ML20039F559
| ML20039F559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1982 |
| From: | Blume J SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039F550 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201130102 | |
| Download: ML20039F559 (4) | |
Text
- .
kg s.
FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA FROM 1979 MONTICELLO
(
RESERVOIR EVENT _V_S ORIGINAL SSE FLOOR SPECTPA By: John A. Blume l
The October 15, 1979 RIS efent recorded at the SMA station at the dam abutment was used to drive 'the Gilbert (GAI) model of the reactor building.
The 90 component (which is slightly greater than the orthogonal) was used:
first the raw data exactly as recorded at the concrete pad on soil, and then the corrected data as described below.
Ratios of peak and other floor response spectral values at frequencies of interest-were then compared to the values at corresponding frequencies in i
the GAI floor response spectra used in design.
Two (2) nodal points were treated in this study: - Node No.'1 at the top of the containment shell at elevation 50?'11", and Node No.10 near the top of the interior concrete structure at elecetion 462'0".
These~two points were selected because they are high and their responIse amplified, and because the GAI floor spectrum were available for comparison.
The OBE spectral values and the FSAR figures were multiplied by 1.5 to obtain SSE values (in the ratio of 0.15g/0.10g for SSE/0BE on rock).
We. assumed the ground sp ings as rigid for this analysis.
2 t'
1979 Record C
As has been described elsewhere, we do not consider'the SMA site near the dam abutment as a valid one to represent the driving conditions of large plant structures.
The explosion test clearly showed greater motion at the SMA site than at the foundation of the auxiliary building. The ratio of the auxiliary building instrument response to the dam abutment instrument response provides for each frequency a transfer function to. convert the SMA motion to foundation motion. However, as requested we have used both the raw SMA record and the converted record for this study. The raw record results are presented below, but are not considered applicable.
~
Figure 25 of the Field Test Report (Somerville Testimony) shows the transfer functions.
In one case herein we use the envelope of both the N-S and the E-W curvsc, and in a second case we use the average of the two Components.
Results For each node point, the peak floor response spectrum value occuring in any run are presented, all for 2% damping, as well as the floor spectra value of interest, especially in the high frequency range. Table 17-1 shows ratios of the 1979 record data to the original SSE floor response data 2%
damped. The denominator in each case is from the GAI curves in the FSAR
(
(multiplied by 1.5 to convert to SSE) and the numerator from the use of the 1979 record.
8201130102 820107 PDR ADOCK 05000395 A
PDR i
4
..n
4
.es Page Two C,
Figure 17-1 shows for Node 10 (elevation 462') of the' interior concrete structure, four (4) damping-value floor response spectra derived from the 1979 900 record,' corrected *with the envelope of the transfer function from the explosive tests. It also shows the GAI SSE curve' for 2% damping. At all frequencies, the SSE curve is above, or only trivially below the corres-pending 2% curve based on the enrrected 1979 event.
Discussion of Results Table 17-1 shows that at the top of the exterior concrete shell, the 1979 event with the field test transfer function applied is far from having its floor response spectra exceeded; 1.e., the Monticello' Resevoir event is not critical. The raw time history would cause some exceedances at certain frequencies, but this concept is not an acceptable one by any standard.
Likewise, for the interior concrete structure, the raw record is not.
acceptable. The adjusted record, even with the conservative enveloping transfer functions, dr>es not cause any exceedances in the floor response spectra shown.
h In su= mary, the 1979 RIS event when properly adjus.ted with spectra from the
~
field test data, do not fault the: floor response spectra compared herein and work in the design of the plant.
There is no reason not to expect similar
(,
or more conservative (greater margin) results for other nodal points in the structural model.
9 e
e G
i 0
4
.. - +
w
~
O as
~
. TABLE 17-1
- (:
Ratio of 1979 Earthquake 2% Floor Response Spectral Accelerations to SSE Floor Response' Spectral Accelerations (NOTE: The frequencies shown below include the highest peaks) 4 Ratio 6f 79 EQ Converted Rati6 of R&w 79 EQ Peaks to SSE Peaks Elevation (ft)
Frequency (Hz)
Peaks to'SSE' Peaks Envelope TF*
Average TF' 582' 11"
-5
.98/7.8 = 0.13 '
.30/7.8 = 0.038 12-13 1.05/.7 = 1.50
.26/.7 = 0 37 20
.65/.9
=-0.72
.215/.9 = 0.24 33
.62/.5 = 1.24,
.29/.5 g 0.58 462' 5
.22/.6 = 0.37
.05/.6 = 0.083
(
12-13 7.65/6.0 = 1.27 1.91/6.0 = 0.32 20 2.2/.9
= 2.44'
.65/.9 = 0.72 33 2.18/.75 = 2.91
.75/.75 = 1.00
- TF = Transfer function from Explosion Test No.1 - Auxiliary Building response over SMA site response (from Figure 25 of Field Test Report)
I
- TF = Transfer function averages - Data not yet generated; however, it would be less conservative than using. enveloping TF.
9 q,
E i
a..
e
-s a
-.D e
I I
4
(
4 j
g g
%e
)
1 4
Cx
./
- m 3S T
.3 8
b~
~
Jw
'S g
o
,,<f
?
Fw d >g r
(
n Q I-
.?
D m:>
~
k p,
.n u,
s O
f l
%m
(
, a L,
=
4 no g
1_
.},
i Q
J y
BS 4 It-C y D* 3
}
-o I
', li.!
.m to M
d,
- =
M i
M
,' Q 4
U h
I
}
l!
N 9 U
- 3. T M
g.
3 s.
a p
a
$e
,3 J,; '}
,s eto b
y 9
'I 4
,ca v
7 3
4 s-A
!i anc c
=Q b I
l-j.4
.h
.3 E
~..:a #q
{
t c-o_
m
< c
>~
n ay, 7
1
.x w
1 9
p 9
> s -.
s i.
-. O s
'5 e
A D
M t-2 O k-I(
,[J ta c;; -
g 3
'T*
r
-dS I
d
~
~~~
'l m er g
3 30 b
~
4 bp b
1
.-L w< \\<_ us (,$
~\\
\\
u.
t<
_1 m at-v>
tu e~
N
[
d h V'
~
u M
f, w._
l
\\b; i
e.
{
.J
- I Ly
-2 L,
]T 2
r,,-
In l
- Q,o
~q l
9" l-N Jr s.
m s
- A p rs l
. y 7. u s
e
+
~ x un ~
i us
<A g ca 6
t e
o u iL g
ao c
- w. 4
. )
EV T.
.e m
-n *,%
R a;
%g
.o l
,f J
w t
i o
8 0
g
=
o
~
o 9
w
]
=o l
(o d' n ' t m W ) % P. M u n n y w 2 u :.: n 5 0
O a