ML110040071
| ML110040071 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200021 |
| Issue date: | 12/28/2010 |
| From: | Ogata Y Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd |
| To: | Ciocco J Document Control Desk, Office of New Reactors |
| References | |
| UAP-HF-10355 | |
| Download: ML110040071 (128) | |
Text
At MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD.
16-5, KONAN 2-CHOME, MINATO-KU TOKYO, JAPAN December 28, 2010 Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Mr. Jeffery A. Ciocco Docket No.52-021 MHI Ref: UAP-HF-10355
Subject:
MHI's Responses to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 660-5134 Revision 2 (SRP 03.07.02)
Reference:
- 1) "Request for Additional Information No. 660-5134 Revision 2, SRP Section:
03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis," dated 11/15/2010.
With this letter, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. ("MHI") transmits to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") a document entitled "Responses to Request for Additional Information No. 660-5134, Revision 2."
Enclosed are the responses to 15 RAIs contained within Reference 1. This transmittal completes the response to this RAI.
Please contact Dr. C. Keith Paulson, Senior Technical Manager, Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems, Inc. if the NRC has questions concerning any aspect of this submittal. His contact information is provided below.
Sincerely, Yoshiki Ogata, General Manager- APWR Promoting Department Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, LTD.
Enclosure:
- 1. Response to Request forAdditional Information No. 660-5134, Revision 2 CC: J. A. Ciocco C. K. Paulson Contact Information C. Keith Paulson, Senior Technical Manager Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems, Inc.
300 Oxford Drive, Suite 301 Monroeville, PA 15146 E-mail: ck-paulson@mnes-us.com Telephone: (412) 373-6466
Docket No.52-021 MHI Ref: UAP-HF-10355 Enclosure 1 UAP-HF-10355 Docket No.52-021 Response to Request for Additional Information No. 660-5134, Revision 2 December, 2010
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/28/2010 US-APWR Design Certification Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Docket No.52-021 RAI NO.: NO. 660-5134 REVISION 2 SRP SECTION: 03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis APPLICATION SECTION: 3.7.2 DATE OF RAI ISSUE: 11/15110 QUESTION NO. RAI 03.07.02-52:
This request for additional information (RAI) is necessary for the staff to determine if the application meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix S; and 10 CFR Part 100; as well as the guidance in NUREG-0800,
'Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants,' Chapter 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."
According to the reference sections of MHI's Topical Reports, MUAP-1 0001 (R1) and MUAP-10006 (RO), the SSI analyses reported were performed using ACS SASSI Version 2.2. Version 2.2.1 of ACS SASSI is subject to a 10 CFR Part 21.21 report regarding numerical instabilities that may occur with high numbers of soil layers even though the properties and number of layers are within the parameters stated in the User's Manual. In order for the staff to complete the evaluation of the SSI analysis, the staff requests the applicant to provide additional information demonstrating that the SSI results are valid and meet the guidelines of SRP 3.7.2.11.4 ANSWER:
The ACS SASSI Version 2.2.1 Software Error Notification (SEN-01-2009) issued by the software vendor GP Technologies, Inc. was received and evaluated per the requirements of our Quality Assurance Program. As noted in the Software Error Notification, GP Technologies performed an intensive in-house investigation on the cause of the error and concluded that there was a numerical malfunction that was expressed by a numerically instability in SSI results, if more that 80 layers were used to model deep soft deposit with a non-uniform variation. GP Technologies stated that "... this specific numerical malfunction was only noted in an extreme condition of soil layering modeling when a very large number of soil layers, specifically, more that 80 layers, were used to model a deep soft deposit with a non-uniform property variation with depth".
A similar question and information request was asked by the NRC Staff in RAI 643-4967 Question 03.07.01-15. As noted in the response to RAI 643-4967 Q 03.07.01-15, the calculations documenting the SSI analyses of the US-APWR standard plant structures considered in TR MUAP-10001 Rev. 1 were performed with ACS SASSI Version 2.3.0 and not Version 2.2.1. This is also true for TR MUAP-10006 Rev. 0. It should be noted that the SSI analyses were reviewed and that less than 80 soil layers were used in the SSI models. Therefore, it was concluded that Software Error Notification SEN-01-2009 is not applicable since ACS SASSI Version 2.3.0 and 3.7.2-1
less than 80 soil layers were used and there was no impact on the completed SSI analyses as documented in TR MUAP-10001 and TR MUAP-10006, which remain valid and meet the guidelines of SRP 3.7.2.11.4. Therefore Reference 2 in Section 6.0 shall be corrected as follows in the next revisions of TR MUAP-10001 and TR MUAP-1 0006.
ACS SASSI Version 2.3.0: "An Advanced Computational Software for 3D Dynamic Analyses Includinq Soil Structure Interaction", Ghiocel Predictive Technologies, Inc., June 15, 2009.
Impact on DCD There is no impact on the DCD. TR MUAP-10001 Rev. 1 and TR MUAP-10006 Rev. 0 will be corrected as described above.
Impact on COLA There is no impact on the COLA.
Impact on PRA There is no impact on the PRA.
3.7.2-2
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/28/2010 US-APWR Design Certification Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Docket No.52-021 RAI NO.: NO. 660-5134 REVISION 2 SRP SECTION: 03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis APPLICATION SECTION: 3.7.2 DATE OF RAI ISSUE: 11/15/10 QUESTION NO. RAI 03.07.02-53:
This request for additional information (RAI) is necessary for the staff to determine if the application meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix S; and 10 CFR Part 100; as well as the guidance in NUREG-0800,
'Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants,' Chapter 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."
Several subgrade conditions are used for the SSI analyses described in MHI's Topical Reports, MUAP-1 0001 (R1) and MUAP-1 0006 (RO). However, the potential effect of structural fill (backfill) on SSI evaluation and the seismic response of the structures is not discussed.
The staff requests the applicant to provide a basis and technical justification for how the evaluation meets the guidelines of SRP 3.7.2.11.4 and how the potential effects of structural fill in the SSI analysis are considered.
ANSWER:
The seismic design of the US-APWR standard plant is based on enveloped maximum seismic response parameters generated from seismic soil-structure interaction (SSI) analyses, and assuming they are supported on the surface of eight generic layered site shear wave velocity profiles as described in MHI's Technical Reports, MUAP-10001 (R1) (Ref. 1) and MUAP-10006 (RO) (Ref. 2).
The standard plant layout shows that the major plant structures are embedded into the site soil/rock subgrade to a depth of about 40-ft below the plant's finished grade (refer also to DCD Table 3.7.1-3 for embedment depths). The effects of such embedment by structural fill on the seismic response of the major plant structures have not been explicitly taken into account in the seismic SSI analyses performed for developing the generic-site-enveloped maximum seismic response parameters used in the standard design. The neglect of embedment effect in the seismic SSI analyses was considered justifiable since it is generally conservative when developing the generic-site-enveloped maximum seismic response parameters not to take advantage of the added side soil support to the structures, which reduces the free standing height of the structures. Thus, the generic-site-enveloped maximum seismic response parameters 3.7.2-3
obtained without considering the embedment effect by backfill would be conservative for the design of the standard plant. Further, DCD Subsection 3.7.2.4.1 and DCD COL Item 3.7(25) require site-specific SSI analyses to be performed to determine the effects of embedment and other site-specific effects in order to confirm suitability of the design. Similarly, in the response to RAI 495-3980 Question RAI 03.07.02-4, MHI agreed to add a requirement to the DCD for site-specific analyses to be performed for the PS/Bs to address among the rest, the effects of the embedment on the seismic response of PS/B. Note that a similar issue, which addressed the significance of embedment effects relative to the standard plant design, was also addressed in the response to RAI 212-1950 Question RAI 3.7.2-20.
To validate the conservatism of ignoring the embedment effect in developing the generic-site-enveloped seismic response parameters used for the standard plant design, a seismic SSI parametric study was performed for evaluating the effect of embedment on the seismic SSI response of the structures in the Reactor Building (R/B) Complex of the US-APWR standard plant.
The study was performed for the two softest of the eight generic layered site shear-wave-velocity profiles considered for the standard plant design for the SSE condition. The two generic site profiles selected for the study were the site profiles designated as "270(m/s)-200(ft)" or "270-200" and "560(m/s)-100(ft)" or "560-100", as described in the MUAP-10001 (R1) (Ref. 1). The selection of these two generic site profiles for the study was based on the consideration that the effect of embedment, if significant, would be most critical for the softer sites.
The seismic analysis bases (criteria), methodology, and dynamic model for the R/B Complex used in the SSI analyses carried out for this parametric study were the same as those used in the SSI analyses performed for the standard design, as described in MUAP-10001 (R1) (Ref. 1) and MUAP-10006 (RO) (Ref. 2). The SSI analyses performed in this parametric study have been performed using a version of the SASSI computer program, which has been extensively validated (Ref. 3). For an adequate consideration of the embedment effect, the seismic SSI analyses performed in this study have been carried out using the "flexible volume method" or "direct method" of SASSI analysis methodology.
Due to presence of other adjacent buildings including the Turbine Building (T/B), Auxiliary Building (A/B), and East and West Power Source Buildings (PS/B) on the west and south sides, the R/B Complex has direct contact with the site soils only on the north (N) and east (E) sides.
That is, the R/B Complex has an "N and E two-sided embedment" condition.
For assessing the effect and sensitivity of embedment on the seismic SSI response of the R/B Complex, four different conditions of structural support on the standard plant site were considered for each of the two generic site profiles selected for the study. These four support conditions studied are described as follows:
Case 1 - The R/B Complex is supported on the surface of the free-field site profile without any soil layer above the basemat base. This support condition is designated in this study as the "surface-supported" condition, which is the base case considered in the SSI analyses performed for the standard plant design as described in MUAP-10006 (RO)
(Ref. 2).
Case 2 - The R/B Complex is embedded into the site soil above the basemat base on all four sides. This support condition is designated in this study as the "four-sided embedment" condition.
Case 3 - The RIB Complex is embedded into the site soils above the basemat base only on two sides, namely, the north (N) and east (E) sides. This support condition is designated as the "two-sided embedment" condition.
3.7.2-4
Case 4 - The R/B Complex is not in contact with the side soil above the basemat base on all four sides, but the overburden side soil layer above the basemat base is present in the free-field site profile. This support condition is designated as the "zero-sided embedment" case.
To provide the seismic input motion for the embedment Cases 2, 3, and 4, as described above, that is consistent with the seismic input motion for the surface-supported Case 1, free-field site response analyses were carried out using a validated version of the SHAKE computer program (Ref. 4). In performing the free-field site response analysis, two sets of soil column models representing the free-field site profiles studied were considered. One set was a "full soil column" model, which consists of the generic 270-200 and 560-100 site profiles from the base rock to the plant's finished grade. The other set is a "truncated soil column" model, which removes the top 40-ft side soil layer above the R/B basemat base from the "full soil column" model.
The seismic input motion for the SASSI analyses of the surface-supported Case 1 is the three-component, CSDRS-compatible, acceleration time-histories, prescribed as the surface (outcrop) motion of the "truncated soil column". For the embedment Cases 2, 3, and 4, the seismic input motion for the SASSI analyses is the three-component, CSDRS-compatible, surface acceleration time-histories or the "in-layer" acceleration time-histories at the depth of 40-ft generated from the site response analyses of the "full soil column".
To derive the surface or in-layer motion consistent with the prescribed outcrop input motion used for the surface-supported Case 1, the CSDRS-compatible time-histories were input as the surface motion of the "truncated soil column". Deconvolution site response analyses were then performed for the "truncated soil column" to generate the outcrop motion at the surface (outcrop) of the base rock, which is the half-space in the SHAKE analyses. The baserock outcrop motion so obtained was then input to the "full soil column" and convolution site response analyses were performed to generate the site surface response motion and the in-layer response motion at the depth of 40-ft below the plant's finished grade. All deconvolution and convolution site response analyses performed were linear analyses without further strain-compatibility iterations. The surface or in-layer site response motion so obtained is the input motion, which is consistent with the CSDRS-compatible seismic input motion for the surface-supported Case 1, to be used for the SASSI analyses for embedment Cases 2, 3, and 4 described above. This procedure of generating the free-field seismic input motion for SSI analyses for the different embedment cases is consistent with the procedure described in the SRP Section 3.7.1 and DC/COL-ISG-17 (Ref. 5).
The iterated strain-compatible shear-wave-velocity profiles and associated profiles of other dynamic properties (weight density, compression wave velocity, and hysteresis damping ratio) for the "full soil column" models above the base rock for the 270-200 and 560-100 generic site profiles considered in this study are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The groundwater table elevation considered for the SSI analyses of this study was the same as that considered for the surface-supported case considered in the design analysis, which is located on the ground surface. The iterated strain-compatible dynamic properties of the "truncated soil column" models are the same as those used for the SSI analyses performed for the standard design as described in MUAP-10006 (RO) (Ref. 2). The cutoff frequency used in the free-field site response analyses carried out in this study was 100 Hz.
Using the consistent free-field seismic input motion derived as described above for each of the 270-200 and 560-100 generic site profiles, SSI analyses using SASSI were carried out for the surface-supported Case 1 and the embedment Cases 2, 3, and 4. Results of the SASSI analyses, in terms of the 5%-damped in-structure (acceleration) response spectra (ISRS), obtained for the embedment Cases 2, 3, and 4 are compared with each other and with the corresponding ISRS obtained for the surface-supported Case 1 to evaluate sensitivity of the embedment effect on the seismic response of the structures. The ISRS generated for the surface-supported Case 1 and the embedment Cases 2, 3, and 4 are also compared with the corresponding 5%-damped, generic-site-enveloped, +15%-frequency-band-broadened, ISRS envelopes generated at several representative structural locations in the RIB Complex (Ref. 2) to evaluate the adequacy of the 3.7.2-5
ISRS envelopes used in the standard design to cover the seismic response variations due to the embedment effect.
The representative structural locations in the R/B Complex selected for the SSI response comparison were as follows:
(1) CVOO - PCCV at ground surface elevation at El. 1,-1i1 (2) CV07 - PCCV at the top of polar crane (P/C) rail at El. 145'-7" (3) IC03 - CIS at the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) support at El. 35'-9" (4) IC05 - CIS at the operating floor elevation at El. 76'-5" (5) RE05 - R/B main-steam/feed-water (MS/FW) room roof at El. 115'-6" (6) FHO8 - Fuel handling (FH) area roof at El. 154'-6" Analysis Results for 270-200 Generic Site Profile Comparisons of the 5%-damped ISRS generated for the surface-supported Case 1 and the embedment Cases 2, 3, and 4 with the corresponding generic-site-enveloped ISRS envelopes developed for the structural location CVOO as presented in the MHI report MUAP-1 0006 (RO) (Ref.
- 2) are shown in Figures 1(a), (b), and (c) for the horizontal H1 and H2, and the vertical VT response directions, respectively. Similar comparisons of the ISRS generated for the other five structural locations, namely, CV07, IC03, IC05, RE05, and FHO8, are shown in Figures 2(a), (b),
and (c) through Figures 6(a), (b), and (c), respectively.
Analysis Results for 560-100 Generic Site Profile Similarly, comparisons of the 5%-damped ISRS generated for the surface-supported Case 1 and the embedment Cases 2, 3, and 4 with the corresponding generic-site-enveloped ISRS envelopes developed for the structural location CVOO as presented in MUAP-10006 (RO) (Ref. 2) are shown in Figures 7(a), (b), and (c) for the horizontal H1 and H2, and the vertical VT response directions, respectively. And, similar comparisons of the 5%-damped ISRS generated for the other five structural locations, CV07, IC03, IC05, RE05, and FHO8, are shown in Figures 8(a), (b),
and (c) through Figures 12(a), (b), and (c), respectively.
Assessment of Analysis Results From the effect on overall seismic response point-of-view, the comparisons of ISRS shown in the figures presented show that the 40-ft thick soil embedment of the R/B Complex produces noticeable but minor seismic response variations. The embedment effect is more noticeable for the horizontal response at the structural location FHO8 due to its extreme location at the corner of the N and E sides of the Complex where the side-soil embedment is present and for the vertical seismic response in general due to the lower site soil damping values used for the vertical response analyses. The main embedment effect is produced by the seismic response characteristics of the top 40-ft soil layer above the R/B basemat base. This 40-ft thick topsoil layer has a fundamental horizontal frequency at about 8 Hz for both the 270-200 and 560-100 site profiles.
The overall seismic response of the R/B Complex is also affected by shifts in the layered site frequencies from the "full soil column" for the embedment cases to the "truncated soil column" for the surface-supported case.
In general, the effect of embedment produces slightly higher fundamental SSI system frequencies but lower seismic response amplitudes associated with the fundamental frequencies of the SSI 3.7.2-6
system due to reduced free standing height resulting from the embedment. It produces higher response amplitudes at the natural frequencies of the "full soil column" and of the top 40-ft thick topsoil layer above the basemat base.
From the overall seismic response perspective, the embedment Cases 2, 3, and 4 for the 4-, 2-,
and 0-sided embedment cases, respectively, produce very similar seismic response amplitude, except for the response at FH08. For FH08, since it is located at the extreme corner of the two sides having side-soil embedment, the horizontal response at this location shows slightly more sensitivity to the 4-, 2-, or 0-sided embedment conditions, as indicated in Figures 12(a) and (b).
Nevertheless, even at this extreme location, the responses for the 4- and 2-sided embedment cases do not show significant variations as compared to the response for the surface-supported case.
For the two generic-site-profiles studied, the relatively minor variations in the generated seismic response ISRS due to embedment effect indicate that such response variations should be well covered by the generic-site-enveloped ISRS envelopes developed from assuming a surface-supported structure condition for all generic layered site profiles considered in the standard plant design. The ISRS comparison plots shown in the attached figures confirm this conclusion.
Summary and Conclusions A seismic SSI parametric study to evaluate the effect of 40-ft soil embedment on the seismic response of the US-APWR standard plant RIB Complex was made. The SSI analyses performed for this evaluation follow closely the NRC guidelines of SRP 3.7.2.11.4 including the supplemental guidelines of ISG 17.
The SSI analysis results, in terms of the 5%-damped ISRS, generated from this study were compared with the corresponding generic-site-enveloped and widened ISRS developed from assuming a surface-supported structural support condition as presented in the MHI Technical Report MUAP-1 0006 (RO) (Ref. 2). For the two softest generic site soil profiles, namely, 270-200 and 560-100, studied, which are considered more critical to SSI response variations due to embedment effect, the comparisons of results generated in this study indicate that (1) The embedment effect produces noticeable but minor seismic response variations when compared to the corresponding seismic response obtained assuming a surface-supported structure condition. At the extreme structural location located at the corner of the north and east sides of the RIB Complex where side soil embedment exists, the ISRS generated for the horizontal response at this location shows slightly more sensitivity due to the non-symmetrical embedment effect.
(2) The relatively minor seismic response ISRS variations due to embedment effect have been shown to be generally well covered by the generic-site-enveloped and broadened ISRS envelopes used for the standard design, which were developed from analyses assuming a surface-supported structure condition, as presented in the MHI Technical Report MUAP-10006 (RO) (Ref. 2).
References (1) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI), "Seismic Design Bases for the US-APWR Standard Plant", MUAP-1 0001, Revision 1, April 2010.
(2) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI), "Soil-Structure Interaction Analyses and Results for the US-APWR Standard Plant", MUAP-1 0006, Revision 0, April 2010.
(3) Lysmer, J., Tabatabaie-Raissi, M., Tajirian, F., Vahdani, S., and Ostadan, F., "SASSI -A System for Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction," Report No. UCB /GT/81-02, 3.7.2-7
Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, April 1981 - Program Implemented by International Civil Engineering Consultants, Inc. (ICEC), PC Version 1.3, "User's Manual", Revision 3, December 22, 2000 and "Verification Manual", Revision 3, December 2000.
(4) Schnabel, P. B., Lysmer, J. and Seed, H. B., "SHAKE: A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites," Report No. UCB/EERC-72-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, December 1972 - Program Implemented by International Civil Engineering Consultants, Inc. (ICEC), PC Version 1.3, "Theoretical and User's Manual", Revision 3, March 3, 2003 and "Validation Report", Revision 3, March 2003.
(5) U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) 17 (DC/COL-ISG-17), "Ensuring Hazard-Consistent Seismic Input for Site Response and Soil-Structure Interaction Analyses", July 2009.
3.7.2-8
Table 1 Strain-Compatible Dynamic Soil Properties for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile (Median)
Shear Compression Wave Wave Damping Damping Depth Thickness Density Density Velocity Velocity S-Wave P-Wave to Top Layer (ft) (cgs) (pcf) Vs (ft/sec) Vp (ft/sec) (%) (%) (ft) 1 7.917 2.00 125 1166.0 4798.2 1.67310 1.19720 0.0 2 7.914 2.00 125 1159.0 4974.0 2.45990 1.19720 7.9 3 7.917 2.00 125 1268.2 5338.7 2.36500 1.00450 15.8 4 7.914 2.00 125 1323.6 5624.7 2.55780 1.00450 23.7 5 8.580 2.00 125 1280.1 5506.6 2.88160 1.00450 31.7 6 8.580 2.00 125 1302.1 5644.4 3.02930 1.00450 40.2 7 8.580 2.00 125 1334.0 5800.0 3.12690 1.00450 48.8 8 8.580 2.00 125 1303.4 5709.7 3.34450 1.00450 57.4 9 8.580 2.00 125 1334.7 5870.9 3.39430 1.00450 66.0 10 8.580 2.00 125 1372.1 6038.2 3.40920 1.00450 74.6 11 9.377 2.00 125 1361.6 6029.7 2.61650 0.79917 83.1 12 9.374 2.00 125 1416.5 6264.9 2.57680 0.79917 92.5 13 9.377 2.00 125 1450.0 6404.8 2.59540 0.79917 101.9 14 9.374 2.00 125 1456.1 6451.5 2.65300 0.79917 111.3 15 9.377 2.00 125 1434.5 6390.9 2.77040 0.79917 120.6 16 9.374 2.00 125 1415.8 6325.4 2.86950 0.79917 130.0 17 10.000 2.10 131 1482.5 6570.7 2.72630 0.79917 139.4 18 10.000 2.10 131 1493.9 6636.0 2.75900 0.79917 149.4 19 10.000 2.10 131 1534.4 6803.8 2.74150 0.79917 159.4 20 10.000 2.10 131 1541.7 6855.2 2.77890 0.79917 169.4 21 10.000 2.10 131 1598.6 7089.6 2.71850 0.79917 179.4 22 10.000 2.10 131 1543.7 6888.2 2.86330 0.79917 189.4 23 0.604 2.10 131 1574.3 7022.0 2.82000 0.79917 199.4 24 997.424 2.15 134 3317.2 7812.2 0.50000 0.50000 200.0 25 3281.000 2.52 157 9285.0 16080.0 0.00050 0.00050 1197.4 Source: MUAP-10006 (RO) (Ref. 2) 3.7.2-9
Table 2 Strain-Compatible Dynamic Soil Properties for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile (Median)
Shear Compression Wave Wave Damping Damping Depth Thickness Density Density Velocity Velocity S-Wave P-Wave to Top Layer (ft) (cgs) (pcf) Vs (ft/sec) Vp (ft/sec) (%) (%) (ft) 1 6.001 2.00 125 1326.6 5765.7 3.95370 3.22800 0.0 2 6.500 2.00 125 1418.1 5374.4 4.96770 3.21150 6.0 3 6.500 2.00 125 1437.0 5685.6 5.60240 3.21150 12.5 4 11.001 2.00 125 1468.8 5108.6 6.63150 3.22650 19.0 5 10.000 2.10 131 1612.0 4954.9 6.61760 3.22120 30.0 6 10.000 2.10 131 1588.0 4983.9 7.05670 3.22120 40.0 7 18.000 2.10 131 1780.6 4854.6 6.77650 3.19530 50.0 8 14.502 2.10 131 1913.9 5115.1 6.83770 3.19400 68.0 9 14.499 2.10 131 2026.6 5375.5 6.84030 3.19340 82.5 10 2.997 2.10 131 2015.6 5375.9 6.97270 3.19340 97.0 11 997.424 2.15 134 3326.1 7833.0 0.50000 0.50000 100.0 12 3281.000 2.52 157 9285.0 16080.0 0.00050 0.00050 1097.4 Source: MUAP-10006 (RO) (Ref. 2) 3.7.2-10
Response to RAI 3.7.2 List of Figures (attached separately as Attachment 1 to this RAI)
Figure 1(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CVOO for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile- Horizontal X (H1) Direction Figure 1(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CV0O for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction Figure 1(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CV00 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction Figure 2(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CV07 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction Figure 2(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CV07 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction Figure 2(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CV07 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction Figure 3(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC03 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction Figure 3(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC03 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction Figure 3(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC03 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction Figure 4(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC05 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction Figure 4(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC05 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction Figure 4(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC05 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction Figure 5(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at RE05 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction Figure 5(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at RE05 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction Figure 5(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at RE05 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction Figure 6(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at FH08 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile- Horizontal X (H1) Direction Figure 6(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at FH08 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction Figure 6(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at FH08 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile -Vertical Z (VT) Direction Figure 7(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CVOO for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile- Horizontal X (Hi) Direction Figure 7(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CVOO for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction Figure 7(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CVOO for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction 3.7.2-11
Figure 8(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CV07 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction Figure 8(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CV07 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction Figure 8(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CV07 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction Figure 9(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC03 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile- Horizontal X (H1) Direction Figure 9(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC03 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction Figure 9(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC03 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile- Vertical Z (VT) Direction Figure 10(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC05 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction Figure 10(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC05 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction Figure 10(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC05 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction Figure 11 (a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at RE05 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile- Horizontal X (H1) Direction Figure 11 (b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at RE05 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction Figure 11(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at RE05 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction Figure 12(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at FH08 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction Figure 12(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at FH08 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction Figure 12(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at FH08 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction Impact on DCD There is no impact on the DCD.
Impact on COLA There is no impact on the COLA.
Impact on PRA There is no impact on the PRA.
3.7.2-12
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/28/2010 US-APWR Design Certification Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Docket No.52-021 RAI NO.: NO. 660-5134 REVISION 2 SRP SECTION: 03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis APPLICATION SECTION: 3.7.2 DATE OF RAI ISSUE: 11/15/10 QUESTION NO. RAI 03.07.02-54:
This request for additional information (RAI) is necessary for the staff to determine if the application meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix S; and 10 CFR Part 100; as well as the guidance in NUREG-0800,
'Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants,' Chapter 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."
Tables 3-3A through 3-3H of MHI's Topical Report, MUAP-10006 (RO), show depths to the top of the half-space layer that range from 72.3 feet (Table 3-3E) to 660 feet (Tables 3-3G and 3-3H).
The staff requests that the applicant describe the criteria used for selecting the lower boundaries of the SSI models as shown in Tables 3-3A through 3-3H.
ANSWER:
The ACS SASSI model of the subgrade used for the site-independent soil-structure interaction (SSI) analyses of US-APWR standard plant buildings consists of layered subgrade resting on the surface of elastic half space. The lower boundary of the soil layers was established at depths of 610 ft to 660 ft below grade. As recommended by SRP 3.7.2, these depths are all more than twice the base dimension of the structure, which is taken as the equivalent diameter as shown below. The 610 ft minimum lower boundary is also approximately equal to twice the maximum dimension of the R/B complex basemat, which is 309'.
R/B Complex: DRB = 2 * [(LNs ' LEW)/Tr] 0 5 = 2 " [(210 ' 309)/rr)]0 5 = 287.4 ft PS/B: DPSB = 2 " [(LNs" LEw)/1f]0 5 = 2 * [(69.3
- 114.8/-r)] 0 5. = 100.6 ft The review of Tables 3-3 in MUAP-10006 (RO) and input ACS-SASSI files used for the site-independent SSI analyses revealed that typographical errors are present in Table 3-3E. The updated table is as follows and corresponds to the actual soil properties used in analysis:
3.7.2-13
Table 3-3E Subgrade Properties 560-100 Generic Profile Layer Thickness Depth Unit Weight Vs Vp Poisson Ratio Damp.
- [ft] [ft] kcf ft/sec ftlsec %
1 5 0 0.131 1588 4984 0.472 7.06 2 5 5 0.131 1588 4984 0.472 7.06 3 6 10 0.131 1781 4855 0.472 6.78 4 6 16 0.131 1781 4855 0.472 6.78 5 6 22 0.131 1781 4855 0.472 6.78 6 7.25 28 0.131 1914 5115 0.472 6.84 7 7.25 35.25 0.131 1914 5115 0.472 6.84 8 7.25 42.5 0.131 2027 5376 0.473 6.84 9 7.25 49.75 0.131 2027 5376 0.473 6.84 10 3 57 0.131 2016 5376 0.473 6.97 11-54 12.5 60 0.134 3326 7833 0.473 0.50 Half-space 610 0.134 3326 7833 0.473 0.50 The review of Table 3-3A in MUAP-10006 (RO) and input ACS-SASSI files used for the site-independent SSI analyses revealed that typographical errors were present in the last two rows of the table. The modified cells are presented below and are highlighted in yellow:
Table 3-3A Subgrade Properties 270-500 Generic Profile (last two rows only) 70-82 1 12.50 459.7 0.134 3153 7423 0.390 0.50 Half-space 622.2 0.134 3153 7423 0.473 0.50 Impact on DCD There is no impact on the DCD.
Impact on COLA There is no impact on the COLA.
Impact on PRA There is no impact on the PRA.
3.7.2-14
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/28/2010 US-APWR Design Certification Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Docket No.52-021 RAI NO.: NO. 660-5134 REVISION 2 SRP SECTION: 03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis APPLICATION SECTION: 3.7.2 DATE OF RAI ISSUE: 11/15/10 QUESTION NO. RAI 03.07.02-55:
This request for additional information (RAI) is necessary for the staff to determine if the application meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix S; and 10 CFR Part 100; as well as the guidance in NUREG-0800,
'Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants,' Chapter 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."
Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of MHI's Topical Report, MUAP-1 0006 (RO), describe the procedures for calculating the equivalent seismic loads on the RIB complex and PS/B. The staff finds the descriptions to be unclear. In order for the staff to evaluate the SSE design loads used the design of the Seismic Category I RIB complex and the PS/B, the staff requests that the applicant provide the following information:
- 1. It appears that the procedures given in Section 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 for calculating equivalent static loads are different. Provide justification for using two different procedures for calculating design forces for Category I structures and explain how the two different procedures will lead to the same final seismic design forces. Provide a common and complete description for both procedures.
- 2. Provide a detailed description of how the loads FHi, Fw, and the moments MRi, and MTi from steps 2 through 5 in Section 3.6.1 are developed.
- 3. Provide a detailed description of exactly what demands are being combined by the "SRSS" method in steps 6 and 7 of Section 3.6.1.
- 4. Provide detailed descriptions and definitions of the forces and moments FV, MNS, MEW, and MT that appear in steps 8 and 9 of Section 3.6.1. In particular, provide clear definitions of the directions of the moment vectors.
- 5. Provide detailed examples showing the development of the equivalent seismic loads using the procedure(s) in Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2.
3.7.2-15
ANSWER:
- 1. The site-independent SSI analyses of US-APWR standard plant Category I structures use two different types of structural models to calculate the seismic response. Lumped mass stick models represent the dynamic properties of the Reactor Building (R/B Complex consisting of the Prestress Concrete Containment Vessel (PCCV), Containment Internal Structure (CIS) and Reactor Building R/B including the Fuel Handling Area (FH/A). A finite element (FE) model is used to model the dynamic properties of the Power Source Building (PS/B). Corresponding to the two different structural modeling approaches, two different methodologies were used for development of equivalent static SSE loads from the results of the site-independent SSI analyses.
The results of the SSI analyses using lumped-mass stick models provide directly the maximum member forces and moments in the beam elements of the lumped-mass stick model, which were used as the basis for development of the quasi-static SSE loads that are applied on detailed FE models to calculate seismic demands for the standard design of structural members of the PCCV, CIS and R/B. The member forces and moments provide a direct representation of the seismic force and moment demands on the structural members at each floor elevation. The maximum member forces and moments are extracted from the SSI analyses results and then used to develop quasi-static loads following the methodology described in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-10006. Items 2 to 4 of the response to this RAI question provide further description of this methodology. Item 5 of the response to this RAI question provides a numerical example for calculation of quasi-static SSE loads in EW and vertical direction for PCCV floor elevations CV1 1, CV1 0 and CV09.
The site specific SSI analyses of PS/B used FE model to represent the dynamic properties of the structure. These analyses provide results for maximum seismic response accelerations at each nodal location that serve as the basis for development of quasi-static SSE loads used for the seismic standard design of PS/B structural members. The ACS SASSI 3-D shell elements do not provide results for out-of plane shear forces which makes the calculation of floor force and moment demands not sufficiently accurate and difficult. The maximum acceleration results, which provide the distribution of the seismic inertia loads acting on the structure at various locations of the building, were thus used for development of quasi-static SSE loads for design of PS/B structures. Section 3.6.2 of MUAP-10006 describes the methodology used for development of quasi-static SSE loads for PS/B. Further description is also provided in the responses to question 03.07-02-64 of this RAI.
Although, the methodologies for the R/B complex structures and the PS/B are different due to the different structural modeling approaches used, they both provide quasi static SSE loads that when applied on the structure provide seismic stress demands on the structural members that envelope those calculated from the SSI analyses of different generic soil cases and also introduce additional margin in the seismic standard design of R/B complex and PS/B structures. The intent of these additional design margins is to simplify the application of the quasi-static loads on the detailed FE models.
- 2. As described in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-10006, the maximum member force and moment results that represent the cumulative forces and moments at each stick node location of PCCV, CIS and R/B models are extracted directly from the ACS SASSI results. These results are used to develop for each specific generic soil case, a set of three diagrams for NS and EW shear forces, vertical axial force, NS and EW bending moments and torsional moment representing the response of the stick members due to three directions of the earthquake.
The figure below depicts the lumped mass stick model of PCCV that is used to clarify the method used for calculation of equivalent floor forces from the force and moment diagrams.
3.7.2-16
In the model each stick element "j"is defined by two nodes CVjT located at the top of the stick at floor elevation CVj and CVjB located at the bottom of the stick at floor elevation CVjI.
Please note that the PCCV as the simplest structure is used for this example; however, all structures are analyzed following the methodology described below.
CV11T CV11B CV OT CVIOB CV09T CV09B CV08T CV08B CV07T CV07 B+ CV06T CV06B CV05T
- Top nodes indicate actual lumped CV05B, CV04T mass locations (i.e. CV1IT is the CV04 B CV03T location for lumped mass CVIl)
CV03 B CV02T CV02Bo CV0IT CV01B The equivalent floor forces in horizontal NS and EW directions that in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-10006 are denoted as FHi, are derived from the shear force diagrams. The equivalent vertical floor force that in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-10006 is denoted as Fv,, is derived from the axial force diagram. The equivalent forces in NS, EW and vertical direction (FNsli, FEW11 and Fvw1 )
at the PCCV top elevation CV11 are equal to the maximum member forces in the stick member 11 at the top node CV11T (TNST 1 , TEWTV1 and PVTr1 ). At the lower elevations (for PCCV, i = 1 to 10), the floor forces in NS direction FNSi , EW direction FEWi and vertical direction Fw are calculated as follows:
FNsi=TNST -TNSBj FEW, =TEWT -TEWi+, FV' =PViT -PVB, where TNSTj and TEWTj are the ACS SASSI results for shear member force in NS and EW direction at top of stick element "i"; TNSB +i and TEVM8 j+I are the results for shear member force in NS and EW direction at bottom of stick element 1+1"; PvTi are PV8 i+j are the axial force results at top of stick member 'i" and bottom of stick member 1+1".
The rocking of the floors due to the rotational mass moment of inertia and the vertical load eccentricity about the horizontal axis generate rocking bending moments in the stick 3.7.2-17
members that are denoted as MRi in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-10006 and are in addition to the bending moment generated by the horizontal loads. The bending moments that are due to the rocking of the floor in NS and EW direction (MNsi and MEWi) (moments acting about EW and NS axis, respectively) are separated from the bending moment diagrams using methodology that is identical to that used for calculation of equivalent floor forces. The rocking moments at floor elevation "i"are calculated as follows:
MNi=MBNST -MBNS*l MEW =MBEW T -MBEW+,
where MBNSTj and MBEWT j are the ACS SASSI results for bending moments in NS and EW direction at top of stick element "i"; MBNSB j. and MBEWBj. 1 are the ACS SASSI results for bending in NS and EW direction at bottom of stick element "i+1".
The rotational mass of inertia of the floors about vertical axis as well as the eccentricity between the floor mass and shear center result in torsional response of the floor and generate moments in torsion in the stick elements. The equivalent torsion at floor elevation "i" (MTi) is derived from the ACS SASSI member stress results for torsional moment about the element longitudinal axis as follows:
MTI=METiT -METB, where METTI are MET B+1 are the ASC SASSI results for torsion at top of stick member "i"and bottom of stick member "i+1".
- 3. Following the methodology described above, the member stress results obtained from the SSI analyses of R/B complex for each soil case are used to derive a set of three equivalent floor forces and moments FNSi , FEWi, Fw , MNSi, MEWi and MTi that represent the equivalent seismic response forces at each floor elevation "i" due to the three components of the earthquake. The square root of sum of squares (SSRS) method is used to combine the equivalent floor forces and moments that are due to the three components of the earthquake.
For example, the SRSS of the equivalent force in EW direction for floor elevation "i" is calculated as follows:
FSRSS EýWi =- kEWi ])2 (FE
- (FNS-eq *EWi + (F;Y+Vt-eq
(*EWi where NS-eq F EW-eq and FVt'eq are the equivalent floor '1"forces due to NS, EW and wereFWi ' EWI a EWi vertical component of the earthquake, respectively.
- 4. The figure below depicts the orientation of the R/B complex model and the global coordinate system. The arrow indicates the direction of US-APWR standard plant north that is parallel to the global X axis. The global Y axis is parallel to plant EW direction, and the Z axis is oriented upwards.
With respect to the global orientation of the R/B model, the equivalent floor forces and moments are defined as follows:
F, = Equivalent floor force acting in the vertical direction (Z-Direction)
FNS = Equivalent floor force acting in the North/South Direction (X-Direction)
FEW = Equivalent floor force acting in the East/West Direction (Y-Direction) 3.7.2-18
Mt = Equivalent floor moment about Z-axis (Torsional moment)
MNS = Equivalent floor moment about Y-axis causing floor rocking in NS direction MEW = Equivalent floor moment about X-axis causing floor rocking in EW direction N
KX
- 5. The following numerical example demonstrates the process of development of PCCV quasi-static SSE loads at CV10 and CV09 elevations in the EW and vertical directions using the results of the SSI analyses of 270-200 soil case. The development of quasi-static SSE loads for CIS and R/B structures follow the same methodology. The response to question 03.07-02-64 of this RAI provides numerical example of development of quasi-static SSE loads for PS/B.
Development of horizontal quasi-static SSE loads in EW direction The following tables present the results for absolute maximum member transverse force in EW direction (TEW) and absolute maximum torsional moment about global Z axis (MET) obtained as output from the ACS SASSI stress module for the PCCV stick elements.
3.7.2-19
Step 1 in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-1006 TEW (kip) MET (kip-ft)
NS Ertq. I EW Ertq. IVert. Ertq. NS Ertq. I EW Ertq. I Vert. Ertgq.
CV11T 4 967 18 7 47 7 CV11B 4 967 18 7 47 7 CV1OT 20 5,359 99 407 2656 445 CV1OB 20 5,359 99 407 2656 445 CV09T 42 13,080 207 2388 15570 2593 CV09B 42 13,080 207 2388 15570 2593 As described above in the Item 2 of the response to this RAI question, the equivalent floor forces in EW direction (FEW) and torsional moments (MT) at PCCV elevations CV1I, CV10 and CV09 are calculated as follows:
Step 2 in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-1006 Elevation FEW (kip)
NS Ert . EW Ertq. Vrt. Ertg.
CV11 [ 4 967 18 CV10 20-4=16 5,359 - 967 = 4,392 99 -18 = 81 CV09 42 - 20 = 22 13,080 - 5,359 = 7,721 207 - 99 = 108 Step 5 in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-1006 Elevation MT (kip-ft)
I NS Ertq. EW Ertq. Vrt. Ertq.
CV11 7 47 7 CV10 407 - 7 = 400 2656 - 47 = 2,609 445 - 7 = 438 CV09 2,388 -407 = 1,981 15,570 -2,656 = 12,914 2,593 -445 = 2,148 The floor forces and moments due to the three components of the earthquake are combined using the SRSS method as described in Item 3 of the response to this RAI:
The SSE load in EW direction for floor elevation "I"(F'EWi) that includes the effect of the floor torsional response MTi is calculated using Equation 4 in Step 9 of MUAP-10006 Section 3.6.1 FEw1 = FEWi + MTi LEW where LEW is the length of the floor in the EW direction (LEW = 158 ft for PCCV). Please note that the FEW and MT values from each soil case are first enveloped, and the final maximum values are then used in the above equation. For purposes of demonstrating the procedure, 3.7.2-20
the FEW and MT values calculated for this soil case, 270-200, are used. The following are the calculations of the SSE loads in EW direction for CV1 1, CV1 0 and CV09:
Step 9 in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-1 006 Elevation FEW (kip)
CV1i1 967 + 48/158 = 967 CV10 4,393 + 2,675/158 = 4,410 CV09 7,722 + 13,240/158 = 7,805 3.7.2-21
Development of vertical quasi-static SSE loads The following tables present the results for absolute maximum member axial force in EW direction (TEW) and absolute maximum torsional moment about global Z axis (MET) obtained as output from the ACS SASSI stress module for the PCCV stick elements.
Step 1 in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-1006 Node PV (kip)
NS Ertq. EW Ertq. Vert. Ertq.
CV11T 36 11 596 CV11B 38 12 621 CV1OT 187 57 3,254 CV1OB 187 57 3,254 CV09T 385 114 7,357 CV09B 385 114 7,357 Step 1 in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-1006 Node M__
BNS
_ (kip-ft) MBEW (kip-ft)
NS Ertq. EW Ertq. Vert. Ertq. NS Ertq. EW Ertq. Vert. Ertg.
CVl1T 182 2 20 2 209 10 CV11B 4,159 19 229 21 5,199 104 CVl OT 14,130 103 1,270 133 16,550 649 CV1OB 113,400 528 6,264 576 141,400 2,938 CV09T 162,800 944 10,580 1,085 198,200 5,581 CV09B 452,200 2,066 24,600 2,244 568,100 11,470 As described above in the Item 2 of the response to this RAI question, the equivalent floor forces in vertical direction (Fv) and rocking moments in NS and EW direction (MEw and MNS) at PCCV elevations CV11, CV1 0 and CV09 are calculated as follows:
Step 2 in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-1006 Elevation Fv (kip)
NS Ertq. EW Ertq. Vrt. Ertq.
CV1i1 36 11 596 CV10 187 - 38 =149 57 - 12 = 45 3,254 -621 = 2,633 CV09 385 - 187 =198 114 = 57 7,357 - 3,254 = 4,103 Step 4 in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-1006 Elevation MNS (kip-ft)
I NS Ertq. EW Ertq. Vrt. Ertq.
CV1i1 182 2 20 CV10 14,130-4,159=9,971 103-19=84 1,270-229=1,041 CV09 162,800 -113,400 = 49,400 944 - 528 = 416 10,580 - 6,264 = 4,316 3.7.2-22
Step 4 in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-1006 Elevation MEW (kip-fi)
NS Er EW Ertg. Vrt. Ert CV11 2 209 10 CV10 133 -21 = 112 16,550 - 5,199 = 11,351 649 - 104 = 545 CV09 1,085-576 = 509 198,200 - 141,400 = 56,800 5,581 - 2,938 = 2643 The floor forces and moments due to the three components of the earthquake are combined using the SRSS method as described in Item 3 of the response to this RAI:
Step 6 in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-1006 Elevation FEW (kip)
CV11 /362 + 112 + 5962 597 CV1 0 /1492 + 452 + 2,6332 = 2,638 CV09 V1982 + 572 + 4,103' =4108 Step 6 in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-1006 Elevation MNS (kip-fi)
CV1 1 r1822 + 22 + 202 = 183 CVio 0 V9,97V + 842 + 1,0412 = 10,026 CV09 V49,4002+ 4162 +4,3162 = 49,590 Step 6 in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-1006 Elevation MEW (kip-ft)
CV11 / 22 + 2092 +102 = 209 CVl 0 V1122 +11,3512 + 5452 = 11,365 CV09 /5092 + 56,8002 + 2,6432 = 56,864 The vertical SSE load for floor elevation "I"(F'EWi) that includes the effect of the floor rocking responses MNsi and MEwN is calculated using Equation 3 in Step 8 of MUAP-10006 Section 3.6.1 2 + (M EW i)2
'v'NSi)
F * ,i= (F vi) +
- KLNS) LW where LNS = ft and LEW = ft are the footprint dimensions of the floor in the NS and EW directions (LNS = 158 ft and LEW = 158 ft for PCCV). Please note that the Fv, MEW, and MNS values from each soil case are first enveloped, and the final maximum values are used in the above equation. For purposes of demonstrating the procedure, the Fv, MEW, and MNS values calculated for this soil case, 270-200, are used. The following are the calculations of the vertical SSE loads for CV11, CV1 0 and CV09:
3.7.2-23
Step 8 in Section 3.6.1 of MUAP-1 006 Elevation Fv (kip) 597 '+ (183 2 =597 C 58 158 CVl 0 F2,638'+ 10 026 )I+(1 "j""J= 2640 I 4959* +A\ I5c84t CV09 4,108'+ "5'8 + (1,8--)=4136
________________158) 158)
Impact on DCD There is no impact on the DCD.
Impact on COLA There is no impact on the COLA.
Impact on PRA There is no impact on the PRA.
3.7.2-24
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/28/2010 US-APWR Design Certification Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Docket No.52-021 RAI NO.: NO. 660-5134 REVISION 2 SRP SECTION: 03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis APPLICATION SECTION: 3.7.2 DATE OF RAI ISSUE: 11/15/10 QUESTION NO. RAI 03.07.02-56:
This request for additional information (RAI) is necessary for the staff to determine if the application meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix S; and 10 CFR Part 100; as well as the guidance in NUREG-0800,
'Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants,' Chapter 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."
Tables 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7 of MHI's Topical Report, MUAP-1 0006 (RO), provide the SSE design loads that are used for the design of the PCCV, CIS, and R/B structural members, respectively.
The origin of the acceleration values in these tables is unclear. In some cases (e.g. node CV07 in Table 4-5) the acceleration values appear to be the zero-period accelerations (ZPAs) from the appropriate ISRS in Appendices C, D, and E. In other cases (e.g. node CV1 1 of Table 4-5 or node IC1 5 of Table 4-6), this does not appear to be the case. To better understand the design loads that are being used for the design of the safety-related structures, the staff requests that the applicant provide a detailed description of how the quasi-static accelerations ANS, AEW, and Av that appear in Tables 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7 are determined.
ANSWER:
The response in parts to 2 to 5 of RAI 660-5134 question 03.07.02-55 illustrates the step-by-step procedure and example for the origins of the equivalent seismic loads as presented in tables 4-13 through 4-15 of MUAP-10006. Once these maximum loads are obtained (enveloped for every soil case), they are divided by their corresponding story weight to acquire an equivalent story acceleration (in terms of fraction of the Earth Gravity "g"). In order to derive the quasi-static SSE accelerations in vertical direction (Av), north-south direction (Ans), and east-west direction (Aew),
the equivalent story loads in vertical direction (Pv), north-south direction (Tns), and east-west direction (Tew) were divided by the corresponding story weight. These values were then conservatively increased to the uniform and round design values provided in Tables 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7 of MUAP 10006(RO) which introduces additional margin of safety into the standard seismic design of R/B complex structures.
The following tables demonstrate how the SSE quasi-static accelerations were determined by showing a general example for three specific floor elevations of the PCCV. This same 3.7.2-25
methodology is used to calculate the SSE quasi-static accelerations for the other R/B complex structures.
Table 1 - Story Weight and Equivalent Floor Forces Node Story Pv Tns Tew Weight (W) (kip) (kip) (kip)
CV1 1 887 1,228 1,587 2,088 CV10 4,099 5,610 7,308 9,553 CV09 7,809 8,350 13,169 16,769 Table 2 - Calculated SSE Quasi-Static Accelerations Actual Accelerations Node Av (g) Ans (g) Aew (g)
CV11 Pv/W = 1,228/887 = 1.38 Tns/W = 1,587/887 = 1.79 TewIW = 2,088/887=2.35 CV10 PvON = 5,610/4,099=1.37 Tns/W= 7,308/4,0998= 1.78 Tew/W = 9,553/4,099=2.33 CV09 Pv/VV = 8,350/7,809=1.07 .Tns/W =13,169/7,809 =1.69 .Tew/VV- 16,769t7,809=2.15 Table 3 - Comparison of Actual and Design Values of SSE Quasi-Static Accelerations Actual Accelerations Design Accelerations Av (g) Ans (g) Aew (g) Av (g) Ans (g) Aew (g) 1.38 1.79 2.35 2.15 1.80 2.40 1.37 1.78 2.33 1.60 1.80 2.40 1.07 1.69 2.15 1.30 1.70 2.20 The following calculations are performed to demonstrate the adequacy of the methodology applied for development of SSE quasi-static accelerations and to assess the margin of safety introduced in the design of R/B complex structures. The following three sets of axial and shear force diagrams are developed based on:
(1) DCD design SSE quasi-static loads; (2) Zero Period Accelerations (ZPA) or maximum accelerations loads; (3) Beam stress results obtained directly from the ACS SASSI stress module.
The DCD shear and axial force diagrams are calculated by applying the design SSE accelerations presented in Tables 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7 of MUAP-10006(RO) as quasi-static loads on the lumped mass stick models.
The ZPA shear and axial force diagrams are calculated only for the PCCV by applying the results of SSI analyses for maximum accelerations as quasi-static loads on the PCCV lumped mass stick model. For each direction of the input earthquake excitation, ACS SASSI motion module provides an output file containing the maximum accelerations of PCCV mass nodes in three directions. The maximum accelerations due to the three directions of the earthquake are 3.7.2-26
combined using the Square Root Sum of Squares (SRSS). The SRSS combined maximum accelerations results obtained from the SSI analyses of the eight generic soil cases are enveloped and then applied to the PCCV lumped mass stick model to calculate shear and axial force diagrams.
The ACS SASSI module provides results for shear and axial forces in the beam elements of R/B complex lumped mass stick model. These stress results obtained from the site-independent SSI analyses of the eight generic soil cases are enveloped and then plotted together with the shear and axial force diagrams obtained using design SSE loads. The comparisons of the shear and axial force diagrams shown in the figures below demonstrate that the stresses calculated by applying quasi-static loads on the lumped mass stick models envelope by significant margin the actual dynamic stresses as shown by the envelope of the ACS SASSI stress results.
The first three figures presenting comparison of PCCV results also include the ZPA based shear and axial force diagrams. The comparison of the shear and axial force diagrams present in this figures show that the design SSE quasi-static loads envelope the diagrams obtained using quasi-static loads derived from the maximum acceleration or ZPA results.
Figure 1 - N-S Shear Diagram Comparison of PCCV PCCV N-S Shear Comparison 250 200 150 S
100 50 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 Force (kips) 3.7.2-27
Figure 2 - E-W Shear Diagram Comparison of PCCV PCCV E-W Shear Comparison 150 M
I
[]
20000 40000 60000 80000 1000 120000 Force (kips)
Figure 3 - Axial Load Diagram Comparison of PCCV PCCV Axial Load Comparison 250 200 150
,I 100 50 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 Force (kips) 3.7.2-28
Impact on DCD There is no impact on the DCD.
Impact on COLA There is no impact on the COLA.
Impact on PRA There is no impact on the PRA.
3.7.2-29
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/28/2010 US-APWR Design Certification Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Docket No.52-021 RAI NO.: NO. 660-5134 REVISION 2 SRP SECTION: 03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis APPLICATION SECTION: 3.7.2 DATE OF RAI ISSUE: 11/15/10 QUESTION NO. RAI 03.07.02-57:
This request for additional information (RAI) is necessary for the staff to determine ifthe application meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix S; and 10 CFR Part 100; as well as the guidance in NUREG-0800,
'Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants,' Chapter 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."
Table 3-4 of MHI's Topical Report, MUAP-10006 (RO), provides maximum frequencies and cut-off frequencies used for the SSI analyses of the R/B and PS/B. The method for computing the maximum frequencies is unclear to the staff. To better understand the methodology, the staff requests the applicant to explain how the maximum frequencies for the R/B and PS/B were calculated and what they represent.
In addition, the applicant should provide justification for not incorporating models that support transmitting frequencies of up to 50 Hz value recommended by ISG-01.
RAIs 3.7.2-37 and 3.7.2-49 ANSWER:
The maximum frequencies of soil layers presented in Table 3-4 of MUAP-10006 (RO) represent the maximum frequency of the seismic waves that can be transmitted through the ACS SASSI site model. The values presented in Table 3-4 were calculated based on the guidelines provided in the ACS SASSI manual that the thickness of the soil layer should not exceed one fifth of the wavelength of the seismic wave being transmitted. The maximum wavelength frequency fLmax that the site model can transmit was calculated as follows:
= .(Vs. "
Lmax min 5.di)(iIlN) where: Vsi and di are the shear wave velocity and the thickness of the i-th soil layer and NL is the total number of soil layers in the site model.
3.7.2-30
Reference:
An Advanced Computational Software for 3D Dynamic Analysis Including Soil-Structure Interaction, ACS SASSI Version 2.3.0, September 2009, and User Manual Revision 1.0, August 31, 2009, Ghiocel Predictive Technologies, Inc., Pittsford, NY.
The finite element (FE) mesh maximum frequencies in Table 3-4 of MUAP-10006 (RO) indicate the ability of the ACS SASSI models to transmit seismic waves from the subgrade to the foundations of the reactor building (R/B) complex and power source building (PS/B). The modeling guidelines in the ACS SASSI manual specify that the size of the finite elements in the structural model that are in contact with soil should not exceed one fifth of the wavelength of the seismic waves being transmitted from the soil to the structure. The maximum wavelength frequency fBmax that can be transmitted through the FE mesh of the R/B complex and PS/B foundations were calculated as follows:
fB max - Vs where: Vs is the shear wave velocity of the soil in contact with the foundation and dFE is the nominal mesh size of the basement finite elements.
Technical Report MUAP-10006 will be revised to clarify the meaning of the values presented in Table 3-4 by labeling them as the maximum transmitting frequencies of the subgrade fL max, the maximum transmitting frequency of the basemat FE mesh farax, and the cut-off frequency of analyses fcutff.
The table below summarizes the calculations of the maximum transmitting frequencies.
Max. Transmitting Freq. of Top Max. Transmitting Freq. of FE mesh and Cut-Subgrade Layer off Freq. of Analyses Soil Case Vs R/B Complex PS/B N d Vs fL_max dFE fFEmax fctoff dFE fFEmax fcutoff
- 0. ft fps Hz fps ft Hz Hz fps Hz Hz 270-500 69 10.4 1781 34.2 1242 10 24.8 31 6.3 39.4 33 270-200 35 12.5 3317 53.1 1302 10 26.0 29 6.3 41.3 33'*)
560-500 43 12.5 2739 43.8 1698 10 34.0 31 6.3 53.9 33 560-200 6 7.25 1788 49.3 1552 10 31.0 35 6.3 49.3 33 560-100 6 7.25 1914 52.8 1588 10 31.8 35 6.3 50.4 33(')
900-200 11 21.5 5872 54.6 3237 14 46.2 277'- 6.3 102.7 50 900-100 1 13.0 3403 52.3 3403 14 48.6 27"-- 6.3 108.0 50 2032-100 5 30.0 8599 57.3 7333 14 104.8 50 6.3 232.8 50 Cut-off frequencies for these runs are extended to 50 Hz in order to study the effect of cut-off frequency on ISRS which results are presented in this response. Values shown apply for cut-off frequencies used for production runs, with results presented in MUAP-10006(RO).
The soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis of US-APWR standard plant category I building resting on the hard rock profile 2032-100 was analyzed to a cut-off frequency of 50 Hz as shown in the table above. The response obtained from the analyses of 2030-100 profile, which represents the case of hard rock subgrade, envelopes the high frequency response to frequencies up to 50 Hz as recommended by ISG-01. The cut-off frequencies of the SSI analyses of the softer subgrade profiles are set at values of the highest frequency that the seismic waves in each subgrade profile can transmitted. .The responses obtained from the analyses of all eight generic site conditions are enveloped to ensure that response at all frequencies affected by the SSI are captured. This approach is consistent with that described 3.7.2-31
within ASCE 4-98 and demonstrated by the results of the study presented in this response as follows:
The effect of the cut-off frequencies on the results of the site-specific SSI analyses of softer subgrade cases are studied by adding frequencies of analyses to the SSI analyses of PS/B for the soil subgrade case 270-200 and soft rock case 560-100. The study is focused on the profiles having more pronounced contrast of stiffness properties between the shallow top layers and the baserock, where the SSI response is characterized by reduced geometric SSI damping and pronounced spectral peaks. As indicated in the table above, the additional frequency of analyses extended the cut-off frequency for these two soil cases to 50 Hz. The results for 5% damping acceleration response spectra (ARS) are calculated at the center of the basemat and higher PS/B floor elevations where high frequency effects were observed. Figures below compare the ARS results obtained using cut-off frequency of 50 Hz with the results of the corresponding production runs which frequency was set to 33 Hz. The plots also show the ARS results obtained from the SSI analysis of hard rock 2032-100 case. The comparisons show that the ARS obtained from analyses with different cut-off frequencies are virtually almost identical. The most pronounced difference that can be observed is between the ARS representing the vertical response of the ground floor slab where the use of higher cut-off frequency provided a higher peak spectral response at frequency of 35 Hz. Nevertheless, as it can be seen from the plot, this local high frequency response of the slab is well enveloped by the results obtained from the SSI analysis of hard rock 2032-100 soil case. The results of the study demonstrate that the ISRS obtained from the site-independent SSI analyses envelope the response of the PS/B structure.
5% Damping ARS for Response at Center of PS/B Basemat in X direction 1.4 - Node 631 270-200 (50 Hz)
- _ Node 631 270-200 (33 Hz) 12 Node 631560-100 (SO Hz)
- - Node 631 560-100 (33 Hz)
- Node 6312032-100 (60 Hz)
F 0.8 8 0.6 ......
0 .4 ..... . . . . . . .
0.2 ,- -
0 0.1 1 10 100 FREQUENCY [Hz) 3.7.2-32
5% Damping ARS Response at Center of PS/B Basemat in Y direction 1.4 1.2 1
a F 0.8
-l w
U 0.6 U
0.4 0.2 0
0.1 1 10 100 FREQUENCY [Hz]
5% Damping ARS Response at Center of PSIB Basemat in Y direction 1.4 1.2
- a. 0.8 F<
.j, LI,&
0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.1 10 100 FREQUENCY [Hz]
3.7.2-33
5% Damping ARS for Response at Center of PS/B Ground Floor in X direction 2.5 2
.I z 1.5 0
P uw L2 0J 0J 4
0.5 0.1 10 100 FREQUENCY MHz]
5% Damping ARS for Response at Center of PS/B Ground Floor in Z direction 1.6 1.4 1.2
.5 F
0.8
'U
-J
'U U
U 4 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.1 10 100 FREQUENCY WHz]
3.7.2-34
5% Damping ARS for Response at Center of PSIB Roof in Z direction 2.5 - Node 2064 270-200 (60 Hz)
- - Node 2064 270-200 (33 Hz)
-Node 2064 660-100 (60 Hz)
-- Node 2064 660-100 (33 Hz)
-Node 2064 2032-100 (60 Hz)
I 15 Uj 0 .5 . . . . . . . -. -
0 0.1 1 10 100 FREQUENCY (Hz]
The effect of the cut-off frequencies on the results of the site-specific SSI analyses of R/B Complex resting on the stiffer subgrade represented by cases 900-100 and 900-200 are investigated by adding frequencies of analyses to these to the SSI analyses of these two soil cases. As indicated by the table above, the additional frequency of analyses extended the cut-off frequency for these two soil cases to 50 Hz. The following figures compare the ARS results obtained using the cut-off frequency of 50 Hz with the results of the corresponding production runs in which the cut-off frequency was set to 27 Hz. Comparisons are presented for the responses at the basement additional lumped mass location (BS01) and at locations within the building where the higher frequency effects are pronounced including the R/B lumped mass node RE04 and selected single degree of freedom (SDOF) models representing the out-of plane vibrations of both walls and slabs. The plots also show the ARS results obtained from the SSI analysis of hard rock 2032-100 case. The comparisons show that the ARS results for lumped mass nodes BS01 and RE42 obtained from the SSI analyses with different cut-off frequencies are virtually identical. There are more pronounced differences in the ARS representing the out-of-plane response of SDOF's where small increases in the values of peak spectral accelerations and zero period acceleration (ZPA) can be observed in the higher frequency range. As can be seen from the plots below, these high frequency peaks remain enveloped by the results obtained from the SSI analysis of 2032-100 soil case. Therefore, increasing the cut-off frequency for the SSI analyses of soil cases 900-100 and 900-200 to 50 Hz results only in marginal increase in the ZPA values for certain SDOF nodes and has a very small effect on the broadened in-structure response spectra ISRS. The results of the up-dated SSI analyses of soil cases 900-100 and 900-200 with cut-off frequency of 50 Hz will be used to generate a new set of ISRS and maximum acceleration results. In the next revision of MUAP-10006, Tables 4-8 and 4-9 will be updated to include the corrected out-of plane loads that may be affected by the ZPA results as well as the ISRS plots in Appendices C, D and E.
3.7.2-35
5% Damping ARS for Response at BSOI of RIB in X direction 1.4
-Node S801 900-100 X (50Hz) B 112 - Nod. BS01 90-100 X (27Hz)
-Node 980 900-200 X (5OHz) 1.0 -- Node BS01 900-200 X (27HZ)
-Node BS0 2032-100 X (50Hz) 0.8 P
-J 0.6 UM 4
0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 1 10 100 FREQUENCY [Hz]
5% Damping ARS for Response at BS01 of R/B in Y direction 1.6 1.4 1.2 2 1.0 z
0 0.8
.J UJ UJ
_j 4
0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 ý.
0.1 1 10 100 FREQUENCY [HZ]
3.7.2-36
5% Damping ARS for Response at BS01 of R/B In Z direction 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2
.5 1.0
-J 0.8 w
U U
0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 1 10 100 FREQUENCY (Hz]
5% Damping ARS for Response at RE42 of RJB in X direction 3.0 2.5 2.0 Is z
0 1.5
-1 U
U 1.0 0.5 0.0 r 0.1 10 100 FREQUENCY [Hz]
3.7.2-37
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2
0 2.0 w_1 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 L 0.1 1 10 100 FREQUENCY [Hz]
3.5 3.0 2.5 z
0 2.0 P
,J w~
u 1.5 U1 lot 0.5 0.0 10 100 FREQUENCY[Hz]
3.7.2-38
5% Damping ARS for Response at Wall W_W_5 of RIB in YDirection 3
2.5 2
P 1.5
-J C..
0.5 0
0.1 10 100 FREQUENCY [Hz]
5% Damping ARS for Response at Slab 7610c of RIB in Z Direction 3
2.5 2
F 1.5
-j C.)
w
,.)
0.5 0.1 10 100 FREQUENCY [Hz]
3.7.2-39
5% Damping ARS for Response at Slab 25_42d of R/B in Z Direction 3.5 3
2.5 2
(.1 1,5 C.,
0.5 0 Lo 0.1 10 100 FREQUENCY [Hz]
5% Damping ARS for Response at Slab n8_16 of R/B in Z Direction 2
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1
-J w
U 0.8 o
0.6 0.4 0.2 0 W 0,1 1 10 100 FREQUENCY [Hz!
3.7.2-40
5% Damping ARS for Response at Slab n8_30a of RIB in Z Direction 1.8
- Node 3705 900-100 ZZ (50 Hz) 1.6 ] - I --
- Node3705 900-100 U (27Hz) 1.4 --- - Nod. 3705 900-200 UZ(50 Hz)
-- od 3705 900-200 U (27Hz) 1.2 - Node 3705 2032-0OOZZ (50 Hz)
W 0.8 0.6 0.4 0 .2 . . . . . .. ..
0 0.1 1 10 100 FREQUENCY [Hz]
Impact on DCD There is no impact on the DCD. TR MUAP-10006 Rev. 0 will be corrected as described above.
Impact on COLA There is no impact on the COLA.
Impact on PRA There is no impact on the PRA.
3.7.2-41
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/28/2010 US-APWR Design Certification Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Docket No.52-021 RAI NO.: NO. 660-5134 REVISION 2 SRP SECTION: 03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis APPLICATION SECTION: 3.7.2 DATE OF RAI ISSUE: 11/15/10 QUESTION NO. RAI 03.07.02-58 This request for additional information (RAI) is necessary for the staff to determine if the application meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix S; and 10 CFR Part 100; as well as the guidance in NUREG-0800,
'Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants,' Chapter 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."
It is stated in Section 3.2 of MHI's Topical Report, MUAP-10006 (RO), that eight generic soil profiles were selected for SSI analysis. In contrast, the first sentence of Section 5.2.2 of MUAP-10001, (R1) refers to the nine combinations of soil profile categories and depths to hard or soft rock material. A comparison of the eight soil profiles listed in Section 3.5 of MUAP-10006 (RO) with the nine soil profiles listed in Table 5.2-2 of MUAP-10001 (R1) showed that the profile "270-100" in Table 5.2-2 is not included in the SSI evaluations presented in MUAP-10006 (RO). It is not clear to the staff why this soil profile was not used in the evaluations presented in MHI's Topical Report, MUAP-10006 (RO).
The staff requests that the applicant provide an explanation and justification for why the Vs30=270 m/sec, and depth to rock=100 feet (i.e. the "270-100") soil profile was not included in the SSI evaluations. The question is posed to determine ifthe soil profiles used in the SSI analysis are consistent with the profiles developed for the analysis, and thus determine ifthe description and implementation of the Supporting Media for Seismic Category I Structures is acceptable per the guidelines of SRP 3.7.1.11.3.
RAI related to Question 3.7.2-50 ANSWER:
Similar questions and information requests on the soil profiles used for the standard design and analysis were asked by the NRC Staff in RAI 625-4924 Rev. 0, Question 03.07.02-23 and RAI 643-4967 Rev. 1, Question 03.07.01-13. See MHI response for RAI 625-4924, Question 03.07.02-23 for resolution of this issue.
3.7.2-42
Impact on DCD There is no impact on the DCD. For impact on report TR MUAP-10001, see MHI response for RAI 625-4924, Question 03.07.02-23.
Impact on COLA There is no impact on the COLA.
Impact on PRA There is no impact on the PRA.
3.7.2-43
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/28/2010 US-APWR Design Certification Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Docket No.52-021 RAI NO.: NO. 660-5134 REVISION 2 SRP SECTION: 03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis APPLICATION SECTION: 3.7.2 DATE OF RAI ISSUE: 11/15/10 QUESTION NO. RAI 03.07.02-59:
This request for additional information (RAI) is necessary for the staff to determine if the application meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix S; and 10 CFR Part 100; as well as the guidance in NUREG-0800,
'Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants,' Chapter 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."
The second paragraph of Section 3.1 of MHI's Topical report, MUAP-1 0006 (RO), states that the maximum frequency of analysis is determined from the thickness of the soil layers in the model.
The staff expects the applicant to define the maximum soil layer thickness so that maximum frequency of interest in the model could be properly transmitted. Also, the last sentence in Section 3.1 states that the analysis results were checked to ensure that the maximum frequency of analysis captures the critical seismic response.
The staff requests that the applicant clarify the criteria used for selecting the maximum frequencies of analysis, explain how these criteria meet the intent of ISG-01, and explain how the results were checked to ensure that the selected maximum frequencies capture the critical structural seismic responses.
RAIs relate to questions 3.7.2-37, 3.7.2-49, and 3.7.2-57.
ANSWER:
Please refer to the response for Question RAI 03.07.02-57 for an explanation of the criteria used for selecting the maximum frequencies of analysis and an explanation of the criteria used how to determine the ability of the ACS SASSI site model layers to transmit seismic waves with frequencies up to the maximum frequency of interest. The cut-off frequencies of the SSI analyses of different generic soil profiles considered are set at values that ensure that the results of the SSI analyses envelope the response at frequencies up to 50 Hz. The study performed for the PS/B, which increased the cut-off frequency to 50 Hz for some of the softer soil profiles, showed that increasing the cut-off frequency for softer profiles did not capture any additional high frequency effects beyond those enveloped by the hard rock profile. This demonstrates that the selected maximum cut-off frequencies used for the site-independent SSI analyses capture the critical seismic responses and provide ISRS that envelope high frequency effects.
3.7.2-44
The SSI analyses of soil cases 900-100 and 900-200 were re-run to increase the cut-off frequency of analyses to 50 Hz. The results of the updated SSI analyses will be used to generate a new set of ISRS and maximum acceleration results. In the next revision of MUAP-10006, Tables 4-8 and 4-9 will be updated to include the corrected out-of plane loads that may be affected by the ZPA results as well as the ISRS plots in Appendices C, D and E.
Impact on DCD There is no impact on the DCD. TR MUAP-10006 Rev. 0 will be corrected as described above.
Impact on COLA There is no impact on the COLA.
Impact on PRA There is no impact on the PRA.
3.7.2-45
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/28/2010 US-APWR Design Certification Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Docket No.52-021 RAI NO.: NO. 660-5134 REVISION 2 SRP SECTION: 03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis APPLICATION SECTION: 3.7.2 DATE OF RAI ISSUE: 11/15/10 QUESTION NO. RAI 03.07.02-60:
This request for additional information (RAI) is necessary for the staff to determine if the application meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix S; and 10 CFR Part 100; as well as the guidance in NUREG-0800,
'Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants,' Chapter 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."
In MHI's Topical Report, MUAP-10006 (RO), It appears from the relatively high values of Poisson's ratios in Tables 3-3A through 3-3G of MUAP-10006 (RO) that the soil profiles selected for the analyses represent saturated soils. To better understand the analysis presented in the tables, the staff request that the applicant describe the assumptions regarding ground water level that were used in developing the soil profiles used in the SSI analysis. Discuss the sensitivity studies performed to address the effect of variability of the ground water table (i.e., dry versus saturated soil) on the SSI analysis results. Also, the applicant should describe how the variability in pore water and the variability of ground water level with time affect the seismic response of the structures per SRP Section 3.7.2.1.4.
ANSWER:
The standard design of US-APWR plant considers the water table elevation to be located 1 ft below the nominal plant grade elevation. The site-independent SSI analyses consider the foundations of the US-APWR buildings to rest on the surface of the subgrade that is located approximately 40 ft below the nominal plant grade to be fully saturated. The development of the generic soil profiles used for the site-independent SSI analyses that is documented in Sections 4.2 and 5.2 of MUAP-1 0001 (Ri), consider the elevation of the water table to be 1 foot below the plant grade by setting the P-wave velocity of the saturated soil to be equal or greater of the P-wave velocity of the water equal to 5000 fps.
A study of the database of site profiles representing dry conditions is performed to assess how the generic soil profiles are affected by the variations of the water table elevation. The profiles of compressional P-wave velocity (Vp) are examined to determine the depth at which the P-wave velocity of the dry soil reaches value equal or greater than 5,000 fps. The results of the study show that only the strain iterated Poisson ratio profiles of generic subgrade 270 up to depth of about 200 ft and 560 to depth of about 200 ft will be affected by the presence of ground water.
3.7.2-46
In order to assess the effect of the water table elevation on the results of the site-independent soil-structure interaction (SSI) analyses, the two generic site profiles 270-200D and 560-100D are developed representing conditions of dry soil. The tables below provide the input properties of the dry soil profiles used for the sensitivity analysis. These dry soil profiles differ from the corresponding 270-200 and 560-100 generic profiles used for the production site-independent SSI analyses runs in the assigned values for the P-wave velocities for the soil layers located above the rock strata. The changes of the P-wave velocities result in changes of the effective Poisson ratio of the soil as shown in the figures below that compare of the Poisson ratio profiles for the dry and submerged conditions.
Two sets of SSI analyses are performed on the ACS SASSI FE model of Power Source Building (PS/B) using as input the 270-200D and 510-100D profiles representing dry soil conditions. The SSI analyses provide results for 5% damping acceleration response spectra (ARS) at three representative locations: (1) center of the basemat. Figures below provide comparison of the preliminary results for 5% damping ARS obtained from the runs with dry soil profiles (270-200D and 560-100D) with those obtained from the production runs of soil cases 270-200 and 560-100.
The presented ARS represent the response of the PS/B due to three directions of the earthquake that were combined using the SRSS method. The figures also include the 5% damping design in-structure response spectra (ISRS) for the representative locations.
The comparison of the ARS results obtained considering dry and submerged soil condition indicate that the presence of water has a small influence on the SSI response of the building.
The eight different generic subgrade conditions considered by the site-independent SSI analyses and the broadening of ISRS ensure that the effects on SSI response that are related to variations of the water table elevations are enveloped for vide range of candidate sites within continental US.
Table 3-3E Subgrade Properties for Generic Profile 560-100D Unit Layer Thickness Depth Weight Vs Vp Poisson Damp.
Ratio
- [ft] [ift] kcf ft/sec ft/sec %
1 5 0 0.131 1588 3427 0.363 7.06 2 5 5 0.131 1588 3427 0.363 7.06 3 6 10 0.131 1781 4089 0.383 6.78 4 6 16 0.131 1781 4089 0.383 6.78 5 6 22 0.131 1781 4089 0.383 6.78 6 7.25 28 0.131 1914 4462 0.387 6.84 7 7.25 35.25 0.131 1914 4462 0.387 6.84 8 7.25 42.5 0.131 2027 4728 0.387 6.84 9 7.25 49.75 0.131 2027 4728 0.387 6.84 10 3 57 0.131 2016 4579 0.380 6.97 11-54 12.5 60 0.134 3326 7833 0.390 0.50 Half-space 610 0.134 3326 7833 0.390 0.50 3.7.2-47
Subgrade Properties for Generic Profile 270-200D Layer ______T_______
Thickness Depth Unit Weight 1 V Vs Vp oso PRio ap p
- [ft] [ft] kcf ft/sec ft/sec i %
1 4.29 0.0 0.125 1302 4321 0.450 3.03 2 4.29 4.3 0.125 1302 4321 0.450 3.03 3 4.29 8.6 0.125 1334 4320 0.447 3.13 4 4.29 12.9 0.125 1334 4320 0.447 3.13 5 4.29 17.2 0.125 1334 4320 0.447 3.13 6 4.29 21.5 0.125 1303 4303 0.449 3.34 7 4.29 25.7 0.125 1303 4303 0.449 3.34 8 4.29 30.0 0.125 1335 4316 0.447 3.39 9 4.29 34.3 0.125 1335 4316 0.447 3.39 10 4.29 38.6 0.125 1372 4516 0.449 3.41 11 4.69 42.9 0.125 1362 4498 0.450 2.62 12 4.69 47.6 0.125 1362 4498 0.450 2.62 13 4.69 52.3 0.125 1417 4717 0.450 2.58 14 4.69 57.0 0.125 1417 4717 0.450 2.58 15 4.69 61.7 0.125 1450 4749 0.449 2.60 16 4.69 66.4 0.125 1450 4749 0.449 2.60 17 4.69 71.0 0.125 1456 4797 0.449 2.65 18 4.69 75.7 0.125 1456 4797 0.449 2.65 19 4.69 80.4 0.125 1435 4666 0.448 2.77 20 4.69 85.1 0.125 1435 4666 0.448 2.77 21 4.69 89.8 0.125 1416 4635 0.449 2.87 22 4.69 94.5 0.125 1416 4635 0.449 2.87 23 5.00 99.2 0.131 1483 4704 0.445 2.73 24 5.00 104.2 0.131 1483 4704 0.445 2.73 25 5.00 109.2 0.131 1494 4839 0.447 2.76 26 5.00 114.2 0.131 1494 4839 0.447 2.76 27 5.00 119.2 0.131 1534 4889 0.445 2.74 28 5.00 124.2 0.131 1534 4889 0.445 2.74 29 5.00 129.2 0.131 1542 4955 0.446 2.78 30 5.00 134.2 0.131 1542 4955 0.446 2.78 31 5.00 139.2 0.131 1599 5004 0.443 2.72 32 5.00 144.2 0.131 1599 5004 0.443 2.72 33 5.00 149.2 0.131 1544 4871 0.444 2.86 34 5.00 154.2 0.131 1544 4871 0.444 2.86 35-71 12.50 159.2 0.134 3317 7812 0.390 0.50 Half-space 621.7 0.134 3317 7812 0.390 0.50 3.7.2-48
Poisson Ratio Profiles Poisson Ratio Poisson Ratio 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 120 a160 I
280 3.7.2-49
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 FREQUENCY [z]
1.8 01 10 100 FREQUENCY P1 16 14 12 1
08 0ý6 04 02 01 10 100 FREQUENCY[HM]
3.7.2-50
I 0,5 0
oI to 100 FREQUENCY MHZ 35 3
S25 0
2 1
115 05 0 01T' 10 1DO FREQUENCY I/Hz]
25 2
15 0,5 01 10 100 FREQUENCY [M4z]
3.7.2-51
6 5
S3 FREQUENCY [HZ4 Si 2
=,
4u FREQUENCY[HMJ 35 3
2.5 1.5 0.5 0.1 10 100 FREQUENCY WHz]
3.7.2-52
Impact on DCD There is no impact on the DCD.
Impact on COLA There is no impact on the COLA.
Impact on PRA There is no impact on the PRA.
3.7.2-53
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/28/2010 US-APWR Design Certification Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Docket No.52-021 RAI NO.: NO. 660-5134 REVISION 2 SRP SECTION: 03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis APPLICATION SECTION: 3.7.2 DATE OF RAI ISSUE: 11/15/10 QUESTION NO. RAI 03.07.02-61:
This request for additional information (RAI) is necessary for the staff to determine if the application meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix S; and 10 CFR Part 100; as well as the guidance in NUREG-0800,
'Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants,' Chapter 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."
In MHI's Topical Report, MUAP-10006 (RO), the last paragraph of Section 3.5 and also Table 3-13 indicate that the vertical in-structure response spectra (ISRS) for the three gas turbine generators (GTGs) and the GTG panels are developed by averaging the vertical response at two representative nodes within the GTG footprint area. This is in contrast to the other ISRS presented in Table 3-13 where the ISRS are developed as an envelope of representative nodal responses. The staff requests that the applicant provide the technical justification for using an averaging process instead of an enveloping process when developing the vertical ISRS for the GTGs and panels.
ANSWER:
The staffs comments on development of vertical ISRS for the three gas turbine generators (GTGs) and the GTG panels supported by the Power Source Building (PS/B) slab at ground floor elevation are noted. The vertical ISRS for the GTG's and GTG panels have been revised in order to represent the envelope not the average of the response of the PS/B ground floor within the footprint of GTG and GTG panel. In order to provide a better representation of the response of the floor at the GTG base, ISRS for the GTG consider the response calculated for two additional nodes within each GTG footprint. Accordingly, the last paragraph of Section 3.5 of MUAP-10006 will be revised as follows:
"The ISRS for design of category I and II SSCs are developed from the ARS response at selected representative node locations of the PS/B FE model. For each major floor of the PS/B (basement, ground floor slab, and roof) two horizontal ISRS are developed in NS and EW direction. These ISRS envelop the ARS response at several representative locations within each floor elevation, including the corners of the building. The two vertical ISRS for the basemat and the roof are developed in a similar manner. Four vertical ISRS serve for the design of each of the three category I gas turbine generators (GTG) and the GTG panels. The vertical GTG ISRS are 3.7.2-54
developed as an envelope of the vertical response at four representative FE nodes within the GTG footprint area. In the case of the GTG panels, the vertical response of the four FE nodes representative of the three panels are enveloped to develop vertical ISRS for the panels. Table 3-13 list the ISRS representing the response of the PS/B. The nodes that are used for development of ISRS are listed in the last column of the table. Appendix A provides the coordinates of these nodes."
Table 3-13 and Appendix A of MUAP 10006 will be updated as follows:
Table 3-13 ISRS for Power Source Building (PS/B)
ISRS Dir. Elev. Description ARS at Nodes (provide node numbers and x and y Symbol I coordinates)
Basemat XYZ -26'-4" Envelope BM01 BM02 BM03 BM04 BM05 GS01 GS02 GS03 GS04 GS05 Ground XY 3-7" Envelope GS06 GS07 GS08 GS09 GS10 Floor GS11 GS12 GS13 Roof XYZ 39'-0" Envelope RF01 RF02 RF03 RF04 RF05 GTG B Z 3-7" Envelope GS14 GS15 GS16 GS17 GTG C Z 3-7" Envelope GS18 GS06 GS19 GS20 GTG D Z 3'-7" Envelope GS21 GS09 GS22 GS23 GTG C&D Z 3-7" Envelope GS24 GS25 GS26 GS27 Panels 3.7.2-55
Table 9 - PSIB Node Numbers [of Appendix A]
Location (ft) Node Floor Symbol X Y Z Numbers BM01 -34.67 -57.42 -26.33 495 BM02 34.67 -57.42 -26.33 507 BM03 0 5.09 -26.33 631 BM04 -34.67 57.42 -26.33 729 Basemat BM05 34.67 57.42 -26.33 741 GS01 -34.67 -57.42 2.25 1296 GS02 34.67 -57.42 2.25 1308 GS03 -17.33 -45.25 2.25 1325 GS04 17.5 -45.25 2.25 1331 GS05 -17.33 -15.87 2.25 1390 GS06 -17.33 17.92 2.25 1455 GS07 0 5.09 2.25 1432 GS08 17.5 -15.87 2.25 1396 GS09 17.5 17.92 2.25 1461 GS10 -17.33 43.92 2.25 1507 GS11 17.5 43.92 2.25 1513 GS12 -34.67 57.42 2.25 1530 GS13 34.67 57.42 2.25 1542 GS14 -11 -39.172 2.25 1339 GS15 -5.5 -39.172 2.25 1340 GS16 0 -39.172 2.25 1341 GS17 6.335 -39.172 2.25 1342 GS18 -17.33 24.17 2.25 1468 GS19 -17.33 11.505 2.25 1442 GS20 -17.33 5.09 2.25 1429 GS21 17.5 24.17 2.25 1474 GS22 17.5 11.505 2.25 1448 GS23 17.5 5.09 2.25 1435 GS24 -11 43.918 2.25 1508 GS25 22 43.918 2.25 1514 Ground GS26 22 -33.09 2.25 1358 Floor GS27 22 -27.915 2.25 1371 RF01 -34.67 -57.42 38.88 1918 RF02 34.67 -57.42 38.88 1930 RF03 0 5.09 38.88 2054 RF04 -34.67 57.42 38.88 2146 Roof RFO5 34.67 57.42 38.88 2158 3.7.2-56
As a result of the update as described above, the vertical ISRS for the GTG's and GTG panels are presented as follows:
2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2
.5 1
w 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.1 10 100 FREQUENCY [Hzj Figure 1 - Gas Turbine Generator B ISRS Vertical Direction 3.7.2-57
1.6 1.4 Gas Turbine Generator (GTG) C DCD Soil Profiles 1.2 PSB3-ound-Z lRe. at GrTGC270-200
- PSB-G4ound-Z Rasp. at Gr C 270-600 PSB-Grund-Z Rasp. at GTGC 560-100
- 1 - PSB-Ground-Z a~sp. at GTGC 560-200 z - PSB-Ground-Z Resp. at GTGC 560-400
- PSB-Ground-Z Rasp. at GTGC 900-100 K 0.8 - PSB-Gound-Z Pasp. at GTGC 900-200
. PSB-Gound-Z lsp. atGTGC 2032-100 I - PSB-Grund-Z fsap. at GTGC Broad 0.4 0.2 -.- -. ..-
0 0.1 1 10 100 FREQUENCY [Hzj Figure 4 - Gas Turbine Generator C ISRS Vertical Direction 3.7.2-58
3 2.5 DCD Soil Profiles' PSB-Gound-Z Rsp. at GTG D 270-200 PSB-Ground-Z Piep. at GTGD 270-500 2 PSB-Gound-Z Rasp. at GTG 0 560-100 PSB-Ground-Z PAp. at GTG D 550-200 0 P8B.Qrwund-Z Peep. at GM D 560-50 4 - PSBGround-Z Resp. at GTGD 900-100 IX 1.5 PSBGound-Z Resp. at GTG D 900-200
-I- PSB-Ground-Z Ip. at GTG0 2032-100 w
S -- PSB-Gound-Z PAsp. at GG D Broad 0ý5 0
0.1 1 10 100 FREQUENCY [Hz]
Figure 5 - Gas Turbine Generator D ISRS Vertical Direction 3.7.2-59
3 8% Damp. ISRS Vertical Direction PSB - Ground S. 3-T Gas Turbine Generator (GTG) Panels 2.5 DCO Soil Profiles PSB-Qround-Z Rs p. at GTG C, D & E Panels 270-200 PSS-Gmind-Z Map. at GTGC, D & E Panels 270-500 PSB-Gound-Z iap. at GTGC, D& E Panels 560-100 2 -PSB-Gond-Z iaIp. at GMGC, D &E Panels 560-200
-- PSB-Grournd-Z Iasp. at GTG C, D & E Panels 560-500 z - PSB.Gound-Z Pa:p. at GTG C, 0 & E Panels 900-100
- PSB-Ground-Z Psp. at GTG C. D&E Panels 900-200 Lu 1.5 -- PSB-'round-Z PsA:.atGTG CD&EPaneis 2032-100 I P8-Qound-ZMbap.at GTG CD& EPanelsB 0.j 1
0.5 0
0.1 1 10 100 FREQUENCY [Hz]
Figure 6 - Gas Turbine Generator Panels ISRS Vertical Direction Impact on DCD There is no impact on the DCD. TR MUAP-10006 Rev. 0 will be corrected as described above.
Impact on COLA There is no impact on the COLA.
Impact on PRA There is no impact on the PRA.
3.7.2-60
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/28/2010 US-APWR Design Certification Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Docket No.52-021 RAI NO.: NO. 660-5134 REVISION 2 SRP SECTION: 03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis APPLICATION SECTION: 3.7.2 DATE OF RAI ISSUE: 11/15/10 QUESTION NO. RAI 03.07.02-62:
This request for additional information (RAI) is necessary for the staff to determine if the application meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix S; and 10 CFR Part 100; as well as the guidance in NUREG-0800,
'Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants,' Chapter 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."
Section 3.6.3 of MHI's Topical Report, MUAP-1 0006 (RO), presents the procedure for calculating the seismic dynamic earth pressures on the embedded walls of the R/B complex and the PS/Bs.
The acceleration of 0.3g is specified for both the horizontal and vertical components of an earthquake in determining the seismic lateral pressure for the exterior walls of the basements.
However, the quasi-static acceleration values of 0.55g (Table 4-7) and as high as 0.84g (Table 4-
- 10) are shown at the base and below the ground surface for Category I structures. Provide a justification for not specifying these values in determining the seismic lateral pressure.
Also, the procedure includes a factor of 20% that represents an additional design margin to account for uncertainties in the embedment soil properties and the applied methodology.
The staff requests that the applicant provide the basis for selecting a 20% increase for the additional design margin to account for uncertainties in the embedment soil properties and the applied methodology. Provide relevant data or studies performed to support the technical position.
ANSWER:
The values provided in Table 4-7 and Table 4-10 of MUAP 10006(RO) represent the quasi static SSE loads for standard design of Reactor Building (R/B) complex and Power Source Building (PS/B) structures, respectively. As described in the responses to questions 03.07.02-55, 56 and 64 of this RAI, these quasi-static acceleration loads that were developed based on the results of the site-independent soil-structure interaction (SSI) analyses of the R/B complex and PS/B as surface mounted foundations include considerable design margins. Therefore, the values presented in Tables 4-7 and 4-10 of MUAP 10006(RO) are significantly higher than the magnitudes of the maximum accelerations representing the calculated seismic response of the buildings at plant grade elevation. The table below provides the envelope of the maximum 3.7.2-61
acceleration results obtained from the SSI analyses of the R/B complex resting on the surface of eight generic subgrade profiles for response of the building at plant grade elevation.
Location Max. Accelerations x
ft ( y ft zft NS g
EW g
Vert.
g CV00 0.00 0.00 1.92 0.472 0.447 0.407 ICOO 1.22 0.05 1.92 0.472 0.447 0.407 REOO 1.24 -0.25 3.58 0.473 0.447 0.407 PS/B Ground Floor ( El. 3'-7") 0.560 0.520 0.430 Maximum accelerations obtained from SSI analyses of surface mounted foundations Maximum accelerations estimated from bubble plots in Figures 2, 5 and 6 in Appendix H of MUAP-10006(RO)
The results presented in the table above show that the response of the more flexible PS/B basement yielded considerably higher maximum accelerations than those obtained from the SSI analyses of R/B complex and do not necessary represent the response of the embedment soil at the ground surface.
The results of the seismic SSI parametric study of embedment effects that is described in the response to question 3.7.2-53 of this RAI are used to further evaluate the possible amplification of the ground motion through the embedment soil. The seismic input motion used for the SSI analyses of R/B complex embedded foundation were obtained from the results of free-field site response analyses of the generic 270-200 and 560-100 site profiles based on 1-D wave propagation of the seismic S and P waves from the base rock to the plant's finished grade. The results of the full column analyses provided peak ground accelerations at plant grade of 0.413 g for H1 (NS) component, 0.498 g for the H2 (EW) component and 0.351 g for the vertical component of the ground motion. The SSI analyses of the R/B complex building as surface mounted foundation for these generic soil cases yielded results from maximum accelerations at plant grade elevation of 0.472 g in NS direction and 0.447 g in EW direction that are similar to those obtained from the site response analyses.
Figures 1 and 7 in the response to question 3.7.2-53 of this RAI provide the in-structure response spectra (ISRS) for the response of the building at plant grade elevation (CVOO) for different embedment conditions considered. The figures show that the results of the soil cases 270-200 and 560-100 provided the zero period acceleration (ZPA) results that enveloped the results from the other six generic soil cases considered by the site-independent SSI analyses. The plots show that effect of the embedment on the response of the R/B complex basement at ground elevation are relatively small and that in general the SSI analyses of surface founded foundation yielded higher results than the embedded cases.
Based on the available results for maximum accelerations at plant grade elevation obtained from three different sets of analyses: (1) site-independent SSI analyses presented in MUAP 10006(RO),
(2) free field site response analyses of full column 270-200 and 560-100 profiles, and (3) SSI analyses of R/B complex embedded foundation, it is deemed that the use of the horizontal and vertical seismic coefficient of 0.6 g provides conservative input value for calculation of the earthquake induced earth lateral pressure acting on the walls of the US-APWR exterior basement walls. The use of this conservatively high value for the seismic coefficients eliminates the need for the 20% additional margin introduced in Item 3 of Section 3.6.3.
3.7.2-62
Table 4-12 of MUAP 10006 will be revised as shown below to incorporate increased magnitudes of the design seismic earth pressures that are calculated using seismic coefficients of 0.6. The methodology used for calculation of the seismic earth pressure will remain unchanged with exception to Item 3 that will be revised in order to remove the additional 20% design margin.
Equation 7 that will be revised as follows:
Ps = Psh+Psv (Equation 7)
Table 4-12 Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressure Distribution Total Elevation Depth Pressure (ft) (ft) (ksf) 2.58 0.00 2-.00 3.33
-0.53 3.11 2-2-93.82
-5.19 7.77 2494.15
-8.29 10.87 2,544.24
-12.95 15.53 2,584.30
-16.06 18.64 2,44.24
-20.72 23.30 2-45409
-23.82 26.40 2363.94
-28.48 31.06 2-443.57
-3159 34.17 4-19 3.30
-36.25 38.83 -492.48 Impact on DCD There is no impact on the DCD. TR MUAP-1 0006 Rev. 0 will be corrected as described above.
Impact on COLA There is no impact on the COLA.
Impact on PRA There is no impact on the PRA.
3.7.2-63
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/28/2010 US-APWR Design Certification Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Docket No.52-021 RAI NO.: NO. 660-5134 REVISION 2 SRP SECTION: 03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis APPLICATION SECTION: 3.7.2 DATE OF RAI ISSUE: 11/15/10 QUESTION NO. RAI 03.07.02-63:
This request for additional information (RAI) is necessary for the staff to determine ifthe application meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix S; and 10 CFR Part 100; as well as the guidance in NUREG-0800,
'Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants,' Chapter 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."
MHI's Topical Report, MUAP-10006 (RO), contains numerous in-structure response spectra (ISRS), all of which are produced at 5% spectral damping. The ISRS at damping values of other than 5% are generally needed for the design of SSCs of the Standard Plant. Discuss the procedure and the basis for generating ISRS at damping values other than 5%.
ANSWER:
The procedure, basis, and numerical computations approach for generating ISRS at damping values other than 5% are the same as used for generating ISRS at 5% damping. DCD Subsection 3.7.2.5 describes the development of ISRS. Please note that DCD Chapter 3, including Subsection 3.7.2.5, is in the course of being updated based on the seismic analysis methodologies presented in MHI Technical Reports MUAP-10001 and MUAP-10006.
The NRC Staff in RAI 212-1950 Questions 3.7.2-8 and 3.7.2-15 asked similar questions on the procedure for generating ISRS (Are the local vibration modes and the effects of potential concrete cracking on the structural stiffness accounted for in this procedure?). The Supplemental Response to Question 3.7.2-8 corrected the original response on the location of the ISRS, with 5% damping, which is in MHI Technical Report MUAP-10006 and not in DCD Appendix 31. The Supplemental Response to Question 3.7.2-15 states that the effects of potential concrete cracking on structural stiffnesses are considered in the development of ISRS as presented in MHI Technical Report MUAP-10001 and the updated ISRS is presented in MHI Technical Report MUAP-1 0006.
Impact on DCD There is no impact on the DCD due to this RAI response. A preliminary markup of DCD Subsection 3.7.2.5 showing changes intended to update the DCD based on information contained 3.7.2-64
in MHI Technical Reports MUAP-10001 and MUAP-10006 is attached as Attachment 2 to this RAI.
Impact on COLA There is no impact on the COLA.
Impact on PRA There is no impact on the PRA.
3.7.2-65
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/28/2010 US-APWR Design Certification Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Docket No.52-021 RAI NO.: NO. 660-5134 REVISION 2 SRP SECTION: 03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis APPLICATION SECTION: 3.7.2 DATE OF RAI ISSUE: 11/15/10 QUESTION NO. RAI 03.07.02-64:
This request for additional information (RAI) is necessary for the staff to determine if the application meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix S; and 10 CFR Part 100; as well as the guidance in NUREG-0800,
'Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants,' Chapter 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."
Appendix H of MHI's Topical Report, MUAP-1 0006 (RO) provides bubble plots of the maximum accelerations in the PS/Bs. However, the report does not describe how the bubble plots were created, what assumptions were made, or how the plots will be used. Because the bubble plots appear to represent the loads to which the PS/Bs will be designed, the staff is requesting that the applicant provide the following information to better evaluate the appropriateness of the design loads:
- 1. A detailed description of how the bubble plots were created and what contributions are included in the resulting accelerations. Include a step-by-step example of how the bubble plots were created and will be used in the design.
- 2. Discuss whether the number of points in the bubble plots matches the number and location of nodes in the PS/B structural models. If the numbers and locations do not match, provide an explanation as to how bubble plot accelerations were determined at points where nodes do not exist in the structural model and also how nodal accelerations from the structural model may have been combined to create accelerations in the bubble plots.
- 3. Discuss if and how the accelerations in the bubble plots account for multi-modal behavior in the PS/Bs.
- 4. Provide the basis for not constructing and providing bubble plots for R/B and what effect it has on the design of the R/B complex.
3.7.2-66
ANSWER:
- 1. The bubble plots serve as a tool for presentation of the absolute maximum acceleration results obtained from the site-independent SSI analyses of the finite element (FE) model of US-APWR power source building (PS/B). The plots depict the response of the PS/B at a certain floor or column line (wall) elevation by showing the maximum acceleration at all floor or wall nodes. The bubble size varies with the absolute magnitude of the acceleration. The bubble plots are used to compare and verify the results of the SSI analyses and serve as basis for evaluation of quasi-static SSE loads that are then applied to a detailed FE model of PS/B to calculate seismic demands for design of structural members.
The maximum accelerations presented in the bubble plots of Appendix H of MUAP-10006(RO) are an envelope of the response of the PS/B for the eight generic soil conditions considered by the site-independent SSI analysis in the three directions X - North South (NS),
Y - East West (EW) and Z - vertical at a particular location. They also represent the contribution of all three earthquake components acting simultaneously. The following is the methodology used to create the bubble plots presented in Appendix H of MUAP-1 0006(R0):
- a. The ACS SASSI ANSYS module provided three files containing the complex transfer function results for the structural response at each node of the PS/B FE model in X-direction (SoilCaseX.N8), Y-direction (SoilCaseY.N8) and Z-direction (SoilCaseZ.N8) for each of the eight generic soil cases/conditions (270-200, 270-500, 560-100, 560-200, 560-500, 900-100, 900-200, 2032-100).
- b. As shown in the flow diagram below, in the ACS SASSI MOTION module uses, in addition to the files described in a, corresponding input design motion acceleration time histories in X-direction (DCD_Hl.mot), Y-direction (DCDH2.mot) and vertical direction (DCDV.mot) to calculate the maximum accelerations. For each generic soil case, maximum acceleration results for all three orthogonal directions and due to each of the three directional earthquakes were extracted from the motion out files. Hence for each major floor and wall elevation listed in Table 4-10 of MHIs Technical Report, MUAP-10006 (RO), a total of 72 bubble plots were created, 9 plots for each soil case. The plots served as a check of the accuracy of the results of SSI analyses and helped investigate local responses at different locations within the building. The bubble plots presenting the maximum acceleration results obtained from different soil cases were compared to assess the effect of different generic subgrade conditions on the PS/B seismic response.
3.7.2-67
Motion Module Input Motion Module Output Soil Case Soil Case_X.N8 + DCD_HI.mot No Soil CaseMotX.out P Axysc SAxzSoil Case Ayx Soil Case SoilCase Soil CaseY.N8 + DCDH2.mot No Soil CaseMotY.out I AyyS 1 case Ayz Soil Case Soil Case Soil CaseZ.N8 + DCD_V.mot No Soil CaseMotZ.out 1 AzysoiCase
'A AzzSoil Case
- )A1 - acceleration due to 'T'earthquake in the "j"direction.
- c. An envelope of the maximum acceleration results due to all three directional earthquakes were combined for each of the eight generic soil cases using the square root of sum of squares (SRSS) as follows:
Ax = /(Axx)2 + (AxY) + (AxZ) 2 2 Ay = V(Ayx)2 + (Ayy) + (Ayz) 2 2 AZ = V(Azx)2 + (Azy) + (Azz)
- d. The maximum acceleration results obtained from the SSI analyses of eight generic soil cases were enveloped using the equations below and than plotted.
2 1 56 900 9 max [Ak 270- , Ak -500, 270 -100, Ak = Ak56° °°, Ak560-200, Ak 0-500, A1k Ak 00-200, Ak2032-100]
for k = X, Y and Z These enveloped maximum accelerations are then plotted as presented in Appendix H of MUAP-10006 (RO). The following is a numerical example illustrating the calculations performed to obtain the maximum acceleration values for node 495 presented in the El. -26'-
4" bubble plots in Appendix H:
3.7.2-68
The ACS SASSI Motion module results for maximum accelerations of Node 495 obtained from step b above are shown below:
Response X - Direction Y - Direction Z - Direction Soil Case: Axx Ayx Azx Axy Ayy Azy Axz Ayz Azz 270-200 0.408 0.006 0.012 0.008 0.360 0.019 0.192 0.166 0.355 270-500 0.397 0.006 0.012 0.007 0.351 0.019 0.186 0.156 0.339 560-100 0.374 0.009 0.012 0.012 0.382 0.018 0.193 0.195 0.351 560-200 0.365 0.007 0.011 0.010 0.347 0.017 0.173 0.173 0.332 560-500 0.363 0.007 0.012 0.012 0.358 0.017 0.172 0.177 0.327 900-100 0.361 0.012 0.021 0.017 0.359 0.036 0.102 0.123 0.323 900-200 0.347 0.011 0.018 0.015 0.377 0.032 0.117 0.13 0.325 2032-100 0.343 0.007 0.014 0.008 0.338 0.019 0.057 0.073 0.314 The SRSS combined maximum accelerations for Node 495, obtained using SRSS as described in step c above, are shown below:
Soil Case Ax Axx2 +Ayx 22+Azx 22 2 Ay Ayy+Azy 2
[ Axz 2 Az 2
+ Ayz + Azz 2 270-200 ,0.40+O+.002i+0.0162-0.40W "0.00*+0.39+0.01&=0.361 ,0.19+-0.1626+0.3525=-0.43(
270-500 10.39k+0.0&-0.016=0.397 0.352 0.417 560-100 0.374 0.382 0.445 560-200 0.366 0.348 0.412 560-500 0.363 0.359 0.41 900-100 0.362 0.361 0.361 900-200 0.348 0.378 0.369 2032-100 0.343 0.338 0.328 Envelope of all soil ifi 0.408* 10.382* I 0.445*
cases forcssfrNd49 Node 495
- The envelope of combined SRSS accelerations, obtained as described in step d above, are plotted in the bubble plots in Appendix H of MUAP-10006(RO).
- 2. The bubble plots provide the enveloped maximum accelerations of every node in the ACS SASSI FE model. This FE structural model is solely used for the SSI analyses and has a simplified geometry and coarser mesh than the detailed FE model used for static analyses of the PS/B that provide stress demands for design of the structural members. Section 5.4.2 of MUAP-1 0001 (Ri) provides the results of the verification analyses that were performed on the detailed FE model and the ACS SASSI FE model of the PS/B to demonstrate the ability of the ACS SASSI model to accurately capture the dynamic properties and response of the PS/B structure.
In order to simplify the application of the quasi-static loads on the detailed FE model, the quasi-static acceleration values provided in Table 4-10 of MUAP-1 0006 are used to represent the SSE load at each elevation in the NS, EW and vertical directions. Table 4-11 of MUAP-10006 provides the values of the quasi-static acceleration representing the loads generated due to out-of-plane vibration of flexible slabs and walls. The following methodology was used 3.7.2-69
to develop the quasi-static SSE loads based on the maximum acceleration results presented in the bubble plots:
- a. The enveloped maximum accelerations that were calculated for each nodal point of the ACS SASSI PS/B model and presented in the bubble plots of MUAP-10006(RO)
Appendix H were further used to calculate weighted average accelerations as follows:
I X.Wk JAY 'Wk ZAZ 'Wk f _X Aave k=nn, Af - nf A=
Af e- k=1n, Zwk XWk Zwk k=l k=1 k=l where Afvex, Afvey and Afve-Z are the weighted average accelerations of floor k k k "f" in X, Y and Z direction; nf is the total number of nodes of floor "f"; Ax, Ak and Az are the enveloped maximum accelerations of node "k"in X, Y and Z direction calculated as described in Step d. above; Wk is the weight attributed to FE node "k" obtained from ANSYS static analyses of the ACS SASSI PS/B model.
- b. The weighted average accelerations of each floor elevation computed in Step a was then compared to the maximum floor nodal acceleration in order to quantify the variations of the accelerations within each floor elevation. Based on this comparison and the investigation of the variations of the floor maximum accelerations depicted in the bubble plots, the floor quasi-static SSE loads presented in Table 4-10 of MUAP-1 0006(RO) were determined by increasing the average floor accelerations in order to account for the variations of the accelerations within the floor elevation, and to introduce additional design margin based on engineering judgment.
- c. The out-of-plane quasi-static SSE loads in Table 4-11 of MUAP-10006(RO) acting on slabs and walls with large unsupported areas were determined based on the bubble plots of the enveloped maximum accelerations presented in Attachment H of MUAP-10006(RO).
The following table presents numerical examples illustrating the calculations performed to obtain the quasi-static loads for PS/B basemat at nominal El. 26'-4":
3.7.2-70
Node Node Ax Ay Az Fx Fy Fz No. Mass (g) (g) (g) (kip) (kip) (kip)
(kip) 495 11.187 0.408 0.382 0.445 11.187 x 0.408 = 11.187 x 0.382 = 11.187 x 0.445=
4.564 4.273 4.978 496 15.482 0.407 0.382 0.431 6.301 5.906 6.676 497 13.449 0.407 0.381 0.423 6.301 5.904 6.556 741 11.69 0.413 0.384 0.452 6.394 5.938 6.999 (4.564+6.301+ (4.273+5.906+ (4.564+6.676+
Weighted Total Forces for El. -26'-4" 6.301+...+ 5.904+...+ 6.556+...+
6.394) = 1604.6 5.938) = 1497.3 6.999) = 1539.5 Total Mass assigned to Floor El. -26'-4" 3940 kip Weighted Average Quasi-static 1604.6 / 3940 = 1497.3 / 3940 = 1539.5 /3940 =
Accelerations for El. -26'-4" (g) 0.407 g 0.380 g 0.391 g Maximum nodal acceleration of Floor El. -
26'-4" 0.413 0.384 0.458 Quasi-static design SSE loads for El. -26'-4" 0.407 x 1.27 = 0.380 x 1.28 = 0.381 x 1.23 =
0.52 g 0.49 g 0.47 g SSE Design Loads on PS/B Elevation (ft) Seismic Quasi-Static Load (g)
ANS AEW AV 49.20 1.30 1.60 1.48 44.04 1.25 1.49 1.41 38.88 0.981 x 1.21 = 1.19 0.931 x 1.5 1.40 0.71 x 2.1 = 1.49 31.21 1.17 1.15 1.01 23.54 1.13 1.07 1.16 16.44 1.04 1.01 0.92 9.35 0.84 0.81 0.90 2.25 0.582 x 1.44 = 0.84 0.528 x 1.3 = 0.69 0.416 x 2.15 = 0.90
-5.33 0.84 0.69 0.68
-10.17 0.82 0.71 0.58
-15.00 0.66 0.62 0.66
-20.67 0.61 0.53 0.49
-26.33 0.407 x 1.27 = 0.52 0.38 x 1.28 = 0.49 0.381 x 1.23 = 0.47
-31.29 0.52 0.49 0.47
-36.25 0.51 0.49 0.46 3.7.2-71
- 3. The bubble plots depict the distribution of the enveloped maximum accelerations that are generated by the seismic response of the building during the entire duration of the earthquake. As such, the plots do not provide information regarding the direction and the phasing of the PS/B response. The quasi-static loads are applied on the detailed FE model such that all floor loads are acting in positive or negative direction which conservatively captures the seismic response of the PS/B. As described in Step b of Item 2 above, the weighted average accelerations were increased to introduce additional design margin. In order to demonstrate that the quasi-static seismic loadings developed and applied on the PS/B as described above are conservative for the structural design of the PS/B, the seismic demands of typical structural members were calculated or extracted from the following three analyses or procedures:
(1) The seismic demands of typical members used for basic design of PS/B were extracted from ANSYS static analyses performed on the detailed FE model of the building by applying quasi-static SSE loads as described above. The demands induced by all three directional earthquakes are combined using SRSS.
(2) Response Spectra Analyses (RSA) using ANSYS are performed on the same FE model as employed by Static Analyses. The 7% damping In-Structure Response Spectra (ISRS) at top of basemat are used as input spectra for the RSA. ISRS are broadened spectra that envelope the responses of eight generic soil profiles at representative locations on the top of the basemat that includes four corners, center and other nodes. The number of modes considered in RSA is determined by the criteria that if the mode number increases, it doesn't significantly affect the total effective mass.
The results of the static analyses and RSA for the ground floor slab and the north exterior wall are depicted as colored contours below in Figures 1 thru 6.
(3) Member forces and moments are extracted from the results of the site-independent SASSI analyses. Figure 8 presents a bubble plot that shows the distribution of moment demands on the ground floor slab. The moment demands are the maximum values of North-South and East-West direction moments. Figure 7 presents a bubble plot of the element stress results for the in-plane shear forces acting on the north exterior wall. The forces/moments as mentioned above envelop the responses obtained from the SSI analyses of the eight generic soil profiles. The element bending moments and shear forces due to the three directional earthquakes are combined using the SRSS rule.
Figures 1 thru 8 indicate that the moments and shear force distributions patterns calculated from the three analyses/procedures are similar or comparable. Table below summarizes the results from all three different types of analyses. The table demonstrates that the static analysis using quasi-static loads based on maximum acceleration results yields the highest design demands for both shear force/stress of north wall and bending moments of ground floor slab. The SASSI results that include the actual multi mode behavior of the building provide the lowest design demands. The total shear force on the north exterior wall obtained from the quasi-static analysis is 7018 kips that is 2.76 times the corresponding shear force results obtained from the SASSI analysis (2540 kips) and 1.26 times the one obtained from the RSA. The moment demand from the quasi-static analysis is 40.8 kip-ft/ft. It is comparable to the one obtained from RSA (38.1 kip-ft/ft) and is 1.54 times the moment demands calculated directly from SASSI.
Stress results directly extracted from the time history SASSI analyses conceptually represent the actual soil structure interaction system responses that include the multi modal behavior.
,The RSA uses ISRS's at top of basemat as input spectra and employs a conservative technique for combining the multi modal responses. Since the results from static analysis envelope the results from SASSI and RSA, it can be concluded that the quasi-static seismic 3.7.2-72
loadings developed and applied on the PS/B as descrbed above are conservative for the structural design of the PS/B.
North Wall SRSS In-Plane Shear Ground Floor Slab SRSS Bending Moments (k-ft/ft)
Force Analysis Max. Shear Total Shear Max. EW Max. NS Direction Direction Max. of Skp/tress Foe F(Averaged**) (Averaged**) (1) and (2) gures (kip/ft) (kips)* (1) (2)
Quasi-Static 68.4 7018 Fig. 2 40.8 37.0 40.8 Figs. 4, Analysis 68.4 7_Fi.2483.00. 6 55.1 5583 Fig. 1 37.2 38.1 38.1 Figs. 3, RSA 5
SASSI 26.9 2540 Fig. 7 26.7 Fig.8
- Sum of Shear Force at Bottom of the Wall
- The higher force around the column is caused by the stress concentration and is not the representing maximum force. The high force along the column line over larger region is the true representing maximum force and is noted in the figures and this table for the comparison.
^G B.AW SUiM CN *&I 11. OSM N2 []C 16 2010 MWO.E (AAq 15:53:14 CKD 02.240 4m no. 511 SRK 265. 146 56.1 k/ft (nvg)
,,.X
-- 51.1 kiit(nv9)
.511 1 16. 541 27.571 38. 601 49.631 11.F026 22.05 33.
I6.066 44.116 146 Figure 1 RSA Results: North Wall In-Plane SRSS Shear Distribution 3.7.2-73
NI2 (^q 16 2010 15:54:18 DA .k03972 SWH N4.757 SKIK 8. 394 i- 68.4kft(Ovg) 4.757 16899 33.04 47.152 61.323
- 4. 757 1 1.
n 11.828 I. M 25 9 9 33.04 25.969 40 1 1 47. 182 40.111 54 25 54.252 61. 3 M2 68.033949 Figure 2 Static Analyses Results: North Wall In-Plane SRSS Shear Distribution M3GR 0m4 SO".E04 11. Owl MI (LE 15:39:40 05K . 007336 S- ,1.748 4i.1666i8m
\\- 372 k-rft (WO 43.1 k-ftA (max. olnm 11715) 1.748 6.14 1 104 16 19.481 26.362 3.7233 15.056 23.9 . 32.7 7 41.6W SRSS HI from Sesl ni e Response Spectra Analysis at Ist Fl oor Figure 3 RSA Results: Ground Floor SRSS Bending Moment (EW Dir.) Distribution 3.7.2-74
AG ZLME SaJA 0N U1 (^Q 15: 4:57 05 014431 1 6 .M-1 40.9 k-ft (WOa 1 49.9 kJftfi(mwxiellem 11378)
- 1. W1 V W.32 18.73 27.549 36.394 5.501 St23.14 Static An~alysis at lit Floor 319cA 40778 SRSS of MI1 from Sel smi c Figure 4 Static Analyses: Ground Floor SRSS Bending Moment (EW Dir.) Distribution AGi/B.BOI S13JA (Nq ANPS*11. 06M WW4.
CEC 16 2010 M12 (,q 15:41:42 ReWp*%*Wti Max M22 38.1 k-W/R (24'g
- i. 17.794 345001 50.3 66.64 9.65 25.937 42.224 5.6511 . 74.79 SRSS 1W2 from Sal s1i c Response Spect ra Anal ysi s at 1st Floor Figure 5 RSA Results: Ground Floor SRSS Bending Moment (NS Dir.) Distribution 3.7.2-75
AMal S1LA (W RNS 11.09M 16 2010 17: 12"38 P 1014431 S 44. 4TO 1.733 11.894 22.055 32.217 42M378 6.813 16.975 27. 136 37.297 47.459 SRSS of N22 from Smisr i c Stati c Anal yses at 1st Floor Figure 6 Static Analysis Results: Ground Floor SRSS Bending Moment (NS Dir.)
Distribution DCDSRSS In-PlA She. Forte (kIpIft)for North Wall 50 S...*
- ... 3P 2P 1Pi iP 40 u
- 0 g9g *
- 00 *
- 0:00:0 *
- 4 30 20 o---- i~ e--.
--- 10
- ~~** ooo0 9* * *0o4oo1** 0
-10
-20
-30 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 lFigure 7 SASSI Results: North Wall SRSS In-Plane Shear Distribution 3.7.2-76
DCD SASSI SRSS Results Ground Floor Slab Moment (k-ft/it) Distribution CP BP AP 6P'60 sP O
.oOOO0 o O **O*
02 0000 0 000 0:0 000 2P_ ~ --------
00 @0 -00 40 30 20 10 0 -It -2 -30 -40 Figure 8 SASSI Results: Ground Floor SRSS Bending Moment Distribution
- 4. The site-independent SSI analyses of R/B complex documented in MUAP-1 0006(RO) were performed on lumped mass stick models. The mass of the R/B structures at each floor elevation is lumped at a single node by assuming that the floor is rigid both in the in-plane and out-of-plane directions. Single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) elements rigidly connected to the floor center of mass were used to model the out of plane vibrations of flexible floor slabs and walls. Based on the rigid floor assumption inherent in the lumped-mass stick modeling technique, the accelerations (ax, ay and Q~ at any floor location defined by coordinates x, y and zf, can be obtained from the ACS SASSI results for the translational accelerations (Ax, Ay and Az) and rotational accelerations (1Pxx, T{yy and M'zz) of the lumped mass node, as follows:
ax =AX +'zz-y a =Ay+/-WZZ.x az=AZ+TPx.y+T-yy~x An ACS SASSI FE model is currently being developed that will be used for site-independent SS1 analyses of R/B complex structures. This model will accurately model the stiffness of the R/B complex and not include the rigid floor assumption. The results for maximum 3.7.2-77
accelerations that will be obtained from the SSI analyses of the ACS SASSI FE model of R/B complex will be plotted in bubble plots using the same approach used for creation of the PS/B bubble plots described in Item 1 of the response to this RAI question. These bubble plots will serve as validation of the results obtained from the SSI analyses of R/B complex lumped mass stick model.
Impact on DCD There is no impact on the DCD.
Impact on COLA There is no impact on the COLA.
Impact on PRA There is no impact on the PRA.
3.7.2-78
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/28/2010 US-APWR Design Certification Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Docket No.52-021 RAI NO.: NO. 660-5134 REVISION 2 SRP SECTION: 03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis APPLICATION SECTION: 3.7.2 DATE OF RAI ISSUE: 11/15/10 QUESTION NO. RAI 03.07.02-65:
This request for additional information (RAI) is necessary for the staff to determine ifthe application meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix S; and 10 CFR Part 100; as well as the guidance in NUREG-0800,
'Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants,' Chapter 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."
MHI's Topical Report, MUAP-08005 (RO), documents the SSI results of a coupled RCLR/B-PCCV-CIS lumped mass stick model. That evaluation was based on four uniform soil conditions using a frequency-independent impedance function approach. In contrast, reports MUAP-10001 (R1) and MUAP-1 0006 (RO) document SASSI analyses of the R/B complex based on a different set of subgrade conditions. In order for the staff to understand and evaluate the basis of the seismic design of the R/B complex, the staff is requesting that the applicant state the role and relevance of MUAP-08005 (RO) in the context of MUAP-10001(Ri) and MUAP-10006 (RO).
Is MUAP-08005 (RO) obsolete in light of MUAP-1 0001 and MUAP-1 0006? If the report is still relevant, identify specific portions and their relevance. Does MHI intend to revise MUAP-08005?
Similarly, the applicant should describe the role of MUAP-08002 in the context of MUAP-10001 (R1) and MUAP-10006 (RO).
ANSWER:
The seismic methodologies described in Technical Reports (TRs) MUAP-08002 and MUAP-08005 are generally superseded by TRs MUAP-10001 and MUAP-10006. The analytical modeling of the PS/B in MUAP-08002 using a three dimensional (3D) lumped mass stick model is entirely superseded by the finite element modeling approach in MUAP-10001. However, the 3D lumped mass stick model described in MUAP-08005 is still applicable as input to the analyses described in MUAP-10001.
The analytical modeling of lumped masses described in MUAP-08005, "Dynamic Analysis of the Coupled RCL-R/B-PCCV-CIS Lumped Mass Stick Model," remains valid only to the extent that it is used as a source of some of the R/B complex stick model properties. Therefore, MUAP-08005 will remain as Reference 3 in MUAP-10001. MUAP-08005 will be revised to clarify this point. It 3.7.2-79
should be noted that MHI's response to the NRC Staffs questions on RAI 212-1950 Question 3.7.2-11 relating to the results of the SSI analysis of the R/B complex is no longer valid since it is based on out-dated analyses. See above first paragraph for additional discussion.
The technical information in MUAP-08002, "Enhanced Information for PS/B Design," has been incorporated into MUAP-10001 Revision 1, as follows. The weight of the PS/B used in the design basis static and dynamic models was compared to the stick model of MUAP-08002, but MUAP-08002 will no longer serve as a design-basis reference in MUAP-10001. The load results from MUAP-10006 will be used instead of the input loading obtained from MUAP-08002. The next revision of MUAP-10001 will remove MUAP-08002 (Reference 26) as a source of section and member properties. Therefore, MUAP-08002 will be superseded in its entirety and Revision 1 to MUAP-08002 will not be issued as previously stated in the response to NRC Question 3.7.2-18 of RAI 212-1950.
Impact on DCD There is no impact on the DCD due to this RAI response. As discussed in the response to question RAI 03.07.02-63 in this RAI, a preliminary markup of DCD Subsection 3.7.2.5 showing changes intended to update the DCD based on information contained in MHI Technical Reports MUAP-1 0001 and MUAP-1 0006 is attached as Attachment 1.
Impact on COLA There is no impact on the COLA.
Impact on PRA There is no impact on the PRA.
3.7.2-80
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/28/2010 US-APWR Design Certification Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Docket No.52-021 RAI NO.: NO. 660-5134 REVISION 2 SRP SECTION: 03.07.02 - Seismic System Analysis APPLICATION SECTION: 3.7.2 DATE OF RAI ISSUE: 11/15/10 QUESTION NO. RAI 03.07.02-68 This request for additional information (RAI) is necessary for the staff to determine if the application meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 2; 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix S; and 10 CFR Part 100; as well as the guidance in NUREG-0800,
'Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants,' Chapter 3.7.2, "Seismic System Analysis."
In support of the DCD, the applicant has provided various supporting Topical Reports and Appendices to the DCD. Appendix 3C to DCD Rev. 0 describes reactor coolant loop analysis methods, Appendix 3H to DCD Rev. 0 describes an uncoupled model of the R/B-PCCV-CIS, Appendix 31 contains ISRS from the uncoupled model described in Appendix 3H, MUAP-08002 (RO) provides results from lumped mass stick models of the PS/Bs, MUAP-08005 (RO) describes the seismic analysis of the coupled RCL-R/BPCCV-CIS model, MUAP-1 0001 (Ri) also describes models of the PS/Bs and a coupled model of the RIB complex, MUAP-10006 (RO) provides additional documentation of SSI results for the PS/Bs and R/B complex.
The staff also understands that new revisions of MUAP-10001 and MUAP-10006 are forthcoming along with reports documenting the seismic analysis of the T/B, A/B, and AC/B.
Because of the number of reports submitted and the evolutionary process of the documentation for the seismic analysis of the Standard Plant, the staff requests that the applicant clearly indicate the documentation strategy for the DCD and supporting topical reports. The applicant should state the role of the various appendices and reports that have been and are expected to be issued in support of the DCD. The applicant should indicate which appendices or reports, if any, are obsolete, which appendices or reports have superseded any obsolete appendices or reports, and which documents contain or will contain the final design values of record that will be used for the US-APWR Standard Plant. It will be helpful if the applicant provides a table showing the relationships between and the roles of the various appendices and reports.
ANSWER:
The table below shows the Seismic Analysis/Design Bases evolution for the Technical Reports, Appendices of the DCD, and a few other seismic analysis/design bases topics from DCD Revision 0 to present, and the future revision of DCD Rev. 3 to be provided in March, 2011. This 3.7.2-81
table shows the purpose of the document, the evolution of the document relative to the DCD revisions, the relationship to other documents, and the roles that each Appendix and Technical Report currently has. Included in this table are Appendices 3C, 3H, and 31 as well as all revisions of Technical Reports MUAP-08002, MUAP-08005, MUAP-10001, MUAP-10006, MUAP-10018 and forthcoming reports including reports for the seismic analysis of the T/B, A/B, and AC/B.
3.7.2-82
Impact on DCD There is no immediate impact on the DCD.
Impact on COLA There is no impact on the COLA.
Impact on PRA There is no impact on the PRA.
This completes MHI's responses to the NRC's questions.
3.7.2-88
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 CV0O 270-200 X-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 2
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2
- 0 oU 1
wJ 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 1(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CVOO for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 CV0O 270-200 Y-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 2
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 4-1 EU I-0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure I(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CVOO for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 CVOO 270-200 Z-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1
0, oU I-U' 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 1(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CVOO for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 CV07 270-200 X-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 9
- DCD ISRS Envelope 8 - - - - 270-200 Surface-Supported
- 270-200 4-Sided Embedment
-270-200 2-Sided Embedment 7 - I-
- 270-200 O-Sided Embedment 6
£ 5
0 4-(U S
S U
U 4 4
3 2
1 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 2(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CV07 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 CV07 270-200 Y-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 10
- DCD ISRS Envelope 9 - -- - 270-200 Surface-Supported
- 270-200 4-Sided Embedment 8 -270-200 2-Sided Embedment
-270-200 0-Sided Embedment 7
6 C
0 4-
.U 5 0,
4 3
2 1
0 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 2(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CV07 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 CV07 270-200 Z-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 4.5
- DCD ISRS Envelope 4- - -- 270-200 Surface-Supported 4 - 2--E I 270-2004-Sided Embedment
- 3. 3 --270-200 270-2002-Sided Embedment 0-Sided Embedment 3
C 2.5 0
4-a' U
U 2 4
1.5 1
0.5 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 2(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CV07 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 IC03 270-200 X-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 2.5
- - - - 270-200 Surface-Supported
- 270-200 4-Sided Embedment 2 -270-200 2-Sided Embedment
-270-200 0-Sided Embedment 1.5 C
.2 o-SD 1
0.5 0 4--
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 3(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC03 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 IC03 270-200 Y-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 2.5
- - -- 270-200 Surface-Supported
- 270-200 4-Sided Embedment 2 - 270-200 2-Sided Embedment
- 270-200 O-Sided Embedment
.L 1.5 0
4-EU a'
a' U
U 1
0.5 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 3(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC03 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 IC03 270-200 Z-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 2
- DCD ISRS Envelope 1.8 -- -. - 270-200 Surface-Supported
- 270-200 4-Sided Embedment 1.6 - 270-200 2-Sided Embedment
- 270-200 O-Sided Embedment 1.4 1.2 0
0ar 1
-a 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 3(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC03 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 IC05 270-200 X-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 4.5
- DCD ISRS Envelope 4 ---- 270-200 Surface-Supported
- 270-200 4-Sided Embedment
- 270-200 2-Sided Embedment 3.5
- 270-200 O-Sided Embedment 3
2.5
. 2 1.5 0.5 0o*
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC05 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 IC05 270-200 Y-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 6
270-200 Surface-Supported
- 270-200 4-Sided Embedment 5
- 270-200 2-Sided Embedment
- 270-200 0-Sided Embedment 4
.2 4..,
3 I-2 1
0 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC05 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 IC05 270-200 Z-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 3.5
- 270-200 Surface-Supported 3 -270-200 4-Sided Embedment
-270-200 2-Sided Embedment
-270-200 0-Sided Embedment 2.5 f 2
4-(U
@1 1.5 1
0.5 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC05 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Vertical (VT) Direction
Attachment I to RAI 660-5134 RE05 270-200 X-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 3.5
-DCD ISRS Envelope
- --- 270-200 Surface-Supported 3 t - 270-200 4-Sided Embedment
- 270-200 2-Sided Embedment
- 270-200 0-Sided Embedment 2.5
' 2 2
4-1.5 1
0.5 o0 -
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 5(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at RE05 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 REOS 270-200 Y-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 4.5 I I
- DCD ISRS Envelope 4 ---- 270-200 Surface-Supported
- 270-200 4-Sided Embedment
-270-200 2-Sided Embedment 3.5 - 270-200 0-Sided Embedment 3
h 2.5 1
1.5 0.5 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 5(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at RE05 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 REOS 270-200 Z-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 6
270-200 Surface-Supported
- 270-200 4-Sided Embedment 5 - 270-200 2-Sided Embedment
-270-200 0-Sided Embedment 4
2 1~
0 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 5(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at RE05 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 FH08 270-200 X-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 14
-DCD ISRS Envelope
-- -- 270-200 Surface-Supported 12 - 270-200 4-Sided Embedment
-270-200 2-Sided Embedment
- 270-200 0-Sided Embedment 10 8
4-
.2
'U a,'
6 4
2 0 I-0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at FH08 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 FHO8 270-200 Y-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 7
-DCD ISRS Envelope
-- - - 270-200 Surface-Supported 6 -,270-200 4-Sided Embedment
-270-200 2-Sided Embedment 270-200 O-Sided Embedment 5
Q4*
SI U
4J<3 IF 0
2 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at FH08 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 FH08 270-200 Z-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 6
270-200 Surface-Supported
- 270-200 4-Sided Embedment 5
-270-200 2-Sided Embedment
- 270-200 O-Sided Embedment 4
0 0.1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at FH08 for the 270-200 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 CVOO 560-100 X-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 2
-DCD ISRS Envelope 1.8
560-100 Surface-Supported
- 560-100 4-Sided Embedment 1.6 -560-100 2-Sided Embedment
-560-100 0-Sided Embedment 1.4 1.2 C
.2 Eu 1 GD GD U
U 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 '--
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 7(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CVO0 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 CV0O 560-100 Y-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 2
- DCD ISRS Envelope 1.8 -... 560-100 Surface-Supported
- 560-100 4-Sided Embedment 1.6 -560-100 2-Sided Embedment
- 560-100 0-Sided Embedment 1.4 1.24-C
.2 4-
'U 1 a,
a, U
U 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 7(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CVOO for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 CV00 560-100 Z-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 1.8
- DCD ISRS Envelope 1.6 - - - - 560-100 Surface-Supported
-560-100 4-Sided Embedment
-560-100 2-Sided Embedment 1.4
-560-100 0-Sided Embedment 1.2 1
24-I..
Z U
ox 0.8 0.6 -i 0.4 0.2 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 7(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CVOO for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction
Attachment I to RAI 660-5134 CV07 560-100 X-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 9
-DCD ISRS Envelope 8 - -- - 560-100 Surface-Supported
-560-100 4-Sided Embedment
-- 560-100 2-Sided Embedment 7
-560-100 0-Sided Embedment 6
5 0
4-S S
U U
4 3
2 1
0 )10 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 8(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CV07 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction
Attachment I to RAI 660-5134 CV07 560-100 Y-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 10
- DCD ISRS Envelope 9 4 -- - - 560-100 Surface-Supported
- 560-100 4-Sided Embedment 8 4 - 560-100 2-Sided Embedment
- 560-100 O-Sided Embedment 7
0 4-
'U 5' a'
S U
U 4
4 3
2 1
0 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 8(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CV07 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 CV07 560-100 Z-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 4.5 -
-- -- 560-100 Surface-Supported 4
- 560-100 4-Sided Embedment
-560-100 2-Sided Embedment 3.5 - - 560-100 0-Sided Embedment C
2.5 +-
0 a,
GD U
U 2 1.5 i it-0.5 -
0 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 8(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at CV07 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 IC03 560-100 X-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 2.5
- - - - 560-100 Surface-Supported
-560-100 4-Sided Embedment 2 - 560-100 2-Sided Embedment
-560-100 0-Sided Embedment 1.5 C
0-oU a'
,i1 UJ UJ 1
0.5 0 F-0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 9(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC03 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 IC03 560-100 Y-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 2.5
- - - - 560-100 Surface-Supported
- 560-100 4-Sided Embedment 2 -560-100 2-Sided Embedment
- 560-100 O-Sided Embedment 1.5 C
0 4-
'U U'
U' Li U
1 0.5 0
0.1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 9(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC03 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 IC03 560-100 Z-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 2
560-100 Surface-Supported
-560-100 4-Sided Embedment 1.6 -560-100 2-Sided Embedment
-560-100 0-Sided Embedment 1.4 1.2 L0 1
QJ 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 9(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC03 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 IC05 560-100 X-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 4.5
- DCD ISRS Envelope 4 - - - - 560-100 Surface-Supported
- 560-100 4-Sided Embedment
-560-100 2-Sided Embedment 3.5
- 560-100 0-Sided Embedment L,
C 2.5 +-
U 4C 0I UJ UJ 2-1.5 1
0.5 0.10 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 10(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC05 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 IC05 560-100 Y-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 6
- 560-100 Surface-Supported 5 - 560-100 4-Sided Embedment
-560-100 2-Sided Embedment
-560-100 O-Sided Embedment 4
0 I,
3 0Im V
2 1
0 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 10(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC05 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction
Attachment I to RAI 660-5134 ICOS 560-100 Z-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 3.5
-DCD ISRS Envelope
-- - - 560-100 Surface-Supported 3 -- 560-100 4-Sided Embedment
-- 560-100 2-Sided Embedment
-560-100 O-Sided Embedment 2.5 2
0.5 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 10(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at IC05 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 RE05 560-100 X-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 3.5 -
- --- 560-100 Surface-Supported 3 -i- -560-100 4-Sided Embedment
-560-100 2-Sided Embedment
-560-100 O-Sided Embedment 2.5 -
2 _-f.
GAI 0J Eu 1.5 -+
1 &_
0.5 0 -ITT 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 11 (a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at RE05 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 REOS 560-100 Y-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 4.5 V
- DCD ISRS Envelope 4 ---- 560-100 Surface-Supported
-560-100 4-Sided Embedment
-560-100 2-Sided Embedment 3.5
- 560-100 0-Sided Embedment 3
2.5 2
- 1..5 0.5 0
0.1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 11 (b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at RE05 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 RE05 560-100 Z-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 6
- -- - 560-100 Surface-Supported
- 560-100 4-Sided Embedment 5
-560-100 2-Sided Embedment
-560-100 0-Sided Embedment 4
0 o
Z-a, V
Ug U.
4.
1 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 11(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at RE05 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 FHO8 560-100 X-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 14
560-100 Surface-Supported 12
-560-100 4-Sided Embedment
-560-100 2-Sided Embedment
-560-100 O-Sided Embedment 10 8
T 4
6 (U
2 0 _--
0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 12(a) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at FHO8 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal X (H1) Direction
Attachment I to RAI 660-5134 FHO8 560-100 Y-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 7
-DCD ISRS Envelope
560-100 Surface-Supported 6 -560-100 4-Sided Embedment
-560-100 2-Sided Embedment
-560-100 0-Sided Embedment 5
4-O Smo U
U 2
0 0.1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 12(b) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at FHO8 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Horizontal Y (H2) Direction
Attachment 1 to RAI 660-5134 FHO8 560-100 Z-DIRECTION ARS COMPARISON 6
- - -- 560-100 Surface-Supported
- 560-100 4-Sided Embedment S +-
- 560-100 2-Sided Embedment
-560-100 O-Sided Embedment 4
C 0
4-(U 0I 3- 4-
.5 U
U 4
2 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 12(c) Comparison of 5%-Damped ISRS for the Seismic Response Motion at FH08 for the 560-100 Generic Site Profile - Vertical Z (VT) Direction
- 3. DESIGN OF STRUCTURES, US-APWR Design CoI ATTACHMENT 2 SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS, AND EQUIPMENT/ to RAI 660-5134
" The basemats are much stiffer than the supporting subgrade
" The SSI impedance functions remain relatively constant in the range of frequencies important for the design
" The consideration of basemat embedment yields conservative results In accordance with SRP 3.7.2 (Reference 3.7-16), Section 11.4, fixed base response analysis can be performed if the basemats are supported by subgrades having a shear wave velocity of 8,000 ft/s or higher, under the entire surface of the foundation.
3.7.2.5 Development of Floor Response Spectra ISRS for the PS/Bs and RCL-R/B-PCCV-containment internal structure are developed from the results of the site-independent seismic analyses of the seismic models described in Subsection 3.7.2.3 by applying methods described in Subsection 3.7.2.1, and capturing SSI effects as described in Subsection 3.7.2.4, using generic soil profiles described in Subsection 3.7.1.3. The statistically independent time histories developed from the CSDRS as described in Subsection 3.7.1.1 serve as input control motion in the analysis. Note that the dynamic properties of the stick model portions of the RIB complex seismic model presented in Technical Report MUAP-08005 (Reference 3.7-18) are modified to account for the effects of cracking for accuracy in the seismic design and development of the ISRS. The ISRS are derived from the calculated responses at locations and elevations where maior seismic category I and II SSCs are located. ISRS for the major 16eis;mir. categoFr
. I *structure... a49s W4ll as design spectra fo "theRCL system are developed from the restults f the site independett s canalysis f*the coupled RCl RiB P, V opndtailynment inteoral struure lumped mass stick modelode sriede ine Tecircntral Report MuiAP 08005 (Refenreonce 37-18) by usirg direct integration time history analysis metphod as desFribed in Subsetion 3.7.2.1, and by capturing SSI effectsi forF all four genpe-ric soil coniton asdsusen Subsectionn 37:2.1. The statis tic ally independent tome histories developed from the ISDRS as described in Subseation 3.7.1.1 setve as input contro motion for the analysis. The dynamic prpenties of the stiik modelsi are d n detail aiscnusd Oi Appendix 3H for the RIB PC3)oIntaent inte sdtrureapnd the eastannd yest PSBic. Tha ISRS aredesR ifved from the calculated eponside eof the RBrsPytVm mtainment internal stucsytue and PSBsr lumped mass stick modePls- -atloaiosand-elevations where major seis6mic-coategor,' I and 11S-S-s are In developing the ISRS, the effects of floor slab system out-of-plane flexibility are considered by investigating floor slab systems (using local FE models or other means of analysis), independently from the overall lumped mass stick model in order to determine their natural frequencies. Depending on the results, the floor slab systems may then be analyzed as simple single DOE vertical oscillators to determine maximum accelerations (ZPA values) to be used for development of the ISRS for the respective floor locations.
The concrete cracking of slabs is considered in the development of the single DOF models, in accordance with ACI 349-01 (Reference 3.7-31). If the results of the independent modal analyses indicate that higher modes of vibration have to be considered, the floor systems may also be analyzed as subsystems, as described further in Subsection 3.7.3.1. The local analyses of floor slab systems with respect to out-of-plane flexibility and effects on the ISRS are addressed in Technical Reports MUAP-10001 and MUAP-1 0006 (References 3.7-47 and 3.7-48).The local analyses, of floor slab Tier 2 3.7-32 Revision 233
- 3. DESIGN OF STRUCTURES, US-APWR Design Contr( ATTACHMENT 2 SYSTEMS, COMPONENTS, AND EQUIPMENT to RAI 660-5134
.y.tems With re*p..t to out of plane flexibility and effects on the ISRS are. addressed as part of a later Technical Report.
The SSE ISRS for seismic category I buildings and structures of the US-APWR standard plant are developed directly from the results of the site independent seismic analysis. As previously explained in Subsection 3.7.1.1, since the OBE ground motion is limited to a maximum of 1/3 times the CSDRS, explicit design and analysis for OBE is not required, as permitted by 10 CFR 50 Appendix S (Reference 3.7-7). Therefore, separate OBE ISRS are not developed for design and analysis of US-APWR standard plant systems and subsystems.
In the case where seismic qualification by testing is performed in accordance with IEEE Std 344-1987 (Reference 3.7-25), test response spectra which replicate the OBE response spectra are not required since the OBE condition is no longer used as a design basis. The US-APWR program for seismic and dynamic qualification of mechanical and electrical equipment is discussed in Section 3.10.
The ISRS are developed for damping values equal to 0.5%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 7%, 10%,
20% of critical damping and for variable damping where permitted by ASME Code Case N411-1, as discussed in RG 1.61 (Reference 3.7-15). The ISRS envelope the spectra obtained from the site-independent analyses for all generic subarade conditions described in Subsection 3.7.1.3. ISRS developed from the site-independent seismic analyses of the RIB complex and PS/Bs are used for design. ISRS developed at 5%
critical damping, which are presented in Technical Report MUAP-10006 (Reference 3.7-
- 48) and referenced in Appendix 31 are used to validate the standard plant ISRS by comparison to site-specific ISRS that are also developed at 5% critical damping. The process for developing enveloped ISRS is described in detail in Section 3.5 of Technical Report MUAP-10006 and is summarized as follows: The ISRS envelope the spectra obtained from the site independent analyses for all four of the different 9eneric subarade conditions. Figure 3.7.2 11 outlines; the development of the enveloped design ISRS, for Which Figure 3.7.2 12 pro"vide-s-, - an example of a design ISRS. DesIignISRS for RIB1 CC containment interna..~l strucur..e are previded in Appendix 31. The process for developing enveloped ISRS is-as fo-llon-"s
" The response spectra are generated for the three components of earthquake by SRSS, following the general guidance of RG 1.122 (Reference 3.7-26) for frequencies up to 100 Hz.
- The maximum spectral acceleration at each frequency obtained from the seismic analysis of any general subgrade conditions is selected for the envelope.
" The enveloped ISRS are smoothed and broadened by +/-15%. The valleys in the enveloped ISRS are filled when necessary to capture potential shifts in the seismic response caused by soil properties that are different from, but bounded by, the generic soil conditions of the standard plant. The valleYs in the enveloped ISRS are filled-Wh- nec.*e to capture potential shift* i*n the seismic respon.se.
.ry caused bysoil propertfies thait are different fromF,hbuthbounded by, the four genPeric soil6 co-nPdition of the standard plant. Alternatively in some locations, the peak shifting method described in Subsection 3.7.3.1 can be used instead of the broadened response spectra method.
Tier 2 3.7-33 Revision 23