ML20235E493
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.., NATHAN M. NEWMARK CONGULT!NG ENGINCCRING GERVICEC i114 CIVIL ENGINEERING DUILDING } URDANA. (LLINOIS 61801 16 July 1971 R.'"' Fi.'s Cy. r:::1 ;'
- av. 7--M~ 7/
DRAFT SUPPLEMEi!TAL REPORT TO AEC REGULATORY STAFF Oil FOUt! CAT 1011 EVALVATIO;I WILLI AM H. ZIMMER ilVCLEAR POWER STATION ClllCINi!ATI GAS Af!D ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL. 1 AEC Docket Nos. 50-353 and 50-359 ) by
- 11. M. llennark W. J. Hall A. J. Hendron, J r.
B. Moh raz l l 16 July 1971 8709280136 870921 PDR FOIA MENZ87-111 PDR
1 l DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO AEC REGULATORY STAFF O!4 FOUNDATIOH EVALVATlON WILLIA 4 H. ZIMMER llVCLEAR POWER STATION CINCIN!!ATI GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPN 4Y, ET AL. AEC Docke t Nos. 50-358 and 50-359 In our 4 May 1971 draf t report on the Willian H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, we presented. our evaluation concerning the plant foundations and listed . a number of i tems for which addi tional information was needed before we could carplete our report. On 23 June we received a request f rom AEC Regul atory Staf f to look in more detail into the foundation conditions for the plant, especially in the light of material presented in Supplement 12, and to report back on our stufies. vie we,c asked to look specifically at (a) the river bank s tability, (b) the pile-supported pipciinn, and (c) the possibility of liquefied material c;t ~ ng aga~nst Ci ccs I s t ruc to res. As a background to the material which follows, it secas desi rable to recast some of tSc matarial presented in our report of 4 May 1971. It is our understanding that the seisra.ic hazard for which the plant is designed is a Design 4 -Basis Earthquake characterized by a maximun horizontal ground acceleration of 0.20g o 4 and an Operating Basis Ecrthquake of 0.10g. The vertical acceleration is taken as- .2/3 of the horizontal value. The icwer seismic values at bedrock, as presented in the PSAR, namely 0.139 and 0.065, appear of little significance insof ar as 9 des
- gn is concerned.
In view of the foundation condi tions that exist, and the can.pr in t.hich the critical structures and i tems are proposed to be supported, we see no way of rationally justifying an acceleration gradient between bedrock and ground surf ace. hen the overSurden layer is so shallow.
.m g 2 1 On page 3 of our 4 May 1971 report, we noted one major. Item which re eined unresolved, and which still remains to be resolved, nonely the need for add : tlonal Information concerning.the liquefaction. analysis which is documented in the PSAR. We 'noted Ia our report that we were in agreement wi th ' the water level us d for the liquefaction -analysis, namely Elevation 508; but, we.shall have more te say later in this supplement about the water levels that are applicabla for the. analyses. Also, in evaluating the analyses presented in the PSAR we have. no way .of 1.nowing what densities of sand were 'used, and the conclusions presented do not ine'icete whether the analyses are for tha natural soil profile or for compacted soil surrounding the reactor plant facility. These points still remain to be cl a ri fied. Also, we noted in our report that although the service water pumphouse ar.cngement, according to informal sketches with which we were provided, appear ca:is fcctory, we wanted more information cbout the material placed behind the sheet pir e bulkhead, the pressures for which the sheet pile bulkhead was designed, and otr.,r f ac tors.,hich af fect i ts suitability and stability. Further comments on this portion of t'1c design are included in this supplement. At the time our report was written the design configuration for the water condu i ts from the reactor building to the pumphouse had not been finalized; we nc:ad that further details were needed there us well, and further comments on this j matter are noted later. Comments also were raised in our report on page 4 about the stability of tha river bank, and the analytical proccdures that were used and assumptions associated therewith for carrying out the analysis generally described by the ap-licant. Soma additional information on this point has been presented in /mndmant 12, and wa present additional coments on this matter later herein. )
t 3' 4 l t, Our. coments and. unde rstanding of the situation are reflected in the i ' discussion that follous. Retttor Build na and Other Clan l' Facili ty S tructures On the basis of.the information presented in the PSAR, it appears that the foundaticn design approach contemplated is as follows. From an analys t s of the toll boring data, and possibly from the liquef a: tion analyses and other analyses for the reactor building ar.d other Class I structures in the pl ant yard, i t was dec: dad to excavate to Elevation 450, and in the. case of the reactor building to plate engineered fill up to Elevation 462 or 468, the elevat'en at which the reactor bui'tding mat is founded. Other buildings are founded at othar levels, and placed on :.ngineered backfill above Elevation 450. The details of the liquef action analysis for the Il.mcr plant were presented originally in a portion of /cendment i to the PSAF. The details were con:ained in dection 2.5.4.4.'s.2, doil Liquefaction Anal ysis", to sargent & Lundy ALC: Report ido; 43 dated il September 1970. On the basis of the infcnnation p r a _ c r. '... :.1 m ; r g: : r t, e.: cu rM ud th t the cnet y3i s.cd bo:n reade (from study of the shear stresses) for an acceleration of about 3.1 9 at :cdrock rising to alcut 0.2. at the ground surface. The discussion given in the afcreacntioned report ind:cated that tha analysis had been made for both a modified A-1 spectral input cotion and for a Taf t Earthquake input motion, with 10 parcet critical damping. The ' numbers which we used in our evaluation at the tim: were those corresponding - to the Taf t motions since it was indicated in the report that these gave the prestest shearing stress values. Subsequently, in the modified PSAR, beginning with Amendmant 5 and /ce-dment 11, the discussion on evaluation of liquef action potential now begins in Section 2.5.4.4.3.1 on page 2.5-88 and continues thereaf ter. A number of the figeres contained in the PSAR at the present time, which hace been modi ficd through
I t 4 a,endments, appear similar to.the figures that were contained in tSc original repo r t. q l However, the current PSAR reflects a recalculation effort, as evidenced 1 by the changos in the resul ts reported in the figures. In referring to the 11 September 1970 original Sargent & Lundy report (Amendment 1), it is noted that a j - c damping value of 10 percent of critical was used in the calculation. In the ) l codi fied version ( Amendment 5), it is noted that a damping value of 20 percent of cri tical was used. This explains in part the decrease in shear stress values with depth that is evident in the latest results; however, no Justification is given in the Sargent & Lundy report as to the basis for the damping values employed, whatever tS2y may be. Speci fically, why was 10 percent fel t suitable initially and there-cf::.r changed to 20 percent? In examining the data contained in Figs. 2.5-34 through 2.S-51 (Amandment 5), as compared to the original data in Figs. 11-17 (iimundnsnt l } of Sargent & Lur d) A&CD Faport Mo. 43, i t appears that the computed shtar stress values as a a r. : ;1 c r ci depth are less for the higher seismic ha:ard reported in the currant PSAR than they were la the original ra po r t. The presentation is confusing because i t is our understanding f rom the statement given in the text of the Sargent & Lundy report that the Taf t time-history record scaled to 10 percent of gravity was used originally for input at bedrock, whereas in the latest wri te-up a Taf t time-history record scaled to 0.139 maximum ground acceleration was used at rock level. This observation is at variance with the statement given in paragraph "f" on page 2.5-89 (Ar.endment 5) wherein it is noted that the base motion was adjusted so that the accoloration spectra produced by the model would be compatible with acceleration spsctra specified for the Design Basis Earthquake (Fig. 2.S-23). Figure 2.S-23 of the present FSAR consists of spectra for a Design Besis Earthquake characterized by a maximum horizontal ground acceleration of 0.20. 9
4 These points are Illustrated more clearly in Fio. I attached, wherein the shear stress values from Figs. 11 through 17 of Sargent & Lundy Report ASCD lio. 43 (4:endmant 1) and f rom Figs. 2.5-34 through 2.5-51 ( Amendment 5) are p; o t ted. 51so shown are straight line estimates of the paak shear stress vclues developed under conditions of constant uniform acceleration of 0.109 and 0.20. 3 It is Interesting to note thct in the original calculations for 0.10g bcsc rock accalarction the nacr surface shear strer,s values correspor.ded approximately to l 0.20g acc21eration, in the latest set of calcul ated values, corresponding to a input (presumably 0.13 ), the near-surf ace deceleration higher bedrock base 9 cc rrespe,ds to cbout 0.149 acceleration, which is less than above, and which corresponds to a lo.ier acceleration design basis. In both cases a grcdient in a celeration f rr,m the rock to ground surf ace is clearly evident. But,,more irsartantly, at depth and at those depths corresponding to the levels of the fcurdatiens for Clas: i s t ru c tu ra., ths. cax
- rum chcar s t. css s cl aus are less in bo th cases than the 0.29 acceleration bound, which would serve as a guide; but e. en no re, tS : laMst rat of vel ms (0.29 00E design) se xs to bc near or belo..
the 0.1 9 line at mos t elevations showa. At this point we reiterate that, wi th regard to Fig. 2.5-51, which is taa FSAR summary figure concerning liquef action potential, and with regard to the analysis given, it is not clear as to what densitics were used at the various depths, and we still have no indication of whether the res.orked analysis is for the natural soil profile, for the compacted soil surrounding the reactor facility, or for a composite situation involving sevnrai types of soil. flo ccove r, the senmary data presented in Fig. 2.5-51 would indicate thct the s tress requi red for liquef act ion at all depths is greater than th3 developed stress. This would indicate that there is a margin of safety against liquefaction at all depths, which is at variance with other statements in the PSAR as noted next.
c 3 j s i l l l i 1 When one' refers to Amendment 12, and specifically Figs. 2.5-52 and i 2.5-53 and the discussion that accomp'anies them on page 2.5-91 et seq., it is inficated that liquefaction is assumed to occur down to Elevation 450. This is at variance with the information cited in Fig. 2.5-51, where no liquefaction pc t e n ti al is' indicated. I t is stated also that below Elevation 450 an acceptable margin of safety exists; the. basis for this statement is' not evident in view of th: points made above. I t is our understanding, f rom the information presented in Amendment 12, that the liquef action analysis was mcde for a water level at Elevation 508.6 which is close to. the value of Elevation 510 that was noted as having been used previously. ' Th i s _wate r l evel l's also noted to correspond to a 200-year flood. Obviously this uater level would lead to the most serious situation with regard to the possibilities of liquefaction. There is some question as to whether it is a reasonable casumptica to consider the probability of a 200-year flood wi th the occurrence of the DBE. Fr:a infonnation presented in Section 2.4.5.3.1 (A'aendment 2) on floods and flood s :1.. durations, it is conceivable that th: Mcod stage ce;1d exist for several dc s to a week or tuo, or even longer. Whether flooding corresponds to " bank full", or overrun at higher elevations is not clear. In any event, it appears desirable te examine the liquef action resul ts for water at Elevations of 510 or 508, and Ic.ccr, as may be appropriate. ~ By drawdown in the immediate vicinity of the plant, especially if a ci sy blanket were used around the foundation as described later, it is probable tE st the water level could be kept at Elevation 480 or thercebouts, even in the cc:e of a short-term flooding at Elevation 510. It is con:civable that the water la'ect-could be pulled down to an even lower level (bclo.v Elevation 480) wi th a l cl ay cutof f blcnket located around' the engineered fill under the Class I structures a,.0 by pumping. Additional lowering of the water table would reduce the pore .2
7 L I pressures and the tendency for liquefaction. At least this is a possibility that deserves consideration. And, from information preser.ted in the PSAR, we gather that the water leval in the plant area may be around Elevation 460'for a good portion of the year. Examination of the material in the PSAR indicates that the materials itinediately below Elevation 453, and lying underneath the engineered fill on v.hich the reactor building is proposed to rest, have a relative density between 60 and 70 percent according to the Gibbs & Hol tz cri teria (See Fig. 2.5-9). Crude analysis of the potential for liquefaction at or below Elevation 450 for ~ a 0.29 ODE, as summarized en Cal cul ation Sheet I and empicying Fig. 2 (both at tached), indicates that wi th the wate r level at Elevatica 510 the safety factor a;ninst l iquef a: tion is abou t 0.85 to 1.00. For the same lateral seismic force and ul th tha water level pulled down to about Elevation 452, the safety factor c;c!n:t 1!quefaction is cbout 1.2 to 1.0. In the case where the rea: tor building facility is considered in the trad!n, an c! t h e f er "' 3 t i c, t r 'i i n g > 3 ro distribu t;d under the base of the fill, ever an area of about 87 f t. in radius, and with the water level at both Elevations 510 and 480, the fcctors of safety against liquefaction can be shown to be essentially the same as those given in cases I and 2 on Calculation Sheet 1. Reference to a recent report
- by H. Bol ton Seed and I. M.
- Idriss, c,d specifically Fig. 9 cntitled " Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential for Fine Sand - 10 Stress Cycles" (which is appended as Fig. 3 to this report), indicates that for a 0.29 maximum ground surface acceleration for fi.mc sands, and subjected to abou t 10 stress cycl es, the relative densi ty necessary f'or a factor of safety of 1 is about 60 percent if the depth of the water tablc is 10 f t. below the ground surf ace, as considered in our casc.
This resul t is in agreemant with
- Seed, H. B. and I. M. Idriss, "A simpl i fied Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquef action", Report flo. CERC 70-9, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, November 1970.
s- [ g. r u. our evaluation. 4 Local-Stability of Soil An analysis has been made of the local stability of the Class I str :tures which are founded upon the structural compacted fill' as shown schematically in Fig. 2.5-52 submitted wi th Amendment 12. The situation. analyzed and-shown in 'this figure assumes that the soils surrounding the Class I structures l cor:lately liquefy f rom the surf ace down to Elevation 450. As shown in the appended copy of Fig. 2.5-52 (our Fig. 4 with notation added by us), a primary cor:ern is the stability of a wedge, like wadge ABC, which supports the weight of :Sc building, since the building is reatly sitting on the edge of a slope of -cur: acted material which has not liquefied. The forces acting are the following: Tis vertical weight of the building, the weight of the wedge ABC, and a fluid
- p. ussure acting on surf ace BC (which is the fluid pressure consistent wi th the ta,t uni t weight of tiic liquefied soil of 123 lb. per cu. f t.) distributed h/c roctatically a!ong the lina SC according to the height below the -ground surf ace.
Ar:;her fccce which nuat be censidered as a disturb:n2 force is the pore pressure act'ng along the line AC within tha s tru:tural fill. When liquefaction is in ' t iated in ' the mate rial s su rrounding the s tructura-1 fill, pore pressures along tha line AC are consistent wi th the height of the static water table as shown in ' ht figure, and a uni t we i gh t o f wate r of 62.4 l b. pe r cu. ft. An analysis of the si tuation depicted in Fig. 2.5-52 is given in Ca::ulation Shcots 2 through 5. All of the forces are defined on these sheets as wall as the basac for the calcul ations. For the radwaste building, and the i.ed;; supporting the entire building foundation, N, the coefficient of dynamic rocistance, is 0.55. The coef ficient of dynaaic resistance is a measure of the acceleration, as a percentage of gravity, which is necessary to start the block j i to r.ove. If the N value is larger than tha ground acceleration, which in this l l l 3
-l 9 case is;0.2, the block will not displace at all for the forces indicated. If N is.f ess than the maximum design acceleration, this does not necessarily maan that the' aedge f ail s, bu t that i t roves a fi n i te anoun t ; the mnvement can be estimated l - fror. the procedures given by !J. M. Newmark in 1965 in 'his fif th Rankine lecture, on the Ef fects of Earthquake on Dams and Embanivacnts. A similar analysis for the reactor building is contained in Calculation She :: ts 5 th rough 6. For tha case of a wedge supporting the entire foundation of - the reactor building and wi th a pore pressure consistent wi th the water level el e.. etion of 508.6, an N value of 0.39 is found. These resul ts indicato that a clay blanket (discussed in more detail later in this section) placed around the engineered fill would provide a safety f ac:cr cpinst major pavemen t of about 2. In the absence of a clay blanket the excer s pore pressu es would spread and would become eqaal to the 1Iquefied soil prc3:u.es. Then for the rcector building the U value is uML C.10, which would leci to a safety f actor of about 0.5, ubich indicates that the structure might r o.< c er/for : n tle. si gr.i H cently. Also, we have made a number of calculations with partial acdges underneath .the reactor and with a berm extanding out to the side of the reactor, which provides add: t ional engi neered fill support materi a!. It was concluded that the most pro.ising type of arrangement would be that with the engineered fill in its presently envisioned configuration with a surrounding clay blanket to prevent the excess pore pressures associated with liquef action f rom propagating into the strc:tural foundation zones. I It should be noted that the N values given here are extrene minimum Yaltes in all cases, and generally include a vertical component which in some cases l is caly a portion of the actual specified vertical design acceleration value. But i f the analysis is restructured to consider both the specified horizontal and
~ 10 I 1 verticci acceleration, the resul ts in the cases considered here would not bc 5reatly different from. those raported, but would be slightly less conservative. However, as the excess pore pressures propagate from outside the structural fill to wi thin the structural fill, the excess' pore pressure could incresso to values equal to the hydrostatic pressures of the liquefied material which are about twice as great as the initial excess pore ; essures before l i que f ac tion. In addition, these excess pore pressures ccuistent with the full 1 fluid weight of liquefied material would also propagats hor *zontally directly cr 9erneath the base of the building from points A and 8 tonsed the center of the bu*1 ding. To orevent this type of behavior from occurring, and to prevent the spreading of liquefaction into the structural fill, it is s _ggested that the c;,licant consider piscing a clay blanket along the int rf6:e bet < teen the compacted ea-kfill mat 2riais and the l andaa backfill, along the lines iC and AD. This cl ay l bi anket should extend above the base of the mat, at the top edces, by at least 4
- c. r 5 ft.
This same conenpt could bt toplied to a larga e ra : where buildings are cl: rely speced to minimize the extent of the bicnket, depe,i:ng upon the geometry of the structural fill boncath the Class i structurcs. Not only could this clay h! :-,ket be used to advantaga to stop propagation of excess tressures due to licuef action of mctarials on the outside of the structural Mlls, but drains could also be installed through the mats of the Class I bui!-ings and pumping could be accomplished beneath these structures on a continaiag basis to decrease the pore pressures below ti.e mats of these buildings, and belo./ the static pi; ometric surface which nonaally exists in the area of th: buildings, if a j cle/ blanket were installed as suggested, the local stabili:< of the structural wedges bcncath the Class 1 structures would have factors of safety in the rang 2 I i of 2 to 3 if the structural fill is sloped at 45 f rom the b ase of the structure, ul tn no berm around the structure. 1 i L________.____-.._____
jj In the cose of the rodwaste building, shown in Fig. 2.5-52, the excess pore pressurc.duu to liquef action on tSc outside, as it prcpagates under the bu:1 ding, could possibly provide buoyancy that would reduce the resistance to 'hcrizontal motions on this interf ace. Al tSough this same phenomenon could occur at the base of the reactor building, the weight of the reactor building is such thct it will prevent flotation, but the excess pore pressure could reduce the hcri zontal resistance to sl iding. As noted in Calculation Sheet 7 attached, if the excess pore pressures f rom l iquef action propagated bencath the base of the reactor, to a depth of 58 f t., l l tha uplif t pore pressures might amount to 7.1 kips per sq. f t. ; the contact stress in the vertical direction at t',e reactor base is 9.2 kips per sq. f t., which leaves a vertical effective contact pressure of only 2.1 kips per sq. f t. Assuming that a riction angle of about 30 can be mobilized between the sand and the base of the d re actor, an tl value of 0.13 i s computad which is below 0.2. Thus the reactor would ha*.e the potential for sliding a finite ancunt under the earthquake loading. The e:*, a t?!s t/p ci u : s t..r';
- ce cof. 0 be increasci sipificantly by addition of the cl ay bl anket and pumping f rom beneath the mat.
La:erni S tabil i ty of Pil e-supoorted Picel ine The service water pipeline, as proposed by the applicant, is to be susported on pile bents consisting of 3 vertical pil es to 'aedrock; the bents are spi ced at 30 f t. I n te rval s. The pipeline will be about 500 f t. long, going from the service water pumphouse to the reactor building. A description of the analysis of the stability of the pipeline by the applicant is presented in Appendix J of th e PS AR. Because of the l ateral forces which could develop on the pipeline, both ex : ally along the pipeline and at right angles to the cec :cr line of the pipeline, we feel i t i s necessary to obtain l ateral resistance in the structure by means of better piles at cach bent. nn approximate calculation of the forces necessary to
L ~ l-l j 'st lateral movement of the pipalini has been r.ade (Soc Calcul ation Sheet 8 r: i o; ached), assuming thst the liquefied or partially liquefied materials could tr d to come to rest on, or translate along, a slope which is the average slope f ram the river elevation back to the fill at Elevation S20 around the reactor
- t..- iding, if the material is fully liquefied over a depth of 37 f t., there exists a
1 a .a t lateral force over a 30 f t. distance of about 360 kips per bent, assuming
- L'.- s i. t he b.'n t i s 20 f t. wi d e.
The actual pile bent forces and pipeline forces 'icusly depend on the depth and location of the liquefied material, the pile c:
- c. -
pi pe l oca t ion, e tc. This lateral capacity can be obtair,2d by installing at i i:sst 3, bui. preferably S, batter piles at cach bent, which should be ba'.tered i sc - splayed no that at leas t 3 piles would resist the downsicpe movement of the c.I and t..o en each side of the bent would resist movemenc at right engles to P-center line of the bent. it is conceivable that witn partial l ique faction occurring baiow the p .e, signifi:rr,t bending noments could develop in the pipe betwcon bents and c: jip . c. r. a r. raatt ions. :oul d ba:c u s i gni fi ccc.t. It neuld clso he pointed c_: that i f t'ie material surrounding the pipes conpietely liquefics, the pipes r'ght becc."e bucyant and thus the pipes should be tied to the bent.s also. .~ N i ta '.! ate r Pur.ohouse The only infonnation in our possession concerning the service water p phouse is some inf arnal sketches dated 2-12-71 on Sargent & Lundy shoots t> at illustrate the proposed design, which involves a circular caisson to bedrock l u' *.h the service water pump structure located inside and in the immediate surrounding L c -.n. The conca;'t for the service water pumphouse, as noced in our report of 4 ay 107), appeacs satisfactory. Mce:ever, wi th regard to tha design of the > : ructure and i ts norgin of scfe ty agains t movemen t arising f rom lateral forces l [ i,osed upon the s t ruc tu re, we shoul d l i ke to know ma re abcu t the l atest ar.per.t s L l l
i L 13 h. of tha. proposed design, the nature of the material placed around and behind t*1e sheet pile bu:khead, which makes up part of the structure, and the pressures fr which the sheet pile bulkhead uns designed, c !'. *r Bank S tabil i ty The first poin: to raise in this evaluation is the mattar of consistency of the water Icvoi used in the analyses. In Fig. 2.5-53 (taendment 12) the water level shown for the analysis at the river is Elevation 460 and the water goes to about Elevation 402 near the plant. It seems unusual that the analysis for the ri. :r bcnk stability would be mada wi th this water elevati:n in contrast to the ar. a i y s i s f o r the redwas t'e bu i l d i n g shown i n F i g. 2.5-52 whe re a water level of 501.G;was employed. ! ? a water clevation of about 500 had been used for the ana:ysis of th; river bank, all material above E;cvation 450, and perhaps some bc' w it as wall, might possibly be close to a lico; fied state, and the nature of
- h3 resul ts nould be ent; rely different f rom that reported.
The stability analysis for such a ccsc, in f act, night be conside red aca demic. In c.w uning t:4 cna;ysis p:esentr ci in Fig. 2.5 53, whercin a f actor of sa#ety of 1 is noted, it is observed that a cohesive resistance of 1500 l b. per sq. ft. was used in Zenc 1, which provides considerable resistance against sliding f o - t'1e s l i p c i rc l e sh.y v.. This comm2nt is not maant to icply that the assumption l l mc; s i s incorrect. On the othar hand, if an analysis is made in which no cohesio, exi sts, and with an ef fective 6 value of 30 for exampic, t'Te s tatic f actor of sa#ety against f ailure is estimated to be about 1.6. An analysis for the dynamic dr. ing force is presented in Calculation Sheets 9 through 11 and indicatas an IJ i va' ve of' abou t 0.16. This suggests that the safuty factor against sliding is ] abc ut 0.8. However, the particular s* tuation for which this analysis was mode, j l 1 ne wly for a large segment of soil extending f ar out into the river wi th a rela-I tively flat circle, may be misleading in tenns of the propensi ty for gross f ailure. l )j
f. a 4 14 The annlysis is only approximate but evaluation Indicates that the amount of - s!1 ding that,uould be associated with this leval of driving force would be lir.i ted to less than a foot. More important perhaps is the f act that th more cri tical situations probably invoive the stability of smaller portions of the bank which could fall with the varying water levels that would occur with flooding and/or the normal rise and fall of the river. Frcu a design standpoint, sor.e attention needs to be giv2n to possible slope stability probleas that may occur in the vicinity of l th service water structure and pipeline coming into it. If the araa around the l se rvice water structure is graded back to reduce the slope, obviously tha tandency fe r sliding would be reduced and the si tuation would be helped. Al ternat ive l y, i f both the area around the service water panphouse is cut back and riprepped, t. :. stabil i ty si tuation will be inproved even further. Detailed analysis of th ! c as;,cet of thc desi ga wil t take cons ideraole ef for t. It would seem suf ficient he re to point out the problec.s in /olved in o.-dar to place in perspective the study t ' ;. t 1. n ,,.'d e n W pec;.c=.d da ign le prcsonted for review. r I ECI.giud!i;__cy_ihy;j2,( 0n the basis of our analysis of the foundation conditions for the Il scr riant as reported herein, we conclude that it is possible f rom an en;ineering point of view to dasign the Cicns I f acil i ty s tructures, including the reactor building and radwaste building, such that they can resist with cn adequate acrgin of safety tSe ef fects associated with a Design Basis Earthquake of 0.29 maximum ground acceleration. In arriving at this conclusion, we note in 1 ou r report that sor.ic speci a! measures mus t be taken to insure the adequacy of the foundations of the main Class i facility structures. Uc havo noted that one possible schema for iainimizing the possible ef fects of 1iquefactica would ba that of placing a clay blankat around the edges of the engineered fill on which the L-_______---
l o 15' str;ctures r2st In order to preclude a build-up of excess pore pressure during eartnquake excitation, and to prevent propagation of the liquefied zone into there critical areas of structural support. I f a scheme such as thi s i s fol l owed, l our analyses indicate that the local stability of the materials on which the major l Class I structures rest will be adequate to resist the imposed carthquake loadings. Similarly, for the pipeline running from the racetor f acility to the i water service pumphouse, if the pipeline is supported on pile bents with battered p!!e s,' we believe that this portion of the facility can also be designed adequately i to ithstand the seismic hazard. We call attention in our report to several design pai. ts that noed to be considered in addition to the pipe bent suppurts, namely, 1 f ac :rs associated with loss of soil support for the pipa between bents or possible ove r 'oading o f the pipel ina f rom the top surf ace, and buoyancy forces. At the river, we believe that the service water pump intake structure can. ha edequately designad to minimize the effects of slope instability in the sur Ounding region by cutting back the slope and/or adding riprap to insure the
- u -jity in
...e ..... : : u w ragion. In sunnary, we conclude that the design can be mada to withstand ade:uately the effects associated with the earthquake hazard. Howeve r, it is apt 2 rent that additional documentation by the applicant is needed to demonstrate t.h e adequacy of the design. We shall need this further infonnation in order to coc.1:letc our evaluation of the PSAR presentation. The points on which additional inf: nnation is needed are listed below: 1. Liquefaction Ana ksjs_ The general liquefaction analysis presented in the PSAR still needs I ci c-i fication as we pointed out in our draf t report of 4 May 1971. Speci fi cal l y, u ( ua n2cd to know more about the densities and nature of the soil materials that ) ware used in the onalysis reported. As wa pointed out in the report, it is
16 oh elous that there has been a recalculation effort associated with the liquefaction c. lysis presented in the PSAR and sor.e explanation is required by the applicant . az. to use of 20 percent damping in the soll matariot s now, as contrasted with the i 10 parcent in ' the Amendment 1. report. Also, the applicant needs to provide 'a M tional information which will clarify the many inconsistencies that appear in the analysis at present with regard to the nargins of safety against liquefaction, tbs reasoning for the apparant gradient in acceleration f rom rock level up to the su -f ace, and clarification of the water 1evels that are applicabla for the various ae sl yses that are made. The current PSAR liquefaction analysis appears to co respond to about 0.1 9 input at rock level, and in f act provides shear stresses v.'r ' h are less than the analys!s that was presented in Amendment 1 originally. To:s. inconsistency needs to be clarified because the design now is for a 0.29 De: iga easic Earthquake. 2. Service Water L ines Th: actual support arranger. ant (piles and bents) for carrying the 3- - . c.. p e : r1 d s to be docu ;nteJ and the adequacy of d: sign cleer1y i r ; i ca ted. Associated therewith should be considerations of the safety of the pt::ng supported on the bents. Evaluation of these pipelines should include c:-tikration of the possible loss of soil support of the pipas if the material licuefics beneath them, and also possibl e buoyant effects and other external ledings that might be appi led. 3. Service t.'atar Pumphouse and River Bank Stabili ty For the service water pumphouse we have pointed out that we need t add i t ional information on the actual f a:llity that is to be cons tructed. The h on: f plans we have in hand are rough sketches, indicating a possible design scheme. f Ue have noted in our report items affecting the slope stability analysis at the r:v r and point out that probably of more concern at the river level will be th: 1
i i 17 4. -s.s.bility of smaller seguents. of the river bank than thos: considered in the P2 AP, at present. These small bank ci sments which might sh>w signs of-instability and might possibly cause problems with the service water pipeline and service v:tter pumphouse should be investigated and t'1e adequacy of the design in this rs;ard detailed. I e l L L_______._.___ .C.
1;, L...... i .c... '.f l_ i.h.A ' !...: s'..!_t.r.s Oy :. rs ?'2, ;.M[t, ii. LM 'G .,,p a.= T lf).);... ',
- TU f
2 /e. .. ogT g./.?,....,. y l CH KD, CY _D AT[* i 1 1 s P.r # ; o w t ; t: $, t** f e ) a , f,
- 3 :g r.y t? M O c. CL) tis.
je' es. '= 0, 4..*. . fJnt) sy.fr.,. ir ~'5 c',l0.v C s'yQ,Yr ;lsi aY lll0Cf .' j h/cw = l.7..S' p c.;c ./ r a,/ e f., ,.. ;*,.,3 1, '; c O f f i.. r~f,w a.t n-w- ., f.,r.s'd . / J-r / ./ ...-........sl c. c.*f 7 O /* ci i L-1 G cfs /GJ t
- r y-l,i O
,c; L,i /s,p/ ';. .:is i t'- + / I / / '.s.. O r i k',< c / 4 (/ '.* n.
- f M
i O ll. .~. * > *l / - ea. s t, .s. ** C A? / a^ <.~ >... '. - .%,..c'..'} ,.m. I*** 'l,'
- r..no-i
,' ' o i. i..* , ' s r* (* t- . -l ,..,'<s v .)...:' 2, ~;~ ;r& p, ;
- j. e i. e,r;g.
- o o
g..s ... r ~1-a . s - ~ v. - ~ : :;,., p 5.,. =.f .c.'. at< &, >.. ry -- .2.. n .o .3 ..,,. i c 5., ,, g <. y, .>m 1' ( >i o 1- ) i ' ~~ : 3 _'/' .,* C ? t? t.l'*!"*s /!
- ) *.'i e.*.*
p. o., . ~. - --.+ .i ?-eg..', t 5 e.,. . r.w.,,' j, e ,-P.. e .e s qq is, . o. ' ~ ~ ' * ~ '/ v- ~d //a / / * /.> i1 i a t ,i .i .) s. ~ , t,i. r .j % 9. :. /L. e s. ~ .n G . t e., c -~~ w
- ~.
t.,.. -.o,. - r r a., i .a ..s ..n .,i o ,. gt; '! - r! m i ti;.* a,c9C1pr c, s
- d.tJ.v ? -.>
1 i 7,t,.as a si ; fr. : o' a ,s, ,~ s.0.o,.:: u,,c c f .,' c:,, 1 f 3p y/: 3 :- e =
- ~:...
/,, *. j.,. T .o.
- J,
~ p.
- ~
y:' s t :.- p,s 4. n C.- ~ '..,- = C. ; y C/ 5 O r.' /C',? O o' m. /- -,e g,,,,",. p .J. ,y 4 e.... 4 n ./ m a //u if el. L,e< n n,/,
- t >, 0 e's n.,
c. ~j)
- r...
s= . ;'. p. c_v e.' o a* . ~* 4~) i s,! o u .. O *: c' F C, = ", = /,.. '. s c..v ,,o
_I ((r.*,6 ' I ';, l d*... i.~. e;, s gg -
- r _ _b,*
,,1
- f
- . s. J '.
N'r' I _.. C /,T i-7 ,,*,g. Dy_ / A s C H KO. CY. ..D AT C c ( i I, L..* f ' ~ l J.;1 (, s,. - ; i*r < 1 ei G.J I a.... !y C 0~;:'r.f. _. = li".(:,*1 !., '* i i f' l' ! b i',h o. (l y t fl) ? ~.*( b7 i ~ * ('s t
- v
/ + /o t cf
- . l ti'. :,.
nC ' j :. ( - Mik: !: cc,, : : :. h.:.?1 - 7,4c ;. li c v... n i o i i /;y. u]f e.. la .f. t . 'r.. f.f r A f%. nl* I a e
- *** f V 0 ' y ot s.
e e e $ >* g. o. .w / I , f s' f, # 1 ! ( [
- [
[Y [.* s i i&j E. ...f'. I s j. I 2 ~ "l. t i i-1: LC', G1 ev%!?t'C)? :.@. 6 (C. ?. T<.. l n n *~ (t b r ' c l: '. !! ! 'r s : HCi. C -{!. i > It r ' ' [* i
- l,.
f.... l., *. . l L, l0 .d. ,. ou w ..,, t e, s. C; c. 1 u. s . i i.... u :,1, c,1. ( j ' @[ i Vt<...
- y i[ i'
'". 0ti S C G....
- l tj y
- /.tl- ' ! ;
.: t i?t ..I.,, ), . -l,. u,,, - r.. 1 1 s r,, j. ,o /e s 'O.* e.} s. s,.,'l .? : ;.* e$ l4 4 r,.? t * -' e. 'L ,e, l > ;/? ** ? ,f '". * * !~ f* r! I s s i s g y 's 't' j o t y ,a, 'l'\\i* fi).., -' ' ll., /* ( l} ll t e s, b-2 j ' t q 1 (q..i,- t i. .o. .,o., i,, ...s'. ,L.,,, ., j.i, n I I i :, I I /- .l I, ( s y l g. r 3 ,refy.
- /.r.
/ s + y j,.i.. ~l e, o 1 9 D f 1 J 3 I P 4 f., (' ' 1/ ( *" s', 'i#' U l ^d# O# ) 1 y. 9 s. :. - ~J-5.* ~, l s l er g a I# (. j. l
- 7..h,(.#
l l i 1 A. L Y$ _. Y.. -...-. 'l...i E.. ,9: I Y e.
- h..
_,#,q ~. e ) %,,s [ '
- f*
4 4'j ',)' 7.,. . f a % * ' f..,s ' e(', ,i . f L, s..,U, * .\\ 's. ,~ 9.g s\\ 4 ' t.C.. s ~... e .%'i_,____.___.____..___________..m___ I
5- ' I ; E <,..T I. 0,.. ..c g LC,.i ANA, ILLINO:3 ' sus
- T t J J ' '.!C. _t_ra Jg.' Y, M.k c y_/._. _..__r-.. c.e, T ".... _.. _.
y CHKD.CY .. D A T C...._.._. i ., 4 [, k i.
- f. ' e h
Y f,, () //j. '[ ( ' s ,d e t;';c (.. "c,.: rb- {cn cc : 6d o., i,L sem. :rd : o <r t,..., -,, - n..!. 1' l I*. osu ,? o I - (y n f,* f [# '.t 1 4 ~2 U./ r i /.,/ /# .h 4 Jt ." t f * $ (,' i';, f () ? ~, re ! . j* e-e.o,,, =; en e e t f r / I g 'f
== '\\/ _2 thy UUs },: ^ (,e io :s C. G, f r[3 g U ~ i. 4
- f. i l l l) p' {
8 / ( e 'p
- -.. *. 1,' l
!U r ,' f g Co ** ' =,*) $ '. [,, 1... .I p e I f' d' .o .q' 5 'r?t
- hE5 V!O 9
v t g ' .e. / f,. f. $*A I'f f
- !. 5,
- e ie
'~ f s [f 4 lc, 4 w p .,,.a
- u
./ I s e A t'!!! ! i. !: t (, = I o h \\ *1,6** 0 ,{ 0$s 9. E h s. L y,
- i
.. h.*; * ~ ,. [.3 =- s e e a e + h 5h ' {, b .[' !s' 5 '* I, llfl f ? w.[?f ,t', [- j', ,?' .i...s.. .r 't Q _ _ I sp I ,'g g x) '*t.. ,f - 4. .+,.
- ,. i s'
.i-o s. f, * :: .r s: c . e _2 ; ( ~t
- st 4
s I 1 O f [ '{ (g
- f j
- 'Y I I
. ' 1,5 r (- s t, e y'" r g?.>? 6 9
- u{ l c.
, s ,-t i 1 L r I o s I l g Ol& 'lt ll (** j
- l,' ?.' O'. / j (i, ll~j e
!'ii{ sl ! f."$ ;" I.~ ( }' ! - l'; *3 L}' h',. * ( i t. ! e ), (t I C Q ,' / ' l} t(,'{l Vi ( ; r t i O', !!;I f5 s' I J l '*' !^ j t .e C r.* T 1 u i 0, / )(i t a'
- f t;)
il $ ll.,,' !! G
- C.
!.Ili i (* - l r r i[ f' lt("ll gill 0'; ",5 'e E'( (*;,* ; l[ l {, ).' [ y c.~ ' f.' s ' f **; I (" t e% g l %,) r f4
- ), y; t ( s u
l ^ . '-*)* ~l*t e t~ 1 :*1 L S ]' 1)re. L. .s e. .1.J ll f n* i.' 4 ss P a y -<, .o,
- li n
e (( (Y. l'O 4 E' 0 i ' t' ' i. .l.' Qj: . ?} /, ; ?/ < ,l l /.. (-li' i n: ll< Y'!. M f' *' l ' ' $ , '~- l '," f !' E ('( ] ,r,r 15 !/:t r 5 j> : r f c in l,'; g {c ll.,- :u., di.a : y 9 ;;;. wu ? ': I a v w
. U M, W m, l'. 't. M UI.I c. 4. SUUF OTJ"'.2f5 d M 9-..h 2.'.1,'.a.IZ,__. DY / I - a_ D ATZ.' ../. CHKD.SY.. DATE* e. { ' I,I ** s *4 gy f..I'%. % 2 f hs 4' lh N.... . V!ana <. ,=we .**s. 7 -~ a ~, 84 Y / l.iR .,'N h, .F!, / egg w g h.,9
- e es e.us
- gesp -M J i ' / 4- ,6 Sum e ,7 / l 9,',. / / I I i t e,- ;p 7, / a.. W..- ,f'? f C./ s. 'f l l 'o y **
- f j
9 r [',. ;, o A l' #' y
- ...s.,
a. -f 1 s .p,. r'., l s ,? o l 1 g- .i
- f
. l f,,,s*. %,f - - / ',
- 4..
t fe ; ;,j -, I., l , p.,e. r,, g > I -./ e. / '. . v. t 9 / l};'f (:, 2,! % y ( lli Vl ' ' ' ' ^ ; 9 ' y - r,7 ~ ij = i V / lt ' l s' t ' ? $ J ? > ' * * :.1 f :) ( I '*
- f
!,l.g ('l r > ~ f., l. ',1; M . ; -- '" g t' ' 'r !!;: l : 't Ab. 9! /,R ? l '( t p tf. "lp ;(' bl,' !.',*hi {/ ' ? (11 ? '<r a 1 l f <..s h I t [a s~ t ' l (0t Y ii ',,*,. t . / ? Q .&.e .., '. ~ O I,. (*. N -f N.,. !eC. [a f
- N, g
'N %,s* s \\ N.,,,, N s p,. %s% - : y- ... n 4 / c. g ' l 'l t ". p l' w., /.,0. ( I 1. \\ ~. i. l b a o / l>,)*y'a f. 1 m.
1 J ....i), a o d s. i 1a gy,,. m. I i-. i cr oru g y r. y< s'. 1, _- D<*sVC i -9 i m.. C H KO. GY.. OATC. ) 1
- i a
I ... s. i t. D. 4 1 .i ) 1 i / ) c. i ). l L..* i i.L). .pt,- ,t I, 1 i
- s., t.#
/.,, . i l. f.: c.. g- [ .1, = i I i I e.., g, g,.., j l i l / s f. , C., s,s a f.,',..' ,c, w.t.-' f. r,, t. . l/ /. e) ~ x. 9,,,:;~ 9 .s ,pr C. +., s. l n..- -t s,~ r s
- g.,. f,.
,t.. s.,, os*. i e. I 0. w' /, 40' r s [e t ' e g e, g jy e
- 4 o?
p,, $ es
- ,,,, ' j, g
r e 4 e } 9 A u b i I I* r 1 I ~ ' Y g\\ - { ,a .m. $ e. /, *,. j %,t i. ( -... aw -I l., *I l, I (..,., e *, to' i). :, .,P y ( ~. t. < r,.' 8 l il' h (- .t ). >.. s. . s' c~ t.. ) <., s.,,. b. I / \\ f -. ~
- i a.-
...., t. v. r. ,..... 1 ,1 ; g. ~ i* + /. \\ ~ s-6. r .,, - ) t,..;. 3 *,... ~ s s
- \\ '
s.~.7 I* . \\, o* j,. -I m s. (+ i (, m \\
- h. =
..t. ( l7. ' > r i / -l r. 1. s-w I
- _ _ _ _ _ _. _ ~. _.
- v..g
...v. ~.L..'.,., :l<o, IL11 t ' Thl% e:u ~n. ,1 C W * ^* g y l.. , 'I ', p g.,.. _] s' ?_ _U '[ q.s. v,.-.....,,,n-
- )
- 4..:,-......, u.
C H b 'a t',Y. O AT C.. ,; j.... j,, t, O., c.. c.,,,, .,m, O t tl..t b c,, O '- l2l-(s...al ,C . t. c[.i~s ' o c, t 2 {l? '" ^ l{ 1. IQi*.'f.it $ 5r t. .,.. ',:, :). .. O y; /> ! "* *,* l_., f,, $,o 9 fr;3 l { lIL ' b;c .;.... / o y, ei a... u. y ..- L. r,, n,, .U..',., ... ~ s '.. t r e o. j-o. 1 j r- .,; i.; Ma , c : C: it. 4 L C,j. (en y ejc $ j: in i Q, V k r..- g f - .l l.,t I~ ? ~ e i ,'. l, p1 -\\ i ',... v,).' ?, l., , i '.'... * \\ .G s' y '.q, g ? ee -- a l g s, e s /, 1 .T D/,, d 16't t- .j m:i = :50 i.' F: - c. so
- a. ja
L.... ; i . vi. _.. e
- .i s.r 7:u p pc
.. Ivs >L<* c y j,.._;_,\\*.. _ _ _ p y,y g u - n 1 _..... ::,. _ l[2..' : _'.' I ' *\\ ' k.l.Si.f ' "' N [ i!!. (.-L'C ' C H M O CY..... D AT C.. ) n. ; c r., <.:m.... re : x s,,,..., r l :<f a.A,o.-?v c/Lli. - 0 I ,h. :
- l-i...
'^ n. . i es J .....;, c, m u,oi, . o p.w,.. g ~ i J < /, ~~ ~ L.' <. 4. N f f t Sf vt. 9.2 f 11 ( ;' s.,. i.,, C e
- -l
/ l'Y,yt..} ( O- /'* ,e t f, p. g 4 PT L. , ~. /,*. : = l' l M (V o. -) F
- 2. I k5:
L n < t c!,, n i 1 ll'.' ;-
- < 7.4 e 2 s.
. > 't,< r '.: c 'i s. e f*, s j.. Y s w/ i / l, ,"a. 'f" ' l ss
- V..a
// Y f /$f V s e g g
- e. e e
q l-Si r 1*- r .~ r), 1 - 4 4.'.... 4 ,oe e 0' I f .o. e,* e g' ,f i eJ .s*.s, '., t. a.. e, y, + . o.. v s* - *,. .. a 3" em 1 1
~ t ' i
- t.J.
._4.." cy ,,, _,j, ;,i,,,,,,o AT g;,,,, ;.,,, f k,,, CHKD.DY. DATC_ .'.. n a or,, A,/ t i e o + .,. ) r* i n !. Ch r, c,\\ : s. Y)V. ./ .- s ,, g-1 0, / "., ---~~--- [ 90 r h ' T.J. '. .; f /2 h ;,;-l; . r. t 1 i l ...,.t .' -.....,'-- n,..1 .,,si 8' e. I l. J.. 4 s b ? -e J/ 4 ..Y.. ? . s h / ?.,> j 1 r s' o.. 7, t r) J y-p t' } ; ;,, ~l n ;,q ,' 'f ' c.' c v ! h o e s J e-ii j a J4,p,.i,,,. .t ..j ? . /,,. a
- >r....a 1., r c.
s E - i J,.,. n.. s, A "+ ~ . ~
- e h, e*,
a I,./ ** lt,~ ./.,,.,. . 1.
- /.
0- b .b C, ! ,)r.I,s ,5 ,e g !.., .. r., [ lp, 3,,,9 x,*,. ] n... "o.;, / +. I~a,1,., I t.. uw. / ;., 1 i e/ s, /,., .i b e; * + - g, y 7.,,] .,;.,,. 7 f,,, j7 o < s e 4. ' /,,* /...
- ,, ; r";,,
,;/t: j,e up.,, ;,. }7 t j i ,r.. 4 : n:.I I *, a 4, T - r. f J
. e ; ,3
- r..
i s'-
- a. o..s d vla.-
...,.. *,.s r t.. :. i- ,.. *,,-.e y, d.... f% i av I .p f n. s cHKo cY -.. or.TC l.- ^.*, J i j %, :jl.) j '- =;
- a. { f.r I s.
..a..v.- ../ r- [ 8 e .i (,(*[l/ ' ( f .a ,1l. ( ! ? ? j l*'Jor' (']l 7 (* { t',, (* ?,. I ! T' (i t" ; a' ~~r , ! ; ', ',9 - w. .g / [,
- d*,
==f+>. ] l' , S) l-] ~ f. C, .y o h y, j, . j *,, .,, e e s.. ','* { (ll4 ;l Y Y ! I lI - j,[ o g," n'
- ),,M',,
- l(,_
y'"i f[ or: F
- l ',
g, lh a g. f* * ; l (* ** e 5l ' (l> ll [. I I. ' ! I '* e
- s.,
os ^:, ;, f 'l ? 't?!Il n g p i,. 'l ,, y.- a n. r ,/-..b s 9 f ** A O ,I , s o. > g 1:, t r.N, .,? '1, ,s, '..: e a.o e "4 4 % {" o
- [* t s. y..
,d
- t
- *, J
- re A
l g,r js / i i j f. e f I * ** i f.o' 1,
- .c
.'1*,'* f .~..in e
- <*.*s-s
- J
, i /, t e 9 (*.* p l l.- j ()(* ,,e ,.fp; n g. I,. c - a .t- -.,i .( 8 f g,,, O y-a , n. .f. ( f e i s s s i E afw a e t ,.4 'f,- a b t.: r* 4 f, .s.4..,,e,"" e.., e .(; t c.,. gf .c /. e ' '.} o
- j
'g. ' -/ /e ' ' '. ~.s t. I y ., S .s. t , til. V %.4
- E.. eU'~^
Gr - )
- a..
.= *.
- L w
- 1 s
.=ga% (# 1 -I " 7"I lo .. *. o* < q I.,, .y vn fg g, [,j. *, .e' f f, /.- i a ri -l, ', ei:tl,i D: T F : < : - 0. ' i: r cor vtu. o; O I o. r .d. Tw,si C, c.Ir. r e .' I!nC 0, T ict r e;.,- T.
- 4. ' gr.:{tt's C, r, it -
( 4 .;., r,.,.,.'
- ' t.
,( '.s.:y 1;;* 7
- , - {
- q1 } i' i u, ',
.{.' 'o. s d /* 4 I -t s s*. +, t f f$ ' / [. ..,r B y f ' y g g f i i f y a, ',. f.,. g e, y,.; ;., - NYn'. >q .Kurr *; ,e s l81 s%8.p =. Se t h Y g L. $_ _o_ _ V ( ll o'(1 '.,.E' Qt ' Yl( # '! 0 A h ? l 'L 0 ( [,0 ; '$. $ $ ' sih
- At~
. #) ,, a k
.I. bH.u. I. j
- r. L J L ~
- - J-i N...'1* *.11f.1,',
CYi.'. "...._ .DATC. _ _. l C H hD. EY. . D ATC. i % C r; h-T {- i,
- a I ;
( i ,\\. i - . a; s., r k g s'] g, N . ea 5 [
- l..
g 4 4 9' \\ l 1 1, \\, \\, ( I 3g ' * = .\\ I .s (- A l , 's (9 O'. ,/ i
==h*me m w' :7' 3 \\ ,~- 0 ---j-,_....,. s ,s. r 'N-~ g I l n ~. e ,' ?' %.,. ~},, i { I g. e i f I i i t A r i E^ ,s s t
- \\ '.
s ~ b
- b. p A
I \\ i j '\\ ~e f l f h i i \\ , 'I. t. f ~ w eee e3 g I g ,( A i \\i, l AF \\l.' <.;r -9 ;.1.'.ti l c.. u',( i .o.* f 4 4 -9
- w
- [
.'j,,1 - -, e .l '- o,r A V..).-. B s.,._p \\ '._ _.. D A,i C....... .s' ..a ....a.. d C W.. ' O. D Y_.. _ o t,T *.. _.....
- l'$
o / 'l. - + f* f e ;.,v, ' I.,y ....~ ~~ ___............ -
- f. Lundy ASCD i,cport' ~ 42
- o Ir r
- .: r.
I F i gs. 2. 5-34 to 2. 5-40 ner.c. tnt 5 l ~20% c!- Cri Licci Damping Jt 0:icin, 0.13g at bedrock i o. arrc.. : r, Lund' ALCD P, aport ;ie,a l F i c.. i l - 17 j j /.. ; ent I l.~ ' t ? C r i t i c al D amp i n g 1 Taf t ?ot'icn, 0.109 at L:edrock ( ,i j i I g g'.2,ye 123 pcf 9 F $'. r' r, 4. s s.,, N I g
- a...
n I \\a,. i N u 4.. i c. o s i I s \\r,- 0.1 9, 7 = 12: pf i I e, g o t i s 8 t I \\, e I-l k i n I e t t i i \\, i g f \\. \\ c e i i i i 9 I g e .i 6 N Y
- MM%
9 99 M '%.* M@9.*gg. M a a% a e h.ggegg ggg,gt e g ,,g g
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ - - - _ .g w... i 1 z' l I i i j o /tiligata 6' Piper Mill - T5hnankal M
- Earthquake
) \\ O -\\ ~ \\ / / Ito Liq ) ) i .,3 o 1 I / / Y. Ohst&l 2: l"-- -' ./ p f' r 0 0 20 40 60 E0 100 Relative Density - Gibbs and Holtz F lG. 2 - L i CUEFACT I0:1 POTIllil A!. BASED Ott STRESS RATIO VS. RELATIVE dei;S ITY 1 i 1 -..____.______________________________j
t, . =.. O, e* - ~. -. ~ - fine $ e-':, D.ose 0.2 mm iO '$ts:ss cycl:s a ,d,=t5' Y l l c C., -= F , d w = lO. l'!.: C _2 , d,, = 5' o;; Liquefoclien t gj o.:: 1. l 1> C $c E l} 'j / llo liquefcetion 'd O I L- < > < ' - W ./,,- i I f t C- ._u_ 0 20 40 60 60 100 Relative Censity p reent 60 D CV." LUA7DN 67 L>OUCrACTot r'OTEllTl/.L I'OR f'l : StND - 10 51 AESS CYCLES. O/. g j p Ytrj fne, er; form scnds; Dy.p O.070 rna 20 f.trt t.s c;r:c s t c. l h O.3 6 lb o Ue <t k('lO' b O.E' / Liqut fecfion 'I,
- S' v
E / f s./_ E 4 0.1 /y 2 No liquefoetion I I l ( s OO E.O 40 t-O 00 10 0 Relatis e Density percent f i ). '.3 T' VAL U ATis *J OF L)CULFACT:QN POTCNTIAL FOR VERY FINE U,ND- 00 STC~SS CYCLES F IG. 3 - 1.1Qtt'Jr ACTION POTEtiTIA!. L . (Taken f t cm Seed, 11. B. and I. ft. Idri ss, "A Simpli fi ed Procedure f or Eva lua t ing Soi l u__2 v a _u m-
. (,1.., ',. A','...'*..'.'.'s l.' \\ N ' l t O
- 1 T f/
N, i
- * ' " ' - ~
IN g ,k h 4 i N. i e a I* u uo m., 9 \\ h 'd.. o, \\ c.e d. o 4., aF 0 e~ f, v e \\ ewh D, .s 4
- 3 s,
.. o pp e.\\ .iD t '- .I e ~ > sr
- . i p
{ )% EbE .:. S c2 ,, s:,n u u -- Ud Y,b E l lo~ i.:u'?O l \\ 5 ~8 1 ? a rt \\ W o. s ,s i Ub N g et vi l (';e g e J l 1 \\x 2 i I u l i !. i. <O .s a 05 e a \\ d i \\ i bbo i \\ 2 h
- f.
- h N
\\ g i! p \\ l1 lo v-l Eo, b -l < x Il i
- e e
o o* I ;' i t. sa .o 6 1' w s v. w i g C [-l I3$j I f l .< b t: rplt, e. n s I l: 1, 0 t 8 i i.' PV s - l l .p .2 7. { e %..# \\ i a (, p,' b > E. \\ l , %,7N $h EE ,,. 0
- l TO
- -
.; J. n-I l. b y IsQ. %, l / j i i . 4. - u f.*t N.. 7 i .c . ;q ' o ; e o f e ,, %,4./;h,. i i
- f f-4
^% C,W/**,,..'N. J i it. j '/ ( C. .f r . ** p [ I ..I f. / .e-a ' i' --* b
- t j
-f., lef ../ i.; /.
- l i
I ,,,I l' ,; i : - a. / bi / / 'l, f ?. - h.'.3 g / I I. l / ./ p i 1 y ? i e i i 2 i e o / i i i 2,i }. ( N
- . ;. I. u *,.,.. - ?
L 8 i i h 4 e w .L, I g ;;, 4 l E [>-~. _. u t; f <o I l; iw l -d .] e e / N a v I s oe u s 1f i i. a c. -e u h* ;; i 2 V== J ll D n e e e, .c ,e , i i
- e
. l r 3 t z 9 ;i. $., t,, c 2 y { )' s a, i i -u o.u W ;..< t., c : i g
- W I,I n!.[ N
\\. d'N N. .I 7 i 6,... 'e e-N y? i l Ub
- t-y s l
O I I, 1 i xy% o
- .,,
- r
.c. < i l l x T, e s. 3; w m. <1 i i lM! H rd b; x - r z-l si w i i E; .M.il " M N M N (1 I t : "' 8.. ~N t 3. p_- c y ep.. 4 .__w._. .. [. c o o o. o. e, t o O
- n..
e n c e 3 3 a u, c. 4 o 6 v v v y .L23d IU 2DNICMOOO-A ONV N0117A373 8 \\...,r an, f I,./Iu.,'. $.. s, b,,.. a, 3......... r, _. U., l 6. .A s e= I ss elds .1 ..L11M IN Alt Y SAfi.7 Y A!! A LY'.;ls...h. '
- I 4
t F I G. 4 - FOMMT l?',' STAC I L ITY f r e o r... >. r,.a >. I s. t. r. (r nsm Z in... r PSin - kundr.un t 12) RES!!!.T5 0F STAP.ILITY APM.Y' RAD'MS1E GU! L ONG (U.Sc 12) . _.}}