ML20101B305
| ML20101B305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1984 |
| From: | Woolever E DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 2NRC-4-207, GL-84-08, GL-84-8, NUDOCS 8412200241 | |
| Download: ML20101B305 (12) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- m. 2N2C-4-207 (412) 787 - 5141 Telecopy Nuclear Construction Division December 17, 1984 Robinson Plaza, Building 2, Suite 210 Patsburgh, PA 15205 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Mr. George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch 3 Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-412 Responses to NRC Structural Engineering Section's Draf t SER Open and Confirmatory Items Gentlemen:
In three separate submittals dated February 27,1984; April 27,1984; k and June 15, 198^, DLC provided responses to all 28 of the NRC Structural Engineering Section's Structural Design Audit Action Items. In an NRC letter dated March 1, 1984, DLC received the first portion of the draft SER which included the Structural Engineering Section's input. The Structural Engi-neering Section identified 13 open items and 2 confirmatory items in this draft SER. Each of these items was directly related to one or more of the 28 Structural Design Audi t action items and, therefore, these items were addressed by DLC in the responses provided for the audit action items.
On November 21, 1984, the NRC informally provided DLC with a written summary of the Structural Engineering Section's remaining open and confirma-tory items. On November 30, 1984, DLC met with the Structural Engineering Section to discuss resolution of these items which ar7 listed in Attachment
- 1. This list includes the current status of each item, based on the results of the November 30, 1984, meeting. At this meeting, DLC committed to provid-ing a response to Item SRP 3.8.5 (Audit Action Items 6 and 7) and a schedule for submitting the remaining responses as soon as possible.
Attachment 2 provides responses to the following items:
SRP 3.7.1 (Audit Action Item 1)
SRP 3.8.3 ( Audit Action Item 15)
SRP 3.8.3 (Audit Action Item 13)
SRP 3.8.4 (Audit Action Ittm 19)
SRP 3.8.4 (Audit Action Item 22)
SRP 3.8.5 (Audit Action Items 6 and 7)
The following responses will be submitted by December 21, 1984:
SRP 3.8.1 (Audit Action Item 10)
SRP 3.8.3 (Audit Action Item 28)
SRP 3.8.3 (Audit Action Item 27)
O _
\
PDR \
)
7 Unit:d Stctos Nucle. Rsgulctory Commission Mr. Gsorga W. Knigh6on, Chief Page 2 The response to Item SRP 3.8.5 (Audit Action Items 4, 7, and 23) will be submitted by January 18, 1984. As stated in the November 30, 1984, meeting, DLC will respond to this item by providing an analysis for the containment structure that uses the frequency-dependent impedance approach with the earthquake input motion applied at the foundation level. A discus-sion of the computer program (FRIDAY) used in this analysis will be provided along with varification examples. Comparisons of floor amplified response spectra will be performed if this analysis indicates that they are necessary.
Attachment 3 provides a copy of the report entitled " Soil-Structure Int eract ion in the Development of Amplified Response Spectra for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1" which was submitted by DLC to NRC on June 11, 1979, in response to the NRC's March 13, 1979, Order to Show Cause. This .
report is .being provided in accordance with the Structural Engineering Sect ion's request made at the November 30, 1984, meeting concerning the intake structure. As stated in this meeting, the original design of the intake structure and the 1979 Order to Show cause response included consider-ation of the future BVPS-2 intake structure loads. As further stated in this meeting, it is DLC's position that the intake structure is a BVPS-1/BVPS-2 shared facility that was previously addressed by DLC and reviewed and approved by the NRC under the BUPS-1 docket. Any further analysis of the intake structure requested by the NRC unde r the BVPS-2 docket will be addressed by DLC as a backfit item under Generic Letter 84-08.
DUQUESNE LIG9T COMPANY By 7s
-E l/J . Woolever Vice President JD0/wjs Attachments cc: Mr. B. K. Singh, Project Manager (w/ attachments 1 & 2)
Mr. G. Walton, NRC Resident Inspector (w/ attachments 1 & 2)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN ~TO BEFORE ME THIS
/7/[ DAY OF _ , 1984, hd fW ,
.LLAtr Notary Public ANITA ELA!NE REITER, NOTARY PUBUC ROBINSON TOWNSHIP ALLEGHENY COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCTOBER 20,1986
.s k
u -- -- .- - . . ,__< . - _ __ _ . , , _ . , _
r,-
ATTACHMENT 1 Structural & Geotechnical Engineering Branch Retaining.Open and Confirmatory Items from Structural Engineering Section r
SRP 3.7.1 Action Item 1 (Confirmatory)
A. Exceedance of vertical resp. spectra (7-10Hz, Fig. 9-1) 4 B. Subject to Geosciences Branch approval (12/7/84 meeting)
SRP 3.7.3 a
' Action Items 4, 7, and 23 (0 pen)
A. Performance ' of the half-space (unbounded) SSi method for the contain-ment and intake structures B. Use input from (A) to address Items 4, 7, and 23. There is no need to address aux. b1dg..again.
'SRP.3.8.1 Action Item 10 (Confirmatory)
For different load category, use direct comparison to show that BV-2 meets the criteria of liner strain allowable and the liner anchor allow-able as specified in ASME Div. 2 Tables CC-3720-1 and CC-3730-1, respectively.
SRP'3.8.3
'A. Action Item 15 (Confirmatory)
Provide the governing load combinations for different parts of the internal structures and show they are compatible to those of ACI-349 and R.G. 1.142.
B. Action Item 13 (Confirmatory)
Submission of final results of the confirmation program to verify the
. design of the containment's internal structure (including steam generator cubicles) for final pressure loads.
C. Action Item 28 (Confirmatory)
Clarificction is needed to explain why the effects of Ta are of no importance. .You have - indicated in your thermal transient analysis that thermal strain = 0.001 and concrete allowable strain = 0.003.
?
U
.D. Action' Item 27 (Confirmatory)
(1) ABS of two seismic component s vs.-SRSS of three seismic compo-nents on polar crane. Need to show ABS is equally conservative as SRSS.
(2) Use the input from SRP 3.7.3.A, B in (1).
SRP 3.8.4, A. Action Item 19 (Confirmatory)
Submit a typical calculational analysis to show the seismic wave effect on conduits at bends and tees.
B. Action Item 22 (Confirmatory)
Provide documents to show that the existing desigu margins with the refueling water storage tank and the primary deminerali::ed water storage tank can accommodate the increased loads due to tank wall flexibility.
SRP 3.8.5 A. Action Items 6 and 7 (0 pen; See SRP 3.7.3)
Safety factors agains t sliding and overturning for the containment and intake structures. Ihree componnent earthquake input from 3.7.3. A should be used in the assessment.
t f
I i
i k
t
v.
ATTACHMENT 2 SRP 3.7.1 (Audit Action Item 1)
A. Exceedance of vertical response spectra (7-10 Hz.; Fig. 9-1 of SWEC, June 1984, report entitled " Seismic Design Response Spectra, BVPS-2").
B. Subject to Geosciences Branch approval (December 7, 1984, meeting).
Response
DLC submitted a response to NRC Structural Design Audit Action Item 1 in :
letter 2NRC-4-047, dated April 27, 1984. In this response, DLC indicated that a separate report, entitled " Seismic Design Response Spectra, BVPS-2," would be submitted by June 1, 1984. This was provided in letter 2NRC-4-072, dated June 1, 1984.
Based on our meeting with the NRC Structural Engineering Section on November 30, 1984, it is DLC's understanding that this item will be closed upon the Geosciences Branch approval of the BVPS-2 seismic design response spectra.
1 e
4
- g , - , , - , , - g , . , , , . , , , . , - - ,.
.a.- ,,- , , w,- , . , m . ,1 -n - -, - e
SRP 3.8.3 (Audit Action Item 15)
Provide the governing load combinations for different parts of the internal structures and show they are compatible to those of A".1-349 and Reg. Guide 1.142.
Response
This response supplements our res pons e to NRC Structural Design Audit Action Item 15 provided in letter 2NRC-4-047, dated April 27, 1984, and
- is being provided in accordance with our November 30, 1984, meeting with the NRC Structural Engineering Section.
The governing load combinations for elements of the int e rnal structure of the containment are equations 7, 8, and 9 of Table 15.1 from our April 27, 1984, response. The following Table 15.1A compares equations 7, 8, and 9 with the corresponding equations of ACI 349-76 and Regula-tory Guide 1.142 (also given in the April 27, 1984, res po nse) and demonstrates that they'are identical.
TABLE 15.1A Load Combination Comparison for Design of Containment Internal Structure Controlling BVPS-2 Corresponding ACI .349-76/ -
Load Equations Regulatory Guide 1.142 Load Equations (7) U=D+L+Ta+Ra+1.5Pa (6) U=D+L+Ta+Ra+1.5Pa (8) U=D+L+Ta+Ra+1.25Pa+1.0(Yr+Yj+Ym)+1.25Eo (7) U=D+L+Ta+Ra+1.25Pa+1.0(Yr+Yj+Ym)+1.25Eo (9) U=D+L+Ta+Ra+Pa+1.0(Yr+Yj+Ym)+Ess (8) U=D+L+Ta+Ra+1.0Pa+1.0(Yr+Yj+Ym)+1.0Ess
SRP 3.8.3 (Audit Action Item 13)
- Submission of _ final ' results of the confirmation program to verify the design of the contairunent's internal structure (including steam gener-ator cubicles)for final pressure loads.
Response
This response - supplements our response to the NRC Structural Design Audit Action Item 13 provided in letter 2NRC-4-047, dated . April 2 7, .
1984, and is being provided in accordance with our November 30, 1984, meeting with the NRC Structural Engineering Section.
The confirmation program, referenced in our original respose to Action Item 13, for the final pressure loads in the - steam generator cubicles
.has been completed. As discussed in the November 30, 1984, meeting, the-
. pressure time histories used as a basis for the confirmation are presented in' FSAR Section 6.2, Figures 6.2-50 through 6.2-97. Dynamic-load factors (DLF) were calculated in the same manner as described in our April 27, 1984, _ response for these pressure time histories, and resulted in DLF's ranging from 1.0 to 1.35. Using these DLF's, the cubicles were determined to be structurally adequate.
SRP 3.8.4 '( Audit Action Item 19)
Submit a typical calculational analysis to show the seismic wave ef fect on conduits at bends and tees.
Response
DLC submitted a response to NRC Structural Design Audit Action Item 19 in letter 2NRC-4-080, dated June 15 , 1984. At our. meeting on November 30, 1984, DLC provided the NRC Structural Engineering Section with a copy of the requested calculation for their review as an extension of
' the Structural Design Audit. It is DLC's understanding that this item will be closed upon the Structural Engineering Section's approval of this calculation.
r 1 I
i SRP 3.8.4 (Audit Action Item 22)
' Provide documents to show thct the existing design' margins with the I refueling water storage. tank and the primary demineralized water storage
l tank can acconunodate the increased loads due to tank wall flexibility.
l
Response
DLC submitted a . response to NRC Structural Design Audit Action Item 22 in letter 2NRC-4-047, dated April 27, 1984. At our meeting on November 30, .1984, with the NRC Structural Engineering Section, DLC summariz'ed
. the ' results of the tank wall flexibility ant. lysis for the . ref ueling water storage tank and the primary demineraii:,.ed water storage tank and provided a copy of the calculation which addresses the tank wall flexi-bility question for Structural Engineering Section review as an exten-sion of the Structural Design Audit. It is DLC's unde rs t anding that this item will be closed upon the Structural Engineering Section's approval of-this calculation.
4 a
7 SRP-3.8.5 (Audit Action Items 6 and 7)
Safety factors against sliding and overturning for the containment and-intake structures. Three component earthquake input from Item SRP 3.7.3(A) should be used in the assessment.
Response
This response supplements our response to NRC Structural Design Audit
! Action Item 6 provided in letter 2NRC-4-047, dated . April 27,1984, and
-is being provided in accordance with our November 30, 1984, meeting with the NRC Structural. Engineering Section. Based on this meeting, it is j DLC's understanding ~ that submitting this ~ response.makes this a confirma-tory item which will be closed upon NRC Structural Engineering Section approval of DLC's res ponse to Item SRP 3.7.3 (Action Items 4, 7, and 2 3) ~.
Factors of safety against sliding and overturning - that account for F three-component earthq uake input have been calculated for the contain-me nt structure (Table 6.lA). The methodology used was discussed and agreed upon at the November 30, 1984, meeting and is described below:
Maximum floor. acceleration responses were calculated in accordance with the acceptance criteria of SRP 3.7.2 (that is, the maximum structural responses due to each of the three components of earth-i quake motion should be combined by taking the square root of the sum
'~
of the squares of the maximum codirectional responses of earthquake motion at a particular point of the structure).
i From the calculated floor accelerat ions , the shear and overturning moments at the base of the containment were 'obtained by summation of
- t. inertia forces.
Sliding forces were resisted by friction at the soil / mat interface.
~
Overturning was resisted.by a bearing under the foundation mat.
The calculated factors of s'afety are well above the specified allow-able values as seen in Table 6.lA.
During the November 30, 1984, meeting, the NRC Structural Section '
raised a concern -regarding the effect further consideration of Structural Design Audit Action Item 7 would have on the factors of safety for sliding and overturning. It is our judgement that, while the factors of safety may change as a result of .further considera-tion of Action Item 7, the resulting values would not fall below the- '.
specified allowables.
tl ev -a w- . 4- ,c.-- . _ . -_v, . - . , . . , ,,y,,,.,7_ m.- _ _ _ , , _ _ , p , _ . _ _
9_. _mp. ., ,,,s_ _. _ ,, %
~
5
. TABLE 6.IA Factors of Safety (SSE Earthquake)
SRP 3.8.5 BVPS-2 CONDITION CALCULATED FACTOR OF SAFETY LIMITS FSAR LIMIT PLAXLY ANALYSIS Overturning (SSE) ,
4.3 . 1.I 1.I Sliding (SSE) 3.2 1.I 1.1 FRIDAY ANALYSIS Overturning (SSE) 4.2 l.I 1.I Sliding (SSE) 3.I 1.I 1,!
9
Unitdd Stctes Nuclear R:gulatory C:mmission
~
Mr. Gscrga W. Knighton, Chief Page 3 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
) SS:
- COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY )
On this /7AI day of ,
//// , before me, a Notary Public in and for said Commonwealth and County,- personally appeared E. J. Woolever, who being duly sworn, deposed and said that (1) he is Vice Pres ident of Duquesne Light, (2) he is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing Submittal on behalf of said Company, and (3) the statements set forth in the Submittal are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
l A
Notary Public ANITA ELAINE RElfER, NOTARY PUCUC ROBINSON TOWNSHIP, ALLEGHENY COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPlRES OCTOBER 20,1986 4
s
, , ,-, , _ , . . .-- . - - - . - - - - . - - , . . - . - , , . . . - - - - . ~. . - - - . . , . - . . . -
ATTACHMENT 3 e
r . *!
n: .
^[l'g,' - s-(412) 456 6000 435 Sixth Avenue guron. Pennsylvania August 29, 1979 Mr. Harold R. Denton Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION: Mr. A. Schwencer, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Operating Reactors .
SUBJECT:
Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit No. 1 Docket No. 50-334 Soil-Structure Interaction in the Development of Amplified Response Spectra
Dear Mr. Denton:
' Enclosed are 40 copies of errata sheets (1 and 2) for
.".e p o r t on Soil-Structure Interaction in the Development of Amplified Response Spectra for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1.
The report on Soil-Structure Interaction in the Develop-ment of Amplified Response Spectra for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. I was submitted on June 11, 1979.
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY By
(/ c'. J. Woolever Vice President Enclosure q l \,f 'E \ h U v i
l s.
(d .
(CORPORATE SEAL)
Attest:
H. W. Staas Secretary COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
) SS:
COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY )
m Q.- 1979, befo re me ,
On this 29th day of August ,
Robert J. Monroe , a Notary Public in and for said Commonwealth and sworn,County, personally,d deposed, and saithatappeared(1) heE.isJ.Vice Woolever, who being President duly of Duquesne Light, (2) he is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing Submittal.on behalf of said Company, and (3) the statements set forth in the Submittal are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
A&Mu i ROBERT 1 M03R0E, Notny .ublic b PITT38URGH, AREGHENY COUNTY, PA.
f MY COMMISSION EXPIRES I FEBRUARY 7,1983 .
Q
---v,, , . - - - , , . , , , - - , ,
Dockat No. 56334 T
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1 0' Errata Sheet for Report on Soil-Structure Interaction in che Development of Amplified Response Spectra Duquesne Light Company June 11,1979 Please refer to the above report prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
and make the following changes:
SECTION 2:
Refertopage2-3andchangeequation[T =
' + V" (SG),[v=126per 1+e 1 + Vn l to read T
=
1+e (SG) [w=126pcf
+ ' ' = 136 pcf Changeequation[T w to read = SG + (s/100) e = 136 per f . 1+e w L
Refer to Figure 2-14 and Change 2 136 pcf I to read = 136 pcf Refer to Figure 2-15 and Change [ T 2 136 pcf toread[T = 136 pcf i
(
Refer to Figure 2-16 and Change [T 2 63 pcf l
c toread]'T = 63 pcf n
i^
. .- .~ - ._.- ..- . - _
4 -
Docket No. 50-334 Q'
SECTION 5:
Refer to page 5-4 and change the first sentence to read:
- "The ARS for cases 1, 2 and 5 are compared in Figures 5-7 through 5-15 for piping damping ratios of .005,
- .010, and .0 U I
L l
l0; I
i i
\
\
l
{
TV- er #9 gegia -g w--- yvgge--9 e g
- g - yw4- g ra w w .my gg w-guagy -- pe e ge y+eyy,eagm g- w g- g M wvm+w-me-ww g , = vy p-,w ar , e w e m w w w-- ----.ww -wm-+we-me,--,- --wee *--- r
E A
E .
7f A
(412) 471-4300 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 June 11, 1979
.E Mr. Harold R. Denton Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: A. Schwencer, Chief E Operating Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Operating Reactors Washington, DC 20555
Reference:
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 Docket No. 50-334 l Soils-Structure Interaction in the Development of Amplified Response Spectra.
m Gentiemen:
- Enclosed are three (3) signed originals and thirty-seven (37.) copies of a report which describes the use of " Soils-Structure Interaction in the Devalopment of Amplified Response Spectra for Beaver Valley Power
- 5. Station, Unit No. 1".
l g The amplified response spectra, developed in accordance with the 5 methods described in the report, are presently being utilized to perform a reanalysis of a majority of the plant piping systems identified in our April 2, 1979 reply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's March 13, 1979 E " Order to Show Cause".
l The information requested in item 1 of Mr. Eisenhut's letter of May 25, l 1979, which confirmed that soil structure interaction methodology may be used on Beaver Valley, is included as Section 8 of the enclosed report.
Very truly yours, 9f &
E. . Woolever Vice President, Engineering and Construction Enclosure 1 nncLindth%W
'! \ (J % ' { - '
Mr. E3rold R. D nten, NRC Soils-Structura Interection in the Dsvalopmnt of Amplificd Rsopenso Sp3ctro l
l0 (CORPORATE SEAL) i Attest:
.I R A_4-H. W. Staas Secretary .
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA)
) SS:
I COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY )
On this // day of G art ,1979, before me, 4 TW1W17.71 W mrAlr1rtw , a Notary Public in and for said Commonwealth and
' County, personally appeared E. J. Woolever, who being duly sworn, deposed,
- and said that (1) he is Vice President of Duquesne Light, (2) he in duly authorized to execute and file the forsgoing Submittal on behalf of said
' Company, and (3) th'e statements set forth in the Submittal are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
l I
I
( /
w.t...-
E Mff380RGN ALLEGN0ff COUfffY tw Comm0N EIPNIE5' JUNE 7,1983 tisaner, pe=Weene Ameonesi of Neesnes 5
E E
9 a
' BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 lo'
- 1 4
i SOIL-STRUCTUREINTERACTIONINTHNDEVELOPMENT OF AMPLITIED RESPONSE SPECTRA POR
>l5 BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1
'I l
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY I I I
! ,Q June 11, 1979 f
I E
E E
E Stone & Webster Engf.neering Corporation O- Boston, Massachusetts
r BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1
- TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Eagg
1.0 INTRODUCTION
. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 l
2.0 SOIL PROPERTIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 l 2.1 SU'BSURTACE DATA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 l 2.2 SOIt ,R0 RITES. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 g 2.3 S0It rARAMETERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 2.4 MODULUS AND DAMPING PROFILES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 l
j 4 2.4.1 Small Strain Modulus and Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8 2.4.2 Strain Dependent Modulus and Damping . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 2-8 l
2.5
SUMMARY
ON SOIL PROPERTIES . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16
2.6 REFERENCES
. . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . 2-18 l5 i
l 3.0 EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION . . . .. . . . . . ... . . ... . . . 3-1 3.1 DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE (DBE) AND OPERATING BASIS EARTxQuAxE c0BE) .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.2 GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRA. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 3.3 ARTITICIAL TIME HISTORY. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . 3-2 3.4 GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRA AT BASE OT CONTAINMT.'JT . . . . .. .. . . 3-3 3.5 RETERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 4.0 AMPLITIED RESPONSE ANALYSIS. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 4-1
4.1 DESCRIPTION
OF THREE-STEP ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 4-2 I .
4.1.1 Trequency-Dependent soil Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
, g 4.1.2 Embedmont Correction . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 4-7 g 4.1.3 4.1.4 Kinematic Interaction. .
Interaction Analysis . .
. 4-8 4-10 4.2 STRUCTURAL MODELING. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . 4-15 4.3 RESULTS. .. . . ................. . . .. .. . . 4-17 4.4 RETERENCES . . . .................. . . . . . . . 4-18 f i i .
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
P. Rat Section Title
. 5-1 5.0 COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
. 5-1
) 5.1 RETUND/TRIDt.Y VS PLAXLY. l'
. . . . .. . 5-2 i, 5.2 TSAR EARTHQUAKE VS REGULATORY GUIDE 1.60 EARTHQUAKI. ;
1 . . . . ..... .. . . . . . . . 5-3 5.3 VARIATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES .
. . . .. . 6-1 6.0 APPLICATION OT SEISMIC INPUT TO PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS . ,
. 6-1 6.1 AMPLITIED RESPONSE SPECTRA .
. 6-2 6.2 BUILDING DISPLACEMENTS .
7.0 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS IN . 7-1 THE ORIGINAL DESIGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . ..
1 8.0 INVESTIGATION OF THE ETTICTS. OF EARTHQUAKES
..... ..... SMALLER
.. . .. . 8-1 THAN THE DBE . . ........
9.0 CONCLUSION
S. . .... . . . . . . .. . ...... . .. ... . 9-1 l USE OT SOIL-STRUCTURE IFTERACTION, .. . .. . .... . .. .. . 9-1, 5 9.1
..... .... .. .. .. . 9-1 9.2 SOIL PROPERTIES. .........
..... . . .. .. . 9-2 9.3 GROUND RESPONSE. .... . . . . . . . . .
. ......... . .. ... . 9-2 9.4 AMPLITIED RESPONSE ANALYSIS. . .
. . . . . . ... ...... .. . .. . . 9-3 9.5 COMPARISON OF RESULTS.
. . .. . . 9-5 I 9.6 APPLICATION OT SEISMIC INPUT 70 PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS .
.... ....... .. . 9-6 9.7 S0IL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS.
. 9-6 9.8 ETTECTS OF EARTHQUARES SMALLER THAN THE DBE. . . . . . . . . . .
9-6 9.9 COMPUTER PROGRAM VERITICATION. .
..... .. . . . . . 10.1-1 10.0 APPENDICES. ...... . . . . . .. ..
. 10.1-1 10.1 SHAKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .... . . . . .
...... . . . . . . . . 10.2-1 10.2 PLAXLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
10.3-1 10.3 RETUND. . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . .
11 o
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
Title PJXit Section 10.4-1 10.4 KINACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~
10.5-1 1 10.5 TRIDAY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6-1 10.6 IN SITU SEISMIC VELOCITT MEASUREMENTS .
I I
I I
I po I
E I
E E
E D iii E
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 LIST OF TABLES s
Table Title i
2-1 Strain Compatible Poisson's Ratios - Tree Tield - Elevation 735 i l
2-2 Strain Compatible Soil Properties - Tree Tield - Elevation 735 1 2-3 Strain Compatible Soil Properties - Reactor Building 2-4 Strain Compatible Soil Properties - Safeguard Building 2-5 Strain compatible Soil Properties - Auxiliary Building 2-6 Strain Compatible Soil Properties - Service Building Strain Compatible Soil Properties - Cable Vault (Main Steam Building) 2-7 2-8 Strain Compatible Soil Properties - Diesel Generator Building n
2-9 Strain Compatible Soil Properties - Tuel Building' 2-10 Strain Compatible Soil Properties - Tree Field - Elevation 6e5 (North '
of Intake Structure)
Strain Compatible Soil Propsrties - Free Tield - Elevation 675 (South
,(}
'(
2-11 of Intake Structure) 2-12 Strain Compatible Soil Properties - Main Intake Structure
- Free Tield Strain Compatible Soil Properties - DBE (Gmax plus 50%)
2-13 .
- Elevation 735
- Tree Tield 2-14 Strain Comr2tible Soil Properties - DBE (Gmax minus 50%)
- Elevation 735 1 2-15 Strain Compatible Soil Properties - DBE (Gmax plus 50%) - Reactor Building
- Reactor 2-16 Strain Compatible Soil Properties - DBE (Gmax minus 50%)
Building in the Time History Analysis Using Soil 7-1 Medal Damping Ratios Used Spring Stiffness I
I '
$ iv J
DEAtJER VALLEY FO'.*ER STATICN o UNIT 1 LIST or T2GURES Firure Title 2-1 Boring Location Plan Category 1 Area 2-7 East-West Soil Profile - Section 1-1 2-3 North-South Soil Profile - Section 2-2 2 Measured and Computed Values of Shear Wave Velocity 2-5 Properties Used for Whitman's Analysis 2-6 Tree Tield Soil Profila 2-7 Reactor Building Soil Profile 2-8 Safeguard Building Soil Profile 2-9 Auxiliary Building Soil Profile
' '\
,I 2-10 Service Building Soil Profile 2-11 Cable Vault Soil Profile .
~'
2-12 Diesel Generator Building Soil Profile 2-13 ',e Bu: ding Soil Profile 2-14 Trea .*iel i Soil Pro. 'le - S .5 . 'r Structure
'c - 2-15 Tree Field soil Profile -Wn itructure 2-16' Intake Structure Sol Prof 11r 3-1 Response Spactra 0.125 ~5E I 3-2 Response Spectra 0.06 G Jsg Response Spectra Artificial Eartt. ,uake - reent Damping 3-3 3-4 Ground Response Spectra Average Gmax
,)
I 3-5 Ground Response Spectra Average Gmax +50 Percent ,
3-6 Group Responsel Spectra Average Gmax -50 Percent V
?;
- m
r - -- - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
DEAVER VALLEY PO*JER STATION, UNIT 1
- y LIST OF TIGURES (Cont)
Firure Title 4-1 The Three-Step Solution 4-2 The Boussinesq and Cerruti Problems 4-3 Idealization of the Basic RETUND Solution for Concentrated Loads
\ 4-4 RETUND Coordinate System 1 j 4-5 Kinematic Interaction 4-6 Generalized Dynamic Model of a Category 1 Structure
(
Seismic Analysis of Main Steam Valve Building Horizontal SSE EW 4-7 Horizontal Response Spectrum at Mat 4- 8) Seismic Analysis of Main Steam Valve Building Horizontal SSE EW Horizontal Response Spectrum at Top 4-9 Seismic Analysis of Main Steam Valve Building Horizontal NS Horizontal Response Spectrum at Mat 4-10 Se!,smic Analysis of Main Steam Valve Building Horizontal NS Horizontal Response Spectrum at Top 4-11 Typical Acceleration Profiles 4-12 Typical Displacement Profiles
. \
5-1 comparison of RETUND/TRIDAY and PLAXLY - ARS at Mat 5-2 Comparison of RETUND/TRIDAY and FLAXLY - ARS at operating T1oor 5-3 Comparison of RETUND/TRIDAY and PLAXLY - ARS at Springline 5-4 Comparison of the TSAR:and '
Regulatory Guide 1.60 Earthquakes - ARS at i ii t the Hat 5-5 Comparison of TSAR and Regulatory Guide 1.60 Earthquakes - ARS at 3 ', , ' Operating Ticor 5-6' Comparison of TSAR and Regulatory Guide 1.60 - ARS at Springline
,i j'
- 9, N 5-7 Comparison of ARS ;for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response Spectrum at Mat - Damp = 0.50%
9 vi a ;.::
I BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 LIST OF TIGURES (Cont)
Finure Title 5-8 Comparison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response Spectrum at Mat - Damp = 1.0%
I 5-9 Ce=parison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response Spectrum at Mat - Damp : 3.0% .
5-10 Comparison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response Spectrum at Operating Floor - Damp : 0.5%
5-11 Comparison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response Spectrum at Operating T1oor - Damp : 1.0%
5-12 Comparison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response Spectrum at Operating T1oor - Damp : 3.0% .
I 5-13 Comparison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response Spectrum at Springline - Damp : 0.5%
5-14 Comparfson of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response Spectrum at Springline - Damp = 1.0%
g ,~/- 5-15 Comparison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response Spectrum at Springline - Damp': 3.0%
5-16 Comparison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response I Spectrum at Mat - Damp : 0.5%
5-17 Cceparison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response 5 Spectrum at Mat - Damp : 1.0% ,
5-18 Comparison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response Spectrum at Mat - Damp : 3.0%
E 5-19 Comparison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response Spectrum at Operating Ticor - Damp : 0.5%
5-20 Comparison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variarions - Horizontal Response Spectrum at Operating T1oor - Damp = 1.0%
5-21 Comparison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response Spectrum at Operating T1oor - Da=p : 3.0%
5-22 Comparison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response Spectrum at Springline - Damp = 0.5%
5-23 Comparison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations - Horizontal Response Spectrum at Springline - Damp = 1.0%
1 vii
1 1 DEAVER VALLEY POER STATION, UNIT 1 i
LIST OF TIGURES (Cont) <
Timure Title 5-24 Comparison of ARS for Soil Parameter Variations Horizontal Response Spectrum at Springline - Damp : 3.0%
1 7-1 Comparison of ARS at the Operating T1oor by Time History Method 7-2 Comparison of ARS at the Springline by Time History Method l' 8-1 Variation of Shear Modulus with Ground Acceleration 8-2 S.eismic Analysis of Containment Horizontal SSE, Horizontal Response Spectrum at Operat,ing Floor i 10.1-1 Amplification Tunction of Soil 10.1-2 Soils Profile 10.2-1 Comparison of ARS by PLAXLY and FLUSH at Operating Floor 10.2-2 PLAXLY flow Diagram .
I 10.3-1 Luco's Two-Layer Problem 10.3-2 Rocking Stiffness Comparison - Real Part 10.3-3 Rocking Stiffness Comparison - Imaginary Part 10.3-4 Torizontal Stiffness Comparison - Real Part 10.3-5 Horizontal stiffness Comparison - Imaginary Part I 10.3-6 vertical Stiffness Comparison - Real Part 10.3-7 Vertical Stiffness Comparison - Imaginary Part 10.3-8 RETUND and EMBED Flow Diagrams E 10.4-1 Translational Response Spectra at Base of Rigid, Massless foundation 10.4-2 Rotational Response Spectrum at Base of Rigid, Massless Foundation 10.4-3 KINACT Flow Diagram viii
- m. w nn, - _
r .m - -
I
!. BEAVER VALLEY T0*o*ER STATION, UNIT 1 i
LIST OF TIGURES (Cont) ricure h !
10.5-1 Comparison of TR! DAY AND STARDYNE - ARS at the Roof 1
l 10.5-2 STARDYNE Model
\
10.5-3 TRIDAY Tlow Diagram l
i i
~l o
l w
- 1 m ,'
J e
, I i l..
ir iL
.W \ .
+-
3 un
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I On March 13, 1979 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an Order to Show Cause to the Duquesne Light Company. The order required shutdown of the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit I within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> after receipt of the order.
The order required all piping systems originally seismically analyzed using algebraic summation of intramodal responses to be reanalyzed using methodology currently acceptable to the NRC staff. In carrying out this reanalysis, amplified response spectra, developed using soil-structure interaction (SSI) techniques, have been used.
k Soil-structure interaction has been the subject of mtsch dialogue between the Staff, DLC, and Stone & Webster since the Order, the fundamental purpose of which was to agree on the details of the SSI methodology for use in developing suitable amplified response spectra and subsequent pipe stress analysis.
I over the course Sf numerous discussions, the NRC staff asked for documentation in a number of areas, and it is the purpose of this report to rep 1'y in detail to the NRC staff's requests.
This report describes the basis for performing soil-structure interaction analyses to develop amplified response spectra for use in reevaluating the I
.? 1.,
I
1 BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 i Id pipe stress and support loads. The soil properties are devel.4 r d from subsurface data into a soil profile, in whi:h each straum has its own soil parameterc. The required dynamic properties in each layer are described first by the small strain values of shear modulus, and then site response analysis is used to develop values of damping and shear modulus that are compatible with the strains to be expected during an earthquake. The design basis earthquake (DBE) and the operating basis earthquake (OBE) are described by ground response spectra and by artificial time histories that give response spectra enveloping the ground response spectra. The analysis of soil-structure interaction is performed by two methods: a one-step, finite element method, and a three-step, analytically based method. The report describes how these methods, including the structural representation, are derived and how
~
they are used in the present case.
I Results for different methods and for different input are compared, and thei.
application to pipe stress analysis is discussed.
I The results show that the three-step (RETUND/ FRIDAY) method gives conservative results that are consistent with the present state-of-the-art of soil-structure interaction.
ll -
- I I
o lt 1-2 1
I BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1
(>
2.0 SOIL PROPERTIES I The soil properties developed for use in the soil-structure interaction analyses are presented in this section of tha report. The computer program i
SHAKE developed by Schnabel, Lysmer, and Seed and discussed in Section 10.1 was used to calculate strain compatible shear moduli and damping from low l
strain values determined from field testing and empirical formulas based on laboratory test data. Although most of the data are included in reports previously submitted to the NRC for completeness, the data are summarized below.
I 2.1- SUBSURTACE DATA w ~- .
/
Subsurface information was obtained from several sources, which include the the Geotechnical Design Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) Unit 1 TSAR,588 Criteria for Unit 2,58' and the report on the Soil Densification Program for l
! Unit 2. "> The pre-construction borings under the Category 1 structures are located as shown in Figure 2-1. The logs for these borings are included in Appendix 2T of the Unit 1 TSAR. Two seismic cross-hole surveys were performed by Weston Geophysical Laboratory, the first in 1968 and the second in 1977, in The 1977 report conjunction with the Unit 2 Soil Densification Program.
t summarizing both cross-hole surveys is included as Appendix 10.6 of this J
report.
os j-2-1
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 8
2.2 SOIL PROFILES I The soil beneath the plant consists of medium to dense sand and gravels that extend from the shale bedrock at El. 620 to plant grade at El. 735. The interbedded sands and gravels are alluvial deposits that occur as terraces along the Ohio River Valley. The terraces are the result of cyclic aggradation and degradation of local materials and glacial outvash by che Ohio I River drainage system during the Pleistocene Epoch. Normal groundwater at the site is at E1. 665 and closely reflects the pool elevation of the Ohio Ri'rer.
The groundwater elevation chosen for analysis is El. 675, some 10 feet higher than normal. Tigures 2-2 and 2-3 show two typical soil profiles through the
- m. site area. Tigure 2-2 is an east-west profile encompassing Borings 114, 104, 103, 115, and 116; Tigure 2-3 is a north-south profile emcompassing Borings 102, 115 and 101. Included on the profiles are the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts (N) and Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) symbols for each sample.
I 2.3 SOIL PARAMETERS E
The soil underlying BVPS is granular. From the surveys and field investigations mentioned above, various soil parameters have been calculated.
USCS classifications and SPT blow counts are presented on each boring log in Appendix 2T of the Unit 1 TSAR. Values of void ratio (e), specific gravity 2-2 1
I BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 Ig.
(SG), and in-situ dry densities (Yd) are those presented for in situ soil in the Beaver Valley Unit 2 Geotechnical Design Criteria.
- Values of Yd and e I were calculated from the results of in situ soil testing performed during Unit 1 construction. These values are:
Yd = 117 PCF e
- 0.40 SG = 2.65 I
~
To calculate the values of total density (yp above the water table an average
- water content (%) of 6.5 percent was assumed.
l 1+W y,,, = 3 , ," M = 126 M i
l Below the water table,100 percent saturation (S) was assumed. giving SG + (s/100)e YT" 1+e w = 136 PCF I
Values of sher.r wave velocity (V s) and compression wave velocity (V p ) for low strain were based on the 1977 Weston Geophysical Laboratory Survey (Appendix 10.6. Table I).
i_
O i 2-3
I DEAVER VAI.I.EY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 Io Values of Poisson's ratio (U) were calculated both above and below the water I
table based on the relationship between V, and Vp .
Above the water table, an average V s : 800 fps and an average V p = 2,500 fps were used.
Since:
1 - 2r g,
E 2 - 2r where P__
then ,
, y = 0.44 Values of dynamic Poisson's ratio below the water table for both the Operating Basis Earthquak:0 (OBE) and Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) were calculated using the free-field strain compatible shear modulus (Gave) determined from the
.s 1 _ _ - . -
1 BEAUER VALLEY POWER STAI2ON, UNIT &
SHAKE analyses discussed in the next section and the shear modulus values (Gmax) as determined from Weston's cross hole surveys.
For the D3E:
G,y, = 3,000 KSF .
and 0.5 V fps
=(3.00 I
where p = 0.136/32.2 Kip-Sec/ft' I
giving V ,= 843 fps Below the water table, the strain compatibit compression wave velocity (Vp ) was
,, calculated as either the compressional wave velocity of water 1
2-5 "In "-*
_ _ . . . - - ~ _ . - - _ , _ , . _ . - - - - . - . , _ - . -
BEAVER VA7.1EY FOWER STATION, tiNIT 1 I
V = 5,000 fps a or as l la""* v '
V : V l P
P (Gmax )
I I where ,
- E V = 6400 fps (from Weston's report)
P
.E was less than 5,000 fps, i
If the value of V, calculated from Gave, Gmax and v p the compressional wave velocity of water was used.
Therefore for the DBE:
- E I
r : CV 'Y s p)2 = 0.028 where vp = 5,000 fps I
and u-1: 2;-0.4o g
.f 2-e
) - - ..
BEAVER VALLEa POWER STATION, UNIT 1 l
ll0 l
'I Table 2-1 presents the strain compatible Poisson's ratio for each layer for Gmax, Gmax plus 50 percent and Gmax minus 50 percent.
I Analyses have shown that there is an adequate factor of safety against I liquefaction of the granular materials beneath the site. The results of the liquefaction analyses are presented in reports previously submitted to the NRe." , ,r>
I 2.4 MODULUS AND DAMPING PROFILES Soil profiles were developed for the free-field._and under each Category 1 structure. These profiles, presented in Tables 2-2 through 2-16, are based on the soil profiles discussed in Section 2.2. Small strain values of modulus and damping were developed from cross-hole seismic surveys conducted at both Units 1 and 2. Additional analyses were conducted at Gmax values of plus and minus (2) 50 percent. The results of these studies are discussed iti Section 2.4.3.
I I
I 2-1 1
BEAVER UA2. LEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 1
2.4.1 Small Strain Modulus and Damping i The values of small strain shear modulus and damping were based on the results of the Weston Geophysical's Survey (Appendix 10.6). The results ei the study were analyzed by Dr. R.V. Whitman and his recommandstions are included in his report in Appendix 2D to the FSAR. In summary, Dr. Whitman compared the results of the Weston survey with values of V, calculated using the Hardin and I Black relationship. As can be seen in Tigure 2-4, the results
~
from both methods aFree closely. The shear wave velocity profile for small strain values used in the present free-field SHAKE analysis is shown in Figure 2-6 and is basically the same as that presented by Whitman in the curve on rigure 2-5.
2.4.2 Strain Dependent Modulus and Damping The calculation of strain dependent modulus and damping profiles is discussed l
in detail in the following sections.
l l
2.4.2.1 Summary of SHAKE Analysis The computer program SHAKEt** vas used to obtain values of shear modulus and damping at strain levels compatible with those induced during the DBE and OBE.
The time histories from the El Centro 1940 (North-South component) and Kern I
2-8 I
f
"" BEAUER VALLEY POWER STATION, tiNIT 1 I
County (Taft S69E) earthquakes were normalized-to a peak acceleration of .125g and .06g for the DBE and OBE, respectively. These motions were input at the ground surface (El 735 feet) and deconvolved in the free field down to bedrock through the soil profile in Figure 2-6. The deconvolved time history was then amplified up through the soil profile to the base of the structure.
Iterations of shear modulus and damping with strain were performed internally by SHAKE in both the free field and under the structures. The values obtained from the final iteration were tabulated for each layer in the soil profile, and tha average values of shear modulus and damping using El Centro and Taft accelerograms as input were used in soil-structure interaction calculations.
Strain compatible shear modulus and damping values for the DBE and OBE are included in Tables 2-2 to 2-16.
2.4.2.2 Earthquake Accelerograms Two strong motion time 41 story accelerograms were used in the SHAKE analyses to determine strain compatible soil properties the 1940 El Centro earthquake I (North-South component) and the 1952 Kern County earthquake (S69E component of the Taft record). The El Centro earthquake record was chosen because it is representative of the strongest motions available from deep soil sites, whereas Taf t was chosen because of its vide frequency range and strong motion c,aract.risa cs.
I 2-9 I
o
BEAVER VALI.EY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 I
The Taft S69E record, from the 1952 Kern County earthquake, has a maximum teceleration of .179g at a time of 3.70 see and a mean square frequency of 2.95 Hz. Each value of the accelerogram was multiplied by a factor of .698 to scale the record to a peak acceleration of .125g for the DBE at Beaver Valley.
A similar scaling technique was used to obtain the Taft record for the OBE.
Frequencies over 20 Hz vere excluded from the time history input at ground surface in order to allow convergence of the iterations when deconvoluting in the free field and to maintain dsconvoluted time histories with mean square frequencies close to the original Taft record in each of the layers of the soil profile. The time history at the base layer, El 620 feet in this analysis, was strored for later use in amplification analyses under each of the The peak acceleration of the Taft record at the base layer after structures.
deconvolution to El 620 feet was .0593 .
l I 1940 El Centro earthquake, North-South record, was also used in the SHAKE The analyses. The er.::imum recorded acceleration at El Centro was .349g at a time of, 2.12 sec, with a mean square frequency of 3.18 Hz. Each value of the accelerogram was multiplied by a f actor of .358 to scale the El Centro record to the Beaver Valley DBE. Frequencies above 20 Hz vere cut off the El Centro record. The peak acceleration of the El r ntro record at the base layer after deconvolution to El 620 feet was .090g.
I I
2-10 1
}
BEAUER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 ,
i I :
2.4.2.3 Soil Prefile I A hori2ontally layered, ideslized soil profile was established for the SHAKE analysis based on previous studies discussed in Section 2.2. A description of the profile and relevant soil properties for each layer are included in Figures 2-2 to 2-16 for the free field case and for each structure.
The structures themselves have been represented as "pseudoscils" in the SHAKE analysis. These soils are described by unit weights and shear wave velocities that are compatible with the structure. For the equivalent unit weight, the total weight of the structure was divided by the volume of the pseudosoil layer. The shear vava velocity was computed using the equation for the first harmonic natural period of the structure, which is:
I 4H V
I s"T I
where V, = equivalent shear wave velocity for structure H : thickness of pseudoscil layer I ,
T = natural period of the structure 2-11 1
BEAVER VA7. LEY POWIR STATION, UNIT 1 3
2.4.2.4 Strain Dependency Relationships E The variation of shear modulus with strain is input into SHAKE using the shear modulus factor K varying with strain. For Beaver Valley, K is an empirical factor relating shear modulus to confining stress for the underlying granular material. The shear modulus is calculated from the shear modulus factor K by the following equations:
For sands:
G
- 1000K CE )s.'s y where: ,
a G = shear modulus in ksi K = shear modulus factor for sands is = effective octahedral stress in ksi t
l T, = scaling factor of low strain shear modulus value
^
l3 l
The decrease of shear modulus with increasing shear strain is presented in terms of K to conform with the input format required in the SHAKE program.
The strain dependency . relationships of K, plotted with shear strain, are presented in SW-AJA,"' specifically Tigure 5-2. *hese curves are based on 2-12 i
!- = = _ _=
BEAVER VALZ,EY FOWER STAT 20N, UNIT 1 I
empirical data plotted by Seed and Idriss. The factor T is calculated internally by the program, using the small strain values of shear modulus and K input into the program. This calculated valuo of T is used in subsequent iterations to compute the new shear modulus based on a K vs shear strain curve that has been shif ted from the empirical curve by the f actor T to account for site conditions as defined by Gmax.
I The increase of damping ratio for sands with increasing shear strain is based on Figure 5-9 of the Shannon and Wilson Report. This curve is based on data plotted by Seed and Idriss. The curves were modified by the use of a damping correction factor, which accounts for the variability of damping with depth:
F s 2.53 - 0.45 los av E _D _ _
where:
E TD = factor modifying damping curves av = vertical effective overburden stress in psf B
i 3
t-13 s
BEAVER JALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 8
2.4.2.5 Strain Compatible Shear Moduli and Damping E The shear moduli and damping values corresponding to the shear strain induend by the DBE snd OBE are presented in tabular form for each structura analyzed and for the free field case in Tables 2-2 through 2-16. The r,esults represent values obtained from the last iteration of snear moduli and damping. Criteriz for convergence of iterations were established at plus or minus 5 percent of the previously iterated value. The data include strain-compatible moduli and damping ratios calculated from the two earthquake accelerograms described in Section 2.4.2.2, i.e., El Centro North-South and Taft S69E. An average value was calculated for each soil layer and used to model the soil in subsequent soil-structure interaction analyses.
LJ-2.4.2.6 Variation of Shear Modulus The effect of increasing and decreasing the low strain shear moduli (G ,) by 50 percent was evaluated using SHAKE. The El Centro and Taft earthquake records, normalized for the DBE, were input at the ground surface in the free field, deconvoluted to the base layer and then amplified up through the soil to the containment structure. All soil parameters other than the low strain shear moduli remained unchanged.
I 1
2-14 1
3EAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 l I l i
The strain compatible soil properties for G plus 50 percent and G minus max max 50 percent are listed on Tables 2-13 through 2-16, for the free field and under the reactor containment, respectively. Poisson's ratio, calculated for
.these cases using small strain values and strain compatible values from the DBE and 03E, are listed on Table 2-1. Strain compatible soil properties for G are included "7 Tables 2-2 and 2-3 for the free field and containment, max respectively.
To determine the variation of G, which is a function of the product of Gmax and G/G , it is assumed that Gmax and G/G are uncorrelated. Thus E
, , Yd
- Yb + Yd/h
- Y h Yd/ h E
where -
E Vg a coefficient of variation of in situ Gmcx values from E ehear wave velocities determined from cross-hole data I
V = coefficient of variation of G/Gmax from SW-AJA curves G/Gmax (Tigure 5-2)
I 1
2-15 1
l BEAVER VALLEY POWIR STATION, UNIT 1 I
Vg : coefficient of variation of G values at various shear strain levels From V, g the expected variation as a percentage of the average G value for a particular shear strain level can be estimated. This variation was t8.4 percent at low shear strains and ranged from t46.1 to t77.8 percent of the average shear modulus at a shear strain level of 2 x 10-8 to 6 x I 10-' percent, the range of shear strain levels generated by the DBE and OBE at the site. Although the percentage variation of the average G value is higher at higher shear strain levels, the actual range of moduli values is approximately the same as at low strain levels. .
2.5
SUMMARY
ON SOIL PROPERTIES Procedures followed to obtain soil properties for the soil-structure interaction analyses and their use in developing amplified response , spectra i are summarized as follows.
l :
First, a small strain soil profile was developed from the best available soil I
data, including cross hole seismic shear wave velocity measurements, as well as data from borings and samples.
1 I
2-16
A BEAUER UAL2.EY 90WER STAZION, UNIT 1 8
F Second, the effect of an earthquake in the frei field was evaluated using the SHAKE computer program. The contro1' motion was specified at the surface of I the free field; two real records were used - El Centro and Taft - normalized to the acceleration level of the specified design earthquake COBE or DBE).
The program iterated to obtain values of shear modulus and damping compatible with the levels of strain developed during the earthquake. The average of the results from the two records was used in further analyses and is here called the strain compatible, free field profile.
I Third, the moduli and material damping for the strain compatible, free field profile were used for the RETUND/TRIDAY analyses.
Tourth, the motion at the base of the profile obtained in the SHAKE analysis of the free field was input to several profiles representing the soil column under the Category I buildings. The top layers of these profiles had masses and fundamental periods equivalent to those,of the corresponding buildings.
I The small strain values of soil shear moduli were adjusted to account for the additional static stresses imposed by the buildings. The computer program SHAKE was run to obtain strain compatible moduli and damping values for each building profile. The average of results for the two time histories l established each profile.
I ,
I P' :-u 1
m _-
3 BEAVER UALLEY F0WER STATION, UN2T &
\
rifth, the strain compatible properties under each building were used in the i
finite element dynamic analyses as 3o11 properties directly under the 8 corresponding buildings. The ' strain compatible, free field soil properties were used for the elements representing the free field. Strain compatible soil properties were interpolated between these values for two columns of elements adjacent to the building.
Sixth, no further iteration on soil properties was performed in either the RETUND/ FRIDAY or the finite element analysis.
2.6 RETERENCES 9 1. Schnabel, P.B., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H.B. SHAKE, A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites. Earthquake
- Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC72-12 Dacomber 1972 (as modified for SWEC Computer System in T ogram ST211 Version 2 Level 0).
I
, 2. Beaver Valley Power Station-Unit 1, Final Safety Analysis Report, Appendix B, Section B.1.2, Seismic Design.
- 3. Geotechnical Design Criteria, BVpS Unit 2. 2BVM-80, Stone & Webster Engineering Corp, Bosten, issued 6/23/77, revised 3/15/78, p. 4 4
W, 2-18 i
E BEAVER VALLEY PO'4R STATION, UNIT 1 I
f 4 Report of Soil Densification Program, Engineering Corp, Boston, 9/23/76.
BVPS Unit 2. Stone & Webster Supplement to soil Study - Category I Structures, BVPS Unit 1. Duquesne 5.
Light Co., Pittsburgh, January 13, 1976.
I i 6. Supplement No. 2 to Soil Study - Category I Structures, BVPS Unit 1.
Duquesne Light Co., Pittsburgh, April 30, 1978.
E
- 7. Soil Analysis of Turbine Building and Northern Yard Area, BVPS Unit No.1.
Duquesne Light Co., Pittsburgh, April 30, 1979.
m LJ N- 8. Soil Behavior Under Earthquake Loading Conditions. USAEC SW-AJA, January l 1972.
- 9. Hardin, 3.0. and Diack, W.L., closure to Vibration Modulus of Normally l Consolidated Clays. Journal of Soil Mechanics and roundations Division, I
ASCE volume 95, SM 6, November 1969.
l 3 ..
1 I
f 2-19 1
TABLE 2-1 STRAIN COMPATIBLE POISSON'S RATIOS Tres Tield - El. 735 Layer Top of Gmax Gmax + 50% Gmax - 50%
A Laver E1. E g31 DEE DBE 1 735 0.440 0.440 0.440 0.440 2 725 0.440 0.440 0.440 0.440 8 3 4
715 705 0.440 0.440 0.440 0.440 0.440 0.440 0.44J 0.440 5 695 0.440 0.440 0.440 0.440 6 690 0.440 0.440 0.440 0.440 7 685 0.440 0.440 0.440 0.440 8 675 0.490 0.480 0.473 0.493 9 665 0.490 0.480 0.473 0.493 3 10 11 655 645 0.490 0.490 0.480 0.480 0.473 0.473 0.493 0.493 12 635 0.490 0.480 0.473 0.493 8 13 14 625 620 0.490 0.480 0.473 0.493 8
b -
a E
I I
18
,1 l
lI l
t j -
a 1 1 of 1 o -
h M MN ON T TkBLE 2-2 STRAIN COMPATIBLE So1L PROPERTIES i
l Free Field - Elevation 735 l 1
DBE = .125 o OBE = 0.46 q Top Iow Strain Total Shear Moaulas Shear Modulus
- tksfl Dampine Ratio __ iksil Damping Ratio Thick- of Values Unit Layer neas Layer Cs WE Taf t SlCentre Aver- Tatt E1 Centro Aver- Taf t ElCentro Aver- Taf t E1 Centro Aver-(kcfl Blaterial jt9.3 1940 RS gge , g(93 1940 MS _ age S69E 1940 NS_ age S69E 1940 NS age No. (f t) _ Elev. .{fpe) 1995 1991 1093 .041 .041 .041 1242 1240 1241 .025 .026 .026 1 10 735 600 .125 Sand 1720 1701 1715 .054 .055 .055 2014 2062 2068 .033 .034 .034 2 10 725 800 .125 Sand
.125 Sand 2369 2285 2327 .057 .060 .059 2859 2013 2836 .036 038 .037 3 10 715 950 ,
950 2114 1979 2047 .065 .074 .011 2685 2624 2655 .043 .046 .045 4 to 705 .125 Sand 5 695 1100 .125 Sand 3024 2820 2922 .062 .069 .066 3724 3612 3668 .040 .043 042 5
2000 2696 2780 .066 .073 .070 3637 3529 3583 .042 .046 .044 6 5 690 1100 .125 Sand 2694 2564 2629 .073 .077 .075 3520 3434 3477 .046 .049 .048 7 10 685 1100 .125 Sand 675 1100 .136 Sand 2837 2714 2775 .076 .019 .078 3766 3702 3734 .048 .050 .099 8 to 3490 3417 3454' .073 .075 .074 4538 4471 4505 .046 .048 .047 9 to 665 1200 .136 Sand 1200 .136 Sand 3327 3267 3297 .077 .079 .078 4428 4396 4412 .049 .050 .050 to 10 655 1200 .136 Sand 3207 3192 3200 .000 .000 .000 4342 4322 4332 .051 .022 .052 11 10 645 3124 3142 3133 .082 .082 .002 4277 4270 4274 .053 .053 .053 12 10 635 1200 .136 Sand 3083 3119 3101 .003 .082 .083 4239 4257 4248 .054 .053 .054 13 5 625 1200 .136 Sand f
14 620 5000 .163 Rock p rrEt Ground water table at 11. 675 l
1 of 1 a
L
gy y
' 8
%'a; S+/ %g<s$,
1.0 gman lll llE i,i [m NE I.8 1.25 l.4 1.6 150mm
- 6" >
% / 'b
@#f? $>/zf-7/,
se A4 o ' 4 6 % ^ #+
- #*4 l A __
i
U ER XY ON 1 h4 TABLE 2-3 STRAIN CtMPATIBLE SOIL PROPE!tTIES .
Reactor Building Dbr. = .125 o OBE = .06 o Tbp Iow Strain Total Shear Modulus Stear Modulus l Dampine Ratio (ksi) Psupine Patio j Thick- of Values Unit iksi) l Layer ness Layer Cs We Taf t s1 Centro Aver- Taft alCentro Aver- Tatt E1 Centro Aver- Tate g)13E1 Centro 1940 Aver-NS. age l J4o, _ (ft) Elev. Ifpe) Ikctl Material ((}3 1940 MB see . 3113 1940 MS E gE 1940 MS age , 1- 10 735 1091 .138 Reactor Building Pseudo-soil ! 2 10 725 1991 * .138 Reactor l Building ' Pseudo-soil 3 10 715 1091 .138 Reactor Building Pseudo-soil 4 10 105 1091 .138 Reactor
- Building Pseudo-soil 5 10 695 1091 .138 Reactor Building Pseudo-soil 6 4 685 1091 .138 Reactor Building Pseudo- .
j soil 2111 2264 .002 .092 007 3319 3232 3276 .052 .055 .054 7 6 681 1100 .125 Sand 2416
.090 .006 3616 3529 3573 .052 .055 .054 c 10 675 1100 .I36 Sand 2651 2366 2509 .001 3352 3090 3221 .076 .003 .000 4416 4295 4356 .049 .052 .051 .c 9 10 665 1200 .136 Sand 3192 3030 3111 .080 .085 .083 4340 4207 4274 .051 .054 .053
- 10 10 655 1200 .136 Sand l!
3045 3030 3037 .084 .005 .085 4266 4133 4200 .053 .056 .055 11 10 645 1200 136 Sand 1 of 2 L 1 _ _ _ _
W N V I T t TABLE 2-3 (Cont) , f DBE = .125 e OBE = 0.06 o Top 'Iow Strain Total Shear Modulus Shear Modulus Thick- of Values Unit tksf1 Dampine Ratio iksfl Dawing Ratio Layer ness Iayer Cs Wt Taft E1 Centro Aver- Tait E1 Centro Aver- Taft E1 Centro Aver- Taft E1 Centro Aver-No. titi Elev. .tipal (ket) Material g693 1940 MS gge_,,, ALK 1940 NS . ace S695 1940 NS age S69E 1940 NS age 12 10 635 1200 .136 Sand 2945 3039 2992 .007 .004 .086 4212 4079 4146 .054 .057 .056 13 5 625 1200 .136 Sand 2900 3000 2950 .000 .005 .007 4182 4071 4127 .055 .058 .057 14 620 5000 .160 Rock
~
torra , Ground water table at El.'675 r
?
I
?
i - 1 e 3 t 2 of 2 f
]
RA TI NI TABLE 2-4 STRAIN C(DEPATIBLE SOIL PROPERTIES
. . Safeguards Building DBE = 0.125 o OBE = 0.06 a Top IAnt Strain Total Shear Modulus Shear Modulus Values Unit tksfl pap}n:r Patio Iksil Damping Ratio Thick- of Layer ness Layer Ca Nt Taft E1 Centro Aver- Taft ElCentro Aver- Taf t ElCentro Aver- Taf t ElCentro Aver-No. fitt Elev. Ifpel (kott Material R&B 1940 ES ggg__ g g3 1940 NS ggg_,, )_63 1940 MS__ E gM3 194 0 NS age 1 11.5 735 1243 .137 Safeguard Bldg.
Pseudo-Soil 2 8.5 723.5 800' .125 Sand 1654 1587 1621 .058 .062 .060 2007 1961 1984 .037 .040 .039 3 10 715 950 .125 Sand 2292 2141 2216 .060 .067 .064 2801 2708 2755 .039 .042 .041 4 to 705 950 .125 Sand 2008 1826 1917 .073 .081 .077 2629 2521 2575 .046 .050 .048 ' I 5 5 695 1100 .125 Sand 2629 2675 2002 .065 .073 .069 3663 3504 3584 .041 .046 .044 6 5 690 1100 .125 Sand 2794 2547 2671 .069 .078 .074 3588 3419 3504 .044 .049 .047 7 10 685 1100 .125 Sand 2624 2420 2522 .075 .082 .079 3479 3322 3401 .047 .052 .uss E 6 10 675 1100 .136 Sand 2786 2601 2694 .077 .083 .000 3734 3594 3664 .049 .053 .051 9 10 665 1200 .136 Sand 3460 3354 3407 .074 .076 .075 4504 4356 4430 .047 .051 .049 10 10 655 1200 .136 Sand 3309 3223 3266 .077 .000 .079 4394 4283 4339 .050 .053 .052 11 10 645 1200 .136 Sand 3204 3194 3199 .080 000 .000 4300 4213 4261 .052 .054 .053 12 10 635 1200 .136 Sand 3138 3135 3137 .082 .082 .002 4244 4172 4208 .053 455 .054 13 5 625 1200 .136 Sand 3114 3144 3129 .083 .082 .082 4210 4170 4190 .054 .055 .055 14 620 5000 .160 Rock $ M2IE l Ground water table at El. 675 { j 1 of 1 L_________
W V I IT TABLE 2-5 STRAIN COMPATIBLE SOIL PROPEJtTIES Auxiliary Building DBE = .125 g OBE = 0.06 g Top Ina Strain Total Shear Modulus Shear Modulus Thick- of Values Unit Eksfl Dampine Ratio iksfl Dampine Ratio Layer ness Layer Ca Nt Taf t 31 Centro Aver- Taft ElCentro Aver- Taf t ElCentro Aver- Taf t E1 Centro Aver-
.No. (tti Elev, (fpal (kcil Material gj}3 1940 MS E 3))3 .1940.MS age._ ),62g_1940 6 MS E p_693 6 1940 N1 age 1 10 735 1105 .179 Auxiliary Building Pseudo-soil
] 2 11 725 1105 .179 Auxiliary Building Pseudo-soil 3 9 7 14 950 .125 Sand 2024 1922 1923 .072 .001 .077 2594 2539 2567 .047 .050 .049 ' 4 10 705 950 .125 Sand 1706 1578 1682 .003 .092 .008 2453 2393 2423 .053 .056 .055 5 5 695 1100 .125 Sand 2707 2444 2576 .072 .081 .077 3465 3364 3415 .048 .051 050 6 5 690 1100 .125 sand 2626 2369 249'8 .075 .004 .080 3413 3296 3355 .049 .053 .051 7 to 685 1100 .125 sand 2518 2272 2395 .079 .087 .003 3348 3215 3282 .051 .055 .053 8 10 675 1100 .136 Sand 2755 2577 2666 .078 .084 .081 3654 3501 3570 .051 .055 .053 9 10 665 1200 .136 Sand 3467 3347 3407 .073 .076 .075 4488 4268 4370 .048 .053 .051 10 10 655 1200 .136 Sand 3336 3302 3319 .077 .078 .078 4436 4212 4324 .049 .054 .052 1 11 10 645 1200 .136 Sand 3247 3234 3241 .079 .079 .079 4376 4171 4274 .050 .055 .052 l ( 12 10 635 1200 .136 Sand 3109 3212 3201 .001 .000 .081 4314 4142 4228 .052 .056 .054 13 5 625 1200 .136 Sand 3152 3153 3153 .082 .002 .082 4250 4147 4214 .053 .056 .055 14 620 5000 .160 Rock ~i i 1 of 1
j EA TI N1 TABLE 2-6 ) STRAIN COMPATIBLE SOIL PROPERTIES Service Building i f DDE = .125 e OBE = 0.06 e i Top Low Strain Total Shear Modulus Shear Modulus Thick- of Values Unit theft Dampine Ratio (ksil Damping Ratio Iayer ness Layer ca Wt Taf t 31 Centro Aver- Taft ElCentro Aver- Taf t ElCentro Aver- Taf t ElCentro Aver-No, aft) tiev, .if pel incil Material gMR 1940 ES E gi9g_1940 ms agg_,_ 3623 1940 MS 333__,,869E 1940 NS_ ggg__, 1 10 735 2372 .072 service Building Pseudo-soil 2 15.5 125 2372 .072 Service Building Pseudo-soil 3 4.5 709.5 950 .125 Sand 2525 2551 2538 .050 .049 .050 2980 2993 2987 .031 .031 .031 4 10 705 950 .125 Sand 2247 2315 2281 .062 .059 .061 2768 2s26 2797 .040 .038 .039 5 5 695 1100 .125 Sand 3099 3199 3144 .059 .056 .058 3772 3801 3827 .038 .035 .037
~
6 5 690 1100 .125 sand 2918 3049 2984 .065 .061 .063 3672 3787 3730 .041 .038 .040 l 7 10 685 1100 .125 Sand 2697 2035 2766 .073 .068 .071 3553 3675 3614 .045 .041 .043 8 10 675 1100 .136 Sand 2782 3011 2097 .077 .070 .074 3816 3978 3897 .046 .042 .044 9 10 665 1200 .136 Sand 3364 3727 3546 .076 .067 .072 4624 4768 4696 .044 .041 .043 10 10 655 1200 .136 Sand 3136 3555 3346 .082 .071 .077 4536 4607 4572 .046 .045 .046
) 11 10 645 1200 .136 Sand 2974 3403 3189 .056 .075 .001 4476 4482 4479 .048 .048 .048 I- 12 10 635 1200 .136 Sand 2870 3279 3075 .089 .078 .004 4422 4306 4404 .049 .050 .050 q
13 5 625 1200 .136 Sand 2025 3231 3028 .090 .079 .005 4398 4350 4374 .050 .051 .051 l 11 620 5000 .160 Rock 1 of 1
U N A I IT TABLE 2-7 STRAIN C(MPATIBLE SOIL PROPERTIES Cable Vault (Main Steam Building) 1 l Das = 0.125 e OBE = 0.06 e Tcp Iow Strain Total Shear Modulus Shear Modulus Thick- of Values Unit iksfl Dampire Ratio iksfl Damping Ratio Iayer nesa Layer Cs Mt Tatt E1 Centro Aver- Tatt 310entro Aver- Taf t E1 Centro Aver- Taf t E1 Centro Aver-No. Eft 1 Elev. Ifpel ikcfl Material gjjg 1940 RS 333__ R&)3 1940 58 3g3__,3)_91 9 1940 NS E g)_93 91940 NS_ Age . 1 10 735 1135 .101 Cable Vault Pseudo-Soil 2 12 725 1135 .101 Cable vault Pseudo-Soil 3 8 713 950 .125 Sand 2399 2419 2409 .055 .055 .055 2004 2986 2935 .035 .031 .033 4 10 705 950 .125 sand 2100 2005 2993 .069 .069 .069 2691 2775 2733 .043 .039 .041 5 5 495 1100 .125 sand 2975 2969 2972 .063 .063 .063 3723 3787 3755 .040 .037 .039 l 6 5 690 1100 .125 Sand 2829 2034 2632 .068 .068 .068 3646 3602 3664 .042 .040 .041 7 10 685 1100 .125 Sand 2638 2641 2640 .075 .075 .075 3544 3562 3553 .045 .044 .045 8 10 675 1100 .136 Sand 2767 2798 2783 .078 .077 .078 3788 3800 3794 .047 .046 .047 9 10 665 1200 .136 Sand 3403 3518 3461 .075 .072 .074 4562 4591 4577 .046 .045 .046 10 10 655 1200 .135 Sand 3236 3361 329G .079 .076 .078 4439 4520 4480 .049 .046 .048 11 10 645 1200 .136 sand 3111 3274 3193 .083 .070 .081 4339 4427 4383 .051 .049 .050 12 10 635 1200 .136 sand 3033 3172 3103 .005 .081 .083 4266 4390 4328 .053 .049 .051 13 5 625 1200 .136 sand 3003 3158 3001 .005 .081 .003 ,4228 4386 4307 .054 .04 9 .052 14 620 5000 .160 Rock l I ot 1
AT TABLE 2-8 STRAIN C(MPATIBLE SOIL PROPERTIES Diesel Generator Building DBE = .125 o OBE = 0.06 o Top Ice Strain Total Shear Modulus Shear Modulus Unit Eksfl Dasupine Ratio (ksfl Dampine Ratio ThicR- of Values Layer ness Layer Ca Wt Taf t 51 Centro Aver- Taft E1 Centro Aver- Taf t E1 Centro Aver- Taf t 81 Centro Aver-No. Eft 1 Elev. Ifpel ikcil Material 8193 1940 les E EH E 1940 58 age._ E M E 1940 NS age S69E 1940 NS age 1 4.5 735 514 .357 Diesel Generator Building Pseudo-
- soil 2 5.5 730.5 600 .125 sand 643 592 618 .091 .099 .095 975 938 957 .053 .057 055 3 10 725 800 .125 Sand 1360 1223 1292 .077 .006 .082 1837 1760 1799 .047 .052 .050 4 10 715 950 .125 Sand 2016 1831 1924 .072 .081 .077 2633 2496 2565 .046 .051 .049 5 to 105 950 .125 Sand 1797 1650 1724 .082 .089 .086 2503 2345 2424 .051 .058 .055
'. 6 5 695 1100 .125 Sand 2726 2511 2619 .072 .079 .076 3509 3301 3405 .046 .053 .050
, 7 5 690 1100 125 Band 2637 2446 25'42 .075 .081 .078 3453 3231 3342 .048 .055 .052
[y a 10 605 1100 .125 Sand 2530 2376 2453 .078 .083 .091 3384 3147 3266 .050 .058 .054 9 10 675 1100 .136 Sand 2791 2668 2730 .077 .081 .079 3685 3418 3552 .050 .058 .054 I 10 to 665 1200 .136 sand 3554 3366 3460 .071 .076 .074 4513 4179 4346 .047 .055 .051 t 11 10 655 1200 .136 Sand 3457 3287 3372 874 .078 .076 4462 4116 4209 .048 .057 .053 1 645 1200 3382 3237 3310 .0?6 .079 .078 4393 4086 4240 .050 .057 .054 l 12 10 .136 Sand 4 13 10 635 1200 .136 Sand 3325 32C5 3265 .077
.000 - .079 4347 4076 4212 .051 .057 .054 3210 .078 .000 4078 4201 .052
] 14 5 625 1200 .136 Sand 3293 3252 .079 4324 .057 .055 ( 15 620 5000 .160 Rock l t ot s t
V ER ON T TABLE 2-9 STRAIN CG4PATIB12 SOIL PROPERTIES Fue1 Building DBE = .125 o OBE = 0.06 o hp tow Strain htal Shear Modulus Shear Modulus , Thick- of Values Unit (ksil Demoine Ratio (ksfl Daumino Ratio Layer ness Layer Cs Wt Taf t ElCentro Aver- Taf t ELCentro Aver- Taft E1 Centro Aver- 669E Taf t 1940 ElCentro Aver-NS age No, titi. Elev. Ifpel ikCf3 Material 3193 1940 MS age 3193 1940 MS age S695 1940 NS age 1 13 735 1992 .296 Fuel Bldg. Pseudo-Soil 2 7 712 800 , .125 Sand 1993 1963 1078 .094 .097 .096 1702 1531 1617 .055 .066 .061 3 to 715 950 .125 Sand 1738 1675 1708 .005 .058 .007 2502 2322 2412 .051 .059 .055 0 10 705 950 .125 Sand 1563 1501 1532 .093 .097 .095 2404 2170 2287 .055 .066 .061 5 5 695 1100 .125 Sand 2430 2254 2342 .082 .080 .085 340s 3149 3279 .049 .057 .053 1 6 5 690 1100 .125 Sand 2361 2105 2273 084 .090 .087 3371 3100 3236 .051 .059 .055 7 10 685 1100 .125 Sand 2275 2110 2193 .087 .092 .G90 3322 3007 3165 .052 .062 .057 8 10 675 1100 .136 Sand 2523 2310 2417' .005 .092 .089 3623 3293 3458 .052 062 .057 9 10 665 1200 .136 Sand 3247 2055 3051 .079 .089 .084 4443 4114 4279 .049 .057 .053 i j 13 10 655 1200 .136 Sand 3161 2681 2921 .081 .094 .088 4400 4070 4235 .050 .058 .054 11 10 645 1200 .136 Sand 3075 2573 2824 .084 .098 .091 4373 4055 4214 .050 .058 .054 12 10 635 1200 .136 Sand 3002 2510 2756 .005 .102 .094 4358 4033 4193 .051 .059 .055 13 5 625 1200 .136 Sand 2943 2405 2714 .087 .103 .095 4353 4016 4105 .051 .059 .055 14 620 5000 .160 Rock 1 of 1
N .I N N Y POW Q TATION, UNIT 1
+
3RA,a 1 TABLE 2-10 l l STRAIN COMPATIBLE SOIL PROPE.RTIES Free Field - Elevation 645 j (North of Intake Structure) i DBE = .125 e OBE = .06 e Top .Imw Strain 1btal Shear Modulus Shear Modulus l Dampine Ratio i Thick- of values Unit (ks fl Damoine Ratio iksfl layer ness Layer Cs Wt Taf t E1 Centro Aver- Taf t E1 Centro Aver- Taf t E1 Centro Aver- Taf t E1 Centro Aver-No. Ef t) Elev. (1981 (kcf) Meterial jill 1940 MS E E69.E 1940 ms es t 1195 1940 ns ege..__ gism 1940 ws aae j 5 645 1200 .136 Sand 5917 5053 5005 .014 .015 015 6052 5925 5989 .012 .014 .013 l 1 2 10 640 1200 .136 Sand 5402 5211 5307 .025 .030 .020 5804 5465 5435 .016 .024 .020 I 3 10 630 1200 .136 Sand 4911 4435 4773 .037 .044 .041 5535 5124 5330 .022 .032 .027 l 0 620 5000 .160 Rock 83 . Ground water table at El. 675 t l 4 1 i 1 l i
4 W M E E U AM M v 5' TABLE 2-11 STRA1H CGtPATIBLE SOIL PROPERTIES Free Field - Elevation 675 (South of Intake Structure) DBE = .125 e OBE = 0.06 e
'Ibp Iow Strain Total Shear Modulas Shear Modulus Unit iksfl Dampine Ratio Iksfl Dampine Ratio Thick- of Values Layer ness Layer Cs Wt Taf t 31 Centro Aver- Taf t E1 Centro Aver- Taf t E1 Centro Aver- Taf t ElCentro Aver-(keft Material till 1940 MS age __ 569E 1940 us aq, 869E 1940 MS age S69E 1940 us age No. It ti Elev, (1981 1 10 675 600 .136 Sand 1028 960 994 .057 .064 .061 1167 1172 1170 .043 .043 .043 2 10 665 1100 .136 Sand 3642 3439 3566 .051 .056 .053 4095 4238 4167 .038 .034 .036 3 10 655 1100 .135 Sand 3162 2832 2977 .066 .076 .071 3685 3919 3802 .050 .043 .047 4 to 645 1200 .136 Sand 3651 3274 3463 .069 .078 .074 4301 4583 4442 .052 .045 049' 5 10 635 1200 .136 Sand 3413 3013 3213 .075 .085 .000 4142 4436 4289 .056 .049 .053 6 5 625 1200 .136 Sand 3311 2860 3090 .077 .089 .083 4083 4388 4236 .057 .050 .054 7 620 5000 .160 nock ,
NCYPE Ground water table at E1. 675 l r 4 1 of I
- s. -- _ _ - _ - - _ _ -
y - , - - - - - - - , - _. - . - - - - - f U U U I IT TABLE 2-12 STRAIN CCMPATIBLE SOIL PRUPERTIES Main Intake Structure DBE = .125 o OBE = 0.06 o Top Iow Strain Total shear Modulus Shear Modulus Thick- of Values Unit iksfl Dampitur Ratio (ksfl Dampine Ratio Layer ness Layer Cs Wt Taf t ElCentro Aver- Taft MlCentro Aver- Taf t. E1 Centro Aver- Taf t ElCentro Aver-No, ift) klev. tips) (Reft Material 3193 1940 ES E g Mg 1940 MS E g)693 1940 NS age 9 11.93 If40 HS age . 1 55 730 1910 .063 Intake Struc-ture - Pseudo-soil 2 40.5 675 1910 .063 Intake Struc-ture - Pseudo- . soil 3 9.5 634.5 1200 .136 Sand 2701 2720 2751 .091 .093 .092 4063 3780 3926 .050 .065 .062 0 5 625 1200 .136 Sand 2676 2630 2653 .094 .095 .095 4011 3701 3056 .059 .067 .063 5 620 5000 .160 Rock , MfrE Ground water table at E1. 675 O 1 of 1 -
! M M . h BEAVER VALLEY PON '- JTATION, UNIT 1 TABLE 2-13 STRAIN COMPATIBLE SOIL PROPERTIES - DBE
. Gmax + 50% - Tree Field - Elevation 735 Top Total shear Modulus Thick- of Low strain Unit (ksf) Damoion Ratio layer ness Layer Values Wt Taft ELCentro Aver- Iaft E1 Centro Aver-No. (ft) Elev. G(ksf) (kcf) Material 111L 1940 NS age 112L 1940 NS axe ._
1 10 735 2097 .125 sand 1791 1794 1793 0.031 0.030 0.031 2 to 725 3726 .125 sand 2870 2882 2876 0.043 0.042 0.043 3 10 715 5255 .125 sand 3891 3947 3911 0.047 0.046 0.047 4 to 705 5255 .125 sand 3586 3670 3628 0.056 0.053 0.055 5 5 695 7046 .125 sand 4977 5096 5037 0.052 0.050 0.051 2 6 5 690 7046 .125 Sand 4838 4985 4912 0.055 0.052 0.054 7 10 685 7046 .125 Sand 4646 4843 4745 0.059 0.055 0.057 P 8 10 675 7667 .136 Sand 4940 5159 5050 0.062 0.057 0.061 9 10 665 9123 .136 Sand - 6054 6195 6125 0.058 0.056 0.057 j 10 10 655 9123 .136 Sand 5798 5973 5886 0.063 0.060 0.062
- 11 10 645 9123 .136 sand 5604 5749 5677 0.066 0.064 0.065 12 10 635 9123 .136 Sand 5484 5566 5525 0.068 0.067 0.068 j 13 5 625 9123 .136 Sand 5394 5452 5423 0.070 0.069 0.070 14 620 Rock ILQII Ground water table at El. 675 1 of 1
m f w M M M M M M BEAVER VALLEY PC 1 M STATION, UNIT 1 M M M M gM M TABLE 2-14 STRAIN COMPATIBLE SOIL PROPERTIES - DBE Gmax Hinus 50% - Free Field - Elevation 735 Top Total Shear Modulus Thick- of Low Strain Unit (ksf) Dampine Ratio Layer ness Layer Values Wt Taft E1 Centro Aver- Taft E1 Centro Aver-No. . (ft) Eley. G(ksf) 11;[1 Katerial 112I 1940 NS age 112E 1940 NS 8Re 1 10 735 699 .125 Sand 450 454 452 .062 .061 .062 2 to 725 1242 .125 Sand 605 653 629 .086 .080 .083 3 10 715 1752 .125 Sand 796 883 840 .092 .084 .088 4 10 705 1752 .125 Sand 684 722 703 .109 .102 .106 5 5 695 2349 .125 Sand 1028 1069 1049 .094 .092 .093 5 5 690 2349 .125 Sand 988 1014 1001 .099 .096 .098
. 7 to 685 2349 .125 Sand 960 968 964 .103 .102 .103 8 10 675 2556 .136 Sand 1073 1070 1072 .099 .100 .100 9 10 665 3041 .136 Sand 1436 1422 1429 .089 .090 .090 10 to 655 3041 .136 Sand 1442 1435 1439 .089 .089 .089 11 10 645 3041 .136 Sand 1482 1470 1476 .086 .087 .087 12 10 635 3041 .136 Sand 1475 1494 1485 .087 .086 .087 13 5 625 3041 .136 Sand 1411 1494 1453 .090 .086 .088 f
14 620 Rock ILllt Ground water table at E1. 675 r 1 of 1
aman M M M M N O M, S S S S Y Y &~ S S BEAVER VALLEY PO' UNIT&1 W STATION, w TABLE 2-15 STRAIN COMPATIBLE S0IL PROPERTIES - DBE Gmax Plus 50% - Reactor Building top Low Strain Total Shear Modulus Thick- of values Unit (ksi) Dampine Ratio Layer ness Layer G Ut Taft ElCentro Aver- Taft E1 Centro Aver-No. (ft) Eley. (ksf) (kef) Material 112E 1940 NS are 112E 1940 NS age 1 10 735 5101 .138 Reactor Building Pseudo-soil 1 2 to 725 5101 .138 Reactor Building Pseudo-l soil 3 10 715 5101 .138 Reactor Building Pseudo- - soil 4 10 705 5101 .138 Reactor Building Pseudo-soil 5 10 695 5101 .13E Reactor Building Pseudo-soil 6 4 685 5101 .138 Reactor Building Pseudo-soil 7 6 681 7046 .125 Sand 4215 4103 4159 .069 .071 .070
- 8 10 675 7667 .136 Sand 4564 4435 4500 .069 .072 .071 9 10 665 9123 .136 Sand 5658 5487 5573 .065 .05S .067 10 10 655 9123 .136 Sand 5380 5231
- 5306 .070 .073 .072 11 10 645 9123 .136 Sand 5171 5019 5095 .074 .076 .075 I
1 of 2
w M m M M M M m m m STATION, UNIT 1 m am m m === - .e
/ l BEAVER VALLEY P( (}
TABLE 2-15 (Cont) Top Low Strain Total Shear Modulus Thick- of Values Unit (ksf) Damsine Ratio Layer ness Layer G Ut Taft E1 Centro Aver- Taft E1 Centro Aver-No. (ft) Elev. (Ksf) (Yef) Material 112L 1940 HS are li2L 1940 NS age 635 9123 .136 Sand 5058 4850 4954 .076 .079 .078 12 to 5 625 9123 .136 Sand 4943 4743 4843 .078 .081 .080 13 14 620 .160 Rock t!915 Ground water table at E1. 675 e e e 2 of 2
ad M, W E E E E E E M M M M M M ,M M BEAVER VALLEY POVI !ATION, UNIT 1 (_) TABLE 2-16 STRAIN COMPATIBLE SOIL PROPERTIES - DBE Gmax Minus 50% - Reactor Building top Low Strain Total Shear Modulus (ksi) Dampine Ratio Thick- of Values Unit Layer ness Layer G Ut Taft E1 Centro Aver- Taft E1 Centro Aver-(ft) Elev. (ksi) (kef) Haterial 1121 1940 NS age 1121 1940 NS ggg_ No. 1 10 735 5101 .138 Rosetor Building Pseudo-soil 2 10 725 5101 .138 Reactor Building Pseudo-soil 3 to 715 5101 .138 Reactor Building Pseudo-soil 4 10 705 5101 .138 Reactor Building Pseudo-soil 5 to 695 5101 .138 Reactor Building Pseudo-soil 6 4 685 5101 .138 Reactor Building Pseudo-soil 7 6 681 2349 .125 Sand 859 972 916 .116 .101 .109 8 to 675 2556 .136 Sand 972 1058 1015 .112 .101 .107 9 to 665 3041 .136 Sand 1290 1341 1316 .098 .094 .096 10 10 655 3041 .136 Sand 1332 1286 1309 .094 .098 .096 11 10 645 3041 .136 Sand 1334 1250 1292 .094 .102 .098 1 of 2 e
W m M M M M m. M.EEAVERVALLEYPigSTATION, M mMUNIT 1 M M M gam TABLE 2-16 (Cont) I Top Low Strain Total Shear Hodulus Thick- of Values Unit (ksf) Damoine Ratio j Layer ness Layer G Ut Taft ELCentro Aver- Taft E1 Centro Aver-
.No._ (ft) Elev. (ksi) (kef) Material 5695 1940 NS are 569E 1940 NS aRe 12 to 635 3041 .136 Sand 1312 1241 1277 .096 .103 .100 13 5 625 3041 .136 Sand 1268 1245 1257 .100 .103 .102 i
14 620 Rock
~
i
- i FOTE:
I
- Ground water table at El. 675 I
i i i l l i f l 1 l l t 4 2 of 2 1 1 l
*
- M M M M M, 5 5 5 &
~
M. Q 5 5
-LEGEND l . O BORINGS MADE FOI SERVICE VENTILATION g ! UNIT I UNIT 2 S INGPORT i
BUILDING AIR CONDITIONG I CONT. CONT. O BEAVER VALLEY ROOM l ROOM ROOM POWER STATION l UNIT I l (P
+ NOTE lO2 l
g BORING 26 ONLY GOE! TO ELEV.705.NOT N3800 !O\l /\_' _ \ N
/2 PRIMARY I
AUX. ~ ! BUILDING i REFUELING WATER TANK i I) A-A MI
~
23 115- - A l6 f
- 4 FUEL U j BUILDING f
l DIESEL 01 l q ~ g GENERATOR l WIT I BUILDING CONTAINMENT l i -> l B-B l mlO6 FIGURE 2-1 j U BORING LCCATION PLAN CATEGORY 1 AREA
- 8 y -
BEAVER VALLEY STATION - UNIT 1 1
- O
. w,
em ammmes emsnis M M M M E E E O O O 1: 1i o o o o o o o o e e o WEST e-
- e- e EAST w w w w 86 4 80 4 105 IIS IIS (Pft0JECTEBI
~
sac e lac e ins e 1 set e lac n
,, a se se BP M gp g3 IDaE 9EL $P gh
.--___ m
,, 3 su se
; e e .. .. ; .
*e its -
, ,,,, ,, s. l i ,,,L,,,L,,,,, ,p
** 88 8 su as g ,e, ,, i, $.______J yin _ e at I na ,o se sa I temst or tacavarsom
,p I I 8earvaat so L acetacte se4e se u 3
,e re se is se se mincompacteeratti
'" SC 3 " 8' I-'~~~~~~~~~'~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L" in -
se +a I se e, su es sa** I se en su ar gl a siamoane centraatsos test stos count,sLowstroof oss 5'33 I "" su 32 l I nu se voc owerste soit ctasserscartese
... suas esactee *; **
l ** *a
** 22 , s Asso.vance to sosse a:Lt coanes enouse warra Levet
,,, containstav , ,, g ,
g souttime arten cometrison er coasse _ ,,s _ s-2 ; ,, ,, ., .. .mreme.
.i.o ininac.t
== = to a-sont.enavet.
uu ,,
,, ,,,.,s,,,,,,,,,,
e t i_ _ ,,,, __
.-a _______ ;; ;p, asa e ers - 5 *
,,"* , , su ao se ,1. e ...
g o i. * = wn
.. ,, a ra w a & ,,,, g 'lw ".& "" &
ou
> .. n w r
- - a o io w us ..
..s - ,, ,, w w i.
y og SP 26
- r2 su e ** H seao Ses -
mas og ses t 8" *F t tad le SP Il la ,,
S8 y 3, SF it
,,, _ w .c ,,,,
* = 1 ! 5" "
) ,, ,,
n i; n -n l .,s "_' . ' "
$t'i "
g_p aos - a e a e _u m'"
- a. ,
t e a e t, o, E s e L E v s
; E 8
,8o so, - --
6 st-FIGUftE 2-1 EAST-WEST Soll PROFILE SECTION 1-l SE AVER VALLEY POWER STATION 4JNITI
3 ~ w i 3 =f eu 5 a:
- 8.
i a 5= 1 2 zu 8 se Ew E I a5"d anz; I >S :
- EE a l ad y"a
.o a."
u.--g z9u seu.
" d soww E E s v, " " 5 Sa =3= 1;:sI
!! E 81 E . :: 5 :
" 5@
g 8 00... E 4 3 *I88 8t 8** IEI "**" 5 U*U**8I* tt55523215382212282 211 *=.s=
' i oottM g I
. . .: ,aee =:sss::essens::ez: ,2:cese::=n....
R g n 63 &4>2 5Ettnatattttit Sith*23313331 W 2
- I give s:
i 3 gy ya I 'g e l 1 213 5:2$.
- Es 1
o'S=:2
,I m r :.
S-oossu II
- EIES ga 8 :l 33 " efy 0
~0 eec: E1: 4: N: :: : : : 22: : 2: F: ====
z 2w tg3g33=3: g3gg3g a gg : 3: ..... E h 1
- = s, i , , , , , , , , , , ,
8 : : : : : : : :
. . . c. . . . . . . .
133 d = Nol1TA 313 9 i
m se mas kms muu anus numa aus ! M M M M M M h SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY- FT/SEC VALUES ASSUMED FOR j o 500 1000 1500
- .:::;;s :::::::: 735 COMPUTING CS
]
i .i .*. .-y;:- - .8 :. ~ . 8 = 0.58 8 = 0.4 6
~l
~
j 75.:. . 5.i :f 6 MEASURED j t.*.!.'U.l:76? F IN S1TU BY c.*: ' - WESTON S= 50 % S= 50 %
- GRAVEL: : 88- 700 -
;;. A N D i - l t = 12 0 7:= 12 5 2 COMPUTED 1 pcf pcf i
'?SANDi.[:
s
.e....... O I
4 l
- . ;...-:.-. . :.-: F<
g
- .U .- :::*-i . > 665 -
- f . = :::f.*.
. tal ~1 SELOO % S = LOO %
!5: .# : ..*:. , d l 7t= 13 0 7=l35 l.'iU:: f':!:
i I Pcf pcf
- ;.
- -iip.n.i.'f,.'-
is.:.
- Y'.N'#*hd: *. 5 620 i
I SHALE i , i I i FIGURE 2-4 ) MEASURED AND COMPUTED VALUES OF SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY ! BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1
8 s 1 i O 500 1000 1500 0 " l I I 20 7t = l2O pcf u. 60 b " O 80 7t also pcf 100 -(Q) o Vs (FPS) I I I . I I . FIGURE 2-5 PROPERTIES USED FOR WHITMAN'S ANALYSIS BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 1 O
i I E Vs (FPS) , O 500 1000 1500 ! 735 , , , 725 - 715 - SAND 8 GRAVEL 705 - V y =l25 PCF I p 695 u.
~ 685 -
675 - S I _a
"' 665 -
SAND & 655 - GRAVEL i 645 - # T=136 PCF 635 - 625 - 620 . .. BEDROCK 17 :160 PCF Vs=5000 FPS I . I l I I l FIGURE 2-6 FREE FIELD SOIL PROFILE l5l l BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 ll :
E ~E Vs (FPS) 0 500 1000 1500 n 735 , , , 725 - REACTOR 715 - BUILDING 705 - ~ Y7=l38 PCF 695-E I z 685 - E h675 -
"i
'
- 665 -
SAND & GRAVEL 655 - E 645 - 3r=l36 PCF m 635 - - ' 625 - 620 ._ __ _ , , _ . BEDROCK V 7 :160 PCF Vs=5000 FPS i 'E 8 l l8 ,g . FIGURE 2-7 REACTOR BUILDING SOIL PROFILE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATIC N-UNIT 1 l1
I Vs (FPS) O 500 1000 1500 735 i i i SAFEGUARD T T= 137 PCF 725 - BUILDING E 715 - SAND & GRAVEL 705 - YT = 125 PCF g 695 I u. g685-E < 675- E~
"i E
- 665 -
SAND 8 GRAVEL 655 - E IT = 156 N 645 - 635 - 625 - l 620 ._ _. _. -- . - . . - - - BEDROCK Y T =l60 PCF l E Vs=5000 FPS E E 8 1 1 FIGURE 2-8 l SAFEGUARD BUILDING Soll PROFILE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 1
E E Vs (FPS) 0 500 1000 1500 735 i i i AUXILIARY 725 - BUILDING E 715 - VT =179 PCF SAND & GRAVEL I 705 - Y7= 125 PCF g 695 - u,. 685 - p '] y 675- h "i
- 665 - -
SAND 8 GRAVEL 655 - E # T= 136 PCF 645 - kg 635,- I 625 - 620 .. .- . .- . . . - . . . . _ . - . BEDROCK V7 :160 PCF Vs=5000 FPS 1I I I I
- FIGURE 2-9 AUXILI ARY BUILDING SOIL PROFILE
- BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 1
8 Vs (FPS) O 500 1000 1500 2000 735 i i i i SERVICE BUILDING 725 - I T =72 PCF 715 - 705 - S AND E GRAVEL YT= 125 PCF 695 - I u. f 685 i-g 675 S 4
"i :
- 665 -
SAND & GRAVEL 655 - 645 - IT = 136 PCT U 635 - - 625 - 620 .__._. _ _ _ . _ . , _ . . . _ . . _ _ BEDROCK V7 =160 PCF VS :5000 FPS I I I FIGURE 2-10 W SERVICE BUILDING SOIL PROFILE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT I 1
I , Vs (FPS) O 500 1000 1500 735 i i i CABLE VAULT 725 - y = 101 PCF 715 - 705 - Y7=125 PCF 695 - u. E 685 - I 8 y 675 - S 665 - SAND & GRAVEL 655 - I I I= 136 PCF 645 - T 635 - 625 - 620 ._ ._ _ .- . _ . - . . _ . . ._. BEDROCK V T al60 PCF Vs= 5000 FPS 'I . I . . ( l FIGURE 2-11 CABLE VAULT SOIL PROFILE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1
DIESEL GENERATOR s Vs (FPS) 500 1000 1500 O.3 8 dl 8 Yr:357 PCF 725 E 715 - SAND 8 GRAVEL E 705 - Y7=l25 PCF u. 685 - g 675 - S
$ "I W
665 - SAND & GRAVEL 655 - 645 - 87=l36 PCF l ,, 635 s 5 625 - 620 ._ _...._ , , , , _ _ ,__ BEDROCK YT =I60 PCF Vs= 5000 FPS I I I I I FIGURE 2-12 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING f SOIL PROFILE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT t I
Vs (FPS) O 500 1000 1500 h W 735 i FUEL BUILDING i i 725 - IT = 125 715 - SAND 8
- GRAVEL 705 -
Y7=125 PCF 695 - - E $ l 5: 685 - 9 E 4 675- 3-w E 665 - SA,ND 8 GRAVEL 655 - E I *I O 645 - T G35 - 625 - E 6 20 ,.- ., . _ .- _ . . _ . .-. . . . ~ . - . . - --- BEDROCK YT =l60 PCF I Vs= 5000 FPS E E I I FIGURE 2-13 FUEL BUILDING SOIL PROFILE B EAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1
F I f I E Vs (FPS)
,o 500 1000 1500 665 -
u. 655 - SAND AND GRAVEL 1r* 136 PCF _ 635 -
~ , 625 -
i //M/M/M/N/M/M/M/A BEDROCK YT=160 PCF Vs = 5000 f ps E E E I 3 g FIGURE 2-14 5 FREE FIELD S0ll PROFILE SOUTH OF INTAKE STRUCTURE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 F__
I E a E V,(FPS) 0 'UO 'UOO
- [ 645 ,00 l Mo -
O SAND AND GRAVEL 630 - T8T 136 PCF g d " <<ueueu aververveasm i BEDROCK IT = 160 PCF T Vs = 5000 fps , E E LE E E E FIGURE 2-15 FREE FIELD SOIL PROFILE NORTH OF INTAKE STRUCTURE
- 9. BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 l
- w. _
I E ry k I . vs(FPS) 500 1000 1500 2000 730 : i. 725 - 715 - INTAKE STRUCTURE E , YT2 63 PCF 695 - I H I 685 - 2 I 675 - 5
-1, j 665 -
W 655 - I 645 - 635 I SAND AND GRAVEL 625 - I =136 T PCF 620 I I lI I FIGURE 2-16 INTAXE STRUCTURE SOIL PROFILE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 t
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 I C 3.0 GROUND RESPONSE E The selection of seismic design parameters has been discussed in detail in the Beaver Valley Unit i TSAR. This section discribes the smoothed ground response spectra. I 3.1 DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE (DBE) AND OPERATIONAL BASIS EARTHQUAKE COBE) The design basis earthquake (DBE) for the Beaver Valley site has a peak acceleration of 0.125g at the ground surface elevation of 735 feet. This acceleration level was established by considering an intensity V to VI earthquake with peak bedrock acceleration of 0.035g amplified from bedrock i elevation '620 feet through the overlying soil to elevation 735 feet. The amplification factor is 3.5. Smoothed response spectra were than normalized to the amplified acceleration. Accordingly, the design is based on a DBE normalized to 0.125 g at the ground surface (El. 735) and for tha CBE normalized to 0.06 g at the same elevation.
- Vertical accelerations are taken as two-thirds of the horizontal accelerations.
E a 1 3-1
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 I o- 3.2 GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRA The ground response spectra shown in Figure 3-1 CDBE) and Figure 3-2 (OBE) are the bases for the design of all ground supported structures, equipment, and piping. The design is based on a DBE normalized to 0.125 g and for the CBE normalized to 0.06 g. Dynamic amplification factors used for these spectra are such as to give a maximum spectral acceleration of 0.45 g for two percent damping for the DBE with appropriate relative values for other amounts of damping. The spectra are flat from 2 to 5 Hz (0.2 to 0.5 see period) and reduce to an amplification ratio of unity for frequency exceeding 20 Hz. Amplified response spectra are used for the design of equipment, piping, and instrumentation supported from structures. (%), 1 . Q' 3.3 ARTITICIAL TIME NISTORY The artificial time history has a total duration of 15 seconds, with about 3.5 seconds each of rise and fall time, whose ground response spectra are lj i 5 forced to fit the specified site spectrum. An artificial accelerogram which reproduces the frequency content displayed either in a response spectrum or in lg l e a power spectral density function is simulated statistically by using a the earthquake stochastic model as described in Reference 1. In this model, f motion is considered to be a wide-band stationary process whose spectral density function, duration, and maximum acceleration are specified. The R . 3-2 i 1 , 4 i _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ , _______.a._
DEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 I artificial motion is generated by matching the target or site spectrum for several specified percentages of critical damping at 125 oscillator periods distributed from 0.0204 (49 Hz) to 5.0 (0.2 Hz) seconds. For a detailed treatment of the modeling procedure, see References 2 and 3. I The acceleration time history yields ground response spectra at damping values of 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 percent that envelop the smoothed site design ground response spectra for those damping values (see Figure 3-3, for example). 3.4 GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRA AT 3ASE OF CONTAINMENT
/m ,
The ground response spectra at the base of the reactor containment structure were calculated and plotted using SHAKI. The artificial earthquake daveloped for the Beaver Valley site was normalized to the DBE maximum acceleration of 0.125 g and input at the ground surface of the free-field profile. The l earthquake motion was deconvoluted to the base of the profile and the computed motion at the El 681 feet, the containment founding grade, was used to compute 8 real displacement, pseudovelocity, and pseudoacceleration vs. frequency. j These s,ectra are ,1oeted for dam,ing ratios of .5, 1.0, ane 3.0 ,ercent. I 1 1 i 1
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 I o Response spectra were calculated for three soil profiles, rr. presented by the shear modulus (Gmax) calculated from seismic cross-hole surveys, Gmax plus 50 percent, and Gmax minus 50 percent. The spectra for each soil profile are Also plotted on these plotted on Figures 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6, respectively. figures is the ground response spectrum for .5 percent damping presented in the Beaver Valley Unit 1 TSAR.
3.5 REFERENCES
E~ 1. Hou, S.N., Earthquake Simulation Models and their Applications. Research Report R68-17, Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, 1968.
- 2. Rascon, 0.A. and Cornell, C . A . ,. Strong Motion Earthquake Simulation.
Q'l Research Report R68-15 Department of civil Engineering, MIT, '1968. c '= " " ' " * == ' 3- 1 ' 3- ' *- "c- >> * - E Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol 98, No. EM2, Rev. 4, Paper 8807, April 1972, p 345-356. E I i 1 L ,_ r 1
I I g!!lIllllIlllllilllIllllll 1 l l 1 l I i g!!lIllljillllIllllIllllll l l l.. l 1 1 i .... Rllt!!jlt!!lIllllIlllllll.l l l l lll . PERI 00 tSECS1 ,,,,, l ::.: M'Ac^xi^@W M'/00^xY@S t( M'/00^xY ue x ^x um.
@S t( ::::
une xn x um une xn a um A M S\E5
//// N A /\ M WN//// N A A M ms//// N A ,,,,
\ M )2 I
M// X/\ X \ \))2M// X/\ X \ \))2M// X/\ X ' W/ /\ /\ \M95W/ A A \ M$$W/ A A \MG5
- * ##"(** * "(* *'"4 -
I Dh i$k$$)Mh 4$k25)Mb A$k25) .. ("gll{@glll{p( )l((l$ I , , , l
/ \ /\ Y %
g /%f uuefuex mm V/ /X f. anu mwem -u- x ^ x um ,., E ,.,
/////A// # N)rT % uTr/ / / /MWYA\NLKW%//// Nh/\ A A X%W% N N))2 W///)X()LY NNN)2W// XQ&XNN)2W//
s., 8 ,,, SF//)M/A \ M95W/ /NsXMM$$W/ A A \ M55
- sveem ame<m./xAgt g
- mux ..,
Mh R25) Mh 2@kUDMh A g 5,.. .., a, ,.,
- ,n,=x=
R$1!3L
- - == 298!i
- x - - .. =-=-=
His!?S :: x um w ww=N + /8 w ws w/N A A w ws w/w A /8 , X _/N X \ V22WW X/\ X \ \?)2 X/\ X N \))2 W// ,.s E ,,, W// W/ A A \ M95W/ A A \M95SMY A A \MS$ ... E
*'"4" '*
*'"4" d'"4 -
.., Mh A$k25)Mb A$k25)Mb$k2$@ ..,
; ggg[3{ 'ggg{l{
E 'ggg{3% ,.
,, ............F.. g g, g .. .. e.....f... ggg,g gg ....e. . S . ..F g,g ...
E FREQUENCY (CPSI .g 1 FIGURE 3-1
$k RESPONSE SPECTR A O.125 G DBE -A BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1
I E . g a
.m... inninninnpnii.n
.. .. .. . ... n i i i i moinninninn
,g.in n i n n i i i i m.. oinn iniinninni.n n p i
- , -, ,n ~ _
, , , ,,n ~, ,n x,, , ,, n,, ~- , -
*::: "4?Zs^2;SR x -4?Ls^2;Ss'^u "A?Zs^Z;SG m ::
////A/A A TA NNNN//// ara A TA NNN5////A/A A NA NNM ,,,,
M// X/\ X \ YNW// X/\ X \ YNM// X/\ XW '22 m., E s,.. W/ A A N MS$W/ A A N MS$W/ A A NMS$ ., wessu /x we< M /x wecaw /x ,.., E gg pgspag pgspag pgsp E s @ll[3$x @ll[3$s @ll[l$ , , , Mzc^-x = ==x = Mzc^-x = au x n a/- :nx - a mu u- x n a mu I ,., S ., W//
////A/A ADIMN\\Z4V X/MN's N'RnM// )hXAX
'. MW TA N
NN\%////A/AA V22W// h/N X NA%%\5 N Y22
$... W/N4M MSM/@h\M$$W/ A A \ M55 ..
E M /MME*?M '<WMDORM;/\
~
we( .., MY/@k25)MM@N5)Mb $25) g 5 ,., ... b$hh!$$ s khhhk khh!$b ?lGC x _YE UIM UlM
- ' 6_%Z6^X
.., ///A#A
_Y(DD#///A#A A TO
. .M~ Z?^X ArTO \
T$ bh
.MZ?^XM
~
' '// A#A A
=
x - - hb h\\\ W// X/N XN V22W// X _/% X N V21! M// X/N X N V22 E W/ A A- \ MS$W/ A A \ MS$W/ A A \MS$ ... Mbk
... M /h Mb(M./\ MbkN /h ...
.., Mh M25)Mb M25)Mh 2@k25) ..,
jll[3f \ @$l{3fx '@ll{33 E \ ,,
,, 0. 9 e.s m.m.pg.e ggg,g g,g 9.3 0.4 0.4 9.8 4.80.7 g,g 8.9 4. . 4.9 . 9 4.47.0 gg,g 8. . G FREQUENCY lCPSI E
I FIGURE 3-2 RESPONSE SPECTR A O.06G OBE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1
I pgp;nnjnn uni.nnp ..n i l i i i i..pgnujnnjunjun
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . nni.n
. .. n i..i i i i pgjnngijnnjun
.... . . . . . . . . nni.n
... u ; i i .i. .i. j PERIOD (SECSI E : Mi%^#4?NW ! M5% N' 0 ' 0E M?%^4'4?NE ' .
,,., wa e x ^ x x swa emex^ x swwx m e x ^ x x wwu , ..
////N /N A \^ YY'/// N A A \^$W'///N A /N D \NY s,..
lX \ \NM s,.,
.. W// X /\ XI\ 'OXW//4 X /\ X \ \NXW// X /\ u.,
.... W/ /\ A \. MOW /AA \MMW/ A A\MO ....
g . . , M' /\ M)ORM' /\ 18)ORM'/\ 1836d ....
.. M 4hkhhM AkkhbEk Akkhb ,,..
,,., \ \ . ...,
l ::: M?%A^A'NM em e x nwwwwx x ue 3 ^ x xsww
'#%^MC0tM M3%^4'^JGMl :::
,., eme x^xxwwu \^ \xY
#//*AV" 4^l A \#N DY&//N A ^\N4 NNY'///N /N A s .,
s ., W// X /\ X \\Y2W// X/\ XD D2W// X /\ X \ YA s ., l .., tS8 f 7 A A ' N MZW/ AA WWOW/AA N M2 ...
... M'/\ 83ORM'/N MORM; /\ 183O( ...
I ... Mh skkhhMhA$khhMb A$k@) ... E
!... s
-l:: M'-%^^' 0GM khh!b s , $hh!b MZ 0^-^0JG M khh!b
%'Z 0^ ^/ 0C' M
/M/ ^ ^ ^\sWN /M '^ ^^\sWN //W / ^ ^ ^\sMN ..?
. . .?
#/// N A A \^ UW/// N A U\^ UW// M'A A \^ UM
' d . ., ...
d ... W// X/\ X \ \M2W// X/\ X N AM2W/E X/N X \ \M2 ...
"... W/ A A NMOW/ A A \XZ$XMMNA N YO ...
l 183ORM'/\ M3CRMVN 83O(
.., M'/\ ..,
l .., b Akkhh b 2kkhh bkkhh .., S ..,, s & N ..,
- MZ 0^/'/ JG M 'm' 0 ^-^/ OGM MZ^ ^ ^ xswt J#%0^ ^/ 0GM
'm' ^^ ^x sw' E .., 'm'^ ^ ^xsw' ^ \^ DM
..,,' ' /// N A A \^ UW/// N A A \^ "W/// N ^ ,.,,
5 X/\ X \M2W// X/\ X \ \M2
..a W// X/\ X \ W2W// \ . .a
.... W/ A A \ MOW / A A NMOW/ A A NXO ....
t J / / /..., 1 .... FIGURE 3 3 FREQUENCY (CPSI RESPONSE SPECTRA BV1 0.1250 ARTIFl AL E ARTHQU AKE-2*/. DAMPlNG l'lEIR I !!Is%4".'l h*EJ'.il!%f'AP'". Iilay=tr. I
1 RUN NUM8ER AR73r!CIRL EARrH
- 1. raia iac= .
3,.. .
=
- M'0 0 ^-^/ QGt( //N M30 0^ ^/ 4Ss( M30 0 ^- i @Ss(
// N ,"^ A AN AW '
/ XA XN3% Ns //N / ^ A XNSMN ..
T///A/A A NA\ \\\N////A/A A NA NNN5////A/A A NA \\'l Ri l 2 W// X/N X M22W// X/N X N NN)2W// X/N X N NN2 l l T W/ /\ /\ \hCf5W/ /\ /N \ M5$W/ /\ /\ \ Mf5 IM /N 4) (MI/\S%$(M'/N lt) ( ; E 5
~
Wh 2$52
/ '
$)Mb A$k25l5Mb A$k25l5 ENVELOPE FOR .5% DAMPlNG / '/ j )
E ,
^
8 %%$ Nh ? h0 $( v ? R@MNMNVb
. N $$
?N ^MVNW Nh Y '\ XNSNM h0 $( .
E -T //N ,"X A XNTNw-l ~_ /////JPA A NA
//
'.5% DAMPING ( .
A h4
//N / X.
NN\%/// / A/ApA NA NNNg UE W///#X/N X \ ' I % DAMPlNGrN) N X N1N '22W// N/N X N NN}2 3 5 S$tr<"' 3'"""^ 45c55*'
- ^ ' x'5 N /\ M)(kN N h N$bNN$/\ 8)$N E !Dh2(25l5Mhds@NMhJk2$l5 Q i MySQ^[/USt(
khhk$$x MIC0^[/ R$$!kbkhh!$b US Ss r M 336^[/ UG D(
//N / x A a w\w //u/ xn X um mw /^ ^ aNssw E :
_ ////A/A A M \\\\'///A/A Apl&pU\9 N/A A NA NN\5 X N N'22W// X _/% 71it T NN)2XMKV X/N X N NM2 X/N
- *W//"' ' x55*'
l lE ^ ' x5558 5 * ^ ' "55 _ N /\ 8)$NN ./\ 8)k)kN\/h 3d)$)k I I Mk zM429M4J(25l5MRJ52@ ' ' E ac M,iioi!Nx all!?S o onon is o, .j o -, o , s
,e n HBRE a 4 o o + no is I antarse:A rantmarc ser rr,an m-no acewowr I : ::"
FIGURE 3-4 GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRA AVERAGE Gmax BE AVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT I
I RUN NunB R RRTIFICIRL ERRTH I g i, rtatoo Isecopost ,,, 1,,
'MI)h^/ I h N h[ Ih)hY[ hk '/NNN D[ / h
//N / AA ^ NWNs //N / X AX N // N / ^ ^^ NWNM
////A/A A hA \\\%//// /\/A A NA \\\%////A/A A hA \\Eh W// X/\ X N N M2W// X/'s X N NM2W// X/\ X N N N2
[ W/ A /N N)C$$W/ /\ /N \ )655W/ A /\ ' \ )ff$ l
@ /x wrem /x 83em /\ 830<
E [ Wh i@h2kl5Mh s$k2$$5Mh A$k8$$5 i 3 U Ih)hbbk$NkhkkSS 5 [ Y(N D( Y/) hNIN E khkk!b l ,NVELOP,E FO[R .5*/o D,AMPING
-: //N /JK Ax NWsi //N /A AA %WNA //N / XA X NWNs
////APA A NAN \\%//// A/ XNW\ W h\\\////A/ /%A NA \\\%
Il 2W/! N/\ N \ Wk W///'X/\ X \ \M25.5'/o D AMPINGN N Y
$5 2~ M/ A /\ \)d$9 I /o DAMPING % [N \ k((hW[
s [ [N \)[hh I M'/\ 18)UR$0"""/% 2)ORM1/\ 183OR 'E [ Mh A$s2$l5Mh MMMbE(85l5 Q U '4Ish*[/E2 hhh!b D[ Nhkb!bkhkk$b
'MI)h^[/ )(2 D swish *[/ dis D[
w/w /x A Ax nys 8 1
//N /A A AN wNs
////A/A A % A N\\% ////A/A
//N / x A x mMW ApMP \\9(fa/AA/A A hAN\\%
X/\ X N NN2W// X/%A N NN225K/X X/N X N NW2 ll E W//
~
W/ A /\ \ )CG$$$l(/ A /\ \ )695$MtOX A /\ \3CE$ M'/\ 18)CRM'/\ 18)C(MVN M3OR E S Mb A@k29Nb$s2@Mb@(2$l5 8 - ir m Mhkkb khh!$$k khk$b i o o on o o it o . o , o o is i , o i o , o o ig ARTir!CI AL CAnfMOUnRE set BVPs Pittt FIELo 735-82o otCSuvoLUT srecian ran or er its e e o.oso e o.oto
* ****' FIGURE 3-5 GROUND RESPONSE SPECTRA AVERAGE Gmax + 50% / BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT I
AUN MunHA MTIFICIAL EMTH 1
- ~
~ aina saca a! ,., .
O 5 M3st^/'/ 4Stk' MO?^xYX
'^
N y;t( M'04^ ^/ M:s( . //N/^ ^ ANYNN( //N/ x /N Nys //N / A y s yNNu
~_////A/A A M N\\%////AfA A.N^ . NAN 5////A/A A7/, \\E9 TW// X/N X NM}2W// X/N X NN2W// X/N E N M P2 N
W/ A /\ \ M$$W/ A A \ M55
~
/\ /\ \3%$W/
l - N./\ Ehk)kN /\ dkIkN /\ Nk)k A // !
~
'A j ' "
'ENVELOPk FOR .5*/o DAMPlNGk
/
v\ MM >b 'S& / \
- M3s47/ Af[oau,,ua7E%%3."d2 '
nOm( au/x.A xxysts MZ7#/E?M ii em ^ a
-- : ww/m/x; r///hpA A l /o AMPf NG <jjA f jyjg g ggggg777y A,A yg ggs 3 y W ///'X/N M*,#"N!$7'7*X X // 1 X %\N2W//
3E Xe /N XX NN2
$$f/ A /N \Ms$W/Ldfs//\\ h)%$W/ A /\ \ M55 I 3
!- N /\ NkIkNkh M)k)kNb/\ dkIk l [ Mh2(2$)Mh26DMh2(25) I
- In:
lE3 ) I : 5 une^ ^ um hhhk$$ Mis?^X'/USSI khh!Mhhh!$b M3ss^//USt3 ( M3$4^[/ US un/xex x w== xw /^ ^ ^xm A Y \\\h D( i ////A/A.A M \NNN ////A/A APMP TW/,WVM A NN229WX/N X N MP2 I W// X/N X NTN2 W// Xs%At T W/ A /\ \ MOW / A /\ \ MS$*M A /\ \3%$
- bh /\ Nh)kN /\ Nk)kNNb Nk)k 3 I @h2k29@b2(25)MS2k25)
I a Nhhkb khh!$$ khhkb ir y , e o o , n o is o o o o n is o , o o i ' o n is aerartetet tantissuna sure m rtA s M occes n Lirr g ""T."' .
- ::= ..
FIGURE 3-6 GROUP RESPONSE l SPECTRA AVERAGE Gmax -50%
- BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT I 1
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 i 1 4.0 AMPLITIED RESPONSE ANALYSIS Soil-structure interaction analysis can be performed using a direct finite detailed element solution in which the dynamic model is composed of of both the structure and the supporting medium. In a direct representations interaction analysis, the effects of embedmont upon stiffness and control motion are automatically included. Although such a procedure m'ay appear to be i efficient, analyses become more difficult to manage when large, complex founded upon stratified media. Also, this procedure does not structures are produce any intermediate results, which are often useful in making engineering assessments. Many different procedures may be 6 sed to reduce such an analysis to more manageable steps. For example, a detailed finite element soil model can be usedtocomputefrequency-dependentstiifnessesthatarethenusedinasecond Tor embedded step for seismic analysis of a detailed structural model. structures, however, some method that redefines the control motion must be I included. An earthquake with a specified amplitude and frequency content at the site surface is not necessarily a reasonable input to the detailed model in the second step. A multiple-step analysis need not' rely upon finite element representations of soil. The three-step solution described below is based upon the theory of 1
' 4-1 1
BEAUER VALLEY F02ER STAT 80N, UNIT 1 1 E elasticity, and includes a solution for the problem of definition of the control motion in the case of embedded structures. 8
4.1 DESCRIPTION
OF THE THREE-STEP ANALYSIS E The solution of soil-structure interaction problems can be reduced to the following three steps: E
- 1. calculations of frequency-dependent soil stiffnesses E
l 2. nodification'of the specifie'd surface motion to account for structure embedmont T
- 3. interaction analysis l E These steps are illustrated in Figure 4-1 (see Reference 2).
l 4.1.1 Trequency-Dependent Soil Stiffness E The frequency-dependent stiffnesses of a rectangular footing founded at the surface of a layered medium are computed with the program RETUND, discussed in Section 10.3. The program solves the problem of forced vibration of a rigid plate on a viscoelastic, layered stratum using numerical solutions to the I
$ .-2 s
I I BEAVER VALLEY FCL'ER STATION, UNII 1 I ! The effects generalized problems of Cerruti and Boussinesq (see rigure 4-2). are combined by of unit harmonic horizontal and vertical point loads superposition to produce the behavior of a rectangular plate. I the problem of a point load on the surface of continuum require Solutions to the load; for an assumption about the behavior of the medium directly under example, see Timoshenko and Goodier. In REFUND, a solution directly under , I the load is achieved by employing a column of elements for which a linear displacement function is assumed. Away from this central column, in the "far-field," the solution for a viscoelastic layered medium is obtained (see rigure 4-3). n) L % If the central column under the ' point load is removed and replaced by to the internal stresses, the equivalent distributed forces corresponding Since no other prescribed dynamic equilibrium of the far field is preserved. other forces act on the far field, the displacements at the boundary (and any I point in the far field) are uniquely defined in terms of these boundary
.I forces. The problem is thus to find the relations between these boundary forces and the corresponding boundary displacements.
It is aivays possible to express the displacements in the far field in terms wave propagation in of eigenfunctions corresponding to tne natural modes of each having a characteristic wave number k. In an unbounded the stratum, 4-3 i ;
BEAUER UALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 I N medium, any value of the wave number k, and hence any wavelength, is admissible; for a layered stratum, however, only a numerable set of values of I h (each one with a corresponding propagation mode) satisfics the boundary conditions. There are thus, at a given frequency, an infinite but numerabia set of propagation modes and wave numbers k that can be found by solving a transcendental eigenvalue problem. For each eigenfunction the distribution of stresses can be determined up to a multiplicative constant, the participation E factor of the mode. Zy combining these modal stresses to match any given distribution of stresses at the boundary, the participation factors and the corresponding dynamic stiffness function relating boundary stresses to boundary displacements can be determined. In RETUND's cylindrical coordinates,' loads -and displacements are expanded in Tourier series around the axis E ur s[u"cesn# e p, s [ p ncos n8 e e e uy aEu"cosnS p, s E p" cos n6 up = -up sin n8 pg.= E-pg sin n8 Tor the problem at hand, -only the first two components of the series are needed. The (unit) vertical force case corresponds to the Tourier component of order zero (n=0), and the horizontal unit force case corresponds to the 4-4 1
1 BEAVER VALLEY PC'a'ER STATION, UNIT 1 I c.
). Tourier component of order one (n:1). The cartesian displacement (flexibility) matrix (T) at a point then follows from the cylindrical I displacement components:
y(uj + uj) + y(uj-uh)cos 28 u' cos 8 h(u - u'g) sin 28 E u'y u'y sin 8 h f u) cos 8 ,, u' sin 8 {(uj+u'g)- (u{ -u'g)cos 28 (((u)- u'g) sin 28 . I and the displacement vector for arbitrary loading is I U: TP 1- .
~
vhere Fua 'l fp,3 U n i u, P =( py t.s ., t.s ., U is the displacement vector at a point (x,0,z) while P is the load vector at (0,0,0). The coordinate system is illustrated in Tigure 4-4. 1
,or po1nts a1on, the ,re. sur,a.e, t,e r.eproc1t, theorem re . 1res t,at g U Hence, T is chessboard symmetric /antisymmetric. RETUND then U y.
1 4-5
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 E computes the cylindrical displacement components for the two loading cases, and determines the cartesian flexibility matrix T under the load (axis), at I the boundary, and at selected points beyonji the boundary. E To compute the subgrade stiffness functions for a rigid, rectangular plate, the program discreti es the foundation into a number of points and computes the global flexibility matrix T from the nodal submatrices T using the technique just described. Imposing then the conditions of unit rigid body displacements and rotations, it is possible to solve for the global load vector from the equation E Ep w FP = U S where U is the global displacement vector satisfying the rigid body condition. It follows that U is of the form 8 U = TV where V is a (6x1) vector containing the rigid body translations or rotations of the plate and T is linear transformation matrix assembled with the I 4-6
I BEAVER VALLEY POWER SIATION, UNIT 1 I coordinates of the nodal points. The stiffness ft"setions are then obtained from I Z=Tp T I which corresponds formally to B ~ Z=TF TV I A comparison of RETUND results with another method is shown in Section 10.3. m L1 - 4.1.2 Imbedmont Correction The effects of foundation embedmont on the impedances are included by ' employing correction factors described by Kausel oc al.88' These correction factors are determined from parametric studies of embedded foundations and are
- of the form Cn = (1 +t C h)(1 +2 C {)(1 +3 C k)
$ in which I
4-7
EEAVER VALLEY PO'a'ER STATICN, UNIT 1 I mc. C R : c rrection factor l
- R : foundation radius E
E : e=bedeent depth I H : depth to bedrock C, : constants, different values for each degree of freedom. The frequency dependent stiffnesses, K, determined by RETUND are modified to become
~
i K m K a Cn 4.1.3 Kinematic Interactica . I In the second step of the analysis shown in Figure 4-1, " kinematic interaction" modifies the purely translational input specified at the surface of the stratum to both a translational and rotational motion at the base of the rigid, massless foundation. The existence of the additional input can be inferred from Tigure 4-5. In a s'tritum undergoing translational motion only, 1 . I
DEAVER VAU.EY PC'JER STATION, UNIT 1 5 the boundary conditions at the "excav.ttion" require the foundation to rotate. Ignoring the rotational component would result in an unconservative solution. Note that the modified motion at the base of the foundation is not equivalent to a deconvolution. The specified surface motion is modified so that E F(G) cos( lf") , f 5 0.7 f n 93 (t) = IFT F(D) 0.453 , f > 0.7 fn E . i and
, F(Q) 0.257 (1- cos )/R ,f S fn
$3(t) = IFT 4 F(Q) 0.257/ R ,f > fn l
T(0) = Tourier transform of surface motion ITT = inverse transform E R = foundation radius i = fundamental shear beam frequency of the column of soil between the embedment level and the free surface I 1 . 9 .., . l i
. ~ , - _ - . - . ._ .
DEAVER UALLEY POWER STAT 80N, UNIT 1 These relationships are taken from Kausel et al.828 E ,A finite element analysis of a rigid, massless, embedded foundation provides a demonstration that the relations above are reasonable and conservative. Such a comparison is shown in Section 10.4 (KINACT). E 4.1.4 Interaction Analysis The' third step of the procedure illustrated schematically in Figure 4-1 is the analysis of the structural model supported on the frequency-dependent springs from Step 1 for the modified seismic input from Step 2. The solution is achieved using the program TRIDAY. TRIDAY evaluates the dynamic response of an assembly of cantilevsr structures supported by a common mat and subjected to a seismic excitation. The support of the mat can be rigid, or it can consist of frequency-dependent / independent springs and dashpots (subgrade stiffnesses). The equations of motion are solved in the frequency domain, determining response time histories by. I convolution of the transfer functions and the Tourier transform of the input excitation. The dynamic equilibrium equations can be written in matrix
. notation ast l1 l
3 - 4-10
; 1
,_ ~
BEAVER VALLEY PO'TR . STATION, UNIT 1 I-(13 M0 + Ci + KY = 0
.I where M, C, K are the mass, damping and stig.* ness matrices, respectively, and U, Y are the absolute and relative (to the moving support) displacement vectors.
I These two vectors are related by: U = Y + EUg (2) l
)-l where U is the base excitation vector (3 translations and 3 rotations), and E is the matrix:
I Ti O I 8 I T2 E= 0 I "> l3 I T. O I 1 E
- 3 4-11 i
l1 -
I BEAVER VALLEY Pok'ER STATION, UNIT 1 I r:.
' where I is the (3x3) identity matrix, O is the null matrix, and f 0 Zt - Zo -(Y - Yo)]
t Tt = ( -(Z i- Zo) O Xt - Xo ) I ( Y -t Yo -(X - Xo) t O j t x o, yo, vith xg, y ,gzg being the coordinates of the corresponding nass point;
- o are the coordinates of the common support.
I In the frequency response method, the transfer functions are determined by setting, one at a time, the ground motion- components equal to a unit harmonic It follows then that U, Y are also harmonic: of the form uf = e "t. i I 0 = H j el "' Y = (H g - Ej ) e "' O = h Hje "' I Y= (Hj - Ej)el "' (4) U=-hHje"' I Y = -~h(H) - Eg le'"' I _ 8 . th where Hg=Hg (w) is the vector containing the transfer functions for the j input ground motion, and Et is the j column of E in Eq. 3. Substitution of th Eq 4 into Eq l yields
.5 .
1
BEAVER VALLEY PO*CR STATION, UNIT 1 I cy (5) (w M2 + twc + K)tti = (twc + K)Eg i If the damping matrix is of the form C = fD,whichcorrespondstoalinear hysterstic damping situation, the' equation reduces to I . (6) (-w 2M + K + LD)Hj = (K + ID)E
- I the correspondence principle, it is possible to generalize the In view of stiffness matrix K equation of motion allowing at this stage elements in the l 7 with an arbitrary variation with frequency. This enable's the use of k'
of flexibility frequency-dependent stiffness functions or impedance (inverse I functions or compliances). Defin2.ng the dynamic stiffness matrix: j 8 K g = K + 1D -wzy (7) lI ' The solution for the transfer functions folicus formally from: l 4-13 I1- __ . _ - _ - - . _-
3EAVER VA2. LEY PC'JER STATION, UNIT 1
~ '
's i>
4 Hj = - K") (K + 1D) Ej
= -(I + w 2Ky M)E)
I-Note that the dynamic stiffness matrix K does not depend on the loading condition Eg . Also, for w = 0. H g(0) =E.g
.3 Having fo'and the transfer functions, the acceleration time-histories follow then from the inverse Tourier transformation:
.i s; .
t
~~~~# '.
t ' I'0
- lWi dw III 3 U=p <
2 Hj fj
, jat +
e
-ee l th input acceleration wh e r e ., fi = fg(w) is the Tourier transform of the j I Com??nent:
~i I
(10)
; ,,= c., e- ,w. . ,
o i e i
~~
4 4-14 l E V' g
.- . - . . - _ _ ,n -_ .. . - .
DEAVER VALLEY POTTER STATION, UNIT 1 The procedure consists then of determining the dynamic stiffness matrix Kd ' solving Eq 6 for the six loading conditions H = H ' j, determining the six l ; Tourier transforms of the input components F :"f ', and performing the inverse 3 transformation (Eq 9), which corresponds formally to: U = h
- HF e twt dw
-e E The dynamic equations are solved in TRIDAY by Gaussian elimination, and the Fourier transforms are computed by subroutines using the Cooley-Tuckey FFT (fast Fourier transform) algorithm. A comparison of the results of TRIDAY vith another solution is shown in Section 10.5.
p)sI"~ '
- 4.2 STRUCTURAL HODELING 5 The level of detail in mathematical models of structures is determined by consideration of the following:
E 1. distribution of mass in the building
- 2. symmetry / asymmetry of building arrangement
- 3. locations at which output is required
- 4. approximate frequency content of input I
1 4-15 1 1
l BEAVER VALLEY POVER STATION, UNIT 1 E The models used in the analysis, typically, are generalized, three-dimensional, multi-mass representations. The total number of degrees of E freedem included is more than sufficient to encompass all significant l frequencies; the number of masses being governed, as a practical matter, by the locations at which amplified response spectra (ARS) are , required. E Eccentricity between the center of mass and center of stiffness at every level is included, except where insignificant. As a result, the effects of torsion upon the modes and frequencies is automatically determined. A typical model is shown in Figure 4-6. The generalized dynamic members connecting the centers of mass have stiffness matrices determined by tensor transformation from the matrices of the structural elements connecting the centers of stiffness. I To demonstrate the effects of torsion on the results, a comparison was made between the analyses using a generalized three-dimensional model and a planar model of the main steam valve building. This building has one open side and relatively large eccentricities between centers of mass and rigidity. The results of this comparison are shown in Figures 4-7 to 4-10 and indicate that for this site the effects of torsion are not significant. I 1 1 .
~'
c.16 1
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 4.3 RESULTS E Output from the third step TRIDAY includes structural response as well as ARS for all coordinates in each structure analyzed. In general, a structural coordinate , coincides with a building floor level. Typical structural acceleration and displacement profiles are shown in Tigures 4-11 and 4-12. ARS are generated for two orthogonal horizontal and the vertical directions at each structural coordinate for both OBE and DBE earthquakes. Typical ARS are shown in Section 5. For use in pipe stress problems, ARS peaks are automatically broadened 225 percent to account for variations in soil and structural material properties. I Comparisons of ARS generated by the*three-step RETUND/TRIDAY method and the finite element PLAXLY method as well as those based on the TSAR earthquake and the Regulatory Guide 1.60 earthquakes were made at the request of.the NRC. The ARS generated for these comparisons used strain compatible soil parameters from the last iteration of the SHAKE program. I Comparisons were also made of ARS generated from the RETUND/TRIDAY programs for a variety of soil parameters as requested by the NRC. I All ARS comparisons are described in Section 5. 1 4-17 1
~ <.L u < . . ; .s. : . a- . .-
3EAVER UALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 s 4.4 REFERENCLS
- 1. Timoshenko & Goodier, Theory of Elasticity, 3rd Edition. McGraw-Hill Book 4
Co., p 97-109. E
- 2. Kausel, Whitman, Morray, & Elsabee, The Spring Method for Embedded Foundations. Nuclear Engineering and Design 48(1978): 377-392.
5 E Q' . E 8 g . 5 5 3 - 1
a y -...g. . u s ,e . 04 y (t ) [K],,, ,M O , d b M . j f(t) O QF , Y- Q ,"(t) ,f(t) { 'rWM
"+7W G(t)
+
j [ L J "M'r V ?.
~'
'fpii ff l ' K m
- - nxn FREQUENCY KIN EMATIC.
I DEPENDENT INTERACTION INTERACTION ANALYSIS [ . STIFFNESS
. REFUND KINACT FRIDAY 1 -
i 1 l l FIGURE 4-1 THE THREE STEP SOLUTION
; BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1
/
E e
, v. .im g- \
5 i
)
>/
E* \ / \ E .
- E wy BOUSSINESQ I '
z N a.* . s
,\
s
\
i '3 .
"Y CERRUTI FIGURE 4 2 s THE BOUSSINESQ AND CERRUTI PROBLEMS BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION -UNIT 1
I . t E V E
\ -
omi COLUMN g g _' __
\
FIGURE 4-3 I IDEALIZATION OF THE BASIC ' REFUND' SOLUTION FOR CONCENTRATED LOADS BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 4 ~ I Ur Ux Z
' G -.-.
X I I I FIGURE 4-4
' REFUND' C0 ORDINATE SYSTEM BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1
g . g 1 A (" T I N U
] l -
) '
N
) A ' O t
( A j I E y T A T NS O A V( - IR TE E [ CW AO RP E TY NE E 5 4IV IL CA L T EAR RME E UEV GNA IIE FKB E Y A 1 ' f
\
E !
. Y A
A
"( ,
A A
. ". N A O
'Y nV
. I k T I
A ' TA l AD N A } M 4 I f
$ Y f
N U OO F f - I T N
/ O AS I O )
t
)
t RS E E L L T A ( ( ES R U p CS E N u CA AM L E C L D C AI A E I NG OI L I R A T N AF O U LO S NE I T A AS T RA O TB R
= )
)
t t t ( Is h
,i Ih f } 1I
Y h l M s (3.20, 73.0, -,4.32) ~ x
\_
E s z
\
\
l \
\
I
\
\
I \ % cs / I M4 (44.,3, s,.33,7.02) i -
/cs! ,
/
E /
/
s
" 3 ( 3 * '** ' #' '"I'"3 }
f k.... i 3 I L ,) to., pcs . ., _ l,. 4 b I / 44,<.e4 I / 1
- =," n=, w"<="-,
] - s"!!n'A'"ca"e^."t"5"nN FIGURE 4 -6 GENERALIZED DYNAMIC MODEL OF A CATEGORY 1 STRUCTURE v BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT i I
E E 2.00 1.80 DAMP 2.0% 160 ' .R >- 1.20
$ 1.00 sw l $ "* i
' n Ah
} \r
./
[ w m _ l' - ~~
% ~.
o.20 y M u--
' o.co o.to 0.20 0.30 0.40 QSo aso a70 c.ao o.so 1.00 1.1o 1.20 PERIOD-SECONDS i LEGEND 3 D MoDEL
----- 2 D MoDEL lE SEISMIC AN ALYSIS OF MAIN STEAM VALVE BUILDING I HORIZONTAL SSE EW HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT M AT BEAVER VALLEY POWER ST ATION-UNIT t I
f 5 2.o0 - 1.8o DAMP 2.00 % 5 >~ E i '= e e i.oo A : . 5 A l O Q80
/ '
Y a6o ss , y
! =m .._. A m J mr.Qwl g,p azo 3 i.20 000 aio azo a3a o.4o aso aso aTo. neo ano 1.00 1.10 PERIOD-SECCNDS -l LEGEND 3D MoDEL E
E I FIGURE 4-8 SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF I MAIN STEAM VAD/F. BUILDING HORIZONTAL SSE EW HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT TOP
' BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION -UNIT 1
2.00 ! 1.80 DAMP 2.00% 1.40 1.20
=
1.00 0.80 I O.60 O*
/ N O.20
/
~
O.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 Q30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 080 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 PE RIOD-3ECONDS l LEGEND 3-D MODEL
---- D MO D(L 1
1 FIGURE 4-9 SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF j MAIN STEAM VALVE BUILDING HORIZONTAL SSE N- - NS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT MAT BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION -UNIT 1 1
'4 5 2.00 1.80 DAMP 2.00% 1.40 l ; i.20 s g i i.OO s taJ g y 0.s0 f 7 a E O.40 p % ]
\ NN 0.20 ,
E-
' O.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.30 1.00 1.10 1.20 PERIOD SECONDS E <eoeso 3 D MODEL
------- 2 D 4D E L 3
1 FIGURE 4-10 SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF 1 MAIN STEAM VALVE BUILDING HORIZONTAL SSE P NS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT TOP BE AVER VALLEY POWER STATION- UNIT 1 1 _ _ _ ._ o
g = _ _ O
&n i
I kLEVATION ABOVE MAT ACCELDtATION (FEET) (g) 177.50C O.245 ELEVATION ACCELERATION (FEET) (6) 1,2.,00 O.,74 135.00 C 0.228 g ,,,. 7, o ... ,,,. . o. ,,4 91.40 0 0,134 84.00 0 0.157 M 7,.050 0.11 2 SQ700 0.096 57.000 0,i24 I g so.,m 6 .. - o.c o--O o.ost o.co f o,ose SHELL INTERNALS 8 8 I 1 ~ FIGURE 4-11
'g TYPICAL ACCELERATION PROFILES BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION -UNIT I 1
3.,+ __ .. n - n ,~. ~ - . .. - . - -
1 10 f ELEVATION A8(NE MAT . OlSPLACEMENT ( FEET) (INCH E S) , 177.500 0.28695 ELEVATIDN DISPLACEMENT I ( FE ET) 136.00C (INCHES) 0,2558 13 2.10() < 0.21429 0.18806 111.000 0.2 213 lil.75t ) > 91.400 0.16135 71.05 0 0.1345A 57.000 0.1450 50.70 0 0.10814 O.08355 30.360 I O.0 0.06838 0.0 0.0684 SHELL INTERNALS I I I I 1 FIGURE 4-12
~
TYPICAL DISPLACEMENT PROFILES P BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT I I
~mmmmm
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 I 3.0 COMPARISONS OF RESULTS Comparison 9 of amplified response spectra (ARS) f,or the DBE were prepared for the following cases: I l
- 1. Methodology - RITUND/TRIDAY vs PLAXLY f i
1 i
- 2. Earthquake - TSAR vs Regulatory Guide 1.60
- 3. Soil Farameter Variation - low strain, first and last iterations from SHAKE; 150 percent variation of low strain input to SHAKE.
R)-' L
% 5.1 RETUND/TRIDAY VS PLAXLY The, containment structure was analyzed two ways for purposes of comparison using strain compatible soil parameters from the SHAKE program.
- 1. A one-step analysis using the finite element program PLAXLY E
- 2. A three-step analysis using the methodology described in Section 4.1 5
The following ebservations can be made about the ARS shown in Figures 5-1 through 5-3. l l jL 5-1 ( i 1 l
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 ) k 1. At the sat level, the results of the two methods are very close.
- 2. With increasing elevation, the RETUND/TRIDAY results become acre f conser"ative with respect to the PLAXLY results. This is a E consequence of the conservative assumption made about the rotational part of the input in' the kinematic interaction step (see, for example, Tigure 10.4-2).
5.2 TSAR EARTHQUAKE VS REGULATORY GUIDE 1.60 EARTHQUAKE Additional analyses were performed at the roguest of the NRC using the three-step method (RETUND/TRIDAT) to compare the design earthquake in the TSAR to 3 that specified by Regulatory Guide 1.60. The ARS shown in rigures 3-4 through 5-6 are comparisons ch consistent piping analysis bases that is, the spectra for equipment dampings associated with the Regulatory Guide 1.60 earthquake (2 and 3 percent) are displayed with the 1 percent spectra for the TSAR earthquake. The soil shear moduli and damping used for these analyses are from the last iteration of the SHAKE program. Even though the Regulatory Guide 1.60 earthquake is significantly more energetic than the TSAR earthquake, the results are very close. S lk: ,., 1 -
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 I O 5.3 VARIATION OF SOIL PROPERTIES I At the request of the NRC, ARS were generated for a range of soil shear modulus and damping ratiot
- 1. The low-strain soil shear modulus (Guax) with soil damping ratio equal to 0.05.
- 2. Shear modulus and damping after one iteration in SHAKE, starting from the low-strain modulus (Gnax).
I
- 3. Shear modulus and damping consistent with earthquake amplit.tde, but
- calculated by the program SMAKE starting from i 1/2 times the low-strain modulus Gmax +50 percent.
> 4 Shear modulus and damping consistent with earthquake amplitude, but calculated by SHAKE starting from 1/2 times the low-strain modulus Gmax -50 percent. I 5. Shear modulus and damping from the last itera'tion of SMAKE, starting with the low-strain modulus (Gmax). 1 . I t g 5-3 I
BEAVER VA2. LEY 70WER STATION, UNIT 1 E The ARS for cases 1, 2, and 5 are compared in rigures 5-7 through 5-16 for piping damping ratios of .005, .010, and .030. They indicate that the analysis is sensitive to extreme variations in parameters but that, within the limits of the iterations of SMAKE, both the amplitudes and frequency content i are well-behaved. E The ARS for Cases 3, 4 and 5 are shown in rigures 5-16 through 5-24 for piping damping ratios of .005, .010, and .030. Beginning the SHAKE analysis with 1/2 the low-strain modulus results in extremely low moduli for the final iteration. Again, while apparently sensitive to extreme variations of input parameters, the amplified response analysis is relatively insensitive to variations of modulus and damping in the reasonable middle range of values. I I I I I I I - 5.s I
E 0.80 i DAMP 3.00%
= 0.70
-0.40 E -
9 s !- g s ae v _ y Oso p"( 0.20 M-
% M
'^
0.10 y , i Q0 CLIO 020 030 OAO 030 040 0.70 GSO 0.90 LOO LIO l.20 i PERIOD-SECONDS . E E LEGEN0
' ~ '
REFUN0/ FRIDAY
- - - - PLAxLY - ---*
E I I FIGURE 5-1 COMPARISON OF REFUND / FRIDAY AND PLAXLY - ARS AT MAT j stAVER WLLEY POWER STAfl0N+ UNIT l , 1
I 1.00 i OAw 100% { 0.90 0.80 0.70 s W/\ Y I i 60 0
! m W /T.
m 050
' \
$ ' '\ .,
O.40 ^d
"\ Y g =
s
/ Vx n f \i Q b
p
~
-d
/
OM . 5 .. CD 00 0' " ojo 0.40 050 040 @ W # l PEP 0D SECONOS l 5 aa. - I REFUN0/PR10AY
--== PLAMLY -
I FIGURE 5-2 j l COMPARISON OF REFUND / FRIDAY AND PLAXLY- ARS g'~ AT OPERATING FLOOR l SEAvtR VALLEY P0wCM $7Afl0N. UNIT I I
..gg y r:c, W MIT-
A E (10 DAMP 300*/. im ,, l
^
2 QSO I _ N E O 0.70 ,
$. Q 0
- ./ $.. \
E f V \ g u an
/
r
\
0.4o r\' \ 5 \ \._ 0J0 /- v w [ Q20 ,
-] -
j^ ./ 0.10 'I 0.0 OD OJO Q20 030 0.40 030 0SO Q70 000 090 too 1.10 1.20 PEM100 SECON05 E (g l LEGENO MFUN0/ FRIDAY -- lW - - - - - PL A M LY I l FIGURE 5-3 COMPARISON OF REFUND / FRIDAY l AND PLAXLY-ARS AT SPRINGLINE BEAVER VALLEY PCwER STAfl0N= UNIT I I
5 2.0 1.s 1.s
- 1A 1.2 sm 1.0 g Uo* .
---.-- On
" A L A
,, 9 hW NQWkh5
~
0.2
... y M ** * 'N, .. . o,o .
04 0
- 0,10 0.2C Q30 Q40 0.50 0.60 G70 080 Q90 1.00 1.10 1.20 PERIOD SECONDS
+ F.
l "We LEGENO N, FSAR EARTHOUANE 1% DAMPING
'J ---- MeULATORY Sul0E LOO EARTHOUAME 2%DAMPIM -
./' -a MSULATORY GU10E I.00 EARTHOUAME 3%DAMPIM h;- .
l
- FIGURE 5-4 COMPARISON OF FSAR AND REGULATORY GUIDE I.60
./ EARTHQUAKES- ARS AT M AT l 8EAVER VALLEY POWER STAfl0N = UNif I
E E 250 2.25 5 - 1.75 g j '>o )
& L A *
- U ; . h I
- 0.75 l[
r V r
^^ ,,
E 4A\ e RL k A [}- - Mkh[ g ,e
,oo y,30 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 000 0 90 1.00 1.10 1.20 PERIOO SECONOS LEGENO FSAR (ARTHOUAME 1% DAMPite8
---- REout.AfoRY euiOE te0 EARTHOUANE 1% DAMPtNS - ,
-- . - ~
*- REGLA.ATORY SU60C LSO E.WITHOUANC 3% 04MPfNG I
1 FIGURE 5-5 COMPARISON OF FSAR AND 5 REGULATORY GUIDE I.60 EARTHQUAKES-A RS AT OPERATING FLOOR SEAVCR VALLEY POWER STAfl0N = UNif I
3 E 10 4.5 4.0 E 15 9 ? 10 3 E h2.5
- U w
82.0
< f 1.s
%} .
A : h
* f n .
as g h %G y,_w g y non nio o.20 nm n40 ano oso o.70 neo o.so 1.00 1.10 1.20
- PERIOO-SECONOS g LEGEND .
5 esAR EARTHOUANE 1% DAMPING - - - -
----- REautAToRY aulot 1.so EARTHOUAKE 2%DAMPlNG
. MEGULAToRY SulDE 1.so EARTHOUAME 3% DAMPING I FIGURE 5-6 j COMPARISON OF FSAR AND REGULATORY GUIDE I.60 - Arts AT SPRINGLINE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 l
4 2.50 2.25 DAMP O.50% 2.00
- 1. T')
0 g 1.50 s
- a 1. 25 I $
kJ h I.00 E N k / 9.~ r~- v w~ 0.25 - ,, .- 0.0 000 0.10 0.20 0.30 CL4C, QSO 0.60 0.70 Q50 0.30 1.00 L10 120 PERIOD-SECONDS LEGEND, LOW STRAIN %
---- FIRST ITERATION FROM SHAKE
-* - LAST ITERATION FROM SHAKE 1
I g FIGURE 5-7 E COMPARISON OF ARS' FOR . SOIL PARAMETER VARIATIONS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT MAT BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 I . _ = =_w
2.50 2.25 DAMP 1.0 % g __. 1.75 1 ' 5 ! .50
= 1.25 -
5 d 8 LOO
~
I . 0.75
" A ^
0.50
~
- 0*25 * '%A G/
I 0.0 QD 0.10 0.20 Q30 OA0 0.50 QSO 0.70 0.00 0.90 LOO l.10 1.20 PERIOD-SECONDS LEGEND _ LOW STRAIN Gear I ---- FIRST ITERATION FROM SHAKE
+- LAST ITERATION FROM SHAKE I
I FIGURE 3-8 l COMPARISON OF ARS FOR Soll PARAMETER VARIATIONS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT MAT BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION
- UNIT I i
~ .. . . -
_ . _; . m _ l , 4 2.50 2.25
- DAMP 3.00%
2.00 I ( I, , E LSO I e titz: L25 e o if,0 0.75 050 m
., 0.25 QO 0.20 0.30 0.40 050 Q60 OJO OAO O.90 LOO 110 1.20 QO O.10 PERIOD-SECONDS l
LEGEND LOW STRAIN Gesax
---- FIRST ITERATION FROM SHAKE LAST ITERATION FROM SHAKE l.
i
]
FIGURE 5-9
.j l COMPARISON OF ARS FOR i SOIL PARAMETER VARIATIONS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT MAT BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 l
1
2.50 - e 2.25
> DAMP O.5*/.
2.00 ,g E . 1.75 i 1.50 5 g i.25 4 3 (i g Ify0 5 g O.75 N
,i "4 _
I O.50 i. Y b . . sw'
~
- O.25 0.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 PERIOD-SECONDS
- g. _
<EGENO LOW STRAIN Gesax
---- FIRST ITERATION FROM SHAKE
- LAST ITERATION FROM SHAKE 3
FIGURE 5-10 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR
'g SOIL PARAMETER VARIATIONS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT OPERATING FLOOR BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 I
, . E
2.50 2.25 DAMP 1.00% 2.00 1.75 e e 130
' n.-
=
IkA f a M / %\ g 1.0 e f . y I I f -
- j
!; \g, .a 1 1 l .50 hi w
}}L mL T'%' .. s-f %-Nx e
.- y -
'. 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1 PERIOD-SECONDS LEGEND LOW STRAIN Gesax
---- FIRST ITERATION FROM SHAKE I - LAST ITERATION FROM SHAKE i
i I FIGURE 5-11 l COMPARISON OF ARS FOR SOIL PARAMETER VARIATIONS l HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT OPERATING FLOOR
- BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION -UNIT 1 l
1
4 5 * o u zm DAMP 3.00% 2.0c ' I.75 E ?
$ LSO -
I p 4
$ 125 J
I laJ U b y 1.OC y k s g-0.75 j
\ [) . '
5 a5C
; \ -
.!.l/ a ---
*~
n,g v __N _jV 'WM~__ - na I" em 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 Q40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.00 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 PERIOD-SECONDS LEGEND l LOW STRAIN Guan
----- FIRST ITERATION FROM SHAKE LA.'T ITER ATION FROM SHAKE
- 1 I
FIGURE 5-12 C'OMPARISON OF ARS FOR l SOIL PAR AMETER VARIATIONS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM
,,q AT OPERATING FLOOR ! s/ f BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 l
YN.Y I52i#:i. w m .,s w . . .:^ a . .- . . -- >~ ~ -- - ---- - -
I 2.50
- t \
f' li 1 DAMP O.5% l
"- "l ~
I
! Ihl M
1.TS i r y a: 1.25 Ij i; w t g y LOO ^ ' gyg $ ik A s Q., J# VL^ qu _ J '/ V !I ~~ 00 0.10 0.20 Q30 OAO QSO O.60 0.70 0.00 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 PERIOD-SECONDS
. LEGEND LOW STRAIN Smax
-- - FIRST ITERATION FROM SHAKE f
i
- LAST ITERATION FROM SHAKE FIGURE 5-13 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR SOlt PARAMETER VARIATIONS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT SPRINGLINE BEAVER VALLEY power STATION- UNIT 1 1-
2.50
% 2.25 DAMP 1.007.
5 2.0 g. 1.75 l l!l O ( I g l'A' e - 1.5
< f ct: 1.25 .
w i I J l E I l.0 ' 4 '
\ $ O! \b.
l ** f, l,1 hk
% \
~
\- i ll l -
/
l
%- ~.
q Y W O.0 000 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 Q50 Q60 Q70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 L2O PERIOD-SECONDS LEGEND LOW STRAIN Gmag
-- - - FIRST. lTERATION FROM SHAKE
.LAST ITERATION FROM SHAKE I
! FIGU R E 5- 14 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR
] SOIL PARAMETER VARI ATIONS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM
' AT SPRINGLINE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 1
, ' >_ _,g W
b 2.50 Pm 2.25 l"-) DAMP 3.00% 2.00 1.75 1.50
$ I a -
a: 1.25 uJ S % o 1.00 .
< I E^ ars Is
%^ s
.i [
S 0.50 ll Q-vm ( -
~N a25 f w l O.0 aOO alO a2O O.30 0.40 aSO a60 0.70 0.80 a90 1.00 1.10 1.20
( ! PERIOD-SECONDS I LEGEND LOW STRAIN Gesax
---- FIRST ITERATION FROM SHAKE
-
- LAST ITERATION FROM SHAKE l
fI FIGURE 5-15 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR i a SOIL PAR AMETER VARIATIONS l j HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT SPRINGLINE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STAT ON- UNIT 1 1 . wwumwmvermy.m -ymym.
a 2.50 2.25 DAMP O.5 % I , 1.75 (D 1.50 m 1.25 g U 1.00 I < 0.75 [k k l , 0.25 [y/h'k.'\
.LA I 3:
g r u.J ~
.4
~^ %. ~-
mW -- j g w
\f \
5 o.o M # O.OO O.10 0.20 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 0.20 PERIOO-SECONDS I ' LEGEND e + SO% FROM SHAME - - - -
, ---- LAST ITERATION FROM SHAME - -.
- s-sO% FROM SHAME -
I 1 . FIGURE 5-16 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR SOIL PARAMETER VARIATIONS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT MAT 8EAVER VALLEY STATION-UNIT 1 1
" * ' ~ ** *
' ' ff ,
- E 2.50 2.25 DAMP 1.0 %
1.75 O 8 $ 1.50 e 1.25 Y U y 1.00
~
0.75 -- m A .
,~sm 01s 'b t' . +
v4 J' - _ , %~ - -
,m.ci v ~- =~
0.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 8 PERIOD-SECONOS I LEGEND G + 50% FROM SMAKE --
-- L'AST ITERATION FROM SMAME ---
--- s - SO% rROu SHAME --
t I I FIGURE S-17 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR SOIL PARAMETER VARIATIONS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT MAT BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 1
-~- --.=.-- -. - , ,
__ c - . . . . - 5 g 2.2s . DAMP 3.0% 5 2.00 1.75 , e.' ! 130 I E i a !- Id 2 . ytoo i .75
.so l g,;, A y - a / J % ,/k
'>~M:.
g _ [KP'%.v . t- ,,,s- .. -~_ f .oo 0.00 0.10 0.20 a30 0,40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 E - PERIOD-SECONDS lE LEGEND e + so% FROM SHAKE - _ . . E -
--- LAST ITERATION FROM SHAKE S- 50% FROM SHAKE 2
l FIGURE 5-18 l COMPARISON OF ARS FOR i SOIL PARAMETER VARIATIONS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT MAT l BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 l
I I" - 2.50 I 2.25 ll DAMP O.5% 2.00 i.75
$1.
i .= NINI I- , i . u e
, liyJH g i.25 , \
l s U s.00 l
?
'-l :j i~
~.,
'A'. 4 s~ v J tilm / vt l
0.25 ' .- b.d* 0.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.00 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20
.PE RIOD - S ECON DS LEGEND:
e + 50% FROM SHAME
----- LAST ITERATION FROM SH AKE -
- - - G-50% FROM SHAKE l3 I FIGURE 5-19 l
COMPARISON OF ARS FOR l SOIL PARAMETER VARIATIONS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT OPERATING FLOOR BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 2 1 l
, -m_,____,___ . _ _ ___.__ -._ .__.._ _ _ _ ----- - _ - __
E, - 2.50
< wd m v
) 2.25 DAMP 1.0%
2.0 0 1.75 C ' 5 g'" g g n k h.AA E 9 ' . [ q 1.00 E- s t 1( . 0.75 0 50 t si
- s. t /
l- %' g ~
,$ w /.g % %
s t'
^
ggy ,
= ~
/
O.O O.00 0.10 O.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 QSO O.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 PERIOD-SECONDS I LEGEND G + SO% FROM SHAME - - - -
---- 1.AST ITERATION FROM SHAME I
-- S - 50% FROM SHAME -
I FIGURE 5-20 I COMPARISON OF ARS FOR SOIL PARAMETER VARIATIONS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM
, AT OPERATING FLOOR v 8EAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 I
wz =_ -____ - - - - -- =
4 E ... - 250 o m g 3 ,, - o E yISO o - lia m E - D
- o IDO
\
- E #
Y
.. 075
' (
I.
/ I, l
$1
/
i LL g j.' 11 Q J J' *
%~ W
-- w / Ie/ __
8" , 0.0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 Q60 0.70 0.80 C90 1.00 f.10 1.20 i PERIOD-SECONDS LEGEND G + 50% FROM SHAKE -- ~
---- LAST ITERATION FROM SHAME - - - -
I - G-50% FROM SHAME - 1 I l FIGURE 5-21 I COMPARISON OF ARS FOR l- SOIL PARAMETER VARIATIONS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT OPERATING FLOOR BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT I n.w n,. .- ~aw ~~~~a ~- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4 4 3.00 2.75 DAMP O.5% 2.50 2.25 ll'- 2.00
'$1lt' !
I .
? 11 2 1.75 gu-I 9. I U k ~
g g ' ** p , g u 1.25 -- 1.00
! bO j n ,
b'> 0.75
] .
i O.50 , , 3 I O.25
.A y
/ TA hN I O.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 PERIOD-SECONDS LEGEND 6 + 50% FROM SH AKE
--~~-- LAST ITERATION FROM SHAKE G - 50 % FROM S H A KE FIGURE 5-22 j
l l COMPARISON OF ARS FOR l SOIL PARAMETER VARIATIONS i HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT SPRINGLINE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 l1
--_=- .-~ . - - - .. ..
. ... .. . 1
. . - - e ._ _ .-- a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l 2.5C r3 La 2.25 DAMP 1.00% 1 l.75 h !
. ,1, I (85 g Z e '-
c, u g I s lt j l \ o U l.00
/ :, b).
g pe, ( I { j 3 / ., i A. Li
; t.fnw
/ R%g s%
l O.s f ., 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 OAO 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 l. lO l.20 PERIOD-SECONDS LEGEND G+ 50% FROM SHAKE - - . - j ----- LAST ITERATION FROM SHAKE . - - .
.-. S-50% PROM MAKE - - - - - - - -
1 1 FIGURE 5-23 1 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR l SOIL PARAMETER VARIATIONS !k HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT SPRINGLINE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT I !l
~ mw ' * - W=
- ave om.m.e
. .K^--- - ---<,4** _ _ _ _ _
- - ~ ~ - ~ - --
I E --- 2.50 ) 2.25 DAndP 3.0% l
- l. 2.00 ,
g m - 1 8 5 50 P
$ fh .
N I \
" \ ---
- - - 0.75 ,
$ ff . A h .
e / mh, b -- O.50
)
7 y g o, 6 V
. ..r. Nw.%s.w _ _..
j .qf
$ O.0 0.90 1.20 O.OO O.10 0.20 0.30 040 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 1.00 1.10 PERIOD-SECONDS I ,
LEGEND G +50% FROM SHAKE
- - - - - LAST ITERATION FROM SHAKE I- --- G-50% FROM SHAKE - -- -
1 FIGURE 5-24 COMPARISON OF ARS FOR
.I SOIL PARAMETER VARIATIONS HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT SPRINGLINE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 I
L - -- * - m 4. -- s ,o wh w s , _u,g hw _s pha - g
3EAVER VALLET POWER STATION, UNIT 1 E 6.0 APPLICATION OF SEISMIC INPUT TO PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS In general, seismic input to pipe. stress analysis consists of inertia loads obtained through the application of amplified response spectra, and building E seismic displacements applied appropriately at support points in accordance with the design load combinations for each piping system. 6.1 AMPLITIED RESPONSE SPECTRA Amplified rasponse spectra for pipe stress analysis are developed and peak broadened as described in Section 4 of this report. Damping values for piping systems are 0.5 percent for the CBE and 1.0 percent for the DBE. I , Ql When all support points of a piping problem are located within the same structure, the amplified response spectrum which is closest to and higher in elevation than the center of mass of the piping system is applied in the analysis. For piping routed between buildings, an enveloped response spectrum f l representing the highest aceleration for all periods is used. l l3 l1
- 3
/
6-1 1
' BEAVER VAT.T.EY POWER STATION, UNIT & I 6.2 BUII. DING DISPLACEMENTS Relative seismic structural displacements within a building, as determined fro's the building seismic analysis, are used as inputs to support motion of I piping systems and are considered as static boundary displacements in^:he piping analysis. For piping running between buildings, the relative support motion includes the effect of each building's motion taken out of phase; this is the most conservative approach. I E
- J l8
- g 1
I I . I 1 R e-2 1
BEAVER VALLET POWER STATION, UNIT 1 l 7.0 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN
- i This section is included because et a request by the' Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Operating Reactors, during meetings held with the '
I Stone g Webster Engineering Corporation at Bethesda, Md. on March 16 and 17, l 1979. The basis for material presented in this section is described in Section 3.1.2, entitled " Seismic Design" of Appendix B of the Beaver Valley Power Station TSAR.**8 I This section provides comparisons of ARS for the containment structure at the operating floor (Tigure 7-1) and springline (Tigure 7-2) calculated by (1) the j time history method using a maximum modal damping of 7 percent, shown by the
, dashed line, and (2) by the time history method using modal damping but g including radiation damping due to soil structure interaction, shown by the l l l
solid line. The analysis used to compute radiation damping is in accordance with procedures described by Whitman.'2* I Table 7-1 shows weighted modal damping values used in the time history i e analyses which were performed to calculate the ARS. These modal damping l l values were calculated in the manner suggested by Biggs and Whitman.'88 The spring connected lumped mass model (including soil springs) used in these analyses is similar to that depicted in the TSAR, Tigure B.1-1. l I 7-1 1
3EAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 R The Helena E-W earthquake rocord normalized to .125 g was used as input in accordance with studies referenced in the TSAR, Appendix B. I 7.1 RETERENCES
- 1. Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 Final Safety Analysis Report, ;
Appendix 3, Section B.1.2, seismic Design.
- 2. Whitman, R. V. Vibrations in Civil Engineering. Proceedings of a symposium Organized by the British National section of the International Association for Earthquake Engineering.
g 3. ,1..s, ,. .. and . sit.an, ..V. ,oit ,tru.ture Intera. tion in No.1.ar Power Plants Fluid Japanese Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, Nov. 1970. 1 I
- 1 I
1 - R. 1-2 . 1 pgnenwim nm.n=g.,== ==
3EAVER VA7.7.EY PokT.R STATION, UNIT 1 TABLE 7-1
~
MODAL DAMPING RATIOS USED IN THE TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS USING S0IL SPRING STITTNESSESM Modal Damping E g Trea fees) Period (see) Case I Case II _ 1 1.61 0.622 0.07 0.1565 2 2.847 0.3512 0.07 0.6536 Vertical 3 3.83 0.2611 0.07 0.3059 4 5.525 0.1843 0.041 0.041 11.933 0.0838 0.022 0.022 5 5 6 14.255 0.0701 0.0669 0.0224 0.0207 0.0224 0.0207 7 14.952 8 18.873 0.,0530 0.02703 0.02703 . 5 9 22.013 0.0454 0.0279 0.0279 Vertical 10 22.293 0.0448 0.0213 0.0213 11 26.015 0.03844 0.0207 0.0207 3 12 13 26.749 30.226 0.03738 0.0331 0.0202 0.0249 0.0202 0.0249 Vertical 14 31.037 0.0322 0.0200 0.0200 13 34.511 0.0289 0.0206 0.0206
!!2II:
[ w Computed according to BV1 TSAR, Appendix B, page 3.1-4. *
~
3 1 i e f 3 1 I
& 1 of 1 1
..,--- ._ = = = = =
Y Y Y S 5 8 8 8 8 M M i . l. I 1 5.0
' I I OSCILLATOR DAMPING 0.005 I
t . h 4.0 i f o
! E 30 ~
9
. D i 5 I _:
8 2.0 g W i 10 t j k'
/ w/ \
. V 4 ,_ ____ ---
'~~ '- -"- - ------
i O.0 0.00 0.13 0,26 0.39 0.52 0.45 0.78 0.91 1.04 1.17 I . PERIOD-SECONDS 1 , LEGEND , FIGURE 7-1 f}j TiuE' HISTORY METHOO WEIGHTED MODEL oaurino incluoine naciATiOw caueino COMPARISON OF ARS AT
------ Tiud HISTORY METHOD WEIGHTED MODEL DAMelNG O.07 MA)(IMUM , BY TIME HISTORY METHOD
. BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 6 ;
I , i
' ,l I (l M
l _ 1 M T N I 7 1 U 1 N DO OIT 5 T H A 0 0 A TT N 0 e 4 0 ' S R'MR Ei . E S I u f A YW l e M F RO M A o O OP _ R TY _ O N SE _ 2O 1 T 9, I L A HL. - l S U L L I C _ 0 7I R EV A S O _ EA MR _ R P I E _ U G M TVA U _ 8 7 I FC O YE BB . i M - 0 5 D 6 N S M '. ! i!l I l' 0 O w C
/- E S
- D 2 O I
5 R .' 8 ! _ 0 E _ P _ M _ Le L En Di E D Oe O
# 9 MM Do a M DE N 3, 0
E Tn T Ho H l i _p
~
eit i e l Ea r Wo W u i M g%
\s 6 O a ou O R 0u He ue 2 .' k nhy' i l i I 0 Ei Ea j Mo u Mu N Yl yr Rc On Roo o.
i T T Se se Hn I in b _ 3 1 0;j- I Er Mu i ia ia em Hi c u' i _ To Tc M _ - 0 D 0 - N ' 0 0 0 0. 0 E - 0 D U 5 4 3~ r 2 1 0 G E O $9$e$dW L W k - ' , $ !t ., . , )[ $ i' !
DEAVER UALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 I 8.0 INVESTIGATION OF THE ETTECTS OF EARTHQUAKES SMALLER THAN THE DBE Because the soil shear moduli used in the generation of ARS Jre functions of strain, the ARS are not direct linear functions of maximum ground acceleration. Therefore, it is theoretically possible that at some frequencies the ARS for some smaller earthquake exceed those of the DBE. For the purpose of this study, an average strain compatible shear modulus for a range of peak horizontal ground accelerations from 0.01 g to 0.125 g was determined using SHAKE. The analyses were conducted for the free field profile using the Taft and El Centro accelerograms and Gmax values. The average shear modulus corresponding to each peak horizontal ground
) acceleration was determined by first averaging the shear moduli from the last iteration of SHAKE for the two accglerograms, then calculating the average value over the full depth of soil below the containment foundation elevation.
The variation in average shear modulus versus peak horizontal ground acceleration is given in Figure 8-1. . 5 The ARS generated for a range of soil moduli provide a basis for estimating the ARS for earthquakes smaller than the DBE. For example, the DBE shear moduli for the first iteration of SHAKE are actually consistent with a smaller earthquake. The maximum ground acceleration consistent with those moduli, 1 . 8-1 1
.l BEAVER VAT. LEY POWER STAT 20N, UNIT 1 1
I divided by 0.125.g yields a ratio which can be applied to the ARS resulting from analysis using the first iteration SHAKE moduli for the DBE. The resulting family of ARS at the operating floor are enveloped by the DBE spectrum, demonstrating that the effects of the DBE are not exceeded by those of smaller earthquakes (Tigure 8-2). Therefore, it can be concluded that the stresses in piping due to the DBE are not e:tceeded by those due to smaller earthquakes. I I 3
=
4 I I I f .2 1
8 I e7 7 g I g 3 ,_ . e
$"m
- a. =
E
- v5 .
I 58-s I M
- a= _ .
I 5 4 I - I~ - { o.,im f!cete.Ar,0~ . . I. I I
"' " "c #-'
E VARIATION OF SHEAR MODULUS WITH GROUND ACCELERATION BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT I 1
E E 2.0
-g 1.8 1.6 1.4 l :
l w \
' i l \i!t l 5 '2 I 'f '
- 1 4
l
,I E 5
i i i
'l .
l a O O.8 th d l 1 h. I
- i
\'l g T . '.
\ /
l Sji N A l I
'h (. V \D \ '-J g
\,~ %
E t .3 __ 0.* W %.s-) '%. K. %. ~ . _
\}
~
\'
o,g s,' . x p, N .. n.% ~. .
&w M .,.,.
I' ,,N # -
- t l OD
. ,, ,,,,,, ,j O.0 0 0.l0 0.20 a30 a40 QSO O.60 Q70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 PERIOD-SECONDS LEGEND O. Its 6
---- 0.0958 0.0606
..........~ 0.086 l FIGURE 8-2 SEISMIC AN ALYSIS OF CONTAINMENT j HORIZONTAL SSE HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM l AT OPERATING FLOOR BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 1 1
BEAVER VALT.EY POWER STATION, UNIT & E
9.0 CONCLUSION
S I Based upon the data and studies in this report, the following conclusions can be drawn about thu effects of soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis on amplified response spectra (ARS) at the Beaver Valley Power Station site. E . 9.1 USE or SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION The principles and the methodology of SSI used to develop ARS are applicable to the Beaver Valley site stad can be used with confidence to conservatively predict the seismic forces on piping systems. 4 h_,) 9.2 SOIL PROPERTIES c7 I The soil investigations made at the site to provide information for the jp7 licensing and design of Unit 1 are summarized in Section 2 of this I ~-~- report. The data from these investigations provide an adequate basis for the I- , development of strain compatible soil properties for use in the SSI analysis.
^
Soil shear moduli values derived from in situ measurements at the Beaver Valley site are consistent with those obtained from empirical relationships. 1 I_ 9-1 1
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 B
- s. - The use of lov strain shear moduli Gmax values for soil is not appropriate in developing ARS because earthquake-induced soil strain levels are approximately 2 orders of magnitude higher than icv strain levels.
I The use of low strain shear moduli values equal to t50 percent of the Gmax to serve as a basis for developing a range of values in the strain compatible free-field soil profile is excessive. A more meaningful range would be a variation of the iterated strain compatible soil shear moduli values by ' 150 percent of the mean value. I 9.3 GROUND RESPONSE
)
Licensed ground response spectra and an enveloping artificial time history as input motion at the ground surface in the free field are appropriate for use I' in the SSI-ARS analysis. l I 9.4 AMPLIFIED RESPONSE ANALYSIS l E The use of the multi-stup analysis procedure described in Section 4 of this ll report provides an approach that includes conservatisms in stating the 3 magnitude of the amplified acceleration values and allows development of the analysis'in a series of logical steps convenient for an engineering evaluation of results. lI o
-;l' 9-2 l .
. w .
.- _______ . .- . =. . - . _ = . _ _ _ _ -
BEAVER UALT.EY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 s 9.5 COMPARISON OF RESULTS The results of comparing the different methodologies and the FSAR earthquake with the Regulatory Guide 1.60 earthquake, and the effect of varying soil parameters lead to the following conclusions:
- 1. Comparison of ARS shown in Figures 5-1 through 5-3, calculated using the three-step analysis (RETUND/ FRIDAY) and ~ the one-step analysis (PLAXLY) show good agreement at all building levels with respect to frequencies at which peaks occur. The magnitudes of amplified s.-
acceleration agree reasonably well at lower levels in the structure. r At higher levels, the RETUND/TRIDAY results generally exceed the PLAXLY results. At some frequencies, the ARS calculated for the base 6C
' ~ ' '
mat by RETUND/ FRIDAY have amplitudes less than those obtained from PLAXLY. Since the spectral amplitudes involved are-small fractions of 1.0 g, there would be no sericus consequences in using these [ I s f+'- spectra in pipe stress analysis. Nevertheless, it is concluded that base mat spectra vill not be used in pipe stress analyses. y
- 2. Comparisons of ARS shown in Figures 5-4 thru 5-6 made from Regulatory g . 1ees 1.. g _ d resp _ . sp. _ . .nd 1.61 d..psng va1.es
. 1. 1...d .. .h. ...i. .f . . ,..R - .... g - . r..p .
.nd ARg
.p. . .
R 9-3
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 I .s s s and damping values indicate good agreement in amplitude and frequencies of the peaks. I
- 3. A comparison of ARS for soil parameter variations in Figures 5-7 through 5-15 using low strain shear modulus (Gmax), first iteration SHAKE, and last iteration SHAKE soil properties shows little variation in amplitude and frequency of peaks.
I 4 Comparisons of ARS for soil parameter variations in Tigures 5-16 >I through 5-24 using strain compatible soil properties from the last iteration of SHAKE based upon (a) the low strain shear modulus (Gmax) input to SHAKE, (b) Gmax plus 50 percent input to SHAKE, and (c) Gmax 1m- minus 50 percent input to SHAKE show some variation in amplitude and frequency of the maximum response. I
- 5. Changes in the shear modulus of the soil change the frequencies at which the amplification function has its peaks. This shift in frequency is evident in the general shapes of the response spectra for different values of G. The exact frequencies of the specific individual peaks are influenced by the frequency content of the i
artificial earthquake, so that each individual peak appears in all spectra. However, the essential phenomenon displayed is a shift in t / 9-4 l i I
LEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 l 1 frequency of the amplification function, causing different pre-existing peaks to be selected for amplification. I
- 6. The results show that ARS are not sensitive to torsion in the structure.
- 7. Spectra calculated using the three-step method, the TSAR earthquake, I. and the strain compatible free-field soil properties are an adequate basis for analysis of piping systems when peak broadened 125 percent.
Additional conservatism was directed by the NRC in the period range I from .4 see to .55 see where amplitudes will be increased by 20 percent in accordance with their position confirmed in a letter
'T dated May 25, 1979.
34.: 1:
-i 9.6 APPLICATION OF SEISMIC INPUT TO PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS I;
The application of seismic input to pipe stress analysis as defined in
,- Section 6 of this report is conservative and serves as an adequate basis for re..a1nauon o, the d.si.na,ee pipin, s, stems.
i !l lI e I l
- 10. ,.5 I
w - ._.
" BEAVER VALLEY PO*JER STATION, UNIT 1 1
1 0 9.7 SOIL-STRUCTURE.INTERACUON ANALYSIS The effects of radiation damping due to soil-structure interaction analysis, i as shown in Section 7 of this report, generally decreases the amplified acceleration valves, as discussed in Appendix B of the TSAR. l 9.8 ETTECTS OF GROUND ACCELERATION ON ARS The ARS resulting from the DBE are not exceeded by those of smaller
. earthquakes. Therefore, the inertial pipe stresses due to the DBE are an adequate basis for qualification of piping.
~9.9 COMPUTER PROGRAM VERITICATION The computer programs used to generate the SSI ARS have been qualified by (1) comparison of results to those obtained from similar programs which are recognized and widely used; or (2) comparison of program results to those obtained by hand calculations or analytical results published in technical literature. These comparisons are shown for the SHAKE, PLAXLY, RETUND, KINACT, and TRIDAY programs in Section 10 of this report. Reasonable agreement is demonstrated for these. computer programs.
l t i i 9-6
- - ~-w-c= a
\
I 3EAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1
$ 10.1 SHAKE E
SHAKI is a public domain computer program developed at the University of California and described by Schnabel, Lysmer, and Seed. Stone 8 Webster has made a few changes in the program, principally the addition of plotter capability and improvement of some of the output, but the pr.ogram in use for this work is essentially that described by Schnabel, et al. , The program solves the problem of vertically propagating shear waves in a layered medium. The values of shear modulus and damping for a particular layer depend on the average shear strain induced in that layer by the earthquake. The program iterates to obtain values of modulus and damping that are compatible with the strains and with curves of modulus and damping versus strain. l Although the program is well known and widely used, Stone 8 Webster has checked the results computed by the program against those developed l independently by Roesset'88 and has also checked that the calculations of modulus and damping are internally consistent. For example, Tigure 10.1-1 l l shows the comparison of the amplification functions from SHAKE and Roesset's analysis for the first iteration on the soil profile in Tigure 10.1-2. I L 10.1-1 i
I BEAVER VALLEY PCL'ER STATION, UNIT 1
,cq.
(J I RITERENCES X
- 1. Schnabel, P.B.; Lysmer, J.; and Seed, N.B. SHAKE: A Computer Program for I Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites, Earthquake Engineering Center, Report No. EERC 72-12 University of California, Berkeley, California, December 1972.
I 2. Roesset, J.M., Tundamentals of Soil Amplification. In: Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, R.J. Hansen, ed. , M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1970, pp 183-244. Idi I I I lI
- 1 1
10.1-2 <1 1
I__ O ! I l .I . I 7 9 *. t E 5 ' s E4 . , 5 P\ u5
-ROESSET (1970)
,/ h 7 E
"IG' M '\
A r 'A I'V Y yr "$ 4 O 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Il 12 15 14 15 I
- FREQUENCY IN CPS O NUMERICAL OUTPUT-SHAKE RUN M72532OI E
1 .
\
i E FIGURE 10.1-1 AMPLIFICATION FUNCTION OF SOIL t BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 1
i LAYER I n 2 3 4 in SOIL I(TYPE 2-SAND) 7=0.125 KCF, Ko=0.5 5 l@ l 6 9 V =750'/SEC, #=10% I 8
. 9 o
10 . , , , _, _ 11 12 9 SOIL 2 (TYPE 2-SAND)
^ 7=0.125 KCF, Ko=0.5 13 @
Vs= 750'/SEC, S =10%
14 1 15 ll -- p u SOIL 3 t 7=0.140 KCF, I V =1,000,000'/SEC, S=0% ,I !I I lI- FIGURE 10.1-2 SOILS PROFILE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 I
1 DEAVER VAL 2,EY POWER STATION, IlNIT 1 gs 10.2 PLAXLY I . PLAXLY is an isoparametric, plane-strain, finite element computer program used in seismic soil-structure analysis. The equations of motion are solved in the frequency domain. A primary element in the PLAXLY solution is the consistent transmitting boundary modeling the layered far-field. This boundary avoids the unrealistic reflections associated with more simplistic " free" or " roller" lateral boundary conditions. , The principal limitations upon the program and its application are the following: I 1. Geometry and material properties must be such that they can be satisf actorily modeled in two dimensions. l t l 2. Properties of the layered f ar-field cannot change horizontally. I 3. Base rock is assumed to be infinitely stiff. I Material properties are isotropic linearly elastic. 4 l 10.2-1 i
. = -
I BEAVER VALLEY P0kT.R STATICN, UNIT 1 f Tor purposes of comparison, the results of PLAXLT and those of a_similar program in the public domain. TLUSH (CDC Version 2.2), are shown in Tigure 10.2-1. The PLAXLT flow diagram is shown in Figure 10.2-2. I
. I I
I I I I-E . 1 I 10.2-2 1 x ..
I I
,Q l h 0.7 -
I~' PLAXLY
= = = = FLUSH 0.6 -
, 0.5 - e# f EQUIPMENT DAMPING e 3%
e , s I z 90.4 - / i 4 A \s I a:
"f u -
i - g , I . u n - Ig: - . 0 . g .- . O O.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 10-PERIOD (SECONDS) I I I I I FIGURE 10.2-1 I COMPARISON OF ARS BY PLAXLY AND FLUSH AT OPERATING FLOOR BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 Il
i REAo soit aNo siguCTuRE PROPERTIES ANO e400AL COORDINATES i r I NoNstisMic
..E sElsMic u ..
READ INPUT EARTHOUAKE o _._ I COMPUTE FOURIER TRANSFORM
~
i l . v .
~
PRIMARY NONLINEARITY 7 Q,: ,Es \I
-COMPUTE 1-D AMPLIFICATION (oEcoNvotuTeoN)
!I u l COMPUTE 1-0 SHEAR STRAIN I - m i I l ' FIGURE 10.2-2 (SH.10F 3)
'PLAXLY' FLOW DIAGRAM BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 I .
I eg . -
I I %. STR AIN ERROR GT. TOLER ANCE TES I " " DETERMINE NEW SHEAR CALCULATE AND ASSEMBLE MODULUS, DAMPlNG FOR ELEMENT STIFFNESS MASS
. EACH SOIL LAYER 1
. 1 r I - - .
COMPLETE DYNAMIC SOUNDARY MATRIX AND BOUNDARY FORCES i FREQUENCT I , SENERATE LINEAR BEAM ELEMENTS
- STIFFNESS
' - ~
r FORMULATE LOAD VECTORS I-x: FROM LEFT ANO/OR RISNT BOUNDARY FORCES 3' . , . NExT FREQUENCT g; . , , ADD TRANSMITTING SOUNQARIES .j I- ; AN0/OR SEAM ELEMENTS STFF " NESS To eLosAL STIFFNESS u I,:
+ ..
1- FIGURE 10.2-2 (SH. 2 0F 3)
'PLAXLY' FLOW DIAGRAM BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 i
1
I g - 0' MODIFY FOR SPECIFIED 5 _ DISPLACEMENTS NEXT _ FR,EOUENCY DETERMINE TRANSFER FUNCTIONS (COMPLEX FREQUENCY RESPONSE) , I CYCLE COMPLETE - SECONDARY NONLINEARITY YES I ASSEMBLE NEW i r COMPUTE PRINCIPAL SHEAR I GLOBAL STIFF-NESS MATRIX a ' STRAIN IN EACH ELEMENT q 'I NO ' STRAIN ERROR ST. TOLERANCE i r i r DETERMINE NEW SOIL CALCULATE REAC~lON FORCES, 'I .. . . . . _ . PROPERTIES FOR EACH ELEMENT NODAL TRANSFER FUNCTIONS FOR BEAM ELEMENTS STORE INFORMATION ON TAPE : 1 r ( -. 'I i COMPUTE DESIRED OUTPUT (PRINT / PLOT / PUNCH) I o END . I I FIGURE 10.2-2 (SH. 3 0F 3)
'PLAXLY' FLOW DIAGRAM BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 1
I 3EAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 i I 10.3 RETUND AND EMBED I The computer program RETUND is used for computation of the dynamic stiffness functions (impedance functions) of a rigid, massless, rectangular plate velded to the surface of a viscoelastic, layered stratus. The subgrade stiffness matrix is evaluated f'or all six degrees of freedom for the range of 4 frequencies specified by the user. Embedmont effects are applied subsequently by the program EMBED. 1 The program reads the topology and material properties, assembles the subgrade flexibility matriz, and determines the foundation impedances by inversion. The subgrade flexibility matrix is determined with discrete solutions, to the I(()p' problems of Cerruti and Boussinesq. A cylindrical column of linear elements is joined to a consistent transmitting boundary, and the flexibility coefficients found by applying unit horizontal and vertical loads at the axis. The rectangular plate is discretized into a number of nodal points, and the global flexibility attrix found using the technique just described. The ' foundation stiffnesses are then dethrained solving a set of linear, equations ' which result from imposing unit rigid body translations and rotations to the lI plate. .I
,,,,, ,,,,,, ,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,,,,,,,.,,,,,,, ,1,,,,, ,,, ,,,,,,, ,, ,,,,,,,,,
I are included by adjusting the RETUND results with the program EMBED. The i 10.3-1 1
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 O. ' s theoretical bases of these programs and their application to the solution methodology are described in Section 4.2. The results of RETUND compare very well with published results. The comparisons shown in Figures 10.3-2 through 10.3-7 are based upon " Impedance Tunctions for a Rigid Toundation on a Layered Medium", J.E. Luco, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol 2,1974 of the varicus solutions presented by I Luco, the following was selected for comparison (see Tigure 10.3-1): I f_ aver 1 L& Igg 1
- I Shear wave velocity 1 1.25. -
3 1.1764
,/ Specific weight 1 Poisson's ratio 0.25 0.25 I '
The comparisons shown are of the coeffici nts k and c from which the vertical,
~
- translational, and rocking impedances can be expressed:
K z K. Ik + iae el
- a. is a dimensions 1ess measure of frequency and K. is a zero-I it. which frequency stiffness.
I 10.3-2 1
,I l
- 3EAUER UALLEY PoiGR STATION, UN27 1 lg
!3 l The minor differences shown between the RETUND result and Luce's analysis can be attributed to the use of an " equivalent" rectangular plate in the RETUND analysis (Luco's is circular) and differences in boundary conditions at the 'E footing trough vs. s=ooth). I The RETUND and E}iBED flow diagrams are shown in Figure 10.3-8. , lI i 'I ~ I I . 'I 1I I
~
I . I 10.3-3 1
I P I I UNIT RADIUS 1///////////////\ - - - - . - - - - E ._
!::z I
~
~
Ed a . , _1 _ . _ . _ . 4) I I I
~
I l I FIGURE 10.3-1 LUCO'S WO-LAYER PROBLEM
/ BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 I
.. ~ .. - .
.- =
I 18 . I I I Ir LUC 0 I
--- REFUND 1.0
/ \
04 - / \ g /
/ \ %
g s, a4 -
/
-_.' g .
' I . ._ O 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g , 1 l I I I 1 FIGURE 10.3 2 ROCKING STIFFNESS COMPARISON - REAL PART BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 1
I . I f . I . I I Cr s.uco
=~~ ~ REFUND g
02 = , i 0 -
~
f ~~~' _,, I . . . . . . . c I
- I I
I I . . . . FIGURE 10.3-3 ROCKING STIFFNESS COMPARISON - IMAGINARY PART BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1
e - - 1 1 1* I I
,, a .
n - ii ----nuo l t. 1A - \ - 1 a - ;\ ,
! \g I to
, i u -
' \ l
\ l 0.4 - \ l a, -
0 ,' ,' . . . .. , 0 . j il 1 FIGURE 10.3-4 HORIZONTAL STIFFNESS COMPARIS0N - I 1 REAL PART BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 1
I . __
'I O I i 1 - .I I
C, d Luco , l- - -- - nuuwe 1n - ' o.s - c.s - g~ ~ . y - ,s
- 02
, , , , e i i ' r .
C o a 's 4 s a 7 e se j i ' I I I ' FIGURE 10.3-5 l HORIZONTAL STIFFNESS COMPARISON - j IMAGINARY PART BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 I . - _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _
1 I 8 ! l I I k,J ' LUCO I -- . 1A - ntr e , tA - t.s - ,s/ to as - as - I
\
04 -
\
\
\
l c.2 -
\ ,,
i s , , , ,
') 1 2 3 s s 7 s ,,"
I I I FIGURE 10.3 6 VERTICAL STIFFNESS COMPARISON - REAL PART BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 s 1
~ . _ . . . . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ - . . . . _ . _ . - . . _
3 . I 9 I I I ' Og H LUC 0 I. ==== REFUNO 1D =
, f %
n -
&4 -
I h#
' 1 Il e I .
I . I. . I I FIGURE 10.3-7 I VERTICAL ST!FFNESS COMPARISON - IMAGINARY PART BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 m . . . _ . _ m. - -
l1 i READ FOUNDATION GEOMETRY AND INITIALlZE ARR AYS a TOPOL i r READ SOIL PROPERTIES AND ASSEMBLE ELEMENT STIFFNESS MATRICES e INSDIL i r DEFINE DYNAMIC STORAGE PARAMETERS I + READ FREQUENCY INTERVALS . E . SOLVE QUADRATIC EIGENVALUE - PROBLEM s WAVE , I . . . . COMPUTE TRANSMITTING SOUNDARY STIFFNESS I MATRIX 8 BOUMA ..
' SOLVE CERRUTl AND SOUS$1NE30 E PROBLEMS e SOLVER 4 .
COMPUTE M00AL PARTICIPATION ITER ATE OVER FACTORS 8 BACK FREQUENCIES E COMPACT EISENVECTORS (ONLY THE OlSPLACEMENTS AT THE FREE SURFACE ARE NEEDED)8 PRESS
.m'.. . .
COMPUTE FLEXIBILITT MATRIX s REFUNO 8 ,.- I- 1
.t
,' COMPUTE STIFFNESS FUNCTIONS e ZAPATA - . .
.s '
- OUTPUT (PRINT / PUNCH) . . .
2 *l, l t j' FIGURE 10.3-8 (SH. 1 0F 2)
" ' REFUND' AND ' EMBED' FLOW UIAGRAMS BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 O
I
1 1 [ !
*EMaED' o
I READ FOUNDATION GEOMETRY l , , READ REFUNO QUTPUT STIFFNESSES I , , CALCULATE EMBEDMENT CORRECTION FACTORS ,
- I
- l ADJUST STIFFNESSES
) , ,
output (PRIwT/PUNCW 1 . l1 I . I 1 FIGURE 10.3-8(SH.2of2) l
' REFUND' AND ' EMBED' FLOW DIAGRAMS
, M BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 l l
I 3EAVER VALLET POWER STATION, UNIT 1 [ 10.4 KINACT I . KINACT is a computer program used in the three-step solution of soil-structure interaction problems. Briefly, the program modifies the specified 4 translational time history at the surface to translational and rotational time histories at the base of a rigid, massless foundation. I The theoretical basis for the program is derived from wave propagation theory and parametric studies of finite element solutions, described in more detail in Section 4.1.3. Comparisor.s of the spectra of translational and rotational motion predicted by KINACT and by PLAXLT are shown in Tigures 10.4-1 and
.. 10.4-2.
b,}} . As the figures indicate, KINACT slightly underestimates the translational part
- of the motion, but significantly overstates the rotational part. This condition results from the dependence of the two variables Uand4 I $ = C (hE Un)' ~~
lI
- 1 .
1 I 10.4-1
...s 1
/-
- BEAVER VALLIT POWER STATION, UNIT 1 l
O I where i i a surface translational acceleration I '; U : translational acceleration of rigid 3 massless foundation I . C = constant E = enbedmont I This self-compensating feature of,the formulation is insurance against at unconservative result. I The KINACT flow diagram is shown in Figure 10.4-3. g- . a 1 1
~1.
1 . $0 f 1 1.
. ]q to. .I t
b 3 -w -, -- -y---- ,- , ,__ d , . , --- ---e - - . - , - - , - - - ., - - , - - - - - . - - - m -,
~ _ -
I-I 9 I . I I JL KINACT I--.. ~~ PLAXLY I => -
,Ay -
. V g /
= =.i :__].7 .
4a y i j U
. _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ . g i * ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . . _
o 0.1 c. 0.3 o.4 c.s o.s o.7 c.s o.s to PERIOD (SECONDS) I g. i I . l1 . ' I- FIGURE 10,4-1 TRANSLATIONAL RESPONSE SPECTRA AT BASE OF RIGID, MASSLESS FOUNDATION BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 l1
%- e n - , e m .. . _ . . . wigw w_ _ _ . -
I f I e I I J L
' KINACT PLAXLY I'
~~
1.2 - o.s - I .O o.s -
< A s
$ o*
I f/i \[ u W *2 / q g . M ,-
= , , , , , .- , - .
o c.1 02 c.3 o.4 c.5 o.s o.7 o.s o.s to PERIOD (SECONDS) 1
~
3 . I FIGURE 10.4-2 ROTATIONAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM AT BASE OF RIGID, MASSLESS FOUNDATION BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1
I READ IN Soll PRCPERTIES IN EACH LAYER 3, I COMPUTE SOIL FREOUENCY i r RE AD EARTHOUAKE TIME HISTORY ANO SCALE F' ACTOR I , , SCALE EARTHOUAKE I -
=
I COMPUTE FOURIER TRANSFORM OF EARTHOUAKE COMPUTE ROTATIONAL FOURIER SPECTRUM
! 1 r l I -
COMPUTE TRANSLATIONAL FOURIER SPECTRUM I , r SACKWARD TRANSFORM , COMPUTE ROTATNHi&L AND TRANSFORM TIME HISTORIES
- l o _ _ .
1 PUNCH OUTPUT TIME HISTORIES I E.O 1 1 ' FIGURE 10.4-3
'KINACT' FLOW DIAGRAM BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 7
I BEAVER VALLEY PO'JER STA!!0N, UNIT 1 I f 10.5 TRIDAT The computer program TRIDAY is used for dynamic analysis of structures subjected to seismic loads, accounting for soil-structure interaction by means of frequency-dependent complex soil springs. I The structure is idealized as a set of lumped masses connected by springs or , linear members, and attached to a common support, the mat. The latter is supported by soil springs or impedances, which may or may not be frequency-dependent. Alternatively, the mat may rest on a rigid subgrade. The structure may be three-dimensional, but cannot be interconnected; each structure has to be simply connected. Tourier transform techniques are used to determine time histories; cutoff frequency is prescribed internally to 15 Hz. l 1 The theoretical basis and implementation of the program is described in l Section 4.1.4. A comparison of TRIDAY with a public domain program, STARDYNT., for the seismic response of a fixed base, multi-mass, cantilever model is
- shown in Figure 10.5-1. The model is shown in rigure 10.5-2.
1 l1 . l1 ' 10.5-1 I l
-M --
m.we -- - --w-e w- . - - - - - - - - - - , - . - . , , , - - - * , - - - - - , - , - - - - - - . , . , - - --.---.-.-,,-.w,--w- - - - - - - , - - - - - . - . -
I
~'
I f I H 14.0 - FRIDAY
-~~-- STARDYME 12.0 -
I 10.0 -
~ l z ,
9u I
- i E
5 a s.o - I U Wo 4. - l t 1 .
\
-l s.o -
l l i , , , . . . . . . , _ _ _ __ i 3 ..____ _ ._ g 0.2 0.3 o.4 c.5 c.s o.7 o.s o.s to o c.1 PERIOD (SECONDS) i. s-i (I-l1 FIGURE 10.5-1 l COMPARISON OF ' FRIDAY' AND
'STARDYNE'-ARS AT THE ROOF l
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 i i m_ _ - - - I
1 I f g ,,. , . . I 1 EL 4s' = -- -- I - I Et as' 3 - I
~
3 n . gg ,4 4 -_ _ . I ' EL tt' 5 n Ya 5
~
1 -- -- l 6 I g 3 FIGURE 10.5-2
'STARDYNE' MODEL BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 s-o
, *'**Y" '#
, _ , , ',,e-
, m g. I ,...
. INPUT PARAMETE.'S :
INPUT SUSGRADE STIFFNESSES READ SUPPORT MOTION COMPUTER FOURIER TRANSFORMS I OF INPUT ACCELEROGRAMS
- READ STRUCTURAL GEOMETRY _ _ ,
AND PROPERTIES
~
I ' ' LOOPING OVER GENERATE STIFFNESS STRUCTURES MATRIX OF STRUCTURES
'N
.i READ OUTPUT REQUESTS - - - -
< r
' *? . FORWARD PASS ON STIFFNESS ~ ~ - " ' 2 MATRIX IN ALL STRUCTURES.-
*:s e;
- i .
e- ~
- j. , ,
Ano SOIL MATRIX g.. .. _ , l - .. 1 FIGURE 10.5-3 (SH. 1 0F 2)
' FRIDAY' FLOW DIAGRAM BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 1 .
~
L u w :~ r . . - . . - - ~ _. - - - - - -
I --
. l 1
0 _ _ IMPOSE SOUNDARY CON 0lTIONS LOOP OVER FREQUENCIES 1 r BACK SUBSTITUTION I IN ALL STRUCTURES LOOP OVER PROBLEMS I i r COMPUTE AND STORE TRANSFER FUNCTIONS - . . . - 0F REQUESTED OUTPUT I i r
- COMPUTE TIME HISTORIES ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
FOR CUTPUT REQUESTS OUTPUT
- 5 REQUESTS , r PRINT, PLOT OR PUNCH I <
r ENO I. I .
~
I 1 . I FIGURE 10.5-3 (SH. 2 0F 2)
' FRIDAY' FLOW DIAGRAM v BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION - UNIT 1 1
1 I g O I I I
~
g . I I -- w . . mem m.ee - m - - l I l- . I I . I I 12
I I~ q4l L WESTON GEOPHYSICAL ENGINEERS, INC. Post Osco Box 550 e Westboro, Messachusetts 01581 . (617) 366-9191 I, l September 6, 1977 I_ I-Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation I- 245 Summer Street Boston, Massachusetts 02107 Gentlemen: In accordance with your Contract No. 2BVC-52035, dated June 6, 1977, a seismic cross-hole study was I- conducted in the vicinity of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2. period of June 9 to June 22, 1977. Fieldwork was conducted during the Preliminary data have been previously sub'mitted;
" this is a formal presentation of our findings.
3 . .. V* 7 tru1Y Y "r"' 5 ' WESTON GEOPHYSICAL ENGINEERS, INC.
/ Wj Vincene J. Murphy l g," VJM:df
~
I-t_ O l l l- l
I I f IL I Ir-Il- IN-SITU SEISMIC VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS I_ , IF I BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION : UNIT NO. 2
- jI ..
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY 'I_ - IL - L aq i WESTON GEOPHYSICAL ENGINEERS, INC. IL f IL f.
l I . l l 1 {} IN-SITU SEISMIC VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT NO. 2 h . INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE A seismic cross-hole study was, conducted in the vicinity j r- of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2, of the Duquesne f
. )
1 Light Company between June 9 and June 22, 1977. The p rpose ' I of the study was to measure the in-situ compressional ("P") and shear ("S") wave velocity values for a layer of granular material which was densified by Franki Pressure Injected r Footing (PIF) compaction piles. Tne in-situ "P" and "S" l wave velocity val'2es measured in this study were used to calculate the elastic moduli values for those materials encountered within the seismic cross-hole array. l ' I' s The field effort at the site was expedited by Mr. J. W. Williams, the Superintendent of Construction for the construction
-- division of Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. Survey requirements were outlined and the project was coordinated ,
l by Mr. D. Campbell, the Lead Geotechnical Engineer for the geotechnical division of Stone & Webster a.t the Boston ,
. office. Weston Geophysical's project geophysicist for this
" study is v. J. Murphy, and the assistant project geophysicist is R. P. Allen.
1._ f IL p_
I. I LOCATION The area of investigation (Sheet 1) is on a high-level
~
terrace on the south bank ~of the Ohio River (former elevation 735 feet) approximately 25 miles northwest of Pittsburgh. I' Sheet 1 is a section of the Hookstown, Pennsylvania and Midland, Pennsylvania, United States Geological Survey topographic quadrangle maps (1:24,000). The seven boreholes
~ used for the in-situ velocity measurements are shown on Sheet 2, which was prepared from a map provided by Stone &
I_ webster. IN-SITU VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS - CROSS-HOLE PROCEDURE ,, Cross-hole velocity measurements are made using geophones
-, containing three orthogonal elements (one vertical and two
?
horizontal). Recordings are obtained using a 12- to 16-I_ channel seismograph that contained a two-millisecond timing system. Seismic energy is generated with the energy source I;[, in one hole and detected in the geophone holes with the seismic source and the geophones at the same elevation levels. The energy source (s) for this survey included both . small explosive charges and an air gun. The "P" wave and "S" wave velocity data were ob(ained
- c. at 5-foot intervals within the. densified zone and at 10-foot I intervals above and below the zone.
1-jL R . P
*** M .yJ G ._ m x. . . - - - eh * ~ ' - - ~ '
e RESULTS { , Generalized results of the survey are presented in Table 1, which also lists the results of a previous Weston . survey (in this general vicinity) reported to Stone &
-- Webster in 1968. Table 2 lists the specific velocity values measured at each elevation for the present survey and the corresponding elastic moduli values. The various combinations of shothole and recording (detector) holes that were used ,
i i C i ara also noted on Table 2. The densified zone occurs generally between Elevations 670 and 640. It is interesting to note that complete saturation, I. as evidenced by seismic velocities of about 5,000 ft/see or : greater, does not occur above Elevation 652, although the
' water table elevation has been observed by geotechnical g> ,
- personnel in the field at Elevation 667. This apparent dist--epancy can be explained by the possible injection of small amounts of air into the surrounding sediments during the densification process, (a minute percentage of air in an
( otherwise fully saturated layer can lower the seismic velocity value significantly). 9
- No anomalous conditions, other than that mentioned ?
above, were observed during the cross-hole study.
IL f IL . A m 9 eI.
~ " - s% ar~, a mg W Y*1\ '* gR
,Z ,
I r' TABLE I GENERALIZED "P"- AND"S"-WAVE VELOCITY VALUES 1968 SURVEY AND PRESENT SURVEY
- L ~
PRESENT SURVEY m 1968 SURVEY
- S
- WAVE 'P' WAVE "3" WAVE
*p WAVE vel.0 CITY VELOCITY VEU) CITY VELOCITY (FT./SEC) (FT/SEC.) -EL.74o' (ry/MIO (FTJSEC)
EL. 740' Appnox. eRouNo SoRrAcE - -
p 900"
. (SOME 1000) (SOME 600) - 720'
~
- g
^
APPROX. GROUND SURFACE 7 900-1200~ 7 . J. 4 ? : y.
'y T':n' i;h&*4 2s . ~ '
- 5;@.5Wl-@.-+-.-: . d" '. i .. .
'g - 700'
.s.
0 p'%3g,. :%- *t'4.1 .?,M. . - - Y : c&(*W M:2?d ,gg;f - v hj .5-
; ? itI
. .,. 1-4 E hlR?f.d
.,T g -t E; b,r.-
a NoTEIMO SEISMIC MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ASOVE EL.s05 LN
.1,tfMmsb" "- ,*. -5w:---- 'E PRESENT SURVEY
-:: - - .?'
- e. M 6 " a.: . 10502 2000-2500 700-800 ?
N.1
$gYghpy ,
f f 7 ?
- sao, m,,z -t s. y -
.h 1000
( 2400-2500 N fi M * -d (?;.531% %#mEjacm=TA9LE R*+ t -
..;4g em - -- "e m i300 - 3000 3o0o.1200 m -
- yg -
,2.--: - APPROX. WATER tag ((
.m ., .
,m., 's _
c, sv-gQ; . , . l
-vgk -i e p./~' - . 1300-
==* $40,
'%,J.* 1500-1800 T *..
~.
t o 6300-6500 l
~ -7 E
f
., l .
mlT #P sa 7= _. ., ___ 3:e' *, GPS r +- ms- > pyg-- sac, n .
=
y-: 4 .. L m.- . - l a b' h e l - :w 8000~ 12,000 4400-5800? l Jg ' > iJ j MfQ 5' - soo' l
.Jd; a
-Q6
( ,):,s 'fi ' _: \!b , . N..vK s c.~.d
. ; ?;nr.,;g ,
'& s, 3 :- WM s ~?0tT(k'%
-mc
; pp~
.. , S.EVATICII POR
.y
_ '. .sn3
. , .~ r.c .o-nn -
E,'?.:'. N. i h) i S INbsTi
} ~ - ~y ;"H. >-
e
**~
~ (h [ir ' ; , f .%'I 1 -
e - W W W W W W 7 mm m m ~1 m m
' m.') I ,e - mm l I I I I (~ l'"' l~ l [ ! ! . .
q C-I \ TABLE 2 IN-SITU VEIDCITY MEASUREMEtr"S
.p. .S.
Shear Young's Bulk Wave Wave Hodulus Modulum Modulus Velocity velocity Poisson's Ratio (x 105 lbs./in.2) (x 105 lbs./in.2) (x 105 lbs./in.2) Elevation Density * (ft./sec.)i (ft./sec.It
.149 .429 1.14 685 123 2,000-2,500 700-800 .438 I
.265 .746 1.31 675 123 2,500 1,000 .405
.265 .741 1.18 670 123 2,400 1,000 .395 1.B7 1,000-1,100 .41P .323 .917 665 135.9 2,800
.925 2.21 135.9 3,000 1,000-1.163 .430 .323 660 1.10 2.12 655 135.9 3,000 1,100-2 'UG . 414 .388
.799 2.34 10.76 650 135.9 6,300-6,400 1,600-1,700 .464 660 1.94 11.51 645 135.9 6,500 1,500 .472 457 .950 2.77 10.75 635 135.9 6,400 1,800 8.70. 24.19 36.57 625 155 12,000 4,400-5,800 .390
} l Note: There were five seismic arrays utilised during the cross-hole survey. They are listed belows f Shot Hole Recording Holes 1 2, 3, 4 and 5 1 3, 4, 7 and 6 2 3, 4, 7 and 6 5 7, 4, 3 and 2 6 . 7, 4, 3 and 2, ) ,
*Provided by Stone & Webster Engine ring Corporation.
tWhere a range of velocity values is given, the average of that range was used in the modull calculations. 4
I~
- o. . ;
.. g.. xgws. e s ..
.. .. .- g _m. . ,x gy.g:,y. . .
^
s. m -: ,
, . ,7
. :- , , .8 .-m.22. .
N# l -- b . : ;lI ,$ - ) ' 0 b,'i Q', '.* _::5 '
.b. .'
* (( }
;)
.' -ta_, .
,;.3.g <. - 8
.l;_
t
~
6,_.,a.~, g1 h. ..Y,~T,- 2-y, 5 g .. -; , - i, :-- - _ ^, ,
- . f,v, -
v
, 7_: ,
')
'O ' 6
> 'p{' b
~
J s,n ., Q / ( ,,,e, . 7_.x ;7 1-
'r q4& ' f.' s.,' N.' & ' . .
gY ' f
,'Q -
%s . ,l .t* y l- L .
v _ _. w '
~ .- , , ,,., i Y' -
l, f.Y \
- l- .
. s = _ ., ': / ,,
634..v .7' ,f ;~ f~ * ), '. f
~ '
.._= . . . ..
*'r s-y
'n . .
r.~; , . -
,, < ,t i
,,/ .
,L. -
/ '. ./-
'-=="' ' V ,
4 MIDLAND QUADRANGLE i', '
~ ' '
' ~ HbO[STOb Q ADRENGLEg"*g /~ .> -/ W 'rJ</' j .iR .1
- AREA 0F INVESTIGATION T
!~
-em - IN-SITU SEISMIC VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS
, h-f* ' BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION -UNIT NO. 2
- DUQUESNE LIGNT COMPANY wg 1 t
\g "
fw
) ' STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
( - '
\' 'I b 1lu
^ '
' WESTON GEOPHYSICAL ENGINEERS,1NC.
o '20dOFL i
/,,,k ""i/d ht i of 2
. ..s O
i
*d% * --.,-.-.m..--, ..-,mm--..-.,--ew.-.yv..m__,. ,_....._.,c.
f I k 1 w Is h % [W. a n. r - l l =.g F
..~ . gg
. s t. I. -
[l I! 246 M/p . l ii5 5 [ l}
=
l T 2 ;-;- :.,
- l 3
~
%a 2 W e
l Y l I. %:,w ,. . ~
- -:."- :- n' y ,. 3 .
l ' lw
.Igsf ' d &*';.
_a l lg i _ _ i E'-$.ih ' . - -
- 3 E m'~- E5
..f eliU. ..
x&- . I ?~ s sus b
. ch.; ,. . ,g..,<._.,
I
.g4 f.:. r l I.-r~
. J p 'n j, s'.t. .~
~
eY;.'7_87 h '
- M i.~.- ?. ;
i
. c., . .
l T -: n \ . i a e -S. , . -w',. c e 1;;- l l [ .
.< sr .o. . . . :, v -
T k S,* a [ j n , ., - ; ' [ ~,. .' '.. i..,y.
~
')' -
M
= l[s '. ~.l. .
N7.[ ._a....l., , . _ ,., . . E ~ ~~ 3 ~.4,,y,6;{. - y w
.mf - . 9) u- 3 .
" 'E) 2' 6j 3./"
b I, ,.'. i
,t 2 ,~
.. -: . ~* r 4- aus ..
9 ,
,. e3 p, 6
i> c t _I, k l M , I.. __ _}}