Properties of Subsurface · From SAR Section 2.5.1.2 and Calc Package GEO.DCPP.01.24. Slope...
Transcript of Properties of Subsurface · From SAR Section 2.5.1.2 and Calc Package GEO.DCPP.01.24. Slope...
NRC/PG&E Open Meeting, San Francisco CA Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
Properties of Subsurface Materials Robert White
Geotechnical Engineer
PG&E Geosciences Department
U April 11, 2002
Purpose
m Characterize subsurface materials for ISFSI, CTF and Transport Route for
"* Foundation properties
"* Slope stability assessments
Subsurface Materials Assessed
"* Rock
"* Dolomite
"* Sandstone
"* Friable rock
"* Clay Beds
Subsurface Materials Properties - Rock
m Density
m Shear Wave Velocities
m Young' s Moduli and Poisson's Ratios
m Shear Strength
Rock Properties - Density
* Determined from lab tests of rock core samples of dolomite and sandstone
* 140 pcf ± 8 pcf for all rock
From SAR Section 2.6.4.3.1; Data Report I, Table 1
Rock Properties - Shear Wave Velocities
"* Obtained from suspension logging of borings at ISFSI site
"* Compared with velocities obtained in previous investigations at power block
From SAR Section 2.6.5.1.3.2 Figs. 2.6-33, 34, and 35; SAR 2.6.1.10; Data Report C
Shear wae veloy (Ips m 1000 a)
2 3 4 5 60
aS
0
7 8 9
Explanation
Upper- and kowerI I bound LTSP shear
I wame profile envelope
Rbm block baring
DDH-D (1977)
(Figure 2.6-34)
ISFSIborings
96BA-3 (1998)
98MA-1.4 (1996)
(Fir 2.6-33)
Rock shear wave velocities
From SAR Figure 2.6-35
Young's Moduli and Poisson's Ratios
m From suspension velocities for rock mass
m Compared with lab tests of rock core samples of dolomite and sandstone
From SAR Section 2.6.4.3.1; Data Report I
Results - Rock Properties
m Young's moduli
*1.3 x 106 to 1.5 x 106 psi, non-friable rock
*0.20 x 106 to 0.21 x 106 psi, friable rock
* Poisson's ratios
*0.22 to 0.37, non-friable rock
*0.23 to 0.31, friable rock
From SAR Section 2.6.4.3.1; Data Report I
Rock Strength Parameters depend on:
"* Type of rock .Dolomite, sandstone * Friable rock
"* Scale of rock mass analyzed * Large scale
+ Rock slide mass * Small scale
+ Rock wedges
Potential large scale slide mass
From SAR Figure 2.6-49
Large-scale Slide Mass
"* Strength controlled by rock mass
+ Discontinuities (joints, bedding planes, faults)
* Size of intact blocks
"* Strength of rock mass based on HoekBrown method
From SAR Section 2.6.5.1.2.3
NRC Request for Clarification:
* "Discuss analysis)
the technicalto justifythe
basis (data androck-mass friction
angle ofS50 degrees used to characterizethe rock-mass strength of dolomite and sandstone."
Hoek-Brown Input Parameters for Sandstone and Dolomite
m Geologic Strength Index (GSI) values as a function of discontinuity condition and spacing
m Material index (mi) values as a function of rock type and texture
m Unconfined compressive strength (ac) of intact rock samples
Distribution of Hoek-Brown Input Parameter Values
mean plus mean minus
Dolomite one sigma mean one sigma
GSI 65 56 46
m. 17 15 13
(Yci 47 32 18
mean plus mean minus
Sandstone one sigma mean one sigma
GSI 68 65 62
Mi 19 18 17
Ui 31 22 12
From Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.19
Example Hoek Brown strength envelope
tangent
T= c +On tans
10 20 30 40
Normal stress (f MPa
Figure 11.8: Plot of results from simulated full scale triaxial tests on a rock mass defined by a uniaxial compressive strength Oci = 85 MPa, a Hoek -Brown constant m, = 10 and a Geological Strength Index GSI = 45.
30
•. 20
S10O
0
Rock Mass Strength envelopes (Hoek-Brown)
range of interest
ri/ll ,11 i 11; 4 i i + i I i
i /1.5 1-
-0.5 0 0.5
71//
7
1.5 2 2.5
4
3.5--
3
•2.5
2
1.5
0.5
03 3.5 4 4.5
Normal stress (MPa)-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Normal stress (MPa)
From SAR Figures 2.6-53 and 2.6-54; Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.19
4.5
4
3.5
1 2.5
21
0
ran-e of inte'est
_ Am-
3 3.5 4 4.5
4.5 , II l I I I ,
I - If ý, z i I I I
ýrxl 0.5
0
. I
ý7
Properties of Friable Sandstone and Dolomite
m Strength not scale dependent since relatively homogeneous (discontinuities have weathered to consistency of rock fabric)
m Samples tested in the lab measured total and effective stresses
Friable Rock Total Stress Strength envelope
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
p=1/2 (7l+G 3 ) (psi)
From SAR Figure 2.6-55
�1.
N
II 0*
0
Small-Scale Rock Wedge
"* Strength controlled entirely by discontinuities
"* Strength of discontinuities based on BartonChoubey method
Potential rock wedges
From SAR Figure 2.6-47
Barton-Choubey Input Parameters for Sandstone and Dolomite
"* Base friction angle (tb) based on lab tests of shear strength of discontinuities
"* Joint compressive strength (JCS).based on lab tests of unconfined compressive strength
"* Joint roughness coefficient (JRC) values based on field measurements of joints in trenches
From SAR Section 2.6.5.1.2.3)
Straight line fits: 4- 18, 33, &48'
dolomite bedding strength envelopes
14
1.2
I
S01
0.6
S04
02
0 02 04 06 0 a1 1 4
Normal stress, is g - MPP
Straight line fits: ý=-21, 31, &44'
FL sandstone bedding strength envelopes
14
1 2
0Oa
06
S04
02
02 04 06 09
Nor mal sire ns, sign - MPa
(shaded zone equals stress range of interest)
From Calculation GEO.DCPP.01.20
stres rang of inter st e-
OA@
5-. -•_
S..... .. . • •- ,, -- :
p-' A 4o,,
.,•, , .. *
12 14
5 1
Clay Bed Properties
m Density
m Atterberg limits
m Over consolidation ratio
m Shear strength
Density of Clay
m From lab tests of clay samples
m 120 pcf+ 5 pcf
From SAR Section 2.6.4.3.1; Data Report G, Table G-1
Atterberg Limits
m From lab tests of clay samples
m Representative values of Plasticity Index (PI) are between 20 to 40
From Data Report G, Table G-1
Overconsolidation Ratio (OCR)
m Estimated at several points along three clay beds from knowledge of previous ground surface
m Representative values
*2to5
From GEO.DCPP.01.31
Clay Strength
"* Strength of clay beds from lab tests on samples from tower road cut
"* Lab results correlated with published PI and OCR relationships
"* Post peak and/or large strain strengths used
NRC request for clarification:
m "Discuss the saturated undrained shear strength of the clay-bed soil."
Unconsolidated Undrained Shear Strength
Mohr failure envelope (total stress)
V -T =0
(a)
I- - <10% . .4.S =100%
a
(b)
Fig. 11.40 Mohr failure envelopes for UU tests: (a) 100% saturated clay; (b)
partially saturated clay.
From Holtz and Kovacs, 1981
T1
T =C:
l_.•_---A . . I.. Aof- - a o(total o)
L--r ---,
Consolidated Undrained Shear Strength
wj - liquid limit + Vane tests wp = plastic limit o Unconfined compression tests
From: Lambe and Whitman, 1969
Laboratory Strength Test Data
Undrained Direct Shear (Cycled) Cooper Testing Labs, Inc.
20000
15000
10000
U
an
6n
5000
0
-500"
-10000
-15000
Deformation. (Inches)
Shear Strengths of Clay Bed
(ps)
0 50 100 150 200 ... ... .. ... ... .. 200
25 Effective Shear Strength envelope 150
S20
a
2 10 •
S5
0 5 10 15 20 25 Normal effective stress on failure plane at failure - of (kSO
......................................... ... ............ .. . ...................
0
t
a
50
(ps)
100 150 200 u 200
Ir
pe 150
- loo
50
From SAR Figure 2.6-50 and 51; Calculation GEO.DCPP.0 1.31
Summary of Rock Properties
m Density: 140 pcf ± 8 pcf for all rock
"* Shear Wave Velocities: > 4000 fps
"* Young's Moduli: related to shear wave velocities
m Poisson's ratio: related to shear wave velocities
* Shear Strength:
* =- 50 degrees for slide masses
S•-18 to 31 degrees for rock wedges
Summary of Clay Bed Properties
m Density: 120 pcf + 5 pcf average
o Atterberg Limits: PI of 20 to 40
m Over Consolidation Ratio: OCR of 2 to 5
m Shear Strength:
. Effective shear strength: = 22 degrees
* Undrained shear strength:
.4 15 degrees and c - 500 psf, or
* 29 degrees
NRC/PG&E Open Meeting, San Francisco, CADiablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
Slope Stability Analysis
Joseph Sun Geotechnical Engineer
PG&E Geosciences Department
April 11, 2002
Presentation of Slope Stability
"* Hillslope above ISFSI Pads
"* Transport route and CTF
"* Cutslopes
Joseph Sun
Robert White
Jeff Bachhuber
Approach
m Select cross section for analyses
m Develop material properties
m Perform slope stability analyses
m Perform dynamic response analyses
m Estimate potential seismic induced displacements of rock masses on clay beds
Approach
"* Select cross section for analyses "* Develop material properties "* Perform slope stability analyses "* Perform dynamic response analyses
* Address NRC request for clarification on vertical ground motions
"* Estimate potential seismic induced displacements of rock masses on clay beds
/ / C'
/ /
/
RI
II,
� WI
�1
S
ON
II
Analysis Cross Section I-I1
From SAR Figure 2.6-18
Potential Large-scale Rock Mass Model -Upper Slope
11 North South
800 ----.. . - .-- . ...-. . . . . .. .. .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. ... . . . ....
MODEL I 700 /
600 . r@
1971 pre,- tower ax~ess road borrow ,..
excavation tower!
4A,•. road
SISFSI Pads A-L ""CTF 0 .. .. ..
01 " W -O1•TF: OO -A 0 -0 A 01-A
From SAR Figure 2.6-47
Potential Large-scale Rock Mass Model -Intermediate Slope
IISouth
From SAR Figure 2.6-48
I800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
a) C
0
0)
Potential Large-scale Rock Mass Model -Intermediate Slope
II Noah South
800_ _
MODEL 2 700
600 -- •... . 1971 pro-borrow
excavab~on topography lowe accesms ro 2D
500 ISFS1 I- - - 14--I . • C T F Pads • • • - • T-1 4
4-- - ___1
1000 .
From SAR Figure 2.6-48
Potential Large-scale Rock Mass Model -Lower Slope 1 11
South
From SAR Figure 2.6-49
North 800
700
600
500
400
4-. ci�
C 0
4
a) iJJ
300
200
100
Static Slope Stability
"* 2-D analysis using Spencer's method of slices
"* Input:
"* Geometry
"* Material properties: unit weights, strengths
"* Output:
"* Static factors of safety (F.S.)
"* Yield acceleration (ky)
From SAR Section 2.5.1.2 and Calc Package GEO.DCPP.01.24
Slope Stability Theory
Resisting moment o Pseudo-static Slope Stability F.S. = ------------ =1 q,- b
Driving moment
a ý4
w
Fig. 2. Conventional method for computing effect of earthquake on stability of a slope (after Terzaghi, 1950)
S
I
Assumptions
m Claybeds are saturated
m Tension cracks exist in the upper 20 ft
m Rock to rock contacts along the thin claybeds are neglected
m Lateral margins of potential slide massesare assumed to have no strength
From SAR Section 2.6.5.1.2.2
UTEXAS3 - Slope Stability
m Uses a 2-stage stability computation to evaluate the stability of slopes under seismic loading conditions (Duncan, Wright, and Wong, 1990)
1Ist stage: computes the state of stress along the shear surface under long term loading conditions
*2nd stage: calculates undrained shear strength based on long term state of stress and performs slope stability analysis under seismic loading conditions
Cross Section I-I" (shallow model)
I
From SAR Figure 2.6-47
0 -e
0m~
I©
Q
N)
00
Cross Section I-I" (deep model)
From SAR Figure 2.6-49
.1,
t
Results of Static Slope Stability
Slide Mass Static F.S. Yield Acc. (ky)
la 2.55 0.28
(Ib 1.62 0.20 *
2a 2.55 0.31
2b 2.16 0.24
2 c 2.18 0.19 4
3a 2.86 0.44
3b 2.70 0.39
3 c 2.26 0.25 4
3c-1 2.38 0.28
3c-2 2.28 v 0.23 From SAR Table 2.6-3
Methodology of Seismic Analysis
m Yield accelerations (ky) determined from slope stability analysis
m Response of slide masses under seismic loading evaluated using 2-D finite element method
m Displacements of slide masses calculated using Newmark sliding block approach
QUAD4M - 2D Dynamic Response
Analysis
m Input:
"* Unit weights
"* Shear wave velocities and damping values
"* Non-linear material properties
0 Output:
* Acceleration time histories of slide masses
-1.00 . I I I I I I I I I , z I I IIT
Illustration of 0.8Bock3C
-0.8 - Block 3C Ilsrto of-0.6 - Ground Motion Set 1
-04Ky= 0.25 g o0.-0.2 S0.00 Newmark 4 "5 0.2 - p
S 0.6 Sliding Block 0.8o 1.00 . . .. ... 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement Time(seconds)
Calculation 1.0
4Q 100 / o 50 a)
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (seconds)
60
50/- Displacement= 48.9 cm
S40 a)
E 30 k~ta)
-g 20 Q.
6 10
;1 0 w 0 5 _ 10 15 20 25 30
Time (seconds)
NRC Request for Clarification
... the slope safetySAR,
evaluation presented in the
ground motion components without the vertical component, should be clarified ... 1"
which was developed using the horizontal
Effects of Vertical Ground Motions on Sliding Analysis
"* Inclination of slide planes (bedding planes)
"* Vertical motions more important for steeply dipping slide planes (greater than 30-40')
"* ISFSI clay beds typically dip less than 15' "* Steepness of slope
"* Vertical motions more important for steeper slopes
"* ISFSI hillslope is about 3:1 (H:V) and the effect of steepness of slope is incorporated in the 2-D slope stability and dynamic response analyses
Effects of Vertical Ground Motions on Sliding Analysis
m Material strength properties
"* More important for sandy material
"* Less important for clayey material
"* ISFSI slide plane material is clay beds
Ground Motion Considerations for Sliding Block Analysis
"* Direction of slide mass movements:
"* Occurs along claybeds "* Claybeds are horizontal to sub-horizontal
"* Postulated slide mass movements are influenced by horizontal motions
"* Slide plane inclination: "* Limited effect on computed displacement (less than 10%)
if the inclination is less than 20' based on Makdisi (1976) for sandy materials
"* For material similar to the ISFSI claybeds, the influence would be less
"* ISFSI claybeds typically dip less than 15'
Ground Motion Considerations for Sliding Block Analysis (cont'd)
"* Undrained shear strength of claybeds:
"* Controlled by long term overburden pressure
" Relatively insensitive to seismic loadings
"* Peak arrival time:
" Arrival time of horizontal peak is typically 1 to 3 seconds behind arrival of vertical peak based on near field recordings
"* During strong horizontal shaking, the energy (as measured by Aries Intensity) on the vertical component is typically 10% to 30% of the energy on the horizontal component
Ground Motion Considerations for Sliding Block Analysis (cont'd)
"* Standard of practice for seismic design of dams: * Evaluation of permanent displacement of
embankment dams under seismic loading is based on horizontal component of the design motion (USBR, 1989)
"* Recent studies: *Study at Cal Tech indicated that vertical ground
motions have limited impact on block movements based on numerical analysis and physical modeling Yan, et al. (1996)
Preliminary Site-Specific Study
m Evaluate effect of vertical motions on computed yield acceleration
m Evaluate effect of vertical motions on slide mass responses
m Incorporating vertical ground motions resulted in displacements varying less than 10% from calculations based on horizontal component alone
Effects of Vertical Seismic Coefficient (kv) on Yield Acc (ky)
-kv up
f
v
+kv down
kv -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 +0.0 +0.2 +0.4 +0.6 +0.8
kh ky 0.23
0.22 0.20
0.19 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.17
0.16
Zone of applicability
Based on hand calculation of slide mass lB
Response of Block 1B Response Direction EQ
0.0uInpu 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 5
1.0• C 0. .0
2 0.0
"o -0.5 < -1.0 , (,I Average horizontal acceleration in wedg e 1 B using H+Vinput
0 10 20 30 40 50
1.0
0.5
0
0.0 4I 0 -0.5
< 10ie A r-a--q- -on_ acceleragion in Wt adge 1B ul ing directiodg of claybed (14 deg.) -1.0 " I
50
Vertical Ground Motion
Effects on Computed
Displacements
100.00
10.00
.00
CL
(U(
0.10
0.01 0.0 0.2 0.4
ky1.00.6 0.8
Conclusions on the Effects of Vertical Ground Motions
"* Effect on clay bed shear strength
* Minimal to none
"* Effect of inclination of potential slide plane
* Minimal
"* Effect on computed horizontal response of slide masses
* Minimal
"* Overall effect on computed displacements * +10%
Potential Seismic Induced Displacements on Clay Beds
:999 - node points to compute acceleration time histories
800i I
700
600
.. 3.1lft 0)500
400cc
S1.2 ft 1.4f
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Horizontal Distance, feet
Mitigation Measures for Slide Masses
m Set back
*25 ft wide bench between cutslopes
.40 ft clearance between edge of ISFSI pads and toe of cutslope
m Debris fences
Conclusions
* The stability of the hillslope above the ISFSI pads was analyzed and the slopes have ample factors of safety under static conditions.
m The hillslope above the ISFSI site may experience small displacements when exposed to the design-basis earthquakes.
Conclusions (cont'd)
m The maximum seismic induced displacements could potentially be about 3 feet on the upper slope to about 1 to 2 feet on the lower slope.
m Mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize effects of the small displacements and protect the ISFSI facilities to perform their intended design functions.
NRC/PG&E Open Meeting, San Francisco CA Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
Transport Route Stability and Displacement Analyses
Robert White
Geotechnical Engineer
PG&E Geosciences Department
April 11, 2002
Transport Route Slope Stability and Displacement Analyses Steps
1. Locate critical slide mass with minimum factor of safety. Determine yield acceleration for critical slide mass.
2. Determine seismic coefficient time history for critical slide mass.
3. Determine potential earthquake-induced displacement of critical slide mass.
From SAR 2.6.5.4.2; GEO.DCPP.01.28, 29, AND 30
Stability and Yield Acceleration Analysis of Critical Slide Masses
m Three representative sections along the transport route were selected
m Affect of transporter load also evaluated
Analytical Sections
Cr,
©0
Finite Element Sections
"* Finite element meshes for Sections L-L' and E-E' were prepared.
"* A finite element mesh for Section D-D' was not prepared, as it is similar in configuration to Section E-E'.
Seismic Coefficient Time Histories of Slide Masses
m Finite element meshes for Sections L-L' and E-E' were prepared.
m A finite element mesh for Section D-D' was not prepared, as it is similar in configuration to Section E-E'.
Seismic Response Analyses Slide Masses
I % II' I I I I I I I I I I I I
Section L-L'
Vs= 1200 fps, unit weight 115 pd,
-400 -300 -200 -100 6 160 260 360 460 560 660 760 860 960 1000Horizontal Distance, feet
[From Figure 1, GEO.DCPP.01.29]
70uuI
600
50O
400-
300
200
100-
Cu
0I
100
-200-
-300-• -500
Seismic Coefficient Time Histories of Critical Slide Masses
m ILP ground motions were rotated to the direction of Sections L-L' and E-E' and input into the finite element program.
m The seismic coefficient time histories for the critical slide masses were obtained by averaging multiple nodal point time histories within the respective masses.
Earthquake-Induced Displacements of Critical Slide Masses
m The Newmark sliding block analysis procedure was used to estimate the potential displacements of the critical slide masses using the seismic coefficient time histories to estimate the potential slide mass movements.
m Potential displacements of the critical slide masses * in the three sections analyzed range from 0.5 to
1.3 feet.
Transport Route Displacement Analyses
100.00
10.00
01.3 S1.00
0.10
0.01 1.0
From Figure 6, GEO.DCPP.01.30
0.2 o.-).46k o." 0.80.0
Conclusions
m Three representative sections along the transport route were evaluated for static and seismic loading conditions
m The sections are stable under transporter loads
m Displacements of 1.3 feet or less were calculated for slide masses subjected to the ILP ground motion
NRC/PG&E Open Meeting, Diablo Canyon Independent Spent
San Francisco, CA Fuel Storage Installation
Stability Analysis of Cutslopes
Jeff Bachhuber Engineering Geologist
William Lettis & Associates
April 11, 2002
Purposes
m Evaluate static and dynamic stability of proposed ISFSI pad cutslopes against possible smaller-scale rock block (wedge) failures
m Develop conceptual cutslope rock anchor support
, ftw s
S. S* PS~v
V.W,-,
............--- ......... L E1,149,000 Limitof7To PograPhic
S. . . . . . " - -
-27
k ý57.
A..
""-'E Backcut - " .
n profile.
//
/ / 4. I , T-, 6G
(SAR Figure2.6-3.2) /'
-' .1
4
50 100 150 200 -L_-_i -- _L- - I -J
5-
so's/
i
I North
MODEL 2
ISFSI CTF Pads
Reservoir
1971 pre-borrow excavation topography
II South
800
700
600
S500 4
0 • 400 a,
300
200
100
tower access
1'
TofbDoinltori
BACK CUTSLOPE
7' restricted
area fence
25' wdde bench a el.329.75'
S' security fence
ISFSI PAD
raw water wrm ervc
Cask setback from toe of cut
(SAR, PG&E, 2001)
0 50 too 150 200 250
400
350
250
200
300 350
K -'A /
/
/
/ /
S - .T-16
' ' ' '/ "T 1 B '• ". ,/ ,/ "
DS- ",1T- - "b (in road cut),-/ / ," /
<p 2 , .' -S "1"- 11A ./ ,'" 9 '". / ,, . " T 1 A," " " " , Yf/slo / . . -/ . I,"/' / /" . . -. "11..
SReport F Figure F-l) .: '., :. " ' ,
4'T-•/ i...OA..---. -7--:
/~ i5-0- .. -?-t-o o 100 150 200
" -- .. - - Contour interval = 5 feet
• . / J , . - ."•/ .c , -",. .• i.t t./.:., - ' j ,
• .,- , , -. .. ... ,.' ,,,- . ; " - ... ,1" ."'
T -"x.,. Tý T-14A7 "
," :• - , T-'I B. . ,, ./
E 1,149,000
+
�grP"
"N \,
x•,•_• -" • ..
Rock Mass Discontinuities
4:1
"40L
14.00
12.00-
S10.00
CU 8.00 0
ct) S6.00
.3
"0 4.00 0 UI)
2.00FI I
T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6 T-11 T-12 T-13 T-14 T-15 T-17 T-18 T-20 T-21
(Data Report F) Test Pit I Mean Discontinuity Spacing (ft)
I Standard Deviation (ft)
S-Maximum Spacing (ft)
Approach
"* Kinematic Analyses:
"* Identify potential failure modes
"* Select model for pseudostatic analyses
"* Pseudostatic Analyses: "* Deterministic Factor of Safety
"* Evaluate Sensitivity of Input Parameters
* Determine Anchor Force Requirements
"* Evaluate Mitigation Options
Assumptions For Analyses m Stability controlled by rock mass discontinuities m Discontinuity shear strength is represented by the
frictional component of the median Barton shear strength envelope
m We assume no benefit from cohesion m Groundwater/rainwater collects in discontinuities
up to half-height of the wedge m Wedges are limited within the outermost 20 to 25
feet of slope m Tension cracks exist at the top of the cutslope
Software
m Qualified software
o Kinematic Analyses - DIPS Version 5.041(Rocscience,
m Pseudostatic
1999)
Analyses - SWEDGE Version
3.06 (Rocscience, 1999)
Kinematic Analyses Input Parameters "i Geologic mapping data "i Discontinuity surveys in trenches and cuts
"* Bedrock bedding
"* Joints
* Faults
Set
1
Southern Hemisphere Projections
Set 1
Set 3
t2$
C. Wedge sliding hazard (high hazard)
(SAR, PG&E, 2001)
B. Planar sliding hazard (low to moderate hazard)
Results Kinematic Analyses
Planar Wedge Pseudostatic Mitigation Cutslope Topple Sliding Sliding Analyses Required?
Mod. To Mod. To Eastcut Low High Yes Yes
High (3 sets)
S~High
acut Low Low to Mod. (4 sets) Yes Yes
We steutHigh Low Very Low No No
(
Pseudostatic Analyses Input Parameters
m Barton mean shear strength values
m Laboratory direct shear test results
m Seismic loading of 0.5g acting as a uniform horizontal force
m Cutslope geometry from design drawings
m Wedge intersections from kinematic analyses
m Variable wedge geometry, shear strength
max height of ISFSI cutslope at el. 361.5'
max height of ISFSI cutslope at el. 361.5'
Itension crack at drainage ditch at back of bench
7,: 18"
4.-
modeled "average" slope profile without benches for fullheight failure wedges
-cutslope
profile
height 52.3' I
0.5 g Horizontal Seismic force
Single bench wedge
SWEDGE analysis
I Ii
tension crack tension distance crack
18"
4-
0.5 g Horizontal Seismic force
Total cut-height wedge as modeled by SWEDGE program
(From SAR, Fig.2.6-60)
Dynamic Factor of Safety= 1.3 Capacity 34 kips Length 23 feet + Bond
Critical wedges
Backcut Dynamic factor Anchor of safety characteristics
critical wedge without with per anchor anchor weight support support capacity* length
1784kips 0.62 1.3 33.9 kips 13 feet 4475 kips 0.63 1.3 32.1 kips 23 feet
40 kips 0.0 1.4 18.6 kips 7 feet 10 kips 0.3 1.7 9.4 kips 4 feet
Eastcut Dynamic factor Anchor of safety characteristics
critical wedge without with per bolt anchor weight support support capacity length
34 kips 0.54 1.3 9.0kips 3.5 feet
23.8 kips 0.0 1.4 8.4 kips 3.5 feet
5' x 5' pattern
Fault-Jed margin
Perspective view
Mitigation
" Rock anchor
" Drainage
"* Debris fences
" Shotcrete
* Setback
8' security area fence
8' security fence
raw water reserfvir
(From SAR, Figure 2.6-60)
ISFSI PAD
- •. Cask seth from tooc
BACK CUTSLOPE
7' restricted area fence 400
25' wide bench
at el. 329.75'
cutalope at el. 361.5' 350
onRock MxhDrain anchor
-A Drain Rock anchor
back Df cut
250
200 2033 00 200 250 300 350
Distance (feet)n 50 100 150
I-411 -
Conclusions - Cutslope Geology
"- Proposed ISFSI cutslopes will be excavated in dolomite, sandstone, and friable rock
"* Rock mass discontinuities control cutslope stability
"* Discontinuity spacing limits size of potential blocks to less than 20 to 25 feet
Conclusions - Cutslope Stability
"* Stability analyses shows that cutslopes exhibit high likelihood for wedge failure
"* Rock anchors will effectively stabilize cutslopes to achieve a dynamic, saturated Factor of Safety of 1.3
.34 kip anchors at 5' X 5' spacing
* Penetration lengths of up to 25'
* Proposed mitigation measures provide high margin of safety
Conclusions - Cutslope Stability
m Stability analyses shows that cutslopes exhibit high likelihood for wedge failure
m Rock anchors will effectively stabilize cutslopes to achieve a dynamic, saturated Factor of Safety of 1.3
.34 kip anchors at 5' X 5' spacing
*Penetration lengths of up to 25'
*Proposed mitigation measures provide high margin of safety
NRC/PG&E Open Meeting, San Francisco, CA Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
Response to NRC question
William D. Page
Senior Engineering Geologist
PG&E Geosciences Department
April 11, 2002
Question: Explain Degree of Confidence in
Results
m Input parameters used for modeling potential large-scale rock mass movements are realistic and conservative
m Confidence in predicted foundation conditions at CTF, ISFSI Pads and ISFSI cutslopes
Input Parameters for Modeling
m Geometry of clay beds well understood
m Groundwater conditions known, clay beds assumed saturated
Dip Direction
I Clay Beds lorth > 1/4 ±100ft.
0 100lFeet 1/8 to1/4 ± 50 ft. < 1/8 ± 25 ft.
V=H
1971 pre-borrow topography
CTF ISFSL. ..- T -1.1-F.D-
TCTF 01-H
Change in dip " .
direction- -
700
600
500
'--'400 a1) UI-,
0 16 300 a)
w
200
100
..... .. Tofb-i . . . . Dolmilte
v
(From SAR, Figure 2.6-18)
II
SouthN
j�N �
- � -. �- - r 'F
-
0
zoo
U
-U-
I Clay Beds 11 North South
> 1/4 +±100 ft. 700 100 Feet 1/8to1/4 -,±-501ft.
Scale < 1/8 ±+25 ft. V-H
600
Temporary perched water 500 on clay beds after storms 0.A
S400 C FIS F S ... 01-F.. • _ • • ' _! "._: .• ._- • - 1.• ' •_• .• ... . , .. ,..
CTFT-1D . Reservoir Road , T1- 11
.0 01-CTF-A / 01-A __
S 300
200t Totb-2
Sandetone
100
0
Main water table(From SAR, Figure 2.6-18)
-A �1
Large-scale Mass Movements
m Geologic interpretations of extent of clay beds is conservative, but not extreme
m Potential slide planes are chosen to follow the full extent of more extensive clay beds and step between clay beds, this assumes minimum rupture of rock
m Rock to rock contact along potential slide plane along clay beds not factored into model, this would increase the clay strength from that used
Clay Beds Not Continuous
Clay Beds North South
> 1/4 ±100ft. 700 0 100Feet 1/8 to1/4 ±50 ft.
Scale <1/8 +25 ft.
V-H 600
500 1971 pre-borrow topography 00 - ",A
T8400 T .----- "F
0 01-CTF-A 01-A- =01 -
-II Tadb
--- _D o lom ite * . . Tofb-2 -01
San dotonb----- V.• --- "•r_.___ 100 .
0
9-
(From SAR, Figure 2.6-18)
-T
-1
Clay Bed Extent Based on Thickness
0 100 Feet 1/8 LU tol/ ± ±u .t.
Scale[ <1/8 +±25 ft.
V=H
1971 pre-borrow
topography
IS FS1l. "01-F 01-H I_..- " I SHSI -•,, al-F
700
600
500
"--400 a)
0 N 300 a) w
200
100
R2 -- '" - q,
no-..•I
- .- - -- OOBAT-14A
a-01
Tofb-1 ---.. . . Dolomite
I-
v
(From SAR, Figure 2.6-18)
I North
Clay Beds
>1/4 --- ±1001ft. 1 /0 f-1. ]A - trf% £f
II South
Tofb-: Sandstor
0
K
Thin areas where rock contactoccurs across clay bed
Thick areas of clay bed
Potential slide plane smoothes Shears offset clay bed undulations of clay bed by breaking through rock
Potential Slide Plane Breaks through Rock along Clay Bed
Evidence of No Landslides at ISFSI
m No evidence on pre-1971 air photos
m No evidence in studies for and excavation of borrow site
m No evidence of any fissures or fissure fills in trenches for ISFSI
Assumed Displacement of LargeScale Slide Mass* Fractures in the slope larger than 3 to 4
would have left a record on the slope
* No vegetation lineaments (similar to of intense growth in filled trenches)
inches
the zones
* No open fractures or soil-filled fractures in trenches on slope
"* Hillslope is 430,000 years old
"* Subjected to many large earthquakes
* Assumed 4 inches would occur in one slideevent
Ab1
~ 5 'K/ CD -~ - CL
/ - /~LL
It~~I al
Ka
LL
.V,
//N-'
a -0
N co
Slope 430,000 years agowo 900 - -
1971 slope
Q4
70- Q 5
Marine wave-cut
platform olderthan 430,000
Marine wave-cut platform years
(430,000 years old)
Hill Slope is 430,000 Years Old,
but degraded a Few Tens of Feet
North Clay beds at base of South
700 0100 Feet modeled large-scale
V=H movements extrapolated 600 to pre-1971 slope
500 1971 pre-borrow topography
S400 I~~~SFS1 ."o-_• 400 CTF .. • -T-1 1 D -- . -- , ----- .. ---
"" Reservoir Road F H
C ad 1t- "OOBA-3 0-4•••.•''--•L.- "•-•• t••*
0 01-CTF-A, 01-A -
S300
Lii
200 Totb-It,
T•fb.-2 -.
Sandston- '
100
0(From SAR, Figure 2.6-18)
Results of Sensitivity Study Clay Bed Strengths
200 --a-pMedianJdDeep
Model stress range N, Model -800 psf/215 deg
U) tres - 3000 psf / 22 deg 150 Shallow-800 psf / 36 deg
co Model stress range psf/4deg
" 1O0-range.2500 psf /23 deg
j:100 U _--800 psf / 26 deg
-0 psf /37 deg c 50 Strength ) 5used
study 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Normal Stress (psi)
Confidence in Predicted Foundation Conditions at CTF, ISFSI Pads and Cutslopes
m High confidence in rock types predicted
*Sandstone
*Dolomite
*Friable Sandstone
" Friable Dolomite
" Clay beds
Interpretations with Less Certainty
m Locations and percentage of rock types not known with certainty
m Friable diabase may be encountered and is expected to have the same properties as friable sandstone
m Attitude of clay beds uncertain, more clay beds may be exposed
m Precise location of faults uncertain, other shear zones are expected
Conclusion
m High degree of confidence that there will be no significant surprises
m Features will be mapped during construction
m Planned mitigation measures will be applied as appropriate
WV �c.
April 9, 2002
Diablo Canyon ISFSI Site Tour
1 March, 2002I
1a c , 2 0
,4 4 , " , I, , -; f -3
Diablo Canyon Dry Cask Tour Agenda April 9., 2002
8:00- 8:25
8:30-8:35
8:35- 9:30
9:30 - 9:40
9:40 - 10:40
Maintenance Shop Building Training, Badging, Dosimetry
Canyon Room (Breakfast provided) Intro by Jearl Strickland, USFP Manager
Canyon Room
Part 50 and Part 72 Presentations
Break
Canyon Room Geotechnical Presentation
2 March, 2002
Diablo Canyon Dry Cask Tour Agenda April 9, 2002
10:45 - 12:15
12:15- 1:00
1:05 -4:00
4:00 - 5:00
Board bus in front of Training Building Geosciences Tour
Training Building, Room 123 Lunch
Board bus in front of Training Building Field/ISFSI Site Inspection (Outside Protected Area)
Training Building, Room 123 Closure Activities, Q&A
3 March, 2002
Process for Loading Used Fuel into Dry Storage
4 March, 2002
Transfer Cask Placement in Fuel Handling Bldg
V
F-`IL
�EI
5 March, 2002
S•!'• •F•F' i
NO
Transfer Cask Upending in Fuel Handling Bldg
6 March, 2002
Cask Transport Frame Stabilizer
1IMI Tension Links
7 March, 2002
FUEL HANDLING BUILDING CRANE
AUXILIARY LIFT
FHB CUANE MAIN HOIST
TOP BLOCK PIN
121 JOYCE SCREW JACK
PI L : "I '
PIN. J--7
8 March, 2002 I A*~I
Transfer Cask Removal From the Cask Transport Frame
N- I ',l ý[",,L IN K •
March, 20029w -Wwý
Transfer Cask Placement in the Cask Washdown Area
L I U! I I-- FP E TP• T -7 .
Note: Main hook not shown, but is engaged
Note: Seismic Restraint is not current version in this slide
10 March, 2002
Attachment of Impact Limiter
11 March, 2002
WALL P AE•E Cask (6PAE\ \Washdown
L"'"Area
Seismic Restraint
ONL•REAR 5LiNSS %•VN F-P l'AR T'
CONTROLLEO LOW
-Ri liON MATERIAL
Impact Limiter -
12 March, 2002
MPC and Annulus Filling
Note: Seismic restraint is not current version in this slide
13 March, 2002
Transfer Cask Removal from Frame
Note: Main hook is engaged, but not shown
Note: Seismic Restrain is not current version in this slide
14 March, 2002
TRANSFER CASK READY FOR
HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT TO
SFP
15 March, 2002
* SPENT FUEL POOL STRUCTURAL FRAME DETAIL
DETAIL (TYP. 4 CORNERS)
16 March, 2002
Transfer Cask Placement in Pool after Engaging in SFP Frame
17 March, 2002
Spent Fuel Loading into MPC
18 March, 2002
MPC Lid Installation
SNPC LID ,,RES TRAINT
Notes: Main hook is engaged, but not shown
Final lid restrain will differ
19 March, 2002
MPC Lid Installation
Note: Main hook is engaged, but not shown
March, 200220
March, 2002
UIFT
TRANSFER CASK READY FOR
HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT TO
CWA
11a"21
Placement of Transfer Cask in Cask Wash Down Area
Note: Main hook is
engaged, but not shown
Note: Seismic Restraint is not current version in this slide
22 March, 2002
MPC Lid Welding
23 March. 2002-- w- I EL, %ml -1
MPC Lift Cleat Installation
L 1 r- T :I L E ',- -
24 March, 2002
Transfer Cask Readied for Horizontal movement
Note: Main hook is engaged, but not shown
Note: Seismic Restrain is not current version in this slide
25 March, 2002
Transfer Cask Removal from Frame
Note: Main hook is engaged, but not
shown
Note: Seismic Restraint is not current version in this slide
26 March, 2002
Transfer Cask Placed on Transport Frame
Note: Main hook is engaged, but not shown
correctly
27 March, 2002
Transfer Cask Downending Using Impact Limiter
28 March, 2002 I ��!& �
28 March, 2002 lktl&l;
Transfer Cask movement to Transporter
29 March, 2002
Transporter Rigging
LIFT INL] :R'ACiKE T S,
H 0lIP I ZFP N
March,1200230#
Tc1r)
Hi-Storm Overpack Lowered into Cask Transfer Facility
32 March, 2002I
Hi-Storm Overpack with Mating Device
"NET -HD R'vL:\T
33 March, 2002
Transfer Cask Upended (Transporter not Shown)
F]:L L
,'-- P ;Ir.! F' K • • F ] ' T , • :
34 March, 200271
Transfer Cask movement to CTF
35 March, 2002
Placement of Transfer Cask over Storage Cask
MarcLhU L2F
March, 200236
AT C TF WIO TRA NSPOR TER SHOWN
LIFTIN tPL ATT jts
J,-!, t÷ T t- t -r -• u rJ Icit e c04 r-e st r-oa in t ý , c,t. 1• 4r,
37 March, 2002
Transfer of MPC into Storage Cask
March, 200238
Transfer Cask Removal from CTF
C ASK T " ,r1,FER FACILITY , NEIT SHOWN)
39 March, 2002
Storage Cask Lid Placement
40 March, 2002
Overpack Raised out of CTF
•,(•~ K- ; • ,, i•..
41 March, 2002
I
Overpack Transported to Storage Facility
42 March, 2002
Overpack Placement on Storage Pad
43 March, 2002
I
J
Overpack Loading OperationsActivity Part 50 Part 72
1. Move empty cask and MPC into Impact on N/A FHB and prepare for loading structure
2. Empty transfer cask and MPC being Heavy load N/A placed in SFP drop
3. Load fuel assemblies into MPC Spent fuel Fuel TSs movement in
pool 4. Remove transfer cask from SFP Heavy load Thermal
drop on req's structure
5. Decontamination Existing N/A processes
6. Welding, leak testing and prepare for Releases and Fuel movement SSIP conditions/
closure req's 7. Transfer cask movement in FHB Heavy load N/A
drop on structure
8. Transfer cask movement outside Effect on Transporter FHB plant SSCs stability44
Part 50 and 72 Scope
* Part 50 - Crane modifications
- Heavy load drop structural analyses - Cask seismic restraints - Affect on facility during transport
* Part 72(Holtec CoC 1014) - Cask structural limits (drops, missiles, etc) - Criticality analysis during cask handling - Thermal analysis during cask handling
45 March, 2002