ML18192A400
| ML18192A400 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1975 |
| From: | Fugro |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NUS Corp |
| References | |
| 72-086-EG | |
| Download: ML18192A400 (116) | |
Text
h RESPONSE TO NRC LIQUL'FACTIOij QUESTIONS, PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Prepared for:
NUS Corporation Sherman Oaks, California Project No.72-086'-EG October 17, 1975
I l
I I
I I
I
'I
NRC LIQUEFACTION QUESTIONS 323.67 The factor of safety (1.2) for liquefaction potential is too low. Reevaluate the liquefaction potential for the site. If you cannot demonstrate that the factor of safety is 1.5 or higher based on undisturbed sample test data, provide a plan to lower the groundwater level under and around the Category I structures and components, or an alter-nate plan, to preclude liquefaction risks.. A factor of safety of 1.3 is required for remolded sample data ev'aluations.
323. 68 Clearly describe the dynamic input motion. The input motion acceleration time history and the induced shear stress time histories, for the depths presented in Tables 2T-10 and ll, representing the SSE condition, should be presented and discussed as well as cross referenced.
323.70 Provide a step-by-step description of how your evaluation of the liquefaction potential was made, and show where and how you use conservatism in your analysis. Clearly indicate groundwater conditions.
323.71 Demonstrate that analysis based on in situ data only is conservative.. Compare the presented analysis with the labora-tory test data analysis. Show how this data is used in the analysis.
323.72 Expand your discussion and analysis of "sequence F" lique-faction potential. Provide soil sections and list the borings and test results used to conclude that this interval presents no stability problems.
~Res onse The response to the above questions is provided in the following text.
fbeee
l' g
~
ill 5
~
~
~
I
~
~
I-I l
,INTRODUCTION Analyses were performed to determine the liquefaction potential of the saturated granular soils underlying the Category I structures at Units l, 2 and 3 of the Palo Verde site. The analyses consisted of calculating factors of safety against liquefaction by comparing, the calculated induced shear stresses for various input acceleration-time histories to the cyclic strengths of'he granular soils as determined from laboratory tests on undisturbed samples.
The steps involved in the analyses included:
A. Development of Soil Models
- l. Establishing the location of soil strata characteris-tically considered susceptible to liquefaction,
- 2. Predicting the highest anticipated water levels for the site, and
- 3. Determining the appropriate static and cyclic properties of the saturated granular soils underlying Category I structures.
B. Selection of Acceleration-Time Histories as Input Motions C. Performance of One-dimensional Shear Beam Analyses for Determination of Induced Stresses for each Input Motion.
- 1. Calculation of average induced stresses and correspond-ing equivalent loading cycles.
D. Evaluation of Cyclic Strengths and Selection of Repre-
l' g
I t
f 8
l I
'I sentative Strength Curves, and Determination of Factor of Safety Against Liquefaction.
M E.
The following sections present- the details and results of the liquefaction evaluation for the Palo'erde site.
ig
~
SOIL MODELS UNITS 2 AND" 3 The subsurface soil conditions underlying the three units are described in Appendix Section 2T.5 .of the PSAR. Geologic profiles (PSAR Figures 2T-2, 2T-2a, and 2T-2b) were prepared from the boring logs for each unit to show the stratigraphic sequences in relation. to the Category I structures. The down-hole geophysical logs were used in addition to undisturbed sampling to accurately determine the thicknesses of individual sequences. The upper granular soil sequences which occur below the maximum anticipated'ater levels at the three units are designated as B, C and D (30 to 50 feet below present grade). Sequence F (70 to 80 feet below, grade) is primarily a silt with isolated discontinuous lenses and pockets of silty sand. Other granular sequences at the site occur below a depth of 150 feet and contain appreciable amounts of fines.
The perched water mound which exists at the site due to irri-gation (Figure 2.4-29c, PSAR Section 2.4.13) causes water levels to occur at different depths beneath the three units. These water levels occur at elevations 888, 913, and 920 beneath Un'its 1, 2 and 3, respectively; corresponding to depths below existing grade (as well as approximate finished grade) of 65, 42, and 31 feet, respectively. The water levels were estab lished from monitor wells located at the unit locations and throughout the site property (PSAR Section 2.4.13). Since the site property boundaries encompass a major portion of the perched mound and no further irrigation is proposed, the present
l'
,5 l
I I
l
water levels are the highest which are expected in the unit areas during the life of the facility. It should be noted that the theoretical analyses (PSAR Section 2.4.13.1.2.1) indicate that the evaporation pond and storage reservoir may produce maximum water level rises of 5.6, 1.2, 1.8 feet at Unit,s 1, 2, and 3, respectively. However, these rises would have a negligible effect on the calculated factors of safety.
On the basis of subsurface information .described above, soil models were developed for the liquefaction evaluation. The models were prepared only for Units 2 and 3 since it is at these locations where water is high enough '(even with'the possible rise at Unit 1 noted above) to saturate the granular soils occurring at depths of approximately 30 to 50 feet. For the evaluation of the deeper soil sequence F (70 to 80 feet), Units 2 and 3 with the higher water levels would clearly have a lower factor of safety than Unit
- 1. Thus, the Unit 1 soils were not -modelled.
The soil models developed for Units 2 and 3 are shown on Tables 2T-8 and 2T-8a. The models were not extended beyond 100 feet because the, response analyses were performed by inputing accele-ration records at the ground surface and deconvoluting downward.
In this case, the depths of the, soil models must only include the deepest soil layer to be evaluated.
The basis for the division of the soil model into layers included I
changes in soil type, location of water levels, and the general thickness requirements for the analytical solution used. These latter requirements indicate soil layers should be divided into thicknesses approximately equal to ht x Vs, where ht is defined flCRD
gl E
5 l.
l t
I l
5
as the time interval between digitized acceleration values in the inpu't records and Vs is the shear velocity of the soil layer being divided.
The total unit weights shown on the soil'odels represent average values obtained from Pitcher tube samples for each of the two units. The maximum shear moduli (Gmax) values shown were obtained from two;sources: 1) laboratory values determined by resonant.
column testing on undisturbed samples (PSAR Section 2.5.4.2),
and 2) in-situ values determined from the crosshole surveys per-formed at each unit (PSAR =-Section 2.5.4.4 and Appendix Section 2U).
The damping values listed for the soil layers were derived from the resonant column:.laboratory test results on undisturbed samples; Curves representing the variation of shear moduli and damping with shear strain were determined for each unit from laboratory resonant column and cyclic triaxial testing. The normalized curves used in the liquefaction analyses for the undisturbed soils are shown in Figures 2T-9 through 2T-9c.
The final selection of the maximum shear moduli (laboiatory or in-situ) to be used in the liquefaction analyses was determined from a one-dimensional shear beam analysis (as described in the subsection Res onse of Soil to D namic Loadin ). Separately, the laboratory and in-'situ Gmax values were used with the nor-malized moduli versus strain curves (Figures 2T-9 and 2T-9a) and with the soil models to determine which produced the more conser-vative'higher) induced stresses. As can be seen in Table 2T-9, the in-situ values produced the higher stresses and were therefore.
used in subsequent analyses.
fsaaa
l I
5 E
I I
I l
I
EARTHQUAKE RECORDS A total of five acceleration-time history records were selected as input motions for tQe liquefaction evaluation. Four of the records are actual recordings of the 1952,.Kern County earthquake as scaled to represent. the postulated Maximum Earth- .
quake (magnitude 8- at 72 miles) for the Palo Verde site (PSAR:
Section 2.5.2.9). These records include Santa Barbara, the-S48 F component; Pasadena, S90 W; Hollywood Storage (basement recording), SO W;'and Hollywood P. E. lot, SO W. Each record is the more severe horizontal component recorded at. the re'spective locations. and all the recordsare a conservative xepresentation of the 'Maximum Earthquake (documentation is pro-vided" in PSAR Section 2.5;2.10).
The fifth record selec'ted for the liquefaction evaluation was an artificial. record with a spectra which closely .conforms to the shape of the standard NRC spectra as specified in Regula-tory Guide 1.60. The record used was developed by the Bechtel Corporation with documentation provided in'heir topical report BC-TOP-4A to the NRC. For the evaluation, the record I
was scaled to 0.2g as a conservative representation of SSE conditions for the Palo Verde site. The conservatism can be seen in PSAR Figures 2.5-67 through 2.5-69 which show the relative spectral levels between the real records and the standard NRC shape. The relative difference in the spectral levels represents the difference in energy produced by the records which, for o'ver most of the period range of interest,
5 E
N'
is two to three times higher for the NRC spectral level than for the real earthquake levels.
The pertinent characteristics of the records as used for the liquefaction evaluation are summarized in Table 2T-9a. The Bechtel record, although having the least total duration of all the records, is considered to have sufficient duration of
,strong shaking intensity to generate stresses as high or higher than another record of same intensity but of longer duration. Bolt (1973) has shown that recorded earth-quakes have produced only on the order of six seconds of strong shaking as defined by acceleration levels of 0.05g or greater for a magnitude 8 earthquake 62 miles from the record-ing sites. As may be noticed from Table 2T-9a, all the selected records meet these duration requirements.-
QRD
lt I
I
~
I I
RESPONSE OF SOIL TO DYNAMIC LOADING The dynamic response of the Units 2 and 3 soils under the influence of the five earthquake records describ'ed in the preceeding section was evaluated by one dimensional shear beam analyses. The analyses were performed by the use of the compu-ter program SHAKE (Schnabel, Lysmer, and Seed, 1972). A one dimensional analysis is considered reasonably accurate for essentially horizontally layered soils such as exist at the Palo Verde site. Because the Bechtel record was simulated for the free field condition at the ground surface, 1
and selected real records were recorded at or near the ground surface, the design motions were applied at the ground surface of the soil models. These motions were then deconvoluted from surface to the full depth of the models.
The dynamic responses calculated for each record consisted of shear stresses, shear strains and peak acceleration levels within each layer of the soil models. The results of variation of peak acceleration versus depth is shown in Figures 2T-9d and 2T-9e for Units 2 and 3, respectively. .The variation of maximum shear stresses with depth for the two units is shown in Figures 2T-9f and 2T-9g.-
Il R
~
l l
CYCLIC STRENGTH DETERMINATION The dynamic strengths of the granular soils underlying the Category I structures were determined from cyclic triaxial compression tests on undisturbed samples. Samples were II initially obtained by Pitcher barrel sampling equipment from the rotary-wash borings drilled for the Category I structures.
In evaluating the cyclic strengths of the Pitcher samples, it was felt that sample disturbance was causing low strengths which were not compatible with the high Standard Penetration Test results (N value's) obtained during drilling (PSAR Figures 2T-S, Sa and Sb).
Another field program was initiated at Units 2 and 3 to obtain undisturbed block samples from large diameter borings from
'"both above and below the existing perched, water levels. The boring at Unit, 2 was designated U2-LB-1 and the two borings E
I at Unit 3 were designated U3-LB-1 and U3-LB-2. The three
/
borings were located within the respective containment. areas.
The purpose of the new program was to compare cyclic strengths obtained from the two different. sampling techniques. In general, block samples were obtained by auger drilling (6-foot diameter) to the sampling depth, cleaning out the boring and then drilling a smaller diameter (2-foot) pilot hole. Each undisturbed sample was carved by hand into a 9-1/2 inch diameter by 12-inch high polyethelene mold. Some samples'were obtained directly from the side of the large diameter boring. Most sam-h ples were taken from the floor of the boring. Samples were then fiuaa
l l
I 8
10 carefully transported by private vehicle to the laboratory.
Both Pitcher and block samples were tested in accordance with the cyclic triaxial procedures outlined in PSAR. Section 2T-4.15.3. The procedure for trimming of test-size samples (2.5-inch diameter by 6-inch) from the large block samples in some cases involved freezing of the block with liquid nitrogen prior to the final hand carving. Other samples were hand carved directly from the blocks without freezing. The procedures used for preparation of block samples for testing P
are outlined in the attached Enclosure l. The results of the cyclic triaxial,tests, in terms of pore pressure and strain versus. number of cycles, are presented in the PSAR Figures 2T. 21. 93 through 2T. 21.140 and in Figures 2T. 21. 141 through 2T.21.175 in the attached Enclosure 2. Grain size distribution curves for the block samples are included in Enclosure 3.
For the liquefaction analyses, the test results for the granular soil sequences B, C and D between depths of 30 and 50 feet were evaluated in detail. Although sequence F is pri-marily a silt, the test results for the granular lenses between depths of 70 and 80 feet were also evaluated. A summary of the static properties and cyclic strengths from both the Pitcher and block samples obtained from the two depth intervals is presented in Table 2T-9b. The criterion used for selection of the cycl'ic strengths was the number of cycles .at which the pore pressure reached the'test cell pressure or five percent double amplitude axial strain, whichever occurred first.
I
~
5 I
I l
I
11 The following subsections present a discussion of the strength evaluation of the granular soils from the. two depth intervals 30 to 50 feet, and 70 to 80 feet. The effects of sampling technique on cyclic strength is illustrated and final strength curves are presented for use in the liquefaction analyses.
Cyclic Strength Test Results. 30 to 50 feet depth interval A summary plot of the laboratory cyclic strengths of the Pitcher samples obtained between depths of '30 to 50 feet is presented on Figure 2T-10. The average soil characteristics (dry density, D50 and percent of fines) from the Pitcher E
samples are summarized in Table 2T-9c.
A similar summary plot for the block sample cyclic strengths is shown on Figure 2T-10a. Average soil characteristics are also summarized in Table 2T-9c. The two distinct levels of strength shown on Figure 2T-10a were attributed to a combin-ation of density and percent fines contents. 'The upper strength curves drawn through Test Nos.,35, 36, 39 and 40 all exhibited higher densities (greater than 103 pounds per cubic l
foot) and contained relatively high percentages of fine-grained material. For the lower strength curve, all but one test sample (Test No. 44) exhibited dry densities lower than 101 pounds per cubic foot. The lower strength exhibited by Test No. 44 was attributed to the low fines content (6 percent).
The position of the average curves drawn through the data was I
based on typical shapes of strength curves developed from shaking table 'tests (De Alba, 1975).
12 As can be seen from Table 2T-9c, the samples obtained by the two sampling techniques compare very well in terms of D50 and the percent passing the No. 200 Standard ASTM sieve. No differences in material type are indicated. However, in comparing the cyclic strengths, Figure 2T-10b, significant strength differences resulted from tests performed on Pitcher samples as compared with the block samples. The difference between the lower average block sample strength and the average Pitcher sample strength is on the order of 32 percent at 30 cycles. The differences are attributed to the Pitcher barrel sampling technique which probably caused disturbance E
to the soil structure or caused the breakdown of a slight cementation which may exist between in-situ soil, particles.
For the liguefaction analyses, the lower average cycle strength curve of the block samples was selected as being a conservative representation of the in-situ granular materials encountered between depths of 30 to. 50 feet at. the Palo Verde site. Despite the overconsolidated nature of the sands, a reduction of the curve by a factor (c ) of 0.58 (De Alba, 1975) 'aboratory results in a conservative "field adjusted" strength curve which accounts for possible strength o'ver-estimates caused by the cyclic triaxial apparatus. Des'ign laboratory and field dynamic curves are presented in Figure 2T-10c.
C clic Stren th Test Results 70 to 80 foot de th interval Occasionally thin layers and lenses of granular soils were encountered between depths of 70 and 80 feet, but these materials were discontinuous between borings and contained flleee
'I ll l
I 1
ir
13 high percentages of clay and silt (stratigraphic sequence F; refer to Appendix Figures 2T-2, 2T-2a and 2T-2b). As a result, soil sequence F is not considered susceptible to liquefaction of an extent which would cause any effect on Category I structures. Documentation of the high fines content and discontinuous natuxe-of the granular soils, as well as an evaluation of the cyclic strength of the isolated lenses of granular soils within sequence F, is presented in the following paragraphs.
The description of soil sequence F is summarized as "sandy silt, clayey silt, and clayey sand (ML-SC) brown, locally micaceous, occasional silty sand horizons." The soils comprising this member are primarily silts in contrast to the clay layers which lie above and below. Silty clays were the second most encountered soil type within F, and the silty sand lenses having the least frequency of occurr'ence.
Pitcher, drive and Standard Penetration tests were used to sample soil sequence F. Because most of the sampling was not continuous, conservative determinations of thickness were interpreted from the geophysical borehole logs which produced different signature responses for F and the sequences above andbelow. Table 2T-10 summarizes the specific member location and the results of soil classification testing.
Table 2T-10 clearly indicates that very few granular materials were encpuntered and there is no significant continuity
l Il 5
R I
I 1
14 between borings among those granular soils which were encountered. Xn addition, detailed analysis of the downhole geophysical logs indicates soil member F has a re3.atively consistent thickness across the site, but any interbedded granular materials are lenticular and are not continuous between borings.
To emphasize the lack of a liquefaction potential within soil sequence F, an evaluation was made of the cyclic strengths of the granular soil portions. The only cyclic strength results available for sequence F were for samples obtained by the Pitcher barrel sample technique. These'results are shown on Figure 2T-10d and a summary of pertinent test data is listed in Table 2T-9b.
Because sampling technique was shown to have an effect on the cyclic strength of the granular soils between depths of 30 and 50 feet, an evaluation was performed to account for the effect on the cyclic test results from sequence F. This evaluation compares. Pitcher sample and block sample" strengths of the granular soils obtained between 30 and 50 feet which .have approximately the same soils characteristics (density, D50, k
and % - g200 sieve) of the Pitcher samples from sequence F.
The range of soil properties for those Pitcher samples obtained for cyclic testing are:
fllaRO
5 II IE l
Il
15 Sampling Depth fines DS0 Dry Density, Method (feet) .(1200 sieve) (mm) (pcf)
Pitcher 70-80 24-59 0.07-0.12 9 3-105 Xn order to compare block samples and Pitcher sample strengths at a depth of 30 to 50 feet, only those block samples obtained from below the perched water level and containing greater than 17 percent fine-grained soil were considered. The results ob-tained from block samples bi low the water were found to be signi-ficantly lower in strength than that of samples obtained above water. Hence, a conservative comparison 'could be made.
The following summarizes the soil characteristics of the Pitcher and block samples used for the comparison:
Sampling Depth %,fines DS0 Dry Density, Method (feet) (N200 sieve) (mm) (pcf )
Block 30-50 17-23 0.19-0.40 98-105 Pitcher 30-.50 18-42 0.11-0.25 98-105 The cyclic strengths of- the two groups of samples obtained t between 30 and 50 feet are shown on Figure 2T-10e. As can be seen, there is a definite increase in the strengths exhibited by the undisturbed block samples relative to the Pitcher samples.
Constructing average curves through the two groups of data show5 that at 30 cycles a strength increase of 63 percent is obtained. The higher strengths obtained from the block samples are more compatible with the high N values (PSAR Figures 2T-8, I
2T-8a and 2T-8b) obtained during the first drilling program.
flSRD
,gi I
5 I
l l
The average Pitcher sample strengths (Figure 2T-10d) were adjusted by the differences shown in Figure- 2T-10e. The resulting'laboratory cyclic strength curve, considered repre-sentative of granular lenses within sequence F, is shown on Figure 2T-10f. The field cuive shown incorporates a reduction to 58 percent (De Alba, 1975) of the laboratory curve to account for the p'ossible effects of cyclic,'triaxial testing.
funao
gi lit l'
17 INDUCI".D SllEAR STRl'SS AND EQUIVALENT CYCLE EVALUATION In addition to the peak acceleration and maximum shear stress data obtained from the soil column analyses described in the section Res onse of Soil to Dynamic Loadin ,=shear stress-time histories were obtained for selected soil layers. These stress histories were used to determine the number of equiva-lent cycles of an average stress intensity that each input, record induced into the site soils. The shear stress histories obtained for Layer Nos. 9 and 15 within the Unit 2 and 3 soil models are shown on Figures 2T-10g and 10h for the Bechtel input record.
The method used to determine the equivalent number of load cycles for each of the five input time histories is described by Lee and Chan (1972). Details of the steps performed for the analyses include:
- l. A value of 65 percent of the maximum induced shear stress (vmax) produced by each stress history was selected as a reasonable average cyclic intensity
(~ave) ~
- 2. Stress values of each stress history were normalized in terms of <max (vmax = 1) and each + 0.25 xmax was marked off on the histories.
- 3. The number of stress peaks falling within each zone (e.g., + 0.5 to 0.75) were 'counted and averaged- to give a value Pi. The normalized value of stress at
~
the center of each zone was noted.,and designated x
Il
.5 II I
I
18
- 4. The field cyclic Strength curves (Figure 2T-10c for soils between 30 to 50 feet and Figure 2T-10f between 70 to 80 feet) were extrapolated to 1 cycle
( ~d, ). Curve shapes similar to those developed 2cfp by De Alba (1975) for samples tested by a shaking table were used for this purpose.
- 5. The extrapolated field curves were adjusted to a position parallel to thems'elves and intersecting at 65 percent. of the stress ratio value ( ~d )
200 1 at one cycle. Then the stress ratios were, normalized by 0 65 ( ,
~o 1
).
- 6. Using the normalized strength curves for the appropriate soil layers, the number of cycles, R , for each value of vi were selected..
- 7. The number of cycles, from the normalized strength curves corresponding to 0.65 vmax were established. as the reference cycle, Rf, for each record.
- 8. The number of equivalent cycles for each divided zone was calculated from Nei = Rf x Pi Ri
- 9. The total number of cycles is the sum Z" Nei for all the zones.
Table 2T-ll summarizes the results of the equivalent cycles counted for the five input records for,the Unit 3 soil model.
The number of cycles for similar depths within Unit 2 was not expected to differ markedly from the ratios obtained for Unit
- 3. This was checked by evaluating the stress histories from
I l
I
INDUCED SHEAR STRESS AND EQUIVALENT CYCLE EVALUATION In addition to the peak acceleration and maximum shear stress data obtained from the soil column analyses described in the section Res onse of Soil to Dynamic Loadin , shear stress-time histories were obtained for selected soil layers. These stress histories were used to determine the number of.equiva-lent cycles of an average stress intensity that each input record induced into the site soils. The shear stress histories obtained for Layer Nos. 9 and 15 within the Unit 2 and 3 soil models are shown on Figures 2T-10g and 10h for the Bechtel input record.
The method used to'etermine the equivalent number of load cycles for each of the five input time histories is described by Lee and Chan (1972). Details of. the steps performed for the analyses include:
- l. A value of 65 percent of the maximum induced shear stress (vmax) produced by each stress history was selected as a reasonable average cyclic intensity
(<ave).
- 2. Stress values of each stress history were normalized in terms of vmax (vmax = 1) and each + 0.25 was marked off on the histories.
- 3. The number of stress peaks falling within each zone (e.g., + 0.5 to 0.75) were counted and averaged to give a value Pi. The normalized value of stress at the center of each zone was noted and designated v 1
I 5
i I
E
~
I I
18
- 4. The field cyclic strength curves (Figure 2T-10c for soils between 30 to 50 feet: and Figure 2T-10f between 70 to 80 feet) were extrapolated to 1 cycle'
~d ). Curve shapes similar to those developed 20p'y De Alba (1975) for samples tested by a shaking table were used for this purpose.
- 5. The extrapolated field curves were adjusted to a position parallel to themselves and intersecting at'5 percent of the stress ratio value ( cd )
at one cycle. Then the stress ratios were normalized by 0 65 ( ,
2ao 1
).
- 6. Using the normalized strength curves for the appropriate soil layers, the number of cycles, R , for each value of Ti were selected.
- 7. The number of cycles from the normalized strength curves corresponding to 0.65 vmax were. established as the reference cycle, Rf, for each record.
- 8. The number of equivalent cycles for each divided zone was calculated from Nei = Rf x Pi Ri
- 9. The total number of cycles is the sum Z Nei 'for all the zones.
Table 2T-ll summarizes the results of the equivalent cycles counted for the five input records for the Unit 3 soil model.
The number of cycles for similar depths within Unit 2 was not expected to differ markedly from the ratios obtained for Unit
- 3. This was checked by evaluating the stress histories from fllaRO
5 5
I II I
I
Layer Nos. 9 and 15, Unit 2, using the Bechtel record. Values of 16 equivalent cycles were obtained for both layers and thus the values for Unit 3 could be extrapolated to Unit 2. Table 2T-lla summarizes the average stresses and equivalent cycles for the critical soil layers.
I I I
5 I
I I
I
20 FACTORS OF SAFETY The factors of safety against liquefaction for the saturated granular soils underlying Units 2 and 3 were calculated by comparing the field cyclic strength at the calculated equivalent number of stress cycles to the corresponding average induced tI stress (rave). The results for the various soil layers and records analyzed are shown on Tables 2T-12 and 12a.'he Bechtel record scaled to the level of the 0.2g standard NRC spectra (SSE condition) produces the lowest factors of safety (1.4 for Unit 2 and 1.1 for Unit 3) at depths of approximately 40 to 50 feet. The minimum factor of safety for the 70 to 80-foot interval was 1.5 at Unit 3. The real records produced factors, of safety ranging from 1.7 to 2.8 for the 30 to 50-foot interval and 2.1 to 3.3 for the 70 to 80-foot interval.
The conservatism of the evaluation of the SSE conditions with the Bechtel record is exemplified by the significantly higher factors of safety produced by real records representative of the Maximum Earthquake for the Palo Verde site. Consequently, C
based on the above factors of safety, a liquefaction potential is not considered to exist at the Palo Verde site.
I l
I I
I 5
II I
~
I
BIBLIOGRAPHY Bolt, B. A., Duration of Stron Ground Motion: Proceedings, Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Xtaly, 1973.
De Alba, Pedro A., Determination of Soil Li uefaction Charac-teristics b a Lar e-Scale Laborator Test: Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1975.
Lambe, T. William, Soil Testin for En ineers, Wiley, 1951.
Leep K L
~ g and Chan, K., 1972, Number of E uivalent Si nifi-cant C cles in Stron Motion Earth uakes: Proceedings, Conference on Microzonation for Safe Construction, Seattle.
Schnabel, P. B., John Lysmer and EI. B. Seed, 1972, SIIAKE:
A Com uter Pro ram for Earth uake Res onse of Horizontal La ered Soils: Earthquake Engr. Res. Cntr., University
. of California, Berkeley, Rept. No. EERC 72-12, 1972.
fllEIRO
II l
III II I
1 I
j
,I' I
ig il I
il I
I
Table 2T-8 SOIL MODEL FOR LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ANALYSES UNIT 2 Depth Layer Soil Total Unit Xn Situ Laboratory Soil (ft) No. Type Weight (pcf) Shear. Shear Damping Sequence 2 Modu)us Modulus percent:
x 10 x 10 of Critical
( sf) ( sf) 1 2 119 3. 7.0 2. 00 4.0 2' 119 3.70 2. 00 4.7 10 15 3 2 119 3.70 2.10 5.4 20 4 2 119 3.70 2. 15 5.9 25 5 2 119 3 ~ 70 2.20 6.5 30 6 2 119 3.70 2. 25 6 9
~
36 7 2 119 4.63 2.34 7.2 42 8 2 119 4.63 2.51 7.5 46 125 4.63 2.51 7.6 10 2 118 4.63 2. 65 7.9 118 4.98 2.70 4.4 12 1 118 4.98 2. 80 4.4 61 13 1 118 4.98 2.85 4.5 14 1 118 4.98 3.00 4.7 15 2 121 4.98 3. 15 9.5 81 16 1 121 4.98 3.70 4.9 123 5. 55 3.35 4.9 86 91 18 1 123 5.55 3.60 4.9 19 1 123 5.55 3.75 5.0 96
'5 101 20 1 123 5 3. 80 5.1 21 Base 125 6. 57 6.57 Water Table at, 42 feet 1Soil types: 1 - clays and silty clays; 2 sands and silty sands 2Refer to PSAR Figures 2.5-45a and 2T-2a
I I
I D
I I
I I
Table 2T-Sa SOIL MODEL FOR LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ANALYSES UNIT 3 Depth Layer Soil Total Unit In Situ Laboratory Soil (ft) No. Type Weight (pcf) Shear Shear Damping Sequence2 Modulus Modulus Percent x 10 6 x 106 of Critical
( sf) ( sf) 1 2 115 3.76 1.75 4. 7.
2 2 115 3.76 1.75 5.2 10 3 2 121 3.76 1.90 5.5 15 4 2 121 3.76 2.00 5.6 B 20 25 5 2 128 6 '8 2.24 5.8 6 2 131 6.68 2.41 6 0
~
31 7 2 129 6.68 2. 50 .6. 2 35 8 2 128 6. 68 2. 61 6.4 40 9 2 128 6. 68 2.74 6.6 45 10 1 123 6. 68 2 '6 6. 8.
ll 1 123 6.68 2. 96 4' 12 1 123 6.68 3.03 4.7 13 1 123 5.98 3. 17 4.8 14 1 123 5.98 3. 31 7.2 15 2 123 5.98 2.89 7 '
16 1 124 5.98 2.47 4.9 85 17 124 '.03 2.66 4.9 18 124 6. 03 2.99 4.9 90 19 124 6. 03 3.41 4.9 95 20 124 6.03 3 ~ 85 4.9 100 21 Base 125 6.57 4.28 Water Table at 31 feet 1Soil types: 1 clays and silty clays; 2 sands and silty sands 2Refer to PSAR Figures 2.5-45b and 2T-2b
l' I
I
Table 2T-9 MAXIMUM INDUCED SHEAR STRESSES FOR LABORATORY AND IN-SITU MODULI Depth below Maximum Induced Stresses (psf)
Existing Ground Unit No. Surface (ft) In Situ Moduli Laboratory Moduli 42 46 900 774 46 51 945 780 31 35 777 702 35 40 879 784 40 45 986 865 1Bechtel record input at ground surface, scaled to 0.2g.
Ii I
I I
I I
I I'
Table 2T-9a CHARACTERISTICS OF EARTHQUAKE RECORDS USED FOR LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES Earthquake Scaled Record Maximum Duration, Sec. Digi-Acceleration tized Level Strong Record Time (a/g) Motionl as used Interval Santa Barbara 0. 128 50 0. 02 (S48E)
Hollywood P.E. Lot 0. 10 20 50 0.02 (soow)
Hollywood Basement 0. 093 15 50 0. 02 (SOOW)
Pasadena 0. 090 17 50 0. 02 (S90W)
Bechtel 0. 200 16'. 24 0. Ol 1As defined by the time interval in which the records first and last exceed 0.05g.
fsnaa
I gi I
I I i I
1 I
I
Table 2T-9b
SUMMARY
OF TEST RESULTS Cyclic .Triaxial Samples T est Boring Sample Depth Dry D50 Passing Cycles to Sample N0 ~ No. No. Interval Wt. (mm) 200 ao'psi) Failure, Type 1 (ft.) Yd Sieve N psf (a)
U3-B3 9. .32.5-35 101, 1 0. 17 21 0. 25 28.0 10 .p Ul-B3 18 42.5-45 ill.l 0. 60 0.20 41. 0 380 U2-B2 20 47.5-50 107.6 1.3 15 0. 15 30. 0 46 U2-B8 12 43.5-46 98.1 0.2 13 0.31 38. 0 6.5 U2-B31 40-42.5 99.5 0.3 13 0.21 38. 0 U2-B3 15 38-5-41 98.7 0.18 13 0.19 38.0 18.5 U2-B27 40-42.5 103. 3 0.42 15 0.21 38. 0 8 'U2-B17 * =-8 43.5-46 108.9 0.32 0.20 38.0 20 U2-B8 10 39.5-42 109.1 0.15 38 0.15 38. 0 310 10 U2-B29 37.5-40 104.1 0.42 12 0.22 38.0 18 U2-B22 40-4 .5 110. 0 0. 63 15 0.20 38.0 12 12 Ul-B8 20 39 5 98.4 0. 11 0.20 35. 0 260 13 Ul-B4 39.5-41 105.1 0.54 14 0.13 35. 0 .440 14 Ul-B7 43.5-46 104.5 0.45 0.23 35.0 18 15 Ul-B16 35-37.5 105.7 0. 78 0.22 35.0 14
I I
I I
I I
I I
Table 2T-9b (continued)
SUMMARY
OF TEST RESULTS Cyclic Triaxial Simples Test Boring Sample Depth Dry D50 Passing Gdp Cycles to- Sample No. No. No. interval Nt. (mm) 200 2oo (psi) Failure, Type 1 (ft.) Yd Sieve N psf (4)
Ul-B9 18 37-39-5 103.3 0.4Q 18 0.29 35.0 13.5 17 U3-B4 36-38.5 100.3 0.25 18 0.20 31.0 16 18 U2-SP20 40-42-5 102. 6 0.22 20 0.26 35.0 27 19 Ul-B2 36-38.5 101. 7 13 0. 16 35.0 18 20 U2-B2 38.5-41 105.4 0.20 27 0. 25 33.0 21 Ul- B5 36-38.5 99. 6 0.25 18 0. 29 35.0 4.5 22 Ul-B18 35-37 .5 103. 3 0.50 13 0. 18 35. 0 23 U3-B18 37.5-40 102.1 0. 40 0. 17 32.0 100 24 U3-B16 36-38.5 104.3 0. 40 15 0.16 31.0 200 25 Ul-B9 32 71-73.5 99. 0 0. 12 29 0.28 48.0 10 26 Ul-B6 22 72.5-75 100. 6 0. 12 32 0.31 50..0 ll. 5 27 U2-B6 23 74-76. 5 104.5 0. 12 37 0.23 52.0 22 28 Ul-B16 75-77.5 100..5 0. 12 24 0.20 50. 0 400 29 Ul-B7 23 75-77.5 100. 9 .07 0.22 50.0 1000 30 Ul-B2 23 72.5-75 89.5 0. 13 28 0. 16 50.0 300
I I
I U
I I
Table 2T-9b (continued)
SUMMARY
OF TEST RESULTS Cyc'lic Triaxial Samples Test Boring Sample Depth. Dry D50 Passing GQp Cycles to Sample No. No. No. Interval Wt. (mm) I 200 20o'o'psi) Failure, Typel (ft.) Yd Sieve N psf (%)
31 Ul-B4 21 70-72. 5 102.4 0. 10 45 0. 38 48. 0 250 32 U3-B3 30 71-74 101.5 0. 21 54. 0 33 U3-B3 30 71-74 93. 0 0. 25 54. 0 4,7 34 U2-B18 19 75-77.5 103. 4 59 0.23 52. 0 20 35 U3-LB-1 10A 30.7-31.8 107. 1 0.32 12 0.43 26.0 20 Bt 36 U3-LB-1 10B 30.7-31.8 105. 0 0.36 0.48 26. 0 Bt 37 U3-LB-2 12A 34.4-35.0 98.0 0.19 17 0.40 28.0 5.8 Bf 38 U3-LB-2 =
13 34.9-35.8 97.9 0. 29 0. 25 30.0 :24 Bf 39 U3-LB-2 15A 35.9-36.7 103.3 0.20 23 0.40 30.0 54 Bf 40 U3-LB-2 15B 35.9-36.7 104.6 0.20 23 0. 43 30. 0 15 Bf U2-LB-1 18A 43-43.8 100.1 0.23 20 0.30 37.0 19 Bt 42 U2-LB-1 ; 18B 43-43.8 98. 2 0.27 0.35 '37.0 Bt 43 U3-LB-2 19C 35.9-36.7 97. 9 0.48 0.30 31.0 2.5 Bf 44 U2-LB-1 20 43.7-44.5 103. 2 0.33 0.25 38.0 Bf 45 U2-LB-1 '4 44.7-45.6 96. 9 0. 76 12 0.25 39.0 13 Bf P indicates Pitcher Tube Sample Bt indicates Block Samples hand tximmed from the boring (94" x 12" and hand trimmed into test size. samples (2.5" x 6")
Bf indicates Block Samples hand trimmed from the boring and frozen before 'hand trimming into test size samples
~
a I
~
II l
I
Table 2T-9c AVERAGE SOIL CHARACTERISTICS CYCLIC TRIAXIAL SAMPLES 30 TO 50 FEET 5 Passing Sample Dr Densit ( cf) D50 5 200,.Sieve T e Ran e Ave Range Ave Range Ave Block 96.9 107.1, 101.1 0, 19 0. 76 0. 33 5 33 14 Pitcher 9.8.1 - 111.1 103. 6 0. 11 1. 3 0. 41 7 38 17.4 Tube
I I
I I
I iI, I
I
Table 2T-10
SUMMARY
OF STRATIGRAP HIC SEQUENCE F, UNIT 1 Depth Below Percent Unit N Ground Surface Unified Soil Passing L Boring Value in Feet Classification 5200 Sieve 82 68. 5-75. 5 CH-SC-SM-ML 70-75 ML-SM* 28
+100 70-75 SM-ML* 46 4 70-76.5 SM* 18 46 72-78 SC-CL* 82 47 76-82. 5 SC* 32 74-79 ML 28 51
+100 70-75 CT
- 77 60 67-73.5 SM-ML 10 68-72 CL*, 74
'6 77-86 CL*
12 68.5-75 CL 13 73-78 CL* 88 14 68-75 SM*
15 37 57-62 CL* 51 73 16 72-78. 5 SM* ,
36 17 71-76 CL* 62 18 69-73 ML
- In accordance with ASTM-D-2487-69. Other classifications in accordance with ASTM-D-2488-69.
l I
I I
~
~
I l
5
4 Table 2T-10 (cont.)
SUMMARY
OF STRATIGRAPHIC SEQUENCE F, UNIT 2 l Depth Below Percent Unit N Ground Surface Unified Soil Passing Boring Value in Feet Classification 0200 Sieve
- 80. 5-85. 5 CL* 97 75-80 CL* 89 3 73-78 CL* 85 73-80 CL* 80 75.5-78 SM* 42 74-81.5 CL* 65 75-81 ML* 50 54 76-83 SM-ML 73-79 SM-CL* 40 77'0 10 44 76.5-82 CL* 75 12 +100 76-82 ML* 84 13 77-82 CL* 87 14 77-82 ML-CL* 96 54 72-78 82 16 55 72-79 CL-SC* 51 17 81 75-78 CL* 73 18 72-77.5 ML-CL* 58
'*In accordance with ASTM D-2487-69. Other classifications in accordance with ASTM D-2488-69.
fsuaa
gi I
L I
I I
~
~
~
I
Table 2T-10 (cont. )
SUMMARY
OF STRATIGRAPHIC SEQUENCE F, UNIT 3 Depth Below Unit N Ground Surface Unified Soil Passing L Boring Value in Feet Classification 5200 Sieve 70-74 CL-ML 72-79 ML 70-76 ML'ercent CL*
ML-CL 95 70-78 ML-CL* 83 70-78 SM 24 64-70 ML
'13 72-76 79 14 15 74-78.5 ML 66-72 CL* 79 r 16 17 73-77 ML 18 73-77 ML
I
~
II
~
~
)i i
I I
I I
Table 2T-ll AVERAGE INDUCED STRESSES AND EQUIVALENT CYCLES UNIT 3.
Layer No..7 Layer No. 9 Layer No. 15 31'-35'; u '3920 psf 40 45 go 4540 psf 70 75 go . =6370 ps f Average Equivalent Average- Equivalent Average Equivalent Stress Cycles>. Stress Cycles> Stress Cycles Input Record psf vavei psf 'cave/ psf Santa. Barbara 336 435 720 Hollywood P.E. Lot . 246 26 312 23 493 21 Hollywood Storage 228 26 289 462 23 25'0 (Basement)
Pasadena 237 20 ~ 299 520 18 Bechtel 505 20 640 17 954 15 Calculated values
I I
II I
Table 2T-lla AVERAGE INDUCED STRESSES AND EQUIVALENT CYCLES UNIT 2=-
,Layer No. 9 Layer No. 10 Layer No. 15 42'-46' a '5120 sf 46'-51' g '5390 psf 71'-76'; (r '6780 sf Average Equivalent Average Equivalent Average EguivaI.ent Stress Cycles> Stress Cycles Stress Cycles In ut Record sf psf sf Santa Barbara 406 441 621 Ho11ywood P. E. Lot 300 23 326 23 436 21 Hollywood Storage 279 -25 302 25 409 24 (Basement)
Pasadena 293 20 337 20 488 18 Bechtel 585 16 614. 16. 767 16 Estimated from Unit 3 analyses.
I I
I I
I l
I g
I I'I I
W W W W W W W W M W W W W W W W W W -W Table 2T-12
SUMMARY
OP FACTORS OF SAFETY UNlT 2 Layer No. 9 Layer No. 10 Layer No. 15 42'-46'; Go'5120 psf 46'-51'; 0 '5390 psf 71'-76I. Go'6780 psf Equivalent Strengthr Factor Equivalent Strength Factor Equivalent ~ Strength, Factor Cycles psf of Cycles. psf of Cycles psf, of In ut Record Safet Safet Safet Santa Barbara . 11 845 2,1 883 2.0 1627 2.6 Hollywood P.E. 23 768 2.6 23 809 2.5 21 1390 3.2 Lot Hollywood Storage 25 768 2.8 25 809 2.7 34 1356 3.3
-(Basement)
Pasadena 20 794 2.7 20 836 2.5 18 1424 2.9 Bechtel 16 819 l. 4,. 16 862 1.4 16 1458. 1.9
I Table 2T-12a
SUMMARY
OF FACTORS OF SAFETY UNIT 3 Input Record
.Santa Barbara Equivalent Cycles Layer No.
31.~35'; g >
'f 7
=3920 psf Strength, Factor psf .
643 Safety 1.9 Equivalent Cycles .
Layer No.
35'-40'- e o'4220 ps f 692 8
psf Strength, Factor of Safety
-1.8 Hollywood P. E. 26 596- -2. 4 24 633 2.3 Lot Hollywood Storage 26 596 2.6 26 624 2.5
{Basement)
Pasadena 20 607 2.6 20 654 2.4 Bechtel 20 607 1.2 19 658 1.2
I Il I
I I
I
Table 2T-12a (continued)
SUMMARY
OF FACTORS OF SAFETY UNIT 3 Layer No. 9 ~
L'ayer No. 15 40'-45' 0='4540 psf 70'-75'; ao'6370 psf Equivalent Strength, <Factor Equivalent Strength, Factor input Record Cycles psf of Cycles psf of Safety Safet Santa Barbara 749 1.7 '1529 2.1 Hollywood P. E. 23 681 2.2 21
'306 2.6 Lot Hollywood Storage 25 681 2.4 24 1274 2.8 (Basement)
Pasadena 20 704 2.4 18 1338 2.6 Bechtel 17 726 1.1 17 1370 1.5
I l
l I
l h
I
ref. r")i L /0 /5 75 rfREPAREO BYl CHECKEO BYf
'O' SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL TYPE CONFINING PRESSURE G mox. X Io (ft.) ( PS I) ( PS f)
UNIT ¹2 SAND 8i SILTY SAND UNIT ¹2 CLAY 5 SILTY CLAY
~As noted on Soil:1 odels (Tables 2T<<8 and 2T-8a)
Sheor Stroin, percent Io IO IO Io tt =
l.o
= .-.<<f
~ >>
l I y I ~
f
~ j h I I r =~
' ~=
f I'
I 0.8
= =+ 4 f I t
~ -=f "'
L
~ '='"
I
~ t I I r I f<<t SAND .p aILYT. 'SAND 0 T'Y;CLN 06 R
H "-I ~ - =t t
~ ~
.~ h4 I
t
+ t 3 4<< t O
~ I 4 -~ ' ~ I ~ - ~ <<<<
I
~-
04 0
tQ L
HC a C 'GV Cl Cl 8 HM tzj ~
- f 1
0.2 OM, ~ ~
I 6H ~
t h.<<
Q M; t 4
=h h.r JW
~ ~
0.0 8 H t ~
H M
I>>
I It I
I l"
~
,l il
,l, l
I
APPROVED BY + N DATE 'rg gc C PREPARED BY'HECKED BY:
SYMBOL BORING NUMBER Io
~
UNIT P3 UNIT g3 I'~
SAMPLE NUMBER "As noted on Soil 'models (Tables 2T-8 and 2T-8a)
Io
~ =
- - ~ =
=~
I.
l I
SAMPLE DEPTH 4.-1.
Io (ft.)
Sheor Strain, percent
~
~,
4*- ~
4 I
l
~
~
I 4
~
+
~
+4, 4
SOIL TYPE Cla Sand I&
I 4
10 'ol Silt Silty CONFINING PRESSURE Cla Sand
( PS I )
~ ' ~
G mox. X IO 4
(pet.)
4 I.O
- 4. $ -- -r
~
0.8
~ - + 4-4 I
-l m 5 ~
5 >-
4 ~ ., ~
KTYZMP=
zHC t ~
4.
4.
f,
~-
0.6 4 1, + 4-
- 4 f I "4' 4 ~ 44 i 5 "1
I I IID:&;-SILTY' 3 I" VU 0 -'= i 4-> 4 ~
1
- S'AN' 4 4 f>
4 4 Q 04
- O >
I C C 9 Crt Cr) 5 O Crt '- 'I ~* 4 I 0>2 O
2' CD 4 4-
~~
4 f
~
~yH 4 I
4 ~ ~
0.0 CQ CrI
I I
~
l l,
li 1
a l
AttgDVED SY DATE f PREtARED IY: CHECKED ey~'YMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL TYPE CONFINING PRESSURE (ft.) ( pe I.)
UfLIT 82 io-+
P4 I t -~WTP IO-'hear lo"e I -\I StraIn, percent "4 I IO-' IO' t ~ '
7 r I t ~
I
~
4-25 4
=i
~ = = P~PP
~ ~ '4 I I 20 4.=
~ "
7 C ~ .I R 4 - **
I
~ t- o H
- fPf
~ - ~
I 4
4
=I - .I 4
-I5 I D
'P '- I 4
I a O
~ I ~ '+' O IO HH t=IP 4 C g I - ~
n 8 W A lO
~
4' ~ fP ~ Ir ~ SANO-'-
O tn -tK CLAY: 8" SILT:
~-
I Q 4 S I LTY -SA CLA.
OM 4 Ry 4 4 0
I I' " ~
~ .
5
~
~
~
gi' gi gi>l
~
1 I'gl
!I r.,
f
'gl I
(
g 5
II II
4YK , ig Is. 75 PRCPARCD 4Y: CKKCKCC CYC
~.g-Q 4 APPRCCVCD SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL TYPE CONFiNING PRESSURE (ft.) ( ps I.)
la 8 Silt Cla UNIT rI3 and 8 Silty Sand Shear Strain, percent Io IO-'o-'O-'&,
IO'0 4 .4= =t
~ 4 t\
e~
~
~
~i Iv
.<<4 I
~ ~ v-+
~
4~
. ' ~ 4 -- I ~I
~ 4 25 4
".*: I ~ >>
~ ~
i =-- ~ 'M*' ~ . ~, ~, 4 4
IV 4 20 v ~e-I, 4 Y
~ ~-
4 I
~ -V -~
- -l ~ ~
t .= 4 4>> =~ - ~ em
~
II' +
I
=4 0
4 I5 3
~ f -4<<4 t
J>> 4 4 4==
>> a-M 4 4 =-= ~ O
~ ~ "4 ~ e IJI O I IO
-~- I t
C !OH 4 H
-4>>>>4 C 8 .~
I ITI A 4
8 4 SAND- 8l'ILtT- =SAN ~ I 4
~ t ~
=CLAY 8 -
ILTY CLAY O M
~ 4- ~i ~ '.
~ ~
0 0 CA 4
I 0
l
~
I I
- l l
r
0-05 0 ~ 10 0 ~ 15 0.20 0.25 0-30 CD o
CD CM oo o
CD CD
~o CD I
I oo Mo
+3CQ oo oo CD o TIME HISTORIES o
04 X PAS. S90 W
+ BECHTEL o
CD ch HYW SOO W o 0 HYW. BASMT S (XIV EI S.B. S 48 E ACCELERATIONS ( /g) VS. DEPTH UNIT 2 Figure 2T-9d
l
~
~
- I
'5
'I l
'l I
\ ~
0.05 0 ~ 10 0-15 0.20 O-ZS Q ~ 3Q o
oo r
CD 04 oo o
+o
~o 4Jo o
o o
CD oo CD TIME HISTORIES CV PAS. S 90 W BECHTEL CD CD HYW SOO'W o 0 HYW BASMT S OCPW H S.B. S 48'E ACCELERATIONS (>/g) VS. DEPTH UNIT 3 Figure 2T-9e
I I
4
'1 l
l
~
- I
NRX-SHEAR STRESS(PSF) x ]0'.
cQ -00 30.00 60 -00 90.00 120-00 150-00 180.00 o
o o
CV o
o o
oo
~o
~ CD 4
~oo I
QJo O>
oo oo Tl ME H ISTOR IES oCV X PAS. S 90'W
+ BECHTEL HYW SOO W o
o 0 HYN BASMT S NAY H S.B. S 48'E
'AXINUN SHEAR STRESS VS. DEPTH UNIT 2 Figure 2T-9f
I I
4
'l I
r l
- f I
t1RX-SHEAR STRE'SS (PSF) 60-00 1ZO-00 150-00 180-00
'x]0'0.00 cQ. 00 30 -0.0 o
oo oo o
oo
~o cO I
4
~oo I
4Jo O~
oo o
o o
o TIME HISTORIES 0
oCV PAS. S 90'W BECHTEL HYW SOO'W oo 0 HYW BASMT S OCPW S.B. 48'E o S
'AXIMUM SHEAR STRESS
., UNIT 3 VS . DEPTH Figure 2T-9g
I
- l
'l l'l
~
APPRovED 8 ATE. +W / PREPARED eVI ~
cHEc KED ey; % CCeCs~
SUMMARY
PLOT DYNAMIC SOll. STRENGTH PROJECT NUNBER LOCATION DEPTH INTERVAL SOIL TYPE CRITERIA SAMPLING NETHOD (II) 72-'086-EG - 50 Kda -5.0%
. UNIT I,UNIT 2, UNIT 3 30 GRANULAR OR IHTL. Lift.
PITCHER NUNBER OF CYCLES =
10 IO 03 it il:! 0.8 tel l l f!llljlL I
~ . I II
~
1',I it'. i ~
ii
'tt i 1
t&&t
~ I 0
t t tff F
i ti ili li i i
t.
f P!
tttti,tt iit' it,it t lit 0.6
ti li
'J
-T~.!H li tt tjj, f.'f!I li If
~
I
~l tl I ~
~~
I~
I !Jf I j'g I I<<" ~
fl.
~~)J lit I ti TTt i ff j ft
,It, n Qadi I'i't!
f i it t!l 'tlili' ttii
'.t f fffl O II lti Ii
~
4' lit i,'If
-Rf O.i H .J; tt'f it "
L ,tt, p6 O
1 0 ill
!.~M f' f f! ~
1 ljf t
iiit ll" i'
ifi! jjj tt ~
!jj l
~
lll
~ ~
l:j 1
tt.
O R '1 l l tl lt t t* t wm J.l I! I I'1 I g PaP j I~ I lit!
I lj.l t~
ifif f'll t j'll f ~;
i ~I fff X R
'1
.;iij i,l 1 H
A .:;I jl I"1 <r'4 tJ 1
I il t'j 1t ~
-;".>ff i til jtill 1 it
~ 1 o5 jJ
(
i
'll':
~ 1 ititt 3!
Ww 1
'I :Jsj
~ ~ ~~
No ;t t
.'i;l'" il ~ 1 1 I:,fi .tft! t ft.l
~ f p
f
! ~
I ~ ~ lltti I l-fit,tl, '
1
~ I ~ ~ f !,ff t t 0.0
'I l
l I
I ll I
APPROVED BY +ATEI PflEPERED RIP~CHECKED lfY.
SUMMARY
PLOT DYNAMIC SOIL STRENGTH
=-PROJECT NUMBER LOCATION DEPTH INTERVAL SOIL TYPE CRI TER I A SAMPLING METHOD (ft) 30 50 GRANULAR a a= BLOCK 72-086-EG UNIT 2, UNIT 3 OR (NIL Li((
NUMBER OF CYCLES 10 102 10 0.8 lii.'jl i"', i~
11 ~
I I I it",, 1'1 tj 'I 1, i ti i I' 1 ~
I I i ii lit I 747 I 'it ,Ill ll ~ }1 lii 0.6
~
j ii lit}
1 I ttljlf*
1 7 II lt Jt
,if
+
}'ji ~~
~ i'1 i
tali 1li Pl'I itli T<l itii tl II i!1 I II, If ),li
,I' i ~ I
~
1 ffijt 3i li', ~
i iiij I ~
\
f
$ l*'ll I 111 O.i 6d
.ti 4"
1 2 ~o' 1 fili'1 fi ,'1 ii, K4 I~
R ij.i! fj !1:
if I ff bit 1
l 1 it
~ ~
II I~ .1 ~ I CE LII -.
1 ~
1 If 1 1
t, il>> I iji,' i,',
0.2 I 7 lf ~ -.
~
-~ i ~
-i ~
P ~ 1 if 'I! I
~ 1
~ ', PI lil il'il
,'l(I -1
.,;!C. ~ 1~
f('! Di 1 ~ I 1
1 it ~ I ~
lt ti.'
R i 7
~ t'1 ~~
,i jl' 74 7"
IYI i i ~ D 11 ~
t 1' ~ ~ .
0.0
I
'I jl 1
1
'1
APPROVED BY
~ DATE'REPARED BY: HKCKED BY
SUMMARY
PLOT DYNAMIC SOIL STRENGTH PROjECT NUMBER LOCATIOH DEPTH INTERVAL SOIL TYPE CRITERIA (ft) .
30 50 F8=5.%
12-086-EG UNIT I, UNIT 2, UHIT 3 GRAHULAR OR INlL. L I 0.
NUMBER OF CYCLES 10 10 10 0.8 i- at ki i r i SAMPLIHG METHOD Ia f'-,tij ii I}j a
L +Is Pl ltl ill a
'lik ik ~
s s s PITCHER TUBE J-L }lit I'}i i isl pi I; 'Ia; a
4 I It lil')j f}f!;I-I!' k"jl jT~Tg ~k-r it odd!I l!
lit, li"
.iii
'iki BLOCK 0.6 a
I a j!if as>
Iff t i aak I
la i'i' l i I-:
isl s
af ~a tl sl IJs ki I IIa I it ~
I iilk lait i
~A I-jl
~
tiii ii ~ k lal kt a
lt, h i ti I Lk
~
'i l l Hg a
Ij'l'";
Ii! st i
~ t.
+A A
!Ri
~<<
lii I
s'
<l}II It3
~i'
'l l}kt ~ t I~ i!1
~ t
~ th ak 4'
~ fj'.i!
~ il ka I'.t.
I t I a,
~
~
is is }i I 0.4
'..',ll.." ilk,i g 2 jp
'k) j, ia,i ajsljs t'k'I' j:i! I
- m lsi assi 4'o'.2 slit la ~ P E i R i t&ai k'I g Mg a kl: lfk I
s .'
k lI iii II js!I
-j k
~ -I .
ff} ~ }
'li-i ,l" '1 ~ I stt an<<
tV Q .
I ill
~~
~ i i ~ I" i
f ~
i BOX AN i
tattl j ii t f
",kf a ~
I 1 t ~- t O O'MW e . <<k *, I
,.- 't i ++I
=a 4 a ~ J k ~ at S~ kt I
i 1}'* sj* i,=
.'-.- aja ~k lt, ~ ',
~ ~
I g,O a ,jii~ s k=i a ~ I AVERAGF:0 l-PIITC ER'-T S}A
~
Ls0 O ~ ~ j 1 0.0 M
I I l l
* ' AaeWCO eV QA7t:~~~M 'tKKPAltKO KLCKlD SY
SUMMARY
PLOT DYNAMIC SOIL STRENGTH PROjECT HUllBER LOCATION DEPTH INTERVAL, SOIL TYPE CR I TER.I A (I t)
~de = 5.
72 086-EG UHIT I,UHIT 2,UHIT 3 30 50 GRAHULAR OR INTL. LIQ. NUMBER OF CYCLES
~ 10 02 03 1
iif','I 0.e li! ,t,lII j! iilj ,.i: Ii i~ I ji;
- l~ t" I/ Ill tjj j{r'.,;,
I. I! lilt tli i 0.6 I llif
'I jj jft' liti if!f 1
f j )Il I{t, III {~i I'I i" O lli 1'1 1li",;" A K fff 'it II I llj O I i,i 1 I ft iti 4'
!)I I! I;I!ii 0.4 0 O t it tf I .'l,f I
2 fr Pp 1 Iftt jfjj II I-3 0 R l{ .tf', OOg ill 1 1 0'.2 I tit j(I{ U) Q 1g I 1 lii hf'
!I{I'ttl f 11
~ \
It{ i. fj! jfli till j~J 1 ii 1 Tt tff ii) I it i U I iflf '11'tl I
' lgf
.If tl L fi i.
f,i lffi 1 rf) rI 1 jl I11 0.0
l
SUMMARY
PLOT DYNAMlC SOlL STREN6TH PROJECT NUMBER LOCAT IOH DEPTH IHTERVAL SOIL TYPE CRITERIA SAMPLIHG METHOD (ft)
- 80 GRANULAR PORTIOHS ~da= 5. 5 72-006-EG UHIT I, UHIT 2 , 70 ONLY OR INTEL. I.IC PITCHER NUMBER OF CYClES 10 I 02 0 I:.j ijtl il't 0.8
.i: f, jJI
~ tw
.lil Jj,',fjl itl ft.'I I i, it'j',
~ I i:i
}fj'TH~
} '. ,!; 1'lti Ii
~
I
'.i
'l ltl jif.'...,
1 1 IU', fji JJ.) '1! I 1; t fi iti j
-J ph t litt j,,'lit 1 ~
ffli'fItj fli;I 1 iii' ii 1 '.11
,J. ijf !
f qt lt 1 ~ 1 itl .Il,l ll 1'i ii l1 i,i' il: ~ 1
- 1 J.11'>>
ttt it ~1 ~ ~~~ g pi 'I Tt t-"! ! t itt itt. i; Ij II ff
~
k~ ti. IV~ 'i i
,it 1 jj" A .I! pp )!
Ii i 18 A ::hT >>1 I-l.! tj 1 ~ ~ I ii II!Ijt i!I t>>t ;I:I ili'I, 0.4 6d 2 M A 't;1 !! ~ I !jii itt't>> Iitf gH H 'Iti
+ CQ IIItt tIT} ! jg";- I!,I ff! tl I',
QOR t}i' l 0f
'tl tt'o'.2 tj
Ãg tl iI HRA
~
t tie! zv:-":-,'--/ ~ i
~ ~ rt tW ~~1
,'ti!f t ~
+ -t i-}
~ t>>
I iti w tn t-3 t4 ~ 8 I-I *- 1 I 111 i
>> p ~,f- ":
o5 9 XM Wit
-t t it tt it it
~
*I! tf t,i
~ L.
ojL M o ti t- i I
~ '
*+1 ~ ~
li ll'ti~
- it i, if'
~
I
'i I" l .l
~
ji ~ I !.! 0.0
I l
M' M M M APPROVKO = BY ~ATE ' PREPARED BY/ HEC K K Ct BY:3}~}
SUMMARY
PLOT GYNAhllC SOll STRENGTH PROJECT NUMBER I.OCATIOH DEPTH IHTERVAL- SOIL TYPE CRITERIA l (I t), ada 72-086-EG UHIT 1, UHIT 2 30 50 >17% PASSIHG $ 200 OR }}}TL. L}}} NUMBER OF CYCLES 10 10 .10
'i 0.8 I 1st '! i ll1 js il il, ~
j' 1st 1" ls SAMPLIHG METHOD gi ts!i sf! i; le stf
,'fsi si 11'ile 1 1!i I, le,i II iit' I
I e leis 's!f i, s i 11! sff ts I siss PITCHER TUBE 1)j I ss I sf i I.f Il 1 4v fiji Ie L s n s ~ is ss
'le, i i se i sf tl L'I i il ii sit a BLOCK II I 1:I ses !W ip'it 0.6 Iei,ll ~ i s si l!}I 'll j fs s ts il 11 I f}j /}le s I
}lit l}tf fi'1
! Qsi itis I s ii e} 'jjj }L I'1 s
IL ijl sl 1 e I 1 iji 1 I i! If j- sJii s Iv ~o } I s el t
+I ',
ll till ell,' tl I s '1 i}; sl: it if' :tii s
+O.. s s L arj ~O~
i I I ge I l llli
- ltt 1
ill fs
}I',:t i
ae fiji s tsl .'!j} 6 1 ~ 0.4 4' dP .lE I I ~ it It l lit -l ts l.i i tf I .i 'e. life ifii ceil 1 gjtl ,'I'j', Ij I ~
',ji! s'l I,~
HQ 'M ls tts'si ~ lll iili f.'i ls i; AMgR 1 si'iIf 2~o'.2 1 1~ l'! I f! t iilf "1 s N M, }sis J 6. ftsfli It}i ss g ,'I}.-!}l I IJ i ih. SAit.'ep PR R
'Ill lie A~A - oo
,i
.jj. s
'ffi
'}see I,
~
lt:. Iit' e e>> s j s
, s ~
t ge ~ ~
}
~
i I I slf s is s, ~
- ll- '.i} ,'}li sis i ~OM i e
~ ii',f ills j'}v,'L' l I} is
~
. ~ . 1 s>>
i,i PO O O ei>> ii
,"iee
.1
's, 'f '
M I,'if, ii '
'fil I!
.iti
~
1 MgO H e ~ II
;bi( ~ .Il s fs W ~ I i
!el:
il f
'I si i'i;I ie,'-:i s
i ~ i
~ i' sl I I i.jil e lte W~OM is/ e 0.0
I
~
I l I .I I j I "E I 5
~
E I APP RDVKD SY'DATC + ~ PttKPAttSD SY4 ~ I SUIIIMARY PLOT DYNAI}llC SOlL STRENGTH PROIECT'NUMBER LOCATION DEPTH INTERVAL SOIL TYPE CRITERIA . SAMPLIHG METHOD (I t)
- 80 a 0=50%
72-088-EG UNIT I, UNIT 2 :, 70 GRAHULAR OR }NT}.. }.}a. PITCHER NUMBER OF CYCLES 10 102 0 I<< I 0.8 tie I I I 'li, fttl I
~ ~
,fij I
I
't III'fil t} 'I i'
~ l lt til 1<< "I 111 itI tlt I I I
I I'>>i; ilf! I- '- I~ }II I>> I*i'e I'ii i II I} :II,' lj }t" ." I It, "
~ ii IIII.'I Ml li;I i li }I} Til 'Vf I"-
O.S lj 1 I j ilt tt }/! Ill I l
~
ll' II'1 ::i ..;
~ I hf fj II>>
i}., I tiij el i 'I f I I~ 1'1 l i!I; I}i, ) I'I Ill IVe ill ItiII l}I lf it. il }I!I I!'II l< 'ic O ft
>!i I>>
It I 'I IIY t>>t E 'll ill 0.4 6d t 11 I el i l}I fi t
-j-I-H III' e
~
I'I'- ltl 2<ot tzt I-3 t-t ~ 1<<' 0OO '1'.I
~
fe l}f ll
;I
- ',ll
~ 1 i tie} iti; I H
A 49 g Q f>>t Ql R
~
fili I
~
ill'=' I}IIII ,'jjl ~ fe 1
'hRA" I ef>> It i 't-1
)Y t t!
I';M I I ~ I-I SQ ~ I 0.2 I 3 I M
~ U) U)
- Itt- 11, t
fj- v-t } '
~
tel if ll lt lit 1 itt i 1~ i f~ tel tii f,t:, t il., o H%M ~ I
~
,.It
~
I te l~ UII fe e tlU I I I It M ~ T;E B j, l* I l ~ -* Ciao I I ~ ~ II
, I ,~ I I~) I I am t 1
-~
I
>>tt.f I. f I
l
~
4 r -I 0.0 o
~ '1 4 4 I
CD CD o
~Co ANPP UNIT NO. 2 BECHTEL RECORO, LAYER NO. 9 L CD o ~o CQ (no ~o (D
CD
+c4 r-,
0.00 2.50 5.00 7.50 10 -00 12 . SO 15 ~ 00 17-SO 20.00 TINE'SEC. ) CD CD CD ANPP UNIT,NO. 2 BECHTEL RECORD, LAYER NO. 15 CD CD
~o (D
Q A CD COo CO ~ I V3
~o CD <o Mcv V) 0 .00 2 ~ 50 5.00 7-50 10-00 12-SO 1S.OO 17.50 20 00 F
Tll1E (SEC-) SHEAR STRESS-TIME HISTORIES LAYER NOS. 9 and 15 UNIT 2 Figure 2T-10g
- 1
~ ~ ~ /)
t I l I I
CD ID cv C) ANPP UNIT NO. 3 BECHTEL RECORD, LAYER NO. 9 CD CD LC-m (D p (no COo p I o IY CD Co 0 .00 2.50 S.OO . 7.50 10.00 12.50 15-00 17.50 20.00 T lME (SEC ~ ) CD o ANPP UNIT NO. 3 BECHTEL RECORO, LAYER NO. 15
'M C) oo LL-m (0
p V)o No I (13 prO CX,o WLP Z, 5.00 12.50 15.00 17.50, 20 00 (D 0 .00 2'50 7 ~ 50 10 ~ 00 ~ TINE'SEC ~ ) SHEAR STRESS-TIME HISTORIES. LAYER NOS. 9 and 15
'NIT 3 Figure 2T-10h
I I I I I I I}}