ML20077P879

Forwards Circuit Diagram for Gtrr Shim Safety Blades

ML20077P879
Person / Time
Site:	Neely Research Reactor
Issue date:	11/29/1994
From:	Karem R Neely Research Reactor, ATLANTA, GA
To:	Mendonca M NRC
Shared Package
ML20077P886	List: ML20077P879
References
NUDOCS 9501180278
Download: ML20077P879 (100)

Text

.

Georgia Institute of Technology NEELY NUCLEAR RESEARCH CENTER

.j 900 ATLANTIC ORIVE ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30332-0425 (4041 894-3000 gg (p /&O November 29, 1994 Mr. Marvin M. Mendonca Senior Project Manager One White Flint North Washington, D.C.

20555 Dear Mr. Mendonca Shim Enclosed please find the circuit diagram for the GTRR.

Safety Blades which Mr.

Miller requested.

Should you have additional questions, please let me know.

All good wishes.

Sincerely, k&

R.A. Karam, Ph.D., Director Neely Nuclear Research Center RAK/ccg

1. /O 9501180278 941129 r'

PDR ADDCK 05000160 P

.PDR.

O qo Fax 404453-9325 (Vanty 404-894 3600) t An Equal EdUC31Km and Employment Opponundy institution Tsw Sm07 GTRIOCAATL AUnit of the Unrversny System of Georgia

/,, s.....,,'

Georgia Institute of Technology NEELY NUCLEAR RESEARCH CENTER j

d

-i 900 ATLANTIC ORIVE a, T.-d.

c-,.

ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30332-0425

', ' "" '8

[404) 894-3600 USA fc' ? / &O November 29, 1994 Mr. Marvin M. Mendonca Senior Project Manager One White Flint North Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Mendonca:

Enclosed please find the circuit diagram for the GTRR Shim Safety Elades which Mr.

Miller requested.

Should you have additional questions, please let me know.

All good wishes.

Sincerely, D

R.A.

Karam, Ph.D.,

Director Neely Nuclear Research Center RAK/ccg

/7 MS/O 9501180278 941129 PDR ADOCK 05000160 P

PDR

,{,

p' /

V" i

D Fax 404 853 9325 (Venty 404 894 3FA)0)

Teies 542507 GTRIOCAATL An Ect.2al Educ;' ion and Employmert Opportunity Institution A Unit of the Unwersity System of Georg:a L

1 tI' t,

1 k '.

(.7 ( y h,

sk '='

j

+

b 7m

• c g

. ['

5 y /p L%,

s

},. -

9.

g/

l

'4 l- ~ T 2

{9% c

(\\

]

4.j r

gNge. (-[n

.c 5

[ (! ; s.g [ A lyfL

~ n,i k.

f

,tA,

,s m

m

.gi

g. n, g

(

N.,

h

'4 i

.! h,\\)

D@{

.3 l

(;, 6.

.i

....v j ~G s w,J'

, y-u W

s.a h

99

't i

^

.} :

/ '3 s

.w.,

~g

.i s4 1/

1:

':g

'... i. n.. X.,=$

f C.T '

p'

\\;

4 8 '

n

'/

...,s.

s?"

'j 4'

i

'h

,I g

^

~

j N

k.:

t pe. ;

7,.

.~s 4-

[-

4

'to

}.*.

,g x

y 3

.. e n' _

l 4

s s

7.

l

.a 4,.

. L.

s \\,

w j

f

'#$<.~

M

\\

t;

.A t

q s

Qi>

g.

A

- L y+

z

, A },+

Georgia Tech Reactor Construction January 20, 1961 No. 7

_.___.___.-__._.-.__.__---- - -_ _ _ _. - - - _ _ -. _ _ - _.- - -.. _ _ - ~ _ _ - - - - _. - _. _ _ _ -.. - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - -

i

)

, f '-

\\.

y,. '

f kfgh 9%&L

\\

IB s-g+g:Wn '

f-q.

7 sn l%g pl4jI?,.

l ' g ;"M

. \\,

l,"

\\

y..

a L,

b

'5

~T Y

MdN:[n., l pu Ot7 w

.[kN>

[ W h# W, $d

._ T

• r, j

/

T 9;g.

gh;.qi'"

s f

f D"M M MnN d

Q p, w

>x....

3 m+,

m a

yh.m ; w_%. 1}.,,.+

d d

f, $

f jjp,4 1

• .y

1. 5 :

h~

I J

y

' ~.

i I

. kf' r

~

O g

g 1

1 j

Z j

+.

9-j

.l i

,u

'h 4T

,T~.

4 W,s 8 -

q)

Q_'

["

1 s

~.

h, h.

-f }s f w.

d a

7.w.

s, t

3 t a:

e a

fj.py ' -

.,' r.

i s,/.

'l ; j..

']

(

i pro h

a o

DF' j

w,.

,i 1

j w

Ny e

4

]

h?j b, -

$. sh's.

)

t'Q.g f.Q-..

a v:

+; L L'~

F

['

. j.,

1 ms.,

l Y?",

l

'h.,,- [:j

~,

r p.f.

5 lg y 4

-'"l,$ j$;h y l7l y g

~J p

b e

=

s gj;, y

)

M,.

l.

7

. g: 4. w;,lfe

.+

p p

t.

? Ep.v" M

E;

[f: 3' F

j t

.s Gec.. gia Tech Reactor Construction January 20, 1961 No. 8

__._.___ _ _ _. _ _ _.... ~ _. _ _ - _ -. _ _,

,,+-~..n-s.-

I f

)

k

/

11.

-i l

^

Y

' =f,

%lI -g(O.Q.y.,g b

l q

]

< g f.p s

. gh v

y$ i,7G.' -

. 0 e;

.s T'

t e.

,,. 4, f~%

4

~

/

j g

(3 j

~

l h;;Mk -

?

45..

1 I

j[

s:

~}'j lll l ( [{,n cj-r, n ww.f e

1s e

.g bf.

'b #

.h, b%

pr. '

f.

2 i

~

j

.,!.l

,l r

V i' n: J/

'J.y.

lj g

[

y[,

k sr."V

'?

4 t

e c.,..

7..

{

vi i

V i

' e,'

'l

[

(

-{

' n c:

A 1(4

~

w a.

i e f-l

.4

.[

[

~

Yg j

1, 5<

~,$1.(e.

i 5

j g

9

^ '

[

~ ?,s 1

G,

, (;A ys g,.

y7 I

i l

J.

)

I y

.s.; y s,

I m

l

~ ',.

l i

Georgia Tech Reactor Construction February 17, 1961 No. 9 l

.f '

• k l >

i l

T

(

y3 x g e.

4 j

~

(

V

'.. % s 1 s

l Af.

Ql y

]\\

[-.

I v

d N (g-(

. - [

g--

fh .,

7, ~

't i

..,5 4h

.'ji -

'.. ;{

d, b [I.

'6. k A

9

.Nj

- r -

A ay-.

'. ; %,. A,.: ' '

~~

' y%.

b d

~

4 /,.

f'-

5-4 9: '.;.,..,.,~-

>'q*

j

.l,/, ! -

p. en '

\\,*

m.

J

..17 llll.

,~

b

..x.

^^

<

Y ', ; *.:.

'Qp Kf bj /,, 8 k

? '$.h' %

'.~... :4 : }^

h;t L

~j "l

l

'A b.

...-[

i-x

• \\ X.

• 4 l

h y ', '

4*C"$*

04 lw '.,;a. '

7, g.

as o

g

, = -

i M

4.s.g 6q j

y

, >p

,- i.,

3, 3

1 4

/,,,,

"' 4.

b;

^ ^

'~

,a p'

,y

.)

\\ 'j.

n.

\\

g

\\

i 4 -

i s

m i

-,'1

' /p.

~

9 f

1

{

4.L e g.

~

W i

I Georgia Tech Reactor Construction Februa ry 17, 1961 No. 10

i W.

O f

t

(

is

,4,, k,

{

g*

3 i

g; s

,s

\\

y m a,%

. \\-

l

.u a

4 y

f

.d 3,.

m

_i.

Q c

t

r.,e 3.

4 l

~?

.x.

'{,.. %

,4

..p, l

e i

' A f l

L it n

'=

(.._

'~d

. I'._, h

/..,..,,\\

. y p

...s J.

. $ ?;I

'.. j,

Q-s 4. g'.:g. gvz ;.,

.i u

c

.yr ya y...

..f, y..r,

-.: y ply p,

gis%p,y:a-}..

g.u. q 3..,, g

s.

q

,4 i

., d iTW Y",,i,

' t. o

~

b

, j., -

1 uo' w A, I

p:.

~.r e.

-f

v. '

'. Y

( ' l!

Mi ?. '

=4

[a.w a

a c

~~ n\\j Q') k ~, j,gh.$ l 4

7 9

j g ky. ; -

. u;g

~

.g 9,.4 t+8 a

f

' 3 t..

!.~

a Ey",,,

~c,g.4g;6 1

v.-

• fu i

y, g

y.,.,

w.

a l

. s i n ];!b :

Wkf,3_

4.

_.t

.ag c

' v.

i

'y y ?

L-W

%. ^.

f W

s

, m..

~aw t y.b5. w : q' '

f,..

- n'

}.

.t s.

~g.-.

r..

sp.

s;

.g 4 x &x..

S 4

i u-q: y

_{. !

l.

. F-- t :ZG,y

.j f

,...p o n.

a s

e

~

y c -p

.i t.,

l l

<'Ep?

t-

,4

.i x

.c h

kl I

\\

k vg c..

e 9

9 h j.

k' ww s L welT i

I l

T

's i

Georgia Tech Reactor Construction March 8,1961 No. 12

l 4~

j l

d

. '. (l 'a, b(;, i.

-$3 l

[9 q.U

$;f 7m 3

. m.

2,..:,:

s

/

g s.

• ~.

r j$.:

,j-3 I

J

,.s.,",

.- C -

4er 3

y.

.g e

' - d ',.

e i %+ 93 1

. s..

g, l

,9.,

W A.j 4

l gg l;

..\\

l 1,-e(,ye..

p-t

.~

'h R QJ.- l K.

1

m.,w w.

• p$ $r;$fwf n '

'y

~

r,p Ty,., $g [i t'* /,

, :0 j.

h

]<\\ y :y:..

O it;

\\

i

.. -g

,f v.

+ gy _ ; -: :,. y q

s n

\\h2,,

3 en - ' 5

"( j t

r.

'q.

, w.. g.

.g.

~

p,

u..

4-l, i Jg,,

tl..

l

., s.,

• t-g.

.d l

Q, w t <N ~g.g 1

~.

i.

.,,,/

,t.,.:.

V. ~. g2 h,,, p "

\\

.g-

• { :,",,

~.: ff,a 4. E Q

u' i,

• u

<r.,,

4 n.

y

- p,. !.. ',. '

i. o.

. c.9, 4

i

.. s I.

[ *

.. {

1

.- : f

{##L,, l;a.**

>e,,..

1 r

1

.X

' a

,n

e.,

.s N' Sy

'f*(k'f -

~

.. #. 4, j

% $ "$4pr

'.L

h. *., q/%, ',.y

. b.1 t

n-

}

i'

.e,.

4.*

• o/<.. / */,,*,Y o

.' 'y D, s ~

• t t

{,jk.yY,p',Yf,.,.,h,*'y si

~

Jfg;p M

O't 'Y ',,/ - l,

) ~ ss s ', 1 o

(7'

??.

4,sl1. y f,, /

.i l

h

,3 a :.

7,

• l ',-,

i,.,

i. >

sh&.

d',,N,

.' )['

r,.

~? (\\

Georgia Tech Reactor Construction May 3, 1961 No.17 I

t

________-,....-_m

__,,._,,..,.,_.,,~_,._.,,.,m,-.

.-.mm..

._%%-5..~.s

..m-aiu..._.,mm

~.v.....

.m,m.

I n,

[q# -

p

i 4

i 9

t 1P,

y

\\

N...'

~

l.,. [s.

' [J.'.k

,* a.. A ;-

t

\\.5,,. _

4 f

^

$. L.

+. ;,

s.

,+g.

.,, @7'

\\

W I

Q f.'

1

,y-1)

_' ;~

K$

.1 -

.h

-hl

)*.

.R' e

g>

T's $$

3*

i l

is, m

t f.i s ' :

1

.t l

.i 1,'

,.h

,,S-y r

<4

. p.y..w ;

.y

'. :',hi 'E 0

'. A

.,A r

j f '$g.-'/

I.

'g 1/

Vf

• /

f.- i y

.T..-

/

g Y

e A,-

r i

Georgia Tech Reactor Construction May 23, 1961 No. 31 i

u..

.....~

pp-,, _,-

a_,m

_---,----.w

---

,-_,,-,w

-,,---,------__g--_

c: :

.m v./a geg 7

5 c.-

1 fl l

)J

/

. "y,$ w.Uj

( ;. g,'

I fg r te Q

w l

7 ',jk '

t

.4 j

j l

k.l t

4.

'h ft.

l 4...

w i

i ggg I,

' 4,g....y N -

.g

%,9

)

4' f.

p

,.,,. l

, g-. k-h-

N 9

. f k'.i,,

~

l

[

l

+

m'

.N o A

gj.7 rg y.

n, Js 7

4.g gu 4

• 34p; g(3 sf f

_f3h xvp e

t i

m T.

if 9.f 1

a l

t

=

p i

,6

~

J l

- p 1

\\

l 7

n.

l

} s.

![

Georgia Tech Reactor Construction Aug 4,

1961 No. 34 i

i-

wy,.. e e.g.gg(m

~~ f g g g g d e,c l

.a a.a.t; 3;; '.~,

n.mp*' eu?;ys g

g;g.

vt'

. ~..

. m. 5i

,. qqdygs g.a,.

w:.7

.,~gc

..s.r,,.,,,..,....w. w.,, g.4 ay4 y,.

e ::

ih,I

• • 0'

,e 4

2...-

3 a s.

y-g*.

y. jf ' ;\\ ;; (*j.. ~g

' a f e h ;h(ey...,.. m.y.

s l

<[,,,,

.,,, h. f,ngt Q;',; 4l,',t.,jl. d..{. M ' f+,.."%!., icd.l(t#s p1' 14.#.L'J' s

S

?'.W.

' t.

f..

^".,4. M... :.

I. f. N ' 4 c... e.

p.

[*,

4 "NRff;(y,Ikf,{ ~je-

" i

.,.., q.:, Lg e,

..e L

• .,* ' f.

,e' le..

~. ta.

.,., (. W.'. ~; ',. '

~.l 3 M h

.u--?

m

.q w,;.p,e.g q.-

.y.g p

,,a :p

~~?(*'l) &..l...f.' & $l & $.'s.ali 4 6& N e "

~

e-

-..,t e- *:~-

7( se-

, 'h',

I 5

.m.h,, w. M e/.5'9,$p}.4W4.y i 42 u,.

.h. -

w

+.wJ:,6,4. n;&.,J.:i,1-

' 1:#,. n

.g;.. n -;;;mu p

y ~was w n t. A.,;:,,..,.,.... ~.. J..L. m. :e q.

l L

m.. :..x.

o

^ * '

4

, : de;.,fM,'d I

.[Isi;,

'k

+

f

.:,.?

7 p::.: : :.c. G

~

.. U

- }-

', ;.,'., ',, : : r..<.,

s

.' '.m. *::

+

.,,w., ys.

i N*

- (

'?

^

',' %,. >.,;,.,.s,

., w. n.,a,.1 _.$--

4.r

'

• O@qM. f.M..khl $. *.h:y[.,f. 3b...k.1

.a M

+.

5 me a.

.n -

m i

e w

I

.v t. m., 3,.9; n.. b,.[.

. -.::5,.,

f z

/..

'?

g 3m***. qa:n., a-qw

. x.

%(..,iw*$4 V'

'.:'h*N **U,l s~ a Te W e1.

. ;,.;. :f;;,L~5;?.13 y' 'd. l'0?.

t

+-k-

.f.

M':@.#

g'. -....,#,,, f -

3.. ;4';.',..

,,f.

. #i dA U..

i t;

I,

[,

- 1.,

m y,

SECTION:F.l.-

A T'/ *

., :. w?r'Oh f@)

RV SPECIAL COND1TIONS'!A4 4,'.,,g

,N*c6 F.01.

ARCHITECT:

., :< cJr,1M%t :nts W,MW + ~ ^

The term " Architect" defined in., Article;1 jof <A.I.k. 9 GENERAL CONDITIONS and used through6ut the A.'I.A.

~

GENERAL CONDITIONS and the SUPPLEMENTARY GENERAL CON-DITIONS shall mean, for the purposes of these Specifi-cations, Robert and Company Associates," Architects and Engineers, 96 Poplar Street, N.W., Atlanta,; Georgia, and the General Nucler. Engineering Corporationi;f Box 245, Dunedin, Florida, jointly'^sdrying the,ps,t,,0ffice Regents of the University System of Georgiafin'.the. capacities of Architects and Engineers. vNherever!.the terms' ? Architect Engineer" " Engineer" and/or " Nuclear. Engineer"g.cappear in/

the Specifications, such terms !shall!be taken $"o 'mean L the same as the term "Architecf,"edefined in the ' GENERAL CONDITIONS.

.tn,}@#

+' {pAj;CfWgM&#p.,,

~

E

!Y-F.02.

DESCRIPTION OF THE WCRKr.

dec e

The work to be performed un' der,thes Specifications a and in accordance with the Draitings' consists ~of' he' ' '

following:

'tetTMtbWs#fh*DM bl G's,#

y%,w

%, s a.

Construction.of_the Reac,to Building ~and Laboratory _,.

. iid~ site,n, gor Wy,

,g.

j as s a shown on the DrawingsTprepaife

" ' ~ jjdu s'iC { p'hf'n a P y

~

Rober nd"Coinpa,n Associates, identified byl. Rob'e

~

sociates Job No. 5816,Ta e61 tier rein h

1. ! t vis ~

6

$hMb(

b.

Construction of Nuclear,Re~

or Facility and appurtenanc5s(.;thereto'a,:and,Nedic'al%

ijshowh?

General Nuclear Engineering Corporatiori~ Draw,,ba.~ N.E.

ings '

identified by General Nuclear i

poration Job.No. %5,;and,,'as Ta[ Engine'eiin,g" Cop $,NW!;

~

I

~

pedified herein

>

• WeWl.R@E*W#tMWW M W F.03.

_ LIMITS OF RESPONSIBTLTTY:"h W 5.Q N5%

"*""d *Nt 9 I r s c:.Gnusi hi The Contractor shall be responsible.jfo2Gthe,. fabrication, -

l erection, cleaning, testing and"insii ponents assemblies and buildifgN&pection~pf a' llc'6m-J CwisopciiKIstie the Georgia Tech Reactor Project N.The~1oiding'of heav% *3 N

• O 0

~

y water (D2 ), fuel (special nuclear' material) and initial plant start-up shall be conducted.,by.the'.0wner4However, the Contractor shall bear full responsibility'for the a

restoration, at no expense to.Lthe Owner,iof ihhavy 6 "hEkhh

. Jeg,ww@dj,fj' i'm; ;

5816 p. 1 '. y.

3:. :erq e w,

p.y 4. 4..M Wy,,,p n..

. ~ k q Q l.. (l;',:n ', & h f 5 1' % ^' c Aac7.h,eyp o

=, _..

s:( 7 p. Tn

s water contaminated, or lost, as a result of leaks or

-k improper cleaning and drying of the reactor vessel and primary system.

Nothing in this condition sha11Lbe con-strued as relieving the Contractor of any of the re-

,i quirements of these specifications nor of full respon-j sibility for the operability, performance and adherence i{

to the specifications of all systems and all individual items of equipment and/or materials supplied under.thesef specifications.

j,'

1l F.04 LIST OF DRAWINGS:

iff.

The drawings for this work are:

\\.

l Drawings prepared by Robert and Company ' u:.o d.c idN.

1.

Associates, Architects and Engineers.

i%

+

'ifD DRAWING NO.

TITLE

.-lp ;

N>k MUNICIPAL 5816-Al PLM PLAN AND DETAILS f'b Ak ARCHITECTURAL 5816-A2 GROUND FLOOR PLAN AND BASEMENT LEVEL

?.'idbj 5816-A FIRST FLOOR PLAN 5816-A SECOND FLOOR PLAN f3 5816-A5 UPPER PLAN CONTAINMENT BUILDING & HM Nifi LABORATORY ROOF PLANS AND DETAILS

'?

5816-A6 EXTERIORELEVATIONSANDBUILDINGSECTIONS1.)

5816-A EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND BUILDING SECTIONS h

?

"Il 5816-A EXTERIOR WALL SECTIONS 5816-A9 EXTERIOR WALL SECTIONS AND DETAILS 5816-A10 EXTERIOR WALL SECTIONS AND DETAILS

.I 5816-All STAIR AND ELEVATOR DETAILS 5816-A12 TOIIET ROOM - AND KITCHENETTE PLANS 9

4 AND DETAILS 5816-Al ENTRANCE LOBBY AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS i

5816-Al REFLECTED CEILING PLAN AND DETAILS i

5816-A15 FIXED LABORATORY EQUIPMENT

. i e~

5816-A16 HOT CELL DETAILS -

5816-A17 DOOR SCHEDULE AND DETAILS' I + W' NfY

~

5816-A18 STANDARD DETAILS 5816-A19 STANDARD DETAILS i

5816-A20 STANDARD DETAILS 5816-A21 CUT-OFF DRAWING FLOOR PLANS, ELEVATIONS, & DETAILS 5816 F-2 i

t i.g i,

e :.c pyg X.

[.

.n i TITLE M,gf g %g;g)TANlt.1Nh * :

fd DRAWING NO+-

43gpgg;q,

,n

.'gLL;jy},yy Q b,f,

t. ;. :

STRUCTURAL n i...,..

GROUND FLOOR AND FOUNDATION PLAN ~ M't 5816-S1 5816-S2 FIRST FLOOR FRAMING PLAN

n t 5816-S3 SECOND FLOOR AND ROOP FRAMING PLAN 5816-S4 COLUMN SCHEDULES AND MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS

. S (. F I ', */

5816-S5 SECTIONS AND DETAILS.@@f' '

5816-S6 CONTAINMENT SHELL. SECTIONS. 9 -

1-5816-S7 CONTAINMENT SHELL DETAILS ni ' :.m 5816-S8 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. PADS AND DETAILS

L,4

1. fNT.N..

Cur-OFF DRAWING 4,@}f%$f[C n.H. ~ ?

v 6-5816-S9 FOUNDATION PLAN AND FLOOR FRAMING PLANS

' TCW Cur-OFF DRAWING TC*?^^h'?! %,if MiW t 5816-S10 SCHEDULES AND DETAI.LS ',?

D>n ' 0 "'

9 gr 3cc.m

- W O U M O.2 4 M S d @ d 3 & i %

44IW T MECHANICAL

-u/WnWM$d14,%i.

5816-AC1 AIR CONDITIONING 'DUCTWORK PLAN. GROUND

^ ".'b T/$ % i4Q4 M Mh4khER A11.0 W

' FLOOR AIR CONDITIONING DUCTWORK PLAN FIRST ;g-e 5816-AC2 FLOOR

' # WD # W a"Yi ' -

5816-AC3 AIR CONDITIONING'DUCTWORK TPLAN SECOND

,,o

' M L 6, l..? '.eM dN4)* M h $ptNt9 W in PLOOR

'i 5816-AC4 AIR CONDITIONING" PIPING" PLAN GROUND..,gR.,

AIR CONDITIONING PIPING PLAN FIRST.N:hjh FLOOR

AhyQ%$&{Wi&hWW 4

9-5816-AC5

%ggWaj[J@gyppMOy?'. J" FLOOR' 5816-AC6 AIR CONDITIONING PIPING PLAN SECOND %

FLOOR UM4fMWST@h1%%%M%

^

5816-AC7 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM M PLANS &

VENT DETAILS

'. LAB.j HOODS 'jffyP/J#@ :

SECTIONS 4h*%% @k@}i

. HOT CELLS 5816-AC8

~ CONTROL' DIAGRAMS AND 5816-AC9 AIR CONDITIONING (F@50/fl&gMEGiU PANEL

, W.f 5816-AC10 AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE,@'~ ^

5816-AC11 VENT DETAILS M4MVW4@)@T$tiFM*f@gec Qye fHOOD REACTOR VENT

',?

JR CAVE, DECONTAM

'

• WhJ#@,4fWitWAkWi'efy;y'ia -

b SYS.

5816-AC12

' MECHANICAL EQUIPMENI2R00K,j5ECTIONS

"* " ' '* # -[N 2 "

~

i d

5816-AC13 cur-OFF DRAWING PA'IRYONDITIONING i

PARTIAL PLANS

, 7N

~

5816-M1 STEAM DISTRIBUTION MAIN R PLAN,' ";

PROFILE, & DETAILS ' uWN~#>4 + ~ '

5816-M2 WASTE.- PROCESS PLOW DIAGRAM '.##

xcaw>m m gyp.u,',

~

a g% %.ll;;k M G k M

+w h a g:.n.na 3.' ',7.,

o

~ " ' ' "

5816 F-3 ' '

; r..c.

\\

U

DRAWING NO._

TITLE

_ MECHANICAL, cont'd.

5816-M3 TANK ROOM AND PUMP ROOM - PLANS &

SECTIONS 5816-M4 TANK DETAILS AND CONTM'T BLDG. -

VENT DETAILS 5816-M5 HOT LAB. EQUIPMENT ROOM 5816-M6 WASTE DISPOSAL CONTROL PANELS AND DIAGRAMS 5816-M7 REACTOR COOLING TOWER PIPING PLAN &

DETAILS 5816-M8 REACTOR VENT, SYSTEM - MISC. DETAILS 5816-P1 LABORATORY PIPING & PLUMBING -

PARTIAL PLAN GROUND FLOOR 5816-P2 LABORATORY PIPING & PLUMBING -

PARTIAL PLAN GROUND FLOOR 5816-P3 LABORATORY PIPING & PLUMBING PARTIAL PLAN FIRST PLOOR 5816-P4 LABORATORY PIPING & PLUMBING PARTIAL PLAN FIRST FLOOR 5816-P5 LABORATORY PIPING & PLUMBING -

PARTIAL PLANS - GR. FL., 1st SL.,

& SECOND PL. PLANS 5816-P6 LABORATORY PIPING & PLUMBING - MISC.

SECTIONS & DETAILS 5816-P7 CUT-OFF DRAWING LABORATORY PIPING AND PLUMBING PARTIAL PLAN GROUND FLOOR 5816-P8 CUT-OFF DRAWING LABORATORY PIPING AND PLUMBING PARTIAL PLAN FIRST FLOOR 5816-P9 Cur-OFF DRAWING LABORATORY PIPING AND PLUMBING PARTIAL PLANS GROUND FLOOR, FIRST FLOOR, AND SECOND PLOOR 5816-P10 CUT-OFF DRAWING LABORATORY PIPING AND PLUMBING MISC.

SECTIONS AND DETAILS ELECTRICAL 5816-El SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM 5816-E2 PLOT PLAN 5816-E3 POWER PLAN GROUND FLOOR 5816-E4 POWER PLAN FIRST FLOOR 5816-E5 POWER PLAN SECOND FLOOR 5816-E6 LIGHTING PLAN GROUND FLOOR 5816 F-4

DRAWING NO._

TITLE

.e ELECTRICAL cont'd.

5816-E'l LIGHTING PLAN FIRST PLOOR 5816-E8 LIGHTING PLAN SECOND FLOOR 5816-E9 INTERCOMMUNICATION, PUBLIC ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE SYSTEMS - GROUND FLOOR 5816-E10 INTERCOMMUNICATION, PUBLIC ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE SYSTEMS - FIRST FLOOR 5816-E11 INTERCOMMUNICATION, PUBLIC ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE SYSTEMS - SECOND FLOOR 5816-E12 PART POWER PLAN GROUND FLOOR 5816-E13 ELEMENTARY CONTROL DIAGRAMS 5816-E14 CUT-OFF DRAWING PARTIAL POWER PLANS PARTIAL LIGHTING PLANS 5816-E15 CUT-OFF DRAWINGS PARTIAL PLAN INTERCOMMUNICATIONS, PUBLIC ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE SYSTEMS 2.

Drawings prepared by General Nuclear Engineering Corporation.

DRAWING NO.

TITLE:

s STRUCTURAL 045-35-001 Sheet 1 of 2 CORE TANK SUPPORT STRUCTURE Sheet 2 of 2 CORE TANK SUPPORT STRUCTURE - DETAILS AND SECTIONS UTILITIES 045-40-001 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION 045-40-003 Sheet 1 of 2 PROCESS EQUIPMENT LEGEND AND SCHEDULE Sheet 2 of 2 PROCESS EQUIPMENT LEGEND AND SCHEDULE 045-40-005 Sheet 1 of 4 MAIN FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLAN Sheet 2 of 4 BASEMENT ELECTRICAL PLAN Sheet 3 of 4 BASEMENT ELECTRICAL PLAN DETAILS Sheet 4 of 4 MAIN FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLAN iY DETAILS W

1 l 5816 P-5 i

)

)

t l

l

~

DRAWING No.

TITLE UTILITIES cont'd.

045-41-001 Sheet 1 of 2 REACTOR VENTILATION SYSTEM Sheet 2 of 2 REACTOR VENTILATION SYS TEM FILTER COMPARTMENT

_ PROCESS PIPING 045-50-001 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 045-50-002 PLAN OF PROCESS EQUIPMEl 045-50-003 ROOM D20 STORAGE TANK & AC-045-50-004 CESSORIES SHIELD COOLANT PIPING 045-50-005 DIAGRAM THERMAL SHIELD COOLING 045-50-006 TUBE ARRANGEMENT PHEUMATIC SAMPLE HANDLIN 045-50-007 SYSTEM D20 LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM 045-51-001 Sheet 1 of 2 D 0 PIPING DIAGRAM & LAY 2

OUT Sheet 2 of 2 D20 PIPING DIAGRAM & LAY 045-53-002 OUT RECOMBINER LOOP & HELIUM 045-53-004 MAKEUP SYSTEM BISMUTH SHIELD COOLING 045-53-005 Sheet 1 of 2 SYSTEM PROCESS INSTRUMENTATION Sheet 2 of 2 LEGEND AND SCHEDULE PROCESS INSTRUMENTATION LEGEND AND SCHEDULE INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL 045-60-001 INSTRUMENTATION AND 045-62-001 DIAGRAM 045-62-002 CONTROL ROOM Sheet 1 of 4 INSTRUMENTATION AND CON-Sheet 2 of 4 TROL SCHEMATICS INSTRUMENTATION AND CON-Sheet 3 of 4 TROL SCHEMATICS INSTRUMENTATION AND CON-Sheet 4 of 4 TROL SCHEMATICS INSTRUMENTATION AND CON-TROL SCHEMATICS 5816 P-6

+M*W'8 e mp=8

DRAWING NO.

TITLE MECHANICAL 045-70-O'01 PERSPECTIVE OF FUEL ASSEMBLY AND FUEL PLUG 045-70-002 PERSPECTIVE OF REACTOR 045-70-004 GUARD RAIL ASSEMBLY 045-70-005 FAST FLUX TACILITY-THIMBLES & PLUGS 045-70-006 GRAPHITE RETAINING SLEEVE 045-71-001 Sheet 1 of 6 HORIZONTAL SECTION "A-A" THRU REACTOR Sheet 2 of 6 VERTICAL SECTION "B-B" THRU REACTOR Sheet 3 of 6 HORIZONTAL SECTION "C-C" THRU REACTOR Sheet 4 of 6 VERTICAL SECTION "D-D" THRU REACTOR Sheet 5 of 6 HORIZONTAL SECTION "E-E" THRU REACTOR Sheet 6 of 6 IRRADIATION FACILITIES 045-71-002 Sheet 1 of 2 HORIZONTAL SECTIONS THRU REACTOR Sheet 2 of 2 VERTICAL SECTIONS THRU REACTOR BASE 045-72-002 Sheet 1 of 3 CORE TANK Sheet 2 of 3 CORE TANK ACCESSORIES l d]s Sheet 3 of 3 CORE TANK ACCESSORIES Q

045-72-003 SHIM SAFETY ROD i

N 045-72-004 REGULATING ROD 1'

045-72-005 Sheet 1 of 2 GRAPHITE REFLECTOR T

Sheet 2 of 2 GRAPHITE REFLECTOR gj 045-72-006 Sheet 1 of 5 LOWER TOP SHIELD J._

Sheet 2 of 5 LOWER TOP SHIELD - POR.

4 PLUG - EXPERIMENTAL AND k

4 FAST FLUX Sheet 3 of 5 LOWER TOP SHIELD PORT PLUG - FUEL n

Sheet 4 of 5 LOWER TOP SHIELD PORT PLUG - CONTROL BLADE 1

Sheet 5 of 5 FUEL SPRAY MANIPOLD 2

PIPING DETAIL 045-72-007 Sheet 1 of 4 UPPER TO? SHIELD Sheet 2 of 4 UPPER T N SHIELD LEAD 4

COVER PIATE a

Sheet 3 of 4 UPPER TOP SHIELD Sheet 4 of 4 UPPER TOP SHIELD LEAD COVER 045-72-008 GRAPHITE TANK I

5816 F-7

DRAWING NO, TITLE

_ MECHANICAL cont 8d.

045-72-009 Sheet 1 of 5 NUCLEAR INSTRUMENT THIMBLES - ARRANGEMENT Sheet 2 of 5 NUCLEAR INSTRUMENT THIMBLES - ARRANGEMENT Sheet 3 of 5 INSTRUMENT HOLE SHIELD PLUG Sheet 4 of 5 INSTRUMENT HOLE PLUG LINERS Sheet 5 of 5 INSTRUMENT HOLE DETAILS 045-72-010 Sheet 1 of 4 CORE TANK N0ZZLES -

SHIELDING AND SEAL DETAILS 045-72-010 Sheet 2 of 4 CORE TANK N0ZZLES -

SHIELDING AND SEAL D2 TAILS Sheet 3 of 4 CORE TANK N0ZZLES -

SHIELDING AND SEAL DETAILS Sheet 4 of 4 CORE TANK N0ZZLE 045-72-011 EXTENSIONS FUEL ASSEMBLY OPERATING DUMMY 045-73-001 Sheet 1 of 3 CONI'ROL ROD DRIVE AS-SEMBLY Sheet 2 of 3 CONTROL ROD DRIVE ACCESSORIES Sheet 3 of 3 CONTROL ROD DRIVE ACCESSORIES 045-73-002 Sheet 1 of 2 REGULATDiG ROD DRDTE ASSEMBLY Sheet 2 of 2 REGULATING ROD DRIVE 045-74-002 Sheet 1 of 8 ASSEMBLY EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES HORIZONTAL BEAM HOLES ARRANGEMENT Sheet 2 of 8 EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES HORIZONTAL BEAM HOLE DETAILS Sheet 3 of 8 EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES HORIZONTAL BEAM HOLE DETAILS Sheet 4 of 8 EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES HORIZONTAL BEAM HOLE DETAILS 5816 P-8

4 DRAWING NO.

TITLE 4

MECHANICAL cont'd.

l Sheet 5 of 8 EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES i

HORIZONTAL BEAM HOLES DRIVE ARRANGEMENT 3

045-74-002 Sheet 6 of 8 EXPERIMENTAL HOLES, 4

LINERS, AND PLUGS 4

Sheet 7 of 8 TANGENTIAL EXPERIMENTAL 1

FACILITIES l

Sheet 8 of 8 DETAILS OF TANGENTIAL EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES 045-74-003 Sheet 1 of 5 PLAN VIEW AND SECTIONS 0F ISOTOPE FACILITIES Sheet 2 of 5 SECTIONS THRU IS M OPE j

FACILITIES Sheet 3 of 5 DETAILS OF ISOTOPE FACILITY j

Sheet 4 of 5 DETAILS OF ISOTOPE i

FACILITY Sheet 5 of 5 DETAILS OF ISMOPE i

FACILITY

)

045-74-004 Sheet 1 of 4 ARRANGEMENT OF MEDICAL FACILITY FACE i-Sheet 2 of 4 MEDICAL FACILITY FACE i

DETAILS j

Sheet 3 of 4 MEDICAL FACILITY FACE DETAILS l

Sheet 4 of 4 MEDICAL FACILITY FACE i

DETAILS j

045-'74-006 Sheet 1 of 8 THERMAL COLUMN ARRANGE-i MENT AND SECTIONS j

Sheet 2 of 8 THERMAL COLUMN ARRANGE-

]

MENT AND SECTIONS l

045-74-006 Sheet 3 of 8 THERMAL COLUMN DOOR DETAILS j

Sheet 4 of 8 THERMAL COLUMN DOOR DETAILS l

Sheet 5 of 8 THERMAL COLUMN HOUSING j

Sheet 6 of 8 THERMAL COLUMN DETAILS Sheet 7 of 8 THERMAL COLUNN DETAILS i

1 l

Sheet 8 of 8 THERMAL COLUMN DETAILS l

i i

i i

5816 F-9 k

i i

l 5

k i

i

DRAUING NO.

TITLE

~

MECHANICAL cont'd.

045-74-008 GRAPHITE PLUGS 045-74-009 Sheet 1 of 3 PNEUMATIC TUBE Sheet 2 of 3 PNEUMATIC TUBE Sheet 3 of 3 PLUGS FOR PNEUMATIC TUBE 045-74-010 Sheet 1 of 4 MEDICAL FACILITY ROOM Sheet 2 of 4 MEDICAL FACILITY ROOM Sheet 3 of 4 MEDICAL FACILITY ROOM Sheet 4 of 4 MEDICAL FACILITY ROOM 045-74-011 Sheet 1 of 6 MEDICAL FACILITY SHUTTER PLUG Sheet 2 of 6 MEDICAL FACILITY SHUTTER PLUG VIEWS AND SECTIONS Sheet 3 of 6 MEDICAL FACILITY Shura m PLUG DETAILS Sheet 4 of 6 MEDICAL FACILITY SHUTTER PLUG DETAILS Sheet 5 of 6 MEDICAL FACILITY SHUTTER PLUG DETAILS Sheet 6 of 6 MEDICAL FACILITY SHurra PLUG DETAILS 045-75-001 FUEL STORAGE WELL F.05 SUBMITTAL OF SHOP D3AWINGS:

Article 5 of the A.I.A. G3NERAL CONDITIONS is amended by an addition of the following:

The minimum number of prints of shop drawings submitted by the Contractor shall be six, of shich two will be returned approved.

If the Con-tractor should require more than two returned copies of shop drawings in any trade, he shall increase the six submitted by the additional number required.

Shop drawings pertaining to work shown on Robert and Company Drawings or specified in Sections G.,H, or J of the Specifications shall be transmitted to Robert and Company Associates, 96 Poplar Street, N.W.,

Atlanta, Georgia.

Shop drawings pertaining to work shown on General Nuclear Engineering Corporation Drawings or specified in Section K of the Specifi-cations shall be transmitted to General Nuclear Engineering Corporation, Post Office Box 245, Dunedin, Florida.

Shop drawings submitted by the Contractor shall be checked for accuracy and cooridi-nated with other work, and corrected if necessary before submission to the Architect / Engineer.

5816 F-10

l F.06 SUBSOIL INVESTIGATIONS:

li Log of site borings follow.

This information is made available as an aid in evaluating subsoil conditions, but is not to be construed as guaranteeing conditions throughout the site.

a 1

I 1

5816 F-11

4 -9

'3-6 5

N Proposed Building 85-7 l

• F8

'F3 I

-Ni 5-I

\\

1 i

• B-1 i

I i

B-10 B-2 I

l Proposed Reactor Building Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia j

• Soil Test Boring MEG M Scale 1"=30'-0" LAW ENGINERING TESTING CGIFANT Atlanta, Georgia Job 1832 1

DESCMIPTION ELEY 0 PENETR ATION - BL0tf S PER F T.

pyg F T.

912 0 10 20 30 40 60 80100 ygtL. LOOSE SROWN SILTY GRAVELLY SAND 3

\\e

\\

STIFF AND YERY STIFF BROWN AND GRAY 902 FINE TO COARSE SANDY MICACIOUS 3

GRAVELLY SILT i

e gg 892 r

HARD GRAY FINE TO COARSE SASY MICA-CE00$ SILT (FARTIALLY DECCMPOSED ROCK i e

29 882 SOFT WEATHERED ROCK (GNEISS) e100+

ax SOFT TO M(BERATELY HARD GRAY GNEISS 29%

38 EK 872 HARD GRAY GNEISS 82%

43 BORING TERMIMATED 862 l

(

t TEST BORING RECORD PENggggy.ON ES THE NIJMBER OF BL0wS Or ?40 LB FALLING 39 tN

.MAUMEM

, gguggg,s, ~0 DRIVE I. S IN. SA MPL ER ? F T.

BORING NO R-1

' ## 8#'#

\\ '0l % R:', ".0M:,,gsyyggy v WATER TABLE JOB NO 1832

' ' ~

t ut -1Jctu c!="Je*fe

"*'*?****

ELEY e PENETRATION - BLOUS PER F T.

OESCRIPTION DEPTH 913 0 10 20 30 40 60 80100 F T.

0 FILL. STIFF TAN AND RED-BROWN MICACE)t3 yINE SAlWY GRAVELLY SILTY CLAY AND

• g e

4 -

/

o STIFF AND VERY STIFF TAN AND GRAY 903

\\

MICACEOUS GRAVELLY FINE TO COARSE SANDY SILT I

I i

18 893

\\

N

.i N

i o

j HARD GRAY FINE TO COARSE SANDY MICA-CEOUS SILT (PARTIALLY DECCEPOSED ROCK;

.,g44 883 j

l l

l

} 33 BX SOFT AND MODERATELY HARD GRAY GNEISS 22%

j 1

38 873 i

BX i

HARD GRAY GNEISS 85%

3 43 j

BORING TERMINATED 1[

l 0

863 4

I

$i 4

l 1

i t

i I

5 I

i i

i j

" r_

• = CuYEY SILT s

NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED E'

TEST BORING RECORD PENETRATION 95 THE NUMBER OF BLOWS of 140 LB. HAMMER I F T.

FALLING 3O IN, REQUIRED TO ORIVE I.$ IN SAMPLER BORING NO R '1 JOB NO 1832

'W

.ce o.nEo SAMPLE

D E SC7.lPTio N

,,g ELEY 0 FENETR AilON - CLoc$ PER F T.

T

~

910 o lo 20 30 40 60 sotoo 0-l

~l ygg,t.yERY SOFT TO FIRM SANDY MICACIO.5 SILT, TOPSOIL, CINDERS, AND GRASS i

\\

7.5 STIFT RED-BROWN AND TAN FINE TO COARSI 900

\\ _

SANDY SILTY CIAY AND CIAYEY SILT 14

\\

VERY STIFF TO HARD GRAY FINE TO COARS Y

SANDY GRAVELLY MICACEDUS SILT 8 90 24

=

• 120 Sort WY.4THERED ROCK (GNEISS) ano PF.

e100+

+

HCCERATELY HARD TO RARD GRAY GNEISS 36 BORING TERMINATED l

870

[

l 1

t

.!{l e

i I

l ili 8

!i l

t I

l 4'

l l

I l

FT - FISHTAIL TEST BORING RECORD j

'E*ETRATIoM Is THE NuuaER or Blows or I40 La. MAMMEh

'A L LING 30 lM. REQulRED TO DRIVE I. S IN. SAMPLER

\\

I F T.

& UNoisTuRaED SAMPLE BORING NO B-3

\\ Sol % ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER TABLE 000 NO 1832

~*

F 15 L AW ENGINEERNG TES ' # '; O.

a ogpTH DESCRIPTIO':

ELEY 0 PENETR ATION - BLOOS PEQ F T.

912 o io 20 so 40 so ao 100 O

FILL-FIRM RED-BROWN CIAYEY SAleY SILT e

AND SILTY Sale COIFTAINING SGGE GRAVEL

\\,

6

\\

rI"NE {WOAIIlM ele 5cEMI

/

9 902 V

\\

STIFF TO VERY STIFF GRAY AND WRITE FINE TO COULSE SANDY MICACIOUS SILT 17 f

892 HARD CRAY FIM TO COMtSE SANDY MICA-CEOUS SILT (PARTIALLY DECCMPOSED ROC $

29

---> e100+

882 ggy g

i TEST BORING RECORD PENETRATION IS THE NUMBEM OF BLOWS OF I40 LB. HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. MEQUInED TO ORIVE I.S IN. SAMPLER I FT.

BORING NO R-4

& UNDISTuneED SAMPLE jQ3 NO 1912 l50l% Rocx cone MEC0VERY WATER TABLE 7~1 I

e r

DEPTH DESCRi? TION ELEV 0 PENETR ATION - BLOUS PER F T.

F. T' 0

910 0 10 20 30 40 60 80 000 FILL-FIRM AND STIFF RED-BROWN FINE

[

AND MEDIUM SANDY CIAYEY SILT AND TOF-SOIL l

\\\\

10 900 k

1.00SE TAN Alm GRAY CIAYEY SILTY Ftm -

i 11.5 HARD GRAY FINE TO COARSE SANDY MICA-

\\

f

. CEOUS SILT (FARTIALLY DECONFOSED ROC 4 N s,

/[

l I

e 27 I

- L 'J 5

MR E{ STIFF GRAY FINE SANDY MICACEOUS 880l

{

l l

8 i

30 7

a07T WEATHERED ROCK (GNEISS) 3 l

l e100+

l 37 l

RFJUSAL WITH FISHTAIL BIT 870lt_

l e

i r

f

/

i i

i 4.

i 1

i j

i t

l i

, t l7 1

g i

i I

I i

i l

6

_...._y_

i l

I l

• = TO M::DIIM SAND AND FINE TO MEDIUM SANDY SILT TEST BORING RECORD PENETRATIO;iIS TS:E 64 UMBER OF BL0ws Of i4 0 LB. HAMMEP FALLING S0 lta. REQUIRED TO DRIVE I.S IN. SAMPLER I F T.

BORING NO B-5

& UNDISTURRED DAMPLE eATFR TABL C 309 yg 1832 l

lS0l % 40CK CORE MEC0VERY i

d. '-

F -17 u AW ENGINEERING TESTING CO

g,,

....n ie,, v,,

ELEY O PENETft ATioN - 8LoDS PER F T.

F T.

0-900 o lo 20 3o 40 so ao 100 FILL-FIRM A38 STIFF BR0ldt AND GRAY FIms SA19Y MICACEOUS SILT CONTAINING

/

TOPSOIL, BRICE AND OTHER RUBBLE i

10 11==

0%

gg ummy ->=, m _ o r r-x=--1 rn a r-n,

T D

SOFT WEATHERED ROCK (CNEISS, REFUSAL

\\

880 MATERIALS) 10o4

• 100+

30 870 BORING TERMINATED

100, i

4 I

i i

f

}

l I

i 1

• = SILT (TOPS 0IL)

TEST BORING RECORD PENETRATION is THE NUMBEM of Blow $ of 14o LB. HAMMER FALLING 30lN. REQUIREO To DRIVE I.S IN. SAMPLEM I FT.

& unolsrvRaEO SAMPLE BORING NO B-6 lsol*)(, nocx core REcovtnT = WATER TABLE Jo8 No 1812 5315 F-18 L AW ENGINEERING TESTING CO.

~~ ~

p,g DE 5cCIPTioN ELEY o PENETD ATioN - BLoO3 r T.

PER F T.

n 0

8% o to 20 so c.o so aoioo FILL-SOFT BROWN FINE SANDY MICAQBOUS

{

i SILT AND LO9SE BROWN SILTY FINE TO e

MEDIUM SAND i

j 4

7 g

l 1

884

.r

-e100+

SOFT WEATHERED ROCK (GNEISS, REFUSAL

• 100+

MATERIALS) 8 74 f

-e100+

ii

'I

• 100+

i 30 8 64

!6

+-

BORING TERMINATED

- *100+

Q s

l 854 i

4 t

fi b

f

?g.

t t

E t

A TEST PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER of BLOWS OF 140 LB, HAMMER BORING RECORD FALLING SoIN. REQUIRED TO ORIVE I.S IN. SAMPLER I FT

& unoisruRsEO SAMPLE BORING NO -

B-7 150l % Rocx CORE REcovERT

_~;;~ WATER TABLE 499 yn gg32

'E l '

F-19 L AW ENGINEERING TESTING CO.

.t._

op T M DESCRIPTION F T.

ELEV O Pl'NETRATION - BLOUS PER F T, O

910 0 10 20 30 40 60 8010V e

\\

FILL-SOFT AW FIRM BROWN AND TAN FINE I

TO COULSE SANDY HICACIOUS SILT C001-TAINING GRAVEL 900 18 FILL-FIRM RED-BROWN FINE SANDY CLAYEY 8 90 j

,i SILT

-l 22 i

t i

j HARD GRAY FINE TO COARSE SA N Y MICA-i CEOUS SILT (FARTIALLY DECCMPOSED ROCK:

/

880 32 gg i

ti 7

SOFT WEATHERED ROCK (GNEISS, REFUSAL L MATERIALS) e100+

BK 40

~.

870 BORING TERMINATED l

• 100+

l l

I I i i

li!!!

i

, i I

}

I i;

I

.J I

f l

l i

i i

i No CROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED TEST BORING RECORD PENETRATION 95 THE NUMBER OF Blows OF I40 LB HAMMER FALLING 3OIN. MEQUIRED TO DRIVE I.S IN. SAMPLER I FT W UNDISTURBED SAMPLE 150l% ROCx cone rec 0 VERT

=

"'IE"

' *L "

JOB NO-1S32

,.q F 2:.

L AW ENGINEERING TESTING CO.

DEPTH D SCRIPT 10N ELEV O PENETRATION - BLOUS PER ' T.

F T.

0 894 0 10 to 30 40 60 80100 SOFT ROWN AB GRAY FIR *mY MICA-CEOUS SILT (POSSIBLY FILL) 3 STIFF TO VERY STIFF GRAY AND BROWN 1

e FINE TO MDIUM SARY MICACIOUS SILT

\\

.my,-

9 884 k

e

{

SWT WEATHERED ROCK (CNEISS, REFUSAL k

MATERIALS) 874

(

.100+

l

.100+

4 30 864 BORING TERMINATED 3

0 l

4 K'

o o

i lh k

u e

i 4

f f

I i

I f

i k

I i,

TEST BORING RECORD t

PENETRATION is THE NUMBER OF blows OF 140 LB HAMMER i

l FALLING SOIN. REOUIRED TO ORIVE I.5 IN. SAMPLER I FT.

BORING NO B-9 I

l& UNoisTURBE0 SAMPLE 50l % ROCK CORE RECOVERY WATER MBLE jog NO 1832

?-21 L AW ENGINEERING TESTING CO

DEPTH OESCRIPTloN ELEV 0 PENETR ATION - BL0tfS PER F T.

' T" O

910 o to 20 30 40 so so soo FILL-STT AND FIRM BROWN AW) GRAY

{

l i

FINE SANDY MICACEOUS SILT CONTAINING

/

GRAVEL c

FILL-FIRM RED-BROWN FINE SANDY CLAYEY SILT CONTAINING CINDERS, BURNT 'JOOD

\\

900 PIECES AND 012 BRICK

[

STIFF RED-BROWN AND TAN FINE TO COMtB SANDY SILTY CIAY__ AND CIAYEY SILT

?

VERY STIFF TO HARD GRAY FINE TO COMER 890 SANDY HICACEOUS SILT CONTAINING SOME WEATHERED ROCK FIECES i

25

~

i BORING TERMINATED 880 l

I l

l i

i t

i l

TEST SORING RECORD PENETRATION IS THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF I40 LB. HAMMER FALLING 30IN. REQUIRED TO ORIVE I.S IN. SAMPLER I FT.

& UNDISTuRato SAMPLE BORING NO __ B-10 ls0l % Rocx coRc rec 0 VERT

~=~ WATER TABLE gog 90 1832 1'

F-22

' AW ENGINEERING TESTING CO.

i

SECTION G/1 DEMOLITION AND EARTHWORK G/1.01 _ GENERAL:

The GENERAL CONDITIONS, SUPPLEMENTARY GENERAL CONDITIONS and SPECIAL CONDITIONS govern all work under this section.

G/1.02 SCOPE:

This section covers demolition, construction of cuts and fills, excavation and backfilling, for buildings, and for underground piping, and finish grading.

G/1.03 DEMOLITION:

j demolished unless noted otherwise. Items noted on drawings to be 3

All materials from demolition shall become property of Contractor.

tion, shall be removed from site promptly.They, and all debris result 3

G/1.04 TOPSOIL:

4 Topsoil, suitable for support of plant life, and any top soil containing organic material shall be stripped from all areas within working limits and stock piled separately on site as directed.

)

4 G/1.05 EXCAVATION:

i for bottom faces of grade beams shall be cut to exactIf s size of concrete.

Otherwise, forms shall be used.

for the bottom 1/4 of the circumference of the pipecavatio Ex-shall be scooped out for a short distance, at joints only,

, and h

to provide working space for making joints.

All other excavations shall be made with sufficient clear 4

ance to permit placing, inspection, and completion of work t

0 1

4 5816 G/1.1

I, 1 I I

i G/1.06 SHORING:

Shoring, sheet piling, and/or underpinning necessary to restrain and confine excavations, or to protect adjoining structures, installations, or property, shall be properly set and braced, and maintained secure until it can be removed with safety.

Any cave-ins or damage resulting from eave-ins shall be made good at the Contractor's expense.

In this respect the Contractors attention is directed to the report of sub-soil investigation, which is available for examination in the office of the Archi-tect/tngineer, and which indicates that the soil tends to be unstable in deep cuts.

y i

G/1.07 PUMPING AND DRAINAGE:

All excavations shall be kept free from water at all times during the progress of the work, and the Contractor I

shall be resoonsible for all damage incurred in the han-dling of water conditions.

i G/1.08 BEARING LEVEL:

All footings shall be carried to firm undisturbed soil as approved by the Architect /kngineer.

Should these levels occur lowes than those indicated on the drawings j

and equitable adjustment shall be made in the Contract Price.

Excavation for footing levels shall not be changed from that shown without authorization from the Architect /tngineer.

If excavations for foundations are carried by the Con-tractor without proper authorization below the indicated or specified levels, they shall be refilled to the re-quired levels with concrete of the class specified for footings, without extra cost to the Owner.

t l

G/1.09 LOAD TESTS:

Load tests, en undisturbed soil at the level of bottom I

of footings, shall be made in locations selected by the Architect / Engineer, on rectangular bearing plates having an area of 2 sq. ft., but otherwise in accordanca *ith the requirements of ASTM D1194-57, by an independent laboratory employed by the Architect / Engineer.

5816 G/1.2

t If the findings indicate the need of revised design and extra labor and material, an equitable adjustment shall be made in the Contract Price.

3 G/1.10 SUBSOIL INVESTIGATIONS:

t f

Icg of soil borings is bound in the specification.

This i

information is made available as an aid in evaluating

)

t subsoil conditions, but is not to be construed as guaran-1 teeing conditions throughout the site.

h G/1.11 ROCK EXCAVATION:

f The price bid shall be based on earth excavation; if j

rock is encountered, an equitable adjustment will be made in the Contract Price.

I s

If rock is encountered in pipe trenches, it ehall be i

removed to a level 6" below the bell of the pipe and re-f placed with compacted earth cushion.

> i When rock is encountered, it shall be stripped of earth and the Resident Engineer notified, and given proper time to measure same before removal.

All rock removed which has not been previously measured by the Resident Engineer will not be estimated as rock excavation.

Measurement fo:' rock excavation will be limited to the bottom of foota.ngs or slabs and to 6" on either side of 1

1 the outside of footings, and no measurement will be allowed for brnk slope or over breaking.

In pipe trenches, measurement will be limited to 6" below bell of pipe and to a uniform width, 16" greater than the outside diameter of the pipe, but not less than 30" of total width.

Only rock requiring blasting or removal by the use of bars and sledges, and boulders of 1/2 cubic yard or more will be estimated as rock excavation.

Shale or rotten stone 1

or stratified rock, that can be loosened with a pick shall not be construed as rock.

r Blasts shall be covered with heavy timbers or mats, p.

and all precautions shall be taken to prevent damage to persons or property.

Damage or injury resulting from blasting shall be wholly the responsibility of the Contractor.

.J e

4 5816 G/1-3 k

G/1.12 STANDARD OF COMPACTION:

Required densities of compaction are expressed herein-after in terms of percentages.

Such terms shall mean lp.

percentages of maximum density at optimum moisture cor tent, as detern.ined from plotted curves of moisture i

density relation established by " Proctor" tests under 5j-A.A.S.H.O. Standard Specification T-99-49.

Standard specification shall be modified in that samp'1 i

shall be compacted in 5 layers, each approximately l it ll thick, instead of 3 equal layers.

i

[

G/1.13 CUT AND FILLS:

'i' All cuts and fills shall be made as necessary to bring

,j' the site to indicated grades and levels.

i 0/1.14 STRUCTURAL FILLS:

I All fills and backfills under structures, rcadways and b

parking lots shall be spread in 6" layers, loose measu:

']

ment, and compacted to 95%.

The final 9" shall be com-pacted to 100%.

Only material that will consolidate well shall be used.

L No soil with organic material shall be used in struct-i i

ural fills, ok ".

Samples of each type of soil encountered in cut areas

"[

shall be submitted to laboratory analysis and those types with best properties of compaction shall be se-F lected for construction of structural fills.

l If-suit-able backfill material is not found on the site, the

{

Contractor shall be responsible to secure it elsewhere.

G/1.15 COMPACTION TESTS:

Tests of properties of soils for fille, and tests to determine if specified compactions are being obtained, c

shall be the work of an independent testing laboratory

{Q4f employed by the Architect / Engineer.

Laboratory tests, to determine maximum density at optim-

,g moisture from plotted moisture-density curves, shall be made for cach type of soil proposed or intended for use 1

in structural fills.

Field density comparison tests shall be made by labora-

!!i tory personnel wherever deemed necessary to assure I[.

l proper compaction.

i 5816 A<l o/1-4

G/1.16 GRADING AND SURFACING:

The area of the property beyond structural fills, as

• ndicated on the drawings, shall be graded and sur-faced to the finish elevations shown on the drawings.

Grades not otherwise indicated shall be uniform levels j

or slopes between points where elevations are given, or between such points and existing finished grades.

Slopes shall not exceed 1 v.ertical to 4 horizontal un-less specifically shown otherwise.

Around the edges L

of the graded and surfaced areas, the grade shall slope up or down to the natural grade at a slope not to ex-ceed 1 veFtical to 4 ho/izontal.

Compaction of materials in non-structural fills shall be limited to that obtained by spreading materials in 8" layers, loose measurement, and routing spreading equipment so that all areas receive uniform distribu-tion of traffic.

1 1

All edges (at crest, toe, and sides) of faces of cut or fill shall be rounded into existing surfaces to elimi-i nate sharp angles.

Berm ditches shall be formed on top of slopes, where drainage beyond top of slope is toward slope.

j j

All areas shall be left self-draining by means of temp-orary ditches or swales wherever necessary permanent fL drainage is not provided within the scope of this Con-tract.

3 7

I h All rocks, debris, etc., shall be removed from areas outside buildings for a depth of not less than l'-0".

G/1.17 UNDERFICOR FILL:

Where gravel fill, or selected porous fill is indicated, material shall consist of a well graded crusher run stone, sufficiently free of fines to block flow of g

capillary moisture, or shall consist of a well graded t'

run from 3" to No. 4, chocked on top with screenings of concrete sand gradation.

The material approved shall be deposited in layers of not more than 4 inches loose measurement and shall be compacted with heavy rollers.

t After compaction of porous fill, the surface shall be covered with one layer of polyethylene film.006" thick, placed in the largest sizes obtainable with joints lapped 4 inches and cemented.

Care shall be exercised to prevent the puncturing of membrane during the placing of concrete.

5816 0/1-5

=

3l ~

~

r i

i l

G/1.18 DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS:

All earth from areas of cut, not required for construc-tion of-fills, all removed rock, and all excavated material not' suitable for fills, shall be removed from the site.

i I

LG/1.19 EXISTING STCRM:SEWERi j

i Existing 72" storm sewer indicated on drawings shall be protected thrcughcut construction.

Special care shall be taken nct tc cver excavate in its vicinity.

Any j

damage to this sewer shall be repaired.a6 no additional cost to.the Owner and in strict.accordance with the re-

-l quirements of the City of Atlanta, Georgia.

l G/1.20 EXISTING TREES:

I I

Existing trees shown sn drawings to remain shall.be pro-tected thrcughcut ecnstruction.. Trees shall'be protected

[

at trunks by boxirs, fences or by other suitable means.

Remove dead or interfacing branches as directed and treat scars immediately.

Perform.no excavation or grad-ing within the spread cf branches except as is necessitated by building constructicn and utility trenches.

Light no P

fires under or near any tree to remain and place po_

l materials or debris, nor park any vehicle under spread i

of branches.

7 i

i 1

i l

1 l

t l'

i l

5816 G/1-6 I

I

SECTION 0/5_

CONTAINMENT SHELL G/5 01 GENERAL:

j The GENERAL CONDITIONS, SUPPLEMENTARY GENERAL CONDITIONS 9

h and SPECIAL CONDITIONS govern all work under this section, j

0/5 02 SCOPE:

i This section covers the design, fabrication, delivery, i

Containment Shell in accordance with the project draw i

ings and specifications.

f All penetrations shall be installed in the Containment Shell under this section.

h G/5.03 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

h All temporary bracing required to insure a.

stability of the steel shell during erection and during placing of concrete inside the s

completed shell shall be provided.

+

I.

b, All temporary closures required to seal the shell for testing prior to completion shall be y

provided as required by the testing procedure specified below.

f Shell shall be by the same subcontractor. Fabricati c.

d.

all vertical weld joints shall fal: Steel plates shall be of su i

behind vertical Tee sections applied on the exterior as located on the drawings.

I Bottom plates of Containment Shell shall e.

be welded in place on lightly oiled sand pl on concrete mud slab for leveling purposes. aced G/5.04 DESIGN CRITERIA x

[

Design based on an elastic analysis.

a.

?

3 j

5816

f 0/5-1 C

i b.

Design pressures:

Internal 2 psi, External l

0.2 psi.

c.

Roof live load - 25 lbs. per sq. ft.

d.

Wind Load - 20# per sq. ft, on a projected flat surface.

i e.

Design stresses - In accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section 8 L

" Rules for Construction of Unfired Pressure l

Vessels".

f.

Shielding For the dome and for the section h

at the knee of the dome the plate thicknesses shown on the project drawings are the minimum

[

required for shielding.

G/5.05 APPLICABLE STANDARDS:

Design of connections, workmanship, fabrication and erection shall conform to the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section 8, " Rules for i

Construction of Unfired Pressure Vessels".

All steel plates shall be Grade B ASTM Standard A201-57T, j

ordered to fine grain practice, and shall conform to ASTM A300-57T.

Mill analysis and reports of impact tests on heat-treated specimens in accordance with' ASTM A300 shall be submitted to the Architect / Engineer for ap-1 proval before shipment is ms.de.

i All welding shall conform to the latest issue of Standard Code for Arc and Gas Welding in Building Construction of the American Welding Society.

Welding shall be done only by welders holding a current certificate issued by a recognized, approved testing authority and satisfactory evidence thereof shall be submitted to the Architect /

Engineer.

G/5 06 WORKMANSHIP:

Workmanship shall conform to the requirements of the cited codes and specifications.

5816 G/5-2

~

0/5 07 WELDING AND INSPECTION:

m h

The field welding shall be done under constant inspection by inspectors of an independent testing laboratory em-ployed by the Architect #ngineer.

?

Welding electrodes shall conform to ASTM Standard A233-55T and the most suitable kind for each type of weld to be performed shall be selected.

Selections shall be subject to the approval of the Architect /

Engineer.

All welds will be inspected visually.

Radiographic inspection of welding used in fabrication of Contain-ment Shell will be made by the indep/kngineer endent testing laboratory employed by the Architect

. Radio-graphic testing of welds shall be made in accordance with ASME Code,Section VIII, Subsection B, para-graphs UW-51 and Uw-52.

Radiographic inspection shall be.made at all intersections of two or more welds in addition to requirements set forth in UW-52.

All costs of spot-re-examination surrounding the area of unsatisfactory welding. test results shall i

l be paid by the Contractor.

The Contractor shall furnish and erect all scaffolding and temporary access and supporting structures, as required for radiographic inspection.

The Contractor's representative may be present to witness and assist in the radiographing of welds.

During erection of the Containment Shell all welds on l

the flat plate bottom of the tank, and any other welds required to be covered or encased during erection,

)

shall be given a vacuum type soap bubble test.

After erection of the Containment Shell is complete and all openings are closed, the tank shall be pressurized 1

to 2 1/2 psig and then reduced and maintained at 2 psig and a soap bubble test performed on all welds not pre-viously vacuum tested.

All detectable leaks shall be marked and the defective welds repaired as hereinafter specified.

The Contractor may elect to use temporary closures or install doors, expansion joints, air locks, pressure relief devices, observation window and miscellaneous penetrations for mechanical and electrical services, covered under other sections but installed under this section, in order to perform the aforementioned tests.

5816 G/5-3 i

A r

y 5

4 After detectable leaks found during soap bubble test and radiographic inspection have been corrected, the Con-tainment Shell may be pressure tested as specified in Section G/32 under Final Testing.

This shall not be construed as superceding or sufficing the requirement of Final Testing as specified in Section G/32.

The aforementioned testing procedures shall apply to the connections to the shell, of these items.

All temporary closures shall be removed after testing is complete and approved.

G/5.08 REPAIRS:

Any defective welds disclosed by soap ~ bubble testing, visual testing, pressure testing and/or radiograp,hing shall be repaired by the Contractor at his own expense and to the satisfaction of the Architect / Engineer.

At the conclusion of the repair wprk the new welds shall be tested by the use of at least one of the methods hereinbefore specified, except visual inspection.

1 1

G/5 09 SHOP PAINTING:

All surfaces of steel in Containment Shell exposed to weather on the exterior and the interior surface of steel used in the dome construction shall be painted in accordance with painting provisions of A.I.S.C.

Specification.

Paint shall be used in the condition in which it is delivered, without thinning.

Painting in the open air shall be done only in dry weather, and shall not be done in cold or freezing weather, nor upon damp surface.

Any painting injuriously affected by. cold or rain shall be entirely rubbed off and fresh l

paint applied.

)

All surfaces of steel in Containment Shell which will be underground or covered with concrete, including interior vertical steel walls of shell, shall be given a shop coat of Bitumastic Mill Undercoat as manufactured i

by the Koppers Co., Inc.

In shop painting, all paint shall be held back 2 inches from all edges to be welded.

5816 G/5-4

F The paint shall be thoroughly dry before the members are handled or loaded.

G/5 10 INSUIATION:

1 1

Insulation shall be of the vegetable fiber type, asp' halt impregnated to resist moisture, similar to "Preseal

+

- i board manufactured by the Celotex Corp., or approved equal.

Insulation board shall be applied to inside wall of the Containment Shell as indicated, set in asphalt mastic.

Insulation board shall not exceed 2 feet in width as applied horizontally around the shell and 1/2 inch in thickness, applied to i total thickness of 1 inch, with all joints staggered.

'i I G/5.11 ERECTION:

4 A

All steel shall be set accurately and secured properly j

in place with suitable temporary braces and stays until 4-it is permanently fastened together.

The Contractor may orovide temporary lugs welded to the plates as re-quired for handling and guying during erection.

After

~

erection is complete the temporary lugs shall be re-i moved and the surface of the tank repaired by welding y

and grinding smooth.

Temporary holes shall be closed q

by welding in plates as required.

Welds at temporary j

lugs and temporary openings shall be tested by at least one of the methods hereinbefore specified, i

except visual inspection.

.i i

See Section G/32 for Erection Sequence for Containment j

Building.

The Contractor shall submit to the Architect / Engineer prior to erection, a schedule for approval of proposed methods of erection and testing procedures.

i*

G/5 12 STEEL PROTECTION:

p

)

All steel which will be underground, including bottom plates of Containment Shell, and all steel which will 3

be covered with concrete incidental to the construction a

of the Containment Shell, shall be given two protecting coats of Bitumastic #59, manufactured by Koppers Co., Inc.

Exterior vertical sidewalls of steel tank shall not be 4

given protective coating until soap bubble test has been l

5816 G/5-5 i

h t

1 I

t made.

Protective coating shall be kept to a point 6"

(

below finish grade on exterior.

I G/5.13 FIELD PAINTING:

i Before erection, all painted surfaces on'which the shop coat is damaged or destroyed or on which the metal is exposed by rust spots or otherwise, shall be cleaned off t

and painted one coat of the same paint used for shop painting.

After erection and after welding inspection and testing, all surfaces where the shop coat has be-come damaged shall be retouched with the same paint used for shop painting.

Finished coating is covered under other sections.

After all repairs of all damaged shop coat have been made, the exterior surface of the Containment Shell to a point 6" below finish grade and the interior surface of the steel dome shall be given one coat of the same paint used for shop painting.

l G/5.14 SUBCONTRACTOR'S QUALIFICATION:

Work under this section shall be performed by an organi-zation specializing in the fabrication and erection of steel tanks.

He shall have successfully completed a project of similar size and use, fabricated completely and erected in place.

Proof of qualifications shall be submitted for approval of the Architect /Rngineer.

Approved subcontractors for the fabrication and erection of the Containment Shell are:

Chicago Bridge and Iron Company Bethlehem Steel Company L

Graver Tank Company Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company The preparation of shop drawings shall not be subcontracted i

but the fabricator's shop drawings shall be prepared in his own drafting room under direct supervision of the responsible

)

fabricating organization.

}

I 5816 o/5-6 I

m sh

i j

i j

_a..

1 i

1 i

l LAW ENGINEERING i

i l

VOLUME I -

SUMMARY

REPORT SEISMIC HAZARD STUDY i

1 GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECIINOLOGY CAMPUS ATLANTA, GEORGIA I

l i

l LAW ENGINEERING PROJECT No.57704495.01 1

l MARCH 16,1993 i

i i

I i,

r vvv

-v<-

l i.

• March 16, '1993 LAW ENGINEERING Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia c/o Sedki & Russ Engineers stasmucrownsts asaws 6700 Vernon Woods Drive, Suite 200 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 Attention:

Nebil B. Sedki, P.E.

SUBJECT:

Report of Seismic Hazard Study Georgia Institute of Technology Campus Atlanta, Georgia Law Engineering Project No. 57704495.01 Gentlemen:

Law Engineering, Inc. (LAW) has completed the authorized Seismic Hazard Study for the Georgia Tech Campus. The scope of services for the project was outlined in our proposal No.

577-93005 dated February 1,1993 and was authorized by Douglas H. Rewerts in a letter dated February 5,1993. This report discusses regional seismicity, our approach to seismic l

hazard analysis, and the results of our study. The report is contained in two volumes.

Volume I is a summary report which includes brief discussions of our approach to the project and our conclusions. Volume 11is a companion volume which includes nine appendices which correspond to the report sections. The appendices explore many of the topics in greater detail than the summary report and include the detailed reference lists for the report.

l As we discussed previously, this report is the result of the combined efforts of a team of engineers and scientists from three of the Law Companies. Key members of the project team whose signatures are not included below are Clay Sams, P.E. and Bob White, P.G.

t This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Georgia institute of Technology (GIT).'

Any use of this information by a party for purposes beyond those reasonably intended by GIT l

l and LAW will be at the party's sole risk. We appreciate the opportunity of working with you l

on this project and look forward to our continued association. Please contact us if any questions arise or if we may be of further service.

Very truly yours, l

LAW ENGINEERING, INC.

4*N l

a Karl E. Suter, P.E.

David A. Miller, P.E.

l Senior Engineer Principal Engineer

[bI g

l John Chulick, P.G.

At at hall Lew, Ph.D., P.E.

Senior Geophysicist M

Principal Engineer 3% PLASTERS AVENUE.E l

10.S00n0449501 cov ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30324 404-873-4761 l.

TELEFAX 4044810508

l l

l TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 2.0 HISTORICAL SEISMICITY 2

3.0 SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS 5

3.1 INTRODUCTION

5 3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES.

5 3.3 M ET H O D O L O G Y......................................... 6 3.3.1 Deterministic And Probabilistic Hazard Methods............. 7 3.3.1.1 Deterministic Analysis 7

3.3.1.2 Probabilistic Analysit 8

3.3.2 Ground Motion Model........

8 4.0 REGIONAL TECTONICS.........

9 5.0 SEISMOTECTONIC REGIONS..............

9

5.1 INTRODUCTION

9 5.2 MAXIMUM MAGNITUDES 10 6.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SOIL PROFILES......

11 6.1 SITE GEOLOGY.......

11 6.2 S O I L PR O FI L E S........................................ 12 7.0 EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS AND GROUND MOTION....................... 15 7.1 LOCAL SEISMICITY.

15 7.2 EFFECTS FROM KNOWN EARTHQUAKES 16 7.2.1 Intensity At The Site From Significant Historical Earthquakes... 16 7.2.2 Ground Motion Estimates for Historical Earthquakes 18 7.3 PROBABILISTIC HAZARD RESULTS.......................... 21 7.3.1 Bedrock Ground Motion 21 7.3.2 Probabilistic PSRV Spectrum.....

24 7.4 DESIGN EARTHOUAKES 27 7.5 S U R FA C E R E S P O N S E.................................... 31 7.6 COMPARISON WITH BUILDING CODES...

43 QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS List of Tables List of Figures i

A 1

m o

a L.-

m t.r m

+ 4

-m a -= -

<u m-

-:4 n

LIST OF TABLES Table No.:

7-1 Earthquakes Within 100 km of the GlT Campus 7-2 Significant Historical Earthquakes 7-3 Estimated Peak Ground Motion from Historic Earthquakes 7-4 Peak Ground Motion with 10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 and 250 Years

- 75 Estimated Peak Ground Motion for Design Earthquakes 7-6 Coordinate Points for Plotting Smoothed Response Spectra i

LIST OF FIGURES Figure No.:

2-1 Earthquake Distribution Map 6-1 Soil Profiles - Shallow and Deep 6-2 Soil Profile - 8th Street Dormitory 7-1 Bedrock Ground Motion of Historical Earthquakes Versus Natural Frequency.

7-2 Peak Horizontal Acceleration Versus Annual Probability of Exceedence 7-3 Peak Horizontal Velocity Versus Annual Probability of Exceedence 7-4 PSRV Versus Natural Frequency for a 10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 Years 7-5 PSRV Versus Natural Frequency for a 10% Probability of Exceedence in 250 Years 7-6 Bedrock PSRV and Peak Ground Motion for Near-Field Design Earthquake m,5.2 A40 km

)

7-7 Bedrock PSRV and Peak Ground Motion for Far-Field Design Earthquake m,6.4 A140 km 7-8 Comparison of Probabilistic PSRV Spectrum with Design Earthquake PSRV Spectra 7-9 Comparison of Bedrock PSRV Spectrum with Example Surface Spectrum 7-10 Response Spectra for Shallow Soil Profile 7-11 Response Spectra for Deep Soil Profile 7-12 Response Spectra for 8th Street Dormitory Soil Profile 7-13 Smoothed Spectra for Shallow Soil Profile

. 7-14 Smoothed Spectra for Deep Soil Profile j

7-15 Smoothed Spectra fr : 8th Street Dormitory Soil Profile 7-16 Spectral Acceleration vs Period

'7-17 Contour Map of Peak Acceleration Coefficient A, SBC,1992 4

7-18 Contour Map of Effective Peak Velocity-Related Acceleration Coefficient Ay, SBC, 1992 7-19 Map of Seismic Zones and Effective Peak Velocity-Related Acceleration (Av), SBC, 1991 ii 2

y 4

w

.w,

-e-r e

l L

i i

SUMMARY

This report presents the results of a seismic hazard study for the Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT) Campus in Atlanta, Georgia.

Both probabilistic and deterministic seismic ground motion studies were performed. The results of both were combined to yield estimates of historic and future ground motion at the i

site.

I 1

Estimates of ground motion were produced by first evaluating regional seismicity, geology, tectonics, and crustal stress, then applying the ground motion model in both a probabilistic j

and deterministic manner to achieve estimates of ground motion at the GlT Campus.

The GlT Campus is located in a part of the Appalachian Piedmont which historically has low earthquake activity. Much of the hazard is from distant, more active areas capable of producing larger earthquakes, such as eastern Tennessee, the Charleston, South Carolina seismic zone, and the New Madrid, Missouri fault zone.

Ground motions at the site from significant historical earthquakes were modeled. The largest estimated ground motions are from the February 7,1812 New Madrid, Missouri earthquake and the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina earthquake which produced site Modified Mercalli l

Intensities (MMI) of V VI and Vill, respectively. The intensity Vill shaking at Atlanta from the I

Charleston earthquake consisted of damage to unsupported masonry such as chimneys as well as widespread panic of the residents.

]

Probabilistic bedrock ground motion at the site was modeled for a range of hazard levels to i

\\

provide peak bedrock acceleration and velocity, Near-field and far-field design earthquakes were selected based on the probabilistic bedrock ground motion. These design events were used to model surface response at the site. A spectral plot of the bedrock ground motion was used to compute seismic coefficients (A and Av). For a 10 percent probability of exceedence 4

in 50 years, the recommended acceleration coefficient (A ) for the GlT Campus is 0.05, while 4

the recommended velocity-related acceleration coefficient (A ) is 0.07. These values are v

lower than those interpolated from the Standard Building Code maps (1991 and 1992) with the same exceedence probabilities.

Three soil profiles were developed to model surface seismic response at the Gli Campus.

Two of the profiles represent the shallowest and deepest depth to rock likely to be encountered on the campus. The third profile represents an intermediate situation. The soil profiles modeled are generalized and based on limited campus specific data. The resulting response spectra are suitable for preliminary design or for assessing the potential economic impact of seismic design, iii

i k

s i

[

l The surface response of the three soil profiles was modeled using the SHAKE computer l

- program. Smoothed response spectra were developed combining the near-field and f ar-field j

i design earthquakes for damping ratios of 0.03, 0.05 and 0.07. For critical structures, or

)

buildings in which high costs are anticipated due to seismic design, a site-specific study l

utilizing downhole and or crosshole shear wave techniques is recommended.

i a

i Our reported A, and Ay coefficients may be used.for determining seismic performance categories as outlined in the SBC. Structural design to resist the effects of earthquake loading should utilize either:

The seismic coefficient (A, or Av) maps and Site Coefficients presented in the SBC, 1

nr 1

)

e Our recommended Agand Av values, and incorporating site specific response spectra similar to the smoothed response spectra provided in this report.

iv

?

. GlT Seismic Hazard Study i

March 16,1993 l

Page 1 of 46 l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a study to evaluate the -Ch hazard at the Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT) Campus in Atlanta, Georgia. Tr.4 usmic hazard study was conducted as outlined in Law Engineering Proposal No. 577-93005 dated February 1,1993.

l The approach used by LAW in this study was to determine the relative hazard at the site using probabilistic seismic hazard calculations, then compute deterministic earthquake models to develop design earthquakes for the GlT campus.

In the past two decades, seismic hazard methodology has evolved significantly. Foremost among the evolutionary changes are replacement of intensity-based ground motion prediction with magnitude-based calculation, more realistic computation of ground motion related directly to earthquake source parameters, and development of regional, frequency-dependent ground motion attenuation relationships.

This volume of the report is outlined as follows:

Section 2.0 discusses regional seismicity; Section 3.0 discusses the probabilistic and deterministic techniques used in modeling seismic hazard for this study; Section 4.0 discusses the tectonic history of the southeastern United States to provide the framework for the development of the seismotectonic regions discussed in Section 5.0; Section 5.0 discusses the seismotectonic regions used in the seismic hazard estimation; Section 6.0 discusses site geology and soil profiles at the GlT campus; Section 7.0 discusses the effects of historical earthquakes, probabilistic estimates of ground motion, and the design earthquakes for the site.

~

i i

GlT Seismic Hazard Study

' March 16,1993 4

Page 2 of 46 The second volume includes the Appendices:

)

Appendices 1.0 through 7.0 maintain a structure that is parallel to that of the report, e

ie, additionalinformation pertaining to Section 2.0 is contained in Appendix 2.0, etc..

i These Appendix sections also include the reference lists for the report sections.

Appendix 8.0 presents the Modified MercalliIntensity Scale.

l e

1 Appendix 9.0 provides a discussion of magnitude scales.

e The basis for much of the information presented in this report is the licensing studies 1

i performed by Law in the eastern United States. This includes preliminary safety analysis i

reports (PSARs) for license applications for nuclear power plants, liquefied natural gas storage 3

facilities, the Department of Energy's National Waste Terminal Storage Program - Gulf Coast j

Salt Domes (Law Engineering Testing Company,1981; Department of Energy,1982), the

)

Electric Power Research Institute's project entitled " Seismic Hazard Methodology for the i

1 Central and Eastern United States"(Law Engineering Testing Company,1986), and Lawrence s

j Livermore National Laboratory's " Seismic Hazard Characterization of 69 Nuclear Power Plant 1

Sites East of the Rocky Mountains" (Bernreuter et al.,1989). Law has also conducted an in-

i depth study into evaluating hypotheses for the tectonic cause of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina earthquake for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (White and Long,1989).

1 4

I 2.0 HISTORICAL SEISMICITY i

i Most earthquakes which occur in the United States are located in the tectonically active l

Western portion of the country (primarily Alaska and California). Areas of the eastern United 1

States also experience significant seismic activity, although at a lower rate and magnitude.

s

]

Earthquake activity in the eastern United States has included large earthquakes such as the 1811 - 1812 New Madrid earthquakes which occurred in Missouri and Arkansas, and the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina earthquake.

The study of historical seismicity includes earthquakes in the region of interest known from felt or damage records, and also from instrumental records. In the eastern United States,

'I t

1

GlT Seismic Hazard Study

• March 16,1993 Page 3 of 46 most of the significant damaging earthquakes occurred prior to reliable instrumental tacording in addition, most major earthquakes in the eastern United States have left no observable surface fault ruptures.

The historical record of earthquakes in the southeastern United States began with European colonization in the 17th century. Prior to the installation of regional seismograph stations in the first part of the 20th century, all earthquake data was derived from descriptions of the effects. Reliable recording and location of smaller earthquakes did not occur until the 1970s.

Consequently, most of the significant earthquakes in the eastern United States occurred prior

~

to the period of reliable instrumental recording.

1 Compilations of earthquake information in the Southeast have evolved considerably in the last two decades. For the larger earthquakes, new original sources (contemporaneous newspaper articles, journals, letters, etc.) have been found, and previously known original sources have been reevaluated. Attempts have been made to quantify the size and effects of all known earthquakes. For events known only from historical data, new relationships have been developed to convert from Modified Mercalli intensity to body wave magnitude (m.). For computational purposes, the new magnitude-based earthquake catalogs are more reliable and stable. The addition of new data has helped reduce the uncertainty in the location of the epicenter for many historical events.

LAW's Earthquake Catalog is a compilation of earthquake parameters such as origin time, epicenter, magnitude, epicentral intensity, and felt area. Whenever possible, instrumental l

magnitudes rre used. Where only intensity and felt area are available, magnitude (m ) is estimated using relationships developed by Sibol et al. (1987). The earthquakes in the catalog

(

are limited to those with body wave magnitude (m.) 3.0 or greater, or epicentral Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) of IV or greater. Quarry blasts are excluded. The locations of regional earthquakes are shown in Figure 21. Please note that the circles on Figure 2-1 may represent more than one earthquake.

l 1

t j-

.l i

1

)

8th STREET DORM PROFILE j

Depth (ft.)

l SOIL FILL Naa = 8 bpf 275 < V, < 315f/s

% = 110 cf 3

l P

1

}

RESIDUUM i.-

l Nag = 15 bpf 675 < V < 780f/s s

l

% = 115f/s 4

h 800 < V, < 920f/s

}

l 1

1 i

875 < V, <1010f/s i

35 h

PWR Nm >100 bpf 1210 < V <1400f/s s

1

% = 140pcf 4g i

1 ROCK V = 5000f/s s

n = 165 pcf t

1 I

LEGEND l

Nm = Average SPTN-value, blows perfoot l

% = Mass unit weight, pounds per cubicfoot

{

V, = Shear wave velocity, feet per second GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

{

SEISMIC STUDY Law FIGURE 6 2: SOIL PROFILE l

Atlanta, Georgia j

Project No.

Scale Date Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 N/A MARCH 1993 4.

GlT Seismic Hazard Study

' March 16 1993 Page 5 of 46 3.0 SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This section describes the evolution of the state-of-the-art in seismic hazard analysis used in the eastern United States (east of the Rocky Mountains) and provides a description of the methodology used in the seismic hazard analysis for this study.

3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES Prior to the licensing of nuclear power plants, the question of the degree of seismic hazard in areas of the United States with low seismicity, such as the southeast, was not of much interest to the designers or owners of industrial or public service facilities.

The seismic zone maps used in building codes reflected the influence of practitioners from the far west. Those maps are based primarily c' the pattern of historic seismicity. However, in the eastern United States, the use of patterno of historic seismicity may not be effective in predicting where large earthquakes may occur. A major reason is the relatively passive nature of the mid-plate environment of the eastern United States, as discussed below.

The causative f aults for earthquakes in eastern United States are not well known. In this mid-plate region, the causative faults are not exposed at the surface and, with the exception of the New Madrid Fault Zone, the occurrence rate of earthquakes is not great enough to delineate the causative tectonic structures. In addition, until recently, there were few seismic recording stations in areas of low seismicity in the southeast. This resulted in a lack of detection of many small earthquakes and imprecise location of those that were detected.

With the advent of nuclear power, the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC]) required seismic hazard evaluations for all nuclear power plants. Consultants, academics, and the NRC staff began to consider how to quantify seismic hazard in areas of sparse seismicity.

t

GlT Seismic Hazard Study March 16,1993 Page 6 of 46 in the east, the NRC relied on the concept of " tectonic provinces" to deal with the uncertainty regarding the causes and location of future earthquakes. A tectonic province, as defined in 10 CFR 100 Appendix A, is a region " characterized by a relative consistency nf geologic structures contained therein."

In 1984, the Electric Power Research Institute began a comprehensive study titled "An Evalua-tion of Seismic Source Zones in the Eastern United States East of 105 Degrees" (EPRI,1986).

The study contributed significantly to the understanding of intraplate seismicity in the United States. Specific results of the study included:

A catalog of central and eastern earthquakes wi:h uniform magnitude estimates; A rationale for estimating the maximum earthquake for a region rather than using the maximum historic earthquake; Advances in strong ground motion modeling; A better understanding of seismic source zones.

A similar study was also performed for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) (Bernreuter et al.,1989). The current state-of-the-art for seismic hazard analysis was developed from both the EPRI study and the LLNL study.

The current state-of-the-art includes:

Magnitude-based earthquake catalogs and hazard calculations; Advanced ground motion and attenuation modeling; A rational tectonic approach to estimating the maximum earthquake for different seismotectonic regions.

3.3 METHODOLOGY This seismic hazard investigation included the probabilistic and deterministic estimation of bedrock ground motion at the site using a magnitude-basec ground motion model. The ground motion modeled included peak acceleration, peak valocity, peak displacement, and pseudorelative velocity (PSRV) response spectra.

l GlT Seismic Hazard Study

~ March 16,1993 Page 7 of 46 l

3.3.1 Deterministic And Probabilistic Hazard Methods In performing a seismic hazard analysis, the question of whether the analysis is probabilistic or deterministic is often raised. A deterministic hazard analysis estimates the ground motion caused at the site by earthquakes of known magnitude and location (or distance), it is used to estimate the ground motion the site has experienced historically, and/or to examine the effects of some specified " design earthquake." Probabilistic hazard analysis attempts to specify the ground motion that the site should expect to see over a given period of time, considering the contributions from all the regional earthquake sources. In other words, deterministic analysis addresses questions like "What would the ground motion at the site be if the 1886 Charleston earthquake were to occur again today?," while probabilistic analysis addresses questions like "What is the chance that I will see a 0.1g acceleration at this site in the next 50 years?" In our opinion, each approach answers important questions, and in this study both methods are used.

3.3.1.1 Deterministic Analysis Deterministic analysis was used for two purposes in this study. The first was to make estimates of the ground motion at the site which would have resulted from significant regional historic earthquakes. These calculations were made with the RVT ground motion model using the appropriate magnitude and distance for each of the events.

The second purpose of deterministic analysis was to aid in the production of design earthquake time traces. The response spectrum produced in the probabilistic analysis represents the contributions of many different earthquakes. The response level at lower frequencies is mainly to contributions from distant large events, while the response level at higher frequencies is due mainly to closer mid size and small events. The response spectrum l

can be used for design purposes. However, a time trace produced from this spectrum would l

not be useful, since it could not result frcm any single real-world earthquake. To overcome this limitation, deterministic analysis was used to determine a set of individual earthquake response spectra, each of which matches the design response spectrum over a certain range of frequencies, and which together span the entire range of interest. These may be used to l

produce design time series.

~

i 1

GlT Seismic Hazard Study

' March 16 1993 Page 8 of 46 i

3.3.1.2 Probabilistic Analysis The object of the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis is to develop a realistic curve relating an annual probability of exceedence (or return period) to a given level of maximum ground motion. The approach taken is to use discrete' seismic source zones called seismotectonic regions. These zones represent areas of similar geology at seismogenic depths, geologic history, stress conditions, and historic seismicity. The contribution to ground motion at the site is computed for each of the zones, using a relationship that scales ground motion with earthquake magnitude, and that takes into account the distance from the site. The individual contributions are combined to produce the final estimate of probability of exceedence for each given value of ground motion.

The probabilistic analysis used for this study involved following stages.

i l

Development of seismotectonic regions (source zonec) using regional tectonics and seismicity, Computation of seismicity parameters using LAW's magnitude-based Earthquake Catalog. and assignment of maximum magnitude; Establishment of the appropriate ground motion model; Computation of bedrock seismic hazard at the site.

l 3.3.2 Ground Motion Model As indicated, a magnitude-based ground motion modelis used for this study. The random vibration theory (RVT) model uses results from stochastic analysis to make estimates of peak ground motion and pseudo-relative velocity from amplitude spectra (Boore,1983; Herrmann, 1985) and therefore provides a method for direct computation of theoreticairesponse spectra, in addition to providing values of peak acceleration, velocity and displacement. RVT models were an important part of the ground motion input for both the EPRI and LLNL studies (Electric Power Research Institute,1986; Bernreuter et al.,1989).

, GlT Seismic Hazard Study M.srch 16,1993 P v 3 of 46 4.0 REGIONAL TECTONICS Due to the nature of the earthquake source mechanisms in the southeast, evaluation of regional tectonics is a key part of assessing seismic hazard. The tectonic history of the southeastern United States can be described in terms of two main episodes of divergence and rifting, and three episodes of convergence and orogeny, initially acting on the eastern part of a Precambrian supercontinent. These events produced the vertical and horizontal crustal inhomogeneities that control the patterns of seismicity. A detailed description of the tectonic episodes and a description of the resulting features is provided in Appendix 4.0.

5.0 SEISMOTECTONIC PEGIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

in this study, seismotectonic regions are used as seismic source zones for estimating hazard.

Each seismotectonic region has been defined on the basis of either tectonic features and seismicity, or crustal geophysical data and seismiuty where tectonic features are not evident.

In either case, emphasis was piaced on the nature of the crust at seismogenic depths, which is typically from about 5 to 25 kilometers in depth.

Continental rifts Itypcally late Precambrian-early Paleozoic) were found to be the most reliable indication of potential seismicity. The potential for seismicity was greatest for the best developed rifts; those open at one end to oceanic or transitional crust and those exhibiting Mesozoic reactivation. Rifts enclosed entirely by continental crust and showing the least evidence or reactivation were the least likely to show active seismicity. Regional gravity and magnetic data were primarily used to interpret rift structures (Schaeffer et al.,1985; Law Engineering Testing Company,1986). A detailed discussion of tectonics is provided in Appendix 4.0 to provide the background for the delineation of the seismotectonic regions.

l l

The central and southeastern United States are covered with seismotectonic regions such that i

every point is in one and only one seismotectonic region. A maximum magnitude is assigned to each seismotectonic region. Other seismicity parameters, such as estimates of average

l l

GlT Seismic Hazard Study l'

March 16,1993 Page 10 of 46 annual earthquake activity and the relative proportion of earthquakes' at differing magnitudes l

-within the region, are considered in the analysis.

i i

I l

q The seismotectonic regions used to calculate probabilistic hazard include:

Eastern Basement (Region 17)

Appalachian Piedmont (Region 107)

Brunswick Terrane (Region 108) l l

. Charleston Seismic Zone (Region 35)

L Northern Coastal Plain (Region 105)

New Madrid Rift Complex i

New Madrid Fault Zone (Region 18)

Reelfoot Rift (Region 4) l St. Louis' Arm (Region 6) l Wabash Valley Arm (Region 5)

East Continent Gravity High (Region 1)

Indiaria - Ohio Gravity High (Region 3)

Mississippi Embayment (Region 117)

Indiana Block (Region 115)

Ohio-Pennsylvania Block (Region 112)

Southern Coastal Plain (Region 126B)

Ozark Uplift (Region 15)

These regions are described in Appendix Section 5.3. Other seismotectonic regions in the central U.S. were considered for use in the probabilistic hazard analysis, but were not used i

because of their great distance and low impact on the site.

5.2 MAXIMUM MAGNITUDES Each seismotectonic region is assumed to have a maximum likely earthquake associated with it. This maximum earthquake represents the largest magnitude category used for probabilistic seismic hazard in & particular seismotectonic region. The maximum magnitude was based primarily on regional tectonics and was not based on increments above historic maximum a tents or on activity rates.

GlT Seismic Hazard Study March 16,1993 Page 11 of 46 l

6.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SOIL PROFILES 6.1 SITE GEOLOGY

]

The Georgia Tech campus is located in the Appalachian Piedmont seismotectonic region, about 7 km (4% miles) southeast of the Brevard Zone. The underlying bedrock is late Precambrian to early Paleozoic age metamorphic rock of Stonewall, Wahoo Creek, and Clairmont formations, in general, these formations are comprised of gneiss, schist and amphibolite. The Stonewall formation includes intercalated, fine-grained, biotite gneiss, I

horneblende-plagiociase amphibolite and sill lmanite-biotite schist. TheWehoo Creekformation includes slabby, medium-grained muscovite-plagioclase-quartz gneiss, amphibolite mica schist and epidote-calcite-diopside-gneiss. The Clairmont formation consists of interlayered medium-grained biotite-plagioclase gneiss and fme to medium-grained horneblende-plagioclase amphibolite.(McConnell, et al.,1984) t The natural soils on the campus are typically residual soils formed by the in place weathering of the underlying metamorphic rocks. The typical residual soil profile consists of clayey soil near the surface, where soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and silty sands, that generally become firmer with depth to the top of bedrock. During the urbanization of Atlanta, low areas were often filled. Areas of fill exist over the GIT Campus. The fill is commonly reworked residual soil and can include organic debris.

l The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined. A transitional zone termed

" partially weathered rock" (PWR) is normally found overlying the parent bedrock Partially weathered rock is defined, for engineering purposes, as residual material with standard penetration test (SPT) resistance (N-values) exceeding 100 blows per foot. Weathering is f acilitated by fractures, joints and by the presence of less resistant rock types. Consequently, the profile of the partially weathered rock and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal distances. Lenses and zones of hard rock and zones of partially weathered rock often exist within the soil mantle, well above the general bedrock level.

l l

1

\\

4 l

GlT Seismic Hazard Study _

' March 16,.1993 Page 12 of 46

+

l 6.2 SOIL PROFILES.,

LAW developed two model soil profiles to illusc.we the range of subsurface conditions on the j

3 Georgia' Tech campus. The SHAKE computer program was then used to model the affect of the local overburden materials on the ground motion (Schnabel et al.,1972). Our approach

]

was to use existing soil test boring data to identify sites typical of the deep and shallow soil

. profiles found on the campus. We then compared the consistency of the overburden 1

' materials, based on the Standard Penetration Test "N-values," and selected boring data from e

the sites with the' deepest, weak soil profile and the shallowest, stiff soil profile. We note that tM: eepesi d profits encountered on the campus was not the weakest, and the shallowest-q pofi!c not tne athst, based on N-values. Consequently; considerable judgement was applied in the :e ni cn o' the "model" sites. Tha sites selected as best fitting our criteria were the j

Architecture Uending (deep soil) and the Electrical Switching Station (shallow soil).

]

The logs of the borings from these two sites.were reviewed and profiles were constructed '

using the soil test boring data as a guide. The profiles developed were neither the _" average" profile for each site nor the single most extreme boring, but an interpretation of the most extreme condition with a high likelihood of occurrence. This also involved a good deal of judgement supported by the data from other sites on campus. The resulting profiles are included on Figure 6-1.

In addition to the profiles for the two "model" sites, the western end of the 8th Street Dormitory site was also selected for analysis. This site has an overburden thickness which is close to an average of the deep and shallow model soil profiles and the materials are of l

" average" stiffness. The resulting profile is included on Figure 6-2.

I s.

Fmw,

a

.i

• l

(]9hf 7

C o

o E

oky%

(; o&

eg o o

c oo o

Co o

o o

f) o go o

o o

• U

~

,n n

c.

-p

{'

6 /oW '

o o

8 e+o

+ c l

l o

0 C

g o

o N

0 o

o co

• o q<

o !"

O oj _ f C

p a

j fo S' Y[

'(

8 N

c o

cr.

C e

o ao

\\

o o

A..

N 4

o N

9 o

4 C

e o

e c

"pb o

l

%*/

\\

J o

i

]

c o

\\

1 u

a f

A o +

b r

j C

/

2 a

i l

)

Do l

[

T K,

\\

J 4

N GEORGIA r4STITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SITE i

i GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY i

SElSMIC STUDY Law FIGURE 2-1: EARTHQUAKE DISTRIBUTION MAP Atlanta, Georgia Project No.

Scale Date Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 AS SHOWN MARCH 1993

d 2

i' DEEP SOIL PROFILE SHALLOW SOIL PROFILE Depth (ft.)

Depth (ft.)

SOIL FILL RESIDUUM i

Na = 7 bpf 345 < V < 400f/5 Naa = 20 bpf 650 < V < 750f/5 s

s

% = 115pcf y,,, = 110 pcf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,3 l

PWR n = 140pcf 990 < V, < 1150f/s j4 430 < V < $00f/s s

pogg l

% = 165 pcf i

i 475 < V, < 550f/s i

1 1

3 28 s

i ALLUVIUM 590 < V < 625f/s i

N,a = 4 y = 11$pcf i

32 i

}

RESIDUUM 910 < V < 1050f/5 s

)

N,a = 20 bpf LEGEND i

n = 115 pcf _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N,a = Average SPTN-value, blowsperfoot i

n = Mass unit weight, poundsper cubicfoot e

4 950 < V, < 1100f/s l

V = Shear wave velocity, feet per second i

s 3

i 1000 < V < 1150f/s s

l 60

}

PWR

}

N,a 100 bpf 1340 < V, < 1550f/s

}

n = 140pcf 70 l

1 ROCK V, = 5000f/s k

% = 165 pcf GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEISMIC STUDY Law FIGURE 6-1: SOIL PROFILES Atlanta, Georgia Project No.

Scale Date Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 N/A MARCH 1993

i

?

l GlT Seismic Hazard Study l

March 16,1993 Page 15 of 46 Once the _ three model profiles were selected, the parameters required by the computer analysis were estimated. The principal parameters required are the shear wave velocity and density of the overburden materials.

Shear wave velocity was estimated using a correlation with standard penetration test (SPT)

N values which LAW developed from data gathered as part of the recent drilled pier load test on the GlT Campus. The data, which include shear wave velocity determined by the Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) method, has been published by Professor Paul Mayne of Georgia Tech in " Axial Load-Displacement Behavior of Drilled Shaft Foundations in Piedmont Residuum." We also compared the SPT-Shear Wave Velocity correlation with cwrelatkans l

which we previously developed on other hites in the Piedmont, most notably the Oconee Nuclear Facility. The interpreted shear-strain relationships were adjusted for overburden pressure and material type (fill, alluvium, residuum) to arrive at the values presented in Figures 6-1 and 6-2 above. The density, or unit weight, of the overburden materials was estimated using our experience with similar materials.

7.0 EARTHOUAKE EFFECTS AfJD GROUND MOTION This section summarizes the local seismicity in the vicinity of the site. The' effects from known earthquakes are discussed in terms of estimated site intensities and modeled ground motion. The results of probabilistic ground motion calculations and design earthquakes for use in modeling site-specific response are presented, surface PSRV response spectra based on soil profiles are discussed. Finally, the results of this study are related to the Standard Building Code.

l 7.1 LOCAL SEISMICITY The GlT Campus is located in an area of historically low seismicity. Earthquakes with j

epicenters in the state of Georgia with magnitudes (m.) exceeding 5.0 have not-been recorded. Table 7-1 shows earthquakes with m, 2 3.0 or I, 2 IV within 100 km of the GlT campus. Only three earthquakes are known within this distance. None of the events are known to have caused damage.

_~

i l,

GIT Seismic Hazard Study March 16,1993 Page 16 of 46 j

1 1

TABLE 7-1

}

Earthquakes within.100 km (62 miles)

Georgia institute of Technology Campus Atlanta, Georgia a

4

$I5s@ $NIond Day '

l'at. " $ i Lond['^ -m,*( "ci,* [' ^ " [DistaYce*9 1913 3

13 34.50 85.00 3.3 IV 97.3(60.5)-

i i

1914' 3

5 33.50 83.50 3.8 VI 88.9(55.2) 1933' 6

9 33.50 83.50 3.3-IV 99.0(61.5) 1 i

distance in kilometers (miles in parantheses) from GlT Campus.

epicentral MMI (see Appendix 8.0).

m, using relationships from Sibol et al. (1987).

i 7.2 EFFECTS FROM KNOWN EARTHQUAKES 4

A number of earthquakes are known to have affected the vicinity of the GlT Campus.

i Estimates of site intensity and ground motion are discussed in the following sections.

1 7.2.1 Intensity At The Site From Significant Historical Earthquakes The significant historical earthquakes for southeastern seismotectonic regions are discussed in Appendix Section 2.3. Table 7-2 show the dates of occuirence, approximate location, estimated magnitude, epicentral intensity, estimated site intensity, distance, and seismotectonic region for the five most important of these earthquakes. The values given in

~

Table 7-2 are interpreted by us to be the best estimates available for these parameters. The table gives estimates for MMI at the site from historic earthquakes. The highest intensity shaking in the Atlanta area was MMI Vill from the 1886 Charleston earthquakes and intensities about V - Vi for the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquake sequence.

GlT Seismic Hazard Study March 16,1993 Page 17 of 46 TABLE 7-2 Significant Historical Earthquakes Georgia Institute of Technology Campus Atlanta, Georgia s;s e we..,

w.A

...- m. ;.-e c.c., : %...... :..

e.m.

\\.Ye~an #Monthk {;Dayi

tLath !!Long..?

?nik llS 11.$$

M Distance"4 fSeismotect6nic'Rsgioin Names

.x New Madrid, 1812 2

7 36.5 89.6 7.3*

XI V-VI 561(349)

New Madrid Fault Zone MO Wilkesboro, 1861 8

31 36.2 81.2 5.26

.VI Ill 397(247)

Appalachian Piedmont NC Charleston, 1886 8

31 32.9 80.0 6.8' X

IV-Vill 420(261)

Charleston Seismic SC Zone Giles Co., VA 1897 5

31 37.3 80.7 5.88 Vil-Vill 111 515(320)

Eastern Basement Skyland, NC 1916 2

21 35.5 82.5 5.2*

Vil IV 258(158)

Eastern Basement m, from Street and Nuttii (1984).

m, calculated from I, and felt area using Sibol et al., (1987).

m, based on Bollinger (1977) and Nuttii et al., (1979).

8 m, from Nuttii et al., (1979).

m, calculated from I, using Sibol et al., (1987).

Estimated epicentral Modified Mercalli intensity (see Appendix 8.0 for description).

Estimated MMI at the site. NF = not felt. F = telt.

Distance from GlT Campus in kilometers (miles in parentheses)

i GlT Seismic Hazard Study l

' March 16,1993 l

Page 18 of 46 l

Atlanta is located between an area that experienced ground shaking ranging from MMI IV to Vill from the 1886, Charleston earthquake, (Bollinger,1977). Dutton (1889) gives the following report of the earthquake's effects in Atlanta, Georgia.

"At five minutes before 9 o' clock, Atlanta was violently shaken up, people rushing into the streets in indescribable confusion, each looking for an explanation from the others. A second and third shock came, exceedingly violent, in the city that was now full of alarmed people. Some telephone messages came in from the West End, Marietta. Decatur, and other outlying towns all showing that the earthquake had shaken the people out of bed. One house on Marietta street was shattered to pieces. An asserv ',1y of Knights of Labor, five hundred in number, adjourned in confusion. The chimneys on the six-story Constitution building all fell, where upon the forty compositors sought the street, with their " sticks" in their hands. All over the city window glass is broken, chimneys knocked down, and dishes and clocks smashed to pieces.

The streets at 10 o' clock are full of people, who' fear to return to their houses."

This level of shaking, which includes damage to masonry and non-masonry structures, represents the effect of moderate amplitude ground motion with a 30-second duration of shaking.

The three largest New Madrid earthquakes of 1811 and 1812 are estimated to have caused MMI V to VI shaking near the site. Since there were no intensity reports for the Atlanta area, these values are based on reports in other areas at similar distances. Based on reports from the 1886 Charleston earthquake, intensities as high as Vill were possible at the GlT Campus.

At epicentral distances of over 550 km, these site intensities were likely caused by long duration shaking by surf ace waves at relatively low frequencies (i.e. < 1 Hz). Evaluation of historical records shows that shaking was felt from one to four minutes at sites throughout the Southeast for the three largest events (Nuttli,1973). Also, the reported intensities were few and scattered and mostly from alluvial valleys where amplification may have played a role.

7.2.2 Ground Motion Estimates for Historical Earthquakes Using deterministic RVT methods, bedrock ground motion was calculated for a number of historical earthquakes. The resulting estimates of peak horizontal accelerations, velocities, and displacements are presented in Table 7 3.

l i

GlT Seismic Hazard Study

~ March 16,1993 Page 19 of 46 Table 7-3 Estimated Ground Motion from Historical Earthquakes Georgia institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA ds

?PeElf$5riz0n$hl%

• dip $$N N$ii6 fit'All

.:DisiAnceight

$siccityh%

lKnEld5tidn?

E(Mi SA MMIM/db6 J N M ?)l 2 Esrthquake '

'm.

n.

j, 1812 New Madrid, 7.3 561 7.7 (3.0) 15.9 (0.016g)

Mo.

1861 Wilkesboro, NC 5.2 397 0.03 (0.01) 0.7(0.0007) 1886 Charleston, SC 6.8 420 3.0 (1.2) 12.5(0.0139) 1897 Giles Co., VA 5.8 515 0.15 (2.06) 1.4 (0.001 g) 1972 Bowman, SC 4.5 365 0.01 (--)

0.3 (0.0003g)

From Table 7-3, it can be seen that the greatest peak horizontal velocity (7.7 cm/s) and 2

acceleration (15.9 cm/s ) at the GIT campus were produced by the February 7,1812 New Madrid, Missouri earthquake.

Bedrock pseudo-relative velocity spectra at a damping ratio of 0.05 have been developed for bedrock ground motion of the 1886 Charleston earthquake and 1812 New Madrid earthquake.

These are shown in Figure 7-1. Note that the dominant velocities occur at frequencies less 1

than 1 Hz. The extremely long period, velocity, and displacement motion from the 1812 New Madrid event indicates the passage of surface waves, which concurs with the historical descriptioris of ground motion and shaking.

i d

l A /NA N x^x,xx,4

's A/x N

/ \\

\\

'\\

\\

- \\,

X /x g/ x x) s/

'/ x+ ' '

\\

/\\

\\

W

\\

a' (X>'x Xx

%/s,

s s

,x f z fs 'xx y

l

. X

,x,

^

/

N w i

8

,/

s

/

N-j/

\\

\\

\\

j M.:'

'N,e U

N

/ \\/ \\

/'% /

/ \\ >'.. h / \\

/\\

/,\\

/

{

l Q.

jX N

k N

/[Ny[N.-s-N 9\\

\\ [\\

's

! \\/

\\

W N

\\/

1 fx

,24.x\\,s/.

f

-s.

g/

y N x

s e

/

3

• y

- N/

N, s

s N

l g

4 s

l

~f'

'9g, /\\/ 'N

/

,/ \\

.Ns

\\

'/

,/

s s

i 3

\\

j

, / \\ j \\, y /y,'./

! 'N

/N

/

N

/N N

N v'

'Ng

'y g.

N,/

'/ \\/

]

(C 7

/

's, ' '.,.; '-/ 'N

,;/'y,' N

'N 1

\\p\\

j N

/

N

'(

N

/\\

/s j

3

' N

/\\

N/

,/

l

/ '

N fN.

s s

\\ /'

/\\

y[ \\

\\

x

-,/

s s

\\

, / N,

/IN N

,/ N, / N

' s, /N /

g j

s

,X X

i

'<. ;,'.y

\\,

fx l

_ X

' x'

., /)

',.(

'/, '\\

x

)f:

'y ' jX.

s.

j N

sj j '.g s,-

j

/

N

\\

e

+

/\\

6

/\\

/,

Nys-,

Ng x.,'

\\/

s, N \\

s

,/

,, 'I,

[

,/\\,,N)

'\\

,(

'\\

0.01 Frequency (Hz)

I DAMPlNG RATIO O.05

)

i 1

i Feb. 7,1812 New Madrid, Mo.

)

Sept. 31,1886 Charleston. S.C.

mer i

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY l

SEISMIC STUDY i.

Law noune 7.,:.Eoaocx onoUso uo1>on or i

HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKE VERSUS j

Atlanta, Georgl8 NATURAL FREQUENY i

Project No.

Scale Date

]

Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 AS SHOWN MARCH 1993 j

=

f GlT Seismic Hazard Study March 16,1993 Page 21 of 46 7.3 PROBABILISTIC HAZARD RESULTS A probabilistic analysis of seismic hazard was conducted for the GlT Campus. The method was described in Section 3.3 and expanded on in Appendix Section 3 5. The results of this analysis are presented in terms of bedrock ground motion (peak horizontal acceleration, velocity, and displacement) and a pseudo-relative velocity (PSRV) spectrum.

l 7.3.1 Bedrock Ground Motion Figure 7-2 shows the curve of peak horizontal acceleration in rock versus the annuai i

probability of exceedence (P,) that resulted from the probabilistic analysis. Figure 7 3 shows a similar curve for peak horizontal velocity. The values of peak horizontal bedrock acceleration and velocity associated with 10 percent probability of exceedence in 50 years and 250 years are given in Table 7-4.

TABLE 7-4 Peak Ground Motion Georgia Institute of Technology Campus Atlanta, Georgia Ground Motion with 10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 years

. W.... 1 iPENKddCELER4T16Ni W

4 COMPONENTl

'16n/;r;gg); -

iPEAKSELOdlTY:l

- ' ye,',-(;gf,p; ~

"E f

Horizontal 43.7 (0.045) 3.1 (1.2)

Vertical 29.1 (0.03) 2.1 (0.8)

Note: Vertical motion is assumed to be 2/3 of horizontal.

Ground Motion with 10% Probability of Exceedence in 250 years

. I

. _. 2...

[PEANkCNEL'ERAilON 1

' fl E K$E(0 CITY) i

" 3'

? COMPONENT?

& #cm/s gg3t

. ;gggnf,-(irilsF 2-Horizontal 120.0(0.12) 8.0 (3.1)

Vertical 80.0(0.08) 5.3 (2.1)

Note: Vertical motion is assumed to be 2/3 of horizontal.

l O.,.

f) 10,0 150 200

..i i

-10 7

0.1 q L

z a

cc N

3' c>

a W

3 N

U a

V O

N (X

'100 M

0-C 0.01 :

Z E--

of h

10 re probability of O

CD exceedence in 50 years 4

j Q

O e

j Cd 0.001 :

10 % probability of

-1000 sg CL exceedence in 250 years

~

D

{

2 j

1..

.y.

a p

E-z I

z j

g E

i I10000 i,.

i 0 0001 i...

>>i O

50 100 150 200 PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION (cm/s*)

l I

J

]

I k

GEORGfA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY j

SEISMlC STUDY l

Law FIGURE 7-2: PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION 4

VERSUS ANNUAL PROBABILITY OF i

Atlanta, Ge orgia EXCEEDENCE

)

l I e' oject No.

Scale Date j

Engl.6.eim? :.ad F.'<ltonment Serv.ead g 7704495.01 AS SHOWN MARCH 1993 w r n m. e m.r..,,

k

_a

...: mom _ _

.-,m m

_-__2.

_m..

.o 4

,i i

j PEAK HORIZONTAL VELOCITY ( in/s )

i 0.00 1.00 2.0,0 3.00 4.00 i

i i

\\

0.1 :

10 M

1

. O I

c j

Z-o i

N x

j Q

v c::]

N 1

U

~

C x

O N

E.[

1 i

N 0.01 :

100 j

O i

p Z

~

E-*

l 3

10 5 probability of D

exceedence in 50 years CQ Z

i Q

i O

l

~

N 1

l g 0.001 :

10 % probability of 1000 x exceedence in 250 years i

a 1'

l D

O' J

_...............l.......................

4 D

l

~

p E

Z l

e z

l j

r.-

i 10000 i

0.0001 i

i i

i j

0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 i

PEAK HORIZONTAL VELOCITY ( cm/s )

b 2

I i

1 1

i l

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY l

SEISMIC STUDY Law FIGURE 7 3: PEAK HORIZONTAL VELOCITY VERSUS j.

Atlanta, Georgia ANNUAL PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDENCE Project No.

Scale Date Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 AS SHOWN MARCH 1993 1

. ~.

l GIT Seismic Hazard Study March 16,1993 Page 24 of 46 j

7.3.2 Probabilistic PSRV Spectrum Figure.7-4 shows a' plot of the estimated bedrock ground motion (PSRV) versus natural frequency at a damping ratio of 0.05 with a 10 percent probability of exceedence in 50 years.

This plot is a composite of hazard generated by earthquakes of all sizes at all distances. It shows the relative hazard at the site for various frequencies of ground motion. The spectrum in Figure 7-4 does not represent a single earthquake and should not be inverted to generate time histories for dynamic analysis.

The values shown in Table 7-4 represent ground motion values in rock. A correction to peak ground motion must be made in order to account for the effect of soils at the site.

The 5 percent damped bedrock spectrum shown in Figure 7-4 was used to compute seismic coefficients. These dimensionless coefficients are based on the peak spectral acceleration and velocity. A,is 0.05. Av is 0.07. These site-specific coefficients are equivalent to the values from maps in the Standard Building Code (SBC) or Applied Technology Council (ATC3). The seismic coefficients determined by this study are lower than those selected from the' code maps. The differences can be' explained by the site-specific application of modern seismic hazard estimation techniques.

A bedrock spectrum for ground motion with a 10 percent probability of exceedence in 250 years is shown in Figure 7-5. This plot can be used to give an estimate of ground motion at the GlT Campus for long return periods (2,373 years).

l l

t l

l

I 9

l-

/N /'xg N/N /'N /x xx 'x A /

N 4, l

y/. /'Ny,,y g/yo,

_ x, '

,/

\\ e_

\\.

\\

/

[

Y x/\\

9 N/ \\

/

4 N

x

/

3,[s /\\g

[g

[

• //

\\

,e l

i EX)fXXD X)\\ ' GX y

) % j\\

N A

/

p' s

x s

/

/

N/

\\

\\

/ x,'

N

\\/

/

\\

j e

/

/ \\. ^x

/'./\\ /\\

/

\\

/

-/N

%/

'\\

/\\/ \\

/

,/ N/\\

x s

i

--g

/

/N 2,N/'jX / y \\['N

/

N p

\\'N /'h\\ /

'/ Y N[

\\

/

O

/

\\

x / \\s,,e 3

/

/fs

\\

/N

/ \\ / 'N

/\\,

,/

/ N/

\\,

N / \\,/

\\

Nj\\-

!/

s l

\\,/

/

/l\\ / 'N

/\\

\\ j

'\\, 'N [

/ 'N /

i

{

~\\,

'/ Nf.

'N,

.f

/N/,,/

s/ 'x /

' /\\

['N

,/U, j k /N,/ 'N,M

/N

/

\\

,/k

,N 7

s,,

d

-. 'X

<s,A

,A

.(

..,N

/',

^

/

N s

s,.

,s

- x s

s s

s

,. \\, ' '

/

/ 'N

\\

r s

g

/

j

/

0.01

....,........i........i,...c 4

0.01 0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

I DAMPING RATIO 0.05 Date of printino: 3-08-93 t o% in so y..,.

s GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEISMIC STUDY Law FicuRE 7 4: eSRv vERSuS NATuRAt FREOuENCY FOR A 10% PROBABILITY OF Atlanta, Georgia EXCEEDENCE IN 50 YEARS Project No.

Scale Data l

Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 AS SHOWN MARCH 1993

i 7

/ '

,,Fe p/x

'\\

/\\

X

/\\

7

}

/

N o

\\ j

/'

' N/ \\ o,/ \\ j' \\,/ 'N / \\.,

' (/

N l

N

\\

\\fN 7x

^x /N

'4

- /

's

~

x[/\\,n,/

1 f

f

,/j\\ fN /'

,/ 'N,/t

\\f

/

s

~

\\

~ 's.

/\\,[

/'\\ j

. s

/

\\

\\

/\\ / x ) ( /\\,7 'N

/b

,/'\\, 'x

)se,

/

\\

g l

E j,X

/'N j' 7 h,f (,),/'Nj /j%['o/

/

X N

4 x

D

[N,,

/\\

/

\\

\\

/\\

\\

\\

/\\

7'N

'N l

- f\\,..

s s

j

- 'N, f

,/'s,/ 'N

,/'\\ /

( s +,

N-

'N /N y

~

5

\\

yj jN (agN

/ k 'j 2

N

.x

<\\

,,2%

fx

)N ' N,/ \\ )

f

'[, X x

l j

i,A, / \\f'gj \\. x!,X,'\\,/ N,ry,X, ' '

X s

s

/\\

\\/ \\ /\\

/\\

\\

[N.

s

' %,/

c) s

/

l

,l s,

l

\\

/

s f

/

'N fx

/x

\\

d

^

~5

\\

/ \\ e ^x f,s^%.,^..N-w N-N/

s/,'

N/

\\/x' Cr.

N

,A-

,s, x

s s

es s

j N/

q

,e

\\/ s f' / '.

'N/

s,/

\\g

\\

N

( / 'N /N )(

/'s

,- (

/N y s

/ \\,

/ N,,/

j 2

,,X

/x /' \\

{ N,

/

y. \\,,I'

\\

,X /

/

\\

m s

p p

x j

s,

,s s

s

,N x,/

N', g' s

- N.'

/

se y

x, x,

\\

x X.

N x/N['s/N j

- /

,X.

'N,

\\

)

'\\,

]s

'.s; N

'x'

'y' j

\\

/,\\<f x

N s

,s s,'

/ N

'N /

/ 'fx j

- N/ N i

s,N 4

,, s

,fs

\\

,A

.x

,\\'A,y Nl/

-x s

i

,N.

N,, '

\\/

sf y j

N

\\/

N

,N-r N

,a

,~

.' x s

/\\

,~,

1-tN

/,\\

\\ /

\\

0.01

.....i

.....i

......i i

0.01 0.1 1

10 100 i

i Frequency (Hz) 6 DAMPlNG RATIO O.05 10% Probabihty of Exceedence in 250 Years GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEISMIC STUDY Law FIGURE 7-5: PSRV VERSUS NATURAL FREQUENCY FOR A 10% PROBABILITY OF Atlanta, Georgia EXCEEDENCE IN 250 YEARS Project No.

Scale Date Engineering and Environmentah Services 57704495.01 AS SHOWN MARCH 1993

l l-git Seismic Hazard Study March 16,1993 Page 27 of 46 7.4 DESIGN EARTHQUAKES Two design earthquakes have been selected for the GlT Campus. These are intended to be used to model site specific response. These design events were selected to approximate portions of the probabilistic bedrock PSRV curve previously shown in Figure 7-4. One design earthquake is designated the near-field design earthquake; the other event is designated the far-field design earthquake.

The near-field design earthquake has a magnitude (m.) of 5.2 and occurs at a distance of 40 km and a depth of 5 km from with'n the Appalachian Piedmont seismotectonic region. Peak bedrock ground motion for this event is shown in Table 7-5. Peak bedrock ground motion and l

the bedrock PSRV spectrum at a damping ratio of 0.05 are shown in Figure 7 6.

TABLE 7-5 Estimated Peak Ground Motion for Design Earthquakes Georgia Institute of Technology Campus Atlanta, Georgia EARTHQUAKE PEAK

' PEA'K PEAK ~

~

HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL

- HORIZONTALK Magnitude Distance (km)

ACCELERATION

. VELOCITY -

DISPLACEMENT j

cm/s* (g)

(cm/s) (in/s) -

cm (in) '

near field 5.2 40 41.9 (0.043) 0.81 (0.32) 0.08 (0.03) far-field 6.4 140 39.4 (0.040) 3.19 (1.26) 2.27 (0.89)

The far-field design earthquake has a magnitude (m,) of 6.4 and originates in the Eastern Basement seismotectonic region at a distance of 140 km and a depth of 15 km. Peak bedrock ground motion for this event is shown in Table 7-5. Peak bedrock ground motion and the bedrock PSRV spectrum at a damping ratio of 0.05 are shown in Figure 7-7.

The bedrock PSRV spectra for both the near-field arid far-field earthquakes are shown with the probabilistic spectrum in Figure 7-8. This figure demonstrates that the design earthquakes j

represent the bulk of the probabilistic spectrum above 0.1 Hz. At frequencies lower than 0.1 Hz, the probabilistic spectrum is dominated by long period velocity and displacement from large, distant earthquakes from seismotectonic regions such as the New Madrid Fault Zone.

Since very long period ground motion is typically not used in modeling the effects of earthquakes, no attempt was made to match a design earthquake to the part of the spectrum at frequencies lower than 0.1 Hz.

n v

.,m,

. ~.,

.-.-- ~.

i I

/

~

\\

l

'y.,/ ?o

,/

l

_s'

, l'

,e

/

'~

~

l

-, N

/ t j 'N / \\,/\\

N l

N' f,.

, ' <o j',

/

/

l j

/

/

\\

s,-

N

• a

/

s,/9s ['

/N

's

,e

',4N

,.4,

/N s

f

\\

x[

s/

c

\\

s I\\

[9,.

,/

,/y\\ x

/

/ 'N s

\\

7 E'[

/'N 7

'\\

f'%

X

/'N

*%[

l

.y

' / x /g.

j

,^

^

~\\ 7 N;,/y'/'N 6

N sj O

~'

9,pp \\[

- /

/

4 o

- /

/s

'e x

. x/

s

]

/'N

'o,

/ \\

d j

N N,

N' x/

s[

j-N, N,

N /

x

/

/. sx N

s x

o N

m

,- /(y l

D

/

s

'(N q%, ' N

'N /

. 'X

$N N/

\\

.\\

N

/

s s

/k O

\\

s

\\

/

CL

,/\\

,Mb, !

'\\

X,

/N [\\\\ '['N

/

)

e N

\\' /

\\/

\\/

l M

g

<4'

/

/

s

/\\

/

s s

/N s

/

j N / %j

\\s\\,

,sf

\\,

.f s

'\\,/ '\\./

'N

/\\ /,Vs,f'

/\\

\\

s

/

'7

\\

K

'*/

4 j

4 s

s

'N N /*,x

~

6

/ \\/, f'N '

'N S f'\\

A

^

\\

\\

s, "O

/

A

..N N

Nf

/-

j,'

N a

/\\

s A,

's,j

'3

%/N/

N N

/

s j

g 0.1 -j/p 7s 3

,3 y

y

.x g

s, N /y\\,-

N N

N i

N N

N.

g

,/

N

/ ',, '\\

'y

/

7N /'y N/

s

',l

/ \\ j y /

,/

p

\\/

\\,

\\

N N

j

/\\ /

s,

's

'\\

's N f' N

\\

\\ j/

\\

/

/ N

/[

N f,N

/

.'.,,..i

/

s O.01

...i 0.01 0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz) 1 DAMPING RATIO O.05

• Peak Displacernent (D). Velocity (V). and Accelerauon (A)

GEORGIA INSTTTUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEISMIC STUDY Law FIGURE 7-6: BEDROCK PSRY AND PEAK GROUND MOTION FOR NEAR FIELD DESIGN Atlanta, Georgia EARTHOUAKE M.S.2 A 40 km Project No.

Scale

' Date Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 AS SHOWN MARCH 1993 3

. ~

y! ',/ 'N y

,/ [\\

N,j! ' N

[,/\\ /

p

,/ N

/ ' ~.,/N R,/ *

/*,/ ' y /

/ ',,/

K/ ','k,ek,/

s/N

- / N )X

' M

,/ \\ /\\x,'<

/x x

x,

/

\\ [;'

/x s

\\ 7 N /c\\/

/

-s

)

_ N,/

N,,/

N/

f

(

/ s,/

/

/

/

s

/

,/

/

,x, x,x,N e',x s

j s'5,x /'ws g

x x

s s

XNy'X

/

N

/

/

D

~N

/

/ K

~'o, j' '.,

}

\\

N.'

y' N/

\\/.N/

N/

/

s..,

'f q

s,.

,'.,,sN,

,/)[),!'N

'\\

\\./

\\

' '\\

l 5

7 g.

x N

,N N

/s */

f x

/ sf

/

/s j

o s

j j

- 4

/'

/,?'"

,-X fx K,X /' x j'<x j

q j

s7

\\

x j

a)

_ N

N

/

/ \\ j/

N s,/

N, N

j N

s sf 1

'N

/

f/

N

,l

,X

/'..

s'<.

\\.

a w

~ [

/ \\.

',, /.

N

s. /

,/s

/

v s

/

/

d

\\

/

4, j

m

/

s f

'/ }/

v' y'

\\/

/

N/

]

tr

/

/

x' ' Y s/ '^/

\\,N

)

-8

/

,x N/ / \\ '/ N

'N

/<x N

,es

'N

/x

/Ny

/

N

'fx a

[N.,/ NN.[(N EfN X

>s

,X f)/,

'X sNbj

'N s

', / N ',/\\ '\\ / \\

}

O.

/

x,e.

s

/

s...

s N-

/

I

/N / N

/',

/\\

/

j

_\\ /N

')(,/

~

X

'X

'e

's /

't

><\\

,- '\\, ps N

/-

/

'N

,.N / 'N j l

-/N

/

s p

3

~\\

X

\\;

/\\

X fI

/

~N

/ s

,X, j'

/

s

'g g

'g/

N/

N/

s/

'y'. /[N

\\

N N

N,/

g/'.'

,/ N j

y/

s g

g p',/-

s x

j j

j x.

,- \\

j

(

/N

'N

,. (

/N /\\

j(

, ' '. /N f '. /'.s j

0.01

...i

.....i

...i 0.01 0.1 1

10 100 1

Frequency (Hz) i i

DAMPlNG RATIO O.05 4

i j

Peak Displacement (D) Velocity (V) and Acceleration (A) a 1

1 i

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY l

SEISMIC STUDY Law FIGURE 7-7: BEDROCK PSRV AND PEAK GROUND i

MOTION FOR FAR FIELD DESIGN j

Atlanta, Georgia EARTHQUAKE M, 6.4 A140 km Project No.

Scale Date Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 AS SHOWN MARCH 1993 i

!\\

['

f

\\

/

'\\

\\

o

, f p

p

,/

l

/

/

/

!\\

t'o

/

7 \\

,A

\\,/

-,'\\

/

,: y r

s,/

N/

k Na'

.f N'

.e

/,

's,/\\ /\\ / 'N,b (,/, j

'N

\\ o/

e

!x,,

s

/

s yc

'y

'N,,l

'g',f\\ /

N(

\\

\\y!.

y\\ /

j

'N

,i

/

\\

/\\- / \\/\\ /

\\,' ' ' N

/ S/

M'),/\\ /'Ng,- '

X N

/

\\

j

\\

/y E

/'N[,X

\\,X h

If/

f\\

\\

/

h 's /

J / '\\j

/

\\

~,!

\\

N,-

\\/

/

'N

/

g s

s

/

.N !-

- j/

\\,. \\ /

N

\\ji

'.,/

\\/

/

7

\\',N ' \\

"N O' N

/s

/

/

,s

's

,,4 ' /\\,/[N

., ' ' -\\'/

y '

\\. ;,.'

j.!

8 N /

\\

y N

,e

/

7 N f<e,

/

f

/\\

,;r'b, f'

s x

/N

/

4 '

I's

,X O

s

,/ \\

\\

s s

i Q,

X

'/s

/'s\\ -[N X

/ 3 's p'K co

-/,N(,/ '

/,d% / \\/

s

. /

,N

/

\\,

,V N

,'\\

/\\,,'k / \\, /'g..... :s -/%k ['

7' ' x,:'

g

'N y

/ s.

y N

N

\\*,/ s y

yx s-hl f[%

\\

N /N

/

\\

/ n, e

/\\/

y'

/

,,, ' N/

' ~. /

N/

'i' N

/

x, N

\\

s 's

/

$ 0.1,,g

/ x / \\

/ N 's '#.

X X

/'N K

X',,. ' N

,X,

.s

/

\\y, N

\\/'

\\/ \\ /

Q.

\\. " j

\\

/

Nl

/N

/s y

s s

,'F.

/ 4 ',,,

~ '\\'

\\

\\x'

}.(

s,.

'X'/ \\ '/g~

'.,X,

,8

~

f

-x

' f'

'Z,

',x sf

'~

s N /

3s-

/

i.,

/

s <,

j 4 N.

s/

, fh, y'

y N

j/

y\\, y\\ /,,')

'N,'

s,/

\\,.

,/

,,/

\\ / 'N./

,y s

\\

3

- \\x/

A, A

,,.s A

>s

,N /

'N '

N /q

/

,<s i

'N N/

'N /

N/

',/

s

/

/s

\\

\\

,i

-/,..

, f,.

.4

/..

N/

/s

/N

/

\\

A k

/\\,-

f

,v s

s 0.01

/.....i

.....i

......i 0.01 O.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

DAMPING RATIO O.05 10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 years Near-Field Design Earthquake (mb S.2 at 40 km)

- - - - - - - Far Field Design Earthquake (mb 6.4 at 140 km)

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEISMIC STUDY Law FIGURE 7-8: COMPARSION OF PROBABILISTIC PSRV SPECTRUM WITH DESIGN Atlanta, Georgia EARTHOU AKE PSRV SPECTRA Project No.

Scale Date Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 AS SHOWN MARCH 1993

. GlT Seismic Hazard Study March 16,1993 Page 31 of 46 l

7.5 SURFACE RESPONSE Developing the surface response for the GlT Campus consists of passing bedrock ground motion in the form of acceleration time histories through the three soil models presented in Section 6.0. The smoothed surface spectra were developed by combining spectra for near-field and f ar-field earthquakes as well as for a range of shear wave velocities. The soil profiles modeled are generalized and based on limited campus specific data. Figure 7-9 shows an example of the effect of varying the shear wave velocity for 0.05 damping and the 8th Street Dormitory soil profile. Figures 7-10,7-11, and 7-12 illustrate the varying response spectra for damping ratios of 0.03,0.05, and 0.07 for each of the three soil profiles.

The amplification peak noted in the vicinity of 2 to 10 Hz is presumably due to shear wave contrast at the soil-rock interface. The thickness of soil above the rock seems to control the center frequency of the amplification peak with deeper soil producing a lower peak frequency.

l

.g

,/

s

/

/

\\

-/\\[\\

/'

\\!

[ 'N "Y

./ '.

g /

/

3,'

N

~

p/

/ \\

o

\\

,.s

/

/

\\,,i

/ 3l

, <,'Ng

,y

.p.,

,.q

/

N/

,/

j N /

/

N NjT g

j

/N

/a f N

/N N

/ s

/s

,e

'\\ /

N/

Nf, s

/

j/

' sj '

,/

'g

,/

\\

s

/ 'N / \\

/4

/

's

.[\\% / \\

\\

/

/

/

/ N s

'/.

\\ p 8

N N

S vy'g/

A g g' / y' / N/ \\ !'Nx x,K,-

/ / \\r g

'N /\\

%g / \\,

/ \\

/ '

/\\,/ h 'N

\\

/

O

'/

'N X

' N'g's/\\ y \\,x, X, /

/

/\\

j k<! s\\[

\\

\\/

0.,

\\

W

~/

\\/

Nf, /

\\

' s/

s O.

g

-\\

s N

.'s

/

/" \\

/N'

1. <N i

s

/

\\/ \\

/

', /

\\

s'

\\

\\

'N / %, f

\\ / 'N,' \\

/s

,\\

/

/s b

\\g%g a

/

.. (

/s N

g

/ h/

'N

/

O

~~'5

~\\

Xg? / \\ /

[

j\\

/\\

,X

/.

'N/ \\

g g

/

/

/ \\

s,,/

'/

\\/

N/

N/

N

\\N Cr N.'

b

/

[\\/

/\\,'

/

',/\\

,/

N

/

/

s

/

j'

/\\

l\\,

j l

,/

/

N 8 o' n

,f x

.x ! ;.

x/N x x,,4 / x / \\r3, t

N/

\\l/

's /

,x.

O-

,/

,/

s

\\

s

[ \\7

,/\\ [\\

,\\p

, / \\p

\\ / g '-

/

j

\\(

/p

?'.

N,/ \\

f' N / ' \\,/

x

,i ' /s

/

3 s

. / '\\ /

's:',

N

,s N

..\\

, j' jN f

y h/

'. ^., \\<'

\\

'g /

\\., < /

s 4

/s i

/

A X

s,

,X,

- fN A,

j N

l l /

,e s

s

' /

\\

s

s' X

'N

'L'

..... '{. y'. /j/,

N

/

0.01

....' b

.. '.... '\\

N

,/

r r

i i

0.01 0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

DAMPING RATIO O.05 Bedrock Response (mb 6.41 Gli 8th. St. Profde A tmb 6.4)

- - - - - - - Gli 8th. St. (-) Profile (mb 6.4)

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEISMIC STUDY law FIGURE 7-9: COMPARISON OF BEDROCK SPECTRUM i

Atlanta, Georgia WITH EXAMPLE SUHFACE SPEC 7RA i

l Project No.

Scale Date Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 AS SHOWN MARCH 1993 i

1 l,

1 1

I'

' EA 'x ^A/N AA/x A/x y/'x

x

,,/'x/'y x /xfyxf

/

\\

s b

~_ x / ' N / ' 3 [ ' x s \\,< /

'N /

s /

es

/\\

\\

s i

8

~

N,,i \\ /

Ng \\

\\/

N, N

j

/

5 Y

/

Ac _

/

s e

)

E

]7% / 'N X

,X

/

9'gjX

/\\

[%,

s f

\\

'N /'N /\\

• \\

.h

~/\\

, N /x /\\./77, s

\\

'N

(

i c)

/ 'N / N l

~

\\,! 'N< C h.f~':7'/?%/ N h. '

/

l

~

-p/ N / \\ / \\ ',...,.$,s,,

'N / N v'

4 " >.' N,,p/, ',

\\

N f

'x

~

s

,s s/

.s

\\

/\\

,! s

\\

/

l C

N

/\\

k / \\

's

/\\

/

\\.

N., /

'N,

' v.

/

/

\\,/

Q

',l

/

/

i /x/'^,('x^x;fN/'x,

'n s:'-

\\^,y,' / %,, f x

%<,/ \\ / x/\\,X /\\s \\^/

s y/ \\N N/

/

N

/

's

's l

ti; i

~j

, s j

,/ /'y/Nj f xg'\\ Aj'Nyx l

j D

%/ \\/ s

/f\\

,\\

/\\

\\

g s

N

/ \\

/

s

[

i,,7' [\\ A X / 'N,/x,X

/ s N[,/ '\\gf N ' y 'y/'s

'y

. ' ';' 'j',J's.(

N, \\!.

.'y

'x y

s

s..-

s

\\

, 1,

/\\

v' X'j/

' h' l ;<, '/ s 'X \\l'

'y Y ', s N

~\\

\\

\\

l

(, y X' \\i' 'X X' ')(' '/ \\<' N,

'N, x

j 0.01 0.01 0.1 1

10 100 l

Frequency (Hz) i j

---

- --- Dampmg Reno 0.03 j

Damping Ratio 0.05 Dampino Rabo 0.07 GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

~

SEISMIC STUDY Law FIGURE 7-10: RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR SHALLOW Atlanta, Georgia SOIL PROFILE Project No.

Scale Date Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 AS,SHOWN MARCH 1993

)

/\\7\\ [\\, /' N, -

/

,,/

/'*o l['N,/ '\\

},,7

/

N 1x f' p/\\ / \\ [\\

/

/'

,/f s7'\\. 7 \\

\\

~ \\\\,/'y j/

'N

\\/ N

)

y

/

,/3

/

f

/',

,/ N o

~,h's

'(f(,'

J'(

/

(

/ \\

'\\

/\\,I \\

)fb

,,/x,, N

'\\

k ['N ['N )

/ x s'i,7x [gN,X\\f'N/*</x /,'iy,,6l/%,/ 'N

'\\

/ '"[,\\'*

\\

/ N,7 \\

f \\\\#

.N TN/

/ 'M - A,i.g( /( A;""'f\\.N { / 'x. /

\\

'N N

'x

-g

-,/ N, s

/

s s

9

, e.

.. ~

)

.,7

,',, / 's/'

\\,, /

,;f'%

/s 9,

, s.,,, ;( N. / \\

\\

g

\\

,s N / '.Nf y

v N,

/

g.'

/q.

,. N / '\\

/

s N

w

/

N/

U

/\\/\\

/g/'

/

rss 'r.'

s s

/

I yV I )\\sNs / \\

1 y)

-/y/

$/y

/s X

N

/

a.

,F

/

f s i/

/

/

s s.

'h f^ X 'r'/(,,

k,

)

^

/

4

-s

,x N

cc

- x\\ /s,%,/

s i

x

'x' X'

/

./

s

\\

N e

/

s, N

/

s N

/r',

s j

j

g

~'N

/

,X i

/ 's X

s' N/

/

'/

\\<j s' s

(r.

,/,

/

'N '

N t

% /

fN

/N

/x i

x

/N N

y

.A,, / '

O

\\ /[N,, /

4/

/

x

/

x

\\ /

x, s/

j s.

\\

o

/

,s A

y js

/s e

s/

s l

3

% / \\/

/'s

/ \\

N

/\\

/6 s

{

$ 0.1 g

,s y !

j\\

gN

'\\,x, z

,s j

,y

/ N!,7

\\

j Q.

-,/ N/

f \\

f N/ 'N f

\\ j'f 4.'

'.7 s

N s.

/jN

/f's /

/ 's j

- N /\\

/\\/

y/

,/

N i

,s N/

X

,X X,

j

! x, N

,f s

. s j

. / \\

N/ ',

s i, s

/-

N

\\,

3, sf

,7 s,,./

's y

\\

/

j s,/

j

\\

/

,/

q,, #

l

. N[..,"./- %

)%

\\

7

,\\

i N

s

/s

.^

../.

, X,/

4

/

N N

s

/

N /

l 0.01

..j

-,s

's y

\\

\\,

/

s e

s

.....i

.....i

...i j

0.01 0.1 1-10 100 i

Frequency (Hz) i i

1

- - ------ ~ Dampmg Ratio 0.03 Dampmg Ratio 0.05 I

---

Damping Ratio 0.07 GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY i

SEISMIC STUDY i

{W FIGURE 7-11: RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR DEEP Atlanta, Georgia SOIL PROFILE 4

J Project No.

Scale Date Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 AS SHOWN MARCH 1993 J

4 4

l I

1l'

/'

/

4 Ns /'

<x f 'x(y' s

i

'x ' x 5x

/'y ^x

/'

f

/'

j

/\\/

/

's,

/%X'

\\.

\\

\\

xX x

A /{

9 i

x 7,'

~ /X-, >(' s '>

X-2 i

\\p j\\

x V

1. 6

\\ &

\\. [,

)"

,N N

\\

h

,/

,i f,,<

, f\\,s

\\

l

~

~

/N/~

j

/~

~

l y\\ /

b

'N /

\\

/ \\/\\ /\\

'h N

/

\\

N

/

'N

/

k[ 'N /

x

N v'\\\\/N{ / 'x x / v, / (

(

/

\\

~

~/ \\.,

,/%,,,

N/

.\\ /

/

'\\.

4 j

\\

N s

O S

'x'

'N

\\/

,,/

q

,e b

. k,/ 's>/ \\s!-

.'x,

'\\

/

"' \\ / \\ (/

\\

/

,X

/

\\

o N

N g /a\\/\\

,A

,N/\\

f N N / s j/.

'N

\\

]

3 N

s

/

l h

5,<b /

X X

,'( j'N X {^/'N

\\

j

\\

n<'\\/ x'Rl'x s X ;< X (x; ' y>

l

' ) v'

'x x/'X) x

's'x'X.

<x f'X(z sy l

/ \\,

\\ ;.,

,\\,,

's \\[7'

\\j

\\./

.,/

N. '

\\

/\\

'\\

ih

'./\\

,/s

/ 'N f x

y

,/ s s

{

0.01

.....i

....i

......i 0.01 0.1 1

10 100 1

j Frequency (Hz) f i

1 I

I Damping Ratio 0.03 (8th St. Dorm Profde)

Demping Ratio 0.05 (8th St. Oorm Proide)

Damping Ratio 0.07 (8th St. Proide) j i

i i

i GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEISMIC STUDY I

law FIGURE 7-12: RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR 8th STREET l

Atlanta, Georgia DORMITORY SOIL PROFILE 1

l Project No.

Scale Date Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 AS SHOWN MARCH 1993 7

+y--

GlT Seismic Hazard Study March 16,1993 Page 36 of 46 l

The response spectra are subsequently interpreted and modified to produce " smoothed" surface design spectra. In this process, the highest spectral value at each frequency was used to produce a single spectrum which was subsequently smoothed to provide a design spectrum. Smoothing was accomplished by filling in the " valleys" and truncating the high points, in the spectrum. Smoothed surf ace spectra were produced at each profile for damping 1

ratios of 0.03, 0.05, and 0.07.

The smoothed surface response spectra for the shallow soil profile are shown in Figure 7-13.

A table of coordinate po nts consisting of frequency and spectral velocity which can be used to plot the smoothed spectra are shown in Table 7-6a.

The smoothed surface response spectra for the deep soil profile are shown in Figure 7-14.

Coordinate points for these spectra are shown in Table 7-6b. Of the these soil profiles, this profile yields the highest spectral velocities. The greater amplification at the surface due to this soil profile is a reflection of the deeper soil.

The smoothed surface response spectra for the 8th Street Dormitory soil profile are shown in Figure 7-15. Coordinate points for these spectra are provided in Table 7-6c.

i O

GlT Seismic Hazard Study March 16,1933 Page 37 of 46 TABLE 7-6A GEORGIA TECII SEISMIC STUDY SIIALLOW PROFILE DESIGN SPEC TRA DATA POINTS

.ms fy

_;r,:W. p.

s..;wh :!.n.

%+DA,e,... y... m..nMPING 0.072

' DAMPING 0.03;;

EDAMPING;0.051 - s

O,':f.. :.^~ :g :7

, >.:, c -.:. c s..c.:s

)

N'^;,.4 4 e.,. e.s :......~.:.. Vel (i s)?

~ T.iFreq V dVel.(ids)k 0 W.s 5Nb:q..

$VE12id/sN

$Frs. 6:iF?'

0.04 0.5 0.04 0.5 0.04 0.5 0.22 3.0 0.22 2.7 0.20 2.3 8.0 3.0 7.0 2.7 7.0 2.3 30.0 0.80 32.0 0.60 35.0 0.44 50.0 0.15 50.0 0.15 50.0 0.15 100.0 0.07 100.0 0.07 100.0 0.07 1

TABLE 7-6B GEORGIA TECH SEISMIC STUDY DEEP PROFILE DESIGN SPECTRA DATA POINTS

.. :.: e-r:..m.x+.ms.g:s:

p79,,. rp:w.,~,:.,.,

I x

L DAMP 0.03 a

• @$ DAMP.,04S g <'

sMi: DAMP;0.07s 5@

l Wel

~g y s ~

'2..m.y(io/s. _)k 61

.W 7,.. m.x81 Vel;(I$Isi%i!

s..

TFr'egt

jel.0$IsE, tFied? 69 0.04 0.6 0.05 0.6 0.05 0.6 0.32 4.5 0.30 3.8 0.27 3.0 6.0 4.5 6.0 3.8 6.0 3.0 15.0 1.5 20.0 1.1 25.0 0.19 50.0 0.17 50.0 0.17 50.0 0.17 100.0 0.08 100.0 0.08 100 0 0.08 TABLE 7-6C GEORGIn TECII SEISMIC STUDY 8th STREET DORM PROFILE DESIGN SPECTRA DATA POINTS lb NiPM03)

W$bEEkhk56$3ss 'D$6lb M P;0 8/li l I!b i.

ms

.nm

.. ~.,..

y:u.

t Freq.. ',

Wel.6&s)1 Freq. $ i ~3 Vel (id/s)E nadFiss ~ " $ Vel (in/sT@

0.05 0.65 0.05 0.65 0.06 0.65 0.25 3.5 0.22 3.0 0.20 2.5 7.5 3.5 7.5 3.0 8.0 2.5 30.0 0.9 27.0 0.85 23.0 0.80 50.0 0.18 50.0

0. I 8 50.0 0.18 100.0 0.08 100.0 0.08 100.0 0.08

1 0

4

\\

/

xj</

/v v

N

-N x.

.x o-9

/

/

9

\\

/Nic.

\\

/

5 N

/

/N e

/

N'

/

l g_...'.....k.f....h [...'. /."..

/

O

/

/

g fb ' \\

s

\\

\\,'.

\\ /

s.

/'s

/

s,' ' i

_ s

_ '. s. d,_. c. '_s

, \\ s/

,\\

1

\\

\\

f'

/\\

\\ /

\\

\\

~-

~

g,'\\

f j /N/\\/,/N N

/N

/\\/\\

/s\\

s. N N

/

j o

x l

X

E f s.

V N 'X'N

. \\, /4(, ',X.

. / N/

\\

s N N

/s-N/yf$s' s i e

x,'

y) s y

/*s /N

' \\.,/

x,,

N j

-N/

g

.- /n

,x.

,i N

/,

s/

N s

- /

s i

co N

/ \\f O

\\,

\\

/

f \\

p/

f j

tr

\\-

Ni-,

N v

sf s

,f h

/

'y! 'N/

'.q l' ~'N

'l\\ / \\

~

f

N

/

s

/z x

,/N

/

,/

3 g,

,N

/ s

\\

80':

7', /

N/, K

, ~.

.s.

.x

~

x

-y

/y

,i.

,is

's s,

./ - y',

/\\

D.

N/

N, \\,/

N,

's / \\ /

\\

/

/

/

/ s.

/~

~

,,'y' _/g

/,

y s/

N/

N s,.'

s,-

s, s

g.

x. /

y

h

.s

. N,/

s

,/

0.01

......i

......i 0.01 0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEISMIC STUDY F1GURE 7-14: SMOOTHED SPECTRA FOR DEEP Atlanta, Georgia SOIL PROFILE Project No.

Scale Date Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 AS SHOWN MARCH 1993

t i

t i

i 1

i i

[

'\\

/

\\

./

s/

s-N/

N. [ \\

e

(/ '>'('jk 's

' d,- XX'K'<'>C

s

/

k.s /

\\/ l'N / '\\

'&' /

(

\\,,

/ N

,> o,

,A ' j-N 1

,/

x s

/D

'\\

\\

)

/\\ /

$~

N

,r

. c_

l E

i /

/ \\#

[,/

k/ /\\ b

\\[x N

• 7 \\

\\

/\\ / \\

i N

e A

N*

/..'\\. _ _.s o

- /

_c e_.

s N

a.....

/

o 8/

g.'

/

/

{

To

-'\\*/\\,/, / '\\,,, 't c y-N- / A, e' '_x-AsJN/N/N /,

i

'..'s

/^x: *\\. /\\A ;v/ N>/ N

, /%

s'x, h, Ny/

x x

N /

s s

rs.

s e

/

,,ig x

x

/ s

/

s

/s v :, / x o

/\\.

s s

b/\\

N, N / s /\\\\ '/, ['x

<. [ \\, / \\,j ' /

'\\ / ',

\\,

s/

f o

N /

s. / %/ \\., ' ' -

/

.\\

'N/

,v j

A

,. \\,

x.,/,~

/ s,,

,f.

. s.

s,

.s

.m

.~g /

fi y

y

/s v

s s.

s A

N,'

i a-

_('\\g,'V, %,/

/x

/g s

o

/,

/

\\

8

/

s x

/~

N

/

p, N.-

N/

N N/

N-N./

s

/

,x

.x s

s

.- s,

/

l 8

'x

\\t/

x N /

,x X

N/,

',/x F(

g /;N/

s N

/h

/c.,

/r e

a o 0.1 a iy js e

, v y

s

!\\l/ N

[

s

, / \\s

/ 's

, \\,l, ' \\

,3 N /

s s

, s s

/ s

/

/-

/

, / x,,-

y s,

t

/fx u

x m.

s

,x

\\

3/

,/

, ~.

~,

. c,

,x.

, s, N.

7 i l.

/

s j

s sg j

,[

sf s/

'[

/,

/N j

1 y

s Nr.

.f..

.i

/

/~

i o.oi,

j o.01 0.1 1

to 100 l

Frequency (Hz) 1 4

1 4

l GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEISMIC STUDY 1

i Law FIGURE 7-15: SMOOTHED SPECTRA FOR 8th STREET 4

4 Atlanta, Georgia DORMITORY SOIL PROFILE 1

Project No.

Scale Date i

Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 AS SHOWN MARCH 1993 t

k

1 GIT Seismic Hazard Study March 16,1993 Page 41 of 46 Another form of the smoothed spectra plots is shown in Figure 7-16. This figure shows spectral acceleration plotted against the period of motion on an arithmetic scale and is another common form of presentation of this data. These spectral plots are based on the 0.05 damped smoothed spectra.

l i

f l

l l

I i

l i

l l

l l

l l

i ACCELERATION VERSUS PERIOD SHALLOW SOfL PROFILE DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM. 0.05 DAMPING a

j h

es a

oa i

8' *

• 9 03 t2

\\

4 x

j i

a 4

r=%

1 i

)

}

ACCELERATION VERSUS PERIOD j

8th STREET SOtt PROFILE DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM. 0.05 DAMPING es, q

o.s i

"R o s l

l\\

^

e2 N_

l

'o i

2 3

4

{

M I

1 l

i J

k ACCELERATION VERSUS PERIOD a

DEEP SOIL PROFILE DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM. 0.05 OAMPING l

a i

es i

l n

n I\\

es l k I

N w

j.

i l

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 5

SEISMIC STUDY j

Law FIGURE 7-16: SPECTRAL ACCELERATION vs PERIOD l

Atlanta, Georgia Project No.

Scale Date

]

Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 N.T.S.

MARCH 1993 i

l 5

y-_

., GlT Seismic Hazard Study March 16,1993 Page 43 of 46 7.6 COMPARISON WITH BUILDING CODES A spectral plot of bedrock ground motion with a 10 percent probability of exceedence in 50 years was used to compute seismic coefficients A, and Av. The acceleration coefficient recommended for the GlT campus (A,) is 0.05 which compares to a value of approximately 0.09 interpolated from the map provided in the 1992 version of the Standard Building Code (SBC) (Figure 7-17).

i The recommended velocity related acceleration coef ficient (Av) is 0.07.which compares to a i

value of about 0.09 interpolated from the map provided in the 1992 version of the SBC (Figure 7-18) and approximately 0.09 interpolated from the map provided in the 1991 version of the SBC (Figure 7-19).

The soil profiles modeled are generalized and based on limited campus specific data. The resulting response spectra are suitable for preliminary design or for assessing the potential economic impact of seismic design. For critical structures, or buildings in which high costs l

are anticipated due to seismic design, a s'te-specific study utilizing downhole and or crosshole shear wave techniques is recommended.

l l

Our reported A, and Av coefficients may be used for determining seismic performance categories as outlined in the SBC. Structural design to resist the effects of earthquake loading should utilize either:

The seismic coefficient (A, or Ay) maps and Site Coefficients presented in the SLC, or Our recommended A, and A values, and incorporating site specific response spectra v

similar to the smoothed response spectra provided in this report.

L

d i

a.

i l

MAP OF PEAK ACCELERATION COEFFICIENTS SBC 1992 REVISIONS 2

GEORGIA TECH CAMPUS CIRCLED INTERPOLATED VALUE Aa = 0.09 l

l o

i e

J y

i.

5

• a o

l 4

m l

i I =

m j

"7 g,

?

v

>5 gg f../

.i.

/

w pm I

a mn l

V ** e b

em i

t rg

s :-

j q-

@is

/,<y )4 g

1 i

i i

i i

4

}

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEISMIC STUDY Law ricune z.,7: coNroue oi, og geix iccetentrioN COEFFICIENT Aa, SBC 1992 i

Atlanta, Georgia 1

j Project No.

Scale Date Engineering and Environmental Services 577044' s.01 N.T.S.

MARCH 1993 i

1L-

t 4

MAP OF EFFECTIVE PEAK VELOCITY-RELATED ACCELERATION COEFFICIENT SBC 1992 REVISIONS GEORGIA TECH CAMPUS CIRCLED INTERPOLATED VALUE Av = 0.09

..i O

s.

g g

7 g!

(--

,l o

t n

[

$m

$mh

.=

i ES E V

oh n

t

\\

• /

8;g a t.

,)

.L llB w

.a as

>n

\\

i/

<j s

ao GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SEISMIC STUDY Law ricuaE T 48: CoNroua =Aa or ErrECrivE eEAx VELOCITY RELATED ACCELERATION Atlanta, Georgia CoErFICIENT Ay, SBC 1992 Project No.

Scale Date Engineering and Environmental Services 57704495.01 N.T.S.

MARCH 1993

4 i

l i

e 4

MAP Of SEISMIC ZONES AND EFFECTIVE PEAK -

i l

VELOCITY-RELATED ACCELERATION Av SBC 1991 GEORGIA TECH CAMPUS CIRCLED i

I INTERPOLATED VALUE Av = 0.09 1

4 2

8 oRo Vo ~

s s

o l

y

[

<a'5 a10 - 7p.

E W V s

i l' 3 JIf %

s Oe F'

m j

nio

6MN, o.10 O

h 5,

0,' h (r);.(

o.to On j

2-O *m

g.

0 05

.~

• -------t

(

r

i

o io ___ A (jl

.10 g

o i

k 7.'. -

3

'j/7:1 g

s O

,g

$}$b,

' f. * * ',(- _ - - ~ ).~ ~ ~ ~~ '.3%,*t',i b.,

• f..,s.IU

? O.,,

,f.

• '; f.

.s

,q Ng

-1

<0 30

'.'df...,.O.I.t(.Y@/,M,2 km 4

l--

0 20 i T-

~'

~ 005 C

-~ f.f ).y.

i

.p![ _. --*~_;l,gai ~ ".~f.'.'

l 0*

1 o

O sy

r.. u.,, <015 1. :....

c.g

-. N.s OZ M.

' e.j.i

-+ - - - i.. ::

.t e

, g -.

3 k.k,/o : n.

... v :

3 a20 mo 4

r

. '!..Vr7$f k%3I'h.

@N i

~c 7

<015

-n

", - % #. 0 10.. U.'.**.0,:" i....

ym p, -

3

. n-y.,. :

. ;G *._ cn3n :<+.-,.,y.

3 4

z'.Q

,-.. a,

~~.4 0

q n,

g t-t zq 0

o I

o9 9

fm>

4

-l.EGEND:

- -. = me.

7 g

4 o

sw * = = =

04 SeismicZone 0.05440 Effective Peak Velocity-Related Acceleration (A )

Unear Interpolation Between y

Contoursis Acceptable.

M A. > 0.40 1;

i i

i 1

J 2

i 1

i GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 4

l SEISMIC STUDY i

Law ricuRe 7.,9: A,o,seisoiC zones AND Er,EC1,ve PEAK VELOCITY RELATED ACCELERATION Atlanta, Georgia Av SBC,1991 Project No.

Scale Date i

Engineering and Environmental Services l

57704495.01 N.T.S.

MARCH 1993 4

r-

)

1 4

QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS The results provided in this report are based on project information related specifically to the GlT Campus and apply only to the project and site discussed. The results of the hazard study at the bedrock level apply throughout the carsous, however, ground level response spectra are based on spacific subsurface models. The effect on site response of varying subsurf ace conditions is a complex matte which does not lend itself to empirical estimates or extrapolation. For critical structures, tall structures, or buildings in which high costs are j

anticipated due to seismic design, a site-specific study including downhole or crosshole shear wave techniques is recommended.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings derived, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either expressed or implied. Law is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on these data.

The results presented in this report were developed for the exclusive use of the Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT) using proprietary it. formation, including an Earthquake Catalog and Seismic Hazard Analysis software developed by LAW. No part of this report may be reproduced or used in any form by any means without the permission of LAW or GIT.

l l

l J

}

.-. n - - - -,c -

,n l

DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED

~

i SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS j-153/23cm y APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORDS AND REPORTS MANAGEMENT BRANCH i

i h

i