ML18037A110

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)

Text

REGULATORY NFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SY EM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR: 8501090299 OOC ~ DATE: 85/01/07 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET FACIL:50-410 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station< Unit 2i Niagara Moha 0 5 0 0 0 LI 1 0 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 CODE: 8001D COPIES RECEIVED;LTR

'ISTRIBUTION ENCL SIZE:

TITLE: Licensing Submittal: PSAR/FSAR Amdts 8, Related DE/N Co respondence NOTES; RECIPIENT COPIES REC IPIENT COPIES IO CODE/NAME LTTR ENCl. ID C 0 A t lE LTTR ENCL NRR/DL/ADL 1 0 NRR L82 BC 1 0 NRR L82 LA 1 0 HAUGHEY i M 01 1 1 INTFRNAL; ACRS ~. 01 6 6 ADM/LFMB 1 0 ELD/HDS3 1 0 IE FILE 1 1 IE/OEPER/EPB 36 1 1 IE/DQASIP/QA821 1 1 NRR ROEiM,L 1 1 NRR/DE/AEAB 1 0 NRR/DE/CEB 11 1 1 NRR/DE/EHEB 1 1 NRR/DE/EQB 13 2 2 NRR/DE/GB 28 2 2 NRR/DE/MEB 18 1 NRR/DE/MTEB 17 1 1 NRR/DE/SAB 2Q 1 NRR/OE/SGEB 25 1 1 NRR/DHF 8/HFEBAO 1 1 NRR/DHFS/LQB 32 1 1 NRR/DHFS/PSRB- 1 1 NRR/DI /SSPB 1 0 NRR/DS I/AEB 26 1 1 NRR/DS I/ASB 1 1 NRR/DS I/CPB 10 1 1 NRR/OS I/CSB 09 1 1 NRR/DSI/ICSB 16 1 1 NRR/DS I/METB 12 1 1 NRR/DSI/PSB 19 1 1 N /DS I/RAB 22 1 1 NRR/DS I/RSB 23 1 1 L 04 1 1 RGNi 3 3 RM/OOA /MIB 1 0 EXTERNAL: BNL(AMDTS ONLY) Oh'l8/DSS (AMDTS) 1 1 FEMA REP DIV 39 LPDR 03 1 1 NRC PDR 02 NSIC 05 1 1 NTIS PNL GRUELgR 1 1 L~t TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 53 ENCL 45

0 l

I P

c I

'll f J a

~ l~

l j a

IP t

P II ll A

%7 l>

C I

e ,

Nl V HIIASA,IRk lN g PGo MWIX NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION/300 ERIE BOULEVARD WEST, 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)

@el 48osA Qogkhi ->

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

850i09029'V 850i07 PDR ADOCK 05000410 g)$~8 - >

( E PDR

NINE MILE POINT, UNIT 2 A REPORT ON VERTICAL FLOOR;, Ft;EX IB ILITY

3t' vA e <BI

~ I (Q

~

rf'LC

~ 4 '

J I

.(

~ )A ega

~ I

.r~ C 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 flexibility in 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 flexibility would 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

~

r, W

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.

Figures 18 and 19 present results similar to those of B, but with the

,f D.

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 flexibility will 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 flexibility of the floor and that equipment and floors would function satisfactorily as designed.

g

~ W

~ '4

TABLE 1 Recording Earthquake Date Time Station ~Ma nitude Orovi 1 1 e 08/08/75 (0700) Station 6 4.9 Orovi lie 09/27/75 Station 8 4.6 Orovi lie 09/27/75 Station 9 4.6 Parkf i el d 06/27/66 Temblor 5.5 Lytle Creek 09/12/70 Allen Ranch 5.4 Fr iul i 09/11/76 (1631) S. Roco 5.5 Cape Mendocino 06/07/75 C. Mendocino 5.3 Helena 10/31/35 Carroll College 5.7 Helena 11/28/85 Federal Building 5.0 Orovi lie 08/01/75 Seismograph Station 5.7

TABLE 2 Records Used Peak Acceleration(g)

Par kfield .132 Lytle Creek .060 Cape Mendocino .039 Helena - Carrol College .089 Helena - Federal Building .032 Orovi lie Seismic Station .115 Mean .078 Records Not Available Peak Acceleration*

Orovi lie Station 6 .0663 Orovi lie Station 8 .0392 Orovi lie Station 9 .0637 Friul i .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 Vibr ation 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

Kss Kse Kse K4s K4s K34 K34 KTB K73 K32 Ke2 K)2 K)2 PRESENT MODEL MODIFIED MODEL USED IN VERTICAL FLOOR USED IN SEISMIC ANALYSIS FLEXIBILITYSTUDY OF THE STRUCTURE WITH NMP2 DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE 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

HIN NILE IOINt 2 I2177 } TEST Of FLOOR FLEXIBiLITY I CONTROL BLdG RT EL EV ~ 305 .00 'Y SSE VENT 5-84 6 JE ~ BB SON RIIP IFIEO ESPONSE SPECTRFI TI E HISTCRY, LRT OF RU 15 T 1984 O.D2D D6 ILLAIOlt D}IMPIHD 0.020 06 ILLAIOlt DAttP I HO 0.020 06 ILLA'Iott DAMP IHO

~ I ..I I

OH'Itt L OL O..K . sob. KFIH50 MO KL FkKII e HZ ~

I I

PARH IKLD TltKllbLOlt o ~ I ttt t

I" 1 ~

~ ~

LIB s I

~ p>> ~

1 I I ~ I I I

..:I"I I

I ~ ~

I '

~ ~

I I

~ ~ I ~

I oo ~ h' gN ~

~

I

."}- 1

~ ~

'}

I ~

t I

I IK 41 IEOOII 8

~o i...

LLJ I

....Oo I ~ ~ ~

1CV haSrS

~

~

~ ~

~ ~ I

~. ~ ~

~ I

}

o

} I, HO KO O

o I I

b.00 0 10 0.20 0J30 0 .40 0-60 0.60 0.70 0 80

~ 0 ~ 90 1 00 I 10

~ 1T.'20 PERIOO IN SECS I

I

NIN )IILE P'OINT 2 12)77 'EST 0 FLOOR FLEXIBILITY CON ROL BLQG. AT E EV. 30 .00'SSE VERT )0-)5-84 8 E EBBESON I

PgP IF1$ 0 RESPONSE; SPECTR BY T It)E HISTORY t

, I OATE OF RUN )S OPT iSa 0.020 OSC1LLRlOlt ORltP1HO

~

p>> O.OZO 06CtLLRfOK ORttP1HO I

0 ~ OZO 06t 1LLRlOR O)ttPJHO I ~

t I i COHIKPL bLOO E ~ 306 ~ EFlHfO ttO EL PREQo I)EVISIOI) 0 i

>> I I C)

A\ LllL) CRE K RL)EH R HCH I

t ~

I X

cD ~ 1

~

~Q

~ ih >>

i tK:

~ 4J t 4J

~ ~

~ ~

~

~>> ~

t J'>>

tltk OESt H. BA8($

~

~ ~

p +V I I

~ ~

~>> ~ ~

~ I

~ ~

~>>

~ ~ b>>

ttQ)E $ >>~

~ ~

~ 10 0 20 '>>30 0 40 '>>50 0.60 0>>70 O.BO 0.90 'I 00

' ~ 10

• 20 P/RIOO I SECS

1 3

f k

I

)

t.

it:

i

NING HILE POINT 2 12177 TEST Of'LOOR'FLEXIBILITY '

CONTROL BLOG>> AT EQEV. 306.00'SSE VERT 10-15-84 E EBB)SON f)NP)t)FIEO /ESPONSE SPECTRP BY Tl fiE HISTORY DRT OF RUhI IS OCT 1984

)

0.020 06CILLATOR DAMP IHO 0.020 06CILLATOR OAMPIHO 0.020 OSCILLATOR DRMPIHD I

CONTR L BLbO. E . 306. EFIHED MOPEL FARO/5HZ EVIS IOfl 0 C) CAPE ttEHD CIHD n I CI

., ~ I EOc)I

~ = ~

~ )

~

EE

.,~l LSj 4J i I ~ ~

~ ~

~

~

l

., ~P>

"- -E ~

HLIA2 DE ISH f AS IB

~ ~

~ ~

D '

O

~ ~ HNIE h I ~

~ ~ ~

1

~ >>

~ IO .20 ~ 3Q 50 0 .6D 70 .80 .90 I 00 ' ~ 10 ', 1 P RIOO I N SECS

r I

NING NILE POINT 2 12177 TEST OF FLOOR. FLEXIBILITY CONl'ROL BLDG. AT ELEV 306 00'SE VERT 10-12-84 B.E. EBBESON AMP IFIEO RESPDNSE SPECTRP BY TIPE HIST(RY DATE OF RUN 12 OCT i984 0.020 06CILLArOR OAIIP IIIO 0.020 06ClLLArOR DAIIP I IIO 0.020 06C I LLArOR DAAP I IIO I

CDII lR L SLIID E 306~ RE I!IED.IIODE) FAEIQ I HZ REVISION 0 ao IIELEIOI CA ROLL: COLL

.I..

I n

I I

I I

a

~ N I ~ I I

I

~,

~~

~ ~ ~

~ I g~P2

~

~ ~

~ EStGII HAS 6 iIt~ ~ A vt j ~

I 'I ~

AQDE:5 j

.... j i I

I 00; 0 .10  ! ~ 20 0.30 0,.40,.50 .60 ~ 70 0.80 ~ 80 I 00 I ~ ID 1 .20 g PERIOD IN SECS 1

I NINE NILE POINT 2 12177 TEST OF FLOOR'FLEXIBILITY CONTROL BLDG. AT E)EV. 30)-00'SE VERT 10-12-84 B.E. EBBESON AHPI.IFIKD RESPONSE SPECTRP BY TIIIE HISTORY i

I OATQ OF RUN 12 OCT 1984 I

---

--- I,00-020 OZO 06CILLA(OR OAtlPIHO 06ClLLA1OR ORIIP1 HO 0.020 06ClLLAEOR D)IIP I HD I

COHER L bLDO. E 3DO EFJHED IIOPEL FAEQ l5 Hel lIEVISIOS 0 CI HELEHA FE ERAL. bUlL 1HO CI I

n e C4

~ e I ~

Cl

~g h.

~ ~ I ~ ~ ~

ILI ng t I LIP2e DESI H lA)I9 4e [ ~

~@[ ee I

~ ~

CI III HOPE b e

~ ~ ~ .eo 'el CI

~

e

~

n I

00 ' 10 20 ' 30 0 40 0.50 0 60 OI 70 0 BD 0.90 i 1.00 ' 10 1 20 PQRIOO IN SECS

+t 1

I' I

't)

~q

I I.i'! Is! !11'I'

~

I'!!iti

'I 9IN NILE P!OINT 2 . 12177 TEST OF FLOOR FLEXIBILITY IIII CON ROL'L G. AT ELEV. 306-00'SE VERT 10-125-84 ':: '. B ~ 885SON 0,

IF IEO I ~

PAP ESPONSE'PECTRA BY TIHE HISTORY I OF I RU S84 I 0 020 OSCILLA'IOR OAtlPINO II 211 ~

s,,I)sj I

I ) ' I, 0.020 OSCILLRTOR OAtlPINO ~

s ~

0 020 OS)ILLATOR OAtIPING 2 I I;

2 I

I I I

CONTROL BLDG. E . 306. REFINED NOIIEL FREQ 15IIZ I PEVISIO 0: ~ s I

C) I OROVILLE SEISNIC 614TION  ! I a 2 I  ! 2 12 Is) 1

's aI)l ~ ~

I',~]

N

--. ~

II e:

2 CI Cl 2 c5 ~ 2 ~

2 2

I Ij '

0 I

, I

~ ~ 'I I ' ~ ~

I, 2

I 2

gg I

~ ~ ~

'LI I I, ~

Daa I I

I g~ )..'222

~ ~ I

~ i

~

~

~ ~~

~ ~

MP2 DESIG BASS ~

11I I ~ ~

I 2 I ~ 2

-'lI I ~2

'! t: ~ I EB'.

"6 ~-

Il 1' 'tl " )I ~

a 2 I ~

0

~

~

III 2

~

0

~ s I

I ~ is I I

~

I I, 2 ~ ~ s

~

~ ~

~

I

'b.oo Oj. 10 0 20 . 0.30 . 0 40 oi So

~ 0'60 0'70 OBD I 0 Bo ~ 00 1 ~ 10 1.20 2 II ~

2 iI PERIOO IN SECS I,-'!

2 I!

I I ~

I, I

I

Cll III I

0 NIN5 NILE POINT 2 12177 TEST OF FLOOR FLEXIBILITY I CONI ROL BLOGO AT ELEV. 306.00'SE VERT 10-1S-B4 B E ~ BBESON t ~

IFIEO RESPONSE SPECTRA BY TIPIE HISTORY

~0 AHP I I

OAT OF RUN iS O'C T 1984 i 000 06CILLAlOR ORltP I NO I

j.---------t 0.020 06CILLAIOR 0 ttP I NO I I

t 0 OiD

~ 06PILLAIOR 0 ttP I NO I l I ~

I I

~ ~

CONlRP L BLDO ~ EI- . $ 05 ~ EFINEO NO EL F REQ t5 tlZ REVISION 0 o

ot PARKFIELD lRENSLOR I '. I .'

I I

01 0 o

III COI

! I t .

I )

~ 0 ~ ~

i I COIOI I

I

~ ~

C) 0 W ~ ~

0 t~ I 0 (fp4

~ 0 IK 4J i I 0 ~

I I

4J

. ~o I I I

..'.lJ ~ I l

~ I ~ ~

I - -.-

I I

~

~

~~

~ ~

~

0

~

Nt492 DE tOti QASI9 I

I I.

~ I ~ ~

I I

o IO!00 0

~ 0 t IIt

~ o ~ I I>00 J

1 ~

~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ 0 I 0 I

I O IN;I 0 ~ 10; 0.20 0 30 0" 40 0 60

~ 0.60 0 70 0 80 0190 1 00 ' 10 ". 1 20 PfRIOO IN SECS I t

tI t 0 IO c.i:; naOIO

NINE NILE POINT 2 12177 TEST OF FLOOR FLEXIBILITY I

1 I l'Ii CONTROL SLOG AT ELEVE 306.00'SE VERT 10-15-84 B.E. EBB SON

~ ~

AI1Pl IFIEO RESPONSE SPECTRA BY TINE HISTORY I I l DATE OF RUQ 15 OCT 1984 '

I 0.040 OSCILLRlOR OAIIP ING 0.020 OSClLLRTOR ORIIP IHG 0 060 060ILLRIRII IRIIPlll0 I

~

I

'e I

CONTROL BLDG. El.. 3DS. REFJHED IIDPEL FIRER 4 I5HZ REVISION 0 ~

1 1

D LYTLE CREEK-ALLEN RiIHCH D

Ol o

M1 N

'O I I

I" I

41

. 4J I

'DDD I I

~ I

~ ~ ~

~

NMP) DESIGN BASIS I I

I 1

6 ~6 I I 6

~

A' I I HOOO a I ~ ~ ~ ~

I D 6 1

NODE 5 6 6 "I

I D

D 00 010 020 030 040 050 060 0670 080 090 100 11 ~ 10 1 20 PER IOO IN SECS I j

i I

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 10-15-84 B.E EBBESON ANPljIFI$0 RESPONSE SPECTRA BY TItlE KISTORY I

OATE OF RUN 15 OCT IS84 O.OIO OSCILLATOR OAAPIMO t " '.OZO OSCll.LATOR OAHP lNO

,0.040 OSClLLATOR OAHPlNO CONTROL SLOO E SOS- EflKEO NDOEL FREQ t I5 HZ EVISIOII 0 D

D

'APE I1EHO CIHO OPO

~ ~ I I

D lA C4 D

~N I

OD

~ 1 IK W

LU OaD I

~ t t44PZ QE CNl0)SIO

~ ~

~I ~ ~ ~ ~ OP ~

~ I IA OE 8 I D I" "'5 i ~

~~ 'll

"~ . I n O

D D

~ 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 20 !

PERI OO IN SECS

NINE NILE POINT 2 12177; TEST FLOOR FLEXIBILITY

~

OF CON11ROL BLOG. AT ELEV 306'.00'SE VERT 10-12-84 B.E. EBBESON PHP IFIEO RESPONSE. SPECTRR BY TINE HISTORY I I DATII OF RUN 12 OCT 1984 0

0.0th OOOILLAthh OithPIAO

-->>----I 0 '20 06CILLfllOR ORHPIHO O.oio 06 JLLAlOR 0/IIPJHD CONTR BLDO E 606 FR 0-"16HZ REVISION 0 aa HELENA CR ROLL. COLL n

I a

I ~ .0 ~ ~ 04 ~

I

~ I ~

~ I 11 I

I

~ I I

I I ~ ~

Q ~ I CL ILI tel Oaa 0

'" )cr-I

~

~~

0 I

~ ~ ~

I HMP DESI(II BA IS

~ ~

~ vI P 0 0

'1 ~ ~

tQ a I 0 0

~ I '

I '

~ ~

a I '0

\ I Cl 0

I I

aa I

.10  ! .20 .io 0 ~ 60 60 .70 ~ 80 .90 1 ~ 00 ' 10 1 20 I I

I PER I 00 IP SECS I

NINE NILE POINT 2 12177 '-

TEST OF FLOOR FLEXIB]LITY CONTROL BLOB. AT E EV.

306.00'PECTRP SSE VERT i 10-12-84 B.E. EBBESON ANPLIF I ED Il'ESP(NSE BY TINE HISTORY OATE OF RUN 12 OCT 1984 o.oio OSCILLATOR OAIII'IAO 0.020 OSCILLATOR OilIIP I Ho I

0-OIO ILLATOR Oh IIC I IIO 05f l I

CONTR L bLOO- f . SOb- fFTREO IIO EL FREQ ~ IS HZ )EV1.510) 0' I I CI HELENA FE ERAL bUIL IIIO .

D n

lg

~

~

'I i ~ ~

~

I

~ y ~

~

I I ~

I q I I ~ ~

I

~ ~

I ~ I I '. I ~

I ~

~ 0 I

\ j4 '

I I I I t I ~ I, I

I ~ 1 ~ ~

~

~ I, ~

I C

~ ~ M&2 )ESIC OAS)S ~ ~

I

i ~

.$ ~ r

~o

~ ~ ~ I

~ I I I ~ ~

~ ~

Ib ~1

~ =

~ ~ ~ I OK ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~

10 0 20 ',

I I

0 30 '0 40 0 60 P RIOO 0.60:

I SECS 0 70 0 bo ~ 0 00 T 10 20 x

I e I

I NI N Hl)E OINT 2 12177 TEST OF FLOOR FLEXIB LITY EON ROL'BLQG. AT ELEVE 30 00'Y SSE VERT 10-15-84 BLE BBESON I

PUP IF1$ 0 ESP)NSE SPECTR Tl E HIST RY PAT OF. RU IS OCT 1984

• ~ 0.0lO Dent ILLATOR 01INP llID o.ozo 04 lLLATOR 0)NPlHO I 0.04D 06 lLLATOR D NP I ND

' I I I ~ ~ ~ ~

I I I I I FONTR I. OLPD. E . 505. EFlNED'o EL fRE11 EV SIO 0. ~ ~ ~

I OROII LLE dE16lilO 6 AT l oil 1

I I

q

) ~ I ~ ~

++a-

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I 6

~ ~ ~

.:I I I

I

~ ~

~ ~

e ~

I I

~ ~

ji I

~

~ ~

i '

I I I

~ I I ~ I I

~ f~ I

>i

~

I,I I'II > I KQ ~ ~ ~

.li'

~

I i

(g W I I 41 I' ~ ~ ~

• 4J s I 4J I

>> t ~ ~

pat ~ f>> I ~ ~

~

~>> ~

~ t '

L~

I ~

~

~ ~ II

• I~ ~ I

~~

~ 10 ~ 40 60 60 .va 1. la ~ 20

'II I P RIOO I SPCS I

t

NINC NILE P OINT 2 12177 TEST OF FLOOR'FLEXIBILITY CON7ROL BL G. AT EP EV. 306.00'SE VERT 10-1.6-84  ! B.E. EBBESON IF ISO ESPONSE! SPECTR BY TINE HISTORY i DATg OF RUN 16 OICT 1884 I

0.020 06PILLAlOR 0$ tlP l NO

-> 0.020 06OILLAYOR 0 NP !NO I

EONlR L bLOO. E 306. REO=16 Nfl PEV lSI0 0 Si'lNI PERC NllLE V6 ~ Of 6 I ON  !

'I:

I

-'3 '

~ ~

~ CI

.. '.;>~g I

P4 Q

lw lg j

M oP) VH PEACE TILE (eE RE) Ilf 7 'I! ~

IW e. ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~

~

~

~SIS

~I

~ ~

~ ~ ~ v

~ I l

~ ~ ~

~ n

' 0>.70 0 80 90 00 10 00 10 0 20 0 30 0 40  ! 0 ~ 60 0 1 I

1 1 p RIOD SECS

,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 AMP 1i I F I EO ESPgHSE. SPECTRP BY TIVE HIST0RY I

OATg OF."RU 16 OCT 19B4 0.040 06CLLLATOR OANtlNO 0.020 06CILLATDR DAIIPIND CONTR L 8LDD. f ~ 306 FRSD=IS Nf ftEVISIOtI 0 841II PfRC NTILK V6.I OE6iON I I I

1 I

I I

1 I,

, ~

s N t

t A

I aI

'DN O Ne'er (fee ~ ~ ~ ~

lK LU ill(

LIJ 0 ~

I I

l Il'.

~ ~ i.

I 8 P g+g T.lg f 0I.tI1 IIIfC0 I

QSI.WT. N iII

~ I

~ w

~

H4tg Df 6 I '.'I'

~ ~

~ ~

'I CI III I

~ I ~ ~ I I O

I III t

I IO 0 20 D.30 D 40 050 0 60 0.70 080 I

0.90 l 00 I ID I .20 P RIOO I SECS I

R NINe NILE POINT 2 12177 TEST OF FLOOR FLEXIB]LITY CONTROL BLOG. AT ELEV. 306.00'SE VERT 11-06-B4 B.E EBBESO RHPljlFTEQ RESPONSE SPECTRfl BY TlflE HISTORY I I OAT/ OF RUN 6 NOV 198 0.010 OIOILLIITOR Ofllll'IRO C.DZO OSCILLATOh 01IHP1HO I l I

COHThDL bLDO. EJ. SOS AEQ=12- Hf REVISION 0 D I blTH PfhC HTlLE VS- DESIOH 6 hECOhDS D ~  ;

1 D

lfS N

D D '

~ ~

EIFCRT I

I C) I IIS I l I ~ I EC e4 I EK LLI 801 . P ERC HTILK gE RECDAQS hT NODE b

~ l, '

~

~ ~ ~ ~

~

' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ NMPZ Df lON IIASIQ D

!'D

~ A ~ ~ ~

~ ~

I 00, 0 IO 0 20 0 30 0.40 0..50 0:.60 0 '70 ObO 080 '00  ! 1 ~ 10 1 .20 l..

I I

PgRIOO IN SECS I

balll 1 6 NINE 11ILE POINT 2 CONTROL BLOG. AT ELEV . 306 .00 AtlP41FIEO RESPONSE SPECTRA BY TINE HISTORY

'SE 12177 .TEST OF fLOOR FLEXIBILITY VERT 11-06-84 B-E. EBBESON I DATE OF RUN 6 NOV 1984 0 OIO OROILLIIIOR ORRPIRO 1.---"-----1 0.020 OSCILLATOR OflliP1HO t

I COHIRPL dLGO. EL. SQd. FRED=12 ~ Hf REVISION 0 aat 84TH Pf RC(HT ILE V6. DE61OH 61 X RECORD6 Ol I

a la I I N aa A CR!

X o

~us I I I - ~

4J LLJ 966!TH> E CEHT1LE. ( $) ATOHDQE

~ I, I AM!tQ Of )IGH 8$ SIS

~ ~ ~ t ~

~ ~4 a

IA 6

~ ~

~ ~ ~

) ~ I

~ 10 .20 ~ 30 0.40 0.60 0'60 0..70 SD .90 1.00 ! 1 610 I 1 .20 PERIOO I( SECS I I

. I

) lI 1

C~

I

(

1 I'

1J I

f I

7

I I NIN NILE POINT 2 l2177 'EST OF FLOOR FLEXIBlLITY CON ROL BLOB. RT ELEV. 306.00'SE VERT 1 l-g7-84 B.E ~ !EBBESON PUP tFI)D )ESPgNSE SPECTR BY TINE HISTORY DRT) OF RUN 7 NOV 1984 0.020 06ClLLATOR 0 IIPTJIO IIZ'EVISIO 0-020 06FlLLATOR 0 IIPlHO

~ ~

I CONTR L 5LOO. E - 90$ . REO=S. 0 o RITH PERC HTlL IJ6. OE6l OH 6 X RECOR06i

~ n I I

o IO C4 oo - I I ~ ~

I I

I I

ee Q

I 4J

'J H tERC TIL6 (68 REC)RPS) IIOOE 8

~ ~

I P 2'OESlQH 9ISI

~ tg  !

~

~ II~ I ~+

~, '

o lO

~ I I

oI ---" r' ~~

I I

~

L.

~ 10 ~ 40 OI.SO 60 .10 ~ 80 ~ 00 l 00 . l l0

~ l 20 I I l

PLERIOD I SECS i

J

'I t 4

Ct I

ll C:.

i

'I Cl I

D o I

/

O

'" I

• r l.

NING IIILE POINT 2 12177 TEST OF FLOOR FLEXIBILITY CONIIROL BLQG. RT EJ EV. 306.00'SE VERT 11-07-84 B.E. EBBESO POP!tIFI)0 R!ESPONSEI SPECTRII BY TINE HISTORY DRTE OF RUN 7 NOV 198 0.0iO 06CILLATOR OAHPTHG

--- ~

0.020 06CJLLATOR 0 HPJHO lI CONTROL bLOO. E . 306. REPCQ. HZ PEVISION 0 CI blTH PERC NTILE V6 ~ 066lOH 6/X RECOR06 cl D

III CV CI CI

~C4

~ ~ .

~

I I I I LLj TH. )E T HOPE 6 TILE fbi E TIQ+ROS)

LLJ P

~0

~ ~

~0 ~

sICII OA S

~

~ ~e 0 ~

1J ~ ow ~ ~

I

~,

D III I

~ ~ I D I n

D I

00 0 10 0 20 OL30 0.40 0.-50 0.60 0 ~ 'TO 0 80

~ 0..90 1I.OO 1I .10 1 20 PERIOO IN SECS 5

4 I8 4f~

~ w Cl 4l

'P l ~

C/

p ~

r I

~ l C

A C.l E

IN NILE OIN 2 I2I77 TEST 0 FLOOR FLE3<IB LITY ON ROL 8L G 7 N OE.5 SE VER 8-E ~ 8BI SON t1P IFIED ESP9NSE SP)CTR BY 71 E HIST RY e DAT OF RU V 198l I a D.D2b D6 JLL11TDII ItlJND a D.D2b D6 JLLATOlt Dk IjlJND a

t:DIITII a Ilalea ~ E JIEDrh. HE ~ ~ EV SIO 0 V6. DE6JbII 6 Jt ItK OIID6 a I

~ ~

aae ~ ~ e ~

aIII a a

~ JII ~

III

I e I

I,,

ii:

~

' ~

a

~

e

' :al e bete a

~ e I ~ ~ ~

'. e It

'I:'

~

,; I.' ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ a a g ~

I I I:

~ I ~

a I

~ ~

e I ~ ~

I ~

' 'el I

' ~ ~ a a i ~ e ~ ~

I

~

I I

(

e ~

Iei!I ~

~ ~ e I e a

I I l.

a I

• a I~

~

a

~ -- ~ I q

CK IK

'W W

I

e ~t 'L

~

I=

I

~

II'AStS e ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~

~ ~

~

~

~ ee ~

~ a aTJ'EIIC TIL) (C ltKdOIIOS AT NbOf. S

~ ~

~, ~

~~

~ a

~ ~ ~ ~

9~

I

~

~ e' ~ e ' ~~~

a

= ~ a I

~ 00 I ~ 10 ~ 20 0 30 0 .40 0.50 0 60 0 ~ 70 0.80 .90 1I.DD 1.10 1 I

I PERl00 IH SECS

V I

}

d II

~ I

~

~L I

y1

I t'

I I

A et I

4 C

l W

C 0

W I

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 11-20-84 . S . RAl1Al1URTHY At1PLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA BY TlttE HISTORY I DATE OF RUN 20 NOV 1984 I I 0 060 OAOILLAIOR OAIIPIIIO

"--- "- 0.020 OSCILLBTOR DRNPINO CONTROL SLOOP EL SDS. FRED=9. NZ REVISION 0 CI 'I SiTN PZRCENTILE V6. DESION 6IX RECORDS IO/5 I

D CO N

CI gN zOD I- ~

W (Io+ sTRUGTURAL DlacviN6)

Q4 Pf.ROIINTIL6 (6 64 REGDRosg AT H006 6 CLJ I OCD O ~ NQP2 0 SCCN DASiS J'I I

~

~

~

~

I~

~ 00

~

~

0~

4 60 P'

~

I

~ I ~

~ ~

IP D

III CI ~ ~

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 1.20 PERIOD IN SECS

L4 f,

f fl E

1 g

a t