ML20054C150
| ML20054C150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1982 |
| From: | Eggenberger A CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), GROUND TECHNOLOGY, INC. (FORMERLY STS D'APPOLONIA |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054C146 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8204200129 | |
| Download: ML20054C150 (3) | |
Text
_
d 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
) Docket No. 50-155-OLA j
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
) (Spent Fuel Pool
)
Modification)
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF A.
J.
EGGENBERGER DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: SS:
I, A.
J.
Eggenberger, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, do state as follows:
i I am employed by D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, i
l Inc. as a Project Manager of Domestic Nuclear Projects.
l l
D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., has been retained by Consumers Power Company as a seismic consultant for the Big Rock Point plant, and D'Appolonia's work on the project is my responsibility.
Our scope of services includes general I
consulting services in the area of earthquake and structural engineering and, specifically, the seismic evaluation of the Big Rock Point plant structures in connection with the NRC's Systematic Evaluation Program.
l 1
1 8204200129 820415 PDR ADOCK 05000155 C
~
. I hold a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engi-neering from Carnegie Institute of Technology and a Master of Science Degree from the Ohio State University.
I also hold a Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Civil Engineering from Carnegie Institute of Technology.
Prior to joining D'Appolonia Con-sulting Engineers, Inc., in July 1972, I was employed by the University of South Carolina as a professor of engineering.
My academic teaching and research at USC was generally in applied mechanics, and I served on both the graduate and undergraduate faculties.
At D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., I am in charge of all Domestic Nuclear Projects where services are provided in the areas of structural engineering, earthquake engineering, and geotechnical engineering.
Representative projects include commercial power stations, nuclear waste disposal, and defense-related nuclear projects.
The attached report, entitled " Parametric Study, Soil Structure Interaction," was prepared under my supervision and direction.
The following corrections should be made to the report.
1.
Figures 9 and 12 - The 10 per cent damping curve is mislabeled for Case 3.
The unlabeled curve represents the 10 per cent damping curve.
/
+
(.
t 2.
Figure 5 - The 10 per cent damping curve is mislabeled for Case 2.
The unlabeled curve represents the 10 per cent damping curve.
The statements in this Affidavit and the foregoing report, as corrected herein, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
A
-(
v fje,-g-A. QEgfenberger SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this
/
day of April, 1982.
/
4'W
^
Notarv/ Pbblic in and for the 61 strict of Columbia.
My Commission Expi.es Januny 1,1987
)
I Project No.78-435
[l[f\\M[DI[D(()l[a(()N((fh l
Apr. 82 I
I I
Report I
y Parametric Study Soil Structure Interaction I
I I
I Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant I Charlevoix, Michigan I
I I
I Consumers Power Company Jackson, Michigan I
I I
!I
- 'I
!!I I
Report 1
1 g
Parametric Study Soil Structure Interaction
,I i
I i
!I i!I I I jI l l lI 1
j!
1 iI 1
I
! l IlDTMPPJDIf./M%'ILi\\
i, f
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF TABLES ii LIST OF FIGURES iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 i
1.1 BACKGROUND
INFORMATION 1
1.1.1
" Spent Fuel Pool" Analytical Model 1
l 1.1.2
" Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP)" Model 3
,m 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF Tile PRESENT STUDY 5
2.0 FORMULATION OF THE PRESENT STUDY 6
2.1 TASK 1 - EVALUATE EFFECTS OF SSI PARAMETER VARIATION 6
2.2 TASK 2 - EVALUATE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL DAMPING VARIATION 7
2.3 TASK 3 - COMPARE FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA DERIVED USING THE SPENT FUEL ANALYTICAL MODEL WITil Tile CORRESPONDING SPECTRA DERIVED USING Tile SEP ANALYTICAL MODEL 9
l 3.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSES 10 3.1 EFFECTS OF SSI PARAMETER VARIATION 10 I
3.2 EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL DAMPING VARIATION 10 3.3 COMPARISON OF FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR SPENT FUEL POOL AND SEP ANALYSES 12 I
4.0 CONCLUSION
S 14 5.0
SUMMARY
15 REFERENCES R-1 l
TABLES FIGURES i
1 l
IlMllPilNDIfADN]LK
i i
i ii l
5 LIST OF TABLES TABLE NO.
TITLE j
1 Effects of SSI Parameter Variation:
Spent Fuel Pool Model 2
Comparison of Participation Factors:
Spent Fuel Pool Model Versus SEP Model lI l
- I I
l
- I l
lI I
I
,I I
IlDSMPIPOIfADNIL\\\\
i i'i LIST OF FIGURES I
FIGURE NO.
DRAWING NO.
TITLE 1
78-435Y-E19 Comparison of the Two Analytical Models SEP vs. Spent Fuel Pool 2
78-435Y-A387 Comparison of Horizontal Ground Response Spectra for 5 Percent of Critical Damping 3
78-435Y-A388 Comparison of Vertical Ground Response Spect ra for 5 Percent of Critical Damping E
4 78-435Y-A371 Effects of SSI Parameter Variations, 5
Direction X, Node 650 Elevation 657'-6", Sheet 1 of 3 5
78-435Y-A372 Effects of SSI Parameter Variations, Direction Y, Node 650 Elevation 657'-6", Sheet 2 of 3 6
78-435Y-A373 Effects of SSI Parameter Variations, Direction Z, Node 650 Elevation 657'-6", Sheet 3 of 3 7
78-435Y-A374 Ef fects of SSI Parameter Variations, i
Direction X, Node 652 Elevation
]
630'-0", Sheet 1 of 3 8
78-435Y-A375 Eftects of SSI Parameter Variations, ll Direction Y, Node 652, Elevation
!E 630'-0", Sheet 2 of 3 g
9 78-435Y-A376 Effects of SSI Parameter Variations, 4
g Direction Z, Node 652 Elevation 630'-0", Sheet 3 of 3 10 78-435Y-A377 Effects of SSI Parameter Variations, Direction X, Node 661 Elevation
)
598'-6", Sheet of I of 3
' l u
11 78-435Y-A378 Effects of SSI Parameter Variations, Direction Y, Node 661 Elevation 598'-6", Sheet 2 of 3 12 78-435Y-A379 Effects of SSI Parameter Variations, Direction Z, Node 661 Elevation 598'-6", Sheet 3 of 3 I
l 11DTkll"ilR(Dif A DNI[A
..IV I
LI. T OF FIGU ES Continued FIGURE NO.
DRAWING NO.
TITLE 13 78-435Y-A365 Effects of Structural Damping, Site-Specific Earthquake, Direction X, I
Node 650 Elevation 657'-6", Sheet 1 of 3 14 78-435Y-A366 Effects of Structural Damping, Site-Specific Earthquake, Direction Y, Node 650 Elevation 657'-6", Sheet 2 of 3 15 78-435Y-A367 Ef fects of Structural Damping, Site-Specific Earthquake, DirectCon Z, Node 650 Elevation 657'-6", Sheet 3 of 3 16 78-435Y-A380 Ef fects of Structural Damping, R.G.
1.60 Earthquake, Direction X, Node 650 Elevation 657'-6", Sheet 1 of 3 17 78-435Y-A381 Effects of Structural Damping, R.G.
1.60 Earthquake, Direction Y, Node 650 Elevation 657'-6", Sheet 2 of 3 I
18 78-435Y-A382 Ef fects of Structural Damping, R.G.
1.60 Earthquake, Direction Z, Node 650 Elevation 657'-6", Sheet 3 of 3 19 78-435Y-A189 Comparison of Floor Response I
Spectra, SEP vs. Spent Fuel Pool, X Direction, Node 650 Elevation 657'-6" 20 78-435Y-A390 Comparison of Floor Response Spectra, SEP vs. Spent Fuel Pool, Y Direction, Node 650 Elevation 657'-6" 21 78-435Y-A391 Comparison of Floor Response Spectra, SEP vs. Spent Fuel Pool, Z Direction, Node 650 Elevation 657'-6" 22 78-435Y-A392 Comparison of Floor Response Spectra, SEP vs. Spent Fuel Pool, X Direction, Node 652 Elevation 630'-0" I
DMIPIPOlf/&WILK
I v
I LI T OF FIGU ES Continued FIGURE NO.
DRAWING NO.
TITLE 23 78-435Y-A393 Comparison of Floor Response I
Spectra, SEP vs. Spent Fuel Pool, Y Direction, Node 652 Elevation 630'-0" 24 78-435Y-A394 Comparison of Floor Response Spectra, SEP vs. Spent Fuel Pool, Z Direction, Node 652, Elevation 630'-0" 25 78-435Y-A395 Comparison of Floor Response I
Spectra, SEP vs. Spent Fuel Pool, X Direction, Node 661 Elevation 598'-6" 26 78-435Y-A396 Comparison of Floor Response Spectra, SEP vs. Spent Fuel Pool, Y Direction, Node 661 Elevation 598'-6" 27 78-435Y-A397 Comparison of Floor Response Spectra, SEP vs. Spent Fuel Pool, I
Z Direction, Node 661 Elevation 598'-6" E
I I
I I
I I
))DTMP]lNDIL/(DN]Li\\
I REPORT PARAMETRIC STUDY I
SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CilARLEVOIX, MICHIGAN I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc. (D'Appolonia), is pleased to submit this report to Consumers Power Company (Consumers Power) on para-I e te _ studies related to soil-structure interaction at the Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant. The specific studies performed and described in this report were performed in accordance with the request by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) transmitted to D'Appolonia by telephone on April 5, 1982.
1.1 BACKCROUND INFORMATION 1.1.1
" Spent Fuel Pool" Analytical Model Since 1978, D'Appolonia has participated in two seismic evaluation studies of the reactor building structure at the Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant. The first study, performed in 1978, was confined primarily to the evaluation of the floor responses at the spent fuel pool level.
The analytical model of the reactor building for this analysis (hence-forth called the " spent fuel pool" model) consisted of a three-dimensional stick model for the reinforced concrete reactor internal structure and a single-mass representation of the steel containment shell.
The analytical model of the reactor building structure, shown in Figure 1, incorporated the anticipated increased mass of the stored spent fuel pool racks.
The structure is considered to interact with the subgrade through stiffness and damping coefficients associated with the constitutive properties and stratification of the soil and rock which comprise the subgrade. The subsurface material beneath the reactor building consists
~I I
11MhlPilNDIfAD"6ILS
2' I
of approximately 20 feet of glacial till overlying a limestone forma-tion.
At the time the 1978 study was conducted, the available subsur-face data consisted of material classification and penetration resis-tance indicated on boring logs.
No direct measurements of dynamic soil or rock properties were available. The available information was com-bined with results of published data and D'Appolonia's previous experi-ence with similar subsurface materials to develop the three transla-tional and three rotational springs and dampers. These soil-structure interaction (SSI) parameters were termed "best estimate" parameters, and I
their values are shown in Figure 1.
The 1978 evaluation of the reactor building was performed using an arti-ficial earthquake time history (henceforth called the "R.G.
1.60 earth-quake") which satisfies the basic requirements of the USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 (1973) design spectrum requirements and has a zero period horizontal ground acceleration equal to 0.12g.
The zero period vertical acceleration was taken as two-thirds of the horizontal, i.e.,
0.08g.
The two spectra are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
The floor time histories I
were evaluated using a linear numerical time-history integration tech-nique, the artificial earthquake being used as excitation to the analy-tical model.
The floor responses so evaluated were considered as the "best estimate" responses of the reactor building.
I Because no direct information regarding dynamic soil and rock properties was available, effects of variation in SSI parameters were also evalu-ated in the 1978 study.
The soil spring constants used in the "best estimate" analysis were, reduced by a factor of 0.5 for a lower bound analysis and were also increased by a factor of 1.5 for an upper bound analysis.
Mode frequency analyses of these three models (best estimate, lower bound, and upper bound) were performed.
The resulto of the mode frequency analyses, summarized in Table 1, indicated that the effects of SSI parameter variation on the natural frequencies of the analytical model are small.
However, D'Appolonia recommended a procedure (D'Appol-onia, 1978) that would envelop the anticipated responses of the reactor building associated with variations in the SSI parameters.
I I
IlM'AIPIINDIfADNIL1
3 Following the evaluation of the floor response spectra, the results of a geophysical cross-hole survey at the plant site became available. The SSI parameters were then reevaluated and the revised parameters
(" cross-hole value") were compared with the best estimate values.
In the deri-vation of the SSI parameters, a reduced shear modulus, estimated at 90 percent of the small-strain shear (cross-hole test) modulus, was used to account for possible strain softening in the glacial till.
It may also be mentioned that the SSI spring constants used in the analysis were based on a continuum solution, which is generally considered to yield I
lower values of stiffness than those based on a finite element represen-tation. The comparison indicated that the soil springs based on cross-hole data are about 5 to 35 percent greater than the corresponding best estimate values, depending on the displacement mode considered.
The damping values based on cross-hole data are approximately 5 to 20 per-cent higher than the corresponding best estimate values (D'Appolonia, I
1979).
Because these ranges of parameter variations are within the limitations I
generally associated with dynamic analyses, and because the cross-hole based estimates of springs and dampers were well within the ranges considered in the floor response evaluation study, additional studies were deemed unnecessary and thus were not recommended.
E 1.1.2 "Systemat ic Evaluat ion Program (SEP)" Model Since the performance of the 1978 study, D'Appolonia has been partici-pating in the seismic safety margin evaluation of the Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant under the auspices of the Systematic Evaiuation Pro -
gram (SEP). The analyses of the plant structures, including the reactor completed by D'Appolonia for the same earthquake (R.C.
building, were 1.60 earthquake) input used in the spent fuel pool evaluation study.
The scope of work in the SEP investigation included evaluation of struc-tural safety and generat ion of floor response spectra at all significant elevations of the reactor building.
The analysis of the reactor build-ing was similar to that used to model the response of the spent fuel pool, with the following minor changes:
IlD?AIPP4DIIADNRA
4 e The spent fuel pool model accounted for the pre-sence of the Primary Coolant Loop (PCL) system by including it as lumped masses.
In the SEP analy-I sis, the PCL system was represented as detailed substructures. The connection between these sub-structures and the reactor internal structures I
accomplished through a system of rigid links was extending from appropriate levels of the reactor building; e The best estimate SSI parameters were replaced by cross-hole value SSI parameters; and To accommodate proper connection between the PCL e
and the reactor building, an additional node was introduced in the SEP stick model of the reactor I
internal structure at Elevation 608.5 feet.
The calculated lumped masses used in the spent fuel pool analysis between Elevations 614.5 and 598.5, I
therefore, had to be revised slightly.
The rep-resentation of the reactor building so developed for the SEP analysis is also shown in Figure 1.
I In all other respects, the analytical methodologies used in the SEP evaluation using the R.G.
1.60 earthquake are the same as those used in I
the spent fuel pool analysis, llaving completed the above-cited investigation using the R.G.
1.60 earthquake, D'Appolonia is currently engaged in the generation of floor response spectra using the site-specific spectra developed by the USNRC for the Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant.
The horizontal site-I specific spectra are anchored at 0.105g, and the vertical spectra are anchored at two-thirds of the horizontal. The two spectra are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
As part of the current study, artificial earthquake tI time histories matching the site-specific spectra have been developed l
using procedures similar to those described in the prevtous reports on t
the spent fuel pool and SEP investigations. Although this work is some of the results obtained using the site-specific currently underway, input have also been compr. red with those associated with the R.G.
1.60 earthquake input as part of the study described herein.
I I
I Il3TMl9tNDIfADNIlA
i
- I 5*
I 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF Tile PRESENT STUDY l
The basic objectives of this study may be stated as follows:
i e Demonstrate that the floor response spectra de-veloped in the seismic safety margin evaluations ll include adequate conservatism such that the use l
5 of such floor response spectra in subsequent j
analyses of subsystems (e.g., equipment) can be properly justified within levels of engineering 1,
accuracy.
i e Demonstrate that any differences in the analy-tical results of the spent fuel pool evaluation and the SEP evaluation are within the bounds of i
acceptable engineering accuracy.
- I In the evaluation of the results of the present study, the recommenda-tions of NUREG/CR-0098 by Newmark and llall (1978) and the SSRT (Senior i
l Seismic Review Team) guidelines for SEP soil-structure interaction j
review by Newmark, et al. (1980), may be considered.
I I
!I I
I I
I I
IIDTMPilR(DIfADNIUK
6" 2.0 FORMULATION OF THE PRESENT STUDY On the basis of the telephone conversation of April 5, 1982 with the USNRC, studies dealing with parameter variations were formulated and may be described in terms of three individual tasks:
e Task 1 - Evaluate Effects of SSI Parameter Variation Task 2 - Evaluate Effects of Structural Damping e
Variation I
Task 3 - Compare Floor Response Spectra Derived e
Using the Spent Fuel Analytical Model with the I
Corresponding Spectra Derived Using the SEP Analytical Model Subsequent paragraphs describe these tasks in detail along with relevant conclusions.
I 2.1 TASK 1 - EVALUATE EFFECTS OF SSI PARAMETER VARIATION With respect to the uncertainty in soil properties, the SSRT suggested general guidelines are "To account for uncertainty in soil properties, the soil stiffnesses (horizontal, vertical, rocking, and torsional) employed in analysis shall include a range of soil shear moduli bounded by (a) 50 percent I
of the modulus cor2sponding to the best estimate of the large strain ccndition, and (b) 90 percent of the modulus corresponding to the best estimate of the low strain condition.
For purposes of struc-tural analysis, three soil modulus conditions gen-erally will suffice corresponding to (a) and (b),
above, and (c ), a best estimated shear modulus."
(Newmark, et al.,
1980).
The subsurface conditions at the plant site consist of a relatively thin layer of glacial till deposit underlain by timestone.
The shear wave velocities in the till range from approximately 1,200 feet per second at the top of the layer to about 2,700 feet per second at the interface of I
the till and limestone. The shear wave velocity in limestone ranges I
DTMPIlNDIIADNI[A
)
4 I
l t
7 f rom approximately 3,300 feet per second in broken zones to about 7,000 t
zones (D'Appolonia, 1979).
These velocity l
feet per second in competent I
i measurements have been obtained through geophysical cross-hole test mea-1 surement procedures which can determine velocities within 15 percent of l
the actual values (Woods, 1978). On the basis of shear wave velocity measurements, therefore, the subsurface material is very competent.
i lle nc e, for the low-level earthquake postulated for the Big Rock Point site (ZPA < 0.12g),
a large shear strain condition, generally consid-ered to be greater than 10-3, will not occur.
As an estimate, the sim-1 plified procedure given by Seed and Idriss (1971) leads to the maximum
-5 strain level being not more than 2.5 x 10 The reduced shear mod.ilus I
i associated with such st rain levels is no less than 90 percent of the j
f maximum shear modulus (cross-hole modulus).
Note that the 10 percent shear modulus reducticn was initially incorporated in the SEP cross-hole I
based SSI parameters.
l Therefore, because the large shear strain condition will not occur at I
the Big Rock Point site, the variation of shear modulus should be no l
greater than 20 percent of the cross-hole modulus, for conducting l
l parametric studies, af ter accounting for uncertainties in the cross-hole um measurements.
The usually recommended 50 percent reduction in soil modulus at a large strain level should therefore be considered as very unrealistic for the Big Rock Point site.
The effects of a 50 percent reduction of the spring constants, evaluated on the basis of the cross-hole value, were, nevertheless, determined.
Ilowever, D'Appolonia con-siders this to be an extreme lower bound condition.
Similarly, an upper bound analysis was formulated, whereby the SSI spring constants based on the cross-hole value were increased by a factor of 1.5.
2.2 TASK 2 - EVALUATE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL DAMPING VARIATION In the analysis of the reactor building, structural damping was repre-I sent ed through Rayleigh damping factors, a and S given by I
o -
em I
IlDTAIPP4DifADNIL'A
l!l 8
l
\\
1 where [M] and [K] are the structural mass and stiffness matrices, respectively.
The value of a was considered to be zero.
The value of B was calculated in accordance with the generally accepted procedure, whereby the appro-priate damping levels are prescribed at the most predominant natural frequency of the structure.
l l
Structural damping values used in the analysis of the reactor building l
assumed damping equal to 7 percent of critical for concrete and 4 per-r cent of critical for the steel containment shell in accordance with the recommendations of the USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.61 (1973) for SSE condi-tions.
The values of B were calculated to satisfy these damping levels at frequencies equal to approximately 10 liertz for the concrete internal structure and approximately 7 Hertz for the steel structure.
l The SSI damping values were calculated in a manner which is conservative j
compared with the SSRT recommendations.
The SSRT recommends that the i
I calculated damping values should be reduced by a factor of 0.75 for l
translational modes and that no reduction should be imposed on the l
calculated values for the rot at ional modes.
In both the spent fuel pool and the SEP evaluations, the damping values were reduced by a factor of I
0.5 for all translational and rotational modes.
Therefore, to evaluate the conservativeness of the recommended floor response spectra, it was decided that the results of the following anal-I yses, which include the cross-hole value soil springs, should be l
compared:
i
)
e Case 1 - Previously reported and recommended 7 percent and 4 percent of critical damping in concrete and steel, respectively, and the 50 i
percent reduced soil damping values associated with cross-hole stiffness values.
j l
I i
4 I
.I
ll e
Case 2 - Assumed structural damping equal to 5 e
percent of critical in concrete and 2 percent of critical in steel and the revised soil damping values conforming to the SSRT recommendations.
Case 3 - Assumed structural damping equal to 3 e
percent of critical in concrete and 2 percent of critical in steel and the revised soil damping values conforming to the SSRT recommendations.
It was further decided to conduct two sets of analyses for the above three cases, whereby the seismic input in the first set consists of the site-specific earthquake and in the second set the seismic input con-sists of the R.G.
1.60 earthquake.
2.3 TASK 3 - COMPARE FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA DERIVED USING THE SPENT FUEL ANALYTICAL MODEL WITH THE CORRESPONDING SPECTRA DERIVED USING THE SEP ANALYTICAL MODEL The floor response spectra presented in the report on the spent fuel pool analysis consisted of plots which were not broadened nor smoothed.
Herein, these spectra are compared with the corretconding unbroadened floor response spectra derived using the SEP model.
Additionally, a mode-frequency analysis of the SEP stick model was performed to compare the participation factors with those associated with the spent fuel pool model.
The differences between the two stick models are shown in Figure 1.
IlD'IllPP4DIfADNHA
10 3.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSES 3.1 EFFECTS OF SSI PARAMETER VARIATION The results of analyses for Task I are presented in Figures 4 through 6 for Node 650; Figures 7 through 9 for Node 652; and Figures 10 through 12 for Node 661. The recommended peak broadened and smoothed response spectra for the original SEP analysis are compared with the unbroadened spectra associated with the parametric analyses.
For ease of review, the spectra have been compared for only two damping values, 2 and 10 percent of the critical damping.
The results indicate that for the upper bound case (Case 3), the com-puted floor response spectra are almost always enveloped by the recom-mended spectra.
In general, the peaks of the upper bound spectra are 10 to 15 percent below the corresponding ordinates of the recommended spec-tra.
The only exception occurs at Node 650 along the Y direction where, at approximately 10 Hertz and for 2 percent damping, the recommended spectral ordinate is exceeded by approximately 2 percent.
For the lower bound case, major portions of the generated spectra are well within the bounds of the recommended spectra. Although excursions outside the bounds of the spectra occur for this case, they generally do not exceed 10 to 15 percent of the recommended spectral ordinates; tha largest deviation of approximately 20 percent occurs near 6 Hertz for 10 percent damping at Node 661 along the X direction (Figure 10).
As the lower bound case is, in D'Appolonia's opinion, an extreme and unrealistic condition, the generally good envelopment of the unsmoothed spectra by the recommended smooth spectra indicates an appropriately conservative representation of the response of the structure.
3.2 EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL DAMPING VARIATION The results of analyses for Task 2 are presented for Node 650 (the high-on the structure).
Figures 13 through 15 show the effects of est point IlFMIPIPOIfAMI[A
]
11 j
structural damping variation for the sice-specific earthquake input, and Figures 16 through 18 show the corresponding ef fects for the R.G. 1.60 earthquake input.
For each input, the results are shown for three damp-ing values:
0.5, 3, and 10 percent of critical for the site-specific I
earthquake input and 0.5, 2, and 10 percent of critical for the R.G.
1.60 earthquake input, i
35 The results indicate that for Case 2 (i.e., 5 percent of critical damp-ing in concrete and 2 percent of critical for steel), the computed spec-tra for the site-specific case are always enveloped by the recommended 1
I spectra. The same statement applies for the R.C.
1.60 spectra with one minor exception--the computed spectral ordinate along the X direction exceeds the recommended value by approximately 10 percent near 6 liertz for damping equal to 0.5 percent of critical (Figure 16).
For Case 3, the computed maximum spectral ordinates for both earthquake
'l inputs exceed the recommended spectral value along the two horizontal directions. The largest exceedance usually occurs at a single point at damping equal to 0.5 percent of critical.
For damping equal to 2 per-cent or more, the exceedances are quite small and are rarely greater than 5 percent; a maximum difference of about 15 percent occurs along the X direction for the R.C. 1.60 case (Figure 16).
All exceedances occur for frequencies below 10 Hertz.
It may be noted further that the computed spectra for all cases along the vertical direction are always enveloped by the smoothed response spectra.
On the basis of this evaluation, it is concluded that:
e The specification of the Rayleigh damping factor, 6, at a frequency of about 10 Hertz has a negli-gible adverse ef fect on the high frequency I
response of the structure; ll l
l IIMhlPiP4DIfADNRA l
12 For subsystem damping values equal to or greater e
than 2 percent of critical, the ef fects of low-ering the structural damping are small and are well within the accuracy associated with engi-neering computations; and For very low damping values, e.g.,
0.5 percent of e
critical, the peak of the recommended spectra would be exceeded by approximately 15 percent if concrete damping is assumed to be equal to 3 percent of critical.
Furthermore, the floor re-sponse spectra for damping equal to 0.5 percent of critical would be well within the engineering I
level of accuracy for concrete damping assumed at 5 percent of critical.
I 3.3 COMPARISON OF FLOOR RESP 0NSE SPECTRA FOR SPENT FUEL POOL AND SEP ANALYSES As part of Task 3, comparisons were made between floor response spectra for the spent fuel pool and SEP analyses. Figures 19 through 27 include comparisons of the two sets of floor response spectra for damping equal to 2 and 7 percent of critical.
Figures 19 through 21 show comparisons for Node 650, the highest point on the structure, along the X, Y, and Z directions (note that node numbers referred to here relate to the SEP model and correspond to the node numbers for the spent fuel pool model I
summarized in Figures 19 through 27).
Figures 22 through 24 show the corresponding spectra for Node 652 and Figures 25 through 27 for Node 661. The comparisons indicate an excellent agreement between the two models in all but one of the spectra presented. The only significant discrepancy occurs at Node 661 along the X direction (Figure 25) where the maximum ordinate of the spectra in the SEP model is obtained at a different frequency than that obtained for the spent fuel pool model.
The de/iation is associated with certain mass redistributions made at the level of Node 661 in order to accommodate the PCL system in the SEP analysis. Also, the reactor vessel mass, which originally was included as a rigidly supported mass in the spent fuel pool model, was included in the SEP model as a flexibly supported mass.
This effect is further evidenced by the higher ordinate of the floor response spectra obtained from the spent fuel pool analysis.
I 11MhlPPOIfADNILS
I I
13 As summarized in Table 2, the natural frequencies for the two stick
{
models used in the spent fuel pool and SEP analyses are in excellent agreement.
Good agreement also exists between the two models as regards il the highest participation factors for each frequency.
l 1
I i
i i
l 1
i l
l 1
1 l
i 1
1 i
4 i
ll i
i 4
i j
4 ll 11DTMPIlR(DIL/(DNIL'A
E 14
4.0 CONCLUSION
S The results of this study indicate that:
A variation of not more than 120 percent of the e
cross-hole shear modulus should be considered in determining soil springs. The attendant responses would be within the bounds of the recommended I
analytical results.
However, even for an upper bound 50 percent variation in SSI parameters, the recommended spectra demonstrate adequate con-servatism.
For an extreme lower bound 50 percent variation in SSI parameters, the response spectra of the structure are in good agreement with the recommended spectra. Minor deviations occur at a few frequencies.
For damping as low as 3 percent of critical for e
concrete structures, the recommended floor re-sponse spectra (derived using 7 percent damping) demonstrate appropriate conservatism. Most ex-ceedances occur at a few frequencies for floor response spectra at 0.5 percent damping.
These variations will not influence the design of subsystems.
e The response spectra of the two analytical models--the spent fuel pool model and ti.
' g model--are in close agreement. The variations l 3 noticed are commensurate with the minor f
di f ferences that exist between the two models.
I I
I l
l l
l I
I IlDTMPPOIfADNILi\\
1 15 i
5.0
SUMMARY
i An extensive parametric study has been performed to evaluate the con-servativeness of the reactor building analysis and to examine the levels of response variation between the spent fuel pool and the SEP models.
Variations in soil-structure interaction parameters and structural damp-ing valuen have been examined, and the participation factors and the j
floor response spectra of the two analytical models have been compared.
The results of the study indicate that for all variations considered, the recommended floor response spectra are adequate for engineering purposes.
Also, the differences in the two analytical models used in the spent fuel pool and in the SEP evaluations do not lead to any significant variations in the response of the structure.
iI i
l
.l t
4 f
I s I
- I
!I i
I I
I lI I
IIM 1]PilR m R & % M 4
\\
l l
I I
I I
I REFERENCES i
I I
I I
I I
Y 11MM"IlNDIfADNILii
R-1 r
REFERENCES 1
D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1978, Report, " Derivation of Floor Responses, Reactor Building," submitted to NUS Corporation, Rockville, Maryland.
D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1979, Report, " Geophysical Cross-Hole Survey," submitted to NUS Corporation, Rockville, Maryland.
D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1981, Report, " Seismic Safety Margin Evaluation, Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant Facilities,"
submitted to Consumers Power Company, Jackson, Michigan, Revision 1.
Newmark, N. M. and W.
J. Hall, 1978, " Development of Criteria for Seismic Review of Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG/CR-0098, Division of I
Operating Reactor, Office of Nuclear Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May.
Newmark, N.
M.,
et al.,
1980, "SSRT Guidelines for SEP Soil-Structure Interaction Review," transmitted by letter to USNRC SEP Branch, Division of Licensing, December 8.
Seed, H.
B.
and I. M.
Idriss, 1971, " Simplified Procedure for Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Potential," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foun-dations Division, ASCE, September, SM9.
Woods, R.
D., 1978, " Measurement of the Dynamic Soil Properties,"
Proceedings of the ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division, Specialty I
Conference, Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE, Pasadena, California, June.
USNRC Regulatory Cuide 1.61, 1973, " Damping Values for Seismic Design of I
Nuc1 car Power Plants," Directorate of Regulatory Standards, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, October.
I USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.60, 1973, " Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants," Directorate of Regulatory Standards, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Revision 1.
I I
I 11DhlPPJfNfADNIIA
I I
'I I
I I
I I
TABLES I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I n3:u>a>ona3xu l
I E
TABLE 1 EFFECTS OF SSI PARAMETER VARIATION SPENT FUEL POOL MODEL ANALYTICAL FREQUENCIES IN HERTZ LOWER BOUND (I)
BEST ESTIMATE UPPER BOUND (2)
N 1
4.03 4.08 4.10 2
6.07 6.77 6.95 3
6.19 6.87 7.04 4
8.36 9.27 9.89 5
8.47 9.50 10.22 6
14.24 17.55 18.47 7
14.84 18.25 19.31 (1)Best estimate soil springs were multiplied by 0.5 in this analysis.
(2)Best estimate soil springs were multiplied by 1.5 in this analysis.
Note:
For details, refer to D'Appolonia (1978).
I I
11Ms11PIlNDIfADNI[A
i I
TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF PARTICIPATION FACTORS SPENT FUEL POOL MODEL VERSUS SEP MODEL SPENT FUEL POOL ANALYSIS SEP EVALUATION
- I MODE PARTICIPATION FACTORS PARTICIPATION FACTORS FREQUENCY X
Y Z
X Y
Z (llz)
(ilz) 1 4.04 35.0 130.0 0.13 4.04 16.8 124.1 0.16 2
6.76 599.0 44.5 8.75 6.85 570.2 21.2 5.83 3
6.86 30.5 573.9 6.18 6.95 16.8 545.2 3.41 4
9.30 631.3 109.8 31.5 9.49 659.9 74.6 27.1 5
9.51 114.2 654.3 5.56 9.72 79.3 682.8 0.14 6
17.6 382.0 99.5 385.9 18.1 319.7 65.5 399.6 7
18.3 205.9 11.3 414.1 18.5 278.9 40.4 249.8 8
18.7 70.7 425.8 20.9 19.4 64.5 419.4 1.47 9
22.2 42.7 36.7 792.9 22.5 2.47 19.2 14.0 10 24.5 17.8 44.1 10.2 23.3 33.2 26.4 821.4 I
11 25.2 35.8 74.1 17.2 26.1 35.8 87.0 55.0 12 28.4 164.7 12.0 93.0 28.5 175.6 6.96 120.9
- The frequencies and participation factors shown correspond to the mode-frequency analysis of the stick model alone. The complete SEP model includes the Primary Coolant Loop system which was attached to the stick model as substructures.
For details, refer to D'Appolonia (1978, 1981).
I I
IlDM]PP4DIfADNL1 l
I
- I lI lI I
I I
I FIGURES I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 11MKIPilRINiADNILS
l W
m._
hJ
{
).
ANALYTICAL MODEL-SPENT FUEL POOL EVALUATION LO t.
m T
2 l
h I
EL 6575 t p l ( 3 62, LO6, 022, t 26)
( _,
og SINGLE MASS Y
zu MODEL OF Em CONTAINME N T SHELL r
4 d %
4> 2 (412, I 40, 0.37, I 69)
N D
- p lNTERNAL STRUCTURES I4(505,1.45,i17,2.62) b G
n
" "O
-tis (646,420,25,7.11)
EL 6300 fc 5 3 (2.22, 0 85,026,l.03) o o $
W* O a 6M 5 d I
-t> 6 (Il 8,6 34, 6 06,13.1 )
I 1
u q E
! ?
I 3, t i
2 _,
y EL 596 5
,7 (218,17.7,12 9, 26 7) 4 5 >-
h 0
A 5645 i
SPENT FUEL h
POOL LOCATION
- 8 (0(18 0, 36 4,35 8, 72.1) 4 MTuNE
)DE T
L A 9
N NOTES Et 5730 4 5(232,83,81,163)
SOIL SPRING EVALVATON EMCLUDES THE Ma RE PRESE NT ATtch LOOR SYSTEM WHICM INCLUCES REFER TO DpPPOLONLA REPOR Ev&LuaTON, REW 1, f981 FihED BASE 7 2 MASS DISTRIBUTON SHCwN FO' i
10 iNCouCES TwE PR,uARY CooLA*
///// /
REFE R TO D APPOLONia REPO-DE T AIL A 3 STRUCTbRAL $TIFFNESS PRO 5 L EGEND-e u 3 62. ios. c22. i 261 NoOE NuweER %
SSI PARAMETERS MODE h
ELEMENT NUWBER SPRING CONSTANTS DAMPING V ALUES vtR f IC AL 2 27 m t0* LB /FT I07ad LB SEC /FT
@,0 COeNCtDENT NOEi!
4 H0RtI ANT AL 6 22 : 0' LB /FT 3 54 u 0' LB SEC /FT M A SS LuwPED MASS (L-R X m :NG 2 33 m C:s L B F T /R AD 6 03 s'00LB SEC FT / RAD T ES.ON 2 08 s 0'3 LB FT/ RAD 3 92 a c* LB SEC FT / RAD x,Y.ANDZARES IL B SEC2 FT a t SSI SOfL SfRUCTtFE rig D LIN<
i
ANALYTICAL MODEL-SEP EVALUATION tt 657 5 < p 650(3 62,1.06, O 22, L26)
X SINGLE MASS MODEL OF
/
CONTAINMENT q>662
/
SHELL A
i l
n 644 50 651(412,140, 0 37, 169) flNTERNAL STRUCTURES
> 657 (5.05, I 45,1.17, 2 62 )
" *30 0 n 624 o 7
a> 653 (6 46, 4 20, 2.50, 7.11) rL 6300 652(222, 085, 026,103)
R 8'd 5 4> 658 (7.7. 398,4 35, 8 84) a soe5 4> 654 (8 0. 4 95, 3.49, 9 0) rL 598 5 655 (12.95,1157, 9 78,214) y6 663 n 59es 661(113, 327, 21 (0 12,0, 0, 0 )
rt 5845 1.2, 0.76) h SPENT FUEL et ss4 5 659 (18 pss4 355,Y2i) 4' POOL LOCATION I. )
it )Jit.
~ ~ IS'JJ'
\\
/
656 (232,8 3, V
d 665 8'"
m,pawwA:
T E^a sTcW,'if".JJ,,*'*-
c mst=T A'm 7 b v#s!%,", Loo.a.'tsecus,,,
"T660-7"'J'
. ', ' n'4*"
FIGURE I Ara o
' ' ' ' ^ ' ' '
(RY($ OF BOTH ANALYTICAL W11L5 ARE O(NYlCAL DETAIL 9 COMPARISON OF THE TWO ANALYTICAL MODELS a zu, rn. rzz' SSI PARAMETERS SEP VS SPENT FUEL POOL OK PARAMETRIC STUDY-SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION SPRING CONSTANTS DAMPING VALUES BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT e
WE RTIC At, 2 6S n O* tS/FT llS a to LB SEC /FT PREPARED FOR e
s HORi20 pet AL 6 66 s e' tB/FT 364sO'LB sEC /FT.
uc
,,y, e,
8 potu t.
316 a lO'1LB F T /9AD 72? e 40 L8 $EC. FT/ RAD sJfT&T A rs. o ts src FT /=Ao CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY a
To.s.o.
2 6.Co t FT/aAo JACKSON, MICHIGAN TRACTION 11DMIPIP(DILMhillA l
)
P'-
CO 0,0 i O. #
- 1. O i 0.0 100.0 a00%
1000.0
-- ;s,
- ,p j-p,
, p4 l f
- ri,, -
p
,N
,n
,3 7
s
,e
/e s
/
\\
m N
F; x's
\\
g$
SAMPLE DESJGN HORIZONTAL s
'N z
Sj y
GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRUM
'g o x
~
m 23
~/
/ ( R.G. i.6 0 )
i00.0 N
0Z 100.0 -~ /
j'
'% /
\\
3; Ys
,N; 2
ll
$g
- \\
l
- ~ y /
/,A 4
o x
- I O
,I
\\
/
r j
y
,x y< v, "x
'y co m
e j
o O W
^--x
,/
N s'
/
q j
l
?
L
~
~\\
u a z
l,/
'o
~
~
6;c 4
,/
'N
\\
/
f-s
- o g
.O
\\
4's N
p i i.O 9
5 T/
\\ D
\\
'?
N 4
a, o
E y
o__m s.
4kg~ 9, N
.J
-\\
g
'N
/
6<$,g/,
W
- 's m
g
\\y
~
0
,/
tSITE SPECIFIC,KORIZONTAL i
GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRUM' j' 9, j
0 g
0.1
,A N
- 0.1 7'
A
[
a
/
~
/
x
/
\\
\\
/
/
N'N N
,/
\\
/
/
\\j
/
\\,/
[
r
/
/
'\\
/
N p
i
\\'
s
! ' ' L !. ! '.!.
./!.
' DL ! ' ' I
/'.
.. /!.
'll-l 0.0 0.i s.O 10.0 10 0.0 lI FREQUENCY IN HERTZ l
ig FIGURE 2 g
COMPARISON OF HORIZONTAL GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR 5 PERCENT OF CRITICAL DAMPING PAR AMETRIC STUDY SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PREPARED FOR CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY JACKSON, MICH;GAh DhlPHNDNADNILS
..i.,,.._......m l
f CD E)
O
%O1 0.1 1.0 10.0
.00.0 100 @
j,,
,,l 7-j - ;, ; ;y ;, j f
j-,6r 1000.0
- ,-,ji
/
,\\
\\
j T
x,
/
/
'x N
g b$
~
% /o' f
/
\\
c-o x
/k SAMPLE DESIGN VERTICAL \\
/
k,
~
- 3
/
GROUND' RESPONSE SPECTRU \\
f'
- I o
i O O.O '-
'(R.G. l.60) s
's r I* 0 h
/
4' N
3
,2
.jx t
-\\
/
f c*c
,/
4
/
-f
\\
o f
O
,/
z
,/
t %
O l
O.0 - /,
x D
(/'c p/
4 0
'N o\\
\\ --'
s J/
'x A
s iaO
/'
N; I
w; by%
j
'_ s
,/
.\\
,./
/
/
/
a o W
N I
w j!
d z
-N Y i N/
G + e
<M I
A i
T 4.80 4
flilllill lilijilii 11lll1111 i i iijiiii iiii iiii iiii;ii, I
s a
CASEI T
)
~
CASE 2 I
ON
~
gg CASE 3 4.00 iI $4 12:
{
I ft%
3.20
~
a s I
S I
Z o
S h2.40 i
_E_
e DAMPING (% CRITICAL)
I o a g
5 d i 8
10.0 l.60 D >.
\\
,/
/
/
f I f p
,/
=
V
/
21 I
/
g 00 Sb
~
o.ao
~
O
/
/
,L g
g 3
\\
^/
u gu e
I 11l lll1It flifll tit itillitir-
!!!Illll IlllIllli lillIll 000'00 so o 200 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 FREQUENCY IN HERTZ FIGURE 4 EFFECTS OF SSI PARAMETER VARIATIONS 0
INPUT EARTH QU A K E:R.G. I.60 n
NODE 650 ELEVATION 657;6 A N A LYTIC AL MODEL: SEP PA R A ME TERS CASEl' (to M c$No) (UPNdobo)
PARAMETRIC STUDY SSIPARAMETER SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION REDUCTION FACTORS BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SPRING CONSTANTS 1.0 05 I.5 PREPARED FOR CONSUMERS POW.9 COMPANY S P E C T R A PLOTS
""s $ $ oNt o' ums coYYo ums'u$orOo JACKSON, MICHIGAN
~
- I
ON C ROSS - HOL E ESTIMATE
I e
- e N
m lllPi IIilIIII Ie 1l lllll llll il!l lllll l lll llll l lll lll [
I s
og a
Si CASEI
}
E!
CASE 2 4.00 a,
CASE 3 3:4 I
il 3
E 3 2c s
I
- o o o 4
a 8 0 z
? !
DAMPING (% CRITICAL) 240 E
-I a ?
O
[
~10 0 20 l
E ?
W 1
c
//
5 l
b i f}A y
/
5 i-
?
\\
/
l y
iS
)s s}/
a ogg 2
- l u
~
=
lill Illi ll11 IIII Ill! Illi tilllIlli 1111ll11f t iilllli r 0.00oo 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 so o FREoVENCY IN HERTZ FIGURE 5 EFFECTS OF SSI PARAMETER VARIATIONS
{
DIRECTION Y IN PU T EART H OU A K E i R.G. I.6 0 NODE 650 ELEVATION 657 6" 1
SHEET 2 OF 3 PA R A METERS CASEl' (towjggnf;o) (ur9ph!hehao)
C 2
PARAMETRIC STUDY SSI PAR AMETER SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION REDUCTION FACTORS BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT I
SPRING CONSTANTS
- 1. 0 05 15 PREPARED FOR CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY S P E C T R A PLOTS NEo u N s"ucotYo u%s'u"$or N o I
suco
l
I e
Q I e y
4 80.3,,,, ; !,
iii, iii, iii, iii, ii,
,,,e l
R y$
CASEI
?J, I 26 x
-CASE 2 4.00 2
- 4 CASE 3 gI l
il 9
3 3 20
~
~
l f f G
U n
1 S E 6
6 %
6 2 40
__ ~
T d
1 DAMPING (% CRITICAL)
I j
N a
'60 2.0 I E I
10.0 O
I
~_'
,/ l T
/ ' /
/
i p:
m)
/
E
/
E
'!!!lI!!I IIIIlIIII IIIl lII II!IlIIII IIIIiIIII IIIIiIII 0 00 OO 10 0 200 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 FREQUENCY IN HERT Z FIGURE 6 EFFECTS OF SSI PARAMETER VARIATIONS DIRECTION Z INPU T EARTH OU A K E t R.G. I.6 0 NODE 650 ELEVATION 657' 6,,
A N A LYTIC AL MODELt SEP PA R A METERS CASEl' (LONhirf;No)
(u r P 0 540)
PARAMETR C STUDY SSIPARAMETER Soll STRUCTURE INTERACTION REDUCTION FACTORS BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SPRING CONSTANTS l0 0.5 1.5 PREPARED FOR CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY S P EC T R A PL0TS
"" $ $'o*0t o" uEs"OooTEo ums'uSoT Eo s
ON C ROSS - HOL E ESTIMATE
I E
G I
3-Jiiijiiii iiiijiiii iiiijiiii i i iijiiii iiiijiiii iiiijiiit l
R E$
Si CASEI EE lj]
CASE 2 f
2.50 1:1 CASE 3
!:2 w
n 2.00 y
a E I
o o e
y g
w g
I DAMPING (% CRITICAL) mH 5,,3, I e
u n g
~[
j
_~
- 2.0 d 2 5
h
-V g
S V
-f ii
=
i fx
~
a u
E h
/'
I g;
\\ c' E. Ii'
\\
5 IIlll III IIIIl!III IIIIlIIII IIIl lIIII I!IIlIIII ilIIlIII 0 00 00 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 600 FREQUENCY IN HERTZ FIGURE 7 EFFECTS OF SSI PARAMETER VARIATIONS DRECTION X INPUT EARTH QU A K E:R.G. I.60 NODE 652 ELEVATION 630'-0 u
AN A LYTIC AL MODEL: SEP PA R AMETERS CASEl' VMND)
(LO (U P P O D}
PARAMETRIC STUDY SSIPARAMETER Soll STRUCTURE INTERACTION REDUCTION FACTORS BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SPRING CONSTANTS
- 1. 0 0.5 1.5 PREPARED FOR CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY S P EC T R A PLOTS
""s u 5 oNE o'
'uNs"w[oSIo uNsulotOo I
ON C ROSS - HO L E ESTIMATE
R m
1 I
s m
tw lll ll l
-.)
I I l llllllll lllIIllIl llll Illil IlliIIlli lillIlliL I
e
[
s2 Hg CASE T
2, I N CASE 2 2 50 h
CASE 3
}
l p g b
~
4 2 00 a E Z
l 0 0 o
O g
?
S g 5
I [I2 DAMPING (% CRITICAL) a P i.50 3
b
)C7 2
l N E
2.0 3
~~
U
_l Lf4 /
l O. 0 i.oo
$5 b
Z_
dI I
l
/ \\N[
g,g T Q%
i g
)-
mm 0 00 lIII IIlI IIII IIII IIII IIIl lIIIIIIII IIIl Il!I IIIIlIII OO 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 600 FREQUENCY IN HERTZ FIGURE 8 EFFECTS OF SSI PARAMETER VARIATIONS DIRECTION Y INPU T EARTH OU A K E 2 R.G. l.6 0 NODE 652 ELEVATION 630'-O" A N A LYTIC AL MODEL: SEP SHEET 2 OF 3 PA R AME TERS CASEl' (gNhy[yn) (g[p%g^D1 3
l PAR AMETRIC STUDY SSIPARAMETER SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION REDUCTION FACTORS BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SPRING CONSTANTS l.O O5 I 5 PREPARED FOR CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY i
S P EC T H A PLOTS
""s $f[d$^o" "u0s"Oo'oN[ 'uss"0 o'NN I
ON C R OSS - HOL E ESTIM ATE 1I 1
- s e'
I e
f 3-Jiiijiiii iiiijiiii iiiiliiii iiiijiiii iiiiliiii iiii j iii t s
E5 Qi CASEI g$1 E
2 CASE 2 e
2.50 t$
3 CASE 3 I il 1
2 IU 2
~
~
2.00 a 5 l
b Z
o cn S g 5
~
6 g
{ l.50 B
=
3 A
u 2
w s o
- 4 DAMPING (% CRITICAL) z I.OO I g =>.
D g
-2.0
//
10.0 0.50 l
(N
~
~
1IIIllIII ll11l1lIl llll IIll I111 1Ill lIII IIII 11II lil 000 00 10 0 200 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 FREQUENCY IN HERTZ FIGURE 9 EFFECTS OF SSI PARAMETER VARIATIONS DIRECTION Z INPU T EARTH QU A K E t R.G. l.60 NODE 652 ELEVATION 630'-0" A N A LY TIC AL MODEL: SEP SHEET 3 0F 3
'I PAR AMETERS CASEl' CA (towE ND)
(U PP O ND)
PAR AMETRIC STUDY SSIPARAMETER Soll STRUCTURE INTERACTION REDUCTION FACTORS BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SPRING CONSTANTS l.0 0.5 1.5 PREPARED FOR CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY S P E C T R A PL0TS
""s $ $'oNt o
- ' 's"Oo#ETE "ums'0$o^rOY uN
'8 ON CROSS - HO L E ESTIMATE
R e
I&
y j lli 240 Il I Illi Illi 1111 Illi lill lill lilllIlli lillllilL e
.g km a
CASEI I M 2
ma CASE 2 2.00 l 4 3
CASE 3 3
bb$
~
@g 3
DAMPING (% CRITICAL )
2 kg i.60 g
OO I.20 V 4 y
~E d
y 1
i T
O I
I j ?
W I
f J
T t
l
/.
z O 00 D>
l 2
/
o t
e e I
EE O ct
.22 0 40 9 id f
~
lI'll' Ill'I'll'
'II'!'il' llI'll' IIIIIll'l lill!Ill 0 0000 10 0 200 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 FREQUENCY IN HERTZ FIGURE 10 I
EFFECTS OF SSI PARAMETER VARIATIONS DIRECTION X INPU T EARTH QU A K E i R.G. l.6O NODE 66I ELEVATION 598'-6" A N ALYTIC AL MODEL: SEP I
SHEET I OF 3 C
C PA R AME TERS CASEl' (tgwg (UPPpgCg N0)
PARAMETRIC STUDY SSIPARAMETER SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION REDUCTION FACTORS BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SPRING CONSTAN TS
- 1. 0 0.5 1.5 PREPARED FOR CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY S P EC T R A PLOTC
""s $$'[Oc'[
'u[s*(([rIo
"$ds*0$oTOS
8 O N C R OSS - HO L E ESTIM ATE
R I
+3 2
?
240 Jill lIlli IlillIlil Illil1111 lill lill lilllIlli 113l llll L E
i g
CASEI I
26 CASE 2 I
ma 2 00 ik Z
CASE 3 I
I
._2 ks DAMPING (% CRITICAL )
]
~
1.60 2.0 e
m 10.0 b
0 0 1.20 l\\ )
^
/
~~E 1l /
/
o w
/
g
- ;f{/,
' /
l
/
z o 80 h
D I
I
/
4i I
r h
^
04o Kis qN r
b Ill!Illl Illi fill Illi lill lillIllll lillIllll Illl!lll o.cooo 10 0 200 30 0, 40 0 50 0 so o FREoVENCY IN HERTZ FIGURE 11 I
EFFECTS OF SSI PARAMETER VARIATIONS DIRECTION Y INPU T EARTH QU A K E: R.G. l.6O NODE 66I ELEVATION 598'-6" A N A LYTIC AL MODELi SEP SHEET 2 OF 3 PA R AMETERS CASEl' (tgYghdNo)
(U PP D)
PAR AMETRIC STUDY SSIPARAMETER Soll STRUCTURE INTERACTION REDUCTION FACTORS BIG ROCK PolNT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SPRING CONSTANTS
- 1. 0 0.5 1.5 PREPARED FOR CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY S P EC T R A PLOTS
""[u^ $' ole
~
ED U $
T EO UN M T
ON C ROSS - HOL E ESTIMATE I
?
t G
k 2A i i ii ji iii iiiijiiii iiiijiiii iiiijiiii iiii iii t Jiiijiiii l
R E$
CASEI gg
=0 CASE 2 g'g CASE 3 o
2.00 44 I
si 1
-z DAMPING (% CRITICAL) p 1.60 2.0 G
1 10.0 2
Q E
4 5
6 %
5'2
/
/
/
/
/
2 d
d A 8
r
/
2 s
/
4 1
~
/
/
0.80 z
f
/
c >.
A
'4 y*f gm
,/
\\l//\\
1-
=
(
I 5
\\
k
\\
_13 0 40 I
l K
_ _. ~ ~ _ -
lg IIIIl1III IIi!IiiII IIIIllttI iilll1Ilr lg Itllll1l llllll 11I g,go 00 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 600 e9EOUENCY IN HERTZ FIGURE 12 EFFECTS OF SSI PARAMETER VARI ATIONS l
IN PU T EARTH OU A K E i R.G. l.60
' 6" l
A N A LYTIC AL MODEL: SEP SHEET 3 OF 3 t
PA R AMETERS CASEl' (tgQh2'No i (Ukhbr/em PARAMETRIC STUDY SSI PAR AMETER SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION REDUCTION FACTORS BIG ROCK PolNT NUCLEAR POWERPLANT SPRING CONSTANTS
- 1. 0 0.5 1.5 PREPARED FOR CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY SP EC T R A PLOTS
" df[O[o"
' u[s"(([rI[
" umsu"$$f 0E I
3
^
^
^
ON C R OSS - HO L E ESTIM ATE
I o
O 4.5 i ie i::
- i iiii aiii eiii ieia ieia iiei iai isii iii I 4 in
?
~~
CASEI m
E CASE 2 Iw 3.75 Si CASE 3 gg
_y S g y
_.2 3.0 DAMPING (% CRITICAL) e I -2 E
/
o 0.5 z
/
3.0 l
D cc O
A 10.0
- - 2.25 o o w
4
/
w f
ct
/
u
/,j v e w
E i 1
l /
Z 8
u n o
a I
. / f 2
f
}
//
m fh 1
~
r, g3
/-
nm l
,1,I i
3
.75 l$
~
l,/-
\\.
\\
.i I
f Z
h 3
's 3
E 1N
'l'
.0
.0 S
0.0
' tit iiir I0 20 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 0.0 FREQUENCY IN HERTZ FIGURE 13 I
INPUT EARTHQUAKE : SITE SPEClFIC AN ALYTl CAL MODEL : SEP EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL DAMPING SITE SPECIFIC EARTHQUAKE PARAMETERS CASEI CASE 2 CASE 3 DIRECTION X NODE 650 ELEVATION 657' 6" I
STRUCTURAL DAMPING SHEET I 0F 3
% CRITICAL PAR AMETRIC STUDY 3
SolL STRUCTURE INTERACTION STEEL 4
2 2
BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT GSI DAMPING PREPARED FOR REDUCTION FACTORS CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY TRANSL ATIONAL MODES O SO 075 0 75 ROTATIONAL MOCES O.50 t.O l.0 5
SPECTR A PLOTS encacENED AND NOT e904cENED NoT esoACENED SYOOTNE D UNSMOOTHED UNS400THED D }
Y 19 t 29 3 N E stCulE N E A ng smelTH CO PGH PA LY t S 3t'.10 7 9
4.5 iiii iiii g
aisi iiii iiii iii.
iiiijiiii iiiijiiii iiiijiiit 3
m m
CASEI T
I R
- CASE 2 Ew 3.75 M*
CASE 3 go d.
g Q.
D s'o DAMPING (% CRITICAL)
I h
v>
b 0.5 z
30 e
o f
m>
z J
o o g 2.25
~
/
10.O 9j w
if o Z
d [
W 6 g ci l
T
/
u
,- /
i, W
/
/
/
I5 g y i p f /,]/,
n
/
//
V j, /
g f /
wr r
$m
/
j
[
v l-
)
i
~
o.75 f
Y
_n l
[.
L -
.0
.0
' ' ' '.' ' ' ' ' ' ' '5 0.0 0.0 Io 20 30.0 400 60.0 O.o l
FREQUENCY IN HERTZ GURE M
l INPUT EARTHQUAKE : SITE SPECIFIC l
ANALYTICAL MODEL : SEP EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL DAMPING SITE SPECIFIC EARTHOUAKE P AR AML TERS CASEI CASE 2 CASE 3 DIRECTION Y NODE 650 ELEVATION 657'- 6,,
STRUCTURAL DAMPING SHEET 2 OF 3
/.CR I T I C AL PAR AMETRIC STUDY
'U"*
SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION STEEL 4
2 2
BIG ROCK PolNT NUCLE AR POWER PLANT SSI DAMPING PREPARED F OR REDUCTION FACTORS CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Twm ATiont.t voces o so 0 75 0 75
- G%N WMMN 540TATIONAL MOCES 050 iO IO 8
SPECTRA PLOTS eacau.E n aNo er nwisa Nto Not n%ActNto g
3 woorst o um wict ri o ussvoorsto
....,, -.. _. ~......, _ < ~... <,.,..,,,.
s 4.5 y
o 9
T CASEI m
k CASE 2 3.73 ji CASE 3 om g
t 4
3.0 La 4+
o e
m>
z 9
e 2.25 o o H
y DAMPING (% CRITICAL) w U @
T a d
0.5 u n a
a n
3.0 o
cD d A
,/ /
'5
/
10.0
" s 1
./
33 am 8
g /
/
0.75 A.
,s, l
c c P i
/
12
~
K
/
e e
\\
I --
y
'I'
.0 O.0 O.O 10.0 20 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 FREQUENCY IN HERTZ INPUT EARTHQUAKE : SITE SPEClFIC AN ALYTICAL MODEL : SEP EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL DAMPING SITE SPECIFIC EARTHQUAKE PARAMETERS CASEI CASE 2 CASE 3 DIRECTION Z NODE 650 ELEVATION 65716" f,T" SHEET 3 OF 3
"^L DAMPING f CR T CAL PARAMETRIC STUDY l
SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION 4
2 2
BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT I
SSI DAMPING PREPARED FOR REDUCTION FACTORS CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY TRAN3L ATICNAL MODES 0 50 0.75 0 75 ROT A7lONAL MOCES 050 t.O IO JACKSON, MICHIGAN SPECTR A PLOTS BNO4CF.NED AND NOT O W CENED NOT DROA DE NED i
SWJOTHED UNSuoOTHED UNSM90THED O
g
?
's i s t s we nc u t r as t ano sw.m co pou na g ri,3o. in 7, 1
8 G
4 eO g,,,l,,,,
,,,, i,,,
,,,L s
Og N
'~
CASE I T
SE SE CASE 2 4
4.00 CASE 3 d
12
-3
(
4 T
3.20 e
s 5!
5
) d 240 5 %
G
(
-n DAMPING (% CRITICAL) o m
d 4 8
I' agq
~ O.5 1.60 I
lD l
/
j O
/
c c
]' s fh 3
(,i q
\\~
b k
l 11
+
/
~
!!I IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII
'III I!'I
I' 0 00 OO 10 0 200 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 I
FREOUENCY IN HERTZ FIGURE 16 EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL DAMPlNG R.G. I.60 E ARTHOUAKE DIRECTION X INPUT E ARTHOU A KEi R.G. I.60 NODE 650 ELEVATION 657,-6,,
AN ALYTICAL MODEL : SEP SHEETI 0F 3 PAR A M E T ERS CASEI CASE 2 CASE 3 p
STRUCTURAL DAMPING SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION
% CRITICAL BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT R TE PREPARED FOR SSI DAMPING CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY REDUCTION FACTORS JACKSON, MICHIGAN TRANSL ATICNAL VOCES 0 50 0 75 0 75 ROTATIONAL MOCES 050 I.O IO iP A NED D
(
f)(
SPECTR A PLOTS Af ENE D AND PgA3E NE D
5 9
I y
48o a ilijiiii iijiiii iiiijiiii iiiijiiii iiiijiiii iiiijiiit i i a
c%a gg CASEI x,$
CASE 2 4.00 I
I CASE 3 4
g-R r
og
~
~
3 20
- m o
I a
0 0 0
Q a
S i 5
5 %
6 240 _
DAMPING (% CRITICAL) 7
^ 0.5 g
g g
Z y
lQ,Q
//
-f
~
z I.60 -2 sz p
5 7
E o
~ f
/
_~
u s
F +
i s'
~
11_
o.80 -
- I I
~
I s
~
IIlt!Illl ll!!!!!Il ll!Illlll I!!!Illli
!!Il Ill!
IlllIll!
0 00 l
00 io o 20 0 50 0 40 0 50 0 600 F RE QUENCY IN HERTl FI GUR E 17 EFFECTS O F STRUCTURAL DAMPING R. G. l.60 EARTHOUA KE I
IN PUT E ARTHQU A KE* R.G. l.60 DIRECTION Y AN ALYTICAL MODEL : SEP NODE 650 ELEVATION 657 6" L
PARAMETERS CASEI CASE 2 CASE 3 STRUCTURAL DAMP!NG SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION
% CRITIC AL CONCRETE 7
5 3
UNI NARI U I ON STEEL 4
2 2
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY UCTio FACTORS JACKSON, MICHIGAN TRANSL ATiCNAL MODES 0 50 0 75 0 75 ROTATIONAL MODES 050 1.0 IO SPECTR A PLOTS N
BRgADENED AND I
I, m
I di 4.80 g; ; ; ; ;
ji;
- yy ;,,.
!E e
h,
?
CASEI
}
x>
E' CASE 2 rv 7 4.00 Z
CASE 3 1
7 I 4 y
't 3 20 g a
, I a o o
e c
1 b y z
E 5 $
$ 2 4o1
[
E e
i 5_
DAMPING (% CRITICAL) 2 a
l
?
W l
w U
5 O.5
{
i-iso f
2.0
/
.h Z
g r
-/
io o l
/
/
\\
/.
/
T
? ?
/
rr l
/
/
E E:
0 80 l
, e m
/
-@j
]
=2
~~
1 I!!!
I!!! !!!!
II!! !!!I
! II
!'!I I!!! !!!!
!!'I 000 OO 10.0 200 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 FREcuENC r iN HERT Z FIGURE 18 EFFECTS O F STRUCTURAL DAMPING R.G. I.60 E ARTHQUAKE INPUT E ARTHOU A KE'R.G. l.60 DIR ECTIO N Z ANALYTICAL MODEL : SEP NODE 650 ELEVATION 657 6" 1
SHEET 3 OF 3 PAR A M E T ERS CASEI CASE 2 CASE 3 PARAM ETRIC STUDY STRUCTURAL DAMPING Soll STRUCTURE INTERACTION
% CRITIC AL 03 @ T W1W POW PL ANT CONCRETE 7
5 3
STEEL 4
2 2
PREPARED FOR
$UCT CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
^
FACTORS JACKSON, MICHIG AN TRANsL ATioNAL vooEs 0 50 0 75 0 75 ROTATICNAL MOCES 0 50 I.0 iO X
Y T
P GA ENED D
SPECTR A PLOTS BRCgCENED AND BgCENED l
1
I
=
G A
2 9
g rpTT:;, :,q.i.q ; p.. ;,...p.gi i r i i j iiiip;p t.g.g.iyi7.,i[..;..:.31 TnTTT: n p, i: p:..y...y Turpmy, p..,..,,p,.p..p,,7
'00 0 1
DAMPING e 2 PERCENT im eB az SEP MODEL I
r\\
\\
W SFP MODEL
\\
2 PERCENT
=
6,g DAMPING Ul a,.
t\\
I n
i 2 g "0
,o o L___._
I t$
-7 PERCP.NT
~ '
Q T
j DAMPlNG u
$ 5
(
l I
O O h PERCENT x o g
DAMPING S R 1
l
_b_ m "s 5 g y
,o 8 c s_4 z
r Z
51 ik a, nuluhdudaduM11k unhuj": A! L ' M'd unlunino' M4 !' ! ^ hdwl -- r:
L' ' '
0 01 OI IC tO G 100 O FREQUENCY IN HERT Z I
NODE CORRESPONDENCE TAB L E SEP MODEL
- SFP MOD EL FIGURE 19 COMPARISON OF FLOOR 650 I
RESPONSE SPECTRA SEP VS. SPENT FUEL POOL 652 3
X DIRECTION 66I II NODE 650 ELEVATION 657'-6" PAR A METRIC S TU DY
- SFP = SPENT F U EL POOL SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION NOTES:
BIG ROCK POINT NUCLE AR POWER PLANT I
J ACKSON, MICHIG AN 2.IN PUT E A RTH OU A K E : R.G. l.60 IIDRIPIPOILONILS l
....,,-.._,.....-m
.e
I O
b
?
M G
g
'00 0
{TTTTrin ja.;.j p jm q,..q,;,,g..ga i i i i iin..;. p.m,..;a3, a.p.. j.f.,i p i i i i p io mq.a p93 nii;..,;-..p ;,..p i i i i i iii jia,.;7.<,.. i;u a;1.s;.v;.. )..
l y
2 PERCENT E
h DAMPING 4
sa SEP MODEL I
om SFP MODEL
$AMPTG P
~
Q
=
y s
s v
I s
e I
?
8
\\7 PERCENT I
r k%
DAMPING
_=
=
3 D
x z
I
=
0 7 PERCENT
_N DAMPING v
[
l 5 %
.5 l T-5 a
E
')
tC
$ E
-t E$
f 2
4 E>
4 jcn 4
a
=:
N21
=
0 i nnbuddddl.uhd !dh nuhndo
! I 4 Wii i ! o!! n!"i l bl: I 4 L L'" ro!mdo' M4"I"Il4k 0 01 Ot I0 10 0 100 0 FREGUENCY IN HERTZ I
NODE CORRESPONDENCE TAB L E SEP MODE L
- SFP MOD EL FIGURE 20 650 l
COMPARISON OF FLOOR I
RESPONSE SPECTRA 652 3
SEP VS. SPENT FUEL POOL 66I II Y DIRECTION NODE 650 ELEVATION 657'-6" I
- SF P = SPENT F U E L POOL P A R A M ETRIC STUDY SOIL SNCmRE INTERACTION NOTES:
- 1. R EF ER TO FI GU RE I FO R DIFF ER ENCES BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWERPLANT I
BETW EEN THE TWO MODELS AND PREPARED FOR D'A PPOLONI A (1978,198 I )
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 2.lNPUT E A RTHOU AK E : R.G. l.60 J ACKSON, MICHIG AN IlMAIPIPOILONILS l
l
......-.._,...,_,-m
I in to I
7 to tovb
'00 0'TTT' m t";
c.i :
- .j i
- 7
- .
, n i mTTimp.. L;,,,,...p; g...p.,. p.p TTqmpi., qiq:..p i,q..;j.q..
1 q
%' W I
2 PERCENT SEP MODEL
^ " " ' "
oz SFP MODEL 2 PERCENT DAMPING I
l y/.
~
~
u
~
im
__3 T
l' l
/
l
{
,N r
l u
S 7 PERCENT o o DAMPING 8
r
[r u
c i
Y [
r 7 PERCENT i
u 4 DAMPING i
T-M N
Il G T o
z
'C >-
4 (D Zn 21.
I II a n!an!maAALc!=MLW u n'
! J
' Ed uuha L 1 J.M WunawW44 M4 o,
0 06 Oi f0 l0 0 1000 I
F h E '.U E N C Y IN HER T Z I
NODE CORRESPONDENCE TAB L E SEP MODEL
- SFP MODEL FIGURE 21 COMPARISON OF FLOOR 650 i
I RESPONSE SPECTRA l
652 3
SEP VS. SPENT FUEL POOL 66I II Z DIRECTION NODE 650 ELEVATION 657'-6" I
- SFP = SPENT F U E L POOL P A R A M ETRIC STUDY l
I SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION NOTES:
BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
- 1. REFER TO FIGURE I FO R DIFFER ENCES PREPARED FOR BETWEEN THE TWO MODELS AND D'A PPOLONI A (1978,198 I )
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 2.lNPUT E A RTHOU AK E : R.G. l.60 J A CKSON, MICHIG AN l
ED*APPOHADNIA 1
1 I t # 2 5 3 Hi s*C u tE N E aes gue?w to e c, w pa t yig 3o. e ve
N m
m
?
e in m
T
'00 0 TTTTTiriip u, :,.;,3 j:,i-[;., e,p. g.i i i i i p,m ma j;;,7..,;.5,...p..,;....g i TTTrIili'F Li c s:Fi>:! '.1;:cl pTT:TITt;q m n.),.< ;j.q..
..,q,. 33,,
ox E,w m
s j'g SEP MODEL 2 ocRCrNT
- 3
^M"'""'
3 g
SFP MODEL s
n
(
2 PE R C E?!
- D A M PIM T 6
\\
d
/
4 io o f --- - ---
j 7- --(
_g g
w i
~
a.
vi
[
~
j l
\\7 PERCENT f'
I D A M P ING u
$ D z
7 PERCENT 3
c ow DA M PING
=
w o
W O
[
d 2 2
i l
w 6 %
j 1
[ $
]
io ?__.___.._..___
__L-_-_._
5 O 4
-E k
'-i W>
4 g)
O f3 Oi 1UI I E
DI II '
^
~
0 01 Oi io iO O 100 0 FREQUENCY IN HERTZ NODE CORRESPONDENCE TAB L E SEP MODE L
- SFP MODEL FIGURE 22 COMPARISON OF FLOOR I
650 I
RESPONSE SPECTRA 652 3
SEP VS SPENT FUEL POOL X DIRECTION 66l t1 NODE 652 ELEVATION 630,-0,,
I
- SFP = SPENT F U EL PCOL P A R A M ETRIC STUDY SOlt STRUCTURE INTERACTION NOTES' BIG POCK POINT NUCLE AR POWER PLANT I
- 1. REF ER TO FI GURE I FO R DIFF ER ENCES PREPARED FOR BETW EEN THE TWO MODELS AND D'A PPOLONI A (1978,198 I )
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY J A CKSON, MICHIG AN 2.lN PUT E A RTH OU A K E : R.G. l.60 DhPRNDHADNIIA s
te i29 3 ugacwtg%g a ge gu.ru to egw pa g e o g 30,, e *,
\\
t
m mn I
?
Ne I
'00?-}r.,
.go..p t.
3, y) i T i i j i. q.,, ;..g j,, 7
.,..q,...,ip TTTTiniij;:., ;. p +. j" ;-. pj a)sjT i i I ll niijrig:p afi i njoy g u j
E,aw gg
~
SEP MODEL I
SFP MODEL M
2 PERCENT
_~j rN DAMPlNG 4
q I
I 6
=~
h 2 PERCENT I
j DAMPING 0 h ~iach J
--n
_]
u d
~ \\7 PERCENT Ef DAM PlN G g
[
a 2
i
- 'l 7 PERCENT y
DA M PING
~
O O z
W O
- O
~
r
'I i
wI 5%
E 4
d e
=
0 IC m
5 I
g 4 Li l
a Z
cm
'.~~. _
)
s>
g o a
~
V DIIII C "I
I!!! ' '
OI o ci 0,
io 10 0 100 0 FREQUENCY IN HERTZ I
NODE CORRESPONDENCE TAB L E SEP MODE L
- SFP MODEL FIGURE 2 3 650 i
COMPARISON OF FLOOR I
652 3
RESPONSE SPECTRA SEP VS. SPENT FUEL POOL 661 11 Y DIRECTION NODE 652 ELEVATION 6 30'-O" I
- SFP = SPENT F U E L POOL PA R A METRIC STUDY NOTES:
S0ll STRUCTURE INTERACTION
- 1. REFER TO FIGURE I FOR DIFFERENCES BIG ROCK P0lNT NUCLEAR POWERPLANT I
BETWEEN THE TWO MODELS AND PREPARED FOR D'A PPOLONI A (197 8,19 8 I )
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 2.IN PUT E A RTH OU A K E : R.G. l.60 J A CKSON, MICHIG AN l
IIDRPRWDHADNRA
......-..m.~....._,.
l t
I 4m r0 Y
N 4
k
'000{TTTJTUK
,; p.. p. j gi TITTITTip. g. @y.(r,60 T TTTp...;...,, p,....X; m p. ;.. p p i t TT] rin p :.
..j.. q... p.. 11 i
og
~
Zw sm
?
SEP MODEL
-~
az gj SFP MODEL
{.
D A M PING 2 PERCENT I
-k 2 PERCENT 4-m D A M PlNG
~
i io O U
\\7 PE RCENT x
DAMPING
-~
F u
I fo S z
I o o 7 PERCENT z
j f 9
~
D A MPI NG 4
I 5 %
i
.J l
~~
d l
[g' IC 3
1-----------
g u
I
+-
C$Y 2
R>
Gm O
- u 22 I[
o, nudunim !ol h6hM,% udul LJ'L'I % udmL'l '
l b wdud_ Aid.i.2 L ! 'n 0 01 OP 10
'C 0 100 0 I
FREQUENCY IN HERTZ NODE CORRESPONDENCE TAB L E SEP MODEL
- SFP MODEL FIGURE 24 650 i
COMPARISON OF FLOOR 652 3
RESPONSE SPECTRA SEP VS. SPENT FUEL POOL 66I II Z DIRECTION
SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 2.IN PUT E A RTH OU A K E : R.G. l.60 J ACKSGN, MICHIG AN IlDTAPilNDIfADNILS l
......-.. m.~.
.......-.._...,,,,,e,.
to a) r0 I
4 0
I g
'000}TTTTTTii;.,, q., g.; q.q.; j > i, i TTIT}m:j,
')., g;.q 7.. j...,sp TTTTJimp,... p :. yi;p:..,.g p 1TTTJTTTTji'T,E 7.q yj.;.pga sW SEP MODEL 2.
[
SFP MODEL aecRceNT 1i k f DAMPING k
^
I
-t
["
\\
DAMPING
'\\
2 P E RCENT 4
~
?
,99 I
o "7
l
~ 7 PE RC ENT
~
F D A MPING E
f
-l I
@0 7 PER CENT 0
o D AMPlN G z
w k
6 %
=.
j s
0 m
W
'o<
e I
2 5
h o
8 g
?
fE
=
( e, "I '"I" 1[_
111dididtbdui1Nb 111dniled"U "b"I" Yr 'n11.Lu!" n!n: M":A ~l"
!'h - i n11 ' ' " h :
n oi 0 01 01 10 10 0 100 0 FREQUENCY IN HERTZ NODE CORRESPONDENCE TAB L E SEP MODEL
- SFP MODEL FIGURE 25 650 l
COMPARISON OF FLOOR I
RESPONSE SPECTRA 652 3
SEP VS. SPENT FUEL POOL 66I II X DIRECTION NODE 661 ELEVATION 598'-6" I
B ET W EEN THE TWO MODELS A ND PREPARED FOR D'A PPOLONI A (1978,198 I )
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 2.lNPUT E A RTHOU AK E : R.G. l.60 J ACKSON, MICHIG AN 5 5 Ok}{&[Q l
I e
R
?
>-'!Jw
'00 0
- g-,...; aq,q.g p TTTi j iiiipi. up y yin;a' ja p p n
-i i ii p liip n,m. ;; q { ~..;.u. i f i,.i i i l i j ii n j.+ ;.7. j.iq.3-"..q TTTTii n.j a ui a l
Eu
<m SEP MODEL oz
~
i SFP MODEL um
[
2 PERCENT g
~
e -
DAMPlNG 6
k 2 PE RCENT D A MPING
~
n0y_.__
_ 7 h
7 PERCENT 1
D A MPING g
u p
$ 2 2
7 PERCENT o c D AMPING f
y w
o 5 g Q
2 I
7*
8 y
y io o
z e
?d i::
8 G,
'l All l
' " ' '" ' UI II ' ' ' ' "
" f UII I
' lII! 'II O C1 Oi i0 to O 1000 FHEQUENCY IN HERT Z NODE CORRESPONDENCE TAB L E SEP M0 DEL
- SFP MODEL COMPARI F FLOOR
.I 650 i
RESPONSE SPECTRA SEP VS. SPENT FUEL POOL 652 3
Y DIRECTION 66I II NODE 661 E L E VAT'l O N 5 9 8 '- 6 "
'I P A R A M ETRIC STUDY
- SF P = SPENT F U E L POOL SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION NOTES:
BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWERPLANT
!I
- 1. R EFER TO FIGURE I FO R DIFFER ENCES PREPARED FOR BETWEEN THE TWO MODELS AND CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY D'A PPOLONI A (1978,198 I )
J ACKSON, MICHIG AN 2.IN PU T E A RT H OU A K E : R.G.1.60 BM11PllMDIIADNILS I
i
e me i
T rn
'?
I h
i l i i j u u jii ng;o;,: q,.junj.,;.. p,.gu i 16 ; j uiiji poqu a pop,;,2
'00 0 7..y TTT i p u qin,.. p,p joi,joq...p ;..p l i ii j u ng op.g,jo uj;,.i.ip.,,,
a i
25 A
- m el 2-
--- SEP MODEL T
I og 1
SFP MODEL i
[
E I
2 PERCENT i
- - -i.
10 0 D A MPING g
g I
w 5
(
i~
[
7 PERCENT 3
$ m>
l D AM PING
__[
z 0 0 z
w o
7 P ERCENT
-5 W
8 @
D A MPING
~5 Q
E T
i 4
b-5
_J 3
U i
li N IO 3 N
o
-5 4
=
Z 4
8 2
T:
l
' IIII!!!' "' ~
IIII U!' " " ' " " ' " ' ' " '
- 00 O FREQUENCY IN HERTZ I
NODE CORRESPONDENCE TAB L E SEP MODEL
- SFP MODEL FIGURE 2 7 COMPARISON OF FLOOR I
650 i
RESPONSE SPECTRA 652 3
SEP VS. SPENT FUEL POOL 66I II Z DIRECTION NODE 661 ELEVATION 598L6"
- SFP = SPENT F U EL POOL P AR A M ETRIC STUDY SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION NOTES:
BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWERPLANT I
L REFER TO FIGURE I FOR DIFFERENCES PREPARED FOR BETWEEN THE TWO MODELS AND D'A PPOLO NI A (197 8,198 I )
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 2.IN P U T E A R T H O U A K E : R.G. l.60 JACKSON, MICHIG AN I
N Nk()}[a(()${g 19 1293 NERCVLENE A40 SutTH CO
- GM
- A LYl 5 3 0 10 ? t