ML20010D908
| ML20010D908 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1981 |
| From: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010D907 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109020097 | |
| Download: ML20010D908 (25) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, ENGINEERING IMPACT ASSESSMENT REANALYZING TO REVISED RESPONSE CtlRVES WILL AFFECT THE FOLLOWING STRUCTURES. REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING SIGNIFICANT ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES WOULD INCLUDE
- 1. ISSUE REVISED RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR EVALUATION
- 2. REVISE DESIGN DOCUMENTS CRITERIA DOCUMENTS
- SPECIFICATIONS
- CALCULATIONS
- 3. REANALYSIS OF NSSS SUPPLIED PIPING
- 4. EDS REANALYSIS OF NON NSSS PIFING (CONTAINMENT)
- 5. EVALUATE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS PIPING LAYOUT PIPING HANGARS / RESTRAINT
- 6. EVALUATE STRUCTURES AND SYSTEMS
- 7. EVALUATE EQUIPMENT / MATERIAL MANUFACTilRER RECOMMENDATION.
- 8. ISSUED REVISED DESIGN DRAWINGS. gg cden.
- 9. SUPPORT PROCUREMENT INTERFACE. 88 ao
- 10. SUPPORT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE REVISION.
~
$5 88 8*
SE m a.<
l' d 1 4 )
- , PURCHASING IMPACT ASSESSMENT
, 1. REISSUE REVISED SPECIFICATIONS. I
- 2. REVISE PURCHASE ORDERS.
i l 3. REISSUE INQUIRIES IF REQUIRED. ) 4. REQUEST PRICE / SCHEDULE IMPACT ASSESSMENT. 1 i 5. EVALUATE MANUFACTURER'S/ FABRICATOR'S RESPONSE FOR f REANALYSIS } - REQUALIFICATION j - H0DIFICATION I 6. NEGOTIATE COST INCREASE. i
- 7. NEGOTIATE CANCELLATION COST IF REQUIRED.
1 l l 1 i
)
O
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVISE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE TO ACCOMODATE: NEW Al d' VAL DATES FOR EQUIPMENT / MATERIAL RELEASE OF REVISED ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
- ASSESS NEED FOR HOLDS BLOCK 0UTS, WORK AROUNDS REMOVAL OF EQUIPMENT FOR HARDWARE MODIFICATION FIELD MODIFICATION CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE IMPACT 2.5 YEARS 1
l l
i j j
SUMMARY
1
- - SIGNIFICANT ENGINEERING IMPACT
- SIGNIFICANT PROCUREMENT IMPACT j
- SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION IMPACT i OVERALL SCHEDULE DELAY IS AT LEAST 2.5 YEARS ESTIMATED j COST IMPACT IS 1 BILLION.
l ) i k 4 i i i i l j
RIVIEV OT SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION .4ND SIISMIC ANALYSIS OF CATECORY I 57RUCTURES SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 by MtOJECT TEAM MDODWARD-CI.YDE 00 Nil'LTA.UI i {. C.-Y.
"f. { ? _; W.; -J . f L ^ ^^ '-
Chang 1. M. Idriss RROWN & ROOT, IEC. Om ,c4-- fI' / James' P. Lee PROJECT CONSULTANTS U: e r ! l duardo Kausel Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, MIT N7 }d W JohnLysmer[ Professor of Civil Engir.eer ng, University of C4.11fornia, Berkeley M B. Dolton Seed Prefessor of Civil Engimring, University of California, Berkeley s may 5.1981 p..vp ,15; a cc.. . :Tc
l' l I i PUR. POSE: e To review soil structure interaction finite-element analyses specifically used for the South hxas Project site and to prepare a report summarizing connects and conclusions based as this soview. SCOPE OF REVIEWS: o Conservatism of input motion e Applicability of the FIM to the STP site e Applicatility of procedures used for the seismic analysis of Category I structures e Sources of conservatism o Conservetise of resulta \ mamm VisualProducts Division '3M St. Paul. MM 55101 Made in USA
v.
.. n s
'~ ) I
- . e s!",
3- v:: i 5 . . , s , ; e a a e : a e s.g g i2g 3,2g l t M a s . ,1. g. E gg
== as 4,=E WilaB g3, E E E '
e l a e I $ 4 ! EIL. i h :EmilE m ma aau. . a g E _. 31 il i
~ !I
- I: i
\ .__
[ n) g
!- . lian mille E E 3 . lms ErillE E 3h *
' t =-malll E E E E E E I' I -mille E E E I ElllE B E E '
E MlllE E E E I Mille E E E I EllIE E E E i I BillE E E E i I- ElllE E E E ( MNElllE E E E : . E MMillE E E E j3 I
' "i idEir n . 2 s ..
i= ****sessessi, c,-m - ops i _ _ - _a--.-------es-w-mw s eur hw se- m- we g ew - .m--_ see-e ww w m wese m'w w
e S. & 5 - o t n
- s 3: i, 3 e
,= =
t
- , L i i i-l l l i i
} ~ l ~-
3 '[ t - pf g ld f J 'i }$ 5 3r - i r < A f 5 L - s J L ! !_I__l T S
- I ! : L- i I-iiiii i i I -3 A W w
.3 .;- w
& s Y 5 i 8 m
l 1
} y E
U E E 55
. (
m a ; se ', d e. 'S b l 1 3C g Isl o i 6- A, I 33 ta i 1 e. i -- ! G A' 1 . . m .. _ _ . E g f5 l SOUTH TEKAS PROJECT 31 " inais i s
; . 6PaE RA4. NOCEDvW FUR Ie $4tL-5 N CTUM INTERACTIGue STuotM FICuet 1 *-2 O IW1 mI WA* ***" N';A^* OR*
/
l l \ p"D l A -
# " Oj = . m ._
A
. A - -- --
amme I p" D< s -. - - g . p" D i A t f" D h
^ !
3 Iee # p" D #< @ # ,,a3 - A A A .A @I,g* p" D .9 '@ fp'-gA e o[ A gM e s -
. .c *'
.si v e # i'&lg LTc- a-aa s9,A(p,A
~
i% @ ,J. 8 '
',A! . e s, 9E%j dgfR nkt s 4 E '] # S o.# '
- f. oe .g -2. s-sd</AA. l A
,,e r e slg #*' '.
A i - . A *@E &(4 :::=~ - - - , , . - ey p .>e' l l 1 l y,m,3 ,. Vit _al Pioducts Division-3M St. Paul, MN 55101 Made in USA
1 2 ' i .! ti ; __ _ J, i;I1l'.a' _'t._I_ i. U.iL_ EL.46.0 L _4. 1j i.:i._.._._ _._l.) O. !' ', i '04 i: o '
.ii
. , j j i.i hi,j ,: n i
4
"' T l -
5 ,
-i- r -j + : W
. s.
, - h.: !!M.1 hj j l l1.:
*. 3q.1.-__;_. I e
I ' 18 - It >
, , i :
i p -
-{-i-
~ ~ ~ -
, f 'h-lt ! bi
~
1 4- kik-jI-!b
; M [ ~g. t- 'e ; 1 i ! ;I i ~ A : ' . ! T l
= 6 TT i.
~
e'
- h] .2-
, j j jy- l l,'-
.. nw.~
i 14i t o.; i.y,!. i ii:.4
, l';,104 iliiiii h EL.-31.5 g M IM 4 f ,l l ' ' ,h.o i<iit:- -L j b '
~
a f 1-
- i i t i i
,FF z
T ' ' j c,# l I:,5 i T TirTr = t i i.
, v,q' ,,.
.- . i L 1 t,
- i1--i i * *-
,4 L
E l t i.-._ 4 J. . ..a Q. -l LLp.. E* 2_L iji i l s 'a i L t . .
- - __..--i .,fl)i. ,
5
.i . re,...
i i na' '1,7 I ge i e i ! l-f q .. .
-r .
i
,--1 t i
; w i.i., sp
_ i.o 1- i i , -,i i . _
,Q U. od, e L
i i #iii-
! .i_i L'i W .._N. i i .i!
- , , , i .
. . u. ..
t
.. na.-- ,
LEGEND: AVERAGE SPECTRAL DAMPIMG = 21
------ U P P E R- B O U N D
- lover-BOUND SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT.
UNITS 1 & 2
- u. , RISON OF P000AT10N-LEWL fGTICM IIESMNSE SPECTRA WITH SWC ORITERIA, HORIZONTAL OBE FIGUptE 9.6-2 e
a-+-,,~.=ui,,,-mo WC/UO!S!A!Q Spnpold (BDS!A ( MELE 3.7-1 3dMFIM: mar wSI (Percent el Critical Emmpias) SPerecing Sesis Safe Shutdown Structure or Component Earthouske2 Earthquake Equipment and large-diameter piping systems,3 pipe diameter greater than 12 in. 2 3 Small-diameter piping system, diameter equal to or less than 12 in. 1 2 Welded steel structures 2 4 Bolted steel structures 4 7 Frestressed concrete structures 2 5 Reinforced concrete structures 4 7 Note: Table 3.7-1 is derived free the recosamendations given in Reference 3.7.1-1 and complies with RG 1.61, October 1973. I I These damping ve? aes are f or non-MSSS equipment. See Table 3.7-7 for damping values of '95SS sepsipeent. 2 1n the dynamic analysis of active componente as defined in RG 1.46, these j values should also be used f or SSE. 3 Includes both material sad structural desping. M the piping system consists of only one or two opens with little etmeturel desping, use values f or ses11-diameter piping. l 3 T-35
t I a:: .. 4*= 1
- *. 2 0
1 4 .
! I l
J.*. j l l' I t i 94 h a. U
-7 ::
w . u g ama M. 3 C3 est l m. E ts. 9[ I J.9 ( .. I 1 1
- J 1 - .
l l .
.. . . . . . . . _k _E _ _E _E . . .E . .
t0) 88011WW31333tf SOUTM TEXAS MtOJECT UNITS 1 & 2 FL308 KSIGI SrtCTRUM AT E.153.0 FT. - EASTM57. SSE i DC3 CDirTADDE3rT ITEUCT. Frn ar i ? it m -* ' N ' Visual Products Division '3M St. Paul MN 55101 Made in USA
!I [
' D
) t AREAS OF CONSERVATISM i
- Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.1G for SSE (SF = 1.43) i
- Peak AcceleratLon of 0.1G at Foundation Level (SF = 1.3)
- Synthetic Time History (SF = 1.0 - 1.2) l
- Used 0.07G for OBE in the E-W Direction for DGB and FHB (SF = 1.4 +)
}
- Wide Ranges of Soil Properties
] .
- 3-D Model Introduced Conservatism ai i,
i g ( . i. 1 ) ) AREAS OF CONSERVATISM (Cont'd) i I e Combination of Co-directional Responses
- CombinatLon of Dynamic and Static Loads
!
- Wave Passage Effect
- Inelastic Effect
- Design for Dynamic Lateral Soil Pressures i;p
- Usage of Resporise Envelopes in Piping a Analysis
- (
!.a i s: !8 !'E _ l
I ' g / 1-i i APPLICABILITY OF FEM TO STP SITE i l j
- Layered Foundation Materials
{
- Deeply Embedded Structures
- Close Proximity of Structures i
- Control Motion at Finished Grade i
- Parametric Studies on Soil Properties s
[E L
- Enveloped 80% Design Response Spectra at Foundation Level
- I La
! E. ?g _
~
4
q , w e APPLICABILITY OF PROCEDURES FOR THE . SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF CATEGORY 1 STRUCTURES
- Time History Analysis
- Torsional Spring Eccentricity Between CG & CR were Incorporated Jn the 3-D Lumped Mass Model
- Major EQ was included in the Model
- DampLng Valves were ObtaLned from RG 1:81 f a Development of FRS Follows R.G.1.122
[
- Peaks of FRS were Widened ia -
3 a C '
~~
~
y . CONCLUSIONS "The finite element method used in the analysis of soil-structure interaction is an applicable and appropriate method for assessing soil-structure interaction effects at the STP."
" Based on examinations of various sources of conservatism,it is concluded that the results of the SSI analysis and the seismic structural analysis are very conservative for the design of the Category I structures and the subsystems at the STP site."
f E_ ia - 3 2 C .-
. u
! .', T , s'g n _ 9,, y L ~, 6:Y. N7
~~*
V ww. Q Sg. M z 4. .w
- m. 05-TodD / 4. w g f g ./.ee b g /,/4 4/ a PANEL OF INDEPENDENT CONSULTANTS CONDUCTING THE EVALUATION .
DR. ANil K. CHOPRA DR. JOSE M. R0ESSET DR. ROBERT V. WHITMAN - CHAIRMAN O
"* ewee e m .,
b G e G C
J SCOPE OF EVALUAT1011
- 1. REVIEW FINITE ELEMENT SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION AND SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSES SPECIFICALLY USED
" FOR THE STP SITE
- 2. PREPARE A REPORT SUMMARIZING COMMENTS AND CON-CLUSIONS BASED ON THIS REVIEW, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
8 APPLICABILITY OF THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD ( FOR SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSES TO THE STP SITE O APPLICABILITY OF PROCEDURES USED FOR THE SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF CATEGORY l STRUCTURES O SOURCES OF CONSERVATISM INCLUDING THE INPUT MOTION l 8 CONSERVATISM OF RESULTS E
- _ . . . _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _1_
a s-EVALUATION PROCEDURES 8 REVIEW SEVEN PERTINENT DOCUMENTS RELATED TO SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION AND SEISMIC , ANALYSIS OF CATEGORY I STRUCTURES OF STP 4 GENERATE QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR CLARI-
~
FICATION 8 DISCUSS WITH THE PROJECT TEAM t
-..~........_...m. _ . . . . . .
I . _ . . - , . _ - . . _ . . . _ - - , , . . . - , . . . . _ , , . . - . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . - _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . . . - . . . . . _ . _ . . . , - _ . . _ . . . - _ , , . - - , - , _ . . . . - . -
C CENERAL APPROACH FOLLOWED IN EVALUATION 0 DEVELOPING A THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF THE ASSUMPTIONS MADE AND THE PROCEDURES USED AT VARIOUS STAGES OF THE ANALYSES S STUDYING SELECTED RESULTS FOR CONSIOTENCY AND REASONABLENESS, EMPLOYING A FEW APPROXIMATE HAND CALCULATIONS TO CHECK SOME ASPECTS OF THE COMPUTED RESPONSES 0 REVIEWING SELECTED RESULTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPERIENCE OF THE CONSULTANTS
" -* e mes. enum e .
.ees.-
_ . _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ _. . _ _ t
C APPLICABILITY OF THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD FOR S0ll-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS 8 GREAT CARE WAS TAKEN IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL FOR THE SOIL PROFILE AND OF THE FINITE ELEMENT REPRESENTATION, AND IN THE SELECTION OF THE PARAMETERS FOR THE MODEL 8 ALL OF THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING UNCERTAINTY IN S0ll PROPERTIES AND THE VARIATIONS OF GROUND MOTIONS WITH DEPTH WERE SATISFIED 8 THE RESULTS OF THE F.E. ANALYSIS PROCEDURES, USED WITH PROPER ENGINEERING JUDGMENT AND CONSERVATISM, ARE SATISFACTORY FOR S0ll-STRUCTURE INTERACTION g ANALYSES OF THE STP SITE I IF THIS PROJECT WERE STARTING UP FRESH TODAY, THE CONSULTANTS WOULD ACCEPT ESSENTIALLY THE SAME TYPES 0F ANALYSIS AS THAT COMPLETED l l 4[ \ . - - . - . . . - . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . - . . _ -. - . _ . _ . . L-
a APPLICABILITY OF PROCEDURES USED FOR THE SElSMIC ANALYSIS OF CATEGORY I STRUCTURES 4 THE PROCEDURE OF USING THE BASEMAT MOTIONS COMPUTED FROM THE F.E. ANALYSIS AS INPUT MOTIONS TO SEISMIC ANALYSES OF STRUCTURES IS A REASONABLE AND RATIONAL PROCEDURE (; e REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING BROADENING OF FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA PEAKS AND THE COM-BINING OF DIFFERENT MOTIONS WERE SATISFIED J r
. . . - . - - . . . - . . . . _ - . . . .. . . _ ._ . .. - . .. _... . _ . - . - . _ ._.. _ _f.
e- " - - - . -+w+. m , _ . - , - , ,y;,.w. ,, .g. _., ,. _y- y %_7 __,7 ._#, p , _, ,_ _
4
' CONSERVATISM IN THE ANALYSIS 0 _
THE CHOICE OF 0.10G FOR THE SSE AND 0.05G FOR THE OBE APPEARS TO BE QUITE CONSERVATIVE FOR THE LOCATION OF THE STP G THE TIME SERIES OF ACCELERATION USED FOR THE SSI ANALYSES HAVE RESPONSE SPECTRA WHICH ARE AT OR ABOVE THE TARGET SPECTRA IN THE COMPLETE RANGE OF FREQUENCIES OF INTEREST, FOR ALL VALUES OF DAMPING e ADDITIONAL CONSERVATISM IN THE INPUT MOTIONS WAS INTRODUCED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN RE-QUIREMENTS ON THE FREE-FIELD PEAK ACCELERATION AT THE FOUNDATION OF THE DEEPEST BUILDING AND UPON THE RESPONSE SPECTRA AT THIS ELEVATION 8 THE PROCEDURE FOR ASSIGNING BASE MOTIONS TO THE DIESEL 6ENERATOR BUILDING AND FUEL HANDLING BUILDING IS DEFINITELY CONSERVATIVE O IHE ANALYSIS PROCEDURE USED RESULTS IN CONSERVA-TIVE FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA ! O THE SPECTRAL PEAKS FOR VERTICAL INPUT MOTION DUE TO THE VERTICAL OBE ARE CONSERVATIVELY
\
HIGH 1 t -~ l 7
O. p.- CONCLUSIONS FROM INDEPENDENT CONSULTANTS REPORT TAKING ALL CONSIDERATIONS INTO ACCOUNT, THE CON-SULTANTS BELIEVE THAT THE PROCEDURE USED FOR ANALYSIS OF SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION AND DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE STP, AND, IF IMPLEMENTED PROPERLY OR CONSERVATIVELY, SHOULD LEAD TO FORCES AND FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA WHICH ARE CONSERVATIVE FOR ( USE IN DESirN. WHERE COMPUTED RESULTS WERE EXAMINED IN DETAIL, THEY APPEARED TO BE EITHER CORRECT OR CON-SERVATIVE, SUGGESTING APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTATION FOR AT LEAST THOSE PARTS OF THE ANALYSIS. i '
,,, .. , _,, < _ - ,__ m ,.- ,._ y,,
-m. . . . , . , . , ,,-_._._..__.__.,,,-y3}}