ML20214M557
| ML20214M557 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1987 |
| From: | LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214M506 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706010349 | |
| Download: ML20214M557 (353) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:File Exec-DrOft Hay 3F,1987 EXECUTIVE SUf7ARY This report provides a brief summary of the design and construction of the Waterford 3 Nuclear Plant Island Etructure (UPIS) common foundation basemat. The causes for observed cracking in the basemat and their impact on the structural capability of 'the basemat are also addressed. The design and construction of the basemat havc been shown to be acceptable and the cracks do not impair the capability of the basemat to perform its safety function during design loading conditions.
-During the licensing review process a number of key issues were raised (see Section VI of this report), several of which were addressed'by a series of confirmatory cnalyses. These analyses are reviewed in Section VII of this report. The major conclusions reached as a result of the reviews and analyscs are:
o Easemat cracks occurred as a result of the combination of compressibility of the soil and sequence of construction of the basemat, o The cracking mechanism was flexuel in nature end shear-related diagonal tension fcilure did not occur. o Thc presence of the cracks docs not degrade the shear strength _or significently affect the stiffness of the basemet. o The residual effects from the construction of the basemat, when combined with design loadings does not result in overstressing of the basemat reinforcement. o cracks observed in the walls of the shield building and
. adjacent structures are unrelated to the basemat cracks and are not structurally significant, o Paremetric and modelling studies performed to evaluate a number of analytical refinements (i.e. dynamic effects of lateral soil / water loads, dynamic coupling of the Reactor Builoing and Basemat, artificial boundary constraints and finite element mesh'eize) have shown that the effects are
' either small or that calculcted increased demands on the basemat are within t'he strength envelopes utilized in the j design. A program of baserat surveillance has been establishec to monitor the behavior of the basemat to assure its continuing
- - structural integrity. Pesults to date have been consistent with
- t h c. e n t i c ipa r t.d be ha v io r of t he bcsemat. f
- odifications to the l r. r o g r a m , which will provide a more qantitative measure of the bast mat and crack behavior are bcing inriemented as described in Ecction IX.
I l i
- 8706010349 870528 PDR ADOCK 05000382-p PDR E-1 l.. .
FILELI-III DRAFT MAY- 27,1987
. LOUISIANA POWEP T. LICHT CCMPANY
-WATERFCPD SEE-UNIT NC 3 NUCLEAR' PLANT ISLAND STPUCTURE EASEFAT'
SUMMARY
REPORT I.. DESCRIPTION OF EAEEMAT Waterford Steam Electric Station (SES), Unit No. .3 is located!on the west bank of the Mississippi River, in Et. Charles Parish, about ~ 25 ~ miles west of New Orleans. Al'1 of the seismic Ca tegory -I structures of the plant are housed in a common ' structure, generally referred to as the Nuclear Plant Island St ructure(NPIS). The NPIS, containing the Reactor, Reactor Auxiliary, and Fuel Handling Buildings, as well. as the' Cooling Towers, is a rectangular, box-like reinforced concrete structure that.is 380 feet long, 267 feet wide and extends 64.5 f eet below final grade. The base of the NPIE is a 12 foot thick, common, continuous, reinf orced concrete mat f oundation(ref er red to as the basemat) that rests on a firm clay, silt and sand soil which was emplaced in the Pleistocene Age. Figure I-1(FSAR Figure 2.5-60) depicts a generalized cross section of the soils beneath the plant. The basemat was constructed on a three inch thick, concrete mudmat(workmat) that was placed over a one foot thick layer of compacted shell. The compacted shell was provided to assure
. equalization of hydrostatic pressures beneath the'basemat.
Since the water table is above the base of the f oundation mat, , continuous reinforced concrete walls (integral with plant structures) were provided around the perimeter of the met to resist the lateral pressures exerted by the surrounding backfill soil and groundwater. A plan of the embedded basemat reinforcement is shown in Figure. I-2(FEAP Figurc 3.8-4 6) . This figure also shows'the reinforcement in a cross-section(Sect H-H in Figure I-2) of the basemat. The bottom of the basemat is heavily reinforced with No. I J (1.3 7 5"' dia n e t e r) and No. 18(2.25" diameter) deformed, steel reinforcement bers placed in east-west and north-south directions, and depending upon location, spaced at 6", 6" or 12" on' center. Two or three layers of bottom reinforcement, aligned
-in each direction, were placed in various areas of the basemat according to strength requirements as, described in Section III.
The reinf orcement at the top of the basemat consists of a basic rectangular grid of No. Il bars spaced at C" on conte r in both north-south and east-west directions. An additional layer of top reinforcement, consisting of No. Il bars spaced at 12" on center cnd aligned in the east-west direction, was placed on the east and west sides of the reactor building. Ehear reinforcement, consisting of No. 11 bars spaced at three feet on center, was provided in the cooling tower areas. Embedded also in the basenat are drainage systems and electrical conduits plus dowels (vertical reinforcement bars that extend above the top of the mat)for anchoring superstructurc walls. I.1
N y >f 3i n 0 C 6
~
y //
/ // /
ll . T H S io s es 1 C E S g
/ / G S 0 _
I S
/ / L ic O 8
/
y/
/
/
/
& c R E le r
e R5 C 2 E E { - y/ E T D R
/ .
Wm 6
$U ,
EL // O e DG TL Csr A K PIc R
//
//
/
/
/
P wS A e E IF 2 g
.s // N ll OM C
y/
/ A wrf A
R h_ I
/ S h E y/ /
I U a N
\ E
//' OW
/// f
/ //
. L G
/
y/ / ~.
/
y/ / ,L
/// / g _
f_ / //
/ ', / Y s -
a a l y/ y/
/
/ b. ~
m / -_
= ] // /
~
=
a _ // / . u v L /// /
/ / 1 y/ /
s y/ / _ , ,
/
/ / /
/
///
/- - ? ,7A -
> /
/
/
? .-
o" y/ .
/
t y / / .
;t,2_
?.
i
/// /
'h t - /
///
/
/
yM'~zNA
/
- c. " . y / / /
y / y /
/
t o
/ /
//
/
/
/
w . ?. 2 m / / / . o r
//
y/d/ . Jg m c a n y X . T A a" s r o" y
/
///
/
/ /
. r o / f 4
.; f y c T' -
f
.E a f
4
/ / /
y / y/ ; .
/ /
/ //.
. ^
~
/ f /
* / / / / :
L* / / / ~ 1 y m& y
' y / / '
" //s ts / .
/// en _
, / 5L p // on ,
y/ -
~ .. y/
A s w
/ / x j t
s / W e / A
/ H
/ H T
' Yi
/
z
- \p s a /C L
H u c s / h v a I
\^ax m.c Gom n e
n w
, n I os 1 a a . o. _
/
e D' G s E sa , n T s A ms a C A l nv No s
/
l V t P" e m T L e AL r v Csa i t r o ar
/ -
s . C" . u. s s a n s s e . o l aam ic ghs.s.a - a a aA nu _ . o a L
/
/ - n-s o n T e G e o n o es
- a. A E
s a w s n na a n . Mn a o n g o.1 I 3,~*,m.n
;c a
. n.
.E T
R E W
,u o
m,t,s s o sa O WrV i
,n. ,,
s o s fm . d-y, .
.EE Y
a Vr m s
' . ' l
g d3 3 e g *6 ld a s' .
, . .v, n . ..~ n u. . a
.a . I .a st A 5{ 3>N >
.~mn.
ay oc.m. , t't:Ian:: tut :un ag J .'
-1:::el:: :t:: : yroF:,:,:,:,w, r-t ::rente:::- m titnum s 1::.e:t:Hm:: a,c.j 5 ,a gg i l 1 "-8 *S3if N ipa,,,,^ 31 'W.d=' L"'G,,b_! ."? 2 .5 Pls I --
i l Wl 4
;g thn ;r .i. l%=.:=e. _: 4 ~. 1 a =u.n.. w n_r
_ _I 4 3 W v
' H Im ..E i-I i $:lbp in MA ~5 ,WF , ...g P~
W-dJ sj hm g{ y r. ' d <- gg!J gg j
,. [F: 7 ??-- M. _. . ; #. .
N$ a si;r 1
- i. n.
!.i j{
e. fk!!kp __.M kh --M N; o! 6!l Wq r
.. rJ.,
h a a hI - JA n
'FC 9 '
! k =
' l
-- i a
.S, t.
4, . , V - L gi;~3 ' ._ , 1 1+Iffi:- 5 3sJ0- q +- . a Ad;. .- L ti !
,,/./![u .{f.? ~beite %{ ai.
s / ., s n. i
%.-{ 3rq ,, .,
T-
- s. A :g
~M v
i c- -] t 4- -!- A' It
'.^ i ,y Ii i. .!
h l h _ ;;;;$.?a.7md i i! ,/ 8j C qy 3
..(-V
[ ,,. -
/- ,1 s .
" ya m.U wvt g
/ '
' l I J .A, _.. - < x J i G, . .
}-f:r;d:
'f:f:::;- . . .-- ---
r w.i-l d t$e % jl ' i,! j 3 j- 7 m = }pf
. l..
'/' ,
_ . . t r f7
/.....-,u 7 i- .
*1 nn M i
e ; . c ' Ji
'+-f 1i p ,,,j - ?' i
%_1'"
- ij - '
?
i auL.;
,,m). . ; -
- 1 s l
[l[ ]1 jld i i E w ,f [ dig,J .s w hh * -
-l
.p y n ,i ,
99-hh
- h. o ,
l l ba m k.q!!h',hwM L %. . m.. fil. ! l5,
.a. ,.
_J]?" ii 1p -- . .-- -e- . uar.ch,s' g, " i _ f-{r,iAmo. i* y gg[._ ..' m [. g.g aeL.grJ'g mer ~ ._. . .. w. - -
. -K _..=
, ...,e
,%., ta U * '
! b' N O f' ,h,e,- . *
.m, ,ema-H: bMS$
- = terH N.J M! N -
min:!u Lv.d.ru man .p r:,, Hy' 'im* 1".u:: L n.4.w. w h.L..-!,- -- - : r-ur !!!!;.5; 0 -~ wl m .+w.i o. d ..s.nn--f . v. .m. _ Q g*;r**tc.' &
- 8
.=4p-- ',."dlrH !:H! .nc.mn. t i we er a .a k
I i T E
. e I
/ \ l d y, - - , - , - y _.y.. , - - - - - ,. . . - -, . -. -
FILE I-I2I DFAFT MAY 27,J967 V II. DESIGN PHILOCOPHY
'I b e W a t e r f o r d 3 basemat de. sign evolved on the basis of an I
extensive and detailed subsurface soil sampling and testing program conducted at the site (as cescrib(d in the Final Updated
, Safety Analysis Poport, Beference 1, Chapter 2) combineo with j investigations and evaluations of various foundation design concepts. It has determined, from the soils investigations, that near surface soils were unsuitable for supporting massive nuclear power plant structures and pile supported foundations could not be relied upon during earthquakes. Thus, plant f oundations had to be constructed on the Pleistocene materials that were located well below grade.
Thc initial approach considered for the plant foundation consisted of supporting each building on an individual mat foundation. !!o w e v e r , since plant structures are inter-related and interconnected by piping, fuel transfer canals, etc., severe restrictions had to be imposed on total settlements, differential settlements between buildings and out of plumbness between adjacent structures. Anticipated large, long-term, differential settlements between bulleings, causee by a soft layer of pleistocene matcrial some distance low the base of the plant, led to the elimination of this concept and to the choict of a single, monolithic basemat foundation. The monolithic basemat concept was adopted to minimize differential settlements between plant structures. Such foundations are normally designcd to have sufficient rigidity and mess to insure uniform settlements while providing ample factors of safety against overturning and sliding. Initial basemet concepts studied involved a basemat supporting independent structures with backfill placed bc tween buildings. These studies, which involved hand and computer computations, f ocused on the size, shape and building arrangements required to provide a near uniform distribution of soil pressures beneath the mat. The trial designs considered proved unsuccessful as none of them could produce the required near unif orm soil pressure distribution that would insure minimal differential settlements and out of plumbness of plant buildings. It was eventually concluded that a mat supporting indepcndent structures, with backfill between structures, was not practical and theref ore, the only f easible concept was a " floating foundation". T h e "f l o a t i n g f o u n d a t i o n" principle has historiccIly becn ust d for the construction of many large structures (Pef ert nce 2). Tht term " floating foundation" is somewhat misicading, howeser, since the foundation does not actually float. This princiFIC is more accurctely referred to as a "compe-nsated foundation syster". Ac applit6 to the llatt.rford founcation this essentially involved enclosing plant structurer within buttressed exterior wrlls Providt.d a round the rerimo ter of the mat t o r t. s i s t the leteral pressures exert <d by the surrounding backfill soil and groundwatcr. Irplementing the " floating foundation princip1c" basically involved setting the basemet auf ficiently below the l II.1
-FILE I-III DRAFT !!AY 27,1967 g existing grade such_that buoyancy forces would offcet a substantial portion of the_ weight of the supported structurec. At Waterford, the depth of the excavation was established such that the finel not soil pressure ' under the completed flPIE would be no greater than the preconstruction soil pressure. This was accomplished by excavating a volume of soil approximately equal in weight to the weight of the completed !?pIS.
Figure II-1(FEAR Figu r e 2.5-10 2) outlines the foundation design concept used f or the Waterford 3 plant and depicts site concitions(expressed -in terms of vertical stressec)that existed prior to, during and at the completion of construction. A detailed deceription of the design concept is presented in Section 2.5 of the FCAP(Ref erence 1). Briefly, the first stage of the const ruction(denoted Excavation Phases I thru IV in Figure II-1) involved dewatering and subsequently excavating the cite. The next phase (denoted Intctmediate Stage in Figure II-1) involved constructing portions of the plant structurcs, including a section of the Reactor Euilding, while the water table was maintained at some elevation below the basemat and partial backfilling of the site. During this construction phase, soil pressures beneath the mat were permitted to increase above the final design soil pressures. The final construction phase (denoted Co rt p l e t e d Condition in Figure II-1) involved completing construction of the plant structurec while releasing the dowatering to of f set the increase in the weight of the !JpIS and completion of the backfill surrounding the plant. When completed, the final prescures in the soil beneath the plant were designed to be 200 pounds per equare foot (pcf) less than the preconstruction prescures at the came elevation. II.2
FILE I-III DRAFT l'JY 27,1987
. References
- 1. Final Updated Eaf ety Analysis Report -
lla te rf ord TFS Unit !!o 3, December, 1966.
- 2. Colder, 11 C, " State-of-the-Art of Floating Foundations",
Journal of the Soil P.echanics and Foundations Division, Proceeding of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 9 3 , t:o . S t* 2 , t:c u Yot k , t:Y, tsa rch 19 8 5. II.3
--_)
-~ l EL + nte-y owf tt .eee-k l -
+N-e - '~.
*~m l
ll g", _ 3 ,.
*%.,,,,,,.p. .as . 6.----.
EL 47.00' VER76 CAL EFFECTIVE STRESS DUt TO OVERSURDENTOP Of PLEISTOCtNt
- 3.3 KSF f L 40 00*
INITIAL COseOITN)N t L + 13 00' py, 3e0'.0 m';0
\
."~~~""
~ ' ' - EL -40 00'1 TOP OF PLtisTOctNE
,, [ . , , , _ ~ ~ . .. - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ , '
a _
~ ~ - - - - - - - . - - .ao ,.
GWT E L -47.00' VERTICAL STRESS = 0 KSF EXCAVATION PHAlt11 THROUGH IV COMPLif tD
'"~**"
E L . ., 0.- l l l l E L
- 69 00' m
\ l' I
- j t L
- 3.00*
l l E L + 2100' 9 _ a * ".~~.:
.m 0
~
~ - = ~ . ,
- -- % , W ,U,,, ,,c, , , ,, , . , .
<....,,,.,;,-g,,,..
g,,, ,,c , ,,g g p,
*M COWTT' WT FOUNOATION
,*Y~*~ _ ggy
~
~~ -- w
.eo ,.
TOP OF plt lSTOctNE EL 47 00' VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRES5 = 4 8 KSF
'L INitRMEDI Af t ST AGE - CONSTRUCT DUILDINGS TO L EVE LS SHOWN S ACKF ILL WITH COMPACTE D SAND TO E L +700' (APPROM i 88 GIN $ATUR AflON REACTOR SulLDING FutL EL + 17.00 t GWT E L + 8 00' HOL'O
, NiACTOR.
SLO'O AUN SUILOING . sif wscl.wefgaw+e,;*4ww== s ,.-s.m r.a a m : m -m - i se a er ss er a 6*#
' 70 -
ms a v gg e m e s s m w , us.f m
) saa s o sacapitt PA
--"g., -
0 .. Q ~Qaso sac a. p it t >. ,, 30 .. %g ' . . ~ 7sitilTTT WAf7750115Irios b'~ 4 ,.
#~ EL .47 00' VIRTICAL EF FICTIVE $f RI$$
- 3 I R$F TOP OF PLilSTOctNE t L ~40 00' COMPLETED CONDiflON . ALLOW GWT TO RISE TO ORIGINAL LEVE L BY Rt LI AllNG DlW Af t RING & S ATUR AflNG 8ACKF ILL COMPLif t CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURi$
SACRFILL TO FINAL GRADE Figure LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO' DE5lGr4 Cor4 CEPT OUTLINE 2.5-102 WOterfOrd SteOm Electric Station ey L-t
- FILE 3-III DPAFT MAY 27,1987
\ III. DESICt; CF BASEMAT The Waterford-3 basemat was designed to recist various combinations of loads imposed by the superstructures it supports (ie., Peactor Building, Reactor tuxiliary Building, e t c.) , the backfill and groundwater surrounding the exteirior PPIE walls and the cupporting coil below. The basemat design included consideration of loads occurring under normal operating conditions, Design Easic Earthquake (also referred to as safe Shutdown Ea r thquake), f J ooding, etc. A dynamic analysis of the t;P IE wto performed on a lumped mass mocol of the plant to obtain earthquakr induced loads on the basemat. Load combinations and load f retors are described in Sections 3.6.3.3 and 3.P.3.4 of the FSAP(Peference 1). The design was performed in accordaner with the appropriate provisions of the Imerican Concre.te Institute'c(TCI)"Duilding Code Pequirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 31P-63 and ACI 31F -71)"(Re f e r e nce s 2 and 3). The original basemat design, performed in 1973, was based on the results of a ceries of parametric studies and structural analyses, which includcd simplified analyses using conventional classical solutions as well as complex, detailed finite element analyses. Early computerized structural analyscs consisted of parametric studiec to establich mat thickness. A preliminary analytical (finite element) model was developed for these studies and the mat was eccentially analysed as a flat plate supported on an clastic foundation. The model used consisted of an assemblege of triangular plate elementc(finite elements) interconnected at node points with subcoil ficxibility represented by vertica) cpringc. Superstructure loadc were introduced through a serfec of electic bear- elements. Paranetric variations concisted of three mat thicknesses, 10, 12 and 15 feet. For cach thickness onsidered, analyces were performed for the basemat supported on two different subgrade noduli. The results of thece analysco showed that increacing the. thickness from 10 feet to 15 fect had little ef f ect on internal f orces in the bacemat. Evaluation of the results of thecc analyscs led to a 12 foot mrt thickness. The sinplified classical analyces wtre utilized to establish basic steel reinforcement r equi rement s(f o r recisting bending mortnte and chears) in relatively clecr arets of t h e b a s t. m a t . Thest analyses involved idealizing areac of the basemat ac simple structural systems (ie., fla t plates, continuous beams, et c.) and calculating shear forces and bending moments in these idealized systems using clecsical equations. Thuc, areas under the Peactor f ullding and Fuel licndling Building were idealizcd as circular and rect angular plates, respectively, whereas, sections of the bacemat bcnesth the Pcactor Auyiliary Ouilding were idealized as continuouc bears. !!ow e ve r , meny arent on the bacemat could not be t r e. e t e d using simplified analyces, and thtrefore, a detailed finite eierent analycir of the bacemat was required to f ully define chear cnd bonding moment di s t ri bu tionc (and corresponding reinforcement requirementc) in these areac and to confirm rccults obtainea fron the cimplified claccical analyscs. III.1
r FILE I-III DPAFT 11AY 27,19P7
. For the finite element analysis, the bascmat and walls, T supported directly on the basemat, were modeled as an assembinge of triangular plate elements (ie., finite elements) interconnected at node points, while the cylindrical Reactor Building walls were represented in the model as a seriec of deep beams located around the peripht.ry of the structure. Due to the complexity of the structural cystem modeled and the liritations in the available storage capacity of computers that existed in 1973, some local cimplifications were made in arcas of the basemat model where simplifi(d analyses provided a sufficient margin of conservatism in the design. These areas wcre modeled with relatively larger elements than those used for the rest of the structure.
The soil beneath the foundation was represented in the analysic by linear vertical cprings connected to every node on the analytien1 model of the basemat. Instead of using spring constants bascd on the actual subgrade modulus, effective spring conctants were determined that approximated the long term effects of cettlement and consolidation. This was accomplished using an iterative process comprising several analyses of the basemat model with varying soil spring constants. The subgrade modulus used for the first iteration was determined using clastic stresc-ctrain characteristics determined from 1cboratory teste of cite soil samples. In subsequent iterations, the subgrade moduli were adjusted to lower values until compatibility of the computed settlements and ascumed cubgrade moduli was achieved. This iterative process produced spring constants that varied over the bacemat aree. Three spring constants were eventually used in the decign analysis. Thesc three conctants were applied to the area beneath the Reactor Building, a nearly circular band around the reactor building and the romainder of the basemat. The recults of the analyses deceribed above concicted of the chear forces end bending moment on east-west and north-couth planes throughout the ba ct mat. These results were used to determine the quantities of steel reinf orcement that had to be embedded in the basemat to sustain the maximum shear forces and bending momente produced by the required design loadings. Generally, the reinforcement placed at the top of the mat was that required by the ACI Code (Peferenccc 2 and 3) for chrinkage and temperature effects occurring during curing of the concrete. Some additional top r e i n f o r c e n t; n t was provided to resint bending moments that produce tensile stresses at the top of the basemat. Appreciably more reinforcement was required for the bottom of the bacemat due to the relatively large bending moments that produce tensile stresses at the bottom of the basennt. Distributions of thect bending morents across the rat rc culted in the recuirements f or sevt.ral dif f erent patterns of both north-south reinforecment cnd t ast west reinforcement. rome of these patterne consist of two or three Icycrs of reinforcerent III.2
<. FILE I-III DRAFT MAY 27,1987
.g placed in east-west and north-south directions. Some east-west sections of the basemat, principally in the cooling tower areas, required additional shear capacity and this was provided by the addition of !!o 11(1.375" diameter) steel reinforcement bars spaced at 3 feet on center. References
- 1. Final Updated Eafety Analysis Report - Waterford SET Unit !;o 3, December, 1986.
- 2. " Building Code Requirements f or Reinf orced Concrete (ACI 318-63) and Commentary", American Concrete Institute, Detroit Michigan, 1963.
- 3. " Building Code Requirenents for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 312-73) and Commentary", American Concrete Institute, retroit Michigan, 1971.
III.?
FILE IV DRAFT May 27 ,1987 IV. CONSTRUCTION OF BASEMAT Construction of the NPIS involved six major operations that consisted of: dewatering of the site; excavation to an elevation 48 feet below Mean Sea Level (MEL) ; placement of basemat reinforcement, drainage systems, electrical conduits and concrete; construction of superstructuress recharging the groundwater; and backfilling of the excavation surrounding the construction. Construction of the basemat began in April,1972 with the first of four stages of excavation. The initial stage of the excavation removed 18 f eet of soil, f rom the original grade (13 feet above MEL) to 5 f eet below MSL. This operation was completed in July of 1972. It was apparent, based on the extensive subsurface exploration and testing program performed at the site, that soil rebounding or heaving would occur due to the removal of overburden pressures during excavation. Therefore, dewatering of the site was required to minimize the heaving. Dewatering was also required to control pore pressures in the Pleistocene sands located 77 feet below the natural grade, to stabilize excavation slopes and provide a dry working area. The dewatering system was not in-place during the initial excavation. Consequently, between 1.2 and 3.6 inches of heave occurred. The site was not initially dewatered until August, 1972, at which time, approximately 1.2 inches of heave was recovered. A total of 251 dewatering wells, with submersible pumps, were located around the perimeter of the excavation. 217 of these wells were installed in the upper soil layer, classified as recent alluvium deposits (materials deposited by water), and pumped f rom an elevation of 40 feet below MSL. The remaining 34 were installed in the Pleistocene sands and pumped from an elevation 95 feet below MSL. The function of the dewatering system was to draw down groundwater levels or piezametric levels below the base of the excavation. By drawing down groundwater levels, the reduction in overburden pressure due to removal of soil was balanced by an increase in effective soil pressure, thereby minimizing excavation-related heave. The ef f ectiveness of the dewatering system was monitored by a subsurface instrumentation program that provided measurements of piezometric levels and foundation soil heave or settlement at different elevations. Monitored also were excavation slope movements and setticment of areas adjacent to the site due to dewatering. Records of piezometric levels, f oundation heave, etc, that were generated during the subsurf ace instrumentation program, are provided in Chapter 2 of the Updated FSAR(Feference 1). IV.1
FILE.IV DRAFT May 27 ,1987 A total of 24 piezometers(an instrument that measures water level) were installed in selected soil layers to monitor = groundwater response to site dewatering. Regula r . monitoring of piezometric IcVels. began in August, 1972 with the startup of the dewatering system. Readings were taken once a week during normal construction operations, and sometimes more frequently, especially during major changes in construction dewatering, when they were read daily.
~
.Iniaddition, a total of nine heave points, two extensometers, six inclinometers and twenty eight settlement monuments were installed to measure movements of structures and excavation slopes. The nine heave points were located in boreholes at the bottom of the final excavation (at a depth of 48 feet bc)ow MSL) and used to measure the rate and amount of heave of the Pleistocene soil below the mat. The two extensometers were installed under the central portion of the excavation and
-augmented heave-settlement readings. Heave-settlement and extensometer readings, which began with the start of the first stage of the excavation in April 1972, were taken once a week excep.t when changes in normal plant construction operations occurred. When such changes occurred, readings were taken three times a week.
Six inclinometers, placed in the cut slopes around the excavation, measured north-scuth and east-west slope movements of the alluvial material during removal of soil and subsequent periods of open excavation. To evaluate the effects of dewatering on the immediate area surrounding the excavation, 28 settlement monuments were established. Inclinometer and settlement readings (in the area surrounding the excavation) were taken once a week beginning in June, 1972. In November 1972, the entire construction operation was shut down due to non-construction related reasons. Construction resumed in November of 1974 with the reactivation of the dewatering system. The second stage of the excavation, which began in January, 1975, removed material down to an elevation 22 feet below MSL. During this operation, six decp pumping wells, located at the northwest corner of the excavation, were shut down to minimize differential settlements occurring at a nearby transmission tower. Because of this, a general rise in the piezometeric levels occurred. This rise in piezometric levels began in March and continued through October, 1975. To of f set t- .this, a second series of 12 deep pump relief wells, pumping from the Pleistocene sands, were provided around the perimeter of the baremot in October, 1975 and the piezometric levels subsequently dropped. TV.2
FILE IV DPAFT N3y 27 ,1967 The second stage of the excavation was completed in June, 1975 and the third stage began in April,1975. The third stage o of the excavation removed soil to 40 feet below mean sea level. This operation was completed in August, 1975 and subsequently, in October, 1975 the final excavation (fourth stage) to 48 feet below MSL began. During the third stage of the excavation, soil heaves increased to between 4.0 and 9.6 inches, with the maximum occurring at the north end of the excavation. This heave was greatcr than the 2 inches of heave originally anticipated and was later recovered. The larger than anticipated heave heave was attributed to the general relaxation of the clays beneath the excavation due to the four excavation stages and the two year shutdown of the dewatering system. During the latter stages of the basemat/ superstructure construction, this heave was recovered as described in the discussions that follow. Final excavation for the basemat began in October,1975 and was completed in March,1976. This excavation was performed with backhoes by making vertical cuts, eight feet deep, in the stif f Pleistocene material to an elevation 4P feet below 11 S L . The soil was removed in strips which extended across the 267 foot width of the basemat. A layout of these strips is provided in Figure IV-1(Figure 2.5-30 in Updated FSAR). The first strip removed (Strip tJ o . 1 in Figure IV-1) was 120 feet wide and symmetrically located on the east-west centerline of the Peactor Building. Subsequently, Strips tios 2 through 6(see Figure IV- 2) , were cut on the north and south sides of Strip 12o. I after near completion of the concrete placement in Strip tio 1, which was placed to minimize heave. Exposed vertically cut faces at the east and west ends of the excavations were gunited within eight hours to prevent them from drying out prior to concrete placement. A 12 inch thick filter layer, consisting of compacted clam shell, was placed at the base of the excavation to provide f or equalization of hydrostatic pressures beneath the basemat. Five additional piezometers were installed in this layer of material. During compaction of the filter layer, a " mud spurt" occurred in an area of the excavation containing standing water. This spurt occurred during compaction of the filter layer and covered an area of only 10 feet by 12 feet. The spurt was attributed to the actions of a vibratory roller used to compact the filter layer. The occurrence of this mud spurt had no impact on the basmat construction. Placement of the basemat concrete began in December, 1975. The basemat was constructed by the sequental placement of 60 foot by 70 foot reinforced concrete blocks. Figure IV-2 shows the layout of basemat blocks and provides the placement dates for each of them. These blocks were structurally continuous. The first block (Block 6 in Figure IV-2) was placed on December 2, 1975 directly beneath beneath the center of the Peactor Building. Subsequent block placements were perf ormed in a checkerboard sequence on either side of the north-south and east-west centerlines of the Peactor Building, proceeding outward towards the edges of the basemat. IV.3
FILE IV DRAFT Mty 27 ,1967 L Deficiencies in the inspection and control of concrete mi.xing, transportation, placement, curing and finishing resulted '
- in the issuance of a Stop Work Order on December 16, 1976. These deficiencies were immediately corrected and the construction proceeded. Other. problems that occurred involved the dilution of the concrete for Block 10B during a rainstorm, and the occurrence of cold joints in Block No 19. As problems arose, engineers evaluated the condition and implemented appropriate repair and monitoring measures to resolve.the situation and provide continual assurance of the structural soundness of the basemat. Additional asturance was provided by an extensive review of all phases of the concrete activities involved in the construction of the basemat was undertaken during April and May, 1984, by the Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement, US Nuclear Pegulatory Commission, with assistance from Mr Robert Philleo, past president of the American Concrete Institute and former Chief of the Structures Branch, US Army Corps of Engineers. The reviewers concluded that the construction of the basemat was adequate to insure the safety of plant structures, and the structural integrity of the basemat was not impaired due to reported construction problems (Pef erences 2 and 3).
Construction of the lower sections of the Reactor Building Ring Wall began shortly af ter concrete placement in the first three excavation strips (Strips 1, 2 and 3 in Figure IV-1). The sequence of construction was coordinated with the design engineers to insure compliance with requirements for net and differential soil bearing pressures during placement of the basemat concrete and subsequent construction of superstructures. As the basemat and plant structures were constructed, bearing pressures beneath the basemat increased thereby causing recompression of the heave that had occurred during the excavation. The maximum construction bearing pressure beneath the partially constructed NPIS was allowed to increase in order to compensate for the additional heave that had occurred during the excavation for the basemat. Backfilling of the area surrounding the NPIS proceeded in four stages concurrently with construction of plant structures. The first stage of backfilling brought the level of the adjacent areas up to an elevation of 10 f eet below MSL. Plant structures at this time had been partially constructed, with concrete for Peactor Building and Cooling Towers placed to an elevation of 17 feet above MSL. The second stage of backfilling reached an elevation of 4 f eet above MSL, when much of the NPIS was completed, and the third stage of backfilling reached up to a level of 17 f eet above MSL. Eventually, a f ourth backfilling stage was performed which involved adding C.5 feet of fill to bring the maximum elevation of the surrounding areas to 17.5 feet above MSL. Placement of the last basemat block (Block No 18 in Figure IV-2) occurred on May 25, 1976. Most of the superstructure concrete had been placed by the summer of 1977. Average heave readings at the site were reduced to zero(their initial IV.4
FILE IV DRAFT May 27 ,1987 preconstruction level) by July, 1977. An uncontrolled rise in piezometric levels beneath the !!PIS occurred during May and June, 1977. This rise was attributed to compaction water used during placement of the backfill surrounding the plant as well as operational and maintenance problems associated with the dewatering system. Improved maintenance and continued operation of the system at full capacity until October, 1977 re-established control of the piezometric levels. At this time the average net settlement of the basemat was 2 inches. An extensive recharge program, that involved throttling down of the dewatering system, was implemented successfully in October, 1977 and completed by July, 1979 when normal groundwater pressure levels were achieved. In order to minimize any long-term settlements, it was decided to preconsolidate the foundation soils. Average net settlement at the completion of recharging was 5 inches, which was slightly in excess of the original design estimate. Subsequent settlement readings have indicated that settlement of the NPIS has essentially stabilized. In August, 1977 hairline cracks were observed in the top of the basemat in the area under the Reactor Building. These hairline cracks were weeping water at a rate sufficient to show the crack and moisten the surrounding area. Following a determination that these cracks had no structural significance, they were chipped out to a depth of 1 inch and repaired with an epoxy gel. During subsequent construction activities, other hairline cracks were repaired in a similar manner to facilitate placement of epoxy floor coverings. Additional hairline cracks in the basemat were observed in May, 1983. Due to allegations and filing of motions to reopen licensing hearings, extensive evaluations of these cracks were undertaken to determine the impact of these cracks on the structural integrity of the basemat. As discussed in the subsequent sections of this report (Sections V and VI), the cracks observed were attributed to the basemat construction sequence which produced a staged consolidation of the Pleistocene soils such that the north and south ends of the basemat settled more than the center. Basemat settlements were monitored as construction proceeded and these measurements were subsequently used for the Construction Sequence Analysis described in Section
- 7. Figure IV-3 shows the settlement-induced curvatures in the basemat that were estimated on the basis of settlements measured in April and June of 1976, and August, 1979.
l IV.5 l l
FILE IV DRAFT Msy- 27',1987. References
- 1. Final 'Upda t ed Sa f e ty Anal'ysi s Repo r t - Waterf ord SES Unit No 3, December, 1986.
- 2. Affidavit of Robert E Shewmaker, Docket No. 50-382, filed
. before the Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Appeal Board, August 7, 1984.
- 3. Affidavit of Robert E Shewmaker, Docket No. 50-382, filed before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, December 17, 1984.
i l i l IV.6
~
,,i l'iii '!
Jsl su -
'i pI -l;j hl#I,l ja,illl li r - 5
,I al!il! 'r! ! i! ,
h ','3 jji hg li"e; D gg; 4 k:j's $> ";' ll is jl j3i[ pip p h 1,i
. y!r! @si i bgs.
I
's li i ji j;!, ,I,i. n u
3j ; I p., : . . . . n.; ,.,, e e
, ii,,g!;I. ,l s,
- a
-n .a - b, q -
e l.= + . 6 : - + - : = ~.. - = -L -- - - + =1
.I g g , ,
sa ,, log i .t- 1 e pii ;_. . - -- _; ._ _
._ - ,.,_. g _
i- : jein ,
= = = = . - ,
* * * = =.. -.+ .a. - .e - f i . - i,,,, , , i s
l.e 'le l l- :
!..;- p i i
,...............m, l .
e s .- . I , ./ .
.u. . . _ . - - - - - - ./ f. .. .
--...-.\--.. ..
\
/ ,
! / '
i I
;:r.:s i! i g
l-l! ig g" ~- d r[. I : 1-l- l i i' i $ t. l l .-;i. , t l!
.../', .5 . ~ ~- -
-::.. b ig;.F 1 N, l/ l- !
a i ,.. _ . _..a..__...____._. .
.z _ .,, ,
l
- u y!'
s . ...... . .... ~~... - % l t U , i i g ini ,,w . lee - qi. lN l j 1 . v., . i b. [ i lT
- ln . ,. l
. 3
. ,, . ly
,Isig .I
{:l 4 ."* e 9 ,1, e e ,,has, , , -. 3 y I I. ' l.iiii l." p,;;; yg
. ,J g s's- e p
' E I 9 a 9 I
{ ',!' + l$ si;r. s u l~ :-
'd!p,.., y f.5_
_ .e -
. et l' t* $g g - *- .W"_s_ .m . -:~ ~=- -
=% r~c -- -= ~/ -- =- = -r : == -.-iuL-6 x; ltil r
e
- -- , , -,--c - ,- --
MAT DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT CONTOURS
't IN INCHES VERSUS BLOCK 6 MOVEMENT l' l \ '
1.50 4-1-76 8 4-15-76 @\ 5-4-76 w 1.50 1.00 -. ___ /
\
\4-13-76
//'N N 4-23-76 x
7A 8A 5A N- 1.00
.50 1-29-76 1- -76
' 1-13-76 8
2-3-76 2-9-76 I 12-8-75
\ \
12-22-75 12-11-75 12-2-75 /12-10 1.00
- 's 50 '
\ ,,
l / j e 8 2-5-76
@\
1-22-7 1-30-76
/
'/ '@
2-18-76 () 1,00 _ N - y / / /1-27-76
- I Ni// ,
J j 1.50 3-17-76 3-30-76 4-9-76 3-19-76
/
N- .s
/ 4-21-76 5-25-76 5-11-76 4-28-76 2.0 KEY:
BLOCK NUPSER
/---BLOCK PLACEMENT m_. / DATE 3-30-76 (s < 4h ' .'
, {. AMENDMENT NO. IS, (8/81)
LOUISIANA COMPOSITE FOUNDATION MAT Figure 1 POWER & LIGHT CO. OlFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT CONTOURS i Waterford Steam 2.5-118 l Electric Station / I
- y l gg'
1 ll l l v
~
~
s
- - G N
I D L T I U
%. A B M R %x' -
- S E
O - A T - B C F A E O R N O I T
" C E
S
. . S 0 S
- O R
/_ / .
h 0 8 3 C S N
. [Rg 0
0 6- 3 7-
~
~
~
' =
U_ N N_- 7 - O I T A R N E G _ 'G G g A _ g X E L _ A C I T R E V - 0 0 0 - 0 : _ 2 3 E 0 1 T
~. ZH* gzw6 gmm $ HszeWNNHQ O N
lg ;; : :$m$ x mm "H yo. w ' mJ;CNO
'T E e >Hga M@$no m n 3nox3*>iMU - <
T M_ . flll lit lI\!flfl)I
FILE V Draft-May 27, 1987 V. OBSERVATIONS OF CRACKS
- The initial observation of hairline cracks in the basemat occurred when the concrete surf ace under the Reactor Building was cleaned and prepared for the placement of concrete fill. The discovery of hairline cracks in the basemat was documented in July, 1977 by Non-Conf ormance Report (NCR) W3-535. These hairline
. cracks were identified by the weeping of water at a rate just enough to moisten the surrounding concrete.. Using a Bausch & Lomb Optical Comparator, crack widths of 2 to 5- mils were estimated and subsequently a crack map was prepared (Reference V-1). Following a determination that the cracks had no structural significance, an attempt was undertaken at this time to seal the cracks by injecting epoxy grout into them under a pressure of IPO pounds per square inch in order to assure good bond between the basemat and the concrete above. However, the crack widths were too small and the epoxy did not penetrate into the concrete. The cracks were eventually sealed by troweling an epoxy gel into a 1-inch deep trench that had been chipped out of the concrete along the length of each crack. No cracks were observed in other areas of the basemat at that time (construction debris and materials limited the capability for observing other cracks), and since an engineering evaluation had concluded that the hairline cracks had no structural significance, no organized search was made for additional cracks. Prior to the discovery of the basemat cracks, surface hairline cracks in the base ring wall of the Peactor Building were observed and reported in March, 1976. These cracks were f ound to be randomly distributed on both interior and exterior wall surfaces, and extremely narrow (ie., crack widths were estimated to vary from hardly visible to less than 5 mils). Surface hairline cracks were observed in other walls (ie. cooling tower walls, etc) throughout the construction of the plant, but these were not documented since they were considered to be shrinkage cracks. These cracks were also found to be randomly distributed and extremely fine, with widths varying from barely visible to less than 5 mils. In some cases, the presence of moisture and/or leachate was the only evidence of cracking. Additional hairline cracks in the basemat were observed within the Reactor Auxiliary Building in May, 1983 during cleanup of the concrete surface, and these cracks were documented in NCP W 3-6 212. These hairline cracks were similar to those detected earlier in 1977, and were identified by the presence of moisture or relic laitance deposits. Subsequent evaluations of the cracks discovered in 196 3 concluded that these cracks had also occurred during construction of the basemat and had not been observed at that time due to presence of construction debris, materials and equipment stored on the structure. In August / September 1983 more detailed maps were developed on the basis of visual inspections of areas accessible at that time. The cracks discovered in 19E3, together with those observed in 19 7 7, exhibited a pattern that is consistent with V-1
FILE V Draft May 27, 1987 differential cottlements of the bacemat observed during construction. Widths of the cracks discovered in 1983 could not
. ~be accurately measured. with an optical device and were estimated to be about 3 mils. In some cases these cracks could only be located by the presence of moisture around them or by a line of Icachate. The presence of leachate supports the conclusion that the cracks formed at some time prior to 1983.
Mapping of vertical hairline cracks in selected walls of the NPIS was perf ormed in April,1984 to investigate the potential f or an interrelationship hetween the wall and basemat cracks, since several of these ap}qared to be in close. proximity. This mapping was performed f or accessible and exposed areas of the Reactor Building walls and selected adjacent walls. Cracks were mapped at the interf ace with and up to 10 f eet above the top of the basemat. Composite isometric maps of identified cracks at basemat/ wall interfaces were subsequently prepared and are provided in Reference 1. Wall and basemat cracks at wall / mat interfaces were found not to be inter-related. As a result of various licensing issues raised in connection with the basemat cracking, Non-dest ructive testing (NDT) of the Waterford-3 basemat was performed during July and August of 1984 by Muenow and Associates. The purpose of this NDT was to provided additional information regarding the nature and extent of the basemat cracks. Four cracks in the walls of the Reactor Building were also examined by iDT. Mr M u enow 's technique, sometimes referred to as pulse echo testing or microseismic sensing, involves imparting a wave to a concrete structure and measuring the time of arrival of a reflected wave of f a discontinuity in the concrete. The wave is generated by a small spring loaded hammer which applies an impact to the surf ace of the concrete. A transducer, located near the hammer, is focused in a known direction and measures the time of arrival. If the arrival time and focusing direction are known, then the location of the below surface discontinuity can be determined. Restricting the viewing time of the sensor eliminates all reflections except the one from the discontinuity being mapped. Using a series of impacts at different locations, the investigator is able to determine the extent (ie. length, depth and orientation) of a crack (Ref erence 2). V-2 1
FILE V Draft M:y 27, 1987 A detailed summary of the NDT of the basemat cracks is provided in Reference 3. The NDT gave indications.of subsurface
, cracking at several locations. The referenced summary was based on Mr. Muenow's interpretation of data measured during the NDT as.well as the evaluations performed by Ebasco, Brookhaven National Laboratories and the NRC staff. Briefly, the NDT showed the following:
- 1. Most of the cracks are oriented in an east-west direction and located within 30' of the east-west centerline of the RCB. Seven major cracks exist under the RCB and at least 3 of these appeared to interconnect with east-west cracks on either side of the RCB. Other cracks (referred to as diagonal cracks) oriented in the northeast / southwest or northwest / southeast directions, were investigated and two of these appeared to interconnect with with east-west cracks on either side of the RCB.
- 2. Most cracks extend to the top surface of the mat; a few noncontinuous cracks extend to the bottom of the mat; and a small number of cracks lie within the middle portion of the mat.
- 3. The depth of the top cracks varies in an undulating manner depending upon location. In some locations top.
surface cracks extend down to the region of the bottom reinforcement. Three cracks on either side of the PCB appeared to be almost uniformly deep and extend to the bottom steel. Bottom cracks extend only 2 to 3 f eet upwards f rom the base of the mat and there is some possible interconnectivity between top and bottom cracks. Surface cracks oriented in the northwest / southeast or northeast / southwest directions are generally less than 6 feet deep.
- 4. All cracks evaluated are essentially vertical.
- 5. Crack lengths are variable but 6 east-west cracks apparently extend across the width of the NPIS.
- 6. Crack widths were measured to be less than 0.007 inches and all cracks appeared tight.
- 7. The NDT measurements or estimates of location, orientation, depth and width of cracks outside the RCB were accurate within reasonable margins of error. NDT measurements of location and orientation cracks beneath the RCB were also fairly accurate, but reported depths of cracks beneath the RCB are subject to larger unecrtainties due to the distances involved in making the measurements. These cracks have been conservatively assumed to extend f rom the top surf ace of the basemat down to the reinforcement at the bottom. Crack width measurements beneath the Reactor Building are also subject to large uncertainties but still indicate tight cracks similar to the ones investigated outside the Reactor Building.
V-3
FILE 1ViDraft.Moy'27, 19P7-Inf ormation . gathe' red from the NDT on the nature and extent of.the basemat cracks was subsequently used to prepare the
- . - updated _and more-complete crack maps shown in Figures V-1.and V-2.
The 'four cracks 'in the walls of the' Reactor Building, that were investigated by NDT, were f ound to penetrate less than one foot of the 10 foot-thick. wall. A detailed summary of the NDT results~for these cracks.is also provided in: Reference 3. . It has-been concluded that.the wall cracks were essentially caused by shrinkage of the concrete. No apparent' interaction exists between theLwalls and the basemat that would account for the patterns of cracking in either.
- In mid-1966, additional.basemat cracks were identified during an inspection of accessible areas as part of the Basemat Monitoring Program required by NPF-38 License Condition 17 and implemented by LP&L procedures. This inspection,- which occurred between May 30 and June 3, was the.first of a series of_ periodic inspections to be performed at IP month intervals. These cracks undoubtedly existed when the 1983 crack mapping was performed, but were not _ mapped due to their fineness or the the inaccessiblity of their locations at the time. 'These cracks are considered to- be similar in age and character- with previously
- identified basemat cracks.
The accepted theory as to the causes of the cracking'in the basemat was presented in. detail in the Ebasco Summary Evaluation Report (Reference 37 and the affidavit of J L Ehasz(Reference 4 ) .-
-In-these two documents the top surf ace cracking of the base mat
, was attributed _to-two interrelated factors: t_he highly compressible nature of the soil beneath the plant and -t he-sequence of construction of the mat. The base mat was constructed by the sequential placement of
- structurally continuous- blocks, each being approximately 60 feet by 70 feet in plan. Sequencing the construction.resulted in"the staged consolidation of the soils beneath the mat such that the north and south ends settled more that the_ center (which was beneath the Reactor Building). _ Because much of the settlement beneath each block occurred soon after it was poured, each block had already experienced some settlement by the time an adjacent-block was placed. Because placement of the basemat was performed from the center outward to the north and south ends, the i dif fering amounts of settlement experienced by the individual blocks imparted a convex upward curvature to the member with the associated negative bending moments causing tensile stresses in the top surface.
This explanation for the causes of the basemat cracking was supported by the Basemat Construction Sequence Analysis described in Section VII of this report. This analysis was performed to provide an assessment of the basemat stresses during the construction stage in order to determine the cause(s) of the observed cracking. The results of this analysis indicated that the top surface cracking of the basemat had occurred for the ' j V-4 g- % .- -i ,v y- --- ---w- -,r- --,--m ,-vm- rw-i,- is a* -e+e- e v- v- eiee'r4->----w- ,----w e ,+'e----+r-
. < _ _ .. . . . . . ..=. - . _ . . . . . . . . . ._ . . .
. FILE:VJDraftLM0y?2.7,c1987. i
'- reccons:. discussed above, = with good. agreement between analytically -
o. predict'ed crack-patterns-and. - , locations and those. observed in'the
~
1: _ field.. T i .i + k i i.. l f 4 h Is i i ) ? V-5 f i f n r f py-p ev~c- -ws--,, ,>g--eae-,r,,- ~.< e e- ,-+swso-+-wvs, e g .r-r g -- w e,,v-yw---onem-w,--<--memyrm,,,-m-wm,<-w-wwe-mm-aww,,-w-aw-m', emmw,- sew wwww w- wwwe
FILE V' Draft M2y 27, 1987 References
. 1. "Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit no 3, NPIS Wall Hairline Cracks Evaluation," prepared for the Louisiana Power and Light Company by Ebasco Services Incorporated, New York, April, I 1984.
- 2. " Addendum No. 2 To The Review of Waterford III Basemat Analysis with Appendices", prepared f or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the Structual Analysis Division, Department of !
Nuclear Energy, Brooklyn National Laboratory, Upton, NY,-December i 14, 1984.
- 3. " Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit.No 3 - Summary Evaluation - Structural Significance of Basemat Nondestructive l Testing Results, Revision 2," prepared for Louisiana Power and i Light company by Ebasco Services Incorporated, New York NY, November 27, 1984.
- 4. Affidavit of J L Ehasz, Docket No. 50-382 OL filed before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 7, 1985.
V-6
N .e 66*ex hN ,- eprehN WNe.e -hpw-6-.* ee@**eewenew mow- amie.imun d.*wm+e m
-ad. e-pwh-De w eg=>h-hMN--*+++-6* O- *Me e * - m-m nieme w
-lie-h-e e m
.m.,s . wmep. p --e,, 4 -m -.m-wOlm-*- w---he w eshi* m- +ee%-eW-w we em g -w w weeog.- emyg ens,egegim- -
- . -e. .e. . .. . .----m.- .. .m_ .e.. -- e--e.-.~ -. - --.. .... -.-ee . --
e*-..e.-%-
.- e. .w.. =y-+mes. =ee eem.ww- m -m ce w . ,e% . -e. h g
,p e SP - S -.m- 4 sea we===m.a eem Amus-- -een- g- - eeh* --e ,emme-e- .mpn,_w. em .%% g,. me w
_..F-160RE - V-2 _1N . ._ . ._e
. -. -. . - - ._ ..- .. - - - . .. . . _ - w. e -
e e se A en wree.e.myW.r usam-se e-w%=+ -- - - .m. - -m.e--
- ,.e + we-.e- . -
-W--e e-mmm.- * - .=- ei
< o a. ~
e e-e- +- - e-
.-u- -
e e-weexe-m,= -e. . we- . gm. e. - - -. , ,m, ,wa u-i m -e+, .e a wa -.w m.- - e == -~ --em* .e-. e .,mm. e-m.w, ea w. .- ,
- e. e - - - eeuup.he - ^- - me -=h ..w a m .ew.- .-heow++e==m.w - - w %maewww wi. -w -e* --
e- e- e e- ----i.e.* .-% .e- w - *-.m----s --,. e. e ene mes- ee - M-w-ar- -.e- -- - m- eom.-. .e.ge- .
.we=4- -w-he = - -
O
- .-w . .- - ,.. . . . *e--,- . .-- .- ..ee.e,---e ..~~.e. m- -- -- -., . =+ --e- . . - --- - .. . . w. . -e. _ . -- -, -
-, -m _ - --,s. e ee ees e e--asus- p. -.e=am- = --+m e.-,m, wm,ms--a we em .- ,
---,y-%en--, we.--m -- e +- mm -m-.+,i --+&..-e . .- . . - e game,
- .+ a.-eem- m-.ee a -aw m- .
- A e..m->
- g --me es- -e -.m --m -. --e*e -e . - e. . e -me-. --wwe .e
*. w -ww+--ee e ,. -m e= he em
----y - - - ---, -,.y-.-- - - - - - - - , , - .%y. ,, - - - -- . - ---
Filo VI Draft May 27, 1987
?- VI. LICENSINC REVIEW 1
s A. OBJECTIVES & SCOPE The identification and documentation of cracks in the basemat of the Waterford-3 NPIS, in May of 1983, set in motion a series of licensing review activities that included structural investigations, evaluations, analyses _and testing of the basemat to ascertain the causes and effects of the cracking. The objective of this section is to present a summary of the licensing review activities, associated with the basemat cracking, that were undertaken by the NRC staff, their consultants, Brookhaven National Laboratories (BNL), Louisiana Power _& Light Co mpa ny ( LP& L) and their consultants, Harstead Engineering Associates (HEA), Professor Myle J Holley, Jr, and Ebasco Services Incorporated (Ebasco), the plant Architect / Engineer and Construction Manager. The material presented deals primarily with issues that relate to the basemat cracking and design analyses of the basemat and how these issues were resolved. Issues related to allegations of construction deficiencies, that were addressed and resolved by the NRC staff, are not discussed in detail. The presentation in this section is organized around the following key issues that were addressed by the NRC in evaluating the adequacy of the basemat: a) the causes of the base mat cracking; b) the possibility that the cracks may be associated with a diagonal tension failure induced by differential settlement during construction; c) the shear strength of the basemat along cracked planes; d) potential degradation in the shear stiffness of the cracked basemat; e) the state of stress in the top of the basemat; f) the effect of the base mat cracks on the safety of the facility under normal operating loads or additional loads associated with the design basis ea rthquake (saf e shutdown earthquake); and g) the significance of the vertical cracks observed in the walls of the shield building and the cooling towers and the relationship of these cracks to those found in the base mat. VI-I l l 1 l
Filo VI Draft May 27, 1987 The discussions that follow are based on, and refer to, a number of sources including but not limited to the following:
. affidavits filed before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board by.NBC Staff, representatives of BNL, LP&L and Ebasco between March 1984 and the March 1985; transcripts of the proceeding held by the NPC, March 15, 1985 on
" Discussion /Possible Vote on Full Power License for Waterford Public Meeting"; reports on structural analyses and evaluation of the base mat design and performance prepared by BNL, HEA and Ebasco; repor ts on the non-destructive testing (NDT) of the base mat conducted by Muenow and Associates in July and August, 1964.
B. CAUSES OF CRACKING IN THE BASEMAT As reported in Section V of this report, cracks were first observed in the top surface of the basemat in July, 1977. The cracks were located in the containment area. Following discovery of these cracks, preliminary crack maps were prepared (Ref erence 1), and survey data were reviewed. The crack
- patterns plotted showed a pronounced east-west orientation (ie cracks were in east-west direction), whereas the survey data revealed a definite upward convexity in the basemat with the center being higher than the edges. Ebasco concluded that the cracking of the basemat was caused by bending moments induced in the mat due to differential settlements that occurred during construction of the structure (Reference 2). Subsequentially, in May of 1983, additional cracks in the top surf ace of the base mat were discovered outside the containment area. Shortly thereafter, a more detailed crack map was prepared.
One of the principal issues raised following discovery of cracks in 1983, was the cause of the basemat cracks. Reviews of the basemat cracking were performed by the NRC staff, ENL, HEA and Ebasco. The participants in these reviews, at the early stages of the reviews, had different opinions as to the cause(s) and nature of the cracks. Postulated cause(s) of the cracks included differential settlement, shrinkage and temperature ef f ects, and a combination of these. Opinions advanced f or the occurrence of differential settlement were the staged consolidation of the soils due to the basemat construction sequence and the local nonuniform nature of the soils. In addition, some individuals thought that the cracks were vertical, while others suggested that the cracks could be inclined. During July and August of 1984, Non-destructive testing (NDT) of the basemat was performed by Muenow and Associates. The purpose of this testing was to determine the nature and extent of the cracks in the basemat. fi r Muenow's technique and results were reviewed and evaluated by several of the invol ved pa r ties including PNL, Mr Robert Philleo, staff consultant to the NPC, and Ebasco. As described in Section V, Mr M u e n o w 's technique, sometimes referred to as pulse echo testing or microseismic sensing, involves imparting a wave to a a concrete st ructure, by applying a small impact to the surf ace, and measuring the time of arrival of a reflected wave off a VI-2
Filo VI-Draft-May 27, 1987 discontinuity (crsck) in the concrete. On several other occonione, Mr Muenow's findings have been verified by core drilling and . this has bestowed credibility on his technique. A detailed summary of _ the NDT of the basemat cracking is provided in Ref erence 3. A summary of the results is provided in Section V. Briefly, the NDT showed that: most of the cracks are oriented in an east-west direction and located within 30' of the east-west centerline of the Reactor Building; most cracks originate f rom the top surf ace of the mat; the depth of the top cracks vary in an undulating manner depending upon location, with some cracks ( particularly those on either side of the Reactor Building) being almost uniformly deep and extending to the bottom steel; all cracks evaluated are essentially vertical; crack lengths are variable but 6 east-west cracks apparently extend across the width of the NPIS; crack widths were measured to be less than 0.007 inches ( 7 mils) and all cracks appeared to be tight. s The currently accepted conclusion as to the causes of the cracking in the basemat was presented in detail in the Ebasco Summary Evaluation Report (Reference 3) and the affidavit of J L Ehasz(Reference 4). In these two documents the top surface cracking of the basemat was attributed to two interrelated factors: the highly compressible nature of the soil beneath the plant and the sequence of construction of the mat. The base mat was constructed by the sequential placement of structurally continuous blocks, each being approximately 60 feet by 70 feet in plan. Sequencing the construction resulted in the staged consolidation of the soils beneath the mat such that the north and south ends settled more than the center (which was beneath the RCD). Consequently, a convex curvature was produced in the basemat together with the associated negative bending moments causing tensile stresses in the top surface. The explanation for the cause of the basemat cracking, presented in References 3 and 4, was supported by the Basemat Construction Sequence Analysis performed by Ebasco (Section VI I .F) . This analysis was performed to provide an assessment of the basemat stresses during the construction stage in order to determine the cause(s) of the observed cracking. This was a multi-step analysis performed by sequentially imposing measured, extrapolated and interpolated foundation settlements on a finite element model of the basemat that was modified in stages to reflect the completed portion of the member at various times during construction. The analysis also considered the effects of shrinkage, temperature and concrete creep on the stresses in the basemat that occurred during construction. Considered also was the ef fects of concrete cracking on moment distribution in the mat. The results of this analysis indicated that the top surface cracking of the base mat had occur red for the reasons discussed in References 12 and 13, with good agreement between analytically predicted crack patterns and locations and those observed in the fteld. VI-3
~
FilejVI' Draft May 27, 1987
> C .' POSSIBILITY OF DIAG 0HAL TENSION FAILURE-IN'BASEMAT ;
~ q - An issue raised early in the licensing review was the possibility. that differential settlements-' occu r ring .du ring construction of the_ mat may-have produced a diagonal, tension failure in the member. In_ addressing this issue, BNL performed. an approximate analysis to ascertain whether such cracks.could have occu r red _ du ring ~ the pouring _and subsequent _ differential
~
settlement of two adjacent -basemat _ blocks resting on markedly dissimilar soils (Reference 5) This . analysis showed that.the. stresses resulting_from this operation were insufficient to cause either diagonal tension or flexural cracking;of_the mat. The
- analysis also showed that the possibility of flexural cracking was significantly greater than the probability of diagonal tension cracking, the implication being that cracks observed were. caused by flexure, not shear.
Even more significant, the NDT of the_ base mat, which is . particularily reliable for predicting crack orientations, conclusively showed that the basemat cracks were vertical, not inclined,which would have been indicative of a diagonal tension failure. Moreover, the results of the more elaborate Basemat Construction ' Sequence Analysis (Section VII.F), which were supportive of the BUL analyses, showed that construction _ induced shear stresses _in the mat sufficiently great enough to cause , E diagonal tension failures were not found. Therefore,~ it was concluded that a diagonal tension failure had not been the'cause of the cracks in the basemat. j- D. SHEAR STRENGTH OF THE BASTMAT ALONG CRACKED PLANES j Although concerns over a possible diagonal tension failure were resolved, other reservations were expressed over the i shear strength of the mat along the cracked. planes. These concerns were predicated on the fact that near through cracks had
- occurred in some locations in the basemat and the supposition that such cracks might impair the shear strength of the mat.
Substantive arguments, based on published material, were developed and presented (Ref erences 12,13,17, and 18) to resolve the concern relevant to a possible diminished shear
- capacity along cracked sections of the basemat. The arguments
! presented addressed two key issues: the reduction, if any, of the ! cracked section shear strength; and'the required shear strength of the mot along the cracked sections. 'These arguments are summarized in the paragraphs that follow. Regarding cracked section shear strength, as summarized , in Reference 3, shear strength along transverse (vertical) crack
- planes is generally not a consideration i n the conventional i
design of reinforced concrete beams and slabs subjected to the , effects of shear forces combined with bending moments. Normally, f
- the f ocus in the design of such members to resist shear forces is L related to diagonal tension shear strength. Shear reinforoement desian provisions of the American Concrete Ins t i t u te ( ACI) 1
- VI-4 i
J
,r.-, ., -.,, ...-.,.----m_-,, , - m,- c. - -~ ~.~,. ,-,--,-m+ - , . . ---__-_y.-.-.-,,,_-.,..____.-y- . - - - - , , . , . - , . - _ - , , _ , - . . - .
Filo VI Draft May 27, 1987 Euilding Code (Reference 19) reflect this by calling for transverse (vertical) reinforcing bars which do not cross . potential transverse (vertical) crack planes. However, transverse (vertical) flexural cracks can develop in such members, especially when moment reversals occur (as in the case of members subjected to blast loads). Nevertheless, transversely (vertically) cracked. flexural members, with shear reinforcement provided according to ACI shear design provisions, can sustain substantial magnitudes of transverse (vertical) shear stress provided that: actual or potential crack planes are not subjected to large tension forces (ie large tension forces could produce wide cracks); crack widths are small or cracks are effectively closed such that shear slip resistance along a cracked plane can be mobilized; and sufficient clamping (compression) force is applied across cracked planes. The clamping force can be provided by the compression component of a bending moment acting on the section, by steel reinforcement crossing the section or an externally applied compression force. Reference 12 cited and quoted a number of sources to substantiate the argument cited above. Foremost among these was the ACI " Manual of Concrete practice"(Reference 10, part 4 Paragraph 2.2.2b of the ACI 426R-74). The material quoted from the ACI Manual (Reference 10) was based in part on the work of Dr Mattock. The research performed by Dr Mattock, and reported in Reference 11, showed conclusively that substantial shear transfer strength can be developed across a vertically cracked section. It was further noted, in Reference 3, that the vertically cracked sections of the Waterford 3 basemat are both heavily reinforced and subjected to compressive stresses produced by north / south bending moments and backfill soil and water pressures acting on the north and south edges of the mat and the walls above. Moreover, the cracks were determined to be very narrow (ie NDT indicated less than 0.007 inches wide) and filled with laitance and consequently, essentially locked. Therefore, the cracked basemat sections would, in reality, behave as construction joints and thus be capable of transmitting substantial shear forces, possibly approaching shear forces that an uncracked section could resist. Given that the cracked basemat sections could transmit substantial shear forces, the discussion in Reference 3 focused on what the maximum demand shear capacity was for any of the required design load conditions. A tabulation provided in Reference 3 showed that, based on the shear friction provisions of the ACI Building code (Reference 9), a cracked east-west plane of the basemat could sustain at least 1.9 times the maximum total design shear (resulting from normal operating combined with east-west and vertical DBE loads) along any east-west cracked plane. Moreover, compressive stress produced by external soil and hydrostatic pressures would further substantially increase the shear capacity of the basemat along the cracked planes. Therefore, the presence of cracks does not impair the shear strength of the basemat. VI-5
Fild VI Draft MEy 27, 1987 E. POTENTIAL SHEAR STIFFNESS DEGRADATION Another issue addressed was the potential shear stiffness degradation due:to cracking of-the mat. The concern.was whether shear stiffness . degradation, due to cracking of the basemat, could alter the behavior of plant structures when the NPIS 'is subjected to the - Design Basis Earthquake (DBE or SSE). In designing the plant, Ebasco had, in their dynamic _ analyses, assumed .that the basemat behaves as a rigid ' member when subjected
.to earthquake motions.
In response to this concern, research performed at Cornell University (Reference 12) was employed to evaluate the potential for shear stif f ness degradation due to cracking of the. mat. The ref erenced research involved tests perf ormed on members, with precracked planes of various widths upwards of 0.01 inch,- subjected to cyclic-shear stress reversals of approximately 100 psi (plus and minus). Measured shear slip (ie., relative displacements of concrete surfaces along the depth of the crack) from these tests did not exceed 0.01 inch after 25 cycles of shear reversal, whereas clamping forces developed in reinforcing bars, installed in the test specimens to restrain crack width enlargement, were less than 20 percent of applied shear forces. These tests demonstrated that shear slip, if occurring, would be insignificantly small and would therefore not influence the member's overall stiffness. In addition, from the results of these tests it was determined that the total
- clamping (compression) force needed to mobilize the required shear resistance of the basemat was less than the total externally developed clamping force exerted by water and backfill pressures acting on the walls and basemat of the NPIS for all loading conditions (Reference 3 and Reference 8). It was noted in Reference 3 that this external clamping force may prevent slip i from occurring. Thus,.it was concluded that shear slip, if occuring in the Waterford basemat, would have no appreciable effect on the response of superstructure elements to earthquake induced motions.
Considering that the basemat cracks are very narrow (NDT ! indicated less than 7 mils wide), are filled with laitance, and that crack planes are not subjected to any net tensile force, it is possible that the shear stif fness of the cracked mat would approach the shear stiffness of an uncracked member. Moreover, it was also noted that the Waterford 3 basemat does not have the very short span / depth ratios which would imply that shear strain contributions should be taken into account in the analysis as these contributions to the mat flexibility would be negligibly small compared to the member's bending flexibility (Reference B). BNL performed a study to support this conclusion (Reference 7, Appendix D) . This study consisted of a series of dynamic earthquake analyses performed on a simplified
; " strip model" of the plant to assess the effect of basemat cracking on superstructure recponse. Physical properties (ie.
VI-6
,,c.. - .-- - , . . - - , . , , , , , - - , . , ,, - _ _ . . - ,. . - ~- - - .- --- ---.-, - , - , . . . , - . , . , ,
- File VI Draft May 27, 1987 stiffness, mass) of plant superstructure, basemat and soil were appropriately represented in this model. Analyses were performed with and without cracking induced in a'section of the basemat below the Reactor Building . The results.of these analyses demonstrcted that earthquake . induced superstructure responses would not be significantly affected by' cracking in the basemat.
F. TiiE STATE OF STpESC IN THE TCP OF THE MAT The results of the HEA analyses, issued in-October, 1983(reference 16) and the confirmatoryAnalyses(Section VIIF) showed that bending moments producing tensile stresses in the top
. of the basemat existed over about 70% of its surf ace, including limited areas beneath the Shield Building wall, and compression in the area of the cracks outside and beneath the Peactor Building. These results appear to confliet with statements mede in. af fidevits, reports and hea rings (Ref erences 4,6,13, and 14).
These statements were made in conjunction with issues raised over the shear strength of the basemat and its behavior under normal operating loads and the combined effects of normal operatino and i earthquake loads. The impression conycyed by these statements is that the top of the mat is under compressive stresses and such stresses would thereby close top surface cracks and negate
- adverse effects they could have on the shear strength and stiffness of the basemat.
The focus of the review activities was primarily on the area of the basemat(within 30 feet of the east / west centerline of the Reactor Building ) where the majority of the cracks occurred and where the cracks are deepest and longest. Statements made in the various docurnents, regarding the state of stress in the top of.the basemat, referred to this area of the basemat(ie. where the most severe cracking had occurred). Figu res VI-1 and VI- 2 show the most recent crack maps superimposed on the moment contours for the normal operating load condition (plotted using the results f rom the Confirmatory Analyses). The plots show that the bending moments produce compressive stresses in the top of the basemat in the area where most of the cracks are. Therefore, statements referring to the state of stress in the top of the basemat were essentially correct. Thus, no real conflict exists between the results of the Confirmatory Analyses (Section VII), the HEA analysis and the previous understanding of the reviewers regarding the state of stress in the top of the mat. t 0 t VI-7
Filo VI Draft MEy 27, 19P7 G. THE EFFECT OF BASEMAT CRACKS ON THE SAFETY OF THE FACILITY UNDER NORP AL OPERATING OR EAR'IHOUAKE LOADS At the time the operating license for the plant was issued, all of the parties (Ebasco, BNL, HEA, NRC, LP & L) involved
'in the basemat cracking evaluation had concluded that:
-the basemat cracks would not impair the structural integrity of the basemat under normal operating and earthquake loads;
-and the basemat cracks will not significantly alter the behavior of the NPIF during earthquakes.
Major issues related to the cause of the cracking, the nature of cracking that had occurred, and the effect of cracks on basemat shear strength and stiffness had been resolved as discussed previously. Resolution of these issues essentially relieved concerns over the structural integrity of the cracked basemat and its performance during earthquakes. However, the NRC, at that time, requested that a series of refinements to assumptions used in previous basemat analyses be evaluated to confirm the adequacy of these analyses for normal operating loads and earthquake loads. Requested also was a construction sequence analysis to support the accepted theory for the cause of the cracking in the basemat. Analytical refinements requested involved consideration of:
-the ef f ects on basemat stresses due to dynamic coupling between the basemat and the reactor building; the effect on superstructure responses was later included in this
-the effects of dynamic lateral soil / water pressures from the backfill on the axial stresses in the basemat;
-the ef f ects in the analytical model of the basemat of the artificially imposed horizontal boundary constraints.
-the ef f ects in the analytical model of the basemat of the finenesa of the finite element mesh in areas of high moment gradient.
A summary of these analyses (referred to as the Confirmatory Analyses)is provided in Sections VII and VIII of this report. The results of these Confirmatory Analyses substantiated the original design of the basemat for loads occurring under normal operating conditions, and additional loads associated with the Design Basic Earthquake. These analyses also confirmed that the calculated dynamic response of the NPIS to earthquake loads was essentially insensitive to the dynamic coupling between the basemat and the reactor building, thereby confirming the validity of the previously calculated dynamic response of the NPIS used in the design of the basemat and plant structures and equipment. VI-E
Fils VI. Draft Msy 27, 1987 Theco analyceo also supported the accepted theory as to the causes of the basemat cracking, as discussed in Section V. However,.as discussed above the results of the Confirmatory Analyses- led to the concern that the total bending moments (including residual moments from construction) existing in cracked areas of the basemat could potentially produce stresses
'in the. top mat reinforcement that exceed its yield stress. As discussed in Section.VII, this concern was addressed by performing additional analyses, using the results of the Confirmatory Analyses, that showed that st resses in the top reinforcement do not reach yield strength when residual construction related bending moments are combined with bending moments produced by the design loads. Thus, the results of these analyses showed that settlement induced residual bending' moments did not impair the structural integrity of the basemat under the design loads.
H. SIGNIFICANCE OF VEPTICAL CRACKS OBSERVED IN WALLS OF SHIELD BUILDING AND C00LINC TOWERS AND THEIR RELATIONEHIP TO CRACKS FOUND IN BASEMAT l As described in the Ebasco report on the wall cracking (Ref erence 15 ) , surface hairline cracks in the base. ring wall of the Reactor Building were observed and reported in March, 1976. These cracks were found to be randomly distributed on both interior and exterior wall surf aces, and extremely narrow (ie., estimated crack widths varied from hardly visible to less than 5 mils). Surf ace hairline cracks were observed in other walls (i.e. cooling tower walls, etc) throughout the construction of the plant, but these were not documented since they were considered to be shrinkage cracks. These cracks were also found to be randomly distributed, and extremely fine, with widths estimated to vary f rom barely visible to less than 5 mils. In some cases, the presence of moisture and/or leachate was the only evidence of cracking. Licensing review activities related to the wall cracks consisted of mapping of the cracks in selected walls of the NPIS(performed in April, 1984) to examine the potential for an interrelationship between wall and basemat cracks, and the preparation of composite isometric maps of identified cracks at
- basemat/ wall interfaces. These crack maps showed that the wall l and basemat cracks at wall / mat interfaces were not inter-l connected or even closly related. In conjunction with the Non-destructive testing (NDT) of the Waterford-3 basemat, performed in July and August of 1984 by Muenow and Associates, four cracks in the walls of the Reactor Building were also examined by NDT.
The f our cracks examined were f ound to penetrate less than one j foot of the 10 foot thick wall. It was concluded that thc wall
- cracks were essentially caused by shrinkage of the concrete, and l no apparent interaction between the walls and basemat exists that would account for the patterns of cracking in either.
l VI-9
--y . . _ -
Filo VI Droft May 27, 1987 References
- 1. RCE Foundation Crack Map, Ebasco Drawing No. SK 1564 - 4 .1 -
G 28. August 17, 1977
- 2. Ebasco Letter Doc: CH-039-77, File: 60-R-4, July 27, 1977
- 3. " Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit No 3 -
Summary _ Evaluation - Structural Significance of Basemat Nondestructive Testing Results, . Revision 2," prepared for Louisiana Power and Light Company by Ebasco Services Incorporated, New York NY, November 27, 1984.
- 4. Affidavit of J L Ehasz, Docket No. 50-382 OL filed before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 7, 1985.
- 5. Reference Deleted.
- 6. Review of Waterford III Basemat Analysis," prepared for the US Nuclear Regulatory Regulatory Commission by the Structural Analysis Division, Department of Nuclear Energy, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, July 18, 1984.
7.- " Addendum No. 2 To The Review of Waterford III Basemat Analysis with Appendices", prepared f or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the Structual Analysis Division, Department of Nuclear ~ Energy, Brooklyn National Laboratory, Upton, NY, December 14, 1984.
- 8. Affidavit of Myle J Holley, Jr, filed before the Atomic Safety Licensing Appeal Board, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 4, 1985.
- 9. " Building Code Requirements f or Reinf orced Concrete (ACI 318-
- 83) and Commentary", American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1983.
- 10. " Manual of Concrete Practice", American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1983.
- 11. Mattock A H, Hawkins N M," Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete - Recent Research," PCI JOURNAL, March-April 1972.
- 12. Laible, J P, White R N, and Gergely, P," Experimental Investigation of Seismic Shear Transf er Across Cracks in concrete Nuclear Cont ainment Vessels," ACI SP 53-9, Reinf orced Concrete Structures in seismic Zones, 1977.
VI-10
Filo VI Draft May 27, 1987 f-
- 13. Af fidavit of James P Knight, Docket No 50-382, filed before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, US Nuclear
- Regulatory Commission, August 7, 1984.
- 14. '" Addendum to Peview of Waterf ord III Basemat Analysis with Appendices," prepared f or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by
. Department of Nuclear Energy, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York August 3, 1984.
- 15. "Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit no 3, NPIS Wall Hairline Cracks Evaluation," prepared for the Louisiana Powcr and Light Company by-Ebasco Services Incorporated, New York, April, 19P4.
- 16. "Waterf ord III SEE, Analysis of Cracks and Water Seepage in Foundation Ma t ," Report No. 8304-2, prepared for Louisiana Power
& Light Company by Harstead Engineering Associates,Inc, Parkridge, New Jersey, October 12, 1983.
VI-ll
ve e.--. m.*w.--- ---= ..m= --- - -- .e-= .- -+ = - -*- eem= +=m** *----w- - . .-w - ee.,
.-ws.wwkmie-eg g =e se ses,e ww gr ewsw-=---* e ee*44MNe-* - P*-' -8
- NM""**' w4' *"- N h='
@ w -e =W=y pee pw n m se-y- - ep--m.=- u+-w -- m a =*+4pu*-*46 - '* S-- ""^**P- "M"- N* * * *- * '**=4""'""'* * **h - - .M *M gmD- -
N-a -e ser.
- m M -==mSp*-e'*-- * ' ' - " -- -* * * * ' " " * * * "" *-****"'--"""h 6* * * **' **N-*-"**NM'&-N'*-'r*N-9mmumehe*-
,,.m,w . W- e ee se eim-m-ee ame Ww
- M6 +, - - * --~eh*- =N-m-mm-- * *e-e - - e- -.em- -w-i., ,em...w--.m .
, ..me me.--w e.eee-em-- ee +-ime**+ 6+'e4 e'* - *-m - M*4pW w & e *e--- +ww mewgen'em e4m-am w.e- ye m i e-- e-ew -
am= - m m, -es-pe-
. -me-+= ww a -.es eignee e m a ee me. .
. m on -. m. - t _( Af~.-) . . _. _ _ _. . .
% on.e m. - 2. i (da) .
. . e
+ me
--4 , ,...m--m.4
--- . me= w --v w sm w .m- .e _,.m e . , ... -- m. -~.e- e--.-- -e .e,-
m -e - O e -- ~ _
=mi--e.m.e - we e-
'-- -, -- --. > - - - - - - ' - wh _ww'-www--w -- - w-Ee em gyew us 'w w qiyWee__ _ _ '^ ^ -*-" "'- *1
. File M3ttprt VIIA Draft:Msy 27,1987
-e
'VII. CONFIRMATORY ANALYSES' A. PASELINE STATIC FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FOR . COMPARISON The baseline analys'is, discused below, results in-calculated bending moments and shears which lie entirely within the strength envelope of the basemat developed in the original . design. It therefore, provides an acceptable basis for comparison with the sensitivity and modelling studies which constitute the set of confirmatory analyses.
- 1. General Description of-the Analysis This baseline analysis was a finito element analysis of the basemat of the Nuclear Plant Island St ructure - (NPIS) utilizing the model f ormulated for, and loading inputs of, the original basemat analysis performed in 1973. Some ' local alterations were made in the model to improve the' local modelling of some portions and some loads were modified to correct previous inaccuracies. This analysis is denoted as the Old Model/Old Load-case and is used to provide.a baseline against which to compare the remainder of the confirmatory analyses.
- 2. Description of the Model The original finite element model developed in 1973, and utilized with some modifications for this analysis, is shown in Figures A-1 to A-6. In addition to the basemat, the NPIS which consists of Reactor, Reactor Auxiliary and Fuel Handling Buildings was represented in the model which is an assembly of 2394 triangular plate elements,-10P7 nodes, 623 elastic beams and 20 rigid bars. Due to the complexity of the structural system and the limitation in computer capacity of approximately 1000 node points in 1973, some local idealizations of the_ structural system were necessary. The elements representing the basemat were modelled as uncracked concrete sections.
The foundation soil was represented by three subgrade moduli as discussed in Section III. The distribution of these subgrade moduli is as shown in Figure A-7. The basemat stability in the horizontal direction was achieved by providing restraints to east-west movement at the node points along the north-south centerline. Restraint in the north-south direction was provided by restraints at the node points along the south edge of the basemat. A local alteration to the original finite element model was made to more truly represent the structural interaction of the shield building wall and the basemat. The idealization of the exterior cylindrical wall of the Reactor Building, the Shield Building wall was originally represented by a series of 3 ft, wide by 40 ft. high beams spanning between (adjacent) node points 21-40 (Refer to Figure A-8), and a 50 ft. high vertical rigid bar at each of these node points cantilevering upward f rom the VII.A.1
FiletMatrprt VIIA Draft:May 27,1987 ciddle plano of the becomat. The loads imposed by this modelling were axial and moment loads at the node points due to all loading conditions. The application of moment loads at these node points due to horizontal seismic loading was considered inaccu rate modelling due to the long cantilever. The cross sectional area of the beam series was altered in the baseline model to 10 f t wide by 16.83 f t high which represents the base section of the Shield Building wall, and the moment of inertia of the beam serien was modified accordingly. The top ends of the cantilever rigid bars were provided with rigid connections between their adjacent upper node pointe 1-20 which are located in a plane. This more clonely models the structural action of a solid cylindrical wall and the major loads imposed on the basemat are vertical axial and horizontal shear loads due to horizontal ' seismic loading. The dead loads for the Reactor Building were updated. The i 0.1759 maximum vertical acceleration with structural system amplification as indicated in Table 3.7-9 of the FSAR was applied to all of the structural masses for Design Base Earthquake loading combination conditions. The distribution of overturning moment from the Shield Building from the horizontal seismic loading was applied as equivalent vertical forces, instead of the original method of applying distributed moment at node points, due to the modification of the finite element model of the Shield Bu 11'd i ng wall. All other loadings in the baseline analysis remain the same as in the original analysis.
- 3. Computer Programs Used
.A more up-to-date version of the STARDYNE program than the one used in the original analysis was used for the baseline analysis. The new program provided a larger modeling capacity to accommmodate an addition of new elements. The use of the Martin element option was applied in this analysis to include transverse shear effects. The new program is based on User's Nanus 1 May 1984 Edition, STARD YNE- 3 (R) , Feb 01/84 Level by System Development Corporation.
- 4. Material Properties Material properties utilized for the original analysis were also used for the baseline analysis. These were:
- a. Compressive strength of concrete ff: 4000 psi
- b. Concrete modulus of elasticity Ec:513,000 ksf (3.56x]O 6 f; psi)
- c. Concrete Poisson's ratio: /350 = 0.18
- d. Yield strength of reinforcing steel: 60,000 psi j-VII.A.2
_ . . _ _ - ~ _. __ , . _ _ _ _. -_ _ . _ - - . - . ,
4 Filo M0ttprt VIIAsDraft:May. 27,1987
- o. Subgrada modulus: 70,-110 and 150 lb/in 3 distributed-
, according to the tributcry-areas as iterated by the
. original design.
- 5. .Results from Static Finite Element' Analysis The baseline ~ analysis included all . loading combinations which governed the original design of the basemat. These loading combinations were:
- Normal Operation
- DBE west to east motion (W-> E)
- DBE north to south motion -(N->S)
- -DBE ' south 'to north motion ( S-> N) p For seismic motion in the east-west direction only.the W->E case was analyzed since the NPIS-is structurally nearly symmetrical about its north-south centerline. The loading combination equations were the same as for the original analysis.
and'are as follows:
- Normal Operation C= 1.5 (D+L') + 1.8 (L+S) + 1.0B
- Design Base Earthquake C= 1.1 (D+L') + 1.0 (E'+B"+S')
where: C = Required strength of the basemat to resist factored loads or related internal forces D = Dead load L' = Equipment load L = Live Load S = Soil pressure at rest B = Buoyancy, -uplif t load exerted by the displacement of. groundwa te r , assumed to be at elevation +8.0 i ft. MEL E' = Loads generated 'by DBE considering maximum vertical acceleration (0.175 g) acting simultaneously with one direction maximum horizontal acceleration B" = Buoyancy, uplift load based on talnimum groundwater level, which is assumed to be at normal low water level in the river, i.e., elevation +5.0 ft. MSL S' = Soil pressure durir tiBE which is a combination of active, passive 204 " it rest" soil pressures.
,The results of the bi g .14 e analysis, as well as the original analysis, lie within the strength design envelope of the basemat.
The results of the basrline analysis were reviewed in detail s element by element. The internal forces (shears and moments) for each element of the basemat were obtained for each loading condition and the results are presented. as contour plots of EW and NS shears and moments (Figures A-9 to A-24) EW shear is defined as the shear applied on a north-south plane and EW moment VII.A.3
4 File Motrprt VIIA Draft:May.27,1987 is defined as the moment causing flexural stresses in the EW direction. The sign convention for moment assumed that positive
'+' moment results in tension at the bottom of the basemat.
Internal shear forces and bending moments were compared against as-built load carrying capacities of the basemat. The allowable capacities were derived using material properties as specified in Paragraph VII-A-4. The results of internal force-evaluation - are summarized in the f ollowing:
- a. Shear -
The allowable shear capacities'for areas with and without shear reinforcement are 274 and 176 kips /ft respectively. Elements outside of areas under walls and columns were reviewed for the combined effects'of EW and NS shears (V EW and Vgg) to identify areas where:
- i. V EW 1274 kips /ft and Vgg 1 176 kips /ft, or
- 11. V NS 1 274 kips /ft and V EW l 176 kips /ft, or iii. V both 1 176 kips /ft and (gg and VvEW-176)gg
+ (VNS-176) 1 98 kips /ft.
The areas "under major walls and columns" include areas directly under them and areas within 'd' distance from them. The 'd' distance is the basemat effective depth equal to the distance from extreme compression fiber to the controid of tension reinforcement. The elements with shear that exceeded the limitations are listed in Table A-1. It was found that all elements in the areas provided with shcar reinforcement were within the limitations. The areas without shear reinf orcement had f our elements - 133, 146, 326 and 362 with shear higher than the limitations. However, these elements were located in areas where the original (1973) basemat analysismainly depended on simplified analysis and a relatively large element size was utilized (refer to Paragraphs IV-A-2 and VII-E-1). Averaging of these high shears withthe shear in adjacent elements showed that the average shear was below allowable values (see Table A-1). Such averaging of shear values is valid since shears do not cause local f ailures but create f ailure over a broad area due to strain relief. These calculated over-stress conditions were not f ound in the later confirmatory analysis utilizing a finer finite element mesh (see VII.E) and theref ore do not represent a valid instance of overstress even on a local basis. S VII.A.4
U 7+e -
'Filett!strprt- VIIA:Draf t May 27,1987 e
l:,p
'A -b. Morrent~ -
The' allowable' moment'. capacity for each area The
~
--- of the basemat is listed in Tables A-2 and 'A-3..
' governing -elements f or . 'each area having _ the: same
-allowable capacity are listed with their maximum moment -
'v a l u'e s . The moments in all areas are within the
-- a l l owa bl e s .
a VII.A.E
gp lADJGaliDSrprt \'/I)A):13raL(t Lay ll7/,)JW7-
.- o-TABLE A-1 OLD MODEL/OLD LOADINC ELEMENTS EXCEEDING EHEAR ALLCWABLE LOADINC MAT ELEMENT' SHEAR AVC SHEAR **
COMBINATION CAPACITY NO. (kips /ft.) (kips /ft.) (kips /ft.) 'EW NS NS NORMAL PLAIN 376 133 -19 -231* -156 OPERATION CONC 146 P4 -252 -139 W/ SHEAR 274 NONE N.A. N.A. REINF W-->E . PLAIN 176 133 -16 -189* -131 DBE CONC 146 62 -203 -115 362 -120 242 103 W/ SHEAR 274 NONE N.A. N.A. REINF N-->S PLAIN 176 326 122 198 69-DBE CONC 362 -121 201 79 W/ SHEAR 274 NONE N.A. N.A. REINF S-->N PLAIN 176 133 -16 -237 -171 DDE CONC 146 90 -263 -144 W/ SHEAR 274 NONE N.A. N.A. REINF Notes: l
- Reduction in stress from Normal Operation to DDE is l partially due to the dif f erence in the magnitude of Load Factors.
l ** Average shear of the elements adjacent to each other along a potential failure plane. l VII.A.6 l I L
n Fila:M2ttprt VIIA Draft:May 27,1987-s
' O .-
TABLE A-2 OLD MODEL/OLD LOADING MAXIMUM EW~ MOMENT MAT ELEMENT MAXIMUM EW LOADING CAPACITY NO. MOMENT COMBINATION (ft-kips /ft) (ft-kips /ft) 8,729 436 3,330 6,979 425 3,205 4,665 197 2,781 NORMAL 2,791 134 639 OPERATION -1,951 574 -741
-2,872 505 -1,247 8,729 389 4,305 6,979 413 4,448 4,665 197 3,200 W-->E 2,791 122 634 D BE -1,951 577 -579
-2,872 486 -1,165 8,729 308 3,318 6,979 287 2,983 N-->S 4,665 197 1,470 DBE 2,791 122 420
-1,951 574 -647
-2,872 486 -1,087 B,729 436 3,e32 6,979 425 3,667 S-->N 4,665 197 3,418 DBE 2,791 134 821
-1,951 152 -720
-2,872 498 -984 VII.A.7
=
.g.
TABLE A-3 OLD MODEL/0LD LOADINC MAXIMUM NS MOMENT LCADING MAT ELEMENT MAXIMUM NS COMBINATION CAPACITY NO. MCMENT (f t-kips /f t.) (ft-kips /ft) 6,251 190 4,242 NORMAL 5,605 356 3,539 161 1,579 i OPERATION 2,766
-1,929 450 -1,273 6,251 350 4,086 U-->E 5,605 356 5,071
.DBE 2,766 161 1,384
-1,929 450 -964 6,251 344 4,962 N-->S 5,605 351 4,591 DE E 2,766 161 784
-1,929 450 -997 6,251 190 5,580 S-->N 5,605 196 3,944 DBE 2,766 161 2,058
-1,929 450 -1,176 VII.A.8 L
s ,i E .!
$s [J
+
94; ; o nh
!,j $i!
.. r_ -
! :r ue i i, / 2 s' d d t 2' / d ~ ,' i' '
I 5 e
, l* a .s 't s 2 ., 2 3
@ t 3 3 J! / $ t M $ @'
j, '
<, m/ .
m.t., .- . . .
, / / m' e' i 2' 2 5
/ 2 2
, Ih
*
- C
,$ ,e j
.j s s s .. s .. s , .. i
> Ik . h _ t .a ,k .I I. A y,i
,li2h'(he*/ M' i,M M t _,
3 2 *
- a amp % c'x We,ss i
,i : 3tXAXXX%KX $@ .
11i )MB#%%%X%XL
~~
' $$ ~' l Td'
,m.h,9 XXXX XXX K%%XXXX ME -~ :
l
.. - vt%,.4.-
A ,
+m_ ,)%%W?M.,';'N*. ,v,, %%M -
u l,,m)g)Mm a gggs ~~ 3,MMGRMERMMNMEM _; '
;3GMMEEERNGEE l5 .MEMEREM,MMEWW ,
..:. . , . . . . . c .. : ,
.. .. , - . 9, ., _. _. ., .. - ,
\. s. *,
I
i N3 $ E3 Eg 8s Is
-@ ,. ",-. --L.
- i , li,i!.
- - ~
!'ikh.i :- : ia !! -
'f'.
f sj sg l
$" N
! ii!!! ! !
MkINN _ XWWW xwgyny XxXWXX , MNNDXX 5 3 AXnX X 2 i WWXX
$nXV
;h)thXX i ,. 1 1 ,, 1 .:
ggyy i 2 1 i. i l l i , N3 dX MN NNX $$kk XMXX 4 kXXXXX , XWWNX XkkkkXX l XDXXX X XkXXkXX
%enW: mwy exx -
Mxx xxxx xwxx y;s! bh XKMM l XhMN l: wwnw x xx x ! Xh xx wwwxx wwxy yy yy Qy@y>
! X X;X nx -
k%Nw nn X X.){M M gg h p VD M WW
, ;W YXXX Os $ XXX X !\/NNK Nhx XXXX :nXX
!! '1 11 O
e
%,./
G e
62 5 gi y"g 3 's 58
- ot* e 143 ri ses -
2 3 HIS -
), n z*
8 l E )8 I
! } ! 5 !j IEUMN
' Kg '
i MMX . . g<g MMX
', MM X !
gg y - - - - XM X J r r f *
- . KR. .
i
; y,ww v . ,
i b,% w , v cr' P GN r ,s iN t g g\ i
, g MMM i i
V MV 3 XXXX ! YM ,W D< 5 xxx x j xM x xXx xxww : wwww' '
- wx ' '
WXX X i :RK ' ' i MRXX j :RM ' ' j . l XXX X :RM '
; ?
www w 1
- -ww - <
- . 5
,wxx,X .
;wx: x xw
, , . , XXX :j
, i i, i i , X RK XXXX ! :XX
! f xxxx XXWW i -wx .
i *
! . N/ i ,.
S l 4 W e l
d E3 $" O,! B .!
*3 i iiii!
/WXI%M' ll,3 ljlE I
!dlE3 Y sl
- e. i-
-j Awww-ai a j f
! { l ! ~! MMMN
'XXX'{ MX1 d$$E3WWN
. onem wwwwx WWWWA
,yy;yy. A -
gggpgg }
. kmm ' % WWWW j .
XXX')' kmv rRWMWK ! gp;gyppg l QV6W%%WK
'g..gA m -
awwu n XXX,3' i xxxx . YYYN YYXk ; NXXl. xnxw x6xri XXVI umn
's . , ,ww.www
. .i j ,
c o r e ,' . :
'yy>y3 Xk"M:W kmg -
xnan
., XMM X I LMwx XM,X$ XX XXX m -
i
a - u1 ma s S 3 a 2o
.m ,
,@%H141% 55 i,.
- !N, KQTKSS 4h x-E .! -
!ji! ;
Myg!mf-
; hem.
8; i=s 5i i
=3 s2 1
5 e 2 a v ; i : a a ~# d i a a I e I 3 8 m i 1 l i 1
- i
..M
, , , -N, i,, , . , , , , ,
. . . ,K . . .
, i < ,
3 i NI.1 t J I e- ! 1 ( i i i !
- I l 3
.. . t. i_ e i i 1
.5
, i i t ,
i i e i q i
, , , , , a, i
i- : : -
- ; ; : : i
; i.
, s . . < .
g
- a i 2
l
, , a I 3
( g
] .
- , ir
, x ; ; _ '. -
l'
,. . . .. ,R -
8 $ , ! l . I g g s, ,, , i N& p , p4N ,E i e e r i i i 8 I I. I i =
; . - j - m = = . =
.61 . e s '3\ : 4
- I I . .e i i t ? I e e a j g
= * = = . I. .
i
. l B l X$MX '
M," ,- , ,~, 5 '- ' ' - XWaMX X ,- ,- ,~, i ; i : X'rNM X
.w w.w.x, X ,' ,~ ,~, 1,1, ', 1. l
!y'
,1 s'
1 g 4 g %8 1
' .. 8, t ,, ' ,
i I P k '/ xh bI .I I l I 9 I f 1 h, 9 e l v .
d ng njeg Jl'
== j._ a
- g. .
!lis MNNN h%%N !
8%%%%K 8,%%%%% wwwxx wwxWX i w%wrgr< t wWM%% - W %%
! R%WK% i
.; ', ~~
DT%%%% i
.x , #< w%%% -
AN AKW%%% , ffX%KM% w%w% i' X%%% i
%,gg.y(, , , , ,
,%.%%'y,'.
wwxx
, (
WRwwxx
\%%NWS< . W%WK% F bt WWM% i 1RWNWA i DV%W B?%%%%
i t
,/RWK i /M WWMX !
~ '
MK A PC %%C#%
;MK ff.W%WM%
n,, , , ,
.mwe gg.gy X *. ,
X%%% , i ( e ee
%a 6
e
^
a . *
. C, -a .
!? 21 5!*
.>8
!a nd 33 a
", M i
l} $ m 5
- e
- h
. . .x . . . . . . , , ,
I i ! ! ! E I E I E I 3 : I I i E I i I E 5 5 g , l E i E E i ! E I a a a i I 3 3 3 3 E I 3 g g i f I '3 i I 1 3 1 I I I 3 {
! I I E 5 S 5 g 3 5 5 5 3
]
! E iE 3 A E 3 E a g 5 i si mmwm x WwE mm
MXlX1%RERM RW R x % RER %D- gg ly/R X R % R NR 'ggy myn 1* %* % n gyy mm!*! T%L%
%%W P M ). W X *%'%
- M *%
wmm wmw%%%,%sa%%%w% 9 mm MMM W3RR WEMM E RR
- ? RR3*!'E:4RW WEREWR i
a. Q* *l
,RIGD BARS (TYP)
(. 17I pq 6 5' 8 4 Dr
~
P - ' 2 > 0
- 8 g $
EL.9.O' f f f g $ _ 8 = F bj
/ j d E }
g , w g
/
o I 26- 25, 8 o "3 6J I 3 h 31< $. SHIELD BLDG ( i21 EL-41.O' u _. p ELS.0' 11,k o @ 'I a 124 . I
,, (
\ k 15['737]l @17 /
,7 O
j 16" /
\ s [ E
. . .s , ,
% G ,
31< N E $ ,21 EL-41.0' y , i 32 '
- 1 38 36_ 37> e l'
' " [635]
10'x16.83'x 23.02' LG DEAMS (TYP) LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT Co.
' Waterford Steam Electrie Station NOTE:
j FOR NODE POINT LOCATIONS SHIELD BUILDING MODEL - AT EL.-41.0FT. SEE FIGURE A-1 FIGURE A-8 _. , . _ ,-. --_. _..,_ _ ,-...m _ , _ .
. - - - - e . !
! e e e r - - - * * . Eg
- O O O l O O O O O r - - - - -
ln.o. k" a-
! - , , r , -
3
!a]
!8 m l O O .O O O O O 8 r ' - - -
i ,- , = r e is g
! t t , a
= , -
o r sa 0 _. ,_, 0 .'_
._.__,l ._
s O __ . D O O___ . O_ _O _ i_ _o__ __ 3' e , , . = . ; , - j n
* , En 1
.a:b *
. s
=
l h 'lY - ' S ' l z . . n i ,, , s i l
-[kM,,,2~'..%h'n4 !!! , , , . ..
3 i-I i y- y,j ,(l .
.s , . . f .
wt li s,j,s j
=
; , 9 9 i , e . a ,
,- ; ; w 1, # f , f , 8 8 -
, a,,, "
3 ;.., . ; i
' ~
8.y <$
- ;i ,
N , - - . 4 , , , ., ( Mg - l l
'g' 7sh yr,@, g Jh" S%w
~
j .L,4 : n . , , , , , - l l, V l Mph'N r t - i au r-_-
$ Y} '.)
l { v l g , M.W;/ . l
*l. bkNYbhh k$b ._.d I
i 9 h.
! I 8 8 9 9 9 ? ? 9 f a !
! 8 7 s 9 ? 9 ? ? ?
Y Y
.o
!Zo l , e --
nn n e-2 n 2-n n n a-n f
#e fa '
! la N'lr '
I = = , = n a s
= - . . l'a w
' u. m j
/t n -H 0-a -S . O a[ j@ o i
t t ? ? i e e e e v ;E C' 3 o Z l -e
' t
~ ,_
? ? ?
= ,
e e e t
!a i a i O O O O O O O_ n a =. q \* j o In = x.W, , o__._ s .
.-------t I .
! a * ,
- s j !
?\ n a : ,
NN _--- 7M -_ l l ! ;
; ** Q
\ o p -
.\
. a . - : .
,a '
i nu
\M/ 4"%l))/) ( i E-8 8 i I a a a a M ' og j L _ m P , M i
. s v, , . ,
, . e a ' ' '
'1
.c ~ ~ t \' x r
mg z a. . . ,
.m r
.q
- !e s
*? ? ? ? ? ? !'? - d / f W ? f ' j~ > ! '
} %,h #
l .
- .J; lI l 1. .. ,-
, 9 9- - g f r, , . s
. tee . Ci '
e'Y
! ~,,z -
,G5pjj, i ikldfhhhhk Y$
9 PBtm $se. nwmn; N gf9 ! l._.-._.._._._._._._._._.._.___.._.._..._._.._._.-._.-._...J f D N h
.M.6.W.6.W6.W.M.m6.M.6.M..M.mDM.6.M.W.m.W.W.6.W.M6.W.M.M.M.M.N.m6
! 3 9 s a 1 a s g t O
- I ?
m' g
, . r 8.
/' a[de
/ ig l ! A e f g r. .,, ,o g i
O O O 5 i
- 5 3 [
l
^** ! f d' *
- i y
)h
; O , o la8 yf t .
(, l c 7, <
. o\q,;
i \ , f . . i s g #, _ .
~
g ,n lW h,k/R \f?fffd ll l d & q+ tg ry W 9 ll= l L $ gV #dtr@ u ! i j ,- i
- e. n
. .m m 7+m
,y 1 ew _
..m - .
i p-isg
. 1 e r o
; 7.psog w e, A pe ey ., e. , n :.: 32 E ']s l.-._...._......_._._.-..._..-.-._._.._._..._._...._._._.-.-..J I i
?
s_. v ,
._._._____.._.-.._._.__.._._._._._._.___._._..___._____._._.___..q i ! s 8 E a I a !
! N !e !
! 8M_t s E E E E I 9 I
! So i om
^ 8 ;. -a
~
i m .a _ J.
*0E
[ "-
-m-
- GDG ---.- . .
Og. 9
!ea"NE I y,I I I $ I I I ! I fuE i
I O O O O O O O j @e K
- h. I l i I I I I I ! ?
i
'$. / i e l it .
i -
, , , c,
- h. 9 .
20
...! g .l g-(
m
._ _ l .- ._ .
t9' r . g i i )m M A A i A C )- ed l x.g-I ' N'**h' ~m n
..M w.M.u, g ~L. ,/ m
't amm. a.
4 MV
=
y
!gM is 7
! dxhe" N !i>
h@N C?st s
"?$
.i -
et 3 0',re j g.~ qs< g79 ;.;
! g_ _. w .
n y - we , . w, !a s I re t-=. t_ 'La e a.m azwy - . -W - - - l%s l rkbry M E 'yI E % . $ ._ .4 - Mbtr 8[ F
; W e g ___7 m ;-t gcygg==
_= g . e .= s . g l; f :6
.Es a
c '; - . s '
?. -
l -hq! !.' P f ; !_ -
- 6 lE3 GM
?
; s .t_ . ~ f = -t _L . . ral !j2 .
e P vA'.,~ rem -;=- -mes-d.m; , . ma (. . T'.t_; i,!! i n , , parher a s a is ;e
~, l}W
! I cy
_7^e ' Td a ,; gc _,_.___. Ig ! [\r "gi e l._.._.-._.___._..._._.-._.._..-.._.._.-.._._.._.-._..__._.J E
!' e , , - . . 9 . . . I
! \ Ya- # y j j i K,* , , - - - - - * ,
!9 i
; . e O
e O r O O O O O O
. (,
! g[g n o e ,
I - 8 e e , - - - , , a i O O O O O O O j$ 8 s e e e ? - + - - , , [ '
- , e e . . . . i E I e iO ._. i. -
O O O\ O O O
- O . i_d _j.
e v - s i \$ e . 9 j l ,
', . ' .. 6 ~[ , f') ! l r m ,, s;.
3 .; l 'j ,C .j. ' M,O1
'- 4
<"d .
; j r
; ,.yp, s S. ,
#'N;,;.f/. s ,
,j _j _
T S'#
, s e a \?
i 3
, . , , . . . in i, f g , a a ,
a? J o, , , , . , , ,. isa
'f)f !$3
! .~ , ., . ,. . .-
- i
. i u 1a .
1_ a . , , , e
* ,u . -
im I (
/
9,$ '
!A ,
' 9
@h] orq
. l @hi , .
L t
'#d j :
l ! m.~,.3(,2 ' w,3 q~ . j %fy 7s qf , g j l W~ S M $s%dh w, l u- !
\lI.-.-.
Etb . \u
. . . .-. . . .-. . . . .-. .-.-. . . . .-. .-. .-. . . . .-:.J i i s ,A
~ ---
! ?
- f f i e i a , 9 e !
8 9 f f f Y _. /O I co b O u u
, e u
.a ,
O e . u u e. u s, !n.cE, o -. ,
! Nlt
!@o i
g
.3 o I
t t t e n , N, .
, e I Z l e - - -- iO i O O O O O OJ. O O jo
__ __ _.t____ .._ . 5. __ t r, , , . . . . . . . - ! s Nm - e dl ! tes ,'
'/' ,_ { lC) t.
-i i *v#g s j i s i e
s*W
** * \ .s '= O '
; i { g .
. <, _4 ,
,a i .
- 3. . , ,
a l 9 k s a C C < m , i l.ik 1 in n
./ : Aa =
,i 0% 8 i g!ZN 4t v. , , , .
.J
' '~
! *E I I [l ,
- . A. c
/ '
a,,h !D i l g, l 8 9 9 9 9
-~
em 9 f 7g ne.%. i
. m_._H_
x li1,
- 3
- 1?
- g.,,
l s/ , , a .i ,t
! -.= , .
i -p s
, a 7.% g(_3% .
- c. < _ . , , _ - .,
m-m c
~~m . - ( r n, './f; a l
+
' In
\ s s
.~.: ,
a 'l, a-l j) s 2 = p .i.. _
- h. 4 ,g [/j j
$ " p'e f i va c h g_e. s & M -
M N- i t.-.-.-.-.-.-. . .-.-.-.-.-.-...-.-. ... .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. ........) : I a i V ,j
i , , . -
- + + 1 , ; .
i I E - I ! I @h I I I Q g l l (, ,
* ' e e i
d, 4/ ylse g z
, , . , i , '
3 , j yE a j)- 0 0 0 i i u , , .
,0 , ,
0 0 , ; 8 c
) i i ! I ' , 3 g . . .
Y 4 _ pq y p r m tgrgg_ g p(, g- li,c . rp a pa i ; (. _ i i I 2- .
, j i;) '// e * = \(. . 2' 0 2[ ,
l f b l l W~Im; lH q s, ,A , \, 'f - e t. q g.)), ism e hi i \\' a~ . ( ~ ,1 ,
; 6 ;"
i$ i
! e g' g; s *p' . m 2 i l flg
~
l bz 4g4.L j%Eif,'
+\
v lj
,i yl 3,,,m 3, m-ukkb'e/ !w i v! ;
r j
! Qh${" ?
f j kr'hilnI (b !llg s l s'1~" 4
;l h .
a M ,, N .Y N .b 3,;
-. m ..
.-... . ... . . .-. . .-._._.-._.-._._.-.-._.-.-.-. .-.-.._. ._.d i
( .
^
3 i * -
=__,_ ,_- !
- 7" i
= ; -i ? ?? ~
?? ?i i NTJ '
5 t ? % 4 !a i z I 4 aNg 5 $ WW g ] j M l o i i l y
- 9 I f O
4 O pJ. - 0' 9 . O I i Lo-
>d;
;d ,? w
! , i !
/; %.a ,
i 1 9 .
! 0 o o o o M f$
l i t i ,
, <3#i O D_ _-
E _ u __ o is. j! ?
;g i_.o __ _ .
p _ _ l mf y, p<e wywry n > vr , rx!,
!v yc&w- -
~~
,; 4 ,n, , , ,- f,( j!;_
l
, v.
~ , .
m 8 1* l
.a
) 7 '
e e , ., i ,,2 1 i z
,w i:;
!
- y i i . ,i 3 /..
s y ise a c. n,,
.. t 3
m io- ,. . g . I
. I 3- y) , g : , y) !g a q~ -
__:. ~ c , 1 ~-, ., j , 2 k / sa '._d r a jb
\ ; ==w - . ~= * ---A M i j ' Q. p :
( p T.b?f2-$- =-)L e , ' E 8' ^~~ ' j{ 8 9 e s1,la: s] ( i I I- % I, ! "I j 't 3 h c., ~ *= a f1f; .: e
![;
j ' - 3
< ?-y e--- -_ -1:'5 V ~_a F
!.g
"c'[I
! d ! 'M e~ --
1 l 1 1I ! g r [w, - r- F !g ,
,i _ 7-c i.-....~.._._.....-..-.-._.-.-.-.-.-._..-.-._._._..._..1 3
2,
' e - - - t , . : , i l ,
,! s e , , - - -
. , h.o j O+ ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
, , , - . . . l m. o<t b
. icadlr
! s e =
t .
-[ , e* io w cr i , ig i
O O O O O O O j S s r - j ' i e e g
; [ ,
% . O 3 "
9
- a . 1 Z
? .,,9 ,
l J i . IL D D O_ _ O _ _ .._ O O. . i._o_ _ . _ _ , j e , e . - - t . f. ; l ,'s ., . , - , -
- ZLN -
p) l
=
l r g j gr
~
pg,3. M , !; l l 1tryO,.-(..\o .
%jg f jjg ,
. , , ,.. . m
' ~
,,! t .
(a .
' ~
'D '
y\ -
]. ' '
l$$
~
l .. l l
,v
, , n( .-
+
,, 9 3)" lg.
. o .,
l i j ,. S , - 3 . . _ . . . . z 8 9, n q m 9 I z.m .,'.~; x t gg[ MN l
* ,A [I l (s. : . . ,
m%, -c 7 ' h' ,ps,k 1 l h a' .d ,,0 h , t ,! c f' . . , , p.eu j\*v. l ,
, p.; . h, .. .s,# l M6l14ItfijuQi['MdOs l hj l.._.._...._._.._.._._._._._..._.._._.._._.._._._._._.-..J l
I t k .g .e
I
! 9 9
- e a e e o l
9 9
- f a
- 4 I OW h
_u o n n O O O O X ngh
, e --
e a#' 7 i !"aNe
!o j . . . . . . , , . . is m 8T O O O ~ O' O O O *Y j 3 i
i ? ? ? ? t ,,,9 ; ,[ , o Z
! t ' '
? ? ? ; e , , , !
O
. i -- e - -s- i j l O O O __ _e, T'O O d'
- , _ _ n_
[ O
. .. 1 jo m ._ __._ . __ . ,
! A - , _ Me , ,
/ !
- p )
; n 4 .
w) l e h h l_ s
~ w} % T s ,+%M5 . .
3 ly
.m
'\khN a
.p a 4 g e, ja j . . .
g. j :,-@.as g
/ 'I' 'A M, '
j@$
, 'D. -
! ~#
. a ? 9 9 9 9 y '
5 i T ;"% % ,- , e , 4 IGE (p ' ' ' '
'/f lm i
f.9 -
- b. _ .c,6 , , . _
V ~ v ,
'r._
i
,1 LgP, # w- , 4,,
, i i
- . - i n' O [y 2 --
.r . a:: ;
i
, $t@j 4 %Q-Q -c
.---~
{.) l l W,.$@
- s. d
.m e d .
4pfWt ,, < l f 1._._....._._..._._.........._.........._..J i i e
,_ _. _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ __ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ~ _
..,,,, .,, j i D . w O /, r, ,.
N> !!
!s.
3 l q , g, o a a o o
- ,%.b I
.2'
+S j[
,k 5 ,, i i Si jiiSs ,!
\j e ,
g l \ \ 4 'A 1', _. la b b~ ' ' ! n n..
~@r l
a=wln:. a 4 a( e,.. Jgt f E s 1
? "f (y,"f p lll j rg (q7~, f l j . 4 y s y( ~ \,' g -
jp l ,. _,- t_r_m - - 0
,2-1._._.._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._..J E
== =
! t 5 i s a I w I a !
I _6 eej 3 I 8 I E
- , ,On 8 7
-~
_Q s - .. ~Y~ ~~ FC-Tr e- , ;de
' . S q G' g
!O f en. -F- eM=f-M ' av, ' , fy viJ
,g l
, b lEi~
p! 18 E i ! , Y s ! ! ! I i
} i -8 l
.,. . M i ia hu,Y, Y, y <f
, ,, wann
.g ,g -- ;
,o - - .
; 5 e
i ,wx* :
!W 7,
; g-- -
}: !8 j ') h' =
~ - - -
Ep py 9c=]g ' ' -i s~w a.aa.
. . a : .
- e. .
-j
- ww =- in. : , s 94 2
__4,s ,
; ~ eg l
D bEM ~ o-
'N
[ 3 / lm4 i u g' h 1 i $ '-
,\ '
i5 9
<bst [ ' }-
l ,se f_ ,.T)/; l
; , s '/v . ju. .
; . >^ i e
(\ s
.o r i 'i Ik *
(3 gj t g i $ i z T' IA ~7', e dd#8g; i l l g.Y J/gj;,; , j
. - .~ , ,
0 , 'D e
> u, i
u'T-u.
=.-
-s ,a == e_m.- q5 Epl' ; .. n =:.:
.9 ,
! !o-l t pg & CDID_9 L fj'i\1 M 8
- i E i
['t 1<a - EWE- ?!:
~~
J-_:yt 1, T% i{7s , l ' cM y =m. f I, m , w t [
!h Ie, ih m [c, e 4 \,,! i e i t r ,e .):& e _,-
oe a r
.fs i ea i !gy
!g 1.-.-._._..._._._._._.._.._._._.-..._.._.._._.._.-._._..-.-..J -
l i e i
.W ep# eur
! , , o - - -- o !
e o e e e - % i O* O O O* O O O O O -
, e , , - - - - - - !n. N 9
* . t e r - -
,, , ! g
, j O O O O O O O j S j ,e e t ? - - - . , , .
a t i r * -
. . , , I i
O O O O O O O jo_ . _ . . _ _ j l
. O., \ -
N, -& -( , (h, l [g irj n.'.;'-*,j S. fg, Q[j a j g56,p'G #
- i. Scijpg ;
e,I '
.3w p !n
? .
[q. ,
?
l i
< in l ! =
kkg!N, , , , - , (- g lsi. e l j ' q , . . y 6y.._)#j
. .. . ~ , . .
," ' , .b. . . g, !ss lR= ',g , ll3 l
'l 4 q6](<D,, '
v % ' ' , i "$- l7 w s,s je l &f&)lL Q., l~ - ffB9s Pf89;% pBW%...% l sg};)< r. l : s . s .
!i
, h sc,k , , ,
d, b1 -
~
J , , ,
.N I l
,l._._._._._.._._._._.._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.___._._..J ,
,p
._._.q
! ? , t ? ? 9 9 f , e e !
I w - g i a
? 1 ? ? Y 9 9 ? ? I zo I
O u u u u u u u u
/. O i om i
e
- ./ , !n.cEmo m i -
!a N<'r l@a
. . . . g Wu .4 ?
O - 'T j t i e t e e e e , t
;g [
.3 a
! T 1 7 e e t , Z g
4 i _1- 0 e ,
!o i
O O O O O O O O O O\*t. j o i _. _ a 4 -
, , , _ . . . . .. :- -_. . y
_,.* d !
. [ _
.~ _-
- i
- i. . m .
h
- j g % ,
O .- M
.O .
y I g
.- gy N a a a a v n l
! g g} w / . .m. . . g ,<J l
!s t t
. ;; !E N '
i im a.
' 8 '
im f s . e s j .wsw._ .
. .~.cpw is 2 j h *e , e r , ,
1_.5) . N , I II ' g
?"* j i, l
&,* ^
} ^ , J **- g lm gf 42 jIn .
j h _a - 4sg e .,3fj'- ! l$ - N. 1 9 @. w 1I ,
$ 3 O ,
IN'.
- h. M, -
m h,' b ! I W tw&dge.RMC:sM._Jl l._..-.-......_...._..........._.-......._. ( i f 6 k ,s a n
- i
! 5 - a o s a s c - y a !
! .i N e- !c ;
l 5
- W*
* * =4 ?
,y I g i i
i %y ? ? a,- a a s.
.i ;; agc
,O i
;, e ? ? i -
4
.E
! w .
l
- a a o a a l5 $
i i + 5 , i i , , i j c U U U 0 l h d&, l', \ \,' d, l ! I Q i)' ) ' E { A % ( $O lg ,
! +
O 9 1!
!$t j i
'h
, ci
- e ,
e x " g$
% .h vk i
j ' , M, , i g ,> ,, B j!E ig l 1
! ", g1 .,
,c >4 p. ' ' 2 'o '
jag j i , ; h -! 8'.
' , \
E i : a 3 N; . f , I,;iW !! . j Q\ k. ' 1- l
. .- ., p. e ,p*, .P;Pt !i i b '
^ >< mA l p,
_ ass ==a s g _d e t y, ' gt.9 jji l nri r .i1 . j' r i ie t x l$g l . m , k 1 l ? : q- @v !!
!! M I_d d;3'u'cII"f , M @ 91.thd^ !!!
l..._.-.._._.._...._.___.._.._._____._..._..._._._..-...J 5 l h
\ =r
i I I E I I ! g I 8 1 ! l
! -.L ! I I ! e I a _
_m I - ---a_ ,_, s _ _ _ 1 ~a i am a U 1 1 u ii t_; ii M II - i [f ? ; t i i 1 laaf{g l
! , , , , i i , , , j gi j O O O O O O O O j @S '
i I f f , I I I I I I 6 E u
! I i i s i % , ! ,! 0a j ._
q O_ _ __ Q O O _ , _ _ . . _. __ i _. 9. _ . . _. . i
? ? _ ! i
- 1 %, i a ,
.) ](}! -
]- !
h, ffyj jl{ l s[ i d *
, g ' if [ hy ;
{
~
c.
~
(,g'n,N m y g/
,W I
Q l , n ' L4l 0 ., = - - i ., F l Gd ; k s f' " o i ! f
, /. , <. _ ,s. s -
ln s , i l , qw]e; i
~
i nJ g -
',' ) $2 f p .h j .y
\ y. ,O_=g.
j j! l i i i i m w#
~
.98 h
n. a e 72 e.- # z __( _d[r g e-=-~-s-
- 1. I
~
a
- 4;/f ng
.s x
, ,._\ tp
.. w
'C a
g,
.; u in gj3
! .q__ s e
s . , ,
!gg mamm w+ ;n
- 3 y
I.._._.._..._._._.______._...._.___-..___._._.-.___.._._.._..J - I
"# e,
FILEsVII.E DRAFT MAY 27,19E7 B. DYNAMIC EFFECTS OF LATERAL SOIL / WATER LOADING i
SUMMARY
The lateral soil / water pressures on the basemat were found to be reduced in magnitude due to the dynamic ef fects of earthquake loading. However, substantial net compressive loads continue to act on the basemat with a minimum value in the area of significant east-west cracks of 26 psi. Therefore, the lateral side loads- do provide a dependable net compressive f orce which would serve to enhance both bending moment and shear strength. As discussed in Section VI, backfill soil and water pressures acting on the NPIS during normal operating and earthquake conditions, enhances the shear strength of the basemat along cracked planes. During normal operating conditions, these pressures are uniform around the periphery of the NPIS. Under earthquake conditions, however, pressures on one side of the NPIS will be reduced, as it moves away from the backfill, while pressures on the opposite side of the NPIS will increase as it moves into the backfill. Backfill soil and water pressures during static conditions are readily calculable. However, dynamic analyses were required to determine the lateral dynamic soil and water pressures acting on the NPIS during the Design Basis Earthquake (Saf e Shutdown Earthquake). Earthquake-induced soil pressures acting on the NPIS were computed using time history dynamic analysis methods to determine the seismic responses of two-dimensional models of the NPIS-soil system. Lumped mass, cantilever beam models were used to represent north / south cross-sections of plant structures in these analyses, and these models were a refinement of those used in previous seismic analyses of the NPIS. The refinements consisted of the inclusion of: vertical clastic beams to represent below grade portions of NPIS walls adjacent to the backfill; and horizontal and vertical rigid links, extending from the centers of the Reactor Building, Containment Vessel and Reactor Building Internal Structures to the Reactor Building walls, to simulate the stiffening effects these structures have on the basemat. A two dimensional finite element model was used to represent the basemat and the supporting soil beneath and adjacent to the NPIS. Selection of the J ateral and vertical extent of this model, dimensions of soil finite elements and
" base" soil properties, for use in these analyses of the NPIS-soil syst em, were established on the basis of soil parametric and sensitivity studies.
Calculation of the response of the NPIS to the Design Basis Earthquake (DEE) involved the consideration of non-linear, strain dependent, soil properties. An iterative procedure was employed which involved succescive linear elastic analyses of the NPIS-soil model beginning with " base" soil properties determined on the basis of the soil parametric studies. In subsequent iterations, the soil properties were varied until those used in VII.B.1
m _ F_IL EsVII .B_: DRAFT ' MAY .~ 2 7,19 8 7 A the analysis ' were consistent. with calculated . cyclic. strain ' levels
'in the soil. Soil properties: established by this_ iterative process were subsequently used to compute the responses of' the NPIS-soil system:to DBE induced horizontal ground ~ motions L which were. imposed at the. bottom.of the basemat.in the analyses.
Three, time history. analyses were used to. establish a valid ~
.model to compute the response of the NPIS-soil system.- In the first analysis, soil -adjacent: to the NPIS was taken to be connected to th'e structure over- the entire 65 feet depth of the backfill. The-results of thisifirst analysis showed that tensile stresses, in excess of at-rest soil compressive stresses, would exist _ in'the upper 17 feet of the backfill.
These resulcs suggested that,'under earthquake conditions, the upper.17 feet of backfill would exert tensile f orces on the NPIS, which is not possible since soils cannot sustain tensile stresses. The NPIS-soil system was subsequently reanalysed with the upper 17 feet of adjacent backfill removed from the model. Following.this analysis, a third analysis was performed in which-the upper-17-feet of backfill was reintroduced into the NPIS-soil
-model, but not connected. to the structure. The results f rom both ofzthese analyses (ie., second and third analyses) showed that although a DBE will reduce net _ backfill soil and water pressures acting on the NPIS, a substantial net compression will still' exist across cracked basemat sections.
More detailed descriptions on the various studies and analy'ses performed are provided in the discussions that follow.
- 1. General Description of the Analyses An analysis was performed to estimate the lateral dynamic soil pressures during'the postulated occurrence of a horizontal Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) in order to utilize these pressures to evaluate the net axial compression force in -
the nuclear island'basemat under the combined effect of inertial loading and static lateral soil pressures. The work involved the use of dynamic-time history analysis methods and soil-structure interaction models l consisting of two dimensional plain strain finite elements for the soil and lumped mass representations for the buildings. 4' Soil parametric and sensitivity studies were performed to i determine the depth of significant interaction effects, frequency j transmission characteristics, and influence on the analysis , of variations in the soil material properties. The analyses were conducted on a North-South section of the nuclear island to evaluate the net axial compression across the existing east-west cracks in the vicinity of the Reactor ! -Building in the basemat. (Refer to Figs. E-14 and B-15 for a L Plot Plan and elevation) and to incorporate the ef f ects on the dynamic soil pressures associated with the surcharge induced by the presence of the Turbine Building and VII.B.2 i l
FILE VII.B: DRAFT MAY 27,1987
- 2. Description of the Models Mathematical models were prepared for soil column studies, bedrock studies, and combined soil-structure interaction analyses, a) Soil Column Studies Models were developed which consisted of soil columns of different lengths which reflected the layering of the site. Every layer was subdivided into finite elements of different thicknesses with the thickness depending upon the type of study being performed. Specifics of the various soil columns studied are provided under the discussion of the various analyses performed.
b) Bedrock Studies The model employed for these studies consists of a lumped mass representation of a structure having a first mode horizontal f requency of 8.5 Hz, which is within the 3.7 to 16 Hz range of fixed base frequencies of the individual Waterford structures (Reactor Building, Fuel Handling Building, Auxiliary Building), and a mat having the length of the North-South cross-section, i.e., 380 feet, an out-of-plane width of 267 feet and a density of 223 pcf which simulated the presence of superstructures not in the model. The 8.5 Hz fixed base f requency of the structure, coupled with the translational and rocking frequencies of the combined soil-f oundation- structure system covers a f requency range which is sufficient to establish that the chosen location of the model lower boundary does not have a significant effect on structural responses. The fixed base f requency analysis results of the structural model are summarized on Fig. B-26 and the soil-structure interaction models f or bedrock at a depth of -200', - 300', -340', and -400' were similar to the model shown in Fig. P-
- 28. These studies resulted in a choice of -300' as the depth of bedrock since there was little change in the results beyond the 300' depth, c) Soil-Structure Interaction Models i) Superstructures Thelumped mass models of the Internal Structures, Containment Vessel, and Shield Building incorporated in the overall model are identical to the models presented in the PSAR. (Refer to Fig. B-31) A summary of the model properties, and results of fixed base f requency analyses are presented in Figs. E-33 through B-35.
VII.B.3
, FILE VII.BSDRAFT MAY 27,1987-In' order to simulate as closely as possible-the effect of t h e : w a l l._ s t i f f n e s s in contact with the soil on the
. rocking of_the nuclear island, the Reactor Auxiliary Building and Fuel Handling Building models presented in ; the FSAR .(ref er to Fig. B-31),. were modified in the portion below ' grade. The revised below grade portion consists of 3 or 5 vertical. members-for!the1FHB and RAB, respectively, interconnected with rigid beams as shown:in Fig.-B-36 f'or the FHBmogel. The outside beams
~
.have a moment of inertia established as bd /12, where b= the 267 feet width of the nuclear' island, and d is the corresponding thickness of-the walls. The center beam has a moment og ine r tia---ve ryvsclose and 3.7 2 x 10 t o t h9 2.7 6 x 10 t of the orjginal cantilever--(2.7x10 7 and 3.8x10 and 1.4 8 x 10I vs.. 1.25x10 7 and 1.5 6 x 10 forfor the the RAB. and 1.15 FHB), andx 10 the properties _for.the initial iterations were taken such as to.give a summation of areas and Io plus Ad 3 close, or equal, to the properties of'the original cantilevers. The eigenvalues and eigenvectors for the revised FHB and RAB models are shown in Figs B-1 and B-7 respectively.
~
The frequencies and' mode shapes show good' agreement and the models accomplish the-requirements of introducing the stiffness of-the' walls-in contact with the soil and adequately representing the' structure dynamic characteristics. In conjunction with the use- of single cantilevers, such as_for the Shield' Building, Internal Structures, and Containment Vessel, or multiple cantilevers where only the central cantilever retains ' the stiffness of.the original model, it was necessary to introduce rigid links to adequately couple the mat and structures and reflect the stif fening ef fect of the structures on the mat. The_ wall element properties were developed f rom a wall thickness takeoff to Elevation +21', as-shown in Fig. B-50, with modifications to reflect the 267' width of the model similar to those shown in Fig. B-51.-These elements are- connected to the mat only and viscous boundaries are used to
-simulate ou'-of-plane energy radiation effects.
For the Shield Building, an equivalent square box was established and the rigid- links extend to the box dimension. The equivalent box dimension calculation is presented in Fig. B-54. Due to the proximity of the Turbine Building to the nuclear island, the weight of the building was incorporated in the area adjacent to the- Reactor Auxiliary Building by _ increasing the density of so'il elements to reflect strains induced by the Turbine Building. In order to establish the dynamic tension / compression-in the mat during the postulated seismic event, a fictitious beam, having rties which would not affect the ma t behavior , i.e., A=C.03propg/ft. i 4 f t I = 0.1 f t /f t. was placed at the center of the mat. Axial strains in this beam are directly convertible into the dynamic axial loads in the mat. VII.B.4 t
w .-
~ FILE VII.B: DRAFT MAY 27,1987
- 11) Models
- Three different models were used in the performance of the soil-structure interaction analyseswiththe major differences being the extent of connectivity between soil and structure over the embedment depth.
The "Prelimina ry Model" presented in Fig. B-72 incorporates all the st ructural features discussed above and includes connectivity between soil and structures up to Elevation
+13'-0.
Model "A", presented in Fig. B-78 was developed upon analyzing the dynamic soil pressures from a G ave horizontal run which indicated that negative pressures in the soil exceeded the "at rest" pressure over approximately 17 ft or three elements. Since negative soil pressures are not reasonable,.the grade elevation was moved to Elevation -4.0' and soil element densities were revised to reflect the appropriate strains. Model "B", shown in Fig. B-84 addresser the existence of negative soil pressures over the top 17 ft via a physical decoupling of the soil and structures over the 17 ft height (i .e. , soil element nodes and structural nodes are not connected). The thickness of the soil finite elements was selected based on the soil column studies results. The adequacy of the finite element representation was further checked by comparing a G soil column solution in FLUSH (finite element solution), witby ea column analyzed by SHIKE (continuum solution). The results compare favorably (Figs. B-90 through B-97). Due to reduced shear moduli in the horizontal analyses, it was necessary to adjust the Poisson's ratio so that the compressional, "p", wave velocity was as close as possible to the 4000 f ps to 5000 f ps velocity in water. In isolated cases the "p" wave velocity for horizontal analyses is slightly below 4000 fps since approaching a Poisson's ratio value of close to 0.5 causes terms within the program to diverge to infinity.
- 3. Computer Program Used and General Analytical Procedures The determination of the seismic responses of the combined soil-structure system for Waterford SES Unit 3 involves the consideration of non-linear, strain-dependent soil properties. The procedure employed involved the use of linear elastic finite element analysis techniques applied iteratively to implicitly include variations in soil properties with cyclic strain levels.
VII.B.5
-FILE'VII.BsDRAFT'MAY 27,1987 The were performed
~
analyses using . vertically propagating. shear waves applied at the lower rigid boundary. The e general procedure consists of the following steps:
. obtain initial elastic soil properties from soil column studies;
. establish bedrock motion-and perform linear analyses, iterating on the soil properties until convergence is obtained (difference of 10% is considered acceptable);
. using' final iterated properties, obtain structural responses..
The soil-structure interaction ef f ects were established using the FLUSH computer program, which is a finite element code using the frequency domain approach. The DBE for the-site is based on a hypothetical earthquake with a horizontal ground acceleration of 0.109 The horizontal DBE design response spectrum specified-for the site is shown in Fig. B-10. The design time history spectrum-envelopes the design response spectrum with significant margin in the range above 1.2 5 Hz , as shown in Figs. B-11 and B-12, and compares favorably with a Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum over most of the frequency range, as shown in Fig. B-13. The design time history was specified as applicable at
.the levellof the bottom of the mat, Elevation -4 7', in the f ree field. This specification of a broad band spectrum motion at a point within the soil profile introduces a significant amount of' conservatism when used in conjunction with a wave propagation solution.
- 4. Material Properties a) Site Geology The Waterford Steam Electric Station is located in the Mississippi River deltaic plain and the sedimentary thickness beneath the site is estimated to be in excess of 40,000 feet.
The sediments consist of marine shales, up to a depth of 10,500 feet, shale alternating with sandstone layers, up to a depth of 7500 feet, sandstone interbedded with shale, up to a depth of 4900 feet, Pliocene alternating sand and clays, up to a depth of 19 0 0 f e e t , Plio-Pleistocene interbedded sand and clays up to 1100 feet, and Pleistocene sands and clays up to approximately 50 feet below grade. The top of Pleistocene layering is shown in Fig. B-1, and a generalized site cross-section, including the superstructures, is shown in Fig. E-2. Dynamic soil properties for the Upper Pleistocene, as established from field measurements and tests, are presented VII.B.6 _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ i
FILE VII.B DRAFT MAY 27,1987 in Fig. B-3 which also indicates a 3900 ksf average shear modulus value for the soil profile from 50 ft to 320 ft below grade level. The variation of this average shea r modulus with strain, plots of test results and results obtained using the Hardin-Drnevich equations are shown in Fig B-4. This data covers the entire soil profile to approximately 320 feet below grade. In the finite element idealization of the soil profile, every layer was represented by a different shear modulus and damping versus strain curve, selected based on data 3,as shown in Fig B-5 through B-8. The G for 10gnFigB-strain, varied from 2800 ksf to 5100 ksSax,he . T average shear modulus vs strain curve for every layer was varied'from Gave/1.5 to G ave x 1.5 Euperimposing the range of shear modulus versus strain curves onto the test / calculated data shown in Fig B-4 indicates that the variation adequately covered the data, as shown in Fig B-9. The boundaries of the shaded area in the figure represent the variation with strain for the Gave/1.5 for G max =2800ksf and Gay,x1.5 for G max =5100ksf. The maximum ined from the horizgntal were approximately s t1x10- r aint)(obt 10-g % strain) and 1x10- (10-gnalyses
%) strain for the vertical analyses.
- 5. Parametric Studies Analytical studies were performed in order to establish the following:
. frequency transmission characteristics of the site
. effect of the selected cut-off frequency, mesh size and interpolation interval
. location of bedrock and effect of specifying the control motion at mat level
. high frequency wave amplification
. initial soil properties for use in the combined soil-structure analyses
. adequacy of the selected " quiet zone"
. effect of baseline correction.
The analytical studies were performed using finite element tine history analyses. It should be noted, though, that frequency transmission characteristics, cut-off frequency, resh size, interpolation interval, bedrock location, and high frequency wave amplification are interrelated subjects and multiple aspects were reviewed in every analysis. VII.B.7
- _ _ _ - _ _ _ . l
.FILEtVII.BtD' RAFT MAY~27,1987 a). Frequency Transmission Characteristics
. The purpose of these analyses was. basically to-determine the soil natural frequencies in the horizontal and vertical direction by performing soil column analyses. For.the horizontal direction under vertically. propagating shear waves, a continuum solution using SHAKE was obtainedfora 310 ft soil column forC andC ave x 1.5 soil
-properties, in addition to FLUSH-300' .Yeb, rock column studies.
For C av the natural frequency horizontally.was found to be 0.4 Hz for b,oth the SHAKE and FLUSH. Natural frequencies for the various soil conditions and the specific computer runs are
. presented in Fig.'B-98.
b) Cut-off Frequency, Mesh Size, Interpolation Interval
. Cut-off Frequency Considerations of the damping ratios in the soil profile, which are in the 7% to 10% range, the shear wave velocities,' which are in the 500 fps range, the thickness of the soil elements and the frequency range _over which waves could propogate through the soil _ profile result in the conclusion that a cut-off frequency below 16 Hz must be used.
A 12 Hz cut off_ frequency _was used based on a comparison-between structural responses at the mass points of the
. half model used f or bedrock studies when useing a 12 Hz and 16 Hz cut off frequency. The results presented in Fig B-113 indicate a dif f erence 5.5% or less and confirm. the adequacy of a 12 Hz cut - of f' f requency.
Studies of a Cave /1.5 soil column with the input motion specified at the bottom of the mat (El . -4 7') indicated that convergence cannot be obtained regardless of_the cutoff frequency, mesh size, or interpolation interval because of amplification with depth of high frequency content as discussed hereaf ter. The various computer' analyses also indicated that a small interpolation interval must be used, and motion must- be specified-at grade.
. Mesh Size Two 300' soil columns having 28 and 68 elements were analyzed horizontally with a cutoff frequency of 12 Hz. While the fine mesh model stayed within the element thickness required to transmit 12 H2 frequency content, i.e., 1/5 of the 12 Hz wavelength,the coarse model exceeded this thickness in areas away from the foundation. The comparison of results, as presented in Figs. B-117 through E-120, indicates that the element thickness used in the coarse model is acceptable. Thus, 'the increase of element thickness beyond the thickness required to transmit waves up to the cutoff frequency, which was VII.B.E
FILErVII.BtDRAFT.MAY 27,1987 4 - - implemented in the horizontal finite element models, should not significantly a f f ect the results (i.e., accelerations, forces, and pressures) and is acceptable. l
. Interpolation Interval The interpolation interval was varied over the f requency range up to the cutof f f requency such as to always have sufficient solution points before the Fourier amplification peak (at least' 3), and have a total of over 40 solution points.
Interpolation intervals used are specified in the various run summaries. c) Bedrock Location Parametric studies were conducted on a half model constructed as discussed above for bedrock located at Flevation
-2 00', -3 00', -3 4 0', and -4 00'. A compa rison of accele rations at various mass points in the structure and moments and shears at the base of the cantilever in Fig. B-125. The maximum difference of 2.5% between responses f rom the -400' and -300' bedrock analyses indicated that bedrock may be placed at -300 without introducing significant effects on forces and moments in the structures.
d) High Frequency Wave Amplification As discussed previously, the specification'of the control motion within the soil profile coupled with a soil depth in excess of 150' and relatively sof t soils with large strains and damping results in significant amplification of the high frequency content.- In order _to quantify the phenomenon, various computer analyses were performed. For the horizontal G ave analyses, in the free field at grade (Layer 1), the spectrum shows a significant amplification of 3.2 times at the f requency of the soil column above ti.e control point which equals approximately 4 Hz. The amplification at 4 Hz in the soil-structure model (Node 739) becomes 3.34 times and the ZPA (Zero Period Acceleration), which will govern the magnitude of the soil pressures, is 2.3 times higher than the 0.19 selected for the site. e) Initial Soil Properties For all horizontal analyses, soil column studies were made to establish soil properties for the first iteration of the combined soil-structure system. For the Ca ve/1.5 horizontal analyses, the soil column studies could not be made to converge when the motion was specified at the f oundation level due to the amplification of motion with depth combined with amplification of wave content at the frequencies of the soil column above the control point, and the reduction in the shear wave velocity. Thus, for the C the motion was specified at grade in the free fve/1.5 analyses, ield and the results from VII.B.9
FILEtVIIiB DRAFT.MAY 27,1987 e-
. analyses.were' amplified by a factor which resulted in a response
' spectrum at the foundation level'which enveloped the design
.i spectrum over the.: frequency range of interest, f)~ Effect of " Quiet Zone" InLorder to assure that a sufficient length of time of-no input motion--(t railing ' zeros, or quiet zone) was added to ~the end of. the time history, parametric studies, consisting of half model time history analyses with 0.48 seconds of trailing zeros and 20.96 seconds of trailing zeros-were made in order' to establish the adequacy of the 0.48 seconds of. quiet zone. The studies showed sufficient attenuation by the end of
'the time history at the top mass point and insignificant variations in response. accelerations. (Pefer to Fig. B- 141. )
g) Baseline Correction While baseline correction has little or no effect on response accelerations, parametric studies were made to ascertain this point as a result of indications that baseline correction was not.perf ormed. Comparison of analyses results indicate that explicit request for baseline correction did not change the results. (Refer to Fig. B-14 2.)
- 6. Pesults from the Computer Analyses The results of interest from these analyses were-dynamic soil pressures and time history of dynamic axial forces in the mat in the Reactor Building area.
.a) Horizontal Analyses - G ave The first analysis was performed with the
" Preliminary Model" described above and included soil connectivity along the entire embedment depth. The computer run specifics are presented in Figs. B-143 and B-144 and the soil pressures in Fig. B-145. As negative soil pressures significantly exceeded the at-rest pressure for the upper three elements, a new run with these elements removed was performed.
The new G run was performed with Model A and specifics on the analysiye s, maximum soil pressure plots, time histories of soil pressures, and forces in the mat are presented in Figs. B-148 through B-157. The maximum dynamic lateral soil pressure was 700 psf and the maximum dynamic tension in the mat in the area of the Reactor Building was 24 psi and 36 psi outside of.the area of the reactor building. b) Horizontal Analyses - G ave x 1.5 The analyses were performed with Model B which decouples the top three layers of soil f rom the structure lateral walls. Specifics of the analysis (Run DOPSENF) are presented in Figs. B-158 through B-159 and maximum soil pressure plots, time VII.B.10
7 L FILE:VII.B: DRAFT MAY' 27,1987 a history of pressures and forces in the mat are presented in Figs. B-160 through B-166. i
, The maximum dynamic lateral soil pressure is 2645 psf, and the maximum dynamic tension in the mat in the Reactor' Building area is 10 psi, c) . Horizontal Analyses - Gave/1.5
~
As mentioned previously, the attempt to perform this analysis using Model B, with the control motion specified at the bottom of the mat level was not successf ul and the motion was input at grade level in the free field. In order to assure that the results reflect the requirement to specify the motion at the level of the bottom of the mat the f ree field spectra at this location was compared to the design spectrum and an amplifier was established so that the average mat level spectrum envelopes the design spectrum (average of the difference at all frequencies). The amplification f actor was 2.0 (refer to Fig. B-17 6 f or spec t ra comparison bef ore amplification) and the maximum dynamic soil pressure was 2968 psf while the maximum dynamic tension in the mat in the Reactor Building area was 10 psi. The analysis specifics, plots of maximum soil pressures, and time histories of lateral soil pressures and forces in the mat are given in Figs. B-167 through B-175. The dynamic forces in the basemat oscillate between tension and compression and must be superimposed on the static compression.
- 7. Dynamic Water Pressures By considering the saturated weight of the soils in the dynamic analyses discussed above, the dynamic water ef f ects were implicitly included in the calculated lateral soil pressures under the assumption that water cannot move freely with respect to the soil which is reasonable considering the frequency content involved.
- 8. Conclusions The combined effect of inertial forces and dynamic soil pressures results in a dynamic tension in the mat which is lower than the approximately 50 psi axial compression induced by the static "at rest" soil pressure. Dynamic tension reduces this to a minimum value anywhere in the basemat of 14 psi and within the region of the east-west cracking to 26 psi. Thus there is substantial net axial compression in the basemat (N-S direction) across the existing east-west cracks in the vicinity of the Reactor Building at all times during a seismic event. It should be noted t hat these values are the minimum values f or a single instant of time during the seismic event.
VII.B.11 l I
j . l
'fk
' O +,,".
b{ g. - 1 i
~ ORIGINAL ORADE g
j , . ij fil gggggggi l j F~ ( IFF DY C Y f NT Ae IAL) a
*20 -
g'jli!$$$jl 2M!M iMB'RW'MB gs . . s .s m..-..sw . 5
, fj! hlh viisisi a M Ta t h 8 -
T~Im '1&==== i 40 - , i. 'l!!s$lll'l 9lsi2 i .. _ . . . . , . . , , ,
-r.; .- ;z;c, ggzcz. =_-1----_-_---
-6# . b I
'M *k3M ff,7 i. .
hy ,, W h ". it I y it - J -h . g l ; L
, . % Vpull].'g M W ^I.u.. . I:O I
~" -
u s d' "d".on7,e:" ry, M. 55 /k .. mQ <n r t ' S- ~ 5 T Fin 't -.. ;....u.... .' . . b_ i w h k. ,g, m, ... , . _ , , . , .. . b*I ; _ :, " ' , - , , E
~100 f ,'N 'f Af Yf . ' & h * ' ,1. . t ' ' ' , \ .~ ' . *s' - ' .. ...-l. ,
f
. . .. ' ' '~. ".. ..
T[h? Q.[y[Qi,':]^,%.G tdiN J. K%.1 ,Y J
'/.Y' '4 .
[,'. Y LTY C 1 - [' *: '.',-.
-l,
? ', i. * . '
' t gd, Q ,i
- W '
- f- ) y i. * , . . , . . ,v ', 4
-100 - . . r,9 , , ,
, MII ;w ;t T w.K + .c y ? ? ; .
I~.; f ? g[kWli?j$3 M[ @'99(( E' B -- - h
. STI T R 5r F LAY ANDSt CLAY I l WITH SILT AND SAND LENSES EL 247 TO EL-321 L assenessessv uot st, tes,e h VER D SE s
Tt.:.6~ ' toomm ro en ucar ca. 4
,j
#R?#M4' "'" " j w. m 5- sw s To orge,,g, Sectio 4 ,
nouRe u-=. g V
. Il y
.. :3 _ .
.' ---l
- . 1 sj !
7 m l' t
!j i:
lj il il ! gj j' 7 g . . a S 1 I1 lt - i S . .. . 7. q_l Ji N Q1 k S g X1
.:S .
()I / . N $
, . 14 =
y q
\ \ ~
S .
- . e.
~ l1 l le i
c7 7 N ( k .1.fl
)I , 4 Ill
.Y ~
1
. / i .1 -1:
l /l 1 3 l / I Ig a mig % i53l1 . d t t Ig i gig ~ 15 II ililov 's, i, d le i 11 mli . i a i i i t_ FIG B- 2 b
- ~ - -- - -
. 3 i
&f -
v ij l1 ii .'
- I :ij i'!~ ii i i i
i ii_]T.l. I l}
,Il!
a e ,,
' i~ i,, , ,, , II t ~
3 4. l !-_1r
=
I
. .s . . _ _ . . _ .
3E . .. _ . . { . s 'h a
- g. h 1 - - a .m
.J :.
di-- L! i if I!!
'1-7 m 1
.io o Ili!
I BMMM w/////r//////e/////ax s
!.I:!!! a pm i lEMEf/M$ .l_ yl:
l 01
. a i _g,l i ci
/ 11 sli li / 1ljo i
',j
-s !
I syg ., jI VA Ils fli iIdll! 5 til i g 3 t... m r, .. - ;-. -- t _i _ _ fr 'l l
- E i l l ll l' ! l}l } 1 .
I h
' ~~
' ~
il lI i I l'~s 1:1 1511 lii ill!i ii11 iii 4 i t i i i e a ' '^ FIG B- 3
l
- w,= . . .. . . . . .....
I S,000' ; ' RANGE OF FIELD ' 8,000 8100 KSF I SEISMIC MEASUREMENTS d
, 4,000 d'-.r . .. m a ; q - - - - -- - - - - - -- - --- - --------
g m ___ .
.,,__ '5!i g 2000 KSF * '
I g - *lidI N _ si 1,000 ' F i _; :. M mii i o w , g i N
" I e INDICATES TEST,RESULTS h 400lI l 1 e INDICATES RESULTS dALCULATED SY 20l l HARDIN DANEVICH EQUATIONS
,on -
4 to-a 10 3,4 i ,-a ja-2 SHEAR STRAIN AMPLITUDE 17-(INCHES / INCH)
.O~
(: ~ . - 30 E I
,< 20 9
> v '
}
pr 2 /
-f
. lw e
w* , ud w-* , . m-2
. i SHEAR STRAIN AMPUTUDE i7 (INCHES'/ INCH) 1
. TAKEN PROM SEED, H. SOLTON ANO IDRISS, LM. (1987)
"THE INFLUENCE OF SOIL CONDITIONS ON GROUND MOTIONS DURING EARTHQUAKES" ;
i l l ($/ LOUl51ANA pg,,,, POWER & LIGHT CO. SHEAR MODULUS & DAMPING V5. STRAIN - l Waterferd Steen UPPER.PLEl5TOCENE(-40 FT.MSL TO -317FT.MSL) 2.5-78 ; Electric Station FIG B- 4 _J
EBASCO SERYlCES INCORPORATED . i
.Rme .. v 4 Sr
.,,,,, '5999 282 "T.7, 55b
.,ar .,
e/#ef-6),,,. .,sAe.iW1, . cuany k u t4: a n a i o,.ees. 4 L44# Co . (
,,,,,, ,, WW4a Aio smo. O .+-- ao. 3 son o, . :. m.a :,-
)
- %.u.sjL.!'i'!'j_g_ii_.i...'.1.._i i . :
3._U[q.!_.l._L..!.hyttin$Li..i_i!i cdra e4, b I pg~. y-
" Q~w , ' Q ,, y rl-l, siq q Ttur._ _y)r F ~p , :g.w E' p m pi.7,r4 i
- w. <>
.o .
( g - . 1-0;- 7
;\ j --
t til j
' - V , yt g ; -- p s- s nseo L
-, ; g-- -im rjy , .
- . ' . _._. .. g : . . ro .;...y. 1 . i . g . ._ .g,g** 2 f
. . . . ,... . '. g_.g . . .
3
- 7. __..
UV t,
'._i...'. .f_5 ; .. O
'. .. !.. . '..l. r.o .,l..
. _.,o ,.q_ .
.._.5 9.. 0 0 .. .
- 4 11o . 8 9108 A
' \ t.,o . 0 4 1.. . _.
,...g 4
kw"b " t.8to , ((. - ..
. I (so 11.0 a . 't 6 6 500 5 i "
Mo s e:
.. 4 ,..
~
No o
. ". 1 40 0. t T to,0o0 '(,
. . s .. bl.o - _ . . _
\
%<deuk . .. . _ . . ..
3 l 1 ko . .. } g,f- o.45 t o, boo P
. Geo .
.. ".. .b . . . . E ,
7 .. I- .a - ;. :.._ . . ._ ,.
.... . ... . . L. .. . ...n._ . . . _ .. ..
...3...;....,. . .
i . 4
... . ._ i . . .; ; . i . . . 1... ;; . '. j . . .
EC, f._. "d. I= % 3 9 S",4 Sh L. h t h EC=84.4=..h*f Y akrM rJ' M eas.! Siihe'.. b NfL e j L: > i Fsw T.u 2.r-iq G*y. .
. . . .. j
. . ; . .. . .,.). '
.g . . .
i . _ _ . A l). . I. i .. '...
- t.
8 A
.;... . . .. .__a
. ._ g . . . .
I I i
-p i .q; p_. .. . . ). . . ;. _ . , , ,
4 FIG B- 5 i . , ,
; i.
E5ASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED l av h iv DA,E 5/ul r SMEE,
- 2. .F l
pfew.,,, 6Mef' ...
'999 2 *1 *i,k 55D :
s*,% e . .
,,.,,,,, to m .. . h 4ue c.. )
W "W' '"' t## # " O "" UO' I P N ECT
,,,,,, %.t O v. ..'., M. Lt -
i . .
. , i g , .
j . l l i
....'. .I q q i
- * , l ; I
,i. .
._3.__.___
I)[ t . fed dk. j Lh Au ..!._..:7(.._.!,.Cu,m _. . . _..
..!....,_i,
', ! I
, l l l .! ! .'
..I . . .
_. . . . . .. .[.,..... .,. . .. .. ._ I
; . ! .ftTaa.debii _{.%) .l_... .. ! %e1e 'Msdalo - . _. . . ._. .. . Dam e i U ..
(W ,.bd d-. e. . LW<
' I t
i ! . t
. l y.
_ . . ' . _ ........!.... .: ._ .. .'.. 10 i : i , . 4 . . ._. . _ . . D sf 4
. .. .. i . . . , ,.
. f l l
, l t
.._...._.4
. . ..' _.....u_ . .. _. _ . . \ O'. 3..
., .. O,A so.'..
, t . !
i l i : . .
; g , . . . . . . . . _
....\o,. ,
'o,si. .
n.s
.iOs '
.0.l % . .. ..
- 4. 5
,. .z.-. .-
(p'
.. . . \ 0*' .. Oktoo R. 3 .
g ICI O ~39 B . 13.9 7 . .. 71'7
.@8... i O,o7 4 l .
. .i. ..
. \ O. .. - ~2 2
.., O. 0'S 8
\0 o.o n t;i.
, ..) D'. , . O.031 .
7,,'Z, . . .
-.. . ... _ [ ;. . .;.... ,
i i
.t.........
-. . . p . ._. . . . . . : .
I , i , t
-i ...._i_._'.
I.
, ,i
. . I ; , . .
-r i. , . .
' i FIG B- 6 --
i . I ; .
, - _ . Se f/o 4t -.
EBA5CO SERYlCES INCORPORATED 9
~
= P v n t.iu =1.
g /ti /sr . ... r M .,
y,l -
. . , B ft M D V o ,. 8 / 5 s / # , .,. 3999. zo2."T,2 SEb l
.u,,, t_ o u ,s a b a Poor 4 L.ig + 4- I W.k,4w d Mw.iue W.w O. r3 -
. .,.. , A se,.ge Seii Or- i Modul: '
- . : i : i- . >
i, i. .
. i. l . .
I haal. ! Phd4-lrI- l ( da4%.L2.,_3,.N ._5l i 53
! Ii i
t .
- - 1 -
i ii i i I i ! ! ; : ; i : ,
, sh. . .-l .i.. I' (cia
, ; ,. i . - ; :-
. . u..+9. sw., iw wig i e :
.g.m * *e *
- r
, . , -- ~
. . i i i , i ; .
i .
. . i j f otSI-.. ;5:
i ! I ; : ' 1 i : i i ! i
! . ! ; i ! Ii i ! , i
!i ; i l ! iob' i i i !
l __jo,3.w.i. .u b i .1. 5 i lt0" l
._ ' _:.._:._o. r 13 ____.
5'
.to-' . q
- ..3 .
..n. g s ; : _ _ _ _ _ _ . -
..,s.
c , , (-
~
- to_.._g o,3.2.5 . . . ... 7.5.__.-.
_.....,3... _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . . . . .- .
- 10. ..
01.7,.t . S.3 i _ _ . _ _ . _ , . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . - - _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . . . ..p. ___
' \ O', y , .
._l. Ox,o33 .
i l k.$. . ! . g 9
' a . ' .
, i . o.
. lO _ - i
_ 0 0 1 . . .:.. r 1 IO ' MO
- I
__ .._.0Eb.E .
! s . - '
. r ,. .
l
- - l
!10l !
l ~] i i-(o. . ! i . i- - . .! .. i I i ! ; i;!
,I
=-q. y . .! . o i l l . 1 , .
x._...__.. - - !.
' i I ! . j i
! 1 : .
i : . i 3
- : [ $
l
=_.
. : l ; i : ,
4 _. : ? : i , .
- c / .4 . ! 6 l 1 , -s , : . I 6 4 i ., ! .
i i l i I -
, . e I
,=
i } . , .- s . l l . . _.. ._._.a. . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . . . . - t ! : : i ;
' FIG B- 7
_a I _- _ _.-
. . ~ . _ _ _ . . . _ _. . .. . . _ _ . _ _ . -
l '
'?- .
E8ASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED k'll 6 SMEET b OF SY kKd t.m DATE ekes ess.m-- **::: 55r>
@.74* owl, CLIENT Ad ' I ' % O PftOJECT -
sumase, 6od One.it H,4 11
- 1 1 8 l .
I i ., e. t
. t .
s . . _.p_._....._. _ . . . _ . .__.__
- i. .
o%e ,. 1 j,; u6 .. _ . _.(u n.i_c.i. _.b 4 l ~7. .. : __ . '. . . _. ,: .i,_ .. i.' _- . . __ i
, . i . .
4 ______..__i__... . . _: - ;
... . i . . .
. i :
.g ...__....... ..,... ~
_.!. ....A h d. W 1.ad i ._ ! _D d r 4..
! . .h.lt w (% h !._ .
- , i i
- s. .. . . ... a.4. 3
; -y -
+
i
. _ . . _0 . _.._- .- . . . . .
t . .
.6..
. 3,5" ,
. .. 6 . ..
. . . . t.
6 . .... . . , . .
...i ?
.. - , j s
. . ... . _ . _ . . . . . . . . _ _ _ ' i I 8 l 1 I,' .
r . . .. .. a
. . . . . . . _ _.. .. .p :
. . 'h._. . ,,
. . Q -)....,i,_ s . ..._.;
__ .. . ' + I l . , c - *...... .. f.
! j i f f _ . . .
.. . Og
.MO, . .3
. t O.66
.4 t.4
,[o^ '. . . ' . .
4,L g Cm.v., . . Q'2fh. . b.9 . N: .. ,. .. '}Q , _ . 10' . O.2.44, \L4-
.. s. . .
e . . .; L.0 080 7/2. .
, - 10. .
.'.. ' ...' .I . . . . , . . . . .
. .[ 0, t . -
0 05 .. ., .. .. .2. t.. . L. . . o o.o.9 L 7. Z,
- . .l05" .
' I O' . '
O. 0f 6.. ,
.'....: . ~l,,,
;, l,,, .
j i ! ; ,
.. . . . .....6 . ..
_ .. .._..;_..; _4
- t l , . - . . . .. . - ... .. . . __ _.... ._ ...,. _ . . .
.i i . . .
t i _ _ . _ . , . . .. . _ .
.___.a__.
.... .i ..
! . l t l l . l .
,. _. r ...
_. i . . . . 7 . . , .;
.i, . , ,
s
. _t.. _.. .
. . . . ...-.. . .i . . ._..__ ,
.w
_ t. . 7 _. + _ _ . A . 1 . 8 i i . ! . . . . t .
.. s . . . . .
(% .;. ,
- i. . , .
e i . . . . . . i' i . _t, .. ; , 3 j ;._.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.! ! _.i _ . ' .. . . '. .!. FIG B- B
!-d._i !i . :... !
1 !i __ i l i e f . i
._w .-.-. _ . . , . _ . - . - _ _ _ . . _ _ . , - _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ ____
,- .s.. . .
ggt. OF: skGAR. MODt)L.( ', ,
@h -
uswa ia snALyses (tr - 10,000 , .. . . . . ..... ,
/ ,
3,000' , n==2E Or vlElD
, ,. l
,,,,, i e um- - - - - REMENTS I N
i l pf >
.,,,, 4, coo , p , 6 _ -. - - .. . --- ...
lli /7d 4 y 4 r - ..
$ / .
/ d J .s/ > N,' / _ Y%
K gg,"
}Q ~ n
; 1
~ . ,
r'
,,,I I % & / FV I
e INDICATES TEST RESULTS N #} z
" 40oll I -
K
. INDICATES RESULTS CALCULATED BY
. HARDIN DRNEVICH EQUATIONS too .
Io d 104 104 lo-3 lo-2 l SHEAR STRAIN AMPLITUDE 27- (INCHES / INCH) i er ' k..I 1 .
~
. E i .
I
- x 3D a o ,, ,
}
G - b . f f E ,o J
~,, f n
104 104 to4 ' 1o-2
. SHEAR' STRAIN AMPLITUCE ty(INCHES / INCH)
TAKEN FROM, SEED, H. BOLTON AND IDRISS, l.M. (1967)
"THE INFLUENCE OF SOIL CONDITIONS ON GROUND MOTIONS DURING EARTHOUAKES"
. k.3 *
. LOUl51ANA . -
. Figure' POWER & LIGHT CO. SHEAR MODULUS & DAMPlNG V5. STRAIN -
Wotorford Stean UPPER PLEISTOCENE (-40 F-T.MSL TO -31,7FT.MSL) 2.5-78
. Electric Station
- O -_
. ., .~ . . .. . :.
= , -
. . . . ~ , - , ,
a?:
=- A ,,4 7xv = ,/'
"n = i n n s< v : a wn x x s//// // ./ ., rm x v: n
(
. w m mu ^ ^ v e m
. 1 2 6 m '/s ' h 3 6 h
, lhlh f $d % k } $ f$ D %& '
</v
// // .r o , x x a x v w wn w n ,,/// wi n n
n n : x ua
- , ,,__n,,
n n W
+ x x x 4 A NdS ' /' ' b dN Nh D- \ \
/% [/ \ h36 M W/ l h M 34 M T/ Id t \ \
l, /$b3$ $$d E h d $2$ d @hTN l l g ,,, Mbbku NM bbk y;x= t : ' ';x^, rcea: b =cheb n - - y ,, A", fr^-^- Ni,r M 4Te^x:"A Wt bq : ; <ffTr^t/s u x n ; e x wu x n x vc a wu x a s ho/ A / n . (- 5
" se ^ ^ v e ew/ A x l, '
/#D i/ 3 T D M_ [ / \ ,'3 %.5d M_ $ /4 \
, ~, s, s ~ ,, s, --
** '/(
jfj/ () ; .mneonos symsvicTuss g ,
~
.pN / y "
re easvonyspeCTRA
/y mac neo.im ossionsesCTRA 0 _.,p' 'dp,^qp [
- iz;n' G
s( qW
.cono s si =CTu
.m,- - .. .
g'Q x xN m ^ ^ Y dl ,u . T... . N / \ ;
/.# / /\ h 3 b sm / v m >>s m /\ N
- j// z dE I Mm b .z IEfD @ h s w// A \ N p
w a...a,ac..ax
.1 .. 3 s
,,, s '"U1"', . " ""'" *"i'"Nk
~ * * * ' ' '
5 5 3. I' 5 l a 2 8 88' ; 9 pena esc. se [... , Ib ~f'I
; mewouswr wo.n, tam LOUl51ANA Figo,. ,
POWER & LIGHT CO. HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM DESIGN BASIS g o .,g ,g g . EARTHQUAKE 25 DAMPlNG-TOP OF PLEl5TOCENE 37-1 ' Electric Station
~
m 1
yy - + ~e ., .v v uwww.a u,;au_;;ww, ammm w v.wemoc wrmge, mewwnmyg ._ . E8ASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED m i;W SY DATE 3Magt or r OSPT. 2% NO.
- CMKO. SY DATE OPS NO.
CutNT PROJECT SUSJECT O e
-e e.
W.W g L.J - :
- t FIGURE B- 11 (SPARE) f I
l l t f 1 e .em*w** * *
. ~ . - _ + . .._. --..
l
~- ---
_ . _ . . . _ - . . -_- . - . . - - . - - . - - ~
+p wem m._e v.P* * .h* .*"
i -- - -- - l. i . . - . . m . , ,,
. . - . M m --4.m Wh.> h ea p --q.
1
,yj _ . . . . . . _ . _ -
. . 7
... . . . . .. . : - . ..... . . . ..c . .....: ; .
ESASCO SERYlCES INCORPORATED
*t>-
3 N 4TA .... , .,
.,, , . *, . = =::: *s=
. . = ~4... /i' h6 e.a u 1 cu.a.
unsre:Totb aj . B o M PA rci se o 2>E5u50 vs TmE HwT. Wsy. SPEcWM
\
bro iE l 2'O N ThL - 1)SE REMNg DESlGN MP. Tme h7. w,r, ERI SPECTROM. SPEctrit0M bDk (=) f (cr0 . 27.; a p 27, , a e %_ 3 o. n 0o6 . 2 o N. 0.085 0 09 '. + 5 9$,
) \. 0 0 0.17G 0.\7G - 0. h '
P Q 0 8- 1.29 0 22 0.2 R + 16 9/, c.w O. 6 1. fo 7 - -- 029-- --
- c. M + 17I/.
o . 4- 2 Fo c.M o.377 + 10 9/, o.2 5 oe. o.34 o4W + #/,
- 01 - 10.co 0 24 0.2 96 4 2.3.3/,
O ogg i127 - O.2I w 0.27 + 2 8.h, 0 235 o.o%+ 1+.191
- 0. \8! % + 3d.6f; --
~
- o. oG- -.. G 7- oA7 c2 + 17. t/,
l .
--o.o4 - 25.'o-r oJ)-3 O.M7 '
+ rf.i */,
O i (.g 0 02 6o o. 0. I O .:) 2 & t $9 /, _ 0,gg A go;.o . c.) .
. zvA= c.oq9p :
7- f G%-<. ~ R@gt vgg.
- [ ,
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NRTERFORD PROJECT TIME HISTORY TO SPECTRR N00RL POINT 100 DRMPING = 2 PERCENT SET 2 = S S E === 7 SET 3 = noi s== - o . i
~
a ; r E 4.72 - z o _ [ _ u w 2 s [ C i i 5 3.14 -
'I g _
o o - a .- 1 e 1.57 - E h - b _ k O.00 - f 0. 5 1. 0 2. 0 5. 0 10.0 20.0 50.0 100. ! FREQUENCY (CPS) ,,,, rom gy y o u ,f,g
- weeso sy.eu g -
i M - .,
.7 , f.
' ~ '~,j 'g.01],(
(',9.).bO 'vy,'j'.y,. O ~l jj j,, :Q .~
- g. , IA 5 ! IN IN N N h .' lfM. l}A 1 , ::.;G'pJ: .
T2 ' r _ 3214;t .t4Gi A A 3.,. - imN,[ s we woa
<r l fy . N'.T,'., . -, .-
~
y .3
, $*4 . t'e > .
.: 1, . . i 2bl . #4, .
!:4.$ NIN" Nf , c;.,.h"bEdEMI0dhi/NY5- .
$jg;~$'p.d..
&T' - m. - x... ./ ,. , .
LG ,, . .- ,- - .; t-
;& j.,
) ' jij
@ y, ,ll@ glljx l,@, g . i y g;;l @ t ,,,, , y-g] M.:.' -
g,43; ,; f,__i , s.
.I
- 1. - .
b.:>
.Q, m u
) - '
p .,% 23 Q ih: '! '
-,: Q' [;; : -
n 4 g
$ Mefalf igT AT.
lg$ _ llGl widh Q'Q' -[ .hjg:. . .y;g..
.- d ; , . ,
< J 7 ./.Si, .r:av L:.$'
xxabakY$.', ?5Y ti . $ ' - N '!E:& SNT
$ - Jijh -
'.W1 Si ' lj' 4Demto!'- Miw l
-h. .., ! gg -
j. ab . S'h p,'
..., $ku~
g,%q'If'
- 7. i'"
.y ' p;;; A f l. ' '
9 . p[.ti .
.~- .-
g Y. . wr -- -a '
' i gy Q "-
(7 w, m"'~y -
. =
(7 E-' >[-.',.,8b . kn. , i $, u . t - c.g'S 4 ", ev. . e
- .;. d. ,
L- , ,. ..a t,j
/[k' ,.i.$ ,8}
4 .l? l S 'l i!? ' Wel Q ,%
- 3' , E2Eil ;
v
., f .
y[E h'k k,yt , E N$,lj ! k, .f [1.M '.I M f' [* d}/p.
!.I9 pp q k,'itf- f f{ :- l--- . l DJ y. f
'g g-L
.g k + .
- 4. e ? .;; .i n > f. . .
g mensi e i E25lll4e' i- a - b
!E
(* %s : j M.! ! 5.'/ > .45h ' SW" E g,, l _.f4 .$11 g., p , .a,' :-i g
.i .
i .
'w U .,
lf' 4 E. i M Mb M '7pIWIfW W .. s P'b d .% . i
$ hh h hb N Nh stM agig -
j ,,
% = @mQu _
d em N N NhMNI s[MMMd 6, -
* .' .i
, IE <d ' '.' g. ' . . ;., y FIG B - 14 _
d' . . - Wh$',h'$5M
l t;j&. IIR5,gfhe5 M:M-f&3;yp $ . y. pay. hh a !. i .
- h. .,:.,j' N ) .
e% 4.wM
- r. >
V my vj;p
.a e:w n n, %. .;v;.&:. .i . r. J.a.q;;
, e, .b.:.s a
- ..:w.. t.'.a.
n H.. :e...nn.he p. oo v. 4 W .b e' v ~ 3
- ;*q 9Eh}om'c: ' ' :- -=- -ps St.3y,,. e ;
, 9,, y. >h . * ' t - -
,M.y c;.e k S,. Q u n.Q :, x x.ha.mS, n w p a-W,,$. r.e 4 n.:TP
+:.
- e
- 'e : j -
3M;@Lg W i
- d.*,,.
W M u.w ,g C- . q p., yy .g 2 ; ff,.j. . ;.; -
"q.M. y;4,a!"4.:(:p :H * - pt.r3 .HW$; $M, $q g 1 ,:,
H
.8
. ,r. id . . !:r.4 j .6 ;:
T.ge p.p,.:-
/ d.;.
. . c/ g .!:g, p yy:.<.g. ::.'l' .. . . ,
v.~j 'hg g- 3g wv, >. . O..___ 3 .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . -- --- -- w g- .. et
)N c. .:q:b
,e,,
' f*E "h%*I , .[h V , S : # :
[V r W W @@M 4d %j,;g @kf.., m -'-@{h k- s n,&$mu d w .! M M Win.-- d-+. $m:a,. 5 -m5$.[mv%. . n, g:qp g Q. %_. aw 1. , .n a..m
? M('di! I
?
h
-e v. E+ r.".3M ~
n$P%.m$ PW$ h h ... Yg;((,,' K , . c. .a .
- p. .
ry!v!W-@k@]y.hjL'y Q >A n.;.th
- [ . 4 -
.. d..F G
. . . i . ^ (., N.g f;..
h .mmuG.E.. - e- -ai. ,y or .*
*.%., .,.. dM5~p .
.j .: .
Ih,. f *rl [;fj'7 m ; '< '. 'Q. .; - W I IW,. w-,..Ei. " 7't.y l - 4 '.,.: . [jy * ;'y VJ g;q' gg M.@!. - - ($ m ..: $e 1,
' d.) f
gS;.:@' ty p*55'ei.p,-;;.?-jl@.Mf'q'".', p '.f .*4.%p:p.q.;9. J.. . Jq. + f,;g . . 9M f.%. \ i .
., .,'d,% 1,. ' g. ,, 1- ;t.~ b *.
s .- ..,
%4;g:.y. ;y/E,e' l.n
.- w [.
4 .ic.4,. .I ' .*.[, . -M'['N.v
,[J 'Y. ..,;c.e,: . s. , . . - --
*2E'2 ' EEEEEE ses imuq== -
.9l .;,
LL1,,g. A 7 if p.m . g we,.4 a . ,.,d. p 93d-2, 12 r.; , . . .. 1.:. .? - ";jw.,:;%q. 4
~%, F$&y . ' ,,
p.HW
.'r-~ t .. MT.::. .C:n!!'E 3%hkVfif Q.-
f N & Q;$.1 i t
$: $$a.:.thtQ d w M a w(!x]$m%g
,h.h' y @> 4w w n, n.pmg.ft. f.W@Ig G }d@ W h&d::iN:
i w. w wu
?)h!IP .
gas4 w~ r , w. .o
' uWJ L. .
A g .,s. w%:#M g.y.y.,, p. . . i n+-u: y, p. . q.n.n.n . . . < e,;.:n. 1 r, . T..
. J h-
.. , lv[ d ff 4.
*f
* @. . yl - . -
h'.s,Z m N'M.,}n"'I J l [~x.# k' %._. .y'aW;'
- 6
- - ].. > . u.ej d ,N'i z.e. ...r .'. u'[..f *, < - N,, y.. .. .
f e
- - - - ~..h..wM f..$s.yb[T.
iy
...5.- i.. .- e' S* , h ,n
( 9. ,,t.N.. m. W,1 ,,, .,.I hp.d.,--- *. j' '" 'D' I ' 1
'. t<r '*)'YN ',i I l
.z..' c3.r .c.
.i. .,#
A.- O, .e . g i epji,.
. .f.' OI . 25* felt p' .D.. ; .
.;//; .- L .] ' I t l'"*' D Y*#' '
h' e .$.. t . f b Ly h.Nd,h. khb. j' Lpm o,n.ss . a.: . . 8 ;. A. .;, +.: =.; w ,w.w, w + c . c. p t %y p.. :- 7~ M N. W4 k.. @g f Y c: f ..:., n .f 8ht4%" y p umM3 P. ' W3
'f iM
'3 % N Q,.) . .
., F[i'51 g ((g.g g h,.shn'M@*aM@-q *d;J g - Nd.g'Mu.eb,l.ap.it$,M:.3d - d% 3 s s h; .y ;, y 4 " h. .h.h,iI.p -,Dkhu[h- ,g N ,0 l -N -
)
%f '%$. s a,v w % m n) . Q ;i::wn 'f*
.l .bn:k,hlw,@
2I :. a
.7 f! } M.M.h
.u w.m@k, -
fg y$hs . nI g:t.N{.t@ 5 m.m +M d f.I
~ ~ ' Qy&.%2 T .: Q. - s h. p y{ $ h y& h l
e
%,-l w, ~.1m k?.g, fy.u;my:ag. n- ~,a~: wom k
. \
w%. e -
?
? % D y g g 4 Q :i t % N ! x @; rf . s j m M q y . P $. . e* ,%
E8ASCO 3ERVICES INCORPORATED
.,R ALEfAAi4/oa7: M 3 I sasar or tw 3.00 DATE /5/z3 '/M OFS NO. 3989. zoE **NO. SSO CMKO. .Y N- CLIENT Pen 0JECr 40ATERFJ/db 4 *) . -.
sues Cr SW
, i : -i
. t .
Pt yEb-EAcE A)4rQQc . 99aEG206AbtIEG , . RP i+M.F- 40DGl STRuc-TV M l i .
~
~4ib( FeWeUfec.V... _ '.". .6 susbiioAl.i .. . . . . .. ._.
_..7...
, ,7 ,
g, . , l+gR.I Z.DA)TA L., . . . .- J. 2 -
/4. 0') t+o2.Iz.oAJr4 L - -
>h .
- s '
VEETI CA-c _ . V .. w- . .. . 3 .
.l.7. l [ . . ,.
l-fC R-( Z . M A / ;- ' p - 7,( /% -
._ . . . . i. _ . . . . _
FeF 2>2.bsc4 v
/o. 22. as' . ..
t ..__. l e
' I i ,
,. .. . ..i. ..
(s, . . , .
..e. .
. . ., , , i.
i FIG B - 26 . ! j , , s
, t .> ;
e - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,, . .s e .
,, .:, '_[-
._.. . , ; l. i. j ..
'lll 5
g 45 g ~
. _ ,' .: !. , 3 _e u.
i8
.. ._. . _ _. _. !' I , . l. ll
, , l, .
l
.,!li'l:.!
gg l ._., . . . .
.. l . , .. i . ! .i l j .1.1
' l, j.;
,[.'_: 361.F Moost..
n
; [g~f' I l =j i :,
L .I .
.I g 3 u.! stsao
' i i: ...,
1._.'. ,asomacx et - J em
) -
- . 1. . , l i1 s
.; .: . . : +.
R .
, l ' '.
. i /l, I.
i !!i!:! , i..il .'.1.i ' 'ii - i . I M . j, . l. If1.!;,i 2 . i _jg : H['fe-- i',i;iI-h ,i.-i!';i'.:,i.,.ig
% . : i .
- il , j . i i
c, a a, i >
. i, r.a - r. :1 .s i .i Eo +.W'!
s
- r. l .
... w. . . . .
f .f .l.. ll .. . h
= =8-M -
a BB EAD M EaB aan anE 0am .. MW
.i ..--
e.m MB
~, . :.m aEU EnD GfB E . . fD ' ' l- 3
~m es e am ass suun muu em ass are sin a am i es. ~' s t ..n a g
'B B EB WB B EB
.55 HB Et ED EED 1 aEW as) g . .
m a sum an am --
am sem en asu, men I tes .e -r . ;-
.as. . an. -. - m m m
a me m. um em an aan son ao amm am m. m E ein _i i h
. men f
e)
.3 -
.; *I j
,a es en an am se sua an. m. ein m ein d i
3MD .q 3.
* . i
*m 80 SNb 8=' NB EB em M afD SW EB t i > I G ins E L.qf a 8 i
. .'.S. . e @S S S 9 (ik ..e. B @ de @ @ 8 .
I .1431 @ @@ 8 8 e .S e e 4 S S e @ , e.
-@-- 9 es e G e -@ @ @ & e @ @ e *,,$ -l I le- @ p o se e m e e e @ e e e - ~
,3 e @ 2 8 e s e @ @ e e e @ e 41!D .,,
e e e s e e e s e e sp e e s e n .ua.a. l (.5)7
. in & s e e e m s s ie_ te e s. e - .y g .10-_e e o s e e e- (p e ab @ e (!D @
- g .ag 1 i
e O 6 9 9e es @ diD e G e e e e, . : l '.4 e se ee e s e s e e e @ e H I l
. M e e se se e o e e e e e e .
18 A 8 9 9 e sb 8 9 9 9 9 .@ 9 9 ;, i , 4- e @ e e m e s @ <b e e e s @ s lg. - l w w m, = m w- or m. w d I M pl. m m
=a
=
m '.; _ ; m j ' '.u-sn.o I
,[ ,
.. _. ._ _ g .. .
.i . _;
Ii, ! .. . . . _. . .. . _ . .
.., p_ , . .
d lg - ett.ua s , i. , s . j . ... . .
. .,l_
l g . ..: l . .. _.. _ . .. _. t. .J q.. ... , i I
- i. i l
1 l
._:i .e. : i i i 5 : .i .
l p . . . g . l l j t t.a ee s
. 8 l
j! i p.. i
. . L.q . . __,. p.,,.
l j q .. .. .. .j. .. ._ j_ .. _ g...... ;.' . : ! .. 4. - (g y
; ,:i. . ;.i, ;4. ,..,
i j . !. g 1, --
--rii r r1 ; i m i l Tm;.
- J g
. FIG B - 28 -
i
.m...- . ,.-- ...+ , --,,..... .. - .- - ,...-e
~ - - -- ... .-. - .- - - ..-- - %- - - - - - - - - - - . .-- - ---- ^ - .
m w. m a w w ~. s . y. ,s.. , - wm y.y W0 - Q$r I *$ SHIELD BLOG. CONTAINMENT VESSEL eLass.is ,. stw.s
,), g u
EL172A
! I L
') 2 Ib 13 EL100.7 I E"
,) g
' Q 14 EL131A I j u EL133.0
,) 4 r REACTOR EL111.s g
') 5 INTERNAL
( 15 EL11eA AUXILIARY ('s FUEL HANDLING stigem , h u
. k to aUILDING C ELes.o ELeoA h 33
,) e
() Elate Cm y(,( ,L ,,, 37 t g 34 l l =.u . stess {;
.ut. ,
') 7 h st.sas c'"" 3 is g
g
- ({T a u t.o I,) s 5 EL4Ee (s,
su.4 (, aus.s (,s a u s.o ause is a as - h h h b8 sLiao
,) e h
sLass ()'W a < s 11 EL218 em at:1m g 3 8L88 h h h mLas
,, >10 I ,
st.4e (' stas g zum
= ('.
, L ,,,,,
tT2$ m "us al-110 , I I h l %3
\ sf' L,..._ y. n. .<.: < w. >:;a:::=
.*h 'i,5
,3 t... . . . -
,, s .v..w.v.2..v..u a.s..v.ss.v.: mr- .u ,-
=
I W A M 'f8 l ,. ! ". = %5 ,,,,,c,,,,, ) IAUIsmA POWER a L G17 CO'
- j. WATEUORD sm;r EtterRIc STATION 19771265 WW Is.';7AT.LATI0r . UNI? 3 Antsentar so. 2 (3/79)
'l*
, LOUl51ANA Figure .
POWER & LIGHT CD. MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR SEISMIC ANALYSl5
.y ,, a 5,, , (HORIZONTAL EXOTATIONS) 32-9 Elaetric Stetion FIG B - 31
f Dph . s
- / lg j!I fp 3
4 a w I 93 9S9 EI5EI5 3E g( s8 t530 e e 66,I,8 08 n 55i f M MCI5SI5 8 9 M M,M,8,8,M,< LI4LI1 5m98=5E 6 5s E0sM 59t 0,8 S6MS56 E8 e 9 9 8,9,M,609 6 g1 , 8 ,eL58e * : 66'
.ne3
) s' 9 9 9 ' 9 9 9 5 3 a' 1 I E 8 5 6 8'd' 9 8EC 9 5'E' IAM95 l
( g 8 998E5t a s A M=4N$Ne99m0s s 9(eM3Lt 5Ct9 999t5t 9t04
) - - ** * '
e 3 i** t E' E' l s't' s y n i II1e IIIE 861391tt1I 1 s e ttHtl1s oi tlLtl1tslln tll 6E1838oo8S lE393ggEE 1S s - Tm t E ue vt a S s - E ESSE sv a a s N 9*55,l 6 66uE9 1 1 e6 e 6Eis EEnt 9NIAtE 9 5ESOte EIic C ti a ' '
- C
- L
- es e
sa s . I'l i E's' t' E' ! s's' 1
- tr 1 t aa 8 s A- 3 1 sT 1
E ev ea v sme ( S a d vt
- S 8 3
it ve ee ) a s . n VYo 8 8 s a a l e a A 9 0 0 0e08e 9 e00 0 .8 60 0* 0 e00E l595 et94 00990w 05559 9069g s a - 0'm *
- it590 1*g* e' 0' 9' 9' 1' a' C' '
t e 3 e 6 littcC9 L a'c't 1' 9t50 5S54 159t9w 9e5c t ' ' ' *
- l'l'i t s' I E 5'E a
s 0'9' 0' e G808000800u 0000e08e00 e000000000 eS00000000t 0000s00000 5500e00000
,5 1354 a * * * *' '
- 08e8ee9 S000 e0000e e
s 9' B 8' 9 9' 0' k 9' 9' t i 1'1'I 0'E'0'0't e' 0' 00t0.g0 E955 t00516 e e 555555S55Su 500008S0 8 5EtEtgEEgE E5e9t999t9 0.e0.e0 0' 0 e' O' I610 tee 98E
- E' 3' 6'9 5'6' t' e',5' (0' n
o 5 S. E't't't't't'9 t't t'n' l t l'I l'1'I'l' 9 5 wlt.6e0s l t u'5'0' tl al59 950500 1009i u t l i g' g e 1'
- 15' t'9'a'e' g 1tc si i
a
- E aa mj t((Oe0e0e0e 5 (* 5( 5* 5* e.* e '5g00e0 6 3 n I'Etg3g3 E gEgg3 g 3 I g g n L & 1 I ,. gg m,.
aI t t t6 !S'EEt5E. s ItE11 1l,g tt0 ttgw igg 5$i lggEEc t s 3 _ n18 o8 s4 s tg(959&S6on s(9531s6o1 g t1331It1g3 3ugS,go 3 gE,gg 6 gig E gg EgCCgg C S9(o
~ * .-
l o S' e . p d s i a t s e
.e t e e .
g e e 3
+ S o
n g n . p l s g s t t e e e s i p y s s o a e ao o sn p i o y n e a. c s n t ey ay sg g n e o sy g e oe n en M% s s sc - g sg
"* T3 *t
*o @ g UM
% ee y% .m.,m.
*.* o
?;
s..', ? i WSES-FSAR. UNIT-3 TAsLE 3.7-4 INPUT B4TA-FDR SEISMIC ANALYSIS
- VERTICAL EXCITATIONS -
Cross-Secti al Weight Member Length- Floor Stiffeees Floor Nase Mese No. Aree (ft. (Else) (f t.) (k/ f t.) Point so. . l Shield' ' ! 8milding 1 802 7.010 27.73 l 2 1.423 . 4,959 21.7
- i 3 1.423 4,315 19.7 -
4 1,423 4.104 20.0 i 5 1.423 ' 1 4.446 25.0
- 6 1,423 ' 6,242 25.0 -
7 1.423 . 4.446 20.0
. 8 1.423 4.104 22.0" t i 9 1.423
- 5.301 19.0 10 1,423 2,822 18.0 -
{ 11 4.524 10.173 17.0 i Costelament T2:sel 12 195 j 354 21.5
- 13 259 '
376 22.0 14 426 376 22.0 15 575 , 668 22.0 16 832 . 1,735 22.0 ' 17 575 755 22.0 19 575 755 22.0 19 575 755 22.0 to 575 755 22.0
- 21 575 755 11.0 to ctor Building 22 1,250 1.295 7.3 1
- tarel Structures 23 1,250 2.167 7.0 .
24 2,111 . 7,973 11.0
; 25 2.111 5,682 12.0
- l 26 2,623 9.438 14.5 20.6 a 10 6 29
- 27 3,945 8,855 12.5 '
4w 28 3.353 . 7.802 7.0 -
- G Feel Esodling j Building 30 840 6.853 44.5
;g 31 2,957 10.240 24.5-32 2.441 25.010 20.0 1 3 33 2.408 33.67S 36.0 R30ttor Assitiery Building 34 232 428 15.5 i 35 338 1,029 15.5 i 36 1,191 il7,637 23.0 l 37 2.489 34,965- 25.0 32 4.247 49,093~
j 25.0 . 39 6.380 31.0
, 59 499 , f , , ....),-
J
. _ . _ m.~ e m _ .~ ... _ _ _ . _. . _ . -- m , _ _ . . ..... EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
, f 4// S( e l/ oar, 'lb sus 7 - or or 39 M. @2.=*;; 55 o (Shc,...J.0(>- oar, 8 /#/N
.2 CLitNT L o L.)
{ Pit. JECT \v}h T & W To E T> -W- 3 _ ,,7
- FiwEt:, 3A sE Ver.a.oEM ca E5 - S7 go cT 0 F2E E
- ' i : :
- . ; i- .
*....i . a.
t . H-CEI Zo NTA L STE0CTVIEE VEiET1Gk. br Move 2n Mops .
- S A Br! 7.fHz 16.24z
.lbnz . .
' t l
.t . . . - . . . . . . . . :- -
.. i .i.
s 0.V. - so saz : 5 9. m sss
.1 TNT.STE. @ W2 31 Rz: 4l11r_ [
( - (' ~~ Nidtr/DWG. 7M 0.h2 [ I2NZ . . ~
- 32EFi _ Rwl @ . , . b&E' tz.b3dFg 118886~
v2b 3%T3 fl.09.gG' _., . . . :. . Df P. U B ET ' 10%.87l .
', _ i, .. .
Do. P 4 a U f.:
+
.. . ll.11. 65'. . ..
_ -i . . . .
. II. 818T . -
Dol' s BT7 : i
- i. i.
- s
- r. .
I i I f
- i. . . . . .
- --- i-(...,. :
...t_. . ... .
. t i, ; .
-;- . I .i i t- FIG B - 35 4
! i
E8ASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
,,Mw.uMbil,, 8 hts' /W ,,,,,, ,,
Q e ... ,, 3. a) .m ?In /H ... 3')es 2. **:k sso z' au,,, Pf,.J,CT 400 W
,,,,,, ss rA -
nee ison - o / wra WH. B.
~.
$21b/0A0
- cANitt s v 2 K FLUSH N oDEL. .. .
g ,, nonse . g; E4. so.o
'. l
~
N - .
\D N -
- e ;
- _ . .. . . . . i.. k. . . . . . . . . .
f n.
- . I> . . . ..
(. v o y .. . O g' 4 . e @ w @ -_-. E4 z/,b y . . 9 .., y 4 .
= ..
1 ..
'3z < ,. .
5 ; O .et t o , I
. . _r_. .. . ; .
i .
.J.' . .. ; '
b. ( ~ 3G.S. .
, . L . 36. 6 : ' ..
p<.., . .. .
; i. , .
FIG B - 36 -
r---- --- -- - - - -
ESA5CO SERVICES INCORPORATED
., MuswaN r. al9/8f v O, N'p;.,
r CMIES. SY 3.00 D.T. y /1/ ltt' OPS " 39eP).202 ee's. %D 50 0 . c u ss.T 4ou
,,,,,,,, tdAtYdo//) JR
,,,, Sets ' sr#Uerus'd $76MAeb M)
- l
- i i
. i i ; i .
l: '
. _ . . .L._l
.. .___ ... ! . L._ __ . ... ' t_ . . . . ' _ _
; f48 i -: fabWAGE47-i hoDEl i ;
A0bE
. _ .. r _i. .$HAf._6;$ ..
...'.._'_l_.
l
)- .
I
. I 1 . . -
- i i
. . . _ .,1 . . . _ . ..I ,
I .. . . . i . 9
.. _!. !__ L ' .i . ',..
I
. f. _ _ .' . ..: (_ _i. - . . . .
- i .
. f .... . . .
*i , i l
[ g . g .
- f. . . t. . . . .
; .._2 g
; I N0DE. ..l i
r H obs: 2.! . ._.,._...!, p r 9.9'if. I . i
.. .,l . .i... .!. . ,_v. , : .li. . I l 0. .
. . i.
,. _ . . . i_ . ._ .
I l e l i .
~., p -_
__ .i. !.. . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . l o
, . .j o ,
. . i
_1 (, __ l . ! . . : . ! i i .. . s . . ; , ; j ; i
- r. . .
- q. .....!._.
l i
.v.
1
.. l. . . . .
l . . , _ l. . . .. ,._. ; . . , .. .' .
.. _. .i .. __
i .
'. -t - -
l . l i e 4 .
...8,..__ ;.
(,f . ..g.._. ; ._. i. , ,
, ; l
..g__......
_ . . . ._p._.._!_.,_. . .
.. . 3 ,
. i t . i :
...__.mn ,
. .u. ;.
4- , 747.._.
,i i , . _.
I._........_..
;_. . ._....L.....*!. .:_....... :
t
. .. . . L . ' . .. 1.. .
i '
; j
.. ._. _;. i t 2
. i . . ._. .. t.i_..
i i 4 i i
! _i. 4, _; . . [._ . j MonE 3 . o . , M. .O.DE.4 '. . ., . ,
Moos.f .
. .. .'th.../6,,9 f 2. . . . . . 1.1. #._ M..'e.l.3., I I . . . .
. - _ .
- i,H.. .el.la ..
_.r... _h....:. _ . 7. .
...[, ,,
_.} .... 4_ . l
. p. . . . _ 4 ___. ..,
. . ; . . y __ .. ,. . .. . .m _ ;_ . , .
- ......_i__..
.. . ) .... ,
- i
. ; t i
, _>. ;.l___.__.. .
.m _.
...;._...__.o.. . . . . . . .
,. - ___ -.!. s . -_;__ .! . !
_ _.i..._ . [._. i : !
- 4. . , .
- - .i . . .
.4.._.., .
, , , . i ,. ... ... . ..
._ q j ......_.t._.._. : I _ . ' _.
l _ j ..Li , _I _l_.. ' . .
.j _. !
, i
- .I :
..L . p . _ . .. _ _ _
_ _.l-~~ . ! t i
' l
_ __ j._ _ .., ,.g ...p_..___ _._. .. ... __ l . g , ._ .
..lp. . . .
. ._..l. . .. i- T -
i ..,_i __ -. I. i 1 i i i t i : __ 7! _.. : . s. . l _7_ - i [ e_g. . v . _ l. . ; ....t .. ; L _: _
; J. .. . ..;. y.___..,_. .
. __ p . .__ ; . _
. I .p, p, - = /hi __1 _ .i. s/_>__
l
- i. _.
I, rt 77777 ii
-- wi
. i : 1 , t
_..:. ..Jg. _. j.. 4 7.l . p _ I j... 9. _.. , __ Hi . i r FIe s - 41 i l . I l i i
.. .... , .u. .
,,m _ _ y , m. .m,y,-,----
EBA5CO SERVICES INCORPORATED g, orL Aassant ears or /eleS* ausst or
$gPg$ cuso,av 3.0 U sats II l11 {ti ersno .A09.261
**** me. SSD
. .s
( e t) ( cusuf
,,,,, a.M7'Ed./'s 480 45
, , , , seat 5 rnve.rviaE pir-gse4eryad
- ' i j
i - i e i t i . r 8 ! ! I i _i _ l ! _.. : a ._1 .
..i. . .I. .-p..,__.-... '_.
l t' . l f. . I___ wa .. s___! .! cA.,.Mr.st.avF( im. al I
, 4 i . . !_Alonas. . ;
,..r. . .
.. .. . .. . .i . 4 _. t._e .
. ..t. . .. . l . . ,: . .i . .. .i _.....
i
., i .
, i , ; i l l .
, . t...:_ .. ,. g ._;. i . _. . . . . . _q _ _ __ t 4 n .,.7_t. __., . l t ..
.. . N. .o b.E.. . _I .. ..r. l 1--- t-- j - Mope g. ! - ---
.
- r'r'l9 i
c') = 7.3 6 "
-'-! H '.'.. .
i. i .,
.... , , 3 . . : ._ _ ,
i . l i
..._,'... _t_.'. .
- e
, , . r .
- e
.,_.. . . . . ._2....... __.._,_.m . ._ .
< . . _ _ . . . p.
o
- t j .
i
- i :
,...,._i._ ! i
__.....: ._.I._._. _ . . _ . , r-ar--- -- - - 3 I t
. 6
- i 6 6
..- .. .. p _. ;.. .._'_.... . _
l
.i . . . . . . . . .
g
, . ;, . , e 7 . , . . ,_.. . .. . .< <
- i. ; . . l . . . . . ... ' . _ .
, e . ,.
m \ . .A-
, . . . . 1 . + . . . . . . . . . . . , _ .
e
- v. ._
3 i . . . . . _ . . _ , , . . .....i . g f i
. . .... ... . ._ _2_. . . . . . . . .
i - .
; i 4
3 5
. . _ . . . . - .. e
_. . [f/ /.. .I. , ._ ..
/4.[ g. .. ..... .
....7._. . .
- : . i
. . . . . - . . .,_...i .. . -
- . .2,. . .
i . i .; . A' .- i p ._ . . . . . , . .6 .
, s
_. . . . q p .. 4. .- ;. . .j. .
- .t . . . . , . .. . . . . . . ..
noe s . . .
. _. . m.oe 4. .
1
.. i
. wn g. .
* 'w
- e. M.I. M
, , o = n.uH
.,L . ..
5.
. ,. ., I g .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . - . ._ . j . . . .
.3
_., i_...i.. . . . .' . ,.. ! . . y._ . t i . 8
, ,i I I I ; ' j
__ s ' '
._....g.. ._ .
.4 . .. 1p . _ , :
.....n ....
. . s. .. ' .
- w-. ' .i
- I
. . . _$ I. .
I
- r 4 I g , s s.... ....._.L..,_
. . . . . .i p_.5._..... ....p._
_ ._ i e a j !, !. , ,
. . . . . . . . . . .. .. *.4 .. _ , g. .r.y m.. t l . _J . . . ;._ .6 . . L . ,i . . .! . . ._ l I
. . . .s.. l ~
.s I
.i
. l_77_/7)-
h . 10
' ' ' ~
f, . i'il .
- I-__, ,
I_ _ _ _ _ - l
1
~
l i EBASCO SERYlCES INCORPORATED ey 8/f/MfAMI says ll[Il[9S~ guggy ,, ospt. W cuno. or 3- #!!#I . 2.02,
- cars orsno we.
(" cuant M p ,,, A/ATExptWD W3
, , , , %t.- c rK:K.7(/Ri INr6kAc.T/CA/ -
WALL T M i cic N G s t s s
..i .;W4u. rmc@suiss On) i i '
7 .
. .;_ . .i -_...i__,._y l .i .
l - rl
, .!. . j. . _ .i . i
!- E G ! '/D3 .i _- M.d.. .! ! i.. . ., _ .'4el._..h, . p..+9.
4Z56/7/dp . 4 9 w l - s. . j
! l -
. . . l .. . _.. (.vd ; l .. 4. 0. ,4 his ) .. . ._ ._1
; , .,. t
,G 5')3._ sat _.
- 8 I '
l 3 . .
. s l la 2A 3s 4s i f)- % /us !la /2s irfrA L
..G - H: _J.a 3. 2.. i. _ /../_. /,
._4._.. 7_,__ .
l 7. 5.,.o.i. .. .
#. _ i .3.. . .. .. . Z.
/. _ . . .
. . _ , ' _d. . S /.. . . . . _' ._ ._. ... __., 2,2. 5 :
. i
.r x ..._7_... 3. . , . _ _3. _, . 3, . . . . &, _ _.. _ / 7_ .5_f.l._5_ 7. . _ . . 3 / . 2 5_. '_..
K ^ /_ .
- 7. 2. 2!.S i,5 _. ;._S, _. ; _/_J7.
.i 7
/,;S t. .i , 9_. If. ..
.L_ .. _ __ _ 4__.. 55...
M ._ 5 i ! !- ! ._ !
. 4. 5_ __ _5. . . , . /, 9,. o. .!_ i .
.W 4.5 A.5
' I
. .. M. .,'_ ~. .A. .N.S. .
I9, l . .
- 3. .,
_ .6. "_ ! J P),I.Q.;. . M +l. 9_.. . _.Q..
. .. S. _' .. 2.. . .
. . 2_. . 5. . .. 1.4. o ..... _.
n @..-Et.E.5 _ ..E . __i- l . . . . . .. .. . .L. _.6~ . _. . ;. /AO
, W,. m. .s.5_-T_i
. l. .5 ..5 . 3 5.- . ..: . . . .
3, f 5.~ . _. !g . / 7, o.... ..
- l. .~ g . . .. . 3. 5. . .. ..:. _. _ _... ,.
f+._._5_ .'.. . . 7... _3..
. . . . . _ . . _ _ . 7 5.._ ___.5_ - -. '_7. /. 0. .. ...
7.4.3. - u__i . . S. . .3.S . . .. , . . 3. ..; 5 _.I
. ..... _ . . .. .4_ . . . . . f. S__.. .S. .. ..._.._.
._ . Z. G . 5- .
- 3. 9. . .. . i 9 29.9 ..
i u f r 5._ _- W._u.f... 5. .. 3._.
. ... f. ... ..
l .Si.f.. __ . 5. ' . ..t. . .. v+3.25 - vt 5 4 -t. I 3.5 ! .//. 5 t. 4 . 5- ' .4/, o i .
- i ! t t i
- s. ,
l- - ' ~ - - r -~'- i - r-lt'. ! ; - 4. 0 - i e > ' .' '
' . t _ . + ._.__ . . p.. t
-( - /. o i k,5.. res:7. 0 i _ 2 /. 0 - ; '
. . s , i G .- - M . 4.s. 2, 2.. 2. II. I. l. S 4.5 26.5 A
T. . . . .
. 4.,.5 3. .
',. .. 4 _- .
A.l.5 . ..' tle. o ... ,
. r. . _. . ..: ;
- u. __ ...44... . ./, _lo.
. 3. _ .4_., i. i !
. _.3. _..p.15. o
-f,.4..-!..i i -I l t._ 4.5 . 4. 5 2_.
2.. i (o. I ~3..
-i .
- 4. T ._t. 2'4. S ' :
t ' _N_e ,7_.5.4
! . 5.. _.. .'5. . .t! . .
- i
'..!.. __ _,i._ . .S. ._. . .S. ____t_/.. 6 o.. _.:
MIT44t1(_. _ S. 3. i ;: ' ' 5, __f_. i
/ 6. O i_. .
! /o.O i
~
N__+1._9.. _Q__.__. . .. .f. ._ .. . . . . _ .
._3. .
- f. -
Q '- R + 5.5 l s. .._, l. l L . _.,,_.i
., .i ._ _ 5. . .. . _ . . .
! /o.o j
( @ g _ u s__;_. 5
. _ _ _ _ . _ .E.5 . .._ .
l
...'. I
- 3. 5.._ _..f_
.. _.___l. _ . _/ 7 0, . ! . . ..t, _ .
i
- 1. ,4.5. ,:..-Ti g_! .. . . .f, _._ _3 i,.$ .. ..
U
- i !
i 3l5 6 / 7. O. _e . ' i Y' .T. u_. _u.+. t._.f,_._ ._. . _3.i_. 6. . /. . < . .345 5 ,4o. O ; : _d_4 _ . , -
. 3J6 .
..... .! . 9, : 35 i 3 0. ,.0 :__._._
_qi,g.% -.V,W6.iW.ss 4. e_4. f.
. ! 3J 4 f
- 3 g. o i
. I : e i , i ; : 1iijii i.
i
~****' -
FIG B - 50
_----._m_..-m . u.. u.-a ----- m . m EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED I I
. = 4 A"W4// ears /t//7/ar* ,
@3g . .100 ,,,,/2/it/r ,,,,,, 3,s, . zea. oog SSo
( cusset UMfddh;W!O YO p a g,,
,,, ,,, soet <2rAxTWK /AirEA4C7hk)
- i i
.g i
. i - -
('i. (.rml =;
- 11
~4- 644. Nebtx US foe. tMiL S tau.keA>f" ree .b& Mint koristi . . .
i f
!.21#1'\;t&&'
t fl. Coedb. ' wirsaid%(ft) '&ss. (W SF) 22fAfAW75 ,
^ 2 2.9. S 48.5 s 5, 0 % 2.
I4f /4.5 l 1.45.F $9.5 t% 0%.t , /69 . - /7/ l L& I. 5 , ,
/4.0 I4., 9 45. 8 197_.- (99 ,
t 9 5. f . . L. .S S. * !. 10, ! '*l* ul . . . '2ii. ." 2. z.4 f' 5L's;S _' 26. 9 !.2.I,'+56.'L: 293 zSS . !
~
i
, ..i.5Y74 . . .Y #
. l / E. i+5. B 281. .zs5
.. a _ _ .5'Md .. ._ .../f. o ez,9+F8 .
so, E 5 </ .... i ~;.,.. $. _ . . ...:+_ .i.,f.e.,_f.. ..
.L./.0..b.'.
B,: 089.9 5.5. 9. - 3 4 l. .. 1
, 'l .a 4 ( 9. 6 l /0.0 . 8,.099.9 369 - 37[ -
k.. ., ... . . 1' N3 i . # 3 r .7 2.,9 ' 399 ,4hl -
. , . _ .-. lW .?. - .. b . l.h.?_ . IIti'S** E 4.$4 ~ ' A 5 l - ..:. .
$. .....SA0*? ..
.l A.O:0 . 3$~ib?4*b A 57 ~ 458 .
y S75,( _ _4300 i 2 f,149;7 ag9 - 490 ,
- d. ST2.it5 ' S t.0 25'967.4 9IS - S/4 :
..s'24 5 .. .. 9.f.0 , . . . se r c3 I,4. G . ,/ 4 4. i. / 4 (a .
2+57 S'S. O LS,lSI4.4 /72. - 174 2.lel. T ZS $ I 9, 202. t. Ace '20z
$ 4 5. 9 5./ o ZC' t C's 2 80. 4 22.6 - 230 5255 29.sf 2 5, G 4.L .9 294 - 259 p 357. f . / 9.,#,
#f ,370.8 f 284 - Zer.
,5j2 - 3,4 394.o 19.0 /ff :Wo. e ,
f 414.5 /4 0
- 11, 3 LF. 6 54 z' - 344
' 0 4 59,0 .. ../.4. ..
Is,329.B ' .s. t.2.. - s 7 4, u (9.l .5, ,', /7.9 .
/J f;752.6 !442 :- 404. !
524. ? ,.f7 0 _ t 3,! 712. 6 452.,--Q34 .
\ ,4 S40,5 s ir.f
- Li,+36'.t. '4 59 - 442. '.
D k 975.0 29.5 Z3,Gio5.i ' 49I;_:444
.. --e 1 592.lf .
4/. 0 i 35,/4 8 5' 5*ts .'S tB . .,. I
! l !. : i 6
.}
FIG B - 51 s s l
7 -- . , -
. '** , s . . . p , .,
* . j l
IDASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED i
,,it At/SSAUN4,,,, 9lI4l9f , , , , ,,
'k.
... p '
cmue. or .J. 00 oars 9hslof' ors see ss s s. s.*s ==*s. me. sss
!I '
cuset M e,,,aa, WATG<foAb _,,, . sstA : nasa noots rom. s.o. v.ao n er s. - a. ru s S.
- - i ; :. l l 1 i a j : , , : :
' - i. ! u l
...!_.I . .
..._..i i
p..;l...._.__t.... [.l !..._ i _ l ..
'g .
g , . 1 .; . . p .... >
, , e i a
,. , i .-
. , . .i.
; . , _ 7. .;., .
...a..
w-: 4 e,Ws I._.,.7'f.w.. ..s_u..a,w
, _r 444= ..- i
... . ' ! i . . w.
(*1_ . (. .
.. 4 :_ . ' ' . . !, '...-_....p. . _ . _ . . . ,'.
.: r;; =. . . 7 7 ' : . . ;_. ' . . . ,,_ .
I l I i l i ! i l - _ _.. . ' .. T.,. . . . L1-![L - (,)i i..._ ,i
- ! ..l z.'n....a.p.__
.h ek e..A.n_ o__i. ,anarid i If h $' . hp.. N..eulN. 4. .de.A/r.... 15 4t/Ad.E._ . . ' .
- ! j ' W $.s.L h.
BLl>(o. ; y IT-R. . . . .. i . . l , w .' 0 YTE R )IMEMS,0N ..._ 1
.,7 . ... . ..T a,as
- Ira. . c. .
). . 4 . : . . .. .
(E'
.s
+
.: TT* -} *') .R, ."74 V
. . . w . L.&:- foY. . . . .
,_ o $ 7 3 2., l .. ._
4:. i ff !_.
~
- i
. .. _t.... .: . ,. . .
t t
- d .(L-6)% .H):4 9, z r ieg1:
l-
.1..- . _ . . _
. .. i.
- i. ... . .
t . L. = .. '48, $ h l. *, ~18 5* -4= .L., lo b W $UCtK$sIVE L =. / 2 9, 5. 7. s , A PPao VI , MA TIC Al.f ,
. . .i.
.y. ..... . -.
,.t~._. ,
r .
, .. . . , . . ... . .. .r- t- - - - - -
e-
. . i i .
.cgrtu . . p. :_ e :
.. . .t
.+.. .....' . . , . . . .
. . t .
. ; e
...,...,. ,. '. .. .. r . ..... c. _ . .. . . L. 3
- J ....._ . ;. .
. . ' 2/ 9. 5'.1 _ ._ ~ . / Z. 9. s.
i 7_- . 6*. 6 4. j' . . . .. . . ._. ...i...
. ..=__
4@ i ' . i i -
. ;., . e . .. ; . . .i ,
.. . . -i ,
q... .
., I. .
i t
. v 5E _.L_ =, ./.2. 9. ,.(4 ..
i
........,..__i : -. . . . . . i. . i .,.......I .
.i _.' . . : .__
, , , . i .
.. .i ...
- 4. .__; I
- e. . . -
(..Y '
- 7. i 3. . .,. .I., =... ; I A9. (,.: _ _)!,4,4-//2.A
- t 0 __0., (g Q.__,_6.. . ! . ,
i I_ L :.. !_..I . ;._ i .l ;L . _ ' _ .
._!.._i_..:...j...l._.i..J...!...,!__'b' '
i ;
' 8 i .
'.._. ' . !. ss.. t.ryt.h.A/: , b. 7 ...I, %e. ou ',.o. s... :
_.'...-...'r a . f
..i...._,-...
e i
. i.
j
.~ -
rFan m - 54
y o
.. .- +
...e. . . r. . ,o 9 . *,. o
@ i ._l *
' I~ ;,. .s_
e _.t. . . ; .;. . * .. . _t *! ; -
'!?...'
4 3 ! .I f l 8 3 _: .. ! l . t y: i: - - }, - ~f +- ,j 1-g ., ;,.. p, . _.j.. 3 ._i.i j, g) J. g r o 4 L] i ~1l
=g*r-j; i .
q -r- - ,i-]:..._.]...... -t - - *-
- j. -
- g m t- .
- -, J ,
l
.l .
gg . _,._ ,
- 4. l. .p . . ), .. ...j. T y 1 'c
- L ! ,._
, j
' _ s a4 i I I~ ! II i .J 4 i. ". r.
,f '
i F
. . ... !_.j i e q 3. ... .
. l. .
. I ..g i .. .
_.g
,$ l .l_._. g -
M 4 'uj_ i
.a i1 1 i .
- i i q. - ' 1
~
i i- - = .w ' i ! 7 g 5 l 1- uis - I. El 1 1 5 ' if i
> i 4...[.. . . - g :
m i-r q ui re
. i a
.i. .t,, . . . .
4_ lH I i i i
!I m ' - * =
. _ -_:.. ., 8 i ! !!: l~ l '
- t. :.i!
- Li i ri
.I t
t
. '8 i
i . .
. :. s, : -
. .....i! __
- . . . . .t. _ i i i r e ,
i . ; i s i rs ev
- i. . _ ; ... . . . .. . _ . ..
- . w- v i
_ . . i
..i 4 6.e !.t _g.1L. ._.5 .., .
- : _ .t { :s 1 I I I '
l l i 3 Nf '- T'per J I h i
'i ' --
- M 'f .*!
- 1. .. 3I.) 1..r0't T-l I
- I -
i , i- '
, i i ! !'- > '=i i 81
.k. _.
' [g
._. . ~ .M.g4vir.fi 9
I l I
; y ,
l l . ..- 4
. H .p'.l-I .
g !.'"., .
. i. . .. .: 6
.'.'."..]-
!.d 3
] l l !
3 ~ [lW
~ . ' I f
T. - r ' _. - ] ";.-* " 3 i .t. I I , - ** i . . . . , i .: t
..i...'.,'... .. .
l
.+J. _3... I. . l ( l .l
'l .
1 1 l l r T... .
. : . l
!.. ;' ., .' l l } j l n ',
.-c '* *' .4 .
u . .. l ' s .
- l. '
. . . . _' sI _t. ..l l [. I g I , l
[ i ). 1 y- t '
, . i' Q.gj } '
.l . j. . ' . .:... .. . . g.. .
! j '
r {' . ' " g
. ' .r . ..
! [ s j -
.s .
1 ! . h , "
= l. -
..g.. . , . . . .mi t II 1 ,
I "I"
'INSI"
.t
. . .,. . ) . . e ,
i
.. !_.i... I I 6 1__i,l.. ,,1 T i s i i e i lald h'e ' ' ' . ' " .
. ;.i . i; i
( .[. .. .* g
... u ! ! 1 i nid v.9
. ..! _ y,.i. .. . . i .._7., i j .q _ j
.., ,.! _i. . ,,
, i i & ;
p T
. .u.k. e .*s .
g ' *
'b 8 i
's t y_
. , . i_ .. i .,., , . .;. .. l' . ,
4 . . J. ! i_ .,' . _. t <._ ;
.j .
.. . _ . .. .._. ... _ i],.
. .i . . Ae '
..i_.._,
. - ... ._!.,..,: _ , ~ i
> t. . _l._ s i s 3 7
... ..<_ i i.
v _J' i y j 4- ; a . l 4- . . 7, . - ._.I l . . . m t u .
. *_. L. - - - - .;
i g y= ) . 4 .- i: . . ... . .., . y . .-.
-q3 ,.
1 i I i
,, 1
- 4. l u
.I
=
I l '
. . . . J . . . . ......
I . .., .
.\ . G E ai I ' i M
1 { g _[ .f.. .,1 7,
.. ;. .l l, n ;g a
1
- ep . -
- y. , ... ..
a - !- - { -- g- - . .;.ir a: , yI *d--
, s i
u
.. _.' -t y. M. ; '
N i. s 4 I * ' l_ I 3 g J *d l l d e I i l 'I . - 9 . ~~-- .
... 9 ,
I I-i 1
.e FIG B - 72
,,'. N ____M____________--___-. *
. t .t.
.:. .m 4 f . . .i .:[ . .
. ,_: i . ; .l . .g.,
g : 8 ., i ; l ..
)Eq g
. l . . ,.
3 . g %. ..
< 3._
,.j.
j._>. .,.. .,. 7g..l. 3..l .. y.
- ._7_.2 g q: .. . . , . . . ,. :' . .
.: . .; . . . .l . .l .., ..:,.. :..., ..pr.: :..
..J ..! _ ;
. : i , ,.,...,.,...'i3.... 1 . . i, g.
.-l i. 7.,. s
. . ..e.. _._. .. . l.
g,.., :.. . , i . : ;
- .ii t. e
.p. a ,
, .il.
( .-
....p- __.
.7j; y[ ,
p,.l... .' _ . . .. j_ g____j_.l 3 , .o. . y,,
= .I _,. . ._ . ..
4 . . ;. , ,,._ :. . ., s r. . . ' _ .. '. 8 !. !.. ...'i... I i l i - I . . . T. ..: -
.e - . .j _. . . I. . .
I.t ... . ,i .i. !,. . I _ .i. _ . m g.i . . . . _ . . . . . 1 I i l .,
% ! i l
- . +
3
., f sl
_ g. . H._ ... _ . . . .
.,g.,,
fq
, : ._ j. . . . . . .
,. I g, g .. .:
g l :=l-i l
.l t. .l !
.. u.
98n a i . _ _. t. '. 8
. . ..I ..,
i I
.[..I.. %
I1
. .l _ 1 e .
te a m
.i .; !i.. 9 mo- , i i .
1..,. .r..u ..r_ t. _.rb 4t _u. . i . .
. : i u u. .
gj)
-p-.j i-l---l-4g-{ .m lf r j.
r ,7 ~.
- l >- .- ..
_T -; unc = o .r
> .m .
I
. _ .1.I%M v..*ls h.
. .O(ii % f. fVCCd i 01:
....;. g. - gg i
..y _ . .. gj,,,,,,,.
e .
., ...3... , ,
g l
- .. . . , _ . ;. ;_
- . .. .g .
,jgg .
4 ' % Ek
-"" ~ -
~
C88 .m. (@.c. -.; -;.. ..i."' ... . wf. N, w.? lQ,L :.Ml e g .,_ . . . . : :_ ', a , 1 i . " : 21 ' r. iWik --
. nm 0
l - s ed m m
. y . -- - - .- ,,- p+-l-" :Em
'M.
, g ; '
4 i .
- - '3'38 8
x
.'.I.U. . "~~i II.1..r.t m. .
a -
+a4= sm
.g l
- _q _.i ;
.i__ . . e_..3...
t
._ _ ; i ! a t .. . __l_,....t..
; ..! . . . .. ' . , i
,c
~ ,
g
, l . .:.._ /_.;.. _.i. L . ..
. .. !__'_,.l,.,. .
. .. j I... t. 'l .
- . 4 w
r l . _ i. i_: .. . .g . ,.. ....
. .. , .g .
i , .m i u. _ .i . ; i_j . _ _. f_. .,
;_. , i. a. w ..
7 9 y ...., g .,_ _.7_l._
- . . g _ L. . . .,,_. ,
iT_ 1 . .. . . . .. ._ ..
.. -g i .
. . _ . . .i _.
.y .
g.; ..._.. ..s._ 1.._q ,. l . ..l.j g 1 ' ' - a _ _ t. .
.i r. i.. i
.l .., _l g_ , . . . ,
) ., ,
_o .
- I t . i
. - - ' . p vs .
= 1 I i t_.[. ,..LTj~.;~'."I). :
.I.._ ;_.J. .!.:.j..
- ' . .i. . i. a...l_ ,. 2.[
$ 3
,,, m . e,,,; , , .
- s I 3 , _ L.j _}.q.. _..j . _ . y_: ..
.:.,,; ..p. .. _t.._. ,.f .I< . .L i .',
i_ ; .
% i
!i I l t s. . .il.;, . .;:!8
. u.q_ I_ .i
.. .. . .i. . ;
L, . r
!,1-
,l . .! ..i 4 * .-
'e tt
*ie iI ! ll
.-,$.,41 l, -I 8 il-j . ; r- 8
- l l l lt I 3 ._ :-
i . i ; ; '. - , t._r,- 5 c* .
. ~ . .': <_a
. > ; ' i i .
~l i . :._
!'!O.T _.j
'i 8 - '
-hW/ 7. ,h"j. ~ p i l, l
i ~ ~ TT , ,
~
, T'ili l; l r
l ; j 1- l l [_ ~j~l T - T- l j j ljl l, p FIG B - 78 l
- - . - - - . _ - - . - - r --
- g. -
. ; .. ~
n
- l. , g .. 8
.l.
wds .
.t
.)R ..:., -.,'- ..e! -
i
.j.: 3
! l
.l:_; I 1
, ; . g, g , , .
le7 r i ,( .-. } t..g ,. :.-
;l,a l~. i ,, ,
O" . j i . 1 i : +,
..; _ ..i. I. . L 1..,._l__.
~ . . . . _ .. .. , . .
., .,. . )g . ..
- .. .. ; i...
e i i . l *
.I.
e
.p
.,i .. ,'.G . .I s . , . 2 . i . ..a . , , . .a.a -
. c . . .g .
,j..
i i i . i.
- h. . .__
. .l.. ,!. .;.. .i . .It.!' .L i .
m . ; . . i. . _- .: .' ! L - 4 . 8 _ .- t 3s : ..
. L, . .i . . i . <
i ' a i . i 1 . . g g
! . ,' . ( .
- ' .,F., .,, .l.
i.
; _.4. . :. . l..; . ..i., _t..i..!..;. ..
. L:.
l _j_.' ._.Q.t._l.. . J__: .: .:. - t i . . t -
..;. . .._.! .. t. .l
,. . g i
l 5 j . . . . h _ r -_ i .i..l.. _ .f.. Q g
, .g. .;.
g sf vus.
. ; y l
s ....
. k n '
. s q .
-.I i i . i s .,_.m...
s .
- c. . :. . l, > .
g j' d ,' '
%s 3. $_ 5_ S: 4.. . .T.8....
g , . p,
.O F f $ t 2 8. 4 W e
O iP
-sm 1 ' . . , ,
.) .
.a
--. . f%s o g g i
1 Q . m> 1 0 ,w 8 m
.l S11 o i i s .
. i s e/ Tar .
li
$ .<R
..- s
, i .
.es
.iM1M g . i Tirt f.
g l g .'..- L a l, s k g s a
.rur
. - . . ......i.. c u -
< e a ,.%-
. ..i .,t _e;. . . . . a i . s i -
e s l gI e- i I t St*
. ..: . ..s i .
n s
.i"T831r"
..;.... : :. 9 A
g
.g]
. . _ -. ......,i...,...
..y ..
......e....... . . ,. .. . .
i . . ' : .:.. .: .
- . $. .. f g gQ i
.g .a . 1 i . . .
. m.
.........4s....... i_
. .....7....
. r_ ... . . .
g .,- ..
. .A..... . .. .. ..
i..a e
. __... . .s 4 ._.. . . . . . . . .
a
'g : .
i !: .
'T. i.is .
... ! _J ...i i
.g
.A ,_fl' .. ..j..l . J M...,t. .i I. ! ; 3 $
A.
. . . . . . . . . . t. . . . . ..
o *, * ,r . i 8 . 3 *
*W 85 ._.
. a 8 . 4 *8 s = . l _ '
._ _. a ,t
.. .; w. 1. . . . .
g
... . . . .l. . ;. . .. .. ..... ,..
d . . * ' e .
*B.;3 $
,,#?OQ~'~f A
h_,U.- ,g.g '.~_le., . . . . , . '. .q _ . :. . . . f;.** . ..i ... =i. l~ . -~ - . . . . . -:-., l g ,
, .fn\,%.*ig..
,y ,.
l
.,...3., . ._ : _ t-- -
! i .i 3 *'.~"I._y
.. t i. ..
4 ... s < ; . . 9 .l',.. ;.....g
- i. _ . t_.j,. e l' p.. .,. i. ..! ..,-,.,.ll I id .r .. . l t - p _9_ ,, r.,._ q- 8 i
..l..,., .,..:.a.. . ,
. . ... t._ _.t . g. . . . : : _ .; p_
_ J_.! :_.I.7 .i ..l
.. _ . ..: . .: . .Le..l . i i _L....
V ,- 4 te . y,i. g.. ..:. 2_ I . ; .. .- ..L.I, 3 i . i_ ,. a I. : I i 1._l- i i l l
. e.
1 i.ii i l 1 .l. ! ,; .; I;. 7.._T.__1.....i.i_.s,._li,I . 1 i i . l. ; T',t ' , l l l d . FIG B - 84
- __-_-____.--___m _ _ _ _ . _ . . - - - - _ -..--.. _ _ . _ _ -m_ _,--_m.._. . _ - .
e, _
-- ,~- . , , , , .,_-c , :,-~ ., ma mn , ,
b 5 6 v.
> u.
4 hj, 88 9 FAKE MODEL
> s 2 :s*,3
.m ,m ===
a OAtt" m-e. I. * ' ' 8 4. we **---- 883 t . r. 4.. J . - . use+s p .- . EL-41 e ,a II (- --- %3 ,
- 4. ss. 64--j
',: i r.
v
. *+1 El-nfo n e
'1 4.gg.,av
" O r s ta+ F59 El v s 61 21 IL1Rr. I 1
-- n .
84 4 see sip-
~y
(~C? t g
- I 35 r e iu. esp .
3 . E ,4 m 'N
- e.f 1
' E 17 (g 2ss.* ,
. de tsee sts n .
Ji:J,_e/ t
- st, en 3e Half SPArt
,gnuk twne.1 iJtipauT 5496 ef ta CT60 wsw(,
e 3 0 o e
,d 3 e I h h. j a
!t 38 E FIG B - 90
- w a
n, . . _ _ . . . . . _ . _ - __ _
- )
ESASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED l g
,7 MELMI ,,,, s/soIslo , , , ,
.,,,,, 5989. 4a 2. **g 5 Fo
. cun w J 00 .ars /b//ft l cuant 480 ware & urb *3
<ntA - isipo t- ? ourpor sunuga4 n>e. m e eua l sumanc,
; , l
; i S H Ai@;. 54)h) ~ HoptlZoESTA L.i. niorpo M , a(r g,! So L. .
4 0lL ; i RUhl A?UMEEk N OTIo si.: nonttZoArr44: G ave. Do? TcAlR n4rt of RUAl ~ nobel : Gr. Ant. E t- t t 3 . o '
'l s'so a,c e e! ' - s ea. o o/.r_e.96 ;-
Q
~
N$ ~ OC% - l8Y - JY& * - hk- **
' ~
l- jo et. +11. ro L41, gggo, - II- 17 - 17. n - 97.0 - 2000-
..a:.@
~i jg - 22 -17.. 70 -/h* 0 3 9 0 c), _ .
-H O. To -200 . 71o0, g 3. gg i9 - 290. -io- -3'0 *- ,
0 700 ,- Cy1;of'f FAEQUEA!CY (jpg) '.jg,y
>S P TA- NAY/NV6 AQ'#LE/6+770Al (fV)- .
i -
-L :. 0,:zY7f/-l . .
1
..r 3. 0 p q x o s j ,
'D./04L9b.
}
.. . -47, 0 (R*f(}_ ..
. . j
- 5o0,0 (3eb RM) l-.o.-t,,ze55' ,
. . * , ,o o , . . .
l =- ,c) qg 9
\
Mo/UldblZ.Ai70/V .-
*I0+L4 ' ,
{ . .
% To Kl . -
UAT1/AAl ffdfGUEA.Y't' l $, A k. .. - FIG B - 91 981/949 l
~~ ~ " ~ - ^
~- -
~~~~~.
EBASCO SERYlG5 (NCORPORATED au :37 cp
. W g MEs34M$l 8A?3 t/se'/84 oars Ibl N ere seo 000S* S*E' "$ 550 \
anno.er 0 OLE ' l cuant 400 l _ , , , aArneta4b *5 sauA,/ lA/PUT* / cu'r>UY COHMAgy fog Q4qgg , m ,,, 4GEA - i ! i.
- 4H A K E. D.W E ..!!40El7 OAPT4 L M o rao ^) , 6es 'Cott. -
. CAK :0(F ; FRCR.:; 20 V-NOTio A/: 4Of L :
EvM 4'ust' DER - , , D01' T D 3 3 t+osit.o AfrAG k ve i n4rt of RsM) \ . Ho kEL. : StADE .et -rn.o O/. 2.f. fM, neaureewi eL-3 s. I 2AYBR Akt ' Mf 0F MF7W , hM E6brus besf) -- p pp 5t..+/S. r0 -47. - 5 2 fro,'
// - /7 -#7. m ~ 97. Zee.
e-.,>.,)
--97. To -/E e.' 59
/@ - gg i
-/bo,
.25 -2.6 r> -Ztlo. S/ 00._ '
SF00; fep -
- 2 6 0,- To - 300 -
d UT- 0FF FAtEa0GNC Y (H2) 2 0. . -
> P rH- MAyiHun Axst.sx*r/ds/ (gy).
I ' --' 0.2.7979. ; - ;- -l
- f I3. 0 (GM96} .
3 '
-f- - .~47, 0 {f*hh -
- 0. /: 037/ ,
N l 9.Stovs.
- 5?o,0 (sek m)
' * '## # ;==
) MotN4blZAT'70N :0 *) g g g.
fat tor o.103II*, ' ' } , MWUL. fpfGQA%X g, $9 . J FIG B - 92 5 381/8-41
. . - . . - - _ ~ . - . - . . . _ _ . - - - _ _ . - _ , . . , - . . _ . . - . . . . . _ - _ _ - _ _ _ . . _ _ _
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
,7 MiMI ,,,, l/9bl8f*
enxo. w 0.00 ,,,, //3/M .,. 59 89. 4 0 2 _ **g: 550 e,
$d2 ' cusar _4 00
,,,a sJATMr%Ab *B sszA - INPv7 $ 007PUr % yHAg.y fc4 SN4cE R dkJ sumncs
' i : i i 4HAV-E. R bA? - Ho)2tioA/Mti At oT*t C AI o devE I/* 9~ SotL i
~! ! i f
- M oilOd: 40tG; RUd QuotEER.
O OP Scog_ Hoerzosith ,
$st X l. 5 D4rE of MN . .
i Ho BEL. : Gotact. Et + s3
.0/. Z8. %__ .. -
sscoeoeg . Ed.-Boo.o' , LAYEK MA-l - MM 0.F Pq[if - 4 p i + S M o b M- [ksf) h-l-/0 EL t 'h 70' - 47.. 4gcyg, I/ -/7 - 4 7. TO - 97. - 4 ZOO. hk) --
/6 - 2z. - <o)]. 7D - /60.- , 58 90. .
25- 2-6 -/ fop. TD ~~280 74 W < - 2 *) '
-Z6o, To -- 300. '
. I Z 7 90 '.
c ur- 0 Fo= Feeavenc't (s+z)-- /g, pe Pril- My/Hv+1. . AceptsuniorI (y) r ,
+ H3. 0 (&kitpe} -
-i 0. zel92- : - -
-47.0-[Yn*Yr) 0. Io4 z.9
!-. - She,0 (8db S4) [-0.4 98(o4
' ' ## # .= 0.4569
\ NotNdtl&.4770'LI rsit Tot 10429 NAr@tL Fieracterty' O. yy ' ,
i , seus4, FIG B-93
^
SV D Av3 an3gy g,
,,,,,a. oc) ,,,, 2+tn ,,,,,, y v e s. z oz u g. g g o cusar 400 paosser MANOM
,,,,,,, ss t 4 - con MNso4 of an $ r,w.ut ~mewemaa i > . . . . . . . .,: .
I '.. I
.'. i. ......3
- i i . t_ ..... :_ .L -
MI . [FAsEF FtEd. .Ah A.'S . j .. I.
.f_. _.
mizet.oarAt ,- arnou , ' (,,, ott, i . :._ t
. . j.. .J . _ _
j ..'. . i .
??EE FIEL b'. . H^*IM.4 A.cqELQA7biA ($-)
El.fvATI0A . FN.dG H S H A EF_ ~' I l ' i
. . , ;i
-; + 13. [6RADE.) pE"176.--'-
[ [< F4] -- ' i-- u ... 97.- Q b./04$ '. . h.. Q f. I . _.
~~500. - fWbhocK) -
- 0. 47, O b - - b. $4~13 l .
)
l _! . n (j._ _ ._m - . . . . . i
. 12FF; %pyeap
~ ~
__; a /.2 9.SG
. s I>oF lit.N.HR. .
. I2. 05, b'Y
. . No@tt0A)'rkt MOTo u tU, Cr W/. T So!L. *
. t FREE FIELb MA%:MOR: Ad6 ELE 44Tb/d #7! .
- " MON 4H A KE.
Ft.dSH
+ l3 ( RA b E. 0 2619 '
. 0. f 54(, l .
- 0. I OA's -- 0. 09 7(., -
'41. (*o
.I -no (seonotx) o. cec .
o.4407 ~
\
; i p.er: sep SN%p l
l O/. O8.Blo i
) p P' Gr.,o R'.
l bl.Z$.20-38 t /8-41 FIG B - 94 l l _____,--__._._....___-.._..~._..__._..___,..._____.__,4 ______._s____a_,____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED yy N II GATE SMEET
- OF
. , .f.
- OATE ! OF8 "O #
CMKO. SY CLIENT
, ,,,,, 44/ ATE e.FC8b D
~
susJECT
.g.
j ! . 6 a > , 4" W . l ;~ -
;- P i !
t- .
. t k ld x. 9-h; ':q di h!
4 i ; s & . .D en;
- y . Q- * = - -
g t- N: s'
'd E D. ' ,
~8'
~
T th Igg g 's.' N N $ .o 0 ' 11'*
- h.,4:
- s; V
- 2-
' 8- .
p . v -
- t ll! Q ..
Q P. 0. E . O ; o E'g. p. , . . .
'c N y N a
g,L- 1 a v
- t. -
p r *., N J
') )
t
+ ~ .
' s
, . m
- e
/
i . .
. t d *
$~
l
\ ,
\ %. -
. <- k
\
z %
\ *
! \ /
. . . . ;r. ./
L
}.
x . i./ l 1. .l .i ! -. : -
-d
. i .- , , ,
a s
. i _ ! . . t _. 9. . . . . .
! A., ,. ; . i. .
i s... . ..... ;
' ' . t
- i . 4 . ,
e s, 4 . a 5 . I L 3 , g2 9 o
- o' ,
.O l..... o. .. . '
M . NQ$
.I g
,g; ..' .
n o r; ; I
.v: m.
i l i s
- n. '
e
. Mm g; ;g g, I, I i
,r - g - ;, - , .
l . . 3 . . (Y0h.1VfB*lB FIG B - 95 . 841/941
EBASCO SERYlCES INCORPORATED er E llE5f # oars snaar or s, enne.er 7. O d ,,,,2/4 M6 ,,, ,, J W . 2 2- **fj, m - l 928 cuant MO
,,,,,,,,, WAreaMN *3 suesact W ^ (*P W A 0F WM l M# ' ?W f* '
\
f u ! 2s .
- u. % g, .
- k. ' k . '. i lo E s s t .l .4
" .I. it 4 x E, . A '
- g. h. : ,, .. .. .. [ _.
s.
. . . . - . . .. .: I . . .
t .
+
i1 -
.u _ .. L. . . . . . . . , . .. .
s (: i d g j . . . , .. . ..
' .; .!. . . . . 1. _{
{
. !. ... . . .' - ..) :
. . . ..Y.
\.
l ._ I . .. . g ... . . . . t
,,.s . y u .. _ . ,
uhp ' *
+ -
.. . .dl
\
- i~
~~'
~
.a e. l o
' ...:. .. . ; / .
. . . . _ . ... _g
/s . .
N's
/
i
-./
.d',
\ '
. ., . . . . . ._o o
- t ,
k
.e . 9
, t .
*. *~ . ..
$ e
. s' t '
g e e
% e b
o- ,
- o. p
. I n
&. e-d o
a N M g ". i f ; C4 ! *j..
-y
, i -. .
., .i
.i, I :
. i ,
l ')1/0/L V/1973 , t e
' 1 6
- FIG B - 96 90 t/0-01
gy_ _ _.f g. __ , . - . . . . _p. .
. _ g._. _...;.,. ,.
T"i 1, 3 e 4 .. . _ . _ . _
..,,,.4. . . . .
.j : !. . g ..I gg
{ _ _ - .. . . . .. _..
.._q _.g .. 8.. . .
, i. t . .
.: 7 ,
, 3 -_ _ _ . __..
. ..p .g ,. s ____c _.
._!..p.q_ ..._
.p l, lyy .. .. ._ ._ .. . . . .
_y . j 23 __.. - . _... ...
. . .y . .. .
. . .:.. .t _
4
^
. . .,l 2,4, _ . ._. . . . . ..
j .. . l. .; .. ._ . l -
.. l .
sgQ
. . .....y ..y y . _ . . .. ..._ g. ,
A .. ._ _. . . .. . . ..
.. . . .. e . .o N L _. _. ._ t e ' -
l, 'l A 7 --.
=
g ( p$'.*t ,, . . . . . _E' .. ._._ . .. ._ .. - l i E i 8 l.. . .j . - A .s. . . .
..4-pl
. .gg e
- 7. h.*$_ . _
l .. .I 3 q-. t .. . . .. . . _. ... g y .., ... .. ._. .
. _ g. .
___.,,g v. 4. ...p.. g..% p
; .q. .q _ __ r
. ,.{5.q__..
_y. ._ . . _ . _ !._1 6
. i_ , .. _. . . .. .- g ..l . .'
9' q . . _ - .
. .. . . . . l .. g . .
ii ! {w i
.l .
l1.l. . . . l , . t' .. y ..i ! ' .,!. i. .*
. . .. .. . ,. 1 i
_1._!. cr. , ; ; !I'. .5.. . i -
.%.. . i ,
I!La;t 1.$ i.' L,...'. .'. ...I'.'.
' . . . .i....i.'
IIq_ .
.)' , . . .s.._... i.\ .i '. ia; .
. . 1... .. .[. .ii
- i.:. ..i
.. .y ! ,..' .,- . i ;;
I
- ..;.7,_~. .5 .. .\. q:.. . , . . ,.,g
.- ,..i . .} . :._i g .l .. %._., .. 4.-
. .> . g . l
- .i g . . . , . . ,_ .
g .
.l.. j,_q.. ,'. .;j.. . . ... ; .. .t ... ' .
j i :. . . . . ..' t g i j - ;. . I i
. j.. . *.. . 's .
_.i. . . .: ..' . . . .- i i l .J l8....,1 .' . <
. s.. . *-)' . i I
! : i . ,l . . ,
,.i...... i . . l ;...... . . ,...j 3..
. ' . . L ,'. .. . :
. iit i.m i ;. f.
.)
. .{ .,._. 3.. p . , ..e ...,i
, , . ,- ..l.. . _ . .. . . . . , ,j, . g. ,.. .i .. 1 .!.,w I
- .. ..., . , . ; . L_ .... ; .. ;.t . : ; o. ;.. ;;. . . i, . ,
g..;.g... _.;..Q.1 I . 4.I...i i._ . :. .i . .i , _. . . , I ..i,_4.
- : .I . s ' 1 - ',. .---, i -li.i. s... iy; ..
(g..e
,y g _
__.... .. p...i...{ _... .g. . g..
.T'
.,.. i..I'..'..]..' _'- 'l..*...,.'
~
. l'-? i "' ~j j '...j. .I 3; . .
2 au
- '~'- > i. ~ n. ' -
j-",j*- -l - f
.9'r-- -
. .- ! . i / ' y r
_ g_; . . g __l,, _.'_ , .l., .... .'. 1i : l
- .j . i _> p I_ ,;.:j t
.;..i._i
,.g, J l . ) _.. .[ . .,r .. [. j ..
._ _ .__ _.l..,...
, g.j ..
8 _ j. . i... g _ . . . , , . . . ., j_.
. , .,. q . ._.
7._ . . . . _ ._ _ _g ; . , j. ., . . _ _ ._ g. 7.);.. . .
.... : _ _....e l
. l.7_ ..] . j
}_
.g /.l q . . q .
4 ,
.' ' ..:..,J. .U. J._ . ,), . }_.. _ !
i _Q._._.
._Q_.p. . . . . l .. ,.. . . .. J % rf
i
,g q _.,._p
.. p .i .. .i.. i i , .
.;_.[ ;_
=
q , _. ._ _ . . . 4 __ . _ .1.. r , ,i_ . , ,
.q.. , ._-_ ti -.. _ ...r--
a . . i_,..U
. .. 7. . . .
s ._, .. 4 __L ._ I
.1_. _ ...i_....._
h . ! ..L.. ... j _ _l_ _[.' 4 1 j.__3_lL._...
; % _ _.) .. _, _l_ a....
_.l4
..g
- q. :..j .
._L_,,'
j 3 a _ .. _ ... __. _.. - l 1 i
.T-p.
V, _._..r- - - -
-l - - - i<1 i
_ .__ ~ 4 _p. - -l. i1.j-- 1_. - _- r._- o, e .i i
.q _j_4.. ,
_ q i . ):. . p...__.p. . .g..,.__. .J . . _ n t w T t P i 9., ; r.ril b Ti
)
c i
' i w; I '
" ~
i l iI Tl'~~~l Ti --- (. ,I- i
~
e : ;j 1.38: , , , ,
, .w
_ ( c,w . L i t ___; h. .y l
.! . . 3 FIG B - 97 N & '
O ,
EBA5CO SERVICES INCORPORATED l
,,a4crs!At.#1,,,'/n/E ,,,,,, ,,
n enno.av J. Ou ,,,, t/3 / //f ,,,,, 3M, 281 **l& Wes cusur LO
, ,,,, kHITERF0PD $ 3 susJact i ' - - i TA B ut AT I0 ^l '
PF~ UATUR Al FRE*~lt}fAJCl2S : I- Gott *
- det L/H A) $
Oscecrtorf MATsMA L. o r= - solL. Ru^/ W.' H0 DEL resseuracy'[Hz) MoreoAl . . i., .
. Hoe.17.oUrAp /va/E- POP }CbHB. N EIN* f /. .
k- , Hoa rt.obAk. &* y,$ ObP V D Y-.R. 0,3900, Hor.tt.wr/lt (f.ex18 borcrN P y 0./.,3 4 8.
" ,t.
VERTICA L dr4m POP R d. 7.T"- M 6,7 , - - LIERTICAL 6AvFhDOP R C.VV A 6.5 3
-J V s e ru u t Gm x).7 . DoP zs4s A 6.29 It veernent Gma. vor uc.5 a y,/ coo,' ./.27 l -
D'E EC.TI ON gg , L gW 4, A AWM oF McTeod t.Al(EMS YE6 Q,0EAVY Q v
- - . - Horettaditsk (.1 h o p rc y g, g 0,Q '
Q - E
- Hon \*f0dTAG (rav, kl.S -. Do? SCOR.- 2.c) 0.59 l'
l 4" FOP ft.v5 H . I1GNS, DECCAlV0LullOh! 00/ld FVLL NOOCL RVN$ VSEb* FIG B - 98 Se t/84 9
i EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
,,E d m * * ' oava 8/2.W66 ,,,,, ,,
enno.av 00" oars #N[M ors wo_ 3W. to 2. 88;f Sfo
- cuant enoJac, wATE 2 FoR.b d.$
sueaacr *S*A ~ l"Y"*Ff Y"E Q "^'E' 'I S T* O Y ' S*- W *' V'-T"'EE'
. . t .
i -
. . ;. i
- rtrF 7, ,b o F t. 4 73 M r-OEF. F2200 m ey STukY ,
l. of.2.5.04 2, 90P 2 A S F i 40M PA Rt sob) 0F 2 PA ' S 1 '
*/ #D'00 j -
I I
.zRAIg) '_ z PA (Q popfgawg6 N. P. f*2M Twof: /. 0247 ) (A*W M'Dd'*9'0I IN '7e t) oz.oHy z) _ = /G. o W .4 //fo ,4 2 (,0 es.S
('I*L bbk ,2320) - '
,I2.00- - $,6 M(, ,/660 ./63 / f.9 338 .//8Z -
.//59 /9 84A t F 4005 L '
h =?00' y Gayg,, x IS F
)
I FIG B -113 Set /8-4I
______-___-__m.,... . i . .. l .
.g _II : e
= _,V. . .e . . .- .
% _7
_ g,,,j_. I M ..g,. } ~l, . . . . .. ,_ .._ .._ __
.._....q.n I
4 ;. TOTA 1.610ofELMttiM s E.O _- = .. ... lae .. l: . l .. " , . __ i a 1 m..I p , 1 -,v d._ - ---- -- -- -- - -
-l y-( * %; n i. 8 _I. -
g
** ' : _I__, .. 1- 4...' i l. ...!. ._ .._ _. . . . _ . . - - - . _ . - .... _l.. ., .
l C j DEPTH
- ELE ntATION Ad il * % 8 8HLI . , - * .g o@ M.. f.18 Sif . j.. )3, I }t .
l ls gl i[ I i l i e g g . n.D F t eat a-
' :-t* i i j -l
. l-na
, ,g [-l- ,.
I .! g p g = IN . g.f 1. l ..
. . *I'
,w _ _ ,. . d p.!. . _.1
. .a . .. i . :
g g q .. _ ., .. . ._ g .. 3 ,
- g. g.a . i . . .
g g. Q ..q...
._g
.y .
9._.
. .i .. . . .. .. , 4 133 i .
s.l.
+
_i . n. - Wc... 1 W _ u .. I . . e. . .i.. ,Ja i . i E'
- .i . i .~
. t i .' ' n t.n ' . .o l . . . . . . I I I -
.q ,i
- , . . . .j _ _ _ ._
is , . , i s q
.,g ,. 7 y: T ' - " l. ' ~
.w o :. - i .. i g
m i .
.l . . e m. . .
. ..r'. . . .L.i,...
.g
,, ., ..j u O, 4. ,., w . l.
4 .. r- -- --' ' ' - - 3--+- ++'--'-8-- ,--- - 'l d- i-t n' FI.410 Af. ,htli 8 - 4e f _g
..L.i.
.' . . . .. l. r7_.
._ l . -
3 i* 18 LL Q_,. c . l ..l..I I If j
' /jg '
g
- y. i
.i
. , .g . y ,,.. .s.,
y ,g.., . ; .. . t . 4 7..._ g , _p . . . .
., ...._ .., g .; 3 ; i. ; .,
. . e 8. q ,
. .i
'n * . , G . ,.I.
n,<= st.n.n . I - l I ._; . f . h.$. . ', _ . ..{ . l
. j .. _ . .,
l 'c [
, _ _ . . . ___. ...'. !u :... 4 . ,l .!,.j. ! . ;. .
- 1. j . j.
...t . .e
.., ,-Q ,
. ....; ..-... . . . , . . l g . 7 . . . . ..
' 'N'
.3 p.... .
s
.. e . . . ... ......j.
..4.- . . . . . .
$ +%, .! 2,, e!. l i . 1 -, . -l-
-.. A . .. .. . .i . . ..
. ' .A
,. ...e. g.. p.
,. i 1 . . . . , .
g... .. . . . .
,.. .. 3 .. ; @. . . . _,._ j. ..; .
g ..;., ,-
.. - . . , -..,._s..... . . , . .
., ) . ..
_., 3 .
._l +
!..'.., l.......! .- ..
l . . . .,.i._ ..2 .[ . , _r_.
,u n_,...
- g. ; , .q. .
g.. ,
.j ..; p . .i..,
4 ..j I .j. .;_ _.j g.I g _.Y.
.l ; ; l @ l . j .! ..I . e e t
,8'. .t,g..
.I...-
m . .-
, KL. -500.01 4r3 ,
.l I
_ t .__1 ...i... ._e.._t... . t- . . ,i .. i ,t .,t., n. . { w( . .
-
- i' . . . . .I .i ,
'e i 7
.. . p.. ,l. . l ... . . . . .
U. ., .,. ,,e3l . l.
, ,. sn.i ...m.
.l... . .i. .. ; i ._ {p..7..;.
i > - - -
+. .
.i.._4. . .asi .... . .
i i ! i I.) .. . ' 3. .i. i . ,.g, c- . .. , . i g 8
, i . . .' i i , .; ,
=
,7 . .j _ , , 3..
?. ' .,
. h-- 7. .,.4..N)3_. 5. .
3--
!.n}s i _
,, t ;-- j , r T- ,.-.--
. tg - . . . . . . __.: r. 7 '
L .;_. _,. . j
. .. . _ _ . . _ .. l . . _,.4 . i., - . . ,
t m,. rt.aon o , . .:_.4_4. 7.. '
- I 6 I[j l l ,.
2 i el..i...t . ,, .l.i.... , ,
. !. ._,i.. :
. j i
- 1. . l .I ._. . . _1 .
,n . - _ _ . ._ ...
l
;3 4
- : -F r..,,~Ia.--li li l
j- a s , , ; ; t
. .. .. - I - r '_ ,; .;.. .
g g , ; , .. . q. _ ;. . .. q . _ ... .. , I
. .t .. _
~~!-"j'!"T -' -( 1l
, i . i I t i I : I
~'-
, j tll l 'i , l l l ; F
[ e
# ., I, l i l i . Ill ! l I i !I Il I l~l. . iiii i .;....,. 9 _'.. .4 is FIG B -117 e -
s, .
i . . ,. l.. .j. .[ ., .i.l g ., . _.... .. .. . _. . . _ _ . . . g , gy q 3 t ___ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . . _ . . . . .
- p. y
. l. . p. .! .j...,.g. .._ .~..
i
,: s li e g l' ,, . . . . ...
vor u. m. er um,. l .1. ! ... . , . . _ .. ! l a: -
, t r,P i
_..,__...0...1.**._' ..,
.. A, ,, .
w -, - . .p,e. r< _ _ . . . .. .j. . i . . ... ..i _. . _ . .o . ...
- _ a i_ _ .
2.; .- n .j
- i. .
! . ;i . i l.... l...
. ! C _ ... .. l . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . ... _ .l . . L . .
._, . L .. . L _ .?
. !..l bar W n!!
2
. =, s e _
hinaned .w. m w _e .irwn. M.a_sf.!.j.
.. __ ._ __. 1._. i l U h9 i iI I ! ! l en . s
'E L8 + ih ed J l h is -l. . _j,. .... _ '
.j. .t' i @ !! i I. -
.i i g
.N i
.L _. 8 .L ; _.g...
a
. ..l ..
.L t
. . 3. Ji l . t ,._
.f...! .
t s l, . gj
!..Li L.}_.t l..L M.2. -
_ g q .s, Q_,, '- -
- : ii
.l.l.. . . . .. . l l ql . . ,. $l.. "l..
- t. ..[.g i__ _.__ :_ J.. : ,
. ..c t _... .! . . .. . .1. l. l .L d...! . . 4. . j L l. i l
- : iha' ut 41g . .&. ! I l 8 i . SI .' .
'I I l 1 . .
I
'..l., u.v. w m. e -
l . i ..- ' - i 1
. .1 s@L,,/ . 4 i a. % g
. _. . ._. _.i ...t_l_t ,_.
. p.}}