ML19339C710

Affidavit in Support of NRC Motion for Affirmative Summary Disposition of Liquefaction Issue.Soil Under pile-supported Structures Is Safe in Event of Earthquake.W/Prof Qualifications,Supporting Document & Certificate of Svc

ML19339C710
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	11/14/1980
From:	Greeves J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML19339C708	List: ML19339C707 ML19339C710
References
ISSUANCES-SC, NUDOCS 8011190152
Download: ML19339C710 (23)

Text

..

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAP, REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE

)

Docket No. 50-409-SC (La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor)

)

(Order to Show Cause)

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN T. GREEVES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION I, John T. Greeves, do hereby depose and state:

I am a Geotechnical Engineer employed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch of the Division of Engineering in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

I have been employed by the NRC since 1974.

A statement of my professional qualifications are attached to this affidavit. This affidavit is submitted in support of the Auaust 1980 safety evaluation issued by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regula-tion concerning liquefaction potential at the site of the La Crosse Boiling WaterReactor(LACBWR). This affidavit responds to various natters raised by the cOsolidated parties in response to the NRC Staff's interrogatories.

As part of my duties, I observed on site most of the test boring program conducted at the LACBWR site in July 1980.

I have reviewed information sub-mitted by Dairyland Power Cooperative and its consultant Dames and Moore and I have reviewed information provided to the NRC by its consultant, the U.S. Army Engineer Materways Experiment Station.

I assisted in the preparation of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's safety evaluation of August 1980 concern-ing liquefaction potential at the LACBWR site.

5011190\\

. Based on my professional experience, my observations, and my review of the test borir : program conducted at the LACBWR site in July 1980, it is my opinion that the borings and Standard Penetration Tests r:ere conducted in accordance with accepted engineering practices.

It is my further opinion that the results of the boring program show soil density has improved as a result of pile-driving under pile supported structures.

It is my opinion that the soils under the turbine building and the reactor containment building are safe against liquefaction in the event of an earthquake up to magnitude 5.5 with a peak ground acceleration of 0.12.

I believe that the Staff's safety 9

evaluation of August 1980 accurately represents the results of the horing progran and I agree with the analysis and conclusions stated therein.

I have also reviewed the responses of the consolidated parties to the NRC Staff's interrogatories.

I have prepared the following responses to the matters raised by the consolidated parties.

The consolidated parties appear to assert that there is some significance regarding liquefaction potential for a case where piles are not supported by bedrock. The Staff is aware that the piles under the LACBWR structures do not touch bedrock. The 1978 report of the Staff's consultant, the Waterways Experiment Station, clearly indicated that the piles under LACBWR structures are not founded on bedrock. The Staff's safety evaluation considered liquefaction potential for the site soilr, in the free field and under pile supported structures. The fact that the piles do not touch bedrock does not affect the liquefaction potential of site soils. The Staff's liquefaction safety evaluation does not rely on the structural capacity of the piles themselves to preclude s, oil liouefaction. Rather, the increased soil density caused by the driving of piles, as demonstrated hv the borings, is a najor basis for concluding that the soils under the pile-

I supported structures are safe against liquefaction.

The consolidated parties disagree with the Staff's position that the borings performed under the turbine building and stack foundation are representative of adjacent structures that are pile-supported. They do not present a basis for their disagreement nor do they specify what their position is on this matter.

The Staff's safety (valuation stated that the borings under the turbine and stack foundations are considered representative of other aajacent pile-supported structures. See Safety Evaluation at 5.

In my view, these borings are in fact a conservative representation of the rang in soil conditions below pile-supported structures. The borings made through the turbine building foundation slab are considered representative of the poorest foundation soil under the pile-supported structures. The boring locations in the turbine building were carefully selected to represent the lower end of the range of soil density for foundation support for pile-supported structures. The turoine building piles are spaced relatively far apart with respect to other structures, such as the stack foundation and the reactor building. See Figure 2d-2-1 in the Danes & Moore report, Response to NRC Review Questions (July 11,1980)which indicates pile-spacing under the LACBWR site structures. Because of the wider spacing in the turbine building, minimum improvement in soil density due to i

densification by pile-driving has occurred at the location of the turbine borings.

In addition, soil density generally increases with the distance from the river bank. As indicated in Figure 1 in the Staff's safety evaluation, the borings under the turbine building foundation were taken in the northwest corner of the turbine building, a location closer to the Mississiooi River than most other locations in the turbine building and locations in the stack foundation and reactor building. The boring locations in the turbine building therefore are representative of low initial soil density and wide pile-soacing

(minimum improvement) under pile-supported structures. The borings are, therefore, a conservative representation of soil conditions under other pile-supported foundations on the LACBWR site.

The borings under the stack foundation are a conservative representation of the conditions under the reactor. As indicated in Figure 2d-2-1 of the July ll, 1980, Dames & Moore report, there is a higher density of pile spacing under the stack foundation and reactor building than under the turbine building.

Spacing under the stack foundation and the reactor building is similar. The reactor building is also founded at a lower elevation than the stack foundation and the turbine building. The reactor foundation is below the hydraulic fill soils.

Figure 2 in the Staff's safety evaluation of August 1980 represents a typical soil profile for the LACBWR site. As indicated in Figure 2 in the Staff's safety evaluation and in Figure 2d-2-1 in the July lith Dames & Moore report, the plant grade is at an elevation of 639 feet. The bottom of the reactor containment is at an elevation of 610 feet. See Figure 2d-2-1 to the July 11,1980 Dames & Moore report. As statef in the Order to Show Cause, 45 Fed. Reg. at 13,850, col. 3, and 13.851, col.1, the Staff was originally con-cerned that liquefaction might occur in soils below the water table down to a depth of 40 feet. The foundation of the reactor building, which is almost 30 feet below grade, is therefore founded below most soils in which the Staff has been concerned liquefaction might occur. Tests on borings through the stack foundation, which is located at a higher elevation than the reactor contain-ment, -howed high soil density 6t all levels of the boring. See Figure 8 in the Staff's safety evaluation.

In view of the similarity in pfle-spacing

between the two structures and the lower elevation of the reactor building foundation, the borings under the stack foundation are a conservative repre-sentation of conditions ur.fer the reactor building.

The consolidated parties raise a concern about the possibility of voids under the reactor building. Voids were encountered under the turbine building which is founded in the hydraulic fill. No voids were encountered under the stack foundation at a similar elevation.

See Log of Borings, Plates A-3 through A-6 in Dames & Moore's report Final Assessment of Liquefaction Potential at LACBilR Site (July 25, 1980). The results of the borings under the stack indicate that no voids are under structures supported by densely spaced piles.

The voids under the turbine building may be attribued to the wider spacing of piles and to the nature of the soil directly under the voids to a depth of about 25 ft. The reactor bu61 ding is founded on more densely spaced piles in better soil conditions.

The consolidated parties also raise increased pore pressure as an issue.

Drivina of piles can increase pore pressure as well as soil density. However, any increased pore pressure dissipates shortly after the pile is driven.

Increase in pore pressure has no significance after dissipation.

Increased soil density remains and significantly improves the liquefaction resistance ef the soils, as is discussed in Staff's safety evaluation.

In my view, dense soils can remain stable even if adjacent soils undergo liquefaction. This has been demonstrated in response to actual events.

For example, one study reports that at the time of the Miyagiken-0ki earthquake of June 12, 1978, signs of extensive liquefaction were observed in the area of Ishinomaki, Japan. However, oil tanks which had been constructed on l

l l

l l

l

sand stabilized by the compaction pile techniquA did not incur any damage in spite of liquefaction that developed in the surrounding area. See K. Ishihara.

Y. Kawase & M. Nakajima, Liquefaction Characteristics of Sand Deposits at an Oil Tank Site During the 1978 Miyagiken-Oki Earthquake, 20 Soils and Foundations 97 (June 1980) (Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering).

A copy of the study is attached.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that the soils under the pile-supported structures at the LACBWR site are safe against liquefaction in the event of an earthquake up to magnitude 5.5 with a peak ground acceleration of 0.12g or less.

The consolidated parties have not raised any matters which would lead me to alter my opinion.

I hereby certify that the preceding infomation is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

nMu John T. Greeves Subscribed and sworn before me this 14th day of November,1980.

S'

_ btLL

()

Notary'Public

/

My Commission expires:

July 1, 1982 Attachn.ents:

1.

Professional Qualifications 2.

Article from Soils and Foundations

O John T. Greeves Professional Qualifications My name is John T. Greeves.

I am responsible for geotechnical engineering evaluations for nuclear facilities. This includes evaluation of the soil mechanics, rock mechanics, earthquake engineering, and foundation engineering aspects to assure that adequate siting and foundation design measures have been taken to prevent adverse operational and safety problems. This includes development of criteria and standards for evaluating the above geotechnical engineering matters as they affect the safety of nuclear power plants, fuel reprocessPg plants, fuel storage, waste disposal, and other nuclear facilities.

I am responsible for analyzing, interpreting and evaluating the soil mechanics, rock mechanics, and foundation engineering information submitted to the NRC in support of applications for the construction and operation of nuclear facilities.

These evaluation duties are accomplished through the application of standard and state-of-the-art procedures to assess the safety of nuclear facilities.

I am responsible for conducting reviews of the site geotechnical' conditions, and the adequacy of foundation construction procedures, i'ncludi.ig instrumentation proposed for cellection of data; discessing the adequacy of these programs with technical officials in applicant's organizatior, and their consultants 1

and providing liaison with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers offices in matters of soil and rock mechanics, dam design, foundation engineering, and earthquake engineeri ng.

This includes appearances before the Advisory Conimittee on Reactor Safeguards, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, and at public hearings, as required, to present and justify technical analyses and evaluations in geotechnical engineering matters.

I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Maryland in 1968.

Ir. addition, I have completed nine credit hours of graduate level studies in Civil Engineering at the University of Ma ryland.

I have also completed numerous short courses in soil mechanics, earthquake engineering and nuclear power plant design.

I have about 12 years of professional experience working in areas related to foundation design, construction and analysis required for both nuclear and conventional electric gene /ating plants. Thc;c include nearly seven years with Bechtel Inc., in Gaithersburg, Maryland and over six years with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Bethesda, Maryland.

I am a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, International Society of Soil Mechanic.s and Foundation Engineers, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, and the Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction.

In addition # I am a registered professional engineer in Virginia and Mississippi.

f.

SOILS AND F;UNDATIONS Vol.20, h 2, Jun21980 J: pause Soci;ty cf Soil ** cnics cnd Frund: tion Engineiring i

t e

l LIQUEFACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SAND DEPOSITS AT AN OIL TANK SITE DURING THE 1978 MIYAGIKEN-OKI EARTHQUAKE Kun Ismaan4*, YAsUmRO EAWAsE", and Af!HARU NAKA}IMA***

AsSTzAcT Following the Afiyagiken-oki earthquake of June 12, 1978, signs of considers.le liquefaction were observed over the reclaimed sand deposit in the area of Ishinorr ski fishery port. Three oil storage tanks constructed in thin area but on the deposit comparted survived without any damage notwith-standing the considerable liquefaction that had developed in the surrounding area.

After the earthquake, undisturbed sand samples

+ vere taken by means of Osterberg piston sampler both from the compacted deposit and from the uncompacted deposit. Laboratory cyclic triaxial shear tests were performed I

on these specimens to determine the in-situ cyclic strengths of the sands. The cyclic strengths thus determined were incorporated into a simple analysis to determine the potential for liquefaction in these two deposits. The results of the liquefaction analysis were discussed in the light of the construction record and the observed performances i

of the tanks and deposits during the 1978 earthquake.

?

Key words: earthquake, liquefaction, sand compaction piis, tank IGC:

C 9/D 7/H 1 INTRODUCTION Settlements and tilts of oil storage tanks resulting from the liquefaction ci sand deposit during earthquakes are of major concern for those who are working in the seismically active region of thc world. Destruction of a number of oil tanks caused by the extensive liquefation at the time of the Niigata earthquake of 1964 was probably the first of this kind known to the geotechnical profession. According to a report by Watanabe (1966), nine tanks for strage of oil products 10.7m in height and 25.2 m in diameter with a capacity of 5000kl sustained considerable damage involving a maximum settlement of 50cm. These oil tanks were constructed on loose sand deposits having blow count values of 5 to 10 in the standard penetration test down to a depth of appioximately 8 m.

In contrast to this, two tanks having a capacity of 20000 kl with a dimension of 13.76 m in height and 44.58 m in diameter suffered little damage. The sand deposit underlying these tanks had been compacted by means of vibroflotation technique to a density with a blow count value of 15 or more down to the depth of 7 m i

except for the surface layer immediately below the bottom of the tank. These experi,ces j

• Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo.

" Civil Engineer, Fudo Construction Co Taito-ku, Tokyo.

• Chief Soil Eigineer, Token Geotechnique Co, Chiyoda-ky Tokyo.

Written discussions on this paper should be submitted before April 1,1981.

l r

i L

,r

. y..

,.......\\ N. 2,, jf.,. n L

,. r, [

, y,y::,,. %, '.t ; +.1 I 1. 'T*.

a O

I F.1

.k' si!

Yi 98 151t!HAR A ET At

.U b

showed that ar'ificial compaction of loose sand deposit is an effective means of reducing t build

,j[

the potential of liquefaction and consequent damage to overlying storage tanks.

y 3

[JlE Although the effectiveness of stabilizing loose sand deposit by in-situ compaction d' '* 1 technique has been proved through experience, little study has been undertaken thus far Surfa

{, g to clarify the behavior of sand deposit supporting oil tanks in a quantitative manner on middle e d.

the basis of cyclic test data performed on undisturbed samples of sand.

p g'

U At the time of the Miyagiken-oki earthquake of June 12, 1978, signs of extensive j.

.9"' ***

k liquefaction were observed in the sand deposit in the area of the Ishinomaki fishery j

N, port.

Hov. ever, three oil storage tank constructed on the dense sand deposh stabilized by the compaction pile technique did not incur any damage in spite of the W

br**

k liquefaction that has developed in the wider area surrounding the oil tank yard.

Ofa n bi Since construction records of the oil tanks were preserved and readily available for QIll in Fig.!

study, detailed investigation of this site appeared to offer a unique opportunity for 8885' I

omplete case history study on the performance of oil tanks and the making a b

underlying soil deposit during earthquakes. Undisturbed sand sampling from this site 8pite of and testing in the laboratory were thus planned. In the following pages, the had oceu h,,'

description of these investigation and the significance of the results will be presented in 80 the C

3 fishery r

elation to the observed behavior of the tanks and the soil deposit during the 1978 are local

.!4; earthquake.

sand to

{JVi were oln 3

MIYAGIKEN-OKI EART$ QUAKE in Fig. 4..

l' ". 3 t

An earthquake with a magnitude of 7.4 occurred approximately 150km east c,. Sendai An op W[.j; city >ff the coast of Miyagi prefecture at 5 : 14 p. m. on June 12, 1978. The focal stationed

'/l der th was estimated to have been 30 km. The earthquake shook widespread areas in many 5e a

the northern half of the country as indicated on the map it: Fig.1 in terms of the minutes.

spouts re

A I meter y

also testi

" Sh8 o.

10 20 *m 3

u 22 ga attached 3

2J i

ded agair.

3 2 I. h Twea r s 9.

[,

[

accurate

,3 settlemer,

w,3,

/f

~

pheries s a'

.; E. '

f 5

• • 9***

of the s E. ')

A 5

Emc Mer sendai 0

Q earthqual e, u.'u A-y'5 26 together

\\

• 5 I'*,'; *3 they 'nad

• 4 4

4

• p,

settlemen mn,,,

s.

26,4 31 f*,

c -

r ""

affect the i

a j.

2.2 I

/

\\

of settler '

'/>

\\ AtNkuma N

and 1976 j

?

k.";

o 300km

\\ river I

a 4 k

period lic '

y.

damage t M

.1 i.

poeir,c.,

[e :Sonc boat) occa Fig.1. Intensity distribution of the. Tune Fig. 2.

Places where e,Igns of lique-12, 1978 Miyagiken-oki earthquake faction mere obsersed following The s,it Ospan Meteorological Agency) the 1978 carthq.ub

.I 1

k A

w

, ~

, [*

_,4*

K'.

~1

. r., " *n '. :

?.*

..p.

! ]' '. f - Q; e

• .e.

3 .j 2-v.E'?. ,"{. Y ',2, o = L. 4 A z r.i;.L.'.L. i. 4,C k i ' E.%,2g. g] ';Q.:: i ".'_, ~. L

hsf.. j.% ' f Y::s J.; *:..:. *,1--g-k &bl& - 4... ;.,U' *& - 5. - ? f.W W ~ - K' > - ~ .. y a h^ '. ' W. w, LIQL'EFACTION oF O!!. TMiK SITE 03 (; " .Y'" u Japan Meteorological Agency's intensity scale. Considerable destruction was incurred ,j, ucing to buildings, houses and civil engineering facilities in the area shaken with the intensity Q. V. Several landslides were also triggered by the earthoushe o wr the man-made' resi- ,; s 'cti:n dential sections in the city of Sendai, recently formed by filling vallrys. r,.,,. W-2s fer Surface evidences of liquefaction mre numerous in alluvial sand deposits along the er on middle and lower reaches of rivers and also in filled deposits along the sea coast. Fig.2 shows the places where sand volcanoes, surface fissurings and other signs of Y..., a result of field investigations carried out after the liquefacti.n were identified as ensiva it_ ishiry carthquake. ieposit d af the DAMAGE FEATURE AT TIIE OIL TANK SITE IN ISil!N0'f AKI FISilERY PORT AREA ' P-gl y:rd. Of a number of places where the occurrence of liqufaction was ideatified as shown in Fig.2, a site near the fishery port in the city of Ishinomski was of particular [ c,J t* ile for ty for interest because three fuel storage tanks constructed there did not suffer any damage in y, Q.. id ths spite of the extensive liquefaction that 'E'*< 2is sitt had occurred in the sand deposit adjacent g s the to the tank yard. Fig.3 shows the ] N 1 i shery port area where the fuel tanks g i

f.$

nted in tt.% 2e 197g 6 are located. The individual spots where j f a os to 73 a sand volcanoes and surface fissurings J [ M'i@ were observed near the tanks are shown d 6 / A 6 lM s m e monsno hovs-in Fig. 4. Sendt1 An cperator of the tanks who was Q(",*l" p*! f:j stationed to the workroom witnessed y / '9f foc"I L y ?' ne atera in i many sand boils show up about 10 .[ f of th? j minutes after the main shock. The sand 7i ' 't.. 6 spouts reached a height of approximately g y[ [ ,9 I meter above the ground surface, lie f te.no- ) also testified that the bodys of the tanks were shaken violently, while the ladders i r.* i-f'G attached on the flank of the tanks colli. ded against the tank and chattered loudly. f ' d'.'. Twenty days after the earthquake, w% ~ accurate measurements were made of the J" ' i 7.[ on,,,4 g ' 'N. settlements of the tanks along their peri-tsNnomou pheries as shown in Fig.5. The result neny part h of the measurements made after the Fig. 3. City of Ishinomakt and Ita vicinity [^. carthquake are presented in Fig.6, >D Q j 7 together with the records of a similar survey previously performed for the tanks since ( ;E they had been put into operation in 1975. It is noted in Fig.6 that the amount of annual t b settlement prior to the earthquake was on the order of 10mm, a level which did not affect the satisfactory operation of the tanks. It should also be noted that the amount -j i J. of settlements for approximately one-year period including the earthquake between 1977 and 1978 was on the same order of magnitude as tha't recorded for the previous one-year i period between 1976 and 1977. This fact would indicate that there was substantially no j-damage to the main body of the oil tanks due to the carthquake. of IIF STABILIZATION OF FOUNDATION SOILS FOR OIL TANK CONSTRUCTION "11siins The site planned for the construction of the oil tanks consisted of deposit formed by ~. ' 9 s AnL i 1 C.,...; ,?. _..m,..,. _c. _- ;q -.. m..,m...;y. -. f.

• s m.....

gs ....-S-g - a.%~.:,'._.. j.':. 'j,_) g q; g g Q

• i'

.m.

M-1 { ' g. :a . n h 4 15H1HA2A ET AL. .D N 200

• - v.",

t .-;: g.

• w...G

.a Samphng 3 ' h,,;{ *}.} O51._ No1 sr Break watec g ;g 2 ISO kt ~ 7 }@kl, 'I 052 6000ki t s 4 r,. l

• )

{ tank

l s

v 5 . e L.) '.h:, ;U., Lcocks 5 4 g. No7 L; if Sand vetcono 7 2 ./ = 2.n :- [.p l N M ck g n ', o .F { t.6 '. lN o yo ygm E[.') 5 4 P *f l .s Fig. 4. Ground damage near the tank yard Fig. 5. Points of settlement mea- ., l,'.?- surement around the tanks ..; ;{~

• l 2124m

, H; Fig.

t> [\\O [\\/\\/\\ ( /d/\\ / /\\ / /\\/\\ \\ \\ / /\\./\\ -{ /h# \\ y /\\/\\/ N'\\/ v4's/' ' /_ /\\ / 0 // VXAf\\A / \\/ V i/., is j }1 g; b. /1/ Is / /v\\/\\/(\\sf\\ \\/ \\ \\ ( h, f-f 20 2 /< t vv \\/v i/s /\\ /\\ AfG - 1 i (/\\isfgA /s A A /g/g/ / ) 7 y s/s n /v g/ / / g/v u t tt ~ NYevi v v s/ s/s r 40 ,Af ter construction, 6 [ q /t M \\/ / / / A e s /\\ Afu s/g/q,x/\\ / \\t\\ t

1. \\'

V D \\ V M # W Y 4 E 60 Aug.JO,lS76 5 V\\&/VVV i/ Vi/ ~ ,~ j .N / g/ g/vte /g s f y v g ~ s E Atter the [$,pg,g,;377] y q s e(f sfy gry (/g f gf g y ~ f ,f rj, p f g 7 njgfg fy -* $3 eorthquake P , June.24,7978_ /,y s . y v v gyge,g/ 7 3 $M 006\\/JkY l \\/V " V ~ r ( 12 0 6000 kl tank / s, k' y0 u b-Nal No 2 Na3 Na4 N25 No6 -Na7 Nog Point of meosurement j Fig. 6. Settlements of 6000k! tank during Fig. 7. Installation of compaction piles in plan the period 1976-1978 i The sand as b fine sand reclaimed from the nearly seabed through the hydraulic method. it had been deposited was loose, and, therefore, it was stabilized by installing compaction i I foundation of the oil piles to provide a sufficient amount of bearing capacity for the tanks. The compaction piles were installed at each node of a triangular mesh shown Bei in Fig.7 with a spacing of 1.8 m. The diameter of the piles was 0.7 m. The plan for E'Of the installation of the compaction piles covered the circular area beneath the tank plus bonna the annular belt area having a width of 2.8 m extending out from the periphery of the c unt The section half enclosed by the three tanks as shown in I tank as shown in Fig.8. l Fig.8 was also stabilized with the compaction piles. The compaction was carried out "PP"' ' a relatively ' nse sand down to a depth of 1.55 m as illustrated in Fig.9 where Mt ! J ) deposit lay. peneti DMD b M. A l[ P bT T ~\\ e f 5 2 3.. . - W ~ s.. ' ~ .., f,5-r. -i., ~ .~ . _~l, :., 2,

, a.?..

.,,\\.,m a'; '-! s'; .g....:1.- L T {l.. .,.. n.... .g ....m,.-

'. C...*. 1 0.;. J.dg. :..'.i;. 4,n,4 '..,. y,*,.3.

• c $3... g t -

.2 ) .7) 2?)9%V a L.sh k..M<.Li.?2.<! e :Xi r %~ -ai'2 ;.,4,.. ~%.J!, !:*,.; ~~*.G.:G::M

• 2h n.%wM K 'y. *}. -

B~ M# i-I i.' h ] J \\ LIQtJEFACTION OF O!L TANK $1TE 101 '.y '.v. "- I N Oy U o;g genc,/ oil tank l s 3; 1 = BCl.. ' 2htm ~ ~ 3 l im i y

• 8C7

,.3 . :.8N t. ' " .d y: ::;:: g l .e 4 .t.: BY2 sbkI' N

1..-

a[ hl i toee 1 y .,[ON'.:..~fBjs,- 2 wn N ~;aN2; }y- .e~ (f ~;.$'* /0 4 rc 8C4 y . ' i' ....' m :/:. ' g.. ' * ;;t its = g g:. s' Q ^ ^ ' s n.; '.t. C. tmm L- -~,44, Zone of o. poctior [," l

a pile instattation

-j \\ nks , m j-m 23 m m g.-b. ~ ~ r 'o l Comocctb

• (,. $

' BC5;: r pile Fig. 8. Zone of compaction pile installation and Fig. 9. Extent of cornpaction pile y.p locations of drilling and sartplmg installation . y, ,e.. ,./s' - i %.*~ fence [ }., Oil 1 20 im y" is6 BCf l l 1 E y l . I " - J. o i 67sm l U l 2 Sm ,8 3,m /. e,. ' ~* eNt t BC7 1 o / a- /- BC2 -..a_a. tv.2.c52

i...

o l'Y 241m I t. ,J5m CJ ~ DNEl qs p O ' O N 00'i"9 Ld0" C$flb BC4 corrpoct ori (1374,3) c* w gga g h-2530 O BC : Boring af ter BCf compaction (l375) l b ' A 8 A : Boring efter 44Jm E 'h' Swak' ('878) !.. - ~.', T' = l ... - + E l A o$ : ostertwrg acti1n 4 g;3 7 l sampling (;373) C ~ts-Im l \\ lI m I l 1 Fig.10. Iecations of drilling and sampling and C, action l he d SUBSURFACE SOII. CONDITIONS Before starting the construction of the ta a...s, the subsurface soil profile at the shown The locations for these j an for proposed site had been investigated by drilling 2 bore holes. k plus borings are indicated by BN 1 and BN 2 in Figs.8 and 10. The soil profile and blow of the count values of the standard penetration test at BN 2 are shown in Fig.11. It may be r' seen that the reclaimed portion of the sand deposit had been loose to a depth of .wn in ed out approximateiy 12 m having blow count values on the order of S. und After completion of the stabilization by means of the compaction pile, the standard e penetration tests were performed again at seven locations to confirm if the compaction 3 [ ekAf e) b b K n.n l i ~ n m.. a ;. w_wa e :a au.a,.. ,o b ", p ' 3 -w

. 'rf...e N p g,T e , f.$ l* (, f'rt* k/.Y 4. w .- 6 102 15H1HARA ET At..

s. p

$- 7." h Depth-6-3 g f>f'.1 j Depth Soil soit N -value Depth Soil Soit N-volue (m). pi:., 5. "' (m) type profsie 10 20 30 40 50 (m) type profde 10 20 30 40, 50 hh "LsU Y-ob5m YW 2- '~ y. 1 ~2:.- e.w 1 -+ -14 m ' 3 &.*n f %.... 2-u, g,,, y 2- ,f %a \\ , ',. q ;-_. Before p v., j- ' :.p' ( 4-3 ] "N Compaction 4- ,~ ' ,p 5-4. 4 tond j h. ' 7..,, j After ~ 6-w: m 5-L:::/ " 5< .and i compoetion i 3.[ f 6- !;ono im,g 6-7, I 7,,sonoy.- L-stit y. a-F..v;.7 g s.I 9:- Lm 3 ~1 sitt I-

U,;~.

8-

.3R g

3, r $sp., ..1 sand 10 - y y f i Medium p. j. k V p. 10 - r,n,,c,c. <.: N' ~ yy. .b " Oil tonk site - II~ 5d'r 5" ly. 11 wim sut ?[1..~ikj f 12 ' IN B N2,Ishinomoki 12 jj* .5 gy, sandy -C ~ (Aug. IS74) 13 - F*ne Saad i 13 ant c_ siny . c-- 14 14 5,n, t,n, m 14 - eneo.um 'y. ( **' f, }7 s,g[ ~ 15 }& 15 it f 16 - )7 ' Oil tank site 16 .,,,,a l L, 3*-

7

sion, 17-sonoy s.n pq BC4.lshinorreki (July.1975 i j

i8 Fig. 1 ( f Fig. 11. A coil profile and standard pene-Fig. 12. Standard penetration resistance P p [; tration resistance before compaction after compaction show: [ pile installation had sufficiently compacted the sand deposit. The locations of the check-I., up standard penetration test are indicated by the sign BC in the plan of Fig.10. One those d F of the results of the tests is presented in Fig.12. It is apparent that the reclaimed h 1 sand layer had been compacted to N-values of approximately 15 down to the depth [ of compaction pile installation. The sand deposit thus compacted was considered dense Uni l i enough to provide sufficient resistance to liquefaction. deve], j diame hole. SAMPLING AFTER T11E EARTHQUAKE ) h In order to determine the cyclic strength of soils in the sand deposit at and near the [ oil tank site, undisturbed sand samples were obtained from two sites for testing in the et laboratory. It was considered of interest to compare the cyclic strength of undisturbed i samples from one site where liquefaction is known to have occurred against the cyclic i strength of samples from another site where liquefaction is known not to have occurred during the June 12,1978 carthquake. Consequently, undisturbed sampling was performed first near the 500kl tank in the tank premises as shown in Fig.10. Needless to say. The the sand deposit at this place had been compacted by means of compaction piles. A using standard penetration test was also conducted next to the sampling hole as indicated in the ti the plan view of Fig.10. The result of the standard penetration test is presented in rubbe Fig.13. The blow count values as well as the soil profile in general are nearly identical such a to those shown in Fig.12 where the soil conditions investigated prior to the earthquake confin i is presented. Another sampling site was chosen outside the tank premises where surface defor: signs of liquefaction were observed in the form of ejection of sand and water following presst the 1978 carthquake. The sampling site relative to the positions of sand solcanoes is water shown in Fig. 4, and the exact sampling location is indicated in Fig.10. Result of the ,es, p Standard penetration test performed in the immediate vicinity of the sampling hole is b -i D*D

• D'T Y b dB oJLA M'a t~

x. I,,b, s ' C -f. I~$~, +J gh f. N j. [, ' C ~ ~~ . -=** ass e s aw uk d,a a humNs

• l ' - - -- ?'I$

Y-k A.so.s.;.c. ,,_ 0 m c m,.

• rL }..:s k-

u e.smQ'NK-g-33, y_. 'ML ' _ ;., _-Q g" y a**g s._.p, 7.._ p.3 t,.

[*... 1 *j '- : g., m. c.. "r r M *: P. 16.. i LIQUEFACTION OF CIL TANK SITE 103 /Ts {.&.....\\ &y. Depth Depth Soit Soit N-volu, y,i]tG ding Depth Soit Soit N-value op (m) type pratite 10 20 30 40 N' f E gpty 2:1 (m) type profile 70 yo yo go TT Su face g

C.

I, r ( 7 7 30 l t-" +.74m ' Or-2-i h: e. ;- IIn' y. .l gfft M 01-1-1 und 2 ~ J J' rine 5- - Q[-;-) 4' sana ""d "r 4 After the ' Or-2-2 5 ecrthquake. g

1. ~

?, ' hque e~ Cl-1-3 1 p in, 6-, sane, ' 3.y.4 3 7-

jy

' g g.p.4 7 ,C ..'Q. 3-;-5 ' Or-2-5 o-sand .r re.ne 's ' - g 9- ~~ ' Qg-2 6 ') ~ 9 11-sa,, 4 - Qt.;-G 10 ' i 10

1. 1. '..Ihsono N l l-2-7 h
2. 2 ~

'sb"n'd 12 13 - i i g9 . Oi! tank site {,* sary very f.n, O.l tcM, s.k 73 14 Sand W ..th sitt .LM B Al.Ishinomck,s fine F_- BA2.ishinomoki M 7 16 - Compacted 15 - -3 (Sept.1S78) 'L (Sept.1973) sand r :- Uncompocted M* 17. , deposit 16 - deposit w y: g-las b Fig.13. Standard penetration resistance and Fig.10 Standard penetration resistance and. depths of Osterberg sampling at the com-depths of Osterberg sampling at the un- [ @#. $nes pacted site af ter the earthquake compacted site after the earthquake )b :., /" shown in Fig.14. The soil profile and the blow count values were nearly the same as ' $'l' /' ' those obtained in the investigation performed before the earthquake (see Fig.11). ', y y ^

x.. -

laimed depth SAMPLING BY MEANS OF PISTON SAMPLER I dens 2 Undisturbed sand samples were obtained by means of a piston sampler originally developed by Osterberg (1952). This sampler consists of a steel tube 76. 3 mm in 7.'.

diameter and 90cm long, driven by mud water pressure at the bottom of a drilled i d hole. The sample was kept in a vertical position for about 2 days to drain out excess water existing in the voids of the sand. It was frozen in the field and stored in a Ice t.*, cream freezer until tested to preserve the insitu density and fabric of the sample. Detailed piocedures for sampling and handling are described in a paper by Ishihara. Silver and Kitagawa (1979). e cycl.ic xcurred r formed CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TEST The frozen sample encased in the sampling tube was severed into 15cm long lengths to say. de5-A using a power hacksaw. The tubes were then cut lengthwise using a band saw to split cated in the tube for removing the intact sand specimen. The specimen was then enclosed in a ented in rubber membrane and placed in a triaxial test cell. After finishing necessary processings identical such as thawing and saturation, the triaxial specimen was consolidated under an effective [ i rthquake confining pressure of 100kN/m' and subjected to the cyclic axial stress until the specimen I J e50'I* deformed to a peak-to-peak axial strain of 10%. During cyclic loading the chamber OIIO * *" E pressure was kept constant and the axial load, axial deformation and change in pore n ':anoes U water pressure were monitored and recorded with time. Detailed description of the

hol2,

test procedures is given in the paper by Ishihara, Silver and Kitagawa (1978). It c( the 'S s ... m,"... _ '~-' m' N .,,T q m ( .4 0 ',.'A E ' '. f,E e)-[ f, ?.{.K, .h** 7 ~ c_. m.=y-y, ,r -.[ .4 ' -7

• )
• sM t.c. 3 w.e J

Syn.N ki D tSHNARA 2'T At $r.4 1 m [e ns p DE - RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS h.Id i Test Results for the Satnples from the Compacted Deposit 5@o4 Y Y.1 The grain size distribution curves of the Osterberg samples from each depth are It is noteworthy that all the sands from each depth are very Sne W2 The resul'.s of cyclic e b.k i presented in Fig.15. sand having a mean particle size, D, of approximately 0.15 mm. 2 os-j criaxial tests are shown in Fig.16. The cyclic stress rativ, a,J(2a.'), required to Sf! and 10f! double amplitude axial strains is plotted in p p(,@k,j i these figures versus the number of cycles, where a,, d.aotes the amplitude of cyclic, j 1 induce initial liquefaction, 7 Each of these figures plots the goi axial stress and a.' is the effective con 6ning stren. It may be seen from u

p,h],j cyclic strength of the Osterberg specimens from a given depth.

O d for 20 cycles f-LQ these figures that the shape of the cyclic strength curve is rather flat an jI; failure occurred at a cyclic stress ratio of approximately 0.22 to 0.28. og g )S p g,-l,,_ g h Y h 100 - J 6 }j,',*f Corrpoeted E J 100 l g' Compacted y cepos.t_ - deposit bp 8 04-h:SJ{i f, g } __De 'stm h.q y j C3 ~ y Ls 9 l

== .t_ t bl Ost,tnMomeM s { (**"'I {a) Odtorese es t te*om* g c, J g 20- < isymn p20-- Y-b.,l y t.._/ 2< l 01 10 30 0-3 D 10 10 Porticle Size (mm) [. jf ' 01 Particle size (mm) Crain size distribution curve of the soils from Osterberg i '. 1 CW l *,, ~ Fig. 15. 8 ' ' samples at the compacted site ba' C l the average grain size of the sand at this site was small compared O {- As noted above, f i c4 to most of the clean sands that have been tested so far for the studies of lique act on. el d' q Because of this, the void ratio values at the consolidated state of the undisturbed test f 1 The maximum void f c s,- specimens were extremely large, ranging mostly from 1.0 to 1.4. rati g c2-a N [ l l Inasmuch as the use of and the minimum void ratios ranged batween 0.85 and 1.0. [~ i I relative density is open to question for such unusually high values of void ratio, relat ve d g3 Instead, average values of the void ratio ( density values are not presented in Fig.16. 0-3 'p itself and their ranges of variation are indicated in the figures. Test Results of the Samples from the Uncompacted Deposit t l Fig.17 shows the results of grain size analysis performed on the specimens from the soc It may be seen that the soil at p0 8 uncompacted deposit adjacent to the oil tank yard. f approximately y l this site was composed of very fine sand with a mean particle size, D,,, oat depth 21.4 m the soil was clay, having a vo - i yy 0.15 mm for all sands at ali depths. l i ratio of approximately 1.8, specific gravity of 2.709, liquid limit of 53fs, and p ast c g this site was essentially e The grain size characteristics of the sand at limit of 39ff. h k the same as that of the sand at the compacted deposit within the premises of t e tan 7 20 Fig.18 shows the results of cyclic l yard except for the clay existing at depth 11.4 m. d triaxial shear tests on the undisturbed Osterberg samples obtained from the uncompacte g, It may be seen in the figures that the cyclic stress ratio required to cause Sf/ deposit. double amplitude axial strain in *he test specimens was approximately 0.22 except for the larger cyclic stress ratio values measured for the clay specimen from the depth of 1 ]D 70 Wl 4 @I ss N w Aln m 1 x ~ p . {' -, ~ s* :

• - yL

~ N ** .x... w .w._,,.,'_,.g. w [. k :,..: .?~ .-- n...." a..rL .y.. q:,

k Q (

• Y-

- 's-.'.- %.t-,n. u'.'

,, _,., g ;,s._ i

._u__ .- s a Y t g 105 s LIQUEFACTION OF O!L TANK SITE z./ t e-os 3 (d } osterterg senple ' w. eenn. "f 06 ~ iwi ,e ostertwg sompte g g -(o) [ g. Z3 ss.,,,,,,,3 g. N05-Consetidoted O. M ', Watig ~ 05 Consoudoted eense e

• • C censitf m

is.. c34, g

1. . k - '

• -* "Cha* (W 6 or

'e.'. o: 's"m.*:'a*n** 2 cre 04 e.us w.tn> r fine g ,o cycl.ic = g NT di ., 02 02

• I cycl.ic C

Co d g

s tha 01 g

g 'd' i irom ^ 0 i0 10 0 U 'h 100 3 eyclIS i Number of cycles Number of cycles 06 Os 3 f.n .mo.. in,* s w C (e) Osterberg sample (b) Osterberg sample wi.n w. io,. i. W5h:

• b N g$
• -* 8 3'*H'S Q ge Doom :44m

_ Corisolidated

• "****J 8'
• -* : taitat tg demsHV

" "C% * (DAJ consor, dated ed ' ~ censief *

• -e : s%.,,i,v,,em. taAJ 6-* :'

.. io .a m4J

• 04 A. t unts-us)

,t.. t - p_ e.uaticsuis o = l l o l ' b e' _._ _*-Ts l.

• f "N

s. 1 g h 02 i { 02 a Compacted 5 gi Compacted ,e u deposit _ y gi dapesit y t j g ^^130 u 0 -0 0 10 100 1 10 1 Namber of cycles Numt,er of cycles 06 .J. inn.nwnm inna..ie (c) Osterberg sample -D Depm: 54 = ~05u Cersciidates o--4: in.i..i t.g. e,ns,i, ..,3.,,,,,, w .mptr,g .c tion. og_ 6--*msw=:n m '***""3'"8' i >ed test 5 am void 2OW-3 ?.h-< ~^ d ratio. $. 02 us2 of relative 5 _ Compacted "P 5 rig.16. Cyclic stress ratio versus number 5g3 of cycles (Compacted deposit) id ratio ~ '10 0 0 10 Number of cyc 4 ' u.. q rom th* 300 to) 7 %c mpacted $g \\c,o.p g4, uncomiccted - - } '.' ate 7 hg deposit 24 / deposit Kim g y ) 4m O '0Id Depth 44m_ t 60 i E yg l d plast'e 1.'.R Oil tonk site

• go 0 21 i OS2.lsNncmou (Sept.1978) f x.,.-

.sentisIIT

• 40 th2 t:nk 7

c e t(Sept,1378) E 20 t.'- (b) of cycI.LC 20 g smpacg j ~, '4 to 50 os 0 io io og Particle stre (mm) .rus 55 Par ticle size (mm) ' i.. ccept (gr Grain size distribution curves of the soils from Osterberg Fig. 17. g depth cf samples at the uncompacted site L 8 Ao o u - ~A

JdAlpL, l

l o I . ~:- ~ ~.-

• > b..*'1 :. :..f4(

_.,' "7...;; g,y., : _ ; ,..w.',', ,.- s's-U? G,; '

• :i

.p......:. 7-2 -- .. "'. s* 1,: .-..,, m g., q.; y'y,- ct.- ,s,c.* '4..... -,...y ..er.,.... .:- t. w. ~..

,,4 -_.u-P {** ?.$ - ?, ^V l b.$- g.. 3os isr:nm er n. ~ *b

11. 4 m.

I.$.. f,,. 06 3 (e) Osterberg sompte y"* ** i ll' (0) Osterberg sompte seras' ens e ene ~ M 05 Consolidated

• --* i >*isa8 tis Y' 6 05
• "* I 3'M 84
  • • • I 8'%'sirein 40.A'I a-a t to "" IE A Consolldoted
    • 3 s%etr*6 alga) density -

J O. h. ~ densHy ~ e.i= 0is-st . **' '118 111S*W8 ' l * *** # ~ 04 ~ O 04 t71 l In order E3 site, the i %. \\ s.. 0 ~aw-~ specimen .]. i! 03 J [

r.. g Ec

- 02 ShOwn in ',J g' ed The figur 01 -* at eps constant I f-o kig 0, 33 ggg u ^1J0 the cyclit 0, ' ',o f Number of cycles strength 4 yA Number of cycles shows the .Y 06 3 sand at t. 06 t 'a ~ 05 C0"SOtidoted ~~hq,,, " "'" l (f) osterberg sompte tyg,,.e.. average v i (b) ostert4g be ~ .g g >--e n s 'uot 1,s. ~ W 8 8"%sma taAJ two depo * " ' 8""*' ' o u M" 03 Consolidated m a t%stren t eensity p [ 04 - m : msve.n to AJ ~ g4 j a.--4 : trastroin taAJ densHY e 1ts 047-tis) 0 t empit? uc7-135) the avera ~ E uncompac-D- 1 existing a I

02

O2 Uncompacted Depth f*

g 01 - Uncernpoe ted E u deposit __ g 01 deposit -- (m) g. o, ' w} ^ o, "wl r wo ,x Numu; of cycles Number of cycles 2 p-i 3 06 y ** 4 C6 3 (9) Ostert., erg sempte i [ i.et we s* I ~ (c) Osterberg sorrple-e -e : wwi ot tie-deesity o--a : s% sir.in to o 9 ~6" 05-Consolidated .-.: taisi : tio 5 M05 - Ccaoticated a ic% sire a tao 6 twom i p en

• J i

g c,ensity o---n :ssstre n co A ) e.in osv. iso" 7 4 b or a--a :ic% ve.ntn AJ g4 \\ \\'N e. i2s pio-tit) f l t, g I S ga f,- -l" g g i -:::sA, 02 jo. $ O2 g deposit 1 01 - Uncorrpocted 11 a g'*i { 01 - Uncompacted u deposit llo

• l

^l i u 13 ' l O, g igg C, '10 o 14 < Number of cycles Numbar of cycles 15 - ( 15 ' l 06 3 .tpwthl 40M SM (d) Osterberg sonpte o_., i.e s,.t liq.7e.;n m.3 ~ rir. 8 05 - Consolidoted e nev s W 81C%streininAJ 4.5 g en, = 125 (117-135) 3 E 03 Compar [M N-Dy,- ad',, 14 shows 5 strength i uncompted e deposti with the

y. 01 Fig. 18. Cyclic stress ratio versus number 9.4 m, t) 0, glo "jgg of c3cles (Uncompacted deposit) narrow I Number of cycles l

I l ~ _e

• _ ;*; 9 y.

i ^ e, e '. ~ e t

f. - r

-m'.,; , ja,, g,,,",,.., g, y..g ..,: t%: -,...'u..,;,.'.s. . w J. %.,. d ' -.. m.

Y h ss hf M. b L;d8 N f -g,M',p-ji...v.. ' - ~ - - MN'5*;@r b.JN/*' M 9 wy t-

t 1

5 J 107 1.lQUEFACTION OF O!L TANK $1TE Gfl i 4 .e 11.4 m. V L. COMPARISON OF CYCLIC STRENGTHS AT THE COMPACTED [" AND UNCOMPACTED DEPOSITS g[

• J

.a In order to compare the cyclic soil strength at the compacted site and at the uncompacted .7 3 site, the cyclic stress ratios causing 5% double amplitude strain in the undisturbed test specimen in the course of 20 cycles of uniform loading were. read off from the test d 18, and replotted in Fig,10 versus the depth of the deposit. shown in Figs.16 ant' The figure shows tF e :yclic strength in terms of cyclic stress ratio as being almost hereupon constant for the un onipacted deposit down to a depth of approximately 8 m, wthe cyclic As for the compacted deposit, the cyclic strength increased gradually. The figure also strength was about 0.26 except at the two depths of 6.4 m and 10.4 rn. h h 'i shows the sand at the compacted deposit as exhibiting greater cyclic strength t an t e I}7 In order to provide other aspect of comparison, sand at the uncompacted deposit. h of the average values of void ratio were computed from individual data at each dept eo f.. The average void ratios are plotted versus the depth in Fig.20, where

j,'{-

of>d ~ the average void ratio at each depth was shown as being generally higher for the two deposits. except for the clay layer i uncompacted deposit than it was for the compacted deposit, ..t, existing at the depth of 11.4 m. b p ..t - 5 'M Depth Cyclic stress ratio in 20 cycles Void rollo ~ (,j (m) 0.1 02 03 04 Depth (m) 10 1.1 12 13 14 l l l l.c, ,-m s i, 2 e - 2-I., '. f 3 cornpocted / 3-I~~? e. i. deposit / ~ 4* 'on 5 on 6 e uncon potted r3 deposit / 7-8 5 8-9 9-

• c ompoc".*

10 -- " '" 10 t 5*i. downt' n omplitude stroh 12-I I 12 - c 13 - Oil tcnk site 13 - ' Oil tonk site' f 14 - Ishinomaki 14 Ishinomoki I 15 Osterberg sompte 15 l 1 16 1 l l Fig.19. Comparison of cyclic strengths Fig. 20. Comparison of void ratios between the compacted and un-between the compacted and uncom-compacted deposita pacted deposita Comparison of cyclic strength with ref-rence to the N-values shown in Figs.13 a for the sands at depths 2.4 m and 4.4 m, the rate of increase in cyclic l strength of the compacted deposit over that of the uncompacted deposit is nearly 14 shows that, with the rate at which the blow count values increase. ~ i l the difference in cyclic strength between the two sites was unproport onate y umber narrow in view of the large difference observed in the resistance of the standard 9.4 m, i.. u. ...c.u.,:. w..u.w.a a., u. m~ - ~.... y....m.,. v. x, ;,=.x..,, g,4.,.g.;

f: *n hb 15H1HARA ET AL. 108 t ~4 The cyc $'h peneiration test. were exp: dauble am SIMPLE ANALYSIS OF LIQUEFACTION Q The analysis of liquefaction during earthquakes requires a knowledge about the intensity Q* of shaking most preferably in terms of the time history of acceleration on the ground ,J. b M surface at a given site in question. The acceleration records obtained during the 1978 where e.. ' f, earthquake at a place nearest to the Ishinomaki port were those obtained on the rock soil as re; outcrop at Kaiboku bridge site (Fig.3), located approximately Skm north of the oil loading ce g tank site (lwasaki et al.,1978). The maximum horizontal acceleration recorded was 289 the right gals in N-S direction and 200 gals in E W direction. An assessment of the maximum nature of o *. ground acceleration on the soft soil deposit just at the oil tank site may be made based was incor; [.K 4 on the acceleration secord obtained on the nearby rock outcrop. Pending further detailed direction c The ms g,h analysis, however, it may well be assumed that the maximum ground ace leation at or fvt maximum the oil tank site might have taken a value ranging between 0.16 g to 0.20g. that the maximum acceleration was estimated to be lower on the soil deposit ti.. I of compar F; t defined as recorded accelerations on the rock outcrop may be justified by allowing for the effects of nonlinearity and higher damping and also the effect of stiffness degradation due to hi pore water pressure build-up exhibited by sof t soils. With these f acts in mind, it will .r f.; provisionally be postulated in the following simple analysis that the maximum ground 3 [z? acceleration at the oil tank site had been approximately 0.185 g. This value would depos?S'" f its* !r appear reasonable as a rough estimate considering the magnitude of the maximum present or '.i.- horizontal accelerations as listed in Table I that have been obtained thus far on sof t Indefim.tel~i i soil depos.its where h.quefaction is known to have occurred. just benes q Maximum horizontal ground accelerationa ever Table 1. ( P. recorded where liquefaction occurred Earthquake Place of recording NS-comp. EW-comp. .b-5 Niigata (1964) Kawagishicho Niigata l 0.162 r 0.158 g Tohchioki (1968) Aomori harbor

o. 217 g 0.184 g I

b .c i -j The simple analytical procedure developed by Ishihara (1977) was used to make a crude analysis. The maximum stress ratio, r... la,', at each depth induced by carthquake loading was computed by the following formulas, L-n n r

• T' t'

"j"="",rA (1) d a 153 where '? 4 c '=7H+7'(2-H) (2) l l T., Z-H Z TH A(H=1+ (3) 7' Z-H W 1+T H l i,,,,/,,.. l

• ~

r = 1-0. 0152 (4) a Surche s' [9 in the above formula, a... is the maximum horizontal ground acceleration and g is , gy gg i f the gravity acceleration. 7 is unit weight of soil above the ground water table. T' I'38 l submerged unit weight of soil below the ground water table and 7. unit weight of ' i

• =

The depth of the ground water table is denoted by H and 2 represents the wat er. l l {; depth of deposit in question. The vertical effective stress is denoted by a,'. 0 \\ ~.

• y ' '.

r-o ~ ~ ... n ~,' 'T '. - E. ,'y ^

• ..p y. ~

d'., ' i* ' - ' ~ } _ ',. ' ; * ;. [. y; y:.,)- Wx[,)&,., ;.._, '...,,,,.'.. e : .a +;:'.-. : ),, ;,.,. .~

• ' =

c 's v*' u~ ii lf,d. s,.'.. ' _r ' 1 - -s.. ~s.-- f.

~..;..c.. v..;c.s s r..2.:. m - w' t ~ .x

• • . u r.3,w

.v. ?;.. e ;. c -c..e e. k. :.. / Mm,.... h-QQ= %.4 %'s_9 % tCW2 J3 MMMMi'M 2 L "'.,; -r.tr m:r:i ~.. -~2i'* .r.d..... v r 24

• * * " '-' * * ~ " ' ^^

L x. I ', - ~. .,S LIQUEFACTION OF OIL TANK SITE 109 ! fi h.' The cyclic strength to be compared against the induced rr.aximum stress ratio, e.../ /.'- a,', was determined by the following formula, based on the laboratory test data which were expressed in terms of the cyclic stress ratio, a,,/(2a.'), required to cause 5% !. 'd. ,} double amplitude strain in 20 cycles,

0. 9,1 + 2 K. / a,, )u...

(5) snsity T.,g O.55 3 ( 2a.' a,' c1

round where r... 4/a,' indicates the maximum stress ratio required to produce failure in the e 1978 soil as represented by the development of 5% double amplitude strain under uniform e riack The value, 0.55, on K. is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest.

loading condition. the right shie of Eq.(5) represents a factor to take into account the effect of irregular [~ .h2 cil u 289 A factor, 0. 9, L. nature of time history changes of shear stress during an earthquake. simum was incorporated on the right side of Eq. (5) to allow for the effect of changes in t based direction of shear stress applicatior. in the horizontal plane during an earthquake.

et:iled The maximum stress ratio given by Eq.(1) was compared against the corresponding sinn at The result maximum stress ratio required to cause failure in soils as given by Eq.(5).

' + ae I:ct of comparison is expressed in terms of factor of safety against failure, F,, which is en the cffsets defined as -N Fa = 7,,,,,f,,, (6) duz to it will f..a The simple analysis as above was applied for both the uncompacted and compacted [.f E' "" i For the uncompacted deposit the assumption hat no surcharge load was i present over the ground surface was made, and also, that the horizontal surface extended - ,s [ deposits. 'l .ximum inde5nitely. The analysis for the compacted deposit was carried <>ut for the soil layers ^ i i just beneath the center of the tank by assuming that the surcharge due to the weighs [ ~h of oil existed all over the ground surface so that one-dimensional stress conditions q C D w/o "ds42)n Factor of safety, Feb' O #il " 4 '. S- / " N.f 0 05 10 15 20 T TT e l i-l compacted

• ].

(,.,

I deposit with t g., \\scoory _ o crude 5 ,4 Eg thquske 6000ki 1500kI 500,M z-i g b-- JJ 24 m - L t3.4sm.J 1 umompetted T - J "'*'- N' a aat -'inaut.-

) '

(1) l T~ e l T-1524 L 4 L ,'% e (N go y -. .q - - -. ','i m l lm sism (3) r sim 1 1 f (3) i Ishinomcki r ~ h .15 Y..N. Y- ~ amaygsorg5 Surthorge . K. = 0 5 Surchorge - Surchcrge andai) = 6J KPVM =55 KN/g = 63 KN,/m". l. E- .eight of Fig. 21. Oil storage at *' time of the 1978' Fig. 22. Factor of safety against tebla, r failure in the compacted and earthquake I 5 the uncompacted deposits .cnf t 5 mm o 3 D D e6 JL. fa om %k i-

1. ..., %. g

• e

.... a..... ~. . n. m s %,..

• g, ;g,g,,1

~ ,, A g.., ;,., ; 4 .. ~ v 4. *- g.

i r-N- u L,.' m.i.. !J w.M 1 H- 'i-n = ~ ~ k. e fl.% yfD r Ui d.' M,.k k,k I 110 15HIHAaA ET At.. n't l>w oil tar gQ prevailed. This assumption neglects possible effects of static shear stresses that existed jp b, near the edge of the tank. However, as a first approxima, tion, the above assumption a sure Tak rQQ was considered acceptable.

surfae, According to the operational records each tank contained oil to a height of 5.6m to

' Mg [ 6.7 m at the time of the 1978 carthquake as shown in Fig.21. Assuming that the unit in the f. weight of oil is 8 kN/m', the overburden pressure is estimated to have been approximately specirr

d. j M f4 60kN/m' as illustrated in Fig.21. The value of effective overburden pressure, e/,

only :

b M through the depth beneath the center of the tank was calculated by adding the surcharge liquef A si

.% i pressure of 60kN/m' to the eR ctive stress due to the weight of solis from the ground surcha b7 surface down to the depth in question. T* It was further assumed that the presence of oil did not affect the shaking intensity basis t f on the ground surface during the earthquake. The ground surface at the bottom of analys (3; the tank was, therefore, assumed to have moved with the same maximum acceleration were m,h 3 as that at the nearby free surface of the uncompacted deposit. This assumption neglected were ! Q [( possible effects of dynamic interaction that must have taken place between the tank i% and the ground during the earthquake. The above assumption also neglected the effect [.( Q of the compaction pile installation which certainly increased the stiffness of the soils The l ? 't ^ and accordingly the maximum acceleration on the ground surface. In spite of these the 19

• i.i important effects being disregarded, the approximate analysis based on the assumption OIthe

[ de as above was considered to yield some meaningful comparison in the behavior during traaxia the earthquake between the uncompacted and compacted deposits. study. E.d The factor of safety as defined by Eq.(6) was calculated for both the compacted of Edi .T deposit with surcharge and for the uncompacted deposit without surcharge on the The k assumption that the ground surface had been shaken equally with the maximum accel. I eration of 0.185 g. The result of the analysis is shown in Fig.22. The factor of safety against failure was seen as being below or close to unity for the uncompacted deposit s ? through the depth of approximately 3 m to 9 m, indicating that the liquefaction type 3) g, failure must have occurred within this depth during the 1978 earthquake. On the other hand, the factor of safety for the compacted deposit is above unity throughout

2) is!

i g l' the depth except at the depth of 10.4 m. The distribution of the facter of safety as. et 6 above may indicate that the, liquefaction type failure might have taken place in a thin

3) is!

I

• C layer around the depth of 10 m.

However, it would appear that the occurrence of the O I" 3 liquefa-tion, if any, must have extended only slightly, and was never extensive enough [ to exert any harmful influence on the behavior of the oil tanks resting on this I compacted deposit. g so j Cc CONCLUSIONS

6) Os in order to clarify the non-occurrence of liqueiaction in a compacted sand deposit at g

an oil tank yard and the occurrence of liquefaction in an uncompacted sand deposit

7) w

? adjacent to the yard at the time of the 1978 Miyagiken-oki earthquake, undis:urbed Ni sand sampling was carried out after the earthquake by means of an Osterberg piston sampler. The undisturbed samples were tested in the laboratory.using a cyclic triaxial test apparatus to determine the cyclic strength of the sands in the compacted deposit l and also in the uncompacted deposit. The test results showed that the cyclic stress ratio causing 5fg double amplitude axial strain was 2fs to 18f! greater for the specimens ~ '8 from the compacted deposit than for the specimens from the uncompacted deposit. On the basis of the acceleration records obtained on the rock outcrop approximately r 1 F from the oil tank site, the maximum horizontal acceleration on the ground ..uce was estimated roughly to have been on the order of 0.183 g at the site of the i I: IS j 1 i '%~ d { l. u o o A\\ m i l l S o C .g 3 z ~ i. - '[. -'~ ~ _ ~. } f.. Q % =^ M n.A ~. ; ? W.. ~. ...r -1

r..< i ^,i.M. v.ii;.Ngg,..

, h g.p g g'g},,jg g .s...v. ~.

• 1.W

h*[h2k'7 b 3 Sir-i M r3. h.C 6 M.~. n %.g., A. am _ _., _., _.. _ y p t,* t_ a '.,0. - 4. I. m. f f.c ggg ueutrAcTIox or oit. TANK SITE v At the time of the earthquake the oil tank contained some oil which exerted , ( 1. oil tank. a surcharge pressure of about 60kN/m' on the compacted deposit beneath the tank.. . ned

-[

Taking into account the effect of the surcharge and assuming the maximum gro'und pti:n surface acceleration of 0.185 g, a simple analysis of liquefaction was made for the sand

• [I 2

based on the cyclie ' strength obtained for the undisturbed m to in the compacted deposit g1 The result of the analysis showed that the liquefaction must have been unit ?y specimens. only rainor around the depth of 6 m, but that the soil at a shallower depth did not ]

tzly c.',

liquefy, producing no harmful influence on the oil tank. A similar liquefaction analysis was also made for the uncompacted sand deposit without f, krge surcharge near the tank yard by assuming the maximum acceleration of 0.185 g, on the round The result of the 4y basis of the cyclic strength obtained for the undisturbed specimen. x e. analysis indicated that the observed surface signs of liquefaction during the earthquake ensity ' t. were in coincidence with the low compacted factors of safety against failure which om et 1j .r stion were below or close to unity through the depth between 3 m and 9m. i glected s unk ACKNOW1.EDGEMENTS The information on the soil profiles and the performances of the oil tanks during l I-e soih G 'f' the 1978 earthquake were kindly offered by hir.Tetsuji Fujisawa, Petroleum Department ! thest The laboratory cyclic

• .}

mption i the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations. 3:4 The i triaxial tests were carried out with the help of hiessrs. T. Abe and Af.hfashimo. during F-study described in this paper was supported by a grant-in-aid from the Japanese hiinistry Q, - The support of these agency and persons are gratefully acknowledged. npacttd The kindness of Dr.K.hfori in editing the original draft is also acknowledged. y' of Education. en tha n accel, . g.,V .Isafsty ' [' 1 REFERENCES d; posit Ishihara, K.(1977) :

• Simple method of analysis for liqufaction of sand deposits during earth-

'W' }*'t. e on typt 1) quakes." Soils and Foundations, VoL17, Na 3, pp.1-17. K., Silver, M.L. and Kitagawa, H. (1978):" Cyclic strength of undisturbed sands On th?

Ishihara, oughnut 2) obtained by large diameter sampling," Soils and Foundations, VoL18, Na 4, pp.61-76.

aftty as Ishihara, K., Silver, M.L. and Kitagawa, H.(1979) :

• Cyclic strength of undisturbec sands ob-

.7 3) rained by a piston sampler." Soils and Foundations, VoL19. Na 3, pp.61-76. i e thin e cf the Iwasaki, T, Kawashina, K, and Tokida, K. (1978) :

• Damage of the June 1978 Miyagiken-oki.j ISSN 0386-t 4)

Report of Public Works Research institute, Ministry of Construction, h .s:ough ea r th quak a," ca this 5878 (in Japanese). Iwasaki, T, Tatsuoka, F, Tokida, K. and Yasuda, S.(1978):"A practical method for assessing Z, soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in Japan," Proc, 2nd International[f-j 5) Con"ference on Microtonation for Safer Construction-Research and Application, VoLII pp.885-896.f*f Osterberg, J.O.(1952):"New piston type soil sampler," Engineering News Records, April 24, ?:i 6) b = p' Watanate, T.(1966):-Damage to oil reSnery plants and a building on compacted ground by the ./ pp. 77-78. IIposit et I d dIposit 7) Niigata earthquake and their restoration." Scils and Foundations, VoL6, Na 2, pp.86-99. (Received July 9,1979) p , 8-idisturbed h '.']* rg piston 4 ( ic triaxial ed drposit r clic strsss ? rpecimens osit. toximatsIY r ground a2 sitt et the AnL i

- - m ;- -

.. :m

a. h ;. b.. :... j l. L g Q l' *.,' $ '. & C' yl( $.'.f. N W-h !], t'. *f,.',.G lj~.. ** - l *.,q,y. l g..';,Zl:,.,:_..

..c .-.c.... ~ E . f.W.,, a..g ;.;,q 7.j

q. -,,, -

g..

s.,...

4 e

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMt1ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & ' LICENSING P,'g.RD In the Matter of DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE ) Docket 50-409-SC (La Crosse Soiling Water Reactor) ) (Order to Show Cause) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the NRC STAFF'S MOTION FOR SUMf1ARY DISPOSITION in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 14th day of November,1980. Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.*

0. S. Hiestand, Esq.

Chairman Kevin Gallen, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Morgan, Lewis & Bockius U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1800 M Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20036 Dr. George C. Anderson Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel

• Department of Oceanography U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission University of Washington Washington, D. C. 20555 Seattle, Washington 98195 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel
• Coulee Region Energy Coalition U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Ms. Ann K. Morse Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 1583 La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 Mr. Frederick M. Olsen, III 609 N. lith Street Fritz Schubert, Esq.

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 Staff Attorney Dairyland Power Cooperative Docketing & Service Section 2615 East Avenue, South V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Ralph Decker Route 4, Box 1900 Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Mr. Frank Linder Stephen G. Burns Counsel for NRC Staff r n e Cooperative 2615 East Avenue, South La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601}}