ML11145A035

Final Safety Analysis Report Update, 3.7 Seismic Design Through Figure 3.7-29, Derivation of Design Response Spectra for a Typical Piping System

ML11145A035
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	05/31/2010
From:	NRC/OIS/IRSD/RFSB
To:
References
FOIA/PA-2011-0187
Download: ML11145A035 (167)

Text

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 3.7 SEISMIC DESIGN 3.7.1 SEISMIC INPUT This section describes the DE, the DDE, and the postulated 7.5M HE.

In addition to the above three earthquakes, PG&E conducted, as described below, a program to reevaluate the seismic design for DCPP. On November 2, 1984, the NRC issued the DCPP Unit 1 Facility Operating License DPR-80. In License Condition 2.C(7) of DPR-80, the NRC stated, in part: "PG&E shall develop and implement a program to reevaluate the seismic design bases used for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant."

PG&E's reevaluation effort in response to the license condition was titled the "Long Term Seismic Program" (LTSP). PG&E prepared and submitted to the NRC the "Final Report of the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic Program" in July 1988 (Reference 19).

The NRC reviewed the Final Report between 1988 and 1991, and PG&E prepared and submitted written responses to NRC questions resulting from that review. In February 1991, PG&E issued the "Addendum to the 1988 Final Report of the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic Program." (Reference 20) In June 1991, the NRC issued Supplement 34 to the Diablo Canyon Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) (Reference 21), in which the NRC concluded that PG&E had satisfied License Condition 2.C(7) of DPR-80. In the SSER the NRC requested certain confirmatory analyses from PG&E, and PG&E subsequently submitted the requested analyses. The NRC's final acceptance of the LTSP is documented in a letter to PG&E dated April 17, 1992 (Reference 22).

The LTSP contains extensive databases and analyses that update the basic geologic and seismic information in this FSAR Update. However, the LTSP material does not alter the design bases for DCPP. In SSER 34 (Reference 21), the NRC states, "The Staff notes that the seismic qualification basis for Diablo Canyon will continue to be the original design basis plus the Hosgri evaluation basis, along with associated analytical methods, initial conditions, etc."

PG&E committed to the NRC in a letter dated July 16, 1991 (Reference 23), that certain future plant additions and modifications, as identified in that letter, would be checked against insights and knowledge gained from the LTSP to verify that the plant margins remain acceptable.

A completed listing of bibliographic references to the LTSP reports and other documents are provided in References 19, 20, and 21.

3.7.1.1 Design Response Spectra Section 2.5.2 provides a discussion of the earthquakes postulated for the DCPP site and the effects of these earthquakes in terms of maximum free-field ground motion accelerations and corresponding response spectra at the plant site. The maximum 3.7-1 Revision 19 May 2010 L1b1

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE vibratory accelerations at the plant site would result from either Earthquake B or Earthquake D-modified, depending on the natural period of the vibrating body.

Response acceleration spectra curves for horizontal free-field ground motion at the plant site from Earthquake B, Earthquake D-modified, and HE are presented in Figures 2.5-20, 2.5-21, and 2.5-29 through 32, respectively.

For design purposes, the response spectra for each damping value from Earthquake B and Earthquake D-modified are combined to produce an envelope spectrum. The acceleration value for any period on the envelope spectrum is equal to the larger of the two values from the Earthquake B spectrum and the Earthquake D-modified spectrum.

Vertical free field ground accelerations, and the vertical free-field ground motion response spectra are assumed to be two-thirds of the corresponding horizontal spectra.

The DE is the hypothetical earthquake that would produce these horizontal and vertical vibratory accelerations. The DE corresponds to the operating basis earthquake (OBE),

as described in Appendix A to 10 CFR 100 (Reference 7).

To ensure adequate reserve energy capacity, Design Class I structures and equipment are reviewed for the DDE. The DDE is the hypothetical earthquake that would produce accelerations twice those of the DE. The DDE corresponds to the SSE, as described in Appendix A to 10 CFR 100 (Reference 7).

PG&E was requested by the NRC to evaluate the plant's capability to withstand a postulated Richter magnitude 7.5 earthquake centered along an offshore zone of geologic faulting, generally referred to as the Hosgri Fault. This evaluation is discussed in the various chapters when it is specifically referred to as the Hosgri evaluation or Hosgri event evaluation.

Acceleration response spectra curves for horizontal and vertical free field ground motion at the plant site from the HE are the Newmark and Blume spectra described in Section 2.5. The vertical free field response spectra are two-thirds of the corresponding horizontal spectra.

3.7.1.2 Design Response Spectra Derivation The free-field ground motion acceleration time-histories used in the dynamic analyses of the containment structure, auxiliary building, turbine building, and intake structure are developed by the following procedure: The response spectra for 2 percent damping for Earthquake B and Earthquake D-modified are enveloped to produce a single response spectrum (DE intensity). A time-history is then developed that produces a spectrum with no significant deviation from the smooth DE-envelope spectrum. This procedure eliminates undesirable peaks and valleys that exist in the response spectrum calculated directly from Earthquake B and Earthquake D-modified records.

A similar procedure is used to obtain a free-field ground motion acceleration time-history for the DDE. The free-field ground motion acceleration time-histories for the DE and 3.7-2 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE DDE are shown in Figures 3.7-1 and 3.7-2, respectively. Comparison of the response spectrum computed from the time-history with the smoothed envelope spectrum is shown in Figure 3.7-3 (2 percent damping) and in Figure 3.7-4 (5 percent damping).

These spectra are calculated at period intervals of 0.01 seconds, which adequately define the spectra.

For the HE evaluation of containment structure, auxiliary building, turbine building, and intake structure, the horizontal input motions are reduced from free-field motions to account for the presence of the structures that have large foundations. These reduced inputs have been derived by spatial averaging of acceleration across the foundations of each structure by the Tau filtering procedure (Reference 12). The resulting horizontal response spectra for these structures are shown in Figures 3.7-4A through 3.7-4F.

For HE evaluation of outdoor water storage tanks and smaller structures, the horizontal design response spectra are the free-field horizontal response spectra. HE vertical design response spectra are the free-field vertical response spectra. For design purposes, the Newmark spectra are used, or alternately the Blume spectra are used, with adjustment in certain frequency ranges as necessary so that they do not fall below the corresponding Newmark spectra.

Acceleration time-histories used in the analysis of the containment and intake structures, auxiliary building, and turbine building are shown in Figures 3.7-4G through 3.7-4M. Comparison of the response spectrum computed from each time-history with the corresponding design response spectrum for 7 percent damping is shown in Figures 3.7-4N through 3.7-4T.

3.7.1.3 Critical Damping Values The specific percentages of critical damping used for Design Class I SSCs, and the Design Class II turbine building and intake structure are listed in the following table:

Type of Structure

% of Critical Damping DE DDE HE Containment structures and all internal concrete structures 2.0 5.0 7.0 Other conventionally reinforced concrete structures above ground, such as shear walls or rigid frames 5.0 5.0 7.0 Welded structural steel assemblies 1.0 1.0 4.0 Bolted or riveted steel assemblies 2.0 2.0 7.0 Mechanical components (PG&E purchased) 2.0 2.0 4.0 Vital piping systems (except reactor coolant loop)(a) 0.5 0.5 3.0 (b) 3.7-3 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Type of Structure

% of Critical Dampincq DE DDE HE Reactor coolant loop(a)(c) 1.0 1.0 4.0 Replacement Steam Generators(M 2.0 4.0 4.0 Integrated Head Assembly 4.0 6.8 5 (g) 6.8 5 (g)

CRDMs (Unit 2 )(5) 3.0 4.0 4.0 Foundation rocking (containment structure only)(d) 5.0 5.0 NA(e)

(a) ASME Code Case N-411 damping may be used provided it is applied to all earthquake cases and used in response spectrum modal superposition analysis. When used, pipe displacements are checked for adequacy of clearances and pipe mounted equipment accelerations are verified against project qualification criteria.

For equipment and components modeled inline, damping should be consistent with RG 1.61; a composite damping value may be used for the analysis of these piping systems.

A log of calculations is kept that indicates which calculations have used Code Case N-411 damping.

Request for NRC approval for the use of ASME Code Case N-411 was made in letter DCL-86-009, dated January 22, 1986. NRC approval was granted by letter on April 7, 1986 (b) Two percent of critical damping is used for piping less than or equal to 12 inches in diameter.

(c) Although a damping value of 1 percent is used for the DE and DDE analyses of the reactor coolant loop (RCL), damping values of greater than 4 percent have been measured experimentally for the RCL in full-size power plants (Reference 8). These testing programs have been reviewed and approved by the NRC. The damping values recommended in RG 1.61 are acceptable for use in analysis of mechanical equipment and systems. (References 24-26)

(d) Five percent of critical damping is used for structures founded on rock for the purpose of computing the response in the rocking mode, and 7 percent of critical damping is used for the purpose of computing the response in the translation mode.

(e) Analysis utilizes fixed base.

(f) These values are valid for replacement steam generator (RSG) internals and shell components up to the RSG nozzle to pipe/tube connections in the RCS, MS, and FW systems and the interface between the RSG shell and upper and lower lateral and lower vertical supports. The restrictions imposed by WCAP 7921-AR (Reference 8) shall be observed when applying these values. (Reference 27) 3.7-4 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE (g) Damping values for the IHA are based on Regulatory Guide 1.61, Revision 1, Tables 1 and 2, using a weighted average for "Welded Steel or Bolted Steel with Friction Connections" and "Bolted Steel with Bearing Connections". See PG&E Document 6023227-19 (Reference 30) for computation of weighted average value.

(h) Damping values for the Unit 2 CRDMs are based on Regulatory Guide 1.61, Revision 1, Table 3 (Reference 31).

3.7.1.4 Bases for Site-Dependent Analysis Site conditions used to develop the shape of site seismic design response spectra are described in Section 2.5.2.

3.7.1.5 Soil-Supported Design Class I Structures All Design Class I plant structures are founded on rock or on concrete fill.

3.7.1.6 Soil-Structure Interaction Soil-structure interaction effects are considered as described in Section 3.7.2.1.7.

3.7.1.7 Hosgri Evaluation The criteria and methods used to review the major structures for response to the postulated 7.5M HE are discussed in this chapter. A comparison of the DE and the DDE criteria with the HE evaluation criteria is given in Table 3.7-1 for the containment and auxiliary building, Tables 3.7-1A for the turbine building, 3.7-1 B for the intake structure, and 3.7-1C for the outdoor water storage tanks, respectively.

3.7.2 SEISMIC SYSTEM ANALYSIS In accordance with Revision 1 to RG 1.70, paragraphs under the headings below Seismic Analysis Methods and Description of Seismic Analyses, apply to all seismic analysis performed, i.e., both seismic system analysis and seismic subsystem analysis.

Paragraphs under subsequent headings in this section provide discussion of specific topics applicable to seismic system analysis. Discussion of specific topics applicable to seismic subsystem analysis is provided in Section 3.7.3. The seismic analysis of Design Class I SSCs is based on input motions of the DE, DDE, and HE described in Section 3.7.1.

3.7.2.1 Seismic Analysis Methods Four dynamic methods of seismic analysis are used for Design Class I SSCs:

time-history modal superposition, response spectrum modal superposition, response spectrum single-degree-of-freedom, and the method for rigid equipment and piping.

The concept of modal analysis and each of the four methods of seismic analysis are discussed in subsequent paragraphs.

3.7-5 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 3.7.2.1.1 Modal Analysis The structure, system, or component is represented as a mathematical model that is in the form of lumped masses interconnected by springs or finite elements. The mathematical model typically has one, two, or three degrees of freedom for each lumped mass or node point, but could have as many as six degrees of freedom for each lumped mass or node point.

Each multiple-degree-of-freedom (multidegree) system has the same number of normal modes as it has degrees of freedom. The characteristics of a normal mode of vibration is that, under certain conditions, the multidegree system could vibrate freely in that mode alone, and during such vibration the ratio of displacements of any two masses is constant with time. These ratios define the characteristic shape of the mode. For any vibration of the multidegree system, the motion in any of the individual normal modes can be treated as an independent single-degree-of-freedom system, and the complete motion of the multidegree system can be obtained by superimposing the independent motions of the individual modes.

The natural frequencies and characteristic shapes are determined by solution of the equations of motions for free vibrations.

3.7.2.1.2 Time-History Modal Superposition The time-history of response in each mode is determined from the acceleration time-history input by integration of the equations of motion. The modal responses are combined by algebraic sum to produce an accurate summation at each step.

3.7.2.1.3 Response Spectrum Modal Superposition The response spectrum is a plot, for all periods of vibration, of the maximum acceleration experienced by a single-degree-of-freedom vibrating body during a particular earthquake. The response spectrum modal superposition method of analysis applies to multidegree systems and is based on the concept of modal analysis. The modal equation of motion for a multidegree system is analogous to the equation of motion for a single degree of freedom. The maximum response in each mode is calculated, and modal responses (displacements, accelerations, shears, moments, etc.)

are combined by the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method.

3.7.2.1.4 Response Spectrum, Single-Degree-of-Freedom Many components can be accurately represented by a single-degree-of-freedom mathematical model. The response spectrum method of analysis is applicable and the concept of modal analysis is not required.

3.7-6 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 3.7.2.1.5 Static Equivalent Method When it can be shown that a sub-system is rigid, a static analysis may be performed.

The zero period acceleration obtained from the applicable response spectra curve may be used in static calculations.

3.7.2.1.6 Application All Design Class I structures, components, systems, and piping are designed by time-history modal superposition, response spectrum modal superposition, response spectrum single-degree-of-freedom, or the method for rigid equipment and piping, except the following:

(1)

Mechanical equipment whose seismic adequacy is verified by testing as described in Section 3.9 (2)

Electrical and instrumentation equipment whose seismic adequacy is verified as described in Section 3.10 (3)

Certain Design Class I piping less than 2-1/2 inches in diameter that is restrained according to criteria described in Section 3.7.2.1.7.4 3.7.2.1.7 Description of Seismic Analyses 3.7.2.1.7.1 Design Class I Structures Dynamic analyses by the time-history modal superposition method were performed for the containment structure and the auxiliary building. Acceleration time-histories were obtained at specific points in the structures, and response spectra were calculated from these. In order to provide for possible variations in the parameters used in the dynamic analyses, such as mass values, material properties, and material sections, the calculated spectra were modified. For DE and DDE analyses, it is estimated that the calculated period of the structure could vary by approximately 10 percent, and to account for this the peaks of the spectra were correspondi ngly widened. Similarly, for HE analyses, peaks of the spectra are widened 5 percent on the low period side and 15 percent on the high period side. The modified spectra, known as "smooth spectra,"

are used in the design of Design Class I equipment and piping located in the containment structure and auxiliary building.

A detailed analytical static model of the auxiliary building was used to distribute the seismic inertial forces and moments to various walls, diaphragms, and columns, as described in Section 3.8.2.4. Refer to Section 4.2.2 of Reference 28 for impacts from the cask pit spent fuel storage rack.

Allowable stresses for Design Class I structures are presented in Section 3.8.

3.7-7 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Containment Structure Model (1)

DE and DDE events The containment structure calculations relative to responses to DE and DDE events are performed with a computer program for analysis of axisymmetric structures by the finite element method. The foundation rock mass and the containment structure are modeled as one structure system to consider the effect of rock-structure interaction, as shown in Figure 3.7-5. The boundary dimensions of the model are selected such that they do not have a significant effect on the response of the structure.

The exterior shell and internal structure are modeled using shell elements with four degrees of freedom at each nodal point. There are a total of 156 nodal points and 140 elements in the model. The weight of mechanical equipment in the structure is included in the calculation of equivalent mass density for the structure elements. Values of elastic constants for the rock mass and their variation with depth are based on field measurements made at the plant site (see Section 2.5).

To substantiate that the coupling effect is small at the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) elevation, two floor response spectra were generated for a decoupled interior concrete structure model and a coupled RPV and the interior concrete structure model, respectively. The RPV model is a simplified one-degree-of-freedom system, with its natural frequency matching the fundamental mode of the DCPP vessel. The RPV model is attached to Node 2 of the interior concrete structure model at the vessel support elevation by the spring of the vessel model.

Floor response spectra for the decoupled and the coupled models were very similar, indicating that the coupling effect at this low elevation is very small. More importantly, the response spectra magnitude of the decoupled model is consistently higher than the coupled model between 0.05 to 0.40 seconds, and is equal at all other natural periods. This shows that, indeed, the decoupled model is more conservative.

(2)

Hosgri event The dynamic analysis for HE is performed for exterior shell, interior concrete structures, and the annulus steel structure. The description of these structural components is given in Section 3.8.1.

The elements used in the analysis of exterior shell consist of annular rings of shell elements as shown in Figure 3.7-5A. The model consists of 27 nodal points and 26 elements. A typical shell element has four degrees-of-freedom as shown in Figure 3.7-7. The axisymmetric model is used to compute the translational response of the structure due to the horizontal and vertical ground motion. Since the center of mass and the 3.7-8 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE center of rigidity coincide, the translational analysis does not yield any torsional response. The torsional responses are obtained from separate lumped mass models as shown in Figure 3.7-5B. These lumped mass models account for 5 percent and 7 percent accidental eccentricities. The responses from axisymmetric model and the lumped mass models are combined by absolute sum for 5 percent eccentricity and by SRSS for 7 percent eccentricity.

The dynamic analysis of containment internal structure is divided into two parts: concrete interior structure and annulus steel structure.

(a)

Concrete interior structure mainly comprised of reactor cavity walls and crane wall is represented by an axisymmetric model as shown in Figure 3.7-5A. The model as shown in Figure 3.7-5A contains 22 nodal points and 22 elements. Because the center of mass and the center of rigidity coincide, the analysis does not yield torsional modes. Therefore, a separate lumped mass model, as shown in Figure 3.7-5C, is used to consider torsional response.

Figure 3.7-5D is used to compute vertical responses of the concrete interior structures due to the HE. The lumped mass stick with model points 1, 7, 18, 29, and 40 represent the concrete walls.

The annulus steel is modeled by five frames located along the circumference as shown. This model was developed at an early stage of the project to estimate vertical responses of both annulus steel and concrete structures from the HE. However, subsequently detailed models were developed for the annulus steel as described later and the model of Figure 3.7-5D is used for the vertical analysis of the concrete interior structures only.

The models of Figures 3.7-5A, 3.7-5C, and 3.7-5D represent concrete interiors up to elevation 140 feet which is the operating floor of the containment. The secondary shield walls housing the steam generators do extend above elevation 140 feet; however, the mass of these walls above elevation 140 feet is small compared to the total concrete mass and, therefore, lumping the mass at elevation 140 feet of the walls that extend above elevation 140 feet has little effect on the dynamic behavior of concrete internals below elevation 140 feet.

(b)

Several models are developed for the vertical dynamic analysis of annulus steel. Each model represents a steel frame with a column at the outside perimeter, crane wall at the inside perimeter, and the radial beam. Figure 3.7-5E represents a typical model.

3.7-9 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE The horizontal responses of the annulus steel are considered to be the same as the concrete interior structures as computed from model of Figure 3.7-5A. This consideration is supported by:

The study results showing that the amplification above 20 Hz for the annulus steel is negligible; and The modal analysis of steel frames shows that the first mode of vibration, which is the predominant mode, is approximately 20 Hz.

(3)

Input boundary motions In the seismic analysis of the finite element model, for DE and DDE, the motions at the boundary of the rock mass are required as input. These boundary motions are derived using procedures described in the following steps:

(a)

The finite element model of the rock mass only (without the structure) is subjected to a unit impulse acceleration acting at the rock mass boundaries. As a result, the acceleration time-history (impulse response that reflects the rock mass properties) is obtained at the center nodal point on the surface of the rock mass.

(b)

The impulse response function, together with the desired free-field ground motion, is used as input to a deconvolution program. The required boundary motion is obtained as the output. This boundary motion, when used as input to the nodes along the horizontal and vertical boundaries of the rock mass model, produces a time-history at the center nodal point on the surface of the model that is equivalent to the free-field motion. To check the accuracy of the derived boundary motion, the rock mass without the structure is analyzed using this motion as input, and the computed free-field ground motion at the center nodal point on the surface of the rock mass is obtained. The computed free-field spectrum is calculated for this surface motion and compared with the DE-or DDE-smoothed spectrum. Due to approximations involved in the analytical methods used to derive the boundary motions, the computer spectra show slight deviations from the desired smoothed spectra. To account for these deviations, the structural response results are then conservatively scaled upward by appropriate correction factors.

The boundary motions derived from the procedure described above are used to complete the analysis of the containment structure.

3.7-10 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE For the HE, the analytical models are considered fixed as shown in Figures 3.7-5A, 3.7-5B, 3.7-5C, and 3.7-5D. The analysis is performed using the input motions as specified in Section 3.7.1.2.

Containment Polar Crane The polar crane as described in Sections 9.1.4 and 3.8.1 is an overhead gantry crane, supported by the crane wall inside the containment.

A nonlinear time-history analysis is performed for the crane to consider the possibility of wheel uplift and/or slack in the hook cable. The crane structure model is shown in Figure 3.7-7A. Structural members are represented as beam elements; wheel assemblies as nonlinear gap elements with compression stiffness only, and a hook cable is represented as a truss element with no compression capability. A step-by-step integration procedure is employed to determine the response. The time-step for integration is 0.005 sec. Seismic input is provided by simultaneous, independent time-histories in three directions (two horizontal and one vertical). These time-histories are developed at the top of the crane wall from the dynamic analysis described in Section 3.7.2.1.7.1 above.

Pipeway Structure To obtain seismic responses in the pipeway structure, a combined model is used consisting of containment exterior shell, pipeway-framing members, and the mainsteam and feedwater piping which are supported by the framing members. The three-dimensional pipeway structure model consists of steel platforms supported on structural steel columns, containment shell and auxiliary and turbine buildings. This structure is represented in the model by beam elements (approximately 900).

Oversized holes are provided to support pipeway structure beams on the auxiliary and turbine buildings. Accordingly, the model is decoupled from auxiliary and turbine buildings in the horizontal direction. The horizontal coupling between pipeway framing model and containment model is achieved by rigid links. The main steam and feedwater lines are included in the model since they represent significant masses for the pipeway structure.

The combined containment-pipeway structure model was excited by acceleration time-history at the containment base.

(1)

DE and DDE events Equivalent static analyses of the pipeway structure are performed for the DE and DDE events as described in Section 3.8.6. The adequacy of these analyses is confirmed by a time-history dynamic analysis.

3.7-11 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE (2)

Hosgri event The response spectra are generated using the time-history dynamic analysis method. The effect of accidental torsion is included as discussed for the containment structure model in Section 3.7.2.1.7.1. These response spectra are used for qualification of equipment and components.

The structural qualification is performed using the response spectrum dynamic modal superposition method for the Unit 1 pipeway structure and using the equivalent static method for the Unit 2 pipeway structure.

Auxiliary Building The dynamic time-history analysis of the auxiliary building is performed with a computer program for analysis of a spring and lumped mass model. Two horizontal models and a vertical model, shown in Figure 3.7-13, are used. Each model is fixed at the base (elevation 85 feet). Each horizontal model consists of five lumped masses with two degrees of freedom at each mass point, one translational degree of freedom in the horizontal direction, and one rotational degree of freedom about the vertical axis. The vertical model for HE evaluation consists of five lumped masses with one translational degree of freedom in the vertical direction at each mass point.

The masses are represented as the mass of the slab plus one-half of the walls immediately above and below the slab, with an appropriate live load on each floor to account for the effect of small pieces of equipment, concrete pads for equipment, tanks, pumps, and incidental. weight not otherwise considered. Weights of cranes, storage tanks, and other large pieces of equipment are included at the appropriate mass points.

Location of the centers of masses and rigidities are calculated to consider torsional modes of vibration. Mass moments of inertia and torsional rigidities are calculated by conventional structural analysis methods.

The soil at elevation 100 feet is represented by soil springs as shown in Figure 3.7-13.

The stiffnesses of these foundation springs are derived by considering the case of a rigid plate on a semi-infinite elastic half-space with a horizontal surface (References 2, 3, and 4). The auxiliary building is a broad-based and comparatively low-rise structure, and therefore rocking is insignificant.

For HE evaluation, dynamic time-history analysis of flexible floor slabs is performed using finite element models composed of plate elements. Columns supporting the slabs are represented by springs. In each model, masses of slab, equipment, piping, and other items are concentrated at appropriate nodal points. A typical flexible slab model is shown in Figure 3.7-13A. Input excitation is the vertical acceleration time-history at the slab supports, obtained from the vertical analysis of the auxiliary building model.

Dynamic time-history analysis of the fuel handling area crane support structure is performed using one model to represent six end-bay frames and a second model to represent six middle bay frames. Each model is fixed at its base and uses beam and 3.7-12 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE truss elements to represent all significant structural members. Structure masses are concentrated at appropriate nodal points. The model representing the middle bay frames is shown in Figure 3.7-13B. Input excitations are translational and rotational acceleration time-histories at elevation 140 feet obtained from analysis of the auxiliary building model.

Outdoor Water Storage Tanks The axisymmetric and 3-D SAP IV mathematical models used in the HE finite element analysis are shown in Figures 3.7-14, 3.7-15, 3.7-15A, and 3.7-15B. The axisymmetric model using the AXIDYN computer program is used to analyze the effects of gravity loading, hydrostatic pressure, structure inertial forces, and hydrodynamic loads consisting of impulsive and convective pressures caused by the seismic event. The fluid impulsive effects are modeled as effective fluid inertia masses attached to appropriate concrete elements (see Reference 13). The 3-D SAP IV model is used to assess the effects of the nonaxisymmetric vault opening on the stresses in and around the opening area. The loads determined from dynamic analysis using axisymmetric model are input as static loads in the 3-D SAP IV model. All tanks except the firewater and transfer tank are analyzed as fixed base models.

The exterior tank of the firewater and transfer tank is analyzed as a fixed base, whereas the inner steel tank is pinned at the base in the finite-element analyses.

For horizontal direction, a response spectrum, modal superposition analysis is performed with an axisymmetric model to determine the combined dynamic effects of structure inertial forces and impulsive pressures due to the horizontal earthquake.

Gravity, hydrostatic pressure, and convective pressure loads are analyzed statically.

The tanks analyzed are refueling water storage tank and firewater and transfer tank. No additional analysis is done for condensate tank since it is similar to refueling water storage tank.

For the SAP IV nonaxisymmetric model, an equivalent, static, lateral load analysis based on accelerations computed from the axisymmetric model analysis is performed for the refueling water storage tank to determine the structure response maxima. The results of this analysis are applicable to other outdoor water storage tanks because they have similar vault openings and are of comparable size. The axisymmetric analyses have shown that responses of these tanks are generally similar to refueling tank.

Since the fundamental period is approximately 0.033 sec in the vertical direction, the empty tanks are determined to be rigid in that direction. Considering the possibility that fluid may not act as a rigid mass during vertical motion, effects of the vertical earthquake are obtained by scaling the results of the analysis for gravity loading and hydrostatic pressure by a factor of 1.0 for the HE (2/3 x 0.75 x amplification factor of 2).

For the DE and the DDE, HE finite-element analysis results are used as the basis for evaluation. The HE responses are adjusted by the ratio of peak spectral accelerations for the DE, or the DDE, and by appropriate damping ratios.

3.7-13 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 3.7.2.1.7.2 Turbine Building and Intake Structure The turbine building and the intake structure are Design Class I1. However, Design Class I equipment is located inside: component cooling water (CCW) heat exchangers, 4160V vital switchgear, emergency diesel generators, and other Class I systems in the turbine building, and auxiliary saltwater (ASW) pumps, piping, and instrumentation in the intake structure. In order to provide assurance that the function of Design Class I equipment will not be adversely affected, these structures are reviewed to ensure that they would not collapse in the unlikely event of an HE. The vulnerability of the main turbine steam valves to seismically induced falling debris is reviewed and is described in Section 3.5.

The structural evaluation of the turbine building and intake structure for the HE earthquake was performed using the response spectrum dynamic modal superposition method. In addition, a time-history dynamic analysis is performed to generate DE, DDE, and HE response spectra.

Turbine Building Turbine building horizontal analyses use one model to represent the Unit 1 portion of the building, which extends from column line 1 to 19, and a second model to represent the Unit 2 portion of the building, which extends from column line 19 to 35. The models are fixed at the base and are composed of truss, beam, and plane stress elements.

The Unit 1 horizontal model, shown in Figures 3.7-15C and 3.7-15D, has a total of approximately 500 nodal points and 1000 elements. The Unit 2 horizontal model is similar.

Four models representing different areas of the building are used to represent the building in the vertical direction. The models are fixed at the base and consist of plate, beam, and truss elements. Three of the models are three-dimensional extending the full building height and width, and together represent the building from column lines 1 to 17 and 19 to 35. The fourth model is two-dimensional extending to elevation 140 feet only and represents the building between column lines 17 and 19. The vertical model used to represent the building between lines 1 and 5 and between lines 31 and 35 is shown in Figures 3-7.15E and 3.7-15F. This model has over 500 nodes and over 1100 elements. Additional models are used to represent bridge crane effects.

Analyses consider that both the Unit 1 and the Unit 2 bridge cranes may be located in the Unit 1 or the Unit 2 portion of the building with one of the cranes lifting 135 tons.

Structural evaluation of the turbine pedestal for the HE earthquake is performed using the response spectrum dynamic modal superposition method. The possibility of impingement between the turbine building structure and the turbine pedestal is considered in the response calculations, with the assumption that limited local structural damage, such as concrete chipping or spalling, is permissible provided the overall safety of the structures or the Class I equipment is not impaired. Three-dimensional fixed base models are used to evaluate loading of the pedestals in the horizontal and 3.7-14 Revision 19 May 2010

I DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE vertical directions. The model shown in Figure 3.7-15G represents the Unit 1 turbine pedestal. The Unit 2 model is similar. Pedestal members are modeled as beam elements with rigid joints to account for the stiff zones at beam-column intersections.

Pedestal and turbine-generator masses are included at appropriate nodal points. The models each include approximately 270 nodes and 210 elements.

Intake Structure The seismic analysis of the intake structure was carried out by initially separating the structure into two basic parts: (a) the pump-deck base, consisting of the massive land-side portion of the structure, from elevation -31.5 feet to the -2.1-foot pump-deck level; and (b) the remainder of the structural system. The analysis demonstrated that the massive pump-deck base below the 2.1-foot level would not amplify the ground motion. Hence, the pump-deck base need not be considered in the analysis of the remainder of the structure.

The three-dimensional mathematical model is used for the north-south and east-west/vertical analysis. Figures 3.7-15H and 3.7-151 show a typical finite element model. The model is fixed at the base and uses typical finite-element methods of discretization suitable for the structural system. Floor slabs and walls are modeled as flat-plate elements primarily to capture in-plane behavior. The slabs are shown to be rigid in the vertical direction by a separate simplified analysis. Some thick shear walls near the symmetry plane of the structure in the east-west direction are modeled as three-dimensional solid elements. There are six degrees of freedom for each node -

three translational and three rotational degrees of freedom.

For the north-south analysis, the effect of the virtual mass of contained water has been considered by including the total mass of water tributary to the transverse flow straighteners (or piers). This method is considered reasonable because the relatively short distance between piers inhibits the tendency of the water to slosh and thereby reduce its virtual mass. A high-tide condition, with sea level at elevation +3.4 feet (MSL), is assumed for the analysis.

For the east-west/vertical analysis, the effect of water due to an earthquake is considered negligible because it is assumed that the water can flow in and out of the structure and will exert relatively little force on the structure.

Static and dynamic lateral earth pressures on the east wall of the intake structure are considered in the calculation of the in-place shear stress for the east-west walls and roof slabs. The earth pressure influence is combined by SRSS method with the seismic forces.

3.7-15 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS I & 2 FSAR UPDATE 3.7.2.1.7.3 Design Class I Mechanical Equipment Reactor Coolant Loop The Westinghouse-supplied RCLs and their support systems are analyzed for seismic loads based on a three-dimensional, multi-mass elastic dynamic model, as discussed in Section 5.2. Table 3.7-24 shows the fundamental mode frequency ranges for RCL primary equipment (steam generator, reactor coolant pump, and reactor pressure vessel). The stress analyses for faulted condition loadings of these components from a Hosgri earthquake are provided in Section 5.2.1.15.

Other Design Class I Mechanical Equipment Design Class I mechanical equipment is grouped into: (a) equipment purchased directly by PG&E, and (b) equipment supplied by Westinghouse.

(1)

Equipment purchased directly by PG&E Equipment is considered rigid if all natural periods are equal to or less than 0.05 seconds for the DE and the DDE, and 0.03 seconds for the HE.

Rigid equipment is designed for the maximum acceleration of the supporting structure at the equipment location. Flexible equipment is analyzed by response spectrum methods. Hydrodynamic analysis of rigid tanks is performed using the methods described in Reference 6. Flexible tanks were analyzed by the methods described in Reference 13.

Load combinations and allowable stresses for Design Class I equipment are given in Section 3.9.

(2)

Equipment supplied by Westinghouse Electric Corporation The seismic response of Design Class I piping and components is determined by response spectrum methods. The system is evaluated for the simultaneous occurrence of one horizontal and the vertical seismic input motions. For each mode, the results for the vertical excitation are added absolutely to the separate results for the north-south or east-west directions. The larger of the two values so determined at each point in the model is considered as the earthquake response. Details of the response spectrum analyses are as follows:

(a)

If a component falls within one of the many categories that has been previously analyzed using a multi-degree-of-freedom model and shown to be relatively rigid, the equipment specification for the component is checked to ensure that the equivalent static g-values specified are larger than the building floor response spectrum values and therefore are conservative. Equipment is considered to 3.7-16 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE be rigid relative to the building if its natural frequencies are all greater than 20 cycles per second for the DE and DDE, and 33 cycles per second for HE.

(b)

If the component cannot be categorized as similar to a previously analyzed component that has been shown to be relatively rigid, an analysis is performed as described below.

Design Class I mechanical equipment, including heat exchangers, pumps, tanks, and valves, are analyzed using a multi-degree-of-freedom modal analysis. Appendages, such as motors attached to motor-operated valves, are included in the models. The natural frequencies and normal modes are obtained using analytical techniques developed to solve eigenvalue-eigenvector problems. A response spectrum analysis is then performed using horizontal and vertical umbrella spectra that encompass the appropriate floor response spectra developed from the building time-history analyses.

The simultaneous occurrence of horizontal and vertical motions are included in the analyses. These response spectra are combined with the modal participation factors and the mode shapes to give the structural response for each mode from which the modal stresses are determined. The combined total seismic response is obtained by adding the individual modal responses utilizing the SRSS method.

Under certain conditions, the natural frequency of the equipment is not calculated. Under those conditions, using the appropriate damping value, the peak value of acceleration response curve is used to calculate the inertia forces. This method of calculation is termed the pseudo-dynamic method.

Components and supports of the RCS are designed for the loading combinations given in Section 5.2. Components are designed in complete accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Nuclear Vessels, and the USAS Code for Pressure Piping. The allowable stress limits for these components and supports are also given in Section 5.2. The loading combinations and stress limits for other components and supports are given in Section 3.9.

The Hosgri evaluation of the RCS is discussed in Section 5.2. All components and supports of the RCS satisfy criteria demonstrating qualification for the HE.

3.7-17 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 3.7.2.1.7.4 Design Class I Piping Criteria The following criteria determine the type of seismic analysis performed for Design Class I piping:

(1) 2-1/2 inches in diameter and larger Seismic analysis is performed by the response spectrum, modal superposition method.

(2)

Less than 2-1/2 inches in diameter Seismic analysis is performed by the response spectrum modal superposition method for all Unit 2 piping. In Unit 1, piping less than 2-1/2 inches in diameter was analyzed by sampling criteria in which systems representing the worst case configurations or reflecting generic concerns were selected for analysis by the response spectrum modal superposition method. The remainder was qualified by criteria that limit the periods of free vibration to valves that assure only moderate amplification of piping responses.

Model Three dimensional mathematical models are used in the response spectrum modal superposition analyses. A typical mathematical model is shown in Figure 3.7-26.

Valves and valve operators are included where appropriate in the piping models as eccentric masses. Pipe supports, restraints and equipment having a natural frequency of 20 Hz or greater are modeled as being rigid restraints. Where Design Class II piping connects to Design Class I piping, sufficient Design Class II piping is included in the model to assure qualification of the Design Class I piping and code boundary.

Allowable Stresses Load combinations and allowable stresses for Design Class I piping are given in Section 3.9.

3.7.2.2 Natural Frequencies and Response Loads The natural frequencies and seismic response results summarized in the following sections for the major plant structures are representative of the seismic analyses performed for the operating license review (Reference 18), but may not reflect minor changes associated with subsequent plant modifications.

3.7-18 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Containment Structure (1)

DE and DDE The natural periods for all significant modes of the containment structure are listed in Table 3.7-2. The corresponding mode shapes are shown in Figure 3.7-6. The shell forces and moments in a typical element of the model are defined in Figure 3.7-7.

The containment structure seismic analysis provides acceleration time-histories, maximum absolute accelerations, displacements, shell forces and moments, total shears, and total overturning moments. These maximum response values are listed in Tables 3.7-3 through 3.7-8 for the nodal points indicated in Figure 3.7-5.

Acceleration response spectra for the containment are calculated from the acceleration time-histories, and corresponding smooth spectra are prepared. Typical smooth spectra are shown in Figures 3.7-8 through 3.7-12.

(2)

HE The natural periods and significant modes of vibration are listed in Table 3.7-8A. Modes having a period of vibration less than 0.03 sec (frequency greater than 33 Hz) are considered to be insignificant. As shown in Table 3.7-8A three sets of periods are given for the exterior shell:

(a)

Translational mode determined from model of Figure 3.7-5A (b)

Torsional and translational mode determined from Figure 3.7-5B (c)

Vertical modes determined from Figure 3.7-5D Table 3.7-8B gives the horizontal and vertical maximum absolute accelerations and Table 3.7-8C gives the maximum relative horizontal and vertical displacement. Table 3.7-8D gives the maximum shell forces and moments. Tables 3.7-8E and 3.7-8F give the maximum total shear forces, overturning moments, torsional moments, and axial forces for the containment shell.

The horizontal floor response spectra, including the effects of accidental torsion of the structure, at the inside face of the exterior shell are shown in Figures 3.7-12A and 3.7-12B. To develop these spectra, the translational spectra are combined with the torsional spectra from the 5 percent and 7 percent accidental eccentricities.

3.7-19 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE The combined translational and torsional spectra are then combined on an SRSS basis with the horizontal component due to the vertical input to yield the spectra shown in Figures 3.7-12A and 3.7-12B.

The vertical floor spectra are shown in Figures 3.7-12C and 3.7-12D. Tables 3.7-8G and 3.7-8H show the accelerations, displacements, stress, and moments for the containment interior structures as a result of the horizontal dynamic analysis.

For the interior structure, the Newmark input generally produces a higher structure response than does the Blume input. Figures 3.7-12E through 3.7-12G show the response spectra for the interior structure at elevation 140 feet, which is the operating floor for the containment. The spectra are for the horizontal, torsional, and vertical response.

For the annulus structural steel frames, a separate vertical dynamic analysis is carried out for each frame as shown in Figures 3.7-12H and 3.7-121 for Units 1 and 2, respectively. Tables 3.7-81 and 3.7-8J list the frequencies and participation factors for frame number 6 which is a typical annulus steel radial frame. After the response spectra are generated in the vertical direction for each radial frame, they are enveloped according to their locations. As shown in Figures 3.7-12H and 3.7-121, the annulus is divided into the five major sectors (called sector frames) and the response spectra for any sector frame at given elevation are derived from enveloping the response spectra of radial frames located in that sector. Typical enveloped response spectra are shown in Figures 3.7-12J and 3.7-12K. As discussed earlier, the annulus structure does not amplify the horizontal motion of the interior concrete.

Therefore, the horizontal spectra for the concrete interior structures are used for the annulus steel. Table 3.7-8K lists the natural frequencies for horizontal seismic motion. As mentioned in Section 3.7.2.1.7, the first mode frequencies are approximately 20 Hz or higher and, therefore, for the rationale given earlier, the annulus is considered rigid in the horizontal direction.

Containment Polar Crane Maximum displacements for various nodes for the polar crane are given in Table 3.7-8L. The member forces and bending moments are shown in Tables 3.7-8M and Table 3.7-8N. The typical response spectra are shown in Figures 3.7-12L and 3.7-12M.

3.7-20 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Pipeway Structure The modal analysis indicates that the minimum frequency of the model is 1.6 Hz and there are 100 modes below 33 cps indicating many closely spaced modes.

The containment structure and the piping modes are included in the results since a composite model is analyzed as discussed in Section 3.7.2.1.7.1. The mode shapes indicate there are no global structural modes of the pipeway structure itself; instead, there are many local modes.

The input horizontal acceleration time-histories are scaled up by a factor of 1.06 to approximate the accidental eccentricity of masses. Five input cases are considered for the seismic analysis: The Blume horizontal time-history in E-W and N-S direction, the Newmark horizontal time-history in E-W and N-S direction, and the Newmark time-history in the vertical direction. Typical response spectra for pipeway structure are shown in Figures 3.7-12N through 3.7-12S.

Auxiliary Building The natural periods for all significant modes of the auxiliary building are listed in Tables 3.7-9 through 3.7-11. Frequencies for significant modes of the fuel handling crane support structure are listed in Tables 3.7-11A and 3.7-1 lB.

Acceleration response spectra for the auxiliary building are calculated from the acceleration time-histories at the mass points and corresponding smooth spectra are developed. Typical spectra are shown in Figures 3.7-16 through 3.7-25 and 3.7-21A through 3.7-211.

Maximum absolute accelerations, relative displacements, story shears, overturning moments, and torsional moments in the auxiliary building are listed in Tables 3.7-12 through 3.7-23. Maximum absolute accelerations and relative displacements in the fuel handling crane support structure are listed in Tables 3.7-80 and 3.7-8P; the displacements are obtained from static analysis of the detailed model described in Section 3.8.2.4.

Turbine Building Natural frequencies of vibration in the horizontal direction in all significant modes of the Unit 1 portion of the building, for the condition where two bridge cranes are centered near column line 10.6, are listed on Table 3.7-23A. Corresponding horizontal frequencies for the Unit 2 portion of the building are similar. Natural frequencies of vibration in the vertical direction for all significant modes of the building between column lines 1 and 5 are listed on Table 3.7-23B.

Corresponding vertical frequencies for the Unit 2 portion of the building are similar.

3.7-21 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Acceleration response spectra for the turbine building are calculated from acceleration time-histories at the mass points and corresponding smooth spectra are developed. Typical spectra are shown in Figures 3.7-25A through 3.7-25M.

Maximum absolute accelerations and relative displacements in the Unit 1 portion of the building are listed in Tables 3.7-23C and 3.7-23D. Corresponding accelerations and displacements in the Unit 2 end of the building are similar.

Natural periods for all significant modes of the turbine pedestal model are listed in Table 3.7-23E. Maximum relative displacements of the pedestal model are listed in Table 3.7-23F.

Intake Structure The natural periods and participation factors for all significant modes of the intake structure are listed in Tables 3.7-23G. Acceleration response spectra for the intake structure are calculated from the acceleration time-histories at the selected mass points, and corresponding smooth spectra are developed as specified in Figure 3.7-4A. Typical spectra are shown in Figures 3.7-25N through 3.7-25T.

Maximum absolute acceleration, relative maximum displacements are listed in Table 3.7-23H.

Outdoor Water Storage Tanks The natural periods for significant modes of the refueling water storage tanks and fire water and transfer tank are listed in Tables 3.7-231 and 3.7-23J.

3.7.2.3 Procedures Used to Lump Masses 3.7.2.3.1 Structures The mass of the structure is assumed to be concentrated at particular locations on the model. These locations coincide with either floor levels, significant points where dynamic response is required as input for piping and equipment, nodal points in the finite element model, or any other points required to accurately define the natural frequencies and mode shapes for the significant modes. The torsional effect for containment, auxiliary building, turbine building, and intake structure is considered as discussed in Section 3.7.2.10.

3.7.2.3.2 Equipment and Piping The mass of the equipment and piping systems is assumed to be concentrated at particular locations on the model. These locations coincide with either actual masses such as pumps, motors, valve restraints and anchors, or any other points required to accurately define the natural frequencies and mode shapes of the significant modes.

3.7-22 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 3.7.2.4 Rocking and Translational Response Summary Methods used to consider soil-structure interaction for Design Class I structures are described in Section 3.7.2.1.7.1.

3.7.2.5 Methods Used to Couple Soil with Seismic-System Structures The procedures used to represent the containment structure and surrounding rock mass as a finite element model, and the procedures used to derive the stiffnesses of foundation springs for the auxiliary building are described in Section 3.7.2.1.7.1.

3.7.2.6 Development of Floor Response Spectra Floor response spectra are developed using time-history modal superposition analyses as described in Section 3.7.2.1.7.1.

3.7.2.7 Differential Seismic Movement of Interconnected Components Components and supports of the RCS are designed for the loading combinations and stress limits given in Section 5.2. The loading combinations and stress limits for other components and supports are given in Section 3.9.

3.7.2.8 Effects of Variations on Floor Response Spectra Consideration of the effects on floor response spectra of possible variations in the parameters used for the structural analysis is discussed in connection with the development of smooth spectra in Section 3.7.2.1.7.1.

3.7.2.9 Use of Constant Vertical Load Factors The Design Class I structures are heavy, massive, reinforced concrete, rigid-type structures and are founded on competent hard rock. For such structures, insignificant amplification of vertical motions can be expected, the critical factor in design being the response of the structures to horizontal earthquake motions. The containment structure and auxiliary building including Class I systems and components are designed for DE and DDE, using a vertical static coefficient equal to two-thirds of the peak horizontal ground motion. For the HE, a dynamic analysis in the vertical direction is carried out as discussed in Section 3.7.2.1.7.1.

3.7.2.10 Method Used to Account for Torsional Effects The containment structure is essentially axisymmetric and therefore has insignificant torsional response. The torsional response of the auxiliary building is calculated by use of a combined translational and torsional mathematical model in the seismic system time-history modal superposition analysis, as described in Section 3.7.2.1.7.1.

3.7-23 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE For the Hosgri evaluation of Design Class I structures, the effect of accidental torsion is included as an additional eccentricity in the mathematical models. The additional eccentricity is the greater of 5 percent of the building dimension in the direction perpendicular to the applied loads, when torsional and translational effects are combined together, and the 7 percent of the building dimension in the direction perpendicular to the applied loads, when torsional and translational effects are computed independently and combined by the SRSS method.

For Hosgri evaluation of the Design Class II turbine building, including the turbine pedestal and the intake structure, a torsional response is calculated by the use of finite element models which include both translation and torsion. In addition, the effect of accidental eccentricity is accounted for by a 10 percent increase in the structural responses for the turbine building and intake structure. For the turbine pedestal, a static torsional moment corresponding to a 5 percent eccentricity is added to the dynamic analysis in each horizontal direction.

3.7.2.11 Comparison of Responses Time-history analyses only are performed for Design Class I structures. Response spectrum analyses are not performed because the time-history produces spectra that represent reasonably the criteria response spectra.

3.7.2.12 Methods for Seismic Analysis of Dams There are no dams associated with the DCPP.

3.7.2.13 Methods to Determine Design Class I Structure Overturning Moments The maximum overturning moments for Design Class I structures are determined as part of the time-history modal superposition analyses. Vertical earthquake is considered to act concurrently with the maximum horizontal overturning moments.

3.7.2.14 Analysis Procedure for Damping Structures are analyzed using modal superposition techniques, and element or material-associated damping ratios are given in Section 3.7.1.3. "Composite" or modal damping ratios in structural systems comprised of different element material types are selected based on an inspection of the significant mode shapes, and on the assumption that the contribution of each material to the composite effective modal damping is proportional to the elastic energy induced in each material. The following criteria and procedures are applied on a-mode-by mode basis to evaluate and conservatively determine composite damping values:

(1)

Where a particular mode primarily indicates response of a single element type, the damping ratio corresponding to that element type is assigned to 3.7-24 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE that mode. Where all but a negligible amount of the elastic energy is induced in, for example, concrete or rock, the damping ratio appropriate to these materials is applied. Similarly, where a lightly damped material exhibits a major portion of the elastic energy of the mode, a conservative choice is made to use the damping ratio of that material for that mode. In most cases for this plant, the modes are well defined according to material types; composite damping values can be selected on the basis of a visual inspection of mode shapes and no additional numerical computations are required.

(2)

In a few instances, the above criteria cannot be applied because a particular mode indicates response of several element types. The damping ratio for that mode is conservatively estimated based on the degree of participation of the different elements. Table 3.7-10 lists the participation factors for the auxiliary building. The elastic energy induced in the different elements is estimated and the composite damping values assigned in proportion to the elastic energy.

(3)

Mass-weighted composite modal-damping is used for the DE and DDE analysis of the turbine building.

The approach described above is consistent with currently accepted techniques, and in all cases the damping values are selected conservatively. The use of this approach results in design that can conservatively resist the seismic motions postulated for the DCPP.

3.7.2.15 Combination of Components of Earthquake Motion For Structures For DE and DDE analysis maximum structural response due to one horizontal and the vertical component of earthquake motion are combined by the absolute sum method.

For HE analysis the maximum structural responses due to each of the three components of earthquake motion are combined by the SRSS method.

3.7.3 SEISMIC SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS 3.7.3.1 Determination of Number of Earthquake Cycles Where fatigue is a criterion, it is assumed that there are 20 occurrences of the DE, each producing 20 cycles of maximum response.

3.7.3.2 Basis for Selection of Forcing Frequencies Design Class I equipment and piping is analyzed by the response spectrum method or the pseudo-dynamic method, using floor response spectra, unless it can be shown to be rigid, as discussed in Section 3.7.2.1. Accordingly, a special procedure to avoid certain frequencies is not needed.

3.7-25 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 3.7.3.3 Procedure for Combining Modal Responses The method and procedure for combining modal responses are described in Sections 3.7.2.1 and 3.7.3.4.

3.7.3.4 Root Mean Square Basis Closely spaced modes in Design Class I piping are analyzed by the response spectrum modal superposition method where all modal responses are combined by the SRSS method to obtain total response.

A study was conducted to evaluate the effects of combining modes with closely spaced modal frequencies by the absolute sum method. For closely spaced modes, the combined total response was obtained by taking the absolute sum of the closely spaced modes and then taking the SRSS with all other modes. Twenty-nine piping systems were studied, representing approximately 10 percent of the total number of piping systems analyzed. Of these 29 piping systems, 8 systems had no closely spaced frequencies and 8 systems had closely spaced frequencies which were in the rigid period range and therefore required no further study.

The remaining 13 systems had some modal frequencies in the flexible range that could be termed closely spaced. Of these, 5 systems had low seismic stresses with an adequate margin of safety, so that any possible increase in seismic stresses due to a combination of closely spaced frequencies by the absolute sum method would not affect the safety of the piping systems. In addition, 6 systems had closely spaced frequencies, but study of the mode shapes revealed that the seismic stresses would not be significantly affected by the absolute sum of these modal responses.

For the 2 remaining systems, it was not possible to positively conclude that the effects of combining the modes with closely spaced frequencies by absolute sum would be minimal by inspecting the stresses or mode shapes. Therefore, these 2 systems were reanalyzed by computer, and it was found that if the seismic responses of the modes with closely spaced frequencies were combined by the absolute sum method, the increase in stress would be less than 1 percent.

It was therefore concluded that the combination of modal responses of piping systems by the SRSS method is adequate and conservative.

3.7.3.5 Design Criteria and Analytical Procedures for Piping Stresses induced in Design Class I piping from relative movement of anchor points (points where all degrees of freedom are fixed), whether due to building or equipment movement, are considered with stresses calculated in the piping response spectrum modal superposition analyses.

3.7-26 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE PG&E has developed specific guidelines for the design of Class I pipe supports that account for such items as allowable deflections, forces, gaps, and moments imposed on the supports. Allowable stresses and loads are described in more detail in Section 3.9.

A study (Reference 9) has also been performed to evaluate the stresses in piping systems, assuming failure of a single hydraulic or mechanical pipe snubber during a seismic event. Results of the study indicate that the probability of a snubber failing to snub and causing a pipe failure was sufficiently low that no additional design restraints had to be imposed.

As an additional control, hydraulic snubbers are visually inspected and functionally tested. These surveillance requirements are detailed in the DCPP Equipment Control Guidelines (see Chapter 16).

At the request of the NRC in April 18, 1984, in its order to modify Facility Operating License No. DPR-76, PG&E developed a program to review the small and large bore pipe supports for the specific concerns raised by that order.

The specific items requested by the NRC were as follows:

(1)

PG&E shall complete the review of all small-bore piping supports which were reanalyzed and requalified by computer analysis. The review shall include consideration of the additional technical topics, as appropriate, contained in License Condition No. 7 below.

(2)

PG&E shall identify all cases in which rigid supports are placed in close proximity to other rigid supports or anchors. For these cases PG&E shall conduct a program that assures loads shared between these adjacent supports and anchors result in acceptable piping and support stresses.

Upon completion of this effort, PG&E shall submit a report to the NRC Staff documenting the results of the program.

Design procedures were revised to address this issue.

(3)

PG&E shall identify all cases in which snubbers are placed in close proximity to rigid supports and anchors. For these cases, utilizing snubber lock-up motion criteria acceptable to the staff, PG&E shall demonstrate that acceptable piping and piping support stresses are met. Upon completion of this effort, PG&E shall submit a report to the NRC Staff documenting the results.

Design procedures were revised to address this issue.

(4)

PG&E shall identify all pipe supports for which thermal gaps have been specifically included in the piping thermal analyses. For these cases the licensee shall develop a program for periodic inservice inspection to 3.7-27 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE assure that these thermal gaps are maintained throughout the operating life of the plant. PG&E shall submit to the NRC Staff a report containing the gap-monitoring program.

Rather than establishing a gap-monitoring program, the piping analysis and procedures were modified to eliminate the thermal gaps in the analyses.

(5)

PG&E shall provide to the NRC the procedures and schedules for the hot walkdown of the main steam system piping. PG&E shall document the main steam hot walkdown results in a report to the NRC Staff.

(6)

PG&E shall conduct a review of the "Pipe Support Design Tolerance Clarification" program (PSDTC) and "Diablo Problem" system (DP) activities. The review shall include specific identification of the following:

(a)

Support changes, which deviated from the defined PSDTC program scope; (b)

Any significant deviations between as-built and design configurations stemming from the PSDTC or DP activities; and (c)

Any unresolved matters identified by the DP system.

The purpose of this review is to ensure that all design changes and modifications have been resolved and documented in an appropriate manner. Upon completion PG&E shall submit a report to the NRC Staff documenting the results of this review.

(7)

PG&E shall conduct a program to demonstrate that the following technical topics have been adequately addressed in the design of small and large-bore piping supports:

(a)

Inclusion of warping normal and shear stresses due to torsion in those open sections where warping effects are significant.

(b)

Resolution of differences between the AISC Code and Bechtel criteria with regard to allowable lengths of unbraced angle sections in bending.

(c)

Consideration of lateral/torsional buckling under axial loading of angle members.

(d)

Inclusion of axial and torsional loads due to load eccentricity where appropriate.

3.7-28 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE (e)

Correct calculation of pipe support fundamental frequency by Rayleigh's method.

(f)

Consideration of flare bevel weld effective throat thickness as used on structural steel tubing with an outside radius of less than 2T.

The above considerations were incorporated in the applicable design procedures.

All of the above specific concerns were addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the NRC.

3.7.3.6 Basis for Computing Combined Response As a minimum, mechanical equipment is designed for a vertical static coefficient equal to 2/3 of the peak horizontal ground motion for DE and DDE analysis. For HE analysis, specific vertical floor response spectra are used. Horizontal and vertical responses are combined by absolute sum.

Equipment supplied by Westinghouse is reviewed for a vertical force determined from a response spectrum, as described in Section 3.7.2.1.7.3.

The horizontal and vertical responses of Design Class I piping are determined from the two-dimensional response spectrum modal superposition analyses described in Section 3.7.2.1.7.4. Response spectra at the applicable piping support attachment elevations are enveloped to obtain the final design response spectra. The vertical and one horizontal response are combined by absolute sum on the modal level. Modal responses are combined by the SSRS method. The two two-dimensional results are then enveloped to obtain the total response. Figure 3.7-26 shows a typical piping mathematical model. Figure 3.7-29 illustrates the derivation of the design response spectra for a typical piping system.

In many cases, earthquake piping stresses due to DDE are not directly calculated.

Instead, the results from the DE piping analysis are doubled to represent the DDE. This approach was chosen because review of the design spectra showed that the DDE accelerations did not exceed twice the DE accelerations. Since pipe stress is linear with accelerations, this approach is conservative.

3.7.3.7 Amplified Seismic Responses Components that can be adequately characterized as a single-degree-of-freedom system are considered to have a modal participation of one.

3.7-29 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 3.7.3.8 Use of Simplified Dynamic Analysis All methods of seismic analysis used for Design Class I structures, components, systems, and piping are described in Section 3.7.2.

Two methods of dynamic seismic analysis are used for Design Class I components and piping that are different than multiple-degree-of-freedom, modal analysis methods. The first of these is the response spectrum, single-degree-of-freedom method used for components whose dynamic behavior can be accurately represented by a single-degree-of-freedom mathematical model. The second of these is the method for rigid components where the component is designed for the maximum acceleration experienced by the supporting structure at the location of support, if all natural periods of the component are less than, or equal to, 0.05 seconds (33 Hz for HE in piping analysis).

The pseudo-dynamic method of analysis is used for certain items of mechanical equipment as described in Section 3.7.2. The basis for this method is described in Section 3.7.2.1.7.3.

Certain Unit 1 Design Class I piping less than 2-1/2 inches in diameter is restrained according to criteria described in Section 3.7.2.1.7.4.

3.7.3.9 Modal Period Variation Consideration of the effects on floor response spectra of possible variations in the parameters used for structural analysis is discussed in connection with the development of smooth spectra in Section 3.7.2.1.7.1.

3.7.3.10 Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses Where appropriate, valves and valve operators are included as eccentric masses in the mathematical models for piping seismic analysis, as described in Section 3.7.2.1.7.4.

3.7.3.11 Piping Outside Containment Structure The procedures used to determine piping stresses resulting from relative movement between anchor points (points where all degrees-of-freedom are fixed) are discussed in Section 3.7.3.5. The forces exerted by piping on anchor points, including the containment structure penetrations, are included in the evaluation of stresses for Design Class I structures.

Buried Design Class I piping is confined by sand backfill in rock trenches. The piping material is ASTM A-53 or A-106 carbon steel.

3.7-30 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 3.7.3.12 Interaction of Other Piping With Design Class I Piping Mathematical models for Design Class I piping seismic analyses normally originate and terminate at anchor points. Where Design Class II piping connects to Design Class I piping sufficient Design Class II piping is included in the mathematical model to assure qualification of the Design Class I piping and code boundary.

3.7.3.13 System Interaction Program PG&E developed a program to consider seismically-induced physical interactions between nonsafety-related SSCs and Design Class I SSCs. The methodology and results of this interaction study are presented in Reference 10 and are summarized as follows. The objective of the program was to establish confidence that when subjected to seismic events of severity up to and including the HE, SSCs important to safety shall not be prevented from performing their intended safety functions as a result of physical interactions caused by seismically induced failures of nonsafety-related SSCs. In addition, safety-related SSCs shall not lose the redundancy required to compensate for single failures as a result of such interactions.

To accomplish the program, PG&E defined as targets all SSCs required to safely shut down the plant and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and certain accident-mitigating systems. Initial plant operating modes of normal operation, shutdown, and refueling were considered in the selection of the target equipment. All nonsafety-related SSCs were defined as sources.

Interactions between source and target equipment were postulated by an interdisciplinary Interaction Team. The Interaction Team postulated interactions during walkdowns of the target equipment, using previously established guidelines and criteria.

The Interaction Team also recommended resolutions to the postulated interactions.

The findings of the Interaction Team were evaluated during a subsequent office-based technical evaluation. Any modifications deemed necessary were reviewed after completion by the Interaction Team to ensure that no new interactions were created by the modifications themselves.

The program was subjected to an independent audit by PG&E's Quality Assurance Department and a review by an Independent Review Board which reported its findings to a managing consultant who, in turn, reported his findings to PG&E management.

3.7.3.14 Field Location of Supports and Restraints Seismic supports and restraining devices for Design Class I piping are located as follows:

3.7-31 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 3.7.3.14.1 Two Inches in Diameter and Less Field-routed and vendor-furnished piping 2 inches and less in diameter is supported by the piping installation contractor's field personnel in accordance with criteria supplied by PG&E's engineering staff on Approved for Construction drawings. These criteria specify size, type, spacing, and permissible locations for seismic supports and restraining devices. Prior to initial fuel loading, the completed installation of this piping was reviewed by an experienced piping engineer from PG&E's engineering staff to ensure compliance with the criteria and the observance of good design practice.

3.7.3.14.2 Larger Than 2 Inches in Diameter The size, type, and location of each support or restraining device on each line is shown on Approved for Construction drawings.

The procedures followed during development of the Approved for Construction drawings provide assurance that the field location and the seismic design of supports and restraining devices are consistent with the assumptions made in the seismic analysis.

These procedures are:

(1)

The locations of supports and restraining devices are established on preliminary drawings.

(2)

The locations shown on the preliminary drawings are used to develop the mathematical model for the seismic analysis, and the seismic analysis is performed. If the results show piping stresses higher than allowable, adjustments are made in the location, and/or the type of support or restraining device, and the seismic analysis is repeated.

(3)

The reactions calculated as part of the seismic analysis, combined with other loads, are used for final design of piping supports and restraining devices.

(4)

When the design is complete, drawings are issued as Approved for Construction to the piping installation contractor. Installation of supports and restraining devices is in accordance with Approved for Construction drawings.

3.7.3.15 Seismic Analyses for Fuel Elements, Control Rod Assemblies, and Control Rod Drives 3.7.3.15.1 Reactor Vessel Internals Evaluation - DE, DDE, and HE Nonlinear dynamic seismic analysis of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) system includes the development of the system finite element model and the synthesized time 3.7-32 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE history accelerations. Both of these developments for the seismic time history analysis are discussed below.

The basic mathematical model for seismic analysis is essentially similar to a LOCA model in that the seismic model includes the hydrodynamic mass matrices in the vessel/barrel downcomer annulus to account for the fluid-solid interactions. On the other hand, the fluid-solid interactions in the LOCA analysis are accounted through the hydraulic forcing functions generated by Multiflex Code (Reference 3). Another difference between the LOCA and seismic models is the difference in loop stiffness matrices. The seismic model uses the unbroken loop stiffness matrix, whereas the LOCA model uses the broken loop stiffness matrix. Except for these two differences, the RPV system seismic model is identical to that of LOCA model.

The RPV system finite element model for the nonlinear time history dynamic analysis consists of three concentric structural sub-models connected by nonlinear impact elements and linear stiffness matrices. The first sub-model, shown in Figures 3.7-27A and 3.7-27AA, represents the reactor vessel shell and its associated components. The reactor vessel is restrained by four reactor vessel supports (situated beneath alternate nozzles) and by the attached primary coolant piping. Also shown in Figures 3.7-27A and 3.7-27AA is a typical RPV support mechanism.

The second sub-model, shown in Figure 3.7-27B, represents the reactor core barrel, thermal shield, lower support plate, tie plates, and the secondary support components for Unit 1 (PGE); whereas, for Unit 2 (PEG) the second sub-model is shown in Figure 3.7-27C (core barrel with neutron pads instead of thermal shield).

These sub-models are physically located inside the first, and are connected to them by stiffness matrices at the vessel/internals interfaces. Core barrel to reactor vessel shell impact is represented by nonlinear elements at the core barrel flange, upper support plate flange, core barrel outlet nozzles, and the lower radial restraints.

The third and innermost sub-model, shown in Figures 3.7-27D and 3.7-27DD, represents the upper support plate assembly consisting of guide tubes, upper support columns, upper and lower core plates, and the fuel. The fuel assembly simplified structural model incorporated into the RPV system model preserves the dynamic characteristics of the entire core. For each type of fuel design the corresponding simplified fuel assembly model is incorporated into the system model. The third sub-model is connected to the first and second by stiffness matrices and nonlinear elements.

As mentioned earlier, fluid-structure or hydroelastic interaction is included in the reactor pressure vessel model for seismic evaluations. The horizontal hydroelastic interaction is significant in the cylindrical fluid flow region between the core barrel and the reactor vessel annulus. Mass matrices with off-diagonal terms (horizontal degrees-of-freedom only) attach between nodes on the core barrel, thermal shield and the reactor vessel.

The mass matrices for the hydroelastic interactions of two concentric cylinders are 3.7-33 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE developed using the work of Reference 17. The diagonal terms of the mass matrix are similar to the lumping of water mass to the vessel shell, thermal shield, and core barrel.

The off-diagonal terms reflect the fact that all the water mass does not participate when there is no relative motion of the vessel and core barrel. It should be pointed out that the hydrodynamic mass matrix has no artificial virtual mass effect and is derived in a straight-forward, quantitative manner.

The matrices are a function of the properties of two cylinders with the fluid in the cylindrical annulus, specifically, inside and outside radius of the annulus, density of the fluid, and length of the cylinders. Vertical segmentation of the reactor vessel and the core barrel allows inclusion of radii variations along their heights and approximates the effects beam mode deformation. These mass matrices were inserted between the selected nodes on the core barrel, thermal shield, and the reactor vessel as shown in Figures 3.7-27E and 3.7-27EE.

The seismic evaluations are performed by including the effects of simultaneous application of time history accelerations in three orthogonal directions. For the DE, DDE and HE, the Westinghouse generated synthesized time history accelerations at the reactor vessel support were used. Whereas, for the long term seismic program (LTSP),

response spectra at the reactor vessel supports, with five percent critical damping the synthesized time history accelerations at the reactor vessel supports, were supplied by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) via Reference 16. The detailed seismic analyses results of the RPV system are documented in Reference 15.

The WECAN computer code, which is used to determine the response of the reactor vessel and its internals, is a general-purpose finite element code. In the finite element approach, the structure is divided into a finite number of discrete members or elements.

The inertia and stiffness matrices, as well as the force array, are first calculated for each element in the local coordinates. Employing appropriate transformations, the element global matrices and arrays are assembled into global structural matrices and arrays, and used for dynamic solution of the system equations.

The results of the nonlinear seismic dynamic analyses include the transient displacements and impact loads for various elements of the mathematical model.

These displacements, impact loads, and linear component loads (forces and moments) are then used by cognizant organizations for detailed component evaluations to assess the structure of the reactor vessel, reactor internals, and the fuel. Note that the linear component forces and moments are not the direct output from the modal superposition analysis but rather are obtained by post-processing the data saved from the nonlinear time history analysis.

From the modal analysis (free vibration analysis), the system eigenvalues and eigenvectors are stored on a magnetic tape to be used later in the modal superposition analysis. The validity of a complex system structural model is generally verified by comparing the calculated fundamental frequency of the system with the available test data frequency. The fundamental core barrel frequency of a four-loop thermal shield 3.7-34 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE core barrel is known from test data to be approximately 6.6 to 7.0 Hz. The results of Diablo Canyon Unit 1 modal analysis show that the core barrel fundamental beam mode frequency is close to 7.0 Hz, thereby verifying the applicability of the system model for the desired analysis.

Note that the preceding paragraphs describe RPV and internals system dynamic analyses for which the WECAN computer code was used. Current analyses (such as the dynamic analyses performed in support of the Unit 2 replacement vessel head project) utilize the ANSYS computer code. The methodology used to develop the ANSYS system models is consistent with the methodology used to develop historic WECAN models. The direct time integration method is used in ANSYS to solve the dynamic equations of motion for the system; whereas the nonlinear mode superposition method is used in WECAN to solve the dynamic equations of motion for the system.

3.7.3.15.2 Fuel Assembly Evaluation The fuel assembly design adequacy under DDE and HE conditions was assessed through a combination of mechanical tests and analyses. The information obtained from the fuel assembly and component structural tests provided the fundamental mechanical constants for the finite element model used in the fuel analysis.

The analysis of the fuel is performed in two steps. The first step involves analysis of the detailed reactor core model, which includes the reactor vessel, internals, and a simplified model of the fuel (Figures 3.7-27A thru 3.7-27E; 3.7-27AA; 3.7-27DD; and 3.7-27EE). This dynamic analysis uses seismic time history motion at the reactor vessel support elevation (Elevation 102 ft.). The second step of the fuel analysis involves running a detailed fuel assembly model using the WEGAP code. This detailed model (Figure 3.7-27F) conservatively represents an entire row of full-length fuel assemblies (15 total).

The fuel assembly model consists of a series of beam elements with torsional springs located at the various fuel assembly grid elevations to simulate the fuel assembly dynamic characteristics. The values of the mechanical constants such as the rigidity modulus and the torsional stiffness were selected to accurately represent the experimentally determined fuel assembly modal stiffness and natural frequencies.

The time history motion for the upper and lower core plates and core barrel are simultaneously applied to the simulated fuel assembly model as illustrated in Figure 3.7-27F. These input motions were obtained from the time history analysis of the reactor vessel and internals finite element model.

The maximum grid impact forces and the fuel assembly maximum deflection are determined with the reactor core model.

Because of the basic fuel assembly design configuration, the assembly impacting is restricted to the grid locations. The seismic and LOCA loads at each grid were 3.7-35 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE combined using the SRSS method to obtain the design maximum loads. These loads are compared with the allowable grid load, which is determined based on the test data using 95 percent confidence level on the true mean criteria. The results of the Unit 1 evaluation indicated the possibility of some deformation of fuel grids at a small number of specific locations. An analysis of the effects of this grid deformation has shown the core geometry will remain coolable (References 11 and 14). The results of the Unit 2 evaluation do not predict any design maximum and loads that exceed the allowable grid loads (Reference 29). Note that with the acceptance of the DCPP leak-before-break analysis by the NRC, dynamic LOCA loads resulting from pipe rupture events in the main reactor coolant loop piping no longer have to be considered in the design basis structural analyses and included in the loading combinations (see Section 3.6.2.1.1.1).

Only the much smaller LOCA loads from RCS branch line breaks have to be considered.

3.7.3.15.3 Control Rod Drive Mechanism Evaluation Unit 1 The CRDMs were evaluated using a nonlinear finite element model which included the CRDM housings, drive lines and control rods, RPV head adapters, reactor vessel and internals, and the seismic support platform. DDE acceleration time-histories at the seismic support platform elevation and the reactor vessel support elevation were used as inputs to the model. Stresses were calculated along the length of the CRDMs down to the head adapter and were found to be acceptable.

The frequency of the mechanism is dependent on its length, which varies with location on the reactor vessel head. The results of the DDE time history analysis of the CRDMs showed that the most significant modes of vibration are in the ranges of 6.3 Hz to 10 Hz (mode 1) and 17.1 Hz to 25.2 Hz (mode 2). A separate modal analysis of the CRDMs alone verified the frequencies from the time-history analysis, and also demonstrated that the first mode was much more significant than any of the other modes of vibration.

Comparison of the DDE and HE spectra shows that the DDE spectra envelope the Hosgri spectra for all modes of vibration of CRDMs except the second; the DDE spectra are between 70 percent and 344 percent higher than the HE spectra for the first mode, which is the most significant. The Hosgri spectra are at most 15 percent higher than the DDE spectra for the second mode. Thus, the DDE time-history analysis qualifies the CRDMs for the HE.

Unit 2 The replacement CRDMs were evaluated using a nonlinear finite element model which included the CRDM housings, RPV head adapters, and the Integrated Head Assembly.

DDE acceleration time-histories at the seismic plate elevation and the reactor vessel support elevation were used as inputs to the model. Stresses were calculated along the length of the CRDMs. The most highly stressed region of the assembly was the head adapter. A finite element analysis of the entire CRDM and head adapter was performed 3.7-36 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE to evaluate stresses. The stress level in the CRDM/RPV head adapter for the DDE met the Code allowables.

3.7.3.15.4 CRDM Support System Evaluation (Unit 1)

The CRDM support platform, tie rods, and head lifting legs were evaluated by the response spectrum method using a 3-D finite element model of the support system. An envelope of the DDE and Hosgri spectra at the 140-ft elevation was used as input.

CRDM impact forces on the support platform from the time-history analysis discussed previously were included as applied loads. Nonlinear effects due to the tension-only capability of the tie rods were considered.

The support platform frame, tie rods, and lifting lugs were evaluated separately. The support frame was evaluated on the basis of maximum stress. The tie rods were evaluated on the basis of allowable load, which is determined by the capacity of the concrete embedments. The maximum load in any tie rod was approximately 88 percent of allowable. The lifting lugs were evaluated for elastic instability using the AISC criteria for combined axial and moment loading.

The interaction formula for this load state is:

f,+ f x+

• 1y (3.7-1)

Fa Fbx Fby where:

fa

= computed axial stress Fa = tolerable axial stress for zero bending moment fb

= computed bending stress Fb = tolerable bending stress; for zero axial stress, = 0.75 Sy Using equation 3.7-1, the stresses in the lifting legs are approximately 86 percent of allowable.

3.7.3.15.5 CRDM Support System Evaluation (Unit 2)

The integrated head assembly seismic support structure, tie rods, and head lifting legs were evaluated by the response spectrum method using a 3-D finite element model of the support system. Building spectra at the 140-ft elevation is applied at the tie rod attachments to the cavity walls and the replacement reactor vessel closure head spectra is applied at the ring beam attachments to the replacement reactor vessel closure head. Spectra applied to this structure are as follows: DE, DDE, HE, LTSP, and LOCA. CRDM forces on the structure from time-history analysis were included as applied loads. Qualification is based upon a linear analysis, in which the tie rods are modeled so as to represent their tension-only capabilities.

3.7-37 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 3.7.4 SEISMIC INSTRUMENTATION PROGRAM 3.7.4.1 Comparison With NRC Regulatory Guide 1.12, Revision 2 The seismic instrumentation consists of strong motion triaxial accelerometers that sense and record ground motions. This instrumentation meets the intent of RG 1.12, Revision

2. Enhancements to the seismic instrumentation have been made to improve the system effectiveness. The enhancements include supplemental accelerometers and rapid processing of the ground motion data. The enhancements exceed the intent of RG 1.12, Revision 2, and are not considered part of the licensing basis.

3.7.4.2 Location and Description of Instrumentation Seismic instrumentation is provided in accordance with RG 1.12, Revision 2, paragraph 1.2. All instruments are rigidly mounted so their records can be related to movement of the structures and ground motion. All are accessible for periodic servicing and for obtaining readings.

3.7.4.2.1 Strong Motion Triaxial Accelerometers Strong motion triaxial accelerometers provide time-histories of acceleration for each of three orthogonal directions. These histories are recorded in the accelerometer housings. The instruments start recording upon actuation of a seismic trigger which has an adjustable threshold. Six strong motion triaxial accelerometers are provided in accordance with RG 1.12. Revision 2, paragraph 1.2. Supplemental accelerometers provide ground motion data beyond the regulatory guidance and are not part of the licensing commitment, 3.7.4.3 Control Room Operator Notification Operation of the strong motion triaxial accelerometers (ESTA01 or ESTA28) will activate an annunciator in the control room and provide indications on the earthquake force monitor (EFM) in the RSI panel. The EFM will display the acceleration levels for all areas of both the Unit 1 containment base sensor (ESTA01) and the free field sensor (ESTA28). For the Emergency Plan event classification, it also provides a status of level exceedance for any axis on both sensors within a few minutes. The setpoint thresholds are set in accordance with Emergency Plan Action Levels.

3.7.4.4 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Responses In the event of an earthquake that produces significant ground motions, all seismic instruments are read and the readings compared to the corresponding design values.

This comparison, together with information provided by other plant instrumentation and an inspection of safety-related systems, forms the basis for a judgment on severity, level, and the effects of the earthquake.

3.7-38 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 3.7.5 SEISMIC DESIGN CONTROL 3.7.5.1 Equipment Purchased Directly by PG&E The position of PG&E's engineering staff in the corporate structure is shown in Figures 17.1-1 and 17.1-2. The procedures for specifying technical and quality assurance requirements in purchase orders and specifications are included in Sections 17.4, 17.5, and 17.8.

The seismic design requirements developed from the structure seismic system analysis are included in the purchase order or specification for Design Class I equipment. The purchase order or specification requires that the manufacturer submit seismic qualification data of the equipment to be furnished, for review by the responsible PG&E engineer. The procurement is approved only when all seismic design criteria are met.

3.7.5.2 Equipment Supplied by Westinghouse The following procedure is implemented for Design Class I mechanical equipment that falls within one of the many categories analyzed as described in Section 3.7.2 and shown to be rigid (frequency > 33 Hz).

(1)

Equivalent static acceleration factors for the horizontal and vertical directions must be checked against those in the Design Criteria Memoranda (DCM). Westinghouse must certify the adequacy of the equipment to meet the seismic requirements as described in Section 3.7.2 for DE, DDE, and HE.

(2)

Westinghouse must check to ensure that the given equivalent static acceleration factors are less than or equivalent to those given in the equipment analysis.

(3)

Westinghouse must perform the necessary reanalysis to the procedures and criteria presented herein for those cases, where required, due to revised DE, DDE, and HE seismic response spectra.

All other Design Class I equipment must be analyzed or tested as described in Sections 3.7.2 and 3.10.

Design control measures and design documentation for all Design Class I SSCs are in accordance with formalized quality assurance procedures. These procedures are presented in Chapter 17, Quality Assurance.

3.7-39 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 3.7.6 SEISMIC EVALUATION TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE HOSGRI EARTHQUAKE REQUIREMENTS UTILIZING A DEDICATED SHUTDOWN FLOWPATH 3.7.6.1 Post-Hosgri Shutdown Requirements and Assumed Conditions In response to a request from the NRC, PG&E evaluated the ability of DCPP to shut down following the occurrence of a 7.5M earthquake due to a seismic event on the Hosgri fault. This evaluation is presented in Reference 15, which was amended several times after it was first issued in order to respond to questions by the NRC and reflect agreements made at meetings with the NRC. The final document describes the method proposed by PG&E to shut down the plant after the earthquake, assuming a loss of all offsite power, but no concurrent accident, using only equipment qualified to remain operable following such an earthquake.

For this purpose, valves that are required to operate to achieve shutdown following the earthquake were qualified for active function to the Hosgri parameters, whereas other valves, which might have an active function for postaccident mitigation, but were not required to operate to achieve shutdown following the earthquake, were qualified for passive function (pressure boundary integrity) to the Hosgri parameters. This is consistent with the DCPP design basis stated in FSAR Section 3.7.1.1 that the DDE is the SSE for DCPP, and that the guidelines presented in RG 1.29 apply to the DDE.

In addition, pursuant to the NRC request, it was necessary to demonstrate that DCPP could be shut down following an HE in order to protect the health and safety of the public. The Hosgri evaluation presented in Reference 15 demonstrated this. To provide increased conservatism, PG&E has subsequently qualified all active valves for active function for an HE pursuant to a commitment made in Reference 17.

3.7.6.2 Post-Hosgri Safe Shutdown Flowpath The flowpath qualified to enable shutdown of the plant following an HE is defined in Chapter 5 of Reference 15. For this purpose, safe shutdown was defined as cold shutdown. It assumes concurrent loss of offsite power, a single active failure, but no concurrent accident or fire. Local manual operation of equipment from outside the control room is acceptable for taking the plant from hot standby to cold shutdown.

3.7.6.2.1 Hot Standby Hot standby is achieved by feeding the steam generators using the auxiliary feedwater system and by release of steam to the atmosphere through the 10 percent steam dump valves. Although other long term cooling water sources may be available, only the seismically qualified condensate storage tank and firewater storage tank are assumed to be available.

3.7-40 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE 3.7.6.2.2 Cold Shutdown Cold shutdown is achieved by use of the normal charging system flow path.

Depressurization is performed using auxiliary spray (alternatively, the PORVs may be used). Boration to cold shutdown concentration is accomplished using boric acid from the boric acid storage tanks via the emergency borate valve 8104 and using a centrifugal charging pump (CCP1 or CCP2) charging through valves FCV-128, HCV-142, 8108, 8107, and 8146 or 8147. Sampling capability to verify boron concentration is available. While reactor coolant pump seal injection flow would be available, the seal water return flow path and the normal letdown flow path are assumed not to be available. Calculations have shown that even with letdown unavailable, by taking credit for shrinkage of the reactor coolant during cooldown, sufficient volume is available in the reactor coolant system to borate to cold shutdown using 4 percent boric acid.

Once the RCS is less than or equal to 390 psig and 3500F, the normal RHR system is placed into service, along with the portions of the component cooling water and auxiliary salt water systems which support RHR operation.

3.7.6.2.3 Single Active Failure Systems and components used to perform the post-Hosgri shutdown described above have redundant counterparts except for components along the normal charging flowpath, which lacks redundancy since its redundant flow path for emergency boration is the high pressure safety injection flow path. Use of that redundant flow path is not postulated for post-Hosgri shutdown, however, so adequate redundancy had to be incorporated into the normal charging flowpath to enable cold shutdown following the HE. For this purpose, the Hosgri evaluation assumed that manual bypass valves 8387B or 8387C would be used in the event that fail-open valve FCV-128 was to fail closed.

Manual bypass valve 8403 would be used in the event that fail-closed valve HCV-142 was to fail closed. Fail-open valve FCV-1 10A and manual bypass valve 8471 would be used in the event that motor-operated valve 8104 was to fail closed. Valves 8146 and 8147 were assumed redundant for normal charging, and valves 8145 and 8148 were assumed redundant for pressurizer auxiliary spray. Valves with pneumatic operators, which are required to operate to achieve shutdown, were fitted with seismically qualified air or nitrogen accumulators to enable their operation in spite of the loss of their instrument air or nitrogen supply. Although some of these valves do not have safety-related operators since they are not required for accident mitigation, they are seismically qualified to ensure their operability for post-Hosgri shutdown.

3.7.6.2.4 Equipment Required for Post-Hosgri Shutdown The equipment determined to be required to achieve post-Hosgri cold shutdown in the manner described above is presented in Sections 7.3 and 9.2 of Reference 15. Some minor revisions to the list of valves required have been made, and are reflected in the latest revision of the active valve list, FSAR Table 3.9-9. Instrument Class IA, 3.7-41 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE Instrument Class IB, Category 1, and on a case-by-case basis, Instrument Class ID instrumentation are qualified to the Hosgri parameters, and assumed to be operable following an HE. Additional instrumentation determined to be required is presented in Section 7.3 of Reference 15. Some revisions have been made to that list; the revised list of required instrumentation is presented in Reference 16. The electrical Class 1 E system is also qualified to the Hosgri parameters, and is assumed to be operable following an HE.

3.

7.7 REFERENCES

1.

Deleted in Revision 4.

2.

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Soil-Structure Interaction: The Status of Current Analysis Methods and Research, NUREG/CR-1780, January 1981.

(Section by J. M. Roesset.)

3.

J. E. Luco, Independence Functions for a Rigid Foundation on a Layered Medium, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 31, 1974.

4.

R. V. Whitman and F. E. Richardt, Design Procedures for Dynamically Loaded Foundations, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, SM6, Nov. 1967.

5.

G. Bohm, Seismic Analysis of Reactor Internals for Pressurized Water Reactors, First National Congress of Pressure Vessel and Piping Technology, ASME Panel on Seismic Analysis & Design of Pressure Vessel and Piping Components, San Francisco, May 10-12, 1971.

6.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (Division of Reactor Development) Publication TID - 7024, Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes.

7.

Appendix A to 10 CFR 100, Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.

8.

Damping Values of Nuclear Power Plant Components, WCAP-7921-AR, May 1974.

9.

Stress Evaluation of Pipingq Systems Assuming Single Snubber Failures, Letter dated January 24, 1978, from P.A. Crane (PG&E) to J.F. Stolz (NRC).

10.

Description of the Systems Interaction Program for Seismically Induced Events, Revision 4, August 29, 1980.

11.

Answer to the NRC Staff Questions on the Westinghouse Evaluation of the Effect of Grid Deformation on ECCS Performance, transmitted via letter May 11, 1978, P.A. Crane to J.F. Stolz.

3.7-42 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE

12.

Supplement No. 5 to the Safety Evaluation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Reactor Licensing, Washington, DC, September 1976.

13.

"Dynamics of Fixed-Base Liquid Storage Tanks," Velestsos, A.S. and T.Y. Yang; Proceedings of U.S.-Japan Seminar on Earthquake Engineering Research with Emphasis on Lifeline Systems, Tokyo, November 1976.

14.

Westinghouse 1981 ECCS Evaluation Model Using the BASH Code, WCAP-10266-P-A, Rev. 2, March 1987.

15.

Seismic Evaluation for Postulated 7.5M Hosgri Earthquake, DCPP Units 1&2, PG&E.

16.

PG&E Design Change Package N-47546.

17.

PG&E Letter to the NRC, DCL-92-198 (LER 1-92-015).

18.

Phase I Final Report - Design Verification Program, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Revision 14, transmitted via letter dated October 14, 1983, J. 0. Schuyler (PG&E) to D. G. Eisenhut (NRC).

19.

Final Report of the Diablo Canyon Lonq Term Seismic Program, July 1988, PG&E.

20.

Addendum to the 1988 Final Report of the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic Program, February 1991, PG&E.

21.

NUREG-0675, Supplement Number 34, Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, NRC, June 1991.

22.

NRC letter to PG&E, "Transmittal of Safety Evaluation Closing Out Diablo Canyon Long-Term Seismic Program," April 17, 1992.

23.

PG&E letter to the NRC, "Long Term Seismic Program - Future Plant Modifications," DCL-91-178, July 16, 1991.

24.

Supplement No. 7 to the Safety Evaluation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Reactor Licensing, Washington, DC, May 1978.

25.

Supplement No. 8 to the Safety Evaluation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Reactor Licensing, Washington, DC, November 1978.

3.7-43 Revision 19 May 2010

DCPP UNITS 1 & 2 FSAR UPDATE

26.

Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, Regulatory Guide 1.61, USAEC, October 1973.

27.

PG&E Licensing Basis Impact Evaluation 2005-03, "Replacement Steam Generator Seismic Damping Values," May 25, 2005.

28.

License Amendment Request 04-07, Revision to Technical Specifications 3.7.17 and 4.3 for Cycles 14-16 for a Cask Pit Spent Fuel Storage Rack

29.

SFAD-07-168, Revision 1, Diablo Canyon Unit 2 Seismic and LOCA Analysis for Reactor Vessel Head Proiect, Staub, D. E. and Jiang, J. X., January 24, 2008 (Located in PG&E Document 6023227-139).

30.

PG&E Document 6023227-19, "Damping Values for Use in the Integrated Head Assembly Seismic Response Analysis at Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP)

Units 1 and 2."

31.

Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, Regulatory Guide 1.61, Revision 1, USNRC, for the Seismic Analyses for the IHA and Unit 2 CRDMs.

3.7-44 Revision 19 May 2010

0C2J 0,

.00 FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-1 FREE FIELD GROUND MOTION DE ANALYSIS Revision 11 November 1996

FSA UNI DIABLC FREE El D

21.00 24.00 R UPDATE TS I AND 2

) CANYON SITE IGURE 3.7-2 EID GROUND MOTION

)DE ANALYSIS Revision 11 November 1996

a 40 0-8 LiJ ocr cr-Li

-JOD COMPARISON OF FREE FIELD COMPUTER SPECTRUM

• AND THE FSAR SMOOTH SPECTRUW -

DE ANALYSIS 2% DAMPING RATIO 0

1FREE FIELD COMPUTER SPECTRRUI FSAR SMOOTH SPECTRUM C3CD I

~

~I

.00 0'. 125V 0'.25 0.375 PERIOD

0. 50 0.625 IN SECONDS 0.75 0.8S76 I.00 FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-3 COMPARISON OF SPECTRA 2% DAMPING RATIO Revision 11 November 1996

a C4 zo Zca ra-LUJ

-J=

"sag,,

COMPARISON OF FREE FIELD COMPUTER SPECTRUM AND THE FSAR SMOOTH SPECTRUIM - DOE ANALYSIS 5S DAMPING RATIO

/FREE FIELD COMPUTER SPECTRUM FSAR, SMOOTH SPECTRUM' 0191

.4 m

I i

rbo.0 O.125 0.25 0".375 PERIOD O'.50 0.625

.IN SECONDS m

i m

0.75 0".975

1. c-FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-4 COMPARISON OF SPECTRA 5% DAMPING RATIO Revision 11 November 1996

z0 LU

-A 4j to I.S 1.0 0.67 0.3 0

a 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 PERIOD, SECONDS Revision I I November 1996

9.S 2.0

'.5 S

0

-j UA 0.3 a

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0,4 O.S 0.4 0.7 0.8 PERIOD, SECONDS Revision I I November 1996

00.

/I-w FSAR UPDATE 0.*

UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 4 C TURBINE BUILDING DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA HORIZONTAL HOSGRI 7.5 M/BLUME TAU= 0.08 0

1 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0,6 0.7 0.8 PERIOD, SECONDS Revision 11 November 1996

c% to AMPING

4.

.9. -~

/

t.0 3%/ -I 4-

+-~----E

-t N

I 5%,

.4 I

4

/

0 LI-QU I*

-t 9

1 7/

/

7%

.4

4.

I -~

f N

1.0.IT

-t 9

1.

I I

t FSAR UPDATE 0.6 0.5 0

UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 -4 D CONTAINMENT & INTAKE STRUCTURES DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA HORIZONTAL HOSGRI 7.5 M/NEWMARK TAU= 0.04 0

0.I 0.3 0.4.

0.5 0,6 0#7 0.0 PERIOD, SECONDS Revision 11 November 1996

2.5 LU

-1 LU 1.5 1.0 0.5 0

0 0.,

0.2 0.3 0,4 0.3 5.&

0,7 O.

PERIOD, SECONDS Revision 11 November 1996

ZI.S 0

-1 LU 2.t) 1"5 1.0 0.5 0

0 0.1 0,3 o.4 0.,

0,6 0.7 0.8 PERIODSECONDS Revision 11 November 1996

1.0 0.6'0 0

-j Lu A

AA A V

0.00

-1.00 0.0 4.8 l.e al.'

f2.0 14.4

/4.8 11.?.

2 1. co 24.0 TIME IN SECONDS FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 4 G CONTAINMENT & INTAKE STRUCTURES HORIZONTAL TIME - HISTORY HOSGRI 7.5M/BLUME TAU = 0.04 Revision 11 November 1996

/.00 0,60 z

< 0.00 I

C.)

-0.60

-1.00 0.0 S,4 4.8 7.2 9.G 12.0 TIME IN SECONDS 14.4 14;.8 1q.12 91.6 24.0 FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7.- 4 H AUXILIARY BUILDING HORIZONTAL TIME - HISTORY HOSGRI 7.5 M/BLUME TAU= 0.052 Revision 11 November 1996

1.00 z0 LI-

-10.00 0.0 2.4 4,8

.2

. G 2.0

14.

16.

1q12 e.C*

24.

TIME IN SECONDS FS A R UP D ATF UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 4 1 TURBINE BUILDING HORIZONTAL TIME - HISTORY HOSGRI 7.5 M/BLUME TAU= 0.080 Revision 11 November 1996

-.00 0O m

0.00 0.0 e.4 4.8 7.2 q.&

/e.O

/4,4

/1.& I/7.e ec

.4.0 TIME IN SECONDS r

FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 -4 J

ýONTAINMENT & INTAKE STRUCTURES HORIZONTAL TIME - HISTORY HOSGRI 7.5M/NEWMARK TAU = 0.04 Revision 11 November 1996

1.00 0. 6 0 P

O.

A p-LO

<0.00 VV Lu

-1 LuJ 0.0 2.4 4.8 7.2

• I.G

$.0 14.4

/C. 8 11.2 g

l.

e4.o TIME IN SECONDS rF/AR UPDl/'A I c=

UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 4 K AUXILIARY BUILDING HORIZONTAL TIME - HISTORY HOSGRI 7.5MINEWMAR K TAU= 0.052 Revision II November 1996

.00 0.60 -

z 0

Lu

-J0.00 I

-0.~50

_________1 0.0.

e.4 4.8 7.2

9.

e.0 TIME IN SECONDS FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 4L TURBINE BUILDING HORIZONTAL TIME - HISTORY HOSGRI 7.5MINEWMLARK TAU = 0.067 Revision 11 A April 1997

1.00 0.50 E-0.00

- 0.50

-1.00 0.0

.. 4 4,8 7,?

9.G

(/Z.o 4,

TIME IN SECONDS

/(.a FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 4 M VERTICAL TIME HISTORY HOSGRI 7.5MINEWMARK TAU = 0.0 Revision 11A April 1997

t.s

'a.O

/...-T I M E H I S T O R )

uJ+o

-a

h.

-7 0.5

.0.0 0.1 0,,

PERIOD, SECONDS I

0'a 0-7 0,6.

0"?

1,o FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 4 N CONTAINMENT & INTAKE STRUCTURES COMPARISON OF SPECTRA HOR IZONTAL HOSGRI 7.5 M/BLUME TAU=0.04,7% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

t.oo

• 7/,,*

N/J 7"0,*

0 I--

O.

0.0_0.0 0.1 Me 0,.

0.4 0.5

0.

0.7 0.8 0.7 10 PERIOD, SECONDS FSAR IJPl)ATi:

UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 40 AUXILIARY BUILDING COMPARISON OF SPECTRA HORIZONTAL HOSGRI 7.5M/BLUME TAU= 0.052,7% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

I-0 0.5 0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.G 0.8 1.0

[,9, 1,4 I1G 1.8

.. 0 PERIOD.SECONDS F

FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 -4 P TURBINE BUILDING COMPARISON OF SPECTRA HORIZONTAL HOSGRI 7.5 M/BLUME TAU = 0.080, 7% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

/1.5 z0 w

-j w

0.0 -

0.0 0./

0.e 0.3 0.4 0.S 0.G 0.7 PERIOD SECONDS 0.8 0.q7

/.0 FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 4 Q CONTAINMENT AND INTAKE STRUCURES COMPARISON OFSPECTRA HORIZONTAL HOSGRI 7.5 M/NEWMARK TAU = 0.04,7% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

z0*

LLI.

C.j O,6 0.0 0.1 O2 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.G 0.7 08 0.,7 1.o PERIOD, SECONDS FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 4 R AUXILIARY BUILDING COMPARISON OF SPECTRA HORIZONTAL HOSGRI 7.5 M/NEWMARK TAU= 0.052,7% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

'.5

,a z

0

-LI C-)

C-)

4j as 5 0.0 L 0.0 0.1 o.e 0.5 0.4 0.5 O.G 0.7 0.8 0.1 PERIOD. SECONDS 1.0 FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 4S COMPARISON OF SPECTRA VERTICAL HOSGRI 7.5 MINEWMARK TAU = 0.0. 7% DAMPING o

Revision I 1A April 1997

0 t.0 1.6 z0 LL~

UU IhO Tim MIST 7~~IV 14157p2 0.5 0

0.0 0.2 0.4 O.G 0.8 1.0 I'S~

1.4 I.G 1.8 PERIOD, SECONDS FSAR UPDATE UNIT 1 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 4 T TURBINE BUILDING COMPARISON OF SPECTRA HORIZONTAL HOSGRI 7.SM/NEWMARK TAU = 0.067, 7% DAMPING Revision I1 November 1996

£-J"SL ONP FVM MertY z

7 a

R II GLSA CORINFCSAR UDAT 1S4 N010,4 P-rN7? '"AAA&

U 0Wete N Is AN 94 NIT N

I MaND W0-0' JH' 71 TATS cOE NT00A4 POINT UWNITS ELEEN AND 2 Revision 11 November 1996

%K L C-G 6N r.

10 NOf3AL (PO/N7 NUM,3&,e

(

ED INIZCA~r$J N/0A4 PI 0 OA47$

~SYMA,~7 i-SP01VsE JP:C r/CA A,? 6 I

~COMIOU76r3 Note:

Used for horizontal and vertical analysis of exterior shell and horizontal analysis of internal structure i

i ii

• n FSAR UPDATE UNIT I DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-5 A CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

(

Revision 11 November 1996

LGE6N121 0

MAS.S PVOIN~T 7"O/qJ/ONA(. 06CGR66 OF"CE'ZOM 7lRANS4LA7IONAC- /ZEGRGIS or F/tc zlom F

0.93 0.4 4~

In 9%

cM U) cv I"

tL) 0 Z

x mQIC-L I

6% ACCIOENTA4 C-CCeN7*7ICI1y morz aL 2

7 76 ACCIt3ENTAL ECC5N7RICITY FSAR UPDATE UNIT I DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 *5 B CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE EXTERIOR SHELL MATHEMATICAL MODELS FOR TORSIONAL ANALYSIS

(.

Revision 11 November 1996

(

L,.E GE N rDJ 0

MASS PWONr I-T0RJ/otNA4-WG(REG 012 PI/GS.OM

/-

7"RANJ4ATIONA C. /t3GGRG S OP -&TO R1e/61 L.

.0.8'

• CONTAl NM-N7

/W.*RC*cI'Ue

/ci, 7-YA.

a 7 E.140.0 1

-,17,jS '

no-4

-EL 114.0'$I e

I z

-ii a

10.0 f 6

I I

CON TIAA/MC N r

,?R uCTrurs I

.f7B w effr MOI L.

I 5% ACCClCNrA e..CCE/NtRICI7tY 7 % ACC//.)NTAL ECC!N7RIeCI7Y FSAR UPDATE UNIT I DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3,7-5 C CONTAINMENT INTERIOR STRUCTURE MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR HORIZONTAL AND TORSIONAL ANALYSIS Revision 11 November 1996

1%

Z tf CON M INm e ovT N

N2~

Numae/?

OMAJJ PO/tq' ARE6 ALONG It Oc JrRCr7LJ/E Aw/) ARE COMMON 70 ALL.

FI/VE,aRAMES P LAN UNIT 2 f L E VA T/IO.NS FSAR UPDATE UNIT 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 5 D MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR VERTICAL ANALYSIS OF CONTAINMENT INTERIOR STRUCTURE Revision 11 November 1996

(OThIltjH I 1 IAA.L

-~

.9i

• 1." "4.L b

A h

A.

I.

p* I i aihi a

I I

r' I IaJ

~u L

~11 AI O

AA+/-ZZ.L I

~

CI ~I I~1

'777

• 7 FSAR UPDATE UNIT 1 DIABLO CANYON 8ITE FIGURE 3.7 - 5 E FRAME ANALYSIS FOR VERTICAL RESPONSE COLUMN LINE 6 (FRAME 6)

Revision 11 November 1996

MODE /

pe~loo -Oess Sec.

PERIOf)= 0.oq3 seCC MoDe 3 AloOe 4 PERIO/ = 0.088 56C.

PER/ 00=.073 76C.

MODie 6 poeglooZ = O.oGo JEC.

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 -6 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE MODE SHAPES Revision 11 November 1996 MOID& G MO~e 7 P6IO. -O.06'8 JWCC 06t/Z/00 = 0.067 5CC.

MOra& 8 MOl:eC q 10 e-R101.)

0.065/ sec.

JCeR/OD O.O IC005?eC.

2

_.AXIS 0)z S VA4 M CT7R r

-AXIS Oc

.,f M M e 7/? V ZL.

JrHS L &

& c. M cN 7

(

REPRPSSNr tp6G~e~es or -?Ffz 6 00M J,ýGREes or-Alee~rzom

,tSL r-OffCeS

(

WALNGISITUONAL C. O/ZC&

P~

0 OOP~ Foiece Pj-7.

$S4GA(? rzo/CS A4Zr -LONGITUIJtIJAL MOM C-AlT

• 1~. - CIRCUMFC-?RENVAL MvoA'eN7 Mir -CROSS MOME-NT SHEC.LL MOMENTS FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 -7 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE SHELL FORCES AND MOMENTS AND ELEMENT DEGREES OF FREEDOM Revision 11 November 1996

3-D NONLINEAR MODEL (ANSR)

KEY I

NODE NUMBER W~

BEAM-COLUMN ELEMENT SEMI-RIGID BEAM-COLUMN ELEMENT 0

TRUSSELEMENT (O

BOUNDARY-GAP ELEMENT FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 -7 A POLAR CRANE THREE-DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR MODEL Revision I I November 1996

C OIlNTAINMENT STRL1TURE (FINITE ELEMENT MNEL)

ACt

.IERATION Tr-EF-SPECTRA H-ERIZENTAL ACCELERATION 10E) w I

NODAL POINT 47, ELEVATION 88-56. FT-DAMPING RATIO = 0-O5 0-02, 0.05 3-00 2-0o

.00 0-0 0-10 0-20 0-30 0-40 0-S0 0-60 0.70 0o80 0-0 1.00 PERIOD IN SEXONHE FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 -8 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE TYPICAL SPECTRA Revision 11 November 1996

CO NTAIIENT' STI.JCTURE (FINITE ELENEN NC4IL-1 ACCELERATION S ECTRA 1HERIZCNTAL ACCELERATION (GE)

NOLAL POINT 191, ELEVATION 140-00 FT.

OAWPING RATIO = 0.O05, 0-029 0-05 9-00 3.00 I

I m

0-0 0.10 O-20 0-30 0-40 0-.50 0-6*0 0-70 0-80 0-90 1.00 SI IUPDATE PERIMD IN SE03ND UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 9 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE TYPICAL SPECTRA Revision I I November 1OQ,0

CON4TAINMENT ST1LETLFE -(FINITE ELEME.NT-MOIEL)

ACXELERATIEN1 Eg"Ol'NE SPECTRA HOcRIZONTAL ACCELERATION.fOE)

N013AL POINT 37P ELEVATION 109-67 FT-.

6.00 1

ilDAMPING RATIO z 0 -005 11 0'2~ 0.-05

.~4.01D II 2-00 ---

0-0A 0.0 040 0 ia0 0-30 0.40 0.50 013 0.70 0-80 fqn imn PRIOD IN SECONDS FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 10 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE TYPICAL SPECTRA Revision 11 November 1996

CQJTAINMENT ST1UCTUL (FINITE ELEMENT MEL) 15-0 111 [

II I:ACCELERATION "S1E O PECRiA HORI2ZNTAL ACCELERATION (ME)

I~ IlIIII I

It XIWAL POINT 14Y ELEVATIUN 231-00 FT-

-0 111 mf I3AWING RATID = 0OCv 0-02f, 0-05 SMOOTH SPECTRA 9-000 II I

I A

F;

1. i I 1

! 11 1

1 I-O I~~~

IIIfl l:[

0 0-0.~~~~~~~~~~~~

0_0--?

-0 04

-0 06

-0 08

.p I0 F-AR UPAT PMMI EOM"irf u

DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE TYPICAL SPECTRA Revision 11 November 1996

mONTAIM~I~EN STF4JCTURE (FINITE ELBtVENT IMATEL)

ACCELERATION "EONSE SPEILTRA

~

HCRIZONTAL ACIEhERATICN (E) 2O~~O N(LAL POINT 29 ELEVATION 301-*64 FT-I I I I IO I I I I I I I D0 0*-05 I I I l

l S143TH SPECIRA 10-0 0.0

,,,10l 0-20 030 l

0.4 0.50 RATIO 0-7005,80-,

0-90 10 iPERIODI I

if NI I niS I IUPDAT I

iI I If 1, i

, i l l i l Il f i l t

I1 1

1 l

I i I I~._J_

AP I i' I

I_

jI1

,!I~

0.c

• 0-0) 0--

0-2 0-3 0I40 0!5 0i6 0-7 08 09 I1.00

,,ERIO IN SECOND F,,,,,

-I UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 -12 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE TYPICAL SPECTRA Revision 1I November 1996

k'S

%IQI AU kz O

40 6

0 0

6 QZ 0

Q 0

ft

'S 0

C

• ..L w~n t'N

• "vocvr--)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 12A CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE Revision 11 November 1996

j*aI'/ I N "A, 1..

RCJP0NJ'e,feCCI7'A NEWMARX 7, 6 M HO.fGR I C.eVArTbON

/56.8a3' O AMPIIJG a eo 5 Y,

B~

(3

-A l

0l I

0.0 0.1 0.?

0.3

0.

0.

O.6 O.G 0.7

0.

0.'1 1.0

,oIZIo*

IN.reco,~rJ" FSAR UPDAT E UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 12B CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE Revision 11 November 1996

VC-T/ CA L.

R e."ON.T CeLVATION 13AMIPING S J'7"VC TWl*

7. 54 MOJG/R I e.30 447

'I 3,.

It.

"7 a

0.0 0.1 0.?

0.3 0.4

-0.5 0o.

0.7 0.4 o.1 1.0

,eRloIa /N J.6EcoNrJ.r FSAR UPDATEB UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 12C CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE Revision 11 November 1996

0

(

1 z Z.

L)

Iiio k.J lb V:z V olQe,0(9 Z

-c lu lu 4u Itt 0

0 vJ Q

0

'S.

(

0 q6o 03 on Ni/ Vr vocý'r~c' FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 12D CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE Revision 11 November 1996

0o 1%

4o~

i (ui Qe o'e o

O- %.

,,,.T.

ps 0

0 Q

0 to

'4, 1o0 4

3W/-Itnf. S ty/ ip ocvr.S

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON BITE FIGURE 3.7 - 12E CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE Revision 11 November 1996

0

(

0(gIko0 oIZ~ - -:

A!QJ) N.,

0 (3

(

Q 0

'U Q.

is.

d

'Pr/VbcY H/ V Ni er cJN~'V tiD 0

I FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-12 F CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE Revision 11 November 1996

(.

• 13 aj 1

(V,

(. a

t'K 1.5 41Qq Z

00 oQ.

(

o*

0i

£r.tlINP G N1 Apply~erl~'

N10".Lyala,9DD k FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-12G CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE Revision 11 November 1996

(

FSAR UPDATE UNIT I DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 12 H CONTAINMENT - ANNULUS STRUCTURE Revision 11 November 1996

FSAR UPDATE UNIT 2 DIABLO CANYON BITE FIGURE 3.7 - 12 1 CONTAINMENT - ANNULUS STRUCTURE Revision 11 November 1996

K 0)U z

C C

'Al Lu U

U C

7 0AUPINO vamuel

.0200.

Am10.

am70.

(

PERIOD

( 5EC I FSAR UPDATE UNIT 1 DIABLO CANYON 8I1TE FIGURE 3.7 - 12 1 CONTAINMENT ANNULUS SPECTRA Revision 11 November 1996

(.

UNWIND VF..IE

.0,200.

,,10000.

.0700@

U,')

-4 iU u

I.b fU FSAR UPDATE UNIT 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 12 K CONTAINMENT ANNULUS SPECTRA Revision 11 November 1996

5.00 4.00 3.00 B-

'a 1.00 0.00

-70

.-80 00 PERIOD (SECONDS)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 12 L POLAR CRANE HOSGRI HORIZONTAL SPECTRUM IN X DIRECTION WITH 4% DAMPING AT EL. 140' Revision 11 November 1996

10.00 C,

z 0.

taJ

-Jad Li U

7.50 5.00 2.50 0.00 L a.1

• 30

.40 PER10D (SECONDS)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-12 M POLAR CRANE DDE HORIZONTAL SPECTRUM IN Z DIRECTION WITH 5% DAMPING AT EL. 140' Revision 11 November 1996

5.000 I.&

1 I W I

V V

V V

I fV

/2-A Rn a f q.uuu i.-

3.0000 2.ooo00-1.0000 -,_-

M a-a' Md

-h MA

(

-1 0.0 4~~~~~~~

o 0

a 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

o 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

ap 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

q,

.q e

0 0

0 0

0 d-Pitlis (SIC)

FSAR UPDATE UNIT I DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-12 N PIPEWAY STRUCTURE HOSGRI BLUME N-S RESPONSE SPECTRA

% DAMPING 2,3,4,7 ELEVATION 109'4" NODE 893 Revision 1I November 1996

S4.0000 dac I

a 2.0000 Al r ----- z 0.0 o

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

a 0

0 0

0 o

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0.

oo 0

d c

o ol FSAR UPDATE UNIT I DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-12 0 PIPEWAY STRUCTURE HOSGRI BLUME E-W RESPONSE SPECTRA

% DAMPING 2,3,4,7 ELEVATION 109'- 4" NODE 893 Revision 11 November 1996

2.0000 0.0 o

a 0

0 0

o 0

0 0

0 0

d 0

0 o

a 0

0 0

o0 0

0 0

o d 0

do FSAR UPDATE UNIT I DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-12P PIPEWAY STRUCTURE HOSGRI BLUME VERTICAL RESPONSE SPECTRA

% DAMPING 2,3,4,7 ELEVATION 109"4" NODE 893

(

Revision 11 November 1996

z 0

S.-

w DAJIPINO VALUES

.0200,

.0300.

.0500,

.0700, ELEVATION.

108.73" NODE.

1053

. 7i

.0, I

PER 0D (SEC) 1.90J 10-00 FSAR UPDATE UNIT 2 DIABLO CANYON BITE FIGURE 3.7 - 12Q PIPEWAY STRUCTURE HOSGRI BLUME N-S RESPONSE SPECTRA Revision 11 November 1996

DAMtPINO VALUES

.0200.

.0300.

.0500.

.0?00.

I* MA I-C.)

C.)

ELEVATION@ 108.73' NODEt 1063 5I.0 0

1.00

(.

00 P E R 1 0 D (SEC)

FSAR UPDATE UNIT 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 12R PIPEWAY STRUCTURE HOSGRI BLUME E-W RESPONSE SPECTRA Revision 11 November 1996

/

U, 0*

I-

-J

.)

DAMIPING VALUES

.0200,

. 0300.

.0*00.

.0700.

ELEVATIONs 100.73' NODUM 1053 1.00 M

.0I J0u P E RIO D l,.10 30.00I (SEC

)

FSAR UPDATE UNIT 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-12 S PIPEWAY STRUCTURE HOSGRI BLUME VERTICAL RESPONSE SPECTRA Revision 11 November 1996

LEGEND:

2

-NODE NUMBER ID - ELEMENT NUMBER I

- ROTATIONAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM e -TRANSLATIONAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM 0 -MASS POINT

,EL

. 11.

IEL 103T1,OEL~

IL, 140' 2

2 N4 MODEL E-W MODEL VERTICAL MODEL (HOSGRI ONLY)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 -13 AUXILIARY BUILDING MATHEMATICAL MODEL Revision 11 November 1996

Y z

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-13A AUXILIARY BUILDING FLEXIBLE SLAB MODEL Revision 11 November 1996

LEGEND:

SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL MEMBER DYNAMIC DEGREE OF FREEDOM 162

$I X3 I

DYNAMIC DEGREES OF FREEDOM (TYPICAL)

X1 X2 FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-13B AUXILIARY BUILDING FUEL HANDLING CRANE SUPPORT STRUCTURE MODEL NO. 2.2 Revision 11 November 1996

L 4c.G fN )

CONcgfre XWdEg.c r.. fELc I..INER C-C.EM eN-FSAR UPDATE_

UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-14 OUTDOOR WATER STORAGE TANKS:

REFUELING WATER TANK, AXISYMMETRIC MODEL Revision 11 November 1996

(

(

NCON49417L

%fNSL.

(4 SM NT P t4AfNjP5dk 71ANAC 47564L.1#A'lz NPI~6A7I 0 V

r ATN/C FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 -15 OUTDOOR WATER STORAGE TANKS:

FIREWATER AND TRANSFER TANK, AXISYMMETRIC MODEL Revision 11 November 1996

y

(

z FSAR UPDATE UNIT I DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 15 A OUTDOOR WATER STORAGE TANKS:

REFUELING WATER TANK.

PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF HALF-TANK MODEL Revision 11 November 1996

(

AJ0 tv VoDes S 408 AtoOF *0/ YEAW4ALS t 46 getEES DowEr/A ~*2 FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 -15 B HALF-TANK COMPUTER MODEL Revision 11 November 1996

St'A I

FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-15C TURBINE BUILDING UNIT 1 PORTION HORIZONTAL MODEL ISOMETRIC Revision 11 November 1996

T 1 9 1'

61 114 1

8 1

47 77 97 127 147 177 197 227 239 247 277 297 327 347 377 I -

U -

I -

I I -

U I -

I I

415 WAR X

N 3-%

2 &1 >> >N

'i,\\ 2;01Qil, 33~~ i96 25 61

\\ýD 1262*

32(

407 422 431 13 74 41 4A&

N K

2 1"

gn-

~32 i13 48>~123N A

4 1336-, *

357, 409

424, I

32 109 110 137 I__

~

U 165 6_57

_264

_288 33 L67,."

2_lt 2'19_ý'% 5*8NNý,9265 '28_7, J322 \\

ý358.Ž 411 I.-

~--~

m U -~

204 264U I

6 "

434 14 40.x 19 246\\'

312i

.340 "

397

~.i U -

~m t~

urn.

U -

U u~r U -

I 48 78 is li8 148 178 198 228 248 278 298 328 348 378 417 z

TRUSS ELEMENTS BEAM ELEMENTS PLANE STRESS ELEMENTS FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 15 D TURBINE BUILDING UNIT 1 PORTION HORIZONTAL MODEL PLAN AT ELEV. 140' Revision 11 November 1996

430 459 405 360 320 300 262 28 36 164 140 117 53 t ELEMENT FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 -15E TURBINE BUILDING VERTICAL MODEL NO. I PLAN AT ELEVATION 140' Revision 11 November 1996

Q (D

$71 S24 97 A24 41 57 32%

St6i 201 I&S 2

495 70 S20 Liu!E k

4 617 4qA S E-A 2L_.

236 t4t 11

(

1 45

-419 M2 354 314 266 113 94 II i6

(

SIC

-~

~--

4.-

to 2'S

~j fl9Lo 447 B95 us tee aso au, I"

al as AO& ALY All AIS 346 t~6 tat 2M~

)A 26f 44 441 410 w

U It

.3.

XL24!

4; IV I" -

-4 3' FSAR UPDATE UNIT I DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 15 F TURBINE BUILDING VERTICAL MODEL NO.1 ELEVATION AT LINE 3.5

(

Revision 11 November 1996

ML 9j, 82 n TOTAL NUMBER OF ELEMENTS

= 208 FSAR UPDATE UNIT 1 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-1 5G TURBINE PEDESTAL SEISMIC ANALYSIS MODEL Revision 17 November 2006

FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 15 H INTAKE STRUCTURE TOP DECK MATHEMATICAL MODEL, ELEVATION + 17.5 FT.

Revision 11 November 1996

'I.

~

54P.JOJ~J(~

6g/oi'J>

'.1 I

(OF-AM C-LdMeJJTG',)

Tof DEcIK.

ELJ.17.5'"? It 73 75 7&,

I tJDDF-NJldi4b*5 iacr 6 11M "~

12 I

4 8?

i(a X0 MAU-Ag L.-IA.,'

at. -e. I*.'-

a -

- 6z 8

goql I "

90 W7 Flo itivEit-r "I

"-'[1 4

.- 31.5' q,

0.

SEE FIG. 3.7-15 H FOR LOCATION OF SECTION A-A FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-15X INTAKE STRUCTURE TRANSVERSE SECTION A-A MATHEMATICAL MODEL Revision 11 November 1996

PE R 1OD (S EC I 10.00 FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 16 AUXILIARY BUILDING FLOOR ELEV. 100"-0" N-S HORIZONTAL SPECTRA DESIGN EARTHQUAKE 1/, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

cc w

w L.)

P E R 1O0D t5E C )

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-17 AUXILIARY BUILDING FLOOR ELEV. 163'-0" N-S HORIZONTAL SPECTRA DESIGN EARTHQUAKE 1,

1,2,3,5, 7% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

• t i.0100 U

lii P

1 I

UNT I

AN 2

'%~

~

a FIGURE 3a 7 -.aI--

AUILAR BUILIDING:

~

!1 I-

-ia

..~f.....-

q I

/I FLOO EL.

1 PETROD (SEC)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2!

DIABLO CANYON SITE FtGURE 3.7-18 AUXILIARY BUILDING FLOOR ELEV. 163'-O" N-S TORSIONAL SPECTRA DESIGN EARTHQUAKE 1/, 1, 2, 3. 5, 7% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

I I I

NOl ta to-

.o0 P E R 0

( S EC I FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 -19 AUXILIARY BUILDING FLOOR ELEV. 100'-O" N-S TORSIONAL SPECTRA DESIGN EARTHQUAKE

%, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7% DAMPING Revision I I November 1996

01 tal 4j La cc3 PE R 1 00 S EC I FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-20 AUXILIARY BUILDING FLOOR ELEV. 163'-0" E-W HOR IZONTAL SPECTRA DESIGN EARTHQUAKE

%, 1,2,3,5,7% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

S-i LA cc3 PEA1 00 tSEC)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-21 AUXILIARY BUILDING FLOOR ELEV. 100--0' E-W HORIZONTAL SPECTRA DESIGN EARTHQUAKE

1.

2. 3, 5, 7% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

u's ub Lb p E gOI a IS.

59cCI FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-21A AUXILIARY BUILDING E-W HOSGRI HORIZONTAL FLOOR SPECTRA AT EL 14-0"'

2,3,4,7, AND 10% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

C-2 S..

w

-I w

cc PERO E f

0 (3E C I FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-21B AUXILIARY BUILDING E-W HOSGRI HORIZONTAL FLOOR SPECTRA AT EL 100;L0 2,3,4,7, AND 10% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

S.

I)ml

'S

-3 z

I-I-

w w.

PERIOD ISECI FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-21C AUXILIARY BUILDING E-W HOSGRI TORSIONAL FLOOR SPECTRA AT EL 140-0" 2,3,4,7 and 10% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

'a 0

Imt

-u Qu P E A I D

13E C I FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-21D AUXILIARY BUILDING E-W HOSGRI TORSIONAL FLOOR SPECTRA AT EL 100-O*

2,3A4,7, AND 10% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

8.00 01 0

'Ii Ihh w

u 6.00 d 4.00 2.00 0.000.00

.2

.24

.36

.48.

.60

.72

.94

.96 1.08 1.2o PERIOD (sEc)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-21E AUXILIARY BUILDING HOSGRI VERTICAL SPECTRA AT EL 140-0.

2.3,4,7, AND 10% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

8.00 6.00 0

I--

4.00 wus uu 2.00 0.00 1.08 I.io PERIOD (SEC)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-21F AUXILIARY BUILDING HOSGRI VERTICAL SPECTRA AT EL 100-V" 2,3.4,7, AND 10% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

S.00 6.00 4.00 Z

0:

1. al

_al w

5I I a t

I a 5

1 a I I aI I

Iaa I I a a 0 1 a 2 a a I-A 2.00 0.L001

0. 00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 II.00 PERIOD (SECONDS)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-21G AUXILIARY BUILDING HOSGRI V RTICAL SPECTRA EL 100-0 SLAB 2 NODE 51 2,3,4,7, AND 10%

Revision 11 November 1996

JIN lb I-.

z C

w

-J I&I U

U PER IOD t 5EC)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-21H.

AUXILIARY BUILDING N-S HOSGRI TORSIONAL FLOOR SPECTRA AT EL 140L-O" 2,3,4,7, AND 10% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

S.

'3 U'

N

.I-I-

0Z ze 4i cc U

LS I.Go 9

5EC4 FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-211 AUXILIARY BUILDING N-S HOSGRI TORSIONAL FLOOR SPECTRA AT EL 100!-0" 2,3,4,7,AND 10% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

(

0 w

-1wu

(.

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-22 AUXILIARY BUILDING N-S HOSGRI HORIZONTAL FLOOR SPECTRA AT EL 163'-0" NODE 1 2, 3,4,7, AND 10% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

(

z 0

I.-

w

-J L,,

U,.

U P fR 10D IS EC )

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-23 AUXILIARY BUILDING N-S HOSGRI HORIZONTAL FLOOR SPECTRA AT EL 140'-0" NODE 2 2, 3,4,7, AND 10% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

(,

z w

-jwu La 1

(

.Ul PER!IOD 5 E h

BY o FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2

,DIA.BLO CANYON..SITE FIGURE 3.7-,24 AUXILIARY BUILDING N-S HOSGRI HORIZONTAL FLOOR SPECTRA AT EL 115'-0" NODE 3 2,3,4, 7, AND 10% DAMPING

(.

Revision 11 November 1996

z 0.

U)

-j wL

'.Do p E t

6a0

( 5EC I II FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-25 AUXILIARY BUILDING N-S HOSGRI HORIZONTAL FLOOR SPECTRA AT EL 100'-0" NODE 4 2,3,4,7, AND 10% DAMPING

(

Revision 11 November 1996

30.00 63 za 0-e B-Sal

-D

'as Si U4

.JU 0-t PERIOD (SECOND)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 25 A TURBINE BUILDING EL. 119'

.4 KV SWITCHGEAR AREA COLUMN LINES 14, D-G HOSGRI E-W SPECTRA 2,3,4,7% DAMPING Revision I 1 November 1996

25 -. 0 0I 20.00 S*-

-i u

10 *00 -

so.00 0.00

.10

.20

.S0

.40

.50

.a0

.RO G.

PERIOD ISECOND)

SAR UPDATE DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 25B TURBINE BUILDING EL. 140' COLUMN LINES 5-15 HOSGRI E-W SPECTRA 2.3. 4,7% DAMPING ReviSiOn ii November 1996

30.00 w

-j wi

.30

.40 PERIOD (SECON4D)

I.00 FSAR UPDATE UNIT 1 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 25 C TURBINE BUILDING ROOF LEVEL COLUMN LINES 1 to 1.9. A-D HOSGRI E - W SPECTRA 3% DAMPING.

Revision I I November 1996

30°00 dS

£3 u0c PERIOD ISECONDD FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 25 D TURBINE BUILDING EL. 119' 4 KV SWITCHGEAR AREA COLUMN LINES 1-4. D-G HOSGRI N-S SPECTRA 2.3,4.7% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

25.00 U-.

us 8

20.00 15-00 10.00 5.00 0.

PERIOD (SECOND)

FSAR UPDATE UNIT 1 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-25 E TURBINE BUILDING EL. 140' COLUMN LINES 1-19 HOSGRI N-S SPECTRA 2,3,4,7% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

40.00 30.00 w

Lai d.

20.00 10.00 0

PERIOD IMECONO) 1

.7O

.80

.qO 1.00 (OLUm LiNEs 9 0

3. EL. 193, LOCATIONS:

CLI.Im LINE& I g A'. EL. 193' CoLume LIte&S 19 A. EL 1931 Oiw LINES 19 a D. EL. 210.68 OSPECTRUi ENVELOPING THE SPECTRA AT Four FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 25 F TURBINE BUILDING ROOF LEVEL COLUMN LINES 1 to 1.9, A-D HOSGRI N-S SPECTRA 3% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

30.OS 0

U

.. Fw

.- 7w PERIOD t1trCONDI FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 25 G TURBINE BUILDING EL.119' COLUMN LINES 1-4 & 32-35 D G 4 KV SWITCHGEAR AREA HOSGRI VERTICAL SPECTRA 2,3.4,7% DAMPING Revision 1I November 1996

30,00 25.

20.

2 I.-

Aci ua Revision 11 November 1996

30.00 dc

=-

la 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.000 0.000.1 1.00 PERIOD (SECOND)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 251 TURBINE BUILDING EL. 193' BUILT UP COLUMNS ON LINE A&G FROM 5.7 TO 15 & 21 TO 30.3 HOSGRI VERTICAL SPECTRA 2,3,4,7% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

50.00 0

8-hi

-J hi U

U 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

.10 1.00 PERIOD

[SECOD)W FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 25.1 TURBINE BUILDING ELEV. 104' COLUMN LINES 5 to 15 DDE E-W SPECTRA 1/2,2,5% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

-D;00 2

z a-1.00 PER~IOD (SECOND)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 25 K TURBINE BUILDING ELEV. 140' COLUMN LINES 5-15 DDE E-W SPECTRA 1/2,.,5% DAMPING Revision 11 November 1996

50.00 u0c 40.00 30.00 20.00

0:00L 0.000.00 Revision I 1 November 1996

50.00 z

W

.30

.40 PERIOD (SECOND)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 -25 M TURBINE BUILDING ELEV 140' COLUMN LINES 1-19 DDE N-S SPECTRA 1/2.2,5% DAMPING Revision I I November 1996

6.*00 2:

.j

'U uuc 2. 00 1.00 FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-25 N INTAKE STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA BLUME 7.5 M HOSGRI Revision 11 November 1996

6.00 5.00 4.00 2.0 o 3.00 I-t-J

• < 2.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 PERIOD (SEC)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON BITE FIGURE 3.7 -250 INTAKE STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA NEWMARK 7.5 M HOSGRI Revision 11 November 1996

6.00 0

o 3.00 IL-at eLI

.,4 u

u< 2. oo Ui 1.00 II II*

I00" 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.7O 0.B0 0.90 1.00

• ,E~fo0 (sEc)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON 8ITE FIGURE 3.7 -25 P INTAKE STRUCTURE VERTICAL RESPONSE SPECTRA 7.5M/HOSGRI BLUME, NEWMARK ENVELOPE Revision 11 November 1996

6.00 0

w

-Sw I-c

.00 6.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 0.00

.1.00 PERIOD (SEC)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 25 Q INTAKE STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA NEWMARK 7.5 M HOSGRI Revision I 1 November 1996

6.00 z0 tat

-jus u

uox 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.70 0.80 0.90

. D0 rERIOD (SEC)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 25 R INTAKE STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA NEWMARK 7.5 M HOSGRI Revision 11 November 1996

Ix w

f-i

'LJ S-s IL) a-La 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 L 0.4

.30

.40 PERIOD (SECOND) 1.00 FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 25 S INTAKE STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA DESIGN EARTHQUAKE (DE)

Revision I 1 November 1996

5.00 ILl U) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0 00IL:-i 0.0 1.00 PERIOD (SECOND)

FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 - 25 T INTAKE STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA DESIGN EARTHQUAKE (DE)

Revision 11 November 1996

GOBIAL COORDINATE, FSAR UPDATE UNIT I DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-26 TYPICAL PIPING MATHEMATICAL MODEL Revision 11 November 1996

K RADIAL SUPPORT SPRING CONSTANT ra K

" ROTATIONAL GROUND SPRING CONSTANT rot Kt TRANSLATIONAL GROUND SPRING CONSTANT 6

BUILDIN6 I0 7

BARREL 12 6

rUEL ASSEIBL I ES 13 8

3]

27 10 F

Krot

-- Kt NOT 70 SCALE FSAR UPDATE UNITS.1 AND a DIABLO CANYON SITE

(.

FI1IJRF

.7.97 REACTOR INTERNALS MATHEMATICAL MODELS Revision 11 November 1996

I 2

UPPER HEAD C.G.

INTERNALS SUPPORT LEDGE

9.

RPV NOZZLE CENTERLINE 1OS 25 TYPICALLY UNSUPPORTED NOZZLE (4)

TYPICAL SUPPORTED NOZZLE (4)

EK]

STIFFNESS MATRIX

-4#'LJ LINEAR IMPACT 4

LOwER RADIAL SUPPORT FSAR UPDATE UNIT 1 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-27A REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL SHELL SUBMODEL Revision 19 May 2010

Upper Head C.G 0

Internals Support Ledge K

rK Loop Stiffness

--ýL

-[K-ý--

RPV Nozzle Centerline Typical Unsupported Nozzle (4)

Typical Supported Nozzle (4) 4 I

I Lower Radial Support FSAR UPDATE UNIT 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-27AA REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL SHELL SUBMODEL Revision 19 May 2010

(

is' rn.*4c 123 1.31 1 6 0

UPPER SUPPORT PLATE FLANGE CORE BARREL FLANGE RPV NOZZLE CENTERL114E UPPER CORE PLATE CORE C.G.

• ,4c1-JN-CONCENTRIC IMPACT LINEAR IMPACT LOWER CORE PLATE LOWER RADIAL SUPPORT I

DDENOTES NODES Olq 13RPV SHE"~ SUEMODEL 0

DENOTES NODES op 62 1

(.

I 1411 11 FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-27B CORE BARREL SUBMODEL FOR UNIT 1 Revision 14 November 2001

L L

C L

L 0

4ý-qJ*

F--o L,C C

Upper Support Plate Flange Core Barrel Flange RPV Nozzle Centerline Upper Core Plate Core CG.

Lower Core Plate Lower Radial Support 4

L 0

-'UU~lA, Concentric Impact U

Denotes Nodes on RPV C

Shell Submodel

-W 1l-- Linear (Unidirectional) Impact L

o3 Denotes Nodes on Rotational Stiffness Internals Submodel FSAR UPDATE UNIT 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-27C CORE BARREL SUBMODEL Revision 19 May 2010

C DENOTES NODES ON RPV Sh4ELL SUIBMODEL 0OENOTES NODES ON CORE BARREL SUSMODEL Is SUPPORT COLUMNS AND OUtDE TUlES L

UPER SUPORT

-PLATE

-- W,It-f LINEAR oMPACT TOP PUlL L

NOZZLE UIPER CORE PLATE FUEL CORE c..

BOTTOM FUEL NOZZLE LOWER CORE PLATE FSAR UPDATE UNIT 1 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-27D INTERNALS (INNERMOST) SUBMODEL Revision 19 May 2010

C E

Ca)

CLo C-Top Fuel Nozzle L L

C U-Bottom Fuel Nozzle L

0-Upper Support Plate Upper Core Plate Core C.G.

Lower Core Plate

--'VJ.-II-- Concentric Impact C

-Affffitql--

Linear (Unidirectional) Impact L

Rotational Stiffness Denotes Nodes on RPV Shell Submodel Denotes Nodes on Core Barrel Submodel FSAR UPDATE UNIT 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-27DD INTERNALS (INNERMOST)

SUBMODEL Revision 19 May 2010

1 n-12 w

C 15 21 SUPPORT 20 COLUMN 19 16 16 32 (

131 Mf Mf~

)113 6

-jLu Cl)

Cl)

Lu 0

c-Lu w

(q 17 15 38 29 GUIDE TUBE 24 23 22 FUEL ASSEMBLY (FOR DETAILS SEE FIGURE 3.7-27F)

Mf 33 ( Y3 67 w

XI U) w

(

63 62

) 53

)52 34 (

Mf q) 9

-in Mf Mf, 36 14 141 Mf 11 18 FSAR UPDATE UNIT 1 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-27E ASSEMBLED FINITE ELEMENT SYSTEM MODEL Revision 19 May 2010

C L

F E

U) t:3 E

C-)

t U)

3 2

C-)

t U)

3 79 U)

Un U

L.C C

C C

C C

C C

c TFtIl Grid 1171.4 Grid 1F1 31 Grid IFIJ Fuel Assembly (for details see Figure 3 7-27F)

Grid Grid

BFN, LM

-'5 I--

Concentric Impact Rotational Stiffness C

-4VAl-Linear (Unidirectional) Impact Lumped Mass L0 Hydrodynamic Mass

-sa.--

Spring FSAR UPDATE UNIT 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-27EE ASSEMBLED FINITE ELEMENT SYSTEM MODEL Revision 19 May 2010

5 YSCHE!

oCo ANALY2 RII.II) fRAHE FSAR UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7-27F MIATIC REPRESENTATION OF MPUTER MODEL USED TO

_E CORE DYNAMIC RESPONSE Revision 14 November 2001

(

012 0 1 23 800 FJJEL ASSEIMBLY BARREL

.VESSEL BUILDING FSAR UPDATE UNITS I AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE FIGURE 3.7 -28 REACTOR INTERNALS FIRST MODE OF VIBRATION Revision I1 November 1996

Lý-

+

NS Horz.

Response Spectra NS Rotational Response Spectra Elev. 110' NS Response Spectra Elev. 115' Elev. 110'

+

Eli Horz.

EW Rotational E-Response Response Spectra Response Spectra

.Spectra Combined by Absolute Sum Elev. 1O0'-----u-a-S Heorz.

Response Spect EMA Horz.

Response Spec uS Rotatlona ra Response Spe VA Rotational ira Response Spec Combined by Abso

2 I1 US Response Elev. 110, ctra Spectra EW Response Spectra Ei Response ctra Spectra olute Sum a,0.

0 Horizontal Design

Response

Spectra NS Horz.

Response Spectra Elev. 85'+

E*l HorZ.

Response Spectra NS Rotational US Response Response Spectra

ýpectra Eli Rotational E

Response

Response Spectra SpectLra Combined by Absolute Sum RUNITS AND 2 DIABLO CANYON SITE DiIURL 3..-2.

FIGURE 3.7--29 DERIVATION OF DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR A TYPICAL PIPING SYSTEM Revision 11 November 1996