ML18178A221

Enclosure 3 - APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev. 5, Stability Check for Ni Common Basemat

ML18178A221
Person / Time
Site:	05200046
Issue date:	05/31/2018
From:	Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co, Ltd, Korea Electric Power Corp
To:	NRC/NRO/DNRL
Shared Package
ML18178A202	List: ML18178A212 ML18178A213 ML18178A214 ML18178A215 ML18178A217 ML18178A218 ML18178A220 ML18178A221 ML18178A222 ML18178A223 ML18178A224
References
MKD/NW-18-0091L APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev 5
Download: ML18178A221 (165)

Text

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP Non-Proprietary Stability Check for NI Common Basemat Revision 5 Non-Proprietary May 2018 Copyright 2018 Korea Electric Power Corporation &

Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd All Rights Reserved

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP ii Non-Proprietary REVISION HISTORY Revision Date Section or Pages Description 0

November 2014 All First Issue 1

February 2015 A1 ~ A22 General Revision 2

February 2017

ABSTRACT, Sections 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1 Figure 2-1 The expression of Generic Soil Profile is changed to Low-strain Soil Profile, and the expression of Strain-compatible Soil Profile is changed to Generic Soil Profile by response to RAI 182-8160, Question 03.07.01-4, Rev.1 Page 1 A minimum seismic gap of 2 in. between RCB and AB is changed to 6 in., and the use of displacements obtained by removing the rigid basemat rotations is added by response to RAI 183-8197, Question 03.07.02-3 Sections 4.2, 4.2.1, 4.2.2 Added description about stability evaluation applied time-history analysis by response to RAI 255-8285, Question 03.08.05-14, Rev.2.

Added description about applied minimum friction coefficient by response to RAI 255-8285, Question 03.08.05-14, Rev.2.

Added the description about stability evaluation under wind load by response to RAI 255-8285, Question 03.08.05-14, Rev.2.

3 July 2017 Page 15 Added backup calculations for NI common basemat analysis as reference No.9 ~ 14.

Page A6 Change reference number.

Page A8 Added backup calculations for EDGB and DFOT basemat analysis as reference No.2

~ 3.

Section A.4.3 Table A-8 Updated stability check for EDGB and DFOT basemat by response to RAI 255-8285, Question 03.08.05-14, Rev.2.

4 December 2017 Page 1 Change basemat area by response to RAI 249-8323, Question 03.08.01-16, Rev.1 Pages 1,7,8,10 Tables 2-5, 3-8, 4-4 Updated methodology of NI common basemat analysis by response to RAI 255-8285, Question 03.08.05-8, Rev.1 Tables 3-5, 3-6, 3-7 Added tables including information unapplied loads by response to RAI 255-8285, Question 03.08.05-13, Rev.2

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP Non-Proprietary Revision Date Section or Pages Description Pages 2,3,4,6,7,13.20,21 Figures 2-4,2-5,2-6,3-13 Tables 2-4, A-7 Updated additional information on determined soil properties and methods for representing soil by response to RAI 255-8285, Question 03.08.05-16, Rev.1 Pages 9 Table 4-3 Figures 4-5 thru 4-15, Deleted description, tables, and figures related to differential settlement under seismic loading case by response to RAI 255-8285, Question 03.08.05-17, Rev.2 Pages 14 ~ 18 Tables 5-1 ~ 5-8 Figures 5-1 ~ 5-20 Updated description and results of construction sequence analysis by response to RAI 255-8285, Question 03.08.05-7, Rev.3 Pages 9, A6, Tables 4-1,A-2 Updated description and results of ground contact ratio by response to RAI 183-8197, Question 03.07.02-4, Rev.2 Pages9 Tables 3-2 thru 3-4 and Table 4-2, Table A-3 thru A-6 Figures 4-1 thru 4-3, A-9 Updated description, tables, and figures for incorporation by corrective action, 11E47-CR-17-C-129 Pages 20, 21, and A7 Updated latest backup calculations ABSTRACT, Pages 2, 4, 5, and 19 Figure 2-1 The descriptions, figures related S05 soil profile are changed by response to RAI 252-8299, Question 03.07.02-9, Rev.2.

5 May 2018 Page 2, Figure 2-6 Updated editorial error by response to RAI 255-8285, Question 03.08.05-16, Rev.1.

This document was prepared for the design certification application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains technological information that constitutes intellectual property.

Copying, using, or distributing the information in this document in whole or in part is permitted only by the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors for the purpose of reviewing design certification application materials. Other uses are strictly prohibited without the written permission of Korea Electric Power Corporation and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP iv Non-Proprietary ABSTRACT This document provides the stability check for the nuclear island (NI) common basemat and the Emergency Diesel Generator Building (EDGB) basemat of the Advanced Power Reactor 1400 (APR1400).

The document contains the explanation of how the finite element (FE) models for the NI common basemat analysis are developed. In addition, the stability evaluation and the construction sequence analysis of the NI common basemat are described in this document.

The APR1400 is designed with a standard design concept to enable construction on various foundation conditions enveloping rock and soil foundations. The low-strain site profiles for the APR1400 include eight site categories that represent a variety of characteristics and configurations of rock and soil foundations as well as one fixed case. In this document, among the eight site categories and fixed case, the weak, moderate, and strong site properties are considered for stability evaluation of the NI common basemat and the EDGB basemat. Note that the analyses used to evaluate the site cases enveloped all of the site categories considered for the APR1400.

The following NI structures are considered for the FE analysis NI common basemat RCB shell and dome In-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) and fill concrete Primary and secondary shield walls Auxiliary building (AB) concrete wall/slab and steel column/girder Nonlinear ground The following structures are considered for the FE analysis of the EDGB basemat EDGB basemat EDG Building concrete wall/slab Nonlinear ground The NI common basemat structure is evaluated for stability against overturning, sliding, and flotation in the document. The uplift check of the NI common basemat and EDGB basemat during seismic excitation are carried out to validate the linear soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis. In addition, the differential settlement within the NI common basemat, EDGB basemat and the differential settlement between the NI basemat and other builidngs are checked in this document.

The construction sequence analysis of the APR1400 NI common basemat is performed for the evaluation of the settlement of the NI common basemat during construction. The construction sequence analysis accounts for the construction sequence and the associated varying loads and stiffnesses of the NI common basemat. The construction sequence analysis focuses on the response of the basemat in the early stages of construction when it could be susceptible to different loading and deformations.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP v

Non-Proprietary TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 2

SITE PROFILES FOR THE APR1400 NUCLEAR ISLAND COMMON BASEMAT.... 2 2.1 Shear Wave Velocities of APR1400 Sites...................................................................................... 2 2.2 Review of the Elastic Modulus of Low-strain Site Profiles.............................................................. 2 2.2.1 Elastic Modulus of Soil Sites.......................................................................................................... 2 2.2.2 Elastic Modulus of Rock Site.......................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Material Properties and Subgrade Modulus of Site Profiles for the APR1400............................... 4 3

APR1400 NUCLEAR ISLAND COMMON BASEMAT ANALYSIS MODEL............... 5 3.1 General........................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Development of Finite Element Models for Nuclear Island Structures........................................... 5 3.2.1 Geometry and Coordinate System................................................................................................. 5 3.2.2 Material Properties.......................................................................................................................... 6 3.2.3 Finite Element Model...................................................................................................................... 6 3.2.4 Boundary Condition........................................................................................................................ 6 3.2.5 Applied Loads................................................................................................................................. 7 3.2.6 Load Combinations......................................................................................................................... 8 4

STABILITY EVALUATION OF THE NUCLEAR ISLAND COMMON BASEMAT....... 9 4.1 Settlement of the Nuclear Island Common Basemat..................................................................... 9 4.1.1 Basemat Uplift................................................................................................................................ 9 4.1.2 Differential Settlement.................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.3 Site Interface for the Nuclear Island Common Basemat.............................................................. 10 4.2 Stability Check of the Nuclear Island Common Basemat............................................................. 10 4.2.1 Overturning Check........................................................................................................................ 11 4.2.2 Sliding Check................................................................................................................................ 11 4.2.3 Flotation Check............................................................................................................................. 13 5

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ANALYSIS.......................................................... 14 5.1 General......................................................................................................................................... 14 5.2 Development of Finite Element Models for the Construction Sequence Analysis....................... 14 5.2.1 Material Properties........................................................................................................................ 14 5.2.2 Finite Element Model.................................................................................................................... 15 5.3 Construction Sequence Analysis Results..................................................................................... 16 5.3.1 Comparison between reference analysis and sequential analysis............................................... 16 5.3.2 Four types of settlement............................................................................................................... 16

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP vi Non-Proprietary 6

CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. 19 7

REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 20 APPENDIX A STABILITY EVALUATION OF EDGB BASEMAT AND DFOT BASEMAT... A1

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP vii Non-Proprietary LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2-1 UNIT WEIGHT AND POISSONS RATIO ACCORDING TO SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY...... 22 TABLE 2-2 GROUND TYPE BASED ON IBC.......................................................................................... 23 TABLE 2-3 SITE PROPERTIES IN ANSYS GROUND MODEL.............................................................. 24 TABLE 2-4 EQUIVALENT SUBGRADE MODULI OF SITE PROFILES.................................................. 25 TABLE 2-5 SITE PROFILES BASED ON STRAIN-COMPACTIBLE SHEAR VELOCITY....................... 26 TABLE 3-1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF NI STRUCTURES................................................................. 27 TABLE 3-2 DELETED............................................................................................................................... 28 TABLE 3-3 DELETED............................................................................................................................... 29 TABLE 3-4 DELETED............................................................................................................................... 30 TABLE 3-5 LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR NI COMMON BASEMAT ANALYSIS..................................... 31 TABLE 3-6 SELECTED LOADING CONDITIONS OF CONTAINMENT FOR RCB BASEMAT ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................... 36 TABLE 3-7 SELECTED LOADING CONDITIONS OF AB AND CIS FOR AB BASEMAT ANALYSIS..... 37 TABLE 3-8 SEISMIC CASES FOR NI BASEMAT ANALYSIS UNDER NONLINEAR CONDITION........ 38 TABLE 4-1 GROUND CONTACT AREA RATIOS FOR NI COMMON BASEMAT................................... 41 TABLE 4-2 DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENTS ACCORDING TO SITE PROFILES (STATIC LOADING CASE).............................................................................................................. 42 TABLE 4-3 DELETED............................................................................................................................... 43 TABLE 4-4 BEARING PRESSURE OF NI COMMON BASEMAT........................................................... 44 TABLE 4-5 REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR THE STABILITY CHECK...................................... 45 TABLE 4-6 ENVELOPED RESULTS OF THE SEISMIC ANALYSIS CORRESPONDING TO SITE PROFILES........................................................................................................................ 46 TABLE 5-1 SEQUENCE OF BASEMAT SEGMENTS DUE TO CONCRETE POURING........................ 47 TABLE 5-2 DELETED............................................................................................................................... 48 TABLE 5-3 DELETED............................................................................................................................... 49 TABLE 5-4 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE OF SUPERSTRUCTURES (COUNTERCLOCKWISE)..... 50 TABLE 5-5 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE OF SUPERSTRUCTURES (CLOCKWISE)....................... 52 TABLE 5-6 MAXIMUM VERTICAL SETTLEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND POST-CONSTRUCTION FOR NI, EDGB, AND DFOT BUILDING............................................. 54 TABLE 5-7 TILTING SETTLEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND POST-CONSTRUCTION FOR NI BUILDING..................................................................................................................... 55 TABLE 5-8 DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT BETWEEN STRUCTURES FOR ALL BUILDINGS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND POST-CONSTRUCTION.............................................. 56

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP viii Non-Proprietary LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1-1 APR1400 NI COMMON BASEMAT PLAN VIEW AT EL. 55'-0".......................................... 57 FIGURE 1-2 APR1400 NI COMMON BASEMAT SECTION VIEW (E-W VIEW)..................................... 58 FIGURE 1-3 APR1400 NI COMMON BASEMAT SECTION VIEW (N-S VIEW)...................................... 59 FIGURE 2-1 SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY OF LOW-STRAIN SITE PROFILE CATEGORIES.................. 60 FIGURE 2-2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STATIC AND DYNAMIC ELASTIC MODULI (ESTATIC AND EDYNAMIC)....................................................................................................... 61 FIGURE 2-3 DEFORMATION CONTOUR OF THE GROUND MODEL.................................................. 62 FIGURE 2-4 VARIATION OF SHEAR MODULUS WITH SHEAR STRAIN FOR SANDS....................... 63 FIGURE 2-5 G/GDYNAMIC OF SOIL AT STRAIN LEVEL 0.1%................................................................... 64 FIGURE 2-6 MAXIMUM DEFORMATION SKETCH FOR HORIZONTAL SUBGRADE MODULUS....... 65 FIGURE 3-1 FULL FE MODEL FOR THE BASEMAT STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS.................................. 66 FIGURE 3-2 AB STRUCTURE ANALYSIS FE MODEL........................................................................... 67 FIGURE 3-3 RCB SHELL AND DOME CONCRETE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS FE MODEL.................. 68 FIGURE 3-4 RCB INTERNAL STRUCTURE ANALYSIS FE MODEL..................................................... 69 FIGURE 3-5 BASEMAT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS FE MODEL............................................................... 70 FIGURE 3-6 LINK180 ELEMENT APPLICATION.................................................................................... 71 FIGURE 3-7 AXIAL (TRIBUTARY) AREA CALCULATION MODEL FOR THE LINK180 ELEMENT....... 72 FIGURE 3-8 TYPICAL NODAL FORCE AREA AT BOTTOM OF AB....................................................... 73 FIGURE 3-9 TYPICAL NODAL FORCE AREA AT BOTTOM OF RCB INTERNAL STRUCTURE.......... 74 FIGURE 3-10 TYPICAL NODAL FORCE AREA AT BOTTOM OF RCB SHELL AND DOME................. 75 FIGURE 3-11 JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY FOR DESIGN OF NI COMMON BASEMAT.................. 76 FIGURE 3-12 APPLICATION OF LOAD COMBINATIONS BASED ON ASME AND ACI CODE CRITERIA......................................................................................................................... 77 FIGURE 3-13 BOUNDARY CONDITION OF FOUNDATION MEDIA MODEL........................................ 78 FIGURE 4-1 DELETED............................................................................................................................ 79 FIGURE 4-2 DELETED............................................................................................................................ 80 FIGURE 4-3 DELETED............................................................................................................................ 81 FIGURE 4-4 NODE LOCATIONS AT BOTTOM OF NI COMMON BASEMAT FOR SETTLEMENT CHECK.............................................................................................................................. 82 FIGURE 4-5 DELETED............................................................................................................................ 83 FIGURE 4-6 DELETED............................................................................................................................ 84 FIGURE 4-7 DELETED............................................................................................................................ 85 FIGURE 4-8 DELETED............................................................................................................................ 86 FIGURE 4-9 DELETED............................................................................................................................ 87 FIGURE 4-10 DELETED.......................................................................................................................... 88

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP ix Non-Proprietary FIGURE 4-11 DELETED.......................................................................................................................... 89 FIGURE 4-12 DELETED.......................................................................................................................... 90 FIGURE 4-13 DELETED.......................................................................................................................... 91 FIGURE 4-14 DELETED.......................................................................................................................... 92 FIGURE 4-15 DELETED.......................................................................................................................... 93 FIGURE 5-1 DELETED............................................................................................................................ 94 FIGURE 5-2 DELETED............................................................................................................................ 95 FIGURE 5-3 DELETED............................................................................................................................ 96 FIGURE 5-4 DELETED............................................................................................................................ 97 FIGURE 5-5 3D FE MODEL FOR CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS............................................................ 98 FIGURE 5-6 INDIVIDUAL SEGMENT OF NI BASEMAT......................................................................... 99 FIGURE 5-7 INDIVIDUAL SEGMENT OF SUPERSTRUCTURE.......................................................... 100 FIGURE 5-8 COMPARISON DISPLACEMENT CONTOUR BETWEEN SEQUENTIAL AND REFERENCE ANALYSIS (S01, CASE#1)...................................................................... 101 FIGURE 5-9 COMPARISON STRESS CONTOUR BETWEEN SEQUENTIAL AND REFERENCE ANALYSIS (S01, CASE#1)............................................................................................. 104 FIGURE 5-10 COMPARISON DISPLACEMENT CONTOUR BETWEEN SEQUENTIAL AND REFERENCE ANALYSIS (S01, CASE#2)...................................................................... 105 FIGURE 5-11 COMPARISON STRESS CONTOUR BETWEEN SEQUENTIAL AND REFERENCE ANALYSIS (S01, CASE#2)............................................................................................. 108 FIGURE 5-12 COMPARISON DISPLACEMENT CONTOUR BETWEEN SEQUENTIAL AND REFERENCE ANALYSIS (S08, CASE#1....................................................................... 109 FIGURE 5-13 COMPARISON STRESS CONTOUR BETWEEN SEQUENTIAL AND REFERENCE ANALYSIS (S08, CASE#1)...................................................................... 112 FIGURE 5-14 COMPARISON DISPLACEMENT CONTOUR BETWEEN SEQUENTIAL AND REFERENCE ANALYSIS (S08, CASE#2)...................................................................... 113 FIGURE 5-15 COMPARISON STRESS CONTOUR BETWEEN SEQUENTIAL AND REFERENCE ANALYSIS (S08, CASE#2)...................................................................... 116 FIGURE 5-16 CHECK GROUP FOR TILTING SETTLEMENT.............................................................. 117 FIGURE 5-17 THE LOCATIONS FOR DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT BETWEEN STRUCTURES................................................................................................................ 118 FIGURE 5-18 CHECK GROUP FOR ANGULAR DISTORTION (UNIT: FEET)..................................... 119 FIGURE 5-19 VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT GRAPH FOR ANGULAR DISTORTION EACH GROUP OF NI BUILDING (S01)................................................................................... 125 FIGURE 5-20 VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT GRAPH FOR ANGULAR DISTORTION EACH GROUP OF NI BUILDING (S08).................................................................................... 131

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP x

Non-Proprietary ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AB auxiliary building ACI American Concrete Institute ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers APR1400 Advanced Power Reactor 1400 DFOT Diesel Fuel Oil Tank EDG Emergency Diesel Generator EDGB Emergency Diesel Generator Building FE finite element FOS factor of safety GDC general design criteria IBC international building code IRWST in-containment refueling water storage tank KEPCO Korea Electric Power Corporation KEPCO E&C Korea Electric Power Corporation Engineering and Construction KHNP Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd NI nuclear island PSW primary shield wall RCB reactor containment building SPT standard penetration test SRP standard review plan SSI soil-structure interaction SSW secondary shield wall TGB turbine generator building

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP xi Non-Proprietary Page intentionally blank

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 1

Non-Proprietary 1

INTRODUCTION This technical report is to present the analysis for the stability check(sliding and overturning), soil bearing pressure, settlement, and construction sequence for seismic category I structures (NI, EDGB and DFOT.

This report also presents the analysis and design for basemat s of NI, EDGB, and DFOT.

The NI common basemat consists of the reactor containment building (RCB) base area and auxiliary building (AB) base area structures. The RCB is structurally separate from the AB with a seismic gap of 6 in. above the common basemat. The RCB is a seismic Category I structure composed of a pre-stressed concrete cylindrical shell with a hemispherical-type dome and reinforced concrete internal structures.

The AB wraps around the RCB, leaving a space for a seismic gap above the common basemat and is a seismic Category I structure. The AB consists of reinforced concrete shear walls and slabs that constitute a lateral load-resisting system.

The NI common basemat is a reinforced concrete mat foundation with an area of 113,590 ft2. The thickness of the AB basemat is 10 ft. The thickness of the RCB basemat varies from 10 ft at the center to 33 ft at the side, except for transient areas such as the tendon gallery and reactor cavity. The NI common basemat is embedded to a depth of 55 ft below the nominal plant grade of El. 100 ft 0 in..

The bottom of the foundation is at El. 45 ft 0 in.. Figure 1-1 is a plan view of the APR1400 basemat.

Figures 1-2 and 1-3 show cross-sectional views at the containment centerline.

This technical report contains five sections. Section 1 is an introduction with background information.

Section 2 describes the site profiles for the APR1400 NI common basemat. Section 3 presents the modeling process of the finite element (FE) model for the NI common basemat analysis. Section 4 describes the stability evaluation of the NI common basemat. Section 5 presents the construction sequence analysis of the NI common basemat.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 2

Non-Proprietary 2

SITE PROFILES FOR THE APR1400 NUCLEAR ISLAND COMMON BASEMAT This section describes the low-strain site profiles for the APR1400 NI common basemat.

2.1 Shear Wave Velocities of APR1400 Sites The APR 1400 is designed with a standard design concept to enable construction on various foundation conditions enveloping rock and soil foundations. The low-strain site profiles for the APR1400 include eight site categories (S1 through S4 and S06 through S09) that represent a variety of characteristics and configurations of rock and soil foundations as well as one fixed case. Figure 2-1 shows the profile of the shear wave velocities of the eight low-strain site profiles categories. As shown in Table 2-1, unit weight and Poissons Ratio corresponding to shear wave velocity are used to evaluate each site property.

Table 2-2 shows the soil and rock definition by shear wave velocity based on the international building code (IBC).

2.2 Review of the Elastic Modulus of Low-strain Site Profiles 2.2.1 Elastic Modulus of Soil Sites In the basemat analysis, the static elastic modulus (ES) of soil is normally determined by the results of the site-specific pressure meter test. However, when the site-specific information of soil is not provided, our approach for computing the static elastic modulus is determined as reference value.

Based on the shear wave velocity, the elastic modulus of the soil is generally calculated by the following equation.

E =

2 x [2 x (1 + )]

According to subsection 1613.5.2 of IBC (2009) (Ref.1), it defines the relationship between soil shear wave velocity and the standard penetration test (STP) blow count for soils. The use of this relationship shall be limited due to the uncertainty between the STP blow count and the shear wave velocity and utilized to compute the reduction factor. The estimated E and G values are reduced to account for the materials strain softening due to higher strains.

When the shear wave velocity is less than 1800ft/s(sand soil), the range of N values at Vs =1,000 ft/sec is between 37 and 38 based on the results from IBC and Zen et al. (1987) as follows:

N = 15 + (1,000-600) / (1,200-600) x (50-15) = 38 (IBC)

Vs = 89.1 x (N)0.34 [m/sec] (Zen et al.)

The relationship between the static elastic modulus (Estatic) and the N value is provided in Bowles (1982) as follows:

Estatic = 18,000 + 750 x N (kPa)

Estatic = (15,200 to 22,000) x ln N (kPa)

Where, N = 37 (Vs =1,000 ft/sec, minimum value), the static elastic modulus is obtained as Estatic = 45,750 kPa, 54,885 kPa, and 79,440 kPa from the relationship between Estatic and N, respectively. Therefore, the mean static elastic modulus can be determined as Estatic = 60,025 kPa = 60 MPa = 1,253 ksf. Based on the relationship between the elastic modulus and the static elastic modulus, a reduction factor 0.1153, is considered for conservatism based on the STP blow count.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 3

Non-Proprietary According to in ASCE 4-98 C.3.3.2.2 (Ref.15) and Seed & Idriss (1970) (Ref.21), regarding reduction factor 0.1153, the shear modulus with shear strain level for sand varies as shown in Figure 2-4. Here is the dynamic shear modulus at very low strain (less than 0.0001%) and Gd =Vs

2.

Figure 2-4 demonstrates that the reduction of shear modulus with strain level for sand and the typical variability in the relationship. Generic data from the many field and laboratory test results supported the nonlinear behavior of soil with strain level, as shown in the figure.

Many researchers studied the nonlinear behavior of soil with strain level, that is, the change of elastic modulus of soil with strain level. by Jardine et al. (1986) (Ref.20), Mair(1993) (Ref.19) have shown that the typical static strain levels around geotechnical structures such as retaining walls, foundations, piles, and tunnels fall in the range of 0.01~0.1% (Clayton, 2011) (Ref.17). Burland (1989) (Ref.16) and Finno et al. (2006) (Ref.18) suggested that the working static strain level of soil for the well-designed foundation is on the order of 0.1%.

Considering both the Seed-Idriss curve (Figure 2-4) and the soil static working strain level of 0.1% for foundations, the GGd value corresponding to static strain level of 0.1% is in the range of 0.23 ~ 0.37 as shown in Figure 2-5. The lower bound value is 0.23. The relationship between Gs and Gd at a soil site can be considered as Gs/Gd = 0.23.

Considering the relationship between Elastic modulus E and Shear Modulus G, E=Gx[2x(1+)], the relationship between Es and Ed at a soil site also can be considered as Es/Ed = 0.23. The value of from the Seed-Idriss curve (0.23) is larger than 0.1153 from the SPT blow count related equation.

Therefore, use of Es/Ed = 0.1153 from SPT blow count is a conservative approach.

In addition, the relationship between the maximum dynamic elastic modulus (Edynamic) and Vs is as follows:

Edynamic = ( / g) x (Vs)2 x [2 x (1+ )]

Where, is unit weight, is Poissons ratio, and g is gravity acceleration. Where Vs =1,000 ft/sec, =

125 pcf, and = 0.4, the dynamic elastic modulus is Edynamic = 10,860 ksf = 520 MPa. The relationship between Estatic and Edynamic at the soil site is Estatic/ Edynamic = 0.1153.

The APR 1400 low-strain site profiles are classified as the soil foundation where the shear wave velocity (Vs) is less than 1,800 ft/sec, and the static elastic modulus (Estatic) is obtained from shear wave velocity (Vs) using the relationships defined in this subsection.

2.2.2 Elastic Modulus of Rock Site The dynamic elastic modulus (Edynamic) of the rock foundation is obtained from the relationship between Edynamic and Vs in the same way as the soil foundation. In the rock foundation, the static elastic modulus can be calculated as the relationship between static and dynamic elastic moduli of rock.

Figure 2-2 shows the relationship between the static and dynamic elastic moduli of rock (Estatic/Edynamic).

VP and VL in Figure 2-2 denote the compressional wave velocity in the field and the indoor sound test wave velocity, respectively (Deere, 1966). The reduction factor is the ratio of static elastic modulus to the dynamic elastic modulus (Estatic /Edynamic). According to Figure 2-2, at soft rock with a low rock quality

([VP / VL]2 or rock-quality designation), is between approximately 0.15 and 0.2. For relatively hard rock with a rock quality greater than 0.6, is approximately 0.3.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 4

Non-Proprietary The relationship between the maximum dynamic elastic modulus and shear wave velocity at a rock site is identical to that provided for soil. The static and dynamic elastic moduli of soft rock (Vs 2,500 ft/sec) and relatively hard rock (Vs > 2,500 ft/sec) are 0.15 and 0.3, respectively.

2.3 Material Properties and Subgrade Modulus of Site Profiles for the APR1400 The material properties according to depth from the ground level of the site profiles for the APR1400 are obtained from Sections 2.1 and 2.2. In the tables in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, the material properties are provided according to the depth from the ground level. Among the eight site categories and fixed case, S1, S4, and S8 are considered in the analysis. S1, S4, and S8 denote weak, moderate, and strong site properties, respectively. The analyses used to evaluate the site cases enveloped all of the site categories considered for the APR1400.

The subgrade moduli of three site profiles are obtained from an ANSYS analysis. The site properties used in the ANSYS ground model with 11 layers are based on the basemat analysis calculation and are shown in Table 2-3. The analysis for computing subgrade modulus of vertical and horizontal was performed separately for horizontal displacement and vertical displacement. For subgrade modulus to consider soil characteristics, vertical soil pressure 1ksf was applied to surface of basemat foundation region. In order to consider the boussinesq effect in soil vertical spring throughout the basemat, the subgrade modulus of the vertical soil spring was calculated based on the vertical displacement of each basemat node.

In case of horizontal subgrade modulus, it was determined using two-thirds of the horizontal displacement since the horizontal displacements corresponding to the depth are parabolic shape. In order to consider the equivalent subgrade modulus against the embedment length, two-thirds of the maximum displacement was used for horizontal subgrade modulus. Figure 2-6 below provides justification for the horizontal subgrade modulus used. In the figure 2-6, nodes are expected to occur at the maximum horizontal displacement based on the analysis result for horizontal subgrade modulus. The trapezoid area of A is almost 2.65 and the quadrangle area B considered equivalent value is almost 2.66. So, the horizontal subgrade modulus used in the analysis is equivalent value of the embedment length of building structure. Figure 2-3 shows the deformation contour of ground models. Table 2-4 shows the subgrade moduli of site profiles that are obtained from the ANSYS analysis.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 5

Non-Proprietary 3

APR1400 NUCLEAR ISLAND COMMON BASEMAT ANALYSIS MODEL This section presents the FE modeling process for the NI common basemat analysis.

3.1 General The following considerations are made for the FE model development methodology for the APR1400 NI structures:

Among the eight site profiles and the fixed case defined in the project, S1, S4, and S8 are considered in the NI common basemat analysis. S1, S4, and S8 denote weak, moderate, and strong site properties, respectively. The analyses used to evaluate the site cases enveloped all of the site categories considered for the APR1400.

The NI common basemat is analyzed using an FE method and a solid-element model for the entire mat, including the tendon gallery, because of the asymmetric features of the NI structures.

The FE model for the superstructures, including the RCB shell and dome, RCB internal structure, and AB structure are connected to the solid basemat model to simulate the stiffness effect of the superstructures to the basemat.

The NI common basemat model considers the interaction of the basemat with the ground, such as the possible basemat uplift from the ground. The LINK elements for the compression-only (gap) condition are used for the ground model.

The purpose of the model development is to create a three-dimensional FE model for the APR1400 NI common basemat analysis, which includes the RCB shell and dome, RCB internal structure, and AB structure. The three-dimensional FE analysis is carried out using the ANSYS program.

3.2 Development of Finite Element Models for Nuclear Island Structures 3.2.1 Geometry and Coordinate System The coordinate system for the model development of NI structures is the rectangular Cartesian coordinate system as follows:

X (1): Along plant east-west, positive toward east side Y (2): Along plant north-south, positive toward north side Z (3): Positive vertical up The units used in the model are as follows:

Length : ft.

Force : kip.

Stress : ksf Weight per unit volume : kcf

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 6

Non-Proprietary 3.2.2 Material Properties Linear-elastic material properties of concrete including modulus of elasticity, Poissons Ratio and mass density are used in accordance with design criteria for the APR1400. The material properties of the NI structures are summarized in Table 3-1.

3.2.3 Finite Element Model The NI structure is modeled using the following ANSYS program shell, solid, beam, and link elements:

NI common basemat: SOLID185 elements RCB shell and dome: SOLID185 elements In-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) and fill concrete: SOLID185 elements Primary shield wall (PSW): SOLID185 elements Secondary shield wall (SSW): SHELL181 elements AB concrete wall and slab: SHELL181 elements AB steel column and girder: BEAM4 Nonlinear ground (compression only): LINK180 The nominal element size in the NI common basemat is approximately 5 feet. Figure 3-1 shows the full FE model for the basemat structural analysis. In addition, the AB structure, RCB internal structure, RCB shell and dome, and basemat structure analysis models are shown in Figures 3-2 through 3-5, respectively.

3.2.4 Boundary Condition In order to represent the soil characteristics, the basemat analysis considered different approaches corresponding to applied loading; one approach is the soil spring approach for static loading case, another approach is the foundation media approach for dynamic loading case.

• Static Case : Link 180 In the case of a nonlinear soil spring (LINK180), it was applied for structural design member forces of basemat for load combination except seismic loading case (LC01~ LC07). Link (LINK180) elements are used for boundary conditions between the basemat structure and ground to consider the compressive behavior of the underlying subgrade. The LINK180 element is a uniaxial tension-compression element with three degrees of freedom for translation in the nodal x, y, and z directions at each node. It is useful to describe the tension-only (cable) and/or compression-only (gap) condition.

The horizontal springs are not located beneath the basemat. These are only located along the vertical side surface of the basemat since these are enough to sustain horizontal forces. The horizontal springs along the embedded walls are not considered due to uncertainty of passive soil pressure and the fact that the horizontal forces are not dominant for analysis.

Figure 3-6 shows the LINK180 element application as the boundary condition. The compression-only option is applied to the LINK180 elements connected directionally with the basemat structure, and the

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 7

Non-Proprietary fixed-boundary condition is applied to the opposite side node of the LINK180 element. The stiffness of the LINK180 element is defined to represent the entire soil column below basemat. Axial (tributary) areas of LINK180 elements are calculated by applying unit pressure to additional modeled shell element models that have the same geometry as the basemat model. Figure 3-7 shows the analysis model for the tributary area calculation.

• Seismic case: Foundation Media Model (Solid 185)

Foundation model was used for structural design member forces of the basemat for load combinations including seismic loading. For the material characteristic of the foundation model, the strain-compactable shear wave velocity was utilized to calculate the dynamic elastic modulus for soil stiffness in the foundation media model based on the following equation.

E =

2 x [2 x (1 + )]

Figure 3-13 shows the foundation media model application as the boundary condition. The material properties of foundation media such as dynamic elastic modulus, poisson's ratio, and unit weight, are used as described in Table 2-5. To consider the connection between the basemat and foundation media, the contact element is applied. The contact element (Conta174 element) is used to represent contact and sliding between target surfaces and deformable surface. Among the Conta174 element characteristics, the contact surface behaviors are applied for vertical contact as a standard option. It means that normal pressure equals zero if separation occurs. The coefficient of friction (S1, S4, and S8) between the bottom of contact element and target element is considered with 0.55. In addition, the bonded option for horizontal contact is used.

3.2.5 Applied Loads The applied loads analysis considers dead loads, live loads, post-tension loads for tendons embedded in the RCB shell and dome, containment pressure loads, pipe break load, seismic load, and buoyancy load due to groundwater.

The dead load of the NI common basemat is calculated by applying the vertical acceleration to the basemat structure. Self-weight of the FE model is calculated in the ANSYS analysis automatically.

Reaction forces for dead loads, live loads, post-tension loads of tendon embedded RCB shell and dome, containment pressure loads, pipe break load, seismic load, and buoyance load calculated from the analysis results for each superstructure are applied as nodal force to the basemat structure model.

Figures 3-8 through 3-10 show the application of typical nodal force for basemat structural analyses.

The equivalent static accelerations method is used for consideration of seismic loads in the NI common basemat analysis on the RCB shell and dome, RCB internal structures, and Auxiliary building. Linear analysis for uplift, and nonlinear analysis for no-uplift are performed for the NI common basemat analysis.

For the linear case, the SRSS method is used for three seismic excitation combinations. Ninety-six cases of the 100-40-40 combination method, considering different phases of three superstructures, are used in the nonlinear case. Table 3-8 shows the 96 seismic cases for the NI basemat analysis under nonlinear condition. In addition, torsional load is separately considered in the separate basemat analysis.

The results from the separate analysis are combined by absolute sum method to the results from seismic load.

For checking the adequacy of using the 100-40-40 method, four cases of basemat analysis are analyzed where member forces are compared.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 8

Non-Proprietary

1) 100-40-40 in the application of load level under linear condition

2) 100-40-40 in the application of result level (member forces) under linear condition

3) 100-40-40 in the application of load level under nonlinear condition

4) SRSS in the application of result level (member forces) under linear condition The comparisons show that the use of the 100-40-40 method in the load application to the basemat is similar to using the 100-40-40 method in the individual member forces combination.

Both the linear case (fully connected basemat to foundation) and nonlinear case (no connectivity between basemat and foundation when basemat uplift occurs) are included in the design. Based on the comparison member forces between nonlinear case and the SSI analysis, 96 cases are sufficient to cover all permutations caused by superstructure. Therefore, the conservative design of the basemat is performed under linear and nonlinear conditions, since it bounds the issue of no uplift/uplift. The envelop of these two cases is used for design of the members. Under the nonlinear condition, it is performed using 96 cases using the 100-40-40 method considering different phasing of three superstructures.

3.2.6 Load Combinations The design basis of RCB and AB base structures conforms to the requirements of the American Society of Mechancial Engineers (ASME) code and American Concrete Institute (ACI) code, respectively. The boundary of jurisdiction between the ASME code and ACI code is shown in Figure 3-11. Because the design criteria are different, the application of load combinations for the NI common basemat is divided into two parts. Figure 3-12 represents the application of load combinations based on the code criteria.

As shown in Figure 3-12, the load combinations provided by ASME and ACI are used for the analysis and design of the RCB and AB basemats, respectively. The division of the basemat by code jurisdiction at the thickness transition is a logical choice, and the boundary of the code jurisdiction is conservatively designed using the greater forces from the analysis results of ASME and ACI codes.

Load combinations and load factors for the RCB and AB basemats are selected based on the relevant design code as shown in Figure 3-12. The five loading combinations (i.e., test, normal, severe, abnormal, and abnormal/extreme environmental conditions) are selected as the critical loading combinations in the NI common basemat analysis. The abnormal/extreme environmental loading combination includes the seismic load. Tables 3-6 and 3-7 show selected loading condition for RCB basemat and selected loading condition for AB basemat, respectively. Therefore, the abnormal/extreme environmental load combinations are conservatively divided into the two cases for SRSS combination and 96 cases for nonlinear combination to account for the possibility of phase behaviors as described in Subsection 3.2.5. Therefore, the load cases for the NI common basemat can be summarized as shown in Table 3-5.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 9

Non-Proprietary 4

STABILITY EVALUATION OF THE NUCLEAR ISLAND COMMON BASEMAT This section presents the stability evaluation of the APR1400 NI common basemat against overturning, sliding, and flotation, and an evaluation of the settlement of NI common basemat.

4.1 Settlement of the Nuclear Island Common Basemat 4.1.1 Basemat Uplift This section presents the uplift check of the NI common basemat during seismic excitation. According to NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan (SRP) 3.7.2, calculation of the ground contact ratio to provide reasonable assurance that the linear soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis remains valid is required.

The ground contact ratio is defined as the minimum ratio of the foundation area in contact with the ground to the total area of the foundation. The linear SSI analysis methods are acceptable if the ground contact ratio is equal to or greater than 80 percent.

The ground contact ratio calculation is performed according to the guidance in SRP Section 3.7.2.II.4.

The site profiles, S01, S04, and S08, are considered to calculate the area of the basemat in contact with the soil. The contact area is calculated by checking the stress of the relatively stiff spring elements which connect the NI basemat and the underlying soil in the SSI analysis model. In order to obtain the stresses, the z-directional force components of the spring elements computed at each time step throughout the SSI analysis of NI structures are divided by their tributary areas.

Load combinations consider all possible permutations of the z-directional forces resulting from the three directional seismic inputs (total of eight combinations). Algebraic summation is applied at each time step to consider the combined effect of input motions in the x-, y-, and z-directions. The final resultant stress time histories are combined with the stresses obtained from the z-directional springs of the static load analysis. The static loads include the dead load, the seismic live load (25% of live loads), and the buoyancy load due to groundwater. Due to the different mesh configuration between the SSI analysis model and the structural analysis model, the nodal stress of the SSI analysis model is combined with the average stress of the nearest nodes of the structural analysis model. Table 4-1 shows the minimum contact ratios of the area of the basemat in contact with the soil to the total area of the basemat. The minimum ground contact ratio considering the APR1400 NI common basemat uplift is greater than 80 percent.

4.1.2 Differential Settlement Checks of the differential settlements of the NI common basemat are presented in this subsection. The differential settlements are divided by the differential settlement within the NI common basemat and the differential settlement between the NI basemat and other buildings.

For the differential settlements by static loading, the dead and live loads (D+L) are applied in the basemat.

The node locations used to check the settlement are determined based on the deformation results of the NI common basemat. In addition, the nodes within a distance of approximately 50 ft are selected to check the differential settlement. Figure 4-4 shows the description and node location at the bottom of the NI common basemat for checking the settlement. Table 4-2 shows the differential settlements at S1, S4, and S8. The maximum differential settlements per 50 ft for S1, S4, and S8 are 0.209, 0.091, and 0.039 in., respectively.

In addition, differential settlement between NI common basemat and other buildings basemat is evaluated for seismic category I structures. For the case of differential settlement between the NI common basemat and TGB basemat it is not evaluated since TGB is not a seismic category I structures and there are no safety related systems in TGB.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 10 Non-Proprietary 4.1.3 Site Interface for the Nuclear Island Common Basemat The bearing pressures of the NI common basemat by static and seismic loadings are evaluated in this subsection.

For the bearing pressure, the D+L load (static) case and LC08 through LC15 (dynamic) cases are applied in the basemat. Maximum static bearing pressures are determined based on spring forces and tributary areas under static loading cases (Dead + Live loads).

The maximum dynamic soil bearing pressure was determined based on the contact pressure obtained from design load combinations 08 ~ 105. Due to singularity, dynamic bearing pressures near edge of the foundation tend to result in higher than others. However, as reported in technical literature, theoretical equations result in very high bearing pressures near the edges of the basemat due to singularity. In accordance with the postulated pressure distribution for combined static and dynamic loads, the bearing failure point moves away from the edge of the basemat. Therefore, it does point to the need for a more realistic treatment of the theoretically derived peak pressures near the edges. Therefore, maximum dynamic bearing pressures are calculated to consider the redistribution of peak bearing pressures over a more reasonable range of distances from the edge or corner of the basemat.

For reasonable range of distances from the edge or corner of the basemat, distance inward from the edge of a basemat equal to the wall thickness plus 1/2 of the basemat thickness is used. Twenty-five percent of length in significant stiffness wall connecting to the basemat is determined as length of redistribution along the edge of the basemat based on contact pressure contour. Table 4-4 shows the bearing pressures by static and dynamic loadings. These bearing pressures are satisfied because the allowable bearing capacity is less than or equal to 20 ksf (static) and 60 ksf (dynamic).

4.2 Stability Check of the Nuclear Island Common Basemat The NI common basemat structure is evaluated for stability against overturning, sliding, and flotation.

The calculated factors of safety against overturning, sliding, and flotation for the applicable load combinations satisfy the criteria shown in Table 4-5.

The normal design groundwater elevation for the APR1400 is 96.67 ft. The extreme groundwater elevation (design basis flood level) is the same as the plant grade level (98.67 ft) for seismic Category I, II, and III structures considering the probable maximum flood level.

In the design of the APR1400, the stability check against sliding, overturning, and flotation of NI common basemat is based on the factor of safety specified in Table 4.5. There are four (4) load combinations for the stability check as follows:

(LC1) D + H + W (Wind)

(LC2) D + H + E (SSE)

(LC3) D + H + Wt (Tornado)

(LC4) D + F (Flood)

The review results of Nuclear Island (NI) common basemat for each load combination are as the following:

(LC1) Because the maximum forces induced by the SSE are much larger than those by wind/tornado, the wind/tornado load is not necessary to be considered in the stability evaluation of the NI structure.

However, the allowable factor of safety (FOS) for wind is 1.5 different from that for seismic load. The wind load combination LC1 is evaluated for overturning and sliding of the NI structure for justification.

Overturning and sliding FOS in wind load combination LC1 is shown in the table below. As shown in the table, both overturning and sliding FOS exceeds the allowable FOS of 1.5. In wind load combination LC1, buoyancy at normal design groundwater elevation is used.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 11 Non-Proprietary Stability FOS of NI Common Basemat for Wind Item FOS for Wind Allowable FOS Overturning 16.46 1.5 Sliding 8.30 1.5 (LC2) The evaluation result for the SSE load combination LC2 is provided in Subsections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 against overturning and sliding, respectively. In SSE load combination LC2, the buoyancy at normal design ground water elevation is used.

(LC3) In the stability check, the seismic load governs over wind/tornado load. The allowable FOS of both SSE load combination LC2 and tornado load combination LC3 are same. Therefore, the load combination LC3 is governed by SSE load combination LC2.

(LC4) The evaluation result for the flood load combination LC4 is provided in Subsection 4.2.3. The buoyancy at extreme ground water elevation is used.

In conclusion, overturning and sliding of the NI common basemat are governed by SSE load combination LC2 and flotation is governed by flood load combination LC4.

In the earthquake load, axial force, shear force, and moment due to horizontal and vertical excitation of the structure are obtained from seismic analysis. Table 4-6 shows the enveloped results of the seismic analysis corresponding to each site profile (S1 through S9).

4.2.1 Overturning Check For the overturning check, the possible minimum resisting moment and maximum driving moment are conservatively calculated. In addition, when overturning is checked in combination with seismic forces (Es), the hydrostatic force at the design water level (He) is used. Minimum resisting moment is obtained by multiplying the effective dead load by the minimum distance. The effective dead load is calculated by subtraction of buoyant force and maximum seismic uplift force from dead weight. Maximum driving moment consists of the overturning moments due to maximum horizontal moments, maximum seismic shear forces. 100% of maximum moments and 100% of maximum forces for the three directions are used in the overturning check.

Minimum resisting moment = 7.125x107 kips-ft Maximum driving moment = 5.764x107 kips-ft Factor of safety (FOS) for D+He+Es load combination minimum resisting moment / maximum driving moment = 1.24 > 1.1 4.2.2 Sliding Check The resistance forces against sliding of the common basemat are checked for the driving shear forces generated from the seismic load. The basemat friction force is considered to resist the sliding of the common basemat. In the sliding check, the shear key and earth pressure effects are considered. In addition, when sliding is checked in combination with seismic forces, the hydrostatic force at the design water level is used.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 12 Non-Proprietary The factor of safety against sliding is calculated by the ratio of resisting force to driving force. The factor of safety against sliding is calculated at each time step for each soil case, i.e., by linear time history method. In this case, the minimum value is selected as the factor of safety.

The driving force is calculated from seismic horizontal force of the structure. From the time history analysis result, the total sum of seismic horizontal force of the structure is obtained for E-W and N-S direction, respectively. At each time step, resultant horizontal driving force is calculated from the E-W and N-S direction forces by square root of sum of their squares.

The resisting force consists of two categories: resisting force by base friction and resisting force by shear keys.

The resisting force by base friction is based on the minimum friction force between the sliding interfaces.

In the calculation of the resistant force, the coefficient of friction of 0.55 is used. It is based on that the coefficient of friction between waterproofing membrane and lean concrete is the minimum value among the interfaces of dissimilar materials. The minimum angle of internal friction of supporting medium is 35 degrees, which leads to a coefficient of friction of 0.7. The coefficient of friction between the lean concrete and foundation concrete may be used as 1.0 or higher because construction joints of APR1400 shall be intentionally roughened. The resisting force by base friction is calculated by multiplication of effective dead weight and coefficient of friction. For the calculation of the effective dead weight, probable adverse effects of the buoyant force from design ground water level and seismic uplift force are considered.

For the resisting force by shear keys, partial concave and convex areas of the basemat that are expected to play a role as shear keys are considered. Shear keys may be used to provide additional resistance against basemat sliding. In this sliding evaluation, the difference of passive soil pressure and active soil pressure are considered as the additional resistance provided the direct shear strength on the sliding soil face is larger than the force by passive soil.

Finally, the minimum factor of safety against sliding during the entire time period and for all soil cases is obtained as 1.25 which exceeds the acceptable value of 1.1, as shown in the table below.

Stability FOS of NI Common Basemat for Earthquake Soil Case Minimum Factor of Safety S01 1.516 S02 1.585 S03 1.483 S04 1.375 S05 1.411 S06 1.259 S07 1.247 S08 1.360 S09 1.333

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 13 Non-Proprietary 4.2.3 Flotation Check Flotation problems may be encountered during construction, operation, or flood condition. The deadweight of the structure is used to resist the hydrostatic uplift. For the flotation check, the hydrostatic force at flooding groundwater level (Hs) is used. Any skin friction between the subgrade exterior walls and backfill is conservatively neglected.

Resisting force = 1,232,270 kips Weights of the basemat and superstructures are the resisting force.

Maximum driving force = 364,029.4 kips

- The hydrostatic force at flooding ground water level is the driving force.

Factor of safety (FOS) for D+Hs)

- 1,232,270 / 364,029.4 = 3.39 > 1.1

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 14 Non-Proprietary 5

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ANALYSIS This section presents the construction sequence analysis of the APR1400 NI building for the evaluation of the settlement of the NI common basemat including superstructures (Auxiliary Building, Containment Internal structure, and Containment Shell & Dome) during construction and post-construction phases.

5.1 General The construction sequence analysis accounts for the construction sequence and the associated varying loads and stiffness of the NI common basemat including superstructures. The construction sequence analysis focuses on the response of the basemat in the early stages of construction when it could be susceptible to loading and deformations which are changed due to construction stages. 52 segments are constructed to simulate the concrete placement and hardening stages for the construction sequence analyses of basemat and superstructures (Auxiliary Building, Containment Shell & Dome, Containment internal structure).

The construction sequence scenarios are based on construction experience from the Shin-Kori Nuclear Power Plant Unit 4 (SKN 4). Figure 5-5 shows the 3D FE model used for construction sequence analysis, and Tables 5-1, 5-4, and 5-5 represent the sequence of the construction stage. In accordance with Figures 5-6 and 5-7, Tables 5-1, 5-4, and 5-5, construction sequence analyses are performed.

5.2 Development of Finite Element Models for the Construction Sequence Analysis 5.2.1 Material Properties The concrete used in the construction sequence analysis is normal weight concrete with the compressive strength of 5,000 psi at 91 days for NI common basemat and 6,000 psi at 91 days for superstructures.

However, the concrete strength is assumed for four hardening conditions to consider strength changes due to the concrete pouring sequence. The purpose of this assumption is to check the stress changes of the concrete according to the hardening (curing) time.

In this report, the relationship between the age and strength of the concrete complies with the relationship of moist-cured concrete made with normal Portland cement. The elasticity modulus of concrete is calculated using the equation, 57,000fc as given in ACI-349. In addition, the compressive strength based on the hardening time is classified as follows:

Compressive strength according to the hardening time for 5,000 psi:

Hardening Step 1 (H1): 0.57 = 2,850 psi Hardening Step 2 (H2): 0.74 = 3,700 psi Hardening Step 3 (H3): 0.85 = 4,250 psi Hardening Step 4 (H4): 1.00 = 5,000 psi The corresponding elastic moduli are:

Hardening Step 1 (H1): E = 4.3819 x 105 ksf

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 15 Non-Proprietary Hardening Step 2 (H2): E = 4.9927 x 105 ksf Hardening Step 3 (H3): E = 5.3510 x 105 ksf Hardening Step 4 (H4): E = 5.8039 x 105 ksf Compressive strength according to the hardening time for 6,000 psi:

Hardening Step 1 (H1): 0.57 = 3,420 psi Hardening Step 2 (H2): 0.74 = 4,440 psi Hardening Step 3 (H3): 0.85 = 5,100 psi Hardening Step 4 (H4): 1.00 = 6,000 psi The corresponding elastic moduli are:

Hardening Step 1 (H1): E = 4.8001 x 105 ksf Hardening Step 2 (H2): E = 5.4693 x 105 ksf Hardening Step 3 (H3): E = 5.8617 x 105 ksf Hardening Step 4 (H4): E = 6.3579 x 105 ksf For the construction sequence analysis, the S08 and S01 soil profiles are considered.

5.2.2 Finite Element Model The FE models for the construction sequence analysis consist of the following:

Ground (El. -900 ft 0 in. to El. 100 ft 0 in.)

Basemat concrete segment for concrete pouring Three superstructures (Auxiliary Building, Containment Internal structure, and Containment Shell & Dome)

The SOLID185 elements in the ANSYS program are used for the ground and basemat model. In addition, the fixed boundary condition is applied to the bottom, and the roller boundary condition is applied to the sides of the foundation media model. Figure 5-5 shows the FE models for construction sequence analysis.

Specially, the Birth and Death options in the ANSYS are applied for analyzing excavation, staged construction, sequential assembly. To achieve the effect of element death, the program deactivates them by multiplying deactivation factor to their stiffness. In like manner, when elements are born, they are simply reactivated. To consider the role of concrete form, some nodes which experience initial hardening stage are restrained in the horizontal direction and then the form is removed when the concrete strength is over 70% of design compressive strength.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 16 Non-Proprietary 5.3 Construction Sequence Analysis Results For the review of the effect on construction sequence analysis, sequence No.22, No.58, and No.59 are chosen as key sequence step.

Sequence Number Description Application No.22 Completion of construction of NI common basemat Settlement Evaluation No.58 Completion of construction of all superstructures (AB, CIS, Containment Shell & Dome)

Settlement Evaluation, Member force Evaluation No.59 End of plant lifetime to consider creep effect of soil Settlement Evaluation Member force Evaluation 5.3.1 Comparison between reference analysis and sequential analysis The purpose of this subsection is to check influence of construction sequence on settlement. For simplified explanation, Sequence analysis is to consider construction sequences. On the contrary, Reference analysis does not consider construction sequences.

Figure 5-8 shows the comparison of displacement contour between sequence analysis (sequence No. 58 of case #1) and reference analysis in soil profile S01. Figure 5-9 shows the comparison of stress contours (SX, SY, SZ) between sequence analysis (sequence No. 58 of case #1) and reference analysis in soil profile S01, respectively. Case #1 represents count clock-wise directional construction sequence of superstructures.

Figure 5-10 shows the comparison of displacement contour between sequence analysis (sequence No.

58 of case #2) and reference analysis in soil profile S01. Figure 5-11 shows the comparison of stress contours (SX, SY, SZ) between sequence analysis (sequence No. 58 of case #2) and reference analysis in soil profile S01, respectively. Case #2 represents clock-wise directional construction sequence of superstructures.

Figure 5-12 shows the comparison of displacement contour between sequence analysis (sequence No.

58 of case #1) and reference analysis in soil profile S08. Figure 5-13 shows the comparison of stress contours (SX, SY, SZ) between sequence analysis (sequence No. 58 of case #1) and reference analysis in soil profile S08, respectively.

Figure 5-14 shows the comparison of displacement contour between sequence analysis (sequence No.

58 of case #2) and reference analysis in soil profile S08. Figure 5-15 shows the comparison of stress contours (SX, SY, SZ) between sequence analysis (sequence No. 58 of case #2) and reference analysis in soil profile S08, respectively.

5.3.2 Four types of settlement 5.3.2.1 Maximum vertical settlement Maximum vertical displacement is the maximum calculated vertical deformation for the construction and post-construction phases under sequence No.58 and 59, respectively. Table 5-6 shows the maximum settlement for construction and post-construction phases. For the EDG and DFOT, the maximum vertical settlement and differential settlement between structures are determined.

5.3.2.2 Maximum tilting settlement Tilting settlement is calculated as the ratio of the differential vertical settlement for at the opposite edges of the buildings to the length between two edges. To check tilting settlement, the check points are

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 17 Non-Proprietary determined as shown figure 5-16. Of the construction sequence, the maximum tilting settlement for the construction and post-construction phase is checked by following equations under sequence No.58, end of construction, and No. 59, end of post-construction as shown in Table 5-7. For EDGB and DFOT buildings, construction sequence and tilting settlement are not needed because these buildings are relatively small and simple structures, and there are sufficient gaps between the EDGB/DFOT buildings and NI buildings.

Maximum tilting settlement = arctan (Uz/L) 5.3.2.3 Maximum differential settlement between structures For maximum differential settlement between structures under construction and post-construction, vertical settlement of NI basemat is obtained from sequence No.58 and No.59. Vertical settlement of EDGB/DFOT is obtained from analysis not considered construction sequence analysis since the other structures (i. e., EDGB/ DFOT) are not required. The construction sequence analysis is not needed because these buildings are small and simple structures, and these are sufficient gaps between the EDGB/DFOT buildings and NI buildings. For differential settlement between adjacent structures, it is determined based on following six cases. Table 5-8 shows the summary of differential settlement between NI common basemat and EDGB/ DFOT basemat. Figure 5-17 shows the locations for differential settlement between structures.

1) Difference between maximum vertical settlement regarding adjacent nodes of EDGB and minimum vertical settlement regarding adjacent nodes of NI common basemat.

2) Difference between minimum vertical settlement regarding adjacent nodes of EDGB and maximum vertical settlement regarding adjacent nodes of NI common basemat.

3) Difference between maximum vertical settlement regarding adjacent nodes of DFOT and minimum vertical settlement regarding nodes of NI common basemat.

4) Difference between minimum vertical settlement regarding adjacent nodes of DFOT and maximum vertical settlement regarding nodes of NI common basemat.

5) Difference between maximum vertical settlement regarding adjacent nodes of DFOT and minimum vertical settlement regarding nodes of EDGB basemat.

6) Difference between minimum vertical settlement regarding adjacent nodes of DFOT and maximum vertical settlement regarding nodes of EDGB basemat.

5.3.2.4 Angular distortion Maximum Angular distortion is = /L is a measure of differential vertical displacement between two adjacent points separated by the distance, L. To determine the angular distortion, three sequences (sequence No. 22, No.58, and No.59) of all sequences are selected for soil profile S01 and two sequences (sequence No.22 and No.58) for soil profile S08. Based on deformation result from each sequence (No.22, 58, and No.59), the 12 groups are determined to check points for angular distortion as shown Figure 5-18. These groups are selected along vertical, horizontal and diagonal direction based on starting points. The coordinates in the four boxes indicate the starting points of the red lines for each group For checking angular distortion per each group corresponding to soil profiles (S1, S8), it is plotted by vertical displacement along the distance between adjacent nodes within each group as indicated in

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 18 Non-Proprietary Figures 5-19 and 5-20. As shown figures 5-19 and 5-20 regarding to angular distortion plotted from adjacent nodes within nodes, the red line indicated the boundary of each segment of basemat. The change of sharp slope indicated in red line is caused by the difference of construction time. In order words, the reason why the shift is occurred is to consider different construction steps at the same nodes in the analysis.

Therefore, slope due to step change is not considered for angular distortion. For EDGB and DFOT buildings, construction sequence and maximum angular distortion are not needed because these buildings are relatively small and simple structures, and there are sufficient gaps between the EDGB/DFOT buildings and NI buildings.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 19 Non-Proprietary 6

CONCLUSIONS The stability check for the NI common basemat of the APR1400 is carried out and evaluated in this document. Among the eight site categories and fixed case, the weak, moderate, and strong site properties are considered for stability evaluation of the NI common basemat. The three-dimensional FE model including the RCB shell and dome, RCB internal structure, and AB structure for the APR1400 NI common basemat analysis is created and the FE analysis is carried out using the ANSYS program From the results of the settlement of NI common basemat, several load combination cases are shown to have the uplift phenomenon. However, the contact area of APR1400 NI common basemat during basemat uplift is 80 percent or greater. It is concluded that the linear SSI analysis methods are acceptable according to SRP 3.7.2. In addition, the differential settlement within the NI common basemat and the differential settlement between the NI basemat and other builidngs are acceptable according to the criteria for the differential settlement, which is 0.5 in. differential settlement per 50 ft.

The NI common basemat structure is also evaluated for stability against overturning, sliding, and flotation in the document. From the results of the stability of NI common basemat, the calculated FOS against overturning, sliding, and flotation is within the required FOS. In addition, the construction sequence analysis of the APR1400 NI common basemat is performed for the evaluation of the settlement of the NI common basemat during construction. The construction sequence and the associated varying loads and stiffnesses of the NI common basemat are considered. From the results of construction sequence analysis, it is concluded that the settlement of basemat is acceptable.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 20 Non-Proprietary 7

REFERENCES

1.

International Building Code (IBC), Earthquake Loads, Section 1613, International Code Council, 2006.

2.

K. Zen, H. Yamazaki, and Y. Umehara, Experimental Study on Shear Modulus and Damping Ratio of Natural Deposits for Seismic Response Analysis, Report of the Port and Harbour Research Institute 26 (1987),41-113.

3.

J. E. Bowles, Foundation Analysis & Design (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982).

4.

D. -U. Deere, Design of Surface and Near-Surface Construction in Rock, Proceedings of the 8th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS), 15-17, September, Minneapolis, MN, 1966.

5.

ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 2, Code for Concrete Containments:

Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2001.

6.

ACI 349-97, Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, 1997.

7.

NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan (SRP) 3.7.2, Seismic System Analysis, Draft Rev. 4, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 2013.

8.

R. -E. Hunt, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Handbook (London: CRC Press, 2005).

9.

KEPCO E&C, Containment Building Seismic Analysis, APR1400 DC Calc. No.: 1-310-C305-001, Rev.5, 2017-10-18.

10.

KEPCO E&C, Auxiliary Building Seismic Analysis, APR1400 DC Calc. No.: 1-320-C305-001, Rev.4, 2017-10-26.

11.

KEPCO E&C, Containment Building - Analysis of NI common basemat, APR1400 DC Calc. No.:

1-311-C304-001, Rev.5, 2017-12-21.

12.

KEPCO E&C, Containment Building - Analysis of Concrete Shell and Dome, APR1400 DC Calc. No.: 1-316-C304-001, Rev.4, 2016-06-14.

13.

KEPCO E&C, Containment Building Primary Shield Wall Analysis, APR1400 DC Calc. No.: 1-317-C304-001, Rev.5, 2017-02-08.

14.

KEPCO E&C, Auxiliary Building Structure Analysis, APR1400 DC Calc. No.: 1-320-C304-002, Rev.5, 2017-05-10.

15.

ASCE 4-98 Seismic Analysis of Safety related Nuclear Structures and Commentary

16.

Burland, J. B. (1989), Small is beautiful: the stiffness of soils at small strains, Ninth Laurits Bjerrum Lecture. Can. Geotech. J. 26, No. 4, 499-516.

17.

Clayton, C. R.I. (2011), Stiffness at small strain: research and practice,Geotechnique 61, No. 1, 5-37.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 21 Non-Proprietary

18.

Finno, Richard J. and Tu, Xuin (2006), Selected topics in numerical simulation of supported excavations, Proceedings of the International Conference on Numerical Modeling of Construction Processes in Geotechnical Engineering for Urban Environment, 3-19.

19.

Jardine, R. J., Potts, D. M., Fourie, A. B. & Burland, J. B. (1986). Studies of the influence of nonlinear stress-strain characteristics in soil-structure interaction, Geotechnique 36, No. 3, 377-397.

20.

Mair, R. J. (1993), Developments in geotechnical engineering research: applications to tunnels and deep excavations, Unwin Memorial Lecture 1992, Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs, Civ. Engng 3, No.

1, 27-41.

21.

Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. (1970), Soil Moduli and damping factors for Dynamic Response Analysis, Report No. 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California Berkeley.

22.

KEPCO E&C, NI Building Construction Sequence Analysis, APR1400 DC Calc. No.: 1-311-C304-001, Rev.0, 2017-03-31.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 22 Non-Proprietary Table 2-1 Unit Weight and Poissons Ratio According to Shear Wave Velocity Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (ft/sec)

Unit Weight, (pcf)

Poissons Ratio, Remark Vs = 1,000~1,999 ft/sec 125 0.40 Vs = 2,000~3,999 ft/sec 130 0.38 Vs = 4,000~5,999 ft/sec 135 0.35 Vs = 6,000~9,199 ft/sec 145 0.33 Vs 9,200 ft/sec 155 0.33 Fixed condition

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 23 Non-Proprietary Table 2-2 Ground Type Based on IBC Item Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (ft/sec)

N (Standard Penetration Test)

Hard Rock Vs > 5,000 ft/sec Medium Hard Rock Vs = 2,500~5,000 ft/sec Very Dense Soil or Soft Rock Vs = 1,200~2,500 ft/sec

> 50 Dense Soil Vs = 600~1,200 ft/sec 15~50 Soft Soil Vs < 600 ft/sec

< 15

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 24 Non-Proprietary Table 2-3 Site Properties in ANSYS Ground Model Ground Level (ft)

S1 S4 S8 Unit Weight (kcf)

Static Modulus Estatic (ksf)

Poissons Ratio (v)

Unit Weight (kcf)

Static Modulus Estatic (ksf)

Poissons Ratio (v)

Unit Weight (kcf)

Static Modulus Estatic (ksf)

Poissons Ratio (v) 0 ~ 25 0.125 1,861.6 0.40 0.125 5,638.8 0.40 0.145 146,888.2 0.33 25 ~ 55 0.125 2,256.0 0.40 0.126 6,333.0 0.40 0.145 152,585.5 0.33 55 ~ 75 0.125 2,635.5 0.40 0.130 7,099.5 0.38 0.145 157,719.8 0.33 75 ~ 100 0.125 2,993.4 0.40 0.130 7,682.4 0.38 0.145 162,291.4 0.33 100 ~ 150 0.125 3,620.3 0.40 0.132 53,228.5 0.37 0.145 169,792.8 0.33 150 ~ 200 0.125 5,850.9 0.40 0.135 58,398.8 0.35 0.145 179,557.2 0.33 200 ~ 300 0.130 31,805.4 0.38 0.145 146,335.8 0.33 0.155 325,128.0 0.33 300 ~ 400 0.130 38,754.3 0.38 0.145 159,403.6 0.33 0.155 325,128.0 0.33 400 ~ 500 0.130 42,004.7 0.38 0.145 165,223.2 0.33 0.155 325,128.0 0.33 500 ~ 750 0.140 126,333.1 0.34 0.155 325,128.0 0.33 0.155 325,128.0 0.33 750 ~ 1,000 0.145 141,829.7 0.33 0.155 325,128.0 0.33 0.155 325,128.0 0.33

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 25 Non-Proprietary Table 2-4 Equivalent Subgrade Moduli of Site Profiles Site Profile Max. Displacement (ft)

Subgrade modulus (kcf)(1)

Remark NI Basemat S1 0.028046 (Z, Vertical) kv = 33.14 ~ 178.70 0.072731 (X, Horizontal) kh = 20.62 2/3 of maximum value 0.073070 (Y, Horizontal) kh = 20.53 S4 0.005769 (Z, Vertical) kv = 152.88 ~ 777.06 0.023239 (X, Horizontal) kh = 64.55 2/3 of maximum value 0.023245 (Y, Horizontal) kh = 64.53 S8 0.001162 (Z, Vertical) kv = 809.01 ~ 2507.84 0.001099 (X, Horizontal) kh = 1,364.88 2/3 of maximum value 0.001123 (Y, Horizontal) kh = 1,335.71 TGB Basemat S1 0.035069 (Z, Vertical) kv = 28.52 0.041371 (X, Horizontal) kh = 24.17 0.041708 (Y, Horizontal) kh = 23.98 S4 0.008239 (Z, Vertical) kv = 121.37 0.013406 (X, Horizontal) kh = 74.59 0.013465 (Y, Horizontal) kh = 74.27 S8 0.001140 (Z, Vertical) kv = 877.20 0.000595 (X, Horizontal) kh = 1,680.67 0.000608 (Y, Horizontal) kh = 1,644.74 (1) Subgrade modulus (kcf) = Pressure (1ksf) / Max. Displacement (ft)

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 26 Non-Proprietary Table 2-5 Site Profiles Based on Strain-Compactible Shear Velocity Ground Level (ft)

S1 S4 S8 Unit Weigh t

(kcf)

Static Modulus Estatic (ksf)

Poisso ns Ratio (v)

Unit Weigh t

(kcf)

Static Modulus Estatic (ksf)

Poisso ns Ratio (v)

Unit Weigh t

(kcf)

Static Modulus Estatic (ksf)

Poisso ns Ratio (v) 0 ~ 25 0.125 14416 0.47 0.130 37308 0.42 0.145 489538 0.33 25 ~ 55 0.125 15254 0.47 0.130 38531 0.42 0.145 505211 0.33 55 ~ 75 0.125 17770 0.46 0.130 41954 0.40 0.145 519804 0.33 75 ~ 100 0.125 19564 0.46 0.130 43721 0.40 0.145 531564 0.33 100 ~ 150 0.125 24389 0.45 0.135 177544 0.35 0.145 554481 0.34 150 ~ 200 0.125 30931 0.43 0.135 191116 0.35 0.145 581716 0.34 200 ~ 300 0.130 97717 0.39 0.145 469662 0.34 0.155 1083760 0.33 300 ~ 400 0.130 120145 0.39 0.145 506992 0.34 0.155 1083760 0.33 400 ~ 500 0.130 140396 0.39 0.145 539990 0.34 0.155 1083760 0.33 500 ~ 750 0.135 402807 0.35 0.155 1083760 0.33 0.155 1083760 0.33 750 ~ 1,000 0.135 438371 0.35 0.155 1083760 0.33 0.155 1083760 0.33

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 27 Non-Proprietary Table 3-1 Material Properties of NI Structures Property NI Basemat RCB Shell and Dome RCB Internal Structure AB Structure Concrete strength (fc, psi) 5,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 Elastic modulus (Ec, ksf) 580,460 635,800 635,800 580,460 Poissons Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Weight per unit volume (w, kcf) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 28 Non-Proprietary Table 3-2 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 29 Non-Proprietary Table 3-3 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 30 Non-Proprietary Table 3-4 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 31 Non-Proprietary Table 3-5 Load Combinations for NI Common Basemat Analysis Condition Load Case Load Combination Remark Reference Test LC01 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pt RCB load combination s for RCB basemat design DCD Table 3.8-2 Normal LC02 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F Severe LC03 1.0D+1.3L+1.3L1+1.0F Abnormal LC04 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.5Pa Test LC05 1.1D+1.3L+1.1L1+1.0F+1.0Pt AB load combination s for AB basemat design DCD Table 3.8-7A Normal LC06 1.4D+1.7L+1.4L1+1.0F Abnormal LC07 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.4Pa Abnormal

/Extreme LC08 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es01+Lg_d For RCB &

AB Basemat design DCD Table 3.8-2, 3.8-7A LC09 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es02+Lg_d LC10 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es03+Lg_d LC11 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es04+Lg_d LC12 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es05+Lg_d LC13 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es06+Lg_d LC14 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es07+Lg_d LC15 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es08+Lg_d LC16 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es09+Lg_d LC17 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es10+Lg_d LC18 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es11+Lg_d LC19 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es12+Lg_d LC20 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es13+Lg_d LC21 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es14+Lg_d LC22 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es15+Lg_d

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 32 Non-Proprietary Condition Load Case Load Combination Remark Reference LC23 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es16+Lg_d LC24 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es17+Lg_d LC25 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es18+Lg_d LC26 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es19+Lg_d LC27 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es20+Lg_d LC28 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es21+Lg_d LC29 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es22+Lg_d LC30 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es23+Lg_d LC31 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es24+Lg_d LC32 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es25+Lg_d LC33 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es26+Lg_d LC34 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es27+Lg_d LC35 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es28+Lg_d LC36 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es29+Lg_d LC37 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es30+Lg_d LC38 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es31+Lg_d LC39 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es32+Lg_d LC40 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es33+Lg_d LC41 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es34+Lg_d LC42 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es35+Lg_d LC43 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es36+Lg_d LC44 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es37+Lg_d LC45 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es38+Lg_d LC46 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es39+Lg_d LC47 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es40+Lg_d LC48 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es41+Lg_d

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 33 Non-Proprietary Condition Load Case Load Combination Remark Reference LC49 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es42+Lg_d LC50 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es43+Lg_d LC51 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es44+Lg_d LC52 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es45+Lg_d LC53 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es46+Lg_d LC54 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es47+Lg_d LC55 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es48+Lg_d LC56 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es49+Lg_d LC57 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es50+Lg_d LC58 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es51+Lg_d LC59 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es52+Lg_d LC60 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es53+Lg_d LC61 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es54+Lg_d LC62 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es55+Lg_d LC63 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es56+Lg_d LC64 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es57+Lg_d LC65 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es58+Lg_d LC66 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es59+Lg_d LC67 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es60+Lg_d LC68 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es61+Lg_d LC69 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es62+Lg_d LC70 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es63+Lg_d LC71 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es64+Lg_d LC72 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es65+Lg_d LC73 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es66+Lg_d LC74 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es67+Lg_d

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 34 Non-Proprietary Condition Load Case Load Combination Remark Reference LC75 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es68+Lg_d LC76 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es69+Lg_d LC77 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es70+Lg_d LC78 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es71+Lg_d LC79 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es72+Lg_d LC80 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es73+Lg_d LC81 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es74+Lg_d LC82 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es75+Lg_d LC83 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es76+Lg_d LC84 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es77+Lg_d LC85 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es78+Lg_d LC86 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es79+Lg_d LC87 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es80+Lg_d LC88 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es81+Lg_d LC89 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es82+Lg_d LC90 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es83+Lg_d LC91 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es84+Lg_d LC92 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es85+Lg_d LC93 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es86+Lg_d LC94 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es87+Lg_d LC95 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es88+Lg_d LC96 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es89+Lg_d LC97 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es90+Lg_d LC98 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es91+Lg_d LC99 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es92+Lg_d LC100 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es93+Lg_d

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 35 Non-Proprietary Condition Load Case Load Combination Remark Reference LC101 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es94+Lg_d LC102 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es95+Lg_d LC103 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es96+Lg_d Abnormal

/Extreme LC104 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es97+Lg_d For RCB &

AB Basemat design DCD Table 3.8-2, 3.8-7A LC105 1.0D+1.0L+1.0L1+1.0F+1.0Pa+1.0Yr

+1.0Es98+Lg_d Where:

D = Dead load (Including Hydrostatic load) from RCB and AB L = Live load (Including Static Earth Pressure) from RCB and AB F = Post-tension load of tendon embedded RCB shell and dome Pa = Design internal pressure of RCB shell and dome Pt = Internal pressure of RCB shell and dome at testing phase Yr = Pipe break load Es = Seismic load (Including 5% Torsion) from RCB and AB (100-40-40 spatial combination: Es01 thru Es96, SRSS spatial combination: Es97 and Es98)

Lg_d = Dynamic Earth Pressure L1 = Buoyance load

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 36 Non-Proprietary Table 3-6 Selected Loading Conditions of Containment for RCB Basemat analysis Loading Condition D

L F

Pt G

Pa Tt To Ta Es W

Wt Ro Ra Yr Yj Ym Yf H

Hs Pv Ha Ps Analysis Test 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 (1.0) yes Construction 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 no()

Normal 1.0()

1.0()

1.0 (1.0)

(1.0)

(1.0)

(1.0) yes Severe Environmental 1.0 1.3 1.0 (1.0)

(1.0)

(1.5)

(1.0)

(1.0) yes 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 no()

Extreme Environmental 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 no()

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 no()

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 no()

Abnormal 1.0 1.0 1.0 (1.0) 1.5 (1.0)

(1.0) yes 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.25 no()

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.25 1.25 1.0 1.0 no()

Abnormal/Severe Environmental 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25 1.0 no()

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 no()

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 no()

Abnormal/Extreme Environmental 1.0 1.0 1.0 (1.0) 1.0 (1.0) 1.0 (1.0) 1.0 (1.0)

(1.0) yes Combustible Gas Control inside Containment 1.0 1.0 1.0 no()

• ( ) : loads not considered in basemat analysis.

• yellow row : load combinations for basemat analysis

- Effect on the basemat due to wind is less than that of Pt, and To is negligible

- H is not considered to be critical for the basemat (Containment building roof could not contain any rainwater.)

,, - Abnormal/ Extreme Environmental combination is more limiting than these combinations.

- 0.25 x Ra is less critical than 0.5 x Pa for the basemat

, - 0.25 x G and 1.25W are less critical than 0.25 x Pa for the basemat

, - 1.0 x W is less critical than 1.5 x Pa for the basemat (Abnormal/severe environmental with load is the governed case compared to same loading condition excluding wind load)

Combustible gas load due to hydrogen generation is classified as the internal pressure loading above design-basis pressure in accordance with RG 1.216 and is only considered in the structural integrity assessment based on the deterministic design basis analysis, not considered in the determination of structural member forces for design.

Self-weight of polar crane is included.

Lifting load of polar crane is included.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 37 Non-Proprietary Table 3-7 Selected Loading Conditions of AB and CIS for AB Basemat Analysis Loading Condition Normal Severe Abnormal Extreme Analysis D

Dd L

Lh To Ro C

Po Mo W

H Pa Ta Ra Y

Ma Es Wt Hs Construction 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.6 no()

0.9 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.6 no()

Test 1.1 1.3 1.1 (1.3) (1.1) 1.3 (1.3) (1.3) yes Normal 1.4 1.7 1.4 (1.3) (1.4) 1.7 (1.7) (1.7) yes Severe Environmental 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 no()

1.2 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 no()

1.4 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 no()

1.2 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 no()

Abnormal 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 no()

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 (1.0)

- (1.4) (1.0) (1.0) yes Extreme Environmental 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 no()

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 no()

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 no()

Abnormal /

Extreme Environmental 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 (1.0)

- (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) 1.0 Yes

• ( ) : loads not considered in basemat analysis.

• yellow row : load combinations for basemat analysis.

, - Governed by the severe environmental load combination

- It is the same as Normal loading condition except wind load which is not critical in basemat design.

- Governed by the severe environmental load combination

, - H is not considered critical for the basemat

,,, - Abnormal/Extreme Environmental combination is more critical than these combinations

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 38 Non-Proprietary Table 3-8 Seismic Cases for NI Basemat Analysis under Nonlinear Condition Seismi c Case Load Factor Remark Internal Structural (IS)

Shell & Dome (CS)

Auxiliary Building (AB)

E-W (Exi)

N-S (Eyi)

V-T (Ezi)

E-W (Exc)

N-S (Eyc)

V-T (Ezc)

E-W (Exa)

N-S (Eya)

V-T (Eza)

Es01 1

0.4 0.4 1

0.4 0.4 1

0.4 0.4 Es02 0.4 1

0.4 0.4 1

0.4 0.4 1

0.4 Es03 0.4 0.4 1

0.4 0.4 1

0.4 0.4 1

Es04

-1

-0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4 Es05

-0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4 Es06

-0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4 1

Es07

-1 0.4 0.4

-1 0.4 0.4

-1 0.4 0.4 Es08

-0.4 1

0.4

-0.4 1

0.4

-0.4 1

0.4 Es09

-0.4 0.4 1

-0.4 0.4 1

-0.4 0.4 1

Es10 1

-0.4 0.4 1

-0.4 0.4 1

-0.4 0.4 Es11 0.4

-1 0.4 0.4

-1 0.4 0.4

-1 0.4 Es12 0.4

-0.4 1

0.4

-0.4 1

0.4

-0.4 1

Es13 1

0.4

-0.4 1

0.4

-0.4 1

0.4

-0.4 Es14 0.4 1

-0.4 0.4 1

-0.4 0.4 1

-0.4 Es15 0.4 0.4

-1 0.4 0.4

-1 0.4 0.4

-1 Es16

-1

-0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4 Es17

-0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4 Es18

-0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4

-1 Es19

-1 0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4 Es20

-0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4 Es21

-0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4

-1 Es22 1

-0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4 Es23 0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4 Es24 0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4

-1 Es25 1

0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4 1

0.4 0.4 Es26 0.4 1

0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4 1

0.4 Es27 0.4 0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4 0.4 1

Es28

-1

-0.4 0.4 1

0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4 Es29

-0.4

-1 0.4 0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4 Es30

-0.4

-0.4 1

0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4 1

Es31

-1 0.4 0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4 0.4 Es32

-0.4 1

0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4 1

0.4 Es33

-0.4 0.4 1

0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4 1

Es34 1

-0.4 0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4 0.4 Es35 0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4 0.4

-1 0.4 Es36 0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4 0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4 1

Es37 1

0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4 1

0.4

-0.4 Es38 0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4 0.4 1

-0.4 Es39 0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4 1

0.4 0.4

-1 Es40

-1

-0.4

-0.4 1

0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4 Es41

-0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4 1

0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4 Es42

-0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4 0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4

-1 Es43

-1 0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4 0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4 Es44

-0.4 1

-0.4 0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 39 Non-Proprietary Seismi c Case Load Factor Remark Internal Structural (IS)

Shell & Dome (CS)

Auxiliary Building (AB)

E-W (Exi)

N-S (Eyi)

V-T (Ezi)

E-W (Exc)

N-S (Eyc)

V-T (Ezc)

E-W (Exa)

N-S (Eya)

V-T (Eza)

Es45

-0.4 0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4 0.4

-1 Es46 1

-0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4 0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4 Es47 0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4 1

0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4 Es48 0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4 1

0.4

-0.4

-1 Es49 1

0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4 Es50 0.4 1

0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4 Es51 0.4 0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4

-1 Es52

-1

-0.4 0.4 1

0.4

-0.4 1

0.4

-0.4 Es53

-0.4

-1 0.4 0.4 1

-0.4 0.4 1

-0.4 Es54

-0.4

-0.4 1

0.4 0.4

-1 0.4 0.4

-1 Es55

-1 0.4 0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4 Es56

-0.4 1

0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4 Es57

-0.4 0.4 1

0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4

-1 Es58 1

-0.4 0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4 Es59 0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4 Es60 0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4

-1 Es61 1

0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4 Es62 0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4 Es63 0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4 1

Es64

-1

-0.4

-0.4 1

0.4 0.4 1

0.4 0.4 Es65

-0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4 1

0.4 0.4 1

0.4 Es66

-0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4 0.4 1

0.4 0.4 1

Es67

-1 0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4 0.4 1

-0.4 0.4 Es68

-0.4 1

-0.4 0.4

-1 0.4 0.4

-1 0.4 Es69

-0.4 0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4 1

0.4

-0.4 1

Es70 1

-0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4 0.4

-1 0.4 0.4 Es71 0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4 1

0.4

-0.4 1

0.4 Es72 0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4 1

-0.4 0.4 1

Es73 1

0.4 0.4 1

0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4 Es74 0.4 1

0.4 0.4 1

0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4 Es75 0.4 0.4 1

0.4 0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4

-1 Es76

-1

-0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4 1

0.4

-0.4 Es77

-0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4 0.4 1

-0.4 Es78

-0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4 1

0.4 0.4

-1 Es79

-1 0.4 0.4

-1 0.4 0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4 Es80

-0.4 1

0.4

-0.4 1

0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4 Es81

-0.4 0.4 1

-0.4 0.4 1

0.4

-0.4

-1 Es82 1

-0.4 0.4 1

-0.4 0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4 Es83 0.4

-1 0.4 0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4 Es84 0.4

-0.4 1

0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4 0.4

-1 Es85 1

0.4

-0.4 1

0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4 Es86 0.4 1

-0.4 0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4 Es87 0.4 0.4

-1 0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4 1

Es88

-1

-0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4 1

0.4 0.4 Es89

-0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4 1

0.4 Es90

-0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4 0.4 1

Es91

-1 0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4 0.4 Es92

-0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4 0.4

-1 0.4

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 40 Non-Proprietary Seismi c Case Load Factor Remark Internal Structural (IS)

Shell & Dome (CS)

Auxiliary Building (AB)

E-W (Exi)

N-S (Eyi)

V-T (Ezi)

E-W (Exc)

N-S (Eyc)

V-T (Ezc)

E-W (Exa)

N-S (Eya)

V-T (Eza)

Es93

-0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4 1

Es94 1

-0.4

-0.4 1

-0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4 0.4 Es95 0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4

-1

-0.4

-0.4 1

0.4 Es96 0.4

-0.4

-1 0.4

-0.4

-1

-0.4 0.4 1

1. Note All in-phase CS: Out-of Phase/ IS, AB: In-phase CS, AB: Out of phase / IS: In-phase AB: Out of phase / CS, IS: In-phase

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 41 Non-Proprietary Table 4-1 Ground Contact Area Ratios for NI Common Basemat Site Profile Concrete Stiffness Critical Load Combination Ground Contact Ratio

(%)

S1 Uncracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh+1.0SSEEW+1.0SSENS+1.0SSEVT 95.74 Cracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh+1.0SSEEW+1.0SSENS+1.0SSEVT 95.62 S4 Uncracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh+1.0SSEEW+1.0SSENS+1.0SSEVT 90.90 Cracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh+1.0SSEEW-1.0SSENS+1.0SSEVT 92.11 S8 Uncracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh+1.0SSEEW+1.0SSENS+1.0SSEVT 85.40 Cracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh-1.0SSEEW-1.0SSENS-1.0SSEVT 88.90 D = Dead load SSL = Seismic live load (25% of live loads)

Lh = Buoyancy load due to groundwater

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 42 Non-Proprietary Table 4-2 Differential Settlements According to Site Profiles (Static Loading Case)

Section Node Number Distance (ft)

Differential Settlement (in.)

Start End S1 S4 S8 AB1 26810 27829 48.58 0.197 0.091 0.026 AB2 27829 29466 46.26 0.206 0.085 0.037 AB3 29466 28901 46.59 0.189 0.067 0.019 AB4 28901 1367 44.70 0.209 0.088 0.033 AB5 26811 27246 48.73 0.067 0.054 0.013 AB6 27246 26610 44.08 0.074 0.041 0.021 AB7 26610 27669 41.54 0.087 0.047 0.020 AB8 27669 790 39.68 0.123 0.076 0.034 AB9 26620 28027 48.73 0.001 0.032 0.004 AB10 28027 26667 44.08 0.019 0.034 0.031 AB11 26667 27610 41.54 0.010 0.018 0.011 AB12 27610 822 39.68 0.059 0.048 0.024 AB13 26826 27117 48.58 0.166 0.091 0.026 AB14 27117 29708 46.26 0.180 0.088 0.039 AB15 29708 30238 46.59 0.155 0.066 0.019 AB16 30238 1466 44.70 0.170 0.087 0.036 RCB1 5929 18822 46.06 0.072 0.010 0.007 RCB2 15931 15467 47.09 0.006 0.010 0.001 RCB3 6135 14571 46.06 0.025 0.002 0.005 RCB4 16131 15368 47.09 0.051 0.009 0.005 Total Max. Differential Settlement 0.209 0.091 0.039

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 43 Non-Proprietary Table 4-3 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 44 Non-Proprietary Table 4-4 Bearing Pressure of NI Common Basemat Case Max. Bearing Pressure (ksf)(1)

S1 S4 S8 Static Case 1) 19.57 17.24 14.64 Dynamic Case 48.70 46.68 54.01

1)

Bearing pressure (ksf) = Soil spring reaction (kips) / Tributary area (ft2)

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 45 Non-Proprietary Table 4-5 Required Factor of Safety for the Stability Check Load Combination Minimum Factor of Safety (FOS)

Overturning Sliding Flotation D + He + W 1.5 1.5 D + He + Es 1.1 1.1 D + He + Wt 1.1 1.1 D + Hs

1.1 Where

D

= Dead load He

= Static and dynamic lateral and vertical earth pressure including buoyant effect of normal design groundwater level Hs

= Buoyant force of the design basis flood W

= Wind load Wt

= Tornado load Es

= Safe shutdown earthquake

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 46 Non-Proprietary Table 4-6 Enveloped Results of the Seismic Analysis Corresponding to Site Profiles Superstructure Axial (V)

(kips)

Shear X (Fx)

(kips)

Shear Y (Fy)

(kips)

Moment X (Mx)

(kips-ft)

Moment Y (My)

(kips-ft)

Containment Shell and Dome (El. 78-0) 59,620 67,610 73,820 12,230,000 11,540,000 Primary Shield Wall (El. 66-0) 13,480 11,550 11,520 684,600 839,700 Secondary Shield Wall (El. 78-0) 23,430 22,290 19,970 936,200 1,348,000 Auxiliary Building (El. 55-0) 210,400 239,100 220,800 19,790,000 20,770,000 Total 306,930 340,550 326,110 33,640,800 34,497,700 (1) A value of 0.3 times the basemat self-weight is conservatively used for axial and shear forces of the basemat corresponding to each directional seismic force with regard to a 0.3g acceleration of SSE.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR 1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 47 Non-Proprietary Table 5-1 Sequence of Basemat Segments due to Concrete Pouring TS

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 48 Non-Proprietary Table 5-2 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 49 Non-Proprietary Table 5-3 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 50 Non-Proprietary Table 5-4 Construction Sequence of Superstructures (Counterclockwise)

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 51 Non-Proprietary TS

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 52 Non-Proprietary Table 5-5 Construction Sequence of Superstructures (Clockwise)

TS

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 53 Non-Proprietary TS

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 54 Non-Proprietary Table 5-6 Maximum Vertical Settlement for Construction and Post-Construction for NI, EDGB, and DFOT building

[Unit: ft]

1) Since soil profile S08 consists of rock profile, the creep effect of soil is not considered.

Max. settlement Structures Category Soil profile S1 Soil profile S8

1. 1

1. 2

1. 1

1. 2 NI building Construction (Sequence No. 58) 0.286 0.282 0.012 0.0120 Post-construction

( Sequence No. 59) 0.386 0.380 Not considered 1)

EDGB building Construction 0.142 0.005 Post-construction 0.218 Not considered 1)

DFOT building Construction 0.172 0.005 Post-construction 0.266 Not considered 1)

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 55 Non-Proprietary Table 5-7 Tilting Settlement for Construction and Post-Construction for NI building

[Unit: degree]

Category Max. Tilt settlement Soil profile S1 Soil profile S8 Sequence Direction

1. 1

1. 2

1. 1

1. 2 Construction Sequence No.58 E-W 0.00725 0.00507 0.00015 0.00006 N-S 0.01253 0.00993 0.00032 0.00030 Post-Construction Sequence No.59 E-W 0.00989 0.00606 Not considered 1)

N-S 0.0136 0.00961

1) Since soil profile S08 consists of rock profile, the creep effect of soil is not considered.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 56 Non-Proprietary Table 5-8 Differential Settlement between Structures for All buildings under Construction and Post-Construction

[Unit: inch]

Max. differential settlement between structures [Unit: inch]

Construction Post-construction S01 S08 S01 S08 Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min NI common basemat Case1 2.171 1.566 0.078 0.051 3.358 2.671 Not considered 1)

Case2 2.020 1.527 0.074 0.052 3.132 2.620 EDGB Basemat 1.701 1.670 0.061 0.046 2.615 2.582 DFOT Basemat 2.066 0.986 0.054 0.027 3.193 1.521 Differential Settlement (NI and EDG basemat) 0.501 0.009 0.776 Differential Settlement (NI and DFOT basemat) 1.185 0.002 1.837 EDGB Basemat 1.701 1.474 0.061 0.047 2.615 0.189 DFOT Basemat 2.066 1.787 0.053 0.034 3.193 2.773 Differential Settlement (DFOT and EDGB basemat) 0.592 0.027 0.925

1) Since soil profile S08 consists of rock profile, the creep effect of soil is not considered.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 57 Non-Proprietary Figure 1-1 APR1400 NI Common Basemat Plan View at El. 55'-0" Security-Related Information - Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390 TS

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 58 Non-Proprietary (a) RCB Area Basemat (b) AB Area Basemat Figure 1-2 APR1400 NI Common Basemat Section View (E-W View)

Security-Related Information - Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390 TS TS

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 59 Non-Proprietary (a) RCB Area Basemat (b) AB Area Basemat Figure 1-3 APR1400 NI Common Basemat Section View (N-S View)

Security-Related Information - Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390 TS TS

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 60 Non-Proprietary APR1400 - Low-strain Site Profiles Figure 2-1 Shear Wave Velocity of Low-strain Site Profile Categories

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 61 Non-Proprietary Figure 2-2 Relationship between the Static and Dynamic Elastic Moduli (Estatic and Edynamic)

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 62 Non-Proprietary (a) NI Basemat (b) TGB Basemat Figure 2-3 Deformation Contour of the Ground Model

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 63 Non-Proprietary Figure 2-4 Variation of Shear Modulus with Shear Strain for Sands

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 64 Non-Proprietary Figure 2-5 G/Gdynamic of Soil at strain level 0.1%

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 65 Non-Proprietary Security-Related Information - Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390 Figure 2-6 Maximum Deformation Sketch for Horizontal Subgrade Modulus TS

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 66 Non-Proprietary Figure 3-1 Full FE Model for the Basemat Structural Analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 67 Non-Proprietary Figure 3-2 AB Structure Analysis FE Model

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 68 Non-Proprietary Figure 3-3 RCB Shell and Dome Concrete Structure Analysis FE Model

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 69 Non-Proprietary Figure 3-4 RCB Internal Structure Analysis FE Model

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 70 Non-Proprietary Figure 3-5 Basemat Structure Analysis FE Model

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 71 Non-Proprietary Figure 3-6 LINK180 Element Application

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 72 Non-Proprietary Figure 3-7 Axial (Tributary) Area Calculation Model for the LINK180 Element

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 73 Non-Proprietary Figure 3-8 Typical Nodal Force Area at Bottom of AB

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 74 Non-Proprietary Figure 3-9 Typical Nodal Force Area at Bottom of RCB Internal Structure

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 75 Non-Proprietary Figure 3-10 Typical Nodal Force Area at Bottom of RCB Shell and Dome

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 76 Non-Proprietary Figure 3-11 Jurisdictional Boundary for Design of NI Common Basemat

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 77 Non-Proprietary Figure 3-12 Application of Load Combinations Based on ASME and ACI Code Criteria

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 78 Non-Proprietary Figure 3-13 Boundary Condition of Foundation Media Model 1

X Y

Z 1

ELEMENTS U

ROT

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 79 Non-Proprietary Figure 4-1 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 80 Non-Proprietary Figure 4-2 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 81 Non-Proprietary Figure 4-3 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 82 Non-Proprietary Figure 4-4 Node Locations at Bottom of NI Common Basemat for Settlement Check

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 83 Non-Proprietary Figure 4-5 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 84 Non-Proprietary Figure 4-6 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 85 Non-Proprietary Figure 4-7 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 86 Non-Proprietary Figure 4-8 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 87 Non-Proprietary Figure 4-9 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 88 Non-Proprietary Figure 4-10 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 89 Non-Proprietary Figure 4-11 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 90 Non-Proprietary Figure 4-12 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 91 Non-Proprietary Figure 4-13 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 92 Non-Proprietary Figure 4-14 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 93 Non-Proprietary Figure 4-15 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 94 Non-Proprietary Figure 5-1 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 95 Non-Proprietary Figure 5-2 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 96 Non-Proprietary Figure 5-3 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 97 Non-Proprietary Figure 5-4 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 98 Non-Proprietary Figure 5-5 3D FE Model for Construction Analysis Auxiliary Building Shell &Dome Internal Structure Foundation Media Model NI common basemat

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 99 Non-Proprietary (a) RCB & AB building Area, El. 35-0 ~ El. 55-0 (b) RCB & AB building Area, El. 55-0 ~ El. 68-0 (c) RCB & AB building Area, El. 68-0 ~ El. 78-0 Figure 5-6 Individual Segment of NI basemat 1

X Y

Z COMPONENTS 1

X Y

Z COMPONENTS Set 1 of 1 C-S008 (Elems)

C-S009 (Elems)

A-S003 A-S004 A-S001 A-S005 A-S006 A-S007 C-S003 A-S002 A-S008 A-S009 A-S010 C-S004 C-S002 C-S001 1

X Y

Z COMPONENTS C-S005 (Elems)

C-S006 (Elems)

C-W007 (Elems)

C-W007 C-S006 C-S005 C-S008 C-S009

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 100 Non-Proprietary (a) Region A (b) Region B, C, D, E Figure 5-7 Individual Segment of Superstructure 1

ELEMENTS 1

X Y

Z ELEMENTS Region B Region C Region D Region E

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 101 Non-Proprietary Figure 5-8 Comparison displacement contour between sequential and reference analysis (S01, Case#1) 1 MN MX X

Y Z

-.285563

-.265181

-.244798

-.224416

-.204034

-.183652

-.163269

-.142887

-.122505

-.102122 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 UZ (AVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.285568 SMN =-.285563 SMX =-.102122 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-.215118

-.206983

-.198849

-.190715

-.18258

-.174446

-.166312

-.158177

-.150043

-.141908 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 UZ (AVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.215131 SMN =-.215118 SMX =-.141908 Sequential Analysis Reference FE analysis Section A-A A

A

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 102 Non-Proprietary (a) Stress X Contour 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-135.471

-109.288

-83.1049

-56.922

-30.7391

-4.55624 21.6266 47.8095 73.9924 100.175 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 SX (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.285568 SMN =-135.471 SMX =100.175 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-30.1727

-18.7901

-7.40757 3.975 15.3576 26.7401 38.1227 49.5053 60.8878 72.2704 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 SX (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.215131 SMN =-30.1727 SMX =72.2704 Sequential Analysis Reference FE analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 103 Non-Proprietary (b) Stress Y Contour 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-203.411

-168.856

-134.301

-99.7455

-65.1904

-30.6353 3.91983 38.4749 73.03 107.585 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 SY (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.285568 SMN =-203.411 SMX =107.585 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-30.28

-19.1763

-8.07272 3.03089 14.1345 25.2381 36.3417 47.4454 58.549 69.6526 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 SY (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.215131 SMN =-30.28 SMX =69.6526 Sequential Analysis Reference FE analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 104 Non-Proprietary (c) Stress Z Contour Figure 5-9 Comparison stress contour between sequential and reference analysis (S01, Case#1) 1 MN MX X

Y Z

-196.422

-167.469

-138.516

-109.563

-80.6097

-51.6565

-22.7034 6.24983 35.203 64.1562 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 SZ (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.285568 SMN =-196.422 SMX =64.1562 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-164.313

-132.628

-100.944

-69.2599

-37.5756

-5.89139 25.7929 57.4771 89.1614 120.846 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 SZ (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.215131 SMN =-164.313 SMX =120.846 Reference FE analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 105 Non-Proprietary Figure 5-10 Comparison displacement contour between sequential and reference analysis (S01, Case#2) 1 MN MX X

Y Z

-.281861

-.262596

-.243331

-.224066

-.204801

-.185536

-.166271

-.147006

-.12774

-.108475 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 UZ (AVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.281868 SMN =-.281861 SMX =-.108475 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-.215455

-.208204

-.200952

-.193701

-.186449

-.179198

-.171946

-.164695

-.157443

-.150192 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 UZ (AVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.215467 SMN =-.215455 SMX =-.150192 Reference FE analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 106 Non-Proprietary (a) Stress X Contour 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-135.444

-109.322

-83.1992

-57.0769

-30.9546

-4.83233 21.29 47.4123 73.5346 99.6569 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 SX (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.281868 SMN =-135.444 SMX =99.6569 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-30.1727

-18.7901

-7.40757 3.975 15.3576 26.7401 38.1227 49.5053 60.8878 72.2704 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 SX (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.215131 SMN =-30.1727 SMX =72.2704 Sequential Analysis Reference FE analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 107 Non-Proprietary (b) Stress Y Contour 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-113.58

-89.9689

-66.3573

-42.7458

-19.1342 4.47733 28.0889 51.7004 75.312 98.9235 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 SY (AVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.270445 SMN =-113.58 SMX =98.9235 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-30.28

-19.1763

-8.07272 3.03089 14.1345 25.2381 36.3417 47.4454 58.549 69.6526 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 SY (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.215131 SMN =-30.28 SMX =69.6526 Sequential Analysis Reference FE analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 108 Non-Proprietary (c) Stress Z Contour Figure 5-11 Comparison stress contour between sequential and reference analysis (S01, Case#2) 1 MN MX X

Y Z

-190.693

-150.876

-111.058

-71.2409

-31.4234 8.39413 48.2116 88.0291 127.847 167.664 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 SZ (AVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.270445 SMN =-190.693 SMX =167.664 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-164.313

-132.628

-100.944

-69.2599

-37.5756

-5.89139 25.7929 57.4771 89.1614 120.846 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 SZ (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.215131 SMN =-164.313 SMX =120.846 Sequential Analysis Reference FE analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 109 Non-Proprietary Figure 5-12 Comparison displacement contour between sequential and reference analysis (S 08, Case#1) 1 MN MX X

Y Z

-.012105

-.011168

-.010231

-.009294

-.008357

-.00742

-.006483

-.005546

-.004609

-.003672 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 UZ (AVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.012107 SMN =-.012105 SMX =-.003672 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-.011924

-.011033

-.010142

-.009251

-.00836

-.007469

-.006577

-.005686

-.004795

-.003904 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 UZ (AVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.011926 SMN =-.011924 SMX =-.003904 Sequential Analysis Reference FE analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 110 Non-Proprietary (a) Stress X Contour 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-12.5315

-9.51649

-6.50148

-3.48647

-.471464 2.54355 5.55855 8.57356 11.5886 14.6036 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 SX (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.012107 SMN =-12.5315 SMX =14.6036 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-12.3571

-9.32876

-6.30043

-3.2721

-.243766 2.78457 5.8129 8.84123 11.8696 14.8979 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 SX (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.011926 SMN =-12.3571 SMX =14.8979 Sequential Analysis Reference FE analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 111 Non-Proprietary (b) Stress Y Contour 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-14.7252

-11.692

-8.65878

-5.62559

-2.5924

.440794 3.47399 6.50718 9.54037 12.5736 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 SY (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.012107 SMN =-14.7252 SMX =12.5736 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-14.8053

-11.6519

-8.49853

-5.34514

-2.19176

.961621 4.115 7.26839 10.4218 13.5752 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 SY (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.011926 SMN =-14.8053 SMX =13.5752 Sequential Analysis Reference FE analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 112 Non-Proprietary (c) Stress Z Contour Figure 5-13 Comparison stress contour between sequential and reference analysis (S08, Case#1) 1 MN MX X

Y Z

-53.0014

-45.4772

-37.953

-30.4288

-22.9046

-15.3804

-7.85621

-.332004 7.1922 14.7164 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 SZ (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.012107 SMN =-53.0014 SMX =14.7164 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-56.5022

-48.3669

-40.2317

-32.0964

-23.9612

-15.8259

-7.6907

.444551 8.5798 16.715 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 SZ (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.011926 SMN =-56.5022 SMX =16.715 Reference FE analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 113 Non-Proprietary Figure 5-14 Comparison displacement contour between sequential and reference analysis (S08, Case#2) 1 MN MX X

Y Z

-.011966

-.011043

-.01012

-.009196

-.008273

-.00735

-.006427

-.005503

-.00458

-.003657 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 UZ (AVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.011967 SMN =-.011966 SMX =-.003657 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-.011924

-.011033

-.010142

-.009251

-.00836

-.007469

-.006577

-.005686

-.004795

-.003904 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 UZ (AVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.011926 SMN =-.011924 SMX =-.003904 Sequential Analysis Reference FE analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 114 Non-Proprietary (a) Stress X Contour 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-12.194

-9.18196

-6.16994

-3.15793

-.145907 2.86611 5.87813 8.89015 11.9022 14.9142 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 SX (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.011967 SMN =-12.194 SMX =14.9142 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-12.3571

-9.32876

-6.30043

-3.2721

-.243766 2.78457 5.8129 8.84123 11.8696 14.8979 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 SX (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.011926 SMN =-12.3571 SMX =14.8979 Sequential Analysis Reference FE analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 115 Non-Proprietary (b) Stress Y Contour 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-14.5404

-11.5266

-8.51279

-5.49899

-2.48518

.528623 3.54243 6.55623 9.57004 12.5838 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 SY (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.011967 SMN =-14.5404 SMX =12.5838 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-14.8053

-11.6519

-8.49853

-5.34514

-2.19176

.961621 4.115 7.26839 10.4218 13.5752 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 SY (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.011926 SMN =-14.8053 SMX =13.5752 Sequential Analysis Reference FE analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 116 Non-Proprietary (c) Stress Z Contour Figure 5-15 Comparison stress contour between sequential and reference analysis (S08, Case#2) 1 MN MX X

Y Z

-53.8694

-46.3037

-38.738

-31.1723

-23.6066

-16.041

-8.47526

-.909571 6.65612 14.2218 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=58 SUB =1 TIME=58 SZ (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.011967 SMN =-53.8694 SMX =14.2218 1

MN MX X

Y Z

-56.5022

-48.3669

-40.2317

-32.0964

-23.9612

-15.8259

-7.6907

.444551 8.5798 16.715 ELEMENT SOLUTION STEP=1 SUB =1 TIME=1 SZ (NOAVG)

RSYS=0 DMX =.011926 SMN =-56.5022 SMX =16.715 Sequential Analysis Reference FE analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 117 Non-Proprietary Figure 5-16 Check Group for Tilting Settlement

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 118 Non-Proprietary Figure 5-17 The Locations for Differential Settlement between Structures

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 119 Non-Proprietary Starting points of each group for displacement graph for angular distortion Figure 5-18 Check Group for Angular Distortion (Unit: feet)

-42.5, 42.5 42.5, 42.5 42.5, -42.5

-42.5,-42.5

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 120 Non-Proprietary (a) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S1 (Group1)

(b) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S1 (Group2)

-4.00E-01

-3.50E-01

-3.00E-01

-2.50E-01

-2.00E-01

-1.50E-01

-1.00E-01

-5.00E-02 0.00E+00 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit:ft)

Group 1 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 No.59 & Case1 No.59 & Case2

-4.00E-01

-3.50E-01

-3.00E-01

-2.50E-01

-2.00E-01

-1.50E-01

-1.00E-01

-5.00E-02 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 200 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit:ft)

Group 2 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 No.59 & Case1 No.59 & Case2 C-S002 A-S001 A-S004 C-S001 A-S005

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 121 Non-Proprietary (c) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S1 (Group3)

(d) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S1 (Group4)

-4.00E-01

-3.50E-01

-3.00E-01

-2.50E-01

-2.00E-01

-1.50E-01

-1.00E-01

-5.00E-02 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit: ft)

Group 3 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 No.59 & Case1 No.59 & Case2

-4.50E-01

-4.00E-01

-3.50E-01

-3.00E-01

-2.50E-01

-2.00E-01

-1.50E-01

-1.00E-01

-5.00E-02 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit:ft)

Group 4 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 No.59 & Case1 No.59 & Case2 C-S001 A-S006 C-S001 A-S006

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 122 Non-Proprietary (e) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S1 (Group5)

(f) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S1 (Group6)

-4.50E-01

-4.00E-01

-3.50E-01

-3.00E-01

-2.50E-01

-2.00E-01

-1.50E-01

-1.00E-01

-5.00E-02 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 200 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit: ft)

Group 5 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 No.59 & Case1 No.59 & Case2

-4.50E-01

-4.00E-01

-3.50E-01

-3.00E-01

-2.50E-01

-2.00E-01

-1.50E-01

-1.00E-01

-5.00E-02 0.00E+00 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit:ft)

Group 6 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 No.59 & Case1 No.59 & Case2 C-S001 C-S003 A-S007 A-S008 A-S002 C-S003 C-S001

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 123 Non-Proprietary (g) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S1 (Group7)

(h) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S1 (Group8)

-4.00E-01

-3.50E-01

-3.00E-01

-2.50E-01

-2.00E-01

-1.50E-01

-1.00E-01

-5.00E-02 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit:ft)

Group 7 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 No.59 & Case1 No.59 & Case2

-4.00E-01

-3.50E-01

-3.00E-01

-2.50E-01

-2.00E-01

-1.50E-01

-1.00E-01

-5.00E-02 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 200 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit:ft)

Group 8 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 No.59 & Case1 No.59 & Case2 A-S008 A-S002 C-S003 A-S009 A-S002 C-S004

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 124 Non-Proprietary (i) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S1 (Group9)

(j) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S1 (Group10)

-4.00E-01

-3.50E-01

-3.00E-01

-2.50E-01

-2.00E-01

-1.50E-01

-1.00E-01

-5.00E-02 0.00E+00 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit:ft)

Group 9 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 No.59 & Case1 No.59 & Case2

-4.00E-01

-3.50E-01

-3.00E-01

-2.50E-01

-2.00E-01

-1.50E-01

-1.00E-01

-5.00E-02 0.00E+00 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit:ft)

Group 10 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 No.59 & Case1 No.59 & Case2 A-S010 C-S004 C-S002 A-S010

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 125 Non-Proprietary (k) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S1 (Group11)

(l) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S1 (Group12)

Figure 5-19 Vertical Displacement Graph for Angular Distortion each group of NI building (S01)

-4.00E-01

-3.50E-01

-3.00E-01

-2.50E-01

-2.00E-01

-1.50E-01

-1.00E-01

-5.00E-02 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 200 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit:ft)

Group 11 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 No.59 & Case1 No.59 & Case2

-4.00E-01

-3.50E-01

-3.00E-01

-2.50E-01

-2.00E-01

-1.50E-01

-1.00E-01

-5.00E-02 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit:ft)

Group 12 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 No.59 & Case1 No.59 & Case2 A-S003 A-S001 C-S002 A-S004 A-S001 C-S002

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 126 Non-Proprietary (a) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S8 (Group1)

(b) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S8 (Group2)

-1.20E-02

-1.00E-02

-8.00E-03

-6.00E-03

-4.00E-03

-2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit:ft)

Group 1 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2

-1.20E-02

-1.00E-02

-8.00E-03

-6.00E-03

-4.00E-03

-2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 200 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit:ft)

Group 2 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 A-S004 A-S001 C-S002 C-S001 A-S005

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 127 Non-Proprietary (c) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S8 (Group3)

(d) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S8 (Group4)

-1.20E-02

-1.00E-02

-8.00E-03

-6.00E-03

-4.00E-03

-2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit: ft)

Group 3 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2

-1.20E-02

-1.00E-02

-8.00E-03

-6.00E-03

-4.00E-03

-2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit: ft)

Group 4 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 C-S001 A-S006 A-S006 C-S001

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 128 Non-Proprietary (e) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S8 (Group5)

(f) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S8 (Group6)

-1.20E-02

-1.00E-02

-8.00E-03

-6.00E-03

-4.00E-03

-2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 200 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit: ft)

Group 5 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2

-1.20E-02

-1.00E-02

-8.00E-03

-6.00E-03

-4.00E-03

-2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit: ft)

Group 6 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 A-S007 C-S003 C-S001 A-S002 A-S008 C-S003 C-S001

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 129 Non-Proprietary (g) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S8 (Group7)

(h) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S8 (Group8)

-1.20E-02

-1.00E-02

-8.00E-03

-6.00E-03

-4.00E-03

-2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit: ft)

Group 7 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2

-1.20E-02

-1.00E-02

-8.00E-03

-6.00E-03

-4.00E-03

-2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 200 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit: ft)

Group 8 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 A-S008 A-S002 C-S003 A-S009 A-S002 C-S004

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 130 Non-Proprietary (i)

Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S8 (Group9)

(j)

Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S8 (Group10)

-1.20E-02

-1.00E-02

-8.00E-03

-6.00E-03

-4.00E-03

-2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit: ft)

Group 9 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2

-1.20E-02

-1.00E-02

-8.00E-03

-6.00E-03

-4.00E-03

-2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit: ft)

Group 10 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 A-S010 C-S004 A-S010 C-S002

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP 131 Non-Proprietary (k) Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S8 (Group11)

(l)

Vertical displacement along distance of Sequence in soil profile S8 (Group12)

Figure 5-20 Vertical Displacement Graph for Angular Distortion each group of NI building (S08)

-1.20E-02

-1.00E-02

-8.00E-03

-6.00E-03

-4.00E-03

-2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 200 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit: ft)

Group 11 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2

-1.20E-02

-1.00E-02

-8.00E-03

-6.00E-03

-4.00E-03

-2.00E-03 0.00E+00 0

50 100 150 Uz (unit: ft)

Relative Distance (Unit: ft)

Group 12 No.22 & Case1 No.22 & Case2 No.58 & Case1 No.58 & Case2 A-S004 A-S001 C-S002 A-S003 A-S001 C-S002

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A1 Non-Proprietary APPENDIX A Stability Evaluation of EDGB Basemat and DFOT Basemat

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A2 Non-Proprietary A.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this appendix is to present the stability check for the EDGB basemat.

Commonly, Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) offers electric power to (i) utilities for shutting down reactors safely and (ii) essential safety utilities for cooling the elevated heats in reactors during its shut-down, whenever emergency situations happen: reactor is shut down suddenly due to any malfunctions of the Nuclear Power Plant; or use of off-site electric power is not possible due to any accidents including collapse of transmission towers.

The entire EDGB is typically classified as Seismic Category I, while its seismic design is made by allocating the Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tank (DFOT) in the EDG to the tank stateroom (i.e., DFOT Room).

Detailed description of EDGB is shown in Figure A-1. The plan and elevation views of the DFOT Room are shown in Figure A-2 and A-3, respectively.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A3 Non-Proprietary A.2 SITE PROFILES FOR THE APR1400 EDGB BASEMAT The site profiles for the EDGB basemat is the same as that of NI common basemat, because EDGB is located beside of east part of AB and separated with 3 inch seismic gap. For the site profiles, refer to section 2 of this report.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A4 Non-Proprietary A.3 APR1400 EDGB & DFOT BASEMAT ANALYSIS MODEL This section presents the FE modeling process for the EDGB basemat analysis.

A.3.1 Model for Structural Analysis The FE model representing the whole EDGB for structural analysis is shown in Figures A-4 and A-5.

The three-dimensional FE analysis is carried out using the ANSYS program.

The total number of elements for EDGB model in structure analysis is made up of 2,984 elements. The number of shell elements among total elements is 2,810 and that of frame element is 174. The total number of elements for DFOT Room model in structure analysis is made up of 1,616 elements. The number of shell elements among total elements is 1,456 and that of frame element is 160.

In the EDGB analysis, concrete wall and slab are modeled by Shell181 element in ANSYS, while Beam188 is used to model steel girder. Link 180 element is applied to consider the effects of soil spring of basemat analysis.

All walls and slabs of various thicknesses are modeled using shell elements. General element size except for fine mesh is 5 feet.

A.3.2 Material Properties Linear-elastic material properties of concrete including modulus of elasticity, Poissons ratio and mass density are used in accordance with GDC for the APR1400.

- Concrete Yield Strength of Concrete:

fc

= 5,000 psi Youngs Modulus of Concrete:

E = 580,000 ksf Poissons ratio of Concrete:

= 0.17 Weight per unit volume:

w = 0.15 kcf

- Steel Girder Steel:

ASTM A36 Youngs Modulus of Steel:

E = 4,176,000 ksf Poissons ratio of Steel:

= 0.3 Weight per unit volume:

w = 0.49 kcf A.3.3 Boundary Condition In the structural analyses of the EDGB, fixed boundary conditions are applied to all bottom nodes which are located at El.100'-6" and El.63'-0" in EDGB and DFOT Room, respectively. Besides the basemat analysis using soil spring values, fixed boundary conditions are applied to end node of spring elements.

The boundary conditions of the EDG Area and DFOT Room are shown in the following Figures A-6 ~ A-9.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A5 Non-Proprietary A.3.4 Applied Loads The major walls and slabs are included in the ANSYS model using shell elements. The loads are considered as follows:

Dead Loads Attachment Loads Heavy Equipment Loads Normal Live Loads Seismic Live Loads Seismic Forces Wind Loads Soil Pressure (only DFOT Room)

A.3.5 Load Combinations Based on the GDC, loading combination (for Seismic Category I structures excluding Containment structure) as shown the following Table A-1 are considered.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A6 Non-Proprietary A.4 STABILITY EVALUATION OF EDGB & DFOT BASEMAT This section presents the stability evaluation of the APR1400 EDGB & DFOT basemat against evaluation of the settlement of EDGB & DFOT basemat.

A.4.1 Settlement of the EDGB & DFOT Basemat A.4.1.1 Basemat Uplift The uplift check of EDGB & DFOT Room basemat during the seismic excitation is carried out. According to SRP 3.7.2 (Reference 1), the calculation of the ground contact ratio to ensure the linear SSI analysis valid is required. The ground contact ratio is defined as minimum ratio of the number of node on foundation in contact with the soil to the total number of node in entire foundation. It is noted that the linear SSI analysis methods are acceptable if the ground contact ratio is equal to or greater than 80 percent.

Similar to the NI structures, the relatively stiff spring elements which connect the EDGB and DFOT Room basemat with underlying soil in the SSI model are used to calculate the contact stresses indirectly.

Because the spring forces from the SSI analysis of EDGB and DFOT Room are relatively larger than the corresponding reaction forces from their fixed-base transient time history analysis results, the ground contact ratios are underestimated for all site profiles. From the expectation that the spring forces by which the ground contact ratio is influenced directly are sensitive to their stiffness values in a certain range, a stiffness change of the spring elements from their original value of 1x107 kips/ft to the increased value of 1x108 kips/ft are made.

With the same procedure which is used for NI structures, the minimum contact ratios of the area of the basemat for EDGB/DFOT Room calculated with this stiffness change are summarized in Table A-2.

A.4.1.2 Differential Settlement The differential settlements of EDGB & DFOT basemat are checked in this section. For differential settlements, the dead (included in attachment and equipment load) and live load are applied in the basemat. The nodes within a distance of approximately 50 ft are selected to check the differential settlement. Table A-3 shows the differential settlements in EDGB & DFOT Room basemat.

In addition, the differential settlements between NI basemat, EDGB basemat and DFOT Room basemat are checked in section 5 and Table 5-8.

A.4.2 Bearing Pressure for EDGB & DFOT Basemat The bearing pressure of basemat by static and seismic loadings is evaluated in this section. For the bearing pressure, the D+L load case (static) and LC 05 ~ 08 (dynamic) are applied in the basemat and the maximum soil pressure of basemat is obtained from the ANSYS analysis results. It is noted that the allowable bearing capacity in accordance with APR1400 requirement is less than 15 ksf (static) and 60 ksf (dynamic). Table A-7 shows the soil pressures by static and dynamic loadings.

A.4.3 Stability Check of the EDGB & DFOT Basemat The EDGB and DFOT basemat structure is evaluated for stability against overturning, sliding, and flotation based on the same methodology described in Section 4.2. For stability check of EDGB and DFOT in four (4) load combination described in Section 4.2, it is following.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A7 Non-Proprietary (LC1) The EDGB is a low-rise building and the DFOT is a buried building except entrance. Therefore, wind loads should not govern in overturning and sliding. Nevertheless, the wind load combination LC1 is evaluated for overturning and sliding of EDGB for justification. Overturning and sliding FOS in wind load combination LC1 is summarized in table below. As shown in the table, both overturning and sliding FOS exceeds the allowable FOS of 1.5. In wind load combination LC1, buoyancy at normal design groundwater elevation is used.

Stability FOS of EDGB Basemat for Wind Item FOS for Wind Allowable FOS Overturning 10.67 1.5 Sliding 5.41 1.5 (LC2) The evaluation result for the SSE load combination LC2 is provided in subsection A.4.3.1 and A.4.3.2 against overturning and sliding. In SSE load combination LC2, the buoyancy at normal design ground water elevation is used.

(LC3) In the stability check, the seismic load governs over wind/tornado load. The allowable FOS of both SSE load combination LC2 and tornado load combination LC3 are same. Therefore, the load combination LC3 is governed by SSE load combination LC2.

(LC4) The evaluation result for the flood load combination LC4 is provided in Subsection A.4.3.3. The buoyancy at extreme ground water elevation is used.

In conclusion, overturning and sliding of the EDGB and DFOT are also governed by SSE load combination LC2 and flotation is governed by flood load combination LC4.

A.4.3.1 Overturning Check For the overturning check of EDGB and DFOT, the possible minimum resisting moment and maximum driving moment are calculated. In addition, when overturning is checked in combination with seismic forces (Es), the hydrostatic force at the design water level (He) is used. Minimum resisting moment is obtained by multiplying the effective dead load (D-He) by the minimum distance (dmin). Maximum driving moment consists of the overturning moments due to horizontal moments (Mx and My), seismic shear forces (Fx and Fy), and upward seismic force (V). For the overturning check of EDGB and DFOT, it is summarized in Table A-8.

A.4.3.2 Sliding Check The resistance forces against sliding of basemat are checked for the driving shear forces generated from the seismic load. The basemat friction force is considered to resist the sliding of the basemat in the sliding check, the shear key and earth pressure effects are not considered conservatively. In addition, when sliding is checked in combination with seismic forces, the hydrostatic force at the design water level is used. For the sliding check of EDGB and DFOT, it is summarized in Table A-8.

A.4.3.3 Flotation Check Flotation problems may be encountered during construction, operation, or flood condition. The deadweight of the structure is used to resist the hydrostatic uplift. For the flotation check, the hydrostatic

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A8 Non-Proprietary force at flooding groundwater level (Hs) is used. Any skin friction between the subgrade exterior walls and backfill is conservatively neglected. For the floatation check of EDGB and DFOT, it is summarized in Table A-8.

A.5 REFERENCES

1.

SRP 3.7.2, Seismic System Analysis, Draft Rev.4, 2013/03

2.

KEPCO E&C, Emergency D/G BLDG Seismic Analysis, APR1400 DC Calc. No.: 1-350-C305-001, Rev.7, 2017-10-25.

3.

KEPCO E&C, Emergency D/G BLDG Structural Analysis, APR1400 DC Calc. No.: 1-350-C304-001, Rev.7, 2017-12-21.

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A9 Non-Proprietary Table A-1 Loading Combinations Loading Condition No. Name D Dd L Lh T0 R0 C P0 M0 W H Pa Ta Ra Y Ma Es Wt Hs Analysis (yes/no)

Construction L.C.1 L.C.2 1.1 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 No No Test L.C.3 1.1 - 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 -

No Normal L.C.4 L.C.5 1.4 1.1 - 1.7 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 -

Yes No Severe Environmental L.C.6 L.C.7 L.C.8 L.C.9 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 Yes No No No Abnormal L.C.10 L.C.11 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 No No Extreme Environmental L.C.12 L.C.13 L.C.14 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 No No No Abnormal/Extreme Environmental L.C.15 1.0 - 1.0 1.0 -

- 1.0 - 1.0 -

- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 -

Yes Notes ;

Dd is included in D.

Yr, Yj, Ym and Yf are included in Y.1.

If the load reduces the effects of other loads, the corresponding factor for that load shall be taken as 0.9 of the assigned factor, if it can be demonstrated that the load is always present or occurs simultaneously with the other loads

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A10 Non-Proprietary Table A-2 Ground Contact Ratio for EDGB & DFOT Room Basemat Site Profile Concrete Stiffness Critical Load Combination Ground Contact Ratio (%)

EDGB S1 Uncracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh+1.0SSEEW+1.0SSENS+1.0SSEVT 100.00 Cracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh+1.0SSEEW+1.0SSENS+1.0SSEVT 100.00 S4 Uncracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh+1.0SSEEW+1.0SSENS+1.0SSEVT 100.00 Cracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh+1.0SSEEW-1.0SSENS+1.0SSEVT 98.81 S8 Uncracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh+1.0SSEEW+1.0SSENS-1.0SSEVT 97.97 Cracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh+1.0SSEEW+1.0SSENS+1.0SSEVT 98.46 DFOT S1 Uncracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh-1.0SSEEW-1.0SSENS+1.0SSEVT 92.53 Cracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh+1.0SSEEW+1.0SSENS-1.0SSEVT 94.22 S4 Uncracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh-1.0SSEEW+1.0SSENS-1.0SSEVT 95.47 Cracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh-1.0SSEEW-1.0SSENS+1.0SSEVT 95.24 S8 Uncracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh-1.0SSEEW+1.0SSENS-1.0SSEVT 92.10 Cracked 1.0D+1.0SLL+1.0Lh+1.0SSEEW+1.0SSENS+1.0SSEVT 93.21

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A11 Non-Proprietary Table A-3 Differential Settlement in EDGB & DFOT Room Location Node #1 Node #2 Distance (ft)

Differential Settlement (inches)

Soil #1 Soil #4 Soil #8 EDG 4451 4036 41.291 0.181 0.103 0.043 4036 4774 36.867 0.024 0.033 0.030 4036 131 47.734 0.155 0.077 0.029 4036 97 47.734 0.076 0.002 0.016 131 8308 47.734 0.151 0.076 0.029 8308 97 47.734 0.080 0.003 0.016 8308 8678 41.291 0.182 0.103 0.043 8308 8953 41.291 0.045 0.027 0.031 4460 8923 33.253 0.032 0.006 0.002 Total Max. Differential Settlement 0.182 0.103 0.043 DFOT 5876 794 45.881 0.330 0.108 0.013 5860 7068 25.836 0.265 0.091 0.014 5858 7066 25.836 0.364 0.121 0.017 63 304 26.023 0.233 0.059 0.005 5881 5861 26.023 0.337 0.093 0.001 76 7061 25.836 0.384 0.140 0.025 5858 7059 25.836 0.275 0.100 0.018 107 6027 26.023 0.218 0.044 0.011 63 5872 26.023 0.323 0.080 0.006 6479 6581 14.916 0.206 0.073 0.014 6604 6509 14.916 0.194 0.061 0.005 Total Max. Differential Settlement 0.384 0.140 0.025

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A12 Non-Proprietary Table A-4 Deleted

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A13 Non-Proprietary Table A-5 Deleted Table A-6 Deleted Table A-7 Soil Pressure of EDGB & DFOT Room Basemat Load Case Max. Soil Pressure (ksf)

Soil 1 Soil 4 Soil 8 EDGB Static Case 4.92 5.17 8.27 Dynamic Case 9.70 10.27 17.99 DFOT Static Case 5.98 6.09 7.37 Dynamic Case 13.98 14.24 18.10 Static Case: D+L Dynamic Case: Design load combination including SSE load

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A14 Non-Proprietary Table A-8 Summary of Stability Check for EDGB and DFOT Basemats Building Item FOS(1)

Allowable FOS Remark EDG Overturning by wind 10.67 1.5 Overturning by Earthquake 1.58 1.1 Sliding by Wind 5.41 1.5 Sliding by Earthquake 1.82 1.1 Flotation 10.67 1.1 DFOT Overturning by wind N/A Buried Structure Overturning by Earthquake 1.19 1.1 Sliding by Wind N/A Buried Structure Sliding by Earthquake 1.29 1.1 Flotation 1.81 1.1

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A15 Non-Proprietary Figure A-1 Elevation View of the EDGB Security-Related Information - Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390 TS

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A16 Non-Proprietary Figure A-2 Plan View of DFOT Room Security-Related Information - Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390 TS

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A17 Non-Proprietary Figure A-3 Elevation View of the DFOT Room Security-Related Information - Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390 TS

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A18 Non-Proprietary Figure A-4 FE Model for EDGB

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A19 Non-Proprietary Figure A-5 FE Model for DFOT Room

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A20 Non-Proprietary Figure A-6 Boundary Condition for EDGB in Structural Analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A21 Non-Proprietary Figure A-7 Boundary Condition for EDGB in Basemat Analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A22 Non-Proprietary Figure A-8 Boundary Condition for DFOT Room in Structural Analysis

Stability Check for NI Common Basemat APR1400-E-S-NR-14006-NP, Rev.5 KEPCO & KHNP A23 Non-Proprietary Figure A-9 Boundary Condition for DFOT Room in Basemat Analysis