ML19319D719

Supp1 2 to Crystal River 3 & 4 PSAR, Foundation Investigation. Prepared for Gilbert Associates,Inc

ML19319D719
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River, 05000303
Issue date:	08/10/1967
From:	Gardner W FLORIDA POWER CORP., WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML19319D718	List: ML19319D717 ML19319D719 ML19319D720 ML19319D721
References
NUDOCS 8003240732
Download: ML19319D719 (53)

Text

O O

FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION REPORT BY WOODWARD-CLYDE & ASSOCIATES O

Revised A=endment No. 7 7-15-69 l

g\55 O

8003240 3k

\

li O

WOODWARD-CLYDE & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINCERS AND GCoLoolSTS 2i00 Locust $fetti Pa L ACEL *a'A. 8thmsvLvawia 19:03 840=E (2151563 133 3 Wa1.em $ Gerdaer P C t,.c . v.c. ...*aa June 9.1969 r,.m. s ..n., a e 4 c..

67 P 19 Gilbert Associates, Inc.

525 Lancaster Avenue Reading, Pennsylvania Attention: E. Robert Hottenstein FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION PROPOSED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

] UNIT NO. 3, CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA Gentlemen:

We are pleased to forward herewith our updated report of foundation analyses and recen endati~.: fer the preposed Unit No. 3 addition to the Florido Power Corporation's Crystal River Plant.

This report supersedes the proceeding document entitled " Foundation Investigation, Proposed Nuclear Power Plant, Florido Power Corporation, Crystal River, Florida", and dated February 23, 1968.

We oopreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Should there be any questions concerning the reported analyses and recommendotions we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

Very truly yours, h WOODWARD-CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

. 4../..:....) u/. s ~

William S. Gardner, P.E.

f]

L cc: Hans F.W. Lorenz Heber T. Newton Stefan Dobreff San Franceece e Oakland

• San Joes

• Los Angeoes

• Orange = sen Diego

• Denver

• Meness Csty

• St. Louse.

• Phdadeephse

• Chfion. New Jeresy

• New Yore City

4 O

i FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION PROPOSED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT NO. 3, CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA O

l Report to: ,

GILBERT ASSOCIATES, INC.

Reading, Pennsylvania I

l l

l l i

0157 LO WOODWARD-CLYDE & ASSOCIATES Philadelphia, Pennsylvania l

(

O TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I

IN TRO D UCTIO N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I DESCRIPTIO N OF PRO JECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,

3 SUB SURFACE CO NDITIO N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 Pamlico Terrace Sediments . ...................

4 Inglis Limestone .........................

Avon Park Limestone ....................... 5 Limestone Solution Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 5 Groundwater .......................... 5 i

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Pamlico Terrace Deposits . . . . . . . . ............ 6 Inglis Limestone ........................ 6 Transition Zone ........................ 12 Avon Park Limestone ...................... 12 Compacted Load-Bearing Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 i

Grouted Load-Bearing Fill . . . . . ............. 16 19 FOUNDATION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . ............

19 .

Bearing Capa city. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Settlement Analysis . ..................... 20 FO UNDATIO N TREATMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Excavation and Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Consolidation Grouting . . .................. 25 0 -

G ro u ndwa te r Co n tro l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 0158

t  !

O '

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)

Page Influence of Construction Operations . . . . . .......... 27 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . 27 Foundation Treatment . .................... 28 Reactor Building Foundation . . 29 Auxiliary Building and Turbine Generator Building . . . . . ... 29 Loteral Earth Pressures ..................... 31 Excavation and Groundwater Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Loa d -Be ar in g F i l l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Fill Placement ............ ........... 34 Fill Compaction . ............... . . . .... 35 MatericI and Compaction Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 L I MI TA T IO N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4

J 0159 f

V

O INDEX TO TABLES Page Number Table No.1 . . . . . . . COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table No. 2 . . . . . . . MODULUS VALUES .............10 Table No. 3 . . . . . . . FILL PROPERTIES .............14 Table No. 4 . . . . . . . SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS . . . . . . . 14 Toble No. 5 . . . . . . . CYCLIC MODULUS .............16 Toble No. 6 . . . . . . . AGGREGATE PROPERTIES. . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table No. 7 . . . . . . . GROUT MIX PROPERTIES . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table No. 8 . . . . . . . SHEAR STRENGTH OF ZONE NO.1 FILL . . . 18 Table No. 9 . . . . . . . DEFORMATION MODULUS .........18 Table No.10 . . . . . . . DEPTH VS. SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS . . . 20 Table No.11 . . . . . . . DESIGN PARAMETERS ...........21 Table No.12 . . . . . . . ZONE NO. 2 FILL GRADATION .......33 INDEX TO FIGURES l Figure No . 1 . . . . . . . PLANT LAYOUT - UNIT NO. 3 Figure No. 2 . . . . . . . SITE AND BORING PLAN Figure No . 3 . . . . . . . STRESS ANALYSIS - REACTOR BUILDING Figure No . 4 . . . . . . . FOUNDATION TREATMENT - TYPICAL SECTION 0160 l

l l

O REFERENCE BIBLIOCAAPHY

( 1) PSAR, Appendix 2 F; General Geology - Regional Tectonics.

(2) PSAR, Appendix 2 H; Bedrock Solution Studies.

( 3) Menard, L., (1965) "The Application of the Pressuremeter for Investigation of Rock Masses", Paper to International Society for Rock Mechanics,, Salzburg,1965.

(4) Whitman, R.V. (1962) " Nuclear Geoplosics", Part Two, Defense Atomic Support Agency .

(5) Seed, H., and Idriss (1969) "Influer ce of Soil Conditions on Ground Motions During Earthquakes", ASCE, Vol . 95, No. SM-1.

(6) Seed, H., et ol (1967) " Prediction of Flexible Pavement Deflections from Lab-oratory Repeated - Load Tests", N.C.H.R.P. Report 35.

( 7) Boussinesq, J. (1885) " Application des potentiels a l'equilibre, et du mouverment des solides elastiques", Gauthier-Vollars.

O <8) ve ic, ^ 8 - (i963) "Tse veitaitx ef 'ex < a seiia Ts eri ", erec at e , i=> r-national Conference, Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, University of Michigan.

(9) Weissman and White (1961) "Small Angular Deflexions of Rigid Foundations", Geo-technique, Vol . 2, No . 3.

(10) Horn, H.M. (1964) "The Analysis and Design of Antenna Tower Foundations",

Journal, Boston Society of Civil Engineers.

m (11) Borowicka, H. (1943) " Eccentrically Loaded Rigid Plates on Elastic Isotropic Sub-soils", Ingenieur, Archiv.,1:1-8.

(12) Gilbert Associates, Inc. (1968) " Specifications for Subsurface Grouting, Crystal River - Unit No. 3, Florida Power Corporation".

(13) Department of the Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks: (1963) Design Manual SM-7, Soil Mechanics, Foundations and Earth Structures.

(14) Hetenyi, M. (1946) " Beams on Elastic Foundations", University of Michigan Press.

(15) Terzoghi, K . (1955) " Evaluation of Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction", Geo-technique, Vol . 3.

q ~.

G 016\

i I

1

/

INTRODUCTION The geotechnical investigations reported herein have been made in connection with the c >ign and construction of foundations for an nddition to the power generating facilities of the Florida Power Corporation at Crystal River, Florido. It is understood that the proposed power plant addition will be o nuclear facility to be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with the regulations and guidelines of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

The purpose of the study reported herein is to investigate and analyze all relevent site, structural and geotechnical conditions; to develop criteria for foundation design and con-struction; and to formulate conclusions relative to the anticipated response of plant foundations under imposed static and wind loads.

The scope of the investigation included a review of pertinent site information, pre-liminary structural data and geologic studies cs developed for the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report . Supplemental studies made as part of this investigation included the planning and direction of on in situ load test program and laboratory testing of representative samples of proposed lood-bearing fill materials. A detailed description of the field and laboratory test-ing programs and the results thereof have been forwarded under separate cover as on Appendix to this report.

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT lt is understood that the proposed nuclear power facility, designated Unit No. 3, will encompass a plan area of opproximately 98,000 square feet and will include a Babcocic and Wilcox nuclear reactor capable of generating 855 megawatts of electricai power. 'The new facility will be located within the Florida Power Corporation's Crystal RIher plant site east of h the existing fossil fuel plant. Plops showing the various plant components and the location 62 WOODWARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

of the proposed Unit No. 3 within the plant site are ottoched as Figures 1 and 2, respectively.

It is understood that the Reactor Building will be supported by a 12.5 ft. thick,147 ft.

diameter foundation mot bearing at elevation + 80.5. The Reactor Building foundation mot is re-ported to impose on overage unit load under operating conditions of about 7.8 ksf. The maximum contact pressure of the Reactor Building mot under operating and under 1.5 accident pressure conditions is estimated to be 10.3 and 23.4 ksf, respectively. Approximately 1.1 ksf of the enticipated loading is reported to be due to equipment load. Under design conditions, it is understood that the total horizontal wind shear and overturning moment imposed on the reactor building is conservatively estimated to be 943 kips and 104,000 foot-kips, respectively.

Within the Turbine Generator Room it is understood the overage unit loading will be in the order of 3.1 ksf with on estimated maximum loading of 6.4 ksf. The overage unit loading anticipated within the Auxiliary Building is expected to be variable. The approximate magnitude and distribution of unit load as applied to the various sections of the Auxillory Building is summarized for operating conditions as follows.

-_1VRW_GMA ======,=__ , _ AVQA GEJMT_JpA D_gh____

General Building Area 6.0 and 7.0 Decoy Heat Pit 6.0 NSSW Pump Sump 9.3 Heat Exchanger Room 2.5 With the exception of the Service Area foundation at elevation + 119, it is reported that the ground floor elevation of the proposed plant will be et + 95. Within the Auxiliary Building, it is noted that the Decay Heat Pit and the Nuclear Service Pump Sump will extend O

WOODWARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

p O down to elevation + 68.5 and +61.0, respectively. It is understood that the exterior grade around the facility will be brought up to an average elevation of + 119. All elevations are based to Plant Datum, referenced on a mean low tide elevation of + 88.0.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The area of study, situated on the Gulf of Mexico, is reported to be a reclaimed salt marsh presently characterized by surface fills generally not exceeding a few feet in thickness.

Physiographically, the site is situated within the Terraced Coastal Lowlands of the coastal plain of western Florida.

As reported by geologic studies N, the copping natural soil deposit is identified as the Pamlico Terrace Formation, a Pleistocene marine deposit. Underlying the surface sediments, g two distinct limestone formations of Tertiary age are reported within the depth of exploration.

U The uppermost formation has been identified as the Inglis Liraestone Member of the Moody Branch Formation and the lower member as the Avon Park Formation. It is reported that there is no evidence of active faulting within the vicinity of the site. A typical stratigraphic column, interpolated from the available subsurface data, is shown on Figure 4.

PAMLICO TERRACE SEDIMENTS Beneath a gravelly sandy silt and gravelly silty sand fill of variable but limited thickness, the natural soils were identified as irregularly stratified medium to fine sand, sandy silt and silty sand, containing occasional clayey silt interbeds, organic inclusions and a variable but usually minor amount of gravel sized limey concretions and limestone fragments.

These materials were reported to have on irregular density / consistency ranging from loose / soft to dense / stiff. A trend toward increasing density with depth was also observed, n

o -

0)ba & WOODWARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

INGLIS LIMESTONE The Inglis Limestone is identified as a frequently jointed, solutioned, fossiliferous, h granular limerock of high primary porosity. Below on irregular depth of friable, decomposed residual materials, on occasionally discontinuous surficial zone of the rock (bioplastic pelcol-corinite) was found to be relatively intact and, in comparison with the associated limerock, to be less altered by weathering and solution processes. Solutioning within this member, referred to herein as the Cop Rock zone, was found to be particularly well developed along high angle joints associated with two regional fracture systems. The principal set was found to be primarily oriented in a northwest-southeast direction and secondarily in o northeast-southwest direction.

The second fracture set was found to be oriented in a north-south and east-west direction. At the intersection of these fracture traces, intensified leaching and alteration of the limerock was noted occasionally, in the form of near vertical chimneys of limited horizontal extent. Associated solution channels were generally found to be filled with sediments usvolly identified as loose sand or silty sand and infrequently as sandy silt or silt.

O In the obsence of, and beneath the Cop Rock member, the Inglis Limestone was observed to be chorocterized by a fragmental, of ten friable and poorly cemented limestone interspersed with intact rock layers and occasional pockets and lenses of sand and silty sand, the product of secondary in-filling of solution cavities. Although on oppreciable core recovery could not be consistently obtained, the Standard Penetration Resistance (N) of this member, (identified herein as a Differentially Cemented Limerock) usually indicated a dense to very dense condition. N values obtained during sampling of the interspersed in-filled materials indicated a loose to medium dense condition . Based on the results of the subsurface exploration and from observations of initial on-site excavations, it is concluded that the areal extent of individual filled and/or unfilled solution cavities are very small in comparison to the area of the proposed foundation system.

The base of the Inglis Limestone is reported to be generally marked by on erosional g

&w, 01ca WOODWARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

l l

l n

C unconformity usually identified as a dolomitic silt, but also containing pebbles, shell fragments, l

calcite concretions and medium to highly plastic montmorillonite clay seams. It is postulated that these materials probably represent the products of weathering of the underlying Avon Park Limestone .

AVON PARK LIMESTONE The Avon Park Limestone Formation has been encountered in the area of study at depths usually ranging frca 60 to 100 feet below the existing ground 50 6::. This Eocene Limestone was usually identified as a pasty and fragmental marine Jolomitic limestone (Biogenic Doloorenite) very fossiliferous, seemed and peat-flecked. Typical core samples were usually observed to be hard and rigid although extremely porous and pitted by solution activity. The penetration re-sistance and core recoveries within the Avon Park Formation were found to be consistently O his ser then the immediereix everixies iesiis Limestene end eeneroiix increesed with deeth.

LIMESTONE SOLUTION ACTIVITY As discussed previously, a significant amount of solution activity has occurred in both the lngi.s and Avon Park Limestones, being particularly intense along a regional fracture system

and in the transition zone at the base of the Inglis Formation. it is noted that solution studies (2) conducted as part of the geologic site investigations conclude that the present groundwater environ-ment is not conducive to active solutioning. It is also pertinent to note that no evidence of l

l active subsurface subsidence (sink holes) due to solution activity has been reported within the l proposed plant site.

GROUNDWATER Observations made during the various field exploraticns indicated water levels to be subject to tidal influence in response to on average tidal range of from elevation + 90.5 (mean O

O high tide) to about elevation + 88.0 (at mean low tide). Groundwater levels obsesved in the 016C . . ....ix . l,Til

test borings were usually found to range between elevations + 87 and +92 and to overage about h elevation + 88.0.

Periodic groundwater observations of water level fluctuations in on observation well located within the area of study indicated a cyclic time log between the groundwater levels and the tide levels observed at a tide gauge station in the plant area. Analysis of these records in-dicate the groundwater level response to log the tide levels by on interval of about 30 minutes.

The cyclic groundwater level peaks were also observed to be from 1.0 to 2.5 feet below the corresponding tide level peaks, indicating that the groundwater (at least the surficial system) to be recharged by the Gulf of Mexico.

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS The pertinent geotechnical chorocteristics of the various stratigraphic units encountered by the exploration have been analyzed from field and laboratory test dato derived from both the geological and geotechnical studies reported herein. General conclusions derived from this study are summarized as follows.

PAMLICO TERRACE DEPOSITS An irregular and occasionally significant compressibility combined with the variable depth of the Pleistocene soil mantle indicates that these materials would be subject to detrimental compression under loads such as would be imposed by foundations. The predominant silty sands, interspersed with clay lenses and organic inclusions, would also be expected to be unstable in excavations carried more than a few feet below water level . QW INGLIS LIMESTONE A significant chorocteristic of the Cop Rock Member of the Inglis Limestone Formetion oppears to be on appreciable variation in the thickness and extent of the unit. Where present in 9

WOODWARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES l

/7 U sufficient thickness, the Cop Rock would be expected to act as a relatively rigid load distributing medio although containing a significant number of discontinuities due to frequent jointing and solution effects.

The Differentially Cemented Limerock Member of the Inglis Limestone, the least rigid of the major supporting strato, would be expected to exhibit somewhat variable supporting char-acteristics consistent with a varying thickness and degree of alteration. The strength and com-

. pression properties of the Cop Rock and Differentially Cemented Limerock Members of the Inglis Limestone are discussed as follows.

SHEAR STRENGTH: Although the heterogeneous condition of the Inglis Limestone does not lend itself to a rigorous analysis of in situ shear strength, field pressuremeter tests and laboratory compression tests on core samples have been onelyzed in on attempt to establish the limiting strength parameters of the limestone. A summary of the test results are presented in Table 1, Page 8. Considering that the laboratory test cores are necessarily representative of the more competent phase of the rock and the in situ pressuremeter test results are influenced by drilling disturbances and by the porous nature of the limestone, the following general conclusions con-cerning the strength of the Inglis Limestone con be mode.

(1) Where sufficiently intact to permit core sampling and laboratory compression testing, limestone specimens were observed to exhibit a linearly elcstic stress-strain relationship under initial loads up tc uxial strains of 1/4 to 1-1/4 per cent. The unconfined compressive stress of cores token from the Cop Rock (CR) and Limerock (LR) Members was found to overage about 92 tsf and 77 tsf at the pseudo-elastic limit, respectively, and to be about 90 per cent of ultimate compressive strength.

, v

'O 0lOu WD00 WARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES r

I i

TABLEI COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS Co p 3. n 5 t e., CP Rock Differentially Cemented Limerock Tes' Limi' 5t e . Axial St.oi - No. of 5tiess Axiol Strain No . of  ;

r.f S Tests tif  % Test, at 33 to 195 0.3 to I .3 12 I .3 to 143 0.3 to 1.4 16 U .: onfined El 3ric tim t r0.6 ,77'. (0.6)

Comp < ession '

o, J4 to 203 0.3 to 1.3 12 13 to 180 0.3 to 1.7 16 Failu,e 100'. :0.7 i87) 0.8)

-o*

or 10 to 35 9.5 to 2.8 6 8 to 16 2.1 to 13.6 10 p,,,,,,,_

Do, tic Liinit 29: .l.6i .li .5.0.

or JI to 74 1.0 to 7.6 6 12 to 51 3.3 to 21.6 10 Failure (51; .4.2',

26: ,10.7's j

92) Average value (a) Volumetric strain co CD ,

t  !

O O @

_9_

(D A/

(2) The compressive strength at the elastic limit as indicated by the more reliable piessure-meter tests was usually observed to overage over 20 tsf in the CR and over 11 tsf in the underlying LR Member. The shear strength (defined as 1/2 of the ultimate compressive stress) as determined by unconfined compression tests on core specimens from the CR and LR Merabers was found to average about 50 and 43 tsf, respectively.

(3) The effect of confinement in trioxial compression (Tx) tests was to increase shear strength at least 36 per cent under a confining stress of 150 psi os compared to the unconfined compressive strength of comparative samples.

(4) A chorocteristic sudden compression and on accompor.ying plastic stress-strain behavior beyond the pseudo-elostic limit of core samples was observed in several core spacimens and is be-lieved to be indicative of local collopse of the porous limestone structure.

Allowing for on 80 per cent reduction in the oveioge unconfined compressive strength of Differentially Cemented Limerock test specimens to account for the in situ discontinuities and non-representative sampling effects, it is concluded that on in situ (immediate) shear strength of at least 9 tsf con be assumed for the Inglis Limestone. Houever, it is evident that the strength of the Differentially Cemented Limeror.k will be dependent to a largc degree on confinement , and the rock will mobilize o significant f-ictional shearing resistance, essentially upon application of load.

MODULUS OF DEFORMATION: Consistent with the extreme variation in the porosity and in the relative soundness of the limestone, modulus values derived fiom both field and labora-tory tests were found to have a wide scatter. The most representative modulus values which could be interpolated from wave propogotion studies, from in situ compression'ond from laboratory com-pression tasts are summarized in Toble 2.

g 0170 W000 WARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

l l

TABLE 2 - MODULUS VALUES - INGLIS LIMESTONE O\ l E,M .g @) Number Test Method (ksi) (ksi) of Tests l Remarks j i 61  ; 22 10  : Raleigh wave measurements l Wove Propogotion ,  !

92* 33* 2* j Grouted crea of Unit # 2*

I i 1 274 (25 3) 13 (18) First load, very sound samples Unconfi..ed Compression 883 (580) l , 3 ( 2) l Cyclic load very sound samples i

Trioxial Compression 64 ( 43) 8 ( 4) j Fairly sound somples 34 (12) 15 (35) First loading, most reliable tests Pressuremeter 188 (63) -

8 ( 9) Rebound measurement

! O Plate Load Test l (5000) (4) Cyclic load (a) Deformation Modulus (E 3) for Cop Rock and for (Differentially Cemented Limerock)

(b) Shear Modulus (G)

(c) Adjusted to reflect a one foot diameter bearing plate Conclusions relative to the testing influence and the validity and applicebility of the various methods of modulus determination are summarized as follows.

(1) It is well documented that modulu values applicable to static load analysis or to earthquake induced ground motions cannot be directly calculated from wave propogation tests considering the very small stress levels and amplitudes inherent in wave propagation and the porous and fractured nature of the limestone. Houever, correlations between amplitude (strain) levels os developed by the various testing techniques and G have been proposed for granular h 017i woonwano.ctroE a associarEs 1

l l

l A

V and cohesive soils. Finally, it is noted that modulus values derived from the Raleigh Wave propagation studies vould be applicable to only a limited depth and would be expected to pri-marily reflect the ini vence of the overburden and Cap Rock Member.

(2) Estimating Deformation Modulus (Es) from laboratory shear (E) tests may not be o sufficiently conservative approach particularly for the Differentially Cemented Limerock, con-sidering that the test specimens necessarily represent only that portion of the limestone from which intact core recovery could be obtained.

(3) The influence of scale and confinement effects would be expected to result in a significant underestimating of Deformation Modulus (E 3

) from the results of the 15, 22, and 30 inch diameter load tests performed in the grout test creo. However, these in situ tests, performed at levels ranging from elevation 84.4 to elevation 52.6 would be expected to define a very O ceeservetive iewer iimir ef es .

(4) It is believed that the stress conditions and drilling disturbances associated with the pressuremeter tests also lead to an excessively conservative E, approximation. However, assuming that the effect of drilling distu:bonce is somewhat obscured by a second loading, Es as computed from the reload or unload of selected pressuremeter tests would also be expected to provide dato applicable to a lower limit approach for static load deformation analysis.

(5) The actual deformation response of the foundation materials will be dependent on the confinement, the imposed stress intensity and distribution as well as the properties of each stratum occursing within the ze of effective foundation stress. Thus, Esfor each member of the foundo-tion rock system will be dependent on the extent of the loaded creo, the impcsed contact pressure of the structure and the depth of the member.

m Weighing the testing and material influences with the results of laboratory tests, 0172 WOODWAR0 CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

field tests and field observations, it is concluded that the compressibility of the Cop Rock and h Differentially Cemented Limerock Members of the Inglis Limestone ofter consolidation grouting con be very conservatively represented for static load analysis by on E, of 97 ksi and 54 ksi, respectively. where Eois the Deformation Modulus applicable to o rigid, one foot diameter plate bearing on the surface of the member.

TRANSITION ZONE A thin transition zone, usually identified as a dolomitized silt, representative of a depositional discontinuity between the Inglis and Avon Park Limestone Formations has been analyzed with respect to the possibility of a detrimental volumetric compression of this zone under foundation loads. Although a wide range of Standard Penetration Resistance (N) within this zone was reported, it is believed that the lower values are associated with materials offected by solution activity within the surrounding rock and that the overage N o' over 40 blows per foot is representative of the undisturbed materials.

9 On the basis of the reported N values, laboratory index test results and observation of the consistency of recovered samples, it is concluded that materials within the transition zone have been subject to compression under pressures well above that exerted by the existing overburden and would be relatively incompressibie under the proposed foundation lo=ds. The limited thick-ness (usually two to six feet) and the significant depth (usually over 60 feet below the existing ground surface) would also tend to preclude a significant deformation contribution from the transition zone.

AVON PARK LIMESTONE Although the upper zone of the dolomitized limestone of the Avon Park Formation has apparently been subject to prolonged exposure resulting in a stronger weathering influence cnd a more intense solution activity than in the underlying materiais, it is believed that this g 0173

/~T U formation, when compared to the overlying Inglis Limestone is relatively rigid and would be sub-ject to only minor compression under the imposed foundation loads. Based on available laboro-tory compression tests and in situ pressuremeter tests (generally concentrated in the less competent upper zone of the Doloorenite) conclusions pertinent to the strength and compression characteristics are summarized as follows.

STRENGTH AND COMPRESSIBILITY: Intact samples of the Doloaranite yielded unconfined compressive strengths usually two to four times greater than intact samples of the Inglis Limestone . Although in situ pressuremeter tests could not be interpreted with any degree of cer-tainty, a trend towards greater shear strength with depth was noted. Pressuremeter tests also indicated the shear stress at the elastic limit to be usually greater than 11 tsf and to increase with depth.

Based on the interpretation of laboratory compression and field pressuremeter tests, the average Deformation Modulus Es for the first and second loading is estimated to be 60 and 670 ksi, respectively . For analytical purposes, the Eoof the upper, weathered zone of the Do!oarenite is very conservatively estimated to be 140 ksi and the Eo of the underlying sounder Doloorenite is estimated to be at least in the order of 530 ksi and probably significantly higher.

COMPACTED LOAD-BEARING FILL Representative samples of lood-bearing fill materials identified herein as Zone No. 2 and Zone No. 3 Fill (see Page24) and proposed fer direct foundation support were tested in 4

Consolidated-Drained Triaxial (CID) compression to investigate strength and compressibility.

The results of physical property and trioxial compression tests are summarized in Tables 3 and 4.

i IDENTIFICATION AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES: The identification, moisture-density and pertinent physical properties determined from laboratory tests on representative samples of O

O174

._u __ -. . . . . _

the proposed fill materials are tabulated in Table 3. It is noted that the gradotion of the friable h limerock represents on ofter compaction condition of the aggregate finer than 3/4 inches and is dependent on the compactive effort and method of compaction.

TABLE 3 - FILL PROPERTIES Per cent finer by dry weight Specific Maximum Dry ( ) Optimum ( )

Material 3/4 inch #4 #200 Gravity Density (pcf) Moisture (%)

(Zone 2)

(b)

Crushed Sound Limestone 100.0 55.0 10.0 2.68 129.8 8.9 (Zone 3)

Crushed Friable Limerock 66.1 77.1 18.3 2.72 112.8 14.1 (a) According to ASTM Tese Designation D1557-66T, Method C (b) Material coarser than 3/4 in removed to form shear test sample .

__ TABLE 4 - SHEAR STRENGTH _ PARAMETERS h

1. c O

WL Wr Material (degrees) (tsf) (%) (%)

(Zone 2) 0.274 6.7 7.8 Crushed Sound Limestone 47.7 0.4 to to to 0.303 7.2 11.1 (Zone 3) 0.473 11.4 15.4 Crushed Friable Limerock 43.3 0.5 to to to 0.510 16.1 17.5 SHEAR STRENGTH: CID compression test specimens were prepared at water contents of two per cent above and two percent below Optimum Moisture content and soturated prior to testing.

The results of these tests are sommarized in terms of effective friction angle (!i9 ), effective cohesion ( d ), initial void ratio ( Co), initial ( #i ), and final (Wr) water content as shown on 0

0175 woonwano ctTom a associates

Table 4. It is noted that the shear strength envelopes of both materials exhibited a slight curvi-l linear configuration and a small effective cohesion, which may be attributed to interlocking effects of the angular particles.

COMPRESSIBILITY: The Modulus of Deformation (Es ) as interpreted from first loading was found to be an exponential function of confining pressure as reported by Seed, et al and,  ;

for the limerock samples,to be a function of the molding moisture content in accordance with the following equations:

Es = 5.7 ( F3 '+ **

Es = 6.4 ( F3 '~ * ' * *'*

E, = Modulus of Deformation in ksi F3 Effective confining pressure in ksf O The first load, E 3 vs F3 rei ti nship of the sound, crushed limestone, believed to be only slightly influenced by moiding moisture content, was found to be expressed by the following equation.

E, = 7.0 ( U'3)

The results of the cyclic loading performed on six of the ten test specimens indicated the cyclic loed modulus (Ec ) t Iso be a function of confining pressure and, for the limerock, to be a function of molding moisture content as summarized in Table 5, Page 16.

CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that a static load modulus (E 3) representative of the overage confinement anticipated beneath structural foundations can be conservatively estimated to be in the order of 23 and 32 ksi for the crushed, friable limerock, and for the crushed sound limestone, respectively. Based on cyclic loading tests, a shear modulus (G) of 17 ksi and of 0176 WOODWARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

23 ksi for the crushed limerock and limestone respectively, is believed to be a sufficently con-5ervative opproximation for dynamic loading analysis. An overage G of 20 @ksi could there fore be very conservatively used to represent both the Zone 2 and Zone 3 fill materials TABLE 5 - CYCLIC MODULUS f3 E c E c/ E, Material (psi) (ksi) 10 72.2@

60.1 I 5.5 8.7 @

Crushed Limerock 10 50 92.6 j 2.9 i

g I

Crushed Limestone 10 49.6 5.6 50 85.5 3.9 av Wi = 2% above O.M.

GROUTED LOAD-BEARING FILL h To investigate the supporting capability of grooted Zone No.1 Fill, representative samples were grooted in 6 x 12 inch cylinders using simulated field grouting conditions. The grouted specimens were subsequently tested in unconfined compression to investigate strength and compressibility . The results of the physical property and compression tests are summarized as follows. l l

AGGREGATE AND GROUT MIX PROPERTIES: The gradation and specific gravity of i the Zone No.1 oggregate and the grout-mix proportions used to prepare the test specimens are tabulated in Table 6 and Table 7, Page 17.

E c , where Ec is interpolated as o function of confining pressure ac Q = 2(1+44) o\ti WOODWA'.0 CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

TABLE 6 - A_G_QREGATE PROPERTIES (Test Sample)

Per cent finer by Dry Weicht Specific Material 2 in. 1-1/2 in. 1 in. 3/4 in. 1/2 in. 3/8 in. I No. 4 No.8 Gravity Crushed (a)

Limestone 100 96.1 78(a)

.6 26.4 7.9 4.6 2.7 2.1 2.68 (a). Slight deviation from ASTM C-33, Type 357 gradation TABLE 7 - GROUT MIX PROPERTIES (Test Sample) l Per Cent by Consistency, seconds Materials i Dry Weight , (Flow Cone)

Cement, Type 1 20 9.9 Fly Ash 20 (Time of Efflux)

Limerock Flour 's0 Water - Cement plus O rix ^>" a *>e i 48 PREPARATION OF TEST SPECIMENS: The aggregate was preplaced into the cylindrical mold in both a loose and in a comp 6cted state @ to simulate extreme fill placement conditions in the field, in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Specification CRD-C 84-59, " Method of Test for Compressive Strength of Preplaced-Aggregate Concrete". The average porosity of loose and compact cylinders calculated from the preplaced aggregate content was found to be 46 and 40 per cent, respectively.

To simulate the field conditions, cylinders pocked with aggregate were grouted under on intake pressure of 15 psi at the bottom closure plate. The grovt was continuously pumped until overflow of grout through weep holes in the top closure plate was observed. The grouted test specimens were disconnected and cured in 100 per cer.t relative humidity in accordance with

@ Aggregate content ranging from 15.37 to 15.82 and 17.12 to 17.70 pounds per cylinder, respectively, for loose and compact specimens. p

- WOODWARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

ASTM Designation C 39-68. h SHEAR STRENGTH: All grouted test specimens were sheared in unconfined compression offer at least 28 days of curing in accordance with ASTM Designation C 39-68. All of the tests with the exception of the first two included on unlood-reload cycle within the elastic range os observed from the 'first two tests. The jesults of the compression tests are summarized in Table 8, below.

TABLE 8 - SHEAR STRENGTH OF ZONE NO.1 FILL

-~~~

-~ r ---------T-

• No. of Average Unit 3i Aver ge Aver ge Shear Specimen Specimens Weight, Ib/ft - Grout Toke, %  ; j Strength (psi) i I . l Loose 3 1 127.0 i 46 l 433 l

i Compact 4 130.8 . 40 5 31 Grout Mix 2 102.9 -- 274 O

Shear Strength = 1/2 compressive strength COMPRESSIBILITY: The Secont Modulus (E) of the grouted Zone No.1 Fill has been interpreted from the stress-strain relationship of the test specimens for the first and second loading cycles. The results of the modulus determinations are summarized in Table 9, below.

m_____ _

T A_BLL9_ _DEERRJd AT_LQ N_M_QD__QLQS _ _____

First Loading Second Loadina Avg.

Specimen No. Tests Avg.E s (ksi) No. Tests Avg .Ec(ksi) EcjEs Loose 3 '111 2 136 1.26 Co npoct 4 132 3 165 1.22 It is noted that the dense pocked specimens yielded a slightly higher strength and lower compressi-bility than the loose pocked specimens. As would be anticipated E c /E ratio is significantly lower then was found for the ungrouted compacted Zone No. 2 oggregate.

WOODWARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES o\l's

t

, a

~O .

FOUNDATION ANALYSIS -

The response of the Reactor Building foundation mot hos been analyzed with respect to l both the static and transient loading conditions reported herein. Similarly, the mot foundation systems proposed for the Auxiliary and Turbine Buildings have been analyzed for static loadings reported for normal operating conditions. The method of analyses, findings, and conclusions t

f _ concerning foundation design /censtruction and the probable response of the foundation systems are summarized as follows.

BEARING CAPACITY i

To evoluote the deep crushing potential of the Differentially Cemented Limerock (rep-t resenting the least competent foundation member), the bearing capacity of the foundation materials have been analyzed to investigate the required overage shear strength to give a safety factor of three against local shear failure under operating loads as imposed by the Reactor Building founootion system. As on extreme " worst-case" analysis, it has been assumed that the entire foundation rock system above the dolomite will respond as a weakly cemented sand con-

~ toining very loose zones ( in-filled cavities) of limited horizontal extent.

, The calculated effective vertical stress distribution I beneath the center of the Reactor

Building mot for static operating load conditions is shown on Figure 3. - The results of the bearing

! - capacity analysis, for both a (= 0 and a C =.0 condition, are summarized in Toble 10, as the shear strength ( C ) or friction angle ( gT) required to achieve a factor of safety of three against i

a bearing capacity failure at various depths below foundation level.

@ Elastic half space solution used to estimate the overage imposed vertical stress beneoth the Reactor Building mot.

4

?

! O L 0180

WOOOWARO CLYSE & ASSOCIATES

e

_ TABLE 10 - DEPTH VS. SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS- _ g Depth Below Required 6 Required C Foundation (ft) (d.egrees) (tsf) 0 30 1.33 20 24 0.99 60 10 0.62 (w Required for a safety factor of three The effect of solution voids and the associated localized arching of the foundation materials would be expected to cause high localized stress concentrations in the near vicinity of the voids, not reflected by the above bearing capacity analysis. Houever, comparison of the results of the bearing capacity analysis with the results of laborctory and in situ compression tests, summarized on Page 8, indicate a wide margin of safety against a progressive failure of the limerock by crushing, provided that massive unfilled solution voids are not present within h o zone extending below the foundation down to about elevation +30. Thus, subsequent to con-solidation grouting the Reactor Building foundation would be expected to have a wide margin of safety against a bearing failee under operating conditions. Analysis of accident pressure con-ditions indicates on increased in situ strength requirement in the upper part of the rock system due to o redistribution of the contact pressure, resulting in a higher intensity at the center of the foundo-tion mot. Houever, considering the transient nature of the loading, a bearing capacity failure would not be anticipated under 1,5 accident pressure conditions.

SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS Static load settlements have been analyzed for two limiting subgrade conditions in accordance with elastic theory for a multi-loyered foundation system employing superposition of the Boussinesq b) solution as proposed by Vesic I) . The angular deformation of the Reactor .

Building under transient (wind ) load has also been estimated in accordance with elastic theory O

WOODWAllD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES 018i

using a pseudo-static method of analysis os proposed by Weissman and White and Horn ofter Borowicko DESIGN PARAMETERS: The design parameters utilized for the onelysis of settlement and static transient (wind) load are. summarized for the Reactor Building in Table 11,below. The analysis assumes that all unsuitable surface sediments and decomposed rock would be removed and replaced below feundation level by a pressure grouted crushed limestone fill or that the foundation mot is supported directly on the limerock.

TABLE 11 - DE5IGN PARAMETERS Loyer Layer Td)

Modulus of W

Stratigraphic Thickness Depth Deformation Poisson's Unit (ft) '

(ft) (ksi) Ratio Case (1) Case (2) Case (1) Case (2) ' Case (1) Case (2)

Load-Bearing Fill 12 5 0 0 0.33 470*

Cap Rock Zone 0 15 5 0 .33 l

Differentially Cemented Limerock Zone 68 50 12 20 220 0.33 (c) i Dolomite 120 130 80 70 690 ,' 640 0.33 I

I Composite values (a) Depth below foundation level to surface of stratigraphic unit (b) Adjusted from test data for loading and confinement effects (c) Assuming rigid boundary at a depth of 200 feet it is noted that the design stratigraphy represents both an overage and near " worst-case" condition.

Further, the modular values of the foundation materials corresponding to a transient loading con-dition would be expected to be significantly higher than the static design values summarized in Table 11. Thus, the estimated wind load deformation would be expected to be on ultro- I

(#

conservative approximation, l

0182 waan=aan ctros a associaris l

SETTLEMENT DISTORTIONS: It is concluded that foundation deformation contributed h by compression of the Inglis and Avon Park Formation will occur as a small, essentially immediate deformation, the major settlement contribution being derived from the Differentially Cemented Limerock member of the Inglis Limestone. Conversely, the settlement contribution of Pamlico Terrace surface sediments would be expected to include a significant and irrogularly distributed volumetric (consolidation) settlement which is believed to be of sufficient magnitude to require removal and replacement by lood-bearing fill.

Estimates of total operating load deformation of the Reactor Building foundation system have been made considering the load superposition effect of the adjacent structures and of ex-terior fills for both the least and most favorable foundation conditions postulated. The results of the analysis indicates the upper limit of total settlement of the mot to be in the order of 7/8 inches at the center of a semi-rigid foundation mot. All but a very small fraction of this O

settlement would be expected to occurduring construction, before installation of equipment or instrumentation which may be sensitive to slight differential movement.

Considering the effects of rigidity of the 12.5 ft thick Reactor Building foundation mot and of the potentially variable subsurface conditions, differential settlement between the load cenu and edge of the mot would not be expected to exceed a maximum of approximately 5/16 inches in 75 ft., o maximum angular distortion in the order of 3.5 x 10-4 radions for the most unfavorable supporting conditions. Considering on estimated angular distortion of only 0.2 x 10-5 radians due to wind forces the total angular distortion from the center to the edge of the mot would not be expected to exceed on order of mognitude of 3 to 4 x 10-4 radians under the most unfavorable wind and static loading conditions which con be postulated.

l On the basis of the foregoing onelysis, it is concluded that the foundation rock system which will support the Reactor Building mot is capable of sustaining on overage unit load under h WOODWARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

_01 R ' -

O imposed static loads of at least 4.0 tsf without detrimental settlement distortions. Under transient wind loading, imposing overturning moments equivalent to 104,000 ft-kips, it is concluded that the angular (rotational) distortion of the relatively rigid mot would be essentially negligible.

The settlement distortion of foundations supporting other structural and dynamically stable equipment elements within the proposed plant facility would be expected to be less than the Reactor Building foundation provided such foundations are proportioned to preclude shear dis-placement of the load-bearing fill should Zone 2 type fill be used.

FOUNDATION TREATMENT lt is believed advisable to assure, by a suitable treatment, the continuity and integrity of the solutioned limestone within a zone directly beneath all foundation units of sufficient ex-tent to provide a wide margin of safety against a deep-seated bearing failure considering the O most unfavorable conditions which can be postulated. It is therefore concluded that consolido-tion grouting of the Inglis Limestone, primarily to fill all solution voids of significant extent and secondarily to provide densification of loose, discrete grained, materials filling such voids, will provide such assurance. Further, it is concluded that a suitable foundation treatment would include the excavation and replacement of any potentially compressible materials overlying the intact Cao Rock and/or the dense or intact Differentially Cemented Limestone bearing members.

EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL Considering the potential significant and irregular compressibility of the surficial materials, it is concluded that excavation should extend down to dense decomposed limerock when encountered above the Cap Rock member, to the Cop Rock, or to dense Differentially Cemented Limerock in the absence of th'e Cap Rock member. For Class I structures, it is proposed to replace the C) excavated materials by a load-bearing lj gf concrete or of select granular material, grouted U3 WOODWARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

in-place. in other oreos, o select granular material compacted in a thin-layer construction is proposed as on alternative type of lood-bearing fill.

It is noted that areas to be excavated well below the groundwater level may have to be confined by a sheet-pile cofferdom to permit adequate excavation control. This technique may also be used in <:onjunction with the construction of a tremied concrete bottom plug to effect control of groundwater os discussed herein.

LOAD-BEARING FILL BELOW WATER: it is proposed that suboqueous placement of the load-bearing fills be utilized where complete drow-down of groundwater cannot be achieved without imposing detrimental hydraulic gradients. Load-bearing fill materials suitable for underwater placement would consist of concrete or crushed limestone (Zone No.1 Fill) suitably graded for placement in water. The crushed limestone would also be graded to prevent segre-gotion during placement and to have a porosity suited to grovt intrusion. The concrete fill must be suited to tremie placement if placed in water.

Prior to subcqueous fill placemen*

• excavations below water level, extreme core must be token to preclude the entropment of any significant quantities of reworked or sedimented materials at the bottom c' the e.:covation. Thus, careful and thorough air-lifting (voeuum) 9echniques will be required to cleon-up the bottom of the excavation prior to fill placement.

LOAD-BEARING FILL ABOVE WATER: Load-bearing fill placed above water level for structural support should consist of a sound, well graded crushed limestone (Zone No. 2 Fill) or a lean concreto. Embonkments constructed beyond the building limits and exterior backfills could consist of a friable crushed limerock identified herein as Zone No. 3 Fill, it is concluded that all Zone No. 2 and Zone No. 3 materials would be most effectively placed on on essentially firm, dry surface in a controlled, thin-lift construction. However, should a complete groundwater drow-down not be practical, it is concluded that the initial g nr WOODWAllD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES 0Ioa

l O

V Zone No. 2 Fill lift thickness could be increased to a maximum of about three feet without detrimental effects, provided that oppropriate compaction equipment were utilized. Thus, it is believed that fill placement in water could be effectively compacted if the water depth did not exceed 2.5 to 3 feet.

Zone No. 3 Fill would be placed so as to effect a maximum particle breakdown during compaction . The base of the moisture-sensitive Zone No. 3 Fill should be placed at least two feet above the maximum anticipated water level.

CONSOLIDATION GROUTING lt is believed that pressure (consolidation) grouting of the bearing materials to assure the stability of plant foundations can be effectively performed by the modified split-spaced, grout hole procedure outlined by the specifications for foundation grouting as prepared by Gilbert O Associates, Inc. for the Florida Power Corporation. Under these specifications, foundation grouting will include a peripheral grout curtain to aid in groundwater control and to preclude excessive lateral grout escope from the foundation area. The grout will consist of a cement-flyosh-limestone rock flour mixture. The single line, grout curtain will have a madmum hole closure spacing of four feet and will extend below a concrete cutoff wall corried down to about elevation

+ 86. Consolidation grouting within the foundation area will have a final hole spacing not more than 10 feet, o.c.

It is concluded that consolidation grouting should be carried to at least elevation + 30 at the Rcoctor Building or3 to at least elevation +50 throughout the remaining power plant structure creo. With respect to determination of the optimum grout cut-off depth, it is specified that the groot treatment is to be carried to the dolomite at a depth of 80 to 100 ft. below the existing ground surface in lieu of employing a " quick-set" additive or other procedures to

! h'~

minimize grout escape beyond the base of a consol,idation zone based at elevations + 30 and + 50.

01 R:

~

@ Alternatively neat cement grout in closure holes WOODWARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES l

it would be most desirable to withhold consolidation grouting until completion of the excavation and backfilling so that the detrimental effects of construction disturbance and re-loxotion of the foundation materials con be minimized. However, should the proposed ground-water control techniques prove ineffective, consolidotion grouting p.:or te completion of excavating and backfilling may be necessary.

GROUNDWATER CONTROL Considering that th excavation of unsuitable surficial materials would at some locations extend well below groundwater level, special groundwater control techniques will be required to preclude development of detrimental " ground loss" by piping of the foundation materials under ex-cessive hyoroulic gradients. To minimize the effects of piping of the in-fill materials from solution channels, joints and fractures within the limerock system and of the weakly cemented limerock, it is proposed that control of groundwater (where necessary) be effected by pumping from shallow sumps filtered to preclude excessive remoeol of fines. However, even with the most O oppropriate dewatering system, it is believed that a piping potential exists which may have a locolized detrimental influence on the stability of the foundation materials.

It is believed that proposed consolidation grouting of the foundation materials would preclude a possibly time dependent odjustment of rock segments rendered unstable by piping provided the cement grout is intruded into the joints, fractures and solution channels of the rock system from which supporting fines have been removed. Thus, special core should be exercised by adjustment of grout viscosity, pressure, and injection interval, to obtain grout penetration in

(

, suspect creas.

I Should a " grout take" analysis and/or permeability tcsts made ofter grouting indicate on area of comparatively high porosity, it is con:luded that supplemental chemical grouting should be performed within the suspect area. The chemical grovt could be designed to pei strate g WOODWARD CLYDE & ASS 6.m4TES 0IOI1n7

~

fissures and voids which cannot be intruded by the cement grout. A silica-based grout would be oppropriate, having good strength and low creep characteristics along with the ability to permeate into relatively narrow joints and solution channels.

INFLUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS lt is believed that the sequence and method of foundation construction will have on influence on the ability of the recommended foundation system to perform adequately, as predicted. The two most critical aspects of construction influence on the supporting character-istics of foundation materials are groundwater control, os previously discussed, and subgrade deterioration.

Prolonged exposure of the limerock at foundation grade would be expected to result in a progres ive deterioration of the exposed surface and slumping of exposed excavation slopes.

O This condition will no doubt be accelerated by repeated subgrade submergence and emergence due to varying groundwater levels and/or infiltrating surface water.

To minimize the influence of subgrade deterioration during excavation and backfilling, the construction sequence should be scheduled to minimize the period of exposure of the various subgrade areas. Alternatively, a protective covering of exposed surfaces such as afforded by a bituminous application, would be desirable. A reserve pumping capacity should also be acintained as on aid in minimizing extreme water level fluctuations in excavations due to pump failures, rainfall, and surface water infiltration.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Recommendations pertaining to treatment of the foundation materials and to the design and construction of foundations for the proposed Nucieur Power facility are summarized as follcws.

O V

lt is noted that conclusions and recommendationsgresented herein are predicated on the U\00 W000WARO CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

-~

assumption that the seismisity of the site will have no significant influence on foundation design h Criteria.

FOlJi!DATION TREATMENT lt is recommended that consolidation grouting of the foundation materials be accom-plished subsequent to the removal and replacement of unsuitable bearing materials by a controlled lood-bearing fill. Foundation grouting should be accomplished in accordance with gal Spec-ification SP-5500, entitled " Specifications for Subsurface Grouting, Crystal River - Unit No. 3, Florida Power CoPoration", dated February 28,1968 and as subsequently amended. Under these specifications o cement-flyosh-limestone flour, cement-flyosh or a neat cement mix will be injected as a grout curtain to contain consolidation grouting and to afford a measure of groundwater control during excavation. Figure 4 is enclosed as o skematic of the proposed foundation treatment.

LIMITS OF CONSOLIDATION GROUTING: It is recommended that the limestone be O

grouted from the bearing surface down to at least elevation + 30 throughout the Reactor Building areas and down to at least elevation +50 throughout the remaining building areas. Alternatively,

ie consolidation g outing should extend into dolomite et on overage base elevation of about + 10 in lieu of employing special grout cut-off techniques at a high elevation.

The latero! limits of the consolidation grouting should extend beyond the foundation periphery of all plant units to include on exterior peripheral strip, the horizontal dimension at least equal to the thickness of lood-bearing fill or to 10 ft., whichever criteria gives the greatest dimension.

GROUT TAKE CRITERIA: In accordance with the specifications for consolidation grouting, grout will be injected under controlled pressure in a grid pettern employing a final third-order hole closure oattern of 10 x 10 feet Should the unit take of a third-order hole, overaged over the cntire length of the hole, exceed 1.2 cu.ft./ft., including the volume of the hole, or should h 0181 WOODWAllD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

bq the unit take of a given grout stage within the hole exceed 2.0 cu.ft./ft., in.luding the volume of the hole, a fourth-order hole should be drilled. The overage unit take of the fourth-order hole should not exceed 0.8 cu.ft./ft., nor should the unit :ake of a given stage within this hole exceed 1.1 cu.ft./ft., including in either case the volume of the hole, unless otherwise approved by the Engineer.

REACTOR BUILDING FOUNDATION Recommendations concerning the design of a 12.5 ft. thick foundation mot for support of the Reactor Building unit of the proposed Nuclear Power Plant are summarized as follous.

BEARING CO NDITIONS: Subsequent to construction of a peripheral grovt curtain and excavation to suitable bearing level, it is recommended that the Reactor Building foundation mot be based on compatent natural limerock or on a load-bearing fill. The load-bearing fill should O c e esist ef eith e r iS 0 0 asi c e n crete e n d / or e ree te d z e n e N e . i riii e n d sh e eid b e c e nstre c te d in accordance with the placement, material quality, and control criteria recommended herein.

MAT DES!GN: The foundation mot should be proportioned for total dead and live load (including the weight of the foundation mat) so as not to exceed on average contact pressure of 4.0 tsf. It is recommended that the foundation be analyzed as a slab on elastic foundo-tion b) ) using a Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction of 410 pounds per inch . An 3

equivalent modulus value of 520 ksi con be assumed to be appropriate for on elastic half space analysis, assuming full mot contact. It is pertinent to note that the subgrade parameters recommended for foundation mot analysis are valid only for static loading conditions und have been derived as a function of the loading magnitude and configuration as well os the properties of the foundation materials, g AUXILIARY BUILDING AND TURBINE GENERATOR BUILDING V

Recommendations for the design of fou d t o systems for the Turbine Generator and j ,; W000 WARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

i i

the Auxiliary Building areas of the proposed Nuclear Power Plant are summarized as follows. h BEARING CO NDITIONS: Class I structures should be supported on the dense or intact natural limerock or on a concrete or grouted Zone No. I lood-bearing fill subsequent to ex-cavation to the level of compatent bearing materials. In addition, other plant units may be supported on well compacted Zone No. 2 Fill. Loc 3-bearing fill should be constructed in accordance with the placement, material quality and control criteria outlined herein.

FOUNDATION TYPE: To preclude detrimental effects fro n any differential compression of dissimilar bearing materials, it is recommended that a foundation mot system be utilized for all major structures. In the turbine generator creo, individual foundation blocks for mochine units are recommended as on acceptable alternative to a mo7olithic mot construction.

FOUNDATION DESIGN: Foundation mot systems should be designed as recommended for the Reactor Building or mo-e conventionally in accordance with the " equivalent beam" method assuming the mot to act as o rigid unit. It is recommended that the mot system be pro-O portioned for total dead and live load (including the weight of the foundation mot) so a: not to exceed on overage contact pressure of 4.0 tsf, commensurate with support by a lood-bearing fill consisting of 1500 psi concrete, grouted Zone No.1 Fill or natural limerock bearing.

Should Zone No. 2 Fill be utilized for direct foundation support, the maximum allow-oble bearing value should not exceed 3.5 tsf where the fill thickness is less than 10 feet.

Otherwise, the bearing value of foundation materials should not exceed 3.0 tsf. Under wind loading, the allowable bearing values may be increased by 25 per cent.

To preclude shear displacement and/or excessive edge deflection, all foundation elements should be based at least 3-1/2 feet below the lowest immediately adjacent finished grade . The depth and bearing value of all dynamically Icoded foundations should also be cen- l sistent with the permissable dynamic response of the supported unit. Q I

WOODWAllD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES 0191

O LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES Structurally restrained foundation walls retaining exterior fills should be designed to support earth pressures analyzed in accordance with the " earth pressure at rest" (Ko )

conditic,. Correspondingly, it is recommended that lateral earth pressures imposed on rigid substructures i- calculated as the pressure equivalent to that imposed by a fluid weighing 52 d

pcf. An additional uniform lateral pressure equivalent to 1/2 of the unit loading of any ex-terior surface surcharge located adjacent to substructure walls should also be included.

Structurally unrestrained retaining walls free to undergo slight rotation or translation should be designed to support " active earth pressures (Ka ) calculated es a lateral pressure equivalent to that imposed by a fluid weighing 40 pcf plus a uniform pressure equivalent to 1/3 of the unit loading of any imposed surface surcharge, it is recommended that the ultimate re-e U sistance to sliding of retaining wall foundations be evaluated in accordance with the following equation.

P r= B (0.35) P, + Ar (320) dp , where P

r

= Horizontal reaction per foot of wall in pounds per foot B = Width of wall footing in feet p = Average dead load bearing pressure in pounds per square feet o

Ag= Vertical projection of wall footing in square feet dr = Depth to center of vertical projection of wall footing in feet The second term of the above equation assumes the face of the wall footing to be in direct contact with a well comoocted backfill or that the footing is poured in a " neat" excavation.

(a) K o = (1 - sin 4) where d is fective friction angle of backfill O (') x e= ' - " ' (" ' ' " d ' "$ * " " ' ' ")

1 + sin 45 0192 ,

WOOOWARO CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

EXCAVATION AND GROUNDWATER CONTROL Subsequent to completion of curtain wall grouting, surficial materials should be ex-cavated down to the level of dense decomposed or intact limerock. In the obsence of the Cop Rock member, the excavation should extend to the level of dense Differentially Cemented Limerock . Where it is necessary to curry excavation below gioundwater levels, dewatering of the excavation should be accomplished, preferably by fdtered sumps, in a manner to preclude the development of hydraulic gradients sufficient to induce a detrimental " ground loss" by piping of the foundation materials. Should complete dewatering of excavations be rec, . ired and is found to be impractical within the above limitations, i is recommended that the follow-ing technique be employed.

COFFERDAM CONSTRUCTION: Where the depth of excavation E !ow water level will exceed about 10 ft. over on extensive creo, the construction of a s',et pile cofferdam to contain the creo of excavation should be considered. Subsequent to a suboqueous excavation, O

air-lifting of ediments remaining at the bottom of the excavation should be accomplished.

Should complete dewatering be desirable, the base of the cofferdam should be sealed with a tremie concrete, designed to resist hydrostatic uplift upon dewatering. After dewatering, the cofferdam should be filled with on oppropriate lood-bearing fill. Alternatively, should com-plete dewatering not be necessary the cofferdom could be subaqueously filled with an appro-priate lood-bearing fill material os defined hereinafter.

UNCONFINED SUBAQUEOUS EXCAVATION: Where the depth of excavation beloa the lo. vest controllable water level is limited, it is concluded that on unconfined, subaqueous excavation can proceed, providir.g a careful vacuum cleaning (cir-lifting) of any remaining bottom sediments is effected. The excavated zone should subsequently be filled with on oppropriate lood-bearing fill .

, WOODWARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

q V

LCAD-BEARING FILL Material qsolity criteria and recommendations concerning the proposed use of the various lood-bearing fill n aterials considered herein are summarized as follows.

ZONE NO 1 FILL: Load-bearing fill, identified herein as Zone No. I Fill, should consist of sound, durable, en;shed limestone conforming to the durability and gradotion re-quirements of ASTM Soecification C-33-64, Size 357 for Coarse Aggregate. Zone No. I materials should be grouted in-place and may be used as a subaqueous fill .

ZONE NO. 2 FILL: Materials identified herein as Zone No. 2 Fill should consist of a durable, crushed limestone, fairly well graded between the limits specified in Table 12 and shall have a uniformity coefficient (Cu ) ( greater than four. Zone 2 materials should be placed and compacted in a controlled, thin-lift construction beyond the limits of Class l O strectures.

--IABLE=12= _7_QNE=blOJE!!1=====

j U.S. Standard Per cent by Seive Size Weight Passing 2 inches 100 No.4 25 to 70 No. 40 10 to 30 No. 200 O to S*

• May bs increased from 5 % to 15 % where

~

placoJ two feet or mo e above water level during compaction DIO (a) Cu = , where D = groin size corresponding to the 10% o,d 60%

D60 distribution frequency.

O v

Gi94 WOOOWARO CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

_ 34 ZONE NO. 3 FILL: Materials identified herein as Zone No. 3 Fill shall consist of a crushed, friable, limerock, processed so os to limit the maximum particle size before com-paction to that possing a four inch U.S. Standard Sieve. The plasticity index and liquid limit of a portio, of the fill possing a No. 40 sieve should be less than six per cent and less than 25 per cent respectively, Zone No. 3 Fill materials should not be placed in areas subject to structural loading. The fill should be placed and compacted in a thin-lift construction as specif7ed herein.

FILL PLACEMENT Load-bearing fill materiul should be placed within the vertical and horizontal limits designated by the appropriate Plans and Specifications in accordance with the following criterio.

SUBAQUEOUS FILLS: Zone No.1 Fill shall be placed through water in such a manner so as to minimize segregation and to maintain a relatively level surface during placement. The fill should extend to a level of of least two feet above water level to provide a working surface for subsequent construction operations.

COMPACTED FILL: Zone No. 2 Fill and Zone No. 3 Fill materials should be placed in oppioximately horizontal layers. The initial lift thickness of the Zone No . 2 materials shall he determined by the Engineer commensurate with groundwater conditions but should not be more than three feet in loose thickness. Otherwise, fill lifts should not exceed a loose thick-ness of 12 incher The initial lifts of Zone No. 3 Fill shodd be placed above the highest anticipated water level. Zone No. 2 Fill should not be placed in mo e than three feet of water. All fill should be spread and gruded so os to prevent excessive porticle segregation.

The water content of the moisture - sensitive Zone No. 3 Fill should be controlled during compaction by ceroting or moistening as necessary to facilitate compaction. During co npoetion, the water content of the Zone No.3 Fill should not be greater than two per-centage points above Optimum Woier Co, tent or less than three percentage points below h 0195 woonwano ctToi a associaTis

the Optimum Water Co, tent as determined by ASTM D1557-66T, Method C or by a prototype field compaction test.

FILL COMPACTION Each lift of load-bearing fill to be placed in a controiled, thin-lift construction should be compacted in accordance with the following criteria.

RELATIVE CJMPACTION: Zone No. 2 and Zone No. 3 Fills should be compacted to an overage dry density equivalent to 98 per cent of the Maximum Density with an allowable minimum relative compaction of 96 per cent. Maximum (Modified) Density should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D1557-66T, Method C . Alternatively, Maximum Density should be determined by prototype field compaction tests, as directed by the Engineer.

COMPACTIVE EFFORT: All lood-bearing fill should be compacted with on approved, O veriebie freseeecx, smeeth d,em, vibrate,x cemgecter. The vibrererx cemescter sheeid heve a minimum weight of 130 pounds per inch of roll and should impose , total static weight of not less than 9,000 pounds. lhe operating frequency of the vibrator should be adjusted to operate as close to resonance as possible but should not be less than 20 cps. The speed of compactor travel should not be greater than 1-1/2 mph. The compactive effort should include not less than four complete roller coverages per lift.

l FILL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT: Equipment shall be mobilized and maintained to

facilitate hauling, spreading, grading, disking, watering or any other operation incidental to i fill placement and compaction.

MATERIAL AND COMPACTION CONTROL The following criteria for test documentation of materials and relative compaction are  !

l intended to outline minimum standards for quality control . The testing frequency and methods shall be determined by the Engineer commensurate with on-site conditions.

WOOOWARD CLYOE & ASSOCIATES 0\S6 .

TESTING FACILITIES: Suitable facilities, subject to the opproval of the Engineer h should be maintained on-site. Such facilities should provide a capability at least for the performance of the tests outlined herein and should be stoffed by qualified testing personnel.

GRADATION AND MOISTURE TESTS: The grain-size distribution of samples rep-resentative of each 200 cubic yards of Zone No.1 and Zone No. 2 Fills should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D442-63. The per cent of aaterial by dry weight possing the 3/4 inch and No. 200 sieves should also be determined for each in-place density sample obtained. Determination of the placement water content should be in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D2216-66. The moisture testing frequency should be sufficient to enable continuous moisture control during fill construction.

COMPACTION STANDARDS: Prior to fill construction, compaction standards for Zone No. 3 Fill should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D1557-66T Method C in sufficient quantity to develop a family of moisture vs. density curves. During O

construction, single point compaction tests should be performed to identify the compaction standard applicable to individual in ' place density test samples.

Prior to fill construction, the compaction standard of Zone No. 2 Fill should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D1557-66T, Method C. The tests shculd be performed with various amounts of +3/4 inch materia! to determine the relation-ship between maximum density and the amount of aggregate retained on the 3/4 inch sieve.

During the initial stages of Zone No. 2 and Zone No. 3 Fill construction, it is recommended that a test fill strip be constructed using prototype placement o.,d compaction techniques. The Maximum Density standards determined from the test fill should be used to amend or to supersede laboratory Maximum Density standards if a significant variance is indicated. h 0lQ7//

. . . 7/ARD CLYDE & ASSOCIATES

IN-PLACE DENSITY: In-place density tests shall be performed by weight / volume sample measurement and by nuclear density and moisture gauge techniques. The frequency of irrplace density testing for the Class I structures fot.ndation areas should be not less than one test per each la5 cubic yu;e af fill compacted in-place. The test locations shall be equally dis-persed between successive lifts throughour the foundation area.

In-place density testing by the weight / volume sample measurement technique should be performed in accordance with ASTM D1556-64 or by on alternative procedure approved by the Engineer. The test hole volume should not be less than 0.1 cubic feet and the weight of moisture content samples should be not less than 1,000 grams. At least 1/3 of the number of tests recommended as a minimum testing frequency should be performed by the weight / volume sample measurement technique.

( As a rapid density testing technique, the nuclear moisture / density gauge method, employing an approved direct transmission gauge type may be used as a supplement to the weight / volume measurement method. Prior to fill construction, a laboratory calibration curve should be developed for the Zo'ne No. 2 and Zone No. 3 Fills. During the initial fill construction, an additional field correlation should be developed for each material using the weight / volume measurement vs. the nuclear gauge results. Additional calibration and correlation csrves should be developed during construction consistent with a change of material type, as directed by the Engineer.

LIMITATIONS All conclusions and recommendations presented by this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by the Q

v borings and are subject to confirmation or revision upon our review of the final plans and 019B i

.. l WOOOWARD CLYDiE & ASSOCIATES

specificatio,s covering pertinent details of the proposed construction. These recommendations g and conclusions must also be based on the premise of competent field inspection during con-s?ruction.

O 1

)

l l

l l

l l

1 I

0199 O

WOODWARO CLYDE & ASSOCIATES l

l l

i t

n.......

c.

., .I r g

. +~L "J.:.:_

x. , ,. .. . ..

p .. - .

,, .... , L.- ',...

- ' 'a ..

wa a

._. . g.==,=m.=

y

.....,- ,/,m/,r.=-

,,,...,o....

. m

-x ,

s ..

,\ s' w .

- - w; __m i

....... ... 6 - ...

.g' A,

- s,-

._,-- u

- - a. .

m r e ._-.

. 2_.2:-

m .--

=== -

I L _ _.__. ___A. M7j ,,.... ,l !-

/ r-s r / 'x

/ m::,c.m:

g ".: r.r.:n -- --

i e e i t e 2 a =

• A B 17 I 1hm 02ua PLANT LAYOUT UNIT NO3 CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION 67Pl9 6-20-69 l

FIGURE 1 i

s

&J .. -- --

l, . . .

. .E _ ....

s, ,

r '

, [_ _ :l

~

~

l

[--) g _ _ ,

c. ...u i .:

I, e

• c:

r

. O ...-

l-

,A -

i .. l

-! sue _ ,' _ %._ -

-i.-

_ .n. .

. . . , . I 1

.o . . . , ., , -a) . \,0 ,

__d . .

P 5

• Y . o  :

1 To

• 3...'

v '*o.a v ., .  ! o

-- x .,. -

__.u ..

,c  ;- g. -

gb ___. ._ ,_ .- ..

, 3.-- .r

^

s' s . ..

o .

.dJ,. ,

., s.

, p .

s

-- - 2? .- . .- . . , , . . . , . ... g;;

m# =o. o - . .-s ==<= ,

o :p ;

..p 4

, . o. .

al j.g

- vain v. . .:

g. . .; - . . . . . . . . . .

9 ...

f, ',"

6 m. T Bery ysti str 3 y g- ~

[ u-, J O C -___$

g

. .s ... s' II I / 1 - -

Y g f f ,

.[.  ; ,. *;' -

h-- l ji >

9 =g ,

t

--m  ; ; - D li g

. _' ,,.~

l 1

,. j  ;'

L i

i U. v.;

.; - . . ,

\ i

- .- l .s.

4

L'" '%

. . . , o

"- , ,l o I dd ',N 'e g 8

I

,r 3 i 9 \g i j i  ! -

o l o.\ * ' '

4, t .

---

, l S #0 00 -. - * . _ .. . ,. . _ ,

4- '

1,.J N. ) --- _._ N - _

s - ._ .__-________.____.,/ ,

e -- _,

• ,~ ,

--4,, ,4,

• , g

. o ;o

~ ~. 4. a

.18dBI M n ust WD ata.t i av a I

s. . ., c ' **'9

'.2,-d.-

'*L- -re ,at=v s.,se s i., '

p' v a a ,,,e s .'

.-- A (p-)- i !_ .> -

-"s >

~

rl o- / { II ,g :t

.s  :

'  : i '- --- -

-__ -- =

• pW ,e ]Ng. -..gg

! e h

~- .~ %. . ~

J.

- n 7 .-- ,

l l

020/

(

I.

i La

.:.'.. 6 w, I 4 l -

__ _p

e l

l

. _ u r- , , ,,uu_, ,, a =kan_ , . - r .r O g O O 9

• e vwa f N O. 3 I o o. j o l

,.. > - -e.p + n + .e . j.

]l . . . .

pm.,qr 1

• : 1  :'

. . . ... w ,

. ..y

,- ; ,...j- J-u, .., .g.

'g ._._ a ,, y - ,

+ y t- ~ .....

gf" \ .g

.- ; ; p ..Aq , .~

t - - --- - .g ,

N .__. .g .

";

i- -t

., y .; , .;.. i.

g

~~r.4....:.. .

- r

.,o.. . ,

~.. .." w. .;,,x ..

. i 3.. ., .w .. .,

y.. . ;. a

4 ;. .

t. w.. .. ., a ,; ,--. .w w*g,, m  : a

+ ._ ei . t  %'

a.. n:a-

-ace. i, . , , . , , ,,

H * ' * * *

} )

. r,r o

u. . . . .

r.. 7'.t.-

. .s p;"

s' . w.-...-... l

.t. ...,. l

. ,r . ,

. . . . . . ~

- n ? * ..' -. . . . ,. . c I

- .m i . . ..

c ... e-. ..

, , ,,s ,3 . .c. . o ~

- . . nn .,

ak.

.,s . ..

.; . . CCTait.ro t:PtcR Avib, N cA LL Hotts o c-- , .m o. m . ..m , ,, , ,

t 020 I

SITE 8 BORING PL AN '

UNIT NO.3 CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT ,

1 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION l 67Pl9 6-20-69 l

i l

FIGURE 2 1

9 I

i l I

i REACTOR BUILDING

..-405 - -

I.,,  ; p" El 95 Y,

r, w nra--r ; 7 ' - -

_. .-m anus m_W '

_I_ .

k' .

a , ;

- -e O--- h A E' 80.5

- - C AP ROCK

[ MEMBER l

- 65 70 ---

GENERAL NOTES f i h TYPICAL GENERAll2ED STRATIGRAPHY, EXTENT OF INDIVIDUAL UNITS VARIABLE U @ FILL,0UATERNuPY SEDIMENTS AND DECOMPOSED ROCK

-" *~~ O C INCLUDING TRANSITION ZONE AT BASE b N 2 D NET APPLIEDUNIT LOAD.NG DUE TO ADJACENT STRUCTURES U F w

$3 w

to w );

s ESTIMATED ^ 5.0 KSF I

E I g I h AVERAGE UNIT STRUCTURAL LO ADING^- 7.8 KSF

-s es so{- $5 O2 f

> y O y

.a id 5 00-- I".

1 Q l 6 1 O 1 a

"5 rOO--- a 3

-2 = 3 o 8 _1

- 5, N

3 l

~ ~- .-

1 D263  ;

. 4 f

r

.Y l

i 1

e I

.I fv t hst) l 4 8 12 16

\

LEGEND-STRESS ANALYSIS h EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESSy ()AFTEP EXC AVATION (09',)

0 - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --

h a fi PLUS ADJACENT SURCHARGE LOADS (6Ws) h TOTAL IMPOSED EFFECTIVE STRESS FOR OPERATING CONDITIONS 3 h BASIS OF ANALYSIS- AVERAGE IMPOSED VERTICAL STRESS O -- - - - - - - - - - - - --

BY EL ASTIC HALF SPACE AN ALOGY.

LO --- -

50 - 1--

i

\.

i t

STRESS ANALYSIS REACTOR BLDG.

,o .  ; NUCLEArt POWER FACILITY CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA l WOODWARD {LYDE & ASSOCIATES c....is..: 1.si..m .a ca.r.ui,,,

oma se T.A.W. au 6-17-69 catars et o.a. no 67P19 FIGURE 3 0204

l S ECTION /

4.

TURBINE GENERATOR ZONE-3 6 Fill EL

'i n

' %IM 3391k[ ]

w: , :: - 4: -

L

'MT.l}& Qey

,f' p CONC CUTOFF WALL ' ~

1. ' k' '*#'y' *'* Nd " ~. w, -

M. ** ,U

' # CONC CUTOFF

• ESTIM. SURFACE OF

~Db1 -('

, COMPETENT BEARI G WALL b

• l l ' '

j MATERIAL l g g g 4 20NI l

! l ll l l l l1

!,1 l i

i I

l I

il l . i ' i I

I ,I i i

' I l ll  ! i l ,

l I t m_ __

- GROUT CURTO GENERAL NOTES h GROUT CURTAIN FROH CONCRETE CUT 0FF WALL T0 h CONSOLIDATION (SPLIT HOLE ) GROUTING TO D0 h CONCRETE FILL USING TREMIE CONCRETE BELOW h ZONE I Fill, GROUTED IN PLACE h ZONE 2 Fill, OPTIONAL T0 @ & @, COMPACTED TENANT STRUCTURE OUTSIDE OF @

h ZONE 3 Fill, COMPAC1 0 IN THIN LAYERS OUT@

(.

020; f

i

I

[

cA

=

4 RE ACTOR BUILDING ,

,/ , j/

AUXILIARY BUILDING j , ZONE 2 l/// /' ;/

CV.333 l, / /

- vi .',W :rc,5 ,1 $qi Fa n y;;fiyi::g w a y 3y ry p_w ;"-rei & + .." E ; , , Z /_ /

i 'fd i j , 4. NUCLEAR

' , -".g.

14 '- i, ,W .: , . .,

SERVICE I.s.;...ELEU.80 Q - 5./'; . . . .;

,. .* 4 . 4. :

. , *q

, .. PUM SUMP , d. .

N i N' 5' . NfMAh# #

ELEV GI rg

i nii i , i

. !4  :

i '

l  ;

I l

i* .

Illl X)NSOL)DATION GROU'ilNG, i

i !l 11

' i i

--*;-l

,' .l I i

- l i l

.I I i l

' I. i l

, I i I t _l ll '. I i ll-L N

AVERAGE ELEVATION -5 OMITE AT AVERAGE ELEV. +10 ATER I FOUNDATION TREATMENT UNIT No. 3 - CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT I ON THIN LAYERS BENEATH APPUR-FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION

) ASS I AREAS.

ODE OF STRUCTURE AREA.

WOODWARD-CLYDE & ASSOCIATES j Conmiting Engineers and Geologists l

ouwn sv: G.O. Not *U t scale om 5/28/69 0206 cueno sy:

ows. " - 67Pl9

\

FIGURE 4

h  ;-

I

. . .. 12 i O- 1 i it il ll ll it

-6

-- i. ,-

.>lii ii '

ili lit,

, I  ;

11i i i

, ,+ ,. a" 1 i i

<-m w I:1I:-

= %.

g -

i f13  !'

- =.2

(

. 1

~

f/ .Y

_- ~<

i. -

1. ,I i

i I i

_ l.  !.!  :. I

~ ~ ~ T. - - ~ [

W ji- d

%r -

s - , c , N- A>

(! ' f i j i

. . .  !)

, g=

i. \. i / . .

~

I I

s . ..

-j-i

h '

i i

i, p I

, l i. 3

~: 1_ i > . . ,

j :>

,_ ,- :g'-f}i i LL _ 11_ _ _

" J _ _

O i: , I

."..  : .' 'i ..

~

. . 46 -

.=

y I r d- I a--- - - -

.g l 4 _ _ . - _ _

j ll1 lll l. 1 \I J . f- LlL (D o q ll,i -I ll ,

y

,- , 2 g_

I > r, , , ,

a , . ~._._., ,

a' l , tl+ v'e, p, ,

+sy I 'l g I

e% e. ,

g '

? g. . \

i

'4, i Y Ni i q. .s l' ,

,ll '_j.. fe (, , !li , s . ,, Dll s

'}S'('\\

r y j, ., .'m.

3

?-J f. J0 ly g.

N'M

- 1 <

T, 4 '.

A L , f .j.

i .

'l il L I 4l!l O

G .. 0207

t i

i

LEGEND 8 GEERAL NOTES

- G_f1A_QQ Average surfoce and mean twgh yound -

"*" '*' " "s si e t e s resp. cosy.

SECTlON GG Soutb Elevation FJ@ LLwoestoneA BEARING MW Dwwe gmdedW torepsoce excavoted surtremoveriols

plocedord canpocied in controled thw>laf t con- i structim i

~

FTRIPHERAL GRCUT CURTAIN: To retcon caiso-11dotson grouteng ona 06d in groundwater control.

To be corried intoostomtte.

REACTOR BUILDING REACTOR BUILDING .g CONSOLfDATION GROUT: Comonf withrnineral UNIT " 3 UNIT "4 """'"'""*'" "**' "*d"*

iil pottern with a closure grd of of leost 8 feet.

AUXILIARY BUILDING GMT STABILfZ ADON MfTS: wucot to lli, of loostelevanon + 30 and ca evotion +60 for

i Reactor (bilding and other buildwig factttties, A- respectively.Hortiontot eethanentire foi.rtdotion

__ , _ o'no limits plus the width of the Fell Zore or IOfeet.

Oec Frit Secton whitbevor is greater.

~ A fff/d%KefLy,y2Q;la M wamus.oenaaoaa<aa m

l. -

(

IlIII oaxaaaaaag yai.y i

%. gi l

, ,  ! _ _i ._w.- ,l

;, .,

l.

~~

I I

il '

_ uL._LL_j_ ubb 1_.LL __

J _la t I_ '_ _ _ Jl

_ __LLL

_ m .m m .so c

LOM BE AR_fNG Fl_LL, SECTION c > .e

~ zou s c.--. c. o ~. -

FOUNDATION TREATMENT

" ) . s zum _E -._W29_T;-----4 NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY r.

1 _ _ _ i _. I _

zow t he c..w om . 'or. CRYSTAL RtVER. FLORIOA

" d- w umwAnn nirwaestmann a. Asw14 Tis

) ' I e n bij t o' hep'agem ! I ' * ~ " "

.. GO ===

• 2 / 3/ t968 e.w..... 1" . 5 O' g 7 p ,,

PLATE 2 e e. e

p x t

w ~ J s

4 r -

P! H' f'"*W*--------

l'f.P'j;'i

'q . ,

i m e me rc>m s u it o m cs c

\ n, u w i (.

I!'i . !'I f -c .....a o, -

1 8 l

,, ;

' l'll : . .; _r Ve rtis. Seress - kaf

.; _ __ g o 4 n a o o

,'q lp o ,

qp!m y....

gi  !!:i ;l! uil,':;i Ifl .I!! ll i III:li I I'

'j. , ,

.5 '

.;., >::i:

!._ _i j

,,

<a o ,

i ,

in 4, -

.; -i-

-ln,

,i ,; ,,l

4

,g Ug  :;i* GENE RAL NOTES l!I

\

j 'l;

'! ;; t l

~

'~

\

jj_5 @ r.ii. o.aa r r, 4 .no -  :,.at

_. f .

O @ encioen,ir u.. ., .

l

53 ES

!' 3 I- *?

@ snposed fiel.@ plus strucsure seross

-l', h P. *5*Y.

r d

om

.< ;r i-

,q; , ,  :\ \ (s)

@ ere.cn

@ T .,,

ro.

. . .n

..s.

.r .

nr.s.

's 8 ' ,-

1

'3f E;; .I -

l- ,! .ip S (

ii,j : . .

ti l-

1

i

. '/l :  : \

- e,y e 2

l.

, ;y ,,... , ,, , ,

, i.

i . .

s ,,'. -!  ;'!!..- '

,; .. , ,<

8 1; '

j'8, .  :!s'. .i . ,1; ,, i

! . h,' '

=

g ,. ! - i. j' ': g h': : ! ;.l.;. ' -

_ g ..t .

i: ' : j ,. ,

i 3 .

g. . ' ', ul

, . l..' ' lll i', i' \ '

\..

l.' i , j,') '  ;

...';.'

h! '

illL' .l<.. .' l ! ' l [l !

W i:;l '

l,. STATIC LOAD-STRESS ANALYSIS y -

~

.;

I 0 g .

lIl

,; .1:

i;...;

1.. .,,'., g 6 4. . .

, NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY

, -l l ll -

l N ,' h. '})t ,.! ,  ! ,' ,

j'!,

,, f i

,>. '. .}'..

' 'i .' 1 ! .,,l',

i j ' l t .'l; .' ;. '

i CRYSTAL RIVER.Ft.ORIDA o } ;i

' I 5 . i ;. ! ll ,i.'1I J l'I: ,i I ;,I! ,' li . ,

, um ll d', j ' :. .

}'l ! l'll . \. N' 4

l! !I n i. n.

wooowano.cLvoc. ster nano n associavts

~

iit- *-O ' :liiii[ i ll!l l ,' l tiiii iili liI  !'IiIjtiI I;IIII.:

- . g o, .

ElML.

67P19 PLATE 3

O REFERENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY (1) PSAR, Appendix 2 F; General Geology - Regiorial Tectonics .

(2) PSAR, Appendix 2 H; Bedrock Solution Studies.

(3) Menard, L., (1965) "The Application of the Pressuremeter for Investigation of Rock Masses", Paper to International Society for Rock Mechanics, Salzburg,1965.

(4) Whitman, R.V. (1962) " Nuclear Geoplosics", Part Two, Defense Atomic Support Agency.

(5) Boussinesq, J. (1885) " Application des ptentiels a l'equilibre, et du mouverment des solides elastiques", Gauthier-Vollars.

(6) Vesic, A. B. (1963) "The Validity of Layered Solid Theories", Proceedings, Inter-national Conference, Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, University of Michigan.

(7) Weissman and White, (1961) "Small Angular Deflexions of Rigid Foundations", Geo-technique, Vol . 2, No. 3.

O (8) Horn, H. M. (1964), Th6 Analysis and Design of Antenna Tower Foundations, Journal, Boston Society of Civil Engineers.

(9) Borowicka, H., (1943) " Eccentrically Loaded Rigid Plates on Elastic Isotropic Sub-sails", Ingenieur, Archiv.,1:1-8.

(10) Richart and Whitman, (1967) " Design Procedures for Dynamically Loaded Four dations",

Journal, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Volume 93, No. SM6 (11) Terzoghi, K., (1943) " Theoretical Soil Mechanics", John Wiley & Sons.

(12) Department of the Navy, Bureau of Yards and Docks: (1963) Design Manual, Soil Mechanics, Foundations and Earth Structures.

(13) Terzoghi, K., (1955), " Evaluation of Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction", Geotech-nique, Vol . 3.

(14) Seed, H., et, al, (1967), "Pred:ction of Flexible Pavement Deflections From Labo-rotory Repeated - Load Tests", N.C.H.R.P. Report 35 (15) PSAR,, Addendum " Technical Specifications for Foundation Grouting".

O O210 Mp y PP -P-H- is, g-m-vv--, eye- - w- -- mf >-* Pw'-