ML19224D399
| ML19224D399 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1979 |
| From: | Neighbors D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907120053 | |
| Download: ML19224D399 (18) | |
Text
b b
,,n n e c E
\\' 'n UNITED STATES
,.c, NUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMISSION
$4 D E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SW
%,...../
Docket Nos. 50- C LICENSEE:
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY (VEPCO)
FACILITY:
SURRY l AND 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON MAY 10, 1979, WITH VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY TO DISCUSS SURRY PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS The meeting was held with VEPC0 and Stone and Webster (S&W) to discuss the NRC position on the use of soil structure interaction methodology.
A list of attendees is attached.
At the meeting, the attached SEB Branch Position was presented to VEPC0 and S&W. The most significant point of this position was that it requested the use of low strain soil properties as the value for the soil properties used in the elastic half space frequency depen-dent compliance function method of analysis.
The higher strain values were not permitted because of a lack of confidence with current analysis procedures.
Up to this time, the licensee and S&W have been using higher strain values.
Difficulty arose with this position because it had not been fully staffed between DSS, DSE and DOR.
The licensee was informed that the staff would meet and develop an NRC position.
This position was developed and sent to the licensee on May 18, 1979, by letter.
7, c.g
,]
L v
! t )
'7's07120053 4
Meeting Sunmary for Surry 1 and 2 At the meeting, a comparison of the Regulatory Guide 1.60 and FSAR response spectra were presented as discussed in the NRC April 13, 1979 letter. These comparisons are actached as enclosure 2.
Also presented, was an outline for the licensee's proposed report on soil structure interaction.
~
p
&)
d j
kbgry,ProjectManager nN Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosures:
- 2. S.*ismic Analysis of Containment H rizontal SSE
- 3. Stil-Structure Interaction in Dr<elopment of Amplified Response Spectra for Surry Power Station cc: w/ enclosure See next page 35d 7'!
Li
SEB BRANCH POSITION FOR FIVE SHUTDOWN PLANT SSI ANALYSIS 1.
Documentation of Computer reograms a) REFUND: New proprietary program of Stone and Webster. Program computes frequency dependent compliance functions for EHS.
Verification needed, b) KINACT:
New proprietary program of Stone and Webster. Program computes the translation and rotation time history from the applied horizontal translation time history. Verification needed.
c) FRIDAY:
Proprietary program at Stone and Webster. Computes amplified response spectra for each mass poir,t in the structural model.
Verification needed.
The verification infonnation needed follows:
- 1) Flow diagrams of program
- 2) Technical bases for program i.e., the theory used to develop program
- 3) Test problems - one of the following:
a) Results of test problems compared to similar programs independently written and recognized in the public domain b) Results of test problems compared to classical solutions or from accepted experimental tests or to analytical results published in the literature.
II. Base Slab Response (Surry Only)
The response spectra for the containment base mat of Surry shows the finite space solution. An analysis element solution larger than the elastic half,hored to the base mat, should of a typical piping run, which had one end anc be made and the results compared. To be acceptable, the stresses in the pipes should be substantially the same.
ENCLOSURE 1 3bd
'T,
- f. / L
2 III.
R.G. 1.60 and 1.61 vs FSAR Input A comparison of the results of the same mathematical model using the R.G. 1.60 spectra scaled to the site acceleration value with the R.G. 1.61 damping values and the FSAR design spectra and associated damping values is required. The comparisans should be made as a minimum at the base mat, operating floor and the spring line for the containment.
IV. Soil Prrperties Use '.ne icw strain soil properties as the value for the soil properties used in the clastic half space frequency dependent compliance function method of analysis.
Higher strain values are not permitted because of the difficulties in and lack of confidence with current analysis pro-cedures to arrive at appropriate values. Average soil properties may be used and no variations in soil properties is required. This is in recognization of the fact that higher strains may result from earthquake motion.
V.
Consideration of Torsion in the Model The mathematical model used to produce the ARS should consider the effects of the center of mass and the center of rigidity not being coincident.
This induced torsional moment induced by the lateral earthquake should be taken as a displacement of the two centers by 5% of the base dimension as a minimum or the calculated va'ue, whichever is larger.
t,a
f IC l.2 z9 Li
~-r CC O.8 I
U i
_J L
U f,
O O
4 p
04 f.p f%
/
\\
[]~
/=
Y O.0 O.OO O.20 0.40 060 0.80 1.00 1.20
(
PERIOD-SECONDS LEGEND FSAR EARTHQUAKE O 5 /o DAMPING
- REGUL ATORY GUIJE 160 E ARTHOU AKE 2 /o DAMPING REGULATORY GU.DE 160 EARTHOUAKE 3 /o DAMPING
[
SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF CONTAINMENT HORIZONTAL SSE HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT MAT SU' RY PC AE P STATION - UNITS 1 AND 2 a
\\
ENCLOSURE 2 bbk h_ l b
16
-)-----
I t
i l
l l
l 12
?
8
/
5 l
/i l
tr O 8 7 - -- -
l -- -
Y l
\\
v s
m 8
l
-/N N,
) ll l
\\
\\
/
/.7 i
~
N
/
N 0.4
- -- - - k
\\-
\\p j [--
/
u l
. ~ -
0 0 O00 0.20 0 40 0.60 0 80 1.00 1 20 PERIO D-9 ECON DS LEGEND FS AR EARTHOUAKE O.5 /o DAMPING
REGUL ATORY GUIDE 1.60 EARTHQUAKE 2 /o D AMPING REGUL ATORY GUIDE 160 E ARTHOUAKE 3 /o DAMPING SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF CONTAINMENT HORIZONTAL SSE HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT OPER ATING FLOOR SURRY POWEtt STATION - UNITS 1 AND 2
(
4l 16 p
12 In A
1 1,
(1 o
si i
<f\\ l il l V-I Y
1 A
,/ _ 'V 4gae y.
a
)
\\s W
\\
f 8
l'y
\\
)
(J 's
,r' aa hQJ n,
y *^
4
.s Oo 0 00 0 20 040 0 60 0 80 1.00 120 PERIOD-SECONDS LEGEND FSAR EARTHQUAKE 1/o D AMPING tI5c/o Bh0ADENED
R EGUL ATORY GUIDE 160 E ARTHOUAKE 2 /o DAMPING SEISMIC AN ALYSIS OF CONTAINMENT HORIZONTAL _ SSE HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT SPRINGLINE 9;RRY PO A ER ST ATION - UNITS 1 AND ?
E.4
-sS g 7 g,
16r-I i
l I'
l 12
?z i
o
/
P
/I 4
n b
i
,/ i I
f
/ f j - j' l --
ZO8 I
V
\\[
r$
\\
N "s
l
\\
/
f-N on,
.)
_sj--.
,f____
~
l
-- ~;f' 00 000 0 20 040 0.60 0 80 1.00 1.20 PE RIO D-S ECON DS LEGEND FSAR E AR THOUAKE 1/o D AMPING 115 /o BROADENED
-- REGUL ATORY GUIDE 160 E ARTHOUAKE 2 /o DAMPING SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF CONTAINMENT HORIZONTAL SSE HORIZON TAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT l
OPERATING FLOOR 4
SURRY POWER S TATION-UralTS I AND 2
.kC 1e m
a' L
,I
16
)
i i
12
+ --- -
1 ~
- ~
A I
/i A
~
l Il
/
(' \\
j e
I k
\\
n I
9 Ill)
'I(-
l I
H
\\l, _ _ d A. _ _ _ __ _. -
gg3 l
s'j UL. \\
w Gj
/
'\\ '
\\
~
\\
8
/
i 1
/s t
l s/
\\
l N ' S ~ ^--' 3' % -/r, ~~
.v
.~
oA
- l -- -
--T~--~'--
A l
l l
Soo ~~-
c 20 E50 0 Go o80 1.00 1.20 l
PERIOD-SECON DS t.EGEND F S AR E ART HOU AK E O.5 /o C A' PING
REGUL ATORY GUIDE 1.60 E ARTHOUAKE 2 /o DA* PING REGULATORY GUIDE 160 E ARTHQUAKE 3 /o DAMPING SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF CCNTAINMENT HORIZONTAL SSE HORIZONTAL. RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT SPRINGLINE SURRY POWER STATION - UNITS 1 AND 2 k
O c,, o I
1 C.
7--.
I 1
l l
l l
l2 Z9 I
cr 0 8 r
Ld
_J LU O
<T I
04 ~---------7
_ _ - A --
n-4
, /X..,
,/
r/
J v
~ --
,~
-l CO 0 00 020 040 060 080 100 1 20
(
PERIOD-SECONDS LEGEND r S A R E ARTHOU AKE 1,'o D AM P>NG 115 /o BRO AD E N E D
REGU!. A TORY GUIDE 160 E ARTHOUAKE 2 /o D AMPING l
(
SEISMIC AN ALYSIS OF CONTAINMENT HORIZONTAL SSE HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT MAT SURRY POWER ST ATION - UNITS I AND 2
? r-UI 3 ~, r-L i -l
Iky 8, 1979 DRAFT OUTLINE FOR REPORT ON SOIL-S_TRUCTURE INTERACTION IN THE DEVELOPMCIT OF A'!PLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR SURRY POWER STATION VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER C0!FANY 1.
INTRODUCTION This report will document the basis for applying soi'.-structure interaction to the development of amplified response spectra f or use in reevaluation of pipe stress and supports.
Documentation will include the following:
- basic soil properties site ground response spectra
- development of ampli' lied response spectra
- basis tor analysis performed
- application of amplified responsa speccra to the analysis of pipe stress
- program su== aries, theoretical development and verification of computer programs used.
2.
SOIL PCOPERTIES 2.1 SUBSURFACE DAT A.
Contained herein will be the following :
- Sunraary of subsurf ace explorations
- Types of subsurfcce data collected Ecring location plans ENCLOSURE 3 7-
<c[$]J I
2 2.2 SUBSURFACE PROFILE A description of the subsurface profile will include :
- Generalized subsurface profile through site
- Groundwater levels
- Brief geologic history 2.3 SOIL PARAMETERS A description will be given of how the following soil data were developed:
- Soll classification parameters
- Standard penetration test blow counts (N)
- In situ densities (T)
- Void ratio (e)
- Soil strengths (Su)
- Over consolidation ratio (OCR)
Shcar wave velocity (V )
- Compressional wave velocity ( V )
P
- Poisons ratio (sC)
The variation in soil parameters will be discussed.
2.4 MODULUS AND DAMPII;G PROFILES 2.4.1 Small Strain Modulus and Damping A description of the development of shear modulus (G) f rom neasured shear c've velocity ( V ) and a comparison with values determined using the Hardin-Black s
equation will be given.
2.4.2 Strain Dependent !!odulus and Damping Determination of G and D at strain levels appropriate to DBE and OBE will inc lud e :
b0k 3m u 6,j
3
- Shake analysis
- Earthquake accelerograms
- Profiles
- Free field analysis (table of results)
- Analysis for each Cat. I structure (tables of results) lst iteration vs la st iteration values 3.
EARTHQUAl'E OROUND MOTION 3.1 DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE (DBE) AND OPERATING BASIS EARTHQUAKE (OBE)
A description of DBE and OBE in terms of peak accelerations and corresponding site intensitica vill be given.
3.2 GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRA Tripartite plots of spectra and description of basis for construction vill be discussed.
3.3 ARTIFICIAL T DIE HISTORY The basis f or construction of artificial time history will be discussed. A tripartite plot showing enveloping of ground response. spectra at various damping levels will be shown.
4.
AMPLIFIED RESPONSE ANALYSIS 4.1 MET 110DOLOGY A description of alternative methods of analysis will be outlined and the basis f or selection discussed.
4.1.1 One-Step Analysis The one-step analysis will describe a complete finite elenent solution in which the dynamic nodel is composed of detailed ' representations of both the struc ture and suppor ting med ium.
'7
?O-cu,
4 4.1.2 Multi-Step Analysis Several proc edures can be used to reduce the soil-structure interaction analysis to more manageable steps.
For example, a detailed f inite elenent soil model can be used to compute frequency-dependent stif fnesses which are then used in the analysis of a detailed structural model. A three-st ep procedure wherein the frequency depend ent soil stif fnesses are obtained from application of the theory of clasticity to layered media will be descr ibed.
4.2 DLTAILED DISCUSSION OF THREE-STEP ANALYSIS 4.2.1 Computation of Icpedences An explanation of the computation of impedence functions using the program REFUND will be given. The correction o f resulta 'or ef f ects of embedm'.nt will be described.
4.2.2 The Kinematic Interaction Step A description of the kineratic interaction between structure and f oundation media and its evaluation using the r regram KINACT will be described.
4.2.3 Interaction Analysis F: ep The dynamic interaction between structure and foundation using the program FRIDAY will be described.
4.2 STRUCTURAL MODELING A description of a typical three-dimensional structural model will be presented and the e' f ects of torsion described.
4.4 RESULTS The results of analysis will be presented in terms of typical displacement and acceleration profilas, and amplified response spectra.
The need to peak broaden spectra, the criteria to be used, and illustrations of the peak broadening ef f ect will be given.
5.
COMPARISON OF RESULTS 5.1 REFU?D/ FRIDAY VS PLAXLY A comparison of analytical results using the three-step method vs the one-step method will be illustrated for three dif f erent levels in the c onta inment st ructure and observations made concerning their use in pipe stress analysis.
/CA fo '
I f.
I
5 5.2 FSAR VS REGULATORY CUIDE SPECTRA A cocparison of results will be given for amplified response spectra developed on the basis of FSAR commitments, and on the basis of Regulatory Guide 1.60 grourd spectra ard 1.61 damping values.
5.3 SAMPLE PIPE STRESS PRO 3LEMS Examples will be given to illustrate the dif f erence in stresses resulting from the use of alternative amplified spectra described in Section 5.2.
6.
APPLICATION OF ARS TO PI?E STRESS ANALYSIS 6.1 SELECTION OF ARS AS INPUT TO PIPM STRESS ANALYSIS The method used in selection of ARS will be descr ibed.
6.2 ANCHOR AND RESTRAINT MOVEIENTS A discussion of the assignment of anchor and restraint motion from structural analysis for-use in pipe stress analyses will be given.
6.3 BASE MAT SPECTRA Verification that base nat spectra vill not be used in actual stress probicas.
7.
CONCLUS IONS A summary of conclusions concerning methods of analysis to be used and their applicability in light of the studies reported herein will b. giv en.
8.
APPENDICES An appendix vill give a computer progran summary, theoretical development, and the basis for verification of the following programs used in this ef fort:
8.1 SHAKE The program SHAKE computes the response in a horicontally layered soil rock syst en subj ected to transient vertically traveling shear waves.
Acc elograms are input as obj ect notions and strain dependent material properties are output)in addition to systen response.
8.2 PLAXLY The progran PLU1Y is an isoparametric plane strain finite elenent computer progran used in so il-struc ture in terac tion analysis.
4
6 8.3 REFUND The program REFUND is used t ) calculate the frequency-dependent complex stif fnesses of rigid rectangular footings at the surface of 'ayer-1 m ed ia, based upon sclutions from the theory of elasticity for point g
load s.
Correction factors are applied to the results of REFUhD to account f or f oundation embedment.
t 8.4 KINACT l
The program TJNACT is used to calculate the motion at the base of a j
rigid massless embedded f oundation, consistent with prescribed motion at grad e.
The simple relations contained in ItlNACT are based upon i
wave propagation theory and upon parameter studies of f Laite elemer t so lu tio ns.
Purely translational motion at the surf ace is modified to become translational and rotational motion at the base of u le foundation.
8.5 FRIDAY The program FRIDAY is used for the analysis of lumped mass structural models in the frequency domain.
The base boundary conditions may be frequency-dependent complex stif fnesses, as calcu.'.ated using the program REFUND.
I l
l t
354
?Rc cv ;
Meeting Summary for Surry 1 & 2 Docket Files NRC PDR Local PDR ORBI Reading NRR Reading H. Denton E. Case V. Stello D. Eisenhut B. Grimes R. Vollmer A. Schwencer D. Ziemann P. Check G. Lainas D. Davis B. Grimes T. Ippolito R. Reid V. Noonan G. Knighton D. Brinkman Project Manager OELD OI&E (3)
C. Parrish ACRS (16)
NRC Participants J. Buchanan TERA Licensee Mr. Michael W. Maupin Hunton and Williams Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23213 Swem Library College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 Donald J. Burke U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Office of Inspection and Enforcement 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
- r9
O 4 28o
LIST OF ATTENDEES AT MAY 10. 1979 MEETING NRC D. Neighbors P. Riehm W. Russell A. Lee J. Greeves J.Kane K. Herring S. Chan P. T. Kuo H. Polk R. Denise VEPC0 W. C. Spencer C. M. Robinson E. A. Baum S&W J. Christian B. Crewe C. Reeves P. Wild S. Rossier A. Van Sickel b$
[ ?,7