ML18310A320
| ML18310A320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | NuScale |
| Issue date: | 10/30/2018 |
| From: | Bergman T NuScale |
| To: | Office of New Reactors |
| Cranston G | |
| References | |
| NUSCALESMRDC, NUSCALESMRDC.SUBMISSION.6, NUSCALEPART02.NP, NUSCALEPART02.NP.2 | |
| Download: ML18310A320 (95) | |
Text
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-102: Example Combined and Enveloped ISRS Tier 2 3.7-346 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-103: Exampled Broadened ISRS at Multiple Damping Ratios Tier 2 3.7-347 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-104: Comparison between Standalone Reactor Building Model and Triple Building Model, ISRS at Northwest Corner, Top of Basement Tier 2 3.7-348 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-105: Comparison between Standalone Reactor Building Model and Triple Building Model, ISRS at Northwest Corner, Top of Exterior Wall Tier 2 3.7-349 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-106: Comparison between Standalone Reactor Building Model and Triple Building Model, ISRS at Corner or Roof Slab Tier 2 3.7-350 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-107: Reactor Building ISRS for Floor at El. 24 0 Tier 2 3.7-351 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-108: Reactor Building ISRS for Floor at El. 25 0 Tier 2 3.7-352 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-109: Reactor Building ISRS for Floor at El. 50 0 Tier 2 3.7-353 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-110: Reactor Building ISRS for Floor at El. 75 0 Tier 2 3.7-354 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-111: Reactor Building ISRS for Floor at El. 100 0 Tier 2 3.7-355 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-112: Reactor Building ISRS for Floor at El. 126 0 Tier 2 3.7-356 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-113: Reactor Building ISRS for Roof at El. 181 0 Tier 2 3.7-357 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-114: ISRS at Reactor Building Crane Wheels at El. 145 6 Tier 2 3.7-358 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-115: ISRS at NPM Bay Wall at the Pool Floor Tier 2 3.7-359 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-116: ISRS at NPM Lug Restraints Tier 2 3.7-360 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-117: Control Building ISRS at Floor at El. 50 0 Tier 2 3.7-361 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-118: Control Building ISRS at Floor at El. 63 3 Tier 2 3.7-362 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-119: Control Building ISRS at Floor at El. 76 6 Tier 2 3.7-363 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-120: Control Building ISRS at Floor at El. 100 0 Tier 2 3.7-364 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-121: Control Building ISRS at Floor at El. 120 0 Tier 2 3.7-365 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-122: Control Building ISRS at Roof at El. 140 0 Tier 2 3.7-366 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-123: Comparison of 12 NPM and 7 NPM Model Results at Northwest Corner on Top of Basement (EL. 24-0)
Tier 2 3.7-367 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-124: Comparison of 12 NPM and 7 NPM Model Results at Mid-Span of North Wall on Top of Basement (EL. 24-0)
Tier 2 3.7-368 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-125: Comparison of 12 NPM and 7 NPM Model Results at Northeast Corner on Top of Basement (EL. 24-0)
Tier 2 3.7-369 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-126: Comparison of 12 NPM and 7 NPM Model Results at Northwest Corner on Top of Roof Slab (EL. 181-0)
Tier 2 3.7-370 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-127: Comparison of 12 NPM and 7 NPM Model Results at Mid-Span of Roof Slab (EL. 181-0)
Tier 2 3.7-371 Revision 2
NuScale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Figure 3.7.2-128: Comparison of 12 NPM and 7 NPM Model Results at Northwest Corner of Roof Slab (EL. 181-0)
Tier 2 3.7-372 Revision 2
of Pool Water for SAP2000 Model to Account for 3D FSI Effects 2 3.7-373 Revision 2
Cracked Model 2 3.7-374 Revision 2
Cracked Model 2 3.7-375 Revision 2
Cracked Model 2 3.7-376 Revision 2
Cracked Model 45 X-Direction TF for Node 03996 due to X-Input 40 No Separation Soil Separation 35 30 TF Amplitude 25 20 15 10 5
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 14 X-Direction TF for Node 03996 due to Y-Input 12 No Separation Soil Separation 10 TF Amplitude 8
6 4
2 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 20 X-Direction TF for Node 03996 due to Z-Input 18 No Separation Soil Separation 16 14 12 TF Amplitude 10 8
6 4
2 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 2 3.7-377 Revision 2
Cracked Model 8 Y-Direction TF for Node 03996 due to X-Input 7 No Separation Soil Separation 6
5 TF Amplitude 4
3 2
1 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 35 Y-Direction TF for Node 03996 due to Y-Input 30 No Separation Soil Separation 25 TF Amplitude 20 15 10 5
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 18 Y-Direction TF for Node 03996 due to Z-Input 16 No Separation Soil Separation 14 12 TF Amplitude 10 8
6 4
2 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 2 3.7-378 Revision 2
Cracked Model 16 Z-Direction TF for Node 03996 due to X-Input 14 No Separation Soil Separation 12 10 TF Amplitude 8
6 4
2 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 10 Z-Direction TF for Node 03996 due to Y-Input 9 No Separation Soil Separation 8
7 6
TF Amplitude 5
4 3
2 1
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 70 Z-Direction TF for Node 03996 due to Z-Input 60 No Separation Soil Separation 50 TF Amplitude 40 30 20 10 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 2 3.7-379 Revision 2
CB-E at El. 63', Capitola Input Node 34380 X-Direction ISRS 1.6 No Soil Separation 5% Damping 1.4 With Soil Separation 1.2 S pectral Acceleration (g) 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) 2 3.7-380 Revision 2
CB-E at El. 63', Capitola Input Node 34380 Y-Direction ISRS 1.6 No Soil Separation 5% Damping 1.4 With Soil Separation 1.2 S pectral Acceleration (g) 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) 2 3.7-381 Revision 2
CB-E at El. 63', Capitola Input Node 34380 Z-Direction ISRS 8
No Soil Separation 5% Damping 7
With Soil Separation 6
S pectral Acceleration (g) 5 4
3 2
1 0
0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) 2 3.7-382 Revision 2
Slab Between Grid Line CB-D and CB-E at El. 63' for Soil Type 7 50 X-Direction TF for Node 34380 due to X-Input 45 No Soil Separation With Soil Separation 40 35 30 TF Amplitude 25 20 15 10 5
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 5 X-Direction TF for Node 34380 due to Y-Input 4.5 No Soil Separation With Soil Separation 4
3.5 3
TF Amplitude 2.5 2
1.5 1
0.5 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 60 X-Direction TF for Node 34380 due to Z-Input No Soil Separation With Soil Separation 50 40 TF Amplitude 30 20 10 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 2 3.7-383 Revision 2
Slab Between Grid Line CB-D and CB-E at El. 63 for Soil Type 7 7 Y-Direction TF for Node 34380 due to X-Input 6 No Soil Separation With Soil Separation 5
TF Amplitude 4
3 2
1 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 90 Y-Direction TF for Node 34380 due to Y-Input 80 No Soil Separation With Soil Separation 70 60 TF Amplitude 50 40 30 20 10 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 100 Y-Direction TF for Node 34380 due to Z-Input 90 No Soil Separation With Soil Separation 80 70 60 TF Amplitude 50 40 30 20 10 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 2 3.7-384 Revision 2
Slab Between Grid Line CB-D and CB-E at El. 63 for Soil Type 7 35 Z-Direction TF for Node 34380 due to X-Input 30 No Soil Separation With Soil Separation 25 TF Amplitude 20 15 10 5
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 14 Z-Direction TF for Node 34380 due to Y-Input 12 No Soil Separation With Soil Separation 10 TF Amplitude 8
6 4
2 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 70 Z-Direction TF for Node 34380 due to Z-Input 60 No Soil Separation With Soil Separation 50 TF Amplitude 40 30 20 10 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Frequency (Hz) 2 3.7-385 Revision 2
cale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design cale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design cale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design cale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design cale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design cale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design cale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design
'Ž ^ ŽŽWŽ 'Ž ^ ŽŽWŽ
&ŽŽ ŽŽ &ŽŽ ŽŽ
? = 17° ?
= 0° y y
&DVH=0° &DVH
'Ž ^ ŽŽWŽ
&ŽŽ ŽŽ
= 30° ?
y
&DVH=30°
2 3.7-393 Revision 2
Free Field Uncoupled East-West (X) ARS at Surface, Capitola Input
- UHVSRQVHDWVXUIDFHGXHWR69ZDYH6$66,,QOD\HU
5HVXOWV6RLO7\SH &RQWURO 3RLQW DWVXUIDFH
&$3,72/$
'DPSLQJ
- 69DOSKD
- 69DOSKD
- 69DOSKD
6SHFWUDO $FFHOHUDWLRQ J
&6'56+RUL]RQWDO
)UHTXHQF\ +]
2 3.7-394 Revision 2
Free Field East-West (X) ARS Depth 85', Capitola Input, Alpha = 30 degrees
+RUL]RQWDO UHVSRQVHDWGHSWK GXHWR69DQG 3
ZDYHV6$66,,QOD\HU 5HVXOWV6RLO7\SH &RQWURO
3RLQW DWVXUIDFH &$3,72/$
7RWDO;DOSKD 'DPSLQJ
- 69DOSKD
- 3DOSKD
6SHFWUDO $FFHOHUDWLRQ J
- 69DOSKD
)UHTXHQF\ +]
2 3.7-395 Revision 2
Comparison of Combined Free-Field East-West (X) ARS at Depth 85', Capitola Input, Alpha = 0 Degrees, 17 Degrees, 30 Degrees
&RPELQHG KRUL]RQWDO UHVSRQVHDWGHSWK GXHWR
69DQG 3ZDYHV6$66,,QOD\HU 5HVXOWV6RLO7\SH
&RQWURO 3RLQW DWVXUIDFH &$3,72/$
'DPSLQJ 7RWDO;DOSKD
7RWDO;DOSKD
6SHFWUDO $FFHOHUDWLRQ J 7RWDO;DOSKD
)UHTXHQF\ +]
2 3.7-396 Revision 2
Uncombined East-West (X) ISRS, Node 3996, Top of Basemat, NW Corner, Capitola Input 1RGH 8QFRPELQHG ;,656 5;% &UDFNHG 36RLO'%6&DSLWROD DOSKD FRQWUROSRLQWDWVXUIDFH DOSKD FRQWUROSRLQWDWVXUIDFH DOSKD FRQWUROSRLQWDWVXUIDFH
,656IRU)ORRUDW(O )6$5 1RGH $YHUDJHG(QYHORSHG:LGHQHG
&6'56+RUL]RQWDO
'DPSLQJ
6 SHFWUDO$FFHOHUDWLRQ J
)UHTXHQF\ +]
2 3.7-397 Revision 2
Uncombined North-South (Y) ISRS, Node 3996, Top of Basemat, NW Corner, Capitola Input 1RGH 8QFRPELQHG < ,656 5;% &UDFNHG 36RLO'%6&DSLWROD DOSKD FRQWUROSRLQWDWVXUIDFH DOSKD FRQWUROSRLQWDWVXUIDFH DOSKD FRQWUROSRLQWDWVXUIDFH
,656IRU)ORRUDW(O )6$5 1RGH $YHUDJHG(QYHORSHG:LGHQHG
&6'56+RUL]RQWDO
'DPSLQJ
6 SHFWUDO$FFHOHUDWLRQ J
)UHTXHQF\ +]
2 3.7-398 Revision 2
Uncombined Vertical (Z) ISRS, Node 3996, Top of Basemat, NW Corner, Capitola Input 1RGH 8QFRPELQHG =,656 5;% &UDFNHG 36RLO'%6&DSLWROD DOSKD FRQWUROSRLQWDWVXUIDFH DOSKD FRQWUROSRLQWDWVXUIDFH DOSKD FRQWUROSRLQWDWVXUIDFH
,656IRU)ORRUDW(O )6$5 1RGH $YHUDJHG(QYHORSHG:LGHQHG
&6'569HUWLFDO
'DPSLQJ
6 SHFWUDO$FFHOHUDWLRQ J
)UHTXHQF\ +]
2 3.7-399 Revision 2
2 3.7-400 Revision 2 2 3.7-401 Revision 2 2 3.7-402 Revision 2 2 3.7-403 Revision 2 2 3.7-404 Revision 2 2 3.7-405 Revision 2 2 3.7-406 Revision 2 2 3.7-407 Revision 2 Seismic subsystems are structures, systems, and components (SSC) for which the seismic forces are transmitted through the building structure as opposed to being imparted through the soil. The following are considered subsystems:
- structures, such as floor slabs, walls, miscellaneous steel platforms and framing
- equipment modules consisting of components, piping, supports, and structural frames
- equipment including vessels, tanks, heat exchanges, valves, and instrumentation
- distributive systems including piping and supports, electrical cable trays and supports, heating ventilation and air conditioning ductwork and supports, instrumentation tubing and supports, and conduits and supports. These distributed systems are predominantly Seismic Category II In general, subsystems are evaluated as part of the detailed design using the analysis methodology described herein. Piping systems and their supports are further described in Section 3.12.
There are four seismic subsystems that are included in the certified design and specifically evaluated.
Each NuScale Power Module (NPM) is a subsystem. The seismic analysis of the NPMs is provided in Appendix 3A. The NPMs are included in the Reactor Building seismic model as beam elements as discussed in Section 3.7.2.
The fuel storage racks are a subsystem. The design of the racks is discussed in Section 9.1.2 and the details of the seismic analysis are provided in technical report TR-0816-49833 (Reference 3.7.3-1). The fuel storage racks are included in the seismic analysis of the building as a weight only.
The Reactor Building crane (RBC) is a subsystem. The design of the RBC is discussed in Section 9.1.5. The RBC is included in the Reactor Building seismic analysis as a beam and spring model as discussed in Section 3.7.2.
The bioshields are subsystems. The bioshields are included in the building model as weights only. The bioshield design and analysis is discussed in Section 3.7.3.3.1.
3.1 Seismic Analysis Methods Subsystems are generally evaluated using response spectrum analysis. Simple substructures may be evaluated using the equivalent static load method. These methods are described below. The NPMs and fuel storage racks were evaluated using time histories as described in Appendix 3A and technical report TR-0816-49833 (Reference 3.7.3-1), respectively.
3.1.1 Response Spectrum Analysis Method In the response spectrum method of analysis, loads, stresses, and deflections are determined for each mode of the SSC being analyzed from the in-structure 2 3.7-408 Revision 2
Section 3.7.2.5.
Modal responses are determined by accelerating each mode with the spectral acceleration corresponding to the frequency of that mode. The representative maximum response of interest for design is obtained by combining the corresponding maximum individual modal responses.
Equipment and components in some cases are supported at several points by either a single structure or two separate structures. The motions of the structures at each of the support points may be quite different. Two approaches (uniform support motion method and independent support motion method) are discussed in Section 3.7.3.9 to address multiple supported equipment and components with distinct inputs.
3.1.2 Equivalent Static Load Method This methodology is available for the analysis of simple SSC. The equivalent static load method may be used to evaluate:
- single-point-of-attachment cantilever models with essentially uniform mass distribution, or other simple structures that can be represented as single degree-of-freedom systems.
- cantilevers with non-uniform mass distribution and other simple multiple degree-of-freedom structures.
To obtain an equivalent static load for an SSC, a factor of 1.5 is applied to the peak spectral acceleration of the applicable ISRS. This force is applied at the center of mass of the SSC being evaluated. Results (loads, stresses, or deflections) are adjusted to account for the relative motion between all points of support.
Because the equivalent static load method is a simplified approach, each analysis contains justification that the use of a simplified model is realistic and the results are conservative.
3.2 Determination of Number of Earthquake Cycles The operating basis earthquake (OBE) is defined to be one-third of the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). As such, the OBE is eliminated from explicit design or analysis per 10 CFR 50 Appendix S. Therefore, the OBE is not used for primary stress evaluations and is not included in load combinations for the design of standard plant SSC.
However, the effects of the OBEs are accounted for in the fatigue analysis of SSC.
During plant life one SSE and five OBEs, with 10 maximum stress cycles per event, are assumed. To meet this requirement, earthquake cycles included in the fatigue analysis for the standard plant are normally composed of two SSE events, with 10 maximum stress-cycles each, for a total of 20 full cycles. This is considered equivalent to the cyclic load basis of one SSE and five OBEs.
2 3.7-409 Revision 2
amplitude may be used when derived in accordance with IEEE 344 (Reference 3.7.3-8).
3.3 Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling For the decoupling of the subsystem and the supporting system, the following criteria are used:
- if Rm < 0.01, decoupling can be done for any Rf
- if 0.01 Rm 0.1, decoupling can be done if 0.8 Rf 1.25
- if Rm > 0.1, a subsystem model should be included in the primary system model where, total mass of supported subsystem R m = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
total mass of supporting subsystem fundamental frequency of supported subsystem R f = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dominant frequency of support motion The Reactor Building (RXB) structural weight is greater than 500,000 kips (see Table 3.7.2-13). As such, a subsystem can be decoupled if the weight is less 5000 kips.
The larger subsystems, the NPM and the RBC, have weights on the order of 2000 kips and could be uncoupled. However, they are both coupled in the RXB model. The fuel storage racks have a loaded weight less than 2000 kips, and each bioshield is less than 200 kips. Therefore these SSC are decoupled.
Distributed systems (cable trays, piping, heating ventilation and air conditioning) and individual components will not have significant weights that would challenge the Rm < 0.01 criterion.
3.3.1 Bioshields The bioshields are nonsafety-related, not risk-significant, Seismic Category II components that are placed on top of each module bay at the 125' elevation to provide an additional radiological barrier to reduce dose rates in the RXB and support personnel access. Bioshields are removed while a NPM is being detached and refueled. During that time, the removed bioshield is placed on top of an in-place bioshield.
Each bioshield is comprised of a horizontal slab supported by the bay walls and a hanging vertical face plate attached to the horizontal slab. The horizontal slab consists of 21.5-in. thick reinforced 5000 psi concrete with a 2-in. layer of high-density polyethylene on the top. The concrete and high-density polyethylene are encapsulated in 1/4-in. steel plates for a total thickness of two feet. The vertical plate is constructed of a stainless steel tube framing system and stainless steel face plates. The vertical plate is vented for heat removal during normal operation via 2 3.7-410 Revision 2
NPM via hinged pressure relief panels providing one way ventilation. The vents for normal operation are located two feet off the surface of the pool, with one vent on the left and one on the right side of the front face of the vertical portion of the bioshield. The pressure relief panels cover the space between the vents for normal operation and all the way up the vertical face of the bioshield. A solid design is used as a representative weight for the structural analysis.
The bioshields are attached to the bay walls and outer pool wall using 1.5-in.
diameter removable anchor bolts. Figure 3.7.3-1 shows six installed bioshields and Figure 3.7.3-2 shows a vertical faceplate.
Reinforced Concrete Properties and Slab Capacity Table 3.7.3-8 contains the section dimensions used for the design of the bioshield.
Table 3.7.3-9 shows the concrete and reinforcement design values used for capacity calculations. The values are obtained from ACI 349 (Reference 3.7.3-4). The minimum concrete cover for cast-in-place members is based on Section 7.7.1 of ACI 349.
The capacities for the bioshield slab are shown in Table 3.7.3-10 and are calculated based on the provisions of ACI 349. The individual equations used for out of plane moment and shear capacity are referenced in Table 3.7.3-10. The anchor bolt capacities for tension and shear are developed using the equations from Appendix D of ACI 349.
The welded connections between the vertical and horizontal component of the bioshield are designed based on the provisions of Chapter J of AISC 360 (Reference 3.7.3-5).
Structural Steel Material Properties The vertical component is constructed of ASTM A240 Type 304L stainless steel plates and tube steel in order to resist corrosion. The yield strength and tensile strength of Type 304L stainless steel is 25 ksi and 70 ksi respectively. Yield strength decreases due to increasing temperature. The operating environment underneath the bioshield is expected to be higher than the ambient building temperature.
Therefore, a yield strength of 21.4 ksi, corresponding to a temperature of 200 °F, is used.
In-Structure Response Spectra In-structure response spectra were developed for multiple locations in the RXB in Section 3.7.2. Two nodes from that model were selected to use for the design of bioshields. These nodes are shown in Figure 3.7.3-3. Plots of the ISRS at these nodes are shown in Figure 3.7.3-4.
2 3.7-411 Revision 2
event. The acceleration obtained from these ISRS is used for the design.
3.3.1.1 Evaluation The self-weight of the bioshield was calculated using material densities and the dimensional properties. There are two structural components of the bioshield:
the horizontal slab and vertical face plate. The horizontal slab rests on the interior pool walls as shown in Figure 3.7.3-1. The face plate is welded to the steel plate on the bottom of the slab. Table 3.7.3-11 summarizes the weight of the slab and Table 3.7.3-12 summarizes the weight of the face plate.
The total weight of the bioshield used for design is twice the total calculated weight of each bioshield because they can be stacked on one another during refueling and maintenance. In addition, a 50 psf live load is included to account for the load due to plant personnel bolting and unbolting the bioshield during refueling and maintenance. The bioshield area is not expected to be a high traffic area during normal operation. The total weight used for design is 383 kips.
The slab is treated as a simply supported beam for simplified design. The combined dead and live load are treated as a distributed load along the simplified beam. The slab will exhibit one-way bending due to the fact that it is mounted directly on the two opposite buttress walls. Therefore, the maximum shear and bending for the slab is obtained from Table 3-23 of AISC Steel Construction Manual (Reference 3.7.3-6).
The frequency of the bioshield is based on two bioshields stacked one on top of the other. This is a conservative scenario for the seismic response. Using the parameters shown in Table 3.7.3-8 and Table 3.7.3-10, and the design weight of each bioshield, the natural vertical frequency is determined to be 11.42 Hz. This frequency is close to the peak of the ISRS, therefore the peak acceleration is used for the design. The natural north-south frequency of bioshield slab is 337.36 Hz. Therefore the acceleration at 100 Hz from the ISRS is used. The natural east-west frequency of the bioshield slab is 44.24 Hz and is used. The accelerations used in the three directions are shown in Table 3.7.3-13.
Load combination 9-6 from ACI 349 (this is load combination 10 in Table 3.8.4-1) is used to calculate maximum shear and moment in the horizontal slab.
In addition to the slab, the capacity of the anchor bolts is checked. The anchor bolt material is ASTM A193 Grade B7 due to its temperature and corrosion resistance. The ultimate tensile stress of ASTM A193 Grade B7 steel is 125 ksi.
The bioshield slab is anchored to the NPM bay walls with four 1.5-in. vertical bolts on each wall and to the NPM pool wall with eight 1.5-in. bolts in the horizontal direction.
2 3.7-412 Revision 2
Table 3.7.3-14 shows the summary of demand to capacity ratios for the bioshield.
3.4 Basis for Selection of Frequencies When practical, components are designed (or specified) so that the fundamental frequencies of the component are less than one half or more than twice the dominant frequencies of the support structure. However, equipment will be tested or analyzed to demonstrate that it is adequate for design loads considering the fundamental frequencies of the equipment and the support structure.
3.5 Analysis Procedure for Damping Damping values used for seismic analysis of SSC are in accordance with Table 3.7.1-7.
Component modal damping of piping systems is described in Section 3.12.3.2.2.
3.6 Three Components of Earthquake Motion Seismic demand is obtained for the three orthogonal (two horizontal and one vertical) components of earthquake motion from the ISRS. Each component of the earthquake motion is considered in the seismic analysis of subsystems. When the total response of the substructure is needed, it is normally obtained by combining the three directional responses using the SRSS method. The 100-40-40 rule, which typically produces higher demand, is an acceptable alternative to the SRSS method.
3.7 Combination of Modal Responses For the response spectrum method of analysis, the maximum responses such as accelerations, shears, and moments in each mode are calculated regardless of time. If the frequencies of the modes are well separated, the SRSS method is used; however, where the structural frequencies are not well separated, the modes are combined in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.92 "Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis," Rev. 3.
3.8 Interaction of Non-Seismic Category I Subsystems with Seismic Category I SSC When non-Seismic Category I SSC (or portions thereof) could adversely affect Seismic Category I SSC, they are categorized as Seismic Category II and analyzed using one of the methodologies described in Section 3.7.3.1.
For non-Seismic Category I subsystems attached to Seismic Category I SSCs, the dynamic effects of the non-Seismic Category I subsystems are included in the modeling of the Seismic Category I SSC. The attached non-Seismic Category I subsystems, up to the first anchor beyond the interface, are designed in such a manner that the CSDRS does not cause a failure of the Seismic Category I SSC.
2 3.7-413 Revision 2
Two methods are utilized to address multiple-supported equipment and components:
the uniform support motion (USM) method and the independent support motion (ISM) method. The USM method is a simpler approach, but produces larger forces.
For USM analysis, a single response spectrum is created that envelopes the ISRS of all the support locations. This single response spectrum is then used at all locations to calculate the maximum inertial responses of the equipment. In addition, the relative displacements at the support points are taken into consideration in the analysis using conventional static analysis procedures. The support displacements are then imposed on the supported equipment in the most unfavorable combination. The modal and directional responses are combined using the methods described in Section 3.7.3.6 and Section 3.7.3.7.
The ISM method may be used in lieu of the uniform support motion method when systems are at multiple levels or spread between diverse locations. For ISM analysis, the guidance and criteria given in NUREG-1061, Volume 4 "Evaluation of Other Loads and Load Combinations" is used.
The responses caused by each group are combined by absolute summation. The modal and directional responses are combined using the methods described in Section 3.7.3.6 and Section 3.7.3.7.
3.10 Use of Equivalent Vertical Static Factors Equivalent vertical static factors are not used in the design of the Seismic Category I and Seismic Category II structures. Vertical seismic loads are generated from the soil-structure interaction analysis.
3.11 Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses Torsional effects due to the presence of significant eccentric masses connected to a subsystem are included in the subsystem analysis. For rigid components (natural frequencies greater than 50 Hz), the lumped mass is modeled at the center of gravity of the component with a rigid link to the appropriate point in the subsystem. For flexible components, the subsystem model is expanded to include an appropriate model of the component.
Torsional effects of eccentric masses affecting the piping design are included in the analysis described in Section 3.12.4.2.
3.12 Buried Seismic Category I Piping, Conduits, and Tunnels The design does not include buried Seismic Category I piping, or conduits. The tunnel between the Control Building and the RXB is analyzed as part of the Control Building.
3.13 Methods for Seismic Analysis of Category I Concrete Dams The design does not include nor require the presence of a dam.
2 3.7-414 Revision 2
The design does not include any Seismic Category I aboveground tanks.
3.15 References 3.7.3-1 NuScale Power, LLC, "Fuel Storage Rack Analysis," TR-0816-49833, Revision 1.
3.7.3-2 ANSYS (Release 14.0, 15.0, and 16.0) [Computer Program]. Canonsburg, PA:
ANSYS Incorporated.
3.7.3-3 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "Rules for Construction of Overhead and Gantry Cranes (Top Running Bridge, Multiple Girder)," ASME NOG-1, 2004, New York, NY.
3.7.3-4 American Concrete Institute, "Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures and Commentary," ACI 349-06, Farmington Hills, MI.
3.7.3-5 American National Standards Institute/American Institute of Steel Construction, "Specification for Structural Steel Buildings," ANSI/
AISC 360-10, Chicago, IL.
3.7.3-6 American Institute of Steel Construction, Steel Construction Manual, 14th edition, 2011, Chicago, IL.
3.7.3-7 SAP2000 Advanced Version 18.1.1. (2015). Walnut Creek, California:
Computers and Structures, Inc.
3.7.3-8 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Standard for Seismic Qualification of Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations," IEEE Standard 344-2004, Piscataway, NJ.
2 3.7-415 Revision 2
2 3.7-416 Revision 2 2 3.7-417 Revision 2 2 3.7-418 Revision 2 2 3.7-419 Revision 2 2 3.7-420 Revision 2 2 3.7-421 Revision 2 2 3.7-422 Revision 2 Parameter Length s section width (east-west) 23 ft 1 in s section length (north-south) 20 ft 6 in cal bioshield height 30 ft cal bioshield width 21 ft 6 in hield distance between slab anchor bolts 21 ft 1 in r distance between supports (NPM support walls) 19 ft 7 in th of horizontal bioshield 2 ft 2 3.7-423 Revision 2
Design Value Parameters Value Concrete compressive strength fc (psi) 5,000 Rebar yield strength fy (psi) 60,000 Strength reduction factor for flexure M 0.90 Strength reduction factor for shear V 0.75 Steel modulus of elasticity ES (ksi) 29,000 Concrete strain c 0.003 efficient defining the relative contribution of concrete strength to nominal wall c 2.00 shear strength 2 3.7-424 Revision 2
Description Parameters Value of-plane moment capacity MN (kip-ft/ft) 206
= MMN r capacity provided by concrete vVc (kip/ft) 21
= v2bd(fc) r capacity provided by stirrups1 vVs (kip/ft) 27
= v((Ast(s)fyd)/ss) ane shear capacity by concrete2 vVconc(kip/ft) 27 nc=Acv(c(fc))
ane shear capacity2 vVin-plane (kip/ft) 109
-plane=minimum of (c(fc)+tfy) or v8Acv(fc) ction 11.5.7.2 of ACI 349 (Reference 3.7.3-4) ction 21.7.4.1 of ACI 349 (Reference 3.7.3-4) 2 3.7-425 Revision 2
Material Density Material Thickness Section Width Section Length Section Area Total Weight lb/ft3 in ft ft ft2 kip l 490.75 1/4 24.5 20.5 502.25 10.351 crete 150 21.5 135.00 E 60.56 2 5.08 Total 150.44 s:
al weight of steel is the weight of two plates (top and bottom of slab) 2 3.7-426 Revision 2
Material Density Material Section Width Section Height Section Area Total Weight Thickness lb/ft3 in ft ft ft2 kip 490.75 1/4 21.5 30 645 13.291 Member Linear Weight Horizontal Section Width Vertical Section Height Total Weight Members Members lb/ft qty ft qty ft kip 4X4X1/2 21.63 16+/- 22 12 30 15.4 Total 28.69 s:
al weight of plate steel is the weight of two plates (front and back of vertical component) 2 3.7-427 Revision 2
Node Excitation Direction Frequency Acceleration @ 4% Damping Hz G 26191 East-west 44.28 0.737 North-south 100.00 1.305 Vertical 14.45 2.077 26674 East-west 44.28 0.813 North-south 100.00 0.842 Vertical 9.20 2.027 2 3.7-428 Revision 2
Component Capacity Check Demand Capacity Unit D/C Ratio Slab reinforcement out-of-plane bending 124.54 206 kip-ft/ft 0.60 out-of-plane shear 23.62 48 kip/ft 0.49 Slab anchor bolt Tension 198.52 663.75 kip 0.30 Shear 467.53 796.5 kip 0.59 Wall anchor bolt Tension 486.16 922.5 kip 0.53 Shear 385.85 796.5 kip 0.48 Bent plate fillet weld Tension 37.6 59.39 kip 0.63 Hoist ring anchorage Interaction tension + - - 0.78 shear Vertical component slot weld Weld capacity 23.28 47.25 kip 0.49 2 3.7-429 Revision 2
cale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design 2 3.7-431 Revision 2 cale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design cale Final Safety Analysis Report Seismic Design Appendix S to 10 CFR 50 requires a timely shutdown of a nuclear power plant if vibratory ground motion exceeding that of the operating basis earthquake occurs or if significant plant damage occurs. In addition, Appendix S requires that suitable instrumentation be provided so that the seismic response of nuclear power plant features can be evaluated promptly after an earthquake.
Conformance with these aspects of 10 CFR 50 Appendix S is provided by the seismic monitoring system (SMS).
The SMS is not safety-related or risk-significant. It has no interconnection to safety-related or risk-significant systems. The SMS consists of seismic instrumentation at various locations on the plant site, and data recorders and a controller located in a cabinet in the Reactor Building (RXB). The data recorders maintain a record of the seismic activity. The SMS is Seismic Category I. This includes the sensors, wiring between the sensors and the control cabinet, and the instrumentation in the control cabinet. The controller processes the data and provides alarm notification to the main control room (MCR) via the plant control system (PCS). Because the PCS is not a Seismic Category I system, additional Seismic Category I annunciation equipment is located in the MCR to alert operators of a seismic event. This annunciation is part of the SMS.
The SMS is a site-specific system.
Item 3.7-7: A COL applicant that references the NuScale Power Plant design certification will provide a seismic monitoring system and a seismic monitoring program that satisfies Regulatory Guide 1.12 "Nuclear Power Plant Instrumentation for Earthquakes," Rev. 2 (or later) and Regulatory Guide 1.166 "Pre-Earthquake Planning and Immediate Nuclear Power Plant Operator Post-earthquake Actions,"
Rev. 0 (or later). This information is to be provided as noted below.
4.1 Comparison with Regulatory Guide 1.12 The NuScale design requires a deviation from the guidance in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.12 "Nuclear Power Plant Instrumentation for Earthquakes," Rev. 2 in that seismic instrumentation cannot be included inside containment. There are twelve NuScale Power Modules (NPMs), each with an integral containment. The containments are flooded as part of the refueling process. The NPMs are all located within a single pool in the RXB, and are all at the same elevation in the building. Instead of locating seismic instrumentation in containment, it is located in the RXB.
The COL applicant will discuss site-specific conformance with RG 1.12 as part of the response to COL Item 3.7-1.
4.2 Location and Description of Instrumentation Sensors are located in the free field, in the RXB, and in the Control Building (CRB). In the RXB and CRB, they are placed at locations that have been modeled as mass points in the building dynamic analysis so that the measured motion can be directly compared with the design spectra.
2 3.7-434 Revision 2
In the selection of the exact sensor locations, the COL Applicant shall adhere to the following criteria to ensure the site, the RXB, and the CRB are adequately instrumented for a seismic event:
- 1) Two sensor units are located in the free field. One sensor is located at the free ground surface consistent with the site conditions and properties used to determine the site-specific GMRS. The second is a downhole instrument located at the foundation level as close as being directly over the first sensor as practical.
- 2) Two sensor units are located in the RXB on the basemat at elevation 24'-0". One sensor is located near the intersection of Grid Lines RX-1 and RX-A. The other sensor is located near the intersection of Grid Lines RX-7 and RX-A.
- 3) A fifth sensor unit is located in the RXB at elevation 75'-0" on the east face of Grid Line RX-6, between RX-B and RX-C.
- 4) A sixth sensor unit is located on the RXB roof near the intersection of Grid Lines RX-4 and RX-C.
- 5) A seventh sensor unit is located in the CRB on the basemat at elevation 50'-0" near the intersection of Grid Lines CB-4 and CB-A.
- 6) An eighth sensor unit is located in the CRB at elevation 100'-0" on the east face of Grid Line CB-1 between CB-B and CB-C.
Sensor type is site-specific and will be discussed by the COL Applicant as part of the response to COL Item 3.7-1.
4.3 Control Room Operator Notification The SMS provides Seismic Category I annunciation in the MCR. Separately, the SMS provides information to the MCR via the PCS.
The COL applicant will discuss alarm levels based upon the site-specific operating basis earthquake as part of the response to COL Item 3.7-1.
4.4 Comparison with Regulatory Guide 1.166 The COL applicant will discuss site-specific conformance with RG 1.166 "Pre-Earthquake Planning and Immediate Nuclear Power Plant Operator Postearthquake Actions," Rev. 0 as part of the response to COL Item 3.7-1.
4.5 Instrument Surveillance The SMS is expected to be operable during all modes of plant operation, including periods of plant shutdown.
2 3.7-435 Revision 2
4.6 Program Implementation Item 3.7-8: A COL applicant that references the NuScale Power Plant design certification will identify the implementation milestone for the seismic monitoring program. In addition, a COL applicant that references the NuScale Power Plant design certification will prepare site-specific procedures for activities following an earthquake. These procedures and the data from the seismic instrumentation system will provide sufficient information to determine if the level of earthquake ground motion requiring shutdown has been exceeded. An activity of the procedures will be to address measurement of the post-seismic event gaps between the fuel racks and the pool walls and between the individual fuel racks and to take appropriate corrective action if needed (such as repositioning the racks or assuring that the as-found condition of the racks is acceptable based on the assumptions of the racks' design basis analysis). Acceptable guidance for procedure development is contained in Regulatory Guide 1.166 "Pre-Earthquake Planning and Immediate Nuclear Power Plant Operator Post-earthquake Actions,"
Rev. 0 (or later) and 1.167, "Restart of a Nuclear Power Plant Shut Down by a Seismic Event," Rev. 0 (or later).
2 3.7-436 Revision 2
Only commercially available software packages were used for the analysis and design of the site-independent Seismic Category I and Seismic Category II structures. The primary software packages used are SAP2000 and SASSI2010.
The software validation and verification summary tests those characteristics of the software that mimic the physical conditions, material properties, and physical processes that represent the NuScale design in numerical analysis. It covers the full range of parameters used in NuScale design-basis seismic demand calculations including the discretization and aspect ratio of finite elements, Poissons ratio, frequencies of analysis, and other parameters pertinent to seismic system analyses.
5.1 ANSYS 5.1.1 Description ANSYS is a commercial, general use finite element analysis (FEA) software. ANSYS is used to determine demand loads and stresses in structures, supports, equipment, and components/assemblies. ANSYS Mechanical software offers a comprehensive product solution for structural linear and nonlinear and dynamic analysis. The product provides a complete set of element behavior, material models, and equation solvers for a wide range of engineering problems.
5.1.2 Version Used ANSYS Computer Program, Release 14, 15, and 16.0, January 2015. ANSYS Incorporated, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
5.1.3 Validation and Verification Software validation and verification was performed in accordance with the NuScale Quality Assurance program. This included confirmation that the software was capable of addressing the NuScale design conditions and performance of the ANSYS-provided verification testing package.
5.1.4 Extent of Use ANSYS is used for fluid structure interaction applying input motions from SASSI2010 and using fluid elements to assess the fluid pressures on walls and sloshing heights. Factors are applied to SASSI2010 results to adjust for these effects.
5.2 SAP2000 5.2.1 Description SAP2000 is a general-purpose, three-dimensional, static and dynamic finite-element computer program. Analyses, including calculation of deflections, 2 3.7-437 Revision 2
It features a powerful graphical interface which is used to create/modify finite element models. This same interface is used to execute the analysis and for checking the optimization of the design. Graphical displays of results, including real-time animations of time-history displacements, are produced. SAP2000 provides automated generation of loads for design based on a number of National Standards.
The software can perform the following types of analyses: static linear analysis, static nonlinear analysis, modal analysis, dynamic response spectrum analysis, dynamic linear and nonlinear time history analysis, bridge analysis, moving load analysis, and buckling analysis.
5.2.2 Version Used SAP2000, Version 18.1.1, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley.
5.2.3 Validation and Verification Software validation and verification was performed in accordance with NuScale Quality Assurance program. This included confirmation that the software was capable of addressing the NuScale design conditions and performance of the Computer and Structures Inc. verification problems.
5.2.4 Extent of Use SAP2000 is used to develop the finite element models of the RXB and CRB and to perform general structural analysis of the building.
5.3 SASSI2010 5.3.1 Description SASSI, a System for Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction, consists of a number of interrelated computer program modules which can be used to solve a wide range of dynamic soil-structure interaction (SSI) problems in two or three dimensions.
5.3.2 Version Used SASSI2010 Version 1.0, Berkeley, California 5.3.3 Validation and Verification Software validation and verification was performed in accordance with NuScale Quality Assurance program. This included confirmation that SASSI2010 was capable of analyzing a model as large and complex as planned for the RXB, the CRB, and the RWB, and capable of using the earthquake profiles with the accelerations 2 3.7-438 Revision 2
5.3.4 Extent of Use SASSI2010 is used to obtain seismic design loads and in-structure floor response spectra for the Seismic Category I buildings accounting for the effects of SSI.
5.4 SHAKE2000 5.4.1 Description The computer program SHAKE2000 computes the free-field response of a semi-infinite, horizontally layered soil column overlying a uniform half-space subjected to an input motion prescribed as the object motion in the form of vertically propagating shear waves. SHAKE2000 is used for the analysis of site-specific response and for the evaluation of earthquake effects on soil deposits. It provides an approximation of the dynamic response of a site. SHAKE2000 computes the response in a system of homogeneous, viscoelastic layers of infinite horizontal extent subjected to vertically traveling shear waves.
5.4.2 Version Used SHAKE2000, a module of GeoMotions Suite, Version 9.98.0, Gustavo A. Ordonez.
5.4.3 Validation and Verification Software validation and verification was performed in accordance with the NuScale Quality Assurance program. Sample problems were designed to test SHAKE2000 major analytical capabilities.
5.4.4 Extent of Use SHAKE2000 is used to generate strain-compatible soil properties and free-field site response motions for use in seismic SSI analysis of the site-independent Seismic Category I and Seismic Category II structures.
5.5 RspMatch2009 5.5.1 Description RspMatch2009 is used to generate spectrum-compatible acceleration time histories by modifying a recorded seismic accelerogram. The RspMatch2009 program performs a time domain modification of an acceleration time history to make it compatible with a user-specified target spectrum.
5.5.2 Version Used RspMatch2009, Version 2009 2 3.7-439 Revision 2
Software validation and verification was performed in accordance with the NuScale Quality Assurance program. The program was validated by comparing the response spectrum calculated by RspMatch 2009 for an arbitrarily selected acceleration time history with one calculated by SAP2000 for the same acceleration time history.
5.5.4 Extent of Use RspMatch2009 is used to generate the five CSDRS-compatible acceleration time histories by modifying the recorded seismic accelerograms of five different earthquakes and to generate the CSDRS-HF-compatible acceleration time history by modifying the recording of the time histories of a sixth earthquake.
5.6 RspMatchEDT 5.6.1 Description RspMatchEDT is used to generate spectrum-compatible acceleration time histories by modifying a recorded seismic accelerogram. The RspMatchEDT Module for SHAKE2000 is a pre- and post-processor for the RspMatch2009 program, which is part of SHAKE2000.
5.6.2 Version Used RspMatchEDT, a module of GeoMotions Suite, Version 9.98.0, Gustavo A. Ordonez.
5.6.3 Validation and Verification Software validation and verification was performed in accordance with the NuScale Quality Assurance program. The program was validated by comparing the response spectrum calculated by RspMatchEDT with the spectrum calculated by RspMatch2009.
5.6.4 Extent of Use RspMatchEDT is used to confirm the adequacy of the CSDRS and CSDRS-HF compatible time histories produced with RspMatch2009.
2 3.7-440 Revision 2