ML18096A998
| ML18096A998 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1992 |
| From: | Labruna S Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR GL-87-02, GL-87-2, NLR-N92134, NUDOCS 9209290217 | |
| Download: ML18096A998 (41) | |
Text
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Stanley LaBruna Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-1200 Vice President - Nuclear Operations SEP 21 1992 NLR-N92134 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 87-02, SUPPLEMENT 1 SALEM GENERA:i'ING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 I. INTRODUCTION On February 19, 1987, the USNRC issued Generic Letter 87-02, "Verification of Seismic Adequacy of Mechanical.and Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors, Unresolved Safety Issue, USI A-46. 11 This Generic Letter encouraged utilities to participate in a generic program to. resolve the seismic verification issues associated with USI A-46. As a result, the Seismic Qualification Utility Group ("SQUG") developed the "Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP) for Seismic Verification of Nuclear Plant Equipment." On May 22, 1992, the NRC Staff issued Generic Letter 87-02, Supplement 1, which constituted the Staff's review of the GIP and which included Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report No.2
("SSER-2") on the GIP, Revision 2, which had been corrected on February 14, 1992. The letter to SQUG enclosing SSER-2 requested that SQUG member utilities provide a. schedule for implementing the GIP to the NRC within 120 days.
By a letter to Mr. James G. Partlow, Associate Director for Projects - NRR, dated August 21, 1992, SQUG clarified that the 120 days would expire on September 21, 1992. This letter responds to the NRC staff's request.
II. COMMITMENT TO GIP GIP Commitments As a member of the SQUG, PSE&G commits to use the SQUG methodology as documented in the GIP (where GIP refers to the GIP Revision 2, corrected February 14, 1992) to resolve USI A-46 at Salem
~------------- -- - -- - -- .
! 9209290217 920921 PDR ADOCK 05000272 p PDR
'I, Document Control Desk SEP 21 1992 NLR-N92134 Generating Station. The GIP, as evaluated by the NRC Staff, permits licensees to deviate from the SQUG commitments embodied in the Commitment Sections, provided the Staff is notified of substantial deviations prior to implementation. PSE&G recognizes that the Staff's position in SSER-2 is that, 11 * *
- if licensees use other methods that deviate from the criteria and procedures as described in SQUG commitments and in the implementation guidance of the GIP, Rev. 2, without prior NRC staff approval, the method may not be acceptable to the staff and, therefore, may result in a deviation from the provisions of Generic Letter 87-02. 11 Specifically, PSE&G hereby commits to the SQUG commitments set forth in the GIP in their entirety, including the clarifications, interpretations, and exceptions identified in SSER-2 as clarified by the August 21, 1992 SQUG letter responding to SSER-2.
GIP Guidance PSE&G will be guided, generally, by the remaining (non-commitment}
sections of the GIP, i.e., GIP implementation guidance, which comprises suggested methods for implementing the applicable commitments. PSE&G will notify the NRC as soon as practicable, or, in no case later than the final USI A-46 Summary Report, of any significant or programmatic deviations from the guidance portions of the GIP. Justifications for such deviations, as well as for other minor deviations, will be retained on-site for NRC review.
III. IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA For defining seismic demand, PSE&G will use the options provided in the GIP for Median-Centered and Conservative Design in-structure response spectra, as appropriate, depending on the building, the location of equipment in the building, and equipment characteristics.
The licensing-basis SSE in-structure response spectra may be used as one of the options provided in the GIP for resolution of USI A-46. The licensing-basis spectra approved by the u.s Atomic Energy Commission on October 11, 1974 and Supplement No.4 to the Safety Evaluation Report (SER} issued by the NRC on April 18, 1980, may be used and are considered to be Conservative Design.
The procedures and criteria which were used to generate the licensing-basis in-structure response spectra are described in .
Document Control Desk SEP 211992 NLR-N92134 IV. SCHEDULE Given the magnitude of the effort required to achieve resolution of USI A-46, final implementation must be carefully integrated into outage schedules and the seismic IPEEE response, the completion of which may be affected by the A-46 implementation start date. Considering the workload set forth by the criteria of the GIP, a Seismic Evaluation Report summarizing the results of the A-46 program at Salem Generating Station will be submitted to the NRC by May 22, 1995. However, the A-46 program completion schedule may be affected by the necessary coordination with the seismic IPEEE response, the scope and schedule for completing the necessary SQUG training, and the availability of industry resources which may be unavailable because of the large number of licensees implementing this program in the same time frame.
Regarding in-structure response spectra: as a participating member of the SQUG, PSE&G subscribes to the sixty day negative consent period and 10 CFR 50.109 consideration positions discussed in the SQUG letter, dated August 21, 1992.
V. PLANT SEISMIC LICENSING BASIS PSE&G intends to augment its licensing basis methodology and include the GIP methodology as an alternative for verifying the seismic adequacy of new and replacement, as well as existing, electrical and mechanical equipment prior to receipt of a final, plant-specific SER resolving USI ~-46. This change will be conducted under 10 CFR Part 50.59 and will be consistent with the guidance in Section 2.3.3 of Part I of the GIP, Revision 2, and with the clarifications, interpretations and exceptions identified in SSER-2 as clarified by the August 21, 1992 SQUG letter responding to SSER-2.
Should you have any questions regarding this submittal, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, Attachment
Document Control Desk NLR-N92134 SEP 211992 C Mr. T. T. Martin, Administrator USNRC Region I Mr. J. c. Stone USNRC Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. P. Johnson USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. K. Tosch, Chief, Bureau of Nuclear Engineering New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
REF: NLR-N92134 STATE OF NEW JERSEY SS.
COUNTY OF SALEM Stanley LaBruna, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:
I am Vice President - Nuclear Operations of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in the above referenced letter, concerning the Salem Generating Station, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
7 Subscribed and Sworn '!V~fore me this £/'J1- day of .~J11LdH;i), 1992 SHERRY L. CAGLE NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY 7
My Commission expires on ~~~-M~y~C_o_m_m~is=si=on~E=x-pi_re_s_M_a,_cb~S~.~1 ~~,___
ATTACHMENT 1 Procedures and Criteria Used to Generate In-structure Response Spectra for Salem Generation Station Units 1 and 2
ATTACHMENT 1 Procedures and Criteria Used to Generate In-structure Response Spectra for Salem Generation Station Units 1 and 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Sect Description Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4
2.0 DESCRIPTION
OF GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRUM 5
3.0 DESCRIPTION
OF GROUND TIME HISTORY 5 4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA 5 4.1 CONTAINMENT BUILDINGS 6 4.2 AUXILIARY BUILDING 7 4.3 FUEL HANDLING BUILDINGS 9 4.4 SERVICE WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE 9 4.5 BUILDING PEAK FLOOR ACCELERATIONS 9 4.6 BUILDING MODAL ANALYSIS RESULTS 10 5.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 10 5.1 LICENSING STATUS 10 5.2 IPEEE IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA 10
6.0 REFERENCES
11 Page 1of35
LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title 1 Damping Values for Structural Components 2 Peak Floor Acceleration Values 3 Frequencies and Participation Factors Page 2 of35
LIST OF FIGURES Figure No.
1 Comparison of Time History With Ground Spectra 2 Location of Category 1 Structures 3 Analytical Model of Containment Building 4 Unbroadened Horizontal In-structure Spectra El. 100' Containment Building 5 Unbroadened Horizontal In-structure Spectra El. 130' Containment Building 6 Unbroadened Vertical In-structure Spectra El. 100' Containment Building 7 Unbroadened Vertical In-structure Spectra El. 130' Containment Building 8 Finite Element Model of Subgrade 9 Seismic Model of Auxiliary Building 10 Unbroadened Horizontal In-structure Spectra El. 100' Auxiliary Building 11 Unbroadened Horizontal In-structure Spectra El. 122' Auxiliary Building 12 Unbroadened Vertical In-structure Spectra El. 100' Auxiliary Building 13 Unbroadened Vertical In-structure Spectra El. 122' Auxiliary Building 14 Unbroadened Horizontal Spectra El. 130' Fuel Building 15 Unbroadened Vertical Spectra El. 130' Fuel Building Page 3 of35
1 .0 INTRODUCTION This report provides detailed information to define the procedures and criteria used tq _generate the licensing basis in-structure response spectra to be used in the resolution of USI A-46 for Salem Units 1 and 2. This information is being provided in response to Supplemental -Safety Evaluation Report No. 2 (SSER No. 2) on SOUG Generic Implementation Procedure, Revision 2, as corrected on February 14, 1992 (GIP-2).
The proposed in-structure spectra are those developed for the original design, and will be used during the implementation of GIP-2 as the conservative, design, in-structure response spectra.
Since only horizontal in-structure spectra due to the SSE are utilized in the GIP methodology, the discussion herein is limited to the development of SSE horizontal responses.
It should be noted that the SSE ground response spectra, rather than the in-structure response spectra may be used for electrical and mechanical equipment which meet the criteria for Method A as described in Section 4.2.3 of GIP-2. This spectrum is limited to use in evaluating equipment which is located within 40 ft above the effective grade, and which has a fundamental frequency greater than about 8 Hz.
The seismic Category I structures at Salem consist of a Reactor Containment Building and Fuel Handling Building for each unit; and a Common Auxiliary Building and Service Water Intake Structure.
Page 4 of35
2.0 DESCRIPTION
OF GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRUM The horizontal SSE ground response spectrum used as the design basis for Salem Units 1 and 2 is the Housner Spectrum, anchored at 0.20 g.
3.0 DESCRIPTION
OF GROUND TIME HISTORY The time history used to generate the in-structure response spectra is the N-S component of the El Centro May 18, 1940, earthquake. The normalized El Centro 1940 ground response N-S components are considerably higher than the Salem design basis ground response spectra. Figure No. 1 shows a comparison of the response spectrum of the El Centro time history with the design basis ground spectrum (5% damping).
4.0 DEVELOPMENT OF IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA A method of generating in-structure response spectra for the Seismic Category I structures is to apply the ground acceleration time history described in Section 3.0 to a mathematical model of the structure. The models of the structure include soil-structure interaction effects.
Five reinforced concrete Category I structures, including two containment structures; two Fuel Handling Buildings; and a common Auxiliary Building, are located within an enclosure formed by cellular coffer dams (Figure 2). Within the enclosure, soil has been excavated to 70 ft below grade (El. 30 ft) to a silty, Page 5 of35
cementitious sand called the Vincentown Formation. Lean concrete fill has been poured to the elevation of the basemat of the five structures.
The service water intake structure is a reinforced concrete building located on the Delaware River and is founded on tremie- concrete placed on top of the Vincentown Formation.
- 4. 1 CONTAINMENT BUILDINGS An axisymmetric finite element model of the Containment Building, including the -
subgrade, was developed (Figure 3). Since -some of the features such as the backfill around the building and the lean concrete fill under the mat are not axisymmetric, parametric studies were performed and the models were adjusted to give conservative results. A time history analysis was performed, using direct integration. A damping ratio of 5% was simulated using Raleigh damping coefficients. The input time history was applied at the base of the model. The results are scaled so that the maximum free-field acceleration at El. 30 ft, which corresponds to the bottom of the lean concrete fill, is .20g. This produces a maximum acceleration at the foundation mat greater than .20 g. Floor response spectra were developed from the resulting acceleration time histories at selected locations on the model. These spectra have recently been peak broadened by +/-
15%. Figures 4 and 5 show these horizontal spectra for Elevations 100 ft and 130 ft, respectively. For information, vertical spectra are presented in Figures 6 and 7.
Page 6 of35
4.2 AUXILIARY BUILDING The Auxiliary Building is common to both units and is supported on lean concrete fill. Prior to analysis of the auxiliary building (and fuel handling buildings) a seismic motion analysis of the site was performed which is described below.
The auxiliary and fuel handling buildings were analyzed in two steps. The first step was to perform an analysis of the soil-structure system. This analysis was performed to obtain the motion at the base of the structures, i.e. at the lean concrete fill. The input acceleration was applied at the bottom of the soil-structure model. The motions obtained at the founding level were scaled to 0.20 g for the DBE and used as input to the- models of the structures.
An axisymmetric finite element model of the subgrade, including a mathematical representation of the five structures, was created (Figure 8). The acceleration time history described in Section 3.0 was applied at the bottom of the soil structure model and a direct integration time history analysis was performed. A damping factor of 5% was used in this SSE analysis. Horizontal and rotational (rocking) acceleration time histories of the lean concrete fill at El. 30 ft were obtained.
A two dimensional lumped mass stick model of the Auxiliary Building was developed (Figure 9). Using this model and the time histories obtained at El. 30 ft, two separate analyses were performed, as follows:
Page 7 of35
- a. In the first analysis, rocking springs were added at the base of the stick model. The horizontal acceleration time histories at El. 30 ft developed from the soil analysis, normalized to .20 g, was applied as a base motion, and a modal time history analysis was performed. A damping ratio of 5% was used for all modes. Acceleration time histories and associated response spectra were generated at the various building elevations.
- b. In the second analysis, the rocking spring was removed from the stick model, and the horizontal and rocking acceleration time histories were applied as a base input motion. The time histories were scaled so that the horizontal motion is normalized to .20 g. A modal time history analysis using 5 % damping was performed to obtain acceleration time histories and associated response spectra at the various building elevations.
The two above analyses were performed for both E-W and N-S input, using different stick models to represent the building stiffness properties in the two directions. Results of the four analyses were enveloped to produce the horizontal in-structure spectra. These spectra have recently been peak broadened by +
10%, in accordance with the licensing criteria. Figures 10 and 11 show these spectra at El. 100 ft and 122 ft, respectively. For information, the corresponding vertical spectra are shown in Figures 12 and 13.
Page 8 of35
4.3 FUEL HANDLING BUILDINGS In-structure response spectra for the Fuel Handling Buildings were developed in the same manner as for the Auxiliary Building. Figures 14 and 15 show the unbroadened spectra at El. 1 30 ft.
4.4 SERVICE WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE
_ Floor response spectra for the intake structure are not readily available. However!
since the entire structure is within 40 ft of the effective grade, in-structure spectra may not be required for this structure. If they are needed, they will be generated as required, using similar methods as for the other structures.
- 4. 5 BUILDING PEAK FLOOR ACCELERATIONS Table 2 presents the peak floor accelerations for the Containment, Auxiliary, and Fuel Handling Buildings.
4.6 BUILDING MODAL ANALYSIS RESULTS The building dominant modal frequencies and participation factors are given in Table 3 for the Containment, Auxiliary, and Fuel Handling Buildings.
Page 9of35
5.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Issues regarding in-structure spectra not directly related to the USI A-46 Program are discussed in this section.
5.1 LICENSING STATUS A detailed description of the methodology and results of the seismic analysis for Salem was submitted with the FSAR. Upon review by the AEC staff and their consultant (Nathan M. Newmark Consulting Engineering Services), the approach and results were found to be acceptable (Reference 1).
Subsequently, with the development of Regulatory Guides, the seismic analysis methodology was reexamined, particularly with respect to the ground response spectrum, damping values, and peak broadening. Supplement No. 4 to the SER (Reference 2) documents NRC acceptance of the Salem seismic design methods, including peak broadening of 10%. The damping values used in the analysis of structures and components are given in Table 1 .
5.2 IPEEE IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA At this date, it has not been decided whether new in-structure spectra will be generated during implementation of the IPEEE program at Salem. Although it is possible to scale the existing spectra, it is felt that the methodology described in Section 4.0 is very conservative, and the use of more refined soil-structure interaction techniques and more realistic damping will produce more reasonable spectra.
Page 10 of 35
6.0 REFERENCES
6.1 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY THE DIRECTORATE OF LICENSING, U. S.
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, OCTOBER 11, 1974.
6.2 SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATION, NRC, NUREG-0517, APRIL 18, 1980.
Page 11 of35
TABLE 1 Damping Values (Percent of Critical)
QBE SSE Reinforced Concrete 2.0 5.0 Bolted Steel Structures 2.5 5.0 Welded Steel Structures 1.0 3.0 Electrical Cable Trays 4.0 7.0 Electrical Conduit 1.0 3.0 Piping 0.5 0.5 Page 12 of 35
TABLE 2 Peak Floor Acceleration Values A. Containment Building (Internals)
Elevation Horizontal Vertical 76' .240 .250 100' .250 .206 130' .265 .158 B. Containment Building (Shell)
Elevation Horizontal Vertical 76' .228 .245 100' .259 .251 160' .312 .265 218' .402 .271 Notes:
- 1) The containment model is axisymmetric~ Only one horizontal component is available.
- 2) Results are in g's, for DBE.
Page 13 of35
TABLE 2 (Continued)
- c. Auxiliary Building Elevation N-S E-W Vertical 45' .200 .200 .133 64' .202 .199 .134 84' .204 .204 .138 100' .226 .234 .177 122' .249 .256 .224 140' .267 .268 .251 Notes:
- 1) The horizontal results are the envelope of the results using the two models (with and without rocking springs).
- 2) Results are in g's for DBE.
Page 14 of 35
TABLE 2 (Continued)
D. Fuel Handling Building Elevation N-S E-W Vertical 45' .200 .200 .133 78' .217 .214 .133 100' .229 .224 .189 130' .245 .238 .213 162.5' .268 .262 .245 179' .363 .273 .253 Notes:
- 1) The horizontal results are the envelope of the results using the two models (with and without rocking springs).
- 2) Results in g's for DBE.
Page 15 of35
TABLE 3 Frequencies and Participation Factors A. Containment Building Horizontal:
Mode Frequency (hz.) Part. Factor 2 .870 17.5%
5 1.153 17.0%
7 1.454 16.3%
Notes:
- 1) Participation factors are expressed as a percentage of the total, assuming that the first 15 modes contribute 100% of the participation.
- 2) These modes consist primarily of rigid body translation and rocking.
Vertical:
Mode Frequency (hz.) Part. Factor 5 2.19 18.6%
7 2.30 17.0%
8 2.34 41.5%
Notes:
- 1) Participation factors are expressed as a percentage of the total, assuming that the first ten modes contribute 100% of the participation.
- 2) These modes consist primarily of rigid body motion of the structure on the soil.
Page 16 of35
TABLE 3 (Continued)
B. Auxiliary Building N-S Case A (with rocking)
Mode Frequency (hz.) Part. Factor 1 4.05 30.3%
2 9.96 29.3%
3 17.9 15.6%
4 26.25 9.6%
5 35.24 15.2%
N-S Case B (fixed base)
Mode Frequency (hz.) Part. Factor 1 8.06 44.3%
2 18.21 15.8%
3 26.21 10.0%
4 35.05 15.5%
5 208.74 14.4%
E-W Case A (with rocking)
Mode Frequency (hz.) Part. Factor 1 4.05 24.0%
2 9.01 36.1%
3 18.23 14.8%
4 26.23 9.7%
5 35.12 15.3%
Page 17 of35
TABLE 3 (Continued)
E-W Case B (fixed base)
Mode Frequency (hz.) Part. Factor 1 7.34 48.4%
2 20.33 15.3%
3 30.26 17.5%
4 33.78 3.5%
5 203.78 15.4%
Vertical Mode Frequency (hz.) Part. Factor 1 20.00 47.1%
2 49.05 17.1 %
3 71.64 8.3%
4 84.68 14.4%
5 367.65 13.1 %
Notes:
- 1) Participation factors are calculated from .masses and mode shapes.
- 2) Participation factors are expressed as a percentage of the total for all modes.
Page 18 of35
TABLE 3 (Continued)
C. Fuel Building N-S Case A (with rocking)
Mode Frequency (hz.) Part. Factor 1 3.05 47.2%
2 14.47 13.1%
3 18.83 35.9%
4 31.42 3.8%
N-S Case B (fixed base)
Mode Frequency (hz.) Part. Factor 1 13.04 31.2%
2 27.53 27.6%
3 34.55 18.9%
4 58.35 22.2%
E-W Case A (with rocking)
Mode Frequency (hz.) Part. Factor 1 3.09 47.4%
2 19.23 12.8%
3 21.73 34.2%
4 44.73 5.6%
Page 19 of 35
TABLE 3 (Continued)
E-W Case B (fixed base)
Mode Frequency (hz.) Part. Factor 1 16.34 33.7%
2 34.03 32.5%
3 57.81 6.9%
4 61.22 19.1 %
Vertical Mode Frequency (hz.) Part. Factor 1 24.51 79.1%
2 43.42 18.1 %
3 79.51 2.8%
4 115.48 0%
Notes:
- 1) Participation factors were calculated from the masses and mode shapes given.
- 2) Participation factors are expressed as a percentage of the total for all modes.
Page 20 of35
PEIUOD IN l~CONDI
'"d 4
II Pl *...
ID lJ1 0.9 o*
0.7 0.1 0.11 0.4 e
D.5 0.2 FREQUENCY IN CYCLES/SECOND FIGURE 1 COMPARISON OF TIME HISTORY WITH GROUND SPECTRA
.~: __
-*pr .**
.---*--*-*r----...... l*_. ::::-:==:.::::..:~_...
0
- I l "i
H\ i [I__ _________,
I """"----/
j 1'
w I I
~
l11
[__ ____________ , J IJVILOIM:S ( )
I
{_ _____ !
St1Lt'M
--t-*
NUCLEt1~ 0t'NEK't1TING STt1T/ON FIGURE 2 LOCATION OF CATEGORY I STRUCTURES
K SHELL
[L[MENTS 111 COllTAIHMtNT r "" h 1 ., , . ..,:'11..J ~ CR.lNE I viasn
't:l Ill l.Q .. r
- _*- ~ *:.,,,,
.....: "',~. - 1. ,***..l!*1**:m;:*" k'1 *;;::/.. :. ::[JJ~t~E:E:l::t~i;~+~-=--=-*~t-=--~-::-t---1-\.---
CD f'.J w . *_-
__.. _..._.___ ..pr--- 1**:~
.,.,,~,l-t-t--t--t--t--+--ll--+----ll---l-----+----~~*-----i- --------~
0 Hl w
. l~"~1'1i'i
.. !JI I
- , .r PILL _ .... *.::.
+:i"ilff"--nJi-.:~-----+HH-+-l--l-""f---l--+----+----1------l------+*--------l lJl
... *Alfi,_ IOAMHIQll
... .... ., .. fl)° FIGURE 3 ANALYTICAL MODEL OF CONTAINMENT BUILDING
I'd Pl l.Q I
- / 40
(!)
- I 50 l'V I/
~
0 Hi
- t .i zo w § U1 i 10
,-lllOUlllCY IN CYCLES/SECOND FIGURE 4 UNBROADENED HORIZONTAL IN-STRUCTURE SPECTRA EL. 100' CONTAINMENT BUILDING
PllllOD Ill HCONDI 4 00 1 00
- eo eo 70 eo
'ti Al I .,
40 I'*
i Hi w
U1 10 1
I I
CUll.O I I 4 &*
PMOUlllCY IN CYCLUIHCONO FIGURE 5 UNBROADENED HORIZONTAL IN-STRUCTURE SPECTRUM EL. 130' CONTAINMENT BUILDING
HlllOD 111 HCOllDS
'U II 4 Ill ....
'1.Q
- CD I
l\J O'l 0
t; Hi § w
Ul PllECIU&llCY Ill CYCLll/SlCOllO FIGURE 6 UNBROADENED VERTICAL IN-STRUCTURE SPECTRA EL. 100' CONTAINMENT BUILDING
PllllOD Ill HCOllDS O.J 0.1 0.1 .Ill .Ill CID4 o.os oa.z "d
I** 4 Ill ...
I*
l.Q m
(\.) I
-..]
0
- .. I Hi w
lJl I
u u
o.J cu e
II PlllOUlllCY 191 CYCLlllllCOllD FIGURE 7 UNBROADENED VERTICAL IN-STRUCTURE SPECTRA EL. 130' CONTAINMENT BUILDING
MATERIAL PROPERTIES MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- rr.11 IGHT iPoeSSON's DYNAMIC SECANT MODULUS C,Cll RATIO 08£0 (koll DBEO Chll COllCRETE STRUCTURES 10 .20 116,000 51 ..000 LEAN CONCRETE FILL 140 .15 SI0,000 560,000 VINCENTOWN FORllATIO!t 125 .55 111,000 1,000
~~!!,S}O:'n".t!!!!!~* 155 .JO 19,500 I0,000 z .,,
UPPEll CRETACEOUS .50 5(1.000 lll,000
- t. COMPACTED SAND FILL HYDRAULIC FILL 120 II
.SS
.41 11,000.
!OD 5,000 200 I
KIRKWOOD FORMATION IOll .45 S,000 2,000
. ELEVATION
~
100' 60'
~
30'
~
['..) VINCENTOWN FORMATION CXl
-40' 0
Hi HORNERSTOWN SAND ANO NAVESINK FORMATION j" - 75' w '~
ln
-140°
- RI ypPER CRETACEOUS MOUNT LAUREL SANO MARSHALLTOWN FORMATION ENGLISHTOWlil FORMATION MERCHANTVILLE FORMATION UAGOTHY f'ORMATION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,irr-~--..lr-~~.....~--,......~~~:.lr.~~~~:.1,-.~~~~.,J,,.~~~~~*.Jr~~~~~-:ii,-~~~~-...... R -520 O 80 160 22:1 520 440 :160 680 840 IOOO RADIUS (FEETI FIGURE 8 AXISYMMETRIC FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS OF SALEM SOIL SYSTEM
ELEVATION 140 1
SUMMARY
OF MASSES
-u, MASS MASS
.!! POINT (k1p-sec2/ft) 140 122'
- N
- 122 100 84 593.
1263.
1687.
1422.
"" 64 411.
'"d Ill t.Q CD 100'
.!2
SUMMARY
OF SECTION PROPERTIES 1'l
\0 84° 0 MEMBER INERTIA SHEAR AREA I-ti FROM TO ( ft .. ) (ft 2 )
w U1
- 2 140 122 450,000,000. 592.
64 1
- . 122 100 84 100 84 64 450,000,000.
450,000,000.
.450 ,000 ,000.
1465.
1373.
42 71.
64 45 450,000,000. 58,850.
4~*
llllBru-z
. u'o 3600 ksi
~.,
80 FIGURE 9.
SEISMIC MODEL OF AUXILIARY BUILDING
P&lllOD Ill HCOllDI IO llO 40 IO 20 IO I
'U Ill t.Q CD II.... .
w
- 0 0 I Hi w
- t:. I U1 a
cu e
~
'll[QUlNCY IN CYCLU/SlCOND FIGURE 10 UNBROADENED HORIZONTAL IN-STRUCTURE SPECTRA EL. 100' AUXILIARY BUILDING
1'&11100 Ill SIECOllDI fft(QUf.NCY IN CYCLES/SECOND FIGURE 11 UNBROADENED HORIZONTAL IN-STRUCTURE SPECTRA EL. 122' AUXl'=-IARY BUILDING
NlllOD IN HCONDI
'° llO 40 JO I 4
'd P>
l.Q w
(!)
(\J I
I t:
0 Hi ~
w t lJ1 u
u u
u QI z
fll[QUt:NCY IN CYCL[llSECONO FIGURE 12 UNBROADENED VERTICAL IN-STRUCTURE SPECTRA EL. 100' AUXUJARY BUILDING
Pl!lllOD Ill SECONDS 20 IO I e
I . I "d
Ill t.Q CD
- I I
I w r; w § 0 I LO Hi u w u G7 Ul M
u
... Al e
FIGURE 13 UNBROADENED VERTICAL IN-STRUCTURE SPECTRA EL. 122' AUXIJ.,.IARY BUILDING
f'llllOO Ill HC:OllDI
- 1 i*
w
"'0" Hl I
w l/1 FRIOUllll:Y Ill C:YC:Lll/llC:OllD FIGURE 14
(
HORIZONTAL IN-STRUCTURE SPECTRA EL 130' FUEL HANDLING BUILDING
PElllOD Ill IECCNIDI IO llO 40 IO IO IO I s "d
Ill t.Q i..
CD w
. 4 I
VI I
0 w
Hi
- ..t I VI '§ u
u
°"
QI e QI FIUQUENCY IN CYCLESISfCOllD FIGURE 15 VERTICAL IN-STRUCTURE SPECTRA EL. 130' FUEL HANDLING BUILDING