ML20078L369
| ML20078L369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1983 |
| From: | BECHTEL GROUP, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078L366 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8310210142 | |
| Download: ML20078L369 (48) | |
Text
.
'L' Y A 3> J#
ATTACHMENT 2 August 24, 1983 n
MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
With September 12, 1983 Addendum 8310210142 831012 PDR ADOCK 05000329 0284yl8 A
PDR l
Q MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING,
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
~
~
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace I.
BACKGROUND 1
A.
GENERAL 1
B.
LAYOUT 1
C.
ORIGINAL DESIGN 1
1.
Philosophies 1
2.
Structural Systems 1
3.
Conservatisms 2
II.
DIESEL GENERATOR CONSTRUCTION HISTORY 2
III.
REMEDIAL PROGRAM 3
A.
SURCHARGE PROGRAM 3
i B.
PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEM 4
j C.
SETTLEMENT PREDICTIONS 4
l 1.
Settlement Predictions Based on 4
Surcharge Program 2.
Settlement Predictions Based on 6
Laboratory Data D.
FOUNDATION MATERIAL PROPERTIES 6
1.
Bearing Capacity 6
2.
Dynamic Properties of Backfill 6
E.
SURCHARGE EFFECTIVENESS 7
F.
SETTLEMENT MONITORING 7
IV.
STRUCTURAL REANALYSIS 7
A.
DESIGN CRITERIA 7
l 0284y19 11
Midlend Dises1 Gansrator Building Erscutiva Summery TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 4 Page B.
ANALYSIS 8
'l.
Models 8
2.
Load Representation 9
3.
Soil Springs 9
i 4.
Analysis of Survey Data 11 C.
STRUCTURAL EVALUATION AND RESULTS 12 D.
ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 12 l
E.
EFFECTS OF CONCRETE CRACKS 13 1
F.
SEISMIC MARGIN REVIEW 14 V.
CONCLUSIONS 15 REFERENCES TABLES l
New Old Title ES-1 I-l Diesel Generator Building Instrumentaion ES-2 DGB-1 Loads and Load Combinations for Concrete Structures Other than the Containment Building j
j from the FSAR and Question 15 of Responses to l
NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill l
1 j
ES-3 GDB-2 Loads and Load Combinations for Comparison Analysis Requested in Question 26 of NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill FIGURES Fiqure No.
Title ES-1 Site Plan of Midland Units 1 and 2 Power Plant ES-2 Plan View and Sections i
ES-2A Diesel Generator Building Duct Bank Layout ES-3 General Layout of Surcharge Load 0284y20 iii
Midland Diesel Gansrator Building Executive Summary TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Piaure No.
Title ES-4 Typical Settlement, Cooling Pond Level.
Piezometer Level, and Surcharge Load History ES-5 Settlement vs Logarithm of Time from 1/26/79 to 9/14/79, Marker DG-3 ES-6 Settlement vs Logarithm of Time Since 9/14/79, Marker DG-3 ES-7 Estimated Secondary Compression Settlements from 12/31/81 to 12/31/2025 Assuming Surcharge Remains ES-8 Measured Settlement from 9/14/72 to 12/31/81 ES-9 Average Settlement After Surcharge Removal.
BA-8 and BA-53 ES-10 Settlement vs Logarithm of Time Since 9/14/79 Showing Corrected Slope, Marker DG-3 ES-ll Shear Wave Velocity Profile ES-12 Comparison of Effective Stress Before and After Surcharge - Southwest Corner
'~
ES-13 Finite-Element Model ES-14 Summary of Actual and Estimated Settlements ES-15 Comparison of Settlement Values, Presurcharge Period, August 1978 - January 1979 ES-16 Comparison of Settlement Values, Surcharge Period, January 1979 - August 1979 l
ES-17 Comparison of Settlement' Values, Postsurcharge l
Period, September 1979 - December 2025 1
s l
0284y21 iv i
i MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
I.
BACKGROUND
~
A.
GENERAL A construction permit for Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 was issued by the Atomic Energy Commission on December 15, 1972.
Soils-related prob 13ms were first identified in July 1978 when the settlement monitoring program detected excessive settlement of the diesel generator building (DGB).
The DGB has a shallow foundation and is located at the southern end
^
of the main power block as shown in the site plan (Figure ES-1).
The building had settled more than was predicted for this stage of construction.
Shortly thereafter, the applicant verbally reported the matter to the NRC site inspector, and formally reported it under 10 CFR 50.55(e) in September 1978.
B.
LAYOUT The DGB is a two-story, reinforced-concrete structure with three crosswalls that divide the structure into four cells; each cell contains a diesel generator unit.
The building is supported on continuous footings that are founded at el 628' and rests on fill that extends down to approximately el 603'.
Plan dimensions of the DGB are approximately 155' x 70' with a total internal height of approximately 44 feet as shown in Figure ES-2.
Each diesel generator rests on a 6'-6a-thick, reinforced-concrete pedestal that is not structurally connected to the building foundation.
C.
ORIGINAL DESIGN 1
1.
Philosophies The DGB is a Seismic Category I, safety-related structure designed to protect the diesel generators and associated equipment and to protect this equipment from extreme environmental conditions such as seismic events and tornado and wind loads.
As a result of these requirements, a box-type, reinforced-concrete structure with thick walls and roof was chosen.
The building is supported by strip or continuous footings.
The diesel generators, supported on separate foundations, isolate the building from any potential vibration problem.
2.
Structural Systems In general, conventional and standard calculations were used to analyze and design the various components of the structural system.
Computer analysis using the finite-element method was used in some cases such as the 0284y 1
Midland Diesel Gsnarator Building Executive Summary floating slab at grade and north walls with complex openings.
A lumped-mass computer model supported by soil i
springs was used to generate seismic response spectra.
The seismic forces used in the static analysis and design of the structural components were based on the appropriate acceleration values selected from the response spectra.
All walls were designed as shear walls to resist seismic forces.
The exterior walls and roof were also designed l
to resist impact loads due to tornado-generated missiles as well as pressure loads caused by tornado depressurization.
Interior concrete floors are supported by steel beams that carry the vertical loads.
The concrete floors and roof were also designed to act as i
diaphragas to distribute the horizontal loads imposed on the structure.
The continuous wall footings (strip foundation) were designed to transmit the building loads i
to the soil foundation.
The floor slabs at grade are independent from the structure and the diesel generator foundations and were designed as floating slabs supported by compacted backfill.
The diesel generator foundations are large, reinforced-concrete blocks independent of the structure and are designed to carry the various loads transmitted by the diesel generators.
i 3.
Conservatisms The DGB is a two-story box structure with a configuration that is inherently strong to resist the applied loads.
In addition, the exterior walls and roof are very thick in order to prevent local penetration from postulated tornado-generated missiles.
Thus, the structure has a great deal of reserve strength to resist stresses caused by a seismic event and extreme wind loads.
t II.
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION HISTORY The DGB has a shallow foundation and was constructed in an area j
of the plant where approximately 25 feet of compacted backfill was placed under the foundation over the natural material at the i
site.
In this area, the majority of the fill was placed between 1975 and 1977.
The actual foundation construction of the DGB began in October 1977 and was completed in January 1978.
The building walls were constructed up to grade (el 635') between i
December 1977 and February 1978.
The next 19-foot-high section of walls was built between March and April 1978.
The diesel generator pedestal foundations were constructed between January and March 1979.
The installation of the construction scribe marks to aid construction activities began in March 1978 and was completed in May 1978, and the settlement markers were installed between May and November 1978.
In early July 1978, survey i
settlement records using the scribe marks were begun.
During July 1978, when the building was approximately 60% complete, the 9
0284y 2
Midland Diesel Ganarator Building Executive Summary settlement monitoring program detected aettlements of 3.5~ inches at the point of greatest settlement, compared to the design operation.
It appeared that the building was settling due to the predictions of 3 inches for the 40 years of expected plant t
consolidation of the underlying fill and was being partially supported along the north portion by four electrical duct banks acting as vertical piers resting on the natural soil below the fill.
Shortly thereafter, the applicant verbally reported the matter to the NRC site inspector, and formally reported it under 10 CFR 50.55(e) in September 1978.
Construction of the DGB was voluntarily stopped in August 1978 and a soil boring program was initiated to determine the quality of the backfill under the foundation.
Drs. R.B. Peck and A.J. Hendron, Jr. were retained as consultants to advise on the selection and the execution of any remedial action.
r The exploration program confirmed that the fill did not meet the specified compaction requirements and that it consisted of both cohesive soil and granular soil.
Lean concrete was also used locally as backfill.
The fill ranged from very soft to very stiff for cohesive soil and from very loose to dense for granular soil.
At the time of the exploration, the groundwater level ranged from el 616' to el 622', and the cooling pond, located about 275 feet south of the building, had a water level at approximately el 622'.
On the basis of the consultants' recommendations and after a review of various alternatives, it was decided to surcharge the DGB and the surrounding area to accelerate settlement and l
consolidate the fill material.
During November 1978, the duct l
banks (see Figure ES-2A) entering the DGB were isolated from the building so additional settlement due to surcharging and the additional deadweight of the structure to be constructed would not overstress these areas.
Construction of the building was also resumed in November 1978 with the remainder of the concrete work on the building being essentially completed by the end of March 1979.
Before the surcharge program began in January 1979, the utilities entering the DGB were isolated from the DGB so that settlement during surcharging would not overatress these areas.
The utilities were reconnected after the surcharge program was l
completed in August 1979.
III.
REMEDIAL PROGRAM A.
SURCHARGE PROGRAM The purpose of the surcharge was to accelerate the settlement so that future settlement under the operating loads would be within tolerable limits.
Furthermore, this procedure would permit a reliable estimate of the future settlement.
Before the surcharge was placed, soil instrumentation was installed (see Table ES-1).
The instrumentation was directed at monitoring settlement and pore water pressure in the fill.
0284y 3
Midland Dissal Gantrator Building Executive Summary Surcharging consisted of placing 20 feet of sand above grade (el 634') with the geometry shown in Figure ES-3.
The surcharge was added in two principal increments as shown by the idealized load history in Figure ES-4.
Surcharging was effectively begun on January 26, 1979.
Approximately 94% of the structure dead load had been applied by the time the surcharge reached maximum level.
During this time, the cooling pond level was raised to el 627'.
Removal of the surenarge started August 15, 1979, when it had been determined by the applicant and its consultants that primary consolidation of the soil had been achieved and that future settlement could be reliably predicted.
B.
PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEM The results of the exploration showed some loose sands were present under the DGB.
The surcharge was not expected to improve the sand densities sufficiently to preclude liquefaction during seismic events.
Therefore, a permanent dewatering system was designed to maintain water level below el 610' in the area of the DGB.
Elevation 610' was selected in accordance with a liquefaction evaluation based on the i
method published by Seed (see Reference 1).
Standard penetration values and relative density data obtained from various investigations were used in this analysis.
The study employed a conservative upper-bound acceleration value of 0.19 g, which is larger than the 0.12 g Midland SSE.
C.
SETTLEMENT PREDICTIONS 1.
Settlement Predictions Based on Surcharce Procram Figure ES-4 contains a typical plot of settlement versus time for a point on the DGB, along with piezometer elevations, cooling pond elevations, and the idealized t
surcharge load histcry.
The settlement data points for the period before surcharge removal have been replotted as settlement versus the logarithm of time as shown in Figure ES-5.
The data after surcharge removal are shown on the semi-log plot of Figure ES-6.
Figure ES-5 shows the typical consolidation behavior with primary consolidation completed and the secondary censolidation, with a typical straight line settlement versus log time relation beginning approximately 100 days from the start of surcharge placement.
This behavior permitted extrapolations to be made to forecast the building settlement during its service life under the conservative assumption that the surcharge remains in place for 40 years.
Results of this extrapolation are shown in Figure ES-7.
Upon surcharge removal, the building showed a rebound of about 0.2 inch.
Following the rebound in August 1979 and until the start of dewatering in September 1980, the 0284y 4
Midland Diesel Gsnarator Building Executive Summary building showed a maximum settlement of about 0.1 inch.
This is less than the range of 0.2 to 0.5 inch, which was predicted on the basis of the previously mentioned straight-line extrapolation.
Following the start of dewatering activities in September 1980 up to December 31, 1981, the building settled 0.4 to O.5 inch (see Figure ES-8) primarily due to lowering the groundwater table from approximately el 620' to el 595'.
Between December 31, 1981, and June 1983, the building settled an additional 0.3 inch primarily due to further lowering of the groundwater table to approximately el 587',
As shown in Figure ES-6, these settlements display relatively steep slopes on the settlement-versus-log-time plot.
However, when these data are compared with the observed settlements of.the two Borros anchers BA-8 and BA-53 (see Figure ES-9) embedded in the natural soil below the structures, it is seen that most of the observed settlement of the building was due to deep settlement of the underlying natural soil caused by dewatering.
When the uniform, deep-seated settlement of the natural soil (below el 603') due to dewatering is l
subtracted from the total building settlement, the l
resulting backfill settlement-vgraus-log-time plot (see Figure ES-lO) displays a slope less than the one used for l
secondary consolidation settlement prediction.
Therefore, the predictions of secondary consolidation l
settlement given in Figure ES-7 are conservative.
l Furthermore, any future dewatering settlements should be small because future drawdown would exceed the present magnitude by only small amounts.
Concern about liquefaction of the loose sand portions of the backfill is eliminated by permanent groundwater lowering.
The settlement of the unsaturated sand because of ground shaking caused by earthquakes (shakedown settlement) was calculated on the basis of the approach described by Silver and Seed (Reference 2) and the recommendations on multidirectional shaking by Pyke, Seed, and Chan (Reference 3).
The estimated shakedown settlement is approximately 1/4 to 1/2 inch for ground acceleration up to 0.19 g.
The north side of the I
building will settle the maximum of 1/4 to 1/2 inch l
during the 0.19 g earthquake, whereas the south side will l
settle a negligible amount because there is a smaller l
thickness of sand under the south side of the DGB.
- Thus, the building will tend to. rotate slightly toward the north during seismic shaking.
To date, it has tended to rotate south during static settlement under the surcharge load due to the higher percentage of clay under the south side of the building.
l 0284y 5
Midland Diesel Gansrator Building Executive Summary a
2.
Settlement Predictions Based on Laboratory Data At the request of the NRC, 11 soil borings were drilled in the DGB area during April and May 1981 as a part of additional soil investigation.
Details of this investigation program were coordinated with the NRC staff and its consultants the Army Corps of Engineers.
One-dimensional consolidation tests were performed on the samples obtained after removal of surcharge to provide an estimate of maximum past consolidation pressure.
The maximum past consolidation pressures interpreted from the laboratory tests showed a scatter predictable for consolidation laboratory tests on heterogeneous fill.
The data showed some of the interpreted maximum past consolidation pressures to be lower than would have been i
expected after surcharging; a greater number were higher.
On the basis of this information, a settlement analysis was made to estimate future primary consolidation under the DGB loading.
On the basis of a review of the results of this analysis and the measured and predicted settlements, the applicant and the NRC agreed that it is sufficiently conservative to represent future settlement in the structural analysis by the sums of the values in Figures ES-7 and ES-8.
D.
FOUNDATION MATERIAL PROPERTIES 1.
Bearina Capacity The results of the strength tests on cohesive soils obtained after surcharging provided shear strength i
(
parameters required for evaluation of the factors of
[
safety against bearing capacity failure under static and seismic conditions.
The factor of safety against a static bearing capacity failure is greater than 5, compared to the minimum acceptable value of 3.
The t
factor of safety against a bearing capacity failure for i
combined static and earthquake loads consistent with a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) cf 0.12 g is greater than i
2.6.
The factor of safety was shown to be equal to 2.4 for an SSE whose dynamic forces are based on a 0.12 g earthquake increased by 50%.
The minimum acceptable factor of safety is 2.0 for combined static and l
earthquake loading.
I 2.
Dynamic Properties of Backfill i
l Seismic cross-hole testing was performed at two locations within the DGB during November and December 1979 to determine the shear wave velocity of the fill for seismic analysis.
The measured shear wave velocities are given l
in Figure ES-ll.
The data showed the shear wave velocity I
can be represented by a value of 500 ft/sec from ground l
l 0284y 6
l
...---,----.--,-,,--,,,.,,,,,-,------,----..-r.---
- -,. - ~ ~ ~ - - -, - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ -
L l
Midland Diesel Generator Building Executive Summary surface to el 615' and by a value of 850 ft/sec from el 615' to el 600'.
These numbers were used to determine the shear wave velocity value used in the seismic analysis of the DGB.
E.
SURCHARGE EFFECTIVENESS Figure ES-12 presents a comparison between the pressures that existed during surcharge and those expected during the operating life of the structure.
This comparison shows that at all depths in the fill, the pressures that existed during surcharge exceeded those that are expected while the j
structure is operational.
Furthermore, all settlement-versus-log-time plots show that secondary consolidation has L
been reached.
Therefore, the settlements predicted on the assumption that the surcharge remains in place for 40 years (see Figure ES-7) are conservative based on the fact that all loads added after surcharge removal, including those due to permanent dewatering, will be less than the surcharge loading at all depths.
F.
SETTLEMENT MONITORING The segtlement of the diesel generator building will be monitored during plant operation.
Survey measurements will be taken at least every 90 days during the first year of plant operation.
Survey frequency for subsequent years will be established after evaluating measurements taken during the first year.
Allowable total settlements, which are based on the predicted values, have been established for each of the i
settlement markers on the structure and pedestals.
If 80% of L
the allowable settlement (settlement action limit) is reached, survey frequency will be increased to at least once l
every 60 days and an engineering evaluation will be performed.
If the allowable settlements are exceeded, the plant will be shut down until the structure's safety can be established.
IV.
STRUCTURAL REANALYSIS A structural reanalysis was performed on the DGB to determine the settlement and surcharging effects on the building.
A.
DESIGN CRITERIA The DGB is predominately made from 4,000 psi concrete (except the roof slab, which is 5,000 psi concrete) reinforced with Grade 60 steel bars.
The building was originally designed for the ACI code allowables.
The load combinations employed for the original analysis and design of the DGB are provided in FSAR Subsection 3.8.6.3.
The original FSAR load combinations did not contain a settlement effects term (T).
Four additional load combinations were 0284y 7
Midland Diesel Ganarator Building Executive Summary established and committed to be considered.
These additional combinations consider the effects of differential settlement in combination with long-term operating conditions and with either wind load or OBE.
Table ES-2 provides the load combinations listed in FSAR Subsection 3.8.6.3 and the four additional load combinations.
k The following loads are considered in the reanalysis:
1.
Dead loads (D) 2.
Effects of settlement combined with creep, shrinkage, and temperature (T) 3.
Live Loads (L) i 4.
Wind loads (W) 5.
Tornado loads (W')
6.
OBE loads (E) 7.
SSE loads (E')
8.
Thermal effects (T )o
(
B.
ANALYSIS 1.
Models The structural reanalysis uses two different mathematical models of the DGB:
a dynamic lumped-mass model, and a static finite-element model.
The dynamic lumped-mass model is a one-dimensional.
l stick-type, lumped-mass model using beam elements to l
represent the structural stiffness, and spring and damper l
elements to represent the impedance functions for the l
foundation medium.
The model was used to determine the overall seismic behavior of the DGB.
The impedance functions were based on the dynamic soil properties.
To account for the uncertainties in the foundation soil i
properties, impedance functions were varied considerably l
and the resulting seismic responses were enveloped.
l The finite-element model is a mathematical model that reduces the DGB to an interrelated system of finite elements.
The building is defined by a set of 853 nodal i
points and 1,294 elements.
Of these elements, 901 are plate elements representing walls and slabs, 141 are beam elements representing the footings, and 252 are boundary elements representing the foundation soil.
Horizontal and vertical translational springs are used to simulate 0284y 8
Midland Diesel Generator Building Executive Summary the boundary condition.
Figure ES-13 illustrates an isometric view of the finite-element model.
~
2.
Load Representation The dead load is represented in the finite-element model by the acceleration due to gravity.
The live load is represented by pressures applied to plate elements modeling the floors.
Wind loads are represented by pressures on plate elements and concentrated nodal loads.
Seismic loads are represented by accelerations and settlement effects are represented by the soil springs explained below.
3.
Soils Sprinos a)
Short-Term Load Analysis The overall translational soil impedances from the dynamic model are used to calculate soil springs in the finite-element analysis for short-term loads (i.e., wind, tornado, and seismic).
b)
Analysis Without Settlement Effects The analytical model for dead load and live load case without settlement effects was constructed by using large values for the soil springs.
c)
Analysis for Settlement Effects t
For long-term loadings with settlement effects, the structural reanalysis addresses four distinct time periods.
A unique set of measured or estimated settlement values that corresponds to each of the following periods are used:
1)
March 28, 1978, to August 15, 1978 The first scribe mark was placed on the structure on March 28, 1978.
August 15, 1978, represents the closest survey date before halting DGB construction.
The structure was partially completed to 26 feet (el 656'-6") above the top of the foundation.
A long-hand analysis was used for calculating stresses.
2)
August 15, 1978, to January 5, 1979 The duct banks were separated from the structure, and DGB construction activities resumed during this period.
January 5, 1979, is the last survey date before the start of surcharge activities.
0284y 9
~
Midland Diesel G2nerator Building Executive Summary The structure was constructed to el 662'-0" and was analyzed using finite-element methods.
- 3) ' January 5, 1979, to August 3, 1979 Surcharge activities occurred within and around the structure during this period.
August 3, 1979, is the last survey date available before the start of surcharge removal.
During this period, the structure was completed and analyzed using finite-element methods.
4)
Forty-year settlement This period is composed of the following:
a.
Actual measured settlements from September 1979 to December 1981 - These settlements are small when compared with the predicted settlements and are mainly due to dewatering.
b.
Predicted secondary consolidation from December 1981 to December 2025 - These values, based on the conservative assumption that the surcharge remains in place over the i
life of the plant, exceed the settlement that will actually occur.
To determine forces resulting from settlement, an analysis was performed separately for each of the above four cases.
The analysis was iterative in nature to produce a deflection profile of the spread footing foundation that best approximates the settlement profile for the time period being considered.
Figure ES-14 summarizes the actual and estimated l
settlements employed in the settlement analysis, l
Figures ES-15, ES-16, and ES-17 give individual isometric presentations of measured and predicted settlements and also show settlement values resulting from the finite-element analysis of the DGB model for periods 2, 3, and 4.
The comparison shows good correlation between values resulting from the finite-element model and the measured / predicted settlement values.
Because of the high stiffness of the structure compared to the I
underlying soil, the building will mainly undergo rigid body motion.
Differences between calculated and measured / predicted settlements are small and within the accuracy of the survey.
The accuracy of the surveys and of the predictions of future settlements are presented as an error band on Figures ES-15, ES-16, and ES-17.
It can be seen that practically all the differences between the calculated and the measured / predicted settlements lie within these error bands.
0284y 10
Midland Diesel Gsnarator Building Executive Summary 4.
Analysis of Survey Data An analysis of the survey data reveals that the data are not accurate enough to reflect the exact changes in the structural shape due to the settlement.
The results of a review of this survey data can be summarized as follows:
a)
The difference between consecutive measurements at a building location reveals both positive and negative values.
The negative values indicate that the structure moved up or a potential inaccuracy in measurement existed.
Because the structure cannot easily move up against its own weight, it is likely that a negative value indicates an inaccuracy in measurement.
l b)
Review of relative displacements of the north and i
south walls show that the data vary irregularly.
It l
cannot be concluded from these data that the structure developed differential settlement in the l
period considered.
c)
Angle Variation Analysis During the settlement period considered, random changes in algebraic sign exists for the vertical angle formed by three markers along the south wall of the DGB.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the settlement of the structure during this period was mainly rigid body motion.
d)
Warpage Analysis The warpage across the structure was found to vary with time between positive and negative values.
It can be concluded that the survey data are not sufficiently accurate to prove that the structure has developed differential settlement (warpage) across the corners.
Summarizing, the survey data analysis concludes that the existing data were not accurate enough for direct use in structural analysis and need to be modified, error bands were established to be between 0.125 inch and 0.225 inch for the four settlement periods.
By smoothing the settlement vs time curves to compensate for the survey inaccuracies, the data reflect that the structure was experiencing mainly rigid body motion in the period during which settlement was measured.
0284y 11
Midland Diocel G2nsrator Building Executive Summary C.
STRUCTURAL EVALUATIONS AND RESULTS
~
The concrete walls and slabs were evaluated using the OPTCON program.
This program calculated the stresses in the concrete and reinforcement of a given section that is subjected to axial load, bending moment, and thermal gradient.
The shear stresses in various parts of the building (walls, slabs, and footing) were evaluated using hand calculations from the Bechtel Structural Analysis Program (BSAP) results.
The DGB was found to meet the structural. design criteria as defined earlier.
The critical load combinations are those that include either the tornado load case (W'), the OBE load case (E), or the settlement effect (T), specifically:
1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0W' + 1.0To 1.0D + 1.0T + 1.0L + 1.0E 1.4D + 1.4T In a majority of the locations in the DGB, the tornado load combinations produce the highest stress levels.
D.
ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL ANALYSES For comparison only, an additional analysis of the DGB was evaluated for the more stringent load combinations of ACI 349 as supplemented by Regulatory Guide 1.142 (Table ES-3) and found to be adequate.
Another informational finite-element analysis of the DGB has been performed.
In this analysis, the 40-year settlement values were imposed onto the structure direct;1y, rather than adjusting the soil springs to an approximate settlement profile as explained earlier.
Because the settlement profile is not a smooth curve, the results of the finite-element analysis indicate that the allowable stress levels would be exceeded by a large margin in a vast portion of the structure.
Furthermore, the analysis illustrates that additional forces beyond the structural dead load are required to deflect the structure into this shape.
In other words, either the soil must be capable of developing tension to pull the structure down or dead load in excess of the existing Luilding dead load must be supplied at the appropriate points to deform the structure to comply with the settlement profile.
This analysis therefore demonstrates that the settlement profile cannot realistically be applied directly to the structure.
An analysis was also performed to investigate the structure's ability to span any soft soil condition.
This analysis consisted of employing a soil spring value of zero at the 0284y 12
~
Midland Diesel Generator Buildi'ng Executive Summary junction of the south wall and the interior wall separating bays 3 and 4.
Soil spring values were then linearly varied in the north as well as the east-west directions so that they
' returned to their original 40-year value within a distance of i
approximately 15 feet from the zero spring.
It can be concluded from this analysis that the DGB can successfully i
span the assumed soft soil spot introduced without significantly increasing the stress levels.
i E.
EFFECTS OF CONCRETE CRACKS I
l A set of electrical duct banks located beneath the building l
foundation initially acted to restrain the even movement of l
the structure during fill settlement.
A systematic crack l
pattern was observed in walls resting on the duct banks.
Cracks in walls that do not rest on duct banks are attributable to the effect of restrained volume changes during curing and drying of the concrete.
Cracks were first mapped after the duct banks were separated from the DGB and l
prior to surcharge placement.
Another crack mapping of the DGB was performed after surcharge removal to acertain the effect of surcharge.
l The concrete cracks within the DGB were formally addressed in l
the response to Question 29 of the NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill.
In this response, the cause and significance of the concrete cracks in all structures were presented.
i Subsequently, during the NRC structural technical audit of
(
April 1981, further discussion was held concerning the effects of the cracks and the additional stresses resulting l
from the concrete cracks.
To evaluate the additional l
stresses associated with the concrete cracking, a number of analytical approaches have been used and the results forwarded to the NRC in the response to Question 40 of the NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill.
These results indicated that because these stresses are strain-induced secondary stresses, they do not affect the ultimate strength capacity of the cracked member.
l In response to an NRC request for a nonlinear, finite-element analysis to evaluate the effects of cracks on the integrity i
of the DGS, an additional computer analysis of the DGB was performed.
This analysis was performed using a finite-element program Automated Dynamic Incremental Nonlinear Analysis (ADINA), which is a three-dimensional, nonlinear program capable of considering concrete crushing, cracking, crack widening, and reinforcement yielding.
The east wall of the DGB was selected for the ADINA analysis.
A crack was modeled into the east wall, and the ADINA analysis was performed for two governing load combinations.
The analysis indicated that the effect of concrete cracks was localized and minor in nature.
The results of this ADINA analysis were submitted to the NRC, followed by meetings with the NRC staff to discuss these results.
0284y 13
Addendun SeptCabor 12 1983 Midland Diesel Generator Building Executive Summary To address additional staff concerns, further evaluation of the existing concrete cracks was performed by two consultants, Dr. Mete Sozen of the University of Illinois and Dr. W. Gene Corley of Portland Cement Association.
The consultants agree that the DGB is capable of withstanding the loads it was initially designed for, despite the existence of concrete cracks.
A report addressing the evaluation of cracks by the consultants has been presented to the NRC staff; three meetings have subsequently been held to discuss the report on cracks.
Also, reports on a crack repair program by Portlana Cement Association for all cracks in all structures have been i
l submitted to the NRC.
Based on these reports, all exterior cracks 20 mils and larger in width and accessible interior cracks 20 mils and larger will be repaired such that the extent (length) of repair will be limited to a crack width of 10 mils or larger.
Also, a monitoring program will be implemented which will consist of monitoring DGB cracks once every year during the first 5 years of plant operation and at l
5-year intervals thereafter.
Specific acceptance criteria (i.e., alert limits and action limits) on crack width and crack width increases are also specified.
l F.
SEISMIC MARGIN REVIEW As part of the seismic margin review (SMR) conducted for Midland, the DGB's ability to withstand seismic excitation was investigated.
The evaluation was conducted using new seismic response loads developed for the seismic margin earthquake (SME) together with normal operating design loads.
The seismic loads were developed using a site-specific earthquake for Midland as well as new soil-structure interaction parameters which reflect the site layering characteristics.
Margins against code-allowable values were calculated for selected elements throughout the structure.
The seismic excitation of the structure was specified in terms of site-specific response spectra developed for the top-of-fill location.
These spectra have a peak ground acceleration of approximately 0.15 g.
The vertical component was specified as two-thirds of horizontal.
A seismic analysis was performed using the lumped-mass model explained earlier.
Overall seismic loads determined by the response spectrum analyses were distributed to the resisting structural elements by the rigid diaphragm approximation.
This method is appropriate for the concrete shear wall and diaphragm system of the DGB.
Seismic shears and overturning moments l
were distributed to the individual walls in proportion to i
their relative rigidities.
Seismic loads acting on the i
diaphragas were determined using information available from 0244y 14 l
[
=
Midland Diesel Generator Building Executive Summary the load distributions to the individual walls.
The shear walls and diaphragas were evaluated for seismic loads combined with loads due to normal operating conditions l
predicted by static analyses.
l l
Capacities for the shear walls were developed in accordance j
with the ultimate strength design provisions contained in ACI 349-80.
Shear walls were checked for their ability to resist in-plane shears and overturning moments.
Margin factors were l
determined for the selected walls based on comparisons of the loads due to seismic and normal operating conditions and the code ultimate strength capacities.
The selected walls were found to be governed by overturning moment.
The lowest code margin calculated was found to be 1.8.
The SME must be increased by at least a factor of 2.2 before the code margin for any wall would be exceeded.
Diaphragm capacities were determined using ACI 349-80 criteria developed for shear walls.
The diaphragms evaluated were found to be governed by shear.
The lowest code margin for the diaphragms was found to be 2.0.
For any diaphragm to reach code capacity, the SME must be increased by a factor of 2.1.
Code margins for the selected structural elements were all j
conservatively based on minimum specified material strengths and maximum seismic load cases.
Reductions in loads to account for inelastic energy dissipation were not used for the DGB.
All code margins were determined to be greater than unity.
Before code capacity is reached for any DGB element investigated, the SME must be increased by 2.1.
It can, therefore, be concluded that the DGB has more than sufficient structural capacity to resist the SME based on code criteria and significantly higher capacity before failure is expected.
V.
CONCLUSIONS l
The original design of the DGB, based on its overall geometry and layout, produced a structure with a great deal of reserve strength.
The settlements during early stages of construction and during the surcharge program did not cause any unusual distress or significant loss of structural strength.
The i
remedial program of surcharging the area with 20 feet of sand has caused the fill to now be under secondary consolidation.
Future l
settlement can be conservatively predicted and will not be excessive.
It has been shown through the soil exploration program that the fill material under the DGB does have sufficient reserve in bearing capacity to resist all the imposed loads with the proper safety factor.
This area of the site is being permanently dewatered to eliminate any potential for liquefaction i
that could occur in the sand backfill below the DGB during a seismic event.
0284y 15 1
I Midland Discel Gantrator Building
, Executive Summary The DGB has been structurally reanalyzed for the various phases of construction and the 40-ywar life of the plant considering the critical load combinations using finite-element computer l
methods.
This analysis includes soil-structure interaction and takes into account the settlement history and the predicted settlement of the structure.
On the basis of this analysis, the structure has been shown to meet the design criteria with a significant reserve in strength.
In addition, a settlement monitoring program will be maintained on the structure and in the event the actual settlement is greater than 80% of the allowable i
values, the structure will be reevaluated.
There has been some minor structure cracking.during construction l
and surcharge loading of the area.
It has been shown through analysis and evaluation by the consultants that the cracking has not impaired the ultimate strength of the structure.
A crack monitoring program will be maintained and in the event that l
cracks should approach the allowable crack width limits, the structure will be reevaluated.
The SMR of the DGB has revealed that the building has more than sufficient structural capacity to resist the SME.
l l
Thus, it can be concluded that the DGB has the reserve strength to resist all the imposed loading combinations, including settlement, has sufficient margin to resist a larger earthquake, and has sufficient monitoring to ensure that the structure will continue to safely perform its function.
l l
0284y 16 9e--w e.
---.gm.,y my.-g-.._,-,m--+
-,.,-e.,u.w--g-;,,,,-
,_w-,..e-.ei.--m,..,,.,. -, -, -
-g-.--
,--w-,----.w.*---
- -,.7 7--
- m m--
"N---
P
Midland Diesel G nsrator Building Executive Summary 2
~
REFERENCES 1.
H.B. Seed, " Soil Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility Evaluation for Level Ground During Earthquakes," Journal of the Geotechnical Encineerinc Division Proceedings of the
^
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 105, No. GT2 (February 1979). Pages 201 through 255 2.
M.L.
Silver and H.B.
Seed, The Behavior of Sands Under Seismic Loadino Conditions, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California, December 1969 3.
R. Pyke, B. Seed, and K.C. Chan, " Settlements of Sands under Multidirectional Shaking," Journal of Geotechnical Encineerino Division, GT4, April 1975. Pages 379 through 397 i
I s
1 0284y 17
i e
1 TABLE ES-1 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING INSTRUMENTATION N tgbelr; Tyne a
Building Settlement Markers 23 '
Settlement Plates 52 I
Borros Anchors 60 Deep Borros Anchors 4
Sonder Gages 5
Piezometers
/ 48 l
(
i i.I'
/
I I
I l
l l
t 0284y22
TABLE ES-2 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR CONCRETE STRUCTURES OTHER ThiAN THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING FRO!! THE FSAR AND QUESTION 15 OF RESPONSES TO NRC REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL ResDonses to NRC Recuests Recardino Plant Fill. Question 15 1
a.
Service Load Condition U = 1.05D + 1.28L + 1.05T (1)
U= 1.4D + 1.4T (2) b.
Severe Environnental Condition U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0W + 1.0T (3)
U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0E + 1.0T (4)
PSAR Subsection 3.8.6.3 a.
Normal Load Condition U = 1.4D + 1.7L (6) i b.
Severe Environmental Condition U = 1.25 (D + L + Ho + E) + 1.0To (6)
U'= 1.25 (D + L + Ho + W) + 1.0To (7) l U = 0.9D + 1.25 (Ho + E) + 1.0To (8) l U = 0.9D + 1.25 (Ho + W) + 1.0To (9) c '.
Shear Walls and Moment Resisting Frames L = 1.4 (D + L + E) + 1.0To + 1.25Ho (10)
U = 0.9D + 1.25E + 1.0To + 1.25Ho (11) d.
Structural Elements Carrying Mainly Earthquake Forces, Such as Equipment Supports U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.8E + 1.0To + 1.2SHo (12) 0284y23
Table ES-2 (continued)
Extrema L 71 enmental and Accident Conditions e.
U = 1.*bC + 3.05&
i.2SE + 1.0TA + 1.ONg + 1.0R (13)
U = 0.05D + 1.25E + 1.0TA + 1.0 rag + 1.OR (14)
U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0E' + 1.0To + 1.25Ho + 1.OR (15)
U = 1.0D +g l.0L + 1.0E' + 1.0TA + 1.0Hg + 1.OR (16)
U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0B + 1.0To + 1.25Ho (17)
U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0To + 1.25Eo + 1.0W' (18) where B = hydrostatic forces due to the probable maximum flood (PMF)
D = dead loads of structures and equipment and other permanent, load-contributing stress 4
E = operating basis earthquake (OBE)
E' safe shutdown earthquake load (SSE) a Ho - force on structure caused by thermal expansion of pipes under operating conditions Hg = force on structure caused by thermal expansion of l
pipes under accident conditions L = conventional floor and roof live loads (includos moveable equipment loads or other loads which vary in intensity)
[
l E = local force, pressure on structure, or penetration caused i)y rupture of pipe T = offects of difforential settlement, creep, shrinkage, and i
temperature i
To = thermal effects during normal operating conditions Tg = total thermal effects which may occur during a design accident U = required strength to resist design loads or their related internal moments and forces l
W = design wind load l
W:
- tornado wind loads, excluding missile effects, if applicable (refer to Subsection 2.2.3.5)
I 0284y24 l
l
TABLE ES-3 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR COMPARISON ANALYSIS REQUESTED IN QUESTION 26 OF NRC REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL ACI 349 as SuoDieme~nted by Regulatory Guide 1.142 a.
Normal Load Condition U = 1.4 (D + T) + 1.7L + 1.7Ro U = 0.75 [1.4 (D + T) + 1.7L + 1.7To + 1.7Ro]
b.
Severe Environmental Condition U = 1.4 (D + T) + 1.4F + 1.7L + 1.7H + 1.9Eo + 1.7Ro U = 1.4 (D + T) + 1.4F + 1.7L + 1.7H + 1.7W + 1.7Ro U = 0.75 [1.4 (D + T) + 1.4F + 1.7L + 1.7H + 1.9Eo + 1.7To
+ 1.7Ro]
U = 0.75 [1.4 (D + T) + 1.4F + 1.7L + 1.7H + 1.7W + 1.7To
+ 1.7Ro]
l c.
Extreme Environmental Conditions U= (D + T) + F + L + H + To + Ro + WT U= (D + T) + F + L + H + To + Ro + Egg d.
Abnormal Load Conditions U= (D + T) + F + L + H + Tg,+ Rg + 1.SPg U= (D + T) + F + L + H + Tg + RA + 1.25Pg + 1.O(YR+YJ
+ Yg) + 1.2SEo U= (D + T) +F+L+H+TA+RA + 1.0PA + 1.O(YR+YJ
+Y) + 1.DEgg M
where l
Normal loads are those loads encountered during normal plant j
operation and shutdown, and include:
i T
= settlement loads 0284y25 l
Table ES-3,(continued)
D
= dead loads.or their related internal moments and forces
= applicable live loads or their related internal moments L
and forces l
z lateral and vertical pressure of liquids or their F
e
=
related internal moments and forces lateral earth pressure or its related internal moments H
=
and forces To thermal effects and loads during normal operating or
=
shutdown conditions, based on the most critical transient or steady-state condition
[
Ro
= maximum pipe and equipment reactions if not included in the above loads 1
Severe environmental loads are those loads that could infrequently be encountered during the plant life and include:
t Eo = loads generated by the operating basis earthquake (OBE)
W
= loads generated by the operating basis wind (OBW) specified for the plant Extreme environmental loads are those loads which are credible but highly improbable, and include:
Egg = loads generated by the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) i WT
= loads generated by the design tornado specified for the plant i
Abnormal loads are those loads generated by a postulated high-energy pipe break accident and include:
= maximum differential pressure load generated by a postulated break I
Tg
= thermal loads under accident conditions generated by a postulated break and including To RA
= pipe and equipment reactions under accident conditions generated by a postulated break and including Ro U
= required strength to resist design loads or their related internal moments and forces YR
= loads on the structure generated by the reaction on the broken high-energy pipe during a postulated break 0284y26
Table ES-3 (continued) jet impingement load on a structure generated by a YJ
=
postulated break i
Yg
= missile impact load on a structure generated by'or during a postulated break, such as pipe whipping
.h J
l 0284y27 i
l
G W
O 2
25 d
5' Sj SE ez 28 a
SS n'
is M
a m
U 58 8
08 i:
4 n~
i E "'
34
+
5 5=
i e
I
' i I
!-IV A l,'L,,
/
Aj O'f
)
j.}
i i e3 trie
}s/
f I
n1 i '
q p.I t s a
t i
f './/
7,.
Ir 1
i,sl ' 4. ;r/
/ J { [ s '. '.
l'.. !
!8 7/ #
,/
- 4 i
)-
Ij M
g ji
/.)l, -
' 11 n,;
- i t i.
,: '/ % ;q [ ;.-
l4, 13 L_
11
/,1 ;
l ei fi t
I f
,/,
l N.
l X :;;
- -~.
/ !g
\\
i F ? - (>
fl#
e
'l l
/ *El *L', Q.I'l %.
~
}
,i
.N l;
'N / o.,.,',#
e
's
/
ff
.s
/./a
/,q.,'i % <
I
\\
y*
s.. v
- /
j s
r-f f
[k,!
<1
h I
!g j *[
(N
/
/si\\
7
, vQ9 w
/
~'s l'
/(
i I $.g
?
0; sb /
' h ([ Y k lf h h hl
%)
r
.# n=,e
-5
- 3
\\ i ei;,My 7,i.8+;jjjp a-1p 7
,.)
- i t.
- . ~
i_.
,ii #l ^ N,y.
rl l
il r e,
is l
I)!
ii' y.fd.. '
E
-,. - ' r-r, c= e t
. it
,l
.u j;
/
!' I d!! 5 i
e i.
- I
!!; j,-
\\
!) f lll %,g i il
,[ll 3l(gg l
! [
dii
@i r'
r L
a j f.,!!
'e wi f
,h 0
f I
-dj' li
.jf 27 ih ;
.s li
-j 3
,/a J I
{
{g {.I-1i
%3.4 tp% n (
p-
,3
/
% j %q l m
93 s
=
_.,a g%Q C E 5 C 2:.s:: z l' & - +w y
p8 l-I CI'i,/
1 g
b.s s
1 J
- e. n s
- , I I
h s
q s
p 3-0 ". i j
t L
in L,.
i i
~
- w j
I n * {--
m I E'
,Rt k
-~
e 6
S 9
C E
i 9>
e 55 D
3 m
~
E C3 i
23 g
=
!s E5 E
8
.o Ud A
1 dx
=
5 5
~
Ip 17 II,
- l" t
/
l rf I
I
+
y,.... 33g i
w.,
d L-ii!
l11
~9 C-3 7
- n. ?:*g e
3 i
O e
1
..h
.! 7
.i j
l
Ehb,
?
i.i d
3
=
4.
i t.
jj j#,"
'i -*l
.! ? l
- f=3
[.' ed'
.di g
il e, 9l A I I I I J..
1 r
,,P s:
! l
[
~
pk-.L(j 4
y 4
i
=
m 5,
.I l-
- :. ~--
t m --
?l
- - ' n; ta
--- i r
j l jl
=
hq i
-=i
% ]' i
~
n20' 1:.. -.
i-M P,l
- . n :.-
!**l l-a: :=
a m
i l
1 jd.
.hl.
" L -li.i :. !!
NM
.a,F.il.:il ra
>].$ !
e
-. m. i. t
, e
.....,.o y(
..e i 1 e x.. (A.%.
m m,
f
~fb
- p h,
l I
if l L e
I l } +L i 1~2}
}
l j
r e,{
l fk' i
I
'l l
l l
l 4
l!
I i
i
.n i
1 l-4 l
8 i
i i%.
1 e
1 l.
...- !,l. l
. ll
. l [
l b
l l
ll P
l L
I
_c
, :8
- Ak-3' Y
COP --
T.,F, :.5 :*l
_,1;
~~~!
8 ?-1*M h
.:.s I!i
...' qn.,'-'
s 'a
m l jQ
. w.i i
l 1:e, ~G dl'
'$M/
I i
g ir
!.!1, a'
+
e 0
[
y8 51
- Es g
8 6-as
- l L
i.
m n-J--
i.
c N
P f
I L I 2
g'
^
!,s'
'g-y-l :S.Lij
. ---. g e
i o
ei l + 4r
- a v
p-a g
2'j M i
~4 I
f 9 I l 9 m\\
.k l I l
i / \\.
W
. jj
)
~
r t]
~
l' i
I yi W
i
,q
,.-rL G,.- - -
- !l
l UCT BANKS Ol iI II m
- ,l l
\\\\-
TURBINE BUILDING ii i
s%
ff
\\\\
ggg sa t\\
i l g
\\\\
pg IliI g\\
/ p iiiI
\\ \\
l/
)) (k
\\\\
// \\\\
g g
\\
'TF1 1 a s'. '. '\\. \\
\\ \\.
W t'.
. m'..c
..x.'LJ
-. 28)
L'.
. s,'
5
. s.'L.'
T j
I p'
j~/
's
\\'g j
- /
\\
a
- /
\\g g
\\
I g
1 d
/
/
g
\\
t d
\\
g i
i g
\\
)
9."*,# p*,.'
L b
d g
i
/
\\
\\
J s
.:s ;.:,
s
{
't:4.i.]:.[ All d
N I
i NORTH
..(
- ( '
I il E
BAY 1 BAY 2 BAY 3 BAY 4 i
i I
I I
d i
es s'.-
l ll
( f, 1
ru n
3<
l t.;,-
o.,
..e-A
- .,n.'a.
s l
se.::e:.
_ x. s. -
- w..e
..x.1. -
- w.x
..x.1.
- w.y
..x.1. -
l FOOTING U
O.
O O
O.
~
~
I REMOVED I
1 DUCT BANK 1
4 TYPICAL SECTION DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1 I
DUCT BANK LAYOUT i
I 3
FIGURE ES-2A i
i
Aw TURBINE BLDG, WALL m a
=
1 1 1 \\
_ __._'88 i
=
APM OK19 m
n
' t e
TRANSFORMER 8;.
i is j;
PAD II it l8 si gg 1
31 I
m Il gl BAY 1 :l BAY 2 ll BAY 3 ls 8:l BAY 4 Y T T/
i:
li l!.
!t, 20*
ll
_-=_
is i
I 11 la na m.d g
b5 led W
4.=
20' min i
N A+
PLAN f
i APPROX t
, 19','
TIED RETAINING l
3 STRUCTURE APPROX 14-2 El 064.0' w,...,,.........g j
1 SURCHARGE I
i l
GRAD E E L. 634.0'- #
l g
TURBINE BLDG.
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
SECTION A-A f
GENERAL LAYOUT OF SURCilARGE LOAD 0
50 t
FIGURE ES-3 SCALE IN FEET
G G
N D
N IRA LEO I
D OTL Y
OE L
R CME IUA OG BM
.ZR 4
m RM TEA e
OU NIHY S
h s
f e
TS EPCR E
=
RV LLSS R
e e
e s
s
. o EI TE I
U s
n N T TVDH G
EU EEN I
=
GC SLA F
M e
=
s
. m E
L X LDL E E S
ANE E
COV e
P g
s
. m IPE e
e ID P
L
.e Y
e
$h;
. $ta e
.w T
e e
h a
.e s
t
.s t
sa e
t a
v
.m s
T d
g S:' i-a e
n es a
A i
s n o e
s T
s v
. e s e i I
S e
.e 4
S W
s t
os o s s
V s
i r
O a
a a
n v l
o e te t
v o a t
a e
t o s
S s
4 v
s g
s l
e 5
s g
a f
k E
c.
t m
L t
R n s E
E a
A.
T i
I S
se T
nI D
E E
c.
e t
A p
s 2
. s s i
e a
)
o n
a l
O a u h
(
tE 4
s io P
CI e
lt_
I n
a e
o a
e e
4 e
a 8
3 i
i v..
e m 4
0 5
m e
RA*
Igt'4 eg4 e
e 2e*
e o
s J
s 4
e 2
e a
~-
a 6
s e
0
.~
I s
0 a
e 2
e n m y8 eg e
St.
sa on s
a s
,8*
l. 3l a
E t
. m e
a.
n a
r sa a
v t
m i
a r
e a
e.
. s e
n s
e t s a
B o
t a
n es P
5$
u O
e s *
" u n
s g
u g
a
.xgE[ai s g$.
gggd I
c yI=i
90 O
N w
O ne 4
4 09 i
%~
8 50 y
~
2 5
.. N D
N 3
N 2 00 N
N N
$(ITLib.(NI Pf R LOG CVEL E Of 16ME Cg ' I W s
N N
s 80
\\
\\
f 3
.I 3 00 -
,t
~
,g 94 L/PS
,,, /""
k....
\\
Isame GCuestst alevt 04v$a M)lf-
=
- n. ~ ~s~ w n.
.m s.
U M$ ".'* *f0 Y.'*Ol.d75'.~~.'"'
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING j
~,.. -... ~ " " ' ' ", '
EXECUTlVE
SUMMARY
m SI4 79 we reeeen ene. eye een.e mees se MTTLER.ENT adAAKE A LOCATIO88 PL.AN I
8"*"L""'"^'*"""""a SETTLEMENT VS. LOGARITHM OF puGT TO ECALES TIME FROM 1/26/79 TO 9/14/79 MARKER DG-3 FIGURE ES-5
-0.2
=*'a,"",,,,,,
0
- =
"
="
= a g
0.2
- 'V rA N'q qw 1
=.o, O 4.4
"=,
.z s
0.6 seg*'A,-
Hz g
0.s w
J 1.0 H
h SETTLEMENT PER LOC W
I.2 CYCLE Ca - 1.25" g
1.4 1.6 mw l.a 9/14/79 6/29/83 -
\\
4 M
i 1
I i
t I
i 4
i oe ZH 3 w 630.0 OW e
e e
a a
s l
g u. 620.0
=
s
,,,, e 6l0.0
,,=
Ow W Z s o 600.0
's,.-'s
=
m4 s '=
s 2 >- 590. 0 es.s.ma se x > 580.0 Ow T 8 570.0
@W CURlL ATIVE TinC (DAYS) 1,000 f.500 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
l, SETTLEMENT VS. LOGARITHM OF TIME SINCE 9/14/79 MARKER DG-3 '
FIGURE ES-6
OlESEl. GENEllATOll BUILDING
$r Y
Y Y
MI 101J IL Jl I~
lI l] J l
l I'
0.79 a
0.99 0.94 O 0.82 0.as 1.0s O
-l
,I ~ ~ ~ ~2,0.84 k~ ~ ~ ~ M,0.87 Xl0.97 1
1 8
h' ~ ~ ~N,0.76 X
l I
8 4
a g
1.06) [
t l
l l
I 1
J (1.06 I
3 8
e i
g k
l 4
5 L
(
j i
i f
I
(
)
(
)
(
i 8
i 1
I i
l 1
I 1
i i
I I
l 3
I i
e s
l l
t e
o.oix--- j
] !x~~ xj ].
- 8
- -- j i.43 k y '1.4 x
'"Lx x
i 1.17 0.91 1.46
)
1.10 W
W.
1.38d
]
1.20 1.22 1.49 LEGEND O
DEEP BORROS ANCHOR X
BUILDING / PEDESTAL SETTLEMENT MARKER 1.20 SETTLEMENT IN INCilES DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING l
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1 ESTIMATED SECONDARY l
COMPRESSION SETTLEMENTS FROM 12/31/81 TO 12/31/2025 ASSUMING SURCHARGE REMAINS FIGURE ES-7 l
i
9 UILSL L GENEllATOlt BUILDING l
0.51)P (0.39 lorJ ioi.
i-i i-i F-] O l
i O_55 0.47 0.50 0.51
~
h~ ~ ~ ~ 0.52
,k"~~~
sk- ~ ~ ~ ~90.51
,k~ ~ ~90.54 0.49 I
l e
i I
e 0.54)
I l
l 3
8
)(0.41 l
l l
3 3
8 i
g I
5 L
k J
I I
I I
I
(
)
(
e 1
l t
a g
g I
I 1
l 1
l l
l 1
l s
3 1
e i
e 1
I I
I E517,,,,_$
0.5 0.48 0.4 0.4 0.42)[3 y
d (0.43 0.47 0.49 LEGEND X
BUILDING / PEDESTAL SETTLEMENT MARKER 0.42 MEASURED SETTLEMENT BETWEEN 9/14/79 AND 12/31/81.
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
MEASURED SETTLEMENT FROM 9/14/79 TO 12/31/81 i
FIGURE ES-8
e
~1~~~~
s e
e e
e e
3 e
SA u f
AVERAGE OF BAS AfeD SA M s
DEwATER SE TTLEteE88T 0.2 SAe G
g 0.4
=
!i ins y06 9/14/79 N
i s
I 8
i EM s
s e
a s
s a
u h
620
~
g C 610
~
g3E 2-os m wp y<
1 E
m
- l g=
z soo 4
670 200 300 400 600 800 1,000 2.000 TIME (CUMULATIVE DAYS)
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
AVERAGE SETTLEMENT AFTER SURCHARGE REMOVAL BA-8 AND BA-53 FIGURE ES-9 1
o
~
l i
I i
i i
I CORRECTED PLOT (NATURAL e-0
- a
.= a e e ea"*
,ee,,==,,
SOIL DEWATERING SETTLEMENT SUBTRACTED) a a
- % 'a %\\,P
^
a%
g 0.2 g
y <.<
I s
0.6
.g, -
.S z
0.8 Ld J
I.0 g
W Ld 1.2 SETTLEMENT PER LOG 4
W CYCLE Ca = 1.25" i
4 g,4 l.6 mw g,3 9/14/79 6/29/83 -
l--
4 1
u R
I f
I I
I I
I o
O^
ZF g w 630.0 ow e
a e
a e
a g ta. 620.0 o
610.0
,,=
t l
tJ Z H O 600.0
's,,
-~'*
=
4-1 2 6-- 590.0
., =
a
-4
= =..,,,,,, -
i x > 540.0 OW i
m -J 570.0 i
i gW CUWL ATIVE TIME (DAYS)
I' M DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
SETTLEMENT VS. LOGARITHM OF TIME SINCE 9/14/79 SHOWING CORRECTED SLOPE MARKER DG-3 FIGURE ES-10
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 630 625 A
62n O
a A
615 Norft:
g Open and closed symbols represent 6
tests et different locations.
61n b
O uD 605 A
6 APPROIDWTE BOITOM OP FILL 600- - - - -
A 3
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
595 g
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE FIGURE ES-11 590 i
PRESSURE (KSF) e O
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 G28_
f f
I DEAD LOADS BEFORE StJRCHARGE REMOVAL
/)
m
/
623
/
(1)
(2)(4)(5) (6 13)
/
/
/
618
/
2 1
/
8 I
g j
DEAD LOAD f
w ADDED AFTER J
613 q
d SURCHARGE REMOVAL W 1
l LIVE h
LOAD--e a
~
,1N-SITU EFFECTIVE STRESS
\\ DEWATERING DURING SURCHARGE l_
LOAD I
i
\\
SURCHARGE a
i EMPLANATIONS 603 (1) in-situ effective overburden pressure (G'VT at 627).
(2) Total effective pressure before surcharge removal due to in-situ etfactive overburden pressure and structural dead loads present during surcharge.
l (3) Total effective pressure at the end of surcharge due t In-situ effective overburden pressure, structural dead DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING loads, and surcharge loads.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
}
(4) Total ef fective pressure due to in-situ ef fective overburden pressure and total structural dead loads (loads present during j
surcharge plus dead loads added af ter surcharge removal).
COMPARISON OF EPPECTIVE STRESS BEFORE AND AFTER (5) Total effective pressure due to in-situ effective overburden SURCHARGE SOUTHWEST CORNER i
pressure, total structural dead loads, and expected live loads.
I (6) Total of fective pressure during the life of plant operation due to in-situ ef fective overburden pressure, structural dead loads.
FIGURE ES-12 l
Jewatenng loads, and expected live loads.
l
i a,
67 W" l
conteriIne to contertine
,N_
_4 ?
l 152'-6*
"'4 A lhm i
centeriine to Q,[
.o centertine
_/
h,y~'
y
/
w; 4
Y
=
p
,,c'i,,,
p i
"et
,f'
/N /
y i,4;
- (7
- 7
/s
(
x-
"- -/
/
w
,,,4
/
l i
b x x
< ',,) =
"4 ul,
/
l
.x p
/
49'-10M"
\\
/
/
/N /
/
y, "
s (centertine of
\\\\\\
\\
I /
!!:l / I N
A
/
l roof slab to s
\\
\\\\\\\\
N /
[.,j/
contertine of
/
\\ 7
/
/ j ;pj /
3 footin0)
\\
\\
N p,,
9 y
\\
' ' >- r
/
NORTH j
h
\\
/
,,,,U l
\\
/
\\
/
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING l
typical vertical EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
tronalational spring i
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL (for ease of presentation, only vertical translational Springs have been depicted)
FIGURE ES-13
LINE A 1.19 1.02 0.90 0.85 0.76 l
LINE B 0.77 1.09 1.54 1.98 2.41 LINE C 1.50 1.51 1.78 1.86 1.91 LINE D 1.33 1.15 1.19 1.18 1.29 1
TOTAL 4.79 4.77 5.41 5.87 6.37 1
o,,
s[g o a?] o p3o s
o g
s
.a.m.
.cy.y
[., -.w..waw.m an: --
n mer...n a >s.
.w m :.e c
,s l
W E::x5 E =i5 y j
EEE G,s, EED a==
i 3
3 3
1 d,
.ud.
.3
.3 d.
d, 1
.s l
gg gg pg gg i
NORTH l
\\
t t
t t
i k
BAY 1 h
BAY 2 h
BAY 3 h
BAY 4 h
I b
W s
W W
3 i
i i
N I
h
(-w......%.cnlr..: :.uv...T.tg. x:e:n. c. Mg.:.s l
- m. >.&.-j o
o o
o o
LINE A 1.67 1.42 1.28 1.44 1.99 2
LINE B 1.14 1.12 1.46 1.92 2.21 i
LINE C 3.00 2.92 3.16 3.37 3.24 l
LINE D 1.62 1.67 1.69 1.98 1.89 TOTAL 7.43 7.13 7.59 8.71 9.33 LEGEND o
DIESEL GENERATOR DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING j
BUILDING SETTLEENT MARKER EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
SETTLEENT IN INCHES l
FOR 3
SUMMARY
OF ACTUAL AND j
PRE-SURCHARGE PERIOD (3/78-8/78)............LINE A ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS PRE-SURCHARGE PERIOD (8/78-1/79)............LINE B SURCHARGE PERIOD (1/79-8/79)
...............LINE C f
POST SURCHARGE PERIOD ( 9/79-12/2025)........LINE D PIGURE ES-14 ASSUMING SURCHARGE REMAINS IN PLACE
4 REFERENCE SURFACE NORTH
/
1 1.09
)
0.77 2
1.54
)
I I.14 I 1
I 1.ss I 13 87 I
~ - - -
i n. 9e ' ~
~
BAY !
BAY 2 BAY 3 BAY 4 8
/
2.41 l
EASURED l
SETTLEENTS i
r 1
i
!.12 i &D-N@
.46
[
1.14
- v**-
I 1.27 l
-ERROR. HAND CONSISTS OF
- V8" DUE TO CALCULATED I 1.56 1 I 2.17 I LIMITS OF SURVEY SETTLEENTS 1.92 t
2.21 l
~
4 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
COMPARISON OF SETTLEMENT VALUES PRE-SURCHARGE PERIOD AUGUST 1978 - JANUARY 1979 FIGURE ES-15
NORru
/
I l 481 1.51 1
1.50 ?... ~' N.. N.z.^S O k. M.....
._ 1 1.721 NOi..-
-i.
- i. 9
-., w.e.~.w.y..i..
, s.60l
......,,..........x.:...... y i
BAY l BAY 2 BAY 3 BAY 4 j
1 i
i RROR BAND CONSISTS OF k
3 151:_:4c i..:.. Nl
- 1.
- V8" DUE TO l,
L2 5 -)
Y:
a c&.;+:#d i
I 3.24l 3.24 LIMITS OF SURVEY i w.>..
j 3.00
^ - y,1.
ACCURACY 13.05 i
' ' '"TO.?:+.i-:p:-i+;.:g;.:.;.i. e-.....'.Y"."
- 2. AVERAGE SYSTE-i 3.16 MATIC ERROR OF EASURED N 3*37 0.i0 INCH CARRIED CALCULATED SETTLEENTS SETTLEENTS IN THE SURVEY DATA FOR THE PERIOD 3-20-79 i
TO 9-6-79 l
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
COMPARISON OF SETTLEMENT VALUES SURCHARGE PERIOD JANUARY 1979 - AUGUST 1979 FIGURE ES-16
,a
'r REFERENCE SURFACE j
!:o.40
/
I 8 38 i
0.si 0 45 0.48
/
/
..iS
..,9
..,8 j
n:,,
,,f_ T: M :2.:d:24:Z:6:Z-::::c;2: -
- /j;: ' ; g;;;;;-l;f;..j ;g.y.:.. L 1.29 1
yg7:,....:.:.f.-
-. i. - -
.r.-
t.33
/
/ BAY 1 BAY 2 BAY 3 BAY 4
/ M l
0.42 :
"0.47
'0.47 "0.49 0.43 i
6
{
EASURED / PREDICTED ERROR BAND i
/SETTLEENTS CGNSISTS OF:
i 1.67 1.62, Z_ :. :..:....., :.,...........,...:.,..,m.1*69 TO LIMITS OF 10.20 INCH DUE
,.u _.
/,,
--- m..
- ~,., m m e w.............
- : s ' "
- g!g m aa 4
n.1i i j
N CALCULATED 1.98 I
SETTLEENTS ACTUAL EASURED SETTLEENT FROM SEPT.14 1979 TO DEC.38, 1988.
l THESE INCLUDE EFFECT OF DEWATERING TO APPROXIMATELY EL. 595',
. AND REPRESENT MOVEENT OF THE STRUCTURE DUE TO SETTLEENT OF THE FILL AND NATURAL SOIL BELOW.
l ACTUAL EASURED SETTLEENTS FROM SEPT.14 1979 TO DEC.31, 1981 PLUS l
0 ESTIMATED SECONDARY COWRESSION SETTLEENT FROM DEC.31,1981 TO DEC.31, 2025 ASSUMING SURCHARGE REMAINS IN PLACE.
4 j
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING j
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
COMPARISON OF SETTLEMENT 1
VALUES l
POST-SURCHARGE PERIOD i
i SEPTEMBER 1979 -
DECEMBER 2025 i
)
FIGURE ES-17 l
1
l
=
e s
g e4 c.
,t E2 g g
~;
. +
i
% 7 j
4 i
s e 3
6 p
o b
k a.
g T
w dr a
l j
1
- J T.
~!,
i s.
?- =e=
3 L (e l
16 l
4
=
s l.
8 T
, 3
. E d
a +
=
t c i
J $
I l
5-i 2
a o
o t
i a -
n i
i
.o z.
>e
'I
- a. 1 s *1 4.
E I
4.
cw g,
hT l
i t
I i
l s
1 l
l.
t i; j
3,,
w.
g s..
t l
..._.w 4 7,.
m---
. -:. W
[t :. r :, r..
M
-,./'..
~ ~ " ~ ~
(bQ,, s.. i.P,,
l t
m.
g s.
-l dtM ;w %- g;:: 2.f"~r
- f.
'.'s
'QE ll
's.5..e;.
.g
--...r. i t'.,.,
<.. 4 :.
m Wr. p%"..
.', 'tef ~-h..
r 5..:,
- c.'
9 C
g-r.- J 4h;@ '
.v.
.., f&{ *a
&.bd
^
- d' f..
<y..
e u.+.nac,.
~
- g._ w,
...a+-
a. c.c; e>gpe, r.i.a.-
.a,
. g.7-
- g -
+'
-1.,-us. a.
-4 z,.~,,3.%,,y.
$.:.. ~.
a - c,-:..4 1
=
.u m
w.
- m.,,.
u.
e q *L a
i.p ;pu%g. W.. 4:.
w 8
- g. yppe y
- n a.s y:.
s:
- gY;&m.
-e g,. a. -f; -
.h. u p,cq..;:
, +.. gz o-
...,4,.g g $T yh;,Q ::M..i's..W '.:
tWn.x.:'.,. 1,7 ~
'*kMnu.
- 1: -
~
= ~~frw.
'a M ;:? 7%.
?>:
? nAr 1.. 5..
...;, _ _.._.... 2 _.
X
- - - : o.. r,- i.". - - -
- h' 4. ~ ~ ~;',' 'm%
r w-a,.. ;,gi 47
,a r.
.3 n
i yh.W. 4.., g..f,). T.,* p I t
'i
- ' ' ~
b y ti e 'sy 2
,a >
-.." ?J
' 6TJ M(~~ 4
- 4.*
i JCp.y* i,'..Q;.. i- **y..5l.1.M. *
+
.w
-~ 1 -.,'d s ".4.,%y
<l l
l s ' **, s
,".y
(.
- .>y
~s y.
4.;.*
.s.
- ' t 3-tp; g s'
.-;.-~-~ ~ - ~. ~ ~- ' ~
- -. * ~ - -
-w --
4x,
-t
..m'..:8,Q.u K..s 3 vi. -
t
- h 9 ".',*'
l
-4i
., %.4c e :*.,. Q..
,. l,
.'e n.
V; A,,,,,
t$ D $.
i
... "E.,
"'.: J L '
T s.sb a
, q - n y 7:
w m~.. M, g,,.&,.s.i.,[..
'+;j,3.,';*.. -
t
- r,.".a.t;yf o
I L.c, *., - -
- r. ' :s j % *}
..-w L.y
. c r
. - s.
. :.' L:
j.*.
r, g
,f 4
p :,,
e i L.
'c 1 Y
?
)
e n
-r
b a
e
,I e
m s
~-
~
s, i
p I
+
g i
1 i
1 J
i g
A 1 d I
!)
s r
c
~
a > -
Ew 5
2
- k
% t 3 g a
b 8
- ! A l
()
~
. g
'vw I
3 g-gT Od dl ()
l i
g y
b W n
8
>= A l
2 si 3 1
ss Q
s M
V l
- 5. _
- 1. -
E
~2 t
E-
.4...
$1 g
33 u
I f
4 g
1 4-O
's v
L
[
e Q&
2 f
v s
..+i 3*
Y
- p. O
~
l Q @Dj I
c v
"I et r
l e
l l
J 12
-T j
U
/
[
3
I L, Q wI
,' w /.
b$
I x
u m_
i s
2 3
l l
dw 1
t 7*
l I
=
g 4
i L
O O
e G
}
'8 i
i e
r,.
'3 W
{
T i
=
4
]
pH,,!
I i
L_m I
i f
i e
a
'E di I
2 '2
.t g
g 4
4 h
O
- DW L
- ~
- l
A1,b
~+
f' i
e 7d e, 2 i
.r i
r
+-- =
1 V
g I
k A
i
=
cPer]
t
{g q
g.
F 6 a I.k
_3.
g a,. j p
,i n
e3 e
t4jE..
a o
l.2 "se a Es,3 3.~t i.;.
.t a
s.
ATTENDEES SEPTEMBER 13, 1983 WOLVERINE INN, ANN ARBOR R. Landsman RIII C. P. Tan SGEB/DE/NRR R. D. Romney SGEB/DE/NRR D. S. Hood LB#4/DL/NRR i
C. J. Costantino BNL C. A. Miller BNL A. J. Philippacopoulos BNL 4
i 9
i l
n.__._
e=
m.
"*~
i e.
l l
October 12, 1983 MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION f
i
$9ecketEf00(sjE50' 329/330:0M,';OL'? <-
4 NRC/POR-~
Local PDR NSIC PRC System LB #4 r/f i
Attorney, OELD E. Adensam Project Manager n unna 8
Licensing Assistant M. nonean NRC
Participants:
R. Landsman C. P. Tan R. D. Romney D. S. Hood 1
j t
i t
\\
bec: Applicant & Service List
- - -.