ML19347C275
| ML19347C275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1980 |
| From: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347C272 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010170177 | |
| Download: ML19347C275 (33) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ ._. -_ O ; AGENDA
- 1. INTRODUCTI0h L. DEL GEORGE
- 2. LASALLE S0IL PROPERTIES L. L. HOLISH
- 3. EFFECT OF S0IL PROPERTY ,
VARIATION ON S0ll SPRING l - ANALYSIS A. K. SINGH j 14 . STATE OF THE ART EVALUATION 0F LASALLE SOILS D. K0UTSOFTAS
- 5. CONCLUSION B. SHELTON l
i
\
i
~
- l. .
LD - 1 9910170 g.g}
. a CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE OF EVENTS RELATING TO Soll SPRING ANALYSIS
~
DEC 78 QUESTION 130.'22 ASKING FOR A COMPARISON OF LASALLE DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA WITH.THOSE INCLUDING: RG 1.60 SPECTRA S0IL PROPERTY VARIATION S0IL SPRING METHOD FEB 79 NRC MEETING TO PRESENT: . CONSERVATISM IN LASALLE DESIGN BASIS NEWR$0VIREMENTSSHOULDNOTBEIMPOSED ON LASALLE S0IL SPRING IS LIKELY TO YIELD COMPARABLE ! RESPONSE MAR 79 NRC REVIEWED LASALLE S0IL SPRING ANALYSIS IN S&L 0FFICES:
' AGREED TO THE METHODOLOGY HAD CONCERN ON THE CONCEPT OF STRAIN COMPATIBLE S0IL PROPERTIES ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF S0ll PROPERTIES USED OCT 79 NEW NRC REVIEWER: FOLLOW-UP QUESTION 130.23 TO JUSTIFY THE STRAIN LEVELS USED TO DETERMINE S0ll PROPERTIES LD - 2'
APR 80 NRC STAFF AGREED TO S0Il STRAIN LEVELS AND RECOMMENDED UPPER BOUND S0IL PROPERTIES; REVIEWED THE RESULTS AND AGREED THAT THE LASALLE DESIGN IS CONSERVATIVE AUG 80 NRC STAFF EXPRESSED CONCERNS ON S0ll PROPERTIES USED IN SOIL SPRING ANALYSIS l e D l l l l W-3
SUMMARY
OF REGULATORY HISTORY FOR DYNAMIC SOIL PROPERTIES . GEOPHYSICAL WORK LABORATORY TESTING FIELD / LAB Surface Uphole/ Cross- Refraction Dynamic Resonant Shock- Other STANDARD GUIDE Downhole Hole Reflection Triaxial Column Scope Types
" Guide the Organization and Contents of Safety Analysis Reports," AEC, June 30, 1966
" Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," Rev. 1, General Requ! ements for Geophysical and Laboratory Testing Regulatory Guide l.70,
-October 1972 -
Regulatory Guide 1.70, Rev. 2&3, Geophysical and Laboratory Dynamic Properties Determined September 1975 and November 1978 by Accepted State-of-the-Art Methods 5 Regulatory Guide 1.132, " Site , Investigation for Foundations of X X X Not Applicable X Nuclear Power Plants,"
. September 1977 Regulatory Guide 1.131, Rev. 1, X X X Not Applicable X March 1979 Regulatory Guide 1.138,
" Laboratory Investigation of X X I
) Soils for Engineering Analysis Not Applicable and Design of Nuclear Power Plants," April 1978 l Standard Review Plans X X X X X , X , , September 1975 Standard Review Plans X X X X X X Rev. 1, November 1978 X X X X LaSalle County Station , 1 I
. - _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - . _ _ _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - u
A"I'l"rST 24 SEPTEat[R M77 sapesaers swas srwaers,C sy sF paramFS MA# $FNraWFng -I-= KF smaumtp Safa# SfMfedFm. asp (#WCMF Mart 8EmerFFID 4 #1r1A (framafEP fnescourata semp'8(sseur F(SPyf (rmasAs (cardwf$43e prgrs) O 80 DO JO 00 30 SO N OO 80 gg . g gg gg so og sg gg pg go go ng g gg gg pg
= 40 gg gg m
. . .t
= .
. . . gr , . . s
.** . . . l Fur '
.. . , .. JDC
. .. 700 l' '
t ; 880 880
. ; j
. esp-
..p..
. =
l t
. . . j. . .
N - 8'r * . ;
** p 3.. .
g- wt . . . . SE& {
.. -6 . .
coo es: -
. , a Gs0 - -
gg
. esc -
l - yk- . .
.. , . .- . li% gg ,
g . .
! g g * *- gg
, . * {, s g * * **
g
- rC
.46 ex . ..
fn -
} ax C-m C sn E
C sn
!w sw -
. ps0
.c
. . . .,..- l : g;;;)
soc m m j Q sac - m c: :=- 2 sw w m - . l y
. g ;... ..
,,; "I. . *
,rc_ * ::" . ';i::.:** * "'"" " " ""'"
,f,
, ... * -.r " ". ::::":
.t.".J . . . .:.t.:.. ::. ::"..".:: .
g f t i
,, f f I f NOTE: AVERAGE SHEAR STRENGTH BELOW LA satte coWNM STATION
. . .. ... ..s........ c.,
ELEVATION 560 is 9.2 KSF.
. FIC'JE 2.5-73 thDiiAlt.f 0 SHEAR SiliI?dTH v5. EIPN
l . .
. ~. . .
0 3800 , , , ,gigi , , , , , , , , ,,i3,ygg i ig gg,gg UsenAlas SWAa statesne . g . . ,, . ,. 11&L .11f
- . .,. . . 710 490 3.5 .
690-420 2.5 620-590 4.3
. . 590-560 7,o .
esco . 560-544 9.3 2 3 . . . E % acoa . N . . . . . . . h . .
. s. . s* . ..
Stte me ioniss, g M01 Am (1970) w isoo . . . N .. . .
- e.
- 5 N .y . -
u ioco . .
.y . .
Usts ron otsir.m \ s . . .
. N N. N . .
.. . . N .
N i i iir e i einni i n e i i n i, i iiie.. e
, i ag-e
,, .e io .e m .* to..e sutaa s7 main, T.,(mcw/ ment -
DESIGN BASIS CURVE ,.m SEED AND IDRISS MEDIAN (1970) . f.p
% e
- I D QQh Ok
@@dhts
+ - - -
l 1 6 o I4 M b l2 ' o m y 10 .N'N ' n . N ,
~
08 \, ,
. -- \, $ 06 N ' \ '
04
~ ~ ' -. , ~s,Nss o
's. N .
Q* '* m O- s% -
< 02 - -
N h - sgIg, _ 10 4 10 3 10 2 lo I I SINGLE AMPLITUDE SHEAR STRAIN,7'- PERCENT EL 560-540
. ._ EL 590-5 60 EL 620-590
_o EL 710-690
- - _.. E L- 690-620 LA SALLE COUNTY STATION FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5-55
~
S0IL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION PARAMETERS (SHEET 1 of 2) r '*
EFFECT OF SOIL PROPERTIES ON S0IL SPRING ANALYSIS . 4
. QUESTION 130'.22, DECEMBER 1978 SEVERAL S0Il SPRING ANALYSES SHOW:
RESPONSE NOT OVERLY SENSITIVE S0ll VARIATION CONSIDERED MORE THAN COVERS THE ESTIMATES BY S0ll EXPERTS' DESIGN BASIS BOUNDS ALL NEW RESPONSES 6 AKS - 1
3 v F94'-0" 9 . A v pao'-6" - 9870'-6" , s . 6 7807' -0" v 786'-6" S
) -
b 768'-0"v V 761'-0" 4 13 754'-0"V v 749'-0" __ 11 12 744'-6"U
~
-v 740'-0" 3 10 y 731'-0"v v710'-6" 2 16 v694'-6" 1 V 673'-4" -
O 1mmr
. LA S ALLE COU NTY ST ATION FINAL S AFCTY AN ALY SIS R EPOR T l'
.)
. FIGURE Q130.22-1 1
' SCHEMATIC DETAILS OF THE BUILDING MODEL e
A t#6 0
r S0IL PROPERTY SENSITIVITY' LAYER EL. AT TOP THICKNESS CASE 1 CASE 2. NUMBER ' 0F LAYER (FT) @ G @ G 1 666.0 16.5 289.0 0.180 2000.0 0.03 2 649.5 27.5 438.0 0.155 2000.0 0.03 3 622.0 11.0 1031.0 0.147 2000.0 0.03 4 611.0 11.0 783.0 0:160 2000.0 0.03 5 600.0 10.0 578.0 0.170 2000.0 0.03 6 590.0 10.0 1819.0 0.140 2000.0 0.03 7 580.0 20.0 1664.0 0.145 2000.0 0.03 8 560.0 20.0 2413.0 0.128 2000.0 0.03 9 540.0 107330.0 0.020 107330.0 0.00 CASE 1: AUGUST 1979 ANSWER TO QUESTION 130.22 AND USED FOR DESIGN CASE 2: MAY 1980 ANSWER TO QUESTION 130.23 USING TWO LAYERED HALF-SPACE G = SHEAR MODULUS (KSF) 3 = DAMPING, FRACTION OF CRITICA.L W f
l l l l J ' - V ~' snerna roa Effect of Soil Property Cele. Ps. H.11.4-5 SARGENT4LUNDY
.s.o.tes. ..
va ria t. i o n -,n nr. 4non ne, n.o asee 8-24-8o c -e - = x sere,y_n.ieied reie
% _ser.w_n.ieved .i Client CommonwertIth Edison Comtmnv Prepared by Date Proint L.1Sa11e R. viewed by Dete Proi. No. 4266 Equis. No. . Approved by Dets Fregionn. CPS o is a a to is 10 to .5 CO ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
- DESIG N RESP 3NSE
~
Ise [-
. Soil SPRINp CASEI) _
11 0 SOIL SPftlNG ((C ASE 2) to _ in
~
10 _ to se so
. 10 10
. 40 40
~
~
10 10
- 10 _
LD
~
~
- L5 L5
~
10
"*""*
- N ( LC f ro*.* . \
.e
/
h, [ -
-' s
~
1
~
rn // ... N\4-g = A g .a f
/ \, j.
- m; - e g.
A
~
/ r * "I ( // ..' 9.N' ' . .
w. 3
. ] 'O
/ f. . . . . i.. f..-' ..
s
- ,j
.s N 3
- /
1 e. - 3 3
. . , _ . .- ~~- . - .. ).,,.* -
.15 ,
, .35
.C ,
, .10 E . $"
.c ~
0.
, g ~ i ie n iiie i i e i .
i i e i tiii e i ii eeii e i e i e i e iii ieii g C .5 .04 .5 .06 .5 .I .15 .2 .3 4 .S .4 .8 LD LS 16 pertet leL SSE RESPONSE USING LocAveew: RCAC ?UX-TURD SUILDING BASE ItAT (Slab 15Y) ' SOIL SPRING METIIOD si.s varion : 573'-0"
. T(O /l BPD
, l m erna coml ffeet. On Soi! P ro pe r t.y Cele. No. 8 . I I . 4 '
SARGENT4 LU.1DY variation on nesponse Ree. o ost. n-24-80 amsimeems. C "'C ^ X Safety-Retsted Non-Sofety-Related Pete el Cheat Comnonwea1th Edison Company Prepared by Date Project LaSalle Reviewed by Date Proj. No. 4266 Equis. No. Aporowed by Deto reewswv. cn D 11 JD W is il 10 LO .5 ng .1 - 1 ii. . . , e i .,ii i ,ie e i.. ...i i a e ' ' ' ' ' ' 24 0 i i
~
DE SIG 1 RESP MISE ~ SOIL SPRitJG ( CASE 1) - SC IL SPRif,G ( CASE 2) to _ ino
~
10 _ to se _ so l 1e 50 to l As
~
T . Le 10 .. Le ' % to
~
~
LS L5
\ _
- .-.. 1
_ j'" . ( _ t, m v ._ \ 1, s' V' I \
. . j .r '. .\x .3 -
Q' -
/') ... %\ -
', f l
? -
_fj ,,,,,, ,.... .... . . . .
.,.' N. , g I 4;.--J ... ' ,
~-
,,l
/-/ .....!
- _ . ...a.
.4 _ .. _
., L_. _ .- .-... ,. - .
,N .,
~
,y ....... ......
.2 I
.33 .15 O - _
10
~ ~
.O - -
.os
.C -
.oe g'. inn i eri . . . . . , , , . eine , ,i. .... , , ,
,!. , ,,ii . ..
D .5 .04 .5 .se .8B ' .I .5 J .3 .4 .5 .6 .8 10 LS 10 W 58'- . SSE RESPONSE USING n.ocarson : REAC-AliX-TUPB BUILDT!!G
!!ID-HEIGHT (SLAB 14Y)
. SOIL SPRING METHOD 1 si.s vars ow : 768' ' g)-
.kifb s epo
esect:4 s ose E f f sic t' of Snil P ro pr' r Y C.tc. No. 11. I 1. 4 - 5
.ISARGENT4 LUNDY variaition on nononne n.v o o.. 8-/4-Ho
. s ~. . . .
c c -= x see.iy n.i. .d Neo-s.v.ty-n.i.iw P.,e .e Propered by Oste l Clie#W Commonwea1th Edinon Comnany Date Project LaSalle Reviamed by Equie'. No. Approved by Date a Proi. No. 4266 w as , to LO .5 e n as 3 is il iiei e i * ' ' ' '
. MO
. . .>>> ii>i i gg ,, . ,,, i .. . , , i iii.
DESIGN REEP0t, SE :
" 11.0
. Soll 3PRING ( CASE 1)
~
- -- SO IL SPRlt;G ( CASE 2) 40 _ "
to te "_
- to 8t 0
_.. . _ . , .- _ . 50
~
- -.~. --. --- to
- 4. "
i 30 to - .
"9 -
c n / L to te
! [ :
- / _.- '
s ts LS
,.- i rr---- -]
1
~
_ }
/ .,, . . . . . .
f g
\
~
to L' *
. f I! L. *h m ~
/
... \ -
7,./
.6 g .
;y
=
.,..- V., _.
,f
. /. . l
~
/
** N, . _
.45
.e -.-
7' f-N. , i....... ..... .
.1
.s *
=
x "_ _ j
. .. i 1
- l
.10
- . l
~ .oe
.C - ~
.on
.c ~ '
~ ' ' ' ' '
' .s ' Le
.C
.e .o .es .a .es '.es' .i .u . .5 4 .5 .e Lt to
- Parted, Sat.
i.ocatio.e Ripi-AUX-TURD BUtLUING-SSE RESPONSE USIt!G l LEVEL (S LA G 7Y) SOII. SPRING MET 110D s t.s varione : '," AKS - 6 BPD l D MD D 6EJ b
i - . i S0ll PROPERTY SENSITIVITY ' LAYER EL. AT TOP THICKNESS CASE 1 CASE 3 CASE 4 NUMBER OF LAYER (FT) G [6 G P G B 1 666.0 16.5 289.0 0.180 1600.0 0.07 2000.0 0.05 2 649.5 27.5 438.0 0.165 16b0.0 0.07 2000.0 0.05 3 622.0 11.0 1031,0 0.147 1600.0 0.07 2000.0 0.05 4 611.0 11.0 783.0 0.160 1600.0 0.07 2000.0 0.05 5 600.0 10.0 578.0 0.170 1600.0 0.07 2000.0 0.05 6 590.0 10.0 1115.0 0.140 2700.0 0.07 4600.0 0.05 7 580.0 20.0 ' 664.l. 0.145
. 2700.0 0.07 4600.0 0.05 8 560.0 20.0 2413.0 0.138 3500.0 0.07 6000.0 0.05 ..
9 540.0 107330.0 0.020 107330.0 0.03 107330.0 0.03 CASE 1: AUGUST 1979 ANSWER TO QUESTION 130.22 AND USED FOR DESIGN CASE 3: BEST ESTIMATE VALUES, SEPTEMBER 1980 CASE 4: VERY HIGH MODULUS VALUE FOR SENSITIVITY STUDY SEPTEMBER 1980 ' G = SHEAR MODULUS (KSF) 3 = DAMPING, FRACTION OF CRITICAL 8 . i
~
i AA. A '3 D - e oe o . -.
~
specena erm l-l l' f i.< ? t of Moil l' r n i n e . t t i.- cete. No. H . I I . 4 ~ 'i SARGENT4 LUNDY y,, r i .i t i o n . in n. n no n n - 7,,. o D.,. a .i .i - a o
~'c^= x s.r.,y-n.i.e.4 N o s.r.,y-n.i.t.a P.,. 4e Cient Coinmonwe .t i t.h 1:<l i son coinntiny Proper.a by Date Proint L<tS,11 l e? noviewed by Date Proj. No. 4266 Equip. No. Approved by Deto freenancy. CPS 30 31 JD le is il 10 LO .i Co ' 's ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
]Jue
- DES IGil IRE 3FONSE sol L 3PillNG (CASE 3)
SOI L 3PIRING (CASE 4) ce iu to _ . to to , H to 5o As to
~
18 [ %8 pe " Le _ _ to
~ ~ - U -
r" "'*" L1
. < g -
/ g l s
~'~
_ gg
. ~ . . . ! [ %... ~
gg A \ I ! \ 'c _A - Ii _ __; / \ T j ', i
/- s -- K a
\ ,
', {
/ \ l 5 / \ 'L ,A
{ '. .)
- ..- /f- g' I U \ %
- g. (
1 .
/_ e..- .u
/Er. -Are .2 g) j _
.I --
. -- .1 E _. - _ _. .- ;
. ./
.1 ,,
~
.15 ,
.15
.C . .
.to I .a I , ".m 4: .ca g ,' i i i i niin i i i . .
. . .ie iiin ,iii ,,ii , , , , , , .,,, ,,,i C .5 .04 .a .46 .08 .4 .lb .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 10 LS 10 purist ser.
SSE RESPONSE USING s.oeAvso e: lit:AP-AtlX-TtJRn 9"i LDING SOIL SPRING METil0D
^ "AT I N'A U IWI u t s vati o.e s 6 7 l ' - 4 "
AKS na ego
. . m Q' O{ T 66 6 ahbh ensev=A s om 1: T f . .. . t ist Dril I l' r i n i. . r t
- Cele. No. H . I 1.1 'i ~
SARGENT4LUNDY v.iri.it io n oi nennonni ,,, o o,,,u-21-ao essessesse n. C " 'C ^" '5 Safety-Related Non-Safsty-Related Page of Client Commonwealth Edison Company Prepwed by Date Project LaSal1e Rwsewed by
- Date Prij. No. 4266 Equis. No. . Approved by Date propency. CP5 e n a no to il to to .5 tio ' 'i ' i ' ' ' ' i ' ' ' ' ' ' '- no
'l' 'l'l
- D;Ui1GtLEf SPO MSE g
; CASE 3)
S0ll SF'RI NCi
~
S0lL SF RI NCi [ CASE 4 ) to _ So to to [ to
.o .
5.0 to 40 to
~
~
10 10
~
# 1 to to
; \ _
~
\ \ -
t5 ! g ts
/ h r-.
- I V v i I
/ /A \
b M J i' . i.,'> / 1 M Q . mA -, ! l .l % \ ', { J'i 1 Q.J *
\ \ s I-3
.- n //
r v. Y \' N ~ -,{3 5 g-
.il /' / .4 a 3
'4 E
J,r y ., s - L... ._.-. ~.. '
.2 _
.E
.43 .15
.D _ _
.to
.e _ : .
.c .os
. i. .rii i .
. . ... ,isi ,. ,ii. . . ', ,,ii ii,i
, g i . i i i i
.O .ol .M .5 .os .5 .8 .35 .2 .) 4 .5 .o .8 Le L5 to NM k
'***T" "I '^~
i SSE RESPONSE USING ! t1 i 1)-111:101P' f 't.AU L4Y) ' SOIL SPRING MET!!OD s ta vAveons :7 6 8 . - 0.. ,,,,.,-n LJ .) BPD
-. .~... - - . -
tecevra ren Ef fect of Soil Property Cale. No. 8.11.4-5
~
SARGENT3.LUNDY variation on nesponse ,,,, o o,,e a-24-so
> emesNeffee .
C ' "C ^ *> Safety-Reteted Non-Sefety-Related Page of X ,,, _ Client Commonwea 1 t.h P.clison ' Company Prep,6ted by Date __ Project LaSa lle Reviewed by Date . Proj. No. 4266 Equip. No. Appr0ved by . Date Freguency. CP5 , 50 33 20 10 10 D to to 1 M0 _i ' ii 'iis i a i i i i a e i i n ii e a ii s ein i a ii4 . s i 1
, 30 l l t ! i.it [ ]
l DESIGN --- -- I' RES P ONSE - - - - - - - - - p~ 3 11 0 4 , : l-* --- SOIL l SPRING (CASE 3) l SOIL l, SPRING (CASE 4 ) i * ! , M0 i ; ; , _ MO
. 4
- 1 ; l l . i l _
t s j EU l l l j>l
-- { l 3 60 40 l .
l ' 5,0 5.0
. i i I
a ! , o _ i to i ! i I l _.._.__..L..__. to 1 l-i . to
- i _. _ _ . _ . . . . . . . .
i
, - -n.
\
. .{ . .
10 i l / ts I .J-- ' . .1l .. . . _ _ .. . . _ . . ._ . .j _ / _ .. . i. . _ _ . !. ___ . ,,s
' i !. I I *j '
j g - -,'",- . _. , // . s
' s fI I' / s.3 1 to -
L* 6
'a I
I 1 I I t ! i rf_/ / t i ;
! l /_,/ /* ~~m. d..
(ij
? '- "h f
/:
i
\.
i" ; f'~ \
\
\ ) # .-
I ! , l [g } . i ' -;
- t<
; i !- , v,' ^
l s______'-s/!
- l i
_ ,j i j l j
.1
-._.-._.-.'./ i -
I i ; , t j ! t 1 I i
- t l
1
; g -
.r :- ,
l :
- I f i ~
.t3 : -.1 -
_. _ . __ .. . ! i ... ,, ! l l i !
. 1 l
6 l
.10 ;----- , . _ . 7, . _____.q - . . .! _ .j_-___., --
30 ) 3.---- g. . - 7 ._ __
.Os
.. _.7 -. _
~
I ! ! 3
.Os j .
,e i, ,.,. , , . , , ,. ,;,, , , ,,l,,,, ,,,,l, ,l,I,!, , , ,, .,, l n
.02 0) .08 .05 .06 .0s .1 .ts .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .: to ts to l Perw. sec. )
LocAvios: REAC-AUX-TURB BUILDING SSE RESPONSE USING UPPER LEVI'L (SLAB 7Y) SOIL SPRING METIIOD s'av1Te a: 820'.6a b i
(;
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS
- 1. S0IL SPRING ANALYSIS PERFORMED FOR VARIOUS S0IL SHEAR MODULUS VALUES UP TO 2000 KSF .
RESPONSE NOT OVERLY SENSITIVE TO S0ll PROPERTIES DESIGN BASIS IS CONSERVATIVE i 1 AKS - 11 l l
4 SCHEM ATIC PLANT SECT IO N (b se
>0 n'
w
/
p g GRADE b o f 710 me,pi,ov y,,,,,,,y,,,,,f,g,,,y,, - O 700 - h arecron I " (UPPER
- 10
/ 4 690 _ , BUIL DING - 20 2 4 680 - k d - 30 h I /
^
~
// /s /s /s///s // fi/r /> /> /
660 - - 50
~
~
WISCO I N DRIF INTERMEDI ATE) 640 - - 70 630 - - 80 l 620 - - 90 j l 610 - - 10 0 i WISCONSINAN DRif T l (LOWER) 600 - -110 590 -- -120 580 - l LLINOI AN TILL -130 (UPPER) 570 - -140 1 560 - -150 550 - I LLINOI AN TILL -160 (LOWER) 540 - -170 i DK-1 e
b PROCEDURES USED TO EVALUATE SHEAR MODULI 0F THE WISCONSINAN DRIFT
- 1. DIRECT MEASUREMENT FROM DYNAMIC TESTS PERFORMED AT VARIOUS CONFINING PRESSURES AND SHEAR STRAIN LEVELS.
- 2. FROM PUBLISHED CORRELATIONS:
2.1 ESTIMATE GMAX FROM EMPIRICAL EQUATIONS SUCH AS HARDIN AND DPNEVICH, ADJUST THE MODULUS FOR STRAIN DEGRADATION. 2.2 USE EXISTING DATA FROM TESTS ON SIMILAR S0ILS. CLINTON STATION - GEOPHYSICAL. OBTAIN GMAX
.AND ADJUST FOR CONFINING STRESS AS WELL AS FOR STRAIN DEGRADATION.
2.3 USE PUBLISHED CORRELATIONS SUCH AS G/Su vs TXY l AND OCR. USE IN-SITU Su TO ESTIMATE G. l l DK-?
5643-115-07 . SINGLE AMPLITUDE SHEAR STR AIN, Yxy, (%) 10-4 10 -3 10 -2 10-' I 6,000 i , , i i,, , , , , , , , , , , i i iiiig , , i i i i,, sY"[ BO d ELEV. Q)n fd 8 e B-2 12 55 653.3 15.3 120 5500 5,000 A B-2 18 85 628.3 16.4 116 7500 0 ---. ' - 4000 O B-39 11 49 659.0 19.6 113
- ON m, ESTIMATED PolNTS BASED ON PUBLISHED CORRELATIONS
- e 4,000 @ Or c/cm vs.yxy o \
- N 8 3,000 NAo 0
8 \ 2 N
$ 2,000 *\
m AO l,000
\
0 - 0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' N~e-4 lxlO-6 lxtO-5 lxlO-4 lxlO-3 lxlO-2 SINGLE AMPLITUDE SHEAR STR AIN , Txy (INCH / INCH) SHEAR MODULUS vs. SHEAR STRAIN FOR THE WISCONSINAN DRIFT DK-3 comes a neeere
. . l
, l i 1.0 Nh > x,
\ _
q e (0.9) e O. 8 N ': N, . 4 4--+ (0.6 5 ) : t
- s. . ~
b - --SAND o . , N CLAY 0.4 -
\ g
\ .
\
0.2 N-
. N N%
\
0 I 10 - 4 10 ~3 10-2 go -l l CYCLIC SHEAR STRAIN, % I i i l i 10-6 10-5 go-4 io-3 10-2 CYCLIC SHEAR STRAIN, INCHES / INCH
REFERENCE:
NOTE RATIO OF G/Gmon AT T=10'3% ACOPTED FROM ARANGO et al (1978) TO G /G max AT 7 810-2 % IS 0 65 MODULUS REDUCTION WITH STRAIN: HIGH PLASTICITY SILTS AND CLAYS l DK - 4 l i l
i 5643-115-07 . SINGLE AMPLITUDE SHEAR STRAIN, 7xy, (%) 10-4 10 -3 10 -2 10-' I 6,000 i , , , , ,,, , , , , , , , , , , , ,,,,, , i i , , ,,, S e d ELEV. Wn fd 5,000 e a-2 12 55 653.3 15.3 120 5500 A B-2 18 85 628.3 16.4 116 7500 0 ----
"" % % g e-39 11 49 659.0 19.6 113 4000 ESMAE MNTS BASED ON NBLISHED CORREW10NS N 4,000 N @ OF C/Gmax VS.8 xy o \
- \
a 3,000 Nao a e N O S \ 2 N
$ 2,000 *\
m A0 I,000 N 0
%~.. _q O
Ix10-6 lx10-5 lxgo-4 lxio-3 ix10-2 SINGLE AMPLITUDE SHEAR STR AIN , 7xy (INCH / INCH) SHEAR MODULUS vs. SHEAR STRAIN FOR THE WISCONSINAN DRIFT DK-5 Dames & Moore
! I f z 6 O. l i o i K i D n i i i i T F i
, I R )
D H N s C
) '
A s - N oI
/.
(
'0 1 ,
N i i / I H N i S C y , N i N I T x , O e I A C S i ( y R x T N I WI i T S A , R , N R T I A A S R E R T HT A S S F I E 4 R
.R S D H -
v S *'0 ' oA i E E 1 , H I N LA D , S U , E UN DI T I D U OS L P T MN O M I A L P DC M E S I E L , A ZW I G E L N I 5 L A S 3 -
- G M
~
0 0 N 1 I R 1
' S O
' N 7
0 5 1 1 3 4
" 8 10 0 6 8 6 4 2 o1 5 0 l
0 O 0 o. ERo $ sOO c0 r5 owd $sgz
40,000 g g g g MOD I COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF LA. 30,000 THE HARDIN AND DRNEVICH EQUATION G max. : 455 I 3 - 'I xOCRK gy35 0 1+e W e : 0.5, K = 0.18, Gmax. AND (T m IN KSF g 20,000 O (f5 3 NORM ALLY CONSOLIDATED SOIL / OVERCONSOLIDATED SO'L 2 F, = 33,600 PSF E 7000 - (8700) OCR:8, Fyo : 4200 PSF f /' j y-{ f7 I 6000 : (5800) p ' en 5000
/ - is- 7 3 WISCONSIN AN DRIFT y a / -OVERCONSOLIDATED SOIL y 4000 CLINTON v, = 9 (1974) j FT./ SEC i F,
/ ,g,, = 16,000 PSF l Q O / INSITU OCR 4, Fyo 4200 PSF
< 3000 ESTIM ATED MEAN STRESS 2 UNDER THE REACTOR: F, a 9.0 KSF
!OOO I 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 20 30 40 50 MEAN CONSOLIDATION STRESS, Fm , KSF MAXIMUM SHEAR MODULUS vs. MEAN CONSOLIDATION STRESS DK-7
SHE AR STR AIN, INCH / INCH 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10 -2 10- ' 30,000 i i -
~
A Wilson and Dietrich (1960) x Thiers (1965) A Idriss (1966) ~ 10,000 + Zeevoert (1967) o Shannon a Wilson (1967) s E Shannon B Wilson (1967) R v Thiers and Seed (1968a) 3000 c; - 0
~~ .
o Kovacs (1968) g ' ~ ' q g a Hardin and Black (1968) _J
- - :Aisiks and Torshansky (1968)
S 1000 _,'s-E
~
- ETsai and Housner (1970) j 540s g
p *., - E Arango (1971)
' s a a
] ' s b ' J o^ -- ' e EED S AND lDRISS_ 300 --
's ^ s REVISED (1978) o o s i*as g .
d x'w N s N l00 N*i N 2 so p'fb 8 * ^ 's s s o
- M EDI AN z s go '
x 30 t -
, e H
IO 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-3 I 10 aE nana : SHEAR STRAIN, % SEED AND IDRISS, 19/0 A00PTED FROM SW-AJA (1932) IN - SITU SHEAR MODULI FOR SATUR ATED CLAYS DK-8
1000 l
-4 g 800 lxy = 1.0 x 10 O
]
ul
-)
g 600 gxy= l.o x to-4 , 2 (Re s. column) N N 7.y-E
* *m f xy= l x 10~3 400 x
' IN lxy = 6 x 10-3 %x~
O 200
~2.s _
- - j.s_
O I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OVERCONSOLIDATION RATIO, [v max / c
REFERENCE:
DK-9 i FROM K0UTSOFTAS AND FISCHER (1980) NORMALIZED SHEAR MODULUS AS A FUNCTION OF SHEAR STRAIN AND OVERCONSOLIDATION RATIO FOR THE SILTY CLAY 4
e a _ . .x a , 0.8 : ' (O.8 )
' , ' , ' , .[ RANGE OF DYNAMIC TESTS m, , ,s
- - .i g ..
3 w g} 0.6_ 2 (0.55) QO Wg
REFERENCE:
/
SYMBOL M LADD et al (1977) 7 4 3
- 2 (
2 0.4 -
, f 3 g O D RANGE OF / jg qp 2m e g STATIC TESTS O 5 dL A 6 V Q,2 - NO TE: SHADED AREAS REPRESENT DATA FROM KOUTSOFTAS eND FISCHER AT lxy 1 x 10-5 70
\
6 x 10-J (1980)
@ SILTY CLAY PLASTIC CLAY i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OVERCONSOLID ATION RATIO , O CR DK - 10 I
NORMALIZED MODULUS R ATIO vs. O C R ; l
s e o ti s O 3 ) e I T l i 0 I 8 s A - 9 R 3 1 ( 7 K
, a N D 4 R O E I C
H s T I A 5 S I F D N\ 4 D I L O N 5 A S A
' \ 3 S
N O T F O S 2 R C x ] C R E . i : U T o ' 2 V EO x O CF N EM
- N D RO N ER A FF '
E - R o N
', s\
i H n I i C A w~ s N I R
/ T y e H S I
N C o 7 N m r y oa N N' s I y R A nlc r a E oy f lt s l H Y asirS t ad x de
%N L A
X A I 4 N. AI S A F L O C f o od - e ho=, gs nn t s 2 1 sN%v'N lsI' T 9N = R R C I 3 R T S R A N T O IL I Y ao Rc4 C IL E T S o C H C Y S N E C 2 U H F T E M4 D U s T t A R O L Yx R C
- P S F o - M A g # oA n S
' t i EL U 3'o W i s G L
[ o
+,
o [ _- 1 l e 7 N I S U D O M a N 1 s
- M R U
f s A L aA O E o C I 4 H S
~* $ -
T N D A g N i 3 E A
, O S
Z E ll R
- A 3 f 2 M
- R O
+ , N o
- 5
- os 0
0 0 2 0 0 5 1 M"x w. e o o s s .3 N o 2 0 oe n
$' .; s E5 ;a$g*
Y ' 3 _ b ,. cb p (c_ b a ;
~
- PROCEDURES USED TO EVALUATE SHEAR MODELL OF'THE WISCONSINAN DRIFT
- 1. DIRECT MEASUREMENT FROM DYNAMIC TESTS PERFORMED AT VARIOUS CONFINING PRESSURES AND SHEAR' STRAIN LEVELS.
2. FROM PUBLISHED CORRELATIONS: 2.1 ESTIMATE GMAx FROM EMPIRICAL EQUATIONS SUCH AS HARDIN AND DRNEVICH, ADJUST THE MODULUS FOR STRAIN DEGRADATION. 2.2 USE EXISTING DATA FROM TESTS ON SIMILAR S0ILS. CLINTON STATION - GEOPilYSICAL. OBTAIN GMAX AND ADJUST FOR CONFINING STRESS AS WELL AS : FOR STRAIN DEGRADATION. ! l 4 2.3 USE PUBLISHED CORRELATIONS SUCH AS G/Su vs TXY AND OCR. USE IN-SITU Su TO ESTIMATE G. D K - 12 f
TABLE 1, ESTIMATED RANGES OF SHEAR MODULUS A. PROCEDURES BASED ON ESTIMATED GMAX WITN ~ CORRECTION FOR STRAIN DEGRADATION (Ry)- 1 ESTIMATED SHEAR MODULUS SHEAR MODULUS GMAX AT Y = 10-3 AT Y = 10-3 METHOD USED TO (gsp) BASED ON BASED ON ESTIMATE GMAX _ Ry = 0.2 Ry = 0.3 ATcr,=9.0 KSF ATFm = 9.0 KSF AT&m= 9.0 KSF CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TESTS WISCONSINAN DRIFT 5500 1100 - 1650 LASALLE. STATION GEOPHYSICAL TESTS-WISCONSINAN DRIFT 5800 1160 1740 CLINTON HARDIN I" 5800 1160 1740 IN-SITU OCR = 6 6300 1260 1890 ! DRNEVICH , 4 IN-SITU EQUATION 6700 1340 1900 OCR = g l i OK - 13 j l j l e
1 i 1 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) L B. PROCEDURES BASED ON G/Su RATIOS AND Su = 4.5 KSF (UPPER BOUND STRENGTH) 1 5 i 7 5
.G/Su CORRECTION CORRECTED G (KSF)
F OR G/Su o[' AT 7 = 10-3*AT y = 10_3*
' METHOD AT 7 = 10- OCR = 4 I
$ SEED AND IDRISS 0.5 297 M
~
540 (1978) 0.80 432 1944
< K0uTSOFTAS AND 300 1350 FiSCHER (1980) i I
- NOTE: SHEAR STRAIN IN INCH / INCH UNITS.
i I i a
+
CONCLUSION i RANGE 0F G AT 7' = 10 " INCH / INCH, 1100 - 1940 KSF , e I __ . , _ - , _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - . _ _ . . , . . ~ . . , _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . _ _ , _ _ . . _ , . . , _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ , . . _ .
e o TABLE 2 BEST ESTIMATE OF SHEAR MODULUS ATBF m = 9.0 KSF MAXIMUM SHEAR SHEAR MODULUS METHOD USED FOR AT 7 = 10-3 MODULUS GMAX ESTIMATING G (KSF) USING R 7 = 0.25 LASALLE STATION (CYCLIC TRIAXIAL 5500 1378 KSF TESTS) CLINTON STATION GEOPHYSICAL TESTS 5800 1450 KSF , (1974) IN-SITU OCR = 4 5800 1450 KSF HARDIN g [N-S3T6 6300 .1575 KSF IN-SITU DRNEVICH. OCR = g 6700 1675 KSF SEED AND IDRISS (1978) CORRECTED FOR OCR = 4 1458 KSF i Su = 4.5 KSF KOUTSOFTAS AND FISCHER I 1350 KSF (1980) Su = 4.5 KSF l DK - 15 l CONCLUSION BEST ESTIMATE OF SHEAR MODULUS AT 7 = 10-3, INCH / INCH Gy = 1450 4
2
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSION THE S0IL PROPERTIES DEVELOPED IN 1969-1970 AND USED IN ' THE DESIGN OF LASALLE ARE ADEQUATE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
- 1. OUR S0IL EXPERTS HAVE DETERMINED AN 1100-1900 KSF RANGE FOR S0ll SHEAR MODULUS AT LASALLE BASED ON SITE-SPECIFIC DATA DATA FROM SIMILAR SITES PUBLISHED DATA IN LITERATURE
- PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
- 2. SOIL SPRING ANALYSES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED FOR VARIOUS S0Il SHEAR MODULUS VALUES UP T0 2000 KSF, AND IT IS CONCLUDED THAT OUR DESIGN BASIS RESPONSE IS CONSERVATIVE THEREFORE, BASED ON THE AB0VE ANY FURTHER EVALUATION OF S0Il PROPERTIES IS NOT NECESSARY ,
l BRS - 1 H
T MEETING
SUMMARY
D_1S_T,R,IBUTION Docket File G. Lear NRC PDR V. Noonan Local PDR S. Pawlicki . TIC /NSIC/ Tera V. Benaroya NRR Reading Z. Rosztoczy LB#1 Reading W. Haass H. Denton D. Muller E. Case R. Ballard D. Eisenhut W. Regan R. Purple D. Ross B. J. Youngblood P. Check A. Schwencer R. Satterfield - F. Miraglia 0. Parr , J. Miller F. Rosa G. Lainas W. Butler R. Vollmer W. Kreger J. P. Knight R. Houston R. Bosnak T. Murphy F. Schauer L. Rubenstein R. E. Jackson T. Speis Project Manager ABournia . W. Johnston Attorney, OELD J. Stolz " M. Rushbrook S. Hanauer OIE(3) W. Gammill ACRS (16) R. Tedesco F. Schroeder D. Skovholt M. Ernst NRC
Participants:
R. Baer Anthony Bournia C. Berlinger George Lear K. Kniel - John Chen G. Knighton Sai Chan A. Thadani Lyman Heller D. Tondi Franz Schauev J, Krammer , D, Vassallo P. Collins D. Ziemann bec: Applicant & Service List e p}}