ML20064K834
| ML20064K834 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1993 |
| From: | EQE ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS (FORMERLY EQE ENGINEERING |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20064K833 | List: |
| References | |
| 42103-R-001, 42103-R-001-R00, 42103-R-1, 42103-R-1-R, NUDOCS 9403230306 | |
| Download: ML20064K834 (177) | |
Text
q 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 ENGINEERING -__..______.____7 Page 1 of 79 CONSU LTA NTS 1 ' t ,, ; p *'
C [~ v ) i 1 !i i .. s') .t. ]. { );;,j tg > \/
g,, g SEISMIC REANALYSIS OF REACTOR BUILDING PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION JULY 1993 i
Prepared for.
BOSTON EDSION COMPANY 25 IJraintree Ilill Oflice Park liraintree, MA 02184 9403230306 940209 EQE ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PDR ADOCK 05000293 A Division of EQE International P
( -
,1 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 2 of 79
@ 1993 by EQE incorporated ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The information contained in this document is confidential and proprietary data. No part of this document may be reproduced or trans-mitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, record-ing, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from EQE incorporated.
r
'l 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 3 of 79 TABLE OF REVISIONS Revision Descriotion of Revision Date Acoroved 0 Original Issue July 30,1993 5
.J
4, 42103 R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 4 of 79 APPROVAL COVER SHEET i 4
i TITLE: Seismic Reanalysis of Reactor Building Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station l REPORT NUMBER: 42103.01 CLIENT: Boston Edison Company PROJECT NO.: 42103 REVISION RECORD REV.NO. DATE PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED 0 07-30-93 h L. lA) fM r
r
)
l
~I 42103-R 001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 5 of 79 TABLE OF CONTENTS
'PAGE l
- 1. I NT R O D U CTI O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. .......................... ........ 7
- 2. T E C H NI C A L A PPR O A C H . . . , . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........11 2.1 Overview . ....... .. . . . . .... .. . ................................11
- 2. 2 Free-field G r ound M oti on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 12
- 2. 3 S oil Pr o file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................13 2.4 Site Response Analysis. ... . ... .. . . . .. ...... ...... ... . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.5 Implementation of the Substructure Approach in SSI Analysis .........15 2.5.1 Foundation input Motion.. ... ...... . ........................16 2.5.2 Foundation Impedances . . ... ........ ......... ... .............16
- 2. 5. 3 S t ru c t u r e M od e I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 2.6 SSI Analysis.. ... ..............................................................18
- 3. B U I L DI N G MO D E L . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ................................25 3.1 Introduction.. ...............................................................25 3.2 Description of the Reactor Building and Internal Structures... ..... ... 25 3.3 Model Stif fness Properties .... ...............................................26 3.4 M od el Ma s s Pr o pe rtie s .. . . . ... . . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 3.5 Element Dam ping ... ... .... .. . . ... ... . . .......... ..... . . ............30
- 3. 6 Fl o or Fle xi bilit y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
[
42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 6 of 79
- 4. AN ALYSIS R ESU LTS............. ..........,......................................54 4.1 Ti m e H i s t o r ie s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 4.2 Building Model Frequencies .... . .. ..... ... .... .... .....................54 4.3 Soil Impedances and Scattering Functions .. . ... . ................ ........ 54 4.4 In-Structure R e sponse S pe ctra .... . .. . .. .... ..... .. . .. . .... . .. . .. . . . . ... . .... . . . . . 5 5
- 5. REFERENCES...... ..... ..................................................................78 PAGES ATTACHMENT A - REGULATORY GUIDE 1.60 SSE IN. STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA ..... . .... . . ..... .... ............................65 ATTACHMENT B - RESUMES OF PROJECT PERSONNEL . .. ... ... .............. ..... 33 I
r r
a F
6
%' ]
d
_m.i m~_.
M ACS MN
42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 7 of 79
- 1. INTRODUCTION .
This report describes the scismic reanalysis of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power :
Station (PNPS) Reactor Building as requested by Boston Edison in Reference 1 and subsequent correspondence.
The scope of work consisted of upgrading the Reactor Building dynamic model to current requirements; performin0 a soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis using seismic inputs corresponding to (1) Re0ulatory Guide 1.60 ground response spectra anchored at 0.159 for SSE and 0.08 9 or f OBE, and (2) PNPS FSAR (Housner) ground response spectra anchored at 0.15g for SSE and 0.08g for OBE; and generating new in-structure response spectra suitable for use in future design activities.
The Reactor Building model was revised to be a 3-D model, rather than 2-D as originally developed, incorporating vertical and torsional properties. Mass and stiffness properties were recalculated using plant drawings and equip-ment locations. Internal structures were modeled separate!y: (1) the drywell vessel, (2) the torus suppression pool, (3) the biological shield, (4) the reactor pressure vessel, and (5) the reactor pedestal. The building model properties ,
were derived in a QA calculation (Reference 7) with all sources of information ,
documented. A schematic of the dynamic model with elevations for genera-tion of in-structure response specta is shown in Figure 1-1.
The SSI analysis was performed as a 3-D analysis in accordance with current practice. Input time histories to characterize the ground spectra were generated to meet current NRC requirements (Reference 2). Impedances and i scattering functions were computed using soil layer properties determined by others (Reference 13). The soil properties were coupled with the upgraded building model for analysis of the coupled soil-structure system. Soil para-meters were varied in accordance with Reference 2.
. , , - - - , , < a - - --v ,.
42103-R-001 _
Revision 0 !
July 30,1993 i Page 8 of 79 l
New in-structure response spectra were Denerated for both ground spectrum inputs (Regulatory Guide 1.60 and PNPS FSAR) and for SSE and OBE. The new spectra were generated at the points contained in BECo Specification C-i 114, the torus, and El. 27.17 on the drywell vessel. Foi the main building l
~1 floor elevations, the new spectra consist of an envelope of the center of mass location and the four extreme corners of the floors in order to capture torsional effects. The spectra for the torus is an envelope of four points around the circumference of the vessel. All spectra envelop the best estimate, upper bound, and lower bound soil cases, and are broadaned in accordance with current criteria. A flow chart of the analysis process is shown in Figure 1-2. The computer programs used in each step are shown ,in parenthesis in each box.
The new spectra for the Regulatory Guide 1.60 SSE ground spectrum input are contained in Attachment A to this report. All analysis was performed and documented in accordance with EQE QA procedures. Computer program inputs and outputs are saved on electronic media, t
The following personnel performed work on this project:
r
. Modelling
- Paul Baughman -
- James White ,
- Gordon Bjorkman ,
. Analysis
- Alejandro Asfura j
- David Doyle
- Basilio Sumodobilia i
Design Review
- James Johnson Their resumes are contained in Attachment B to this report. -
...nv ,- -- - - -
L ,1 42103 R-001 Revision O July 30,1993 REACTOR
"" 9 " * # 78 BUILDING l n
EL.164.50 L.145.00 DRYWELL
- EL.117.00 REACTOR VESSEL BIOSHIELD x EL. 91.25 EL. 86.75 C -
EL. 81.80 EL. 74.25 EL. 71.50 .
Q y (p EL. 56.64 EL. 55.18
- EL. 51.00 Q) EL 52.81
, EL. 47.35 EL. 47.27 g) EL. 35.42 EL. 27.17 , EL 28.00 EL. 23.00 '
EL. 21.70 ,
TORUS Q EL.15.40 ,
w.
EL. -0.25 MAT Q EL -17.5 9
Figure 1-1 !
~
42103-R 001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 10 of 79 GROL*c /
r% LOW K? tass \
$TitucTutt
'O) a t SPC.sst l
f
%,J SOIL PRONLE WCDEL I
e 1r 1r y i _ _ . __, _ _ _ . , _ . ,
& - _ r,0 m ->- _._
,,,_ . , P.OP,
,_ p .c.m.., O _._,
_c . c, .. _c..
aum ,1_
0 = anP mer W fFff) l.or m gmg)oP- Oi l tW CW5.Pl l l l l Y Y Y Y
.O __.
LAA MI
. . . ~ . . .
PrweQ 710se LEvit sost.3TRyt",0. _..
Vag gygTIM lw ,_.,_.,P_
,O _ _ 0.
less$N) fShhdLL t$1881 l l l 1f y y -
SPECTItuu 3#EMW AT $PECTRA PROM NOO.L I cwouurae 'otam trvtl nus eusTomas '
EFOURrEA lRSPfC) IR 5Pt C) l l l 1r y 1r
- \ ' /\ .O.0
, =P" N , ,,
om,.c10. -
> ,<, _;;=n,,,, , o
."A" ^
/
Y I
DettLOP BPECTR.
F T.sttILOO SOIL 4 EXTRtuf 5 CA513 1 A SEfNI l
Y PtOT fpent FLO Rf SPOhnt SPEC.3R MA (R5 PLT) l 1
Figure 1-2 i
O l!EM l
I 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 11 of 79 -
- 2. TECHNICAL APPROACH i
2.1 Overview in this chapter, the technical process used by EQE to perform the soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis of the PNPS Reactor Building is described.
The major tasks involved in the seismic analysis of the PNPS Reactor Building are described here in general terms.
In the last decade, significant advances have been made in the area of SSI :
analysis. Better and more theoretically sound SSI analysis techniques have i been deveioped and implemented, and experience has been gained in their use. Theoretical developments and experimental programs have furthered the ,
understanding of the combined behavior of soil-structure systems with the spatial variation of ground motions. Better and more efficient techniques have been developed for the generation of site-specific seismic motions, and a significant amount of data has been collected. Questions regarding the location of the control motion for the analyses, acceptable radiation damping, soil material behavior, variability of the soil and structure properties have been addressed with analytical and experimental studies. All of these advances have culminated in regulatory revisions as evidenced by Revision 2 of the USNRC Standard Review Plan (SRP), Section 3.7, NUREG-0800 (Reference 2).
The overall approach is described here in the context of the substructure ;
method to SSI. The substructure approach is particularly attractive for SSI analysis. It separates the SSI problem into a series of simpler problems, +
solves each independently, and superimposes the results. This approach allows one to examine meaningfulintermediate results and perform sensitivity studies in a cost-effective fashion. The elements of the substructure approach as applied to structures subjected to earthquake excitations are:
(1) specifying the free-field ground motion; (2) defining the soil profile; (3)
.- l
'I 42103-R 001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 12 of 79 performing site response analysis; (4) calculating the foundation input motion; (5) calculating the foundation impedances; (6) determining the dynamic characteristics of the structure; and (7) performing the SSI analysis, i.e.,
combining the previous steps to calculate the response of the coupled soil-structure system. Figure 2-1 shows the several steps schematically. A brief discussion of each of these elements and their applicability to the PNPS Reactor Building is given below.
2.2 Free-field Ground Motion Specification of the free-field ground motion entails specifying the control point, the frequency characteristics of the control motion (typically, time histories or response spectra), and the spatial variation of the motion. For the PNPS Reactor Building, the free-field ground motiens are described by the PNPS FSAR (Housner) and Regulatory Guide 1.60 response spectra applied at finished grade in the free field (Reference 1). The SSI analysis will utilize artificial acceleration time histories generated to the criteria of NRC SRP Section 3.7.1 (Reference 2). Generating the time histories is a simple yet critical task. Any excess conservatism incorporated in the time histories in a frequency range including or close to the principal soil-structure system frequencies will be directly transmitted to the floor response spectra and impact the design and evaluation of plant components. Therefore, the reduction of unnecessary conservatism in the artificial time histories meeting the requirements of the SRP Section 3.7.1 deserves special attention. EQE proprietary computer code FIT has been developed to meet the SRP Section 3.7.1 requirements without introducing unnecessary conservatism by closely matching target response spectra. Figure 2-2 compares a representative-response spectrum corresponding to an artificial acceleration time history generated with the program FIT using the horizontal SSE design spectrum at 5% damping for a typical site as the target. A very close match is observed.
Figure 2-3 and 2-4 compare the response spectra of artificial acceleration
F' I: 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 13 of 79 time histories generated with the program FIT using Housner and Regulatory Guide 1.60 as the target spectra. Time histories generated in this fashion -
closely fit target response spectra, meet the SRP Section 3.7.1 criteria, and are realistic time functions as shown in Figure 2-2. They eliminate unwanted conservatism in the SSI analysis and in the generation of floor response spectra, in addition to enveloping the design response spectra, the artificial time histories rnust comply with requirements of compatibility of energy dist ibutions with the target motions. To ensure that the artificial time histories do not have frequency rangm with deficient energy content, the power spectral density functions of the artificial time histories t re compared with the requirements of Reference 2.
1 2.3 Soil Profile l
l Defining the soil profile for SSI analysis first involves defining the low strain {
l soit properties as a function of depth. This is usually done from site data j 4
i compiled by the geotechnical engineer. The important pararneters for the SSI analysis are soil shear modulus, soil material damping, Poisson's ratio, mass density, and water table location--all as a function of depth in the soil. An additional aspect of defining the soil properties is the variation in soil shear I modulus and soil material damping with shear strain level, i.e., the reduction in shear modulus and the increase in damping as shear strain increases. The I low strain soil profile for this work was provided by Boston Edison (Reference 13).
2.4 Site Response Analysis
.i l
A site response analysis serves two purposes: (1) estimate shear strain i compatible equivalent linear soil properties, and (2) calculate motions at i foundation depth in the free field to compare with SRP requirements. !
-42103-R-001 Revision 0 ,
July 30,1993 j Page 14 of 79 The generetion of shear-strain compatible soil properties is an important step in the SSI analysis. Strain compatible soil shear modulus and soil material :
damping will affect the motion at the foundation of the structuie and thus the seismic response, it is common practice, lacking site-specific laboratory test ' '
data, to use the soil material properties versus shear-strain relationships developed by Seed and Idriss (Reference 3) in conjunction with the computer program SHAKE (Reference 4) to estimate equivalent linear soit properties compatible with the soil shear strains induced by the design basis response ,
spectrum. The program SHAKE is a commonly used and well-accepted -
program in the nuclear industry for the development of equivalent linear strain compatible soil properties and for the calculation of time histories of motion at any location in the soil column. SHAKE is based upon one-dimensional vertical propagation of shear waves through linear viscoelastic soils consisting of homogeneous horizontal layers extending to infinity in the horizoral direction and overlying a homogeneous half-space. Figure 2-5 l
shows an example of variations of soil shear wave velocity and soil material damping compatible with soil shear strains obtained with the program SHAKE.
Based on Reference 1, the location of the control motion for the PNPS site is ;
defined in the free field at the ground surface. In anticipation of the need to j i
perform SSI analyses for three soil profiles ~a best estimate, a lower range profile, and a higher range profile-- three site response analyses will be performed for each earthquake level (OBE and SSE) and each design response '
spectrum (PNPS FSAR and Regulatory Guide 1.60). l 1
To comply with the requirement in the SRP Section 3.7.2 (Reference 2) which states that the spectral amplitude of the horizontal acceleration response spectra in the free field at the foundation depth shall be not less than 60% of the corresponding design response spectra at the finished grade Yh
_ -- ,,- , ,, ,- ,c-- . - -- -,_ ,,-,_ , , - , ,-
42103-R-001 Revision 0 ;
July 30,1993 Page 15 of 79 ,
in the free field, a site response analysis is performed with the program SHAKE to generate the acceleration time histories (and response spectra) at the free-field foundation level for each of the cases defined above and for each earthquake. Treating each case as a triplet, the three foundation level i response spectra are enveloped and the result compared with 60% of the surface spectra. If deficiencies exist that cannot be corrected by slight changes in soil properties, then the control motion will be altered. To do so, the power spectral density functions of the motions at the surface and foundation level are calculated. In the frequency ranges where the foundation level spectra do not meet the SRP 60% requirement, the corresponding frequencies of the foundation level power spectral density function are amplified by the square of the ratio of 0.6 times the surface spectral values to the foundation level spectral values at those noncomplying frequencies. The corrected power spectral density function can then be used to generate a new acceleration time history at the foundation level and, by convolution, a new design time history at the surface level that will fully ;
comply with the 60% requirement. This procedure will minimize the conservatism added in the frequency ranges where the 60% requirement was originally met. Iterations are performed as necessary with the express intent of not adding unnecessary conservatism to the artificial time histories. All SRP Section 3.7 criteria are then reverified.
2.5 Implementation of the Substructure Approach in SSI Analysis The three remaining steps in the substructure approach (determining the foundation input motion, calculating foundation impedances, and modeling the structure) are discussed next. For this approach to be valid, one important assumption needs to be verified, i.e., that the foundation behaves rigidly with respect to the surrounding soil. This is the case for the PNPS Reactor Building due to the stiffness of the foundation itself and the effective stiffness of the interconnecting walls and slabs.
42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 16 of 79 ,
2.5.1 Foundation Inout Motion The foundation input motion differs from the free-field ground motion in all cases, except for surface foundations subjected to vertically incident waves.
The motions differ for two reasons. First, the free-field motion varies with soil depth. Second, the soil-foundation interface scatters waves because points on the foundation are constrained to move according to its ge7 metry and stiffness. The foundation input motion (u*) is related to the free-field !
ground motion by means of a transformation defined by a scattering matrix
[s(w)], which is complex valued and frequency dependent:
{u' (w)} = [s(w)] {f(w)}
The vector {f(w)} is the complex Fourier transform of the free-field ground t motion, which contains its complete description.
As already discussed in Section 2.4, the three foundation level response ,
spectra corresponding to the foundation input motion from the three soil cases are enveloped and the result is compared to 60% of the surface spectra. If deficiencies exist that cannot be corrected by slight changes in ,
soil properties, then the control motion is altered.
2.5.2 Foundation Imoedances Foundation impedances [ks(w)] describe the force-displacement '[
characteristics of the soil. They depend on the soil configuration and material behavior, the frequency of the excitation, and the geometry of the i foundation, in general, for a linear elastic or viscoeleastic material and a f
uniform or horizontally stratified soil deposit, each element of the impedance
-l matrix is complex-valued and frequency dependent. For a rigid foundation, ,
the impedance matrix is a 6 X 6 which relates a resultant set of forces and l
, moments to the six rigid body degrees-of-freedom.
i 5
i 42103 R-001 Revision 0 4
~ July 30,1993 Page 17 of 79 The embedment of the PNPS Reactor Building foundation is one of the most significant parameters on structure response, and modeling this embedment is essential. The computer code SUPELM (Reference 5) is used for this .
purpose. SUPELM is based on a rigid circular foundation embedded in a layered medium with infinite boundaries. These assumptions are appropriate for the PNPS Resc*or Building and equivalent properties are computed. EQE t
has verified St>FELM under its OA program by comparing to SASSI. SASSI is a well-known computer code which has been reviewed and approved by the NRC for its use in the nuclear industry and has been extensively used for nuclear projects. .
Horizontal ground motions are assumed to be composed of vertically propagating shear waves, and vertical ground motions are assumed to be composed of vertically propagating compressional waves. These assump-I tions are consistent with current practice and it has been demonstrated that !
I they result in realist % structural and soil responses (Reference 3). )
l 2.5.3 Structure Model Depending on the end use of the SSI analysis, the dynamic model can exhibit various levels of refinement from a detailed member specific model to a single equivalent beam lumped mass model in addition, depending on the com- l l
plexity of the structure between floors (e.g., curved or skewed wall systems) detailed finite element models can be constructed to derive the equivalent beam properties (shear area, moments of inertia and center of rigidity) or i element stiffness matrices. The details of the PNPS Reactor Building model j are described in Chapter 3. .l i
Using an appropriate finite element model (i.e., a lumped mass equivalent beam model for spectra generation) the dynamic properties of the structure are described by the fixed-base eigensystem and the individual modal
_ r - .-.., _ _ ,
42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 18 of 79 1 damping ratios. The modal damping ratios are the composite viscous damping ratios for the fixed-base structure expressed as a fraction of critical damping. The structures' dynamic properties are then projected to a point on the foundation at which the total motion of the foundation, including SSI effects, is determined.
2.6 SSI Analysis The final step in the substructure approach is the actual SSI analysis. The results of the previous steps (foundation input motion, foundation impedances, and structure model) are combined to solve the equations of motion for the coupled soil-structure system. For a single rigid foundation, the SSI response computation requires the solution of, at most, six simultaneous equations - the response of the foundation. Solution is ;
obtained by first representing the response in the structure in terms of the foundation motions and then applying that representation to the equation defining the balance of forces at the soil / foundation interface. The formulation is in the frequency domain. Hence, one can write the equation of motion for the unknown harmonic foundation response {ub} exp(io>t), for any frequency c), about a reference point selected on the foundation. The computer program SSIN is used to combine the several steps to give the final structure response.
The computer code CLASSI (Continuum Linear Analysis for Soil-structure Interaction) consists of a set of subprograms for analyzing the effect of soil-structure interaction on the response of structures. Basically, the CLASSI program may be divided into two parts, CLAN and SSIN, using a special 1
substructure method developed by Wong and Luco. The CLAN portion applies the theory of linear continuum mechanics to analyze the harmonic interaction between the rigid foundation mat and the underlying soil medium.
The information generated by CLAN is the impedance and scattering
42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 19 of 79 matrices. The impedance matrix describes the harmonic force-displacement relationship of the response to incident waves. The SSIN part of the program completes the substructuring process by combining the stiffness matrix of the structure at the base level and the impedance matrix to determine the unknown foundation motions and structural responses. For this project, SUPELM is used in place of CLAN, so only the SSIN portion of CLASSI is used. t Time histories generated in the SSI analysis are converted to floor response spectra for each of the three soil cases. The three floor response spectra in each direction are enveloped and then broadened and smoothed according to the requirements specified in SRP 3.7.2 and Regulatory Guide 1.122, considering however that uncertainties in soil properties and SSI will be included in the SSI analysis. !
l l
l 361G r- - e % +- =e
'l 42103-R-OO1 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 20 of 79 X X '
Free-field motion Foundation input motion a
M
. O. yp/pjjj X ,
/
Soil prof!!e impedances $3; Site response analysis 1
5 am.mo- -
I'##/#)
Strue: ural model Figure 2-1
l 42103 R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 21 of 79
- to-L 4.0 2.>.
5 32.5 -
O t.>-
5' to 3 to t 3,2 r m.ney ca :
Legend Notes: .
Synthetic T/E Acceleracicas is g's ccics sarizzacal _ __ 54 spec.ral camping-
. mm ,
t . 0-=
0.5-
.., mA / , h '
h !
I m i .
ll [ fk l lld dhn , u ,
P V 7 N ;! I 1
.,. )
j
/ }1-["V f w "
i
(
1
... 2.. ... ... ... .... u.. ,...
Figure 2-2
I-42103-R-001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 22 ut '29 ,
i X 10'I 3.0 ,-=
l 2.s -
2.0 ---. - - - -
x k_k_
a
- o
'd
( \
5 j
1.5 - - -
/
.f _.___ _ _ . .
V,_. 4/ -- -
8 /
d: I
/
1.0 - -
f _ - . . -
0.5 T
/ - - _ - - -
/ _ _ _. .
\
0.0 J .
16 0 I 10 10 2 10 Prequency (112)
Legend Notes llorizontal llousner 5.0 1 Spec. Damping (PSAR) Spectrum
!!orizontal Matching Accelerations in g's Spectrum, X-Dir:EW _ _ _ _ - -
1 SSE Level - 0.15g i
1 I
Figure 2-3 1 1
1
,1 i
I 42103 R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 23 of 79 I
1 0
X 10 0.5 0.5 -_
~~~
kWf ,
0.4 -_- - ._ _ _ . .. __
I 1
k %<
} _ _ _ _ , , ,
I
.S a , \'N d
3
! \
-- _ - - -\
l' g " _
U
< jd
- 0. 2- _ _ _
g
/ k fr eu o . /
P
/ . .
o o/ 3 0
10 I 30 10 2 30 Prequency (liz)
Legend:
Notes:
llorizontal RG 1.60 Design Spectrum 5.0 1 Spec. Damping florizontal Matching Accelerations in g's Spectrum, X-Dir:EW _ _ . _ _ _ _ 1 SSE Level'- 0.15g llorizontal Hatching Spectrum, Y-Dir:HS __.___ ___
Figure 2-4
. I.
42103-R-001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 24 of 79 suancs ,
-3 - m. , . me p-*.= eyes e saa d!',,4.4 4 : ,ff" . . , , ,
- 4**W.,, 6,*-* . @ f1@ ** r W;,u. m .:;a..s - .
cut.. . u .tassi .t:so C" snAm courAnaus recetMTF.s t
, PFwE;-/.%; M72:.ZP-a gimas pso
.x,,ne ~ . c m- # v w... cuum, 22 s
_ j 1
w roen .co %"4'll"h M 4 ?* m7+ 4*r".ca"; %ma cl urs) ,14ae g !E:;ca---~wa -w ;t:w e, :-#xisrH 1+as I q
p,a c s- cer m.w o: :-;uasi i l
@ W&d.m+2c* . , %. .M_W1 iaae i
me
.a , -
~.s -r..-.- t w . . , . , . , , .-- ,;.:. b.r./m..;.
.. ..she :- ..: #,x%x.:;:u.,/.nec=
?.'TJw_-4'1 im
.asW NWav :~:_ l'Nam _ uw: h.2%N,t' m nl 1 im t: Lit .^.; 1::r.w.-- .r.AC"*.;.*T G:s:CN "??u^*'r' 1l v6:.23 im
.se - .- uw ww. s- o a-r -- n= 2:. .r
..w u im
- 13 R Ccw;.
cw &._ G T..'I'a*m... 7: .".*.f.7aE:M
- 2 o-n W.. % @.
t uusnes =oo 5
.44 ,
l 0 son scue 1300 2 00 anoo l t s SHEAR WAVE VELOCTTY a
.u.nc. _
t
.._ . . t g33 t ;
- --%,ecrees:=mu m. .;
- _ = --- = x.5 m, 4
mrm_mn ::w I'
3 Pose .ie-
"i-2)-RE. hi k
acmem:=r~ cn.~ . .$Js4
- a ==
9'- ...- Bimess-maem-ac. _-lm. .
- sa
- ::::=:wm--m:.s.c.e ._mr mi .==
3 30 E=mera~ mere.W= i d M T h W "~rnle= I
,a w.e .,m, ss:::= ce,-.-.-e._.=2:_.J,,
m
-~
l
.m p. ._ u-#.-4 ._
cz -=.~_%.-=~.w . , . - - . .a ;
gk:
L .av,:mc M' _ T_S.. --mm*L;<sn a.". M:- ^* l i
l
.ns
- i uwsnea 5=wac-My-u=y=rwarrcx-2
- 4=.TzzA.a
.8 t ll2 .itt A4 AS DAMPtNG RAUC 1
1 1
I i
Figure 2-5 l
l 1
i 1
-. 9% a i
1 42103-R-001 )
Revision 0 1 July 30,1993 l Page 25 of 79
- 3. BUILDING MODEL i
3.1 Introduction This chapter presents an overview of the structural model of the Reactor Building and Internal structures used in the SSI analysis and response spectra generation. The development of the model is documented in Reference 7.
Figure 1-1 shows a schematic of the model with the mass points indicated. ,
Table 3-1 and 3-2 contain the nodal properties and element properties of the model.
3.2 Description of the Reactor Building and Internal Structures The Reactor Building is a rectangular reinforced concrete structure up to the refueling floor at EL.117. Above that it is a steel frame with exterior precast concroa panels.
The foundation mat is 144.5 feet square and 10 feet thick with the finished top surface at El. -17.5. It rests on a 6 inch thick concrete working slab.
There is an extension of about 40 feet by 60 feet on the northwest side comprising the HPCI compartment under the Auxiliary Bay. The exterior shape of the building is essentially rectangular for the remainder of its height, with an interior grid of walls between floor levels Figures 3-1 through 3-10 show cross-sections at different elevations. Site grade is at El. 23. The shear centers and centers of mass of the Reactor Building are not coincident over the height of the buil ding, introducing the potential for significant torsional response.
The drywell containment vessel is an axisymmetric steel structure surrounded by a reinforced concrete shield wall which follows the contour of the vessel from the foundation of the drywell up to the operating floor. The drywell
- e. - 4 42103-R-001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 26 of 79 shield is an integral part of the main building structure. The centerline of the drywell vessel is not coincident with the centerline of the reactor building.
The torus suppression pool is located below the drywell and is supported by the mat.
The reactor pressure vesselis sr 7 ported by a reinforced concrete pedestal inside the drywell. The vessel is surrounded by a biological shield wall built ,
up of welded steel sections and infill concrete. The biological shield is supported on the reactor pedestal. The pedestal and drywell are supported on a solid concrete section extending about 25 feet above the top of the mat.
The reactor pressure vessel, biological shield wall and drywell structures are braced to the Reactor Building structure at El. 81.8. The reactor vessel is braced to the top of the biological shield by a stabilizer system which resists lateral movement and torsion but not vertical movement (it also allows radial ,
growth, but this is not relevant to seismic response). The biological shield is braced to the drywell by the star truss which acts similarily to the stabilizer.
The drywell is connected to the drywell shield concrete by heavy steellugs which also restrain only lateral and torsional movement. ,
3.3 Model Stiffness Properties The floors of the Reactor Building are connected by a grid of walls and the
]
drywell shield structure. This irregular pattern makes it difficult to simulate ;
l using composite beam e!cment properties. Therefore, finite element models l
were constructed to obtain stiffness properties. The models are shown in l Figures 3-11 through 3-15. All reinforced concrete walls extending from floor to floor with adequate length to develop shear resistance were included.
I Walls with small openings infil%d with block were considered continuous if it I was judged that the block infill would transmit shear. Full height reinforced block walls two feet or more thick were also included, although the modulus !
iM i
p I
42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 i Page 27 of 79 ;
l of elasticity was adjusted to reflect the lower stiffness of concrete block construction. The change in wall sections and the floor slab in the Auxiliary Bay at El. 3 was modeled explicitly in the finite element model from El. -17.5 to El.-23 (Figure 3-11). ,
The nodes at the top and bottom of the wall meshes were rigidly connected >
to nodes at the z-axis (reactor conterline). These nodes were then given unit displacements and rotations. Using the reaction forces, stiffness matrices j were assembled. The finite element models also yielded mass properties for the walls. These were distributed to the floors above and below in the mass property calculations.
The dryiNell lugs are connected to the Reactor Building at El. 81.8 which is between floors. The lugs are embedded in the drywell shield concrete. To model this connection a node (5) was introduced between El. 74.25 and -
91.25. This node was connected to the floors by beam elements representing the drywell shield cross-section. The stiffness of this cross-section was then subtracted from the stiffness matrix of the element connecting the two floors. This provided a good representation of the stiffness restraint for the drywelllugs while also providing a good representation of the stiffness between the two floor elevations. ,
The superstructure above the operating floor at El.117.0 consists of steel columns with exterior precast concrete panels. Investigation determined that ;
the panels were adequately connected to the columns to provide shear !
transfer. The stiffness properties were then determined based on a l
composite of the precast panels and the columns at the perimeter of the building. This could be well represented in the model by an equivalent beam element.
__ _ - _ _ _ _____J
I 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 28 of 79 The torus structure was determined to be rigid based on review of drawings and References 11 and 12. It was modeled as four nodes around the circumference cf the vessel joined by rigid elements to the base mat center of '
mass. The m..ss properties of the torus were combined into the base mat mass properties.
The drywell vessel stiffness was calculated assuming that it consists of a series of cylindrical sections. This simplification was considered acceptable because the drywell is light and stiff relative to the overall building and is >
connected at the top and bottom. The approximation as a series of cylinders somewhat underestimates the stiffness; thus, the approximation is conservative. The drywell lugs which connect the drywell to the drywell shield structure were simulated with high stiffness values since the lugs are very stiff.
The stiffness properties of the biological shield, reactor vessel and reactor pedestal were taken from prior work by Bechtel and General Electric (References 9 and 10). The documentation of this was reviewed and felt to ,
be acceptable. Likewise, the stiffnesses of the star truss and stabilizer were taken from this documentation. The torsional stiffnesses for the star truss .
and stabilizer were estimated using the lateral (tangential) stiffness and mean radius between the connected structures.
3.4 Model Mass Properties The Reactor Building mass was lumped at eight locations corresponding to the main floor levels, the crane rail elevation and the roof. Mass properties of the floors were determined using finite element representations. The weights of the concrete, steel framing, secondary walls, platforms and major equip-ment were combined to determine the total mass. Allowances for piping, miscellaneous equipment and live loads were added to the mass based on i
judgment. Judgments are acceptable because the dynamic response is not sensitive to moderate changes in these parameters. This was then spread cy I
1 42103 R 001 I Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 29 of 79 over the floor area to determine the centroid and mass moments of inertia.
The centroid, mass, and mass moments of inertia of the primary walls were ,
determined in the stiffness calculations and distributed to the floors above and below. The floor and wall properties were then combined to determine the not mass, centroid, and mass moments of inertia. Macsless nodes were specified at the extreme corners of the floors for use in obtaining torsional 3
effects. The final response spectra were an envelope of the spectra from the centroid and the extreme points.
The Auxiliary Bay was included in the model because it is integral with the Reactor Building. This was not done in the original analysis. A review of the Radwaste and Turbine Building drawings and Reference 8 showed that these are not integral with the Reactor Building. However, certain portions of the buildings are supported on the Reactor Building, and a suitable portion of this mass was included in the model.
The following interface locations were considered:
1
- Reactor Building Auxiliary Bay Roof (El. 50)
. Turbine Building El. 50
= Turbine Auxiliary Bay Roof (El. 82) e Radwaste Building Roof (El. 51)
All other interface points (e.g., Turbine Building El. 23 and 37, Radwaste Building El 37) have insignificant mass contribution. The mass contribution -
of these areas were considered covered by the dead load allowances used at these floor levels.
The mass properties for the drywell were calculated based on the weight of the spherical or cylindrical sections. Because the rotational inertias would have negligible effect on the response of the model, they were not calculated.
I 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 30 of 79 The mass properties of the biological shield, reactor vessel and reactor pedestal were taken from prior work by Bechtel and General Electric (Reference 9 and 10). The mass of the reactor internals was condensed and lumped at the point of connection with the vessel. This simplification was considered acceptable because the high stiffness of the vessel would isolate it from effects of the internals. This was supported by examination of the original vessel spectra in Reference 10 which showed a single predominant peak at the fundamental Reactor Building frequency.
3.5 Element Damping Dampings of different portions of the model were selected based on the materials involved. Dampings for the Reg. Guide 1.60 input cases were taken from Reg. Guide 1.61. Dampings for the PNPS FSAR input cases were taken from the original PNPS FSAR, but were adjusted as judged appropriate for use with Housner spectra.
The Reactor Building main structure was considered reinforced concrete including the superstructure. The superstructure was considered reinforced concrete because the main earthquake resisting elements are the precast panels attached to the exterior building columns. For the PNPS FSAR input cases, damping ratios of 5% for SSE and 2% for OBE were used rather than 7.5% and 5% as specified in the PNPS FSAR. The values used were judged more appropriate for use with Housner spectra.
The drywell was considered a welded steel structure per Reg. Guide 1.61 or welded assembly per PNPS FSAR. The biological shield wall was considered a welded steel structure per Reg. Guide 1.61 (this is conservative) or internal concrete structure / equipment support per PNPS FSAR. The pedestal was assigned the same damping as the shield wall. This is conservative, but the l
S, hih)h
l 4 2103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 31 of 79 pedestal would not be subject to high earthquake stress; hence, lower damping than the standard for reinfoned concrete is appropriate. The reactor vessel was considered equipment /large diameter piping per Reg.
Guide 1.61 or welded assembly per PNPS FSAR. The values used for the PNPS FSAR input cases agree with those used in Reference 10.
The element damping ratios are summarized below:
Element Damping Ratio (Percent)
Reg. Guide 1.60 PNPS FSAR SSE OBE SSE OBE Reactor Building 7 4 5 2 Drywell 4 2 2 1 Bio-Shield & Pedestal 4 2 3 2 Reactor Vessel 3 2 2 1 3.6 Floor Flexibility Floor sections in the Reactor Building main structure were checked for flexibility and potential for resonance in the vertical direction of excitation.
Four sections were checked at El.117, three at EL. 91.25 and one at El.
74.25. These were judged to be the bounding cases for all elevations. The frequencies were calculated using composite concrete-steel clastic cross-sections continuous over supports (i.e., fixed end boundary conditions). The calculated frequencies ranged from 22.7 Hz. to 47.3 Hz. Since the predominant vertical response of the coupled soil-structure system for the main building structure was expected to be below 10 Hz., local floor resonance potential was judged not significant and special modeling was not necessary.
.I 42103-R-001 I Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 32 of 79 TABLE 3-1 NCOES.XLS I I i i l I I i i REACTOR BUILDING MODEL N00AL PROPERTIES I I I I I I i i i i i i i i i l l l I NODE i ELEV i X l Y I Z l MASS l MOM X i MOM Y I MOM Z l i I l I I I i l i REACTOR BLOG I I I I I I I I I l I I II 17.501 3.181 13.031 -4.001 1752.501 43902111 30633571 7453567 21 23.001 1.3 41 20.761 39.301 1272.401 37597491 23746971 6134446
- 31 51.001 -5.144 0.791 67.501 678.901 14148801 12770621 2691942 41 74.251 7.211 5.9 61 90.301 594.201 10949941 5968401 1691834 51 81.801 0.001 0.001 99.301 l l 1 61 91.251 7.771 6.901 108.201 442.601 8418871 4504981 1292385 71 117.001 10.961 7.2 71 133.801 363.401 7118001 4096751 1121475 81 145.001 17.131 7.631 162.501 60.301 1896461 1105631 300209 9' 164.501 17.136 0.001 182.001 29.501 647031 402181 104920 l l i i l I REACTOR BLDG WALL MEMBER ENO PolNTS l !
I I i i i I 81 17.501 0.004 0.001 4.001 1 821 23.001 0.001 0.001 39.301 l l 831 51.001 0.001 0.001 67.501 1 1 1 841 74.251 0.001 0.001 90.301 i i I 861 91.251 0.001 0.001 108.201 1 I 1 871 117.001 0.001 0.001 133.801 1 I l 971 117.001 17.131 0.001 133.801 i i ! '
881 145.001 17.131 0.001 162.501 1 I I i i l i l i i l i REACTOR BLDG FLOOR EX1REME PolNTS I i i t I i i i l i l i 1011 17.501 72.301 109.001 -4.001 1 I i 1 2011 -17.501 72.301 72.301 4.001 I I I 3011 17.501 -72.30I 72.301 -4.001 1 1 1 l
4011 17.501 72.301 72.301 -4.001 i I i 1021 23.001 68.501 121.401 39.301 1 I I 202! 23.001 68.501 -68.501 39.301 I i 1 302! 23.001 -67.801 -68.501 39.301 I I I 4021 23.001 71.301 134.101 39.301 1 I i 1031 51.001 68.801 68.801 67.501 1 I I 2031 51.001 68.80! -68.801 67.50i i l l 3031 51.001 71.301 70.801 67.501 I I i 4031 51.001 71.301 85.101 67.501 1 I I 1041 74.251 69.301 68.801 90.301 i l l 2041 74.25i 69.301 -68.801 90.301 1 I l 3041 74.251 35.001 -68.801 90.301 l 1 l 4041 74.251 -35.001 68.801 90.301 I i l 1061 91.251 69.50t 69.501 108.201 I I I 2061 91.251 69.501 -69.501 108.201 i i i
42103-R 001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 33 of 79 TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
NODES.XLS i
3061 91.25: -35.301 69.501 108.201 I I i 4061 91.25i -35.30i 69.501 108.201 i 1 i 1071 117.001 70.801 70.801 133.80i I I i 2071 117.001 70.801 70.801 133.801 l' I i 307 1 .7.001 36.501 70.801 133.801 i i I 4071 117.001 36.501 70.801 133.801 I I i 1081 145.001 70.801 70.801 162.501 i l l 2081 145.001 70.801 70.801 162.501 1 I i 3081 145.001 36.501 -70.801 162.501 I i 4081 145.001 -36.501 70.801 162.501 l l 1091 164.501 70.801 70.801 182.001 I i 2091 164.501 70.801 70.801 182.001 l l 3091 164.501 -36.501 -70.801 182.001 I I i 4091 164.501 36.501 70.801 182.001 '
l I i l l I i l i I l i RPV PEDESTAL I l l l l 1 1 201 9.1 21 0.001 0.001 26.621 101 15.401 0.001 0.001 32.901 7.9 71 111 21.701 0.001 0.001 39.201 15.081 121 28.001 0.0 01 0.001 45.501 10.111 131 35.421 0.0 01 0.001 52.921 18.251 I I l i i i l i BIOLOGICAL SHIELD WALL l l 1 i l i l I i 141 47.351 0.001 0.001 64.851 7.3 41 I I 151 52.811 0.001 0.001 70.311 2.751 I I
. 161 56.641 0.001 0.001 74.141 9.291 I i 171 71.501 0.001 0.001 89.001 11.071 I i 181 81.801 0.001 0.001 99.301 2.75i I i 191 82.101 0.001 0.001 99.601 I I I i l i l I I i l i i REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL I I I i i i i i l i l i 291 36.881 0.001 0.001 54.381 I I i 301 40.751 0.001 0.001 58.251 I I I 311 47.271 0.001 0.001 64.771 66.22! I i :
321 55.181 0.001 0.001 72.681 9.91l i I 331 58.681 0.001 0.001 76.181 1 I I 341 61.931 0.001 0.001 79.431 8.701 1 1 351 68.431 0.001 0.001 85.931 10.131 1 1 >
361 76.081 0.001 0.001 93.581 9.551 1 I 371 80.431 0 001 0.001 97.931 i l I 381 82.101 0.001 0.001 99.601 l l 391 86.751 0.001 0.001 104.251 8.2 61 1 401 92.031 0.001 0.001 109.531 i !
All 33.651 0.001 0.001 111.151 5.3 81 l l l l l 1 l l l 1 I i l i I I I
, w . . - , - -,
42103-R-001 Revision 0 ,
July 30,1993 Page 34 of 79 l TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
N00ES.XLS I 1 l DRYWELL i i l I l i l I l l l l
- l 501 16.431 0.001 0.001 33.931 1.841 '
l 511 23.691 0.00! O.001 41.191 1 291 '
52l 27.171 0.001 0.001 44.671 1.271 1 531 36.081 0.001 0.001 53.581 1.761 l 541 44.981 0.001 0.001 62.481 1.55 l
-l 55 53.891 0.001 0.001 71.391 1.861 56 59.821 0.001 0.001 77.32l 1.591 l l 57 69.191 0.001 0.001 86.691 0.851 '
58 78.561 0.00 '
O.00l 96.061 0.711 59 81.801 0.00 0.001 99.301 0.871 60 88.81 -
0.001 0.001 106.31 1.921 61 97.81 0.00- 0.001 115.31; 1.951 62 106.391 0.00 0.001 123.891 0.63 l l l l TORUS l l !
l 701 -0.251 -65.75 l 17.251 71l -0.25 '
i 65.751 17.25 ;
72l -0.25 65.75 17.25 731 -0.2 5 l -65.75 17.251 ! !
1 1
-l
^
_ _ , , .a As, p
L 42103 R-001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 35 Of 79 TABLE 3-2 MEMPROP.XLS I I I I REACTOR DUILDING MODEL ELEMENT PROPERTIES REF FROM TO Al A2 A3 11 12 13 E pol REACTOR BLDG WALLS I I 82 81 STIFFNESS MATRIX K21 83 82 STIFFNESS MATRIX K32 84 83 STlFFNESS MATRIX K43 86 84 STlFFNESS MATRIX K64 87 86 STIFFNESS MATRIX K76 '
I I REACTOR BLDG WALL MEMBER END POINT CONNECTIONS 1 81 RIGID 2 82 HIGID 3 83 RIGID 4 84 RIGID 6 86 RIGID 7 87 RIGID 7 D7 RIGID 8 88 RIGID DRYWELL SHIELD WALL HOLDING DRYWELL LUGS I
84 5 765.30 382.65 382.65 322340 161170 161170 519000 0.17 5 86 765.30 382.65 382.65 322340 161170 161170 519000 0.17 REACTOR BLOG SUPERSTRUCTURE 8 97 88 262.88 112.40 150.48 1544428 890235 654193 519000 0.17 9 88 9 262.88 112.40 150.48 1544428 890235 654193 519000 0.17 ,
RPV PEDESTAL 1
l 1
J
, 42103 R 001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 36 of 79 TABLE 3-2 (Continued)
MEMPROP.XLS 10 20 10 278.50 139.00 139.00 35330 17665 17665 457000 0.17 li 10 11 278.50 139.00 139.00 35330 17665 17665 457000 0.17 12 11 12 278.50 139.00 139.00 35330 17665 17665 457000 0.17 13 12 13 354.00 177.00 177.00 40G06 20303 20303 457000 0.17 DIOLOGICAL SHIELO WALL 14 13 14 241.80 120.50 120.50 34058 17029 17029 157000 0.17 15 14 15 100.00 98.00 98.00 26381 13212 13169 457000 0.17 16 15 16 105.00 52.30 52.30 15014 7507 7507 457000 0.17 17 16 17 306.40 153.30 153.30 46902 23451 23451 457000 0.17 18 17 18 152.90 76.00 76.50 22113 9290 12823 457000 0.17
, 19 18 19 RIGID RPV SKlRT 26 13 29 50.00 25.00 25.00 3800 1900 1900 3950000 0.265 27 29 30 8.56 4.28 4.28 570 285 285 3950000 0.265 REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL 28 30 31 14.10 7.05 7.05 978 489 489 3740000 0.205 29 31 32 33.92 16.96 16.96 3154 1577 1577 3740000 0.265 30 32 33 33.92 16.96 16.96 3154 1577 1577 3740000 0.265 31 33 34 28.86 14.43 14.43 2684 1342 1342 3740000 0.265 32 34 35 28.86 14.43 14.43 2684 1342 1342 3740000 0.205 33 35 36 28.86 14.43 14.43 2684 1342 1342 3740000 0.265 34 36 37 28.86 14.43 14.43 2684 1342 1342 3740000 0.265 35 37 38 33 92 16.96 16.96 3154 1577 1577 3740000 0.265 36 38 39 33.92 16.96 16.96 3154 1577 1577 3740000 0.265 37 39 40 33.92 16.96 16.96 3154 1577 1577 3740000 0.265 36 40 41 67.22 33.61 33.61 6574 3287 jg 3740000 0.265 j DRYWELL
-1 i
m --- . .
1 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 37 of 79 TABLE 3-2 (Continued)
MEMPROP.XLS 50 20 50 15.09 7.55 7.55 11102 5551 5551 4176000 0.3 51 50 51 16.93 8.47 8.47 15668 783 t. 7834 4176000 0.3 52 51 52 13.50 6.76 6.76 13586 6791 6793 4876000 0.3 53 52 53 13.43 6.72 6.72 13381 6691 6691 4176000 0.3 54 53 54 12.59 6.30 6.30 11006 5503 5503 4176000 0.3 55 54 55 10.28 5.14 5.14 5996 299H 2998 4176000 0.3 ,
56 55 56 25.77 12.89 12.89 9060 4530 45M 4176000 0.3 57 56 57 5.99 3.00 3.00 1748 874 874 4176000 0.3 5!! 57 58 5.99 3.00 3.00 1748 874 874 417G000 0. ')
50 58 59 11.18 5.59 5.59 3262 1631 1631 4176000 0.3 1 60 59 60 11.18 5.59 5.59 3262 1631 1631 4176000 0.3 61 60 61 25.76 12.83 12.83 9940 4970 4970 4176000 0.3 62 61 62 9.66 4.83 4.8J 1585 792 792 4176000 0.3 TORUS 70 1 70 RIGIO 71 1 71 RIGID 72 72 RIGl0 73 1 73 RIGID DRYWELL LUGS KXX KYY KZZ KRXX KRYY KRZZ 5 59 1.0E 8 1.0E 8 0 0 0 1.0E 10 l
STAR TRUSS 1
KXX KYY KZZ KRXX KRYY KRZZ l 59 18 3.095ES 3.095E5 0 0 0 6.964E7 1 RPV STA0lll2ER 4 I
KXX KYY KZZ KRXX KRYY KRZZ I 19 38 4.801 E 4 4.801 E 4 0 0 0 5.809E6 I
l
~1
1-42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 38 of 79 TABLE 3-2 (Continued)
MEMPROP,XLS REACTOR FLOOR EXTREME PDINTS 1 101 RIGID 1 201 RIGID 1 301 RIGID 1 401 RIGID 2 102 RIGID 2 202 RIGID '
2 302 RIGID 2 402 RIGID 3 103 RIGID 3 203 RIGID 3 303 RIGID 3 403 RIGID 4 104 RIGID 4 204 RIGID 4 304 RIGID 4 404 RIGID 6 106 RIGID 6 208 RIGID 6 306 RIGID 6 406 RIGID 7 107 RIGID 7 207 RIGID i 7 307 RIGID !
7 407 RIGID l 8 100 RIGIO 8 208 RIGID 8 308 RIGID _
8 408 RIGIO 9 '109 RIGID j
9 209 RIGID j 9 309 RIGIO l
9 409 RIGID 5
I 42103-R 001 Revision 0 '
l July 30,1993 -
Page 39 of 79 '
l l
5- 7 9 // /3 15 17 I t I l
- o.s 'puc.,s r
~
Z,b 2,e '
P
- I, o
- l I4' I,e i O*S'
, Y (k'f431~ .
, I, 19' W1,0' 2. l '
d.S'
- I '
, )).L' , go. S ! t 1 . Af
, e.1' .
s i
c:% . t.
/ N
' \
-/
70.I'
+ \ l
_n l
3 MJ' C-49, C-?o PLAN El, // l'-0" C-Ils Figure 3-1
i I
42103-R 001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 j Page 40 of 79 l IN E 5 9 A Ii 13 I7 h
(, 31.2s' t, 23.zs'
\, n zr ' \, 23.ts' , zp is' (, z1.ts' IT , ts.u' .
< < s l.o D , s <
-l 3,
' "~
4 1, g . 4,o. 51 p ,,
__l .l-. - . . . .- . p .. _
, 4 p
! (l.S'sL45 s , e ~) a. n.ts' Y
i t' 4 ')
z.
' Y 5 o'
,_4
, , 4c 3.o' 60.S' l 4 -j 1.7S, i
I l A[/[ \
9 3 .
l -u 13.1 5'
,d_ .
i
,_ 4D . . ,.
i
. ' -f ._
_g
}
- 3. s '
9'
,s I __ v.n g gyrgy , /
- TK , l0' s ,e 1' '
~'
R}. 1E!t'f.- ' 4 -
eg 4,o o '
AL ,
JA ts.ts, CL Jc l z.r' ;w-/.r'
-/-K s
g ,,, ,
f .- . _ . . - - . . . . - . . - . . . . -
. / .3 c-s i y ,8 c-its-
/ ;. y'$ ,
'),u
- c. 72 m (0 ,
o .
(z.o'sto 3y.ts' Et. 2*-q=)
. ....FLA../V
' 8G 1,0
- __ ,,._,g G . -I7 ' (s " ; 'l is.
B N ' I' '
/ 4 t/,5 o 1 '
i -
i I Figure 3-2
I 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 41 of 79
- 2. 3 5 9 It 4 13 JS 17
, n.o ' 1 n.zs' ,
u t. o '
-.4.'5k 2 -- - - -. . - - . . . - - - .. . ..
p 1- l. S '
n f.s*
.g 4 C. S'-
1 l
' l l s <
, 33, g . 11 9,s
- t 5
2o0Q vi i i i n__uiti ii
. l - - l-l- 1
[4 l'15.o't ' 3( ' i,y o L
l I!'
k 47,,3 l 1.Q - JV r I N .
3 g l .
. g.
3 . ) l 2 I,0 ' .i-:i,, viiti ' .
5 --
1- t. o '
f/& 51:
l l >
.'y .
i
- 'UN'-1,0 ' 8
?
11,1, 39,3 ____
c'2 0, I. S '
I i y_ ,
c : - '
- 4 AI 5' I I A UX. 84Y t?ff,
' l' 1x awom pp 7 10D ,
._ fL4**Y EL. (~0," C*lff Figure 3-3
42103-R-OO1 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 42 of 79 G @
e- @
t Eov4 rot j LL 29 ' 3" l .- . . . . . . . . % .. .
fl. 9. 2 '
1* T-EL,17'-4" g o.g ,
" ' 9 'Y -
, i 5
/ ,
EL _
J ~174'
, 1.5 ' l
/ /
l F- F f/?ff. C 72 Sacr. 4, C-/SI )
Figure 3-4
42103 R-001 Revision 0 g July 30,1993 Page 43 of 79
( 4t. 23' i <
t.o' 4+ t.o' l l j.s'/ , ' ' ,' l.s '
( 2 L 3 '0")
1 1
3.2S' li i j* y5 t a s g -j7 L V l '
.. r.o ' '
R WoA< NAr 440
^{&dttdNL 1.l'UMV01MP40 D -o (w. c-m ucr. ;)
,,q. ,
- n. ulo'3 '
i l'
i I5' s
- ,' z s' l
6 c(. -/ 7 6" 3
/
y ,
b~5 fW. C
- 73 JLCR @ K, N)
Figure 3-5 1
1
~~..
1
~
I 42103-R 001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 44 of 79 U? @
LL 2-3' __ JT CL 2 3'
) I h
--- EL (7' 6" .
- 3. O ' , ,
EL. V4?)LS EL- V4/Llls (TY/. I Ho*) /
3,o' / / l,0 ' (= )
c -191 +, 0 ' s E(.. -!71 6" __
ci, -/7 '-6" _
$< 0 ' -
, ,14& M4r ', '
fMEMSLtd&
A ~A (g;c.qq .
- 0*O f/H, C-73 SL.C7, f)
.scr.p) s)N i
J , .
4 1
-4 .
- l. S * /
l S' l '
c<. 3.o'y l l ___
- 2. 5 ' , i ; l.3 '
l ti. -174 "
[
\
l
, , 1 C -C Figure 3-6 (MF.C-73 mm a.)
, - - , w
42103-R-001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 45 of 79 2 g *3 5 7 9 o ll 13 If 19
, lt. .It.o , 37.3 > 119 5
, , s .
/.3," +
\
0.3' ht4A1Y 0.5'{fac.4sr i
/w s.) [f,,,_
ra w. <
i -
1 -
>P' jf.rs. ,
in.
, ,l I'Oh n
y o. s '-** -
l __
N
, o.s
- nasse l l n.3,-- ;
y - . . . . ...._Q. . . . -. ..
p
- 1. s '-- l.is' ?Y >
l$ ; w5, l
+ - ta4r.r Q* ;
- 11. 5 . l L. i
. 45' au o l
Pac 43r s
-lo1 l s j
- l A 1 g.g -),
I
, c) '
/ O g
\y . . ._
- l. N .
.y/ l. 7 9 .
4.3
- t
/,>
3,0*
7 & -
..t* It.o * , 12.0'
' ' ' ' ' l -- $'
2.5 ' ,
, _.L sgs On u.. I '3 * ' W,s.ts' i g.i ' M5' #d*42' '
l 'yn n.s'ti '
,,,g.
[2.o' II.oj
-+- -
w_ - -
lH \
\ ts' j;,,, pp p(,y, l c-un c.tsI c1ss
'[b?ll,*>\ __CL. 23 ' O s l
Figure 3 7
_ . . lim
E 1 l
I 42103-R-001 1
Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 46 of 79 l I
l l
3 S* 7 4 II /6 15 pq
,i _ _. _ , /11.s '
~
a ~ 0.S '
l.0 pg m sr
/
.--_ . p
- ~
~ 2.I'
, /. , ,
I f f,o' l l ,
/.4 -f r
- l. o '
.[ rf.0' ([ --- -
-- N e 1 f'
2.I' / 5' /.5' 3. 5 ' ,
t.o' !st4v
" d. I'
~
, g L O' _
puust -
xi 'llPH u
f-1fi '
l,' =- M N '
/
l ~/ mL 2.r-4 %,
g.5 s. I i 3 -J.4* -
<a/ y-3.3,1. 1.s i .
_.,_ , e .--
- / ,
3
%7// ~'m-[ :3.1, '*
s
, gg y ,
/.o T " /. o ' < //-
// / / 4.o')[/, '
, J. I' // g l ,g .
I' I II.t' =
hG,, .
-/-- , u M
2.5*'
-u- .T 20.5 -
30 i 43, ; ,
g,3
- g ICL sore ., { p.r
- I.o, 8,, , ,
p 2.o.. ,,,,, ,, ,y _
3],3' 2.0\_ . Vl//// f f //(J lATL4 37
/.5,, %
. . t _ l 7. f ' , 2 t,. 5 ' l [ go, r' ';j'-l.f . =
i.r* Jg '
( 7,,. y, l AVG. El, E $1.*G'
~
( / -- ~ a
,l' S e prp. s.L is s' i Nell: JLto st?'
Pl A& LL . i1' V** 11 V6. C.* L 4, C-4 5, C t s +, c . 9 4 , c .qy y, q,em n yyecy, : pg n t 4'l" t Or.4xf: 1,1 TX Figure 3-8 BE
}
42103 R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 47 of 79 3 7 4 Il 13 1"5 I1 liss' , zo.s'
- t.4' es .s'nwsr yq s 1.0' 14' .,_ ty ~~
a ,, . o.g ,
~
' ,P 11.o
- l 23.5' l< d ' /* * #
. l
{
; ,[ f,,o, [ - g
-t 4.+,,t__.-
- 2. I' -
e , l.o'-p wjo o l loS.u
**. , U.5 '
x
~
l , 7.1' c 13' Ho ' l ~ s.s, gan 9 y m usr 4 f - g
.c
) o' S.o*
. AW 0 5'-- -- '4' 4 I
#W 'f $ l i f// / / / / / / // 2.0 "
~ !
p 4. ,,
~ ~ ~
,. ; -Q / /, ,; }~l,'o*.' X 1, . .
m n, g o 2.d -n .Iu' , , t,n * . to.o , , to.3, g.3* Q j '."2.0',ef.
-o,S'ra w sr . g, o , k,o L t1.o ' Y.0
- i s
R//. PIM) 4r EL. 79'.]* c.gg, (.c g Figure 3-9 Ed
I-42103-R 001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 48 of 79 S 7 4 ll /3 15' 17 8 + t e ri.5* fall 4Jr
-k c
;l.o'
- - A .. -..
P
% ),f* 0,l$'
g 6 25' I' 0 ' 2.I ' g,ggs _; ,
. j, o
- IA 11.o'
) pop'. -.
N 0.s ' - - fttcasr } l g3f 2.o'
~
~
~
M
-3.1 <
1,o!-yjo
- to.t'-\ , 3. o '
. 1.7 ' <.
4,g o y, g , pg,$* g, g o.,_ . ;,n o
-L -
20.1' 4 ,, 10.5' H. t * -,-'
, , so.s' ,
"0. r* l
,/ ' , s.o
- fut43r
- 3, l' A
1 f - K 1
'2o' ]
. 0,15 ' l l
f 3- - - -- - .
., J e -o.s pacer ' l' 0 '
.!E:- i c.t, , c. t. .t c tog P W f LL.91'3" l i
I l 1 Figure 3-10 1
^l
I 42103 R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 49 of 79 MNSYS-AC 4.dMi Coc - pNpas Anoctor- tha n I cf a tg be tup **n C 1 pv .
- 17 * -6* & 23'-O" MPA 29 1993 15:24823 PLOT NO. 2 POSTA ELEMENTS T Y PE N'.JM XY =-1 YV =0.5 ZV el 015f.134.c25
,.#g Xr =0.25 J
% Yr 31.6 i
- '\ Zr a17.65
.l! '.,#-
,, - 4, N MNGZ=1OS.43 c'A,3 .
PPECISE HIDOEN
,.... - **'l...,,..,',,--...
s'
~
\
, . . , ,N
, - (', / /..
,,,'~
\ y\q s\. '///.-
. ,,\ \
lcs \'.,., / / , NN \\yx \ s
\\
,. .4r/j>/ss/// \h)/\\
\
s < s //\\\
. ..5_
, , - .\.
s\ \ N" ' N\\\ \~ NNg
\\
\\
\
... '.- s -
._~
'*... /~~, . . - " '
'\ \' Q '. .-9 \\ K\
~~]... .. -
\..- .*'\'. , 3'.v $ ,.. ', , ' ' . . ,,.s
,.. \ -
xN . N . . .
- p. ,.-- . . ,..- s- ,
gN '
\\,- * ' , . .~~~',.
\ ,, .. -
Figure 3-11 Sh
l-42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 50 of 79 MNSYS AC 4.4M8 238-O" 51*-O" mon eg 1993 COE - PNDS Asoc tora tSu11d8mg between Elev. 8, 11:25 50 PLOT NO. 2 AOST1 ELEMENTS TYPE NUM XV .-t YV =0.5 ZY 1 OIST.A28.395 xr .O.e
, YF 29.75
.. ' ,... ' .-s
, 'Ns IF 53.4 RNGZ=100.43 f.
,,,- " ' , , sg
' PAECISC HIDOEN 8
. , :. . - / . .s\
,. ,, sss s
.-l ,, . :.. - -
.. .- Nss s
\\s{\
L.
.. .. j+q C,. . .
\\\
Ns {}Nss ssx \s
. . .. :-:. ..-.... - ,. q..A N
.q...-
. , . \
~~~
G. . . . , .3 g\\ ss
.- . ~-..- s. \\xs ssN sss (s s , s.,
W ::f' Nss( N sh{} NNs g' -
% N sss N{g
\sss g' . , _ - ...
- >-q' b Ns .
\NN s (}
NNsx q Ws ssv . .
-s g'-
@-:,3 ..-
4, N\ss h \s !. / . w -- -
' /-os Qt ', . 7
\sNN k. N. c /wsw -:
ww NNsst /g ' . -;..sf ... .. -
,. r
\\ss
- :. p. ..
s s )\ - ., ,.
, ... , .. .- . P . ,
i
's - ..
;,.- y:..
ss w
/ .
, ..- / ,
Figure 3-12 I
'l 42103-R 001 l f Revision 0 l July 30,1993 Page 51 of 79 MNSYS_AC 4.JN! 74'-3" mpf4 49 1993 EOC = ANAS AMOcttr Bu i ldinQ hetween E lesy . 51 8-O* f, 15:06143 Pt O T NO. d POST 1 ELEMENT 5 TYPts NUM XV --A YV =0.5 Z 't a!
, 0137 300.477 Xr .S.75
,- ZF =78.9
. .. .' -.7"\ .
* ~ .s\s\
FNGZ-108,43
, . enecree MtooeN
\\\
;,:...-;.... . - , . . . . . - ,\\h\ , . .
;,. .... - ,,,. . - y-NN
;;; , .; .. h(s
.b \
/;;/-: - , .. . , . . . . . -
,..-$,....fs}\g\}
,- ;,. ;;;.ys s
. __l, ..;. . xhs s
s%q\ ss y,.....,.... s,...
- ...,, sss sss93s .,$\sy
. y'M, A \\ [ ', '.- ; '.'.'-
N \s w .b.,.6'5
- e. - ED% s.s# ., N
- s N gN\ yf f kkk(x5
\\
k':::::k'.55- - b ..-
/-hkN
.$, b... sh
\\s\ ... [ . l.\. ,.L.
,... 1
\\ g\ ,. .. : ;.- ..- ::, .... .
NNg ., ;:.. ,,
. y -,.- q... .
\\ N
\ ... . ,
NN .
- - - ('..- ,,.... ,,.
l
,% . , 1
\\ % . , .. ,
s s. i
\...Nss . .. - ..
....,s..
ss ,. . ' ., - y ,. .. Figure 3-13 iM
42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 52 of 79 MNSYS-AC 4.4M1 CQg . ANps Aeoctora Bd11 ding between Clev. 748-3* Is 91'*3" MPA 89 1993 15:36:37 PLOT NO. 8 POST 1 F.LEMENTS TYPE NUM XV =-1 YV *0.5 ZV =8 OIST.94.594 XF 37.4 IF a99.25
,.',-\ MNGI-100.43
,.. N, PneczsE MzoacN
/ s
. s s\\
,. - ,- \ s
... / .. \
/
,. y ;
y
, . , . .\
....- g
, . N
/.,.s .-
'.s
.s'%
, . . ., . / ./ ... . .s ....-
x \a
\ ~ ~J ....
~ ,,.
/, s, .-
N .
\.... .- . . . , ., -s
\ , .
sN
\ \N .
\q \' ... -
- .. -)/ ...g..- -
gN
\ g ,s s / - t -
N\\ [,. /. ' 3 ,7 j
\ g N --.- .- ,
\ g \\ .-- j ..- .-
sss\ N s , . . ... .. u . ...- . N ys . e ..-
/ ,..
N ,\( \s,
. /
N s s .-
\
N..'.,.,-
.s , . - ,
l' Figure 3-14
. _ . - . ~ . .. . . _
42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 - Page 53 of 79 E MNSYS AC 4.dMS ga*-3* 111'-O" mpn ag a993 COE -. ANAS Asoc tora suA1 ding betueen E182v. t, 15:46 40 1 PLOT NO. 2 PAcp7 ELEMENTS TYPE NUM XV **$ Yv =0.5 ZY =$ 015T.95.46 . xr -sT.SS
a- "'...N \ ZF 221 RNGZ
- 108. 4 3 g-\ enec se etooeN s' p
/, sNys
...- -' .- y
/v. ,. y\ \
x
,../...,. \ -
-,-, . . - y ,
- / - - ,\ ,
* ./ ',
~ ...... ,
y %. ,
\ ...' ,
/ , \ ,.. ' , ~./ \
g\ \
~~~' -
g( ,, ,. ' '
, , .-y g\\ \ ( ,.. .-- . ],f-
. /]/,-
~~
g\ \
,... '\
\\g\..
.-- \( .
~ '- -
'}y ' , ', -
{
\ y s
.- \, .
.. . . . , . ~ ..\
.. , - , ..- , - - .- i
- s. 7 .
'*~ ~
'\ \ i
,,:.N ~' '
y , ,,,,
. s ,. . - ,-j .- /-- ,.- -
\\ \ s.\
N \ g s..V _./ '... y \ g (*,..
\ -
\ .
g\ \ ,,. , s .. /
\ -
N '. N , ; e i Figure 3-15 l i I
\
I i
[ 42103-R-001 ' Revision 0 July 30,1993 ' Page 54 of 79
- 4. ANALYSIS RESULTS 4.1 Time Histories i Three statistically independent ground motion time histories were generated for each carthquake case and their spectra compared to the target spectra.
These comparisons, at the surface and at the foundation level, are shown in . Figures 4-1 to 4 5 for the Reg. Guide 1.60 SSE. Power spectral density functions for the time histories are shown in Figures 4-6 to 4-7. 4.2 Building Model Frequencies The first 30 fixed base frequencies and composite damping ratios for the , Reactor Building dynamic model are given in Table 4-1. The percent mass participating in each direction is also shown. The frequencies in Hertz of the first significant modes for the main building portion of the modelin each direction are shown below and compared to those calculated by EQE using the original Bechtel models (Reference 15): New Model Old E-W Model Old N-S Model Direction Frequency Frequency Frequency r N-S 5.04 5.61 , E-W 6.36 5.79 Vertical 14.66 14.96 13.78 Composite modal damping ratios were computed using the stiffness weighting function method of Reference 2. 4.3 Soil Impedances and Scattering Functions The soilimpedances and scattering functions were computed using the low strain soil layer properties provided in Reference 13. These are shown in Table 4-2. A weighted average, effective embedment of 31.5 feet was used. . 1 Impedances and scattering functions were computed for best estimate, upper ) bound (best estimate times 2.0) and lower bound (best estimate divided by Ex:g Sh l
42103-R-001 ' Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 55 of 79 2.0) soil properties for the R.G.1.60 SSE and PNPS FSAR (Housner) SSE cases. The best estimate impedances are shown in Figures 4-8 to 4-15 for ! R.G.1.60 SSE. The scattering functions are shown in Figures 4-16 to 4-20. Because of smooth variations in the soil properties, the impedances and scattering functions for the upper bound and lower bound OBE cases could be scaled from the calculated impedances and scattering functions for the best estimate OBE cases. 4.4 In-Structure Response Spectra The coupled soil-structure system was analyzed for seismic response. In-structure response time histories were calculated at the required node points for each direction of input for each soil case. Directional responses could be combined algebraicly because the input time histories were statistically independent. Response spectra were generated at the nodes, for each , direction, for each soil case. The spectra were broadened. Regulatory Guide 1.122 specifies that the broadening ratio shall be determined by varying parameters but shall be at least 10%. A ratio of 15% may b3 used in lieu of varying parameters. In this analysis, the only parameters whose variance , would significantly affect the building frequency are the soil properties. To , be conservative, each soil case was individually broadened using a broadening factor of 15% for the best estimate soil case and 10% for the i upper and lower bound soil cases. The spectra for the three soil cases were
- then enveloped. Finally, for the Reactor Building floors outside containment and the torus, spectra at all the points at the same elevation were enveloped.
The final in structure response spectra for R.G.1.60 SSE input are contained in Attachment A to this report. The in-structure response spectra for other cases may be found in Reference 14. The analysis is documented in Reference 14. l
42103-R-001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 56 of 79 TABLE 4-1 i, modo freq dampg x y z xx yy zz ' no h:: ratio 5) g) (V) 1 5.04 0.067 49.454 0.132 0.003 0.287 84.935 0.745 2 6.36 0.055 0.117 35.065 0.017 55.475 0.164 0.377 0.000
^
3 6.83 0.038 0.015 0.001 0.009 0.408 0.089 4 7.07 0.051 0.052 12.007 0.019 25.409 0.100 0.659 i 5 9.20 0.070 0.106 1.000 0.000 0.681 0.008 47.643 6 12.62 0.070 8.327 0.036 1.810 0.024 0.023 0.131 ; 7 13.43 0.070 0.000 12.396 3.569 0.083 0.007 0.074 0.229 0.691 8.859 0.228 '0.018 8 14.62 0.041 0.143 9 14.63 0.035 0.317 0.125 0.160 0.053 0.129 0.000 10 14.66 0.063 0.000 0.277 35.883 0.058 0.023 0.040 . , 11 17.42 0.070 5.123 0.024 0.609 0.002 0.033 7.425 ! 12 18.72 0.070 0.964 0.640 0.140 0.488 0.036 1.966 13 19.54 0.070 0.257 0.555 0.179 0.615 0.014 2.879 14 20.28 0.035 0.000 0.000 3.199 0.000 0.000 0.000 15 21.63 0.069 0.191 2.729 0.225 1.898 0.544 0.563 16 22.32 0.069 0.561 0.494 0.851 0.350 2.412 0.010 : 17 24.99 0.037 0.010 0.004 0.013 0.005 0.061 0.022 I 18 25.02 0.037 0.002 0.070 0.001 0.041 0.006 0.000 19 27.24 0.069 0.518 0.033 0.576 0.038 0.545 0.217 20 27.55 0.069 0.715 0.004 0.042 0.049 0.001 1.141 21 30.33 0.069 0.009 0.783 0.854 1.131 0.001 0.047 ! 22 32.92 0.070 0.000 0.003 0.173 0.976 0.111 0.007 23 34.36 0.070 0.025 0.063 0.005 0.047 0.004 0.165 24 36.56 0.068 0.059 .003 0.890 0.013 0.136 0.082 25 39.35 0.038 0.000 0.203 0.001 0.049 0.002 0.000 > 26 39.38 0.039 0.253 0.000 0.108 0.001 0.075 0.003 27 39 38 0.040 0.000 0.075 0.000 0.024 0.000 0.000-28 39.38 0.040 0.006 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.003 0.001 i 29 40.21 0.059 0.158 0.004 2.156 0.038 0.001 0.066 30 41.47 0.065 0.000 0.108 0.003 0.024 0.024 0.001 [ total pet mass 67.470 67.465 60.368 88.094 89.950 64.369 i t dim
l I 42103 R-001 . Revision 0 I July 30,1993 Page 57 of 79 l 1
)
i TABLE 4-2 Layer No. Thick (A) Shear Wave Velocity Density Damping Poisson's (ft/sec) (Ib'sec^2/ft) Ratio (%) Ratio 1 10 535 3.92 0.02 0.33 , 2 10 .745 3.92 0.02 - 0.33 3 10 860 4.26 0.02 0.4 4 i 10 925 4.26 0.02 0.4 , 5 5 963 4.26 0.02 0.4 6 5 1215 4.01 0.02 0.4 7 10 1255 4.01 0.02 0.4 8 10 1310 4.01 0.02 ! 0.4 9 10 1365 4.01 0.02 0.4 I 10 10 1415 4.01 0.02 0.4 11 10' 1465 4.01 0.02 0.4 Rock 1 - 3000 5.22 0.02 0.4 i a f i f
4
'l 42103-R-001 ,
Revision O July 30,1993 Page 58 of 79 0 X 10 ; 03 I
/
/ b\ .s s
0.4 - - - - - -- - - ---- j, l >
/ \
j c 0
.a 0.1 --- --- --- \-- '
\
M / g N , s - U n.2 A
-r -
, ,/ <
/ t f
0.1 ff
- 0. 0 - -- - - - - - -- --. -- - - - -
0 I 2 j 16I 10 10 10 Frequency (Hz) , Legend: Notes: Q 4, . t .t a ":aar:r 0 .gr 5% Spectral Damping Spectrum . .. . Accelerations in g's Generated Matching Input Anchored to 0.159 > Spectrum . -- -- i BECO: Filgrius Nuclear Power Station, Reactor Building, Soil Analysis ' Compariten of Generated Motion Matching RG 1.60 Design Spectrum, Comp 1 I' s Figure 4-1 l
c , l i - L 42103 R-001 Revision O l July 30,1993 Page 59 of 79
)
0 x 10 0."
/ 3 /
s l
/ x sf ' g s,
-i 0.4 - - - --- --- -- --
I h , i
- 7. ,
/ \,\
/ \
. 0.3 '
a ;
\
C I 3 \
\
< 0'
/
s / -
/ N f
0.1 j g J --- - -- t 0.0 I 0 16 10 10 10 Frequency (Hz) Legend: Notes: g.c.1 b ' it; u:- ;;; c;-i gn 51 Spectral Damping Spectrum f Generated Matching Accelerations in g's f Spectrum (Modified) ._ . _ Input Anchored to 0.1619 .i i BECO: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Reactor Building, Soil Analysis Comparison of Generated Motion Matching RG 1.60 Design Spectrum, Comp 2 l l i Figure 4-2 l J
t 42103-R-001 Revision O I July 30,1993 ) Page 60 of 79 i X 10 0 , 0.5 0.4 - - - - - - - - ---I f f- - s N\ I \\
/ -
'\
c 0.3
!! N
.S -- -- -- - -
\
}
" l e j ll i \ -
i 8 I N 02 ' b f y u i \ I
/
- 0.1 -
--y 2
/
-f-- ----
\
/
/ l 0.0 3----
10 10 10 7 . - 10 Frequency (Hz) Leoend: Notes: p .g, , e . g . o.
- :- n ; i gc 51 Spectral Damping Spectrum '
Accelerations in g's Generated Matchin9 Input Anchored to 0.109 Spectrum _ -. - BECO: Pilgrim Nucjeat Power Station, Reactor Building, Soil Analysis - Comparison cf Ganes at ed Motion Matching RG 1.60 Design Spectrum, Comp 3 Figure 4-3
, _ , e m . . - - - + - + -
o 42103 R-001 Revision 0 ; July 30,1993 l Page 61 of 79 '! t
*I X 10 4.0
/
I;I t (' % I-3.0 ' 7
.b 1 ji n
'/ N m kl ~'i \ j\ fil\
T 8
.- I y '\ I \ / \} } $ 2.0 \ ; J h f ,I \
s ' 1.c ,- l '
/
/
f m_
/ /
// ,
O.0 I 0 I 16 10 10 2 10 Frequency (H2) Legend: Notes: 60% of P.G 1.60 Input Sand Degradation Curves Design Spectrum , 5% Spectral Damping Env of LB,BE & UB at b.o.fnd,-23', lay.110 . __. __ _ Accelerations in g's 1 BECO: Filgrim Nuclear Power Station, Reactor Building, Soil Analysis Envelope of Deconvolved Motion at Foundation vs RGl.60 Input, Comp 1 Figure 4-4
1 I ! 42103-R-001 l Revision 0 July 30,1993 l Page 62 of 79 l l l X 10'I I 4.0 ' l0l \ 1
\
i l'. C ' l 3.0 >
- 7. '- l 1
J ;\ s ' I NN i I ds 8
+ lt Yr't I'W. \,2 i g / \ '
U 2.0 l
/ \
1 E f i \ N si \
' r51 r ;
s
/
l '
\ ~.
e 3,n
-~
g i I \ u
/ / t
/ / I '
1
/ / '
0.0
# I 4 i I 0 I 16 10 10 2 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend: Notes: 60% of RG 1.60 Input Modified Input Motion Design Spectrum j Sand Degradation Curves ' Env of LB,BE & UB at b.o. f nd,-23' , lay. f l0 ___ _. ~ 51 Spectral Damping Accelerations in g's - l 1 i i HECO: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Reactor Building, Soil Analysis Envelope of Deconvolved Motion at Foundation vs RG1.60 Input, Comp 2 , i Figure 4-5 5 y - g : -, a-- - - - - . - -
l' 42103 R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 63 of 79 BECO: Pilgrim RB RG 1.60 DBE. Comp 1 25 . . .
, i .i RG 1.60
. .i 1 : : : -
- : 80% Target 20--- -- ------ :- -
- - - 4. ---- -------- - - -
-- - -- --- -f.
1 .
- : : Target 15- - - - - -
-----i-------~~----L.-----------L.-------------~~--
/\
$c: ,
/ .
l 1 . o / i. : : : co -
- a. 10- -,,,,- ~ ~ ~.~---~.t------~~~------v.----~~--,-------------
i., . . . s 2x-- - 5-- - s s - -:.- - - - -- - s: . C 0 8 1'2 1'8 24 Frequency,(Hz) Figure 4-6 M
I 42103-R-001 Revision O . July 30,1993 Page 64 of 79 1 BECO: Pilgrim RB RG 1.60 DBE. Comp 2 30 . . i i, RG 1.60 s i. . so% Target 25- --
-- ---------- --- l.-- .
---------- ------- L. -- ------ --------- ...L. ..........................
Target t . 20-- ---- -- - t- --- -- > - - ----- 3 . . . 15- . ' --
,- ------ ..> - - - - - - - - - - - + . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
j
/.: . . .
o ,/ , a- : : :
- i. . . .
c' / 10~ -----~---:----------------v.--------r.---------- s, . I . : : : s- . . e . 5- ---------,--.t-----------+-----------------:-------------- s . . s : : l . . 0 . . 0 8 12 18 24 Frequency,(Hz) Figure 4-7 E o M% i I
p j I 42103 R-O'01 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 65 of 79 42103.01 BECO:Pl.' grim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props G = 0.9950e+03, vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F =0.9349e+00
- a0 Impedance Component ( 1, 1) values are physical units x 10 ' Stif fness Coef ficient K( 1, 1) x 10 ' Damping Coefficient C( 1, 1)
- 0. 2 -
0.3 f 0.2 0.1 , 0.1-e 0.0 , n,c
-0.1
-0.1
~ 0 . 2- -
.0 5.0 10!0 15!U 20.'O 25!0 0
.0 5 .' 0' io!0 UID ~55.'~0 'N.'d '~ 0 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4-8
l 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 72 of 79 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props G = 0.9950e+03, Vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F =0.9349e+00
- a0 Impedance Component ( 6, 6) values are physical units 1! 11 x 10 Stiffness Coefficient K( 6, 6) x 10 Damping Coefficient C( 6, 6) 0.6 - ----
0.2 0.4 - i 0.1 0, 2-- e 0.0 -- 1 - 0.0 -- I
-0.2-l
-0.1 l l
-0.4 1
i
~
- 0. 0' $!E $E 15."d $0~ ~3T 0
.0 5.0 50 15.0 20.'O 25:0 x 10 x to 0
)
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) l I l Figure 4-15
c i 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 73 of 79 k 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props G = 0.9950e+03, vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F = 0.9349e+00
- a0 Incident Wave Case 1 Component 1 values are physical units O
x 10 Real 0 x to Imaginary
- 1. 0 , . - - - - - ~ . - --- - - --
1.0 - - - - - - - - - - . - - - 0.5 - 0.5 - i 0.0 0.0 i l i i l
-0.5 0.5
-1.0 --i. .- r - --- .._.- _ . - -l - --
0,0 5.0 -1.0 --i-----.-e---s.- l 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 0.0 5.0 10.0
.i..
0 15.0 20.0 25'0
. l x to x 10 Cl Frequercy (Hz) Frequency (liz)
Figure 4-16 N3 d
.y 42103-R-001 : Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 74 of 79
'42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props 'G = 0.9950e+03, Vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F = 0.9349e+00
- a0 !
Incident Wave Case 1 Component 5 values are physical units x 10OReal x 10 0 Imaginary 0.3 - - - - - - - - - - . -- - --- 0.3 . . . . - - . . . . - _ _ . - _. 0.2 - 0.2 0.1- 0 .1-- , 0.0 0.0 -
-0.1 -0.1 f i
-0.2 -0.2 s
'0.0 5.5 5b b ~ 15.0 ~5!b 2 25!d X 10 0 0.0 ~5 !b 'id!O~~'15!0 2b.d" 55$~
X 10 . Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) l i i t Figure 4-17 l 1 i l l
f. 42103-R-001 1 Revision O' ! July 30,1993 , Page 66 of 79 I I
?
r t 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props I G = 0.9950e+03, vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F =0.9349e+00
- a0 :
Impedance Component ( 1, 5) values are physical units x to ' Stiffness Coef ficient K( 1, 5) x toe Damping Coefficient C( 1, 5) 0.4 0.2 i i t o.2 0.2 - o .1- - !
~
o.c o.c ^ ' '
~
-o.1 I
-0.2
-o.2 - !
5
~ 'o i ' " 5:o toy is;o 201 0 ~~ Io 2
, ' 'o.o 5;o io.o 15.o ro;o 25;o a
~
Frequency (Hz) Frequency- (Hz) Figure 4-9 1
1
.[ l 42103-R 001 Revision O July 30,1993 ,
Page 67 of 79 ' l 1 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props
- G = 0.9950e+03, vs =0.5040e+02., R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0,032, F =0.9349e+00 a a0 Impedance Component ( 2, 2) values are physical units x to8 Stiffness Coefficient K ( 2, 2) x to ' Damping Coef ficient C( 2, 2) l 0.2 -
- 0. 3- ;
f 0.2 0.1 -
- 0.1.
y .A -- 0.0 m, 0.0 - I i
-0.1-
-0.1
-0. 2- -
$0 207 ~ 5[0 $0
.0 io!O 15!0 .0 50 10.0 15.0 25'0.
0 X 10 X 10 0 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (liz)
)
Figure 4-10 f
. . , _ , _ _ . -, - - .7, . - - , , ,
f: _ f; I 42103 R-001 ) Revision 0 i July 30,1993 - l Page 68 of 79 j
.l I
l r 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props G = 0.9950e+03, Vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8500e+02, i Dampg -0.032, F =0.9349e+00
- a0 Impedance Component ( 2, 4) values are physical units ] >
x 10 0.4
' Stif fness Coef ficient K ( 2, 4) x 10s Damping Coefficient C( 2, 4) 0.3 s
0.2. s 0.2 - i 0.1-- f 9 0.0 p,g
-0.1 l
-0.2
-0.2
-0.4.....-#.. -w___.... .~. ,,
0.0 5.0 10 0 15.0 20.0 25.0 '.0 5.0 10'0 15[ i b!O 25!I
- x 10 0 x 10 .0 Frequency (Hz) Frequency !
(Hz) c t FIGURE 4-11 i b v e
i
- I
- 42103-R-001 Revision 0 ,
July 30,1993- ! Page 69 of 79 i t i 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props-G = 0.9950e+03, Vs =0. 504 0e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, i Impedance Component ! 3, 3) F =0.9349e+00
- a0 values are physical units ;
8 x 10 0.6 Stiffness Coefficient K( 3, 3) x to ' Damping Coefficient C( 3, 3) 0.6 l 0.4 o,, 0.2 - o,y
- e 0.0 ~
0.0 -
~0.2 / 0,2 N
N ( i
-0.4
-0,4
)
-0.6 - -e---.-e,------4 ..... -_,
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 -0. 25.0 .0 0 10.'o 15I0 20.0 X 10 0 25.0 0 K 10 Frequency (Hz) Frequency O{z) l
.1 i
i FIGURE 4-12 l 1
.I l
bY
42103-R-001 Revision 0 i July 30,1993 j Page 70 of 79 s i i 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props G = 0.9950e+03, Vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F =0.9349e+00
- a0 Impedance Component ( 4, 4) values are physical units ll 31 x lo Stiffness Coefficient K( 4, 4) x 10 Damping Coefficient C( 4, 4)
O.4 o.2 ' s
- 0. 2-- o,3 I
o,e k
^ ~
0.0 -- l I I
-0,2 0.1- ,!
l
~" ' $ . ri 'i!6 ~ 26.'0" in 15:5 E!s'-" , $.5 iT'~2bli iEO 20'6 ' Ts!i ~ 0 X 10 X to Frequency (Hz) Prequency (H:)
I FIGURE 4-13 1 1 1 g-1
--. -. ~ _
F I 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 71 of 79 P 4 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props
\' G = 0.9950e+03, vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F =0.9349e+00
- a0
( Impedance Component ( 5, 5) values are physical units {
$ ll x io Stiffness Coefficient K( 5, 5) ll
- , 0.4 x 10 Damping Coefficient C ( 5, 5) i 0.2 0.2 ,
0 .1 - e 0.0 0.C
~
-0.2 -0.1 -
7
~ iT ~ 5. 0 10!0 15.0 ' 2E E 25'!0 ' *0.0 5:0 10.0 15;0 20 0 25!6' X 10 ,
X 10 0 Frequency (Hz) Frequency Ulz) FIGURE 4-14 5 7
e .1 -; 42103 R OO1 , Revision 0 July 30,1993 -l Page 75 of 79 f 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props G'= 0.9950e+03, vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Darnpg =0.032,
- Incident Wave Case 2 Component 2 F = 0.9349e+00
- a0 i values are physical units l x 10UReal x 10 0 Imaginary
- 1. 0 - -- - - - - - - - ~ ~ - --- ~ ~
1.0 +-~~ ~ ~-- - ~ ~ = - - f 1 0.5 0.5 , E 4 0.0 0.0 .
?
I
-0.5
-0.5 i i
\ ,
.t I
'0.0 5.0 lb!D ~ 55 b 2h!0 25!0~~
~
.0
~
X 10 0 5 ! d ~ ~ ~15.[~15 ~~ 20!b 2No. ' X 10 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Figure 4-18 f f
( 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 76 of 79 i 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props ' G = 0.9950e+03, Vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F = 0.9349e+00
- a0 Incident Wave Case 2 Component 4 values are physical units O
x to Real 0.3 - -.- -- ~~ ~ - - --- - x 100Imaginary 0.3 0*I 0.2 0.1-- 0.1-- T 0.0 - 0.0 - i
-0.1
-0.1 i
-0.2 -0.2 .
t 0.0 5!0 lb.b~"i555 25.0 255U~ '0.0 $!b lb!O. 15.b 20!b~~25.E X 10 0 X 10 ( Frequency (Hz) Frequency (liz) Figure 4-19 i
I E-42103 R-001-Revision O
- t. .-
July 30,1993' Page 77 of 79 5 12103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props ' l G = 0.9950e+03, vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032,
- ncident Wave Case 3 F = 0.9349e+00
- a0 Component 3 values are physical units
, 10 0Real 0 1.0 - - - - ~ ~
x 10 Imaginary 1.0 ~ ~ - - - - -
)
t
.i
- 0. 5- -
0.5 i 0.0 0.0 >
~0.5 -0.5 l
1 l
- 1. 0 1 *t--- -i - ~--i t--
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 -1.0 i- I
-#- --l-20.0 25.0 X 10 0 0.0 5.0 10.0 .15.0 20.0 25.0 - l X 10 0 ;
Frequency (Hz) Frequency ^ (Hz) 1 Figure 4-20 1 I
~
- ~.
l
n i 42103-R-001 Revision 0 l July 30,1993 ) Page 78 of 79
- 5. REFERENCES .
l
- 1. Boston Edison Company, November 1992, " Request for Quotation No. ;
52560, Civil / Structural Consulting Services, Design Basis Reconstitution Project".
- 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. August 1989. " Standard Review Plan". NUREG-0800, Section 3.7, Revision 2.
- 3. Seed, H.B., and 1.M. Idriss. December 1970. " Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analysis." Report No. EERC 70-10.
Berkeley, CA.: University of California.
- 4. SHAKE, A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontai Layered Sites, n.d.
- 5. SUPELM, Version 2.0, " Foundations Embedded in Layered Media:
)
Dynamic Stiffness and Response to Seismic Waves," 1992. 1 i G. CLASSI, A Series of Computer Programs for Continum Linear Analysis for Soil-Structure Interaction.
)
i
- 7. EOE Calculation 42103-C-001, " Reactor Building Seismic Model," July,
)
1993. ! i
- 8. Bechtel Study Z87-001, " Review of Seismic Separation Design Basis at l
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station," April 1987, SUDDS/RF #87-760. ! l
- 9. Bechtel Calculation, " Seismic Analysis-Biological Shield," File No. Vol.
79, Calc. No. 085-C1, Rev. O,10-23-81, SUDDS/RF #93-122. I
- 10. General Electric Report 383HA494, " Pilgrim Seisrnic Analysis of Reactor ;
DAR#113," February 1971, SUDDS/RF #93-122.
- 11. Teledyne Report 5310-23, Rev. 0 (10-7-82), " Pilgrim Torus Saddle Analysis," SUDDS/RF #88-195 (Cassette 5596, Frame 0814).
l l
FJ
'I 42103-R-001 Revision 0 l July 30,1993 !
Page 79 of 79
- 12. Teledyne Technical Report TR-5310-1, Revision 2, " Mark l Containment Program, Plant-Unique Analysis Report of the Torus Suppression Chamber for Pilgrim Station Unit 1," Sept.14,1981, SUDDS/RF # 88-195.
- 13. S&A Calculation 91C2672-C-002, Revision 0, " Soil Properties for the Soil Structure Interaction Analysis for the Pilgrim Site," January 1993, <
SUDDS/RF #93-029.
- 14. EGE Calculation 42103-C-002, "PNPS Reactor Building - SSI Analysis and Response Spectra Generation," July,1993.
- 15. EQE Calculation 42087-C-001, " Pilgrim Station Reactor Building Study,"
September,1992. I
t 42103-R-001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 1 of 65 ATTACHMENT A REGULATORY GUIDE 1.60 SSE IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTA men
4 X 10 08 $ l N, . . m i 55 (~' ? u 0.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - U i-g 7: 4, m K II o.4 --- - - - - --- - - - O U g. M '"
/ ( '
g P-m O.2 - ( L--
/. v'
\
[ ' o _/ t" ;
,/ u u
/ 2 w
0.0 - - -- - I 0 I 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz ) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE I evel = 0.15g Five Locations Enveloped BECO: Pil ' Reactor Building, grim El. Reactor 23.G', Translation Building, RGin1.60 theSSE NS Direction --i
0 x 10 5 0.6
- .s, l3 z
0.5 - --- - - - s
/ -- -. - - - - - - - -
d I ' u I 0.4 - - ij. c " o '<
'd g h,.
r c) 0.3 - - - - - - Y 7
/'
y ,
, , . w Y
o_2 -
\( $
,f - .
f 0.1 - - C - - - - - -
'y u
/ C.
0.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I 2 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) tiotes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g Five Locations Enveloped BECO: Pil Reactor Building, grim El. Reactor 23.0', TranslationBuilding, RGin 1.60 theSSEEW Direction
- n t
w i 0 :., . X 10 1.0 O t*
*4 O
z i 0.8 - -- - - - -
.I is,
. \
~
.i r: tr
'J O 0.6 I o J-- ,
- 1 ~
j i. i r* c) \
"as h O
y 0.4 - - - - - - j
-- -( -
te 3
- " s 0.2 - --- ,- - - - ~ ---- -- -
o
- l
,. C
/
' w 0.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-i - - - -
1 4 15 10 10' 2 10 1 Frequency (liz) tiotes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level - 0.10g Five Locations Enveloped BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Building, El. 23.0', Translation in the Vertical Direction
0 0 x 10 D$ 1.0 '" U I a z o.8 - - - - -- - 3 L C Er 0.6 {if d. i
?
3 y o,4 _. ._ _ _ _ .
<a e
3
) \ ,
1 A ..i - b 0.2 - ---- -- f - --- - -- -- --
+ N. .
% =
' to
/
./ n C l 0.0
~~'. / -- -- - --
U j I 0 I 16 10 10 10 2 f Frequency (Ilz) i Notes: N-411 Dan. ped Spectrum ! Accelerations in g's { 1 SSE 1.evel - 0.159 i
-Five Locations Enveloped !
l DECO: Pil Reactor Building, grim El. Reactor Building, RGin 51.0', Translation 1.60 theSSE NS Direction i i _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
)
X 10 0 jg 0.8 e
.g z
s-n
- 0. 6 - - - - - - - -
EI 8 , 4
'u
;j 1
1 itn as 0.4 - - - - -- -- -- - - - - - --
,- s O
o .- 1
/
( 3
/ 4 / y 0.2
/
c - y -- - - -- -
/ S
~
,/. ~
~
,/
/
w
- 0. 0 ' - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - -
16 I 0 I 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's , 1 SSE Level = 0.15g Five Locations Enveloped i BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE ; Reactor Building, El. 51.0', Translation in the EW Direction -
r, 0 x 10 g_ l.0 , en 55 0.8 - - - - - -[ - - - - -
?
u c: - b [f 0 0.6 - - - - -- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - l [ n
~
; X e
( e y 0.4 -- - - - ) - - -
)-- - - - -
r 8
\ E 0.2 - -
c-- -- -- -- -- - - h x - g
/
e-h e
..s-16 10 0 I 2 10 10 1
Frequency (liz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE 1.evel = 0.109 l Five't.ocations Enveloped l BECO: Pilgrim Reactor' Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor' Building, El. 51.0',-Translation in the Vertical Direction _ w , , - --y. -. 3 v. w-,-v , = .,2 * +- - - - - - = , _ . . _
t
' n X 10 0 g 1.2 l !"i vs
~'
1.0 - L> O.8 --- -- - - - - C 'd. O b M *
'n
?u h"
a3 0.6 - - - - - - - -- -- - /
-< f as u
N ( .
\ L" o
0.4 --- -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - --
?
\
?
~'
> x -- w .__
0.2 , { -- - -- -- e t
,/
./
ii
~
,/ 0 0.0 I 0 I 16 10 10 2 10
- Frequency (liz)
T Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum ' Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 Five Locations Enveloped
<a BECO: Pil Reactor Building, grim El. Reactor Building,.RGin 74.25', Translation 1.60 theSSE NS Direction
x. i x 10 4 , 1.o m C m E 0.8 5 h L c $ 0.6 -- - - - --- - - - - -- -- - - --- -- - - - 5 o U E W o
,y 0.4 - -- - - - - -
y' ; 3
\ ,
,q Ib 0.2 -- -
m ( -- O
/
y 0.0 -- --- - - -- - -- - I 0 I 16 10 10 10 2 Frequency (Ilz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 Five Locations Enveloped 1 BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Building, El. 74.25*, Translation in the EW Direction
0 x 10 jg 0.0
*s 4
- m g ,
- 5 0.6 - - - -- " - - -
( ~
\ .
c a O "
-, t
."g '
M l7
?0 0.4 - -- - - - - --- - - - -- --
es u .. o m 4 e, o 0.2 j
/ 8
'. r y
r h
. . . - ~e-3 0.0 --
I- - - - 16 I 2 10 10 10 , Frequency (Itz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.109 Five Locations Enveloped BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1 60 SSE Reactor Building, El. 74.25', Translation in the Vertical Direction ,
I r, 0 x 10 jag
- s. .
l E 1.2 - - - - - - - --
=
F w I.0 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - 1 0 8 ? y o.o - - - .- y 5 i a 3 ) 0 0.6 -- - o ,
< se a
b
'a 0.4 --
'b c -
,1 *
> u-I o.2 , - -
/-
R j b 0.0 - - --- - - - I 0 16 10 10 2 10 Frequency (liz) flotes : 11-411 Damped Spectrum. Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level - 0.15g Five Locations Enveloped BECO: Pil Reactor Building, grim El. Reactor 91.25', Translation Building, RGin1.60 the SSE11S Direction
.p 1 X 10 0 g_
- 1. 0-H 7
tn l N 0.8 - 5 L
-l J
. i ,
c: u ; o . m 0.6 - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - 7 N^$ i i le et e r4 0 t) y 0.4 - - - ea
\ 9 r
k s v s-( i 0.2 --- --
\' i
/
J 0 j M i
~
~..
0.0 ---- - -- - - I - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 Prequency (Itz) Notes: ' N-411 Damped Spectrum ' Accelerations in g's 1 1 SSE Level = 0.15g
- Five' Locations Enveloped i
BECO: Pil Reactor Building, grim El. Reactor Building, RGin 1.60 theSSE 91.25', Translation EW Direction _.____________________________._.______1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ mm_ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - ._ _ . , .i.._.,... _ _ __r _ _ _ _ _ _
~$
0 X 10 g 0.8 --
@4 E
z
\' .
u 0.6 - g- ._. S '
- co e X
Y 0.4 - - - - - - - ---
.a as
- T O
< l J
\ 3 0.2 ,
\ - t e
/
I ?s, r n v
- N t 0. 0 I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) 130tes:
11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's i 1 SSE Level = 0.109 Five Locations Enveloped i BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Building, El. 91.25', Translation In the Vertical Direction _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. .. . ._. . ._.. _ . , _ . . _ - . - ~ _ . _ . _ _ ._ . . - -
~_
X 10 0 g i . "' i + t*
*4 1
, a to I l c i 1.2 - - - - - - - - - l
- t- - - - - - - - -
< t v
N i 1.0 - - A - -
., i c S o x i
'd 0.8 --
42 f 4 m i n ,T i
- e 1 e
u 0.6 - - - --- t U r
" { w s
\, 5 w
0.4 -- b' ! f
'V j
j s __ 3 0.2 - - - - - - r f~ - - - - - - - - - - - - -- O
/ '
y - r lis l w 0.0 d " l I 0 I 16 10 10 10 2 l Frequency (Ilz) I Notes: t 11-411 Damped Spectrum P Accelerat. ions in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g Five locations Enveloped a f l BECO: Pil Reactor Building, grim El. Reactor Building, RGin 117.0', Translation 1.60 the-NS SSEDirection ' _____._.__________._________.______-____m_ _ _ - -w _ . _, , - _ _ . , ..,.ec .-
M ; 0 x 10 g 1.2
- s
*B E
~
1.0 d f L { 0.8 - - - - - - - - - 'J ' c d a o '<
-rS *
.y N N 0.6 - - - - - -
f o 1 M ' o 0.4 - - -- -- -- - - - T
\ C,
\ ' \, .
+ 0.2 - - - -- - r
'3 J
- I h
/ :
/ 0
- 0. 0 -- .- - - - - -
16 0 2 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) l tiotes : N-411 Damped Spectrum l Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g e Five Locations Enveloped BECO: Pil Reactor Building, grim El. Reactor 117.0'., Building, Translation RG in 1.60 theSSE EW Direction
. . . . ,. .-.z. .- -. . - - _ . _ - - - - _ _ . .
't t
0 x 10 < t gg I.0 g K. z 0.8 - - - - - L
-f - ,
c (; a 0.6 a
,4
\r = v 3 - - - - - -
a
<a
( ."n 14 ~
& a
-. 1 e
o y 0.4 -
- - - - e r
8 b 0.2 -- - -- L -- -- -- - - - - - -
- -L ==
o
/ R i
/- u
/*" ~
0.0
/ \
1
" t 1
I 0 I . 16 10 10 2 10 Frequency (liz) liotes: 11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in p's 1 SSE Level = 0.10g + Five Locations Enveloped BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Building, El. 117.0', Translation in the Vertical Direction-i
. _ n UR Qet OD g i,. E* d t e o"" O .
~
2 - 0
- 1 .
t -
- D- -
I 0 1
- a. -
- - - \, .
- )
l iz - l ( .
- -- d
- y c e p
n e m o . us l . I
- u q g e .
tr 'g 5 v _ e c 1 n
- r e n . E .
F pi0 - S s f, s = n 0 0 d n o . 1 e ol i . l
- pi et .
mt v a r',
- a a e c .
- - 7 : D rL e o l s 1 l E _
- -' e t
1 eS e 4 cS v o - c i .
-s
- - - N NA1 F 0
0 1 4 1 2 1 0 1 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0
'.1 O
6 0 1 - X
@a"OU~ny
(
n X 10 0 g u - g m 1.2 - - - --- - - - - 7 - -- - - - - . - - - N F u 1.0 - - 1- - -- - - -
) U 8 '
4 Tj 0.0 - O
~
si e e-4 C U 0.6 - -- -- - - - - -- - - -
.N i"
\ .
l 3 0.4 - -
< ~ -
O.2 --- - - - f g '
s f "
/ D
, _9
.. / "
16 0 I 2 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) tiotes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g Five Locations Enveloped
- BECO: Pil Reactor Building, grim El. Reactor Building, RGin1.60 145.0', Translation theSSE EW Direction
. . . . . . - - - . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . - . - . - . - . . . . ~ . .-. . _ . - . . . ,
H M.^ X 10 1.0 d I s e m c: z v o,e -_-- _ . . l~ _ _ _ - . g ( ~ E 0.6 --
- - - - - ] -
V o f . M se 2 rs e \
-e O
U o i [- p a; _ _ _. _. _ _= 1
- o. 1
(- o O 0.2 - - - -- -~
/-
/
o, u
<- h n
s
~ f~ 3 m
0.0 f l- -- - - - - - I 16 10 I 2 10 10 Prequency (!Iz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spect. rum Accelerations in g's-I' 1 SSE Level = 0.10g Five Locations Enveloped i
.n.
t 0 X 10 g
- _ _ _ M' C
p in 1.6 -- - - ' -- - -- - - - E I 1.4 ; l :5 1.2 --
'd 8 s'
+
y 1.0 - -- - -- - - -- - --- - - - - g i. 3 r# l 8 0.8 - - - - - - - - - j y ,
~
2" o 0.6 -- -- - - -- - - - -- -- 0 0.4 - --- - --- -- - - - - m r e O.2 -- --- --
'n r
' s s 'o
~~~'/
O.0 I 0 I 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g Five Locations Enveloped BECO: Pil Reactor Building, grim El. Reactor Building, RGin 164.5', Translation 1.60 theSSE NS Direction -
1 r ,' X 10
, I 3 E .
1.2 - - - - -- -- - - --
- d >
r - u 1.0 '- J-c o
'O 0.6 -- I C- -- - - -- - -
b f, as e-4 01 l U 0.6 - - - - - -- -- 1' E r 5 0.4 a.. N- _ r O 0.2 -- i f y- s g,g
/ 0 16 I 0 10 10 10
- i Prequency (Itz) tiotes :
11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g Pive Locations Enveloped l l l l BECO: Pil Reactor Building, grim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSEEl. 164.5', Translation in the EW Directi i
l ' l ; , ' t ' I. ! . I r g @" .E E L I E" 7n ai 8 G
.v ob~; -
u m 0 n - e 1 o e w i P t -
- - c e A
e - r e i
- - \ D es
- Ea l e Sc e w
Si t ? 0r w
- 6e e
- 1
.V W F
e w
- Gh I
7
- l
- I it *
' 0 Y - -
1 ,n gi.
- n -
Y in
) do
- i r
- - - li. e i
z it ua n l i (
- Bl e
T d s
- - y c p e rn n m o tr oa 4
- e F u u s l cT -
( q tr 'g 0 9 e v a e ,.
- e c 1 n R'
- r en E 5 W F
S pi 0 s i4
- m. h W
r 0 s = n r6 e
+
j 0 d n o g1 e a-I 1 eol i l e pi et i. w w
- - . mt v a Pl w
- ' a a ec E N
e D rL o
- /
- e l O ,
ei s 1 l E Cg e g
- - ., e 1 eS e En ,
w t 4 cS v Bi o - c i d
., i t
1 1 A1 F l w e e _ i
- u w
- B e a
r r o e t e . c n a e e 0 0 R a 8 6 4 2 0 1 h 01 0 0 0 0 O e r 1 M w X a c0. ud$mtUUj 4 M m w e e m - e e e m m e w w e, w-e
i> ;[ : ' o _ r . n a wt*C tE -{ E3N T t a l. fe OD a . 2 n 0 1 o i . t - c .
- - e r
i
. D
. S
- - - N .
E Se
\
\ -
Sh 0 t
, - 6n
.i
\. 1 n
Go
' - I Ri .
0 t s - 1 ,a gl
- \ -
ns i n
- - ) da
- z l r
- i iT
- - - l
( u
- B ,
] - -
- - - y c
d e p r5 o.
- - n m o t7 e
u u s l c1 l - q e t r 'g. g e c 5 v 1 n a. e R1
- - r e n . E E
- P pi0 m .
S s i , 0 s = n rt - I 0 d n o ga 1 eol i l m
- pi et i e
- ,[f -
mt v a Ps a a e. c
- / a D r1 o :B -
j - e L O _ s 1 l E Cg
- ,, e 1 eSe En t 4 cS v Bi
/- o - c i d e
- - N N A1 F l .
i . 4 - f - B u
- / .
r o
- - '/ t c
- a e
6 R 0 5 4 3 00 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 - X .
- r O . h M 5,;-oy g
j
' i
r, - 9 0 x i0 i% 0.5 { > en J7
- E 5
c.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - L 4 C n
*1
. 0.3 - - - - - - - -- - -- --- -- - - - - - - -. - -- -
( O W 3 /
' Ue U
\ s e 0.2 - .
i f f 9 - 0.1 - f
/ 3 D
t w w 0.0 16- 0 2 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) tiotes: ' 13-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 Five Locations Enveloped
- 1. 7 i
BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE
. Torus, El.-0.25', Translation in the 13S Direction L ,m.- w w e-w a -~-. r- w w - .,-e. ,n . , ,w-r,,, ,,,-ea, ,,ea ,- rm,w,,n. ,m e n , , n.v- .~-,,u-e se,t x. ,aws, era- e n ,, --n, -- -e-a , .m
4 ro 0 x 10 0.5 3 v, E C \f 1 0.4 --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- - i,
. I U .h 0.3 -- - - - -- - -
M i r j U
; t ) \ >
' 3 0 / ..
o 0.2 - -- - - 4 - -
- --- k - - ~ *
,) .
/-
l 0.1 -f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - -- - - f u,
/
0 0.0 - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz ) i Notes: ! N-411 Damped Spectrum t Accelerations in q's ' 1 SSE Level = 0.15g Five Locations Enveloped t BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Torus, E1.-0.25', Translation in the EW Direction
- . . - . . ., . ~ . . . ..- .- . . - . . . - . - . - . .
a 0 x 10 iX 0.6 "' G u, E 0.5 ' 5 L ( c 0.4 - - - - -- - - - - - -
/ \ .
o
+3 o es a
o t
,o.
$ ,t e 0.3 - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- - -- - -- -- -- -
a e U e N Y 0.2 ---- - -- - - 8
, / E
,l -
0.1 - - - - -- f= '-- 3
- B j t, y u, w
0.0 - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- - - - - - -- I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE. Level = 0.10g Five Locations Enveloped r DECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Torus, El.'-0.25 , Translation in the Vertical Direction
.M*
1 0 I X 10 g 0.5 ---- - r- 8 e 0.5 -- - - - - N L Q,f ._- - ... . ..- ~. ., - _ . - . , -- . .- - 8
-a.
5 y 0 % e 0.3 --- -- -- - - - -- - - o
- /
U ) d f e 0.2 T f 1 N -
}, S j
.\. --
s 0'1 --
/- $
o.0 E 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - Id I 10 0 10 I 10 2 Frequency (liz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 4 BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Drywell, El. 27.17', Translation-in the NS Direction
0 X 10 g 0.5 " l g c [i i m a 0.4 - - - - - --- - -- n . L
. l 1
c ft o 0 0.3 Y LJ en 1 .
' o II rT ca 1 2$ I y
e. 0.2 - 4 L :- T ( .V L o , J --
~.
?
a 0.1 -- a C g . 0.0 -- - -- - I 0 I 16 10 10 10 I Frequency (IIz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectruin Accelerations in g's 1 SSE-Level = 0.159 - BECO: Pilgrim lleactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Dcywell, El. 2').17',- Translation in the EW Direction
1 M 0 X 10 g O.s ., M C, j <l 0.4 - - -- -. - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _. _ _ . . __ .._ ._ ._ __
. ~
- o. '
C -
't 0 0.3 - --
( _._ __. _ M :- 14 'O 3 ' l7 o
/
0.2 - -- -- - -
) - -_ _ _ _ . - _._ _ _. . _
l
/
S i m ( g l
/ '
0.1 -- - (- - - _ _.._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _._ _ _ _
- = 1 h
/
f 0.0 - - - - - - - --- - -- 16 0 I 2 10 10 30 Frequency (Itz) lloles : 11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in (,'s 1 SSE Level = 0.10g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Drywell, El. 27.17', Translation in the Vertical Direction
9 0 X 10 pj o.s. @
,; I n m '
E 3 0.4 --- - - - - - L -
'N
.g 8 0.3 -- - - - - - - -
3 o a *
- v U d E
a I 8 ( v - y 0.2 - - t--
' - - . u.
I
\'~ 3 f
f
\ ~ ,
i . 0.1 - - - - -
'1
/' 8 '
d t' 8 0.0 --- - - - - - - 16 10 0 I 2 10 10 Frequency (liz) ' Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g f DECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal, El.15.40', Translation in the NS Direction m___._____-_____-~__. . _ _ _ _ . - _ - _ . ._ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ - - . . _ . . - _ . . _ . - - - . . . ._ _ _ . _ -
n - g;d :* E* s L oOOw4N rT o"' g Od5w _ 0 1
- - - n o ,
- i t
- - - - c .
Ee (
~
~
0 Sr Si 6W
.E D
1 V Gh e _\ I 0 Rt s 1 ,n I gI
- \ - -
n
- ~ - in
) do
- z li -
i it
- - l
( ua Bl
]-
~
-- y c
n e m rn oa tr s
~
u us cT f q 'g 95 a
,l tr e, e c 1 R' r en . 0 F pi0
/ m4
/ S i J s = r5
') 0 d n g1 1 eol l f - pi e i .
# mt v Pl
- ( a a e E D rL :
- - f -
- e O , .
s 1 l E Cl .
/ - e 1 eS Ea t 4 cS Bt
- o - c s
- - - i t NA1 e d
- e .
P . 6 0 4 3 2 0
- s. 1 1
00 0 0 0 0 0 1 . X CO1n0a8y 1
~
5 m X 10 $ 0.5 , g c H
=
vt E l' (. < o.4 -.- - - . . .
,Y - -
s. { I 0.3 - - - - > - - - - - - \ -- - - e - O l'. e . << c U o e 0.2- -- -
/
r s f f
/ -
h) O.1 -- - g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
# 1 R ,
M b 0.0 - - -- -
-----l-I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz)
Notes:
- H-411 Damped Spectrum j Accelerations in g's 4
1 SSE Level = 0.10g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal, El.15.40', Translation in the Vertical Direction
. n 0
X 10 .g 0.6 N. E O z 0.5 - - - - - i < p u 0.4 -
'S S S o ;
5 e 0.3 -- - - -- - -- -- - - H a - 0 (
\.. / X--g--
l \ 0.2 - f - - - - - -
- 3
/
I. \~ 'C',
/. % ~ ,
0'1 --
/' C 0.0 - - -
I 16 0 I 2 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) Notes: H-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal, El. 21.70', Translation in the NS Direction
r, X 10 0 g 0.5 r 1 s j w
, N 0.4 - -- - - - i - - - - - - - ?
o i R
. 0.3 - - - - - -
$3 4 '
? .
)
H 8 I s y y 0.2 - - - 4 - - g f o x \' %
- 1 _
~ ~
l 0.1 - - - - ' a t 0.0 - - - - 5 10 10 10 10' Frequency (ilz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g N BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal, El. 21.70', Translation in the EW Direction
X 10 0 $ .- 0.5 N. . m i m s N , d < e 0.4 - - - L c , 'S
' t' o'
.S
- )
0.3 - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -
- - - f: P- -- - -
U { '.* 0 ' e , E. - a c , e o y 0.2 - - - - e
?
} 8 C
/ x _
0.1 -- f - - r- O
~
,../ ta H
/
y g' 0.0 - - - I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.10g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal, El . 21.70', Translation in the Vertical . Direction
. n X 10 0.6 o
7.
'a
~~
0.5 - - -- - 5 io 0.4 -- l
'd 8
.a to a m ? o 0.3 ----- -- -- U g 0.2 --
/
f - -- - - - - --
\ -
f ~ 0.1 - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -- - - ---- -- --- - - - O
,o
/ u oo __ _ __ . _ _ _ . _. . _
l_ __ _ _l. 16 0 I 2 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) llotes : 11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Buildincy, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal,-El. 28.00', Translation in the NS Direction
~
0 X 10 g 0.5
- Il vs O.5 - - -
f \ - - - - < ' y [ l 0.4 -- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - -
'M g '
- 3
'd $
0 7n e 0.3 -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- -- - -
-s GJ 7
u C 0.2 - '
< a ~
s 3
?"
j R .n y
/
0.1 - - . T- ~ -- - --- -- - -- - - . -- - -
/ 5 u
- 0. 0 -- - - - -
l-0
----l- - - - -- - - --
16 10 I 2 10 10 Frequency (ilz) llotes : 13-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, PG 1.60 SSE Pedestal, E1. 28.00', Translation in the EW Direction t__ _ _ _________ _ _ -- - - - - - - - --
s 0 X 10 g 0.5
@4 m
m .' E
\ <
v 0.4 . L
\
c o
\ 3o .
- . 0.3 ---- - -- -
a E m t* 14 m W P
- j e-t ft W
U
- y 0.2 -- - - - - -
-- j- - - - - -
w
!a l l 0
/ ~ -
0.1 -- - f - ---
/
/ C ti'
./ */ 3 0.0 T- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
16 0 I 2 10 10 10
- 'requency (ilz)
Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's ' 1 SSE 1evel = 0.10g ~ DECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE i Pedestal,- El. 28.00', Translation in the Vertical Direction
. _. ._ . . _ . ... . . - . - - ._. _ - . . _ _ _ - . _ . - . ._ _ _ ~. , . - __ ____ _ _ _
. _ ~
~
0 x to i'A 0.8 --- p. E z l, . n 0.6 --- -- - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - 3 8
... m LA n ,
.fa Y0 e
0.4 ---- - - s
.$ / Y
/
) s*
0 . 2-- - -
/
r-- --
\
"-/- ._\ - - - - --
-f ~
, n f w 0.0 -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- ---
b 16' 0 I 2 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.1Sg BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal, El. 35.42', Translation in the NS Direction
n 0 X 10 g 0.6
. N
\ -n in h
! E 0.5 - - - - I ' -
*1
- ~~
I L 0.4 -- - - - - - l - - - - - c Ro O " y
'd 5 fe e 0.3 - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
l'- o Yo ! o i e
<=
* ( ) ,- o 0.2 --- --- ' - - - - - - -
I O r x 5
/
0.1 -
-f C - ---- - - - - - - - - - -
S. r' b
/ C
,. /
8 0.0 - - --- -- - - - 16 0 1 2 1 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) tiotes : 11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 1
+
BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE
, Pedestal, El. 35.42', Translation in the EW Direction
_ ~ - . ..
x. 0 X 10 g. i 0.5 l o E
=
0.4 - - - - - -- - - -- 5 2 - - - - - w"
\ %o c:
0 0.3 C u " cJ
' u
$ U
~J u
y 0.2 - - - - 7, --- - -- - - - - - o r
/ 5:
i b
~/
/ w 0.1 -- --- -
f: o f t" y u H 0.0 - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) 110tes: 11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE I.evel = 0.10g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal, El. 35.42', Translation in the Vertical Direction .
t 0 x 10 ;g o.s --- p
+* ,
/_g s 3
L 0.6 - - - - - - - - p -- - - - E 8
.a -
L) a
?
e 0.4 - - - - - - - - -- -- -- --- ?, r Y 0.2 -- -- - --- I -- - - --- r \ r
/
f' K-
;- a
/
0.o J B 0 1 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) Notes: j H-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 i BECO: Pil rim Reactor Buildin RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Wal , Bl. 47.35', Transfa, tion in the NS Direction
r, 0 X 10 g 0.8 , sn b 0.6 - - - - --- R - - f - - - --- - -- - - C g O O
'O -
n v 0.4 - - - - - - - - / - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
?
xr* i
* ) ::
/ <
E r 0.2 - -- L - -
, ,r\
3 f
, " ~.
/ 3
/' b
- 0. 0 '- -- --- - -- - -- -- - - - -- - - -
16 0 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Wall, El. 47.35', Translation in the EW Direction
N
- rv -
t 0 x 10 -jg 0.6
;'t
. E
=
0.5 5 j , . m 0.4 - - - - - -- -- - s -
?
c o .! O v
.a a o
as ( ." o h
-i 0.3 -- -- - - -- - - - - - - -- -
<T O
O
' sa
# L" O
o.2 - 0
/ ^
/ N _
0.1 -~ - - f w
# N U
y/ 3 m 0.0 - --- - - - .- I 0 I 16 10 10 2 10 Frequency (liz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.109 s 1 BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE 4 Biological Shield Wall, El. 47.35', ' Translation in the Vert. - Direction
- .- _ - - . -.--- u . , -- * - , , ,v. r --w- -w-e = *,-r, - <+: e - . < - - . .- , ,- -
.m. .-
r,. X 10 0 1.0 g
$z 0.8 -
d l (Y c $ 0 0.6 - - -- - - - - - - _ - - - _ __ _. _ g
'j F
se o e i e-g vt 8 y 0.4 - - - - -
/ i
^
[ ( .t "; s 0.2 -- -- - - . f -- - - -.. .,c.== .c y
, o r R
,. n.
0.0 - - - - - - --- - - --- _ . - - - . _ _ _ __ l _ ._ _ I 0 2 1 10 10 10 Prequency (liz)
- Notes:
H-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Iavel = 0.15g i BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Wall, El. 52.81', Translation in the NS Direction _ ___ _____ _ _ _. . - . _ . . _ ._ . _ . . . _ . .__ . _ ....-..._..._2. . . - . .. _ - . . . .. . . _ . _ . . _ . _ , .
H 0 x 10 i% , 0.8 l , p ' IS _, z I 0.6 - - -- - C \ ? O U.
~0 m 5 u
N 0.4 -- --- - -- --- -- - - - - -- -- - -- - - U a O U U e
< w L -
I
') ..'
i r 0 0.2 - r
- c-- - ----
( : e x\ .^ <-
/
/ ,"a
/ w,
/' b 0.0 -- --- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -
16' 10 I 10 10 Frequency (!!z) llotes: 11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g i l DECO: . Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Wall, El. 52.81', Translation in the EW Direction. , 1 _ _ _ _ _ m._m._ ___ _.____ _____. _s____________-__._m. -- _ _ _ _ _ _-____m___mmm__ - _ _ -,r*a- - -- _ . ..s..w. ,e,-++. , - .....r - w.,,%4 . s, ,. .- w4 ns.w_ eu. , -
e, 0 O x 10 0.6 M
, ---. ;S m
I ' o.5 -- - 5 L ,
, -~
- 0.4 -- - -- -
s - c g 8 3
.a (J
\ .
cs i. to
'l a
e-4 0.3 - ' -- -- - - - - -- -
. li' GI o
E '" I o 0.2 - --- -
.9 I
C
/ v 0.1 -- - - - - --
( S s'
,.. - h o-
/.. / v 0.0 -- -- -- --- - - -- - -
16 1 0 I 2 10 10 10 Frequency (Itz) tiotes : ' 14-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.10g l' BEC' O: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE ; Biological Shield Wall, El. 52.81', Translation in the vert. Direction ' __ ___ __ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ . _ . . - - - . . . . ~ _ . . - . _ - _ _ . . . - - . . . . . . . . -. ._. - . . - . . . . _ . . _ . . -.
A n t
=
o x to jg 1.0
.$4
. L z
O.e - - - - -
)
h l t c l1 o 0.6 - -- - - - - - - - -- -- - - - a ? + 0 7 O r8 ; O o y 0.4 -- - - - -
,/ h- - --- - - - - - - -
?
/ O
/ \ -
/ \. ,
O 0.2 ' I \ A 'T N c 3
'~
./ h
/ C
/ $
o.o ._ -- . - . - _ .. - 16 10 0 I 2 10 10 Frequency (liz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Wall, El. 56.64', Translation in the NS Direction _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - ~ . - _ ' - - . _ - ~ . . - . . . . . - - . . . , ~ . . . . . . . . . , . , - . . . , . . _ , , - _ _ _ . _ _ , ,- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m- ,
r I i i l 0 x 10 i 0.8 $ ! El
' <n T
Q 5
- i. 0.6 1
c 1 g 0 o
'0 'A i m ?
o o$ 0.4
'I -i <
41 o . i o .-
< \ a-
/
s
) -
o .
- 0. 2- ,
\ /7
/
[ o 1"
,/ ".
, u 0.0 - - -- - - - --- - -
0 i---- ---l-+ 16 10 10 I 2 10 Frequency (liz) flotes : 11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 BEC'O : Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Wall, El. 56.64', Translation in the EW Direction
0 X 10 g 0.6 iS
.-g
' E!
7-
, z 0.5 - - - -
3 1 o.s s - - - - - - - j! 8
-a m p g 24 m '
U 0.3 - -- - - - - - - - ' 6 !
-i
-- - - - 6- -- - - - - - -
U O u M i." O 0.2 -
}- ~ -- - -- "
/
0 , l \ 0.1 -- -- --
.r - - - - - ---- - - - -- -- -- -
3
. . - ,n.
/ 4-7 u 0.0----------- - - - - - - -- - - -
I 0 I 2 1 10 10 10 Frequency (liz)
- Notes
U-411 Damped Spectrum i Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.109 i
.BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE
+ Biological Shield Wall, El. 56.J4', Translation in the Vert. Direction i _- __ ______- -_- - -- - -_ =._-~- .. . - . . - . - _ . . - . . _ . - . . ~ . . . - - - -. . _ . - - . . . . - - . . . . . . -,. . . . . - - . . _ .
3.
~
0 p, X 10 1.2
- 4 t*
+1 a
01 E 1.0 - - - --- d L,
\
0.8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E S. S a
&J N
u II 0.6 -
,T
.a Gi I 4 0
o i
<n 4
4 o.4 . a i
,/ \ '
r f '" w .m 7' N 0.2
/
7 8 s
'~
/
./ Il s 4
- 0. 0 ' ./ l --- - -- --
0 I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) Notes: , 11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's
- 1 SSE Level = 0.159 i
BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Diological Shield Wall, El. 71.50', Translation in the NS Direction
4 0 X ' 10 g 1.0 " C M z o,e
/ 5
_.f. _ . . . _ ~ __ _ _ _ _ g 8
.,, 0.6 -- - - - --- - - - --
-] - - - - - - -- - -
u o e ? o U . N
-i U i
\ s>
j;! 0.4 -- - --- - - - g r 2 5:'
,s ~~,y 0.2 --- -- -
- s ,
t i / 0. n
/ '
t ,
... / U o.0 - - -- - - -
I 0 16 10 10' 10 Frequency (112) 110tes : ' N-411 Damped Spectrum , Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g DECO: - Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Hall, El. 71.50', Translation'in the EW Direction
X 10 0.6 U f~ ! d
- 0. 5- - - -- -
L, 0.4 ---- - -- - - - - - c: \ E o o
~
-s - )
SE ,
;l m \ .
u al 0.3 -- - --- -
/ - - - --- -- - - - - -
E G) O O P in 0.2 ---
.i
) ;.
B
, / \ -
o1 .. ._. p- _. .-. - - - ._ - .
- o
/
.- h e
_y l b 0.0 I 0
---l--
16 10 10 10 Frequency (ilz) tiotes : 11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's
~1-SSE 1evel = 0.10g BECO Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Biological Onield Wall, El. 71.50', Translation in the Vert. Direction
e-o x to ;g 1.2 -- p e, ( 1.0 - - - -- -- -
--[- --- -- - - - -
L,
--I\
0.8 - --- --- - -- - c B O o H e4 SJ m
' ,o E 0.6 - - - - -- - -
(- -- - -- -- - N
-a J t li
/ \ :;
[ ;5 0.4 - 6 - -- . P f ' f
/ + -
r x 0.2 -- -- - ' -~- -- - - - f - - - - -
' D
/-
C
/ 0
- 0. 0 '~ - -- - - - - - -- -- -- - -
I 0 I 16 10 2 10 10 Frequency (liz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE L.evel = 0.15g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Wall, El. 81.80', Translation in the NS~ Direction
a m 0 x 10 g 1.0 o G
, a z .,
0.8 - - --- -_ -- - _ { $
. d er 5: 5 0, 0.6 - -- - - __ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _
g 7 N. i O o H g et O U y 0.4 - - - - - -
\ .?
< \ ~ / -
0.2 .- __- .__ _: s J U
/ l, L" j g I
,._ - ,/ 3 (a
O.0 - - - - - - - - I 0 I Id 10 10 10 Frequency (Itz) Notes: N-411 Dampeo Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g i BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG.1.60 SSE Biological. Shield Wall, El. 81.80', Translation in the-EW Direction
. .. _~ . . . ..
r, 1 0 x 10 j,u 0.6 r-
- s.
n (/3 > 53 0.5 - - - - 3 L> m t 0.4 - --- - - - --- -- - - > ; - - - - - - - - - f ' c o u 5 a m ( o aj o,3 s
.-e
};
G3 U 2 o ta
< u.
0.2 - e P s I . D r l \ - 0.1 - -- -- f-
,' S
,/ h.
e-y _/ D u
- 0. 0 - -- - - -
0 I 2 1 10 10 10 ; Frequency (liz) flotes : N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.10g \ 1 BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Diological Shield Wall, El. 81.80', Translation in the Vert. Direction
. ~ . - -
L m: - o x to jg 1.0 -
*i m
0.0 - --- - - - -
- 1 "u
e $ 0 o 0.6 y o n e .-f d
/ :'
E, a 0 y 0.4 -
- - - - [ - -- - - - - - -
I @ s 10 ~ i s 0.2
/ \
Q
' ?
.- U l
0.0 - -- -- - - -- - -- -- -- 16 0 I 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) llotes: fl-411 Damped Spectrum Acce)erations in g's 1 SSC 1.evel --0.15g DECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Vessel, El. 47.27', Translation in the flS Direction . -
0 x 10 i; 0.8 . n g z k 5 u 0.6 - - - - --- p -- - - - - - - - -- -- 1 5 8 / y 9 m ) .
/ m S 0.4 - - - -- --- - -
E e-4 8 ' i o .. en a i O*2 i
\~ ,f '"\ $
m r' N . J
/ 0 ,
/ "
,. / b 0.0 - - - - - - -- -- ----- -- --
16 0 I 2 10 10 10 Prequency (Itz) tiot es : 11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 ' i BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE , Reactor Vessel, El. 47.27', Translation in the EW Direction
. n 0
x 10 1.0 -- - C LA S r ' ~ i 0.8 - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- 3 L c - 0 0.6 - Iln U u U
-i N 8 - --
y' . j 0.4 # ' ...
\
/ 9v.
, 0.2 -- - - - - - - --
-/ \ - -
., ~
zu
,,._- ' y}
u 0.0 lj,i 16' 0 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum i Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.109 BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Vessel, El. 47.27', Translation in the Vertical-Direction
-- ___m _._______ _ m_ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ -- , _ s---.e m #- w . .,e<,w -
4 s % a- , . . --. m ,..-- w
r, 0 x 10 g 1.0 < - ! t .. U Y. 0.8 - - - - - --- -- - - - - - -- L c: $ o o . 0.6 'O U I P e \ se u QJ i e .-. tt 47 ' O e= j;! 0.4 --- - - -- - - - - - - - -
/
/'f -
s S
/
\ E v-- s..
0.2 - - - - --- -- - - - - - - --- -- -- - - - ^ -
/ O
/ %
./ 'N
/ C 0.0
/
0 16 0 I 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) tiotes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g ' BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Vessel, El. 55.18', Translation in the NS Direction
, r, 0
X 10 g 1.0 O
'1 z
0.8 --- -- L-r: $ 0 o 0.6 $ro ^ I - U
\ ?
14 i o as } te r. 3 .-i GJ (. u
)
O.4 .- f) - - - - - -- i: O 5
, x . . .
0.2 - - - -- - - c - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- " ~ ~ -
/
I O
'j h
e-e
/-, ;;
' -- u 0.0 -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - -
16' 0 I 2 10 10 10 Frequency (ilz) tiotes: 11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE. Level = 0.15g N BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Vessel, El. 55.18', Translation in the EW Direction -
g N ,w gz <v n f.oM ' u *a ,2 Ot" '0 2 0 n 1 o i t c e r
- i
- -- s - D
- - Ea l
\ Sc i
- - Si 0r t
6e I 1
.V
- e Gh I Rt
- 0
\
1 ,n
- \ gi n
j- - in do (- -
)
z li
- _ i it l
( ua Bl
- - y s c rn
' n m oa
- 7
/ -
e u u s t r cT q tr 'g 0 9 a e e, [ -
- F r c e
pi0 n 1 R' 8 m1 S i .
- 0 s = r5
/ 0 d n g5 1 eol l
- ' pi e i .
- mt v Pl
- j a a e E D r L :
- e . 0 ,
s 1 l E 'Cl
- -< e 1 eS Ee t 4 cS Bs
~ o - c s
- - - i l
1 1 A1 e - V
- - r.
'o t
- -. c a
~
e
~
R
^
0 0 8 6 4 2
'6 0 1 01 0 0 0 0 0 1
X c3.>.J!.c ' c )0 o j, -
0 x 10 ~ N. m
},4 c:
5 1.2 - - - -
) h ,
-l-g 1.0 - -- - - - - -
S 4 . 43 m Ij 0,8
.u
..t I __ - _
y GJ U u a
< t.,*
0.6 - -- - -- -
-\ , .
o'
\ ? ,
0.4 .-- - -- - - - t 2 i
',l .
i o 0.2 - -- f
- h y
0.0 16 0 2 10 10' 10 Frequency (itz) 110t es : t!-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE I,evel = 0.159 DECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor-Vessel, El. 86.75', Translation in the llS Direction
. m X 10 0 q .t*i .
. E!
z I.2 -- - - - - -- - : w N 1.0 - - - - -- -- - J ; 8 8
!} 0.0 - - --- / (
'E f.
q; ?. et 43 0 0.6 -- --- --- + --- o ; i+
< <a b
\ ?
0.4 - -- - /~ ~N - - - - - o u
/ \
l %. . . . . .. r O 0.2 - - - -- - - - - R
/
/ u,
.. / ts ;
- 0.0 I 0 I 16 ' 10 10 10 2
Prequency (Hz) Notes: N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Vessel, E1. 86.75*, Translation in the EW Direction
- ._. .._. . . . . . . . . - . . . . . - . . . . , . . . . = . . . . . - - - . - - ... ~ . _ _ - - . _ -_ - -- _
[ s U X 10 as
- 1. 2-in e
*1 (n
S
~
f D 1.0 - - - - - _._ _ _ _ _. _ ._ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ ._ .
~
0.0 - -- - --- g c . 3 8 as io
$$ 0.6 - - - - --- - -- - - - -- -- -- - - - - - -
-s G) o es
*C . - . - -
s es i o.4 .. __ _ f
\ -
?.
4 o
\
0.2 -- - . - - - - - - - - - -
, /
, "sa
" 3 w
0.0 I 0 16 10 10 10 Prequency (liz) tiotes: 11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.10g i BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE lleactor Vessel, El. 86.75', Translation in the Vertical Direction i
.. .._ , - . . . . , . . ..-- . . _ _ , , ~ . , . . . , . . , . . - . . - ~ . - . , - . ~ , - . _ _ . . . - --- , . . - . . , .. .....m .., . . . .
I 42103 R-001 ; Revision O July 30,1993 Page 1 of 33 ATTACHMENT B , e RESUMES OF PROJECT PERSONNEL t
)
l l
\
4 k 4
t J PAUL D. BAUGilMAN , PROFESSIONAL lilSTORY EGE hiternational, Stratham, New 1lampshire, Regional Manager,1987-present Cygna Energy Services, Boston, Massachusetts, Vice President,1980 1987 Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Westboro, Massachusetts, Senior Structural Engineer, 1976 1980 Stone di Webster Engineering Corp., Boston, Massachusetts, Mechanical / Structural Engineer,1969-1976
SUMMARY
Mr. Baughman has over 22 years of professional engineering and project management experience in the power and industry fields. lie has held a wide variety of positions encompassing structural and I mechanical design, safety and risk evaluations, and nuclear licensing. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Mr. Haughman manages structural engineering and evaluation programs, safety and reliability assessments, earthquake verification programs, and risk evaluations. !!c is currently assigned as Project Manager for the IPEEE/USI A.46 projects at Indian Point 2, Three Mile Island, and Oyster Creek Plants. Project assignments have included acting as Projects Manager for the D.C. Cook Small Dore Piping Confirmation Program, the Salem I!/1 Interaction Program, the Virginia Power STERI Procedures Project, the Indian Point 2 Control Room Seismic Verification 11aseline Project, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor Tritium llandling Systems Review, and the Darlington Station 11/1 Piping Review, lie has performed mechanical equipment scismic evaluations for Boston Edison, Maine Yankee, Public Service of New Ilampshire, Consolidated Edison, Gulf States Utilitics, Rochester Gas and Electric, Southern Electric International, Virginia Power, Ontario flydro, Public Service Electric and Gas, and - GPU Nuclear; cicetrical equipment evaluations for Vermont Yankee,lioston Edison, Maine Yankee, GPU Nuclear, Philadelphia Electric, Virginia Power, Rochester Gas and Electric, and Consolidated Edison; and piping evaluations for Vermont Yankee, Tennessee Valley Authority, Ontario llydro, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Westinghouse Savannah River, Rochester Gas and Electric, Public Service Electric and Gas, Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, American Electric Power, Northeast Utilities, and Mesquite Lake Resource Recovery Center. lie has performed seismic verifications ofcabic tray, conduit, instrument tubing, and ductwork for
- Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Tennessee Valley Authority, Public Service of New llampshire, Consolidated Edison, GPU Nuclear, and Rochester Gas and Electric.
Ile has prepared procedures for seismic technical evaluation of replacement items (STERI) for Maine Yankee, GPU Nuclear and Virginia Power, and presented training in STER! and Equipment Verification at Virginia Power, GPU Nuclear and Rochester Gas and Electric. lie has canied out numerous structural engineering and design activities for nuclear power plants, fossil power plants, cogen facilities and commercial prujects. Clients have included City of Doston,llanscomb , Air Force Base, Quincy City llospital, llrocton Veterans Administration Medical Center, Doston Edison, Consolidated Edison, Northeast Utilities and Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority. j
I PAUL D. BAUGilMAN 1 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) At Cygna Energy Services, Mr. Baughman managed structural and mechanical activities for the eastern United States. Ife directed technical activities at more than 30 nuclear plants, including seismic evaluations oferitical structures, piping, and equipment. Assignments included failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) for high energy piping at Seabrook Station, probabilistic risk evaluations of the reactor containment at Seabrook Station, and FMEA of spent fuel cask handling systems at Yankee Rowe. Ile also provided licensing consultation services related to structural and mechanical issues for Yankee Rowe, Vermont Yankee, Maine Yankee, Pilgrim, Millstone Units 1 and 2, Scabrook, Three Mile Island Unit 1, Davis-Desse, and R. E. Ginna. While at Yankee Atomic, Mr. Baughman was responsible for many structural and mechanical issues, including scistnic upgrade of structures and equipment, spent fuel pool modifications at Yankee Rowe, and spent fuel storage expansions at Vermont Yankee, Pilgrim, and Maine Yankee. Spent fuel pool modifications at Yankee Rowe required FMEA of the 75 ton overhead crane and evaluation of smaller crancs used during construction or operation. Spent fuel storage expansions required FMEA of the spent fuel storage pools, fuel handling systems, and movement of heavy loads near stored fuel. Mr. Baughman also perfonned a structural safety evaluation of the polar crane in the reactor containment at Maine Yankee. !!c was a member of the Nuclear Safety Audit and Review Committee for Maine Yankee. With Stone & Webster, Mr. Baughman carried out a variety of design assignments on nuelcar plants under construction in the Mechanical Analysis and Stmetural Mechanics groups, including containment design, building seismic analysis, generation of floor response spectra, and equipmera seismic qualification. EDUCATION NORillEAS11RN UNIVERSHY: M.B.A.,1984 NORlllEAS1ERN UNIVERSFIY: M.S. Civil Engineering,1978 NORlllEASTIRN UNIVERSIIY: B.S. Civil Engineering,1972 AFFILIATIONS t American Society of Civil Engineers American Concrete Institute A merican Society of Mechanical Engineers REGISTRATION Structural Engineer: Massachusetts Structural Engineer: New llampshire Civil Engineer: New flampshire SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
" Level 1 Seismic Technical Evaluation of Commercial Grade Replacement Items, Surry Power Station, North Anna Power Station." July 1991. Prepared for Virginia Power. " Level 2 Seismic Technical Evaluation of Commercial Grade Replacement items, Surry Power Station, North Anna Power Station." July 1991. Prepared for Virginia Power. " Planning Report, Comparison of Methods for Responding to Seismic IPEEE for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station." December 1990. Prepared for Boston Edison Company. % .w .,
t' PAUL D. BA UGIIMAN SELECTED PUBLICATIONS (Continued)
" Experience Data Methodology for Seismic avaluation of Alternative Commercial Grade Replacement Items (Level 1) for Oyster Creek and TM! tJni 1." June 1990. Prepared for GPU Nuclear. " Management Report, Scoping Review for Resolution of Unresolved Safety Issue A-46, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Station." January 1990. Prepared for Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.
With M. Aggarwal.1989. " Seismic Evaluation of Piping Using Experience Data." ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, July 1989.
" Seismic Verification of Control Room Design Changes for Indian Point Unit 2." June 1989. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company.
With II. Johnson, G. liardy, and N. llorstman.1989. "Use of Seismic Experience Data for Replacement ' and New Equipment." Second Symposium on Current issues Related to Nuclear Power Plant Structures, Equipment, and Piping with Emphasis on Resolution of Seismic Issues in Low seismicity Regions, May , 1989. With M. Aggarwal, S. Ilarris, and R. Campbell.1989. "Scismic Evaluation of Piping Using Experience Data." Second Symposium on Curr nt Issues Related to Nuclear Power Plant Structures, Equipment, and Piping with Emphasis on Resolution of Seismic Issues in Low-seismicity Regions, May 1989.
" Procedure for Seismic II/I Interaction llazards Evaluation for Pilgrim Nucicar Power Station." January 1989. Prepared for Boston Edison Corapany. "Scismic Evaluation of Tritium liandling System, Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory." December 1988. Prepared for Bums and Roc. " Generic Criteria for Seismic Evaluation of Piping at Darlington Nuclear Generating Station." March 1988. Prepared for Ontario llydro. "Scismic Evaluation of Non-safety Piping at Darlington Nuclear Generating Station IJsing Earthquake ;
Experience Data." December 1987. Presented to the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada. l
" Procedure for Overview Walkdown for Seismic Interaction liazards, Salem Nuclear Generating i Station." November 1987. Prepared for Public Service Electric and Gas. )
l i i
-. . - - -~ - - . .. - . - . - . . .-- - -
1 i l 1 , i JAMES L. WIIITE l PROFESSIONAL lilSTOllY EGE International, Stratham, New Ilampshire, Senior Consultant,1987.present . Cygna Energy Services, Ham ,, Massachusetts, Project Manager, 1980-1987 Ilechtel Power Corporation, Plymouth, Massachusetts, Senior Construction Engineer,1977-1980 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts, Structural Engineer,19701977 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Mr. White has oser 20 years experience in structural engineering and construction for existing and under construction nuclear power plants. IIis responsibilities have included development of design criteria, specifications, and drawings for power plant buildings and specialized stmetures such as circulating water tunnels and power piping systems. At EQE, Mr. White has acted as project manager and seismic review team member on numerous scismic evaluation projects using the EQE seismic experience data base, and the SQUG Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP). lie is currently Task- Leader for USI A 46 at Three Mile Island and Oyster Creek. !!c has completed the SQUG training for Seismic Capability Engineers. Mr. White has performed seismic qualifications of Regulatory Guide 1.97 equipment, piping, valves, control , panels, and miscellaneous equipment for Boston Edison's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. Mr. White acted as seismic review team member at the Savannah River Plant, performing scismic reviews of ; relays, raceways, control panels, tubing, valves, and various equipment in the K, L, and P reactors. In l addition, he has analyzed the seismic adequacy of erancs at EDF nuclear power plant through comparison with crancs in the EQE scismic experience data base. lle has also utilized the data base in analyzing the seismic adequacy and hazard potential of equipment at the Salem Nuclear Power plant. This work involved site inspection and evaluation with safety-related equipment as targets and 1 nonsafety-related piping as sources. Mr. White has also extensive piping experience and was Project Manager and Project Engineer on [ several piping and pipe support analysis and modification projects. Specific projects are described as follows: ' o Performed field review of Salem Unit 2 small bore piping in containment for scismic 11/I and pressure integrity using deflection screening. ; o Participating in data gathering walkdowns of data base sites for tubing, piping, and piping . fittings. o Perfonned field walkdowns and review of piping and pipe supports for seismic 11/1 at Browns Ferry. Mr. White was Project Engineer in charge of piping penetration walkdowns to estimate : piping movement for Browns Feny Unit 2. o Project Engineer for the seismic qualification of dicsci air start system piping at Ginna Nuclear Power Station. Evaluated piping using scismic experience data and conventional techniques. o DECO Pilgrim reactor water level piping modification. ; e o 1 A. Fitzpatrick environmental enclosure chilled water piping project.
_m - .- '( JAMES L. WillTE I PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) In previous assignments, Mr. White implemented various design changes for the Pilgrim Nuclear ; Power Station. Projects for which he was responsib!c include II.P. checkpoint reconfiguration, seismic building separation, and reactor water level (RWL) modification. On the RWL project he , was responsible for engineering interface for core drilling of two holes through the primary containment to install new ASME instrumentation penetrations. Ilis responsibilities also included engineering interface for installation of ASME Class 19 ping and pipe supports, modification of reactor water level instrumentation, and cutting and re alacement of Reactor Pressure vessel nozzles. < This assignment was a continuation of work that he pr rienned at Cygna as a lead structural engineer preparing the design change package for the RWL modification. Mr. White served as Project Manager and Project Engineer for analysis and modification of many nuclear plants, including the J. A. Fitzpatrick, Salem, Maine Yankee, Vennont Yankee, Pilgrim, and Millstone Unit I stations. Several important projects for which he held primary responsibility, including supervision of staffs of multi disciplined engineers and designers, are described below. o Engineering and designing environmental enclosures for Class IE electrical equipment. This project included pipe stress analysis, piping layout and design, structural design of steel frame enclosure structures, and specification and qualification ofl!VAC equipment in accordance with IEEE 344, o Assessing management and work practices for piping, pipe support, and as-built documentation for the Public Service Electric and Gas Company. o Analyring safety related pipe support baseplates for Maine Yankee in response to NRC Bulletin 79-02. Designing modifications for baseplates that failed analytical criteria. o Designing on-site structural,!!VAC, electrical, and piping modifications at Millstone Unit 1 in relation to 79 01D. o Analyzing and designing piping and pipe supports for Vermont Yankee to resolve NRC Bulletins 79-02 and 79-14. 1 1 While with Hechtel, Mr. White implemented plant modifications for Boston Edison's Construction , Management Group, a position that required supervision of approximately 16 engineers. In previous I assignments for Boston Edison he managed completion of a security building, access roads, and j parking lot modifications. Prior to this period, as a stmetural engineer for Stone and Webster, Mr. ; White enginected major plant structures and foundations and prepared design criteria, cost estimates, ! calculations, specifications, drawings, and reports. He was also responsible for evaluating, awarding, , and administrating various procurement and construction contracts as well as resolving construction ' problems. Additional projects in which Mr. White was involved include the following: o Project 41anager: Seismic review and evaluation ofpiping, pipe supports, equipment, and smact .resJbr maintaining integnty ofmain steam system at lowa Electric powerplant. Evainated steelframe stnictures and subcomponentsfor seismic capacity. l o Structural Engineer Participated in the design review of tritium piping and related equipment at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in New Jersey. Performed seismic review and evaluated stmetural and mechanical components. o Structural Engineer: Participated in scismic qualification and anchorage evaluation of motor generator sets, control panels, battery chargers, and miscellaneous electrical equipment for Consolidated Edison's Indian Point Power Plant. l M
t JAMES L. WillTE 5 PitOFESSIONAL EXPEltlENCE (Continued) o Project Afanager. Stmetural evaluation for second-story addition to a 20,000 square-foot vocational school bldg. Reviewed existing building components and design of foundations, and structural / steel concrete slabs. o Structural Enginecr: In charge of structural engineering services for renovation ofllanscomb Air Force Base's officer's club building. Responsible for structural design, construction specifications, and installation drawings for building and liVAC renovations. > o Structural Enginecr: Responsible for evaluation and review of retrofit work for the Massachusetts College of Art. Review included structural assessment of a six story reinforced concrete-frame building with concrete masonry partition walls. Renovation work was performed to incorporate classroom use changes, o Project Afanarcr: Seismic evaluation and upgrade of IIVAC system for Boston Edison's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. Project included evaluating and modifying seismic loadings.. Equipment included large centrifugal fans, motor control centers, dampers, control panels, plenum structures, electrical raceways, and other mechanical and electrical equipment. o Project Enginecr. Seismic evaluation of service water piping, pipe suppons, and equipment for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Project included seismic review orlarge steel-frame power plant structures to ensure structural integrity. t o Project Afanager, Seismic evaluations of diesel generator building fire protection piping for Boston Edison's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. Seismic review / modification of sprinkler & deluge fire protection systems. o Structural Enginecr. In charge of design of new diesel generator building for Hoston City llall. Project included structural design, drawing preparation, cost estimates, and preparation of construction specifications. Interior building renovations were also performed as part of this project. o Project Afanager. Structural design of modifications to the Bioenergy wood burning power plant. Projects included design of catalytic convester stack and ductwork modifications, and building floor strengthening for addition of water treatment tank and clean up system. Projects included structural design, specification, and drawing preparation. o Project Enginece. Responsible for scismic review and design modifications for control room electrical cabinets and panels for the Consolidated Edison Indian Point Power Plant. , o Project 3/anager: Seismic qualification of skid-mounted 12-cylinder diesel generators for SE!/PEICO. Seismic analysis and review of diesel generator anchorage and installation at five different power facilities. o Structural Enginecr. Responsible for structural evaluation of 500 MW power plant structure for Boston Edison's balanced drail stack conversion project. Structural analysis of ten-story structural steel boiler support structure for wind, seismic, and operating loading conditions, o Strucsura/ Enginccrr Investigation of structural cracking and deterioration of swimming pool / gymnasium building at the Drackton Veterans Administration llospital. Design and , review of stmetural renovations and repair work including construction drawings and specifications.
)
w ., NE , j
t JAMES L. WIIITE PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) o Project Engineer: Seismic evaluation of bridge crancs and structures for Electricity de France powei plants. Project required site inspection and scismic evaluation of various bridge crancs and cranc structures. o Structural Engineer: Rcrponsible for duc diligence review of several commercial buildings for a King of Pmsvia, Pennsylvania, realty company. Project included the structural review of large warehouse type buildings for commercial office space. EDUCATION Tuns UNIVERSHY, Medford, Massachusetts: 13.S. Civil Engineering,1970 REGISTRATION Professional Engineer: Massachusetts Professional Engineer: Maine Civil Engineer. Vermont n
t GORDON S. IUORKM AN, JR. I PROFESSIONAL lilSTORY EQE International. EQE Engineen~ng Consultants Division, Stratham, New Ilampshire, Senior Technical hianager,1991-present ABB Impell Corporation, Technical Manager, 1986-1991 Cygna Energy Services, Senior Consultant, 1981-1986 United Engineers and Constnictors, Consultant, l 978 198 l Drexel University, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, 1975 1978, and Adjunct Associate Professor, 1978 1981. l University ofDelaware, Visiting Assistant Professor,1974-1975 Stone & Webster Engincenng Corporation, Design Engineer, 1969-1970 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Dr.11jorkman is Senior Technical Manager of EQE's Engineering Consultant's Division and has over 24 years of eombined experience in nuclear power plant evaluation, university teaching, and government research. More than 16 of those years have been spent in the analysis and design of nuclear power plant l structures, piping, and components. !!c is expert in the areas of structural dynamics, seismic qualifica-tion, finite element analysis, structural behavior, and reinforced and prestressed concrete design. - Dr. Bjorkman has provided expert testimony before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on finite ! element modeling and dynamic analysis of civil structures, piping systems and raceways and has made j numerous presentations to utility management and the NRC staff. In addition, he has twice been a Principal Research Investigator for the National Science Foundation working on inverse problems in mechanics and stress concentration minimization. This research lead to the discovery ofilarmonic Shapes, which are a class of hole and inclusion geometrys that are invisible to La Placian fields. Dr.13jorkman is currently involved in several projects. These include:
- Independent review of a design basis analysis for a Fuel Storage Facility.
- Develoirment and implementation of a 42 hour traimcg program on Seismic Equipment Qualification.
- Operability Evaluation of a spent fuel pool.
- Development of a Reactor Building dynamic model and generation of design floor response spectra using state-of the art soil structure interaction methods.
- Independent review of the structural aspects of replacing steam generators through the primary containment dome.
Recently, Dr. Bjorkman completed teaching a 28 hour training course on Structural Dynamics and Seismic Analysis for Rochester Gas and Electric's Civil / Structural, Mechanical, and Site Support Staff. The course stressed the fundamental simplicity of structural dynamics,its link to the finite element method, and its relationship to the overall seismic analysis process, as applied to nuclear power plant facilities. In the area of piping, topics such as rass point spacing and missing mass were discussed and illustrated in detail. Issues related to A-46, such as anchorage flexible and in-cabinet amplification,were discussed and demonstrated using EQE's direct generation software, EQE FSG, the ANSYS program, and the response spectra database management program, SpectraDb.
t . .> GORDON S. BJOIWMAN,.lR. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) For Carolina Power & Light, Dr. Bjorkman performed an evaluation of pitstress losses in the large girders which support the spent fuel pool. lie also determined the root cause of cracks in the bottom of the spent fuel pool slab which had puzzled CP&L and its consultants for a number of years. At ABB Impell, Dr. Bjorkman was Technical Manager for the Engineering Mechanics Division. Ile was , Project Engineer for the resolution ofGeneric Letter 87-02/ Unresolved Safety issue A 46 at Northeast Utilities' Connecticut Yankee, and Millstone Units 1 and 2 stations. For Rochester Gas and Electric's Ginna Station, Dr. Bjorkman developed a strategy to address NRC concems regarding the behavior and integrity of the neoprene joint detail between the venically prestressed containment shell and basemat. Using an axisymmetric ANSYS model, which extended from below the prestressed rock anchors to the containment dome, and a 180' containment shell model, Dr. Bjorkman investigated numerous limiting boundary conditions including slip between the various concretc/ rock interfaces and failure of radial tension ties. In addition, dynamic analysis using the shell model substantiated the original seismic design basis for the containment. Dr. Bjorkman's presentation before the NRC staff and subsequent discussiuns resolved the NRC's concerns and allowed RG&E to obtain a three year extension to their operating license. At GPU Nuclear's Oyster Creek Plant, cracks in the concrete girders supporting the spent fuel pool (SFP) prompted safety concerns for the storage of high density racks. To address the safety concerns, Dr. Bjorkman developed a nonlinear analysis strategy to account for the redistribution ofinternal forces caused by concrete cracking due to mechanical and thermal loads. To implement the nonlinear strategy and to account for force redistribution within the entire reactor building structure, a large ANSYS model, consisting primarily of solid elements, was carated. The results showed that the location and orientation of existing cracks in the girders, SFP walls, reactor shield wall, and operating floor slab were predicted by the analysis, and that the high density rack loads were within the load carrying capacity envelop of . the SFP and its supporting members. Prior to these projects, Dr. Bjorkman was Project Consultant to the Three Mile Island 1 Skcwed Pipe Clamp Evaluation Project.1-le developed project instructions and special criteria for the nonlinear (gaps and friction) analysis of pipe clamps, as well as an evaluation methodology for pipe wall stresses when lug-induced stresses exceed Code Case N-318 values. This project was highly successful and resulted in i no modiScations to any of the 56 clamps involved. s in support of the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP1) restan effort, Dr. Bjorkman performed a structural integrity investigation to determine the signincance of 1,400 pipe support deSciencies found during the ISI Program. In addition, he performed an extensive technical quality review for the NMP1 static and ; dynamic finite element building models, which ranged in size from 2,000 to 60,000 degrees-of-freedom l and which will be used during NMPI's Design Basis Reconstitution Program. For Rochester Gas & Electric, Dr. Bjorkman developed an innovative methodology to inexpensively analyze, evaleate, and qualify the major braced column line between the turbine and intermediate buildings,which other consultants' evaluations (NUREG 1821) had reported to be significantly overstressed under safe shutdown canhquake loads. Dr. Bjorkman's final repon was submitted directly to the NRC by Rochester Gas & Electric and resolved the scismic safety issue. Based on the success of Dr. Bjorkman's 1981 training program on piping system analysis, Virginia .t Power's Civil Stmetures Group asked him to return in 1987 to deliver a 40-hour training program on structural dynamics. Complete example prob! cms of actual Virginia Power buildings were developed on ! the STARDYNE computer program and were used to demonstrate the finite element modeling of structures for dynamic applications. e .,
, ~~ , . , . . .
's GORDON S. BJORKMAN, JR.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) Prior to joining Impell, Dr. Bjorkman was the Senior Consultant for the Engineering Mechanics Division at Cygna Energy Services. In this capacity, he was responsible for providing corporate-wide technical guidance and directing special projects. While at Cygna, Dr. Bjorkman served for three years as a member of the Senior Review Team for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program. In this capacity, he provided expert witness testimony at the hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the NRC on all technical issues involving Dnite element, structural dynamics, piping, pipe supports, and cable trays. In a previous assignment, Dr. Djorkman functioned as the Project Engineer on the Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation project related to NUREG-0612 for the Ginna Station. On this project, Dr. Bjorkman directed the analytical efforts, which evaluated the structural safety consequences of postulated load drop accidents from plant crancs. The work involved finite element modeling and clastoplastic time history impet analysis (using ANSYS) for an accidental drop of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head and upper reactor internals onto the RPV. Additionally, numerous smaller load drops onto concrete floor systems were postulated and evaluated. Dr. Hjorkman developed special purpose l software for these analyses and supervised the project staffin the evaluations. As a Consultant for both Maine Yankee and Vermont Yankee piping and pipe support reanalysis projects. Dr. Bjorkman was responsible for reviewing technical criteria and developing modeling techniques for piping systems and baseplates. Previously, Dr. Hjorkman was the Director of a 10 week piping system analysis and design training ! program for Virginia Powers newly formed Engineering Mechanics Group. Ile was responsible for structuring and reviewing all lecture and workshop materials, and taught the two-week modules on dynamic analysis and the use of the STARDYNE computer program. Pdor tojoining Cygna, Dr. Bjorkwm worked at United Engineers and Constructors, where he managed the vent system analysis and design of modifications for a Mark 1 nuclear power plant. I!c supervised personnel in the proper development and use oflarge finite element shcIl and beam models, which incorporated numerous superclements in both static and dynamic analyses. Ile also developed computer programs to evaluate fatigue damage at highly stressed intersections. In addition, Dr. Djorkman completed a stability and stress analysis of a discontinuously stiffened containment shcIl liner, and acted as a Consultant to the Scabrook project on matters conceming liner stability during construction. , i As a facility member of Drexel University and the University of Delaware, Dr. Bjorkman taught' , graduate and undergraduate courses in experimented mechanics, advanced structural analysis, solid ' mechanics, finite element analysis, and prestressed and reinforced concrete design. During this period, Dr. Bjorkman was twice Principal Research investigator for the National Science Foundation working on Problems in inverse clasticity and stress concentration minimization. i Prior to carning his Ph. D., Dr Bjorkman worked as a Design Engineer for Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, where he performed the finite element analysis and complete reinforced concrete design of the turbine building mat foundation and retaining walls for the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Plant. Ile also developed an analysis procedure and performed the initial finite element analysis of the reinforced concrete containment shell and suppression chamber for Dell Station and Brunswick nuclear power ^ plants while with Jackson and Moreland (DE&C) Dr. Bjorkman has been a Consultant to a number of corporations including the Docing Vertol Company, for whom he developed and taught a 40 hour lecture .i ' series on the finite element method. I i l se= anes % N
t GORDON S. BJORKM AN, JR. EDUCATION UNIVERSHY OF DELAWARE: Ph.D. Applied Mcchanics CORNELL UNIVERSHY: M.S. Structural Engineering PRINCETON UNIVERSffY: 13.S. Civil Engineering REGISTRATIONS ' Pennsylvania: Professional Engineer AFFILIATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) ASCE Committee on Structural Computations ASCE Technical Committee on Optimal Structural Design Reviewer, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Journal of Applied Mechanics Sigma Xi JOURNAL AND CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS With R. Richards.1993. "llannonic Inclusions: Elastic Inclusions of Uniform Strength." To be published in Journal ofApplied Afechanics.
" Benchmark Problems for Plane Stress Shape Optimization." Proceedings of the ASCE Tenth Conference on Electric Comptuation. Indianapolis,1N., April 1991. "On The Behavior and Qualification of Pipe Clamps Used in Nonstandard Applications." Proceedings ofthe ASAfE Pressure l'esselandPiping Conference. San Diego,CA., June lWl.
With R. Richards. August 1984. " Optimum Shape and Pressure Vessel Attachments." In Proceedings ofthe 5th ASCE Engineering Afechanics Division Specialty Conference. Laramic, WY: University of Wyoming. With R. Richards. May 1983. "On the Derivation of!!armonic and Neutrallloles Using Complex Variable Methods." In Proceedings ofthe 4th ASCE Engineering Alechanics Division Specialty Conference. West Lafayette,ID: Purdue University. With R. Richards. October 1982. " Neutral lloles: Theory and Design." In Journal ofthe Engineering Afechanics Division. Vol. 108: 945-960. American Society of Civil Engineers. With R. Richards. December 1980. "llarmonic Shapes and Optimum Design." In Journal ofthe Engineering Afechanics Division. Vol.106, No. EM6: 1125-1134. American Society of Civil Engineers. With R. Richards. May 1979. " inverse Elasticity for llarmonic Shapes." In Proceedings ofthe 7th Canadian Congress ofApplied Afechanics. Sherbrooke. With R. Richards. September l719,1979. In Proceedmgs of the 3rd ASCE Engineering Alechanics Division Specialty Conference. Austin *1X With R. Richards. September 1979. "llarmonic lloles for Non-constant Field." In Journal ofApplied Afechanics. ASME No. 78 APM-30. Vol. 46, No. 3: 573-576.
-- n
I CORDON S. BJORIGIAN, JR. I JOURNAL AND CONFERENCE PUllLICATIONS (Continued) With R. Richards.1978. " Optimum Shapes for Unlined Tunnels and Cavities." In Engineering Geology. Vol. 12:171 179. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. With R. Richards.1976. " Optimum Shapes for Tunnels and Cavitics." In Proceedings of the 17th United States Symposiurn on Rock Afechanics: SA7 SA7-6. Salt Lakc city, UT: University of Utah. With R. Richards. November 1976. "llarmonic I! oles: An Inverse Problem in Elasticity." InJournal of Applied Afechanics. Vol. 43, Series E, No. 3: 414-418. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. i l
- . . IG1B
I I l l 4 ALEJANDRO P. ASFURA PROFESSIONAL HISTORY EOEInternational, San Francisco, California, Associate and Technical Manager,1990-present '
/mpe// Corporation, San Ramon, California, Senior Technical Specialist, 1984-1990 PMB Systerns Engineering, San Francisco, California, Lead Engineer, 1983-1984 .
University of Cali/ornia, Berkeley, California, Research Assistant, 1980-1984 Consultant, Santiago, Chile, 1975 1980 Institute of Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, Research Assistant, 1973-1975 University F. Santa Maria, Valparaiso, Chile, Associate Professor, 1972-1973 I
SUMMARY
Dr. Asfura, Technical Manager for EQE's Engineering Consultants Division, has 20 years of combined practice in industry and in the academic world. He possesses a wide range of practical, research, and teaching experience in structural engineering, earthquake engineering, dynamic analysis, and structural mechanics. Practical experience includes analysis and design of major steel and concrete structures for industrial and mining plants; analysis and design of highway bridges, residential concrete buildings, i and offshore structures; analysis of nuclear power plants and equipment; and development of several computer programs for application in structural and offshore engineering. Dr. Asfura has expertise in the areas of earthquake engineering and dynamic analysis, random vibration techniques, and direct generation of in-structure response spectra. His responsibilities at , EOE includes project management, technical support for related projects, marketing, technical , presentations, preparation of proposals, and licensing support. Dr. Asfura's theoretical background and research experience in the areas of Earthquake Engineering, Structural Dynamics, Random Vibrations, Soil Dynamics, and Optimum Design have been achieved through advanced degrees from prestigious universities, individual research, and joint research with E such renowned professors as Professor Emilio Rosenblueth at the Institute of Engineering in Mexico, and Professor Armen Der Kiureghian at the University of California, Berkeley. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Dr. Asfura's practical experience in the United States is described as follows: From June 1990 to present, Dr. Asfura has been a Technical Manager for the Engineering , Consultants Division at EQE International. Some of the projects on which he is or has been in , charge are the following: o To/edo Edison Company. Project Manager for the generation of in structure spectra for USl A-46 and seismic margins for Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station. This project involves review / development of structural models and deterministic soil-structure interaction analysis. o GPU Nuclear Corporation. Project Manager for the generation of probabilistic . median-centered and conservative in-structure spectra at all Class i builaings for resolution of IPEEE and USI A-46 at Three Mile Island. This project involves development of structural models and deterministic and probabilistic soil-structure interaction analysis.
l Al.EJANDRO P. ASFURA ; PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) o Northern State Power Company. Project Manager for the soil-structure ; interaction analysis of the intake structure at Brunswick Steam Electric Plant for resolution of USl A-46. This project involves development of structural models and deterministic soil-structure interaction analysis. l L Virginia Electric and Power Company. Project Manager for the soil structure o interaction analysis of all Class I structures at Surry and North Anna Nuclear Power Plants. These analyses involve development of structural models and probabilistic and deterministic soil structure interaction analysis, o Northern State Power Company. Project Engineer for the seismic analysis of all Class i buildings at the Monticello and Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plants.
- This project involves probabilistic and deterministic soil-structure interaction analyses for the generation of 50th percentile and A-46 floor acceleration response spectra.
o GPU Nuclear Corporation. Project Manager for the soil structure interaction , analysis of the Reactor Building at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. The analyses are being performed to generate design floor acceleration response spectra according to the Nuclear Regulatory , Commission's recommendations and to develop probabilistic response spectra for seismic PRA. o Carolina Power and Light Company. In charge of the soil structure , interaction analyses of C! ass I buildings at the Robinson Nuclear Power Plant to generate 50th percentile floor acceleration response spectra for PRA and fragility studies. This project involved development of structural models and probabilistic and deterministic soil structure interaction analysis, o Sydkraft/OKG Aktiebolag, Sweden. Project Engineer for the development of median-centered response spectra and the probabilistic assessment of the , capacity of the reactor / containment buildings at three nuclear power plants in Sweden. This program consists of the probabilistic dynamic analysis (considering SSI effects and structural and soil properties variability) of the structure to calculate the statistics of the floor response spectra and the ! structural stresses. Factor of safety and confidence level are estimated from the ultimate capacity of the structure and the statistics of the stresses, o Washington Public Power Supply System. Project Manager for the generation and quality assurance verification of codes EOEFSG and EOEMPF for the direct generation of floor response spectra and the calculation of modal participation factors from mods' test resulte, respectively. o Amoco, in charge of the soil dynamic analysis for the generation of design site-specific response spectra and acceleration time histories at the Caspian Sea in Azerbaijan for two earthquake levels. These site-specific seismic excitations will be used for the design and ductility analyses of a fixed , offshore platform. o Califomia Department of 7'r ansportation (Caltrans). Project engineer for the i seismic analysis of the Carquinez Bridge in the San Francisco Bay Area. This project involves the structural modeling cnd analysis of two double cantilever through truss bridges construction ci:ca 1927 and 1958. Soil structure , interaction, multiple support excitation, and nonlinear effect are included in the analyses. p o SASS / OA Verification. Project Manager for the modification, installation, and QA Verification of the computer code SASSI in the EOE computer environment. i
, n n. l
I ALEJANDRO P. ASFURA ! PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) o Sandia NationalLaboratory. Project Engineer for the study to assess the effect of the degradation of the stiffness of shear walls on floor spectra and on fragility studies. This project involved probabilistic SSI analyses of several large soil-structure models for several seismic excitation levels. o Paci//c Gas & Electric (PG&E). Consultant for the direct generation of floor spectra at two PG&E buildings in San Francisco in this project, modal participation factors were evaluated directly from an estimated set of mode . shapes, o Superconducting Super Co//ider Laboratory. Project Engineer for the seismic and transportation analysis of the finite element model of the magnets for the superconducting super collider system. From February 1984 to May 1990, Dr. Asfura worked at impell Corporation in the San Ramon, California, offices. Dr. Asfura's responsibilities at Impell Corporation included management of projects, technical support for all Impell's offices in the Uniteci States and Europe, marketing, technical presentations, preparation of proposals, and licensing support. Some of the main projects on which he was in charge at Impell were: o Brookhaven NationalLaboratories. Project Engineer for a Brookhaven National Laboratories Project for the post-test analytical prediction of the nonlinear dynamic response of a reactor coolant loop tested at the Tadotsu Engineering Laboratory at Japan. o Texas Utilities E/ectric Company. Project Engineer for the Maintenance Mitigation Program for the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant. This program consisted of developing the technical justification to substantiate the assertion that the non-safety-related electrical conduit Train C systems at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station would maintain their structural integrity during or after a Safe Shutdown Earthquake event. This project involved dynamic analyses of conduit lines and statistical analysis of previous experience. o Texas Utilities Electric Company. Project Engineer for the Validation of Design Basis Floor Response Spectra Program for the Comanche Peak , Nuclear Power Plant. In this Program, the design basis floor spectra at all l Category I buildings at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station were validated by demonstrating their adequacy and assessing their conservatism. Soil-structure interaction and direct generation of floor response spectra l methodologies were used to generate state of-the practice floor response spectra at all safety related busdings in the plant. o Texas Utilities Electric Company. Project Engineer for the Secondary Walls Program for the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant. This project consisted , of the calculation of the maximum relative displacements between floor slabs and the top of disconnected secondary walls for Category I buildings at the ; Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. This involved use of finite elements, soil structure interaction, and direct generation of floor response spectra techniques. B
t ALEJANDRO P. ASFURA PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) o Southern Cali/ornia Edison. Return to Service and Long term Services Programs for the Southern California Edison's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1. Dr. Asfura was involved in the generation of floor response spectra, nonlinear analyses of structural components and piping systems, special studies, and licensing efforts. From September 1983 to January 1984, Dr. Asfura worked as a Lead Engineer at PMB Systems Engineering, San Francisco, California, in the analysis of the Schio Arctic Mobile structure (SAMS). This was a conceptual design for a mobile exploration structure to be initially utilized in water depth of 40 to 60 feet in the Diapir Basin of Harrison Bay, Alaska Some of the main engineering projects in which Dr. Asfura participated during his practice in Chile between 1975 and 1980 are listed as follows: Industrial Plants o Chilean Copper Corporation (COGFLCO). Expansion of the Chuquicamata 1 I Smelting Plant, Chuquicamata Copper Mine o la Disputada de las Condes Mining Company. Expansion of the Chagres i Smelting Plant, La Disputada de las Condes Copper Mine o la Disputada de las Condes Mining Ccmpany. Expansion of the San Francisco Concentration Plant, La Disputada de las Condes Copper Mine o Chilean Copper Corporation (CODELCO). Technical quality review of the complete project for the expansion of the El Salvador Concentration Plant, El Salvador Copper Mine ; All of the above projects included analysis and design of major concrete and steel underground, at ; grade, and elevated structures. Analysis and design of foundations for structures, equipment, and vibratory machinery. Analysis and design of chimneys, conveyors, storage tanks, and minor structures. o NationalMining Corporation (ENAMI). Analysis and design of steel chimneys for the Paipote Smelting Plant Bridges , o Secretary of Transportation. Analysis and design of 39 highway bridges (lengths between 20 and 100 meters). Offshore Structures l o Empresa NacionaldelPetrofeo. Development of computer corte for the analysis of offshore structures including automatic generation of wave and current loads. Costa Afuera Project. o Empresa NacionaldelPetrofeo. Analysis and design of a steel offshore ' jacket and another marine structure. Costa Afuera Project ResidentialBuildings + o Analysis and design of 30,000 square meters of residential reinforced ! concrete buildings.
. . ~
[
ALEJANDRO P. ASFURA l RESEARCH EXPERIENCE During 1972 and 1973, Dr. Asfura worked as an Associate Professor at the department of Civil Engineering of the Federico Santa Maria University in Chile in the area of Dynamic Analysis. From 1973 to 1975, he worked as a Research Assistant at the Institute of Engineering of the Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico. He worked in the areas of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Optimization with Professor Emilio Rosenblueth and in Soil Dynamics with Professor Gustavo Ayala. Frorn 1981 to 1984, he worked as a Researen Assistant at the Division of Structural Engineering and Structural Mechanics of the University of California, Berkeley. He worked in Finite Elements with Professor Robert L. Taylor and with Professor Armen Der Kiureghian in the area of Random Vibrations of Structures. Dr. Asfura's Doctoral Dissertation was performed under Professor Der Kiureghian's supervision. While at Berkeley, he developed the Cross-Cross Floor Spectrum method for the analysis of multi-supported system using the respcase spectrum approach. Based on his research work, he had developed several computer codes for application in structural dynamics. Examples of these codes are a computer program for the generation of modal properties from in situ tests results, and a computer module to allow the direct generation of floor spectra considering soil-structure interaction. EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Berkeley, California: Ph.D. Civil Engineering,1984 Autonomous UNIVERslTY oF MEXICO, Mexico City, Mexico: M.S. Structural Engineering,1975 UNIVERstTY oF CHILE, Santiago, Chile: B.S. Civil Engineering,1972 REGISTRATION Professional Engineer: California Structural Engineer: Chile AFFILIATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Co spokesman of the Working Group on Multiple input Floor Spectra Analysis of the Nuclear Structures and Materials Committee of the ASCE Dynamic Analysis Committee Member of the Working Group on Generation of Floor Spectra of the Nuclear Structures and Materials Committee of the ASCE Dynamic Analysis Committeo PUBLICATIONS
" Soil-structure interaction Observations, Data, and Correlative Analysis." In Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Development in Soil-structure Interaction, Antalya, Turkey, July 1992. "A Simplified Analytical Method to Evaluate Pipe-To Pipe impact Loads." June 1992. ASME PVP Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.
t ALEJANDRO P. ASFURA PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued)
"An Evaluation of Approximate Methods for Correcting Amplified Floor Response Spectra." May 1990. Fourth National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Palm Springs. " Methodologies for Rapid Evaluation of Seismic Demand Levels in Nuclear Power Plants Structures."
December 1988. Second Symposium on Current issues Related Nuclear Power Plant Structures, Orlando, Florida.
" Random Vibration Methods for the Seismic Qualification of Secondary Systems." June 1988.
ASME PVP Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
" Floor Response Spectrum Method for Seismic Analysis of Multiply Supported Secondary Systems."
1986. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. Vol.14, pp. 245 2G5. ,
" Modal Participation Factors from In Situ Test Data." August 1985. Transaction, Eighth International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Brussels, Belgium. "A New Combination Rule for Seismic Analysis of Piping Systems." June 1985. ASME PVP Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana. "A New Floor Response Spectrum Method for Seismic Analysis of Multiply Supported Secondary Systems." 1984. Report No. UCD/EERC-84/04, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley. " Earthquake Response of Multiply Supported Secondary Systems by Cross-Cross Floor Spectrum Method." January 1984. Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability. " Seismic Response of Multiply Supported Piping Systems." August 1983. Transactions, Seventh International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Chicago, Illinois. " Stochastic Method for Seismic Analysis of Secondary Systems." June 1983. Proceedings, International Workshop of Stochastic Methods in Structural Mechanics, Department of Structural Mechanics, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy. " Optimum Seismic Design of Linear Shear Buildings." May 1976. Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.102. No. ST5, pp.1077-1084. " Method of Developirig Optimum Tolerances." February 1976. Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.102, No. ST2, pp. 323 336. " Dynamic Behavior of a Soil Structure Model Considering Absorbent Boundaries." July 1976.
Second Chilean Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Santiago, Chile.
" Absorbent Boundaries in Soil Dynamics." November 1975. Fourth National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Oaxaca, Mexico.
um
I l ALEJANDRO P. ASFURA l PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued)
" Optimum Tolerance in Rolled Steel Sections." 1974. Revista de Ingenieria, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp.
337 348. Mexico
" Vibrations of Chimneys with Variable Inertia." 1974. XVI South American Conference on Structural Engineering, Buenos Aires, Argentina. " Dynamic Analysis of Chimneys with Variable inertia. Comparison between Continuous and Discrete Models." 1972. University of Chile report, Santiago, Chile.
t 9 I b BG2
.-- - - .- - _- .- - ~ . . -- --
t l DAVID J. DOYLE , PROFESSIONAL HISTORY EOEInternational, San Franciscu, California, Lead Engineer,1987-present : Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill, Chicago, Illinois, Summer intern, 1984-1986 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE [ Mr. Doyle is an engineer in EOE's Engineering Consultants Division. Mr. Doyle has been ! involved in a variety of seismic engineering projects involving detailed finite element analyses, in-plant screening evaluations, and soil-structure interaction analyses, He performed a structural computer modeling and analysis of SSC magnet and supports of the Super Conducting Super Collider and assisted computer modeling and analysis of four reactor ; structures for the Hatch Nuclear Power Plant. In addition he has been involved in a time history and response spectra generation for soil-structure interaction analysis for United ! Nuclear Corporation. Mr. Doyle has completed the SOUG certified seismic evaluation training , Course. Notable examples of Mr. Doyle's work has included the following projects. o Soil-structuralinteraction analysis of the Oskarshamn Power Plant for the Swedish utility company Sydkraft. ; o Deterministic and probabilistic soil-structure interaction analysis of the Peach Bottom and Zion Power Plants to determine the effects of shear
- wall degradation as a function of shear stress for Sandia National Laboratory. :
o in-plant screening evaluations of seismic qualification operability issues f at the Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant for safety-related equipment [ components and systems. { o Computer modelling and soil-structure interaction analysis of buildings { at the Savannah River Site. l o Modelling and response spectrum analysis of large steel-frame '! structures at the Savannah River Site. { o Soil-structure interaction analysis of a Pacific Bell facility in Northern California. . 6 o inspection of a structure for Carter Hawley Hale for structural damage l after the October 17,1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. I o Generation of in-structure response spectra for the Belene Nuclear Power Plar't in Romania. ! o Equipment anchorage calculation't and in-plant screening evaluation of ! plant systems and components at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric i Station. o Various in house computer code quality assurance verification work. Mr. Doyle worked three consecutive summer internships with Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill. His miscellaneous jobs included finite element structural analysis and beam and column ! design. In addition, he worked with computer-aided structures programs. J IGS l
1 DAVID J. DOYLE EDUCATION l University of California, Berkeley: M.S. Structural Engineering,1986 , University of Illinois, Champaign Urbana: B.S. Civil Engineering,1985 1 l REGISTRATION Certified Engineer-in-Training: lilinois j AFFILIATIONS AND HONORS i Tau Beta Pi Erigineering Honor Society Chi Epsilon Civil Engineering Honor Society (Treasurer - one year) l Phi Kappa Phi Senior Honor Society ' c i i l t t v l I i i t i r i m...
E BASILIO N. SUMODOBILA, JR. i PROFESSIONAL IIISTORY EGE Incorporated, San Francisco, Califomia, Principal Engineer,1986-present East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland, California, Associate Engineer, 1984 1986 URS/ John A. Blume and Associates, San Francisco, Califomia, Senior Engineer,1982 1984 Bechtel Power Corporation, San Francisco, California, Senior Engineer 1979 1982 URS/ John A. Blume and Associates, San Francisco, California, Senior Engineer, 1973 1979 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 7 Mr. Sumodobila has over 19 years of experience in seismic evaluations, structural dynamic analysis, scismic analysis, structural design, linear and nonlinear analysis, and fmite element software development. As Principal Engineer for EQE's Engineering Consultants Division, he provided support for the equipment qualification at the Savannah River Sit Mr. Sumodobila is responsible as a scismic capability engineer for Toledo Edison. This includes resolution of l US! A-46 using the SQUG GIP methodology, and IPEEE using the EPRI margin *ssessment ; methodology at the Davis-Desse nuclear power plant. At EQE Mr. Sumodobila has perfomied various aspects of scismic evaluation and analysis of , a variety of electrical, mechanical and structural components. !!c has extensive experience in seismic evaluation of electrical raceways and components, mechanical equipment, piping, and structures. Ile has also performed seismic interaction evaluations, including 11/1 interaction, , I and seismic-induced spray hazards evaluation. In addition, he has performed building . structure analysis and evaluation, including soil-structure interaction effects. He is well : versed with the actual performance of industrial components and structures in actual earthquake, and has applied the seismic experience approach in qualification of equipment. For the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Cooper Station, and Savannah River Plant, Mr. ; Sumodobila was involved with the seismic evaluation of electrical raceways. For the Browns , Ferry Nuclear Plant, and Savannah River Plant he has performed !!/I interaction hazards evaluation. For the Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant, Beznau Nuclear Power Plant ! (Switzerland), liigh Flux Isotope Reactor (!! FIR-Oakridge), and Savannah River Plant he has
~'
performed piping analysis and evaluation. For the Winfrith Generating Station (UK), and Savannah River Plant he was involved with the scismic evaluation of confinement system. For the Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, he was involved with seismic induced spray hazards evaluation. ! Mr. Sumodobila has also performed a number of seismic analysis of structures, including soil- , structrure interaction efTects. For the SRS 105 K, L, and P Reactors, he performed the , structural analysis of the VTS monorail frames. lie performed the seismic analysis including i soil structure interaction for the Tower Shielding Reactor (TSR-Oak Ridge), Surry Nuclear , Power Plant, N Reactor intake Pump Structure, and the Bellene Nuclear Plant (Bulgaria). lie , also performed the seismic analysis and evaluation of the !!PIR Reactor Building. i At East Bay Municipal Utility District, Mr. Sumodobila was responsible for scismic analysis , of Water Storage Tanks. !!c developed a computer code for scismic analysis and design of ' water storage tanks per AWWA D 100 Code. lie was also involved with layout of filter plants for the San Ramon Valley Filter Plant. ; B :
i l BASILIO N. SUMODOHILA, JR. I i l pitOFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) As a senior engineer at URS/Blume, he was responsible for the dynamic analysis of structures' ; using finite element methods, which included mathematical modeling, calculation of l structural response, and determination of critical sections. In addition, he provided , modifications to structures to n: duce stresses. I Ile completed the analysis of several nuclear power plant stmetures. For the Diablo Canyon I Nuclear Plant, he completed the analysis of the Turbine Buildings fer the llosgri Earthquake load. As a lead engineer, his responsibilities included mathematical modeling for finite ; c.ement analysis, time history analysis, calculation of dynamic time history response, i generation of response spectra, preparation of calculations and reports, and supervision of I other engineers working on the specified task. Ile was also responsible for the dynamic seismic analyris of the Turbine and Administration buildings of the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Power Plant. While employed at Bechtel Power Corporation, he completed several aspects of. design, , structural analysis, and stress evaluation for the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant. Ile was involved in the stress analysis of various s~uctural components such as the containment primary structures, suppression chamber ce mns, downcomers and downcomer bracing ! system for dead, seismic and various hydrodyi . mic loads such as safety relief valve actuation, chugging, condensation oscillation and thermal loads. Tasks included the development of i mathematical models for ANSYS, USAP (a Bechtel program), STRUDL and NASTRAN computer programs. IIe also perfonned design assessment of these structural components and was responsible for the complete analysis and design of the downcomer bracing system , constructed of stainless steel, which was designed by analysis iterative process due to the i numerous loadings. Various methods were developed in the analysis for the hydrodynamic loads. Some unusual design approaches were used. lie developed a computer program to check member stresses for numerous loading combinations for acceptability.
!!c was also involved in the stress evaluation of the concrete slab and walls for the spent fuel ;
pool for the Limerick Plant for dead, scismic and thermal loads. Performed a finite element l nonlinear analysis of the spent fuel pool to determine the stress distribution and the capacities ; of the critical sections in the concrete slab and walls of the spent fuel pool. ; While employed at URS/Blume, he was reyponsible for the seismic and stress analysis of ; structures, equipment, and piping systems of nuclear facilities. . For the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, he performed the dynamic analysis of the l containment structure, (using axisymmetric finite element method) the auxiliary building, ; (including torsional modes of vibration) and the turbine building, as well as perfonning the j seismic analysis of piping systems for the DE and DDE. lie was involved in the stress analysis of several underground waste storage tanks for the [' llanford Reservation in Washington, for dead, live, and thermal loads and carthquake ground motions, and evaluated stresses at the steel tank shell in accordance with the ASME Section ; Vill Division 2 code. - Also, he assisted in the development and debugging of various computer programs for l structursi analysis, lie developed a module for direct integration and modal superposition ) time history analysis for a piping analysis program and other algorithms for time series l analysis. ! bb i 1
B ASILIO N. Sl'MODOBILA, JR. { PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) c in addition, he is proficient it the use of the following computer programs: SAPIV, ANSYS, BSAP,STRUDL, AXIDYN NASTRAN, DRAIN 2D,STARDYNE. EDUCATION MAPUA INSTILL 7E OF TECIINOLOGY, Manila, Philippines: B.S. Environmental Engineering. l 1973 MAPUA INSmVTE OF TI:c1WOuxlY, Manila, Philippines: B.S. Civil Engineering,1970 ; U.C. BERKl: LEY EXTENSION: Courses in structural dynamics, design and computer i programming , REGISTRATION , California: Civil Engineer ; Philippines: Civil Engineer i t ilONORS Philippine Board Examination for Civil Engineers, First Place,1970 l Philippine Association of Civil Engineers, Cenificate of Merit,1971 PUllLICATIONS With J. J. Johnson and R. L Stover.1989 "Scismic and Cask Drop Excitation Evaluations of , the Tower Shielding Reactor." Second DOE Natural Phenomena llazards Mitigation i Conference. i With S. J. Eder and J. P. Conoscente. 1989. "Scismic Fatigue Evaluation of Rod Ilung f Systems." Tenth Confen nce on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology. i With S. P. Ilarris, P. S.11ashimoto, J. O. Dizon, G. M. Zaharoff, and L J. Bragagnolo. March l 1988. "Scismic Evaluation of the liigh Flux Isotope Reactor Primary Containment System." ! Report prepared for Martin Marietta Energy Systems,Inc. San Francisco: EQB Engineering.
]
t l l I
' I 1 l l
)
JAMES J, JOllNSON PROFESSIONAL lilSTORY EGE Intei7:ational, San Francisco, Califamia, Division President,1986-present NTS/Stntctural Afechanics Associates, San Ramon, Califomia, Vice President,1984 1986 Stnictural Afechanics Associates, San Ramon, Califomia, Vice President Project Manager,1980-1984 Lawrence Livemore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, Project Manager,1978 1980 General Atomic Company, San Diego, California, Branch Manager, Staff Engineer, Senior Engineer, 1972-1978 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
- Dr. Johnson has participated in the development, implementation, and teaching of seismic risk and scismic margin assessment methodologies. He has participated in scismic PRAs of over 20 nuclear power plants. llis participation encompasses many aspects including hazard definition, scismic response and uncertainty determination, detailed walkdowns, and fragility assessn:ent. A major element of scismic PRAs and seismic margiu assessments is best estimate response analyses. Dr. Johnson participated in the development of best estimate or median-centered response procedures and has participated in its application to ever 60 nuclear facilities. Dr.
Johnson was responsible for several portions of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seismic Safety Margins Research Prngram (SSMRP)-- soil-structure interaction, majo< -tructure response, subsystem response, and the scismic analysis calculational procedn. (SMACS). Dr. , Johnson has presented numerous seminars and trWning courses on e ismic PRA and scismic l margin methodologies. L Dr. Johnson has played a significant role in the development ofgeneral and plant-specific seismic evaluation procedures. This project participation has ranged from the SQUG General , Implementation Procedure (GlP) to piant-specific procedures for the Savassah River Site. L Procedures include criteria for assessing equipment and component functionality and structural integrity, scismic systems interaction, anchorage, and other issues. Dr. Johnson has extensive theoretical and practical experience in the soil structure interaction . (SSI) analysis of major facilities and has written a comprehensive assessment of the state-of-the-art of SSI. Most recently, Dr. Johnson was principal investigator for EQE on the SSI modeling, predictive analysis, and resolution of measured and predicted response for the combined l EPRl/NRC Lotung, Taiwan scale model project. lie has performed SSI analyses of a wide variety ; of surface and embedded stmetures using simplined to sophisticated substructure methods and [ linear and nonlinear finite c!cment techniques. Nonlinear analyses included geometric effects (sliding and separation) and soil material behavior. IIe has made extensive use ofcomparative analyses and parametric studies to benchmark techniques and soil and stmeture configurations. Dr. Johnson was a consultant to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) concerning revisions to the Standard Review Plan for seismic analysis and design. i Dr. Johnson has developed, verified, maintained, and extensively applied several large computer ! programs to perform stress and scistnic analysis. Among these are: MODSAP, a general purpose finite element program with special capability in the dynamic analysis of structures with localized nonlinearities; and SMACS, a probabilistic response analysis program for soil, stmetures, equipment, and piping systems.
.e JAMES J. JOIINSON PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) Dr. Johnson was responsible for the analysis and design of components subjected to extreme internally and externally generated loading conditions. This work includes seismic qualification ofcontrol room equipment and motor control centers, fuel handling components, core and core support structures, heat exchanger shcIl and tubes subjected to a tube burst loading, and shipping casks ofirradiated fuel and equipment subjected to impact loading. Dr. Johnson has taught Earthquake Engineering of Major Facilities at the University of California, Berkeley. This course covered all phases of the earthquake engineering process, including seismic hazard definition; scismic analysis and design of structures, equipment and , tanks; and seismic risk analysis. Dr. Johnson coordinated and taught portions of the SQUG training course that covered the seismic evaluation of equipment, cable trays and conduit, piping, anchorage, and scismic systems interaction. i Dr. Johnson is a member and chairman of the Working Group on input to Secondary Systems of the ASCE Nuc! car Structures and Materials Committee, Dynamic Analysis Committee, and the ASCE Committee on Nuclear Standards, Seismic Analysis of Safety Class Structures. EDUCATION UNIVI:RSITY OF ILUNotS: Ph.D. Civil Engineering,1972 UNIVI:RSIIY or ILUNois: M.S. Civil Engineering,1969 UNIVI RSFIY OF MINNiiSOTA: B.C.E. Civil Engineering,1967 REGISTRATION California: Civil Engineer SECURITY CLEARANCE i Department of Energy: Q-Clearance , I AFFILIATIONS Phi Kappa Phi llonor Society ) Sigma Xi ) American Society of Civil Engineers Earthquake Engineering Research Institute PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS Dr. Johnson has contributed to over .10 technical reports and journal articles. The following is a selection of documents for which he is the principal author. l I Seismic Margin Studies and Risk Analyses l With A. P. Asfura. July 1992. " Soil-structure Interaction Observations, Data, and Correlative l Analysir." In Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Development in Soil- l structure Interaction, Antalya. Turkey, July 1992. l i
e i JAM ES J. JOIINSON PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS (Continued) With M. K. Ravindra. June 1991. " Treatment of Seismically Induced Common Cause Failures in Nuclear Power Plant PSA." In Proceedings ofSixth International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering. Mexico City, Mexico.
"A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Margin." October 1988.
Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI NP 6041. With D. P. Moore et al.1990. "Scismic Margin Assessment of Edwin I. Ilatch Nuclear Plant Unit 1." E!cetric Power Research Institute. With O. R. Maslenikov and D. J. Doyle.1987. " Review of Seismic Analysis ofilatch Units I and 2: In-Structure Response Spectra." UCID-21015. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. With O. R. Maslenikov et al.1987. " Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis and In-Structure Response Spectra Generation for the N Reactor Facility." Vol. I and 2. Prepared for UNC NuclearIndusiries. San Ramon, CA: EQE Engineering. With P. S. liashimoto et al. March 1988. "N-Reactor River Pump llouse and Gantry Crane (181 N) Seismic and Tornado Analysis." Prepared for Westinghouse llanford Company. Newport Beach, CA: EQE Engineering. With D. J. Henda et al. June 1988. "Quantification of Calculational Margins in Piping System ; Seismic Response: Methodologies and Damping." Seismic Engineering.1988,The Pressure Vessels and Piping Division, ASME, PVP Vol.144. (Received "Certifcate of Recognition," July 1989.) San Ramon,CA: EQE Engineering. With B. J. Benda. February 1988. "Quantification of Margins in Piping System Seismic Response: Methodologies and Damping." NUREG/CR-5073,UCRL-21000. Prepared for Lawrence National Laboratory. Livermore, CA. With O. R. Mastenikov et al. March 1989. " Analysis of Large-Scale Containment Mode) in Lotung, Taiwan: Forced Vibration and Earthquake Response Analysis and Comparison." In Proceedings: EPRl/NRC/TPC Workshop on Seismic Soil-Simcture Interaction Analysis Techniques Using Data From Lotung. Taiwan. NP 6154, V01.1, Paper 13. Electric Power Research Institute. - With P. S. Ilashimoto et al; Geomatrix Consultants; and Westinghouse Energy Systems ! International. March 1990. " Seismic Review of the Belene Construction Project (Units 1 and 2)." Prepared for Association Energetika and Techno-Import-Export. Sofia, Bulgaria. With A. P. Asfura et al. Much 1990. " Pilot Study of Reactor / Containment Building: Oskarshamn 2 and Desebeck 1 and 2. Probabilistic Response and Capacity " Rev.1. Prepared for Sydkraft and OKO Aktiebolag, Sweden. San Francisco, CA: EQE Engineering. l With O. R. Mas!cnikov et al.1989. "Scismic Analysis of the Vertical Tube Storage System . Monorail Support Frames in Buildings 105 L,105-K, and 105-P " Prepared for Westinghouse Savannah River Company. San Francisco, CA: EQE Engineering. With G. E. Cummings and R. J. Budrietz. October 1984. "NRC Seismic Design Margins Program Plan." UCID 20247. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. With L. C. Shich et al. August 1985. "Simphfied Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Procedures and Limitations." NUREG/CR-4331. UCID-20468. Lawrence Livermore National ! Laboratory. l
Lg JAMES J. JOllNSON i PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS (Continued) l With A. P. Asfura and O. R. Maslenikov.1990. " Topics in Soil-Structure Interaction." Paper ; presented at the Ninth Earthquake Engineering Conference, December 1990, Roorkce, India. , With B. J. Benda et al.1988. "SSC Dipole Magnet System: Stress Analysis for Seismic and Transportation Loading." Prepared for the University Research Association. San Ramon, CA: EQE Engineering. ) u With O. R. Maslenikov et al.1991. "Scismic Analysis of the Vertical Tube Storage System Monorail Support Frame in Building 105 K at the Savannah River Plant Using Upgraded Scismic Input Motions, Volume 1: Soil Structure Interaction Analysis of Building 105 K, Volume 2: , Rerponse Spectrum Analysis of the VTS Monorail Support Frame." Prepared for Westinghouse Savannah River Company. San Francisco, CA: EQE International. , With L. J. Bragagnolo and S. J. Eder. February 1991. "Scismic Evaluation of the Energy Management System." Prepared for Pacific Gas & Electric Company. San Francisco, CA: EQE Engineering With G. S. liardy. August 1988. " Technical Basis, Procedures, and Guidelines for Seismic , Characterization of SRP Reactors." Savannah River Report RTR 2582. Costa Mesa, CA: EQE Engineering.
" Procedure for the Seismic Evaluation of SRS Reactor Systems Using Experience Data." October 1989. WSRC-RP 89-1163, Procedure SEP-6. Revision to Savannah River Report RTR 2582. .
With G. S. Ilardy et al. October 1989. " Seismic Evaluation of Safety Systems at the Savannah River Reactor." In Proceedings of the Second DOE Natural Phenornena Ha:ards Mitigation i Conference. Knoxville, Tennessee. With S. P. !!arris et al. October 1989. "Scismic and Cask Drop acitation Evaluation of the ; Tower Shielding Reactor." ln Proceedings ofthe Second DOE Natural Phenomena Ha:ards Mitigation Conference. Knoxville,Tennessce. l With P. S. liashimoto et al. December 1990. "U. S. NRC Structural Damping Research } Program." Paper IV-4. In Proceedings ofthe Third Syrnposium on Current issues Related to Nuclear Power Plant Stnictures, Equipment, and Piping. Orlando, F1orida. , With M. P. Bohn et al. April 1990. " Analysis of Core Damage Frequency Due to External Events at the DOE N-Keactor." SAND 89-1147. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, New Mexico. l With M. P. Dohn. December 1990. " Analysis ofCore Damage Frequency: Peach Bottom, Unit 2 , External Events." NUREG/CR-4550, SAND 86-2084, Vol. 4. Rev.1, Part 3. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque,New Mexico. i With M. P. Ihhn. December 1990. " Analysis of Core Damage Frequency: Surry Power Station, ; Unit 1 External Events." NUREG/CR 4550, SAND 86-2084, Vol. 3, Rev.1, Part 3. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, New Mexico. With B. J. Benda.1986. "Scismic Fragility Analysis: Methodology and Application." Prepared for Earthquake Engineering Technology. San Ramon, CA. Vith R. D. Campbell et al.1985. "LaSalle Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Responses l asd Fragilities " Report SMA 12211.21. Prepared for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Sac Ramon, CA: Structural Mechanics Associates.
i g. JAMES J. JOllNSON PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS (Continued) e With B. J. Henda and M. J. Mraz.1985. " Specification of Scismic QualiGcation Environment for Equipment." Paper presented to DOE Natural Phenomena llazards Mitigation Conference, Las : Vegas, Nevada. I With 0. R. Maslenikov and R. P. Kennedy.1985. " Washington Public Power Supply System WNP 1 Containment Building: SSI Analysis and the EITect of Control Point Location." Report SMA 46001.03. Prepared for United Enginects and Constructors. San Ramon,CA: Structural , Mechanics Associates. ; I With R. P. Kennedy.1985. " Summary of Observations on control Point Location and spatial Variation of Frec-Field Ground Motion." Report s' ' 16001.02. Prepared for United Engineers and Constructors. San Ramon, CA: Structural Mec es Associates. With J. C. Chen. August 19-23,1985. "Innuence of the Local Site Condition on Seismic Response of a PWR-Containment Building." In Proceedings Eighth SAfiRT Conference. Brussels, Belgium. With T. Y. Chuang et al August 19 23,1985. " Seismic Risk Assessment of a BWR: Status Report." Prcprint, Proceedings Eigh:h SAfiRT Conference. Brusscls, Uclgium, With O. R. Maslenikov and Il C. Schewe. August 19 23,1985. "SSI Response of a Typical Shear Wall Structure." In Proceedings Eighth SAfiRT Con /erence. Brussels, Belgium. With 0. R. Maslenikov et al. August 19-23,1985. " Seismic Analysis of the MITF Facihty." in Proceedmgs Eighth ShfiRTConference. Brussels, Uclgium. With B. J. Henda et al.1985. "The Effects of Basemat UpliB on the Scismic Response of Stmetures and Interbuilding Piping Systems." Report SMA 12211.44.01. Prepared for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. San Ramon,CA: Structural Mechanics Associates, i With 0. R. Maslenikov ct al. 198A. SAfA CS: a Srstem of Computer Programsfor Probabilistic ? Seismic Analysis o/ Sin 4ctures and Subsystems. 2 vols. Report S.AA 12211.31.01/12211.31.02. Prepared for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. San Ramon, CA: Structural Mechanics Associates. l With O. R. Mastenikov and B. J. Henda.1984. "SSI Sensitivity Studies and Model i improvements for the U.S. NRC Scismic Safety Margins Research Program." UCID 20212; NUREG/CR 4018. Livermore,CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, i l With B. J. Benda et al. May 16-18,1983. " Response Margins of the Dynamic Analysis of Piping i Systems: Best Estimate vs. Evaluation Method." In Proceedings of the Second CSN/ Specialist Afeeting on Probabilistic Afethods in Seismic Risk Assessmentpr Nuclear Power Plants. Livermore. CA, With B. J. Benda et al.1984. " Response Margins of the Dynamic Analysis of Piping Systems." UCID 20067, rev.1; NUREG/CR-3996. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. With E. C. Schewc and O. R. Maslenikov.1984. "SF. Response of a Typical Shear Wall Structure." 2 vols. UCID-20122. Livennom.Cr.: ',awrence Livennom National Laboratory. I With R. D. Campbell and L W. Tiong.1984. " Neutral Beam Pivot Point Bellows Fatigue J Evaluation per ASME Code." Report SMA .8503.01. Prepared for Lawrence Berkeley Laboratony. San Ramon, CA: Structural Mechanics Associates.
I JAMES J. JOlINSON PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS (Continued) With O. R. Maslenikov and M. J. Mraz.1984. "Scismic Analyses of the Mirror Fusion Test , Facility Building 431." Repon SMA 12210.03. Prepared for Lawrence Livennore National Laboratory. San Ramon, CA: Structural Mcchanics Associates. With O. R. Maslenikov and L. W. Tiong.1984. "Scismic Analysis of the Mirror Fusion Test Facility: Soil Structure Interaction Analyses of the Vault." Repon SMA 12210.02. Prepared for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. San Ramon, CA: Structural Mechanics Associates. e With 0. R. Maslenikov and L W. Tiong. 1984. " Seismic Analysis of the Mirror Fusion Test Facility: Soil Structure Interaction Analyses of the Vessel." Report SMA 12210.01. Prepared for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. San Ramon, CA: Structural Mechanics Associates. With R. D. Campbell and L W. Tiong. 1984. "Re-design of the Neutral Heam Pivot Point Bellows: Validation of Stress Analysis." Report SMA 18502.01. Prepared for Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. San Ramon, CA: Structural Mechanics Associates. i With M. P. Bohn et al.1984. " Application of the SSMRP Methodology to the Scismic Risk at the Zion Nuclear Power Plant." UCRL 53483; NUREG/CR 3429. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. With J. C. Chen et al.1984. "Uncenainty in Soil Structure Interaction Analysis of a Nuclear Power Plant Due to DifTerent Analytical Techniques." in Proceedings ofthe Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. With H. J. Henda and L Y. Cheng.1983. " Evaluation of PVRC Proposed Changes for the Scismic Analysis and Design of Piping Systums: Damping and Peak Broadening." Report SMA 12209.03-01. Prepared for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. San Ramon, CA: ; Structural Mechanics Associates. With T. Y. Chuang et al.1983 " Impact of Changes in Damping and Spectrum Peak Broadening on the Seismic Response of Piping Systems." UCRL-53491; NUREG/CR-3526. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, . With M. P. Hohn et al. August 22-26,1983. " Application of the SSMRP Methodology to the Scismic Probabilistic Risk Analysis at the Zion Nuclear Power Plant." In Proceedings Seventh SMiRTConference. Chicago, Illinois. With J. C. Chen and D. L Bernreuter. August 22-26,1983. "The Effect of Local Soil Conditions on Site Amplification." Paper presented at the Seventh SMiRT Conference, Chicago, Illinois. With O. R. Maslenikov and J. C. Chen.1983. " Uncertainty in Soil Structure Interaction Analysis Arising from DitTerences in Analytical Techniques." UCRL-53026; NUREG/CR 2077. l Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. ! l With P. D. Smith et al.1981. "SSMRP Phase i Final Repon: Overview." UCRL-53021, vol.1; NUREG/CR-2015, vol.1. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. With O. R. Mastenikov et al. 1982. "SSMRP Phase I Final Report: Soil Structure Interaction (Project !!!)." UCRL-53021, vol 4; NUREG/CR-2015, vol. 4. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. With H. J. Henda and T. Y. Lo. 198 L "SSMRP Phase I Final Repon: Major Structure Response (Project IV)" UCRL-53021, vol. 5; NUREG/CR 2015, vol. 5. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livennore National Laboratory. a .n
I~ JAMES J. JOllNSON PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS (Continued) With G. L. Goudreau et al.1981. "SSMRP Phase 1 Final Report: SMACS (Seismic Methodology Analysis Chain with Statistics)(Project Vill)." UCRL-53021, vol. 9; NUREG/CR 2015, vol. 9. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livennore National Laboratory.
" Soil Structure Interaction: the Status of Current Analysis Methods and Research." 198L UCRL-53011, NUREG/CR-1780. Livennore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
With B. J. Henda and P. D. Smith. 1981. " Variability in Dynamic Characteristics and Seismic Response Due to the Mathematical Modeling of Nuclear Power Plant Structures." UCRL-85713. Preprint submitted to Nuclear Engineering and Design. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. With P. D. Smith et al.1981. "A Review of a Seismic Risk Analysis of the Decay !! cat Removal Capability of Nuclear Power Plants." UCID 18692. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. With C.M. Charman. August 17-21,1981. "An Isoparametric Shell of Revolution Finite Element for Ilarmonic Loadings of Any Order." In Piuccedings Sixth SAliRT Conference. Paris, France.
"Scismic Response Calculations for the U.S. NRC Seismic Safety Margins Research Program."
August 17 22, !981,1n Proceedings Sixth SAfiRT Conference. Paris, France. With R. C. Chun et al August 17-21,1981. " Uncertainty in Soil Structure Interaction Analysis [ of a Nuclear Power Plant: a Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Analysis Methods." In Proceedings Sstth SAfiRT Conference. Paris, France. With B. J. llends. August 17-21,1981. " Uncertainty in Mathematical Models of a Typical Nuclear Power Plant Structure " In Proceedings Sixth SAliRT Conference. Paris, France. With S. E. Humpus and P. D. Smith. August 17 21,1981. "Best Estimate vs. Evaluation Method Seismic (BE-EMS): an Introduction and Demonstration." In Proceedings Sixth SAfiRT Conference. Paris, France. With P. D. Smith et al.1980. "An Overview of Seismic Risk Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants." UCID-18680. Livennore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, i With S. E. Humpus and P. D. Smith.1980. "Best Estimate Method vs. Evaluation Method: a Comparison ofTwo Techniques in Evaluating Seismic Analysis and Design." UCID-52746; ! NUREG/CR-1489. Livennore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
" Soil Structure Interaction Analysis for the U.S. NRC Seismic Safety Margins Research Program." August 13-17,1979. In Proceedings Fifth SAliRT Conference. Berlin, Germany.
" Subsystem Response Determination for the U.S. NRC Seismic Safety Margins Research Program." August 13 17,1979. In Proceedings Fifth SAliRT Conference. Berlin, Gennany.
1 With W. Schlier 111 and D. Tow. August 13-17,1979. "Scismic Response Comparisons for an Embedded liigh Temperaturc Gas-Cooled Reactor (IITGR) on a liigh Scismic Site." In i Proceedings Fifth SA1iRT Cintference. Berlin, Germany.
"SOlLST: a Computer Program for Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis." 1979. GA A15067 UC-
- 77. San Diego, CA: General Atomic Company.
l h
I JAM ES J. JOllNSON PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS (Continued)
"MODSAP: a Modi 6cd Version of the Structural Analysis Program SAP!V for the Static and Dynamic Response of Linear and Localized Nonlinear Structures." GA A.14006. San Diego, CA: General Atomic Company. " Preliminary Seismic Analysis of the GCFR Core and Core Support Structure." June 22-23, 1978. Paper presented at the Third SAP User's Conference, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
With R. P. Kennedy. October 17-21,1977. " Earthquake Response of Nuclear Power Facilities." Paper presented at the ASCE Fall Convention and Exhibit, San Francisco, California. With D. A. Wesley and I. T. Almajan. August 1519,1977. "The EITects of Soil-Structun: Interaction Modeling Techniques on in-Structure Response Spectra." In l'roceeding.s Fourth SMiRT Conference. San Francisco, CA.
"MODSAF: a Modi 6ed Version of the Program SAP'V for the Static and Dynamic Response of Linear and Localized Nonlinear Structures " June 22-23,1977. Paper presented at the Second SAP User's Conference, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Dr. Johnson was also a contributing author to the following publications:
" Shutdown Decay IIcat Removal Analysis of a Combustion Engineering 2-Loop Presvirized Water Reactor Case Study (St. Lucie)." . August 1987. NUREG/CR-4710, SAND 86-1797.
Sandia Naticnal Laboratories. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
"Shutdow n Decay !! cat Removal Analysis of a Westinghouse 3 Loop Pressurized Water Reactor -- Case Si ady (Turkey Point)." March 1987. NUREG/CR-4762, SAND 86-2377. Sandia National Laborator es. Albuqi erque, New Mexico. " Shutdown Decay lleat Removal Analysis of a General Electric DWR4/ Mark 1 -- Case Study (Cooper)." July 1987. NUREG/CR-4767, SAND 86-2419. Sandia National Laboratories.
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
" Shutdown Decay !! cat Removal Analysis of a General Electric HWR3/ Mark 1 Case Study (Quad Cities)." March 1987. NUREG/CR-4448, SAND 85-2373. Sandia National Laboratories.
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
" Shutdown Decay !! cat Removal Analysis of a Habcock and Wilcox Pressurized Water Reactor--
Case Study (ANO-1)." March 1987. NUREG/CR 4713, SAND 861832. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, New Mexico.
" Shutdown Decay lleat Removal Analysis of a Westinghouse 2-Loop Pressurized Water Reactor -- Case Study (Point Beach). March 1987. NUREG/CR 4458, SAND 86 2496. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque,New Mexico.
m a .,}}