ML19309H506
| ML19309H506 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1980 |
| From: | ENGINEERING DECISION ANALYSIS CO., INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309H504 | List: |
| References | |
| EDAC-117-253.01, NUDOCS 8005130420 | |
| Download: ML19309H506 (41) | |
Text
EDAC-ll7-253.01, Rev. I 8005130 Co O
O ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTS OF COMBINED VIBRATORY MOTIONS AND SURFACE RUPTURE OFFSET DUE TO AN EARTHQUAKE ON THE POSTULATED VERONA FAULT l
prepared for GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY l
s Vallecitos, California 30 April 1980 orn.:1XL u,
Revision 1 - 8 May 1980
,S "'""' :m c. crx no
?
N O TARY PU2UC - CA' / C R(J' A
/.l AME;) \\ COTil (
l g-
=
f.!y conn. crpi.es tsa i r::
m ~n m-na, ENGINEERING DECISION ANALYSIS COMPANY,INC.
480 CAllFORNIA AVE., SUITE 301 BURNITZSTRASSE 34 PALO ALTO. CALIF. 94306 6 FRANKFURT 70 W. GERMANY
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I NT RO DU C T I ON..............................
I GROUND MOTION CR ITER IA.........................
2 HYPOTHETICAL SURFACE RUPTURE OFFSET CRITERIA............
2 LOAD COMBINATION CASES.........................
2 COMPONENTS OF EARTHQUAKE VIBR ATORY MOTIONS...............
3 ANALYTICAL MODEL............................
4 STRESS ANALYSES AND CHECK AGAINST CAPACITIES..............
4 CONCLUSIONS..............................
6 REFERENCES i
g ?>
OFFICI AL E".ii,
,' 1 )[j V'Rn!!M C. CVO' ' Po NOTARr Putuc - cA_ o w.1
~
.u cc.: n
(
II/ CCr.n, ev.;jr.s !fA3 0, J ';t ex
-.. - ~x n
ADDITICNAL INVESTIGATIONS TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTS OF COMBINED VIBRATORY MOTIONS AND SURFACE RUPTURE OFFSET DUE TO AN EARTHQUAKE ON THE POSTULATED VERONA FAULT INTRODUCTION This document presents the results of additional investigations to determine the effects of combined vibratory motions and surface rupture offset due to an earthquake on the postulated Verona fault. Many of the pertinent aspects of the investigations are ldentical to analyses which were reported previously to the NRC (Ref.1).
Therefore, in the interest of brevity and non-duplication, only the new features of the additional analyses for combined loading are reported herein.
This revised report supersedes the original report dated 30 April 1980.
In this revision, supplementary detailed information regarding the analysis results has been incluaed.
Basic procedures, results, and conclusions remain un chan ged.
As concluded in Reference 2, the surface rupture offset at the GETR site is an event with a probability of occurrence so low that it should not be included in the design bases.
In the interests of responding to NRC requests, however, the integrity of the Reactor Building has been evaluated for the combined loaoing case of vibratory motion and surface rupture offset as described in this document.
Accordingly, in this investigation it is assumed that a postulated Verona surface rupture offset underneath the reactor building will tend to " lift" the structure.
It is also assumed tnat the Verona event will produce vibratory motions which will snake the Reactor Building at the same time as the offset occurs. The investigations performed to demonstrate that the GETR Reactor Building is adequate to resist this scenario are described in the following text.
h O
L F u, y,_ a u m,FFICI s c c - ma >>
' rno y o w,. v.
o u
_,_e, a
2 GROUND M0 TION CRITERIA The following ground motion parameters were used as the basis for the evaluations (Ref. 6).
Effective horizontal ground acceleration: 0.40g Effective vertical ground acceleration: 0. 279 Response spectrum shape: Regulatory Guide 1.60 HYPOTHETICAL SURFACE RUPTURE OFFSET CRITERIA A maximum surface rupture offset of 1.0m was selected for the evaluations; the results of the evaluations are also applicable to smaller offsets.
LOAD COMBINATION CASES The two main parameters of interest in postulating the combined loading are the vibratory ground motion and the hypothetical " unsupported length" (the latter is defined in Figure 1).
It is evident that numerous different combinations of ground motion and " unsupported length" can be postulated, and that simple selection of the " worst cases" of both loadings would be unrealistic and overly conservative.
Therefore, a P-cr ::
combined loading case for evaluation purposes was selected as follows.
( (9
.x Ph 3) i_.d Of{
The probabilistic analyses described in Reference 3 show that a very j
conservative combination of loadings to be used in the structural
$ y ;s Eil
][qh evaluations can be represented graphically as shown in Figure 2.
This curve is based on (1) the assumed probability of an offset occurring at
$ $ :? f any point under the Reactor Building is lx10-5; and (2) the probability R
of occurrence of the combined offset and vibratory loading is lx10-6 jf$
- g gu u
Use of this curve in the seismic evaluations of the GETR Reactor Building d]
is obviously extremely conservative, since the actual probability of an offset occurring at any point under the Reactor Building i', less than lx10-6,
In addition, a series of analyses of soil pressures under the Reactor Building was performed for different combinations of ground acceleration and "unsuppcrted length."
In these analyses, " incipient local yielding" Em
3 was defined as the loading combinations which produce a bearing stress at the edge of the supporting soil (Fig.1) equal to the ultimate bearing stress (20 ksf).
Loading combinations at which incipient local yielding occurs are shown graphically by the lower edge of the band in Figure 3.
Combinations above the lower edge of the band will produce soil yielding at the edge of the offset.
This will permit the structure to settle down and be essentially continuously or simply supported by the undisturbed soil (to the left of the offset in Figure 1).
The upper edge of the band in Figure 3 is a conservative estimate of the bound on more complete local soil yielding in the region of the edge of the offset, at which point the structure will have completely settled down.
Partial or complete settling down of the structure are conditions which can be easily tolerated without distress in either the soil or the structure.
The structure will settle down for all load combinations above the band on Figure 3.
The effective ground acceleration for the postulated Verona fault (0.4g) is also shown as a limiting value on Figure 3.
For the purposes of the evaluations described in this document, the case of " unsupported length," Lc = 17 ft. and horizontal ground acceleration, a = 0.30g was selected, since it is conservativa from probablistic and physical points of view (given the assumption that a surface rupture occurs under the Reactor Building).
The vertical ground acceleration was selected as two thirds the horizontal, or 0.20.
9 COMPONENTS OF EARTHQUAKE VIBRATORY MOTIONS The evaluations of the Reactor Building were based on the following matrix of percentages of effective grouna acceleration values for vibratory loading:
Case H1 H2 Vertical 1
+ 100%
+ 40%
+ 40%
2
+ 40%
+ 100%
+ 40%
3
+ 40%
+ 40%
+ 100%
- em
_.m w o-
_ w 4.
,Fs OFFS lii,F VI C
C< ~ T RO u n x-cxs-ntwA
~
- W1 1:31 4
,mw
.., n e.m
,e
4 The analysis cases were, for example, as follows:
Case 1.1 H1 = +0.3g H2 = +0.12g V = +0.089 Case 1.2 H1 = -0.3g H2 = +0.129 V = +0.08g Case 1.3 H1 = +0.3g H2 = -0.12g V = +0.08g Case 1.4 H1 = -0.39 H2 = -0.12g V = +0.089 etc.
Tne stress analyses.were performed for all individual load cases represented by the above matrix of components, for a total of 24 cases.
ANALYTICAL MODEL Detailed stress analyses of the concrete core structure of the Reactor Building were performed using the static three-dimensional finite element model described previously in Chapter 3 of Reference 1.
A vertical cross-section of the Reactor Building is shown in Figure 4.
Appendix A r
- r(,
c-to this report (reprinted from Appendix A of Reference 1) provides
- f [;
detailed sketches of the model.
This model was modified slightly to
' f h h,,;
~cu c, -
provice supports corresponding to the 17 ft. cantilever length.
Supports)j ]fy ff 7y]
j!]Q;6) in the form of boundary soil springs were provided at all nodes in the snaded area of Figure 5.
- 2
-.e[
cg h, T,
STRESS ANALYSES AND CHECK AGAINST CAPACITIES This section describes the results of the stress analyses and the check h
of the stresses against capacities which were the final tasks in the evaluations.
The first step in the stress analyses was to determine the inertial forces to be applied to the model described above.
These applied inertial forces were based on the selectea effective ground accelerations and previous linear analyses.
The next step was to calculate the principal stresses in the elements of the model and compare these stresses with the capacities.
As described previously in References 1 and 4, the capacity, defined as initiation of cracking, was conservatively selected as b for principal stress.
unac
5 These analyses showed that the concrete core structure is adequate to withstand the prescribed loading.
For the critical load case (out of the total of 24 cases), only two elements of the nearly one thousand elements above the basemat were found to have stress ratios over 0.83, which corresponds to a capacity of 5 flo elements above the first floor had stress ratios above 2.
Results for selected critical elements were as follows:
Highest stressed element above first floor (Element 735, Level 14, Figure 6)
-Stressratiobasedoncapacityof6k=0.49(tensilestress).
- Maximum stress = 2.9 k.
Highest stressed element between basement and first floors (Element 749, Level 7, Figure 7)
- Stress ratio based on capacity of 6k = 0.99 (tensile stress).
-Stressratiobasedoncapacityof6k=0.35(shearstress).
The elements surrounding the highest stressed element between the basement and first floor produced an average stress ratio on the order of 2
for the critical load case.
It should be also noted that the finite element stress analysis model of the concrete core structure is
} [(
quite conservative, in that it excludes (for simplicity and conservatism)-
({
f (, f the considerable additional strength of the remainder of the structure, j
3 i.e., the circular exterior wall between the basement and first floors, - 0' $ hi as well as additional columns, beams, and slabs.
If the circular wall
.[~E between the basement and first levels were included in the model, the maximum stress would reduce significantly, as follows.
i
)
Estimated average shear stress between basement and first floors:
- Stress ratio based on capacity of 6[= 0.05.
-Maximumstress=0.3h It is evident that the finite element model is quite conservative in tne region between the basement and first floors, and that the actual stresses are much lest than those obtained from the model.
6 As additional examples, the higest stressed elements at typical levels (levels 17,10, and 5) for the same load case are shown in Figures 8, 9, and 10, respectively.
The above results are summarized in Table 1.
It is evident from the above results that the stresses in the Reactor Building concrete core structure are well within conservative capacity limits, defined as initiation of cracking.
CONCLUSIONS Previous analyses (Ref.1) and recent additional investigations (Ref. 5) demonstrated that the Reactor Building is capable, as a minimum, of withstanding an unsupported length of 20 ft with no vibratory motion, and a ground acceleration of 0.8g with no postuated surface rupture offset.
The analyses described above in this document show that the building can withstand a combined loading case of a ground acceleration of 0.39 and an unsupported length of 17 ft.
These conservative capacities are plotted in Figure ll.
The dashed line in this figure represents a best estimate of a capacity contour for the Reactor Building, where capacity is conservatively derived and defined as initiation of concrete cracking.
It is evident from this figure that the Reactor Building concrete core structure can withstand postulated load combinations of short unsupported lengths and high ground motions.
For example, the conservative capacity contour indicates that the structure can withstand an unsupported length of 5 feet with a ground acceleration of about 0.729 The capacity contour in the region of short unsupported lengths is conservative because these short lengths represent a very short loss of support under walls in the physical structure, which will have little influence on stresses.
The conservative capacity contour is most likely flatter (i.e. horizontal) than shown in Figure 11 in the region of 0.8g and short cantilever lengths.
4 OFFICIAL c m.L
.s h "t.J TARY PUEUC - CAUiORNf A
'.~ T C. C W ' T O u
M M. 2 AWMC \\ CCUNTY
/
1 k-m.-
My comm curirn MAR 8,101 i
~--m-
7 The combined loading and capacity information in Figures 2, 3, and 11 are plotted together in Figure 12.
This figure clearly demonstrates that the conservative capacity of the Reactor Building is significantly greater than the loading criteria based upon probabilistic and soil pressure considerations, and that tnere is a substantial minimum margin of safety for all load combinations.
Reference 7 aescribes in qualitative terms the many additional conservatisms which exist in the procedures used to evaluate the GETR Reactor Building for seismic effects.
Each of these conservatisms tends to over-estimate response and under-estimate capacities.
In addition, the conservatisms are cumulative; the total safety margin is the product of many individual margins.
Referring to Reference 7, it is evident that the actual capacity of the GETR Reactor Building is substantially above the conservatively selected load combination values and capacities used for the evaluations described in this report.
Consideration of these conserv3tisms would, in effect, raise the capacity curve substantially above the conservative capacities based on initiation of cracking shown in Figures : 1 and 12.
Thus, based on the investigations described above, it is concluded that the concrete core structure of the Reactor Building is adequate to withstand without damage the combined load case of vibratory ground motion and surface rupture offset due to postulated seismic events on the hypothetical Verona fault.
R EFERENCES 1.
Engineering Decision Analysis Company, Inc., " Seismic Analysis of Reactor Building, General Electric Test Reactor - Phase 2,"
EDAC-ll7-217.03, prepared for General Electric Company, 1 June 1978.
2.
Jack R. Benjamin and Associates, Inc., " Additional Probability Analyses of Surf ace Rupture Offset Beneath Reactor Building, General Electric Test Reactor," JBA-lll-013-01,12 March 1980.
~..-~ ~ a m _ (
j
..A V'RmMA C. CA7 MO OFFICIAL F iL i
f j
7 fiOTARY PUGUC - CAU/CRf0A
[
- j
- ?y cenr. cir. ins MAR 8, IMI j)
M AMEDA COU'ITY I
Wm-r
--mmnn
8 3.
Jack R. Benjamin and Associates, Inc., " Probability Analysis for Combined Surface Rupture Offset and Vibratory Ground Motion, General Electric Test Reactor," JBA-ll 014-01, 29 April 1980.
4.
General Electric Company, "Respunse to NRC Questions, Structural Issues, Part I, General Electric Test Reactor," submitted to NRC 24 April 1980.
5.
Engineering Decision Analysis Company, Inc., " Additional Investigatons to Determine Effects of Vibratory Motions Due to an Earthquake on the Calaveras Fault," EDAC-ll7-253.02, prepared for General Electric Company, 30 April 1980.
6.
Engineering Decision Analysis Company, Inc., " Review of Seismic Design Criteria for the GETR Site," EDAC-ll7-254.03, prepared for General Electric Company, 30 April 1980.
7.
Engineering Decision Analysis Company, Inc., "Conservatisms in the Seismic Evaluations of the GETR Reactor Building," EDAC-ll7-254.02, prepared for General Electric Company, 30 April 1980.
+..~.=.u-~:
.a <~m OFFICIAL EEAL
{
y,gg g
Vera " A C. CM ^"~O
- ' fJOTARY PUBLIC Calf 7Cmt tA 4
'/
" L dM CC>U'," '
l'y 5.c~ ~t np 9 MM P, l'St $
E
<M w - - --n r-A Em
9 TABLE 1 SUFNARY OF STRESSES FOR CRITICAL LOAD CASE Stress Stress Stress Allowable Stress Level (I)
Element (l)
Type (psi) k Stress (psi)
Ratio 14 735 Tension 160 2.9 329 0.49 (Figure 6)
Shear 31 0.5 329 0.09 Compression 16 3,000 7
749 Tension 435 5.9 440 0.99 (Figure 7)
Shear 376 5.1 440 0.85 5,400 0.10 Compression 557 17 125 Tension 34 0.5 d24 0.08 (Figure 8)
Shear 16 0.2 424 0.04 5,000 Compression 30 10 810 Tension 80 1.5 329 0.24 (Figure 9)
Shear 29 0.5 329 0.09 Compression 47 3,000 0.02 5
203 Tension 118 1.6 440 0.27 (Figure 10)
Shear 19 0.3 440 0.04 Compression 15 5,400 Between Basement Average 23 0.3 440 0.05 and First Floor Shear Between First Average 20 0.3 440 0.05 and Second Floor Shear Between Second Average 10 0.1 440 0.02 and Third Floor Shear Note:
(1)
See Figures 6-10 and Appendix A (m.m w:~ evee-OFFICIAL - AL
}
$ # [w$ vmc:N! A C. C/ T1'3 e
'lj floTAW PUCUC - CA GR!:A i m: EM cci : /
i f *y re-w c ? e t *.'."." "
^l
)
i
- .y -
-, m m nrr~
. ra
REACTOR BUILDING
'ME.Uf/ENM EDGE OF
$$f;2NNE5YildT5 Le
.. 5..N. n 5
SUPPORTING SOIL
$. l.M....A
",* "l"* C
$$. h'{
.s
.. n
- n-S--
- plane of offset
- / J.;
/
f.V. 6
- =&,',
.-.... -ho.
.u.; y*;* v.. c. ::, *.... :.
'. d :.r'a -j;.;e4 =
m.-:i=tet..., i.,,'a.?$b..t.?.2h.k,T.h. l5,.c.%.,iD, t
.;;c.r a+
.s3s."'*.,fr.'..
'i. i.h. d. ~:4. 3=#.;..5 U
u~h..:..... mww
.~~
.n.....
.. e:.
e s.
.n s.wnw.;; n.- w1..w.;.......:a w.wa l
FIGURE 1 HYPOTHETICAL " UNSUPPORTED LENGTH," Lc y~.~____
t
~ >) V&P ^ C C OFFICIAL "' ;L f
A" ~ ~oP f;3 TA.lY PUOL:C - CAL
' o '.ED i C' t-
"i t o r. c-
.i 3
amw' -~:~-
un uxo ;,.
0.6 Rz 9w<c:w Jg 0.4 U<
Czaoc:
0'2 LOADING CRITERION I
I I
0 O
5 10 15 20
" UNSUPPORTED LENGTH," FT.
FIGURE 2 COMBINATION OF LOADINGS BASED ON PROBABILISTIC CONSIDERATIONS (AFTER REF. 3) w_ _ - - _ _ a, x
OFFICIAL : AL
, ;!.)?, VI ? ^ ' N! A C. CAT.^' '
O l f.O TARY PUEUC - C#'.L;.c OR N : A A'.* '.'.E C i CC'! JT(
s
'!/ ccm?. c' rir r P.'.? " T,
' \\
g
,m m -- - m wm m.:..
1 0.6 ACCELERATION DUE TO g
VERONA EVENT = 0.4 g 5<
c:
0.4
$woO<
Oz3 O
g 0.2
" INCIPIENT LOCAL YlELDING" AT EDGE OF SUPPORTING SOIL 0
I I
I I
O 5
10 15 20
" UNSUPPORTED LENGTH," FT.
FIGURE 3 RESULTS OF SOIL PRESSURE ANALYSES p,.., sseum~ -e.~~ > _ - -
_m OFF!CIAL SEAL
/
<,hu.C Vimi' rA C. CATC'~'CO i
-'?-
NOTARY PUBUO - Call ~'R YA
'/
tl A1.'.:DA CDU 6
..J.
P/CC'm. r-s p; ti M
- 1
,j. y _-s;<.m somw^4%~ *;T T -
Containment Shell gPool
/-
Third Floor
~
. :o.
Canal
- .t..
,., j ;.' ', J..s...
? 'J.
_ Second Floor
?
e,' '.i
..'i
- ,,1 14.i
, t, -
First Floor
.Tdhi.. -
.1{
m
- yf,Qi;;
. ~.
i
- Basement g........
m....... ;.. a
.v...
'\\ oundation Mat F
(Reprinted from Figure 3 5 of Reference 1) r i
FIGURE 4 REACTOR BUILDING VERTICAL CROSS-SECTION
)my- ~.<s. w w g OFFICI AL C',iL e
,j g,;!.S; I - d) unn!!OA C. CN'^nm'g.
f
' f!OTARY PUC' C - CA' ergy; ;. }
i 7
t owm ccum W.-
,l"', ' ~Z-((D " * ' '
l
/*
/
REGION OF
/
SUPPORT
.;;;.,CN,[ '
FIGURE 5 REGION OF SUPPORT IN ANALYTICAL MODEL w1+<-
~.mw o __
j$, ,}. s :r ~ OFFICIAL SEA L f-
.f s c. r f - ~,, j
" J :.. C - C '
.i
,e
(
^
j EDAC L
l
ai-214 295 42%
339
~
.to
.n 0.49
.n
/
x
\\..
7/
4..
gg
~
%C9 g
9'C 3%3 ys
' %A:[
'3
..a
. :s -
i.
acu se.s ie.:
\\
l:
icu issa ica et 3,,
[
$48 \\..
f,,,
m m
27 m
m\\ 52aK,
e\\\\
.. 7 ~
=\\
ms
.. r
\\
FIGURE 6 PLAN - LEVEL 14 w.e
~-.~m
<m
(
-m OFFICIAL F"AL f
'#'. f.h VIRO!NI A C. CA'7'Xi'O.,
7 TJOTA.W PUBLIC - CAL'iCRf A j
/J..WD.\\ C t r :T (
!!y cer'#1, r p ** I'li! 7 E
_- m s m en,-
na M
0.87
\\
^
O.30 x-
../
0.99 i
re t Q
i 0.04
"{ 0.06 a--
, 7 n:
j/
~! % f,e? A, e
0 23 e%><;,i V,,4s,; g eIe
,.a
[^
en\\f
',,,,,j l",i !O g
j i
\\Q,
"=' Y\\*
.g \\e\\
e\\<p".m e
m \\\\ m \\.,, p=>
A e
>>m \\* \\.,
3 FIGURE 7 PLAN - LEVEL 7 I
=
, Jim
- kg fE345 l j
}
". l.
39 lp: gg lLDct,2d3fyj';
EDAC
.is 297
- i>
293 ses 37' su
/
t e"
,13 331 in
{N x
2.
12e s
1C91 1;93 IEU 441 323 J..
~
- u su s4 j
ni /,\\*'Si
.((-
0.08 sus !
L 2:,
let
- n
} '52 \\... "1 "' [
s:.
7,,\\
,3, s.s
\\
s mg sc1-
\\
1 C'>$
sc:
gg,
\\
gg,3 gg 97 u
u$
204 3
y, JT 233
- 37 FIGURE 8 PLAN - LEVEL 17 pw s~~ __.
.\\' <e. %
OFFICIAL SZ/.L
. _. -'t' s ) VIO^,:TDA C r:oruv pucu. CASO'.Emo c - cr uro n;:a i
u, vom ccmn E
", eg -,
8
,, w;
,,77 r; tfn
<atj g
a w=r m; i.
,-4
203 29:
II 332 J42 424 336 g34 t in
}m as 97' 313 1%+
gg 622
,39 e
,$c e.s ogn s'. 6 Wl su 0.24
.q
\\
!-l 3.o y.s_
f
\\,,
- >.3c 460 311 4.
1 643 21.
42 1 2a n:
25 239 229 la FIGURE 9 PLAN - LEVEL 10
,( w..:
~~<"f; J,"I, CEF!CIAL -
~; N v:rr.:taA C. CAT 'M l 4
(
' it r;oura puwc - cruconN A (
7,..h
.wwa + ~ '
'+
0.27
. se
/ :4' eis 222 4J
(
'3 :
- u i.
,49 740 7;p,;/srfu,j,\\.x l
,m n.,
- h..,,
- s..
.I I
l AS
$83
,+
.\\
I n\\
l
_[
e.y=,x/
7,
.3
\\
.cs l 3%3 gg i
.37 333 350 23
- 33 22; FIGURE 10 PLAN - LEVEL 5
-~. w ~ _..=..a g OFFICIAL rrAL p
l
'!!N.' llA C CACTIDO 5:(
f.OTI.4 f PVCUC - CAltrC R CA
", cc.' '. r :-t 2s t 'l-a
... Un CO'.'
- s
{
4 r,
W~
r-w m
,.r.,,, _. w
0.8(k N N N N N N
0.6 N
CONSERVATIVE CAPACITY CONTOUR z.
\\
9*
5
\\
l
\\
g 0.4
\\
W
\\
E h
ao
\\
c s
o
\\
0.2 g
\\\\
\\
0 l
1 I
b 0
5 10 15 20
" UNSUPPORTED LENGTH," FT.
FIGURE 11 CAPACITY CONTOUR FOR COMBINED LOADING I
bFbC bL y x.:;g;s, v r. n C.cy.~
' ; l-NOTT E.V PUClIC - C/,
"'\\
i-7 1
N.
.[
-,., -,., '.. ' ~..J 7.,,,
0.8 %
CONSERVATIVE CAPACITY g
BASED ON INCIPIENT N
CRACKING l
N N 0.6 g
N H
MINIMUM MARGIN OF SAFETY ACCEL. DUE TO w
VERONA EVENT = 0.4 g
\\
dy 0.4 g
Cz D
4 o
Y x
C
\\
LIMITING COMBINATIONS COMBINED LOADING BASED ON LOCAL 0.2
'CRITERlON BASED ON SOIL PR ESSURES PROBA81LISTit CONSIDER ATIONS
\\
\\
\\
I I
I 0
O 5
10 15 20
" UNSUPPORTED LENGTH," FT.
FIGURE 12 LOADING VS CAPACITY Fe i
OFFICIAL FEAL
[ f'[,' s' h, Vinr,IMfA C. CASC
'TO j
l f.OTARY PUCLIC. C/. LUC.7 s
[.
n, I
l l
APPENDIX A FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF REACTOR BUILDING CINCRETE CORE STRUCTURE (Reprinted From Appendix A of Reference 1) l nnn; ya OFFICIAL CAL V
Q l'iQ V!P71t D A C. CA:.^T 9 C
.:4 tiOT ARY PU C;.!C - C A L U C PI
,,. u.n cm.c
- 'J.
f d
c i
c.
.c y
e Level w
x ml era 18 M
sw ):
~
y 22 vi ris 17 m
3M-o6 eis s'4 16 i +- +
ies sis si: 1-15 s
m 1.
,154 \\, 1o13 j)ich ' ion ' ns(
'6MD s72.
14
'sts 13 ses 121.
isss seas m
r7:
tot nst to 3 +
w
- mV.
- i t'[ s s.'
12 g
4
^
11 tot uz ist 561
\\,
too f
."is t.
~
10 sto ! sr.3 J
o 99 no 6o9 567 7
~
+-4 Sc6 5W 8
96 7t, f
97
, vis 95 565 7
f s
194 727 5 64 g
164
-t SW 95 72 4
!b)
+-(
H 725 EG 2.
4
- -- 4
.mt 93 11+
56t 3
, n2.3 e6 5 tosz. t. too4 I; tot + E 7:3 4. toto.i: to 4 2.w i' 5so '5' 2
>z 9L 981 995 tool t o o.'
tot 3 7z1 tot 9 fo13 498 5:1 l
~
FIGURE A-1 VERTICAL SECTION OF REACTOR BUILDING CORE MODEL l
f'j '[k. ; V!"T l' A C. CAn^"?'M sms OFFICIAL EFAL NOTA RY PUEUC - Cf._ FC Df 'A r,
{
l '.X:.CD \\
t~f.*.
n, n.:n. m - -
. ~.
1 4
<e 4
' % 49
- y
'*fg/
/
,, ; y,gy, agr j,
ja s,,
5'
[
'.#9 Y&
%e4<e IMAGE EVALUATION N
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
I.0
": m n'A kh LS ll
- ["2 I!IIM 4
1.25 IA l.6 6"
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CH ART 5l/
/!b l
vu,%y//,
/,,,\\.
- 7..
!u s
a
/
,c<, \\,,,
n~
m
~
I s 1',
,00 a
>s -,:,
244 75 8 j
(
P N,,, T ',.,
,; s :
/
ica N,,,
/ sri z-
, ur
.c:,
u, ic:4 ic:,
ioc-
- c:
j-c4 g nc
,c
,u
,,g
,e 13
%AO m
.4 [,,,
{;
, W $
4
- ii.,u u
m
$ 8a i n-3'2 '
n H2
- c
- :
ic::
ici 222
- ca ic
ic:.
v' u, g/
gj ic2 - m gf e',., W ' 5
(,,,( m
.ca
' q
,5 ! : p g.
io: h n:
us g,,
g,n 2n y,
g,,
O hS h,
'"\\%'2'\\/
'"\\'N \\/
3,,
,c:,
...e uo.
v p
\\.
au
- a
.2.
.52
> r.
2:,
m n:
j 2
,c:
.n 3c,
"r ## ?
C 14 1 23 162 gy
~
8'*
2n
/
m 21.
li ar" Level 1 Level 2 EI See Figure A-1 for location of element levels
l!'
1 ll 1
+
c-e c.
n.
a
+
>r o
- fJs, T
s a
s
['
y
"/
y b,.
, N,a
'^
3 4
c.
f i
2 e
9 v
e
,u 2
L
, m c
2 2
f na s,
/,,
7n.
" E'
,~
g s
i e
v i
f, e
' (*
fs y-s i
te
'c
./
w./
i
-["
e me ie 3
r s
n.
u.
r e
% %n e
e o
,n o
s v
o a.
n s
/
e i
L t
e m'
x 2
s n
n n
i b ^'
n s
m r
A' 2
s 3
u s
i
.s u
i, n
u 3
1
./s <n
-i e,
l
}
}
/,.,
e s
n ir ee s
m 8:o~ 2lu 80 " p!p9 5pm b ?a p
)
E w y('r
'om9. > ;
$6 m
'j
- s
,, g;b;%o
.?
-,v O:[=3> w Mg
!a
!p(
wb.
,,,c]<
r Y
r
- j1
{l
T'oP + ott cpr+
, 7
.,,,,,,,,,,,3 8
,[*h
^?,.
B
,4s m
3..
o
- s'
.n M
3.' 3 3 J0
.JJ '
438 p
? 49[
g 197 N
.n
/
3
.o u
o
,a
/ 435 [ 457
/k> [619
.. a 1
l'
/
2 o-j E 9
~/,~o,,/
~/,m / -/
se s,.,
a a
15.
iss g
p 3
I, ~
r.
N, P
m
'u
~
z
--i
<-i
.-i
.ml
,--i j s:
- a, n
n.
s.,
- >a n;
{
s,.
r--
j w((
/ s.s
/s.
a
... w,
.ss.v_x_/.
E
$ ';i ;,9 F 2
u, s.
n.
..s
.s.
. 3:'
8 y
au
>$4 1
n.,
3a o,
g.j r
<n y
m vs 2.:
r.
2.
- 2 m
n.
'U f
22.
22.
. ~ ~mn.
Level 5 Level 6 11I See Figure A-1 for location of element levels
4-Pa O
I ec
/%
\\
i s
3 s
a c
y
\\b.
2 WN.
'N?
[,/',
m 5 e s
2
_e
/;!
E e
u s
a
~
R
.~
f:
2 f.
2-5
~
2 3
m 7%,
5 5>
w a
s s
Y 5
AN
! ?id'\\
5
\\f-
/_
[4/..
- ~.
2 e
s o
o
~
e
/4
.,o
(
/
\\
/
' !/
N @
@l@7 g
~
/
=
r g
2 N
/
c
-/
g
~
g e
m
/
Ub ' x 0 E / @
g g
u g
-e
/ f W
~
g gs w -
a u
eo tn FIGURE A-5 MODEL ELEMENTS LEVELS 7 AND 8 s
,~2,-~_-
-5
) # ','[I V'I ? NI A C. CM" ' 9O m.= rutuc. cecroo a }
- g
~ -.
/
- , r-r' x--
-w
,m - - -
m_i
- 4-E a
I
.I 7,w
/N
.t
/
t s
\\
,1 0
3 3
.r
's s.
.t
~
s 2
. 9N G i 2
\\~,
' /
=.
- 3 e
2 b [E
- s. /
, a o
e e,
/
~
s Q
d'.
- E 1.
~
r.
~
g n
s:
~
n
~
i
^
'J d
,#N o>
/
s 3
h
- [N(
o 3
~
i
\\
m
/
C W
N 9!
A 3
z'N 2
(*
s 6 :
N/
4, a
o u
4 i
o e
R E
o
~
~-
~
~
J n
u
~ s S
n a
u o
~
n x
u e
4 o
-=
~,
\\
+~
i<
~..
o u
3 1
5,
-o u
w.
yW M
FIGURE A-6 MODEL ELEMENTS LEVELS 9 AND 10 I. % s_v - e e a-em OFFICIAL S' AL
's v'rmN!A C. cat NO g
' rw,;,;n Pu w c CA caa','A y(
n c:.cn ca-n 4
3
+
i k
t~
, u.
l0I rd C
y N.
l n
s C
3 i
' },,
xb:- -,
q f
')
-s
/-
x
/
~ =
R -
f 2 0 y
g' R
n N
~
~
e N
4 3
"A "Q)
+
+c o-a-
o 1
4 CJ d
~
j G
3
~
L' O
'%c-
.s g-1 I
e.
u j
M s
N Q)
N i h 4
)
6
=h, h,/<h.
3 s
o
~.
e n
N
~
M f
n
+
m
.t Q)
,o g
\\\\
.=
~
~
a a
?
A m
u
~
~
u N
O s.
2 q
~
5 5
g a
o
~
4 y
4 I
\\ ;--
Ns uo S
C) t'
..C G
- u.,
Q) 0 fn FIGURE A-7 MODEL ELEMENTS LEVELS 11 AND 12 c -
__m-m igg OFFICIAL E' I
.c vr v n c. cu r -o i.
.._m
- r:nt.;r r u:uc. cx: '
x v.:
1.
g g
4,-
.. r
'T'oP + osa. _ c e r +
.: r s.
v e aii-eiso3 m
/
2n' m
/
$i g2
,o o
=
=
=
TY1
.J 7
.29 33:
.sa 339 so:
p
,g au m
.,a u,
.91 s'
.12 10.
944 f'
K:
Se 1,7 IV o
sa >
j i
i m
/.n /,,
u./,,
' I
14
$7C gg 3
g,o 4s8 340 y,g il 93 7,g l
' saa
.y' s*c n2 sen
,au
,,u sea
- ca 2
n+
.i.
19 g
ici iau ie r.
. a i, a
icu io n ion s,,
(
" \\.n
\\ "'-
- \\..:
, ~ -
hj!g ( h m/
u.
}l
{
53 i si.Ks*\\
, %jg so
"' /- /
9
'" a;
' ' ' /
'" /
- ,Q {
g
%\\
ii.
u:
2a a
v, za m
38 3C:
3 3C2
[' } i~ j $
t'c a
f 3
m Level 13 Level 14 5
See Figure A-1 for location of element levels
'T (94 cit.
G.fr f t 2 I ldt 7 E I17
- '17o3 ts3 se T1 s
290 2M
,3 O
C' 357 256 as7 gg 42'3 43G m
L
/,',,
n>
na in m
sc2 y
(
.a m
.i2
- n. 3%
e es3
<e.
sc safg 3c sivk is s aa b
465 a2, a4a q,
4 S't 84 3,1
/ Su Fi i'2
- s v..
/-
an'oh ac i.
N N
r--
v..'
\\\\
..c -q fass
/4a4 64J si eH n
4s.
f x
j ghg v
K m wi ei j e-
r-
'\\, ' ' j [7 '
"J 2
s eis 533
'a gen H
5
\\~#
"N A ss, e' k
' ~ X
'=
.s. /
13 yl ;
- dO f'
sia 53'
,)
52o 5n fJ c15 3 f
'A it
.s/
in in
,%,e
', r., U pg us
- d5 4e f.,~
a
- 2. > 5-(n 383 vs.
'j.i g. n > g 36.
ei. ff '
, 'g 3.' t 4.1 52 3.'2 44, F'
' \\
j '.- Q >j, n ;
p t:
r 2
243 3 ::,
2',a 3:s
.; q ;
r' z n
x.
o n
3c 3 f'
g, a
23B 23J m.3 i
O) 15 t '*
- e. o )
tu 50 b.
i FW Level 15 Level 16 11 See Figure A-1 for location of element levels
T#* 08E = G EPT +
.: / t. 2 /4 111-2I703 D
[t M 297 J F0 O
/
353 C
2%b 0 *,
M 433 M
3'I ISO SC4
!?2 10?
1072 H4 33,
!C7; 413
\\
333 1CIO i"
\\
i icss 4 9".
+4, ICs*
SJ A 3C 323 3
O tes;
\\
ist BC64 1Can 604 IC58 1095
"'9 A30 44I 423 3
N
'N gggg gg gi, g4 3 I *,
943 M0
%54 h
AI3 M4 y,3 44%
$53
,N mas tai sns s.2 i
O!,((
a
~N
/
-N b
s..
su.
12 m
s u.
r--
l
_/
m l
s
(
g 1
.,e
[
m IC ti 7
~
2
%14
=
i l
- l R(
,,(
),,
es N,,,,,, ',,,,
.,., y,,,,,,
4
..s t.
u m
s,,
<J 10$?
R O*5
,33
,43 ICi$
4
'3 m
y 105
&Cs0
'I I
9 69 gg7 /
II ICid
[
'nI
(./)
I C#6
,g; gg3 g,
+
/
ICiJ ggg i.
. n ac,3 3g 9,
fn 8
3M 93
/
323 g ag 3*~4 400 f
.J-
)
N
}(
p 2'42 3;g 254 373 s
2 Y.
3C' o
2n 3~
m
'j v
u.
[* ^
co
~
i.
l l
Level 17 Level 18 I
See Figure A-1 for location of element levels s
i
.