ML19209C444
| ML19209C444 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1979 |
| From: | DAMES & MOORE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-02-04, TASK-2-4, TASK-RR NUDOCS 7910150570 | |
| Download: ML19209C444 (81) | |
Text
',.$'
R b
4 h
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AT LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWR) SITE NEAR GENOA, VERNON COUNTY, WISCONSIN is b
W Prepareci by DAMES & MOORE 7101 Wisc:nsin Avenue Washington, D.C. 2001a h
Prepared fdr Dairyland Pcwer Coope-ative La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601
&R 4
5 h
ms m
..sme. me 79101507 70 g
i 8
n
,i.
l C. M iE5 G C M O O.T C 1
E August 10, 1979 Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor E
Dairyland Power Cocperative Post Office Sox 135 Genoa, Wisconsin 5M32 Attention:
Mr. R. E. Shimshak 6
, perintendent
[
P1an: su Gentlemen:
a'e submit herewitn three copies of our dra#t report, "Licuefac-E tion Octential at La Crosse Soiling Water Reactor (LACSWR) Site, Near Genoa, Vernon County, Wisconsin," for your review.
This report includes:
a) Brief summaries of all previous-liquefaction analvses per#or ed at LAC 3WR Site and related backgrounc stud'es; b)
Details of field, laboratory and ar,alytical investiga-tions that were cerfor ed to verify the earlier
'indings regarding liquefaction potential at LACEWR Site; and c)
Cur conclusions based on -igorous analyses and E
sechisticated testing perfo &ed on undisturbed samples obtained by utilizing state-of-the-art techniques.
We nave concluced in our study that a threshold licuefaction resistance level for the L.aC3WR site corresponds to an SSE producing an I
acceleration of 0.2Cg at the ground surface.
The scoce of ser ices for this report was preparec by us after l
discussions with u.r. Richa.d Shimshak of Cairyland Power Cocoeratwe.
We will look #crwaro to finali:ing this report soon after receiving your 1145 134
o n n..: :. u m u r.
review ccmments.
- n the meantime, the report is being technically re-viewed to fulfill the qual f y assurance recuirements.
Very truly yours, DAMES & VCCRE
, /J b
i Harcharan Singn, Dh.D.
Partner I
(
/
Ayscre '4ataraja, Ph.D., P.E.
Drejet: Engineer
\\
M
-S / vti: eo EPCI:sJres P
as W]
9
\\\\45 \\35
CONTENTS P age I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I i
1.1 General..........................
2
1.2 Purpose and Scope
SUMMARY
OF DAMES & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 2.0 3
OF 1973..........................
3 l
2.1 Geology....................
4 2.2 Seismology.........................
4 2.3 Liquef action Potenti al...................
j 6
3.0
SUMMARY
OF WES REPORT OF 1978...............
6 3.1 B ac k g ro u nd.........................
l 6
3.2 Sccpe and Purpose of Report................
6 3.3 Conclusions by WES.....................
7 3.4 Sunnary..........................
8 4.0 BRIEF REVIEW AND D!SCUSSION OF WES REPORT l
9 5.0 REEVALUATION OF DAMES & MOORE REPORT OF 1973........
I 10 6.0 DAMES & MOORE RECOMMENDATIONS OF MARCH 1979 11 7.0 NRC/WES CCMMENTS ON DAMES & MOORE RECCMMENDATIONS 12 3.0 TEST 50RIN3 PROG MM....................
12 8.1 General..........................
12 3.2 Drilling and Sampling Procedures..............
12 9.2.1 Standard Penetration Tests................
E Undisturbed Sampling..............
14 3.2.2 16 8.3 Handling of Undisturbed Sasples 17 9.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM.................
17 9.1 General..........................
E Specific Gravity......................
17 9.2 17 9.3 P artic l e S i z e An alys e s...................
'17 9.4 Minimum and Maximum Densities...............
21 9.5 Dry Density of Undisturbed Samples.............
21 9.6 Cyclic Triaxial Tests 21 9.6.1 Sample 3 reparation....................
22 9.6.2 rest,ng
\\\\45 136
i I
CONTENTS (cont'd)
Page 10.0 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES...................
24 I
10.1 General..........................
25 10.2 Liquefaction Potential 26 10.3 Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential, Approach 1 26 10.3.1 Simplified Procedure 26 l
10.3.2 Japanese Procedure 28 10.4 Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential, Approach 2 45 10.4.1 Soil Model Used in the Response Analysis 45 10.4.2 Soil Properties Used in the Response Analysis......
45 10.4.3 Design Earthquake Used in the Response Analysis.....
47 10.4.4 One-Dimensicnal Wave Propagation Analysis........
51 10.4.5 Cyclic Shear Strength......
51 10.4.6 Con',ersion of Irregular Stress History Into Equivalent Uniform Cyclic Stress Series 58 10.4.7 Correction Factor, C 58 r.
10.4.8 Factor of Safety Computation 59 10.4.9 Discussion and Conclusions 59 11.0
SUMMARY
OF LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES AT THE LACSWR SITE....
64 REFERENCES 65 APPENDIX:
SCRING LOGS E
Il E
E R
II g
1145 137
t a
TABLES Numce r Pace 1
Particle Size Characteristics 20 2
Sumary of Cyclic Triaxial Test Results 23 3
Sumary of Liquefaction Analysis, Approach 1, Procedure 1 29 4
Sum.ary of Liquefaction Analysis, Approach 1, Procedure 2 43 5
Generalized Soil Profile and Model for One-Dimensional iave Propagation Analysis 46 6
Sumary of Liquefaction Analysis, Approach 2 61 E
FIGURES 1
Plot Plan 13 2
Variation of SPT N-Values with Depth 15 3
Particle Size Analysis--Range for Sands Encountered at Site 18 4
Particle Size Analysis--Range for Gravels Encountered at Site 19 5
Varia; ion of Dry Density with Depth 2d E
6 Correlation Between Field Liquefaction Behavoir of Sancs for Level Ground Conoitions and Penetration Resistance (a.ax = 0. O g) 30 7
Correlation Between Field Liquefaction Behavoir of Sands for Level Ground Conditions and Penetration Resistance (a
= 0.12 g) 31 8
Correlation Between Field Liquefaction Behavoir of Sands fcr Level Ground Conditions and Penetration Resistance (a
= 0.14 g) 32 E
max 9
Correlation Between Field Liquefaction Behavoir of Sands for Level Ground Conditions and Penetration Resistance (a
= 0.16 g) 33 10 Correlation Between Field Liquefaction Behavoir of Sands for Level Ground Conditions and Penetration 4
Resistance (a
= 0.18 g) 34 y,
11 Corre'2 tion Between Field Liquefaction Behavoir of Sar..s for Level Ground Conditions and Penetration kesistance (a
= 0.20 g) 35 12 Stress (Seed and Idriss) and St ength (Based en Cor-rectec N) at a
= 0.10 g 36
\\\\45 \\%
FIGURES (cont'a; l4 umber Page 13 Stress (Seed and Idriss) and Strength (Based on Cor-rected N) at a
= 0.12 g 37 14 Stress (Seed and Idriss) and Strength (Based on Cor-rected N) at a
= 0.14 g 38 15 Stress (Seed and Icriss) and Strength (Based on Cor-rectec N) at a
= 0.16 g 39 max 16 Stress (Seed and Idriss) and Strength (Based on Cor-rectec N) at a
= 0.18 g 40 17 Stress (Seed and Idriss) and Strength (Based on Cor-rected N) at a
= 0.20 g 41 g
18 Stress (Seed and Idriss) and Strength (Japanese) at Various Accelerations 44 19 Typical Reduction of Shear Moculus with Shear Strain 48 20 Damping Ratio for Saturated Sands 49 21 SSE Sorizontal Cceponent 50 22 Stress (One-Dimnsional Analysis) and Strengtn (Laboratory) at Various Accelerations 52 23 Cyclic Si ear Stress Ratio vs Number cf Cycles for Initia' Liquefaction, Test No.1, Depth 16 to 20 Feet 53 24 Cyclic Shear Stress Ratio vs Numcer of Cycles for Initial Licuefaction, Test No. 2, Deptn 31 to 37 Feet 54 25 Cyclic Shear Stress Ratio vs Number of Cycles for Initial Liquefaction, Test No. 3, Cepth 41 to 52 Feet 55 26 Cyclic Shear Stress Ratio vs Number of Cycles for Initial Liquefacticn, Test No. 4, Deptn 87 to 92 Feet 56 27 Su: mary Curve Showing Effects of Density and Soil Fabric on Number of Cycles to 5% Double Amplitude Strain 57 23 Dynamic Shear Strength vs Effective Overourden Stress--
Based on Cyclic Triaxial Tests 60 e
i u 45 'i N B
o
a U
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I 1.1 General In 1973, Dames & Moore (D&M) performed a Geotechnical Investigaticn of Geology, Seismology, and Liquefactic,n Potential at the Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) site (Ref. 1).
This study was conducted for Gulf United Nuclear Fuels Corporation.
D&M's report was submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) in 1974, as part of the applica-M tien for an operating license for the LAC 5WR plant (Ref. 2).
In the study, D&M concludec that tne LACBWR plant had adequate factors of safety against potential for liquefaction under the design Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE).
NRC initiated a review process under its Systematic Evaluation Pro-gram (SEP) in 1978.
As a part of SEP, the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) was requested by NRC to review the 1973 D&M soils investigation.
After reviewing the data and analyses presented by D&M, WES performed its own analyses based on interpretations of the same data.
The WES report submitted to NRC, and made public in 1973 (Ref. 3), concluded that the factors of safety against liquefaction potential were consider-ably lower than those calculated by D&M.
Upon request of the Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC), D&M reviewed the WES report and reevaluated its 1973 report in view of the WES analyses.
Based on this effort, D&M presented to NRC a position which was essentially consistent with its 1973 study.
It was decided during the meeting with NRC on February 9,1979, that a written report should be prepared sumarizing E
the meeting, the reviews made, and the various analyses on liquefaction potential for the LACBWR site.
Accordingly, a report (Ref. 4) was submit-ted to NRC in which D&M reiterated its earlier stand that the LACSWR site had adequate factors of safety against potential for liquefaction under the design SSE. However, certain questions rai:ed by NRC regarding the lack of test data on undisturbed samoles and the lack of continuous stan-dard penetration test results could not be satisfactorily answered with the existing data.
Therefore, DPC agreed to perform modest field and laboratory investigations and limited analyses to verify the earlier find-ings on liquefaction potential.
g AS i40 g
m
E In its March 1979 report (Ref. 4), D&M recomended a modest program consisting of a minimum of four test borings, undisturbed sampling, and cyclic triaxial testing and analyses.
After review of the D&M report, NRC approved the proposed geotechnical program and suggested minor modifica-tions.
k 1.2 Purcose and Scope The purpose of this report is to sumarize all of the liquefaction analyses performed at the LACSWR site--(a) D&M (1973), (Ref.1); (b) WES (1978), (Ref. 3); (c) D&M (1979), (Ref. 4); and (d) NRC/WES (April 1979),
(Ref. 5).
Additionally, new analytical investigations have been conducted to verify prior findings on liquefaction potential.
The report is organ-ized as detailed below:
a.
Brief sumary of the Dames & Moore soils investigation of 1973 (Section 2.0),
b.
Brief'sumcry of the WES analysis of 1978 (Section 3.0).
c.
Brief review of the WES report and discussions on the approach taken by NRC (represented by WES), (Section 4.0).
d.
Sumary of the reevaluation of the repcrt of 1973 (Section 5.0).
e.
Conclusions and recomendations for further work presented by D&M in March 1979 (Section 6.0).
f.
Review cements by NRC/WES on D&M conclusions and recomendations (Section 7.0).
g.
Details of the current field, laboratory, and analytical investi-gations performed by D&M to verify earlier findings on liquefac-tion analyses at the LACSWR site (Sections 3.0, 9.0, and 10.0).
5)
E E
M E]
n as 141 u
1 2.0
SUMMARY
OF DMES & M0CRE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OF Hi73 1
Two studies were performed by Oames & Moore in 1973--a study of ge-ology and engineering seismology, snd an investigation of static and dy-namic soil properties and evaluation of liquefaction potential.' A report f
containing the results of these studies was prepared in 1973 (Ref.1) and was presented to NRC as a part of the application for an operating license for the LACBWR plant. The conclusions of this report are discussed in Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.
2.1 Geology LACBWR is situated within the Central Stable Region of the North Merican continent. This region includes the dense igneous and meta-morphic rocks of the Canadian Shield and adjacent early Paleozoic sedi-mentary strata. The geologic structure of the Central Stable Region is relativelysimpie. Other than uplift and subsidence, very little struc-tural activity has occurred in this quiescent area since Proterozoic time.
5 The region is characterized by a system of broad, circular-to-ellip-tical erosional uplif ts--the Wisconsin and Ozark Domes, and three sedi-The site mentary basins--the Forest City, Michigan, and Illinois Basins.
is located on the western flank of the Wisconsin Arch, a southern extension of the Wisconsin Ocme.
Minor structures, consisting primarily of synclines and anticlines of g
M icw relief, show no preferred orientation.
They are superimposed on the broader features in the region.
Faults in the region are believed to have been dormant since late Paleozoic time, i.e., for at least 200 million The Paleozoic strata and overlying unconsolidated sediments are years.
essentially undeformed within about 50 miles of the site.
LAC 3WR is located within the Wisconsin Driftless section of the Cent-ral Lowland physiographic province.
This section is characterized by flat-lying, maturely dissected sedimentary rocks of early Paleozoic age.
Moderate-to-strong relief has been produced on the unglaciated landscape which has been modified only sligntly by a mantle of loess and glacial outwash in the larger stream valleys of the area.
E1 m
\\\\45 \\42
The LACSWR facilities are situated on about 20 feet of hydraulic fill overlying 100 to 130 feet of glacial outwash and fluvial deposits on the east flood plain of the Mississippi River Valley.
The surface configura-tion of the underlying bedrock is unknown because of the relative paucity of borehole data.
The bedrock tielow the site consists of nearly flat-lying sandstone and shales of the Dresbach Group (Upper Cambrian).
Dense Pre-cambrian crystalline rock under~ lying these sedimentary rocks is estimated to be at a depth of 650 feet.
2.2 Seismolocy Based on the seismic history and the tectonics of the region, C&M concluded that the site will not experience any significant earthquake-induced ground motion during the remaining economic life of the nuclear facility.
Historically, there is no basis for expecting ground motion of more than a few percent. of gravity at the LAC 3WR plant site.
- However, three possible sources of earthquake motion at the site were considered.:
grj a.
The nearest zone cf repeated earthquake activity, which is in 4
northern Il1inois-s 1thern Wisconsin.
b.
The effect of a series of events such as those which occurred in 1311-1812 near New Madrid, Misscuri.
c.
The effect of several shocks in the region which have not been related to any currently identifiable geologic structure or te.-
tonic feature.
After a careful evaluation of these possible sources of earthquake motion and their possible effect on the LAC 3WR site, it was concluded that the SSE should be considered as the occurrence of an MM Intensity VI shock with its epicenter close to the site.
It was estimated that the maximum horizontal ground acceleraticn induced by such an event would be 12 per-cent of gravity at the ground surface.
2.3 Liouefaction Potential The liquefaction potential of the granular soils underlying the ex-isting plant was analyzed by comparing the anticipated shear stresses due to the SSE with the shear stresses required to produce liquef action at various depths.
The analysis was confined to tne upper strata (from the ground surface to a depth of 100 feet) of the zone of potential liquefac-tion.
To provide pertinent subsurf ace data for this analysis, a field exploraticn and laboratory program of index procerties tests and dynamic tests was concocted.
u AS iA3 E
The factors
.'f safety g ainst liquefaction were calculated for vari-ous depths.
The calculations were based on 10 significant stre.ss cycles, following the engineering practice of 1973. The results of the analysis indicated that the calculated minimum factor of safety against liquefac-tion under the SSE was 1.47.
t l
l B
I i
L I
I I
fl 1145 144 E
5
/
r 3.0
SUMMARY
OF WES REPORT OF 1973 E
3.1 Backcround The NRC requested that WES review the foundation conditions at the LACBWR site and prepare a report (Ref. 3) specifically examining the earttquake safety of the pile foundation which supports the contain-ment vessel.
~
3.2 Scoce and Purcose of Recort The scope of WES's report included the followins:
a.
Review of Chapter 3, Soil Engineering Procerties, in the DPC's Applicatien for Coerating License for the Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor (Pef. 2), including pcrtions of Appenoix A, entitled
" Field Exploration and Laboratory Tests," anc associated design drawings.
b.
Performance of a liquef action analysis using the Seed-Idriss Sim-plified Procedure (Ref. 6), assuming peak ground surf ace accelera-tions of 0.12 g and 0.20 g.
c.
Performance of a liquefaction analysis using Seed's empirical method (Ref. 7), assuming both the 0.12-9 and 0.20-g earthquakes, and comparison with a " rule of thumb" based on the Japanese ex-perience at Niigata in 1964 (Ref. 5).
3.3 Conclusions by WES The liquef action potential was evaluated for two earthquakes--an SSE with a peak ground acceleration of 0.12 g and an SEE with a peak ground acceleration of 0.20 g.
Two methods were emolayed in the analysis-- the Seed-Idriss Simplified Precedure and an emoirical procedure.
Also, a Japanese " rule of thumo" based on blowccunts from standard penetration tests was used to predict liquefaction.
The following were the conclu-sions:
h a.
Liquef action was predicted between depths of 32 and 48 feet by Seed-Idriss calculations for 0.12-g ground acceleration.
3 b.
Liquef action was predicted between depths of 24 and 35 feet by 4
the emoirical procedure for 0.12-g ground acceleration.
c.
Liquef action was predicted belcw a depth of 25 feet by Seed-Idriss calculaticns for 0.20-g ground acceleration.
d.
Liquef action was precicted between depths of 25 and 60 feet and 35 and 105 feet by the emoirical procedure for 0.20-g ground acceleration.
e.
Japanese experience, based cn the Niigata earnquake of 1964, al:o indicated licuef accion cotent'll ceiow a te::;h of 15 feet (fcr both cases cf 0.12 g and 0.20 ;,.
R 1145 145
I f.
If lateral support was lost at the depths indicated above, piles would be in danger of failure due to buckling.
3.4 Summary l
Based on judgements concerning the density and strength data and on analyses presented in the WES report, the soils below the reactor at the LACBWR site were predicted to strain " badly" under an SSE which produces 0.12-g acceleration at the ground surface.
The soils beneath the reactor vessel at the site were predicted to experience excessive strains and ligaef action under an SSE with a peak acceleration at the ground surface of 0.20-g.
According to the WES report, because of limitations and the limited data available, it was concluded that the reactor vessel founda-tion was unsafe under the 0.20-g SSE, but no conclusion was reached on h
whether the reactor vessel foundation was safe under the 0.12-g SSE.
M
~
n 5
E E
E E
E E
E E
1145 146
,g
I 4.0 bRIEF REVIE'd AND DISCUSSION OF WES REPORT 1
Liouef action Analysis for Lacrosse Nuclear Sower Sta-The WES report, r
l tion (Ref. 3), now a public document, was discussed for the first time at a meeting with NRC on January 9, 1979. OPC took exception to the contents of the WES report and requested that NRC arrange another meeting for discus-As a result, sion of the report af ter D&M had an opportunity to review it.
a seccnd meeting wcs held at NRC on February 9,1979, during which D&M oresented its review of the report to NRC.
Dr. W. F. Marcuson, the princi-The details of pal auther of the W25 report, was present at the meeting.
the February 9, 1979, meeting are presented in Ref. 4 The following review ccments were exoressed by C&M and DPC:
In general, WES adopted a very conservative approach in inter-a.
preting the available data.
WES postulated an earthquake of MM Intensity IX as a design." 1 b.
for the LACBWR site; this was considered unrealistic by D&M 2nd DPC.
The repor consistently reflected ccnservatism in selection of c.
soil parareters, selecticn of cyclic shear stress ratio, and se-lection o" stress reduction factor, which resulted in a cumula-tive underestimation of safety factors.
d.
WES perfo med emoirical analysis based on standard penetration results a"o comoared the LACSWR site with sites which have ex-perienced mucn higher seismic activity.
A Japanese " rule of thumb" developed af er the experiences of the e.
196a '4iigata earthouake and based on standard penetration test results was acpiled to the LACSWR site; such a direct application was considered inappropriate by C&M.
In sumary, C&M felt that the conservative aoproach taken by WES in each individual step of the analysis resulted in low factors of safety against liouefaction.
E 300R DHM a
E fl ne W as i
I 5.0 REEVALUATION OF DAMES & MOORE RfPORT OF 1973 Afte-the January 9,1979, meeting with NRC, D&M reevaluated its 1973 report (Mef.1) in light of the cocinents and concerns raised in the 1978 WES reper-- (Ref. 3).
In general, the D&M approach was found to be consis-tent wi r the state-of-the-art in 1973.
The obvious limitation of the 1973 study war the lack of liquefaction test data on " undisturbed" samples.
This lir ation was indeed realized in the D&M analysis of 1973 and, therefc m, a conservatite approach was folicwed.
Twc possible modifications to the D&M analysis of 1973 were consid-ered:
a.
Redrawing of the strength curves based on densities, rather than N
elative densities, in a manner similar to the procedure used in the WES report of 1978.
b.
Selecting the design shear stress ratio corresponding to five equivalent cycles to represent more realistically the postulated design SSE.
Based :" these modifications, factors of safety against liquef action were recompu ed and found to be essentially similar to those cited by D&M in 1973.
E
?DDR ORGPUI a
R E
E E
N B]
W n 45 148
1 6.0 DAMES & MOORE RECOMMENDATIONS OF MARCH 1979 The 1973 data and the analyses indicated that the factors of safety against liquefaction under the design SSE were adequate at the LACBWR site.
However, two basic issues needed to be addressed to further strengthen confidence in the results obtained--better definition of in situ densities at the LACSWR site, and development of continuous standard penetration test data at the site.
Also, it was necessary to have better estimates of g
E cyclic shear stresses that would result from the design SSE, and better estimates of shear strength data from test results on relatively undis-turbed samples.
To adcress the above concerns, D&M recomended a testing and analysis program for the LACBWR site, consisting of a test boring program with a minimum of four borings, a limited laboratory testing program, and limited l
analyses.
Details on the procedures and the actual program are discussed
~
in Ref. 4 E
n a
E i1 E
3 E
H 1145 149 M
e
1 7.0 NRC/WES ComENTS ON DAMES & MOORE REComENDATIONS 8
The 1979 D&M recomendati'as (Ref. 4) were reviewed by the authors of the WES report and NRC staff ano oproved by NRC subject to WES coments.
The following are the main points of the review as outlined in Ref. 5:
The program outlined by D&M is acceptable for 9termining the
(
a.
potential for liquefaction in the immediate vi: ;ity of the con-tainment building of the LAC 8WR plant.
b.
Additional borings may be required near the turbine building and the cribhouse.
State-of-the-art techniques should be employed to obtain undis-c.
I turbed samples in cohesionless soils.
d.
Comercial transportation of samples should be avoided.
A sufficient number of cyclic triaxial tests should be performed
=4 e.
&l to cover all the depths and confining pressures of interest and to obtain a good definition of strength at different confining pressures and at different significant stress cycles.
i Analys&s should be performed to cover a range of assumed peak f.
ground acceleration levels between 0.12 g and 0.20 g, so that a g
threshold liquef action resistance level can be estimated for the 3
LACSWR plant site.
The remaining sections of this report describe the actual test boring g
program, the laboratory testing program, and the analyses performed to Ja estimate a threshold liquefaction resistance level for the LACEWR plant site.
8 4
0 n
E 1145 150 g
5 e
8.0 TEST BORING PROGRAM i
8.1 General Five additional borings were drilled at the LACSWR site to obtain more i
l Two complete data for verification of the earlier liquefaction analyses.
borings were drilled on each side of the reactor building near 1973 borings l
CM-1 anu DM-3, and a fif th hole was drilled near the cribhouse near boring CM-5.
Approximate locations of the new borings (DM-7 through DM-11) are I
shown along with the earlier borings on Ficure 1.
Detailed descriptions of the soils that were encountered are presented on boring logs in the Appen-dix.
Three of the borings (DM-8, DM-10, and DM-11) provided standard pene-tration test (SPT) bicw counts at 5-foot intervals throughcut the depth of the holes; continuous blow counts had been precluded in previous borings by the use of several types of samplers in each hole.
Borings CM-7* and DM-9 yielded relatively undisturbed samples suitable for density determinations and laboratory cyclic triaxial strength testing.
The split-spoon samples from the SPT holes were used for field classification and laboratory confirmation of index properties.
3.2 Drilline and Samolino Procedures g
Drilling operations were performed by Raymond International of Chi-cago, using a Mobile E-61 truck-mounted rotary wash drill rig.
The rig was leveled before beginning each hole to ensure vertical drilling.
Drilling to the specified sampling depths was done with a a 1/8-inch tri-cone roller bit attached to A-size drill rods, with side discharge of drilling fluid M M.
minimize disturbance to soil below the' bit.
Casing was advanced at inter-vals to keep the hole open as drilling progressed, and a thick drilling mud was mixed and naintained above the groundwater level in the hole at all times. When completed, each hole was grouted at no pressure with a thick cement slurry to prevent caving.
8.2.1 Standard Penetration Tests.
The standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed at 5-foot intervals in borings CM-8, CM-10, and DM-11 to
- In Ji-7 samoles were taken alternately every 5 feet by the Osterberg piston samoler and the SPT solit-secon.
1145 151 H
JE u
a e
o D
ka
,I
'V 6 J I
, s.
7....
1 g
' tat STL I
'MY f
m,,
3 f.,l p Al
+
is, nl 1
. s-.
x' _
s e
I C
7 1
}
i etr' e
s si e
em== :m-r - *,
8888 M l
gopues cas.4 6
"m"*"
,b ~ ~a p
g-5 E acseme cas.o
/
80 "
/
W f
)
bF i
e
\\k
.m eu f, e
x
..an te < tar
.e I,_
[
6-4 N
ee8tM1gg
/
e
/
M t
l eM e e
f,Yh'sl[.3 J
'n s'
~
~-
4.~ e-,
r
~
.'- _i J..-
~
W *LSE SQ4 E-i l
ad I
M
.nn-n PLOT PLAN EST BC AING 80 A O&M 4 *INV ESTIG ATICN IN 1973 E S.
C 3 "
.ssaw= av a __
2 EST 3CAING 504 O&v T (Ns EST.C A T'ON IN 1979 1145 1{32
I provide blow-count values through all depths to be considered in the analy-sis, and to provide samples for field classification and laboratory ver-ification of index properties.
Sampling was done in accordance with ASTM D-1586-67 (Standard Penetration Test) specifications, using a cali-brated 140-pound pin-held hamer dropping 30 inches.
The pull rope used was old and flexible, wrapped two turns around the cathead, and was oiled frequently to minimize friction and approach as free a fall of the hamer as possible.
The 2-inch split-spoon was driven 18 inches into the soil, and blow counts were recorded in 6-inch increments.
The split-spoon was then slowly withdrawn and the disturbed sampis: was preserved for classifi-E cation and testing after field identification.
Figure 2 shows N-values plotted with depth for all borings; these values represent blow counts for the last 12 inches of each sample.
8.2.2 Undisturbec Samoline. Relatively undisturoed samples were obtained I
at 5-foot interva'ls in boring CM-9 and at 10-foot intervals in DM-7.
Samples were taken in thinwall tubes by means of an Osterberg piston sampler.
The tubes were coated with polyuretnane to minimi:e frictional disturb anc e.
Before each sampling operation, the piston sampler was cleaned and oiled and extended by hydraulic pressure aoplied by the rig to ascertain that grit would not hinder its even extension into the soil once it was lowered to sampling deotn. When clean, the sampler was lowered to rest on the bottom of the hole, and the tuce was extendec 30 inches into the soil by even hydraulic pressure.
The rig was chained down during the sampling to preven: uplif t of the rig and uneven pressure application on the sampler.
The sampler was then slowly withdrawn from the hole, maintaining the mud level near the top of the hole. When the sampler cleared the top of the casing, a small amount of soil was removed from the bottom of the tube (and dimensions recorded) to permit insertion of a solid cap in the end of the tube.
The purpose of the end cap was to prevent loss of sample material and moisture during removal from the sampler.
The sample tube was then severed at the top of the sample with a cipe cutter to release any vacuum within the tube and minimize disturbance while disengaging the tube from the samp!er.
Tne tube was cacced on top, while maintaining itt vertical orientation, and carried by a C&M field engineer to the onsite lacoratory for measuremen; and storage.
1145 153 m
O 9
N(biows/ foot) 0 3
u- #
&a g
O4a f0Q n-Il ex dtC g
m O o u-7
\\
GO+sa
+ ou-a O " ' '
d' O
O ou '1 h' + C
-- oEsion n v4tuEs s's Ch NOTE: ONLY D&M 19M RESULTS ARE Pr1ESENTED HERE
+
s so-a O c '-C
+
0
\\
E OO\\
3 f'flff!D Pfn I
o a
\\
g Oa0 I
Tljidjjhrj, so-
\\
aO
+
a
\\
O O
+
a\\
k im-O
\\a e
O
\\
e-C O \\
a
+
\\Ob G-
\\
b m-O
\\ O
+
a ca 1
E E
E VARI ATION OF SPT N-VALUES WITH DEPTH 1145 154 gj E
E'GUR F 7
8.3 Undisturoed Samole Handling g
5 Field density measurements were made in an onsite temperature-con-trolled laboratory accessible only to the site security chief and C&M personnel. Upen arrival in the laboratory, a sample tube was immediately measured and weighed, using appropriate tare weights, to determine a field f
density.
A small amount of soil was then removed from the top and bottom of the sample to cetermine moisture content.
A drainage cap, consisting of two perforated mett.1 disks separated by a rubber grotmtet, was installed in tne bottom of each sample tube to prevent displacement of the soil as drainage occurred.
The rubber gromet could be tightened or loosened by means of a wing nut.
The sample was covered with a non-airtight cap and allowed to drain at least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in a vertical tube rack.
It was anticipated that, after drainage of the free water, freezing of the remain-ing capillary moistere would create minimal, if any, disturoance of the structure of the sand samples.
This freezing technique currently is con-sidered the best means of preserving the structure of clean, loose sands h
below the water tatie for transport and testing (Ref. 9).
After draining, the samples were placed in vertical racks in 55-gal-lon drums and packed with dry ice surrounded by shredded insulation.
The samples were allowsj several hcurs to freeze, checked by a short length of tube filled with water (which froze completely within a half hour).
The drums were then transported to a comercial cold-storage plant in 0
Lacrosse, where they were stcred at -20 F for the duration of the field operations.
Upon ccmpletion of the drilling program, the samples were repacked in dry ice and insulation and driven to Chicago for laboratory testing, where they were unloaded and stored in a freezer maintained at 0
about -10 F.
The sample transport was performed by a D&M field engineer to ensure careful handling.
?00R3RE%L s
u Il m s 155 g
a
I 9.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM I
9.1 General The purpose of the testing program was to provide additional strength data from undisturbed samples for the liquefaction analysis, and to make a limited number of confirmations of index properties.
In addition to 15 stress-controlled cyclic triaxial tests, testing included specific gravity determinations, particle size analyses, minimum and maximum density deter-g E
minations, and measurement's of dry density of the undisturbed samples.
9.2 Soecific Gravity I
Determinations of specific gravity of sands at the site were made in the D&M laboratory in accordance wth ASTM D-854-58 (Soecific Gravity of Soils).
Tests of four samples from depths of 31 to 47 feet yielded spe-cific gravity figures ranging from 2.60 to 2.65.
These results correlate with expected va' lues for such soils and with 1973 results.
9.3 Particle Size Analyses Particle size analyses were performed on 25 samples from boring DM-10 by a D&M laboratory according to ASTM 0-422-63 (Particle Size Analysis of l
Soils).
Results are shcwn as ranges for the sandy and gravelly soils respectively, en Figures 3 and 4 The coefficient of uniformity, C u l
(Table 1), or ratio of 0
- to D10, provides a useful comparison of grain-60 size distribution at various depths and can be used in relative density calculations.
9.4 Minimum and Maximum Densities Minimum and maximum densities for a, composite of samples between 31 and 47 feet were determined in the laboratory by using equipment and methods similar to those specified by ASTM D-2049-69 (Relative Density g Cohesionless Soils).
These tests produced an average minimum dry density of 97.2 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and an average maximum of 114.3 pcf.
Relative density, O, could then be calculated by comparing these densi-r ties with measured in situ densities.
- D, refers to the grain size which is coarser than 50 percent of the E
sblebyweignt.
0 is defined similarly as coarser than 10 percent 10 of the sampic.
Il 1145 156 g
M 1
0 0
0
}"(
~
~
g
~
~
.[
~
Y
~
A
~
~
L
~n
~
C 8
hU
~
0 R
0 O
~
I
%n Y
~~
~~
L U-
~
S
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
0 LI II l g
I I I I l l i g ','hN 1
0
[
2 f
0 E
~
. A hk W-Y_
0
~
T S
[
0
~
~
I I
_i R
N S
1 I
E F
T kQ 0
T A
I
~
t 6
E v6 SD
[{q
+
M I
[
S E 0
g-I
! I1 E 4 J
y 0
Ii I I
-(
[
I L
Y H 4
)
L Z
M y,
'u L E k1 I
M I
A T I
i 3
0 D
N N S0 k
h m
m y
9 1 N A U 2
E S 0 i
M 3yilgyh~
I e
E O
~
d W
V w
~
E C
~~
Z E
A E
N
~
I r
l
l l g,l
'i I
Z E
~
I S
1 E. S S
R D
D A
l R
' -\\
~
O N
C CN
~
A 4 I
T A l-l I i l i 1 I
, I 1 i l I I l !
D t A
R S Ni
)
R l
l 2
G
[
Al A 8 H
PO 1
T/
1' e 0
S 3 Si l
1 l
F n
a n
. N 0
l hga E
S I
1 nt ns G
4 e iwieys li i I l i N
l l
i ll il t
a e UV sula r r A
~
v yan v,c v a a
^
l
~
e ol H
e N
a ra s t S
a N
r l f I
g gniog r
5 I
g r r
s A
ul s l
~
i oiot e O
n l
nm C
nses uf l
~
t l
wmc ol u
e N
l I l j g c o a nan} l I I
l I
x r or n 0
3 Ut t aa 0 (e 0
'0 N 8
1 M2 O D1 l
S i
- 0 P E
Nl i T-G :
ll L
l 8
l i C
~
B i
~
l P S O
oL E
~
C
~
DDD
~
00 0
0 o
008 0
0 4
3 s
7 9
t[o$a b c $-
s r
yg
~m.
n
" pU L
O)I eeg
,h-
5 5
5 U
M M
M M
abh M
M M
M G
M M
M.
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3 IN.1.5 IN. 3/4 IN 3/8 lit 4 IO 20 40 60 100 200 l
h I _ __ _
I I
I 1
g 90
- I g-j l
y
.o 4
._I g
_7 r
j g
g y 70 l
g-g-
[-
-g g
D 1
g h
l l
l g
\\
60
\\
y g-g
-}
p l
g.-
g._
l g
w y j
g I
_)
g
[
l g-g l
l 40
- DOfilNG: DM-10 i
{
.DEPTilS: 10S*,110*
l.
g g
6 5
. g y 39
..DESCillPTION: Fine to coarse gravel aml _
I twown ime to mednun sanal l
-' l-
- - - - ~
}
g with a little tilt 20
-)
- q l
l._
so l
I l
I i ___ _
l i
l 1
l l
1 o_
8000 60 0 10 l0 01 0 01 0 001 1
]
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS s
__&ol_A
_f rit4E coaW5tl utosuu l
FinL_ _
conetts S'L' OR CLAY ApfW),[I PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS 8
]
8 HANGE FOR GRAVELS ENCOUNTERED AT SITE 2
k a
TABLE 1 l
PARTICLE SIZE CHARACTERISTICS 0
0 u
Depth 0
l 10 50 60
=0
/D Et1 (m)
(m)
(m) 60 10 10 0.12 0.40 0.42 3.5 20 0.20 0.42 0.43 2.2 l
30 0.15 0.44 0.51 3.4 40 0.15 0.41 0.49 3.3 50 0.16 0.39 0.42 2.6 l
60 0.16 0.54 0.67 4.2 70 0.13 0.39 0.43 2.4 1
50 0.18 0.41 0.43 2.4 90 0.20 0.66 0.72 3.6 1
100
'O.19 0.62 0.71 3.7 I
I I
i 1
I 1
3 360 0
I
'1145 159 r
Relative densities were also calculated by means of an expression developed by Meyerhof in 1957 (Ref. 10) which relates relative density to bicw counts and overburden stress at a particular depth. These values were used in the Japanese analysis (Ref. 8) and in the shear modulus calcula-tions for the one-dimensional analysis.
f Anotner check of relative densities was made by means of the Marcu-son /Bieganousky (Ref.11) expression involving uniformity coefficients, blow counts, and overburden stresses.
These values compared satisfactor-ily with those used in the analysis.
(
9.5 Ory Density of Undisturbed Samoles As described previcusly, field densities were calculated by measuring and weighing the undisturbed samples imedietely on coming out of the boring. We believe that these values are f airly accurate because the measurements were made for the entire sample and as soon as possible after
~
sampling.
Dry oensity values were derived after field moisture contents were taken from each end of a sample.
Densities were also measured on the frozen samples in the laboratory.
Sample tubes were cut inta smaller sections and accurately measured, and the weight of soil solids was determined by dryirg the sample.
Dry densi-ties were calculated by dividing this weight of solids by the frozen volume.
9.5 Cyclic Triaxial Tests g
a Fifteen stress-controlled cyclic triaxial tests were performed on undisturbed samples in the laboratory of the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle.
Samples for testing we,re chosen in the depth ranges of 10 to 20 feet (hydr aulic fill), 30 to 40 feet, 40 to 50 feet, and 80 to
(
90 feet.
9.6.1 Samole Preoaration.
In preparation for testing, sample tubes were removed from the freezer and cut into sections with a tube cutter to produce test specimens.
An inch of possibly disturbed material was wasted from the bottom of each tube. A vertical band-saw was then used to split one side of the tube, which allowed the frozen sample to be extruded vertically into a split brass cyclincer for trimming and transporting.
The specimen was placed in the triaxial cell in a memcrane with filter pacer at tcp and bottom, and a small vacuum minus 5 inches of mercury was acplied /f
\\\\hb \\Uj 3
g 21
300RORM!d a
while thawing the specimen.
The sample was then consolidated under pres-sure corresponding to slightly above the in situ effective confining pres-sure.
Specimen dimensions were recorded before and after thawing and after consolidation.
9.6.2 Testing.
Cyclic triaxial testing of the specimens was performed h
according to procedures outlined by Silver (Ref. 12).
Samples were placed in a triaxial cell capable of being loaded with a periodic cyclic stress of constant amplitude.
Cyclic loading was begun and continued until double amplitude strains exceeded 10 percent, axial comoressive or extensive strains exceeded 20 percent, or the predetermined number of load cycles was achieved.
These test results were evaluated with respect to the magnitude of cyclic axial stress and the nuncer of cycles required to produce double amplitude, ccepressive, or extensive strains of 5 percent and 10 percent.
Also recorded was the first cycle at which the induced excess pore pressure became equal tc the cell pressure, which is referred to as initial lique-faction. Ranges of stress ratios at failure were selected to obtain relationships betaeen stress ratio: and number of cycles required to cause liquefaction.
Using the dimensions of the frozen specimen and the weight of the solid particias, which was dete-mined by drying and weighing the sand particles after completion of tne triaxial test, three density calcula-tions were made for the tested specimens.
This density was called the frozen density.
Afte-the sample was allowed to thaw for 2 or 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> in the lacoratory uncer vacuum confinement, new diameter values were measured with the ?i tape at three locations on the specimen.
The change in height in the vertical dial gage was noted. A new volume calculation for the specimen was made with the new height and diameter.
By dividing the new volume into the weight of the solid particles of the specimen, a second I
density was deternined.
This density was called the thawed density.
The cell was then assembled around the specimen and the soecimen was saturated and consolidated.
Vertical dial readings and volume change readings were made and used to calculate the consolidated volume of the specimen.
By dividing the dry weight of the solids by tne consolicated volume, a third density, the consolidated density, aas cetermined.
A sumary of densities anc the triaxial tes results is given in Table 2, and the variation of dry density with deDth is sncan in Figure 5.
\\\\45 \\b\\
f
TAllt.f 2 SilMMAltY OF CYCLIC TRI AXI AL IEST RESUt TS*
Himmlic s s>f Cycles us y D n u s_ t y_ (p I )
s'inif i n lin! St e ents De t a l l es to I.lguei act losi t-4 iect t we sat us at non N
N Thawe.1 anl g
10 Sample /
An t t o
' ll '
H l'es t Sgeesleen petit le Fsozen Tliawe.I t.*oso.iil s el.s t cel t;s ensus e g
ggg pg gggg pA Hisel.e s humi.es iftI Cosul t t lose Cosul t I lon Coenit t lose o,(ges!
/o Pasameter I
6m 5/2 21 5 102.2 104.6 10'.
4 2,000 0.22 u.9/
5 5
5 1
4/ l 16.0 101.8 101.5 104.l 1,000 0.88 0.9H il 30 II 4/2 l6.5 101.9 10%.4 106.4 2.000 6.32 0.97 1
2 3
7/ 2
- 18. 5 99.7 101.0 106.4 2,500 0.20 0.86 10 10 14 2
7/1 11.0 102.0 10 1.7 404.2 2,500 0.28 0.99 30 12 16 8/l 17.0 104.1 105.4 105.7 2,%00
- 0. 19 0.96 6
Il 25 I'
, 1,000 1,000 8/l 16. 5 102.9 104.5 104.8 2,500 0.12 U.99
, 1,000 10/I 41.0 101.6 to n. I 10l.7 4,000 0.12 0.9%
4
.I 5
10/2 46.5 101.0 104.7 105.4 4,000 0.23 U.97 5
4 7
8 9/2 41.5 10 1.0 104.8 106.5 4,000 0.43 0.96 5
1 6
10/ l 46.0 105.5 104.0 10,.5 4,000 0.18 0.99 8
8 Il 11/2 52.0 101.0 104.5 105.1 4,000 0.8) 0.9H 84 86 92 IS/l 87.0 104.7 105.8 107.8 8,000 0.15 1.0 7
8 16 4
18/2 86.5 10 1.6 104.6 105.6 8,000 0.26 0.96 14 16 18 19/l 92.0 101.2 104.8 106.0 8,000 0.45 0.99 3
2 1
.m e
5::
tn P00R Eam Cs N
All tests were performed on soil type SP from boring no. DM-9.
100 110 IM O
O n
10-
.e O
O O g m.
O O
KEY:
O 3
1973 OSTER8 ERG SAMPLES C 1979 CSTERBERG SAMPt.ES (fronM so-ee ee O
O O
w-I C
Le
=
o g
O m-
.e e W
OO p
c3 90-O es 100-
\\\\45 163 VARIATION OF DRY DENSITY WITH DEPTH I
.I
R 10.0 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES 10.1 General The liquefaction analyses performed for the LACBWR site in the past r
were based on test borings and laboratory data from the D&M investigations of 1973 (Ref. 1).
As mentioned in earlier sections of this report, the findings of the 1973 studies were evaluated by NP.C in 1978 under its Safety Evaluatien Program, and several questions were raised regarding the f ac-tors of safety under the design SSE.
D&M also reevaluated its earlier findings as a result of the hRC review using current state-of-the-art methods. Although D&M concluded that the factors of safety against lique-f action under the design SSE remained uncnanged, there was agreement among NRC, WES, C&M, and DPC in the folicwing:
" Undisturbed" sampling in the cohesionless soils was necessary.
a.
b.
In situ dry densities must be estimated with greater accuracy using ' undisturbed" samples.
There was a need for development of continuous standard penetra-c.
tion "N" values under carefully controlled conditions.
d.
Cyclic shear strength parameters of the liquefiable soils had to E
be obtained by perf orming cyclic triaxial tests on " undisturbed" samples.
Estimates of the cyclic shear stresses resulting from the design e.
SSE must be made by performing a one-dimensional wave propagation analysis.
f.
The seismicity of the LACBWR plant site and the potential for E
liquef action under an acceleration level which realistically rep-resents the seismicity of the site i.wst be analyzed.
With consideration of these requirements, a limited but carefully con-trolled field and laboratory investigations program was undertaken.
Using the data developed in these investigations, detailed liquefaction analyses were performed.
10.2 Licuefaction Potential There cre two basic approaches for evaluating the liquef action poten-tial of a deposit of saturated sand when it is subjected to earthquake loading.
The first approach uses the information availaole on the perform-ance of various sand deposits during past earthquakes.
This approach is essentially emoirical, and the response of soil to earthouake loading is E
1145 164 a
Simplified methods of analysis, with I
l not evaluated by any direct means.
Also, a known limitations, have been proposed by various investigators.
l large numoer of factors that significantly affect the liquefaction r.harac-teristics of a given sand have been recognized and may be studied in detail to confirm the conclusions of such an analysis.
In the second approach, stress conditions in the field are evaluated
^
by using an analytical technique, such as the one-dimensional wave propa-Laboratory investigations are conducted to determine the I"
gation analysis.
cyclic shear stresses required to cause liquefaction at various depths.
iG At a given depth, a f actor 'of safety against liquef action can be evaluated
~
by dividing the cyclic shear stress required to cause liquefaction oy the cyclic shear stress induced during the design earthquake.
Metnods based on these two approaches were used to assess the lique-faction potential of the granular soils at the LACBWR site.
Evaluation of Liouef action Potential, Accroach 1
- 10..'
10.3.1 Simolified Procedure (Procedure 1).
In the first approach, the procedu-e recontended by Seed (Ref. 7) was used to estimate the cyciic shear stress required to cause liquef action.
The cyclic shear stress Idriss Simplified incuced during shaking <as comouted by the Seed and Precedure (Ref. 6.
The following steps are used in Procedure 1:
a.
Convert the "N"'
salues from the Standard Penetration Tests to N,
values (%
is the penetration resistance, corrected 2
to an eff ective overburden pressure of 1 ton /ft ) using the relationship:
N1 = C., (N) h
.here:
Cy = 1 - 1.25 log c;/c, 5 = effective overburden pressure (tons /ft )
2 5; = a constant equal to 1 ton /f t,
'N = nuncer of blows recuired to ad/ance a standard solit-spoon 12 inches into the ground, wnen driven by a ha-mer weighing 140 pounds droccing a distance of 30 incnes.
1145 165
$]
m
I Sased on a collection of data from actual field performance b.
and a few additional' site studies, the lower bounds for the g
cyclic shear stress ratios that cause liquefaction in the 3
values and magnitudes field and which correspond to different Ny l
of earthquakes have been established (Ref 7).
Using this values can then be converted to the cyclic relationship, the Ny shear stress ratio, T/5;, required.to cause liquefaction for the design earthquake.
Compute the cyclic shear stress ratio at any depth in the I
ground that is induced by the design earthquake (Ref. 6) using c.
the relationship:
ay/
= 0.65 (a,x/g) (o /F ) r c
g g e d
T where:
= effective overburden pressure on sand c
layer 8
= maximum acceleration at the ag ground surface (ft/sec")
E
= total initial overburden pressure on 2
c_
sand layer under consloeration (tons /ft )
= a stress reduction factor varying from d
a value of 1.0 at the ground surf ace to a value of 0.9 at a cepth cf about 30 feet.
hv
= average cyclic shear stress in the sand 2
l layer under consideration (tons /ft )
2
= acceleration due to gravity (f t/sec ),
g d.
The lower bound cyclic shear strength values that are obtained from Step "b" can then be compared with the average cyclic shear stresses ootained in Step "c," and the liquefaction R
potential at various depths can be evaluated.
SPT(N) values from recent C&M investigations were plotted as a func-E tion of depth (Figure 2).
Average design N values were chosen for differ-ent depths and were converted to :orrected bicw counts (N ).
Relative y
boundaries between "liquef action" and "no liquef action" conditions for n e~ a6 E}
e
ound surf ace accel-various magnitudes of earthquakes corresponding to grthe data and eration levels between 0.10 g and 0.20 g v:re drawn.isingFigur principles presented by Seed (Ref. 7).
values corres-boundaries on which are plotted LACBWR plant site data of Nby the re y
ponding to certain cyclic shear stress ratios inducedThe SPT(N) earthquakes of different magnitudes.
trengths, and the N; values used to cermute the strength, the nd the resulting factors of safety at different depthsThe stresses and streng levels are presented in Table 2.
Figures 12 as functions of depth for the six acceleraion levels in through 17.
i Data in Figures 12 through 17 and Table 3 shown that no liqu t any is suggested for acceleration levels less than or equal to 0.12 g h
As the acceleration level increases from 0.14 g to 0.20 g, t e 30 feet to depths susceptible' to lig s faction increase from 20 feet to depth.
10 feet t: 40 feet.
Another precedure being used in Drocedure (Procedure 21 The Japan (Ref. S) also f alls under the general category of Approa 10.3.2 Japanese procedure fer computing the cyclic shear stresses The in Step "c" acove using Seed and Idriss (Ref. 6) simplifications.
{
estimation of the cyclic shea strength is as follows:
Estimate the relatise density of the liquefiable so using the develcced by Meyerhof (Ref. 10) based on laboratory I
a.
tests performed by Gibbs and Holtz (Ref. 12):
relation I
D *
- 2I N/( v + 0.7) r 1
L1 wnere:
= estimated relative density D*
r
= blow count frem SPT N
= effective overburden pressure at the
(
2 deptn of interest (kg/cm ).
Il n
1145 167
bh5 Y
U U
U 5
M M
A*JIS TAllLE 3 SilMMARY Of 1.IQUEFACIlOrd ANALYSIS APPROACil 1, PROCElluRE 1 AVE 8 *'E FYi:38C S h ' _S H E:15's. 9Yd M Sh'd'. S' ' '"9& and rac t os e of safety for vassous Accelerations
- a,, - 0.12 9 a,,,
0.14 9 a,,,
- 0.16 9 a,,,
- 0.88 9 s,,, - 0.20 9
- 0.80 9 a,,,
s rS
'av 1
FS s
rs
'av FS
'av v
FS
'av licpi te lit)
'" " I '8" "[" I
'av i
VS
'ay 3
10 6/8 11 118 l.89 86 1 98 1.57 10J 127 1.* 2 )
118 127 1.08
!)2 127 0.96 147 127 0.86 to 6/6 145 167 1.l5 k74 lit 8.30 201 148 0.7) 212 148 0.64 268 148 0.57 290 148 0.51 to 10/9 28) 117 l.49 255 lli 1.24 29u 29 2 0.98 141 292 0.86 18 1 292 0.76 426 292 0.69 40 14/11 270 525 1.94 124 494 1.52 178 494 1.31 412 461 8.07 486 46) 0.95 540 46) 0.86
'40 25/17 lot 1,005 1.14 161 968 2.68 428 894 2.12 482 894 1.85 542 856 1.58 602 856 1.42 60 le,/ 2 0 128 1,171 4.18 194 1,127 3.38 459 1,28) 2.80 525 1, 2 89
- 2. 16 590 1, 2 19 2.10 656 1,219 1.89 70 12/16 141 1,256 3.66 411 1,206 2.9) 480 1,155 2.41 548 1,I05 2.02 617 1,505 1.79 685 1,105 1.61 y
80 15/15 16 1 1,117 1.61 4 15
- 1. 187 1.01 508 1,260 2.48 581 1,201 2.07 651 1,201 1.84 726 1,201 8.66 90 17/54 189 1,484 1.61 467 1.149 2.89 545 1,285 2.36 622 1,285 2.07 700 8,285 1.8e 778 1,285 1.6%
500 eu/12 409 1,149 1.10 491 I.278 2.60 571 1,207 2.11 655 1,207 1.84 737 1,207 1.64 818 1,207 1.48 i
a
.k
= average cyclic shear stress from Seed & Idriss Sinplified Procedure (Ref. 6).
M h
a i
= cyclic shear strength based on corrected blow counts and recorded cyclic behavior during earthquakes.
aV g
1 y
factor of safety (FS) = (cyclic shear strength) e (average cyclic shear stress).
00
u a
N O F ITS CI A
1 F c E',
l tQo
=
s I l L
s i
O L
L F A L I
s TA*
m I I u
NT s
I u
N GE NT I O S
m P
J tA N I
C A l
i
,T 0 S m
/
rl f
0AE N
1 TlAiS D
Ige"2 l
m f
S E S T EI M
ti TI S L e -
m Ci 6
d 8
g m
f9 3E4f4. 3z =C N nI.E e
5 M
aY4.Y2 mi.0 r5 mmb0-@ WmI><
A, nO 3m*t>t H
2O i0 0x>g Oz h_$>zOm Om M>2oM m rM<m 9 P~OOn9d0zM M
E
>n
"@4 "5 t o3!ae9 033
N N
O I F TS CT A
l F a 0
E',
UQo I R L O L
F AI L TAI 0
I JfT I N GE INT O
S P
U N 0 A I
~
C A
,l i
a,T S
/rR OA I E 0
..\\
Tl i
AS H D f,b=
S E S T M
>)
~
EI l
i TI 0
,O( C SL Cl oo i
I l Li CW Y
C oa
- ~
8 8
8 9=
j iy452 E5i~
- 48~
~
nO 3m 3o mjmm2 mE O 5ips_Oz "m1>< O 3
i l
Om $zOmm r
me 8zO nOzD d$ sO azmH3>2Oz 2 m
l 2
- ' O-l x=
Ea 9x 3a 2$oa
- I I
5 v
- i o.s z
2 u.
m I
CU j
$,3 o.s E$
5 a u.
S-
}
I o.4 5h 5d
[a 5 Ez o:
u<
'5 6U
/
=E o^,
i
<G l
1 53 c.t us '
95 UI C
Co io m
ac 4o so MODIFIED PENETRATION RESISTANCE Ng bkmsMoot E
CORRELATION BETWEEN FIELD LIQUEFACTION E.EHAVIOR OF SANDS FOR LEVEL GROUND CONDITIONS AND PENETR ATION RESI b
oe m FIGURE 3;
R R
R 0.6 o u.
u.7 g., 0.5 l
o3 C
Y~
l' 5 N 0.4 2C l
eE l
2*
i
,/
O<
- =
b**
.D e 3 w#
0.2 E5 l
xi e-j max I89 a
p 0.1 en =*
c:
3C
'S E G
10 M
x 40 50 MODIFIED PENETRATION RESISTANCE Ng blows / foot E
E CORRELATION BETWEEN FIELD LIQUEFACTION BEHAVIOR OF SANDS FOR LEVEL GROUND CONDITIONS AND PENETRATION RESISTANCE E
1145 0 2 g
so FIGURE 1C
B E
M M
E NOF E
I S 1
TC T
A t
1 A
F =
E',
l E
looR I
L O L F
\\
A L I
E IG )E TA $
I I NT J
NT B
I O S
P J
t N 0 A I s
C A
'R a,S T
B
/rR OA 0
I E "b -
Tl i
AS 5
R D S E F-RM s
S T 5
EI
~
0 TI S L B
l Ci I
C E
oO 8
8 8
9 Ao !=j xmU nm iS B
E O0 m
d @ w ! $ 3r0C O myh 0z my<am Om $2 8 m0 r po@ 8 a5 d0$ gO m$mHm BZ gea)Zg E
onu % w
)
5 jib $ e E
w m0= a
e t
9 n
I l
I i
E m
z-l g
u m 65 ua.
C.5 DJ Sh se Sa
>4 0.4 ie E2 E
- E s o2 g
U<
g
=
s:==
d gl c
<a Co
,.20s
- c gw g
-u 07 e5 7
- ~. 6 0.1 f
a 93 es a
oo io
.o ao e
so g
MODIFIED PENETRATION RESISTANCE N3. blows / foot E
El CORRELATION BETWEEN FIELD LIQUEFACTION BEHAVIOR E
OF SANDS FOR LEVEL GROUND CONDITIONS AND PENETRATION RESISTANCE n
n45 94 FIGURE 11 3-
b E
FJ CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS / STRENGTH (psf)
M 0
200 400 600 800 1000 m
1400 O
's k
'1 l
\\
i.
\\
N 20-(
l
's, 5
's
_ 40-t
' ~~~~
w
,P so-
/
\\
x e
I d
100-KEY:
H AVER AGE CYCLIC SHEAR STRES3 (SIMPLIFIED PROCECURE) o o CYCL 1C SHEAR STRENGTH BASED CN PENETR ATION RESISTANCE E
COMPARISON OF CYCLIC SHEAR STRENGTH APPROACH 1 PROCEDURE 1 (a
=0.10g) max E
E 1145 1_/3
- C FIGURE 12
l M
CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS / STRENGTH (psf) o
's
\\
20-s
's
'A's E
N 40-
~~s~~,,'
=
E
%,'~
b
~,
U so.
\\
g 80-El
\\.
g KEY:
- ==-4 AVER AGE CYCUC SHE.AR STRESS ($;uPUFIE; PROCEDUAE) 0--O CYCUC SHEAR STRENGTH SASED QN PENETR ATION RESISTANCE E
E COMPARTSON OF CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS AND STRENGTH.
APPROACH 1 PROCEDURE 1 (a
=0.12g) max E
E]
1i45 176 g
FIGURE 13
I I
l CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS / STRENGTH (psf)
B o
- oo 40 soo soo 1o00 2200 14o0 o\\
\\
\\
M-k l
'N N
N h%
40-Q
~~~~,
B
% s ~%,
- % %';o l
o so-
/
E
\\
's 0
\\
\\
l' s
' KEY:
o----e AVER AGE CYCUC SHE AR STAESS (SIMPUFIED P540c" 9E:
0 -- O CYCUC SHEAR ST1RENGTH BASED ON PENE7 ATION RESIST =. Sci I
COMPARISON OF CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS AND STRENGTH APPROACH 1 PROCEDURE 1 (a
=0.14g) ma I
1145 177 fl E
38 FIGURE 14
G W
CYCL C SHEAR STRESS / STRENGTH (psi) 0 200 400 600 900 1000 1200 1400
\\
)
'N M\\
E
_ 40-
,'*%,N 3
'-.s'~~
S p
O 5
s'
/('
\\
\\
80-
/
8 0
100-KEY:
O---e AVERAGE CYCUJ SHEAR STRESS (SIMPUFIED PROCEDURE)
E 0---C CYLIC SHEAR STRENGTH SASED ON PENETRATICN AESISTANCE El COMPARISON OF CYCt.10 SHEAR STRESS AND STRENGTH APPROACH 1 PROCEDURE 1 (a
-0.169) mu M
,,3 5
El
~~-"
m t
I I
CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS / STRENGTH (psf) 0'N I
\\
N N b I.
s N
%s'~~s E
g
,7 60-
/
W 5
\\
80-
\\
\\
/
~
KEY:
9--e AVERAGE CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS (SIMPLIFIED PRCCE UAE) 0--C CYCLtc SHEAR STRENGTH 8ASED ON PENET'R ATION RESISTANCE R
COMPARI."nN OF CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS AND STRENGTM APPROACH 1 PROCEDURE 1 (a
=0.18 )
ma 9
ms m 3
I o m nes s a neoosse FIGURE 16
'u
H n
El CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS STRENGTH (psf)
W M
1000 1m 1400 0
\\
\\
E 20-
's h
N s j
'*~,'
s
==
, 's E
% %~s mE
7 60-s'
\\
80-h g]
's) 100-KEY:
W AVERAGE CYCUC SHEAR STRESS (SIMPUFIED PRCCEDUPE)
M C
-O CYCUC OHEAR STRENGTH BASED CN PENETRATICN RE51 STANCE E
COMPARISON OF CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS AND STRENGTH APPROACH 1 PROCEDURE 1 (ama =0.20g)
Il 1145 180 g
FIGURE 17
Estimate the cyclic shear strength using the aopropriate equation:
b.
P
/0.35)
R
= 0.0042 O * - 0.225 log 10 (050 r
50 1 0.6 m for 0.04 m < 0 or R,
= 0.0042 D * - 0.05 r
50 $ 1.5 m for 0.6 m 5 0 where D*
= estimated relative density from Step "a"
)
D'O
= particle size in m corresponding to 50 percent on the grain size curve and
= cyclic shear ; tress ratio required to
(
cause liquefaction (triaxial test conditions).
toobtainR[,thecorrected Apply suitable corrections to Rt c.
cyclic shear stress ratio recuired to cause liquef action.
R
= (C ) (C ) (C ) Rt y
2 3
C
= 0.57 (to convert triaxial test conditions 1
to simple shear field cor T. tion)
C
= 1.3 to 1.5 (to account for N
= 5 rather 2
eq than N
= 20 used in Japanese study g
C
= 1 (to account for differences in failure 3
strain criteria *).
By corsaring the estimated values of cyclic shear strengths from the Japanese procedure (Ref. 8) and the average cyclic shear stresses from the L
Seed and Idriss procedure (Ref. 6), facters of safety against potential for liquefaction can be estimated for different depths.
The cyclic shear f
stresses which were calculated under Procedure 1 were also used under Procedure 2.
The relative densities were~ estimated using SPT(N) values values (Table 1).
Table 4 presents the estimated rela-(Figure 2) and D50 tive densities, the estimated cyclic shear strengths, the calculated cyc-lic shear stresses, and the resulting factors of safety at various depths for different accelerations.
The stresses and strengths at different f
depths for all tne acceleration levels considered are plotted on Figure 18.
The data on Table 4 and Figure 13 suggest that there would be no liquef action susceptibility under earthquakes producing ground surf ace accelerations of less than or equal to 0.15 g.
Under accelerations of 0.18 g and 0.20 g LACEWR site soils between de::ths of 20 to c0 feet may experience licuefaction.
1145 181 i
2 i
~
E E
M M
m e a
as s a
a a
ma are sa m
u.
TABLE 4 Stiff 1ARY OF LIQUEFACTI0fi AtlALYSIS APPROACll 1, PROCEDURE 2 Av ea n g.je (Jelic Staear St a sauses and l'actose of Safety for Vartous Accelesatloris*
a,,, - 0.10 2 a,,,
- 0.12 j a,,,
0.14 9 a,,, - 0.16 g a,,, - 0.18 9 a,,,
0.20 g
!!cf!I _.l!!).
I.- -
' (pe[}
'av (pist) f@
'av
[S
,' a v f!
'av fe
'av f!
'av TE 10 46 161 13 2.21 h6 1.8) alo) 1.57 118 1.37 132 1.22 147 1.10 20 41 222 145 1.5) 174 1.28 20) 1.09 212 0.96 261 0.85 290 0.17 10 48 165 71) 1.72 255 1.43 298 1.23 141 1.07 IB) 0.95 426 0.86 40 53 494 270 1.8) 324 1.52 178 1.31 412 1.14 486 1.02 540 0.91 50 66 745 101 2.47 361 2.06 421 1.77 482 1.54 542 1.17 602 1.24 60 75 885 128 2.70 394 2.25 459 1.9) 525 1.69 590 1.50 656 1.15
[.$
70 67 1,005 143 2.93 41I 2.44 480 2.09 548 1.8) 617 1.6) 685 1.47 80 66 1,145 16 )
3.16 435 2.6 )
500 2.25 581 1.97 65) 1.75 726 1.58 90 65 1,092 189 2.81 467 2.14 545 2.00 622 1.76 700 1.56 778 1.40 100 65 1,349 409 1.10 491 2.75 57) 2.35 655 2.06 117 1.8)
Sie 1.65 PDDR BRIGIMI.
LT1 average cyclic shear stress computed using Seed & Idriss Simplified Procedure, (Ref. 6).
a on r,y =
i = cyclic shear strength estimated from relative density (Japanese procedure), (Ref. 8).
Factor of safety (FS) = (cyclic shear strength) * (average cyclic shear stress).
21 (5 + 0.7)0.5 (Ref.12).
relative density based on D
=
- D
=
7 y
p
E E
CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS / STRENGTH (prf) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 h
KEY:
AVER AGE CYCLIC SHE AR STRESS (SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE)
~
CYCL C SNEAR STRENGTH BASED
'N 0- -O ON RELATIVE DENSITY AND GA AIN N
SIZE WAPANESE PROCEDURE)
"N 40 I
N s
.t s N N
so-s N
N N
\\
's h
80-
$]
\\
/
. h.
4 9.
\\k
's k h S 't St 5'i
'N g
E E
COMPARISON OF CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS AND STRENGTH APPROACH 1 PROCEDURE 2 (a
=0.10g to 0.20g) max E
P00R 3GINL ge m r1 E
FIGURE 18
~
R 10.4 Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential, Approach 2 Approach 2 uses more rigorous methods and site-specific data from sophisticated laboratory results.
A seismic response analysis was per-formed to estimate the stresses, strains, and accelerations at different depths within the soil profile resulti*g from SSE loading at the LAC 8WR site. Also, several liquefaction tests were performed on undistu-bed sam-E ples to define their behavior under cyclic loading.
10.4.1 Soil Model Used in the Resconse Analysis.
Based on a review of the data from the most recent investigation, a representative, idealized soil profile was established for the one-dimensional wave propagation analysis.
E This idealized soil profile corresponds to an average surface elevation of
+639 feet. Table 5 presents the idealized soil profile and the soil prop-erties tnat were used in the vesponse analysis.
The upper 135 feet of the soil deposit were divided into 12 sublay-ers. Detailed descriptions of the soils encountered at the LACBWR site are presented in Table 5 and on the boring logs in the Appendix.
10.4.2 Soil Procerties Used in the Resoonse Analysis.
The soil properties required for the wave propagation analysis ar^ unit weight, sMar modulus, damping ratio, and coefficient of earth pressure at rest.
a.
Average values of unit weights are based on field and laboratory test results used in the analyses (Table 5).
b.
In general, the shear modulus of a soil i; influenced by several N
variables, including effective confining pressure, void ratio, stress history, degree of saturation, soil structure, amplitude of strain, and frequency of vibration (Ref.14).
The in situ shear modulus can be estimated by reviewing data from the geo-physical survey. This value of shear modulus corresponds to low strain levels (approximately 10 4 percent).
Shear moduli corres-
~
pending to other strain levels can be determined from strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests and resonant column tests.
The extensive field and laboratory investigations of 'ifferent soils conducted by independent researchers have generally established l
shear modulus versus strain relationships of soils (Ref. 6).
The snear modulus versus strain relationships of sands at the LACBWR site were developed by considering the generalized trends from
- The 5 to 6 percent couble amplitude shear strain used in the Japanese studies was very close to the initial liquefaction riterion used in this D&M study.
Therefore C3 = 1 was used.
I 1145 184 5
E G
G WW smans u
TAllt.E 5 GLNERAlllLD S0ll IH0flLE AND M0llfL FOR ONL-OlMINSIONAL WAVE PROPAGATI
% car n i.stus tw1 n n
,r -
- 8. (asp 9
iie.ailu i.ei.i h vai.e 5 wet (i. t )-
(et)
(s t }
. i. n 0
4.s oue,a pe s ar e eie.apua afin 116 115 Hy.tsaulic fill: les uma iine-s 6
!?Q 4%
41 1.16/
to om llian sand alt h ue t as e n-al f Ine 9e avel, le as e of slit Ge nus4 w4ter 46/7 tu e618 _ _
.u bl9 ill I,f,64 f t r ey 9e cen l ine t o medtwas s and wit h ut t as tun al i ine 6 14 178 48 45 l,MO gr avel, le ase of silt, layes s of tisyey silP
$99 40 (ti.ittium s.t s cat tur vessel '610 ta '619) _ _
126 lh
$5 1 S* 0 Brown f Ine-ta-mestIwe sand with us e astonal iIne op avel/
2,19%
s ose se sanet, te s. e of gift 14 86 Ill
~
4 (Bqt tua ut plies appe us.,, s'iMij.
m
$19 t0 3.131 all Be u.o iIne tu me. item san t
),)lS 1))
with as e astunal f lne 9e avel/
1.5 37 cuer se san.t. tr as e of slit 30 40 111 S$9 60 1 10 69 57 3,7 )il Sig less f ine to-a nar se gr avel an.1 134 90 6.244 terunn f ine to medlim s..nd utth little slit 519 Ili Be men f ine to medisse sand 1 34 90 70 5,273 with es t aslunal f ine gr avel/
coasse sand, teate of sitt i15 499 Sedt as k
" Based oil f ield meastiremellts.
0.7)0.5 (Ref. 12); lal3 oratory D tests, arid Ref.11.
A
Based ois D. = 21 N/(li r
r v
I 'ni)0 5 baws! ori data f roiti Ref. 6.
w
^ ^ ^ 1'roni express iori G = 1,000 K2 P00R ORIGINAL m"
the published data, the results of strain-controlled cyclic tri-axial tests performed on reconstituted samples in 1973, and the relative density estimations based on SPT results.
Based on the findings of Seed and Idriss (Ref. 6), the shear modulus, at low strain levels of coarse grained soils, can be expressed by the equation G
= (1000) (K ) Ib )
2 m
2 G
= shear modulus (lb/ft )
2 5,
effective 9ean confining pressure (lb/ft )
K,3
= constant for a given compactness of soil.
The values of K., used in the analysis are presented in Table 5.
The shear modulbs varies nonlinearly with strain level.
This variation was assumcd to follow the pattern of average data on the coarse-grained soils presented by Seed and Idriss (Ref. 15).
The n,onlinear strain dependence of shear modulus that was used in this analysis is presented in Figure 19.
c.
Most of the parameters discussed in relation to shear modulus have an opposite effect on the damping value, which increases with increasing strain amolitude, decreases slightly with increasing ambient stress, and decreases with increasing void ratio.
Strain-controlled cyclic triaxial tests and resonant column tests en undisturbed samples are necessary to define experimentally the variation of the damping ratio with strain level.
However, for the purposes of this study, it was consid-ered satisf actory to assume that the damping ratio of the scils at the LAC 3WR site, both in magnitude and in variation with strain level, were similar to the average results found in the lit 1rature (Ref. 15).
These values are the average values obtained from the exoerimental investigation peformed by several independent researchers on typical sands.
The strain-dependent values of the damping ratios for typical sands which were used in this response analysis are presented in Figure 20.
(TP damping ratios measured experimentally in the laboratory during the 1973 3&M investigations were also reviewed before choosing the design values).
d.
A value of 0.45 was assigned for the coef ficient of earth pressure for all. the granular soils.
10.4.3 Design Earthcuake Used in the Resoonse Analysis.
The horizontal component of a digitized acceleration-time history was used as the input motion at the surface of the soil deposit.
The corresponding accelerogram is presented in Ficure 21.
~
D ^
- 3 * ]an' hih h
-As
.u 1145 186 h
r
O g
0 3.?-
0.3-de t
E I
l2:
s C.t:5
'=
=*-
"R E'1 r,
Ccce.s o
= -
9, CJ
.i
~e A
) 3 m
2 E
3':
3 c;;;3
'7, 5i2 CD
_ l.,
1 5
0
/
5 O 'O y!5 0.a-5 =
= <
=I 5
=
w.)"
A
.2-i g
l a.i-
{
3.0C01 3.001 0 31
- 0. 0 1.00 10.00 5 HEAR S W IN, I 8E?CENI g
rv,,c < asouc1,0~ 0, sme,a 2000t us wire saena sTami~
E.
'SEE0 S Caiss 9?Oi DAMES S NME
s 8_
d N
8o Y
e W
W i
I g
l d
l 8z 9
N l
y y
s m
a 5
k C::
5 O
u.
e e
5 I,
~
b c
-o l
e Z
E E
o E
~'
S E
E t=
=
=
c a
e c
e M
IN30B3d - 0117M ONigwyc 1145 F88 E
[ 0,,
f,l, p ml.$r
.t e
g 19 FIGURE 20
- j nog....
8 NOilvu3'1333V o
e n.
s.
i f
e
==c
.8 2
=
c.m
-cc a
m s
E Z
e e
c:a 3
cza c
t 5
.e s
e to e
O
.D g
.g U
5 C
.O N
~
E z
~
W W=
z a
o c.sO g
y i
I
~5 b-2 O
N I
a O
.5 "lll
+
w 1
1
~
.8 n
l I
s 8
8 8
9'
=
3 i145 189
.ct
..~ou.ve m aav 1
E FIGUR E 21
The duration of the design earthquake was assumed to be 15 seconds, and a range of maximum ground surf ace accelerations of 10 to 20 percent of gravity was used, based on the recomendations of NRC.
10.4.4 One-Dimensional Wave Propeaation Analysis.
A mathematical model n
was used to evaluate the response of the soils at the LACBWR site when subjected to the SSE loading. This model is based on one-dimensional Each strain-compatible shear wave propagation through a layered system.
layer in the system is assumed to be isotropic, homogeneous, and of visco-g elastic behavior (Ref.16).
A computer program developed by Schnabel el al. (Ref a ) was The nonlinearity modified by D&M to include additional input and output.
of the shear modulus and damping ratio is accounted for in this program by the use of equivalent linear properties. This computer program (Ref. 17) was verified for varicus practical problems, certified in accordance with E
quality assuran'ce requirements, and used to analyze the soils at the LACSWR site.
The average shear stress levels in the stress histories obtained by peforming one-aimensional analysis were computed assuming the ground water to be at 10 feet below ground surface. This represents the avera9a condi-tion; the groundwater level actually fluctuates slightly.
The average cyclic shear stresses comcuted by performing one-dimensional analyses are plotted as functions of depth for various acceleration levels on Figure 22.
10.4.5 Cyclic Shear Strencth.
The next step in Approach 2 is to determine the cyclic shear strength of undisturbed samples obtained from various potentially licuefiable layers.
Fifteen sa.mples, representing four depths of the soil profile, were chosen for stress-controlled cyclic triaxial h
testing using standard procedures described in Section 9.6.
Figure 3 The shows the enveloce of particle size curves for the samples used.
results of these tests are sumarized in iable 2.
The test results were plotted on a semilogarithmic plot to define the relationship between stress ratio and numoe-of cycles recuired to cause initial liquefaction (Figures 23 through 27).
1145 190 a
1 1
L
'00R ORER I
CYCLIC SHE AR STRESS / STRENGTH (psfl o
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 14o0 g
XEY:
l M AVER AGE CYCLIC SHE AR STRESS l
(ONECIMENSION AL AN ALYSIS:
t 3
I s
CH-C SMENGTHS B ASEO CN CYCLIC
\\
TRf Axl AL TESTS ON UNCISTURBE3 D
SAMPLES
\\
l
\\
g s s
\\
i N
~
~
s a-I C
l D
60-s N
i s \\ ' s, I
N g s s 's s
I
\\\\\\\\ \\\\
1
'\\<<\\
\\s \\s w
1 l
~
Ii i $' 5& i l I
~
I COMPARISON OF CYCLIC SHEAR STRESS AND STRENGTH
= 0.10g to 0.20g)
APPROACH 2 (amax u AS 19' 0
N FIGURE 22
000 0
1 n
i s
i N
i O
i I
TC i
A fap F
0 E
0 U
i 0
f Q
2 sp I
E 6
L l
0 0
l 1
0 L
u 0
A 5
S S
0 1
I 1
E T
t I
l f N
9f Y
P1 I
T M
2 G
I D
6S R
G'. N. D I 1N O
=
N E
i
=
F l
T
=
NI l
l F i
lNPY S E f
OOEH E E i
L F DCDD s
C i
=
1 Y 2 n
S a
E C
O L
F i
C T
Y O 8 sn C
1 1 f
eu 0
F E H 0
O B
d T
1 R
MP E
UE 5
B ND 6
3 M
5 U
S 1
N U
SO i
R N i
E
~-.
ViS i
OET I
TA d
E IF i
i J
(<
E R
M 0
T 1
\\
R S
A E
O l
6 i
i l4' I'!
S C
I i
L M
C z_
Y z_
C a._
\\
n_
E s
l 0
E 2
0 8
6 4
~
0 O
0 0
0 1
e6d6 ha5 0
.e #
,s
- W N$E' U
,/
._. 4n i4 t
10 i..iii i
i i
i s ais i
i e i e i i BOlllNG: DM 9 CONFINING PRESSURE: 2500 psf DEPTil: 3137 f t D!!Y DENSIT Y; 101 106 psf 08 NOTE:
tierrH ct#HVE IS 8NDICATE D BY Tiet J VALID IEST stE SUL TS.
LOWEtt DESIGN CURVE WAS CliOSEN, HOWE VEH.10 BE CONSEstVAleVE AND I Ak E INIO ACCOUNI THE It SI Wlitt OUE SilDN AHI F VALID 11 Y t2 It DECAust Of THE LOW
<j "H" V A t UL.
e i
g s
db 4
\\
EI*
\\
h 04
\\ 6 E
\\
b
\\s
- - - -
- 7 3 33 - - i h
N' ~
0.2 i
l TEST DISCARDED; l
I i
1 1
] gg l
g i
e i
.i a
n
.iie i
e a
i e i ae i
i e
i a aei
)
1 5
10 100 1,000 10,000 4
I a
W a
NUMBEI) OF CYCLES e
l' I
g,,
CYCLIC SiiEAR STRESS RATIO VERSUS NUMBER OF CYCLES FOR INITIAL LIOUEFACTION, g
f, U
TEST NO. 2, DEPTil 31 TO 37 FEET m
3
... rm,,
00 0
0
' 1 i
i NO I
TC fsp A
0 F
0 E
m 0
f U
s 4
p Q
E'.
6 I
R 0
0 L
1 0
U 0
L s
i S
4 1
0 A
u S
1 I
u i
E 7
a 9Rf.
o i
Y P2GT N
M 5
I I
D: 1S c
GN;E R
a
.i4N t
O t
a NI iD F T s
RNP Y S E IF T OOER E E BCDD L F 3
C2 S
Y5 c
E C O L
C F T i
Y O1 s
b C
R4 a
F 0
i 0
O E H d
BT 1
R MP 0
E E
M D
U M
N D, U
S 3 N
U S O RN S
E T VS E
O T I
M TA R
SS E
M 0
o R
t T
S i
R A
E E
5 H
iiill' o
S C
i I
L E
C n
Y
\\
C a
i ns 1
0 0
0 0~
2 6
4
~
0 8
0 w
0
~
1
)n 9yEUEt e
?1t<
lgae
- a*
EU ou 4
I1i l,
,I
e a
1
-e
~
2 O_
>O E
u.
I
=
aT
~
W l.
g D
c.
0 us =
e o
.J J
e.
w_-
~
l
~
eG~$
~
~
3 k
Q$_o E
A. "z I
- CZ w C
Z-ZC O
E H
CZa tr) w OOw ww 200Q
~
Jw Os
>" C2 Ou. g w
8 p
u o
m u
c: C u.
W=
8 o
c2 w g
2 c.
w aw m
2 0 2
p v3 m 2
3 v3 O
~
C: 2 0
- t;
~
O_ W.
p M
C g
l 8w O
-=
U3
=
C l
~
c w
gggme 6MDW46 O
~
O_
i N
f l
O N
i O
~
io fe I at a vs I
C e
i e
}\\k
= us'Ol1VM SS3H13 FIGURE 25 R
m**
d I
a-
- 2 C*
w c2 E
l]
D U
Z 2
O o
I
~
E
- 8 9,
4
'2 a-4 O=
ms h
Cm ZW
r m
m Uid E
u 2
>.o w2 o
w C 4 d
O gw R
o C
OJ f
E m$
s O
3 O
z WC 0
c
$m*
e=
E a
x gw e
s aa
=
. O ce
- ).
t t
"O s
c W'
E
-c s
a
>O
=
e V
7/
~
D
\\
O O
E N e N
C'
\\
C N
\\
I 0
E c
w s.c e
D o
/
l
/
E S:
E o
e c
y e.
o a
o o
o ci o
\\\\45 196 g
4'9 m-
= US 'Olivu SS3813 om am os a secose e OI FIGURE 27
,,-n.-..
10.4.6 Conversion of Irregular Stress History Into Ecuivalent Uniform Cyclic Stress Series.
In Approach 2, the calculated cyclic shear stresses are compared directly w:th those required to cause liquefaction of repre-sentative soil samoles in the laboratory.
It is usually more convenient to I
perform laboratory tests using uniform cyclic stress applications than to attempt to reproduce a representative field stress history.
Therefore, it is necessary to convert the irregular stress history that is actually developed during earthquakes into an equivalent uniform' cyclic stress series.
There are three basic methods by which this conversion can be accom-plished. However, it has been shcWn that the procedures used in this step of the analysis have little effect on tne final analysis (Ref. 7).
Based on the results of a statistical study of the representative numcers of cycles developed during a number o' dif 4. rent earthquake motions, a con-venient basis for selecting an equivalent uniform cyclic stress series for earthquakes of different magnitudes has been presented by Seed (Ref. 7).
According to Seed, for earthquake magnitudes between 5 and 6, the number of equivalent cycles, N,q, is approximately 5, corresponding to an average cyclic shear stress, Tav, of 65 percent of the maximum shear stresses.
I Therefore, the maximum cyclic shear stresses that werf obtained by per-ferming a one-dimensional wave propagati n aralysis were maltiplied by 3
0.55 to obtain the average cyclic snear stress at any point.
10.4.7 Correction Factor.
The cyclic t~ iaxial tGt does not directly r
simulate the simple shear conditions actually induced during an earth-quake.
Also, the effect of multidirecti6nal shaking is not included in this testing.
As a result, the stress ratio obtained in the cyclic triaxial test is higher, and a corraction f actor, C, is applied to modify these values.
r h
For normally consolidated sands (K = 0.4), a value of 0.57 is considered g
apprcpriate for Cr (Ref. 7), and the stress ratio causing liquefaction in the laboratory is multiplied by 0.57 to account for the field conditions.
Figure 22 represents the sumary of cyclic shear stress comcutation using the one-dimensional analysis and the cyclic shear strengths from the laboratory tests.
The stresses poltted are 65 ;e cent of the maximum shear stresses to corresocnd to an average condition.
The cyclic shear strengths PE ue W g
es
were obtained by following the procedures mentioned below.
Figure 27 is a sumary of all liquef action test results.
It can be seen that three distinct liquefaction curves can be drawn on the various data points--an upper bound and lower bound for natural materials below the hydraulic fill material.
Three stress ratios corresponding to these three curves can he chosen for a given nu:cer of cycles, N,q.
For N of 5, the three possible relations between confining pressure and the cyclic shear stress required to cause liquefaction (cyclic sheer strength) are plotted on Figure 28.
The shaded zone shows the scatter of data for natural soils below the hydraulic fill.
Hcwever, the nonlinear effects of the relationship be-tween confining pressure and the cyclic shear strength can best be esti-mated by selecting the stress ratios fecm data on each individual test presented on Figures 23,24, 25, and 25.
These four tests represent four different confining pressures ranging from 2,000 to 8,000 psf.
A design strength curve was drawn on Figure 28 by selecting the four different stress ratios from Figures 23 through 27.
It can be seen that design curve chosen represents a lower bound of strength to almost 4,000 psf of confining pressure.
(This confining pressure represents the crucial depths up to 50 feet where liquefaction potential is of primary concern.) A field strength curve corresponding to 57 percent of the lab-oratory triaxial strength curve has been drawn on Figure 28.
It is this curve that was used to determine the strengths at various depths.
10.4.5 Factor of Safety Coroutation.
The cyclic shear stress required to cause liquefaction at a particular depth is found frczn the field strength curve 3 of Figure 28 by reading off the ordinate corresponding to the confining pressure at that depth.
The variation of the cyclic shear strength, the induced average shear stress (obtained by the one-dimen-sional wave propogation analysis), and their ratio (that is, the factor of safety against liquef action) with depth are sumarized in Tables 6.
The k
cyclic shear stresses and strength are also presented as a function of depth on Figure 22.
Table 6 and Figure 22 show that even witn a very conservative interpretation of strength data, no liquefaction is predicted up to an acceleration level of 0.20 g.
l 10.4.9 Discussion and Conclusions.
During the current investigation, the liquefaction potential at the LACSWR site was studied using a simplified 1145 198 E
o
S TS E
T LA I
00 X
s i g I I
'I
- I '
l i
. 08 A
k' d
S f,
I I
S RT f
E S
T N
U O
C I
I O
T L
I R
W F"
D 0
C
//
?
N 0
Y D
O 0
/,
U Ml, C
N C
1 O
N Ou B
O l
E En L
I R
F D
kN l
Wi E=
E
\\
I
\\-
O %,
f
/
S C
V o
5 A
R 0
.o L
I L
U s
B U
C a
~'
A Nn E
/s R
i R
I D
G V
N U
G N
S t
c S
L
<n E
H S
YF R
t R
T l
E T
Yt S
u s
c S
/
N S
N
.n i
s R
P I
st m
D
\\
G u
Uu
' c,S
/
/' f'/
L c
E G
I Ns
",T ES i
I An
'c F
NI E
'yL D
sc A
I E
N R
N
$y
",A l
H h
I U
F l'
S s
0 S N
n
?i 0
E O
0 R C
l l
I l l lI I 4
P G
D N
N I
A N
I l
F i
/
0 N T
,0 O
G m
0 C N
3 E
R T
T l
L g
l l
l l
l l
i S
R 0
A M
00 E
lI 1
i
/
l 2
iS C
F I
L C
R Y
o B
.n C
u N
E R
EW 0
0 "o
T E
B p
N g
o O
0 m
u0 t
y I
T 3
2 A
L E
! $E 9t$"
R ee w
O a: j:
s
- " u
- 1,
E5mM M
2 mm5 m a e
a a
m a m m e.
TABLE 6 SU!EARY Of LIQUEFACT10tl AtlALYSIS APPROACil 2
_ Ave 8 d3" fYCII" til' ear Streauce and Fects_ess yf S,sfety_for Vastous Accelegations*
0.82 y a,,,
= n.l4 y.e,,,
= 0.16 q a,,, = 0.18 9 a,,,
= 0.20 q a
0.10 y a
=
1". ( )
,i v is
'av FS
'av FS
'av FS
'av FS
'av FS I I'" '
D'TLl _.(!!!
e 10 150 72 2.00 86 1.74 101 1.49 134 1.12 120 1.17 141 1.06 20 250 1 64 1.87 16 1 1.51 1H9 1.42 214 1.17 218 1.05 262 0.95 to 150 194 1.80 211 1.50 268
- l. Il 102 1.16 140 1.01 16 7 0.95 40 460 244 l.09 190 1.59 112
- 1. 19 171 1.24 411 1.I'4 450 1.02 50
- .9 0 284 2.08 119 1.14 187 1.52 411 1.16 419 1.2) 525 1.12 60 710 122 2.25 184 8.90 419 1.66 490 1.49 5 19
- 1. 15 587 1.24
'S 10 860 156 2.4, 420 2.05 478 l.80 512 1.62 585 1.47 619
- 1. IS 80 1,050 IHR 2.76 449 2.14 512 2.0%
57)
- 1. 8 )
613 l.66 695 1.51 90 1,240 40; 3.05 482 2.57 550 2.25 620 2.00 684 1.81 750 1.65
?BORBRBINhl
= average cyclic shear stress = (maxinium cyclic shear stress from one-dimensional analysis) x (0.65).
a i g
= cyclic shear strength = (triaxial cyclic shear strength) x (0.57).
i rd Factor of safety (FS) = (cyclic shear strength) I (average cyclic shear stress).
a O
I
e~
approach and a rigorous approach.
In the simplified approach, stresses were computed using empirical equations and strengths were estimated using past experience during earthquakes at various sites that liquefied and also using relative densities.
In the rigorous approach, stresses were computed using a one-dimensional model and wave propagation response anal-ysis.
The strengths were m?asured by performing cyclic triaxial tests on E
undisturbed samole:
The following conclusions were based on these analyses:
Using Approach 1, Procedure 1 (Seed and Idriss stress and a.
strength based on SPT, N values), no liquefaction is predicted up to a maximum acceleration level of 0.12 g.
The potential E
for liquef action is suggested for various maximum surface acceleration levels stated below; a
depths prone to liquef action gg 0.10 g none 0.12 g none 9 14 g 20 to 30 feet C.16 g 20 to 30 feet 0.18 g 10 to 40 fee:
0.20 g 10 to 40 feet.
b.
Using Approacn 1, Procedure 2 (Seed and Idriss stress and strength based on relative densities), no liquefaction is predicted up to a maximum acceleration level of 0.16 a.
(
The potential for liquef action is predicted for various maximum acceleration levels stated below:
a depths prone to liquefaction E
max 0.10 g none 0.12 g none 0.14 g none 0.15 g 20 feet 0.15 g 20 to 30 feet 0.20 g 20 to 40 feet.
Using Acoroach 2 (stresses from cre-dimensional wave propagation g
c.
analysis and strength from stress-controlled cyclic triaxial tests peformed in the laboratory on undisturbed samples), no lig-uef action is predicted up to a maximum accelerstion level of E
0.20 g.
(The f actor of safety against potential for liquef action at 0.20 g is close to unity between depths of 20 to 30 feet.)
The rigcrous analysis made during the current investigation is rela-tively more accurate than all other analyses made at the LACSWR plant site.
E 1145 201 62
i
~
We believe that a high degree of confidence can be assigned to the rigorous analysis made during the current investigations for the following reasons:
The test boring and sampling program was perforned under care-a.
fully controlled conditions using state-of-the-art techniques.
g b.
The undisturbed samples were drained and frozen at the site before transporting for storage and were kept frozen until just before testing (partially eliminating sample disturbance at the site).
~
~
~
c.
The frozen samples were carefully packaged and transported by D&M field engineers to minimize any possible sample disturb-ance during transport.
3 d.
State-of-the-art testing techniques were used to detemine 4
the in situ densities and the cyclic shear strengths of sanoles.
e.
All the field and laboratory investigations were subject to ug stringent quality assurance and quality control requirements 4
of D&M, DPC, and NRC.
In sumary, given our present knowledge and understanding of the seismicity of the region and the behavior of soils under dynamic loading, it is our opini'on that there is little threat of liquefaction at the LACBWR site under a maximum acceleration level corresponding to a realis-tic design SSE that can be assigned to the site.
E I)
E E
E E
R R
Il 1145 202 m
..u as
I 11.0
SUMMARY
OF LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES AT THE LACBWR SITE I
Tables 3, 4, and 5 summarize the liquefaction analyses performed thus f ar at the LACSWR site.
The C&M analysis of 1973 (Ref.1) was conservative j
and concluded that the factors of safety against potential for liquefac-tion under the design SSE at various depths were adequate.
WES performed a I
very conservative analysis (Ref. 3) and concluded that the minimum factor of safety was close to unity under a 0.12-g ground acceleration.
As a result of C&M's review of its past work and the WES report, and reevalua-tion of the various analyses, it was concluded that the factors of safety were indeed adequate.
However, there were certain questions t'at were raised by NRC regarding the lack of test data on undisturbed samples and the lack of continuous standard penetration test results.
Since the exist-ing da'.a did not satisfy these new concerns, OPC decided to perform modest field and laboratory investigations and limited analyses to verify the earlier findings' on liquefaction potential.
As a result of the new state-of-the-art investigations performed at the LACBWR plant site, it is now concluded that the LACBWR plar.t site has an adequate f actor of safety against potential for liquef action under any realistic design SSE that can be assigned to the plant site.
However, in the absence of an NRC decision regarding a design SSE and a corresponding design acceleration level, a range of acceleration between 0.10 g and 0.20 g was assumed and f actors of safety were estimated.
The minimum factors of safety are listed below for the different acceleration levels:
8max Depth (ft)
Factor of Safety 0.10 g 30 1.50
~
0.12 g 30 1.50 0.14 9 30 1.31 0.16 g 30 1.16 l
0.18 g 30 1.03 0.20 g 20 -30 close to unity (0.95)
E Based on these results, it can be concluded that the threshold lique-f action resistance at the LACBWR site occurs for a design S5E wnicn yields a maximum ground surf ace acceleration greater than 0.13 g and less than 0.20 g.
E 1145 203 5
u
REFERENCES
{
Dames & Moore, Geotechnical Investication of Geolocy, Seismolocy, 1.
LACSWR)_
and Liquefacticn Potenttal, Lacrosse Boillnq Water Reactor Wisconsin, Octooer 1973 (prepared for Near Genoa, Vernon County," Corporation).
Gulf United Nuclear Fuels 2.
Dairyland Power Cooperative, Aeolication for Ooerating License for the Lacrosse Boil _ina Water Reactor, 1974 (submittea to the U.S. Nuclear Regulaf.ory Comission).
3.
Marcuson, W. F. and W. A.
Biegancusky, Liouef action Analysis for Lacrosse Nuclear Power Station, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment station, Decemoer lit 3-~(submitted to the U.S. Nuclear
~
Regulatory Comission).
i s
Dames & Mocre, Review of Liauefaction Potential, Lacrosse Boiling 4.
Water Reactor (LAC 3WR) Near Genoa, Vernen County, Wisconsin, March l
1975 (submitted to tne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission).
I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmissicn, letter of April 30, 1979 (Docket 5.
No. 50-409), to Dairyland Power Cooperative's General Manager.
Seed, H. B. and I. M. Idriss, " Simplified Procedure fo,r Evaluating 6.
Soil Liquefaction Potential," Jcurnal of the Soil Mechanics and p
p*
Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9, Proceedings Paper 8371 (5eptemoer 1971), pp. 1249-1273.
Seed, H. B., " Soil Liquef action and Cyclic Mobility Evaluation 7.
For Level Ground During Earthquakes," Journal of the Geotechnical En&~ ino Division, ASCE, Vol.105, No. GT2, Proc. Paper 14380 k
(Feoruary 1979), pp. 201-255.
8.
0hashi, M., T. Iwasaki, F. Tatsuoka, and K. Tokida, "A Practical I
Precedure for Assesing Earthquake-Induced Liquefaction of Sandy Deposits," Proceedinos--Tenth Joint Meetino U.S.-Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects (Puolic Works Researen Institute Ministry I'
of Construction, 1975).
I i Marcuson, W. F. and A. G. Franklin,'" State of the Art of Undisturbed 9.
Sampling of Cohesionless Soils," Proceedings--Internatonal Symoosium j]
on Soil Samling, Singapore (July 1979).
4
- 10. Meyerhof, G.G., " Discussion cf Gibbs and Holtz Pacer," Proceedings
]l3 of 4th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer 1no, Vol. 111, London (1957).
- 11. Marcuson, W. F. III and W. A. Sieganousky, "SPT and Relative Density in Coarse Sands," Jcurnal of the Geotechnical Engineerino Division, ASCE, Vol.103, No. Gill, Proc. Paper 13350 (Novemoer 1977),
pp. 1295-1309.
E' 1145 204 g
se
q-f I
- 12. Silver, M.
L., Laboratory Triax1tl Testino Procedures to Determine the Cyclic Strength of Soils, NUREG-0031 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 3
Comission, June 1977).
- 13. Gibbs, H. S. and W. G. Holt:, "Research or Deter nining the Density I
of Sands by Spoon Penetration Tests," Proceedings of ath International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Enq1neering, Vol. I, i
London (1957).
la. Hardin, Bobby O. and Vincent P. Ornevich, " Shear Modulus and Damping i
in Soils:
Design Egaations and Curves," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division (American Society of Civil Engineers, I
July 1972).
15.
SW-AJA (Shannon-Wilson and Agbabian-Jacobsen Associates), Soil i
I Sehavior Under Earthouake Loading Conditions (Union Carbide Corpora-tien 1972), t suomitteo to U.S. Atomic Energy Comission).
s 4
16.
Schnabel, B., J. Lysmer, snd H. B. Seed, SHAKE, A Computer Procram l
for Earthcuake Resocrse Analysis of Horizontal Layered Sites, Report No. EERC 72-12 (Earthquake Center, University of Cailfornia, I
1972).
- 17. Dames & Moore, SHAXE--One-Din'ensional Wave Prooogation for Multi-Layered Soil System, Ccmputer Program EP55 (1975).
I J
R 4
h W
R k
n ms as la e
O a
1 1
APPENDIX I
i BORING :.0GS i
1 s
I i
I.
I i
4 j
J i
l i
I i
I 3
I y
]
E l
I l
I j
n45 206 B
KEY TO LCG OF BORINGS LEGEND:
g 12 3
INDICATES DEPTH CF STANDARD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE.
INDICATES NUMBER OF BLOWS REQUIRED TO DRIVE STANDARD SPLIT SP0ON OtE FOOT IN 5fANDARD PENETRATION TEST.
INDICATES DEPTH DF SPT SAMPLING ATTEMPT WITH NO RE-O COVERY.
p INDICATES DEPTH OF RELATIVELY UNDISTURSED SAMPLE 08-TAINED WITH OSTERBERG PISTON SAMPLER.
i INDICATES 3AT SAMPLE TUBE WAS PUSHED INTO SOIL BY HYDRAULIC PRESSURE.
INCICATES DEPTH OF DISTURSED SAMPLE OBTAINED WITH OSTERBERG PISTON SAMPLER.
IEl ELEVATICNS REFER TO THE USGS MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM.
APPRCXIMATE LOCATIONS CF SCRINGS ARE SHC' ail ON PLOT PLAN.
CLASSIFICATION SYM3CLS REFER TO UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, PLATE A-2.
DISCUSSION IN TEXT IS NECESSARY FOR CCMPLETE UNDERSTANDI.NG CF THE SL'ESURFACE t'ATERIALS.
EI M
1145 207 g
.-~....
SOf L Ct. AG.lflC AYic. Cif ART 9
t CRAOKa TOM CliART cit w..,, p tr. scat or scnterio.vs
- m. row otetsto.vs S y,.nz g aag t
.._ y s
cw
., a
,,,g,.,,
,,;,..i gm I
- f. 3.* *
.'*/
~
- s... u..
g
.a.
.=..e
. o...
.,..f.
g cu
.o w w...
.m,
_ ). e.
... y.
- a......
c,.
GC
- " *4.D
-~-
w'-~~~^~
~,c..
~... _
i
=
s
.....u...
sW 89
.. :=
~
sP Su m..
PLAST l CITY CHART
..... en
....n. W@
s
.o,w, o.,,,
sc
.......~.....
m....
A,,,,
uL
]. d.'s a.
. l-oc c,
.o.....
_g
,s cL m.
g n...
u.o
_ p g
,.gi.
g
- p...
-1
.s,:
.H.
v cL uH y
o 3
uH a CH M
- a*".
.**a
.e
.u.. - =
.a...a.*.-=
.,j,i<',
O'~,
ML & CL
.f.L$.
OH
/
g
- ~ ~ - =.
.x.
c "....c.o'..
PT 01($
SAMPLES
. ~.......
.. ~..
....,... ~..
.. ~..,......m.m........
o -.-* -
...~~---
- - ~ _
I.
...,~..
u -.,._ _ _.-
{
w
... u
........u.....
.4 U7 -
g ca co UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM P001 ORG Ni_
y
_.. _.. 4.
2 LNG DM-t' bE ha E
BORING DM-7(CONTD) s,w.:r stru n0=.
at ga fb f[
k
- duk g
as t:
a n=as
_ ou.,,ano, sa
,,0u onc,,,,,,
0c0
.. c.,
I 64.,..w
- ; p :,an:. = :na t ->
was enac:ss a:7
=
o; tr -
sp 2j y
- PC e
e s 88c:5 utne react of 8 tut u
-u
.o::
..... n.. :w
'l
.a..
. : et s: -
eY r:=t *: c:anst m ct ase uw esp 29
- 88 'er9'1
" ***4
'tw o wcjJe seus sira rancs or 3 -e!j /0 en 1 eaa::5... *aa t -'a. 4:n
' ~. -
8
$p
- .s b D
>as : so:
'..a.t. 5 :, g.. t :
g&e, i
4-l 4
30 -
P 4 10 (1
. 100,gg,,. B W
,P S.
u 31 -
g s o
PY Q
6'.gg
,, s
.a;:s: ;a., tts 32 - *'of inws s - p3
.. a. :
su. : =;
,e a 7.,
!aa. ;U p,.e!! s.., *f e
- e" sa;i y g 4-5 JJ.
sa%e ':st 3 sc;Je seg e;?, wg y
- r*
o.gg
- 11 0
.;st:s <:se
..., ;s g :, -30 JS. Its
. n ;. v, 3,,,,, H ;,,,,,;
tems s t':Js saac m.:s v 90 -
gy,
,,j~
1 Wo:6 el* MD:J' sne
- ' - 4C 38.l25 13 -
33
-45 13 0 I4 -
e C
40
- s era IS *, gg 6:8:% 039tfit".,n? a zF% y a
- s
' 1% 3 LL* a s
.is a !n 'ist. at:xt: a* a ame s
jg,
- T 1.3 8tt' D l-ifr F9
-SS S.,
N Jt n
s.,
,0 b
n 21, IO 3,
3
.. av,.
.+ 4. ' s.a 1 22 -
g zsy . l
,4..
8 i w #0
.a u; :e 3 as 1
.. 2,. v.
23 ?
145 209-
- 8S LOG OF BORING of ATF A3
BORING DM 8
~
h *,,
BORING DM-8 (CONT'D)
E E swact ELEVATION.sn esu tst n
n EL Eu e
LOCATCN< orano. mmon.ee f yu gl N
89 A-tw s
%5 52 aA senots orscurion 8 hw 3A srwoes ces:wrlou o-e o
,,, - e s,,
N E
ff.
- 8
- ss
- v.. - *u, v
~90
,p y;
'an.:. w. n. -
ee -
y
,,. - 9 5 3 - to sp y'
d
.gg,?:9 fr;j'yJ;* '
30 -
e y
-'8
- ix..,,
>a m,..
.u 3-3,.
4,
- ~ ~ E0 3 2 - ~ tCS,,s,,
1 fg 7,
.s 23-
- a..
un e
_ j.:
- 1
- a. as a.,
54 y,,
5-33.. f j g
'O 3
36
-33
- :20
$p II -
I2 _
39. jpg m,
JL: % '
N 39 -
-43 3:
14 *
't
, ;m. ;,....
-Sa,,
- ]3.
.t. ]::s:
arer.
-SS 17 -
3 1 7
P00R[RGlWAL
~~ - ' '
.r-19 -
,.-63 fl - -"
22 -
~ ?#
24 -
' 80 E
~
1145 210 LOG OF BORING
BORING DM 9(CONT *D)
BORING DM 9 h*
suwCE CL EVA TION
- sn *en E., E Em E 55 Eu s
LOCArloN*0Em ma:U**
?$ Eu 8$
so s
s sw i
d 5;;'
A srwoes orstwrios d 5;;' t3 sruects otscwrtox o}[ 0
...y s..,..
' as -l
'a
- 1!
,ic.'.y
pso.l
-.~
o 16 a l l
- \\
ILSS
- ] f 'O,1 y'j;' ;ue
,, y
.i 4.
- [
18 ~ I L IS r 60 3;i
-l 19 N '
i
~
{ SS d ~ p to to !
.,c, a;,
j!
sp r!
5P 2
,-25
~a: s i
1
- R I
.?'
- l v
u f30 L rs 23 10~;.
1j I
E* *
~33.,
o E L4g
' ' ' ~
12 I;
26
'83,g E
IS ~
L' 2, -
-90 I
i
- w:ai.::< :
g g.,g,ig:::: : > - :n -
i 300R 01 BINAL e
I LOG OF BORING l
g PLATE A-5
BORING DM-lO BORING DM-lO(CONT'D) t., 5 h*
33h=
E., t
_suvact ettvarrow sm.n, 3e3 8I r,0..._._
s sw sk 8I s.
kN tt a 5 srw ots otscurion 8% 82 at a srw cu pescurion or0 0,ir o.,,
1
.c
....G
..........-ut ll
' ' x :.....s
^
l*\\
/4 ff 5
!b8 3i 2 ',:
2
! i
('
W Sp
,'O t s A,tj,9*,;5y,[*H W n s 4-4
!*
- 15 3*l f.S
.ar s
,, 3
. ::=. ~ sa : < nu u.-
8-]
- s I.
6
-20
~
6
-20 f,f.
':n.r::.
r ;n.r. ar sr.s av-w.--
.t ;
.2.
s-7--
p,.
e,a p
-} $V
-2*,x,,
-25
}
q s.
- p, g
' ' ' ' o,.,
.a,
{- 30 u,
to - '
~
10 -
-3S s.
. y 3 *eo 5
.-3..
- s. cu.t.
ia,
f,,
// a.
gp 12 - -40
- g.
" 1
-40im 3
- *.au w;:s :
IS -
- 45
- 4f l4 -
11 S 14 -
/3,
,,,, :., g.n,,, 3,.,.,
22 3 I
"SS 17 -
a' i
10 -
" 'O
,. 3 19 -
a 21 -
- 70 u s 22
~'#
23 -
p,
e-
- to e
a i 25 -
'~$$
)1 LOG OF BORING g
PLATE A 6
er IM BORING DM-ll(CONT'D) e BORING DM-il
), &** g,
E 5m y e
gymrACE EL EVA TION' *'* **
"h G me
~
LOCATICN* 080' *'*CD****
6*
yhgg a,sraas ors ="*r'o" gg g ga srwas OESC##rion is,,,
5
,,,,,,,,,,,cm 0 ', "
I
. 3 c
g,,, og.; q= p.agt alta %;a5DhA.
w s et:ts / r:.csu.n id
'b i.30 5
g' 28 *.
3 - l 10 29-83 3.-
so
{
g,
4' 30 -
-100 V IS y,
,.i
,1 32 --ICS a - p0
- v.. * **:I ::u.1 av s e 9 w
. ::..s r az.t. se e*w '.Ist c
a i
se.
tas:.
aa:: ' 5:
7.
33 -
>e
- ' IIO
',h a 37,
Jy
- s 3 d-34 -
F90
,P Ip g o
lla:e as - 'Is.,,
e 1
,,m y,.<= ~.>.:. - a I0 =
.. c,.. :,
,, i' 25
-... m :-si -
3 * - 12s,,,
sa s SO 39 -
13 -
{ O.
-I3C
- 4S r,
.x.
l
- 3,
^ ~l33
- 53 N
n 1 3 7, g, ; ese,t L; s* s M*
'e '
--2
.i ri.i.L st::s:t; s-a 27**
M
, :2 : ' !!' 'A i - A - I'
- 2 I6*! "
J
~'
~ '
id. D P0]R OR Glhl1 e
n. o he f ti -
g x,
- to,,
n.. e
??
)
>]:3 4
- e. '
- n-as,
p.
k,.
N* r eo,,
~
f3 -
n
~F
- 83 t
LOG OF BORING ptATE A-7
.