ML20030E136

Summary of 810807 Meeting W/Util Re Soil Structure Interaction Analysis & Studies on Adequacy of Use of Finite Element Method.List of Attendees,Agenda,Slide Presentation & Shaukat 810821 Memo Re Possible Resolution of Issue Encl

ML20030E136
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	09/02/1981
From:	Sells D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20010D891	List: ML20010D890 ML20030E136
References
NUDOCS 8109180014
Download: ML20030E136 (32)

Text

.-

I g _q7 o

i go -4 41 SEP 2 19 m MBiORANDUH FOR:

F. J. Miraglia, Chief. Licensing Branch No. 3 DL FROM:

D. E. Sells, Project Manager, Licensing Branch No. 3. DL j

SUBJECT:

Meeting Sunnary - Soil Structure Interaction. South Texas Project On August 7,1981 a meeting was held with Houston Lighting and Power (HL&P) to discuss the South Texas Project (STP) soil structure interaction analysis and two reports that were sent to NRC in late July. A list of attendees is attached as Enclosure A.

The agenda is attached as Enclosure B.

HL&P presented the results of two studies that were conducted by two independent panels.

One panel consisted of technical experts that had previously worked on the STP and the other panel consisted of experts that did not have previous contact with the STP.

The purpose of the studies was to detemine the adequacy of the use of the finite element method (FEM) versus the use of the elastic half space method (EHS).

HL&P used the FEM in filing for ar.d obtaining its construction permits for STP and have taken the position that what has been done in this. area is adcquate and conservative. The two study panels also concluded that the use of the FEM for STP is adequate and sufficient. Slides of HL&P presentation are enclosed as Enclosure C.

The staff, on the other hand, is not satisfied that credit should be taken I

I for damping from the surface to the base mat. The staff offered a suggested I

alternative to resolve this issue and have formalized the suggestion in a memorandum dated August 21,1981 (Enclosure D).

l This branch position will be fomerly transr.itted to HL&P.

l Donald E. Sells, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing 4

D co cc: See next page.

s s/

g, p/ lb.

1 i

k SEP 101981bb

(

vo,wucurs esauwnsi-s 00 g

D,. _

A a

z.

....f 1 B(,3.,

,,T

oma, sunnaue)...Q.E,,,!,, lb s

oare >.....91.461.. 91.

L hac ronu sia oo-so) meu cao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ucc m.i,si-s w eeo

. _. _ --.~,. _ _ _,.. -, -

litET1!!T. SU:*0MuY lh ST11111U 10*!

Derket File G. Lear IE l'Di:

Local rDit

5. Pa.elicki tiSIC V. llenarcya TERA

2. Hos2toczy LDf 3 ReadinD l'.

Haass

!!. Der. ton D. ! hiller E. Crse R. Ballard D. Eiser.Sut l'.

Regan P.. Purple R. Mattson E. J. Your.gbiced P. Check A. Scr:encer l'. Srinivasan F. I'.i ra glic O. Perr J. !: iller F. Rosc G. Laines l'. Butler R. Vollmer h'. I'reger J. P. Knight R. Ilouston R. Besnak T.11ur;)hy F. Schauer L. Rubenstein R. E. Jcckson T. Speis Project flanager D. Sells l'. Johnston Attorney, OELD 1

J. Lee S. }!anauer l

017.(3) k'. CLir.ill l

ACES (16)

T.14urley !cr l

R. Tedesco T. St.liruec I

D. Skovhial t l

M. Ernst tiRC

Participants:

F. Schauer-K. Kniel D, Jeng K. ShaLkat C. Knisjht.on N. Chokski A. Thadani A. Ibrahim D. Toneli J. fla J. Kramer S. Chan D. Vassallo H. Graves P. Collins J. Costello D. Ziccann E. Adensam bec:

Applicant & Service List l

J'

h s.

9 SOUTH TEXAS

.h 6 Mr. G. W. Oprea, Jr.

Mrs. Peggy Buchorn.

n i'

Executive Vice President Executive Director Houston Lighting and Power Company Citizens for Equitable Utilities Inc.

P. O. Box 1700 Route 1, Box 1684 Houston, Texas 77001 Brazoria, Texas 77422 Mr. J. H. Goldberg William S. Jordan, Ill Esq.

Vice President - Nuclear Engineering Harmon & Weiss

& Construction 1725 I Street, N.W.

Houston Lighting and Power Company Suite 506 P. O. Box 1700 Washington, D.C.

20006 Houston, Texas 77001 Mr. D. G. Barker Brian Berwick, Esq.

Manager, South Teras Project Assistant Attorney General Houston Lighting and Power Company Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 1700 P. O. Box 12548 Houston, Texas 77001 Capitol Station Austin, Texa; 78711 Mr. M. L. Borchelt Central Power and Light Company Shannon H. Phillips Resident Inspector / South Texas Project P. O. Box 2121 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 c/o U. S. NRC P. O. Box 910 Mr. R. L. Hancock Bay City, Texas 77414 City of Austin Electric Utility Department P. O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 Mr. Lanny Sinkin Mr. J. B. Poston Assistant General !4 nager for Operations Pat Coy l'

City Public Service Board Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power P. O. Box 1771 5106 Case Lro San Antonio, Texas 78296 San Antonio, Texas 78233 Mr. Clota Robertson Jack R. Newman, Esq.

Lowenstein, Newman, Axelrad & Toll Manager, Nuclear Licensing 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Houston Lighting and Power Company 3

Washington, D. C.

20036 P. O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77C01 Melbert Schwarz, Jr., Esq.

Baker & Botts One Shell Plaza i

Houston, Texas 77002 Mr. E. A. Saltarelli Brown & Root, Inc.

P. O. Box 3 Houston, Texas 77001

o ENCLOSURE A LIST OF ATTENDEES HL&P NRC J. Goldberg D. Sells C. Robertson F. Schauer D. Barker D. Jeng R. Hernandez K. Shaukat N. Chokski A. Ibrahim J. Ma S. Chan H. Graves J. Costello B&R F. Muellner P. Jordan J. Lee WLL

1. Idriss

O% D AGENDA ATTENDEES:

NRC HL&P BR D. Sells C. Robertson J. Lee F. Shauer D. Barker P. Jordan J. Ma R. Hernandez F. Muellner D. Jeng J. Goldberg I. Idriss (WCC)

<'I.

INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND HL&P POSITION J. Goldberg (03)

-II. BAC., GROUND

-A.

Licensing Requirements C. Robertson (03)

, B.

Technical Meetings R. Hernandex (03)

I'II. VERIFICATION STUDY J. Lee (15)

-di.

S1P (WCC) Verification Study Scope

,- B.

Conclusions v1V. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT REPORT I. Idriss (15) s A.

Scope of Study

,B.

Conclusions c/fI IMPACT ON PROJECT TO ENVELOPE AND REDESIGN D. Barker (03) v)HF.

SUMMARY

J. Goldberg - (03)

VII. DISCUSSION 6

I j

Mm C.

l SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT S0IL STRUCTURE INTERACTION CHRONOLOGY February 13, 1975 A meeting was held between HL&P, B&R, Woodward Clyde Consultants (WCC) and the NRC to finalize the SSI criteria and analysis approach to be used on the South Texas Project.

In this meeting it was established that the l

SSI analysis would be performed utilizing the Finite Element Method (FEM) in accorance with USNRC Standard Review Plan (SRP) Section 3.7.2.

August 1,1975 South Texas Project Safety Evaluation Report (SER) issued

{

with conclusion by the NRC that the FEM was acceptable (SER3.7.2).

D:cember 27, 1975 Construction Permit issued.

May 19, i376 HL&P submitted insponse spectra curves for the South Texas Project based upon approved FEM.

April 13, 1979 NRC requests alternate comparative analysis using Elastic,

Half-Space Method (EHS) in FSAR Question 130.11 and 130.12.

I May 10,1979 HL&P/B&R met with the NRC to contest responding to FSAR Question. HL&P agreed to perform alternate analysis for comparison purposes only.

j September 18, 1979 HL&P/B&R/WCC presented to NRC for approval the methodology under which the alternate confirmatory EMS model would be performed using Kausel's approach in considering embedment effects.

May 16, 1980 HL&P transmitted to the NRC the response 'a FSAR Question 130.12 entitled " Alternate Comparative Soi s Structure l

Interaction Analysis Using the Elastic Half-Space Approach.

for Cateoory 1 Structures for the South Texas Project."

July 21, 1981 HL&P transmitted to the NRC the consultants' reports document-ing the review of the South Texas Project FEM analysis.

l S

l

l ENGINEERING IMPACT ASSESSMENT REANALYZING TO REVISED RESl'0fr.iE CllRVES WILL AFFECT THE FOLLOWING i

STRUCTURES.

REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING FUEL HANDLING BUILDING l

- DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING SIGNIFICANT ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES WOULD INCLUDE 1.

ISSUE REVISED RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR EVALUATION 2.

REVISE DESIGN DOCUMENTS CRITERIA DOCUMENTS i

- SPECIFICATIONS

- CALCULATIONS 3.

REANALYSIS OF NSSS SUPPLICO PIPING 4.

EDS REANALYSIS OF NON NSSS PIPING (CONTAINMENT)

EVALUi.TE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS i

5.

a

- PIPING LAYOUT PIPING HANGARS / RESTRAINT 6.

EVALUATE STRUCTURES AND SYSTEMS 7.

EVALUATE EQU1PMENT/ MATERIAL MANUFACTURER RECOPMEllDATION.

i 8.

ISSUED REVISED DESIGN ORAWINGS.

i 9.

SUPPORT PROCUREMENT INTERFACE.

10. SUPPORT CONSTRUCTIO!! SCHEDULE REVISION.

PURCHASING IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1.

REISSUE REVISED SPECIFICATIONS.

2.

REVISE PURCHASE ORDERS.

3.

REISSUE INQUIRIES IF REQUIRED.

4.

REQUEST PRICE / SCHEDULE IMPACT ASSESSMENT.

5.

EVALUATE FANUFACTURER'S/ FABRICATOR'S RESPONSE FOR REANALYSIS REQUALIFICATION MODIFICATION

)

6.

NEGOTIATE COST INCREASE.

7.

NEGOTIATE CANCELLATION COST IF REQUIRED.

l l

l l

l e

j t

i PURCHASING IMPACT ASSESSMENT

)

l 1.

REISSUE REVISED SPECIFICATIONS.

2.

REVISE PURCHASE ORDERS.

2 3.

REISSUE INQUIRIES IF REQUIRED.

l 4.

REQUEST PRICE / SCHEDULE IMPACT ASSESSMENT.

5 i

5.

EVALUATE MANUFACTURER'S/ FABRICATOR'S RESPONSE FOR REANALYSIS i

REQUALIFICATION l

l MODIFICATION

)

6.

NEGOTIATE COST INCREASE.

j 7.

NEGOTIATE CANCELLATION COST IF REQUIRED.

i i

=

1 a

9 6

i e

l i

i CONSTRUCTION IMPAC1 ASSESSMENT REVISE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE TO ACCOMODATE:

NEW ARRIVAL DATES FOR EQUIPMENT / MATERIAL RELEASE OF REVISED ENGINEERING DRAWINGS

]

1 ALSESS NEED FOR HOLDS BLOCK 0VTS, WORK AROUNDS i

REMOVAL OF EQUIPMENT FOR HfRDWARE MODIFICATION l

- FIELD MODIFICATION CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE IMPACT 2.5 YEARS a

1 1

b e

T l

i

~

SUMMARY

I

- SIGNIFICANT ENGINEERING IMPACT

- SIGNIFICANT PROCUREMENT IMPACT

- SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION IMPACT i

OVERALL SCHEDULE DELAY IS AT LEAST 2.5 YEARS ESTIMATED l

COST IMPACT IS 1 BILLION.

i 4

i 1

e e

E

4 BO'IEW OF SOIL-STRUCTURE I!NTERACT30N AND SEISP.IC ANALYSIS OF CATECORY I SIRUCTURES SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 by PROJECT TEAM l

100DVARD-CLTDE 00NSULTAKTS 1

{. "). { k 2 W. =,. h '-^

y C.-Y. Chang I. II. Idriss BROL*N & ROOT, IEC.

$?m' $

Ja P. Lee PROJECT CONSULTANTS UA 2 Y

[duardoKauselAssociateProfesso/

r of Civil Engineering, MIT h1 W

JohnLysser[

Professor of Civil Engir.eer ng, University of California, Berkeley E. hiton Seed Profe=sor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley i,

May 5,1981

p.. * *y

, f.' /

A ec.... ::~_e :

\\, (

PUUO5E:

3e review eoil structure interaction finite-o ele: ment analyses specifically used for the South Texas Project site and to prepare a repert sumanarizing comments and conclusNns based on this noview.

6 i

SCOPE OT RITIEV5:

Ceaservatism of input motion o

I Applicability of the FEM to the e

STP site Applicability of procedures used for the e

seismic analysis of Category I structures I

e Sources of conservatism o

Conserve ise of results

(

l. m,,, w Visual Products Division '3M St. Paul. MM 55101 Made in USA

1

~

N s

t~

n ;!,,

('.

. v:

j-G 3

_ltes. s e #J, e e g g a 3 3 3 3.g.g IM

• O * :1

• 17 '

yE !!

.=

g c

I Y

l

-,1 l

1 4

p N

I g

b l.

~

1; m

b>

2 s

j g

nis 3

a 9

3.

c4 e

aa E

a au 7

5 e

5[

.t u

~

gI

I

%*I n

id m

4 21 m

r-a !=

(

d e

a u

c

_ !I

...n E

I.8 E

r e sf u

e aa 5

?....

n e

a n

t-

• 1 M I

H d

H s

- g; J

u 4 --u e

a u

jg f,_

.._h m

a H

8 a

=

g Y

Y

?

E E

U L

n R

e E

H,,..

G.

t u

t 3

J i:

M E

4 i

6 3

g t

6 m

a

. s n

a a

N14..J r

E E

3 I 41.L n

n a

u r

jj=

y Ji i

mu-i

I Pt J h

E Ng a

e j.

II I

j m

s m:

1

.e L

l

[. g -

s p u

.x

,3 1 s,,,.

e 7

l

, gq s

y,wre v

c

4. i N

J.

E lih l

3 g

. b M.

.'.. i. '.

"4

'I

.a*****sagps:gg;y-s e,sw.

e I

l

l 25 =

3_a *

' s. v -

J i

hN I N

i j

,1 5 '+

"3 W L t.

3

(( 3

', 3

=

-m j

35 fg3{

&~r e

=

m o

I

!1 I'

j [

' I I I-l- l 2

g 1

gg g s

rii ii e

o-i I

z N

)

y n=

Ek u55 c

t J

EI a t me

-5 s

h NI I

93m e

Eg g

i a,

.4 i

2 t

E i I

y j

N

.__u, _

3 Jj

. 5 SOUTH TEKAS PtOJECT j [

g}

UNITS I & 2

~

~"

G N dGDvR rum

=

=*Ee SOIL-STW Cfvat Imit AACT 8 0's STucitt F I G L.4.1 1.1-2 r

l' toO A

s~

" Oj,

=.,,. -

A

= A - ~, --

po@<

s.--

A

= g g-- -

p"D A

j l

^

l le e #g<e P

e %e pc c

A

.A sop g

e s#8"fpf b A

e "g" po a

A.sp;p..g, g

g,f A

x" a

3 M# W {._2.1.s

1. 1o oE $df), 3 O

• i t

.g or p"S

/s,p AA l

l A

1. "O O

A g *ej jp g

e T

y p

k 2=".=

I g

I i

i 5

l x xisi m VisualProductsDivision 3M St. Paul, MN 55101 Made in USA

E* ___j 1 l j j l.l _'..I, l'_..[:, p _ EL.%. 0 ',.i l

i I.i

=

-a, 1k'.

Tr;!!q,.

' I iI j

[

i i T11; #.-

.i.

i t

h, i ii ',}.

j

! l.!I!'I i

. -. i.1..

j.J..

f. H M P W H M

! i-ilne

-i -+ !MHM-i &

sie'? waW p.

.. r, n iL pun x j...

3 j

lI.ll m

_,l~ lit iJi*

i

.e en em soo

.co nmoo. a E*

i

.t I

4 4 Ii!.

t Ilti' l

]l

~

~I T'TT i li i,irii EL.-31.5 1

!i..i.y'!

ii I ! ' i i a',

! g!!;';

I ! !

8 ! ; '

a l 1 Nd ' 'hN

-lhh ii

__L:.'..j.

J ; I 4W'.

i_; Mii i M.' g _ q'.

l_ _: ! -

I I

5:

-4 i-H 4_.

t;!

r-

- -et

!6-

{E-I t;i s

A. -

-- ju.

5-

I

. i tg

,, --: 7

i t

[

-f Yb d. -li$

%%+m

L' g.,

L 1 W. N lijjl I.(Tdi'I'

'i t lT.,

I i

li i i ii'.

6 i

===. -

LEGEND:

AVERAGE UPPER-BOUND SPECTRAL DAMPING = 2%

lover-BOUND SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT.

UNITS 1 & 2

% RISON OF FU. NATION-LEVEL GWTION IIESPCNSE SPECTRA WilH 4WC CRITERIA, HORIZONTAL OBE FIGURE 9.6-2

etts = to.uyu o+ee m Icesot/g STP FEAR ShELE 3.7-1 BdetFINC isal FFSI

]

(Percent of Critical Snapiag)

1. efecing Sesis Safe Shutdown P

Structure or Component Escrhousk,2 Earthquake i

Equipment and large-diameter piping systems,3 pipe diameter greater than 12 in.

2 3

Small-diamet er 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 Reinf orced concrete structures 4

7 Note: Table 3.7-1 is deriwd free the pocomndations given in Reference 3.7.1-1 anit complies with hG 141, october 1973.

IThese damming velees are fw non-MSSS equipment. See Table 3.7-7 for damping values of MSSS oppaest.

2

~

2n the dynamic analysis cf actin componente as defined in RC 1.46, these values should also be tamed f or SSE.

3Includes W.h asterial and structural desping. Itf tfhe pipir Jyotes

~

consists of only one er two opens with little structural damping, wee values f or small-diameter piping.

u O

1

- - - -.. - - - _.. - - - _.. ~ _. _., __.. -. _ _ _. _ _..... _, _. _ _,....... - -

(

~

I I

1 J

I 1

3.

I i

a-4 l

m r

i Lu

[

[

~

U

=w

=>

O ens E

i

~

a -

<=

l 4+-4-+-4-4 4.4.4 _4 _; a' 4.4.; 4i

.?

a 4

(01 le011WM3 m SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UHlI5 i & 2 na msta sere:== 47 E. 133.9 FT. - EAST N T. SSE 1

GCE C', ARIA,D,ee,zrT,_STRUCT.

m u

ooem e4 Visual Products Division '3M St Paul MN 55101 Made in USA

- ' AREAS OF CONSERVATISM l

1

• Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.1G for SSE j

(SF = 1.43)

• Peak Acceleration of 0.1G at Foundation l

Level (SF = 1.3) i

• Synthetic Time History (SF = 1.0 1.2?

• Used 0.07G for OBE in the E-W D?rection for j

DGB and FHB (SF = 1.4 +)

[

• Wide Ranges of Soil Properties

[

• 3-D Model Introduced Conservatism f

?

F

~

f i

l AREAS OF CON _SERVATISM i' Cont'd)

• Combination of Co-directional Responses l

• Combinat on of DynamLc and Static Loads

~

• Wave Passage Effect

• Inelastic Effect

• Design for Dynamic Lateral Soil Pressures

p

• Usage of Response Envelopes in Piping l

Analy. sis

.a d

is 9.

' 5:

8 i0

%tg M

E i

APPLICABILITY OF FEM l

TO STP SITE l

• Layered Foundation Materials

• Deeply Embedded Structures

• Close Proximity of Structures

• Control Motion at Finished Grade

• Parametric Studies on Soil Properties p

• Enveloped 80% Design Response Spectra at Foundation Level a

5 s:

ag

{

g

/

4 l

APPLICABILITY OF FEM TO STP SITE l

• Layerec' Foundation Materials l

• Deeply Embedded Structures

~

l

• Close Proximity of Structures

• Control Motion at Finished Grade

• Parametric Studies on Soil Properties

• Enveloped 60% Design Response Soectra s

E.

at Foundation Level

[

1 li' I

l L-

i APPLICABILITY OF PROCEDURES FOR THE SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF CATEGORY 1 STRUCTURES Time History Analysis 1

Torsional Spring Eccentricity Between OG & CR were incorporated in the 3-D Lumped Mass Model Major EQ was included n the Model Damp ng Valves were Obtained frorn RG 1:81 Development of FRS Follows R.G.1.122

• Peaks of FRS were Wid~ened D

s e

i CONCLUSIONS 1

"The finite element method used in the analysis of soil-structure interaction is an applicable and appropriate method l

for assessing soll-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 i

seismic structural analysis are very conservat!ve for the i

design of the Category I structures and the subsystems at the i

STP site."

i I

L l

F""

' %. % ?. L <

[^]_

s' :. To,

% '~ ~ ' M s tr..u z s...w E'vs. 01-TodD

/ td. v 4 / g. r.2 e o

')

~

,( 4 6 6/

"""" bum PAllEL OF lHDEPENDENT CONSULTANTS CONDUCTING THE EVALUATION DR. ANIL K. CHOPRA DR. JOSE M. ROESSET DR. ROBERT V. WHITMAN - CHAIRMAN O

f S

a I

e I C

9 i

SCOPE OF EVALUATION 1.

REVIEW FINITE ELEMENT SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION AND SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSES SPECIFICALLY USED

" FOR THE STP s1TE 2.

PREPARE A REPORT SUMMARIZING COMMENTS AND CON-CLUSIONS BASED ON THIS REVIEW, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:

5 APPLICABILITY OF THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

[]

FOR SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSES TO THE STP SITE 8

APPLICABILITY OF PROCEDURES USED FOR THE SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF CATEGORY l STRUCTURES 8

SOURCES OF CONSERVATISM INCLUDING THE INPUT MOTION O

CONSERVATISM OF RESULTS fl. _

3 J

s.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES 8

REVIEW SEVEN PERTINENT DOCUMENTS RELATED TO SDIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION AND SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF CATEGORY I STRUCTURES OF STP G

GENERATE QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR CLARI-FICATION 9

DISCUSS WITH TliE PROJ".

(EAM e

S

(

. ~

GENERAL APPROACH FOLLOWED IN EVALUATION I

DEVELOPING A THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF THE

" ASSUMPTIONS MADE AND THE PROCEDURES USED AT VARIOUS STAGES OF THE ANALYSES i

8 STUDYING SELECTED RESULTS FOR CONSISTENCY AND REASONABLENESS, EMDLOYING A FEW APPROXIMATE HAND CALCULATIONS TO CHECK SOME ASPECTS OF THE COMPUTED RESPONSES

(~

6 REVIEWING SELECTED RESULTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPERIENCE OF THE CONSULTANTS l

l O

C.

APPLICABILITY OF THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD FOR S0ll-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS e

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 SOIL PROPERTIES AND THE VARIATIONS OF GROUND MOTIONS WITH DEPTH WERE SATISFIED 9

THE RESULTS OF THE F.E. ANALYSIS DROCEDURES, USED

[

WITH PROPER ENGINEERING JUDGMENT AND CONSERVATISM, g-ARE SATISFACTORY FOR SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSES OF THE STP SITE O

IF THIS PROJECT WER2 STARTING UP FRESH TODAY, THE CONSULTANTS WOULD ACCEPT ESSENTIALLY THE SAME TYPES OF ANALYSIS AS THAT COMFLETED

~

e 4[

l

e O

4 9

J

.)

4 APPLICABILITY OF PROCEDURES USED FOR THE SElSMIC ANALYSIS OF CATEGORY I STRUCTURES t

THE PROCEDURE OF USING THE BASEMAT MOTIONS COMPUTED FROM THE F.E. ANALYSIS AS INPUT HOTIONS TO SEISMIC ANALYSES OF STRUCTURES IS A REASONABLE AND RATIONAL PROCEDURE I([.

8 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING BROADENING OF FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA PEAKS AND THE COM-BINING OF DIFFERENT MOTIONS WERE SATISFIED e

([.

a

b 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 DYNAM;C ANALYSIS ARE APPROPRI ATE FOR THE STP, AND, IF IMPLEMENTED PROPERLY OR CONSERVATIVELY, SHOULD LEAD TO FORCES AND FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA WHICH ARE CONSERVATIVE FOR USE IN DESIGN.

WHERE COMPUTED RESULTS WERE EXAMINED m,

IN DETAIL, THEY APPEARED 70 BE EITHER CORRECT OR CON-SERVATIVE, SUGGESTING APPROPRI ATE IMP' EMENTATION FOR AT LEAST THO3E PARTS OF THE ANALYSIS.

l l0 l

....