ML19323C027
| ML19323C027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1980 |
| From: | Delgeorge L COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Bournia A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005140546 | |
| Download: ML19323C027 (22) | |
Text
-_
f'] oro First N+tional Pina. Chicigo, Illinois 800514059'(,
Commonwealth Edison
[
- /
j (O
') Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767
/7 y/ Chicago, lilinois 60690 May 8, 1980 Mr. A.
Bournia Division of Project Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, Oc 20555
Subject:
Supplementary Response to Q130.23 LaSalle County Unit 1 and 2 NRC Docket Nos. 50-373/374
Dear Mr. Bournia:
Attached for your information is a DRAFT revision to Q130.23 concerning the LaSalle County Station seismic analysis casis.
This response is expected to be formally submitted in the i
next revision to the FSAR.
As you are aware, Sargent & Lundy (S&L) has performed additional analyses in response to questions raised by members of the NRC staf f who visited the S&L offices on April 21 and 22, 1980.
The attached DPAFT response to Q130.23 delineate the results to thse additional analyses.
If you have any further questions, please contact me as soon as possible.
Sincerely, j,
(
.c e x:ty,.
'. O. DelGeorge L
Nuclear Licensing Administrator Attechment i
3655A
\\
l
\\
l l
1
p QUESTION 130.22 The response to Question 130.22 as stated in Amendment 46 to the FSAR does not provide adequate information to judge that the proper soil properties have been used in the elastic half space analysis.
Modeling of the soil-structure interaction system should be consis-tent for calculating dynamic responses as well as for calculating soil properties.
Therefore, we require the following additional information be provided in Table 130.22-1:
1.
Based on the soil property curves (shear modulus vs. strain, damping values vs. strain) used in the half space analysis,.
provide the corresponding soil strain for each layer of soil.
2.
Based on the assumption and theory of elastic half-space modeling of soil, calculate the maximum soil strain during an SSE event for each layer of soil.
Compare the results of (1) and (2) above.
If significant differences are indicated, modify the soil properties and reanalyze until the results of (1) and (2) agree reasonably well.
However, to avoid reiteration, soil properties corresponding to low strain level may be used.
Revise your comparison of floor response spectra computed by means of the two modeling methods (finite element shear beam vs. half-space) if necessary.
RESPONSE
In a discussion on April 24 and 25, 1980, the NRC staff expressed the following concerns in regard to our answer to Question 130.22:
1.
The shear modulus value used in the analysis was judged to be relatively low for the following reasons:
a.
The undrained shear strength (S ) value, measured in the u
triaxial compression test (Figure 2.5-79), seems to be low compared to those obtained from the pocket penetrometer and the unconfined compression tests.
b.
The 0.35% strain value used in determining the shear modulus is higher than what would be expected for a 0.2 g earthquake.
4 1
I l
c.
A recent reference [1] indicates that the reductions in shear modulus with increasing cyclic shear strain are not as large as those shown in Figure 2.5-55 of the FSAR.
2.
The hysteretic soil damping values used in the impedance function solution are judged to be high.
3.
The answer to Question 130.22 does not provide sufficient details of the anlaytical steps performed, nor doea it provide validation statements for the computer programs used in the analysis, s
The staff recommended additional analysis with soil parameters as defined below in order to address the first two of the above concerns.
1.
Increase the S values by a factor of 2.5; reduce the maximum u
effective shear strain by a factor of 4; ad4"st the shear modulus value in light of Reference 1.
These steps would lead to an estimated shear modulus value of 2000 ksf for analysis.
2.
Use a conservatively low hysteretic soil damping of 3% in place of the 13%-18% damping values shown in Table 130.22-1 of the FSAR.
Even though we believe that the parameters selected by the staff are extremely conservative, we are providing the requested infor-mation,to resolve the staff's concerns.
The requested soil-structure interaction responses were generated using the layered viscoelastic half-space method proposed by Luco [.2].
The visco-elastic half-space ~is modeled by two layers.
The top soil layer is 126' thick with a shear modulus value of 2000 ksf and a hys, 2
r
p r
i teretic damping of 3%.
The bottom layer is the rock half-space, with a shear modulus of 107,330 ksf and no (zero) damping.
The north-south (N-S) and east-west (E-W) floor response spectra at key slabs (Slabs 2, 7,14, and 15) for the safe shutdown earthquake are pre-sented in Figure Q130.23-2 (Sheets 1 through 8).
The schematic details of the LaSalle plant structural model are shown in Figure Q130.23-1.
The response spectra are generated using the frequency independent impedance function solution for a 1% oscillator damping and are represented by the solid line.
The dot-dash line represents the design basis spectra which were based on the finite element method.
The crossed line represents the floor response spectra obtained in answer to Question Q130.22, and are based on a layered viscoelastic half space solution for soil properties presented in Table Q130.22-1.
It can be observed that the LaSalle design spectra, in general,
~
envelope those o'tained by either one of the two analyses performed b
using the viscoelsastic half-space approach.
The only exception
^
is the E-W response spectra at Slab 7.
At this elevation, the
' viscoelastic half-space method spectra using the NRC's suggestad soil parameters exceed the design spectra in the 7-10 Hz range by an average of 15%.
In view of the conservative nature of the soil parameters used in the analysis and the small magnitude of the exceedance, it can be concluded that the present LaSalle design is conservative and meets the intent of the staff position.
The staff's concerns about the details of,the analytical steps performed in answer to Question 130.22 - Option 1 were, in general, 3
e.*-
m-p
resolved during the April 24 and 25, 1980 discussions.
- However, the staff requested that we provide further validation for the com-puter program used to compute the soil impedance functions using Luco's method [2].
The following paragraphs provide that information.
The impedance function for a rigid circular disc placed on layered half-space were obtained by using the method proposed by Luco [2].
The total vertical load V, the rocking moment M, and the total
- iwt, horizontal load H are related to the vertical displacement A e y
the rocking displacement aeiwt, and the horizontal displacement i
Ae by the following forms (Equations 45 to 47 in Reference 2):
H 4G a l
iwt V = l-o
[Kyy(af) + iaCo yy (a )] 4 e
g y
1 0U
- l iwt M = 3(1-c ) I MM(a ) +iaCg gg(a )]a e O
0 y
O a
H = 2-0
[KHH("o' "o HH "o H*iwt l
+
1
+
in.which the terms Kyy(a ) + ia Cyy (a ),
KMM (a )
ia Co MM (a )
o g
o o
o and KHH (a ) + ia CHH(a ) are the normalized impedance functions g
g g
for vertical, rocking, and horizontal vibrations, respectively.
The functions Kyy(a ), KMM(a ), and KHH(a ), corresponding to the o
g o
real part of the impedance functions, are the equivalent stiffness I
coefficients, while 'he functions Cyy(a ), CMM (a ), and CHH (a ),
o g
g l
proportional to the imaginary part of the impedance functions, are l
the equivalent damping coefficients, w is the circular frequency, e
4
G and a are the shear modulus and Poisson's ratic, respectively, y
of the top soil layer; a is the radius of the circular disc, and a, = h5 ; B is the shear wave velocity of the top layer.
y 1
To validate the computer program, the impedance functions Kyy, Cyy, K
and C were obtained from the computer program for MM' MM' HH, HH the two example problems for which impedance functions were pre-sented in the original paper tyr Luco [2].
In the first example, a soil medium of uniform viscoelastic half-space with Voigt-type damping is considered.
The impedance functions for a
= 1 and g
4 were obtained.
These impedance functions are shown in Figure Q130.23-3 for rocking, Figure Q130.23-4 for horizontal, and Figure Q130.23-5 for vertical vibrations for o = 1/3 and G'/G = 0.3, where G'/G is the relative viscosity coefficient of the medium.
It can 1
be observed that the impedance functions obtained by the S&L com-l puter program compare well with those obtained by Luco [2] and Veletsos and Vebric [3].
I In the second example, a hysteretically damped soil medium consist-
' ing of a viscoelastic layer of thickness h
(= 150 ft) and properties B,a, py (mass density), and 51 (hysteretic damping constant),
y 1
resting on a viscoelastic half-space with properties 8 '
P' 2
2' 2
and (2 was considered.
The radius of the rigid disc is a
(= 50 ft).
S The impedance functions are obtained for a, = 1 and 5 for t=
6 0.8821 1 = 0.8502I 1*
2 = 0.25; 1=C2 = 0.05; h/a = 3.
These' impedance functions are shown in Figure Q130.23-6 for rock'ing, Figure.130.23-7 for horizontal, and Figure 130.23-8 for vertical l
j 5
~
i l
L..
e vibrations.. It can be observed that the results obtained from the S&L computer programs compare well with those obtained by Luco (2].
Based on these two examples, it can be concluded that the S&L com-puter program for computing soil impedance functions is performing its intended function correctly.
REFERENCES 1.
- Arango, I.,
- Moriwaki, Y.,
and Brown, F.,
"In-Situ and Laboratory Shear Velocity and Modulus," Proceedings of the ASCE Geotechnical Division Specialty Conference:
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics; June 19-21, 1978, Pasadena, California.
2.
_aco, J.
E., " Vibration of a Rigid Disc on a Layered Visco-Elastic Medium," Nuclear Engineering and Design, No. 35, pp.
325-340, 1976.
3.
Veletsos, A.
S., and Vebric, B., " Vibration of Viscoelastic Foundations," Report 18, Department of Civil Engineering, Rice University, Houston, Texas, April (1973).
e 9
1 4
i 6
I 9
U 894'-O" 9
8 9 849'-6" 7 9820'-6" 6 7807' -O" 7 786'-6" 5
14 768'- 0" U U 761'-O" 4
13 754'-O' 9 9 749'-O
il U 740'-O" 3
6" U 12 N4
)l 731'-0"U 10 9 710'-6" 2
16 U 694'- 6" l
U 673'-4" 15 O
M7rn FIGURE Q130.23-l SCHEMATIC DETAILS OF THE BUILDING MODEL 7
i
SARGENT A LUNDY
> ENSINEEAS FREQUENCY IN CPS 50.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 10.0- a' i i a' s '. 3 :
' ' ' ' s' s' i'
's s' i e' a'i i e' a'a
' a' ' ' #' a' e' 'a s' i a'aag 0.0 4
i i
issi issi i
i:
15.0~
[-15.0 10.C IO'O FINITE ELEMENT METHOD 3.00~
~;.00 3
SOIL SPRING METHOD (G=2000KSF) 3 S.00 O.00
~
P 5.00 SOIL SPRING METHOD ; (0130.22) s,;3 4.00_
?.CJ 3.00~
~,3 00 m
i
(
O t.0C_
/
\\
_:.00 x
a a 1 50_
_1 50 m
/ 6
-'--(
/f
(
i
~
x 1.C0 1
s E
y
\\
s.
a.00 H. 80 3 30 J 0.60 3 60
'/
/
/
\\(
W 8 0.50 f
3.50
/
\\
~
M p
0.40 3.40 0.3C 3.30 M
0.20_
_3 20
~
0 15_
[3 15 0 10
_3.10 0.08[
~3 08 0.06 3.08
~
' ' ' '. 03
' ' ' '. 40
'.80'.0'.5'
' ' ' 3.05 0.050.02 0
0.04 0.08 0.08 0 10 0 15 0.20 0.30 0 0
0.80 1 1
20 PERIOD IN SEC8NOS HORIZONTAL N-S RESPONSE SPECTRA FIGURE Q130.23-2:
ELEVATION:
710'-6" (SLAB 2X)
DAMPING: 0.01 COMPARISON OF FINITE ELEMENT.
METHOD AND SOIL SPRING METHOD O
LOCATION: REACTOR, AUX., TURBINE BLDGS.
RESULTS (SHEET 1 0F 8)
SARGENT 4 LUNDY i
EN3INEERS 1
I FREQUENCY IN CP3 50.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 10 0.5 20.0.,e, i,,e
,i,,,
e,s t e,i,s,e e,,i,
i i,,i
, e,,,
,i, i,,e
, e, i s e,s t i i,n,i e,,i iei i,, g'* 3. 0
)
i e i
i i
a i
15.0~
~15.0
~
~
10*C 10.0 FI!!ITE ELEttENT METHOD 8.00~
d.00 SOIL SPRING fiETHOD(G=2000KSF) 8.00 0.00 SOIL SPRING !!ETHOD (0130.22) 5.00
- .00 4.00-
- 4 00
~
3.00
~3.00
)
=
U t.00-E
.00 e 1 50~
~ t.50
/
=
c, N
/'
2100 1 00 E
/ /
\\. N E
> 0.80 3.30 x
0.60 3.80 U
.50
/
~
0 3.50 O.40 3 40 f
3
/
0.3C 3
.30 0.20.
3 20
~
0 15
,.15 0 1C-
_3 10 0.08[
[s.03 0.00 3.08 1
'''''''''3.03
~
0.050.02 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.08 0 10 0 15 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.80 1 0 13 2.0 l
PERIOD IN SEC8NOS HORIZONTAL E '.i I<ESPONSE SPECTRA FIGURE Q130.23-2 ELEVATION: 710 '-6" (SLAB 2Y)
DAMPING: 0.01 COMPARISON OF FINITE ELEMENT METHOD AND SOIL' SPRING METHOD 9
l
' LOCATION: REACTOR, AUX.. TURBINE BLDCS.
RESULTS (SHEET 2 0F 8)
A e,
SARGENT 4 LUNDY
= ENGINCE.13 FREQUENCY IN CPS 50.0 20.0 10 0 5.0 2.0 10 05 20.0 _,i,,,,,i,,,
v,i i i,i,, i
,,e
, e,,,
i,i i i,.,,,
i,,e,
,i, e,,i
,i, i g e.a w
15.0~
~
15.3 10.0_
_10.0
- - FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
)*00
~
8*00 4
8.00 SOIL SPRING METHOD (G=2000KSF)
_0'00 5.00
".C3
~
~
F
---Y SOIL SPRING METHOD (0130.22) 4,gg 4,ga
~
3.00
~3.03
~
/
~
o
[ 2.00_
[
\\.
- .00 z
D
~
\\
e 1 50.
,f N
1 50
=
--\\
~
~
2100 9.c0 1
E
//.
/
\\
\\
^
3.80
- - 0.80 E
[
([
~
$ O.00
~
1 60 d
.50
\\
0 3.50 0.40 0 40
~ ~ ~ ~
E*~
_f l
}3.30 0.30_
3 3
/
0.20_
_3.20
~
0 15[
~
.15 3
0 10_
_ 3 10
~
~
0.08 3.03 0.0" 3.06
' ' ' '.03
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''3.05 0.080.02 0
0.04 0.00 0.09 0 10, 0 15 0.00 0.30 0.40 0.60 0.8010 15 2.0 j
PERI 80 IN SEC8HOS HORIZONTAL N-S RESPONSE' SPECTRA
~~~
~~
FIGURE Q130.23-2>
ELEVATION: 820'-6" (SLAB 7X)
DAMPING: 0.01 COMPARISON OF FINITE ELEMENT 10.
METHOD AND SOIL SPRING METHOD LOCATION: REACTOR, AUX., hi,DCS.
RESULTS (SHEET 3 0F 8) p
SRRGENT 4 LUNDY CWetWCtas 1
- FREQUENCY !N CPS i
50.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 10 0.5
. i i i e' e 'a s i
'a i s
' a' ' ' a' i a 'u s' aa' a'i i hD.0 l
20.0 iiis i
e iii isi iei iiai i
i iiat
~
15.0
~15.0 10.5_
_ 10.0
~
8.00
~.00 FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
~
0.0C
~
.03 SOIL SPRING METHOD (G=2000KSF) i 8.00
.03 4 00 SOIL SPRING METHOD (0130.22)
[ 4.00 3.00[
~3.03
~
em 2
2 t.OO_
\\
/
\\
s
_0.00
=
s
/
E
/
\\._'L/
~
3 g 1 50 1 50 E
E
= 1 00E I, l J-1 00 n
E
- 6.80 3
J %
330 8
i y/
\\
.J 0.80 3.50 0.50 3.50 i.
0.40 h.40
' /
r-N,3.30 0.30 x
0.tc_
_3.20
~
~
~
01
~7.15 0 1C_
_3 10
~
~
0.0-3.08
~
~
0.00 3.06 0.0[ ' ' ' '.03
' 3.05 0.02 0
0.04 0.00 0.08 0 10 0 15 0 20 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.80 1.0 15 2.0 PERIOD IN SCCSNDS HORIZONTAL E-W RESPONSE SPECTRA FIGURE Q130.23-2:
. ELEVATION: 820'-6" (SLAB 7Y)
COMPARISON OF FINITE ELEMENT DAMPING: 0.01 METHOD AND SOIL SPRING METHOD l
RESULTS (SHEET 4 0F 8) 11 LOCATION: REACTOR. AUX., BLDGS.
l l
SARGENT 4 LUNDY EN314EER3 FREGUENCY IN CPS 50.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 20 10 05 10.0
' a' ' ' a' a' e'
'i i i a'
i e' a 'e i s a' i e i a 'e a i
'e' i e' i i e 'i 6
'*
- 0
-ie a i i6ia i
6 e
i 6 i ie
~
15.0
'15.0 18' IU*U
- FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
. 00:
.::.x SOIL SPRING METHOD (G =2000KSF) 8.00 O.00 5.00
SOIL SPRING METHOD (Q130.22)
.,gg 4.00,.
.4.00 3 00
~
N.00
~
- - ~ ~
~
/
g 2 2.00.
.:.00 E
/
.\\
E o 1 50_
4 1 50 x
/
I
,r g j
\\.
[
g 1.00 _
/
/
\\
\\
d.00 1
>- 0.80 0.03
,/
H 1
naJ 0.80
.63
/
/
\\\\ \\
0 N
.50-y 0
.50
--! l,
~.-
0 40 3.40 0 30 3.3c j
(
b 2
L 0.tC j'
,3.20
~
0 18
~3 15
~
0 10_
_3 10 0.09[
~ 3.03 0.0^
3.06
~
' ' '.03
' ' ' '.15' ' ' '.20' ' ' '.30
' ' '.80 1.0'.5'
' ' ' 3.0 5 0.080.02 0
0.04 0.00 0.09 0 10 0
0 0
0.40 0.80 0 1
2.0 PERI 80 IN SEC8HDS HORIZONTAL N-S RESPONSE SPECTRA FIGURE Q130.23-2 f
l 5LEVATION: 768'-0" (SLAB 14X)
COMPARISON OF FINITE ELEMENT DAMPING: 0.01 METHOD AND SOIL SPRING METHOD i
1 RESULTS (SHEET 5 0F 8)
LOCATION: AUX., TURBINE BLDGS.
l SARGENT 4 LUNDY vetam FRECW NCY IN CPS 50.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 10 05 f
f f
f ffff f f f f f f
f f
f f f f
f ffff f f f f f f
f i
f
.y gg
-3 iiI 43I3 5
4 3 5 4 lie 4 i 1 6 443I 4 3 6 8 8 444 4
5 4 4 4 iei 6 3 4 5
&446 15.0[
[ 15.0 10.0 10 0 3
FINITE ELEMENT METHOD 3.00 C.00 i'
~:
SOIL SPRING METHOD (G=2000KSF) 9.OC
'PC W
SOIL SPRING METHC.7 (0130.22)
~
5.00 a.C0 4.00
_4.0J 3.00[
,3.C0 g
7 y
2.0c
_ c0 5
e 1 5C
/
\\
i E
1 50 m
i l %V
<\\
i 2 1 0C V-W 3.C0 1
m E
j c-
>- 0.80 O.30 f;
k J 0.80 3.e3 d
.50 3.5C 0
4
/j f
N N3a 8*-
0.30
- 3.30 O.20 j
r
_3.2U
~
01(
3 15
~
i-i 5 1C 3.10 t
l' 0.03[
[3.03
=
=
0.C^
'3.C8
' ' ' '.03
' ' ' '.30
' 3.05 0.050.02 0
0 04 0.00 008010 0 15 0 20 0
0.40 0.40 0.80 1 0 15 2.0 FERIOD IN SECSNOS HORIZONTAL E-W RESPONSE SPECTRA FIGURE Q130.23-2
$LEVATION: 768'-0" (SLAB 14Y)
DAMPING: 0.01 COMPARISON OF FINITE ELEMENT-LOCATION: AUX., TURBINE BLDdS.
3 METHOD AND SOIL SPRING METHOD RESULTS (SHEET 6 OF 8)
,o
SARGENT 4 LUNDY
. u.mu, FREQUENCY IN CPS 50.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 20 10 05 l
's i g % 4 l
0 ; i i i e' a 's a s
' a' ' ' e' i i' ' ' 'a e'i a a 'e s ae' i e i s 'i i s
' e' ' ' a' s'.i.' i e' i e i i
es i
i i
j l
~
~
- 15.0 15.0 1
10.0 FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
~
~
5 00 C.C0 3
SOIL SPRING METHOD (G=2000KSE)
~
8.00 0.C0
)
g,co SOIL SPRING METHOD (0130.22) 2' 1
,eg 4.00_
_4.C0
~3.C0 3 00 m
E 2.00_
/
\\
E 2.00 s
5 i
l e 1 50_-
,s
,t.50
/-(N 2
\\
'\\
T 1 0C 2
2
,/ /
\\.
\\
~1 00
\\
,3.33 g0.30 f
g
// d W
W e 0.00:
J 3.80 8.50 F
/
\\\\
0 f
[
k-3.53 O.40
,q g
3 40
. r-C.30 h.30 M 4 i
/)
_f J
0.EG 3.20 m e I
i 0 15 3 15
- 0 10
_3 10
~
~
0.C-3.03 0.C" 3.CS
' ' ' '.03
'.00
' ' ' '.30
'''''''''''3.05 0.05 0.02 0
0.04 0
0 05 0 10 0.15 0.20 0
0.40 0.00 0.8010 15 2.0 PER!e0 IN SEC8NDS HORIZONTAL N-S RESPONSE SPECTRA FIGURE Q130.23-2 ELEVATION: 6'73'-4" (SLAB 15X)
DAMP 1XG: 0.01 CCMPARISON OF FINITE ELEMENT METHOD AND SOIL SP' RING METHOD -
LOCATION: REACTOR BLDG.
14 RESULTS (SHEET 7 0F.8) m
SARGENT 4 LUNDY umms FREQUENCY IN CP3 50.0 20.0 10 0 5.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 20.0_ a' i i s'
'ii '>
s'i ii e 'i n e s 'i i s
' e' ' ' s' a' i'
'n e' i i i i s' a 'i i t -. 3 b"
iiii i
~
15.0
[t5.0 FINITE ELEMENT METHOD 8.Cr,[
[:.C3
_ SOIL SPRING METHOD (G=2000KSF) s.00
~
0.C3
~
~
5.00 SOIL SPRING METHOD (0130.22)
- .c3 4.00_
_4.C0 3.00[
3.C3
~
l l
U t.00 t.00 3
~
i o 1 50
,1 50 g
['
.\\
,f 2 1 00_
j(._;
1 1.cc 2
\\
\\
'.so
~
g0.sc-y
\\
_3 p _,k j
/
/
4 taJ
_J 0 80 3.s0 U
.50
/
~
0
\\
3.53 0.40_
J,_/
x
. 4 w~
j
~
a.
0.30
.30 l
,A t
1
/
0 20_
,3 20 0.15[
31S
~
0 10 5 10 3
l -
0.03
,0.C3
~
l
~
0.08 3.C5 h3
~
'.08
' ' ' '.15
'.40
' ' '.80 1 0
' ' ' ' S.C3 0.050.02 0.03 0.04 0
0 08 0 10 0
0.20 0.30 0 0.80 0 15 2.0 PERIOD IN SEC3NDS 1
HORIZONTAL E-W RESPONSE SPECTRA FIGURE Q130.23-2 l
'LEVATION: 673'-4" (SLAB 15Y)
E DAMPING: 0.01 COMPARISON OF FINITE ELDENT METHOD AND SOIL SPRING METHOD LOCATIO!.'1 REACTOR BLDG.
15' RESULTS (SHEET 8 0F 8)
1.0 s
Msas as
& N N
0.0 g
N
VELETSOS a VEBRIC j
s a
LUC 0 x
X S&L COMPUTER PROGRAM s
s
- 1.0 4
N N
\\
\\
-2.0 O
2 4
6 8
10 l.0
.8
,~1
~~ 4
-f"~.
-K-
.6 1
,- "A 2
< S' A o
.4 -,h ga a
.2 0
2 4
3 8
10 4
Figure Q130.23-3 Rocking Impedance Function For A Viscoelastic Half-Space (Voigt Model) 16
t 4
1.0 -4
's N
'A 0.0 s
VELETSOS,6 VEBRIC Y*
1 I
A
' LUC 0 M
\\
X SM. COMPUTER PROGRAM s
-i.0
\\
s
\\
0 O
2 4
6 8
10 1.4 1.2
' A "E
's
'I 1.0 gAAN,
I g
o 0.8 0.6
/
O 1
0 2
4 6
8 10 0*
Fig. Q130.23 Horizontal impendence function for a viscoelastic half-space (Voigt model) 1 l
1
\\
i 17
\\
I.O s
N NA 0.0 N
VELETSOS S VEBRIC
\\
a LUCO a
\\
K S&L COMPUTER PROGRAM
\\
- 1. 0
\\
\\
\\
\\,
i 0
2 4
6 8
10 1.4
/d
/4 l.2 4
y 1.0 o"
~
08
~
06
-f f
t I
t f
f f
f 1
1 0
2 4
6 8
10 4
Fig. Q130.23 V.ertical impendence function for a viscoelastic half-space (Voig:t model)
O e
18
1.5 a8 l.0 LUCO s*
l X
S&L COMPUTER PROGRAM s
. 0.6 s
s I
2 0.5
,2
-X-___
l 2
1 204
~~M~~~~~
o
\\
t 00 i'N-O.2
=
i
-0. 5 O-0 2
4 6
8 0
2 4
6 8
"o 0o Figure Q130.23-6 i
Rocking Impedance Function For A Layered Hysterically Damped Medium 1
l
~
19 t
(
e
s f-2.o I0-LUC 0
)(
S&L COMPUTER PROGRAM 1.5
- X.
g.
..s -
g 1.0 l'. K.,
z 0.6 Z
g
... ' 'l o
'.9. ~,.*.. -
0.5
- 0.0 O. 2
=
=
=
L O
2 4
6 8
0 2
4 6
e a.,o 0 *o Figure Q130'.23-7 Horizontal Impedance Function For A Layered Hysterically Damped Medium w
20 l
l l
2.0 2.0 LUC 0 s
X s&L COMPUTER PROGRAM 1.5 I
l l
o i
i s.O,-
I s,
l
'x..,
S.g -
,f ',
,/
.0,
>(
i
%.l
's !
\\,,!
O.0 0.5 i.o o
=
a O
2 4
6 8
0 2
4 6
8 a.
l i
Figure Q130.23-8 Vertical Impedance Function For A Layered Damped Medium I
i
\\
21 l
l a-----
, - - - - - -., - - -,.