ML19343B240

Liquefaction Potential Under Genoa-3 Stack Adjacent to LACBWR Near Genoa,Vernon County,Wi

ML19343B240
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	12/10/1980
From:	DAMES & MOORE
To:
Shared Package
ML19343B237	List: ML19343B235 ML19343B240
References
TASK-02-04, TASK-03-06, TASK-2-4, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8012160359
Download: ML19343B240 (54)

Text

._

.I I

I I

I

'I

'I I

.I II I

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL UNDER GEP0A-3 STACK ADJACENT TO LACROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR (LACBWR)

NEAR GEN 0A, VERNON COUNTY, WISCONSIN Job No. 11166-005-27 II I

Dames & Moore 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 700, Washington, D.C.

20014 I

Sifli= '

lg e

i December 10, 1980 I

18 0 2 2 2 e a559,

I Dames & Moore ZE";"3a";rj *"

s Eptr (301) h52-2213 I

L*

TWk 710-8244613 Cable address: DANIL\\10RE I

I I

December 10, 1980 I

Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor Dairyland Power Cooperative I

Post Office Box 135 Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 Attention:

Mr. R. E. Shimshak I

Plant Superintendent Re:

Liquefaction Potential under I

Genoa-3 Stack Gentlemen:

We are submitting ten copies of the report, " Liquefaction Potential Under Genoa-3 Stack Adjacent to Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR)

Near Genoa, Vernon County, Wisconsin," for your use.

A draft of this I

report was submitted for your review on October 16, 1980.

Three advance copies of the above draft were also submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory l

Commission on the same day as per your request.

We have concluded in this report that there is no threat of liquefac-tion at the Genoa-3 Stack Site due to an SSE producing 0.12g acceleration I

at the ground surface or at the foundation level.

The scope of our services for this report was developed through r

' a cotisultations with Mr. Richard E. Shimshak of Dairyland Power Coopera-E tive.

It has been a pleasure working on this project and we look forward to our continued association with Dairyland Power Cooperative.

I I

I I

I Damas & Mscro Te'.

I Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor December 10, 1980 Page Two lI If you have any further questions on the contents of this report, please feel free to call us.

a Very truly yours, DAMES & MOORE lI dW s

bysore S. Nataraja, Ph.D.,

lE P.E.

i5 Principal-in-Ci.arge i

h.8 b0 Barbara Cook Project Engineer i

MSN/spf Enclosures 4

I

!I I

I iI i I

' I I

1 CONTENTS Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 1.1 GENERAL 1

1.2 PURPOSE 1

1.3 SCOPE 1

2.0 FIELD TEST BORING PROGRAM 2

3.0 LABORATORY P TS 4

4.0 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 5

4.1 GENERfL 5

4.2 EMPIRICAL APPROACH 5

4.2.1 Sumary and Discussion of Empirical Approach 7

4.3 SIMPLIFIED APPROACH 7

4.3.1 Sumary and Discussion of Simplified Approach 9

5.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 10 APPENDIX 39

LIST OF TABLES I

Table Page 1

Summary of Laboratory Test Results 12 I

2 Summary of Liquefaction Analysis Free Field Condition 13 3

Summary of Liquef action Analysis I

Under the Stack 14 4

Cyclic Shear Stress, Cyclic Shear Strength, and Factors of Safety in the Free-Field Condition 15 5

Total and Effective Stresses and Stress Increments Under the Stack 16 6

Cyclic Shear Stresses Under the Stack 17 7

Cyclic Shear Strength Under the Stack 18 8

Cyclic Shear Stress, Cyclic Shear Strength, and Factors of Saf ety Under the Stack 19 I

l I ii

LIST OF FIGURES I

Figure Page 1

Plot Plan and Boring Locations 21 2

G-3 Stack Foundation Plan and Section 22 3

SPT N Values Versus Depth:

DM-16 23 4

SPT N Values Versus Depth:

DM-17 2A 5

SPT N Values Versus Depth: DM-18 25 6

SPT N Values Versus Depth:

DM-19 26 7

SPT N Values Versus Depth:

DM-17 and DM-19 27 8

SPT N Values Versus Depth:

DM-16 and DM-18 28 9

SPT N Values Versus Depth:

DM-16, DM-17, DM-18, and DM-19 29 10 Gradation Curves 30 11 Stress Distribution Factors Used in Computing the Vertical Stress Increment oo 31 12 Stress Reduction Factor Versus Depth 32 13 Liquef action Analysis in the Free Field 33 14 Liquef action Analysis in the Free Field 34 15 Liquefaction Analysis Under the Stack 35 16 Liquef action Analysis Under the Stack 36 17 Summary of Liquefaction Analysis 37 18 Relation Between Cyclic Shear Strength and Confining Pressure Based on Cyclic Triaxial Tests 38 l

1I l I iii

I I

LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)

Figure Page A-1 Key to Log of Borings 40 A-2 Unified Soil Classification System 41 I

A-3 Log of Borings:

DM-16 42 A-4 Log of Borings:

DM-17 43 A-5 Log of Borings:

DM-18 44 A-6 Log of Borings:

DM-19 45 I

I I

I I

I I

I l

l l

iv

I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL Extensive liquef action studies were performed at the Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) Site under the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission (NRC). As a part of the above I

studies the question of the potential for liquefaction at the Genoa-3 (G-3) stack under the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) was raised by NRC.

This issue was considered important because the center of the G-3 stack is about 500 feet from the center of the LACBWR Reactor containment, and the G-3 stack is 500 feet tall.

Should there be liquef action under the G-3 stack resulting in a catastrophic failure, and should the G-3 stack fall in 'one-piece' in the direction of the LACBWR Reactor containment, the consequen-ces may be undesirable.

Even if the G-3 stack were to fall on the turbine building, undesirable consequences may result. Therefore, it was con-sidered important to study the liquefaction potential under the G-3 stack.

1.2 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to evaluate the safety of the G-3 stack site under the SSE producing 0.129 acceleration at the foundation level, 1.3 SCOPE To accomplish the above purpose, the following scope of services was provided:

a) a field test boring program b) a laboratory testing program c) simplified analyses.

This report contains the details covering the above scope of servi-Ces.

I I

I I

2.0 FIELD TEST BORING PROGRAM A series of four test borings was drilled to approximate depths of I

60 feet below the grade at locations shown on Figure 1, the plot plan.

Two test borings, DM-16 and DM-18, were drilled through the concrete mat foun-dation of the G-3 stack. The other two borings, DM-17 and DM-19, were drilled approximately one diameter away from the center of the concrete mat on either side of the stack.

(The diameter of the mat foundation is 75 feet; the geometry of G-2 stack and its foundation configuration are presented in Figure 2). Thus, the conditions under the stack and under the free-field were investigated.

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT's) were performed at 5-foot intervals in accordance with ASTM procedure D-1586-67.

Soil samples were visually classified in the field and brought to the Dames & Moore (D&M) soils laboratory in Washington, D.C., for confirmative tests.

The edited logs showing the standard penetration blow counts (SPT N values) are presented in the appendix. The uncorrected blow counts (SPT N values) are presented as functions of depth in Figures 3 through 9.

The subsurface conditions at the G-3 site are similar to the condi-tions at the LACBWR site.

The blow counts along the section of four test borings in general are slightly better than the average conditions of the LACBWR Site.

Some low blow counts were measured when groundwater was encountered and when silt lenses were encountered between the depths of 20 and 35 feet below ground surface. This zone generally represents the contact between the natural material and hydraulic fill.

This contact was encountered and consequently some low blow counts also were measured at the LACBWR site. Occasionally, at greater depths, some isolated pockets of organic materials, compressible clays, and loose shells were encountered.

Other than for the above exceptions, *.he rest of the blow counts represent medium dense conditions both in the hydraulic fill and in the natural sands.

No noticeable difference in the conditions in the free field and under the stack was apparent. A comparison of Figures 7 and 8 indicates that the trends are similar under the two conditions. There is little basis to expect substantially better conditions (in terms of densification) under I

I the stack than in the free field.

This is because no displacements of volumes or vibratory loadings are involved in placing a mat foundation for the stack.

I I

1I

.I I

I

'I

.I l

1I

'I I

I..

I 3.0 LABORATORY TESTS I

In view of the simplified analyses performed at G-3 site, it was decided to limit the laboratory testing program to classification, grain size, and index property tests.

It was decided to use the cyclic triaxial test data from the LACBWR liquefaction studies for analyses at the G-3 site because of the proximity and similarities in the engineer-ing properties of the soils at the two sites. The results of the limited tests performed are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 10.

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

I 4.0 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 4.1 GENERAL Two conditions, namely the free-field condition and the condition under the stack, were analysed. Two approaches were used:

1) an empirical I

approach based solely on SPT blow counts and 2) a simplified approach with conservative estimates of cyclic shear strength extrapolated from labora-tory investigations performed for the LACBWR site.

Pertinent details of the above analyses are presented in the following sections.

4.2 EMPIRICAL APPROACH The empirical approach is based on the available information on the I

performance of various sand deposits during past earthquakes.

In this approach, the cyclic shear stress during shaking was computed using the Seed and Idriss simplified procedures:

a ave = 0.65 max o

"c 9

• c where:

I average cyclic shear stress at the point under consideration T

=

ave I

5 effective overburden pressure at the point under consider-

=

c ation maximum ground surface acceleration due to SSE a

=

max g=

acceleration due to gravity total initial overburden pressure at the point under consider-o =

g ation llu a stress reduction factor to account for the soil column l

r =

d being not rigid.

The confining pressure 5 for a point under the free-field condition c

is taken as the effective overburden pressure at the point.

The total Unit weight was assumed to be 122.4 pcf and the water table was assumed to be 1

l

'I '

I 10 feet below grade based on previous work at LACBWR site. The confining

pressure,

+6 for points under the stack, was computed as the sum c

of the effective overburden pressure and the vertical stress increment resulting from the weight of the stack and its foundation mat.

(The stack and foundation dimensions are shown in Figure 2.) Assuming a unit weight of 150 pcf for the stack and its foundation results in a vertical pressure of approximate intensity 2680 psf on a 75-foot I

diameter circular area at 7 feet below grade.

This pressure is assumed to attenuate with depth in accordance with well known stress distribution equations of elasticity.

The stress distribution pattern used under the edge, center line, and intermediate point (which approximately corresponds to the boring locations DM-16 and DM-18) is shown on Figure 11.

The total stress o was calculated as 122.4 times depth for the g

free field, but for points under the stack the total stress was calculated as o + aa, where ao was the same as in the case of the effective stress g

calculation (that is, the vertical stress increment resulting from the stack and foundation load of 2680 psf on a circular area of 75-foot diameter acting at 7 feet below grade).

A value of 0.12g was assumed for the maximum acceleration amax' due to the SSE. This acceleration was assumed to act at the ground surface for the free-field condition and at the foundation level (7 feet below grade) for the conditions under the stack. The values of stress reduction f actor, r, used in the analysis are plotted in Figure 12.

d For the free-field condition, a value of unity was assigned at the ground surface; for the conditions under the stack, a value of unity was assigned at the foundation level (7 feet below grade).

The SPT N* values measured at the site were converted to N values y

using the following equation:

I

• N = Number of blows required to advance a standard split spoon 12 inches into the ground, when the spoon is driven by a hammer weighing 140 pounds I

dropping a distance of 30 inches.

I I

E (C ) (N)

N

=

1 N

where:

N 1-1.25 log &c/57 C

=

effective overburden pressure in tsf and by = 1 tsf.

5

=

c Table 2 presents the total and effective stresses, the average cyclic shear stress, and the induced cyclic shear stress ratio T/5 I c

C used for converting N to N, the SPT N values, and the corrected y

y N values, for the free-field condition.

1 The various points having the coordinates T/5 and N at different c

7 depths were plotted on a figure corresponding to an approximate earth-quake magnitude of 5.6 and ground surface acceleration of 0.12.

Figures 13 9

and 14 show the above data. The curve on Figures 13 and 14 represents the boundary between liquefaction and no liquefaction conditions as judged by a study of performance of sand deposits during past earthquakes.

Table 3 and F'gures 15 and 16 present similar information, except that the data shown on this table and these figures are applicable to conditions under the stack.

Figure 17 is a summary plot of the empirical analyses in which the corrected blow count data are presented I

as a function of depth.

A line representing a demarcation between liquefaction and no liquefaction also is drawn.

4.2.1 Summary and Discussion of Empirical Approach The data presented in Figures 13 through 17 suggest that, based on the SPT N values and the empirical approach to liquef action analysis, there is a clear margin of safety against potential for liquefaction I

under and around the G-3 stack to an SSE producing maximum acceleration of 0.12g either at the ground surface or at the foundation level.

4.3 SIMPLIFIED APPROACH, In this approach cyclic shear stresses were calculated using the I

same procedures as in the impirical approach described previously.

Instead of using the blow count data, the results of cyclic triaxial tests performed at the LACBWR site were conservatively interpreted and were considered applicable for the G-3 site. Considering the similarity I

I of soils at the two sites and the proximity of the two sites (adjacent sites), the above assumption seems justified. The average blow count data at G-3 site is better than the average blow count at the LACBWR site. The data from Raymond borings of 1962 (LACBWR) and 1965 (G-3) also confirm the supposition that the G-3 sands are slightly denser than the sands at the LACBWR site. However, no credit is taken for the higher densities.

Instead, the lower bound of the cyclic shear strength is considered as the design cyclic shear strength for both the hydraulic fill and the natural material at G-3 site. This assumption I

is conservative.

The lower bound strength curve used in this analysis is presented in Figure 18. A simplified straight line relationship between the confining pressure and the cyclic shear strength (which is once again a conservative assumptior.) was assumed for this analysis:

I T = 0.265 &c (fr m lower bound of Figure 18).

I The actual cyclic shear strength used for calculating the f actor of safety was obtained by multiplying the above value by a correction I

f actor, C, equal to 0.57.

(This is the usual practice for converting r

triaxial test data to simple shear conditions considered applicable for earthquake loadings.) A value of C equal to 0.57 generally will r

result in conservative strength estimates for conditions under the stack.

Four different conditions were considered:

a) conditions under the center of the stack, b) conditions under the edge of the stack foundation, c) conditions at an intermediate point between the center and the edge, and d) conditions under a point away from the stack, that is, under the free-field conditions.

The total stress used in the cyclic shear stress calculation and the effective confining pressures used in the strength calculation were computed in the same manner as they were in the empirical approach.

I That is, due consideration to the vertical stress increments from the '

l weight of the stack and its foundation was given to the various computa-ticns under the stack.

lI I

I Table 4 gives the sumary of the simplified analysis for the free-field conditions.

The minimum calculated factor of safety for the I

free-field condition is 1.41 between the depths of 30 and 40 feet.

Tables 5 through 8 show the details of cyclic shear stress calculations and the estimated strengths and f actors of safety against liquef action potential. The minimum calculated factor of safety under the stack l

is 1.36 at a depth of 40 feet, under the edge.

4.3.1 Summary and Discussion of Simplified Approach The data presented in Tables 4 and 8 indicate that an adequate margin of safety exists for both free-field cor.dition and under the stack against liquef action potential due to an SSE producing 0.12g acceleration at the ground surface or at the foundation level.

I I

I I

I I

1 I

I I

I

_g.

I 5.0 SUM 4ARY AND CONCLUSIONS The question of liquef action potential under the G-3 stack adjacent to the LACBWR site was recently raised by NRC.

In response to the abcve question, 4 test borings were drilled under and close to the foundation mat of the G-3 stack. Standard penetration test data obtained at the G-3 stack site and data on cyclic triaxicM i.ests performed at the LACBWR site were used in the empirical and simplified analyses performed to assess the iiquef action potential at the G-3 stack site.

Both free-field conditions I

and conditions under the stack were analysed. Based on the above analyses the following conclusions are made:

e There is a similarity between the engineering characteristics of sands at LACBWR and G-3 sites e

The sands at G-3 stack site are medium dense to dense in compactness e

Based on the empirical approach using the SPT N values and performance of sands during past earthquakes, there is a I

clear margin of safety against potential for liquefaction both under the stack and in the free-field condition e

Based on the simplified approach using cyclic shear strength extrapolated and t.onservatively interpreted from the previously produced test data at LACBWR site, there is an adequate margin of safety against potential for liquefaction at and around the G-3 stack site.

Based on our judgement and analyses of data, it is our opinion that there is no threat of liquefaction at the G-3 stack site due to an SSE producing 0.129 acceleration at the ground surface or at the foundation level.

I I

I I

lI I I I

lI I

I TABLES I

!I

.I

'h I

l I

I I

I I

!I.

I Table 1 Summary of Laboratory Test Results I

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES BORING DM-16 SAMPLE 4

DEPTH 24 Ft CLASSIFICATION SP WITH A TRACE OF FINES (Figure 10)

BORING DM-19 SAMPLE 1

DEPTH 4 Ft I

CLASSIFICATION SP WITH A TRACE OF FINES (Figure 10)

PERCENT FINES BORING #

SAMPLE f DEPTH (Ft)

CLASSIFICATION

% FINES DM-16 5

29 SP 7.8 DM-16 6

34 SP 6.7 I

DM-17 3

19 SP 4.6 DM-17 4

24 SP 1.5 Of1-17 29 SP 3.3 I

DM-18 u

24 SP 1.7 DM-18 6

29 SP 6.1 DM-18 7

34 SP 5.2 DM-19 5

24 SP 1.3 I

l ATTERBERG LIMITS 30 RING DM-18

'E SAMPLE 9

l3 DEPTH 44 Ft LIQUID LIMIT 65

.g PLASTIC LIMIT 42 lg PLASTICITY INDEX 23 l

CLASSIFICATION MH-0H l

I.

m M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M Table 2 Sumary of Liquef action Analysis Free Field Cor.dition (Approach 1)

DM-17 DM-19 c

c t)

"d (y'h)

T T/5 C,4 N

N N

N (Y h Depth ave c

y g

(Ft)

(PSF)

(PSF)

(PSF) 4 490 0.99 490 38 0.078 1.764 8

14 26 46 9

1102 0.98 1102 84 0.076 1.324 5

7 10 13 14 1714 0.96 1464 128 0.087 1.169 11 13 12 14 19 2326 0.95 1764 172 0.097 1.068 8

9 16 17 24 2938 0.93 2064 213 0.103 0.983 9

9 7

7 h

29 3550 0.91 2364 252 0.106 0.909 13 12 11 10 34 4162 0.88 2664 286 0.107 0.844 16 14 19 16 39 4774 0.85 2964 317 0.107 0.786 23 18 15 12 44 5386 0.81 3264 340 0.104 0.734 18 13 13 10 49 5998 0.76 3564 356 0.100 0.686 19 13 15 10 54 6610 0.71 3864 366 0.095 0.642 16 10 28 18 59 7222 0.66 4164 3/2 0.089 0.602 30 18 46 28

= (0.65) (amax) ( c) (r )

T d

ave 9

a

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M Table 3 Summary of Liquefaction Analysis Under the Stack (Approach 1)

+E "c

• M DM-16 DM-18 c

N ("_c +M )

C N

N~

N N

r T

(Y h + M) d (y'h + &)

ave N

y g

Depth t

(Ft)

(PSF)

(PSF)

(PSF) 9 2858 0.98 2880 218 0.076 0.802 12 10 31 25 14 3389 0.96 3140 254 0.081 0.755 14 11 16 12 19 3901 0.95 3339 289 0.087 0.722 9

7 17 12 24 4332 0.93 3458 314 0.091 0.703 13 9

7 5

29 4743 0.91 3557 337 0.095 0.687 11 8

8 6

L 34 5154 0.88 3656 354 0.097 0.673 15 10 14 9

I 39 5565 0.85 3755 369 0.098 0.658 17 11 23 15 44 6029 0.81 3908 381 0.097 0.636 19 12 15 10 49 6507 0.76 4074 386 0.095 0.614 10*

6*

13 8

54 6985 0.71 1240 387 0.091 0.592 28 17 17 10 59 7463 0.66 4406 384 0.087 0.571 28 16 20 11 OBroken loose shells ave = (0.65) (amax)

( c

• E) (Id)

T 9

Note: M = vertical stress increment due to stack and foundation load at the boring location.

t

l Table 4 j

Cyclic Shear Stress, Cyclic Shear Strength j

and Factors of Safety in the Free-Field Condition T (strength)

= (yt )

6

=6

= Y'h T

h ave (Stress)

(p Depth o

g c

g r

(Ft) d (PSF)

(PSF)

(PSF)

= (0.15) (6 )

FS**

c 0

1.0 yt = 122.4 PCF 10 v

0.98 1224 1224 94 184 1.96 I

1 l

20 0.94 2448 1824 180 274 1,52 G'

30 0.90 3672 2424 258 364 1.41 y' = 60 PCF j

40 0.84 4896 3924 321 454 1.41 50 0.75 6120 3624 358 544 1.52 l

l 60 0.65 7344 4224 372 634 1.70 l

t l

ave = 0.65 max (o ) r T

a g

d 9

FS = Factor of Safety

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M M

M Table 5 Total and Effective Stresses and Stress Increments Under the Stack

= (yt )

5 = (y'h)

M

" Int.

Depth o

h g

Edge g

(Ft)

(PSF)

(PSF)

(PSF)

(PSF)

(PSF) 0 concrete 7

0 2680 1340 2680

= 122.4 PCF Yt 10 V

367 367 2680 1340 2613 20 1591 967 2546 1206 2412 30 2815 1567 2278 1072 2010 y' = 60 PCF 40 4039 2167 1876 938 1608 50 5263 2767 1474 804 1340 60 6487 3367 1206 670 1072 l

l

• Vertical stress increment under the center line, edge and intermediate point of the stack.

M M

M M

M M

M M

M j

i l

Table 6 Cyclic Shear Stresses Under the Stack ave)

I

• SJ) Edge (Tave) Edge I

+ oc) Int.

(Tav.:) i n t.

Depth r

I

• O)

(T (PSF) (

(PSF)(

d o

o o

(PSF)

(PSF)

(PSF)

(PSF) i (Ft) f 0

l concrete 7

1.0 y = 122.4 pcf 10 0

0.995 3047 236 1707 132 2980 231 1

4 20 0.955 4137 308 2797 208 4003 298 3

1 30 0.930 5093 369 3887 282 4825 350 y' = 60 pcf 40 0.885 5915 408 4977 344 5647 390 i

l I

50 0.82 6737 431 6067 388 6603 422 3

i 60 0.72 7693 432 7157 402 7559 425

• T

= (0.65) amax ave

(

+ a) (r )

d 4

m m

m M

M M

M M

m m

m

^

Table 7 Cyclic Shear Strength Under the Stack Center Line Edge Intermediate Point Depth 5 * (O + M)

(0.15)5 U * (5 + M)

(0.15)5 U

• IU + M)

(0.15)5 c

o c

c 0

c c

o c

(Ft)

(PSF)

(PSF)

(PSF)

(PSF)

(PSF)

(PSF) 0 concrete i

7

= 122.4 PCF yt 10 V

3047 457 1707 256 2980 447 b

20 3513 527 2173 326 3379 507 30 3845 577 2639 396 3577 537 y' = 60 PCF 40 4043 606 3105 466 3775 566 50 4241 636 3571 536 4107 616 60 4573 686 4037 606 4439 666 Note: For values of S and M see Table 5.

c

M M

M M

M M

M M

M Table 8 i

Cyclic Lhear Stress, Cyclic Shear Strength and Factors of Safety under the Stack Center Line Edge Intermediate Point Depth Stress Strength Stress Strength Stress Strength j

(Ft)

(PSF)

(PSF)

FS (PSF)

(PSF)

FS (PSF)

(PSF)

FS 0

1 J

concrete 7

a = 122.4 PCF t

i 10 V

236 457 1.94 132 256 1.94 231 447 1.94 i

?

20 308 527 1.71 208 326 1.57 298 507 1.70 l

1 30 369 577 1.56 282 396 1.40 350 537 1.53 l

y' = 60 PCF 40 408 606 1.49 343 466 1.36 390 566 1.45 l

t 50 431 636 1.48 388 536 1.38 422 616 1.46 60 432 686 1.59 402 606 1.51 425 666 1.57 s

_a m_--_e._a n

h__

_..m_-_a-

_2.Aa*.-4-_6_Am--

4a.

&,_w-m._

d.

_ _ _--.at

-.-aa aa l

i I l

l l I I

I FIGURES

'l i

l

.)

i i

l I..

4 E

E E

E E

E E

E j

4 7

1 e

LACRWR STACK i

DM -14 "O" "O' 3 DI AL DM-BUILDING 15 e UNIT Na 1 LACBWR 300 MW UTILITY DM-7 e REACTOR SUILDING DM-88 ausLDING j

DM-10 D/ gDM.9 I

l I

TunslNE

, e BUILDtNG

! N ADMINISTRATION DM-19

y SUILDING S

eDM-12 W-18 e DM-13 FUE L OIL Q

j STORAG E TANK DM-16 G-3 STACK SWITCH YARD l

V e DM-11 OIL STOMAGE TANK CRio i

HOUSE i

0 l

g FIGURE 1 s

PLOT PLAN AND BORING LOCATIONS i

U C

i I

O 0

l E

R NOTE: Only 1979 and 1980 Dames and Moore Boring Locations ers-Shown

Q E

T E

R M

E A

m I

I N

T E

I D

T M

E A

A D

M D

S E

T o

D U

i L

r I

O L

A S

A D

T

• B U

9 W

N O

1 L

"4 u

r L

53 2

4 A

r 7

W 1

q 7

4 <

M M

i l

1, p

L m

L A

T N

0' O

0 I

5 T

S C

m I

E K

C S

A T

D S

NA NA 2L EP

" 5 5

0 RN 0'

'14 UO 7.I 46 GI O

6N IT NO FA 1

3 OI 5"

IT D

7 TA AV N

VE U

s EL O

i LE F

EE KD K

CA M

AR C

TG A

S D

T s

F E S

r OH i

ES 3

SI c

0" AI G

N BF 5'

/

7 m'

l 1

(I j,,l "o

m N

e A-4 A

c N

O I

T e"

C E

r S

t

-M 1 m

A lY

,. f 3

m 6

4

- 4l 3

-e 4

f r

O I*eeIo0IA

.=e

1 i1 l

I I

SPT N VALUE

=

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0

I 10-X I

20 -

4 k

30-b N

x I

X I

50-X 60-I FIGURE 3 I

SPT N VALUES VERSUS DEPT:4 DM-16 I

I

,,,a I

I I

g s_e.

0 to 20 30 40 50 60 0

10-0 I

O 20 I

i 30-t E

o l

<0-O O

g.

O I

60-I FIGURE 4 I

SPT N VALUES VERSUS DEPTH DM-17 I

I I

I l

I SPT N VALUE O

to 20 30 40 50 60 0

I 10-A I

0 20-A I

Ih A

z 30-A A

I g.

A l

A so-A A

so-I I

I I

FIGURE 5 SPT N VALUES VERSUS DEPTH DM 18 1

I usamens a secosas

(.... -

l I

I SPT N VALUE I

O 10 20 30 40 50 60 0

10-0 20 -

I o

5E O

z 30-I O

a 40-0 I

O g,

O 0

60-I I

I FIGURE 6 I

SPT N VALUES VERSUS DEPTH DM-19 I

I._

. _ _ _ _... _ _ _, _. ~ _ _. _ _ _. _ _.. _ _ _ _ _. _. _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _... _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

a o

'I I

1 SPT N VALUE I

o 10 20 30 40 50 60 0

O O

O O

10 U

20-00 I

5E Do x so-KEY l

(

O O O

O DM 17 O

OM 19 O

o

{

O O

50-

.!I O

O g.

I I

I FIGURE 7 I

SPT N VALUES VERSUS DEPTH DM-17 AND DM 19 (frea field condition) l llI dames 8 Mooses

!u

-a I

I I

s~ m.

3 30 40 50 so 0

I x

xA x

4 w.

o x

I i

Ax 30-s KEY I

h O

O x

OM.16 x

A d

DM 18 40-dx I

x A so.

A x

A x

g.

l I

I FIGURE 8 I

SPT N VALUES VERSUS DEPTH DM 16 AND DM-18

.(condition under the stack)

I I

I I

I SPT N VALUE o

to 20 so 40 so so o

a ax A

to-mxA ox a6 20 6

h so.

O6 I

[

KEY 60 a o

x ou is O

DM 17 U*

40-A ou.is a

DM 19 a A ox I

x Ao o

l g.

,l d

6 x

a so-A

'I

'I

'g FIGURE 9 l3 SPT N VALUES VERSUS DEPTH (DM-16, DM-17, DM 18 AND DM-19) g

'I I

I I

I I

U S STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3" 7"15" 34* 3 B" 4

8 16 30 50 100 200 100 l !!l ! l !

!!L4% d ! !I IL

- I-

}((

I I ${

I L, DEPTH: 24.0 FT

~

l

[

lk=tHk+!

1. t' BORING: DM 16 i

i im

. SAMPLE: 4 47" ft 80 +

t W

[

70 L CLASSIFICATION: SP with

_1 t ii i

_b[

E I

l I

!!i.

i I

9 L,

a trace of fines 1

I I

! I _i e

!!!I 3

l I

l [

f 1

i!!!I y g ;.

.nn s-E

!?

f hN ' t-h I

i

!;! 4 !; }i

~T ii

!F4l l

lll 1

i

! L' I

I I !!

F 4'i-- o ! F..T i i !! E-T--t1 i !,g!! ! ik : !l li +H 4H-\\1 I lLij! l

h.._-1 I

I i K i I i i I n\\ I 1 go !u i Y ~~ o l { l! l 1 jgl ,j l l l lil;j! !! I il ig

1. t' BORING: DM 19 i

i

si p

i!! I T' SAMPLE: 1 l l l iT I I i ili a E DEPTH: 4.0 FT I I lih E 5 i E 7c L. CLASSIFICATION: SP with. I !{!!-{I l ft t ! I P k. a trace of fines .y[4 I I l ,g i . e I fg i I r' Hl l! ll liiHH-HR l l ili I i jyj [l !! pa i l l 42-1ll1 g# 1 p! i n n i i u, m !I Il I!! I I Y t r 20 j ~ ~ in g il li ' il i 1. 1 i i 8 Al i! o il il I h i! I I I I '[~Tikih 1 ~ 1000 100 10 1.0 0.1 ' O 01 0 001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIVETERS I l l ccaass lcomasel weo Y i l l CC88 pas ama sav oa cLa v 3 FIGURE 10 GRADATION CURVES I l

g

.__..._.e. l. m v y yv v

sTnEss ofs'r"n%8Mg$ FAcrog g,,,p,,, EoGE o staEss oisrnieuriou,,cro, o.s .0 1.0 i O i E e 4 10-f I 20-j I = I i U z 30-i W k. g f 4-50- ? i M-i 0 ) 1 E 1 cs O i l C I E TRESS DISTRIBUTION FACTORS USED IN COMPUTING THE VERTICAL STRESS INCREMENT Ao j

I I lI I STRESS REDUCTION FACTOR,rd 0 0.2 0.4 06 08 1.0 1.2 0 f I ,e-I 1 16 I y30-Q 40-I I g I 'I I l FIGURE 12 I STRESS REDUCTION FACTOR VERSUS DEPTH I I l

w I I I OB-I 0,_ I g I 0.2 - I 0.1 - I 0 1'O 20 3'O 4O 5'O CORRECTED BLOW COUNT, N, I I I FIGURE 13 l LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS IN THE FREE FIELD (approach 1) I I I a.

I I I oB- 'I 0.5 - o.4 - amaxEO.12g k oJ-E DM 19 c I 02-l .5"." o.1 - I o io do do do s'o l CORRECTED BLOW COUNT, Ni I lE !lI FIGURE 14 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS IN THE FREE FIELD (approach 1) I I . -, - -. - - -.,...,.,,,, ~

a-.__m I ' I I OE-I 0.5 - I I g .m XDM16 I 02-I ' ~ T X* X X x X I O 0 to 20 30 40 50 CORRECTED BLOW COUNT, N3 I 1, I I FIGURE 15 I LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS UNDER THE STACK (approach 1) I I I -JD-

I I I 02-I 05-I o.4 - amax20.12g Aou-1s 02-o.1 - A A I O 1'O IO $0 4'O 5'O CORRECTED BLOW COUNT, N, I I I FIGURE 16 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS UNDER THE STACK I (approach 1) I I g -JO-m.

I i I I Ni 0 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 I i 10- \\, x... I x I '.... _1.; _1_;.. ^.. f m.~. _ f 1.11.^.9 E -} GENERAL ZONE OF CONTACT OF HYDRAULIC FILL WITH ORIGINAL w A K E e

GROUND SURFACE EVIDENCED BY

-Z W COLOR CHANGES AND OCCASIONAL. I ? W SIL T LENSESpm ~;3; 7 g:7 <,x4 w g, O I t ^ g x. I e' h x. x KEY I x DM 16 I UNDER THE . DM-18 l STACK [] f FREE FIELD g @' LOOSE SHELLS I 1 F:GURE 17

SUMMARY

OF LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS (approach 1)

o M S T S E M T L A fX 1,' M ' 7-T ' i//il I ',I ,/',/

I ',

A I R s M p r T s E C I LC = Y , z C M 'J - N O D) s Ee t Si r Q As BR M z n EW u lc \\ o R B s U C A S q SL s Et ) a s t W o qIP Ra v Pd 4 e ,~ Gm Nr M \\ o I s g 8 Nf r o 1 e I F p SS ens i / / /1 ,jl 'j', "E e ROi M UCd u G Dt z I s l , FNn i ,m Ao 7% s i Ht M c Ta

• N o

f Ge 4 Nu Eq i Rl M s l /j /, r/ 1 Tu So i Rv Ae /l/,I r Ep M Hm Sor Cf I ( LC M YC N E M EW TEB N M g o O I T i A L E [5 el y2D M R M ,kf *, e I M

1 1

/ /

-e--, -.m___ A L_a__e a-a __am - -. _m,-, a.-- - _ a-a -.4 _w- .m.-,m h.sz -a -a..__ m _m 4-ew.h a.s ---wm. e*_ 1; I I J l !I e

I t

i F r ) l APPENDIX l . I I I I I I I 39- . - --... ~ - - - -. -

i I I t 0 ' I I I KEY TO LOG OF BORINGS I I 12 3 INDICATES DEPTH OF STANDARD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE I INDICATES NUMBER OF BLOWS REQUIRED TO i) RIVE STANDARD SPLIT SPOON ONE FOOT IN STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ' I I NOTES ELEVATIONS REFER TO THE USGS MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF BORINGS ARE SHOWN ON PLOT PLAN CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS REFER TO UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM l DISCUSSION IN THE TEXT IS NECESSARY FOR A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE SUBSURFACE MATERIALS I 1 I I ' 3 -40 FIGURE A 1

1 l e SOIL CLASSIFICA1 GRAPH MA./OR DIVISIONS Syygog .k

• et**

er.e 4.'e GRAVEL CLEAN GR AV E L s t A. is..... e,dP e GRAVELLY

• .Ese

^Q s oil 3 /a,Pe,. *A c0 A Rs t GR AINEO ,g ,g,, i solLS is*.ag c,Ravets ww rmes ,"* e..**l a a-caas ' " - (~ $ g*,*Ft< 9 .F pi.g 3 3 .t s '*,,s. 4 e, e, *s e ae a* SAND CLE AN SAND AND itetett e. sAho? so'Ls ...t .... as .....6 $ i,4$',.., a .,,9,' unLs 'a.. .a 300 S*f ul S+28 I ..s sA'ics wiTu re ts ca..u ...c-.. c...s e..,

' ;. /,

r,. .. Fini.. p!.;y..,.,.

e

!i U W;! l rtNE stofs t,,,. L, ,t GRashto AND du f*.. se so:Ls C L * 'S f ll': i l l $y;<g$O 9 Ti A'F.

==*e slLis ~ ~%;p;$4 Lp 4; or ree 6 is ago 3, s=LcLs s= se gp gm,. toe a.s et s.as l. l' i (' MiGMLY ORGANIC sotLS M2 W s' N OT E S: t cuat syn.0LS ant ust0 70 encart e0acenLset classace & WiefM See0wes one TM SOAias4 LOGS. TME FOLL0 esse Trots 5 Amt ts COssS4STEMCT OF COMESeve SonLS AssG Tot etLafivt C0espectiett COM Srvt SolL S Conti ( Appe0mansT.E Smet aattet stat esof sJur3 vrev s0FT ass finam.2S vtav Loost SOFT 025 70 0S LOctt estDaJun StrF 0 5 T0 iD utosuu Mks fTrF IO T'J t 0 OtmSt vtev gTyr t o T0 40 vt#v Mh5 ena n0 satatte Totae 4 0 1 I I l ~I.

t. ON CHART terren GRADATION CHART TYP/ CAL DcSCRIPT/CNS SYMBOL .g u. s e..e. s e.et s s. se.ets

• PARTICLE $llf GU

,ms**'*'"' martnal sizt to.tn uu,s urege vust ner L, art,t.s 54,( Salt. M.LLi**t it.5 st.t $428-o.s, s..os. es.,n s. a s..at. GP .u. 5 = = vi s. u "s i a

• ~s v,E ore

.ico. o <1 . sa. net osvas o42 ..o. 2C0 .3 s.te, ss.vt t 5. s...s t - s. GM w, .....n s G..vrL F east 4 76 .e. re t 3f4* e et.et, so.vn s, s.. e t. s. Cea.st ,s e 3/4*

• F6 2 3*
• I GC n.,.....n s

.c t, 3. m. 2 pa ct.5 30 4. 52

• s4.

34 " sa u. s..es. s...s. seavsu, .u s s,a.oana . cLea. seva. cet...c.s SW s s. 6 ns. ......s e n, - o..ov e s...s.

s...s u, SP u

s. ...,s. ....,. e SM m, s *a s. n a-si, .....es PLASTICITY CHART SC n.. p u. u= n.,

==wa s uovo umr o o to y to M 60 70 40 90 00 ____.w o.s c s.t.. s.... vu e,,i.,e, s.. rtove. s.6 ML n.,,.s,.s.c.ew e, s.s = ca,. s, e .. s .t ..c., 50 ,,c.,,..s n n.. s. r CL n s, n..

s. n

.s. n..s.si.. 9 CH n..u.s P Y l'; y f aj n .e s.t. s.... u. OL m,,u,s.,,..,,,,,,,,,, t g d1 t, c . u..e..n e.rs. m..co m.* 2" 3 g' CL u MH . u p s.s n so.

• I

/ Qw ( 23 D [ ..c c 6..s e,. MH 8 OH CH n.s,.... j 2 / m / o e n. s.. ,._ __. [. ML &OL OH 'f L-ML ^ ,s. s,,, ..n .g,, _______o l I," n. s.... so.6 s er j ..s.... .......s l D" "TT 4 a 5 oc o a I to etseser f.t P COMESMISS SonLS ILESS Sosts 11 star aet usuaLLY satt.1,oss a4 Etate.La* etag fagfeose.aaseta s. 7ces o sot S g sa s f. g anect, (20 tot DtasS4f? Datl UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM i I. man.as a moooses I FIGURE A-2: 3

I l BORING " 5 l EmE Q SURFACE EL EVA TION

• Hat

${ $w LOCATIONe 2* ace. *15coasia bM!< O3 4k a3 m SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION ~" ~.j osavet 3RA.'EL COAL OUST { 11% CONCAETE Pg@ y-100% RECOVERY - 5 - Q l l g-1 _ e_ I jg 3 SR0wm r!9E TO "E0 Lw SA40 [3 TUCE OF SILT ('T0!La OENSE) 3- -to l ( 4-l 14 3 -15 f 3-i SP 9 3 D 6- -20 D DU 7- -25 8- ~30 - [AI 11 3

Ur-52EE4 FI%E TO "E0!L9 SANO mIT* LIULE g-I SILT, OCCA5

0%AL LayEa5 Cr CLAYEY i! t 5lLT/5!LTY CLAY, IUCE ORGAN!O$

("E0ILM OE%5E) f, [.! c SM /0 - i* 15 3 -35 M I gg - suv.;stEs r:4E TO "E0'LM SANO.ITH TUCE OF 5:Li ("E0!# X45E) 12-3 t _4g 13 - 19 3 I 3.tgCH LATER OF $!LTY CLAY I -45 ANO SA50 AT 4A FEET 14

• SP I

15

• 10 3 "EO:L" 5ANO GUO!15 OC.

-50 GU :ss.tii. 5 Ea rMGME475 16 - I 28 3 34A0!4G BROWN *Iid TUCE Cr -55 Fist GUvEL, /7-SeELL FRF#E%T5 GRA0!NG OUT I -60 act:NG C0=ptETE0 At 60 rEET ON 9-22-80 FIGURE A-3 LOG OF BORINGS I

BORING Em5 Q SURWACE ELEVA TION *.st) $g $g LOCAT/0N: Ge wa. etsconsta A W 2 NW w a < I 43 ok e a SYMBOLS DESCRIPT/C V (amALT asNALT BROWN FINE TO "E !$ sA%D *1TH tract OF I - 5 SILT {L3CSE) j, 8 3 2-I P \\\\ t s 3 3- -10 -g c 9 I 4-9 11 3 -15 I 5-ant:9G ITH tract or c Aast s 3 6 -20 sa: 7-e 3 c Aast sac Gu :xs cui -25 su:I3G ro.aE:tta c3st I 8-13 s

&OING.tTH Tuct of ccanst

g. -30 sp sA80 I

GaAOING Gu v-GaEE4 10 - is s -35 ll ~ 1 23 3 I 12 - -40 c;Anst sAno ;u :!NG out is - I -45 Gu :mG.1Tw Tuct or c Aast SAND f4 - I s u ctsG anc.m 15 - is 3 ,g 16 - I -55 17 - Gu::sc 4TH Tuct or r!st 18 - 30 s C" VEL -60 BCaI9G c0MPLETED AT 60 FEET CN 9-23-30 I FIGURE A-4 LOG OF BORINGS I

I BORING sts I Em 5 Q SURFACE ELEVA TION * *sa1 $$ $w g LOCAT/ONe s coa, wisconsta e gW $2 6 at s

• srusots oesentpriou l

~~ ~ 7.' ~ 4"^*" OUVEL COAL OUST l c ;S toos L /- RECOVERY k~ CO'EIIII comcatTE - 5 .B k? 2-3RCh4 FINE To "E0!LN SAN 3 w!TH ?EACE OF SILT ("C0l p ;ENSE) J- -lo"'- 4-1' -/5 h b g 6- -go 0 I 7- -25 5"UI'G 0"##EE' 8-9- -3o /O - SP Gu :ss.rTw ac:Ast:wAL THis 14 3 -J5 LAVERS 3F CLArEY SILT I // - 12 ~ -40 /3 - 500 NG d!TH ': ACE OF C0AASE SANO, l 15 3 l -43 OC0ASIONAL SHELL TRAG"E9TS l /4 - Gn o:%G ancan f 5_ 12 3 -50 P ELLS, SILT LENSES Ou ING OUT /6 - n ot e to ecAASE SAND 3RA0!sG OUT -55 /7- /s - 20 3 -60 acR:mo captETED AT 60 rEET om 9-23-80 FIGURE A-5 I LOG OF BORINGS omaansa .o e a see. -

I l BORING -9 Nw5 0 SURFACE ELEVATION * +ss1 $i3 $w g LOCATION senoa..isconsin I bb bd 3 ok ok a <n SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION O- 0 wy amavet 'savtt, c0st xst EROWN Fl%E TO %01UM 5AND alTH TRACE */ SILI ("t0!UM Ot%5t) j_ 26 3 ..Q( l - 5 'D l 2- 'Q 9 ~ to 3 ~.( 3- -jQ 'O' 1 4-12 3 -15 i 5~ l 6- -20 7-GRADING SMT-GRtti y 3 -25 ( \\ g-l U 3 ( 9- -30 SP 10 - I GM0!4G BR0kg 13 3 11 - 15 3 fg. ~40 IJ - I 13 3 -45 14 - I 15 - 15 3 920!sc wtm ruct OF c0245t s250. -50 TUCC JF $1LTY ORGAN!CS A7 5] FEET 16 - 28 3 CM ASE SAND GRACING OUT 17-GRAO:NG TO OENSE fg _ -60 50R:ss c0Mr tito at so FEET cs 3-24 80 FIGURE A-6 LOG OF BORINGS I

===== a swoom e 45 . _ _ _.. _ _.,, _. _ -... _. _ _ _ _ _ _, _... _ _ _, _, _ _ _ _ _.... _. _. _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _.. _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _...}}