Text

Audit & Review Summary 811014-16. Supporting Documentation Encl
	ML20203H335
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/22/1981
From:	; BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
To:	; NRC
Shared Package
ML20203H309	List: IA-86-105, Responds to FOIA Request for Records Containing Technical Content Produced by BNL & NRC in Connection W/Fin A-3377.App Documents Encl & Being Placed in PDR.NUREG-CR/2834 Available in PDR; ML20203H304; ML20203H335;
References
	FOIA-86-105 NUDOCS 8604290475
	Download: ML20203H335 (82)
	v • d • e

,

f: )

DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 AUDIT AND REVIEW

SUMMARY

OCTOBER 14-16, 1981 4

October 22, 1981 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS GROUP BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY

' UPTON, NEW YORK 11973 i

8604290475 660401 l

PDR FOIA l HOLMES86-105 PDR

Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) was requested to send representatives to attend the meeting held at NRC on 9th October 1981 relating to the " diagram error" made by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) of California in the design of the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Nuclear Power Plant. At this meeting, PG8E presented a description of the source of the error and the corrective actions taken to requalify the design. As a result of this presentation, an audit of the utilities efforts, at the utilities head-quarters, was scheduled and BNL representatives were requested to attend. The purpose of the audit was to review with PG8E the e.xtent of the errors and to assess the validity of the corrective measures adopted to requalify the plant design.

The audit meeting was held at the PG8E headquarters in San Francisco during the period October 14-16, 1981. Members of the BNL Structural Analysis group, P. Bezier, M. Subudhi and A. J. Philippacopoulos, attended this meeting R

acconpanied by their NRC monitors. Day by day attendance sheets are included as attachment 1. BNL's role in this meeting was to act as a consultant to NRC, to conduct an independent assessment of the error impact on th'e overall plant design. This report summarizes BNL's findings from this audit. It also includes.some reconmendations for further actions to assure plant compliance '

with NRC safety requirements.

The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Station consists of two units side by side that are symmetrical with respect to the North-South axis. Because of the .

symmetry, the floor response spectra for the containment buildings were developed for only one unit ct the configuration. This effort was contracted to John Blume and Associates.

The developed mathematical models for horizontal and vertical spectra '

are similar for both units. Hence, the spectra supplied by John Blume and

3 and Associates in general apply equally as well to either.

This is, however, not the case for vertical excitation of the structural steel in the annulus -

t region of each reactor building. For these regions the structure for each t

, unit are mirror images of each other. The error that was made was to use a ,

1 '

figure depicting the mathematical model of the Unit 2 annulus frame structure for Unit I vertical floor response spectra definition. PG&E is presently ;

e undertaking a rigorous. procedure in order to make sure that all secondary systems in Unit 1, supported from the annulus steel region are designed using

)

the proper design spectra,

! i The particular error was caused by the mislabeling of one of the !

T Engineering drawings that was transmitted to John Blume and Associates during !

1 the Hosgri upgrade. Owing to the simplistic idealization of the mathematical j

j model used for the spectra development, frame locations on the model do not i 1

correspond to actual frame locations. Hence the error was not obvious and f a ;

l remained undetected until now. Because the error is the direct result of a .

mislabeled figure or diagram it has been designated as a " diagram error".

i .

l i

I i

i

(

I l ,

I !

i !

~

I

?

[

5 * .

I e

4 l l

I. ' INTRODUCTION The meeting was opened with general remarks by J. 8. Hoch of PG&E followed by summary presentations given by the cognizant PG8E personnel in each of the eight specific areas listed on the PG&E meeting agenda sheet (see attachment 2). PG&E is. scheduled to complete all the design modifications caused by the diagram error by October 31, 1981. The following summary of BNL l

efforts, findings and conments correspond with the eight specific areas (i.e.,

or items II through IX) of the meeting agenda, j i

II. REVIEW 0F SPECTRA '

A packet of figures was distributed, attachment 3, headed by Figure !

No. 4-28 which showed the erroneous annulus frame structure mathematical model plan view and the purportedly correct annulus frame structure mathematical model elevations. The remainder of the packet was comprised of figures :

showing the broadened vertical response spectra corresponding to each mass '

point of the mathematical model, Figures 4-86, 4-87, 4-88 abcde, 4-89 abcde, .

4-90 abcde and 4-91 abcde.

r According to PG8E the diagram error which percipitated this seismic ,

design review, was in fact the plan view shown in Figure 4-28. The view as shown corresponds to Unit 2 whereas it was used for Unit I computations. The ;

correct Unit I mathanatical model would show the Figure 4-28 plan view rotated 180* about the frame 3 or E-W axis, resulting in frame 2 being in the upper right hand quadrant and frame 4 being in the lower left hand quadrant. The

~

frame elevations on this figure as well as the corresponding spectra were correct regardless of which plan view was used.

l

~ _ _ . . . _

~

.f Other information transmitted pertinent to the spectra were:

(a) the mathematical model azimuthal frame locations correspond approximately to the locations of the fan coolers in the annulus region (b) the mathematical model azimuthal frame locations do not necessarily correspond to the true frame steel locations in the annulus region .

.(c) the response spectra developed were based on the mathematical model depicted in Fig. 4-28.

A review of the distributed packet of figures indicated that they were not a completely consistent set. Specifically the legend on Figure 4-87 specifies that the response spectra depicted in this figure correspond to node point 51 of the mathematical model. However there is no node 51 in Figure 4-28 of the original packet. In response to a question concerning this inconsistency it was first implied that node point 29 (original figure) was in fact node point 51. On the following day a Figure No.10, attachment 4, was

?

distributed which although labeled differently from Figure 4-28, appeared to be a near identical figure. Figure 10 clearly showed both r odes 29 and 51, with these two nodes being almost in the same location. We were informed that Figure 4-28 was ar early, incorrectly numbered figure and that Figure 10 actually applied and was used for analysis. Figure 10 as distributed is incomplete as the element joining nodes 29 to 51 is not labeled. I The structures located in the containment annulus of the Unit I were reviewed. For this purpose various drawings relating to these structures including structural, architectural as.well as shop drawings were requested from the applicant and reviewea. In general the containment annulus contains a platfonn and three other hanger frames. These are supported by a set of I

C

.e._ . -

columns and by the crane wall' at the outer and inner perimeter of the annulus.

The framing plans of the annulus structure consist of various steel beams, primarily of the wide flange type, which transfer loads to the steel columns and to the crane rail wall.

The applicant was requested to clarify the framing details employed for the containment annulus structure. According to the applicant, all the connections of the steel members are shear type. However, some inconsisten-cies were found with regard to the type of the connections used for the attachments of the beams of the hanger frames and the columns located circumferentially at the outer region of the annulus. From a review of the corresponding shop drawings it was concluded that these beams are connected to the colunn with moment connections. Shear connections are used to support the platform beams at elevation 140'-0". '

The annulus structure was considered as a free standing framed structure which is isolated from the containment walls. The technical personnel of PGaE were requested to comment on the available clearance provided between the outer boundary of the annulus structure and the containment wall. ihey replied that this clearance is about six inches and is sufficient to accom-modate the maximum horizontal displacements of the annulus structure and the containment wall during a seismic event.

The general procedure used for t'he generation of the vertical floor response spectra of the annulus structure was outlined. The total structure was idealized by a set of five one bay frames. A typical frame has five beams, each containing a lumped mass at its midspan. The mass of the crane .

wall was also lumped at the columns.to simulate this wall. The mass and 9

9 stiffness values employed for the mathematical model .of the annulus structure were obtained by averaging the contribution from th'e structural components and the equipment located at the corresponding elevations.

! According to this mathematical model the orientation of the five frames

]s of no importance for the calculation of the floor response spectra.

Therefore the set of the five ~ frames were considered as a plane structure by designing different nodes only at the outer columns and common nodes at the columns which represent the crane wall. All 51 nodes used in the model are located in the same plane. On the basis of this formulation it is concluded that although the orientation of the five frames is not important for the generation of the vertical floor response spectra, it is very important for the application of these spectra to the design of piping and equipment.

In each frame of the model all beams were assumed to be pin-connected to the columns which represent the crane wall. A similar connection was also assumed for the beam at the top elevation. All other joints were assumed rigid. In addition from the details given on the pertinent drawings we found that the structure could be assumed fixed at the base.

In discussing the structural aspects relating to the containment annulus structure, various details were provided by Erwin P. Wollak and Vincent Ghio of PG8E. The information related to the development of the vertical response spectra were discussed mainly with David A. Lang from URS/Blume Engineers.

From the review of the submitted drawings and from the discussions d,uring the meeting, we feel that the general structural arrangement of the contain-ment annulus is adequate. The inconsistencies which were found are of minor significance. With respect to the vertical mathematical model employed for

. g

~ -

the generation of the floor response spectra, we concluded that this represents a crude model. The model incorporates a great deal of simplification with regard to the representation of both the stiffness and the mass of the -actual structure. However it also incorporates conservatism to a certain degree (i.e., total mass per floor is lumped at the mid-span of ::he correspondintg beam where spectra were calculated).

In order to verify the adequacy of the vertical floor response spectra used for the seismic qualification of the annulus structure an independent assessment of these spectra will be undertaken. A confirmatory analysis of the structure will be performed with the objective to evaluate the vertical floor response spectra of the annulus structure of the Diablo Canyon plant containment, Unit 1. The results from this analysis will quantify the degree of conservatism associated with the applicants model.

During the meeting most of the information required for the confirmatory

?

analysis was gathered. This includes a set of drawings, a card deck of the input acceleration time history and a copy of the Blume Hosgri report. PG&E was requested to provide, on a floor,by floor basis, the weight and location of all major equipment as well as the weight distribution of the piping

)

systems in the annulus structure.

i III. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT lie were informed that no class 1E electrical panels were attached to the structural steel in the annulus region (see attachment 5). Any panels or penetrations in this region are attached to the concrete walls defining the I annulus region. This fact should be independently verified at the plant site.

l l

A '

, .t . .

IV. INSTRUMENTATION INSTALLATIONS Under this heading are included the instrument panels, the instruments i and the instrument tubing installed in the annulus region. It was stated by -

i PGAE that no particular problem associated with the instrumentation _was found 4

during the review process undertaken to requalify Unit I for the diagram error.

j Several local instrument panels are located at different floor levels in the annulus region. .Some of these panels are mounted to the cranewall with i

their legs bolted to the floors. The radial steel beams supporting the floors !

j have one end buried in the concrete of the crane wall Hence, the motion of the i floor near the wall and the cranewall should not differ significantly. A -l statement supporting this conclusion was obtained from John Blume a As sociates. As a consequence, all the panels supported against the cranewall

(

l 4

need not be requalified for the adjusted floor spectra. . In addition, there exist three local panels in the middle of the floor mounted to a steel column. .

f c MCA* .

Since these are located only on the ground floor, no 9ttienuatfuniof the floor Jm-l will be experienced by the panels.

A panel typical to the one installed in this plant was analyzed and the NO fundamental frequency in the F/B direction was found to be 126 Hz. The panel !

l was further qualified for 2g in the horizontal and lg in the vertical j t

directions. In addition, a resonance search test of the panel was performed 4

to determine frequencies and the results are summarized in the report i

'! r

" Resonant Frequency Tests of Enclosed Panel-mounted Pressure '

i

! Transducens for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2", by C. 8. Scott, ,

~

t Dept. of Engineering Research Report #7333142-76, May 7,1976 .

Another report entitled "Multifrequency Sine Beat" prepared by Wyle Lab f

(Report #53744, March 22,1974) describes the seismic qualific'ation of some f i ,

1

. s r

/ k i

, specific instruments mounted in the panel to the above said g-loads. The instruments tested are a flow transmitter, pressure' switch, solenoid valve and ,

pressure gauge. It should be noted that this report was not reviewedvto be wthe !

extent of arriving at any conclusion regarding the validity of the test program for this particular equipment.

Instrument tubing runs are designed based on standards developed by the applicant. These standards define the' support span length on the basis that ,

no span will have a fundamental frequency less than 20 Hz. PG8E has checked i

all the tubing in the annulus area and found that with the exception of one ;

individual case, all the other lines show a fundamental frequency above 40 Hz.

Since the spectra reaches the ZPA level at this frequency range, no additional calculations are needed for the revised spectra. The case which did not satisfy the 40 Hz criteria has a fundamental frequency of 28 Hz. Further analysis of this individual case revealed no particular problem in the present design. A typical PG&E specification drawing #049238-9 (1/21/81) entitled -

" Instrument Tubing Supports", was briefly reviewed.

On the basis of this preliminary audit it appears that the applicant requires no particular design changes for this category of equipment.

However, it is felt that the following actions should be taken in order to justify the PG&E claim:

(1) It should be verified tha't there exist no additional class 1E

. instrumentation in the annulus area other than those indicated by the applicant.

(2) The basis of tubing support design should be reviewed in depth.

Some spot checks of individual tube support designs at the plant site should be carried out.

(3) An audit of some typical panel design reports in the light of the revised spectra should be carried out.

. . ,,_ . . . . , . = . .

'. Il V. -ECHANICAL EQUIPMENT - -

~

The reactor coolant system is not affected by the diagram error since the entire system is inside the cranewall. The accumulators are installed in the j annulus area, but they are not structurally connected to the annulus steel with the exception of one instrument (bellow sensor) support which was claimed

! by the applicant to be adequate. Among the class 1 equipment, the fan coolers and hydrogen reconbiners were originally qualified for an envelope spectrj~ '

j which reflects no change. All the valves mounted to the piping systems are to

}

1 l be qualified in the piping analysis. Hence, according to PGSE all the 1

mechanical equipment is qualified for the revised spectra levels.

. r

! A program to confinn the applicant's assessment should include the following steps.

(1) An independent walkdown in the plant should be made by an I 1

l 4

experienced engineer familiar with class 1 equipment to determine if any other .

equipment exists in the annulus area.

4 (2) The design of the support structures for the above mentioned equipment or any other found during the walkdown should be reviewed for the I

revised spectra.

l t

i I

l .

I t

l t

i 4 . .

4,

! .,...a . .

..,o. ..

w. m s . .~ .mo

.c 11.

VI. - VENTILATION INSTALLATIONS .

It was stated that only the containment purge valve ducts, debris screens and containment fan cooler back draft dampers are effected in the annulus area. The general concensus regarding these systems is that no design i

modifications are necessary as a result of the spectra change.

Two sets of purge valves are mounted hhe containment' duct system for suction and exhaust of containment air. PG&E drawing #500977-4 for Unit 2 t

shows the location of the duct system. It is claimed that these systems are connected to the contaimnent penetrations in the containment wall and hence

! have no structural connection to any of the floor levels in the, annulus. It 1

was also claimed that the debris screens, are attached only to the wall. Thus l it is contended that these two types of equipment need not be redesigned for 4

the revised spectra.

4 Each of the five fan coolers located in the annulus area has a backdraft 1

j damper attached to. its base through the floor on which the cooler is !

j supported. e W'stinghouse originally analyzed these fan coolers with the damper 4

units attached by using an envelope spectra over all the frames in the annulus area.

Since these dampers are structurally bolted to the floor via 92-1/2 inch size bolts, the damper was also separately analyzed. The first !

fundamental frequency of the damper is claimed to be above 33 Hz and hence the [

j ZPA load was used to qualify this component.

Since the revised spectra do not '. ,

change in this range of frequency and since the envelope spectra used for fan

, cooler analysis is not altered in the revised spectra, it is felt by PG4E that '

no additional analysis is needed to qualify this equipment.

I i

l

~

- E ,

- l}

' Based on our review, we feel that the following actions s.hould be considered:

i (1) All the claims by the applicant should be verified at the plant site i

to assure that no other pieces of equipment of this class exist in the annulus area.

(2) The three types of equipment mentioned above should be field checked and the reports qualifying the dampers should be reviewd in depth.

i .

i f

M 0

l l

i

'f

\ -

I

=

q f

b

,- . - . . . ._v._ _m_ -. _ , , . ._ ._ _ , . ._ ,_-,_ ,_, _ , ~

- 1<4 VI I :- PIPI NG -

Fifty-three piping problems analyzed by PGAE are affected by the diagram e rro r. Based on the applicant review twenty-one of these required reanalysis.

In addition, four out of nine piping problems previously analyzed by Westinghouse relating to the annulus area required reanalysis by Westinghouse. '

A listing of the problems requiring reanalysis is attached (attachment 5). No walkdown verification at the plant site was conducted to identify the piping :

systems in the affected area. As a result of reanalysis several supports require review for new loads, specifically the snubbers in the vertical direction. A general statement derived from the reanalysis according to PG&E

~

is that the stresses have been increased by 4-5% whereas the support loads have gone up by as much as 100%. All valve accelerations and nozzle loads are still within their design limits.

In order to confirm the claims by the applicant a review of the piping - '

problem entitled " Safety Injection System 1 & 2" was performed. This problen was analyzed by Westinghouse and includes the lines SI-120, 235, 236, 985, 2575 and 2576. It was analyzed as per the B31.1,1967 requirement. 'The Westinghouse personnel provided all the information requested for audit. The inputs into the computer code were found to be in compliance with the design data.

The maximum stress increase was found to be 3.88% and is tdthin the allowable limits. All other pertinent results such as support loads, valve accelerations, and nozzle loads were properly transmitted to PG&E for design verification.

QY W Oa

The anchor separating the above problem from the PG&E. piping problen was then reviewed for design loads. PG&E Problem #6-11, Safety Injection loops 1 and 2, part 3, provide the design loads for this anchor. Based on the PG8E review process this problem did not require reanalysis due to spectral changes. However, during the review of this problem it was found that pf' (vwH.M W A<rht-O %

erroneous spectrahd as input in the original piping analysis. A question was then raised to find the origin of such an error and to establish whether this error is generic or an isolated case. This issue was never resolved. The next day PG&E produced a new analysis using the correct spectra d6?.1 and claimed no significant changes in the stress results.

A cursory audit of piping proble'ms 1-12, 3-4, 4A-1, 4A-12 and 4A-26 was also performed. The purpose of this audit was to determine if the correct spectra was used in each reanalysis and if the new estimates of support loads a were correctly transmitted to the support design group. The audit involved .

reviews of the pertinent piping layout drawings, problem isometrics, problem computer input-output listings and selected support design folders. In each case the correct spectra was used for analysis and the correct support loads were transmittted to the support design group.

In the review of the problems an unexpected effect was noted. Although the input spectra had increased in magnitude the resulting maximum pipe stresses decreased. On questioning this we were informed that a new ;

computerized procedure was being used to define the input spectra to each problem. This procedure involves two preprocessors HELPH and SPECTRA which ,

I provide the interpolated values of the problem input spectra as a function of '

t 4

Ib in. m&wa=. w a the azimuthal locations and elevations of all pipe supports'specified j Additionally this computer procedure uses more points to define a given i spectrum resulting in a more accurate representatio9 of that spectrum. The

?

greater accuracy of the spectra data typically results in a reduction of I

predicted pipe stresses. !

The audit of problem 4A-1 indicated that interpolation between spectra 4

j_ had been employed to develop the input spectra for this problem. In f 1

i particular credit was taken for the thickness of the floor slab in a

establishing the vertical response spectra. When questioned on this procedure 1

we were informed that this was an isolated instance of possible misapplication ;

1 of the interpolation capability. The difference between the spectra used and J

[

the higher more appropriate frame spectra was not great and the completed l analysis should be adequate. '

] The reanalysis of problem 3-4 was prompted by the discovery that in the i !

original analysis the spectra for two hangers supporting a branch line from j annulus steel was ignored. We wre informed that this was an isolated t

instance of analyst error. For this particular case the analysis res'ults are l

h i l governed by/ spectra other than _that associated with the annulus

steel and l {

therefore the original results were substantiated. -

i i

In problems 1-12 and 4A-26 some support members were modeled as beam j elements having a prescribed axial stiffness. !

This procedure was not applied {

j !

to every support in these problems nor was it evident in the other problem _s. [

i t

~

The modeling of support elements as flexible members seems to be at the piping -

analyst's discretion.

jli The general PG&E policy regarding support elements is i i P that they should be modeled as rigid elements. '

i r

,- i

!e

i l F4 l

1

- As an ancillitary issue in the audit of these problems various questions were raised concerning the development, transmittal'and verification of the

response spectra. It appears that prior to 1977 the response spectra for each i -

piping analysis problem was developed and verified by a PGAE consultant and j transmitted to the PG8E analysis group as a deck of computer cards. To the 1

best of our understanding no further verification of this spectra data was

performed by PG&E staff members. Subsequent' to 1977, the Hosgri upgrade, i

spectralcurves as per'the packet distributed at this meeting, were transmitted to PG&E. This spectra data is now on computer file at PG8E in one of the 1

i computer preprocessors mentioned above. The degree of verifica. tion of this 1

l data and the quali'ty control associated with it is not clear.

i

! It appears from the overall review of the items in this category that the l i

piping systems would not experience any significant stress changes. However, s h the loads on the pipe supports could be increased significantly. In -

i conclusion, (1) Several more piping problems should be revie'wed to identify any other anomflies which exist in the analyses. *

(2) A walkdown verification at the plant site should be performed to .

check dether any lines were overlooked by the ap'plicant. !'

j (3) A confirmatory analysis of a number of piping problems should be l

independently performed to verify the applicant results. ;

l (4) An audit of all problems reanalyzed should be made to determine if j any supports modeled as flexible elements required modification. If such' +

ii elements exist, an evaluation should be made to show that the analysis results I l .

1 i , ;

I l

j

' d are n:t significantly aff:cted by the support wdificatien. If this cann:t b2 i shown a reanalysis of the problem, possibly static as well as dynamic. I following support modification should be made to qualify the'11ne.

(5) The transfer of information from John Blume & Associates to the PG8E pipe analysis and pipe support groups and from the pipe support group to the i

field installation group should be audited. The quality assurance program associated with these activities should be carefully evaluated.

(6) In the audit of piping problems to be performed the use of interpolation to establish the input spectra should be investigated. If further instances of improper interpolation are found then perhaps the audit l process should be extended to part of the plant not effected by the diagram error. 'l VIII. PIPING SUPPORTS l

All the piping supports., both for large diameter and small diameter j

! (<2-1/2"), are in the process of PG&E review. The procedure includes obtaining the new support loads from the revised piping analyses and comparing these loads against the design capacity of each support. For field hung small lines an engineering judgement based on the span length corresponding. to an envelope spectra is being used tc assess the new loads.

Since the review effort is still underway, the documentation reflecting redesign are not in auditable condition. As a result, we could not review these efforts except to raise some preliminary questions and perfonn some '4 checks of the load data transfer from the piping analysis group to the support design group. At the end of the audit PGAE provided a status sheet, :

' attachment 7, which shows that about 19 out of 520 supports reviewed need to I 8

be redesigned.

It was mentioned at the meeting that most of these are snubbers acting in the vertical direction.

According to PG8E the redesign of supports is the major design 4

modification'resulting from the diagram error.

In view of this it is felt that the'following additional reviews should be made to ensure the safety of

Iq the plant. -

(1) A walkdown of the annulus. area should be made to confinn that all the supports in this zone were considered in the review process.

(2) A review of a number of supports should be conducted to assdre their design adequacy.

(3) A spot check should be made to assure proper transfer of design infonnation fran the piping stress group to the support group and from the support group to the field installation group.

G l

?

4 A

. .= _ _. - . - -- . ._ __

. . 2e IX. CONDUlT AND CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS -

In this area several sketches of PG8E support designs for supporting.

electrical conduits or cable trays were reviewed. PG&E is reviewing all the tray supports in the annulus area and so far claims that no significant proble in the original designs were found. These designs were based on an allowable limit of .95 times the yield stress and 4% damping. A general statement PG&E indicated that the supports in the frame 3 area may require design changes.

During the review of some typical design sketches of the supports, we found that all the designs were qualified by standard'"cookbool:' type ,

calculations. Not all of them include the design of weld size' or bolt size i

required to fix the main supporting members. Only supporting structural steel members are considered in the design. The load considerations in the vertical and horizontal directions are not properly understood. The static factor of -

2fes 344-14 W 1.5, as required by the standards for including contributions from other modes, has not been addressed in any design. the applicant did show some i

designs which included calculations of bolts and welds, but it is our feeling that such is not the case for all the designs used in the plant.

Based on our review, we feel that the following procedure should be 1

carried out to ensure the proper design of the conduit and cable tray supports.

(1) A site inspection should be carried out to assure that the number of supports claimed by the applicant is correct.

1 (2) The standards for determining support spans and the design of'some typical supports should be reviewed.

l 4

l .

'2l _

' (3) The static coefficient factor of 1.5 in detemining the design loads for supports should be used in the design. -Since it is not used, further explanation to justify PG8E's their contention that it need not be used should be provided.

(4) Each support design should address the weld size or bolt size calculations. To ensure this, a spot audit of-the support designs should be carried out.

~

l i

I f.l i

5l l

W g y ,

, , --, y my- y-+ -g+L-

1

,,3 , ,3

.. c

. :) -

cs .i .._! i, BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL ISBORATORY-),

{. l yt ala

. ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES. INC.

Upton. long Island. New York 11973 (516)282s 2932 Offce of the Director FIS 666' June 28,1982 Mr. David Schweller, Manager Brookhaven Area Office U. S. Department of Energy ,

'Upton, New York 11973

Dear Mr. Schweller:

Enclosed is one copy of a proposal to the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission entitled, "An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction Computer Code," FIN A-3377, being submitted for your review and approval. The proposal is being submitted in response to a request from NRC dated May 5, 1982. Two copies have been sent to Mr. J. Maher, Department of

, Energy, one copy has been sent to Mr. B. L. Crenier, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and two copies have been sent to:

Mr. Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mail Stop P-202 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 i

If there are any questions regarding the document, please call the principal investigator or Mr. A. J. Romano, FTS 666-4024, Department

~

Administrator for the Department of Nuclear Energy.

S* el yours W. E insche Deputy Director Enclosure cc: R. Vollmer (2)

H. C. Crahn _

B. L. Crenier J. Maher (2) 4 m

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - ' ~ - - ^ ^ ' ^ ^ - - " - - - - ^ - - - - ^ ^ - - - - ~ ^ ' - - - - - - - - - - ^ ^ ' ^ ' - - ' ' - - ^ ' ' '

.~;- s .

i JV f

s .

Project

Title:

An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction Computer Code ~p.4 \

WORK REQUIREMENTS:

Seven major tasks are foreseen: The first deals with improvement to the' SIM Code while the second, third', fourth and fif th deal with pre-modeling of specific and generic containments respectively. The-sixth task concentrates on in-depth confirmatory studies ir.volving Unit 1 of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, while work under Task 7 relates to interpretation of recent Japanese in-situ SSI structural data.

Task 1: SIM Code Improvements Projected Completion Date Estimated Level of Effort: 0.4 man years BNL shall improve the SIM Code to such a degree that it could take earthquake inputs of three mutually perpendicular axes and combine the three-directional ef fects in accordance with the re-quirements in the Standard Review Plan.

Upon completion of this ef fort, BNL will provide access of to the code the Structural Engineering Branch of NRC. 7/30/81 Task 2: Pre-modeling of Generic Containments Estimated Level of Effort: 0.3 man-years -

BNL shall pre-model element grids and stick models for all generic Westinghouse PWR, General Electric BWR (i.e., Mark I, II, III), containment struc-tures. Provisions shall also be made in the com-puter code for analyzing special types of con-taiment structures. 9/30/82 Using the improved SIM t >de developed under Task 1, the following tasks are to be carried out:

Task 3: South Texas Estimated Level of Ef fort 0.1 man-years (a) Perform soil-structure interaction analysis of* plant (b) Provide results of analysis to be used as input to NRR evaluation of the adequacy of licensee analysis. 9/30/82 e

(See Continuation Sheet)

I NRC

onu Igg U$. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$80N o ATE or PRoPCSAL-f 3 , PROJECT AND BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR NRC WORK June 3. 1982

u Ng,e g B neve$ son No. y l PROJECT TITLE fen NUMgER

]

An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction A-3377 Computer Code . e3.,,,,,,,

NRCOniCE -

Nue1ent P5nernr Peess1 ntion 20-19-40-41-2 ooECoNtaACTom Associated Universities, Inc. N Ele"6

' "^ ""'

Brookhaven National Laboratorv 04264 SITE CoE S&R NUMeE R Upton, New York l I

COGN12 ANT PE R$0NNEL ORGANIZATION FTS PHONE NUMBER PE RIOOOF PE R F ORMA NC4 l NRC PROJECT M AN AGER STARTING DATE F. P. Schauer NRC/SEB 492-8448 .l OTHER NRC TECHNICAL STAFF 12/1/80 t COMPLETION DATE 1 9 Mi NRr/9FB . 492-8965. . 11 82 Est.

DOE PROJECT MANAGER Brookhaven I David Schweller Area office 666-3424 CONTRACTOR-PROJECT MAN AGER H.J.C. KOuts ' DNE 666-2815 W.Y. Kato 666-2444 PRINCJ PA L INV ESTIG AT OR(5)

M. Reich DNE 666-2448

.. - *- y- __

STAFF YE ARS OF EFFORT (Rawad ro atercar reer4 efe Peert I FY }gg} lFY }gg2 lFY 1983 IFY UT '

O rect Sc.eatifec/Technicet ' '

Otw Owect (Gr.dedi f

I i1 TOTAL DIRECT STAFF YEARS COST PROPOSAL j Owect 5.t , .

g lf Mare <.at and Serv.ces (E =ctud ag ADP)

ADP Support i i l l IN Tre.es Eaoense.

Do'"est'c l l$

.l l 8adaectL e cous (Departmental Administration)

Ot w (specars Electric Power Olstribution e~ ~ l '

l l

Ge- ~,.,Q

, l J TOTE mi(NG COST , _ ,

CAPITAL EQUsPMEN T FlN CH ARGEO:

\ j

\

TOTAL PROJECT COST j ev 1982 /l Momimv roaECAST E2 PENSE (dollars in thousands) .k e.ac.

a. e oa. .., t I t

1 i

ig m. a nea. e.euw c.p. ,

wuc eums seu P. 7 ~

u.a. auce man n=uva A** Kum a.a ==*um * = aumus a

.....e - - -

A-3377 -

PROJECT AND BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR NRC WORK o rt huatCT TaYa.a lune 3.19'2 8 An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction Computer. Code ..

i i

oot enoeosmo ono4=azario" Associated Univers1Cies, Inc.

g Brookhaven National Lhboratory -

FORECAST &saLESTONE CHART: scaedueed se $ sert - 4 .i - Cennpaesed(JAe=a se Quarrar yarf PnovsoE ESTinaATED DOLLAR COST FOR EACH TAssC FOR E ACH F8 SCAL YEAR (

FY- 1981 FY 1982 FY 1953 FY Fv Tm ta l2nd l 3rd l 4an les l3ad l3rd l 4sn ta l2asl.3rdl4 n sm l 2ndl 3rdl4en' tes l 3adl 3,dl 4en i y _- . ,

sCHEqlA w SIM Code Improvements t Cost I

\ j

. SCHEDULE 5 !'

Pre-modeling of .

Generic Containments cogy ;

f 3

' e !

, South Texas SCHEDULE j j

- N ,

SCHEDULE i !

! 6 Itmer .

Cost -

l.

SCHE.DULE i St. Lucie Cost sCHEoutE ~

Diablo Canyon "

SCHEDULE l 8 7

Fukushima Power -

Cost a

v i , ,, -

[

Cost SCHEDULE,.

e e S Cost l I I

sCHEoutE, i !

g Cost l }

TOTAL EsTleAATED PROJECT Cos? !

eHoJEcra ucasersoH. :. : : a.a, = :.ow - I met ehdeceMe, se sneee) . m es c. .sm 0 ~m m .m mc m saa. x= ~ ~

t.

arenovas. aure,ona ry-seon une goara f ( /f[fu :

G 9

__ _ .._-.- _ _ _ . _ - _ , _ . . ~ . ~- _ , _ . , ._

s .QC l Project

Title:

An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction Computer Code --

p.3 STATENENT OF WORK FIN No.: A3377 B & R Number: 20-19-40-41-2 Technical Monitor: J.S. Ma (FIS 492-8075)

Cognizant Branch Chief:,F.P. Schauer (FTS 492-7483)

EstimatedTotalCost:l BACKCROUND:

The interaction ef fect between structures and soil plays an important role in the seismic response of structures. The apparent fundamental frequency of the structure being computed without the soil-structure interaction will be modified due to the interaction effect. This modificati' on of structural frequencies enlarges when the embedment of the structure increases. -

Both the South Texas (PWR) and Zimmer (BWR) containment structures are embedded in soils, and the adequacy of the soil-structure analyses of these plants needs to be j verified independently by NRC.

The "SIM" Code is the only , computer code in the public dorain, which can perform soil-structure interaction analysis based on a lumped parameters approach that does not rely on composite type of damping. The code is based upon sound theories and could be used to independently verify the adequacy of the soil-structure analyses of both South Texas and Zimmer ' containment structures,-with certain improvements and modifications.

3 The application of the SIM Code to containment structures, however, requires a substantial amount of experience and skill. The modeling, which translates the physical containment structure into a mathematical model, is very tedious even to a skillful analyst. Thus, there is a need to greatly simplify the skill and experi-ence needed in using the code and to eliminate, or minimize the time-consuming part of modeling, so that the NRC staff could use 'the code ef ficiently with relative ease.

Additionally, the code in its present form handles earthquake input in the horizontal direction only. - In order to meet requirements specified by the Standard Review Plan, inputs involving three mutually perpendicular directions are required. The code will be modified to accept mutually perpendicular e?rthquake input in three directions.

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of this program is to improve' the capability of the SIM Code and sin-plify the code input effort through pre-modeling, so that the code could be used to independently verify the adequacy of the soil-structure analyses of South Texas and Zimmer containment structures. Furthermore, its intended that BNL will utilize the methods to provide assistance to NRC by carrying out confirmatory evaluations of licensee problems (such as independent Diablo Canyou' vertical floor spectra deriva-tions).

} .

k. .,g (See Continuation Sheet) e w - g 9 - -- - g w-- y-o --nr

\

G Project

Title:

'An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction Computer Code p.5 WORK REQUIREMENTS: (Cont'd)

Task 4: Zimmer Projected Completion Date Estimated Level of Effort 0.1 nan years Perform tasks a) and b) described in Task 3 for the Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant. 9/30/82 Task 5: St. Lucie Estimated Level of Effort 0.05 man years Perform tasks a) and b) described in Task 3

, for the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. 9/30/82 r

Task 6: Diablo Canyon Estimated Level of Ef fort 1.0 man year (a) Perform, independent, confirmatory analysis for the Annulus area inside the Diablo ,

Canyon containment structure. The analysis shall be performed on the basis of the structural design drawings, shop drawings, C and the loading information and the input acceleration time history provided by the licensee. BNL will assess the signifi-

~

cance of the differences, if any, between the results of this analysis and the licensee's analysis. It is also expected that $5,000 will be spent on rental of the STRUDL code and time. Another $7K will be spent on consultant help. 1/30/82 (b) Af ter completion of the above preliminary analysis, provide an informal report which should contain the details of the analysis and initial assessments of differences, if any, between BNL results and those of PG&E. 3/10/82 (c) Perform vertical seismic analysis for the annulus structure using the PG&E mathematical model and properties. (2-D) Model 6/30/82 (d) Perform seismic analysis for the annulus structure using a 3-D mathematical model coupled with the piping systems being analyzed. 10/31/82 1

(See Continuation Sheet)

S

,6 **

y n - me**

e

, ,m .

9 Project

Title:

An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction Computer Code ~ p.6 -

WORK REQUIREMENTS: (Cont'd)

Projected Completion Date (e) Perform the piping stress analysis using different support notions as inputs. 10/31/82 l (f) Prepare final report describing in detail the method of analysis employed, the

! mathematical model and assumptions used.

] Also provide in the report the assessment i of significance of the differences, if any, between the current results and those l reported in the applicant's FSAR. 11/30/82 i

Task 7: Fukushima Power Plant

! Estimated Level of Effort .25 man years (a) Perform soil structure interaction analyses of the plant.

(b) Provide results of analyses and comparison with recorded data. 11/30/82 LEVEL OF EFFORT AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:

' ~

The level of effort is estimated at 2.2 man years over a 24 month period: 0.4 man years for FY 1981 and 1.5 man years for FY 1982 and 0.3 man years in FY 1983 (to end of November 1982).

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

1. Upon completion of the code tasks BNL shall provide the Cognizant Branch Chief of the Structural Engineering Branch the following:

(a) A source code both in cards and tapes; (b) Twenty copies of user's manual accompanied with the assumptions and limitations of the theories used in the code and discussions of the steps in mathematics followed by the code in arriving at solutions, with sample solutions.

2. A monthly business letter report shall be submitted by the 20th of the month to the Cognizant NRC Branch Chief with copies to the Director, Division of Engineering, Atta: C. Poslusny and to the Assistant Director for Components and Structures Engineering, DE and to B.L. Grenier, NRR. These reports will contain:

(a) A listing of any efforts completed during the period; milestones -

reached, or if missed, an explanation provided; (See Continuation Sheet)_

ww:

aw %ua.s .m.%i,3%n.wamewowes ess.wss%smmmg: a mumqmeg6.6 ,

.- , i -

Project

Title:

An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction Computer Code ~

p.7 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: (Cont'd)

(b) The amount of funds expended for manpower and computer services during the period and cumulative to date for each task; (c) Any problems or delays encoantered or anticipated:

~

(d) A summary of the progress . o date; (e) Plans for the next report! ng period; MEETINGS AND TRAVEL: ,

Three meetings for three BNL employe,es are anticipated in Bethesda during the contract e f forts.

period of performance in order to discuss progress and problems with the NRC FUitNISHED MATERIALS:

If necessary, it is anticipated that MEB/NRC will assist BNL in obtaining pertinent information with regards to specific containment configurations.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

There are no significant contractual or organizational relationships of the DOE, BNL and : employees, or expected, sub contractors or consultants on this proposal, with industries regulated- by the NRC and suppliers thereof that give rise to an apparent 7 or actual conflict of interest.

,e -

E e

3 4 e s 2

BROOKHAVEN NAllONAL LABORATORY ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC.

Upton. Long blond. New York 11973 (516)282 3317 F T S 666 '

on.ce or ne ouecicw August 26, 1983 Mr. David Schweller, Manager Brookhaven Area Office U. S. Department of Energy Upton, New York 11973

Dear Mr. Schweller:

Enclosed is one copy of a proposal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled, "An Automated Soil-Structure' Interaction Computer Code," FIN A-3377, being submitted for your review and approval.' The proposal is being submitted in response to a request from NRC dated June 13, 1983. Two copies have been sent to Mr. J. Maher, Department of Energy, one copy has been sent to Mr. B. L.

Crenier, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and two copies have been sent to:

Mr. E. Pentecost, Program Assistant Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mail Stop P-202 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 The completion date shown in the proposal has been extended to September 30, 1984 in accordance with verbal guidance from Mr. E. Pentecost of NRC, based on discussions between Dr. J. Ma (NRC Project Manager) and Dr. M. Reich (BNL Principal Investigator).

The total cost of this program isf The funds obligated to date l '

areI a

This proposal has been prepared in accordance yith the modification of statement of work attached to the aforementioned letter. If there are any questions regarding the document, please call the principal investigator or Mr.

~

A. J. Romano, FTS 666-4024, Department Administrator for the Department of Nuclear Energy.

Sincerely yours, l:

Enclosures H. C. Grahn ec: B. L. Grenier / Assistant Director J. Maher (2) for Financial Planning E. Pentecost (2) h*.1

l l

2 k . P. 2 NRC romu 189 U.S. NUCLE AR MEQULa. 'JRY -

CoMMI55acN F4N huMSE A M tl A-3377 PROJECT AND BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR NRC WORK oATa August 12, 1983 PROJECT T&TLE

/ An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction Computer Code.

ooE enocosino onaanizATioN Associated Universities, Inc.

Brookhaven National Laboratory FORECAST MILESTONE CHART: Scheduled to Start - M -Comoseted (SAnws in Quarter reurf PRtJ/lOE ESTIMATED DOLLAR COST FOR EACH TASK FOR EACH FISCAL YEAR l FY- 1961 FY 1982 FY 1983 FY 1984 Fy TASK , 1st l2ndl 3rd l4th 1st l 2nd l3rd l 4th 1st l2ndj 3rdl 4tn 1st l 2nd l 3rd l 4th 1st l 2ndl 3rd l 4tn Task 1 SCHEDULE 6 *

^

SIM Code . . _ _ _ _ _ .

COST Task 2 SCHEDULE Pre-Modeling; Super Elements COST i i

Task 6 SCHEDULE )

Diablo Canyon )

COST SCHEDULE Task 7 Fukishima COST SCHEDULE f

=='

I T

TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $

l 1 - -' i -

PROJECT OESCRiPTION: (Provede norreove descrtnions of we folio weng tocics in me artter hstett. Atteen on plean paper to One NIFC Fonn 189. If en item os not applicable. so state.)

1. OBJECTIVE OF PROPOSED WORK )

2.

SUMMARY

OF PRIOR EFFORTS s

3. WORK TO 8E PERFORMED AND EXPECTED RESULTS [

4. OESCRIPTION OF ANY FOLLOW 4N EFFORTS

5. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROJECTS

6. REPORTING SCHEDULE

7. SU8 CONTRACTOR INFORMATION

8. LIST NEW CAPITAL EQUtPMENT REQUIRED

9. DESCRisE SPECIAL FACILITIES REQUIRED

10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST INFORMATION SEE NkC MANUAL CHAPTER 1102 FOR ADOITIONAL INFORMATION AremovAL AuTMom TY-stoN ATu n t ,

lOATE ,

)}a.w-. .1 /N

/Gh3 V

.. - . . .. . _ - - - a

l

e. -- ,

i NRC conM tes U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI,0N oATE OF PMOPosAL

[ '*' August 12, 1983 l PROJECT AND BUDGET PR'OPOSAL FOR NRC WORK gg NEw w REVtsION NO.

F00 JECT TITLE SER An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction A-3377 Computer Code jNnce&MNUMBER NRC OFFICE l 20-19-40-41-2 Nuclear Reactor Regulation I

"^ "

coE coNTnAcrom Associated Universities, Inc. YuUeN Brookhaven National Inhoratory 04264 UTE oOE S&R NUM8ER COGeil2 ANT PERSONNEL ORGANIZATION FTS PHONE NUMBER pRIOOOF PERFORMANCE NRC PROJECT MANAGER . STARTING DATE J. S. Ma REC /SEB 492-8473 12/01/80 OTH ER NRC TECHNICA4. STAFF COMPLETION DATE

. 09 30/84 st. 1 BrOOkhaven

~

OOE PROJECT M AN AGER David Schweller Area Office 666-3424 CONTRACTOR-PROJECT MAN AGER H. J. Kouts DDD- -

BNL/DNE W. Y. Kato 666-2444 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (S)

M. Reich BNL/DNE 666-2448 STAFF YEARS OF EFFORT (Roeund e neemt rench ofs pearf FY 1981 FY 19g7 lFY tog 3 lFY 1984 lFY

^

Direct Scientific / Technical i NA % M ::: m ~- - -- ..,,,__

Other Direct (Greced) ~~ "~~C-CTh .:.;; .q;;;

TOTAL DIRECT STAFF YEARS

. . _ _ _ COST PROPOSAL Direct Sateries Material and Servwns IEaciuding ADP)

ADP Suppoet Satu:ontracts Travel Expenses Domestic ladi'ect Labor Costs (Departmental Administration)

Oth*r #3 bed &/ Electric Power Olstrl$ution Y

Generes and Aderenestrative (

TOTAL OPERATING COST CAPITAL EQUsPMENT FIN CHARGEO:

TOTAL PROJfc7 erWT -

,y 1984 i MONTHLY FontcAST EXPENSE (dollars in thousands)

NacsonMiss i QCtl N - . - _ _ _ _

c ..

9 Project

Title:

An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction Computer Code p.3 e i

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. OBJECTIVE OF PROPOSED WORK

+

a. Background The interaction effect between structures and soil plays an important role in the seismic response of structures. The apparent fundamental frequency of the structure being computed without the soil-structure interaction will be modified i due to the interaction ef fect. This modification of structural frequencies enlarges when the embedmeat of the structure increases.

f Many containment structures are embedded in soils, and the adequacy of the I soil-structure analyses of these plants needs to be verified independently by NRC.

The "SIM" Code is the only computer code in the public domain, which can perform soil-structure interaction analysis based on a lumped parameters approach that does not rely on composite type of dampits. The code is based upon sound theories and could, for example, be used to independently verify the adequacy of I the soil-structure analyses of both South Texas and Zimmer and other containment j structures, with certain improvements and modifications.

The application of the SIM Code to containment structures, however, requires a ,

substantial amount of experience and skill. The modeling, which translates th'e physical containment structure into a mathematical model, is very tedious even to a skillful analyst. Thus, there is a need to greatly simplify the skill and experience needed in using the code and to eliminate, or minimize the time-consuming part of modeling, so that the NRC staff could use the code efficiently with relative ease. Additionally, the code in its present form handles earthquake input in the horizontal direction only. In order to meet require-

, ments specified by the Standard Review Plan, inputs involving three mutually perpendicular directions are required. The code will be modified to accept mutually perpendicular earthquake inputs in three directions.

b. Objective -

s l The objective of this program is -to improve the capability of the SIM Codeand I simplify the code input effort through pre-modeling, so that the code could be l used to independently verify the adequacy of the soil-structure analyses of i South Texas and Zimmer containment structures. Furthermore, it is intended that BNL will utilize the methods to provide assistance to NRC by carrying out

{

confirmatory evaluations of licensee problems (such as independent Diablo Canyon vertical floor spectra deriutions).

1

2. SUNNARY OF PRIOR EFFORTS r

i

' The initial efforts of this program were concentrated on modifying the SIM code so that it would yield a three-dimensional SSI solution (task 1). When the Diablo Canyon " diagram error" was discussed, NEC requested that the future efforts be concentrated on task 3 the independent dynamic confirmatory review of the plant.

(See Continuation Sheet) .

J l

,1 - -

Project

Title:

An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction Computer ' Code p.4

3. WORK TO BE PERFORMED AND EXPECTED RESULTS

a. Work Requirements i

Four major tasks are foreseen: The first deals with improvement to the SIM Code while the second, deals with the incorporation of super-elements into the new 3-D SIM which will allow for rapid modeling of complex structures. The third task concentrates on in-depth confirmatory studies involving Unit 1 of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, while work under task 4 relates to interpretation of recent Japanese in-situ SSI structural data.

Task 1: SIM Code Improvements BNL shall improve the SIM Code to such a degree that is could take earthquake inputa of three mutually perpendicular axes and combine the three-directional

, effects in accordance with the requirements in the Standard Review Plan.

Upon completion of this ef fort, BNL will provide NRC with a user's annual containing sample solutions. In addition, BNL will provide access of the code to the Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch of NRC.

Task 2: Pre-Modeling of Generic Containment:- Development of Super-Elements BNL will develop and incorporate into the 3-D SIM super-elements that will enable for rapid modeling of soil structure systes.

Tasks 3, 4 and 5: South Texas, Zimmer and St. Lucie r

i Delet ed .

Task 6: Diablo Canyon

a. Perform, independent, confirmatory analysis for the anatius area inside the Diablo Canyon containment structure. The analysis shall be performed on the basis of th,e structural design drawings, shop drawings, the loading in-formation and the input acceleration time history provided by the licensee. -

BNL will assess the significance of the differences, if any, between the 2 results of this analysis and the licensee's analysis. It is also expect.ed that $5K will be spent on rental of the STRUDL code and time. Another

$7K will be spent on consultant help.

1

b. Af ter completion of the above prelistLaary analys'is, provide an informal report which should contain the details of the analysis and initial assessments of differences, if any, between BNL results and those of PG&E.

I

c. Perform vertical seismic analysis for.the annulus structure using the PG4E ;

mathmatical model and properties. (2-D) Model.

l

d. Perform seismic analysis for the aninslus structure using a 3-D mathematical model coupled with the piping systems being analyzed.

e. Perform the piping-stress analysis using different support actions as inputs.

(See Contirasation Sheet)

-+. .- ,, :. -:.---_. .. . - --,....-.-.--..----..,,-..n _.n.~ .- , . , , - - . - - , . . - _ - - -

} ,

Project

Title:

An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction Computer' Code p.5

3. WORK TO BE PERFORMED AND EXPECTED RESULTS (Con't'd)

f. . Prepare final report describing in detail the method of analysis employed, the mathematical model and assumptions used. Also provide in the report the assessment of significance of the differences, if any, between the current results and those reported in the applicant's FSAR.

g. Prepare and submit computer information pertaining to vertical spectra evaluation to IDVP, NRC, etc.

h. Participate in plant site inspection with NRC personnel.

i. Attend audit meetirgg with NRC at PG&E _and Bechtel.

j. Prepare audit report for NRC staff.

k. Prepare data request for NRC staff detailing documents needed for indepen-dent horizontal spectra evaluations.

1. Initiate work for horizontal analysis for Diablo Canyon annulus structure.

m. Prepare data requests for staff detailing documents needed for the indepen-dent seismic and stress analysis of buried diesel oil storage tadt.

n. Assist NRC staff in revisaing IDVP reports.

Task 7: Fukushima Power Plant

1) Perform soil structure interaction analyses of the plant.

ii) Provide results of analyses and comparison with recorded data.

Level of Effort and Period of Performance The estimated level of effort is 2.7 professional staff years over a 46 month period ending September 30, 1984. -

b. Meeting and Travel .

BNL will attend technical meetings pertaining to the analysis tasks and travel with the NRC staff as requested. Under the Diablo Canyon task, several trips to the plant site and to PG&E headquarters in San Francisco will be required.

Similarly, several meetings on this topic will be required with the NRC staff in Bethesda. BNL staff will participate in meetings at other locations to obtain source material for this program. These any include attendance at hearings, visits to other laboratories or institutions, and participation at. professional meetisqgs.

c. NRC Furnished Materials It is anticipated that NRC will assist BNL in obtaining the necessary drawings and reports required for the Diablo Canyosi and Fukushima -evaluations.

(See Contismaation Sheet)

.f . .

Project

Title:

An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction Computer ' Code p.6

4. DESCRIPTION OF ANY FOLLOW-ON EFFORTS Not applicable.

5. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROJECTS This work will complement various soil structure interaction studies currently being peformed for NRC at BNL and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.

6. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Technical Reports BNL will provide NRC with a detailed user's manual for the 3-D SIM code. At the completion of task 6e. BNL will issue a report (see task 6f) describing the work carried out in tasks 6a-6e. As per staff request audit reports for specific tasks carried out under task 6 will be prepared.

Business Letter Reports A monthly business letter report will be submitted by the 20th of the month to l the NRR Project Manager with copies provided to the Director, Division of Engineering, ATTN: Program Assistant, Branch Chief, SGEB and B.L. Grenier, NRR.

These reports will identify the title of the project, the FIN, the Principal i Investigator, the period of performance, and the reporting period. The report ;

will contain three sections as follows: '

a. Project Status Section

1) A listing of ef forts completed during the period, milestones reached, or if missed, an explanation provided.

2) Any problems or delays encountered or anticipated and recom--

mendations for resolution. (NOTE: If the recommended resolution involves a contract modification, i.e., change in work require-ments, level of ef fort (costs), or period of performance, a -

separate letter will be prepared and submitted to J. Ma.)

. .i

3) A susmary of progress to date. (This may be expressed in terms of percentage completion for each task.)

l

4) A brief summary of plans for the next reporting period. i

b. Financial Status Section - ,

1 BNL will provide the total cost (value) of the project as reflected in l the proposal (NRC Form 189), the total amount of funds obligated to {

date, and the balance of funds required to complete the work. '

Total Funds Balance of Funds

- Projected Obligated by Fiscal Year-Projected Cost to Date FY- FY- FY-(See Continuation Sheet) l l

l

l l

l .,

Project

Title:

An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction Computer ' Code p.7

6. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (Cont'd)

BNL will provide the amount of funds expended (costei) by catgory during the period and total cumulative year-to-date as follows:

Period Cumulative Direct Salaries Indirect Salaries ADP Support Travel Subcontracts Equipment & Materials Overhead Total (%)*

Percentage of funds received (year-to-date) against .' funds obligated

c. Fee Recovery Cost Status Section Pursuant to the provisions of NRC Regulation 10 CFR 170, BNL will provide the toe 11 amount of funds expended (cos ted) durits the period and cumulative to date for each task, e.g. , by facility or r epo rt, and report than on a separate page as part of this report in the following format:

FI2: A3377 TITII: An Automated Soil Structure Interaction Computer Code PERIOD:

Facility / Report Docket #' ID# Period Cumulative Diablo Canyon 1 50-275

7. SUBCONTRACTOR INFORMATION ,

BNL does not intend to subcontract any portion of this work. In the event a subcontract is anticipated, BNL will notify NRC before it is initiated.

8. NEW CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REQUIRED None.

9. SPECIAL FACILITIES REQUIRED Fone.

(See Continuation Sheet)

-4,,

.: y.' .p- r f

6

. - e Project

Title:

An Automated Soil-Structure Interaction Computer Code p.8

10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST INFORMATION ,

There are neither significant contractual nor organizational relationships of the Department of Energy, BNL and employees, or expected subcontractors or consultants on this proposal, with industries regulatal by the NRC and suppl. 7 thereof that give rise to an apparent or actual conflict of interest.

e e

e f

l 1

k l

l l

i l

l I

1

, n"'.

' ~

BNL DIABLO CANYON CONTAINMENT ANNULUS ~STROCTURE.

HORIZONTAL SEISMIC ANAL'YSIS -

TASK OUTLINE REQUESTED TO INDEPENDENTLY DEVELOP HORIZONTAL FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR UNIT 1 CONTAINMENT ANNULUS STRUCTURE.

I PRELIMINARY STUDIES TO IDENTIFY SIGNIFICANT FLEXIBILITIES 4

DEVELOP DETAILED FINITE ELEMENT MODEL 8

CALCULATE MODE SHAPES AND FREQUENCIES 8

CARRY OUT TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS 4

DETERMINE FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA 8

OBTAIN ENVELOPE SPECTRA FOR EACH FLOOR BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL IABORATORYl} g)l A5500ATED UNIVERSITIES, INC.(I ElI

. e o e ,, -

DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL

- T- ' IN- VIEW 0F RESULTS OF PREL,IMINARY . STUDIES, THE MODEL

,, CONSTRUCTED FOR THE VERTICAL ANALYSIS (NUREG/CR-2834) WAS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

I ALL BRACING MEMBERS ADDED TO FLOORS 0 CRANE WALL ADDED (3 FT. CYLINDER FROM 91 FT.

TO 140 FT.)

e TWO P0OL WALLS ADDED ACROSS CRANE WALL 0 SOLID FLOOR ADDED INSIDE CRANE WALL AT ELEV. ,

140 FT.

8 MASS (TRANSLATION AND ROTATION) 0F STEAM GENERATORS SURROUNDING CONCRETE, AND PRESSURIZER ADDED AT ELEV. 140 FT.

~

6 BR0010MVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY l} l)l

, A5500ATED UNIVERSITIES, INC(Illl

, e

e

e '

e

" I e %. .

. -*.f=..

e. 8' . * . < =

l e'

. e

e

. 8

. . . l n

e .

. l

.. . ..a.

.= * =. . .

* .4 *

. _. ,I g

t . p .

2" 6.

.j.

. . . O. .#,,.ss . ** *.-*e . . ~. . .

., ..'...%'7,T"'.. . u.

.I . , ., . # .

. .e.. . . . . .

i.* * ,-*e*

e . , , .

./ . *

..e e..

. *.*..* *8 ."" ,

**- .. ;-. ... . . . m _,, .

-- . e . .

. . =. *

~ ' = .~. , g * * = x.. .t " . :., . = -

T' ~ . ~ . *.

.y . .r . , .

. . i

+-

. .n s .

. s.. .

.. . .- - .=. *. . , . . . . . . *

.*.r=s~. .. ~ . . . g e *

.o..

_.s , ,,

. .,p , g.;, . .,**gs..- . .., g , *g' 3 * * . = .

4. .

. . = . . . #

m. ,... .. . e..

. . .**. .~. . .

. .. .c .. .. w. ., r

'.*# e " M. *-=.**

.ll.- *a . * ==..".

. ?f. T*.*** '"". ,

~ *

, . . .., .. . ., s s = . .

.....- ..4. .

_., = . _ .. .. . . . . . . .

. w I

I 2 .

~

b

. b l

s BROOKHAVEN NAll0NAL LABORATORY [} g)l A5500ATED UNIVER$1 TIES, INC.(1 til F1 a '.tkd

t

..t.

,- , . . . i

.t

+._. ._ .,

I/lN i

{

L -

i .

i i

. I .

l .

I ?! - -

, ~w l

i.

7 -

,, BR00KilAVEN NAll0NAL LABORATORY [3 g}l ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC. (I ll l F 2. E1 iotl - - -

nw-n.

,1 e .

. . . 1 g . $

1

-c t -

s t

.l . 1. '

1 -

l i

it .

\ .

- I 1

- w ,

I .

l O

. i

- 1 f

BROOKHAVEN NAll0NAL LABORATORY l} g)l .I, A5500ATED UNIVERSITIES, INC.(Il.31 F3 El ti t' ~'- ^

.., .s .a - -wa m. n . ~ .wum.a. -. - .- .- .

1

. a. . . .. . .

'/

~

~~

1

[t' Y

[

i

,. i l

i f

I 3

- BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY [) g)l l

~ ' '

A5500ATED UNIVERSITIES, !!K. (I l.l l !

f F4' I so i

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

--- . + , . . ,,

i. .

=

. . n i -

i

'N -

~

V V -

\ :

t

. e

, l .

l e

. {

it

{ ,

~

v. x

~

N l l

\t : .

40

~ '

BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL lABORATORY bbq .

ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC. (I l.I l

6. W. .

~

'N

-,...r

, . 1 io .. .. . . . . . , .

l ..

t .

i

\

b , -

. So . -

NM N

~

I . pt. .

e

~

'# 1 i 09' ,

.l

. y ,J

. 1 i

s

.. l

. . 1 l

ggooxinvEN W N BBO M O N QM -

gsoagED UHNER5111ES,lHC l

I f, . .

i

. ~~<~aswamunosuusawsu.emne.ma - ,. . nw

.'- o

~

. MODAL SOLUTION

'l 0 - 110 60 DES FOUND USING iSAPV COMPUTER PROGRAM ..

' AT BNL.. -

8 MODES ARE OF THREE TYNS:

~

(1) LOCAL .

(2)

. TORSION OF ANNULAR STEEL (3). SHEAR DEFORMATIONS OF CRANE WALL l

l l

i

l l

)

. BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY l} g)l A5500ATED UNIVER$1 TIES, INC.(E lll

._ m.

~.w n . - r - . ~ w - . - - - .- .. .- - - . .__.a_-.~.. ..~ ,. --

- ~

- DIABLO CANYON CONTAINMENT ANNULUS STROCTUR5 .

HORIZONTAL: SEl,SMIC.ANALYSISJ -

MODE N0 FREQ UENCY . .

MODE NO. FREQUENCY 1 89 , 21 20 81

. .2 89 22 20 99 '

3 2 56 .- 23 :: 2-- . 21 64 4 7 26 24

.- '..22 61 : - '- -

5 9 72 25 2274 6 11 22 26 23 32 7 13 08 27 23 40 8 13 56 28 23.51 9 13 64 ,

29 23 67

, 10 14 02 30 24 03 1

11 14 03 . 31 24 30 :

12 14<30 32 25 03 13 15 24 33 25 41 14 17 42 34 25 49 15 18 26 35 25 95 16 18 79

36 '26 37 17 19 61 37 26 60 18 20 00 38 26 86 19 20 21 39 27 26 20 20 77 40 27 65 BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY l} gj [ ,

AS500ATED UNIVER$1 TIES,INC(Il.55 3 9

Q

.,,s.-. , s.m..s .,33,u.....,w... xmm ; . . + - ~ . , , , , . , . . ss g* . .

- , * *. .. .*g*.. * . . -l , p. **

< c*..-,.. .,. , ** .. ..

. .e.

l , ,,,. *

. . ' =

i g, .

- a... . .

..- ..e, .

g . ,,

.. .* . .. e e. . .* g e a * *

.., . , - * , ,, s . . . *

. * ' .. .. ,. ,. .* -**1 ,

2** ;t - e ;.p* a.

, ,, . . , , .. . . .-y - % * . - -

.'.*- ~ .***.*.C...1-.

j;-.3 . . ,.

* .

h ., , a. . w.. , . .

. g t * ,T * ._'* , . ; " . ..

t

, . . ~ .._, ..---.." *

= *

, 2.* ,* *;*;*

g

g . *

, \ *

. {

W 0

e

. e g . .

4 .

l ,

i g

IN i

. it .

. ) l .

i LL. !

..* t .

g e

I

f. ' .

M

. 8 f

. t.

e e e

t. .

A .3 BROOKHAVEN NAll0NAL LABORATORY [) g)]

A5500ATED UNIVERS:I!ES, INC. C(."d i M

2 _ _ _ _ . - ~ ~ ~ _ _ - - m m % - - .s - - + - _ ,_. , ;.u _ _ _ - . .

. ~ *

.l

. }.

. 4 r- *

.. .. . .s- .

~

A -

,g' \ s s f s

-s. ..

g \ y . .

o ,s s e

< g

. ~,

/ N I . .

~

i s \

' s. s> -

.k ^

. \

i ,

. .t s

~ '

g- .

i

+

I s

\ .

)

\

~ //

. . 4' s 4 .

s

_ s s M -

s s i

. . n. .

,s s

\i s : - }

s

~

=

.y,

}- ,

' = *

~

N *h D Ef ' . .

I

.1 BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL iAERATORY[3 n j ,!

ph A5500ATED UNIVER5ifi5, iNC'll EU j

. gL 10\

- ~ " ~ ~

. . . . . . .. . 3.

, :a. ..

.g.

.- ;. ..i; .

I- -

___. J.'. j -

Il-

.. . , = ., ... .

+

g . - *

,n

\/ i s .

4 .\ \ i \ <.'

s s.

.s -

/XN.

s

/

i r ,

1 *

! s i N

\ .! -

i -

s s

l / \s

/

yN g

~-

I .

\_

i '

p _ .

( .. it L-r -

s I. .

'A I . -

1

.' /

\

s n .

. s s s9 i

/

x -

~ , . . - ,

y -

< i

. . s

' 4

- g . --

~ s

. * / \

& ~

0( . ,

BR00lCiAViN'idT10NAL. lABORAT0?.Y l} g Tj ] <

l A5500ATED UNIVERSITIES, INC O'{ll

& g4 !

l

. 4

. . ;-, +~~.n.-+-, a. ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ + . . ~ -

1- . .

.. t .

u_.:.

.ua .

c. . ..-

.t

"'T" -

-1" % .

~~

X! \

'~-.....' -

e

-w -

, / x f .

s

~

! [ .

1 . .

t

l, -

.. t

i. ; {, .

\

l. - .. .-,

l.

1 - , - -

\ .

4

\

g t / .

1 3 . .

k ;

. I

! s . .

. y <

,' e

. s R

- i -

/

% s/

a s - .

. s .,y -

a -

k -

p -

BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY [3 g l I

.. f \\i -

A550CIAT[D UNIVERSITIES, INC.(I Ul

- - - . . - - - , ,, ~ . , . , , - -. .- - . - = -

-s~,- . s -m.m . s ..m ...s .,,-.ss aamus....m ..;m.m _ m . ~ ~a ~ . t. . e . . - ~ ,.s-meawa.~ .+,

1

. . 1

. . )

. - - .. u . .-

l

/

's N:

N d

6 - N

' N

/ -

N ) I

/g\ N N 's s -

b , N

/ g

\

\] N

..N,,N

' / \ . N N \

\

I f l j .N \ '/ \ N g g I , ~

s

\

.)(} )

~

') s / \- --'

\ '

g\

\

N N \

/

,'j

/

M /

/

l

~

s s' \

N g s g

\ t , x /

g

/ \ .' , \-

N '

- / \

\1 .

/ -

's t - '

b

/ g

\ \ g

/ '

' f' v t f s

\ / \ g \ \

I / , g s \ / g g \ \

/g s l / / \ \ 'l

, N ' I N I

s l / /

'. \ /

N

\

L i '

- j 1.

P s

\

I u

1 l

\

\ /l

\ - N o ,

- i g .

t 't \ - - -

% 1 s / -

' - i s

-l 's t ,' I

, 't I

\y

'. / ~

/

g 'sN N m / / s s

, p /

/ 6 f N ~

t s g

\s\ ' [ '

/ / \

/ /g 's s I

/ s /

' / N g s ,

~

f N / l s / \ s /, 'f I \

s' M \

~

\\ I

/

_/g y f

g

\ / /,l y I

NI f s /

g l \ N /

, 's I \ s f

I , f /

\ s . \ g s / - /

N t f

\ '\ ~ ~ /

s\ s\ /

- s I /

/ \ / /

.N l s 'e -

/'

N .

, , N / * *.

r k @ 9' e

BROOKHAVEN Nail 0NAL LABORATORY l} g)l A5500ATED UNIVERSITIES, INC. (I 1.11 9

.~.mm-. ~ ,. -. _ .,,,..._...,#,.;.m.,..._,44,,...,, ,

~

. T.. .

t _

. ,' ^

~

.5

/ - x s ss N

/ ,- .N N N s'N ~

- ' / N

g N N _

/ / /

\ /

/ , .,

b *-! .. l .. .

-l-s 1

- -- -- \

l \

'l \ g

.-vf ~-:

// ,' 4 \

. \ \

/ //

-i .

3 I g I l

/

j '/,

\ ! \l \ 1

~/ , /, _

b

/ // ,...

.g*,,4',, , . . 1 \ \\

t \ \

i t \ \\

l \ l -

t t t \

l I \ l 1 g .'gl I \ )

. -1 s

\

\

.' \ g g

\ \ / ' I \\ \

y N */

, .t

~

I f /\ /l

/ \ l \

l

/ \ / l

\

l

\

g / \ / \/

s \ \

gl !

\ s

'N

\I /

g , /g

\ / /

\ / I

\ / N gN j / /

N N / t' l es s s ,

_ Ww I

' s /

s

y. ~

~

BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY l} g)l A5500ATED UNIVERSIT!ES, INC.U lll

1 l

V

~

'l , . ,

y. -

~

t

~~

/ -

"N N --

< s

._m s

1. %

.s . ;

' I r.: =.r- . I

.,.,--.7.

" N'

.: ._. l

/ I, -

j: ..

/ . .__.... . . .. \

. . x .% -

,. i . .

I

\

k

\ \

,t \

I y, . .

I

. \ i st t l I I\l ;

.J i 2 g g

\ \'\ l _

\ -

I

\ I '

\ .. I y 7 \ .

\ ' I si

6 I /\ f 1

\ -

l /

l / l

\ \ -

/

l s l l ' i

\ s 'f .

g s I l / / / '

N

\

s

' l ,

/

14 , !-

?

/

\ s

\ N t /

/

s

\,[ ,

)- . . .

I

. BROOKHAVEN NAll0NAL LABORATORY l} g)l A5500ATED UNIVERSITIES, INC.(llll e S

m ~m,mauen- ,~w a.anma av , ~~su. .n. n u. w. w . n.

e ..

. o

=

., -TIME HISTORY SOLUTION

~

0- NEWMhRK 7 5M H0SGR,I R.ECORD USED .AS INPUT

/ i -

IN BOTH E-W AND N'-S -DIRECTIONS S STRUCTURAL DAMPING TAKEN AS 7%

y: . . .. :..

3 ss o

4 BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY l} g)l - ;

A5500ATED UNIVER$1 TIES,INC.Ilt15

. - . o .u ~ ~ ~4 - m w%w.. . a smmmmas

' ~ '

' ~

. -ELL'OR RESPONSE SPECTRA-- ..

- -~

~0- EQU I PMENT DAMPI NG' 2%"i. *r4 V!:.b' *+~'w nL- : J.'_. .

I FOR EACH INPUT (X & Z DIRECTIONS 3 GENERATED .

X & Z SPECTRA W <- ---- -

d EW # ,

~

SXX> SXZ) S ZX1 SZZ Q

sas 8 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS WERE .

CONBINED ACCORDING TO SRSS 6

l v

I i

e

~

BROOKHAVEN NAll0NAL LABORATORY'j) g)l

. AS500ATED UNIVERSITIES,INC.(Itil

..n- _ - -_

amwasm an .+sw a+ uma , a wcm-samuw, - -

. . 7. . a .

I. . . . - :. .

.. .:.. l

.. a.

' . 'E= -- - .:. _ . [* . : .. a.- :4.s :: :; -- ., &- . .

' 7' - ^

. = , ._ I -

. P E Av. . Accgt.E W lod ( b.

( y, g y..m._ , -.

f.4V p Wy.-f '

'-: 7 -- . -

L .

~

(" S'") (f.y./8) A -~

g g ,) ,

,( s.8, s:c. ) .-

. (l.o ,.t) -

.j . . .

~

.(L.3,102 hlpa) -

(,g ,g)

\ .

D.9,4.5) - -

1,

. INPUl' - .

~

1 y ./M _

\

.- i

. I -

(2.r.,3a)' .

(2.'s,5.3)

(. r, .3 )

b .i ,. 9 -

- G.i,4.9 (3.o,4.9 )

(.9,.2)

. (3.sp.o) .

(io.8,i13).

. (3. o,2 . 8) ~ .. ..

@.l'I

U +f .'L) t (E6, .6) , ,

s I,, M

. . BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY l} g)l

. .. ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC. (1 El 1

~ ; :. ;,

..r y : *-

. . . ... . . t. .

.D . . *

n. . . , . . . . . . . .

kc.leteu;r,oks (S

(. x , 2 ) .

b.,2.3) -

.=> -

.: ;... =

y -r .

- DV-

. U..a,(..o)... .- .

u29 j I'l

~

(.ict,s.s,)

Q.2,3, q -

('f P; I

(,t.7,9 o

3) .

a.:=>

it .2 ,

,. 1 I

ez.9,c.i) '

I[.h) ,

b.s,4.1) .

. ('A 5

S/ L) :

(.t,1.ny - - '

f

. (t1.5,124 (Ito,19.3)

. (11,3.2) .

{ be 1") - (3.b,1.3 )

$[

s

' BROOKHAVEH Hall 0NAL LABORATORY]) g)]

. . A5500ATED UNIVER5!IlES, INC Il ElI .

' w

.' ea m.o v-Fo x e . 3 q.N,N,'mw .p s W'c. Ngi r "7'~. , - -

.. . . . -- -m

. l. ... .. .. . . . . . ....

s.. ... ...

.r .

.m . ,' ..feQ',&..c.ELGth't\**q.:..... . .'_ p

, f. : ... ...

y. .

'. g tu ? 'uT * .

G. 0 ') l .1

. 1 r u pot

\. 0 i 'I. ? .

i ..

, . r _. . . . .

. s . ,. ... . .

4 . . . .

N .

\-

. ~'

f .

e . . . . .

f .

.. .1

~

. . ... *~

BROOKHAVEN NAll0NAl. LABORATORY l} g).3 A5500AIED UNIVERS'ilES, INC.(llc'd ;

4 4.T- ' . * . .s..s -w --w _

.- ~ ~. -

w ~ . - ~ . >.u . ,.

J

: r.' FLOOR 1

. EQUIPMENT.'

Os4MP,ING =. 2, 0'.cPERCENT

. , . - .- - e ..

.. , ..; . . . . . . e s i*s.*s angiassg

s. #*ga a3gg

a e a s e a s.s g e a s i g a 3s4aaag 3g i a s a assasj s a sag a j e j sjsj jj

l. -

. .%..* ' . .- s 4 . -

=g . . .

1 .

- I .

.. 3r p s .- ,

a ; .. , .

m .

c;

% ko.#

i y

i ;i .

z . a a

. 5 .

q e 6

C t C. )

5 ~

=

. et /

, u .. :< t ., .

I l

, y . . . Il . . . . .

y ;,.- ,. . ,. . .

/ -

y .

b l 1 .

U **

1,

[ l f -

C U *

' M

, f 't.

I

.' aIif g n . . .

I g ,

e

g - .

. i '

.\

,. . . . i. ; . r, / . . .

. e %

, , en e s in nesset s e s et e f af_1fet It ........t..= -

e efetif s's e n senset n e s el efefefstIf ,

' *',.3 * ' 4 E " .8 . .

3

.I *

1. J. 4. 8. 10. ," , N. do.' m3. Im

~ ~

., ,..,.i..?

.. . . . ..e.G.'f.s.f,.T'. . FREQUENCY ( CPS) .

BROOKHAVEN Nail 0NAL IA80RATORYl} g)l A5500ATED liNIVERSITIES, INC. (I ll l l

i

.h

___ =

,. _ . ~ - --~~s~au "~

s- -

. ' FLOOR 2 .

. ~

t

- 1 .

~

t EQUIPMENT. DAMPING :: 2.0M: PERCENT.

i i i s i s is:ig s i s ig .is3sgsggg a sis esassi s e s sg a gaiagsg3g a sassasssg a sssg a gagsgsggg ,

.. . . . . . . - - - - . . - --. :. ',. ,.., n - . . .

.- :, a

~ ,

o .

0 s ..

. .s .

s s. r.

o

I

.l .., * * . .-

x , .

, , l - *

,a pe .

, s in. . II ^s r*

>a c - -

- ,J.

, , ,n .

2' ' +

O t ll i s.- ,

II g

(i .

0:

I -

. .- t nu .,.. l s .

I '

IM s* I lt

. ,i

L) ' .-

1 -

'e LJ ** * -

. C .

l , I.

, j M -

g( . .

s .

,i h .

.a i . 1 x

w . .

Q

. e e a nessi e e s et e f e t , t ,I t t .si... .e ; ,, ,g,g,ggg ,,,,,,,,,g,,,,g , g,,,g,gggl

'I *I I '8

le 2. 4. S. 10. N. 40. IB.

4

, 100.

FREQUENCY (CPS)

BROOKHAVSI ilATIONAL LABORATORY l} g)l ,

A5500ATED UNIVERSITIES, !!'C. (I L 1 I s

. _ _ . _ . _ m_ .m. . ..,-s-m.. -m-ss. . ___ , . _

.f. . . .. -

.... .~

.. = .. . .

l

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

FC00R .3 -

g

.E.QUIPMENT DAMPING': -

2 0 'PERCENTz...

. .=. .

. . - ~ . . - .. < .

. .s . . .. . _. - ... . .

. a . ., .

s..

3 s e e a m as, a s.s ig a g a g a g ig i.3

. eassasasstasssg a 3s3sgsl... 33 s a s e ,s s s ss g a a a s g ig:3sgssgg i .*

i

, r. .

.w- .e..-*- y. . .s:s y .

. , , ;. . , . _ , . ; , .l, ,--*

I

. .> . . ; n .q *,. ;- * '-

. .< * . ' ;l? .*- .- ,

. . Q ;.' J. , . . . . ' .;.

-.. ..s- -

= .

.3....< .

.. . . . . +

O . - .- .

K

p

y. . * .

sn . .

. st .- .. ,r

.- c.$$ . . 's .s m

Q

^ l*

.b= .. * - *

* , , .. .g,. {.*

gg . . .

. l *;/m,,

=

2-O -.; *

.I .

m -

se . .

lIl

- I{

g ll.

l-.

c. I +. .

\

lt

.'. i t .

tt: ., . . -

\ ,g; m . .

.;t,I l

\...

. ,s J

l . . .

W

.b

\.a .- .

.~ ,

U V

. a.

t .,. .

U -

.l a - ..

i. at. . . n.

...,4*- 1.4 .. . .

a -

3

y. <. -

.n.~.

l e

l .

i f i

*I.= .

..- uy p\ s { .. . . . . -

J

. I . ..,.. '

.s.

.I.

l... *....

s r gst'sh .:;

s i

.v $

s .... . .'t . :

. s ;

.* . .c'.

e# .

e s ,.. .)s ..

.sl, . .

,/

. . .,g, 4. s. . r,. . . t .

i nienesist eeint*i t ,t > f m ..m e s F< .*e .' .

. i ieist it,t,tettl e o n ee s ' s e's t ',*, 'n* n t a t a t 3 l l l

.I J .4 8 8 2. ' - 4. 6. 30. 30. 4.

. . 80. 100. .

FREQUENCY (CPS) - -

BROOKHAVEN NAll0NAL LABORATOR'Yl} g)l A5500ATED UNIVERSITIES, INC.(I(Il

n n

. .. . . s .

. . . FLOOR 4 . ._ i a

. . .. s

~

EQUIPMENT.DAMPI.NG2<0 ~ -j .

. PERCENT

s. .

s . .

asisu nsieaasg e i e i s est t # s a a s a s u a s s ,s a s t :.,s 3. s 3 s, j s L .3 l- a a s s a s s s a g 2.s.s s a . J .s.3 ! v t,1.3 ... ,

, f .

.f .

- t -

t fr, .

i * -

I . .

a -

I x .

v2 . -

. t '

C3 I z,

p .

.i

- t

.o .

gI w

lg C **

0: * ' * . ,5 1 e w *

. .; Jt s

w I -

, u a . - - }

U - t I

T n l f,i5 -

g e

\ %

,A I \ .

. '. . ., I I% 8 WIl e t f f

. o n e n einit s e e s t i t a t s tit t t ..u. '

eineenstateiset a f a f elet f f

.i . .. i. v. .. .. i.. m. .. i..

FREQUENCY (CPS) g' . ,

\

, BROOKHAVEN NATICNAL !ABORATORYl} g)l ASSOCIATED UNIVER5iTIES,INC.(1Lll -

t

-A p

[;. :.. . - ! .

PIPING CONFIRMATORY EVALUATIONS PREPARED AND CHECKED MODELS FOR

. PROB 6-11 SAFETY INJECTION TO RCS .

LOOP NO 1 & 2 PROB flA-26 CCW SUP'. TO REACTOR COOLANT PUMPS PART 3 PERFORMED UNIFORM SUPP' ORT MOTION RESPONSE SPECTRA CALCULATION FOR EACH PROBLEM .

A) FOR X-Y INPUTS NO CLUSTERING Y-Z INPUTS NO CLUSTERING '

X-Y2Z INPUTS WITH CLUSTERING _

B)

BASED ON SUBMITTED DESIGN DRAlIINGS C)

BASED ON SUBMITTED SPECTRA D)

BASED ON BNL DEVELOPED SPECTRA .

e eea *

O

. O e

9 8

e

. pr -

BR00rJKV91IMil0:ML UJORATOP.Y[3 y liiOULIIIllllHVfPSITif t IHf fII :

_ __ . [_~ pG g E RAML. SNEL 5's;?

yya

%dAs .

] '

m NORTH. ,s M '

ww i s p'g gt

++', so' M h.6 Z X

/

d GLCOAL COORDINATE 'oy 1e i

-Y 'b O GYSTEM m1

(

m ,' Nw

.,o .

'e t,,

",J bN- .

4 27*, 9 M

W Y'S A m '3 % %,,

\eqwe,o aw s.<

r

,e w t-o m 4 5,

s*e f e, -

i , '<

,,,. m e

, wwq ;r p i a -

s 47 , 4 s a.ior .w.

x is >

M f ,3 44 e , ir ,, rejev ,,

,,. , o ' - .

- *c' m

ph' Ql m ?in J f

k r"

* '2'- '6")

USEb AS SulE T A

b WiM ,,

- Dg

, 58 kalt A ~_.

a as 32] gg gg LEGEND S4*i20 -#1 M /(o d

( /12W3/

NCOAL A71HT Mgg ANALYSIS NO. G -ll C X -

ONuteER REV. NO. 6 iL-30-81 i PsxEo ENo NOTG:

X -

PIMNED END.

GI AN REVERGAL REQulRED M X -

OFRINS: HANGER OR. LNIT 2 '~ .

Q - uWif f HANSER is is A Nit i uwriau Ari 9) lA8LO CANYON NUCLEAR F6t(E REF.0H6i.No. 4S7c109 POWER PLANT UNIT I i 2

,,,,,,,,,,,m,,,,,,,,,,,,,

, '; A m ,*,'J'3//.* SAFETY IMJECTION RCs

, av .1/ cart is. y*f.

?~h'.'.'.' : M.% a.us LOOP NO. I 2 2, PART- S[

W,:

ew--- - @ e -: ,

.u.f. - -

T q., :; .c;.u '

y9'lll' "]. f*e,'.. .y..

n -~

l ., c:p 9 , ,

1 .

l

-.. ,o J . un,gp - z ,s,u!

. .- n.;;..

m, ,a.1

~

,' q <

,in-wu*

,&3 e = ,

I ' 4u 4,$}s . l h >

t ~

g' m s l d <.~ l . ,..: ,.r.p.,j y '

i-

[D > , (,,, zwa w a.

I + t

_"~ I l-]- yy

..ak. -

%L * ,

J.

$ 4

?,t . ..

% l,

s. . '

~ ~ . - / ... ~

c,. .,u-2, l 4g'.;;

.* , ,be .

l -p. .

h. '2 f ," Q

, ,I O I

,.y. >

r -

q_i ,i p

i ./N,.gy[$72[M.. [

[',5 CU 'l I.$'

a, '

! ,i !. i U . &.4 ,

~

u . S.

l g.:e ' "

j ri

s [

/ ,..-------J_

[ }%{.. .w t

,- 1 1

, ~~~, -

Q T ,

{

?

,g.7 g..

f-- . -:.-: ..

'r i I (D ;

p,y_ ,4l

&* %,,,,, <8 t

o "

5,es r ,I' - t' J. i f,e.

7...o. . . . _ - - - - .q .

s.g pg l I y..- c :Te- f% l x

,y WqX- -

\ ae u i

"e '^' , A !

I M

% h _____ k, [ i : J(

l f

/, ;

~ . ,__ ,

%m.n.

\. 7*[ i ;

.8 'l '

' !;g l l e i :

s 4e t u 6 .

J,

_, .- . . i . .

PROB 6-11 COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS.

4 9

1.. 5D BENDS MODELED AS ELB0WS

2. ANALYSIS SKETCH MISLEADING

3. INCONSISTENT SPECTRA G

e e

e O O en G

O

e g e e

j G

BR00DMVDIiMil0?ML UJ0PJJORYJ3 g]

ASSOCMTID UlHVIR5mES, INC(I El' '

O e . , e" PROB &-l/ FREQUENC Y CCM1PbA/50W MODE FEEQUENCY /~ fed?uEMY (U2) 2N/-. MtE

/ 7.24 s' 4.36 2 lo. /4 9.23 3 M. 58 M./9

/5,99 -

/5.3/

5 /7.20 /5.75 6 a39 77.4/

7 22.28 2.2./7 a '

23.43 -

.23./J/ ~

3 27.8(a .27./0

/o 2 3.21 27.55

// 29:5/. 28.8 5

, /2 3/.55 .30.55

/3 34.02 3 2. 73

/y' 34.76 32.93 is .

35./2 35.77 .

e 4

e u___ ___._.__________.__.____.____.___________..__._.___.__.-_.-.______._.____._._____.__.________________________-m._______o

i. .. -

s..O O

m.. _

O O...

r-i.

o o l

/-- l.

1 O

O

+...

_a e9

- nn 1

l.LJ *

, a to o

?

Uo CI' O. .. a I

i O

O. . .

m i

i t

F r i , ~; \ ,

1 g '

-y

~ -- ) \ \

Jl \

- ,- t h

8. . . ,

e

1. /

8

o , , ,

s,,,,,i 10-' 2 3 4 678910, 2 3 4

5 6789,10' 2.

3 4 5 678 FRED (HZi 4

. _ . .. , , . - ~ .

. . r ; .. _...;.- -

r-O s .

O. . - -

m..

O O. ...

O. . .

e- >

f o .

O. .. . ,

e .

t

?

-o 5 cm o..

. t w .

J w .

o :

3 Uo I cc o. ..

- i O . I O. . .

I m .

f s !

) l l

O i O. .

m. - .

.C g '

ht h '

8. .. 4 f

^

8 '

10 S S A E S i E $ '10' i $

, A -$ s i66110' i i i s 4is.;

. FREO (HZ L gg

g' . . .

8..

g '..

8 g..

8 g ,-

8 6-- .

38..

m .

l a

fl J

s I

8 - f "{

4" l \

dg I 3 ,

10-i i i A $ 0 i S S '10 8

i $

i S S i S b '10' i s i 5 5 i A0 \0' FRE0 (HZ) --Im e - - -

i . .

I .

?

a

~

1 g

s e

. %... q i . .- . , s

q l . .. .

. n i

l.

l .

/- .

N

/ ,

g .

. . =

9 yo

, . ...** . s

, O, e

e

. . . c.

g . .

. g l *

~ * *

.,I .-

. 4 .. ,1 W .

,, y '

] ;,

. M E

1.

. E'

. . wt m

. O o

. . r*

g I

~

i I

4 1

4 h O '

N i

&

O l

0 1- 6 6 g R8 y

fN A g.[

3 00*L W9 GTS Olyt gy'g l art gg (0) 3mm

.v.

.. .. t. '.

O , .

*ll ' . .

,9. * ~ C 4.

g I -

. . :*s - .

* . :. . . i ,,. g .

g& ~

s o

e

+:

s e

e f

c o

- r a

e e

e m

) n 1N I

c.- .

. o tu

er w iu

. O

. P o

e e

e m

e w

---t l l l

o l l : ; -+

00 01 006 00 8 00*t 00*9 00'S 00*t 00'E 00 4 CO*l 00'0 (0) 3TDJU

..: .~if.: git % . -

e : * " -

e .-

9 . . .

9

.QF -

P208 4'A26 30PPORr F0&t'E COM)P55$'bhi^"'~

X-v inpur v-z- /Npur x-Y-z /Npor i Nob [ BNZ. MLE BML Mtf , BNC l } /85 //5 2 52 //4 2 75 40 31 35 30 45

/2.6

/69 232 /VS 266 25/4 /896 Blo2 .

/854 366/

2743 /6 78 2/4'S 142// 2835 2OST JS28 2873 /500 32ST ,

& 22/ /24 .233 /87 189' ig, / 70 /83 .360 4'/6 330

/ 76 //2 /SS /64 2 30

, / 72 /32 .365 29f 335 '

3g 86 73 72

.5'3 33 43 75 66 s7 62 66

$$ 62 33 /02 66 //S go 26 16 32. M 43 62 GT 80 . TO 90 49 54 66 54 75 773 TOS 93I 8 72 //25

/09% 702 15 34 /3/0 /8/o l

340 234 66I 577 7l3 X-Y d Y-Z, ABS BE7kifdd D/REcr/ OMS, cf=c o X - Y-2, SRSS BE770EEN D/ rec 770MS, CF=Q/ {-

e

'4$ '

- . N 8 7 % 1 .. %

g .. .

=; y [ -l

PROB 6-lI,. SUPPORT FORCE compapiso

' X-Y INPUT Y-Z INPOT X-Y-Z INPOT JObE BNL PG t E BNL PG&E St4 L 558

/ '

/240 /749 /75/ 2039

' 31 8/ //0 39 /OY ;

748 /099 /322 224 / 72 6

(/[7/I] 83/5 /4332 /0760 //345 57435 6e809 57/77 4f42/ -

' (13%8 8637 /7733 /36/4 /3505 5 8 44 ._4.25 _.-. _37f . 423 4 03

^

8 l

72 2 730 . . .. . _ . _ 750 .-_. 130 - . ;_ 822 ,

/3 (Me5T 5 SIB - .. 5945 .- . . . .

3//3 -

6 //S~ \

25 .

30/ . 223 ... - .. 2/2 33/ \

32 <82$40 3580 _

GVib ' ~~~B523 7430 69/C .25_S9_' ._. 6a20 2 73/ S3o6 37 t/8S'ib 926 24[/3 '~~ /44/ 1888

~

4'/ 25/7 3392 /487 3487-

.%is 6405 .2334 -

6033 '

^

(.2655) 1736 .2383 /.205 2 433 S5 5so /53l 917

~

1336 4/80 S'/33 4933 , %4G5 59 .' ,

/SSO 3s28 2306 3549 5249 //243 SOSG toS45 I' 399' /060. 7T6 -

//fo 7 84387 /45A70 /06328 /Soo25

//S3/ 37547 32S03 3803o t :

/30 6 320 596,//8 I22G996 c 60/0/2 4/40,26/ ,

i i

X-Y A el D Y-Z ) A55 EETh.)E EN DIRECTION 53 C F = 0,0 !

x-Y-Zj. SRSS BETWEEN DIRECFloNS, CF=O. I ;

l ,

. ...,_.-..-.:.~, ..u, , -n- ..., , -

~

l g .. t a..ye"'

-, ' ! )

, y ; \

p, -h '.

st 4 y[

d, 5 j l 4 3'" !? fi n: -

B q g 9

a 4 84 a w g!

'Ii E 4

< > 3 g

Lxw I 6 > 8 b ;! 11 : :

k eig bo l g @a $ '

si Egg ~!e M-lHzlg 2a i n !

{= !! , u g( ,4 b.

=

u 8 '

Rtf f ,

o ,gg 1

xui i

G 4

D

'P' E a

l *@oR l w i e s e n s

.J I q ** -

2 D x k

$ R

.o U ")b-@.@ "

6 ( g s

_ \& m k 3.^ x @

4 -6 %3 h g h -

"- @ so 9g gog e-e .

c , 3 9 .

v, s @

p _

D

81G?@a * -

2 r

d d' s '*@ i s ih-s a 4- -A=,

~[%** -

, q j lL 3 1- 4,3 g m e g

n 3s@

4 S 'o e k_t*9 T m

@ < j. 38 g o 0- 0 +W h '

%@ s tt 83 m %@

Jr g E-T t

%q

y f _ E.@ + g a s, b,. 6 %g a d c

, e, 4 o, x 6 & 4 m.

N, g % %' , %

- n

, ,@, \ Y , ,t o ,< ,- P '

7.

e *Ba es '

l ;,of%,,,<c.@h.'\., /

i 4 L @a'

~ -

's ~

3 Q~7, c s e , , g , e. _ u n

_ u a, as, 8-N/ a 3

~

d v

,g a j ' n vi

% ll _- r .

l ge.y4 T__ l

--}

w-- f

..=l' .~,

n.

cy> : e 4 /

/ p/

pu u n

_, m ,ef$kI@p%q:

, .; s L(h.-

l a -

m ed.}p s l ?. r.

' %.um-- !. w

\

/-

1. y

(' ,'i ./ ;

' ~

i g te <

s& .-} -

- G -

b(! '*"-

e --T G

lb w,

, 4 s'

s[' -_ #-

,t;.'-( ,

Q % lk.g.x .uyc s.

~ .X v.

i G,u;

--5557.T l . I .. .

i 2,r i

p. , .--

\

t y_) .. >

%:y., .

I i

ry7,- , ,4 i

'./b:s__.

p

.- j '

. N '

I ,-

~ ,

jig.I

' ~' ,-

l '

0y l l..- 3'.

/(ihje @4 i -

. 3,t.,<

pYf yf G ';i n <.

i F .A /

.@ i e ,-

~

f I 2t ' -

.t . .

i l ') 4 /

@/ / 'l

'(i g . ~: .y @ ,, .' .

~

l.

.I .

-5 :r I

- p,. ? -" -

[, - - [ .

.- , i, jl ,

's. U p.ih' '

r. '

g -

.in

" \ bil. l//-I

[ .

j-

.i j$ i 1

.(D j -

N. .w[l. !.

$y Yo-Ir l 'q .

c ..... ...._L_..

L--

-- 4 i

)'@

g

/-

l \

.a

'g i .-- ,

g- '

iI,,-,s ,_ e

' i

/~ .

-C ',

'l @ L I t

w . [> .- - %p-;d ; ..I m

I g .a. . l

g. '

,6

~. , <m L_ ?

r ,i 1 --

-c dc y

P e g

3 J , T j

ph .,s, ,

- N

.,/ .- n, ... ,-

, :- %- .1..

j N

I

~ u .

l.. .V [ ( l l

f-h y,

.c

_7 -

u-y f

h: <o

'i Mb

$ . 1 i

~h y b -

.-- ,n __,,_,.__-,,w= - - ' - ~ ' " * * '

. O "O.* .g %

. . . , ow

p, **

4

. . . 6 -

l

!)

El

e CC Z 818 4 8 y a E

l< ON

E 3
M o A E 1r T
/s
. / %
/ '?
/ #$
/ m
/ * .
t. ~
u / -
~
/
. u. . . .
/
.v
. . l *
/ th
/
. / M
/
/ .
m
,a
/
f .
m*
. . W r *-
ge S
~
\
I 1
5 th i
.. l i l l
l l
l
, 1
. i l
I i
.. . . . ! . ... . . . .. . .. . ! s
-j - i- -
i
~
,y ,
T PROB 4A-26 COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS .
1. DIMENSIONS ON PIPING ISOMETRIC (446495) INCONSISTENT .
2. OVERLAP PROCEDURE APPLIED.'- GIVEN THE MAGNITUDE .
OF THE ROTATIONS AT NP 25 THIS IS l'N.^.CCEPTADLE'.
3.
oz. W BEAM MEMBERS USED IN A INCONSISTENT FASHIO,N j TO MODEL SUPPORTS . .
poee<,/uc igg
4. SD BEND MODELE'D AS ELBOW
~
5. INCO'NSISTENT SPECTRA
6. MODELING ERROR -
4 9
es e
9 e
O
e I
e e
BROODRYDi l&TIO'ML IAB0P. ATOP.Y{3 g)
Assoruim omwsmrs mr rni
. :_. :a PROB 4R-2fo FREQUEHCY nw?/%92/ SOY MODE FREQUEHCY FREQuS/CY(Hz)
BNL %EE
~
/ 5 05 S.44 2 /4'. 63 / 9. 93 3 /5 67 A5V ~
4
[8.23 M +S' 5 20.37 A33 4 .
.g.2. to 2/ %
T 23.64. 29'50 s .2^8. 6 7 31.35 3 32.20 39.25
/0 3 4.23 37.87 .
// 5 7. % 38.0G
/2.
ll 3. 55 39.48
/3 At6. 1.8 40.95
/V 4 7.42 42./T
/5 47 73 E187
^
. p
__ _,_ . . , , - - ev ,- ~ ~
3,.;O
~ . .
O O
O g--
O...
O O
6-- .
-O 09..
v> 4
=w -
l
.w
.o uO C...
O O
O f\ I u
j l a--
g/ } \
I-O :
O. . .
- s O
O . * ?
10-' 2 3 ~4 5 6789,10 2 .3 4 5 6789,10'.
2 3
4 5 6 7 89 ki-FREO (HZ) O'V' ' /" .
. . .... _ - _ _ . . . , . . - . _ .-

ML20203H335

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Schweller:

Title:

Title:

Title:

Title:

Title:

Dear Mr. Schweller:

SUMMARY

Title:

Title:

Title:

Title:

Title:

Title:

Navigation menu

ML20203H335

Text

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Schweller:

Title:

Title:

Title:

Title:

Title:

Dear Mr. Schweller:

SUMMARY

Title:

Title:

Title:

Title:

Title:

Title:

Navigation menu

Search