ML20083Q710

Forwards Addl Info Re Seismic Design Basis for River Screenhouse,In Response to SER Confirmatory Issue 1 & FSAR Questions 241.8 & 362.1.Site Soil Column Frequency Significantly Affects site-specific Spectrum

ML20083Q710
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	04/18/1984
From:	Tramm T COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
8485N, NUDOCS 8404230205
Download: ML20083Q710 (28)

Text

,

'., Commonwealth Edison

.) one First Hatsonal Plaza. Chicago. Ilknois

] Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 j Chicago. tilinois 60690 April 18, 1984 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Byron Generating Station Units 1 and 2 River Screenhouse Seismic Design NRC Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455 References (a): June 15, 1983 letter from T. R. Tramm to H. R. Denton.

(b): February 7, 1983 letter from B. J.

Youngblood to L. O. DelGeorge.

(c): February 28, 1983 letter from T. R. Tramm to H. R. Denton.

Dear Mr. Denton:

This letter provides additional information regarding the seismic design basis for the river screenhouse at Byron Generating Station. NRC review of this information should help close Confirmatory Issue 1 of the Byron SER.

Enclosed are the responses to two FSAR questions regarding the seismic design of the Byron river screenhouse which were transmitted in reference (a). The response to FSAR question 241.8 regarding the dynamic soil properties includes the results of recent geophysical measurements made at the screenhouse. Figure Q241.8-9 shows the average Gmax values for each soil layer used in our analysis. A report of the crosshole '

testing which supports these shear modulus values was provided in reference (c). This response to FSAR question 241.8 was apparently omitted from that letter.

The response to FSAR question 362.1 regarding the screenhouse seismic design basis is enclosed because it was also omitted in reference (c). Both of these responses will be incorporated into the Byron /

Braidwood FSAR at-the earliest opportunity.

b0 8404230205 840418 PDR ADOCK 05000454 h g\\

\

E PDR a

~

[

.. . - . = . _. . . - - ~ . . . -

l H. R. Denton April 18, 1984 Please direct further questions regarding this, matter to this

! office.

One signed original and fifteen copies of this letter and the

{ enclosures are provided for your NRC review.

Very truly yours, fkt & =-~-

T. R. Tramm Nuclear Licensing Administrator 1m Attachment t

i 1 .

I i

t J

8485N i

L l

l.

I l

L

[ .

j * .  !

/

j s t D

RYRON-FSAR QUESTION 362.1 "The safe shutdown earthquake for the Byron Station site is based on the postulated occurrence of a maximum Modified j

Mercalli intensity VIII (body wave magnitude 5.8) earthquake near the site. (See Byron Stati,on Safety Evaluation Report (SER), NUREG-0876). The staff's position as stated in i

the Byron Station SER is that a Regulatory Guide 1.60 response spectrum with a high frequency anchor of 0.20g

. at the foundation level of structures founded on rock

is an adequately conservative representation of the vibratory

ground motion from this size earthquake. '

, "The Byron Station river screen house is founded on soil.

t Under certain conditions, the presence of soils can amplify vibratory ground motion. The amplitude and frequency of the amplified motion is a function of the physical properties of the material and its taickness.

i

" Demonstrate the adequacy of the design basis for the

! river screen house by directly calculating a site-specific

' response spectrum and/or by calculating. the amplification of an appropriate rock spectrum resulting from the presence of the soil.

"It has been the staff's practice in the past (Sequoyah SER, 1979, Watts Bar SER, 1982; Midland SER, 1982; Fermi SER, 1981) to accept the 84th percentile response spectral level (mean plus one standard deviation) calculated from i a suite of accelerograms recorded at distances of about 25 kilometers or less at locations with foundation conditions i

similar to the site from earthquakes.with magnitudes in L the range of plus or minus 0.5 units of the target magnitude."

RESPONSE '

l The staff has accepted the use of a 0.2g Regulatory Guide. -

1.60 spectrum as input for the analysis of the main-plant at Byron, which'is founded on rock. As stated in-the SER, the 0.2g Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum envelopes the 5.8 m h site-specific spectrum for. rock sites developed by TVA for the Sequoyah, Watts Bar,fand'Bellefonte nuclear. power plants, and that developed 1 by LLL/ TERA.for use in the NRC-sponsored seismic hazard analysis program. In the-following paragraphs a similar justification is developed for the Byron river screen house input design spectrum.

The SSE at-the Byron site i;s based on the postulated occurrence of a maximum MM Intensity VIII earthquake near the site.

Nuttlifand:Hermann (1978) have developed a. relation'between -

Q362.1-l' 4

+ , , .- , . . . . , . . . + .,n., ,

[ BYRON-FSAR maximum MM intensity and magnitude for the central United States. Using this relation results in an estimated magnitude of 5.75 for an MM Intensity VIII. Nuttli and Brill (NUREG/CR-1577) estimate the magnitude of the May 26, 1909 Northern Illinois -

earthquake as 5.1. Estimates of the magnitude of the 1937 Anna, Ohio earthquake (MM VII to VIII) range from 5.0 to 5.3 (Nuttli and Hermann, 1978; Nuttli and Brill, NUREG-CR-1577).

Therefore, using the site specific spectrum developed from magnitude 5.8 earthquakes provides a conservative estimate of the vibratory ground motion expected at the site.

There are two site specific spectra for ms = 5.8 that are suitable for use in establishing the adequacy of the Byron -

river screen house design spectrum. One of these was generated by Illinois Power Company for the justification of the seismic design of the Clinton Power Plant (Reference 1) and the other was generated by LLL/ TERA (NUREG/CR-1582) for use in the NRC-sponsored seismic hazard analysis program. Figure Q362.1-1 provides a comparison of the Clinton site specific spectra, LLL/ TERA soil spectra and the Byron river screen house design basis time-history spectra. All spectra are plotted for a 5%

~

oscillator damping. The Clinton and the LLL/TE~A n site specific spectra are the 84th percentile spectra for m b = 5.8 earthquake and soil sites. Note that the Byron river screen house design spectrum is significantly higher than both the Clinton and the LLL/ TERA spectra.

The site soil column frequency significantly af fects the site specific spectrum. The following paragraph compares the Clinton and the Byron river screen house sites for this effect'to show that the Clinton site specific spegtra provides a' good estimate for the Byron river screen house site specific spectra.

The subsurface section under the Byron river screen house is shown in FSAR Figure 2.5-60. The founding material consists of approximately 90 feet of interbedded layers of fine to coarse sand and fine to coarse gravel. This soil layer.is underlain by sandstone. The properties of the soil and rock-layers pertinent to the site specific spectrum are shown in FSAR Figures 2.5-89 and 2.5-62, respectively.

, The-geophysical average shear wave velocity at~the Byron river i screen house site is computed to be 935 to ll10' fps, compared to 2l00 fps at Clinton. The soil depth at the Byron river screen house site is 90 feet, where as at Clinton it is approximately 180-feet. Thus, the soil column frequencies (based on V /4H-criteria) at the two. sites are close to each other and b5 sed on the soil column frequency characteristics, one-would expect the spectra _ at _ Byron river' screen house to be similar to .that- -

at Clinton. The large margin inherent in the Byron river screen house design spectrum when compared to- the Clinton site specific spectrum'(Figure Q362.1-1) provides us with the -

0362.1-2

.- ~ -

. BYRON-FSAR s

assurance that the Byron river screen house design time-history is a conservative estimate of the vibratory ground motion expected at the site.

In addition to the site column frequency, the impedance contrast between the soil strata and the underlying rock half space is also believed to affect the soil amplification and the shape of the site specific spectra. Since the rock-soil impedance contrast at the Byron river screen house is significantly higher than the rock-soil impedance contrast at the Clinton site, and the rock-soil impedance contrast information at most strong motion recording stations is often not known at 100 to 200 feet depths to permit empirical studies, a theoretical site ,

specific spectrum at the Byron river screen house site was developed to evaluate the effect of the higher impedance contrast at the Byron river screen house as follows:

a. Conservative spectral amplification curves for the Byron river screen house site profile were obtained using the upper bound, mean, and lower bound soil properties. The most probable site spectral amplification was obtained by assigning 25%, 50%, and 25% weights to the upper, mean, and lower bound soil properties respectively.

b. The theoretical ground response spectrum at the Byron river screen house site was obtained by applying these spectral amplification factors to the average of the 84th percentile 5.8 m s rock spectrum generated by the LLL/ TERA (NUREG/CR-1582) and TVA (Reference 2).

The spectral amplifications for the Byron river screen house site including the effect of impedance contrast were obtained using the SHAKE program (Reference 3). The SHAKE analysis was performed for the upper bound, mean, and lower bound soil properties. The - 'hickness,. shear modulus, Poisson's ratio, unit weit lamping values used for the three sets of analyses n in Table Q362.1-1.

Fourteen diffe' .otions listed in Table Q362.1-2 were used as input 'E analysis. The fourteen rock motions l listed in Tat ce all the rock motions available

! through the Co . titute of Technology with maximum ground acceler, an L. en 0.05 and 0.59 The input in the SHAKE analysis w'as specified at the rock

! (half space) outcropping. The spectral amplification functions were computed as the ratio of the response spectrum of the resulting surface (top of soil tyer'1) motion and the response spectrum of the rock outcropping input motion. The spectra and the spectral amplification rations were computed in the ,

frequency range of 0.5 Hz and 20 Hz at a frequency interval consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.122 requirements. Thus, Q362.1-3

v BYRON-FSAR A(f) =8fff -

33 (Equation 1) where A(f) = Spectral amplification for frequency f S (f) = Response sepctrum value at frequency f of the

, resulting surface motion H (f) = Response spectrum value at frequency f of the input motion at rock outcropping For each soil property (upper bound, mean, and lower bound),

an average spectral amplification function was determined as the average of the amplification function derived from each of the 14 earthquakes. The most probabic site spectral amplification function was then obtained by assigning 25%,

50%, and 25% weights to the upper, mean and lower bound soil properties case amplification functions. This most probable site spectral amplification functions is shown in Figure Q362.1-2.

The theoretical site specific spectrum at the Byron river screen house site was obtained by multiplying the average of the 84th percentile 5.8 m b rock spectrum generated by TVA (Reference 2) and LLL/ TERA (NUREG/CR-1582) by the spectral amplification ! unction presented in Figure Q362.1-2.

Figure Q362.1-3 presents the comparison of the Byron river screen house history spectrum, the theoretical site specific spectrum and the 84th percentile 5.8 m rock site specific b

spectrum based on LLL/ TERA and TVA references. All spectra are plotted for a 5% oscillator damping. It can be observed that the design basis spectrum essentially envelops the theoretical site specific spectrum for all frequency except in the 1.25 to 2 Hz frequency range. In this frequency range, maximum exceedance is approximately 20%. As the lowest predominant structural frequency of the Byron river screen house structure is 4.8 liz and the design basis time-history spectrum envelops the theoretical site specific spectrum for all frequencies in the greater than 2 Hz frequency range, it can be concluded that the Byron river screen house design basis time history is a conservative estimate of the ground motions expected at the Byron river screen house site during the SSC.

l x

Q362.1-4 .

I

BYRON-FSAR REFERENCES

1. " Site Specific Response Spectra Clinton Power Station -

U. lit 1 of Illinois Power Company," Revision 1, May 1992, prepared for Sargent & Lundy by Weston Geophysical Corporation.

2. Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Engineering Design,

" Justification of the Seismic Design Criteria Used for the Sequoyah, Watts Bar and Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plants -

Phase II," August 1978.

3. SHAKE, Soil Layer Properties and Response for Earthquake .

Motions (09. 7.119-3. 3) . S&L modified program written by J. Lysmer and P. B. Schnabel of the University of California-Berkeley which computes response in a horizontally layered semi-finite system subjected to vertically traveling shear waves based on the continuous solution of the shear wave equation.,

9 9

t

, s l

I .

Q362.1-5 L _

TABLE Q362.1-1 BYRON RIVER SCREEN HOUSE SITE SOIL PROPERTIES LAYER WEIGHT SOIL DEPTH DAMPING 2 i

LAYER DENSI}Y SOIL SHEAR MODULUS (K/ft )

(ft)- (K/ft ) RATIO UPPER MEAN LOWER 1 16. 0.123 0.10 1850. 1157 771.

2 18. 0.123 0.10 1850. 1157. 771.

3 24. 0.123 0.10 1850. 1157. 771.

4 32. 0.123 0.10 1950. 1157. 771.

5 Balf Space 0.150 0.10 450000. 450000. 450000.

O E

~

~

~

?

A !l; o

4 e

e 9

e e

f I

i TABLE Q362.1-2 EARTHQUAKES USED TO DETERMINE SPECTRAL AMPLIFICATION FACTORS MAXIMUM EPICENTRAL ACCEL-RECORDING DISTANCE INSTRUMENT ERATION EARTHQUAKE DATE/ TIME STATION MAGNITUDE (km) ORIENTATION (g)

Helena, Montana 10-31-35/1138 MST Caroll College 6.0 7 S00W .146 S90W .145 Eureka, 12-21-54/1156 PST Eureka Federal 6.6 25 NllW .168 California Building N79E .238 San Francisco, 3-22/57/1144 PST Golden Gate 5.3 13 N10E .084

/ California Park S80E .105 $

o' .

x P'arkfield, 6-27-66/2026.PST Temblor 5.5 7 N65W .270 0 e

California -

S25W '.348 4 m

b P,arkf eld, 6-27-66/2026 PST Chalame- 5.5 6 N05W .355 California -

Shandron, N85E .434 i Array No. 5 >

/

• 'k San Fernando,  ; 2-9-71/0600 PST ~ Cast-iac Old 6.6 30 N21E

.316

/ California -

Ridge Route N69W .271

. f.. -

San Fernando,' 2-9-71/0600 PST Pacoima Dam, 3.0-5.0 9 574W .112 California ,,. After Shock 516E .115

- at 104.6 sec

) ,

f b

e h

2-

. 40 g

~

's so 9' '4 8s* .

5 4  ?

! . . i 6 ...i , . . i 4 ... 4 . . . ...i s 84th PERCE NTILE 5.8 ms ~

j j"Qf CLINTOS/' SITE-D'ECIFIC 10' 2 23; -

7 ,e s s ' ( 5/ n.'a.' PING )

~

~ DESIGN BASIS \/ s' LLL/ TERA \. I U

! TIME HISTORY \ ,

5.8 ab SOIL N- o

. (.20g,5% DAMPlNG / 84TH PERCENTI-*3

/' -

(5% DA'iPING l

f

j,i

' //

g -

['r -

/f S

y/[

i R

a' io l E:

u _

['  :

O g . .

i i

!. io-' J k_ ~

l l- . . . . ., .

3 io 10 ' ion .

so' PERIOD (SEC) 81RoN- FSA R '

F rsuRE Q 36 2.1 -l l -

Comparison of Byron Design Basis Time History Spectra with the 5.8 m. 84th Percentile Clinton Site Specific Spectra 2nd the 5.8 m 84th' Percentile LLL/ Tera Soil Site SpectDa e r- . . - . , . ----._.g_,w.p ,--..-7--9, ,,-wy _.  % ,, ,, ,,,,. s .- .,

.  !  ! 2 i ,

1

=- .

~

l 4D i i i i i i i i i i i i i  : i 3.0

\

2 o 2.0

, P 4 _ _

9 u.

l 2 - '

k - -

' 1.0 0.0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

O.O SD 10.0 15.0 20.0 FREQUENCY (HZ)

Fuoec Q3c2.i-2: riose probadie siec nosnonso snecerun amniirication runceton 6

E t

. ~

O/

s: < $

e 7*

i i f a6 ei

%?p, i e p}4 ip ]

4 p

1 i a e a a

~ ~

/ g

~

10 ' -- '

2 DESIGN BASIS TIM 2 HISTORY SPECT R A .

~

~

(5% DAMPlNG) +

~

J.

~

/ AVER AGE OF LLL/ TERA

/ & TVA 94th PERCENTILE -

p

/ OCK SPECTRA 5.8 m b -

j ( 5% DAMPlNG )

f THEORITICAL ERSH SITE .

/ SPECIFIC 5:ECTRA -

/

(5% DAMPIN G '

> \

{E/

m 7 / N N _

U 9

m -

~

s a a: aa a a a a a aa a i e a a a aa 0.01 0.1 1.0 100 BYt:cn-rsA R '

h6uRE k'M2.l-3 : comparison of Snectrun rron nosinn casis Tine-nistorv l Hith Theoretical Site Snecific Spectrun Usinn Soil '

o Amplification Applied to Roci: Snectra I

l

s'

. BYRON-FSAR l 1

QUESTION 241.8 "To verify the seismic analyses of the river screen house foundation are~sufficiently conservative at higher frequency range, perform a confirmatory seismic response analysis.

The staff requires that the higher shear moduli values obtained from the laboratory tests (FSAR, Figure 2.5.89),

i.e., the moduli of the reconstituted samples, be used in the analyses. To account for variability of the soil properties, the analyses using the upper bound shear moduli plus or minus 50 percent of their values should also be included. The response to this question is a necessary element of the response to 0362.1 because of the need for proper characterization of the soil conditions for a site specific spectrum or amplification calculation."

RESPONSE

EVALUATION OF EXISTING TEST RESULTS Figure Q241.8-1 shows the results of the cyclic triaxial tests on both intact and recompacted samples plotted in a normalized form. (It should be noted that the foundation for the river screen house was placed on natural soils, and that the river screen house, therefore, is not resting on recompacted material.)

The points plotted on this figure were established by anchoring the shear modulus (G) at the lowest strain level obtained during the triaxial tests on the Seed and Idriss (Reference 5) normalized shear modulus (G/G strain degradation curve.

By obtaining the normalized sESdr) mo'dulus value at this strain-level, a G value for the tests was obtained based on the mean Seed $$3 Idriss (Reference 5) strain degradation curve for strains smaller than the minimum shear strain for the tests. The other data points were then normalized based on the obtained G, value.

The results of normalizing the test data show that the undis-turbed samples exhibit strain degradation characteristics l within the range postulated by Seed and Idriss (Reference 5);

l however, the recompacted soil samples follow strain degra-dation curves unreasonably steep compared to the normalized curve. We believe these characteristics are the result of the test procedures rather than actual soil properties. The tests on the recompacted samples, completed approximately 1 year prior to the tests on the intact samples, were performed on a machine that had been calibrated according to standard procedures, but not corrected for piston friction. A correction for piston friction is usually not necessary for property tests at high strain values, where high loads are required to obtain the desired deformation. At small strains, where smaller loads are required, the piston friction represents a significant portion of the recorded load. It should-be Q241.8-1

$,N BYRON-FSAR

' noted that data from dynamic triaxial tests were at the time i of the tests considered reliable only for shear strains greater j than 0.01%. Regulatory Guide 1.138 shows that the strain range for the cyclic triaxial test is limited to shear strains i greater than 0.01%. The calculated moduli at lower strains

! are, therefore, believed to be larger than the true values, i which results -in an apparent very steep strain degradation relationship from these incorrectly high shear moduli for

, low strains. In conclusion, it is our opinion that the curves' l

for the reconstituted samples are probably-in error at low strains and are not representative of the' granular material l underlying the river screen house. This opinion is supported l

f urther by more recent test results (Reference 6) which show j that the strain degradation curves for granular material may l be flatter than those suggested by Seed and Idriss.

i SHEAR MODULUS FACTORS FROM EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIPS

,i f The test data on undisturbed samples are presented in the form of normalized shear modulus f actor Kf versus strain on l Figure Q241.8-2. The resonant cglumn datK were recorded at a

~

l shear strain on the order of 10 percent and, thus, represent I

anchor points. The data indicate normalized shear modulus l factors in the range of 40 to 85.

1 l

The shear modulus f actors for the deposits underlying the -

l river screen house were also evaluated using the empirical j expression given by Hardin and Drnevich (Reference 2). The

, average K btained using this procedure was 68 (Figure i

• Q241.8-3) 2""Nowever , Hard in (Reference 3) has proposed that l the shear modulus for granular material is also a function l

' ~

of grain size, in particular the particle- size at which 5 percent of the sample is finer (D g). Using the procedure proposed by Hardin and a D of 0.2 mm -(see FSAR Figure 2.5-49),

a shear modulus factor of h5 was obtained. Thus, the K values obtained using the empirical relationships propod@$*

in References 2 and 3 (68 to 75) fall within the range (65 to , ,

90) given in FSAR Figure 2.5-89. -

In addition to using the empirical relationship proposed by Hardin .and Drnevich, . the shear modulus f actor for -the desposits

• underlying the river screen house were evaluated using the porcedures proposed by Ohsaki and Iwasaki (Reference 4). -

This-procedure is based on an empirical relationship between dynamic shear modulus as determined.from field measurements and standard split spoon resistance (SPT). This methodLhas been used for sandy and gravelly soils ~successf ully, and there-fore should be applicable to sandy and gravelly ' soils at the river screen house. Thus, - using the SPT values at the river

-screen house, shear' modulus f actors 'in ~ the range of 57 to.

122 were ob'tained, with a mean shear modulus :f actor of 85'

~

Q241.'8-2

s '-

BYRON-FSAR 1

2 (Figure Q241.8-3). It should be noted, however, that evaluation l

. of field data (Reference 7) indicates that the procedure pro- i posed by Ohsaki and Iwasaki generally overestimates the field shear modulus by approximately 25 percent.

4 DATA FROM FIELD GEOPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS AT OTHER SITES  ;

! The shear modulus factors obtained for the materials underlying the river screen house were also compared with those calculated f rom field data obtained at other sites (Reference 1). The results, shown.in Table Q241.8-1 and in Figure: 0241.8-4,-show shear-modulus factors in the range.of approximately 40 to 100 for sites with penetration resistance similar to those

encountered under the river screen house.

The shear wave velocities presented at other sites (Reference 1) j were also plotted versus mean standard penetration resistance.

l The results are shown on Figure Q241.8-5 together with the j shear wave velocity calculated using the shear moduli obtained

from the procedures of Ohsaki and Iwasaki. The data plotted j

i in Figure Q241.8-5 show that the procedures proposed by Ohsaki and Iwasaki are in good ag reement, although close to an upper bound, with field data presented by Shannon and Wilson (Ref erence 1) .

1 Figure Q241.8-6 shows calculated shear wave velocities versus depth based on a wide range of normalized shear moduli. Also

shown are the shear wave velocities corresponding to the shear moduli obtained using the empirical relationships proposed >

by Hardin and Drnevich (Reference 2), Hardin (Reference 3),

and Ohsaki and Iwasaki (Reference 4). Based on the empirical l relationships, the shear wave velocity at the site of the  !

I river screen house may vary between approximately 750 and 1 l 1600 fps. 'These velccities are in good agreement with the field i

data presented by Shannon and Wilson (Ref erence 1 and Figure . ,

Q241.8-5) which show shear wave velocities. in the same range for 1 sites with similar standard split spoon penetration resistances to -

those encountered under the river screen house at Byron.

~

RESULTS FROM FIELD GEOPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS AT BYRON RIVER

SCREEN HOUSE l A seismic crosshole survey was conducted adjacent to the location of the river screen house to obtain seismic shear and compres-sional wave ~ velocities of soils representative of those underlying the screen house. A report presenting procedures and results ,

of the survey is given in Byron TSAR Attachment 2.5J. ' Figure Q241.8-7 shows measured shear wave velocities versus depth.

These velocities range between 750 and '1600 fps as predicted.  !

^

Figure Q241.8-8 shows the shear modulus factor K versus depth based on the measured shear wave velocity. The $IfE presented show of 79.

a mean'value of K "$5own in Figure 2.5-89.This value is within the range (K ***

between65and90f Q241.8-3  ;

l

. . . - . ~ . _ - _ __

BYRON-FSAR 4

CONCLUSIONS

~

obtained from calculations based an empirical Results of K'mTheferences 2, relationships 3, and 4) and geophysical measure-ments at the Byron river screen house and at other sites indicate that the values presented in Figure 2.5-89 are reasonable and correct for the materials underlying the river screen house.

The gariation of. shear modulus (G

~

at low strain levels (10 inch / inch) calculated from Edd) measured shear wave i velocities given in Figure Q241.8-7 is presented in Figure j Q241.8-9. The cumulative average with depth of G indicates i that G varies f rom a low of 2794 ksf at a 25-f 88E depth to a high"8f 6104 ksf at a 110-foot depth.

The range in shear modulus values used in the SHAKE analysis for the Byron river screen house was given in Table Q362.1-1.

4 Figure 0241.8-10 presents shcar modulus versus shear strain variations determined by anchoring the shear modulus values used in the SHAKE analysis at their appropriate strain and matching the mean Seed and Idriss strain degradation curve to obtain The rangecorresponding in G variations from these of G"S* low curves areof 3083 ksfat very low strains.

to a high of 73SE ksf. The measured G values presented in Figure Q241.8-9 substantially f all @fEhin these values and confirm that the shear modulus variation presented in the response to Question 362.1 is acceptable.

4

.E J

1 a

i

\

I l

Q241.8-4 i

. DYRON-FSAR REFERENCES

1. Shannon and Wilson, Inc. and Agbabian Associates, 1980, Geotechnical data from accelerograph stations investigated during the period 1975-1979; Summary Report, prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1643 (S ep tember ) .

2. Hardin, B.O., and Drnevich,'V.P., 1972, Shear modulus -

and damping in soils: measurement and parameter. effects:

Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, vol. 98, no. SM6 (June) .

3. Hard in , B.O. , 1973, Shear modulus of gravels: University of Kentucky Publ. no. TR74-73-CE19 (September) .

4. Ohsaki, Y., and Iwasaki, R., 1973, On dynamic shear moduli and Poisson's ratios of soil deposits: Soils and Foundations, vol. 13, no. 4 (December).

5. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1970, Soil moduli and damping factors for response analysis: University of California, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, Report no. EERC70-10 (December).

6. Arango, I., Moriwaki, Y., and Brown, F., 1978, In-situ and laboratory shear velocity and modulus: Proceedings of the ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division Specialty Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,

. Pasadena, California (June).

7. Anderson, D.G., Espana, C., and McLamore, V.R., 1978, Estimating in-situ shear moduli at competent sites: Pro-ceedings of the ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division Specialty Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dyanmics, Pasadena, California (June).

8.

Gibbs, H.J., and Holtz, W.G., 1957, Research on determining the density of sand by spoon penetration test: Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. I, pp. 35-39.

9. Mayne , P.W. , and Kulhawy, F.H. , 1982, K -OCR relationships in soil: Journal of the ASCE Geotechnic21 Engineering Division vol. 108, no. GT6 (June) .

10. Marcu son , W. F. , and Bieganousky, W.A., 1976, Laboratory standard penetration tests on fine sands: 7.SCE Annual Convention and Exposition, Liquefaction Problems in Geo-technical Engineering, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (September) .

Q241.8-5

~

q W L 1

. TABLE O241.8-1 GEOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND NORMALIZED SHEAR MODULUS FACTOR FOR GRANULAR MATERIAL DEPTH -

SHEAR TO i MEAN WAVE WATER

! BLOW COUNT DEPTH VELOCITY TABLE

• K  ;

SPT (fps) (ft) 0 2 SITE SOIL CONDITIONS (ft)

SM 81 135 900 26 1.0 31 Cholame-Shandon Array 1.0 43 Alluvium 56 165 1,100

. California (Holocene)

(In-situ Impulse / ,

Downhole, 1975) 88 95 850 33 1.0 31 Terminal Substation Lake Deposit SM I

El Centro, California (Downhole, 1975) (Quartenary)

SP-SM 29 25 750 12 0.6 53 m O Highway Test Lab $,

• Olympia, Washington Glaciolacustrine (Crosshole, 1974) Deposit Qi 4

!Mt 126 40 1,550 238 1.0 132 $,

Cit Millikan Library 93 >'

Alluvium 180 80 1,550 1.0

• Pasadena, California 1.0 121 (Downhole, 1975) . (Pleistocene) 155/5" 120 1,950 SW-GW 42 20 1,100 225 0.8 103 4800 Oak Grove 103 40 1,600 1.0 143 Pasadena, California SM-SW (very dense) 80 1,600 1.0 101 (Downhole, 1978)- SM-SW .

140 2,000 1.0 120 SM-SW-GW (very dense)

Alluvium (Pleistocene) l SP 36 25 1,000 20 0.6 87 State Building 1,100 1.0 70 San Francisco, California .(Quaternary) 49 55 122 80 1,600 1.0 127 (Downhole, 1978) Sediments)

• Estimated based on Gibbs and Holtz, 1957 (Reference 8); Marcuson and Bieganousky,1976 (Reference 10);~and Mayne and Kulhawy, 1982 (Reference 9).

4

TABLE Q241.8-1 (Cont'd)

DEPTH

, SHEAR TO MEAN WAVE WATER BLOW COUNT DEPTH VELOCITY TABLE K* K SITE SOIL CONDITIONS SPT (ft) (fps) (ft) 0 2 Lincoln School Tunnel SM 71 25 1,200 <200 1.0 98 Taft, California Alluvium 121 50 1,200 1.0 69 (Downhole, 1976) (Quaternary) 103 80 1,600 1.0 97 Noranda Aluminum Plant SP/SP-SM 23 25 850 11 0.4 77 New Madrid, Missouri Alluvium 32 75 900 0.9 45 (Downhole, 1979) (Quaternary) 69 120 1,000 1.0 43 MSU Roberts Hall GW 35 14 750 8 1.0 60 m g Bozeman, Montana Alluvium 85/6" 25 1,300 1.0 146 $

w (In-situ Impulse, 1976) (Quaternary) g

[-PSUCramerHall GW 106/6" 105 1,800 133 1.0 112 ,

i Portland, Oregon >

" (Downhole, 1978)

• USU Old Main Building SW-GW 23 15 900 150 0.6 86 Logan, Utah Alluvium -

50 1,300 0.5 103 (Downhole, 1976) (Quaternary) 66 90 1,600 1.0 96 1900 Avenue of the Stars .SP/SM 102/6" 80 1,300 64 1.0 70 Los Angeles, California Pleistocene 124 120 1,800 1.0 119 (Downhole, 1975) (Some . Cementation)

Hollywood Storage Bldg. SM w/ Gravel 61 120 1,400 40 1.0 77  ;

Los Angeles, California Alluvium (Downhole, 1979) (Quaternary) j

. j 2

i n s--.-----. -

/

fa

• j _ ,

l- a

! //  :

/l/ ,

i

• o

= .. 9 -

- , , = e e ,

s s 7 / ,

, p / w/ /

,  ! / / / .

i o 6

/ /s ./

i e if '/ I/ ' 40 ,

? E / / / "

l h ,Y '

/  ;

a 4

)

/ <

o

! l 2 !o O

\i v

^

x/

f f e' b

, ~%

/\ / /

' !! i *

/ \/t / 65 5 w t

) # t/ e it

• u '

/ / / 9 A .

5 1 1/ 2 5

e e

i a .

i "

E #

/

5 E

e

~

l

'll s A' asA .

II  ; g ;; -

ff s s s s ,

)I .. anv1 1

t u !3 a: : ,

f soo=. N k

• E t

l '9

> s .

!

• i

.o . . . ~ c 1 4 6 6 6 6 SQ1000M WY3HS 03217vnHON f . .

g l

g 6

\

, \ BYRON STATION

\

\; FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS R EPORT FIGURE Q241.8-1

( NORMALIZED SHEAR MODULUS VERSUS SHEAR STRAIN e

. 2

+ 3

, e 8+ .

Y f l c.I'%~ 8 2 jv #

z j i -

e M -

/ IIT '

i I 5.II R, e

N i / /

m ..

y ,/. [

es;=ss

-

ina ~

t a 3 s e s 9 =>  ;

OO O ? 1

• 4 E.. aaas 8 / l 1 5 e > <3 = . W A ,r, 9

! x x N [ \ [ fj * *

, +

0 0 0

$ / ' k ~~M

! = A i l 21 i i

/ 1 i7 / ,

i I /  ! L e

b I 7 g .

~ -

.~ , \ 1. ,

'e a;

/

/ '

\ /\ =1 / i

=

R

/ V +

l

/ / w

, z

/ / a l j .

/ N e

I i i

< f'. 7

, e

. hu i  ! a _ , ##

$d h

u.h ,

$ > 8" A

~

& NN .

. 55

<g R cf g a0 A

t

" 'O

~ m" EE

$1531 O i ._NRn1031Nvh053e WOJ 3DNT;-_ e

'1 T l f )

l i i ~ .

2 3  ? 2

• lB . . . .

h wolova sn incon WV3HS 4e ie. e a f

l t

BYRON STATION

\.. FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT

\.

FIGURE Q241.8-2 SHEAR 1100U1.U5 FACTOR K 2

l

• YERUS SilEAR STRAIN t

e l 9 1

4 L.

.~9 '

i . . . SHEAR MODULUS FACTOR, K 2

, 20 GO 60 80 10 0 12 0 0

G ua m, a 240 a 10' NO# psf (0a1 1973)

G,,,, s 147 0 a (2.973.ela ! { ps,f ( H+ D,1972) l

~

i+e sl U. ,

I i

Gdan, s Y 2 + 0 T( F. ')' ( 2.97 3.el' Fo bort ( H,197 3) [

20

• e g i i I l l 8 l l l l 1 l l  !

40 8 8 j =-

8 l 8 l 1

'l 1

!i  ;

0.8 ME AN K,s 68)g i I MEAN K,s85 '

b (0aI,1973)  : (o a 3,1973) f i

O ,o f / l Mi '

j

F d i I i

4 I

] . 40  ! I BASED ON  !

t SPT BLOW COUNT -

l 1 l l /(0 & I,1973) l 3

l 1 l l'

' Kas 64 #1 l l (H + D,1972) I l

' l

• l iOO j

l p/ ,

I l

Ka s 75 -

! i l

! (w, isn> l l l  ;

i I I '

l30 I i

N = sTANDAAD PthtfRAfl0N TElf BLOV COUNT I a ,

e a volo AAfto ,

F, a PtAN trrtCflVC CONFINING stats $ e (1 2 K,)

{ F, trrtctivt vtaticAL statss L

! k, . AT.ntst cottricitNT Cr LAftRAL (A4fH PRtl%URE e j . o, . c=AiN sert (m) rnon enAoAriON cunvt It s: riNtn TNAN

) .

1 ~

J j

BYRON STATION i . (, FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT l FIGURE Q241.8-3 l 5 HEAR M0001.US FACTOR K 2MX j VERSUS DEPTH ,,

! , (CALCULATED USING REF. 2, 3, and 4)

P

____._____________.__________m

9 I ..-4 _ _..- h .

,g,, .

l.

Ban;  : e s:i A.t i 311,~1 1~ .isE 8 y

l l .

t .

I

! I. .

. e-f e

, 'e 1 .

o 9

l S -

3 I

- C

. s.

e r y

h !e .

g u

2 m I

i ie I e o]

06 l

~h

. g e

• A30VilISn

- - - -- - - - .i.d Ad $ N V 3 N NO F A O

.g.----- . e C

s 5 e(*a g &. I e *

• og W

'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ass hvin NOWAG .

"' R 5:,

r  ! sg te ka 6* 1 '5

-- so ci , isgra riismr.---

~

yr 3

g & g,5 si 12 U

V I ' ' ' ' y '

y @ @ S TM'wolove snincon kv3Hs *

.. . . . . .s........ p,.n ..

BYRON STATION l \

FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT l

FIGURE Q241.0-4 l

SHEARH0DULUSFACTORK{

VERSUS SPT BLOW COUNT o

GRANULAR MATERIAL.

l v

. 1

. I e

1 V .

x .-

sh3"m,er.39g1m.N 't s,

i *

.e 3 e

O

~

S e '

I t

i i

i R E

c. .

I $

s' e >=

= e z

- i 9L 3

a 8

g - o' ge i t n

...._ _ _e z_a_c_a_s __e s n_i_a_a_.s. .se _ ..3..____

in_ no_u_ s _ . ___... ,

t l

C I

I I' I a

( /

..c l ,m r,-~a.e-- - - - - - - - - -------

i R 30

. I 3E e

I-

• ,2 I!

a e

' :E

~ ,

"* ~ ~~~ Kio~oliiIOiiis Min ~ic~ ~e~ *fg N 4 2 p

a 5

1 r

3 o'

l l '

I I D3f/14 'A1100'l3A 3Aym WV3HS t l.

=__-: . .-- - '

BYRON STATION N

N. FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q241.8-5

, SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY VERSUS SPT BLO'! COUNT

'. , GRANULAR MATERIAL I

g

. e .

s CALCUL ATED SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY, FT/SEC.

0 . 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

, 0 1000 K, ( Fo18 l V, s ,

l l K, e 50 75 _l00_125150 190 Ko l0 j 7 134 pct i

\ *gN

, .i l $ \

40 \- >

=--

,g

. h l-

)

W .

W '

W ,b $

I' < \

• g }d )t: ,

W l kw t I s a0 OHSAKl AND IWASAKI (1973)

[l}

-; g I

( ..

HARDIN + 0RNEVICh .  !

. (1972) II Ng ,

& I*

s HARDIN# '

(1973) , ,f le 100 ,

' I O !. ,, ,

i I i  ! {  !

12 0

~~~ ~ ~~ ---

l BYRON STATION A FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT

! \.

l TIGURE Q241.8-6 CALCULATED SilEAR WAVE i VELOCITIES VERSUS DEPTH e

t _. .

. 1 l SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY, FT./SEC.  !

O 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 .

O  ;

f i

I i e

' 20 -

l'

_- _ _ _ . FOUNDATION LEVEL i

.w U

'N e '

3 40 -

i 'M o l'i

-2 2 l O

E

.i

'O GO .---

'W <>

1. so l b <

i

' *lW i

gl * .0 p .

.8 loo 1 -

120 EXPLANATION:

M IAEASURCD 1 1

M OHSAK! A IWASAKI (1973) . . . . . . _ .

l

' ' ~

. ~ ,

4 BYRON STATION s

l FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT pa) Tilt" 1.'T'Ht vtictifill OtttRntht0 FROM THE CRoll

suavtv StRt ornivro reca atAlvaterais nAcc flGURE Q241.8-7 f0A BORINGl XHel AND XM*2, AND AAt CCRRitit0 70 (LIMINAft 8tfRACfl0 WAvt PATHl.

" " " - 2. caouNo luarACE At tLinfioN sai. SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY VERSUS DEPTil

. a

, l

• e' . . . . , . . _ . . . . . _ _

o '

j SHEAR MODULUS FACTOR, K2 M AX.

! O 30 60 90 12 0 15 0 100 1 O i .

l l MEAN MEAN 4

X HOLE O 8i

. I i 20 ,4 I '

l 8

l FOUNDATION g l LEVEL

, 4 l

'N. I

!wv i g 4n N  %

-N l

I, .

'3  %

i M h

's* -

lE l# I

. 60 -

jU '

!b i l

l E , l  !

f 80 j'p je < .

l I

N 1

W  !

100

-%b

. 1 I b .

_.Y f- lI(

a l  ;

l 1 ,

l l leo EXPLANATION:

0 0 X.HOLC (ME ASURED) -

6----A OHSAMI & IWASAKI (088)  ;

4 .. . .- + - - ----

NOTES: 1.

N28 1000VF~ e t y, e MEAN EFFECTivC STRESS

a. oRoVND SURFACE AT ELEVATION 683. BYRON STATION

( F*lN AL S AFCTY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q241.8-8 4

$HCAR MODULUS FACTOR K VERSUS DEPill 2m

?

?

_________________._--__..-___a

J o

SHEAR MODULUS, GMAx.,KSF 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 I2000 20 f I -

-GMAx: E 3028 KSF(l)

~

40 o 'N .

[  !

'l -GMAx : 6196 KSF(l) 5

~

/ _

-MN GMAx: 6 l Mb7""~

$8 a ,,

I l

E --Guax: 5480 KSF(l)

- l E so f ,

6 ( ,

l+- GWAxl: 8595 KSF(l)

'\ l

% 1  %

l l G,g s V, - {  ! I 12 0 NOTES:

(1) AVERAGE GyAx VALUES FOR INDIVIDUAL Soll LAYERS. Soll LAYERS 10ENTICAL TO THOSE USED IN ANALYSIS PRESENTED IN RESPONSE TO Q362.1 m

BYRON STATION g FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q241.8-9 SHEAR MODULUS G VERSUS DEPTH E

/* ,

I 12500 W

10000 -

%ta. /

- - MEAN '/ALUEEASED Off FIELD GEOFtiY3ICAI. FI: STING 4

% /

$ / r-! HE:A9 f11))ULUS F:ANGE III"'

k7500 c-'

en 3 '

% % PDI:R AND LOWER 80JN D 5-tYALJE3

]

O t

( 610 4) ^

N N USED IN AVAt,Y$1S (Q 362. I) 2  %  % '

5000 N h

l r

<t N N

\ \\

-. . - w .

\

b (soas) N .N g

\ h 9

E 2500 C

/

2; \

\-N

\

(M g- N.

\ (1 350)

%E

>m n g g  % %

I

( 1:26)

N N

=> - > -<  %

co " O "1 "U ' '

(7 78) C

$8 m j O O 4 6 8 10-* 2 4 6 8 10-3 2 4 6 0 10-2 2 4 6 e 10-1 2 4 6 8I EF 2 >2 SHEAR STRAIN , %

<5 S z (n N< w. r> 3,

-m N

• aa

-c

_a_ -

I 2 2 .

M s

'D

~

O x . ,

y .- ,

9

- D ,

t.