the outwash, if present, to the surface of the bedrock. If the rock is severely shattered, as indicated by the borings, it would not seem advisable to transfer large concentrated loads from the piers to the surface of the rock.

Moreover, it would probably be necessary to drill with mud-filled holes in order to prevent incursion of the alluvium below groundwater level. The slurry would prevent cleaning and inspection of the bottom of the hole. Although casing might be installed to permit pumping out the hole and to allow the necessary preparation and inspection, the shattered nature of the rock, which serves locally as an aquifer, is likely to permit so much inflow that it would be difficult or impractical to expose the bedrock surface. Even if the surface appeared to be satisfactory, there is no assurance from the core borings that the quality of the rock is not locally inferior at various depths below the rock surface. Therefore, the possibility exists that a heavily loaded pier on the surface of the bedrock may settle appreciably.

The latter possibility could be largely avoided by continuing the piers in the form of drilled-in caissons to depths of 10- to 20-feet into the rock. Even if the quality of the rock were variable and somewhat poor within this depth, the distribution of the load over the fairly large area of the sides of the drilled hole would substantially reduce the stresses in the rock and would greatly reduce the settlement.

Of the various alternatives discussed for deep foundations, only the drilled-in caisson established well into the rock appears to be positive means of carrying heavy loads without the possibility of erratic settlements. Unfortunately, conclusions concerning the suitability of all foundations to rock are based upon inspection of rock cores subject to a considerable degree of interpretation. It is not known positively whether the fractured nature of the rock could be a consequence of the coring techniques, although this possibility seems most unlikely. Before a deep foundation to rock could be considered seriously, it would seem necessary to attempt to drill one or more large-diameter holes extending into the rock to permit more detailed study.

If the deposit of outwash lying above the bedrock were of sufficient thickness beneath the entire site, it would provide an ideal means for supporting the facility by means of displacement piles such as concrete-filled steel pipe piles. Displacement piles could probably be driven into the outwash only a few feet before high resistance would be developed and before a high capacity to withstand loads could be achieved. The relatively high stresses beneath the points of such piles would be distributed through the outwash to the underlying rock, and would therefore not cause the erratic differential settlements that might develop if the piles extended directly to the rock surface. The minimum thickness of outwash to provide a satisfactory foundation for driven piles would be on the order of 10 feet; a thickness of 15 feet would be decidedly preferable. Since the thickness is locally very much less, and may even be zero, this alternative type of foundation is not available.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-19 E.2.2.3 Shallow Foundations The ultimate bearing capacity of a footing or raft located above stiff saturated clay can be taken with sufficient accuracy as 3.0 times the unconfined compressive strength. The average unconfined compressive strength of the materials below foundation level is on the order of 3.0 tons per square foot. Therefore, a soil pressure of about 9 tons per square foot would be required before failure would occur.

Under dead load and probable live load, the factor of safety against a bearing capacity failure should be approximately 3. Hence, the allowable soil pressure for such loading would be on the order of 6000 pounds per square foot. Inasmuch as the average loading over the base of the reactor building, with a radius of 59 feet, would be about 7400 pounds per square foot, it would be advisable to increase the diameter of the support for the reactor to bring the average soil pressure within the allowable limits. The maximum soil pressures under normal plus seismic loads could be permitted to reduce the factor of safety to 2.0.

It is anticipated that no serious problems in design will be experienced in order to satisfy the above criteria with respect to the ultimate bearing capacity of the underlying layers of clay.

Hence, the suitability of a soil-supported foundation is determined by the magnitude of the expected total and differential settlements.

The details of the settlement calculations are dependent to a considerable extent on the actual sizes and intensities of the permanent loadings of the various footings, the elevations at which the loads are applied, and the stage in construction of the facility beyond which differential settlements become significant. Studies involving such calculations must be carried out before final foundation design is completed. It is necessary initially, however, to have the assurance that the results of the settlement investigations will be satisfactory. For this purpose relatively simple settlement calculations are adequate.

The settlement of the reactor has been estimated on the assumption that it will rest on a raft applying a pressure of 5000 pounds per square foot at elevation 570. The underlying compressible materials (subsurface units 4 and 5, Figure E.2-1) are assumed to extend to elevation 540. Present ground surface is considered to be at elevation 605, and present groundwater table at a depth of 12 feet. The details of the calculations are shown in Figure E.2-5. The settlement of the reactor foundation, on the assumption that the compression index Ch = 0.042 as suggested in part E.2, is found to be 1.27 inches.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-20 The foregoing calculation is made on the assumption that settlement begins at a compressibility indicated by the value Ch, as soon as the stresses from the reactor begin to exceed the present effective overburden stresses. In reality, it is likely that the high degree of pre-compression indicated by a pre-consolidation load on the order of 8 tons per square foot will be associated with a much smaller settlement, probably on the order of one-quarter of the calculated value.

The calculated settlements are so small that the real settlements are likely to be essentially of an elastic nature rather than of the type generally associated with consolidation. Under the relief of stress associated with the excavation of some 35 feet of overburden, the bottom of the excavated area will rise. Thereafter, as the loads are applied, the structure will settle with respect to the position of the heaved ground surface. The heave and the subsequent settlement can be calculated on the assumption that the subsoil is elastic with a modulus of deformation of 1,200,000 pounds per square foot. Time lag may be ignored.

Insight into the probable behavior of the foundation will be enhanced by calculating the settlement in accordance with both sets of assumptions, inasmuch as the real behavior is likely to be intermediate between that predicted by the two procedures.

In reality, a substantial part of the recovery of the heave will take place under the weight of the foundations themselves before any additional structural loads are imposed. The settlement up to this point will be of no consequence whatsoever. The addition of further structural loads will cause settlements that will be significant only if structural elements are joined to others at points and in manners such that differential movement would not be tolerable. Before the necessary critical connections are made between various parts of structure, it seems virtually certain that the remaining differential settlements will be reduced to magnitudes of the order of 1/4 to 3/8 inch, comparable to those that would be experienced even if the structure could be supported on deep foundations to a firm base.

E.2.2.4 Recommendations It is recommended that the foundation be designed for direct support on the glacial clays. The design will require careful attention to the variations in settlement associated with the loading and layout of the various footings or rafts. Preliminary calculations indicate, however, that the settlements will be moderate. In some instances, the effects of differential settlement in critical areas can be reduced to small and tolerable limits by making the critical joints or connections at the latest possible stage in loading compatible with the construction sequence. In other instances, preference may be given to combining various foundations and portions of structures into fairly rigid units, or to the alternative of providing individual foundations connected by structures having a high degree of flexibility. The possibility of installing joints to permit movement in the early stages of construction, but which can be converted to rigid connections later, should also be considered.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-21 The safety of such a foundation against a bearing capacity failure is assured. The differential settlements, to the extent that they occur, will be systematic rather than erratic and can be considered highly predictable. To aid in field decisions regarding the appropriateness of making critical connections during construction, reference points should be located on the foundation slabs as soon as they are cast and settlements determined with a high order of accuracy with respect to the movement of the underlying bedrock.

At the present state of our knowledge concerning rock conditions, and in view of the uneven thickness of the outwash above the rock, deep foundations cannot be considered acceptable unless the loading per unit is held to very modest magnitudes. Since the difficulties with pile driving, including those associated with heave and displacement, increase rapidly with increasing number of piles, reduction of the load per pile may not only be uneconomic but may give rise to construction difficulties.

For the particular conditions at the site, the soil-supported foundation is considered more reliable and predictable than deep foundations containing heavily loaded individual units. If further consideration is given to foundations of the latter type, direct exploration of the upper portion of the bedrock by means of test caissons is considered essential.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-22 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Table E.2-1 STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS

1. Reddish-brown clay with sand and pebbles (locally overlain by top soil and/or silty fine to gravelly sand). Undoubtedly till. Clayey portions, unconfined compressive strength qu usually at least 4.5 tons per square foot.

2. Grayish-brown clay with small inclusions of silt or with occasional sand grains or pebbles; gray silt and/or sand, sometimes stratified. Probably lacustrine. Clayey portions, qu about 4 tons per square foot.

3. Grayish-brown clear clay containing almost no pebbles or sand grains. Lacustrine, probably near toe of glacier. Sensitivity fairly high. Undisturbed qu about 3 tons per square foot.

4. Grayish-brown clay with sand and pebbles. Possibly till, or lacustrine deposit similar to paragraph 3 above in which small amount of coarse material has dropped from ice.

Undisturbed qu about 2.5 to 3.5 tons per square foot.

5. Grayish-brown clear clay containing almost no pebbles or sand grains. Lacustrine, probably near toe of glacier. Sensitivity fairly high. Undisturbed qu about 3 tons per square foot. LL = about 40 (range 37-50); PL = about 20 (range 18-24); water content about 28 (range 27-33); Liquidity index about 0.4.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-23 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.2-1 STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS - GLACIAL CLAYS

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-24 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.2-2 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-25 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.2-3 APPROXIMATE DEAD AND OPERATING LOADS

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-26 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.2-4 SIMPLIFIED SOIL CONDITIONS

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-27 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.2-5 ESTIMATE OF SETTLEMENT OF CONTAINMENT VESSEL

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-28 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

E.3 SETTLEMENT MEASUREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION E.3.1 Introduction The foundation concept, which was selected for use at the Kewaunee Plant, described in part E.1, required that the structures be constructed in large independent blocks which were separated from each other by isolation joints. This was done in order to allow the settlement of each block to occur (some of which will be more than others) without causing stresses in the final structure. After most of the settlement has occurred, the various blocks were interconnected by completing the construction at the isolation joints.

In order to determine when settlement had occurred so that the independent blocks may be interconnected, accurate settlement measurements were made during the construction period.

These measurements are presented herein and are correlated with the predicted settlement.

E.3.2 Settlement Reference Points Eight primary reference points for accurate measurement of actual foundation settlement relative to the underlying bedrock were installed at the locations shown on Figure E.3.1. Details of these primary reference points are shown on Figure E.3.2. They consist of a 11/4-inch steel rod which is grouted into bedrock and which extends up into the concrete base slab. This rod is isolated from the surrounding soil by a 4-inch pipe casing and from the concrete slab by an 8-inch pipe sleeve. Settlements were read by using a plunger-type gauge, which measures relative movement between the top of the 11/4 inch rod and 8-inch pipe sleeve. This gauge provided measurements to one-thousandth of an inch.

Secondary reference points were established at various other locations on the base slab.

Measurements on these points were made with an engineers level.

E.3.3 Settlement Readings The actual settlement readings, associated predicted settlements using the elastic method, the actual weight of the construction in place at the time the settlement reading was made, and the weight of the overburden which had been removed are plotted on Figure E.3-3 through E.3-10.

The following are specific comments concerning the settlement readings at each reference point:

1. Reference Point A - Fuel Handling Area This reference point settlement (Figure E.3-3) follows predictable behavior patterns. The slight decrease in settlement at the reference point indicated in the early part of 1969 was caused by an eccentricity of loading. The eccentric load resulted from the construction of the concrete wall along Column Row #9 prior to the construction of other portions supported by this slab.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-29 Settlement readings were started after the base slab was constructed. Settlement caused by the weight of the base slab was not measured at this reference point because the point was improperly installed prior to placement of the slab. After the reference point installation was corrected, the subsequent readings (starting October 8, 1969) were accurate, but they showed settlements relative to the October 8, 1969, position of the base slab rather than the no load position.

The soil pressure at this reference point was approaching its design value as a separate block. When this design value was reached, the isolation joints were closed and the fuel handling area joined to the adjacent blocks to the east and west.

Settlements were running about 35% of the calculated value. This indicates that the clay is much stiffer than assumed.

2. Reference Points B and C - Reactor Building The settlement at these two reference points (Figure E.3-4 and Figure E.3-5) was running between 30% (Point C) and 45% (Point B) of calculated values, and were following predictable behavior patterns except for the period between November 1969 and March 1970.

The departure from predictable behavior observed during this period was due to the base slab rising roughly 1/4 inch instead of continuing to settle. An extensive investigation of this apparent anomaly was made. First, the validity of the readings was verified by measurements on secondary reference points. This latter set of readings revealed that the uplift was confined to the northeast portion of the base slab. Calculation of load eccentricity could account for only 20% of the movement. The investigation concluded that the most probable reason for this behavior was the occurrence of a localized area of frozen clay under the northeastern portion of the slab. Notwithstanding the attempt to keep the clay from freezing by the inclusion of electric heating elements in the mud slab, and by maintaining working temperatures in the Shield Building during the winter of 1969-1970, the local heat loss in an area between the Shield Building perimeter and the adjacent heated slabs appears to have been sufficient to permit some volume of the clay to be frozen. Heat transfer analyses bear out this conclusion.

Continued observation had shown that the settlement returned to the predictable behavior pattern during the summer of 1970 and continued as expected.

The results of extensive evaluations were reviewed by Professor R. B. Peck, who concurred with the conclusion that no permanent damage had occurred to either the soil or the structure.

When the Shield Building concrete work was completed, the isolation joints were closed thus tying the Reactor Building to the Auxiliary Building.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-30

3. Reference Points D and E - Auxiliary Building Service Area In general, the settlements of these two points (Figure E.3-6 and Figure E.3-7) followed predictable behavior when the eccentricity of loading was considered. The effect of this eccentricity is most evident in the settlement readings at reference point E (Figure E.3-7) which went up for seven months before it started down. At this stage in the construction schedule, the work accomplished in this area consisted principally of concrete walls located in the northern portion of the area and along the east side. This distribution of weight caused the base slab to tilt slightly downward to the southeast, thus resulting in uplift at settlement point E. From February 1970 through August 1970 the two points settled at about the same rate. Since August, point D had been settling more rapidly than point E, due again, to eccentricity of the load being placed.

The construction of this block (block F on Figure E.1-3) had almost reached the stage at which it could be knit to the block to the north (block E on Figure E.1-3) by closing the isolation joint between them.

4. Reference Point F - Auxiliary Building Control Room Area The settlement at this reference point (Figure E.3-8) followed a predictable behavior pattern. Although there was some variation from straight-line settlement, it can be accounted for by eccentricity of loading caused by the sequence in which the various parts were constructed. Actual amount of settlement is only about 1/3 of the calculated amount.

This area had received most of the load that will be placed upon it before the isolation joints are closed.

5. Reference Point G - Turbine Building The slab at this reference point (Figure E.3-9) is very lightly loaded, so that settlement is not extensive. The isolation joint around the turbine support was closed in March 1970, so the slab at this reference point and the slab at adjacent reference point H were interconnected. Thus, this reference point has served its intended function, but further readings may be made as a general surveillance.

6. Reference Point H - Turbine Support The construction of the concrete turbine support was completed in November 1969. In March 1970 the isolation joint around the turbine support was closed, thus tying the base slab under the turbine support to the base slab for the rest of the Turbine Building.

Therefore, this reference point has served its function. Settlements at this point (Figure E.3-10) have followed the expected pattern, and have been about 32% of calculated settlements.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-31 E.3.3.1 Summary The principle purpose of the settlement reference points was to provide an indication of when unequal settlements between the various independent structural blocks has ceased. These blocks were then tied together by closing the isolation joints. The reference points were adequately performing this primary function. In addition, they were also providing a good insight into the interaction of the structures and their supporting soil, and to the action of that soil under differing loads.

Actual settlements had varied from 25% to 45% of calculated settlement. This was to be expected, and was predicted by Professor Peck in his report (part E.2) when he stated it is likely that the high degree of pre-compression indicated by a pre-consolidation load on the order of 8 tons per square foot will be associated with a much smaller settlement, probably on the order of 1/4 of the calculated value.

Building settlement readings have been measured and recorded periodically since plant construction. No significant variations in building settlement have been observed.

The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-32 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.3-1 LOCATION OF PRIMARY REFERENCE POINTS

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-33 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.3-2 SETTLEMENT DETECTION REFERENCE POINT

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-34 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.3-3 SETTLEMENT READINGS - REFERENCE POINT A

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-35 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.3-4 SETTLEMENT READINGS - REFERENCE POINT B

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-36 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.3-5 SETTLEMENT READINGS - REFERENCE POINT C

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-37 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.3-6 SETTLEMENT READINGS - REFERENCE POINT D

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-38 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.3-7 SETTLEMENT READINGS - REFERENCE POINT E

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-39 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.3-8 SETTLEMENT READINGS - REFERENCE POINT F

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-40 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.3-9 SETTLEMENT READINGS - REFERENCE POINT G

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-41 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

Figure E.3-10 SETTLEMENT READINGS - REFERENCE POINT H

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-42 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

GENERAL NOTES

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-43 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-13

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-44 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-14

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-45 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-15

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-46 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-16

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-47 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-17

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-48 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-17 (CONTINUED)

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-49 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-18

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-50 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-19

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-51 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-19 (CONTINUED)

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-52 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-20

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-53 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-21

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-54 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-22

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-55 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-23

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-56 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-23 (CONTINUED)

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-57 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-24

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-58 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-25

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-59 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-25 (CONTINUED)

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-60 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-26

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-61 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-26 (CONTINUED)

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-62 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-27

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-63 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-27 (CONTINUED)

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-64 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-28

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-65 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-28 (CONTINUED)

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-66 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-29

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-67 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-30

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-68 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-31

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-69 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-32

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-70 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-32 (CONTINUED)

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-71 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-33

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-72 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-33 (CONTINUED)

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-73 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-34

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-74 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-34 (CONTINUED)

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-75 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-35

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-76 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-36

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-77 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-37

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-78 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-37 (CONTINUED)

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-79 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-38

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-80 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-38 (CONTINUED)

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-81 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-39

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-82 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-39 (CONTINUED)

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-83 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-40

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-84 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-40 (CONTINUED)

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-85 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-41

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-86 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-42

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-87 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-43

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-88 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-44

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-89 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-45

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-90 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-46

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-91 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-47

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-92 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-48

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-93 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-49

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-94 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-50

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-95 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-51

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-96 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-52

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-97 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-53

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-98 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-54

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-99 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-55

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-100 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-56

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-101 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-57

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-102 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-58

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-103 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-59

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-104 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. 60

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-105 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. 61

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-106 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-63

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-107 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-64

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-108 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-65

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-109 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-67

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-110 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-68

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-111 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-69

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-112 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-70

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-113 The following information is HISTORICAL and is not intended or expected to be updated for the life of the plant.

LOG OF BORING NO. B-71

Revision 2511/26/14 KPS USAR E-114 Intentionally Blank