ML19331E096
| ML19331E096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1980 |
| From: | Nelson C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009050489 | |
| Download: ML19331E096 (16) | |
Text
- -
e3 We.
- p fg UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 j
g t
AUG 12 G80
%g....+/
Docket No. 50-70 LICENSEE:
General Electric Company FACILITY:
GETR
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JULY 30, 1980 MEETING REGARDIiiG THE GENERAL ELECTRIC TEST REACTOR (GETR)
On July 30, 1980, we met with General Electric Company and its consultants in Bethesaa to discuss the ongoing structural evaluation of the GETR.
The
],
most recent reports on this subject were submitted by GE on July 17, 1980.
A list of attendees is Attachment 1.
Significant points discussed are summarized below.
GE presented information to justify the use of the one direction loadings detennined in the Phase 2 analyses as input to the finite element stress analysis of the Calaveras event.
GE discussed two examples of the hand calculations referred to in EDAC-Il7-253.02, Rev.1, submitted July 17, 1980, to support that the effects of the vertical earthquake component on calculated stresses in the concrete structure are insignificant.
Furthermore, GE presenced analytical results to show that naximum stresses determined using one horizontal direction input to the finite element analysis were nearly the same (within 10%) as those calculated using the square root of the sum of the squares of both horizontal components.
Infonnation presented is summarized in Attachments 2, 3 and 4.
GE presented a step-by-step discussion of the procedure for applying the loads determined in the linear elastic lumped mass model to the finite element model. Attacnments 5, 6 and 7 summarize the information presented.
The soil pressu-e analyses submitted on July 17, 1980, were discussed, We requested justification for the values of shear modulus and velocity used in the analyses, as shown or. Table 3-1, indicating that they may be low. GE agreed to address the question.
Referring to Figure 6 " Loading vs. Capacity" of EDAC-ll7-253.01, Revision 1, Supplement 2, submitted July 17, 1980; we indicated that additional support for the shape of the ' conservative capacity' curve would be necessary should the " limiting combinst%ns based on local soil pressure" curve be significantly affected by review of shear modulus and velocity values questioned above.
l In addition to the discussion of the structural analyses we requested that GE provide the following:
$009060 $ N
i Robert A. Clark August 12, 1980 1.
GE's calculation of radioactivity released following a design basis seismic event considering all potential sources, J
2.
Detafis to support GE's position that seismic scram actuation and subsequent control red and equipment operation will precede significant earthquake 4
- loadings, 3.
Details to support the reliability of the seismic.; cram and valve actuation j
circuitry including consideration of a single failure.
Conclusion GE agreed to provide the information rce,uested by the staff.
We indicated that we expected to issue our SER addressing the GETR systems and structural analysis and the landslide evaluation by mid October.
/
f&
Y w
Chris C. Nelson, Project M nager Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing Attachments:
As stated cc w/er.cl:
See next page
75g,q MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION Licers;e: General Electric Company
- Copies also sent to those people on service (cc) list for subject plant (s).
Docket File NRC PDR L PDR (TERC)
Ns1C ORB Rda NRR Rdg HDenton ECase DElsenhut RPurple RTedesco TNova k-Glainas RReid TIppolito 1
SVarga DCrutchfield RAClark ORB Project Manager Licensing Assistant 0 ELD AE0D - JHeltemes IE-3 SShowe (PWR) or CThayer (BWR), IE RFraley, ACRS (16)
Program Support Branch GZeth J01shinski NRC. Participants i
l l
, cc
- California Department of Health ATTN: Chief. Environmental Radiation Dr. Harry Foreman, Member Control Unit Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Radiologic Health Section Box 395, Mayo 71' P Street, Room 498 University of Minnesota
. Sacramento, California 95184 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Honorable Ronald V. Dellums Ms. Barbara $hockley ATTN: Ms. Nancy Snow 1890 Bockman Road General Delivery, Civic Center San Lorenzo, California 94580 Station Oakland, California 94604 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Friends of the Earth U. S. Nuclear D.egulatory Commission ATTN:
W. Andrew Baldwin, Esquire Washington, D. C.
20555 Legal Director 124 Spear Street Mr. R. W. Darmitzel, Manager San Francisco, California 94105 Rad'stion Product Processing Section Vallecitos Nuclear Center Jed Somit. Esquire General Electric Company 100 Bush Street P.O. Box 460 Suite 304 Pleasanton, California 94566 San Francisco, California 94104 Edward Luton, Esquire, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
205B5 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 George Edgar Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, NW Washington, D. C.
20036 1
)
i
LIST OF ATTENDEES GETR MEETING i
July 30, 1980 1
NRC and Consultants C. Nelson J. Martore M. Wohl P. Justus R. Bachmann J. Greeves L. Heller A. Holfiz C. W. Burger W. J. Hall i
R. W. Darmitzel D. L. Gilliland EDAC G. Kost M. Chen i
4 i
1 1
h o
I
}
i r
7
--v
,.,.,, -.. y - +. - -,, -. - - -.
,_,,,,e-.m----
e.
e-EDAC f
ENGINEERING DECISION ANALYSIS COMF ANY. INC.
480 CALIFORNIA AVE, SJITE 301. PALO ALTD CALIF. 04306
~
_. fHONE 415f 326 0383
._ [,, _
DRAFT 25 July 1980 EFFECT OF VERTICAL EARTHQUAKE COMPONENT l
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Denonstrate by manual calculations that the effects of the vertical earthquake conponent on stresses in the concrete core structure of the Reac*ne Building are insignificant.
V SUf44ARY OF CALCULATIONS:
1 Select as an example the region between the 2nd and 3rd Floors at the location of highest stress.
fa = Axial stress due to DL = 22 psi fy = Axial stress due to vertical EQ = -11 psi fbnw = Flexural stress due to NW EQ = -80 asi f bne = Flexural stress due to NE EQ = -80 psi f = Total stress including vertical EQ f'= Total stress excNdirg vertical EQ f = fa - (fv2 + fbnw2 + fbne )
= -92 psi 2
. = fa - ( 0 + fbnw2+fbne)
= -91 psi 2
v
\\_' '
V DRAFT 25 JULY 1980 EFFECT OF VERTICAL EARTHQUAKE COMP 0NENT continued Select as another ex mple the region between the 1st and 2nd Floors at V
the location of highest stress, fa = 53 psi fy = 26 psi fbnw = 194 psi fbne = 219 psi f = 241 psi f'= 240 psi CONCLUSION:
The effects of the vertical earthquake component are insignificant.
l
[
b 1
7,,..,,,,,
uu uhua, l
m EDAO i
ENgl plNG DECISIOUN L gOpPA I C_
480 CALIFORNIA AVE. SUITE 3C,1. PALO ALTO. CALIF. 94306 y
PHONE 415/326 0383 DRAFT 25 JULY 1980 l
SUlHARY OF CONCLUSIONS CALAVERAS LOAD CASE l
0 Based on hand calculations, the vertical earthquake component has an insignificant influence on flexural stresses.
Based on hand calculations, the maximum flexural stress at each level is nearly the same whether the analysis is performed for the:
V NE direction NW direction SRSS of NE and NW directions It is reasonable to expect the same results from finite element analyses.
Therefore, it was concluded that it was necessary to perform U
finite element analyses for only the NE direction and that the maximum stresses at each level would be nearly the same for the NW direction SRSS of NW and NE directii s C
l l
o Attachaent 4 EDRO ENGINEERING DECISION ANALYSIS COMPANY. INC.
'v 480 CALIFORNIA AVE. SlHTE 301. PALO ALTO. CALIF 94306 PHONE 415/326 0383 DRAFT 25 JULY 1980 COMBINATION OF COMPONENTS OF EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Demonstrate by manual calculations that the maximum stresses at a given level are in the same range for the two input cases:
(1) one horizontal earthquake component, and (2) two horizontal plus vertical earthquake y
conponents.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION:
For a compact cross-section, the maximum stresses will be equal for the two input cases.
This is illustrated for a circular cross-section in Figure 1.
The concrete core structure of the GETR Reactor Building is a compact, nearly circular cross-section as shown in Figure 2 for the first to second floor levels.
For this cross section, it is reasonable to expect that the flexural stresses at locations 1 through 4 are nearly equal.
I
DRAFT
~
25 JULY 1980 L
COMBINATION OF COMPONENTS OF EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS l
continued SUM 4ARY OF CALCULATIONS:
The stresses in the following table are flexural stresses only.
Dead load and vertical earthquake load have been excluded for demonstration purposes.
Location _
fnw fne fsrss 1
273 psi
~0 psi 273 psi 2
194
.Eiz6 293 V
i 3
101 265 284 4
254
~0 254 i
As expected, the maximum stress computed by the SRSS method (293 psi) is nearly equal to the maximum stress obtained for one component (273 psi).
The same results are obtained if the dead load and vertical earthquake components are included. For this case, the maximum stress by the SRSS method is 241 psi and the maximum stress for one component is 220 psi.
CONCLUSION:
The maximum stresses at a given level are nearly equal for the two input cases:
(1) one horizontal earthquake component, and (2) two horizrntal plus vertical earthquake components.
I HM@
.m PAGE OF BY DATE PROJECT CHKD, BY
_DATE SU3 JECT JOB NO.
V h
h b
c
/
/
.A *-
,x r
1 Assume MuS Myy - M I xx ?.t y = I y
1.
60 in X - Mi r ernly ha : Mr Mb 0
kc=
Mr I
r ce
- 2. 60 in y dir ulv i
f4 = 0 Mio = M_r fc. =Mr I
Es
- 3. sess of s6se;
& = nr h, = ile L = tir r
r I
i Fsuae 1
Con ency (ciacui.aa)
Ccoss Sectiov e
l l
v l
1
~
~%
\\
/
N s
N
?
1
- {y
- i 0
,.4 g
G M.'.
e 1,4'
.l
. :x.... -
/
i s
./
.n
's 7
r Nw i
~.
Fu.v a e 2 Couceera Coer sraverve e Ceoss Sect ion 1 0 - 2 "d Ft es tw
EDAC ENGINEERING DECISION ANALYSIS COMPANY, INC V
480 CALIFORNIA AVE., SUITE 301. PALO ALTO. CALIF. 94306
~'~
PHONE 4t5 / 326-0383 ORAFT 25 JULY 1980 STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE EQUIVALENT STATIC N0DAL LOADS IN THE FINITE ELEMENT KDEL 1.
A linear elastic lumped mass model of the Reactor Building was developed as shown in Figure 2-5 of the Phase 2 report. Masses Mi at each level were calculated and included concrete and equipment.
2.
An earthquake time history dynamic analysis was performed for the peak ground acceleration of 0.6g using the modal superposition method.
3.
The instances at which the maximum base moment and base shear occurred were examined and moments and shears at these instances were scaled by 0.8/0.6 = 1.33 to obtain values for 0.8g case.
Accelerations at t = 10.35 sec. were then obtained from the output and scaled by 1.33 to obtain accelerations for the 0.8g case, j
D
\\#
DRAFT 25 JULY 1980 i
STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE EQUIVALENT STATIC i
N00AL LOADS IN THE FINITE ELEMENT M) DEL continued 4.
A finite element model (FEM) was developed as shown in Figures A-1 to A-10 Phase 2 Report.
It was decided, for simplification, to apply the nodal loads only at the elements at the floor levels of the FEM, rather than to distribute loads throughout the entire height of the concrete core structure.
The total lateral (or vertical) force F at level i was j
is the total obtained by calculating F e M a, where M$
j jj mass at level 1, and a is the acceleration at level 1.
j The story shears and overturning moments were then calculated 4
based on the forces F, and checked against the values from j
step 3 to assure that they were conservative.
The total concrete volume V at each floor level i was then j
calcul ated.
The concrete volume V tributary to node j at level i was j,3 then calculated.
at node j at level i was The lateral (or vertical) force fj,3
/V )
calculated from fj,3 = F (Vj,3 j
j b
cerr:yx.g.,.
Lnt..~.
/ttachment 6_
1 EDAC ENGINEERING oECISION ANSLNSIS COMP Nh.15JC 480 CALIFORhiA AVE., SUITE 301. PALO ALTO. CALIF. 94306 V
PHONE 415 / 326-0383 DRAFT 25 JULY 1980 STEPS IN STRESS ANALYSIS OF FINITE ELEMENT MODEL 1.
Select ground accelerations and unsupported length for analysis.
2.
Select scale factor for inertia forces (0.3g/0.8g).
3.
Develop matrix of 24 load cases based on 1.0/0.4/0.4 matrix.
4.
Perform computer analyses for three separate basic cases H1, H2, V
V, and obtain 6 stress components in each element (in the global axes) for each basic case.
5.
For each of the 24 cases, combine the stresses for each element in principle thus:
DL + C H1 + C H2 + C Y y
2 3
Actually thus:
C H1 + C H2 + V(1 + C )
y 2
3 Now have 24 sets of combined stresses, j
6.
For each of the 24 load cases, calculate principle stresses in center of each element, and calculate stress ratios for principle tensile stresses.
7.
Search stress ratios for maximum values.
L 8.
Prepare stress ratio summary sheets for all load cases, and evaluate results.
Jttachment7 2-31 NE V
Containment Elev. 659 ft 7 in.
4 NW C
SE 648 ft 7 in.
O
/,l 637 ft 7 in.
j!q, o@
SW Polar Crane
%b 626 ft 7 in.
g
- Flcor/ y,Blc*g 611 ft 7 in.
- o. iSt. Et g
g 600 ft 8 in,.
y g
g
@[mh,O Fl oo r 2 M.?
589 ft 9 in.
o,, 7 W
"O
\\\\
\\
g 578 ft 9 in, u
\\\\-
,,,,,f,j g
....R...._.a g
Fl o'o r 1 34.*
567 ft 9 in.
g t
i 4
g 3
560 ft 3 in.
g g
[27 a lTil g&
12cs:
\\
20./
Q Top of Basegnt S ab 552 ft 9 in.
Bottom of Foundation h.4
- e 546 ft 3 in.
.., ~,
g g
z (vertical) 5.2, L
- bw3
/ y (NE) x (SE) g Beam Element I
l
- Rigid Link G of entire structure j
FIGURE 2-5 MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR THE LINEAR ELASTIC OYNAMIC ANALYSES L
[
lD
" l0 "bl
~ VK 6\\
~
Loo n s N 11AliL gggg s
. _ _ _ - - -