ML19332C776
| ML19332C776 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/30/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0800, NUREG-0800-03.7.3-R2, NUREG-800, NUREG-800-3.7.3-R2, SRP-03.07.03, SRP-3.07.03, NUDOCS 8911280536 | |
| Download: ML19332C776 (13) | |
Text
.
+.
u s
(iarmerly NUREG 75/087)
\\
d"):
8'pB #f Cg'% - U.S. NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
Q4'#) STANDARD REVIEW PLAN k."..
/
' OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION -
u Standard Review Plan for the y
Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants
'Section rJo.
3.7.3 Revision No.
2 l
Appendix No.
N/A Revision No.._._
N/A
' Branch Tech. Position N/A Revision No.
N/A i
Date issued August 1989 J
-1
. l
=_-m.
\\
FILING INSTRUCTIONS PAGES TO BE REMOVED
' NEW PAGES TO BE INSERTED PAGE NUMBER DATE PAGE NUMBER DATE 3.7.3-1 Rev. 1 July 1981 3.7.3-1 Rev. 2 August 1989
.thru thru
-3.7.3-8' 3.7.3-11 8911280536 091130 PDR NUREG 0800 R PDR,
I l
t l-The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's b,)'
l' Standard Review Plan, NUREG 0800, prepared by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, is available l
for sale by the National Technical information
)
l Service, Springfield. VA 22161.
l l;
+
wu us..t nym i,.
f
= v; -
s 4 '
A ad L s
NU REG-0800 '
(Formerly NUREG 75/087)
%p 'T "i
N"%
A
. U.S.~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
W; K : STANDARD REV EW PLAN:
-g
/
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION.
-.eee..
s r
-SECTION 3,7.3 SEISMIC SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS-h
~
a REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES-x Primary - Structuraliand Geosciences Branch (ESGB)
Secondary - None, j
l1.
' AREAS OF. REVIEW:
' The following areas related to the seismic subsystem analysis are reviewed:
1.
Seismic Analysis Methods J
f The'information reviewe'd is similar to that described in subsection 1.1 of.
l Standard Review Plan'(SRP) Section 3.7.2 but as applied'to seismic Cate-
'f
.fg.
gory I-subsystems.
2.~
- Determir,ation of Number of Earthquake Cycles Criteria or procedures used to establish'the number of earthquake cycles during one-seismic event and the maximum number of cycles for which appli-cable Category I subsystems and components are designed are. reviewed.
'j
. 3.
Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling The criteria and procedures used for modeling the seismic subsystems are
~
= reviewed.
- 4.
Basis for Selection of Frequencies
'As applicable, criteria or procedures used to separate fundamental fre-quencies~of components'and equipment from the forcing frequencies of the
.l support structure are reviewed.
.]
j Rev. 2 - Auaust 1989 USNRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN
' Staridard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff responsible for the review of j
applications to construct and operate nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as,part of the Commission's policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. Standard review A
plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Comrw.ission's regulations and compliance with them is not required. The
-,j standard review plan sections are, keyed to the Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants.
4 Not all sections of the Standard Format have a corresponding review plan.
Published standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments and to reflect new informa-tion and experience.
Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington. D.C. 20S55.
l
e n
J.)
5.:
Analysis Procedure for Damping The-information reviewed is similar to that described in subsection I.13 of SRP Section 3.7.2 but as applied to Category I subsystems.
6.
'Three Components of' Earthquake Motion The information reviewed is similar to that described-in subsection I.6 of SRP Section 3.7.2 but as applied to Category I subsystems.
7.
' Combination of Model Responses The information reviewed is similar to that described in subsection I 7 of SRP Section 3.7.2 but as applied to Category I subsystems.
8.
Interaction of' 0ther-Systems With Category I Systems The seismic analysis procedures to account for the seismic motion of non-Category I systems in the seismic design of Category I systems are reviewed.
9.
Multiply-Supported Equipment and Components with Distinct Inputs The criteria'and procedures for seismic analysis of equipment and compo-nents supported at different elevations within a building and between buildings.with distinct inputs are reviewed.
10.-
Use of Equivalent Vertical Static Factors The information reviewed is similar to that described in subsection 1.10 of SRP Section 3.7.2 but as applied to Category I subsystems.
- 11. Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses The criteria and procedures that are used to consider the torsional effects of eccentric masses in seismic subsystem analyses are reviewed.
12.
Category I Buried Piping, Conduits, and Tunnels For Category I buried piping, conduits, tunnels, and auxiliary systems, the seismic criteria and methods which consider the compliance characteristics of soil media, dynamic pressures, settlement due to earthquake and differ-ential movements at support points, penetrations, and entry points into structures provided with anchors are reviewed.
13.
Methods for Seismic Analysis of Category I Concrete Dams The analytical methods and procedures that will be used for seismic analysis of Category I concrete dams are reviewed.
The assumptions made, the boundary conditions used, the hydrodynamic effects considered, and the procedures by which strain-dependent material properties of foundation are incorporated in the analysis are reviewed.
O 3.7.3-2 Rev. 2 - August 1989
^~
g o
5 sa es
- 14. Methods for Seismic Analysis of Above-Ground Tanks l
)
%)
- For Category I above ground tanks, the seismic criteria and methods that consider hydrodynamic forces, tank flexibility, soil-structure interaction, and other pertinent parameters are reviewed.
II.
. ACCEPTANCE ~ CRITERIA The acceptance _ criteria for the areas of-review described in subsection I of this SRP section are given below. Other criteria which can be justified to be equivalent to or more conservative than the stated acceptance criteria may be used.
The staff accepts the design of subsystems that are important to safety and must withstand the effects of earthquakes if the relevant requirements of General Detign Criterion (GDC) 2 (Ref. 1) and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 (Ref. 2) concerning material-phenomena are complied with.
The relevant requirements of GDC 2 and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 are:
1.
General Design Criterion 2 - The design basis shall reflect appropriate consideration'of the most severe earthquakes reported to have affected the site and surrounding area with sufficient margin for the limited accuracy, quantity, and period of time in which historicc1 data have been accumulated.-
2.
Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 - Two earthquake levels, the safe shutdown earthquake-(SSE) and the operating basis earthquake (OBE), shall be conside' red in the design of safety-related structures, components, and systems.
Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 further states that the design
. h_
used to ensure that the required safety ~ functions are maintained during
.('"j and after the vibratory ground motion associated with the safe shutdown earthquake shall involve the use of either a suitable dynamic analysis or a suitable qualification test to demonstrate that structures, systems, and components can withstand the seismic and other concurrent loads, except
.where it.can be demonstrated that the use of an equivalent static load method provides adequate conservatism.
i Specific criteria necessary to meet the relevant requirements of GDC 2 and Appendix A to Part-100 are as follows:
1.
Seismic Analysis Methods The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection II.1, are applicable.
2.
Determination of Number of Earthquake Cycles During the plant life at least one safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and five operating basis earthquakes (OBEs) should be assumed.
The number of cycles per earthquake should be obtained from the synthetic time history (with a minimum duration of 10 seconds) used for the system analysis, or a minimum of 10 maximum stress cycles per earthquake may be assumed.
3.
Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling d( -
The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection II.3, are applicable.
3.7.3-3 Rev. 2 - August 1989
n
'h
<3,
'4.
Basis'for Selection of Frequencies
.To avoid resonance,'the fundamental frequencies of components and equipment should preferably. be selected to be less than 1/2 or more than -
-twice the dominant frequencies of'the support structure.
Use of equip-ment _ frequencies within this range is acceptable if the equipment is adequately designed for the applicable loads.
- 5. -
Analysis Procedure for Damping
.1 The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection-II.13, are applicable'.
6.
Three Components of Earthquake Motion The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection II.6, are applicable.
~
7.
Combination of Modal Kesponses
- The acceptance criteria provided in SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection II.7 are applicable.
8.
Interaction of Other Systems With Category I Systems To be acceptable, each non-Category I' system should be designed to be isolated.from any Category I system by either a constraint or barrier, or should be' remotely located with regard to the seismic Category I system.
If it is'not feasible or practical to isolate the Category I system, adjacent non-Category I-systems should be analyzed according to the same seismic criteria as applicable to the Category I system.' For non-Category.I systems attached to_Cate-gory I systems, the dynamic effects of the non-Category I systems should be simulated in the.modeling of the Category I system.
The attached non-Category I systems, up to the first anchor beyond the interface, should also be designed in such a manner that during an earthquake of SSE intensity it will not cause a failure of the Cate-gory I system.
9.
Multiply-Supported Equipment and Components With Distinct Inputs-Equipment and components in some cases are supported at several points by either a single structure or two separate structures.
The motions of the primary structure or structures at each of the support points may be quite different.
A conservative and acceptable approach for equipment items supported at two or more locations is to use an upper bound envelope of all the individual response spectra for these locations to calculate maximum inertial responses of multiply-supported items.
In addi-tion, the relative displacements at the support points should be considered.
Conventional static analysis procedures are acceptable l;
for this purpose.
The maximum relative support displacements can be i
3.7.3-4 Rev. 2 - August 1989
(.
5'
,q<
-t, I
l y
obtained from the structural response calculations or, as a conser-
]
vative approximation, by using the floor response spectra.
For_the
)
i latter option the' maximum displacement of each support is predicted
(~ )'
by ' Sd
- b g/m, where 5, is the spectral acceleration in "g's" at the a
high-frequency end of the spectrum curve (which, in turn, is equal to
- the maximum floor acceleration), g.is the. gravity constant, and w is the' fundamental-frequency of the primary support structure in radians per second.
The support displacements can then be imposed on the supported item in the most unfavorable combination.
The responses-due to the: inertia _effect and relative displacements should be combined by the' absolute. sum method.
In the case of multiple supports located in a single structure, an alternative, acceptable method using the floor response spectra involves determination of dynamic responses due_to the worst single floor re-
,sponse spectrum selected from a set of floor response spectra obtained at various floors and applied identically to all the floors, provided there is no significant shift in frequencies of the spectra peaks.
In addition, the support displacements should be imposed on the supported item in the most unfavorable combination using static analysis procedures.
l In lieu of the response spectrum approach, time histories of support motions may be used as excitations to the subsystems.
Because of o
l the increased analytical effort compared to the response spectrum techniques, usually' only a major equipment system would warrant a M(
time history approach.
The time history approach does, however,
/
-provide more realistic results in some cases as compared to the res-ponse spectrum envelope method for multiply-supported systems.
l
-10.
Use of Equivalent Vertical Static Factors The acceptance criteria provided in_SRP Section 3.7.2, subsec-tion 11.10, are applicable.
L 11.
Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses y
l For seismic Category I subsystems, when the torsional effect of an eccentric mass is judged to be significant, the eccentric mass and its eccentricity should be included in the mathematical model.
The criteria for judging the significance will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
12.
Category I Buried Piping, Conduits, and Tunnels e
For Category I buried piping, conduits, tunnels, and auxiliary systems, the following items should be considered in the analysis:
a.
Two types of groundshaking-induced loadings must be considered for design.
l
,m (i) Relative deformations imposed by seismic waves traveling
-(C) through the surrounding soil or by differential deforma-tions between the soil and anchor points.
3.7.3-5 Rev. 2 - August 1989
c>
~(ii). Lateral earth pressures and ground-water effects: acting on structures.
l b.
.The effects of static resistance of the surrounding soil on piping deformations or displacements, differential movements of piping
-anchors,-bent geometry and curvature changes, etc., should be adequately considered.
Procedures using the principles of the theory of structures on elastic foundations are acceptable, TWhen applicable, the effects'due to local soil settlements, soil c.
arching,~etc., should also be considered in the analysis, d.
Actual methods used for determining the design parameters associated with sgismically induced transient relative deformations are reviewed and accepted on a case-by-case basis.
Additional information, for guidance purposes only, can be found on page 26 of Reference 3 and-in Section 3.5.2 of Reference 4.
~ 13.
Methods for Seismic Analysis of Category I Concrete Dams For the analysis of all Category I concrete dams, an appropriate approach-that takes into consideration the dynamic nature of forces (due to both horizontal and vertical earthquake loadings), the behavior of the dam material under earthquake loadings, soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects, and nonlinear stress-strain relations for the soil, should be used.
Analysis of earthen dams is reviewed under Section 2.5.6.
14.
Methods-for Seismic Analysis of Above-Ground Tanks Most'above ground fluid-containing vertical tanks do not warrant sophisticated, finite element, fluic-structure interaction analyses for seismic loading.
However, the commonly used alternative of analyzing.such tanks'by the "Housner-method" (Ref. 5) may be inadequate in some cases.
The major problem is that. direct application of this method is consistent with the assumption that the combined fluid-tank system in the horizontal impulsive mode is sufficiently rigid to justify the assumption of a rigid tank.
For flat-bottomed tanks mounted directly on their bases, or tanks with very stiff skirt supports, the assumption leads to the usage of a spectral acceleration equal to the' zero period base acceleration.
Recer.t studies-(Refs. 6, 7, 8, 9,' and 10) have shown that for typical tank designs the frequency for this fundamental horizontal impulsive mode of the tank shell and contained fluid is such that the spectral acceleration may be significantly far greater than the zero period acceleration.
- Thus, the assumption of a rigid tank could lead to inadequate design loadings.
The SSI effects may also be very important for tank responses, and they may be considered for both horizontal and vertical motions.
The acceptance criteria below are based upon the information contained in References 1 through 3 and Reference 5.
These references also contain acceptable calculational techniques for the implementation of these criteria.
The use of other approaches meeting the intent of these criteria can also be considered if adequate justification is provided.
3.7.3-6 Rev. 2 - August 1989 4
,f.
y 7
n
[1 i
w.
- a.
'A mininum acceptable analysis must incorporate at least two horizontal f~Y modes of 2 combined fluid-tank vibration and at least one vertical mode 1
,r of-fluid vibration. 'The horizontal response analysis must include
'~#
~
at-least one impulsive mode.in 'which the response of the ta'nk shell and roof are coupled'together with the portion of the fluid contents that~ moves.in unison with the shell.
Furthermore, at least the~funda-mental sloshing (cenvective) mode-of the fluid must be included in-the horizontal' analysis, b.
The fundamental natural horizontal impulsive mode.of vibration of the fluid-tank system must be estimated giving due consideration to the flexibility of the supporting medium and to any uplifting tendencies for the tank.
It.is unacceptable to assume a rigid tank unless the. assumption can be justified.- -The-horizontal impulsive-mode spectral acceleration, S is then determined using.
thisfrequencyandth'eappropriatedampNg,forthefluid-tank system.
Alternatively, the maximum spectral acceleration corres-nonding to the relevant damping may be used.
J c.
Damping values used to determine _the spectral acceleration in the impulsive mode shall be based upon the system damping associated with the. tank shell material as well as with the SSI, as specified in References 3 and 10.
- d.
In determining the spectral acceleration in the horizontal convective mode, S the fluid damping ratio shall be.0.5 percent of critical dampingbn,less'a'highervaluecanbesubstantiatedbyexperimental a
.n.
j J
results.
v
-e.
.The maximum overturning moment, M, at the base of the tank should be H
obtained by the modal and spatiaT combination methods discussed in subsection II of SRP Section 3.7.2.
The uplift tension resulting from M must be resisted either by tying.the tank to the foundation witha8chorbolts,etc.,orbymobilizingenoughfluidweightona thickened base skirt plate.
The latter method of resisting M must~
g be shown to be conservative.
t-f.
The seismically induced hydrodynamic pressures on the tank shell at any level can be determined by_ the modal and spatial combination methods in SRP Section 3.7.2.
The maximum hoop forces in the tank wall must be evaluated with due regard for the contribution of the vertical component'of ground shaking.
The beneficial effects of soil-structure interaction may be considered in this evaluation (Refs 4, 11, 12, and 13).
The hydrodynamic pressure at any level must be added to the hydrostatic pressure at that level to determine the hoop tension in the tank shell.
g.
Either the tank top head must be located at elevation higher than the slosh height above the top of the fluid or else must be designed for pressures resulting from fluid sloshing against this head.
h.
At the point of attachment, the tank shell must be designed to gh withstand the seismic forces imposed by the attached piping.
, Q An appropriate analysis must be performed to verify this design.
1 3.7.3-7 Rev. 2 - August 1989 f
L J
r n
.i.
The tank foundation'(see also SRP Section 3.8.5) must be designed to O ccommodate the seismic forces imposed on'it. 'These forces include the hydrodynamic ' fluid pressures imposed on the base of _ the tank as wellJas'-the: tank shell longitudinal compressive and tensile forces resultinglfromM.
g l
lj.
In addition to the above, a consideration'must be given to prevent L
buckling of tank walls' and roof, failure of connecting piping, and.
sliding of the tank.
III. REVIEW PROCEDURES For each area of-review, the following review procedure is followed.
The i
reviewer will select and emphasize material from_the procedures given below,
-'as may be appropriate for a particular case. _The review procedures are such-
~
as to satisfy the requirements of acceptance criteria stated in subsection II.
~
'L
. Seismic Analysis Methods l-l The seismic analysis methods are reviewed to determine that these-are in accordance with'the acceptance criteria of SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.1.
2.
Determination of Number of Earthquake Cycles i
Criteria or procedures used-to establish the number of earthquake cycles are reviewed to determine that they are-in accordance with the acceptance criteria as.given in subsection II.2 of this-SRP section.
Justification L
'for deviating from the acceptance criteria is requested from the applicant, as.necessary.
L3.
Procedures Used for Analytical Modeling i
The criteria and procedures used for modeling for the seismic subsystem analysis:are reviewed to determine that these are in accordance with the acceptance. criteria of SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection 11.3.
4.
Basis for Selection of Frequencies
- As applicable,' criteria or procedures used to separate fundamental fre-quencies of components and equipment from the forcing frequencies of the support structure are reviewed to determine compliance with the accept-ance criteria of subsection 11.4 of this SRP section.
5.
Analysis Procedure for Damping The analysis procedure to account for damping in different elements of the model of a coupled system is reviewed to determine that it is in accordance with the acceptance criteria of SRP Section 3.7.2, L,
subsection II.13.
1 O
L l
3.7.3-8 Rev. 2 - August 1989 l
~.
a a
g 6.
Three Components of Earthquake Motion L
i l
s/
The procedures by which the three components of earthquake motion are con-
.sidered in determining the seismic response of subsystems are reviewed to j
determine compliance with.the acceptance criteria of SRP Section~3.7.2, subsection II.6; b
7.
Combination of Modal' Responses The~ procedures for. combining modal responses are reviewed to determine 1
compliance with the acceptance criteria of SRP Section 3.7.2, subsec-tion II.7 when a response spectrum moda) an& Nsis method is used.
8.-
Interaction of Other Systems with Category I Systems The criteria used to' design the interfaces between Category I and non-Category I systems are reviewed to determine compliance with the acceptance-criteria of subsection 11.8 of this SRP section.
9.
. Multiply-Supported Equipment and Components With Distinct Inputs The criteria for the seismic analysis of multiply-supported equipment
.and components with distinct inputs are reviewed to determine that the criteria are in accordance with the acceptance criteria of subsection 11.9 of this SRP section, p 10.
Use of Equivalent Vertical Static Factors Ub Use'of equivalent static factors as response loads in the vertical direc-l-
tion for the seismic design of any Category I subsystems in lieu of a detailed dynamic method is reviewed to determine that constant static factors are used only if the structure is rigid in the vertical direction.
11.
Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses The procedures for seismic analysis of Category I subsystems are reviewed to determine compliance with the acceptance criteria of subsection II.11 of this SRP section.
12.
Category I Buried Pipina, Conduits, and Tunnels The analysis procedures for Category I buried piping, conduits, tunnels, and auxiliary systems are reviewed to determine that they are in accord-ance with the acceptance criteria of subsection II.12 of this SRP section.
The analysis includes review of the procedures used to consider the inertial effects of soil media and the differential displacements at struc-tural' penetrations, etc.
Any procedures that are not adequately justified are so identified, and the applicant is requested to provide additional justification.
lO
<>/
i 3.7.3-9 Rev. 2 - August 1989
y
- T 4
o l
y 13..: Methods for Seismic Analysis of Category I Concrete Dams Methodsifor the seismic.' analysis of Category I concrete dams are reviewed to determine' compliance with the acceptance criteria of subsection 11.13 1
of this SRP section.
14.
Method for Seismic Analysis of Above-Ground Tanks.
Methods for seismic ~ analysis of Category I above ground tanks are reviewed to'. determine compliance with the acceptance criteria of subsection 11.14 of this SRP section.
P IV.
EVALUATION FINDINGS Evaluation' findings for SRP Section 3.7.3 have been combined with those of SRP Section 3.7.2 and are given unaer SRP Section 3.7.2, subsection IV.
o
. V.
IIMPLEMENTATION The following is intended to provide guidance to applicants and licensees regarding the NRC-staff's plans for using this SRP section.
Except in those cases in which the -applicant proposes an acceptable-alternative m2thod for complying with specified portions'of the Commission's regulations, the method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance.with the Commission's regulations.
The provisions of this SRP section apply to reviews of construction permit (CP),
preliminary design approval (PDA), final design approval (FDA), and combined license (CP/0L) applications docketed after the date of issuance of this SRP s
section.
Operating license (0L) and final design approval (FDA) applications, whose CP and PDA reviews were conducted prior to the issuance of this revision to SRP Section 3.7.3, will be reviewed in accordance with the acceptance criteria given in the SRP Section 3.7.3, Revision 1, dated July 1981.
VI.
REFERENCES 1.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 2, " Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomenon."
2.
10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, " Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants."
- 3.
D. W. Coats, " Recommended Revisions to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seismic Design Criteria," NUREG/CR-1161, May 1980.
a 4.
ASCE Standard 4-86, " Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary on Standard for Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures," American Society of Civil Engineers, September 1986.
5.
TID-7024, " Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes," Division of Reactor Develop-ment, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, August 1963.
3.7.3-10 Rev. 2 - August 1989
7 g
y Y
- 6.'
A. S. LVeletsos; " Seismic Effects in Flexible Liquid Storage Tanks,"
7s p
Proceedings of Fif th World-Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, JN. ri 1974.
y
/
j 7.
A. S. Veletsos and J. Y. Yang, " Earthquake Response of Liquid Storage Tanks," Advances in.Civi1' Engineering Through Engineering Mechanics, Proceedings of the Engineering Mechanics Division Specialty Confer-ence, ASCE.. Raleigh, North Carolina, pp. 1-24, 1977.
8.
M. A. Haroun.and-G. W. Housner, " Seismic. Design of-Liquid Storage
. Tanks,". Journal of the Technical Councils,:ASCE, Vol. 107, No. TC1, pp. 191-207, 1981.
1 9.
A. S. Veletsos, " Seismic Response and Design of Liquid Storage Tanks,"
Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems, Technical Council'on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, ASCE, pp. 255-370 and 443-461,'1984.-
10.
A. S. Veletsos and Y. Tang, " Soil-Structure Interaction Effects for Laterally Excited Liquid-Storage Tanks,".to appear as an EPRI Technical i
Report, Palo Alto, California,~1989.
11.
M. A. Haroun and M. A. Tayel, "Axisymmetrical Vibrations-of Tanks--
Numerical," Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol.111,-
i No. 3, pp. 329-345, 1985.
'e'~'N
- 12.
A. S. Veletsos and Y. Tang, " Dynamics of Vertically Excited Liquid a,j[??
Storage Tanks," Journal'of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112,
.No.'6, pp.-1228-1246, 1986.
13.
A. S. Veletsos and Y. Tang, " Interaction Effects in Vertically Excited Steel Tanks," Dynamic Response of Structures, G.'C. Hart and R. B.
Nelson, Editors, ASCE, pp. 636-643, 1986, 1
L 1.
l-h i
1 1
1 t.
L i
3.7.3-11 Rev. 2 - August 1989
.. - - -. -l
- p. q. [_ +
^
^
- v. y
+ = i.:
NAC80W 33b-
-U S, NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMIS$10N R ( PO R T ( ',' M i k
,' ~
Re%h 2' C N Z L 2,,*M,"?' ""-
mm -
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-0800 g
ese< mwal.orm on ene remm Section 3;7.3
[N
- r. m t Anu sus oitE Revision 2
'())
Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety-Analysis l
2
. Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition-3.
DATE REPORT PuntiS~Eo November l e
ya Revision 2 to SRP Section 3.7.3, " Seismic Subsystem Analysis"-
- b. AUTHOR (St 6 TYPE OF REPORT
/
L 9'
h
- 7. PE R100 COV E R E D is ce,m* CLsrn N,
S. P E.R F O,R MING, eoRO.oO. ANIZ A1 ION - N AME AND ADOR ESS tis Nac, prove owessoa. Ort.cc or neron u.3 h-wer ney wory conwms,oa, ena me ha, eens,ru a
.e
,,,e.ua Office,of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' Washington, D.C.
'20555
- 9. SPONSORING ORG ANIZATION - N AME AND ADDRESS tu, Nac. uype ~seaw es eco,e~, st contrator. prove Nnc oanen. ortrec er neeen. v1 Necear nogeserary comnueuen and meerme soareas,1 Same as above.
i i
- ^
- 10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.
' < f.
..(
'V
- 11. ABSTR ACT (200 wore or+ut
?
This revision of SRP Section 3.7.3 provides clarification for methods of analysis for Category I-buried piping. Additional references are.provided. Major revision occunedin tank design / analysis, including guidance on accounting for. tank flexibility and soil-structure interaction effects. Several additional references.
l1 on tank design / analysis have also been provided.
t.
I i
l i
i
- 12. KE Y WORDSIDESCH:P TORS fust wo,th orparews ends weitesmt sewanm m tocating tne reporta 1.5. avmitagita i y siaievtes I l-Unlimited USI A-40
" " ' " " * " ' ' " ^
L Seismic Design Criteria t ran e+m Tank Design Unclassified c rn,, u on,,,
Unclassified lb. NUMBEH OF PAGES Q
16 PHICE
.=
m NRC F ORM 32 (2 89)
I L
97 4-e A
e w
-wwyv.
--e--i g
w gw-e wg-
- -w-gw T
w,--erw 6 *sme-wwv g-wrw9.r-wr-g
-g w
e.-
7-w W 8eed wg-
__ n s
.-4. y -
>(
. ~. m
- g > *
+
(.
s f
m-W V
3
- .'f k
y'%
- 3.
1 i
5 I'20555139531 1.1AN11X l
US NRC-0ADM i' i DIV FOIA & PUBLICATIONS SVCS q
TPS PDR-NUREG p-223
~
WASHlNGTON DC 2055a j
m
- 1 l
j
.1 l
a
.)
']
1
'l Oi l-I'
.l r
i.'
i l
(
)
i-1-
\\
l l
I i
1 l
7
- l
[^
l,l
'l l-i l,
I l
.~,-..,,,,......,. -...,
.... -... -.,.....,.. -......,....... ~.... -.... ~.
<..