ML20116M411

Soil-Structure Interaction & IPEEE Floor Response Spectra

ML20116M411
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	06/20/1995
From:	STEVENSON & ASSOCIATES
To:
Shared Package
ML20116M418	List: ML20116M411 ML20116M419 ML20116M423 ML20116M430 ML20116M493 ML20116M497 ML20116M572 ML20266H889 ML20266H893 ML20266H897 ML20266H900 ML20266H904 ML20266H908 ML20266H912 ML20266H915 ML20266H919
References
REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR C-001, C-001-R00, C-1, C-1-R, NUDOCS 9608200147
Download: ML20116M411 (100)

Text

- - -

O)

(

Client: Wisconsin Electric Power Cornpany Calculation No. C-001

Title:

Point Beach Soil-Structure Interaction and IPEEE Floor Response Spectra Project:

Point Beach IPEEE & A-46 Method:

Use Finite Element to Reconstruct the Building Models and then Execute Soil Structure Interaction Analysis by Batch Process 1

Acceptance Criteria:

SRP 3.7.1 and Engineering Practice l

Remarks:

. f)i REVISIONS No.

Description By Date Chk.

Date App.

Date 0

Original Issue MM N0/95 WT hI

[d YL<.h(

CALCULATION CONTRACT NO.

COVER SHEET 91C2696 FIGURE I.3 Stevenson & Associates 9608200147 960815 PDR ADOCK 05000266 P

PDR

1 l

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #1 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43

/

I(

STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95

)

consulting engineering firm j

i Table of Contents i

Executive Summary.

.......2 i

1.

Introduction.

.3 2.

SSI Computer Programs..

.4 i

4 2.1.

LAYSOL..

..4 a

2.2.

SUPELM..

.5 l

2.3.

EKSSI...

... 5 j

3.

Input Response Spectra..

.........6 j

3.1.

Hazard Curves.

... 6 i

3.2.

Spectral Shape.

.....6 l

3.3.

Peak Ground Acceleration........

....7 I

4.

Time History Generation....

.8 S.

Building Models..

.9 5.1.

Containment Building...

.10 5.2.

North and South Wings of Auxiliary Building....

....13 5.3.

Central Part of Auxiliary Building...............

..... 14 5.4.

Pipeway #1....

.... 15 l

5.5.

Pipeway #2 and #3...

.....16 j

5.6.

Pipeway #4...

...... 17 i

(q 5.7.

Control Building...

....18 g

5.8.

Fuel Oil Pump House....

.20 5.9.

Circulating Water Pump House.

. 21 I

I 6.

Soil Properties...

....... 22 l

7.

Foundation Depth....

.. 24 8.

Pile Foundation......

.. 25 9.

SSI Result Run..

.. 29 l

9.1.

Iterated Soil Properties....

.29 9.2.

Effect of Kinematic Interaction...

. 31 9.3.

Floor Response Spectra Results...

. 32

10. SSI Sensitivity Study..

. 33 10.1. Lack of Symmetry in the Soil Deposit..

... 33 10.2. Effect of Pore Water..

. 34 10.3. Non-uniformity in Depth and Total Depth of Soil Layers..

.35 10.4. Strain Dependent Soil Behavior.....

. 36 10.5. Boundary Condition of Soil Models...

. 36 10.6. Potential Torsional Effect Due to Asymmetry in the Structures...

.37 i

10.7. Potential Separation Between the Foundation and the Soil...

.07 10.8. Uncertainty in the Soil Material Properties...

.30 10.9. Cylindrical Foundation Approximation..

..38 10.10. Conclusions of Sensitivity Study.

.41 Reference...

.42 Appendix A Floor Response Spectra

)

Appendix B: Computer Run and Verification of Dynamic Building Models Appendix C: SSI Batch Process

(' '

Appendix D:. input and Result Files of SSI Computer Runs l

(

Appendix E: Computer Runs and Result Files of Sensitivity Study Appendix F: Letter from Professor Eduardo Kauset i

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #2 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation G-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Executive Summarv l

Tnis calculation covers the generation of Floor Response Spectra (FRS) for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, based on the NRC Individual Plant Examination of Extemal Events (IPEEE) seismic event. The median site specific response spectrum developed by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [2]

anchored at 0.4G b selected for this development.

The buildings ar.alyzed include Contair. ment Building (Intemal and Structure)

Primary /*.ihry Building (North and South Wings, Central Part)

Pipeway #1 to St Control Building Fuel Oil Pump House Circulating Water Pump House Full three-dimensional Soil Structure interaction (SSI) effects are included in all the analyses, using the SSI analysis programs (9-11] developed by Professor Kausel at M.I.T., to generate the floor response spectra. The soil material properties and the soil lay'ar profile were based on the recommendation by gel [1618] based on extensive site soil exploration data from Dames & Moore

[26,27]. Inclusion of the SSI effect provides more realistic dynamic responses than scaling from the original design basis FRS. Both the SSI analysis and the FRS generation follow the guidance of NRC Standard Review Plan (SRP) [29] and ASCE Standard 4-86 [1], except as noted in the report.

The resulting IPEEE FRS will be used in the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) analysis to provide the scaling between floor motions and the ground motion for the plant equipment failure study.

1 O

i

4 i

JOB NO 91C2696 SHEET #3 1

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach oSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 l

a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 j

consulting engineering firm i

1. Inkoduedon This calculation documents the peneration of Floor Response Spectra (FRS) for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) based on the required seismic input of the Individual Plant Examination of j

Extemal Events (IPEEE) seismic events [2]. The FRS are generated for PBNP's seismic class 1 i

structures, including the Containment Building, the North and South Wings and Central Part of Auxiliary Building, the Pipeway #1 to #4, the Control Building, the Fuel Oil Pump House and the Circulating Water Pump House. The FRS will be used in the seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) analysis for the PBNP as part of the IPEEE evaluation.

I The work was done under S&A Nuclear Quality Assurance Program, QA Program Manual Revision 9, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company Purchase Order 202486. It represent the work to complete l

Task 4a of the Project Plan (Revision 1) for P. O. 202486.

The original design basis earthquake (DBE) or safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) seismic analysis i

FRS at the Point Beach site is based on simple dynamic models and soil springs [3-7]. The ground i

input motion was with peak input ground acceleration of 0.06g for DBE and 0.12g for SSE. The IPEEE seismic motion is typically larger than the design basis. Given that advanced Soil-Structural-Interaction (SSI) analysis techniques are readily available, and that the analysis for the IPEEE should l

be as realistic as possible [8], the effect of the SSI is included in this study with three-dimensional SSI g

analysis for the Point Beach buildings' FRS generation, instead of scaling from the design basis FRS.

1

'The FRS generation and the SSI analysis were performed according to the requirements of the NRC 1

Standard Review Plan (SRP) except, i

l (1) for the IPEEE input time history generation from the response spectrum, the time history does not i~

envelope the prescribed response as required in the SRP 3.7.1. In stead, the time history matches i

the RS on averag a as shown in Figure 1.

I l

(2) The variation of soil shear modulus uses the recommendations by gel instead of the requirement l

in the SRP 3.7.2.

(3) The spectral amplitude of the horizontal acceleration response spectra in the free field at the l

foundation depth is not limited by the required 60% of the corresponding design response spectra at the finished grade in the far fleid in the SRP 3.7.2; l

Since the objective is to obtain the median estimate of the responses for the application of IPEEE PRA l

analysis, the above three exceptions eliminate the conservatism in the SSI analysis required by SRP for generation of FRS for seismic class 1 structures. In cases where the SRP does not specify, the guidance of ASCE Standard 4-86 [1]is followed.

j The calculation is mainly divided into three main category. The first category is Section 2 which is a quick tour of the SSI computer programs used in the analysis. The second category is from section 3 4

to Section 8 which describe the input data required by the SSI programs. Section 3 contains the input

}

response spectra which is used in Section 4 for time history generation. Building models are described in Section 5. The soil properties, the foundation depth of each model and the pile

S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #4

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A 46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation G-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm foundation of Containment Building are in Section 6 to 8. The last category, Section 9 and 10 describe all the SSI results run and sensitivity study.

Appendix A contains plots of floor response spectra which are extracted from the SPECTRA database to illustrate the SSI results. Computer run and verification of dynamic building models are in Appendix B to support the SSI input data. The SSI batch process is described in Appendix C. The input and result files of the SSI computer runs are enclosed in Appendix D and the computer runs and result files of the sensitivity study are enclosed in Appendix E. The review letter from Professor Eduardo Kauselis enclosed in Appendix F

2. SSI Comnuter Proarams The computer programs used for the SSI analysis' were developed by Professor Eduardo Kausel at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [9-12] based on extensive research. The SSI programs have been independently verified by S&A [13]. The SSI analysis program consists of the following three stages or mcdules.

2.1.

LAYSOL f

The L.AYSOL [9] program computes the dynamic response of viscoelastic, horizontally layered soils over elastic or rigid rock using a rigorous stiffness formulatiori. The dynamic excitation may consist of seismic waves propagating through the medium, or be appEed as harmonic loads at a certain depth (12). The SSI analysis uses the LAYSOL program to compute the soil strains in the layers under the free field motion specified on the top of the soil. Based on the computed soil strain, the changes to the shear wave velocity alcng with Poisson's ratio and the effective damping ratio are computed.

The modification of material properties to account for non-linear soil behavior is carried out using the

" Seed-Idriss iterative scheme" [14], by adjusting shear moduli and damping according to the level of strain computed. The seismic event is considered to consist only of vertically propagating SH waves.

The characteristic strain ye is defined as' 2ag Y u = 3 a,,,, b where og = peak acceleration a,,,, = root - mean - square acceleration y,,,,, = root - mean-square strain y

= characteristic strain or 2/3 of the ratio of peak input acceleration to the root-mean-square of the input acceleration, times the root-mean-square of the soil strain. The advantage of this expression over that used in other programs such as SHAKE [15), which uses a fraction of the peak strain, is that the rms-strain can be computed directly in the frequency domain.

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #5 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT S/20/95 consulting engineering firm

2.2.

SUPELM-The SUPELM [10] program computes the frequency dependent impedance matrix of the soil layers for the foundation. The foundation is assumed to be rigid and cylindricalin shape. In the case of rectangular foundations, a cylindrical foundation with the same area can be assumed. The soil layer data are based on the report by gel [16-18]. It will be discussed in detail in later sections.

SUPELM also computes the transfer functions and time histories for the motion at the base of the foundation. These functions can be used to incorporate the effect of kinematic interaction.

2.3.

EKSSI The EKSSI [11] program provides a frequency domain solution, including the SSI effects, to a dynamically loaded structure that tests on compliant soil. The EKSSI program performs the SSI analysis by combining the building model and the foundation impedance matrix, then subjecting the model to the input acceleration history motion. This is equivalent to the substructure (3-step) approach specified in the SRP 3.7.2. For the three steps, (1) Determine the motion of the massless foundation, including both translational and rotational 1

components (kinematic interaction),

(2) Determine the foundation stiffness in terms of frequency-dependent impedance functions, and (3) Perform soil-structure interacbon analysis (inertialinteraction),

steps (1) and (2) are performed by SUPELM, while step (3) is done by EKSSI.

The building models are based on the original Point Beach design basis dynamic models [3-7]. The fixed-base frequencies, mode shapes, and the masses are required as the input for EKSSI. The fixed-base models for the Containment, the North end South Wings and Central Part of Primary Auxiliary Building, the Pipeway #1 to #4, the Control Building, the Fuel Oil Pump House and the Circulating Water Pump House are re-formulated using the general purpose finite element program COSMOS /M [21]. The COSMOS /M program has been independently verified by S&A [22].

Limitations of the SSI oroarams 1.

The solutions are based on linear theories. The soil-structural modelis assumed to be

linear, 2.

The soil consists of ir, finite horizontal l&yers resting on rigid rock.

3.

The solution is available for cylindrical, ring, or strip foundatior' shapes.

4.

The interaction with neighboring structures is neglected.

5.

The material damping is assumed to be frequency independent hysteretical damping.

None of the above limitations significantly affect the SSI analysis performed in this report. The effect of some of the assumptions, including the assumption of circular foundation, is investigated later in the

(

sensitivity study section.

l JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #6

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 O

'V STEVENSON Point Oeach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0 1

& ASSOCIATL:S Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. T?/T 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm

3. Inout Response Soectra 3.1.

Hazard Curves According to the requirement of (2), Section 3.1.1.2 Hazard Selection, the PRA should be performed 4

}

using the higher of the mean (arithmetic) hazard estimates from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) (23] and the Electric Power Research institute (EPRI) (24]. In the PRA, the Peak Ground Acceleration is the hazard parameter. The mean PGA values are interpolated from Figure i

2.14.1 of LLNL report and Table 3 74 or Figure 3.217 of the EPRI report based on a 10,000-year retum period. The resulting PGA is about 367 cm/sec2 or 0.3745G for the LLNL results and about 0.125G from the EPRI results. Since the LLNL hazard curve is higher than the EPRI, only the LLNL curves will be used in the subsequent analysis as the IPEEE free field input motion.

3.2.

Spectral Shape l

As explained in Appendix D, Question and Answer 7.47 of (2), the input ground response spectrum shape should be based on the median spectral shape for a 10,000-year retum period. The spectral shapes of LLNL hazard curve as shown in Figure 2.14.9 of(23] are digitized and converted to acceleration units G as shown in the following table (fiie LLNLHAZ.DAT). The shape is 5 percent i.

damped. To complete the spectral shape, the median PGA value of 0.134G is interpolated from (23),

k the 50% curve of Figure 2.14.3.

J Freq. (Hz) 1 2.5 5

10 25 ZPA

]

Accel. (G) 0.0316 0.0855 0.211 0.268 0.238 0.134 Table 1 - LLNL 10,000-year Response Spectra 50% Probability for the Point Beach Site The spectral shape is shown as the solid curve in Figure 1 with a ZPA level of 0.4G. The ZPA is 4

assumed to start at 50 Hz. The target RS is saved in file LLNL4G.RS e

e.

(J

1 JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #7 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 i

(

'~

Rcuision 0 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By

'ASL 6/19/95 4

a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 10-

.e....

[

s 9,

i j

-LLNL 50%

Y i

a.

-+-Enveloped TH Fit i

i f

i i

i i

[

l i

l i

(

i l

i j

I i

i 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 1 -

IPEEE Response Spectrum for the Point Beach Site Based on 10,000-year K

LLNL 50% Probability 3.3.

Peak Ground Acceleration Since a full seismic hazard uncertainty analysis will be performed in the seismic PRA task for the IPEEE work, the exact PGA value used to generate the FRS is not very important. The FRS will be used to scale the equipment or device seismic capacity to the ground level PGA. The contribution of all acceleration levels to the core melt frequency will be investigated. If the SSI analysis were linear, it i

would not matter what PGA value was selected because the ratio between the ZPA of the FRS and l

the PGA would be constant. However, since the SSI analysis process is non-linear due to the dependency of soil properties on shear strains, the outcome of the PRA assessment does depend on the PGA selected.

t A

6 i

.~

N L

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #8 l

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 j

a structural-mechanical Calculation G-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 f

consulting engineering firm 1

The input PGA level should be selected to match the range of acceleration levels that contribute most

[

to the core melt frequency. However, this acceleration level is not kiwn until the PRA analysis is done. Therefore it must be selected based on best judgment and expert opinion. In this report, a j

PGA level of 0.40G is used to generate the FRS. The level was selected by the S&A IPEEE team.

l

4. Time Historv Generation i

The EKSSI program requires acceleration time histories as the growd motion input. Synthetic time histories are generated from the ground response spectrum using F A's computer program SPECTRA [25). The SPECTRA program is capable of converting between different forms of i

excitation, namely, time histories, response spectra, and power spectra l

First, the RS is imported to the SPECTRA program and stored in the SPECTRA database PBSSI.

Then SPECTRA is used to converse the response spectrum to time history. The conversion process is straightforward. The parameters used in the conversion are followed the guideline in SRP 3.7.1 and i

summarized as follows:

i l

Duration 10.24 sec Rise time 2 sec 4

j Steady state duration 6 sec j (

at 0.01 sec Random seed 123456

)

The tri-linear envelope option in SPECTRA is used to generate synthetic time histories (TH), which j

include a rise time to a constant maximum steady state, and a final decay time equals (Duration - Rise j

Time - Steady State).

The SPECTRA program always synthesizes time histories that envelope the target RS conforming to the SRP 3.7.1. However, for the IPEEE, following the spirit of Seismic Margin Analysis (SMA) or PRA, the conservatism of enveloping is unnecessary.s As a result, the TH is scaled down by trial and error to fit the required RS while maintaining the peak of the time history constant. It follows the following procedure 1.

The time history is exported to file GROUNDUS.TH 2.

Run the SCALE 1.EXE program with a scale factor of 0.95. The SCALE 1 program scales a TH by multiplying the TH by a scale factor (0.95 in this case) but keeps the peak value unchanged. The scales TH file is GROUNDS.TH.

3.

Import the scaled TH back into SPECTRA and convert to RS.

4.

Plot the resulting RS against the target. The results verify itself.

The time history obtained by this process is shown in the Figure 2. The envelope and the fit of the RS to the target RS have been illustrated in Figure 1.

O

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #9 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 V) f STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Responce Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 0.4 O.3

@ 0.2 l

t 5 01 I

i

/

F L')h

[

l l

0 l

Y y -0.1 l

-0.2

-0.3 0

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 Time (Sec)

Figure 2 -

IPEEE Ground Acceleration Time History for the Point Beach Station Based on 10000-year LLNL 50% Response Spectrum Shape

5. Buildina Models J

~

l The building dynamic models are extracted from the original Point Beach design basis dynamic models developed by Bechtel Corporation and Sargent & Lundy back in 1969. All buildings, including the Containment Building [3), the North and South Wings and Central Part of Primary Auxiliary Building [4], the Pipeway #1 to #4 and the Control Building [5], the Fuel Oil Pump House [6] and the Circulaung Water Pump House [7] were modeled in the original study by simple stick (spring) and mass models, while the foundation and soil were modeled by a constant rotational spring and a translational spring simulated by beam and rigid elements.

Since most of the mode shapes reported in the original seismic reports [3-7] include the effect of soil springs and the EKSSI program requires the fixed base modal properties, the dynamic eigen j

properties of the buildings are reconstructed using the COSMOS /M Finite Element Model(FEM) j program [21] using the original element properties. The eigen solution of COSMOS /M program has been independently verified by S&A[22]. The computer rt.ns and the verification of the model reconstruction are provided in Appendix B.

All the models define a mass node at each main floor elevation, the number mass degree-of-freedom is sufficient to capture the floor dynamic responses. The SSI programs have accounted for the translational and the rocking responses. However, the torsional eccentricity was not included in the original models since the buildings are very close to be symmetrical. The accidental torsion is not usually included in computing the IPEEE responses. It may be accounted for by additional variability in the PRA analysis.

1 h

S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #10

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm The pictures of the dynamic model of each building combined with the soillayers, summary of the fixed base fundamental frequencies and their mode shapes are given in the following. The mode shape which is the displacement vector of amplitudes associated with the nth mode of vibration is expressed in dimensionless form by dividing all the components by the largest component in Tables 2 to 16.

5.1.

Containment Building The original Containment Building model consists of two simple sticks. One stick models the containment structure, from the fixed base at 6.5.ft to the roof at 140 ft and the other one models the containment intemal, from the fixed base at 8 ft to the top floor at 96 ft. The dynamic modelis depicted in Figure 3.

6 O-i4a'

• Drawing is not to scal i

5 1315 O-ias'

(

96 1

4 75' 66' 1TI Containment V

56 10 3

9 } 45' Interna 46 29 g

2 25' 17 15' 7

8 1

6.5' tj 5'

Soil Layers P

33, Bedrock Figure 3 -

Conteinment Building Dynamic Model i

The fixed base frequencies and the mode shapes of containment structure are listed in Table 2. The frequencies and the mode shapes of intemal are listed in Table 3 and 4.

j JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET C11

[

L/

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A 46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Natural Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 l

Frequency (5.39 Hz)

(18.30 Hz)

(32.06 Hz)

(43.58 Hz)

(73.32 Hz)

Node 6 1.000

-0.650 0.353 0.091 0.002 Node 5 0.738 0.455

-0.957

-0.525

-0.002 Node 4 0.485 1.000 0.038 1.000 0.023 Node 3 0.240 0.863 1.000

-0.681

-0.148 Node 2 0.033 0.153 0.203

-0.178 1.000 Noce 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table 2 -

Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Containment Structure in X and Y Direction Natural Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Frequency (9.80 Hz)

(13.03 Hz)

(30.36 Hz)

(38.34 Hz)

(60.58 Hz)

Node 15 1.000 1.000

-0.033 0.040

-0.063 Node 14 0.353

-0.018 0.090

-0.249 1.000 Node 15 0.454

-0.042 1.000 1.000

-0.633 Node 12 0.354

-0.033 0.265 0.015 0.734 d

Node 11 0.306

-0.028 0.039

-0.171 0.332 Node 10 0.256

-0.025

-0.047

-0.066

-0.407 Node 9 0.204

-0.021

-0.120 0.054

-0.888 Node 8 0.108

-0.012

-0.156 0.198 0.424 Node 7 0.042

-0.005

-0.088 0.123 0.479 Node 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table 3a - Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Containment intemal in X Direction Natural Mode 6 Mode 7 Mode 8 Mode 9 Frequency (76.24 Hz)

(82.13 Hz)

(86.04 Hz)

(126.7 Hz)

Node 15 0.030

-0.033

-0.021

-0.002 Node 14

-0.797 1.000 0.744 0.147 Node 13

-0.374

-0.107

-0.070

-0.003 Node 12 1.000 0.296 0.279 0.087 Node 11

-0.054

-0.095

-0.111

-0.185 Node 10

-0.018

-0.053 0.070 1.000 Node 9 0.032 0.047 0.175

-0.235 Node 8

-0.004 0.021

-0.447 0.024 Node 7

-0.018

-0.075 1.000

-0.008 Node 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table 3b -

Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Containment Intemalin X Direction

~.

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #12 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Rasponse Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering finn Natural idode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Frequency (9.93 Hz)

(26.69 Hz)

(34.78 Hz)

(38.79 Hz)

(56.63 Hz)

Node 15 0.970 0.647

-0.864 1.000 0.483 Node 14 0.783 0.249

-0.222 0.088

-0.462 Node 13 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.157 0.439 Node 12 0.798 0.364 0.138

-0.017

-0.535 Node 11 0.699 0.128

-0.095

-0.052

-0.381 Node 10 0.575

-0.049

-0.044

-0.031 0.538 Node 9 0.439

.-0.209 0.023 0.004 1.000 Node 8 0.266

-0.279 0.068 0.032

-0.394 Node 7 0.149

-0.216 0.059 0.029

-0.759 Node 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table 4a -

Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Containment Internalin Y Direction Natural Mode 6 Mode 7 Mode 8 Mode 9 Frequency (77.45 Hz)

(85.36 Hz)

(88.07 Hz)

(99.91 Hz)

Node 15 0.110

-0.408

-0.374

-0.158 Node 14

-0.247 1.000 1.000 0.600 Node 13

-0.427 0.011

-0.037

-0.050 Node 12 1.000

-0.081 0.086 0.225 Node 11

-0.070 0.015

-0.051

-0.216 Node 10

-0.074

-0.274

-0.061 1.000 Node 9 0.035

-0.059 0.051

-0.277 Node 8 0.012 0.321

-0.062 0.088 Node 7

-0.037

-0.516 0.091

-0.070 Node 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table 4b -

Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Containment Internalin Y Direction O

i JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #13

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 1

a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 5.2.

North and South Wings of Auxiliary Building The original South Wing Auxiliary Building model consists of a simple stick, from the fixed-base at 8 ft to the roof at 48 ft. The mojelis depicted in Figure 4. The North Wing Auxiliary Building has the same building model as South Wing. The fixed base frequencies and mode shapes are listed in Table J

5. Only the model of East / West direction which is the weaker axis is available in the original calculation. Therefore, the model of North / South direction is considered to be the same as the model of East / West direction.

• Drawing is not to scale 4

i 3

4s-i

.....2 26-25' i

irt s' t'

s' j (,,/

Soil Layers 52' Bedrock Figure 4 - North or South Wing of Auxiliary Building Dynamic Model Natural Mode 1 Mode 2 Frequency (14.2 Hz)

(39.26 Hz)

Node 3 1.000

-0.367 Node 2 0.459 1.000 Node 1 0.0 0.0 Table 5 -

Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of North or South Wing of Auxiliary Building in East / West Direction 4

i

O 4

e

1 JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #14

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 e structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 5.3.

Central Part of Auxiliary Building The original Central Part Auxiliary Building model consists of a simple stick, from the fixed-base at 8 ft to the roof at 62.75 ft. The modelis depicted in Figure 5 and the fixed base frequencies and mode shapes are listed in Table 6 and 7.

• Drawing is not to scale 4

62.75' 3

44.3' 2

26' 25'

'i k s' Soil Layers O

i seorocx

~~

Figure 5 -

Central Part Auxiliary Building Dynamic Model Natural Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Frequency (19.16 Hz)

(38.24 Hz)

(51.39 Hz)

Node 4 1.000 1.000 0.946 Node 3 0.729

-0.043

-0.794 Node 2 0.444

-0.098 1.000 Node 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table 6 -

Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Central Part Auxiliary Building in East / West Direction Natural Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Frequency (18.25 Hz)

(37.48 Hz)

(51.28 Hz)

Node 4 1.000 1.000 1.000 Node 3 0.703

-0.043

-0.763 Node 2 0.423

-0.105 0.952 l

Node 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 I I Table 7 -

Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Central Part O

Auxiliary Building in North / South Direction

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #15

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 5.4.

Pipeway #1 The original Pipeway #1 model consists of a simple stick, from the fixed-base at 6.5 ft to the roof at 62.75 ft. The modelis depicted in Figure 6 and the fixed base frequencies and mode shapes are listed in Table 8 and 9.

• Drawing is not to scale 25'

- -3 23.5, 2

4.95 i n __ 6.s.

4' Soil Layers 22' Bedrock Figure 6 -

Pipeway #1 Dynamic Model Natural Mode 1 Mode 2 Frequency (33.36 Hz)

(107.9 Hz)

Node 3 1.000

-0.778 Node 2 0.651 1.000 Node 1 0.0 0.0 Table 8 -

Fixed-Base Freque6cles and Mode Shapes of Pipeway

1. 1 in East / West Direction Natural Mode 1 Mode 2 Frequency (21.21 Hz)

(56.91 Hz)

Node 3 1.000

-0.390 Node 2 0.326 1.000 Node 1 0.0 0.0 Table 9 -

Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Pipeway

1. 1 in North / South Direction Ob

f.

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #16

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 (D

V STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0 1

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 4

5.5.

Pipeway #2 and #3 The original Pipeway #2 model consists of a simple stick, from the fixed-base at 6.5 ft to the roof at 47 ft. The model is depicted in Figure 7 along with the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) dynamic model. The Pipeway #3 modelis identical to the Pipeway #2. Most importantly they both have a i

RWST on the same basemate. The fixed base frequencies and mode shapes of the pipeways are listed in Table 10. The frequencies of the RWST can be found in Appendix B. Only the model of Transverse direction which is the weaker axis is available in the original calculation. Therefore, the model of : Longitudinal direction is considered to' be the same as the model of Transverse direction.

• Drawing is not to scale 15 3

76,3 1

........14 69' 13 60.4' Refueling Water i

- Storage Tank i

12 52.7'

)

5 @ 47' 1 1 4s' Pipeway #2 or #3%

4(b 36' 10 37.3' 9

29.6' 3 ()--26' 2s' 8

21.9' l

2(p 'i4.75 7

~

14.2'

_1 g y 6.s.

6 m 6.s' Soil Layers 18' _

11' 19' Bedrock Figure 7 -

Pipeway #2 or #3 and Refueling Water Storage Tank Dynamic Models O

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #17 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 O(V STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineenng firm Natural Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Frequency (12.64 Hz)

(41.87 Hz)

(89.72 Hz)

(129.6 Hz)

Node 5 1.000

-0.834 0.595 0.355 Node 4 0.705 0.179

-0.751 1.000 Node 3 0.441 0.872

-0.532

-0.843 Node 2 0.194 1.000 1.000 0.355 Node 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table 10 -

Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Pipeway #2 or

1. 3 in Transverse Direction 5.6.

Pipeway #4 The original Pipeway #4 model consists of a simple stick, from the fixed-base at 6.5 ft to the roof at 26 ft. The model is depicted in Figure 8 and the fixed base frequencies and mode shapes are listed in Table 11 and 12.

[

• Drawing is not to scale 3 ()_.26-25-2()-4s' icy 6.s.

Soil Layers 22'

~

Bedrock Figure 8 -

Pipeway #4 Dynamic Model O

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #18

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation G-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Natural Mode 1 Mode 2 Frequency (29.45 Hz)

(71.51 Hz)

Node 3 1.000

-0.463 Node 2 0.449 1.000 Node 1 0.0 0.0 Table 11 -

Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Pipeway

1. 4 in Longitudinal Direction Natural Mode 1 Mode 2 Frequency (21.76 Hz)

(62.33 Hz)

Node 3 1.000

-0.283 Node 2

'O.282 1.000 Node 1 0.0 0.0 Table 12 -

Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Pipeway

1. 4 in Transverse Direction

[

5.7.

Control Building The original Control Building model consists of a simple stick, from the fixed-base at 8 ft to the roof at 74 ft. The modelis depicted in Figure 9. The fixed base frequencies and mode shapes are listed in Table 13 and 14.

• Drawing is not to scale 5

74' 4

w 3

w 2

w 1 e t, s, 8-3, 3,,i L

Soil Layers i

-7 5' Bedrock Figure 9 - Control Building Dynamic Model

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #19 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 (N

l STEVENSON Point Beach SSI sno IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Natural Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Frequency (9.82 Hz)

(26.56 Hz)

(36.38 Hz)

(59.08 Hz)

Node 5 1.000

-0.972 0.400

-0.861 Node 4 0.869

-0.353 0.015 1.000 _

Node 3 0.562 1.000

-0.691

-0.201 Node 2 0.109 0.515 1.000 0.011 Node 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table 13 -

Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Control Building in East / West Direction Natural Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Frequency (11.85 Hz)

(28.81 Hz)

(42.08 Hz)

(62.18 Hz)

Node 5 1.000 1.000

-0.855

-0.690 Node 4 0.852 0.339 0.188 1.000 Node 3 0.599

-0.576 1.000

-0.341 Node 2 0.233

-0.791

-0.702 0.050 O

Node 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table 14 -

Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Control Building in North / South Direction O

i S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #20

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43

)

STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 5.8.

Fuel Oil Pump House The original Fuel Oil Pump House model consists of a simple stick, from the fixed-base at 5 ft to the roof at 35.33 ft. The modelis depicted in Figure 10 and the fixed base frequencies and mode shapes are listed in Table 15.

l I

• Drawing is not to scale

{

3 35.33' 2

25 42' 2s' 1rt s' t'

2.5' Soil Layers L

I 12' Bedrock (G)

Figure 10 - Fuel Oil Pump House Dynamic Model Natural Mode 1 Mode 2 Frequency (16.42 Hz)

(52.57 Hz) f Node 3 1.000 1.000 Node 2 0.597

-0.858 Node 1 0.0 0.0 Table 15 -

Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Fuel Oil l

Pump House in Horizontal Direction i

l S&,

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #21

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 g

STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 5.9.

Circulating Water Pump House 1

The original Circulating Water Pump House model consists of two models. One modelis a rigid mass modeling the crab house from the foundation at -34.5 ft to the surface at 7 ft. The other one is a simple stick, modeling the pump house superstructure from the surface at 7 ft to the roof at 29.5 ft.

The two models are combined into one simple. stick model for the SSI analysis and depicted in Figure

11. The fixed base frequencies and mode shapes are listed in Table 16.

• Drawing is not to scale 3'

29.5' 2

7-7-

1r

-2s.5 L'

-34.5' Soil Layers l',,,J 5'

V Bedrock

'M*'

Figure 11 - Circulating Water Pump House Dynamic Model Natural Mode 1 Frequency (13.34 Hz)

Node 3 1.000 Node 2 0.0 Node 1 0.0 Table 16 -

Fixed-Base Frequencies and Mode Shapes of Circulating Water Pump House in Horizontal Direction

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #22 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 Oi V

STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 4

6. Soil Properties The stratigraphy at the Point Beach site consists of less than 5 feet of granular fill, about 10 to 15 feet of very stiff glacial till, about 35 feet of medium stiff glaciallacustrine deposits, and about 50 feet of stiff glacial till underlain by competent dolomit bedrock.

Two sets of shear wave velocity data were available based on various soil testing data at the Point Beach site. The first set of shear wave velocity data [16] recommended by gel is based on the following empirical relationship and several soil testing before 1987. The data include testing from I

Dames & Moore (1966), Twin City Testing (1983), and STS Consultants Ltd. (1986,1987).

Hardin and Dmevich (1972), empirical relationship for the dynamic shear modulus of soils e

[30].

Ohta and Goto (1978) relationship between shear wave velocity and standard penetration test (SPT) blowcount, N, as presented in Sykora (1987) (31).

Seed and Idriss (1970) and Imai, Fumoto, and Yokota (1975), as referenced in Sykora et al (1987), correlations of shear modulus with undrained shear strength data (31].

b' d

The second set of data [17], also developad by gel, uses the results of in situ cross-hole shear wave velocity measurements from Dames & Moore (1993). For the Upper Till, Lacustrine and the top part of the Lower Till, the two sets of data are believed to be well within normal spatial variability in soil conditions. A stiffer lower part in the Lower Till is identified by the recent measurement.

For the SSI analysis, the small strain soil properties are required. Based on all the available data, the second set of small shear wave velocity is considered to be the best estimate as recommended by gel. The effect of soil strain is accounted for in the LAYSOL program based on the actual earthquake input and the following two curves which are used for the modification of soil properties to account for non-linea" soil behavior, Based on the SSI trial run, the Lacustrine layer develops the largest shear strain. Theefore, e

the modulus reduction curve with strain with plasticity index (PI) of 20 - 40 provided by Sun, et al (1988) is used and the curve is included in Ref.16. Digitized data of the curve is stored in file ShModRed.dat.

j Seed and Idriss (1970) average damping ratio versus effective shear strain curve, developed e

for sands is used. Digitized data of the curve is stored in file Damping.dat.

As reported by gel [16] the water table ranges from 5 feet below the existing ground surface (Elev.

20 feet) west of the Containment Building to 15 feet below (Elev.10 feet) east of the Turbine Building.

GE; used a depth of 10 feet (i.e. Elev.15 feet) to estimate the shear wave velocities of the soil strata.

In the SSI analysis, the water table is assumed to be located at Elev. 20 feet for the Containment Building and the Fuel Oil Pump House, Elev.15 feet for the Pipeway #1 to #4, the South Wing and c

Central Part of Auxiliary Building, Elev.10 feet for the Control Building and Elev. 5 feet for the

.~

i S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #23

)

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE F!oor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Circulating Water Pump House. The level of water will the subject of a parametric study in a latter section.

The soil material damping ratio is assumed to be 2 percent. The final soil damping values, however, were calculated from LAYSOL iterated properties. The Poisson's ratio is assumed to be 0.4 for soil above the water table and the rock, and 0.48 for saturated soil. The soil densities are recommended by gel in Ref.17. The soil properties used for the SSI analysis are summarized in the following tables.

Layer No.

Layer Title Thick (ft)

Shear Wave Density Poisson's 2

Velocity (ft/sec)

(Ib'sec /ft)

Ratio 1

Upper Till 5

870 4.04 0.40

)

~

2 Upper Till 10 870 4.04 0.48 1

3 Lacustrine 35 915 3.89 0.48 4

Upper Part of 35 1050 4.04 0.48 Lower Till 5

Lower part of 15 1840 4.04 0.48 Lower Till 12000 5.44 0.40 Rock Dolomite Table 17 -

Soil Properties for Containmont Building and Fuel Oil Pump House Layer No.

Layer Title Thick (ft)

Shear Wave Density Poisson's Velocity (ft/sec)

(Ib'sec2/ft)

Ratio 1-a Upper Till 10 870 4.04 0.40 1-b Upper Till 5

870 4.04 0.48 2

Lacustrine 35 915 3.89 0.48 3

Upper Part of 35 1050 4.04 0.48 Lower Till 4

Lower part of 15 1840 4.04 0.48 Lower Till 12000 5.44 0.40 Rock Dolomite Table 18 -

Auxiliary Buildings and All Pipeway Structures O

)

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #24 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 O.

GTEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Layer No.

Layer Title Thick (ft)

Shear Wave Density Poisson's Velocity (ft/sec)

(Ib*sec2/ft)

Ratio 1

Lacustnne 33 915 3.89 0.48 2

Upper Part of 35 1050 4.04 0.48 Lower Till 3

Lower part of 15 1840 4.04 0.48 Lower Till Rock Dolomite 12000 5.44 0.40 Table 19 -

Soil Properties for Control Building Layer No.

Layer Title Thick (ft)

Shear Wave Density Poisson's 2

Velocity (ft/sec)

(Ib'sec /ft)

Ratio 1-a Lacustrine 2

915 3.89 0.40 1-b Lacustnne 30 915 3.89 0.48 2

Upper Part of 35 1050 4.04 0.48 Lower Till

/'

3 Lower part of 15 1840 4.04 0.48 Lower Till 12000 5.44 0.40 Rock Dolomite Table 20 -

Soil Properties for Circulating Water Pump House

7. Foundation Death According to the design drawings, the foundation base level are approximately Building or Structure Elev. (Actual) Elev. (Used) Reference Containment

-5 ft

-5 ft Drawing C-108 rev. 5 South Wing Auxiliary 5 ft 5 ft Drawing C-142 rev.15 Central Part Auxiliary 5 ft 5 ft Drawing C-166 rev. 3 Pipeway #1 and #4 4 ft 5 ft Drawing C-142 rev.15 & C-144 rev. 8 Pipeway #2 and #3 3 ft 5 ft Drawing C-142 rev.15 & C-144 rev. 8 Control 2.5 ft 5 ft Drawing C-180 rev. 5 Fuel Oil Pump House 2.5 ft 5 ft Drawing C-19 rev. 5 Circulating Water Pump House

-34.5 ft

-35 ft Drawing B-9 rev. B To simplify the analysis, the closest soil layer elevation is selected for the foundation embedment depth in the LAYSOL analyses. The grada levelis approximately 25 ft for all buildings except the Control Building and Circulating Water Pump House. The grade levels are 8 ft for the Control Building

(

and 7 ft for the Circulating Water Pump House. These foundation depths are used in the EKSSI input as Common Z which ties the model fixed-base to the foundation impedance matrix at this level.

S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #25

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 V

STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm

8. Pile Foundation The Containment Building sets on a circular foundation mat which has radius of 58'1" and depth of 11'6*. The mat is supported by soil and 30414BP117 steel H-shape piles. The piles reach the bed rock around Elev. -75 feet. Drawings C-10 rev. 5 and C-2010 rev. 2 show the layout of the pile foundation. All other buildings and structures except the Control Building are supported by foundation mats with no piles. The Control Building is supported by severallong strips of footings.

As mentioned in previous section, a 3-step substructure approach is used in the SSI analysis. The j

second step is to determine the foundation stiffness in terms of frequency-dependent impedance functions. Program SUPELM only computes the impedance functions of the soil with no consideration of any piles existence. The impedance functions of the pile foundation of Containment Building are based on the following assumptions:

The damping contribution from the piles is negligible compared with the contribution made by the surrounding soils.

The cross term of dynamic stiffness of swaying and rocking is negligible.

Only the swaying and rocking dynamic stiffnesses are considered.

O t

Swaying Dynamic Stiffness

• Drawing is not to scale y

j 116' l

l Containment 25' j

Building Foundation Mat

~5' Soil Layers

/

I 14BP117 Piles N

/

-75' Bedrock hh%%%13 Figure 12 - Pipe Foundation of Containment Building The swaying static stiffness of the piles can be approximated os follows:

O

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #26 1

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0 s

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm i

304 3E[I, K,,,,,, =

where E = 30x10' psi I, = 1220 in' and I, = 443 in'-

I = 70ft The principal axis of piles are through the center of reactor vessel which is approximately equal to the 4

center of Containment Building. The moment of inertia of a pair of piles perpendicular to each other is equal to the sum of the moment of inertia of the two principal axis. Therefore, the sum of moment of inertia of all the piles is approximately as follows:-

4 i

f,.o I, = 3 04, f 2

3

• 30x10'

• 12 304. (1220 + 443) 2 e-12' h

Thus, K,,,,,, =

= 4.63x105 lb From the computer run of program SUPELM, the swaying static stiffness of the soil for the Containment Building is 2.54*109 lbs/ft which is four-order of magnitude larger than the stiffness of the piles.

The dynamic stiffness of the piles is Kw, = K,, - M _, to

• c where Kg, = dynamic stiffness K., = static stiffness M,_, = consistent mass j

co = frequency For the frequency range we study, O to 34 Hz, the last term of above equation is insignificant.

Therefore, the swaying dynamic stiffness of the piles is negligible compared to the stiffness of the soil.

V(%

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #27 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectia By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Rocking Dynamic Stiffness

• Drawing is not to scale 116' Containment Building Foundation Mat 25' LM

-5' Soil Layers

/

I 14BP117 Piles N O

/

75' Bedrock h1\\%%%l Figure 13 - Coordinate System of Pipe Foundation The rocking static stiffness of the piles from Ref/31s as follows:

sos E[r,' A,

3.785x10i2 lb K,,,,,

g From the computer run of program SUPELM, the rocking static stiffness of the soil for the Containment Building is 8.56*1012 lbs/ft whic.h is,the same order of magnitude of the stiffness of the piles.

To compute the dynamic rocking stiffness of the piles, consider the longitudinal vibration of a bar with one end fixed and one end free subjected to a pulsating sinusoidal axial force acting on the free end of the bar as shown in Figure 14.

O

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #28 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 h(*

STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineenng firm P sino) t j

N

\\

l x

/\\

\\

b\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Figute 14 - Longitudinal Vibration of a bar with one end fix and on's end free

\\

From Ref.19 pp. 371, the steady-state displacement solution of the problem is 2 P, (- 1)o-o/2 fy,

[

sin e t sin u=

,.n,3,s,_ p A l( p,* - m )

21 where p = mass density in T p, = fundamental frequency = 21 y p The longitudinal dynamic stiffness of the bar is K "" =

=

(u),,,

2

,.i.3.... p A /(p,2 -m *)

To venfy the solution, one can obtain the longitudinal static stiffness from the above equation by setting o> = 0.

K.,,y,, o 3 =

2 81

• 1

.. s p Alp,*

EA n*,,

,, Y CJ 1

j

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #29 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 p

STEVCSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineenng firm From Ref. 20, th.e infinite series is as follows:

2

[I n

7- =

...>.a 8

Substitute back into the previous equation, the longitudinal static stiffness becomes K,,,= EA I

The first longitudinal fundamental frequency of a steel bar is 2/bs/p, i

30x10'*12 n

E n

/

= 378ra

= 60.2Hz pi = 21

- = =

sec p

2

• 70ft 490lb

• gsec and the second frequency is 120.4 Hz.

i The ratio of (p,2 _ cg p,2 roughly indicates the overall ratio of the dynamic stiffness to the static 2

p stiffness for the frequency range studied in this calculation, O to 33 Hz. For e = 33 Hz, the ratio is 0.7

5d for the first frequency and it is 0.93 for the second frequency. For m = 5.39 Hz which is the first fundamental frequency of the Containment Building, the ratio is 0.992 for the first frequency and it is a

0.998 for the second frequency.

At m = 5.39 Hz, the longitudinal dynamic stiffness of a steel bar can be replaced by the static stiffness.

The Containment Building responds mostly at this frequency than higher frequency. Therefore, the 4

rocking dynamic stiffness of the piles is assumed to be equal to the rocking static stiffness of the piles in the SSI analysis to simplify the problem.

9. SSI Result Run The result of the SSI run is discussed in this section. The SSI computer runs are executed through batch processing to automate execution and minimize errors. The batch process is covered in Appendix C. The input and the result files for all the SSI runs are included in the Appendix D.

9.1.

Iterated Soll Properties The effect of strong motion earthquake on the soil strain and the subsequent effect on the soil properties including the shear wave velocity, damping ratio, and Poisson's ratio are determined by the LAYSOL program through an iterative procedure. The degraded soil properties are then applied as the linear properties to the SUPELM and the EKSSI programs. Using the equivalent linear soil material properties using iterative linear analysis of the free-field soit deposit is acceptable per SRP 3.72.11.4.

A The iterated soil properties for the Containment Building and Fuel Oil Pump House are shown in the Q

following:

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #30 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Best Estimate Soil Procerties from too to bottom of each laver Initial Cs New Cs New Damping Layer No. Layer Title Strain (%)

(ft/sec)

(ft/sec)

(%)

1 Upper Till 0.0026 - 0.0125 870 860-819 2.91 - 6.36 2

Lacustrine 0.0150 - 0.0229 915 853 -827 6.90 -8.49 3

Upper Part of 0.0163 -0.0187 1050 974 - 965 7.14 -7.62 Lower Till 4

Lower Part of 0.0056 - 0.0060 1840 1787 -1783 4.29 -4.47 Lower Till The final damping values are all within the 15% bound widely used in the industry. The iterated soil properties for the Auxiliary Buildings and Pipeway Structures are identical to the results above. The iterated soil properties for the Control Building are listed in the following:

Best Estimate Soil Procerties from too to bottoni of each laver Initial Cs New Cs New Damping Layer No. Layer Title Strain (%)

(ft/sec)

(ft/sec)

(%)

(

1 Lacustrine 0.0012 - 0.0195 915 913 -838 1.89-7.80 2

Upper Part of 0.0147 - 0.0183 1050 980 - 967 6.83 - 7.53 Lower Till 3

Lower Part of 0.0055 - 0.0060 1840 1788 -1783 4.26 - 4.44 Lower Till The iterated results for the Circulating Water Pump House are listed in the following:

Best Estimate Soil Procerties from too to bottom of each laver Initial Cs New Cs New Damping Layer No. Layer Title Strain (%)

(ft/sec)

(ft/sec)

(%)

1 Lacustrine 0.0015 - 0.0198 915 911 -837 2.13 - 7.86 2

Upper Part of 0.0148 - 0.0184 1050 979 -967 6.86 -7.53 Lower Till 3

Lower Part of 0.0055 - 0.0060 1840 1788 -1783 4.26 -4.45 Lower Till O

. O

i S&A JOB NO. 91C26f ;

SHEET #31

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 9.2.

Effect of Kinematic Interaction The effect of kinematic interaction is included in the SUPELM program. SUPELM program, while compt. ting the impedance matrix, also calculates the transfer function between the free field motion

)

and the foundation base. To illustrate the effect of the kinematic interaction in translation, the filtered input base motion of the Containment Building, the Central Part Auxiliary Building, and the Control Building are compared with the free field motion in the Figure 15.

0.9 A[

m j'y 6[

/M As E

N gywr g./r vv A

~

LLNL O 40 a

b>

+ Conserwnent side a

Cantal Aus steg 0.1

--o-- Canew eido 0

O 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 15 - Effect of Kinematic interaction, LLNL 0.4G Free Field and Building Bases Motion As seen from Figure 15, the Containment and Central Auxiliary Building, due to the deep embedment, benefit a great deal from the effect of kinematic interaction, while the Control Building, being a surface structure, has hardly any interaction.

All buildings with embedment, due to the kinematic interaction, will be subjected to an additional rotationalinput at the foundation base. Both the translational and the rotationalinputs are incorporated in the EKSSI analysis. For all the buildings considered, the rotational component is not significant due to low height to width ratio of the buildings.

For the buildings with deep embedment, the ratio between base input to the free field motion at some of the frequency points fall below the 60% limit specified by the SRP. Since the purpose of the IPEEE study is to be realistic and not necessarily conservative, the 60% rule was not applied to the results as recommended by Dr. Robert Kennedy.

O V

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #32

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43

')p

\\

STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 9.3.

Floor. Response Spectra Results The IPEEE FRS based on 0.4G LLNL input are stored in the SPECTRA datafile, SPECTDB. DES.

The building structural damping is assumed to be 7% (8). The FRS are generated at every mass point of the models for three damping ratios,3%,4% and 5%. However, only the 5% curves are plotted and enclosed in Appendix A. The other damping curves and the floor time histories can be retrieved from the disks enclosed with this calculation.

The time histories calculated by EKSSI were imported into SPECTRA which then computes the FRS for different damping values. The standard Regulatory Guide 1.122 frequency points (75 points) were utilized for the FRS. Two programs, SPECBAT.EXE and SPRSSAVE.EXE, are used to generate the FRS and to export FRS file for plotting by batching process. The programs are verified by a line-by-line check of the results and can be found in Appendix C.

The FRS plots are summarized in the following tables:

Figure No.

Building or Structure Direction A-1 Containment Structure X

A-2 Containment Structure Y-O A-3 Containment Intemal X

U A-4 Containment Intemal Y

A-5 Central Auxiliary East / West A-6 Central Auxiliary North / South A-7 South Wing Auxiliary East / West A-8 Pipeway #1 East / West A-9 Pipeway #1 North / South A-10 Pipeway #2 Longitudinal A-11 Pipeway #4 Longitudinal A-12 Pipeway #4 Transverse A-13 Control Building East / West A-14 Control Building North / South A-15 Fuel Oil Pump House Horizontal A-16 Circulating Water Pump House Horizontal Table 18. List of Figures for IPEEE LLNL 0.40G input OV

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #33 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 OO STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

~

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation d-001 M TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 10.SSI Sensitivity Study The project plan requires the SSI analyses to study the sensitivity on the following areas per SRP requirement:

a) Lack of symmetry in the soil deposit which is assumed to be symmetrical.

b) The effect of pore water on the SSI responses, including the effects of variability of ground water level with time.

c) Non-uniformity in depth or dipping in the soillayers and the total model depth of the soillayers.

d) Strain dependent soil behavior and its effect on the damping, shear modulus, and pore pressure.

e) Boundary condition of the soil model and the effect of adjacent buildings.

f) Potential torsional effect due to asymmetry in the structure, foundation, and the soil layers.

g) Potential separation between the foundation and the soil, or bonding and debonding effect, during the earthquake.

h) Uncertainty in the soil material properties and the constitutive model.

in addition to the above, the effect of approximating the rectangular foundations of the building with circular foundations is investigated in the last subsections. The sensitivity of the SSI analysis to these parameters is discussed in this section. The computer runs and result files are included in Appendix E.

10.1. Lack of Symmetry in the Soil Deposit As stated in Soil Properties section, the Point Beach site resides on 10 to 15 ft of very stiff glacial till, about 35 feet of medium stiff glacial lacustrine deposits, and about 50 feet of stiff glacial till underlain by competent dolomit bedrock (16]. The soillayers are relatively uniform and symmetrical according to the soit exploration data (26].

The effect of the slight difference depth of alllayers is investigated by imposing the new soil profile on the Containment Building. The new soil profile contains 20 ft of Upper Till,25 ft of Lacustrine,55 ft of Lower Till. The true Containment Building response should lie between the original Containment Building best estimate soil properties run (see Appendix D) and the sensitivity run but should be much closer to the original run. The input and output files of computer run are enclosed in Appendix E.

The sensitivity results comparing the 5% damping FRS curves in the X direction for the Containment intemals at Elev. 66 ft are shown in Figure 16. As can be seen from the figure, the difference is negligible.

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #34 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 b(%

STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 1.2 1.0 25 ft Lacustnne (Sensrewty o 0.8 f-

-o-- 35 ft Lacuseine (original i 0.6 1

<04' O.2 0.0 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 16 - Sensitivity Study of Soil Layer Variation - Containment Intemal at Elev. 66 ft O

V 10.2. Effect of Pore Water Pore water and the level of the water table affect soil mass density, the Poisson's ratio and the shear modulus. The gel letter report [18] indicates that the level of the water table affects mass density of Granular Fill and the soil Poisson's ratio and it does not Indicate any effects on the shear modulus or the shear wave velocity in the report [18].

From the gel report [16), the water table ranges from about 5 feet below the existing ground surface (Elev. 20 feet) west of the Containment Building to about 15 feet below (Elev.10 feet) east of the Turbine Building. gel used a depth of 10 feet (i.e. Elev.15 feet) to estimate the shear wave velocities of the soil strata.

The elevation of the ground water table at the site can be expected to undergo fluctuations due to tidal effects and normal rainfall. The normal fluctuation of the ground water table over time can be expected generally to be much less than about 7 feet [16).

In the SSI analysis, the water table is assumed to be located at Elev. 20 feet for the Containment Building and the Fuel Oil Pump House, Elev.15 feet for the Pipeway #1 to #4, the South Wing and Central Part of Auxiliary Building, Elev.10 feet for the Control Building and Elev. 5 feet for the Circulatir'g Water Pump House.

The effect of varying the water table is investigated by changing the water table of the Control Building best estimate soil properties run to elevation 0 ft.

The comparison of the floor response 5% camping at Control Building Elevation 60 ft in East / West direction is shown in Figure 17. As can be seen from the figure, the difference is negligible. The input

(

and output files of the computer run can be found in Appendix E.

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #35 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43

+

s L

STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 18 a,

9g ji w..< r bi..t o rt is nety 14 g

saw g i2

-o-- w.=

t s et toriginai 5'*

V bQ w

j

[

-c a

04

/

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 17 - Sensitivity Study of Water Table - Control Building at Elev. 60 ft O

10.3. Non-uniformity in Depth and Total Depth of Soil Layers The effect due to the non-uniformity in depth or dipping in the soil layers and the total model depth of the soillayers needs to be studied. According to the gel report (16), the soil layers are relatively uniform and level, no particular dipping or sloping is noticed.

The depth of the total soil layers to the bedrock is 100 ft according to gel. The floor response should not be sensitive to the soil properties in the deep layers. However, the effect is compared by changing the total embedment depth of the original Control Building best estimate soil properties run.

The sensitivity run changed the total soillayer depth to 90 ft replacing the bottom 10 ft of soil with bedrock. The results are presented in Figure 18. The input and output files of the computer run can be found in Appendix E.

The results of 5% damping for elevation 60 ft in East / West direction are shown. The effect of total soit layer depth is negligible.

tv

t l

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET C36 j

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 1

a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 1

l ta I

I

)

ie 4

dA u

90 R Tom' O.oe (s.nerimy

\\^

1.2

-o--

100 R Tomi o.oe (orwnsi l

E g

T4ly @hQ g

E con w e on>

j p

Ce 3

04

.,s.

0.2 j

l 0.0 0

s to is 20 2s 30 as 40 j

Frequency (Hz) l

\\

Figure 18 - Sensitivity Study of Total Depth - Control Building at Elev. 60 ft 10.4. Strain Dependent Soil Behavior e

O The strain dependent soil behavior is accounted for by using the modulus reduction curve for clays with plasticity index (PI) of 2040 based on the free field strong motion record provided by Sun, et al (1988)[16]. No site specific strain dependency data is available. Use of the curves by Sun et al for modulus degradation and damping represent the state-of-the-art. The variability of the modulus reduction curves is part of the uncertainty in the shear modulus uncertainty.

10.5. Boundary Condition of Soil Models The effect of the boundary condition of the soil model and the effect of adjacent buildings on SSI responses needs investigation. From the Dames & Moore soil report (26), the soillayers are relatively uniform and the assumption that the soil extends infinitely in the horizontal direction is reasonable.

The effect of the adjacent buildings is not addressed in the SSI analyses. Each building is analyzed on its own foundation. The adjacent buildings couples through soil will interfere with each other.

Solution of multiple embedded structures is not available at this time. In general, the heavy buildings like the Containment Building will be influenced less by adjacent lighter buildings. The Fuel Oil Pump House and Circulating Water Pump House should not be affected by other structures as much since they are well separated from the rest of the buildings.

For the application of IPEEE PRA analysis, the objective of the SSI analysis is to obtain the median estimate of the responses. The effect of adjacent structures may be considered as an additional variability in the PRA analysis in terms of p,.

Og

l l

S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #37

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 O(d STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 1

10.6. Potential Torsional Effect Due to Asymmetry in the Structures The original building models did not include the effects of torsional eccentricity since all of the buildings are relatively symmetricaljudged by the original Bechtel designers and accepted in the i

design basis of PBNP. For the present IPEEE study, again, the goalis to obtain the base line responses. If necessary, the effect of accidental torsion may be considered as an additional l

uncertainty factor and median factor in the PRA. analysis.

l 10.7. Potential Separation Between the Foundation and the Soil To study the potential separation between the foundation and the soil, or bonding and debonding effect, during the earthquake, a sensitivity run is prepared that simulate the debonding between the soil and foundation near the free surface. It is the most likely location of separation, partly due to the possible lack of vertical pressure that is required to maintain bonding.

i A separation of 2 ft is assumed to the original Containment Building best estimate soil properties run.

l 1

The separation of 2 ft is considered severe since during the earthquake, the separation may occur only at the peak motion and occurs only on the tension side. Since the capability is built in SUPELM, j

the separation has the effect on the impedance matrix and the kinematic interaction effect, the input file of the SUPELM is modified so that the sidewall of the foundation will reach to 2 ft short of the free j

surface.

The sensitivity results comparing the 5% damping FRS curves in the X direction for the Containment 4

Intemals at Elev. 66 ft are shown in Figure 19. The input and output files of the computer run can be found in Appendix E.

1 12

)

10 L

Fun Bondng tongeal Configursoon) 0e e

i

--<>- 2 et o.conene is.nsraev j

f sum

=06 f

~

02 00 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 19 - Debonding Sensitivity Study - Containment Intemal at Elev. 66 ft As seen from the figure, the difference is negligible.

t S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #38 I

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 J

STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0 4

j

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a r,tructural-mechanical Calculation 6-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 l

consulting engineering firm 10.8. Uncertainty in the Soil Material Properties The best estimate of the soil shear modulus or shear wave velocity is considered in the SSI analyses.

I Since the objective is to obtain the median estimate of the responses for the application of IPEEE PRA analysis, the original runs should constitute the median. The effect of variability of the soil shear 1

modulus or shear wave velocity is part of the. uncertainty in the soil properties and is considered as a i

[j variability in the PRA analysis.

i The EKSSI analyses assume linear elastic soil material that is used by all major SSI analysis l

programs. The nonlinearity of the soit behavior is accounted for by including the effect of soil strain on the shear modulus and the damping during strong motion earthquake. This approach is acceptable per SRP 3.7.2.11.4.

10.9. Cylindrical Foundation Approximation I

The computation of the soilimpedance matrix by the SUPELM program assumes the foundation to be cylindrical. The effect of this approximation is addressed in this section.

l In the SSI analysis, the equivalent radius of the foundation is determined by equating the area of the equivalent disk with the rectangular foundations.

4BL R" =

~

n where 2B and 2L are the width and the length of the rectangular foundation.

l For a square foundation, the approximation by a cylindrical disk is very good. The solution starts to j

deviate as the aspect ratio of the rectangular foundation increases. In this study, the South Wing j

Auxiliary Building, which has the largest aspect ratio of the rectangular foundation, is selected as an j

example of comparison. The South Wing Auxiliary Building has dimensions of 2 B = 64.6ft, and j

2L = 133.4f i

(L / B) = 2.07 i

4LB j

R,, =

= 1.62 B n

r l

The comparison is made for surface foundations resting on infinite elastic half space only. The effect of soillayers and embedment should be similar for circular and rectangular foundations. The formulas in this section come from Ref. 28.

O Y

S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #39

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0 1

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 consulting engineering firm Chk. TMT 6/20/95 Vertical Stiffness. Surface Foundation Rectaneular Foundation

'"II ~ ") = 3.l(L / B)*" + 1.6 GB

= 3.l(2.07)*" + 1.6

=6.9S i

K = 6.95GB y

(1 - v)

Circular Foundation 4GR,, = 6.48GB A,y = (1 - v)

(1 - v) 4

(~'

The difference is only -6.8%, which is insignificant.

Horizontal Stiffness. Surface Foundation Rectanoular Foundation K,(2-v)

= 6.8(L / B)"' + 2.4 y

'GB

= 6.8(2.07)"' + 2.4

= 13.31 A,y, = 13.31GB 2-v Ky,(2 - v), K,(2-v) + 0.8(L / B-1) y GB GB

= 13.31 + 0.8(2.07 - 1)

= 14.17 K, = 14.17GB y

2-v i

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #40 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Circular Foundation 8GR" K,, =,2 - v

_12.96GB

_ 2-v The differences are -2.6% in the short direction and -8.5% in the long direction. They are small and may be neglected.

Rockino. Surface Foundation Rectangular Foundali0D

~"

= 3.2(L / B)+ 0.8 GB'

= 3.2(2.07) + 0.8

= 7.42 Ka, = 7.42GB' 1-v

= 3.73(L / B)** + 0.27 GB'

= 3.73(2.07)** + 0.27

= 21.65 21.65GB' Ry "

l-v Circular Foundation 8GR"'

Kn = 3(1-v)

_11.34GB' l-V Differences: +53% in the short direction, -48% in the long direction.

Even though there are considerable difference in the rocking stiffnesses between the rectangular and the circular foundations, for SSI applications on low rise buildings, the > -dzontal translational mode

S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #41

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 O\\d STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm dominates. The frequency of the coupled soil-structural rocking mode is usuany high and does not contribute much? Better results can be achieved if the comparison is based on the equivalont moment of inertia of foundation instead of the equivalent area.

The following table summarizes the sensitivity of this assumption:

Case Rectangular Circular Difference Vertical Ky 6.95GB 6.48GB

-6.8%

l-v l-v j

Horizontal K,

13.31GB 12.96GB

-2.6%

y Short Direction 2-v 2-v Horizontal Ky, 14.17GB 12.96GB

-8.5%

Long Direction 2_v 2_y Rocking K,

7.42GB' 11.34GB 53 %

2 a

Short Direction

_y

_y Rocking K,,

21.65GB' II.34GB

-48%

3 q

Long Direction i_y i_v O

Table 21 - Summary Results of Cylindrical Foundation Approximation 10.10. Conclusions of Sensitivity Stuay As a result of the sensitivity study, none of the parameters has significant effect on the dynamic response of the buildings or structures. The assumed variability in the soil property is sufficient to account for the variation of the SSI analysis parameters.

O

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #42 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation G-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Reference 1.

ASCE Standard," Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary on Standard for Seismic Analysis of Safety Related Nuclear Structures," ASCE 4-86, September 1986.

2.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Procedural and Submittal Guidance for the Individual Plant Examination of Extemal Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities", Final Report, NUREG-1407, June 1991.

J 3.

Bechtel Corporation, " Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Seismic Analysis, Containment Building", Job No. 6118,1970.

j 4.

6echtel Corporation, " Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Seismic Analysis, Primary Auxiliary Building",

Job No. 6118,1969.

5.

Bechtel Corporation," Point Desch Nuclear Plant, Seismic Anahsis, Facade Ares & Turbine Building", Job No. 6118,1969.

6.

Bechtel Corporation, " Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Seismic Analysis, Fuel Oil Pump House", Job O

No.6118,1969.

7.

Sargent & Lundy, " Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Circulating Water Pump House Design Calcelations", Job No. 3688,1969.

8.

Jack R. Benjamin and Associates, et al.,"A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant

'i Seismic Margin (Revision 1)," EPRI Report No. NP4041-SL, Revision 1, Final Report, August _

1991.

9.

Kausel, E., "LAYSOL - A Program for the Dynamic Response Analysis of Layered Soils," Version 3.1,1992.

10. Kausel, E.,"SUPELM Ver. 2.0 Foundation Embedded in Layered Media: Dynamic Stiffnesses and Response to Seismic Waves," 1992.

11. Kausel, E.,"EKSSI Ver. 2.0 User's Manual," Massachusetts Institute of Technology,1992.

12. Kausel and Roesset, " Stiffness Matrices for Layered Soils," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 71, No. 6, Dec.1981, pp1743-1761.

13. Stevenson & Associates, " Soil Structural Interaction Programs Verification Manual for LAYSOL, SUPELM, and EKSSI," March 1992.

14. Seed, H. B. and Idriss, l. M., " Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analysis,"

Report No. EERC 70-10, December 1970, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Califomia, Berkeley.

i S&.L JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #43

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF 43 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm

15. Schnabel, B. P., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H. B. " SHAKE: A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites," Report No. EERC 72-12, December 1972, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Califomia, Berkeley, CA.

16. gel Consultants, Inc., Letter Report from Eugene A. Marciano to S&A, April 13,1993, Project 93109.

17. gel Consultants, Inc., Letter Report from Gonzalo Castro to S&A, July 12,1993, Project 93109.

18. gel Consultants, Inc., Letter Report from Gonzalo Castro to S&A, July 23,1993, Project 93100.

]

19. Timoshenko, S. P., Young, D. H., and Weaver, W. " Vibration Problems in Engineering",4th Edition,1974, pp. 363-379.

20. Bartsch, H. J. " Handbook of Mathematical Formulas",9th Edition,1974, pp. 428.

21. Structural Research and Analysis Corporation," COSMOS /M User Guide," Release Version V1.6, August 1990.

22. Stevenson & Associates, " Verification Manual for COSMOS /M Version V1.6," September 1993.

23. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory," Seismic Hazard Characterization of 69 Nuclear Plant Sites East of the Rocky Mountains," NUREG/CR-5250, January 1989.

24. Risk Engineering, "ProbabilisJe Seismic Hazard Evaluations at Nuclear Plant Sites in the Central and Eastem United States: Resolution of the Charleston Earthquake issue," EPRI NP-6395-D, April 1989.

25. Stevenson & Associates, " SPECTRA - Users Manual," Version 1.0,1992.

26. Dames & Moore," Report of Foundation investigation, Proposed Nuclear Power Plant, Point Beach Nuclear Power Station, Two Creeks, Wisconsin",1966.

27. Dames & Moore," Report of EDG Project Subsurface SoilInvestigation, Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Two Creeks, Wisconsin", May 12,1993.

28. A. Pais and E. Kausel," Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffness of rigid foundations", Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,1988, Vol.7, No.4, pp. 213-227.

29. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission," Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants", LWR Edition, NUREG-0800, July 1981.

30. B.O. Hardin and V.P. Dmevich," Shear Modulus in Soils: Design Equations and Curves", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM7, pp. 667-692,1972.

31. D.W. Sykora," Examination of Existing Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus Correlations in Soils", Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,1987.

q

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #A1 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Seach IPEEE/A-46 OF A17 1 N STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95

}

consulting engineering firm Anoendix A: Floor Response Soectra 4

J l

O i

1 i

i e

d V

[

s

\\/

Wisconsin Electric Power Company BUILDING : Containment Structure Point Beach Nuclear Plant MOTION :LLNL(OA0G)

Amplified Floor Response Spectra SOlL :Best Estimate IPEEE DIRECTION X DAMPING :5%

2 i

i i

i i

i i i i

i i

i i

1 i i Elevatm t

.A l

l f N.

l l l l 25 (GROUND)

/

--- 140

- - - - - - - - 105

. \\..

75 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a,.. _ _ _ _ _ j _f.f.. p _ _'_ 3,_

1 i,

45 r

____.________j-_.--~~

15 l- -

J-2*-

2-------

- - - - - - - - - - - > - - - - - - p ! -/: h. _.

1_. _ _ I_ ?.

I I

---

6.5 r-,...

_.T..I_.

._____.___-_1-___L'._-

1 1

-.r i

e

.. _..... _ _ _ _ J _ _ /g./. J _..,l_. L _ J A_

._L_J_

A_.

-.__..__-.L_..._..__A.

m.1 ', '..'

\\

.. s.

.,8 0.5

^ ',er.

' x'.s.

.i.

y

s...

_g J.. r. !.

/. __ %( _

,___.).

.___________ q_j:,:, ___

p..._p\\,,j %.y. v.p __y _q__;_.,-

't:.

y, s

v f. ::,/_ _ _..

u.c.

v-

,7_::,..

s.

N

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _7,..;.,/ _...j 4.,_ _ _ _ p g_,.;. ; _ _ e,g _ u )<p,

w \\

p_.2,

_, - _ ; _, mp g,_ _ _ _p - _. ; - _ _._ _ _. _ _ ; _ p v.

. s, ~,,

.f,..

s.

t g.

s.

.i t

1. -.g">*-( s 4

..s J

g 4.

g

.f.,7 s-.

q..

s, '

.. p'g..,.'.'.'

02 e'v'

/. _t,y.

..//

/

4's.,/

y.

. s p

1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Figure A_1 Project No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #A 2 of A17

-..=_- -

... ~ =- -- - ~_ -

19 V

s/

'u Wisconsin Elecinc Power Company BUILDING : Containment Structure Point Beach Nuclear Plant MOTION :LLNL(0.40G)

Amplified Floor Response Spectra SOIL :Best Estimate IPEEE DIRECTION :Y DAMPING :5%

2 4

i i

ie i i i

a i

6 i

i.

Glevah.on:

./s.

l l

_/ N l l 25 (GROUND) l

/.

.s

-- 140 f

. \\.

- - - - - - - - - 105

. \\..

I 75 f.....

1

-- - -.. 45 r

~ -------

- i - - - - - - - i -/ -P - E - - - h \\.-P--b-i

-b- ---"__----'__-I-------

---

6.5 1,

- - - - - - - - - - 15 i- ~

.________'___a.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.j _ _ _ _ /'j _ J _ _ o. _ _ _ q.. _.

_y_ t _ a. _ _._

1.______.

_______u.

j./_ _fq _ _ _ j _. _ _ '._ _.,.. ;_ _ ______.______3-__

_ _ r - - - -.- - r - -. - -. - T - -l - -

/

e

/ a '.e.

i

~.-

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ 2. _ _ /w. _ 1. _ _ J _ _ L _ _'.. \\ _ t _ _._ _ 2. _ _._

,(-

v

-____________1._-____

..____u. _-_L.___.___.__s._a_.

c s

.. /

6.'

-,E 0.5

',r.

.s.

...'..s

\\

. l;r. f'.

q/.,

m..

a A

._u__12.\\~

u N

._____t_____.____

.9!

g,i..\\...t__t_a.__u

, _ _ _ _ _ _ / _ _ _. r. %.s.-,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2../,r _ _ f.a. _

1-f.J...f..;jj_ _; 4.,_ _ _ _ y,Y+:....u....%

/

,s

_ :.. j :,.--- :..i.

p

...o.r v

y _;,-1. g. J. -

r.

. p.~_.. _ ; 5.%_ A. p.%

.c y

v

__ e

. z.

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _y. 4./

i s_.

. s

.,/

s.

s.

2

. v.

: \\.

.1 :

I.:.,-

.J n..,.~~,...../.

I.:.,.,J. 2

. v.

i.c.: \\..

'. 'g{',/.' /n.

.r

. r..

\\.

gr

.p.

0.2

/~/

7

/, Af-

y. *

/<J.,./r

/

1/./

i s

0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Figure A-2 Project No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #A 3 of A17

t I

l Wisconsin Electnc Power Company BUILDING : Containment intemal Point Beach Nuclear Plant MOTION 1LNL(0.40G) i Ampidied Floor Response Spectra SOIL :Best Estimate I

IPEEE DIRECTION :X 5

DAMPlNG :5%

e I

5 i

i i.

.i

.i.i i

i t

. _ _ _ _ Elevation. _., _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a _ _ _ _ _ y _ _ _ j - _ _;_ _ _ ;_ _ q _.;- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t ; _ _ _ _ ;_ _ _ _ p !. _; _. _... ; _ -p.

^-

l l

l l i

-\\.---------*l-----^l--*---'---.'--2.->--

25 (GROUND) l l

l l l l.

f

d. j/-

96 West 96 East N.\\-

f

- - - - -. 76 West

'f '.

2 76 East

-\\.

66

.f 56 g

. I..e,,-

_. _ _ _.. 46 29 17

'. '././.,[.

'\\ ;

8-

_ c.

-____________2_______4._____.--__4.__.___l,l..

o 1

.s

_.,,________4__%.a.,_s,_4.___.____&___.___.__i._a_c___.,___.___.__,__._.

i y

r

.g c.__-

m c

.c w,,w_n..

__t._____.__._t______.__.__._-

a

.g

',_ _;- _ 4.yN _ _ _ J.,_.f..______

.____;___ q ___;___;__j._:_.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 _ _ )5 _ _ ; _ _ g _,.5 e

u,.,. %

+

0.5

...,......g,,:j.._:

,. _ : s_.

.,,.e

.p<. f...

^

-p:. _ _m _ _ $,_\\

.g., '

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _. /:v..,y:

,. _g y__=__

.,3 io

..,.... s. x s

s

.s.

f

.f

...s s,

, v, _ _ _ # __ _. _ _. _,._ S_,-

u.,,.g c...s%......,,-

.x-v,..c. ~

c

.c

,e :)ce r s... s.

s.

r..-

, s s

....v.

- - - ~. -

s-r-

o2 f-r 0.1 1

10 100 9

Frequency (Hz)

Figure A-3 Project No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #A 4 of A17 i

.~.

(./

d v

Wisconsin Electnc Power Company BUILDING : Containment Internal Point Beach Nuclear Plant MOTION :LLNL(0.40G)

Amplified Floor Response Spectra SOIL :Best Estimate IPEEE DIRECTION ;Y DAMPlNG :5%

5 i

i i

i i i i

i i

_3--__.

..__.._3.___

_--_-_1._

t'-....-._1_

Elevatih 25 (GROUND) 2.--.'--'-'.-.'--

---

2.-----'.----*--'.-'--.'-^.-.'-

96 West 96 East 76 West 2

-- 76 East

.g 66 p

---

56

.e.

.J<(.4,.

46

.\\.^\\-

29

. fs f"_..-

t.

.4M.._ _ _ _ _ _ 4 -_.f-.

~O 1

17

../.-.

.-______l

- u - - _ -.N _, _ - - 3,-, _ [_.c T y. 4 - _. - - _. _ _ _. _ _

_._. i t. _..

-g.-

,_.__r*-.--.--1-.--

c O

_____._____,.__-____,___..g.___3__,___,-

y -

_ _ _k

_-h2-__'____'_.__8___'__j_.'.

_____.p,.pp

..___--_____-__-__-__..___--_.j.__-

t, - -:_ - -N y - g--_ v i_-_____; t____-_ + --:-__:_-;_-:--

3

---_________i___--__i -_,.._

.b ' '.

d.'i M

^'

g

/:'

05

\\.3.- _ --.N. /._,- ~. g

r

..\\

r~

r.

. s _.\\._r.

j.

\\. -

.__-_--_____,__r.,_t-.c. j.-... \\.,.h.

. _e.v.- -

_ - - s, g _ _ _ - - _.

%, f,,.., ~...s.s.

s

'1

.v

.m-

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 / +. y er, c l_j..s..,g),'g{/. - _.

s

_ _ _:- - 4 _:_1..1- -\\;s_.g.Gvi.c _ _ g,_,;_ - _ _ _ _ _ ;.. - -:.. :_ _ ; _ -: _ _

s,.

/.

s)

~~.i~.

s 2. r

-. K. f -. ~..a.. ;.

s s

/c. 7

~u.

r.\\

s.

0.2

_s

.. a

^

0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Figure A-4 Project No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #A 5 of A17

Wisconsin Electric Power Company BUILDING : Central Auxiliary Point Beach Nuclear Plant MOTION :LLNL(0.40G)

Amplified Floor Response Spectra Soil:Best Estimate IPEEE DIRECTION :EastNVest DAMPING :5%

1 i

i i

i

,, i i

i c

-c.-,-,-.--

.,w.-

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ q _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j _ _ _ _ _ ;_ _ _ _.y,......,,,,,37,_x:_\\

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j _ _ 7 _ _-(_ _ _ _ _ ;_ _ _ _ i _ _ _. _ _;. ; _ _; _ _

r..

6

_ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _, _.. /_.._. g._1..,L.

.\\

n..,

.i y__f,._.;_____

r _ f,r.. _,

a

.t

+,

y_

N. ;

-r

..e... i

'^' 4N.h',\\,,H. ' \\

'E' 0.5 i.f' p'

\\

~.~"\\i

\\. \\. t::~...\\f ~.\\./%.

. 3.

.___...._____._______....z.f.'

e.

if:

\\.

/

\\.

_ss _i___ -__.______._________

o..

,.,/

s v... is i...

\\.

c T.:,

s,..

g r s..,

,n. \\

S

.,4 a r g i s

s.

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 _ _ _ _ _ /, /. _ _ _ _ _ l._ _ _ _ y _ _ _ ; _ _;_ _ 4. _ _;_ _

_ _ _ v~_ _ _ _ _N _ j _ -g_ _. [ _g.v _ _ _;_ _ _ p _ _ _;_ _ _;_ _ ; _ _; _.

g, s.,/

.,,,., \\

3f.

v 3

):.

0.2 Elevation:

l l

l l

l l l l 25 (GROUND) l l

l l l l 62.75 44.3 M

8

^

0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Figure A-5 Project No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #A 6 of A17

_- -. = -

=

. ~..

p. w m

Wisconsin Electric Power Company BUILDING : Central Auxiliary Point Beach Nuclear Plant MOTION :LLNL(0.40G)

Ampidied Floor Response Spectra SOIL :Best Estimate IPEEE DIRECTION : North / South DAMPING :5%

1 1

i i

4

, i i i

i i

i i

i.

_____________,_______r____,____,___,___,__,._,_

. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ q _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j _ _. _ _ l_ _ _ _ j. _ _ ;_ _ _ ;- _ q v_

--_________j.__/u_____;-___g. _ _ _;_ _ _l_ _ ; _ _l _.

J

/

h.

./

".s

. __________________j_____,___.ff/

g%

_ _ [

• _ _, _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ -l. _ _l _ _ g _ _l. _

%\\f;.. ',, \\, _ _ _ _7 _ _ 3._.,t _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _

s

,.. /.

.,._,f_.,--

t y s,_,;,

g___.____,___.___,__,__.__

____________________4____r,.,..

,c

.e

. <.\\ \\

y

m. %,.k',

• /

i ' / ^s'

's i t

;3

., s,.,, f,.

O.5

.;; p,.

y

y. \\.v f.,,,. \\/,%,. g.7g

'8 i,,ff#4__.

t...r :

_ g. L. f - _ t _ _... _ _ _ _ T_

m

.____________a_______4_

=

.__.___.__4-___

O

/.

gi y

.f 9

i s t,.*;,x

.y,,

r

.\\

o s,

,s

, __ g..

o.

v

]g

-____________f,-___f,..i

, s

___h%.____

_ysry(____{_

___[______l__j__.

s

.....'.___j___,'_____-_.j-_

8 g

p;- f.

s.e

..... s Y

3

)..

0.2 1

.I l

I Elevation:

25 (GROUND) 62.75 44.3 26 4

8 0.1 i

1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

I i

l i

Figure A-6 Project No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #A 7 of A17 i

_ ~ ~ -

~~ -

~ -

m mv) t b

Wisconsin Electnc Power Company BUILDING : South Wing Auxiliary Point Beach Nuclear Plant MOTION 1LNL(0.40G)

Amplified Floor Response Spectra SOIL :Best Estimate IPEEE DIRECTION :EastMIest DAMPING :5%

5 1

1

.i

.i i

i i

i

. i i r--

---

,------,----.- -,--.--.- i.-

s a

---

j------i----*----[-..'--',-'.*-.

8 J-.

J,.-- -l----j/.,lp.--

J,- '-

\\

_--..--.J-------j.----l_--y -- *-,

.J*,-7.\\

--._-.--- ---j__-- - - *- -. ' - - _l - - '. - j - -l.

./

N.-

i

-_----,-------,-----rl--..,- e a--4--.-- (------------,-_-_---. - _ - - - - - - -, -. - - -. - -, - -. -.

.e g

.)

0.5

."r,,s+s.,,. '.. '..

\\

p.

g, s.

y..

/

g

\\,_ t,)

J.

• TI

\\..

l q

---+--

.w..u-y%. %. ;- - - - - - - - \\,- - s.

..i.

....--_s---

_n--.

1. ~

s

.s c)

...-----.-.--a--

---

s.

J i

i e

i 5

q

, /.

( ;.

f

., g.s is g.

/.i g

,g g.,

,,. x s

T _,

4.

n

'.__,#'.,_.s- - - j... - _ [ \\,

],

---

.J, ----/ y#'_I. - - l- - - - j _..,- _ _ l- - q -,- -- _\\.

/

m

,f

\\

- - - - - - [ - - -. -, - - j. J,..

g,r: '

.,.. ~.... -

e J.

t

.. e g

g

,e.

g f

4 4

0.2 Ip Elevation: '.

9 v.

j l

l l

l l

l l l 25 (GROUND) l l

l l l 48

---

26 8

4 0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Figure A-7 Project No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #A 8 of A17

(*

(3

~

i

\\

1u./

Wisconsin Electric Power Company BUILDING :Pipeway #1 Point Beach Nuclear Plant MOTION :LLNL(0.40G)

Amplified Floo.- Response Spectra SOIL :Best Estimate IPEEE DIRECTION : East / West DAMPING :5%

1 i

1 i

.i i

i 4

i i i

. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ q. _ _ _ _ _ j _ _ _ _ _ ;_ _ _ _ j. _ _ ;_ _ _ ;_ '.-

--_-_-_____j-______;_____,'____}___'. _ _;_ _ j - _; _.

. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ q _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j - - - _. ;_ _ _ _ j _ _ _ ;_ _,_ _ q - _,_ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j. - _ _.. } _ _ _ _ ;_ _ _ _ ;_ _ _ _;- _ _; _ _ j _ _; _ _

. f, t-__.-----___,.

.--___.'\\.

.____________,_______,-_..__,__-,___,,f:._r..-.\\

~s.

g.

/

./.

./.:. -.\\,:...,:

i

. \\.i,.

f,g j f.,- f'./

r y pq,s 0.5 eN

.Ng v.

t

-/

f.

_g_\\.._S._\\,_,,T-__..-./..... \\

t s

.__.___.___.__4._._

o g.-

/

g

..,,,.,g.,,,s....p :.,s g

p g

o o

g

/.

____'____'__'___'._j__',

___.___j___,_____q'-_'__

L____ hj"'_'.. N"*

2

[

y g

H f,..

0.2 ElevaISP:

25 (GROUND)

---

23.5 14.95

---

6.5 0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Figere A-8 Project No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #A 9 of A17

f p

t m

Wisconsin Electric Power Company BUILDING :Pipeway #1 Point Beach Nuclear Plant MOTION :LLNL(0.40G)

Amphfied Floor Response Spectra SOIL :Best Estimate IPEEE DIRECTION : North / South DAMPING :5%

1 4

1 i

6 i

i i

i i

i i i i

.i

--..__---__,.. ------,----.----v.--

---

,-- --- r

--.--- r

.-..______.___l_____..j-

..p_._j-._;-

.;__j___

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _.. g_ _ _ _ _ _. }. _ - - _;_ _ _ _ } _ _.; _ _ _; _ _ j - -; - -

-_-______....q ____..j_____p...j.__;__

-_q

,n

,-f'.j_..

_ _ }. _ _ ;_ - _ p.. _;_ _ _;. - j. _l _.

,\\-

\\

j

. \\_.\\f)__J___,.

-_____....._.,_____..,._ _ _ _ _ - - -, r _l. _m_/. w.

• \\ __

. \\.

[..y,'. y,.

. f.,...... \\.,... :.i.. -

p

\\.

0.5 s // r^g.[ % /s. s v. %

g.

. f.

r gr g

AN t

\\.,

s.,

,,.,v

.. @*,___.i

_g__.,..

_,._..___.___.\\

m g

O g

~ -,.

~y-i.

g

\\

i

.o_.

fx

\\

fs-s

.,f w ri g

.d. _ _.l_ _ _ _ j _ _ _l_ _ _ l_ _ q - _;_ _

s'_____ y '_.,..__j,

___l____g...l___;__j__;_.

. i.

s y

.____________f_____-

,. p

. $f.

V 0.2 Elevat&:

25 (GROUND) 23.5 14,95 i

i

---

6.5 4

. i.

0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Figure A-9 Project No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #A10 of A17

O N

f'N V

U sJ Wisconsin Electric Power Company BUILDING :Pipeway #2 Point Beach Nuclear Plant MOTION :LLNL(0.40G)

Amplified Floor Response Spectra SOIL :Best Estimate IPEEE DIRECTION : Longitudinal DAMPING :5%

5 i

i i

i,

i i

i i

.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ q _ _ _ _ _ _ j _ _ _ - ;_. _ _ j _ _ _ ;_ _.._ _.: - _;_ _.____________j-___-- % ;..... _.; _ _ _.,. - j _ _; _ -

25 (GROUND)

_____________2.______4._____i___4.___.___.__2.__.__ _____________4.

......... 47 36 26

......... 14.75 r

2

---

6.5 s.-g

/

rg, s

,, /.

e 1

.., s-. T~.l. __\\,_._,3

_.___4______.4...__.____

___._____i..,_.

7

..._____.4_..._

___4___

._v_

g r--

i--

.--.r-e--

--.h---..-

i------ r ---.---

r--.-

.--i-.--

g_ _.s.,_ _.,.,

2

._.__________q______.4.__g/,f,.y.>-.-...,.-vp ;_ _y _;_ _

r,_ _ _ _ :g _ _ k,_ _ _, p,_ _ _ _ _ _ ; - _ _ _ _;- _ _ _ ;. _ _ _;_ _ _; _ j _; _ _

r 8

is

.. i 0.5 s,

...,,p,_.,,

q, 9

,. f,

_,_..,__.,__'t,..__.,____\\___.

_=,____,.

.____________,____.__,vAf.__,,_i,'__.7,

\\

..v

.v

\\.

-.t---

\\

- -Q1%, *--k.V.. KIN.T. g- - -l.-

- - I - - '.- - -l- - ? - -l- -

..p ;r

. s-

.. p- /..,yN...

- - -l- - -I- - -l - -l- -

c---

y.

2..v

~

0.2 0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Figure A-10 Project No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #A11 of A17

g' %

-g J

t V

Wisconsin Electric Power Company BUILDING :Pipeway #4 Point Beach Nuclear Plant MOTION :LLNL(0.40G)

Amplified Floor Response Spectra SOIL :Best Estimate IPEEE DIRECTION : Longitudinal DAMPING :5%

1 i

i i

i i i

_____________,.i _ _ _ _ _ _ _,., _ _.. _ _ _ _, _, _ _, _ _, _, _.

i i

i 6

i i

1

____________q.______j_____;____j.__;___;__q___

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ; _ _ _ _ _ :_ _ _ _ y _ _ _ _ _ _; _ _ ; _ _: _

.____________q_______4_________; __:__,__q/q

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3. _ _ _ _ _ t. _ _ _ _._ _ _ p _ _ _: _ _ _; _ _. _ _: _.

\\,

_./+.. g ).._,: s_ _

_3___________,._______.____.____,___._____,_..

, p\\.

.____________,_______,_____r__

...... l

.,.f..:

u

.r j.

.,h.--? ?, lig /g bj,g

./

0.5

• f.

v.

/, v.

s,.,

g.- - - _ _ i _ _ 4 -./_ _ _ _ - +. \\

s d.

&,.y,4 _ _ - 4 _ - _._ -..- _ -

_g 2

.____________4

_-____4-_

/.

o.g g

u.

9

\\

g o

h ic(s.

-____________J.______/m 4

_ a..+,A-n ' r-A. y_ _ _ _ '_ _ _ _1. _ _ _' _ _ _ _ _ : _..* _ -

s y

g.

a

~f.v.

0.2 Elevatio. n:

l l

l l

l l l l 25 (GROUND) l.

l l l 26

+

15

= 6.5 a.

0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Figure A-11 Project No. 91C2696 C_001 Sheet #A12 of A17

_ = _ _ _ -

_-.=.._ _

. _ _. _. _ - ~. _ _. _

g rg Wisconsin Electnc Power Company BUILDING :Pipeway #4 Point Beach Nuclear Plant MOTION :LLNL(0.40G)

Amplified Floor Response Spectra SOIL :Best Estimate IPEEE DIRECTION : Transverse DAMPlNG :5%

1 i

i i

i i

i. i i

1 i

i i i

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _. _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _.,. _ _., _ _ _. _ _ _, _ _,. _ _ _ _ _____________,_______,._____,____,i.___., _ _ _., _ _,. _ _, _

..--___.__..J.-__._J.-___'____J.___'__.'..J.__*_

____.____.A._______i_____*____.t.__'-_*_.1.__'__

e i-.

, ar-

.j L,___________j ___ _..'

--_._l_.__

. _ p _ _ _ _ j - _l _ _

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ f.. - _ _ _ _ _ j. _ _ _ '- - _. j _ _ _ l_ _,_/.q'f _p -

\\

/'\\., -g

._______..__._____,_______.,f.,7\\.

_ _ _ _\\.f,.A,/ _ _. r _ _,.

..-g,A. *..

. ;p,._ _

. g_-.____. _________,__..__

, g _ _ e_ _,

i 7

s e

e

. r ;,. _ t; g e;-...e

}

0.5 t,s;r y

."/,,.fr gd.

g V

'\\..

6 g g g

.g__d -____._4.....__N..,_

___4

_ _ _ + _ _ _. _ _ _

o

,4 g

. K.

y

$*j.

g o

g

.\\.

s,s n

- ---- -------i----- f>

- - - l- - - - i. - - -l- - -l.- - i - -l- -

---(-- p '- W..p'.,- - ~..i..,%., - - -l.- - - + -

g p

-i-t-m/.

f

)

0.2

.e i

l l

l l

l l l l Elevati6n:

l l

l l

l l l l

l l

l l

l l l 25 (GROUND) l l

l l

26 15

- 6.5 0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Figure A-12 Project No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #A13 of A17

Wisconsin Electnc Power Company BUILDING : CONTROL Point Beach Nuclear Plant MOTION :LLNL(0.40G)

Amplified Floor Response Spectra SOIL :Best Estimate IPEEE DIRECTION : East / West DAMPlNG :5%

2 i

i a

i i i i

1 i i.

i.

i.

.f

'g,..

..., f.

..f V

. t y...

t..g

.j

,/ n,.h v A.,.

s

. ~.

6 v.

.- /'. --

.i

.,....f.,. p,

.\\

/ s.-

1 1

g.

. ;j

..s.........

y p.

.. _ _ _ i_ _ \\ _g i_ _

_______s*_4.__A.____-.,,t._____.____i.__

__s.__1._.s...

-.________...J..______4...___Ly,.f i

-\\'y _ _ _ _ _ *.

g

____t....___.._1s.

,,f. 1 _ _ _._

__A____.

_a

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~,

.____________a_______1____.

_ _ - _ _ /. _ r,.. ' _ _ ),s - _ _.l-

_ _ ' - -l- _ -l _ _ } _ _' _ -

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _.l _ - _. _ _ _ j _ _ f.m?"._.._..} - _ *'_,, _, - _ A

-_____/'e% % _y.._ s.

s s !;B _ _ e s.

..:.s._ r. eg. _ _

_____._,_ x.

_..q.

~

. s.

__t. ___._...__s..s..

-._.__.._____a.

_ _/. \\

s.X

.,../....,,

o

"' j "e

'n,.

J ~\\

,8 0.5 r

o:/

\\.,.,Q..

5

__t.___4..__i___i__2.__.__ _._________./_2._____,__t._s___.____

.___________a._____

,. -d. f;.

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2._ _./e, 9,.r #

_ _ _ _ _ i. _ _ _ 4. - _ _ e _ _ i_ _ 2. _ _._ ____._________4._______t._-___.-__.t._____s.__2.__._

3 l

l l

l l l Elevation:l l

l l

l l l l t

{,Z1]' #

l 25 (GROUND)

^ yr, p

74

~ ~ - - - - - - -

0.2 1

M 44

/

26 i

l l

l l

l l l l

---

8 l

l l l 3

/.g

+

0.1 1

10 100 1

Frequency (Hz)

Figure A_13 Project No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #A14 of A17

m_.

._.m.

[

/3

(

O

(

Wisconsin Electric Power Company

_ BUILDING: CONTROL Point Beach Nuclear Plant MOTION :LLNL(0.40G)

Amplified Floor Response Spectra SOIL :Best Estimate IPEEE DIRECTION : North / South DAMolNG :5%

2 i

i i

i i

.,i 4

i i..

e.,.~.'

,~

4

.,,.,,,.s.v...

,.f s... /.,t.

,-.f..c....

.\\/

f i

1

..s 1

c.;.

s

-.___..._____a.____.__2._____t

_J,s

_.____m,.._4______,_i.___...___t.....___.__4.;_.

__.,_t 3

.____________s._____._s. _ - _ _ _ t y.?fs. :. _t._ _ _'.~._ a,..

-__f~..'y__4._--___\\..__.__.._t. ___.___.__4._...

---

4

---

l---

. ~..-ff-s,f-v '-l-% "----y--

2'.-,, - - i ',- - '- - - - f - - '.- - -l- - { - -l -

?3 y

fg r.

g

__i___ :.

_______y

___4..___;__.-_______t___.__..__i.__.i_.

.j,,,., f. _ _ A.

f \\,j,).,.

O

____________a.._____2.__;.

is y

.s

'.,... ' ' ' ~. s j..

's'

N

.,o 0.5

.' s-

/

g u

.s fy __.t___4.-_.c____a__.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _...v.. /_ b..s____.__..

i JI!

.s s

4. _ _ _ _ _ e _ _ _ 4.. _ _ i_ _ _ c _ a. _. i_ _

_.___._______4..___.-_i._____.___,t...____.__4...,__

Elevation: *

...r, 0.2 25 (GROUND) pg.

74 M

44 26 8

l l

l l

~~

l l

l l

l l 1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

~ Figure A_14 Project No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #A15 o' A17

4 1

_/

s Wisconsin Electric Power Company BUILDING : Fuel Oil Pump House Point Beach Nuclear Plant MOTION :LLNL(0.40G)

Amphfied Floor Response Spectra SOIL :Best Estimate IPEEE DIRECTION : Horizontal DAMPING :5%

i 5.

i 6

i i i i

4 i

i i.

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J,. _ _ _ _ _ _ q. _ _ _ _ p - _ y - - _ ;_ _ _ ;- _ J _ _ ;_ _ _ _ _ _... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j _ _ _ _ - - -lilevatior - _ - - [ f -l- _ -l- - j -: -

25 (GROUND)

___2.___'.___'.__a'_'._.

,._______4._____-.

35.33

.____________2.______.2_____'t.

i..

i 25.42

---

5

.f a-\\.

r--

2 e

./

N.

g

,/. v.,.

\\,.

3_/.,,./

i e

1

.J

\\.

________ u ___ _______ _____.____,.___.___.__,,___.

-___________2.____________.-___,_V____..;__.__

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,. -g_____,._____,

c

_____________,_______,._____. ___ j. _,. _, _. _ _. _

g

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j _ _ _ _ _p;_ _ _,n/'.*_

_____.._____.,_;_J.-

g _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _: _ _ _;- - j _ _; _.

3

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ q _ _

_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.(. _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _;_ _ _ _ p _ _ _: _ _ _; _ _ ; _ _; _.

.=

.____________4.______;_____

y 0.5

.,, v,_s.

v.

4.

.f

.i

____.______,______-,./*.[4__-,___,._,._,__.__

f.

s

,._3_.

.____________4.___r__j_5,___'c___;

_______.;____ _ \\_ _ _ _3t z_- _ _ _ ; _ _ _ _ _ x _ _ _ _;_ _ _ _ ; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ; _ _ _ _

.s s r<o r i.

0.2

-se.,

0.1 l l

1 10 100 i

Frequency (Hz)

Figure A-15 Project No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #A16 of A17

N m

+

Wisconsin Electric Power Company BUILDING : Circulating Watcr Pump House Point Beach Neclear Plant MOTION :LLNL(0.40G)

Amplified Floor Response Spectra SOIL :Best Estimate IPEEE DIRECTION : Horizontal DAMPING :5%

2 i

i 6

i i.

/.g.\\

l Elevatiort 4

i i

i i i l

l l

l l

l l l

/

g

/

l 25 (GROUND) j

\\.

29.5 7

j

\\

i.

l

---

-28.5 l

l 1

t r

._.____.....;__...._2.__.._L.__1...._.L.J._.t..['..._,...\\.A..__....L..__.......A.-._.__....A..J._

e

...____J._...

4.__-._L-__a...t...__J.._t

--....-_'\\..A.-_.---1...--_t-L...J.......A.__..-

---

y1--

r.----

r--.--.

T-.-

.,-./

3-----

3

-j-------j-----l---, y.[-h j - -l-[- - - - - - - - - - - -(- - - - - -, - - - - '- - - - ; - - -l - - -l-2 - -l - -

. _. \\..

.\\

../%.,r3 I.,/

.A i

i C

/

g 0.5 p

eg, g g ',, /.*'.\\

\\,..'.

g

'~

• p4

. ~1 R

_..____...__J..____..J._

.. Lf _ ; a. _ _ _ t _. t g a _ _' * -Cd -k e+g*

'.------E.'*--'--.

e

., j gi e.

i g

t.'

/:

, 1,.

4.;,

.\\.

. N.

o

)

_..._____.a._...._ a...../;..

4....t____J..W_1, / _ _ _ - - - -.. - - _ 2. _ h. _ _

/.,g

-d'.~f.*,,3,,._.._..t._s...._i.._.

.v /.;

i i

~,

j

.N'

.. J.1 02

.. e.

. i.

p 0.1 1

10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Figure A-16 Project No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #A17 of A17

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #81 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18

. /"

k STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Anoendix B: Comouter Run and Verification of Dynamic Building Models To venfy that the fixed-base models are accurate, soit springs emulating the soil stiffnesses in the original models were added to the base of the models and the modal properties again extracted. The frequencies of the COSMOS /M models were compared with the frequencies of the original models.

Containment Building

\\

The dynamic model including the node coordinates, stick cross-sectional properties, and the masses are extracted directly from the Bechtel report (3].

Since the torsional effect is not incorporated in the original model, the X (East 28.5 degree North) and the Y (West 61.5 degree North) models are independent of each other. The input file for the fixed.

based COSMOS /M models are enclosed in the disks.

Direction COSMOS /M Input File X

RBXFX. MOD Y

RBYFX. MOD All units in the COSMOS /M files are in kips and ft. The masses have units of kip'sec^2/ft. In thr., input files, the cocrdinates, the area, and the moment of inertia of the sticks are copied directly from the Bechtel report. The mass values in the Bechtel report are in kips weight, they have to be convarted to the mass units in COSMOS /M as shown in the following table:

Mass Point Weight (kips)

Mass (kip *sec^2/ft) 1 25500 792.664 2

3800 118.122 3

5400 167.858 4

5400 167.858 5

6600 2')5.160 6

9200 285.981 7

3746 116.444 8

6000 186.509 9

4700 146.099 10 1900 59.061 11 5400 167.858 12 550 17.097 13 290 9.015 14 270 8.393 15 102 3.171 Table B Containment Auxiliary Building Mass Conversion

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #B2 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Verification of the model i

To venfy that the reconstructed dynamic modelis correct, the above modelis attached with base springs and solved for the eigen values. The original base spring is equivalent to a translational spring of 5

K = 3.333x10 kips / ft y

in each direction.

The rotational spring in each direction is K,m = 2

• Ky

• R*

5 2

j

= 2

• 5.257x10

• 60

= 3.785x10' kips ft where R = 60 ft is the half dimension for the Containment Structure and Ky = 5.257x10' kips / ft is

gN

()

the original base vertical spring constant in the Bechtel report.

The COSMOS /M models with soil springs and shear area in the two models exchanged used to verify 1

the model are enclosed in the disks.

\\

Direction COSMOS /M Input File X

RBY2XSP. MOD Y

RBX2YSP. MOD The results of the fixed-base runs are stored in files RBXFX.OUT and RBYFX.OUT. The results of the spring-base runs are stored in files RBY2XSP.OUT and RBX2YSP.OUT. The frequency results are compared in the following tables.

Mode No.

FEM Fixed-FEM Base Original Base Base Spdng Spdng 1

5.39 Hz 1.66 Hz 1.66 Hz 2

18.30 19.17 19.05 3

32.08 32.43 l

32.18 Table B Containment Structure X Direction Modal Frequencies

k 9

i

~

SHEET #B3 JOB NO. 91C2696 i

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm

. Mode No.

FEM Fixed-FEM Base Original Base Base Spring Spring 1

9.79 4.08 4.07

~

2 13.03 10.06 10.09 3

30.36 30.34 30.48 Table B Containmedt iritdaIX Direction Modal Frequencies Mode No.

FEM Fixed-FEM Base Original Base I

Base Spring Spring 1

5.39 Hz 1.66 Hz 1.66 Hz 2

18.3 9.28 9.24 3

32.08 19.14 19.02 Table B Containment Structure Y Direction Modal Frequencies Mode No.

FEM Fixed-FEM Base Original Base O

i Base.

Spring Spring 1

9.93 -

4.08 4.07 2

26.69 13.26 13.25 3

34.78 28.86 28.68 Table B Containment Intemal Y Direction Modal Frequencies The very slight difference in frequencies between the FEM models with base spring and the original models is believed to be caused mainly by the fact that the original model used stiff beam members to simulate the base springs rather than using ideal spring elements.

South Wing Auxiliary Building The dynamic model including the node coordinates, stick cross-sectional properties, and the masses are extracted directly from the Bechtel report [4).

Since the torsional effect is not incorporated in the original model, the East / West and North / South i

models are independent of each cther. Only the weaker axis, East / West direction, was modeled and evaluated in the Bechtel report. The input file for the fixed-based COSMOS /M model is enclosed in the disks.

Direction COSMOS /M Input File East / West SAUXEWFX. MOD All units in the COSMOS /M file are in kips and ft. The masses have units of kip *sec^2/ft. In the input O

file, the coordinates, the area, and the moment of inertia of the sticks are copied directly from the

S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #B4

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF-818 AO STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Bechtel report. The mass values in the Bechtel report are in kips weight, they have to be converted to the mass units in COSMOS /M as shown in the following table:

Mass Point Weight (kips)

Mass (kip'sec^2/ft) 1 6730 209.200 2

6650 206.714 3

833.

258.968 Tabie B South Wing Auxiliary Building Mass Conversion Verification of the modei To verify that the reconstn.'cted dynamic model is correct, the above model is attached with base springs and solved for the eigen values. The original base spring is equivalent to a translational spring of K = 1.25x10' kips / ft y

in the East / West direction.

O-The rot:tional spring in the East / West direction is K,m = 2

• Ky

• R*

= 2

• 1.06x10' ' 32.22

= 2.198x10' kips ft where R = 32.2 ft is the half dimension for the S uth Wing Auxiliary Building and 5

Ky = 1.06x10 kips / ft is the original base vertical spring constant in the Bechtel report in the East / West direction.

The COSMOS /M East / West model with soil springs used to verify the model is enclosed in the disks.

Direction COSMOS /M input File East / West SAUXEWSP. MOD The result of the fixed-base run is stored in file SAUXEWFX.OUT. The result of the spring-base run is stored in file SAUXEWSP.OUT. The frequency results are compared in the following table.

Mode No.

FEM Fixed-FEM Base Original Base Base Spnng Spnng 1

14.20 Hz 1.90 Hz 1.90 Hz 2

39.26 6.03 6.05 Table B Scath Wing Auxiliary Building East / West Modal Frequencies

'~

1 S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #B5

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-0_01 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm l

The very slight difference in frequencies between the FEM models and the original models is negligible.

Central Part Auxiliary Building The dynamic model including the node coordinates, stick cross-sectional properties, and the masses are extracted directly from the Bechtel report [4]

Since the torsional effect is not incorporated in the original model, the EastM/est and North / South models are independent of each other. The input files for the fixed-based COSMOS /M model are enclosed in the disks.

Direction COSMOS /M input File East / West CAUXEWFX. MOD North / South CAUXNSFX. MOD All units in the COSMOS /M files are in kips and ft. The masses have units of kip'sec^2/ft. In the input C

files, the coordinates, the area, and the moment ofinertia of the sticks are copied directly from the

\\

Bechtel report. The mass values in the Bechtel report are in kips weight, they have to be converted to the mass units in COSM%ivi as shown in the following table:

I Mass Pcint Weight (kips)

Mass (kip *sec^2/ft) 1 10600 329.5 2

10940 340.068 3

9660 300.28 4

780 24.246 Table B Central Part Auxiliary Building Mass Conversion Verification of the model To verify that the reconstructed dynamic model is correct, the above model is attached with base springs and solved for the eigen values. The original base spring is equivalent to a translational spring of K = 1.54x10' kips / f1 y

in the East / West direction and K = 1.57x10' kips / ft y

in the North / South direction.

e

4 p

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #B6 Ub

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18 o

STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm The rotational spring in the East / West direction is K,w, = 2

• Ky

• R'

= 2

• 8.7x10'

• 82.52

= 1.184x10' kips ft and for the North / South direction, K,7_ = 2

• Ky

• R*

5 2

= 2

• l.32x10

• 41

= 4.438x10* kips ft where R = 82.5 ft and 41 ft are the half dimension for the Central Part Auxiliary Building and 5

Ky = 8.7x10* kips / ft and 132x10 kips / ft a e the original base vertical spring constants in the Bechtel report.

/C The COSMOS /M models with soil springs used to verify the model are enclosed in the disk.

Direction COSMOS /M Input File East / West CAUXEWSP. MOD North / South CAUXNSSP. MOD The results of the fixed-base runs are stored in files CAUXEWFX.OUT and CAUXNSFX.OUT. The results of the spring-base runs are stored in files CAUXEWSP.OUT and CAUXNSSP.OUT. The frequency results are compared in the following tables.

Mode No.

FEM Fixed-FEM Base Original Base Base Spring Spring i

19.16 Hz 1.93 Hz 1.90 Hz 2

38.24 10.76 9.343 3

51.39 39.49 39.57 54.53 54.57 4

Table B Central Auxiliary Building East / West Modal Frequencies V'

~.

SHEET #B7 S &A I JOB NO. 91C2696

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18 i

4 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Mode No.

FEM Fixed.

FEM Base Original Base Base Spring Spring 1

18.25 Hz 1.874 Hz 1.837 Hz 2

37.48 7.11 6.390 Table B Central Auxiliary Building North / South Modal Frequencies The very slight difference in frequencies between the FEM models with base spring and the original models is believed to be caused mainly by the fact that the original model used stiff beam members to simulate the base springs rather than using ideal sp-ing elements.

Pipeway #1 3

The dynamic model including the node coordinates, s:ick cross-sectional properties, and the masses are extracted directly from the Bechtel report [5]

d Since the torsional effect is not incorporated in the original model, the East / West and North / South p

models are independent of each other. The input files for the fixed-based COSMOS /M model are enclosed in the disks.

i Direction COSMOS /M Input File East / West PW1EWXFX. MOD North / South PW1NSFX. MOD All units in the COSMOS /M files are in kips and ft. The masses have units of kip'sec^2/ft. In the input files, the coordinates, the area, and the moment of inertia of the sticks are copied directly from the Bechtel report. The mass values in the Bechtel report are in kips weight, they have to be converted to the mass units in COSMOS /M as shown in the following tablo:

Mass Point Weight (kips)

Mass (kip *sec^2/ft) 1 615.5 19.133 2

161.0 5.005 3

135.0 4.196 Table B Pipeway #1 Mass Conversion Verification of the model To verify that the reconstructed dynamic model is correct, the above modelis directly compared with the original fixed-base model. The results of the fixed-base runs are stored in files PW1EWFX.OUT and PW1NSFX.OUT. The frequency results are compared in the following tables.

O

~

S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 S H E E T (l B 8

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

)

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 L

a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 consulting engineering firm Chk. TMT 6/20/95 j

Mode No.

FEM Fixed-Original Fixed-Base Sase l

1 33.36 Hz 33.38 Hz l

2 107.90 107.96 Table B Pipeway #1 East / West Modal Frequencies Mode No.

FEM Fixed-Original Fixed-Base Base 1

21.21 Hz 21.21 Hz 2

' 56.91 56.824 Table B Pipeway #1 North / South Modal Frequencies The very slight difference in frequencies between the FEM models and the original models is insignificant.

Pipeway #2 and RWST r

Since the Pipeway #2 and RWST are both seated on the same foundation mat, both models need to be reconstructed and incorporated into the SSI analysis. The dynamic models of Pipeway #2 and RWST including the node coordinates, stick cross-sectonal properties, and the masses are extracted directly from the Bechtel report [5].

Since the torsional effect is not incorporated.in the original model, the longitudinal and transverse models are independent of each other. Only the dyname model in transverse direction was modeled and evaluated in the Bechtel report. The input flie for the fixed-based COSMOS /M model is enclosed in the disks.

Direction COSMOS /M input File Transverse P2RWSTFX. MOD All units in the COSMOS /M files are in kips and ft. The masses have units of kip *sec^2/ft. In the input file, the coordinates, the area, and the moment of inertia of the sticks are copied directly from the Bechtel report. The mass values in the Bechtel report are in kips weight, they have to be converted to the mass units in COSMOS /M as shown in the following table:

O

S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #B9

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18 i

O

\\j STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering film Mass Point Weight (kips)

Mass (kip'sec^2/ft) 1 450.0 13.988 2

274.0 8.517 3

279.0 8.673 4

233.0 7.243 5

228.0 7.087 6

450.0 13.988 7

283.0 8.797 8

282.0 8.766 9 to 12 281.7 8.757 13 and 14 6.7 0.208 15 10.4 0.323 Table B Pipeway #2 and RWST Mass Conversion Verification of the model To verify that the reconstructed dynamic model is correct, the above model is attached with base springs and solved for the eigen values. The original base springs in the Bechfel report are shown in

'g Figure B-1. They are a translational spring of Ky = 5.35x10' kips / ft and two vertical springs of Ky = 3.35x10' kips / ft in the transverse direction.

I S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #B10

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18

,lOV STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm 1

a Refueling Water Storage Tank 2

O Pipeway #2 %

O O

1 0

Kh

d

<xxxxx O xxxxxxx[ ',xxxxxxx Ky 33 g 19 18' Ky y

y o

Figure B Pipeway #2 and RWST with Base Spring Model The CC',MOS/M model with soil springs used to verify the model is enclosed in the disks.

Direction COSMOS /M Input File Transverse PW2&RWST. MOD The result of the fixed-base run is stored in file P2RWSTFX.OUT. The result of the spring-base run is stored in file PW2&RWST.OUT. The frequency results are compared in the following table.

t Mode No.

FEM Fixed-FEM Base Original Base Base Spnng Spnng i

12.64 5.94 6.34 Table B Pipeway #2 Transverse Modal Frequency 0G

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #B11 QL7 & A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm

, Mode No.

FEM Fixed-FEM Base Onginal Base Base Spring Spring 1

4.75 Hz 2.44 Hz 2.53 Hz 2

17.43 9.28 10.52 Table B RWST Transverse Modal Frequencies The difference in frequencies between the FEM models with base spring and the original models is believed to be mainly due to the way the foundation springs were modeled, which does not affect the -

fixed-base results for the SSI analysis.

Pipeway #4 The dynamic model including the node coordinates, stick cross-sectional properties, and the masses are extracted directly from the Bechtel report (5].

Since the torsional effect is not incorporated in the original model, the longitudinal and transverse models are independent of each other. The input flies for the fixed-based COSMOS /M model are O

enclosed in the disks.

}

Direction COSMOS /M Input File l

Longitudinal PW4LGFX. MOD j

Transverse PW4TRFX. MOD All units in the COSMOS /M files are in kips and ft. The masses have units of kip'sec^2/ft. In the input files, the coordinates, the area, and the moment of inertia of the sticks are copied directly from the l

Bechtel report. The mass values in the Bechtel report are in kips weight, they have to be converted to l

the mass units in COSMOS /M as shown in the following tablo:

l Mass Point Weight (kips)

Mass (kip'sec^2/ft) 1 1040.0 32.328 2

250.0 7.771 4

3 242.4 7.535 4

l Table B Pipeway #4 Mass Conversion i

l Verification of the model i

To verify that the reconstructed dynamic model is correct, the above model is attached with base l-springs and solved for the eigen values. The original base spring is equivalent to a translational spring of v.

Ky = 5.8x10' kips / ft

- O 4

in the longitudinal direction and l

i a

1 JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #B12 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18 fi 4

d STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm K = 5.7x10'. kips / ft y

in the transverse direction.

1 The rotational spring in the longitudinal direction is K,w, = 2

• Ky

• R' 2

i

= 2

• 5.1x10'

• 15

= 2.295x10' kips ft and for the transverse direction, K,7_ = 2

• Ky

• R*

2

= 2

• 3.2x10'

• 32

= 6.5536x10' kips ft where R = 15 ft and 32 ft are the half dimension for the Pipeway #4 and Ky = 5.1x10' kips / ft and 3.2x10' kips / ft are the original base vertical spring constants in the Bechtel report.

The COSMOS /M models with soil springs used to verify the model are enclosed in the disks.

Direction COSMOS /M Input File Longitudinal PW4LGSP. MOD Transverse PW4TRSP. MOD The results of the fixed-base runs are stored in files PW4LGFX.OUT and PW4TRFX.OUT. The results of the spring-base runs are stored in files PW4LGSP.OUT and PW4TRSP.OUT. The frequency results are compared in the following tables.

Mode No.

FEM Fixed.

FEM Base Original Base Base Spring Spring 1

29.45 Hz 5.37 Hz 5.35 Hz 2

71.51 14.503 14.196 Table B Pipeway #4 Longitudinal Modal Frequencies

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #813

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Mode No.

FEM Fixed.

FEM Base Original Base Base-Spnng Spnng 1

21.76 Hz 5.41 Hz 5.40 Hz 2

62.33 18.36 18.34 Table B Pipeway #4 Transverse Modal Frequencies The very slight difference in frequencies between the FEM models with base spring and the original models is believed to be caused by the fact that the original model used stiff beam members to simulate the base springs rather than using ideal spring elements.

Control Building The dynamic model including the node coordinates, stick cross-sectional properties, and the masses are extracted directly from the Bechtel report [5].

Since the torsional effect is not incorporated in.tha. original model, the longitudinal and transverse models are independent of each other. The input files for the fixed-based COSMOS /M model are enclosed in the disks.

Direction COSMOS /M input File East /WM CONTEWXFX. MOD North / South CONTNSFX. MOD All units in the COSMOS /M files are in kips and ft. The masses have units of kip'sec^2/ft. In the input files, the coordinates, the area, and the moment of inertia of the sticks are copied directly from the Bechtel report. The mass values in the Bechtel report are in kips weight, they have to be converted to the mass units in COSMOS /M as shown in the following table:

1 Mass Point Weight (kips)

Mass (kip'sec^2/ft) 1 3726 115.822 2

--4700..

146.099 3

2742 85.235 4

1670 51.912 5

1331 41.374 Table B Control Building Mass Conversion Verification of the model Bechtel report provided fixed-base North / South dynamic model. To verify that the reconstructed East / West dynamic model is correct, the above,model is attached with base springs and solved for the eigen values.- The original base spring is equivalent to a translational spring of K = 1.36x10' kips / ft y

S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #B14

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18 4

STEVENSON Point Beech SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm in the East / West direction.

e The rotational spring in the East / West direction is 1

Km, = 2

• Ky

• R' 2

= 2

• 8.5x10'

• 653

= 7.249x10' kips ft where R = 65.3 ft are the half dimension for the Control Building in East / West direction and l

Ky = 8.5x10' kips / ft is the original base vertical spring constant in the Bechtel report.

The COSMOS /M models with soil springs used to verify the East / West model are enclosed in the disks.

Direction COSMOS /M Ingut File East / West CONTEWXSP MOD The results of the fixed-base runs are stored in files CONTEWFX.OUT and CONTNSFX.OUT. The result of the spring-base run IS stored in file CONTEWSP.OUT. The frequency results are compared in the following tables.

Mode No.

FEM Fixed-FEM Base Origina. Base Base Spring Spring 1

9.815 Hz 2.576 Hz 2.57 Hz 2

26.564 8.473 8.46 1

3 36.377 29.520 4

59.076 37.295 Table B Control Building East / West Modal Frequencies Mode No.

FEM Fixed-Original Fixed-Base Base 1

11.846 Hz 11.86 Hz 2

28.812 29.314 3

42.082 42.603 4

62.178 62.102 Tablo B Control Building North / South Modal Frequencies The slight difference in frequencies of between the FEM North / South model with fixed base and the original model is believed to be no significant effect on the SSI results.

p

S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #B15

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Fuel Oil Pump House The dynamic model including the node coordinates, stick cross-sectional properties, and the masses are extracted directly from the Bechtel report (6).

Since the torsional effect is not incorporated in the original model, the East / West and North / South models are independent of each other. Furthermore, properties of members in each direction are very nearly the same and th0 soil spring constants are the only change in the two models. Therefore, only one direction is needed 13 reconstruct and verify..The input file for the fixed-based COSMOS /M model is enclosed in the disks.

Direction COSMOS /M input File East / West FOPHEWXFX. MOD All units in the COSMOS /M files are in kips and ft. The masses have units of kip'sec^2/ft. In the input files, the coordinates, the area, and the moment ofinertia of the sticks are copied directly from the Bechtel report. The mass values in the Bechtel report are in kips weight, they have to be converted to the mass units in COSMOS /M as shown in the following table:

O Mass Point Weight (kips)

Mass (kip'sec^2/ft)

, V 1

794 24.681 a

2 270 -

8.393 3

135 4.197 8

Table B Fuel Oil Pump House nAass Conversion l

Verification of the model 4

To verify that the reconstructed dynamic model is correct, the above modelis attached with base springs and solved for the eigen values. The original base spring is equivalent to a translational spring of Ky = 2.7x10' kips / ft in the North / South direction.

The rotational spring in the North / South directioriis Km = 2

• Ky

• R'

= 2

• 1.6x10'

• 14.52

= 6.728x10' kips ft 4

where R = 14.5 ft is the half dimension for the Fuel Oil Pump House and Ky = 1.6x10 kips / ft is

(/

the original base vertical spring constant in the Bechtel report in the North / South Direction.

m-

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #816 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm The COSMOS #p North / South model with soil springs used to verify the model is enclosed in the disks.

Direction COSMOS /M Input File East / West FOPHEWXSP. MOD The result of the fixed-base run is stored in file FOPHNSFX.OUT. The result of the spring-base run is stored in file FOPHNSSP.OUT. The frequency results are compared in the following table.

Mode No.

FEM Fixed.

FEM Base Onginal Base Spring 1

16.42 Hz -

- 4.55 Hz 4.55 Hz 2

52.57 7.42 7.41 I

l Table B Fuel Oil Pump House North / South Modal Frequencies j

The very slight difference in frequencies between the FEM models and the original models is negligible.

1 Circulating Water Pump House O

The dynamic model including the node coordinates, stick cross-sectional properties, and the masses are extracted directly from the Sargent & Lundy report [7].

Sinco the torsional effect is not incorporated in the original model, the two horizontal models are 3

t indepe.ndent of each other. Only one of the direction was modeled and evaluated in the original

{

report. The input file for the fixed-based COSMOS /M model of the superstructure is enclosed in the i

disks.

Direction COSMOS /M input File Honzontal PHROT&FX. MOD I

All units in the COSMOS /M file are in kips and ft. The masses have units of kip *sec^2/ft in translation I

and kip *ft'sec^2 in rotation. In the input No, the coordinates, the area, and the moment of inertia of j

the steks are copied directly from the Sangent & Lundy report. The mass values in the Sangent &

j Lundv report are in kips weight or kips *ft^2, they have to be converted to the mass units in COSMOS /M as shown in the following table:

Mass Point Component Weight Mass 1245 kips 38.67 kip'sec^2/ft 2

Translation l

2 Rotation 117000 kip *ft^2 3633.54 kip *ft'sec^2 Table B Circulating Water Pump House Superstructure Mass Conversion O

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #B17

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF B18 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Verification of the model To verify that the reconstructed dynamic model is correct, the above model is directly compared with the original fixed-base model. The results of the fixed-base runs are stored in file PHROT&FX.OUT.

The frequency results are compared in the following table.

1 Mode No.

FEM Fixed-Original Fixed.

Base Base 1

13.34 Hz 13.34 Hz 2

52.25 52.25 Table B Circulating Water Pump House Horizontal Modal Frequencies The FEM model produces results identical to the frequencies in the original report.

(

,.C

Calculation No. C-001 Sheet #818 of 818 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS:

Eigen Solution of Frequency and Mode Shapes of Containment Building, North and South Wings and Central Part of Primary Auxiliary Building, Pipeway #1 to #4, Control Building, Fuel Oil and Circulating Water Pump Houses COMPUTER CODE:

COSMOS /M VERSION: 1.61 RELEASE DATE:

Aug.1990 AUTHOR / VENDOR:

SRAC COMPUTER TYPE / SYSTEM:

IBM Compatible PROGRAM STATUS:

O Project Specific S GeneralUse/QA Approved VERIFICATION / VALIDATION DOCUMENTATION:

O Attached S On File 4

RUN NUMBER:

ORIGINATOR DATE CHECKER DATE EPRODUCED MSLI 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ON LISTING MODEL VALID AND MSU 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ASSUMPTIONS DOCUMENTED PROGRAM APPROPRIATE AND MSU 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ADEQUATE MODEL BEHAVES MSLI 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 REASONABLE RESULTS PROPERLY MSLI 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 INTERPRETED REMARKS:

COMPUTER C

PROGRAM CONTRACT NO.

COVER SHEET 91C2696 FIGURE 2.8

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #C1

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF C12

('s C/

STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Apoendix C: SSI Batch Process introduction The batch process consists of a set of.lNI files, one file for each run case, a set of BASIC programs written in Quick Basic Version 4.5 to prepare and convert the files between the different processes, and two WINDOWS 3.1 programs written in Visual Basic Version 2.0 to generate and export Floor Response Spectra.

The main batch file is SSI. BAT prepls if exist laysol.out del laysol.out if exist laysol.y* del laysol.y*

1aysol <1aysol.res prepse if exist supelm.out del supelm.out supelm <supelm.res kinint kinint.inp kinint.out expand $_timhis.ux 11nlux.th 0.01

[sNs}

expand $_timhis.ry lin1ry.th 0.01 prepeks if exist ekssiew.out del ekseiew.out ekssi <ekssiew.res ep2th ew if exist ekssins.out del ekssins.out ekssi <ekssins.res ep2th ns preplis The batch process is discussed in the following sections roughly in the order of the execution sequence of the batch. The data files are described first and then the processor programs.

l l

3(V

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #C2 i

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF C12 V

STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 l

a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 i

Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm

• INI Files The parameters for the various runs are collected in the INI files to facilitate the batch process. The INI files are listed in the following. The INI files follow a fixed naming convention. For example, CALLNL4B stands for Central Auxiliary Building, LLNL O.4G, best estimate soil properties.

A typical INI file consist of the following properties:

Title:

The Building or Structure name Soil:

Best Estimate, Low Bound, or High Bound Motion:

Input motion Soil File:

Soil file, discussed later CS Ratio:

Multiplier on the soil properties in the soil file TH File:

Input time history file for LAYSOL TH Peak:

Peak ground acceleration in G Radius:

Equivalent radius for building Building Damping:

7% is. assumed for all buildings Mass File:

Mass file, to be discussed later Mode Shape EW.

E-W direction modal file Mode Shape NS:

N-S direction modal file DT:

Time step for the time history No of Modes:

Number of modes Swaying Pile Impedance Dynamic stiffness and damping of pile in swaying (format : stiffness, damping)

Rocking Pile Impedance Dynamic stiffness and damping of pile in rocking (format : stiffness, damping)

Subdirectory:

Subdirectory name to store the results Common Z:

level of the common support (for EKSSI)

Table C List of Properties of INI File The INI files for the IPEEE analyses sre enclosed in the disks and listed in the following:

Building or Structure INI File Containment RPLLNL48.lNI Central Auxiliary CALLNL48.INI South Wing Auxiliary SALLNL48.INI Pipeway #1 P1LLNL48.INI Pipeway #2 P2LLNL48.INI Pipeway #4 P4LLNL48.lNI Control CBLLNL48.lNI Fuel Oil Pump House FOLLNL48.INI Circulating Water Pump House PHLLNL48.INI O

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #C3 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF C12 7-STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Building Equivalent Radius The SUPELM program idealizes the building foundation as circular disks and compute the impedance matrix accordingly. The equivalent radius of the circular foundation is computed by equating the area of the circular foundation to the actual foundation area of the building. This approximation works well in general. The sensitivity of this approximation has been further discussed in the last section of this report.

The foundation dimensions are summarized in the following table:

Building or Structure Length Width Area Radius Reference 10599 58.083 ft Drawing No. C-142 rev.17 Containment Central Auxiliary 165

'82~

13530 65.626 Bechtel Report South Auxiliary 133.4 64.6 7326 52.374 Bechtel Report Pipeway #1 (58)

(26) 1557 22.261 Drawing No. C-142 rev.17 Pipeway #2 (48)

(34) 1577 22.402 Drawing No. C-142 rev.17 Pipeway #4 (64)

(30) 1479 21.694 Drawing No. C-144 rev. 8 Control 130.7 82 10717 58.408 Bechtel Report Fuel Oil Pump Hse (19)

(19) 481*

12.374 Drawing No. C-19 rev. 5 h,/N Circulating Water Pump Hse 134 119 15948 71.244 Sargent & Lundy Report j

• Area = 19 x 19 + 12 x 10 Table C List of Building Equivalent Radius Soil Property Files The soil property file contains the best estimate. soil properties and the level of embeddment. The soil layers are discretized to 5 ft layers. The level of embeddment ar;d therefore the computation of the impedance matrix are done at the nearest layer intersection.

The first line of the soil file consists of the number of soillayers and the location of the foundation base in terms of the number of sublayers, it then follows by NLAYER lines. Each line specifies the number of sublayers in the layer, the thickness of the layer, the shear wave velocity (ft/sec), the density (Ib'sec^2/ft), damping ratio, and the Poisson's ratio.

Building or Structure Soil Property File Containment Building and Fuel Oil Pump House RBBEST. SOL Auxiliary Buildings and Pipeway Structures AUXBEST. SOL Control Building TBBEST. SOL Circulating Water Pump House PHBEST. SOL Table C List of Soil Property Files

[d

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #C4

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF C12 O

V STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 i

a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm

{

Mass Files The mass files keep the coordinate and the mass data for the building models. They are listed below.

The Mass files is formatted as NNODES - Number of nodes.

NNODES lines of vertical coordinates showing the elevation of eie nodes in ft.

NNODES lines of masses, each line contains a' single mass (Ib'sec^2/ft) except the first mass for the base include two extra numbers. They are the mass moment of inertia in the E-W and the N-S directions respectively. The coordinate and mass data are derived directly from the original Bechtel seismic analysis of the Point Beach station in 1969 (Job 6118).

Building or Structure. _ _

Mass File Containment RBMASS.DAT South Wing Auxiliary SAUXMASS.DAT Central Part Auxiliary CAUXMASS.DAT Pipeway #1 P1 MASS.DAT Pipeway #2 & RWST P2RWMASS.DAT Pipeway #4 P4 MASS.DAT j

Control CONTMASS.DAT Fuel Oil Pump House FOPHMASS.DAT Circulating Water Pump House.

PHMASS.DAT Table C-4_ Ust of Mass Files Modal Files The modal files contain the frequencies and the mode shapes of the building models. The modal data were developed using COSMOS /M finite element program, These files are directly included in the EKSSI input files.

Building or Structure Direction Mass File Containment X

RBXFX.SHP Containment Y

RBYFX.SHP South Wing Auxiliary East / West SAUXEWFX.SHP Central Part Auxiliary CAUXEWFX.SHP Central Part Auxiliary North / South CAUXNSFX.SHP Pipeway #1 East / West PW1EWFX.SHP Pipeway #1 North / South PW1NSFX.SHP Pipeway #2 & RWST Transverse P2RWSTFX.SHP Pipeway #4 Longitudinal PW4LGFX.SHP Pipeway #4 Transverse PW4TRFX.SHP

(',

Control East / West CONTEWFX.SHP Control North / South CONTNSFX.SHP

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #C5

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF C12

(\\

STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Fuel Oil Pump House Horizontal FOPHEWFX.SHP Circulating Water Pump House PHEWFX.SHP Table C List of Shape Files LAYSOL Preprocessor - PREPLS The PREPLS program reads the current data from file CURRENT.INI and prepares the LAYSOL input file. Before starting the SSI. BAT batch process,'the user must copy th3 relevant INI file to CURRENT.INI. Program file PREPLS. BAS is enclosed in the disks.

SUPELM Preprocessor - PREPSE The PREPSE program reads the current data from file CURRENT.INI and prepares the SUPELM input file. Program file PREPSE. BAS is enclosed in the disks.

Program LAYSOL computes a new shear wave velocity for each layer based on the seismic input and moduli reduction curve versus shear strain for soils. The Poisson's ratio, the shear wave velocity and compression wave velocity have the following relations:

\\

,1-2a 2 -2a

'C'*

-E and a=

< C, >

where C = shearwave velocity 3

C, = compression wave velocity If the Poisson's ratio is unchanged, the new shear wave velocity will cause the compression wave velocity to change in order to maintaining the above relations. Experiment data of dynamic response of soils shows that compression wave velocity of soils is unchanged. Therefore, a new Poisson's ratio for each layer is computed based on the following relationships in order to keep compression wave velocity unchanged.

1--2v,y O

ou

• 2 - 2 vou

' C,,, '

• _ ' C,,, ' ' ' C.u ' *

' C,, ' '

s.

3_

p

< C,,

< C,,u, < C,,

< Cs_,u,

'w)

S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #C6

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF C12 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0 j

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm and v"" = 2-2a,

These relationships of the new Poisson's ratio for each layer has been implemented in program PREPES to keep compression wave of soil constant.

EKSSI Preprocessor - PREPEKS The PREPEKS program prepares the EKSSI input files for two directions, the E-W and the N-S, the X and Y, or the longitudinal and transverse directions. The batch process assumes independent dynamic models in two directions. Program file PREPEKS. BAS is enclosed in the disks.

EASYPLOT Flies to SPECTRA Time History Flies - EP2TH The EKSSI creates output time histories in EASYPLOT file format. The EP2TH program converts the EASYPLOT files into time history files that is ready to be imported to the SPECTRA program.

Program file EP2TH. BAS is enclosed in the disks.

Preparation of the SPECTRAL.LIS flie for SPECBAT - PREPLid Program SPECBAT requires a SPECTRAL.LIS file to define the SPECTRA database records. The program PREPLIS prepares the SPECTRAL.LIS file based on the information in the current INI file.

Program file PREPLIS. BAS is enclosed in the disks.

Update and/or Creation of SPECTRA Database - SPECBAT The SPECTBAT is a batch program to import time history files and convert them to RS. The program intemally defines the SPECTRA database structure fields. They are BUILDING, ELEVATION, MOTION, SOIL and DIRECTION. SPECBAT creates records based on the information in the SPECTRAL.LIS file. The program file SPECBAT.TXT is enclosed in the disks.

Export the RS files from SPECTRA database for EASYPLOT - SPRSAVE The SPRSSAVE is a batch program to export the RS files from the SPECTRA database for EASYPLOT. It requires a RSFILEEP.LIS file to define the RS file names. The program file SPRSSAVE.TXT is enclosed in the disks.

e

Calculation No. C-001 i

Sheet #C7 of C12 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS:

Soil and Structure Interaction Analysis COMPUTER CODE:

LAYSOL, SUPELM, EKSSI VERSION:

3.1, 2.0, 2.1 RELEASE DATE:

1992 AUTHOR / VENDOR:

Prof. E. Kausel COMPUTER TYPE / SYSTEM:

IBM Compatible PROGRAM STATUS:

O Project Specific 2 GeneralUse/QA Approved VERIFICATION / VALIDATION DOCUMENTATION:

O Attached 2 On File RUN NUMBER:

ORIGINATOR DATE CHECKER DATE EPRODUCED MSLi 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ON LISTINO MODEL MID AND MSLI 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ASSUMPTIONS DOCUMENTED PROGRAM APPROPRIATE AND ADEQUATE 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 MSL)

MODEL BEHAVES MSli 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 REASONABLE RESULTS PROPERLY MSli 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 INTERPRETED REMARKS:

COMPUTER O

PROGRAM CONTRACT NO.

kl COVER SHEET 91C2696 FIGURE 2.8

Calculation No. C-001 Sheet #C8 of C12 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS:

Prepare input Files for Soil and Structure interaction Analysis COMPUTER CODE:

PREPLS,PREPSE,PREPEKS VERSION:

1.0 RELEASE DATE:

1993 AUTHOR / VENDOR:

S&A COMPUTER TYPE / SYSTEM:

IBM Compatible PROGRAM STATUS:

@ Project Specific 0 General Use/QA Approved VERIFICATION / VALIDATION DOCUhENTATION:

E Attached O On File i

(* See Remads) 4 RUN NUMBER:

ORIGINATOR DATE CHECKER DATE INPUT REPRODUCED MSU 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ON LISTING MODEL VALID AND MSLI 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 l

ASSUMPTIONS DOCUMENTED PROGRAM APPROPRIATE AND MSli 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ADEQUATE I

ODEL BEHAVES MSli 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 l

REASONABLE j

l OPE M MSli 6/19/95 1MT 6/20/95 l

INTERPRETED j

REMARKS:

Programs were verified by line-by-line check.

i i

i COMPUTER eq PROGRAM CONTRACT NO.

b COVER SHEET 91C2696 FIGURE 2.8

Calculation No. C-001 Sheet #C9 of C12 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS:

Convert EASYPLOT Files into SPECTRA Time History Files and Prepare a List of Records File'for Program SPECBAT COMPUTER C' DE:

EP2TH, PREPLIS VERSION:

1.0 O

RELEASE DATE:

1993 AUTHOR / VENDOR:

S&A COMPUTER TYPE / SYSTEM:

IBM Compatible PROGRAM STATUS:

S Project Specific 0 GeneralUse/QA Approved VERIFICATION / VALIDATION DOCUMENTATION:

2 Attached O On File

(* See Remarks)

RUN NUMBER:

ORIGINATOR DATE CHECKER DATE INPUT REPRODUCED MSLI 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ON LISTING MODEL VALID AND MSLi 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ASSUMPTIONS DOCUMENTED PROGRAM APPROPRIATE AND MSLi 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ADEQUATE MODEL BEHAVES MSLI 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 REASONABLE RESULTS PROPERLY

~

MSU 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 INTERPRETED REMARKS:

Programs were verified by line-by-line check.

lH ll COMPUTER PROGRAM CONTRACT NO.

COVER SHEET 91C2696 FIGURE 2.8

Calculation No. C-001 Sheet #C10 of C12 DESCRIPTION OF ANAI YSIS:

Export the RS Files from SPECTRA Database for EASYPLOT COMPUTER CODE:

SPRSAVE VI SION: 1.0 RELEASE DATE:

1993 AUTHOR / VENDOR:

S&A COMPUTER TYPE / SYSTEM:

IBM Compatible 4

PROGRAM STATUS:

E Project Specific O GeneralUse/QA Approved VERIFICATION / VALIDATION DOCUMENTATION:

O Attached O On File

(* See Remarks)

RUN NUMBER:

ORIGINAiUR DATE CHECKER DATE INPUT REPRODUCED MSli 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ON LISTING MODEL VALID AND MSli 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ASSUMPTIONS DOCUMENTED PROGRAM APPROPRIATE AND MSU 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ADEQUATE MODEL BEHAVES MSU 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 REASONABLE RESULTS PROPERLY MSU 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/S5 INTERPRETED REMARKS:

Programs were verified by line-by-line check.

I N

l l E lE COMPUTER PROGRAM CONTRACT NO.

Os COVER SHEET 91C2696 FIGURE 2.8

Calculation No. C-001 Sheet #C11 of C12 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS:

Import New Time History Files into SPECTRA Database and then Convert them to RS by SPECTRA-i COMPUTER C' DE:

SPECBAT VERSION: 1.0 O

i RELEASE DATE:

1993 AUTHOR / VENDOR:

S&A i

COMPUTER TYPE / SYSTEM:

IBM Compatible l

PROGRAM STATUS:

S Project Specific 0 GeneralUse/QA Approved VERIFICATION / VALIDATION DOCUMENTATION:

E Attached O On File

(* See Remarks) l RUN NUMBER:

1 ORIGINATOR DATE CHECKER DATE 1

EPRODUCED MSLI 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ON LISTING MODEL VALID AND MSli 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ASSUMPTIONS DOCUMENTED PROGRAM APPROPRIATE AND MSLi 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ADEQUATE MODEL BEHAVES MSLI 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 REASONABLE 1

RESULTS PROPERLY MSLI 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 WEMEED REMARKS:

Programs were verified by line-by-line check.

7 COMPUTER

('

PROGRAM CONTRACT NO.

COVER SHEET 91C2696 FIGURE 2.8

Calculation No. C-001 Sheet #C12 of C12 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS:

Convert Time History Files into Response Spectra Files e

COMPUTER CODE:

SPECTRA VERSION:

1.1 RELEASE DATE:

Nov.1992 AUTHOR / VENDOR:

S&A COMPUTER TYPE / SYSTEM:

IBM Compatible PROGRAM STATUS:

O Project Specific E General Use/QA Approved VERIFICATION / VALIDATION DOCUMENTATION:

O Attached E On File RUN NUMBER:

ORIGINATOR DATE CHECKER DATE INPUT REPRODUCED MSLi 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ON LISTING

(

MODEWALID AW MSli 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ASSUMPTIONS DOCUMENTED PROGRAM APPROPRIATE AND MSLi 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 ADEQUATE h ODEL BEHAVES MSLi 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 RESULTS PROPERLY MSLI 6/19/95 TMT 6/20/95 INTERPRETED REMARKS:

9 COMPUTER

/

PROGRAM CONTRACT NO.

k COVER SHEET 91C2696 FIGURE 2.8

i JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #D1 S&A

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF D2 O

STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation d-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm l

Annandix D: 'Innut and Result Files of SSI Comnuter Runs The input and result of all the run files are stored in the following directories on floppy disks Building or Structure Directory Containment

\\RPLLNL48 South Wing Auxiliary

\\SALLNL48 Central Part Auxiliary--~

\\CALLfJL48 Pipeway #1

\\P1LLNL4B Pipeway #2

\\P2LLNL48

)

Pipeway #4 iP4LLNL48 Control

\\CBLLNL48 Fuel Oil Pump House

\\FOLLNL48 Circulating Water Pump House

\\PHLLNL48 Table D List of File Directories of SSI Run

['

Due to the size of the files, some of the directories have been compressed usinh public domain program PKZIP.EXE. The files can be uncompressed by issuing the following command at the DOS prompt:

C:>pkunzip rpilnl4b using Containment Building, LLNL 0.4G, best estimate properties as an example. The files in each subdirectory or floppy disk consists of the following files (using CALLNL4B as example):

$_ KIN 101.RYX Transfer funcbon between the free field and the foundation for the

$_ KIN 101.RYZ kinematic interaction

$_ KIN 101.UXX s

$_ KIN 101.UXZ

$_STIF01.C Frequency-dependent impedance functions of foundation stiffness with

$_STIF01.H embedmont up to the surface.

$_STIF01.R

$_TIMHIS.RY Rotational time history including the effect of kinematic interaction.

$_TIMHIS.UX Translational time history including the effect of kinematic interaction.

CAUX_5E.EZP Final 5% FRS plots CAUX_5N.EZP CAUX008E.EP Final response spectra files to be included in the EZP files (5%

CAUX008N.EP damping only)

CAUX026E.EP CAUX026N.EP CAUX044E.EP 1

CAUX044N.EP CAUX062E.EP CAUX062N.EP

S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #02

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF D2 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineenng firm EKSSIEW.INP EKSSI input file in the EW direction EKSSIEW.OUT EKSSI output file in the EW direction EKSSINS.lNP EKSSI input file in the NS direction EKSSINS.OUT EKSSI output file in the NS direction KININT.lNP KININT input file KININT.OUT.

KININT output file LAYSOL.lNP LAYSOL input file LAYSOL.OUT LAYSOL output file LLNLRY.TH Rotation and translation time history including the effect of kinematic LLNLUX.TH interaction in EASYPLOT file format SPECTNI.LIS The LlS file for SPECBAT SUPELM.INP SUPELM inout file SUPELM.OUT SUPELM output file EW1.TH to EW4.TH Floor time histories, two files per mass point NS1.TH to NS4.TH Table D List of input and Output Files of Containment Buiding SSI Run C%

To better illustrate the floor response for each buildings, the 5% damped FRS for all elevations are V

plotted (See Figure A1 to A16 of Appendix A)'. The E-W and the N-S directions are plotted separately if they are different.

The SSI computer runs have been reviewed by Professor Eduardo Kauset at Massachusetts qstitute of Technology. The review letter is included in the Appendix F of this calculation.

p.w+

6 u

i S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #E1 i

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF E2 i O STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Anoendix E: Comouter Runs and Result Files of Sensitivity Study The input and result of all the sensitivity run files are stored in the following directories on floppy disks d

i Sensitivity Study Building or Structure Directory j

Soil Layer Variation Containment

\\RPLLNL4U Water Table Control

\\CBLLNL4W Total Soil Depth Control

\\CBLLNL4D Debonding Containment

\\RPLLNL4S 4

Table E List of File Directories of Sensitivity Study Due to the size of the files, some of the directoried have been compressed using public domain program PKZIP.EXE. The files can be uncompreswd by issuing the following command at the DOS prompt 4

1 C:>pkunzip rpilnl4u 1

using the sensitivity study of debonding as an example. The files in each subdirectory or floppy disk O

consists of the following files (using RPLLNL4S as example):

O 4

9

JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET #E2

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF E2 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm

$_ KIN 102.RYX Transfer function between the free field and the foundation for the

$_ KIN 102.RYZ kinematic interaction.

$_ KIN 102.UXX 1

$_ KIN 102.UXZ

$_STIF02.C Frequency-dependent impedance functions of foundation stiffness with

$_STIF02.H embedment up to the surface.

$_STIF02.R

$_TIMHIS.RY Rotational time history including the effect of kinematic interaction.

$_TIMHIS.UX Translational time history including the effect of kinematic interaction.

CINS066E.RS 5% FRS SPECTRA file at Elev. 66 ft EKSSIEW.lNP EKSSI input file in the EW direction EKSSIEW.OUT EKSSI output file in the EW direction 4

EKSSINS.INP EKSSI input filein the NS direction EKSSINS.OUT EKSSI output file in the NS direction 1

KININT.lNP KININT input file KININT.OUT KININT output file LAYSOL.INP LAYSOL input file LAYSOL.OUT LAYSOL output file f)

LLNLRY.TH Rotation and translation time history including the effect of kinematic V

LLNLUX.TH interaction in EASYPLOT file format 4

SUPELM.lNP SUPELM input file SUPELM.OUT SUPELM output file RBBESTSP. SOL Soit property file RPLLNL4S.lNI INI file EW1.TH to EW15.TH Floor time histories,.two files per mass point i

NS1.TH to NS15.TH Table E List of input andOUtpui Files of Debonding Sensitivity Study

~

i i

O G

S&A JOB NO. 91C2696 SHEET CF1

SUBJECT:

Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 OF F3 STEVENSON Point Beach SSI and IPEEE Floor Revision 0

& ASSOCIATES Response Spectra By MSL 6/19/95 a structural-mechanical Calculation C-001 Chk. TMT 6/20/95 consulting engineering firm Anoendix F: Letter from Professor Eduardo Kausel b

4 l

4 8

3

\\

(V j

i i

J 4

l I

'O

Projtet No. 91C2696 C-001 Sheet #F2 of M O

Massachusetts Institute of Tehnology Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering Henry L. Pierce EnginerHng Laboratory FJua,de Kamsel M.LT.. Room 1 771 Proreesor of Ovil Ensimsonas Camdmdge, MA 02139 TEL: (617) 253-5336 FAX: (617) 2534M4 g

Cambridge, November 2,1993 Dr. Tsiming Tseng Stevenson & Associates 10 State St.

Woburn, MA 01801 Ref: Point Beach SSI and IPEEE ARS

Dear Dr. Tseng:

This letter is in response to your request to review the S&A Report on the Point Beach IPEEE/A-46 floor response spectra, calculation C-001, Revision 0. Please note that while I have read and inspected the report for technical content, I have not carried out any checks on the l

actual numerical results (time historks, response spectra, etc.), as such checks would have j

demanded repeating some or all of the analyses. Also, I am not passing judgement on the probabilistic aspects of this effort (hazard curves, spectral shapes, peak accelerations, etc.), since j

those aspects fall outside of my field of expertise.

i By and large, the methodology appears to be very similar to that used by S&A in other i

projects in the past which have received sanction for technical adequacy. Thus, I am in general j

agreement with the procedures used to compute the amplified response spectra for the various j

structures when subjected to the specified seismic environment.

l As for the specific results obtained, they appear to be consistent with the physical i

properties used. However, it is difficult to judge some aspects of the problem, because only final j

results are presented in the report, while some intermediate calculations are omitted. For example, I did not find (highly desirable) figures showing the transfer functions at selected points

)

in the structures; such figures could have helped me identify and compare the coupled j

frequencies with the corresponding values in the original analyses by Bechtel, and determine j

potential problems.

i Since the soils are generally fairly stiff, there were no large inelastic effects observable, as demonstrated by the tables detailing the iterated soil properties. This is consistent with the j

nature of such soils and the seismic intensities used.

l Concerning the contribution of the pile stiffness to the overall foundation impedances,

}

I concur with the approximate method used. Indeed, as the length of the piles is less than the overall diameter of the foundation, I am confident that the procedure used does provide close 1

i i

l

Project No. 91C2696 C-001 1

Sheet #F3 of F3 results for the effective contribution of the piles to the foundation lateral impedances. Given that j

such lateral pile stiffness turned out to be negligible when compared to the soil stiffness, and that i

vertical stiffness are far less uncertain, I am satisfied that more accurate analyses are not needed.

j I have also checked the formulas used, and,they are correct.

l As for the effect of the pore water, I disagree with the general statement that it affects j

only Poisson's ratio and the soil mass density. In the case of cohensionless soils, the buoyancy of the soil may also reduce the shear modulus. While I doubt that the rather stiff soils at the i

Point Beach site would be affected by such a consideration, I would still recommend checking j

on this matter with GEI.

i I concur with the procedure used to account for the sensitivity to (and uncertainty in) the i

total depth of soil layers as well as in the strain dependent behavior of the soil. Basically, the results are hardly sensitive to such parameters, because soil-structure interaction is not very

{

important at this & Also, I am in agreement with the cylindrical approximation used to model some rectangular founda+ ions.

3

)

As for the interaction between neighboring buildings, I reserve judgement, since that is potentially a more difficult issue; it is conceivable that the heavy reactor building could affect nearby light structures, even if the soil is very stiff. While approximations could have been used j

to estimate such effects, I do not know if IPEEE do indeed require them to be considered. I j

disagree, however, that such estimations can be dispensed with on account of the fact that "the l

original runs should constitute the median estimate". While I am not an e'xpert in probabilistic matters, I believe such argument to be specious. Indeed, deviations in either direction of the i

responses produced by interaction with neighboring structures would almost certainly increase l

the standard deviation of the computed results and broaden the response spectra.

i j

For similar (but even stronger) reasons, I disagree with the position taken for disposing of the potential results of eccentricities and lack of symmetry, since such eccentricities can j

introduce response behaviors that were absent in the perfectly symmetric structures. I would l

have preferred if an attempt had been made to account for such effects by assuming accidental q

eccentricities.

j If you should have any questions or comments on this evaluation, please do not hesitate i

to call or write.

i

]

Sincerely i

1 y

Eduardo Kausel O

.