ML19257D056

Forwards Addl Response to Structural Engineering Branch 790515 Questions 130.06 & 130.49.Contains Response Spectra for Containment & Auxiliary/Fuel Handling Bldg.Response Will Be Included in Feb 1980 FSAR Amend

ML19257D056
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, Braidwood
Issue date:	01/28/1980
From:	Naughton W COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8001310298
Download: ML19257D056 (150)

Text

.

Commonwealth Edison One First National Plaza Chicago libnois Address Reply to Post Office Box 767 Crucago. Hinois 60690 January 28, 1980 Dr. Harold R.

Denton, Dire: tor Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.

Nuclear Reg"latory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Byron Station Units 1 and 2 and Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 Additional Response to Etructural Engineering Branch Questions NRC Docket Nos. 50-454, 50-455, 50-456 and 50-457

, Reference (a):

May 15, 1979 letter from S. A.

Varga to C.

Reed

Dear Dr. Denton:

Enclosed are two (2) copies each of Commonwealth Edison Company's response to Questions 130.06 and 130.09 of Reference (a).

These responses will be included in the next FSAR amendment to be submitted in February 1980.

In response to Question 130.06, the background to the present design is presented to highlight the basis of the present criteria.

The conservatism associated with the design "g" levels, with the design response spectrum when the effect of earthquake wave passage is considered, with the use of elastic analysis and low damping values, and the use of minimum yield / ultimate strength for design are quantified to compare the response of deconvolution analysis with the con-servative application of other seismic design parameters.

The structural responses and floor response spectra obtained by applying the Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum at the foundation levels for selective and representative floors in the Contain-ment and in the Auxiliary / Fuel Handling Building complex are also provided.

In response to Question 130.09, the structural responses and floor response spectra for the river screenhouse using the elastic half-space soil-structure interaction are presented.

These responses are higher than those obtained using the finite element method.

These higher responses are due to the con-servative assumptions made in the soil structure interaction Bool 56 M/

\\842 152' o AU grin 4

6 Commonwealth Edison NRC Docket Nos. 50-454, 50-455, 50-456 and 50-457 Dr. Harold R.

Denton January 28, 1980 analysis using the half-space approach.

Please address any additional questions that you might have concerning this matter to this office.

Very truly yours,

/f L

.]

L

(

William F.

Naught Nuclear Licensing Administrators Pressurized Water Reactors enclosures (2) 1842 154

a Question 130.06 The seismic analysis was perforined by tha responsa c.pectrum method.

However, the cespo be spectra at the foundation level generated by tne synthetic time history have displayed a significant dip over a large range of frequencies, as compared with tne design response spectra i n R3 1. 60 (Figures 3.7-1 thorugh 3.7-40).

The use of such unconservative resporse spectra is unacceptable to the staff.

The deconvolution procedure as described in the FSAR is not appropriate for the Byron /Braidwood sites due to the shallow coil overourden (16 ft to 38 ft) on bedrock.

Therefore, it is requested tnat the analysis shall be based on RG 1.60 ree field surface design response spectra applied at tne foundation level and the design time h'. story shall generate response spectra envelope the RG 1.00 design response spectra at the foundation level.

RESPONSE

I.

Introduction The scismic design process involves various steps.

These include (i) determination of "g" level; ( i i.) specification of the shape of the design response spectra and design time history; (iii) analysis to obtain design response spectra at the base mat ele-Vation; (iv) modeling of the structure; (v) calculation of structural response and floor response spectra; (vi) specifi-cation of load factors, load combinations, factors of srfety, and allowable stresses; (vii) design of components to the combined effects of seismic and other loads.

The overall safety of the plant is a function of the design parameters assumed at each stage.

The margin in design for the various stages may vary, but good engineering design requires that the overall design be conservative.

In this response, the background to the present design is presented to highlight the bases of the present design criteria.

8 The conservatism associated with the design "g" levels, with a42 155 1

y I

the design response spectrum when the effect of earthquake wave passage is considered, with the use of elastic analysis and low damping values, and the use of minimum yield / ultimate strength for design are quantified to show that any reduction in response due to the use of the deconvolution analysis is more than compen-sated for by the margins in design introduced by the conservative definitions of other seismic design parameters.

To comply with the NRC request, the structural responses and floor response spectra obtained by applying the R31.60 spectra at the foundation levels are also presented.

Based on a composite evaluation of the above information, it is concluded that the present design of Byron /Braidwood is con-servative.

II.

Backaround to Present Desian Criteria In the present Byron /Braidwood design, a wide band Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum is specified at the grade elevation.

One-dimensional deconvolution analysis is used to compute the foundation elevation spectra.

The structural response and the i

floor response spectra are computed using the deconvolved foundation level spectra.

i In the PSAR,.it was our evaluation that for the Byron and Braidwood sites a 0.06 g OBE and a 0.12 g SSE level are l

conservative design bases.

The NRC staf f stated in Question 2.5.63 that the OBE and-SSE levels should be 0.1 g and 0.20 g, respectively.

In the ensuing discussions with the NRC staf f, it was agreed that the OBE and SSE spectra at the foundation

~

1842 156 2

r

elevation will have 0.09 g and 0.20 g rigid period accelerations, respectively.

The foundation level spectrum shape was to be obtained through a SHAKE deconvolution analysis with the wide i

band RG 1.60 spectra defined at the grade' elevation.

Consistent with the practice at that time (1974), mean soil properties were used in the deconvolution analysis.

The PSAR was amended in i

November 1974 to reflect the above design bases.

In December 1975, the construction permit was issued by the NRC.

In September 1976, the NRC requested additional information, stating that:

the current NRC staff position is that when the design response spectra are defined for the free field and applied at the finished grade level of the site, the SHAKE computer program is acceptable for deconvolution analysis to obtain a time history at the base of the idealized soil profile provided that appropriate soil properties, and variations thereof, are used in the analysis.

E In view of the uncertainty and variability of soil proper-

~ ties, the response spectra at the base of the soil-structure interaction system should envelope all response spectra of those deconvolved time histories within the range of variable soil properties, and should not be less than 60 percent of the free field surface spectra.

A reply to the above NRC concern was submitted on December 9, 1976 [2].

In the reply we stated:

l We found that a variation in soil properties of +20%

i and a strict adherence to the requirements of Standard

~

Review Plan 3.7.1 that the foundation spectrum be no less than 60% of the surface spectrum at any point would cause an increase in the design forces for Category I structures.

Most of the increase in forces is due to l

the rather arbitrary 60% limit and not due to the +20%

i soil property variation.

1 There are several areas of conservatism in the seismic l

analysis for Byron /Braidwood.

Areas such as the methods j

used for the determination of the maximum ground acceler-j ation for the SSE and the OBE have a considerable amount j

i of conservatism.

The use of the wide band response 3

1842 157

a spectrum and tne corresponding syntnetic time history that envelopes tne spectrum is another factor which results in nigner forces tnan actual.

Various items in the modeling and analysis, such as lower damping values, three simultanecus spatial components of equal strength, not accounting for tne traveling nature of seismic waves are all areas of conservatism which are ouilt into the analysis.

We have also reviewed tne conservatism in many of the assumptions and methodology used in the design, compared the actual material strengths obtained in the field with the design strength used, and have concluded that the increases in the design forces are more tnan compensated for by these conservatisms.

Therefore, the overall safety margin of the stations is not affected.

Since our response was accepted by the NRC and no further information was requestec, tne design and construction of the I

Byron /Braldwood plant proceeded, based on the design criteria as contained in the PSAR.

At the present time, the structural design and construction of the plant structures are complete.

Tne remaining electrical ana mechanical components and equipment are either on site or at advanced stages of fabrication and I

qualification.

It is evident from the aDove that the present Byron /Braidwood l

design criteria were appropriately judged to be conservative by l

1 the NRC staf f in 1974 and again in 1976.

It is also clear that I

tne judgment was based on an overall evaluation of the seismic i

design process.

We feel that none of the parameters has changed I

since then to alter this conclusion.

III.

Conservative Selection of Design Earthquakes For the selection of design earthquakes, the maximum historical random earthquake of the entire seismotectonic province is 4

1842 158 i

assumed to occur at the site even if there is no history of seismic activity in the site vicinity.

This is a very conser-vative assumption.

In addition, the staff has req; ired that a VII-VIII intensity earthquake be considered.

In the case of the Byron /Braidwood sites, it is our conclusion that the maximum randor earthquake should be of Intensity VII.

Our reasons for this have been documented in detail in the Byron /Braidwood PSAR.

Using Intensity VII, the Trifunac & Brady relationship gives a maximum acceleration of 0.13 9 A more recent NRC-sponsored study [3), performed by Computer Services Corporation (CSC), which was based on much more exhaustive data, yields an acceleration of 0.085 for the United States sites.

Even for an Intensity VII-VIII earthquake, the CSC study gives only 6

an 0.11 g level for United States sites.

On the basis of the above reasoning, the value of 0.20 g for SSE is higher than r

necessary, and a value of 0.12 q, as proposed during the PSAR review stage, is more appropriate.

For the OBE, the design acceleration is 0.09 g.

The bases used j

for this acceleration are extremely conservative when compared with the more recent projects.

A seismic risk analysis for the Byron /Braidwood Stations showed that the return period for an Intensity VI earthquake would be 2150 years.

This return l

period is high when compared to the return period used in the Koshkonong (1000 years) project, which is more recent.

The return periods for Intensities IV and V at the Byron /Braidwood These site would be 322 years and 833 years, respectively.

5 i

i, 1842

e e

return periods are more comparable to the Koshkonong project.

Thus, a more appropriate OBE intensity for Byron /Braidwood would be IV or at most V.

The acceleration values obtained from Trifunac & Brady and the CSC relationships for these Intensities are shown in Table 130.06-1.

It can be concluded from table 130.06-1 that 0.06 g is a more reasonable acceleration level for the OBE for the Byron /

Braidwood design.

The 0.06 g level for OBE was proposed in the initial PSAR submittal.

Based on the above discussion, levels of 0.06 g for OBE and 0.12 g for SSE can be considered conservative design bases.

Figures 130.06-1 and 130.06-2 provide a comparison of the Byron /Braidwood deconvolved design spectra to the 0.06 g OBE and 0.12 g SSE RG 1.60 spectra for horizontal and vertical motions, respectively.

The comparison shows that the Byron /

Braidwood design bases envelope the R3 spectra.

Thus, the seismic forces obtained by applying a 0.06 g OBE and 0.12 g SSE RG 1.60 spectra would be smaller than those presently considered in the design for the containment, containment internal structures, and the auxiliary fuel handling building complex.

Table 130.06-2 shows the comparison for overturning moment and base shear force for the containment shell structure.

The total shear force and overturning moment f rom the RG 1.60 i842 160 6

input are lower than those used for design.

Figures 130.06-9 through 130.06-36 provide a comparison of the present design floor response spectra with those obtained using 0.06 g OBE and 0.12 g SSE R3 1.60 spectra.

OBE spectra are for 11 oscillator damping, whereas SSE spectra are presented for 2% oscillator damping.

The comparison is provided for both horizontal and vertical responses in the containment and the auxiliary building complex.

Table 130.06-3 lists the location and elevations for the spectra comparison.

The comparison shows that the present design spectra are higher and, except for a few isolated instances, they envelope those obtained using the R31.60 spectra.

t From the above discussion,-it can be concluded that the Byron /,

l

Braidwood design is conservative.

Any reduction in response due to deconvolution is more than compensated by the extremely conservative specification of the OBE and SSE levels.

IV.

Design Spectra Considering Effect of Foundation Size The observation has frequently been made that structures on i'

large foundations appear to respond with less intensity to j

earthquakes than do smaller structures and, more specifically, chan do free field instrumentations.

Researchers who have i

attempted to give a rational explanation for this behavior i

have concluded that during an earthquake, not all particles under a large building foundation describe the same motion i

simultaneously; thus the relatively rigid structure-foundation system tends to average the ground motion, resulting in a reduced effective. input excitation and consequently less darage.

[842 161 7

In a report to the NRC dated September 1976 and entitled "A Rationale f or Development of Design Spectra for Diablo Canyon Reactor Pacility," Dr. Newmark investigated the effect of foundation size on design spectrum [4].

His recommended reduced effective inputs, and the earthquake wave transit times,T,

for various structures, are given in Table 130.06-4.

It is recognized that the reduced effective spectra were developed by Dr. Newmark for the Diablo Canyon site and for a near-field earthquake on a rock site.

However, it is our evaluation that the concept and the methodology proposed by Dr. Newmark are also applicable to the Byron /Braidwood seismic design.

Our evaluation is based on a comparison of the seismic design parameters for the two plants.

The Byron /Braidwood and Diablo Canyon building sizes and rock site conditions are comparable; wave transit times of 0.04 second for the containment and 0.067 second for the aux-turbine building complex are appropriate.

For the Byron /Braidwood site, the maximum historical earthquake of the entire seismotectonic province is assumed to occur at the site.

Thus, the earthquake is, by definition, a near-field earthquake and the reduced effective spectra due to wave transit times can be constructed using the reduction f'ctors recommended by Dr. Newmark.

It is possible a

that ground motions at the Byron /Braidwood site may occur due to seismic activity-at distances greater than those con-sidered for the reduced effective spectra at the Diablo Canyon

~.

1842 162 8

plant.

However, the ground motions in such an event are likely to be smaller than the design basis ground motions and would not control the design.

Figures 130.06-3 and 130.06-4 present a comparison of the 0. O OBE and 0. 20 SSE R3 1. 60 spectra, the deconvolved Byron /

Braidwood design spectra, and the reduced effective spectra (denoted as ":" spectra on the figures) for the containment and the aux-turbine building complex for OBE and SSE, respectively.

The hatched area shows the frequency region where the Byron /

Braidwood spectra are exceeded by the reduced effective spectra.

It can be observed that for the aux-turbine building complex the Byron /Braidwood design spectra envelopes the reduced effective spectra.

For the containment building, tne Byron /

Braidwood spectra do not fully envelope the reduced effective spectra, however, at the predominant structural period of 0.287 seconds, the Byron /Braidwood spectra are higher.

Thus, it can be concluded that when the effect of the foundation size on the design spectra is considered, the present Byron /

Braidwood seismic design is conservative.

V.

Conservatism in Analysis As in the seismic analysis of any complex structure, several conservative assumptions are used in the Byron /Braidwood (B/B) design.

Many of these assumptions are regulatory requirements; others were necessary to simplify the analysis.

These assumptions do provide additional margins of safety.

They are briefly described below.

1842 103 9

A r

The time history used for the Byron /Braidwood deconvolution analysis has a response spectrum which is 5% to 20% higher than the R31.60 spectrum in the range of significant structural frequencies (4-12 Hz).

This is shown in Figures 130.06-5 and 130.06-6 for 4% and 7% damping, respectively.

In the B/B design, the two horizontal and the vertical simul-taneous components of earthquake motion are assumed to have the same maximum accelerations as required by RG 1.60.

However, recorded earthquake motions show that the three components do not have the same accelerations.

Studies presented in References 5 and 6 indicate that a 1.0:0.87:0.70 ratio for the three components is more appropriate.

Dr. Newmark, in a report

[7] prepared for the NRC, recommends that the vertical acceler-ation be 2/3 of the horizontal.

In the seismic modeling of the containment and the auxiliary /

fuel handling / turbine building below the grade level, the effect of the soil or rock on the sides of the exterior walls was neglected in computing the responses.

However, the walls were designed for dynamic earth pressures.

Consideration of the side soil / rock effect would tend to reduce the overturning moment on the shear walls and the foundation mat.

The maximum seismic response of the structure is strongly influenced by the energy absorption characteristics or damping of the structure.

Low value. ce damping result in higher responses and are thus conservative.

In the B/B design the 10 1842 164

damping values recommended in RG 1. 61 we r e us ed.

Newmark and Hall (8) in their recent report NUREG-0098, prepared for the NRC Systematic Evaluation Program, have recommended higher and more realistic damping values.

A comparison of the RG 1. 61 damping values and the NUREG-0098 damping values is provided in Table 130.06-5.

Note that the NUREG damping values are higher and thus would lead to lowe~r responses.

In considering the response of nuclear power plant structures to seismic motions, one must take into account the implications of various levels of damage short of impairment of the safety, and definitely short of the collapse of the structure.

Some elements of plant structures must remain elastic or nearly clastic in order to perform their allocated safety function.

However, in many instances, a purely linear elastic analysis may be unreasonably conservative when one considers that even up to the near yield-point range there are nonlinearities of amounts sufficient to reduce the required design levels significantly.

Moreover, limited yielding of a structure may reduce the response of equipment located in the structure below those levels of response that would be excited were the structure to remain elastic.

The concept of ductility factors [9] is a simple but effective means of accounting for small excursions into the inelastic range.

A ductility of 1.3 for concrete and 3.0 for steel members was proposed for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant and for the NRC Systematic Evaluation Program Seismic Criteria [9].

Use of these ductility 1842 165 r

factOrc cr. B/B would result in a 10%-50% reduction in design responses computed using an elastic analysis.

Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded that there are several areas of major conservatism in the B/B seismic design, and due consideration should be given to these factors when reviewing the B/B seismic design.

i r

f.

VI.

Conservatism in Material Strength The compressive strength of concrete obtained from the cylinder tests exceeds the value used in design.

The actual strength for the reinforcement steel and structural steel also exceeds those used in design.

Table 130.06-6 compares the values used in the design to those obtained by tests.

The actual Strength is the mean value obtained from the concrete cylinder test report summaries and a sampling of certified material test reports for reinforcement and structural steel for the B/B project.

It shows that the actual strength exceeds the design strength by 12% to 50%, adding proportionality to I

the design margins.

VII. Response Due to 0.09 g OBE and 0.20 g SSE RG 1.60 Spectrum To comply with the NRC request, forces, moments, and floor response spectra obtained by applying 0.09 9 OBE and 0.20 g i

SSE R3 1.60 spectra at the foundation level are compared to the i

i' corresponding B/B design forces, moments, and floor response spectra.

The comparison is provided for the containment and the auxiliary building.

The forces, in many instances, increase b

2

}bb 12 B*

when the R3 1.60 spectra are applied.

However, these increased forces should be judged against the conservatism in the B/B d e s i g.1 as discussed above.

A.

Containment Forces Tuole 130.06-7 presents a comparison between forces and moments for the containment shell and basemat between current B/B values and those obtained by applying the R3 1.60 spectra at the base level.

The basemat is designed to resist overturning moments from the containment shell and the containment internal structures.

The magnitude of these moments affects the area of the base mat which is uplifted (see Figure 130.06-7) and the design moments in the mat (see Figure 130.06-8).

The increased over-turning results in the engagement of the reactor cavity as.a rotational key producing large meridional membrane forces, whereas for the current B/B design these forces are negligible.

Note that in the seismic modeling of the containment below the grade level, the effect of the scil or rock on the sides of the external walls was i

negelected in computing the responses.

Concideration of the side soil / rock effect would tend to reduce the overturning moments and meridional membrane forces.

B.

Containment Internal Structures Reinforced Concrete:

A review of the internal concrete structures, including the refueling pool walls, prinary shield wall, secondary shield wall, and enclosure walls, 1842 167 1

was made.

The seismic design is controlled by Jorces generated from horizontal SSE spectra.

The lowest hori-zontal frequency for the internal structures model is 9.8 cps.

Figure 130.06-81 shows that for 9.8 cps and higher frequencies, the B/B design spectra envelope the RG 1.60 spectra.

The resulting forces for the RG 1.60 spectra are consequently lower than those used in the present B/B design.

Structural Steel:

A summary of the structural steel beams showing the percent increase in force for OBE and SSE conditions due to the application of RG 1.60 spectra is presented in Table 130.06-8.

The table is based on a representative sample comprised of all beams at elevation 426'0".

A total of 108 beams were reviewed, out of an estimated 740 per unit.

Note that the increase in forces in 100 of the 108 beams in less than 20%.

Structural steel columns are seismically designed by ampli-fying the permanent loads en the columns in proportion to the zero period acceleration of the wall response spectra at that elevation.

The minimum values for g used for design are 0.5 and 0.9 for OBE and SSE, respectively.

The maximum values for the zero period acceleration of the wall spectra at various elevations for the RG 1.60 foundation elevation definition are 0.26 for OBE and 0.42 for SSE.

Comparing these g values shows that the forces are consequently larger i

4

~

1842 168

for the present B/B design than for the RG 1.60 foundation elevation definition.

C.

Auxiliary-Fuel Handling Building Complex Reinforced Concrete:

The areas of the basemat found to have increased forces as a result of RG 1.60 spectra are indicated by the cross-hatched areas shown in Figure 130.06-8.

The values shown are the percent increase in force over the design force.

A comparison of all the shear wall forces from the B/B design basis with those resulting from implementation of the RG 1.60 spectra was made.

A summary of this comparison.

showing the percent change in seismic force due to RG 1.60 spectra is shown in Table 130.06-9.

Note that for the SSE excitation, the increase in forces in 234 of the 272 shear w&lls is less than 20%.

The remaining concrete structural components, including columns, beams, and slabs, have no increase in seismic forces due to the implementation of RG 1.60 spectra.

These components are essentially rigid and are located at eleva-tion 401'0" or below.

A comparison of the vertical spectra in Figures 130.06-59 and 130.06-83 shows that the B/B spectra envelope the RG 1.60 spectra.

Structural Steel:

A summary of the structural steel teams for the auxiliary-fuel handling building comg 'k thowing the percent increase. in force due to the apr 1.c e -

1 of RG 1. 60

}Ok2 b

15 l

' ^{

l spectra is presented in Table 130.06-10.

A representative sample comprised of those beams at elevations 451'0" and

?

W 426'0" has been reviewed.

The 230 beams reviewed are representative of all beams, hate that for the SSE excita-tion the increase in forces in 224 of the 230 beams is less than 20%.

3 The criteria for design of the structural steel columns in the auxiliary-fuel handling complex are the same as fi those for the containment building.

The minimum value for g used for design is 0.26 for OBE and 0.68 for SSE.

The maximum value for various elevations, based on an RG 1.60 spectra foundation elevation defnintion is 0.23 for OBE and 0.46 for SSE.

Comparing these "g" values shows that the forces are consequently larger for the present B/B design than for RG 1.60.

D.

Floor Response Spectra Figures 130.06-57 through 130.06-104 provide a comparison of the present design floor response spectra with those obtained by using 0.09 9 OBE and 0.20 g SSE RG 1.60 spectra at the foundation elevation.

The comparison is provided for both horizontal and vertical response for the containment and auxiliary building.

Table 130.06-11 lists the locations 5

and elevations for the spectra comparison.

16 I

4 1842 170 e

d g

4 VIII. Summary In the present Byron /Braidwood design, a wide band RG 1.60 spectrum is specified at the grade elevation.

One-dimensional deconvolution analysis is used to compute the foundation elevation spectra.

The structural response and floor response spectra are computed using the deconvolved foundation level spectra.

In the question, the NRC staf f states that the decon-volution procedure is not appropriate for the Byron /Braidwood sites and that analysis should be based on an RG 1.60 spectra applied at the foundation elevation.

In this response, the background to the present design is l

presented to highlight the bases of the present criteria.

The conservatism associated with the design "g" levels, with the design response spectrum when the effect of earthquake 1

wave passage is considered, with the use of elastic analysis i

and low damping values, and the use of minimum yield / ultimate strength for design are quantified to show that any reduction in response due to the use of the deconvolution analysis is i

more than compensated for by the margins in design introduced i

t by the conservative definition of other seismic design para-meters.

To comply with the NRC request, the structural responses and floor response spectra obtained by applying the RG 1.60 spectra at the foundation levels are also presented.

i Based on a composite evaluation of tie above information, l

it is concluded that the present design of Byron /Braidwood is conservative.

i 17 9

I 1842 171

VIII.

Re f ere nce s 1.

Schnabel, P.

B.,

Lysmer, J.,

and Seed, H.

B.,

" SHAKE -

A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally-Layered Sites," Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Repor t Berkeley, 1972. No. EERC 72-12, University of California, 2.

Submittal to the NRC' dated December 9, 1976, entitled

" Byron and Braidwood Stations Units 1&2 - Additional In-formation on Seismic Design Analysis," NRC Dockets 50-454/455 and 50-456/457.

3.

Murphy, J.

R. and O'Brien, L.

J., " Analysis of a Worldwide Strong Motion Data Sample to Develop an Improved Correla-tion between Peak Acceleration, Seismic Intensity, and Other Physical Parameters," NUREG-0402, report prepared for the NRC by Computer Services Corporation, January 1978.

4.

Newmark, N.

M., "A Rationale for Development of Design Spectra for Diablo Canyon Reactor Facility," report to the USNRC, September 1976.

5.

Bartu, A. S.," Discussion on Seismic Design Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants, Journal of the Power Division, ASCE, December 1974.

6.

Penzien, J. and Watabe, M., Characteristics of 3-Dimensional Earthquake Ground Motions, Earthquake Engineering and Struc-tural Dynamics, Vol.

3, 1975.

7.

Hall, W.

J., Mohraz, B., and Newmark, N.

M., " Statistical Studies of Vertical and Horizontal Earthquake Spectra,"

Report NUREG-0003, prepared for USNRC January 1976.

8.

Newmark, N. M. and Hall, W.

J., " Development of Criteria for Seismic Review of Selected Nuclear Power Plant, NUREG/CR-0098, prepared for NRC May 1978.

Repor t 9.

Newmark, N. M. and Rosenblueth, E., " Fundamentals of Earth-quake Engineering," Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971.

10.

NRC Summary of Meeting held February 4,1977 to discuss the Diablo Canyon Seismic Design Re-evaluation.

I i842 172 l

18 r

.f i

l Table.130.06-1 Acceleration-Intensity Relationship Intensity Trifunac & Brady CSC VI 0.065 g 0.05 g V

0.0325 g 0.029 g IV 0.0165 g 0.01C5 g l

Table 130.06-2 Comparison of Current B/B Containment Forces with 0.12 g RG 1.60 SSE FORCE OR MOMENT (SSE)

ITEM B/B DESIGN NRC RG 1. 60 Total overturning moment at base of 1-k 1-shell 4,540,000 3,156,000 Total shear at k

k base of shell 26,500 18,420 i

t t

19 1842 172 r-

Table 130.06-3 Pac 1 of 4 Table 130.06-3 Locations for Spectra Comparison -

B/B Design vs. 0.06 g OBE and 0.12 g SSE ELEVATION BUILDING Byron;Braidwood EARTHQUAKE DIRECTION FIGURE NO.

Auxiliary &

Containment 330;374 OBE Horizontal EW;NS 130.06-9 Auxilary &

Containment 330;374 OBE Vertical 130.06-10 4

Auxiliary (wall)

OBE Vertical 130.06-11 83 4 1 m

Auxiliary (slab)

OBE Vertical 130.06-12 383 Auxiliary 401 OBE Horizontal EW 130.06-13 Auxiliary 401 OBE Horizontal NS 130.06-14 Auxiliary; Turbine; 426 OBE Horizontal NS 137.06-15

^"fff[Y["E

"'I 426 OBE Horizontal EW 130.06-16 jf Auxiliary (wall)

OBE Vertical 130.06-17 426 451 Auxiliary (slab)

OBE Vertical 130.06-18 00 h

FV

• A

Table 130.06-3 Pa' 2 of 4 ELEVATION BUILDING Byron;Braidwood EARTHQUAKE DIRECTION FIGURE NO.

^ ", *f# Yh "

"*I 451 OBE Iforizontal NS 130.06-19 Auxfiry[ fur ine 451 OBE Horizontal EW 130.06-20 3

Auxiliary 477 OBE Horizontal NS 130.06-21 Auxiliary 477 OBE Horizontal EW 130.06-22 Auxiliary (slab) 467;477 OBE Vertical 130.06-23 Auxiliary (wall)

OBE Vertical 130.06-24 73; 85 Containment 424;436 OBE Vertical 130.06-25 D3 Containment 424;436 OBE Horizontal NS 130.06-26 Containment 496 OBE Iforizontal NS;EW 130.06-27 Containment 496 OBE Vertical 130.06-28 Containment Inner 426 OBE Ilorizontal NS 130.06-29 Containment Inner 426 OBE Horizontal EW 130.06-30 Co Structure 4

rs)

Containment Inner 412;426 OBE Vertical 130.06-31 Structure (wall)

]j Containment Inner 390;401 OBE Vertical 130.06-32 Structure (slab) 412;426

i

.so.

Page 3 of 4 ELEVATION BUILDING Byron;Braidwood EARTilOUAKE DIRECTION FIGURE NO.

Auxiliary &

330;374 SSE Horizontal 130.06-33 Containment Auxiliary &

330;374 SSE Vertical 130.06-34 Containment 4

Auxiliary (wall)

SSE Vertical 130.06-35 6

401 6 383 Auxiliary (slab)

SSE vertical 130.06-36 q

Auxiliary 401 SSE Horizontal NS 130.06-37 Auxiliary 401 SSE IIorizontal EW 130.06-38 Auxiliary; Turbine; 426 SSE Horizontal NS 130.06-39 y

Heater Bay Auxiliary Turbine; 426 SSE IIorizontal EW 130.06-40 426;439 Auxiliary (wall) 451 SSE Vertical 130.06-41 426 439 Auxiliary (slab)

SSE Vertical 130.06-42 s

Cy, Auxiliary; Turbine 451 SSE IIorizontal NS 130.06-43 J>

lieater Bay PJ

((^Ufffe "E

451 SSE IIorizontal EW 130.06-44 LJi

Table 13 0. 0 6-3 Par 4 of 4 ELEVATION

~

BUILDING Byron;Braidwood EARTHQUAKE DI RECTION FIGURE NO.

j73j8 SSE Vertical 130.06-45 Auxiliary (wall)

Auxilairy (slab) 467;47',

SSE Vertical 130.06-46 Auxiliary 477 SSE Horizontal NS 130.06-47 Auxiliary 477 SSE Horizontal EW 130.06-48 Containment 424;436 SSE Horizontal NS;EW 130.06-49 Containment (wall) 424;436 SSE Vertical 130.06-50 Containment 496 SSE Horizontal NS;EW 130.06-51 Containment (wall) 496 SSE Vertical 130.06-52 Con c "

"t Inner 426 SSE Horizontal NS 130.06-53 gr e

ww Containment Inner 426 SSE Horizontal EW 130.06-54 Containment Inner Structure (wall) 412;426 SSE Vertical 130.06-55 Containment Inner 390;412 SSE Vertical 130.06-56 Structure (slab) 401;426 A

N ON 7

~

I

Table 130.06-4 Earthquaxe Wave Transit Time and Peak Ground Acceleration Peak Ground Reduction T

Structure (sec)

Acceleration (g)

Factor Small Structures 0.00 0.75 1.00 Containments 0.04 0.60 0.80 Aux. Building 0.052 0.55 0.73 Turbine Building 0.067 0.50 0.67 Table 130.06-5 Comparison of R3 1.61 and NUREG-0098 Damping Values RG 1. 61 Damping NUREG-0098 Damping Structure or Component for SSE At or Just Below Yield Piping 2-3 2 to 3 Welded Steel 4

5 to 7 Prestressed Concrete (a) Without complete loss in prestress 5

5 to 7 (b) With no prestress left 7

7 to 10 Reinforce ( Concrete 7

7 to 10 Bolted Steel Structures 7

10 to 15 1842 177 24 t

l Table 130.06-6 Material Strength ACTUAL MEAN MATERIAL DESIGN STRENGTH (PSI)

STRENGTH ( PSI )

Concrete 5,500 6,935 (f')

3,500 5,265 Reinforcement 60,000 67,000 (fy)

Structural Steel 36,000 43,200 (fy) 50,000 56,000 Table 130.06-7 Comparison of B/B Containment Design Forces to Those f rom RG 1. 60 Spectra DESCRIPTION B/B iSSE)

R3 1.60 (0.2 g)

[

1. fs 9

1-k 1-k 4,540,000 5,260,000 o

s Total shear at base of shell 26,500 30,700' Net tensile membrane force in shell 27 k/l 72 k/l Bending moment in 1-k/l 9,513 -k/l 1

basemat 6,650 Net membrane tensile force NA in reactor cavity wall

'1335 k/l 25 i842 178

Table 130.06-8 Containment Building Structural Beams Comp rison of Forces Between B/B Design Basis Force and RG 1. 60 NUMBER OF BEAMS

% INCREASE IN FORCES DUE TO RG 1. 60 OBE SSE

<0 84 88 0 - 10 12 8

10 - 20 4

8 20 - 30 4

30 - 40 8

>40 TOTAL 108 108 NOTES 1.

All 108 beams reviewed for el. 426'0".

2.

Percent increase does not necessarily reflect a state of stress in the beam.

i b42 179 26

Table 130.06-9 Auxiliary Building-Fuel Hindling Building Complex Shear Walls - Comparison Between B/B Design Basis Seismic Forces and RG 1.60 NUMBER OF SPRINGS

% INCREASE IN FORCES DUE TO RG 1. 60 OBE SSE

<0 122 153 0 - 10 25 51 10 - 20 19 30 20 - 30 8

7 30 - 40 50 8

40 - 50 33 6

>50 15 17 TOTAL 272 272 NOTE Percent increase does not necessarily reflect a state of stress in the wall.

1842 180 27 l

e

Table 130.06-10 Auxiliary-Fuel Handling Building Complex Structural Steel Beams - Comparison of Forces Between B/B Design Basis Forces and RG 1.60

^"

% INCREASE IN FORCES DUE TO RG 1. 60 OBE SSE

<0 148 132 0 - 10 61 85 10 - 20 16 7

20 - 30 5

6 730 TOTAL 230 230 NOTE 1.

Beams located at el. 426'0" and 451'0" in auxiliary building.

2.

Percent increase does not necessarily reflect a state of stress in the beam.

1842 181 28

130.6-11 Dage 1 of 4 Table 130.06-11' Locations for Spectra Comparison -

~

B/B Design vs. 0.09 g OBE and 0.20 g SSE ELEVATION BUILDING Byron;Braidwood EARTHQUAKE DIRECTION FIGURE NO.

^"

OBE Horizontal NS,EW 130.06-57 Con a ment

^"*IfI Y

330;374 OBE Vertical 130.06-58 a

ment 4

Auxiliary (wall)

OBE Vertical 130.06-59 38 1

34 Auxiliary (slab)

OBE Vertical 130.06-60 83 Auxiliary 401 OBE Horizontal NS 130,06-61 Auxiliary 401 OBE Horizontal EW 130.06-62 Auxiliary Turbine 426 OBE Horizontal NS 130.06-63 Aux liary Turbine 426 OBE Horizontal D1 130.06-64 426 451 Auxiliary (wall)

OBE Vertical 130.06-65 426 451

[

Auxiliary (slab)

OBE Vertical 130.06-66 no OC PV

-..--e e.

=mie-w w--a

-o w e e.- e

- me,es.--m eese-

130.6-11 P ge 2 of 4 ELEVATION BUILDING Byron;Braidwood EARTHQUAKE DI RECTION FIGURE NO.

^"f f"[YI' 451 OBE Horizontal NS 130.06-67

^"fffe i"

451 OBE Horizontal EW 130.06-68 46 ;477 Auxilary (wall)

OBE Vertical 130.06-69 7

Auxiliary (slab) 467;477 OBE Vertical 130.06-70 Auxiliary 477 OBE Horizontal NS 130.06-71 Auxiliary 477 OBE Horizontal EW 130.06-72 Containment 424;436 OBE Horizontal NS 9 0.06-73 Containment (wall) 424;436 OBE Vertical 130.06-74 Containment 496 OBE Horizontal NS;EW 130.06-75 Containment 496 OBE Vertical 130.06-76 Containment Inner 426 OBE Horizontal NS 130".06-77 Structure Containment Inner Structure 426 OBE Horizontal EW 130.06-78 412;426 OBE Vertical 130.06-79 St cue a 1)

_m C

Containment Inner 390;412 OBE Vertical 130.06-80 Structure (slab) 401;426 CO LN

130.6-11 age 3 of 4 ELEVATION BUILDING Byron;Braidwood EARTIIQUAKE DIRECTION FIGURE NO.

^"

330;374 SSE IIorizontal NS;EW 130.06-81 n

ment

^"

0;374 SSE Veru cal 130.0682 ment 4

Auxiliary (wall)

SSE Vertical 130.06-"J 64 0

4 Auxiliary, (slab)

SSE Vertical 130.06-84 36 4

Auxiliary 401 SSE Ilorizontal NS 130.06-85 Auxiliary 401 SSE IIorizontal EW 130.06-86 AuxiHary rbine; 426 SSE IIorizontal NS 130.06-87

^"*

Y E

426 SSE IIor izontal EW 130.06-88 g

4 y

Auxiliary (wall)

SSE Vertical 130.06-89 7

'L 42 451 Auxiliary (slab)

SSE Vertical 130.06-90 Au u

ne 451 SSE IIorizontal NS 130.06-91 g

Aux ay rbine 451 SSE Ilorizontal EW 130.06-92 7

co Auxiliary (wall)

SS V rtical 130.06-93 3

n N

4

30.6-11 Page 4 of'4 ELEVATION Byron;Braidwood EARTIIQUAKE DIRECTION FIGURE NO.

BUILDING Auxiliary ( lab) 457;477 SSE Vertical 130.06-94 Auxiliary 477 SSE Horizontal NS 130.06-95 Auxiliary 477 SSE IIor izontal EW 130.06-96 Containment 424;436 SSE Horizontal NS;EW 130.06-97 i

}

l Containment (wall) 424;436 SSE Vertical 130.06-98 i

Containment 496 SSE Ilorizontal NS;EW 130.06-99 Containment (wall) 496 SSE vertical 130.06-100 Containment Inner Structu,re 426 SSE IIorizontal NS 130.06-101 g

Containment Inner Structure 426 SSE IIorizontal EW 130.06-102

. Con a nmen In" 412:426 SSE Vertical 130.06-103 g

a

)

Containment Inner 390;412 SSE Vertical 130.06-104 Structure (slab) 401;426

_m 00

1. 2 bd

_a CO LJ1 1

AMErlDME'iT 24 1.0 I

FEBRUARY 1983

~

B/B Enveloped Fotrdation Spectra p

0.5 C

O R.G. 1.60 (0.069)

I b

h 0.2

^

8 E

0.1 d

/

N S

0 N

0.05

)

0.02 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 y

Period in Seconds

{

(a) B/B Enveloped Spectra and R.G.

1.60 (0.06g) Spectra for OBE ( 4 9. Damping) 05

^

^

~

w d

e 9

0.2 s

/

N 2

~/

U v

N 0.1 B/B Envelopcx3 Fot:ndaticn Spectr J

C O R.G. 1.60 (0.129) 0.05 O'.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 Period in Seconds (b) B/B Enveloped Spectra and R.G.

1.60 (0.12g) Spectra for SSE (7% Damping)

BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONSh FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-1 COMPARIS0:1 0F HORIZ0lTAL SPECTRA

AMENDMENT 24 I FEBRUARY 1980 0.5 .p# 0.2 o o 0.1 / $a S 0.05 1 3) B/B Enveloped Foundation Spectra C O R.G. 1.60 (0.069) 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 Period in Seconds s (a) B/B Enveloped spectra and R.G. 1.60 (0.06g) spectra for OBE (41 Damping) 1.0 0.5 m 0.2 / 0.1 A B/B Enveloped foundation spectra C O R.G. 1.60 (0.12g) ) 0.05 I I I I I 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 Period in Seconds (b) B/B Enveloped spectra and R.G. 1.60 (0.12g) spectra for SSE (7% Damping) BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AF ETY AN ALYSIS REPORT 42 187 FIGURE Q130.6-2 COMPARISON OF VERTICAL SPECTRA

1 AMENDMENT 24 FEBRUARY 1930 1.0 . __ _. y 0.5 R.G. 1.60 'B/B En celope e .s-8 N f E O v y; P \\ 0.2 / g h t W p-( /" T " Spectra 'N \\ N 0.1 d s / . - -./ 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 Period in Seconds (a) OBE (41) Spectra for AUX-TUR complex (T = 0.067 sec.) 1.0 0.5 f.G.1C O R B/B En. elope e p. r" -\\ f 0 W, an,OV l ,\\ o,y / 's J' Spt ctr s. 0 ./ e'4 a l 'N o 01 ._ j, 0.281 / O.05 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 Period in Seconds (b) OBE (4%) Spectra for Containment ( T = 0.04 sec. ) BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-3 1842 188 H0RIZO: ITAL OBE (45) SPECTRA CO.'! PARIS 0'l

AMEf4DMEtiT 24 FEBRUARY 1930 l'7 0 k B/B Envelope 1 L R.G. 1.60 -~~ ^ U 05 i m w 5 ./ Ny / w-p ( './ y k'N / d /,--' ~C' Spectra N f 0.2 r[ / \\ M s' / ./ 0.1 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 Period in Seconds (a) SSE (7%) spectra for AUX-TUR complex ("U = 0.067 sec.) 1.0 B/B Envelope R.G. 1.60 ~ ' T% 0*5 0 / ~ g ( ./,, - [~ M I~, K.%.m\\, L .- Y ) / /' l H / / 'I" Spectra NQ j l / l - \\ ,]/- s A ~ 02 g N b 0.287 l 0.1 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 Period in Seconds (b) SSE (7%) spectra for containment ('C= 0.04 sec.) BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE-Ql30.6-4 1842 189 HORIZO:lTAL SSE (7'J) SPECTRA C0!' PARIS 0:1

AMENDMEt1T 24 FEBRUARY 1930 PER!cD. SEC. \\ 2.0 10 0.5 0.2 01 0.05 0.02 -12,0.0 N /N N N /N N So o / mL 'x X' v 20.0 y p \\ \\ / N >\\ \\ \\ / u f N W \\ MS <\\ NN /\\ \\ // / /\\ + !.0 'N % wN \\. N 2 ^ x,- \\ .', NRC SPECTRU.4 - - -- ' RESPONSC SPECTRU:1 \\ A 1.0 FRO!! CO:'PATIBLE y 3 TI!!E HISTORY / \\/ \\/ \\N/ } s N /\\ /\\. /\\ N 4 N s, / 0.5 .q \\ %/ \\. / k t ,x p 01 O.5 1.0 20 5.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 FRECUEtJOY. CPS BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-5 1842 190 HORIZO!TAL RESP 0:iSE SPECTRA (4% DAMPI:lG)

I AMEfiDME.'iT 24 PER!eo. SEC. FEBRUARt' 1980 2.0 .1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 119.0 / ^ / \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ /\\ 50.0 N-x NX m

• • y ~w'

/ /N / / N, N / \\ N / !sc [x k N / w w/h- !.0 NAs s g2 ,s fs, ,x i,x . 2g iqRC SPECTRU:1 - --- o N RESPO:4SE SPECTRU:1 x 10 FRO!! CO' PATI 5LC \\ TI!!E HISTORY \\, /\\ \\ 4

• • E

'/ ' c, N-N-O s \\ \\ / \\ 0.10.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.~0 20.0 50.0 FREQUEt4CY. CPS BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-6 1842 191 HORIZOiTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA (7% DAMPlfiG) 'l

I AMEf1DME:ii 20 FEBRUARY 1930 '\\ y A.e4 uPu=Ta= roc. SG E Loc N G cou. BIN ATic N ks\\\\Oh' N N N 'I \\' hn MQ'3t '$f' 'x ?f's x 1 3 \\1s / A ,/ A N\\ c y Ts, x1 y h y e r x r o z. CAVITY BYRON NRC RG l.GO =sFL.ec-GC SHACE NC.c % lGo E % ~_ N_ j %I F01c5 ou ll'5ACToC CAvi SECTION A-A NOTE: THE UPLIFT CALCULATICNS DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE SIDE SOIL / ROCK RESIS-TANCE WHICH WOULD BE MOSILIZED BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Ql30.6-7 1842 192 co:iinir:xt:11 ansEru1 DetiFT c0::?ARISO:i 4

AMENDMENT 24 FEBRUARY 1980 l l i i l i ' ELB74'-o" , EL.374'-p" i I , s'.. $42L 4* - l' V /py:7g q @ 4-gj g q x /t, ,( ~f ,I \\ f, q. ~ \\ ' \\[## h s, f p, l \\/* l 'v- /- - et. 577 c" EL. 377' O" m. D GD I i aL 373'-G" g et 373' 4' 'M =N NOTES:

1. THE CHANGES IN THE FORCES ARE PRIMARILY

.DUE TO INCREASED UPLIFT OF THE MAT.

2. THE UPLIFT CALCULATIONS DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE SIDE SOIL / ROCK RESISTANCE WHICH WOULD BE MOBILIZED.

LEGEND: O isoic^Tas ~ 5 m 5 # isc25^5* It4 GE!WIC N 6 9 IN S A 9 3 M A T* BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS "//////$ IMDICATES AP PEC.TED AREA 6 FINAL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPOPT FIGURE Q130.6-8 CONTAINMENT - AUXILIARY - FUEL HANDLING }8k2 )g BUILDING C0f' PLEX AT f1AT ELEVATI0'1 /

AMEtiDMEtii 24 FEBRUARY 19E0 3 30 13 20 10 10 13 10 to .5 MO,. ' a m: E N is e no 20 i. - 08 I I l I I t i I I I I I ! -a l l 3 l l l l l l l l 1 I 1 1 I I l l l 1 l lI i 1. te t. l l l I d se u l NRC RG 1.60 (.06g ZPA) 2 ic By./Br. Design Basis----- u 1% Damping 10 LC 2 L5 ~ U i i i 4 i i t i i i

• t

~ '3 E l i l l l l l l l d' E i l l l l l l l l l i 3 l I I l i l ll -,E .5 ,___s .s ; ~ ~~ / \\ 4 s$ 4 f /l sb l d -n u --. r i ~ f / N ~ sl 'N4 s j u ~ / I N i N- / \\ \\- / / N 3 / \\ ' 15 .15 / / ~ i / / i / / f / i i i A .cs ~ / I Nu /I i i i i -i / i l I i .= I,.,,l,l, I .k.2 ,,,i .c: .e3 .c4 m .e. .m .ts .2 .3 4 .s to u to r.x sa. BYRON / BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-9 COMPARISON OF B/B A.'!D RG l.60 SPECTRA .}842 }94 EXCITATION : CBE, HORIZONTAL, MS AND EW LOCAT10't : AUXILI ARY NiD CO.'lTA1:!:'ET!T BLDS. ELEVATIO:1: 330'-0"; 374'-0"

1 AMENDMENT 24 1

• C" FEBRUARY 1950 t

50 13 i 2D 10 10 11 10 LO .5 m0 1 ir r> no [ [ 110 11 0 20 1;' i i i i, i i i i i i i , i.i t i I I l 1 i I i l i i l i i i M I I I I I I I I I I I i 1 ,_ju l ll l l 10 to b l ~ (0 _ a E NRC RG 1.60 (.06g ZPA) 3 By./Br. Design Basis----- 1% Dampinc 10 Ic 2 1 I I 2 3 g3 10 i i 1" i i i i i 'g 1 I J 1 l 1 ! l 6 l l l I i i e ~, { I I i l i I I I I i l i j i"{ 1 I l l l l l l l 4 5 Ii-0 0 - ~ l l l l l l l i I: .5 .5 : ~ l l l / \\ l l ]4Eh E 4 g g y.-_5 l r q -- -l a. 1 u-a 1 3 l- _3 -.J 6 \\ f S \\ ), K 1 p s s s .D f7 's .:5 / \\ j / \\ s l' ' - - * * / \\ \\

• 10

_v l/ i a i i I i i N s I*- ,g /_ i l I I I I i I 6 \\ y,j /i i l I l \\l 1 l/ i l I N -4 .06 l, ,!,,,,l.,,,l,,,, ,,,,l, l g ~,,,,!, ,,l 3 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .2 .I .D .2 .3 4 .5 .4 .8 LO L5 10 Perkid. Ser-BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q133.6-10 'l bk 9)" C0:iPARIS0:10F B/B R;D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: OBE, VERTICAL, WALL' AND SLAS LOCATION: AUXILI ARY A' D CONTAIN:iENT 3LDS. ELEVATION: 330'-0"; 374'-0"

AMEf1D" Erit 24 FEBRUARY 1930 ,en " ~ se n to w to u to te .s gg,, g 3g 7 1 i6 .r i .r i r iii i i i i tic 15 0 20 i,,, i - no i i i i i i i i i i i a k l l l [ l l 1 i 1 i l I l I I i LC LO ~ URC RG 1.60 (.06g :'PA) se ~ ic ~ I (o By./Br. Desigr. Basis _ ____ ~ u 11 Damping ~ 1, 1, : l 10 LC t3 ~ ~ ts '0 i 1 i , i i i i i i i T l l t i i i i t i l l l 6 1 i -4 ( ~ l l l l l C Ps I l l l l 8

• l l !

l i f y, l l l l l \\ l l I I I I ,y ) l \\ l l 5 z p' ,'--.--,l 1 -.5 ; t I .4 >I il l O':~.Y)\\ i Nl 's'-s r 3l, f O..' '3 /V 'j N 's{ / \\ '...:.' \\, s

y. -

.2 .1 1, 15 15 g g _f Ii s -,,, i i i i x i i i! A i w, i i ! x t 1 I I i \\- .06 ~ t 't

• • i+

, t

• i e iei e

i + 1

• i'

+i * .n - t ' t * * '.cs t r y .oo .a .i .is .s 4 5 .6 to L5 to .c .C3 .c4 Perkx:. Sr BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-ll C0!' PARIS 0N OF B/B A1D RG 1.60 SPECTRA ~ 1842 19(3 EXCITATION: Ost, VERTICAL, watt LOCATION: AUXIL'J'Y BUILDING WALL ELEVATION: 346'-0"; 354'-0"; 383'-0"; 401'-0"

AMEfiDME:iT 24 FEBRUARY 1950 ,,,en se n i 2e a to u te te .s gg 7Y a y.o ii 6 i .1 1. i,ii 1 1 6 i. l,l l i i i d j110 tic NRC RG 1.60 (.06g "PA) By./Br. Design Basis __ _ _ ~ ~ 2, i T , ito lt Da:nping d I i u i i 4u 1 I i 1 1 I i' a se ~ se 5.c 1 \\ l l o i _ u s 10 ~ \\ ~ 13 l \\ rm f j 's).I \\ ~ 8 t.- 4 s l r,. ' s g f 1.. \\ , L5 'G \\ \\ ~ r a l \\ t i _p \\ i is i f) i i i i ~ \\ I i s I e i{ i 'l 1 u ~g { { i </. ai e ii i \\i i s i i i i i i ? t /O'! I I I I \\1 si l I l l I 1 7. I b l h \\ )\\ l j '}----P'l/I II I I N \\ l - ~' j l Y N .3 .3 J \\l s N. .2 .2 b .15 .15 sq hls i N s t io i x .3 s .m \\ "a i i i i x i t i i i i \\- .oe m ....I,!,I, ,( .c .c3 .c4 .cs .o6 .cs .t5 .2 .2 4 5 .6 tc u to Perd sec. BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.0-12 1842 197 C0xeARIs0:4 Or e/s Aio RG i.c0 Se:CTRA EXCITATIO*1: OBE, VERTICAL, SLAB LOCATIO:1: AUXILI ARY SUILDI::G SLs.B ELEVATIO::: 346'-0"; 354'-0", 383'-0"; 401'-0"

i AMEilDSTii ?? ) FEBRUARf 1953 w n i a w to is to to .5 MO _' '+ r ' ii1 * I J r.C 15 s q a , a: ~ 3 1 50 , i - a: iI I. I LC NRC RG 1.60 (.06g "PA) .tc i l, i ~ l I II I se By./Br. Design Easis ----- g ~ l } l g 1% Da:nping ]" to u g - g A a 10 10 ~ L5 ~ ~ L5 l I i i i e 6 i e t i i i i i oi. i i ( l l J: {! \\,. _ i l I i l 1 i I ~1 I 4'{ I [::/l ~ $2.!/ I\\ b !yT lil l 'sg l l l l l l 7-7-

3 [

l \\ l "TT l l 1 '3 j /P4 \\' l\\ /!W ( l j\\ l Ii ,j p l\\ p..? ti i 36 i a 5 l l SD I d ~ / -) a s / -;f; s

g. <

N ~ U l h ~ s .5 S xu ,g ~ l I t I t l \\" ~ { l i l l I k I l l l l i 4 .e a ~ iit < i' t r r. r t *+ r ,t i i i _g .C2 .3 .Cd .CS .06 .08 .1 .li .2 .3 4 .5 .4 .8 LO L5 10 Pered, Sec. BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FicuaE Q130.6-13 i b 't 2 9 COMPARISO.'l 0F B/B AD RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO't : OBE, H0RIZO1TAL, EW LOCATIO:1: AUXILIARY CUILDI:iG ELEVATIO:1: 401'-0"

AMEtiDMEtiT 24 FEBRUAD.Y 1900 E so is ao a s.o u to to .s ag _i J r. g r i 6. > 4 . i i i1 i4 i i 6 i r 5 l 3 tic aa me 4 00 I "RC RG 1.60 (.06g "PA) "u go I i i 1 i 1 l l l By./Br. Design Basis 1% Dampir.? in 50 l (a ~ 2 4C lo ~ 10 ~ to 4 tc u 3

u

\\ I \\_ i, i i i, , i. y l I f- - g i i / l ll l t l l t i 1' ( ? f-i 'l / i 'l l I i l t 1 1 ? [ / l l\\ / l \\' l l l l } } l [ i / L i j I ,_l l l\\ 45/6 / :f-l k it _f/- m / l l% / I l lsNJ I ;.- l 1., i / i W i j t l ( I f7 l D , xl lsb Ll 3 s J

N

,3 +" / N ] ~ / \\ i s., 7', / e .1 ,\\ 'q as s/ / " y y (, IC g. 10 1 l I \\; ( l 1 l J .= u ~ t t * ' t... t ' i + i... f,ii e ie t iii* i e + + y f .c: .n .c4 .es .a .os .i .ts .2 .3 4 .s to u to Pered. SK BYRON /BR AlDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Ql30.6-14 COMPARISO.'i 0F B/B A"D RG 1.60 SPECTP:5 }842 )99 EXCITATIC:!: OBE, HORIZO'!TAL, f!S LOCATIO:1: AUXILIARY BUILDI:iG ELEVATI01: 401'-0"

') AMENCME'iT 24 FEBRuARf 1920 i 9 no. ces i se n i 20 m to U to to .5 MO '3 3 i* JC 1 a lio lic NRC.RG 1.60 (.06g CPA) By./Br. Design Basis _____ ,C' 20 . i i to i i

i i

a 1% Da:nping 10 3 i i il I g, l l l l l ~ u to l l l l i to -- 4 4 10 ~ 10 ~ rl r f \\ l' i \\ I \\ u i 15 I \\ / \\ .J / g ,/ i ( i i i i il i i \\ i i iii i -1, { { i i i i I r I i \\i i i i i I iit i S l l l /r I \\ \\_ L_ i I i l i I f,i I il/ I \\ x.L._J__t I i N ',1 l.r A-I W l \\ l l l%4lll b r n x lN.hI l 5 E / u-/ \\i l /l / i X i -i / l hl \\ d ~.- _ - - _ _ _// I L \\ \\. s \\ _.15 .15 l i i i x,: os ~ I I \\1 es i I i l t : I k i l l l 1 t b .06 ~,ii* t ** i r i. t e i i4 ,iir t r i i i' n y .c .c3 .c4 .cs .o. .cs .n .2 .3 4 5 .e to u to rwa:. sw. BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE igl3J.e-15 COMPARISON OF B/B A'iD RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: 00E, HORIZO::TAL, NS .i842 200 LOCATION: AuxitIAav sult0ING TuasInE BulLDING, HEATER BAY ELEVATION: 426'-0"

j AMEtiD"EtiT 24 FEBRUARY 1930 %. ces t 30 M i 20 10 S.0 il to 10 .5 gD _. , y,; 6. >i7 e r iiii i i 1 15 0 a 1$ 2 5 URC RG 1.60 (.06g ZPA) ~ By./Br. Des ign Bas is- ---- ~ _ iu m0 d to 11 Damoinc u I l l l l l ~ 1 I I l d so a ~ l l l l l S.0 'l3 ~ 40 ,G ~ d 10 ~ ~ 1: to l , 10 2 A 2 a t3 i 4.. I l \\ b'x 4" 2 , i n 1 l l I / i ( l \\ 4 i , I 4 ', { { I i i ! I i i / /' \\ N-1 i i 1 i q, l,- L L L,! / /i i \\! .N i i I i i i / I I\\//! l T I I i\\! I II i ',q { i /ill I\\ / I \\l 11 I I i,! i / ' ll / M l'C-( l 1,

1. y i

N ( l h 3. .7 s . i> .:s b b l 1 w xn y I i i l l , I I I i \\~, 1 I l i l i I ) i i li .= 2 ~ .lr .~3 it i e e t e r e i ri .r ,i i i i y x .c . 0, .cs .a .es .is .2 .3 4 .5 .s 10 o te Period, Sac,. BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.o-16 }842 3 } C0" PARIS 0:10F S/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO!: OBE, HORI 70: ITAL, E'.,' LOCATION: AUXILI ARY BUILDIriG, TURBI:lE BUILDil!G, HEATER BAY , ELEVATION: 426'-0"

1 AMDiC"ENT 24 %. ces FEBRUARY l9E0 se n 2c m se u to to .5 ng _i r i r 6, 1 i i1 1 s,i.,.i _ y,; 1 no ~ d nc { NRC RG 1.60 (.06g ZPA) } ~ By./Br. Design Basis ----- ~ ,. o g, i i l it Damping l 11: to i l I 4: ao a 1 i i i I 11 1 1 5.0 S. 1I I I ll l iu u 10 ~ 10 pe g LO 2.; E I E s 1 g I \\ 1 I \\

• i 8

l ii ii i i , i m 1 l iI t i i 1 -1 'g I 1 E 1 i l l li I \\; E I I i iI i i e ? l l i Il i l i N I l l l i i l l i i i l l I I- ( l lr. .,3 [ l l l l ll l ! '.3 l /0aiXNll / \\l 'sJ l l -i 'A < 4 .Y-) l J b ~. - )) l N 1% l N 'Nsl ,l ', g____ l' ]I s 1 ( s ~ 's "g s; 'sq g' \\ - l g 0 i i i , i x ',j \\ I i i i i q,, I ! l \\ t \\- i l l 1 l l l t i !.l I, ,,,,l.,,. ,l-l l. ~,,, .c2 .c) .04 .c5 .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .s to L5 2.0 Pera4 ser. BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIG'JRE Q13].6-17 1842 202 C0xeAals04 Or ses A:o as 1.50 seECiaA ~ EXCITATIO:1: 03E, VERTICAL, WALL LOCATION: AUXILIARY BUILDINS E'ALL ELEVATIO::: 426'-0"; 439'-0"; 451'-0"

( AMEND"ENT 24 1 FEBRUARY 19:-0 ,,,,,on, c,3 i i w n a w to is to te .5 , y,; ge,i 6 .r i 1 ,i1 a .r is i i. >i.i i b 15 0, 110 NRC RG 1.60 (.06g "PA) i i Bv./Br. Design Casis----- I i H" EC i i t i i I i lt Da:nping i i i i i I I du (e I i iI i 10 53 ~ l l l 40 u N rm to ~ / ~ 10 M I I 10 p},. I\\ i ,, 10 ~ il t3 .) I - t3 lJ L ). .p 'm .1 l N i i i i {-. i .s i t t i _,\\ s i i ..i i -4 I i i /.I I i I t iiiii i 1 ~? { i i r f. I i i i i \\ i N ? if. ~ -[. P l I \\ 'Q i i i I6 I -i i ( ,[#'l l l I \\ 's i ll I 4, j L-T/l I xl N, I II l I \\ \\ ~i, w s E w s 3 ~ \\ \\ \\'s x lN i3 I i ~3 N J s, h s I 'm -i, i. o i , i x i i i i i N N b (j, l I I I l i i l l I I II i \\i .c6 a ,,,,I.... !,l. ,,,,I,,,, I l, . !.. l, ,.k i .C .C) .04 .05 .06 .2 .I .15 .2 .) 4 .5 .6 .8 LC L5 2.C Ptrig Sec. BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S A FETY AN ALYSIS REPORT F15JRd gl.:o.o-ia C MPARIS0:10F B/B A:!D RG 1.60 SPECTRA '84? 203 I EXCITATION: OEE, VERTICAL, SLAB LOCATION: AUXILI ARY SUILDING SLAB ELEVATION: 426'-0"; 439'-0"; 451'-0"

} AMEtiDMENT M Fe. ces FEBRUARY 1950 g i se n i ro io to u to to .5 no ,,1 a,s: ~ Iso l is o NRC RG 1.60 (.06g 2PA) By./Br. Design Basis ----- no 1:e [ l' l 1% Daaping [ to to 1 I I i {, l l l l iu 3.o 1 II I I 40 l 40 1, f ~ u / '\\ / \\ ~ to te i I \\ ts /l 1 1 t, / l \\ / I \\ / \\: \\t i i

I i

i i i t i i , i, :, 1 \\ x i i i i, i ', { ( 1 I I i i /i i / A '\\ i l i i [ i I 1 ? 1 I I I f ' '/ i \\ l \\l I l I I I' I 1 L [ V i ~i' l /i i \\ l M-T T I i I: l { '[ ll ~ ', j l /l l / l l N \\ i., 5 l __s / il Nl s-l l 5 f \\ .x 3 q NI I \\ x N .15 .:5 l .10 .12 \\_ i i ii l \\, M I i I i iI i i i l I i 4 .os a l. -l.r r r,,, r ,t i,, i t 3 .C2 .C) .04 .M .06 .08 .I .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 to Periot., Sec. BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-19 COMPARISON OF B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: ODE, HORIZONTAL,i:S 1842 204 LOCATION: AUXILI ARY BUILDING, TURBINE BUILDING, HEATER BAY ELEVATION: 4S1'-0"

AMEftD"EiT 24 ) em-r. ces FEBP.UAP.Y 19CD i 50 31 20 10 50 13 10 LC .5 mg,, 1 > 1 6 ;' J E6 ~ 13 0 15 C NRC RG 1.60 (.06g CPA' By./Br. Design Easis._ ~ iu i i i _ g, i l l l ( l 1% Darap2.ng te to I l l LC sg .- !I 1 I 'iC 5.0 ~ ~ 40 (; ~ 10 ~ 1: . h) to _ 1: u ,.. /l. r 'N u ../ \\j f g i i, o i x i x, i l i t i ! I I,#p i i \\ i N ii i -, ', { i { i i i i i i f i \\i i\\ i i ii! i I fi / 3 \\1 I I -4 4 { i I,V I \\ i NI i i Cf i /l Vi I ( l\\ l 1 -l ~4 4 / 7 --- -g Ki \\ N .2 s N N .n m 3: . i0 s .to Nm .m I t i l l l 1 .os .cs I,... '.I, ,l ,,i, .3 .cz .e3 .c4 .cs .c. .cs .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .e to o te Pern!, Sec. BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Ql30.6-20 )gf2 2h5 COMPARIS0" 0F B/B A'!D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITAT10:1: ODE, HORIZO: TAL, E'.l '.0 CATI O:1: AUXILI ARY BUILDI:lG, TURDI';E BUILDl:1G, HEATER BAY ELEVATIO:1: 451'-0"

~ AMEfiDME!;T 24 ,,m. en FEBRUARY 1950 . - " ' 50 31 ' 2D 10 5.0 15 1C LO .5 LC - i 6 'i i ' ia i s i. i a &G tio 1, _i :s c NRC RG 1.60 (. 0 6g ::PIs) CC By./Br. Design Basis----- ,,ii I I l l l M 11 Da:nping dt: LO i i j, i i l 1 l l 1.: te e ~ h l l l l l l 5.0 ~ 40 _G 10 ~ P ~. 30 / \\ / \\ / \\ \\ 10 10 l \\l a \\ d f L5 l L5 k l j l ;]/ gi \\ \\ i l \\ \\ to i i i, p3 i\\ i e i r -i,.. I [Jjl i \\i \\ l 1 I I l I i ' I ,j { 1 1 49 i /.'/ 1 i \\i i i t i i l i I 4' 1 ? /I I i \\"N i l i i i ! I i 1 i j! j', / I /i i I \\ N--:, i l i ! I - s /l I /l I s i I l\\ 1 I I I I -,j ~ iu - ;____'___v ' / v > \\ L; i, i 1, V j l 3 q N: .t ~i l N. 1 .15 .15 i i , i o w ,g 1 I I I l t i I Q 1 l l t l l l i I I l I l l l .00 ,a ,i.le.i ~ ii*i i . i f 3 .C .C3 .04 .05 .M .2 .1 .15 .7 .) .4 5 .6 .8 10 LS 2.0 Period. Sec. BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-21 1842 206 c0mals0:4 Or s/s A40 ao 1.e0 seECTaA EXCITATIOi: OBE, HORIZO: TAL, !!S LOCATIO!1: AUXILIARY BUILDI.*G ELEVATIO:1: 477'-0"

AMEtiD:E!iT 24 FEBRUARY 1930 em. ces E il M M 10 11 10 LO .5 j no m0 1 liC -1 , 30 NRC RG 1.60 (.06g ZPA) By./Br. Design Bas is----- ne m0 tc ~ lt Damping I t I l l l ~ e l l l l 1 LC U ~ l l ~. m

3.,

~ l 40 (; 10 ~ ~ M b, 0 . _..Q - M 1,.: ::y --- 's j ; N LS -/... ssi ~ W s 1 's 7~ LC J \\ \\, i , M s ( 1 i / [. _ _ _, h - - f " i \\ I A i i I i j i l\\ l 6 / 4 \\i l 's. l I i i I e I / li i l \\l f I \\ i 'L I I i I 4 i ( I /11 : .I r \\ l l 'sj i i ! {~ ) ~,4 ~ ljV!Ill 1 kl NJ l i l 1 4.c F-__--_ f " T -'j % 0 7 l s .l l ~ 1 '3 l \\l s, I \\ ss w 2 D '5 2 3: i 1 e i i i a t \\g 1 i I i ; i N, 4 I i i l l 1 e i I I l! I I. .c .c) .04 m .06 .0a .i .15 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 to u le Period. sec. BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Ql33.6-22 CO.tiPARIS0:10F B/B A!;D RG 1.60 SPECTRA '*'^ " 'i ' ^ ' ' '" 18A 07 LOCATIO::: AUXILIARY BUILDIl!G ELEVATIO:1: 477'-0"

/ AMENDS'.ENT 24 FEBRU'AY l930 er no. ces ,\\ Sc il 20 to ic 11 to to .5 nc ig4 .3 4 mg _i,i> i.i i i i i ii. ,.4 tic ~ ~ is.o NRC RG 1.60 (.06g "PA) CC mo. i i, By./Br. Design Basis----- i to - 1 I t ! -4 i j lt Damping 4 tc l l 3 LD LC ~ l l l ll ' 10 5.0 ~ ~ r-'--i g g I t_qI - ic ~ ---E I' \\ - u i \\ b \\ t: to 4 1 L$ ' L5 i \\ i f' ) 6 ft i i t l \\* 6 i i i 1 4, ifI i I J t I ) i i I i i t t ^( ( I f. .' / I l 4 l l \\\\ l l l l d t-ul l i { i\\\\ l i i l i l t / I [b a. < j l l \\\\ l l l q '* f ~ [I#fl l l [__ lll l i y/y I d s \\ d '3 - _ __ :) 1 i '3 \\' N \\, \\ s E \\, u is .is ' N_. __ _ } 3 \\ _ IO y . AD \\ .cs ~ - p cs I I I \\W .o6 I '. I.,, I . kq.cc .cz .c3 .os .os .co .m .i .t> .2 .3 4 5 .s to u te Perg Sec. BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-23 184? 208 c0ngAais0N Or afa A o RG i.co spEcTec. EXCITATION: OBE, VERTICAL, SLAS LOCATION: AUXILIARY BUILDING SLAB ELEVATION: 467'-0"; 477'-C"

I AMEriC"E"i 24 re. ces FEBRUARY 1980 90 33 20 lo 10 13 to to 5 MC ;' m.M ; a-3 tio aa a co - - 10 5 NRC RG 1.60 (.06g ZPA) " g: I te 1 I i i l i 1 l l l l By./Br. Design Basis----- I to g l l l l 1% Damping So ~ l h l 40 2 10 ~ l _ 3; 10 10 M-g3 L5 ~ / 'g 3 l N ( \\ 10 i .,i s t i e i e i I i I I 'l 1 I I + l si t I \\ l l l f ( Q l i i il I sI i I I i l I 3 i 4 l' l l 1 'i i l l l l l 1 % -f .t l 'l. h!I l l 1 i e' f 3--+---._m l l i j ' W) l ' ' / l\\ m \\ 1 s .4 r h ~/ I Nt -i ' - - - - - -+ - ] ;. xN s .? d s l s' 4 i N 4 .ts _ 45 I s s N 'w s .io

• C3 l

l l l i I I I \\_ t Md'. \\,' A i l i l l l \\ i i I i l i .oe 2 ~,.. ,l !,l ,t .t ii.. t r 2 i,. 2 .c: .c) .c4 .cs .06 .08 .1 - .15 .2 .3 4 5 .6 1o L5 it Per64 Sec., ~ ~ 18 209 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT F I Gui.:. Q i a J. 0.:* COMPARISO:4 0F B/B A'iD RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO:1: 03E, VERTI CAL, '".LL LOCATIO:1: AUXILI ARY SUILDI'lG l.'ALL ELEVATIO:i: 467'-0"; 477'-0"; 473'-0"; 485'-0"

1 AME;1D"E:;T 24 re. ces FEBRUARY 1930 \\ so n re io to 1) to te .5 , 72 'i BC -4 na ts o q 4 d no i ,,,i - s 1 l 6 i I e l [ l I t I i 1 I I I l l l 1 l i1 l l l l J 'O NRC RG 1.60 (.06g :'PA) i i i 1. se l l l By./Br. Desic;n B as is '----- [j 1% Da:nping to 11: 2.C LC l a a.5 L5 ; -4 1 1 ,I T i ii i a l i i l i -r iii g i i i i, i i i i 5 l \\\\ I l l l l I I - t I. 3 i l !! l l \\i i 1 f-m [ l l j i 1 s a '3 i 1 I ll siw __l l l i,; 3 s E l fI h TN 5 .3 \\ i ~ I i l\\i /l x i f J-Y i \\1I 5 i " ?-y wI xi 3" / N N a 10 , x u- = 1 i t 6 i N. t^ x _2 i x,le i i i i i .06 -,,,,,..I!. I. .l.... l-I .C2 .C3 .04 .5 .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .) 4 .5 .6 .8 LC LS 20 Period. Sec. 18D 210 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q13].o-25 C0", PARI S0:10F B/B A'iD RG 1.60 SPECT.". EXCITATICri: 03E, VERTICAL, 'r.'ALL LOCATIO:1: C0!iTAI:WEtiT BUILDIriG WALL ELEVATI0:i: 424'-0"; 436'-0" __ ~

AMEtiD"ENT 2' FEBF.UARY 1950 50 11 2 10 is il 10 tt .5 no _, i. ,,4 , 7,: 1, tic , ts : [ URC RG 1.60 (. 0 6 g :'PA) 3 By./Br. Design Basis _ _ ___

4. a:

nac g, l I 1% Damping h. l t l l 1 { l i J 60 L' ~ l l ll l 5.C .C ~ l y: u l 4 l 3 ic 11: 2.0 l L5 U g -.. r 7 I i j f' \\ I ts 3, u , i l l l

• 'l I

is 4 l \\ i i l l r ( i l d f _/ l ! I, t I fI l \\\\ I I i I ! r 5-I l/ /: I S.i. i ll I (K I i i iI i .e ,\\\\ s -F-NJ l i i i l il '\\\\ l Il i fl i i;s ;,j !f r rN/ \\\\ ll hiNll 1 \\ l 1 3 / / / r \\ l NI l A i / \\ s _3 3 t X N - W T/ g f l f N / N ~3i, /l 1 E [.. / l M i '\\ ' l \\3 i i ix v .is 2.:s l 3 I i- .w -- e 4 i \\~. i i i i 1,,2 t I I l l 1 l l l H .a 'l., l ~ it t r e i i't t i., .. '.4 i .cz .o .e.a .cs .a .m .ts 3 .5 .6 Le ts te ruw. sw 1842 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGuilE Q133.6-26 C0:' PARIS 0:10F B/B A:iD RG 1.60 SPECTDA. EXCITATIC:l: OBE, HORIZO:;TAL, NS LOCATI0'l: C0:lTAIN",ENT BUILDI:;G ELEVATIC:1: 424'-0"; 436'-0"

) AMEtiDMENT 24 FEBRUARY 1950 um. crs w 33 a to 5.o u to to .5 2ao _i a i 6 r 6 i i 4 .r ,g g ~ NRC RG 1.60 (. 0 6g ::PA) By./Br. Design Basis----- lao 10 11 Damping l l l i i 1 I i l i i i I i i i t Le LC 1 I l i l l 3.0 So l l ll l ~ u ,e 3.0 ~ I lo I a \\i i _i te to / u

u r~-'l

\\ 1 ~ \\ 1,c to ie i ii i g,g i i, 3 ,g 1 I I ! // O I

/

l ( \\ l I i,* ' ii, i i I I I/ / i l ik i // I \\ N_ i ii i i~ i i !/ / ' i i0 i // I .\\ N i iii i 1"t i I i i //I I.\\i // l (

s

'i! I ! ,s 1 I / / I I l l \\\\ I,1 'N 1 iI -, 'l i ,c- /! \\ \\V] \\'% Y, , ~ v y x i 3 / l \\ N: \\1 i \\; I O 5 .is .is ~ 10 .o \\ ,eg I ' I i i i i i _\\q, 1 I I t I i i i 3 i i l It l i l,I. I,

f. l l

,(, ,.1 .c: .c) .c4 .cs .o6 .08 .I .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .4 to u to Period, Sec. 1842 212 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-27 COMPARISON OF B/B A'!D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: OBE, HORIZONTAL,t15 AND EW _ LOCATION: CONTAINMENT BUILDING ELEVATION: 496'-0"

i AMEND"ENT 2" l '"*"* C'5 FEBRUARY 1983 2D 10 5.0 U 10 to .5 50 31 _...c nc 3 ,.o f 13., [ NRC RG 1.60 (.06g 2PA) -l } By./Br. Design Bas is----- [ ac mo i ! i lt Da:nping "u i i g3 i t i I i I 4 1 I i i i I ie l l l l l l l Il ~ 3e 5.e ~ f l l l l lI l ~ 40 l l l - U 3.a 2 ).c 2.0 l l _ 10 rt.i a t3 N j i i \\ l \\ / LO i i, 3 i i i t,, 1 '/ 6 1 1 i i i l I 'I i i ",3 i i i i i ii i i i i eiii t. -j 1 I /I l ' -4. I I t iI I i \\rrm, i i I i T* f { , i /! i ~ i ~ l I./. I I Ik x% II 1.4 i ~ i u _- y \\ 3 tm e N l / \\ I v 'y s 'r 15 l p! I N Nl g Nl N i lsN - .10 \\ .4 \\ 8 i i i i i: N N7" l l l t i i l ! \\ .ce l 1 I i .oe l I ke3 i ,g .cz .c .a .e .m .ce .i .is .2 .3 4 .5 .e Le ts to Perke. Sec. 1842 213 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-28 COMPARISON OF S/B A"D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: CBE, VERTICAL, ',.'ALL LOCATION: CONTAli;MEiii BUILDIfiG ELEVATION: 496'-0"

I ~ AMEtCME'iT 2' ,,w,, en FEBRUU.i 1930 so n m to to u te to .5 MC _' 3 a 2 -.t : E l 3 15 o na ~ NRC RG 1.60 (.06g :'PA) ~ By./Br. Design Bas is----- 5 cc to o ~ ' I to lt Damping "ac i i l I i 1 l t I i J 6C i., .t0 l I l l l l l l 10 n. l l l ll l e _ 4: E E lo 1C ~ I I to d ts a,a Ah T s s ,;7 ' \\ to e s /f I \\ g i ,c i i i e i i i i 7e i i i i i V i i i i i i i i '3 { { I i i

/ ' i i i

\\ iN i i i iii i /j# l ? i l \\ l \\ l t I i I _I f i l } \\ \\1 l l l l l l 1 f .3 i, =w ,.3 i ./ l \\ # k, l l l\\ l l l 1 4 f s \\- lx\\ \\l hll -.4 Z v l d / l l N ~ / 1 3 s s ,3 i s.s N 4 N,1 .1 l ,i s ~ 3 ~ .ls \\ .'s l w I .10 i i \\" i j l l i l i 1 id I i i i i 2 i l l l l l l ~'.t. .co l iir. i r ii.. r .ei. .r e i i,.. r . i fx .c3 .c4 .cs .o6 .os .ts .2 .) 4 .5 .s to ts tc Perkad. Ser. 1842 214 I BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Ql30.6-29 COMPARISO:: OF B/B A'!D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO:l: OBE, HOR 120:;TAL,::S LOCATIO:1: CC:1TAlf;"E:!T I::::ER STRUCTURE ELEVATIO::: 426'-0"

AMEriE"ENT 24 ' e r.C'5 FEBRUARf 1950 ,. so n a lo to u te te .5 n:,, 7, 3 D' $C I;RC RG 1.60 (.06g ZPIJ i' C By./Br. Design Basis ----- i i i i i i 1, i i lt Daraping )L: I I I I I 4 40 iC l I l l l ll 1C 53 ~ ~ to LC 1 LC ~

• C

[ 20 LC L5 . L! e--- s ll ..y i x x r to i i i.i i u \\ \\ i. i i i. i i x s, i , I i f ', I \\l \\ l l l 4 l l l l -1 " ( ( l I t 1 I l l \\; \\1 I i i I I - t Yl I b \\ l l _I_l I I (f f I i i I '*s l kf-/ l \\ l'\\%, 7 1 dsi ll l f* - 33 COMPARISON OF B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRfi EXCITATION: SSE, HORIZCNTAL, NS AND E'.! LOCATION: AUXILIARY AND CONTAINMENT BLDGS. ELEVATION: 330'-0"; 374'-0"

t AMEtiDMENT 24 ) tr e r.ces FEBRUARY 1930 SC 33 ?J 10 iC 13 10 t0 .5 Eu M0 - ' 5 3 lit 15.0 N -, n 3 me du I i i i I i ii i i i i l I l i l l l l l l l l 4 1 I I -l " I t i l I i 1 ARC RG 1.60 (.12g ZPA) i I l l ll 1 l' l l l l By./Br. Design Basis----- 21, Daraping 10 1.0 = I d 4 l LC 20 ~ [L5 ~ L5 l 4 'LC LC i i. , i i i l I t 1 I t i l I i ,/ -._ _ g g i i i i t 4" -; 5 i i i i ! / i v i ~% i 3 i i i i t r-f -IM ! i l i i. l l,/ I l l sj l l. l .j " ( i ** s c ,3 f- [--b Y h \\7[! i f 7 l 'l \\. xl 's. ~ ~. /' j/ \\ d ', \\ s,k, m._ _ _/ / \\ / .3 / ~ \\~ io i i i , i t s i t i I i i i - y I l l l i i l I 4 A i.a ,,,.,..I, ,I.l l ,i.,, ,1.3 .cz .c3 .a .cs .a .m .u .2 .3 4 .s .6 to u to r.,w., sa. ~ 1842 219 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT E i bilr(t y 10 J. L'- 39 C0" PARIS 0:10F B/B /<10 R51.60 SPECTRA-E XCITATIO:1: SSE, VERTICAL, WALL A:iD SLAB LOCATIO:l: AUXILIARY A:;D CO:iTAIl;ME"i BUILDIi4GS ELE VATI0'4 : 330'-0"; 374'-0"

I AMENDME'iT 24 '" C'5 FESRUARY 1930 30 33 20 10 10 il 2.0 10 .5 E0 i I + 'i' i 47.3 I 15 0 a: 20 e i, i i i. 2 40 1 i i i i i e i i ,jii i ii'i i i i i i i i i i 4-- I f ' "RC RG 1.60 (.12g :'PA) ~ se to l l l t 10 By./Br. Design Basis----- } u ~ l l l 40 2E Dampina u 10 ~ ~,: ~ l 2.0

s I

w L5 L5 ( -.-3 I ~ LC i i f i i 6 i i i + n J I I

_j__,

I /t (__ i t i e i i t 1, I ('/ I i t ( l l ; I I { .N i k /[ l l 1 l l i l l hw ! l l l J ( /I I IIM i N '\\ i i li l 2 ( 1 '.4 / I -- - __ I g i i N w lil i 7- -- 7, m. _ -. .4g 4 l 'I L l d I / N ,3 i 1 3 ~. I \\ d N i .2 ll s \\. 1 2 s ~ N 1:5 .15 i 5 ) i= io i 3 1 I i i ii 3 1 I I I I I i l l l l l 1 06 .A ~ j .l-i ~ i ii. e r t ...i. . t e i i,i. r -.t ,g g .02 .C3 .04 .C5 .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 10 rue sr. Li a) ]9 A .I cL BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-35 C0!!PARISON OF S/B A*;D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, VERTICAL, WALL LOCATION: AUXILI ARY BUILDING !.'ALL ELEVATION: 346'-0"; 364'-0"; 383'-0"; 401'-0"

I AMEND"ENT 2a FEBRUARY 1923 ,, m,en 50 Il 20 \\ IC its il to tc .5 E0 i. r i> i i >> iii..., i i a,,, ; 3 I. j :u tic NRC RG 1.60 (.12g PA) j ne By./Br. Design Basis----- ( cc to ,'l 2t Damping ]u l l I 4 l o u {a LJ, I I ll l 3.e 1 I,\\ l j i 40 u \\ l -2 I r l to l -e u / I H-,.'s .]l N 1. N d J i N t3 u \\ ~ / 1 N J N 4.. te e s s'! I +* \\ i i , i _.-__1-I _/ _. i i iii t i is i, ( -' ~ ( I I I I I I i i N i si i i : l i 5 ' l/ l N I N,s l ll l /! I I I I I \\, h ! i l l ! f. [ - j "3i i 'I s. 5 i-, '/ i i.i l l kl j I i N _l 1,j i s N I a N I -., 3 ,3 xi I -s 4 \\1 i i ; s.i, 5 l h .n ,n l 4 C i i j :: 1 .= i I i ^ l 1 l 1 1 l I l i 9 ,g l, ,l,,,, { l . l.. l i J, " ,,i. 7, .c .c3 .c4 .es .m .i .n ) 4 .5 .6 to t> a rum su. 1842 221 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 0130.6-36 C0:!PARISO:' 0F S/D AMD RG l.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, VERTICAL, SLAB LOCATION: AUXILI ARY BUILDI'lG SLAB ELEVATION: 346'-0"; 364'-0"; 3S3'-0"; 401'-0"

} AMENDMENT 2' frwm cr5 FEBRUARY l950 10 Il 22 M 10 11 10 10 .s EC +' 'i*' i e m.. 15 0 1 no 1 _' ; 0 sco LO 1 i i I i a JEL ~ I

RC RG 1.60 (.12c 1

I Ii i ' 2PA) 1 l g l j By./Br. Design Basis----- 70 l ll 2t Damping ) 40 4G 10 la 2.C 2.; Ls L5 1 1 l 1 c- / \\ .' LC LO I g,, i i s i 4 1 I J l 's i,".T 6 i i a,,, t 1 I ! /l l l l I l l I l l' I i l i I d i E I i i/ I I i ( l' M' I T N l ' L t..L I I t i N! l 1 i { , l V i i lj/I i i* AiV i l N llN {' {i 1 - _ __ fl l l ll lx e

a

.3 / f .t 1,1 i .15 E I 1.S y-i i i i ii I l I i l l 6 1 l r l l { l 6 I i .a ex ,,,.I, .I,'.!. l. I,1 I 1;, .o: .o .ca .os .a .m .is .3 4 .5 .4 t0 L5 te m< sx. 1842 222 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIF REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-37 COMPARIS0" 0F B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, HORIZO'lTAL, S LOCATION: AUXILIARY BUILDING ELEVATION: 401'-0"

hw,. m AMENDMENT 2" } FEBRUARY 1950 se n a a s.e o t0 to MO e 's a EO ~ \\ g' ~' 15 0 g 15 0 mui a i e i 1 i [ l 1 1 I m t l 4 4 I i I 4 J"8 1' I i i NRC RG 1.60 (.12g :'PM i ~ se By./Br. Design Basi-e: is 21 Damping 40 40 10 10 10 ~ 1 10 L5 LS ~ si l ,f m ~ I\\ r---- ~... te i -4 "

(____i__i

/ I e i i i 7 f q

l

_1 / i r \\ i > i ,1 '3 ( I fi { 'w l.f Ni i iNi I l l l Ni i ! /, i l \\l l 'N i I \\l l l t [ l 5Y ! l \\ l I'S A, I i '.f .g _ _ _ _e /+/.?: J 1I V I i i T NJ -i i ',i 3g I s .3 .3 f .1 5 3 .1) ).15 =1 -.1;

l I

i i i a i , 1, i.,,,.I .C .C) .04 .05 .06 .0E .1 .11 .2 .3 4 .5 .4 .4 ,LO LS 10 herd. Sec. 1842 223 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-3S COMPARISCN OF B/B A'iD RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, HORIZONTAL, EW LOCATION: AUXILIARY BUILDING ELEVATION: 401'-0"

1 AMEND"ENT 24 1 te. crs FEBRUARY 1930 i 50 33 20 13 10 13 2.0 LC .5 no 7.: . = > 1. 8-a 110 -i 1 l _1;tu no i , i. 1 i t e 4 NRC RG 1.60 (.12g ZPA) 1" I i i I I l 4 te By./Br. Design Basis----- l': l se l 4" 20 Da.mping 1 I e e 10 ~ -1 ~ 3: m 1 1 to 3 s e.- / \\ I / \\ 2 '5 ts f \\ j ~ r g I 1 s '/ A te ./i \\; g i / i i /, i ,~~~~,7 i i, f ~ ~ l i[l 1 [i i ( \\ l kl l f 'N l i ? j i / l I /! I I i \\ 1'i i r / i i i x i u.~ i ,f i i ~ 1 I/ I I N !II Ns' t.i f <.4 / Iil l l ,, 7 = f y . N E I! c, .> g I l s .2 e a 5.M .15 : W e. . >0 s i 3,, t i I I i .Ce a ..,.l..,, I, u. I

c.,

1 R .C) .04 .C5 .06 .I .I .15 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 2.0 Perm $c. 1842 224 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-39 COMPARISCN OF 3/B A:'D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, HORIZO: ITAL, NS LOCATION: AUXILIARY SUILD!':7, TURE...E BUILDING, HEATER CAY ELEVATION: 426'-0"

\\ AMEf1D"E:iT 24 f e.c6 FEBRUARY 1950 ' Se n 2o a 10 u 10 le .5 2aC _ i*' 3 3 - t i3 ' 3 JTC 11C 15.0 I e me ~ aC 1 I I I i j -i LC ~ L3 ' I i I I NRC RG 1.60 (.12g ZPA) I d" By /Br. De s ign Ba s is ------ l 2t Damping 40 _ U 10 10 10 2.n -g \\ ~ j L5 15 , l [ [ \\ \\ ,s LC LC i/ ' I I I / i i i l i { 1/ i t'si l ! i I -- ~{ i i l i/ i i I (y S l / i l l / l b si h, i l ! I -i l' f l l l 4 ( I l l l l k l '% 4 M.5 E 5 .5 j ., ~ _ _ S '#1 Y ' l \\j 1,j N;:. N l s N .) l ,':.) ~ 1 ) .2 .2 ~. .15 .15 .30 ,.1; .= ~ _ ' = .Co l [ .m ~,ii ,3 r .t ,it, i i i i y .C2 .C) .04 .C5 06 .06 .I .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 LC L5 2.0 Pered Sr. 1842 225 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Ql30.6-40 COMPARISON OF S/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, HORIZO.'4TAL, EW LOCATIO:i: AUXILIARY CUILDING, TURBINE BUILDIt!G, HEATER BAY E L EVATI0: a?6'-0"

AMEtiD:'.E iT 2; FEBRUARY LEO 33 M 10 13 10 10 .5 , y,; mg _. ,ii .i, i i i ii. i1 i i6 .i.i ii 3 -1 110 10 d me - i i i i i.. - 48 to - l l [ i -1: URC RG 1.60 (.12a ZPA) l ~ J., 'O By./Br. Design Scsis _---- a" 2t Damping .c u 1 I - u 1. u ~ m a N l / N a.5 L5 / x s / s \\ ,/ ,i - i: Le i t

/

I i i 6 is i i 1 4 ,"( ( ~ f I l l 6 a i \\l I i l l i i

• I i /v e

ix6 i ts i i i i i i ',3 ,/f / l l 's i I Il l l ~i $ -- - r i / I l IMI I i f.3,i ? '.4 N l,l I 3, E N N a-s x~! d, I s s .2 I x3 .15 .15 .p a l J: .io .u I au 1 I I l l s l l I I 1 .06 .l. ...I ,.b.x .c., 1 .0' .0 .04 .05 .00 .m .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 'L O L5 10 Perax:, Sec. 1842 226 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q13C.6-41 COMPARISD:t 0F B/B RID RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO:1: SSE, VERTICAL, h'ALL LOCATIO1: AUXILIARY BUILDI:lG 'JALL ELEVATIO:!: 426'-0"; 439'-0"; 451'-0"

~ AMEt; CME.*ii 24 M. C'5 FEBRUARY l920 ,. - Sc n r, W 10 11 10 LO .5 UI l 'l 'l'( l'l'l'j 6 - 30 { ' a ts.0 ~ NRC RG 1.60 (.12g ZPA) i ~ By./Er. Design Basis I 21 Damping m0 i i i ii-j l i i e i i - - -, 1 I I f \\ l I i i li i (, I li \\! i II t~I / ,". F ,j \\l l l ll i,. ~ / l i l 3 / ii. i s, 10 1 \\ a \\ 4,. i 2.C _ I m ~~ ,a l' I 's -1., j' i N 4,j \\ / \\ x

x,

- = u.__._ / L j. ./ l t ii \\ i N 1 i I i i i / i i ii i is i N i ,: i i i ? l l I l 1 \\ ! hI i l ! I I 4 ~ =. j =[ [ ', I i l l Il l \\l I 'Ni I !I-i .3 j ~ I j l h,l I%.J l I i N 's , -) .) x J s s N s r l l ls N2 .is i 3 4 c: .w i l l l l 1 1 i t l l l l l l l d l 1 I I I ! l 4 .o. .2 ,...I,.. l. I. l.l..l.I l. 1, L1 10 I ?.8,J / .c .c .ta .cs .06 .06 .1 . L5 .2 .) 4 .5 ] ltL c Perig ser BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FiEr:E iUJ.e-42 C0" PARIS 0:10F B/B At1D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO:i: SSE, VERTICAL, SLA3 LOCATIO:1: AUXILI ARY BUILDI?lG SLAB ELEVAT10:1: 426'-0", 439'-0"; 451'-0"

AMENDMENT 24 FEBRUARY 1950 SC 33 20 10 5.0 3.3 2.0 LC .5 2qo,.i> ia: i a i r ir i s ie i iii r , nc i 1 9 15.0 11.0 NRC RG 1.60 (.12g ZPA) ~ By./Br. Design Basis---__ ~

10 32 0 t

t i I 21 Damping te to I I l I J 60 ,hc 1 I l 5.0 a 5.0 ~ ~ 40 l 40 3.0 3.0 ~ l p----- / \\ \\ 2.0 2.0 \\ is L5 : / 1 N I j / r \\ a / [ \\ I J \\ t i, I ic j g,o n ,x ) {/ I l I \\ 6 i\\ l e 1 -e j ' _____"7~l i /! I I i \\ t \\1 I i 1 { ? i / l l I i 41 ?! I i % } I lj l l l \\ l 't.J-( l i, {' ~3 T' I I l\\1, 1\\ l 1 'i i / i ,.t x .< j \\ s ' s ~.3 ~ .3 sq l .2 -1 .li 10 4.to l l l 32 1 I i i 1 .0 % g ~ l3 ~ i. * * , i,,. .0? .C3 .04 .05 .06 .06 .I .15 .2 .3 .a .6 .8 LO LS 2.0 1842 228 ~ ~ ' ' BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Ql30.6-43 C0!! PARIS 0:10F B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, HORIZO.' ITAL, US LOCATION: AUXILIARY BUILDING, TURBINE BUILDING, HEATER BAY ELEVATION: 451'-0"

AMENDMENT 24 '"S"" C '5 FEBRUARY 1930 50 33 20 10 50 3.) to LO .5 7#C - '5 1 8 8 g J E0 l 15 C i 110 } NRC RC 1.60 (.12g "P7.) } By./Br. Design Basis _____ } ~ g 20 Damping ac t4c I d, e 60 l .J 5.C '10 40 0 E l E ~ 3.0 ~ 30 2.0 i I s \\. / / \\ N l l 2 t3 t3 g / s f \\

1. ' s f

ix -- wi ~, I fl ! l /1 i i i\\ I i\\' j f i i/ i 1 Vi i i N J s I l ! 1 i k I { _L M fi l lhl l 's_l l l l ~,t [ --t'~l' l J/ '\\ M Ts,.-s 1, [r i a i e s 1 A .4 b dE \\' ~ b' l, js l \\ ; ~, .s. -i .2 T '.2 '..:s .n I g J q: m a ,g 1 I i ~ g I i 1 l t I i l. ,l . J,.a i ,s .C2 .0) .04 .05 .06 .08 .I .15 .2 .) .4 5 .6 .8 LO L5 2.0 Persad, Sec - n n 229 4\\Un-BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Ql30.6-44 COMPARTSON OF B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, HORIZONTAL, EW LOCATION: AUXILI ARY BUILDI'lG, TURBINE BUILDING, HEATER BAY ELEVATION: 451'-0"

Af4Ef;DMEf!T 24 nm.m. ces FEBRUARY l923 So n 20 to 5.0 u to te .5 n0 i ..i 1 ,.i i g y,3

4 15 0

.tu } !!RC RG 1.60 (.12g CPA) By./Br. Des ig n Bas is - -- -- - 2% Damping i 10 jl: ac ltG 5.0 M* ~ 40 y4; a 1 I 3.0 3C j ~ i ) f ~sl\\ d 10 j j 2.C \\ / L5 i: \\ l 7 g - 5 / \\1 ~. / h ] , \\- - - - s te f' I i j j's t i i e i i i w / f x I ~Nl l l I I I s A i i i !Ni l '..I I 1 l (" .h l .k g s ~_ _/ l i'N l l i q '3 E i- / N \\l y i 5 .4 ~ l M .45 A l\\l 'b '3 m ( s ') M i N \\ 1 \\ N N d' \\ ~ ~ .D 3 .30

• .10

.03 ~ MC 1 i l d I .C+ ,.ce I' ;.5 it i r i i !

• ,ii iii

.iri i i r i. j .C2 .03 .04 .05 .06 .08 .I .15 .2 .) 4 .5 .4 .8 LO L5 10 Pe' rod. SK. 1842 230 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGU:tE Q130.6-45 C0fiPARIS0:10F B/B A D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO:i: SSE, VERTICAL, WALL LOCATION: AljXILI ARY BUILDIf!G WALL ELEVATI0:1: 467'-0"; 473'-0"; 477'-0"; 485'-0"

AMEND"ENT 2/. "" "5 FEBRUIRY 193C 50 33 20 13 50 13 10 LO .5 i 0. jii

• g g

j g'g'g'g g 3 i ' i 2006 i E d 15 c - MRC RG 1.60 (.12g ZPA)

n.

a By./Br. Design Basis ---_ _ ~ d" 1 2t Da:nping a lac - 1 i i i i i l l k j l 1 i l f f l I I I ~ ~ ! I i ~' r. u 1 Il \\ l t 1.. 50 l /l l \\l ri d\\ I l iu ~ / I \\, / 'I \\ \\ / \\ 3 10 /l L /_ / i N. ',1: \\ s 1 r I s 4 \\ l f :.: /- te \\ \\ / s 1.5 \\ s ~ / a \\ l 4 ~ / i '0 F i s j, \\ l \\ i i / t i i i t I i I i { i 7 71 i i i i i i i \\' e i i y i i l l 1 i \\ '\\ ' I i ,i t / 4 I i I l l l\\l \\! IIl l Mi .! ~4 l l I Il l Kh II I f! -m -4 E I 1 l lN 3 I '\\ , i N i a ( l 'N l J ', l \\l 1 i \\ '\\ 1, l i 1 ,13 x F l M i g.;0 .10 y 1 i t i t i e i ,,j I I i l 1 j, I l l l I i 3 .I.' ,l.,,. I, ,1., f .1 :s .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 1C ) Q f [] ^ tva. se-BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-46 COMPARISO:1 0F B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRI, EXCITATIO:1: SSE, VERTICAL, SLAB LOCATION: AUXILI ARY BUILDING SLAB ELEVAT IO::: 467'-0"; 477'-0"

nwno. cp5 N7N 3 "JARY 1980 5C 31 20 10 50 3.3 2.0 .S M0 ~ 7" 3 il 4 i w 15 C q ILG L L NRC RG 1.60 (.12g PA) q nc i By./Br. Design Basis---- - i 4 i 2% Damping to 1 I LC 7. 3,e l b' '... l ~ 40 j4C -i V b, ; - 10 ,h -- - m ]l \\ \\ 2.0 h / \\ 4 / \\ L5 [ \\ l l N r s / I \\ ~ i' Lo / i ,f i .N \\ i, i i s fi i i l I \\ i b-J i '( ,I i { l -T I i / l 6 \\i 5 I t\\_' I I i T-~-' i 'I I 's l l ! I l i i 5 x t l, !l l \\ l f \\l dk -k 6 i 3 h. l N ~ ^ f l NI-Nj, ,3 1 ~ 0 J I .2 j -4 .15 15 1

1. 10

.30 .08 l C4 I l I I ! i e ] i-1 I I I I I 1 .ce N.a l' l l ' l' ' I l ' 'C .c5 05 .02 .C3 .45 .05 .00 .08 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 5 .6 .8 LO LS 2 Persec. Sec 4 gA Iwi2 232 n -. BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-47 C0tiPARIS0tl 0F B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO:l: SSE, HORIZONTAL, NS LOCATIOT!: AUXILIARY BUILDING ELEVATION: 477'-0" 1

A!'.EN C..ENT 24 fr m w y.CP5 yggpgAp,y ]cB0 50 33 20 10 5.0 3.3 10 LC .5 MD'h' l l - ?.0 I l l r 15.0 15 0 ~ NRC RG 1.60 (.12g ZPA) By./Br. Design Basis-__. ~ ic e 4c I I d gc 20 Damping u i l 4 1 1 1 1 l l i l 4 l l l l u '50 l l l 40 l _ a 3.0 ~ ~ 3^ I rrs 1 f -' N I l \\ 2.0 . 2.0 \\ Ls .a ,1 -1 1 1 \\ 1 / \\_ l 1,

1. 0 t 7 t

j i\\ _ _ _..\\ i i, i, J, I i ! ( l i X I + s '; f f j, 'j l 6 1 jl I f \\ Q iNi i } t I k 2 3_._' I I I I I i7! \\s I I I -.k i ~, ~' g .5 l l l l l l l }\\ L14 l 5 s .5 g E l I l l l ll

• I

".4 4 E s A .4 N 3 l l \\! k .3 l .1 _a .2 \\,a.2 d l \\ .15 >.. li 30 i t i i 13 I I i i 1 I l l l l i I i .l .!..r. I. l i.. i r 23 .c2 .c3 .04 .05 .06 .os .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 to L5 2.0 Pero $. Ser 1842 233 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGU.iL Ql30.6-48 COMPARISON OF B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIrN: SSE, HORIZONTAL, EW LOCATION: AUXILI".RY BUILDING ELEVATI01: 477'-0"

AMENDMENT 24 n.qancy. CPS ((gRUARy ]ggg 50 33 20 10 5.0 3.3 10 LO .5 MC 'i' i' 'i. ) .0 E d -1 15 0

15.

~ 4 l lac G i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i r -? i LO i i i i i NRC RG 1.60 (.12g ZPA) LO j i i a LC l l l l By./Br. Design Basis----- l 1. 5.0 l l l l 2% Daraping 40 jc 4 3.0 ~ ~ 1C rl l m 10 l l 4 ,r- - - 1 3 ;3 t, /' \\ 3 / I \\ -i. r- - - m 't s ,- x 1 1 i /i X, i,/ i i f l/ ! [ l\\ i i t' I [/ i \\ l 1 l ~ f i ? /__ /i I l\\ is if / I 'bl \\l I ! ,t I I [ 1 l I/ \\ ! \\ // i l 1 i \\j l i dl( 1 's '.4 ,/l i / J ll N V)f I IN l *<~ ii J 1 - I i NE .3 7 n.3 7 a .2 e' j.2 ~ " 5 .is 4.: 1 ].:: .it i i .i i, 7., I I l 1 l l I l -w l.I, ,l,l. ,,l. I .1 ,3 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .1 L0 L5 10 1842 234 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT F IGE.E Q130. 6-49 COMPARIS0Ti 0F B/B Ai!D RG 1.60 SPECTRA E XCI TATIO,'l : 551, HUR!ZO*;TAL, NS AND EW LOCATION: CONTAINMENT BUILDING ELEVATION: 424'-0"; 436'-0"

AMEN D!.'.ENT 2 ~ """'" C 'S FM@M 1oD SC 33 20 10 5.0 13 10 LO 5 7 c. i i ..r .i...i

r b

] ~ 15 0 j' - NRC RG 1.60 (.12g CPA) ~ _J io c By./Br. Design Basis.___ ~ I I to" 21 Damping [u i l i i I I l l l l l 1,-~ LC 1 I l l l 1 5.0 I l l ll. i l g' 4} : ' ic 20 2 h I k t5 a r--l J $I.I s-- 3 a \\ Ilii s i 1 8 \\ Vi wi, t i l l i \\ I l \\._ _ i i 'I I I ^; l /;J t I i /i l V i \\l i -N I i l i 1 I / if ! l l l l\\ l I \\l l l l ~ J,. > /; i l \\ I Ml I i .4 f s i /; l ! ' s. l 2 l,v \\ 's \\ T.a1, H i .2 y.. ~ 2 l .is l 1 '1,. .ie i v i i 1,, l I I i l I 1 l l 1 I I I t -4 i .co lt l lr l kg ~. r 1 r. .i . i. i i i i. 5 .02 .03 .04 .C5 .06 .08 .i .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 LC L5 lt Perioc. Sec. 1842 235 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-50 COMPARISON 3F B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO:!: SSE, VE RTICAL, '.'Al.L LOCATION: CONTAltmEf!T BUILDIflG WALL ELEVATION: 424'-0", 436'-0"

AMEilDME':T 24 pr.quency. ces FEBRUARY l930 50 33 E 10 5.C 3.3 10 LC .5 3,c. i g,t; r i - .i i. 4 i i t l 9 1s 0 . 75

'RC RG 1. 6 0 (.12g :PA)

N' By./Br. Design Basis ----- 2 RC is c i i i i i i i i i 2% Damping Ec ~ I l l u ec ~ l l 3.c 1 l l l l 1 l u I e ll d 3.0 i I l l 1 l ,f I. rn (> t s l // \\\\j E 3,. i.s / \\ l/ \\ '\\ l 3 t \\ Ts ~ ,i s, it \\l \\ f l, I g \\.

x i

>/ > i i i { // 1 \\ l s o l t 4 s f } { / l h g j // I j l h! 's I ! i I 'h t /t I/[ l s

/ /

l l l \\ l'q l 1 I t I~~Me M/ i !\\i lis! 1 ,i [ , /i / I i ~ -' I /! I u NII y -y C: 4 / g

g,

= I i i V NE, A, .2 j.2 J a .15 ,15 3 l ,j.13 .30 J i 4 l I l l d'" l l l l 1 4 .oe .:e i i l .I, 3 .C2 .03 .04 .C) .06 .G8 .1 .15 .2 .3 .4 5 .6 .8 LC L5 2.0 Verax. $er-1842 2% BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Ql30.6-51 COMPARIS0:10F 'C/B A!'D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCiTATIO::: SSE, HORIZC::TAL, ilS A!!D Elf LOCATIO:1; C0:lTAliti'ET GUILDI:1G ELtv,.-' % 496'-0"

AMEliDME."T 24 FEBRUARY 1980 5C 33 20 10 5.0 3.3 2.0 LC .5 ht i a 'i .is-8 i _ M: ~ i 15.0 15.0 1 NRC RG 1.60 (.12g "PA) By./Br. Design Basis----- r i I t i i i a 1 i l 21 Damping 1" ~ l i I I ~i u u l l l l l l I 5.0 40 ~ I tc E u E 3.0 ~ 30 2 2.0 -c' i \\ 2.C E / x -!, I !:.5 ts 3 l1 \\ f \\ /I \\ \\ 1.e g_n i i i y o i , \\ n-T n '" i r i i

i i i

I /, /1 i i 1 7

i t

I { /! /t i b. s I \\._, i i i i i l i 4"{ t V {/ l 1 I Q ! \\-- 4 I I l I 1*i jf i', fl /i i i I\\ l i N i i i T,j' i ' i' /i l l I l\\ I 'u LJ i, ~ E fl l N l*x i E., '

i N

3 - l s l \\\\ ];, .2 x b [ u" h l N .33 1 x -4 .10 \\u 13 i i i i .08 I I l { l .05 j l l l 1 i .co ~ .oe I ,~ f .02 .03 .04 .C5 .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 Lc L5 2.0 Perix, Sec. 1842 237 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-52 COMPARISON OF 3/B-Arid RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, VERTICAL, WALL LOCATION: C0:ITAINMEi4T BUILDItiG WALL ELEVATION: 496'-0"

AMEtiDMEr:T 24 ren ancy.ces FEBRUARY l9CD Sc 33 2c io 5.e u ze to .5 20.0 a i j QX0 i iii nc ~ ~ i URC RG 1.60 (.12c q to c L- ' 2PA) l l l [ By./Br. Desian Basis ____ _._ l l in I i i I i l 2 ?. Damoing -O' ~ I i !l to u ~ l l 1 l l I 1 5.0 SC l l [1--s l l 4e u y i 3[ / \\ I Le / \\l f ~ / )i l N 2.0 / I I I I l\\ l a / j ?.c /

/ 1

\\ I s I -1., t.s 7 a.. i / \\ 3 1 x J it f i s ', _.______s' i 1 /i i i i \\; _- ' i X i i i s 1/ ! l i\\ N-i i l 's i i i ; i -t '3 { ? / I I II ( l l t I s I i i l J t { s /! l M N MI (( '4 Xili I \\! I IN, .' T . p-i sq .) 13 .) i .2 .2 \\: .is .i5 [ } .30 .i: L

-q

.a u 1 I .06 .ce ~,ii k i i r i r _g5 .0 .C5 .02 .C3 .04 .C5 .u6 .08 .1 .i5 .2 .3 4 5 .6 .8 LO L5 2 Perioc, Sec. 1842 238 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-53 COMPARIS0:: 0F B/B AND RG 1.50 SPECTRA EXCITATIOi: SSE, HORIZO';TAL,flS LOCATI0ti: C0tlTAlt;MEf4T II;flER STRUCTURE ELEVATIO:1: 426'-0"

A!C D"ENT 24 FEBRUARY 1930 50 33 M 1 so 13 to te .3 2tt p ' i i p ts c NRC RG 1.60 (.12g ZPA)- 10 0 By./Br. Design Basis----- i at i i i i i i 20 Darr. ping i i i l l Lo I I I l l l l 3, i I I l 1 u 3.; l /f- \\ l [ \\ i / 6 ~ l \\ 20 l E / \\ l ts j \\ i s \\ hl / / ./ / N to /i ,i x ,s i, t i/'/ I i iN i \\ o- -t ,i. .i 7, I_ ,e i I r--" '/ I Ni N! l ix, iii f,, --M~' I / l l I IN l _ ' I i (l i! I - f { 1 (/ l l } l l \\ jb l l I 3 e ) l l l l N ~ s y., _.n z i l l \\- .3 \\ i \\2 1 I .2 i l l \\5". ~ I i s .,3 .c " w i.,.. .io ~ lI l j.e !I I I I i i .o. ,.. l l, l,l. ,l l i ,g .c2 .e3 .= .o .c. .= .i .n .2 .3 tc t3 1: Perxx', sec. 184.2 2a3 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-54 COMPAP,ISON OF B/B'AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA E XCI TATIO:' - SSE, HORIZONTAL, EW LOCATION: CONTAINMENT If#lER STRUCTURE ELEVATION: 426'-0"

AMEN D '.E!!T 2 " '"*" C 'S FEBRUAR) 19CO 50 33 20 10 5.0 13 10 LC 4 Mc i ii 1 iir i 1 1 i .4 iii. ii 4 ., y - i ~ l d 15.0 13 c 3, 2 l tac at [ NRC RG 1.60 (.129 ZPA) [t: to i l l By./Br. Design Bas is----- p ac I I 20 Damping i. 3 3, ~ l l I i ro

rt 3.0

~ I l 11 to u a" 1.5 ~ ' L5 a i i i i i 4 l [ l _ T -~ A i I ! l, f 1 I - r i j N i i i i i 'I t U P r7 ~ II I l l 'N I l l l 6 e /t h \\ l l l i - ~I / I I I ,a: h / / l \\l l l ~ 3 / / NQj ~ Q. L.) 'N '3 'N 7 Nl r 1 s .2 ,,.2 .is ' 's 1 ~ s.' 2 10 i .oa

,.c3 i

i i .1 .0c l,3e I, ,l ,3 ,3 .02 .03 .04 .C5 .06 .05 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 20 Perioc. Sec. j p 'g 7 g3g iU T4 LMU BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-55 COMPARIS0:10F B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, VERTICAL, WALL LOCATIO:1: CO:ITAlflMENT ItCIER STRUCTURAL WALL ELEVATI0:l: 412'-0"; 426'-0"

D'.EN D"EN T 2 4 frequexy. CP5 , CRUAR.f ane, rt 50 33 20 10 5.C 3.3 10 to .5 MC 3 '6 i ' i 'i i 4 '6 s i i i i _4 7 - 15 0 ~ d ^ no 0 HRC RG 1.60 (.12g :'PM i 13 0 i i By./Br. Design Basis----- l' C i i LC 21 Damping i i i i j H 60

• C l

I i i 4 5.C i (C 1 I i -c. s I 3 e 10 ]' it / / \\ / [ I i zo i t. s p / \\ 1 ". F l \\ -(, i \\ s / N \\ i a s m ___ _ _ to 4 i 6 r,/ N i s i

iii, m

I i lf-l \\, l i i ; -) ~ d '[ l l 3 \\ l \\l I iil l 'l 2 9 T-~~N V i l I l 1 l's ! I l i I 1 e j i V i t i l(I 't.l 1 Ii1 s ~ . ~ - i l l N i l'sl I. 2,1 ~j M N E N 's i J s s N \\ J x N - l .15 '.15 m. .io 10 1 i l J u I l .06 .cr. i i. i . a., .,s .C? .C) .04 .O .06 .06 .I .15 .2 .3 4 5 .6 .8 LC L5 10 Period, Sec 1842 241 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-56 COMPARISON OF B/C AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, VERTICAL, SLAS LOCATION: CONT. INNER STRUCTURAL SLAB ELEVATION: 390'-0"; 401'-0", 412'-0"; 426'-0"

AME!;DME';T 24 ,,y.,,y,, cp3 FEBRUARY 1933 50 33 20 13 3.c 3.3 2.0 to .5 210, i r, w d 15 0 ', g g 1 URC RG 1.60~(.09g 2PA) f J By./Br. Design Basis--- - i :.. 30 0 ~ , i l i I i i 50 lt Damping qu i j F i I ,o 5.0 ~ l l I l l! T

1. 0 {

lU t 1C ~ l 21 20 ^ i I L5 ~ l J I LC F i I 3 i i i l } e i j I I ,g e l I I I I I i I i i i l l l ; i i [. I I I I i I i l i l l l 1 ? ,e I l l I I i l i ll ,3 , j% _MN-]- N l l l J l L ., j ^ f .4 Nj ,,c .. -r-- MMij#c ? j,.: l N l Q sl_ '[/::.. ~. c a_ i ___l O l .3 p i;;..f j \\ \\ I l J r/ / v N \\ ' D. .2 ) \\ i \\) /

• ,s,-

/ .;5 \\ / I / x 1 .30 / i j 9 a 10 .CS ~ 3 I i i ~ l i l 1 4" ~ I l 4 .co k 'l I t 1 ' t i .e i. ,,,i ,q .C2 .03 .04 .05 .0e .0E .1 '.15 .2- .) 4 .5 .4 .8 LO L5 Le Perioc. Sec. 1842 242 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-57 C0:1 PARIS 0N OF C/B A1D.RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: ODE, HORIZO"TAL, EW AND ';S LOCATION: AUXILI ARY AND C0lTAINf1E"i BLDG. ELEVATION: 330'-0"; 374'-0"

AMENDMENT 24 FEBRUARY 1950 50 li 20 10 5.0 31 10 LO .5 ACg i d EC 3 5 i t 1 15.0 15.3 URC RG 1.60 (.09g ZPA) P 10 C b By./Br. Des ign Basis-- -- - J2" i i i i i i J v-i i i i i tt l ?., Damping q r.c i j I i l -I LO 't0 ~ l l l 5.0

5. 0

~ l l u 40 f l-I l 30 3.0 I 10

c L5

~ 1.5 -l '0 i i, i i i i 3 i e i I t i i i t 6 i t J, i ( l 1 l I l i l i 4 I I i i 1 1 1 j 5 ~ l l l l l l l l l i i $ i I '.' l l i l l l l l ' f ? 5 i.5 ? .4 .4 ~ l/; p.' :' - -. u w.:/ \\r ~. 3 -4 C 1 ;/ N ! 3 3 -. w x- ~ a I '{il /:c

I

, I. NN{ Ms k.15 .35 / b::.. - 77 g ..;y/_ :V ) j' '10 / N 'y - I's i i i .0! ~ I f i l l .og l l l .06 .a 1. I , i, .,s .3 .00 .C) .04 .05 .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .) 4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 2.0 Perux:. Sec. 1842 243 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-5S COMPARIS0N OF B/B A1D RG 1.60 SPECTRA. EXCITATION: OBE, VERTICAL, WALL AND SLAB LOCATION: AUXILI ARY AND CONTAINMENT BLDG. ELEVATION: 330'-0"; 374'-0"

AMENDME*iT 20 ermancy. ces FEBRUARY 1930 50 33 20 10 5.0 3.3 10 LO .5 not i ,r i,, ,iii _ 3: b l 3 150 L y 15.c p NRC RG 1.60 (.09g :' PA) j J By./Br. Design Basis----- j uo io.o l l-- 1% Damping l ~ I u u i 4 I J l l u m i i a '5.t 5.0 40 e 3.0 ~ ~ 3.G i 2.C 2.C E 3 t5

u l

g I i iu i.0 i l l l I I l 1 } j i I ( l l l l l 7"I "N i l l l l f k, I l l Il \\ I l I I l l i i -4 c 1 l ,' l. Y.;.i.3 l l ! ~ ~ I. l '/ ~~ E T Rf '%t i i I i.3 q.9,E, y xl w 'I d, e e s p- / p---- l lt, { l l .is f i a .m wi. l I i l i i i I i y [ l l l l l J i i l i i I .00 .00 4 ~ il il ' 'd ii' i t t 'i' ie i i 3 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .06 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 '8 LO L5 10 Perg Sec. 1842 244 ~ BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-59 COMPARISON OF B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: OBE, VERTICAL, WALL LOCATION: AUXILIARY BUILDING WALL ELEVATION : 346'-0"; 364'-0"; 383'-0"; col'-n"

rm m y.ces AP.913ENT N FEERL'AhY 1930 SC 33 20 10 5.0 33 10 LC .5 gac-u r i e a s,, n ,, 1 .e i i 1 nc 15.0 ~ 15 0 5 NRC RG 1.60 (.09g ZPA) _5 By./Br. Design Basis--_-_ )itt 12 0 to ; l ll lt Damping ~ I te 1 60 I i LC 5.0 " a "i i a i 5.0 ~ I \\ u _ o g l'- ' T. tg J r 3,c l Y:.'.jr--si (:s.., !s A j 20 I

t.. )

tc \\

i. :o 1q g

- t3 73 / g .d s .I e s /.. 9. :.a s t, l /, i-f i m \\l i /J_ ._d I i I ( i l 4 e i i 4. E M. 't.,'i j i,i 4'I i /h i 'x 'y i i ii i k ../ d l\\ is l l ~ [ j '3 _____g' / l N \\l l f' 'j w 9 l u - .3 \\ d I 3 S l 3 K s .15 .15 x .ic 1 i i s- .10 .c i l l as \\ \\ .06 ~ .06 n i t

• i ' '

t i + r '+ie i, ~ ,g .C5 .02 .M .04 .05 .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .8 LC L5 to Period, Sec. 1842 245 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-60 COMPARISON'0F S/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA

XCITATION :

OBE, VERTICAL, SLAB LOCATION: AUXILIARY BUILDIriG SLAB ELEVATION: 346'-0"; 364'-0"; 383'-0"; 401'-0"

,,nm,, cp5 AMEtlLME!!T 24 FEBR'.'ARY 1980 50 33 20 10 5.0 3.3 2.0 10 .5 nc 4 i i +' >ii .iii iii + 1 i .a mo -s -J 15 o y :5.0 -1 IIRC RG 1. 60 (.09g ZPA) 3 By./Br. Design Basis----- d 1" 1" e i L5 i i a lt Damping l qu 1 J te j , e. c 5.0 s.c (0 (C a 1 2.0 2.0 L5] ~ L5 r, 1 1 ~ I \\ LC t i Lc t i i e > 4 I I l l l [ l l l 4 I i i d. 3 { 1 { , I il i I i 1 7z S (T~ \\ Y&.;.$ \\\\ l l l l l k' 1 h _ #h #! l %" m !ll 1'I i '.4 f + 'd /smi I W! W ~ %I I i Ti P 4 4< u.5 l \\ s w_, I 3 ~,x Nx x! i M N s: 2 G: i.55 \\4 .is \\1 .15 .) IO a.10 i 4 ,g ~ i 3 l l _ y i l l .oe l .a l ~ r i t ' i't* i ,,~y i r e * * .e iii i y .c2 .o .o. m .a .= .i .i5 .2 .3 4 .5 to u u Period. Ser., 1842 246 -BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST TlONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Ql30.6-61 COMPARIS0:10F B/B A'lD RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO!: OBE, HORIZO:!TAL,fS LOCATIO1: AUXILIARY BUILDIriG ELEVATIOT1: 401'-0"

/.MENDMENT 24 srec. ces FEBRUARY 1930 50 33 20 10 5o 13 2.o Lo .5 MG '6 ' 3 iia 3 i i i r MC 15.0 q iso NRC RG 1.60 ( ~. 0 9 c ::PA) By./Br. Design Basis----- l ito l' c 2 11 Da:nping I to te l I l i I i u ~ u l l 5.0 5.0 ~ l ~ to b tC E 3.0 ~ ~ 13 2 4 ~ 2.o 2.0 t5 L5 I- '.];; -j [. ic,.} f,. f.' .1 g J. .\\ i e ij s'* l'. .aA. L: - i, \\ i i i i i i -4 -4 '3 y E i l.v'. f

~-{,,

r,.. ; ". h _ __ l l l { l i + k, l/.gr. V l !/ \\\\ // .V N 'Ni l l l l t i 4 5 { A 't /:j il l ( I" T3' j l 1 l 1 -il [ .: 17 ~ h 'Yl [:f. -/ l k's ll l i,f s 49 y y, i x ', j-K c i j - ' :.; f (T l ~ g .2 =r--._ wl x . i .2 s -4 \\p .D _.15 --a .30 i ,33 ,g l l 4 4 l l l l 1 J' 1 l l 06 i. .l,, l,,,le3 i , i, ,3 .c2 .c3 .a .os .o. .os .i .n .2 - .3 .3 to ts 2.o Permd. Sec. 1842 247 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-62 COMPARISON OF B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: OBE, HORIZONTAL, EW LOCATION: AUXILIARY BUILDING ELEVATION: 401'-0"

srrmnc,. ces AMENDME!!T 2L FEBRUARY 1980 50 33 20 to s.c u tc to .s no _, 1 ,, i ams b d 15 0 is c NRC RG 1.60 (. 0 9 g ;'PA) h l By./Br. Design Basis ___ _ J RC t i i i i 1% Damping } - E0 LC LD l 10 5.C 40 4; 3.0 ~ } 3.c p__ _.3 \\ ~ 10 10 j = / \\ d L5 ~ l 1 L5 \\ / ('s a LO t i

/

\\ l i

i

'tc i t -i ,g I f i I\\ t I i I l 1 i i 1,E E l /4 I l \\ l l 1 i } l l -i ' - _ k, I I i j ,h, f,, @pi Y L _ _! _._1 l1 - (j Y l l \\ s ,3 l p) I_ 1 [ 4 E Ad kJ~ l h J.. 1, M N/ \\ ~ 's I d s

f...... y....... l1

'{ ) Oi is l s3-i - 1 N d, : .is : {3 ~

• I' a.10 g

1 i 1 i i w i i i q.cs I ( .06 l, l. ,ii. ,,3 .cr .e3 .o. .cs .o. .= .i .is .2 .3 .s to u to Perer., Sec. 1842 248 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130 6-63 COMPARISON OF B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: OBE, HORIZONTAL, NS LOCATION: AUXILIARY BUILDING, TURBINE BUILDING, HEATER BAY ELEVATION: 426'-0"

AMENDMENT 24 rrmency, ces FEBRUARY 1933 33 20 10 10 13 10 LO 5 M.0 6 ' i i i i r i i _,3 liC is.e ~ 2 ~ NRC RG 1.60 (.09g CPA) tic By./Br. Design Bas is - - --- ~ i: 0 LO l l l lt Da: aping

te J

6e e ge 50 ~ 5.0 l I I I l '0 I u 10 I 3.0 f .\\.. .( P l

q:':79,

9: I } ts t3 a p_. _...= _ _ \\

i. 0

~ tC ' i /e i \\e q i i ,g I t i 1 4 e i 7 s i i i ,,ii w, ?, i I t-I / i i i\\ u i i,i 'i

a. - e e

I r + " - --- -- k i // I i \\ i i l l l t i i t i r /i IV u ,% i i i er E '" l ds? j=.;/ l y I \\1 l l 1.4.9 I

g..

3. l ,l .,j IN, i x } yr.47 i l -s s - s 5 '. i N.s N j 1

: u

,.:C.V g

\\ !'s .2 i ~ l NTs - l N'M

• is

,.15 a i .>0 l I i i i l i 6 .= I i i i 1 I l ~ .06 .li i .m .c2 .c3 .a .e .= .= .i .is .2 .3 t0 t, 10 Peria:. Sr. 1842 249 . BYRON /BR AlOWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-64 COMPARISON OF B/B A*10 RG 1.60 SPECTRI. EXCITATION: OBE, HORIONTAL, D.' LOCATION: AUXILI ARY BUILDI'!G, TURBINE BUILDI!!G, HEATER BAY ELEVATION: 426'-0"

f r.wency. ces AMEND"ENT 24 FEBRUARY 1920 50 33 h 10 5.0 3.3 2.C tc .5 20.C 6. ' Y.C I r II 0 l ~ 15.0 f NRC RG 1.60 (.09g ZPA) I I 30 0 i By./Br. Design Basis - --- i ,1; 0 l l 11 Damping ac te l l s LC t.C ~ 5.0 l ~ 40 l 4e 3.0 ~ k E 1.g .] 3 a 2.0 ~ ~

• 0
• ~"

1.5 " L5 1 \\ J f g ~ l / \\ ~ l I \\ 1.0 ,3 i i ii i , i i i l I \\ i l 1 i I ! I {, 3 ~ l[ N__' ' ' i.l lil l r .T l l l l l q ~ I 3 S /l J $ K.y-Q!D y:::.\\ } i I I-l .6 I

j; n ~ -N3 l I l l

-t \\,,. j,e g y .5 1 1,t v . '. g. j,i l Nl 1-r l l 1 .4 a.4 : l b i K q" ~ I l's 1 I (/ _". 2 1 l ---+ q .s a .15 .3 's l lN i \\ 1, .w ~ 6 i e \\ ~ I I i I t 'v. 'ce~ I I l l } l t -U I I l l l ~ .o6 '.06 .4 1.e5 i .cs .c: .c) .c4 .c5 .m .1 .i5 .2 .3 .5 .6 to t5 to Permd. se<. 4 0 !! 7 ')Gfl iv, -- . BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-55 C0" PARIS 01 0F C/B AtlD RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: OBE, VERTICAL, '.'ALL LOCATION: AUXILI ARY BUILDING WALL ELEVATION: 426'-0"; 439'-0"; 451'-0"

A?'.END!'ENT 24 er.xy.cr5 FEBRUARY 1930 sC 31 2'] 10 5.0 3.3 2.0 to .s EC' I i i t ' i > i i i 4Xc' l ne n; p NRC RG 1.60 (.09g ZPA) r ic o :-- By./Br. Design Basis--- -- ne ao lt Da:" ping "u l I i l l l 8 -i 1 I I I Il l J to l -I' ; tC ~ 5.0 ~ 40 l2C -]: l 'k 3.0 j: - -i 3 ;, ,'e-l .j 1 l f. 9 2.0 ~_ ',7- ., 2.0 t3 I :.)0,f l -j 1 T '.N.I h- .1.. y 1.'.) j x N 3"--_' 1.0 i ., i i \\ 's i i e i i, , ;r 7 I T t i i i \\i I t i i t i i -4 s f '{ / i N N. 6 i i i ! ! , i i I + A /.).' , y, " l I i 1 1 ( l l i 1 S Nd N MI: Ms l l ! I i .[ i t ',3-C.. g i i j i Xl l l i; i. f, 3 i f 4 i i i l l ' l l l l l ~ 1.3 .3 I W+ i a l 'sI s. j '3 vy.M j'7 ,3 N1 ' h "g e; W:. l d q m .13 . x,!.1: i t i i y.y g, i i ,og I i 1 i i l l l i 06 i.M I ,I.,,, ,l., 1 c3 ~ i, ,c3 .c2 .c3 .x .cs .co .cs .n .2 .3 4 .5 .6 to ts to Pened. Sec. q p i 0t-J BYRON /BR A10 WOOD ST ATION S FIN AL SAFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-66 C0i' PARIS 0N OF B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: OBE, VERTICAL, SLAB LOCATION: AUXILI ARY BUILDING SLAB ELEVATION: 426'-0"; 439'-0", 451'-0"

A".E!!DEtiT 24 trr;*nc,. ces pggggApy )939 50 33 20 10 50 3.3 1C tc .5 ra c n W. C d 15 8 g , 15S 1 1 NRC RG 1.60 (.09g PA) 10 0 l l i By./Br. Design Basis--- - - i - K5 4 i I l' Dar. ping to l l l l l l qu i i i l gg b-l ll l I l 50 ,^* ~ l l l., 40 l d 3.0 r------- I I -4.., i .A. [ \\ h. l \\ [ l / li 3 \\ ggt I i ';g / b5 Je l l \\ a [ / ) \\ ] /i / \\ \\ +/ i\\ \\. 4 e i e s I 1 l l ./ l i i \\ i i I { l l t l } l \\ s i i i I I ( 4, i t l l l 1 I/ l - l NN uy/

I i

l I~T ~ [/ l l l I s l ~~~~\\ f I '.4 l l/ l )\\N II i 5 ,.P, j x I \\ 3 i !h kl s s i l N \\ q 2 k '15 ,.D l \\1 I 1 .10 ,' 10 1 l l i l i l I ] g3 t l l l l l 4 i i I l i i l i I i lI .06 6.0e i I. l. Ji ~, 3 .C? .c3 .A .C5 .06 .08 .I .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 1.C L5 10 Perkd. Se:. IM2 252 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURt Q130.6-67 COMPARISO.'10F B/B A::D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO : OBE, HORIZO::TAL, ::S LOCATICil: AUXILIARY BUILDIriG, TURBII;E BUILDI?iG, HEATER BAY ELEVATIO1: 451'-0"

A".E'C".g. N T 24 ser, nci. ces

p. p e..g,. )g9

<a se n it ic se u te te .s 2L C g 'l g 'l l g'l l [ j i I '< r 1"I 2" NRC 1;G 1.60 (. 0 9 g :'PM r~ By./Br. Design Easis---- no 11, Darnping ~ tto 1 to u i t I i i e 1 i j i lI l I l l ! l i I i LC

• C I

l l l l l i,* 50 ~ l l l l l l l Il l i, (c I I l l l 1 1D I l I I i 4. n --- [ .' l. ") ' q f..i-2.c i, .\\ l l 1 I i 1 I ts; i.l.< 4-l l l l I 1 I f -j y x j s I l 3, a r 1 , /: u s I i ; iy-i ,\\ i I [ y" c " i i \\ i I,. i i i i s ~ i;. l l if;, I l \\is-I i i i i ! f. .e h..7, i i ]s 3 i i

l:. t.e l 6 c

i I I i ,J ~, i i /.. ; < i ~ i e i ^.< l l l l 1 v i i d' i i n I l l i .4 g -<4 I l s t '[. . j.' l l l M7s J,

• 3

._1_.>- i j j 7 s i si .a \\ 4 l l i .2 s -4 l N._! .is .a v 1 y . lC _. it ' O'. 1 l l I i l i i l J i l i i l l l 1 I ! ! l 06 1 02 i l,,,, 6 h3 I .C2 .C) .04 .0s .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 2.0 Pereed. $tc. 1842 253 . BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST AT:ONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGuiiE yi30.6-63 C0" PARIS 0N OF B/S AND RG 1.E0 SPECTRA EXCITATION: OBE, HORIZONTAL, E'.: LOCATION : AUXILIARY BUILDING, TURBINE BUILDING, HEATER BAY ELEVATION: 451'-0"

A'F'D".ENT 24 e m an cP5 FEL E' /sRY 1980 J SO 31 E 10 5.C 33 10 LC 5 to t n i 1 1 n i 7^ r-l6 l 1,., 3 is c [ '!RC RG 1.60 ( 09g 2P1.' I i 1 Ey./Br. Design Basis---- 2 l l l;} lt Da.maing l j ~ t i i ii, i i t" I l l I t I se m l l 'i.. ,e l l l l l l l ll l 4 L n. i e c J io I i ~ l l 2.0 ,E lI J-, lI li i .4 ~ N e / \\ } } ~ 1C i .c A i /. - - _}, I i i i f-i J-4 { _..o i t ,g i i 1 1 l ~ I d,21O h-- . g .,\\ ' {,, -- - .e { 3' [ ,'l .6 A iii , m _..c % i i ; i ~ d- - i ~! l l l ll! I - +

i..:.,./,

l^ .v \\ l l l,l l q gy,-+l g x. .) ik .15 g' s. 3 -. .;5 1 M 'w .w ,a l

p - g l

l l l i i l I i tu k i l l l l i I i I .oe .cc ~ .I l. ,I.,,. On r i 'i i ii... i .C2 .C) .04 .05 .06 .04 .I .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 10 -1842 254 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-69 COMPARISON OF B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: OBE, VERTICAL, WALL LOCATION: AUXILIARY BUILDING WALL ELEVATION: 467'-0"; 473'-0"; 477'-0"; 485'-0"

A"END*'ENT 24 f rrger.cy. CPS (([P,['kEi ) %) SC 31 7) 10 50

3. 3 20 if

.S nr L_ g g l l l l w.T : a E 3 l', c " IIRC RG 1.60 (.00c ZPM l ne r i i 1 l By./Br. Design Dccis-----l r 100 b , i i lt Danninc i i i i i ~ 8C i 4 j!' I j l 8 { j i i i e i t i i! I 1 I i l l l l l l l l l l l i i i LC I i \\ \\\\\\ \\ l \\ \\ L. l l l ~ l ! l l f1 f'.,. 4ph w_ S\\ u 4 I g. u l .i l uJ .e' V - - M :' 1 l '\\ \\ 30 L. . t:;, cn l. t E l , &g l .y -4 2.C ' 2 '. l 1 l\\ i i i 15 l l A a v y - _:1 y\\ 1 1c l =;

/e e

i i r. i i 1

i i

Q,, l

l l l t-e t

i /s.. ,i i i I i } I f :! 'I

l i l

I I I d.'l, I i liI j

r.

r,'.

s z ~ - -,, v + i

ll I

nt i Ill i + 4 s \\s, I l

• J I

.c l i i i 3.3 l s 4 ~ x 7 N 1 -g.s . i .7 l 6.N u ~; .D"--- A '~;\\ , s 's i s.s,; 1 I -\\ -_d ' 3 .30 L i i i i i { 3 ; '- ,a i i I i i i i i i \\le,~ I I l l l l l t j i \\ ~ l l I I l I i .ce ,~i,.l,. .I.,,. lil i t l i ~ r.. ii i r r .C2 .C) .G4 .05 .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .I 1.0 1.5 2.0 Perux!. SM. 1842 255 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-70 COMPARISON OF B/B A"D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: OBE, VEP.TICAL, SLAS LOCATIC:t - AUXILIARY CUILDING SLA3 ELEVATION: 467'-0"; 477'-0"

A".END"ENT 24 FEBRLARY 1950 Freenre. CFS 50 31 M 1; 5.0

3. )

20 LC .5 MC ' i l l-l I l l l. 2 3 --. T ' 9 i e h l l -4 "0L URC RG 1.60.(.099 ZPA) 4" By./Br. Design Basis-- --- .j lt D= ping j" i ' _ _ , i i ; i i + l I l l l l l u 7 G. 1 I i !I i i l I! 1, t

5. 0 t

~ e l D l 'r l l l d 4 3.0 ~ d- ) -j " / l \\ i i -I / \\ l / \\ l 9 s 4= E I A..</ i \\ 'd I !ll 4.. 15 2 l 'l \\ / I g l J.,1 \\ i 4 }( ~. d !. [ a l d 9^, a , c - q.... [s, l e N a*5 a T-t- w._ - o t' 1 iI i . I I (( W ]~ a; i i i i i ,i f l l l l l D ----si i i I l .'t.'c / ~g //l i l l I Rl!!! i i i u 4 . 4.c A.aj .5 i l isa s,, i i i i j-i i s,.. s l i \\ J l \\ I l lNT .15 . 15 1 ne . >0 f: .08 i i i e i 4 ' 03 1 I i l l l 1 i i i d i i i i i 1 a .0c . 06 ~ l l'+ii p i,, i ...r ,e i iiie i r .C0 .C) .C4 .05 .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .4 to L5 10 Period. Sec. 1842 256 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-71 C0bPARIS0:10F B/B A';D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO:!: 03E, HORIZO:TAL, NS LOCATIO:J: AUXILI ARY BUILDING ELEVATIO:1: 477'-0"

AMEND F:T 2a ,,,,x, ces FEBRUARY 19',0 so n a ic tc n 10 te .5 20 C 'giii g .l j

g g'

?_ t is e " I!RC RG 1.60 (.09g ?P71) 1 l By./Er. Design Ennis---- - .] no 10 Da.mping 1m J i l l I i I I I i i r i l l l l I l l 60 l l l i + u 5 (, b l ll l l l l l l l d. --i... ~ l l },- (c i 30 ~ l l'. 3: E f: 2c ...i. ,a: ~

1. 5 15 I

l l (( 3c, /l. -3 \\l's ~ [i. 3 '.\\ N ./ i 3 X 7 t //_ ! 1 3 I t i 1 1 \\ s I I i l l ! -I ',' \\ k ~ I I i i \\- i l l l 9 1, i i l X:./ i l l l 17; I l l l ' I 's [ ig.'. l l l l l l i ~l l 6 i h l ,4 2 l i l .4 N 4 '3 1-- \\ ' \\ 't l g sl 4 - N l \\ 1 l l I 's ) i s, .15 15 1 IO { _.10 I 'U i 1 1 l l 9 , g h i I l ,(, l, .h,.~g i. i f .C2 .C) .04 .05 .06 .08 .I .15 .2 .) 4 .5 .6 .8 1.0 L5 2.0 Perux'. Sec. 1842 257 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-72 C0'1 PARIS 0:1 0F 3/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRK EXCITATION: OBE, HORIZONTAL, EW LOCATION: AUXILIARY BUILDING ELEVATION: 477'-0"

[*'.E.1 PENI 24 "*"'b, FEE;ARY HED s0 13 .? 10 s.G 3.1 2.0 tC ncb i i I I ! l. 1 1 au ~ p i i i no h I;RC RG 1.60 (.09; TPld l i 15 3 I I g By./Br. Design Bas 4-ig l lU l i. Damping -] L C i LC l I I I [_ k _i I i i ! l 1 LC i i l I i I I II. i. u 1 u l

= j_

l I i i li-i j 7 ~ l l lm -l l - l i u 'u l i l i i i i a '!! l l { l l j l "n 7 i i r 1,, i j; 1 l C I l l i.s N * ' 3. l. ig l l { v -7 1 l I I i 30 i r -i, E l /' ; ;A H i. 3 i i , 'o i u i 4 t i, L- ,.. e q .t y 1 I I / I I \\

//

l Ts : I i I! I i'. ,3 i i r n/ i lit y i I hN i Ili i T,.; .4 t t. N' / I j l l I l h l l j 's - e j

s. I i l

a" .3 7-J x_. a=4', -L-3 l 1 i '.'s 3 ' y',i V i ~ ~. s ' f 1, l \\ -g i 2 l l l ll Nx' x m._ - mc . is ..n a >e n p I { i t i l l l t i 4 I f I h I l l l 1 d i i i i i

i i

6 .te, l... .i.. ,1,1 i i .c: .o .o. .os a m .i .n .2 .3 .4 .5 .u ts a ,, sm 1842 258 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT F l uu.<t Q133.6-73 COMPARISON OF B/B A'tD RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: 03E, HORIZONTAL, NS LOCATION: CONTAINMENT BUILDING ELEVATION: 424'-0"; 436'-0"

A!E! C"Z li 24 FECRLt.?Y 19?A 31 20 10 $C 3.1 2C 10 .s 2E C 6 l 'g ' l g%C i i I l 15 r J li6 l I RC RG 1. 60 (.09g ZPA) a f l By./Br. Design Basis _____ nc

-t L,.

11

j 7 i

Damping i a at ju i ! l i l l l I d

e. c AC

~ l l l l l l l l i i d 3.c BC l l l i l l i (c .l. 4c h l 'l l 3 C l l l

3. 0 L.

2.0 , LL is Y l l -h b ll l b l ~

• ).

l i i I i l ? l i i

7. I 7' i

i 'l -i { t. l 1 I Ii i

c.

I A.- ; l l i g sg. - -- 7- .t ,.t l of i l ! C;_. _. ---3 c j I l l 1, ;- l /. I',l' l .V \\D a'{ i i .{ l t NH. 8 i I /.. : l l j l j'c__J l J l l7 ' i ; \\'c_ J., i i .[ ' l \\k., ' h na.-7]l [m l ( , Ai ). k. w 'sg j,, I N T l 10 e i i i 4U 3 I l 6 1 1 i i '3 i I i I l 1 i i i I j l l l .c+ .c. ,,,i , l ,l l l l l ,g 1 g3 .c2 .c3 .W .0) .c6 .08 .1 .15 .2 .3 .4 5 .6 8 to r-L5 2.c i 0 r -) g7 m ,,, sm o BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FISui1 Q130.6-74 C0f1 PARIS 07; 0F B/B A!1D RG 1.f 0 SPECTRA. EXCITATION: OBE, VERTICAL, WALL LOCATION: C0'ITAlfif1EllT CUILDIllG WALL ELEVATION : 424'-0"; 436'-0"

A".E " D". E', 2 0 w cr CPS p ; g ;;,- ] g g g se n 20 ic 5.c o 2.o to .s acp > i i i j i;;, ,n i i i r a I ^ is e f I;RC RG 1.60 (.09g ZPA) I l ] E't. /E r. Design Basis----- t i i ic t ;- - 7-- 1% Damping n' i i i1 I i -i j' l i i i i e i ,t i i I I I i I i l I I l i. e.c n. iI i i l I i, i -i 3 c. u F l l l i l l I Ii 4. I ac. 1 j . l--. l /.W, i I E ,l i ~i l i i t l J 1 1 i l l J l 20 1 I 4 E ll! l, l, ! lj 't j lii i a: Jj /1:-Wl I :> /; s l c 3 t: Ks i i i i 1 1.c e i ,. i. is i l l I i jl l f I d i i i ./ w s i ,i i i i ii 1 /o, i i N iil I i /I i l I6 /:/ l l j h i jl - 'I .s s l n., l I lllr iLj l .3 r N Il i i ug i i s [s '--YM lY IM i -[ J l y 'i s. N 4 m l a l 4 l ll Sh .15 .a \\1 1,. 10 .cs ~ 'm 1 i i j i i H ~ l l l 1 I l l ! i d 0* I. .I,.,.I.... I I, i l J. le cs .C2 .C3 .04 .CS .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .) 4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 2.0 Periot. Sec. 1842 260 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-75 COMPARISO:10F C/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: OBE, HORIZONTAL, MS AND Ei.' LOCATION: CONTAINMENT BUILDING ELEVATION: 496'-0"

A!'.Ef; D".ET'T 2 ' f requency. Ce s FECRUAF.Y 1900 50 31 20 10 5.0 33 2.0 10 .S ne! I l l l r 1 i i i 'i -.a.c J 15 C I]RC RG 1.60 (.09g ZPA) ] By./Br. Design Basis---- ~ ie c m i 11, Damninc -t - i i i i te

u i

j l l 1 J LO "E i T l l I l l l l l 1 -4, I l l l l l i 10 i 7 i 1 l l l l l lI 1" i i ~ l l 1 l y l d.

3. 0 l

3, 2.o, ! i'~V. ts S

i, i

/,la e\\ ] 'd' \\[ 1.C i I e i i i i i i >. ii g c I i. 'i I t i i j s l i t I , i i-i i t i i i i i Y. l l il ' l l k-- l l l l l l ~ 5 \\ " -me g.. c- .e j 1 I / r-l 6 1 \\' I \\;;3 i l .s/ ,s i l l i :i l lll l l ll 1 'j. :b ., [.. x .a ~ l f.i ::i. ll l i b .) p i,- i, ~ ( -y, 1 g.; ja I '\\. i l l lgd. Ii q y, ,.s .2 .is .s l a g .i s 30 syn .u i t i i i i ii i \\, l l 1 1 1 I I i X i i l t i i i j i l l J .0s v l I \\.I. l , i 1. ,,3 n3 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .) 4 5 .6 .8 LC L5 10 Pera'. Set } v, ) l {nA)D 't - BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-75 C0i! PARIS 0:1 0F B/G At!D RG 1.60 SPECTRA' EXCITATIOil: OCE, VERTICAL, UALL LOCATIO:!: C0i; TAI::"Et1T BUILDIfiG WALL ELEVATIO*4 : 496'-0"

A1C :W.[NT ?? FEDRUARY 19 5 Fregisency C a r 33 20 lc 5.C 13 2.0 LC .5 t - 7' 7; C [ 22 i.i f l I S 15 C y j i r f j I RC RG 1.60 (. 0 9g 2 PJJ ] ~ _L., Dy./Lr. Design Basis i i i i i t1 i 1% Danping 1 ~ i i i 6,0 'f l l l l g_ "F I I l l l l l l l l lll i i l i I i .i i i i j i c i , n_ I l i i i I i i l 2.0 A..-...-- l I l' \\ [l \\ l b l 4 i L5

l.., T " ~ ~

l l l j [ l gg !,i, i. .i ~ N l i m t-s b t I /- T i 1 x f I ' /. aj i i. h_ l I f i i i e. x: l l a i i i p i T <? ~ ~ i .( ! \\ \\,1 -_i i i i 1 r .s i ~ w. m. i F H': 1 i i -"gw gsl ll

• 2 g.

-T ~ N l 4-l i I I I l \\, I r.--J.y._ xl4. x ~,n,, t. l l N is i a 2 I l 3 l l xy L n. .1, N i .10 I i I i- . i 1** l

lll

= 1 ii i i k -i.c. l .l .,,.,I il l ,j 3 iii. 1 g .C2 .C3 .08 .6 .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .) 4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 2.0 Per.od. Sec 1842 2c2 _ BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT i FIGURE Q130.6-77 C0!! PAR! SON OF B/B A'lD RG 1.30 SPECTRA EXCITATION: 03E, HORIZONTAL, l'S LCCATION: CONTAI!if:ENT INNER STRUCTURES ELEVATION: 426'-0"

A!!END"E!iT 24 FEBRUARY 19CO rnqn,. ces 50 13 20 10 5.C 33 20 10 ] :, ; mg [. ili ,l l.; l l 1 l l j i i i i i i i i I" l -l M I;RC RG 1.60 (.099 ZPA) 7" Ey./Br. De sign Basis----- lt Damping a 12 0 i LC g i l i I i l I l l l l 1 J 60 .C l l l i l 3 '- 5.0 1 I I I i l' i )G 40 ~ 3G 'M .j ] 2.0 ~ l l l l 2C I l l l -1,, C I /~ I M l L5, d g#j-s

i. i '

\\l j-j l ai N l a p 1 a \\ \\ l s .I e a ~

• b I

I I 71 fg g i i I l 4 { i\\\\ E l l } ^ ] 1 i I i J E \\ 1 ~ I l i i I \\g i l l l ! !. l 1 e e .( h l [-i l l l l - ~.. sg, .t N l l l I ! l l 5 i l [.<:' l'Q-l l s E ^4 ~ l , ' = l l l l -j ,3 i 3 l \\ -4

.pd.

l 3l i Sh a " ' l l l \\ ' g i l l I D e l l .15 J.b d 1 l f ja .10 { 1 -( i i i i i.. I l ? } l l t I ] { l i i 6 .N J.0t l l' lf j 1 ' '.0.: ' '.f,(5 f t f I t t 't I .C .C3 .05 .06 .06 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 20 Permd. Sec. cv3 7/ ) 0 [t m7 O BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST AT!ONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-78 COMPARISON OF D/B /JtD RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: OBE, HORIZO.4TAL, EW LOCATION: CONTAIIi!Gli lip!ER STRUCTURE ELEVATION: 426'-0"

A.. -.,. p.. -. m. 2. ..U y.._.. f rewru. cpi p{ g gi,;q j ] g g[, 33 20 10 5.0 3.3 10 LO 200 g 6 J 0 I. I ne n. ll MRC RG 1.60 (.09g 2PI.) l ~} i I 3g {_ By./Br. Design Basis-- --- ~.,,,, gb ( I t 4_1_ t I li. Danping i .I 1 1 I l i 1 i i I ! j t u I l l l l I l 5.C - ~ h I l l l l l l l i 3.f l l I I l .d t i i l t i i a 8 l i 1 i-l I l 2 f-l l l 1 J 20'

C I~

l l f. l I I. l l t I l 3 i Lt i 1 " {- i ~, i i i i f I i I 6 i } l [ i,i i f-l l i ! l I l l i l i, E. ', p-4 __ h l I l l l l l ,L-s l I i ! ' c s E l l l l j., I _. _ j?~~h l l j l l!! m.. .4 u m.' . _ _ f.- i l i l! lf-i l I N, t I i l i l i _"; s i 1 ,r-l 4 - I E-,,: - l i h i,

r N,

y --., ~ I I l ..;. a;.,....,,, m/'. b' i s .n - ::w-m- a Al ,y s ~, \\d 30 i i l I' i i I \\- 1 l [ t l l l I i l l l 1 k'" i i l l l l I Ii De J l l. I l, .os .02 .C) .04 .05 .Ce .06 .I .15 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 20 Per< Ser f 0 A ') {f O 1 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q133.6-79 CO:' PARIS 0:10F B/B aid RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO::: 03E, VERTICAL, WALL LOCATION: C0:lTAIllMEi1T I!dEii STRUCTURE WALL ELEVATIO :: 412'-0"; 426'-0"

At/.END", INT 24 FECRUARY 1;T,0 g3 50 33 20 10 5.6 3.3 2.C LO .5 20 C j j l j'l l'l lg ?< C r 15 0 L I;RC RG 1.60 (.09g ZPA) a "; F i j~ By./Br. Design Easis_____ ] 200i-lt Damping d" i b I i ii LL ~ l l I s.'ts i I i i i l i ac 4r l l l l l I '.L 50 - + - - - ~ l to i

4. (

l 3.C .i-42 31 h

e-w:\\

'.4.1 \\' A ~ l .M D l l 1;t i 2.0 f Dt 4 [ I t ] I . m.+ * \\.. r 15

d

( O s- -.-.;

w i 1.0 -. ~ - - ~ - - i _r,'_, l i ^ *A i I I I I I m ~ s , i 3 i i i s j 3- _. {T-~q _;- - - l l i i I 6 i 3 ...._~._.,/. -4 3

7.._...

I i 'l i I ', ~ _..,, l. l l i I I ]' ' ' ' 1 S i .O i i '., l

f l

T,:. ~.. :,,_ /: 1 l l l l l -f i i Y 5 H- ,~._,.! 'J. s ' NJ-' i 3) N l E ,? s s 4 '3 - ' ' ::. R \\ J] l l \\ q I\\ 4 2 7 N .2 =.,2 ; :.: i ti 4 .2 '15 15 'a d 4 4 .30 'g-j.1: .08 l l l \\> c2 q 1 l l 6 I I i l 1 l 1 06 iI4 l.... l, l .1 i.. ,i., ,g3 3 .C2 .C3 .04 .05 .06 .0f .1 .15 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .8 L0 L5 10 ,,,ix sm 1842 203 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-80 C0tPAP.ISON Ct B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA E XCI TATIO.': 00E, VERTICAL, SLAB LOCATION: CONT. INNER STRUCTURE SLAB ELEVATION: 390'-0"; 401'-0"; 412 -0"; 426'-0"

A!'E!;D"ENT 2 ' FEBRUAP.Y l930 50 33 29 10 5.c 13 2.c t. .5 2:.c 3 -...] i i I I p 15c.r-- U. - - + - l' -4 F NRC RG 1.60 (0.2g 2PA) i ' i t-i j gf By./Br. Design Basis- -- - 1,;, e F u 21 Dampina p ..c ~ l u t 3.C, t -+ h I l l i (c p c p 3.c ':~ ~ a i i l l ! l 1 1 i i g ,.[ l i l h, t ts, ~: i .~. i l l l ! l i I r i i r ! l i 1.c e-v

1. _5 i

s - _ _R-Q+_.g':.-=.. :? n...':u..',-jiW};-\\ r E {, 5 / / e w:

c..

v p-- ,/ / s - -* i y. .e N N. _. _ 3 .f '3,h / , [. <~ \\\\ t 4 C / 3 s N _- ~ / l \\ '. 1 O / 2 '/ l [ i / i i y / i 5 1 ,7 i i i .15 i I j t j i t I i l t i I I e i l l l { j, 4 .lc '.D .cc ~ - 1.n l 1 l I 4 i + .00 I i, i i i.e ~,, l l. ,,,i l I l . i .c: .c3 .c4 .cs .c6 .ca .2 .15 .2 .) 4 5 .6 .s to ts 2.c Parit,.*, Sec. loD 266 0t-BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY A N A LY SI:5 R EPORT FIGURE Q130.6-81 COMPARISON OF B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA. EXCITATION: SSE, HORIZONTAL, MS AND Eh' LOCATION: AUXILIARY AND CONTAINMENT BUILDINGS ELEVATION: 330'-0", 374'-0"

/r,.,r..Ln.:.,. ;.,, n Iftbt%.CP5 . ; 7_.. s,,. 7.. i.

3. ~q rm so 3) z 1:

ic 3.1 n tc 5 rc n r t t bc, ~.' l 1 h I I t i - ZPA) MRC RG 1.60 (0.2c i r t l }n, By./Br. D O S i g r. B a S i S - - - - - ac' 21 Damping I p - t. L 60' h l l i i ~ 5.0 h l I l i LD _ _L. U t 2 1

3. 0 i

4 i n h f i 4 ls H e i i ~ p l l . l l ~ t-t'- + L0

• ~

~--- i s g ,3 u t_ /A--- - -q. r 7 f- /#7 ,.O _ ~ 'J v I,- jy N.s_. -. ~ s e [ h //' \\\\- t 2-g g g = x g g' / / N%' - ,t, p g- - e / N N .-e / 's N ,/ s N s N ) j i / l i 4 [ ,/ i l i s. i .2 -2 L i I i [ f 2 .15 4 5 2

I l

i i l 1 i, r i l i l 1 l d .30 -.. ' O .Cd i i i a .'d i i i 4 l l l 4 w i .0. .cs ~,, l l. l, \\ I ~. ,p3 .c .c3 .04 .cs .co .ca .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .s to ts 2.0 Peria'. Sec., 10 0 2U7 ^ lUT-BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGRE Q133. 6-82 C0 ?ARIS010F B/B A 'D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATICN: SSE, VERTICAL, h'ALL AND SLAS LOCATION : AUXILI ARY AND CONTAIN"ENT DUILDINGS ELEVATION : 330'-0"; 374'-0"

g,.-., ~,,,. a. n .r.c,. c e s FEE? L'AD ' l.0 L J sc n 29 n se u

c Le ncL 6

1 1 l l l l l j i I I I I I l l l J is t. + i - ZFA) l t" I;RC RG 2.60 (0.2c q' l no!- Ey./Br. Design Basis----- J:' b F ,. c. 2e D a:=. i n g O, i i i i 4 I i 1 i } + d l I e u l l i l l Er 4 l f l t /.C .( l t l I I I d I l l l l l l i 'I. I 30-3 1 4 l g a l I d i

2. 0 I

l l t

L.

I l l w C I l l l l l l l 3., l LS L l i. 1 g! l s i \\ 1 10.--- / i i t-y .t Y l == 7 " in&r.=. '= - $.fg l, l' _ r c a N .I j- -,, ! 'I ! l { l bh: i ! l ",5 .t l ./ f I i I l l l b ', ' ! I 1 l 1, I, l .3 j x - i / l l l ~ E S l/ l l l l I l \\l]Ng . #E -/ l r _ erd I i i l l l !\\ 3 i r .) l 9N 3 ~ 1 l p.x -1 I l 2 l . N\\" i C l 'i ~' l F t i i j i 3 l l i i l I .10 ~ 1 d_ I I +~ y 1 I l l . J I I i l I l ~ I I i i l i l i i l i l l l I i l l ! l l t .0e o.. l .l i ^ r

• rr-i

,e e i ,3 .00 .0) .04 .05 .0c .06 .I .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .6 LO L5 2f Perstc, Sec. lo37 ,; 3 om m BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGUF.E Q130.6-83 C0" PARIS 0:10F B/B A:'D R31.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIOi: SSE, VERTICAL, WALL LOCATIO'i: AUXILIARY BUILDING WALL ELEVAT10:1: 346'-0", 364'-0"; 383'-0", 401'-0"

T 'u 'm' "' 'c~ ', ~i ' ~. e-i f reqancy CP5 F[3RL'ERY l((] 3) M 10 5.C 33 20 LC 3 EC' i l t r l i l 15 c u g F I!RC RG 1.60 (0. 2g 2nM r I i b l 4 ncL-By./Br. Design Basis ---- __4__ ___ ;,:, ' i 2% Damping I i 4l g l l I i i l l l 1 l i I LC h l I f r- -, lf h l l l ML ( -- l l l l l 1:: l \\ i i r l [ { l i a fi + ' l 6 f I [ I /l \\ l l I 3.0 3: a. 7 I l tl I L ', i q a y / l ls d N il t '2 s s l C 1 1 / I l l t l J s l - _ -_1/ I I i N i I w LS a '/ h l i I s J l 's J t-n h [' i \\s e i i i l,! \\ _l lll 5'-~==' i p 'e l l l l ! I i l l l l l l ~ L e- .e +- e. ~ .5 .5 1 I l 11 1 I I vd i q ', ;' f \\ l's ? i l \\ g 2

3

.3 x l ' J -.. I s 4 \\s .2 \\.2 \\d N .15 l} ~ 4 -4 ~ l m t i < >c ,g ~ I I I l j l 6 I i I I I l l l l i l 1 l l l l ! l l I ~ d .c. 3 i'l i .05 2 .02 .C) .(4 .05 .06 .06 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 , f, .8 LO L5

2. 0 rer.e. sec.

in19 e i V.. _. () BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.5-84 COMPARISO:1 0F C/B A!!D RG 1.60 SPECTilA EXCITATIO:1: SSE, VERTICAL, SLA0 LOCATIO:1: AUXILIARY BUILDItiG SLAB ELEVATIO::: 346'-0"; 364'-0"; 383'-0"; 401'-0"

A"E',T"E NT 2 ~. Frmercr ces n: c' r, 1;r o 50 33 ?. 10 5C 1.3 2.0 10 .S nc - i 1 iii 1 l = p. ~l n, NRC RG 1.CC (0.20 Z Pi.) I -l 13 By /Br. De sign Basis----- , i l ,l', 2t Dampinc Et i i I I i! I i LC l l l l l l l l l i i 5.0 l I l l l i 40 4 ~ f I i r-i yg C 0 74

2. 0 h

I l l' l l l l l l C l l I l l l l ? ts l l l 3 l l i 4 F 3.,, ; i 1 l y= =#h ~ 'N -[ l f. ,x i / t '~~ f _._% i i "a 4 1 6 N l .[ i iUI I t l l \\.l I c- .6 , *v t l l l l 1 l l [ j 'A I 3 l l- { .5 + j -.----g 6 ,y i l1l! i i j l:,n i i fj q l i I m M,^ [, > I , i x s 1 Is l l i ' x~ ~ j i 2 i j j j l l i 2 ,i, j .10 I e i i i i a I l t 6 I i i i i i 8 l 1 l I ! l l i i i i i l 1 1 t 1 .oe w ' ' '.2 O .05 .C2 .C) .04 .0$ .06 .08 .1 .15 .) 8 .6 .8 10 L5 10 Peria. Sec. j BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-85 C0:1 PARIS 0N OF D/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, HORIZONTAL, Std+ N 5 LOCATION: AUXILIARY BUILDING ELEVATION: 401'-0"

A'-E!i L"I 2 0-fr e c.cF5 FELR' AR 1920 r J 5C 31 2 !? 5C 3.3 2C LC

r. c.

. i. b l l4 l l l' ' _y: ] i I r 15 0. r i NRC RG 1.60 (0.2c'.?PA) I r I I in I-- d I 3 By./Br. Design Basis r 2t Da:nping ,,y i i l l j i

• u 1

6 l l l i I ! I i fC I I i l !l l l l I I 'l I u r7 i F I I ! lll l l l .!-ll I I ! l!l ~ u l l I l ~ I l l l l C ac - - -,1 - l i 2 l J i IM, l l i 1[1l' ('?k b

Ac..

l l 0 g i f

s f;. - - c,

i 2

1. C 4

g Jg g,. m... ..--r m. m - y w ,r / :- ~ i .L 1.l e ',/ - 4 eu i x nj.. I i i I i 1 l

Ni!

-[ \\, ' M _... ".~ J. ! I i l l i I l l i )ds. f 4 - -j a i il l TN-7 '- j j l { l I l l i i l i ,,--._ a w-2, i ce - s i N s 9w g g t I i I I s-I N-g l \\ ~ l g.. l 4 i .2 I j l 1 J I .is I l l d a a . lv. ) d' e I i i ii y ~ l l l ] t i i f 1 I t i l e l l i i i r i i t i a I .0c

,c

I I I le l l.l l l J l 4 e e g e ,e 9 7 1 .C2 .0) .04 .05 .06 .C5 .1 .15 .2 .) 4 .5 .6 .8 1.0 1.5 2.0 Permd. 5G l () 1] ~7 1 / I m m BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATION S FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS R EPORT FIGURE Q130.6-E6 COMPARISO:10F B/B At1D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO:!: SSE, HORIZO ITAL, EW LOCATIO:!: AUXILI ARY SUILDIt'G ELEVATIO:': 401'-0"

A'.:E';r"Et;T 2e FEBR'J RY 1900 troe m crs 5c 11 E 10

5. 0 33 10 1.C

.S gt; 1 i ir va b l tu -- lf -l F nac no 1.co (0.2g zyn) i t- }g nck By./Br. Desi gn Bas is----- r. l 'yll

21. Damping f

u. i i

'i J

,, c - t. : l l j il l i I i i l !I l l u l l ll l l l ll l I (c 7_ __ g 1 l h 3er ,3: C l 1 j ] I. 1C - r-x i I 1.5 l hN I a 17' 1 1 l // I d i -i u _~ /,', l l L - l== %, 7, i c ,,v. i i i 7'[ 'n

i

{ r.1

V

! I I i i i i i i h t I ! g >-"". ,,jj l l i ~,

• i i

,N c-e .s t 33 .i Iii1l l I i ll I ! \\ '. N N : y' l l l + l l lh N? l I .3 3 5 .2 3, d -1 15 l.; i J 20 -d: 1 .cs ~ I i! l l e i I I I i 1 ._1.:.3 M i I I I l l i .06 .te ~,, ,l. l l. .l,,,, ,l, I ,c3 e, .00 .0) .04 .05 .C6 .00 .I .35 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 10 L5 1C Period. Set BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AF ETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q120.6-87 CO:TARIS0:10F B/B A 'D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIOi;: SSE, HORIZO:;TAL,ils LOCATIO:1: AUXILI ARY BUILDI:lG, TURBI?;E BUILDI:!G, HEATER DAY E LEV ATI 0'l: 426'-0"

EET'C"~ 24 FECEU#' l930 enean:,. ces SC 33 20 10 1.0

3. 3 20 LC

.5 50; 3 i

Et

'i i [ f, I 'J. 1 I i i' c ;. [_ IRC RG 1.60 (0.2g ZPA) l .] i By./Br. Design Bas is--- -- ' -1 n e g.- t i't 21 Danping / l > i l I I i l l l I i 4t' 2 L l I! I l i l Il l i 5C I I I l l l- /, r,. 9.__ )0 1-- s l ,4.. .. h t l l 1 "c .x i a i i l l l I h ljl 1 L,s ; \\'._ r / .s... i g j i l 1.C j-, %l l ,y V --. -+ ,,e"' ]j ,N g f[ j g j 'g. j l e ,, g. m g_- I I I i i I r si l ~,, -.,.r,.-- .( ..m.. ,,1 h, L_ 4 .t W-..mp7 t j j lj l l l l l ll \\'s ? i ,Aa .s ~ l j l \\n l l l~.: l l C l d .15 -1 3

• U U

i i i i ,g - t 1 I l l "g l l 1 I I I I l l l J I i l l l I I -j ~ I Ie ll .l f 1 i r i '.1 rie r i r.. i i .C5 3 .00 .C) .04 05 .M .C8 .15 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .6 10 L5 1C Pen ( Set IJ M S b e N; H' : n / r ~'U' l [] l q' 'm -- d \\ r i' o,, 4 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS so37 273 l v 'i FIN AL S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.C-SS COMPARISON OF B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA s EXCITATION: SSE, HORIZONTAL, Eh' LOCATION: AUXILIARY CUILDIiiG, TURBINE BUILDING, HEATER CAY FI FVATIO':- 426'-0" i

AME';D".E!;T 2 " F E E R U ','< ( i950 ,,,,,~,, c p s 31 20 10 s.c 3.3 2.c LC .s ge i iir ii1 j l, 1 L l ncI l l' + f SRC RG 1.60 (0.2g ZPA) l } n c I_ By./Br. Design Basis----- l ] r.., 4 i 6 I 20 Da:nping c,. L,' I_ i t g,, L i I i I I i i

t. C F

I i i I i I i i II i 5.c L I I i l_ l I I I l l _1, g C 1 3 l l l W} L. j.-j F 4 2.0 m-~ k d { /' l \\ L_ i ,/ I i i N i 1.5 / l 's, i / i 4 . k.. "1 ~. p }l,h L ((Q t s t s s C, _ l l j I i i

/.1

! ! l 1 l l 3A i I i

j

.t !p/ 9 l l l ,h i l l ' l i .s N r. - . t F. ~77 l l l l l l MN. lN_t_ l 1 1 a 4 l ~ l l l 'lg. I i W _i 3 'N x l i s'x l . \\l[, E l lv-n v1 s,. N ] I, . io t 1 l 1 l i I I i, ,e i i l I i t i t g-i i i l l l l t I .ce '.cs '.cs !

• I '.: '

1 ! I ~ l' .cs cs .c2 .c3 .c4 .c6 .i .n .2 .3 4 .s .6 1.c ts 2.0 Parid se:. IMA (W3iM BYddN 78 R'IiDWd O E ST'ATIO N S ~ FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Qi30.6-89 COM. PARIS 0N OF B/B AND RG 1.50 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, VERTICAL, h'ALL LOCATION : AUXILI ARY EUILDING '..'ALL ELEVATION: 426'-0"; 439'-0"; 451'-0"

A!aENDMENT 24 TECHUARY 15Ci Fre;sency. CPS 50 33 E IC 10

3. 3 2.0

1. 0

.5 E 0[ ' t j l l j 'l l l l'l

j  ;

l l I t h'RC RG 1.60 (0.2g Z PIs ) lN 1s c +- l ] By./Br. Design Basis----- 4 l l i j' tc C *- 2f Damoinc g. o 4 I ac. 4< l I 5 1 ~i 7-g i i i i j I J \\i i l l I II I 1. LC ,h l l t f

i

/ \\ i l l i I! L-l u y I l l 1 1 I \\ i I i i ,.,:y~ F T I + i i .9 .\\ l l i y' T-j i t i { p l l t 'd ' i I r 1 !p.. /, s \\, tt .n. [:../ l !' ! --s% I -1, p i C l l l a VI u. 7.j-/ . ;N ' \\ d I i l N L-l 10' f .? '1C p _ _ _ _. g _ _-- - i %% i i i i i N __ i t t i 1 l i a, (i t ! I i i i l i 1 g i l I i i i I t I l t 1 e ~ i c .t i.o e , Nb, l l I l i i !! l 1 i 3 .3 ______-.3 E ~ I l l l l l l l l l I i f i i. S. i .) -~%- 3 4l .2 ,2 1 (.y -, j <. c .is 'Q1: .33 i _ r .08 ~ ~ C: I i i t l I I I I I Ii 1 .0c .h l .dg3 1 .,i. i .c;' .0) .04 .04 .06 .08 .I .15 .2 .1 4 .5 .6 .8 10 U 2.0 Penoc. Sec. j i /. il li * } [i, l p p fp A r [D lpim !:,n %v. 'i>.,',.!: !.' 1. t. F:.u ,,,A. +.: ir 33 2C 1:

5. 0 3.3 2.0 1C 5

hC; 6 t iii l ll l j l; y i L I I 1, l l is t 3 l I I 3 !!nC RG 1.60 (0.29 CPA) l L I j j ne l ny./nr. oc. sign Baris__ ___ 21, Da:noinc IIT' j t i i 4* } El I i + j LC ! l l l l l l l l k~ l I l l i h-1 I l l l l l q ce t [ I t j i l jl l i i I l !l l l l . i I 1 l 10 ._ _ ; i l l l ..lt.. l l "~ l ) l l .f - l - u -\\l l l l t i .y i 10, w N. e l l l / l 1 8 1 +h f( l l l l i I / 4 1.5 4 / l I ~ , / *../, g -m' 4 10 = h. fy-M? 'L P, r + p r - - m.

• 2 c

i ' I I I Y I . c. M --, --h-2M N_'_ [ r-- - A -- d " ' i } j l l J l l 1 j V-y, j I N t .. l 1 l 1 i i P i l l. .l- ' I \\l l 1 l i i s ".~- s C- .3 .) ll' I i I N: l l l l I .2 l l l l { l 2 1 i l l l I d 1 l .14 l 2 J { f l i i i it i l l l 5 g .Ci d -JI I ~. I i l i 1 I I I l l i i i I l l I 1 l t ,g l . l l l.!. l., ,I l l,I l ~, ,i .02 .C) .N .05 .0ts .06 .I .15 .2 .3 4 5 .6 .8 1.0 1.5 23 Penoc, Sec. Q(bJ\\E iWl#M 277 D%D I 's> J\\ h BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q123.6-92 C0F. PARIS 0:: OF C/B A:;D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO:i: SSE, HORIZONTAL, Et,' LOCATIO1: AUXILI ARY CUILDI"G, TURSI:;E BUILDING, HEATER BAY El EVAT! P:1 : 451'-0"

A!'END'CNT 24 ,,,,y, ces FEUI:Ul 'i 1 97.0 SC 31 20 10 5.0 33 10 1.C ac i i1 i 3.. l r l l 4 ne I;RC RG 1.60 (0.2g ZPA) 1 .1 lo c By./Br. Design Basis jit l l 27 Dampinc u l I t i e 1 (c e '. l [ j I l l ll l l l l l ! l l l I 1 el i A g jy l ll l l l ti 5 i, m i i t I i i 2 C _F ,,,'G 1s,N 1 I l/ l l \\ C I 'b l l,- 3 l i. 1 1.s '_ 3,- j<.h l ul i s ~ i l '2:m I sc, i m, a-i i

f7

^ ~1 ', L y i ,// i i i _i_ _g j t i i i . c/ 1 i i! l I %d I I l i 4 t; -m,. / i l l I l l l IDq' _ I ' 7 i ! l i l .s _..s i W l w I l l, l l t f ! l W..wl%--l i -l,- .4 5 - 14 i I 3 l ', b... l a .) .7,\\ s .) ~ l N*q.c,, .2 l l 'Q .n ~ -1 2 30 i i a y t I ( f -i i i i i a I i l l l l i -i, .l.,,, .I I k 1 i 1 ,cs . C.' .C) .01 .C5 .06 .06 .1 .15 .? .3 4 .5 .6 .8 1.0 L5 2.0 Periac, Se:. b hiYib.%}073 .o,1 R [ jVnig} 'i ff& 9W l i! Ifn BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-93 COMPARISON OF C/B AND RG 1.60 SPECT'.i EXCITATION: SSE, VERTICAL, WALL LOCATION: AUXILI ARY BUILDING UALL ELEVATION: 467'-0"; 473'-0"; 477'-0"; 485'-0"

A,..,. r..,.,,, .s.m.._ on...m, ces FELRu,. lii0 sc n-r ic 5e n ze ie .s ECi ,3 i a i e i i L l l l l! j l I L NRC RG 1.60 (0.2g ZPA) nt h l l D'./Br. Design Lasis---- / l i i I in t - 2L Damping r~ -+ t s r "r i 4 i i i i i i i I j i i L i i u t I i ,- -.-- w,. / ,--(. + 2-- - -- u e,_ j/. yx ,2 __L-% - l ' i l i i t t __4_._ i. t..\\.' i I // \\ l l l 1 i i r l l 1 f, ut_ _l _ _ L.,//_4-_: X_; \\ -l _.. i c. l i _a -. - 1 = y. I i i { j 3 l ./ i ! ! l! l i 4 i i a N , /- i i i// lll l l i\\' : l l l,, 5 [ i.s 1 . - - + - - - s ~1 l l \\ s l f_ l I - 1, \\' I j j i i 1 l' \\\\ : l l - l :c/ - l up - ~ [ JS' --4 z .s.- c __ A g . ; y. -- --. hi' 1 t 1 I i c .t l I l I i i l ( *, i 3 -- nl l!

s.. s I

t l l l D m.'- '. a' .i l I I l i I \\x 5 .s. i i r x 1 i i l i s l l l I' N-I I I .2 s-2 I-l +: l l l l i 1 \\' s i

)

\\: I i .3 'a l l I i l l s g j J .13 e I.,0 i, i i i i t L_ ,3._ i i 1 f f._! I i 4

,j i i i

I i i,, .k i i l i i I n l l l l. l .l l ..' l ,I 3 s ,.1 .C .D3 .N .D . ['O .Ch .I 35 .2 .3 4 .5 . f. .8 ,h s

2. 0 e,r,x. s

)IU % 'fi.l[ji[d \\ adu r gj;)H rhr s u d h'-' b[ i { l I o-a m BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGL.a Q130.6-94 COMPARISO:' 0F B/B A!'D RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, VERTICAL, SLA3 LOCATION: AUXILIARY CUILDINS SLAD ELEVATION: 4b7'-0"; 477'-0"

/E"i" ';T 24 r w em.crs FESRU'RY 190 50 33 -T 10 5.0 33 2.C 10 .5 EC 3 - i g g -l g j j'g g i . X; a { l e a 35.e '- I!RC RG 1.60.(0.2g CPA) ~2", i i l By./Br. Design Brsis__.--_. 190 7-l 2t Dc:nping _ 1; - L~ j i i i ~! .g a l l i l t S l l l ! l 1 I I

f. C

+--* 1_] b $,c _ !!Ii-1's F l l ! _I _ -~I l I i 40 g 7 ,l b l i l i p I i i I, J <- 3.0 e l h- - h w\\ I l j g h l l /e i\\'\\ ! I d'., / , i l' l l "e i // xi i q /n. l l r, 1 i N ".s 1.0 't' -h 1 j ^ '-~ f ' {

N___,

3 .-2 pQ g I -I i 1 1 l t + b 7 j I l i i, i n N(---+; I i c-i 1 i i c. .t I 3 .t L l i I i l ! I J i i '%. 2-- -. 5 y" j _? mnN E I I !l l l l i I lI! N , E s x i l l l l l l ll, l l _1_s, t .3 1 -\\' 2 l h 3 l l i i l l l I d .n e - f l 1 ~ I d. .io i i ii I I I .cs -' or 1 I i l l l l l l i 1 1 6 l i 1 l I i i i 1 .oo ,a l I l. l,, ,l ,,,l I ! ! I.I I .c. .C2 .C3 .c4 .05 .00 .06 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 LO

1. 5 2C PeriOC. $tc.

_~ u d U m, ; ) 0 2 ?80 l d: i BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIEURE Qi3].o-9b COMPARISO:: OF D/B A:'D. RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATIO:': SSE, HORIZO::TAL, I;S LOCATIO1: AUXILIARY BUILDI!;G ELEVATION: 477'-0"

A" ';C"J;T 24 nr,s.cr. ces F M'a'h~ l 9 ' '] sc 33 20 10 50 u 2.c to .5 20 t L i 't r i

n. t i

i 3 I l 4 BC i . liv L 1 '!RC RG 1.60 (0.2c I l ' "PA) l J lac 'r Ey./Br. Design Dasis---- i.;c L i Ti i i i i + ac 2e Dr. ping n t . i i t I i I i I LC LC I l l i j lI l l l l i I {d t 5.C t l I l l l l l l l lI I 1" l 3 ""k 3o l l l l l l t i l l! l 4 F o x r._ 3:

g : /---(

S jn 9 'd#

2. t.

EN l i! l E l' j 'i /j i C l l !/t \\j\\ l l l li l 1,, u. I i- !, " \\! l l I l \\. .i b._._J _ l l .J 1.t L /:' ,1 ; x i 6 ' i. : s L i <\\ ~ .E g .l.

/,

iii is r S __ _ _ _/ iI !_ l I l l ! \\j ! I i i j,, i i i l i l I iW ' ? ^ i c i.' ! l l l l l i l! s l-i sl N a N.- -, a. -m ! 1 } j l l l N2 ~ ! l l' - N 's i \\ l ~ l \\1 { -i 2 i I i I j .. 2 i I l i, I I d

I 4

.D_ ,. ;5 ~J a r

.1:

+ i i i i i i ,a l 1 i l I l l ii i 1 l I i i t i l. .i..,.I l,i l !I-4 .co p l -j ,g .C2 .0) .M .C5 .00 .0Fi .1 . I'. 2 1 4 .5 .6 .8 1.0

1. 5 2.0 rerg Sec f?

2 28l [Il']p b r O _a n DYRON/BR AIDWOOD ST TIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-96 COMPARIS0:10F B/B A"D RG 1.60 SPECTRA-E XCITATIO:1: SSE, il0RIZO:'TAL, EW LOCATIO:!: AUXILIARY BUILDII;G E LEVATIO:1: 477'-0"

r... i.. m. m...,- o-s c*, F-.....,.i.'i ne; m r.ces ,,< r u ~ .xJ 50 33 F) It, 5.0 33 2.C La .S 7;t i. ' a i I

• 4 6 1

?.' l I I l l t i t l i l I l ] I 1;. i i s is c ,n l I 3 c l l l l l 1 I I;RC RG 1.60 (0.20 :' Ph. ) -i l I ~ r 12; L By./Br. Design 'Ba sis----- f te 2i Damping 1, u r L ly V L: h-i I i l r

c l

i ' f i i 1 l l -t i r l i e -4 l l [" l 1 3.L 6 i 6 l l f l I 4 I f I I. I y zc I-l l l i A. C t L5. .=*.* * = = t l , /< N

- ~

s { l !/a/ j \\[N ~....a: I ),a ... : :x..%.... 1 . - - + -. g h ,5 ./ N \\ / ,b ~7 h / 's, M n s / 'g c / l- / N ~ 'O :' 5 i s.:. 4 0+ .5 .4 - s%' 'x i l/ i /f r i ~ \\., .3 1-e g. 1 I g i i i \\', l - i l l b g l 1 .2 .2 I .is l l m 1 ~ i i i i I l l l i j l e j i r I a i I f I l 1 4 i j.1*; .10 .02 t i i.CJ 1 Q t 1 i l i .06 ' i 1 I d i,% !,t ,l.' hI I ~!.C' f,i l s .C* .C3 .04 .05 .C5 .08 .I .15 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 2.0 3cf'? 282 sm e9op ..., p e,q q s i' L i .m y i. :t () m

O Q

6t\\'

il BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-97 C0" PARIS 0? 0F C/D A!;D RG 1.60 SPECTR; E XCITATIC:!: SSE, HORIZO*'TAL, :i5 A ;D EU LOC ATI O:'- CD:iTAli':E!!T CUILDI:lG ELEVAT10il: 424'-0", 436'-0"

e A?'.E' CM[IlI 22 FECRUARY l239 f ret nncy. cps 56 33 2D te 10 3.3 2.0 LC 5 no T. i i i i e n* .4 i4 a. .4 ia I. lii. i i i I. J I I I I I I a 15 0 _sc .) SRC RG 1.60 (0.2g ZPA) -l By./Br. Design Basis ----- 2 12 M0 r i h i t i 10 2t Damping ).( l I i LC i i i l Iii i I i I I i : I i 5.C F 1 i I i I!l! I I l!ltI i u e t t l l j ij,, i j i i I ill i I;! I i i 3.0 g i i i l l l i i 2C l l l ll l !.5 E l l I i t' .._m;.: mm .c i i i ll y i ~ j l El l l :* m, j l ll 3 tc, _.e ..7 ~ ~ ~.. F i c% e a p I i i -a ] i s-i i ! ! i

i r

t-i .s 5 1 J- ! -i i l l l i lq l 4 ........W !. I l l c t l i .\\x xt I l ,I i .3 s l l l lN l l ' N./ l I l Ny, .2 E I j l! l l l l iij ,h \\;m m 1 i i l! l l i i a ij I l i i ,x x .os i.c; l l l 1 i l I l i q l l l

d..ce.

l l l l l l ! t i t .ce ....',. a i .i..,.: . I,1.1.1.1.1 I . 1.c, .C2 .C3 .C4 .C) .05 .cd .I .15 .2 .) .4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 2.0 Periat. $s; $,606 W( hh)usM['glY(Il I S\\\\ BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS 1 n 1 ') }}} Io <L FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Ql30.5-98 COMPARISO:10F B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA-E XCITATIO:1: SSE, VERTICAL, WALL LOCATIO:i: C0'iTAlfillENT B'lILDING UALL ELEVATI0i: 424'-0": 436'-0"

AMEIiD'*ENI 2 rrec.ency. crs FEDP.UARY l9B0 5C' 33 20 10 5.c 3.3

2. 0 L:

.5 2C.C.- .s 2;. E i } I 1 i i i i q i C I l ] i 15.0 -u(

RC RG 1.60 (0.2g ZPJJ l j i j

i i 1 i l l l By./Er. De si gn Basi c ------ ], r". I 21 Damping LC [, _. L; L LC' L L l i ! { 5.C ' it

c. h l

i i "l : i i l r- ,3; g .1 L i i i .j 2. I ~\\ 1: \\ / \\ .l 3 ,/ \\ M t5 " N ~- . / \\ -f l l/ / N ] i

/

l 1 ; / N J LC' .- 4\\ ~ 1, f' s_ \\L ' / r / \\i f / I ~ Q b / \\\\ / j ~ D ( / "s / 5 4 0 / / \\ / \\ u 1 'l

• /

1 x _ _ _7, : \\..< e.- l 1 ~J i N - .3 i t '.x 3 3 i t J i l l l .2 '.2 0 C 3 .15 :- 4' -, 15 i W I i l l l I I t s s l l t i ~l l ' i 7 .10.- < y~ .cc '" " es i i i > - I i d. .C$ ,0 l. l...' i .l ,4, g3 1 i ii i ,g3 i< .r 4 i .C .03 .04 .05 .C5 .03 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 10 L5 2.0 PerW, Se:. 7 . ( '^ ]- [f6M g' - ](70 g[l g q '....a, " u jUc., a l-d 7 BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT 18422Bi-FIGURE Ql:0.6-99 COMPARISL:4 0F C/B AND RG 1.f,0 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, HORIZONTAL. NS AND EU LOCATION: CONTAINf'EUT BUILDING ELEVATION: 496'-0"

h iD lh, h$ {gg <-j b _ ; 'M.' t. h, C, M ' C '

• L ' ' ' A o

i, r,,,,r...-,.- 7, qic/ Olh b u! neuem, cM FECRUAi.y 1900 50 33 m 5.c 13 u u .s t c~ g i ! i i I 3 4 lu [ l NRC RC 1.60 (0.2g ZPA) [m L l l I ' i - l By./Br. Design Basis----- I r l 3" + - 21 Dar.ninc L,. r-p _u L L C, t t. f j i ' i i i u; e p l l -i /.o n U l { 3 n" 'u r C 1 L- ~ ~ ~\\ j '\\ -j 2.: ' u t i / N' a / t 1.5 L l \\ h / \\ { ] / 1 i }0' / / ^ \\ ,f, / y e- { h. 7,21 \\ i - / L s ,\\' 't s7 e- <h u/ .,9 \\ E J .s ?i t__ 'N._ .i - .c a C N u s \\ .1 1 s s j 3, a i 2 n .15 ~ f t i f l u I i ! i .10 i ..a. .u i 1 "a e-i i, 1 I } w De .a l I I I i -"..c 3 .cs r .02 .c3 .C4 .05 .c5 .0d .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .6 10 L5 2.0 Perio!. Se:. BYRON / BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT } b FIGURE Ql33.6-100 COiPARISON OF B/B AND RG 1.60 SPECTRA EXCITATION: SSE, VERTICAL, WALL LOCATION: CONTAIN!:ENT BUILDING '.lALL ELEVATION: 496'-0"

) l'j q pe:g;g'.g;7 24 i o _,. ~. c.,, rb K* f b# If eiJ*.I.Cy, CIS sc 33 2; ic 5.: u tc te .s nc, { e i 1 lit t_ i IRC RG 1.60 (0.2g ZPA) E j i 3 j e Ey./Br. D e s i g n B a s i s.- - - - -. ' l j ; r i 1 2 p 2i Damping I ,f.- L c, 6 ^ ,~ L

t. '

h ' ! l 5.C ,, N l I 7-- ~ ~ m l / 'N J Z l i C /___ \\ 3.c. \\ y .g i I h l \\ t j 2. F fe \\ 2.c \\ r i i t i l i \\ L I i/ \\ L3 i / l \\ t i f. F /i i \\

/

i i Lt -\\ r 4.:--..:.;_..gMiw ~ t~ J ,p-- J 4 .. + _ 7 b / -~ \\ O k l 1 \\ -4 h i 2; 'F i \\ [ ~ 3 x. E %,. ~ x _.4 a 4.-- t .N i } I \\- b.J s .3 .i f I j l t i l i \\. 1 1 i 1 j i 9 1 .2 2 C l l l l 4 I ', I i i .15.- i i - j l 1 i 3 1 t I J i 1 .10 i .,'.10 .ce I ".; ~ l i, I i I i w 06 .00 l l. .I,!, i I i .c2 .c3 .c4 .c5 .c5 .a .i .ts .2 .3 4 .5 .e. 1.c u a perie sec. BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.6-101 184 226 z C0"PARISO:: OF B/B /J D RG 1.60 SPECTRA' E XCI TATIO.1: SSE, HORIZO::TAL, f;S LOCATIO::: C0:TAlf;t!Er!T ItCER STRUCTURES ELEVATI0:1: 426'-0"

\\ b. A!'.EI; C"E'; 1 '. ir.s..,. ces b V Mu @ b U M o d..rd FELRU;Ai 1 E4JJ \\ z n a n se u c t: n;, y

7. :

I I i t i. 6 r t j r tu !!RC P.G 1.60 (0.2g ZP.;) ~ i I, l 13y./Br. Design Basis----- t i m:p i i 2S D a m -) i n e.. 1 Et y-1 i L:e ~ l k ! } 5 f-1 i [ [ i t,t. u-4 ( ['- ~ ~~ \\ i L 'f g 3.0 i / \\ l ] p t l !/

\\

2..

i., \\ . // \\ ~ i i l 'P \\ l l ~ L5 - x b l\\ 'l C \\. L i L I i j. j i i }.( [ + -- .,.....~._. s f r r f,. l-_<-[M \\ h c .p r i N L. 3 ~ L ' N.,. + 6 't- 'Q s. - -I

i i

.i i N '.., 1: i < N t-I' r-i i s- .) i l ,a ~ l i i i l l \\ l .) i I i .? i -.? e l l i i I I --'.15 C 4 i i .15. -- l l I e i l i q i .1C -.D ~ .0f .= l 6 I 4 i i ! . ; t .05 .l l I.i l! 1 1 i '.C} .C2 .0) .04 .05 .03 .CJ .I .15 .2 .3 4 5 .6 .8 1.0 1.5 2.0 Feria *. Se; BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGUF.E Q130.6-102 CO:tPARISO:t 0F S/B A!:D RG 1.60 SPEC".A EXCITATIO::: SSE, HORIZO: TAL, Ek.' LOC ATIO'!: CO:lTAI:::1E!;T If;:lER STRUCTLT.E ELEVAil0:1-426'-0"

-' bdl a 1 ') f rapen:3. Cf'.s M 33 E 10 5.0 33 10 LC 9 CL i i C l l I I I ft I ~ w i e 15.0 <- l ~ I l l l URC RG 1.60 (0.2g 2 PIs) ^ 1: - B3./Br. Des icin Eas is ---- - Lt 2; Damping i: k l 1 j i LO e: l i LI L 1 ; l i ! l j j i i i g C 1 j i l i. i 1 f i 3.0 I i i t L I l } I I i ' I I t r t i i i e i 10 E i

i ll' i

h i I i L5. i ! l; i i i I I l l l l t l 1.C e m .,.,.:7:,7 3 .t ...~.. y _ _a... w 2 y < j d ( i / ?- lo ,r ,. w. >. .5 .5 a ~ [! I T..g - e x .a.

7. =

r t ,3.s.o u a. 3 \\ 2 ?' l I' i \\ .i g E l l l \\S t t u .D~ I. I l I I i i I 1 I i j i 1 i 1 .30, .08 ~.N i, i i l l 1 L 1 .f4 .l.! t g .C2 .C3 .04 .05 .0c .04 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 5 .6 .8 10 L5 L0 Perit Sec. BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATION S FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIN:c 3110. 6-10 C0i1 PARIS 0" 0F C/B A';D RG 1.63 SPECT.A LXCITATIO::: S SE, ','E P.T I C AL, '..'A'. L LOCATIO:: CO:! TAI:WEi:T ll!!;ER. STRUCTURAL WALL ELEVATION: 412'-0"; 426'-0"

n 7. -,. n.. -. : - of to1 .tU'i_. 8 u'- FEDCL'< -a 195 f rr;uen:). Cb 50 13 M 10 10 13 10 10 5 MCL' '3 3 'i ' t . 8 ' l ' lIC } l l ' li ll l I 'l 'l b l 15.c ) It' l I = I ??nC RG 1.60 (0.2g " F 7. ) .d l l J. i Es./Br. Design Basis----- r '. no g b ge_ 2L Damping i i l l l J 1 O F l l I l l'I l l I ^5 6 51 l I I l + b f l l 1 Ut g '. l / :! ! i\\ l l l l r. i i j i h i p / \\ 6 i / I I l 1, l / j l. > \\ \\,' , i l + l j i l ! l l 7 t. j 'kr l i ^ i i p j s i 7.C C i I: l !/ j j i\\l l' l t l ~ t i p I /! Ks l I I I -1, ,) , i l,' i 15i v' t' II .i } N. l I [/ l j l i, J I l ...w. w l 'I wr l 39 - _1 .s___. [.. . _. / -( . i.- Y T i { .us .t l F 4.._ ~ t y w i i i i i I .e. 4 l } l l 2 I I 'n

b. s i

t i i s. 3 L i 4 i I l i N,., i i i i

a Ns l

l 1 1 l . l i I i

• p l

l I ~, i ? I i i iC I I t- '.( 15 I i j i i a .D l l i I 2 j { ^ 4 i i i I l l i ~ i j j d 10 32 -1 M i i i i s.w i i i 1 1 1 I i l l l I i 1 .o; a .C. h... .l l .I.f<l ,!.!.I.!.! I d,c5 .c .o .c.: .cs .cs .o: .i .n .2 .3 4 .s .s. u u a ForW. Se:. jg4} } Q BYRON /BR AIDWOOD ST ATIONS FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGU1E Q139.6-104 COMPARISON OF B/B A!;D RG 1.60 SPECTRA. s y m { o7., 7'3, h;f ;9 E ~, 'l ~ EXCITATION: SSE, VERTICAL, SLAD l: ': \\. LOCATION: CONI. I!C!ER STRUCTURAL SLAB ELEVATION: 390'-0"; 401'-0"; 412'-0"; 426'-0"

QUESTION 130.09 The river screen house at the Byron Station is founded on soil. Soil-structure interaction analysis was performed using the finite element method. It is the staff's position that the methods for implementing the soil-structure interaction analysis should include both the half-space lumped spring and mass representation and the finite element approaches. Category I structures, systems, and components should be designed to responses obtained by any one of the following methods: a) Envelope of results of the two methods. b) Results of one method with conservative design consideration of impact from the use of the other method. c) Combination of (a) and (b) with provision of adequate conser-vatism in design. Therefore, we request that you compare the responses obtained by the half-space (lumped parameter) approach to those obtained by the finite element approach at a few typical locations. Floor response spectra should be provided at least at the basemat, an intermediate elevation, and an upper elevation. For the lumped parameter representation, the variation of soil properties should be considered.

RESPONSE

The soil-structure interaction responses are generated using the half- ' space lumped para-;cer approach. A soil shear modulus corresponding to a low value (10-4 ) of strain is used in the analysis. The lower and upper bounds of the soil properties are considered (see Figure 2.5-89 of the FSAR). The soil properties under the river screen house vary with depth. The average soil properties shown in Table 130.09-1 were used in the elastic half-space soil spring analysis. The trans-lational, rocking and vertical soil-spring constants are computed based on these soil properties and formulas provided in Reference 1. The numerical values of soil spring constants are shown in Table 130.09-2. l842 290 1

The horizontal floor response spectra at the basemat (el. 664 '), an intermediate elevation (el. 702 '), and the roof (el. 744') are presented in Figures 130.09-1 through 130.09-6 for the OBE and in Figures 130.09-7 through 130.09-12 for the SSE. The response spectra are generated for 1% damping for OBE and 2% damping for SSE. The dot-dash line represents the design basis, using the finite element method (FEM). The solid line and dash line are those obtained by the half-space solution using the lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the soil properties. Table 130.09-3 lists the comparison of the selected shear wall forces obtained using the soil sprir.g soil-structure interaction (SSI) response spectra and the f' nite element SSI response spectra. Figures 130.09-13 and 130.09-14 provide the locations of the shear walls. The shear walls were evaluated to these higher forces and the stresses were found to be within the allowable. The vertical soil-structure interaction analysis using the half-space approach has also been performed. The vertical floor response spectra at the basemat (el. 664 '), and intermediate elevation (el. 702'), and the roof (el. 744 ') are presented in Figures 130.09-15 through 130.09-17 for the OBE and in Figures 130.09-18 through 130.09-20 for the dSE. The response spectra are generated for 1% damping for OBE and 2% damping for SSE. The dot-dash line represents the design basis, using the finite element method (FEM). The solid line and dash line are those obtained by the half-space solution using the lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the soil properties. 1842 29.l 2 l

The higher responses, when the soil spring method is used, can be attributed directly to the conservative assumptions which are made in the analysis as compared to those used in the finite element method: (i) the river screen house is a deeply embedded structure, yet the soil spring method used required that the embedment be neglected; (ii) the soil properties vary with depth, as shown in Figure 2.5-89 of the FSAR; an average soil layer property was used in the soil spring method; (iii) the soil shear modulus corresponding to low shear strain and no material damping were used in the soil spring method, while more realistic strain-dependent shear modulus and damping values were used in the finite element method; (iv) in the present B/B seismic design criteria, RG 1.60 spectra are obtained at the surface and deconvolution analysis is used to obtain foundation elevation motions in the free field. These free field motions were used in the finite element SSI analysis; in the present soil spring analysis the RG 1.60 spectra are applied at the foundation elevation. In view of these assumptions, we feel that the soil spring SSI results are overly conservative. Accordingly, mechanical and elec-trical components and equipment will not be qualified to meet these overly conservative floor response spectra. REFERENCE 1. " Analysis for Soil-Structure Interaction Effects for Nuclear Powe r Plants," Repor t by the Ad-Hoc Group on SSI of the Structural Division of ASCE, November 1978. I842'292 3

TABLE 130.09-1 AVERAGE SOIL PROPERTIES AT TIIE RIVER SCREEN IIOUSE SITE Shear Modulus Poisson's Weight Density 3 (K/FT ) Ratio (KIP /FT ) Lower Bound 3324 0.42 0.123 Upper Bound 4627 0.42 0.123 a e O 4 i M Nw LN 4 e O

Table 130.09-2 Spring and Dashpot Constants Numerical Values Parameter

• Units (Upper Bound)

(Lower Bound) Translational Stiffness, K lb/in 10.994x10 7.898x10 x Translational Stiffness, K lb/in 10.994x10 7.898x10 1 Rocking StifEness, K lb-in/ rad 8.106x10 5.823x10 1 1 Rocking Stiffness, K lb-in/ rad 3.127x10 2.246x10 6 6 Translational Damping, C lb-sec/in 3.259x10 2.763x10 x 6 6 Translational Damping, C lb-sec/in 3.259x10 2.763x10 m Y 1 12 s'ocking Damping, C lb-in-sec/ rad 1.459x10 1.236x10 11 11 Rocking Damping, C lb-in-sec/ rad 3.935x10 3.335x10 7 Vertical Stiffness, K lb/in 14.350x10 10.310x10 g 6 6 Vertical Damping, C lb-sec/in 6.278x10 4.510x10 3

• The foundation shape and coordinate axes considered in the analysis are shown below:

X(N-S) L I b N f u Y( E-W) N <+ 14 0' ~

Table 130.09-3 Comparison of Shear Wall Forces From Finite Element and Soil Spring Approaches OBE SSE Shear Wall Spring No. FEM

• SSM**

FEM SSM (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) X-10ll 154 271 287 497 X-1012 198 356 391 670 X-1013 33 61 73 120 X-1014 33 61 73 120 X-1015 88 163 198 325 X-1016 28 53 65 106 X-1017 28 53 65 106 X-1018 46 86 108 175 Y-1021 9 16 22 35 Y-1022 9 16 22 35 Y-1023 102 185 250 403 Y-1024 62 114 155 247 Y-1025 63 115 155 250 Y-1026 168 311 424 670 Y-1027 170 314 424 680

• Finite element method
  • Soil spring method 1842 295 6

AMENC"ENT Ed Freency ces FEBRUARY 1950 50 33 20 10 5.0 3.3 10 LO .5 r' 2c,0 tg _i i ii>> i i i i ir i iiii iiii i i i i i I i 15.0 Finite Element :lethod - Soil Spring I".ethod - 1" t0 [ (Lower Bound Soil Property) - u 4 60

---

Soil Spring I:sthod

~ u ~ (Upper Bound Soil Property) u u Damping ly, 10 ~ ~ 3.0 2.0 2.0 L5 ~ ~ L5 u _ a 1 I I i i 9 _ _ _ _ _1 i - 8; 8_ i / k I i k _,3 j --- y q,j i '3 i ,.. _ _ _,/, / \\i i N .. g s x u%, I J \\ ~/ / \\ i ,f f> s M ~ r !7 .j 1 c. .2 .z f' / c,\\:

5

.n y \\ .10 f _.:0 _ e,

---_/

t l f l l l .06 .06 l I, .I.1 ,I l. ,1 .cs .02 .33 .34 .05 .06 .C8 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 2.0 Perk,d. Ser_ 1842 296 BYRON STATION FIN AL S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q13C.9-1 RIVER SCREE." HOUSE HCRIZC"TAL E'n' OBE SPECTRA AT EL. 664'-0"

AME"D"E:iT 2 FEBP,UARY 1950 Frequency. CP5 50 33 20 10 10 13 10 LO .5 'O _' 'i ' 'i' a ' i ' 21 0 15.0 110 11 0 11 0 Y L0 LG (-- 3 ~ gg L3 f u 40 40 10 ~ I 10 10 0 L5 / / Y / / ' i II ~ Lo j, j g, q - te '8 t I / / N 'N ~ i l l l 1 / 1) iI I7 ~.a. 5 i l M / l ll ( ~ ~3 5 1 / / \\ \\ ~ i 5 'l I l,! \\ ~ e .4 .4 i / \\%N i .3 p.. i b 1 l 2 ~ '/ .2 - - - Finite Element Method Q .2 .i5 Soil Spring IIethod .t5 { (Lower Dound Soil Property) i b 10

---

Soil Spring Method (Upper Bound Soil Property)

~ .ca t i i I Damping l/#a .o. l, l l.1, .t. I ,,,r,,,.i i.I f,f l.1 ~ 1. e5 ,2 .c3 .04 .05 .06 .08 4 .15 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 1 184}297 ~,.5. BYRON STATION I FIN L S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT l FIGURE Q130.9-2 i, i RIVEP, SCREE.'i HOUSE HORIZC::T.at EN j OBE SPECTRA AT EL. 702'-0" i

A!"EtiE!T;T 20 ,k FEBRUAR't 1??3 Frequency, CP5 50 )) 20 10 10 13 10 LO .5 a mo MO

• 6 i

< i i ii i = Finite Element IIethod lu Soil Spring IIethod (Louer Bound. Soil Property) tag 13, _ to Soil Spring Itethod 10 (Upper Bound Soil Property) 40 60 ~ Damping lik u 10 40 40 10 ~ ~ 3.0 10 ?.0 ~ L5 ~ ~ L5 ~ 2 LO 1 1 / LO l l l l / L. f l l l h- / 't i = ~ 6, s. f E _3 3 ,.53 .4 -j 3 s .44 E / /p l _ _ (.y n 15 15 ~ ~~ ~_.---.p._. ~.___pM. i .10 .10 m 2 i i .06 .o6 ~ t r t ' t i* . i .r . 'i p .32 .33 .04 .05 .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 2.0 l842 298 ,e,- 5m BYRON STATION FIN AL S AFETY A.'" A L Y S I S REPCPT FIGURE Q130.9-3 RIVER SCREE:: HOUSE HORIE0' TAL E',1 OCE SPECTRA AT EL. 744'-0" e

AME.1C"ENT 24 FEBRUARY IH3 Frequem, CPS 50 33 20 10 5.0 13 10 LO .5 no r.- i ,,,,,ii, _ mo 8 ' Finite Element I ethod 110 ~ .. Soil Spring Ilethod tu (Lower Bound Soil Property)_; d LO u Soil Spring Ilethod 60 (Upper Bound Soil Property) - to 10 5.3 Damping 1% 40 40 ~ 10 ~ 10 m ~ 10 10 L5 L5 De a _ a i i E I f~T1 ~,( ~ i 6 i p---q m m / j l -., ( - ~! ,~ y/y .\\ x a m ( // / \\ ( ,y ( .c .2 \\.,' .2 i / 2 / l ~ r.,,

_ _ J_ _.

e, / 1 .10 .10 i,. J l _N _,.. _. _. 6 l l i i .06 .06 ~ i l, r r *

• i i

.i,, ,y, ,3 .02 .O .04 .05 .06 .08 .I .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 to Perud, Sec. 1842 299 BYRON STATION FIN AL SAFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURL' Ql30.9-4 RIVER SCREEN HOUSE HORIZC"TAL "S 03E SPECTRA AT EL. 660'-0" mm

AMEND:'EMT N FEBRUARY 19EO 50 33 20 10 to 15 10 LO .5 M0 '6' ii<> + i l' - M0 iso 15.0 11 0 11 0 LG LO u 60 5.o to _ _1 l u_ u f 2 I 4 to to 2.0 6 10 e / 4 \\ L5 L5 ,I ly \\ o o i e f i T '3 ? si / \\ /i i i ___d I/ 'V \\ L ~,y i / / \\ -,a ,/. ) \\s _,j I s" t ., x \\ }(- -- s. '3 2 m c/ ~~ \\s ~ "l I .15 .ts Finite Element Method 4 Soil Spring Method .io (Lower Bound Soil Property) .1o Soil Spring Method i (Upper Bound Soil Property) i { Damping I% l l .06 .06 i. a,.,i i. o i. i, ..i.,,,i,,., I i, .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .2 .1 .15 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .8 LO L5 2.o Perxx1, Sec. 1842 500 BYRON STATION FIN AL SAFETY AN ALY SIS REPCRT FIGURE Q130.9-5 RIVER SCREEN HOUSE HORIZONTAL NS OBE SPECTRA AT EL. 702'-0"

AME.'lC.E!;T 2

• FEBRUARY 1950 Frequang, CPS

~ ~ ~~ 50 )) 20 10 10 13 to LO .5 i ii i ii, i i i e i i, i i i1 1 i i i i s i.. 4 i i i i i i _ m0 3_ m I w ~ 15 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' 11 0 i 1 14 0 _ 11 0 LO - I k 10 j l \\ - to 40 l \\ ,. 0 I \\l \\ f 7, \\ _ (0 40 I i ~ 3.0 10 - 1 ) j '\\, l i 2.0 to : / \\ f L5 g,5 : /, \\\\ / j \\ LO t ,d 1l \\ LO i / '1 i) s l l \\ / I (1 (sg-h(-\\ 6 3.- .6 i. 8- \\ .s ? ^ .5 \\ b ~ p' = L .44 A 4 \\% ( 3 l 1 -.-,x ,3 I Finite Element !!ethod s' .2 s .2 : ~h. Soil Spring !!ethod Y: . tS ~ (Lower Bound Soil Property) i 1 Soil Spring !!ethod (Upper Bound Soil Property) _.10 .10 : h Damping I7 j _m ~ .08 .06 - .06 ~ f i- *i t ' i ! l e

• I

'iiit , ie i i.e i e i r .i ii' t i ii 3 y .2 .1 .15 .2 .) 4 .5 .6 .8 LO 10 1 } .02 .0) .04 .05 a Period. Ser_ l BYRON STATION FIN AL S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.9-6 RIVER SCREE!; HOUSE HORIZC';TAL i;5 OBE SPECTRA AT EL. 744'-0"

%. ces AMENDMENT 24 j FEBRUARY 1980 so n ao a to 13 to a .5 , mo i-iis ' 1 i i>>>1iis i i i >iiiiiit iie iii.i i i- _ no Finite Element l'ethod tio iso Soil Spring !!ethod (Lower Bound Soil Property) 12 0 to tt Soil Spring I'ethod to -- b - -__i I (Upper Bound Soil Property) ia l' Damping 2% 7 to _ (o ~ I ~ 13 lo ~ 10 ~ L3

.5 L5

--- k l i d-- LO i i i i , \\\\ t i l i t % i

• 1 4

i 4 j { t F I I _,FIX \\i i i i ~ / l l Q \\l i ^ ~6 { ,r-' T [/I I I I / l'\\LJ l \\l ~' [; ~3 j ji f/ H I/ lN l 'N gy i-- N- .3 .) ./ j ..!,,.s* d .2 ~ .15 .15 .10 _, ;g ,g ~ l l l t 1 I l i i { l 1 II i .06 .06 ~ r *

• r-i i

e 'r 't r* ' r *' r i 'i i i e r ii 3 3 .02 .O .04 .05 .06 .08 .1 .15 .2 .3 .4 5 .6 .8 ,LO L5 10 ru% sx. 1842 302 BYRON STATION FIN AL S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.9-7 RIVER SCREE!1 HOUSE HORIZC: ITAL EW SSE SPECTRA AT EL. 664'-0" 9

~ ) %. ces AMENDMENT 24 FEBRUARY 1980 W D M M in 13 to Lo .5 I Mo..' '6 ' ' Ao 2 11 0, 3 110 me - 28 EO - t s a 6 l l l 1 l l k } d to 68 / A 18 to / \\ Ao to lo ~ 10 T k, . L3 / to E f 3 i\\ 5 L5 L3 : ./ \\ N.' ( u.Tl t a, t to i i fi ( g i, 6 1 i i 6 I i I i i r is.\\i 4 i 'g j { i i l i / I i i l-i "i\\ K : i l l l./ l l \\l_ '\\ l 4 i' ,1 Ii L.-.4 ! (! l .l l l '\\h b 4 .4 . -. ml.I:- l s.44 l f l l [%,\\: \\ -e l .3 .3 -Finite I: lenient IIethod J .2 Soil Spring Method .2 } (Lower Bound Soil Property) ~ .15 .15 [

---

Soil Spring !*ethod

[ (Upper Bound Soil Property) .la ,.;3 ,2 I Danping 2 % i l .co er, ~ ~ iii. .r

• .ie

.,,,.i,, i ..i e. '3 h8 f } ;}s .cz .c3 .o4 .os .co .os .15 .2 .3 .4 .5 t s. to enat sec. m BYRON STATION FIN AL SAFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.9-8 RIVER SCREEN HOUSE HORIZCTAL EW SSE SPECTRA AT EL. 702'-0"

%. cn AMEN 0 MENT 24 FEBRUARY 1980 So is a to 5.o u to to .5 i gi. g. >>g >>>g a gijiga g j>g [ - mo an,,: I" Lie,~

---

Finite I:lement f*ethod

] Soil Spring liethod tu (Lower Bound Soil Property) 3" - i 10 - to ~

---

Soil Spring IIethod

~ (Upper Bound Soil Property) 68 u Lo Damping f $ u 8 ~ ~ 10 lo ~ 20 10 / T T: g u f i LS l ( (( i Vr., 4- .s u '/ I l l l l l I h I I O 'j $ E 6 l l l l l l l l l;7 i l l l !/I I I .6 Il l l I l / 5 h l \\ l N\\\\ .4 U' 9yfl .4 ~ p. ~ I 2 I .) / _-. _J _.} jj._.-.- 7 l .2 I .:5 .15 y!3 .10 _ i i, .08 _ t i I 1 I I 1 _3 j g , g l i l l l I I I ~ .os f,,..!. ,l ~ rei .,e r t s L5 to '.02 .3 .04 .C5 .06 .C8 .1 .15 .2 .3 4 .5 .4 .8 , to Period, Sec. 1842 304 BYRON STATION FIN AL SAFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.9-9 RIVER SCREEN HOUSE HORIZONTAL EW SSE SPECTRA AT EL. 744'-0"

um. crs AMENDMENT 24 g' FEBRUARY 1980 so n a io to u to to .5 iigiisi g iigiiing i, iga g i g i gj g g -_ mo = i , gg i, i i .iii i i i i i i i 2

---

Finite Element tiethod no g, _

Soil Spring "ethod no _ (Lover Dound Soil Property) no b ',' 58 - I

---

Soil Spring !!ethod (Upper Bound Soil Property)

~ to Danning '2 "/o i' e.. .o 10 ~ [ 10 _ 10 10 2 L5 ~ L5 2 - -m% LC \\ i LO i t i _ _ _ 4 I i 1. i i t i i a %I 'I I { l i /, 4 8 i 1 i y/ i I I ./f h.I\\l I i - 'g $ 5 l ((l l l l/ l l V., k l l I { [y l i ,,- i u./ i 1.1 i y - 'j gr / l '7 .K I m' .44 4 4 -_s / l T., .3 f y .i-.-,-.,., .2 .n ~ .15 ,l .10 .30 l m = i i l 1 .06 .c6 I' ~ ~ '.04 '.c5 r * 't t * 'ie r i ** r i t t t t 3 .06 .2 .1 .D .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 LO L3 10 .02 .03 Peraf. Ser ~ 1842 305 BYRON STATION FIN AL SAFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.9-10 RIVER SCREEil HOUSE HORIZCNTAL NS SSE SPECTRA AT EL. 664'-0"

h AMENDMENT 24 %. crs FEBRUARY 1980 1 30 33 i ai 14 10 11 10 LO .5 MO.i ii' s 6.i i e i i i iiii iiii i ie i iaii i i i i _ m3 11 0 tig 111 0 - 12 0 L' 1 l l 10 t i

i l

l 10 et I 10 5.0 / \\ .0 E V T E 1 ~ 3.0 10 ~ L3 LD /*~' "u, \\' ~ L5 1 b LS / \\, l 7E -g / \\ \\ / i i i .s a La LO f i I I i fi i l ) . L i T 1 I t l 1 / I I I l t i\\lN i l I o l l l /. i M.Q\\l 1 I i .6 g / I jY w\\ s .3 5 l - 'f N1e j',a;i x 4 i j [ j ~.a _ t) .3

---

Finite Eler.ent !!ethod 1

~ ~ Soil Spring !!ethod (Lower Bound Soil Property) .15 . t>

---

Soil Spring I'etho d

~ (Upper Bound Soil Property) .10 Danping 2*6 .ca 1 l ,l .I,, , l...,l.,,, !,,,, }, }, (, {, l[ f [f ~, [ 'I 3 .e .e3 .c4 .e . 0. .os .i . i> .2 .3 4 .5 to t3 t0 Perof, Ser 1842 506 BYRON STATION FIN AL S AFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.9-11 RIVER SCREEN HOUSE HCRIZONTAL NS SSE SPECTRA AT EL. 702'-0"

\\. AMENDMENT 24 %, CF$ FEBRUARY 1980 30 33 2 10 10 13 10 LO .) 210.' '-.M 0 3 110 11 0 _ l / j g i 11 0 lao _ IO - i i / I i 4 I i -E / h I i t i 60 - __// \\ I I l 4 L3 10 53 / ~ 40 40 - l \\ 10 ~ " ) \\. 10 ../, \\. l i t \\ ~ 10 i 10 / \\ l u \\ ,s i, s x i\\i i i i i / t i i ! \\ 4 1 I I I l_. - I l i,; 1 1

• g{

4' I - i.._.._..-_; - -r i i i i i i 1Ai i i ? 1 I I I I I I I l% I '.' l l l %.I i 5 .5 i 'e 4 g

y. f 4 3 q

s t'.) .3 -Finite Element I:ethod .2 m .2 E Soil Spring I!ethod (Lower Bound Soil Property) q3 ,n

---

Soil Spring ::ethod

. it (Upper Bound Soil Property) . :0 i ca i Damping f.*b i I .06 .2 ~,,,, I, ,i,,,,1,,,,1,,,,1 [, 1, I, f, ', J,, 1 .a .c3 .oa .os .co .:s .i .n .2 .2 4 .s .a .: ' t0 u to rw m. sn. 1842 507 BYRON STATION FIN AL SAFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.9-12 RIVER SCREEN HOUSE HORIZO."TAL MS SSE SPECTRA AT EL. 744'-0"

~ g AMENDMENT 24 FEBRUARY 1980 \\ \\ / i ~ j c4_s enou o,,,,ff, .""*._.*;0',- I I f, p y' f a:::::- (yy;*,% ;I 4 (*l,*i[*,27 w

• s -e- ' ' 2 o' s -a.

., I . -.l h

• r f'--

i I L_.l. __

--~ -L m 'wt.*, = i a i r S q l ": f_ow 1, F- _ _,7 t, ' m -* i $ %< j' p,. :,,4,,1. !' ;l, l4 i .,r ' w {. - A'".~ ,.lj, Nq' y 2; m =- g j '9.. /k. E l "t" e;1 1E E lj'".Z I ji;,

p

'-l _ ol,est ' , - r ;; e..- g t_ , 1 m ~~=n" W G 1 - y K' y _- t==J.."' = I or I-jl ! [ . **? , L,;.m[. i i i - m rt # ~ ll ;! n i. i i __ /_J t f 4 - ,. ~,. a m l u s e. -,. s w sr. -d ,j;,, .r 1 -4 .. X.,,,; i l.,.v... m n.A - ! su.ssa;< m ;, 1 i ~ EJ w o-I I l . o. i..

1.. :.

, e. t.o. (5 G / @ <.n ) d E - m <Deuubu .2 1842 508 BYRON STATION FIN AL SAFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.9-13 CROSS SECTION OF RI'!ER SCREEN HOUSE

) AMEtlDMEtiT 24 FEBRUARY 1980 \\ \\ - s -- 3 .s s u...w tL ::,- w O. I I ~- _101e i l 1 i (_r 8' c-

• _ b _ _... _ I -L g

I X-1016;- lZ .A-1017 l 1 i e .o 6 -y._ i a ~~. i, = 4 4-

==tuman tcatzas 4

2lI . l. i gj - < -o-i ,~- h g y' X-10lY "l l. _e sh 1n14 .o p <. e. L,X-1014 ...s e7 g s. 7 ~}-s'-o-S T >- : ? AN i i -t' t w -n c i cm,".r,unt.T I f.., x#ca I i 3, ~, a S' x s Y.R.S= ~c a a - Q.- L-.gy - -O--- -O--k. N> + -( c- - -- ~4 u... i >.. At >-a g ttx.2 L t,:s t X WALL - 1012 ?.. I l i f t w.9 X W A L L - 1011 '.".-" q 'n I I 1842 109-m._ m.. 1,.. I 5s -1 Ss-v i b he-<a~~G G) NWM QQpg BYRON STATION FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.9-14 SHEAR WALL ARPAIGEf'E:lT AT ELEVATI0:1 664'-0"

) AMENDMENT 24 FEBRUARY 1980 10 D 20 10 10 13 10 LO .5 20.' '*gi*[''g*s i'g 4 ['l'['j'g'g' ( MO - - - Finite Clement !!cthod Soil S? ring Method (Lower Bound Soil Property) ~ to t0

---

Soil Spring : ethod

'O (Upper Bound Soil Property) 60 it 10, Damping I /o (O (0 ~. ~ 10 ~ ~ 10 10 10 ~ ~ L5 ~. ~ L5 = pe l g l l W l l l l l l 1 l ! I M E l l l 6 l } l l l I 5 i I l' 3 I r - 4 1, ITTL _ i { j Ti irr i W % -tm I - ~' j {d e # Y 'y V l ~ '3 \\. b k ~ ~ i! ] w, l l,f NN N. N l s .10 m-, jo .= i l l l e I ( Q. -. v I l I l l l 3 3 ,f. .!,l ~ .= .o .a .e .o. .= .i . t3 .3 4 .5 -to .o to 1842 310 BYRON STATION FIN AL SAFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT r'IGURE Q130.9-15 RIVER SCREEN HOUSE VERTICAL OBE SPECTRA AT EL. 664'-0"

h AMENOMENT 24 re. ces FEBRUARY 1980 i W D 6 2D W to il to Lo .5 mo _..,, ,,,,g.,,,g,,,,;....j ,g,;,g, _ no n.o - - - I'inite Element Method 5 ise Soil Spring Method 38 8 (Lower Bound Coil Property) tan gu ~ 7 ~ l

---

Soil Spring "ethod I

(Upper Bound Soil Property) },, to l' l' Damping i /o to _ (o 1o ~ ~ lo to to L5 ~ ~ L5 i,, i i r-i i i, 4 ') 1 I l I i i i i i ii i 4 -i f i 1 i i i i i i i i i i S l i l l j ', 5 -i l I i l { f lm._., f. m~ N._ - E l l l l = _

• _

3' I F i t_ l -Q l l l l l I fTi 'kC T'. l ll -,j / l x = 7,/l [g 3 I \\ ./ 'N,

1. j p. __L.

N, ~,. / a r N, d N 'g :s .10 i i i i i u. ~ l I I l I I l l l l T, ~ i l I i l 1 .a .I. I, e, ,,I,,, I, .I iii. 3 ,,3 .x .a .a .as .a .a .i .o .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 a u a Peraf. Sw. 1842 311 BYRON STATION FIN AL SAFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.9-16 RIVER SCREEN HOUSE VERTICAL OBE SPECTRA AT EL. 702'-0"

I ~ AMEftDMEtiT 24 re. cr5 FEBRUARY 1980 30 13 3 10 it 15 10 LO .5 M0.' 'a[ i'gi<is giia gieiig gig. giga g'g g _ ma 8 i i 4 i tie Pinite Element ".ethod tio Soil Spring Method MLS -' ML9 (Lower Bound Soil Property) e to ~ to ~ I Soil Spring Method i to (Upper Bound Soil Property) to io 10 Damping I /o to to 10 ~ [ ~ 10 to _ to L5 ~ ~ L5 i i i 4 '8 .8 ~ .3 I ii i i i l i l l l 1 l 1 r y, / I L lj i T -.~ " 0 i l l l l 4,i f ',3 ~ Y I ik, I N-@ i hl I l ly &T~%k l ~ i 's 5 } l k\\\\ ) l x ~ g! .l 3 .s. ~ \\ .s g \\ . j.s . -. ~. - i s \\ A \\ j %.(/ s ~ 1 _/ y., .o .a s [._. p j 'N. } s N 10 i i g~ -a l l l l l

-N=

l l l I 1 o6 2 ~ i .i. r t. ,iie 2 y .02 .O .04 .5 .06 .08 .1 .D .2 .3 4 .5 .6 .8 ' LO L5 19 Perlad. Sec 1842 312 i BYRON STATION FIN AL SAFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.9-17 RIVER SCREEii HOUSE VERTIC.AL OBE SPECTRA AT EL. 744'-0"

0 l AMEtlDMEriT 24 %. cr. FEBRUARY 1980

1. so n

a a s.o u to to .s mo.- >>>[>>>>jia >>giei<g>gigilggg g mo h n' Finite Element IIethod Soil Spring !!ethcd (Lower Bound Soil Property) y no ~ l to y te Soil Spring t'ethod (Upper Bound Soil Property) , to io to Damping 2% (, 10 u ~ to t2 u ~ ~ L5 I fj- % ,,,,' _.s A=t r ^--^ %. n" i i 1 i i i JV i i i iii i a i a ', { ii l l l i Pfi i i iw iiI i i k l l I I I iT l il i I i ', t I //l '\\\\ l ll l '5 "I 3 l 1///l S.1 ll ~ ~' y). - x i; g 8 ,/ / 4 / .1 .15 \\' D ,i 1 .lo

3

,g t I i 1 1 1 l 6 l l l 1 .a .1 ,,,I ,l I .3 .m .o .c4 .cs .a .a .25 .2 .2 .4 .5 .i to u to rwe s<. 1842 313 BYRON STATION FIN AL SAFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.9-18 RIVER SCREEli HOUSE VERTICAL SSE SPECTRA AT EL. 664'-0"

) AMEilDMEflT 24 km. "5 FEBRUARY 1980 \\ m n ao w to u to to .5 no... n.' ..s.. .>n .s r-s na = Finite Elenent liethod ~ tu _ tu Soil Spring tiethod (Lower Bo.ind Soil Property) ~.u 88 - g, - i ii Soil Spring I:ethod ~ l (Upper Bound Soil Property) :to as Danping 2%. I " u te i ' u lo to . u ts ~ ~ L5 I f 1 i i u i , to ,g - +- i i. ',/ 8 ~ 'I' 4 '3 i ii i i i i i iM i I iii 9, I r-----UD I I i\\ I I I Ii i i l/ l I '\\\\ l l ll l d ', I '3 lIl i ~5 ! '.a / l /l l '(\\ll! ~ i ,3 ,3 d 1 .2 m.2 1 E .n q.a m so y I l I i i l i I i l I i l i i l I i l i 4' I i l l l l I l ! I d .a 2 ,,..l...I.',I I, l. . l.l.1 l.I I 3 .cz .a .= .s .o. .= .i .o .3 .4 .5 a u a Perug Ser 1 8 4 2 3'l-4 BYRON STATION FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIGURE Q130.9-19 RIVER SCREE:1 HOUSE VERTICAL SSE SPECTRA AT EL. 702'-0"

j AMENDMENT 24 %, c,5 FEBRUARY 1980 so n' a w u u to to .s ag _..,. ..g.,,, ,,,3.... ,, 3.g.g.i 3 3 ._,ma ~ Finite Elenent I!ethod ito tio Soil Spring !!ethod 58 (Lower Bound Soil Property G 1'8 to Lo ~ Soil Spring Ilethod ~ (UpperBoundSoilPropertybe to 5.o Damping 2% io to to ~ ~ lo lo 2 ~ ~ 2.o Lo L5 ~ ~' L5 i i F ~' I 4 r __../_._ .#--~% g l If @i \\ P\\..~., i i i q 'g l // l \\ \\ l [ 7/. I I I e t ii i i s 4 'g i j 7/ \\ "/~/ ! I i l l i -m i l I i 5 ((' i N I,/ I l l l l hl 1 l l i a-( ', [/l l l'\\4 I I \\h i l l l l 1, j[ j [,ysf/ I I II i '4.K!II f., w4j g .) -[ .3 sx .2 Tg " y .is ps ~ .10 L i yo y 4 t i I i 1 i! l 6 I l l } l l I I I I I I I I I i .A I. I, I 1, ,l l ) 3 .o2 .o) .o4 .os .m .a .1 .is .2 .3 4 .5 .6 to u to Pwed, Sw. 1842 315 BYRON STATION FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIFWRE Q120.9-20 RIVER SCIEEN HOUSE '!ERTICAL SSE SPEC RA AT EL. 744'-0" .}}