ML17255A605

Seismic Structural Evaluation of Main Control Board

ML17255A605
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	11/22/1983
From:	JOHN A. BLUME & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS, URS CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML17255A604	List: ML17255A603 ML17255A605
References
TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR URS-JAB-8319, NUDOCS 8401170153
Download: ML17255A605 (93)

Text

URS/JAB 8319 SEISMIC STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF THE MAINCONTROL BOARD MOTICE THE ATTACHED FILES ARE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE DIVISION OF DOCUMENT CONTROL.

THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO YOU FOR A LIMITEDTIME PERIOD AND MUST BE RETURNED TO THE RECORDS FACILITY BRANCH 016.

PLEASE DO NOT SEND DOCUMENTS CHARGED OUT THROUGH THE MAIL. REMOVALOF ANY PAGE(S)

FROM DOCUMENT FOR REPRODUCTION MUST BE REFERRED TO FILE PERSONNEL. ~

DEADLINERETURN DATE a 5 November, 1983 RECORDS FACILITYBRANCH West Peabody. Massachusetts 01960

'840i170i53. 840i09

'.DR 'ADOCK 05000244, I,;"

'.:P.

'"'PDR

1 II II C

P ~

SEISMIC STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF THE MAINCONTROL BOARD R. E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER STATION submitted to Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester. New York 14649 submitted by URS/John A. Blume & Associates, Engineers 83 Pine Street West Peabody, Massachusetts 01960

y

~

~

~ ~

~

I ~

~

~

~

~ ~

~

.NI

~

~ ~

~

II I

~

~

~ ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

0

~

gl

/

I I

~

~

I.

I l

~

~

~

I

~

~

URS

~

I

~

~

~ ~

ll $

"4

~

't

CONTENTS pa e

1.

INTRODUCTION 2.

IN-SITU MODAL TESTING 2.1 Testing Procedures 2.2 Data Processing 2.3 Summary of Test Results 3.

EVALUATION METHODS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 3.

1 Seismic Analysis Procedure 3.2 Acceptance Criteria 4.

RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL EVALUATION 4.1 Out-of-Plane Siesmic Motion 4.2 In-Plane Seismic Motion 5

CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES 5

5 6

7 9

9 21 24 24 45 47 48 APPENDICES A

Modal Testing Results TABLES 1

Dynamic Properties of Right Rear Panel 25 26 29 ake 30

~

~

3 3 e.

34 36 ake 37 38 39 2

Response

of the Right Rear Panel Due to Out-of-Plane Earthquake,.

3 Dynamic Properties of the Center Rear Panel 4

Response

of the Center Rear Panel Due to Out-of-Plane Earthqu 5

Dynamic Properties of the Left Rear Panel 6

Response

of the Left Rear Panel Due to Out-of-Plane Earthquak 7

Dynamic Properties of Right, Center and Left Front Panels 8

Response

of the Right Front Panel Due to Out-of-Plane Earthqu 9

Response

of Center Front Panel Due to Out-of-Plane Earthquake 10 Response of Left Front Panel Due to Out-of-Plane Earthquake

FIGURES

~ae 1

Hain Control Board Plan View...'...............

2 Typical Cross-Section of Hain Control Board Ginna Nuclear Power Station Unit No.

1 -

SEE Broad Band Floor

Response

Spectra Control Building Elev. 289'-0" X-Response (Figure SSE-7 B-X, February 1,

1980)

Ginna Nuclear Power Station Unit No.

1 -

SEE Boai'd Band Floor

Response

Spectra

- Control Building - Elev. 289'-0" Y-Response (Figure SSE-7 B-Y, February 1,

1980)

Ginna Nuciear Power Station Unit 1 -

SSE Broad Band Floor Re-sponse Spectra - Control Building Elev. 289'-0" Vert-Response (Figure SSE-7 B-V, February 1,

1980)

'I Right Rear Panel Showing Heasurement Grid and Stiffener Locat ion o

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

3 10 12 14 7

Center Rear Panel Showing Measurement Grid and Stiffener Location 0

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

15 8

9 Left Rear Panel Showing Measurement Grid and Stiffener Location Right Front Panel (Vertical Panel)

Showing Measurement Grid and Stiffener Location 16 17 10 Center Front Panel (Vertical Panel)

Showing Measurement Grid and Stiffener Location.......................

18 11 Left Front Panel (Vertical Panel)

Showing Heasurement Grid

~ t' Stiffener Location and 19 12 Evaluation Method of Stresses Induced by Cantilevered Devices 22 13 Layout of Stiffener Locations of the MCB Bench Sections 14 Ceiling Plan Hain Control Board 15 Ana 1 ys i s of Roo f D i aphragm 41 43 44

1.

INTRODUCTION URS/John A.

Blume 6 Associates, Engineers, has performed a seismic quali-fication analysis and evaluation of the Main Control Board (MCB) located at elevation 289'-0" of the control building of the R.E.

Ginna Nuclear Power generating facility.

The structural integrity of the HCB was eval-uated for gravity and seismic loads for the safe-shutdown earthquake (SSE) as part of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) review of the Ginna Facility.

The HCB is located in the southeast corner of the control room at elevation 289'-0" of the Control Building of the Ginna facility.

Figure 1 illustrates the orientation and shape of the HCB and defines the nomenclature used to identify various parts of the board.

The coordinate system used for the structural

analysis, which coincides with the coordinate system used for the seismic analysis of the Control Building, is also illustrated in Figure 1.

A typical cross-section through the panel, illustrated in Figure 2, shows that the HCB is constructed of structural steel plates and shapes.

Hain structural framing members are 2 1/2 inch by 2 1/2 inch by 1/4 inch struc-tural angles which are used to attach the roof plates to the vertical plates and the roof plates to each other.

Typically, these attachments are welded connections consisting of about one inch of fillet welds assumed to be spaced at approximately ten inches on center.

The exterior shell of the HCB consists of a 3/16 inch steel plate except for the roof which is a 1/8 inch steel plate.

Holes have been cut in the vertical and bench sections to ac-commodate the instruments and control devices which are mounted on the panel with sheet metal screws and bolts.

Rectangular steel stiffeners, 2 inch by 3/8 inch reinforce the plates of the HCB in the vicinity of some of the heaviest instruments forming a lattice of horizontal and vertical stiffeners.

The MCB consists of three individual units; right, center, and left sections, which are attached together by bolted connections.

The end panel of the right and left panels have door openings which are reinforced with structural angles.

UIRS/Blume

N 2:6" BENCH 4r:0" 5'7 pig>>

0 0

czar sRour LEP7 REAR 12.6" 0

FIGURE 1

MAI.N CONTROL BOARD PLAN VIEW 2

i p'/g Ãz"l~

CANER CONNEC7/O&$.

/g @ROOF I. 2]g 20

/YA/PJ Fj?AMIIIG REAR PANEL VERTICAL I

I I

I

(

FACES 4 ENDs I

P'>/g

~g "S7/FFEAFRS I

FRONT PANEL VERTICAL BENCH SECTION QCOR A7 EACH END I

~/ S 7/FFE'APE'RS

~SE CHAHÃIE'I 4 FRAME FIGURE 2

TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION OF MAIN CONTROL BOARD 3

U!RS/Blume

The evaluation of the HCB was conducted in three phases:

in-situ modal test-

/

ing, data processing, and structural analysis and evaluation.

The in-situ modal testing phase was conducted at the G irma facility between April 5 and April 15, 1983.

A small electromechanical vibration generator was used to dynamically load the HCB and the acceleration response was mea-sured throughout the equipment.

Raw test data was recorded on magnetic tapes and analyzed in the subsequent ph'ase of the project.

The data processing phase involved analysis of the test recordings to iden-tify the frequencies and mode shapes of the significant modes of vibration of the MCB.

The structural analysis and evaluation involved calculations of the acceler-

ations, displacements, inertia forces, and stresses in the HCB for the com-bined effect of gravity and SSE loads.

The stresses resulting from these c'alculations were compared to an acceptance criteria to evaluate the integ-rity of the structure.

The results of the evaluation indicate that the HCB is expected to survive the SSE with some local yielding of the structural steel cover plates and stiffeners.

Yielding is mainly conFined to the rear right, center and left vertical panels, and the center front bench panels.

Local stiffening of these areas may be desirable to enhance the structural integrity of the MCB.

4-UIRS/Blume

2.

IN-SITU MODAL TESTING The seismic structural evaluation of the Ginna MCB was performed based on the in-situ moda) testing resul ts.

The testing was used as an easy means of determining the normal modes of vibrations of the MCB.

The practical significance of normal modes is that the dynamic response of an n degree-of-freedom linear e)astic structure may be considered as the combination of the responses of n single degree-of-freedom systems (modal superposition).

These single degree-of-freedom systems are the normal modes of vibration, characterized by a natural frequency, mode

shape, and damping ratio.

The following is a brief description of the test procedure, data processing, and results.

2.

1 Testin Procedures The in-situ modal test of the Ginna MCB involved the measurement and analy-sis of )ow-)eve) vibrations that occur when the MCB was dynamically loaded with a small electromechanical shaker.

The low-)eve'I vibrating force of approximately 30 lbs.

peak value and 10 lbs.

rms value, was input at a

num-ber of locations (driving points) on the structure while the vibration re-sponse was measured at a number of other points (measurement points).

The driving and measurement points were carefully chosen to identify the natur-al modes of vibration of the structure.

Prior to the testing, the points of force application (driving points) and measurement grid points were marked on the MCB and recorded for reference purposes.

Other pertinent information such as gain and sensitivity of in-struments, instrument serial

numbers, location, date and type of test was a)so recorded.

The electromechanical shaker was supported such that the armature could be attached to the MCB.

A response accelerometer was placed at the first grid point.

The random force was then input into the structure by the shaker covering a frequency range of 0 to approximately 30 hz.

The accelerometer was advanced to the next grid location on the structure after the data had been checked and stored.

This process was repeated until data had been

collected for the entire grid of 'the structure.

This testing was performed only for the out-of-plane direction of each plate comprising the MCB.

2.2 Data Processing The dynamic response of a linear elastic structure may be considered as the combination of the responses of the normal modes.

By recording and analyz-ing the dynamic response of a linear elastic structure, it is possible to identify the properties of the contributory modes.

Modal information may be extracted from recorded test data by either time-domain analysis or frequency-domain analysis

~

The latter (adopting the transfer function method) was used for this work because it is more appro-priate and convenient.

The transfer function method is based upon the use of 'digital signal processing techniques end the FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) algorithm to calculate transfer functions between various points on the structure.

Transfer functions are obtained from measurements of a random input force and the appropriate response acceleration signal.

The function is thus defined as the complex ratio of the acceleration to force in the frequency domain.

The transfer function has characteristics which makes it extremely useful in modal parameter identification.

Modal frequencies correspond to peaks in the imaginary part of the transfer function and crossings of the zero axis in the real part of the transfer function.

The.other modal properties, which are the damping and mode shape, are determined by the least squared method of curve fitting a polynomial of the transfer function for a single mode of vibration to a portion of the recorded transfer function between selected frequency values.

From a single measurement pair (i.e.,

recorded input force and response time-histories), it is possible to identify the frequency and damping of a mode of vibration.

The width of the modal peak is related to the damping of the mode (the wider the peak, the higher the damping).

Numerous mea-surement pairs from various locations on the structure being surveyed are required to calculate the mode shapes.

The mode shapes are obtained by assembling the peak values (in the imaginary part of the transfer functions)

UBS/Blume

from all measurements, and by comparing their relative amplitude at the same frequency.

Analysis of the recorded data was accomplished using a Hewlett-Packard 5423A Structural Dynamics Analyzer.

This device has the capability to perform various frequency domain claculations plus store and display var-ious types of data.

The analysis begins by inputting various test data such as the geometry of the test

specimen, the coordinates of the measure-ment grid and driving points, and the fourier spectra transfer functions previously calculated from the force and acceleration time-histories.

The aim of the analysis is to curve-fit the measured

data, and subsequently extract the modal properties.

Mode (or characteristic) shapes are not unique in value, but the components of'he vector have a unique relationship with respect to one another.

Once generated, mode shapes can be scaled by a number of different methods.

2.3 Summar of Test Results The results obtained from the modal testing and subsequent data processing of the MCB are given in Appendix A.

In general, the test results indicated that the right, center, and left sections respond dynamically as indepen-dent units in their respective out-of-plane directions.

The front and back panel faces also tend to.respond independently.

The only noticeable excep-tion to this general trend is the first mode of the left front panel which occurs at the same frequency as the left and center rear panels.

The fundamental mode frequencies of the panels in the out-of-plane direction range from 6.9 hz to 11.1 hz, a frequency range which corresponds to the range of maximum spectral responses for the Control Building.

The center front panel has three modes between 0 hz and 33 hz, and the right rear has eight modes below 22 hz.

These -two cases represent the extremes in terms of the number of individual modal responses identified in the frequency range of interest.

In-plane modal responses of the panels were not measured during the in-situ tests.

However, the instruments cantilevered from the vertical plates UIRS/Blume

resulted in frequencies in the 8 hz to 15 hz range.

An example of this behavior was found on the left rear panel.

In this case, the frequency of a cantilevered device in the east-west direction (i.e.,

in-plane with respect to the panel) coincides with the north-south (out-of-plane) re-sponse of the panel.

These results indicate the need to use the peak of the horizontal spectra for the evaluation of the cantilevered devices.

A review of the plotted mode shapes reveal that nearly all the modes in-volve motion in the interior of the panels while the boundaries (top,

bottom, connection to an adjacent

panel, and connection to the end panel for the right and left sections) remain motionless.

The lowest modes generally involve single curvature in the horizontal and vertical direc-tion.

The second and third modes of each panel typically involve single curvature in the vertical direction and double or triple curvature in the horizontal direction.

The damping values measured by in-situ modal testing are not considered to be appropriate for a SSE evaluation.

However, the measured damping does provide some insight into the expected level of damping for higher motion.

tlost of the measured damping given in Appendix A is in the range of one to three percent with a few measurements in the range of three to five percent.

UBS/Blume

3.

EVALUATION METHODS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The purpose of the structural analysis of the MCB was to evaluate its structural integrity for gravity and seis'mic loads due to the safe-shut-down earthquake.

The 'general procedure for this evaluation involves the calculation of the combined seismic and gravity stress and comparison to an allowable stress level.

The gravity stresses for this type of equipment which are due to the weight of the MCB structure and the weight of attached instruments and devices are usually quite small compared to the allowable values.

The seismic stresses were calculated using the modal response properties of the MCB determined by testing.

A response spectrum analysis was used to calculate the seismic inertial load in each significant mode for three mutually perpendicular directions of earthquake motion.

The inertial loads were then used in a static analysis to determine

forces, moments and stresses in critical elements of the seismic load path of the MCB.

The evaluation was finally performed by comparing predicted gravity plus seis-mic stresses to an acceptable stress level.

3.

1 Seismic Anal sis Procedure The following is a brief description of the methods and procedures used for the seismic analysis of the MCB.

Floor Res onse S ectra.

The seismic input for this analysis was the floor response spectra for the safe shutdown earthquake at elevation 289'-0" of the control building, dated February 1,

1980 (see Figures 3, 4, and 5).

The zero-period acceleartion (ZPA) in both horizontal directions is 0.51g and the vertical ZPA is 0. 3g.

The X-response spectra have been used for the seismic motions in the east-west direction, and Y-response spectra have been used for seismic motions in the north-south direction (see Figure 1).

~sam in For welded steel structures at or just below the yield point, Reference 1

recommends 5 percent to 7 percent damping.

The corresponding values for bolted steel structures are 10 percent to 15 percent damping.

The structure of the MCB consists of a combination of welded and bolted UBS/Blume

'I I

P A

2.0 Z0 lU

)0 O

18'.5g 7% Darnpinq 2PA-0.51'.0 10.0 20')

SO.O FREQUENCY (hz)

F I GURE 3

GINNA NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT NO.

1 SSE BROAD BAND FLOOR

RESPONSE

SPECTRA CONTROL BUILDING ELEV 289 0 X RESPONSE(FIGURE SSE7BXjFEBRUARY 11980)

4.0 7% 0am ping Z0I-8 1.5g ZPA'0.51'0.0 20.0 FAEQUE.HCY (hE)

F I GURE 4

GINNA NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT NO.

1 SSE BROAD BAND FLOOR

RESPONSE

SPECTRA -

CONTROL BUILDING ELEV. 289'-0" Y-RESPONSE (FIGURE SSE-7 B-Y, FEBRUARY 1, 1980)

UIRS/Blume

1.5 O.N g O.V5y I.Og 4% Damping

'20 0

8N as 7% Damping ZPA=0.8p ao ao iOQ 20.0 FR%)UENGY (hz) 500 FIGURE 5

GINNA NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1 "

SSE BROAD BAND FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA CONTROL BUILDING ELEV. 289'-0" VERT"RESPONSE (FIGURE SSE-7 B-V, FEBRUARY 1, 1980)

UIRsiBlume

steel plates and shapes.

Considering this hybrid construction, the range

. of damping values given in Reference 1,

and the amplitude of stresses ex-pected for the SSE evaluation, a damping value of seven percent (7%%u) has been used for this evaluation.

Additional justi fication for 7C damping is as follows:

~

The HCB contains numerous electrical devices which are attached to the sheet steel with sheet metal screws.

Each device attach-ment may allow a small amount of slippage, and this will tend to absorb energy during an earthquake and increase damping.

~

The HCB contains a large number of loosely attached cables.

Test-ing of electrical raceway systems have shown that loose cables tend to increase damping up to about 250 of critical'.

A similar behavior may be expected for the HCB.

Thus, the use of 7~ damping for the SSE analysis of the HCB is justified.

For the vertical earthquake analysis of the HCB roof, 44 damping was used since no instruments are bolted to the roof plate.

Out-Of-Plane Earth uake.

The following analysis procedure was used:>

(1)

The in-situ modal testing results (frequencies and mode shapes) were reviewed and judged to be an appropriate basis for the out-of-plane earth-quake analysis.

The measurement grids used for the modal testing (Figures 6 through

11) were adopted as the basis of the structural analysis.

(2)

The mass tributary to each point on the measurement grid was ca lculat-ed.

The mass included the panel structure in addition to the instruments and devices.

(3)

The mass distribution and measured mode shapes were used to calculate the participation 'factor for each mode.

(4)

A spectral acceleration for each mode was obtained based upon the mea-sured frequency and appropriate floor response spectrum.

(5)

The mass distribution, mode shapes, frequencies and spectral acceler-ation were used to calculate the seismic accelerations, displacements and inertial forces at each location of the measurement grid for each mode of interest.

(6)

The seismic inertial forces were applied as static loads to the lat-tice of stiffeners.

Each stiffener was treated as a simply supported beam and its maximum seismic induced moment calculated.

An effective section modulus was then determined for the composite section consisting of the stiffener and the panel plate.

The effective modulus was calculated by adjusting the local stiffness so as to obtain the same modal displacement as that calculated in step 5

The effective modulus was used for stress analysis of the stiffener.

This stiffness correlation procedure was per-formed for each mode using the modal inertial forces and displacements for panels which were relatively highly stressed.

However, when the stresses were low, less than one-half of the allowable, this stiffness correlation IUIBS/Blume

20'Ir'2>'2'

&'9'5'TEM OESCTE PT IOII 14 21 2e 49 20 12 19 40 0

IQ a

4C I l AJ Ie

~D~

l J Ie 25 Z2 50 J7 cO 45 9I 22

<'XTERIOR ELEVATION lt 9'4" al

~

sl ql g

V5'5'24

'22'&"

19' LA,W VIE)V-SECTION'A A'IRS/Blume ROCHESTER CAS AICI ELECTRIC CORP.

69 EAST AYENVE

~

RCOKSTER ~ ICW lORK 16619 Uf&IE~8319 OfVGaHAL I+SIIE IPTION.

S/John A. Blume 8 Associates, En9ineers Rz.et@MA MAIScoN~ NNEL ANALYsts 13O Sylvan Street MHI'EAP HEASLIR,EVE~m E $

Danvers. Massachusetts 01923

~P'FEMM ~TIOA5 8319

-D-01 REV 0

F I GURE 6 RIGHT REAR PANEL SHOWING NEASUREMEI<T GRID AND STIFFENER LOCATIOI<

UIRS/Blume

8b'

~O 4

~

ITEM DESCRIPTIOM 163 176 155 134 IZ7

/75 op Iee'47 249

/40 74

/39 ~

246 QZ IZ5 773 144

/37

/30 123 157

/43

/29 122

/77

/4Z 135 Ize

/21 2'"

11'ATERIOR ELEVATIO lb'b'LAN VIVIIV-SEC7/ON'Ze'O'b f4 0'25'9'25'S'5" DATE CNCc>HA< 1MJE PTION-UM/Blume ROCHESTER CAS ANO ELECTRC CCRP.

~

69 EAST AVENUE 80CRSTKR,NEW 'TCRK 16669 URS/John A. BIume 8 Associates, Engineers

< E GINNA M/uN coNTfmL n6,N<L >><t>sts 130 Sylvan Street G~ RKA< HCASUl%+ELA 680 f Danvers. Massachusetts 01923 SrIFFSukh 44CAAGAA URSIBluma Bglg 83I9

.-D-02 RPV e Il~l FIGURE 7

CENTER REAR PANEL SHOWING HEASUREHENT GRID AND STIFFENER LOCATION UIRS/Blume

ITEM OESCIIIPTION

<b'0 Ib'4I II 42 28 2/

I/ iit 47 40 33

/9

/3

/2 1" II'. IYP

/8 00

/0 37 23

/5 EXTERIOR ELEI/APION I I f I gl 15~

Ib'b

$b" 1b'b' II.I PII BATE BY ORIAIIIAI.665IIE IPTIQN.

~ ViEN-SECTION 'C-C

'IM/Blume ROCIIESTER CAS AIO ELECTRIC CORP.

69 EAST AVEIAIE BOCIKSTER,IIEW TTNIC 16669 URS/John A. Blume 8 Associates, Engineers N.F GINNA MAINcoNMOL pANFL ANALYSIS 130 Sylvan Street Lefr PIEAQ PIEASIIP BPI&ll GRID $

Danvers, Massachuset ts 01923

'SEI Fr-E,KEPI LCtATI~

I/Rs/BIUIRe BPIg 8319

.-D"03 IIEV-Bh I I CI1 0

F, I GURE 8 LEFT REAR PANEL SHOWING MEASUREMENT GRID AND STIFFENER LOCATION UlRarBtume

II9 I95 I.O', '8/'TEM 118 110

/02 94

/'0

/09 118 92 D

88 I/O

/07 9/

75 C/c'o/c'u'/E'X7ER/OR ELEVA7/ON gO'y W'/E

<Pyc qyc' I

ej'c" CV'Ic" fO" a2yc'a" R.AM VI&I $EC7/ON D D' IO Q OATE OP,IC.IHAL TM E.

IPTION.

UIRS/Blume ROCHESTER CAS AIe ELECTRIC CORP.

69 EAST AYEIAIE ROCIKSTER,ICW~K 14649 URS/John A. Blume & Associates, Engineers p +el/DNA M4IN cpNTRpL NQL ANALysls 130 Sylvan Street II'lGuT ~+mcAL lAIIEl) MEAsllREPlEI r Danvers. Massachusetts 01923 WPlIp g Wl'FELIER LcxATIoAIo UfTE/Slurna 8PIg see

.-D-04 REV ShaeI 1

o/

F I GURE 9 RIGHT FRONT PANEL (VERTICAL PANEL)

SHOWING HEASUREHENT GRID AND STIFFENER LOCATION UIRSialume

ITEM Z/0 2/8 Pl gO'H 242 193 201 2/7 19Z 24$

224 200 232 2/3 2Z3 23/

239 IQ 222 G'" 01'"

EXTERIOR ELEY TION 4"

s')~I

'20"

'lo'LAN VIEN/- SEC7/of

'.Z'6' BATE BY O IGIIIAC ICOSI/B OESCR! PTIQN.

UIRS/Blume URS/John A. Blume & Associates, Engineers 130 Sylvan Street Danvers, Massachusetts 01923 ROCNESTER CAS AIN EI.ECTRC CORP.

66 EAST AYENVE ROCIKSTKR,NEW 1ORK lh669 R.E.GINNA MAINCONTROL PANEL ANALYSIS E:E~W ~(V~ l'4JEL) ~W'HBIJT C~PIIP 4 SnIT.HJ~

LCE'.~KXly ups/BI 8319 8319

."D"0>

RFV 1 oI1 0

FIGURE 10 CENTER FRONT PANEL (VERTICAL PANEL)

SHOWING HEASUREHENT GRID AND STIFFENER LOCATION UIRS/Blume

Co'ALO'lo'o'ESCRIPTKN 7/

79 er re

/IO 77

/OI ee 76 ew I/6 V4'NI ERIOR EI EVATIOhl co II

~/I P~

VIEN'- SEC7IOhl 'F I='Io" 0o 0

/I lO.dl DATE ORIGJLJAL.T66tJE IPTION.

UIRS/Blume AQOIESTER CAS AID ELECTRIC CORP.

89 EAST AYENVE

~,IKWTURK i%669 URS/John A. Blume & Associates, Engineers p E QINQA MAINcoNTaoL NNEL ANALYsls 130 Sylvan Street

~~ ~(IIPQChl TTLAIEI)'H~QJT Danvers. Massachusetts 01923

&rVO Id MFFEAlee, ~TIOus URs/aluma Brig 83I9

.-D-O6 REV sh I.I <1 FIGURE 11 LEFT FRONT PANEL (VERTICAL PANEL)

SHOWING IIEASUREHENT GRID AND STIFFENER LOCATION UBsrBlume

was performed using the SRSS combination of the modal seismic inertial forces and displacements for al 1 measured modes.

(7)

A static stress analysis was performed using the seismic inertial forces and adjusted panel stiffnesses.

The 3/16 inch panel plates were considered to span between stiffeners.

One-way or two-way action was used to calculate the stresses in the plates, depending upon the aspect ratio and the location and number of cut-outs.

The stiffeners were con-sidered to behave as simply supported beams spanning between the panel boundary (top and bottom) or between other stiffeners.

Stresses were cal-culated in the stiffeners due to tributary inertial loads.

The roof of the panel was considered to resist the top reaction of the stiffeners which span vertically.

The roof was treated as a deep horizontal beam (i.e., diaphragm action) spanning between the end panels of the left and right sections.

Shear and bending stresses in the roof diaphragm were calculated'ny benefit due to the shape of the roof diaphragm was con-servatively ignored.

The end panels of the right and left section were considered to transfer the reactions from the roof to the floor.

The end panels were treated as steel shear walls.

Shear and bending stresses were calculated.

(8)

Stresses in the above mentioned elements were calculated on a modal basis.

The fundamental mode generally contributes the majority of the stress in a given element, and higher modes were ignored when their contri-bution was less than 100 of the response.

When higher modes were impor-

tant, the modal responses were combined by the square-root"of-the-sum-of the-squares (SRSS) method.

For panels with significant closely spaced

modes,

'the double sum.method of modal combination was used.

This method is detailed in Reference 3.

In-Plane Earth uakes.

The stresses due to the two in-plane direction earth-quakes were based upon the equivalent static load method.

The static load was determined using a factor of 1.5 applied to the peak of the appropriate floor response spectrum.

The stresses due to horizontal in-plane earth-quake were calculated by dividing the total in-plane inertial force above a given section by the cross sectional area of the 3/16 inch plate avail-able to resist the shear forces.

The vertical in-plane earthquake was con-sidered to cause axial stresses in the vertical stiffeners and the 3/16 inch plate.

Directional Combinations.

Co-directional responses due to the three com-ponents of ground motion have been combined by the SRSS method.

The re-sultant has been added absolutely to the dead load response.

Cantilevered Devices.

Ca'ntilevered devices are instruments or recorders which are mounted flush to the cover plate of the HCB and which protrude UBS/Blume

~ >>i

= ~ gP a

~

s ~ ~

~

~ 0>>'>>P>>>>

~ '>>

4>>>>

~

~

I ~ ~,

into the inside of the HCB some significant distance (more than 5 or 6

inches, see Figure 12).

Since the center of gravity of these devices is located some distance from the plate mounting, in-plane earthquake com-ponents (with respect to the mounting plate) cause a local bending moment on the mounting plate.

This moment is resisted by equal and opposite forces applied at each side of the device.

These forces induce local stresses in the mounting plate.

These stresses have been evaluated using the quivalent static load method.

The load was determined using a factor of 1.5 applied to the peak of the appropriate floor response spectrum.

The reaction on all four sides of the device was calculated based upon its geometry as indicated in Figure 12.

It was assumed that the device anchorage is capable of transfering the loads to the MCB plates.

These reaction loads were considered to be re-sisted by bending and twisting of the plate strips of the MCB plates between the devices.

These plate stresses were combined with those due to the earth-quake normal to the panel and dead load.

The HCB contains many more cantilevered devices than can be practically analyzed.

Thus, the approach to this analysis was to concentrate on the heavier devices with large cantilevered distances located in areas of rela-tively high stress due to the out-of-plane earthquake.

3.2 Acce tance Criteria The HCB is constructed of structural steel plates and shapes.

There is no documentation conc"ming the actual materials of construction, and the manu-facturer of the panel is no longer-in business.

In 1966 when the control panels were purchased and installed, A36 steel was the most commonly pro-duced steel for hot-rolled structural shapes and plates.

It is unlikely that cold-rolled steel was used because of the high cost of cold-rolled shapes of the sizes found in the panel, and the relative difficulty asso-ciated with welding this material.

However, if cold rolled material was

used, the yield strength would probably be higher than A36.

Therefore, for the purpose of this evaluation, the following material properties have been assumed: UIRS/Blume

PAA/c c p/

AA'FFECT OF VE.RTICAL fM. PLANE EARTHQUAKE PbJD DEAD LOAD PAAR/.

P/A//=

CrV/r/uVERSO DZV/CPS

~

EFFECT OF HORIZONTAL W. PLANE E.ARTIHQUAKE.

FIGURE 12 EVALUATION HETHOD OF STRESSES INDUCED BY CANTILEVERED DEVICES

-22 UBS/Blume

ASTH A-36 Steel Yield Point 36,000 psi Hodulus of Elasticity = 29 x 10 psi Poissons Ration

= 0.25 Acceptable stress limits were as defined in NUREG 0800 Section 3.8.4 For the SSE load case of steel structures, the acceptable stress limit of'1.6 times the elastic design strength defined in PART 1 of the AISC Specifications was used but not exceeding 0.9Fy for axial and bending stresses and 0.58 Fy for shear stresses.

For thin metal sections AISI design manualS was also considered. UBS/Blume

4.

RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL EVALUATION This chapter summarizes the results of the seismic structural evaluation of the MCB at R.E.

Ginna.

The evaluation was first performed for the controlling out-of-plane seismic motion for each of the panel plates com-prising the MCB.

The effect of the in-plane seismic motions was then eval-uated for each of the panel plates and the significant cantilevered instru-ments.

The stresses were then combined for the three earthquakes and added to the dead load stresses.

4.1 Out-of-Plane Seismic Motion The evaluation results described in this section pertain only to stresses resulting from out-of-plane seismic motion.

An evaluation of the stresses resulting from in-plane seismic motions and dead loads is discussed separ-

'tely.

Ri ht Rear Panel.

The right rear panel contains the heaviest instruments of the six panels evaluated.

An exterior view of the panel showing the structural dimensions and equipment locations is provided on RGGE's Draw-ing No. 33013-763, Rev.

2.

The combined total weight of the panel and its equipment is approximately 2,000 lbs, The measurement grid used for the in-situ testing of the right rear panel is shown in Figure 6.

Superimposed on the grid are the locations of the existing structural stiffeners.

The dynamic properties of the right rear panel in the out-of-plane direction are given in Table 1.

Eight modes, with frequencies ranging from 6.8 hz to 21.2 hz, were obtained from the test data.

The participation factors were determined based upon the calculated mass distribution and the mea-sured mode shapes.

The spectral accelerations, which form the basis of the subsequent

analysis, were obtained from the 70 damped spectra in the east-west direction at the modal frequencies shown in the table.

The seismic response of the right rear panel due to the out-of-plane earth-quake is summarized in Table 2.

Maximum values for deflection, accelera-

tion, and inertia forces are approximately 0.5 inches, 2.3g, and 230 pounds respectively.

Maximum values of deflection and acceleration occur UIRS/Blume

Mode Frequency (Hz) 6.861

8. 971 11.618

15. 119

16. 339

17. 671 19.699

21. 348 Participation Factors

1. 454

-.166

.534

- 334 253

.656

. 401

.088 Spectrai:"

Acceleration (g)

1. 540 1

~ 510

1. 459

. 893

. 810 735

.642

. 609

+Based on'levation 289'-0" of the Control Building east-west spectra for 7> damping.

TABLE 1

DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF RIGHT REAR PANEL

- 25" UBS/Blume

DEFLECTION>> (inch)

..0061

.0094

.0114

. 0136

.0145

.0060

.0009

.0094

.1407

.2485

.2878

.2566

.>>38

.0009

.0085 2232

~ 3640

.4206

.3541

. 1455

.0014

.0441

.2467

.4255

.4668

. 3461

.1677

.0014

. 0126' 2317

. 3802

. 3662

. 3162

. 1500

.0009

.0047

. 1293

. 2122

.2718

.2445

. 1034

.0014

.0096

.0720

.1247

.1367

. 1059

.0465

.0009

.0066

.0057

.0047

.0044

.0020

. 0015

.0005 ACCELERATION'> (g)

.03

.05

~ 06

.08

.11

.04

.00

.05

~ 75

1. 29 1.54

1. 52

.67

.00

.05 1.12 1

~ 77 2.04

1. 80

..75

.01

~ 23

1. 22 2.09 2.28

1. 71

.83

.01

.07 1.18

1. 89

1. 79 1

~ 57

~ 77

.00

.02

.65 1.07 1.35

1. 22

.52

.01

.06

.47

.82

.94

.69

~ 33

.00

.03

.03

.02

.03

.01

.01

.00 INERTIAL FORCE:> (pound)

.17

.54

.98 1

~ 59

1. 64

.45

.02

~ 55

21. 87 54 09 121. 89

96. 10 22.92

.04

.52 53.47 162.61 226.56 219.91 25 77

.07

2. 58 53.47 152,. 15 193.04 165. 10

36. 30

.07

.60 42.03 94.42 129.04 120. 14 43.18

.04

.20

15. 18

29. 40

32. 83

32. 59

10. 70

.05

~ 55 22.08 51

~ 39 69.02 49.33

8. 35 04

.19

.56

.62 77

~ 23

.11

.01

'" The arrangement of this table is the same as the lay-out of the measurement grid.

TABLE 2

RESPONSE

OF THE RIGHT REAR PANEL DUE TO OUT-OF-PLANE EARTHQUAKE UIRS/Blume

at measurement point 25, whi le the maximum inertial force is at point 18 (see Figure 6).

The stress analysis was performed by first evaluating the structural ade-quacy of the 3/8 inch by 2 inch stiffeners.

The 3/16 inch plate was then evaluated by selecting critically loaded plates spanning between stiffeners, Stiffener Evaluation:

The inertial forces at the measurement grid points corresponding 'to the'irst mode (6. 86 hz) of the right-rear panel response were used to evaluate the stiffeners.

Stiffener 2 (see Figure 6) was found to have the largest inertial forces across its length.

Conservatively treating the stiffener as a simply sup-ported

beam, the maximum moment was determined to be 17,406 in-lb.

An effective section

modulus, S,

was then determined for the stiffener such that the maximum deflection of the idealized simply supported stiffener matched the first mode deflection.

The resultant maximum bending stress of 23,208 psi was comfortably below the allowable stress of 0.9Fy ol 32,400 psi.

Evaluation of the stresses resulting from consideration of higher mode re-sponses indicated that the hi.gher modes have a negligible effect.

The higher mode responses were therefore neglected in this evaluation.

Plate Evaluation:

Plate sections B,

D and E,

as shown in Figure 6, were selected for evaluation.

These plate had relatively long unsti ffened spans and contained fairly heavy equipment.

sections were se!ected because they compared to other plate sections The evaluation considered the out-of-plane bending responses of the strips of plate between cut-outs spanning between stiffeners.

Typically, the minimum width of these strips is approximately 1 inch to 1

1/2 inches.

The evaluation was performed for the most critically loaded strips wi,thin each of the plate sections and considered both horizontal and vertical strips.

27-UBS/Blume

The inertial forces along these strips were determined by scaling the tributary., distributed equipment weights by the out-of-plane acceleration of the first mode response.

The strips were conservatively evaluated as simply supported.

All of the strips evaluated were found to have bending stresses within the allowable stress limit of 0.9Fy with the exception of a vertical strip passing through the center of plate section B and E.

These strips were found to have a maximum bending stress of 40,328 psi and 47,339 psi respec-tively.

It was therefore concluded that an additional vertical stiffener is required in the. highly stressed region of plate section B and E as in-dicated by the shaded area in Figure 6.

Center Rear Panel.

An exterior view of the center rear panel is shown in RGSE's Drawing No.

33013-762, Rev. 0.

The in-situ test measurement grid and the locations of the existing structural stiffeners are shown in Figure 7.

The total weight of the center rear panel is approximately 1,740 lbs.

The panel has two large'200 lb.

DC distribution panels which are framed in by vertical stiffeners 4,

5 and 6 as shown in Figure 7.

Three 50 lb.

and one 100 lb. temperature recorders and one 100 lb. switch unit are framed in by stiffeners 1,

2 and

3. Nine 15 lb. instruments are located to the left of stiffener l.

The dynamic properties of the center rear panel in the out-of-plane direc-tion are given in Table 3.

Three modes, with frequencies ranging from 8.3 hz to 16.6 hz were obtained from the test data.

The participation factors were determined based upon the calculated mass distribution and the mea-sured mode shapes.

The out-of-plane direction of the center rear panel is at a

45 degree angle with respect to the global X and Y directions.

Hence, the SRSS combination of the X and Y 7C damped spectra was used in the evaluation.

The seismic response of the center rear panel due to the out"of-plane earthquake is summarized in Table 4.

The maximum values of deflection, acceleration, and inertia force are approximately 0. 76 inches,

5. 7g, and 318 pounds.

Haximum values of deflection and acceleration for these 4

28" UBS/Blume

Mode Frequency (hz)

8. 250

11. 120 16.560 Participation Factor 1.214 0.905.

0.2j6 Spectral Acceleration:"

(g) 2.500 1.888 0.915

+Based on elevation 289'-0" of the Control Building.

SRSS of east-west and north-south spectra for 70 damping.

TABLE 3 DyNAMIC PROPERTIES OF THE GENTER REAR PANEL UIRS/Blume

DEFLECTION (inches)

. 0159

.0166

.0405

.0405

.0138

.0008

.0002

.0168

. 1232

- 3035

~ 7555

. 3020

. 1141

.0002

. 0187

.3046

~ 5091

.6822 5735

~ 3171

.0030

.0197

~ 2779

.5580

~ 5907

.4569

.2778

.0015 0199

. 2720

.4641

~ 5519

. 4310

. 2107

. 0030

.0234

~ 1969

- 3357

.3116

. 2703

. 1698

. 0015

.0154

. 1279

.2578

.2105

.1532

. 1011

.0007

. 0139

.0649

.1368

.1112

.0693

.0280

.0009

.0118

.0117

~ 0186

.0146

.0067

. 0019

.0007 ACCELERATION"- (g)

.11

.12

.29

30

.09

.01 F 00

.12

.87 2.18 5.74 2.14

.89

.00

.13 2.14

3. 59 4.

87'.06 2.28

.02

.14 1

~ 93 3.88

4. 12 3.18 1.94

.02

.14 1.98 3 ~ 33 3.97

3. 12

1. 51

.02

.18 1.66

2. 84 2.69.

2.34 1.44

.01

.12 1.15 2

32 1 97

1. 40

.95

.00

.11

.60 1.29 1.09

.70 34

.01

.08

.08

.16

.12

.06

.02

.00 INERTIAL FORCE".

(pounds)

.48 99 2.53 2.62

.85

.08

.01 1.03

14. 87

64. 10 281.07 138.22 14.43

.02

1. 12 55.87 116,68 283. 12 201.29 37 19

.18

1. 19

33. 46 122..71 318.02 271. 22

85. 41

.15 I ~ 59 43 45 178.89 274 59 159.59 31.09

.25 2 ~ 59 35.78 102.23 193. 59 123. 40 57.22

.15 1.78

17. 60

50. 70 130. 51 93.41 51

~ 35

.07 1.15 8.88 23.61 43.49

28. 21 11.48

.11

.29

.56 1.06

~ 77

.40

.16

.01

"-The arrangement of this table is the same as the lay-out of the measurement grid.

TABLE 4

RESPONSE

OF THE CENTER REAR PANEL DUE TO OUT"OF-PLANE EARTHQUAKE UIRS/Blume

response parameters occur at measurement point 173, while the maximum inertia force is at point 159 (see Figure 7).

Stiffener Evaluation:

Based upon a review of the first mode inertial II

., force distributions, it was determined that the heaviest loaded stiffeners

" are 1 and 3.

Considering contributions to the inertial forces from the first three modes, it was found that stiffeners 1 and 3 had maximum bend-ing stresses of 36,840 psi and 26, 173 psi, respectively.

Since the stress in stiffener 1 is in excess of the allowable value of 32,400 psi, it is necessary to increase its capacity.

This can be performed by add-ing an external vertical stiffener to the center rear panel along the line of action of stiffener 1.

This stiffener could be stitch welded to the panel's plate.

All other stiffeners were found to meet the acceptance criteria.

Plate Evaluation:

From a review of the stiffener arrangement in Figure 7, and RGFE Drawing No. 33013-762, Rev.

0 containing equipment locations and weights, it is observed that:

Reinforced cutouts for the AC and DC distribution panels are located to the right of stiffener 3.

No equipment cutouts exist in this area and plate stresses, therefore, are expected to be low.

o Three 50 lb.

and one 100 lb. temperature recorders and a

100 lb.

switch unit are located. between stiffeners 1

and 3.

These large pieces of equipment are supported by both vertical and horizontal stiffeners along their edges.

This section is judged to be suf-ficiently reinforced by stiffeners such that the majority of the load transfer occurs through the stiffeners rather than through the 2 to 3 inch wide strips of plate separating the equipment.

It is therefore expected that the plate stresses in this region will be well within the allowable.

~

Between stiffener 1 and the left edge of the panel where the nine 15 lb. instruments are. located, the resultant SRSS accelerations and inertial forces are large.

Based upon the above observations, the plate of the center rear panel is judged to be qualified with stress levels well below the allowable limit except for the region to the left of stiffener 1.

The most highly stress-ed area within this region was determined to be a

1 1/2 inch wide vertical strip spanning between the two horizontal stiffeners (nodes 174 and 172 of Figure 7) and located between the 15 lb. instruments.

An evaluation ULo/Blume

of this 36 inch long strip resulted in a stress value of 42,300 psi which is in excess of the allowable value.

Thus, stiffening of this area is recommended.

Left Rear Panel.

The dimensions of the left rear panel, along with the equipment locations and weights are shown on RGGE Drawing No.

33013-764, Rev.

0.

The grid used to obtain in-situ measurements and the locations of the existing stiffeners are shown in Figure 8.

The total weight of the panel and its associated equipment is approximately 1,090 lbs. which is about half that of the right rear panel.

The dynamic properties of the left rear panel are given in Table 5.

Five modes, with frequencies ranging from 8.8 hz to 16.4 hz, were obtained from the test data.

The participation factors were determined based upon the calculated mass distribution and the measured mode shapes.

The spectral accelerations, which form the basis for the subsequent

analysis, were ob-tained from the 74 damped spectra in the north-south direction at the modal frequencies shown in the table.

The seismic response of the left-rear panel due to the out-of-plane earth-quake is shown in Table 6.

The maximum values of deflection, acceleration, and inertial force are approximately 0.5 inches, 4.1g, and 119 pounds.

All maximum values occur at measurement point 31 (see Figure 8).

The inertial forces for the left rear panel are considerably less than the center and right rear panels, while the number and arrangement of stiffen-ers is similar.

Stiffener Evaluation:

A review of the panel mounted equipment indicated that very light weight equipment only (e.g., voltmeters, rheostats and ammeters) varying in weight from one to three

pounds, are located to the right of the measurement grid line extending vertically between nodes 36 and 42.

Thus, stiffener 2 (Figure 8) was chosen for evaluation due to the high inertial loads to which it is subjected.

A stress evaluation was performed for the stiffener considering it to be simply supported at its ends.

The resultant maximum stress was determined 32 UBS/Blume

Mode Frequency (hz)

Part i ci pat ion Factors Spectral Acceleration

~

(g)

8. 8oo

11. 100 11.700 15.000 16.4oo

4. 114

.446

.654

.974

.443

2. 510 1.951 1.537

1. 163 975

>>Based on elevation 289'-0" of the Control Building north-south spectra for 7C damping.

TABLE 5 DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF THE LEFT REAR PANEL UBS/Blume

DEFLECTION:" (inches)

.0079

.0131

. 0092

.oo66

.0092

.oo4o

,0001

.o144

. 1570

.2976

. 1009

.38o2

.1648

. 0013

.0092

.1946

.3787

.4o49

-3345

.1647

.ooz6

.0118

. 2482

.4o76

.3984

.4519

. 2170

.0013

.oo54

.284o

.4121

- 3795

. 4958

.2103

. 0013

.0119

. 1556

.266o

.2821

.2478

. 1239

. 0013

. 0159

. 0913

. 1450

. 1381

.o964

.0490

.0013

. 0105

.o477

.o64o

.o647

.0237

.oo66

.0002

.0105

.0092

.0092

.oo66

.oo4o

.0013

.0000 ACCELERATION:" (g)

.o6

.10

.07

.05

.07

.03

.00

.12

1. 25

2. 38

l. 38

3. 07 1

~ 33

.01

.07

1. 55

3. 01 3 22 2.66

1. 32

.02

.09 2.o6 3.25 3.16

3. 68 1.78

.01

.05

2. 49 3 37 3.02 4.o7 1

~ 73

.01

.10

1. 30

2. 19

2. 31

2. 01

1. 00

.01

.14

.84 1

~ 33

l. 26

.87

.41

.01

.09

.47

.67

.64

.27

.o6

.00

.o8

.07

.o8

.o6

.03

.01

.00 I NERT I AL FORCE:". (pounds)

.36

1. 20

.84

.61

.86

~ 35

.01 1.15 25.15 47 77 42.7o 78.o8 25.25

.09

.64 26.58

51. 73 158.43 69.29

21. 45

.16

.81

35. 36

55. 85 107. 14 83.17 28.99

.o8

.4o 42.83 70 79 111.14 118.92

28. 24

.09

.85 22.34 44.33 64.94 6o.36 16.35

.09

1. 17

15. 14

30. 03 49.71 30.20 7.51

.o8

~ 73 9.24 14.57 34.23 5

39

.95

.03

-72 41 34

.95

.29

.09

.00

~The arrangement of this table is the same as the lay-out of the measurement grid.

TABLE 6

RESPONSE

OF THE LEFT REAR PANEL DUE TO OUT-OF-PLANE EARTHQUAKE UIRS/Blume

to be 23,234 psi which is comfortably below the allowable 32,400 psi.

The remaining stiffeners are thus also qualified because they have lower iner-tial forces and similar span lengths.

Plate Evaluation:

Visual inspection of the panel drawing no.

33013-764, Rev.

0, and field visits indicate that the panel contains very light pieces of equipment ranging from one to three pounds over the right two-thirds section of the panel.

The heaviest pieces of equipment - two 25 lb. record-ers and a small distribution panel are located to the left of stiffener 1 (Figure 8).

The response accelerations and inertia forces in that region are small due to the proximity of the end boundaries.

A comparison of the maximum panel equipment weights and maximum accelera-tion values with those panels previously qualified indicated that the plate sections in this panel will be well below the allowable stress values.

I Ri ht, Center, and Left Front Panels (vertical anels).

The measurement grids and stiffener locations of the right, center, and left front panels are shown on Figure 9, 10 and ll.

The dynami"c properties in the out-of-plane direction of the panels are summarized in Table 7.

Compared to the rear panels, the frequencies of the front panels are sl ightly greater, but the spectral accelerations are approximately the same due to the shape of the spectral curves.

The responses of the three center panels are summarized in Tables 8, 9, and 10.

Some of the acceleration values of the front panels are of the same magnitude as the values in the rear. panels.:

However, the displace-ments and inertial forces on the front are generally less than the rear.

The spans of the stiffeners and plates and.the inertial forces on the front panels are less than those of the rear panels.

~ Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the stresses in the front would be less than those in the back.

This expectation was verified by calculations of the maximum stiffener and plate stresses in the right, center and left panel sections.

The maximum stiffener stress value of 20,900 psi was found in stiffener 3 of UBS/Blume

Mode Mode Frequency (hz)

9. 430

15. 830

25. 750 Frequency (hz)

10. 700

12. 100 16.200 18.300 26.300 RIGHT FRONT Participation Factors 1.834

.529

.513 CENTER FRONT Part ici pat ion Factors

2. 495

1. 509

1. 580 1

~ 397

-.328 1

Spectral Acceleration (g)

1. 510

.843

.552 Spectra 12 Acce I era t i on (g)

2. 784

1. 874

1. 298

1. 057 777 Mode Frequency (hz)

11. 100 14.600

21. 000

24. 700 26.600 LEFT FRONT Participation Factors

2. 281 3.

894'.

109

.074

. 385 Spectra I 3 Acceleration (g) 1.951

1. 226

.640 577

.551 1.

Based on Elevation 289'-0" of the Control Building east-west spectra for 74 damping.

2.

Based

.on Elevation 289'-0" of the Control Building SRSS of east=west and north-south spectra for 74 damping.

3.

Based on Elevation 289'-0" of the Control Building north-south spectra for 74 damping.

TABLE 7 DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF RIGHT, CENTER AND LEFT FRONT PANELS UIIS/Blume

DEFLECT ION:" (inches)

'. 0037

.0110

.oo88

.0061

.0027

.0037

. 1091

.1635

~ 0750

.oo98

.0049

.163z

~ 3053

.18o8

.0125

.0037

.1889

. 2628

. 1412

. 0079

.oo46

. 1549

.1347

.o674

.oo58

.0043

.o865

.o7zS

. 0391

.0043

.oo4o

.oo68

.0043

.0037

.0021 ACCELERATION" (g)

.03

.10

.o8

..o6

.03

.03

1. 04

1. 50

.70

.09

.05 1.53

z. 81 1.66

.11

.03

1. 75

2. 39 1.29

.07 p4

1. 46 1.27

.65

.o6

.o4

.83

~ 73 41 p4 p4

.o6

.o4 p4

.02 INERTIAL FORCE'"

(pounds) 27

1. 18

.69

.96

.34

.71 29.01 z7.8z

28. 15

2. 70

.92 42.47 67.o5 67.z9

3. 17

.64

50. 78

66. 88 39 35

1. 66

.86 38.85 20.73 36-10

1. 65

.89 z3. 49

17. 88 14.44

1. 29

.30

.72

.45

.58

.28

~The arrangement of this table is the same as the Iay-out of the measurement grid.

TABLE 8

RESPONSE

OF THE RIGHT FRONT PANEL DUE TO OUT-OF-PLANE EARTHQUAKE UlRS/Blume

DEFLECTION:> (inches)

. 0235

.0363

.o263

.o238

.0207

.o247

.2494

.2120

. 'I016

.o265

. o274

.3889

.3301

.2944

.o256

.o246

.4324

.3940

.2o28

.o384

..0340

.347o

.3006

. 1813

.o338

~ 0273

. 2198

2172

. 1209

.0329

.o264

.o344

.o283

.0293

.o24o

.31

. 45

~ 34 32

~ 27

~ 33

3. 36 2;70

1. 32

.34

.36

5. 19 4.32 3 75

.36 ACCELERATION:> (g)

~ 32

5. 75

5. 18 2.68

.48

.43 4.61 4.oo 2.42

.42

.36

2. 93 3.o4 1

~ 57

.41

.34

.44

~ 37

.38

.31 I NERT IAL FORCE:> (pounds )

2.51 6.83 5.57 103 09

3. 13 56.70

3. 49

61. 83 2.88 13.63

6. 84 156. 81 96.68 186.61

20. 21

6. 36 162.23 110.93

69. 50

24. 38

8. 24 128.05 89.64 51

~ 53

11. 34

7. 44

86. 54 6o.72 44.74

10. 57 2 73 5.50 3.49 6.o7 4.18

>The arrangement of 'this table is the same as the lay-out o'f the measurement gri d.

TABLE 9

RESPONSE

OF CENTER FRONT PANEL DUE TO OUT-OF-PLANE EARTHQUAKE 38 "

UBS/Blume

DEFLECTION:> (inches)

. 0139

. 0143

. 0164

. 1265

. 0146

. 1260

.0145

. 1739

.0065

.0110

.0178

. 2104

~ 1959

.1556

. 0138

.0092

.2392

.1948

~ 1323

. 0150

.0121

.2274

.1843

'. 1042

.0143

.o16o

.1496 1137

.0839

.0132

. 0132

.o184

. 0149

. 0114

.oo96 ACCELERATION+ (g)

~

.18

.21

.19

.20

.09

.18

1. 62

l. 64 2.25

.16

.23

2. 69 2.51

1. 98

.17

.14 3 07

2. 51 1. 69

.20

.21

3. 26

2. 52, 1

~ 39

.19

.21 2.24

1. 6,1 1.22

.17

.17

.24

.19

. 1'5

.12 INERTIAL FORCE:> (pounds) 1.44

2. 6o

1. 76

2. 79 1.13

3. 83 50.02 31.42 93.85

5. 29 4.4o 76.8o 28.39

88. 81

5. 66

2. 65 85.86 52.10 52.67

5. 15 4.13

96. 55 54 59

41. 11

5. 75 4 33

77. 37 47.61 53.30 6.63 1

~ 37

3. 52 3.05 4.o4

2. 19 "The arrangement of this table is the same as the Iay-out of the measure-ment grid.

TABLE 10

RESPONSE

OF LEFT FRONT PANEL DUE TO OUT-OF-PLANE EARTHQUAKE UBS/Blume

the center panel.

The maximum plate stress value of 18,600 psi was calcu-lated in the right front section.

Both these values are well below the allowable stress limits.

Bench Panels.

A review of the equipment layout drawing for the three hor-izontal bench panels indicates that the center bench supports the heaviest equipment followed by the left and right benches.

The bench plates are also reinforced by 2 inch by 3/8 inch stiffeners similar to the vertical plates.

A layout of the existing-stiffeners is shown in Figure 13.

The three benches are actually slightly inclined at a

16

angle, however, they were evaluated as if they were perfectly horizontal.

The vertical SSE re-sponse spectrum for 74 damping was used.

The in-situ testing resulted in five modal frequencies for the center bench between 9.2 and 24 hz in its out-of-plane direction.

It exhibited some out-of-plane motion in the third out-of-plane mode of the center front vertical panel at 16 hz (see Appendix A).

The in-situ testing did not result in detailed mode-shapes for the benches, but did indicate the expected frequencies.

Thus, the equivalent static load method with a 504 increase of the peak of the 7Z damped vertical spectrum was conservatively used and the inertial loads added absolutely to the dead loads.

The center bench was evaluated by considering three simply supported plates loaded with uniform pressure distribution.

The three plates span between the edges of the bench panel and the stiffeners spanning the entire width of the panel.

The pressure value used for each plate was that of the most highly loaded strip of the entire plate.

The left plate was the most high-ly stressed with a maximum value of 46,180 psi.

Since this stress is lar-l ger than 0.9 Fy, a modification of the center bench is required.

This modification could consist of extending the left most stiffener, 1 foot 9 1/8 inches long, to the upper edge of the center bench.

This modifica-tion would reduce the span length of the rectangular plate and thus reduce the bending stresses to an acceptable level.

The remaining two plates of the center bench are acceptable without any modifications.

All the stif-feners were also evaluated and found acceptable after increasing the length of the left stiffener.

The largest stiffener stress thus obtained was 30,720 psi. UBS/Blume

RECOMMEDEO STIFFENER MODIFICATION 2'IDE REGION RE<}UIRING MODIFICATION

+b 0

I 41 EXISTWG SI IFFY'8RS, 7TP.

'I'0 r'II~I~'t4>>

QZh(CH SCCA/OA'U.

L.Ve PLAN OF MCQ DEIVCH SECTIONS, FIGURE 13 LAYOUT OF STIFFENER LOCATIONS OF THE HCB BENCH SECTIONS

- 41 UBS/Blume

The right and left benches were evaluated by analyzing critical horizon" tal plate. strips as simply supported beams subjected to equivalent static load similar to the center bench.

The stresses due to the in"plane and out-of-plane earthquakes were calculated and found acceptable.

The maxi-mum stresses in the right and left bench panels were 15,700 psi, and 18,300 psi respectively.

Both values are less than the allowable stress of 32,400 psi.

The stiffeners were also found to be acceptable.

Roof Dia hra m and End Panels.

The roof of the MCB is a critical element of the seismic load path because it transfers the top edge reaction loads of the vertical panels due to out-of-plane earthquake to the end panels of the right and left section.

The roof diaphragm consists of three 1/8 inch thick plates for the left, center and right boards.

Each plate is rein-forced with three stiffeners spanning between the front and back panels.

The stiffeners are structural angles with dimensions of 2-1/2 by 2-1/2 by 1/4 inches.

A layout of the stiffeners is indicated in Figure 14.

The vertical SSE with 4R damping plus dead load was considered for an out-of-plane analysis of the roof diaphragm using the equivalent static load method.

The analysis considered a simply supported plate, 3 feet 11 inches by 6 feet 0 inches.

These dimensions correspond to the typical dimension between roof stiffeners and the. width of the panel.

A total uniform load of 2.5g times the plate weight was applied to the plate.

The maximum out-of-plane bending stress was calculated to be 6,230 psi.

The roof diaphragm was also analyzed to determine the in-plane shear stresses due to the top edge reaction loads of the vertical panels (front and back).

For this evaluation, it was assumed that the roof diaphragm behaves as a straight, simply supported beam spanning 420 inches between the end panels of the right and left sections (see Figure 15).

This analy-sis conservatively ignores any benefit gained from the shape of the board and any shear load transferred to the ground at the miter bends of the board.

The top edge reaction of the center

rear, which resulted in the largest reaction

loads, conservatively assumed to apply everywhere for the UIRS/Blume

A

bi L 2'h" vI/t.""I/4 srI FEucRs, TY/.

ouruf/E OF ROOF

~ ROOf fpI.ArE~

ROOF PLAN ft'fBOGART C" 1'1'w.

SECTION A A rrP.

/4 1810 t.r/i ale ~ /4 FIGURE 14 CEILING PLAN HAIN CONTROL BOARD UBSiBlume

TOP E'DCrE REA/ T/ON OF VERT/CAL PAAfELS OUZ /0 OUT.O/ PLAA'E EARTHQVAKF, TYP/CAL.

It'I l l l I I I I l j l l l l l I l l l l l gl I

I I

I I

I I I I

I I I

&IDPA/JEL LE/T SECTION I I I I I I I ENID PA//EL RIGHT SECT/Ohl

/50 420

/85 FIGURE 15 ANALYSIS OF ROOF DIAPHRAGM t)4 UBS/Blume

diaphragm analysis.

This load is equal to 7.67 Ibs/inch and was assumed to also apply for the front panels.

Thus, the diaphragm was analyzed for two times this value or 15.3 lbs/inch.

Based upon a 420 inch span

length, the maximum shear and moment are 3221 lbs.

and 338,247 lbs-inch.

The moment is considered to be resisted by axial tension and compression in the 2-1/2 by 2-1/2 by 1/4 inch angles on the front and back edges of the diaphragm (see Figure 2).

Since the depth is equal to 72 inches, the chord force and axial stress are 4698 pounds and 3948 psi respectively.

This stress is much less than the allowable value of 32,400 psi.

Compression buckling is not a problem due to the plates attached to the angle legs.

Since the roof plate is 1/8 inch thick, the maximum shear stress is 358 psi.

Since the allowable shear stress was calculated at 400 psi~ it was concluded that the roof will carry the loads to which it is subjected.

The end panels transfer the reaction loads (3221 lbs.)

from the roof dia-phragm to the base.

Shear and bending stresses were calculated on both sides of the door opening and the maximum values were 358 psi (shear) and 1789 psi (bending).

Both of these values are less than the allowable

values, and the end panels will properly transfer the loads to the floor anchors.

Finally, the connections of the vertical plates, both front and back, to the roof diaphragm and the connections of the roof to the end side panels were also evaluated and found to be acceptable.

These connections consist of structural angles assumed to 2-1/2 by 1-1/2 by 1/4 inch welded with 1/4 inch fillet welds one inch long at ten inch spacing.

Thus, it is conclud-ed that the roof diaphragm and end side panels are qualified and provide an acceptable load path to the floor slab for the earthquake and dead loads in the out-of-plane direction of each of the plates which comprise the HCB.

4.2 In-Plane Seismic Hotion. The stresses in the panels due to the in-plane motions are in two categories.

The first category is pure shear and axial stresses in the plates while the second is torsional shear and bending stresses due to the moments induced by the attached cantilevered equipment as shown in Figure 12.

45 UBS/Blume

The pure shear and axial stresses have been evaluated on a worst case basis using the equivalent static load method and the heaviest panel weight.

The heaviest weight of 2,000 lbs., for the rear right panel, is used with a 3.75g horizontal seismic acceleration and 2.2g vertical accel-eration (seismic plus dead load).

These loads resulted in acceptable stresses for all in-plane evaluations when combined with the out-of-plane earthquake stresses.

The evaluation of the plate stresses due to the moments induced by the cantilevered equipment was performed for the critical plate strips in each of the six vertical plates and three horizontal benches.

The stresses ob-tained from the out-of-plane direction evaluation using the SRSS combina-tion method.

All plates evaluated for these induced moments were found to be acceptable with the exception of the left rear panel and the center bench.

These two locations require additional stiffening.

The problem area in the left rear panel is a 2-3/4 inch wide vertical strip located to the left of stiffener 1

(see Figure 8)'etween two re-corders and a distribution panel.

This strip is approximately 22 1/4 inches long.

It appears that the two recorders might have been moved from a region next to stiffeners to this unstiffened location.

The problem area in the center bench is a two inch horizontal strip, lo-.

cated at the left side of the bench, spanning between the stiffener which is recommended for modification and the second stiffener from the end of the bench (see Figure 13).

This strip is 32 inches long and is located between a

row of controllers and a

row of light switches.

The controllers are 15 lbs.

each and cantilevered approximately 19 inches.

The modification for these two regions could be either in the form of add-ing additional stiffeners to the plates or adding additional support to the cantilevered instrument to reduce the induced moment. UBS/Blume

5.

CONCLUSIONS The Hain Control Board at the R.E.

Ginna Station has been shown to meet the acceptance criteria for the SSE postulated at the site after some minor modifications are installed.

This earthquake was defined by the response spectra shown in Figures 2 to 4.

The load path for the inertial forces has been evaluated and found to be adequate except as noted below.

The anchorage of the instruments to the panels and the anchorage of the HCB to the floor was not included in this study.

These evaluations were previously performed by Rochester Gas and Electric and proper modifications were installed.

The fol 2.

3 ~

4.

5.

6.

lowing modifications are recommended as a result of this study.

Addition of a vertical stiffener to a 1-inch wide vertical plate strip in the middle of Sections B and E of the rear right panel (see Figure 6).

Increasing the capacity of vertical stiffener 1 and the 1-1/2 inch wide vertical strip to the left of stiffener 1 of the cen-ter rear panel (see Figure 7).

Re-support the two recorders at the left edge of the left rear panel or stiffen up the 2-3/4 inch wide vertical strip between the recorders and the distribution panel (see Figure 8).

Extend the left most stiffener of the center bench the entire width of the bench (see Figure 13).

Re-support the controllers on the left side of the center bench between the stiffener described in 4 above and the next one, or stiffen up the 2-inch wide horizontal strip right above the controllers (see Figure 13).

Add connection plates between thc adjacent sections of the HCB on the vertical panels and the roof plates at the miter junctions of the MCB.

These connections are needed to insure the proper support of the roof diaphragm and validate the deep beam method of evaluation for the roof.

The six modifications described above will result in a structural integ-.

rity qualification of the HCB.

They are not expected to drastically change the fundamental mode (and maybe even the second mode) of vibration of the majority of the HCB as described in the appendix.

47 UIRS/Blume

REFERENCES 1.

Newmark, N.H., and Hall, W.J., Development of Q'itema for'eismic Review) of Selected Nuclear Pacer Plants, prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-0098,

Hay, 1978.

2.

URS/John A. Blume 6 Associates, Engineers, Analytical Techniques,

Models, and Seismic Evaluation of EEectzicaE Races'ystems, pre-pared for the SEP Owners Group under the direction of KHC, Inc.;

Washington, D.C., August, 1983.

3.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulato~

Guide 282, Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response

AnaEysis, Rev I s ion 1, Washington, D. C., February 1976.

4.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi ss ion, Standcu'd Review PEan, Section 3.8.4, Office of Nuclear Reactory Regulation, NUREG 0800, Washington, D.C., July, 1981.

5.

American Institute of Steel Construction, Specification fox'he Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Struc~aZ Steel for'uiEdings, New York, New York, 1969.

6.

American Iron and Steel Institute, CoEd Form SteeE Design Manual, 1977 Edition, New York UIRS/Blume

APPENDIX A NODAL TESTING RESULTS

MODE FREQ SZ)

6. 86

j. 87 S

FIGURE A. 1 MODE 1

RIGHT REAR MCB R. E.

G I NNA PLANT UBS/Blume

HODE FREQ SZ)

DAMP(X)

i. 62 S

FIGURE A.2 MODE 2 RIGHT REAR MCB R.

E.

GINNA PLANT UBS/Blume

MODE

11. 62 DAMP(X) 971.75 e FIGURE A.3 NODE 3 RIGHT REAR HCB R.

E.

GINNA PLANT tUjRS/Blume

HODE FREQ SZ) i5. 12 DhMP C) 962.86 e F I GORE A. 4 MODE 4 RIGHT REAR MCB R,

E.

GINNA PLANT UBS/Blume

MODE FREQ SZ) i6. 34 DAMPC) 635.55 e F I GURE A. 5 MODE 5 RI GHT REAR MCB R.

E.

G I NNA PLANT UBS/Blume

HODE FREQ SZ)

17. 67

1. 7i FIGURE A. 6, MODE 6 RIGHT REAR MCB R.

E.

G I NNA PLANT UBS/Blume

MODE FREQ(HZ)

2. 42 S

FIGURE A.7 NODE 7 RIGHT REAR HCB R.

E.

G I NNA PLANT UIRS/Blume

MODE FREQ (HZ)

21. 35

1. 68 FIGURE A.8 MODE 8 RI GHT REAR CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

G I NNA PALNT UBS/Blume

MODE FREQ(HZ)

8. 25 DAMP (X)

3. 87 FIGURE A.9 MODE t

CENTER REAR CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

G I NNA PLANT UHS/Blume

HODE FREQ (HZ)

9. 69 L

DAHP G)

2. 37

......J Y

FIGURE A. 10 MODE 2 CENTER REAR CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

G I NNA PLANT UHS/Blume

DhhtP (X)

FIGURE A. 11 NODE 3

CENTER REAR CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT U!RS/Blume

MODE F~Ea<Hz>

16. 56 DAMPG)

1. 35 FIGURE A. 12 NODE 4

CENTER REAR CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT UBS/Blume

FREQ (HZ)

8. 75 DAMP (X)

FIGURE A. 13 NODE 1

LEFT REAR CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT UBS/Blume

MODE FREQ (HZ) 1 i. 12 DAMP (X)

2. 61 F I GURE A. 14 MODE 2 LEFT REAR CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

G I NNA P L'ANT UII8/Blume

MODE FREQ SZ)

11. 75 DAHP (X)

3. 39 F I GURE A. 15 NODE 3

LEFT REAR CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT UBS/Blume

HODE FREQ (HZ)

15. 88

/

DAHP (X)

F I GURE A. 16 MODE 4 LEFT REAR CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT UIRS/Blume

MODE FREQCHZ)

16. 37 DAMP(X)

3. 16 FIGURE A.17 HODE 5 LEFT REAR CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT UIIS/Blume

HODE fREQ (HZ)

9. 43 Dht/P (X)

1. 98 FIGURE A. 18 NODE 1

RIGHT FRONT CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT Um8/Blume

MODE FREQ (HZ)

15. 83 DAMP (X)

S FIGURE A.19 NODE 2

RIGHT FRONT CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT UBS/Blume

HODE FREQ (HZ)

25. 7S DAMP(i)

3. 19 S

Y~ ~X FIGURE A.20 MODE 3 RIGHT FRONT CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT UIRS/Blume

MODE FREQ (HZ)

18. 69 DAMP0)

1. 97 FIGURE A.21 NODE 1

CENTER FRONT CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT UBS/Blume

I' I

~

MODE FREQ SZ)

12. 12 DhMP 0)

3. 57 FIGURE A.22 MODE 2 CENTER FRONT CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT UP%8/Blume

FREQ (HZ)

16. 25 DAMP(X)

4. 86 FIGURE A.23 NODE 3

CENTER FRONT CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT UBS/Blume

HOOE FREQ SZ)

18. 31 OhMP C)

1. 83 FIGURE A.24 NODE 4 CENTER FRONT CONTROL PANEL RE E.

GINNA PLANT UAS/Blume

FREQ SZ)

26. 38 DhMP0)

5. 36 FIGURE A.25 NODE 5 CENTER FRONT CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT QRS/Blume

I

BENCH MODE

(

FREQ (MZ)

22. 87 DAMP (X)

4. 89 FIGURE A.26 BENCH MODE CENTER FRONT CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT UBS/Blume

DAMPC)

FIGURE A.27 HODE 1

LEFT FRONT CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT URS/Blume

FREQ (HZ)

14. 62 DAMP0)

9. 16 S

FIGURE A.28 NODE 2 LEFT FRONT CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT UBS/Blume

MOOE

'I FREQ SZ)

21. 88 DhMP (X)

2. 3S Y

FIGURE A.29 NODE 3

LEFT FRONT CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

G I NNA PLANT UBS/Blume

HODE FREQ (HZ)

22. 25 DAHP (X)

5. 83 x~

~v FIGURE A.30 MODE 4 LEFT FRONT CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

G I NNA PLANT UIRS/Blume

MODE FREQ(HZ)

24. 75 DAMP0)

1. 74 F I GURE A. 31 NODE 5

LEFT FRONT CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT UBS/Blume

MODE FREQNZ)

26. 62 DAMP(X)

3. 29 FIGURE A.32 MODE 6 LEFT FRONT CONTROL PANEL R.

E.

GINNA PLANT UBS/Blume