ML20080R509
| ML20080R509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1984 |
| From: | Mittl R Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8402280312 | |
| Download: ML20080R509 (104) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- Pudic Service O I)#S G Compny Elecinc and Gas 80 Park Plt a, Newark, NJ 07101/ 201430-8217 MAILING ADDRESS / P.O. Box 570, Newark, NJ 07101 Robert L. Mitti General Manacyr Nuclear Assurance and Regulation February 17, 1984 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Attention: Mr. Albert Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch 2 Division of Licensing Gentlemen: HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 NRC REVIEW OF STRUCTURAL /GEOTECHNICAL TOPICS Pursuant to the agreements reached at the meetings held on January 10, 11, and 12, 1984, to review HCGS structural /geo-technical topics with the NRC, attached is one (1) set of responses to those items denoted as Category II target date. A listing of the attached Category II target date items, broken down by date of meeting, is as follows: Meeting of January 10, 1984: I tems A.1, A. 2 , A. 3 , - A. 4 , A.6, A.11, A.12, A.15, and A.16 B.5, B.10, B.12, and B.13 Meeting of January ll,1984 : Items A.2, A.3, A.4, A.6, A.8, A.9, A.12, and A.13 Meeting of January 12, 1984: Items B.1, B.2, and B.3 (Item C.3 will be included as part of Amendment 6 to the FSAR) In addition, please note that four (4) advance sets of these responses were transmitted to D. Wagner via Federal Express on February 16, 1984.
$oM t '
l')J2280312 840217
'.>DR ADOCK 05000354 A PDR The Energy People 95 4H 2 (4V) 7 83
Letter to Mr. Albert Schwencer
- - 2/17/84 ~ Should you have any questions in this regard, do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours, b6 *V R. L. Mittl General Manager - Nuclear Assurance and Regulation DJD:db
Attachment:
Resolution of NRC Comments on Structural /Geotechnical Topics CC: D. H. Wagner (w/ attach.) USNRC Licensing Project Manager l' OQ 14 01/02-C
Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: January 10, 1984 Question No.: A-1 Question: Describe two alternate methods used for establishing soil damping values. Response: Different techniques are used for establishing soil damping values in the FLUSH and EDSGAP programs.
- 1) The FLUSH program uses element damping directly and implements it in the formulation of element complex shear moduli. Numerically,the FLUSH program uses the frequency domain and complex response method of analysis. All stiffness and boundary matrices in the complex equation of motion are formed using the element complex shear moduli G* = G(1 - 2E2 + 2i(/1-g2)c, G . 3xp (2ig) where G and C are the shear modulus and the fraction of critical damping of the element, respectively.
This complex formulation allows the necessary freedom to adjust damping ratios for each element. Typicel element damping values used in a soil column are shown on page 1 of the attachment.
- 2) The EDSGAP program uses Rayleigh Damping (a - 8) technique in the direct step-by-step integration time history method. This technique is described below:
If the system were uncoupled into normal modes, the relationship among the generalized damping, generalized mass, and generalized stiffness for the nth mode would be: C*n n
*
- OKn * (1)
Hence, from the relationships: Cn * = 2(n(2nfn)Mn* (2)
January 10/A-1 and: Page Two Kn * = (2nfn}2M* n (} in which En = proportion of critical damping in the nth mode, and fn = frequency of the nth mode, it follows that any specified values of a and B iniply damping in the nth mode equal to: gn
- hn
- I n
Conversely, if the amount of critical damping is specified at two coefficients, then the damping distinct frequencies, a and S , are fj and unique fj, ly determined: fE-f ji 53 C a = (4rf9j f) 2 2 (5) f3 -f3 1 I ji E ~fijE (6) B =i 2 2 f3 -f$ For practical analysis, corresponding values of f and (, which provide a reasonable approximation of damping over the frequency range of interest, should be selected and values of a and B determined using Equations 5 and 6. For the soil-structure interaction analysis, the modal damping ratios are determined from the deconvolution soil column model which contains strain-compatible soil dampings. The damping factors a and S are then selected to best fit these damping values. For the Hope Creek site, the Rayleigh damping values s were chosen such that the resultant a-S damping curve would predict conservative damping values compared to corresponding modal dampings of the soil column in the frcquency range of interest. This is indicated in page 2 of the attachment.
I January 10/A-1 Finally, it is noted that for the structural analyses Page Three of the buildings, Rayleigh Damping technique is not used. Modal dampiags based on material dampings specified -in Regulatory Guide 1.61 are used in mode superposition time history analyses. C 4 t
Pe" '. Q4 f- ',e* 4Ne'* 4 @J * ., '
- f N8
- a. p 4 "' Ad' I k g,g D- . -
E P,
*v,,... rG. N,.*<* e.
a pee s .
- n. o.- . e.
D.eeoee
- r. e e en e e n eee e e
\
> eee ee
.>p.ee.:
be oe B ee e e e >eee ee p eeoe e >eeeee g* i WD en I> Esb es i 4 > e (5 e W $1 e d 4 pep qet> e e e e 31 <pe> pt 6 a e og c e ein g d t p gg es en ee 1& art e e g y 4p
*=4 es M B ** W1 > @ d I>ed D se W1 < > #e e
' e en ii sr > eei e ee se $e eP< es se mewi e q,i>e t e gt e Gb**e. A e ge ee en e- se e =pt$=gg ee eeonesw swwg ee & w ngseg% g av g ,ga ta ,es, ,3 sw -
eai m e e es se ce < a m eein se ss E
<w- e en e Pb M M i% FB We et et at i t art pt < g og at i
- pt yt ,
> se < e se et w es se < esese<eaose45 GB GB < w 4 W 4e M eg i to pp 49 a p at art i 4 y s, -
*% .M1 .
- e. .. .
o n .# ,H @g a.-. - e=4 e, n.* .- k '
' ,';. o t
,, i. < )el; .
h . **' h* .
. 'e l'. I %.' . , ,
e ememe eein eo e e.ome<ee<>eoeieeneeee.e<>
- Md ,i n se e , e mo i 4 iww e e >e n eeee.e es. .e.e iee. co e om,e e e s m eom ec e.e
. <>>=e e n e e se e e ,e ee e e e o e e e e o e e e o e e
- 3 Q iwu e e < ft as su ' nee <oeeinee<De se ee 4emeame e
fl3 a '" .(e .
; 'm L
%.,~
e a.
' #.,. 7
~
d, ~ ;y r e
', '- lowe is e
WD G e e e ee e e b ee e e e p e- e e ee pSeWe e b eeee. >4 4 ** *
- a e *Ne e b e e to eoe ee
& es of9 Ihe W1 em 9'l h Sw @ e M 51 h M 4 b o @ @ We e d> e d @ @ m3 4 > es se se e F* e > e e e om ee>M@ @ p erag se4 e e e ash dN D su 5' i ft 5' 51 e te e e N ** et e su e 99 P <r & e* e ** e e9 ge e e e se se art @ m e e F e o so ** Ga sw at et e e @ es e
- > ep we sw 'e se <
P@ei B e WB q 3 gg d 1 B 4 g Ih fun e i B e S l kgm e e e se se se #w se at sw Ge tw wt om are erg are pt at og opt pg son erl erg se 40 ce se a e ese ese se se se e e se se se se se se se se se se se se se
. e % -1 N.%e v
. . Yp d l p
~- . .i e t*...d ei t ma e 5, a p et ee e e ei . . eoe e e e eeo e e e oee e ,
, ee<e e ele ee{ e e n e oe e eo e ee e eo e e e am so w e e e et n ev e e e et es et es e is e e > q 6 e e e e e e e o. es e *= es e e e e e p e as e- wt e e e et e se eeeo 3 e se@ e e are e e e e N som se y)e es e e P es e me se es ete wt ert e e e gt e X et es. 4N e, O Ew e 64 O @ e d e e N es artg eq eu se g ie 3up g@ e pm e a g e p q se ;> en i e se < r e e o e g5 g g #n 6
- y. eseo ie e se se ew eg es s'etseswees se en e e se ese es s N ertr e se ce go,se et se art too art est seceoga pg e se orgsean seese areespp
*E g.
E ;*.
'"Q O .
i y o 'u.' , O O s= u
<La E>
3M gag A eE "g.". had $3 tee s e e e e e e o e e o e e an e e e e U U s eu es e a e e i n s' e es se N ** e se i e a e e e e e e d a e e a b e e is se e e e o < d emng O gm e e ee e Ose e ee e eo e ep e ee e eD e e en e oe o ee e e e e ee e ee e e e e o e e o e e o e e e 3y es W e e ir eg ee I B e e < D e s e e m e e e e e e g b e e P e e t g tua
"' '.; peseemeseIeseeseemesmeeceem - c.3 .C : .
l r3 o
>=
y 2
- na ,
.[ m Q Q e .e . . e m n o , os es e >>e I
., e e s.n os .o . m . . . .E . . e e e e e .,$ . ., eo e- . >. > . tc s.t o e.# . se e ., o . . .e. e .t .
>,.e->>>e->>>>a>>=e e. a o. > > p. e. u= > ,. wm g > L> =s c m <see ese at e eme ee en e n-c >c e ann eeeeeeeeen tceeme e p o o c e m e a e e e e e e e e e e e u e. ea.e,n en tu o o <
e ee e e se e oe e se o ee o ee e e beee o ee e e e e oee ee e e ee e e e o ee e. m. e se eec oe ee e o ah M z . e es e e <> e ein e e o e e o e e <> e e 9 e e <p e e o e ein o e in e e <> e o e e e e o e e e e e e o e e e e e e G-w as oe
"" l 3 "3 g',.3 CE = . ..
'[ c
.en .
4
.c,* I j
M pe a
- c
= c- 8 l -
y E as es a ? e.
& S ea p es s .: 3 i,
z; o. b P= 43 e O m a 1 g Wt e e m ass g es se e h 46 N Pb da n M e e e. >e e>ec. es. e @e d y== y WD 9> a eO Oe $*eeo 4 #e m eesese we@am e> > St ** e> e> eGm e eeeart ee Ii N so I*= e se. > e- > > so. > c= e- *= > sm e. > > ** > som e= * > > > s** > p >> p.e o
$ eia y W e EW em g eeMmmemmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeece e ee * **
- e e ee e e n e s e e s e ee o eo e em o e e e e e o e * *e e e e e e e e oe
- g >eeiseaneneeeee<>eoqseeoeaoeoeoeeoeeoees-aneee g .e
.a o n. -
et ft t* l e e <> eop e e o e o e ee < l f f 8 "J f *sme p e e ' ,4 .:.. OO g y M aC =* k e.?., -
, "C3.
^ ' ~ S hC C 1 I t-w = n s e n ri m <rmm<eenig e mie se a ir w oo <
sD em eep .e e s s e o. e e o e s o m e <> = e e s e o m e e e e w we e i e ee e ob e e o e eoe ea e
- eeoe e ee o e enn e e se e e e e e o e e to e e a e e y e e nee e bee tem his a e o a N P= e <pSet>eed>eeabeeiDeet>eed>ee< Bee 4 Deet
[,*
>eeyeeqbeet>eea>eeoeea aMh , . " . P4 ,1 '
e III a e. 6 h,f
, , . . ( DJ,,' , , .
l 3 e n, 4.a m.. , t et . ec ti - ,qA e t.L [ey.y w- ..e. 3 - s. ..-- L . 8* f**** p e e' a ee n.e e a ee ne eee o e e a6 m o e oe oee e oee 15 - - . c en e e e e e .e eeeee o ee a, eeee e w em ee<>a=3<>e e< <n ee ee edee>=it e e e= et at apee1D is e e e se e ee > e e e se e > t e e e e e e et 50 m en e e et se e e t B es e e P e s>eedb e gs es se se se se > e ao e > e e w su e @ ee e e e e e e su @ e e A et @ 5% db e de me p as se 1= e M i 4 as e e et e e El > qbee e 14 P= P de WD d G* se O P M q$ e e P I he e ** es 44 est at e e e O $ d es b d El E 5 d @ e MS 48 4 W W e 43 4 m > e 43 q r e St 4
*E em eur e
GB 1e se as a e se se i e se et a e.et S,B Ie en *W d
. F St.FB I1 e e a j
e Pp, "sp *e ( , {.* ~ 4. O l
- N, e i "Tm,<!J teh'r ; f' * *
'.- y.
- L e,,
,, . Wee # *#'
'#I > I >
he
.e <n , fiA . '..aee ..$ o e * > e e in e * >ee ee e e e ao ee e eeo ee p .a. En o ee yee >ee n ee b oeb ee ae se <ea e ett 4b esa e 4b e > g b es as e N W1 Mk @ > $ e e e as e. s t e e e se e e an e a b e en e iDb ad e I16 esD @ $ e e $ W1 F GhWS e dbeo ha * ; P e9 56 eI* gr et e e e se e e 4b ** e Mi>eed> e W es PD se se M e*
- e e @ e e e se P O se d *
- e e e M 1I**
& se I m e e 89 es e aD sut e G" m eumbi se e iI
- ghgs we e t M ett @ pt d e e e @ 43 e as ew h at wt e e e @ qb wp e e5 GB es se eo se sees se se ap 85 SW 4e se se sua pt at ut e e < > st 31 @ W W1 e t @ d e W e @ 4 4 @ =9 @ iD4e i e Q ipw
/ L ., e **( y < ,
g rW', r. t
.. . a.
pet . >
- D.er*Ji
% 'e , t
. ..e- e y
,, .e n..* ,
' a < 9b no * <
mymeee e e <> e se eine><n s= e <n er eso e es. e e < > - as e n e e e > e <=a=<aesi e > e em a * ** a w i..
. aaen en. e a se se i e se sw an se e d.e a es is, as sw e es et e a at we e at abeefee<reeeeeeee g 4* ,
4 $
- 4 er <gr .
E < glD *' NdSde; NM ' .1 r' ~ *) } /]
0
. ) e 0
3 _ ~ . _ .- _ _ _ 1 _ - _ _ - _ _ 0 A
/
_ [7_ I _. T 0 2 0 . 1 yL/ _
?
__ _~ i _ __ _ _~ y ,s / r 2 a _~ _-_ '- _ _ , ._ __ . _ _ u eg ~ _ ' y - __ ___~ n _ s ( 0 a a _ g _ r_ , ___ __ J P n
,i il 0
1 \ 1 p
\
m a i [ d gf' K L , l 4 a o d q y o < 0 m}j , ii;~ Ijl* lIliiI' 5 g 6 9 n 7 1 , n i j;l mu 60 62 l p l 1 3 " m o 87 00 i " a c ,. d e l 0 0
., D. l s i ,, h aa o = = dc s o 1 e a 8 ,
mEB
- ~
0 sO A ~ u
. s ,
E 2 ) rn S N em O H z vul P S
. N .
. . ( Bo
- c E
~ _
l: _ . _. . _ _ _. . . Y u _~ R ~ _ _ . . _. _ _ __ . C l O . . - _ - ~ _. - _ _ _. _.
- _ ._ _- _. __- -_ N fi E oo i{__.ili #0 T
T 4i l ,!
;lI
,{i4
,l l
;l l] Nl[ _
3 l I
. ;t
.l1 j..i i
ll 1 U Q t E or s N l i lJ
< I R l o E f F Pf M ,,i,'l,,
H e C : A t, 1 T T ,9 E A R f 5
. U ilh i {li 1!4j l
l liii !iill li1 0 G I 1ll
.i! . F 3
0 2 t 0
. - . __. . . _. - _ _' t
. ~ . _
- _ ~ . . :~ - _ __ _ . _ _ _ . . _
~ _ _~ _ __ _ _. .
~ _ _~ _ __ _. __ _ - _ - _ _. _
1 _~.
~ _ _~ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ - - _ ...
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 1
. cZ aQa
~
[L l l
~
-Response-to NRC Audit Meeting.Date: January 16, 1984 Question!No.: A-2~
Question: Provide comparison between foundation level response spectra for three soil depth models.
' Response: The comparison between foundation level response spectra, as well.as finite element representation l of the three models in the N-S direction are given in the attachment'for the power block area soil-structure interaction depth study. The lateral extent of all three models'is approximately 1,000 feet from the edge of the building. A-depth of 402 feet was utilized in developing the detailed SSI models for the design basis.
~
EiD 76017 EVSON 2
~
ATTACHMENT TO RESPONSE A-2 January 10/A2 -
- 1. 4 - -
- Model Depth 402 ft.
- 1. 2 e- .* .*.*. Model Depth 532 ft.
~
....... Model Dr;th 257 ft. q f i l-
- 1. 0 -- li I![
Ik ll f! l}
- 0. s -- !! ' ;
e . . a I ! j l i l* 5 3
- 0. 6 --
jg h g
\
O. 4 - - ,I l-l
/
n&[ t x-w . em f f f f I i.0
, ,,l , f ,f,f f f Iff . I 0.1 b.2 ' d. 5' ' ' I'. 0 2. 0 5'. 0' ' ' 10 20.0
,. Frequency (eps)
COMPARISON OF HORIZONTAL SPECTRA AT FOUNDATION LEVEL FOR DETERMINING
= SIGNIFICANT INTERACTION DEPTH POWER BLOCK AREA, SSE CASE l FIGURE B-18 e a l
e a e l ANALYSES l- ,. HOPE CREEK PROJECT
^
)
.Y
\i 4
,z ATTACHMENT TO RESP 0!lSE A-2
- January 10/A2 C '
,,4 et nr. 3, , .
g >
,6 X Y 2
iso. y, s . il 131. g , , .y
.s :
w toz. 1 to : si n /J M /r O @ @ 0 a ." 0 4 . ss , s1 .- h s zo < n 23,4 24?: 1.? VO 26 ?
# Q 21 1 @ @ :2 4 0 @ 29 n; so e :e n 4 %rs i. G c se a @ e rr a @ e. u
- 11. 11;,3 g&" . .lg
- ir ft .'%do : 0 ndi tr @ G 42 i it @ GD 49 tr. 4,' g ' :: JJ ?349 _a
- G4r !? W C,ds :: @ G sp
$ f$ % 5- 1.;.S w::%?ss :. @ 62 n @ Ru .:: @ Oo Jr, 62 ol ls+ $ R:%9 :i @ G ir 17 @ Gi)t? .: W 6his 3;. It s *Pdi *Rr} .
- pl s @ c e @ 11 n O' >9 1>
- G ro fe. 19:?Pb in O BiI !' Utzk':#A3 'i U
- 2d .:2
# 1r f- W f? 14 h BFEa2M<rV M "G s :r
- to .9 h '?
- 13 :r U Ci Jr 1r:*Gn a @ tr 3 1s =
- 11 : 3
- m a U toi n O' C7 in.
/p) ? CA pe :Tv /$ ~ W/gl 'i t.:nr i: U rap i3 U tm a ;'
O G' sto fra 14 i $? i !! /id ft Y 0 /if
/ii L* liS /d't ? v. //) $1.0
* " ' ii9r! % 3 %lu% r% = @ w i: @ is :. @ ea y 07 %.:e :Wnt fi Biso .U ssi h @ isz st @ sis Jr @ Cw y W
3 tifu% ;O :s . W s4% i i n do si @ Mi12 W Ss.:2 7,'g
-//t. MS !Nw.dt Vc -% *, % N U 4 B @ As ': & Gs.rr A sJr N5'tr2 ,-:i ?/3 .:$/.a _-U e '-d W /IJ /rf W /!) 1:1 O (~ht:3 137 ??%c % :S ie :Uits i.
W u .a & ar.n & G as
//$ YJil !Wtb9 .,. 0in . .N/ri .id U GL r U /73 16 U Gsig
/ff it& 12* nr 113?fB IZ?/M i/J" O if912 6 @ /91 02 Y GD//2 G 90. ' 43 2% i,.Rg,%,,,B, e. O , g3 QD ,,4 @ g ,y, hitt '
2.54 M <? ~S/fe 1Wiff it s O Ndes U /N sti W (EMA ; l !?s. try -.;%lvi%i 4' % .%.a
- m ni
- M4
- G7 24 410. Joy ~%\:o% ?:i% fin m Unse
- zis!.tr % G.ra :
n e.2 ' q 9 l l 1 532' Model ) l rsz ! s+,47,u Mn/,i,., xwe6 "*' iJE i G-in Jr W nn h %-ib Re&'a o .-bac Cedc i k /
.. Mooosz sv g jaarif yg g lcno. g g joarr irru no. j wr. , os EDS NUCLEAR: 220 MONTGOMERY ST.
- SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
---y , -
, ,A
. r 1
.J EDS NUCLEAR: 220 MONTGOMERY ST.
- SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94104 JOSNO. CUENT SY DATE I4coor2 PSc $6 TJB 7/30/7e PROJECT C KO. DATE Hettr&yJ Gd Wig /ps stEu gg , < sur. or
.f<*p.l/aJ1,,4w4ar. 4r,44 )n Jn/ Jens,/n-r.4 Jhd*c4 //
,' i. EL 3c3.0 l'1 C L. 2 hl' O g
- 7
- 4. c t . n e. p.
EW 8- L 5
-ATTACHMENT TO RESPONSE-A=2- - G -y E
,.g .. .. -. o p gg, g g. g _ ._..
p sfo.e 54 , Jar 1uary 10/A2 .. g.-
- 3
&t.13c.o yi , o ee s Gl .131- p 4 5
'*'81- I'l i '4 4A If p t. ta b a .._ ) , . _.
On 0 D a O a 165 . iz- n is i : 2e i. zi 23} st_ dir .~O it) / @ C 21 2 @ C2B l O @M sl/DCAvLit.
.y F- si) 1:32 7 hs) a @ C.w n @ i.e iz @dk _ Act.
g 39 ;? Q 38
- 24 P !!No <' @ C4' /J" @ G4L .'t. @ Gij 43 sE.4(n st.o M?. . 0 ' /s 2:4 .itSo ,a @ Ge r @ Evi Z: CGp Awa. urou .cnp y' [j'l l,' % : d A :r G G sr n @Gn a @ G se .' @ G) o mtw:ec a, y 'a ge, g, si a i y 0 $ .:DCo io @ Gir i: @ Ge !! G R 70\ cuv y , gn g Yi V Q !! !! !: :. [g 5.,1 N Q if L~ 0 ( 12 !p $ Qf y g g fi '.' So :t Off
- 21st -' Sf3 Jr Y 0A' 42. U Gfr JJ U S 16 I W C4 ft '? W 27s O G94 C
_ _'. f _ s} '!a'Oi Y & -s&fo' 4M791 l- ~: Jr :NotsLOGil ~% Mcn .T %/oo :: @ h ei :; & S/czi E 103 $f " LfSI i Jt/ t i/CE il @/A9 li _ &ct en Y O//D A ** G ri; T h.43 t B layeu iii .%a l . % i % :. %s h
- Cia 7, & O in L' Y/11b - b li b //f n U (C/24
//f !?&th 7'
$ ES.b /ti /ZJ ij /24
___ _ _//} *Y/$ ' ' /19 *. /30 *i /fi !) U /JL W S /31 ff E 0/.Af _g
- _ , /.t" :: h14 ? /)/ }! / R 199 ?) Y Me fi ' b M/ /L Y @f./L j 3 $5 A r N C
- id) 1s All ?2 ?? M9 11 O/Zb $ b.lO y,.g 3 Af h '/ft /1 s /D G1 /5 P Y/JT <4 0 /3 it.T 0 ffi /~b h (I?y3.
A lefcu /sy *;$blo! ?he t h/i! cN//3 .so $ /4tl /a $ iir its 0 (3)//6 N 8 3c.o'_ ty ?;>te' Giss :Gi 9 %i _U //z) it G /a a O ciria' i D g,.lon,n g i. W < N M .~?i W /n : U ,a,l a'i W /s/ '2? U mitz
.___..{
1 .l l g g . l l O * *
- C 'v
- e o 6 g "' $a 3 w
e T C C 4 1 - A'rtdal- s onh15 A% lbr/nN O- Mtl Aa Lwrf yss,,rni c. %Lt;1f 2D s' i - 6*hncds 402' Model C .;L,/ h./, r,,
.~ .
I
. 0
"~
>e el sos,
/
o2 Et, 242, 4 i . J
< 4 Cf. Zel.
Ef. Ilf. 3 1 3 q
~
u 6 cl~ ill' X $ ATTACHMENT TO RESPONSE A-2 fy, , [ January 10/A2 n J' >
,\f G(. lf2.
14 E
/elo /0 it li it /3 M /Z 9, ,
4,? /$ 6 13 18 i O 11 2 0 2p 1 0 21 4 0 22 M i 24 1 24 tf ? 8 4 17 ? O 28 8 b 29 4 p& O is @ @ C 12 @ Je g So, 2 _ ' ti s 15 31 V SS it a f/. Aft! $$ 7 2: M *J O dp 4 @ 41 if~ & 42 i.~ 0 43
@' ' D
- 62. AA 4rr :s4 ; 9 tr is @ 4: n@ 49 :: 2 fam [ arm .:,,1
- 5. zi @ a :: @ n u@ to x @ si it. ri. 4kad.
do, &Wlsr sa nlIa 'LEW ?r ic :-@ si le @ is u@ 64 a@ ro c&
.6, yo .>@ r$i5' n nW u n@ tr ?c @ n :~ @ n uW rs v 6 it u so !! si st sz 4 ss s, p :2 ar Ji ss iE h Ma m-r F1 4 k n fi k 9z e 9s 'i 2 N
.g :- 11 - 97 n tv :s n --
m :e ia :t ,c2 q iftygtf sp3 ? 101 :1 iti v su fi 10 7 l.: kt ff 99 4' //o [
@ Zf, ' sto c n2 (( //3 U 14 l! nr ti ni it lif f/ p3 f:.4] y sty 7: 12 s & /t> 2.' /zz r: as R # '7 /zT 73 al S q m it sa . a1 i iso .; is o :- i.u-; m : ijs n A g
.jg, /JJ 'l th 5' 1 /31 's /# ? / /39 n Mott Af/ , *.:. Mt. NA0 L I i l I I e i 4 4 4 & (
257' Model 257 ' im.9/4,d .Zehte e km Nrzfel 7s 7,
,W ! 8-Jex kns,*uf Mses Q?e'Grosk
/4'000/2. .
of av g goArg g eno. g joATE ntu no. l sHT. f l EDS NUCLEAR: 22o MONTGOMERY ST. . SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: January 10, 1984 Question No.: A-3 Question: Provide comparison between basemat response spectra and regenerated response spectra at basemat. Response: The attached two figures provide a comparison between basemat RG 1.60 response spectra and regenerated re-sponse spectra at basemat elevation for the horizontal North-South OBE and SSE earthquake soil column de-convolution analyses, respectively. A 12 Hz cutoff frequency has been used in these analyses. As observed from the attached figures, the match between Reg. Guide 1.60 response spectra and the regenerated response spectra at basemat elevation is adequate below the 12 Hz cutoff frequency. The adequacy of the 12 Hz cutoff frequency is addressed in a separate response to question A-12 from the audit meeting on January 11, 1984.
q o ,,
- =._;
.oo -
DESIGN VERIFICATION __ CLIENT _ PT i 4 JOB NO. em - ut;- 13 55 CALC / PROB NO. * - rupi . r 3-o2 g BY: Sil DATE: 7/3/O I E
~
CHKD: WLL DATE- (/t3/o) N z _c. O 2% Damping g
' - Regenerated Response Spectra H i.oo E [at Basemat Elevation g w M
.J / ~~
~
u
~~ , E E ,' N R.G. 1.60 $
/ s (Elev. 54.0 ft.) "'
..so -
,' s Response Spectra P g s ~ =
's =
's, a s___ -
e
' ' - ^ ' -
..s, ..,
FREQUENCY (CPS) HS-SSE FLUSil ANALYSIS AVERRCE Soll PROPERilES TOP Of Ln1ER 16. ELEV. 54.0 fi . FREE FIELD
- 1 a 1-10PE CREEK
.y . SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION _
I
r-4.o0 - DESIGN VERIFICATION CLIENT P5i? f b
, . se -- JOB NO. 0 84 o 07 f ' I M CALCIPROB NO. _lkdMH 'I3d >
y 9 BY: ' sic DATE: Y13/$)
, CHKD: sit t DATE Sl'1/O y 9
-4
'g i.oa -
x a "j 2% Damping A us !g d
- Regenerated Response Spectra e
" M
/at Basemat Elevation
/ > ' g;-
e.se -
, s RG 1.60 (Elev. 54.0 ft.) k
' s / Respanse Spectra '<
g m 88- #*' o.og,, ,,', o,s 's. 2. 5-FREQUENCY (CPS) j - NS-08E FLUSH RNALYSIS RVERACE SDIL PROPERilES TOP Of Ln1ER 16. ELEV. 5t1.0 FI . FREE flELD c HOPE CREEK Soll STRUCTURE INFERACTION i
- l Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: January 10, 1984 Question No.: A-4 Question: Describe method of establishing rocking time- histories R(t).
Response: Rocking time histories are obtained directly from the SSI analysis -in terms of rotation at the center of mass at each building basemat. They are input into the uncoupled building model as a moment time history applied to a very large rotational mass at the base of the model such that: Ig h(t) = M (t) h I h large Rotational Mass Rocking time Input to uncoupled Moment of Inertia History from SSI building model This is a common modelling technique and is used in codes where.a fixed-base rotational time history cannot De input directly. The large rotational mass moment of inertia is selected to be
.several orders of magnitude, a minimum of 5 orders for Hope Creek, higher than the total rotational mass moment of inertia of the building.
In conjunction with this large rotational mass moment of inertia, a rotational spring constant is used to introduce a rocking mode with frequency f, where f , 1 < stiffness In Ig: mass The spring constant, K, is selected such that f is considerably lower than the fundamental frequency of the system, a minimum of 3 orders for Hope' Creek. 2 The attachment shows this modelling technique for the here the resultant frequencies for the reactor two rocking building, modesw(about N-S and E-W axes) are 0.005 and 0.0067 Hz which cre well uncoupled from the first true mode at 2.73 hz (fir st torsional mode of the building). Page 1 of the attachment shows the actual values of these large spring constants and rotational masses for the two directions of rocking about N-S and E-W respectively. Page 2 shows the resultant rocking mode frequencies computed by the program. These frequencies are verified by hand calculation as 'shown in page 3 of the attachment.
ATTACHMENT TO RESPONSE A-4 January 10/A-4 7 3 le t 27e 1 .e67c1 .le 17 271 1 .12ec .1e le? 272 1 3. I s.26 1 43.40 43.se 43.00 . elate .e12C6 .e24E6 2 tee.se tee.ee tes.ee .11ec6 .11e 6 .236c6 3 91.se 91.es 91.se .21ec6 .21st6 .42sc6 4 63.te 63.se 63.es .193E6 .193C6 .366t6
.a se.te . se.ee Se.se .19ste .19sts .396te 6 186.es 106.0e 186.e4 .373t6 .371C6 .746E6 s LarOe Rotational 7 274.es 274.es 274.es .es6C6 .es&E6 1.712E6 .
e ase.se 35s.se 358.es . tests .95ets 1.863E6 Spring Constants
.s 411.te 411.as 411.68 .216t6 .364t6 .58eE6 11 12 112 88 448.se 112.es 448.ee 112.se 448.se
.e91E6
.169t6
.290E6
.57 6Es
.se2ts
.741t6
/\
la .ta .56 .56 14 '1.15 1.15 1.15 15 1.21 1 27 1 27 16 1.23 1.53 1.53 17 164.88 168.ee 164.se .e99L6 .21eE6 .317t6 21 2 63 2 63 2 63 22 3.!9 3 51 3 59 23 3.19 3.19 3.19 as 269.se 269.es 269.00 .e32L6 .75et6 1.!9eE6 26 420.es 424.es 428.00 .266t6 .534ta .199te 27 1.e9 1.89 1.e9 . 29 .65 - .65 .65 3e 6.te 6.66 6.66 31 231.Ct 231.se 231.to .191t6 .516E6 .706E6 35 .71 .71 .71 34 8.4s e.4e e.4e 3' '*** ' '8 Units are in kips' to 156.te 156.se ' 'e 156.s' .544ts .191E6 .735ts feet, Seconds and 41 2st.se ast.se 254.e0 .tiste .206t6 .3sats 42 1.se 1.1e 1.le radi ans 43 .e1 .et .e1 44 15.t2 15.e2 15.e2 46, 293.Ct 293.se 293.e0 .22eE6 .617E6 ee46E6 se 2.11 2.11 2.11 s1 15 77 15.77 15 77 s2 7.12 7.12 1.12 , s4 712.te 112 00 712.se 3.e76t6 2.79ste s.e74t6 ss 344.5e Jet.co se4.cs .267Es .40eE6 . state i s6 s.te t.as s.2e , s7 9.es 9.es 9.es I se 4 72 a.72 a.72 l 39 2.cf 2.e7 2.e7 se 3 34 3.34 3.34 61 47s.se 47s.es 47s.se .519t6 1 15sta 1 677E6 64 5.32 5 32 5.32 69 . 7 33 7 33 7 33 66 10.37 1s.37 1e.37 67 6 09 6.e9 6.e9 l 64 4.t* 4.55 4.55 72 17 75 17 75 ,17 75 73 24.14 24.14 24.14 Ts .se .68 .6e 76 12.2e 12.2e 12.28 se 5.te s.ee s.es se 71? 7.11 7.11 ! e3 .16 .16 .16 i e4 4.e5 4.81 4.01 es 3375.te 1375 00 1375.se 12. 347 E4 s.2e7E6 17 454t6 i e6 332 8e 332.ee 332.ee .273t6 .3&sE6 .633E6 l e7 13.16 13.16 13.16 se 21 68 21.6e 21.6e e1 91 92 3 42 2.4e 445.es 3.42 2.4e 445.es 3.42 2.4e 445.se .516E6 1.238t6 1.74eC6 g [ 93 950.0e Tse.se 958.00 6.6e1E6 4.27eE6 10.951C6 96 1 37 9.17 9 17 ~ Larae s Rotational MASS 97 to 2 12 1.it 2 12 2 12 1.65
,e' c' Moment of Inertia 1.65 99 .22 .35 .35 183 Sot 13 1e 6 6:
13 98 6 62 13.9e 6 62 - / les 3 44 3 44 3 44 AJi,
- le6 .12 .12 .12 107 (3 91sti) .213t13 4.386Es7 tot 426.te 424.08 426.00 M.6 '.TTits .316L6 lie e.17 e.17 s.17 111 19.12 19.93 19.93 112 1.e3 1.e3 1.e3 113 .12 .12 .12 114 41 .42 42 116 12.14 12.54 12 54 117 42 .42 .42 11e 1.e3 1.e3 1.e3 Page 1
ATTACHMENT TO RESPONSE A-4 January 10/A-4 4 Frequencies of Rocking Modes about N-S & E-W Axes naoE r8E4.ifa0istc! ,8ES.EE,3, ,,,,,, 1 .3141428-01 .508005t=02 199.991985 2 .41984tt=81 66413C- 154.812844 3 .171518t+02 .2T787$1 81 .366200' 4 .257620E+02 410831E 81 .243884 5 .26SS22t+02 .422618E+81 .236425 6 .273811t+02 .434616E+81 .230088 7 .277367E*02 441444E*01 .226529 8 .44S688t+02 .199267E+41 .141003 9 .446219t+02 .7182TSE*01 .143191 18 .554219E*02 .882468E+01 11 .113278
.561249E*82 .891283E*01 .111946 12 .595619t+82 .948853E*01 .195479 13 .424622E+02 .994134E*01 .100E90 14 .627834t+82 .999293E+81 1$ .180071 ef12713E+82 .113432E*82 .888159 16 .73332tt+02 .116712E+82 .045681 17 .7684C2t+02 .122295E*82 .881769 18 .194828t+02 .126581E*02 .879058 19 .8918!8t*42 .141815E+02 .870514 20 .891482t*02 .141836E+02 .870'84 21 .997349t+02 .it8133E*02 22 .062999
.10286tt+03 .163717E*02 861081 23 .184888t+03 .165521E+82 24 .86L415
.186615t*03 .169179E+42 +858988 25 .310265t*03 . tis 493E+02 26 .456582
.111154E+03 .17690FE*02 856521 27 .11488)(+03 .382721E*02 28 .854338
.119811t*83 .19878tE*02 .852414 29 .119938t*03 .19885tE+42 38 .852296
.122114t*83 .194446E*02 .851428 31 .324924t+83 .198839E*02 .450292 32 .124948t+03 .198861E*02 33 .850286
.32&S89t+03 .281919E*82 .049525 I
34 .1334!2t+03 .212395E*S2 047082 35 .134 79 4 t +4 3 .214532E+82 .846613 I 36 .136489t+03 .21786SE+42 845980 37 .143899t*03 .22TISSE*02 38 .843988
.152812t*03 .242810E*02 .841317 39 .168122t*03 .2S48SSE*S2 .839238 48 .16S!!2t*S3 .262784E+02 .838CS4 41 .1652SSE*03 .263811E*82 42 .838021
.145412E*03 .263671E*02 .8.1925 43 .178411t+43 .211218E+82 44 .036871
.1743!8t*03 .271468E*82 .8 36 C 4 8
! 4S .!F7431E*03 l .282441E*02 .835411 46 .18196*t+43 .289606E*S2 i 47 .198781t*03 .834*28 ' .30563fE+02 .8J29J4 44 .192713t+03 .30680SE*82 5
.832*94
' 49 .193012t+83 .347316E*02 .832*42 S8 .195614t+03 .311338t+82 .8 3212 C S1 .19561!E*03 . 3113 32 f
- 0 2 .032128 52 .196641E+03 .312934E*82 .431552 l
l l l l l Page 2
ATTACHMENT TO RESPONSE A-4 JANUARY 10/A-4 PAGE 3
=
_1_ ,[ K - F e jy 3 1 3.867 X 10 10 F = FREQUENCY OF ROCKING MODE ABOUT N-S AXIS 1 2n 3.918 X 10 D
= 0.005 HZ
_ . X 10 E FREQUENCY OF ROCKING F 2 MODE ABOUT E-W AXIS 2n 1.213 X 10 13
= 0.0067 HZ l
- UNITS ARE IN KIPS, FEET, SECONDS AND RADI ANS i
i I i
Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: January 10, 1984 Question No.: A-6 Question: Assess and justify that the random combination of soil layer properties is adequate and conservative. Response: ' The soil property variation study was performed to establish criteria for broadening of spectral peak frequencies. To achieve the upper bound frequency shift of spectral peaks, all soil layer shear moduli were obtained from a set of upper bound soil property curves. Similary, to achieve the lower bound frequency shift, all soil layer shear moduli were obtained from a set of lower bound soil property curves. This particular combination of soil layer property variation would provide the largest possible range of spectral peak frequency shift. f
,,~..,.,____m. . . _ _ , _ , _ _ , . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - - _ - , , . . _ _ . , - . _ _.._ _,.., -
Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: January 10, 1984 Question No.: A-11 Question: Justify why it is acceptable to use gross concrete section. R_esponse : In performing seismic analysis of concrete structures, properties based on gross concrete section are used. This procedure is consistent with ACI recommendations. Neglecting cracked concrete properties is frequently justified on the basis of discounting the transformed steel area of the reinforcing steel (
Reference:
" Vibration of Concrete Structures", Publication SP-60, American Concrete Institute, Paper SP 60-12).
In addition,a parametric evaluation was performed to assess whether cracking will occur during the postulated seismic event. The lower elevation (El. 54 ft.) of the Reactor Building was selected for this evaluation as the shear stress in this elevation was determined to be maximum. This evaluation is based on the following: o In-situ average 90-day concrete strength is used. To be conservative, actual concrete strength, though higher, is not used. o ACI 349-76 code is used to establish the cracking strength of the concrete shear walls. The calculated shear stresses (factored in accordance with the ACI code) are determined to be less than the nominal pennissible shear stress allowed for concrete. Therefore, the concrete is not expected to crack during the postulated seismic event. Furthermore, for the strength evaluation of the concrete shear wall, the distance from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of tension reinforcement is taken to the 80% of the horizontal length of concrete shear wall (
Reference:
Section 11.15.1 of ACI 349-76). Based on the above, it is detemined that the use of gross concrete section is justified.
m
- 1 Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: January 10, 1984 Question No: A-12 Question: Pick one particular floor to define why particular modes were selected for development of vertical floor flexibility response spectra.
Response: All significant modes below 25.0 Hz were selected from the finite element model of the floor slab for development of vertical floor flexibility response spectra. In general, three to five modes were included with each mode representing a particular region of the floor slab. Forthe Reactor Building floor slab at elevation 145.0 feet, five modes were used. Based on the mode shapes of these modes, these modes were determined to represent five different regions of the floor slab, as shown in Figure 1. These five modes were represented by five single-degree-of-freedom beam elements in the vertical floor flexibility model shown in Figure 2.
#1
, , s __ _ _ _ . _ _ . . -
Mode 4 l l l
/ '
lll l ! i ili! l
~\ /l g Mode 1
; 5
\/
- k. . .! . . ,I a,a
. g -r--
\
.-,, -- ----- l
\ \ * , j
'I '
Mode 2 l ,1 , ao ! i .
/ Mode 5 Mode 3 REACTOR BUILDING VERTICAL FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS FINITE ELEMENT PLATE AND BEAM MODEL FLOOR ELEVATION 145.0 FT.
FIGUR5 1 . January 10/A-12
Reactor Building Shell J4' 4,, e Center of Mass 3<> Interior Structure o
.4 Massless Node
~
Z '"
< l 44 t W" Rigid Connection Y (E-W)
X (N-S) 201 W W ' '" e
#,, O v-178.5 pr p, 162 92.
.. ,,g rWNa e'3 37 30 145 "
't '? 9 ? 3g
" ^
Node Mode 132 Te
** ** ** Q,aw T nn g:
38 1 e 4, & ,," 32 2 o2
,y, o n "
y y 33 3 c 31 5 3 Drywell l 77 y -{r ,s(,, , Biological Shield Wall . 1" RPV and Internals s
-REACTOR BUILDING VERTICAL FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS MATHEMATICAL MODEL FIGURE 2 January 10/A-12 n .-- - __ _ - - . - -. , . _ _ , . . , , , . _ - - - . - - . . ,
l Response to NRC Audit l l Meeting Date: Janua ry 10, 1984 Question No.: A.15 QUPSTION: Provide liquefaction analysis of river bottom sands using simplified Seed approach to determine induced shear stresses and compare dynamic shear strengths from labora tory tests. RESPONSE: The liquefactior. potential assessment of the river bottom sands has been previously performed based on one-dimensional shear wave propagation analyses, two-dimensional finite element analyses and dynamic cyclic triaxial tests as described in References
- 2. 5-114 and 2. 5-79, Pa rt I.
In response to this action item, a simplified assessment based on the Seed and Idriss procedure has been performed. For this assessment, the cyclic strer.gth of the saturated sandy soils was estimated from both dynamic laboratory tests and the average field SPT blowcount data. The calcu-la tions indicate that even with the various conservative assumptions made in the simplified analyses, the_ average factor of safety against liquefaction of the river bottom sands is well above unity. Calcula tions for the simpli fied anal-yses are attached. A.15-1
rite 744% I'd2 lo ( 5%4) sueJEci Liaur4~Hn lW&,1 et Rb s.w.4 s i i SHEET OF-Ssl %l.t nA %%( 4 essa : Veeul Gea Qsh c8 o0 - o 1 7 y Sm- 4p
- 1eo Mt Os pep)
.. 3 .- ..%
g,i , tu ua s N f IAL g n s 4Tmc o P s NySD}ic,kil s j $ UUE D ' (p peg) ' s s y? F m ,n '. sa sus '. .
~
7 164') ' fe4M
, f '
q;ww Rs yo% cue e ', CNdg [q) O R N 'C MY bf
'4 2$#*
s f 7 [
- be kiadc 5si,u/ %en :
l
*O 4 f. 5 C fM?
2 k (khys vu 2. , ka x u .w . 4w = 2. on , =4 seqe h f Ch'fn P C.06f rh, -u cL,e :<< /epo q % , % Ao'
# O' bOw '
Y h? $ $ 9 %iC A v b M b o . b5 , W O O Mg SkEax 4/AS 70uh'o * &l0~o,
. = _ g
~{#
b " r* i I
- 58
= o o., 2 3 1 c.9 i = 0.29 l
Damens a meeMMBE 949.8 C*728 f etN T ED IN U.S. A.
FILE _7ddb ~ ID2
- 10 (D94 ) i SUBJECT C VY^' bo h $+d l *htu : e :1-SHEET OF GVALVATc4 OF '6LOWooWT bATA :
@rt s :
na 1) Lilf(a. /ph ic veelleh d.ovg 4/c ro(vice uJa4G< ph.J.ir r-. lh pdel eb.c te Oc V6Ny swtli -Sickwe.GS ( vivev b. & e suA 'e #e pay & . knaLokC< dp.ks is -{ w in e t\tvlswoQn:q cevyecfin uh k /.s.h u % wCJlc. s.b- -
==
$$ 9%n q -6c- Lower \cA v & the misludi-; %
j c fat.4kc. O {vey
-Ec. sw Kc_
be h suAA vau-wGAh w etc im.6 W o.;-e b.i b r E Kihed. crecy e A. ewAi. 6 7 4y h te L.tK (g w. fe 5aa @v c. fey 9 weCAU f). I g.)4k.c 4 &c S04'( g b 9J-j Ir CatsM h c NTIM Q (20% co n dAc b'en (Mt2-) h NtsWA y- Yc W M
.b t M x #b I O #I
= "
(16ft Wee
%k ccnels.% N be u h, W 8thcMi.vc sLdk.t. ps okk.
-(vJa fraa . m q,w RncItg cone:< % 0962) mL Lee vcir " A. fh'm ce<veCJes ( ign) , E M s m ffy on %cickcs L cem. M-evsvix +es A. s xLexesihuic 4 Q w JsfA W E g # ,'ce Jy 4)- (6fT) ti ei<"E.iver tw b C*i
% u be[dhwh cds;vey*DMe sNAs* owa. l> A N - .
kb,[ hk b ~S # CC /
!! mes ^~C M HMch M a
", 7 as#p kp2 (
<u - teez p w w w~ny %-
iMtukA ygsfeuu_ (owJ2 )<v
& 4',% 4 Lj sO A
a A e N N >o
'8E a58 MS.1 (3 72) PRIN T ED IN U.S. A.
FILE W ~ N ' IO O SUBJECT fiW L PM }hPw. C#2. r - Lre. . > ; o 4 SHEET ' 0F-m wceutrrs (humiu b #r,4 J sfr) 6f/4W/4w/c,P SM/cp1 ML- M/HH/o./A
-- A
c' nO W W $$ M 3b {
2- 32 24 24 7 55 < 4 35 12-
% 30 17 s :" w 47 21 .
aa 33 G7 io l
. 49 17 e l ~f Ig,, Vs W 47 55 19 (o
"==
99 9 (c 55 6+ 7 32 14 e 17 i
}fx 4 1<) '
gg % 39 )5 75 cncp;: %s 39 )[ V bd'.tC- , , , f1 4- t kwas cLov. SfT w_h_u- ~ 39 ka. h 73 49 v J
~$ el (O O (0 $ '/1 g- C .5 \ % y e
y / 7 VtL'p&. . o<0 p
~ .
d W A Ao W e. Ei 5 8 f sammes a necosem { Nhl (3=7H PRIN T ED IN U.S. A.
FILE 2443 1 10 [5554) SUBJECT Ma Yo A 4 AA' - L Ta' AL+ D. SHEET OF- l Llovencr.eri Peremuc l l A) tfg gcte T,e,u J red b#a - Qi n
-* p /C< 4 .10) A c gi- 2s <p. des %e %F? h.
r<a bse m au. Tre + -
>le.[v.h )c (c^%ee , k@ lGGE) = G C'g=W- Ll~c L.e oruce.gr <
ff (o - fe s y let< Acc ) & cLsc , mrAr, aAxccA. 6 shea. 7 4 .e.x.AfQu_2 6. % y Um & D .5 % PGid Mras. b o-99
? (t coca - s p . z 12,. is ceu-eviske w_:x%
0a d5 e to v-R bet. ce g'4 q . Ma4_ ) , E
- O W. 4 Yi >Y- $h}{S) [ J p W&
C,y = o-9 9 p< c curc , -hao mko & Gci.C uJ.hu Im (o y=%\c- , los o -%ua,Q x 0 57 0 99 y o.T} y = 0 ~ 'V I IW f({ , Fnde, 4 Sn u n e u g %sn ,-
- (T4 - } - %
V/G')ws6 M u) o-91
- O*
s __
~ > l r.
g; ilu:_ <> m a
& g ce c
u;da k -&.tg
- h I 1 ?4 t -
p e> -
,O & &I NN w 0 .,a ov-e~di 6KM- 7 2 5s D c-ev e ds 4,
- EB 3)TucAA Qh k tuJ&h
& M s w -
sy k cmu<-f.~2..( t GPr #4 A W - _ . . . ~ . 945.1 ($*72) PRIN T ED IN U.S. A.
I i - l c, ,, 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 i i i i i i hm}d ' n
,d , it g o \Mir 0.1 0.2 0.30.40.50.6 0.70.80.91.0 1
0 ,
", 2 q -VALUES BY CPT - 10 -
a c D (Dr = 40 TO 80%) 20 p a3 AVERACE VALUES p y i
$ ~ _
30 -
/ ! R '
i y *
, 40 -
RANGE FOR OlFFERENT # -
- a. SOIL PROFILES 5 - ~ ,
1 x iE 50 - E Dr = 60 TO 80%
- n. -
= 6 - _
$ 60 -
a 4 5
> 0r- 40 TO 60%
. o 70 - y _ - l E II 80 -
~
E i b 90 - -
' 9 _
]
N-VALUES BY SPT 100 I I d I I I I ' i 1 1 1 1 10
- Rany of valm of r, for different soil profiles.
Chart for values of C.. l i e
FILE N
- D2 ' YO b994)
SUBJECT M G ? f' M <r- 6* bo - L;FU i d SHEET $ F _. S) Seck L Thiss CuMc: !ve ekc Sbec d w4u ser ' a . o M L Tc]~3S %^rc Jo. de<Lr)
,., h Je>,-
y ~To ba<k a y avek b Ct a c.c n -t g
*Mch< C k.fct, a.Ls(- i t. k q - 1 ,
mm Tyr%. %c cw :
~ ~
< < r h t/IM fCsMc~fd A <\t445hw cq Nq bt!H M /g l
~
~
^' (%)/q ) = i o- 2 9 (.a b ul. sf we % o)
=
daa TT hm.;.( . C,, e 3 . c, [ ' m '.i.u & A A cas+ ,
-J_, uy w..y Leitew I o u I.1 )
M u cA < vecA tri- p w ..t er iJ in sp"h4 ( s fT cm b< Mcux a ' b. c os .L' a ems ed Sch # le 5 s d-a So 015 gilg% qC.Jh &q < c d cc
~
u.'
~
k- s fkLLs4(aurc bro k KVcd 03u, 1 wy ek e yO/A bro .io (c x-) , TL ki 'wer.- ew Sl'*f cr'- j8 p y.ee.n,_u e- &che cf ctQ-
- I O ce 11,_c_. b.Leorce .d. M n 4k.c. cwc.v.f- gc sf e. ; O.i . .
h h be s $50s tK( L6ft.c. O< n Q #ekv.1 vf tm )y 6-d 1 W wrm_t law < h 18 ( .w. . k m- &Letcccz.rt h w Q . 4o s , 4Jeja M(& ,
> p.) > c k.y 'to(:15 s ,. -
e gw'c/ww , 4 veh O) IT
~
ya f, ~ evk. ) y ) ytS.w-).c . aeq to . M U 'w.kt's a: ( Ar< p,o h w_c_ r4 cov e r-trob. M w a58 w
- e. vcW ' u.- h d c s < $-
Al o be. */ g e .
* ) C M 'v x u n h o. ca & sau[h'~'A .
=) % _ci<d 4W ~m g. K4 A ~r C. w . Q Ec-
"ck f Y C G "
& sh * }5^~-!I' - .... .
945.1 (3 72) PRIN T ED ON U.S. A.
0.5 NJf( [MdL O.4 - - - - - - - - - - E'5'MR' og a ,I- l,1
/l/
-> j i
# /
W / g 0.3 -
- - -/
E . /. E - u a 0.2 - 2 d 0 0.1 - - CURVES APPLICABLE FOR CONDITIONS WHERE *a' < 1 TON PER Sq FT I I I O O 10 20 30 40 MODIFIED PENETRATION RESISTANCE,g N blows /ft Chart for evaluation of liquefaction potential for sands f .: dif-ferent magnitude earthquakes.
A Re sponse to NRC Audit Meeting Date: Janua ry 10, 1984 Question No.: A.16 QUESTION: Provide calculations of ductility ratios due to pipe break for key elements. RESPONSE: FSAR Section 3.8.4.8.2 discusses the allowable ductility ratios used for the design of pipe whi' restraints. For flexure in beams, an allowable ductility ratio of 20 is used. As discussed with Mr. D. Jeng of the NRC Staff, the majority of the pipe whip restraints have ductility ratios less than or equal to 10. Howeve r , the ductility ratios for approximately 25% of the pipe whip restraints exceed 10 under the current design basis. These restraints will be reevaluated based on as-built conditions, final pipe break loads and actual hot gap requirements in an attempt to reduce the ductility ratios. The restraints that remain with ductility ratios in excess of 10 will be identified to the NRC along with a discussion of the consequences. This information will be furnished in June 1984. A.16-1
Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: January 10, 1984 Question No: B-5 Question: Provide example calculation for combination of NS, EW, and vertical responses. Response: As defined by the Regulatory Guide, the spectral accelerations for three earthquake components were summed at each frequency point using an SRSS-type procedure. As demonstrated by Figures B-216 through B-224, the out-of-olane components do not contribute significantly to the in-plane spectra, and were clearly not required for the development of the floor response spectra. Similarly, the out-of-plane displacements, accelerations, shears, and moments were found to have no significance to the in-plane response maxima values for the Reactor Building (Tables E-7 and E-8). The element numbers in Tables E-7 and E-8 are referenced in the Reactor Building mathematical model provided on Page 12. It was found that the rocking motion contributes significantly at certain perimeter locations to the vertical response, and therefore it was incorporated in the vertical response envelopes using the SRSS approach. Sample vertical response spectra with and without the rocking contribution to the vertical response at a given floor of the Reactor Building are provided on pages 13 and 14, respectively. The calculations describing how vertical response spectra with rocking contributions are determined l are summarized on pages 15 through 20. i l l
..u--
4 .(Plots for SRSS of %ree Components Superimposed on In-Plane Ilesponse) in__
;; ---- SRSS of 3 components
- e.u . ,,-
In-plane respons,e g f s-5 [ l (Typical for all plots)
?,
y . ... . . E e.u _... 2 51
- io s
* ", ,-- e -t -+ -+- ), - l-i-l-*;),-l-l-- j -l; },--*-e -H-l,-e-{-t- l-e; },--{ -l-{-l-j-4-4-4-t-j -+-{-+-l-+-j , *5 Q
FREQUENCY ICPSI s OUT-OF-PLANE RESPONSE STUDY [ REACTOR BUILDING, ELEVATION 77.0 VERTICA L IIESPONSE FIGEE B-216 i PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO. SEISMIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSES HOPE CREEK PROJECT g i I
h 1 4 l i .w _ (Plots for SRSS of 'Ilirce Components Superimposed on In-Plane Response) s .e . .
~
f \ g /- ;- g _ /
=
i 7.
..se .
f . W
..w_ .. ,
E5
%a .
*a
, -e--+a-t;{, ; -lw-{-*;{,-{-{-l-{;l,-t-en-e;{, - l-+-l-e;),-l--{-{-l;j,, : : : j ;--+-{-4-}-+;j,,
, ro] .$
o i FREQUENCY ICPSI , e : OUT-OF-PIANE RESPONSE STUDY REACTOR DUILDING,11 EVA' HON 102.0 VERTICAL RESPONSE , FIGJIE B-217 Peemc eeR ,ce mecTe_ S ce. 4p i HOPE CREEK PROJECT SEISMIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSES l g
.~
s.w__ (Plots for SRSS of 'Iliree Components Superimposed on in-Plane Response) 4e--
,s I \
G s - -/
-s. ,
g
)!
2
=
e.w. f . M
- i. _ _
e
- p-e--t3},
-t- -i;}-}--l-{-l; },--t-i-e-e-},-t-}-e-l-+;l,-}-l-{-{-jp-+-+-+-j ;-+-{-+-}-t;j,, y SE rRE QUEteCY ICPSI w$v OUT-OF-PLANE RESPONSE STUDY y 02 REAC'IUR BUILDING, ELEVATION 201.0 VERTICA L ITESPONSE FIGmE B-218 -
eusUC SERVICE ELECTRO & GAS CO. SEISMIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSES pg v HOPE CREEK PROJECT g a
e.u - - (Plots for SilSS of Three Components Superimposed on In-Plane Response) f s s ..e _ - t R
\
s J g
\
l a.. i .e. _ _ 5 E 5 f .. e _.- Y U
* ",7 e-t -s- g),-e--l-+-{-*-j;-{ -{- { -l;{;- t-+-+-6-l,-t--{ -t- { -*-j,- { -l- l -hj p -*-+-*;j-+-{ -+-l-+;j,,
aa FREQUENCY (CPGI
*5 "Q
~
OUT-OF-PLANE RESPONSE STUDY HEACTOR llUILDING, ELEVATION 77.0 $ N-S IIESPONSE & FIGURE B-219 eUeUC SERVICE RECTRO & GAS CO. i SEISMIC STRUCTURAL ANALSES lg HOPE CREEK PROJECT _
e .ee _ _ (Plots for SRSS of Three Components Superimposed on In-Plane Desponse)
/ %
3._ i . .. . - 10)~ L 5 y" .. . - e.ee '
--; - e + e .-},-t-{-t-f-*;f- l--l -l- f; l,--'-' + +; l,- ! -'~ I -'s !.~! - ! ' ! ~ ! d I ' '
uo gg rat 00ENCY tCPSI OUT-OF-PIANE IIESPONSE STUDY g HEACTOtt BUILDING, ELEVATION 102.0 g N-S 11ESPONSE S FIGURE B-220 Pee <,C se-,ce <eC1em A eAs ce. 4p i SEISMIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSES lg HOPE CREEK PROJECT N
s.w _ _ (Plots for SRSS of Three Coniponents Superimposed on In-Plane Response)
. ..e _._
3._ . . es _._ E . E d f.ee_. t .os __ I s/ i ea
,,p-+- t-+-l, ; -+-l-i;},-f-l-l-l;l.*-'-+i .--4d-*-!-*sfe-!-$-!~k
! i lY-' i! **
F M p"* 4C V ECPSI
' OUT-OF-PIANE IlESPONSE STUDY
*Q HEACTOR BUILDING, ELEVATION 201.0 '
g N-S RESPONSE 3 FIGURE B-221 b eeemc eee lCe sec1ec . eAS Ce. SEISMIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSES 4p i HOPE CREEK PROJECT
3 9 t (Plots for SHSS of 'Ihree Components Superimposed on In-Plane Response)
,s '
' N e . .. .
E y I
)b\
E NT ' g ...._ f i
=~,.m-s,1, . l-+l-*;l,-1-1-1-1;I, : *-+-+;},--l+1-*;l,-t-i-Hd -* : :,j., - (+l+J., [
T& , ratGUENCY lCPSI y , OUT-OF-PIANE IlESPONSE STUDY "Q ! REACTOR llUll, DING, El,EVATION 77.0 g j E-W IlESPONSE D e FIGURE B-222 b , eeemc e_,ce sEc1. . e e ce. SEISMIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSES
,4 p HOPE CREEK PROJECT g
e .u .. _ (Plots for SRSS of Three Components Superin. posed on In-Plane Response) s l > s . .... g ( - E a . . .. .. . S E
. . . . __ i
,,7*-i-+3j, : l :-l-+;t,-l-1-1-1;l,-+-++;l,--+-1-*-I-+;l,-l-1-1-li j.. : ^ : :,j., : 1-+++d .,
?? ',
FREQUENCY (CPSI $ ,
"a OUT-OF-PLANE RESPONSE STUDY ~
REACTOR DUILDING, ELEVATION 102.0 $ E-W RESPONSE a
, FIGUTE B-223 i
eustic SeRviCmec1Ro a oAS co. SEISMIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSES Ak HOPE CREEK PROJECT 3l
i f e ie.n _ (Plots for SRSS of Three Components
' ' " - ~~ Superimposed on In-Plane Hesponse) 3._
5 - E . f 3 e.w_ _ \ U - e . _. 6 1 a
*a
-,-t- -t-),-r-- j -- e -((-l-l-l,--t -t-t-t;l, : l-t-l-+;},--l-l-l-{;j , ; ; ; ;,j ,-*-l-Fl-+;j,, ;
SE !
- rat 0UENCY (CFSI y i OUT-OF-PLANE HESPOASE SrUDY E3 HEACTOR BUIT.DIMC, E1.EVATION 201.0 E-W HESPONSE FIGURE B-224 i
eueue S-ce nec1Ro a oAS cO. SEISMIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSES Ak HOPE CREEK PROJECT g
- - . . - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - . ~ . . . - -
SED 71H)17 EVEON 5
~
TABLE E-7 REACTOR BUILDING January 10/B-5 0UT-OF-PLANE RESPONSE Page 10 OPERATING BASIS EARTHQUAKE E-W Response E-W N-S Element Base Motion Base Motion .SRSS Ratio Variable (A) (B) (C) (C)/(A) Number Shear 6.049 x 10 2 1.604 x 10 1 6.05 x 10 2 1.00 I Moment 5.673 x 102 1.571 x 10 2 5.889 x 102 E 1.04 Shear ----- 2.178 x 10 2 .... . 5 7 Moment 5.791 x 10 5 1.391 x 10 4 5.793 x 10 1.00 Shear 9.271 x 103 6.722 x 102 9.295 x 10 3 1.00 11 Moment 9.109 x 105 1.798 x 10 5 9.285 x 105 1.02 Shear 2.437 x 104 6.431 x 102 2.438 x 10 4 1.00 15 Moment 3.842 x 105 1.235 x 104 3.844 x 10 3 1.00 Shear 3.187 x 104 7.589 x 102 3.188 x 10 4 1.00 19 8.143 x 105 3.060 x 105 8.699 x 105 1,07 Moment Shea r ---- 8.172 x 102 ____ .___ 21 Moment 2.628 x 106 1.406 x 105 2.632 x 106 1.00 Shear 7.598 x 102 3.297 x 101 7.605 x 102 1.00(2) 33 1.051'x 103 9.159 x 102 1.394 x 103 1.33 Moment
. Shear 1.679 x 10 43 5.966 x 101 1.680 x 103 1.00
#c' Moment 1.816 x 10 1.601 x 103 1.823 x 10 4 1.00 Shear 2.920 x 10 3 8.827 x 101 2.921 x 103 1.00 l
37 Moment 7.680 x 10 4 1.183 x 104 7.771 x 10 4 1.01 1,00 Shear 7.333 x 10 3 1.910 x 102 7.335 x 103 39 8.248 x 103 1.489 x 105 1.00 Moment 1.487 x 105 1.018 x 102 4.066 x 1034 1,00 Shear 4.065 x 103 42 2.373 x 10 4 3.039 x 10 3 2.392 x 10 1.01 Moment I Shear ---- 1.129 x 102 .... .... 44 Moment 1.045 x 10 5 5.758 x 10 3 1.047 x 105 1.00 Note: 1. Units: Kip, Ft.
- 2. This is considered insignificant because the moment for this beam is l ,
very small. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO. SEISM'O STRUCTURAL ANALYSES HOPE CREEK PROJECT
. .. --- .. - - - - - - - . - ~ .
GED-76W EV60N 5 TABLE E-8 REACTOR B'JILDING OUT-OF-PLANE RESPONSE January 10/B-5 Page 11 SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE E-W Response E-W N-5 Element Base Motion Base Motion SRSS Ratio Variable (A) (B) (C) (C)/(A) Number Shear 8.829 x 102 1.164 x 101 8.830 x 1022 1.00 1 Moment 7.835 x 102 1.186 x 10 2 7.924 x 10 1.01 Shear ---- 2.203 x 102 ____ ____ 7 Moment 8.504 x 10 5 1.267 x 10 4 8.505 x 10 5 1.00 Shear 1.698 x 10 4 4.092 x 102 1.698 x 104 1.00 11 Moment 1.430 x 106 2.653 x 105 1.454 x 106 1.02 Shear 4.918 x 104 5.880 x 102 4.918 x 10 4 1.00 15 Moment 5.688 x 105 1.138 x 10 4 5.689 x 105 1.00 Shear 6.499 x 104 6.400 x 102 6.499 x 10 4 1.00 19 Moment 1.477 x 106 4.853 x 105 1.555 x 106 1.05 Shear ----- 6.283 x 102 ____ ____ 21 Moment 5.337 x 10 6 1.837 x 105 5.340 x 106 1.00 Shear 1.601 x 10 3 5.216 x 101 1.602 x 103 1.00 33 Moment 1.524 x 10 3 2.022 x 103 2.532 x 103 1.66(2) Shear 3.491 x 103 S.271 x 101 3.492 x 103 1.00 35 Moment 3.649 x 10 4 4.509 x 103 3.677 x 104 1.01 Shear 5.981 x 10 3 1.188 x 102 5.982 x 103 1.00 37 1.099 x 105 9.354 x 103 1,103 x 105 1.00 Moment Shear 1.482 x 104 1.707 x 102 1.482 x 10 4 1.00 39 Moment 2.070 x 10 5 1.200 x 104' 2.073 x 105 1.00 Shear 8.162 x 103 1.084 x 102 8.163 x 10 3 1.00 2 Moment 4.795 x 104 6.000 x 103 4.832 x 10 4 1.01 Shear ---- 1.284 x 102 ____ 5 44 Moment 2.138 x 10 5 6.323 x 103 2.139 x 10 1.00 Note: 1. Units: Ki p, Ft.
- 2. This is considered insigaificant because the moment for this beam is very small.
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO. SEISMIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSES HOPE CREEK PROJECT
January 10/B-5
.- - Page 12 Reactor Building Shell
@ h Beam Element Number
- Center of Mass Jo Z
- Center of Rigidity or. Massless Point 4i.
Y (E-W) - - [ fo Rigid Conacetion x X (N-5) A -
--{y}-- Translational and/or Rotational 7o Spring o
h Interior Structure
"' + , Q,, i m itt Raewaste Section og serg,, &g Dryws11
,, m - at av RP\'
//) Vf 20 , D
"# n
, de I$ o Shielhva11
"' Q e* /*
u f
]#J,g
/
i hk b-hlN-11
& Podestal ""
" Internals
~s, ,,, v a .
M 4, SE' Q,, IA I & // O #E' 45,m it a ou
,'(j,-N sp, 2'
, su m r/ '
w ,,y
, . ,, ,a a
/W ,
U' y , 12 , y,
@ '", , ,, "4 ;
p 'S a<--t. ;* , ri
,e" ,, 2, ,
" or " or s', ~ n tr 1
m / v* x. y, si mv is , ,a 177~ N' /// , itV W ,,g l n ,, ..
@ ">" ,,.- .s ~
, n x,e M ow - /tTo g
,, $,-, m/a/ -
27 s REACTOR BUILDING MATHEMATICAL MODEL
's
! 0 plg_
0 5 ygQ 5 J [t'C 4 S 0 ) E Q N S 0 2 O I Y L l G)2 Q ~ _. T U B A N
~ . I A
~ k .
R
~
k: g _ ~_ ~ _: T N L d ~- I
- _ - - .:- :_ O
~
- : _ - ~. _: _ 0 C A
~
' 0 G R
! 1 N U I
{ Ip. K T C I b/ ,, O C R U HE R I g\," \' 0 ( T I WA K U T S
/ >
lv l I 5 AQ c i d / RlI " M ( TT 0 S
, ;m f s
/
< }s,y'
)
CR E A G '5 PE N4 s S ND I 1 E I S r pE (cS) WL N 72 I O -
~
~
~,0 yOI NXUI B T F c
2 nPT A E l g i f i t ip y s r r ip y' / - r // 'p eSURV uEI qL STIO IE C I U I I i f eI FrDEFAt ECE F i u r i r }/' , _ n r o a k k t
/ .
- El O e
L l I l -
- RA L
U L L L T
?,: _
0 I U SR O L c 2 1 I (
- \}^
l 3t
. t !
NA I F S 5! - I I I C A IU t T
. :g T R c
' f i E V E J
5 c, O ( 0 e R _ 1 P _ c K m E 2
& n 1 e E C e R F.
0 1 oi c C
- - - S s ,
8 4 0 Ti v . E 2 I P G. 0 0 NeR e 1 1 0 U e O K Z S H
-2 gu %84 E9 E2 c R-3 m C21 9 e E0 7 P0/0 3 e O 4/ e I
I 1 4
,t I
] t
.1i =
0 0 5
-.p,
'}
)
0 N O &E ' Es I t 0 I T y% %
- _. 2 U
_ B
\,%n- -
I R T tw% - . _ N u % . . ~- _ ._.- - O C
.__ .~ - . - - - - _ E
_- . -._-_- G _- 0 N _ .._ _ .~ - - - --~ - - - . - _ I
.0 K i
1 C 1 u O l
.i l
R
}
;11I [
I J l l T U l I O H T E
,I N I K 8
q q n 0 WA 5 ( U AQ RH "
',, TT 0 CR
, i h
E A G '5
,- i PE N4
)s S I 1 N D
'pE WL N
(' S O
- - t
- p s, -
I
/,
, 0 cYOD B T NOIUI
's /. < ', s 2 nPr A eSURV g ,,
p #
- n r r r
./ /
i,/ ' '
- uEHO E ip i.
- p. q s_
i lp // eRSTI o nrh .i i
+ r.
i - /
/ rDEFECE F AAER i
nl I k H. I- . . /; - t O U SR O i
%- % %- . - . - / _ - 0 l
_ n 3- 4 1- ~ - -. ' d, - 1 QL L F EA RIC
'll -
T l R
,s E i, V 5
0 l 2 8
- 0 2
5 n 1 oi
- - - 0 S s 6 2 8 4 0 Ti I v 0 0 Ne 1 1 0 UR ,
K Z
$ ao oqoo:4 E9 E2 3
R-C2 1 E0 . P0 O 40 H1 3:, ! ij~ ;: ' ,i l i'l - ! I' i:) lj
, asAm hAambassaans.-e-Ww 2. ? .-' - m-A-r t -v.An-s re m tw mh m 2 .u.,, , .j,. . - , .
h h January 10/B-5 Paae 15 l l i l !I i l I ll I l I i ! ! I AJ-me ; i i iI i lI ' I II II i i i l ! II I I i i t 2Ei# swww .o i. ' w nw e< w 9AvAr> wk 4-je- l l i l1 1 l l l 1 1 l l l l 1 l i I i i ii 9Www Irwro.,asr>lr' had Adns&,1-x<o h A}- i ; I I i l l l 'l Ii i ! I I l iI 7A r smukurh JM - cF , Ih r ndm e-I I I i i i l i I_ l i I i f~l I !!I I runkA1 nA ' A4m>M 8% mh i hs ld>i ll l l l l l l l l l l l /t I' l I I I I I ht ! -wr.khj ::' Arnd ! A/h -oid7 l/ l ll i l l l I! l ! ! ! I ! I i i _genhur# I I I i i I ! I i . . . i i l i i il i l i ! 6 ! I ihusci -r u ivre-m&i Des &.n,e-i noW %>f! s ( l l I ! i i i I i ~ll I I i ! ' ' : rokJ nMI !n I h-Aum V kl MUrA&E inge r/>=&st -
'I I i ! i t i j l I i / ! l !
i i ; i l l I ! lese 7M ' kwAdrM l h/o %cW! 'e%d/A>rx #
~
wni) ! l l I l ! l l ! I I I i i i l t i l l t ! i t i l i i : I I &F ' ?h~nd VAv--r}sA2r !<PM nM W// e ' Bf PAi;e- r w - ' i i i : l l i _i ! ! : 1 i ! t I
! : t l
s .Meb #9' 1kPsy NA;WA 'sA-nAC 1 -7A-f 2jri:$6_ i.i i i ! I i i i I1 i i i i ! ~ l I I I I i . l i,eS##/,e/g' <ppeng_ i ! ; i i . 6 i i I e l I i l' iii- i I ' I ! I i i l i , i l i l 1 l l l l 1 s
.; K! I '
' #3 I
' i i !
l I i ! l i C N- M : . T- .. i . . i i ; N
' ; ! ! I i i i ' ! i i : ! ! I i i' /i i A mt ! \'
I i i l i I ' t / I i i t' tN i ! i i i l i l l i i ! ! I i . if f . el ! I i i i !; ! i i I i i I i ! !/ I I I i l ! I i ; i i ! ' ; - i i , 1 l l l l l l l l t S l/. i l l- 1 l l ! I i l l ! i ! ! I I i i i i i i _f I I I I J l I i I i i i i i t i l l I l l !
! l /i lii i i l I I ! I I I i i i l l l I i r! ! I i j l i I I l l ! ! ! i l l
' ! i i ' ii! ! I iii 'l I i I i ! t .
I S sI E ssk d = Zd ! fGk.uk Afu I A*AOr-zb A l l .! Ii l i ! I' I l l l l 1 I I I I I l - ~' t i 151 'r6 leo #) ss I/- i ., l ie I~ l\i! _I_ l ! I i 't '! I l' l l l 1 l '~i !,
'I 6!* r.swjl='ry I i l I . II I <! ! 'r i i _
l . I i l I i l ! I I l ! ! I i I I i ! t I ! : 1 I I I I i l I t ! I : ! ;
! '"" Vem-rieje o m sst wn '" " FS + d 1 \ D ebad Msnsa " "A4 A c de:r d j :
** ** s syo-eva
" #N l'"" 9Aa /re l*"* drW., l*'" $WI '"" "*' M/WA- l"/ *'
e a A EDS NUCLEAR: 220 MONTGOMERY ST. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 e
January 10/B-5 O Q< Page 16 i ! l l l I ! ! l l 1 iiil i I I l l l l l i i l i l I i %dsw.;s 'ryd ; pswshiw2 %h ks.' 7- , ! x.sd ri. l I I l l 8 l ! ! ! I t l l l l l i l l -} l l Il l \
\ l l V34 r&E 4 Eels s i nMM i4Wik danc ' A?w s:;eA'
! l ! i l I i i i i ! i i i i . . i I I i 1 l l i
W !rM kunk I Mon l & l rowy ' or .7my I i i ! i : . i i . t 1 i i i !l ! I I I I ! I I I I bra %nk n'Le f AsGe,wh amLd ! - l I i ! I i i l I I l l 1 1 I l~ l I l i I i l l l i i ! ; i ,- i ,I i l IiI I i i i I i i i i l i I I 1 \ !% ' A'&ns, ir i Am 7M irf sP& set >4 7 Mk . I I i i i l i
~
i !I i { i I i I i i iii i ! I I ! A n cis m :r s k?t ! Mid I s) ' rm 4.esm)>w ' i i l l f I I I I I i ! ! ! i I I } l i i > I I Ii NosoA A
! i n & T r e :> vm d.c.iski '& n ms w '
3 8 t I ' i I 'l ! ! I I l . .
! , t 6 i !
i W/u ' /s/P s sR bI R,ekt. .>w i a -rs-W ' 1 l ; j i i : l i I . i I ! i i I ! i ! l l l
!_ wwyded: /vt vad ; i>ks 1 M> ' \ mNnmes 'wm i ; . , i ,
I . l t l i i i : i ny 1 VEr_r>ez.ws. 4M in , Jers ed M .Sz .3 L
, i 1 .
. i ; '
i /
. i
' ' MA Pt syl-. )7 144$ jh/ NW
&,<ffs,ffsv 1/Af rj g .
C 0' i l i i , g ' . 6 i i i i i ,
' 1 i ?
sf Mkp . i
! la Ausse n:cebM sa_22&_m ', a ver Amd 7 zwr ) ,
i , . i ZF 7M O "A / 7 c> f Athl bs& d A N.#
$$fS *J'M i
. i i i i i i i I . i i .
l . l ! ! /
' i i l i i l I ; i i i l i .
i
/./q / ; i i i
i l;[. Y # ki
^~
NY
,I .
, ; , ,, ,ew .
.- s-<,. i , , i
! ! ! ! I ! ! i ii i! i i I I . ! y . Sg/ : ! !
l
;e.V44.rj fg ' I t I ! . I l 6 i . i ; i i i
! l l l l l l 1 1 I I i i l l l l !
l l l 8 l I I
' i ; I l I i i i I i l I i i i i 1 .
! - i i i I I i I i t i i e i :
I i : i I i i i i ! I I I i ' i I i
! . i i ! i ; ! ! I I I i
} ! i i i t 4 ' i i i '
i i j i i i ; ; i i I I ' ' i i i i I I I I i I i , i!
- g. Iii i i !
i i ; i , , . i - i ii i i , . . ,
"* PS+ , d'*
E knw A:'e* s w . w
"" 4rs' dhes/
'.w u '** "* s'n,s s , .oi.,1 t/a/m l'"" h l"" M2W """** om rek I "'-L "
l
#N I""
6 EDS NUCLEAR: 220 MONTGLOMERY ST. e SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 4 . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
a s w ; _. u __ January 10/8-5 O l i l l O.- Page 17 l l l i ! I r f
! I i t ! Ii ! ! l I i ! i i i I . I ;
Wers . , 8de b2 ,
! ! I I l ! l i l
i i i i , i l i 1 l l l 1 ! l l i ! I 1 l I i i i i i i A/3 PJr 1-W&r Al-J 67 f W: de
- A/ .c !
/ka 6 ! t or nr a Ars nu n= .s1.aw
, ty >r or ;
<pr\ ;
I
<Av\ ' uv0 3 t err U -
- <'e r \ l ,.s .
//7\- - a a
;n o ' !- 46$ a>> / ,' 0 ' 4hS t/ 1 S3, o e' S4,o , '&b l ! i l ; I :
i : 1
' . > . ii i, I i i I t I l ,
,/7, a e i! i I l 4 : 'f%5I -vaJ.,0 < #4r.' 5 / ,/53;O-t ' '
11 , i ll ; i I ;
! I i i ;
L H, .< t
! i ! i a j.w,; 0 < H,5 <
$ 3,6 -
th , h , , . i i .,, , ! , : , i t
/>>.s i i av,4 ->Jt,,0 / 9%S V iS3.o /
! t 1 i
f.1 s - fa_.S 9.u < * /09,6 '
>Jf. 0 >
~
; i ' ; !
i l
' ' b) r 5 ' ~ $3 A ' $)b /e f> S p.1'. O i i
pel.cf 93.6 - 63,.C RJ 5 ' /OL.C *
- _! A
- h. t bY Y . _? I i
h / Y) Yl$ lh o. l ' Ye h l hoh _ h S,h *" l , 4, ,- f~ Az,0 -94 S iAAD 94.S 15s.nv i _/g?h0 _
-94,S' 14'd,0 9ff* / 63.0 '
. . , , i eh , l Y J
/37p 0 I
$2,$ lb$s0 N$ ~/ l 3* C i .
! l i : >
13,0 /f/iG 'j d d, o v t /53,0 ' 93,6 f,
# $h oh fh/ -
- - y i . ; . , , , , ,
r i i l ' '
; I ' '
i !
. l ! i l I ! l l i l ' '
I t i i ! . l ! ! I
' ; i i
' ' . t l l l I 6
e
$Y/Yh ff$ $$ Y# 4% s l
t
~'Nm hs1} $ "'svus m-,
j ?
? " s,}9Vtf "'
.3h3 /)*) l' & l" 3 /2,{- /*)%"
- DD/fd l 3*
EDS NUCLEAR: 220 MONTGOMERY ST.
- SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFO,RNIA 94104
n ~ .- - _ -
. - . c.- . _-. .o_ ..n. - .. .,_ ._ , _ _ _
January 10/B-5 0 . - 0 Page 18 bef A$ Af } } f
- i l l l l l l l ' I i l l l s!l ! I l I i ' i :
I I l t dI favhid I /ch EDA A 24=sdsr ' syst med U' i I I i 1 ,1 i i I i i i i i ! I I I I t i I , f .
'(D ASmu %6viw ' % psdrx2 t/.haAnG ZN1/EL t 'I 'i ' 'i j i l l i 1 I l l l l f I 'l l
- I l !
l l 0-) I $ 6'//2rwk; '/JkV 1rbrj 'duexdi l Ws SJw . ' NA% - i l r "i 15ppe-rs! : II ! l ! l i i
- ~!ii iI : i i I i i i I i ! t i I ! i I i i i iaI i I l ! l .i 1 11 I l_ I I Jl I ! t l I I i ! i i froceju s '[ i c/o (4) l 5(09/* * % A'S D l i I I ,/ ! '.
I I ; ds l C I(sdSC l I I I }# lM ( 'l : '
! ' I : ' do N' ' ( b ro o, c/4,,3 i l I 'i ' l J , .-/]f3 1 I i ' ! ,
i t I t I i I i i i i i T' ' l i ' ' ! ' i i i I l 1 ! i
, l , , ,
' i i
! i I * ,
i { l i i i l i : i i - I
- Ii i l l l l l i l l 1 . ,
l ! ! ' i I i ; I . . II i i l l i ! i
' ' ! i i .
! ! i t ! ! l ,
I e ' i ; I i l l l 1 I i j i i - i i I i . , i 1 l i l l l , i l l 1 I i , , i 6 . i 3 l l \ I ! l
, ; i ,
t !
, ; i
' I i L , ii i i ! : i t I i .
' , ! ! ( ! t I l
! I t ' i i l
! ! I i ! , I i i I i '
l i , . , 1 i i i ! ! ! i i
! i l I 1 ! 't i l I f I
- l l i ! e i l l l ! i , i l 1 I l l ! l ! ! i i
- I
- I I . I i i l i i l I i i .
l ! i i l i ! I l ! I _ { l j i ! 4 i ! I I
* ' ' i I i l I : ' I ! ! I i I ' i I i ! !
I ; I i ' I '
; i i : l I{ l I l ! l! ! '
i '
. i i i l i I l t
l l l 1 I .
! I i i
, i i !i { l i
! i i ! T iiI i , i i i ' , ! f i , - j l l i i :
- i i i i
} ; 1 i ,
- i i
[ ' "' ' i j j ; i , . iTru g , f g*' *~ 'curmi p g A.Gr} hs/
**wyo wx -
M Y l "_ ,$ /2 3 /r [
- J M LI I" " 9l'l?[79 I " /)S/UM l* N EDS NUCLEAR: 220 MONTGOMERY ST. e SAN FRANCISCO, C*,' IFORNIA 94104
..s a x. _ -
$ l W T 6 h n e O k l -:. - h , x ;_ J " - w w w _:G % 2 C JC4 M S:a h:::J. . January 10/B-5 pd O i i i l Page 19 l ! ! l l I i i l l I i l I I I l i l !!! l l L Mand \nkle sd v' Basik i k yn rh I Asobr ; %)rw i ! ! t I ' - I I o,J 2 ri d MPN.l 6 1 ! I I I I I
! i i i ! i i :
~l j ' l I . 1 i i ! ! i i
! i I i !
- ; i ;
I i i i I I I i k >l A/_ 3 J L., J, , I i I i
; i I I i i i i i I i I l i t i i i
} i i I t i i i i i i !E* ** Br). el l* i/f4 o N.5,0 = i /3, 0 1
i i i i
, .a I { l i I I I i I i i i 1. I i l I l 1 I t i i i l I i i i i i i i i lI I I I l Assv # \ \ \ \
I \w I Bedra i 'h e. WJd 1M-r -2. l l l 1 si ! !I i f i i l ! iI i i i i ! l ( i l
;-porrne oc emQrAOl I I I I Mr& dI =! i I I 4 + & is uM)
! l ! ! i i : i i I i i I i! I I I I l I i ; I i i l I or. Ar ! /_ , b / AvAl dws ; M
' I I !
i i - i I . ; i i i , I
' j -
l1
- I I i i i I i i
; ; i ; t o_ >% v I VI.% -
! gg, i ;
f, i ! i ! I i i ! 1 l l t l i t i ri ! ! l ! i '
! I I I l l 1 ! l I l ! i l I
\!
mcT i r- (
~i o-- <e
- <S; i
i . 4 dil t i I I i , i t i , I : I t , g2.w s , i
' . ; i i
. I i i ! l l t
' ' i . ' ; r -
j i; i . gg) i i ; !
' - 4 i i l ;
- ! i i i i .
i i ; } ; i + i i i ; 1 i i i i . , i ; I
! t l
' l , , I i i
4 4 I I i ; * , l l l <\ i i i , i ; i i i i i * ' ' i i ' ' l ! f f
! I i ! j ! j i
' ; ! i ! l } ' l l i
, i !
; !' I I i i i i i
' i l i i i : '
! ! i ! l . i i i i i li ) I i I i ! ! I ' -
1 i i i i i i i t l ! 1 l I i
' ! I I I i ! ! ! ,
I i i i i i ! i I i i + i l i
! I i i ! I i t i ! ' ' l l l ! l l l l ' ' i '
i i i i ! - . I ! l l l l i i i i i i i j ! l! i i i i i , i i i i . I i i i i } i! I I i i - '
; i i : 1 I I i l i i I i l I I ! i 1 I i ! !
! ! I I l l l 1 i ' I : ; ; I I i i ! i i ! I i '
- i -
' i i ' ' : i i! l , 1 I I i 6 ! i
! I i '
I i ! I I I I I I I ! I l : , y 1 i t I i I i !
' i i i i l l i I I I l : 1 i i i j; .
i ! i re ' i i i ; i : ! ' I I i i ! Var-rHP MMf P3su d
? ~# ke'P / /AcFW/
s' - n l
***Mem~
?, *M l**9/g}y{*%iAk.l**MLEW '***- ,%/[Cf l"f
- _ E D_S__N_U_C LE A R : 220 MONTGOMERY ST.
- SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
..m._
- m. . w .m m.. - _ __
O-Q W January 10/8-5 Page 20 I I I l 1 ) lil I l ll ll l l l l l l l l ll Haluvie'Y ; 25rislk Mrne Ae:gA I i ! : 6 I I I I I, i , l l 'l I II i l l 1
$i A44;4. I A/-b A%s A*-WA.k r it'-:$ VE ' A -k? 4, ' - //\
i i ! - oF- ire r dc-iD# nL Jm ka. NEen % a} ! ' l l I f ric7h ' I S Y}i It'F 7_\ i l f f d _I l E'se r_\ itF'7\l e i 6 '. ; iii i i i i i ii ii r ! i i . i r.
.ir /,0 l ! f3,.'3 t l
/ Ah $J,3 V i /fho '
l Old I '/.3. 8 l i Ii I i ! I I l i i l !! ii I ! 1 I Jl i l I ( b.O I i i i ! ' I i i At ts I luP,b #w / :/s3,o:' I ! I I i I I Iiil Iil lI ' I I iI
# 3 04 i' i i 18A B- l ik,,4 61!3 '/S K O '
i l I i l i lI I I i l I i I l 1
' B) ,3 'I /M,01 I Rh ,3 ' d I/ S3,5 103 0 ' i i l l
\ \
I i 1 i ! i i : ! - l 1 , I i 1 l I l i l l t i i k7n ' ! I
' ' ' i 03,3'I th$ l 'OL3 ' $2$
i i i ll1 r i 1 i i l I I i I i ! l I I I i l 15
i i i ! ; : '
i
! 4 1 1 . i ! i ; i i I l t 1 ! i
$D I - 1 V0,0) $$ ,3 ' jf3 o **
/DJi d '
I c i i i l i i 1 !
. I i .
' i i i i i l i I J l
/36,o . . d i l l t l 'f), s l -NO, o 1 6 2 . 5 l- " l )53.d '
I i ; i I I i i ! i i i . t i i ' t i i ! i i I i l t f ' s i - B.1, ;s i - st/s. o l M,3 1' 'is si o - h t/b' O ! '
' 1 i I
i ; ! ( I ( l l I l l I l. ! ! ! ; l l I i G d e.3 ' ~/ 53,0
- l
/fdO I i i I ! l I 8.)J i -/W,#;
l l I,L i I i i I l I I l l l l l l l I i l I i I
'>$3,0 *
//,0 0 1 l ; ' '
I &no! -/th, 0 I 6 3'> O 3 l t I i i i ! !I II II i 1 l f f if l 1 ! i t i I i i i l /77,0 '
, I ? ' l SLO -No, o i d e' 0 4 r 63,O "
i l i i l i I I i lg i i i : i' ' l l i ! l 1
! I I t ! i i i !l l 1 l l
; I l l t i 1 i I l l l
; 1 ,1 i 1 i ! l !
[* ""
'"" 14;/r n e,as Ekmw.: 8.<f e d $ " " Ah,w * /fr- a/
I '* "*rw/n -os l"".34 >A,l"* M I"" 'b lt EM '"" "" foi 8CA I"A " i ( " APa ' 3 o EDS NUCLEAR: 220 MONTGOMERY ST.
- SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 g
Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: January 10, 1984 Question No.: B-10 Question: Provide calculations to show that rotational time history input $ (t) to detailed structural model is same as rotational time history R(t) from SSI model. Response: Page 1 of the attachment shows the finite element representation of the model used for SSI analyses in the N-S direction. Node 1202 of this model corresponds to the rotational node at the base-mat elevation of the reactor building. Page 2 shows the maximum value of the rotational acceleration time history output for node 1202. Page 3 of the attachment shows the detailed model of the reactor building. The rotational response at node 107 (node at base-mat elevation) is shown or. page 4 of the attachment. Comparison of the maximtsn value, and time at which it occurs, of the rotational time history response between nodes 1202 of SSI model and 107 of detailed structural model, shows that the response from the SSI model is the same as input to the detailed building model. Page 5 of the attachment shows the reactor building floor plan at elevation 54-0". It shows the number of walls at this elevation (including the containment) which act as stiffeners to the base-mat. (These walls extend all the way from this elevation to the floor slab at the next higher elevation.) This justifies the assumption of using a rigid building b&se-caut in the analyses. The base-mat is a 14' thick layer of concrete with shear modulus of approximately 2 orders of magnitude higher than the underlaying soil (2.35 X 105 ksf for concrete vs. 2 X 103 ksf for soil). Therefore locally in the region of mat / soil interface, the base-mat exhibits much higher stiffness than the soil. I
ATTACliMENT TO RESPONSE B-10 January 10/B-10 Page 1 . Reactor Building Rotational Mode Unit 1 - Center line ~ at base of reactor building I
'Ol,3,,
, ,, r. .a yd .D ' ' ' ' -
W ,e.d. m
.i , - ,
--i. , - *
/
t
/
b).)
. , o-,.) .< ,. 3 .o nou) i '""-l
. x . . ,, .6,,,
,,i, ,5
(..y
'N g a
wh e-- ,,,,,,, ..
"') N~ c D ..,
p/g/ ' \'v% M, 'O**!!' /. I
"(. - -,
~'
/ c,;;ir p ,,, g it
,:f. . , , ,
r,n, - 64 ,,.. , i c..,
- , ,4, Q
' u. ,,.
u.o ) si Js + , a dy . . .,' .q
., e .a ...'s >) m m.>
-3,,,,
.u, . , 4 .
OO, w O O c'3 k," y*dD O O @ O O CD O O;G GLS (9 O
,4,. w _;;.,9 ,g
,,y,*y u. m
, ~
- g>; -m .,w u.y ,y ;o., n.,y 53g
.o ..
.n g_n.gg 7.,y _.g a ,,3 ,- m g,c,x u,, .-g m.e
=d e. a t
n ,,,. .
,, ._g_ , ,
Cs) p.o L.a _<ut' 2.. J GL. .u2.1..v? . tr.o.,i@ .<vy .<.d). .a) I ua uib JD
, GiD.4..O l.6EL I I l
Portion of the SSI Model Representing the Base-Mat Area
1 ATTACHMENT TO RESPONSE B-10 January 10/8-10 Page 2 maninga agSOLufC ACC(LCaafgCgstes 2 was. sais aCC. : *.gS9a 4D. 14 PCA1. O!4tCT!04 titaatt04 No. ass. mast aCC. s G..CG; 4 G8 14 stol. OletC1104 f at o a.aCC af Time T=ACL a f f lat g.P. som0 f P.22J6 13.2?ce ' .? 3 7 9 23.41*0 1201 177.90 S4.00 . 4 3 I a t 10ma L h00E . l ag..a ..:41e AG.3*no
> asse ari.vw ..;gai ag.ga3s d34 90 . 2 22 a .a..a 965 177.96 6.C248 I?.4350 810 U.00 54.34 G.dle2 1C.2250 1G.4150 . n01811CN8L a(CE .
811 0.00 S t .* C 0.182n e .564 7 10 4500 7 3JFC 10.4430 721 0 30 198.30 ?.0160 13.1930 491 -177.90 S4.04 3.J523 10.2600 54.*C J.0tes 20 3430 . 40tal!ONAL a0CC
- 492 -173.90 a=aCC VALUES FOR mofait0NAL NOCCS ast m3 tar!Omst ACCEL. 24 #JC/5CC/ SIC 13 P0 f!04 tSi : 34.246 ffC TIPC RC90l#CD F08 Com*UtaTIJN aNO QUTPUT OF t
a h v i i
. _ , . .,-_,.-.__.m. _ .- . , , _ _ _ . . _ - , ,.e - - ,. _ .,.
- ATTACHMENT TO RESPONSE B-10 January 10/B-10
~
~
Page 3 Resear adming shell 4,, J< ,
- Censer of Mass s, ,
e conser et assidity or Massless Pout z Y S-W) e-
. t<. Rigid consesesse A
X 04-5) d@h- Trsnslaitonal and/or Rotational 7< > Spring
. In:orter 5:ncaire
& f
* + pm ,
m et Radwsste ,g Section en*wn N DW gpy d ir di . ,' ' twt 9 1, , g,, av 14 t
*1 'r 4 N' Shie AU
# 4 m r 8 & Podestal ' #'
gJ. - " ]~4/ N ",' Mt-wr a ater als
-f a, ..
. In
,,, ,3, a .
4.
-a D
=
ho
'>M A' if,mM mi dM .
N' #' M1 (, ,* ' 5tQ D' , y
* , htMca
- as
., *p a,, a ,, u, lat t
, , on, . g o , rt
=%",
l,a, a . 4
,a
$m
$'T
,,, rv or, a If r
n m~ of '
':13 pp) M6 g Y m up, f 2 y6 34t y, wo 'e j"
,, m. ,#,.
,,g. 4 4 s* '
4' ' 4 :n l aper - #11741 omr ap
# j e -
Base node of the
~ Reactor Building model Y
REACTOR BUILDING MATHEMATICAL MODEL
l l ATTACHMENT TO RESPONSE B-10 January 10/B-10 Page 4 a .ses sa see, .. mtst accttesat:Cm passe 6e ovneta coneont=t stat sr ' 4.327E-02 sette easieve rad /sec/sec its 1 s.eart.ee t .a s t t.e v alt i s. stet.et a.ga essa tai a t ste. iit i .e. .s. e. !t . a ct.t. . a. sit..e'. 1.035E+01 sec
-i:1 ie i 1
MPEtt. m 'v:'a.iln.ir v.. m..et. e .... C... r i..: i.0,.
- i. i,C...
i
. . i. i. ., .C . . .
i i
. , t. .
.. . i..
t..i
,. . 2.et...
.i ..t.. .. . ,C 31
.. .. .it.t i.
i... t.
.....t..
.ii.,t.t..
i .
,, i t. . ..t..
e, ..
.t
.I ,
.....t...
... .C.C .t.t ii.,,,c..i.
..t..i.f t ....
t es I t.29tteet 1.93steet it I letsit*tt 1 931t*01
,#2 4 i R ede tt ete 4 438t*04 1 1.ttitect 1 081Cett ti t f.tett.te 1. alit *01 44 4 8.548t*00 te334t*01 et 4 8.801C*SS 1 837t*01 64 1 1.ffet.00 1 930C+41 65 l I.748tett 1.98tt.01 if 1 9. 2 2 tt
- 00 teO28t*El 33 & R.182C*04 1 430C 04 to 1 8.If6tett 1 3 3 0t.'01 ft I feefftett 1.C31teet Se i f.20t(*80 1 13 13 1 1 18 8C .64 8.SJ.5t*01 t*01 St 1 4.68!E*00 1 939C+01 ff I f.etit.$t 1.030tett et i f.160t*00 1.030t*01 41 1 1.t!!!+61 1 029tett 44 1 9 514tett 1.0 39C e 01 e! t Gettiteet 1 0398 08 ei t 9.?9ffete 1.0318 08 41 8 8.ifttett 1.tttC.41 44 4 4.344t+00 1 0 90C *01 21 1 1 011tett 1 0!! test t
2 1 let!?telt 1.028tett i 3 I 1.189t.te 1 035t.01 l Je 4 9.et6tese 1 0 3 9t *01 fl 1 f.eeltete 1 839t*01 It 1 1.349tett 1.e!It*01 21 1 1.C6 8t et t ^ ~ 1 039t *S1 " ~ 38 4 S eetatete Se440Cett 2, t 1 10ft+01 leettteet 24 1 1.ilitett 1.931t*01 J. I 1.98ttatt 1 439tett
.! 1 4.40ete43 lediate01 ff 1 1 31 t t.01 1 0!ltett 21 1 1 13ILt91 1 9.191941 -
t7 1 0.878t*89 1 199t.01 le a 8.48Pf*84 1.w!If*01
- t. 1.iees.et 1.e 39t eet 18 ? lei!!!*tt 1.12*F.81 l' 1 te78C'*Cl B. f68 08
- 8. I l.4 8et *44 4.eJet*84 11 1 1 213t 01 1 0 30C 01 e i 1.ef!t*03 1.129t*01 0 1 1.et2te41 1.028te41 1 1 1 423Cett 1 128Cett a t f.elefeel lesstreel
- I t.9ttlett 1.P!ft*01 I 2.etit*01 1.n!2 test
. I 2.lftt.t! 8 922t*01 4 4 2 233t*81 1 0 32t.01
ATTACHMENT TO RESPONSE B-10 January 10/B-10 Page 5 E=sw=* it - h d I i
; ,2sav-0 3 EMBER *
! .- g....
i.l ; ,; - 130-100 !) j: 2-G , y ? , a t . y - 3 '.o* t. p 3 EMBER 107-156 ,1 A [ : t f ,.
.- Typical vall:;
acting at stiffeners ij
.[ ;....,., 'h -
lI i on the tct
' p.v/
/ 4838 4* T.
h \
'... ~.
l) *II', : , l .:rej t
'd i\ T. W ss e
* >* l -
sa=s1'fi! s;
~
l \
\
s
\ ,, d.y/'
1
// I i -
! .\ MEMBE ; s' .
\
l I 08-109 i E f4M ~ d l M* ,
,' h !
) lk i _ .i
; .z, . ::w e c- we "
! REACTOR BUILDING PLAN AT ELEVATION 54' - 0" 1 FIGURE C-1 ( l
Response to NRC Audit , Meeting Date: January 10, 1984 Question NO.: B.12 QUESTION: Summary of events, including dates, concerning the drying and wetting effect on Vincentown. RES PONSE: The construction sequence for the excavation to the Vincentown formation and the protection of the Vincentown are as follows:
. Hydraulic dredging between March 23, 1976 and October 29, 1976.
. Dewatering of excavation complete January 11, 1977.
. Dental work to remove dredge spoils complete April 7, 1977
. Immediately following the dental work, the competent Vincentown formation was inspected and accepted by soil engineer. The surface was surveyed and covered with backfill material to protect the Vincentown from freezing.
. Thickness of backfill was monitored for frost penetration during winter.
. Mud mat was placed between April 1977 and August 1977 The above operations protected the Vincentown formation against wetting and drying conditions.
The response to Question 241.15 will be revised to include the above information. B.12-1
6 .~t 4 ! .i !
; Response to NRC Audit .i. '
Meeting Date: January 10, 1984 j Question No.: B.13 1 QUESTION: , ! Provide detailed information on power block settlement monitoring including reference points and settlement monuments. I
RESPONSE
[ The Hope Creek settlement bench mark monuments were installed in
! the early months of 1974, prior to the start of construction at I the HCGS. The monuments are 12-3/4 in, diameter steel pipe piles driven into Vincentown formation at elevation 35 feet (PSD) and i filled with concrete. The bench mark monuments are shown in the attached Figure 1.
{' 3 The line and level for these monuments was established from the l: master bench at the adjoining Salem Generating Station. A level
- check was performed in 1979 between the HCGS master bench (BM-A) and the master bench at Salem. The elevation was within 0.004 l -feet or less than 1/16-in. Subsequently, the master bench at l Salem was destroyed.
i' Since 1979, bench marks BM-B, D and F have been used to verify the elevation of the HCGS master bench BM-A. These bench marks are close enough to detect a small movement in the master bench. The master bench has been used to determine the elevation of the settlement markers which have been installed in the power block. The settlement readings have been obtained periodically during the construction of the power block. A plot of these level readings are shown in the response to FSAR Question 241.25. All level readings are obtained running level circuits using optical survey equipment. I l K4/63 B.13
'l c
g-
,,n_4 -
i
. ,i .-.
_, , i
.... .- i._j -i i
__ _1.-_ t.m 1 I. t i
*l r . . u.i ; '
! '~.,
.r i . . _ . 1; Ln ;\rl ; ; '. .
I !,
- r. i 11 w ii Qa m .e . . . . . i
. .. g m ; :- ..
p; i
*< l
{ f! ra w n d,l, df
't .
, um , w .
s 5Wn
=
l ! . _.. T ; A
=_
9-ya=-.. a- -
; x,. 4, 3g c. r _.,, =
4 '
= v - ; +hg -%W, 18 o8 .~ I 't
!~ , Lf" ., . y-, ! ers t )
gws [ 7, [
, ,.- ,, , r - mp:. i !.U
,u ; ,
I.3. ..
. e
*-~ ' .
,! ,+ j ,, p- . . . '.- . p J -( t. gj. <p [< --- -
_. c E,._.75 gn s. . .
= _
; -(q $,.y,r..).y[ ,
1, 9 c x x e R ii8 .a
? J pax = s .b.-- =! +
/ Yl i' .,; P
,j l
,, ,)
3*:*:foy \~f-3 /
- ~
g sm=, w ,-ww-
. --.-- = zz r
l t y ,.. 7 /,/ ,
;w.m ;
3-l L.44 L2.2
.l.
"A- <*
. ,u,. , , ,,
.gi afg--
N.:n"g,h'*, e~ L 4 ~ ~. /p ;
>k --
l :~ :. f ]
. .m . .#< '
..-_.._.,g- y - - . .
BM ,. ">80 8 4 gI 'O l q _ . I _ (3:;g=,. t i V > 1 -=
- g i Id W8 8 0 a.4 .i s_, - c.
\ gaggg, 3
s l
. . _ . _ . .__ } f . . _ . _ _ . . .
4 _
. . } ..=
I., g g
. s. i. a. f31 FIGURE 1 BENCH MARK MONUMENTS
l Response to NRC Audit l
. Meeting Date: January 11, 1984 Question No.: A.2 r
QUESTION: Review the liquef action analysis for service water pipeline to check f actor of safety of river bottom sands and basal sands. Also, check pore pressure buildup in hydraulic fill.
RESPONSE
As discussed in the response to Item A-15 of the January 10, 1984 meeting, based on various methods of analyses (Ref. 2.5-79 and 2.5-114), the factor of safety against liquefaction of the river bottom sands is generally well above unity. The hydraulic fill materials are primarily cohesive, highly plastic, and will not be susceptible to liquef action. (FSAR Section 2.5.4.8.3). As a result of the dynamic loading during an SSE, however, the pore pressure in the hydraulic fill will rise above the initial hydrostatic conditions. The maximum pore pressure increase in the river bottom sands and the hydraulic fill is equal to the corresponding ef fective vertical stress. Since the effective vertical stress in the hydraulic fill is less than that in the river bottom sands, it is unlikely that the excess pore pressure in the hydraulic fill would be large enough to cause liquefaction of the river bottom sana. Therefore, the pore pressure buildup in the hydraulic fill will not af fect the previous conclusions regarding the liquef action potential of the river bottom sands.
FILE ~2 44'4 - I'42 10 l% 54) SUBJECT P% M IMP Chk L.11 wtf L - Dfi A % SHEET # OF / r 1.,pffcgr Totek4 cr Ove P. oho- Ak 9vp%$or c:? Txfe, c7 Schy (a)edpRn hm W4.a L % + -t e8 CO
**d-y * : _ . . _ _
;?eh to AAARevd 4de C+rwWp EvoA.Jea vepak ,
b<caA 19 Sc , ee?-camy 25-79, WC. T , Ed I . m.
.$ $ 'TMG'- 1 V'sM -thc. 5 Q Ao-n qw jQ Li tu 4 yck.
p Toldsk'ef EvaA4'o- ;v>- 9-)tu%scob a .< x , l VGAc 5% C? k g. 0 OLbce1- Je> bW' -t 75/, e.? C e_ G he %J weit en F-G1w 4 -2 ett Wew.12 62*d-g gt.ge,A 4g g g t Q. Y A ~I'vec MM ' . M to c4(rny.iwicL,
- Fvce T-ieDck" cdk eu , % e-va.Av._ ( e feche e ~R 4fvw._ m h- poMull h . L ._. s c> cou. em~ upu ) .:.o
)8 Lo ys 'lk.Zo CHv & S Lx'CN SL5 N Od3 e()ch ec_.l, v.- M sfv w w 6.o um n %. dom Gd EexA on T-i -fr-Tc)A c.f %'m p.5')6,%
a</rqc s%. gua_ vok % 2p.c - e&,o.g & c% .h5op-
--<n tt-<. o af~ boh% re h
%,?crt %c pr(xage 5 % sfy k ( )
& Cx =
l Z{'
=
hG' }y, $ , q ' c+vaksfehi 5'f-go twa ! $ = o-99 x o . r,7 x 13:Le h'- 5 97f kcf gO wWA L eW Rt to 2'p =9309)g a
- ys 0E "Tak_4 .:2.
l 5 7eq*-8 65 T m = 1 fS. (, PC (.AM we 46~ 4ec. l 5$$ & N u te d % 4 .c ' h. d e d %%" hk .h &c dh. t.e c % I-b % is M . 1L-e. Wchr< q sQ I- %qu so cM,1) Ps = 4 ctch-
= 6& 1 cra Y n "-%& A ,-
= 3 ~'2 5
% m.0 _ ... ..
..,...n, ... ~ u.....
p-s, g h& M ys 3 y <p.,,
ym. - i l TABLE 4-2 (Continued) 4 i T Seismic-T a = Il T I T Element Soil fc h cyclic max eq = 0.65 Induced No. Type (psf) (psf) fc (psf) (psf) (psf) T*** F.S. Strain (8) 111,132 H.F. 1273. 4.7 0.004 293.9 269.1 174.9 1.68 + .23 112,131 H.F. 1246. 5.6 0.004 287.6 190.6 123.9 2.32 + .12 113,130 H.F. 1330. 9.2 0.007 307.0 128.9 83.5 3.66 _I .07
- 114,129 H.F. 1446. 27.0 0.019 333.8 136.0 88.4 3.78 + .07
- 115,128 H.F. 1750. 19.5 0.011 404.0 104.1 67.7 5.97 f; .04
- 116,127 H.F. 1601, 25.2 0.016 369.6 73.2 47.6 7.77 f; .03 1 117,126 B.F. 2203. 65.8 0.030 923.4 495.7 322.2 2.87 + .15 118,125 B.F. 2009. 9.4 0.005 779.9 668.2 434.3 1.80 + .50 t 119,124 B.F. 2045. 39.2 0.019 829.3 670.0 435.5 1.90 I .44 1 di 120,123 B.F. 2058. 8.4 0.004 796.4 590.3 383.7 2.08 T .33 y 121,122 B.F. 2055. 5.8 0.003 792.6 560.3 364.2 2.18 T_ . 3 1 I
133,154 H.F. 1508. 6.3 0.004 348.1 293.0 190.5 1.83 + .18 134,153 H.F. 1496. 3.5 0.002 345.4 241.6 157.0 2.20 I .13 135,152 H.F. 1540. 31.3 0.020 355.5 211.9 137.7 2.58 T .11 136,151 H.F. 1762. 55.4 0.031 406.8 198.2 128.8 3.16 I .08 I 137,150 H.F. 1821. 14.3 0.008 420.4 176.2 114.5 3.67 I .07
- 138,149 H.P. 2119. 50.6 0.024 489.2 148.0 96.2 5.08 I .05 i 139,148 H.F. 2181. 60.3 0.028 503.5 126.9 82.5 6.10 I .04 l 140,147 B.F. 3670. 117.9 0.047 1165.5 1121.9 729.2 1.60 I .74 i 141,146 B.F. 2418. 18.8 0.008 947.6 748.5 486.5 '1.95 T .40 i
142,145 B.F. 2519. 20.9 0.008 987.2 704.2 457.7 2.16 I .31 143,144 B.F. 2988. 5.9 0.002 956.6 662.8 430.8 2.22 T .29 i 155,176 R.S. 1822. 1.3 0.001 581.6 320.3 208.2 2.79 I .07 ) 156,175 R.S. 1820. 8.6 0.002 580.9 274.8 178.6 3.25 I .05 l 157,174 R.S. 1891. 47.5 0.025 603.6 272.8 177.3 3T40 + .04 l 158,173 R.S. 2027. 63.5 0.031 647.0 273.6 177.8 3.64 I .04 l 159,172 R.S. 2182. 31.4 0.014 696.5 274.6 178.5 3.90 7 .03 160,171 R.S. 2344. 7.9 0.003 748.2 306.9 195.6 3.83 I .04 161,170 R.S. 2693. 95.1 0.035 859.6 500.5 325.3 2.64 I .08 I k
A.
~1 I- - - .-. -- E I
. . . . . , . . -, , .. , . .e ,, ,,
) at it a J_ j q e 1.. na As e n am sF W ** as m. ma B ==
.,.n,
** *
- af _.h, *-_ ** 8 8
- s * *
- t'_4 I .. * ** =
__'e "es_
.8 e4 he sa av e&*_w,_ic'7m_ _L=
- a s
,a.
so 1 J 9 h a a em h
- ur
,,_ se
- w .a _m__ ._= m 4 ,_.=_ n ,_ _,e, .m es. mvenna.c en s .
= .. e ee , es. .. ..e _.m 2._,_ese 4 em 4.".
een - sN e
., 40 ... en en en en
- e. _
- e. .. ,e .. .- [ ..e e. sw e., en .4 -
. i . . .
ei .
.. .ejt ..e .,e
][ .. .,. -. .e. . , .." ~~ C
~~
.- -e. .- aa ' - .. ..e... .<. e o. . . . .
eN e4 pq ID eGe *W s.4 OSb stk om es a4 ete et ses ow see em em se out 8W
.g e _ _ . .. _ _ . . - - -.
og StA5 904G Ct a t se age seg 388 388 pop set att set sob 884 8'S 58 8' 8
#et #et seg een #st Se9 Gene stOS C4 47 885 ee s - .. . _ . .. .-- . .- . - - .
NG NE 850 854 83% Ost ass  #M se FIS PW e49 #S in se #W IM NW anB M8 448 ese sepeeCtettesi Gent
- 8ee set se one see se, ns age sga ce ne su na ase me me ses me see me uset t e Oeg sasse ms
.se e I
seg as up as4 800 #5 9M 94 374 #ph an e st app 34 #AS sh 598 sh $3 OD 'E' " t g . ., I 3 m = e. ,. = ,. r= .. ,. . e w up - .- . . _ . _ - . . .- . .. ~_ . . . 33 tot pt pf M9 pe pt get PF tag MS N0 ges 550 33 ges pg est gp est 84
- g; _. .. _ .
. . . _ . , .e-... . ,
s._-_ . SSB 99EC9 9 TOE 5 Gag SM 999 99 SM 95 tef as het the #8 W8 pt the 99 944 #7 DS DO M E' W8euCS D OSS $849 8'8 ee - __ __ . _ . - - , . . - . . <. 369 ht me Rh 94F geS M9 she Ehe ma at et en tan op pg 10 9 De tyg og pt aft g; . . - - _ . ~ _ _ _. -. . . _ . . h m m ou em 34 m se e p. e. e. . e, inn p. m = no
- 8*
. I I
FINITE ELEMENT MESH FOR PROFILE B-B e w ,. e w
^ ^
e
*se seen uma
.u m as s.on..e e smes
*=e.se .es e og ess eew e . ems m e upne
.soes .s.a m en.eem **"a** -*- *
'* sesees emme e e.maum am euse mee WeES #4 es e.4eautme eu.s sepee MMO t h 'R eett
. 8
- I I
1.4 L 1.2 i
.R a 1 .0 -
13 e I l
, 0.8 0
f* m E l. y 0.6 3 0 5$ 'N g u
^
" 0.4 '-
! I X t- . L 0.2 . 0 100 1 5 NUMBER OF CYCLES TO CAUSE t 2 5% AXI AL STRAIN SYMBOL M e;cte d SAMPLE DEPTH UC BORING
!2.5% AXI AL (P.S.I.)
NO. NO. (FT) STRAIN NH Sff AB-1 12 35 11 gli A4 G 11 $2,$' ji q;
& AB-1A E AB-IA 12 38 11 13
$* AB-1 12 35 11 W
- RI.CONSTITUIED SAMPLE
** Be = EFFECTIVE CONFINING STRESS DYNAMIC STRENGTHS - RIVER BOTTOM SANDS omanes a .
FIGURE A-19A
Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: Janua ry 11, 1984 Question No.: A.3 QUESTION: Review the power block settlement records in terms of loads and soil properties to explain observed settlements in the power block area.
RESPONSE
INTRODUCTION The response to Question 241.25 contains plots of load and settle-ment vs. time. This information has been reviewed using revised data which includes a reduction in the load resulting from the rise in the water table. The mat supporting the power block is divided into five sections and an average load versus time has been plotted for each section. The settlement data for each marker are plotted on a curve beneath the load versus time curve corresponding to the portion of the mat in which the marker is located. All of the markers are located at the edge of the individual mats. The read-ings are referred to permanent remote benches established on concrete-tilled pipe pilea driven into the Vincentown Formation. The settlement markers, originally established on the mats have bee n transferred as construction progressed to other points higher on the structure. APPROACH The approach taken to review the data was to plot the marker loca-tions on one plan and redisplay the load curves separated from the marker curves (there are really only five different load curves). The data for each settlement marker was then evaluated against the load curves for the mat in which it is located plus the adjacent mats. These mats are separated by a 2-in, seismic gap in the upper 10 feet of the mat. The bottom four feet is solid concrete through-out the entire mat. Each marker was categorized as to location (i.e. , corner, edge , and center) . The net settlement of each marker was then displayed in a graph with settlement vs. location. It would be expected that the larger settlements would occur in the center with the small settlement at the corner and intermediate settlements along the edge. In addition, markers located on separate mats but in very close proximity (e.g., 15 and 4 were compared ) . The soil properties for the Vincentown were reviewed to confirm that there are no trends distinguishable in a horizontal direction (Ref. 2.5-57, -58, -59). A.3-1 l
c DISCUSSION Accuracy of Data A review of the settlement data indicates many instances of reve rs e movement on the order of 1/8 to 1/4 inch over a period of three months. There is no indication that the load has undergone a similar reversal and to the contrary, except for sudden changes in ground water level this could not be pos s ible . The re fo re , these reversals in settlement suggest an error in the survey or some form of bias. This is very likely given the conditions under which the surveys were made. Because of this and the complete lack of response of the extensometer af ter times ranging from July 19 77 to J une 1979 we conclude that the extensometer data is not reliable and the optic survey has an error band of +1/4 in. Therefore, one is limited to evaluating general trends in these data. In spite of these shortcomings we believe certain observations can be made and conclusions can be drawn. Settlement Versus Load With the exception of markers 16, 18, a nd 19, all marke rs were found to respond relatively well in comparison with the applied load. Settlements usually occur as the load is applied. In the cases of 16, 18, and 19, there appears to be an over response to a load on the base mat. However, when surrounding backfill loads are taken into account the settlements seem reasonable. Comparison of Adjacent Sett1 ment Markers Five pairs of settlement markers located at the edge of the la rge mat were compared . In all cases they respond very similarly to the loads applied and net settlement is very close . A pair of markers located near the center of the slab were also compared and were very similar in response to the loads applied. A group of four markers in very close proximity but located on four dif ferent mats were also compared and responses were similar to the loads applied and generally were directly proportional to the load ve rsus the settlement. Settlement Versus Location Within the Mat As expected there is a rough general trend in magnitude of settle-ment with the lower settlements being observed in the corner markers and the higher settlements at the center. There is a greater range of settlement along the edge because of the great variation in load on the individual mats. A . 3- 2 l
CONCLUSIONS In general, the settlement markers are behaving as expected and respond to the applied loads. All of the settlements recorded are well within those predicted including 16, 18, a nd 19. Settlement markers will continue to be monitored to evaluate the observed trend and to evaluate any heave that might result from raising the water table. a p A.3-3
Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: Janua ry 11, 1984 Question No.: A.4 QUESTION: Current settlement calculations for'the service water pipe are based on average soil properties. Provide additional settlement estimates using actual soil properties a t various sections along length of service water pipe line. R3SPONSE: A res por se to the above question will be provided in Aprii 1984. A.4-1
Response to NRC Audit Meeting Da te : Ja nua ry 11, 1984 Question No.: A.6 QUESTION: Concerning FSAR Tables 2.5-13 and 2.5-14, cla ri f y for Boring 206, Samples 10A through.10C, the shear modulus and shear strain values indicated in these tables. RESPONSE: Sam ple 10 of Boring 206 spans the contact between the Kirkwood clays and basal sands. Tables 2.5-13 and 2.5-14 will be revised to delete sample 10A from Table 2.5-13, and to delete Samples 10B and 10C from Table 2.5-14. The response to question 241.9 will be revised to include this information. A.6-1
' Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: _ January 11, 1984 Question No.: A.8 QUESTION:
Are BSAP element size limitations satisfied for the foundation mat model and the'drywell shield wall model.
RESPONSE
The foundation mat model and the drywell shield wall model were analyzed using computer program BSAP. The isoparametric brick element was used in these models. The accuracy of the analysis results for these models depends on the element mesh size or the number of elements used in the high stress areas. Based on a preliminary analysis of the foundation mat, areas of high soil pressure were determined and the final foundation mat model used a finer mesh in these areas of higher stress to ensure better accuracy of the analysis results.
- l f
I I A.8-1 l t
Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: January 11, 1984 Question No.: A-9 QUESTION: Describe the seismic modeling of the drywell shield wall. RESPONSE: The seismic modeling of the drywell shield wall follows the general procedure used in modeling the Reactor Build-ing. This procedure is described in detail in Pages 1, 2 and 3 of the attachment (
Reference:
Hope Creek Seismic Structural Report No. SED-76-017, Revision 5). In modeling the active structural walls and columns between any two floor levels, openings in the walls are not modelled and a continuous system is assumed. The effect of these openings is local and has negligible impact on the overall structural behavior. To illustrate this, the large equipment hatch openings at elevation 107' of the Reactor Building have been selected. There are two hatch openings, each with a diameter of 13 feet, at this elevation. As observed from the attached calculation, the effect of ignoring these two large openings on the beam stiffness is only 7%. In fact, this effect could be further reduced if the following conservatisms are excluded from the attached calculation: a) These openings are reinforced by reinforcing steels and sleeves. Stiffness contributions from these reinforce-ments have not been included. b) The maximum reduction in shear area due to the openings is conservatively assumed for the full length of the diameter (13 feet) of the openings. In fact, the average shear area reduction for the full length of the diameter is considerably less. l Based on the above discussion, it is determined that the
- effect of openings on the structral properties is negligible.
l-i l l L
Elev. 132 I A 37 l l
., c.
A S2 L2 = Diameter of openings El ev . 102 _' ,, ., ,, 2 AA = Reduction in shear area due to openings = 138.0 ft 2 A37 = 862.3 ft Ly = 30' - L2 = 17 ' 2 AS2 = AS1 - AA = 724. 3 f t L = 13' 2 ' ! A G 33 l K = Stiffness ignoring openings = , = 28.7 G 2 K' = Stiffness considering openings = G + = 26.6 G K'/K = 0.93 l January 11/A-9 Pa ge 2
1
-ATTACHMENT TO RESPONSE A-9 January 11/A-9 Page 1 Horizontal and Vertical Lumped Mass Model The mathematical model used to compute horizontal response and vertical wall response consists of lumped masses connected by massless elastic structural elements. The structural elements connecting two adjacent
- floors were located at the center of rigidity of the cross-section, and the lumped masses were located at the center of mass of each floor level.
. To compute element flexibility representing walls between two floor levels, . the structural walls and steel columns were assumed to deform in shear and bending, with the concrete floor slabs acting as rigid diaphragms. However, in the case of certain frame structures, such as the Turbine Building. superstructures, actual flexibility of the floor was considered in the calculation of properties. Each vertical member between two floors provided stiffness contributions corresponding to an axial area, two shear areas, two area moments of inertia, and a torsional inertia
, representing the actual structural member between the elevations of the two nodes.
Masses were computed at each mass point by considering the weights of
, 'the floor, the equipment located on the floor, the structural component attached to the floor, and the tributary weights of walls above and below each floor. Locations of centers of. mass were obtained by computing
< a weighted average (centroid) of the centers of mass of the floor slabs, equipment and tributary masses of the walls above and below the floor. Mass moments of inertia through the center of mass were computed about l the north-south, east-west, and vertical axes. The active structural walls between any two floor levels were represented by a vertical massless elastic structural members with equivalent cross-section properties corresponding to axial, bending, shearing, and torsional i deformations. The computational procedures used in determining the equivalent elastic member properties may be summarized as follows:
- 1. The axial area was computed as the sum of the cross-sectional areas of all active structural walls and steel columns.
- 2. Area moments of inertia and shear areas were computed based on the r
- assumption that the floor diaphragms are infinitely rigid. The
!. stiffness of each active structural wall and column was summed using the following relationship: l-
January 11/A-9 Page 2 12EI '
- 3 L (1 g) 12EI 9= 2 g GA v
resulting in a combined stiffness of all walls and columns: K tot
= Ik j Shear areas along north-south and east-west axes were obtained for each wall using the assumption that walls perpendicular to the axis
. under consideration do not contribute to' shear stiffness. Based on a finite element study of the Reactor Building perimeter walls,
.where unit displacements were applied at the floor elevations, it was found that for walls parallel to the seismic motion, an area factor of 1.0 should be used. A shear factor of 0.5 is used for
~
circullar walls. Total crea. moments of inertia and shear areas were then~ computed such that the total' stiffness (Ktot) was reproduced. This was achieved by~ computing an area moment of inertia, including cross walls, for the entire system and then back-substituting to compute total shear area: 12EI tot K tot
- L 3(1,gtot) 12EI tot 2
Etot " LGA v, tot
- 3. The center of rigidity fcr each cross-section was obtained either by calculating the centroidff the effective shear areas in the north-south and east-west directions, or by the procedures described in Reference 1 and-2, as appropriate.
- 4. The torsion constant was obtained by calculating the torque acting at the center of rigidity due to the forces generated in individual structural elements when a unit rotation is applied at the center of rigidity. The torsion is applied at'the center of rigidity. The torsion constant was obtained as the ratio of the torque multiplied by the height between the floor levels to the shear modulus.
s r$- g.- % - --
- v. -.r - -. -
January 11/A-9 Page 3
References:
- 1. Peery, D.J., Aircraft Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1950.
!' 2. Przemieniecki, J.S., Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.
Response to NRC Audit Meeting Da'te: January 11, 1984 Question No.: A-12 QUESTION: Justify the 12 Hz. cut-off frequency for SSI analysis. RESPONSE: Two independent studies have been performed t9 justify the 12 Hz. cut-off frequency: a design base evaluation performed by Impell and a confirmatory evaluation by Bechtel. These studies are described separately below. A. DESIGN BASE ANALYSIS The selection of a cut-off frequency value was based on two primary considerations:
- 1. For the particular Hope Creek site, the evaluation of the highest shear wave frequency that can .
realistically be tr;nsmitted through the soil medium.
- 2. The contribution of the high frequency components of the input free-field (control) motion on the resultant structural response.
DECONVOLUTION ANALYSIS
-Two cut-off frequency values were selected for consideration and study: 12 anf 20 Hz. An operating basis earthquake was selected for the study, due to its lower peak acceleration level. Because of the nonlineer characteristics of the soil, the lower excitation level will result in stiffer soil properties than for the SSE level excitation, with the soil thus capable of tram mitting higher frequency
- waves. This case will then be more critical for establishing I
a cut-off frequency value than the SSE. A' soil column, representing the Hope Creek free-field soil properties, was first constructed. The mesh refinement was selected such that a wave frequency of 20 Hz. could be transmitted without loss of numerical accuracy. A schematic representation of the ' soil column model is presented in Figure 1. The free-field soil column is composed of a series of two-dimensional plane strain elements of unit width modeling the soil properties. The dimensions of the soil column extend between elevations 102.0 feet, corresponding to the elevation-at finished grade for the Hope Creek
. site, down to elevation -300.0 feet, a depth found to be sufficiently deep to include all significant soil-structure interaction effects.
January 11/A-12 Page 2 Using the above free-field soil column, a deconvolution analysis of the OBE Regulatory Guide 1.60 synthetic time-history was performed for both 12 and 20 Hz. cut-off frequency values. This Regulatory Guide control motion was input at elevation 40.0 feet, corresponding to the elevation of the bottom of the foundation base mats for the power block area. Deconvoluted time-history response was obtained at the base of the soil column model, corresponding to elevation -300.0 feet. S0ll-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS A simplified soil-structure model was developed for the cut-off frequency study. The model consists of a single soil column, attached to a series of single-degree-of-freedom oscillators representing the Reactor Building structure. A sketch of the model, with the corresponding soil and structural properties, can be seen in Figures 2 and 3. As in the case of the deconvolution analysis, the soil properties were modeled by a series of two-dimensional plane strain elements of unit width. The soil elements extend from elevation -300.0 feet to elevation 40.0 feet, corresponding to the elevation at the bottom of the foundation base mat. One additional plane strain element was placed between elevations 40.0 feet and 54.0 feet, to simulate the base mat properties. The Reactor Building dynamic properties for the N-S modes with frequencies up to 20 Hz. were duplicated by a series of single-degree-of-freedom oscillators. The mass properties of these oscillators are drawn from the modal effective mass calculation of the detailed model. A soil-structure interaction analysis was performed for l both a 12 and 20 Hz. cut-off. frequency value. The input i motions obtained from the deconvolution analyses, were l input at elevation -300.0 feet of the simplified interaction ! model. Using a system direct integration technique, a i time-history analysis of the soil-structure system was performed, with time-histories of acceleration being obtained at the base mat level. An evaluation of the l influence of the cut-off frequency was obtained by I comparison of the derived base mat response spectra for each of the cut-off frequencies. l i 9
January 11/A-12 Page 3 As demonstrated by Figure 4, the base mat response for the two cut-off frequencies are essentially identical for the frequency range below 12 Hz. For the frequency range of 12 to 20 Hz., however, the response at the base mat does diverge somewhat between the two cut-off frequencies. The 20 Hz. cut-off response exhibits a number of minor peaks, as a result of high frequency components of the bedrock motion. The 12 Hz. cut-off analysis, on the other hand, exhibits a non-amplified response beyond 12 Hz., resulting in a constant spectral acceleration. In order to verify the adequacy of the simplified model, a comparison with a detailed interaction model was made. A comparison of Figures 4 and 5 reveals that the motion l at the base mat for the~ detailed and simplified models exhibit very similar trends, both with regard to the spectral peak and overall shape of the curves. SEISMIC STRUCTURAL-ANALYSIS In order to identify the significance of the difference in base mat motion for the cut-off frequencies en the structural response of the Reactor Building, a seismic
-structural analysis of the Reactor Building was performed using the detailed three-dimensional model.
Using the basemat motions derived from the simplified interaction analyses for a 12 and 20 Hz. cut-off frequency, a modal time-history analysis of the Reactor Building was performed. Response spectra at selected elevations were computed from the resultant floor excitations, and a comparison of the results derived from the two cut-off frequencies was performed. I
January 11/A-12 Page 4 Figures 6 through 8 present response maxima for shear, moment and torque in the drywell of the Reactor Building, when subjected to each of the base mat excitations. The drywell was selected for comparison of cut-off frequency effects because it is a portion of the reactor pressure boundary, and the design of this structure is particularly critical. The comparison of results for the drywell is representative of other portions of the structure as well. As can be seen from these plots, the response maxima of the structure are virtually independent of the high frequency acceleration components of the base mat motion. Clearly the shear, moment and torque response values for the structure are essentially identical for the two different cut-off frequencies, indicating a dependance only on the low and mid frequency range of the base mat motions. Response spectra plots at various elevations of the Reactor Building are presented in Figures 9 through 12. As can be seen from these figures, the spectral accelerations in the low and mid frequency range are essentially ident. cal for the two cut-off frequencies. In the frequency range above 12 Hz., there are minor differences at the lower elevations of the Reactor Building, but almost no variation in the upper elevations. For all elevations, the overall trend of the curves is identical, duplicating peak response values and shape of the spectral curves. B. CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS Bechtel also performed a confirmatory independent analysis to evaluate the effect of cut-off frequency on the soil structure interaction analysis results. The North-South soil-structure model was analyzed for the SSE case. The soil model was discretized to have elements which are capable of transmitting frequencies of at least 18 Hz. Two soil-structure interaction analyses, with cut-off frequencies of 12 Hz and 18 Hz, were performed using computer code FLUSH. As shown in the response spectrum comparison plots (Figures 13 to 15), there is practically no effect in increasing the cut-off frequency from 12 Hz to 18 Hz on the response of the soil structure system.
January 11/A-12 Page 5 CONCLUSIONS A study has been performed to evaluate the influence of the cut-off frequency value on the soil-structure interaction analysis and subsequent seismic structural analysis for the Hope Creek site. A comparison of response results for a 12 and 20 Hz. cut-off frequency was made for all facets of the analysis. Comparison of structural res anse results indicates only minor dependence on the higt frequency acceleration components of the input motion, both in the generation of building response maxima and floor response spectra. It would thus be reasonable to assume that an intermediate cut-off frequency between 12 and 20 Hz. would produce only minor deviation from the response results of the 12 Hz cut-off frequency analysis.
- Based on the above considerations, it was found that a cut-off frequency of 12 Hz. for the soil-structure interaction analysis was both physically realistic for the Hope Creek site and, in addition, maintains adequate conservatism with regard to structural response. The use of a 12.Hz. cut-off frequency was thus selected for the Hope Creek analysis.
Furthermore, the adequacy of the 12 Hz cut-off frequency for SSI analysis has been verified by an independent study performed by Bechtel.
,- , . - - - - - , , . - ~ .
.-s- - - - . - - , , -
EL. 102' g4 a 63 22 e 1.591' 2 e 2.5' 5 e4.4' e il 8 e 5.0' t 4 6 e 8.333' o il 5e 10.0' o 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 f 8 7 6 5 l l 4 3 2 I " EL. -300 ' MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF FREE FIELD SOIL COLUMN FOR DECONVOLUTION ANALYSIS FIGURE 1 January 11/A-12
SED-78-117 Revision 0 o
,, y4 EL. */m.o a
Il.o - 3/ ?2
/5 AI 3# 77 pe M l4 % 99999 s un 80 27 28 \' II C
~
gS Ib g,$ 13 14 19. 5 4. O '
=
xA lZ 3& 23 14 . it g 11 b ' et. 40 0 a 41 7* g,p M
//
LE se y SI to h LS 4s fg Wo Q m
'I ## b t' b [&+[ b' 7 N h, M rs n is ? .ss 2-sa ; u. o.e e % s, u ~.
15 //s ~ g y
? Z5 Q 13 /4 4; So %
4 M 48 6
,, ,g 41 tu 23 W~
S 45 4G
'* 22 1 43 4+ Et . - Go . o '
l k ZI 3 6 AI AL l 3 @ h l M # Q S 4 i9 L ~ l 2 31 36 0 3 4 /6 Q
, 25 % ~
u i? '
! aua.uuu, u
' g, 3,,,g 33 34 55..tx,c' MATHEMETICAL MODEL FOR SOIL-STRUCTURE
! INTERACTION ANALITIS l FIGURE 2 Janaury 11/A-12
SED-78-117. R: vision 0 s 76 77 78 79 80 RR f9 Y JL 73 74 Elevation 54.0 feet. 36 71 72 Elevation 40.0 feet. 35 69 70 1.0 ft. L .I r a FREQUENCY MASS PARTICIPATION FACTORS f = 4.11 Hz. My = 21. 07 f = 9. 07 Hz. M = 10.43 2 2 f = 12. 08 Hz. M "
- 3 3 f
4 = 17. 65 Hz. M4 = 0.65 f = .7 Hz. MS = 2.17 5 MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATION OF REACTOR BUILDING FOR SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS , FIGURE 3 January 11/A-12
' j! , ..
d i l 0 I n - i o l s i v I R f f f f ,
, o- o ,
7 1 1 t C u t C u d - 2
- 1 1 8 s s * -
7 p p l A c e / D H 2 0 1 1 E R 1 2 l S T , y C , r E j a u P l n S l a J E l S N O l P ji S g l E - R I l T A t M 1
- S E l P
S C A ( B) G 4 Y ENI E
, C B P l N
O M R U y E U 6A G : Q
- D I E
i F : R t%2 F
- ( :
L d A N l R -- l N O l I T l C A , R l, E t T N l I l D E l I F I l L P M I S t 1 l l
]_____.... . .___ _
o 0 0 0 8 2 4 8
- s. e. -
- t L o D 0 o zS Ejdn ", o
SED-78-117, Revi. i:n 0 DETAILEbINTERACTION ANALYSIS: N-S OBE BASE MAT RESPONSE SPECTRUM (2% DAMPING) n .s0_ FIGURE 5
=pm L .20_
1 g ..
- 0.30 _
Z .. i O M .. E .. tt ! w .. w 0.00 _ U U . G 0.30 _
.m.
o.oo : : : : ' i : l:0.5 l l j i 'o ' ' ' ' ' o.l. o!2 t! : : : : 2!O I 5!O ' '!'t0.0 21:.0 i:i : 5t i .0 FREQUENCY ICPSI January 11/A-12
190- L! l l ! l 180- : , , l l 170- _ , , I 12 CPS CUTOFF FREQ. 1 '2l0 CPS'CUTbFFFREQ. 160-- , i l
- i 150-J l 3 !I
' ij l
f 140- ; 1 2 ; , H I l 130-- ,: . l _ l w 120= i i l 110-- i l l 100= t 90- :, i l l 80 i i i i i i i i o o o o o o o o o
- N m v SHEAR, KIPS l
i SHEAR RESPONSE MAXIMA FOR ORYWELL 1 FIGURE 6 JANUARY 11/A-12 1
l' 190 180 - \
'70 i !
-- L. 12 CPS CUTOFF FREQ.
\ ,' 20jCPb CdiOFf' FREQ) 160 -
150
\i.
s 140 - I'. \ T 5 \ p l%
< 130 t.0 '
W \ 120 - gj p i 110 -
'\
l 100 - INN
\
90 - w%< ' I I I I I i ! 80 i i i i 4 6 & 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ? 8 8 e S 2 2 MOMENTS, KIPS-FT. MOMENT RESPONSE MAXIMA FOR DRYWELL l FIGURE 7 1
- JANUARY 11/A-12 u
I 190- ; , ; f l 1 l 180- , l I l i 170 l l i , i i I I I 12 CPS CUTOEF EREO. 180 !
'20 CPS CbTONF NREd.
150 l u_ i z
- 140= l' o
e
- g. 130 w i J
w .. 120-l 110-l 100-i l 90- . i l l l l l 80 i i i o o o o 8 8 m 8 en TORSION, KIPS-FT. TORSION RESPONSE MAXIMA FOR ORYWELL FIGURE 8 JANUARY 11/A-12
o. 0 j-5t n } o i s t i v - e l R f f 2
. f f 1 7 oo :
1 - - t t A 1
- uu o. /
8 cc '5 1 1 7 . . - 2
- z z y D I t I I : r a
E 20 u S 1 2 i n a R : J _ I S - o. S D E l
-d i j
I L j . P ~ M j I S o O : s _ T l E h 0 1 1 0 S - l P E C S - ( N t O) Y PG 9 o C S N I '! N E P E E R EA M R U
+t i
U Q E BD G I
- R O% 2 F F S(
N l. o
- t S l' 4 -
l 1 - l V E j L E s G o N i I { D - L : I U B . R O C'I I T C e A -o E i R - i t i
. _ _ - _ o 0
0 0 o 0 8 8
6 a -
- t. o 3 t 1 l o
- z O l~ m:t j'Uux
. t
)
5 0 I n - o l f i v H e l R ff 7 f f oo
- - I 1 t t 1 uu , 2 - cc ,
1 8 . . f - 7 zz t A _ iI / D l I - 1 E 20 1 2 H 1 S l y A
- r 1
a I u S S f, 7 J n a D l E l I - L l P M l I S , l O - T I E f f U l
- )
D S E l P S C ( N I O) G 0 P N Y SI 1 , C EP N E E RM R - U E D A U I Q B G I - E R D% 2 F i
- F S( t N
7 2 l 6 - 1 l V l E - L l E - G N g-t I D l L t I U - B . l R F O - T - C - R E 1 R - 1 1 l _ - _ _ - ____- _ ~ - - - - ~ _ _ W _ _ _ - - 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 c. c. - 5 4 3 r n 0 5 5=EjjE " t
e o. I4 s 0 l 9 n - t
- {
i s - v e l R ; 7 f f f f o. 1 2 1 o o- Id r 1 t t ; A 8 7 u u /
- R C C ;
1 D I s s 1 E S p p ; y S S c c r 2 0 : a D 1 2 u
- o. n E 1 d a I i J F l I
l L P l N I S l O I! o T s E l U O ; 1 E S S l P N C O ; ( P) Y SG 1 1 o C E RI N I! N E z E P R ; l EM B U ; t n O A G E D I F R F S%- 2 . N( 1 'l ! o t 0 2
. [j V j E
L l E s O po N l u l L , I U _ B .
'I R p O
T C A l. _2 E po R _ g
. _.____}
. . . - _ _ _ _ i_t.
1 . _
. _ o 0 0 0 0 n o 0 0 0 n.
0 o. 1 5 6 4 2 o o- ; e w.1Ina. lJau u m _
0 j ps 0 _ n l i o g i s _ v f f l e f f R oo
. t t 2 7 uu 1 1 cc o. -
1
. . I5 A
- /
8 zz 2 1 7 I I H ; 1 20 ; y D 12 r E ; a S u R g n t a 6 6 _ o. J D l-E I { . L P - I M I II S l. o O T ps L} _ E l 0 ; 0 ) S
.E I P S C N) (
OG 2 PN I 1 Y S P o C E E l. N RM R _z E ED A U g U Q 0 G I g E _ 0 % 2 F ; R ( F S N o n 2 5 2 Y ' I_ E - L lI E s G !!
-o N ;
I _ D j L _ I U i_ B . j R _ O ; T C H t.. E g _o R _ i_ g _ , - - - _ - _ _ , _ - _ _ . _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ i. L t o 0 0 0 0 0 S. 0 0 0 0 0 s o t 8 s 4 f
- c3- zawsc%t c t3.suuq a .a t
!,i i i , l
PERIOD-SEC. . to o 1o 9 o1 0.cl i i i 1. 1 4 i i 17Ti i : i i i ieii e i i e i i 1.5 -- i e i i i i 1 LEGEND 12 HZ
------18 HZ
{__- ; L.._ 7 _. l >
! t t -
i oc kl j 1. 0 -- ---- .- . .. . _ ~ _ - _ . . 4__. _.__ , _._ _ i 9 I p
=c l l n u
O' t tai A ] f , d ___ __ - . . . . _.t...+ _ _ . _ _ . . _ __ _.___ . .__ .. .'. . _ . _ _ _ . _ . O O tt H Il 0.5 --- - - - - - -
----+ - -" -' --
v>
-/
4 h
/ i
.T e $
j __. . _ _ 4 ___ _
, b-
/
/
0.0
/
01 2 4 6 8 3.o 2 4 8 go.o 6 2, 4 6 8 goo f~liEQUENCY-CPS FREOUENCY CUT-OFF STUDY 12 IIZ VS. 18 IIZ REACTOR BUILDING AT EL. 54'-0" N-S, SSE, 2% DAi1 PING FIGURE 13 January 11/A-12
f
- I'Lt:luu.SLC.
D.O I.O 0.1 ' 0.01 Ii ei i i i ! i Tri e i i i ai : : i i s. I 3.0 I 1 I i i l I i e LEGEND 12 HZ
------18 HZ
.__. ..q _ _.. . . _ _ - - -
.. _ + ,.
__. 1 I I I . e i
,g 2. 0 -- --- -"-- - -"--- - - -- -- --" -
i
^
ri O ' P { I m 6
-- .- --,.{ .
. . -- . b O ' ,
o J E l-O y 1. 0 - - - - m :L , l i l -.l L._ I
/p .-.
s - s .s
/
/
f
/
0.0 0.1 2 4 6 8 3o 2 4 6 8 10.0 2 4 6 8 goo Fl(EQllENCY CPS FREQUENCY CUT-OFF STUDY 12 IIZ VS . 18 IIZ REACTOR BUILDING AT EL. 201'-0" N-S, SSE, 2% DAf5 PING FIGURE 14 January 11/A-12
P , _ 1 n _
- 0. I
. e g
0 i i 8 2 i
._ 1 i .
6 A
/ _
ZZ 1 _ i i I I " 1 _ I I _
- y _
i 28 4 r 11 a i D - u _ i N - 4 n
- a E - -
J l G - ^ E - _ i i L - -
~ 2 _
I i a I 1 ' 9 0 I J 3 9 0 l(I-
- h. -
4; Y _ i ~
~ -
l ' 6 D U T 0 5 2G N
^
iI l f'Il I- i. 4 S SZ P I LP
.I l
I C l C F EM A
' l Y- F8 E
S 7 . lj C O1TD 5 1 N T . A % D I _ . E _ ' E O U USG2 _ _ R U IR 2 Q CVN I , G i E . - I P i
. E YZDE F
_ R CI LS I F N IS I E2U
- 0. I i
. _. o, U1B Q
E R-S 1 . - _. g [ R ON
- a. 8 F T
_ . C _. / A i 6 E s R
! ii [
f 4 i
- s i
i 2 I i i 0 0I 1 i
" 1 0
0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0
? 7u NO $" OO $EFOEm
D. Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: January 11, 1984 Question No.: A-13 Question: Provide results of three soil depth mouels for intake structure. Response: Since the intake structure is a considerably smaller structure than the Power Block structures, the depth of significant interaction for the intake structure is expected to be equal or less. To substantiate this, plots of peak shear strain with depth were developed for the following conditions and are shown in page 1 of the attachment:
- 1. Peak shear strain next to structure.
- 2. Peak shear strain 20 feet from structure.
- 3. Peak shear strain in free-field.
The strains converge in the vicinity of elevation - 100 feet (200 foot depth of soil), indicating that no interaction occurs below that depth. Based on this a 300 foot model was used. It is noted that an independent verification soil-structure r interaction analysis for the intake structure is being i performed in response to NRC requested action item A-14 l from the audit meeting on January 11, 1984. This analysis will provide additional verification to the above response. l l I l L
7 f r) ATTACHMENT TO RESPONSE A-13 January 11/A-13 Page 1
._l 1 ' j . _ . __. _ . . . ..:.. 4 _. ;_ . . _ _ ... _ ._ _J.._.
.q.._.____{_._..,....,
100 . ___.s. . a . .. ;. _ .
.j .;.j. _ _ _. ..
, _ _ p .j ._y.. _m.._
=.
_. _ _ _ . __._1_...w .1,_., .,_ ._) _. .
._4 , _ p._ _.q _. {. _ _.y .
,g' . q . __ ...t [ 3. (g-_- _.2 g _-{ .N _. i
,_ .. _{._._j ,__. -
50 a _. :___i _1____.;__... 4__ 4 _ _J .4 _L__ .J. h8 4 0 20--Feet-from 1- stirQBWCZ W-i c~_ . ' - * \ f- ,i_ t _ . i N_. a >
; _ _t Mr e -Field =- ---+--
i - - -. /._4. _ i I
/ . _' ._.
i j... 0 j_
.y . , . _ _ . .
_ )_._ .. .; ._ y_ , _ a ... i 4.! __ _j _._ .
. _ . . .. .... .t._ . ... . _ ..- __ . _.._.
_1.{.. q.. ,
.g. _
o o -50 s. A _....__ 2
.._q _ ..
{ .. I .._. _ _ . __.. . i. _ _.. ._ . . _ .. . I __ _ . . . . e
,_ [ ..q _.
o . _ . . .. . sa e n
... . y . _ . _ _ _ _ .
.o -100 .
_. s . q ...._ . _ _ .. . . . _____.. u ... . . _ ._ . i i _.
. ,t _ . .
- .l ..a _
_{ j .__. . _ . ,
; , 1- - -
_ . .Z. ~ _a
- 6 ".
4_f E . _. .
-150 .
i 4y u_ I i 1_. _ c * ' .
._ ._.. . L. . .
_g - 1 1
- -200
.1 x 10-3 .1 x 10-2 ,,g Intake Structure Con:parison of Peak Shear Strain Versus Depth, Suggested Soil Properties 1
. __ _ . __.________ _ _____ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ )
Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: Ja n ua ry 12, 1984 Que s tion No . : B.1 QUESTION: Provide the calculated factors of safety for the Code . case N-284 drywell buckling evaluation of the spherical and the cylindrical shells. RESPONSE: The calculated minimum factors of safety for the Code Case N-284 drywell buckling evaluation are as follows : Minimum Calculated Factors of Safety Location , i l Level B l Level C Service Limits Service Limits l l Spherical Shell 3.8 l 2.8 Hatch Area 7.5 . 7.0 1 1 1 Cylindrical Shelll 4.7 l 4.6 l The above values exceed the following allowable factors of safety: ( Level B Service Limits, FS = 3 Level C Se rvice Limits, FS = 2.5 l l l i i
^
l B.1-1 l
Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: January 12, 1984 Question No.: B.2 QUESTION: With respect to the ultimate capacity of the containment, expand the analysis to include the ultimate capacity of the materials and eliminate seismic considerations. RESPONSE: The ultimate capacity analysis of the containment has been expanded to include the minimum specified tensile strengths of the materials and to eliminate seismic considerations. The resulting minimum ultimate internal pressure equals 190 psi. There fore , the safety margin against the design pressure of 62 psi is 3.06. Appendix 3I will be added to the FSAR to describe the ultimate capacity analysis of the containment. 1 l l t B . 2- 1
Response to NRC Audit Meeting Date: Ja nua ry 12, 1984 Question No.: B.3 QUESTION: Verify the consistency in the load combinations used for the concrete and supporting structural steel for the reactor building slab at el 201 f t-0 in. RESPONSE: The load combinations used for the design of the reinforced concrete and structural steel portions of the reactor building are listed in FSAR Tables 3.8-8 and 3.8-10 respectively. For the design of the reactor building slab at el. 201 ft. the controlling load combination for reinforced concrete design is U = 0.75 (1.4D
+ 1.7Lo + 1.9Eo + 1.7To + 1.7Ro) and the controlling load combination for structural steel floor framing design is S =D+L.
The reasons for dif ferent load combinations controll-ing the various designs are as follows:
- Dif ferent load f actors associated with the various load combinations for concrete and steel design.
For concrete design, the relatively large 1.9 load f actor for the OBE load results in the OBE load combination controlling .
- The design live load, L, for the reactor building slab at el. 210 ft. is 1000 psf.
L The operating live load , L,o which is coupled with seismic events is 250 psf. This relatively large i dif ference between design and operating live loads i results in the non-seismic load combinations controlling for structural steel design. Based on the reasons given above, the consistency of I the load combinations used for the concrete and supporting structural steel for the reactor building slab at el. 201 ft. is verified. l i B.3-1
- _--}}