ML19211C043
| ML19211C043 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/30/1978 |
| From: | Bagchi G, Shao L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19211C042 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-40, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-40, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8001090099 | |
| Download: ML19211C043 (23) | |
Text
.'
" PROPOSED REVISION 2" Task A-40 ALTERNATIVE - 1 Rev. No. 1 May, 1978 Task A-40 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA Division of Reactor Safety Research Lead RES Organizations:
(RSR)
Lead Supervisor:
L. C. Shao, Assistant Director for General Reactor Safety Research, RSR Task Manager:
G. Bagchi, Chief Structural Engineering Research Branch, RSR 2
All Reactor Types Applicability:
Projected Completion Date:
July,1981 NRR Cognizant Director:
R. C. DeYoung, Director Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis NRR Cognizant Engineers:
D. Allison, 00R H. Rood, DPM 1737 164 8 0 010 9 0lC)Cf l
Task A-40 Rev. No. 1 May, 1978 1.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION The seismic design process required by current NRC criteria includes the following sequence of. events.
A.
Define the magnitude or intensity of the earthque'c which will produce the nazimum vibratory ground motion at tu rite (the safe shutdown earthquake or SSE).
B.
Determine the free-field ground motion at the site that would result if the SSE occurred.
C.
Determine the motion of site structures by modifying the free-field motion to account for the interaction of the site struc-tures with the underlying foundation soil.
D.
Determine the moti6n of the plant equipment supported by the site structures.
E.
Compare the seismic loads, in appropriate combination with other loads, on structures, systems, and components important to safety, with the allowable loads.
While this seismic design sequence includes many conservative factors, certain aspects of the sequence may not be conservative for all plant sites.
At present it is believed that the overall sequence is adequately conservative. The objective of this program is to investigate selected areas of the seismic design sequence to determine their conser-vatism for all types of sites, to investigate alternate approaches to parts of the design sequence, to quantify the overall conservatism of the design sequence, and to modify the NRC criteria in the Standard Review Plan if changes are found to be justified.
In this manner this program will provide additional assurance that the health and safety of the public is protected, and if possible, reduce costly design conser-vatisms by improving (1) current seismic design requirements, (2) NRR's capability to evaluate the adequacy of seismic design of operating reactors and plants under construction, and (3) NRR's capability to quantitatively assess the overall adequacy of seismic design for nuclear plants in general.
1737 165
Task A-40 Rev. No. 1 May, 1978 2.
PLAN FOR PROBLEM RESOLUTION The overall program for resolution of the seismic design criteria consists of (1) tasks concerning the seismic input, definitions, and (2) tasks concerning the response of structures, systems, and components.
/
Tasks related to the response and behavior of structures, systems and components were initiated in Fiscal Year (FY) 1977, and are nearing 2
completion at the end of FY1978.
Tasks related to'the seismic input These definition were initiated in late FY1978 and early FY1979.
tasks are not expected to'- be completed until the beginning of FY1981.
Phase 2 of this program comprises the tasks related to the seismic input definition. Listed below are the tasks associated with the various phases of this program, also indicated in parentheses are the lead NRR Divisions for the respective tasks.
1737 166
.L..
Task A-40 Rev. No.1 May, 1978 2
Phase 1 Response of Structures, Systems, and Components Task 1.0 Quantification of Seismic Conservatisms (D'JR) 1.1 Display of Methodology 1.2 Design Ground Motion 1.3 Seismic Analysis and Design 1.4 Structural and Mechanical Resistance 1.5 Overall Quantification Task 2.0 Elasto-Plastic Seismic Analysis (DOR) 2.1 Model Developme'nt 2.2 Elasto-Plastic Analysis 2.3 Conventional Analysis 2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations Task 3.0 Site Specific Response Spectra (DOR) 3.1 Define Site Conditon and Assess Relevant Data Select Statistically Significant Subjects of Time Histories 3.2 3.3 Development of Baysian And Deterministic Approaches Develop Data Base for Site Specific Spectra Using Various Approache 3.4 3.5 Initial Assessment of Basic Approaches 3.6 Categorization of sites 3.7 Development of Site Spectra 3.8 Development of Final Report 3.9 Review San Onofre Approval 1737 167
Task A-40 Rev. No.1 May, 1978 2
Task 4.0 Seismic Aftershocks (DOR) 4.1 Assess Data on Aftershocks 4.2 Quantify Probability of Aftershock Before Plant is safely Shut Down 4.3 Recomend Number of Earthquake Cycles 4.4 Recomend Allowable Level of Inelastic Behavior Task 5.0 Nonlinear Structural Dynamic Analysis Procedures for Category I Structures (DSS) 5.1 Survey of Methods of Nonlinear Analysis 5.2 Selection of Reference Method 5.3 Benchmark Analyses Task 6.0 Soil-Structure Interaction (DSS) 6.1 Evaluation of Analytical Limitations f,. 2 Evaluation of Regulatory Guide 1.60 6.3 Effect of Horizontally Propagating Surface Wave 6.4 Evaluation of Linear Iterative Procedure 6.5 Evaluation of Plane Strain Model 6.6 Determination of Control Motion Location 6.7 Analyze Rotational Inputs 6.8 Conclusions and Recommendations
- This task has been deleted due to sparsity of data on strong motion 2
a f tershocks. Also, the inelastic behavior of safety related structures and equipment are limited to low ductility levels.
1737 168
Task A-40 Rev. No.1 May, 1978 Phase 2, Seismic Input Definition Task 7 - State-Of-The-Art Study Concerning Near Field Earthquake Ground Motion (DSE) 7.1 Review and Critique of Methods for Determining Strong Ground Motion 7.2 Evaluate Strong Motion in the Near-Field of Earthquake As a Function of Earthquake Size 7.3 Evaluate the Scaling of Strong Ground Motion with the Source Parameters 2
7.4 Prepare A State-Of-The-Art Report Tasks 8 rnd 9 - Analysis of Ne.ar Source Earthquake Ground Motion (D3E) 0.1 Review Current Work in Near Source Ground Motion 0.2 Perform Analysis of Existing Near-Source Data 0.3 Review and Analyze Ground Motion Data From Explosions 0.4 Develop Scaling Rules 0.5 Evaluate High Frequency Attenuation of Near-field Ground Motion
- r. ; Evaluate Response Spectrum Dependence on Source Parameters Task 10.0 - Review and Implementation (RES) 2 10.1 Review and Evaluate Results of Other Tasks 10.2 Modify Standard Review Plan A description of each of the above tasks and subtasks is given below:
hsk1.0QuantificationofSeismicConservatisms The plant seismic design process required by NRC criterir (fc lov%g identification of the SSE for a site) includes a nushi s' Wservative The factors and may include some factors which are not cvw.<o. ;e.
objective of this task is to identify and quantify each of i.oGe factors, and then estimate the overall conservatism of the seismic design process.
This task will consist of five subtasks, as described below.
1737 169
Task A-40 Rev. No.1 May, 1978 Subtask 1.1: Display of Methodology Prepare a matrix of the different analytical models showing the different analyses to be performed and the item for which the results will be used.
Subtesk 1.2: Design Ground Motion This subtask will evaluate the conservatism of the use of Regulatory Guide 1.60 response spectra, the use of 1/2 the SSE g value for the OBE, and the simultaneous application of seismic input to all points on the foundation of a structure.
Subtask 1.3:
Seismic Analysis and Design This subtask will evaluate the conservatism inherent in the analysis and design methods recommended by the Standard Review Plan, including inelastic vs elastic analysis, Regulatory Guide 1.61 damping values, soil-structure interaction, three-component analysis, absolute sum combination of loads, peak widening of floor response spectra, the use of maximum response spectra for multiple-supported systems, multiple application of damping values, system redundancy, and qualification of electrical and mechanical equipment.
Subtask 1.4:
Structural and Mechanical Resistance This subtask will evaluate the conservatism due to the use of minimum material prop 1rties, the use of static rather than dynamic resistance of structures, the use of 28-day concrete strength, the use of " allowable" ductility rather than ducti-lity to failure, energy absorption by non-load carrying structures, and the stringency of nuclear QA programs.
s O
1737 170 9
Task A-40 Rev. No.1 May, 1978 Subtast 1.5:
Overall Quantification Having determined the conservatism of each aspect of seismic design, quantify the overall conservatism of several typical structures, systems, and components by determining the overall margin to failure, and performing a probabilistic assessment of the overall risk.
Task 2.0 Elasto-Plastic Seismic Analysis Elasto-Plastic behavior of structures tends to absorb a significant portion of the seismic energy, therby reducing the imposed seismic loads from those predicted using an elastic analysis.
This task will investigate the extent to which simplified elasto plastic design methods are applicable for use in the design of Category I and adjacent non-Category I structures.
The purpose of this task is twofold:
(1) to compare.the degree of conservatism of a typical steel frame for a static, and several vintages of dynamic, analyses to a rigorous elasto plastic analysis technique; and (2) to recom-send a simplified elasto plastic analysis technique with corresponding inelastic analysis parameters; i.e., damping values, response spectra, etc., for possible use in the analysis of non-Category I structures.
This task is divided into five substasks:
Subtask 2.1:
Model Development Develop the dynamic model of a typical two-bay, three-story steel frame, a typical vertical piping system and a typical horizontal piping system.
A typical pump and valve will be assumed to be attached to the piping system to represent equip-ment and its corresponding supports.
Subtask 2.2:
Elasto-Plastic Analysis Perform rigorous elasto plastic time history analyses of the models set up in subtask 2.1 by subjecting them to typical recorded seismic accelerograms rep esenting (a) near field effects and (b) far field effects in order to determine the threshold "g" values for the structure, system and component.
1737 171
Task A-40 Rev. No.1 May, 1978 Subtask 2.3:
Conventional Analysis Using the same models perform analyses corresponding to the different vintages of design criteria; i.e.:
static application of "g" value - determine the "g" values for the structures, component, and system assuming elastic (a)
- behavior, dynamic design with Housner type of spectra, corresponding damping values and floor response spectra - determine the (b)
"0" values for the structures, component, and system assuming elastic behavior, and dynamic design with current criteria in accordance with (c) sections 3.7 and 3.8 of the Standard Review Plan - deter-eine the "g" values for the structures, component, and system assuming elastic behavior.
Obtain relative conservatism of each item in Subtask 2.3 by comparing the results with those of Subtask 2.2.
Subtask 2.4:
Conclusions and Recommendations Make recommendations on a simplified elasto-plastic analysis technique such as the one proposed by N. M. Newmark and the corresponding inelastic analysis parameters such as damping values, response spectra, etc.
Task 3.0 Site-Specific Response Spectra The current spectral shape as defined by Regul It has been concluded that the shallow California earthquakes.
guidelines provided in Regulatory Guide 1.60 may be overly conserva This task is intended to assist in tive for many plant sites.
defining site-specific spectral shapes that are realistic and not The objective of this task is to develop overly conservative.
procedures for the determination of site-specific response spectra to evaluate the seismic input parameters such as maximum Ground and spectral displacement for a acceleration, spectral velocity,ites. This task will be carried out variety of nuclear power plant s as follows:
1737 172
Task A-40 Rev. No.1 May,1978 Perform a literature search and make recommendations to the (a) staff regarding the procedures for the determination of site-For example, (1) the site-specific specific response spectra.
spectra may be based on a uniform probability of exceedence through the frequency range of interest, (2) site-specific spectra may be based on the envelope of the response spectra of actual strong motion time histories applicable to the selected plant site (similar site condition, same intensity earthquake, etc.)
Identify computer codes and automated routines utilized in this (b) project and document any modifications to same.
Recommend methodologies to be used to determine the site-(c) specific response spectra.
Task 4.0 Seismic Aftersh0cks 2
This ta>k ha' been deleted Nonlinear Structural Dynamic Analysis Procedures for Task 5.0 Category I Structures This task is designed to provide the staff with a pr structures beyond their elastic response range.
The Standard Review Plan and regulatory guides currently provide no The criteria or acceptable methods for nonlinear seismic analysis.
present ifcensing need, however, requires the development of acc This need is ance criteris and methods of analysis in this area.
principally in existing plants (e.g., Diablo Canyon) where determ tions regarding design adequacy of Category I s This task differs from Task 2.0 above, in that Task 2.0 emphasizes the development of simplified, response spectrum methods of inel analysis, whereas Task 5.0 is oriented primarily towards the time-history method of analysis.
This task will consist of three subtasks, as described below:
~.
1737 173 1
Task A-40 Rev. No.1 May, 1978 Subtask 5.1:
Survey of Methods of Nonlinear Analysis Conduct a literature search for both rigorous and simplified methods of dynamic analysis for structures with nonlinear or inelastic behavior for the purpose of identifying specific approaches for implementing the below-defined tasks.
Subtask 5.2:
Selection of Reference Method Based on the results of the literature search and the review group's expertise in the area, the review group will identify and recommend the most pertinent yet simplified and practical dynamic analysis procedure for Category I structures,' systems, and components with reliance on nonlinear or inelastic behavior.
The procedure should have the capability of handling nonlinear response of multi-degree-of-freedom systems and structures.
Description of the secommended procedure should include all basic assumptions for the analysis, theoretical background, analytical models, mathematical formulation, methods of solu-tion, verification of reliability and correctness of the method and interpretation of results.
If computer programs are involved, description of the programs, including flow diagram, complete program listing, program verification date, program applica-bility and limitations and sources of sub-routines, should be included.
Subtask 5.3:
Benchmark Analyses Develop a set of benchmark problems and perform comparative studies of the benchmark problems using the rigorous and simpli-fled nonlinear analysis methods and the conventional methods of elastic dynamic analysis to establish relative merits of the two approaches (i.e., nonlinear and linear approaches) and recommend cases where the nonlinear dynamic analysis method should be used.
Recommend pertinent design criteria and analysis guidelines that should be followed in conducting nonlinear dynamic analyses of Category I structures, systems, and com-ponents using the recommended method of analysis.
1737 174
Task A-40 Rev. No.1 May, 1978 Task 6.0 Soil-Structure Interaction The subject of soil-structure interaction analysis has long been a controversial subject because of the various techniques preferred by different applicants.
Recently, it has become a primary issue on several projects being licensed and has been designated an ACRS Generic Item (IIE-1).
In order to provide a confirmatory basis for, or otherwise to revise the current Standard Review Plan positions, an indepth study which will evaluate from an analytical point of view the various techniques, including deconvolution analyses, is urgently needed.
The objective of this investigation is to determine limits and conditions of applicability as well as estimates of conservatism in the definition of seismic input and soil-structure interaction procedures currently used.in the seismic analysis of nuclear power Specific attention will be given to the conservatism embodied plants.
in the application of computer programs such as SHAKE and LUSH employed for deconvolution and soil-structure interaction analysis.
Particular attention will be given to requirements concerning varia-tion of soil properties, enveloping the response spectra at the foundation level, and fixing a minimum value of the response spectra at the foundation level.
This task will consist of eight subtasks, as described below:
Subtask 6.1:
Evaluation of Analytical Limitations Analyze the assumptions used in modeling soil-structure interac-tion as specified in the computer codes SHAKE and LUSH and determine appropriate limits and conditions of applicability.
In doing this, specifically consider geological features such as oblique strata and undulating topography and the appro-priateness of postulating a horizontally layered soil with uniform properties at a given depth.
Subtask 6.2:
Evaluation of Regulatory Guide 1.60 Analyze the suitability of using Regulatory Guide 1.60 (Defini-tion of Seismic Input) with SHAKE.
Specifically consider that 1737 175
Task A-40 Rev. No.1 May, 1978 SHAKE requires a site dependent input but that R.G. 1.60 pro-vides a relatively broad band frequency input which might.
result in unrealistic motions predicted at depth.
Subtask 6.3:
Effect of Horizontally Propagating Surface Wave Determine by analysis the effect of a horizontally propagating surface wave on structures, systems, and components and estimate the conservatism of the SHAKE assumption that earthquake motions will arrive at a site via a vertically propagating body wave.
Subtask 6.4:
Evaluation of Linear Iterative Procedure Analyze the significance and consequences on the e,nalytical results of the SHAKE use of an equivalent linear iterative procedure in light o.f recent studies that have indicated that a more exact nonlinear procedure may give different results, especially for large nonlinearities.
Subtask 6.5:
Evaluation of Plan Strain Model Analyze the significance and the consequences on the analytical results of SHAKE's use of a plane strain model to perform one deconvolution of an earthquake component at a time when, in actuality, three translational components of the earthquake motion will propagate simultaneously.
Subtask 6.6:
Determination of Control Motion Location Determine the appropriate location (e.g., finished grade, foundation level, first competent rock layer) for specifying the seismic :ontrol motion.
Subtask 6.7:
Analyze Rotational Inputs Perform analyses to determine the safety significance of rota-tional seismic inputs (e.g., rocking and torsional inputs).
Subtask 6.8:
Conclusions and Recommendations Recommend appropriate methods of performing seismic decon-(a) volution analyses, including estimates of conservatism and 1737 176
l Task A-40 Rev. No.1 May, 1978 limits of applicability.
Recommend analytical procedures for sites having a shallow soil layer over the first competent rock layer.
(b) Recommend appropriate methods of performing soil-structure interaction analysis, including:
(1) when to use the elastic half space method, and (2) when to use the finite element method.
G 1737 177
Task A-40 Rev. No. 1 May, 1978 Task 7.0 Earthquake Source Modeling The objective of this task is to provide the methodology for determining the adequacy of modeling techniques proposed by applicants to assess ground motion near faults. This task will evaluate the state-of-the-art and provide the staff with the means 2
for making an independent determination of appropriate source parameters to predict site-dependent ground motion from earthquakes on large faults near the site.
Subtask 7.1:
Review and Critique Methods for Determining Strong Ground Motion Perform a unified review which reconciles and explains the different earthquake source theories taking advantage of both dislocation as well as relaxation models.
Subtask 7.2: Evaluate Strong Motion in the Near-Field of Earthquake as a Functior, of Earthquake Size Evaluate strong motion in the near-field as a function of 2
earthquake size, for example, moment and magnitude.
Strong motion is defined as time histories, response spectra, and peak parameters.
Subtask 7.3: Evaluate the Scaling of Strong Ground Motion with Source Parameters Variation of other source parameters will be evaluated. These include fault plane dimension and orientation, stress drop, stress conditions and time function of slip.
Subtask 7.4: Prepare a State-of-the-Art Report Develop and provide a state-of-the-art report incorporating the results of Subtasks 7.1 through 7.3 This document shall combine developed earthquake source theory with the limited observed data to develop alternative scaling procedures for near-field spectra.
1737 178
Task A-40 Rev. No. 1 May, 1978 Analysis of Near-Source Ground Motion Task 8.0 and 9 The objective of this task is to develop methodology for determining strongground motion spectra in the strong motion (region of unat-tenuated source spectrum) near-field of earthquake sources.
Methodology is to incorporate earthquake source parameters.
This task will be conducted as follows:
Review current work being done in near-source ground motion and identify parameters which impact ground motion.
I.
Perform analysis of existing near-source data to determine II.
dependence of peak acceleration on earthquake source parameters as magnitude, moment, source dimension, stress 2
conditions, source propagation speed, and attenuation of the spectral content of the ground motion.
Review and analyze ground motion data from explosions and III.
collect applicable cata from salvo type experiments.
Develop scaling rules from I, II and III.
IV.
Evaluate role of attenuation (Q) in high frequency cutoff V.
near-field ground motion from studies of ground motionIf recorded at several sites from the same earthquake.
possible, worldwide data will be used.
Evaluate response spectrum dependence on source parameters VI.
using the above tasks.
This assistance Assist NRC staff to make interim assessments.
will consist of the state-of-the-art input, as advanced by VII.
this study, to be used by licensing staff for specific sites.
1737 179
Task A-40 Rev. No. 1 May, 1978 Task 10.0 Review and Implementation The objective of this task is to provide a technical review of the results of each of the other tasks in this program, and to recommend changes in NRC criteria, regulatory guides, regulations, etc., based on these results.
Subtask 10.1 Review and Evaluate Results of Other Tasks This subtask involves the establishment of a seismic review group, with representatives from each of the four NRR divisions and from Research and Standards. The function of the group would be to periodically review the results of each of the When interim or final results are tasks in this program.
available for a task, the review group would evaluate the results and recommendation to be taken, if warranted, to modify the Standard Review Plan, the Regulatory Guides, or the Regulations.
All the tasks in this program have the potential of resulting in modifications to the standard review plan, depending on the In addition, Tasks 1.0 through 4.0 will results obtained.
result in the development of criteria for use in the Systematic Evalution Program for re-review of operating reactors.
Subtask 10.2: Modify Standard Review Plan Under this subtask, recommended changes to the Standard Review Plan in seismic areas will be implemented by NRR.
BASIS FOR CONTINUED PLANT OPERATION AND LICEN 3.
OF TASK As discussed in Section 1, the objective of this task is to investi-gate selected areas of seismic design to determine their conservatis for all types of sites, to investigate alternate approaches to parts of the design sequence, to quantify the overall conservatism of the design sequences, and to modify the licensing criteria if The results of the task will be changes are found to be justifieo.
applicable to all types of nuclear power plants.
We anticipate that the results of this task will provide confirma-tion that current requirements provide an overall conservat approach to seismic design.from this task is the development of be design considerations that will permit establishm designs without a loss of overall margin.
The Three general types of results are expected from will result in a more consistent level of seismic de plants.
Task A-40 Rev. No. 1 May, 1978 Second, it is expected that these investigations will demonstrate that the current methods of analysis are conservative in relation to other methods that could be justified and to provide a quantitative idea of how conservative they are.
Finally, it is expected that this effort will demonstrate that the overall safety margins attained using current methods are considerable.
In the interim, it is believed that continuation of the current licensing requirements will assure an acceptable level of safety in plant seismic design.
If the results of this task action plan are not as anticipated and thecurrentcriteriaprovenottobeadequateT9conservativeinsome way for some sites, then corrective action might be indicated for one or more plants that now meet the current criteria.
Based on our experience in upgrading the seismic design criteria for some plants, the following considerations apply to this unexpected eventuality:
(1) The corrective action probably would consist of performing detailed plant specific analyses to determine what modifica-tions, if any, are needed.
(2) We expect that such modifications, if required, would be practical and could be implemented in a timely and safe manner.
(3) Since we do not expect any need for upgrading from this task action plan, it is likely that any such need that does arise would not be major. Thus we expect that modifications, if required, would not be major.
Based on the discussion above we conclude that while this task is being performed, continued operation and plant licensing can proceed with reasonable assurance of protection to the health and safety of the public.
4.
NRR TECHNICAL ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED This section delineates the organizational responsibilities and manpower requirements for each task within NRR before the respon-sibility of the management of this task was transferred to RES in 2
September, 1979.
NRR's participation in FY1979 is limited to review and comment. The cognizant NRR Division and cognizant NRR engineers are also listed in this section.
A.
Engineering Branch, Division of Operating Reactors, Mc lud respons.ibility for Tasks 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 and secondary responsibility for Tasks 5.0, 6.0 and 10.0.
Manpower Estimate:
1.0 Man years FY 1978.
7g }8}
Task A-40 Rev. No. 1 May, 1978 Structural Engineering Branch, Division of Systems Safety, has lead responsibility for Tasks 5.0 and 6.0 and secondary responsi-8.
bility for Tasks 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 10.0.
2 Manpower Estimate:
0.5 Man years FY 1978; Geosciences Branch, Division of Site Safety and Environmental C.
Analysis, has lead responsibility for Tasks 7.0, 8.0, and 9.0 and secondary responsibility for Tasks 1.0, 3.0, 4.0, 6.0 and 10.0.
Manpower Estimate:
0.7 Man years FY 1978; Light Water Reactors, Branches 1 and 2, Division of Project D.
Manager.ent, have overall responsibility, as Task Managers, for coordination and management of all tasks, and have lead responsi-bility for Task 10.0.
Manpower Estimate: 0.8 Man years FY 1978; Cognizant NRR Divisions and Cognizant NRR Engineers:
A.
Division of Operating Reactors T. Cheng H. Levin D. Allison B.
Division of Systems Safety S. Chan H. Polk C.
Division Site Safety and Environmental Evaluation L. Reiter D.
Division of Project Management H. Rood I737 182
Task A-40 Rev. No. 1 May, 1978 5.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS Lead Amount Task No. Division Contractor FY1978 FY1979 FY1980 Task Objective 1.0 D0R LLL 304,000 0
Quantify seismic conservatisms 2.0 D0R LLL 80,000 0
Develop and evaluate elasto-plastic analysis techniques 3.0 D0R LLL 70,000 130,000 Develop methods to determine site-specific response spectra 2
- 4. Cf D0R LLL 5.0 DSS URS/ John 62,000 0
Develop nonlinear Bl ume seismic analysis methods 6.0 DSS D'Appolonia 142,000 29,000 Evaluate soil-structure interaction analysis 7.0 DSE
- Systeas, 0
65,000 101,000 Develop earthquake Science and source modeling methods Software 8.0 & 9.0 DSE LLL 57,000 58,000 Develop methods to determine strong-motion near-field spectra 10.0 RES LLL 60,000 Review results of program, nodify SRP TOTALS 658,000 341,000 159,000
- Project was deleted.
1737 183 4
Task A-40 Rev. No.1 May., 1978 INTERACTION WITH OUTSIDE ORGANIZATIONS 6.
A.
ACRS The tasks in this program are of interest to the ACRS; speci-fically, the ACRS Seismic Subcommittee.
this program directly addresses the issue raised by ACRS Ge Accordingly, this Item IIE-1, Soil-Structure Interaction.
program will be co-ordinated with the Committee as the tasks in the program progress.
B.
U.S. Geological Survey Intermittant interaction with the E, :2 expected for the purpose of obtaining seismic data.
ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS'FROM OTHER NRC OFFICES 7.
Office of Standards Development, Division of Site Health and A.
Safeguards Standards Close coordination with OSD is required sinc This coordination will be or are being conducted by OSD.
achieved by holding meetings with OSD perso seismic review group overseeing A-40 (see Task 10.0).
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Division of Reactor B.
Safety Research Close coordination with RSR is required since this task is closely related to the Seismic Research Program Research Program is the Quantification of Conservatis taken by RSR.
Present Seismic Methodology. currently underway in this aspect of the RES effort. fact that the same contract
~
1737 184
Task A-40 Rev. No.1 May, 1978 Co-ordination of A-40 with RSR seismic efforts will be achieved by holding meetings with RSR personnel to exchange information, by inclusion of one or more RSR members on the seismic review group overseeing A-40 (see Task 10.0), and by requesting that RSR include the A-40 Task Manager in the Seismic Research Review Group which reviews RSR seismic efforts.
8.
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS Tasks associated with the seismic input definition involve lono term effort. The source modeling studies will be useful for the purpose of evaluating the current methods.
However, it does not 2
seem likely to yield generic methods and guidelines that can be used solely as the basis for licensing decision. A favorable outcome of these studies for developing Standard Review Plan positions cannot be predicted.
Inclusion of-such long term efforts in A-40 may lead to expectations of results according to specific schedules that may be hard to keep.
1737 185
" PROPOSED REVISION 2" "ALTERiATIVE 1" TAP A-fl0 SCHEDULE OF RMOR MILESTONES PHASE 1 R
R R
R R
O O
O k
b d
k.
b CONTRACTOR FINAL LLL RESOLUTION FINAL REPORT TO CONTRACTOR RECOMMEN-0F NRC SRP REVIEW REPORT DATION COMMENTS POSITIONS COMMITTEE ON SRP TO RRRC POSITIONS PHASE 2 W
G B
E CONTRACT REPORT FINAL AWARD OF CONTRACT SRP POSITIONS FOR RRRC 1737 186