ML20093N899
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:'.,, u>hiN Iv M gin alv v y d.kwt,nMk bicueW %. .kww @ b.W.d / k N UNITED STATES M2 I'h' d' "j ? g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r. p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 %+..../ NOTE FOR: George Lear, Chief SGEB THRt P. T. Kuo Section Leader, Section B. SGEB i FROPl: Frank Rinaldi, Structural Engineer, Section B SGEB
SUBJECT:
MEETING SUttiARY - TERA's IDCVP On April 17, 1984, I attended a meeting in Chicago, IL, at the request of I&E. The meeting was requested by TERA to discuss SMA's Seismic Margins Evaluation (SME) of Midland and its potential applicability to the disposition of outstanding civil / structural issues. The meetirg notice is enclosed as and a list of participants is enclosed as Attachment 2. TERA was interested in SMA's SME because it related to their review of Bechtel's seismic analysis and design, with special emphasis on modeling assumptions and the various discrepancies noted in their IDCVP. SMA presented an overview of their work and detailed discussions in the areas of soil structure interaction, floor flexibility, equipment qualification, parameter variations, sampling criteria, and differences between the SME and FSAR seismic evaluations. Attachment 3 (approximately 90 pages) provides a copy of the viewgraphs used by SMA. It was my impression that SMA provided TERA all of the necessary clarifications required by TERA for their work related to the IDCVP on Midland NPP; Also, during side discussions with H. Wang of I&E, I learned that his office was planning to write an SER evaluation on TERA's IDCVP with the help of a sole source contractor not yet named. F Rinaldi, Structural Engineer Structural Engineering Section B ,,,, s. Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
Enclosures:
As stated cc: J. Knight w/o enclosures T. Sullivan w/o enclosures D. Hood w/o enclosures L. Heller w/o enclosures W w/o enclosures G. Lear w/ enclosures P. Kuo w/ enclosures F. Rinaldi w/ enclosures 8408020195 840718 PDR FOIA RICE 84-96 PDR
e, y, kqrx ..s-hA. In tw.l c,,4\\kg L J April 18,1984 Mr. James W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Rood Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. J. G. Keppler Administrator, Region ill Office of inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Mr. D. G. Eisenhut Director, Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re: Docket Nos. 50-329 OM, OL ed 50-330 OM, OL Midland Nuclear Plant - Units I and 2 Independent Design and Construction Verification (IDCV) Program Meeting Summary Gentlemen A meeting was held in Chicago, Illinois on April 17,1984 to discuss detalls of the SMA Seismic Margins Evaluation (SME) of the Midland plant and its potential applicability to the disposition of outstanding items in the IDCVP civil / structural review area. Attachment I identifies participants which included represento-tives of TERA, CPC, and NRC. Attachment 2 includes viewgraphs presented by SMA at the meeting. TERA Indicated thet elements of the SME were being reviewed to assist in the independent design verification of Bechtel's seismic analysis and design with em:hasis on modeling assumptions and inputs used in the design evaluations as we I as the significance of various discrepancies noted by the IDCVP. I SMA presented an overview of their werk and a detailed discussion in areas of particular interest to TERA. Concentration was given to the areas such as soil-I structure interaction, floor flexibility, equipment qualification, parameter varlo-tion, sampling criteria, and differences between the SME and FSAR seismic -m l ' Pee-*Dee*-eseeeeee W.\\ n POR - 2 l se l 1 t TERA CORPORATION 7101 WISCONSIN AVENUE BETHESDA. MATMAND 20a14 301 654 8960
r,, Mr. J. W. Cook 2 April 18,1984 Mr. J. G. Kappler Mr. D. G. Eisnhut evaluations. SMA provided TERA with necessary clarification to understand information presented in their series of SME reports as well as the level of detail and parametric evaluation actually applied during the course of their study. Sincer ly, [
- dd Howard A. Levin Project Manager Midland IDCV Program I
Enclosure cc L Gibson, CPC R. Erhardt, CPC D. Budzik, CPC D. Quamme, CPC (site) R. Whitaker, CPC (site) D. Hood, NRC J. Taylor, NRC, I&E T. Ankrum, NRC, l&E J. Mllboan, NRC, I&E E. Poser, Bechtel R. Burg, Bechtel J. Agar, B&W J. Karr, S&W (site) IDCV Program Service List HAL/djb 1 l l TERA CORPORATICN
r SERVICE LIST FOR MIDLAPO IPOEPEPOENT DESIGN A>O CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM Harold R. Denton Director Ms. Barbara Stamiris cc: Office of Nuclearheactor Regulation 5795 N. Rivw U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Freeland, Michigan '48623 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Wendell Marshall James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Route 10 i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Midland, Michigan 48440 Regian lil 799 Roosevelt Road Mr. Steve Godler Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident inspectors Office Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Route 7 Director, Citizens Clinic Midland, Michigan 48640 for Accountable Government Government Accountability Project Mr. J. W. Cook Institute for Policy Studies Vice Preident 3901 Que Street, N.W. Consumers Power Company Washington, D.C. 20009 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board I,Id'h,*, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission a Won,. 20555 Three First National Plaza, [p*t. I Chic ,I is 60602 S Jwnes E. Bunw, Esq. ha Ra on, 1 33433 Consumws Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jury % % Esq. Jackson, Michigan 49201 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Mary Sinclair Washingtm, D.C. 20555 5711 Summeset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. Ran Collen Michigan Public Swvice Commission Cherry & Flym 6545 Mecantile Way Suite 3700 .O.S a 30221 Three First National Plaza ""*'"I' I 8" i Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mr. Paul Rau Ms. Lynne Bernabel Midland Dolly News Government Accountability Project 124 Mcdonald Street 1901 Q Street, NW Midland, Michigan 48640 l Washington, D.C. 20009 l
ATTACHMENTI PARTICFAffrS MIDLAPO BCEPEMENT DESIGN abo CObbNION VERIFICATION PROGRAM MEETNG CHICAGO, ILLINOIS APRIL 17,1984 Nome Affiliation H. Levin TERA J.' Mortore TERA C. Mortgot TERA ~ W. Hall TERA Consultant, Univ. of lilinois D. Wesley SMA R. Campbell SMA L Gibson CPC T. Thiruvengadam CPC H. Wang NRC F. Rinaldi NRC 2 i P i m --~.---m-, c.
'O "O ,u-ATTACHMENT 2 SEISMIC MARGIN EAR 1HQUAKE (SME) 0 BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC EARTHQUAKE O INCLUDES STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT e SCREENING PROCESS USED TO IDENTIFY CRITICAL ELEMENTS AND COMPONENTS FOR REVIEW FOR SEISMIC ADE00ACY 0 ALLOWS FOR DEVIATIONS FROM STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR FAILURE CAPACITY EVALUATION i w-y.v- -w_ ,g--- - - + - -g---
- -pa---
= y 9 ,--m-.v-y y
b -s t..... ..)..... \\ -e i' e + e .= = o 3 m e u { o W 6 = o o w m l = m u E l w m z z 2 .I o e o o o l r E 5 m w I o .X z !2 a E /* 1 :$ o, ~ 1 I c= N W w -. r > / .m ez r _/ 1 -. w w w u i E I e> w ue g z2 \\ wm \\ ce s oo \\- w z es wa b = e u -e -e
===I m -c. z o = = a s e o z ce G e o r -'o piiiiii i i i,.0 fiiiii s i i.0t5415 5 6 i i 0T i (31 NQI188373338 31070S98 0003Sd e 9 e w,- ,-.,n ~n.,c,- ,--,-e,- -m--..,~.-,wmm-,ww---..w-w,
~ s O DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SME REVIEW AND FSAR DESIGN e -SEISMIC INPUT e WIDER RANGE OF S0ll PARAMETERS PARAMETRIC VARIATION OF RELATIVE SOIL' e STIFFNESS UNDER AUXILIARY PENETRATION WINGS e DAMPING 9 e C n
STRUCTURFS EVALUATION e USE BECHTEL STRUCTURES MODELS FOR:. CONTROUAUXILIARY BUILDING
- SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE
- REACTOR BUILDINGS DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDINGS e DEVELOP NEW MODEL FOR BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK
- eDEVELOP NEW SOIL COMPLIANCE FUNCTIONS FOR A WIDER RANGE OF SOIL PROPERTIES THAN CONSIDERED IN DESIGN
- GENERATE NEW STRUCTURE LOADS AND IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA eCALCULATE SEISMIC MARGIN AGAINST CODE STRENGTH FOR SELECTED ELEMENTS eCALCULATE SEISMIC MARGIN AGAINST FAILURE (IF REQUIRED)
- INCLUDES SOILS REMEDIAL DESIGN EFFECTS l
l O
) ~. -l 'l ^ DAMPING O REG. GUIDE 1.61 SSE DAMPING USED FOR THE CODE MARGIN EVALUATION FOR BOTH STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT 8 INCREASED DAMPING FOR FAILURE MARGIN EVALUATION FOR EQUIPMENT TO REFLECT HIGH STRESSES AT FAILURE O GE0 METRIC (RADIATION) DAMPING FOR S0ll-STRUCTURE INTERACTION LIMITED 10 EITHER 75% OF THE0RE7l CAL ELASTIC HALF SPACE VALUES OR 100% OF ANALYTICALLY DETERMINED VALUES FOR LAYERED SOIL PROFILES WHIC EVER IS LQER I
~ S0ll PROPERTIES 8 WIDE PARAMETRIC RANGE OF SOIL PROFILES WERE DEVELOPED TO ACCOUNT FOR UNCERTAINTIES IN SITE CONDITIONS THREE PROFIES DEVELOPED: 8 SOIL LAYERING PROFILE REPRESENTATIVE OF SOFT SITE CONDITIONS s SOIL LAYERING PROFILE REPRESENTATIVE OF STIFF SITE CONDITIONS 8 INTERMEDIATE SOIL PROFILE l h .a ~ v e, --s-, 4
Elevation Top of Grade 19 nal-mund Sur Glacial Till 135 pcf g. 7 106 psf W = s 2 106 psf w = 0.47 GM = 12M fps Is = 550 i Glacial Till 6 135 pcf ( = 12 10 psf W = s 6 psf v = 0.47 G w = 4.2 10 1690 fps V, = 61 0 Dense Cohesionless Material 6 pay % = 27 10 135 pcf Y, = 2540 fps L Elevat' W = s 410 0.34 Ggg = 17.8 106 psf w = i Gne = 37 106 p,y 2970 fps Elevati V = s 260 Ggg = 25.2 106 psf,i 260 Sedrock 5000 fps 150 pcf V, W = = s 0.33 l v = l l Soft 51to Soil Profile
Elevation Tcp of Grade 434
- 3 Original Ground Sur-
",' T Gmax = 7.3 106 psf 1* Aus. j f v = 0.49 V, = 1400 fps Q = 3.65106 psf 51dg.- 570 Reactor ^ Bldg. 564 Glacial Till 135 pcf G = 22.2 106 psf Ws = nas 0.42 Ggg = 13.3106 psf v = 2300 fps Vs = 463 Glacial Till 8 135 per g = 37.s.10 est W, = 25.0 106 psf 0.42 Gggg = v = 3000 fps V = s 343 Dense Cohesionless Material 6 138, '*4f ( = 37.810 psf W = 31.0 106 psf 0.34 GSME = v = 3000 fps V = s 263 Bedrock 5000 fps 150 pcf V = M, = s v = 0.33 Stiff Site Soil Profile 6-
Elevation Top of Grade 634 , Original Ground Sur 603 Glac1al Tf11 W, = 110 pcf %x 7,7.if6 psf w = 0.49 Ggg = 4.08 106 psf Vs = 15M fps Glacfal Till W = 135 pcf %, = 15 108 psf s v = 0.42 Ggg = 7.95 106 psf Vs = 1890 fps 463 Dense Cohesionless Material W, = 135 pcf %, = 25.6 106 psf v = 0.34 Ggg = 13.6 106 psf,. Is = 2468 fps i 1 263 8edrock W = 145 pcf Vs = 5000 fps s v = 0.33 INTERPEDIATE S0IL Pn0 FILE
... =.... i STRAIN DEGRADATION EFFECTS I S0IL PROFILES BASED ON LOW STRAIN SHEAR MODULI, Ggy 8 EQUIVALENT LINEAR HIGH STRAIN S0ll SHEAR MODULI, GSME' ACCOUNT FOR EFFECT OF EARTHQUAKE INDUCED SHEAR STRAINS ON S0Il MATERIAL PROPERTIES I STRAIN DEGRADATION RELATIONSHIPS APPROPRIATE'FOR SME GROUND MOTION LEVELS WERE DEVELOPED BY DAMES & MOORE y., ,,.,.,-._,+,..a
I 1-CuRyt tuTRAPOLATED N-NT@! ( Ns0t
- t
%,s%, vs ?L e s
== -s 3 s i h o GREENWOOO PSAR 10.,0,mT, s \\ .s s' a s- - x a I \\ O \\ (SEED 410RISS) CLA i \\ \\, g j (SEED & 10RISS) k i e es i 'N c "' ^ % D
- ),\\
TR'aiu 8 @ M;;AN 4 a 4 a 4 a 4 es e a gs e a ga e a ga 4 a 4 HEAR STRAIN,'Jls EXPLANAYlON e LOW PLASTICITY SILTS ANO CLAYS (ARANGO et es) A MIGN PLASTICITY SILTS ANO CLAYS ( ARANGO et el) RECOMMENCEO SANO STRAIN DEGRADATION RS.ATIONSHIPS G
'~ LAYERFD SITE SOIL IMPFDANCE S0Il-IMPEDANCE DEVELOPMENT: o PROGRAM CLASSI USED e FIVE PERCENT S0ll MATERIAL DAMPING REASONS FOR CLASSI APPROACH: e LAYERED S0Il PROFILES MAY ENTRAP ENERGY NORMALLY DISSIPATED BY GE0 METRIC DAMPING ~ e PROCEDURE WITH THEORETICAL BASIS FOR EVALUATING EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS OF LAYERED S0IL PROFILE e 9 6 b P L
j 1 l EFFECTIVE SOIL SHEAR' MODULUS 8 AN EFFECTIVE SOIL SHEAR MODULUS,Ggyp, WAS DEVELOPED BASED ON CLASSI RESULTS ADVANIAGES OF THIS APPROACH: 1. CHECK ON CLASSI RESULTS 0 COMPARE Ggy,TO LAYERED S0ll PROFILE CHARACTERISTICS l l 2. ALLOWSFORMODIFICATIONOFS0llSPRINGSANdDASHP0TS TO ACCOUNT FOR: 8 NON-STANDARD FOUNDATION SHAPES 0 EMBEDMENT EFFECTS 1
I.. ( UNCERTAINTY RANGE ON SHEAR MODULUS CONSIDERATIONS: 0 UNCERTAINTY IN LOW STRAIN SHEAR MODULUS, Ggg I UNCERTAINTY IN STRAIN DEGRADATION EFFECTS 0 UNCERTAINTY IN LAYERING EFFECTS 8 UNCERTAINTY IN MODELING USED TO OBTAIN S0Il COMPLIANCES PARAMETRIC RANGES USED: 0 LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE 8 0.6 Ggyp (SOFT SITE PROFILE) 0 UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE 8 1.3 Ggy, (STIFF SITE PROFILE) 0 INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE O REMAINS THE SAME 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------~- ew
N ~ l 1 l ENERGY ENTRAPMENT DUE TO LAYERING TWO TYPES OF DAMPING: 1. HYSTERETIC (MATERIAL) DAMPING ESTIMATEDAS5P5RCENTOF'CRITICALDAMPING e e NOT STRONGLY AFFECTED EiY LAYERING 2. ,GE0 METRIC (RADIATION) DAMPlNG e WAVE PROP 0GATION OF ENERGY THROUGH THE S0ll e LAYERED SOIL PROFILE MAY ENTRAP ENERGY EFFECTIVELY REDUCING GE0 METRIC DAMPING EFFECTISEVALUATEDBYAKNOCKDOWNFACTbR e C(CLASSI LAYERED SITE ANALYSIS) LAYER C(THEORETICAL ELASTIC HALF-SPACE) e LIMITED TO EITHER 75 PERCENT OF THEORETICAL ELASTIC HALF-SPACE VALUES OR 100 PERCENT OF ANALYTICALLY DETERMINED VALUES FOR Soll PROFILE WHICH EVER IS LDER N
O DEVELOPMENT OF IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA', CONSIDERATIONS: l i e THREE SOIL CASES (LOWER, INTERMEDIATE, UPPER) 8 EFFECTS OF MULTIDIRECTIONAL EXCITATION 8 TORSIONAL RESPONSE 1 8 BROADENING AND ENVELOPING TECHNIQUES l 8 FLOOR SLAB VERTICAL AMPLIFICATION t
DETERMINATION OF SME IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA ~ 8 TRANSLATIONAL AND ROTATIONAL SPECTRA AT THE FLOOR CENTER OF RIGIDITY FOR EACH RESPONSE DIRECTION WERE DETERMINED BY TAKING THE SQUARE-R0OT-SUM-0F THE-SQUARES 0F CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SPECTRAL ORDINATES FROM THE VERTICAL AND THE TWO HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTIONS 8 TORSIONAL RESPONSE. CONTRIBUTION TO TRANSLATIONAL RESPONSE WAS INCLUDED: O IMPORTANT FOR EQUIPMENT NOT AT THE CENTER OF RIGIDITY 0 TRANSLATIONAL COMPONENT DUE TO TORSION WAS, CONSERVATIVELY i INCLUDED BY ADDING IN THE ABSOLUTE SUM OF A M0 MENT ARM R TIMES THE ROTATIONAL SPECTRA AT THE FLOOR CENTER OF R"GIDITY TO THE APPROPRIATE TRANSLATIONAL COMPONENT G e Y ,w--- + .~g ,-g---,m,- , - - - - - - - ~ w - - + ,---m-e----a, ~ww---, ,e-n------.e-.-mem-.s, e,..e-- n.a-4 -u--- m-w~w-.,
\\ X - Critical Equipment Locations on Floor Y h X g l l l R2 I R ') 1 -X * 'I E X Floor Center of Rigidity [ f SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF TYPICAL FLOOR SHOWING CRITICAL EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS RELATI TO THE FLOOR CENTER OF RIGIDITY f
IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA SM0OTHING AND BROADENING e PEAKS OF THE SPECTRA WERE BROADENED AN ADDITIONAL t 10% i e ACCOUNTS FOR VARIABILITIES IN-STRUCTURE FREQUENCIES DUE TO UNCERTAINTIES IN: A) MATERIAL PROPERTIES a) STRUCTURAL MODELING ASSUMPTIONS e UNCERTAINTY IN SITE SOIL CHARACTERISTICS IS COVERED BY BROAD RANGE OF S0IL SHEAR MODULI USED IN SME 0 FINAL SME IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA WERE DEVELOPED AS AN ENVELOPE OF THE BROADENED SPECTRA FOR THE THREE SOIL CASES e CONSIDERED POSSIBLE SHIFTING 0F STRUCTURE FREQUENCIES e SPECTRA WERE SMOOTHED TO REMOVE MINOR VOLLEYS 4 4 o
.;;l li' l1 I lI\\ fg g 6 6 3 4 4 4 i 1-A y'N RT e i C t E e i e P t S t S i i \\ x S n S E a f i t S f d f t N i e o c O t M S / P i S S 6 E i R 6 E i R \\ U T l r 4 I tR T T R S 4 E N i HI I I g 5 E I I I 1;l P O I Y ,I L I CE l V i NN EE ). UF QO Gy ET 3' )g R N E FM r-g P 4 O t 4 LE c 1 V e E p D S ep 4 o le 4 vn E I i aa h ~ ae S Ra s4 z o m e
- E w M' u g W B;
3 :- g '.J.D E g g ' G~ lllll 1
l FLOOR SLAB VERTICAL AMPLIFICATION e SEISMIC DESIGN MODELS DEVELOPED TO COMPUTE OVERALL BUILDING RESPONSE AND DID NOT INCLUDE FLOOR FLEXIBILITY. e FLOOR SLAB AMPLIFICATION MAY BE SIGNIFICANT FOR SLABS WITH RELATIVELY LOW FREQUENCIES, SLABS WITH LOWEST EXPECTED FREQUENCIES WkRE~ e SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS FROM: e AUXILIARY BUILDING e DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING (DGB) e SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE (SWPS) e SLAB FLEXIBILITY INCLUDED IN THE REACTOR BUILDING EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION ANALYSIS. e b t
BUILDING FLOOR SLABS EVAltlATED e AUXILIARY BUILDING FLOORS SELECTED FROM: MAIN AUXILIARY BUILDING CONTROL TOWER ELECTRICAL PENETRATION AREA (EPA) EL. 584'-0" MAIN AUX. BLDG. (LOW, HEAVILY LOADED SLAB) EL. 614'-0" MAIN AUX. BLDG. (HIGH, FLEXIBLE SLAB) EL. 646'-0" CONTROL TOWER (LOW, FLEXIBLE. SLAB) EL. 685'-0" CONTROL TOWER (HIGH, MOST FLEXIBLE SLAB) EL. 642'-7" EPA (MOST FLEXIBLE, HIGH MASS) e DGB FLOOR i EL 664'-0" (INCLUDES SOME CAT.I EQUIPMENT) e SWPS FLOOR EL. 634'-6" (INCLUDES MOST CAT. I EQUIPMENT) l l f l l s a-w,---
FLOOR SLAB ANALYSIS e FLOORS SELECTED ARE SINGLE BAYS BOUNDED BY VERTICAL SUPPORTS, e FINITE ELEMENT MODELS DEVELOPED TO CONSERVATIVELY REFLECT APPROPRIATE GE0 METRY AND B0UNDARY CONDITIONS, e MODELS CONSIST OF PLATE AND BEAM ELEMENTS. e MASS REPRESENTING STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS AND NON-LOAD BEARING WALLS AND EQUIPMENT INCLUDED. e FLOOR STRESSES SUBSEQUENTLY CHECKED TO ESTIMATE DAMPING. b -l
~ 6.2 6.9 24'-6 A -w
- =
0 X X m n i g-N"i l Nu E I "s3+:* s - 3 W33x141 (typfcal) ' 2'-3 Slab l l 8 L. s 6 oncrete Wall C i L N l AUXILIARY BUILDING FLOOR AT ELEVATION 584'<0 ) 9 w. iii i i i n-
r--- 6.2 6.9 A r- _q I I i I I I I I l 'l l l l l l 8 .l l 1 ( I I l I I I I I I I I I I I l I I l I I i l = I I i .. l l l I I l l l l l l l 1 g i I I I I I 1. L B Concrete Wall at Boundary Plate element Beam element below . e. ..4.. L e FINITE ELDENT MSH OF AUXII.IARY _.. I.i.. BUILDI q FLOOR AT. ELEVATION 584'-0" .~t._..._._.._. E is
,i h i O. 4 I o e 6.2 .9 24'-s l --4-- Concrete Wall B .a W18x60 ITypical) m' vi im M M g 2 2 I'-0 Slab C q H, W21x127 W14x126(Typical) N h 4 AUXILIARY BUILDING FLOOR AT ELEVATION 614'-0 t
O+>+4 e 9 = h e m. g 14 W s via 77 (Jyo4c i) s Y 9 l Im m o 8 m b b 9 9, / f l -u Buttress concrete Wall r a O 9 AUXILIARY BUILDING FLOOR AT ELEVATION 646'-0" m-
7.. N ~ .s ~.e ~s i: s ,c. 7.8 7. 5.3 6.6 ~-- 49'-0 i 49'-0 c s = ~ - g i ( M h W18x60 (typjcal) s x O_ x.0 1 i I a s. s_ s u -. ~. v i x N/ f' ~ ' ' ' *. <_ /N \\ r / 6 oncrete Wall ( l'-3 Slab 4 Ke Buttress _/ C N l i 1 B 1 i AUXILIARY BUILDING FLOOR AT ELEVATION 685'-0
~ l l 4.1 41'-0 N 2" Expansion Joint to Reactor Building j I C 1 - W14 Column J a f 7 M N Con: rete Wall l K l'-0 Slab N i = i e \\ I .l i AUXILIARY BUILDING FLOOR AT ELEVATION 642'-7 (WEST ELECTRICAL PENETRATION WING) )
e a. -m
- c N
g ar i E i =. I g 2 -e i 3 e a e w a u I g, p.. _. I.. __ _ __ _ __ __ __ w I 2 u :> i .m ea o e v u:12 t m i E m U m e _.___________f_, 3 e. l _M. g e 3 C E w5 r E 5 1 (M
- s <r
.x w> m v3 = l l m I' %3 1 wW v m< l e-o. . v en . __4 _-__-____.._____q l l. 1 Ii n iI h ungsu25 Jo pu3 ol ungsmas Jo pu3 ol E.ZS 01.22 II.0E A
l.: a l N ir ge N. x o, g g7 s 4 s. 3 W30x108
- - 'U 5
m N e6 W36x135
- 3 N
-g W -1 a gg W z.c vi e- / W36x170 g
g m
a 6 a e .4 +J E 00 m E ~ o a 3 H m = 's g-DO g. wa di W36x230 _a wm w Q W36x135 2 s== 4 / 2
- N
-um- _ esem ame _ -_ = = mme..mm =m==- -meme enum -- e-h " O# M _ M _ M M SD m m mmm_ eum _ m eL
- I.
I as'-w i .l 1 O 8 ,-,_..,--t 6 ,,,v .--,e--. ,--...---..-,,..e- -,,,-- ~.. - - - - -
~ VERTICAL INPUT TO EQUIPMENT e IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA DEVELOPED FROM SINGLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM MODELS WITH FREQUENCIES EQUAL TO FEM FUNDAMENTALS. e DAMPING FOR UNCRACKED CONCRETE (4% OF CRITICAL) USED FOR ALL SLABS. e FOR AUXILIARY BUILDING: VERTICAL TIME HISTORIES FROM BUILDING STRUCTURAL MODEL USED TO DEVELOP IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA. s FOR DGB AND SWPS: SD0F MODELS ADDED TO OVERALL BUILDING MODELS. e VERTICAL IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA WITHOUT FLOOR FLEXIBILITY INCREASED BY VERTICAL AMPLIFICATION FACTOR (VAF) IN AUXILIARY BUILDING. [
\\ VFRTICAL AMPLIFICATION FACTOR (VAF) (UNBROADENED SPECTRAL ACCELERATION AT FREQUENCY F INCLUDING FLOOR FLEXIBILITY e VAF = _(BROADENED SPECTRAL ACCELERATION AT FREQUENCY F NOT INCLUDING FLOOR FLEXIBILITY e OVERALL VAF DEVELOPED FROM ENVELOPE OF ALL FLOORS AS A FUNCTION OF EQUIPMENT FREQUENCY AND DAMPING. ~ ~ e VAF BROADENED I 10%. e VAF FOR EQUIPMENT LOCATED AWAY FROM SLAB CENTER ASSUMED FOLLOW SINE WAVE. I i o I l ,-.,e- ,av,,a~, -w
o l 3 g Upper Bound Soil Case With Floor Flexibility (Unsmoothed) p 1 I d'
W1thout Floor Flexibility (Smoothed andBroadened)
/ / j 9 2 and 7 percent damping (3 and 4 percent E damped spectra not shown for clarity) / z g ^ / l O Fundamental Floor frequency = 14 Hz i a l' b 4 E .i w: I l a._ 21 damping i WR / 7 l Bs- ,/ 1y d l'/ ( +s E 1 se La l y s' os- [d e S f 7% damping l 'E l d io" i i 4 44164)& 3'3 4 & & i & 4 'i o' i 5 4 & & fid v i FREQUENCY (HERTZ) l COMPARISON OF VERTICAL SPECTRA WITH AND WITHOUT FLOOR FLEXIBILITY AT ELEVATION 646'-O", CONTROL TOWER b O
-'6' - ~ " ^ o E Upper Sound Soil Case g With Floor Flexibility (Unsmoothed) *
Without Floor Flexibility (Smoothed and Broadened) t.3 2 and 7 percent damping (3 and 4 percent
- oy, damped spectra not shown for clarity) g n-Fundamental Floor Frequency = 14 Hz E 1 ac .J tuo u W E p ~ ~ g 2% damping j. u1 R f ~ Od" ~ j
- )
1 y / 7% damping 1h ~ 4.o* " t o" i i 4 56344if 4 3 4 s&}&43t o' A i 4'44366 t FREQUENCY (HERTZ) i COMPARISON OF VERTICAL SPECTRA WITH AND WITHOUT FLOOR FLEXIBILITY AT ELEVATION 614'-0", MAIN AUXILIARY BUILDING
AUXILIARY BUILOING VERTICAL AMPLIFICATION FACTORS 21 Equipment Damping Equipment Frequency Floor Freguency 5 8 11 14 20 25 29 33 Locatio1 (Hz) Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz E1. 584'-0", Main Auxiliary Bldg. 35 1.0 0.89 0.96 0.79 0.95 1.1 1.3 1.6 l E1. 614'-0", Main Auxiliary Bldg. 14 1.i 1.3 2.3 5.2 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 E1. 646'-0", Control Tower 14 1.2 1.1 1.8 3.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 El. 685'-0", Control Tower 11 1.3 1.7 5.0 2.1 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 El. 642'-7", West Penetration Wing 29 1.0 0.96 0.87 1.1 0.98 1.1 1.3 1.1 I e
E' 6 .. i. l13 i !.L PlliI p'.i. } ,i.l;! jll: .:i. i , i' ,.i ..l.. .g. .l a.
- .j,
.i. :. l.esl
- n.. e.i. ~......
.!. c. s. l....li si a n. ,,i,. -...l. l,A. .,.n.yl 9 .. @l"t, e i. i
- w i
..p .. r., ...,t J. is.: .i.. i.-. n,.e.i.r. i 5 g ali ...i .. l,- 2% Damping i-ti [.... .i -t-- g i,. g.- J,;l .3.. i ' '" hN d.l! j '... - - - - 31 Damping 5 Y... l s 7. i '.i i. 4% Damping '",; .e..: 2 '. .. I.- 4.. 1-1 l..,.ii. ;,. . r. i,;i ll..\\ - - q - - 7% Damping lp. sii,,. +; i v. w :gr 3 4 = ? ,f j i, y-
- e. *4. ".i II I
~ i.di jl i g l tri ri. i::
- n e.l ist I,
- l-
- t g
l.l. - e-l l l l t. l . i. q . e.... .s .g ,4,t .i. l .. a 8 H,;s. . g. +;
- ..p e:j ir, y, yi.,,
a, ~, -r-l; - j 1 ".. l g-p- i, l 4
- e. ;.
e.la 5 g-3 ~ 8 l gl g* go ,g c.l; g t? .g .g I
- Ii 3
-; <. h s.1 188 is e it? 8 ', **.s i i - - l' ~ l,I,: -.-. +.. l" s.i I ; I,*. 8e u l,- l.-r N l; g.. 6 4-3 g-g I l .;f r. 8:I I* l ise: 8 ft3
- i t
[.r. : "s
- g:
- st l.
r- ?!s- '. t.: s;t : j8;6;: t
- .it llpl l
l . e.s! tg . e I hl lie lg l;i
- s u
~e l. l-n- 4 9-g. ,3 1 l* l /t ei .r3 tl: - je il f-3': e-
- tt't
-."y r 6 y-pe t * .;.' t. t- ' ~T .II*. $e-y ".*-l..' e . T. 7- ". l* = g llg aggg t-j s l;tt g* e ne g'!.l 'lf., l'.s ! il '.l l. tL". ". ". " s 8- 'e i il 't i g,Ial ,u l '4.t l'! !.Ia i .gt, a. 'l I' 'I. . i '.' i ~ f 2 is.'
- - -~
~ .s p-.- g .j;
- 3-j- -,l g
p ggg g
- s!
I.- t 3:r- ,p g, p-3i 1 l .g s - .e 9' l ? 4.g.t. '.,...g. eg l jg j !. g... a o ~, ig gg g g gl-- w ......l -. h,j ,.r. 6 .,g ..., is,, p i,.. I+.,r. ,,gl l., l l p: M..li .l in l i., .l e 4r i.g1, . i. i , i... i.: ,,l. .i.,. t... .i.t lg : 3. l... .erf I i. g j -l ,I,l9 .i. ...I l 3.. I r. .t,l l... ., i .!i.,g,. p i. s) :*
- g;-
- 8
. lt, l l -l. ~. ..g ;. g.. ,,l. -- la j.. i.. g;.. . t.. e i., lr,3
- l1, 1' ?t*-tit'
".-'.-P*-
- - r g --- rr;
-: gr -T 8;; . i., g i.,. I tl
- 1. e.e.s l1tj at...:i :
.I e. !.: : ' s..:!s., ;. :e..: e-e:- 44.... e. i. l...liil - +- i -I l'i' ' 9.. i-i- li! '9 +: 1. ! ;l,ii O 1 2 5 10 20 50 i 4 Equipment Frequency (Hz) e _^ ENVELOPE VERTICAL AMPLIFICATION FACTORS FOR AUXILIARY BUILDING
7, t +, 1 4 i e i 6..{.. A -...I # ;e.;igi i:..
- ..I 'i i I 4
l l.L. .j j.' p,...,; . g4 ' l'l L' iI.l y I!.
- i e 4..
e i .:l ..a,l
- u..-
.. + 6i.! .t -! s'. 4.ig p,... -l.- l3 1 .i
- .
- . ;y
~.. g
- r. r,,w r.i.i.:.Hn., c!.
t I-m "i "" 1 --et egg..i J.l.l 4 i.9 ".. r.:-
- m. -.
ia m ~ --21 Damping b 5 ,1 1"l1a,.,;;,il ". ! y' '1- .I.,,1, i' li'! I,"' '. "..". "'; .-i.. -- - 31 Damping .i 1'l ll.ili i:- 3i* 1,;i,Z'. .... p i ;l ,I '1 , la .*t-s. , s, _.~. i, g... j 4, o,,,,,, I l,~ ', '.,i . ll,,. .,.. l , '...' ~ '. ', . '. ',is' 3 M Damp 1ng l 1;. " ',!,D 5.'. p t-.~n.l J s. i i
- n. :
ja ,! !1
- ue
'e i 1: to- ' * ' 4 M . -j.PI
- i
- , :..
'. Ii 1 !.;., :l;.!.r.
- l.... N...
- 9...i i.R..
I !.. t ' i ..., i. i . -4 . J,.. m ai., <, i
- .., i..
..l i. i )e:. - r- ~;1 ;.- ,1 g .;!! q.. 4 g,.. e n,- i i. "o :. r: r-r-i... :.- 4 u 1 h i. c .l?.e ;!.s... -:l l ll - 1 i lIi !. i .h I - I . I, i t th l t,. .u, o;. ..el g.l .l I..e a s .le. .t Elle y l.- fil h9 f,. 1(i 4,e; g s.f j 3 lg .4 [- .l .i t: l,.. s. ll. i ] g .i.... ~ g 3 l - jg. ilt I l-E I h l d h :-[ l I l I !st "I
- 8*l i.
ih ~ le .I t ".tll
- 9 e
t tn "r lg,8 g !!.;, ul. ei.: i 8 o o.t.!. g..g j g .g l 1 p eli i 4 +.. ) :- e l7 og 3.l. s.l. l q , y .q 9 .g g qg I M e gI. i t.l : ;8 ! 6" - -..... e I l-
- '.p
.f g0 i -* *1. +4
- tti-na
- ll
. eg ':.i t ..e ..i. .[-l i l o l it:
- =
j l!s i l l... i
- ti e.
.. s. ,8 l
- g l: e !a f
a [.
- l
. lge "l1 t t-t i*- (2 ~ ~ I 8* I':.!',?!li l It*;." 1 Ii* I ?I t ' ' -
- 8' i
~ ~ e, e pI gg gj l1,
- p. !
- p i
i-l !l I ll *i g f. l-n I' s e i lg : ?. }t l 1!tll l b l l lI s.!. *: ;; g ;1[.
- s t a3..a 6",
et 3 tl p-t. ?.~J.;. - i
- l. e l3 e
i, p 1..a e
- s g--
r sel- .8
- ,.g.,l-
- l-
- g g l;-.,g p,. I
- 6..
.4 i .;4.i.:. :lb :.f, ..e .j t, .s .7 7 ...,p l64 13 4 :. Ir,
- p e
l ,1 l1 3ei 8, il .te. 6 e-i;.. ..g. I ' s- :er 1 ".:.j' 1 e" p
- p. :r. g igge 3
gst ug. t.; e g. j I r l } g8;. g!!- .,,,,,.s.y l i. ei,..i g g egig a ii g... ig.. ite ? Il.
- . :..:.*st
? t
- d
.8? o-to e. c i g- !l ge: ..i . -l1.g:y 13,.-,;.,, n- .l. .ge; .1:. ,,s 6 e gs n. 9l .e.1 3l. I e, ..;..... e j g: 4 ig go.
- l..
,.s..:. .s1 6 -l ei : ?.g.- o, g gj g .to. .s s lj i g i .o g g.. .g.. l -. '. -.. j T~ -1 "i t 'l st.*.i. l -4 !?, i --*-.!f. f; r !.st t-" i i ~ t n . r i. { ro-i g; y l . ?
- lg.
?. .e. p .3 l 1 i ,e .i;' i.:..c l l. ;: j.ti rg. : l i c n" Mi;, 1 i l 1 I !1
- i" ie :
ir; 1 2 5 10 20 50 Equipment Frequency (Hz) l l l l VERTICAL AMPLIFICATION FACTOR FUNCTIONS l FOR 14 Hz FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY FLOORS l FOR AUXILIARY BUILDING
+ l 4 l-0 v.; b i1 rt.tri f
- .4 i
[s .il it.!lj;'i l l "i.. '. l 18 - .:mi.t. ,.m_. iil. s ?..". n. i.. t 's l li,i .al8'il ll 4 Ir L
- ,l.,i
- -..l t ,s t I ~~:MI. illI. till a .i f.r!i
- .1 en i
lllg; t F 25 Oaiving Hj ;,,, n.!:1.2 :P :;.d t:-t i. .r-i 5 f.l !!!- "E m; i::1 ~- --- as camping
- jji g l
i 8 .! -.:."...*..t * * ". -..l. , l,,, i;l 4 t "._~~_ - ' - - - 4% Damping l r+- .i, .- r vt .n, . uil-l' L.n. -F 1 .Ii ..e tv i. r-E 71 Damping . q ir 3 . 86:11 lj ll' llj:; i;j *:lj j!' ; 3 4 j M pl ip' d, I,M,, . { iq ;ty
- j [. %.'": dl !!.I y
l ---i l ;i - +I t j g lj. u. i 6 m i l
- ll g--
a ih...:i-o t- . i!; r yM !R.- i iii i:.1 l'i. 1
- l
.e.et 8- ,1; I;;i 1
- - t-ij.
i 1"- i;
- i
- . l l
3 s. i 8 .i. I, it! I ,, y j l. i.. i 1- :.:!.i i w 3
- i g ie. t r- + t p.'
u i- .l ':!' :i i i [ } '.i I ! 3;l..:;8l i.r 7.. i
- ,..,g l..
-) . q g c .4 ! l. ll. li;. !l e t I-
- j.,ll: :l i l--
-u jl2 g- ? r 4t [lU 1"! ii 2 it Il l.It.- if 1 3 gtl j il
- 'd i-
., e-
r
./,.-]h l s I j gli l., l fg! lIll1jj! 2 ...:' i. g 7-y g l lj j,., j gg lll e i.i ggl z. I' 1 1 ljl l. J ! ' i n e'. _// [ i,. ,,i !!..:..,l !g 1 ; yII Ig - +g, e.g::gI!. -t l Tr;!- ,i 1,1{- i-j i I y = 4, r ai j+, l ,l, 3-1 i .i i ii r-61 .. y;:. t i i .ie Il ilij iglj,,1; I 61.. il i... g"4.i,. g.,
- i., 8 e it ep lji t*.
id n-i .'l "lj III i; l ig i il e pi. s6 t !,t l...l l: g p !.1 : :8 l [llll l.i 'l-sie: 1 I. ltii ,. ll l 6 i o i i i p1.g:. l l
- i.. :
.i. M.ml j 8 ei- , i: .I. It t 5 l.,l i; l.--- fl - if r. n - it-rt r-ei . e. ; i t-p i.li j. . i 3 i .I I i.i 1 ll l . l l *: i le ,- :i p .l, ti ili l s i t i, 's: il
- i.
i i i { 0 4 1 -2 5 10 20 50 1 Equipment Frequency (Hz) I VERTICAL AMPLIFICATION FACTOR FUNCTIONS FOR 20 Hz FUNDAENTAL FREQUENCY FLOORS i i FOR AUXILIARY BUILD!!fG f I i C
i 6 llji el i I I l '4 j
- .6
- ...
'~ s 'l;i l.:. .~. . e. .gl
- . i]
.I ,I is!..-.ett I l l 1,4 -l1 4 "l- * +- es-i . itl l. 1
- l. a l
- g. 4I.
g 8. 8 8 6 i. ..g. ,+ - g.. g- .,j e j
- i
..I t --a..i 4. ~ L F .o..I. 3,;, ,46 i i . __-. na un ,,1 M;: d. ,t I ,l, . 1; i.,. 8*i g '4! i-5 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 2% Damping l:!j ;'y' 't g -'b II i .' m_.I b ill: I!! '.3:!.:. 3:i 1:.: -. - - - 3% Damping llI ih $ A,b i, i u...i 4% Damping - W g1I y 1 -l ,i.. J. 7% Damping i il l. g
- l...I 1
.g ,t alp "1 r. . -e j ,4 t;
- l tot I,it I
.l ti i.i i;t i'.1.m 3
- l.,
t '. t- ,I I
- il.
- e..
l, l I ii .e i. . ! ~. l. u . e. e t.i p. I lly I e., i,.e n sa. . l: .3, s.-
- ,l. lil l
!.?, ..i l l.p i,,;.,. . 4-,-, . I'q $.e.;,. .i. g i.. . r g l.l j i :*- sl ?" s ..!.gn I;;. I : 8. e i .r t -..s h.g- . -+ 6 g ...i in. . :. g., re,t i :., ps, 4.s y !n ser' l
- i ;
[, .:.i =
- l.g ti :
n it _ M n H is r- !7 t + u .S $3 t -l All' II I 3'. - I.'i!
- i.-. ' -
Oi..t' .l --), .g I- 'lI AIi I- ~I sl'l it ,.l. I. l.!. } i - + i, .I i.. i.i - t i I l ' e, e. 1 I n. +l. . i... .t J -g - w ti i.., i 69 66. 1l td.- ~ -".!.i.i l! - T~ -'1 U
- r'-
i V., t e:. 8 I :. s "8 '- 8 1 l 9 i l. il:l. 3'l3lA g..a 's i e .t, !. i,, A ] 1 .r I I !s 't- ' l' I e i f2 ~ {t. u ,rp 'I' "' '"I ;8 I "" ; ~ II I'** 'l' 'Ii: ii!: .i., ..,i. I. 9..j. ,': l I'..l4 lIj: I I l !!y ~ !. o .J g.., .l ..i..; lli l
- t 1 r
l..; t." lt
- l.: P:t 3;[
l t.;- r+1: 13- .8 3 3 -g - g ? ll- ? i
- i 88. ****
r! 8 9* I t .4.! I tr-64l}t-s t -] Itr. t t.g.;..;g ,illj 6: . *s T*ff 5 --t-'
- l -r.
. f.7,.3 i "t t-p,. e gsl; 3l,r. lgl lg,
- 4..
g 3,. g,gj s. i. e t.; g 3,. *. ti .:t6 gl.. g e 6,.: ..gl.l.9... l ,U ~ en l.T l! Is-8sl' U ....e. I-l i t...) .e .7 - i -ri: i. i.. i i.Il. ". e4.* ar [f!! '"! I... t:t l p' iT g p.-,:- e t. -..lt 1 t ih84 ,.8. :. e n 't "l-st*-.e.- .p. i gi..*:.e-t l i
- t t l- !. ;:.lll:.laj l s
3;;. .p. i .~, r, se l: .3, i, ,.-p. li, er.ij i, g. i. ",,i., g.. 4... g -, -{ !(.,
- ri 7,,. 7 y,-
..l. 4 l s !l .i [.i; jh i' s. I -l l f ! .I!"I.. Me-t 'i i9 i' gl :" ' hh I 'I"
- +
'I I' "H li: l 0 ~~~ ~ 1 2 5 10 20 50 j Eo.'sipment Frequency (Hz) t VERTICAL AMPLIFICATION FACTOR FUNCTIONS I FOR 25 Hz FUNDAMENTAL-FREQUENCY FLOORS FOR AUXILIARY BUILDING o
o [' ] j ~ ' l I. I.I I 13-4 ll18111lllllJ18188s541 1111111!Illll!L - !.J !) y ] y i SSE Design Spectra ~ \\ ! h i, j j-;ij j 0.5, 1, and 2 percent damping ( Jl,i c j h' I.'. l l'
SE Spectra with Floor Vibration l ( h'i i%
5 j l ',l l 1.5
- 2. 3. and 4 percent damping lh ',lg
- j, ;]
,~ I., !ll I l !I '8i,eaj:!!] ~l .l, L I [ 'l l $l(~ j8y il llI. I ! ! Ili 8.* -il l-Fundamental Floor Frequency = 14 Hz ~ l !:s 'i-i 'i..{.{ Jn igl !. - {.} - ll. g I ~ i 3 l a.s.: 4 .ga;u p j .g 3 ._ q_ u.. i . :i !.:-- y .,.il 1 i!:! I E i mi .l.. iii. i . il; T'Ti'!- 1.;s l j 8 'I, j.: i... e l! Ig lil lIl. 6 s. e i -.';:- ii ti tj i I j 9 1 I II. nt ..e i -- M E' 1.2 c. u;.,! ,1.l' 7 ll,% [ Il! is l. li'i U!i o 2 ~ l- .,i !! hil i i i:ii ili' l.'l l l. l ~ I I ~ lI l i.I jj: '!!'.I ;i'! f \\';d i....:d )i /!! 1L llI 'l l l!i!'lIh 8 !j! ~/ l "~ ,vi!DM$ n i j; i !Til !a!!? !::ip % / J, i~ 9i-II II. " ~ii i u il !!! O! hic d ! I k 0 M.i n)I ;I i d i L! !;l !,i i.!,
- j. !
~ 't . 's i ii I!3i ;;is ili ;i i..i; I j i:!: ~i. ;;ij :q r r rj gjy j i i ik ' f / l 1 di is g' i I l !i !!i iji: hi: 'ljjj lll lj i Illl lid(i y2 lfp] l jl d i,0; l-/ F j 5PpS f "%.f rih M f l l .I i l!rl j I E -Y'I / : i 4;lid " M i l ! o . {l. l e lll l i'" '!I. '. i l S ~ M d ei !c[' l lid. ijll ij! f fg M ~ l l ; l' l[i%.:i!%Ig' 0'4 ' iI ![. l
- !! i,ji d ip1,!j ili H
.i i { ll ..I l les f I i l, ip
- p,
.i !;, ,i [fd W hl u; .i
- k. j b hI i.
ilh)!!j l !j ! fII [Il 1,8!'f ( I O I l l 1 !8 0 F L I I 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 s 50 EquipmentFrequency(Hz) i Col #ARIS0N OF SSE DESIGN AND SME VERTICAL SPECTRA AT ELEVATI0ft 614'-0". MAIN AUXILIARY BUILDING 1 e
s s i SEISMIC MARGINS FOR MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, CONTROL AND l INSTRUMENTATION EQUIPMENT PRESENTATION TO USNRC/ CONSUMERS POWER CO. APRIL 1984
O e SCOPE OF STUDY e CONSIDER ALL EQUIPMEMT AND SUPPORTING SYSTEMS REQUIRED FOR SAFE SHUTDOWN i e SELECT REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES FROM TOTAL INVENTORY l-e EVALUATE SAMPLES FOR SEISMIC MARGIN EARTHQUAKE PLUS l NORMAL OPERATING LOADS e DETERMINE MARGIN AGAINST: CODE ALLOWABLE OR FUNCTIONAL ALLOWABLE OR FAILURE e h n
All Seismic Category I Components and Distribution Systems Required for Safe Shutdown O Select Sampling of Critical Components By One of Following: 1. Design Seismic Load is High Percentage of Expected Capacity 2. Judgment that Component is Critical and Vulnerable to Seismic k 5 9 F Do the Applicable Floor Response 'No Further Spectra Generated for Evaluation of SME Exceed those of the No Components or Dist. SSE by Factor of 3 25 g Systems at that 1 for Passive Components Floor Elevation or 1.0 for Active Components - is Required l within the Frequency Range of Interest? e res Select Additional Sample of Components which Tend to Be Sensitive to Seismic Loading i Scale up by the Ratio of SE to SSE Floor Spectral Values in the Frequency Range of Interest the Calculated Input Seismic Motion and Stress or Deformation Resultants from SSE Loading Report Margin Report Margin g Against Code Against Test limits. Level. [ Passive Components 1 [ Active Components ] e e Do Stress or Limit Load Do Input Seismic Motions g Resultants Exceed Code or Deformation exceed Test No Faulted Condition Acceptance Input Levels or Manufacturers . Limits?l Saformation Limits for Operhtion Yes y,, Calculate and Report Contact Equipment Conservative Margin Manufacturer for Further Against Failure Information on Func?ional Capacity or Achieved Test Levels PROCESS TO SELECT COMPONENTS AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS FOR SEISMIC SAFETY MARGIN EVALUATION AND DEVELOP MARGINS O
i., 1 8 l r'.iM..Tr.WL U..' -# F. .F-P.2T. '.v. P.3Ts 4PI.. %..W.* i a.T P.' a + F_= :-,..-W. l. i..3 f.f "4 I..wL.= 6.. 'F_ '.P i W
- i
= r.:z..tg. '. 4 :,:z-.- .a. -. g. -
- a..:.
t.:. - -*. :- f. ". :-< e.a.,..=,,A &. j t.= a - , = .g.y *.....< --. .I.. "'k:-.. =: J- .P ?..- 1.
- J --
- ".: T
' = * *. 1-4:r- , z J.t
- ..:.. :.= :
==:.t. =_..: c: :.::r.J:'.n.
- T. a.
~=. .e... _ : =. r... =.:....:.. p:. n -. :.a -- :t : =. -- -.. z.w_.:
- ,: m u..u.
s _=
- =p _.
3._..... . T.... .t.._.. r o. . m. ,....... _. _.. J W_. ..L,-.-...-- g j ="" en t. L ...., ". 9.'9 .. Z p k.,.. g l F ......e.. i a.:=r...r.. s. :..
- . : J 1.
.. j :.. @:. ; .e=..=*=.'a--=-
- r..;
u.:. ::-- .c:r: - N e ':2c rr-r .J c E 3 =.r -, : :..:.:. .: r t. r .:: ?.. - =t.. - g h b 1 z:=.=:._ .2.:.. 1 ,sJ T.. g, ,.I-..., _...a,... g i
- 1...p.=.
. _.. g i. p g y 1 ,,.,_.I... n. . _. q .j -- ( a p a. g
- g. _..- -.,
g .Lp .e.. ee i p-_. 3 3 . _..t I an __ e
- . g.
- g. g_
W;, M g. .i __ _ I 4 N. s est 6 H f . T,T 1 (( l o ...7 e M a. ,.; e s a J o w ..-C:. '. 7 T '.,
- .
- iW. :.
f'.TI..I.I g. l g - ,,g=.'..'."..w' LM Q.
- s. rz..c.
g -' .... =. ..e. .~:.~,..
- x.. p
.gI _.. - =.: i e. .M r-.. e' 6 s
- .J.=. = ::: :..
3 _. _=..... F.r r = CW we j t. .g o. 4 . d j ,l . e., r i.- -ii 'A _ ~.--sa p ,,#m== ,g.sm, eW
- 4.._.--4-.
- r 4 a an. gg 25r=.==..::... I.._a..---*-'4..... :
- 1 i
rr===1=um r-mO .=.= en -n. _.:, =.; i
- w..2
_ _. 2 a== =w r - aw.. i C-t i, g .h-.. ._,as E". 4mnIP g.,, t m .g i g t -pe g g,4 k . s, ww g M .M 40s. bC
- .e.
j - -. m 1 s = O. g 1 r k '.h ' N f ' l .h > E sh--- t-% t-, .I ._.--i g ~ l 3
- *M I
i N N N a s1 b e f 'N -N <i ? a s g .g I i N Tu e.e en 1 e-I N 9 g _.. j ___ .v. i gs r i wu M i J. - .g.. a.
- sv.- 41,: l-f, a m.& aiW '
~ f,, pi t @ p Eg-~g.kE-j ?-=-Q -[-ir art :.;,)Q: Tm% S t-T" N~.".~:N~~ : 4 *-AM. : I 1 -N- $ 7 ' ::! D[*E~i2 ,_.=:.-- <_ : - :,.. E e.__ - ~ ~ N"_E=Y-N. ~. -i.I.:I. ;. E M. W E4-r .-- } :. - ' a :-- =' - h. E..
- .:.a.==
i -r :. ..: :=_- ..u gg,, ..i .= ,g Z g w .e {.. p+ C 3 .. +. gg C... s@uo B . I. g W .e. ~ m y .~ y ..-.p-_. e g"" 8 S g 9-h
- ""3F U
.c.= -= : :: ..et.=: - --.
===:= - q ,...i': - ." 1' a" Z. t~ I. .._L_.. a eus. E g g .. g e.- 4_. g ,, g 7 o.. =
== e. W h._ e u-
- ess, aus 3 C g
N. m p t g.s .y ...W ,... 4.. hd I.* W W y _ w I.. g e B_ e s 8. 1 ..a 4 ..a.... w_.,. I.. 4-t t e l E.l M. g' 8 O. M. e M N W l e. t _.,w
l ) SYSTEMS REQUIRED FOR SAFE SHUTDOWN e REACTOR'C00LANT a PRESSURE CONTROL ) e MAKEUP & PURIFICATION e DECAY HEAT REMOVAL (COLD SHUTDOWN ONLY) e COMPONENT COOLING WATER e SERVICE WATER e SAFEGUARDS CHILLED WATER e EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR FUEL OIL STORAGE AND TRANSFER -e HVAC e MAIN STEAM e CONDENSATE AND FEEDWATER (AUX. F.W.) I I e EMERGENCY DIESEL POWER GENERATION e STATION BATTERIES s ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION, CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION l SYSTEMS S 6
o f NSSS SUBSYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS L l o REACTOR VESSEL AND SUPPORTS o REACTOR VESSEL INTERNALS l o CONTROL R0D DRIVES AND HOUSINGS l l o STEAM GENERATORS AND SUPPORTS o REACTOR COOLANT PUMPS AND SUPPORTS o PRESSURIZER AND SUPPORTS o REACTOR COOLANT LOOP PIPING o PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE
I AE DESIGNFD SilRSYSTEMS o B0P PIPING o HVAC DUCTING AND SUPPORTS 1 o CABLE TRAYS AND SUPPORTS 1 l i o ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AND SUPPORTS o V a
VENDOR SUPPLIED B0P EQUIPMENT PURCHED BY A/E AND NSSS SUPPLIER ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION SWITCHGEAR,MCC'S, TRANSFORMERS, BUSSES ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY AC - DIESEL GENERATOR UNITS DC - 125 V STATION BATTERIES l INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL CONTROL PANELS, CABINETS, INSTRUMENTATION PANELS, CABINETS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ACTIVE-PUMPS, FANS, COMPRESSORS PASSIVE -TANKS, HEAT EXCHANGERS, FILTERS VALVES ACTIVE MOV, A0V
e O e SAMPLING CRITERIA e MAJOR COMPONENTS AND SUBSYSTEMS ESSENTIAL FOR SAFE SHUTDOWN e COMPONENTS AND SUBSYSTEMS DEEMED MUST SENSITIVE TO' SEISMIC LOADING (EXPERIENCE FROM PRA) e COMPONENTS AND SUBSYSTEMS LOCATED IN AREAS.OF GREATEST SEISMIC RESPONSE e REPRESENTATION OF EQUIPMENT IN ALL CATEGORY 1 l BUILDINGS (RB, AUX. BLDG, DGB, SWPS) l 4 i l l. l -_i
j KFIFCTIONS RASFD UPON CRITICALITY e ALL PUMPS AND HEAT EXCHANGERS IN SERVICE WATER, COMPONENT COOLING WATER, AUXILIARY FEED WATER, MAKEUP AND DECAY HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEMS. e ALL AC AND DC EMERGENCY POWER SUPPLIES, SWITCHGEAR AND MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS. e ALL OF NSSS SYSTEM. SFNSITIVITY TO SEISMIC RESPONSE o CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION CABINETS IN CONTROL STRUCTURE AND ELECTRICAL PENETRATION AREAS. HIGH SEISMIC RFSPONSE AREAS e CONTROL ROOM HVAC HIGH-IN CONTROL BUILDING. e DUCTING FOR CONTROL ROOM HVAC ^ e CABLE TRAYS IN SPREADING ROOM AND ELECTRICAL PENETRATION AREAS, REPRFSFNTATION IN AlL STRUCTURFK o PIPING, PIPE SUPPORTS AND VALVES o CABLE TRAYS AND SUPPORTS o CONDUIT AND SUPPORTS o MISCELLANE0US ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPORTS. ^ m.,_-,---,----.,-- --n-,-, ,_,-----,-,~,.-ne,,--,,,-. .,,-wn,-, ,,-----, - - - - -,--v,,-n -,--,,,,-,--n, a -ev.---n,- w-
~ FRACTION OF COMPONENTS SFIFCTED BOTH UNITS AND REDUNDANT COMPONENTS INCLUDED IN QUANTITY STATED. ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION 34 0F 93 ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY AC - DIESEL GEN. & GRD. REST. 8 0F 8 DC - STA. BATTERIES & CHGS. 4 0F 12 INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL.CABINENTS 23 0F 77 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ACTIVE COMPONENTS 27 0F 61 PASSIVE COMP 0NENTS 61 0F 69 VALVES ACTIVE VALVES INCLUDED IN 19 0F 290 PIPING SYSTEMS INDEPENDENTLY EVALUATED e
~.. i SAMPLE SIZE FOR B0P EQUIPMENT i 157 or 320 COMPONENTS 49% = 7% 19 0F 290 ACTIVE VALVES = NOTE: ALL VALVES WERE INCLUDED IN GENERIC PROBABILISTIC l STUDY TO DEMONSTRATE EXTREMCY HIGH NON-EXCEEDENCE PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDING 3 G DESIGN CRITERIA. l ~ o i e h
- e~
s v METHODOLOGY l l QUALIFICATION BY ANALYSIS t. VENDOR ~ COMPUTED RESPONSE FOR SSE IS SCALED BY RATIO 0F SME/SSE AT EQUIPMENT NATURAL FREQUENCY l CASE 1 - SEISMIC & NORMAL STRESSES ARE SEPARATED "A - 'N F SME t CASE 2 - SEISMIC & NOPJ%L STRESSES NOT SEPARATED i SME EXCEEDS SSE SME > s 8"E I SSE + 'N) WHERE 'T
- 5*SSE CASE 3 - SEISMIC 4 NORMAL STRESSES NOT SEPARATED l
l SSE EXCEEDS SME. F >b SME 'O D
- I'5SE * 'N)
WHERE 8 FOR FUNCTIONAL FAILURE MODES,ABOVE EQUATIONS APPLY Sl'BSTITUTING 8 FOR e e .i
METHODOLOGY (CONT) QUALIFICATION BY TEST j i ) I TRS I l p SME ( RRS j MIN e COMPARISON OF TRS AND RRS MADE AT EQUIPMENT FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY FOR EACH DIRECTION l e MIN. MARGIN REPORTED FOR GOVERNING DIRECTION l e IF TESTS ARE SINGLE AXIS OR SINGLE FREQUENCY, APPROPPIATE ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE TO TRS TO EQUATE TO MULTIAXIS RANDOM MOTION INPUT I e 4 0
( NSSS l e B & W CONDUCTED ANALYSIS OF NSSS USING SME BASEMAT INPUT FROM SMA. e B & W PROVIDED TO SMA: SME RESPONSES SSE RESPONSES I FAULTED CONDITION DESIGN LOADS SELECTED STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS e SMA DEVELOPED SEISMIC MARGINS BY COMPARING LOAD RATIOS AND SCALING STRESSES. l e RESULTS - ALL NSSS PIPING, VESSELS, SUPPORTS s' l INTERNALS MEET ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA f
. <a CLASS 1, 2 & 3 B0P PIPING AND SUPPORTS e PIPING SYSTEMS SELECTED FOR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS ON BASIS OF STRESS RESPONSE COMPUTED FOR SSE PLUS NORMAL LOADING. ONLY THE HIGHEST STRESSED LINES WITH THE MAJOR LOADING CONTRIBUTION COMING FROM SEISMIC WERE SELECTED. e ALL RESULTS ARE POSITIVE. CODE ALLOWABLES ARE MET. e 4 e 6 e 1
El ARR 1. 213 BOP FQUIPMENT AND SUPPORTS l e VENDOR REPORTS REVIEWED. e SSE RESPONSE SCALED BY RATIO 0F SPECTRAL ACCELERATION OF SME/SSE AT EQUIPMENT FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY. l e FOR COMPONENTS QUALIFIED BY TEST, TRS WAS SHOWN TO l EXCEED RRS FOR SME AT FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY OF l EQUIPMENT. l
LOA 0!NG COMBINATION AND STRESS LIMITS FOR CLASS 1 VESSELS, PLMPS AND VALVES 1 Loading Combination Stress Limit,2,3,4 FohMaurials EN + D + Opt. + SME P, s 1 I in Table I-1.2 l 3.6 S PL+P5 g b 1.05 5,. 'P, s 0.7 Sub ) ~ g g in Table I-1.1 Pt+Pb s 1.05 5, ($} 5b Pg+Pb y Where: PM = Norm 1 operating pressure G = Deadweight OML = Operating mechanical loads from connecting piping including earthquake anchor motion and restraint of free end themal dis-placement SME = Seismic Margin Earthquake Inertial Loading S = Allowable stress value from ASME Code,1974 edition t h l with Mdenda through Winter 1976 Table I-1 = General membrane stress intensity produced by pressure and P, other mechanical loads P = Local membrane stress intensity produced by pressure and g other mechanical loads Pb = Primary bending stress intensity produced by pressure and other mechanical loads S = Specified Yield Strength y Notes: 1. Stress limits apply to extended support structures for valves. Fot-active valves, the extended operator support structure primary stress is limited to S. y 2. Faulted condition stress criteria per 1974 ASDE Code, Section III, with Winter 76 Addenda. 3. Use lesser of limits specified. 4. Valve operator acceleration is simited to 3g in any direction. 5. Functional limit for. active components.
- 7. -
LOADING COM8INATIONS AND STRESS LIMITS FOR ASME CLASS 1 COMPONENT SUPPORTS Component Standard Linear Supports 3 Linear Type 1 Designed by Plate and Shell Loading Support Limits '2'3*7 Load Ratino Support Limit Combination 0 + OR. + SE Within Lesser of: 0.8 L 1.5 S t P, m 1.2 S 1.2 S or 0.7 S, y i y 2.255,M F F g t P, + Pb 5 1.8 5' Times Normal Operating Stress Limit, F,j), where: D Deadweight = Operating Mechanical ' Loads OML = Seismic Margin Earthquake Loading SME = Material yield strength at temperature S = j S Material ultimate strength at temperature Allowable tensile stress per ASE Section III. F = t Appendix XVII at tangerature Allowable stress value from ASME Code, Appendix. XVII, F = s all XVII-1100 Ultimate Collapse Load as defined in ASME Code, L = t Appendix F F1370(d) P, Primary membrane stress intensity produced by mechanical inads = b Primary bending stress intensity produced by mechanical loads P = Allowable stress int.insity from ASME Code, Appendix I Su = Notes: 1. Compressive axial member ioads should be kept to less than 0.67 times the critical buckling load. 2. Includes Component Standard Supports designed by analysis. 3. Component support analyses and material allowables per ASME Code, i Section III,1974 edition with Winter 1976 Addenda. 4. Use greater of values specified. i-5. Not to exceed 0.7 S - u 6. Not to exceed 1.05 S - u M
i LOADING COMBINATION AND STRESS LIMITS FDR N555 COMPONENT SUPPORTS DESIGNED TO THE AISC CODE l Loading Combina tion Stress Limit (j) D + OHL + SME 1.6 f s where: D Dead Load = OML Operating Mechanical Loads = SME Seismic Margin Earthquake Loading = Allowable stress from Part 1 of the AISC Specification f = 5 for Design. Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings 7th Edition Notes: 1 1. Shear Stress is limited to 0.5 Fy where Fy is the specified yield strength of the raterial
>o LOADING COMBINATIONS AND STRESS LIMITS FOR CLASS 1 PIPING Loading Combinations for Faulted Conditions: Operating Pressure + Deadweight + Seismic Margin Earthquake Loads (SME) Code Stress Acceptance Criteria \\ P D,. D, i s 3.0 S, (1) + 3 M B1 Zt 2 2T 9here: B,B2 = primary stress indices for the specific j product under investigation (NB-3680) P = Design Pressure, psi D, = outside diameter of pipe, in (NB-3683) t = nominal wall thickness of product, in. (NB-3683) I = moment of inertia, in.4 (NB-3683) M = resultant moment due to a combination of y Design Mecharical Loads (Dead Wt.4SME) S, = allowable design stress intensity value, psi (Tables I-1.0) Notes: ' 1. Faulted condition criteria per 1974 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III. Subsection NB with no addenda. e 5 4 -.._.,.-_v - r r
LOADING COMBINATIONS AND STRESS LIMITS FOR CLASS 2 AND 3 COMPONENT SUPPORTS Component Standard Linear Supports 3 Linear Type 1 Designed by Plate and Shell Loading Support Limits *2*3 Load Ratino Support Limit _ Combination 4 1 D + OR. + SME Within Lesser of: 0.8 L ej 1 5 S g 5 1 255 2 1.2 S or 0.7 S, ej + o2 y 15S 0 F F '3 t t Times Normal Operating Stress Limi t. F,j j, where: 0 Deadweight = om. Operating Mechanical Loads = Seismic Margin Earthquake Loading SME = S Material yield strength at temperature = Sy . Material ultimate strength at temperature Allowable tensile stress per ASE Section III. F = t Appendix XVII at tenperature Allowable stress value from ASE Code, Appendix XVII, F = ajj XVII-1100 L* Ultimate Collapse Load as defined in ASME Code, = Appendix F F1370(d) oj Average membrane stress produced by mechanical loads = e2 Primary bending stress produced by mechanical loads = i Maximum tensile stress at contact surface of welds in I o = 3 l through thickness direction of plates and rolled sections Allowab',e stress fran ASME Code. Appendix I 5 = Notes: 1. Compressive axial member loads should be kept to less than 0.67 times the critical buckling load. 2. Includes Cosponent Standard Support designed by analysis. 3. Component support analyses and material allowables per ASME Code. Section III,1974 edition with Winter 1976 Addenda. 4. Not to exceed 0.4 5,. 5. Not to exceed 0.6 S. g
O LOADING COMBINATIONS AND STRESS LIMITS FOR CLASS 2 & 3 PIPING Loadino Cos6fnation for Faulted Conditions: Operating Pressure + Deadweight + Seismic - Margin Earthquake Loads (SME) Stress Acceptance Criteria P""*D +0.75i(M +M 8 A 8 bs 2.4 5 II} l h 4t Z n Where: P,,, = peak pressure, psi D, = outside diameter of pipe, in. t, = nminaf wall Wckness, in. M = resultant moment loading on cross section A due to weight and other sustained loads, in.lb. M = resultant moment loading on cross section B due to earthquake inertial loads. Z = ssction modulus of pipe, in.3(NC-3652.4) i = stress intensification factor [NC-3673.2(b)]. The product of 0.751 shall never be taken as less than 1.0. S = basic material allowable stress at operating h temperture, psi Note: 1. Faulted condition stress criteria per 1974 ASME Code, Section III, with Winter 1976 Addenda. b --e v-w- ,-~----- - - - - - -
t s c I LOADING COMlINATIONS AND STRESS LIMITS FOR CLASS 2 & 3 VESSELS, PtNPS AND VALVES 1 Loadino Cos61 nation Stress Limit,2 ' PN+D+E+M a,1 05 2 1 4S 2 g+ab o (4) al + 'b 8Iy Where: PN = Normal operating pressure D = Deadweight Ost = Operating mechani, cal loads includino earthquake anchor, motion and restraint of free-end thermal displacement loading from connecting pi SE = Seismic Margin Earthquake Inertial Loading S = Allowable stress value from ASME Code 1974 edition with Addenda through Winter 1976, Tables I-7 or I-8 e" = Gencral membrane stress produc'ed by pressure and 4 and other mechanical loads i Local membrane stress produced by pressure ad L = other mechanical loads a b = Primary bending stress produced by pressure and a other mechanical loads S = Specified Yield Stress y t Notes: 1. Stress limits apply to extended support structures for valves. For active valves, the extended operator support structure primary stress is limited to S.y 2. Faulted condition stress criteria per 1974 ASME Code. l Section III, with Winter 76 Addenda. l 3. Valve operator acceleration is limited to 3.0g in any direction. 4. Stress limit for function of active components. a.
+ l HVAC DUCTING-AND SUPPORTS e CRITICAL DUCTING SYSTEMS SELECTED AS REPRESENTATIVE OF MIDLAND DUCTING. e INDEPENDENT ANALYSES CONDUCTED. e RESULTS ARE ALL POSITIVE FOR DUCTING AND SUPPORTS. f e
t f. ~ I LOADING COM8INATION AND STRESS LIMITS FOR HVAC DUCTING i Loading Combination Stress Limit-l P + D + SME 0.5 acr where: P = Design pressure acting externally on duct ' d- = Dead Weight SME = Seismic Margin Earthquake = Critical buckling stress computed for thin sheet simply supported acr on all edges and subjected to biaxial compressive stresses resulting from P. D and SME O
~ ~ ~ CABIE TRAYS AND SUPPORTS e TYPICAL RUNS OF CABLE TRAYS WERE SELECTED IN REGIONS OF HIGH SEISMIC RESPONSE. e INDEPENDENT ANALYSES WERE CONDUCTED. e RESULTS ARE ALL POSITIVE FOR TRAYS AND SUPPORTS. 6 e n l
~ 4 1 LOADING COMBINATION AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR CABLE TRAYS Load Combination Acceptance Criteria.2 l 0 + SME ~ 2 2 2'I/2 (+ /M 1 ggr3 . gg ' + i -(3 y l+1 i s1 M (MUV) (NUT) dL) UV where: D = Dead Weight of Tray and, Contents SME = Seismic Margin Earthquake Inertial Loading MD = Bending Moment due to Dead Weight My = Bending Moment in the Vertic41 Plane from the SME MT = Bending Moment in the Transverse Plane from the SME M = Allowable Moment in the Vertical' Plane. gy M,y = Allowable Moment in the Transverse Plane i E = Axial Load in Tray from the SME t Y = Allowable Axial Load in Tray g Note: i 1. M and M yy g7 are derived from ultimate load tests and are based on the lessor of 2/3 the maximum collapse moment or the moment at a displacanent equal to 1/2 the ultimate load displacement.- 2.. Y is 2/3 of the ultimate load capacity. L i-i
~ l LOADING COMBINATION ANO ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR HVAC AND CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS Load Combination Allowable Stress
- D + L + To + SME 1.6 5 or Y Where:
D = Dead Load L = Live Load To = Loading from Restraint of Free-End Thermal Displacement SME = Loading from Selsmic Margin Earthquake Including Inertial Effects and Differential Anchor Motion S = Working Stress Allowable from AISC Code, 8th Edition,1980 Y = Section Strength Required to Resist Design Loads and Based on Plastic Design Methods Described in Part 2 of the AISC Code
- Allowable Stress Based upon AISC Code, 8th Edition, Part 2, Plastic Design and NUREG-0800 e
o +- - -, - - + c ,,,--..-,,--,.---.-,--,.--w..
s-m
LOADING COMBINATIONS AND STRESS LIMITS FOR COMPONENT SUPPORT ANCHORAGE,2 1 Loading O) Z'3*4) kb Grouted Anchors Expansion Anchors Con 61 nation Anchers i D+L+To+Ro+SME Lesser of Allowable loads per Allowable loads per U or 1.65 Bechtel Specifica-Bechtel Specification tion 7220-C-306Q 7220-C-305Q l L l l where: ? D = Dead loads from attached equipment or piping I L = Live loads from attached equipment or piping To= Restraint of free-and thermal displacement of attached equipment or piping l Ro= Pipe and equipment reactions during normal operating or shutdown conditions not already included in D+L+To (i.e., piping reactions on vessel which are transmitted to vessel anchors) SME= Load effects of Seismic Margin Earthquake including f effects of differential anchor movement. l U= Ultimate pullout strength per ACI 349-80, l Appendix 8 S= Allowable working stress per AISC Code, 8th edition, 1980. MOTES: 1. Load combinations are consistent with NUREG-0800 Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4; ACI 349-1980,Section 9.2, and Regulatory Guide 1.142 l 2. Strength criteria are consistent with NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4; ACI 349-1980 Appendix B and AISC Part 2, eighth edition 1980. 3. The faulted stress limit for the reactor vessel anchor studs is 75 ksi (See Reference 43) 4 The faulted stress limits for LAQT bolts will be provided later.
9 t t FIECTRICAL CONDUIT i e GENERIC EVALUATION OF CONDUIT AND SUPPORT DESIGN CRITERIA WAS CONDUCTED FOR THE SEISMIC MARGIN EARTHQUAKE. e SPAN SPACING AND SUPPORT CRITERIA USED IN DESIGN WERE DEMONSTRATED TO BE ACCEPTABLE FOR THE SME. e l J l b -a-- n-- - -, _ _ .,,.n..-,,.. -y. - -. -. - - -,,,, -
s. ACCFPTANCE CRITERIA FOR FIECTRICAL CONDUIT AND SUPPORTS o, Cl. ASS 3 THREADED PIPING CRITERIA USED FOR l
- CONDUIT, l
o CONDUIT CLAMP STRENGTH DETERMINED BY TEST, o INTERACTION EQUATION FOR CLAMPS, Q Y . [V). [Q p, l0 0 0 O 3 PSTI 15ST1.1 LSTl R 1.0 p ?) P S L \\} Clamp or strap force ~in the pull direction Op = due to earthquake in the vertical, East-West or North-South direction l l Clamp or strap force in the slip direction QS = due to earthquake in the vertical, East-West or North-South direction Clamp or strap force in the longitudinal QL = direction due to earthquake in the vertical East-West or North-South direction QPST'OSST'OLST = Clamp or strap force in the pull, slip, and longitudinal directions due to the weight of the conduits and cables, i.e., lg P.S.L = Clamp or strap allowable loads in the pull, slip, and longitudinal directions, respectively
. 1 RFSULTS e ALL COMPONENTS COMPLETED MEET CODE OR FUNTIONAL LIMIT e COMPUTATION OF MARGINS AGAINST FAILURE NOT REQUIRED S l 8 n-,
e ; e St# MARY OF SEISMIC MARGINS FOR_ SELECTED NSSS PIPING _AND EQUIPME,NT SUPPORTS l Minimum Margin FSME Description 1. RPV Support Skirt / Base Interface (Vessel Skirt) >8.10 (RPV Anchor Studs) 31.0 3.54* 2. RpV Upper Support 3. OTSG Support Skirt / Base Mat Interface (Skirt) 6.43 (OTSG Anchor Studs) >4.65 >4.75 i 4. OTSG Upper Support 8.26 5. Pressurizer Lug / Support Structure Interface >3.82 6. Pressurizer Upper Support 9.98 7. RpV 36" Hot Leg Outlet Nozzle 5.83 8. RPV 28" Cold Leg inlet Nozzle 12.99 9. OTSG 36" Hot Leg Inlet Nozzle 9.87
- 10. OTSG 28" Cold Leg Outlet Nozzle
>4.51
- 11. RCP 28" Cold Leg Inlet Nozzle
>6.65 e
- 12. RCP 28" Cold Leg Outlet Nozzle 8.94'
- 13. CR0 Housing /RPV Interface 1
i
- 14. RCP Snubbers (PIAL Upper Horizontal Support)
>2.34 Margin Against Gap Closure g
.l SLM MRY OF SEISMIC MARGINS FOR SELECTED REACTOR VESSEL INTERNALS Minimte Margin Description FSME 1. Plenum Cover 26.2 2. Upper Grid Assembly - Rib Section 25.0 3. Upper Grid Pad Joint 14.4 4. Core Support Shield - Lower End 37.7 5. Core Support Shield - Upper Flange 22.7 6. Themal Shield - Upper End 107.3 7. Thermal Shield / Lower Grid Shell Bolted Joint 63.1 ~8. Themal Shield Upper Restraint Flange 67.9 9. Core Barrel Assembly - Upper End 31.5
- 10. Core Barrel /Former Bolted Joint 21.7
- 11. Lower Grid Assembly - Top Rib Section 73.9
- 12. Lower Grid Assembly - Top Rib Section/Shell Forging Bolted Joint 101.8-
- 13. Lower Grid Assembly - Support Post / Support Forging Welded Joint 145.5
- 14. Control Rod Guide Tubes - Slotted Region 203.5
- 15. Plenum Cylinder - Upper End 80.8 i.
e
~ SUMARY OF SEISMIC MARGINS FOR BOP EQUIPMENT Minimum F qualification (1) Governing SME Equipment Method Critical Area (2) Margin (3) Notes Main Smitchgear 1A05, 2A05 Test.(Random Input) N/A 6.10 Main Smitch9 ear IA06, 2A06 Test.(Randon Input) N/A 6.10 Motor Control Centers 1823,2823 Test.(Randon Input) N/A >3.25 Motor Control Centers 1824, 2824 Test.(Randon Input) N/A >3.25 3 Motor Control Centers 1843, 2843 Te'st.(Randon Input) N/A >3.25 Motor Control Centers 1844,2844 Test.(Randon Input) N/A >3.25 Motor Control Centers 0845. 0846 Test.(Sine Beat) N/A 6.3 Motor Control Centers 1853, 2853 Test.(Randon Input) N/A >3.25 Motor control Centers 1854, 2854 Test.(Randon Input) N/A > 3. 25 Motor Control Centers 1855. 2855 Test.(Randen Input) N/A > 3.25 Motor Control Centers 1856, 2856 Test.(Randon Input) N/A >3.25 l Motor Control Centers 1863, 2863 Test.(Randon Input) N/A >3.25 l Motor Control Centers 1864. 2864 Test.(Randon Input) N/A >3.25 l Motor control Centers 0865. 0866 Test.(Randon Input) N/A >3.25 Motor Control Centers 0868. 0869 Test.(Random Input) N/A >3.25 Motor CM trol Centers 1879. 2879 Test.(Randon Input) N/A >3.25 [ Motor Control Centers 1880,2880 Test.(Random Input) N/A >3.25 e Motor Control Centers 1889. 2889 Test.(Randon Input) N/A >3.25 (7) Motor Control Centers 1890. 2890 Test.(Randon Input) N/A >3.25 (7) 125V DC Batteries and Racks 101, 201. 102, 202 Anal & Test Battery Rack Structures 2.24 (RandomInput) s
S M Y OF SEISMIC MA9 GINS FOR BOP EQUIPMENT (cont.) Minimum Qualification Governing SME Equipment Method (1) Critical Area (2) Margin (3) Notes I l Diesel Generator Engine and Anal. & Test Engine Appendages >3.49 Appendages (Random input) .h ) Diesel Generator, Neutral Grounding Cabinet IG-llX, 2G-11X, IG-12X, 2G-12X Test,(Random input) N/A 5.83 i Diesel Generator, Generator Control Panel IC-231, 2C-231, 1C-232, 2C-232 Test,(Random Input) N/A 3.55 Diesel Generator, Engine Control Panel 10-111, 2C-111, 1C-112, 2C-112 Test.(Random input) N/A 1.5 Diesel Generator, Generator Unit Analysis Stator, beam adjacent 1.70 16-11, 2G-il, IG-12, 2G-12 to foot pad i Diesel Generator, Exhaust Air Silencer I IM-101 A&B, 2M-101 A&8 Analysis Shell >1.24 (5) i Diesel Generator Intake' Air Filter IF-19 A-0, 2F-19 A-D Analysis Shell >l.86 (5) "9 k {a >2.06 (6) gnerator Jacket Water 3,,jy39, e Diesel Generator Skid and Building Mounted Auxiliaries Qualified by Testing (Random N/A >5.0 Testing input) Other Diesel Generator Building Analysis Misc- > 2.06 (8) Mounted Equipment l I Auxiilary Shutdown Panel 10-114, 7C-111 Analysis Support Angle (Struct.) 1.52 (4)(10) Devices incomplete HVAC Control Cabinet IC-175A-8, 2C-175A-B Analysis & Test Angle frame (Struct.) 25.2 (4)(10) - I)evices Incomplete (Random Input)
o SlM4ARY OF SEISMIC MARGINS FOR B0P EQUIPMENT (cont.) Qualification Governing Hinimum Equipment Method (1) Critical Area (2) SME Notes Margin (3) HVAC Control Panel 0C-151 Analysis & Test Roof Bar (Structural 1.48 (4,10) (Random Input) Devices-hcomplete
- ESFAS 10-44, 2C-44 Test, (Random Input)
N/A 1.33 .d Balance of Plant Logic Cabinet f 1C-166, 2C-166 Test,(SineBeat) N/A 1.49 Safeguards Chiller. I E 59A&8,2VM-59A&8 Analysis S Testing Compressor Wobble >1.07 (4,6) l Foot Bolts Control Room HVAC, D W OI A&8 Analysis & Test Finned Co'11s 1.42 l (Sine Sweep) l Camponent Cpoling Water Surge Tank Analysis Tank Legs i 1.31 I IT-173 A48, 2P-73 A&8 l Service Water Pumps 0P-75 A-E Analysis Nozzle 1,43 (9) C-:-;-::::t Cooling Water Pumps Analysis Suction Nozzle 1.0 (9) IP-73 A&B, 2P-73 A&8 Flange i C- ;:::..t Cooling Water Heat Exchanger Analysis Anchor Bolts 1.20 1E-73 A48, 2E-73 AaB ~ Auxiliary Feed Pump (Electric) Analysis Discharge Flange 2.10' (9) IP-05A. 2P-05A AJxiliary Feed Pisap (Turbine) ^ Analysis Discharge Flange >2.10 (9) 1 IP-058, 2P-058 l Air Flitration Unit 0VM-79 A&8 Analysis pour l'rame . >l.50 (6.7) Decay Heat Removal Pump Analysis Discharge Flange 1.76 (9) IP-60 A&B, 2P-60 A&B
9 e St# MARY OF SEISMIC MARGINS.FOR B0P EQUIPMENT (cont.) Qualification Governing Equipment Method (1) Critical Area (2) Margin (3) Decay Heat Exchanger IE-60 A&8, Analysis Shell at Support 1.23 'f 2E-60 A&8 r Makeup Pump IP-58 A.B&C, Analysis Suction Flange 4.2 (g) 2P-58 A,8,4C Service Water Strainer Analysis Base Plate Gusset >1.62 0F75-A-E Weld Notes: 1. For designs governed by allowable stresses, the margin against code allowable is (code allowable / applied SME ~ stress). For equipment qualified by test, the margin is defined as-(test response / required response). 2. Qualification test method is described in Section 5 through 8 and in Appendix A. 3. Critical area is local region or component within a subsystem with the governing minimum margin. 4. Structtral portion qualified by analysis. Devices qualified by test. 5. Margin calculation was very conservative. Stresses in vendor report were scaled upward by the maximum ratio of the SME to the SSE in effect at the time of equipment qualification. 6. Margin based upon original design load since seismic and normal portion of design load could not be separated out from information in design report. Safe shutdown earthquake load exceeded SME load. 7. These units are not required for safe shutdown to cold condition. 8. Detailed margins not computed. Equipment less critically stressed than other items evaluated for SME. g. Minimum margin quoted is for function. Structural margins are greater.
- 10. Completion of SSE qualification of all devices is pending.
~
i MINIMUM SEISMIC MARGINS FOR BOP PIPING Maximum Allowable Code Seismic Piping System Critical Element Mode Stress Stress Margin Factor l l (psi) (psi) (CM) (Fg) 1. DHR and Core Flooding Reducing Tee 495 19,895 49,800 2.50 5.25 - I 2. DHR Section Taper Transition 480 12,046 39,600 3.29 7.20 3. CHR Section and Reactor Tee 240 4.173 41.856 10.03 49.2 , Building Spray 4. Makeup and Purification Taper Transition 631 21,761 45.120 2.07 2.67 l Discharge 5. High Pressure Injection Branch 190 20,570 49,800 2.42 4.52 (Part1) 6. High Pressure Injection Pipe (Anchor) 250 18,457 45.120 2.44 2.52 (Part2) 7. Reactor Coolant and Socket Weld 400 17,637 40,080 3.07 3.82 Pressure Control 8. SWS - Reactor Building Elbou 459 5,892 36,000 6.11 8.51 Return Header 9. SWS - Pump Structure Tee 60 26,724 42,000 1.57 2.66 Header I
MINIfRM SEISMIC MARGINS BASED UPON PIPE SUPPORT CAPACITY ^ Calculated 1 Minimum z Calculated Seismic Seismic Piping System Support No. Restraint Type Node Code Margin Factor Factor and Direction (CM) (F ) (Fg) 1. DHR and Core Flooding FSK-2CCA-66H3 Restraint (x) 514 22.0 34.9 2 2.24 d 2. DHR Section 1-610-3-4 Strut (z) 139 1.14 1.26 21.03 j 3. DHR Suction and Reactor 1-610-3-37 Anchor 185 1.35 1.60 21.33 Building Spray 4. Makeup and Purification 2-604-9-33 Strut (x) 667 1.81 1.90 21.22 l Discharge 5. High Pressure Injection 2-604-1-101 Restraint (z) 620 22.91 (Part1) 6. High Pressure injection 2-604-1-1 Strut (x) 142 21.66 (Part2) 7. Reactor Coolant and 2-602-2-32 Restraint (r) 500 23.06 Pressure Control 8. SWS - Reactor Building 2-619-2-511 Strut (x) 720 4.66 8.78 21.07 Return Header 9. SWS - Pump Structure 0-618-1-17 Snubber (z) 428 1.15 1.40. 1.17 Header Support design load always exceeds seismic margin load o Based upon a detatied stress analysis of supports where SMR load exceed design. load 1 Based upon a ratio of design load to SMR load when SMR load is less than the design load assuming the 2 design load stresses the support to the Code allowable Ilmit O
MINIMM SEISMIC MARGINS BASED UPON VM.VE ACCELERATIONS 4 l Maximum C Piping System Valve Type Node g,c t on a ctor (g) (Fg) 1. DHR and Core Flooding 3/4" Angle Relief 460 1.516 1.g8 2.88 2. DHR Section 2-1/2" H0 Globe 480 1.407 2.13 3.94 3. DHR Section and Reactor 12" Butterfly 518 1.235 2.43 6.48 h Building Spray 4. Makeup and Purification 2-1/2" M0 61che 660 1.700 1.76 2.20 Discharge 5. High Pressure Injection la Globe 646 1.448 2.07 4.04 (Part1) 6. High Pressure Injection 1" Globe 221 1.481 2.03 2.76 (Part2) 7. Reactor Coolant and 1/2" Globe 445 1.610 1.86 2.40 Pressure Control 1.H 2.M 8. SWS - Reactor Building 6" M0 Butterfly 625 1.824 Return Header g. SWS - Pump Structure 6" MO Gate 570 2.228 1.35 4.56 Header 9
O St# WARY OF SEISMIC MARGINS - HVAC SYSTEMS Maximum Minimum Minimum HVAC System System Element Stress Ratio Code Margin Seismic Factor FSME Aux. Building Duct 0.25 < 1.0 4.0 15.8 Support Angle 0.054 < l'.0 18.5 19.5 Diesel Gen. Bldg. Duct 0.28 < 1.0 3.6 17.2 l Support Anchor 0.39 < 1.0 2.6 8.6 Bolts l l l e W
6-SUP9tARY OF SEISMIC MARGINS.- CA8tE TRAYS Cable Tray Critical Maximum combined Miniman Seismic System Area Stress Ratio Factor. Fg Upper Cable Spreading Room: 36" Cable Tray Element #38 0.63 2.14 Cable Tray Support 3/4" Expansion 0.89 1.21 Anchor Bolt Element #64 i Aux 111ery su11 ding East-West l M:- l 24" Cable Tray Element #98 0.331 5.34 l 12" Cable Tray Element #210 0.168 10.14 I Cable Tray Support Elements #53,54 0.714 1.73 i Containment Building j Internal Structure: l 24" Cable Tray Element #27 0.17 9.66 l Cable Tray support 3/16" Fillet Weld Element #16 0.46 2.62 1. Auxiliary Building East-West j Wl_ng.: 24" Cable Tray (28JQ) Element #4 0.33 3.50 4 l Cable Tray Support 1/2" 4 Expansion i Anchor Bolt i Element f6 0.59 2.29 Service Water Pump Structure: 18" Cable Tray 8' Maximum Span 0.498 2.68 j Cable Tray Support 1/2" 4 Expansion Anchor Bolt j Element #9 0.71 1.42 i ) i,'
MINIMUM SEISMIC MARGIN FOR ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AND SUPPORTS Code Margin Seismic Factor . Element CM Fg Conduit 2.78 3.32 Conduit Strap 1.32 1.57 [ Conduit Clamp 1.10 1.13 Conduit Support 1.36 1.56 e O G e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^ ' - - - - - ~ ~^
~ UNRESOLVED ITEMS e AUXILIARY SHUTDOWN PANEL -DEVICES e CONTROL ROOM HVAC CONTROL PANEL -DEVICES e DIESEL GENERATOR HVAC CONTROL PANEL-DEVICES e UNRESOLVED' ISSUES STEM FROM INCOMPLETE VENDOR QUALIFICATION
sie s4 x \\o ' nV. g e.fc(f.5 CM .4n Gh tft h h t( (g)o R.N%t W ~ a.% P 5% dst %ke h h. 4, h l %,3 q e s A p a k b e s y waa Q % .I bi y1 kldi6.hmmokPll Y hhr.24,HE3 5}h)% l kinlihig bdj 1 O- %'es E Q e,ts u ihe DEB T hr. 'LE, ee.5 N61% BWSI h Feb.16,t% $ 5 tole Ebbid,E.a,il D SNM Wa~ra., W eg M555 Ep.I.fiyi,y W '3,u t4 h6 g n.h d , e _t s e.,m rc a f.;',. 5.gc,r> \\ d.sd y 14 ?N'/[,$f"" X hkr. i,nd 4 Ld4 i o,,ee a L &, a u. %1 b mv a m, #
- NIOOND-SEASMIC MAR 6(O MEhEQ A u..\\ mLddm \\crkas ' Q gvQ3 .i DISTRIBUTION: May 26, 1983 d Docket Nos. 50-329/330 NRC PDR Local PDR D:cket I;os. 50-329 OM, OL and S0-330 PRC System EAdensam MDuncan !;r. J. u. Cook Vice President Attorney, OELD ELJordan, DEQA:IE j Cnnsurers Power Conpany 1945 !!est Parnall Road JMTaylor, DRP:IE f Jackson, :lichigan 49201 ACRS (16) JSniezak, IE JStone, IE
Dear Mr. Cook:
I
Subject:
P.equest for Mditional Inforr.ation Regarding Seisnic !!argin P.eview - Volune I: ilethodology and Criteria Sections 1.8 and 3.7.2.2 of Supplerent 2 to the SER inentified seisnic nargin studies as a confirnatory issue for Hidland Plant, Units 1 and 2. Your letter of February 4,1983 forwarded Volute I of the Seiswic ::argin Review by Structural Mechanics Associates (S".A) for NP.C review. The NRC staff has reviewed Volume I and finds that additional inforcation identified by Enclosure 1 is needed to complete this review. l Sheuld you have questions regarding Enclosure i, contact our Licensing l Project 1anager. Your tirely respcnse to this request will provide for continued review of subsequent volures which address specific structures and equiprent. The ' reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respnndents; therefore, OMB clearance is not recuired under P.L. 95-511. V Sincerely, ~s )0 W O 2 dlinor G. Adensan, Chief Licensing Branch Ho. 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page i S p.
- See Previous White CFFICt> DL:LBf4 LA:DL:L #4 DL:L,Bf4/
n ................y.... ........,.....\\ ...........s...my......... E.8 8e.nsam m:=t > ;.DH.o.od : eb.......
- .MDuncan
..g....y.g................................................................................................< y g ).g.
- g.
cuq..................................................4...............
m 4.-
- g -. -
ENCLOSURE-1 1 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION-130.0 STRUCTURAbENGINEERINGBRANCH 130.28 With respect to Volume I, Seismic Margin Review: Methodology and Criteria, forwarded by your letter of February 4,- 1983, provide the following information: 130.28.1 State how the STUF computer code discussed in Section 2.4 meets the verification requirements identified in the Standard Review' Plan (SRP) Section 3.8.4.III.4. 130.28.2 A statement is made in Section 2.4 that the synthetic time histories were baseline correr'.ed. However, the displacement .and velocity. time histories (. ig.- I-2-5) shows positive values .for displacement and velocity at the end of the specified 10 seconds period, respectively. Explain-the apparent inconsistency between the. statement and the data provided in Fig. 1-2-5. Also, address the limited changes between positive and negative sign for the displacement curve in Fig.1-2-5. 130.28.3 Explain why the value for Vs utilized in Section 3.2 for the intennediate soil profile (Fig. I-3-3) between elevations 553' - 603' is larger than the equivalent value used for a stiff soil profile (Fig.1-3-2). 130.28.4 State how the CLASSI computer code discussed in Section 4.1 meets the verification requirements identified in SRP 3.8.4.III.4. 130.28.5 State how the idealized layered horizontal soil boundaries utilized in your analyses in Section 4.2 reflect the actual field conditions. 130.28.6 Explain in more detail in Section 4.4 the different approaches utilized in devloping the impedance values 'for the auxiliary j building and the service water pump structure for horizontal and torsional considerations vs. vertical and rocking. 130.28.7 Explain in Seciton 4.4 how you consider in your analyses the fact that when a complicated foundation shape is simplified into a rectangular shape the center of stiffness for the complicated shape _ may not coincide with the geometric center of the simplified rectangular shape. Also, address how you account for-changes in the distribution of reactions, at the foundation level, between the actual and simplified models.
\\
- 130.28.8 Explain in Section 4.4 why the impedance for rocking is not 3
based upon the entire foundation area (R = 28.5') when the BWST is analyzed as full of water. It appears that in this condition most of the water load will be transmitted to the soil, therefore, requiring conplete participation of the entire area (R = 28.5). Also, identify all terms used in Fig.1-4-5 and state if the relationships identified in this figure apply for rectangular foot-prints as well as for circular ones. 130.28.9 The electrical penetration wings act as horizontal cantilevers, thereby producing increased horizontal acceleration at locations away from the control tower. Discuss in Section 5.2 the magnitude of this effect and how it is incorporated into the response spectra results. If these details are to be provided in the proposed Vol. III, please state so. In Section 5.', state if you have analyzed the diesel generators 130.28.10 2 and the respective foundations separate from the building, since they are physically separated. Also, provide details of these analyses in Vol. Y of the proposed reports. 130.28.11 Explain how equation 6-1 in Section 6.4 will ensure that sufficient modes will be obtained in the evaluation of the structures. This formulation differs from the requirements identified in the SRP Section 3.7.2.7. 130.28.12 In Section 6.7, the walls are assumed to be rotationally fixed at floor levels (top and bottom) for the calculation of horizontal shear stiffness of each wall at each floor level. Explain how the overall building cantilever bending stiffness was evaluated. 130.28.13 Explain in detail 'ow you determined in Section 8.1 that the translational response in the vertical direction, due to rotations about the two horizontal building axes, should not be considered in the development of the vertical in-structure response spectra. 130.28.14 State how the S0ILST computer code discussed in Section 8.1 meets the verification requirements identified in SRP Section 3.8.4, Paragraph 111.4. 130.28.15 Expand your justification in Sections 8.2 and 3.7.2.9 for using a broadening factor of + 10% instead of the value of + 15% recommended in R.G. 1.172.
e 130.28.16 Discuss and/or correct the following apparent typrographical errors: (a) In Section 1.0, SSE peak ground acceleration should be 0.06g. (3rd line 1st para.). (b) In Section 4.1, (+) should be replaced with (=) (Eq. 4-1). (c) In Section 4.5, Ys should be Vw (3rd line p.1-4-12). (d) In Section 7.1, K in the second equation should be replaced with k (p.1-7-1). J 9 ( t i s d -.-,,.c.--._- r-.-,.-, _r-~,
V(s m g M %q)amt. MillCf MM y j y " ' Q,% nsM k itA N S M M.I. % f0VEk A k 6,' CE/ 74 '1,gpaw % h m %Ad.d. p nl c -% ~ 4 6 BO 18 N / ymHta10 R 1 n L 'e5T L GE1 @ *tg,g e DISTRIBUTION: l'ay 26,1983 Docket f;os. 50-329/330 l k, L ca DP. PRC System g%eed,>;(f6.- .,:ci et 1;cs. 50-329 OM, OL and. 50-330 LB !4 r/f.podd O _f4 /j; @ "h ' D'-iood EAdensam '"C""
- r. J. W. Cock W'
Attorney, OELD v , ice President 9 ELJordan, DEQA:I gpy,_,4 ( Consurers Power Conpany IMS West Parnall Rohd JXTaylor,DRP:I(y Jackson, !!ichigan 49201' A' e k, IE J5 tone, IE szt,; [, / / Ojg
Dear Mr. Conk:
l] Stt,jact: i!equest for Additional Ir.fornation Regarding Seisr.ic 1:argin /,dAu:. T.eview - Volure I: itethodalc.y and Criteria j Sections 1.8 and 3.7.2.2 of Sur.plerent 2 to the SEP, inentified seisnic Mr.,)in studies as a confirr:atcry issue for iiidland Plant, Units I cod 2. Your letter cf Feteuery 4,1963 fe.rvarded Voluce I of the Seiwie iargin Ecview by Structural idechanics Associates (S".A) for ET:C revieu. TI.e hP.C staff has reviev.ed Volume I and finds that additional inforDation identified by Encicsure 1.is nceded to complete this revicu. Sbculd you have questiens regarding Enclosure 1, cor. tact cur Lictnsing Proiect Icanacer. Your tirely rest.cnse to this request will previ:'e for continued review of subsequent volures which address s;acific stre:ctures and ec:uierent. The reporting ar.d/or recordkeeping requirer.ents ccntained in this letter effect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, O!'B. clearance is r.ct receired under P.L. 95-511. Sincerely, .linor G. Adensan, Chief Licensing Eranch Fe. 4 Division of Licensing ~.:lcturc: r
- s s ti tH cc:
See r cet t.qe
- S::s Frevicur 2.ite LA:DL:L5#4 OL j
l ........ g..........i..C.E = 4, '... j !DL:L E#.1 o.a p,. ..s.... EAcensa.. .. - > F.D..%., o d.,.u:.e b...... i'..MD o r.c a n .j y s..,,.y.,g......... r,..,.. 3....
EtJCLOSURE 1 REQUEST FOR ADDITIO!!AL It: FORMATION 130.0 STRUCTURAL EtGIt;EERIt:G BRANCH 130.28 With respect to Volume I, Seismic liargin Revies: liethodology and Criteria, forwarded by your letter of February 4,1983, provide the following information: 130.28.1 ' State how 'the STUF computer code discussed in Secticn 2.4 meets the verification requirements identified in the Standard Review Plan (SRP) Section 3.8.4.III 4. 130.28.2 A statement is made in Section 2.4 that the synthetic time hictories were baseline corrected. However, the displacement and velocity. time histories (Fig. I-2-5) shows positive values .for displacement and velocity at the end of the specified 10 seconds period, respectively. Explain the apparent inconsistency between the statement and the data provided in Fig. 1-2-5. Also, address the limited changes between positive and negative sign for the displacement curve in Fig.1-2-5. 130.28.3 Explain why the valug for Ys utilized in Section 3.2 for the intermediate soil profile (Fig.1-3-3) between elevations 553' - 603' is larger than the equivalent value used for a stiff soil profile (Fig.1-3-2). 130.28.4 State how the CLASSI computer code discussed in Section 4.1 meets the verification requirements identified in SRP 3.8.4.III.4. 130.28.5 State how the idealized layered horizontal soil boundaries utilized in your analyses in Section 4.2 reflect the actual field conditions. 130.28.6 Explain in more detail in Section 4.4 the different approaches utilized in devloping the impedance values for the auxiliary building and the service water pump structure for horizontal and torsional considerations vs. vertical and rocking. 130.28.7 Explain in Seciton 4.4 how you consider in your analyses the fact that when a complicated foundation shape is simplified into a rectangular shape the center of stiffness for the complicated shape may not coincide with the geometric center of the simplified rectangular shape. Also, addr ess how you account for changes in the distribution of reactions, at the foundation level, between the actual and simplifieo models. S. 1 ,,e
130.28.8 Explain in Section 4.4 why the-impedance for rocking is not based upon the entire foundation area (R = 28.5') when the BWST L is analyzed as full of water. It appears that in this condition nost-of the water load will be transmitted to the soil, therefore, requiring conplete participation of the entire area (R = 28.5). Also, identify all terms used in Fig. I-4-5 and state if the-relationships identified in this figure apply for rectangular foot-prints as well as for circular ones. 130.28.9 The ele.ctrical penetration wings act as horizontal cantilevers, thereby producing increased horizontal acceleratica at locations away from the control tower. Discuss in Section 5.2 the magnitude of this effect and how it is incorporated into the response spectra results. If these details are to be.provided in the proposed Vol. III, please state so. ~ 130.28.10 In Section 5.i!, state if you have analyzed the diesel generators and the respective foundations separate from the building, since they are physically separated. Also, provide. details of these analyses in Vol. V of the proposed reports. "~ 130.28.11 Explain how equation 6-1 in Section 6.4 will ensure that i sufficient modes will be obtained in the evaluation of the structures. This formulation differs from the requirements identified in the SRP Section 3.7.2.7. 130.28.12 In Section 6.7, the' walls are assumed to be rotationally fixed at floor levels (top and bottom) for the calculation of horizontal shear stiffness of each wall at each floor level. Explain how the overall building cantilever bending stiffness was evaluated. 130.28.13 Explain in detail how you determined in Section 8.1 that the translational response in the vertical direction, due to rotations about the two horizontal building a'xes, should not be considered in th t development of the vertical in-structure response spectra. 130.28.14 State how the SOILST computer code discussed in Section 8.1 meets the verification requirements identified in SRP Section 3.8.4, Paragraph III.4. 130.28.15 Expand your justification in Sections 8.2 and 3.7.2.9 for using a broadening factor of + 10% instead of the value of + 15% recommended in R.G. 1.172.
3-J0.28.16 . Discuss and/or correct the following apparer.t typrographical errors: (a) In Section 1.0, SSE peak ground acceleration should be D.06g. (3rd line 1st para.). (b) In Section 4.1, (+) should be replaced with (=) (Eq. 4-Y). (c) In Section 4.5, Vs should be Vw (3rd line p. I-4-12). (d) In Section 7.1, K in the secent' equation should be replaced with k (p.1-7-1). ~. l e a f ^I e. ee r. k.n. m ' e ' wm.% w, m< m w m, e u ^
, Ik*p,3 ( .I, "m k c.',j Mn ^ 3 Jemas W cook Vice President - Projects, Engineering and Construction oeneral Offices: 1945 West Parnell Road, Jackson. MI 49201 e (517) 788 o463 September 28, 1983 Harold R Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Comunission Washington, DC 20555 MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER MIDLAND DOCKET NOS 50-329, 50-J30 NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE SEISMIC MARGIN REVIEW REPORT FILE: B3.7.1 SERIAL: 25654 +
REFERENCE:
(1) LETTER FROM J W COOK TO H R DENTON DATED FEBRUARY 4, 1983, SERIAL 21010 (2) LETTER FROM E G ADENSAM (NRC) TO J W COOK DATED MAY 26, 1983 In reference (1), Consumers Power Company submitted Volume I of the Seismic Margin Review Report titled, " Methodology and Criteria," for the Staff's review. Subsequently, in reference (2) the NRC requested additional information on Volume I in question number 130.28. As an attachment to this letter, CPCo is cubmitting the response to question 130.23 for Staff review. It is expected that this information will enable the NRC St.aff to complete its review of Volume I of the Seismic Margin Review Report ? )ga m 6tl, G w l JWC/MFC/bjw CC RJCook, Midland Resident Inspecto JGKeppler, Administrator, NRC Region III DSHood, US NRC FRinaldi, US NRC GHarstead, Harstead Engineering Company GBagchi, US NRC RBosnak, US NRC MAMiller, US NRC Licensing Branch No 4 (2) -00100, ;- N ~ k vw v3vuuS55 1g()k E i's PDR-i) y zw-oc0983-0625a100
.) CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Midland Units 1 and 2 Docket No 50-329, 50-330 Letter Serial 25654 Dated September 28, 1983 At the request of the Commission and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended and the Commission's Rules and Regulations thereunder, Consumers Power Company submits additional information on the Seismic Margin Review Report Volume I titled, " Methodology and Criteria." CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY By JW ook, Vio: President Projec, Engineering and Construction [dt jff) Sworn and subscribed before me this /dayof / / h Notary Public Jackson County, Michigan My Commission Expires /,M P / / P / t oc0983-0625a100
,N Question 130.28.1 State how the STUF computer code discussed in Section 2.4 meets the verification requirements identified in the Standard Review Plan (SRP) Section 3.8.4.III.4. l I
Response
STUF creates artificial earthquake time histories from given response spectra. The method is an iterative process l tnat operates on the Fourier Series representation of the l artificial earthquake. Once the time history has been generated by STUF, the response spectra developed from the l time history record are compared with the given response spectra. The comparison of the response spectra with the given response spectra assures the computer program results produce spectra which essentially envelop the given response spectra and thus provides the verification of results. The computer manual for STUF together with associated check problems is maintained by Structural Mechanics Associates, Inc.
Question 130.28.2 A statement is made in Section 2.4 that the syn-thetic time histories were baseline corrected. However, the displacement and velocity time histories (Figure I-2-5) shows positive values for displacement'and~ velocity at the end of the specified 10 seconds period, respectively. Explain the apparent inconsistency between the statement and the data provided in Figure I-2-5.
- Also, address the limited changes between positive and negative sign for the displacement curve in Figure I-2-5.
Response
A parabolic baseline corrtction was used for the synthetic earthquake time history ecords. This procedure typically results in the type of dr!f t exhibited in the velocity and displacement recordt shown in Figure I-2-5. ';he accelera-tion time history record shown produces response spectra which essentially envelop the Seismic Margin Earthquake (SME) spectra. The evaluation of the Midland structures was based on seismic responses developed from response spectrum analyses. The in-structure response spectra developed using the synthetic earthquake time history are pseudo-absolute acceleration spectra which are essentially unaffected by velocity or displacement drift. Thus, the method of baseline correction used is imaterial to any results developed in the Seismic Margin Review, and the-number of zero-crossings of the displacement trace or the existence of a small residual velocity or displacement does not influence any results for either structures or equipment. e
l Question 130.28.3 Explain why the value for Vs utilized in Section 3.2 for the intemediate soil profile (Figure I-3-3) between Elevations 553' - 603' is larger than the equivalent value used for stiff soil profile (Figure I-3-2).
Response
Figures 1-3-1 through I-3-3 present a soft site, a stiff site, and an intermediate representation of the soil profiles, respectively, beneath the auxiliary building, reactor building, and service water pump structures at the Midland site. These three profiles were selected to reasonably span the uccertainty range which exists for soil-structure interactia (SSI) impedance functions for the buildings. The soft site profile (Figure I-3-1) results in the lowest values for all SSI impedance function terms, the intermediate profile (Figure I-3-3) results in intemediate values, and the stiff profile (Figure I-3-2) results in the highest values. The labels " soft", " stiff", and " intermediate" were simply selected to indicate the relative values for the SSI impedance functions which cesult from the use of these profiles. These terms were not meant to imply that the soil properties for every layer in the intermediate profile lay midway between those for the corresponding layer of soft and stiff profiles. All three profiles were selected to represent possible and slightly bounding profiles which might exist under the Midland buildings. The intermediate profile was established based upon the following considerations. First, both the soft site profile (Figure I-3-1) and the stiff site profile (Figure I-3-2) contain two major impedance mismatches above bedrock. It was decided to retain t!:is feature of two major l impedance mismatches for the intemediate profile.
r V Secondly, the. impedance mismatch at Elevation 550 has the greatest influence on stiffness (K) and damping (C) SSI impedance function terms for the soft site profile while that at Elevation 463 has the greatest influence for the stiff site profile. Therefore, for the intermediate profile, it was decided to place the two impedance mismatches at Elevations 553 (approximately 550) and 463 so as to be consistent with the location of impedance mismatches of both the soft site and stiff site profiles which most influence radiation damping. Next, the ratio of 33g above and below Elevation 553 for the intermediate profile was selected to be approximately equal to that for the soft site profile r. ear this elevation. Similarly, the ratio of Gg above r.nd below Elevaton 463 for the intermediate profil<a was selected to be approximately equal to that for the stiff site profile at this elevation. In this way, the primary 1:npedance mismatch influences of both ~ the soft and stiff profiles on the reduction in radiation damping was incorporated into the intemediate profile. For both the soft and stiff site profiles, SSI stiffness (K) impedance terms are primarily influenced by the soil prcperties between Elevations 410 and the foundation level. Therefore, in addition to the impedance mismatch ratios described above, it was decided that the intermedi-ate profile should have G3g values approximately midway between those for the soft and stiff site profiles between Elevations 410 and the building foundation levels (Elevations 562 to 587). l
An intennediate profile should have SSI stiffness (K) impedance terms approximately midway between those for the soft and stiff site profiles while maintaining about the same radiation damping reduction factors due to layering as exhibited by both the soft and stiff profiles. In this way, the intermediate profile retains the most important characteristics of both the soft site and sti?f site l profiles while providing SSI impedance tenns approximately l midway between these two profiles. It is recognized that the intermediate profile has a V 3 value of 1500 fps as compared to 1400 fps for the stiff site profile at elevations above Elevation 568 to 585 (depending upon building being considered). This condition results from ignoring the rather unimportant impedance mismatch at Elevations 568 to 585 for the stiff site profile while retaining in the intermediate profile the more important impedance mismatch characteristics of the soft site profile at about Elevation 550. Similarly, the intermediate profile has a V3 value of 2468 fps at elevations between Bedrock and Elevation 410. This V is 3 less than that for the soft site profile at these elevations. This also occurs because the intermediate prcfile ignores the less important impedance mismatch at Elevation 410 of the soft site profile while retaining the more important impedance mismatch characteristics of the stiff site profile at Elevation 463. The intermediate profile retains all the most important characteristics of both the sof t and stiff profiles and these apparent deficiencies are considered to be of very minor importance for the buildings founded on glacial till.
. s ~ It should be noted that the largest structural responses for all buildings founded on the glacial till occurred for the upper bound SSI impedances which were taken as 1.3 times those given for the stiff site profile (Figure I-3-2) and thus are not governed by the chosen intermediate profile. 0 e
Question 130.28.4 State how the CLASSI computer code discussed in Section 4.1 meets the verification. requirements i identified in SRP 3.8.4.III.4.
Response
Comparison of CLASSI calculated soil impedances to classical solutio's have been presented in published technical literature (References 1 and 2). These comparisons demon-strate excellent agreement between soil impedances developed by classical methods for rigid foundations on an elastic half-space and the frequency dependent impedances determined by CLASSI. CLASSI is also available in the public domain. In addition, soil igadances determined by CLASSI have been further verified for layered sites by studies conducted for the Zion nuclear power plant (Reference 3). In this study, the structural response of a Zion reactor building was developed based on a CLASSI representation of the layered soil site at Zion. Additional analyses of the reactor building were then conducted using a linear finite element representation of the site as modeled by computer program FLUSH (Reference 4). Comparisons of reactor building acceleration response demonstrated substantial agreement between the two methods with differences in peak values generally averaging about 5 percent. Therefore, the results presented in References 1, 2, and 3 are considered to comply with the intent of Sections 3.8.1.II.4.e. (1), (ii) and (iii) of the Standard Review Plan. The computer manual and associated check problems for CLASSI are maintained by Structural Mechanics Associates, Inc. t l
References:
1. Wong, H. L., and J. E. Luco, "3ynamic Response of Rigid Foundations of Arbitrary Shape". Earthquake Engineering and_ Structural Dynamics, Vol. 4, pp 579-587, 1976.- 2. Luco, J. E., " Vibrations of a kigid Disc on a Layered Viscoelastic Medium" Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 36, pp 325-340, 1976. 3. Maslenikov, O. R., Chen, J. C., and J. J. Johnson, " Uncertainty in Soil-Structure Interation Analysis of a Nuclear Power Plant - A Comparison of Two Analysis Procedures", Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, UCRt.-85702 Preprint. 4. Lysmer, J., et al, " FLUSH - A Computer Program for Approximate 3-0 Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction Problems", Report No. EERC 75-30 Earthquake Engineering Research Center University of California, Berkeley, California, November,1975. 4 O i i i l l I i --,,,..-,..--~m. - ~ -
Question 130.28.5 State how the idealized layered horizontal soil [- boundaries utilized in your analyses in Section 4.2 reflect the actual field conditions. Response _: The layeM site analyses were conducted to evaluate the effects of layering on the stiffness and geometric damping I characteristics of the site. A wide range of properties was used in order to conservatively bound the expected actual field conditions. The layered site analyses con-ducted for' Midland were based on geotechnical investigations conducted by Dames & Moore, Inc. and Weston Geophysical Corporation. The Danes & Moore results are considered representative of soft site conditions at Midland while the Weston Geophysical results are representative of stiff site conditions. These investigations established the layer descriptions shown in Figure I-3-1 and I-3-2 together with the low strain properties of these layers. An inter-mediate site condition was developed from a weighted average of the soft and stiff site properties in order to also compute approximately mid-range response for the Midland structures and equipment. For the layered site characteristics used in the analysis described in Section 4.2, strain degradation effects appropriate for the SME soil strain levels were introduced for the various soil layers. Ct.ASSI analyses were then conducted using these layered site profiles together with the appropriate foundation plan dimensions at the appro-priate foundation depths for the various structures. Equivalent shear moduli aere developed which resulted in the same elastic half *-space foundation stiffnesses as the layered site analyses. These shear moduli were reduced for the soft site and increased for the stiff site to conser-vatively increase the range of soil properties considered. Where uncertainties exist, asstanptions were introduced to further stiffen the stiff site compliance functions and l soften the soft site compliance functions. ..mm
,-m Question 130.28.6_ Explain in more detail in Section 4.4 the different approaches utilized in developing the impedance values for the auxiliary building and the service water pump structure for horizontal and torsional considerations vs. vertical and rocking.
Response
The development of the soil impedance values for the aux 11-lary building and the service water pump structure are dis-cussed in more detail in Volumes III and IV, respectively. In summary, for the horizontal translation and torsion degrees of freedom, the entrapped soil is considered to act integrally with the foundatica base mat. For rocking and vertical translation, the assumed foundation shape was based on the foundation contact area only. For horizontal translation, an equivalent rectangle was developed fer the foundation based on equivalence of area and moment of inertia considering the entire foundation plan dimensions including entrapped soil. For torsion, an equivalent ~ circle with radius based on the polar moment of inertia was developed, again including the entrapped soil. For the vertical translation, an equivalent rectangle based on the contact area of the foundation was calculated. An equivalent rectangle based on both the contact area and moment of inertia was used for the rocking degrees-of-freedom. The above approach is considered to most accurately simulate the foundation stiffness characteristics of structures with entrapped soil subject to seismic excitation. Since the entrapped soil is forced to move in-phsse with the strocture for horizontal motions, soil shear forces will be transmitted through the entrapped soil to the vertical structural walls enclosing the soil and a stiffness based on the foundation plan area including the E =
Question 130.28.5 (Continued) soil is considered appropriate. However, for vertical motion (including rocking) separation of the soil and structure may occur due to the lack of ability to transmit tension across the soil-structure interface, and the entrapped soil does not necessarily all have to move in-phase with the structure. For these degrees-of-freedom, an equivalent foundation stiffness based on the foundation contact area only is considered appropriate. Where any significant uncertainty exists on including the entrapped soil in the stiffness and mass properties of the structure, as for instanco in the diesel generator building, a parametric study was conducted and the structural loads and.in-structure response spectra were-based on an envelope of the par metric results. Details of these calculations are discussed in the appropriate volumes, for the individual structures. 9 O + rT'Turu
Question 130.28.7 Explain in Section 4.4 how you consider in your analyses the fact that when a complicated foundation shape is simplified into a rectangular shape the center of stiffness for the complicated shape may not coincide with the geometric center of the simplified rectangular shape. Also, address how you account for changes in the distribution of reactions, at the foundation level, between the actual and simplified models.
Response
As discussed in Volumes III and IV, different equivalent rectangular foundations were developed for structures with entrapped soil. When this is done, the centers of rigidity for the different degrees-of-freedom do not necessarily correspond. When these centers of rigidity are not coinci-dent, the soil compliance functions were located at the rocking center of rigidity. As an example, for the auxil-iary building, the center of rigidity of the equivalent rectangular foundation was calculated at approximately 123.6' north of Column Line X of the structure for the e vertical and rocking degrees-of-freedom compared to approximately 117.0' for the horizontal translation and torsion degrees-of-freedsm, or about a 5 percent shift. When the foundation center of rigidity does not correspond with either the center of mass or the center or rigidity of the shear walls above the base slab, these locations were connected in the model by rigid links. Distribution of reactions at the foundation level is of concern only for the calculation of bearing pressures in the soil. For this calculation, a rigid base mat was assumed together with a linear soil stress distribution based on the actual foundation geometry.
S' Question 130.28.8 Explain in Section 4.4 why the impedance for rocking is not based upon the entire foundation area (R = 28.5') when the BWST is analyzed as full of water. It appears that in this condition most of the water load will be transmitted to the soil, therefore, requiring complete participation of the entire area (R = 28.5). Also, identify all terms used in Figure I-4-5 and state if the relationships identified in this figure apply for rectangular foot-prints as well as for circular ones.
Response
For horizontal and vertical translation of tanks, seismic induced forces are transmitted to the underlying soil over the entire tank area. However for rocking, it was judged that seismic-induced forces are transmitted to the under-lying soil primarily through the ring wall foundation. For translation, the water is forced to respond by seismic response of the tank as the walls and the base of the tank, force the water into compatible deformations with the tank. In the rocking mode, the tank can respond somewhat independently of the contained water because the flexible tank bottoe does not induce significant rocking response of the fluid. In Figure I-4-5, o is the normalized embednent coef-g fielent used in Equation 4-6, a = wR/V is the dimen-o s sicaless frequency, h is the embednent depth, and R is the radius of the embednent structure. The relationship can be used for rectangular footprints if an equivalent radius, R, is used based on equal stiffnesses for corresponding degrees-of-freedom. + ,, _..... - _.. _. - - _. _. -.. _,. _._ -,..-_... --_.-..._ _.._ -__....-____--- ~~ _ _ _ _ _.....~._____,__.~_. -.--
^- Question 130.28.9 The electrical penetration wings act as horizontal cantilevers, thereby producing increased horizontal acceleration at locations away from the control tower. Discuss fn Section 5.2 the magnitude of this effect and how it is incorporated into the response spectra results. If these details are to be provided in the proposed Volume III, please state so.
Response
The overall model as shown in Figure I-5-3 includes three-dimensional representations of the Electrical Penetration Areas (EPAs) as well as the main auxiliary and control tower portions of the structure. Thus, the amplification through the EPAs is predicted from the overall model, and the structural loads developed in the EPAs reflect this amplification. In-structure response spectra were developed at locations near the extremities of the EPAs for use in evaluating the EPA mounted equipment. In addition, a parametric evaluation was conducted to determine the effects of relative soil stiffness modeling assumptions for the EPAs, and the structural loads were based on the worst-case results of this parametric study. The results of the auxillary building analysis are presented in Volume III of this report. l f 3 ...-.,,._.~..._-_..,__,_.-_........__,.,,,,,,m_
~ Question 130.28.10 In Section 5.2, state if you have analyzed the diesel generators and the respective foundations j separate from the building, since they are physi-cally seprated. Also, proide details of these analyses in Volume V of the proposed reports.
Response
The in-structure response spectra presented in Volume V for-the diesel generator building were considered to be appli-cable for equipment mounted in the building. Additional in-structure response spectra were developed for the diesel generators which account for the small foundation size and independence of the diesel generator pedestals from the rest of the structure. Details of this anlaysis and the resulting spectra used to evaluate the diesel generators will be presented in folume VII on electrical, control, instrtaeontation, and mechanical equipment. i ll l l ......-.--_.._..__?____,_
- ,,..___.-__,__.._......_,_,m__..,_._,,__,,_._,.,_.,,
Question 130.28.11 Explain how Equation 6-1 in Section 6.4 will ensure .-that sufficient modes will be obtained in the evaluation of the structures. This formulation differs from the requirements identified in the SRP Section 3.7.2.7.
Response
The criteria presented in Section 6.4 provide a conserva-tive basis to establish 'the seismic response of the structures since Equation 6-1 is applied to any nodal location rather than to a total percentage of structure mass participating. All structures analyzed as part of the SML had essentially 100 percent of the mass participating in the response spectrum analyses for all directions of response. Therefore, the use. of additional modes would not alter the building responses as they are presented in their respective voltaes. The actual total percentages of mass participating as well as a breakdown of the mass participating on a mode by mode basis is presented in the appropriate volumes for the individual structures. m 9 l I
Question 130.28,12 In Section 6.7, the walls are asstmed to be rotationally fixed at floor levels (top and botton) for the calculation of horizontal shear stiffness of each wall at each floor level. Explain how the overall building cantilever bending stiffness was evaluated. R_esponse: The overall building cantilever dynamic respcase mWels used for the SMt were the same models developed for design and repoP ed in the FSAR. These models include both the shear and cantilever bending flexibility. The models are based on a linearly elastic system assuming plane sections remain plane, and consist of Itaped masses connected by massless flexible elements. Plate finite elements were incorporated where additional detail was required. The overall. dynamic building mode 1~s are discussed in Section 5 of Volume I and in more detail in the appropriate volimer for the individual structures. In general, the contri-bution of bending stiffness to the overall response of the Midland structures is small. In Section 6.7, the distribution of load from the overall dynamic models to the individual shear walls is discussed. For shear wall-type structures, these loads wem propor-tioned to the shear walls based on their relative stiff-nesses as determined based on the assumption the walls are rotationally fixed top and bottom. The capacity of the walls was also checked for overturning moment capacity where the incremental changes in overall building over-turning moment are distributed to the individual walls in j the same proportion as the distribution of the shears in the resisting system.
~. . Question 130.28.13 Explain in detail how you determined in Section 8.1 that the translational response in the vertical direction, due to rot'ations about the two horizon-tal building axeis, should not be considered in the development of the vertical in-structure response spectra.
Response
The small vertical component due to horizontal rocking of the structures is maximized for the lower bound soil condition. However, the vertical response of the structure, and hence the in-structure response spectra in the governing frequency range of the equipnent, is controlled by the stiff site soil condition where the rocking is much less pronounced. Because of its height-to-diameter ratio, rocking is more pronounced for the reactor-building than for the other structures. Therefore, increases in vertical response due to horizontal rocking tre maximized for the reactor building. Rotational response about a horizontal axis was computed for this structure and the increase in the vertical input to equipment was found to be less than 20 percent at the maximum distance from the center of the structure. For equipment located away from the contairinent building wall j or in other structures, the eff ect of rocking is less. One reason for the relatively small increase in the vertical response compared to the effect of torsion on the horizontal response is that the contribution to the I vertical from rocking is combined with the vertical trans-lation by SRSS since the vertical and horizontal ground motions are expected to be out-of-phase. Since the torsional response occurs in-phase with the horizontal translational response, these effects must be combined on an absolute sum basis. Where significant vertical l l
amplification is expectea, as for instance, towards the centers of the more flexible floor slabs, it has been included in the analysis by accounting for dynamic amplification due to floor slab flexibility. 4 O O
c. Question 130.28.14 State how the 50!LST computer code discussed in Section 8.1 meets the verification requirements identified in SRP Section 3.8.4, Paragraph III.4.
Response
Computer program 50!LST was verified by comparison of test problemresultswithcomputerprogramEASE(Reference 1)In accordance with SRP 3.8.1.II.4.e.(11). EASE is available in the public domain. Direct integration time history analysis of the Service Water Pump Structure dynamic model were conducted using both EASE and 50!LST computer codes. Peak accelerations were compared at typical locations in the structure. Results from the two analyses were shown to be virtually identical with the maximum difference in acceleration esponse being less than 3.5 percent. Similar- ~ comparisons of displacement response showed a maximum difference in peak displacements of about 4 percent. The minor differences in results are attributable to slightly different methods of modeling damping in the two codes. The computer manual and associated check problems for 50!LST are maintained by Structural Mechanics Associates, Inc. I
Reference:
l 1. EASE 2 " Finite Element Application for Performing Static / Dynamic Linear Elastic Analyses of 3-0 Structural Systems". Engineering Analysis Corporation, Lomita California. l l l - -. -,.. ~... . - -..,... - ~. ~ _ _ _ _ _ -, _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _, _, _
~. ~ Question 130.28.15 Expand your justification in Section 8.2 and 3.7.2.9 for using a broadening factor of 1105 instead of the value of 115% reconnended in R.G. 1.122. Question: SRP Section 3.7.2.III.9 states that peak broadening should not be less than + 105. Regulatory Guide 1.122 also permits broadening of the response spectra peaks by 1 105 if a parameteric study is performed to justify this value. 1 The response of the Midland structures is controlled to a large extent by the soil parameters at the site. As discussed in Section 8.2, a very wide range of soil properties was used in the SMR. The soil properties were further varied by multiplying the lower bound soil properties by 0.6 and the upper bound soll properties by 1.3. This wide range is reflected in very broad in-structure response spectra peaks since the in-structure spectra consist of an envelope of the spectra from the entire soil range. These spectra were further broadeneo to conservatively cover any additional uncertainty in the structural models as discussed in Section 3.7.2.III.9 of the SRp. Where additional uncertainty could be possible, as for instance in the soil-structure interaction of the diesel generator building, additional parametric studies i were conducted, and the in-structure response spectra were generated from an envelope of the parametric results. Thus, the combination of a parametric study based on a very i broad range of soil parameters in combination with an additional peak broadening is considered to conservatively meet the intent of R. G.1.122. l l 4 2 ______-,--n,---. +- " ,n,_, ..,,-,--,,,--,_-,,,,__,_.---,-,-m,,, ,-..,_,,_--n_w_e,_,e.- m ,an__,,,e_,w,--,,w.. , -. ~,,,, _, _,,
~ 7 Question 130.28.16 Discuss and/or correct the following apparent typographical errors: (a) In Section 1.0, SSE peak ground acceleration should be 0.06g. (3rd line 1st paragraph). (b) In Section 4.1, (+) should be replaced with (=) (Equation 4-1). -(c) In Section 4.5, Vs should be Vw (3rd line p. I-4-12). (d) In Section 7.1, K in the second equation should be replaced with k (p. I-7-1).
Response
(a) The 1st line of the 1st paragraph should read 0.06g peak horizontal ground acceleration for the Operating BasisEarthquake(08E). (b) In Section 4.1, (+) should be replaced with (=) in Equation 4-1 as indicated. l (c) In Section 4.5, the vw in the denominator of Equation 4-7 should be replaced with v where v s s is the high strain shear wave velocity. (d) In Section 7.1, the K in the second equation should be replaced with a k as noted. t I t
Susnct& p hy Eb b b a m [N M s ~ MW / April 30, 1984 DISTRIBUTION: Docket Nos. 50-329/330 OM, OL Docket Nos: 50-329 OM, OL NRC PDR and 50-330 OM, OL Local PDR NSIC PRC System Mr. J. W. Cook LB #4 r/f Vice President EAdensam Consumers Power Company DHood g .g NDuncan g. 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 Attorney, OELD ACRS (16) DMJordan, I&E
Dear Mr. Cook:
JNGrace, I&E
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SEISMIC MARGIN REVIEW REPORT VOL. VII The NRC, with the technical assistance of its consultant from the Energy Technologies Engineering Center, has reviewed mechanical engineering aspects of Volume VII of your Seismic Margin Review Reports, entitled " Electrical, Control, Instrumentation and Mechanical Equipment-Margins" and submitted to the NRC under your February 4,1983 cover letter. We find that additional information, identified by Enclosure 1, is needed to complete this review. Please provide the information requested by Enclosure 1 by June 1,1984 Contact our project manager, Darl Hood, if you have questions regarding this request or are unable to meet the requested response date. A copy of your responses should also be forwarded directly to our ETEC consultant. The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L. 96-511. Sincerely, c'. - Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Q As stated r' cc: w/ enclosure {" See next page OL:LB#4 DL:LB#4 b[:tB44 MDuncan DHood/po'b EAdedsam 4/ /84 4/ /84 4A /84 f l'
} t / ETEC C0fMENTS ON SEISMIC MARGIN REVIEW, MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER PROJECT, VOLUME VII ETEC has reviewed Volume VII " Electrical, Control, Instrumentation and Mechanical Equipment Margins," which is part of the Seismic Margin Review for Midland. The following additional information/ clarification is needed to complete this review: (1) Table VII-5-5 Diesel Engine Generator, Part VI. 8.8 shows " Max. Critical Deflection" N/A. Explain shy this maximum critical deflection was not included, as part of the required assurance of operability. l (2) Page VII-7-5 states: "The TRS do not completely envelope the SME spectra in the low frequency regions. See Appendix A, Figures VII-A-9-1 through VII-A-9-3. The unenveloped regions of the SME spectra have negligible effects on the total response of the cabinet because the cabinet fundamental frequencies are at least 1.5 times higher than the unenveloped frequencies of the SME spectra. In conclusion, the cabinet and instruments are considered qualified for the SME." The ttst, for these cabinets, is described in Appendix A, Table VII-A-9 as multi-axis and multi-frequency. Figure VII-A-9-3 presents the seismic spectra for the side-side / vertical axes of excitation for SMd and TRS spectra. This figure shows at the fundamental side-side frequency for the sensor cabinet (6.1 HZ) and the ECCAS cabinet (8.1 HZ), the SME is 1.88 and 2.38, respectively, greater than the TRS accelerations. Clarify the above statement to account for the multi-axis aspect qf this test versus the single axis oresentation. (3) Table VII-A-12' (Control Room HVAC OVM-OlA and 02A) shows that the unit was qualified by a combination of test and analysis. The natural frequencies for side-side, front-back and vertical by testing were all above 33 HZ (V.5), while the natural frequencies by dynamic analysis were 4.8 HZ (side-side), 5.0 HZ (frent-back) and 7.0 HZ (vertical) (VI.2). Explain (1) this discrepancy, (2) why the frequency range for the dynamic analysis did not consider the higher modes up to 33 HZ and (3) why the maximum critical deflection for the motor was not addressed. (4) Table VII-A-17 (Aux. Feedwater Pump - Motor Driven), Item VI, 8.8 shows "the maximum critical deflection =.003 inches (for the flexible coupling lateral deflection) and the maximum allowable deflection to assure functional operability =.003 inches" for SSE seismic loading. The report, in section 8.7, has only addressed the seismic margins for the high stress locations and not this critical operational deflection. Explain why this maximum deflection was not calculated for the SME spectra accelerations.
J" t ..ae t Table-A-18 (Aux. Feedwa' er Pump - Turbine Driven), Item VI.8.B 7 (5) t shows "the maximum critical deflection =.003 inches (for.the flexible coupling lateral deflection) and the maximum allowable deflection to assure functional operability =.003 inches" for SSE seismic. loading. The report, in section 8.8, has only ~ ~ addressed the seismic margins for the high stress locations and 4 not this critical operational deflection. Explain why this maxi-mum deflection was not calculated for the SME spectra accelerations. (6) Page VII-8-9 for Section 8.7 (Aux. Feedwager Pump - Electric Motor 4 Driven) states: "The SME ZPA's were greater than the design ZPA's in both horizontal directions but were less than the design IPA in the vertical direction," and for section 8.8 (Aux. Feedwater pump - Turbine Driven) states: "The design zero period accelerations in the horizontal directions were less than the corresponding SME accelerations, but the vertical design acceleration was greater than the vertical SME acceleration." Since both of these pumps are located in the Auxiliary Building at elevation 524'-0", explain why there is a difference in these two statements and present the appropriate horizontal and vertical seismic spectra. i ) l i l ~..
~v j k' m ~' ~ k'} \\c0G $ f' s 1.+]q.~.s pys ... n.s ....m
- [
Frederick W suokman ,., -j
- ) 3 w p.,
i Executive Af.mager tJtslii,0 4 Sfidleed Project Office General offices: 1948 West Parneal Road. Jackson, MI 49201 * (517) 788 1933 September 21, 1983 Harold R Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Comunission Washington, DC 20555 MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER MIDLAND DOCKET NOS 50-329, 50-330 NRC REQl'EST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE SEISMIC MARGIN REVIEW REPORT FILE: B3.7.1 SERIAL: 25652
REFERENCE:
(1) LETTER FROM J W COOK TO H R DENTON DATED MARCH 30, 1983 (2) LETTER FROM E G ADENSAM (NRC) TO J W COOK DATED AUGUST 11, 1983 In reference (1), Consumers Power Company submitted Volume II of the Seismic Margin Review deport titled, " Reactor Containment Building," for the Staff's review. Subsequently, in reference (2) the NRC requested additional information on Volume II in question number 130.30. As an attachment to this letter, CPCo is submitting the response to question 130.30 for Staff review. It is expected that this information will enable the NRC Staff to complete 7 its review of Volume II of the Seismic Margin Review Report. /U JWC/MFC/bjw CC PJCook, Midland Resident Inspector JGKeppler, Administrator, NRC Region III DSHood, US NRC FRinaldi, US NRC GHarstead, Harstead Engineering Company' GBagchi, US NRC RBosnak, US NRC !!AMiller, US NRC Licensing Branch No 4 6 i PDR ADOCK 05000329 COI ~ pyg, oc0983-0624a100 g
- Asy,
U s CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Midland Units 1 and 2 Docket No 50-329, 50-330 Letter Serial 25652 Dated September 21, 1983 At the request of the Commission and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended and the Commission's Rules and Regulations thereunder, Consumers Power Company submits additional information on.the Seismic Margin Review Report Volume II titled, " Reactor Containment Building." CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY D/j or sw F'W Buckman, Executiv h ger Midland Project Office Sworn and subscribed before me this ay of /9ff Yasnta $h J N5t g Public O/) Jackson County, Michigan My Commission Expires s4 h, /9fY l 4 oc0983-0624a100
i SMA 13701.05M407 130.0 STRUCTURAL ENGIN'EERING BRANCH 130.30 With respect to Volume II, Seismic Margin Review: Reactor Containment Building, forwarded by your letter of March 30, 1983, provide.the following infonnation: Question 130.30.1 The response spectra in Figures II-5-3 through 6, -10 through -22 -24, -27, -30 -33, -36 and -39 show the valleys. This does not seem consistent with the previously made statenant that the peaks of three soil stiffnesses would be connected so as to eliminate valleys and, therefore, cover possible intennediate soil stiffnesses. Please discuss this inconsistency. ~
Response
The final Seismic Margin Earthquake (SME) in-structure response spectra were developed as an envelope of the broadened spectra for the different soil cases at each J location as discussed in Section 8 of Volume I. This development of the enveloped spectra considered possible shif ting of structure frequencies due to uncertainty in actual site soil conditions. The enveloped spectra were further snoothed to remove minor valleys. 1 The procedure used to develop the in-structure response } spectra can be demonstrated by the exanple in the attached Figure Q&R 130.30.1-1.,This figure forms the basis for Figure II-5-4 for 2 percent of critical damping and is similar to all the questioned response spectra curves. The three dashed lines in the figure correspond to the in-structure response spectra generated for the lower i j bound, intermediate, and upper bound soil cases. These ) 1 ........m .___._____-......,_..,.,,_,,_,...,_____,..,,.y-
spectra already include a peak broadening of +1.10f f on structure mode j having frequency f. The solid line r j surrounding the dashed line spectra represents an envelope of the results for the three soil cases studied that accounts for possible fariations in structure frequencies. The first peak in the final enveloped spectrum accounts for the possible variation in the fundamental reactor building frequency. These frequencies, are presented in Table II-3-2 of Volume II and range from a low of 1.13 Hz for the lower bound soil case to a high of 2.60 Hz for the upper bound soil case. The second peak in this spectrum accounts for possible variation in the second mode response of the structure. Frequencies for this mode range from j 2.37 Hz for the lower bound soil case to 6.16 Hz for the upper bound soil case. The valley between the two peaks represents a region where amplified reactor building struc-tural response does not occur from either the fundamental or second mode for the range of soil conditions considered. Enveloped spectra at all locations on the reactor building were developed in a similar fashion. O h e 5 i
E Upper Bound Soil Upper Bound Soil Second Mode, f = 6.16 Hz g Intermediate Soil Intermediate Soil Second Mode, f = S.01 Hz - gig 1 Lower Bound Soil ~~ L Soil Second Mode, .1 l g i Envelope of Three 1 ( i Soil Cases o Upper Bound Soil Fundamental, g 1 i a j jd-f = 2.60 Hz ~ g
- y e-Intermediate Soil fundamental.
l
- I
- g q
E f = 1.98 Hz ,I n E i o w. l e l u J.. .I .J i wo 1 u a u .I { l a Lower Bound Soil je L Fundamental, f = 1.13 Hz 1 Je y / '*f,**\\ E 1 I i no 3 . (J. e,,
- j *
{ J L e 5 o k l 7 '. \\ l* \\y'. " t r \\ cro N )l w' x. "2 e j go' y r, ' '. *
- - y q,
a IX ..9 '8 l 5 Ig-* }
- i. A 5 E i EII(f E
5 4 5 EIE4IL O' I i 4 5 E i E 5 0' 1 FREQUENCY,(HERTZ) t FIGURE Q&R 130.30.1-1 ENVELOPED SRSS COMBINED RESPONSE SPECTRA REACTOR BUILDING. INTERNAL s STRUCTURE. ELEVATION 626'-0". NORTH-SOUTH DIRECTION, 2% CRITICAL DAMPING
.~ Question 130.30.2 Section 5 of the report presents in-structure response spectra for internal structures. However, none are provided for the steam generators and the reactor vessel. Please provide these missing spectra or justify their omission. . Response: Voltme II was written to describe the analysis of.the reactor containment buildings and their internal struc-tures. In addition, Volume II presents the in-structure response spectra for use in evaluating equipment attached to the structure. Seismic in,mt at the Nuclear Stem ' Supply Systa (NSSS)' interfaces in the reactor containment buildings was developed by Stri!ctural Mechanics Associates, l Inc. (SMA) for the Seismic Margin Earthquake. This input j was defined in terms of translational and rotational time histories and response spectra for each of the three soil cases studied. The requested seismic response spectra ~ i were generated by Babcock & Wilcox (B&W), the NSSS Vendor. Since the B&W generated seismic response spectra are only l an intennediate step in the Balance-of-Plant piping analysis, they were not included in Volume VIII. Figures l Q&R 130.30.2-1 through Q&R 130.30.2-7 present the schematic of the reactor vessel model used by B&W and the seismic response spectra for 4 percent of critical damping. Similarly Figures Q&R 130.30.2-8 through Q&R { 130.30.2-17 are presented for the steam generators. i 4 I i
s Question 130.30.3 Table II-3-4 of the report provides comparison ~ between the accelerations from the direct integration and modal superposition. Please provide a comparison of these values with the-values of the peak modal accelerations calculated from the response spectrum method.
Response
Table Q&R 130.30.3-1 presents a comparison of the reactor building in-structure zero period accelerations determined by direct intagration, modal superposition, and response spectrts techniques for the upper bound soil case. s 5
s 31 13 8 IiaI jj d d e6 6 3 5 2 : I;t I 3 8 Ru - 3 8 23W m ~ oo o o a _E-f W 3 g
- s E
2 8 N k k m .y >= z g3 o o o o o 3 E. w H U 8. 33 2 3 3 g g}" . o o o o w ? N n Q g o 8 8 'w e i ; 8 It 1.*. .>- E 3et 2 3 3 2 2 g m = " J, j2 N N 9 a y w E,, o e o o o 5 w d,a e n. m. d a u 4 4 w
- g J
._g O,
- m.
o
- 3. % I2 R O 3 o,g
^ g Om g f3 4 6 6 4 o w 2 Q. . _.,a 4 o g
- 1 E
1,5 E. 5. 5. 2. $. = w N w a 2} a a. w
- o o o o a
w 3 &a. 3 -g a o
- )
D g: 3:
- 3 li 4 i, E 4. 5
,a 2 ,8s.s g o o a e o 3 I e a w* z z d a O )" $. ~~ i a b b h k g g2 % 2 3 o R e 3& . o o o o N 7 w g3 o i?i 3 z a o o >= U g W 3 4 0 m o o T. ~ e. ~ 3 . 3 5 5 M U O ~ }} S E g _S .S. b b g 4 .a. g g bbb2 & 6
Question 130.30.4 For Equation 3.3 you have determined the capacity utilizing the load factors as unity. It may be reasonable to utilize a load factor greater than unity for the pressure and the equivalent operating basis earthquake. We would consider a factor of 1.25 for these two terms in Equation 3-3. Please provide the results of this study and a comparison with current results from Equation 3-3.
Response
Code margins for the containment were determined using the load combination expressed in Equation 3-3. This load combination, which utilizes load factors of unity for the Seismic Margin Earthquake (SME) and the design basis accident internal pressure and thermal gradient, is consistent with the Seismic Margin Review (SMR) criteria described in Volume I of this report. The scope of the Seismic ' Margin Review (SMR) was first presented to the staff in a meeting in Bethesda on June 30, 1981. After a follow-on telephone conference on July 17, 1981, the staff agreed to the applicants SMR. In addition, the scope of the SMR has been presented to ACRS subcommittee and full connittee meeting and has been accepted. 7
~ Question 130.30.5 Fie?d reports have indicated cracks in the outside surfaces of the containment structures. These cracks-have been described as thru-cracks at buttresses locations. Please address the following concerns: (a) State if your evaluation has considered these cracks in the determination of the seismic margins and provide a discussion on the subject. l (b) If these cracks have not been considered in your evaluation, provide a discussion addressing the reasons for the omission of this condition or provide your proposed method of evaluating the effects of these reported cracks in the determination of the seismic margins to current code allowables. and if necessary, the seismic margins to failure. 4
Response
The structure response was conservatively based on uncracked structure stiffness properties. Utilization of l uncracked stiffness properties leads to an increase in the I structure-soil system frequencies. This, in turn, produces greater seismic loads compared with those 4 resulting from the use of the cracked stiffness I properties. Because the structure seismic loads were developed from the uncracked properties, reported structure seismic loads,and code margins are conservative. t I 1 8
r r The cracks identified at the outer surfaces of the containment structures were not considered irt the Seismic Margin Review (SML). These cracks, located near the intersections of the buttresses and the base slabs, are small in width with random orientations. The cracks have been concluded to be due to voltme change effects caused primarily by local restraint against concrete shrinkage strain (Reference 2). References 1, 2, and 3 have no'ted that this type of cracking is expected for containment structures and have also concluded that these cracks do not t.ffect the containment integrity. Based on the information available, it can be concluded that the cracks at the buttresses are not significant and should not be considered in the SMR.
References:
1. Affidavit of Dr. Palanichamy Shunmagavel, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in the Matter of Consumers Power Company, Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-329-0M, 50-330-0M, 50-329-OL, 50-330-OL, July 15, 1983. 2. Affidavit of Dr. W. G. Corley, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Nuclear Regulatory Comission, in the Matter of Consumers Power Company, Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-329-0M, 50-330-0M, 50-329-OL, 50-330-OL, July 15, 1983. 3. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Memorandum and Order, dated August 17, 1983, in the Matter of Consumers Power Company, ASLBP 78-389-030L and 80-429-02SP. e 9
0s.._.=
\\ MCY i
- ag: g -
r Hl 2 i A + Q -se==== 'sl f!E f(/ e 1 !!" tP# c:::2 meer==== z-- l% j ! s N I tr@ mu m= e
- Locations where spectra T
i were generated \\, / u s @\\e_ @FCR{', h I, ,-.J g e qm =; 'M N 2-3' ( s N 4hl % D. y l: t m f' f@ l >/ A l f = \\ ( m ur. w.,,. _.=.: m m..' = ~ %,. [/ f i FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-1. Reactor Vessel Isolated Model l 10
20 I i 18-1 UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE. t 1 16 -- 'l INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE l t j L4 - IniER BOUND SOIL CASE n En 2 .O 2 m 12 - l 7, O t-- 30-4 M 4 ga.3 f 5 d oa-l O O s 4 i T 0s- \\ 04-r '~~_.'----------------.------........._____ 02-1 CO 00 ho ,30 0 ISO 200 2'ho $6 ~
- $D j
40.0 l FREQUENCV (CPS) J 4 j FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-2. RVIS Point 58 X-DIR 41 Damping l 1
O S 4 w w 3 .m3 3 i, a a a 4 8 ..g 8 k! k. ,l 2 -o t m 1 .R e, t U l l l e 9 l l qg s i a a. . P-o l SM -l l w g s = l 3 i e= s
- g Ca=
f ,,,r. g ,q? A ..... **..f es ...... y h 'f i IC 3 c:xr-- O ,8 i i i i 3 S 9 4 4 M c s 8 8 e e e e e e e e e e o (s.0) Notau2Tacoy 12 i i i i i i, i
O 6:JO l Ost - e UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE L ~ E~/2 - 1 INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE \\ j i l i LOWER BOUND SOIL. CASE 063-l min s o v a54 - ~ Z O 3 b 0.4S - 4 M I W s i i w 3 y 04-1 O 1 O 8 0 "7 - g . ~ ~ - i i N _ " Old - &Ot) - l l 0 00 - ) 5 5 5 3 3 g y 00 SD M10 65 0 20 0 40
- s00
- 85 8 440 FREQUENCY (CPS) l l
1 l FIGJRE Q&R 130.30.2-4. RVIS Point 58 Z-DIR 41 Damping
l l l l 30 l 1.0 - UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE - INTERMEDIATE [OstCASE I' ~ f e i 34-LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE r n u.n .e 1 O v I. 1.2 - r x O t. s 1.0 - 4M M ~ m d 08 -- 's, UO L '. 4 06- ~., / g 04- ..,,~ ~~.........~~~~~ ~~ ~-.-..,........________ - ~ ~ ~ 02-00 5 g 3 g y y y 0.0 50 10 0 15 0 20 0 25 0
- 10.0
- sft0 400 FREQUENCY (CPS)
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-5. RVIS Point 120 X-DIR 4% Damping e
0$0 045 - UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE - 0.40 - INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE I e s / l LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE 035 - s ~ n sP*' u) o v Q.10 - Z l i \\ O Q 0.25 - f m m 's, l m ( t os. n l'.1 4 o O l r; i' ',,,~~.~~ 0 35 - g ...~~~...___ % l 0.10 005 - l } 0:00 - ) 00 SD 10.0 15.0 209 25.0
- 40.0
- lfi0 40D FilEQUENCY (CIM) l 1
FIGURE Q&R 130.30-2.6. RVIS Point 120 Y-DIR 4% Damping 1 1
a0 88-UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE. l.h - INTERMEDIATE' SOIL CASE a 1.4 - LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE in l 'g m O i i 12 - 7, . ~e s O ,i t b t.0 - 4 '~ M w .-3 r M og-m u U 0.6 - \\. 's s 0.4 - j w 02 - 0.0 - 0.0 SD 10.0 15A 20.0 25A
- 10A
- 45 0 40LO FREQUENEY (CPS)
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-7. RilS Point 120 Z-DIR 4% Damping 9 e
\\ - c a. G+y ' D a]3 43 (vg'fkg,0(. i _ -.r - ig' '"'*rF$@
- Location where !
M $..y[j5B ,,4 - l ',. ?.3 $ spectra were g generated v a @3 Y. n ) g.. c4p w ing,y - b"'21~= l NRE _TibjtU- ,.v,E.asa L-I utg =. 8 = = = = - -
- 1) Eti3
- wamme, g-
_l " ^'-- h mw [5;;j uv ts>f5J$ co, . = - - - I@ -{E] I"" [E}-,@ g. 4 g liO-Cil .L rw,;j,3 l' p1 .2.J ^ Ih ,m.am*al' C g G.9 y- '{Q T,+(@ -4 c S m. w-FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-B. NSSS Loop Model I ( 17 . ~.. - ~..
I L i i l 2.0 i 1.3 - e l UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE. I 1.6 - 1 INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE i I ).4 - LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE m i v) 1 L3 o f w a l.2 - x l O l-t. b IO-M A ga E [ 0.8 - o l O 4 i 0.6 - i O.4 - s _ --___.....,,,~~ ------ -,___ ___ _ _ -~ og. 00-e 00 50 10.0 15 0 20 0 25 0 .bb
- Es gun FREQUENCY.(CPS)
FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-9. OTSG Point 10 X-DI'R 4% Damping T
0.60 - UPPERBdUNDSOILCASE 0.54 - l"~~~"~~~'. ~ INTERMEDIATE OIL CASE s. 0.4 46 -- l LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE l 's lh 0.42 - l e, i W l g 1 o 8 1 m l 0.% - 8 l i x O 's. \\ y j E-* o.3 - 4 s 'e .M 4 x x m 4 0 24 t s 4 O l t i U <a: f. 0.18 - s. a j p i * { \\ t 1 0.12 - i Dim - I l 0 00 - 00 50 10.0 15 0 204 2a0
- 10D
.tf.O 400 { FREQUENCY (CPS) l FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-10. OTSG Point 10 Y-DIR 41 Damping 1 3 l
2.0 - i 8.44 - 4 UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE. l 56-INTERMEDIATE' SOIL CASE ~~~~~ ) 1.4 LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE m us i3 i ia - O E-* l.0 - 3 d a s ga 0.46 - el o 1 o 06-l 0.4 - ~-- a 02 I 1 5 5 5 g y g y 00 5.0 10.0 ISA 20.0 25A
- st0
- 41 0 400 FREQUENCY (CPS) l FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-11.
0TSG Point 10 Z-DIR 4% Damping G m
r
- 10 -
J 2.7 - UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE. I 7 .~ 2.4 INTERMEDIATE 30lb CASE 1 l ., I us e LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE ^ o v n en - i '4 o e H t5-M M / k l S d 8.2 - ) U O 4 O0-l 0.ts - j j Ga- =- 00-0 0 10D 35.0 $9 d.0 $D
- 50 4ag j
FREQUENCY (CPS) i FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-12. OTSG Point 33 X-DIR 4% Damping i i
O' 20 to- 'i l UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE i l.6 - l INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE i, a 1.4 - l I I to / LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE m O + 1 12 - l s i 2 1 o -I 10-1 ) 5 a j ggy 0.48 - m U i O 4 0.6 - i ~. i N i 0.4 j ~ l 0.2 - '~ 00-00 5.0 10 0 15.0 20.0 2$4
- 10D lh o.
qua FREQUENCY (CPS) FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-13. OTSG Point 27 X-DIR 4% Damping b
1 Ot:0 - UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE I 0.54 - INTERMEDIATE SOIL CASE i 0.4 44 - l LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE 0.42 - 8g m W l i a 0.b - 8 l "g, 's 4 o s Q aa0 - s i o e. ~ a \\ w y Q24 - s s o (.: \\ U ..~.. i 0.la - s. p I g 0,13 - ) 1 ODb-I ) 0 00 - 04 Ss ghD 15.0 de d.0 5.0
- LiG 40.0 I
FREQUENCY (CPS) t I FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-14. OT!iG Point 27 Y-DIR 4% Damping
30-4 8.48 - i UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE I ti - INTERMEDIATE' SOIL CASE LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE g.4 m in .e O e 2 v e 4.2 - '4 O l 1 e E iD - e j 4 e a: g s y 0 il - O l O l O A> - I ~.s' W .=.......------ 04* ~ o.a l 00-60 50 10.0 15.0 20A 254
- WLO
- 15 4 400 FREQllENCY (CPS) o FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-15.
OTSG Point 27 Z-DIR 4% Damping
1 ~ 0 60 - UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE INTERMEDIATE' SOIL CASE 0.64 - j 043-LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE 0.42 - ,Q u) n 5 o ~ 0.;16 - 8-z o s './.! N 0* 'l a: gi ~ \\ M 024 - h N o 1: r, -' 0.in. 3 g J g N 0.12 - i 0 06 - I UM-l U.O 50 10.0 86 0 ano 25.0
- 10.0
- 3.0 (no i
FREQUENCY (CPS) 1. i j FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2'-16. OTSG Point 33 Y-DIR 4% Damping I
2 0 - -- 1il - UPPER BOUND SOIL CASE s' i I' INTERMEDIATE' SOIL CASE LOWER BOUND SOIL CASE n.4 - e a* a 1.2 - ,e d o -P n.0 - 1 4 W, g4 j-0 il - U G 4 0b- 's 04-m.................... 03 no-00 58 tho 25 0 m'io do 4no FREQUENCY (Cl4 FIGURE Q&R 130.30.2-17. OTSG Point 33 Z-DIR 4% Damping v .}}