ML20056F802
| ML20056F802 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200002 |
| Issue date: | 08/19/1993 |
| From: | Stewart Magruder Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308310113 | |
| Download: ML20056F802 (400) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:' ? ;,: v A gg Gs'y 9 y- J& UNITED STATES j j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20556-0001 August 19, 1993
, %....+,/
Docket No. 52-002 APPLICANT: ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc. (ABB-CE) PROJECT: CE System 80+
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC MEETING JUNE 21-25, 1993, REGARDING STRUCTURAL,' PIPING, MECHANICAL, AND MATERIALS OPEN ITEMS FOR ABB-CE SYSTEM.80+ A multi-disciplined audit was conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff at the ABB-CE offices in Windsor, Connecticut, on the System 80+ design from June 21 through 25, 1993. Open items related to structural, piping, mechanical, and materials issues were discussed. As detailed in the enclosures to this letter, technical resolution was reached on the majority of the issues. Three issues were raised to management attention at a short summary meeting at the end of the audit. These issues were: (1) scope of the - in-service testing program; (2) containment structural design / seismic margin; and (3) detailed structural design of selected areas. These issues are well on the way to resolution and are discussed further in the enclosures. Enclosure 1 is a list of those who attended the meeting. Enclosure 2 contains a handout that was presented at the meeting regarding the seismic analysis of System 80+ nuclear island and nuclear annex structures. Enclosure 3 contains a list of outstanding issues related to containment performance during severe accidents. This list was sent by facsimile to ABB-CE by the NRC reviewer before the meeting. Enclosure 4 contains cuestions related to ABB-CE's proposed in-service test
-- - program. These questions were also sent by facsimile'to ABB-CE before the meeting.
Enclosure 5 contains marked up pages of ABB-CE's standard safety analysis report (CESSAR) that were handed out during the week. These mark-ups have subsequently been incorporated into CESSAR via Ammendment Q, dated June 30, 1993. Attacha nts.1 through 4 contain individual summaries of breakout meetings related to specific topics that were held during the week. Some of the attachments also have enclosures themselves. Attachment 1 contains a summary of the structural issues / resolution meeting. Attachment 2 contains a summary of the chemical and materials issues / resolution meeting. i
!#' M SEyjp NEC RLE CENTER G8PY , i Li _ -__
h3
a, August 19, 1993 Attachment 3 contains a summary of the containment performance and reactor cavity analysis issue / resolution meeting. Attachment 4 contains a summary of the mechanical-issues / resolution meeting. Origitu! S%r.M.? Stewart L. Magruder, Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Associate Directorate for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As statea cc w/ enclosures: See next page DISTRIBUTION w/ enclosures: Docket File PDST R/F DCrutchfield GBagchi, 7H15 PDR PShea SMagruder DISTRIBUTION w/o enclosures: iMurley/FMiraglia RBorchardt JMoore, 15818 TGody, EDO SAli, 7H15 HAshar, 7H15 Shou, 7H15 JHuang, 7E23 Slee, 7H15 RLi, 7E23 DSmith, 7D4 TSullivan, 7E23 DTerao, 7H15 ACRS (11) TEssig TWambach MFranovich WTravers l OFC LA:PDST:ADAR PM:PDST:ADAR SC:PDST:ADAR NAME PShea f9/AA SMagruder:t P TEssig Q ), DATE .. 08//ff/9[ 08/R/93 08/N /93 [ Y OFFICIAL RECORD COPY: DOCUMENT NAME: MSUM0621.SLM
~
. I k
ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc. Docket No. 52-002 l 1 cc: Mr. C. B. Brinkman, Acting Director Nuclear Systems Licensing ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc. 1000 Prospect Hill Road Windsor, Connecticut 06095-0500 Mr. C. B. Brinkman, Manager Washington Nuclear Operations ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc. 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. Stan Ritterbusch Nuclear Systems Licensing ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc. 1000 Prospect Hill Road . Post Office Box 500 Windsor, Connecticut 06095-0500 Mr. Sterling Franks U.S. Department of Energy NE-42 Washington, D.C. 20585 Mr. Steve Goldberg Budget Examiner 725 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20503 1 Mr. Raymond Ng
- ~
1776 Eye Street, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Joseph R. Egan, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037-1128 Mr. Regis A. Matzie, Vice President Nuclear Systems Development ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc. 1000 Pro 5pect Hill Road Post Office Box 500 Windsor, Connecticut 06095-0500
SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF SYSTEM 80+ NUCLEAR ISLAND ND NUCLEAR ANNEX ' STRUCTURES System 80+ DSER issues / Resolution Meeting ~ June 21-25, 1993 Presented By: ABB Combustion Engineering Enclosure 2 ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING SYSTEM 80+ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ a
SITE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA : USE OF ENVELOPE OF SPECTRA FOR DESIGN OF CAT I STRUCTURES June 8-10 Audit items: (3), (6) and (9) ! DSER Open item: 2.5-1 RESOLUTION: Site Acceptance flowchart revised to reflect discussions of June 8-10 audit meeting , i In-Structure Spectra provided at 6 locations (Top of shield added) in CESSAR ' Smooth envelope of surface spectra provided for horizontal and vertical ' Sensitivity Study to determine the effects of multi-modal response with respect to " spectra envelope" issue , : completed r r ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING SYSTEM 80+
j l I Defme Site Characensues I k N l Deep Soit Site or Rock Site Shano m Sne
. i 16 1F De** 4 5"* Develop Sne Specife Specife Raci F y. eld Surface Speczra (5% rnpint) floruomal & Vertical li rizornal& Vertical 1t ir ,
Compare Site Spectre Rock Spectra Ot&V,5% Compare Sne Specife , Dampmg) to erivelope of Surfaa Spectra Ol&V,5% Damping)to envelope of CMSI, CMS 2 and CMS 3 CMSI and saface spectra from CMS 7 and CMS 3. . Ol&Y,5% Dampmg) U Are Are site-speciSc site-specife rock spectra stufam spectra eveloPed by emeioped by envdone of emelope al mafaa spectra frorn cus!, CMSI, CMS 2 NO NOl CMS 2 and and I CMS 37 g CMS 3 7 l 1 1 yES L ___ _____t ' '
, ytS c
- Is de site accepable by Innited site specirc evaluaaan? i g (Compare response to design '
tusis at the locauons defur4 in C CESSAR Section 2.5. ftw site to be acx:eptabic, the site-specL#c response spectral amplitudes at any frequency an each specified - locauan snost be withm 10% over es design emelope corresponding to that locadast) L J NO 3 u Sne not aveloped by Sysicen W envelope of Seismic Orneria; ( CONTIRMATORY Sfm SPECIFIC EVALUATION REQUIRED 1 l Site is enveloped by Symem W envelope of Scienc Oriteria; : SYSTEM W IS CERTIFIFE TOR TIIIS Sfm Site Acceptance Criteria
0 0 0 _
,!hl 0
1 L d i
,!i ,
.! w! i
)
g ~ . A i n . ! i , p m a D - b' 5 ( 4
?
AM9+_-; - W E 1
'N t 7 r J 0
9 0 0 5 _ E 0 1 2 _
+ - 7 v
LM
\
e ,
\
l
\
E I
, g I Ig T MI
+
V C Y
.~
)
i l ( z S . y c i t s n o / - n e u q e o F r M l l # A , E S S ~ s e 0 0 s ,- 1 a es C e l io S
/_e a a-l l
A
+
0 8 - m t e s y S 0 1 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 m , 6 2 0 g 6 2 g si 1 4 1 1 1 8 c8 - I
0 0 0
~- 0 1
.7 L~
)
g ; . n _ ip m . a D 5 ( m -
- 2 S-N 7
S= 0 9 5 2
+
Q -,- 0
. r -
s 0 0 v \! , 1 e
\
g l E -
, '\
l
\ '
e s s e o l- i V ii f f/j N -
. )z t
n = , H ( o $ y C c t c
) -
n e u e q t e S - F r s n . i o t o M l ( l A 0
, ,1 0 E
S S s. s e s a C l i o - S . l l A
+
0 8 m e t . s y , S
^
0 1
^ 0 0
~
0 0 5 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 1
" 0 0
g agj9<.
I j 1 I System 80+. All Soil Cases SSE, All Motions, SCV, Elev. +250.97, Vert.,(5% Damping) 1100 10.00 - i I : s oo
)p'$ -
v 3 i t i' I
)'
6.00 i 9 4.00 ^
-d!h-J < n Y N .'
\
;' 3 gJ . ,
%Q , snr n
'N _
^'
hh8 r, , L _i
- R,Y -; -
=^ = I j
10.00 100 00 0,10 1.00 Frequency OIz)
_L, . _ _ _ , L1 8 E
.g . __
c,2 5 f' 1
--i flV / d 1 i
- =
x 2? a tfh , w
. 4- . ) <1 4 .
*f.
f M __ . -m 8 N s .= -c r. n a (An ,_ Cs"~ M % ) g 8 IC ,% 5
'n (
3 sq '( g _- . M.
? LT - l%k"466W s j
_ hhMBilk t N i I o== 3 L
~ f l'1
\
I 4 I N 4 x h x mwnn i 2 8 m - A
> / wm E / \WNNT e h l\ \h 3 YdI '
?
n e \\ i l l l 4 o 8 2 S S S 8 2 S ? ,9 8 f1 = = .== == == 0 O O O O (0 mm:ntmy i
\
9 e
.J 8
g ;, l--- t - 2 f,,qlf c __
-ie /,2 V j
- l. .
'a s
gr gy , a i - y ; +--- ( .a 2 y I Q/ e ., s a -- w, e
- ff .k
$ C -)W*'#\
5 l A __ E M y L <
# K .' , "j/ s i
~
NM J - I,
=
{ #
%~ >
, E 4teg Z ?. ,
d m s
~
NS s t. '~ s a { N N d ' N3 L
. :: \ h
\ l
=
\M E
\(r trI J
I i d i 6 R 8 8 8 R 8 a a a a 6 6 (2)vo,anlaasy
System 80+. All Soll Cases SSE, All Motions, Interior Structure, Elev. +50.0, Vert., (5% Damping) 1.60 1.40 - -
)
Y ;
] a-i ,
.. H J 1 /MMdnjb nr i _
/ / amp WjLU/
.. hBMM 8622
,,g'p am, AM e isr2 == w=== %
g,go -- M:::::: J
38 10 00 ing gg Frequency (Hz)
[_I M
~
i System 80+. All Soil Cases SSE, All Afotions, Interior Structure, Elev. +91.75, E-W,(5% Damping) 2.50 j j 2m - l ft -- q
/ '
g_ d_ _ _ --. 3 , if I I
]o -
g - G . \
~j l j
<,m ^
;v f .
((\
; 8% c
( jr i. {' y'
;' (
) .h *
( q 0 50 - ~ 4 'h . f Q,, ,f j ' i jg gj_ f s r- gjQ~ i A EEm%s,
? '
M
~
~
0.00 0.10 1.00 b Frequency (liz)
~ -
System 80+. All Soil Cases SSE, All Motions, Interior Structure, Elev. +91.75, N-S, (5% Damping) 2.50 l 2m n I _
~
,,0 W l b + fa .
b ,, J M u,- guyw 2 J u j as oQiGy ldd~ tbe l 0.00 0,t 0 1.00 10.00 100.00 nequeacr om u_ _ 4
U M
~
l System 80+. All Soil Cases SSE, All Motiorts, Int. Structure, Elev. +91.75, Vert., (5% Damping) 2.m 1.tto = - t.60 - - IA0 - - Tem 1.20 - - Ob I r/di f ,._ - _Yq Ml o.so - - g'g 5 ,,.j T l- . Yfl h. . A
^ _ f [' ,f a \
k pp t (* gbX ])N Q i % %gswgw 1h = 0.20 = - p 4 jd7f S QNh -p@
' '~ -
'~
+
0.10 t.00 to ao i00.00 Frequency (Hz)
E M System 80+. All Soil Cases SSE, All Motions, Shield Building, Elev. +263.5, E-W, (5% Damping) 14.00 I 12.00 ' -
. I s.co - -
- J ,
j _ ( l 6.00 - ( 'k , f._ I __ dj/. QK3 2.00 - p/.J - 7< " i s 2Z11 3-yt-i=1= l
$+t)1 r G--
g , , ~ =n ~ a u-m__. _a--
=
0.10 1.00 10_00 100.00 Frequency (Hz)
System 80+ All Soil Cases SSE, All Motions, Shield Building, Elev. +263.5, N S,(5% Damping) 14.00 12.00 - - ( I
'**^ j^ ,
i s.00 - - f 1
)
bMh{ \
\. (
1
\
~
b\ '
, .A r T ' ,_ EE;;:
n, 0.10 4 M,w ~..E__ -!Ng US $TTI 1.00
- 10.00 100 00 Frequency (IIz)
E Sysicm 80+. All Soil Cases SSE, All Motions, Shield Building, Elev. +263.5, Vert.,(5% Damping) 12.00 , l 10 00 - l 1 s.co 4 p'I / t a ' 8 r] - [1{3
.$ 6.00 ,
7 m- - _('f'{IMiOf n f\
'W
-N Y[
~ ~
____.. _ - , d 0.00 u 1.00 ' 10.00 100.00 0.10 Frequency (liz) l
M I System 80+. All Soil Cases SSE, All Motions, Control Rm 1, Elev. +115.5, E W,(5% Damping) 3.50 l 3.00 .
)
2.50 f - I 4 4 k 3 2.00 - 8
; -- f. } iov \
1A bg 'Ty \
< 1.50 -
t
- A 1.00 -
0.50 l ,! f ' f'N
' - Sk -
?
?kf(
. W55=-:
h . Eh2' -- 1.00 10.00 100 00 0.10 Frequency (Hz) m.e . . . _. . _. _
t , o o 0 0 I
) _
g _ n .
$w,-
i p m a D j 5 ( S-l N 5 5 1 1
+
1 y
- i l
yb~ b M a0
. O v ' .
e l I E c! e
, ~
I Af pl m I f ll H eA l Ii J y o ,lI z t r H ( n y o c n C j B e
, u q
s c n , t i o . F t ; o ,- . M l j oi h. l A , f . E S S s , . d e s a C
- l .
i o S l l d A
+
0 8 m t e s y S 0
. o 0 g
~ ~
0 o 5 0 $, . l 2 2 1 . e ,M
EUWmM System 80+. All Soil Cases SSE, All Motions, Control Rm 1, Elev. +115.5, Vert., (5% Damping) 3.00 2.50 - -- fF i j 1 00 n _
.h _
s j D , 1 1.50 - - 1.00 - - n /
,. ll (_,. l.
O.50 ^
; ypl .- '*
j (w' < _ ?' - " - " - 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 Frequency OIz)
Y tem 80+, Agl Soll Cases SSE, Atg unggOns, Control Rm. 2' Elev. +135 5, E-W,(5% Damping) 3.50 3.00 - -- i fP i 2.50 - f
' J /
%- \ $ '
$ p n s.0 ,
Eyynk,6 (\'17\ U' _., ,, f ,c %
&, m O.!0 1.00 EttqUCncyQlz) t
N System 80+, All Soil Cases SSE, All Motions, Control Rm. 2, Elev, +115.5, N-S,(5% Damping) 3.00
?
'*^
J / t p /t i ,,, O{ Eg: g
~ .. 100.00 Frequency OIz) m___. mu--..__ .__- . _. . _.mamm ._ . .- . .-. . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ . _ _ .
t 0 0 . 0 0 . 7 , Y- 1 1
)
D ; - C %? . g-g . i n l
~
p 9l _ m a Q . D l 5 (
' Am l
a _ i c II n t r e U - V .
, f 5 .
5 1 1
+
D i
'O 0
0
~
i
. f v
e 4 l
~
E 2
, 0 ,)
h i m - R / (
)
I z . l o O t r y c - n n e o u C q -
&a
, e s F r
n - i o t . o - M l l - A -
, 0 E
S S s g 0 1 e s a C . l . i o . S w l l A _
+
0 - 8 m e t s - y S
- ^ _ 0 .
1 ..
- = -
0 f 0 0 o 0 3 3 1 M E N S' J O - .
$ 9x .
O 9 1 m 3
.!. l. 0 _
, m.7
.r
,. t7
,.T')7 77 . - {[i:1_77 1 .
'1, 1;, -
L _ J. ~'
~
l1. _
~ .. _.-
~
![
~
~
Tp7_
~~ ._.
7 f!. 77 T
~. . - 't_..[ m_ 7
- a. L.I
~
. _- ~
~
t' { ;r' 7; t ,T 7 j}. C. {. e - e T }..7 i
\
717j[ t o a6 .
~
du 0 ,- s! d [jt.
- 77[
j. ow L _ I.] 7 T ce ( pe0
~
v
, 1 z n H
+g%g t j7
)
7_. _ 7_. . m - 0 t7
~
-j 7 17; X
9p a 1 0 u' .
.: u W! o e3g -
e n s o o
- ~ _
l
~_
~ b XoW i t 7_
7 o J . J sdl e _ 3 - l 1 - 0 u _ _. -- -.. , o . O' oz dp m
-)
j
*[ 7 L
177 oo . _
~ .
) .
eH f[ l .
~
a . u g - - i)77 . 77 7 1t 7_ 1 _ e 1 r i tt7. ; 7 I 17l m . =- ,- 0 , - L w m O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O . p 2 0 8 9
. ' ' ' - P, c 0
- 8 9' 2 0' '
2 E 2 L L L L I O O' O 0 - ~ E g@l l-{ . ~ ~
Page il 'SollEnv1pH.kal" Friday, June 18 10:27 AM 1993 F (Hz) Env. (g) S t 0.100 0.01000 0.200 0.0500 0.300 0.150 0.400 0.280 0.500 0.510 0.700 0.600 0.950 0.950 1.20 0.950 1.45 1.85 1.90 1.85 2.00 1.95 2.60 1.95 2.90 1.75 4.00 1.75 4.50 1.60 7.00 1.45 9.00 1.45 13.0 1.45
^
14.0 1.24 18.0 1.24 20.0 1.02 28.0 1.U2 40.0 0.570 100 0.570
i m w m 2 0 . EghpI . [ . 0 Tg_i "7 ]. l.r7.. . i
. - L g7
~
j!71j1 L. r _ }~ L_ _.- -
. _I t
II;t ._
}[7t.
ri T7.f _ E
. , r7 f-.I
. [7 . I..
i
'7 {
1;} j. 2~ . r - ~
~
l p e J I7t;I7 - _I. T 7t 1 o a dS . su I r
- tL7t 0
L at !d j3 ) c u . ( r ee I
~
71 ( z pO ~ . H n I
~
7
+s% )
0 - _ I t X gp9 _ o l u u!e u' t
. - q e edog - o _
.- ... n l
s o i u ._.i- .
; ,- i b
e Ao _ J
- sd W a l
d . , J e . o o O' op { r d e 14 = . 7 [ 7 4 L joA . t _ f - o p
- J r i.
A - g u 7 -
"1 I IM 77
- 3_. t.
!.{! .
*7 { .
i1
. W
. 0
_ L o 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O' 8, 9 o, p 2 8 ' 9, p -2 0 ' * ' 0' g E L L L l L 0 O 0
- g :s E 5 g n w
v y
Page $1 *Soi1Env1pV.kal" Friday, June 18 10:38 AM 1993 F (Hz) Vert. Env. (g) C j 0.100 0.01000 I i 0.200 0.0300 0.600 0.150 1.00 0.500 1.50 1.63 1.80 1.63 _ 2.00 2.10 2.50 2.10 l 2.75 1.50 3.00 1.50 , 3.60 2.05 ' I 4.50 2.05 5.50 1.45 7.00 1.45 , 8.00 1.07 i 10.0 1.07 13.0 1.40 , 16.0 1.40 ; 38.0 0.650 A 50.0 0.600 100 0.600 . 6 1 I f i 1 l
d FIAT.D-BASE FREQUENCIES AND MASS PARTICIPATION FACTORS 2-Mass Mwel Complete 3-D Model(SSI Analysis) Total Mass = 3.14E7 lbs-sec2 /ft Total Mass = 3.14E7 lbs-sec2 /ft Total weight = 1,011,080 kips Total weight = 1,011,080 kips Mode Freq(hz) %Part. Mode freq(hz) %Part. factors factors 1 7.4 61 % 1 7.5 60 % 2 12.0 39 % 2 11.3 11.4 %
- El.+210' O m = 0.60E7 lbsec2 /ft weight =193,200 kips 1
El.+ 100' I I m = 2.54E7 lb-sec2/ft weight = 817,880 kips l i X El. +50' P f w / ;
//////////
SYSTEM 80+ 2-MASS MODEL i
o . 1 B-1.25, B-1.75 vs. B-1, B-1.5, B-2 Surface Motions,5% damping 1.8 , , , B-1.25 1.6 P B-1 .i ,[} 12
--- B-1.5
- .; .'n. .l . .
(' ' Ni
%: I1 ' '% ^ '-
- - B 175 ^
l ,. 5( . 8
< l
's i ; a f/ f
- 4 '
'. . . , \,
0.6 i ; -
- , / .[ '
.,h i i 0.4 e ;
b' - 0.2 ~~ 2 i i _ 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz) e h
. COMPARISON OF SOIL CASES Bl.25, Bl.75 WITH BASE CASES Parameter Case B1 Case B1.5 Case B2 Case Case !
B125 Bl.75 Ave. Shear Modulus (ps0 1.55E7 0.797E7 0.334E7 1.12E7 0.519E7 Soil Spring Stiffness Obs/ft) 4.65E10 2.39E10 1.00E10 3.36E10 1.55E10 , Computed Soil Spring i damping (*) 62.5 % 62.5 % 62.5 % 62.5 % 62.5 % Damping used. Ist mode 30 % 30% 30 % 30% 30% 2nd mode 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 1st mode freq. (hz) 4.91 3.89 2.69 4.41 3.26 , ZPA (g): ' i EI. 100' O.574 0.767 0.598 0.709 0.6,69 El. 210' O.802 0.927 0.632 0.764 0.824 i Base Shear (kips) 535,160 686,820 536,450 628,540 600,530 Base Moment (k-ft) 42.3E6 52.9E6 39.7E6 47.3E6 44.9E6 : i i t e i 5 1
a ! 3 ed* List of Outstandin: Issue on CE 80+ Containment Performance Review The following RAI is focussed towards the consideration of beyond design basis , containment performance issues. Other issues for CE 80+ containment design basis analysis, e.g., containment integrity under hypothesized hydrogen deflagration effects and inadvertent actuation of containment spray system will be addressed separately. ,
- 1. In response to RAI 220.42, CE has provided the resulting stress j intensities at the transition region of the shell. The stress intensity corresponding to ASME Service Level B loading conditions for primary and j secondary stress effects is given as 28,650 psi. For the same load combination, the NRC contractor's analysis (Table 2.4 in NUREG/CR-5957) gives the stress intensity of 79,986 psi. By comparing with the results obtained for other load combinations, it appears that this discrepancy in the stress intensity could be due to different consideration of ,
accident temperature (290*F). Please reconcile this difference in ASME Level B Service Limit loading condition; and provide information , regarding the effects of the applicable thermal load on the computed pressure capacity corresponding to the ASME Service Level C stress limit and the median fragility.
- 2. In Feb. 17, 1993 response to RAI 1.0 on containment performance, CE provided the basic criteria used for the design basis analyses and evaluations including the models used for the various analyses. '
However, it is not clear as to which modals and analysis methods were used for the beyond design basis analyses. Clarify these aspects for the beyond design basis analyses and evaluations. ,
- 3. In Section 19.11.3.1.2.2, the calculations using an ANSYS model with major penetrations indicate that pressure limits determined in ,
accordance with ASME Code Level C Service Limit criteria decrease from
- about 999.74 kPa (145 psig) at an average steel shell temperature of J 143.3*C (290*F) to 930.79 kPa (135 psig) at a temperature of 232.2*C
(450*F) and these are used in Fig. 19.11.3.1-2. These pressure values ' are different from those indicated in the meeting handout dated February l 17, 1993 and Table 19.11.3.1-1 which list them to be 979.06 kPa (142 1 psig) and 910.11 kPa (132 psig), respectively. Provide an explanation for the difference. 4
- 4. In response to RAI 2.0 on contairement performance, CE indicated that the refinement of the 3-D model at the transition region (i.e., finer mesh) gave approximately 10% lower stress intensities at the lower airlock compared to those given by the unrefined 3-D model. This was under ASME Level B Service Limit loading condition. This reduction is questionable '
in view of the fact that when the containment shell is subjected to internal pressure, the shell is basically under membrane tension which ; should not be affected by the mesh sizes at transition region. l Furthermore, the location of lower airlock is far from the refined ! region (2 (rt)*), therefore, the stresses should not be much different between the two cases. The main source of stress reduction for the Enclosure 3
refined 3-D model seems to be from OBE loads as shown in Attachment 16 to Letter LD-92-064 dated May 8, 1992. Please reconcile with reasons for the 10% difference in the analyses; and in conjunction with RAI numbers 1 and 2 above, provide information on how the results of analyses for ASME Code Level C Service Limit pressure capacity are affected by these models.
- 5. In Section 19.11.3.1.2.3.1, the ultimate capacity of the shell was established using an axisymmetric (2-D) shell model with added local mass to represent the shell penetrations with SA537 Class 2 stress-strain curve. Ultimate containment failure was assumed to occur (due to penetration failure) once the global shell stress exceeds the yield point where strain changes from 0.002 to 0.006 without pressure increase. The median ultimate containment capacity was established at 10% above minimum yield strength based on 122 steel coupon test data.
Median ultimate containment failure pressures are tabulated for a range of containment temperature as shown in column 3 of Table 1 (attached). However, these pressures are different from those for global stress based on 110% of the minimum yield strength assuming perfect. pherical shell conditions. From Table 1 one can observe differences between values listed. Provide explanations for these differences. '
- 6. In Section 19.11.3.1.2.4, the failure pressure information s shown in Table I was used in conjunction with containment shell design basis and ASME Code Level C Service Limit analyses to establish a corraspondence with the System 80+ strain calculations and containment failure probabilities. The criteria used in constructing the System 80+
containment fragility curve are given in Table 2. The paragraph after the table on Page 19.11-8 stated, " Pressures greater than mean failure values were assumed to result in containment failure (Probability = 1)." However, the basic criterion specified explicitly that probability of failure of 1 is given to the pressure with the maximum yield stress (1.2a ), not just greater than the mean yield , stress (21.15ay ). This am51guity should be eliminated. Additionally, the fragility curves generated using the pressure-failure probability points of the table in Page 19.11-8 and best estimate values based on measured SA537 Class 2 material properties are shown in Fig. 19.11.3.1-
- 3. However, the data points are different from those derived from the Table 2 above. Table 3 shows the differences of these values for 143.3"C (290*F). Provide explanations for these differences.
- 7. Regarding the fragility curves provided in Fig. 19.11.3.1-3, information on the median pressure capacity and uncertainties of material properties and modeling is needed at a given temperature. The material properties variations should include the effects of the residual stresses due to cold bending of the plates and the heat affected areas. The modeling uncertainties should incorporate the effects of out of roundness, plate thickness tolerances and analytical limitations in incorporating the ;
actual shell parameters. Provide fragility curves depicting these uncertainties.
- 8. In response to DSER Open Item 3.8.2-11, CE stated, "The peak calculated strains, e g, will be determined from the finite element model loaded to r
the nominal containment ultimate pressure. This value will be compared to the material ultimate strain value adjusted by a knockdown factor, K, based on relative level of sophistication of the finite element 4 analysis, the difference between actual configuration and configuration , modelled, and variations in the material property data." Indicate if this same philosophy of applying knockdown factors for strain should be : applied to the stresses for the pressure capacities and discuss the ! basis for your response to this question. (Note the term " knockdown factor" usually is related to buckling and is applied to buckling load.) j
- 9. Seals around penetrations are designed to seat under internal containment pressurization to ensure minimal containment leakage at high pressures. However, the material selection for penetration seals for j the System 80+ design has not been specified for the range of l temperatures expected as well as the expected extent of seal degradation !
at this time. Please provide this information. The containment function can be compromised if excessive leakage occurs before capacity pressure is reached. Uncontrolled leakage could result i from failure of penetrations at high pressures and temperatures. The leakage potential information of penetrations under different values of containment internal pressures is not available and should be provided. f 1 i 1 1 1 f
. .D Table 1*
Comparisons of Median Failure Pressures Temp. (*f) Yield Stress Median 1.lPy " ! Failure Pressure (1.10}) (psi (psig) (psig) 150 63,250 188 184.48 290 57,728 171 168.37 350 56,210 168 163.95 450 53,680 160 156.53 1): Py - oy -(2t)/r
- This table corresponds to the table in Page 19.11-6 I
Table 2* Assignments for Probability of Failure l Pressure Level Failure Probability , Design 0.00 1.5 times Design 0.00 ASME Level C Service Limit (3-D) 0.03 with 1.0a y ASME Level C Service Limit (2-D) 0.05 with 1.0a y Nominal Yield (2-D) 0.50 with 1.1a, - Maximum Yield (2-D) 1.00 with 1.2a y
- This table corresponds to Section 19.11.3.1.2.4.
r
Table 3* Comparison of Pressures with Probability of Failure Based on 290'F Temperature Pressure Probability of Failure Remark 53.0 0.00 Design 79.5 0.00 1.5 times Design 129.75 0.03 3-D with 1.0o* 142.00 0.05 2-D with 1.0a 157.00 0.50 2-D with 1.lo# 172.00 1.00 2-0with1.2a[ 68.0 0.00 Best Estimate 95.0 0.00 Best Estimate 142.0 0.01 Best Estimate 155.0 0.03 Best Estimate 160.0 0.06 Best Estimate 189.0 0.80 Best Estimate 195.0 0.95 Best Estimate 68.0 0.00 Used for PRA 95.0 0.00 Used for PRA 142.0 0.05 Used for PRA 155.0 0.06 Used for PRA 170.0 0.50 Used for PRA 190.0 1.00 Used for PRA
- This table corresponds to Fig. 19.11.3.1-3.
I e
WM
, CESSAR anncwos
(
, ((y 1 p'M r ,AjW l' b TABLE 1.8-5
\ l
( / (8heet 4 of 6)
/ \
BTANDARD REVIEW PLAN COMPL ANCE COMMENTS
,/ .
I Comment or CESSAR-DC P Sectio e Summary Description of Section Deviation 2.5.5 Stability of The site-specific SAR 2.5.5 Slopes - Rev. 2, will present an July 1981 evaluation for stability of slopes to demonstrate compliance with the SRP acceptance criteria. 3.3.1 Wind Loading - In lieu of site-specific .3.3.1.1 Rev. 2, July 1981 value, the desi velocity of @ gnmph, windat Table 2.0-1 the height of 33 feet above nomi round 'Mg g elevation s use as the / ##"M , mont nnuare uind_ve_locity_ M N j(T fr/l
-f a m 100 ycar rccurrcnce
.intcz.al. ~
s - 3.4.1 Flood Protection - Compliance will be based 3.4.4 Rev. 2, July 1981 on a site-specific evaluation 3.4.2 Analysis A description of analysis 3.4.5 Procedures - Rev. procedures will be 2, July 1981 detailed in site-specific SAR. 3.5.1.5 Site Proximity Justification will be 3.5.1.5 Missiles (Except provided in the site-Aircraft) - Rev. specific SAR. 1, July 1981 3.5.1 6 Aircraft Hazards - Justification will be 3.5.1.6 Rev. 2, July 1981 provided in the site-specific SAR. 6.4 Control Room Site-specific 6.4 Habitability requirements are ensured System - Rev. 2, thrcugh interface July 1981 requirements. l Enclosure 5-Amendment April 1 1993 1
CESSAR nai"cmeu separate reactor core nonlinear analysis. The results are determined for the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). l 3.7.3.14.2 Control Element Drive Mechanisms (CEDM) The pressure-retaining components of the CEDM are designed to the appropriate stress criteria of ASME Code Section III for all loadings specified. The structural integrity of the CEDM when subjected to seismic loadings is verified by combination of test and analysis. Methods of modal dynamic analysis employing response spectrum techniques or time history analysis are , supported with experimentally obtained information. 3.7.3.14.2.1 Input Excitation Data For the dynamic analyses, a response spectra or time history I definition of the excitation at the base of the CEDM nozzle is
; obtained from the seismic analysis of the RCS. The excitation is l applied simultaneously in three mutually perpendicular directions ;
(two horizontal and one vertical). 3.7.3.14.2.2 Analysis [' A dynamic performed analysis of the mathematical structural model is utilizing one or more of the computer programs discussed in Section 3.9.1.2. I 3.7.3.14.2.3 Punctional Test A functional test utilizing a minimum drop weight is performed to verify that drop characteristics meet the input design requirements. Results from this test are compared to the calculated CEDM deflections under seismic loading for the , individual site. Verification of the proper function is thus established based on both analytical and test results. , 3.7.3.15 Analysis Procedures for Damping A y . 7. 3. L T t t u5s w.y 3.7.3.15A L Subsystems Other Than NSSS
- The analysis procedure used to account for the damping in 1
non-NSSS Subsystems complies with Section 3.7.2.15. 3.7.3.15.) 3 Huclear Steam Supply System . The procedures used to account for damping in the analysis of the reactor internals and core are given in Section 3.7.3.14. l ( i Amendment N l 3.7-35 April 1, 1993 l l
i8J s dE R T : 1 i
-im o w i 3.7.3.15.1 Proportional Damping 5 For subsystem dynamic time history analyses using direct integration, damping is input using a proportional damping' Matrix ,
[C] that is given by: C=d M +PE i where M is the subsystem mass matrix and K is the subsystem ! stiffness matrix. The damping ratio, f , at any frequency, f, i , is given by I: 4TP f-[ t h E Figure 3.7.33 shows a typical plot of damping ratio vs. i frequency. 4 The selection of ot and 9 is dependent on the subsystem damping i ratio, as selected from Table 3.7-1 and the frequency 'l characteristics of the subsystem and the input forcing functions. , The frequencies f3 and fz, Figure 3.7.33, are selected so that ' all subsystem modes with significant participation lie between f3 i and f. 2 The ot and i3 coefficents are then calculated so that at f3 and f2 the damping ratio is equal to the damping ratio ' selected from Table 3.7-1. The damping ratio for all frequencies between fi and f2 will be less than the selected ratio. Since , all significant modes lie between fi and f , 2the damping ratios i for these modes will also be less than the selected ratio, and are therefore conservative. p l I
+
r
t i i
- r 5
! I i
1 1 f I i l t Damping Ratio. > 6 ' i
& = J/anf 4 3r(
A 1 f 4 (
' (Total) '
, (p Damping) 1 i
l I 1 I l i i 1 ' t y y (a Damping) ! fj i, ! f2 ' I
-i Frequency (Hz) t PROPORTIONAL DAMPING I i
FIGURE 3.7 33 I i l l 1 l e
.l 1
-t
-I l
1 l
O O r PRESSURIZER /)( )
/
h - K Os o
,$ d
/
l
^s JJ 4
yd- ,[ D' fi , N
%>e N *C x 's x %
x dhA!J fcvNY l Alt)K472m B}'
- N4 ~
n,,a saa em = si
%. b$
EneN M A.r X, Y, Y & TxAWL A TIoM OOP \ l N ,
^
SUFF0MS
$ Cor.t5 7?wr-FCRf '
/
/kNCerz. c ,
W D snaseie_ k @ 3 o
& 2/Gia Sr72vr f
# .. 'g4 Dinesisioa r e
~
/M /Ncye 5 (1 ep -
/
/ '
w Figure TYPICAL SURGE LINE SEISMIC ANALYSIS MODEL i
'CESSARnu hu y g[. .
-r (c), He ch r 4 M,'e r<iy of SE n bh rc /d/c r/ "Ye " 5
( l -f e a e as- for- sde f y r / WCM h A / s rac rsa e c&si *4ll*-b" pW colRrn
'I Mc -hHveb t wil locn/ ic/h) Ys B. Ion-sai -r ted pg uu Lut e a uesignea r.o w Umla 2 t
th f ct f th p st la d SS vent ( .e to ai ttuin ru tu al 'n og i y of he on-s f e y- e at d st
/
_47~
, duri g an afte he curre e of th ost ated SSE even ,
7 or g C. The safety-related structure is designed to withstand loads due to collapse of the adjacent non-safety-related structure should sufficient separation of the structures not be achieved. 3.7.2.9 Effects of Parameter Variations on Floor Response Spectra To account for the expected variation in structural properties, dampings and other parameter variations, the peaks of floor response spectrum curves are broadened by 15% and smoothed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.122. Soil property related spectrum peaks are further broadened, where required, to conservatively account for all potential variations of soil properties within the envelope of site conditions. Structures, systems and equipment are qualified to either 1) the C envelope of the collective broadened spectra for all soil cases comprising the site envelope or 2) the broadened spectra for each of the soil cases which comprise the site envelope. 3.7.2.10 Use of Constant Vertical Static Factors A constant seismic vertical load factor is not used for the seismic design of Seismic Category I structures, systems, components and equipment. The safety-related structures, systems, and components are ; analyzed in the vertical direction using the methods described in Section 3.7.2.1. Based on the vertical seismic analysis, a vertical static factor is determined to design columns and shear walls. The vertical floor flexibilities are accounted for in the response spectra at each individual floor elevation of the building structures. The floor beams are designed statically for the acceleration value obtained per Reference 1. 3.7.2.11 Methods Used To Account for Torsional Effects The mathematical models used in analysis of Seismic Category I systems, components, and piping systems include sufficient mass points and corresponding dynamic degrees-of-freedom to provide a
- three-dimensional representation of the dynamic characteristics of the system. The distribution of mass and the selected Amendment N 3.7-17 April 1, 1993
I l l k The non-Category I structures will be analyzed and designed to prevent their failure under SSE conditions .in a manner such that the margin of safety of these structures is equivalent to that of Category I structures. i P l l i f i
?
i i
,- CESSARnaho, . . :
M i 3.8 DESIGN OF CATEGORY I STRUCTURES 3.8.1 CONCRETE CONTAINMENT ThL section is not applicable to the System 80+ Standard Design. F<ir a description of the containment, see Section 3.8.2. For a l description of the containment shield building, see Section l 3.B.4. l 3.8.2 STEEL CONTAINMENT 3.8.2.1 Description of the-Containment , 3.8.2.1.1 Ceneral Qff:f,j" The containment is a spherical f e-standing welded steel , structure. The sphere is supporte by sandwiching its lower f
%g, . portion between the building foundat n concrete and the i~nterior structure base. There is, no structur al connection either between i dg -
theYcontainment and the interior structure, or between the l por ontainment and the shield building.1F The diameter of containment , g is 200 ft. The plate nominal thickness is 1.75 inches. The 3 2"+rge region plate thickness
- 2 inche . The containment is w, i I
shown on the plans and elevations of Figures 1. -2, .2-3 M p g.,5 p 69; ha
. 1.2-6, 1.2-7 and .1.2-9.
ZdsEJtT @ d dWW ; 1 y sit w v The arrangement of the Nuclear Island ' structures, which includes i containment and defines critical dimensions, flood barriers, and ! fire barriers, is shown in Figure 3.8-5. l The spherical shell plate segments will be shop fabricated and , field welded. These plates will be approximately 25 feet long : and 13 feet wide and can weigh as much as ten tons each; however, l these dimensions will vary depending upon the plate location. ; Two or more plates may be assembled and field welded on the - ground and then erected. A vast majority of penetration i j assemblies will be shop welded to the vessel plates, while others Vescel plate will will be attached to the vessel in the field. be thickened around the penetration to compensate for the openings. Where there is a cluster of penetrations in the same , I plate segmant, the entire segment may be fabricated out of the thicker plate, tapered to 1.75 inches at the edges. The additional thickness will depend upon the nominal size, thickness . and location of the penetration sleeve and shall be in accordance ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) l
; with i requirements (Reference 1).
The 2 inch thick pcrtion of the steel containment vessel in the The
? W r:ge region will be shop fabricated and welded.
inch welds and will be postweld II*d g / ongitude l plate welds heat treated. The top will andbebottom 2 edges of these 2 inch plates ! f will be tapered to 1.75 inches. I Amendment P 3.8-1 June 15, 1993 l
CESSAR nainemou 3.s.2.1.2 Anchorage Region 4 /l [ g yg(,$ 3 r C b v The containment is assume o behave as an independent, free-standing structure abov elevation 91+9. Below elevation 91+9, i the vessel is encased between the base slab of the internal structures and the shield building foundation. In the transition region, a compressible material is provided as shown in Figure 3.8-1 to eliminate excessive bearing loads on the concrete as i 4,ob well as to reduce the secondary stresses in the vessel at this camcfd.O location. & 8 hear connectors are provided between the gortet l containment plate and the shield' building foundation or base slab i of internal structures. The lateral loads due to seismic forces, i 6bd etc.. are transferred to the foundation concrete by frictionjam& ;
\ bearingV The containment shell is thickened to 2 inches in the 1 a=h m ge region for corrosion allowance. The vessel plate
[thicknessintheembeddedzoneisthesameasinthefreequamen. Ef ' 3.8.2.1.3 containment Penetrations Ilhicbtf St.Y1% PCce>%/yEquipment 3.8.2.1.3.1 cunwr%NY hivernx7sN Hatch IDWT//n> #55vmjoy7tm ARE
/A/ J! crisp) 6,3 y/,
The equipment hatch is composed of a cylindrical sleeve in the containment ehell and a dished head 22 feet in diameter with nating bolted flanges. The flanged joint has double seals with an annular space for pressurized leak testing in accordance with 10CFR50, Appendix J.
'The equipment hatch is designed, and fabricated in accordance with Section III, Subsection NE of the'ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The equipment hatch is tested and stamped with the containment vessel. Seals are designed to maintain containment integrity for Design Basis Accident conditions, including pressure, temperature, and radiation.
Details of a typical equipment hatch are shown in Figure 3.8-1. 3.8.2.1.3.2 Personnel Locks , Two personnel locks 10 feet in diameter are provided. fr -h l uniec Each lock has double doors with an interlocking system to , prevent both doors being opened simultaneously. Remote indication is provided to indicate the position of each door. , Double seals are provided on each door with an annular space for pressurized leak testing in accordance with 10CFR50, Appendix J. The personnel locks are welded steel subassemblies designed, l fabricated, tested, and stamped in accordance with Section III, Subsection NE of the ASi2 Code. Seals are designed to maintain
" containment integrity for Design Basis Accident conditions, including pressure, temperature, and radiation.
Details of a typical personnel lock are shown in Figure 3.8-1. Amendment P 3.8-2 June 15, 1993
i CESSAR nainmiou i I l i C. Buckling The containment vessel is evaluated for buckling using a rigorous analysis as described in Article NE-3222 of the ASME Code. This analysis is performed on a three : dimensional model with the ANSYS finite element code using i a large deflection option. The deflection under load is { continuously used to redefine the geometry of the structure, , thus producing a revised structure stiffness during iterative load steps. By observing the rate of change in deflection per iteration, an estimate of the stability of the structure is made. An imperfection is modelled in the structure to account for the effect of actual geometric imperfections. The loads are factored and the rigorous analysis is performed to demonstrate the safety factors in Section - 3.8.2.5.B. D. Ultimate Capacity The maximum pressure y:r3a ity of the containment vessel is evaluated by a line t E elastic analysis. The vessel is / modelled with an ax detric model which includes local mass ef fects due to penetrations. The analysis is performed using the ANSYS computer program. E. Combustible Gas Loads The stresses in the containment vessel due to combustible gas loadings are calculated using a static linear elastic analysis. The vessel is represented by an axisymmetric
'shell finite element model with the ANSYS computer program.
This model is the same as the mode] used for the ultimate capacity evaluation. Nonaxisymmetric and Localized Loads 'i F. There are no nonaxisymmetric loads applied to the steel containment vessel during a Design Basis Accident. ; Localized loads applied to the containment vessel may be piping support / restraint reactions, reactions from other attachments, jet impingement loads, etc. The ANSYS computer program is used to calculate the local stresses caused by these loads, which are then included in the appropriate loading combination.
'? /MEfW }, g,2. 9 -) I
/
~
Amendment N 3.8-8 April 1, 1993 ,
,- &LW heh.S*
~
dsIh OpedIItemM.8.2-M {
\
ap lic an shc u descr' e t e me od be u ed o ve I tha a r raibs at te disc ntinu'ti , satvfy e 'an a tr 'n I c 't ria. t l l l PAonesed4pendt v v v oM f The System 80+ containment shell discontinuities occur around changes in plate thicknesses and reinforcement inserts. A detailed ! i analysis will'h performed to ensure the strains in these areas are i acceptable. The analysis 1.5 will be a large . deflection elastic plastic analysis of a finite element model of the affected region. : The region will'bc loaded to the ASME collapse load determined for ' the containment shell structure. l The finite element results wn1 fR6bc interpreted in terms of a I failure criterion based on the ultimate strain, e , of the material i based on a uniaxial tensile test result. If actual material test ; results are ava le at the time of analysis the actual test strain values w:Lg' - __ used, otherwise nominal ASTM values till M ARL l j used for the ultimate strain. The peak calculated strains, c y, ! 4 M will Sc determined from the finite element model loaded to the ! nominal containment ultimate pressure. This value "2 'O'* compared i to the material ultimate strain value adjusted by a _ knockdown ! factor, K, based on relative level of sophistication of the finite ' ( element analysis, the difference between actual configuration and I configuration modelled, and variations in the material property j data. ! The peak calculated strains must @h less than or equal to the , ultimate strain divided by the knockdown factor: i e ' Upc ' f The knockdmm factor for the finite element analysis will bc15based : on mesh red nement studies. The factor for the variance in actual { and modelled configuration will be- based on the latest data available. (Reference d) /S ( 20 The calculated peak strain values with the knockdown factor applied
' /5 w+,M- also -ine- compared to the Sandia test results in which strain !
values of approximately 2.8% were measured (Reference 4). I 7-l l 1 i i 4 P f Opan I dm3 .2 -11 1 R' / E i } 1/ - 9 ; t
- _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _r
CESSARnancu. - F 3.8.2.6.2 Quality Control The general provisions of the overall Quality Assurance program are outlined in Chapter 17. These are supplemented by the : special provisions of the ASME Code for quality control as ! applicable to Class MC Components. The containment vessel is ~ ASME Code stamped. Therefore, the ASME Code requirements for ; quality control have priority over those outlined in Chapter 17 in case of any conflict. I 3.8.2.6.3 Special Construction Techniques l ! The steel containment vessel may be assembled in sections in an l area of the construction yard and then lifted and moved into ! place with a walker crane. This procedure allows the assembly of ; the containment to begin when the plates forming the lower ; J hemisphere ere de.ivered to the site. In this manner the , containment asrcntiy can proceed on a parallel path with the construction of the concrete subsphere region. The following , optionr are two of several techniques that can be employed for i placing the concrete for the dish pedestal supporting the containme.nt. A. The concrete dish except for the top four inches can be [ placed. The containment vessel then would be placed on the l support heads and pressure grouted. i t B. The containment vessel can be placed on the support heads j 3 and used as formwork for placing the concrete. i i 4 With either option care must be taken to prevent the O cating of the containment. This is accomplished by filling the containment , with water as the grout / concrete is placed. After the lower l containment section has been placed, the construction of the , a interior structure can begin. The assembly of the containment : sections will continue in the yard. As the work on the interior l' structure continues additional sections of the containment can be lifted into place. After the major equipment is placed in the . [d interior structure the top section of the containment vessel can ! be set. The completed containment will then be used to support !
'N3t the scaffolding for the concrete dome of the shield building. ,
).h**p.i 7
/ 3.s.2.7 Testina and In-service surveillance Recuirements .
M[f)pM The containment vessel, personnel airlocks and equipment hatch are inspected and tested in accordance with the AFME Boiler and ' , Pressure vessel Code, Section III, Subsection NE. Penetrations l are pressure tested as required for Subsection NC of the ASME : Code. ; J Amendment K 3.8-11 October 30, 1992 v r -.
-.9 , 9
(RidlbtTipW g cpe(f9N 3 0'q*(,.4 CORROSIQh) p #W ;
\
0' , p ( ! DdER Doen Item 1 ') O '1 60 qE ; ap j n sh u d p ovi e a orr id s' ;de i .en fra y ar p1 t de i T el. ' L/opo on m .8.2 1 Re ut M
/ :
VV V " V " '
\
The Steel Containment Vessel (SCV) plate nominal thickness is 1.75 i inches except in the transition region between the SCV and the '! lower concrete dish where a 2 inch thickness is used. Between the ! SCV and concrete at elevation 91+9 is a gap in which a compressible ! naterial is placed. The transition area is at a 45 degree slope ! from the floor elevation which allows inspectability. l 1 Mctst=c wits tha prcrcnc c cf sps.T**a " crus 11y c-hc princ clc; cats l 4a--<tru w a cn Mc % icmc end is cdizcssu in OLn s.v.. .. The ! rollowing are steps taken against corrosion. perJ t m % v p @ ! The#SCV is coated inside and outside (including the transition region) to minimize corrosion and to facilitate decontamination efforts. . The concrete is sealed to preclude moisture. Y A visual f inspection of coatings w F " performed. i f5 g(' Visual inspections of containment base metal and welds are t
/hfomp m e i ed b'; t' l lZ @M Q ASME Section XI, Subsection gAgatp # IWE and 10CFR50 Appendix J. These are formal inservice i
pna inspection requirements. The portions of containment embedded i in the concrete are exempt from these inspection requirements l while the welds around the embedded penetrations are required ' to be inspected. g mymmD
" " '"a r*
"he 6cliection of moisture in the transition regio by use of sloped floors and drains.
1
'IIhe ISC' pl e rin : hic _ss 1.7 l ac sid for ur ss [e 1 ne !
a f. 5 psi wh'c. 1r.c de: a 12 ma .n of I c s .' is) ' ' . j i The compressible material which is placed in the transition l region between the steel and concrete is removable. Once ! removed the material and SCV can be inspected. { In the System 80+, no equipment or ductwork is located such that it inhibits a visual inspection at the steel concrete interface for corrosion. k _n tem .'. p
3 6,Lh 9 rowf p
, , For further precautionary measures and conservatism, the SCV I is 2 inch in thickness in the transition region.
~
This thickness is beyond design requirements and allows for a corrosion allowance of approximately 4 mils per year over a 60 year life. With an inspection program and maintainence of the coatings, corrosion wi ke minimized in this region.
/S-f re e c 2- Co mese ble fat 1 A DS 3.8 1 a .i .a ., s . ye L# fo addi lona. . for lon.
i I 4 f i 6 1 l
i
~
CESSAR naincmos l
~ - d6 /NTIRA/AL J72 Q g y jQJt L MUMic, [sQgp/?y .L. l 57MWVan WsTu 1Ht iscvPnpA) DF l'WTR/tsV)S 7H4'T
. 9 0 Alv'1 )W/CF'T S t I>MIC. MT1[r tr>e y 1 E il v 1)* m tA / 7" ANV l Periodic leakage rate tests of the containment are conducted in accordance with 10CFR50, Appendix J to verify leak tightness and 3 integrity. These tests and other in-service inspection - , requirements are described in ection 6.2. Periodic in-service $ inspections are conducted in acccrdance with the ASME Boiler and- (( Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Subsection IWE. 7. 3.8.3 CONCRETE AND STRUCTURAL STEEL INTERNAL STRUCTURES $! 3.8.3.1 Description of the Internal Structures-of reinforced concrete D, ' The internal structure is a group , 1 structures that enclose the reactor vessel and primary system. p{; The internal structure provides biological shielding for the . containment interior. The internal structure concrete base restsA 1 ) inside the lower portion of the containment vessel sphere. qpl description of various structures that constitute the internal % g 4 3 M,, structure is given in the following paragraphs.
-the internal structure are shown in Figures 1.2-2,The details ofged a [
1.2-3, yt ' 1.2-7 and 1.2-9. 1.2-6,fDf5 ; F , hearrangementoftheNuclearIslandstructures,whichincludeh@ the internal structure and defines critical dimensions, floods j - barriers, and fire barriers, is shown in Figure 3.8-5. b 3{ ,
- "7 K, The primary shield wall encloses the reactor vessel and provides -3 {C h ta ;
protection for the vessel from internal missiles. The primary shield wall provides biological shielding and is designed tg $ C withstand the temperatures and pressures following IDCA. Inc gg 4 ] addition, the primary shield wall provides structural support forg e the reactor vessel. The primary shield wall is a minimum of six 4{! W Mt : [ feet thick. $ "o i The secondary shield wall (crane wall) provides supports for the5 y Ny g ! polar crane and protects the steel containment vessel fro 6 ! internal missiles. In addition to providing biological shieldin 8{s f l for the coolant loop and equipment, the crane wall also provide l structural support for pipe supports / restraints and platforms aM ; various levels. The crane wall is a right cylinder with ad h j inside diameter of 130 feet and a height of 118 feet from it % I base. The crane wall is a minimum of four feet thick. hv Gh-The refueling cavity, when filled with borated water, facilitate {ndA4 the fuel handling operation without exceeding the acceptabl level of radiation inside the containment. The refueling cavitye has the following sub-compartments:
}%jl
% g j
i Storage area for upper guide structure, e l A. nTb , ) B. Storage area for core support barrel. h.4 i M en Amendment P $ 3.8-12 June 15, 1993 3 H ,
I
~ '
C E S S A R Ealincu m l I i 3.s.3.3 Loads and Leadine combinations The loads and loading combinations used for the internal ! j structures are shown in Table 3.8-5.
- The internal structures are designed for the following loads: l J !
A. Dead load j B. Equipment operating loads and other live loads [ ~ C. Pipe reactions D. Seismic (See Section 3.7 for seismic criteria) f' 4 j E. Internal missiles (The internal structure is designed to j withstand internal missiles as defined in Section 3.5.) ; F. Pipe rupture jet impingement i l G. Differential pressures between the reactor vessel cavity, I pressurizer enclosure or In-containment Refueling Water i Storage Tank and the remainder of the containment free j volume. j i H. The reactor vessel support corbels are designed for the , upward forces resulting from an commusi. m steam explosion in - i the reactor cavity. 09G E L j ! 3.8.3.4 Desien and Analysis Procedures ( d
- The internal structure is designed for the loads and load i
! combinations specified in Section 3.8.3.3. The complete internal i l structure (and supporting substructure) is modeled with three- l
- dimensional solid, plate or shell and beam finite elements using i 1 ANSYS or another suitable computer code. The forces and moments l I
! resulting from the applied static and dynamic loads are used to i design the walls, slabs, beams and columns which make up the Internal Structure. The design is performed usin a l t h at- ACI 3 h. ! p /AISC N690 (Reference 4) as approprint Amw>t. { S1 SECTIFAJ 3.h.Y. ral Acceptance criteria l
- 3. . . .s l The structur cceptance criteria for the Internal Structures is i I
outli Section 3.8.4.5. FOR WE SSL !
'g :
STRJtWRLO W Ol}/6MP ll)lAfC hll)mrt ' Sp3m c ('Afl4W pj}. -76 PPEVleVT AWLR5L )^t1%ACf%l y C/Pfl # SMWN% yppe_y I
- gff yj.) ON M Amendment N y gd ypFrJ ' 3.8-14 ,
April 1, 1993 l i
~
C E S S A R n aine me,
- 3.8.3.6 Materials, ouality control, and special ,
p5F,6 g construction Teednloues
- I TXe y3 F b6h "om -
j Additional materials, quality control, and special y q f construction techniques for the concrete internal structures are
~
y- outlined in Section 3.8.4.6. , L % % '
%I M' 3.8.3.7 Testinc and In-service Surveillance Recruirements E%
{-Y Testing and in-service surv illance requirements are outlined in , Section 3.8.4.7. y g > v $$ 3.8.4 OTHER CATEGORY I STRUCTURES 4 4 ;
%Q Description of the Structures U , ,y 3.8.4.1 3.8.4.1.1 Reactor Building N The reactor building is composed of the containment shield '
(0 {gb 7 g I building, steel containment vessel including the internal structures, and subsphere. described in Section 3.8.2. The steel containment vessel is The internal structures are T described in Section 3.8.3. Details of the reactor building are {q phown in Figures 1.2-2 through 1.2-10. The arrangement of the Nuclear Island structures, which includes
. %Q -h s{sg Ithe reactor building and defines critical dimensions, flood i h3 G* Ys barriers, and fire barriers, is shown in Figure 3.8-5. !
-4 building is a reinforced concrete f1 1 The containment shield D g. (structure composed of a right cylinder with a hemispherical dome.
4 k s)g{gJThe containment shield building shares a common foundation base J\ A nat with the nuclear system annex. The containment shield e {g '. q ; building houses the steel containment vessel and safety-related V i ksI equipment. located in the subsphere, and is designed to provide 0 , . g) 3-(Q{biologicalshieldingaswellasexternalmissileprotectionfor y the steel containment shell and safety-related equipment. l 1 ( g shield building has an inner radius of 105 feet, tt Nfff(Irhecontainment s s cylinder thickness of 4 feet up to elevation 146+0. Above
- w' elevation 146+0 the shield building thickness is 3 feet including (h1d the done area. The height of the containment shield building is k
- approximately 215 feet. The structural outline of the Q{ l\ containment shield building is shown in Figures 1.2-2 and 1.2-3.
a i t ! M1 annular space is provided between the containment vessel and b Qh&' containment shield building above elevation 91+9 for structural i m b(*I' s s Mj
~
i i Amendment P 3.8-15 June 15, 1993
i G/M . CESSAR !an"cinou l l 1 ! l separation and access to penetrations for testing and inspection. j The shield building and the nuclear annex are connected to form l a monolithic structure. I The subsphere is that portion of the reactor building whichThe is : below elevation 91+9 and external to the containment vessel. This area ! subsphere houses auxiliary safety-related equipment. i below the spherical containment allows efficient use of space for ' locating safety equipment adjacent to the containment vessel and j eliminating excessive piping while allowing maximum access to the ;
- containment for locating penetrations. ,
l 3.8.4.1.2 Nuclear system Annex , The Nuclear System Annex is composed of the control complex, diesel generator areas, main steam valve house areas, CVCS and i maintenance areas and spent fuel storage area. I The nuclear system annex is a reinforced concrete structure and floor slabs. , l composed of rectangular walls, columns, beams, ; The nuclear system annex shares common valls and foundation i basemat with and is monolithically connected to the containment l
- shield building. In addition to the structural components, there i are components designed to provide biological shielding and Structural !
{ protection against tornado and turbine missiles. j e components, as well as members serving as shielding components, ) vary in thickness from approximately one foot to five feet. j Details of the nuclear system annex are shown in Figures 1.2-2 through 1.2-10. l a The arrangement of the Nuclear Island structures, which includes j l the nuclear systems annex and defines critical dimensions, 8-5. flood ! f barriers, and fire barriers, is shown in Figur tAl@ l (% iha f su* 3 . 8 . 4 .1. 3 station Service water syAgam St cture
' j
&5e a n vat)rf , cthy[pl afcr oc e'd/ fro peguclepr Ip)anure contdns tfuc,Lufe eAo s i 1 0 i arp safetyrrela qui t.Jed (, gat l e6 fi . stru f
3.8.4.2 Aeolicable Codes.- standards, and Soecifications ; structures are designed in accordance with the codes l Category I
$J5F ana criteria shown in Table 3.8-4.
@ l l I f , I i <
l
- Amendment P ;
3.8-16 June 15, 1993 j i J
.- G/u i ~
Zd3< @ Qaci 4 2) 96 The service Water Pumphouse and Intaka Stru e are Category I structure (s) and are not included /in the scope of design
~
certification due to their specified dasign requirements. The station service water pu=phouse and intake. structure interfaca requirements,are described in Section 9.2.1.1.4. The building includes a mat type foundation and a reinforced concrete su:parstructure with rigid valls. The service water pump room and nts supporting elements will be protacted against flooding. The Service Water Pum:phouse and Intaka structure shall be designed to the same critaria (section 3.8.4.5) as other Category 1 i structuras as vall as including consideration of slosh affects
; using the guidelines of Rafarance The design shall also . consider wave action due to the maximum urricane flood.
j* 3.8.4.1.4 Diesel Fuel Storage Structures
- Each of the two Diesel Generator Fuel 011 structures is a seismio category I, rainforegconcrete structure containing_ two baysjThe adjacent squipment room is a Seismic Categ5ty II stiel~ frame tructure with insulate metal siding and a matal deck roof. ac
, pN[ bay a c osas a a fuel olf tank, The a bays t~ank are vant, separated aa with from each a
%g sump pump, and ne as piping.
ment room by two-hour rated ~ fire barriers. T other and from th
' The building arrangement for the Diesel Fuel storage Structure is shown on Figure 1.2.16-7. An unloading pad is providad to retain '
any spills during the fuel oil delivarias. y Q avemar Ron is pwwlb fcn Th%2SE V3WL SVsmL (.AT 3.8.4.1.5 Component Cooling Water Heat Exchanger Structure j _ The Component Cooling Water (CCW) Heat Exchanger Structure
! arrangement la shown on Figura 1.2.16-8. The structura is a ~
Seismic Category I reinforced concrets building housing the four CCW heat exchangers.' The structure is divided into two rooms which provida completa physical separation betvaan the two divisions of . the CCW and station service vatar (SSW) systems. Each division
~
contains two CCW beat exchangers, CCW and SSW piping and associated valves, sumps, and sump pumps. Each division of the CCW piping anters the structura through a separate Saissio Category I, reinforced concrete pipe tunnel which runs below grade to the t nuclear annax. 3.8.4.1.6 Boric Acid Storage Tank /Enclosura The Borio Acid Storage Tank is a Saismic category I tank located at grade in the yard within a rainforced concreta structure designed
.to seismic Category I requiremente.t The tank location is shown on l Figure 1.2-1. I
~
SLO 1P'S .
.) pg.+ . rJ N -
f zo& ' S*d 331S S2:21 E6/ d Mr
-=
~
Wbt l i . rm ser @ M r 24 0 ; 3.8.4.'1.7 Radwaste Building 1 i The Radwaste Building general arrangement is shown on Figures 1.2.16-4, Sheets 1 through 6. The Radwasta Building is a non- i l i safety related, Seismic Category II, reinforced concrete structure ' located adjacent to the Nuclear Annex. The building houses the l 1 Solid and Liquid Wasta Management Systems. Foundations and walla l that house the liquid and solid waste management systems are r L designed such that, if a safe-shutdown earthquake (SSE) occurs, the marinum liqui n expected _to be in the buildin will be ; ' %= contained g- A__ w usus..../e 4 ^ & ' - ' .P D L M
= W a& W
.... X .. X. ;
i
. 5cdiO?auL $5 h_ -i.lNc^ni$ l M W a collapse of the Radwas5
! <Theselesign requiremen a w 11 prevan Building on the adjacent Nuclear Annex structure. ! WL KA%!457% !}VILPINL JJ .PL5%WFD ff1L Wft 5.SE t!.51N c S SrJ w e : I " '
- 3.8.4.1.8 Turbine Building L
) The Turbine Building is a non-safety related Saissio. Category II - j . structure. The majority of the building is supported by a i 1 reinforced concrete nat. I e area of the condensera and turbine . pedestal the r.at is local thickened. The outside wall from !
- grade is a steel framed sup structure with metal siding. The roof l
) is comprised of prefabricated trusses with builtup roofing on an ; ! insulated metal deck. i l There is a main crane and an auxiliary crane, supported off steel ' l columns, that traverses the length of the building. ' Q ' *nrpin: " gilding,'3:uparytruct.s - is dpsign;d ,ter the SGE--in - l a Q e w)th tne esign pir te-preciTreWin AISC N-69U End- !
- [ ACI-h 5-198"; ~ for .f. teal L A cog-..et.= respedi1 ly. These design ;
on i
- requiraments will prevent the adjacent Nuclear Annex structure. the collapse of the Turbine prnrALrmrut m Building p # l l
-fGk 'f0ftb1ND BVK.DINA- S W S AS m M M D t-516-N @k11Frit-y Rg g SSE M lhC Z CRITY I/)* i EDMIL i
l 3.8.4.1.9 Station Service Building /Auxil ary Boil [er Structura i j The Station Service Building (SSB) and the Auxiliary Boiler i j Structure (ABS) are shown on Figures 1.2.16-1, Sheets 1 through 5. l
#y The buildings ara seismic category II structures and located ' '
- adjacent to the Turbine Building. Since their failura could impact the Turbine Building which in turn could impact the Nuclear Annex
[ b structure
-_--I to precluda any effectsthey are designed on such for the SSfJEach 'f, , Milding is a steel
- of collapse a system. 1
] franed structure with a steel deck roof and non-combustible I l roofing. The arterior of each building consists of insulated natal I
- . siding. Roof and clean floor drainage are discharged to the storm i j and waste water syste=
) i 3.8.4.1.10 Condensata Storage Tank / Dike j 1 i l 5 1 3315 92:21 CG, 21 M'tr 9'd
b)* S WL SMULM& l.5 Qt 5l(pgb gg y;qcs g
" ' *
- Swc Caosn r cu ITTre A ZHJF.AT & fobzG 3 f 3)
The condensate Storage Tank is a non-satety related tank located at grade in the yard within a Seismic Category II, reinforced concrete
. dike sized to hold the entire contents of the tank. The tank The tank is located . at a location is shewn on Figure 1.2-1.
distance from nuclear safety related syntans and structures to preclude any effects of collapse on such a system. Holdup and Rcactor Makeup Water Storaga emy
.B.4.1.11 The Holdup and Reactor Makeup Wate" Storage Tanks are non-safety related tanks located at grade in the yard within a common seissio Category II reinforced concrete dike structure sized to hold the entire contents of both tanks. The location of the tanks is shown on Figure 1.2-1. The tanks are located at a distance from nuclear safety raiated systar.s and structures to preclude any affects of #
collapse on such a' system. 4s ppcC 57RVCrt$t- u p Hwn cb f91L M& 5SE D IK- Swn ta carwcrny .1 cmnm . i' r i t 3 l e { e 4 ~ rys 22:21 E6, 41 W 4"d .
i
. ,. t CESSAR naincmo,,
1 I i h j F.
^ Snow and Ice Loads ffrMC MN The ~u Qtg g [hi.ldi,.pri N-ant'Elish: 2d huuUleM*"tW:Euman l are designed for a snow and ice loadf,c' 5 puui d; Ter cyHrsde !
W - fan , G. Soil and Water Pressure 1 S$fvG $WC5 The canhhenU(d eyet [ 4MA fkni-1 ding =and:ttra:nucluan= system annex are designed for the ear +h pressureandiscunt:ater -preur .
. ,def 4 % Section- 2hD4N4pyn[; gjgtQ /%h5]yyc y j,.04py l L M NQ 4 H. Seismic m?s 9&b IN AWEldplywn M fpx -pf - -
f w .?, q-g *-,- " IMtWIA. i } . 7. S, ,
,\ See Section 3.7, " Seismic Design," for the seismic4loadings. ;
- t s o / erLoading combinations used for the design dg ,
of Category ~I [ j 7C p ytructuresareshowninTable3.8-5. I. dT oey 1 .steacC< eel
#g I Pressure The Ca Sc.o)emperature e -- Loadsr are e.aotor==buitdin designed for global effects of pres _sure and* temperature as a result of P ,5?GNy n 5,JA &c/cks'$)k y }g g$1 i 3.8.4.4 Desian and malvsis Procedures ggf fepj g Q,n O rt I 5 The containment shield building is designed for thev stat c and :
dynamic loads listed in Section 3.8.4.3. The shield building is modeled as a three dimensional finite elementThe structure with forces and i ANSYS or another suitable computer - program. moments determined by the analysis of the applied loads and loading combinations are used for the design of the structure in accordance with ACI 349. j The reactor building (including the steel containment vessel, t internal structure and containment shield building) is designed l to prevent possible overturning, sliding and flotation. The j forces and moments acting on the building which could cause these ; events are determined for the different loads and load ; combinations and are then compared to the corresponding forces ! and moments which resist overturning, sliding or flotation. Safety factors for the possible events are detemined for , comparison with the allowable safety factors listed in Table 3.8-5.
-The nuclear system annex is modeled with beam and plate finite l elements. It is analyzed for the loads and load combinations P ~
p m ;nt- + M b & & 428.v.3=b Amendment N f GLO Fg 3.8-18 - April 1, 1993 ,
, - SEhT BY:DEld ; 6-16-83 ; 12:28 : DUKE ENGR & SRVS-. 2032852801:# 6/10 745EAX& .
when supplemented by the following provisions; '
- 1) Special consideration must be given to anchorage pull-out capacity (i.e. - reduced concrete failure cone) especially when; a) the anchor is near the free edge of the concrete, and/or, b)
' the anchors are closely spaced, and/or, c) the anchor (s) are placed in the tension zone of the slab.
- 2) Baseplate flexibility shall be accounted for when calculating anchor bolt loads. ,
- 3) The failure cone angle used shall be consistent with recent test data for the specific application.
- 4) The embedment length of ductile anchors shall be chosen such that the ratio of the anchor pull-out capacity (concrete) to the anchor to minimum tensile capacity (steel) is greater than or equal 5 0 .__ .
t pfANJ10hl
- 5) c -itu u all be designed to have the following minimum factor of safety between the bolt design load and the bolt ultimate espacity determined from static tests.
a) Four (4.0) for wedge and sleeve anchor bolts. k b) Three (3.0) for undercut anchors. The ultimate capacity of the anchor bolt shall account for shear-tension interaction, minimum edge distance, and proper bolt spacing.
- 6) The energy absorption capability (deformation capability after yeild) shall be considered for the anchor material.
- 7) The effects of cyclic loading shall be considered b the anchor bolt design.
n
CESSARnMMcum A. Air-entraining admixtures. " Standard Specification for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete," ASTM C260. B. Water reducing, retarding, and accelerating admixtures. ,
" Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete," ASTM C494.
C. Pozzolanic admixtures. " Standard Specification for Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for use as a Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete," ASTM C618. D. Slag cement. " Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cements," ASTM C595. E. Plasticizing admixtures. " Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Use in Producing Flowing Concrete," ASTM C1017. , The combined chloride content of the admixtures and mixing water will not exceed 250 ppm. The ingredient materials will be stored in accordance with the detailed recommendations presented in ACI 304 (Reference 10). Concrete mixes will be desigr. 4 in accordance with ACI 301 (Ref erence 9) . The batching, mixing and transporting of concrete will conform to ACI 301. The placement of concrete, consisting of preparation befcre placing, conveying, depositing, protection and bonding will be in accordance with ACI 301. 3.8.4.6.1.2 Reinforcing Steel Reinforcing steel vill consist of deformed reinforcing bars conforming to " Standard Specification for Deformed and plain 1 Billet - Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement," ASTM A615, Grade ) 60 or " Specifications for Low-alloy Steel Deformed Bars for Concrete Reinforcing," ASTM A706, Grade 60. The fabrication of reinforcing bars, including f abrication tolerances, will be in accordance with CRSI " Manual of Standard Practice" MSP-1. The placing of reinforcing bars, including spacing of bars, concrete protection of reinforcement, splicing of rs field t ances will_b _ accordance with ACI y . E7 , g ,y N1 norci 9 g}ce 1i la S Pd k( r rCA f wf ecc a (,,,, s M e n va%,,,,.m
.? - ' W rl.
-etTucttitaT~Et6= A - 0 % 'S ".:'~ M d - .
The structural steel will essentially consist of low carbc. steel shapes, plates and bars conforming to " Standard Specification for Structural Steel," ASTM A36. Other structural steels listed in ANSI /AISC N690 may also be used. i i i Amendment N 3.8-22 April 1, 1993 l
i
?
!.' CESSAR nniLo,o, ! i SI 5 i I j 3.8.5 FOUNDATIONS l 4 , 3.8.5.1 Description of the Foundations The foundations of the Category I structures are 6 reinforced ! concrete mats. The foundation of the reactor building / nuclear ! system annex complex is approximately 10 feet thick, has a flat-bottom and rests on soil or rock. vdpd o 4 Mu hn rh n Ac min lonw %,,ddion md hamC5 QY Qi or
# vel o;/ Steue tur n_ - r,e coctu i par mat e % cl[/ 6 & l'ra erg,Stevefuye are + pr 1.>ead ovel ..
~'
, flon m a i.
construction procedures in accordance with SRP 3.8.5. { 3.8.5.2 Applicable codes, Standards, and Specifications Reinforced concrete foundations and supports of Category I - structures are designed in accordance with ACI 349. ! i 3.8.5.3 Loads and Loadiac Combinations i I The design loads and loading combinations are described in i Section 3.8.4.3. I WMb ! 3.8.5.4 Desian and Analysis Procedures adf The reinforced concrete foundations of y I structures are l analyzed and designed for the reacti s due to static, seismic and all other significant loa , at the base of the ! superstructures supported by the f ndation. The foundation m j
. deled as a three dimensional finite element structure JAf3657 r di8/A > --'"" emanahar ards en cn c1:r* *rund;ii:r ' aetawr>& -
le forces p rm}nnQ g the analysis are input t h,j f the structural design,%_.m __ _ f - . . " ;- .+ i
% , p p,t,reurser l Th analysi and depign of t,he foundatJon consid' s .
f varying oil prnpe tics /be eath Jyspec fi fou da i effe,g:ts apd e
)
l 6l r" i O ' FJ6 enfe ts of copstruc o e enc 9( vith p r icu a em asis on j ; df renti 1 octtlem of Vbasemat. _ y ; N ; II e eme no oring prog e is requ,ir d f all eismic
} ;
C e- tr s. Sett en onume s ,ar o des 3 at ' ggk ap tt te nts Ho c " ons ori ci b cN , tota ,an s,each onum
~
s erc' la ns ed { tu vs. re ted. eble s jt$ t r a -6d a ev l'un for l cach eism Category stru ur . 3.8.5.5 Structural Acceptance criteria These are outlined in Section 3.8.4.5. Amendment P
. 3.8-24 June 15, 1993
fY$ The analysis and design of the foundations considers the ef fects of varying soil properties beneath a specific foundation and the effects of construction f
. t sequence, with particular emphasis on dif ferential settlements of the basemat.
A settlement monitoring program is required for all Seismic Category I structures. Settlement monuments are provided at appropriate locations to track total and dif ferential settlements. Monitoring is begun as each monument is installed. Actual versus predicted settlement is tracked and evaluated for each Seismic ..- Category I structure. v - v
~
e n *1 UC o ^ 7 SNC hj kg6; ne ff pgg ud m o m ent> d c h .r - >'n e d 1 y w /,9l ,. TAG prq of ske{ 9 Jy :cded f ln tAe ,yp ,< +e kee c4 t/t c bo c - ah +s a bfres.> the y e MkJ be cre chlr, be to d ; / l- < r n k / S df/enh , V' N kVS 10* % M W IS zt/Npoyzcsy k$$)(bY - N ~ -m s a e e
CESSAR naincuios - ; l l 3.8 Material, Ouality control, and Special Construction Techniques
$d e<
Cr +fnn I outlined in Section 3.8.4.6. 3.8.5.7 Testine and In-service surveillance Requirements f These are outlined in Section 3.8.4.7." ,
~
f l.5 l Epq c mfed' re vdore<'y s Mf -;i!'l ns e,d iAse s . . a.v-es4 where A C o.rra S o v e te vo s pe m w 7 e$ CWC n a l' WNTGR@/ '1 t t i i r iI i
. i 1
i h Amendment I 3.8-25 December 21, 1990 y , ,-- ., - -w-- --,
--u. -yy- ,
9-
~ "
CESSAR naincmou REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.8
- 1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
- 2. Gabriel J. DeSalvo and John A. Swanson, ANSYS Enaineering Analysis Systern User's Manual, Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc. ,
- 3. ACI 349, " Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures".
- 4. ANSI /AISC N690, " Nuclear Facilities -- Steel Safety-Related Structures for Design Fabrication and Erection".
- 5. " Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,"
ANSI /ASCE 7.
- 6. " Wind Forces on Structures," ASCE Paper No. 3269, Transactions, ASCE, Vol. 126, Part II, 1961, p. 1124.
- 7. " Wind Loads on Dome-cylinder and Dome-Cone Shapes", ASCE Paper No. 4933, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. STS, October 1966, p.79.
- 8. " Supplementary Quality Assurance Requirements for Installation, Inspection, and Testing of Structural Concrete, Structural Steel, Soils and Foundations During the Construction Phase of Nuclear Power Plants," ANSI N45.2.5. ,
- 9. ACI 301, " Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildipgs".
- 10. ACI 304, "Recorsended Practice for Measuring, Mixing, !
- Transporting and Placing Concrete".
- 11. NUREG-0800, " Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants". ,
- 12. Regulatory Guide 1.57, " Design Limits and Loading Combinations for Metal Primary Reactor Containment System components".
- 13. Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Valves for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants".
- 14. Regulatory Guide 1.92, " Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Co=ponents in Seisnic Response Analysis".
- 15. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50.
- 16. Regulatory Guide 1.84, Design and Fabrication Code Case Acceptability ASME Section III Division 1.
Amendment N h
- f,/2 [ h ~
3.8-26 April 1, 1993
I i 0 l ZdM>c7 & i e i i
% i i
- 17. " Allowable Stress Design", American Institure of Steel C6nstruction, f Chicago, Ill., 1989. I
- 18. ANSI N101.4, " Quality Assurance for Protective Coatings Applied to i Nuclear Facilities", American Institute for Chemical Engineers, New- !
York, New York. I r
, 19. American Society of Civil Engineers, " Seismic Analysis of Safety Related '
Nuclear Structures and Comentary on Standard for Seismic Analysis of l Safety Related Nuclear Structures", Publication No. ASCE 4-86, September ; 1986. i 4 k - 3 : 4 ; I $ t s t i i 1 9 t i i' i 1
- l !
i , 1 l l 1 ! s ! J 1 , n 3 1
- t t
c E e t a 9
+ ,t 4 h a
$mT 6-/ ., kkfms& 2t%_m/A!V%.11 D4ko% tic 1%228ctm k
References:
% Miller, J.D. and Clauss, D.B., SAND 88-1631C
- 20. Evaluation of Performance of the Sequoyah Unit 1 Containment Under Conditions of Severe Accident Loading, Fourth Workshop on Containment Integrity, NUREG/CP-0095, SAND 88-1836, June 1988, pages 571-588.
g NUREG/CR-4216, SAND 85-0790, Experimental SI Results for a 1:8 Scale Steel Model Nuclear e Power Plant Containment Pressurized to Failure. / Open Item 3. 8.2-11 2 Rev. A DRAFT 1/12/93
i CESSARnab o. M *"' '" ddas i ! i i LIST OF FIGURES i i CHAPTER 3 { i Fiqures subiect { 3.3-1 Wind Pressure Distribution Coefficients (Cp) i l 3.6-1 Variation of J-Integral with Loads for a Typical Case , t 3.7-1 Synthetic Time History H1 Spectra vs Target Spectra l
- for CMS 1 (2, 5 and 7% Damping)
! 3.7-2 Synthetic Tine History H2 Spectra vs Target Spectra for CMS 1 (2, 5 and 7% Damping) ; 4 t 1 3.7-3 Synthetic Tine History V Spectra vs Target Spectra for l CMS 1 (2, 5 and 7% Damping) } i 3.7-4 Sf 4 $ra fg Synthetic Tine History H1 Spectrum vs Target spam q CMS 2)(/ nd 2 % Dmp 4) 3.7-5 A@ ! 1 m Synthetic Tine History H1 Spectrum vs Target Spectrueq ;
-- - 1
.,a:;-p17, CMS 2 , (.f (~M '7% OW 'f } l a Gd 3 . ~/ - 6 Synthetic Tine History H2 Spectrum vs Target Spectrun g M P-j " ;, CMS 2j ( M / M &[4 .Mhp, '
{ Synthetic Tine History H2 Spectrum vs Taract Spectra (4 A \ i' 3.7-7 g 3, CMS 2 9 .5 d 7 % 0 " p' l 3.7-8 Synthetic Time History pectrum vs Target Spectrutu go f,
>_=v.+, CMS 2,() i 2
Zl4.0Mf^$) a (i, l 3.7-9 Synthetic Time History H1 Spectrum vs Target Spectrerm g j
% , CMS 2, y J 7.% D p sy ) l s
3.7-10 Synthetic Time History H1 Spectra vs Target Spectra j for CMS 3 (2, 5 and 71 Danping) l AlJ e 3.7-11 Synthetic Time History H2 Spectra vs Target Spectra l for CMS 3 (2, 5 and 7% Damping) i
^j 1 ;
3.7-12 Synthetic Time History V Spectra vs Target. Spectra for CMS 3 {2, 5 and M Damping) 9
' /> J 3.7-13 Schematic Diagran of Interior Structure (IS), Shield }
Building (SB), FB, CVCS 4 i l Amendment O nvii May 1, 1993 f
CESS AR nmp,cm,o 9% 3.7 SEISMIC DESIGN 3.7.1 SEIBMIC INPUT This section discusses the seismic design parameters and methodologies being used for the design of those systems and subsystems important to safety and classified as Seismic Category I in Section 3.2. 3.7.1.1 Dess.en Response Spectra Fw no & dear Tslud The System 80+ Standard Design as def* cd by CESSAR-DC is not based on a specific site. The desig response spectra which define the free field design ground otion or control motion specified either at the site soil su face or on a hypothetical rock outcrop are shown in Figure 2.5 . Generic site conditions were Systemselected 80+ sites. to cover a range of essible conditions for the cases (nore spaci fical ly? sets of representative from each of four generic site categories were evaluated. Ground surface and foundation level spectra which correspond to the design response spectra of control motions CMS-1, CMS-2 and CMS-3 Out of 12for soil rockcases and soil cases are analyzed in shown Sectionin2.5.2, CESSAR Section 2.5. ten are used in the soil structure interaction (SSI) analyses. The two cases eliminated in the SSI analysis (B3 and D1) were non governing cases whose soil response levels were enveloped by other cases. See Section 2.5.2 for details of this analysis phase. Two rock cases were analyzed, one with no backfill (fixed base at bottom of basemat) subsurface and one with concrete backfill (fixed base at all elevations).
% The effect of differential seismic displacement on the equipment and supports is included in the analysis as described in Section 3.7.3.1.
3.7.1.2 Design Time History Since the System 80+ Standard Design is designed for generic site conditions, for the time history method of analysis, the generic free-field ground surface time histories are used as control motions in the analyses. In the soil-structure interaction analyses, for each generic site, the corresponding two horizontal and one vertical time histories at the free-field ground surface are used with the SSI model of that site. For the fixed-base analyses, the controlthe timerock outcrop histoH es. time histories arc directly used as The response spectra at 2, 5 and 7% damping of control motion CMS 1, and 1, 2, 5 and ~/1 damping of control motions CMS 2 and CMS 3 and the corresponding histories spectral crdinates of the catching time are shown in Figures 3.7-1 to 3.7-12. The Power Amendment O 3.7-1 May 1, 1993
- . ..- - - .. - -_ ~.- .. . - .-~ -- ..
/ " !
n l
/NSER / 5 / G.Rv 7 i INSERT 1
)
For the preliminary seismic analysis of the category 1 Diesel Fuel Storage ! Structure and the component cooling Water Heat Exchanger Buildings, one soil case [ (A-1) corresponding to the highest Ground surface spectra and the fixed base rock ! case were evaluated using control motions (MS-1. CNS-2, and CNS-3. i 1 i INSERT 2 E 4 i The methodology for the soll structure interaction for the non-Nuclear Island ; structures is presented in Appendix 3.7C. i I INSERT 3 fi For the non Nuclear Island structures, SWEC computer codes were used for the soil structure interaction analysis. These codes are based on 'the substructurin5 l method formulated in the frequency da-ain using the complex response method. The ; computed surface motion of the control motions are used as input to the SSI ! analysis. Since the depth of embedment for the Diesel Fuel Storage Structure and l the Component Cooling Water Beat Exchanger Buildings is shallow, the impedances ;
- and earthquake motions of the soil / foundation system did not need to be modified i to address the soil structure interaction. Impedances were computed assuming no - i soil to structure contact over the dapth of embedment and the surface' notions !
vere used without filtering' them through the embedment depth. i For the non-Nuclear Island structures with deep embedment, the same codes as above are used, however the impedances and carthquake motions of the soil / foundation system were modified to account for the soil / foundation system. - 4 I i [ 7 INSERT 4 ! I The asiamic analysis of other Catc5 cry I structures are performed utilizing one ! s dynamic model for all thrne components of input motion (i.e., the vertical and ! the two translational directions of, excitation.) The dynamic models account for i any coupling between the different components of motion and include all major i ' structural components (i.e. . walls, floors,and columns,) } I ^
.. 1 f j . _ ' .
g i ey ~* ' ~ ! 1 T '= - ' ' i
, l - a l
, , - . i i
4 1 i t t l 2*d 3395 GE:t 1 Ef>, 81 6Jnf l
CESSAR naincwes - f a r 6ctay cv f smc fo ro n3 7 :n -ju M c ry,'.[3ln] a n m c 3 C/" ' f *D 0 5 3C C- 11 dJes ! 6;8 cu,! f'ac.R 3 e p c3. Spectral Densities of all time histories are included in Section 2.5. gg gy Each time history that is used in the SSI and rock analyses i contains 20.48 seconds. F r the SSI analyses, a time step of 1 0.005 sec is used. For the' rock analyses, a time step of 0.0025 sec is used. W 3.7.1.3 Critical Dampin_g values Damping values used for various nuclear safety-related structures systems and components are based upon Regulatory Guide 1.61 or l ASME Code Case N-411-1 (See Figure 3.7-32). These values are l { expressed in percent of critical damping and are given in Table 3.7-1. When the response spectra method of analysis is used for piping, damping values are based on Code Case N-411-1.
.7.1.4 Supporting Media for Seismic Catecory I Structures a ph Categ ry,I structures are founded directly on rock or competent Jftt soil. jrhe foundation embedment depth for System 80+ standard [c plant is 52 feet (Reference 7) . The rock properties and the layering characteristics, including shear wave velocity, shear y nodulus, and density, are given in Section 2.5. The System 80+
b4 g '9E'indn*h*A31nb is designed for the range of soil conditions MB discussed in Section 2.5 and shown in Appendix 3.7B. 3.7.1.4.1 Soil Structure Interaction (SSI) hr -lLe /Jactsv.fsisn d Two different ty bf analysis nethodologies are used for the seismic analyses. For the fixed-base cases, nodal superposition time history analyses are performed using the rock outcrop notions as control notions. When a structure is supported on soil, the SSI is taken into account by coupling the structural f nodel with the soil medium. To accomplish this, the methodology of the computer program SASSI (System for Analysis of Soil
,l Structure Interaction, Reference used. Detailed 'l g gt nethodology and results of the SSI analysis y are presented in
- 6) is Appendix 3.7B.
N k_ g ,. g fgjg fy/2p/ l 3b.2 BEISMIC SYSTEM ANALYSIS p6 l 3.7.2.1 Seismic Analysis Method
%M}
t 3.7.2.1.1 Seismic Category I Structures, Systems, and j Components Other Than NSSS Seismic Category I structures, systems and components are identified in Table 3.2-1. The Nuclear Island (!J I ) and Nuclear Annex (NA) structures are modeled asestick models for the seismic analysis. Figures 3. 7-13 through 3. 7-17 show typical sketches of Amendment O 3.7-2 May 1, 1993 1
CESS AR En'#"cu.ou all NA and NI structures. Figures 3.7-19 and 3.7-20 are ! schematic representations of the combined structural model of the i NI and NA. - - a J: unu on u.u Zuluu ua l ui..e m ~u m , meuu3 ( }
"em m e
Further details of dynamic modeling of building structures for j seismic analysis are described in Section 3.7.2.3. The l horizontal model is analyzed for the plant E-W direction and N-S l direction excitations and the vertical model for vertical : excitation. The results are then combined as described in Section 3.7.2.6. The seismic analysis of the above systems is , performed by one of the following methods: 3.7.2.1.1.1 Response Spectrum Method of Analysis The response of a multi-degree-of-freedom system subjected to seismic excitation is represented by the following differential equation of motion: ' [M] [{2} + { O9 }] + [C] {i} + [K] {X} =0 l' s, where: [M] = mass matrix (n x n) , [C] = damping matrix (n x n) l [K) = stiffness matrix (n x n) l {X} = column vector of relative displacements (n x 1) {2} = column vector of relative velocities (n x 1) l {2} = column vector of relative accelerations (n x 1) i n = number of dynamic degrees of freedom ' {0 } = column vector of ground accelerations-(n x 1) In the response spec'. rum method of analysis, the equations of motion are decoupled using the transformation: {X} = (Q) {Y) l i l i Amendment O l 3.7-3 May 1, 1993
v4~ C ES SA R n="ica ou a k 3.7.2.1.1.2 Time History Method The Section solution of the differential equation of motion given in 3.7.2.1.1.1 can be obtained by the method of modal superposition or by the method of direct integration. A. Modal Superposition Method The modal superposition method is used when the equations of motion can be decoupled as given in Section 3.7.2.1.1.1. Then the decoupled equation of motion for each mode is integrated using a proven technique, and the total response is obtained by superposition method. B. Direct Integration Method In this method, direct integration of the equations of motion by either implicit or explicit methods of numerical 2 integration are used to solve the equations of motion. For commonly used implicit methods, AT is not larger than 1/10 of the shortest period of interest. s. For explicit methods, the time step is also a function of the element size used in the model and is established on the basis of element size to ensure stability of the response. 3.7.2.1.1.3l Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis
/Jasles c X 5 h nt The3 soil-structure interaction analyses were performed using the substructurch method formulated in the frequency domain using the complex response method and the finite element technique. The methodology of the computer program SASSI was used with a modified approach to compute the impedance and scattering of the soil / foundation system. Appendix 3.7B describes in detail the SSI analysis approach for the System 80+ structures. A brief summary of the method is described below.
In a substructuring method, the soil strata and halfspace are analyzed first in the frequency domain. From this analysis the impedances at the soil-structure interface are established. Subsequently, the impedances are combined with a model of the ! superstructure, the control motion is applied to the combined system, and the equations of motion are solved for computation of final accelerations and displacements. For the System 80+ analyserp of n A)uacu ishn) a modified SASSI methodology is used, which reduces the soI0 tion of the SSI problem to three steps: Amendment O 3.7-5 May 1, 1993
CESSAR MMncmo, A. Solution of the site response problem to determine the free-field motions within the embedded part of the structure. B. Evaluation of the foundation impedances. C. Solution of the structural problem. This involves forming the complex stiffness matrices and load vector and solving the equations of motion for the final dis 1.acement-e. odr.-u s Figures 3.7-21 and 3.7-22 show schematic diagrams of the SSI analysis process. For the analysis using the CMS 2 and CMS 3 motions, the rock outcrop motion (R) is convolved through the \l5ERT q$ soil media to produce the surface motion (S) and foundation level motion (F). The computed surface motion (S) is applied as the control motion in the SASSI SSI model at the free-field ground surface. For the CMS 1 analysis, the CMS 1 motion is applied I directly at the free-field ground surface. I x 3.7.2.1.2 seismic Analysis Method for the NSSS 3.7.2.1.2.1 Introduction The major components of the reactor coolant system are designed to the appropriate stress and deformation criteria of ASME Code, Section III, for the set of loadings included in the component design specification. The adequacy of seismic loadings used for the design of the major components of the reactor coolant system are confirmed by the methods of dynamic analysis employing time history and response spectrum techniques. The major components are the reactor vessel, the steam generators, the reactor coolant pumps, the reactor coolant main loop piping, the surge line and the pressurizer. Detailed dynamic models of the building structures and the NSSS are generated. Based on these detailed models, equivalent, simplified dynamic models are developed. The simplified building and NSSS models are combined and translated into a form suitable for input to the SSI analysis code (see Section 3.7.1.4.1). A number of soil cases are modeled and the time history analyses are performed. The soil cases are chosen to envelope all potential building sites. The results of these analyses are contained in Appendix 3.7B. These results, the simplified building model(s), and the detailed NSSS model are used to perform the analysis discussed in Section 3.7.2.1.2.3. A composite three-dimensional lumped-mass model of the reactor vessel, the two steam generators, the four reactor coolant pumps, the pressurizer, and the interconnecting main loop piping is (( coupled with a three-dimensional lumped-mass model of the reactor building for performing the analysis of these dynamically coupled components of the reactor coolant system. In addition, the Amendment O 3.7-6 May 1, 1993
CESS AR nn?",cy,oy c/u
% & Lcc Cdevr\ T 1niciurcs 5 A sias ;.. u:f! [m A'civ:r/Scr Shoalfanc&
An;nn ral and vNTALI cuirc ons. ?/ ~ ' I connected with rigid links at each major elevation, as shown in Figures 3.7-13 to 3.7-17. The rigid links provide in-plane rigidity only. SB All NT and NA structures are founded on a common basemat, the dimensions of which are given in Appendix 3.7B. f 3.7.2.3.4.2 Model for Vertical Excitation The previous discussion of the models developed for horizontal excitation applies to vertical excitation model development, with ( ninor changes in the case of the IS, FB, EFW, DG, CVCS and CA models. The only difference between the horizontal and vertical
~
analysis stick models is the eccentricity of the center of mass to the conter of rigidity at each major elevation. 3.7.2.3.5 Modeling for Three Component. Input Motionsn{4Ae 04cku1sIM] As discussed in Section 3.7.2.3.4, two independent modely, one in the horizontal and the other in the vertical direction, de used. The horizontal and vertical models are decoupled, since the response in the vertical direction due to horizontal excitation
.will be negligible and vice versa. In the horizontal analysis of all structures, the seismic model is analyzed along both the i plant E-W and N-S directions.
I s d' 3.7.2.4 Soil Structure Interaction (SSI) The soil model and SSI analysis methodologies are described in Appendix 3.7B. 3.7.2.5 Development of Floor Response Spectra o ok Nx!ea %od The time history method of analysis is used to generate the floor response spectra. The spectra are generated according to the procedure given in Regulatory Guide 1.122. As discussed J Section 3.7.2.3.4, the horizontal and vertical models are decoupled and the floor response in horizontal and vertical directions are obtained by three separate analyses. For horizontal analysis, the response spectra are generated for each floor along the two axes of the structure. In vertical analysis, the response spectra are generated for the walls. -_3 je T ((, '- l r ?' The spectra are generated for appropriate critical damping for / SSE. The peaks of the response spectra are broadened as l described in Section 3.7.2.9. O f 0 *II Se r CA Tc crj [ 5lrac tur cy r]l +; , :t .srikynd Mm pen 2 nT5 o f rnoi;tn W 9p!, e d Shn:3 lf.s n L u 3 r, tni ! k!W r r 't " v'n t .<C) 2 1 c ,- d n,. c y M gj,,, l
, r c ga, ce me g 5 94 ;3 jQ ,
, ,w _,. __ '
Amendment O 3.7-14 May 1, 1993
,--,w '-
kwd@ 3 ak
- I.- #fO I O4 Id [ . (h N / gA d{f $ 69 t y ,
[ z.. s4 & (, n qp .1 nd;<a 1% h $ Y-Y a on i a. Ov.) - } - 7.W , hn hsaadm u l0 & talc < & ol V on 11A w-}; p .,s ( t w ) + ct.- z:.~s n) cu) crNiiks) - i L. Ffrete % i-j e & cat fcyto 9 Eze.r ]La - 40 !! + pu M w. Idt) I, y .c . osc;Udev, in JL, ec,J:< rJ ugG rss- hp-<d tw s , t( - f< t cin - l' C, bsflro$ 57 vt \n s Mc & fri l$4 0ScAlb9 l 4 Lu 3, o -< fa L il(<A .{ ytw a{rzl.((e c, f(cy,(,,6 ty . v 0 vl;,1 ' TJo L%gve, {; <J sp&. cM was J .., - n4 yr/w Je ,p. . 90 i
#*^'
CESSAR nn?"cmos e ,- t,3x _ h,, A 3 1 14\ t!
..n. % ) i e qM
. V-;n! 13 at$on .. ) ( - .o;q ^N wj% ['~ #
( i t. b-1 i~;;n_ Mro;n
,qha W {od' ^ ^" ]y%
s I 3.7.2.6 Three Components of Earthquake Motion 3.7.2.6.1 Seismict\ Category I Structures, Systems, and Components Other Than NSSS -"g e Oude r N *b \
.he three independent opthogonal components of earthquake motion fc
~
(2 horizontal and 1 vprtical) are applied to the structural models as separate loading cases. The models are analyzed using either the time-history or, response spectrum method of dynamic analysis as appropriate. phe total response of the structure due to the three input seismic motions is obtained by combining the directional responses using the square root sum of the squares (SRSS) method. (~or o%e r- Categry I s$cadurQ b 'O *f" b '.T *Y '" 0" "
- M T Islb Si*"IiantD M ljs 3.7.2.6.2 Nuclear Steam Supply System The procedures for considering the effects of three components of earthquake motion in determining the seismic response of NSSS systems, components and supports are in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.92. They are discussed in Section 3.7.2.1.2.3.
1 3.7.2.7 Combination of Modal Responses 3.7.2.7.1 Seismic Category I Structures, Systems, and Components Other Than NSSS The total seismic response of a structure to an input response spectrum loading is obtained by combining the response of each individual mode of the structure in accoroance with the requi.ements of Regulatory Guide 1.92. If the modes are not closely spaced (i.e. no two consecutive modes have frequencies which differ from each other by 10 percent or less) then the significant modes are combined using the square root sum of the squares (SRSS) of the corresponding maximum values of the I response of each element of the structure. This is expressed mathematically as: N R= ( I ) I P). k=1 Where R is the maxirnum response of a peak response of the element due to the K " mode, and givg'n element, P, is the is the number of significant modes. If some of the modes are closely spaced the response of the individual modes is conbined using the Ten Percent Method from Regulatory Guide 1.92. This can be expressed as: Amendment I 3.7-15 December 21, 1990
I 2.0 + 1 ;
- 7.8 - - -
. l
^
1.6 ' ( l e f 1 t i - e - S : 1 i , e 1.2 , 2 a4 i
~
5 81.0 1 1 N I g }; 4 g 0.8 j d I' ( 1 .
- l I S 0 ,6 (~' I O : ! .
' l \ O.4
- /f'- WI t C 1 I i'
. o.2 y l ~ e 0.0 O.1 1 10 100 ! Frequency - Hz i , i c. _, _. n. , , . , )./* D ~m p n *y- FA / ' e; - u u . s ..s ....;.,iapu;.m.. ,,..,g . ,, c ; - :- d - m- - ._ -- __ 1 f f i ) 1.6 [
].
I l' I II l l i I'l Illl'
.y4 l i 8 : - .
E 1.2 Ei : - l ,. . ; =.i b 1.0
~
I ' k,f h
^
e i ( 7 i 11 g0.6 . 1
- U 0 .6 O _
'l !
O.2
/
/.
l Mi II lll - l l O.o
~
II I , ? 0I 1 10 100 ? Frequency - Hz ;
. r 1 7, _D A m p;n <g M l I
Amendment O ., ,
; f4ay 1,1993 [
1 , t . Figure ; SYt4THETIC TIME HISJORY U1,7>PfCJg'. VS SNN[ / TARGET SPECT RtEd' ' ~ ~ ^ ' "
~
. 4MS2
'A pog cib t ( , ,c.1 2'/ d 4 3) 3.7-4 J
. -- ~ . . . _ _ . .. . .- - . . _ _ _ _ . _ . - . - - _ ~ _ . . - .__. .
f 2 7.0 l l-l!' - l l i l l 3 l t j s i f . i
, ! 6 -
' li :
li l C ' i
- O.B
~~ - I
~ -
c , M )' , 80.6
' I ' '
o [ v - i ! ! :
- e l j . ,
a E -
! e I
- j I l
13 0. 4 i !' o - ! i ;e Q 3 % _ s 4 j 0.2 . 1 - k l l ! 1
~ 4 :
- l ! !
a i : I g' I i 0.0 ! O.1 1 ya yog l Frequency - Hz j e_-..
- c. - --
-,~my u. -
y u u m.. ,3 -- .mg .,
-Q mpingfCP- ;
t
~
I ;.l? tl${ ll r c.. h{ jj' ] ; l ' j.. gjg ,. . q w-. .-- . . 1.
=:
; ;. .u.- ,
i , % -
'l :.: : .
i - ?= i
, _ j - + -
....c ;
{ g 0.8 i 2 ~
.M "- Ile (
== -
E .
- Gf . ..: J:
o 'i.
-n i:.i::=-."-,
~
3o
~
?
0.6 ifl n . N : l '. l M$ { 3 -
~
.. I N O.4
~
l,! 'F5 i g _ ; Y: -
.l.i[.:
! +
0.2 t
! l '
. I
- l [
0.0 l l 0.1 1 39 ygg 4 ; Ficquency - Hz i o ShfI +
\; '
I
, /" Amendment O -
i ! s, , FAay 1,1993 , s - i ,
/
SYtJTHETIC TIME filSTpfjY_lj1 efEpTRptf)fS Figure ! j drb(( / I u TARGET SPECTHd9 " - ,._4 5,Tj 3,7 5 l
^ re cN t ( g .,a ,y. 04 9) ;
1 I
-. . , _ _ . __ ____.____ ._ _f
2.2 l l 2.0
!il l 7.8 -
iii
" 7.6 .!
c !!! ' l -
@ 7.4
, l-
{t I I e 27.2
- nl i i .
l' ' W .: f i 7.0
~~
LL k -- -
~
~
!i
yl \ljy l '(
50 .8 - E R O.6 M. - \! 04 '
' l j
3 ; 0.0 0.7 7 10 700 Frequency - Hz l l% 3% ping [
,t r e . ::.m ii mo .:: .. r :. 2,,,,,=-- l 7,g
, ,.;,, . . , 4
- 4. 3 : ia 4 i : __
_.. ii y -*-- < tw ~ 7.6 ?.
.z .
i; ;! il. C -
.l
-4 S 74 _ ;. ~; .'
~
l_ E : .: _ ji .. 27.2
** ~
i Y -
~ ' ~ ~
, 7.0 ,
~ . i
~
g h08
- b. l'o- ,I j. [~ ]l
_ . . - .y ' g .j l w :- i.
~ ;7 7
R O.6
~ ^
b fl 0.2 I
, lljl
~
I l ** 0.0 O.7 7 70 700 Ficquency - Hz a 2 h S W f: y Amendment O , May 1,1993 ( A
/
EQT RUp Vg Figure a g MM[ / u SYtJTHETIC TARGET SPECTR TIME ,Dbii HISTORY 5 . H(jFlI G Cf'Se .
. . 3.7-6 A p(L cn51 { g gyg I/. D ,r[ 3)
i
' l lf[ !!! !
l'!1! l
' ! I! I l' 1 1
, ,/-
-- - i 7.0 - 'I :
( en
.i i
0.8 1 , I E 1 #> <111 I i . t ; b
% 1 o 0.6 '
o .. l Il R ~ ' I 3 . I i t t : ' l j j] l *g
$,O.4 li : '! p 'il' a
0.2
---- m 'o ,
-. f '
1.- !.
- 1,1 !
l s ' 9 ;J 1
E I Il ~~I J lib '
j l ' O 700
'I I '
O.O 70 7 O.7
- Frequency - Hz E s .o n ~ p.% s- . .. p . ., g u,, g~
j
~~ .
r- -,-4 v. .g . , . . _ , . / Q . a <* . D I' I I IIlllb . q~;:L:I ^ I I U ~ "" i I' I' A II l
'I ( !}
4+ ' l f 7.0 '
'. I
= g
, \ Ch
=
i , i 1 1 ; m [ ll
<- >_ \; -
,I 1 f.
c o.e I- \ i h. ' .'i . 1
.9 ..
y _ I I~ i Ol t i l
!'i 5 l 0.6 I ,
y - p l 1J' -- l' 11 5 f: Af , l .__.__
! I\',IIllp:. .
{qO. ' ~ 1 ger m I j fi 1 l]llllII_[ i % 1 }_p l l I 1 i I O.2 l ,1 h
&i;. j i[
i j > j i il 1I i l 700 , O_O 1 70 l
)
OI Frequency - Hz ho Scef
- Amendmen May 1.199:
( l Fige (~ ( I
~
/
~
SYtJTHETIC TIME HISTg[HLGPEQJ i# E .0"S2 '
)[RUMfS 37 T ARGET SPECTRt$*4 A DAL/%2 -7.~. (s .J q <t ;
U j $ $ f[ / / l
7.4
; I 7.2 -- l-- -- -
k-
- o> -
{ c
- 7.0 -
j .
"3
-8
.) /
f 0.8 - - l 8 o
/J :.l s'
/[ -'
i l K O.6
\
zt - h'l; I 8 q O,4 1 '
- q- ,,
v> .- l 0.2 . 1,
- O.O ' I I O.7 7 70 700 r
Ficquency - Hz
!0/- DwpkY 'c
,, m ; _
*33 u t u. J " - T M
- n . v V c rm , .. , ,, , m g - _ ' - ,..,g C ." I ",;
7.2 ' ' ' ' f ' "'
~
tn i' j z..r-7.0
~
c -
~~
.O --
.,____g_
~ -
;j
.. .=
y O.8
*~ .
^
f'i 3 - - j )\j [I'r. 8 :
' i~
}m O.6 ,y.
g-
\
\
h -
.\ . - .
S
~ ~
q 0.,, u, / \1
~
e - [ 0.2 - l l\ li O.0 - 01 1 10 700 Frequency - Hz 2*ADwpf
\
Amendment O _ 7 May 1,1993 [ .. f
/
I Figure SYt4THETIC TIME HIST,0 fly _V_QRE,QTR11M '/S (( / I u TARGET SPECTRt22'[YS'ihC,'M A F4 d41 ( t A ~0 L/ 0#/^ )3.78
i e t l l ll i Ill
' l' l ll ' ' O.7 i a 0.6 ;
i, C I i O - i
== 0.5 ' '
l}Q E 1
/
A
*I' '
l ' 80.4 o r ', , v r 8
~
$o O3 ,
o - q m 0.2 I. I . i ' 0.7 i
'i ~
' I I
- 0.0 goo O.7 7 70 Frequency - Hz ,
5?o .Ow f' ^,V S: -" - rm mmo , sy,_ ,. ,,,.m,,,.,, ; .; c _ _ ,,,, e, g ,
~' ' fi!l' l~ ! l I II -- j' ~
~
]
( m O.6 ' 4 - '
.y- . ., : .m. 2-e .
S 0.5 - --,:
=.. ; i E 'l O.4 A_.
f 2
. .g l*
E O.3 ' 5- i .s j y, k.: ' k m o,2 i l%m !*
~
s 0.7 !
.l 3
.I :
'1 t Ii i
~
' l ]
0.0 l O.7 7 70 700 I Frecuency . Hz I l 7% D~f 9 . Amendment O 4 May 1.1993 I Figure SYtHHETIC TIME HISTORLt11,SPEG,TRyfA.ys
$ M ((, / u TARGET SPECTRtev)-7"IDNM I I A {~>C. cnS L LS p~;> 1/ 0;*nf.~ -)3.7-9
C ES S A R EfM",cu,o~ ! I i I LIST OF FIGURES l APPENDIX 3.7D l Fiqure Subiect 3.7B-1 System 80+ Foundation Configuration i 3.7B-2 Location for Computation of Impedances 3.7B-3 Typical Three-Dimensional Model for Impedance - Computation - 3.7B-4 Computation of Scattering by Two-Dimensional Models 3.7B-5 Typical Foundation Hesh for Scattering Computation 3.7B-6 Computation of Total Acceleration. Response 3.7B-7 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, EW, 2% Damping Basemat, Elevation +50' 3.7B-8 S.E Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, NS, 2% Dampingy Basemat, Elevation +50' i 3.7B-9 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, V, 2% Damping j Basemat, Elevation +50' 3.7B-10 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, EW, 5% Damping Basemat, Elevation +50' 3.7B-11 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, NS, 5% ' Dampingj Basemat, Elevation 450' 3.7B-12 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil cases, V, 5% Damping)Basemat, Elevation +50' 3.7B-13 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, EW, 2% Damping Interior Structure, Elevation +210' 3.7B-14 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, NS, 21 Damping Interior Structure, Elevation +210' 3 . '7 B - 2 5 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, V, 21 Damping) Interior Structure, Elevation +210' 3.7B-16 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, EW, 51 Damping Interior Structure, Elevation +210' Amendment O iii May 1, 1993
C ESS A R nn?"co o. LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) APPENDIT. 3.7B Fiqure Subiect 3.7B-17 SSE Resp,nse Spectra, All Soil Cases, NS, 5% Damping y Interior Structure, Elevation +210' 3.7B-18 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, V, 5% Damping j Interior Structure, Elevation +210' 3.7B-19 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, EW, 2% Damping Steel Containment Vessel, Elevation I
+251' 3.7B-20 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, NS, 2%
Damping y Steel Containment Vessel, Elevation
+251' 3.7B-21 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, V, 2%
Damping y Steel Containment Vessel, Elevation
+251' 3.7B-22 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, EW, 5%
Danpingj Steel Containment Vessel, Elevation
+251' 3.7B-23 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, NS, 5%
Damping Steel Containment Vessel, Elevation
+251' 3.7B-24 SSE Response Spectra, All oil Cases, V, 5%
Dampingj Steel Containment Vessel, Elevation
+251' 3.7B-25 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, EW, 2t Dampingj Shield Building, Elevation +263' 3.7B-26 SSE Response Spectra, All soil Cases, NS, 2%
Damping; Shield Building, Elevation +263' 3.7B-27 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, V, 21 Damping Shield Building, Elevation &263' 3.7B-28 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, EW, St Damping Shield Building, Elevation +263' 3.78-29 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, NS, St Damping Shield Building, Elevation +263' 7 Amendment O iv M1y 1, 1993
C ESS AR nai",cu,os LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) APPENDIX 3.7B Ro - Picura Subiect 3.7B-30 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, , St Damping Shield Building, Elevation +2 3' 3.7B-31 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, EW, 2% Dampint Fuel Building, Elevation +190' /
}
3.7B-32 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, NS, 2% Damping j Fuel Building, Elevation +p } o 3.7B-33 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, V, 2% Damping Fuel Building, Elevation +1% N '70 3.7B-34 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, EW, 5% Damping j Fuel Building, Elevation +1jH) 3.7B-35 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, NS , 5% Damping) Fuel Building, Elevation +MG' '40 3.7B-36 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, V, 5% ' Damping) Fuel Building, Elevation +MG'
%l]O 3.7B-37 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, EW, 2%
Dampingj Control Area 1, Elevation +130' 3.7B-38 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, NS, 2% DanpingyControl Area 1, Elevation +130' 3.7B-39 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, V, 2% Dampingj Control Area 1, Elevation +130' 3.7D-40 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, EW, 5% l Danpingj Control Area 1, Elevation +130' l l 3.7B-41 SSE Response Spectra, All Soil Cases, NS , 5% l Damping / Control Area 1, Flevation 4130' 3.7D-42 SSE Response S,,ectra, All Soil Cases, V, 5% ; Dampingj Control Ar t Elevation +130' 3.7B-43 Comparison of BE D' 5 vs. UB B3.5, EW, St Damping Steel Containment Vessel, Elevation j 4251' Amendment O v May 1, 1993
CESSAR naincu,ou ! I i i LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) i i APPENDII 3.7B ! Fiqure Subiect ' k 3.7B-44 Comparison of BE B3.5 vs. UB B3.5, EW, 5% ! Damping Interior Structure, Elevation +210' ; j - L7S '.E UuutouicJ -o.C m ica Cvuu m u, Cuau E5 . a ,--tw'W -- 'Q' [ j - O _yl..,,Ctec2 _O ntninrr-' J. w l, h Lic.. 3 . C 01^1 - i
, 3.7B- Uncracked vs. Cracked Concrete, Case B3.5, EW, 5% l
-- - Damping Interior Structure, Elevation +210' j 3.7B- '
# Bonded vs. Partially Debended Foundation, Case f B3.5, EW, 5% Damping Steel Containment Vessel, i Elevation +251' f 3.7B ,42 g Bonded vs. Partially Debonded Foundation, Case B3.5, EW, 5% Dampingj Interior Structure, j l Elevation +210' l 1
t l J 3.7B-d[f Base Case vs. Slabs-to-Exterior Walls, Soil Case B3.5, EW, .5% Dampingj Steel Containment Vessel, [ i Elevation +251' I 3 . 7 B ,{>d Base Case vs. Slabs-to-Exterior Walls, Soil Case y7 ' B3.5, EW, 5% Damping) Interior Structure, Elevation +210' ; B i i 16LL i j . [ 6 s
.. ,}
b lVSELT q ; l
?
0 I , 4 Amendment O ' vi -May 1, 1993
t Insert 3 ! Ficure Subiect 3.71M6 Uncracked vs. Cracked Concrete ' Envelope of all cases with uncracked concrete Cracked concrete with Case A-1 and Fixed-Base (with concrete
- backfill) 5% Damping, Interior Structure Elevation +91.75', EW 3.7B-47 i Uncracked vs. Cracked Concrete Envelope of all cases with uncracked concrete Cracked concrete with Case A-1 and Fixed-Base (with concrete backfill) '
5% Damping, Interior Structure Elevation +91.75', NS 3.7B-48 Uncracked vs. Cracked Concrete I Envelope of all cases with uncracked concrete i Cracked concrete with Case A-1 and Fixed-Base (with concrete i backfill) 5% Damping, Interior Structure Elevation +210', EW 3.7B-49 Uncracked vs. Cracked Concrete Envelope of all cases with uncracked concrete Cracked concrete with Case A-1 and Fixed-Base (with concrete l backfill) i 5% Damping, Interior Structure Elevation +210', NS . 3.7B-50 Uncracked vs. Cracked Concrete Envelope of all cases with uncracked concrete , Cracked concrete with Case A-1 and Fixed-Base (with concrete backfill) 5% Damping, Control Area A Elevation +115', EW ! 3.7B-51 Uncracked vs. Cracked Concrete ' Envelope of all cases with uncracked concrete Cracked concrete with Case A-1 and Fixed-Base (with concrete backfill) 4 5% Damping, Control Area A Elevation +115', NS . 3.7B-52 Uncracked vs. Cracked Concrete ! Envelope of all cases with uncracked concrete i Cracked concrete with Case A-1 and Fixed-Base (with concrete backfill) 5% Damping, Fuel Building Elevation +170', EW 3.7B-53 Uncracked vs. Cracked Concrete : Envelope of all cases with uncracked concrete Cracked concrete with Case A-1 and Fixed-Base (with concrete , t backfill) ' 5% Damping, Fuel Building Elevation +170', NS a i
Insert 4 Figure Subject 3.7B-AT @ Marimum Floor Accelerations k All Soil Cases, CMS 1, Fuel Building, EW NVh
. c .. . g .
3.7BM 57 Maximum Floor Accelerations All Soil Cases, CMS 1, Fuel Building, NS
'1 a f-l 3.7B4i9F Maximum Floor Accelerations i All Soil Cases, CMS 1, Fuel Building, Vertical (
3.7B,604I Maximum Floor Accelerations All Soil Cases, CMS 2, Fuel Building, EW , ; 3.7B-Gr u Maximum Floor Accclerations All Soil Cases, CMS 2, Fuel Building, NS 3.7B-62' O Maximum Floor Accelerations All Soil Cases, CMS 2, Fuel Building, Vertical l 3.7BA3
- Maximum Floor Accelerations All Soil Cases, CMS 3, Fuel Building, EW z 3.7BM b5 Maximum Floor Accelerations All Soil Cases, CMS 3, Fuel Building, NS 3.7B-SS b' Maximum Floor Accelerations 1 All Soil Cases, CMS 3, Fuel Building, Vertical -
3.7BA6'b1 Maximum Floor Accelerations All Soil Cases, CMS 1, Intedor Structure, EW 3.7B-67 (>Su Maximum Floor Accelerations All Soil Cases, CMS 1, Interior Sts ucture, NS 3.7B-63' Ut Maximum Floor Accelerations All Soil Cases, CMS 1, Interior Structure, Vertical ' 3.7BA9 Y Maximum Floor Accelerations , All Soil Cases, CMS 2, Interior Structure, EW 3.7B-JO ~7I Maximum Floor Accelerations All Soil Cases, CMS 2, Interior Structure, NS 3.7B-7-l' 7 t Maximum Floor Accelerations All Soil Cases, CMS 2, Interior Structure, Vertical l 3.7B-22' ) Maximum Floor Accelerations All Soil Cases, CMS 3, Interior Structure, EW l 1
. . - _ - - . . . - . - - . - . . . =. --. . . .
3.7B-J374 Maximum Floor Acceleratione All Soil Cases, CMS 3, InMor Structure, NS '
)
3.7B-N 'l$ Marimum Floor Accelerations All Soil Cases, CMS 3, Interior Structure, Vertical y. {l 5l 3.7B-76% Maximum Floor Accelerations k' ! 3
- All Soil Cases, CMS 1, Shield Building, EW yl 3.7B9611 Marimum Floor Accelerations !
All Soil Cases, CMS 1, Shield Building, NS ! , 3.7B-77 '13 Marimum Floor Accelerations ! All Soil Cases, CMS 1, Shield Building, Vertical , ; 3.7B-Js'19 Maximum Floor Accelerations m I All Soil Cases, CMS 2, Shield Building, EW j 3.7B-yi Maximum Floor Accelerations f All Soil Cases, CMS 2, Shield Building, NS l 3.7Bf 8(I$l Maximum Floor Accelerations I All Soil Cases, CMS 2, Shield Building, Vertical l t 3.7Bfr $b Maximum Floor Accelerations ! All Soil Cases, CMS 3, Shield Building, EW ! 3.7B-B2' f;) Maximum Floor Accelerations i?! Soil Cases CMS 3 Shie ld Building, NS 3.7B-837 Maximum Floor Accelerations I All Soil Cases, CMS 3, Shield Building, Vertical 3.7B-S4' N Cumulative Stick Shears, EW Direction j i l 3.7B@5' %b Cumulative Stick Shears, NS Direction l 3.7By6 ~ 31 Cumulative Stick Moments about EW Axis 3.7B47' hb Cumulative Stick Moments about NS Axis i 5 3 e
--- - n - , . - - - - . . . . . - - ,-...-.r- --- - - - w - -1 v =r w +r-- -- = -+-v4v ++-y -
-~t-t
CESSAR 881%. APPENDIX 3.7B _ , , g, . , s. ,
,.g' i
, n.:,n: w c _- :i -
. ,.~
^
SOIL' STRUCTURE INTERACTIONSSI)*ANALYSISy $(pi%;;?,s.63i :-1 Yi-s..; --g;,, ..*y.:;' ';x >,-, Y"; y,I L, y "3s ' 4 %. ?
"? ai n.? - g; ,' 9'-l t-1 METHODOLOGY ~ AND RESU,.{.TS",*C
g g g d c u 1 A (- 15LAN -
}'
OVERVIEW y- 4 -- - Jt This appendix describes the SSI ucthodology and presents analysis \ ' - .
. t
't results used to establish seisnig design loads for-the Nuclear. ;
Island (NI), Nuclear Annex - (NA) . structure and Reactor Coolant- s .. .} Systen (RCS) of the System 80+. Standard Design. The analyses -- ,% - . [ vere performed based on a . Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE)? % ,, .i excitation of 0.30g horizontal peak' ground acceleration. Three" T ~- different control notions (CMS 1,gCMS2}.7 CMS 3)- were used ak the'. 'j - ' input " excitation.- The spectral? characteristics, of the notionii's are described in CESSAR Section'27519 A set of ten soil profiles
- If,.;.d ty' ' # iC developed in CESSAR Section 2.5 to represent generic sitc~
conditions were used as the soil medium in the SSI analysis. The i. SSI analysis results are provided in the form of in-structure response spectra corresponding to major elevations, and internal resisting forces at each floor of the NI and NA structures. l M jt fixed-base an ys s case with no -embe ' ent consider-aticas and-
-ne SSI effects was also performed using the rock outcrop notion as direct input excitation to the RB foundation.
The SSI analyses for the NI are perforned v'- a common basemat that founds all NI and NA structures. 3 4 Q R\g husk {1 tr A ~ b o1L ct h 5t I , Y
. s k . a b.ru is
. hit at U bWuN (Q,, b t. . (W Us UKV 0 [s i tY ' N'"
n, L. r .< , un A knG V U is <vu.c nd, - N'-K.i.,,1.h,c, ;a sheb - e ?),l - I: j, ; c :11 ,. t i s Amendment O May 1, 1993
CESSAR naincmos COMPUTATION OF SCATTERING ', d:.;:$5'.JJ:1
! ,f.: W~ . 3.4_
- Q?,k,.
'e n;.lt ? ,Z; ,;,3.Q-1 ggh y. - Q,.
. Q'?, _ ., ,
P@%![:i.Whilei,RIMP, computes the) impedance matrix,;it does not' compute.,the ,,, p ,i
""S' scattering matrices required'to' compute the foundation response'
~
..-6 . --- du e ..to input. notions at - the3 ground . surf ace . For significant b i embedment, such as that for the System 80+ structures, which have 1
-embedments as deep as 51.75 : f c. , the surface and foundation ,
motions are not similar. The motion at the foundation level is
~
. in general less than that at the surface.
# 3
- G D;.&l - ~~ ,
I' c py;j N;ToJaccount .for the proper (foundation ' response, the scattering. g,G N ^ .'
,, ' + natrices for _.this' analysis are computed externally in a separate' [ ' ' ' -f i g:
y .6 i stepM These : scattering 'natrices, ., together with the impedances k N / $ computed above, are then ' read;. by) the , SASSI nodule ANALYS - for. J$.> . ,, , ML further processing to determine structure responses. To 'ci:sputei E O 'l; '
, , .the scattering matrices, advantage is taken of the following i
- characteristics of the foundation:
A. The foundation is symmetrical (for input in a particular direction, some cross-terms in the scattering natrix are zero, e.g. translation and rocking in the perpendicular direction, and torsion). B. The foundation is rectangular (two perpendicular cross-sections are sufficient to define the geometry) . Both the above characteristics are used to simplify the scattering computation. Referring to Figure 3.7B-2, the scattering natrix has the following characteristics: J For X-direction input:~ , y- a. g., ~,,, ~ ~ u2 0, us 0, u u3 u ut (due to synmetry) For Y-direction input: o : ~ ,~ ~., ~
== < *
, ,F 7 /
u2d v O, u. eb 0, u du3 3u3,u L O (due to synnetry) v v v For Z-direction input: -~
, , 2 ~. ~
Q p. h J. ! -** E u3g 0, ui.u u4ugu 3 3 u(O (due to symmetry) From the above derivations, the complete 3-D foundation characteristics can be approximated adequately by two-dimensional models representing the foundation geometry in two perpendicular cross-sections. For the System 80+ standard plant, since the foundation is rectangular with a uniform cross section, the 3-D response can be approximated adequately by two 2D models in the XZ and YZ planes respectively, as illustrated in Figure 3.78-4. The two-dimensional model in the X-Z plane is used to compute the scattering natrix for the X-direction and Z-direction input l l Amendment O { 3.78-5 May 1, 1993
CESSAR na?"cmou
- f. $ For any, location, . at any time 't', the total acceleration W 7,*[, , respons,ejis.{given~by(refertoFigure3.7B-6): 5
..c.
U 4"" n::= . , ;&...b. t. m is w X (total)"f;=Q-VX i.(x)T ' +. ^ X (y) ' ..+ X (z) >- s i -- EU' ' y S. c < 3 Y(total) = Y (x) + Y (y) + Y (z) . Z (total) = Z (x) '+ Z (y) + Z (z) - where, .. _ X(x) is response ~in X direction d'uc to carthquake excitation in '
~.
the X direction, X(y) is response'.in X direction due to carthquake" excitation in '- the Y direction,. etc. ' * *
. m:? u - . ji * .
,.L'~~ Th'e above summation ' applies to both translational _'and rotational. -
directions.1For reference, EW, NS and Vert. directions correspond ' to global X,'Y and Z respectively.- , 1.6.3 COMPUTATION OF RESPONSE SPECTRA The time histories at each location from' step 2 above are then used as input to the program RESPEC for computation of response spectra for 2% and 5% damping. The response spectra are computed at 107 frequencies, shown below (units of Hertz). These frequencies cover the frequency range of interest and exceed the j guidelines of the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800). O.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 f 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.15 3.3 l 3.45 3.6 3.8. 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.25 5.5 5.6 5.75 6 6.1 6.15 6.25 6.5 6.75 7 7.25 7.5 7.75 8 8.5 8.75 9 9.5 9.75 10 10.5 10.75 11 11.5 11.75 12.0 12.5 12.75 13.0 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.2 15.5 16 16.5 17. 17.5 18 18.75 19.0 19.5 20 20.5 20.75 1 21 22 22.,5 23 24 25 27.5 30 ) 31 33 35 37 40 50 60 70 l 80 90 100 l l l Q +
*E. .{~ -k 7 ~{ ' ' . ~ $ ., .- . r. . e , ,
.g i Ed i. . W UEa i k(. 6. . ~ l '. t- #L 't.,
*a * '
f
- 7 { 0 '-
-l..t '
u, o .r ' ,\ {.. . n r.2 ! -, V
. T h m .. i t -j. c .,.
;, e,.'..- ..- ( u m ,.~ w cp e s . ?) < c (.Scl t tg e:ehLg
. (n J' '. S.t . 't' .1 ,
Amendment O 3.7B-10 May 1, 1993
CESS AR Ef=nce,os 1.7 COMPUTATION OF ELEMENT FORCES - Maxinun forces '(axial, shear,' moments and torsion) , at 1 c$c . crfL .d g}kks 4 -er are computed in SASSI using the STRESS nodule. The !. naxinun forces are obtained separately for the horizontal and the': '
~~ "[
vertical nodels when subjected to the three input notions CMS 1,' I CMS 2 and CMS 3 described in CESSAR Section 2.5. ~
^\&&
1.8 OUTPUT I,0 CATIONS
. i
-1
-y
-Y. . .
Output acceleration time histories are obtained at the follovirig , _( building . elevations. Results are obtained at the mass points , fj
. nearest to the building. elevation:
y: o:.-gg v.y'
'7'-.u )
. . lU Duilding Elevation Nearest Mass 'Elev. of ' Mass '
(ft) Point Point (f t) 6 Interior 50.0 501 50.0 Structure >
" 506 - 88.09 91.75 210.0 529 208.122 Shield 263.5 644 263.5 Building Steel Cont. 250.97 460 250.97 I Vessel ._
l Fuel building 70.0 3 69.527 , 104.0 9 103.688 l 1 146.0 18 145.386 170.0 21 169.092 CVCS/Maint. 70.0 103 68.067 Area . 115.5 112 313.762 170.0 121 168.613 Diesel Gen. 91.75 205 91.696 Area 1 Diesel Gen. 91.75 305 91.696 Area 2 EFW1 70.0 703 69.773 Amendment O 3.7B-11 May 1, 1993
i iJL TLe -4;, n (_ q x ,4;,t, anu aa .,,
.e2su u r ant 1JrupulQ % su~ > a ,l. 6 4
;- mp- z.u- se s 1.n- n 4~ c. 1 L a. . . _ _
+- e.
l e l l
'I 3
)
l l ( (
CESSARnabiou aw;ns wouk r:am k{iel, 1 A d; . ,
' ~
, l, $?5j
. ~.
W 2.2 [ EFFECTS OF CRACKED CONCRETE ' 7 - M; 'pf,.i; i Since- he System 80+ structures are. bjecte to.a;,0. g;SS i
- dynami response of the supers ture co ld be apa y,t (poten ial) concrete cracking du to the mposed seis ig'aisd}
4 other loads. To evaluate conc te cracP ng eff cts,' -= rr!- - analys$)s of the superstructure io performe consi rin Icra'cded}} ;. concrete properties. The selected case 5~ agai-ri DB.5 with3thef . CMS 2 notions./ The Nuclear Island and Nuclear Annex'structuresj " ' 1 consist of areas with short and thic 1s ' which are':,typid.it11 ' shear-resisting elements. $nservative ,iEE isiassumed , concrete cracking results in a 30% reduction in stiffness. superstructure stick models are nodified by reducing,the M ~ 'Ibe h~ t ;
, of-Elasticity (E) C Q by 30% foriall~ ; , concrete; elements ,y'.Q.,fg ~g y The re ults of eanalye :are.shown in Figures 3*7B . .. ; ,
3.7b- . Tne response spectra an.tne top of the SCV.showethat-1 $.,
' -g.4 s[ hre no impact on the SCV response from concrete cracking.E -
The response spectra at the top of the IS show that'a freqEency" I ri* j]ldcQ]Q r
- Odh shift in the fundamental peak occurs, which is due to 'f the ' 6 ~-
softening of the superstructure. The frequency shift- is accompanied by a small increase in spectral amplitude. However, d this increase will be covered when the envelope of the spectra I from all the soil cases is broadened by ilSt, as required in the CESSAR for design purposes. Figure 3.7B-16 shows the envelope 'of.. l; the raw spectra from all +-he soil cases at the top of the IS, for ' iomparison nurnnses with Figure 3.7B-46. F 00 Based on the above,vconcrete cracking doee-not imp d the design .l, forces and response spectra from the SSI analysee. i p c. h e }, k k# '
/
. , ( i. . .< a.,Larl
. tr< thN b k.aicI ; l, *
, 1, ,
.L [ J A ,. 2 a, ,
T' v!0
,h :} :) l r# M
'7
..1 ,' s
,~ ,.
x k l .. .
-' , u.
' ' rt - Ui [ ,
i
. l 1
l t I l i il j Amendment O 3.78-15 May 1, 1993 l i
Juesa & IIp u 3. 7 C YT dns -{L slaji J U MS mi< ( .gu's p Lus' h tG J~~w <pd.J p s at . cal c _ n.s. - Tu sup 1 m-a - i, a ca 4.n i m . TL spAa 41L ~;It mM erwuk e" & k a ry <> y r~<.all, n 9 , ula.1. u A 46~ 44 ' m'x 4A z.. s u ta of IL J he<1;n f ufm h R p a s.n-n (n Ic dy.) . %[a, cm u.s s ~1 va:<a . ,, F,p 3. 7t - +6 4L<suf 3.3t - 53 p uu] NL La 5 dl un a pa % <au ,menuka & ep Ju(. syp wut
- e Wu %a au L utukid unnett m A -4 & Pu'id M w;IL </wah t.. ck(h ( .cfun will JG & .rd;) 1;a,). & f4 fan loceks slw w Rp 2. )0- % / o -D, % sped a wlJL cn d4 uwede cG <al 4(ut Ita s.wbps .
e i 4 4 l l
)
CESSAR nni"lCATION ( 2.3 EFFECTS OF DEBONDING In all the SSI analyses, the foundation is assumed to be fully bonded with the side soil, i.e. no separation or gaps exist between the rigid subsurface cavity and the site soil. To evaluate the effects of potential debonding of the foundation with the soil, a parametric SSI analysis with SASSI was performed using soil case B3.5 with control notion CMS 2. In this parametric analysis, the foundation cavity is assumed to have debonded from the side soil at the top 20 feet of the embedment area. Y 6% l The rehults of this analysis are shown in Figures 3.7B-A'f and 3.7B-45. Figure 3.7B-47 shows that, at the top of the SCV, the response spectra are similar to the bonded case, with .the exception of a slight shift in the fundamental peak. This shift will be adequately covered when 115% broadening will be applied to the raw spectra for design purposes. At the top of the IS, the fundamental peak is not shifted and it is reduced in amplitude. The increase in amplitude in the low frequency range , is adequately covered by other soil cases. Therefore, since a wide range of soil cases are considered in the original analyses, debonding does not affect the envelope of the seismic forces and spectra computed with the fully bonded case. l ( Amendrtent O 3.7B-16 May 1, 1993
CESSARnaibmn
/
1, i 2.4 CONNECTION OF SUBSURFACE SLABS TO EXTERIOR WALLS In the SSI analyses with SASSI, the impedances are computed based on the assumption of a rigid foundation. Therefore, the impedances are computed at a single point, which is selected at the center of the basemat. The superstructure model is then connected at this point to obtain the complete SSI system. In the superstructure model, the exterior walls are modeled with actual concrete properties. -This is generally considered conservative, since the exterior walls, as part of the superstructure model, may deform more without the additional local restraint of the side soil. To address NRC's concern of the potential of a dynamic effect on the in-structure response spectra due to the local connection of the (axially rigid) subsurface slabs with the exterior walls and the soil, a parametric study is performed considering this local connection. Soil case B3.5 with the CMS 2 notion is selected as the case study, since it is one of the controlling cases at various in-structure locations. The superstructure model is modified, so that the subsurface portions of the sticks are laterally rigid. Therefore, the entire subsurface cavity together with the , superstructure model is laterally rigid, i The results are shown in Figures 3.7B.49 and 3.7B-54. The in-structure response spectra at the top of the Is and the SCV using the rigid subsurface model are completely enveloped by the original spectra. Therefore, it is concluded that the modeling of the superstructure connection with the foundation is conservative. The original spectra vill still be used in the seismic design of the System 80+. 1 L i l l l i Amendment O 3.7B-17 May 1, 1993 l
8 :
$ ,.: 8 ;
. - l l
U/ 4 i l k
) l' f
-- j '
f ! f I- , be P' A 8 2 '
; &- 5' h -
~- ^
Og M) !
. ..- ,. j W.- '
%W
~
~ c
%Yshi, ~N !
~ s
% - u %.
l t
- Cab, N _ 8 w
NNN] ' 7 a M% V%1
/WW4 .
- / \ A\\
NMV
\\\) .
+
. I t
i I i 1 !
- 2 .
o R 8 S S R S 2 8 ! (R) uopenpnv . j I Amendment O l fAay 1,1993 1
. Figure SSE RESPOf4SE SPEC TR A, ALL Soil C ASES. EW,
/
f [$Q f / 2*b D AMPitJG B ASEf4 AT , ELEVATIOt4 + 50' 3,7 g ,7
8 i L; .._. 8
,l'
.! (, I .
n ! .._ P
/ .
l. W , w :- ( 4 8 YF
- rr n h i
'4QQ :
QM uAf W Y ankV - y _ _ a_
;. _ h
~
5 L" _Ms . '
.N & s. .
N - 7 %.k
, 1 '
Q x !
,s ,
. \ 'Re 't g NTSWX U -
X\%Y/h hMW _ AMI
\ M\
\\M h
\,
e o 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 (3) uopeJapacy Amendment O taa y 1,199 3
/ SSE RESPOr4SE SPEC T R A, ALL Soil C ASES. t4S, 2% DAt4Pir4G B ASEt4 AT., ELEVAllOr4 + 50' fgg 7
Y
~
8
'1 CE
- c. _
~
x c=f af; e lL- - i
-- f -
- == =~2::[. _ &\
RMMi i N ww a l ww!b78
*C aN i ML) A W 4 I '
e . i 8 4 t
\y /h\\ .
/A l \\
\h li '
\\\\\ fl
%)J N
\\i !
-, \i
.\
2 : o R S R 8 2 2 2 8 J o o m & d & - (2) constra[ary ' ( Amendment O tAay 1,1993 ! Figure , I f [ [ / U SSE RESPOr4SE SPECTR A. AEL SOll CASES. V. 2% DAf4Pir4G flASEfA AT, ELEVATIOf 4 4 50-j 3,7 g ,g f i i
s e e n. " L.__ _E
._j l Y I li i n
1 ...--
/ L
/k ni L L
/W$$U x - ,yy -
3 I
~
A[V
. .c j
~
t.
. 2 8
-A Gf M -,W J S
~~ 4 (
32Nyhv., DM . ' S4 L 'N
-sa '~
~K (
N===Esr7 T 1] /
-~ - l% 2 h-
_N % /
' ') ;
Q% N . s x xmvrm i - NhANWW
%\M4A\
/ VNTAM
/ NAN \\
N 1 \1 30 N I
, S i .L ci 8 ; e e a 8 e e e a so
~ - - - - - o o o o (7) uo!)tn;333y l Ameridment O f4ay 1,1993
'" Figure f
SSE RESPOt4SE SPEClO A alt. SOIL C ASES. Ew. 5% D At4 Pit 4G B ASEt4 AT . ELEVATIOr4 4 50- 3.70-10
. ~ . . . . . . . - . _- ... - .
8 j
$M I fit $
1 j j hi['f l%ilj .__ i k y{ -- i
>p ,
d i b
) i
,Y 8 1
'/ $ i k l f I wesaw (
. 'MHI ,
W 3XRg4P( VS/
- - A
- r '
g v l N _- [ _ i
% @ l!
4
, h~ >
x' %
% ).
( g ' 'l t j W 1 /
\
I f
- - \.
k nx MMTA
.lf /
/
8 4 l'
~
i i
' '\\ MAP MMW !
/ N4iV! j
\ N% l
\ \h\ l W
i T
\_\_ '
i l
- o ;
I S b 8 R S S S 8
~ ~ a a o o (2) uorsenpaav 1
)
i Amendment O j l f.iay 1, 19 9 3 j
'a Figure SSE RESPOt4SE SPECTR A, ALL SOtt CASES. f4S, s% oar.'. Pit 4G 0 ASEf4 AT , ELEVATIOti 4 50' j 3.70-11 1
l l
_c e ma i n 6
'l .
l
' t 4 [ ,
I (W i N
- - Ykh N f f I' \
' N 1 ! i b r :
)
( y i
-- ~=-
C 1_ mmm wmi un
! f
%sSHhll i ;
AM5%LfMMk i 5 4 -WW2B%U% l
}&MWW N ? I
%E3M7/ /M i I
lid % V)/ N 7 Qs~' 7(ih a avu m - r j iM % \\ . N'wsu
\\'M :
\\ \T .
\R l
\\\\ -
'" 'i e
ml l i
^
1 o i 5
% 4 8 ? 2 S Y Z 8
- - - - o o o o o y (3) uopenp33v Amendment O l fAay 1,1993 l Figuro I SSE RESPOt4SE SPECTR A. ALL SOtt CASES. V, t
/~
[hh / / 5% DAf4PitJG O ASEfAAT. ELEVATIOt4 4 50' 3.70 12 I _ _ _ _ , -- ,-- ,-n,- - - - - - ---e. -, w
g g
. m g
)
g n . _ i p m a 2'- D .- 2 ( W- - E d&4 0 _ 0
'0h[1
_ 1 \ < 2 I u 4
/ l b .
. ( -
v O 0 e 0 Yj$ _ l 0 E 1 e , , _ r , u ) t ' c 1 u l r S t
)
z r l ' H o i I t r e n [ B. ( y c n e u q s e r n F o , . i t o , . M - l l A E S .W S _ s e s
~
a . .- C _ l i _- o - S - l l A
+ .
0 8 m . . t s e . y _ S m 4 i m m oi m - - _ _ s,5y g w h t.
%' f
s m ,
)
g . n ip n m a D 2 ( W-E ( 0 0 . ,s 1 j 2 1 i - i
+ H v
. ll .
f - m le m E e r t u c u
\
L / t r 3
)
S z r / i l i o ( y r . c e n t e I n u q
, e r
s - F n - o it o [ - M l l A - E ~ i S S - s e s C il o a
~
a S l l _ - A =
+ -
0 8 4 m - e t s - - y S
)
0 0 0 0
- 0 0 4
C. 2 0 0 0 s
. 0 0 1 1 1 e . 2 0 f- $r
t 0 - 0 - 0 .
~ 0 _
~ . 1
) _
g i n .
- p -
D m a a . 2 hm ( - S- m N , v
,da 0 -
0 , 1 2 [n nA m
+ w IoMw<!
v ;l
- 0 l
e 0 .
+
0 E -
$v 1
,l .
- e r
u i
)(Jl fb -
u[ t 4 - c 1f l}. i u r ] t -
- S ) m r i z v o l H .
i t n r e { L ' ( c y n e I u q s er n F iot 4 - r-o . M - l . l
~ .
A . E 0 0 u S 1 S - . s , e s a m C , il o S l s l A ,
+ -
0 8 - m . t e . . s y . S .
~
- - - 0
__0 1 ,1 r 0 0 m 4 0, M 0 0 , 0 - 2 0 - 1 1 1 6 , 0 . e
- s. g.s -
). - .
q-g- %IS 4
~
l ,, i!
o c n i
) _
g i n . p - m m _ a - D _ 2 ( _ S- _ N 0 - 0 1 b 2
+ ,fI i i
]
i l hYl _
. Yl i v [
U %
, 0 e
! f i ,
0 l J 0 E ' 1
, [l _
e i iM ._ r i ff i . u i j A
)
t c J [ l! u r t j S ~
)
r z
.5 t t
i o I ( r y e c . t '
#- n n
. e I
u h
- q s e n c F r
i t o A d
,k o _
M l =_ l A A E M. S 5 1 S . s 7 e . s E a . C l i o h - . S . l l - Z-A
+
0 8 - _ m _ t e . s y _ S
- - - - - - 0 1
0 O 0 0 0 0 0 y ( 4. 0 2
- m. 0 0 0 0 c 8
1 1 ol 6 4 2 g S 8jf'
( m _ i m i i i _
)
g n _ . i
- p m
2 D ( a i h
\
l f
]
0
)v - i
\ _
, l lt g1 t
r + } . e l l
.[
. V l 0 - 0 , 1 - L _ 2 -
+ i n If < "
v
. 1
- e l' l E tp' -I
;s e ~
r , t u c c '
~~
S t u r 3 r ) i l z _ I t n f, , ( y c n e u s , q n e r - i o F t ? o r Ml l . A _ E 0 . S 0 S _ . 1 _ s _ . e s _ a C _- l i _ o S l l A
+
0 8 = - m e
=~
t s _ y S _ _ = - 0 _ l a _ 0 ) 0 3 m , N 0 8 7 6 3 2 N. 0 1 0 g5 84
\
W4g iN
g g g
)
i n g gI p m &N S a j{\' D
\
i II i1' {f m
% \ 1 2 /
Mi (
\ '
t 1 1 1 1 ~ r [f [ s e l
,L i'
V 0,
,/
j 0 1 2
+
w 0
\
n!? 0 g '1 0 v ._ l e i u t - l E . e r O t u _ c m' . . r u A .
) -
t l. . f I r - S , (
. y t
n g c
. n -
I > - e
, u s , q n e r
i t o o [4 p-F M s e l l A - _ E S S [IL I' . s . e s a . 1 l i . o S . l - l . A .
+
0 - 8 m - e t s - y S 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 J m 8 7 6 5 l o . SR s< _
i T 0 - 0 - 0 .
=
0 = 1 . ) g - m i n - p # _ m - a w D a n m
%w+
5 f
. ( -
, w W -
M e E ] e e n e t
\Et
_ , r 0 e 0 t 1 2
+
1 b /. m1 _ v 0 0 9 e ' l w - 10 E l
!Wt.
=
e
^
r t u h c a r u - . t . S ) z r s i e i o l ( r y e c n aW t e I n u q i t s n o o
- d. F e
r a, _ M e - . ll - A , n E g, - S e S ' e s i . e W s a a y C l i o
- w a
w S - l y l - r A e e
+ r 0 -
8 - e n - t e ~- e s -' y m S ' g
- +
_ - e . g _- us _. 0 _0
- 1
~
0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - _ 0
@d
_ 9 8 7 6 3 1 0 g m w
%I ~O
. + W n a n e
! t
0 . 0 0 0 1
)
g n _ i p m t _ D a B _ 5 ( B W _ W E \
}
0 0 A 1 0 M 1 2
+ !
v . 0 0 e a
~
0 M, l
~ 1 E _
e . r t u . c i t S t u r r o r e n M b
)
I I ( z y c n e u I s
, s-y q
e r n F o m. M i t o - M l c l A _ 0 . E 0 S $ 1 S g - , s _- e - s a _. C . il - . o _ S 7 _ l l A L- . 0
+ $ _
8 - _ m _ t e . s _ _ y _. S ._ 0 1 0 0 ) _ 0 9 X 3 0 0 0 ( . g g 0 0 7 6 5 4 3
. se
<l ! { - \l iIli -
m-
; i IM
' Z i e
)
g n i i ip Q i e m D a Q . , ; 5 D-g"-. i i ( S- . N , 0 0 \ hhWy
\
1 2 l
+
y c l
/ -
g m.
~ 0 E
b .a U% 1 hjEp.'/ e r A u N f t c - u , r S t r g - i T ) H z o , i I t r e n s ig v
- ~
( y c n e u q e r n F i o l' t - o - M p7 E l l A f2 jD~9-V 0 0 S 1 S s ( 1 e s a 7f C l i o S l l A ff" . 0
+
M _ 8 m t e _ s _ y . S _
- ^ 0
- 1
- ^
) 0 0 o 9 0 n ~ 0 o
~
8 7 s j Y- 0 2 W o c 1 a%1w s - l 1 \
t : o . o . o o i m ,
)
g - i ; n . i p i; m D 5 a gTw i ; ( S- , N , = 0 1 0 2
+
b ), ( E l v e l f
- , 0 0
o i e r u M O U - - t . c . u . t r . - S ) . ey. z r o b , i l ( i r - y - t e . c n e n u I q
, e r
s n _ F i o .s. . ._ t g o M 4a ._ l m - l A . E r - 0 0 S [= 1 . S - s . e s d- - a - _ C
. l i
o
/,"$
S . l . l
. A .
+
4 - 0 - 8 = . m _ t e s y _ S _
- - - 0 1 - 0 0 0 0
0 o _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 0 , .
. s 7 6 $ 4 3 2 ,
~
? y -
' \
0 0 1
)
ip g n m a
%:4 D
m mj Myy(&p f
% ll 5
(
\
t \ r V e l
.lv n
c 0 0 1 2
+
yY
\ 0
. / 0 hp j
v 0 l e y 1 E s e r
- t u
c f' u r
)z g_ y s t
S H _ .. . ( _ t y n c _ Ye n I _ , e s u , n , q e o r i t F _ o Jr M e _ l l A g _. E S 0 _ S 0 s e s a _ C l io S l l _ A
+
0 8 . m _ t e s y . S - 0 1 . 0 - 0 0 0 3
- 0 3 ~ 0 , ,-
4 3 2 u ,
, i y' -
D - W-i G
o n. 0 [ " 0 1 _ [ #r
)
g n I f i - p j m ] -
- a -
D ^/ l l lI h ) / h 5 ( I i'
\
.c -
t
. ? \' +r -
r e V , I hg 0 0 - 1 2
+ d
( =>b , [ d v ,7, e . l E e r t u . c ) z r u , t ( S y . t W- D c n e I n ,
' u q .
s
^ e r
n D F i o , t o - Ml l A g& _ 0 E l 0 S n S s e s C a S; - l i o S l l 3-- A
+
0 . 8 t m e s y m , S
~
~
- = _
- o
- - i.
. - - - = ~ 0 0 y )t 0 0 0 o oo 5 n 5 0 5, 0 s 3 3 2 2 1 1 o o . 3 b}y<
U U U O I
)
g i n - p m a t D 2 ( k E 0 5 2 W 7 9
+
4 jq
'i l
h
/
( l E v e 1 y }n f . {- 1 j _ , $, ,(p . V )1 : z C l[ / ' )i S I (l d
, y . s c n a e n
iot u q o e M - F r l l A E _ A S _ S s e s a _ C l io S l l _ A _
+ .
0 - 8 m t e s y S 0 0 m 0 0 3 _ 5 i 0 0 1
, !gzk
,$ d +
3 -
)
g i n - - p m . a - D 2 ( W - E 7 9
, j l
v f h E 0
, 0 0 0 5 1 2 \ + k v \
l e f E Wf l 1;! s V f ; p0 ) C S s J t h i l ( z y c n a n e i o t u , t q o e r M l F l A , E S S s e # s ' a C il c S l l A
+
0 8 m t e s y S
- ~ -
- - - ~ -
0 o 0 U 0 o 0 m w 0 3 0 5 U S 3 2 2 1 ' g8 9<
0 0 0 0 1
)
g i n p . m a D 2 ( AV S-N , Q p _ 7 0 9 i 5 2
+ p v
e y 0 0 E l h 0 1
;Q l
e s + s e !
} ,
V p'gi/
! \
. / .,"
' h t '
n ) z o j H C ( h - ( l y e c t S, e h q n e u s n o L W e F r i t o ' M e l l A E
, ~ ,0 0
S ~ 1 S s e - s a _ C it o _ S __ I _ I - A
+
0 8 m t e s y S
^
= - - - - - -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 _ 0 5 0 5 0 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 0 1 s 0 . S $. # _ h', _ b 9%i
) _
i 8 u ? n E I
. b i E
-1
- c. : )
E l m Q . 8 a) 7 Uf f m fi i z 1 . g' I T ! 8 9 c) 4 . .f
.. . > 8
$ l} . ? >~ n L4
/A M s '
> ~ M T- -
_ _ _ _ y% o v - _ _ U x
~
2 E
$ % :. g m g i i E .o si o 't 2 = 's ^b m
m m W a U I O r m '
=
+
, o e E 3 E
< , , , c; 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 d
- 6
- ? d R d n E (8) uopraagaaay
) .
g i n , p m_ . m a [ ' y i D ,
% t 2 ,,
( ( [ I
, }
t , r . e V - l
!ly.
l' 7 s . h 9 1 i 0 1 , 5 2 , .
+
]: ,
. t; v -
e l E g? = , . V ' 1
)
z C { I S ( .
, y s
Io n % c e n u
~
I q e r - M F . l l I . A . E - S . S s 0 e 0 s C l a
?I i
0 , 3 . l , l . A .
+
0 8 . n . I o S J . o
- - ~ - - -
t. o _ 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o 0 _ 0 0 n 0 0 0 c. o . 0 N 0 8 6 4 2 0 s g
. 2 E 2 1 1 1 1 1 g $jy' wb ,
NQIh1
0 0 0 _ 0
, 1
~
) ~
g ~ i n i p m f a i D e . 2 k ! i ( I t r . e I V , ,f
/ k I
7 { 0 9 ! ! I 0 0 0
- 1 5 I .
2
+ -
v . l e E V ) C S 2 H ( z y s n W R c n i t o 3 e u q e o r M l l QM F . A
,M E
S S . s e 0 0, s 1 a _ C _ l i o S l l A _
+ _
0 _ 8 _ m - t e s - y _ S _ 0 1
= - - - -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 2 0 8 6 g 2 1 61 1 1 1
. g <
. c o o o t
) .
g n _ i D p m a 4 _ h 5 ( W-E k 7 9 0 _ . 0 . 0 M 0 5 1 . 2 .
+
v e t h V l E
, jpnD=1 .
C l
& )
z . S 4 H (
&8h s y n c n
i o e u t q o er M l F . l A S C l i E S s e s a o M; S I I A -
+ .
0 . 8 . n i t e . s y S N 0 0 0 8 1 0 6 1 _ - - .
;aa
- gd vY
0 _ 0 . 0 .
~ 0
- 1 .
d
) .
g _ i n . p m ~ _ a - D . 5 (
$;?
mS W-A
'J ' .
E y 7
'j .
9 0 5 2 J N 0 0 0 1
+
hm*' . v . j l e i V E
, d )
i 8 ) 4 z C l I I S ( y . s c n n o i e u it q o - e r
- F .
Ml l A E S C- - S - s 0 e s 0 1 - a _ C l _ _ i o _. S _ - l l A
+ - _
0 8 m ._ t e s y S
- - - - _ 0 1
1_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g _ 6 4 2 0 8 g 1 1 1 1 a 5.8
, 1 '
b 0 0 0
' 0 1
) .
g i n . p m a __ D 5 ( S-N , i 4* 7 9 C 0 c 5 2 e
+
v c w;, 0 0 i 0 E 1 h-l e s
\
s e h ;t . V t L
. ) .
t >
. n o
- /7 )
z C l e
] c d'
r f ( y c e n t e S u . q _ s e r n F I y g g A - E o o. S _ s _ S _ s e s a C I i o - s g r A -
+
0 8 m t e . s y S
)
x 1 w 0 0 o g 0 5 0 0 2 2 5 1 o j 5 g8W5h< _ t{/ - hyt NN i,! l I! ! '
0 0 - 0
- 0
, i .
)
g . i n p m a - D 5 ( S-N , 7 9 0 . 5 2
+
. o v ; c.
l e - o t E l e ._ s . s l} e pI V jj$5j !
\
t ) n z o H C ( y l c . e n t e e u _ S q e .
, r s F n
i o - t o Ml l A -
, 0 0
E , 1 S S - s _ e - s a _ C l i o S l _ lA -
+
0 _ 8 m e t s y S o 1 o 0 0 n 0 0 1 0 o 3 3.28M
m 0 0 1 i i i
)
g
? 1 i
n i p m a $W D 5 ( i
)
kI t r % e { V (
, \n1 ,
7 , 9 m. e 0 if 0 5 1 2
+ 4 f
v l e E V ) z C i S t s n o o
%hm, -
H ( y c n e u q e r g M F l l A E S S s 0 e 0 s a : C il o S l l _ A
+ .
0 8 . m _ t e s y S
- - o j
o 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - m 2I 1 6 . 4 j5, y4 iN t llL
0 - 0 0 0 1
)
g i n ,. p , m a \ i D 5 I ' k ( n , l t r e . V 4, h @), I s 7 ,. 1
' Y I
tp 0 9 ,f 7 0 - l 0 0 1 5 2 W '
+
A v % l e ' E A V # ) z C H ( S y s c n n e i o u q t o e r F M l l A , E S - S . s 0 e - 0 s 1 a C - l . i o S _ _ l . l ._ A -
+
0 8 m _ - e - t s y S
- - ^'
- 0 1
~ -
0 0 0 0 n k, 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 2 1 0 1 8 s b 2 o
$ 8$ f*'
0 0 0 30
)
g . i n p . m _ a D . 2 ( W E 5 t 3 ' l 6 2 a.
+ .
/
0
. h 0
v - E le
/
L
)L 0 1
I J g )(! i n 5 \ . d l i u B ) z I d i I I ( . c y i c . h _ n S e u s q e n F r o
- i t
+
o M ll A E 0 S 3 0 S 1 s e s a C - il o - S
'l l
. A
+
0 8 - t n t e s - y S
- - 0
- 1 o .
0 . m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 5 0 5 0 2 2 1 1 5 9 . g $s <
- ~
L' i N .
_ 0 0 0 0 1 g
)
g i n _ p m a D 2 ( W-E 5 i 3 6 ^ ' 2 i
+
( 0
. l ,
0 v . 0 e wf. 1 j l . j, E ' , g n i d l
\' v_
_ iu l l d l w( ) H ( z y i e - c h n S
- e u
q e s r n F i o t o M l 3 _ l - _ A _ E ^ 0 0 S ~- 1 S . s - e s a C il o 3 S l l A
+ -
0 8 m _ t e _ s y _ S _
- - _ 0 1 _
0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 2 2 1 1 g fM _
u i
)
g n u
=
=
w e p m a h D 2 (
, 3 S- -
N , #. k i 1 5 ' 3 6 2
+
<91 . ;
,\
. ~
. b v ,j ! ; I h e m l
e h 0 1 E , g
, f ifh" g- ,
in %i . ld
- iu } p*
l I ) z I d l e l f . y I ( - i y h _ c
, _ n S e l u s q n e r
i o F t o M 4 ll A 7 E S 2 0 0 S ~ 1 s e s ; a _ C _ l _ i o _ S l l - _ A --
+ _
0 8 m e t s y S
- - 0 I
U c 0 0 c 5 0 0 a 0 , 0 0 2 2 " 0 1
, 0 aig ~
yU%1 NO _
0 0 0 0 _ 1 __ l._ _
)
g i n = . p _ m _ a D _ A 2 ( ' _ S- a _ N , A 5 3 f
)
ga b = 6 2
\
( A :-
+ .
0
. 0 g
M v , k \' 1 i 0 . l e < y 1 N E ' ' ' i g n ( /h t f-f l [ l d , i u ) B g . I z I d I
- (
c , y . i c - h n S h e u
, q s . e r
n F i o _ t o _ M . l l A E 3 0 0 S
- 1 S
s e _ s a C - l i o _ S , l l _ A ._
+
0 8 m t e s y _ S o I. 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 g 0 5 0 5 g 0 2 2 1 g 38} M
i t i i 8 i i. _8 f li l ! g i
.5 lh E- i c //
cc U$ ! O ' r : te - o , t ' C- M . y m W J
?
, --..= - . - . , __
2%w-
.o w I
& ~
.5 L .
'E Ny r'\
5 ", l
- q
= lr,
=
.o_ C c
d5 J 8
. k'ju g E t .o
({(b 4
= < 6 'd b -8 i w a w .I E ,
m . e: U
=
0 m
= < i 4
e i
=
5 - S s. w t 1 1 o i i i < h 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 d F, b e -' o (R) uonenpaay e-rc , 3.78-27 ;
0 0 0 k-- 0 1 6- _n-
)
g _ i n - D p m a
+
%&- Q_
2( p . t I r f 1 . e { _ V
\
5 _ yi 3 I\
) \
6 f i ll . 2 '"!
+
l I , 0
. . 0 v 0 l
e ,~ _ 1 E ' g - n r. _ i . l d ~ Ag i u ) z B i l d ( . l i S h e f ._ y c n e u
- q s
e r n F m o
%,p i
t . o . M _ l l A . 0 E _n 0 S 1 S s e _ s . a _ C _ l i o S . ll _ A
+ _
0 8 _ m t e _ s . y S .
- - - 0 1
0 _ 0 0 _ 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 5 2 o 5 1 0 1 5 8.0 '
r i 8 !
. . _._ E Te il E IY . - - i F
m 4/j l C #/ } tR Wii ' l 0 f A i uh1 :
$ V f l w/d m
w c4
<a T N - T 8 cm.
t m w i o e ' g x .. y ( l YN9 h .s N , p 77-
.g .=
t c E . si' 3
, . I R ) ) ".
g E i \' U > c L t S
,e j i
4 5 - H E : ) g s' \; c i is o i . = c
$ ki 2 ii 0
x E 3 Y rE' l l l l l 2 O 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 i
- 2 e = a n' n o (7) uopPJDja33V 3 2B 28
yr o . n o
; l .
)
g = - n = - ip y i m - a yy i D -
% t 5
( W- J E 5
\ -
3 6 2 {
+ s .
I A' j v 0 . l e ' E j
, ); -
g i n j - d l i _ u y B ; z d A ( l e y _ i c - h n e - S u q s e - r n F . o g; i _ t o - M l l . A E 0 0 S 1 S - s _ e . s a C - il o _ S l l
= .
A 0 8
= .
m t e . s y S
' - - - o l
- ~ ' -
a .
)
0 n 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 % 0 0 0 4 1 2 1 0 1
- 6 4 2 " -
m 4p
)
i g n p p r D 5 ( m a nA d= 7 S- \J'"' N , 5 3 q< 6 2
+ <
=
. l v gj Ng e f f , >
g/m Ff l E lr j g
/ :'e l -
n l i d j/ j " l i u lrlf_ , g B , d i n u c c y i c h e S c e s n e m i o t o Ml l 4~ m. A E S S 1 s e s a C l i o S l lA
+
0 8 m e t s y S
=
m 4 1 g y g _ ln m e t
)
1i/ 9g;,
M 0 0 1
) ,
g n , ip . m I a _ D - 5 ( S- - N , 5 , 3 6 Of y ) 2 a '
+ ( 0
. 0 v J t'
.- 0 e [ -
1 l b . E -
- f. Lf .
g
. i n .
i d . il u 4 ) B z . d H ( l
. e y i c -
h n e S s n u q e r o _ F
. i t
o _ - M . l A l e_ E S m_ . 0 1 0 S 4_ . s e s a . C . l i o S l l
. A -
+
0 . 8
- m e
t s . y _ S
- 0 1
0 O C 0 0 0 0 y ( 0 0 g 4 0 g 6 g 1 12 1 3 ia u _
n 1 j o s Z j;
)
g n E , n
. i p % i m h a i D . ~
5 { _ ( v L' t - r e f L , V . 5 3 l L 1 6 i f 2 '
+
v e
@ J /, ,
t ., l p
+
- 0 0
0 1 l E
's-g . i n
. dl i l u ) I I z d l 7 f ( y e c i S h %r n e u
, q _
s _ er n F i o
- t o
Ml l A , _ E 0 S S {= 0 1 s . e s a _~~ - C " l ~~ io
~
S - l l _ =_ A _
+
0 . 8 m t e s _ y S .
- - - - 0
- 1 0
o ) v 0 0 0 0 0 c ( 0 0 0 0 0
- 0 8 6 4
- 1 2 0 i
.M%1 No _
~
7 g ~
'N N -
'- ~
~
~
ml/j:
~l l }~ ,:s+ s wl~ ?
)g '
e - q ~ TN'n M m '~ ~ : %~y 2 W q_ ~>
?^k, ,
h l 2 '
% 'm .
[ - . .k { s . g l 5 x ~ g le y R
~
DQ-a hi gt 0 g
~
j y) g ~~ g
m 5 W ~~ ~ >
g '~
~ , ~-
m
~.x ~g -
i g? ' ~~ j N~ x g
~-
_ ' j ~
~
~
'N
^ -~,
~s_ [_ ~
~ 1
~ ~ .
N. O
- 5- ~
f 2 E o W) uor:m
~
8 El C ammmm
0 0
! i 0
0 1 s" f
- I e
i
)
g n p
% f i
I m a s I _ D 1
\
% (
I 5 (
/ A t
r )r V 5 e
, y' -
3 6 2
+
I il l 0
. l 0 _
v / 0 l e 1 E id l g n
)l l
i = l u 8 ) z I d l ie i 9e i l ( y c n g h - e S - u q s - e r n F . i o - t j~ o M l l
. A _
E 0 0 S 1 S s - e - s a C
~
~
il o _ S l l - A _
+ .
0 8 m t e s y S . 0 1 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - N. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 s 6 4 2 0 1 1 s }N .
8
'5 4 1 E l l'
li l ! ! q p. 11 F
] TF a bh 1
' y ?
, i f
l i M- .
- -_ S ,
j sameRW/a
- -e.
--w -}'; n _.
J e (-. 3 3 " p !
- C C5- - 8 ;
g i ~ tv h c ; M ; i i
'N 8 f gy
! k i l$ l MN 4
\\\\-
i
- i I
j : 1
\1
] > 1 i 5 l i j o ' S !
, o i 8 8 8 8. 8 8 8 8 ;
l 8 m 8
- n . - n n - a !
I 4 (3) dopaapaav . .f l 3 Amendment 0 i I tAay 1,1993 , y
- Figure ;
.. 1 1 4
/ SSE RESPOf4SE SPECT R A, ALL SOIL C ASES. EW 2%
3,73 31 h b (( / DAf4Ptf4G FUEL BUILDif4G. ELEVATIOf4 + We' 2 i i t l l
l i S i i i,l, l E J iT ! . ; ~ t I 1 4 1 t
'. i !
1 11 1 i
-3 i) (I fj
^ '
j
, l
.m 1
l l - z w A _ 8 ,
, y
, r, ,
~2
~, =1. M. O-_,m .
j
~
m __-- N . S [ C' . . - __
~. y .
o
.e-_
n, . C
.. x . i ,
T
\- A I[ i
)
[ i
\; .
I ' s" 9g W
/W i
\\\\}I !
r t i kl l'! a ' h , V i J f ? t
\ ,
i ;
. t I
. l i
a 3 f f i 4 o 6 8 8 8 S 8 8 8 8 8., 6 ,o a - 8, e << - o m . b (F) uoricqaaay - - Acendment O l May 4,1993 ; I Figure f
.. I SSE RESPONSE SPECT R A, ALL SOlt C ASES, f4S, I
/ 2% OAMPit4G FUEL BUILOtt4G, ELEVATIOtt + N 3.70-32
((d(( / / y i t F 1 - - _ , . . _
8
, u_ E i L. -._
l 4- ' k.s. _ _ l 1 /fL :_ i l d ; 4 I -M' - - +- 6
> P
_-_- eM-.M.. l N g f Wi e . { 1 % - . 4
-m
__..- -_=
- wey_d - - _ -~g ,
8 - -Twww - ' 2 .i _.- '9 io
%3T9 !
m
, _N_ m g
a i d , hC
~ e 3.-
'% k ,
l O. ' Y%. ~ h l "$% , i
,m yT l 8 I
\ ^_
fk . l. I MM i i M ! ! $ l'
\\\
i 1 l l i i , 4, i E I o .i 8 8 8. 8 8 8 8 E 8 2 8 i x a o o 1 4 m s m n - - i (3) uopen g n y l i Amendment O 1' May 1,1993 4 Figure SSE RESPOt4SE SPECTR A. ALL SOtt CASES. V, ) /
/ 2% DAMPir4Gj f UEL BUILOtt4G. ELEVATIOf4 4 460' y 3,7 g,33 j$Q f / I l
- .~ . ... _ _ . . - . .
~ 8 !
,~'8 - -
)
! t_ ;
.! ...r...L-
_i.. -- 1
! l .1 _
f ..! l r
.h.--
i l { .. '... - l
! hk Ib
- ! QF l
_8 __ A.% d
! gq y.C ] M ,
I d'F JPMN' ; ;
~
~C M d()
~
I ,
'M / \. hf(f
%A S
%%O
~
E l
,f l l !
< . _ 8 j
\lR( la._.
MWf i' 2 MW iW71 i I\M
~
\ l :
- \
3 l 1 ' i
- l
+
j1 1 I ! i E {
- i R 8 R 8 8 8 8 8 E 8
.s , s s ~ ~ - - o o '
(T) uopc2313:ov ; I i ' Amendmer , l' f
! taay 1,191 {
.. F11 I SSE RESPONSE SPECTR A. ALL SOIL CASES. EW, l
/
f / 5% DAfAPif 4G j fuel BUILDtf4G. ELEVATION +400' I [ $ (( < p f n v- r-- a m. , - . . . - - , - - . . - - - - - . - - -
1 l 8 I
, ,i,- 8 l 1 1 I j i
j 1 j I l I /
! ! l ,
i f ! fJl{
~
I
< eg b !
\. f 8
i
, f 'y 1 sc, ;= ~ ~ <TC 6/A% \ l gg i Cd2 hNNf4 % M
~
M
~
W g sg. n/ h' E
.& j h
. 8
! ^~
\'&(
); } ,
/ O -
\t
\\ !
4 l
)
i . .1 l i l' i 1
\
o o ; 8 8 8 8 8 8 a 8 )
- + n e o ,
l (2) uopenpaay l Amendment O , May 1,1993 f Figure i f SSE RESPONSE SPECTRA, ALL SOIL CASES, NS, ggg / 5% DAMPlNG FUEL BUILDING, ELEVATIOt1 (190', 170 g 1 l
)
I 8
.n. [ E t
- [ .
lAt : a /dlW l m
&~
)
. C": _ mm- ^ 3
%C; m -
/
m d . ( _ 7 e i
?. -
b l c - 1 _ _ %g IJ N / ' (xs hI - 8 a ( ; e fY \ ,' MTl W
~
[ m 17 4 s ' { e 1 o o o
,8, 8 8 8 8 8
~ ~ 8_ _ o o ,
. (8) ucpeJala33y i l , Amendment O fAay 1,1993[ l
,, Figuk l /
f SSE RESPOf4SE SPECTR A, ALL SOIL CASES, V, pgj/ 5% DAfAPitJG f uEL BUILDit4G, ELEVATIOt1 + j / 3.78-36 . 1
g u .i ! J .E ' i
~
i . R Y _ 5 .
~
4.. t
~m.
g o _6 - w
, i
-e.
-=
r % ~ me e
. ~
,12- ,
]
42 . . Q , S > l -- g
- MN.
i
.r._ d t s%_
8 u .
.1) yq ~ , __ n
~ r, l'
g f
\
'ur- s- ~
1
/l' I lY $ :
\M 1 .
4
% 4
- I I
- e I 6 : 8 8 E 8 8 . S S 8
.n . m ~ - o 1
r . (2) uoptI2l333y l 4 Amendment O l 2 f4ay 1,1993 Figure i
,o SSE RESPOt4SE SPECTR A. ALL SOIL CASES. EW, l
/j 2% D AMPtt4G CONT ROL ARE A 1. ELEVATIOtt + 130' 3,78-37 l ((g[ f/ l 1
l l
l 8 i
, , , , 8 l 1
l l l ! .. i l I l l. l ' I l 'i i 1, ..- t I j l )
),.. l 4 , .a
-@A, #[ -
i
-._ _ _ , = - __ a
?
- = = _ .
h E '1
}f __ 8 l V/ /_ S ama en ~
h -
~
M ,~
- 247#_ w - ' ,
J r _L 3
=
_ ~ - x m* - & t , ~
~~
g y i
, g
} "
. Kn Y
3 (f ;
?
lI a l
}
) - / ; i 1 T _.~ $ f
% l
.c j /\t. - .
J.
\ :
\\( !
[ i \1 4 M 4 l' k l i ! o '
, i i ;
4 1 i i 7 8 8 S S 8 8 8- m ~ ~ o {
= m (3) uoncJap33y .
. Amendment O , L FAay 1,1993 i Figure l 4 ! l I SSE RESPOt4SE SPECTR A. ALL SOIL CASES, f4S,
/ 2% D AtAPtf4G cot 4T ROL ARE A 1, ELEVATIOrd + 130' 3.78-38 I h[ / j
8 i E t* j L
- Ij i m
5 L._ j ,n. w
-G= . ' ,'- '
[
?
' I
,_ -<~s M i i
- ' COF, 8 a
"<2_7;i, _
l w. h t
- [
1 t 4 _8 , NA i - b\\ !
}M i
- it !
y I 0)- l h
\ \
l o o 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
- c. a ,, n n - o (3) uopelapaav
, Amendment O ,
i i < tAay 1,1993 i i-Figure SSE RESPOf4SE SPECT R A, ALL SOtt C ASES, V, [bh / I
/
/ 2% DAtAP!t4G, cot 4 TROL ARE A 1 ELEVATIOt14130' 3.78 39 a
8 , I e n a ) ^E v Q L __ l I
" l l.1!i_i l...
thki ..e -_ h 1 ! 1 A. L l
}J.-- r
.{ .
g , a ~.- 4 '. :.- l} ..s ! wm c _
/ l
-=:::
o==== > l s v :
-= - & T %=' MRI\ +'y ;
~
y~ .
>M f(/ 2 l N k\ ;
% : .w x Nu - At l j
N _ 7 .; t b^ ) i hIvap y i-.a=- f u __ :
/WM !
\%\
l l\
\\\ \ \
q ) i I I ! 2 c> R 8 a 8 R 8 R 8
- - ~ _ a o o (3) uonc2apny Amendment O FAay 1,1993 Figura
/ SSE RESPOt4SE SPECTR A ALL SOtt C ASES, EW.
jff y 5% DAt4PitJGjcot 4 TROL ARE A 1. ELEVATIOrd + t 30' 3.78-40
/
8 q 8 ,
._._ .3..
l I l l' h . _ _ __ l . J b 3 9 , 7 .( ;. . . 4 ' $ q s Y
.M ._
' "/ ,: , c rb .. N @i 7 W 1. W l/
/l 8 s'
.A.M v })
~~
g~f ((
' ^
tx MN kh V ! N'%AN MK !
/
}f V =h n
y 6
/('Ng. # <
5c l
<& % . 5 '
i lr
,. j I
._ 8
\> tW%Y -
\MM
/1h - ;
J l N lb !
\ \%3 ,
i
\W :
\l\t j 1 -
- \i i k i s e I !
j . l j I 8 o 8 8 8 R 8 R 8 n 8 n n - - o o . n (f) uopcop33y Amendment O ! May 1,1993 ; SSE RESPOt4SE SPECTR A, ALL SOtt C ASES 14S, ;
/
I 5% DATAPtf4G,COf4 TROL ARE A 1 ELEVATIOtt 4130- 3.7 0-4 1 i j % (( f
8
. c.,i. 8 3 1 p i i l . !!' I ij Olh5 I Y ,.
lll. l1 i.._ As /A. . , - MW d -
*A<r.'1 ' . ,
g- 2 % 4'y '
..wf J. x _ _8 y '# 2 ,
Gf4 ' i
'p= , _
N
~,_
->~- 34 17
~~
NW1, g'v - g
$W W_\L 1
t\
\(
m\i ti i,
)
I I 9 ci R S R 8 Q 8 R 8
~ - - e o n m ~
(F) uonts2[3]av Amendment O fAay 1,1993
'" SSE RESPONSE SPEClR A, ALL SOIL C ASES, V,
/
5% DAMPlt4G cot 4 TROL ARE A t, ELEVATIOtJ 4130' fgg 7
I N
- m. o o
o. o i w
, .a
.i' s'*i
- ,. )
;:' H z
p ( y c n e u q e
.F ,
F r z .
- c. '0 0
0 1 d n - u . o . b r - e p p . U - 5 5 3 3 B B - 0 - 0 - 1
- 0 0 0 .
0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 N O 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 - 3 0 2 3 t 1 2 3 E OEUy'
> ,a3o*. O EN ....e*W IoC;i i
L
=
% oOEDymb0 ~ om OD au w <r Cm cu w m1. 5 j:$!z L
( 0Oz4N2sm=4- < vDmmr meOfg + e9 uyo.^u a B4m-- - t h%lMh sN _
o m o o t A _
.s .
x
.s s's _
\:
~
t: l: 0
'? 0 l/ 0 _
w . 0 1 i '
/ -
)
- a. z
{
}
( y D c n f e u q _ e r
**. F 0
d n 1 . u b o r e p r - U _ 5 5 3 3 _ B D _ O C 1 0 _ 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 o o o M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 c w 0 0 0 O 9 , 1 6 3 < 3 2 1 0 i To C9.gv_uU< p3a 3oa* o Sx = eeu i 2oC8 -
% nOE* >I5o2 O C# m" o $ cQ awb mk, 2
t 0>Syzo t s Nbwh N N .z*m2oD. n~2CO"CID. mFm<>46.o
. t -
wWe.
0 .._ 0 0 . 0 _ 0 . 1 .
~
T~ . h~ 0 i..' 0
- 0 -
' l:
-) 0 1
(A] .. 4
\
\ _
i'I _ l H /sIi iit I? )
,.! l
- z .,
' H
'p 'Il
( y c n e
\ u q
^' c r
F
)
/
t c e r
) .
0 0 0 1 c n - o si l C / d _ e l - f k c / - C a r -
~
N' * .
~
5 5 . f yw hb
~ -
3 3 D D . 0 0 _ 1 O _ 0 0 m g g 0 0 0 0 o o n u 0 0 w o 0 5 o 5 0 s 5 t - 1 , 7 2 t t o c aa e93uT,M* _ SO, a ,&o
>3[aoS o
./ s g4 . ob t s
i
,' ins eZS poXmo <*6^ Ory7m <no=o5* .opwm mPP mG $' /.
t hNlw4 4 i N g>s32O mmmF" nO= $=Emz+ < C mmF mcml Ido2 + y e ysW _ N i i
/
4 _
/ '-
,!1,
o o c o _ ci
~.-v v
,x
.i
!: o
!, 0
) 0 F7
.l' 0 1
, /,- /
4 _ 7g ) z H ( y c N n e u q N F e r J e t D o c o. t e r c n o c d e k c a r _ C 5 5 3 3 _ B B 0 0 _ 1 0 o o a 0 o O C O U o c 9 0 C 0 7 o c s o c 5 0 0 4 M 3 e 2 c e i I 3eO$uu8<
>3aOCL 2 0 gpx ..+ e.
C 9a
% 5,.nm>0z $ g 8 =n#m o>m b wk m5-n hNlMh i N N e ar>n7D nf o>g,E5 _,2w@ 0I $s3nm. m'cm<>h $ o r
- x
m
)
i g n p
, 0 0
1 m _n a - D 8
% 7 -
5 ( . 3 W- ]( E j 5 7 1 9
+
w v
. k -
0 0 l e 0 1 E I e r t u c f i u r . S t J ) I z r I ( i o y r f, c o e n = t e ~ n u q I g, e
, r s F
. n , i o _ t o - Ml l A . n. E 3 _ S S s _ e s a C .__ il . _ o S _ l l A _
,a
+.
0 8 m t e s y . S
- ~
~
0 0 0 5 2 m 2 5 1 I 5 0 g
1 i i l 8
..j j
__ E s I ! ,
-1 1 0 !! //W s (A 4 I. - .
n E / s d v a 8 n W -./ f- t A
<.7 / J .
ti s L_ _-i =M ~ .c (( E QXM& 3 V 5 L -- ME5@' s
-s N h E ?
f-e MMk,
% m I
i N <s. i
- z. 3 .O s"
$m s x
N>f Q(/-- b /%'~ . E XV' 3 N
=;
NN N .1 y N 2= [\ 3 . v2 2 o 2 m 8 2 a E 2 8 m - 6 o (7) conc 2apacy 4
0 0 0 0 1
) .
. g n _ ip m a D 7
% \ 4 5 -
\
(
/ 6 S- 7 N A 5
7 1 9 xp
+
v ~ 0 e 0 l
\ 0 E
e
, < 1 r , \
t u f - c i u r
/.
t S 1 ) r z i o i h u H ( r y e _ c t L n n e I u
, q s e r
n / F o i t N . o _ M l l A . E S r l 0 0 1 S _ s _ e s . a C l i o S l l A
+
0 8 m e t s y S 0
- 1 0 - 0 0 0 0 5 0
. 2 1 1
I S
^o ~
~S
. T l_:
- p. ___ g i C ' t s . l % {
$ /j-4 9:
c v i
$ <7 ie
.( )
z / N . } }d 7' ._.._ i %, 1 ; Al
- a. ~/ r ? -c yzr d (} 8 e
W f J ~ M. ~- f 1
<.7 r# ~ _ -
R r' i 5 NW PXR\l
<%JM M / -
%%P(
0 ' 3 g -m% N b-M' i g
=
xq t [ NN - s s i 1 1 2 O E E R E S 8 m ,a a a o (8) UOOCDj333\/ 1 l 1
o c . a 0
] ~ 1
)
g . i n . p m 1 a . D .s . g
% v -
% y 5
( y
\ !
7{\' W 6 Y 7 E 1 3
~
0 - 0 1 2
+
v r
/
l
~
3, ' l e [ l E I l i i _ e , r t u u c I g r p t S y i r o r
- '/
0 .~ n ( z y e c t L n n . c I u [7:
, q s -
s cr n - F o i t o 5 M l l E S S A s s e AN_ eq rg
~
l 0 0 1 a - C il S o %:_. l l A
+
/e 0
8 - m _ t e _ s y - S
- 0
~ - - - - l.
0 ) 0 0 v 0 . 0 9 C. 0 0 " = 0 0
=.
0 0 8 7 6 #' < 3 f 0
, CVy<
) -
0 0 L- 01 _ t "x N $' y
\
T y ; g D ,
, A .
y f - 0 - 0,
~
I -
, If
, i -
r.' . I y ' c / k G It g I
/ / i hgW r
~
C O I e r / u ' . , - t c u
/. -
- S t r
/
f . g r - y g - o : g 0, [? 1 i ( - r y e c t n n - . e n, l ], k u I q s t c i o t P - I . g - t o h - t t A - E - S _ S s
,- s .
e s l' a g% -
. il N
~
o S ~ l l A 0 . 8 - n r - _ e l
- - . . 0
~
1 0 ) ; 0 0 @ 0 w o ; 3 9 8 7 s c S
]0 o - 0 ~
. 4 3 1 ' o
- y. g$Uy<
i ,
n o o
)
o t i
) n g i n i i 9
i p E Y - m i
~ .
a D 0
% ? .
5 ( i 3 S- _ N ,
\ _
0 'g 0 } \ _ 1 2 \ [' _
+ , '
I v [ bil e ' 0 l
/ 0 r[3 E .
0 1 e i r m t u r c u r . t S r o f[ p ) i z i I t n r e [ l ( y c n e u s q . e n F r i o - t o _ M . l l A E
^ 0 S
S / - 0 1 s . e s a C l io S ll A 0
+
d 8 m e t s _ y S - 0
~
1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 0 6 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 g4 $
> 2 1 0
n 0 - 0
]s. '
0 - 3 n.i ; 0 I
- e> .
) - ~
g ! i n -~= i , , p , r n - a D QNr , . v n 5 (
\ &
S n N' q', i sk Db o q l ~ _ 2 l AlI \lI7
+ )
} !
f v
/ Q l >
l# b
~
e - - l E / b
~
~
1
, ( \
e j \ r ' $\ 7 - u ' j / -
- t ' .
c l
.j I
u i t r }' - 1 p S ! ,- r / ; d y z o ]/ t - f: _# i r ~ g e y .=_ i t n j [f s .' c n e - , u s ~ q n o '
'/ c F
r i, I - - g o - 5 m
/
t
/[g t
A - E 0 S [' 0 S / ' I - - s - e s C il n
/ -
~
o S . l l A -, n
+.
v
. 0 . 8 .
- H' C I I -
*~
~. - - -
0 1 o ) y 0 . C I ( w x. m. c c m g o 7 t 3 c t 3 : g o SQE.
i 8 h J4
!..pn__ $
p__ g ; n n { -- _g yk c, i l -- E /; j $. ,
= 1 d i C ,a 7- n
& ^ U
~if
$ / D S (S .,-
? j,p--
i g, s .. > _
!l 2
t
/
- /c' _['
. ,, >1 >
+ _/ 6 I g g
1 / p.5 ^
; m - - g. p T(
_ ' _ -s (4 j,! 2 x H [h 7 - n 4/
# 2 3;
KNA i%i ~~
+ v7t ( i e
a
- ?
N c m u9 , . s 9
\ 8 ir a
x
; N s /
5 r LNx u O - L 8 g xs I Q \ ,
- =
f/ f~ t __ \ l (- }. i+ i\ l \
=
l 3 W s; s c ,
" m 2 h 8 @ g
~
(3) umeap33y
8 [. .__ E ,
.1;
,g
. ...t . . _._
I '
- c. I l 1
g ]. ! ( ' , 5 . T m / 1 _5 c [ 4. f'
$ / f E
Y /
/ p' 8
.; / r o si o / A U / #E> x ll
; e-' -~% ~ ._{\
~
E f i 4L "\/ N x '@ L %%MW7 ? i ') i y
'iW>
. NN x ~
'FM%(
') _,\}
?c E
%.. N i w
a 4 x u _ % - ~ . v) ' ..s 8 m x x . r _ m
\
N i [ i 0 y('
~
/
g
- m
~
ly\ ._, i
,x
\'i. .
= }
~
G m t l di 4 e d i . I O
@ 8 E S @ 8 8 8 '
- - - ~ _ _ o o (3) uopea;my l
l n l l i
y i
~~
I
= ~
f
~ )
g 6 _ n 7 y%hg~ i p m ' 7 _ a ' _ D .
% f&R h9g*= .
5 (
, \% _
S N
- \ _
5 _ 5 1 1
+
,fy "' _
N
. , ~
v .
~
l e
\
E . 1 h m / - Qy , R l o M O t r y n c o n - e C \ ; u q
, e r -
s n F i t o / i i o M l L
~
l .
~ _
A . E S S {/ l f '0
~
U l' -
/
se I,l s . a . C . l . i o . [ S _ l _ l A _
+ .
0 ' 8 _ m t e s y S
~
J 'o
- o
\.
0 m. 0 0 0 _ 0 5 w 5 2 5 1 1 o O s
, ' ~ S
a _ 0 0 _ J 0
~
it l I L
) '
g n s ,-;i ip . m tI a D _DMil' i 5 ( w S- - N W TgK 5
)
j , , 5 - 1 - r i .fd ' ( . 1
+ } ,
. / 'h v -
l e e , . 3' i, E 1 1 ' k h 1 / w . le$ r m / A
" I R / f .
l o r
/
A f ( \
)
z pA q t n If . n ( o kl' e i y - C :'t c -
--s n
io s, n ; ," 1 y e q e u r
~
t F o '
/
M c l
#s l
l - A E h S S s s e a
/ '
' /
/
ht 0 0 I C il S l l A o
+.
,M
,/
0 - 8
/M m .
e . t s y l S
=
- _ o t
0 0 0 0 0 3 m 0 o . 3 : : 3, 1 0 1 g o - - S[
0 0 0 _ 0 1 2
~ )
g '
~
5- - n ' i p 8 . m . 7 . a - D - 3 . 5 ( W - i , E \ . 0 0 7 1
+ M w 0
A hh 0 -
\ 0 l
E v e ry k 1 i d l i l I g n u I Wnt I 4 X > D ) t I ( z . l F e u 1 7 j y c n e u q s e n f F r o g i t j., o y. - M 7 . i v ; l _i A / E / S S / s e / s a C _ l i o S l l l A
+. _
0 8 m = t e s y S _ 0 1 0
- g r18-0 0 0 0 0
- 0 5 5 5 5 5 4 1 1 ' 0 g
l i I 8 8
! L__
.1 Q
i c f .
- a. .
I' i 5 / ti ; m t i
$ jst
/1( f JV ,
j i i tB i m $
/ y$j \\
.; !s
. fh
/
er 15
< s
",+ % -
/ 8
'C /
, /- ,j d F S Q 6 , %_ ~ f1534
. , %% ~ ~ :
0 el ' 5 m i -- 3
._ F whm N,s %g 'E %* -#,
M:,, n b \
- E f
h h "
), ~3 E
a -)kw x,, i o
*g g c N, ,
4
< f . '
'I V3 N 8 v) N N 3<
~
D y. ~ N U
~ = l
{- O
= '
\
e E
\ \
\
2' m . 0;* i 1 i i , i o_ i i ci a S 2 8 8 8 2 8 E 8 E
,, , . - m c. << - -
j !- (3) uoptsala33y
simma w
._ . . p ,
E i y /
'E- id_ [ m e
n a > c e
/Q j r. p
~
m , t
- (
f / b l I d er C t l
/ ,- -- [ 8 f 2
. / a n h M i 42 .
-p< _ . . . . . .
- - _}
@ [' h s x%m faw)i m
s w% - 7 wr-
- N i e
- u. 4.)
.E N' it y .- ..
.y 2 '
i 5 x d r
$ N \
W N \1 I _> ~ag h N 4 - e: t.) /L y-f [ ;
& \ %y q \b r 4 _4 E
\\ '
i O
. '?
C. m . l I o 2 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
. m . - ~ _ o (F) uopuolacay E
e 4
?
[
?
q 8 4 8 [ 61 l . 7 i 3 j.:: 9 ) _ i
~
( n .i Q m / I !
/ E 'l k l
g // j; } ' m
} /
/ d d
l I C I 4 o - -- r- , s / 7 _M
- a 2 8 t ; / /m&, -
V JA
- f a f 57 . M !
w ~we<_ t2 " 5 - hy==c. _x _ l
\* h w m
s 'N - - q dy 2 _. ~%
) C ;
4 C 2 N - w u. i A 7l) P1 g i
~ '
I ; ?r g ~ x- .s N; 2 ;
= .
N ; i S \ ' yt f
, i 4 s t , =
N 4 i ,,
+
j m N \ L_8 , N \V - ' 8 ! U E \ h.[4b' '/ i i
~~5 i ki w ;
\b 1
=
2 E NK : E ! 2m (N ! I 1 a 4 2 1 o a E E 8 8 2 E e m . m ~ - 0 (F) uopeaap33y I
s 2
\A i
i b . i A I. I 4 a y o (; 1 I, d
- X gv D
'. S N 5 S
c l c t c o
.o O
m E
=
c. 9 9 m m O O
< 2
' o i
n ' V R 3 $ S b o v e o m o o (3) uopenlarv Amendment O tAay 1,1993
'~
OOtJOLO vs. PART1At.LY DEDOtJOED f OutJD ATIOf4. C ASE B3.5,
/
EW, 5% D AtoPitJG STEEL cot 4 T Att4f.'.Et4T VESSEL, 3.70'47 T / ELEVATIOta 4 25 r i I
3 8_. i 1.- 1 I 8 0 y a : o
~
p
)
b d
- X 3 i
>. i
$u tE
-h 4
\ '
w !. g hc
- 1
- l O
.D
, o u l 7a j
'F R l
- a. )
sn <n r*5 k In In
- n c,
i O 6 2 '.
. E 8 ?
a c> c 6 o s
., o . o
- e. o.
(2) uuota;my A rnt* fit 3rtiettt O rA.i y 1 1 <r3 3 Iigore
/
tlOtJDf.O vs. l'Af tII Al 1Y DEllOf4Dt:0 I Out407 I tOf 4 ' . A SC 113 ', . 3ygg ; g i:w. w.. o^remo situ corn Ainv. ten tssu. 11 CVAf tOtJ 4 75 r
., , g , ,
M. 0 01 J f f
- S
_ 7 3 h. d c s
,\ .
f ! M
~ #
01 .
/ , .'o l
j(. s
*si )
z H (
, y -
c , - n e . . u q e r F . 3 s . 0 g 0
'0 j
n . 1 id b n o - e - d - l i a t . r a P 5 5 3 3 B B 0 . 01 0 O 0 o o M 0 0 0 0 O C
?
0 ( 7 M 6 C ( 3 t i M 3 M 1
\ 0 1
gwc 9 O hs -
- 1
>3O3C3a" 0
- w*
It
, .e$
mi8 [ O bmO <f O>O ? 4 O*(CO 8'
. c'~uo> 5.~. ()>mm =$L'e=
g <,A ' l C3s'OY"O 3 3~ O2 O uS c2*. l y.5 a c3 Nbwh N nr m <~.N b 2 y 9
)
i C l 6 \ j __ ' ' 5 _ ___J !_ - f l 1._ i
.b..
1
/
- J
(]y_.:. ~
. . . g
, ~ g
%_ ~
N s Q v
- x o
c o a u"
. it 4
e e e \ 8
.E } $
t k C i 1 O
,,o 1
I
\
o t
=_.
n I C e irn , C O i n 1 9 3 6 o o o o o o e y e g C: 8 .-j ' O 0 t, & f 8 8 3 o c , ,. . , f (3) votirnp u y l Anieriditient O ! I fJla y 1, 19 9 3 Figure
~ ~
j O(.)tJOCO vs. PAllllAt ' Y Olt!Or40Lo 4 Our40 Allor: C AS1' H 3.S. [W, $"4, D AMPir4G tf41 LillOll SillVC I Uiti!. 3 '" d e 57,5 RTE / U ,1 c vAnor4 , 2 i o-i 1 i
S e _i D t S . M i-
's
~
f-m (
..- 8 2
h 1: [. - ~ w ...-
% z. .
v
.- y c
f* x % 2 2
~5
'S o i v> ,
s , 8 3 \ Ti \ cm C - C o O 9 m 9 m O C 2 I O 8 2, 2 9, 8 F 3 8 2 8
, m ~ ~ - - o o (3) uogen123]v Amendment O rAay 1 1993 Figure
'" BASE CASE vs. SL ABS TO-E XIEntOn WALLS, SOtt C ASC f
03.5. EW. 5% OAfAPit4G ST EEL COr4TAtt: fat f41 VESSEL. (( [ ELEVATIOr4 4 251' 3 70'#9'
t S e 1 1 __f U l _ __. i . 2 _. 1 i a ( . : h 1: [* < d-
- _ _ _. p
.( 9
~ W .
v c
? E cr E
cc 3 c' ., S ,
)
o i 8
< \ -
t i ! \ S" i i \ c> c i c - o i o I 9 9 n n ' Cl CD I i t 3 e 1 a s o
< e a
E O E St S 7 S: 8 C
~ , -
- ., c, (3) uos tropnv Amendment O fAay 1, 1993 U D"W j
'" fl ASI C AGl; v , St Alli;.10-t x 1i itiott WAt LS OOit, C Ast
/
0 3 L, t.w, *, , I) A f 51 If 4 G 'il t.t t COr41 Alf atat f 4 i V E S S Et., 3.70 .9 f i (,VArtorg 7 ,1 - __mi
OC O C I
- m. 7 w C.
a m
= -
6 7 f 3
- 'z
'Q .
s , i. s' k ' , . ' . r t..* .
}.# 0 0
4 . 01 i
>~ w
)
z H ( y c n e u q e r
/ F ls t la w
e id s A to 0 0 d _ 1 te ,, c + e + n - n o C - 5 5 _ 3 3 D D 0 1 0 0 o D 4 0 5 1 o 3 0 5 2 0 0-2 0 5 t s o 0 0 0 S~ 8 3 UM- - 33oEae:~3 o - gux ..ee s ,
)
)
a>em O > Wm g . wr $ u 4 o w ,w@x 6 m g h y- 2o$= a s uO O>MM ?". m5. u,# ors.'j _ W m2g hMl M 3C oH E m* _ t mrm1dO 'f m N - . o PNtkq a
+ _
F l i . Ev
~
i i i i 1 l i t I_I ' l :i ' I : I l^ l 4 l.. '
/ f.
'/ ~. '
__ g [-.-
-._ 8 7 .
o
% m
~
~ . .
s J.a
%. s O ,
D ' 5
=
F N E i
=
m l ro
/
3: o
.2 m
2 8 y I a _O
- S' C
C o O ',* 9 9 m n C C l 1 I i l l 1 2 i , o 8
@ 8 @ 8 2 3 R E e m ~ n - -
o o l (3) oogcast 33y Amendment O fAay 1,199 w 7 BASE CASE vs. SL ABS.TOf1TERIOR WALLS, Figure SOIL C ASE B3.5, EW. 5% DAfAPv4G,1f4T ERIOR STRUC TURE. [ ELEVATIOf4 494[
- 3. 78qo' 7
I {
i I k System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 1, Fuel Building, E-W 190
/ .
X 170 - -
/
150 - - O B-1.5 O B-2
)
- B-3.5 130 - - , a X B-4 l l
C3 M C-1
.9 )
ca - ( l c C-1.5
--i U C-2 l 110 --
1 /
'" 0 8 C-3 I ! : Rock 1
f li
\
--10
\
0W E - X - A.] , 90 - - 70 -- - au En 50 l l l I 08 1 1.2 0 0.2 04 06 l Maximum acceleration (g)
\
g 7 7s fB i
I 1 l l System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMSI, Fuel Building, E-W , 190 g
/ :
t 170 . X 150 -- -X- B ] i X 8 : l B-1.5 I I O B2 B-3.5 130 - .- (1
- X p ^ $
B-4 c ,
.9 --C C-1 E ,
f> 4 0 x : m c-1.5 110 - - - t , h tot. X
; C-3
- R&k 90 -- -4 (f'ILX -X-A1 l I 70 -- 1 60 CD b' l
f f f f f 4 4 4 4 4 0 0.2 04 06 DR I I2 Maximum acceleration (g)
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 1, Fuel Building, N-S 190 i[ no - -
\
[ l?-}1 x 4 i 150 . -r- B 1 ,
#~
f : B-1.5 0 B-2
; B-3.5 130 - -
j,. g ,, , 6 1 : B4 8 'S + C-1 b m > o 110 - - I a C-2
- 2. - <4 . .:
C-3
- Rock ee - - -
p> 7e _x_ ., c 1 , 70 - - a b- Es ze i I 1 50 ; ; ; ; ; ; \ 0 02 0.4 06 08 1 12 1.4 Maximum acceleration (g) 3-78-59
)
I l
)
l System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMSI, Fuel Building, N-S I l tw y g y i i 170 - - ' X j i 150 - - -r- B-1 e- 4' X - e B-1.5 0 B-2 4 B-3.5 130 - - l 2 h- d df f i' X X B-4 h + C-1
.E J
U a- i eX 18 ^ 1.u C-1.5 110 -- E < #X 5B. C-3 j --*- Rock f 1 90 - - na :- X
? -X- A- 1 l
l i i va -- n b- 63 :** 1 zg f f f f f 4 4 4 4 4 4 o 02 04 06 os i 1.2 14 I Maximum acccleration (g) I l 1
)
l
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMSI, Fuel Building, Vert.
'" c x
-o 4
- 7. os 170 - -
I t+ A sJ E9 Q X i
-X---- B-1 iso .
, .a hq < g 0 B-2
'. a B-3.5 o <- : I b X.
- B-4 5
8 _
- C-1 i ,
- Nl V c c 3_$
?!O - o C-2 f,
ao m'. x C-3
- Rock w- - -c +,
.7 x. _x__ 3 , ,0 - .
1 L//
].i - .,
50 [ l l j j 0 L1 02 03 04 0.5 06 Maximum acceleration (g) 3-18-60
i l System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 1, Fuel Building, Vert. l 190 n . O X i {
/
~ 170 - - rt u i 33g , . -x- B.1
, .0 - :
B-13 0 B-2 a B 35 130 - - o
<. u:: i$ x.
C
; 2 B-4 c
3* M C-1
/
[o -:> o sc (< C-13 l
' ~~
o C-2 l
'O e s: X 9
/: C-3
- Rcck I
90 - -
-e ... x x. __._ x__ 3. ,
l
.< f I
i 70 -- La oe lki a+ e l 50 l l l l l 0 On 02 0. 3 04 05 06 Maimum acceleration (g) l
System 80+, AI! Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Fuel Building, E-W 190
/s 170 - - as
/ O'I 150 - -
o , O 9 9 B-1.5 0 B2 4 B-3.5
~~
di - oa o r0 7 B-4 6 8 C C-1 "E
" t.
oo , r 0 C-1.5 110 - - o C-2 C-3 l
~*~ Rock 90 - - o no o x -X- A 1
)
o ,o s ,g ,
'O ' ~ L
! ! I !
j j e 03 06 0.7 Og 09 g 02 0.4 0.3 Mairnurn acceleration (g) l 378-91 l
P System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Fuel Building, E.W , i o A 3 170 - - o O I
/ ~
U*I 150 - - h 9 "
- 8 e B-1.5
/ 0 B-2 a
130 - - 3 1 J. 9 3 o
/
7; ,, B-3.5 C / B-4 3--- C-1 a n -
<,4 - e u _
D / - C-1.5 o C-2 C-2 f l W- Rcx:k 90 - - - O V WX *
--X- A. ]
70 -- 6 - Q d> a O ;>( e 50 l l l l l l l -j l 0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 i Maximum accclaration (g)
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Fuel Building, N-S 39
/
/
170 - - 4 -
/,
150 - - -X- B-1
\
(
- B.1,$
0 B-2 130 - - u - ) o , t:, B-4 E i R C-1 O a <p e Ei ' O C-1.5 110 - - I
^
C-2 a 4 , x C-3 i 90 - - n d 64 l
- X
// E. _y_
- Rcek Ii /
70 - - n d e) i lx ll ex
% ! ! ! ! l 0 0.2 04 o6 0.8 1.2 Maximum acceleration (g) ;
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Fuel Building, N-S i 190 k i [ i l f 170 - - A - A I 150 - - d' ~
" 0 f B-1.5 l
0 B-2
^
B-3.5 130 - - / a () <> B-4 e -S h C-1 e
- y " ~
y : C.I.5 o C-2 j
- C-3 93 -- a -- o <,o I
x,
/// - - nei
_x___ y l 3 70 -- a i be 2 >' # X l J 50 , , l ', l 0 02 04 06 08 1 1.2 Maximum accclcration (g)
e i System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Fuel Building, Vert. IN <>g X EI 9g i : I 170 - - - " A i 150 - -
-*- B-1 X
- 0 B 1.5 0 B-2 i
t- B-3.5 130 " " - o XI t C 3 0 B-4 f C C-1 O C-1_5 110 - - i .- , C-3
- Rock i[
90 - - e,- o e _x_ g 3 ,
/
'/
70 - - & W D E
$0 a ! !
0 01 0.2 03 04 03 04 Maximum acceleradon (g) 3 63
i i I System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Fuel Building, Vert.
'So !
.r <.x x, . .
t 170 - - - ' X 150 - -
. X : B-1.5 0 B-2
/
^
B-3.5 no - - . 4. xx u . g f I B-4 9 O C-1
- -- 1 . _
/ ./x .
N : : C-3
- Rxk ,
93 -- h-- # '
-X- A- 1 I
'l
, I r
20 _ -
- 1) ., i o .
so : : : : : 0 01 02 03 04 05 O f. Maximum acccleradon (g) {
w System 80+, Ali Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Fuel Building, E-W A X a 170 - - h - 5 i i 1 ' I : 150 - - L n <
/ o X : B-1.5
! /
0 B-2 f 3
/
4 ' B-3.5 130 - - n . n ; .
- B-4 E
C C-1
.h h " 8 O C-1.5 y 0-l 110 - - ^
C-2 , d o<, ec ( h- ' C-3 l
- Rock 90 - - F- nCe d . >3 K -X--- - A-1 a
f J j 70 -- s i GEN X er: 1
- 50 l l l l l --
0 0.2 04 06 0F i 1.2 Maximum acceler-nion (g) { i i 276-64
r i h System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Fuel Building, E-W 190 7 170 - = n # X
-x- g.3 [
l50 - ,
.- of o y O B-13 0 B-2 rl'
^
B-33 130 - n no O g.,4 { 5 } > C.1
}
_o a l up a (s ll 110 - -
^
C-2
/ ///
W o5 6 C-3
-#- Rock 1
i 93 ~ ~ r- a, ( yn-
-X- A-1 I /
j 70 - - 44 + tm x ei l
\
\
so ; ; ; ; ; O 02 04 0 f> 0h I t _7 Maumum acccleranon (g)
\
i l I l l System 80+, A!I Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Fuel Building, N-S n-- r x e ' l l
/ !
170 - - dr- * < 150 . -X- B-1 r~ if y d
- B-1.5 ,
O B-2 B-3.5 130 - - 3
. ,, oj ok
$C f ;
B-4
-S h C-1 9
4-- <> (f E < 0 C-1.5 110 - -
^
C-2 J b4; e- <> > y
. C-3
- Rock
//
1 90 - - <
> tf a UK _y_ g.3
/
t 70 - - n o x* 50 ! I ! ! ! , 0 02 04 04 08 1 1.2 Maximum acceleration (g) 3 76 - 6 ( r -
i I 1 i System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSF., CMS 3, Fuel Building, N-S J I p o- F X
, /
170 -- h-
- 4 J
/
e
- B-1 150 - ,
' d
't -
i V' B- 15 i 0 B-2 [ f i a B 3.5 130 - -
- e. o oa ', k x I ,
1 2 i : ga t v h C C-1 , 9 "
- t y d' 40[ O C-1.5 110 - - '
C-2 e i r bh Ex C-3 1 l l : I Rxk I 90 -- +. o O X8K _x- g_ g
' E i
ao -- Ju i 6 x. [ t f f f f f 50 a e a a a 0 02 04 06 OR I 12 , Maximum accelcration (g) { l 1 t a
e F I
)
I System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Fuel Building, Vert. < I I rX 0 j A j i . [
} : i F I > l 170 - - h t
i t
. -x- B-1 '
150 - - p ; a p
- e 33.5
>f '
\
^
B-2 a B-3.5 i
' ( ek 130 - -
h .,s,(
, O / 0 B-4 !
6 O C-1 i a { j p - x O C-1.5 54 110 - - ^ C-2 i
.j '
, , o '0 C-3 ,
/ : Rxk '
A, f 90 . O r-- <er< -X- A-1 Y! l 70 - - 4. 0 11f X4+ A * , i A f f f f f f f f f 50 a a a a a e a a a 0 0 05 0.1 0 15 02 025 0.3 0.35 04 0 45 05 Maximum acceleration (g) l l 1 i I h.)h S 1 I
t i I 4 4 System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Fuel Building, Vert i r 190 A -- IX e 5 . I lr ' t
]
, 170 - - A b6 > W I r 150 - - -x- B-1 ' l
" ' 0 i T B-1.5
^
B-2 4 B-3.5 330 -- ( j ,
)> - ,,<< 4 x e i 2
{ ; B4 I < c 4 r
-S M C-1 l 7 I o 6 o 4 x g 1 -
C-1.5 110 -- . i i L C-2 , h
*)
, 4( - , o ! C-3 i
< -. _ ,m 1 h I *
. 90 - -
- O - gK Ii r
-X- A 1 !
i t ll l j ) w Alxx e - I : 70 -- A i i. f f f f f I f I f 50 a a a a a e a a a l e 0 0 05 O! 0 15 0.2 0 25 03 035 04 0 45 05 Manimum acccleration (g) { > l l I
i System 80+, AII Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 1, Internal Structure, E-W 210 ;"- X. ' ; 1 190 - - .- x 1 / 170 -
-X- B-1 B-1.5 0 B-2 150 -
e MX ~~A- B-3.5
/
$c r
- B-4 C
-j 130 - -
4 C-1
~
a u IU ff - O C-1.5 ,
,>tby ' L C2 1to - C-3
- ---- Rock
/ - X - A-1 90 - - 'N c
j 70 - - h. i 1 50 x' l l { l { 0 0.2 04 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 14 l htiximum acceleration (g) l l g.,e - G ?
i System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMSI, Internal Structure, E-W
*~
210 i x4 - - 190 - - .. l t 170 - -
-x:- B-1 0 B-1.5 150 - - 0 B-2 a
7x B-3.5 B-4 130 - l f + C-1 { -} [D e x s D ' W C-1.5 l -i> (? s C-2 110 - t C-3 hp x s i l -.- na ; 3,, > to >: a f 70 -- ' - 3 I 50 b. .x- ' ' ' ' j o 02 04 o f, os i 1.2 14 Maximum acccleration (g) i 1 3
i System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMSI, Internal Structure, N-S 210 X - 190 - - i no - - e x -x- B-1 . O B-1.5 O B-2 150 .
* ^
< B-3.5
$C B-4
-j 130 - - O C-1 g , 4
, ao x s O C-1.5 El ;
f, ._: ,i ,y
- C2 10- - '
. C-3 a n;-: x 4 - a - Rxk ;
i
)
/ -x- A-1 h
90 . j a j .
/
70 - - a0,-O xm L if 50 jhenx j- l l ] O 0.2 04 0.6 08 1 1.2 1.4 l htuimum acceleration (g) 37B-49
i i System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMSI, Internal Structure, N-S 210 E - 190 - . 170 - - i
/ / .
. - . . _ x_ B.,
O B-1.5
= B-2 150 -
x
/ x n
/ a B-3.5
$C B-4 O C-1 130 - - .
,, e,x .
g y- 4 O - C-1.5 ID o C-2 A o x . s 7I 110 --
/ C-3
, . s - ..
-*- Rock 99 __
h -) 4 *n 20 -- om n-
\
50 K-+
, D X*
O 0.2 04 06 08 1 1.2 1_4 Madmum accclcration (g) h r p i
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMSI, Internal Structure, Vert. 4 210
>x , . ,r l
l [ l l 190 - - a o o x ox,o a . a' = 170
<> o ]; OE, os -r- B-1
/g -
/ 0 B-1.5 i
^
B-2 150 - -
- i o ; sp i B-33 n ll II
- B-4 5,
E 8 M C-I , g 130 * *
<r o '
g W C-1.5 iU . a C-2 a -
<r n; e l
110 - - C-3 ; i
<p <.- E:53
- Rock
-X- A-1 i
- ;# 'W 8 '* O i j 9a .
I f . j i 70 - - 6 3;o 3 ()
]
r j., ' 50 l- '? . I Md l1 l O 0.1 0.2 0.3 04 0.5 06 Maximum acceleradon (g) 37g69
i System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMSI, Internal Structure, Vert. 210
- y ---(> v. .r I.f 190 - -
s3 <, 4, og o ll 170 -- I 9 <f
<> , O >I -x- B-1
' ^
/ B-1.5 0 B-2 150 --
b ^ h <> ': x ap -- B-3.5
$ B4 8 = 130 - - C C-1
{ > -- h <> r < O iD . C-1.5 i i
^
x d<
- C-2 y 7 <r 4,
O 110 - C-3 ;
- p +: E,>3 I =
J Rxk i
; -X- A-1 l 7.).
t
- y__ y i ,
i 70 -- de A/ it +@s b
- 50 l6 . i ; j 1: j 0 01 02 03 04 05 o r, Maximum acceleration (g)
i System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Internal Structure, E-W f
- : i 210 i 190 - -
a , 170 - - '
-*~ 3.]
4 B-1.5 ; 0 B-2 150 - - a o - B-3.5 f B4 i 6 - c-h C-1 ! E 130 - - g a J o f g - C-1.5 U o C-2 o - ou o n x x 110 - - [ C-3
. /,
< os e
- Rxk
/
A-1 Q > 9 .) e 90 - j 70 - - A - b (> + 4 50 _
~Mx lx
/ j j j I
02 0.4 06 OE 1 12 i 0 Maximum acceleration (g) 3n8-70
System W, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Internal Structure, E-W 210
^
X ::M i
\
i 190 - a 170 - - n - -x- B-1 B-1.5 O B-2 150 . W- B-3.5 a
- B-4 5
C h C-1
-j130- -
o g o a rg
! C-1.5 iB a C-2 i o con o e ; x 110 - -
<A D$
-=- noct I f
-x- A-1 go .. 9 I
70 -- A b /t 4/ 5 - XY
/ o
$0 m +-je= M x l -d a/ j j j 0 0.2 04 06 08 1 12 Maximum acccicration (g)
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Internal Structure, N-S
^ --
210 190 - = 170 - -
-x- B-1 0 B-1.5
= E-2 150 -
6 x s a B-3.5
$c :
B-4
- 130 - - C C-1 > a + ,o ; e b ! O C-1.5 t-a c6 Ue xxa C-2 110 - - l !
C-3 u - y< . xn W- Rock
~
/ -X- A-1 2
90 - - f" l < 70 -- n - E. ro. . X0X 1 50 . W ,w.>E>+-x l l j ' l 0 02 04 06 08 1 1.2 1.4 Maximum acceleration (g) 1 3 76- 4
t System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Internal Structure, N-S
^
210 x
- -~
1 I
/ I 190 --
i 170 - -
** . N '
-X- B-1 B-15 150 .
B-2 6 t- B-3.5 $ B-4 l - 130 - -
/ / O C-1
{ Ej n , <' e x:' s t 0 C-1.5 a + u e xxs t-C-2 110 - h C-3 ; o - o< e NE I
----*- Rock 90 - - !
/ -x- A-1 70 -- L 1 i.s < t XS 2 '
50 e< , *O l l l l l l 0 02 04 C6 08 1 12 14 l l Maximum acceleration (g) ' i l l i
l I b System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Internal Structure, Vert.
^ - ~
210 X X y pc . 7 l l 7 iw - -
... ). 4, i
x , I
/ / ,
i i 170 -
- x. -x- B-1
-fi
- B-1.5 -
150 . O B-2
^
y B-3.5
-S 130 - -
/ h C-1 7 e:- < i a
^
$ C-1.5
' C-2
<>r >
it a 110 -- C-3
+ . a 5
- Rxk l
I --X-
/ A-1 b~ 8 93 .
j
)
// ..
70 - - )r ]# llI e4 AI O l : 50 l - -hx w ' l l l l , e o o1 0.2 0.3 o4 0.5 06 0.7 0.8 Maximum acceleration (g) l 71 3 78 dsE
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Internal Structure, Vert. 2:0 x r xc ; - - -
)
t i90 - - i
.., x I
170 -
> X -X- B 1
- B-1.5 150 - -
B-2 l m B-3.5
$c f
I i l
- B-4 2 130 - - i g 3-- C-1
> e . o ,
4
$ 0 C-1.5 !
I or .k,
, , > , . C-2 110 - -
f C-3 l[ W- Rock l ,3
/ -X- A-1 90 --
l 'L/ 70 -- <- * >K 5 O I SO l bI[ M= xW, j l l l 0 01 0.2 03 04 05 O t> 07 Uh Maximum acceleration (r,) d f
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Internal Structure, E-W X 210
/
190 - a _ x 110 - - a -- E x -X- B-1 B-1.5 O B-2 150 x B-3.5 a
$ 0 B-4 M - 130 - ~
n-- f. n, <
/ C-1 g ;
C-1.5
,-- J o C-2 a--
10 - - C-3
- Rock
//
90 - - n i
/f x al
^'
70 - - 1 is i
, e i 1
50 ,thr--cN< l 5 l l l , O 0.2 0.4 06 0.8 1 1.2 Maximum acceleradon (g)
~
l System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Internal Structure, E-W i 210 x_ :
/
m- -
/
a x 170 - a ,
-x- B-1 B-1.5 0 B-2 150 - -
/
n x - B-3.5
$ B-4 -p 130 - - , M c.3 > n- ai r gx b "' C-1.5 jm. o C-2 a--
110 -- . h xe
- f. -e- Rock
^^I 90 --
u i > x' d l l 70 -- 4+=6 < o 4
./
50 t$ W< j l l l 0 0.2 04 06 CE I 1.2 Maximum axclcration (g) l
, l System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Internal Structure, N-S 210 X i
/
190 - - a i I
/ l 170 - -
^
-X- B-1 B-1.5 150 - - 0 B-2 a ff x a B-3.5
$ 0 B-4 130 - -
O C-1
$ ; i F! '
O C-1.5 l n- a x a C-2 ; 110 - C-3
- n. . , . .
- Rock 4
n< o <; ,
- ^~ I i !
70 -- 6 )o ., i f i 50 l ; ;j: l l l ) 0 0.2 04 06 08 1 1.2 Maximum acceleration (g) j 3-?c- 2 ?
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Internal Structure, N-S < 210 X
/
190 -- s3 --
/
170 - - n -
.s -X-B.1 B-1.5 150 . O B-2 n- ,
1 B-3.5 B-4
-_ 130 - - M C.1 j
h / 0 C-1.5
/
n- d , s x C-2 i 110 -- C-3 n < a x e
- n. o <
-*-^~'
,g , ,
l j - Ja -- r $ >>A l i 50 !j -
-j ' '
l O 02 04 06 08 1 1.2 Maximum acceleradon (g) 2
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Internal Structure, Vert. 210 W Xm p i 190 - - X X' < > I , r 170 -
<- . . -X- B-1 B-1.5 B-2 150 --
ka
^
on B-3.5 $C
- B-4 M C-1
-S 130 - - t .
$ r- it N
" C-1.5 O C"2
. 4,, y 110 - C-3 ,
-s ( X, i W- Rock
/ - X - A-1 N' '
93 . ,
}
in 4 l 6 70 - -
/
5e : : :i 4- : u : : : : i ( 0 0 05 01 0 15 02 0.25 0.3 0.35 04 0 45 0.5 Maximum acceleration (g) l 3 74 - 7f , l
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Internal Structure, Vert. 1 210 ij Y( Xm * ^ 190
- r a X # ~
8 I 170 - - 7 l c p - .
- X - B-1 0 B-1.5 150 - - 0 B-2 A a B-3.5 i o;l
$c ; B-4 -S 130 -- + C-1 i g a q e E U C-1.5 [ 110 --
. t. = c, C-3
[ -*- Rock
/ - X A-1
~
90 -- '
/
+ </
1 i 70 -- 9; n V i
!/
30 : ; ;1 h l l >.J : ; ; ; O O.05 01 0 15 02 0 25 0.3 0 35 04 0 45 0.5 Maximurn acceleration (g)
i System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMSI, Shield Building, E-W 300 . r i
/ /
-x- B-1 L' : B-1.5 X 0 B-2 200 - .
^
B-3.5 e
-S e
' /il / *
= -
3-- C-1
$ 0 C-1.5 150 - . C-2 ,
C-3 ! 1 .,
.h Rock
-X- A-1 I
im - - i
)
50 l l l l l 0 05 1 15 2 23 3 Mauimum acceleratiori (g) I 4 3 78- 7 & 1
F t System SO+, All Soil Cases,SSE, CMSI, Shield Building, E-W i 300 WI ,' f/ $ 250 - l / .
-X- B-1 0 B-1.5 ,
, j
* * : B-2 l 200 - -
1 B-3.5
- I n
l ""
? / /
k jI j' 8 C C-1 . 3 ^ W s
/ C 1.5
^
150 -- b~ X W [ C-2 C-3
. x e - * - Rock
? <
; I/
g,
- X A-1 ico -
{ l SD ! ! ! ! ! 0 0$ i : .5 2 2.5 3 Maximum acccleration (g) i
[ a l System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 1, Shield Buitding, N-S , 300 J h l 250 - - 4
/ .
-X- B-1 B-1.5 0 B-2 200 - -
"4
/ ^
B-3.5 6 . B-4 L l 8 I lX
's 0 C-1 j l 5 I i IU 0 C-1.5
,/ x .,
2 150 - . -- C-2
/ C-3 ;
l d al e.t : Rock
.' , -X- A-1 im - -
l i 50
, l 0 0.5 1 1.5 ' '< 3 3.5 !
Maximum acceleration (g) l l l l l l 378-77
I I l l l I System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMSI, Shield Building, N-S
)
9 p A ~ 250 - - 1d
/
//
-X- B-1 ,
B-1.5 0
/
B-2 ' 200 - -
, g a B-3.5 i s /
= ~
'k '
h C-1 0 C-1.5 m X 150 -- o C2 f ' [ J TY C-3 1.i J'j _. _ amt g[ .
-X- A 1 ico --
I so l l l l l l 0 0.5 1.5 1 2 25 3 3.! Maximum acceleration (g) J
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMSI, Shield Building, Vert. ' 300 f i f Y
,30
///
yI ? { 7 [x -X- B-1 B-13
O B-2 200 - -
l A B'30 A o): >, $e 0 B-4 9 -dr o; p$ 0 i C-1 c.) C-13
,--oc;r 6
/ i 150 . C-2 h -oor 3 f)
C-3
- Rcck 6--o o: 6 1 -X- A-1 6 -- O K D 1(O -
50 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0.2 04 06 OB 1 12 1.4 1.6 h'mimum acceleration (g) 3-16 -78
i l i System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMSI, Shield Building, VerL I 303 ! i
+ g j X C
250 - - 4
/
~#~ B-1 B-1.5
~' '
O B-2 ; 200 - - a B-3.5 1 5 ) ^ B-4 I A'O J, 3 O C.) ua . ) <.<,4.: C-1.5 ; l 150 - - ^ f i C2
/> --4<u: ta +
C-3 >
- b. - <> u: : Rock i
h - - o u t,
-X A. ] l r
103 -- i i 50 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 o 02 04 06 Os i 12 14 16
- t Maximum acccicration (g) '
l i t
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Shield Iluilding, E-W 300 g
/# P 250 - -
[ ,
+
/
et
/ /
- X - B.1 I s
B-1.5 0 B-2 i 200 - a B-3.5
)> o X $c ;
B-4 h x c
-{ C-1
' O C-1.5 a 6
- O C-2
- 150 - .
n- d >b ,
- C-3 a-- 5t : Rock -
~
a+ At A'I ICO - - ! So l l l l l 0 0.5 I 13 2 2.5 3 himum accelcration (g) 3-]O ""TI
l L S, stem 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Shield Building, E-W ,
.: . 5:-
250 . t j j r /* 1 /
-X- B-1 B-1.5
[ 0 B-2 ,
^
[ B-3.5 6 : B-4 l E z 6 x C C-1 iD = C-1.5 150 m . o C-2
^ ' ". C-3 n-- o ts x : Rock
~
3 .. 4: x A'I 6 I [.aj == i
$3 ! ! ! ! !
0 05 i Ls 2 2.5 3 Maximum acceleration (g) 6 A
i o System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Shield Building, N-S ; i 300 i 0- -
/ __.1 0 B-1.5
/ //
0 B-2 200 - -
^
B-3.5 x B4 y , 4 M C1 C l C-1.5 h- p< o C-2
/
h,! 150 -
. a i
/ C-3 m -be > -a- Rock
'l e f. o >;ss
~
^~I i.- -
0 03 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Maximum acceleration (g) . 3 70 - B o I
i c System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Shield Building, N-S ! l 300 [ i
-x a
*f [ 7 ,
250 - -
/ ;
-x- B-1 ,
t 0 B-1.5 W
~~
/ / 4 B-2 B-3.5 i
$ B-4 S 9 X
+ C-1 b l EU A- nr
/ W C-1.5 150 - - / C-2
,, [
h- '
/ C-3
- n. > : Rock 4
lll : n-c jI //I xca -x- A-1 l i ICO - l 50 l j j j j 0 05 1 1.5 2 25 3 Maximum accclcration (g) i l i
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Shield Building, Vert. ' 300 250 - -
- X - B.} .
B-1.5 O n-2 203 - -
/
, T-a B-3.5
.E
'[df, I 3-- C-1 ,
C C-1.5 La
] g lls ,
^
150 . f (j, < *
] ff C-2 C-3 y
# =
! Rock
, -X- A-1 l
sw - - 50 l l l l j ' ' O 02 04 06 OB 1 1.2 1.4 1,6 1.8 2 Maximum acceleration (g) j l 3 78- B I i
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 2, Shield Building, VerL 300 l 250 - -
+< 4 i
> > -x'- B.1
-*- B-1.5
? .
O B-2 200 - - I : [ , , B-3.5 a
$C
! ^
B4 l
-h
- 4 b' \
M C1 j) -C C-1.5 150 . ff4
<X
^
C-2 (I C-3 e : Rxk
., - X A-1 J
100 - - F 30 l j j , j j j j j , O 0.2 04 06 OE 14 1 1.2 14 1. E 2 M:nimum acceleration (g)
3 1
)
I i System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Shield Building, E-W 300 i t i
.+ X -a 250 -
+ ,
,/ , ~5~ B-1 0 B-1.5 0
B-2
*~ ~
/ B-3.5 h <
E -
- B-4 "T- C-2
$ 0 C-1.5 n- ( e x h 150 - - C-2 n-
/' y C-3 b, '
2,.- >/ : Rock l -X- A-1 m- a tra: 100 -- 50 ! $ $ $ 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Maximum acceleration (g) 3 73 -W2-
1 l System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Shield Building, E-W 300 i
~
I
+ pr x s !
250 - - 3
+
! - x - B.3
- B-1.5 t 4
/
y 0 B-2 2(o - - A
/
< g'
/
B 3.5 2 / 7 : B-4
^
+ C-1 ;
. //
~C C-1.5 a
150 - - h- (( f
*X ,
C-2 f [ C-3 a >
>x -.- goeg F cfIh <m:
- X A-1 103 --
r so l l l l 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 25 l t d .ximum acccicration (g)
System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Shield Building, N-S 300 i 30 - - e
-x- B-1 0 B-1.5 '
i r * 0 B-2 200 - - 6-- xt J- B-3.5 i
=
-j w
//
/
M
= -
C-1 O C-1.5 2-- a f
^
150 - -
'~
- f C-2 C-3 II a.- , ---*- Rock !
e- 4 x -x- A-1 , a 100 -- i
- f I
1 1 50 l l l l 0 03 1 1.5 2 2.5 Maximum acceleration (g) l l 4 3 76-93 l l
i System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Shield Building, N-S 3m W 250 - -
-x- B 1 0
p- B 1.5 N 0 B-2 aw - - 7
- A.- ,
s B-3.5 B4
= C.,
s ! i d "' J C-1.5 p. 150 - - 4- < [ o C-2 f C-3 e- r ex -e- Rock e.
' I ll
+ gax - X A-1 t
103 - - 1 50 ,' l l l 0 05 1 15 2 25 htixirnum acceleration (p,) I r -
i i System 80+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Shield Building, Vert. 300 r 250 -
/P / -X- B-1 B-1.5 9 <a 0 B-2 *^ ~
l K r >. B-3.5 2 [ : B-4 C 2 -+ ': g O C-1 13 ! 0 C-1.5
.-<> . t
^
150 - - C-2
, c.,
--n sh : Rock
-t 4
y3B
-x- A-1 no - -
e e e e e e e 4 5 a 4 4 4 4 0 42 04 0.f. 08 1 1.2 1.4 14 Maximum accelcration (g) 3 7s_ g y
System S0+, All Soil Cases, SSE, CMS 3, Shield Building, Vert. 300 30 -- + _ Il
-r- B-1 B-1.5 4h .
0 B-2
/
/
an - -
- > -*- B-3.5 2 ?
7 : B-4 1 h C-1 e L O'
, C-1.5 150 - -
--4 fI c C-2
, C-3
, ,, ya ll!I ~ x A-1 103 - -
i 50 g' 8 f ! g l O 4 f 4 s 4 0 02 04 0.6 08 1 1.2 1.4 34 Maximum acccleration (g) l l l
System 80+. All Soil Cases SSE, All Motions, All Buildings 300 250 - r 11 i i- 1r
! i f
O l E l c
\
150 -- {
$ l C f
! l
! I I !
100 --
- -1 i l
r , 50 -- 0 ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' I i I i 4 4 4 4 4 5 0 00E+00 5.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.50E+05 2 00E+05 2.50E+05 3.00E+ 05 330E+05 4.00E+ 05 430E+05 5.00E+05 Shear X (k)
; 3 n o - 9 s'
i t System S0+. All Soil Cases SSE, AII Motions, All Buildings 300 250 -
.r i
e 4., 7-__ yo . ll ) i l l i . i bv 8 a 150 -- E - _o < a p i l ! l , l 1(O -- _ 1 1
; i
-- ! I I l
! I 50 -- j j i
l l 0 I I f f g g I I I i 4 4 g g g O (CE +(M 5 (CE* (M 1.00E+ U5 1.50L.05 2(CE405 2 50E.05 3 D3E4 05 3.50E + 05 4 00E.05 4.50E+05 5 00E405 Shear X (L) i I 4 l I
System 80+. All Soil Cases SSE, All Motions, All Buildings 300 250 - m i' 2fX) -- S 8 ~~ g 150 D E t ICO ~~ l 50 -- , 0 8 f f , , I 3 4 3 g 0 00E+ 00 1.00E+ 05 2.00E+05 3 00E+05 4.00E+ 05 5 %E+05 6.00E+05 ' l Shear Y (k) l
; 37r 66
System 80+. All Soil Cases SSE, All Motions, AI! Buildings ' 300 250 - 200 . . I 2 v
'i~
i l o f g !$0 -- l l D iD 1(O -- l 50 -- O - I f , 4 3 I f g 3 4 O M E+(O 800E*05 2.00E
- 05 3COE+05 4 00E* D5 $ (on.05 610E+05 Shear Y (1)
System 80+ All Soil Cases SSE, All Motions, All Buildings 330 250 - - L 22, - J
\g g ; l b g 1 ,
j 150 --
}! ;
x t
\ %
im - -
\\
A., Ng \ w % so -- N 0 00E+00 5.00E+ 05 100E.07 1.50E+ M 2.00E4 07 2.50E+07 3.00E + 07 Moment X (k-h)
,3.9S - 97
i i
\
l System 80+. All Soil Cases SSE, All Motions, All Buildings 303 l t
\
,W
\
\
1 c O 3, 150
"~
~
\ ., s ^
'N;s %
,~
\, ,.
x s
%N hm~
o
\ $ \ \ \
ogn W $@E#* q93 01 g 3090' 1yS* *' 1 sos 01 39$5*W
,cc % 0'
~
System 80+. All Soil Cases SSE, All Motions, All Buildings no 2so - - i 200 -- 4 S 150 --
\1
~ x 7 , \\ so - - ' A N l 1 0 O M E+00 SDOE+06 1.00E+07 1.50E407 2.00E+ 07 230E+07 Moment Y (k-ft) 3-98-08 4e i
y System 80+. All Soil Cases SSE, All Motions, All Buildings 300 250 - - 200 -
- s 150 --
!? s Ns s
%K 8 8 4
OME+00 5.00E +% IIOE+ 07 1.50E407 2ME+07 230E+61 Moment Y (k ft)
CESSAR E!?discums (Sheet 3 of 3) a e (r EFFECTIVE PAGE LISTING (Cont'd) CHAPTER 2 Figures (Cont'd) Amendment 2.5-34 N 2.5-35 N 2.5-36 N 2.5-37 N 2.5-38 N 2 .r- 3 9 4 -- 0 z.S-4a s M2A , (
) 7
] f/
( 2 7 [7 c l 7 7 ' [
] (?
07 (7 ,
/ L L-7*'
!! A f?lE!i) y l
l l Amenduent N April 1, 1993 L
CESSAR neincariou (sneet 2 oz 33 EFFECTIVE PAGE LISTING (Cont'd) CHAPTER 2 , Tables Amendment-2.0-1 (Sheet 1) N 2.0-1 (Sheet 2) N 2.0-1 (Sheet 3) N 2.3-1 N 2.3-2 N 2.3-3 N f, - $ - l 0 s.5 1 A Ficures Amendment 2.5-1 I , 2.5-2 J 2.5-3 I 2.5-4 I 2.5-5 N 2.5-6 N 2.5-7 N 2.5-8 N 2.5-9 N 2.5-10 N 2.5-11 N 2.5-12 N . 2.5-13 N 2.5-14 N 2.5-15 N 2.5-16 N 2.5-17 N 2.5-18 N 2.5-19 N 2.5-20 N 2.5-21 N 2.5-22 N 2.5-23 N 2.5-24 N 2.5-25 N 2.5-26 N 2.5-27 N 2.5-28 N 2.5-29 N 2.5-30 N 2.5-31 N 2.5-32 N 2.5-33 N Amendment N April 1, 1993 \
CESSAR Eini"icuios LIST OF TABLES CIIAPTER 2 Table subject 2.0-1 Envelope of Plant Site Design Pararneters 2.3-1 Radiological Dilution Factors (x/Q) 2.3-2 Onsite Accident y/Q (sec/m ) Values 8 at the Control Room North Air Intake _, 3 2.3-3 Onsite Accident y/O (sec/m ) Values at the Control Room South Air Intake
'l . f - l Qi *,h; b Sf'- $ b'bh 3
[4.p op ;% pn P:JJ C a V" pg Sap t l /Lb, s/ 'b& ) gt o z3: t.yd s@l S J <~ h 2 AE fu6p 9 TA Sm - p.JJ Cpm 5/4
$ WW L a O ,
$l AfD Amendment N vi April 1, 1993
CESSAR n=ncy.os 1 LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) CHAPTER 2 Figure Subiect 2.5-28 Selected Smooth Spectrum and Spectrum for Synthetic Time History H1, CMS 1 2.5-29 SelectedSmoothbpectrumandSpectrumfor Synthetic Time History H2, CMS 1 2.5-30 Selected Smooth Spectrum and Spectrum fo Synthetic Vertical Time History CMS 1 2.5-31 Selected Smooth Spectrum and Spectrum for ' Synthetic Time History H1, CMS 3 2.5-32 Selected Smooth Spectrum and Spectrum for Synthetic Time History H2, CMS 3 ' [ 2.5-33 Selected Smooth Spectrum and Spectrum for Synthetic Vertical Time History CMS 3 2.5-34 Spectra at Ground Surface for All Soil Cases Using Synthetic Time History CMS 3, H1 2.5-35 Spectra at Foundation Level for All Soil Cases Using Synthetic Time History CMS 3, H1 2.5-36 Spectra at Ground Surface for All Soil Cases Using Vertical CMS 3 Synthetic Time History 2.5-37 Spectra at Foundation Level for All Soil Cases Using Vertical CMS 3 Synthetic Time History 2.5-38 Site Acceptance Criteria for Ground Motion 1 5 _ 39 Enecle)k eg Sc- Et(d Su % I" N tats o l Dde, c-/ D.g.rd we e ,.wup 4 pa- T.. Lt Cy V" (
\
y,3,e\ [h t:.e , 5/ D~fg em g.by/[DN Amendment N ix April 1, 1993
CESSAR nut"co,ou TABLE 2.0-1 (Cont'd) (Sheet 2 of 3) OfVELOPE OF PLANT SITE DESIGN PAPANETERS Extreme Wind Basic Wind Speed: Il0 h Importance Factors: 1.0g/1.11(5) Tornado (6) Maximum tornado wind speed: 330 mph - - - Rotational Speed: 260 mph Translational velocity: 70 mph Radius: 150 ft Maximum pressure differential: 2.4 psi - Rate of pressure drop: 1.7 psi /sec .M ),.,a c A Hissile spectra: per SRP 3.5.1.4 Spectrum II Soil Properties f X R Minimum Bearing Capacity (demand): 15ksf(stg/U) c) 30y %"i.u oarShear Wave Velocity: 500 ft/sec ~ thW[LTLiquefaction Potential: f1one (at site-specific SSE level) Seismology g SSE Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA): 0.30 g (8) SSE Response Spectra: Section 3.7.1 SSE Time History: Section 3.7.1 Aircraft Hazards Plant to airport distance Smi.< D <10mi. with annugl operation less than 500D or D>10mi. with an2 annual operation less than 10000 (D = distance in miles) Plant to edge of military D>Smi. with an annual operation training routes less than 1000 flights (D = distance in miles) Plant to edge of Federal airway, D>2mi. holding pattern, or airport (0 = distance in miles) Amendment II April 1, 1993
CESS AR Eini"cmou ( TABLE 2.0-1 (Cont'd) (Sheet 3 of 3) ENVELOPE OF PLANT SITE DESIGN PARAMETERS Meteorology Short-term dilution factor X/Q l.0x10-3; EAB - 500 meters Long-term diluticn factor X/Q 2.2x10-5; LPZ = 3000 meters NOTES: --
- 1. Probable maximum flood level (PMF), as defined in ANSI /ANS-2.8,
- Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites."
- 2. Maximum value for I hour I sq. mile PMP with ratio of 5 minutes to I hour PMP of .32, as found in National Weather Service Publication HMR No. 52.
- 3. Maximum normal power and normal shutdown temperature of the Station Service Water System Intake based on one percent exceedance meteorologic conditions. See item C of Section 9.2.5.1.3 for Ultimate Heat Sink temperature interface requirement for a design basis accident concurrent with a loss-of-offsite power.
- 4. 50-year recurrence interval; value to be utilized for design of non-safety-related structures only.
- 5. 100-year recurrence interval; value to be utilized for design of safety-related structures only.
- 6. 10,000,000-year tornado recurrence interval, with associated parameters based on the NRC's interim position on Regulatory Guide 1.76. Pressure effects associated with potential offsite explosions are assumed to be 1 non-controlling for the design.
- 7. Site profiles are given in Section 2.5.
- 8. The control motions are defined in Section 2.5.
n g, ]4 (t w b>owh a f:c3 b cJ f',rrdc o )hI
'^T I
y ,, K kn %) y c)euw:u % l- W A ' II ' l
\
.v. L < 5
,, q 74 (3 3% kduq s
l s Amendment N April 1, 1993 l l
CESSAR naincmos ~ 2.5 GEOLOGY, BEIBMOLOGY, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING To cover a range of possible site conditions where System 80+ may be constructed, a range of generic site conditions was selected for geologic and seismologic evaluation (Figure 2.5-1). The System 80+ is a standard plant design to be built on a suitable site. The basis for selecting any particular site is documented in the site-specific Safety Analysis Report (S?L). Site geologic features, seismological features, liquefact'.on potential, site instability, ground rupture and man-made conditions are included in the site-specific SAR. Site-specific investigations, including borings, are conducted in accordance with 10 CFR 50 and 100 (Reference 2) and Standard Review Plan 2.5 (Reference 3). Any deviations from Reference 3 are identified and justified in the site-specific SAR. The total depth to bedrock for each site condition and the dynamic soil properties (in terms of maximum shear wave velocities and their variation with depth, and in terms of the variations of modulus and damping with strain) were established to cover a wide range of sites and to provide reasonably conservative results. Using these site conditions and the variations of maximum shear wave velocities, 13 cases were developed; 12 soil cases and one rock outcrop case. .3,,The cases selected are summarized in Section 2.5.2, and more d tails for Q-each case are included in Appendix 2A. g For the System 80+ seismic design, three control motions were developed which, when combined cover the majority of potential
- sites in the continental U.S. Cit
- 0 acui ecti a fumito .mch s
-t#GFt a w Cu b fbmio are excludal The twelve generic soil sites \Q -
and one rock site were evaluated for each of the control motions. To cover sites with deep soil deposits, a control motion with a Regulatory Guide 1.60 spactral shape is used as the input motion to the ground surface of each site. To cover shallow soil sites, two rock notions applied at a hypothetical rock outcrop are used. The selection of the two rock outcrop motions was performed using , low frequency content consistent with industry-wide accepted response spectra, and high frequency content that exceeds the current industry practice. The enrichment of the rock outcrop motions with high frequency content is consistent with recent studies on Eastern North America seismicity and is a proactive measure of the System 80+ design in anticipation of future trends in the industry regarding seismic motions. The control motions described in this section are intended to provida future owners of System 80+ design with high confidence that the design is suitable for most sites in the United States. Amendment N 2.5-1 April 1, 1993
,- g ,-, 4--- _. --_r.E - ,.- - - - - - , . m . - + . , . s+,
jh) ~ l _ .. _ _ hA _E[___.p., Ny Ahn - . .ah bo 41, c tyr. 3 Gre. i M = -
- _ h -..
9- ' I i l l ~4 i ; i l i ! l k1h3 .A - _ a.Jb ? L w % ih m LJ M _ Si h l r_st-_- ~l M *W w- - aw.s.- ,.- . ohew . e.es gi.h 1 { f
-0 , W em.
4 . . - - . -.-..).. f4 & - Y_b 5 .- 4 , ' ; i i i fn' - Nf.%. / </_A 3 -}.__ /3 m ... . _ _ _ _ _ . __ - I ! i
.- -. .. _._ ~~ .. - . ._. ... ., .-_ _ . _ _. ... . _..._,-.._..l_.
}
i
-ee,..4--,a6--.v.-*v.=e-.ee-- q..m M w. a_. ,,,.g ,,,.- 4 .- . , ,y, m.,%.,%,,,p ,,w w,,
g _ t t ; 3 l
-- -- ^ ^ -
(
'. + * - .e . + ,,,
1 i ! 1 1 ] 4 s e if
. i l
1
~
CESS AR Enn"icuiou ; To assess whether a site is suitable for following construction of the Acceptance System 80+ Standard Design, both the Criteria (Site Conditions and SSE Ground Motions) nust be satisfied. l A. Site Conditions
- 1. The soil profile should have a (low-strain) shear wave velocity profile within the range shown in Figure 2.5-2. Although the' soil response of a specific new soil profile could differ from the results obtained for
- cach of the cases included in Reference 1, it would be covered by the envelope of the soil cases considered in the soil response analyses of Reference 1.
- 2. A soil site having a total depth to bedrock greater than that shown in Figure 2.5-1 is acceptable, because it would be covered by the soil cases analyzed.
- 3. All rock sites (with no soil deposits below the >
foundation level) are acceptable. N B. (SSE) Ground Motion The acceptance criteria for the Ground Motion are given in Figure 2.5.38. g_ Site-specific free-field response spectra at the ground surf ace and the-foundot.ivu elev I will be proviped by the COL applicant referencing the System 80+ Standayd Design. These spectra will be compared to the System SO+^ free-field spectra as outlined by the procedure in Figure 2.5-38. If a limited site-specific confirmatory analysis nust be '\ perforned, the in-structure spectra will be compared at the j following locations:
- a. Foundation Basemat Elevation +50 ft. f
- b. Interior Structure Elevation +91.75 ft. l
- c. Control Roon Elevation +115.5 ft. ((M b f
ci c.c ,JT8,c u re 04v4T w + t t$ . 5 W (ASIA E) , 44 Top of Steel Containment Vessel Elevation +251 ft.
& in1u.: < c,1 @ t %.t m , tw f i- _
l' l l> Y c) 2 Ho (L:be Tk ub(k = e lh
;% - { ;, \] q}n Tjkt~ ua 0 h Iw : ",Gl .L;f
..a i. i . a-.w: :,c, , rojk+ y!.3
- p. ,
2&I _.d IEA v N.Y{
<n c blN, ,N
' d UN 'J r Are ment P h, gl,,1) [1, . Q ,. f 2.5-I N June 15, 1993 pu4@a)
J Lf w n e; : 5- [1 u;m y$Prj f er.l.~Ia - m a l l
1
. -- gg . .
. . Atp):x.p c e w 37 i
_3 apd . _- _. _no -21 .
- 9 7,-_ure 1 4 _e m ,itA La m s Asy % : d_sAA p '
p TLskw wo__ 4 I i i l i i : ii: , ,
.npg, j J Al _ ,_ i L.I fr - h6 ! k! !
1 !_ !_.6 / i l /; ,
;<w gg- ,7 , 71 ; - ;i y
l y~yg , r ; 4- , _ _ _ . '. $_ . .n _ , h- 4ft .__J ,'_ q _ _ . { yy _ _ _4 . _ . C I W h' II JL $t , jt 3 : i) v. d ic I ):OS a l 5~ [ dnin p. d ; n
+ j.
a j f r f-2 I L l t k ! l I + 4 l . I ' e 4 i e , l
^
4 . 3 i' .
.--e+ - - - - - - , . . . - . - . . - - , . -- - +---e.w.-- -- e b -m
_ - . . . - _ -_._.4_._. ..__ ___.__________._-..-..._,___._e_. - - _ - _ . _ _ . . _ , _ _-.-
- e - . = . .e. ,me-*.==m.ep- --- - - + - - - - -m_e..ee-----e m. - am- ww-w e es- + ewe -
mm-*wg------ e. -
-e .h m
--a.* _.e ..e. . _ m= -.-.ep-e-e, eee-
+w -. - ., . m a>w -
c- . e .e e .= -.m-. g e e 5'
- - - - - - . - - - - = = - - - - . . --e,-- -- -e-.------ . - . - - - -+ =
== .w - - a wm -
. =
e.% --% m. -~h.,. .. + 4 -m -- ' as-=- *= *:-- ** * *-*- =, w ea eh
- wm
*. -e - e -m. ga.-, e e-,e e e i
i b
C ESS ARycxTr6r
~
ptSgam i 0- 0;5 Son'5 (* ' UE ON E ^Y E"bI^YffS~ Appendix C). For analyses involving the vertical component, the strain- onpatible shear moduli were converted to constrained moduliPmed [e strain-compatible damping values were multiplied l by 1/3 to provide an estimate of the damping associated with the propagation of p-waves. The same strain iterated soil properties were also used in the SSI analyses involving the CMS 1 motion. As discussed in Section 3.7.1, in the SSI analyses, the CMS 1 motion was applied at the free-field ground surface. 2.5.2.7.2 Results Spectra curves from the CMS 2 analyses are presented in Figures l 2.5-10 through 2.5-27. Figures 2.5-10 through 2.5-12 show the spectral ordinates considered using calculated synthetic time at thehistory ground surface (CMS 2) forasall cases H1 input l motion. The corresponding spectra calculated at the foundation level are shown in Figures 2.5-13 through 2.5-15. The spectra calculated at the free field ground surface using synthetic time history (CMS 2) H2 are presented in Figures 2.5-16 through 2.5-18 l and those at the foundation level in the free field are presented in Figures 2.5-19 through 2.5-21. The corresponding spectra for the vertical component are presented in Figures 2.5-22 through 2.5-27. Spectra curves from the CMS 3 analyses are presented in Figures 2.5-34 through 2.5-37. Figure 2.5-34 shows the spectral ordinates calculated at the ground surface for all cases considered using synthetic time history (CMS 3) H1 as input motion. The corresponding H1 spectra calculated at the foundation level are shown in Figure 2.5-35. Figure 2.5-36 shows the spectral ordinates calculated at the ground surface for all cases considered using the CMS 3 vertical synthetic time history j ss input motion. The corresponding vertical spectra calculated at the foundation level are shown in Figure 2.5-37. The responses for the 12 soil cases were obtained using conservative approaches for selecting the free field rock outcrop motion, the range of soil profiles including deptho, variation of shear wave velocities with depth and velocity contrasts together with the dynamic material properties. The results depicted in Figures 2.5-10 through 2.5-27 are applicable to a wide range of soil deposits. Thus, a soil profile for which the distribution of maximum shear wave velocities with depth is within the range shown in Figure 2.5-2 would have a response well covered by the results although the I results for a specific new case could differ from the results j obtained for each of the cases analyzed. Potential site Amendment N 2.5-8 April 1, 1993
H Page #1 "Soi1Env1pH.kal" , Friday, June 18 10:27 AM 1993 S [I Wtncj
, M( Y L:fCtfE CJtdAfAh YDmfi 0.100 0.01000 0.200 0.0500 0.300 0.150 0.400 0.280 0.500 0.510 0.700 0.600 0.950 0.950 1.20 0.950 1.45 1.05 1.90 1.85 '
2.00 1.95 2.60 1.95 2.90 1.75 4.00 1.75 4.50 1.60 7.00 1.45 9.00 1.45 13.0 1.45 14.0 1.24 18.0 1.24 20.0 1.02 28.0 1.02 40.0 0.570 100 0.570 TJA 2. E - l
);9pArpe%9 s %Dn=% & K '
E a p & +t~2 Fu.e-FhM Ygaa Speck
& A Ww3 A /W, s2 .0-piny ,
KLk 75'c.e ,)) N lh G su p, I.m l e
Page #1 'Soi1Env1pv.kal" Friday, June 18 10:38 AM 1993 FJ S$fk Ofdinb l I ' Sfo Ogi W 0.100 0.01000 0.200 0.0300 0.600 0.150 1.00 0.500 1.50 1.63 1.80 1.63 2.00 2.10 2.50 2.10 2.75 1.50 ' 3.00 1.50 3.60 2.05 4.50 2.05 5.50 1.45 7.00 1.45 8.00 1.07 10.0 1.07 13.0 1.40 16.0 1.40 38.0 0.650 50.0 0.600 100 0.600 t i
/ A 25-2 .
4
- Finvape d L Fa gen S' SP&I luched A16krn, 5l4 .o~piy
& & l
,./ l
< ' ),tc 4th 1f&
s M 'a !
,d Ahy
\
h
" T i e
q , M
& //
/
/
// / // 8
\
/. , /'l ,
N
' 'h f
.- / / o m e MN
/
$ / /' "8 y
-'~
/
a.
// // g ga
*5k,% bi 2
y
=
/ ,
,/ ,
//
/'/
/
/ /- ,
= n1 N, .
! P ' *
- a !
e O k ' D ' h: $ b
! 4 e, 2 8 .. I 8 0 0 E O E i
i Amendment I f. December 21,1[/ l { RANGE OF SHEAR WAVE VELOCITIES h FOR ALL CASES CONSIDERED 2.5-2
lei N ltn M Spectral Acceleration (damping 5%) - g B - 1. 6 Ynput Time History c Ground Surt cc , Synth TH H2
, 1.4 (
gh ;-- B - S. 6 ng 1.2 1" B - 3. 6 i. Q
*4
-_) } \ Y) i \
go 1.0 n Y a b t
]
t p B - 1* 6 Er , 0
%'s O.B
-0 -
l,
'i\'n
\
(
,)
=m l -
l8 c- 1.6 j < ( - ~ ~
%}, \/
eG O. 6 i <
-r n ;
}{ ,l ly f- 18-3.5
%8 0.4 C-1 S l ~J \
h9 ly e, B-1.6 Outcrop
-m gg 0.2 j f <
- 0. 0 ,
"* 10 10 0 z? >> OI 1 "em 2e Frequency - bz
= g
-a
.e
" m
? 8"a=
7 . s
.f N
Defru Seu h I k k Deep Soil Seu er wg shalia. 5 1 Lu I I f T br=caap bis Specdic Deweaop km fvwleend Surface 5pecafs Rock $cecars 5g= cars r3 few,) (Ss threpew) Harummat a vow.ar Henaarsal a. varsual
- 5 " WK AY,5'% Dem heCMst er Campn she $pectac Sd*2tS ecurs P
Rock (Hay,3% wisse specne from 04s2 er 3. Campers sac g W" f**'shmen tsve! specare (Ha v. S t te O4st.0452 er 04s3 IWh* I'"'shnan newd =szra from 04st. (HaV.3% Duepmg) 04S7or 042 P Art sis-quxsfac artum spaces Art snwcjaped by wenope of s+We r.1 specare s.arfe:4 spews, and a r seu specifs Ioundancm leveJ enwdaped h - ' CMst. cms 2 N" ranauca Yep car D.
= {NO NOl e CMsi.
CMss t j i cms 2 a m Yu L-- - vts Art m a NO in ea m
'g 7 :
s=Mc of w m=a y (1-20 Hz) YU i
/. he
=
NO M c. .m u, ( # M~ s hw
.iu .w.w YES by lunsand anc specifs m wa (Campm =por== am ia % w. = m %
dcfmed in CGsAR*)
% .)
b s.u m%
% sma m -oop.
e#5emainac Cracna, CONFIRMATOR Y sn1SPfCDC EVALUATION RFQL"IFID ku a awcaped
- h sm w amw ~
of sc2sinnc Cnuna.
= systua so.is CLRE QED 50R nas srrt Amendment f4 April 1,1993 [
Figurb
/
SITE ACCEPTAf1CE CRITERIA FOR GROUf4D MOTIOf4 , ffgg j 2.5 38
DrIme Site Charscieris6cs i I f k k Rock Sde Deep Soil Site or Shalber Soil Site
~
, P P Deveky Sne
- pe,egap sine Specire Spedfic Rock liee. Field Surface Spectra 5 a ,
f 5% hmping) (5% Dampmg) ' Hartsantal & Verucal ikmwaa! & Verncal U 1r i Compare Site Specife i Rock Specurs (H&V,5% Compare Size Specife
- Damping) to errvelope of Surface Spectra (IIAV,5% Dampmg)to a.wekte of
- CMSI, CMS 2 and CMS 3 CMSI and maface spectra from CMS 2 ard CMS 3.
(H&V,5% Dampmg) , i Are Are siis specific site-specirac rock spectra surface spectra cuveloped by enveloped by envelope of envelope of surface specars frorn CMSI, CMSI, CMS 2 NO CMS 2 and and I NOl g CMS 37 CMS 3 7 l l 1 + m L- ___._' _t r , m ! ts o,e rite =eradie by smeied site specife evaluadon? YES (Compare resparase to design T basis at the locations defined in MAR Section 2.5. For size to be M 8te Sile-SpcCifaC 'i respor.se spectral emplita:les at [ any frequency at cada specified location nuast be within 10% over the design envelope correspondsig so that locadort) L J i NO 1r i Site era enveloped by Systern W envelope of Seismic Criteria; CONFIRMAMRY
$fTE SPEf!FlC EVAlllAT10N I REQUIRED i
Site is enveloped
- - by Systens W envelope of Scienic Crneria; -
_ SYSTEM W IS (LKiuusFOR THIS StTE fac ucentancerwiteria ' r - ~. l i4:ec t kD-JJ
r i u y , h w
-Q g k i
.: . . . , o l--t
+-+
4 Mmi 2 r *--!
.~.
, v-i . I -,i
-} .
I b-g.-m! : i *
--.n g
w e-. M. '7-i
- l 7 j7 "~l> : : T: '
. - - + - ..~-. .
-- l Il 1
s j 5 i
,--+
cc
.u
--+ p -
O c) C) # t. O. C ' (f) a., ! 4 I o oE! O CU (U *i J I } ^ I i ~ N
+
o $' LO$h ' - 1
' -. - -r -.
} -
CD "O . i
'j i j
y O EEC c) LL :O= l .
? C c)
U) 6O s} 3 i ! a i ) g y .. -e- CT
.q p -
g W$m -II 1 , c3 .y_ r, r, -+-i- +-i-i - 4, s ss s s~ .a,s n.s t s l$ .b$
'. b. .
w.= O O" i - ii- l i 5I y
- ?
! i C i W [
V p+
.!-. : .i t - -
-e-a-5 t
i I
-p-.e .
d l -
?
i t-~ l f I
, .g s. i h-4 -d - h 4- ,.--e .
---+~.4.
i i i ; I t I 'I. d . i f f I f i i t i i a 1 I o l i ( P o N.o o.o o o o Wo o o o o o oo V. m m m ,- ,- - - - CD. O. V. . o. CO. O. V. N. o. o o o a o (6) UODEJOlOODy 1 i I l l 1
l. T v, u
- : . . ; .: : : 7 .
N o k 9 M,".' T s- i.~~T * ^ i s-s -.1~i -+ - a i i i
-5.-- -4 -- -d 4- ,
1, i ! , .i- t ,
,i i ii! : i
- i. I 1 .
I 2 i !
,a w
; .a -
- i?
o g i s o , !
& 0) ' 2 I m .C ,
i o e al oE- - CU CU g j ^ toa I o+ms 7 o . ~ o 4 4-.4~ i.-.i ; m u m'
..-.4--
i - r i i i ' t.- x o i i Ec c O
. ?
rr I C c mm% =c .i
, 3
- _.i i
3 a-
>. o O . - - ,
o mg2 : i i j i i 1 u __su ., O o-5 i j .
. r o, o _-- m t
., i.
t Q. o !1 i! a.-.i! t _o :> -
- i. . . ,_
Q *
. i i !
.> t ; i ,! .
c _+ . tu
..-. i . ! -.i--
i
.,-.:-.-4-., - . - . , _ . . . - -
I. f i t f o T"" o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
-r. m. o. m. m. v. m. o. m. e. v. m. o.
m m m - .- .- .- .- o o o o o ! (6) uoneJalecoy
CESSAR naincmou TABLE 2C-1 STRAIN COMPATIBLE MODULUS AND DAMPING VALUES Il0RIZONTAL MOTIONS PEAK ACCELERATION = 0.3 g CASE A - 1 No. Depth Range Avg. Depth Shear Modulus Damping Ratio 1 (ft) (f+) (Ast) 1 0 to 5 2.5 12,215 0.008 2 5 to 10 7.5 13,243 - 0.012 3 10 to 20 15.0 13,719 0.017 4 20 to 30 25.0 14,211 0.022 5 30 to 40 35.0 14,740 0.025 6 40 to 52 46.0 15,437 0.027 7 Below 52 Base 97,000 0.020 CASE B - 1 I No. Depth Range Avg. Depth Shear Modulus Damping Ratio (~F+) (S4) (ks+2 s 1 0 to 5 2.5 12,218 0.008 2 5 to 10 7.5 13,227 0.012 3 10 to 20 15.0 13,608 0.018 4 20 to 30 25.0 14,091 0.023 5 30 to 40 35.0 14,630 0.026 6 40 to 52 46.0 15,329 0.027 7 52 to 60 56.0 16,026 0.029 8 60 to 80 70.0 16,661 0.031 9 80 to 100 90.0 17,825 0.033 10 Below 100 Base 97,000 0.020 i i Amendment I December 21, 1990
CESSAR nn%uion l ( TABLE 2C-2 STRAIN COMPATIBLE MODULUS AND DAMPING VALUES HORIZONTAL HOTIONS PEAK ACCELERATION - 0.3 g CASE B - 2 No. Depth Range Avg. Depth Shear Modulus Damping Ratio (.f+ ) (++) (LSD 1 0 to 5 2.5 3,852 0.013 2 5 to 10 7.5 3,677 - 0.025 3 10 to 20 15.0 3,397 0.039 4 20 to 30 25.0 3,252 0.048 5 30 to 40 35.0 3,203 0.055 6 40 to 52 46.0 3,208 0.062 7 52 to 60 56.0 3,207 0.067 8 60 to 80 70.0 3,254 0.072 9 80 to 100 90.0 3,468 0.075 10 Below 100 Base 97,000 0.020 I CASE B - 3 No. Depth Range Avg. Depth Shear Modulus Damping Ratio (f+) (f4 ) (Esf) 1 0 to 5 2.5 906 0.021 2 5 to 10 7.5 775 0.040 3 10 to 20 15.0 635 0.064 4 20 to 30 25.0 523 0.088 5 30 to 4.0 35.0 468 0.101 6 40 to 52 46.0 468 0.107 ~ 7 52 to 60 56.0 500 0.106 8 60 to 80 70.0 548 0.104 9 80 to 100 90.0 633 0.098 10 Below 100 Base 97,000 0.020 l l Amendment I December 21, 1990
CESSAR Eini"icuion TA8LE 2C-3 STRAIN COMPATIBLE H0DULUS AND DAMPING VALUES Il0R120NIAL N0110NS PEAK ACCELERATION = 0.3 g CASE B - 4 No. Depth Range Avg. Depth Shear , Modulus Damping Ratio (.++ > (f+) 2.5 (tsO 1 0 to 5 869 0.025 2 5 to 10 7.5 687 0.050 3 10 to 20 15.0 543 0.079 4 20 to 30 25.0 450 0.099 5 30 to 40 35.0 419 0.112 6 40 to 52 46.0 372 0.128 7 52 to 60 56.0 17,508 0.019 8 60 to 80 70.0 18,474 0.021 9 80 to 100 90.0 19,903 0.022 10 Below 100 Base 97,000 0.020 I CASE C - 1
- No. Depth Range Avg. Death Shear Modulus Damping Ratio (H) (f+) ( Rst->
1 0 to 5 2.5 12,161 0.008 2 5 to 10 7.5 13,204 0.013 3 10 to 20 15.0 13,520 0.018 4 20 to 30 25.0 14,024 0.023 5 30 to 40 35.0 14,558 0.026 6 40 to 52 46.0 15,150 0.029 7 52 to 60 56.0 15,548 0.031 8 60 to 80 70.0 16,249 0.034 9 80 to 100 90.0 17,738 0.034 10 100 to 120 110.0 20,709 0.032 11 120 to 140 130.0~ 19,927 0.036 12 140 to 160 150.0 21,602 0.036 13 160 to 180 170.0 23,298 0.036 14 180 to 200 190.0 22,812 0.038 15 Below 200 Base 97,000 0.020 i l l Amendment I l December 21, 1990
~ !
CESSAR nabuou l TraLE 2C-4 STRAIN COMPATIBLE MODULUS AND DAMPING VALUES HORIZONTAL NOTIONS PEAK ACCELERATION = 0.3 g CASE C - 2 No. Dept,h Range Avg. Depth Shear Modulus Damping Ratio L-Pf' (E+) (tsp) 1 0 to 5 2.5 912 0.020 2 5 to 10 7.5 786 - 0.039 3 10 to 20 15.0 650 0.062 4 20 to 30 25.0 545 0.085 5 30 to 40 35.0 517 0.093 6 40 to 52 46.0 517 0.097 7 52 to 60 56.0 530 0.100 8 60 to 80 70.0 587 0.097 9 80 to 100 90.0 622 0.100 10 100 to 120 110.0 898 0.083 11 120 to 140 130.0 856 0.087 12 140 to 160 150.0 951 0.085 , 13 160 to 180 170.0 1,029 0.085 i 14 180 to 200 19C.0 919 0.093 15 Below 200 Base 97,000 0.020 CASE C - 3 No. Depth Range Avg. Depth Shear, Modulus Damping Ratio GP+) (F+) L kst) 1 0 to 5 2.5 887 0.023 2 5 to 10 7.5 728 0.045 3 10 to 20 15.0 579 0.073 4 20 to 30 25.0 494 0.092 5 30 to 40 35.0 487 0.097 6 40 to 52 46.0 470 0.107 7 52 to 60 56.0 496 0.107 8 60 to 80 70.0 534 0.107 9 80 to 100 90.0 602 0.104 10 100 to 120 110.0 24,260 0.015 11 120 to 140 130.0 23,506 0.019 12 140 '.o 160 150.0 25,028 0.021 13 160 to 180 170.0 26,775 0.022 14 180 to 200 190.0 26,340 0.024 15 Below 200 Base 97,000 0.020 Amendment I December 21, 1990 l
CESSAR na%uiou TABLE 2C-5
-STRAIN COMPATIBLE MODULUS AND DAMPING VALUES HORIZONIAL N0TIONS PEAK ACCELERATION = 0.3 g CASE D - 1 No. Dept,b Range Avg. Septh Shear, Modulus Damping Ratio
(++) (F4) (tif) 1 0 to 5 2.5 905 0.021 2 5 to 10 7.5 767 0.041 3 10 to 20 15.0 618 0.067 4 20 to 30 25.0 504 0.091 5 30 to 40 35.0 481 0.098 6 40 to 52 46.0 509 0.098 I 7 52 to 60 56.0 529 0.101 8 60 to 80 70.0 585 0.098 9 80 to 100 90.0 602 0.104 10 100 to 120 110.0 888 0.084 11 120 to 140 130.0 847 0.088 r' 12 140 to 160 150.0 916 0.088 (' 13 160 to 180 170.0 976 0.089 14 180 to 200 190.0 855 0.098 15 200 to 220 210.0 31,726 0.016 16 220 to 240 230.0 30,588 0.020 17 240 to 260 250.0 30,793 0.024 18 260 to 280 270.0 31,840 0.024 19 280 to 300 290.0 31,597 0.025 20 Below 300 Base 97,000 0.020 i Amendment I , December 21, 1990
CESSAR naincmou TABLE 2C-6 STRAIN COMPATIBLE MODULUS AND DAMPING VALUES Il0RIZONTAL H0TIONS PEAK ACCELERATION = 0.3 g CASE B - 1.5 No. Depth Range Avg. Depth Shear Modulus Damping Ratio (++) (.F+) (tsf) 1 0 to 5 2.5 7,658 0.010 2 5 to 10 7.5 7,595 0.019 3 10 to 20 15.0 7,600 0.027 4 20 to 30 25.0 7,454 0.036 5 30 to 40 35.0 7,434 0.041 6 40 to 52 46.0 7,522 0.045 7 52 to 60 56.0 7,745 0.047 8 60 to 80 70.0 8,287 0.047 9 80 to 100 90.0 8,901 0.049 10 Below 100 Base 97,000 0.020 I CASE B - 3.5 No. Depth flange Avg._ Depth Shear _ Modulus Damping Ratio (+H L++) (Lsf)
] O to 5 2.5 1,246 0.026 2 5 to 10 7.5 982 0.050 3 10 to 20 15.0 770 0.080 4 20 to 30 25.0 588 0.109 5 30 to 40 35.0 604 0.112 6 40 to 52 46.0 655 0.110 7 52 to 60 56.0 6,568 0.036 8 60 to 80 70.0 6,850 0.038 9 80 to 100 90.0 7,211 0.041 10 Below 100 Base 97,000 0.020 l
l Ame nd raent I December 21, 1990
CESSAR 8Enincmou TABLE 2C-7 STRAIN COMPATIBLE MODULUS AND DAMPING VALUES ll0RIZONTAL MOTIONS ' PEAK ACCELERATION = 0.3 g i CASE C - 1.5 No. Dept,h Range Avg._ Depth Shear _ Mod _ulus Damping Ratio ( F+) (q+) (kst) 1 0 to 5 2.5 3,862 0.012 2 5 to 10 7.5 3,726 0.024 3 10 to 20 15.0 3,583 - 0.034 4 20 to 30 25.0 3,478 0.043 , 5 30 to 40 35.0 3,504 0.047 5 40 to 52 46.0 3,653 0.049 7 52 to 60 56.0 3,700 0.052 8 60 to 80 70.0 3,851 0.056 9 80 to 100 90.0 4,191 0.056 ! 10 100 to 120 110.0 4,953 0.053 11 120 to 140 130.0 4,640 0.060 12 140 to 160 150.0 5,157 0.057 13 160 to 180 170.0 5,653 0.056 14 180 to 200 190.0 5,595 0.057 15 Below 200 Base 97,000 0.020 I 3 l Amendment I December 21, 1990
CESSAR MMincuiou >
~
TABLE 2C-8 HODULUS AND DAMPING VALUES VERTICAL HOTION PEAK ACCELERATION = 0.2 g CASE A - 1 No. JDeh Range Avg._ Depth Cnstrnd. Hod. Damping Ratio LP+) (R) (ts-F) 1 0 to 5 2.5 73,290 0.0027 2 5 to 10 7.5 79,458 0.0040 3 10 to 20 15.0 82,314 0.0057 4 20 to 30 25.0 85,266 0.0073 5 30 to 40 35.0 88,440 0.0083 6 40 to 52 46.0 92,622 0.0090 7 Below 52 Base 302,000 0.0067 CASE B - 1 f No. Depth Range Avg. Depth Cnstrnd. Hod. Damping Ratio (P) (f+1 ( A:st) - 1 0 to 5 2.5 73,308 0.0027 2 5 to 10 7.5 79,362 0.0040 ( - 3 10 to 20 15.0 81,648 0.0060 20 to 30 1 4 25.0 84,546 0.0077 5 30 to 40 35.0 87,780 0.0087 6 40 to 52 46.0 91,974 0.0090 7 52 to 60 56.0 96,156 0.0097 8 60 to 80 70.0 99,966 0.0103 9 80 to 100 90.0 106,950 0.0110 ' 10 Below 100 Base 302,000 0.0067 NOTES: o Constrained moduli are obtained using the corresponding strain-compatible shear moduli for the cases listed in Tables 2C-1 through 2C-7, and a Poisson's ratio of 0.4 o Damping ratios are approximately 1/3 the corresponding strain-compatible damping ratios listed in these tables. 1 Amendment I December 21, 1990 1
CESSAR nui*icariou f TABLE 2C-9 HODULUS AND DAMPlNG VALUES VERTICAL MOTION PEAK ACCELERATION - 0.2 g CASE B - 2 No. Depth Range Avg. Depth Cnstrnd._ Mod. Damping Ratio (.S+ ) (E-f) (K s4) 1 0 to 5 2.5 23,112 0.0043 2 5 to 10 7.5 22,062 0.0083 3 10 to 20 15.0 20,382 0.0130 4 20 to 30 25.0 19,512 0.0160 5 30 to 40 35.0 19,218 0.0183 6 40 to 52 46.0 19,248 0.0207 7 52 to 60 56.0 19,242 0.0223 8 60 to 80 70.0 19,524 0.0240 9 80 to 100 90.0 20,808 0.0250 10 Below 100 Base 302,000 0.0067 CASE B - 3 No. Depth Range Avg. Depth Cnstrnd. Mod. Damping Ratio (f4 ) (.Q+) ( l' l't") I 1 0 to 5 2.5 5,436 0.0070 2 5 to 10 7.5 4,650 0.0133 3 10 to 20 15.0 3,810 0.0213 4 20 to 30 25.0 3,138 0.0293 5 30 to 40 35.0 2,808 0.0337 6 40 to 52 46.0 2,808 0.0357 7 52 to 60 56.0 3,000 0.0353 8 60 to 80 70.0 3,288 0.0347 9 80 to 100 90.0 3,798 0.0327 10 Below 100 Base 302,000 0.0067 lIUTE$: o Constrained moduli are obtained using the corresponding strain-compatible shear moduli for the cases listed in Tables 2C-1 through 2C-7, and a Poisson's ratio of 0.4. o Damping ratios are approximately 1/3 the corresponding strain-compatible damping ratios listed in these tables. t Anendment I December 21, 1990 :
CESSAR E!="cmou f' i ( TABLE 2C-10 H000LUS AND D/JiPING VALUES VERTICAL HOTION PEAK ATCELERATION = 0.2 g CASE B - 4 No. Depth Range Avg. JDep.th Cnstrnd., Mod. Damping Ratio L4'4) L Yr) { tst ) 1 0 to 5 2.5 5,214 0.0083 2 5 to 10 7.5 4,122 0.0167 3 10 to 20 15.0 3,258 0.0263 4 20 to 30 25.0 2,700 0.0330 5 30 to 40 35.0 2,514 0.0373 6 40 to 52 46.0 2,232 0.0427 7 52 to 60 56.0 105,048 0.0063 8 60 to 80 70.0 110,844 0.0070 9 80 to 100 90.0 119,418 0.0073 10 Below 100 Base 302,000 0.0067
~I C ASE C - I No. Dept,h Range Avg. Depth Cnstrnd._ Mod. Damping Ratio
~
(F4) (P) (. L s+) 1 0 to 5 2.5 72,966 0.0027 2 5 to 13 7.5 79,224 0.0043 3 10 to 20 15.0 81,120 0.0060 4 20 to 30 25.0 84,144 0.0077 5 30 to 40 35.0 87,348 0.0087 6 40 to 52 46.0 90,900 0.0097 7 52 to 60 56.0 93,288 0.0103 8 60 to 80 70.0 97,494 0.0113 9 80 to 100 90.0 106,428 0.0113 10 100 to 120 110.0 124,254 0.0107 11 120 to 140 130.0 119,562 0.0120 12 140 to 160 150.0 129,612 0,0120 13 160 to 180 170.0 139,788 0.0120 14 180 to 200 190.0 136,872 0.0127-15 Below 200 Base 302,000 0.0067 ROTES: o Constrained moduli are obtained using the corresponding strain-compatible shear moduli for the cases listed in Tables 2C-1 through 2C-7, and a Poisson's ratio of 0.4. o Damping ratios are approximately 1/3 the corresponding " strain-compatible damping ratios listed in these tables. Amendment I December 21, 1990
1 CESSAR nM?icuion ( i TABLE 2C-Il MODULUS AND DN(PING VALUES VDlTICAL NOTION PEAK ACCELERATION = 0.2 g CASE C - 2 No. Depth Range Avg. Depth Cnstrnd. Mod. Damping Ratio L-H )- (f+) C ks0 1 0 to 5 ' 2.5 5,472 0.0667 2 5 to 10 7.5 4,716 0.0130 3 10 to 20 15.0 3,900 0.0207 4 20 to 30 25.0 3,270 0.0283 5 30 to 40 35.0 3,102 0.0310 6 40 to 52 46.0 3,102 0.0323 7 52 to 60 56.0 3,180 0.0333 8 60 to 80 70.0 3,522 0.0323 9 80 to 100 90.0 3,732 0.0333 10 100 to 120 110.0 5,388 0.0277 11 120 to 140 130.0 3,136 0.0290 12 140 to 160 150.0 5,706 0.0283 ('s 13 160 to 180 170.0 6,174 0.0283 14 180 to 200 190.0 5,514 0.0310 15 Below 200 Base 302,000 0.0067 I CASE C - 3 No. DepJh Range Avg. Depth Castrnd. Mod. Damping Ratio (4 +A CQ) . (Eff) 1 0 to 5 2.5 - . 5,322 . 0.0077 2 5 to 10 7.5 4,368 0.0150 3 10 to 20 15.0 3,474 0.0243 4 20 to 30 25.0 2,964 0.0307 5 30 to 40 35.0 2,922 0.0323 6 40 to 52 46.0 2,820 0.0357
- 7 52 to 60 56.0 2,976 0.0357 8 60 to 80 70.0 3,204 0.0357 9 80 to 100 90.0 3,612 0.0347 10 100 to 120 110.0 145,560 0.0050 11 120 to 140 130.0 141,036 0.0063 12 140 to 160 150.0 150,168 0.0070 13 160 to 180 170.0 160,650 0.0073 14 180 to 200 190.0 158,040 0.0080 15 Below 200 Base 302,000 0.0067 N0l ES: o Constrained moduli are obtained using the corresponding strain-compatible shear moduli for the cases listed in Tables 2C-1 through 2C-7, and a Poisson's ratio of 0.4.
o Damping ratios are approximately 1/3 the corresponding 6 strain-compatible damping ratios listed in these tables. Amendment I December 23, 1990
CESSAR nn?",cmo~ TABLE 2C-12 HODllLUS AND 0/MPING VALUES VFRTICK O UTION PEAK KCCELERATION = 0.2 g CASE D - 1 No. Depth Range Avg. Depth Cnstrnd._ Hod. Damping Ratio (.F f ) ( f 4) ( t 50 1 0 to 5 2.5 5,430 0.0070 2 5 to 10 7.5 4,602 0.0137 3 10 to 20 15.0 3,708 0.0223 4 20 to 30 25.0 3,024 0.0303 5 30 to 40 35.0 2,886 0.0327 6 40 to 52 46.0 3,054 0.0327 7 52 to 60 56.0 3,174 0.0337 8 60 to 80 70.0 3,510 0.0327 9 80 to 100 90.0 3,612 0.0347 10 100 to 120 110.0 5,328 0.0280
.11 120 to 140 130.0 5,082 0.0293 12 140 to 160 150.0 5,496 0.0293 13 160 to 180 f-170.0 5,856 0.0297 (
14 180 to 200 190.0 5,130 0.0327 C 15 200 to 220 210.0 190,356 0.0053 : 16 220 to 240 230.0 183,528 0.0067 ; 17 240 to 260 250.0 184,758 0.0080 : 18 260 to 280 270.0 191,040 0.0080 19 280 to 300 290.0 189,582 0.0083 20 Below 300 Base 302,000 0.0067 h01ES: o Constrained moduli are obtained using the corresponding strain-compatible shear moduli for the cases listed in Tables ! 2C-1 through 2C-7, and a Poisson's ratio of 0.4. o Damping ratios are approximately 1/3 the corresponding strain-compatible damping ratios listed in these tables. i I i Amendment I December 21, 1990
CESSAR nui",cuiou ! 4 ( TABLE 2C-13 HODilLUS AND DAMPING VALUES VERTICAL NOTION PEAK ACCELERATION - 0.2 g CASE B - 1.5 No. Depth Range Avg. Depth Damping Ratio Cnstrnd._ Mod. (F)N (-f4) (k.s4') 1 0 to 5 2.5 73,308' O.0033 2 5 to 10 7.5 79,362 . 0.0063 3 10 to 20 15.0 81,648 0.0090 4 20 to 30 25.0 84,546 0.0120 5 30 to 40 35.0 87,780 0.0137 6 40 to 52 46.0 91,974 0.0150 7 52 to 60 56.0 96,156 0.0157 I 8 60 to 80 70.0 99,966 0.0157 9 80 to 100 90.0 106,950 0.0163 10 Below 100 Base 302,000 0.0067 f- CASE B - 3.5 k No. Depth Range Avg. Depth Cnstrnd._ Mod. Damping Ratio (F+P (f+) C t.s+) 1 0 to 5 2.5 7,476 O.0087 2 5 to 10 7.5 5,892 0.0167 3 10 to 20 15.0 4,620 0.0267 4 20 to 30 25.0 3,528 0.0363 5 30 to 40 35.0 3,624 0.0373 6 40 to 52 46.0 3,930 0.0367 7 52 to 60 56.0 39,408 0.0120 8 60 to 80 70.0 41,100 0.0127 9 80 to 100 90.0 43,266 0.0137 10 Below 100 Base 302,000 0.0067 I401ES: o Constrained moduli are obtained using ;the corresponding strain-compatible shear moduli for the cases listed in Tables 2C-1 through 2C-7, and a Poisson's ratio of 0.4. o Damping ratios are approximately 1/3 the corresponding strain-compatible damping ratios listed in these tables. , Amendment I December 21, 1990
CESSAR naincu,ou ; TABLE 2C-14 ' H0DULUS AND DAMPING VALUES VERTICAL HOTION PEAK ACCELERATION = 0.2 g CASE C - 1.5 No. Depth Range Avg. , Depth Cnstrnd. Mod. Damping Ratio 1 0(to5f+)s L.f 4) M r-FA 2.5 23,172 0.0080 2 5 to 10 7.5
~
22,356 3 10 to 20 . 0.0080 15.0 21,498 0.0113 4 20 to 30 25.0 20,868 5 30 to 40 0.0143 35.0 21,024 0.0157 6 40 to 52 46.0 21,918 7 52 to 60 0.0163 56.0 22,200 0.0173 8 60 to 80 70.0 23,106 0.0187 9 80 to 100 90.0 25,146 1 10 100 to 120 0.0187 110.0 29,718 0.0177 11 120 to 140 130.0 27,840 12 140 to 160 0.0200 ' 150.0 30,942 0.0190 13 160 to 180 170.0 33,918 14 15 180 to 200 Below 200 190.0 Base 33,570 302,000 0.0187 0.0190 . (- t 0.0067 NOTES: o Constrained moduli are obtained using the corresponding strain-compatible shear moduli for the cases listed in Tables 2C-1 through 2C-7, and a Poisson's ratio of 0.4. o Damping ratios are approximately 1/3 the corresponding strain-compatible damping ratios listed in these tables. Amendment I December 21, 1990
9 - CESSAR natr,ccio- > 4 ; 6 t basis events will be prov'ded by the Safety Injection System. 6 Pressure control will be System. The ovided by the Safety Depressurization ! Safety Injection System and the Safety Depressurization 1 Syste are described in further detail in q [ L Sections 6.3 and 6.7, respectively.j 4 ^ ym was at tne cycs, D g I outsi ain en W . as on- lear safety
,, Howe r, or one of h CV _ _..
wh'd he ign-e ' side ne
) I wi eta' tains t i ei s .et- c1 as esi ati to '
M. f eg ity of nsure the } e eac or olant p ssure bou dary. d; f 3.1.30 CRITERION 34 - RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL > i A system to remove residual heat shall be provided. The system safety function shall be to transfer fission product decay heat and other residual heat from the reactor core at a rate such that specified acceptable fuel design limits and the design conditions , of the reactor coolant pressure boundary are not exceeded. t Suitable redundancy in components and features, and suitable 4 interconnections, leak detection and isolation capabilities shall . be provided operation to assure that for onsite electrical power system , (assuming offsite power is not available) and for i offsite electrical power system operation (assuming onsite power ; is not available) the system safety function can be accomplished, assuming a single failure. i , RESPONSE: > t Residual heat removal capability is provided by the Shutdown { Cooling System for reactor coolant temperatures less than 350*F. For temperature's the steam generators. greater than 350*F, this function is provided by i provides a dedicated, The Emergency Feedwater (EFW) System independent, safety-related supplying secondary side, means of quality feedwater to the steam D generator uncovery. (s) The for removal of heat and prevention of reactor core ' design incorporates interconnections, leak detection, sufficient r'edundancy, ensure that the and isolation capability to residual heat removal accomplished, assuming a function can be single active failure. Within appropriate design limits, either system will remove fission product decay heat at a rate such that SAFDLs and the design conditions exceeded. of the reactor coolant pressure boundary will not be i i l The Shutdown Cooling System and the steam generator auxiliaries I are designed power sources. to operate either from offsite power or from onsite l, i Further discussion Cooling System andis included in Chapter in Section 10 for 5.4.7 for the Shutdown Conversion System. the Steam and Power i Amendment D - 3.1-25 September 30, 1988 s
g V 5 g s t
'e aeaca am sa casopeu awgaa ao ct no/1 so>A Adaled sustem. Becauat9%
(Al(3 G.2 25Sentid &f -tlQ claz 'focictu o ch'GY\ cf- T4 pidA), LF he 'ac.en g4dvidsp toith c. dqh L Q ct) M tcht9LCu and McLLunciantcv &nd . Ha aan cyacd La oxordance. td% accepka ndwjtw gaectcucLa and 4 a 4 4.u e e e.( Cornou M U.A0 1 v)r O k W G v f u n c x - b p I a r t. f-0 2/ActSW). .)2std;n crjtrAla vts -/rSNE Code. Gag 96cshq croaAgnosto ,att M ctccordencA. l , l t(%A+/sI[51.1 j et4dau ScLlcto C#e/1ct for ifu Dressucited daXu Rexckr besht 0F ShNna4
}nn'. Tdo requ6tta 4haF wh6ivj y the coc&
st\da < < 2C90,y i D 1
?- . hone cE,5 3M ceAM4 Ack o*Alu. cMcdsrud,Urk*r C(d.4dthco.flivi(@m ccA%g 4 .
C funchatoL ydscmce.cc ,
- 01. hl- I p=9 7%e p, CESSAR_nakcy. ~
Jh Nh$ & L $ & M Q'he 'LcY /
$ Z I "" 4 %
- d N ,)
QMj 1.4. 1"FH sati.is ANALYSIS - Pipe break loads are any loads that are applied to componentsPipe or to unbroken pipe resulting from ruptures of nearby piping. break loadings include, but are not limited to, the effects of the following: pipe whip, jet impingement, differential pressure, temperature increase (localized or overall) , and support / anchor movement (including reactor coolant loop and containment vessel) . Effects of a ruptured pipe on other portions of itself are not considered except to demonstrate that a whipping pipe is ; restrained. In general, pipe break loads are defined for each piping problem , on a case-by-case basis. These loads are applied as applicable to the appropriate piping problem. See Section 1.8 of this appendix for further details of postulated pipe breaks. Pipe break loadings due to two or more assumed pipe breaku are ! considered to act individually as separate events. THERMAL STRATIFICATION gp 1.4.7 Piping systems subjected to stratified flow are evaluated for additional thermal stresses due to thermal stratification. Stratified flow exists when a hotter fluid flows over a colder region of fluid. This condition induces a vertical thermal J gradient, resulting in increased overall bending stresses and localized thermal gradient stresses. Stratified flow effects consist of (1) local stresses due to temperature gradients in the 4 pipe wall and (2) additional thermal pipe bending moments generated by the restraining effect of supports on the j stratified-flow-induced curvature of the piping. g Structural evaluations are performed using elastic and/or simplified elastic-plastic analyses in accordance with the ASME Code considering the applicable loadings of Section 1.3 of this appendix in addition to the stratified flow loadings., 1.4.7.1 Pipine Analysis The stratified-flow-induced curvature of the piping and local stresses due to a temperature gradient are obtained in two-dimensional finite element analyses. These analyses provide the local ef f ects and pipe rotations for an unsupported pipe segment. A stratified flow thermal hydraulic model with the top half of the fluid at the hot temperature and the lower half of the fluid at the colder temperature is employed to determine the pipe wall , temperature, based on the thermal hydraulic conditions. Two-dimensional heat transfer and structural thermal stress analyses are performed in order to determine the rotations and local i < stresses. Rotations are considered to act over all horizontal 2 portions of the pipe. The resulting bending stresses are ' 4 calculated in the piping analysis by allowing the pipe to Amendment P 3.9A-11 June 15, 1993 i
Gf( i CESSARnaincum ! I t thermally expand unconstrained and by then applying a set of l equal and opposite displacements at the rigid support points. Local stress effects due'to top-to-bottom thermal gradients are also considered to act over all horizontal sections of pipe. For Class 1 piping, gross bending stresses due to stratification are s considered as secondary stresses, while local stresses due to :
- thermal gradients are considered as peak stresses. !
l 1.4.7.2 Thermal stripino Analysis l i Striping refers to the thermal oscillations that potentially The striping phenomena at-occur at a hot-cold water interface. ; ' the interface of thermal stratification is postulated to have j significantly contributed to feedwater fatigue cracking problems. 4 A number of tests, experiments and analytical work (References i j[.0 4.1 to 4.11) show thatItstriping does not significantly cor} tribute is the stratification (top to bottom l I MF to ratigue usage. temperature differences) which ic +ha inaior contributer- tn fatigue. - g g f The thermal striping ef ec on fatigue life is considered
- by ;
determining the pipe wall metal temperatures in a 1-D finite ! j element model caused by the oscillations in fluid temperature , l ' across the stratification interf ace regiorf It should be noted] . ! that the amplitude of the temperature fluctuation in the vicinity fI of the pipe wall is considerably smaller than the maximum top-to- - ! j bottom fluid temperature difference. The stresses due to the i temperature gradient as a function of time are then determined. ! The striping stress range is then combined with the corresponding . number of cycles for the stratified flow stress ranges, resulting !
' in an alternating stress range, and an allowed number of cycles l l
is calculated. 1.4.8 SPECIFIC THERMAL REQUIR MENTS FOR CLASS 1 PIPING l l: 2 The thermal analysis includes a check of the stress intensity
- range and an evaluation of fatigue (as expressed by' cumulative l J usage) for all normal and upset operating temperature j distributions, the transient events experienced in going from one i operating mode to another, thermal anchor movements associated l
; with t.se operating conditions and transients, and all test !
- conditions. l 4.9 EQUIPMENT NOZZLES
[ef/ The following effects of equipment nozzles are considered in the analyses and included where appropriate: j j e Equipment nozzle displacements and rotations
. Equipment nozzle flexibility e
l 1 Amendment P 3.9A-12 June 15, 1993 i
Yf
.j h15 N
N
- Onen 7teu 3. 9. 3.1-5 rN The applica Q to NRC Bull -
,. piping connected u"---m
a ' $ 44Yl 5
* *?WhM*%WN,"ikewd s&W- (" Thermal Streseses in The original issue of NRC Bulletin number 88-08 22,.1988) was in a'3 Ding Connected to Reactor Coolant Systems", June i response to the discovery of These cracks in the cracks safety were injection attributed (SI) to high nozzle at Farley, Unit 2. The stresses source ofthe thisresult of thermal stratification wasstratification identified asinleakage the nozzle.
of colder fluid past the check valve ment to isolate the SI line from the RCS , cold leg. i 1988; Supplement 2, l Subsequent1988; suppleinents (Supplement Supplement 3, April 11, 1, June 24,provided recomm}ndations- -- 1989) 1 August 4, ! for inspection and. reported on incidents where apparent outleakage casued line failures at a foreign reactor. These supplements broadened the concern for operating plants to all lines in which stratified flow could occur. Bulletin 88-08 required that holders of operating licenses or l construction permits review their RCSh to identify any connected, ' unisolable piping that could be subjected to thermal stratification ! m and to take steps to ensure th'c structural integrity of these lines. NRC Bulletin 88-11 (" Pressurizer Surge Line Thermal Stratification", l December 20, 1988) was issued in response to the results of an ; inspection of the surge line at Troian which showed large, unexpected. movements that closed available gaps between the line and pipe whip restraints. ; Bulletin 88-11 required that holders of operating licenses or construction permits establish and implement a program to assure the structural integrity of the surge line when subjected to thermal stratification. .
*~~
CJuH etin 88-08 .
- the owners and operators of
~ Following the issuance of Bulletin 88-08, The ABB-CE plants established a program to respond to the NRC. objectives of this program included:
- 1. identification of unisolable piping that could be subjected to stratification; i
- 2. inplant inspections to confirm the integrity of the identified lines; ,
- 3. obtain plant data on pipe wall temperatures to confirm if ,
stratification does exist in these lines; and l 4
- 4. perform analyses to evaluate stress levels and fatigue usage factors for lines subjected to thermal utratification loads.
eue w' , 4 N MperLitem 4 3.1-5 ~
-2 y)
Results obtained from this program are used to evaluate the presence t of stratified flow and the influence on thermal stresses in these lines f r System 80+. MV The results of this program indicate that thermal stiratification cah exist in the isolable portions of the safety injection lines of certain operating plants. The System 80+ counterpart to the safety line. Available injection line is the direct vessel injection (DVI) in tha nVI lines due t data is used to evaluate the thermal stresson ~ - ermal strati Certain plants indicated stratification in the li as between the power - The powerf, - operated relief valves and the pressurizer nozzlcs the Safety , operated relief valves in System 80+ are represente-The location and oriencation bf the Depressurization System (SDS) . SDS will minimize the presence of condensed steam in these lin5s,
- which is believed to be the cause of thermal stratification in these lines. Thus, thornal stratification should not occur in these lines.
The System 80+ shutdown cooling lines are similar to the arrangements in CE operating plants; a long section of horizontal line connected through a vertical run of-pipe to a nozzle on the bottom of the hot However, leg. Measurements obtained to date are inconclusive. program conclusions will be incorporated in the design of the System 80+ shutdown cooling lines. ._- l t NRC Bulletin 88-11 In response to Bulletin 88-11, the owner and operators of ABB-CE plants sponsored a program to obtain operating plant data whichData was needed to characterize thermal stratification in surge line. ' obtained at four operating plants showed that temperature. differences in the surge line ualls due to thermal stratification were x61ated to the mode of plant operation. These data confirmed that the maximum temperature differences in the surge line were bounded by the dif ference in temperature between the pressurizer and the hot leg. The System 804 surge line is designed for the maximum temperaturd ! difference that will be experienced between the pressurizer and the l hot leg. In summary, System 80+ conforms to NRC Bulletins 88-0$ and 88-11 for all piping connected to the Reactor Coolant System. Available data from operating reactors has been evaluated and incorporated into the The design will continue to be assessed as new ; i design of System 80+. data becomes available and will be evaluated as to its applicability to System 80+. t
CESSAR 8!aibmu - 4.14 USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.45, " Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Leakage Detection Systems", Revision 0, May 1973. 4.15 "An Engineering Approach for Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics", Kumar, V., German, M.D., Shih, C.F., NP-1931. 4.16 Hiser, A.L. and Callahan, G.M., "A Users' Guide to the NRC's Piping Fracture Mechanics Data Base (PIFRAC)," NUREG/CR-4 894 (MEA-2210) , Materials Engineering Associates, Inc., Lanham, Maryland, May 1987. 4.17 Horn, R.M., et. al., " Evaluation of the Toughness of Austenitic Stainless Steel Pipe Weldments", EPRI NP-4658, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, June 1986. 4.18 Wilkowski, G.M., et. al., " Analysis of Experiments on Stainless Steel Flux Welds", NUREG/CR-4878 (BMI-2151), ' Battelle's Columbus Division, Columbus, OH, April 1987. 4.19 Wilkowski, G.M., et. al., "Short Cracks in Piping and Piping Welds", NUREG/CR-4599 (BMI-2173), Battelle's " Columbus Division, Columbus, OH, April 1992. YW bf j b' - ;YQ).
- P & < h 9 " N & - % e M
- gsn w err
*Y J jW 0 E4 [ ,,
Amendment P
! 3.9A-41 June 15, 1993
- ent e r
"'o" CESS AR CERTiflCATION g W
d E 3 . 9, 3 ,/. y 8
, 3.9.3.1.3 ASME Code Class 2 and 3 Components and Supports Loading combinations applicable to code Class 2 and 3 components and supports are described in Table 3.9-2. System operating conditicns due to the decign transients defined in Table 3.9-1, as well as any other auxiliary system specific conditions, are reviewed to determine the appropriate operating parameters to be used in the design of Code Class 2 and 3 components.
The design stress limits for each of the component's loading conditions are presented in Tables 3.9-5 through 3.9-9. Inclastic methods, as permitted by ASME Section III for Class 1 components, are not used for these components &._ sb ,/ - 3.9.3.1.3.1 Tanks, Ucat Exchangers, and Filters ,, Pressure vessels supplied for the auxiliary systems are: Shutdown Cooling Heat Exchanger Safety Injection Tanks Containment Spray Heat Exchanger Containment Spray Mini-Flow Heat Exchanger
,- Shutdown Cooling Mini-Flow Heat Exchanger l Component Cooling Water System Heat Exchangers Component Cooling Water System Surge Tanks Essential Chilled Water Compression Tanks Essential Chilled Water Refrigeration Units Diesel Generator' Fuel Oil Storage Tank Diesel Generator Fuel Oil Day Tank Diesel Generator Cooling Water Surge Tank Diesel Generator Starting Air Aftercoolers Diesel Generator Starting Air Filter / Dryer Units Diesel Generator Starting Air System Air Receivers Diesel Generator Lube Oil Cooler Diesel Generator Lube Oil Sump Tank Heaters Diesel Generator Intake Turbocharger Diesel Generator Exhaust Aftercooler Diesel Generator Intake and Exhaust Silencers and Air Filters Main Control Room Air Handling Units w/ Filters Main Control Room Water-cooling Coils Main Control Room Heating Coils Fuel Building Ventilation Exhaust Filter Train Reactor Building Subsphere Ventilation System Cooling coils Reactor Building Subsphere Ventilation System Filters Annulus ventilation System Filters Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System Heat Exchangers Station Service Water Strainers Amendment K 3.9-35 October 30, 1992
?
NN l $0llAl { $ c?A.) ly> Qt(/7E ,
,/
0" VE7 Ce J DB2 \ 77/ R F/) M prisc3 ( c&fss' } f/hWi-i l' p . Sm+=r A cass ss' m .emgaaear W//L BE felMn2D_ .;FOA 7Waed/Lfd779E !
-e == = uswe srsm= .. /Wi~NWS -;%; &revy/7W5 wi- izz~ NW
. .C072E SEC7PDAi T/T /uc-3 1/7, L p og G(//DdJ/CE Yf~ 5's2'&s;;M. Cer/sm@uW../A/ L5Ys?2ws -
. Fo A s w ar?o n = s A 9 7 sti ji.'ea>e=%-
Y k lf A.S Yl . AceE2=~n//^1e t'1/1e-J/'f 77/z=n/ 7#~ ts effse/es'm-neeniu. ivrxes ' MAV AC SUc@- /T f)VO//) D & / /// S , E G E &' i W/~~ S!AIILA d. CW L.23 C/?f/7094
,- ./*/)
'/AIG _
Ckr}r 7
/b N l
/duA 4 d //wl A sc-su u 4 .
W Arnau&,m t48lWc sz00
C ESS AR nat",cu,ox 6 y 17 op 3.t.I-l t 3.9 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS 3.9.1 SPECI1LL TOPICS FOR MECHANICAL COMPONENTS 3.9.1.1 Design Transients The following information identifies the transients used in the design and fatigue analysis of ASME Code Class 1 components, reactor internals and component supports. Cyclic data for the design of ASME Code Class 2 and 3 components, as applicable, are discussed in Section 3.9.3. All transients are classified with respect to the component operating condition identified as Level A (Normal), B (Upset), C (Emergency) categories and D l (Faulted) and testing as defined in the ASME Code, Section III. The transients specified below represent conservative estimates for design purposes only and do not purport to be accurate representations of actual transients, or necessarily reflect actual operating procedures; nevertheless, all envisaged actual transients are accounted for, and the number and severity of the design transients exceeds those which may be anticipated during the life of the plant. Pressure and temperature fluctuations resulting from the normal, test, upset, emergency and faulted transients are computed by
\. means of computer simulations of the reactor coolant system, pressurizer, and steam generators. Design transients are detailed in the equipment specifications. The component designer then uses the specification curves as the basis for design and fatigue analysis.
In support of the design of each Code Class 1 and CS component, a l r fatigue analysis of the combined effects of mechanical andl thermal loads is performed in accordance with the requirements of g Section III of the ASME Code. The purpose of the analysis is to demonstrate that fatigue failure will not occur when the components are subjected to typical dynamic events which may ( occur at the power plant.
> The fatigue analysis is based upon a series of dynamic cvents depicted in the respective component specifications. Associated with each dynamic event is a mechanical, thermal-hydraulic transient presentation along with an assumed number of occurrences for the event. The presentation is generally simple and straightforward, since it is meant to envelope the actual plant response. The intent is to present material for purposes of design.
Similarly, the characterization of a given dynamic event with a specific name is unimportant. Any plant dynamic occurrence with consequences which fall within the envelopes associated with one of these dynamic events is by definition represented by that Amendment N 3.9-1 April 1, 1993
[ l)j ! The rules cr th -*m4*at4tcr-diWn of the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Subsection NB: Class 1 Components will-be W , used for performing fatigue evaluations of System 80+ components. The fatigue curves (S-N Curves) contained in Appendix I to Section III wi4+
% -be- used as the basis for performing all of the fatigue analyses of System i 80+ components. _
The existing S-N Curves are applicable to the 60 year design life of : System 80+ components because:
- 1) the RCS, including all primary components, core support and internal structures, and the pressurizer surge line are either stainless steel clad materials or wrought stainless steel construction,
- 2) the primary system water chemistry controls require control of dissolved oxygen content in the primary system prior to operation
~
above 150*F, and
- 3) no carbon or low alloy steel materials are exposed to the primary coolant environment.
Observations of significant environmental degradation of the cyclic behavior of materials in LWR environments are primarily related to high strain ranges, slow strain rates, high oxygen contents of LWR primary water environments, high sulfur contents of carbon and low alloy steels, and low flow rate conditions. The absence of any one of these conditions is considered to be sufficient to preclude any significant environmental degradation of the fatigue behavior of materials exposed to typical PWR primary coolant environment. Since System 80+ components are not exposed to high oxygen content environments at elevated temperatures, and no carbon or low alloy steel is directly exposed to the primary coolant, no significant environmental degradation of the cyclic behavior of System , 80+ components will occur. n N valua
~
Modt ' cations o evisions to t S-N curves b the fatigue . meth logy of the rent Sectio II of the AS Code editi whic e applicab to the desi of Class I em 80+ compo will , considered 'a the renuira .atigue-enalyh . K -p r
CESSARnanmon . v>v l GAi~ ! h (b) M, = (NOP: + SSE ) (2ag Analysis) 3 SSE *= M, .NOPt ; Plot values from (4a) and (4b) at NOp3 This corresponds to (5) the points labeled "1" in Figure 3.9A-13. ; i (6) Repeat steps (1) to (S) for NOP 2. The results are shown in ; Figure 3.9A-28, labeled "2". Two stability evaluations are performed for each pipeline under consideration in order to complete the piping evaluation diagram. j 1.9.6.5.2 Using an LDB Piping Evaluation Diagram
. q Once the lines marking the acceptable areas of allowable piping a loads are plotted as described in the previous. section, normal .
operating piping loads and corresponding SSE values for the ; critical piping locations are plotted on the evaluation diagram. The critical locations are selected as the highest stressed point j for each different type of material in the line. Figure 3.9A-29 shows how the plot is used for a hypothetical line. In this example, three points failed LBB and one point passed LBB. The i reasons for each failure are given in the figure. The piping i 3 design can then be revised using the results: eg., lowering the l SSE response load by rerouting or by adding a snubber; further review may result in other options for reducing the loads. 0 TUBING l
@ 1.10.1 GENERAL 1
Dest The==sebw.)analysb; and. loading consideratioJis that are used for l pipinga are used for tubing. < re ::r, fue to the amount of ; Tubing, bounding analyses are performed,t r:d . t .- _m..cr y-
-'*; rplLLL ~m=-
__' _ir. This analysis. : nothod is also used for small-bore piping. These crit'eria apply l to safety-related tubing. j Non-safety related manifold valves, colenoid valves, and , instruments located over or near safety-related equipment or j J components are supported using the same criteria, except where , justified by analysis. This prevents damage, degradation, or , i interference with the performance of equipment required for 2 safety functions. i 1.10.2 SUPPORT AND MOUNTING REQUIREMENTS '_ f ~ Two support mechanisms are used, free tube spans and tube track ; supports. Criteria for each tube support mechanism' are i Amendment P ! 3.9A-36 June 15, 1993 ,
5'c"
, C ES S AR "tRTIFICATION c ,
~
h J,,Jf .- 1 L N-392. Methods and criteria are supplemented by NRC-approved PVRC and EPRI testing and research. - t 9 1.6.6 FUNCTIONAL CAPADILITY REQUIREMENTS , Sed 3. P A Section 3.9.3.1.4. N . r ~; - - - i 2 -- +, - g-. L. m a 22 %m > ntr:: -. - Z .. C i J .,.;Z,,~-- _ p r- r.. r. . .a i - - ~ r -- a --- 2. 0 G y w
..;......= u, 4 1.6.7 VALVE REQUIREMENTS Piping systems are designed such that valve accelerations meet !
the allowable manufacturer's requirements for seismic l acceleration. In lieu of specific values, reasonable generic seismic valve acceleration limits - ' , Ofor- SSE t conditionsE and deeymmedspur water hammer type loads 1 are Q ' established. The design values are included in the procurement 3 specification. The loads on supports attached to valve operators - are also evaluated. The valve operator support does not stipport the pipe. , 1.6.8 EXPANSION JOINT REQUIREMENTS Expansion joints are evaluated to ensure compliance with vendor allowables based on the stress report provided by the vendor. , I 1.7 PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN REOUIREMENTS i 1.7.1 GENERAL : t Pipe supports are designed to meet the intended functional requirements of the stress analysis as well as the specified stress limits for the support components. Support components include typical structural steel members as well as manufactured. : catalog items for typical support components. , I s.* . Supports are idealized in the piping analysis as providing restraint in the analyzed direction while providing unrestricted novement in the unrestrained direction. Since the design of . supports cannot completely duplicate the idealized condition, supports'are designed to minimize their effects on the piping analysis. Additionally, it is confirmed that the support design i does not invalidate any assumptions used in the analysis of the piping system. In addition to loads defined by the stress analysis, any l additional forces the support are subjected to are considered in the support qualification. Amendment P 3.9A-19 June 15, 1993
C C ES,SA R "ERI113CAUCN- .
~ / 99<
m,/wf pk ,yi ft/T WL Nted5 g_g {Ud-
$W 4 m
h& fQ)<. IN W analysis of the run line. The branch point is considered as an anchor in the analysis of the branch pipe. Thermal and seismic anchor movement analyses of the decoupled branch lines are performed with the thermal, seismic inertial, seismic anchor movement (SAM), or pipe break movements of the larger pipe header applied as anchor displacements and/or rotations to the smaller ' branch line wherever these movements ate significant. 4 Piping is also decoupled at flexible hose wherever each interfacing analysis considers the flexible hose weight and significant stiffness, and wherever the flexible hose cp.lalifies for the net end displacements of the interfacing analysis problems. Analysis results of the interfacing problems are not combined. The flexible hose is not allowed to experience loads beyond those recommended by the manufacturer. , Also refer to Section 3.7.2.3.3 for general decoupling criteria. 1.5.2.3 Seismic to Non-seismic Decouplina Criteria Two methods for designing the region of a seismic /non-seismic piping interface are as follows: A. Use of structural anchors for isolation Structural isolation anchors provide an effective means of protecting seismic piping from the seismic response of non-seismically designed piping. Anchors are designed assuming that a plastic hinge forms at the interface with non-seismic piping. J This usually resun.s in u n u aaeAy conservative ) chor reactions. make isol;Wion an - ors more pract' , th anchors are desi ed ,tu' loads tha can be rea nably expec d result from a sfe'smic event. One netho ich used o desi the\ anchors for asonable ic loads allowsh lons based % n a static f un #orm acceieration analysis
~
%e non-seismic p pi 'ng.
Thio sgsible whN e the yon-seismlcspiping is 'rptt'ed and suppor .d on scismic 6tures and whene seismic response sppcira re availa . e static acceleration analgsis
, apply the ak 3 eleration rom the appfiqable responge spectra with (plification fact g of l'. 5 . Tor cases 1 which the -seismic is no pipingto/ scer attached % seismic structur , it is ifficult 'n the app opriate ,
accele tion for the sytic antflysis and ' < method 's not ! app able. In this ca se' an analysis is forme to ermine the peak accel 4Eb ions or the anchor is sign for the worst case plastic h1 e reactions. Amendment P 3.9A-15 June 15, 1993
CESSAR naincmos G//# ; B. Use of isolation restraints ! Piping restraints are utilized to isolate the seismic response of non-seismically designed piping from seismically ' designed piping. Isolation restraints are designed as follows:
- One restraint located in each of the three orthogonal directions provides isolation by placing it in the direction of the significant contributing mass and by positioning the restraints to avoid pivoting. Where the restraints cannot be positioned to avoid pivoting, two restraints are used to form a couple to isolate the scismically caused pipe moments. ,
- An isolz. tion restraint is designed for anticipated seismic loads. Alternatively, simplified guidelines such as loadings based on simple beam span tables are used to develop reasonable restraint loadings.
I n a be given in ASME Section III NF for Level D loadings are ; used for qualification of seismic loads. 1.5.3 OVERLAPPING 1.5.3.1 General overlapping is used to separate seismically analyzed piping problems. Isolation of non-seismic piping from seismic piping is addressed in Section 1.5.2.3 of this appendix. Seismic piping that cannot be separated by decoupling as described in Section 1.5.2 of this appendix may be separated using an overlap region. Where an overlap region is used, an adequate number of rigid restraints and bends in three directions to prevent the transmission of motion due' to seismic excitation from one end to the other is included. The following criteria is used for applying overlapping: 1.5.3.2 Overlap Criteria A section of piping can be considered an overlap region where the following criteria is met: A. The section contains a minimum of four (4) restraints in each of three perpendicular directions. If a branch is encountered, the balance of restraints needed beyond that point must be included on all lines joining at the branch. Amendment P 3.9A-16 June 15, 1993
CESSAR nuir,cy,o, G/t-Y Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) response spectra (where NSSS components are defined as the reactor , vessel the steam generators, the reactor coolant pumps, the pressurizer, main coolant loop and surge line piping). Typical response spectra curves at NSSS nozzle locations for Control Motion 3, Soil Case B4, (as defined in Section 2.5) are shown in Figures 3.9A-1 through 3.9A-9. Figures 3.9A-1 to 3.9A-3 are for the direct vessel injection nozzle at the reactor vessel; Figures 3.9A-4 to 3.9A-6 are for the shutdown cooling nozzle at the hot leg; Figures 3.9A-7 to 3.9A-9 are for the main steam line nozzle at the steam generator. Equipment response spectra is not included for non-NSSS equipment. However, in .eeme cases where equipment natural frequencies are below the ZPA cutoff, the mass and stiffness I properties are incorporated in the seismic analysis. Normally for rigid equipment, an anchor is modeled at the nozzle interface as a termination point for the pipiag analysis model. In some instances, the stiffness model of the equipment is included in the piping model to more accurately calculate the nozzle loads in order to show compliance with allowables. 1.4.10 HIGH ENERGY AND MODERATE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS High and moderate energy piping systems are evaluated for postulated pipe breaks. Intermediate break locations are based on potential high stresses and fatigue limits determined by the piping stress analysis results. For the postulated pipe break evaluation requirements, Section 3.6.2, see Section 1.8 of this appendix and 1.4.11 NON-RIGID VALVES Normally, valves are specified to be rigid. Non-rigid valves (indicating that the valve has modes of vibration less than the corresponding frequency at ZPA) are identified by the applicable valve seismic report. Both mass and stiffness effects of non-rigid valves are considered in the piping analysis. See the discussion in Section 1.4.3.1 of this appendix. 1.4.12 EXPANSION JOINTS Expansion joints allow limited relative lateral and axial displacements and bending rotations between the ends of the joint, depending on the type of joint in use. Expansion joints are considered in the analysis. Amendment P 3.9A-13 June 15, 1993
Um l/V" C ES S AR En!?" cme, W J 1.4.5.1 _Bafetv/ Relief valvo Thrust Safety / relief valves produce transient and steady-state l oads on the valve thrust loadinletF piping and discharge piping (if used). The operating pr,ess,ure, is aandfunction of fluid valve throat area. type (vater or steam), Relief valves cause both dynamic and static loading conditi ons. To simplify analysis, howcVer, essentially thrust loads are evaluated statically. Closed discharge and all relief valve piped relief valves have an additional complicating factor since transient forces develop at each intermediate turn in the pipi ng during the initial phase when the flow along the pipe ~is bei ng established. water / steam hammer These trhnsient loads are treated as : dynamic loads. As the transient the intermediate forces cancel each other out, phase ends, all of discharce system. steady state thrust force at the exit point of the fluid from thrust force is zero at the valve outlet.For closed discharge systems, the stea Relief valve thrust loads are applied to the piping model as static loads factor appliedwith seismic to the loads. supports active and a dynamic load 1.4.5.2 Water and Steam Har ner Analysis
, Water and steam hammer are piping. both dynamic loading conditi Forcing functions, ons on the are used in the dynamic using actual time history analyses, analysis except where conservative approximations of the forces are used simplificc!'
evaluation. in a static Water and steam hammer are similar dynamic loading ~conditi ons on the piping fast produced by changes of momentum in fluid syst ems with column actuating rejoining.valves, rapid pump starts and stops, or water are Water and steam hammer force time histories ] usually computer developed using method-of-characteristics codes. or other '[ These forces .y are reacted by the piping system. g/ g loading using time histories developed as input loading. history dynamic colu lonDusing ammer' time thi fluid forced as developed and 7 a lie when e n tatic i piping segments ie forces are applied in s ~KtTcall to tDI> i counteract effect of each other, except in cases h w ay~y as'to not M IDADinnlt ancDus aDDlication of forces is iustified where/ / 1
-1. : . 'S UKE
,. YEDP V/94W gater-emi-Gbeer i* WAixS7~
I- Minbl g.gg o,q c of.,/ssfIATNCY Scc ";c Jwr , 7g' g,yffgg i I- M D S A llc //$>- A^. 7 ~ M W N KEZ./9~ffdzt/E' NM g gh L M.DS . W /A)JD?T \
, 3.9A-10 Amendme.nt P
.7une 15, 1993 i 1. 4'. 3 . 2 2. c h W
- G/2M ACE lb S/l76/MT' RAC/ACWyCMAl.5'(WfI P/E7049 /M -WFB6sw _pg,7z 7a c,gpygeg AtL SMA/Mci r/7~ nean/a/cy cow /w c,c 77M T RACE 7742Ho^70A7. 778t'ha}f11676e Sah) sW74u cao weaw7x,9usysus W Y A HA D2 6// C4 X ... 5 D #2 fe)K Ac45' W//tcAL IVNap pc a'sg)'m us/m pre ms se&&
OF Q. OOf ef(_ 3,7pp/LgG , (Sa.<._ Sc.,j,k y . 7. z t . I - 2.- [^^ 4 ,A y c/~.s<g -/rac J/ept,) f k"IMC d'423~ %=.c=wsenroia- prawa Esa. . . M1MM7 AAV6Ks73 hva Acapej> puce. Wm/ I C.* /, <1 w
~
W S ?3*/5 / FoA phew /wyamina az/,
.k W VSE ,4N D M90?eR 47Yle) .sa yon _jv1op,pt_
R/'8 lo' F/770^J ./MdwS5',
- ~
l
C E S S A R ufe b no~ " G/v/ value of Young's modulus at temperature, E at. The ASME Code requires that stresses be based on E .14 c Os b amo@Hdd W multiplying the analysis results by E,,u/E gt. All possible operating modes are evaluated to determine the highest range of thermal expansion stress. The ef fccts of anchor movement due to thermal expansion of equipment or other piping are also considered. Lines with maximum temperatures less than 150*F which connect to ' equipment with thermal movements < 1/16 inch are not analyzed for thermal expansion. 1.4.3 SEISMIC ANALYSIB Seismic analysis of a piping system generally are performed using both dynamic and static techniques. A dynamic analysis is performed to evaluate the inertia loads developed as the mass of the' piping is accelerated due to scismic motion. The static analysis is performed to determine loading resulting from differential seismic movements of structures or large lines to which piping is attached. 1.4.3.1 Static Analysis The equivalent static load method involves the multiplication of the total weight of the equipment or component member by the specific seismic acceleration value. The magnitude of the seismic acceleration coefficient is established on the basis of the expected dynamic response characteristico of the component. Components degree of that can be adequately characterized as a single freedom system are considered to have a modal participation factor of one. Therefore, the acceleration value from the spectrum which' corresponds to the single degree of freedom frequency is used. Seismic acceleration values for multi-degree of freedom systens are determined by increasing the peak acceleration from the ' applicable amplified response spectra curves by a factor of 1.5 to account conservatively for the increased modal participation. If the equipmenti natural frequency is above the frequency corresponding to the zero period acceleration (2PA), the seismic acceleration value is equal to
- 1. 0 times the ZPA. The ZPA is the response spectrum acceleration in the rigid range of the spectrum. It corresponds to the peak acceleration based.
of the input on which the response spectrum is The ZPA frequency is the lowest frequency at which the response returns to approximately the zero-period acceleration. The following points are considered in performing the analysis: A. Inertia loads are applied separately in the x, y, and z directions, and the results of the 3 separate analyses,are combined by SRSS. h <mtic m c: =h%acd ;rn " I Amendment P 3.9A-4 June 15,. 1993
. CESSARnmbno, '" cA4 :
A m ,,, ~ o w w>& - n n u9 inp.J f%A w;sy pMfn- n g"*N" uck~w i A L ~~rW*^"'
#.1 *
=-
N&. m-
, 1;; , ..1 ;, ,
_mmr_ 'Lb- \ , B. The active supports are seismic supports, rather than gravity supports (i.e. , seismic supports are active and low stif fness spring hangers inactive) . 1.4.3.2 Dynamic Analysis 1.4.3.2.1 Response Spectrum Analysis 1.4.3.2.1.1 General b The response of a flexible system to seism' forces depends upon its natural frequencies and the frequen es of excitation ~. For these systems, it is necessary to kno the natural frequencies, and the seismic excitation whic is usually defined as acceleration response spectrum. To determine the system nat al frequencies, each pipe is idealized as a mathematical del consisting of lumped masses connected by clastic members In order to adequately represent the dynamic characteristics f the piping system, maximum lumped mass spacing is determined ased on simply supported beam natural ~ l frequencies equal to the mtaff f% my, Using the elastic F properties of the pipe, the flexibility for the pipe is determined. The ficxibility includes the effects of torsional, bending, shear, and axial deformations. As a minimum, the number of degrees of freedom is equal to twice the number of modes with
- frequencies less than the frequency corresponding to the ZPA.
Once the flexibility and mass of the mathematical model are r calculated, the frequencies and mode shapes for all significant ' modes of vibration are determined. Piping stresses and : displacements are then determined utilizing standard modal response spectra analysis techniques. g, 1.4.3.2.1.2 Response Spectrum 4 A response spectrum is a curve which represents the peak acceleration response verses frequency of a single degree of freedom spring mass system which is excited by an earthquake i motion time history. It is a measure of how a structural system with certain natural frequencies will respond to an earthquake applied at its supports. The response spectra curves for system 80+ have been' developed using three control motion time history analyses. These analyscs are used to cover a wide range of possible soil and foundation conditions. The resulting floor response spectra is used in one of the m.& u u options presented below. - ) ,
~
-fu u v Amendment P 3.9A-5 June 15, 1993
ED D N bkdNF4C ATION _ C
- 3. 9. s. t. 5~ Puga~en 4 hs q~ Speo& M 64 :
oesty spec;Fic.& er AsmE pain m ' cmone ds M svy 41 ' are pecpord v5 3 7,w //,, c s g ve n 1 i in 7& ferc a c.c. h,
~
B. Piping Supports
.- For pipe supports, the design and service loading combinations are presented in Tables 3.9-12. Pipe support members are designed to meet the requirements defined by '
ASME Code, Section III, subsection NF. See Appendix 3.9A, , Section 1.7.4, for a f urther discussion.
.3,9 3./.'L1
*A Fanctional Capability , . AS#4C Co A Cd I, 2. ~~i 3 l sufts$
reg Uire# NJ /S To M ^ ^r_7 functional capabilityg the piping ch:11 Nr designed to meet C a lva-III, b=vul C 1-limih
.r"E S'r'/,
g 3.9.3.2 Pump andt valve Operability Assurance 3.9.3.2.1 Active ASME Code Class 2 and 3 Pumps and-Class 1 , 2 and 3 valves Furnished with thd NS,SS 3.9.3.2.1.1 opertbility Assurance Program Active pumps and valves are defined as pumps and valves and those components that must p 'cform a mechanical notion in order to shut down the plant, mainta n the plant in a safe shutdown condition, or mitigate the con quences of a postulated event. The operability (i.e., pe formance of this mechanical motion) of ' active components dur ing and after exposure to design bases
~
events is confirmed b : A. Designing each omponent to be capable of performing all r safety fu6ctions during and following design bases, events. The design sp cification includes applicable loading ' combinations, - d conservative design limits for active components. The specification requires that the manuf acturer de onstrate operability by analysis, by test, or by a combin . ion of analysis and test. The results are independently I viewed by the NSSS Supplier considering the 11, effects of p stulated failure modes on operabil.ity. - Internals pa which are essential to the component in performing its safety function are analyzed and/or testeQ as an assembled mponent to validate operability. B. Analysis and/ r test demonstrating the operability of dach design unde the most severe postulated loadings. Methods /resu ts of operability demonstration programs are detailed in ections 3.9.3.2.1.2 and 3.9.3.2.1.3. ML
#~ ]
%A ^
pAA shu G>L & Mn c I dCo A?}f "[ Q ( _ Q ,,d f /w ' Amendment e Lj g { Jg4_ 3.9-39 June 15, 1993 U 3 us gw zudQ -
CESSAR88% . - gj Development of the J vs. dJ/da diagram for determining points of y instability is shown in Figure 3.9A-27. 1.9.6.5 LBB Pipine Evaluation Plots W Constructing an LBB Piping Evaluation Diagram W( 1.9.6.5.1 k) N The method by which LBB Piping Evaluation Diagrams (PEDS) are \qq constructed allows for the evaluation of the pipin incorp system in ating LBB
& advance of the final piping analysis, U , considerations into the piping design. The LBB PED s prepared g n(\ ' prior to the piping design and analysis and is use to evaluate s Acritical points in the pipeline.
/
The maximum design load at any time during the plant operation is g> - the loading used in the stability analysis. Traditionally, this loading has been NOP+SSE. However, the combination of the NOP load and the largest of the design loads (i.e., the maximum 4\ . design load) is used in the stability analysis (see Section 1.4 OV l of this appendix). In the case of the surge line, for example, the line is evaluated for the larger of either NOP+SSE and for fd *7 ! j Stratified Flow (SF). For the discussion that follows, the Y ' maximum design load is considered to be the SSE load, and the gY loading combination is NOP+SSE. The LBB piping evaluation plot requires performing two complete LBB evaluations. The evaluations are for two NOP loads which span the typical loadings for the line under consideration. TheA completed typical diagram is shown in Figure 3.9A-28. procedure used for generating that figure is as follows: (1) Choose NOP = Pressure + NOP3 (2) Determine a1 (3) Increase the analysis moment until the critical moment is found for at and 2a1 (4) Separate the critical analysis moment, M, into the correct addition of SSE and NOPt proportion for the at and 2a1 evaluations.
+ SSE2 ) (at Analysis)
(a) Mc
=
ff (NOP3
~
SSE 2 = M, - NOP2
-AND-I l
l l Amendment P 3.9A-35 June 15, 1993 I
C/2-4 t%hY 5% 2 'l, g m s 0/l:f' i SHUTDOWN COOLING LINE bdV l Audit Item 22: , Explain in detail the process of how peak shifting is implemented ! with SUPERPIPE. Incorporate in the explanation the 6 soil conditions and 3 global directions, and enveloping. Also, how is : the recommendation in SUPERPIPE, regarding the adequacy of the )
! frequency selected to give the most conservative result, implemented? ,
Response: g The peak shifting procedure used by SUPERPIPE is as follows: For each peak shif ting analysis, input one spectrum to be 1. applied in some or all of the X, Y,and Z direcctions (up , , to 3 spectra). , j 2. Identify the spectrum with the highest peak acceleration . containing at least one natural frequency that lies ; within 15% of the spectrum peak frequency (f )p . This { is done without regard to direction. N 3. Determine N+3 shift factors, where N is the number of natural frequencies within 15 of f p. The shift factors i are 1. 0, 1.15, 0. 85 and fog /f , where fni are the N natural l l frequencies found in (2) anc$ i = 1 to N. ! i 4. For each of the X, Y, and Z directions, do N+3 analyses * ! by successively applying the N+3 shift factors above to each frequency of the raw spectra. This is a total of _ 3x(N+3) = 3N+9 analyses. The same shift factors are i , applied in all three directions.
- 5. For each of the 3N+9 analyses in (4), combine the modal ;
results, accounting for close-mode effects.
- 6. For each location in the system, envelope the results of (5) separately for the three directions.
j 7. For each location in the system, combine, by SRSS, the a results.of X, Y and Z directions. 1' For the shutdown cooling system analysis, Steps (1) to (5) were performed separately for each of six soil cases. For each location in the system, the results of the six soil cases were enveloped and used in the stress and LBB calculation. s The first sentence in the last paragraph of Section 4.9 of the SUPERPIPE manual (Revision 7) suggests that the user should justify that the frequency used for spectra shifting gives the most i . 4
W2-Y ' C/2d
/ki.lf fl 27,/ 7 x oj >
s 6/W , P~# V , i conservative results. This statement refers only to the preirious ; paragraph; ie., the case of multiple spectrum peaks of equal ; magnitude, in which the user must determine which peak to-use as the basis for shifting and, if necessary, revise the spectra to j force,the use of that peak. , The procedure used by SUPERPIPE, as described above, is consistent with ASME Code Case N-397, which has been accepted by the NRC. The designer may choose a variation of the above method, which is available in SUPERPIPE, in which the shift factors are calculated separately for each direction. Similar results would be expected
~ ,
from both methods, and studies have shown that peak-shifting
, methods in general yield conservative results compared .to time history methods.
Qs&Ae& M2 . A n p A fA y - - -
- a. m at -ya ywi A Aj -
r ( n z L
') "MA PM W% &
e~zye & e e m %
& sw asu /. +. s. u. z. -
,,g
e
- G c' I
5 LBB DISCUSSION AND AUDIT OF LBB CALCULATIONS -
, Audit Item 7:
Is torsion considered in the LLB evaluation? g ((f 4A6 i
Response
nlS SovMN b* be ** < , Torsion is included when R valuating the highest stressed point in g i a line being considered foy LBB. Torsion has ni. effects upon the q crack opening area and is n6t considered for that calculation. The t , stability fracture mechanics anlaysis is based upon the concept of , ductile tearina. Tors _ ion (does not contribute directly to the ' tearing mode,5f thQominant tranverse bendin@. The piping D { capacity as a limit load problem should include torsion, but 3 ' torsion is not included in a tearing fracture mechanics evaldation. g i g ! n . O h t 5 ' W 4 ,. o e i i
c/w :
.- C ES S A R EM".cwon WG .
A. Solution of the site response problem to determine the free- ; field motions within the embedded part of the structure. H. Evaluation of the foundation impedances. C. Solution of the structural problem. This involves Erming the complex stiffness matrices and load vector and solving the equations of motion for the final disgl,acements. as <- 1:m I Figures 3.7-21 and 3.7-22 show schematic diagrams of the SSI analysis process. For the analysis using the CMS 2 and CMS 3 NN motions, the rock outcrop motion (R) is convolved through the soil media to produce the surface motion (S) and foundation level motion (F). The computed surface motion (S) is applied as the control motion in the SASSI SSI model at the f ree-field ground ; surface. For the CHS1 analysis, the CMS 1 motion is applied directly at the free-field ground surface.
.7.2.1.2 Seismic Analysis Method for the USSS 3.7.2.1.2.1 Introduction 'Q%d5 'he major components of the reactor coolant system are designed to the appropriate stress and deformation c'riteria of ASME Code, '
Section III, for the set of loadings included in the component .. design specification. The adequacy of seismic loadings used for the design of the major components of the reactor coolant system are confirmed by the methods of dynamic analysis employing time i history and response spectrum techniques. The major components are the reactor vessel, the steam generators, the reactor coolant pumps, the reactor coolant main loop piping, the surge line and the pressurizer. Detailed dynamic models of the building structures and the NSSS i are generated. Based on these detailed models, equivalent, { simplified dynamic models are developed. The simplified building and NSSS models are combined and translated into a form l suitable for input to the SSI analysis code (see Section 1 3.7.3.4.1). A number of soil cases are modeled and the time history analyses are performed. The soil cases are chosen to envelope all potential building sites. The results of these I analyses are contained in Appendix 3.78. These results, the simplified building model (s) , and the detailed NSSS model are i used to perform the analysis discussed in Section 3. 7 : 2.1. 2. 3. A composite th ree-d i mensional lumped-mass model of the reactor vessel, the two steam generators, the four reactor coolant pumps, the pressurizer, and the interconnecting ma i ri Joop piping is coupled with a three-dimensional lutnped-mass model of the reactor building for performing the analysis of these dynamice:ly coupled components of the reactor coolant system. In addition, the < kmendment O 3.7-6 May -. 1993 j i
i [/'/g i i -
. i i i .
- , i ! : 1 fil5Mi' $ huC ig 2) l i l ;-
t ,
, i -
1 i '
- i-r 1
, 1.7. 2. /. Q. I Cnputw hopm Usc4 si sox bct hyafi l'ji
, Ady'.Jil '
, !.i .l l; .
.{- .
j., e' 3.2 2./. I. 3.1. / SASSI d , l 1 1 ! . The SASSI program is used in soil-structure interaction analyses j 1
. and it is based on the Flexible Volume Substructuring Method. , j This method is a general substructuring technique, which uses the .
- finite element method and solves the equations of motion in the "
i ! i frequency domain using the method of complex response. l - i
- I I
The SASSI substructuring scheme provides rigorous analytical i
; solutions in each step of the SSI problem. In the Flexible -
i Volume Method, the complete soil-structure system is divided 16to ,
.._ j two substructures: the " foundation" and the " structure". The i ! mass and stiffness of the " structure" is reduced by the - -
i corresponding properties of the volume of excavated soil. The j '!- ' mass and stiffness of the excavated soil are retained within the 'j i j '.
" foundation" model. The inpedance problem is solved using the : ! 1
" foundation" model, and consists of a series ' of axisymmetric ;
l l
^ '
solutions of a layered site to applied point loads. In the i System 80+ analysis, the SASSI standard. analysis methodology is ! .
, modified, as discussed in Appendix 3.7D, and the solution of the i i
i i SSI problem is reduced to three steps: 'j pi I I A. Solution of the site response problem to determine the free-field motions within the embedded part of the f i~ ~: i :. l structure. l ,
- p. ,
I I B. Solution of the irnpedance and scattering problem. { ; C. Solution of the structural problem. This involves forming l the complex stiffness matrices and load vector and solving l , i 4 the equations of motion for the final displacements. j The version of the SASSI program used in the soil-structure l
~
! l interaction (SSI) analysis of the System 80+ is version 2.0, ' !
i dated June 1985. - i : To compute foundation impedances and scattering with an .! axisymmetric approach, SASSI was modified and enhanced. Thus, > two of the version 2.0 modules were modified for the System 80+ i l l project as version 3.0, and a new module was developed as version i* 1 i J 3.0. i -j ,
; L
; i , '.
l
, i '
a
~
, I e l
1 j *
,f:--{--
}.
i , . . . i
,h -
I l Jg5ruz i f i / h it 2 ] z ) ,
, ) ,
l l,. ! K l } - j
! i ,
! l I- I
, f~ _,~
l [ ; I
, The SASSI program is extensively verified and . validated and _. L ,
documented using three different nethods of verification and i ' i ; I correlation- - b
; }
fI A. Correlation to results o'f problems with closed form ! solutions, such as site response and response of simplified i -
; j structura1 systems.
_l _ i : B. Correlation to solutions of other well known SSI computer ! --- j j l codes in the industry such~ar CLASSI and FLJSH. ! l , C. Correlation to experimental results, such as the Lotung ! Large Scale Experiment sponsored by the Electric Power ' { Research Institute / Nuclear Regulatory Commission / Taiwan -
, ! ! Power Company, and others.
1 1
. , , 3/7. 2. /./,3. /. 2. SriAnn - :
l The SHAKE program is based on the one-dimensional wave
~
propagation nethod, adapted for use with acceleration time - -- histories through the Fast Fourier Transform algorithm. SHAKE incorporates nonlinear soil behavior and the effect of the --~ ~ elasticity of the base rock. The soil system consists of 1_
' ; j horizontal layers which extend to infinity in the horizontal i , l direction. Each layer is homogeneous and isotropic and is - -- '
characterized by thickness, mass density, shear modulus and l l damphing factor. The nonlinearity of the shear modulus and i { damping is accounted for by the use of equivalent linear soil - i r properties using an iterative procedure to obtain values for ~~ l' ! } modulus and damping compatible with the effective strains in each
. l l } layer. 1, i >
i i < l ! , , i i i . .
; i - -
, u! !
! i i > '
! : ! i '
l il! l
= ,
i 1 , . , , , l l i l I
- f;l l ! !
' i ! !
l. , , : i
! , . +
i i a, l ; l l i ! + ! ; I ! I I i
, t
. I -
t
-[
. l l s l l . 4 ! *
- I '
i ,
. i l
! ; ! l l l g l
i I ( i i ' i l l j'
! i i '
l l ) ; ! l- 1.
- I i i 1 l j I i
l ' j . i - j . i -
, . 3
. ; i i
i i j i i i ! ' i j i i
> i l !
i
- i j ! r l 2
! I i i .
I I . .
' i g
1 G 3 I C ES S A R nairico,os
/
i f f l B. Solution of -he impedance and scattering problem. i C. Solution f ;he structura roblem. This nvol)ves forming
)q I the ccep1 x ;tiffness na ic :s and load v ctor and solvi g 1 gj the equatnons of motion f r t: :e final disp acener ts.
g The version f the SASSI p ogra n used in uhe soi l-struc ure ; ( inte raction analysis f the System 8 + is version 2. 0, date 3 June 1985. (! SI) ;
/ h To compute jfour dation i edanc as and cattering vi un i axisymmetric Jappr aach, SASF was. modified nd enhar ced. Thu :,
- two af the vdrsica 2.0 nod les wehe modifi for the Sys em 8 )+ l 3
project as v@sio i 3. 0, and a new module va develope'd as .rersi an l 3.0. j [U The
/
SASSI program is ex,.ensivefy I verifi d and valid ed a id i
'- docur.ented 6 sing l three d ffererp nethods of verifica ion a nd corrblation:l A. Correlation to res/21ts f proble s with cloped forn ,
4 j solutipns, such as ite re ponse and response of s implified 4l ! j structbral bystems. t
! [ p$ !
B. Correlatior to sol tions .f other well knowy SSI compu :er ! , codes in t!' e industiry such as CLASS and FLUSB. j f ; id , 5 \ C. Corr,atio9 to ex crimen1[al resul s, such as ac Lo'ung ; Large Scale Expe(iment sponsored by the Elec ic P wer Research Institut,e/Nucl ar Regu atory C m=is ion /Ta van , - Power Ccepany, and others l l 4 3.9.2 . 2 .1l. 2 5 SHMT f The SHA'E prpgran Iis ba ed on uhe one- inen ional wave k t l propagat on ne thod, adapte for ure with ccel ration time j , histcrich throt gh t Fast ourier ransforu Igo ithm. 3 HAKE incorporhtes n anlindar coiz behavi r and t > e fect of the l f clast icity of the base rcck. Tb soil sy tem consist s of i horizontal lay 3rs hich extend to infinity .n he horizontal directihn. Each ayer is cous and iso ropic an d is chara Cterized by .hickness, homog/ mass density, I he r modulusi and i darpl ing factcr. The nonlinear'ty of the rh ar codulus and i , dampi is accou ted for b3 th use of equiss ent linear.k soil I prope. ties using an iterat[vc procedure to o tain values for i modulus and dan ng compatibl rith the effective strains in each layer. ; ; j I 1 ) Amendraent N 3.9-11 April 1, 1993 ;
- G :
23 CESSAR nai"cmou ( r i 3.9.1.2.1.22 CEFLASH-4A , 4 This is a code used to calculate transient conditions resulting from a flow line rupture in a water / steam flow system. The ! program is used to calculate steam generator internal loadings ! following a postulated main steam line break. . This program is used in a steam line break accident structural analysis. Program was verified by comparisons of program results t and hand-calculated solutions of classical problems. 3.9.1.2.1.23 CRIBE This is a one-dimensional, two-phase thermal hydraulic code, ! utilizing a momentum integral model of the secondary flow. This l code was used to establish the recirculation ratio and fluid mass inventories as a function of power level. The code is in the public domain and has had sufficient use to justify its spplicability and validity. This program is used for determining steam generator performance. Program was verified by comparisons j of program results and hand-calculated solutions of classical problems. 1
- f 3.9.1.2.1.24 SASSI w.
Tae SASSI program is used in il-structur 2 teraction alyses a ad it is base on the Fle ib e Volume ub tructuring MetPod.
,g TTis nethod is a encral sub tru turing techni uc, which uses the l
- 7) ,l f nite elemen me hod and e lves the equationq of not* n in he ;
I f quency dom in u sing the .ethop of complex response. j , j } 4 f- The SASSI s bstracturing sche e provides rigorous analyti cal cact step f th SSI problem. In e Flexi ble f' so:utions i Vo u=c Metho , thc comple e soi -strue re system is /livided i'nto h tv substru tures : the 'f oun 'ation" nd the "strupture". The f mas and tiffness of the "struc re" i reddced by the l- cor espond' g properties of te voluEe of e avate'd soil. The mas and s iffnes s of the exc ated q# oil are etain'ed within the "fou datio " model. The impe ance problem ~ solYed using [ the 7 "fou dati " modc 1, an/1 cons sts of a ser' s of axisymmetric solu ions of a .ayerep site to applied po nt Ioads. In 'the Syst m 80 analys is, the SASul staddard ana), sis! methodology is
# modi 'ed, as discussed /in Appendixp.~/B, and thel solution of the l SSI pcob em is reduce to thrte steps-
/
site resp nse proble"3 to determine the I A. ol tion of t r 2-field o ions wit i- the embe d'd part of the
- s. ucture. (
J( ' Amendment E 3.9-10 October 30, 1992 1
CESSAR naincu.. 1 ,1 i I j TABLE 3.9-2
- i l l
LOADING COMBINATIONS ASME CODE CLASS 1. 2. AND 3 COM { ] i Design Loading"' Condition Combination , Design PD + DN Q PO+DW i Level Level BA(Upset) (Normal)'*'
' PO+DW i PO+0W+DE levelC(Emergencg :
Level D (Faulted) PO+DW+SSE4DF l ! i l V l l a) Legend: ' PD = Design pressure : P0 - Operating pressure i DW = Dead weight SSE - Safe Shutdown Earthquake i i DE - Dynamic system loadings associated with the 6 emergency condition DF - Dynamic system loadings associated with pipe breaks : (not eliminated by leak before break analysis) b) /d required by ASME Code Section III, other loads, such as thermal ! trans;ent, and thermal gradient require consideration in addition to the t primary stress producing loads listed. SSE is considered in equipment [ fatigue evaluations in accordance with Section 3.7.3.2. ; I 1 c) i:: dim;; %.L..div.i mi cion i Fipi.3, Ey. I h .- ; Led n3 Cui.Ja u..u on v or u a ss <p r i g u 9, Ey. ;4b i Fn f pi f'% , se c Trb le s 3.1 - 10 & 3 9 -//- t Amendment P ( June 15, 1993 l i
4 C E S S A R n aincm o. c/z2 t TABLE 3.9-10 LOADING COMBINATIONS FOR ASME SECTION III CLASS 1 PIPING Service Level Loadina Combination Design Design Pressure, Weight, Other Sustained , Mechanical Loads Level A Level A , Transients, Weight,
- Operating Pressure, Thermal Expansion, Anchor Mnun"^ntc, 1 i dTITe Shutdown Earthquake,1 ) 4 '
Other Mechanicaj. Loaus, Dynamic Fluid Loads { Level B Level B
- Transients, Weight, Coincident Pressure, Thermal Expansion, ,
Anchor Movements, Safe Shutdown Earthquake,1' Other Mechanical Loads, 3 Dynamic Fluid Loads ; Level C Maximum Pressure, ' Other Mechanical Loads, Weight, i Dynamic Fluid Loads
~
Level D Maximum Pressure, Other Mechanical Loads, - Weight, C _ ,,,,T Safe Shutdown Earthquakeg "E -L.- v - ,, , .%f i Pipe Break Loads, Dynamic Fluid Loads . 3 c" "' r ' .1 1 L . . 2g ) Thermal TAMS,2 , g g Thermal Expansion NOTES: The dynamic loads are combined by the equare root of the sum of the squares. 1 Alternatively, a lower level of SSE motion may be used in accordance with Section 3.7.3.2. 2 Loading combination for Eq. 12a of Re b oc e. 60. j Primary plus accondary stress producing load i 3 1 Amendment P ; June 15, 1993 i
CESSAR ninncu,os M3 4 TABLE 3.9-11 L_OADING COMDINATIONS FOR ASME SECTION III CLASSES 2 AND 3 PIPING Service Level Loading Combination Design Design Pressure, Weight Opera n ud-Level A & B _D cign Pressure, Weight, , Other occasional Loads (DFL, Wind) Thermal Expansion, Anch,or Movements Level C Af/)0mosA Pressure, Weight, Other Occasional Loads (DFL, Tornado) Level D A4Aymug Pressure, Weight, DFL, Safe Shutdown Earthquake, Pipe Break, Anchor Movements 2, Thermal Expansion 1 NOTES: Dynamic fluid loads (DFL) are occasional ' l loads such as safety / relief valve thrust', steam hammer, water hammer, or loads associated with plant upset or faulted condition as applicabic. I 1 Loading Combination for Eq. 10b of 6fe<cnce dM' Amendment P June 15, 1993
CESSAR nMi"cu.ou 6 3 i
. l
[ h/ t 4 j I, _ TABLE 3.9-12 3 i LOADING PO R S-" ^ ^ '. 1CONDITIONS
-_ _ __ , m u u...AND _IAAD
. m .T COMBINATION REQUIREMENTS i
.. .T:r 'C
_ ""i
-M49ffffMWWeep ASME CODE CLASS 1, 2, AND 3 P1 PING. SUPPORTS '
1 Service Level Ioading Combination i l Level A i s Weight . Thermal (1) l Friction } Level B Weight Thermal (1) I Dynamic Fluid Loads (2) ' or Wind M f ; Level C Weight i Thermal (1) ^ Dynanic Fluid Loads (2) or
/
- _ . - m Tornado m i Level D
( Weight ' Thermal (1) : I Dynamic Fluid Loads (2) , SSE Inertia i ! SSE Seismic Movements i
. Pipe Break Loads }
NOTES: ! ) ,
- 1. I i
Thermal to be conditions combined (including to ambient temperature) ! provide maximum l combinations. load i d -
- 2. .
i Dynamic Fluid Loads due to safety / relief valve thrust, steam hammer, and water hammer. _ pm=w 7c > 2,a;- , m4 i g q
,,w m y, i
, , c_
{ 9
- 3. A r to CESSAR-DC
~ ~ ,
l Table 3.8-5 for s ____ loadi$5hJ
,,.J - conditions and load combination requirements for -
f I Q \pipesupports. structural members of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 j
/ I
-m m
/
{ 1 : Ismendment N i April 1, 1993 '
- 1. !
1 I C{$$MRA D DEsscN CERTIFICATION I 1 l O 5 h CH w .Q ha A ev,;e5 he+.vem ASME Sech% ~12z' ; M /, 2. M .3 Nfo#7 l 6& $-lYuc)tuLJ tn^L AGl ' s tk ASME Sech 227, S*W"? ^ "W~ " 3.9.3.4K - C6mponent Supports i ASME B&PV Code Section III Class 1, 2 and 3 component supports are designed and constructed in accordance with Section III of the ASME B&PV Code and Code Case (s) . Thc
- i M ^" ^# thc AC::E Ludu 112 he cpccificd in thc sik ,ccifi" " i Supports for ASME Section III Code Class 1, 2 and 3 components ;
are specified for design in accordance with the loads and loading ! combinations discussed in Section 3.9.3.1 and presented in I Table 3.9-2. Component supports which are loaded during normal operation, i seismic and following a pipe break (branch line breaks not [ eliminated by leak-before-break) are specified for design for loading combinations (A) through (D) of Section 3.9.3.1. Design , stress limits applied in evaluating loading combinations (A), (B), and (C) of Section 3.9.3.1 are consistent with the ASME Code, Section III. The design stress limits applied in evaluating loading combination (D) of Section 3.9.3.1 are in ! accordance with the ASME B&PV Code, Section III. Loads in . , y compression members are limited to 2/3 of the critical buckling ! gef q load. ,
.b' ec Appendix 3.9A, Section 1.7.4, for a discussion of concrete expansion anchors. !
Where required, snubber supports are used as shock arrestors for safety-related systems and components. Snubbers are used as j structural supports during a dynamic event such as an carthquake
- or a pipe break, but during normal operation act as passive ;
devices which accommodate normal expansions and contractions of ; the systems without resistance. For System 80+, snubbers are , i- minimized, to the extent practical, through the use of design l optimization procedures. s i Assurance of snubber operability is provided by incorporating f analytical, design, installation, in-service, and verification { criteria. The elements of snubber operability assurance for ,
- System 80+ include
- ;
A. Consideration of load cycles and travel that each snubber ! will experience during normal plant operating conditions. t , B. Verification that the thermal growth rates of the system do , not exceed the required lock-up velocity of the snubber.
- C. Accurate characterization of snubber mechanical properties
, in the structural analysis of the snubber-supported system. t i i 1 5 Amendment P 3.9-52 June 15, 1993 i i
, CESSARnuiLou 6 vf D. For engineered, large bore snubbers, issuance of a design specification to the snubber supplier, describing the required structural and mechanical performance of the snubber; verification that the specified design and fabrication requirements are met.
E. Verification that snubbers are properly installed and ) operable prior to plant operation, through visual inspection and through measurement of thermal movements of snubber-supported systems during start-up tests. F. A snubber in-service inspection and testing program, which includes periodic maintenance and visual inspection, inspection following a faulted event, a functional testing program, and repair or replacement of snubbers failing inspection or test acceptance criteria. The COL applicant will provide a listing of all safety-related components which utilize snubbers, in accordance with SRP 3.9.3. 3.9.4 CONTROL ELEMENT DRIVE HECHANISMS I 3.9.4.1 Descriptive Information of CEDM
' 5~( YThe/ control element drive mechanism (CEDMs) are magnetic jack k, type drives used to vertically position and indicate the position >
c of the control element assemblies (CEAs). Each CEDM is capable M of withdrawing, inserting, holding, or tripping the CEA from any point within its 153-inch stroke in response to operation signals. The CEDM is designed to function during and after all normal plant transients. The CEA drop time for 90% insertion is 4.0 seconds maximum. The drop time is defined as the interval between the time power is removed from the CEDM coils to the time - the CEA has reached 90% of its fully inserted position. The CEDM pressure boundary components have a design life of 60 years. The CEDM is designed to operate without maintenance for a minimum of 1-1/2 years and without replacing components for a minimum of 3 years. The CEDM is designed to function normally during and after being subjected to seismic loads. The vibratory motion of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake is included in the fatigue evaluation in accordance with Section 3.7.3.2. The CEDM will allow for tripping of the CEA during and after a Safe Shutdown Earthquake. Amendment P 3.9-53 June 15, 1993
e r __ _ - _ * -
%y l o
I 9 A //- . ssses@) , h ' or g BWG26)/ ABSCAd/MC itND/DA ALW L/ &lk ' l f//+NC /?swX.fM73 /n/]y 13 E &( Sa=7) o/Li S/992ri '. l j
/
?ofjQ175
- Al JT &6 G/
'cmcy'ywopax B / ~O R '/.9 "5 =;'t ll ;
! bik' ,45 / WR / O F .61 f/8AR T i}
s r M a p c f }4 7 /7 y7
\,/'57j757>7 Me e l
i gh l 4n- ._ _ p- i m
-~~----
~_ _,_....._____.-- N
~f
/
.r ~cs, s
hc coi ; f
- n' y </ c -
/
_ _ f> 4 , i i l k j f r'"*YC A e s c e , p -/ . , c., S ' f e meQf/ -- __ A l pMy as J ,G a., . /, ,. c . a. ) p . '3 A19, h &,/ 8
' l
#c , m,,,,~ .,.-.g a, a 4 ,
v' - l- c it ax -- C - m. . e.- _ ,,, A / j n#' ( x %- e-
)
' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ -
- ~ _ _ . _ _
l l i ; 3 [ i
*" .R C ES S AR Entifico,ou '
4 I r 3.9.5.3.1 Level A and Level D Service Ioadings This category includes the combinations of design loadings ; consisting of normal operating temperature and pressure differences, loads dut: to flow, weights, reactions, superimposed i loads, vibration, shock loads, and transient loads not requiring shutdown. l 3.9.S.3.2 Level C Service Ioadings Level C Service Loadings are derived from a loading combination of normal operating loads _a_nd_the_ design._. basis +ipe _ break DBPB). ;
,f .f;,c dor wtMei to re- s.-pfwi~v.s .A &ntv& s:fru e t"r*s ;
/ The DBPBA is defined as a postulated pipe break that results in -
the loss of reactor coolant at a rate less than or equal to the capability of the reactor coolant makeup system (i.e. j -
'x 50 GPM). _
less than _ //~ 3.9.5.3.3 . Level D Service Loadings GWE ' The following loading combination shall be considered as Level D Service Loadings. $ i A. Normal Operation Loads ! D. Either the "O-1
" -- _ AFeed Water Pipe Break ( W FWPB) or Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) Loads .
k I l ! , C. Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) Loads LOCA is defined as the loss of reactor coolant at a rate in t a excess of the reactor coolant normal makeup rate, from breaks in i the reactor coolant pressure boundary inside primary containment up to, and including, a break equivalent in size to the largest remaining primary branch line not eliminated by leak before break (LBB) criteria. ! 3.9.5.4 Design Bases for Reactor Internals '
- ' The stress limits to which the reactor internals are designed are listed in Table 3.9-14.
The operating categories and stress limits are defined in the a p;)l icable section of the Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. l l . \ i (~ N. l i ! l i n.me nd me nt N l 3.9-68 A p:-i l 1, 1993 ]
. (ph'$
INSERT B: , (4 8) "ATWS: A Reappraisal, Part 3: Frequency of Anticipated Transients", . EPRI-NP-2230, January 1982. ' (4 9) " Development of Transient Initiating Event Frequencies for Use in , Probabilistic Risk Assessment", NUREG/CR-3862, May 1985. l
~ ;
( pgc ta n sep % k 11,1942, '*3Y EvMk ; da D"W S n - 4.s. lAs-e a 5i (< En \ s, 5%dw- J Wyd '" I gewa ", poetes 51% I-1 [ f i ! 1 j i i i I i i 2 'I f e w e --
. CESSARnubieu @3 e
i 1.0 PIPING DESIGN 1.1 GENERAL Seismic Category I small and large bore piping, as defined in Section 3.2.1, is designed to meet the analysis requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code, Section III, Subarticles NB-3650, NC-3650, or ND-3650. Seismic Category II smal] and large bore piping, as defined in Section 3.2.1, is analyzed to- ensure that the SSE does not adversely impact safety-related equipment or components. Category II requirements are normally satisfied by analyzing the piping to the same criteria as Seismic Category I, or ASME B 31.1. The analysis requirements described in this appendix apply only
^ '
to Seismic Category I and II piping. _ g , , , 1.2 ^J9 Q SwM bW ff Y ' ^/ DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 1.2.1 PRESSURE The pipe wall thickness is sized to acconmodate the specified internal pressures and meet the requirements of the ASME B&PV Code, Section III, Subarticle 3640. Stresses due to the system design pressures and maximum peak pressures are included in the acceptance criteria (see Section 1.6 of this appendix). 1.2.2 GRAVITY The weight of the pipe, in-line components, contents of the pipe and insulation are included. The weight of water during hydrostatic testing is considered for steam or air-filled lines. 1.2.3 THERMAL The effect of thermal expansion of the system dee to the design temperature is included. Possible operating modes of the system that result in more severe thermal expansion stresses than the entire system at design temperature are considered. The effects of anchor movement due to thermal expansion of equipment or other piping are considered. 1.2.4 SEISMIC The effects of earthquake loading are considered. The inertia loads and movements, including earthquake anchor movements, and the effects of fatigue are included in the analysis. Amendment P 3.9A-1 June 15, 1993
CESS AR n=" icy ou . %< respective floor response spectra with values corresponding to the zero period. i B. The active supports are seismic supports, rather than gravity supports (i.e., seismic supports are active and low stiffness spring hangers inactive). 1.4.3.2 Dynamic Analysis 1.4.3.2.1 Response Spectrum Analysis 1.4.3.2.1.1 General The response of a flexible system to seismic forces depends upon its natural frequencies and the frequencies of excitation. For these systems, it is necessary to know the natural frequencies, and the seismic excitation which is usually defined as acceleration response spectrum. To determine the system natural frequencies, each pipe is idealized as a mathematical model consisting of lumped masses connected by clastic members. In order to adequately represent the dynamic characteristics of the piping system, maximum lumped mass spacing is determined based on simply supported beam natural frequencies equal to the cutoff frequency. Using the elastic properties of the pipe, the flexibility for the pipe is determined. The f3exibility includes the effects of torsional, bending, shear, and axial deformations. As a minimum, the number of degrees of freedom is equal to twice the number of modes with frequencies less than the frequency corresponding to the ZPA. Once . the ficxibility and mass of the mathematical model are calculated, the frequencies and mode shapes for all significant modes of vibration are determined. Piping stresses and displacements are then determined utilizing standard modal response spectra analysis techniques. . 1.4.3.2.1.2 Response Spoutrum ,. A response spectrum is a curve which represents the peak acceleration response verses frequency of a' single degree of freedom spring mass system which is excited by an earthquake motion time history. It is a measure of how a structural system with certain natural frequencies will respond to an earthquake applied at its supports. The response spectra curves for System 80+ have been developed using three control motion time history analyses. These analyses are used to cover a wide range of possible soil and foundation conditions. The resulting floor response spectra is used in one of the - t_u options presented below.
-{u v r Amendment P 3.9A-5 June 15, 1993
CESSARna% mon @3 [ i I ;
- Option 1
i This is the first option that is used in the design process. ' According to this option, broadening of the raw response spectra by 115% is initially performed for all soil cases. The envelope , of the broadened spectra of all soil cases is then directly- used
- in the design. This option is used wherever possible. Where excessive conservatism is introduced by using Option 1 in the ?
design of some piping or components, Option 2, 3, or 4 is ; applied. , ' + Option 2: i
- When this option is used, broadening of the raw response spectra #
by 115% is performed for all soil cases. Grouping of the sites is then performed according to site categories (a maximum of 2 or 3 categories is selected, e.g., soft sites, medium sites, and , hard sites). Following the site. grouping, an envelope of the : broadened spectra for each category of sites is developed. The envelope of spectra of each category is then used in the design ' 4 process.
*8f Ontion 3:
Since the soil cases cover a wide range of sites and the peaks of i the response spectra are broadened by 115%, it is expected that , site specific spectrum with multiple peaks would be enveloped by , the individual soil cases. Thirteen soil cases for three control 3 motions were analyzed, resulting in 39 spectra covering the entire frequency range of possible amplification. If any ) secondary peaks of the site specific spectrum occurred at " locations not completely enveloped by the soil cases analyzed, it ;
- vould be in a region where there is no structural frequency. ,
Since the peaks would not be amplified by the building, they ; would have no significant effect on the piping design and can be ! neglected. Option 4: ! l According to this option, the site specific response spectra for t j a 0.3 g Safe Shutdown Earthquake will be used for the design of j ; { ! all piping and components. . - The method for p=h brc2d=ing and frequency shif ting is detailed in ASME Code, Section III, Division I, Appendix N, Section ' N-" , 1226.3ye '
. l t a . m t~ rd.niga f;r frer ^ 7 rhifting--cc M d % ASME B&PV Code Case N-397. W j
M ] 1.4.3.2.1.3 Damping - 1 ) Damping values are provided in Section 3.7.1.3 and Table 3.7-1. ) As an alternative to Table 3.7-1 damping values, variable damping ; l Amendment P i 3.9A-6 June 15, 1993
~
CESSARnabo, V2a 1.4.3.1 Safety] Relief valve Thrust safety / relief valves produce transient and steady-state loads on the valve inlet piping and discharge piping (if used). The thrust load, F, is a function of fluid type (water or steam) , operating pressure, and valve throat area. Relief valves cause both dynamic and static loading conditions. To simplify analysis, howevcr, essentially all relief valve . thrust loads are evaluated statically. Closed discharge and piped relief valves have an additional complicating factor since transient forces develop at each intermediate turn in the piping during the initial phase when the flow along the pipe is being dynamic established. These transient loads are treated as water / steam hammer loads. As the transient phase ends, all of the intermediate forces cancel each other out, 1 caving only the j steady state thrust force at the exit point of the fluid from the discharge system. For closed discharge systems, the steady state thrust force is zero at the valve outlet. Relief valve thrust loads are applied to the piping model as static loads with seismic supports active and a dynamic load factor applied to the loads. 1.4.5.2 Water and steam Hammer Analysis a 1 Water and steam hammer are both dynamic loading conditions on the piping. Forcing functions, using actual time history analyses, are used in the dynamic analysis except where simplified conservative approximations of the forces are used in a static evaluation. Water and steam hammer are similar dynamic loading conditions on the piping produced by changes of momentum in fluid systems with fast actuating valves, rapid pump starts and stops, or water column rejoining. Water and steam hammer force time histories , are usually developed using method-of-characteristics or other co=puter codes. These forces are reacted by the piping system. i Piping systems are generally evaluated for water and steam hcmmer loading using time history dynamic solutions using the force time histories developed as input loading. hhen equivalent static fluid forces are developed and/or applied statically to the piping segments, the forces are applied in such a way as to not 1 counteract the effect of each other, except in cases where simultaneous application of forces is justified. 2 f - 1. C "r.terwnf-Qamfreradii:nduimi k n-4 j ! . Cec ---Ou-i w 2C ' / f y : l Amendment P f 3.9A-10 June 15, 1993
CESSARnn%mo~ 63 4 included in the piping analysis. When rigid stiffnesses are used, all supports in a given piping analysis are typically designed with a reasonably equal stiffness. This reduces the effects of load redistribution to stiffer supports due to the
- deflection of the more flexible supports. q__ pJSTA f @ }%
since supports are usually modeled with one stiffness value for both directions of a support axis, supports are designed to have similar stiffnesses in both directions.j Accitionally, support]b stiffness in the unrestrained direction of the pipe are ) considered to minimize the effects of seismic inertia loading of / the support mass. j Rigid supports are designed to ensure that the stiffness of the supports do not affect the pipe frequency.
~
Ape support deTTealm l u a are established and included in support denirm c - ifientions when recuirna. - 1.7.2.9 Friction Temperature changes in the piping system causes movement in the unrestrained direction of the pipe. If the pipe is free to slide , across a support, frictional forces are developed between the support surface and the pipe. The amount of frictional force developed is a function of the coefficient of friction of the sliding surfaces and the support stiffness in the direction of novement. Since friction is due to gradual novement of the pipe, I such as thermal expansion, frictional forces are considered in the support design under combined deadweight and thermal loading only. Friction forces are applied in both directions of thermal expansion. To account for these forces, the friction force is calculated by using the smaller of CN or KX, where C is the coefficient of ! friction and N is the component of force normal to the novement and K is the stiffness of the support in the direction of X. Typical coefficients of friction are: < 0.3 for steel to steel 0.1 for low friction slide / bearing plates i Typically, frictional forces are neglected in the analysis of the piping system because supports are designed to nininize the effects of friction on the piping analysis. . 1.7.2.10 Support Gaps
- Small gaps are provided for frame type supports built around the pipe. These gaps allow for radial thermal expansion of the pipe I
Amendment P l 3.9A-22 June 15, 1993
.A -
<# = w w e I
~
ms- @ y l Lys mp+ xpw ,ue & As l nd #6 htk D A q'6 6y L~4 ~4 l M dh Y/d htwivv ^12-- c Yt 4Ha 49% w. L ')
+
~ ~ _ .
P e i l l i
CESSAR na?" CATION h may also be subjected to shear stresses. Plate and shell type of supports are fabricated from plate and shell elements and are normally subjected to a biaxial stress. Category I pipe support members to mee the are designed requirements defined in ASME Code, Section III, Subsectiotn NF. For A500 Grade 5b tube steel, NP requirements are supplemented by . the weld requirements of AWS DI.1, " Structural Welding Code." Category II pipe support members are designed to meet the requirements of the AISC Steel Construction Manual. t Standard support manufactured catalog items are designed to meet j the requirements of MSS-SP-58, " Pipe Hangers and Supports-Materials, Design and Manufacture." The application of catalog components is consistent with the manuf acturer's requirements and are designed to meet the manufacturer's load rated capacities for the items. Materials used for support devices are structural elements or ' standard components. Standard components include: snubbers, mechanical or hydraulic; constant or variable spring support hangers; rigid supports consisting of anchors, guides, restraints, rolling or sliding supports, and rod type hangers; sway braces and vibration dampeners; ' structural attachments such as ears, shoes, lugs, rings, ' clamps slings, straps and clevises; any other NRC approved devices. C seisnic linit sto p p Concrete expansion anchors are designed to meet the requirements of ACI-349, " Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures", with the following additional requirements and exceptions: A. A factor of safety acceptable to the NRC is applied to anchor allowables. B. Provisions are taken for anchor strength reductions when the anchor is located in the concrete tension zone. : C. The failure cone angle used is consistent with recent test data for the specific application and acceptable to the NRC. D. Embedment length calculations for ductile anchors demonstrate a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 when determining the pullout strength of the concrete based on j the minimum tensile strength of the anchor steel. ! Amendment P 3.9A-24 June 15, 1993
CESSAR =?ncoe, %2-3.10 SEIBMIC AND DYNAMIC OUALIFICATION OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EOUIPMENT This section describes the tests, analyses, procedures, and acceptance criteria applied to two categories of mechanical and electrical equipment to assure operability and structural integrity under the full range of normaly transient; seismic and accident loadings specified in Table 3.9-1. The two categories are safety related (Seismic Category I) equipment and non-safety related equipment whose failure can prevent the satisfactory accomplishment of safety functions (Seismic Category II) . A 1ist of the structures, systems and components included in these two categories are shown in Tables 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 and designated as Seismic Category I (safety related) or Seismic Category II (non-safety related) . The safety related equipment are those necessary to ensure (1) the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, (2) the capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe condition, or (3) the capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents that could result in potential offsite exposures in excess of 10 CFR 100 guidelines. Non-safety related equipment whose failure could reduce the performance of safety related equipment is designated as Seismic Category II. 3.10.1 SEISMIC QUALIFICATION CRITERIA ; 3.10.1.1 Recruirements The scismic and dynamic qualification program ensures that equipment classified as Seismic Category I can meet functional performance requirements, as defined in the equipment's design specification, during and after the dynamic loadings due to normal operating, transient, seismic and accident conditions. For Seismic Category II equipment it is demonstrated that structural integrity is maintained under normal operating, transient, seismic and accident loads and therefore this equipment will not be a missile hazard or in some other manner damage nearby safety-related equipment. Tne seismic and dynamic qualification program conforms to the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.100, Rev. 2 and IEEE Std. 344-1987. The seismic and dynamic testing portion of the qualification program is performed in a sequence consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of IEEE Standard 323-1974. 3.10.1.2 8 election of Oualification Method Seismic and dynamic qualification of mechanical and electrical equipment is accomplished by test, analysis, a combination of test and analysis, or experience. Amendment P 3.10-1 June 15, 1993
. C E S S A R n ay,cy, ,
except where it is demonstrated that the equipment response along the vertical direction is not sensitive to the vibratory notion along the horizontal direction, and vice versa. The time phasing of the inputs in the vertical and horizontal directions is such that a purely rectilinear resultant input is avoided. The acceptable alternative is to have vertical and horizontal inputs in-phase, and then repeated with inputs 180 degrees out-of-phase. In addition, the test is repeated with the equipment rotated 90 degrees horizontally. Biaxial and triaxial input notion is utilized where practical. H. Dynamic coupling between the equipment and related systems, if any, such as other mechanical components, is considered. I. The fixture is designed to meet the following requirements:
- 1. Simulate the actual service mounting.
- 2. Cause no extraneous dynamic coupling to the test item.
J. The in-situ application of vibratory devices to superimpose the seismic vibratory loadings on the complex active device for operability testing is acceptable when application is > justifiable and meets the requirements of IEEE Std. 344-1987. i K. The test program may be based upon selectively testing a representative number of mechanical components according to type, l o,a d , level, size or other appropriate classification on a prototype basis. ' L. Selection of damping values for equipment to be qualified is made in. accordance with Regulatory Guide 1. 61 and IEEE Std. ' 344-1987. Higher damping values are used only if justified by documented test data with proper identification of the source and mechanism. r 4 3.10.2.2 Methods and Procedures of Analysis or Testinc of Supports of Electrical Equipment and Instrumentation Analyses or tests are performed for all supports of electrical equipment to assure their structural capability. The analytical results include the required input notions to the mounted equipment as obtained and characterized in the manner , stated in Section 3.10.2.1.D above. Combined stresses of the mechanically designed component supports are maintained within the limits o f +B"E S ,3 n- O w v u III,
.Dtvision--17 :Subunction=NF, -un--t-o==-ttTe=iTitd f u cemith= bus-IIling ,
Amendment P 3.10-5 June 15, 1993
CESSAR !alincmo,
%z-l ctructure,-and tha-comb-ined-stressee-of- the structura-1-lTth:a1 ned 9 I "wsponethppor-t&def-ined as-bui-Id ing-structure-in-the prcject"- g
<la<- i g n nperi fication-areana4ntained=with4mee-Finitsd the AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings.
Supports are tested with equipment installed or with a dummy simulating the equivalent equipment inertial mass effects and dynamic coupling to the support. If the equipment is installed in a nonoperational mode for the support test, the response in the test at the equipment mounting location is monitored and characterized in the manner as stated in Section 3.10.2.1.D above. In such a case, equipment is tested separately for operability and the actual input notion to the equipment in this test is more conservative in amplitude and frequency content than the monitored response from the support test. The methods and procedures of Sections 3.10.2.1.D, E, F, G, H, I and L above, are applicable when tests are conducted on the equipment supports. 3.10.2.3 Methods and Procedures for Oualifyinc Seismic catecory II Electrical Equipment and Instrumentation Seismic Category II instrumentation and electrical equipment (non-Class 1E) perform non-safety functions, but their failure can prevent the satisfactory accomplishment of one or more safety functions. The requirement for such equipment is to demonstrate structural integrity for the equipment and its supports. The methods and procedures for qualifying such equipment include the following: A. The seismic and dynamic excitation for which the equipment must quailify is determined based on location in the plant and enveloping generic input ground notion. B. The equipment is designed to maintain its structural integrity during an earthquake of the intensity of the SSE, and for non-seismic vibrations in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.100, Rev. 2. e C. Analysis, testing or operating experience is used to determine the structural integrity of the equipment, depending on the type of equipment under consideration. D. The requirements of Sections 3.10.2.1.D, E, F, G, H, I and L are applicable when tests are conducted on the equipment. i = Amendruent P 3.10-6 June 15, 1993
hAl* Tssa 20 Shuldown CoolingSyllemResponse to NR_C_ calculation review; Question 3: I i l a. Why are all spectra in Superpipe input basically identical if they were : developed from different soil conditions? b. In addition, why are the digitized spectra input different than the plotted l spectra (located in Attachment 10 of the direct vessel injection line).
Response
a.
'Ihe analyst originally chose to use a conservative approach that basically took the envelope for each soil case of all the spectra values for all curves (the curves for the building spectra at all elevations, as well as the spectra curves for all the nozzles on the reactor vessel). ;
Upon reviewing the data, it was found that the spectra input was not an i envelope of all curves. Although it may have been an envelope , comprised of spectra curves conservatively selected, reviewing the raw digitized response spectra data to support this was found very tedious i and time consuming. Therefore,it was decided to reanalyze the seismic : inertia load case using newly prepared response spectra input. The ! spectra input is the envelope of the following curves (in each x,y,z direction):
- shutdown cooling nozzles on the reactor vessel !
- shield building at node 70(elevation +115.5 ft.)
-internal structure at node 169(elevation +120.0 ft.).
The conclusion reached upon reanalysis is that the stresses from the ; seismic inertia rerun are significantly lower at almost all stress output points. The only stress increases were minor, and occurred at locations that were not identified as having high stress ratios in the original check for ASME code compliance. Therefore, results remain acceptable. b. It was found that the graphs representing the plotted spectra that were placed in the direct vessel injection calculation were incorrect. Through the iterative process of creatQthe analyses, the analyst appears to have ' mixed the graphs from one analysis iteration with the digitized input data from another iteration. The calculation will be revised by removing the i pages represented by the graphs. 1 i i! l
pup!* Zssut. 2i
. l Shutdown Cooling System Response to NRC Calculation Review: !
i Question 4: Why is the "MAXF" parameter in Superpipe input left i blank. This results in a default value of 30 cps used to locate mass points. This is not consistent with l the frequency " cut-off" of 40 cps specified by the ! analyst for performing the modal analysis and response calculation. t r Response: A value of 40 cps for "MAXF" parameter is input into the superpipe and rerun. The seismic analysis piping stress results(M/Z) for the old and new runs ~are compared at the stress output points (SOP). A few points are randomly selected from each of the six . response spectrum analyses The comparisons are shown ' in Table 1.0. It is coreluded that the largest 1 percentage change for two y>ints is about 8.1% and the rest are about 5% or less. Similar conclusions can also be made for the support forces where the largest - load increased is about 8.3%. Therefore these { findings should not have a significant impact to the existing analyses which used the default "MAXF" value of 30 cps. Future reanalysis of the Shutdown Cooling System will include the "MAXF" value to be consistent with that used in the modal analysis and response l calculation. ; l a 4 0 4 I b 2 l er- -
l i
, l TABLE 1.0 f Comparisons of the old vs new seismic stresses [
i t P Stress Output Point Spectrum M/Z(psi) (SOP) Analysis No. Old New % Chance 1 1 1199 1184 -1.3 ; 24 1 5866 6342 8.1 ' 50L ' 1 2906 2978 2.5 75 1 3071 3079 0.3 150 1 7402 7689 3.9 ! 5 2 7366 7196 -2.3 30W 2 l
- 3781 3725 -1.5
. 56R 2 3066 3081 0.5 I ! 84 2 19447 19530 0.4 ! 123L 2 14496 14513 0.1 ! ! 11 3 6925 6864 -0.9 , l 42 3 3882 3723 -4.1 ; 56L 3 3072 3088 0.5 102 l 3 9303 9232 -0.8 15 4 4607 4583 -0.5 j 40 4 3606 3894 8.0 58W 4 3550 3576 0.7 146 4 16799 17430 3.8 l 22 5 5368 5392 0.4 ; 36R 5 2774 2855 2.9 j 52L 5 3337 3522 5.5 ~ 120 5 12447 12472 0.2 ; 32R 6 3202 3290 2.7 47 6 2998 3029 1.0 ', 55W 6 3094 3111 0.5 , 137R 6 6040 6178 2.3 e i i I 1 l
l Attachment 1
SUMMARY
OF SYSTEM 80+ DSER STRUCTURAL ISSUES / RESOLUTION MEETING The staff of the Advanced Reactor Engineering Section of the Civil Engineering and Geosciences Branch (ECGB) held a meeting with ABB-CE and its consultants to discuss the remaining open issues from the System 80+ draft safety evaluation report (DSER) in the structural design area at the ABB-CE office in Windsor, CT . during June 21 through 23, 1993. A number of seismic modeling and analysis as ! well as structural design types of issues were either technically resolved or ' closed. In addition, all open issues from previous structural audits were discussed and in several cases, issues were either technically resolved or 1 closed. The remaining DSER open issues and the open issues from previous structural audits are identified in the attached audit report. Significant ; progress has been made. > During the meeting at Windsor, the staff noted that although a significant progress has been made in resolving the seismic modeling and analysis issues, meaningful progress has not been made in the areas of steel containment vessel design and the design of non-nuclear island Category I structures. The staff . identified its concerns and indicated that progress needs to be made by ABB-CE . in these areas in order to meet the integrated review schedule of SECY-93-097. , , ABB-CE agreed to concentrate its efforts in the steel containment vessel and non-nuclear island structures design and schedule a follow-up meeting with the staff , in early August 1993. i The audit report is presented in Enclosure 1. Enclosure 2 is a list of attendees. Enclosures 3A through 3E present the status of the DSER and ; structural audit open issues. ' I i k J I i i i 1 l l i ) I l 1 l
4 !' ENCLOSURE 1 SYSTEM 80+ DSER ISSUES / RESOLUTION MEETING STRUCTURAL ISSUES - JUNE 21 - 23. 1993 l : 4 i j 1. INTRODUCTION i i , The staff of the Civil Engineering anti Geosciences Branch (ECGB) of U. S. Nuclear ; Regulatory Commission (NRC) met with Asea-Brown-Boveri/ Combustion Engineering ; (ABB-CE) and its consultants from ABB-Impell, Duke Engineering Services, Inc. ! (DESI), and Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) at the ABB-CE office l in Windsor, Connecticut on June 21 through 23, 1993, to review and discuss the ! DSER and previous structural audits open issues of the CE System 80+ structures. ! The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss and resolve issues raised in the
- System 80+ DSER and the previous audit meetings held on March 17 and 18,1993 at
, Charlotte, NC and June 8-10, 1993 at San Ramon, CA. The NRC audit team consisted of the Advanced Reactor Engineering Section of the ; j Civil and Geosciences Branch (ECGB). Enclosure 2 is the list of attendees.
- Enclosure 3A through 3E summarize the current status of the DSER confirmatory and 3 open issues, structural design and seismic analysis open issues from the March 17-18 audit, HVAC and cable tray / conduit open issues from the May 18-19 audit, i seismic analysis open issues from the June 8-10 audit, and the additional open !
issues identified in this audit, respectively. Those issues for which ABB-CE and ; , the staff have an understanding of the actions needed to resolve the item have :
- been identified as the " technically resolved" issues. The terms open issues, j
- confirmatory issues, and closed issues are as defined in the DSER. ;
1 2.0 AUDIT
SUMMARY
l l The entrance meeting and the audit started at 10:00 AM, June 21, 1993 and the
- exit meeting for the structural issues was held at 2:00PM, June 23, 1993. A
! summary of the agenda is as follows: ! June 21, 1993 - Seismic uplift, site acceptance criteria, response spectra to l ] be included in the CESSAR. ! l ; i June 22, 1993 - Structural design, steel containment vessel design, HVAC and ' cable tray / conduit design, open issues from previous audits,
- non-nuclear island Category I structures. '
June 23, 1993 - Summary of all open structural issues, exit meeting. 1
3.0 CONCLUSION
S . 1 Many issues important to safety identified in the DSER and the previous design ! audits held on March 17-18, May 18-19, and June 8-10 were discussed and many of i
- them were resolved in this audit meeting. However, ABB-CE still needs to address !
i the remaining open issues identified in the previous audits as well as the issues i
- identified in this audit report. !
i I It was agreed that ABB-CE will concentrate its efforts in the steel containment ; y f I ! 2 3
- _ . . ,_s _ . . _ - _.
. -. - - = . -
i t
- i I,
vessel and non-nuclear island structures design and schedule a follow-up meeting ! with the staff in early August, 1993. I 5 t 1 i k i a j ' s b
- i
.f ! ' ) 1 4 I 4 s f i i i I ll it f
-r 4
t 1 I f r f s
i i fjiCLOSURE 2 ! LIST OF ATTENDEES (STRUCTURAL ISSUES) l JUNE 21-23. 1993 i fLQiE ORGANIZATION JUNE 21 JUNE 22 JUNE 23 j G. Bagchi NRC X- X X ! 3 D. Terao NRC X X X i S. Ali NRC X X X , S. Magruder NRC X X X , S. Ritterbusch ABB-CE X X X ; L. Gerdes ABB-CE X X X i D. Baisley ABB-CE X : 2 J. LaRussa ABB-CE X E. Sirica ABB-CE X . J. Mullooly ABB-CE X , D. Peck ABB-CE X + R. Turk ABB-CE X i j S. Esfandiari ABB-IMPELL X X X ; T. Oswald DE&S X X X 4 J. Johnson DE&S X X X ! , N. Kathoria DE&S X X ! G. Tilton SWEC X X : I J 1 I 4 i t l 1 1 I l l 1 l l i I 1 of 1 4 l i
' I ENCLOSURE 3A CE SYSTEM 80+ DSER STRUCTURAL ISSUES , DSER REVIEW COMMENTS ! CONF ITEM STATUS 2.4.3-1 CONTENTS OF ABB-CE LETTER LD CONF APPLICABLE CONTENTS OF ABB-CE LETTER 92-045 HAVE BEEN , 045 (DEVs/ COMPLIANCE TO SRPs, TABLES 1.8-4 INCORPORATED INTO THE CESSAR. CESSAR MARK-UP PROVIDED AND 1.8-5 OF CESSAR) SHOULD BE (JUNE 21-23 AUDIT) FOR CONSISTENCY IN WIND VEL BETWEEN ' INCORPORATED INTO THE CESSAR TABLE 1.8-5 (130 MPH) AND TEXT (110 MPH) IN AMEND N. 3.7-1 APPLICANT MUST MODIFY OR UPDATE CLOSED CESSAR AMEND N INCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF TWO ADDITIONAL CESSAR, AS DISCUSSED IN DSER SECTION 3.7 GROUND MOTIONS AND IS BASED ON THE NEW PLANT LAYOUT OF INTERCONNECTED SHIELD BUILDING AND NUCLEAR ANNEX STRUCTURES ON A COMMON BASEMAT. 3.7.2-1 APPLICANT MUST INCORPORATE CLOSED CESSAR MARK-UP TO INCORPORATE RESPONSES TO RAIs 220.5, i RESPONSES TO RAIS Q220.5, Q220.11, 220.11, 220.18, 220.20, AND 220.21 TO PROPERLY ACCOUNT
, Q220,20, AND Q220.21 INTO CESSAR FOR RELATIVE DISPLACEMENTS AMONG SUPPORTS AND ROCKING AND TORSIONAL EFFECTS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE CESSAR AMEND N.
3.7.2-2 APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO REVISE CLOSED NOTE IN TABLE 3.7-1 OF CESSAR AMEND N HAS BEEN REVISED THE NOTE IN CESSAR TABLE 3.7-1 TO COMMIT TO STATE THAT CODE CASE N-411-1 DAMPING VALUES MAY BE TO ALL CONDITIONS OF RG 1.04 ON THE USE OF USED AS LIMITED BY RG 1.84. N-411-1 3.7.2-3 APPLICANT SHOULD CLARIFY CESSAR CLOSED SECTION 3.7.2.11 KAS BEEN REVISED IN CESSAR AMEND N TO SECTION 3.7.2.11 TO STATE HOW THE STATE THAT THE ADDITIONAL 5 % ECCENTRICITY WILL BE ADDITIONAL ECCENTRICITY OF 5 % OF MAXIMUM APPLIED TO THE STATIC FINITE ELEMENT STRUCTURAL MODEL TO BUILDING DIMENSION WILL BE APPLIED CALCULATE ELEMENT FORCES AND MOMENTS. 3.7.2-4 APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO CLOSED SECTION 3.7.2.13 HAS BEEN REVISED IN CESSAR AMEND N TO CLARIFY CESSAR SECTION 3.7.2.13 STATEMENTS STATE THAT SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF DAMS WILL DE DETAILED IN ASSOCIATED WITH SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF SITE SPECIFIC SAR. SAFETY-RELATED DAMS 3.7.3-1 STAFF WILL CONFIRM THAT APPLICANT CONF CESSAR MARK-UP PROVIDED (JUNE 21-23 AUDIT) TO REVISE USES THE MODELING ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA OF FIGURE 3.7-34 TO SHOW MASSES AND DEGREES OF FREEDOM FOR SRP SECTION 3.7.2 THE SURGE LINE. 3.7.3-2 STAFF WILL CONFIRM THAT RESPONSES CLOSED NOTE IN TABLE 3.7-1 OF CESSAR AMEND N HAS BEEN REVISED TO RAIS Q210.36 AND Q210.37 ARE TO STATE THAT CODE CASE N-411-1 DAMPING VALUES MAY BE INCORPORATED INTO CESSAR USED AS LIMITED BY RG 1.84. 3.7.3-3 STAFF WILL CONFIRM THAT CESSAR CONF CESSAR AMEND N HAS BEEN REVISED TO ADD NUREG-1061 AS A SECTION 3.7.3.9 IS REVISED, AS PREVIOUSLY REFERENCE BUT SECTION 3.7.3.9 HAS NOT BEEN REVISED TO PROPOSED DISCUSS OR SPECIFICALLY COMMIT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF NUREG-1061, VOL 4, SECTION 2. 1 Of 7 4 m__ .__. --w_ _ -w -- --,,-,-ie-e---e,-e----ve, --v- w--wr+rw.-e,-e.eww-wrw--e r=-- ir - w e -t~-- - - ---r-, +e-e- -~*---we- ,+-w+er-ww,,-r--,---eww-e--g --,-,er ,-r,,3 =- -e-m em-, w ,
-rv -~.,-ti
. . -- . - . ~ . - . . _ - . ~ . . _ _ _ . - - - - - - _ _ . . = _ _ -. . ... -.-.__ . . _ _ . . . . . . . - . .
DSER OPEN REVIEW COMMENTS ITEM STATUS j 2.4.14-1 APPLICANT SHOULD REVISE LETTER CLOSED INCORPORATED INTO CESSAR AMEN N. LD-92-045 TO REMOVE REFERENCES NOT ADDRESSED BY CESSAR 2.5-1 APPLICANT SHOULD USE ENVELOPE CLOSED ADEQUATE RESPONSE PROVIDED IN THE CESSAR. RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR DESIGN ANALYSIS OF CAT I STRUCTURES 2.5.2.5.1-1 TIME HISTORIES FOR CMS 2 CO NO CLOSED RESPONSE (12/23/92) TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE. TRACK UNDER SATISFY SRP 3.7.1 FOR 7 % DAMPING OPEN ITEM NO 3.7.1-3. , 2.5.2.5.1-2 SIGNIFICANT " VALLEY" IN CLOSED RESPONSE (12/23/92) IS ACCEPTABLE. FOUNDATION SPECTRA PRESENTED IN A PREVIOUS MEETING MUST BE ADDRESSED. 2.5.2.5.1-3 CESSAR SHOULD BE REVISED TO CLOSED AMEND N TO CESSAR IS ACCEPTABLE. FURTHER REVIEW OF CMS 1 INCLUDE CMS 1 AND CMS 3 AND CMS 3 WILL BE TRACKED UNDER OPEN ITEM 2.5-1. 2.5.2.5.1-4 STAFF MUST REVIEW FORMAL CLOSED CESSAR NEEDS TO ELABORATE FURTHER ON THE USE OF CONTROL DISCUSSION IN CESSAR ON HOW CMS 1 WILL BE MOTION CMSI. FURTHER REVIEW WILL BE TRACKED UNDER OPEN USED ITEM 2.5-1. 2.5.2.8-1 APPLICANT SHOULD ADDRESS SOIL CLOSED RESPONSE (12/23/92) IS ACCEPTABLE AND HAS BEEN PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH COMPRESSION INCORPORATED INTO THE CESSAR AMEND N. WAVES. 2.5.3-1 APPLICANT SHOULD CLEARLY STATE IN CLOSED AMEND N TO CESSAR IS ACCEPTABLE. CESSAR THAT PLANT WILL NOT BE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND SURFACE FAULTING. 3.5.3-1 APPLICANT SHOULD INCORPORATE CLOSED CESSAR AMEND N INCORPORATES TABLE 1, SRP 3.5.3 AS TABLE TABLE 1 OF SRP 3.5.3 INTO CESSAR. 3.5-3. T 2 of 7 _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - . - . - - - . - . _ - - - . - ~ . - . - - - - . _ - - . - . - - . - . - .
. _ =__ _. __ . _ .m _. .. __ ._._..m m _ . = . . _ .}}