ML20151L707
| ML20151L707 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1987 |
| From: | Dan Doyle, Jerrica Johnson, Maslenikov O EQE, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151L669 | List: |
| References | |
| UCRL-21015, NUDOCS 8808040112 | |
| Download: ML20151L707 (133) | |
Text
,_
. _ ~
I~
~I UCRL-21015 P.O. (19923005 REVIEW OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF HATCll UNITS I AND 2: IN STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTR A November,1987 Prepared by:
!c.mes J. Johnson Oleg R. Mastenikov l
David J. Doyle i
i l
Prepared for:
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE N ATIONAL LABOR ATORY Livermore, CA 94550 ef its x.
O 6
i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS E211
1.0 INTRODUCTION
11
1.1 Background
11 z..
1.2 Objectiye and Scope..... -
13 2.0 E V A L U ATIO N A P P RO A CH....................
21 3.0 SSI AN ALYSES AND R ESULTS...
. 3.I 3.I G e n e r a!.....
31
. ~.
3 2 Reactor Building.......
34
.. ~...
3.3 Co n t r of B u i!d i n g...........
3 51 3.4 Dicse1 Generator Building....
3 68 3.5 I n t a k e S t r u c t u r e................
3 76
4.0 CONCLUSION
S 4-1 5.0 R E F E R E NC ES............
51 APPENDIX A DERIV ATION OF SSI ANALYSIS
... A 1 LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Hatch Units 1 and 2 SSI Ana1ysis 15 2.1 Hatch Units 1 and 2 Independent SSI Analyses
'6 3.1 Fixed Base Modal Characteristics of the Reactor Building.,......
38 3.2 Fixed Base Modal Characteristics of the Control Building.
3 53 3.3 Fixed Base Modal Characteristics of the Diesel Generator Building..
3 69 3.4 Fixed Base Modal Characteristics of the Intake Structure....... 3-79 iil
a o
LIST OF FIGURES 21 Hatch Units 1 and 2 Ground Response Spectra (a) Design 24 (b) Artificial Acceleration Time Histories 25 3-1 Reactor Building Soil Profile for SSI Analysis..
39 32 Reactor Building Dynamic Model............ _.. =
3 10 33 Comparison of EQE Surface Foundation SSI Analyses with G,PC Design Spectra Reactor Building Unit I Time History (a) Ma ss Point I (E1e v 8 7 f t) E.W...........
3-11 (b) Mass Point 2 (E1ev 130 f t) E.W.....
3-12 (c) Ma ss Poi a t 4 ( Ele v i 8 5 ' t) E W..............
3-13 j
(d) Mass Point 7 (Elev 256.5 f t) E.W..,
3-14 1
(e) Mass Point 22 (Elev 204 ft) E-W.
3 15 (f) Mass Point I (Elev 87 f t) N S._....
3-l6
( g) Ma ss Poi n t 2 ( Ele v i 30 f t) N S.....
3 !7 (h) Mass Point 4 (E!ev 185 f t) N S.........
3 I8 (i) Mass Point 7 (Elev 256.5 f t) N S...
3 I9 (j) Mass Point 22 (Elev 204 f t) N S 3 20 34 Comparison of EQE Embedded Foundation SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reactor Building Unit i Time History (a) Mass Poin t I (Elev 87 f t) E W............
.......~....
3-21 (b) Mass Point 2 (E1ev 130 f t) E.W..
3 22 (c) Mass Point 4 (Elev i85 f t) E W.......
3 23 (d) Mass Point 7 (Elev 256.5 f t) E W 3 24 (c) Mass Point 22 (Elev 204 f t) E-W..
3 25 (f) Mass Point 1 (Elev 87 f t) N S.
3-26 (g) Mass Point 2 (Elev i 30 f t) N S 3 27 (h) Mass Point 4 (Elev i85 ft) N S.
3-28 (i) Mass Point 7 (Elev 256.5 f t) N S.
... ~... 3 29 (j) Mass Point 22 (Elev 204 ft) N-S.. =
3 30 35 Comparison of EQE Surface Foundation SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reactor Building Unit 2 Time History (a ) Ma ss Poin t I ( Ele v 8 7 f t) E W....................
33I (b) Mass Point 2 (Elev 130 f t) E W....... =
3 32
.............. =
(c) Mass Point 4 (E1ev i85 ft) E W 3 33 iv
e O
s (d) Ma ss Po i n t 7 ( E 1e v 2 56.5 f t) E W...............
3 34 (e) Mass Point 22 (Elev 204 f t) E.W.
3 35 (f) Mass Point I (Elev 87 f t) N S 3 36 (g) Mass Point 2 (Elev 130 ft) N S...
3 37 (h) Mass Point 4 (Eiev 185 f t) N S 3 38 (i) Mass Point 7 (Elev 256.5 ft) N S..
3 39 (j) Mass Point 22 (E1ev 204 f t) N S....
3 40 36 Comparison of EQE Embedded Foundation SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra, Reactor Building Unit 2 Time History (a) Mass Point I (Elev 87 f t) E.W.....
3 41 (b) Mass Point 2 (Elev 130 f t) E.W 3 42 (c) Mass Point 4 (Elev 185 f t) E W.........
3 43 (d) Mass Point 7 (E1ev 256.5 ft) E W 3 44 (e) Mass Point 22 (Elev 204 f t) E W 3 45 (f) Mass Poin t I (Ele v 8 7 f t) N S.....
3-46 (g) Mass Point 2 (Elev i30 f t) N S..
3 47 (h) Mass Point 4 (Elev i85 f t) N S...
3 48 (i) Mass Point 7 (Elev 256.5 f t) N S..
3 49 (j) Mass Point 22 (Elev 204 ft) N S 3 50 37 Control Building Soil Profile far SSI Analysis 3-54 38 Contro1 Building Dynamics Modei.
.s 3 55 39 Comparison of EQE' Surface Foundation SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Control Building Unit 1 Time History (a) Mass Point 1 (Elev i12 f t) E W.....
3-56 (b) Mass Point 3 (Elev !47 (t) E.W 3 57 (c) Mass Point 7 (Elev i80 f t) E-W.....
3 58 (d) Mass Point 1 (E!ev 112 f t) N-S 3 59 (e) Mass Point 3 (Elev i47 f t) N S..........-
3 60 (f) Mass Point 7 (Elev 180 f t) N S..
3 61 3 10 Comparison of EQE Surface Foundation SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Control Building Unit 2 Time History (a) Mass Point I (Elev i12 f t) E.W..........
3 62 (b) Ma ss Poin t 3 (E1ev i 4 7 f t) E.W....
3 63 (c) Mass Point 7 (Elev 180 f t) E.W........
3 64
.~.
(d) Mass Poin t 1 (Elev i 12 f t) N S..
3 65 y
o e'
s (e) Mass Point 3 (Elev 147 ft) N S 3 66 (f) Mass Point 7 (Elev 180 f t) N S
................~.
3 67 3 11 Diesel Generator Building Soit Profiles for SSI Analysis 3-70 3 12 Diesel Generator Building Dynamic Model...
3-71 3-13 Comparison of EQE Surface Foundation SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Diesel Generator Building - Unit i Time History (a) Mass Point 3 (Elev i30 f t) E W.
3 72 (b) Mass Point 3 (E1ev i30 f t) N 3 73 3-14 Comparison of EQE Surface Foundation SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Diesel Generator Building Unit 2 Time History (a) Mass Point 2 (Elev i30 f t) E W 3 74 (b) Mass Poin t 2 (Ele v i 30 f t) N S.....................
3 75 3 15 Intake Structure Soil Profile for SSI Analysis 3 80 3 16 Intake Structure Dynamie Modei 38i 3 17 Comparison of EQE Surface Foundation SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure Unit i Time History (a) Mass Point 4 (E1ev 87.5 f t) E W.........
3 82 (b) Mass Point 6 (Elev i27 ft) E W 3 83
=
(c) Mass Point 4 (Elev 87.5 f t) N S..
3 84 (d) Mass Point 6 (E1ev i27 ft) N S.
3.D 3 18 Comparison of EQE Embedded Foundation SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure - Unit 1 Time History (a) Mass Point 4 (Elev 87.5 f t) E W 3 86 (b) Mass Point 6 (E1ev !27 ft) E W 3 87 (c) Mass Point 4 (Elev 87.5 f t) N S...
3 88 (d) Mass Poin t 6 (Elev 127 f t) N S....
3 89 3 19 Comparison of EQE Surface Foundation SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure Unit 2 Time History (a) Mass Point 4 (Elev 87.5 f t) E.W 3 90
=
(b) Mass Point 6 (E1ev 127 f t) E W.........
3 91 (c) Mass Point 4 (Elev 87.5 f t) N S. -
3 92 (d) Mass Point 6 (Elev i27 ft) N S.
z 3 93 3 20 Comparison of EQE Embedded Foundation SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure Unit 2 Time History l
vi l
(a) Mass Point 4 (Elev 87.5 f t) E W 3 94
=
(b) Mass Point 6 (E1ev i27 f t) E W -..
3 95 (c) Mass Point 4 (Elev 87.5 f t) N S 3 96 (d ) Ma ss Po i n t 6 ( E 1e v 12 7 f t) N S -...... --........................-...
3 97 vii
/
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The following background material is paraphrased from Ref.1. In January 1984, Georgia Power Company (GPC) notified the US NRC that differences existed between the in structure response spectrum peak broadening process described in the Hatch Unit 2 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and that used in the seismic analysis and design of Hatch Unit 2. Instead of the 15% peak broadening described in the FSAR, a 10% peak broadening was used. GPC argued that the 1
10% peak broadening was the original intent for peak broadening of in structure response spectra for both Units 1 and 2. As a result of this discovery, however, GPC initiated an exhaustive review of safety analysis reports and analyses pertaining to in structure response spectra development for both Unit I and Unit 2.
It was found that in structure response spectra were broadened by procedures which, in some cases, were at variance with the 10% commitment in the Hatch Unit 1 FSAR and the Hatch Unit 2 PSAR - the bases for GPC's position. This variance in peak broadening procedures led to more detailed studies of its significance. For purposes of this effort, two sets of analyses (performed by GPC) can be identified the "original' analysis of Unit I and Unit 2 structures using Unit I and Unit 2 models and criteria; and the reanalysis of Unit I and Unit 2 structures using revised structure and soil structure interaction (SSI) models.
Revisions in structural models generally were rnade to reflect as built conditions.
Revisions in SSI models were of two types - soil properties to account for more recent information; and a reduction in the conservatism incorporated in the SSI analysis procedures. The scope of this effort encompassed the reactor buildings, for which Unit I was considered representative, the control building, the diesel generator building, and the intake structure.
Table 1.1 summariz:s the characteristics of the structure and SSI models, and analyses for each building original vs. reanalysis. The table lists the building, the elevation of the bottom of the foundation (note, grade elevation is approximately 130 ft), the analyst (Bechtel or Southern Company Services),
revisions in the structure modei for tne reanalysis, whether the building is shared between Units 1 and 2, and characteristics of the SSI analysis. When a building is 11
l shared by Units 1 and 2, it is analyzed for each unit's criteria separately. This leads to differences in in structure response spectra with no clear bias as to which is larger. The SS! analyses are characterized by two parameters soil shcar wave velocitics and composite damping. For SSI analysis purposes, the site was generally characterized by a uniform half space of 2450 ft/sce shear wave velocity. For the dicsci generator building, the soil profile is characterized by properties of the structural fill on which it is founded. For the intake structure, the reanalyses included embedment side soil in the representation.
In GPC's studics, some anomatics were discovered in the original calculations for Unit 2 cable tray supports. As a result, cable tray supports were re analyzed on the basis of "as built" conditions. Selected cable tray supports were found to not meet the design criteria as contained in the FSARs and were further evaluated based on "operability criteria" which define minimum acceptable support characteristics. The operability criteria were intended to ensure that sufficient margin existed for essential raceway systems, even though certain FSAR criteria were not met. For cable tray supports, the "operability criteria" accepted higher, more realistic, cabic tray damping values and allowable stresses higher than those specified in the FSAR of either Unit 1 or Unit 2. This "operability criteria" was Judged to be acceptable by GPC's seismic consultants. This "operability criteria" was accepted on an interim basis by NRC and will be re assessed under USI A 46.
In the process of evaluating cable tray supports, GPC found most of the supports meeting the FSAR stress criteria. Hence, GPC adopted the policy of utilizing the higher damping values of the "operability criteria" but limiting the stresses te the FSAR allowable values. Supports which do not meet this criteria will be modified so that they do so.
For re evaluation of piping systems, the Pressure Vessel Research Committec 1
(PVRC) proposal for piping system damping was used. The recommended damping values are a function of piping system frequencies 5% for frequencies below 10 Hz,2% for frequencies greater than 20 Hz, and a linear variation for intermediate frequencies. This PVRC damping proposal is ASME Code Case N 411 Alternative Damping Values for Scismic Analysis of Classes 1,2, and 3 Piping Sections, Section 111, Division 1. Currently, the US NRC permits use of PVRC damping with restrictions on scismic input and other cicments of the scismic analysis procedure.
l l*2
l 1.2 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE The objective of this effort was to assist the US NRC staff in performing an evaluation of the overall scismic analysis of Hatch Unit I and Unit 2 structures, tystems, and components, so as to assure seismic adequacy of their design.
The following items comprise the scope of this evaluation:
e Identify for each unit e
Design ground response spectra Time histories used to envelope the ground response spectra e
hiethod of analysis, dynamic models, and pertinent e
parameters to the analysis Criteria used to generate in structure response spectra e
Review and assess the adequacy of the reanalysis performed by e
GPC with respect to Revised time histories used to envelope the ground response e
spectra e
biodified dynamic models Effcet and justification of the use of high structural e
damping and soil radiation damping values Criteria used in broadening of in structurc response spectra e
Comment on the significance of the difference between 210% and e
115% peak broadening of in structure response spectra as it pertains to the design of components and systems. In addition, provide a perspective on the difference between t!0% and 115%
peak broadening of in structure response spectra as compared to other clements of the analysis.
This effort focused on in structure response spectra to address these issues. The approach taken was one of performing independent analyses of the Hatch structures reactor building, control building, diesel generator building, and intake structure. No artificial restrictions on radiation damping were employed and a comparison of GPC's calculated design spectra with those generated herein provided the basis for this evaluation. Section 2 describes this approach. Section 3 describes the soil structure interaction (SSI) and structure response analyses 13
r i
performed for cach building. Comparison of response spectra is contained there.
Section 4 presents observations and conclusions for the study.
i 4
1 l
9 14 i
l
Iable
'.I NAICH (JNIIS I AND 2 558 ANALYSIS Bottom of Structure SSI Analysis f otsmiat ion Analyst Model Shared Ul Orig U1 Rean U2 Orig U2 Rean (it)
Revision Structure V
D V
D V
D V
D (fps)
(%)
(fps)
(%)
(fps)
(%)
(fps)
(%)
as unit 1 75 e
Vesset/ Reactor 2450 5.5 2450 5.5 building interface as unit 2 75 s
2450 2450 Main Stack Piles a
x 2450 5.0 2450/
a c-.
f8 Cuntret 8idg 105 S
Unit 1-modet x
2450 5.5 2450 5.5 2450 5.0 2450
- un revised to be j
Unit 2 mudet i
DG Sids 125 5
x 190-5.5 418-5.5 418-5.0 418-61T 811 811 811 Intake Structure 52 S
x 2450/ 5.5 2450/ 5.5 2450 5.0 2450/
No Side 890 890 soit Damping associated uith the soit springs uas typicatty limited by a ramd;er of conditions a(ptied to the calculated watues.
Damping values limited to 75% of the watues calculated using the formulas of TSAat Table 3.7A-2 + 6% material damping Dampiro values uere calculated by formula but timited to 20% of critical.
f or the reactor bustdang unit 2 (original analysis), the calculated damping values inere used uithout redaction and not increased for radiation d.sapies etfects.
m.>tes:
8 = Bethtet S = Southern Cump.niy Scrweces V 1 Shear u.sve wetocity D = Sos t -st ruc tur e isiterac t ioen damping
2.0 EVALUATION APPROACH Overview The overall approach to this assessment was one of performing independent analyses of the Hatch structures of interest, comparing response, and evaluating these comparisons to draw conclusions. This effort was performed for the US NRC and the independent assessnidnt was intended to provide a basis for judgments to be made. This approach of performing an independent assessment was judged appropriate for a number of reasons. Soil structure interaction was assessed to be the dominant phenomenon for structure response based on the site conditions and the physical characteristics of the structures and their foundations in particular, the relatively deep embedment of the reactor buildings, control building, and intake structure, and the soft soit layers on which the diesel generator building is founded. In addition, modeling and analysis approximations employed by GPC retain conservatism depending on site, foundation, and structure characteristics (2].
Ignoring kinematic interaction for structures with significant embedment and limiting or ignoring radiation damping are two such sources of conservatism. Note, GPC's procedures were consistent with the state of the art at the time of their application. However, to permit one to make an assessment of conservatism, a more realistic benchmark is required.
The analyses performed herein were not entirely independent. The following conditions applied:
The assessment was performed for the Hatch Unit I and Unit 2 e
design ground motions used in GPC's reanalysis. The artificial acceleration time histories used by GPC were obtained, verified, and used here. No other site specific motion was :ensidered.
The Hatch soil profile was r(vicwed in light of geophysical and e
boring tog data. An independent evaluation of the profile was made. Two profiles were us:d in this assessment the profile used by GPC and the independently generated one.
21
f 4
The GPC Hatch structure models used in the reanalysis werc e
obtained, verified, and used here. New SSI models were developed.
Free Fie!d Grcund \\fcHen The independent analyses of the Hatch structures were performed for two free-field ground motion descriptions - the Hatch Unit I and Unit 2 design ground response spectra as shown in Fig. 2 la for 5% damping. These design ground response spectra are for horizontal motion and are anchored to 0.15g peak ground acceleration (PGA). Also, shown in Fig. 2 la for comparison purposes is the median horizontal ground response spectrum from Ref. 3 for deep alluvium sites.
The artificial acceleration time histories used by GPC were obtained and used hercin. A single time history for each specification was obtained. North south and cast west response were generated for cach case by applying the same time history in cach direction. The structure models were uncoupled in two horizontal l
directions, hence, no numerical coupling due to using the same time history in the two horizontal directions occurred. Figure 2 lb shows the 5% damped response l
spectra generated for the Unit I and Unit 2 ground motion time Sistories.
l Note, from Fig. 2-1, the difference in the design ground response spectra for Units i
1 and 2 Unit 2 design ground motion being considerably higher.
Soil Profile The Hatch Nuclear Plant site soil conditions for SSI analyses were requested by
)
Ref.4. References 5,6, and 7 provided the initial information which took two forms. Geophysical measurements were used to establish a single average shear modulus or shear wave velocity to be used for the SSI analyscs of the Unit I and Unit 2 reactor buildings, and the control building. Also, this sirg!c shcar modulus value defined the lower layer soil properties for the SSI analysis of the intake structure. This average shcar modulus value was approximately 23,300 KSF or l
l soproximately 2450 f t/sce shcar wave velocity -a relatively stiff site. The second form of the data was soil borings (5,7). Numerous borings were reported but soil data was characterized only by standard pcnctration test results (blow counts) and 1
soil type information. The soil boring data was evaluated using relationships from t
22
Ref. 8 and a second profile was developed. The soil boring data indicated a sof ter profile than the average 2450 f t/sce case. The latter independently developed profile is denoted "EQE Soil Propertics" in subsequent scetions.
The dicsci generator building was founded on structural fill and a range of average soil properties was considered by GPC shear wave velocitics varying from 418 811 f t/sec.
General Scoce The Hatch structures considered here are the Unit I reactor building, the control building, the diesel generator building, and the intake structure. Table 2.1 itemizes, by structure, the analyses performed here, i.e. in essence, a set of sensitivity studies quantifying the effect of various elements on in structure response spectra.
23
X 10 3.0 2. *ir
/ ~j
\\
\\
2.0-
/ 1
\\
s
//
\\
's
/
s W
i/
\\
s s
\\
e
- 1. }-
/
g 2
//
\\
's u
s
[
\\
\\
.i N
/
s 1.0--
/
/
'/
v i
//
i
.5<-
//
s'/
/
/
s'
.0 16 10 10 10'
)
5requency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
HATCH tsNIT 1 DAMPING-S%
HATCH tJNIT 2 Ref. 3 50% NEP Alluvium _ _ _ __ __.
i Fig. 2-1 IIatch Units I and 2 Ground Response Spectra (a) Design (Normalized to 1.0g PGA) i i
~.
1 10 12.0 m4 rq & l'
/
\\
10.0 l
i l
\\
T
\\
6.0--
/
\\
c l
\\
o U
N
\\
/'
2' 6. 0-
\\.
f e
J (W
1 3
j 1
4 4_0
[
/
e,a
/"
u
/
2.0 j
A
/
.0 t-4-4-H :
0
- : 0 15 10 to 10 Frequency lHz) l_egend:
Notes:
Unit i Free Field Mo Spectra at Sr. Damping Unit 2 Free Faeld Mo Accelerations in ft/sec2 Fig. 2-1 Comparison of Frec-Ficid Design Spccara for Units I and 2 (b) Artificial Acceleration Time IIistories
l Imble 2.1 mAICH tmliS 1 AND 2 luotetwoEmi SSI ANALYSES e
4 Uniform 1/2 Space (2450 fpe)
EQE Soit Profile surface Es6edded Suriace Embedsed f cosidet ion 7omdet ion foundetion f oisdetion RS Unit 1/2
~
e U1 Groisid Motion X
X X
X 3 U2 Greisd Hotion X
X X
X 4
l Controt Stdg e U1 Ground Motion X
X
[
e U2 Gr W Motion X
X IntaPe Structure a U1 Groisd Motion X
X X
e U2 Grotsd Motion X
X X
)
oc side a U1 Greasuf notion X
X a U2 Ground Motion X
X
3.0 SSI ANALYSES AND RESULTS 3.1 GENERAL The so;l structure interaction (SSI) and structure response analyses of the Hatch buildings were performed using the substructure approach as implemented in the f
CLASSI system of computer programs [9]. Several assumptions apply to this I
analysis procedure. The foundation is assumed to behave rigidly. Full bonding is assumed between the embedded portion of the structure and the foundation with the soil. Strictly speaking, the analysis procedure is linear. Soil is modeled as a
{
series of linear viscoelastic horizontal soil layers. Nonlinear soil matet!al behavior is modeled in an equivalent linear fashion, i.e. equivalent linear t.
oe-.noduli and material damping values for each layer. The remaining e.,r nts for the materral model are mass density, Poisson's ratio, and water table location. The i
substructure approach separates the SSI problem into a series of simpler problems,,
solves cach independently, and superposes the results. The elements of the substructure approach as applied to structures with rigid cases subjected to carthquake excitations are: specifying the free field ground motion; defining the soil profile; cale,alating the foundation input motion; calculating the foundation impedances; determining the dynamic characteristics of the structure; and performing the SSI analysis, i.e., combining the previous steps to calculate the response of the coupled soil structure system. Appendix A contains a derivation of this substructure approach in detail. A brief discussion of these elements as they pertain to :he Hatch analysis is presented next. Following this brief discussion, the SSI analysis of each of the Hatch buildings is presented.
Free field around motion. Specification of the free fic!d ground motion entails specifying the control point, the frequency characteristics of the control motion (typically, time histories or response spectra), and the spatial variation of the motion. In the subsequent analyses, these three items were treated as follows. For surface foundation idealizations, the control noint was defined on an assumed free surface at foundation level. For embedded foundation idealizations (reactor building and intake structure), the control point was defined on the free surface at grade elevation. In all cases, two control motions were considered the artificial 31
acceleration time histories for Units 1 and 2 as discussed in Sec. 2. The spatial variation of motion was cicfined by the assumption of vertically propagating Hence, for all surface foundation cases, the foundation input motion was wa ves.
identical to the free field ground motion.
Soil orofile. In general, two soil profiles were considered for each structure the GPC developed profile used in the reunalyses and one developed independently based on boring data.
i l
Foundation incut motion. Foundation input motion differs from the free field ground motion in all cases, except for surface foundations subjected to vertically incident waves. The motions differ for two reasons. First, the free field motion varies with soil depth. Second, the soil foundation interface scatters waves because points on the foundation are constrained to move according to its geometry and stiffness. The foundation input motion is related to the free field ground motion by means of a transformation defined by a scattering matrix. For the present analyses, only the Hatch reactor building and intake structure when modeled with embedded foundations require scattering matrices. In all other cases, foundation input motion is identical with the free field ground motion.
Foundation imoedances. Foundation impedances describe the force displacement characteristics ;,f the soil. They depend on the soil configuration and material behavior, the frequency cf the excitation, and the geometry of the foundation. In general, for a linear clastic or viscoelastic material and a uniform or horizontally stratified soit deposit, each element of the impedance matrix is complex valued and frequency dependent. For a rigid foundation, the impedance matrix is a 6 x 6 which relates a resultant set of forces and moments to the six rigid body degrees-of freedom.
Structure model. The dynamic characteristics of the structures to be analyzed are described by their fixed base eigensystem and modal damping factors. Modal damping factors are the viscous damping factors for the fixed base structure expressed as a fraction of critical damping. The structures' dynamic characteristics are then projected to a point on the foundation at which the total motion of the foundation, including SSI effects, is determined. In this study, 32
GPC's structure models were obtained, verified, and used. The GPC models included soil springs which were removed and fixed base eigensystems derived.
l l
SSI analvsis. The final step in the substructure approach is the actual SSI analysis.
The results of the previous steps foundation input motion, foundation impedances, and structure model are combined to solve the equr.tions of motion for the coupled soil structure system. For a single rigid foundation, the SSI response computation requires solution of, at most, six simultaneous equations -
the response of the foundation. The derivation of the solution is obtained by first representing the response in the structure in terms of the foundation motions and then applying that representation to the equation defining the balance of forces at the soil / foundation interface. The formulation is in the frequency domain.
1 I
i l
33
I 3.2 REACTOR BUILDING Hatch Units I and 2 are similar in design both being BWR - 4, Mark I containments, and rated at 800 MW (e). The structures are shear wall structures 149 f t x 149 f t in plan dimensions and founded at elevation 75 f t.
GPC performed SSI analyses of both Unit I and Unit 2 with different structure models and different SSI models and procedures. Two important aspects of these SSI models were the soil properties and the exclusion of embedment effects. For the GPC analyses', the reactor buildings were modeled assuming a surface foundation at elevation 75 ft and a uniform average soit profile of 2450 ft/see shear wave velocity. As discusscd previously, a second profile was developed based on boring hole data and denoted "EQE soil properties." Figure 31 shows this profile for the reactor building. This set of "EQE soil properties" is considerably softer than the GPC profile. For reanalyses performed here using this profile, one can anticipate a frequen'cy shif t to lower frequencies for principal modes of the system.
The "reactor building
- is comprised of four components -- the reactor building itself, the drywell, the reactor pedestal and sacrificial shield, and the reactor pressure vessel. Figure 3 2 shows a schematic of the dynamic model for Unit I
]
which identifies each of these elements. This Unit I reactor building model was obtained from GPC, verified, and then the fixed base eigensystem was generated for use here. Table 3.1 summarizes the dynamic characteristics of the fixed base model a major N S mode at approximately 6 Hz and two major E W modes betwe:n 6 Hz and 6.5 Hz. The nineteen fixed base modes lined in Table 3.1 were used in the analyses. Also, all analyses performcd here were performed on this Unit I reactor building model. It is anticipated that the responses of the Unit 2 reactor building model would be similar to those vf Unit 1. However, in structure responte spectrum comparisons presented here, only compare Unit I design results, since the Unit 2 model was not anaived. In addition, only horizontal response was considered. Finally, response spectrum comparisons are presented for mass points 1,2,4,7, and 22. Results were calculated at many other points, however, these five points are representative of the broader data set. Mass points 1,2, and 4 are at floor elevations irt the reactor building itself. Mass point 1 is top of foundation (elev. 87 f t). mass point 2 is at elevation 130 ft which is at grade. Mass point 4 is at elevation 18) *t, approximatc.y 100 ft above the foundation. Mass point 7 is at 34
the crane elevation (265.5 f t), approximately 170 ft above the foundation. Mass f
point 22 is at the top of the reactor vessel, elevation 204 ft, approximately 120 f"
(
above the foundation.
The approach applied here is to quantify the effect of va-ious factors on in-structure response. The general apptcach is to hold the ground motion specification constant and quantify the conservatism in GPC's analysis assuming a surface foundation and GPC's soil profile, assuming a surface foundation, and EQE soil properties, and then including embedment effects. The same comparisons are repeated for the Unit 2 ground motion specification. The results of these latter analyses and comparisons address the question of Unit I design I
criteria for components and commodities (piping, raceways, ducts, etc.) vs. Unit 2 l
l ground motion specifications. Note, all comparisons are for 5% damped response spectra.
1 i
Unit i Ground Motion I
1 1
For fixed Unit I ground motion, the following observations can be made.
The conservatism in GPC's reanaly:;is of the reactor building e
I l
subjected to Unit I ground motion is observed in Fig. 3 3. A
{
comparison of the design response spectra with those generated l
here using GPC's soil profile and assuming a surface foundation quantifies this effect. For mass points 1,2,4, and 22, a factor of 2 or greater over the majority of the frequency range is seen. At low frequencies, less than 3 Hz, the design spectra and those generated here are very close which is expected. The SSI analysis procedure used by GPC for the Unit I reactor building reanalysis introduced a factor of conservatism of approximately 2 in 5%
I damped response spectra. At mass point 7, where structural vibrations play a more significant role, the conservatism is not as great, i.e. factors of conservatism of 1.1 to 2.
The second consideration for evaluation here was quantification e
of the effect of the soil profile on the response. Holding ground motion constant and treating the reactor building as a surface-35
founded structure at elevation 75 ft, SSI analyses were performed for the EQE soit profile (Fig. 31). Figure 3 3 compares these responses with the design spectra for Unit I and with the previously discussed casc using the GPC soil profile.~ In general, an additional reduction in response is observed for frequencies greater than approximately 2 Hz. This holds true for all mass points including mass point 7. For this softer soit profile, the response of mass point 7 is about a factor of 2 less than the design spectrum for frequencies above 2 Hz. For frequencies less than about 2 Hz, exceedances of the design spectra are observed.
These exceedances are a result of the frequency shift due to the sof ter soil profile denoted "EQE soil properties.'
The reactor building is embedded approximately 55 ft which e
should have a significant effect on its response to earthquake motions. The soil foundation force displacement relationships (foundation impedances) should be higher, thereby, stiffening the system. Energy dissipation should be increased due to additional radiation damping effects. Finally, kinematic interaction should reduce the effective excitation of the system. All of these effects were quantified for the Unit I reactor building. Figure 3 4 shows the comparisons. In general, a further reduction in response is observed when embedment is included. Both soil profiles were considered to permit one to assess the impact of each separately. In selected instances for the GPC soil profile, the surface foundation and embedded foundation responses are comparable or the latter is slightly higher. This is due principally to the fact that stiffening the GPC profile approaches a fixed base condition which obviously increases system 1
frequencies and may decrease energy dissipation characteristics.
In general, if one considered the EQE soit profile to be best estimate, the control point location to be appropriate at grade, the Unit I ground motion to be appropriate, and included embedment effects, in structure design response spectra (5% damping) are 1
36 c
conservative as calculated by the GPC Unit I reanalysis procedure.
TJnit 2 Ground Motion The same set of analyses and comparisons were performed for the Unit 2 ground motion. The motivation to consider these cases is to quantify the effect of a higher ground motion specification relative to the existing Unit I design in-structure response spectra. Figure 3 5 shows the comparisons for surface foundation assumptions and the two soil profiles, In general, for the GPC soil profile, at mass points I,2,4, and 22, o
the design spectra from the Unit I reanalyses exceed the surface foundation responses in the frequency range of 3 Hz and above.
Below 3 Hz exceedances occur. At mass point 7, exceedances occur in the peak amplified region and at the zero period amplitude (ZPA),
For the EQE soll profile, the design spectra envelope at e
frequencies above 3 Hz (by large factors in some cases). Below 3 Hz, the surface foundation, EQE soil profile responses exceed the design spectra.
Figure 3 6 shows the same set of results including embedment effects. The design spectra based on GPC Unit I reanalyses envelope the calculated responses for Unit 2 ground motion for both soil profiles when embedment effects are included, except for slight exceedances in the low frequency range (less than 2 Hz). Hence, applying the Unit 2 ground motion specification to the Unit I reactor building, the Unit I reactor building design spectra envelope the responses.
37
Table 3.1 FIXED BASE MOD AL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REACTOR BUILDING 1
Mode Frequency Percent hhss Participation No.
(Hz)
NS EW l
1.69
.3 2
2.87 7.8 3
3.37 8.8 4
6.01 32.9 5
6.09 67.4 6
6.21 36.1 7
7.63
.6 8
7.66 1.4 9
8.05 2.0 10 14.91 1.0 11 14.91
.8 12 18.10 12.5 13 19.53 12.6 14 21.57
.5 15 21.60
.2 16 27.18 2.0 I
17 30.54 2.5 18 33.93
.8 19 34.01
.4 l
Total Mass Participation 95.7 95.1 l
)
1 l
i 38
GMF42. W AVS V6l4CifY
(.FT/ W )
o SCO I000 1900 IA5 l00
.' g _ _ _ _ _BASEN AT i-
\\t, v
i Jg SD
\\Q f
\\n
+
15 3
7 l
F t
i t
t f-h t
Fig. 3-1 Peactor Buildiq Soil Profiles for SSI A:ulysis 39
Ltcuo hour blw,o u,,3 W-L i.o" A
Jo,ur Mr.ce h, uur @.
D his,,as, s ua D hi u m S n una Y Aus s
'"* (,) )m
@ cau,.
j
,e 8
u$
s ca e
a ex r.ui o g, g
c3 4
5
!E e
e a
w5 W
c c2 a c2 L tcic*
A L W4 g2 5 A
- A E
(
c,,, -
\\,
8 E
O T
5 saw @
@w a
ui4 g
- e.,,,, g j g
g g
" ** n m,,.
j
~,
m t
5,d O A*u (2) E A
3 E A E
g A m-s O
E E
g d4 Am-
?l@
m
- r. e..,
r o-
,to aea ete /
_I_ i:. \\
Fig. 3-2 Peactor Buildirq Dyrade Model 3 10
l!i
~
2o
- t n
ao ri D
tt n2 cc ic ee p e pr ms Si a/
D Dt n
\\,
f gw i-5 sE e
t D
as
)
Ct a
Pf r
G
\\
t 7
a e
c hB 1
e t
0 p
\\
i i
1 g
s s
wv n
e e
y
\\
t l
. sl o
l e\\\\
eE N
A sl
]z y
H li
\\
(
a n
y At t'
c n
l'
/
n Ii
/
e So f '.
u SP q
s
/
s e
os
/
/
r os F
Fa t',s
/
M f,l
."o e
O c
t a2
/
f rt ui Sn U
EGg s
e En m
e e
i f d u 03 gs rnt nt ol i
t 2 rir csese nu
/
eUpUp oB p
o o
s s
S srsr ir iP ip ro ns s
at D yl yl pc ma 1 l l li
~
i s aoao oe d
ens nS CR 0
O.
O.
C.
0 D
- c. g 0
n DA A
06 2
0 E
d 2
e C
E a
1 1 1
1 l
l c2 e =L oN g
C E P ED e
PDGQE X
3 L
GE E
.g i
F y-l
!\\l' I
0 n
1 ao ri g
tt n2 cc i c ee gso pr St a/
O D t n
f gw 3
K i -
S n sE s
2 e
t D
,d as
)
n Ct g -
ao Pf N
v ri G
t t 0
w f
1 c a h3
- I e r t1 N
0 p e i
~
s sl wv r
e e
e t
l c s3 v
's o
l c eE g
\\
N A A sI i
)
\\
\\
g' z
y*
i
\\
H l2 a
.s
(
\\
n
/
,x' y
At i
c n
y l
l' n
Ii s~
e So t
u SP f,', f s\\
q w
e ns w
/
r ds m
F Fa w
t}/
M
/
e c
f
- 0 a1, 1
f w
rt ui Sn U
E Gg s
s En m
e e
i f d u g3 gi ol rnt nt i
t 3 rir c sese nu eUpUp oB p
o o
s S srsr ir i P iP ro at n s s
pc D yl yl ma 1 ll li oe s aoao CA 0
d e nS nS c.
0 w
0
- c. 1 n
D A A
b 00 5
0 D
o.
5 e
C E
3 1 3 2
2 g
C E P ED CO4,e= h,e 8 < n e
P DGGE 3
X L
G E E
.g iF Y.u m
l i
l, 1
lll$
f t
- !ll1 jl 2o
- t n
ao ri g
tt p e pr n2 cc i c ee ms Si a/
D D t n
f gN i-S_
5 n sE a
e t
D as n
Ct
)
ao Pf ri G
n.
t t 5
c a h0
).
1
- 1 e r t2 0
p e i
\\ _.
e e
e s
sl wv
\\
t l c s3
\\
o l c eE N
A A sI
\\
\\
)
y z
y H
l4
/
a
(
/
j s
n g
y At
/
c n
1
\\'
n Ii 1
e So t'
/
u SP A *s q
/
e ns a,
r ds ili F
Fa M
e, e
'o c
a1
- s f
rt ui Sn U
E Gg s
s En m
e e
i f d u g3 gi rnt nt ol i
t 3 rir c sese nu eUpup oB p
o o
s S srsr ir i P iP ro ns s
at D yl yl pc ma 1 l l li 1
s aoao oe 2
- c. 3 n
D A A
6 d
ens nS CR 5
4 3
s 0
e C
E c
1 e4Leoeuu4 g
CO D
e P DGGE X
e L
GE E
3
.g iF Tw
x so '
R 4
2.0--
l\\\\
i 11 l)
I\\
c O
l.\\
v1e Z
i
\\
e
.5--
1
\\
I
\\
5
,l' 9$,
g
.+-
g l
\\
I/
\\
\\
m a
i
!/
\\
\\
.F
/ /
\\
\\
/ J
- Y T
.T_T_-
T r J j
.c 0
2 20 10 10 10 i
Frecuency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Des 1Dn Spectrum All spectra at SK Damping EDE Analysis Using Accelerations in ft/sec2 GPC So11 Propertlas EDE Analysis using EDE Soil Propertles Fig. 3-3d comparison of EDE Surface Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reactor Guilding Unit 1 Mass Point 7 IElev 256 5 f t). E-w Otrection
~.
~.
3 x 10
.e
~
. Fr-C D
we e=
Le.+-
r,ev AA y
/ \\
/
\\
\\
Y
. 2--
[\\
/
g C
,8 \\
N A/
s i
/
\\
/ %,%
\\
s%
/
lw _ v s W
/j'/
j
%'~ v
g Frequency (H2)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Des 1Dn Spectrum All spectra at SK DampinD EDE Analysis Us3rtg Accelerations an ft/sec2 GPC Soll Properties EGE Analysis Using EDE Soll Propertses Fig. 3-3e comparison of EDE Surface Fan SSI Analyses with GPC, Design Spectra Reactor' Building unit 1 Mass point 22 IElev 204 ft).
E-N Direction 9
c~
--.--------e
P W
X 10 15.C 34.0--
12.0 C10. 0-o
,re
\\ /
?, s.w-
,Is,
} n, \\
r t's\\
e 8
I y 8 V
u 8
/g 'l s
\\
v\\
u p
d 5.0--
7
\\,
T7\\
,/
s s^N b
s
's Y
4.0-
,, y
% ~,~ % _
%g
/
- 2. 0--
j/
l
.0 8
=
I 0
l se 20
,,1 g,2 I
Frequency (Hz)
- l Legend:
Notes:
l GPC Des 10n Spectrum All spectra at SE Damping EDE Analysts Us3ng Accelerations in ft/sec2 GPC Soll Propert3es EQE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties rig. 3-3f comparison of EGE Surface Fan SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reisc tor' 81dQ. Mass pt 1 (El 87 ft), N-S Dir. Unit 3 Time History
3, a,
+
s,.
t.
I 0
1 a
ry o
t r n2 co i c et p e ps ms Si a/
H D t n
f ge p,
F.
im S n si i
eT
% ~-
as 1
t D
n C
y ~-
ao Pt ri Gi
\\,
t t n
/ -
c a hU N n
- 1 e r t
0 p e i
1 s
sl wr
'N, g,%
N A A sS e
e i
t l c sD o
l c
e
\\
f
)
\\
g z
y-
\\
g
^
H l N f
\\
a
(
\\
n.
J y
A)
,p /
c t
l
/
\\'
e S
n If
$\\
u S0
~s\\
/
q 3
e n1 1, I y
r 1t Fl
/
F
/
/
E I
I e(
/
. 0 c
a2 1
f rt uP S
d s
Es Ga s
s EM m
e e
f u gi gi r nt nt o0 1
t irir c sese n1 eUpUp o0 p
o o
s S srsr ir iPiP ro n s s
at D yl y) pc ma 1
l l ln s aoao oe 0
d e nS nS CR 0 0 0
0 O.
o.
0 0
n D A A
m 1
00 5
0 S
o 5
e C
E 1 3 2
2 s
g C EPED 9
C O <, >+ e h. 6 o u 4 3
e P DGDE I
L G E E
3
=
g i
=
F
=
ueC
~
v l
l;I l
X 10
.4
.3 Co e
ee 4
L.
.. 2-A, 8
s'
/\\
,1 \\
\\/
\\
I
\\
q
/
l t
i
/s
\\
.1 --
,. s g
y Y,/
%>3 U
p s' )
\\ ~~^ ^ ~ ~ & _=,_ _
e
.o 0
I 2
161 10 10 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Deslyn Spectrum All spectra at SK Damping Accelerations 2n ft/sec2 EDE Analysis Us2ng GPC Soll Properties EGE Analysis Using EDE Soll Propertles Pig. 3-3h Comparison of EOE Surface Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reattor' BldQ. Mass Pt 4 (El 185 f t).
N-S.Dir, Unit 2 T1me Histor'y w-ra-e,
I to 1.0
.a n
o
.6--
I\\
c
}.\\
ee
$\\
Le l
I
\\
- u y.4--
j
\\
/
\\
^
l I
hn
\\
w l
% \\
~
e
.2--
,1
/
s f "\\
s
(
s
'/
~~~ ~ _______.
s~
l
.o P-ss" so' t
' z no ga l
l l
Frequency (Hz) l l
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All spectra at 5% DampinD l
EDE Analysis Using Accelerations in ft/sec2 GPC Soll Propert3es EGE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties l
i t-Fig. 3-3i comparison of EOC Surface fan SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra neactor 01:10. Mass Pt 7 (El 256.5 ft). FJ-S Dir. (Jo k t 1 Time History
2 x to
.0 1
i 1
l
. 6-l 1
C O
i ee L
1 e
.4 i
eo 0
j ts 1
d
/\\
^
/
\\
is
/
\\
. 2 --
g g
\\
w
/
N s
V N
/s
/
s N
em is,' r
~
/
's
- \\~~!s/
2 s
s-~-.-,.
1
_a
-~
-1 0
1 2
to 10 to 10 4
Frequency (Hzl i
{
Legend:
Notes:
GPC DesiDn Spectra,a All spectra at 57. Damping i
EDE Analysis Using Accelerations 2n ft/sec2 i
GPC 501] Propertjes
]
EGE Analysis Using FOE Sc61 Properties 1
Fig. 3-3j Comparison of EGE Surface Fon SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra l
Heactor D1do, Mass Pt 22 (El 204 ft). tJ-S Dir. Unht 1 Time History i
"e t
.~
X 10 18.C l
14.0-12.0--
CR O. O~-
O e
S e
ce 5.&
meou
/"J 4 a.e-.
7
<-r %.
\\
g'
\\
Y
- 4. 0--
\\,\\
N es
~~
\\ wg
- 2. e--
s, /
\\'Chnn ig 0
I 2
10 30 to 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
g,,.
OPC DestDn Spectrum All spectra at 5% DampinD EDE Analysis us3ng Accelerations 2n ft/sec2 GPC Soll Propert2es EDE Analysis using EDE Soil Propertles Fig. 3-4a Comparison of EGE Emnedded Fdn SSI Ana]yses with GPC Design Spectra
]
neactor Building tJnit 1 Mass Point 1 IE3ev 87 fLI. E-w Oncection i
I 10 30.0 23.0--
l 20.0--
l Co ee hS.D r,
euo 4
- 10. O---
'\\
7 Y
~
\\
J%s, M
s u
6.0 s,
s
/
)
N
\\
,/'
% ~, _ X - s ~ - Q,Q l
.C 16 10 10 to i
Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All spectra at SK Damping EDE Analysis Using Accelerations an ft/sec2 GPC Soll Propert3es EGE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties l
~I'ig. 3-4b Compar-ison of EDE Embedded Fdn SSI AnalySpS with GPC Design Spectra Reactor Building Unit 3 Mass Point 2 IElev 130 ft).
E-N Direction i
.~
I 10
.5
.4--
C o. 3--
e e
i Le e,
euy. 2--
/h
/
Y
\\
/
U
\\
~ 1_.
gr%f%~r N
% \\
,/
~~~-------- -.
.c--
1 2
10 10 10 go Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Des 1Dn Spectrum All spectra at 57. DampinD EDE Analysis using Accelerations in ft/sec2 GPC Soll Properties EGE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties Fig. 3-4c Comparison of EOE Embedded Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reactor Building Unit 1-Mans Point 4 (Elev 185 fil.
E-N Direction
2 l
x to R
1.0--
l F
i 1
.t-C D
i w
la
~e i
k..-
I;
- k. i u
Igl u
\\
l ll
\\ct v
\\
m
/
\\
g g
1~
f"f s\\
~~ 2*~ =. = _ _-
./
- =
0
.C
~'
3 2
10 10 10 g0 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
OPC Des 10n Spectrum All spectra at SE Dampino Accelerations 2n ft/sec2 EDE Analysis Us3ng GPC Soll Propert3es EGE Analysis using EDE Soil Properties
)
11g. 3-441 Comparison of EGE Esmedded Fdn SSI Ana]ySe9 witti CPC Design Spectra Reactor Hui] ding Unit 1 Mass Point 7 IElev 256.5 ft).
E-W Ohrection s
1
~.
X 10
.5
. Fr-C O
^
veh.+-
2 1
/
o 2
\\
I
\\
I
\\
.2--
/
/
g
/
N s
,sg ^ * \\~
w rm.
V p
s
~ ~ - - ~ _,, _
s
.c
^
'=l
- : =: ::
0 i
2 25" 20 to 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
OPC Denton Spectrum All spectra at St Damping a
EDE Analysis Us3ng Accelerations 3n ft/sec2 GPC Soll Properties EGE Analysis using EDE Soil Proportses 4
Fig. 3-4e comparison of EDE Embedded Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reactot~ Building Unit 1 Mass Point 22 IElev 204 ftl. E-W Direction
- ~ ~.
i ll I
g n
-9 a
p w
m m
2 o
a nt r
t g
cy e
n2 er i c po e
p e St ms s
a/
ni D t gH f
i se S n em n ~~
i Di t
T as C
w~
n P1 ao G
~
g[~
r i t
t t hi c a t n hs%"
e e
sc w
t e r e
i t
o p e w
+
t
- s sl
+
t l
c ei N
N o
l c
rgG N
A A y
(
l
\\
z lS H
a-N nt J
(
w A
a y
^
,5 c
I) n St
' ~
e Sf u
'v
/-
q n7 e
u8
,'g r
F F
l dE M
e(
e 4 'o d
/
d1 a
e
- s r
bt mP
/
E s
a
+
/
Es Ga e
EM s
s m
e e
e f
u gi gl e
r nt nt o9 t irir 0
c sese n1 eupUp o0 p
o o
s w
S srsr ir iP iP ro n s s
at pc U yl y1 ma il l ln s aoao oe e nS nS i
d cn 0 0 O.
0 0
o.
0 0
0 0
n D A A
n 06 4
2 0
e 5
4 2
e C
E f
1 1 i
1 1Co* eel,,euM g
CEPED 4
e P DGGE I
L GE E
3 g
i F
yoa 4
.1!1 j!
4i1i1>;lt l
I),'
,j!
-i, I
- i j
t;
~. _ _.
.. _. __ _ _ _ _ _. =. _. -
._m.._.___.-
X 10 30.0 25.0<-
i zo.a l
C O
,e 1
49 i
e 2
'd 5.9<-
i a
i l
ou an.e--
1 e
i-w s-
/ \\
\\
/ ^ k'N 4u
\\
j 5.0
/
/#
\\
\\ ~ ~_% g~f ' %
I
,J x,
s
~~m___
.0
-1 0
1 2
10 10 10 to t
t Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
i GPC Ossign Spectrum At1 spectra at SE Gamping 4
i EDE Analysis using Accelerations 3n ft/sec2 GPC Soll Propert3es 1
EGE Analysis Using EDE Soll Properties i
Fig. 3-49 Comparison of EOE Embedded Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra
]
Reac tor' B1dg. Mass Pt 2 (El 130 ft). N-S Di r, s #n i t 2 Time History I
.--...---- - -.~.--.,_ -., -.. -, -. ~ -. - - - - - -., - - - - - - - - - -. - - - -. ~,, - - - ~,... - - -,. - - -.. - - -. -.,. -.. - - - - - -. - -. - -
~---,.~.
i X 10 4
l l
.3--
c O
we e
e Le
.2'~
e-o*
=T u
I \\
u 4
I
\\
/
\\
/
g
.r-
,g s
\\
,9
<=
- -~.s N
/p s
J r
/
~~~--
.o 10 10 10 to Frequency (Hzl Legend:
Notes:
GPC Des 1Dn Spectrum All spectra at SY. Damping EDE Analysis Using Accelerations 2n ft/sec2 GPC So11 Propertles EGE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties l'ig. 3-4h comparison of EGE Embedded run SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reactor H]dg. Mass Pt 4 (El 185 ft). N-S Dir. Unit 2 Time History
=
6 m
m e.-e
~-c
.,.m u.
s
K 10 1.0 l
.0--
C D
.6--
t
\\
e L
Q1 2
4 y
.o 11 1
l
/1 k'd
/ \\\\
Y U
.2--
f
\\g
\\
/\\
s'.r Qf
/
3..: _ _- _ =.
,o g..:
2 10 10 10 10 Frequency (Hz) t Legend _:
Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All spectra at 57. Oamping EDE Anal / sis Us2ng Accelerations in ft/sec2 GPC Solf Propert3es EQE Analyals Using EDE Soil Properties s
d Fig. 3-4i Comparison of EOE Embedded Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reactor Bldg, Mass Pt 7 (E l 256.5 fti, f4-S Dir, tin i t 1 Time History
2 n to
.8
.6--
f c
O i
ee Le
.4
"\\
/ \\
X l
\\
/
\\
. 2-
/
g y
O
/
N N
j<
n, yu\\
w/
,V
%,N
.0 16 10 to 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Des 10n Spectrum All spectra at 5% Oampin0 EDE Analysis Using Accelerations 3n ft/Sec2 GPC Soll Propert3es EGE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties.
Fig. 3-4j Comparison of EGE Embedded Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reac tor O hio. Mass Pt 22 (El 204 ft), rJ-S Dir. Unit 2 Time History
0 X 10 16.0 l
14.0--
i[-
g'* 1 -J I
I I
12.0--
I 1
f
[3 g
s I.9 4
l lI s
i f I
- \\ t j ',, '
f 40.0-I U
8 /
d
/(
e 1%
/
's
\\
c e 8. 0-t m
I i
T e
t/s u
o \\
+
\\
'if u4 6. 0--
')
\\rs t
\\
s'/
\\'m \\
y
- 4. o__
jf u-spl J
- 2. 0--
/
/
.c
~
I 0
10 20 10 to Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All spectra at 5% Oamping EDE Analysis Using Accelerations in ft/sec2 GPC Soll Properties Unit 2 free fic]d motion EOE Analysis Using EDE Soil properties Fig. 3-Sa Coriparison of EGE Surface Fan SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Heactor Building Unit 1 Mass Point 1 IE]ev 87 ftl.
E-H Direction
X 10 30.0 23.0-S
,4 l\\
20.w.
4
{
c O
w
.I j
g u
l.
4
(
I [f
(
h5.0--
8 r,
i f '\\
l di i
u q
I ',
3 e
r
\\
s 10.0--
/' /
[r
\\
\\
/ /
g I
L Y
.i t/
- \\,V~h e
M j/
n,,
\\j g f
5.0
/j
%.._,,,_~_.
~
r/*
4 3
2 10 to 10 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Casion Spectrum All spectra at 5% Oamping EDE Analysis Using Accelerations 2n ft/seC2 GPC Soll Proport3es Unit 2 free f3c3d motion E0E Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties Fig. 3-5b comparison of EDE Surface Fdn SSI Ana3y4BS with GPC Design Spectra Reactor Buildin0 linit 3 Mass Point 2 (Elev 130 ftl.
E-N Direction
K
.)
.5
.+-
A i \\
,oa g\\
c S
.1-1i g i j}
ee i I f
L 3 %
1\\
D o
\\
2 i
5 4
\\
5 o
a 3*-
l
\\' \\
\\
s
\\
{
4 4 \\
/\\
k w
's a.
i J
\\
\\
w
.1--
,1
/
\\
v
,~ Jl
% m./ % n
- ~ ~~~-
,g a P
r
- ,s e J
a a
a a
a a a e a a
a a
a a a a e a
a a
a a a a g
2 10 10 10 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Des 1Dn Spectrum All spectra at ST. Oamping Accelerations 2n ft/sec2 EDE Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties Unit 2 free f3c3d motion EGE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties 1
Pig. 3-Sc comparison of EGE Surface Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reactor Guilding Unit s Mass point 4 (E3ev 185 ftl.
E-N 01rection i
a
X 10
- 2. 0-5\\
ll 1.5 l!
l\\
l\\
co Il e
I
?e 1.0-L
'6
'4
\\ /
oo t
n 4
> ^1 v r s i
\\
s
\\
s y
. s---
l j/
i f
s I
\\
f I u
i /
~ ~ -
%~~-
fj
,/
. 0-
_ _ ~ -
0 10 30 10 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Oss1Dn Spectrum All spectra at 57. Damping EDE Analysis Us3ng Accelerations an ft/sec2 GPC Soll Propert3es Unit 2 free f3cld motion EOE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties Pig. 3-5d Comparison of EGE Surface Fan SSI AnalySqs with GPC Design Spectra Reactor Bui] ding Unit 1 Mass Point 7 IE]ev 256 5 f t). E-w Direction
i s
X 10
.8 I
. 6~-
Il l\\
c O
a'I \\
,A t
.e
)
Ig f
45 8 %
t u
\\
u 1 g 4
~
4 f \\
T l
I
\\
\\
)
),} I t
t x
u
. 2--
y
~
)
/ \\
s'
/J y y
'~ J
\\
\\/
g j [
/
\\
~
s
,-j ^
'~
w ~ n _, s
-u
.O
' ' ' : :.4_.
0 I
2 10
,10 to g0 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Des 1Dn Spectrum All spectra at 57. Damping EQE Analysis Us3ng Accelerations 2n ft/sec2 GPC Soll Proper' ties Unit 2 free fac3d motion EGE Analysis Using EDE Soi1 Proper t des Fig. 3-Se Comparison of EGE Surface Fdn SSI Analyses with CPC Design Spectra Reactor Building Unit J. Mass Point 22 IElev 204 ftl.
E-N Direction
0 X 10 16.0 f
2J.D.
i g'l i s YA ~e l ai i,
sa 1
[
18
,' "rl
- 12. o-.-
s ps
')
i
,' l,ei f
4 0 0~'-
1
} ta o
s U
(,' /
i l\\
e
\\
s
~
b6.0--
I /
1
{
i S
4/f I
s
\\
o i
11l
\\
u4 6.0
/
\\
". \\
/J
\\
u 4.0~-
/af
~ ~ ~ ~ ~L w h
sp J
2.0
/
.0
- : '=:
0 I
gl 10 10 10 Frequency ggy; Notes:
E eden 0:
~
E OeS10n Spectrum All Spectra at 3 DampinD Accelerations in ft/sec2 EOE Analysis Us3ng GPC Soil Properties 3
EGE Analysis using EDE Soil Properties i
Fig. 3-Sf Comparison of,EOE Surface Fdo SSI Analyse 9 with GPC DeniDO Spectra Reactor 0100. Mass Pt 2 (E l 67 ftl. rJ-S dic, Unit 2 Time tiistory
20 1
a ry g
t r n2 co i c et p e ps ms Si a/
H D t n
1 7
im f
ge h.
5 n si a
eT
% ~-
t D
a s 2
~
n C
F ao Pt 0
r i Gi
\\
t t n
~
c a hU e r t
f
\\
0 p e i
1
\\
s sl wr
/
e e
i t
l c sD o
l c
e
\\
s%
N A A sS g
\\
)
z y-
\\
{
1 1 sL H
l N
(
a p
n,
\\
y A) g f
c t
f
/
s n
If e
S
\\',
ir't u
S0 gtL q
3
/
't I ,
I e
n1
/
r a
Fl f Il F
E
/
e(
e f
c
/(
o a2 l'I f
t
'f rt uP S
s Es Oa
/
EM s
s m
e e
f u gi gi r nt nt og t irir d
c sese nl eUpUp oO p
o o
s S sr sr ir iP iP ro n s s
at D yl yl pc aa i l l l i e nS nS CR s ao ao ce c.
0 D.
0 D.
o, 1 n
D A A
0 d
0 00 5
0 D
0 S
e C
E 1 3 2
2 2
g C EPED g
C O *.h
- X e
P DGQE 5
X L
G E E
3
.g iF yM i
il i
j
X 10
.4 4
11 4
{\\
- 1 3--
l ',
- g a t
\\
I\\
I1
' n i s 8
sI 1) 1 r
i l
'l I
\\
l
\\
I
/g
\\
<-1e u
0 N
u' 1
s,
\\
l t
\\
r0 i
)
\\
Y
~ 1' i
\\
g%
l
\\
g l
j')
~
w,. - s,
/ %,Q
~~<-
~ ~
f
~ f
,o I
2 15 10 10 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Des 1Dn Spectrum All spectra at 5% Damping EDE Analysis using Accelerations 2n ft/seC2 GPC Soll Properties EGE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties i
l q
' Fig. 3-Sh comparison of EGE Surface Fdn SSI AnalySqs with GPC Design Spectra Reactor 010.J. Mass Pt 4 (El 185 f t),
N-S Dir. Unit 2 Time History 1
1 i
I
X 10 l
1.0 J[
(g
.8 C
O
-ce ee L*
Le. 6-is I
g ~t r,e I
u 4
I r
i
/ li\\
o.
t t.:
\\ \\
I l
\\
s 4
g u
/
\\
a
\\
(
N v
. 2 ---
g,
y~~~~-
f 7
~,________
J^
l
,o 0
15 20 to 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC DesiDn Spectrum All spectra at 57. Damping EDE Analysis Using Accelerations 3n ft/sec2 j
GPC Soll Properties EQE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties Fig. 3-Si Compar ison of EGE Surface Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reactor 83do, Mass Pt 7 (El 256.5 ft). N-S Dir. Unit 2 Time History
X 10
.8
.6 I
C O
\\
,e
\\
l
~
.4
\\
,e.
,5 j
k I I l
\\
/I
\\
s I
\\
,I r
i
\\
w 2_.
/
\\
/ s L
f 1
s A \\v o
5
,s
)
\\~s
,\\
, "s
/ /
g _/
g V}%
,e
%-v s,_,__
,g
,_-S 10 10 10 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Des 1Dn Spectrum All spectra at 5% Damping EDE Analysis us3ng Accelerations 3n ft/sec2 GPC Soil Propert3es EGE Analysis Usin0 EDE Soil properties Pig. 3-5j comparison of EGE Surface fan SSI AnalyScs with GPC Design Spectra Reactor Oldo, Mass Pt 22 (El 204 it), tJ-S Dir. Unit 2 Time History
X 10 16.0 14.0--
12.0--
g 0. 0--
y W
/
+>
jit
\\
e A
$ e.0-Jl V\\
\\
2
//
\\
S f
5 4 S.0-
\\
' -A \\ \\
\\
u v.
- 4. 0--
1 \\
I s*g g # %sN g
- ~ ~,.
2.0
/
to 30 10 102 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC DesiDn Spectrum All spectra at 57. Damping EDE Analysis Us3ng Accelerations 30 ft/sec2 GPC Soll Properties Unit 2 free f2c]d motion EDE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties Pig. 3-6i Comparison of EGE Embedded Fun SSI Analyses wit.h CPC Design Spectra neactor Guilding Unit 1 Mass Point 1 (Elev tr ? ft).
E-H Oirection
X 10 20.0 25.0 i
20.0 C
O vs
+ee i
h5.0 J\\
n ta j
a U
f h
p"'s u ~,(
\\
10 *
['
's
\\
/
w L
r s
\\
\\
/
9 5.0-
</
g
\\
/\\
\\
g
[/
% ~ ' s N _ - N, _ _ _~
^
u
/
. 0-1 0
1 2
16 10 10 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Des 1Dn Spectrum All spectra at 5% Oamping EDE Analysis Using Accelerations in ft/sec2 GPC 5911 Properties Unit 2 free fic]d motion l
EGE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties Fig. 3-6b Comparison of EOE Emt>edded Fdn SSI AnalyJ;es with GPC Dessgn Socctrit neactor Building Unit 1 Mass Pohnt 2 IElev 130 ft).
E-W Direction
X 10
.5 4.-
Co
.3--
e v
e L.e l
r-souy. 2-I
/
\\
s//
/
S
\\
8' w
L V
\\
\\
w
.1--
!)
N
\\
w%
~
's% --------.
_f ' "
_o-
,0 10 10 to 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All spectra at 5% Oamping EDE Analysis Using Accelerations an ft/sec2 GPC Soll Pecperties Unit 2 free f3c]d motion EGE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties Fig. 3-6e Comparisor. of EOE Embedded Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reactor Building Unit 1 Mass Point 4 (Elev 185 ft).
E-N Okrection
X 10 I
3, p.._
Il 1.0 R) lll i
C 0--
4l 0
t t
il L
g e
m o. 6--
i{
e 4
,l J\\
I
\\/
\\
l s
y i.
t
't,
\\
\\
l
.2--
N~~~--._-~____
5 :
.0 U
2 igt 20 to 10 Frequency (Hz) i Legend:
Notes:
I OPC Design Spectrum All spectra at 5% DampinD EDE Analysis using Accelerations in ft/sec2 GPC Soll Properties Unit 2 free f2c]d motion EGE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties 4
Fig. 3-6d comparison of EOE Embedded Fun SSI Ana]y,ses with GPC Design Spectra Reactor Building Unit 1,
Mass Point 7 (Elev 2Sfi S f t ).
C-H Otrection W
.o X 10
.0
.6--
(
c
/
3 I
\\
e" i
h
.4--
I l
r
~
i 4)
\\
a o
l u*
\\
l
\\
I u
w
. 2--
a u
L f J~\\,
f/ \\1 s
%~u,
[
's
/
'g
'-s---~____.
/
--_ a a
a a a a
a a
a a
a A a a a
a a
a a a a 2
10 10 to 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All spectra at 57. Damping EDE Analysis Us3ng Accelerations 3r) ft/sec2 GPC Soll Properties Unit 2 free fic]d motion FGE Analysis Using DE Soil Properties i
i Piq. 3-6e Comparison of EGE Embedded Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reactor Building Unit 1 Mass point 22 IE]ev 204 ft). E-w Directio..
'l
X 10 t5.c 14.0- -
12.0--
' / g ^
40.o
/,
\\
e i
e s
,s
\\
c, e. 0
),
\\-
e Q
j, '
\\j u
1 u
4 6.0 p
g 5
(
%*, \\.Js
\\
m Y
4.o
'\\
\\
b h
N/V N
,, e.
2.0
./
/
,o 15 10 10 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC DesiDn Spectrum All spectra at 5% Damping Accelerations 3n ft/sec2 EDE Analysis Using GPC Soll Properties EGE Analysis Using
---~~----
EGE Sol 1 Propertles Fige 3-6f Comparison of EGE Embedded Ftin SSI Analy,ses with GPC Design Spectra neactor 01d0. Mass Pt 1 (E l 87 ft). tJ-S Dir. Unit 2 Time ~ History o
.di X 10 30.0 s
?.
25.0 20.0--
C 1
O i
-4 ee h S. 0--
p n
()
eo E
p,Y 10.0--
f n
/
' ' ~,
\\
/
\\
\\
u s
/
\\
\\,,\\ S v\\
5.0
,/
T j
/
w s
~#u%-s
_,x 2
16 10 10 g0 Frequency IHz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All spectra at Sr. Oamping EDE Analysis UsinQ Accelerations 3n ft/sec2 GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis Using EDE Soil properties Fig. 3-69 Comparison of EGE Embedded Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reactor 83d0. Mass Pt 2 (E l 130 ft).
N-S Dir. Unit 2 Time History
X 10
.4
.3--
~
h I
c 3
i ee b
.2--
ce n
o I
u f"
N
/
/
t
\\
'l
\\
\\
/
V-g
\\
Y
.1--
/j
~
\\
h
/
\\
w e
i.
~ _- -
/
W
,o 2
10 10 10 10 Frequency lHz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC DesiDn Spectrum All spectra at 5% Oamping Accelerations 2n ft/sec2 EDE Analysis Us3ng GPC Soll Propert3es EGE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties Fig. 3-6h Comparison of EOE Embedded Fdn SSI Ana]yses witti CPC Design Spectra Reactor Illdg. Mass Pt 4 (El 185 f t),
tJ-S Dir. Unit 2 Time History
- --- m m
m r
a m
.ma
X 10 1.C
.p.
l\\
ll I t C
O. 6--
lg
+>
f, s e
1 L
6
/Ci 4
'k gi o
U
.4 I
4 f[
,g 1
/
u
/V t
/
t\\
i\\ r\\
S" l
t
. 2--
sy
(
N
\\
' - -T_?_%- _-.
, o_
1E 10 10 10 Frequency (Hzl Legend:
Notes:
GPC DeslDn Spectrum All spectra at 5% Damping EDE Analysis using Accelerations 3n ft/sec2 GPC Soll Properties i
EGE Analysis Using EQE SoiI propeg'tles 4
i Fig. 3-6i comparison of EOE Embedded Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reactor 0]dg. Mass P*.
7 (El 255.5 f t). N-S D ir. Unit 2 Time History
X 10
.a
. 6-I C
I o
v4 "e
I i
k.<
I
\\
u' l
2 I
\\
I i
l
\\
. 2 ---
p\\ gf's N
s y
N g
-j 4
%~
f s '- %__-%
___ /
. 0-15 10 10 to 4
Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC DesiDn Spectrum All spectra at 57. Oamping EDE Analysis Us2ng Accelerations 2n ft/sec2 GPC Soll Propert2es EGE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties Fig. 3-6j comparison Of EGE Embeddeo Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Reactor Oldg. Mass Pt 22 (E l 204 ft), tJ-S Dir. Unit 2 Time History
l 3.3 CONTROL BUILDING The Hatch control building was considered next. The same approach was applied to the control building as to the reactor building. It is a shear wall structure founded at elevation 105 f t. Its plan dimensions are 355 f t x 160 ft. GPC performed two analyses of the control building - one for the Unit I design ground motion and SSI analysis procedure, and another for the Unit 2 case. Table 1.1 itemizes the key features of these analyses. GPC assumed a uniform average soil profile of 2450 ft/see shear wave velocity.. In addition to this profile, the soil profile shown in Fig. 3-7 was used herein. This profile is denoted 'EQE soil properties
- and is consistent with the 'EQE soil properties
- for the reactor building.
The GPC model of the control building including soil springs was obtained, verified, and the fixed base eigensystem generated for the SSI analyses performed here. Figure 3 2 shows the model. Response spectrum comparisons are presented for: mass point 1, top of foundation (elev.112 f t); mass point 3 (elev.147 ft); and mass point 7 (elev.180 f t). Recall grade elevation is 130 f t. Table 3.2 summarizes.
the dynamic characteristics of the fixed base model - the principal N S mode at 9.6 Hz and the principal E W mode at 10.8 Hz. The thireen fixed base modes listed in Table 3.2 were included in the analyses.
Unit 1 Ground Motion For Unit I ground motion, Fig. 3 9 compares: Unit I design spectra; Unit 2 design spectra; SSI analysis results, surfac: foundation, GPC soil profiles; and SSI analysis results, surface foundation, EQE soil properties. The following observations can be made:
Comparing the Unit I and Unit 2 design spectra shows no clear o
trend as to which is greater. Hence, even though the design ground motion specified for Unit 2 is significantly higher in the amplified frequency range than that for Unit 1, calculated responses for Unit 2 criteria are not necessarily higher - it is a function of the analysis procedures employed.
Comparing the design spectra for Unit I and Unit 2 analyses with e
responses calculated for the GPC soil profile the design spectra 3 51 l
generally envelope for all frequency ranges. For the GPC soil profile, the procedures employed by GPC lead to responses which envelope the more realistic spectra.
Comparing the de:ign spectra for Unit I and Unit 2 analyses with responses ca:culated for the EQE soli profile, the Unit 2 design spectrum envelope in all cases. The presently calculated spectra exceed the Unit I design spectra in the low frequency range (less than 3 Hz). At higher frequencies, the design spectra greatly exceed.
Unit 2 Ground Motion For Unit 2 ground motion, Fig. 310 provides the same set of comparisons GPC soil profile. Generally, the Unit 2 design spectra envelope e
the presently calculated responses. The Unit I design spectra are exceeded in the low frequency range.
EQE soil profile. The presently calculated responses exceed both e
sets of design spectra in the low frequency range. However, both sets of design spectra exceed those presently calculated responses for higher frequencies.
l i
1 3 $2
Table 3.2 FIXED BASE MODAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONTROL BUILDING Mode Frequency Percent Mass Participation.
No.
(Hz)
NS EW l
0.76
.9 2
1.01 6.8 3
2.24 6.6 4
5.40
.6 5
8.01 5.9 6
9.60 72.4 7
10.81 74.3 8
11.11 10.0 9
18.94 7.4 10 28.17 6.3 11 31.83 6.5 12 39.15 1.7 13 46.63
.5 Total Mass Participation 100.
99.7 3 53
-~
- ~
~~~~ -
SFtE/it. HAVP.- v$/>G Tr (PT/SiF/-)
C 60tP IC M
' CCC
- 'E i
l i
3A5_ _6M_ AT_ _ _
i too r t
/N 19 ".
6 b
I
\\L s
~Z r
O i
__b
$O r i
M
}
J s
i N
39 i
h a
i l
Fig. 3-7 Cont.rol Building Soil Profiles for S3I Analysis 3 $4
h 30 E. ?ti'. e+
r M
A. = 10.
A, = 5.31
- = 7.:Sa cs i
M A = 10.n 5 Ay = 10.E5
- = 1807 NS As = 0.0007 h
W6 "
($
513 A,= 10,
- m. w. n.
I = 10.
W A,= 0.086 4942 A,= 10.Z15 6
E. two. ee
'o.
I = 10.C5 7
M A " 10 b =
A = 767 t
Af " 10'I3 A,. 192.
I
- 3*N
- = S.521E5 *?
N A 4 = 10.ES N
A= m, A - m.
A - 4.m
= 1715
- = 1.5273 4
,f 13157" E.
inv. e.
L e c-
=
A,=:m.
Ay = 1:36.
j A
- = 5.177ED(
N A. = :s68 A y = 1571.
164749 L 144'. ee l
W A. = 2770.
A:y = 1078.
= 7.757:nd N
Ai = 2767 Av = 1710.
h 1.9444" m.
m., 3 M 8 8:?Se 2. Pacs., sz:
A= CRES-SZr7:cNg, ggx W
An = 2959.
A,* SREAR APEA A, = 1344, 2
- = 7.430ED4 88 N
A, = 2953.
I"
- 9*7I M 4
_ K*
e4L, A
a 1442.,
x,...mc0 7 = 1.s 1n
- e m. e-A
, =,..,
xX
-X 4 = 7.Mfino Fig. 3-8 Centrol Buildire Cymmic Mcdel 3 55
O x so 30.0 23.0 0
20.6 g
r T
/
\\
o
/
\\
as.o f
E u
U*
f 20.0
/
\\
*
' T
/
1 I
\\
a'
/
\\
/
\\
/~
(q w
t- "
h s__
f
\\w
/
/
~
s'
/
N
/
~.-
.c E. -7 10 so to to 1
Frequency (Hz) l Legend; Notes:
4 GPC Destgr. Spectrum All spectra at 5% Damping For Unit 1 Accelerations in (t/sec2 GPC Design Spectrum For Unit 2 LGE Analysis Using GPC Soll Properties EGE Analysis Using EOE Soil Properties
\\
l'ig. 3 - 91)
Comparison of EDE Surface Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Control Building, Mass Point 3 (E lev 147 ft). E-W Dir. Unit i T/H
p 10
.5 n
t
.4--
C O
we s>a m
.1-
)
i 1
ne
\\
u"*
/
\\
.a
/
g
/
f A^
\\
\\"
_/
s u
y
/f
/
s i
, 1..-
/ _f
~_
\\
/
/
,s v,_.
.o I
16 to 10 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum Al] spectra at 5% Damping For Unit 1 Accelerntions in ft/sec2 GPC Des 10n Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Usino GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis Usino EOE Soil Properties Pio. 3-9c Comparison of EOE Sueface Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra 4
~
i Control Building. Mass Point 7 (E l ev 186 f t),
E-W Di r.
Unit i T/H
~.
X JO 20.C
' -\\
/
l
/
1
/
ss.o--
(
\\
/
\\
g
/
\\
a i
\\
ieso.o--
j
~
,'\\
\\ -. \\
/
o s
/
's
\\
-[.N
's
/
T'
\\
4 f
s_
y 's
, ~
y S. 0--
/ ff
'-~g g
/
s
/
,\\.& w.,
/
[~
.c so so*
so in Frequency (Hz)
Legond:
Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All spectra at 5% Damping For Unit 3 Accelerat3ons in ft/sec2 GPC Des 10n Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Using GPC Soll Properties EOE Analysis Using EGE Soil Properties Fig. 3-9d Comparison of EDE Surface Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Control Building, Mass Point.
1 (E l e v 122 ft), N-S Dir, Unit i T/H 1,
X 10 '
.4
.3 l'
I
\\
/
\\
c
/
o d
1 so I
a I
g
.2--
[
E
/
uo j
4 f
/ \\
\\
/
[
t
\\
/
\\
/
\\
. t._
/
e'
~
~s y
/f s
s---
a
/ /
s',
~~
O j-] s/
%~,'
.N.w-
. 0-I I
16 20 10 to Frequency (Hz)
Legend; Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All spectra at 5% Damping For Unit 1 Accelerations in ft/sec2 GPC Design Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis Using EOE Soil Properties l'ig. 3-9e Comparison of EDE Surface Fdn SSI Analysus with GPC Design Spectra Control Building. Mass Point 3 (E l e v 147 ft), t4-S Dir. Unit 1 T/tt
X 10
.5
. 4--
\\
f C
l 3
.a
\\
o g
f 4
2
/
\\
+
3
.3_
/ ^
/ /',
t_
s s'
/
I r~
1
~~
f s'
~~w~
~---
'f
\\
, s, M.~-M.
~
s a
y a
s s e a s s
u a
a s a u s a a
e a
s e a a a 0
10 10 10 to Frequency (Hz)
Legend; Notes:
1 GPC Design Spectrum All spectra at 5% Domping For Unit i Accelerations in (t/sec2 GPC Des 10n Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties EUE Analysis Using EGE Soil Properties Fig. 3-9f Comparison of EGE Surface Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Control Building. Mass Point 7 (E lev 180 ft), N-S Dir, Unit i T/H
A 10 30 C 23.0 0
20.O r T
/
\\
D S. 0--
/
1 t
7s Qi
\\
e l
0 g-I g
\\
k 10.0--
.!J
\\
Y
.ss
\\
0
\\
'. ~s s.,
, 'e a' _ _
w
.~
.O u I
0 16 10 10 102 Frequency (Hz)
I Legenct Notes; GPC Design Spectrum All spectra at 5% Damping For Unit 1 Accelerations in ft/sec2 GPC Des 10n Spectrum For Unit 2 E0E Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis Using EDE Son) Properties Fig. 3-10a Comparison nf EDE Surface Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Control Building. Mass Point 1 (E l uv 112 f t). E-H Dir. Unit 2 T/if
.~
2 X 10
.5
.4--
U C
O
,3 a
/' T
=
/
1 l ls
\\'
a*
I
\\\\
.\\
s
/
1//
t \\
\\
ff"
(
w m
s.-
///
t w
%~
- s
.V.
's w -~ ~._
/
s,'.
.0 0
10 10 so to Frequency (Hz)
Legend; Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All specten at 5% Damping For Unit i Accelerations in ft/sec2 GPC Design Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis Using EOE Soil Properties Fig. 3 - 1 01) Comparison of EOE Surface Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Control Building. Mass Point 3 (E l e v 147 ft). E-W Dir. Unit 2 T/H 4
A 10 i
. 5--
. 4--
C O
s.>
[
-m
)
\\
- e
}
u os u
f g 4
J
\\
~O~
l
\\'
~ fl
\\
s
)
s t.o 5
,Jf,7
- s
. s---
&,//
/
m
+__r----
-/
'A
% ~. w._
~
1
.O d
to so so ga I
Frequency (Hz) i Legend; Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum A1] spectra at 5% Damping For Unit i Acce3crations in ft/sec2 GPC Des 10n Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis Using EOE Soll Properties Fig. 3-10c Comparison o f EGE Surface Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Control Building. Mass Point 7 (E lev 180 ft). E-W Dir. Unit 2 T/H
0 x so 2O.C
/ ~\\
/
\\
/
/,
15.0
/
,g l.
\\
II a
) fI
\\
\\
co t
y l
-[
t
\\
ll]J i.10.0--
f,,
r
\\
s i \\_\\
e y
\\
\\
'n'
~
\\'\\A g\\
m______.
y
- 5. 0--
/
D, g
a s
.o 10 10 10 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes; GPC Design Spectrum All spectra at 5% Damping l
For Unit 2 Accelerations in (t/sec2 GPC Design Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Usirig GPC Soil Properties E0E Analysis Using EOE Soil Properties Fig. 3-143 Comparison of EDE Surface Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Control Bu11 ding, Mass Point 1 (E l ev 122 ft), N-S Dir. Unit 2 T/H
K 20 4
.a
\\
l
\\
/
c
\\
/ i o
I I
w g
l 4
m e
.2 p
g 1
m I
t
=
4 i
ou
- p,
\\
k
\\
4'$.M[.
s N
s s ~
~ 1__
/1 j
i'N s
Y
~ ~ _ _ _ _
h
" ~.~
f
.h e
a s
s a
s a a s e
a a
e a a a e a e
e a
e a
e s,
t
$b' 0
t 2
20
,g
,0 Frequency (Hz)
Legenct Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum Al] spectra at 5% Damping For Unit 3 Accelerations in ft/sec2 GPC Design Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Using GPC Son] Properties EGE Analysis Using EOE Soil Properties Fig. 3-10e Comparison of EDE Surface Fdn,SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Control Bu l l.a. ng. Mass Point 3 (E l e v 147 ft). N-S Dir. Unit 2 T/H
~.
X 10 E.
.4
\\
\\
's1 \\
c 1
0
.3--
1 1 \\
L t
t s
5 0
s y
.2-
{
\\i 1.b I {"
T j
I 1
r r~j g;cs, Y
/s
~
m-Q
. s ---
//
\\ ~~.
- %."
- u.
t
/
.O--
15 I
10 10 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend; Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All specten at 5% Damping For Unit $
Accelerations in ft/sec2 GPC Design Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis Using EGE Soll Properties Fig. 3-10f Comparison of EGE Surface Fdn SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Control Building. Mass Point 7 (E l ev 180 ft), N-S Dir. Unit 2 T/H 1
l l
t
3.4 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING The diesel generator building is a low rise structure founded at grade. It is founded on structural fill GPC modeled the soil profile as a uniform profile and considered a range of stiffness properties - shear wave velocities of 418 ft/sce to 811 ft/sec. The EQE soil properties are shown in Fig. 311. The upper 20 ft correspond to the average GPC properties; the remaining layer properties being developed from boring hole data. Analyses performed here for the GPC properties were for the average prcperties.
GPC used two structure models for their reanalyses - one for each unit's analysis.
The same procedure was followed here. For comparison with Unit I results, the Unit I structure model and ground motion was used. For comparison with Unit 2 results, the Unit 2 structure model and ground motion was used. The Unit I and Unit 2 structure models are shown in Fig. 312. As in previous cases, fixed base eigensystems were generated for each'model. The modal characteristics are contained in Table 3.3. The diesel generator building behaves as a rigid body for earthquake motions. Responses on the top of foundation only were compared here.
Investigating the characteristics of this system showed the diesel generator building to behave as a rigid body on the soil, with little to no rocking, and a highly damped system. Hence, no dynamic amplification is observed. Figure 313 compares response for Unit I and Fig. 314 compares response for Unit 2. Both cases show considerable conservatism in the design spectra.
3 68
~.
I Table 3.3 FIXED BASE MODAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING Mode Frequency Percent Mass Participation i
Model No.
(Hz)
NS EW Unit i I
27.26 100.
2 31.39 100.
i Total Mass Participation 100.
100.
P i
Mode Frequency Percent Mass Participation Model No.
(Hz)
NS EW Unit 2 1
27.26
{
100.
2 31.39 100.
Total Mass Participation 100.
100.
i i
l 3 69
bd FhS WP.2
'/?.,0(.A Y '
.?"
%)
l o
5cc
- ccc
- too
_ B.A%__ M A 7..
12 I
l00 A 1S 1--
u_
v i
Z Q
L N
3m 29 1
Q t
rig. 3-11 Diesel Generate'r Building Soil Profiles for SSI Analysis 3 70
i 0O m
9' O@
rux iso '
f 20 ya s
As h' y~
=
J2rv
/.50 u
Cy A9 Unit 1 O
3-EdfY /50 '
/
g'
>f
[h'M /.b '
Cp N
Unit 2 rig. 3-12 Oiesel Generator Building Dynric.v del c
3 71
2 x so
.A
.3 a
co r
w soe N
.2 e
Uu<
W$ %
s
/,/g R~,
Ns s
//
\\ '~s_
N~_'_',__,
.O 8
s5 so" 8
2 so to Frequency (Hz) l Legend; Notes.
GPC Design Spectrum Spectra Calculated at 5% Damping EGE Analysis Using Accelerations in ft/secMx2 GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis Using EGE Soil Properties l'ig. 3-13a Comparison of EOE Surface Fon. SSI Analyses with GPC Design Spectra Diesel Generator Buildino. Unit 1, Mass Point 3 (E l ev. 130 ft). E-N
~
2 x to
,A
.3--
i C
O s>e a
,2
-e U
U<
w
.1 --
d~
~Q,
/p N' ~ s
/
N%
/
\\ N-
~1%
~ _ _ -
. or I
0 I
2 15 20 so 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum Spectra Calculated at 5% Damping EGE Analysis Using Accelerations in ft/secMM2 GPC Soil Properties EOE Analysis Usin0 i
E0E Soll Properties
~ Pig. 3 - 1 31)
Corrparison of EOE Surfar.e Fdn. SSI Analyses w3th GPC Design Spectra Diesel Generator BuildinD. Unit 1 Mass Point 3 (E l ev. 230 ft), N-S
x so
- 30 C 2s O 20.0 C
O
.e a
m
$15.0 "o
v ^ l*, ~ h
,,7 t-%rl's u
s
)
s o. a--
)
\\\\
h Y
\\
5.0 -
(#s/s'
(
e s f '...;...
.o <
8 i
s5 so so' 2
io Frequency (Hz)
Legend; No tes; i
GPC Design Spectra Spectra Calculated at 5% Damping 1
E0E Analysis Using Accelerations in (t/secMM2 GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis Using EGE Soil Propertice-l Fig. 3-14a Comparison of EDE Surface Fdn. SSI Analy!res w3th GPC Design Spectra 03esel Generator BulloinD. Unit 2 Mass Point 2 (E l e v. 130 f t). E-N
~.
e e*
X 30 30.C 2s.4-
- 20. &--
C O
v4 4.8 E3
$15. 0--
4 m @/$~ **\\pJ%
u b
1 y
\\v so #-
g Y
\\
c:
s. o--
\\si,,s
% J.:fL~w,
/
/
.h e
a e
s s s a s e e
a s
a 20 SO
$0 102 Frequency (Hz)
Legend; Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum Spectr'a Calculated at 5% Damping EGE Analysis Using Accelerations in ft/secMM2 GPC Soll Properties EQE Analysis Using EGE Soll Properties Fig. 3-14*o Comparison of EDE Surface Fdn. SSI Analyses w2th GPC Design Spectra Diesel Generator Dulloing. Unit 2, Mass Point 2 (E l e v. 230 f t), N-5
3.5 INTAKE STRUCTURE The Hatch intake structure is a shear wall structure founded at elevation $4 ft.
The analysis scenarios for the intake structure follow the pattern for the reactor building. For Unit I ground motion, the intake structure was analyzed for two soil profiles and for two foundation conditions surface founded and embedded.
Then, these analyses were repeated for the Unit 2 ground motion. All results were compared with the GPC design spectra generated for Unit I and Unit 2 criteria.
In the reanalysis, GPC assumed the intake structure to be founded on an average uniform soil profile characterized by a shear wave velocity of 2450 ft/sec. In addition, embedment side soil effects were added - shear wave velocity of 890 f t/sec. A second profile was developed based on boring hole data and other information. This profile (Fig. 315) is denoted "EQE soil properties" and, as in previous cases, is somewhat sof ter than the GPC profile. Both profiles were considered in the analyses performed here.
The intake structure dynamic model was obtained from GPC, verified, arW the fixed base eigensystem generated for the SSI analyses. The model is shown schematically in Fig. 316. Table 3.4 summarizes the dynamic characteristics of the fixed base model a principal E W mode at 10.8 Hz and a principal N S mode at 17.9 Hz. Response spectrum comparisons are presented at mass points 4 (elev. 87.5 f t) and 6 (elev.127 f t).
Unit I tround motion The following observations can be made when the Unit I ground motion is held consta nt.
Consider first, the surface foundation idealization of the intake e
structure. Figure 317 presents comparisons for design spectra generated for Unit I criteria and Unit 2 criteria, and for a surface foundation on the GPC soil profile and the softer EQE soit profile. The surface foundation case is presented here to provide a reference point, however, it is somewhat academic 3 76
?
because in the GPC analyses, embedment side soil effects were considered.
Focusing first on the GPC soil profile, one observes enveloping by the design spectra for E W response, whereas some exceedances at low frequencies for the N S response. These latter exceedances are due to a frequency shift resulting from not including side soil stiffening effects.
Focusing next on the EQE soit properties, one observes a definite frequency shift due to the softer soil profile and not including side soil stiffening effects. For this case, exceedances are observed in the low frequency range.
The results for the embedded foundation idealization of the e
intake structure are presented in Fig. 318. This is a more appropriate comparison as discussed previously.
I For the GPC soil profile, significant conservatisms are observed I
in the amplified frequency range between the design spectra and those calculated here. Factors of 2 and greater are seen.
For the EQE soil profile, significant conservatisms are observed for frequencies greater than 3 Hz. For lower frequencies, the present spectra approximate the Unit I design spectra except at mass point 6. N S direction, where an exceedance is observed.
Unit 2 nround motion The surface founded case is discussed first - the response spectra e
comparisons are presented in Fig. 319. Again, this case is presented for reference only since GPC's reanalysis results all include side soil stiffening effects.
Focusing on the GPC soit profile, for the E W direction, the design spectra for Unit 2 envelope those generated here. For the N S direction, exceedances are observed at frequencies slightly lower than the frequencies of the peak spectral accelerations in the design spectra, i.e. a reduction in frequency due to not including side soil effects.
3 77
For the EQE soil profile, significant exceedances occur in both directions at low frequencies.
e The embedded foundation case is presented in Fig. 3 20. This is a more appropriate compatison as discussed pre,'iously.
Consider the GPC soil profile first. Comparing the present generated results with the Unit I design spectra, the Unit !
design spectra generally envelope with some low frequency exceedances. Comparing the presently generated results with the Unit 2 design spectra, the Unit 2 design spectra envelope these spectra.
Consider the EQE soil profile. Comparing the presently generated results with the Unit I design spectra, the Unit I design spectra envelope these spectra at high frequencies, i.e. greater than 4 Hz except for mass point 6 N S direction, which envelopes at frequencies greater than 6 Hz. At lower frequencies, exceedances are observed. Comparing the presently generated results with the Unit 2 design spectra, the Unit 2 design spectra generally envelope with some slight exceedances at low frequencies the exception being mass point 6, N S direction, where the frequency shif t due to the softer soil profile induces a significant exceedance.
i l
3 78 1
l
Table 3.4 FIXED BASE MODAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INTAKE STRUCTURE Mode Frequency Percent Mass Participation No.
(Hz)
NS EW l
10.78 80.9 2
17.86 84.5 3
31.18 14.9 4
45.85 9.8 5
52.23
.9 Total Mass Participation 94.3 96.7 l
4 i
j 3 79
o i
SH5AE. W^ d-v & CITt't?T!i K O
seo
.now t s.co 1sy i
i l
1
- 00
-1 l
4
^
l 19 v
i i
r f:
g.
s(
SAMMnT O
g D
J
\\u 1
i i
a 4
I I
,i 4
l l
3 f
f 6
4 4
4 1
rig, 3-15 Intake Structure Soil Profiles for SSI Amlysis l
3 80
- _ - _ -, _.. - -. _... _ _, ~. '
UNIT : Ff, K!P UD. SEC
/
I E = 0.526EC4 q = 0.21c(c4 EL 127 - 0 1876<
C:ll."Y = 0.0 i
A8 772 N$
A$ = 470
! = 0.40 EC6 I
2 3
EV A $= 365
! = 4.50 ECS EL 101'- 9'.
5297^
Y EL W - C'
/k /r w A = 1S20 Ms A5 = 1255 U
! = 2.77 EC6 4
EV A s = 541
! = 4.74 EC5 EL 87'- 6
% 6154
i,
W A = 1659 g
N3 A g= 1351 e
! = 2.71 EC4 ei EW A s = 640 I = 4.36 EC5 j
EL 69' - 0*
k &C 44 ^
o o
q P
A = 1624 N3 Ag= 1217 m
i. 2.14 te.
< = x.4 N
i HC = 1.33 EV EV A $= $49 I = 3.97 EC5 EW Kw = 5.C5 EC4
-S K,= 0.54 E10 MS As a 5263 1
I = 6.85 EC4 l
EV As = 5263
,EL 54 - 0, h49f I = 9.30 EC5
/
n Ks Km = 4.41 Eos K,a 2.24 E10 l
Fig. 3-16 Intake St.ructure D' nrie :tdel i
38) l
. __~.
. =.
1 10
.5 l';
.4--
l l
g' I
c33 1
l "e
I I
L l
/ I a
f 1
2
/ is
\\
-.j
/
\\
L /
\\
s.
\\
\\
Y
/ f
\\
N O
8--
/ /
\\
/
'N
./'s
/,
% ~C=.~
s'
..i;..
8 0
I 2
16 10 10 30 Frequency (Hz)
Legend; Notes; 1
GPC Design Spectrum All Accelerations in ft/sec/sec For Unit i Spectra Calculated for 5% damping GPC Design Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Using GPC Soll Properties EGE Analysis Using EDE Son 1 ProperiSes Pi'J 3-17a Comparison of EDE Surface Fan SSI Analysis with GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure. Mass Point 4 (EL. 87.5 Ft.) E-W Dir. Unit 1 T/H rw-e Ta,r
- - - - - =,
+
-v*-
e as e--
w-
,. -- -_>+ -
,e,u
A 10
.8 l'l I
l 1
.8--
I g
I i
e O
I i
a
}
o"'
4--
/
{
m.
l
~
5 NI
\\
f '
I i
e
\\
l/
\\
1
\\
\\
i
.2
/
\\
m ce s i g
N l < ','
~
, /}
'%.~._
.O T.
10 30 20 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend; Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All Accelerations in ft/sec/sec For Unit 1 Spectra Calculated for 5% damping GPC Des 10n Spectrum For Unit 2 E0E Analysis Using GPC Soll Properties EGE Analysis Using E0E Soil Properties Fig. 3 - 1 71)
Comparison of EGE Surface Fon SSI Analysis with GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure. Mass Point 6 (EL. 127 Ft ) E-H D ir.
Unit i T/H
-. = - -. _ _ _ _ _. _.
.. _ =
0
+
a 30 30 &
25.O--
l 20 O 8
i
}
4j \\
w i
/
h5.0--
g i
8
,s
\\
m e
u
- s s
}
10.0--
,/
r u
7 b
'Ny r
]
g f
p 5.O
(
/
/
.o 8
0 I
2 36 20 SO 10 Frequency (Hz)
J Legend.
Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All Accelerations in ft/sec/sec Fo< Unit 1 Spectra Calculated for 5% damping GP'. Design Spectrum f.,- Unit 2 EGE Analysis Using 4
GPC Soll Properties EGE Analyshs Using EDE Soll Propert3es i
l'iq. 3-17c comparison of EDE Surf ace Fdn SSI Analygis witti GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure. Mass Point 4 (EL. t!7.5 Ft ) N-S Dir. Unnt i T/H
~.
~ -.
--r m
.~
-v
-c
-w-
X 10
.4
.3
,\\
l \\
'E' i t I I C
8 o
/
I
\\4
\\
\\l tr k.>-
f
\\
\\
i if
's
\\
4 ji s
s Ns d
I
-s i
.j--
k y
,/
g so l
/
,Y%.&
,,j
/ -
s' 4.#
.O to 10 10 to I
Frequency (Hz) i i
Legend; Notes I
GPC Design Spectrum All Accelerations in ft/sec/sec For Unit 1 Spectro Calculated for 5% damping GPC Des 10n Spectrum For Unit 2 4
EGE Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties Fig. 3-17d Comparison of E0E Surface Fdn SSI Analysis with GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure, Mass Point 6 (EL. 127 Ft ) N-S Dir. Unit 1 T/H
X 10 S
l]
.4
)
I I
(
3
.a I
\\
\\
l
~
l a
L*
I I
a u
-}
y
.2
/
f
/
/s
\\
\\
[
s
,Al,%
/
1~
~
/
N m
/
a
~~,~~~s.
/
/
.o,
10 to 10 to i
Frequency (Hz)
Legend; Notes; 4
GPC Design Spectrum All Accelerations in ft/sec/sec For Unit i Spectra Calculated for 5% damping GPC Des 10n Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis Using LUE Soil Properties 4
1>ig. 3-Ida Comparison of EOE Embedded Fdn SSI AnalyGIS W3th GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure, Mass Point 4 (EL. 87.5 Ft.) E-W Dir. Unit i T/H I.
X 10
.8
{~l 1
1 1
lj
.e I
l I
c I
i o
e w
l "a
1 k.+-
I l
I
-=
1 u
j.
~
O
\\
I
\\
/
\\
. 2--
)
f\\
wa s.
,/
x N
M
,.- l s -
' ~ - ~ ~ _,,
\\
.,e
/
s*
j
' % w. _.-
.O 1
0 25 50 so$
2 10 Frequency (Hz) l, Legend:
Notes:
4 GPC Design Spectrum Al] Accelerations in ft/sec/sec For Unit $
Spectro Calculated for 5% damping GPC Desion Spectrum For 'Jnit 2 s
3 EGE Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis UsinD EGE Soll Properties Pig. 3-18b Comparison of EOc Emtsedded Fan SSI Analysis w3th-GPC Design Sper.tra Intake Structure. Mass Point 6 (EL. 127 Ft.) E-w O t r.
Unit 1 T/H
X to 30.&
4
- 25. &--
20.O C
1 O
\\
]
^
e
/-
\\
h5.0 j
\\
u s
y f'
\\
20.0
/
/
~
'"%f *z
/
__N
\\
Y.
/
~
\\
o
's 5.0 f
/
'v _.
f I
0 I
2 15 10 to 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend; Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum A13 Accelerations in ft/sec/sec For Unit i Spectra Calculated for 5% damping GPC Design Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Usin0 GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis Using EOE Soil Properties Fig. 3-18c Comparison of EDE Embedded Fdn SSI Analy, sis with GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure, Mass Point 4 (Et_. 87.5 Ft ) N-S Dir. Unit i T/H
X 10 30.c 25.0
-\\
2o.o
~
I
\\
E E
\\
/
\\
o f* 5. 0--
/
,'g k
m
~
I t s C
J-I
\\
z I
\\ \\
u
/
.d
\\
10.0--
/
I \\
l g~ _ A _ _.
/
./ ~..s /
s
/
k L ~.
- 5. 0--
/
/
s'
/
.o so 10 so 10 Frequency (H2)
Legenct Notes:
CPC Design Spectrum All Accelerations in ft/sec/sec For Unit i Spectre Calculated for 5% damping GPC Des 10n Spectrum For Unit 2 4
EGE Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis Using EOE Soil Properties Fig. 3-18d Comparison of EOE Embedded Fdn SSI Analycis with GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure, Mass Point 6 (EL. 127 Ft.) N-S Dir. Unit i T/H
X 10
_ fi l';
.4--
l l
1 f.,
j h
i li, g -
l c
jI O
.3--
I
(
ll g o
s k
O t
l 1
a
,t n ;t j
k i
e
.2
(
j'
's i i
1 \\
l
/-
\\
~
5 \\
w
+*
\\
b o
8--
/
N.
N,Nc - - _ _._ __ _ _
_.a
'o
,e/
~.
to to to to Frequency (Hz)
Legend; Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All Accelerations in ft/sec/sec For Unit i Spectra Calculated for 5% damping GPC Des 10n Specteurn For Unit 2 i
EGE Analysis Usir:0 GPC Soil Properties E0E Analysis Using EGE Soil Propertdes
]
Fig. 3-19a Comparison of EOE Surface Fdn SSI Analysis with GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure. Mass Point 4 (EL. 87.S*Ft.) E-w Dir. Unit 2 T/H
X 10
.B I ~l 1
l l
e--
li l,,
{t j
li l,i L
\\
l t
5
)
1 i i
\\t t
a
{
42 l
1 L
n p
1 g
}
[a, l
i n
n 0
\\
l t
E n\\
\\ \\
w
.3-
-/
) '
\\
t
\\\\
}s 1
6 D
~
f Q -------
. q
/
s
.o 10 to so to Frequency (Hz)
Legend; Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum Al] Accelerations in ft/sec/sec For Unit i Spectra Calculated for 5% damping GPC Des 10n Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Usin0 GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis UsinD E0E Soil properties Pig. 3-19b Comparison of ECE Surface Fdn SSI Analysis with GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure, Mass Point 6 (EL. 127 Ft.) E-W Dir. Unit 2 T/H
2
~
x to
.4 l
l r
.3
)
ls c
, s O
\\
/
\\
sh i
t a
s t
m 2 I
m
/
3 e
J I
f
!2_J $ \\
o E
']
\\\\
ob'.
\\
\\
i o+
t
, g__
/[
s_
~
.m.
' ~ ~ ~,
/
/
.o 10 10 10 to Frequency (Hz)
Legend; Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All Accelerations in ft/sec/sec For Unit i Spectro Calculated for 5% domping GPC-Des 10n Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties E0E Analysis Usin0 EOE Soi1 Propertles Pig. 3-19e Comparison of EOE Surface Fdn SSI Analysts with GPC Design Spectra
~~
Intaka Structure, Mass Point 4 (EL. 87. 5 Ft. ) N-S Dir, Unit 2 T/H i
X 10
\\
1
.3 I
)
n i
II J
Jl it
.+-
I se c
/ I o
l 1 n t
i l
I t
o s
ca
.}-
i n
~
s O
- g
/
4
!,g i
. a.-
l l
,3 t-J u
y
,f J
\\t
_ y
\\+##~%
.1--
fy gt
'~
'M
~ ~ - - - - -. -
/
.o- {
...t; 0
10 10 so to Frequency (Hz)
Legend; Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All Accelerations in ft/sec/sec For Unit i Spectra Calculated for 5% damping GPC Des 10n Spectrum For Unit 2 E0E Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties EOE Analysis UsinD EOE Soil Properties Fig. 3-19d Comparison of E0E Surface Fdn SSI Analysis with GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure, Mass Point 6 (EL. 127 Ft.) N-S Dir. Unit 2 T/H
2 x so
~
.5 l~;
.4--
)
I I
~
'.3--
/
O
[
l l
=
k I
l
/
4 0
y
.2
~
f
,\\
/
r' b
/
\\
/
w
, -\\ e g
k 1~-
/
N
,y
' ~ ~ -
v._.,__.~..
/
.O 16 to 10 10
?
4 Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All Accelerations in ft/sec/sec For Unit 3 Spectra Calculated for 5% damping GPC Desion Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties E0E Analysis Using EOE Soil Properties b.9" #2Ca Comparison of EDE Embedded Fdn SSI AnalysJs watn GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure. Mass Point 4 (EL. 87.5 Ft.) E-W D i r.
Unit 2 T/H
.~
2 x 10
.8
{ ~l 1
\\
l l
.o.-
I I
1
)
C O
I
\\
f
/I e
.4-l I
\\
3
/ ',N \\
/
i\\
s Y
2
-f). l/
's t l
,)
\\
,,-~
s,%,
..r,
\\
//J gf
'N %. _
O 2
10 to 10 10 Frequency (Hz)
Legend; Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All Accelerations in ft/sec/sec For Unit i Spectra Calculated for 5% damping CPC des 10n Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties E0E Analysis Using EDE Soil Properties l'ig. 3-20b Comparison of EOE Embedded Fdn SSI Analysis w2th GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure, Mass Point 6 (EL. 127 Ft.) E-W Dir. Unit 2 T/H
x so
- 30.0 25.0 20.0 8
\\
~
/
\\
/~
his. o--
[gj
\\
E
\\
^e A
j f.C.
'/ '%
\\
so.O
/
k\\
e[/
\\
x
\\
/
\\
os 5~3 _
s ____
'N.~.
/
A
.0~
15' so*
so' to Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes:
GPC Design Spectrum All Accelerations in ft/sec/sec For Unit 3 Spectra Calculated for 5% damping GPC Des 10n Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis Using EGE Soil Properties Fig. 3-20c Comparison of E0E Embedded Fdn SSI Analysis w3th GPC Design Spectra Intake Structure, Mass Point 4 (EL. 87.5 Ft.) N-S Dir, Unit 2 T/H
~,
m.
O x so 30.C 25.O--
l 20.o.-
\\
h
./ 's 1
c tsi n
It
\\
a ot
/
gs I
\\
b5.0 if j,s' l
\\
t s
s \\
3 J ':'
\\
y
--r s\\
i k
10. &--
/
g s N fp'
% y f ['
(
w
\\
x p
- 5. o.-
//
W-
/- f
/
l
.o, so 10 10 to 3
Frequency (Hz)
Legend:
Notes GPC Design Spectrum All Accelerations in ft/sec/sec For Unit 3 Spectra Cb.lculated for 5% damping GPC des 10n Spectrum For Unit 2 EGE Analysis Using GPC Soil Properties EGE Analysis Using EOE Soil Properties Fig. 3-20c! Comparison of EGE Embeddeo Fdn SSI Analysis si2th GPC Design Spectra Intake Structuro. Mass Point 6 (EL. 127 Ft.) N-S Dir. Unit 2 T/H
i l
4.0 CONCLUSION
S l
i General i
The seismic design criteria for nuclear power plant components, systems, and structurcs cannot be adequately evaluated without considering the entire scismic analysis process. Comparing design ground motion specifications for two plants or two units is inadequate to draw conclusions concerning their relative conservatism.
This was demonstrated for Hatch Units ! and 2 by comparing the in structure design response spectra generated by GPC and by comparing those generated independently in this study. The one exception is ground mounted light components whose design environment is defined entirely by the ground response spectra.
The present evaluation demonstrates again the importance of soil structure interaction on in structure response for soil si es both relatively stiff and sof t t
soils. This evaluation quantified the conservatism in the approximate SSI analysis procedures applied to Unit I and Unit 2 evaluations for the GPC soit profile. This conservatism was principally due to the treatment of soil structure interaction radiation damping effects. Table 1.1 itemized GPC's treatment of SSI, building by-building, including their approximations and limitations on radiation da' ping. In m
some cases, e.g. Unit I reactor building, radiation damping was not included. in other cases, limitations on equivalent modal daniping ratios for predominant soil-structure modes were imposed, The intent of imposing such limitations was to ensure conservatism and, in general, that is the case. The techniques applied here led to large conservatism but that is not always the case. For soil-structure systems with very significant energy dissipation characteristics due to radiation effects, modeling the soil structure system by real linear eigensystems with equivalent modal damping factors may not be appropriate (10). Further, limitations imposed on radiation damping ratios may not achieve the desired result of conservatism in, for example, all frequency ranges of in structure response spectra. This aspect is discussed in detail in Ref.10. The SSI analysis methodology applied here by EQE is exact conditional on the basic assumptions of the approach. Hence, the questions concerning the real linear eigensystem and equivalent modal damping factors do 41
not enter the process. The responses calculated here are the most appropriate values. This investigation further quantified the general reduction in response due to embedment, in particular for the reactor building. For the independently developed soil profile, a general further reduction in response was observed. One caveat concerning the effect of embedment on response is important. The analyses were performed assuming the Unit I and Unit 2 ground response spectra arc appropriate to be applied at top of grade.
The importance of estimating the best estimate soil profile and its variability has been clearly demonstrated. In general, the independently generated soil profile used here was considerably sof tc than the GPC profile execpt for the dicsci generator building. The effect of nis sof ter profile on response predictions was significant. SSI analyses performed for this sof ter soit profile but with realistic modeling of the soil and foundation led to significant reductions in response. One exception teing the intake structure which is discussed in more detail below. A second exception was response spectral accelcrations at low frequencies where the softer soit profile led to execedances of the design spectra but these excecdances were typically small.
In general, the reanalyses performed by GPC are judged to be reasonable and conservative given the ground motion specifications and the GPC soil profile as derived from geophysical measurements. The artificial acceleration time histories are judged appropriate. The SSI models are judged to be conservative.
Peak broadening of in structure response spectra by n10% vs.115% is a relatively insignificant effect for the cases considered here. In general, significant conservatisms exist in the in structure design spectra whether broadened 10% or 1
15%. In addition, where execedances occurred due to considering the EQE sof ter soil profile, peak broadening by either amount would not cover. These low frequency exceedances, in practice, should have minimal effect on components and i
commoditics because they were accompanied by significant higher frequency reductions. The net effect on all systems except those dominated by very low frequency response is likely to be a reduction.
42
Reactor Buildine For the reactor building, only the Unit I design spectra were considered. For summary purposes, the best estimate SSI model, including embedment and both soil profiles, is focused upon.
For the Unit I ground motion specification, the Unit I design spectra envelope in all frequency ranges the calculated response spectra, and hence, are judged to be conservative.
For the Unit 2 ground motion specification, the Unit I design spectra generally envelope the calculated response. Exceptions are slight excecdances at low frequencies (below 2 Hz) and near peak amplification at mass point 7.
Control Buildine For the control building, no embedment effects were considered due to its foundation condition and surrounding structures. Unit 1 and Unit 2 design spectra were compared-For the Unit I ground motion specification, both the Unit I and Unit 2 in-structure design spectra generally envelope the more realistic responses for the GPC soit profile. For the EQE soil profile, Unit 2 in structure design spectra envelope the more realistic ones; Unit 1 in structure desi'gn spectra also envelope these more realistic spectra except in the low frequency range.
For the Unit 2 ground motion specification, for the GPC soil profile, the Unit 2 l
in structure design spectra generally exceed those calculated here; the Unit i values are exceeded in the low frequency range. For the EQE soil profile, both sets of design spectra are exceeded in the low frequency range and vice versa in the higher frequency range.
l 43
One caveat is in order for the control building. If the control motion is defined at
~
grade, some reduction in amplitude would be expected at foundation level. This reduction was not considered in any analyses and remains a potential source of co nse r'e s tis m.
Diesel Generator Buildin In general, for the diesel generator building, significant conservatism exists in the Unit I and Unit 2 design in structure response spectra on _the foundation due to the conservatisms in the SSI analysis procedures applied to each.
Intake Structure For the intake structure, only the results associated with the embedded foundation configuration are summarized here.
For the Unit I ground motion specification, significant conservatism is observed a
between both Unit I and Unit 2 in-structure design response spectra and those calculated for the GPC soil profile.
For the Unit 2 ground motion specification and the GPC soit profile, the Unit 1 in structure design response spectra generally envelope with some low frequency excecdances. The Unit 2 in structure design response spectra envelope.
For the EQE soit profile, low frequency exceedances as observed in all cases. It is -
i 1
recommended that a re evaluation of these cases be performed if the soit properties at the site are re evaluated and found to be sof ter than the GPC soil profile. Also, confirmation to us of the embedment conditions surrounding the intake structure would be of assistance.
44
5.0 REFERENCES
1.
US NRC,"Statement of Work Audit of Scismic Design and Analysis of-Hatch Units 1 and 2."
2.
Johnson, J. J., Schewe, E. C., and Mastenikov, O. R., "SSI Response of a Typical Shear Wall Structure," Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCID 20122, Vols. I and 2,1984.
3.
Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J., "Development of Criteria for Seismic Review of Selected Nuclear Power Plants," N. M. Newmark Consulting Engineering Services, Urbana, IL, Prepared for US NRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC, NUREG/CR 0098,1978.
4.
Letter, US NRC to GPC, "Request for Additional Information Seismic Spectra Broadenind Analysis Discrepancies," September,1986.
5.
Letter, SL IS79, L. T. Guewa (GPC) to US NRC, "Response to Request for Additional Information Seismic Spectra Broadening Analysis Discrepancies,"
November 14, 1986.
6.
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Final Safety Analysis Report Unit 1, Section 2.7.
7.
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Final Safety Analysis Report Unit 2, Supplement 2A, 8.
Ohta, Y. and Goto, N., "Empirical Shear Wave Velocity Equations in Terms of Characteristic Soil Indexes,' Earthauake Engineering and Structural Dynamie. Vol. 6,1978, pp.167187 9.
Wong, H. L., and Luco, J. E., "Soil Structure Interaction: A Linear Continuum Mechanics Approach (CLASSI)," University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, CE79 03,1980.
5l
10.
NCT Engineering,"The Role of Radiation Damping in the Impedance Function Approach to Soil Structure Interaction Analysis
- Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL 15:33,1980.
i I
i 52
APPENDIX A DERIVATION OF SSI ANALYSIS A method to perform the soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis of structures subjected to in-structure forced vibrations as well as earthquake excitations using the substructure approach is presented below. The method is implemented in the CLASSI system of computer programs.
Several assumptions apply to the analysis procedure. Most notably, the foundations are assumed to behave rigidly.
Full bonding is assumed between the embedded portion of the structure and the foundation with the soil. Strictly speaking, the analysis procedure is linear.
Soil is modeled as a series of linear visoelastic horizontal soil layers. Nonlinear soil material behavior is modeled in an equivalent linear fashion, i.e., equivalent linear soil shear moduli and material damping values for each layer.
The remaining constants for the material model are mass density, Poisson's ratio, and water table location. The substructure approach is particularly attractive for the Lotung analysis.
It separates the SSI problem into a series of simpler problems, solves each independently, and superposes the results. This approach allows one to examine meaningful intermediate results. The elements of the substructure approach as applied to structures with rigid bases subjected to earthquake excitations only are shown in Fig.
j A-1.
The key elements are:
specifying the free-field ground motion; calculating the foundation input motion; calculating the foundation impedances; determining the dynamic characteristics of the structure; and performing the SSI analysis, i.e., combining t.he previous steps to calculate the response of the coupled soil-structure system. A brief discussion of each of these elements is given below followed by the derivation of the equations of motion for the SSI analysis including forced vibration effects.
6
~ -~
l l
i Free-field cround motion, Specification of the free-field ground motion entails specifying the control point, the frequency characteristics of the control motion (typically, time histories or response spectra), and the spatial variation of the motion.
The soatial variation of motion i
will be assumed to be due to vertically incident shear and dilatational waves.
For the forced vibration analysis, no free field ground motion is specified.
foundation inout motion.
The foundation input motion differs from the free-field ground motion in all cases, except for surface foundations subjected to vertically incident waves. The motions differ for two reasons.
First, the free-field motion varies with soil depth. Second, the soil-foundation interface scatters waves because points on the j
foundation are constrained to move according to its geometry and stiffness. The foundation input motion (u*)
is related to the free-field ground motion by means of a transformation defined by a scattering i
matrix {s(e))
, which is complex valued and frequency dependent:
l l
(u*( e)) - (s(e )) (f( e))
The vector (f(a))
is the complex Fourier transform of the free-field ground motion, which contains its complete description. A discussion of scattering matrices and their characteristics is contained in Refs. A.1 and A.2.
l E0undation imoedances.
Foundation impedances (k (e)) describe the force displacement characteristics of the soil.
{
3 They depend o7 the soil configuration and material behavior, the frequency of the excitation, and the geometry of the foundation.
In general, for a linear elastic or viscoelastic material and a uniform or horizontally stratified soil deposit, each element of the impedance matrix is complex-valued and frequency dependent.
For a rigid foundation, the impedance matrix is a l
6 x 6 wtiich relates a resultant set of forces and moments to the six rigid body degrees of-f reedom.
Structure model. The dyna:aic characteristics of the structures to be analyzed are described by their fixed-base eigensystem and modal damping factors. Hodal damping factors are the viscous damping factors for the fixed-base structure expressed as a fractien of critical damping. The structures' dynamic characteristics are then projected to a point on the foundation at which the total motion of the foundation, including SSI effects, is detemined.
SSI analysis. The final step in the substructure approach is the actual SSI analysis. The results of the previous steps -- foundation input motion, foundation impedances, and structure model -- are combined to solve the equations of motion for the coupled soil-structure system.
For a single rigid foundation, the SSI response computation requires solution of, at most, six simultaneous equations -- the response of the foundation.
The derivation of the solution is obtained by first representing the response in the structure in terms of the foundation motions and then applying that representation to the equation defining the balance of forces at the soil / foundation interface. The formulation l
is in the frequency docain. Hence, one can write the equation of motion for the unknown harmonic foundation response (ub) **P (I"t) f0# ""Y frequency w, about a reference point normally selected on the foundation.
)
i Solutions for Hotions in the Structure.
The response in the structure (u(e)) can be obtained in terms of motion on the foundation (ub(U))
and the forcing fur.ctions applied to the structure (P(u))
(m) ('u'(w)) + (c)(u(w )) + (k) (u(w)) - (P(u))
(A.1) l
4 where (m] - mass matrix of the structure (c) - Viscous damping matrix of the structure (k) - Stiffness matrix of the structure (P(w)) - Nodal loads applied to the structure The total response in the structure, u, is composed of two portions:
the dynamic portion, ud, which consists of the amplification of motion due to the dynamic characteristics of the structure; and the pseudo-static portion, u, which for a rigid foundation consists of the rigid s
body motion in the structure caused by motion on the foundation. Note that for a fixed-base analysis, the pseudo-static portion is zero.
u - ud + u3 (A.2)
The rigid body portion, u, is obtained by applying a rigid body 3
transformation to the base motions.
us-a ub (A.3) where ub
- the base rmtion of the structure (3 translations and 3 rotations)
U
- rigid body transformation matrix.
For any node, k, in the structure, the motions are obtained by uk
- U k ub
~
1 0
0 0
AZ
-AY 0
1 0
-AZ 0
AX cg 0
0 1
AY
-A X 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
J 0
0 0
0 1_:
v-
-.-,,-,,,y-r w-
,y
,-+,-
^
substituting Eq. A.2 into Eq. A.1 gives dd + <b + kuq + (cd + ku;) - P - m'u's (A.4) d d
s The terms in parentheses are zero because they involve no relative motion. Eq. A.4 becomes dd + Cb + ku3 - P - m o'u'b d
d (A.5)
Assume uq can be represented by an eigenvalue expansion which diagonalizes the mass, stiffness and damping matrices ((m],(k] and (c]).
Consider the undenped free vibration problem
("l(d ) + (k](ug) = 0 d
(A 6a) and the linear coordinate transformation (ug) = { 4 ) ( U )
(A.6b) where {U) is of the form exp (i w t) and the columns of ( 4]
are the eigenvectors (&j). Substitution of Eq. A.6b into Eq. A.6a leads to the standard eigenvalue problem:
2
([k] - I ej
.j(m]){ 4 ]( 0 ) - 0 (A.6c)
The resulting eigensystein is assumed to satisfy
[ p ]T[,)[ 4 )
[g)
( 4 ]T[c][ 4 ]
[ 26 aj
.]
[ 4 ]T[k]( 4 ]
C' wj
]
(A.6d)
{
where ej and 83 are the natural frequency and fraction of critical damping, respectively, of the jth sode.
The eigen-system corresponds to the fixed-base modes of the structure.
I i
l Substituting (q. A.6b into Eq. A.5 and premultiplying by ( 4 ]I (N) + I 26j uj
](b) + pej J(U) - [ 4 ]I (P) - [ 4 ]I (m)lo)('d) 2 b
( $ )I (P) - [ [ )('d )
(A 2) b where { f )
the modal participation factor matrix. Making use of the relationship between displacement, velocity and acceleration, we can manipulate Eq. A.7 to obtain a solution for (U( o )) in terms of
('d ( e )) and (P( o )).
d (E(w))
[0( e )) { P)('d ( e )) -
(4)
(P( e ))
(A.8) b where
( e/ e j)2 (0( w ))
1 - ( w / e j)2 2iG ( w / w j)
+
j The solution for ('d( w )) then becomes Id( w ))-( 4)(0( o )]( P]('d ( w ))+( a)(d ( w ))-( 4)(0( w })( 4]I(P( w ))
b b
(A.9)
Solutien for Foundation Motions. The balance of forces acting on the soll/ foundation interface can be expressed as (C) (P(w ))-(a ]T[m)(if( q.:(mb3(d ( w. )) - [k ( w ))(ubl W )~"'( " b 3 where (P( u )) nodal loads applied to the structure (m) - mass matrix of the structure (mb) - mass matrix of the foundation [k ( w )) - the impedance matrix of the soil 3 (u'( w )) - the foundation input motion Solving Eq. A.10 for (ub( w )) 9iV05 (w (m l * (k ( w)))(ub u}}
- Iks( w ))(u*( w )) - (a ]T(m](u(J)-{0 I (p( w ))
b 3 l T
v Substituting the solution fo.- (u( w )) -w~ ((mb) + (o)I (m]( o ) + ((]T(0( w )]{ P ))+ k ( u) (ubl u )\\ 3 [k ( a ))(u'( w )) [ p ]T(0( w )]( P ](P( w ). [ o)l(p( y-)) 3 l e
o -) ? APPENDIX REFERENCES A.1 Johnson, J. J., Goudreau, G. L., Bumpus, S. E., Haslentkov, O. R., Seismic Safety Haroins Research Prooram Phase 1 Final Reoort - SMACS - Seisnic MethodolooY Analysis Chain with Statistics (Proiect Vil), Lawrence Livermore National laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-53021, Vol. 9, NUREG/CR 2015, Vol. 9 (1981). A.2 Johnson, J. J., Maslenikov, O. R., Chen, J. C., Chun, R. C., Seismic Safety Marcins Research Procram. Phase i Final Reoort -- Soil Structure Interaction (Pro.iect Ill), Lawrence livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-53021, Vol. 4, NUREG/CR-2015, Vol. 4 (1982). 4 l
l i 1 x \\x l m ttc Interactico Free-field w tion Fourdatico irpt. moticn =_ f m Fourdation WAm SSI mamme Stzmt:. tral model Fig. A-1 Schematic Representation of the Elements of the Substructure Approach i
e 4 EVALUATION REPORT ON THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF HATCH UNITS 1 AND 2 BY STRUCTURAL AND GEOSCIENCES BRANCH INTRODUCTION: In January 1984 Georgia Power Company (GPC) notified NRC that discrepancies exist between the seismic response broadening process as described in the final safety analysis report (FSAR) and what was actually used in the seismic analysis of Hatch Unit 2. Inrtead of the : 15% peak widening as stated in the FSAR, a + 10'. peak widening was actually used in the seismic analysis. As a r':sult of this discovery GPC initiated an exhaustive rev iw of safety analysis reports (SARs) and analyses pertaining to floor response spectra development for both Unit 1 and Unit 2, and it was found that the design response spectra were broadened by procedures which, in some cases, were at variance with the + 10% commitment found 9 the PSAR for Unit 2 and the FSAR for Unit 1. This latter finding led to more detailed studies of the significance of the variances in the seismic analyses of both units by generating new floor response spectra to meet the respective floor response spectra broadening requirements as specifiec in Unit 1 FSAR and Unit 2 PSAR, both of which as far as the licensee is concerned were intended to be + 10% peak broadening. These studies were made by using updated modeling parameters which mostly involved the use of high damping values and the use of time histories different from those used in the original seismic analyses. In these studies some anomalies were detected in the original calculations for Unit ; cable tray supports. As a result cable tray supports for both units were re-evaluated on the basis of "as built" conditions and by using high damping values &nd high soil radiation damping. Most of the cable tray supports thus analyzed can meet the FSAR stress criteria, Those which could not meet the criteria were modified to meet the criteria. The cable tray supports re-analysed were accepted by the staff on an interim basis ar.d are to be reexamined under the USI A-46 program. On the basis of a preliminary revi?w of the licensee's partial re-analysis as described above, the staff had some reservations with respect to the use of high damping values and hence on the adequacy of the seismic design of
1 4 -2 both units. The staff found it necessary to perform a detailed review of the licensee's overali seismic analysis of both units. The review was performed with the assistance of EQE under subcontract to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). LLNL ANAt.YSIS In order to access the seismic design adequacy of Hatch Units 1 and 2 independent analyses were performed by EQE. GPC provided the following information for the EQE independent analysis: L 1. Unit 1 ard Unit 2 design ground motions and the artificial acceleration time histories used in GPC's reanalyses. 2. Two soil profiles, one used by GPC and another generated by EQE on the basis of geophysical and boring log data as provided by GPC. 3. The structural odels used by GPC in the re-analyses. The structures analyzed are Unit 1 reactor building, control building, intake structure and diesel generator builuing. Each of the structures is analyzed respectively for Unit 1 and Unit 2 design ground motions and for the two soil profil(s. The reactor building and the intake structure are modeled with embedded as well as surface fcundations. All other structures are modeled with surface foundations. For structures with embedded foundations, the foundation input motion is related to the free-field ground motion by mea.ns of a transfor-mation defined by a scattering matrix (de'convolation). For structures with surface foundation, the foundation input motion is the free-field ground motion. The soil-structure interaction analysis is accomplished through the substructure approach in which the foundation input motion, foundation impedances and the structural model are combined to solve the equations of motion for the coupled soil-structure system. The analysis is accomplished through the CLASSI system of computer programs.
. ANALYSIS RESULTS From the results of analysis it can be concluded that, for the reactor and diesel generator buildings, the floor response spectra used in the design mostly envelope those generated from the LLNL analysis with few exceptions and there is significant reduction in the response. However for the control building and the intake structure, there appears to be appreciable frequency shifting between the floor response spectra used in the design and those gene-rated from the LLNL analyses. The reduction in response can be attributed to the high radiation damping generated in the process of the analysis. The staff is not convinced that such high damping value is available during an actual earthquake. The shif t in frequency of maximun response to low frequency region appears to be'the result of considering a soft soil profile and embedment. A copy of the E0E report, "Review of seismic analysis of Hatch Units 1 and 2: In-structure Response Spectra" is attached herewith. CONCLUSION The LLNL analyses did r.ct identify any gross deficiency in the licensee's original seismic design and it is not possible for the staff to assess all the detrimental effects of the use of 10% instead of 15% broadening of floor response spectra. However from the results of the analysis, it can be concluded that the original floor response spectra used in the design are generally conservative in the control building and intake structure. The shifting of frequency of maximum response to low frequency region most likely will not have significant effect on the seismic design of the components and equipment located taerein unless the frequencies of any of these items are in the low frequency range. On the basis of these findings from the LLNL analyses, it i recommended that the licensee make a reassessment of the adequacy of the seismic design for both Hatch Units 1 and 2 especially the problen of the low frequency exceedances as observed in the LLNL study. The reassessment snould be made on the basis of smoothed response spectra which envelope the responsn spectra developed from the LLNL analysis and the original response spectra as used by the licensee in the design. It is to be noted that some of the parameters of soil properties used in the LLNL analyses have been based on assumptions with whi:h the staff l'as some reserv3tions. - - ~
I 4 a .4-The large reduction in the floor responses of reactor building and diesel generator building can be attributed mostly to the large radiation damping which is dependent on paraneters of the soil properties and is autogeneous in the analyses. It is uncertain whether the resulting large reduction in floor responses can be justified. Furthermore the staff still has reservations about the reduction of in the ground motion from the surface to foundation level using the deconvolution process. Since the Hatch Plant is included in the EPRI's Seismic margin assessment progam (SMA) and at the same time GPC is undertaking a plant Hatch seismic program, a resolution of the above staff's concerns by GPC through these programs is in order. On the basis of staff's review and evaluation as delineated above, it is concluded that the findings of the independent analysis by staff's consultant provide furth4r assurance that the facility can be safely operated until a resolution of staff's remaining concerns is reached in plant Hatch's Seismic program and EPRI's seismic margin assessment program. I}}