Text

Forwards Evaluation on Vertical Floor Flexibility,Closing Out SER Open Item 27
	ML18037A110
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	01/07/1985
From:	Mangan C; NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
To:	Schwencer A; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	(NMP2L-0318), (NMP2L-318), NUDOCS 8501090299
	Download: ML18037A110 (61)
	v • d • e

REGULATORY NFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SY EM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR: 8501090299 OOC ~ DATE: 85/01/07 NOTARIZED:

NO FACIL:50-410 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station< Unit 2i Niagara Moha AUTH,NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION t<ANGANiC~ Vo Niagara Mohawk Power Corp, RECIPE NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION SCHIVENCERiA ~

Licensing Branch 2

Pi,

SUBJECT:

Forwards evaluation on vertical floor flexibilityiclosing out SER Open Item 27

'ISTRIBUTION CODE:

8001D COPIES RECEIVED;LTR ENCL SIZE:

TITLE: Licensing Submittal:

PSAR/FSAR Amdts 8, Related Co respondence NOTES; DOCKET 0 5 0 0 0 LI 1 0 RECIPIENT IO CODE/NAME NRR/DL/ADL NRR L82 LA INTFRNAL; ACRS

~.

01 ELD/HDS3 IE/OEPER/EPB 36 NRR ROEiM,L NRR/DE/CEB 11 NRR/DE/EQB 13 NRR/DE/MEB 18 NRR/DE/SAB 2Q NRR/DHF 8/HFEBAO NRR/DHFS/PSRB-NRR/DS I/AEB 26 NRR/DS I/CPB 10 NRR/DSI/ICSB 16 NRR/DSI/PSB 19 NRR/DS I/RSB 23 RGNi EXTERNAL: BNL(AMDTS ONLY)

FEMA REP DIV 39 NRC PDR 02 NTIS COPIES LTTR ENCl.

1 0

6 6

1 0

1 1

2 2

1 1

3 3

REC IPIENT ID C 0 DE/N AtlE NRR L82 BC HAUGHEYi M 01 ADM/LFMB IE FILE IE/DQASIP/QA821 NRR/DE/AEAB NRR/DE/EHEB NRR/DE/GB 28 NRR/DE/MTEB 17 NRR/OE/SGEB 25 NRR/DHFS/LQB 32 NRR/DI /SSPB NRR/DS I/ASB NRR/OS I/CSB 09 NRR/DS I/METB 12 N

/DS I/RAB 22 L

04 RM/OOA

/MIB Oh'l8/DSS (AMDTS)

LPDR 03 NSIC 05 PNL GRUELgR COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

0 1

1 1

0 1

1 1

0 1

1 2

2 1

1 1

0 1

1 1

0 1

1 1

1 L~t TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:

LTTR 53 ENCL 45

0 l

I c

'll P

I l

f a

j

~ l~

J a

IP t

P II ll A

%7 l>

C I

e Nl V HIIASA,IRk lN g PGo MWIX NIAGARAMOHAWKPOWER CORPORATION/300 ERIE BOULEVARDWEST, SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13202/TELEPHONE (315) 474-1511 January 7,

1985 (NMP2L 0318)

Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No.

2 Division of Licensing Otfice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Schwencer:

Re:

Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Docket No.

50-.410 Enclosed please find ten copies of our evaluation of vertical floor flexibility in accordance with SER Open Item No. 27.

This report was prepared to close out this Safety Evaluation Report item.

Very truly yours, C.

V.

Man n

Vice President Nuclear Engineering

& Licensing NLR:ja Enclosure xc:

R. A.

Gramm, NRC Resident Inspector Project File (2)

(

850i09029'V 850i07 PDR ADOCK 05000410 E

PDR

@el 48osA Qogkhi ->

/iP. P/ae pit Fi 0- I 4'sC- /

g)$~8 -

NINE MILE POINT,UNIT 2 A REPORT ON VERTICAL FLOOR;, Ft;EXIBILITY

3t' vA e

<BI

~

~ I (Q rf'LC

.(

~ 4

'J I

~ )A ega

~

I C

.r~

Ao b."L 8"(ar'.

fO S

INTRODUCTION During the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 structural design audit, the NRC requested Niagara Mohawk to review the effect of vertical floor flexibilityin the analysis of equipment and floor designs.

This report addresses this concern, as described in our letter dated October 25, 1984.

METHOD To assess the effects of vertical floor flexibility, the lumped mass model of the control building used to develop the design basis was modified as shown in Figure 1.

The control building model was chosen as a result of a review of NMP2 Category I structures.

This review indicated that floors in the control building have lower vertical natural frequencies than those in other Category I structures.

Any adverse effects caused by vertical floor flexibilitywould be most pronounced in this structure.

As shown in Figure 1, one lumped mass (at el 306'-0") of the seismic model was separated into two masses, one to represent the overall building at that, elevation and one to represent a floor.

The total mass of the structure is unchanged.

The system represented by node 8 and spring 58 is a

1 degree of freedom representation of the floor.

The frequency of this system was assumed to be 15 Hz in previous study presented to the NRC staff in the meeting at

Bethesda, Maryland.

This frequency was chosen based on several calculations which estimated the frequency of a typical control building floor in this range.

To account for possible variations in floor frequency, this study considers two additional frequencies, a lower bound estimate of 9 Hz and an intermediate value of 12 Hz.

Results provided herein are thus given for three floor frequencies (i.e., 9, 12 and 15 Hz).

I The results of the present study should be reviewed in view of the following:

The response at node 5 is an estimate of the response at el 306 at points near the walls.

The response at node 8 is an estimate of the response at points near the center of a floor slab.

These responses are not meant to II be exact predictions of actual

response, but are useful to identify the effects of varying parameters used in the analysis.

~ pre 4

rg'

'l f'

H W

~ r, Ih P

4

+Slit

~(

I,'I g1

This study uses six of the ten actual ground motion records used in developing the site-specific response spectrum at the Limerick site.

These records are not scaled to 0.15 g.

The list of these ten Limerick earthquake records is given in Table 1.

Since previous studies dealt with only the horizontal components, four of these records do not have corrected vertical components available in the public domain.

As a result, this study is performed using six of the ten records in Table 1.

Table 2 gives the peak vertical acceleration of the six records used and of the four not used.

The results of this study present amplified response spectra (ARS) for 2 percent and 4 percent equipment damping and 7 percent structural damping.

They are compared with the NNP2 design basis ARS at 2 percent equipment damping and 7 percent structural damping.

RESULTS A.

Figures 2 through 7 show the responses of node 8 and node 5 of the revised model for 2 percent

damping, compared with the design basis at 2 percent damping, for the 15 Hz floor for individual earthquakes.

Figures 8 through 13 compare the results for 4 percent damping with the design basis at 2 percent damping, for the 15 Hz floor.

B.

Figure 14 shows the results at node 8 for 2 percent

damping, compared with the design basis, for the 15 Hz floor.

This plot is the result obtained by taking (at each frequency) the mean of the six accelerations plus one standard deviation.

Figure 15 shows the results at node 8 for 4 percent

damping, compared to the design basis, for the 15 Hz floor, incorporating the results for six earthquakes in the same manner.

C.

Figures 16 and 17 present results similar to those of B, but with. the floor frequency changed to 12 Hz.

,f D.

Figures 18 and 19 present results similar to those of B, but with the floor frequency changed to 9 Hz.

C

oi 9r,

~

4'

~

~ g

'>l

'C w)

I 4

4 ~ ~4

'I

E.

Figure 20 presents results for the 9

Hz floor at node 5 for 2 percent

~

damping, compared with the design basis.

DISCUSSION It can be seen from the results provided above that the responses for the actual earthquake records compare well within the engineering accuracy.

The following points also must be noted:

1.

The study results for 2 percent damping considers only one of the many conservatisms in the analysis/design process.

All that is changed is the input ground motion.

Other factors such as increased structural damping and system nonlinearity would reduce responses even further.

2.

The ARS curves for 4 percent damping are almost completely enveloped by the NNP2 design basis ARS curves.

3.

The minor exceedances encountered for individual earthquake records are very sharp (i.e., over a narrow band of frequency range).

For most other frequencies, the results are significantly lower (i.e.,

by a factor of 3 to 4).

Also, these results are an approximation of responses at the middle of the floor.

Responses near the wall are much lower than the design basis, as shown in Figure 20 for the worst case (i.e.,

9 Hz).

4.

This study uses 7 percent structural damping.

Based on NUREG/CR-1161 (10) 10 percent structural damping can be used at sea level.

Figure 21 shows that with 10 percent structural damping and 5 percent equipment

damping, the ARS curve for actual earthquakes is enveloped by the NNP2 design basis ARS curve, when peak spreading is considered.

5.

This study addresses only vertical accelerations.

Factors such as actual earthquake time histories and/or increased structural and equipment damping will also reduce the horizontal responses.

Since the equipment

C g

l

.IIISr

design is based on combined responses (i.e., two horizontal and one vertical),

any possible increase in the vertical response due to the vertical floor flexibilitywill be more than compensated by a corresponding decrease in the horizontal response(s).

Therefore, the equipment design basis remains adequately conservative.

CONCLUSION Based on the discussion above, it is concluded that the present NMP2 design basis ARS have sufficient conservatism to account for variation in floor responses due to flexibilityof the floor and that equipment and floors would function satisfactorily as designed.

g

~ W

~ '4

TABLE 1

Earthquake Date Time Recording Station

~Ma nitude Orovi 1 1 e Orovi lie Orovi lie Parkf iel d Lytle Creek Friuli Cape Mendocino Helena Helena Orovilie 08/08/75 09/27/75 09/27/75 06/27/66 09/12/70 09/11/76 06/07/75 10/31/35 11/28/85 08/01/75 (0700)

(1631)

Station 6

Station 8

Station 9

Temblor Allen Ranch S.

Roco C. Mendocino Carroll College Federal Building Seismograph Station 4.9 4.6 4.6 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.3 5.7 5.0 5.7

TABLE 2 Records Used Peak Acceleration(g)

Par kfield Lytle Creek Cape Mendocino Helena - Carrol College Helena - Federal Building Orovi lie Seismic Station

.132

.060

.039

.089

.032

.115 Mean

.078 Records Not Available Peak Acceleration*

Orovi lie Station 6

Orovi lie Station 8

Orovi lie Station 9

Friuli

.0663

.0392

.0637

.0198

From uncorrected data

U le r

~

~,

l*

REFERENCES l.

USAEC Regulatory Guide 1.61, Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, October 1973 2.

Newmark, N.

M. and Rosenblueth, E., Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1971 3.

Stevenson, J.

O., Structur al Damping Values as a Function of Dynamic

Response

Stress and Deformation Levels, Paper Kll/1, presented at the 5th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Berlin; August 1979 4.

ASME Paper No. 83-PVP-18, Seismic Evaluation of Electrical Raceway

Systems, F. Elsabee, S. Anagnostis and W. Djordjevic 5.

Insitu Vibration Tests Joyo Plant Japan.

Proceedings of U.S.

OOE/PNL Specialist Exchange Meeting on Seismic Piping Test held at Advanced Reactors Division dated September 20 and 21, 1982 6.

L. K. Severud, D. A. Barta and M. J. Anderson, Small Bore Piping Seismic Test Findings, ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference June and July 1982, Vol. 67, Special Applications in Piping Dynamic Analysis, pp 29-41 7.

Seismic Design Technology, Monthly Technical Progress Report - Materials and Structures, November

1982, Westinghouse Task OE-AT02-80CH94049 8.

Cloud, R. L., Seismic Capability of Nuclear Piping, August 1979.

Review Performed for Stone 5 Webster Engineering Corporation,

Boston, MA 9.

PB-241

314, A. J. Schiff, et al.,

Response

of Power Systems to the San Fernando Valley Earthquake of February 9,

1971, Prepared for the National Science Foundation, January 1972

~

10.

US NRC NUREG/CR-1'161, Recommended Revisions to Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Seismic Design Criteria, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, May 1980

f I~

5!i >4 Vq j

Kse Kss Kse K4s K4s K34 K34 Ke2 KTB K32 K73 K)2 K)2 PRESENT MODEL USED IN SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURE WITH NMP2 DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE MODIFIED MODEL USED IN VERTICALFLOOR FLEXIBILITYSTUDY FlG. 1 SEISMIC MODELS CONTROL BLDG EL 306 NMPC NMP2 J.O. NO. 12177 c

~. iso

P 4

W C'I l

i'i I

~ I I

1 I

1

TEST Of

.00

'Y TI FLOOR FLEXIBiLITY SSE VENT HIN NILE IOINt 2 CONTROL BLdG RT EL I2177

}

EV ~ 305 SPECTRFI RIIP IFIEO ESPONSE E HISTCRY, LRT ILLAIOlt D}IMPIHD ILLAIOlt DAttP IHO ILLA'Iott DAMPIHO O.D2D D6 0.020 06 0.020 06

..I

~ I

~ I I

KL FkKIIe HZ I

KFIH50 MO

. sob.

TltKllbLOlt OH'Itt L OL PARH O..K IKLD o

ttt

~

I 1

~ t I"

~

LIB s

1 I I

I

~

II

~

I

I..:I"I

~

h'

~

I I

~

I '

I oo

."}-

t I

I gN

~'}

I

~

IK 41 LLJ~o

....Oo IEOOII 8 Ii...

I

~

1CV haSrS

~

~ ~

~.

~ I o

HO KO I

I Oo b.00 0

10 0.20 0J30 0

~90 1

.40 0-60 0.60 0.70 0

~ 80 0

PERIOO IN SECS I

I I

6 JE

~

BB SON 5-84 OF RU 15 T

1984

~ p>>

~

I I

~ I 1

~

I

}

} I, I ~ 10 1T.'20 00

NIN CON PgP ROL BLQG.

AT E EV. 30 IF1$ 0 RESPONSE; SPECTR.00'SSE VERT BY T It)E HISTORY I

)IILE P'OINT 2

12)77 'EST 0

FLOOR FLEXIBILITY

)0-)5-84 OATE OF RUN 8

E EBBESON It

)S OPT iSa C)A\\

~ p>>

I

~

t 0 ~ OZO 06t 1LLRlOR O)ttPJHO COHIKPL bLOO E

~ 306 ~

EFlHfO ttO K RL)EH R

HCH LllL) CRE EL PREQo 0.020 OSC1LLRlOlt ORltP1HO O.OZO 06CtLLRfOK ORttP1HO I

I i

I)EVISIOI) 0 i

I I

I t

~

X cD

~ ~Q

~

ih i tK:

~ 4J t 4J

~ I

~ ~

~

~ t

~ >> ~

~ p

~

~ ~

~>>

ttQ)E $

~

+V

~

1 J'>>

I I

~

tltk OESt

~ >>

H. BA8($

b>>

>> ~

I

~

~ 10 0 20 '>>30 0 40 '>>50 0.60 0>>70 O.BO 0.90

'I P/RIOO I

SECS 00

~ 10 20

1 3

f k

I

)

t.

t:i i

NING HILE POINT 2

12177 TEST Of'LOOR'FLEXIBILITY CONTROL BLOG>>

AT EQEV. 306.00'SSE VERT f)NP)t)FIEO /ESPONSE SPECTRP BY TlfiE HISTORY 0.020 06CILLATOR DAMPIHO 0.020 06CILLATOR OAMPIHO 0.020 OSCILLATOR DRMPIHD I

L BLbO.

E CAPE ttEHD I

EFIHED MOPEL FARO/5HZ

. 306.

CONTR CIHD C) n CI

~ I EOc)I

~

EE LSj 4J ISH fAS IB HLIA2 DE

~ P>

., ~l

~

"- -E

~

~ ~

~

D O

HNIE h

~ ~

~ IO

.20

~ 3Q 50 0

RIOO I

.6D N SECS P

70 10-15-84 E

EBB)SON DRT OF RUhI IS OCT 1984

)

EVIS IOfl 0

~

=

~

~ )

.,~l i

I ~

~

I

~

1 ~

~

~>>

.90 I 00 '

~ 10 1

.80

r

I NING NILE POINT 2

12177 TEST OF FLOOR. FLEXIBILITY CONl'ROL BLDG. AT ELEV 306 00'SE VERT AMP IFIEO RESPDNSE SPECTRP BY TIPE HIST(RY 0.020 06CILLArOR OAIIPIIIO 0.020 06ClLLArOR DAIIPIIIO 0.020 06C ILLArOR DAAPIIIO I

10-12-84 DATE OF RUN B.E.

EBBESON 12 OCT i984 CDIIlR L SLIID E

306~

RE I!IED.IIODE) FAEIQ I

HZ REVISION 0 oa n

I I

I a

~

N IIELEIOI CA ROLL: COLL

.I..

I

~

I I

I

~ ~

~

~,

~ I

~ A i ~It I

vtj

~

'I

~

g~P2 EStGII HAS 6 AQDE:5.... j j

i I

00; 0.10

~20 0.30 0,.40,.50

.60

~ 70 0.80 PERIOD IN SECS

~80 I 00 I ~ ID 1

I

.20 g

1

06CILLA(OR OAtlPIHO

,0 OZO

--- I 0-020 06ClLLA1OR ORIIP1 HO 06ClLLAEOR D)IIPIHD I

0.020 I

NINE NILE POINT 2

12177 TEST OF FLOOR'FLEXIBILITY CONTROL BLDG. AT E)EV. 30)-00'SE VERT AHPI.IFIKD RESPONSE SPECTRP BY TIIIE HISTORY i

I I

10-12-84 B.E.

EBBESON OATQ OF RUN 12 OCT 1984 CI CI n

COHER e

L bLDO. E HELEHA FE 3DO ERAL. bUlL 1HO I

EFJHED IIOPEL FAEQ l5 Hel lIEVISIOS 0 C4 I ~

Cl~g

~ h.

ILI ng t

CI III CI

~ e

~

e

~ I ~

~ ~

HOPE b I

4

[

~

e ~@[

ee

~

e LIP2e DESI H lA)I9 I

~

.eo

~

'el n

I 00 10 20 30 0 40 0.50 0

PQRIOO IN 60 OI SECS 70 0

BD 0.90 i

1.00 10 1 20

+t 1

I' I

't

)

~q

'I I

NILE P!OINT 2

. 12177 TEST OF FLOOR FLEXIBILITY 9IN CON PAP I

ROL'L IF IEO G.

AT ELEV. 306-00'SE VERT ESPONSE'PECTRA BY TIHE HISTORY 0 020

0.020 0 020 OSCILLA'IOR OAtlPINO OSCILLRTOR OAtlPINO OS)ILLATOR OAtIPING 2

I 2

I I

II

. 306.

REFINED SEISNIC 614TION CONTROL BLDG.

E I OROVILLE I

1 PEVISIO NOIIEL FREQ 15IIZ I C)a 2

Is) aI)l N

CI Cl c5 2Ij 2 gg

'LI Daa I g~

MP2 DESIG BASS

~

I

~

EB'.

"6 ~-

t:

a

~ I I

20 0.30 0

'b.oo Oj. 10 40 oi~ So 0'60 0'70 OBD I

0 PERIOO IN SECS I

0 I.i'!

10-125-84 '::

Is!

IIII

'. B OF I RU I I

~

0:

I I

2 2

~

~ '

'II '

I I,

~

I

11 I

~ I II I

~

~ I 2

-'lI

Il 1'

I

~

2 I,

~

I 1

~ 10

~00 Bo

!11'I'

~

2

~

2

~

I'!!iti 885SON I 0,

~

S84 211 I

~ I I)sj s,, I, s I )

~ '

. I;

~ s 12

~ ~

's I',~]

~

IIe:

2

~

2

~

I

, I 0 I 2

I, I

~

~ i )..'222 I

~ 2

'tl 0

~

III I

~

2

~

" )I~

I 2

0

~

s is

~

s I I

~

II ~

2 i I I,-'!

I!

I, I I

1.20 2

2 I

~

Cll III I

NIN5 CONI AHP oot 01 oIII COI NILE POINT 2

12177 TEST OF FLOOR FLEXIBILITY ROL BLOGO AT ELEV. 306.00'SE VERT IFIEO RESPONSE SPECTRA BY TIPIE HISTORY I

~0 000 j.---------t0.020 0 ~ OiD 06CILLAlOR ORltP I NO 06CILLAIOR 0 06PILLAIOR 0 ttP INO ttP I NO t5 tlZ L BLDO ~ EI-PARKFIELD EFINEO NO

$05 ~

lRENSLOR CONlRP EL F REQ II I

0

~ I l

I REVISION 0 10-1S-B4 OAT OF RUN B

E

~

iS O'C I

I 0

~

I BBESON I

T 1984 I

I"

0 t

~

i t

I

~

I

~

'. I I

t

)

~

i

~

I 0

I COIOI I

I C) 0 W (fp4 IK 4J 4J

. ~o

..'.lJ

~

I I

~ I I

oIIt J

~ o I

O I

~ 0

~ I

~ ~

~

0

~

t ~

~

~ ~

I IO!00 0 I>00 Nt492 DE tOti QASI9 i

I I

0 0

I I

t Il

~

I

~

I

~

0 I 0

~

I I

~

~ I - -.-

I.

1

~

0 IN; 0

I

~ 10; 0.20 0 30 0"40 0

~ 60 0.60 0 70 0

PfRIOO IN SECS 80 0190 1

I t

00 10 1 20 t I t 0

IO c.i:; naOIO

NINE NILE POINT 2

12177 TEST OF FLOOR FLEXIBILITY CONTROL SLOG AT ELEVE 306.00'SE VERT AI1Pl IFIEO RESPONSE SPECTRA BY TINE HISTORY 0.040 OSCILLRlOR OAIIPING 0.020 OSClLLRTOR ORIIP IHG 0 060 060ILLRIRII IRIIPlll0 CONTROL BLDG. El.. 3DS.

REFJHED IIDPEL FIRER 4 I5HZ REVISION 0 10-15-84 II DATE OF RUQ I

Ii Il'

~

I 1

B.E.

EBB SON l

15 OCT 1984 '

~

I I

'e I

1

~

1 DD Ol LYTLE CREEK-ALLEN RiIHCH o

M1 N

I

~

I

'O I

41

. 4J

'DDD D

DD 6

~ 6

~ I

~ ~

~

~6

~

HOOO a NODE 5 NMP) DESIGN BASIS I

I A'

I I

~

6 1

"I 6

6 I

I I

II" I

I 1

I 00 010 020 030 040 050 060 0670 080 090 100 11 ~ 10 1

PER IOO IN SECS I

j i

I 20 I ~

6

', ll 6

~

I

. I'+

~g I

J t~

I '

af 4k

I I

NINE tIILE POINT 2

12177 TEST Of'LOOR'FLEXIBILITY CONT'ROL BLDG. AT ELEV. 306-00'SE VERT ANPljIFI$0

RESPONSE

SPECTRA BY TItlE KISTORY I

O.OIO OSCILLATOR OAAPIMO t

'.OZO OSCll.LATOR OAHP lNO

,0.040 OSClLLATOR OAHPlNO 10-15-84 B.E EBBESON OATE OF RUN 15 OCT IS84 DD OPO CONTROL SLOO E

SOS-

'APE I1EHO CIHO EflKEO NDOEL FREQ t I5 HZ EVISIOII 0 I

D lA C4

~

I D

~N I

D O

~ 1 IK W

LU OaD IA D

~I~

~

~ t

~I OE 8 II" "'5

~ ~

~ OP

~

I t44PZ QE CNl0)SIO i

~

~ ~

"~.

'll I n O

DD

~

O

~

"b.oO 0.1O 0 20

0.30 0 40 0(.60 0 60 0.10 0' 80 OI SO 1 00 1.10 1

PERI OO IN SECS 20

NINE NILE POINT 2

12177; TEST OF FLOOR FLEXIBILITY CON11ROL BLOG.

AT ELEV 306'.00'SE VERT PHP IFIEO RESPONSE.

SPECTRR BY TINE HISTORY I

I 0

~ 0.0th OOOILLAthh OithPIAO

-->>----I 0 '20 06CILLfllOR ORHPIHO 10-12-84 B.E.

EBBESON DATII OF RUN 12 OCT 1984 O.oio 06 JLLAlOR 0/IIPJHD aa n

CONTR BLDO E

606 FR HELENA CR ROLL. COLL 0-"16HZ REVISION 0 I

a

~ I I

I I

~.0

~

I I

~ I 04

~

~ I

~

11 Q

CL ILI tel

~ Oaa

'" )cr-I a

tQ

~

I a

~ I

~ ~

~

~ ~

0 0

I I

~ vI 0

0 I

P HMP

'1

~ ~

0 DESI(II BA IS I

'0 \\

I '

I 0

~ I I I

~

0 Cl I

aa I

.10 I

.20

.io 0 ~60 60

.70 PER I 00 IP SECS I

~ 80 I

.90 1

~ 00 10 1 20 I

NINE NILE POINT 2 CONTROL BLOB. AT E

ANPLIFI ED Il'ESP(NSE 12177

'- TEST EV.

306.00'PECTRP BY OF FLOOR FLEXIB]LITY SSE VERT i

TINE HISTORY 10-12-84 B.E.

EBBESON OATE OF RUN 12 OCT 1984 CID n

CONTR L bLOO-f. SOb-HELENA FE ERAL bUIL o.oio 0.020 0-OIO OSCILLATOR OAIII'IAO OSCILLATOR OilIIP IHo ILLATOR Oh 05f IICIIIO

~ IS HZ fFTREO IIO EL FREQ IIIO.

)EV1.510) 0' I

l I

I I

~ I i

~ '

~ y ~

lg

~

~ I I

~

i

~.$

~ =

I

~

I

~

~r Ib OK

~ ~

~o

~

M&2 )ESIC I

~ 1 I

I t

I II OAS)S

~

~ I I I

~ ~

~

I

~

I

~

I I

I

~ 0 \\

I I ~

~ 1 ~ ~

I

~

I q I I

~

'. I

~

j4 '

I I,

~

~ I, C

~

I 10 0 20 0

I I

30

,'0 40 0

P 60 0.60:

0 RIOO I

SECS e

70 0 bo

~

0 00 T 10 x

20

I NI N EON PUP Hl)E OINT 2 12177 ROL'BLQG.

AT ELEVE 30 IF1$ 0 ESP)NSE SPECTR

~

I I

I. OLPD.

E

. 505.

OROII LLE dE16lilO 6 FONTR I

TEST OF 00'Y Tl 0.0lO Dent o.ozo 04 ILLATOR 01INP llID lLLATOR 0)NPlHO 0.04D 06 EFlNED'o ATloil lLLATOR D II EL fRE11 NP IND FLOOR FLEXIB SSE VERT E HIST RY LITY 10-15-84 PAT OF. RU I

EV SIO 0.

I

~

I

~

I I

BLE BBESON I

IS OCT 1984

~

I I

~

6

~

q )

~ I

++a-

~ I I.:I

~ I

~

1 I

I

~

e

~ I I

~

KQ (gW I 41

4J

4J I'

ji ~

I

~

i '

I I

I

~ I

~ f I

~

~ >i i

>>t

~

I

~ I I,I

> I I I

~ 'I ~

.li'

~

s I I

~

I pat

~ f>>

~t I

~ >>

~

L ~

I~

~

I

~

I I

~ ~

~ I

~ 10 I'I

~ 40 P

I t

60 RIOO I

60 SPCS I

.va

1. la

~ 20

NINC NILE P CON7ROL BL IF ISO OINT 2 G.

AT EP ESPONSE!

12177 TEST OF FLOOR'FLEXIBILITY EV. 306.00'SE VERT SPECTR BY TINE HISTORY i

10-1.6-84 B.E. EBBESON DATg OF RUN 16 OICT 1884 I

tlPlNO 0.020 06PILLAlOR 0$

-> 0.020 06OILLAYOR 0 NP !NO EONlR L bLOO.

E Si'lNI PERC 306.

NllLE V6 ~

REO=16 Nfl Of6 ION PEV lSI0 I

0

'I:

I

-'3 '

~ CI

>~g

.. '.; I Q P4 lw lg M

j oP)

~I

~

~I

~v l

VH PEACE TILE (eE RE)

~SIS 7 Ilf

~ ~ ~

'I! ~

IW e. ~

~

~ n 00 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0

~

p RIOD 60 0>.70 0

SECS 80 0 90 1 00 1

I 10 1

,3

NINE 1IILE POIHT 2

12177 TEST OF FLOOR FLEXIBILITY CONTROL BLDG AT ELEV 306.00'SE VERT I

10-II6-B4 B.E.

EBBESON AMP1i I F I EO I

ESPgHSE.

SPECTRP BY TIVE HIST0RY 0.040 06CLLLATOR OANtlNO OATg OF."RU 16 OCT 19B4 0.020 06CILLATDR DAIIPIND CONTR I

I1

, ~

s NI, t

L 8LDD. f 841II PfRC

~ 306 FRSD=IS Nf NTILK V6.I OE6iON I

I I

ftEVISIOtI 0 1

I t

Aa I

I

'DN

',' O (fee lK LU LIJ0 CI III

~

IO

~ w

~ ~

~

i.

I

~ ~

8P g+g T.lgf H4tg Df6

~

0I.tI1 IIIfC0 I

Ne'er QSI.WT.

N t

I

~ I I

I

~

ill(

l Il'.

i I I

~ I I

I '.'

~ '

'I I

I III IO 0 20 D.30 D 40 050 0

P RIOO I

60 0.70 SECS 080 0.90 l 00 I

I I

ID I

I

.20

R NINe NILE POINT 2

12177 TEST OF FLOOR FLEXIB]LITY CONTROL BLOG.

AT ELEV. 306.00'SE VERT RHPljlFTEQ RESPONSE SPECTRfl BY TlflE HISTORY I

0.010 OIOILLIITOR Ofllll'IRO C.DZO OSCILLATOh 01IHP1HO 11-06-B4 B.E EBBESO I

OAT/ OF RUN 6

NOV 198 D I D

~

blTH PfhC 1

HTlLE VS-I l

I COHThDL bLDO. EJ.

SOS AEQ=12-Hf DESIOH 6 hECOhDS REVISION 0 D

lfS N

DD EIFCRT C)

IIS l

EC e4 EK

~

~ '

I I

I

~

II LLI D

!'D

~ l,

~ ~ ~

~

~ ~

~

~'

801

. P ERC HTILKg E NMPZ Df RECDAQS lON IIASIQ hT NODE b

~

A

~

00, 0

I I

I IO 0 20 0 30 0.40 0..50 0:.60 0

PgRIOO IN SECS

'70 ObO 080 '00 1

~ 10 1

I

.20 l..

balll

1 6

NINE 11ILE POINT 2

12177

.TEST OF fLOOR FLEXIBILITY CONTROL BLOG.

AT ELEV

. 306.00 'SE VERT AtlP41FIEO

RESPONSE

SPECTRA BY TINE HISTORY I

0 OIO OROILLIIIOR ORRPIRO 1.---"-----1 0.020 OSCILLATOR OflliP1HO t

I COHIRPL dLGO. EL. SQd.

FRED=12

~ Hf REVISION 0 11-06-84 B-E.

EBBESON DATE OF RUN 6

NOV 1984 aat Ol ala I

N 84TH PfRC(HT ILE V6. DE61OH 61 X RECORD6 I

I aa ACR!

Xo~us I

4J LLJ 966!TH> E CEHT1LE. (

$) ATOHDQE I

I

~

aIA

~ ~

~ I,

~

~ t

~

I

~

~ 4 AM!tQ Of)IGH 8$ SIS 6

~

)

~

I

~ 10

.20

~ 30 0.40 0.60 0'60 0..70 PERIOO I( SECS SD I

.90 1.00 1 610 I

1 I

.20 I

) l I

1 C~

I

(

1 I'

1J f

I I

7

NIN CON PUP tFI)D )ESPgNSE SPECTR BY TINE HISTORY 0.020 06ClLLATOR 0 IIPTJIO I

I NILE POINT 2

l2177 'EST OF FLOOR FLEXIBlLITY ROL BLOB.

RT ELEV. 306.00'SE VERT 1 l-g7-84 B.E

~ !EBBESON DRT)

OF RUN 7

NOV 1984

~

o

~

n CONTR L 5LOO.

E RITH PERC

- 90$.

IJ6.

HTlL OE6l OH 6

X RECOR06i 0-020 06FlLLATOR 0 IIPlHO I

REO=S.IIZ'EVISIO I

I 0

o IO C4 oo I

I I

~ - I

~

Q ee I 4J'J o

lOIo

~,

~ I I

~ tg

~ II I

~

I

~+

H tERC TIL6 (68 P 2'OESlQH REC)RPS) 9ISI

~ ~

---" r' IIOOE 8 I

I

~

L.

~

~ 10 I

l i

~ 40 OI.SO PLERIOD I

60 SECS

.10 I

~80

~00 l 00 l

~ l0 l 20

J

'I t 4

Ct I

ll C:.

i

'I Cl I

D o

O I

'" I

/

r l.

NING IIILE POINT 2

12177 TEST OF FLOOR FLEXIBILITY CONIIROL BLQG.

RT EJ EV. 306.00'SE VERT POP!tIFI)0 R!ESPONSEI SPECTRII BY TINE HISTORY DRTE OF RUN 7

NOV 198 11-07-84 B.E.

EBBESO CI cl CONTROL bLOO.

E blTH PERC

. 306.

REPCQ.

HZ NTILE V6 ~ 066lOH 6/X RECOR06 0.0iO 06CILLATOR OAHPTHG

--- ~ 0.020 06CJLLATOR 0 HPJHO lI PEVISION 0 D

III CV CI CI

~C4

~

LLj LLJ TH. )E TILE I

I I

I fbi E TIQ+ROS)

T HOPE 6 D

III D

P

~ 0

~ ~

~ 0

~

~,

~

1J

~

~e

~ 0 ~

~ ow

~

sICII OA S

I I

II n D

00 0

10 0 20 0.-50 0.60 0 ~ 'TO 0

~ 80 0..90 1I.OO 1I PERIOO IN SECS OL30 0.40

.10 1 20 I

5

4 I 8 4~f

~w Cl4l

'P l

~

C/

p

~

r I

~l C

A C.l E

IN ON t1P NILE ROL 8L IFIED I

OIN 2

I2I77 G

7 N OE.5 ESP9NSE SP)CTR TEST 0

FLOOR SE VER BY 71 E HIST FLE3<IB LITY RY e

DAT OF RU a

8-E

~

8BISON V 198l D.D2b D6 D.D2b D6 ItlJND IjlJND JLL11TDII JLLATOlt Dk a

t:DIITII a Ilalea ~

E V6.

a JIEDrh.

HE DE6JbII 6

a

~

Jt ItK OIID6 I

~

EV SIO 0

a I

~

e

,; I.'

I I:

I

~

aae

I

~

e I ~

~

i ~

~

~ I

~ '

~

e

~

aIII

~ JII a

~

e

~

a e

I

'bete e

~

g a

~ I

~

'el

~

a

~

aIII

~ I,,

ii:

al a

It

~ I'I:'

I e

~

a a

I q CK IK

'W W:e a

i I

~ I

~

I a I I l.

(

I e

~

e

~ ~

~

e I

~

Iei!

I I=

I

~ t

~ 'L

~

ee ~

~

~ ~

~

e a

a

~

I a

~

II'AStS aTJ'EIIC TIL) (C ltKdOIIOS AT NbOf. S e

-- ~ I

~

e' a

I

=

~

a

~,

~

~ a

~ ~

I

~

e

~ ~

~

9 ~

~

~ ~ ~

~00 I

I

~ 10 I

~20 0 30 0

~70 0.80

.40 0.50 0 60 0

PERl00 IH SECS

.90 1I.DD 1.10 1

V I

}

d II

~ I

~ ~L I

y1

I t'

I I

A etI4 Cl W

I C

0 W

J

~.

,a' J

l I

~,

4 V

I "~~

-R

NINE t11LE POINT 2

12177 TEST OF FLOOR FLEXIBILITY CONTROL BLDG. AT NODE 5 SSE VERT At1PLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA BY TlttE HISTORY I

0 060 OAOILLAIOR OAIIPIIIO

"---"- 0.020 OSCILLBTOR DRNPINO 11-20-84 S. RAl1Al1URTHY I

DATE OF RUN 20 NOV 1984 I

CONTROL SLOOP EL SDS.

FRED=9.

NZ REVISION 0 CI

'I SiTN PZRCENTILE V6.

I DESION 6IX RECORDS IO/5 D

CO N

CI gN zOD I- ~

W CLJ OCD O

~

D III CI J'I

~ I I

~

I~

~

~ 00

~

~ ~

~

IP Q4 Pf.ROIINTIL6 (6

~ 4 P'

0 60

~

NQP2 I

64 REGDRosg AT H006 6 (Io+ sTRUGTURAL DlacviN6)

I 0

SCCN DASiS

~

I CD b.00 0-10 O.ZO 0.30 0.40 0.50 0-60 0-70 0-80 0-9D I.DO 1010 PERIOD IN SECS 1.20

L4 f

f, fl E

1 g

a t

ML18037A110

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

Dear Mr. Schwencer:

Response

Response

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

Navigation menu

ML18037A110

Text

SUBJECT:

Dear Mr. Schwencer:

Response

Response

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

Navigation menu

Search