ML20212L186
| ML20212L186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1976 |
| From: | Newmark N NATHAN M. NEWMARK CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F500 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-391 NUDOCS 8608250241 | |
| Download: ML20212L186 (36) | |
Text
_
i ENCLOSURE NO. 2 Preliminary Draft DESIGN SPECTRA FOR DI ABLO CANYON REACTOR FACILITY i
by Nathan H. Newnark A Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission h.
Nathan M. Newmark Consulting Engineering Services 1211 Civil Engineering Building Urbana, Illinois 61801
- 8 June 1976 8600230241 G60001 e
o e
DESIGN SPECTRA FOR DIABLO CANYON REACTOR FACIL!TY by Nathan H. Newmark 1.
INTRODUCTION AND SulW1ARY This report summarizes recommendations for the design spectra to be considered in the possible re-design and retrofit of Diablo Canyon Unit No. I Nuclear Reactor Facility, taking into account the earthquake motions attributable to a possible earthquake on the recently discovered
- Hosgri fault offshore from the plant. The recommendations are consistent with the statement by the U.S. Geological Survey that an earthquake with a magnitude of about 7 5 could occur in the future anywhere along the Hosgri fault, and the near field ground motiors attributable to such an earthquake should be considered in addition to other earthquakes previously considered in the design of the plant.
- pgggg, In the assessment of the potential motions and design criteria for such an earthquake, the closeness to the site, the site conditions, and the general nature of response to near field motions were taken into account.
The design spectrum is drawn for a value of "ef fective" ground acceleration of 0.75 9. although it is recogni~ zed that occasional peaks of higher acceleration might be experienced.
In addition, consideration is given to the maximum ground velocities and displacements consistent with the site geology, and consideration is also given to the attenuation of high f requency motion input in the major parts of the facility caused by the large size and close spacing of'these parts of the facility.
e The recommended design spectrum exceeds in certain ranges of frequencies the original design spectrum used for the plant. However, many of the items of structure and equipment were designed with sufficient margin that the recommended design spectra does not generally exceed the original design spectrum except in some ranges where further studies are needed to review the resistance provided.
11.
DESIGN INTENSITY OF SITE HOTIONS Relations were given by Donovan (Ref.1) for the attenuation of maximum ground acceleration as a function of magnitude and hyperfocal
' distance f rom the source. With this relationship, involving an exponent for decay of acceleration with distance of -1.32 and a geometric standard deviation of 2.0, the maximum ground acceleration for 1 standard deviation from the median is approximately 0.75 g, for a horizontal distance of 7 km and a focal depth of 12 km from the earthquake source. This value is not
'"T'*"
inconsistent with the values in USGS Circular 672 (Ref. 2) for near, field strong motions, considering a repeated acceleration peak of several times, rather than one isolated peak.
Although, for more distant sources, response spectrum calculations indicate that the peak acceleration value is a reasonable basis from which to draw the design spectrum, for near field earthquakes this does not appear to be the case, judging from the spectra for the several near field earthquakes for which records are available, and f rom the lack of damage consistent with the near field peak measurements in those near field earthquakes, such as the Pacolma Dam record, the Par'kfield record, the Ancona records, and the Helendy Ranch record.
9 The foundation conditions at the Diablo Canyon site are very good.
The material on which the major facilities are founde.d :: a competent rock, with somewhat less competent material near the surface. However, the depth of the less competent material is quite limited. The seismic shear wave velocity of the more competent material underying the plant foundation structure is slightly higher than 5000 f t/sec at low stress levels. One would expect that the velocity for higher stress levels, accompanying a,
major earthquake, might be considerably reduced, of the order of 4000 ft/sec.
In making estimates of the response or design spectra, one must make estimates also of the maximum ground velocity and maximum ground displacement. Although values have been given by Seed for maximum ground velocity in rock corresponding to something of the order of 24 to 26 in/sec for a i g maximum acceleration (Ref. 3), it is believed that a somewhat higher velocity is more appropriate to use. However, it does appear that the velocity might be less in rock than in alluvium, where one expects a value of the order of 48 to 50 In/sec (Ref. 4). Values are also given by plage' Mohrax (Ref. 5), of the same order of magnitude given by Seed in Ref. 3.
For the purpose of this study, a value of 32 In/sec for 1 g maximum ground acceleration is used. This is believed to be conservative. Consequently, f'or 0.75 g the maximum ground velocity is considered to be 24 In/sec.
in making an estimate of maximum ground displacement in vibratory motion, a value of the product of acceleration times
- displacement divided by the square of velocity is used as a basis. 'his parameter has a mean value of about 6 for a large number of earthquakes (Ref. 4). However, for close-In earthquakes the value appears to be somewhat less, and for this study the value is-taken as 4.
With this value, the maximum ground
4 e
s' displacement is computed as approximately 8 In.
Those values are summarized in Table 1.
Ill.
RESPONSE TO NEAR EARTHQUAKES Several earthquake records have been obtained close to the source.
These include the Parkfield earthquake of 27 June 1966, for which the maximum recorded acceleration is 0 5 g; the Helendy Ranch earthquake of 4 September 1972 with a maximum acceleration of 0.7 g; the Ancona earthquakes of June 1972, for which the record at Rocca (on rock) had a maximum acceleration of about 0.6 g and at Falombina (on sediment) where a maximum acceleration of
,0.4 g was experienced; and the Pacolma Dam earthquake record of 9 February 1971 with a maximum acceleration of about 1.2 g.
In all of these earthquakes the damage suffered by the buildings near the source was considerably less than would have been expected from the acceleration levels or from the response spectra corresponding to the near field records. This is in contrast to the fact that for more distant earthquakes, at distances over about 40 km, the
,gg, damage levels appear to be consistent with response spectra when inelastic behavior of the structure is taken into account.
Both liousner and Cloud (Refs. 6 and 7) refer to the small damage occurring in the Parkfield earthquake. Lander (Ref. 8) Indicates the relatively light damage in the Helendy Ranch earthquake. Observations by Italian seismologists and engineers (Ref. 9) Indicate the relatively small damage in the Ancona earthquakes, and the fact that buildings designed with a selsmic coefficient of 0.07 g, in accordance with the then recently adopted Italian earthquake code, suffered no damage. Near Pacolma Dam, the caretaker's cottage, of the order of about half a mile away, did not have its chimney damaged and suffered practically no damage otherwise.
I 1
I 5
Response spectra for these several earthquakes are given herein.
Figures 1 and 2 show the Pacolma Dam response spectra, in two directions, for 2% damping.
Figures 3 and 4 show the spectra for the two Ancona earthquakes for 5% critical damping.
In these figures, the curve for T = 0 is the response spectrum from the actual record.
In Fig. 5 there is shown the response spectrum for the Melendy Ranch barn record, for various amounts of damping. The record fcc the Helendy Ranch and Ancona earthquakes are surprisingly similar, with a relatively sharp spike at about 5 to 6 hertz frequency. The Pacolma Dam response spectrum has peak responses at several frequencies including the higher frequencies just cited and several lower
' frequencies.
in order better to understand the relationship between response spectra and actual response 'of a nonlinear or inelastic structure, one may observe Fig. 6.
This figure is drawn for average conditions, using the procedures described in Refs. 4 and 10. The design spectrum marked " clastic" e' pud 4Mt in Fig. 6 is drawn, as are the other spectra, for a peak ground acceleration of 0 5 g, with 7% damping. The spectral amplification factors used for r
ground acceleration, velocity, and displacement, are given in the second line of Table 1.
These values are taken from Refs. 4, 10, or 11. The response spectrum bounds are approximately 1.2 g for amplified acceleration, 50 in/sec for amplifted velocity, and about 33 in for displacement response.
Hodifications of the elastic response spectrum are made in accordance with procedures described in Refs. II, 12 and 13, and are shown in Fig. 6 for two values of ductility factor. The value corresponding to
" loss of function" is drawn for'a ductility factor of 2.5, and that for
" collapse" for a ductility factor of 10.
It is noted that these are overall l
a' 6
ductility factors, and the local factors in structural members might be somewhat higher. However, these would correspond also to t,he ductiii ty factors in items supported on floors or walls or on the ground foundation structure.
All of these are drawn for a peak ground acceleration of 0.5 g.
For larger values of ground acceleration, the required values would be The higher, in proportion to the " effective" ground acceleration value.
latter is defined as that value which corresponds to the acceleration level which is used as a basis for drawing the spectrum.
These various levels can be compared in terms of the seismic coefficient in the frequency range corresponding to the amplified acccleration level, since the spectra are generally proportional to these values in the range of important frequencies for structural or equipment design in nuclear reactor factIities, although the values are more nearly proportional to the ductiIIty factor levels or the ampfifled velocity portion of the dlagram for
" ~.
longer period or lower frequency structures.
The significance of these diagrams may be considered as follows:
Low buildings, school buildings, and other structures of one or two stories, would have been designed in the past for a seismic coefficient of 0.1 g.
This, at amplified working stresses, corresponds to a strength of about 0.15 9 It can be seen that a structure designed in this way would lie below the collapse level in general, and would fall in an earthquake having a maximum ground acceleration of 0.5 g.
However, it could survive a maximum ground acceleration of 0.28 g or less, in general. A structure designed in accordance with the recent modification of the SEAOC Code would have 50%
greater resisting capacity, and could survive an earthquake with about 0.42 g
7 maximum ground acceleration without collapse. Damage would occur at lower levels of maximum ground acceleration, but not collapse.
A hospital designed in accordance with the latest hospital design code might have a seismic coefficient of 0.25 g, which corresponds to about
. 0 38 g at yield levels. This would certainly lose function in a 0.5 g maximum ground acceleration earthquake, and probably would not be able to continue to function in earthquakes stronger than about 0.32 maximum ground acceleration (the El Centro earthquake, for example).
A further estimate of the significance of the design requirements is indicated by Fig. 7, which gives a comparison of the latest recommended earthquake design specifications in the ATC design recommendations, in comparison with those developed for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This' figure compares the ATC design spectrum for a spectral reduction factor of 1, corresponding to elastic behavior, for the maximum effective peak ground acceleration value of 0.4 considered in the ATC code. This is
%WSM compared with the response spectrum or the design spectrum for elastic behavior corresponding to the methods in Refs. 4 and 11, marked NRC-NMN in the figure.
It is seen that these are very similar and closely related.
However, the design seismic coefficients used in that code generally carry, for well-designed structures, values of spectral reduction factors of the order of S.
This is shown by the lower curve, where there is essentially a ratio of a factor of 5 corresponding to the design level, with a maximum seismic coefficient of 0.2 g.
This cannot be directly compared with Fig. 6 unless one adjusts Fig. 6 to correspond to an earthquake of 0.4 g rather than 0.5 g peak acceleration.
It will be seen, when this is done, that collapse will generally be avoided by the ATC design code for ordinary structures, unless the earthquake does exceed a level of the order of 0.4
8 e.
e to 0.5 g effective ground acceleration, or possibly somewhat higher than this value.
~
The importance of this discussion lies in the fact that an ef fective peak ground acceleration of I g would cause loss of function and collapse of practically all structures of any sort in an area, even those designed in accordance with the best current codes. This has never been observed. The only structures that have failed have been those that have been either grossly deficient in design or designed to levels Hence it considerably below those which are appropriate for the region.
is felt that a value of 0.75 g for the construction of the design spectrum for the Diablo Canyon site is a value consistent with experience and observation, and designs need not be made for a response spectrum anchored to the maximum peak ground acceleration that might be recorded on an instrument for near field earthquakes.
IV.
EFFECT OF $1ZE OF FOUNDATION ON DEslGN SPECTRUM 3, 39 I
The observation has frequency been made that structures on large foundations appear to respond with less intensity to earthquakes than do smaller structures, and more specifically, than does free-fleid instrumentation.
The first paper that attempted to give a rational explanation for this behavior was apparently that by Yamahara in 1970 (Ref.14). The same procedure appears to have been independently rediscovered by Ambraseys (Ref. 14) and by Scanlon (Ref. 16). These references give in general a o
relationship between the average acceleration over the width of the foundation as a function of the relative wave length of the acceleration pulse to which the foundation is subjected, compared with the width of the
foundation. Perhaps a better measure of the reduction in effectiveness of an earthquake on a large building is given by use of the average acceleration taken fron the record itself. A number of examples of this kind of calculation are given herein. This has the virtue of not requiring an assessment of the particular frequencies of acceleration included in the earthquake motion, but rests entirely on the basis of a time average over a passage time of the acceleration record, and then a calculation of the response spectrum from that averaged acceleration record.
There are only a limited number of examples of responses measured The most in a building foundation and in the free field near the building.
canplete and useful records are those obtained in two earthquakes for the Hollywood Storage Building and the Hollywood Parking Lot. The building itself is shown in elevation and in plan in Fig. 8.
The free-field acceleration record, in the Hollywood Parking Lot, was measured at 112 ft away from the nearest corner of the building, which is 51 f t in the north-W~&M south direction and 217.5 f t in the east-west direction. The building is 150 ft high and is supported on piles. The basement accelerograph is located in the southwest corner of the building. Figure 9 shows the
' subsurface model of the building, with Figs. 8 and 9 being taken from a study by Duke et al (Ref. 17).
The shear wave velocity in th'e upper strata near the building is approximately 2000 fps, and this can be considered as possibly the wave propagation velocity.
Response spectra have been resported for this building in both the San Fernando earthquake and in the Kern County earthquake. Typical of the results are those shown in Figs. 10 and 11, which give the response o
id o
spectrum for the storage basement and for the parking lot, in both the east and the south directione, for a damping value of 2% critical, as a function of period, it can be seen that for periods less than about 0.4 see there is a significant decrease in the response spectrum for the building compared with that for the parking lot, whereas for longer periods the response spectra are practically identical. This shows the filtering effect, discussed above.
It is of interest to note, however, that the reduction is of the order of a factor of 2 to 2.5 Similar effects are observed for 5% damping spectra as well.
On the other hand, no attenuation was observed for the Kern a
County earthquake in the same building, which was considerably further away, both the San Fernando earthquake source and the Kern County earthquake source
~
being'approximately north of the structure. The natural frequencies of the building, from a vibration test, are given in Table 2, taken also from Ref.17 The fundamental period of the building in the east-west direction is 0.5 see m#MW and in the north-south direction about 1.2 sec. This is in the range where practically no change in the response spectrum is observed.
It appears that there is practically no soil-structure Interaction as such under this
. building, but the major effect is one of smoothing out the acceleration input from the earthquake motions. Figures 12 and 13 show a series of spectra for the San Fernando earthquake for $% damping for travel times across the width of the building in the east-west and the north-south direction of 0, 0.04, 0.08, 0.12, and 0.16 sec. The curve for a transit time of 0 sec is the spectrum for the parking lot unmodified, and the others are spectra for the parking lot record smoothed by averaging values over times corresponding to the transit time listed in the figure. The response spectrum for the
~
11 v*
structure is shown by the dashed line in the figures, which is very nearly identical with the computed value for the parking lot for,a transmit time of about 0.08 sec in the north-south direction, and for the east-west direction the agreement is almost exact for a transit time of 0.12 sec, which corresponds almost identically with a width of 217 f t divided by the seismic velocity of 2000 f t/sec.
It appears that either the longest dimension of the building or the mean or geometric mean of the dimensions controis the effective transmit time insofar as the ' reduction in response is concerned.
Similar results are shown for the Kern County earthquake in Figs. 14 and 15, where again the transit time of 0.08 appears to be the best value. However, there is very little attenuation, which is indicative of the fact that at the very large distance of the Kern County earthquake the major influences reaching the building are surface waves with a much longer wave length than those for the closer San Fernando earthquake.
Now, referring again to Figs. I and 2 we may observe how the EE-respcnses of the structure to the Pacolma Dam record would be affected by transmit time. There is apparently a substantial reduction as the transit time increases from 0 to 0.12 sec, but only a slight reduction beyond that
, to 0.16 sec. However, this reduction affects only the high frequency range, above about 2 hertz. Similarly, Figs. 3 and 4 show a large reduction for the Ancona earthquakes as a function of transmit time. The much simpler, more sharply defined input motion produces a iarger reduction in ef fect on structures, and is consistent with the very low level of observed damage of buildings designed to resist even moderate earthquakes in the Ancona region.
12 V.
DIABLO CANYON DESIGN SPECTRA Referring again to Table 1, one finds spectrum bounds defined by the ground motions discussed earlier and the spectrum amplification factors given in Table I, as shown on the last line of Table 1.
These values are plotted in Fig. 16 in terms of the usual type of design spectrum considered earlier in this report. The spectrum shown in Fig.16 is for the plant itself and not for the free field, which would correspond to a higher acceleration bound than is shown in Fig.16, with approximately a 50%
greater acceleration level.
The reduction factor for this response spectrum is based on the results in Figs. I and 2, where, taking into account the dimentions of the plant complex, one obtains an effective width (the square root of the area of the plant structures) of 480 f t, corresponding to a transit time of 0.12 sec, using the seismic velocity of 4000 f t/sec discussed earlier. With this 89%49m val'ue, the reduction factor of the order of 0.67, used to obtain a 0.5 g e
design value, is not inappropriate and is justified by the data shown in Figs. I and 2.
Small separate structures not close to the main complex
.should be designed for the higher spectrum, however.
Finally, Fig.17 shows the spectrum in Fig.16 plotted in another way, in terms of acceleration values as a function of frequency, and compared with previously used design spectra for the plant. These previously used values are defined as the DDE or the double design earthquake spectrum originally used of 0.4 g maximum ground acceleration, and the so-called "Hosgri" spectrum which has been developed by Dr. John A. Blume for PGEE.
It appears that the latter is relatively close to the recommended design spectrum developed herein for frequencies higher than about 2 or 3 hertz, but may be somewhat low for lower frequency elements.
'O I3 Consistent with the concept of a wave motion of earthquake deformation, there are torsions and tiltings of a building, foundation.
Both ef fects are less on rock than on soil. The torsional effects are taken account of in current codes by assuming an eccentricity of horizontal seismic force of 5 percent of the width of the structure. This effort i s less, however, for a very large structure, and the til ting ef fect is even smaller. Account should be taken of these effects in design.
4 e
D e
+
6 m
p *
\\
t
14 6
REFERENCES 1.
N. C. Donovan, A Statistical Evaluation of Strong Motion Data including the February 9,1971 San Fernando Earthquake, Proceedings Fif'th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Rome), Vol.1,1974, pp. 1252-1261.
2.
R. A. Page, D. M. Boore, W. B. Joyner, and H. W. Coulter, Ground Motion Values for Use in the Seismic Design of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 672, 1972.
3 H. B. S eed, R. Mu ra rka, J. Ly sme r, a nd I. M. Idrits, " Relationships between Maximum Acceleration, Maximum Velocity, Distance from Source, and Local Site Conditions for Moderately Strong Earthquakes",
Earthqu'ake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, EERC 75-17, July 1975 4.
N. M. Newmark, W. J. Hall, B. Monraz, "A Study of Vertical and
--m.,
' Horizontal Earthquake Spectra, Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic m
Energy Connission, Report WASH-1255, April 1973 5
B. Mohraz, A Study of Earthquake Response Spectra for Different Geological Conditions, institute of Technology, Southern Methodist Universi ty, Dallas, Texas,1975 6.
G. W. Housner, Earthquake Research Needs for Nuclear Power Plants, O
Journal Power Division, Proceedings ASCE, Vol. 97, 1971, pp. 77-91.
7 V. K. Cloud, Intensity Map and Structural Damage, Parkfield, California, Earthquake of June 27, 1966, Bull. Seism. Soc. of America, Vol. 57.
No. 6,1967, pp.1161-1178.
8.
J. F. Lander, editor, Seismological Notes, January-February 1972, Bull. Seism. Soc. of America, Vol. 62, No. 5, 1972, pp. 1360-1362.
Lander, J.
F., editor, Seismological Notes, September-October 1973
15 Bull. Seism. Soc. of America, Vol. 63, No. 3, 1973, pp. 1177-1178.
9 R. Console, F. Peronaci, A. Sonaglia, Relazione Sui fenomeni Sismica Dell ' Anconitano (1972), Annali di Geofisica, Vol. 26, Supplement 1973, Rome.
10.
W. J. Hall, B. Mohraz, and N. M. Newmark, Statistical Studies of Vertical and Horizontal Earthquake Spectra, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Contract AT(49-5)-2667, Report NUREG-0003, January 1976.
11.
N. M. Newmark, Earthquake Resistant Des ign of Nuclear Power Plants, Article for UNESCO Intergovernmental Conference on Assessment and Mitigation of Earthquake Risk, Paris, February 1976.
12.
N. M. Newmark and W. J. Hall, Procedures and Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design, Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation, National Bureau of Standards, Building Science Series 46, Vol.1, February 1973, R4%
pp. 209-236.
13 N. M. Newmark, A Response Spectrum Approach for inelastic Seismic Design of Nuclear Reactor Facilities, Transactions, Third International Conference on Structural Mechanics and Reactor Technology, London, 1975, Paper K 5/1.
14.
H. Yamahara, Ground Motions during Earthquakes and the Input Loss of Earthquake Power tu an Excitation of Buildings, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1970, pp. 145-161, Tokyo.
15 N. Ambraseys, Characteristics of Strong Ground Motion in the Near Fie!d of Small Magnitude Earthquakes, invited Lecture, Fif th Conference European Committee for Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, September 1975 16.
R. H. Scanlan, Seismic Wave Effects on Soil-Structure Interaction, Earthquak,e Engineering and Structu'ral Dynamics, Vol. 4,1976, pp. 379-388.,
e
16 17 C. M. Duke, J. E. Luco, A. R. Carriveau, P. J. Hradi lck, R. Lastrico, and D. Ostrom, Strong Earthquake Motion and Site Conditions: Hollywood, Bull. Seism. Soc. of America, Vol. 60, No. 4,1970, pp. 1271-1289 e
W g
8
17 TABLE 1.
MAXIMUM GROUllD MOTIONS AND SPECTPAL B0UNDS Maximum Values Accel, g Vel, in/sec Dispi, in Small Structs.
Plant Both Both Ground 0.75 0.5 24 8
Spect. Ampli f.
2.4 2.4 2.1 1.9 7% 3amping Spect. Bounds 1.8 1.2 50 15
%D t
e e
4 a
6 e
e 4
a O
4 4
a 9
1 e
e O
g M
4 I l t-
/
/
N 9
/
e%
J' '
\\
/N
/\\
'4
/\\
/ 3
/\\
,9
/\\
/N
/\\
/i J
f
)$l'
)
f l
\\/
\\/
d
\\
/
o N
i
\\
s N
's
/
/
os 3
N
/s N
/\\
/
/\\
\\
/\\
N
/\\
/
5
.1 -
\\
O N
\\
/
- 2 Mh/o?%<^>?9VSN./
dO2 005 0.1 Q2 05 1
2 5
10 20 50 10 0 Frequency, cps l'
FIG. I PACOlMA DAM RESPONSE SPECTRUM 9 FEB 1971, S IG E,
I 2 PERCENT DAMPING,
T = 0, 0.04, 0.08, 0.12, 0.16 sec.
j.
i
i(
.E
!I I
1
\\
f
/
\\
/
/
,S
/
- 8 t
o
\\
/\\
/\\
'e
/\\ V/h 7/
\\
/\\
/\\
/\\
/
I-q
+
d
\\
/
'[\\
/
/
\\
/
'N
/
/
-i'AMA6hoV A6 t
m Ay x,4 g =o^
t
/
9,
\\
/
o>
\\
i r
N oS/*sb,vo,\\
- x g
s N
/
\\
/\\
/
\\
/
. U Sls p
'\\
/q\\
\\
/\\
/ \\
/\\
/\\
/\\
/.
N
/\\
\\
/
08o2 aos o.
az os 2
s so ao so no i,
Frequency, cps FIG. 2 PAC 0lMA DAM RESPONSE SPECTRUM 9 FEB 1971, S74W,
2 PERCENT DAMPING,
T = 0,0.04, 0.08, 0.12, 0.16 sec.
1 g
D'[X ObbbbbO b'b
./A N-
/x n
X 4
c tti N>
N-
~
~
s 2,ObOObOOh bObb s
s 1,b>bbOb's 5k Obb l
- 4 4
1-;
' R XX
/
/
\\
/
\\ /
/
\\
\\
\\
\\s/
ObbOf)O"'
)bb
\\/
- o,
. /
\\
\\
/
o A
/
/\\
/ \\
/0
/\\
/\\
}.
/\\
'[
l o'o8
/\\
/
9 a3 g
/
/
\\
\\
rl o.12'
\\
N' I
'l N
'O
~/
at
[/\\
/
[
!\\
N
,/ ' N N)
N p N/ x
, N x
N/N /\\, /,N /N/
6,02 0 05 0.1
- 0. 2 05 1
2 5
to 20 Sc roo 200 Frequency, cps FIG.3 ANCON A, ROCCA.6-14-72 GMT-NORTH r = 0,Q02,0.04,0.06,0.08.,0.12,0.16 SPECTRUM COMPUTED USING 5.0 PERCENT CRITICAL DAMPING
\\
/ 'e
/
1*g
/
/\\
/ \\
/\\
\\
\\
/ \\
'S
/\\
~
~/
\\W,,\\V / 4
. N:' N/N f '
N s
D
' \\
\\
\\/
\\/
\\
N, o
,o _ _;
{
/\\
f}/\\/'\\ /,.
/\\,
/\\
\\
\\
/
\\
N
/
4
\\
/
\\
\\
/
[
/
\\
ti
/
N /
/
,)
9 x
/\\
- \\
/\\
/\\
\\
/
N
/\\
/ N
/\\
)
,b-[
,. N[
[
N,
/I f
N
[x N
\\
N[ N/
<N,-X'x O^'f W't %(hx;
~
N x,-
N/
cg
__s x
m f'N,,b' f Y
,,,k,E f
),lN
'N r poa ysj a
N./'
N_
2,,
/'
/N
/N
/
/N
/ N
/
s s
E j!
)(
g[y
,/
s,
s,('_hN/ %
_. \\/
\\/
\\/
\\/
\\/
@' \\
L c.,
o, x
/
\\
N
\\
002 005 0.1 0.2 05 1
2 5
10 20 50 10 0 200 Frequency, cps FIG.4 ANCONA, PALOMBINA 6-21-72 GMT-NS r = 0,0.02,0.04,0.OS,0.08,0.12,0.ls SPECTRUM COMPUTED USING 5.0 PERCENT CRITICAL DAMPING
!!l
~
^
el
[s
\\
/\\
/ N O
\\
/
N s,
/
\\
\\
/ \\ GI \\
\\
/\\
/
s/
\\
f
\\'
'i' o
,/,/
,,/; n y'N w
x
/
NE k/
\\/
\\
/
N
'\\'
s u
E N
/
\\
\\
/
S
/ \\ 0/
W\\
/
\\
/
)
Y.
5.0
,7 4
\\
s
/
\\
/
/
\\*
\\
x
/
\\
/
60X6hP566
^O^
x s
0.5 y/
-~ -- y ---
0.2 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0
.Z.0 S.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 100.0 FREQUENCY. CPS t
FIG.5 RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR MELENDY RANCH BARN. 9/4/72 - N61E COMPONENT
h
~
d s
\\
/\\ Elastic
_=1 /
[1=
/
\\
/ \\
f ff
/
Loss Of' Function 25 /
\\
/
\\
4K>xCCC>OC<'
m\\^^^y ^^^)
)
\\
, collapse s lo /\\
\\
/\\
/\\
,/
w
/\\/
\\
/
\\
of
\\
QN/'N__'.
^
NxNx
^>/'N
\\
/
/
\\
\\
/ \\s
\\
/
\\
\\
/
00-
!/
s
\\/ \\
/ 'o 2
/\\
/\\
/\\
/\\
/ \\
/
3 o3 T
/
\\
/
0%.
\\
/
Ta\\
2 s
o ao ico Frequency, cps FIG. 6 INELASTIC LESIGN SPECTRAL REQUIREMENT FOR PEAK GROUND ACCELE 0F 0.5 G,
7 % DAMPING
-l 4
/
\\
a
/
4=a \\
,/'
/
\\
\\
/
i e
\\
/
k g
4.b
\\
3,k/
g 3, \\
\\
/
\\
/ \\g /
j/ \\
/\\
/
s
/
\\
/
e,
\\
\\
/N{)<N ^ ^x'N/NAGe'N 1
N
/
\\
/
/ \\
\\
/ \\
/
\\
\\
/
1 9
\\/\\
/'a
/
/\\
/ \\
/\\
/\\
/ \\
/
i
\\/
\\
\\
/
\\
b a2 as i
a Frequency, cps i
FIG. 7 COMPARISON- 0F ATC AND NRC DESIGN COEFFICIENTS,
5% DAMPING
~~
25 0
s
,. ~ _
iArc
~
i u d y g g g [ g g g id si a-I l r'.
o SCCTION A A SECTION 0 8 fACcctcaOGaArN <aOOn 7
a 1
I
/.
5 ' 8 8
I
/..^cct.'tacca^"". 9^5.t".t?).
t I
\\ACCELEROGRAPH AO (Ga0UNO) 18 3' 0
- 2 37' 6*
1YPICAL FLOOR PLAN O
10 0 SCALE IN FEET O
FIG. 8 PLAN AND ELEVATION OF BUILDING ap e
I
i 26 SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY.
OCNGITY. POUNOS FECT PER SECONO PER CU0C FOOT 0
4000 6000 12000 820 140 16 0 0
i
/
a u
?
qT =gw 6w 20 5
40 og Ru gy [w] gw$
2000 we zw w
w w a.
s.2 t Zh 58 b
w5 23 g
/
sh' w'
g 4000 I;'
w o
5 51 i
=
30 2 6000 L
29
<= 5 b hi!
be n
4g
>2
'h3 l
cooO 1
l s-6 s
.i a
s W
Fso. 9 Subsurface model.
c:
TAllLIC 2 Narunre. Far.auxxc a.s or Den.oixo raos Vsonrt:On TEST *
~ ~. _
Freeseecy (cys)
. ~ -
Mede ed Vitraties North eesth East.erest
~J Fundanicistal tratulation 0.83 2.0 7
Second translational 2.7 Thint translational 4.5 3
Functunental torsional 1.57-1.G7 Sceond tonional 5.9 Thint torsional 9.1 Others 1.0, 5.0
- S.suree: Carder.19G4.
m b
g I
h.-
27 r
'Nh///, /.
,[,
/,
s
,e
.h \\/
,).'
\\ --- - P E. Lot
['\\
\\
a
_,e
>\\ [Y>b,eb
[XNs
([(
'[X Zf;f~ 'Y / /'
f
%Y/ /\\/
'7 //j
/\\ ? l'
/ \\
Y r
x /N Xdp//)<f /
)<
N v'd X
/'N '/NN
'/\\Nk/k/b[/k./k/\\
/b
/ 7[s X\\
N
>' /
\\ /\\
'X[sN N
li. '
? j\\
/
/
/
k
/
N<a>^n>s 2n L' X W ' if>: A>ft'X
\\
X s
2 s
sa aa
\\
s
/xNX X.e ~
N/
e'- x,
- X i / / x N Aj i //
/'
.5
\\ N N\\///k?/\\ YN
',./' [ /'
XNNI//X
/
h
/
b
/\\/
/
\\/
'N k/\\
q' '<y\\.p!(A /N/wp o,
4 N
/
! //
V
/X
/
X /s.
'.g%/
p
/( Y x\\
>fi (X.[s
\\
X /x s
f s
./
N'
/
/\\
/ X YN.p'\\
/
s
./x 'vna
?< / A A NPX Y/ A/s W Y//-
- \\.'N'/j%//'X'/\\ \\><'\\\\ //>' /\\
')[\\\\.#[b
/
/
/k/\\
/
/\\/
/\\
"d k
\\
[/[/
\\ 'y /
'\\
/
\\
/./
/N
/ A
\\
\\
/
/\\
/N
/
N N
W A
/ N
/
x
/
N
<x a,-
004 00600601 02 Q4 Q6 QS 10 2
4 6 8 10 20 Period, sec FIG.10 SAN FERNANDO EARTHOUAKE, FEB. 9,1971 - 0600 PST HOLLYWOOD STORAGE BASEMENT AND P.E. LOT, CCMPONENT EAST, DAMPING VALUE 2 To OF CRITICAL i.
i j
1 28
'(/
N /\\
',K[/
\\{,/'N fjj/l * ' ' N{ j'
\\
j;
,4 fi\\
Bo:ement ' N
\\A
,f
/
4'
- / \\/\\\\/
/\\ --- R E. Los
/\\
f.b
.h' fs ';X['/ X X
{X <
- c. ffb(b h'fe ?fS / X
' x s
/\\
jk.,/JN
/
,00
\\c Of_ 'oix / /N/
, '14 x/
/N A N>f
\\ \\ d',4X /N MN N//>:'/\\ Xiei'e//nz.b.'N y
pJ /
- /\\
Th'/ \\/
'?
k/\\.f k/b
/
<NJN.)<'&[yg' f7i<l'%,{
)
7 N /
/ -_
/ \\ / L
/_
/ \\,lN
/
/\\
e
' M[p)si,[\\d'Y
,y go
[/N
[/
M b
x g
1 NX fi['h
/
\\
\\
2
\\
/
,o A xx x/ &... c cke v# /p 'X" x/._s x '::q%N//X'/
/
.E N NN\\//)V jf'3' X Nj r/
s N
/\\
[
'/\\Nk)\\/ oh/
/
\\/
N
/s/IMANNs\\A
/\\ //n
[N X/V<NN,K//
N
_8
/
s i
\\
.N f,v
=>
\\/
A
/ \\ 'VN \\ # -.'Y
/N*Y NN
{,X'%q,/
lN
./
/
- ?
\\
/
./ X,>'
b}!g y% )/
/
/
\\
/-
Y//
/\\ \\/x i
\\ Ye.l;%//h' /\\ N'\\\\s//\\/ /\\ M'N \\//Yj
/
/\\/
\\/
/h
\\
/
/
a g
\\
/
x s
N N
y N
/ \\
/
/
/ \\
/
N
/ \\
/
gg 004 0060060.1 02 Q4 06 G810 2
4 6 8 10 20 Period, sec i
FIG.ll SAN FERNANDO EARTHQUAKE, FEB. 9,1971 - 0600 PST HOLLYWOOD STORAGE BASEMENT AND P.E. LOT,' COMPONENT SOUTH, DAMPING. VA.LUE 2% OF CRITICAL
\\
\\
\\
~
~
a
^
^
\\
/
\\
/
\\
/
\\
/
go
\\
\\
\\
\\
l 4 h66('SMi% />('>66 S
q torog eme
/
\\/
/
k
/\\
\\
/
D'b[/ObOh\\ kMDbb m
6h 0>X^('>&h =^66
('>66 i
^
^
^
\\
/
\\
/
\\
/
/
"Q}
\\} ^/QN/N
/^
\\
\\
/
\\
\\/\\/
\\/\\
o, Frequency, cps
~
_ FIG.12 HOLLYWOOD STORAGE RE. LOT, SAN FERNANDO EARTHOUAKE FEB. 9,1971, COtAPON NT
- EAST, DAMPING 5 % OF CRITICAL, T = 0, 0.04, 0.08, 0.12, L
j.
y~/
/
\\
\\
A
^
^
^
20 N
O
\\
/
t Y'x>
655N#R. 63,AA6 l
x x x x c;t _
a
^^-
N A7s/N V
A, L
s/N DbOObOOI
'(DObb O
/'92, /,\\
/\\
/\\
\\
/\\
/\\
/
I
\\
/\\
/\\
/\\
as O
o s/N-A N-N OR/
s
'DD D,AOq
,Ad1:alPN/s A
,x s
s/
s s-s^
6,02 005 0.1 a2 Q5 I
2 S
10 23 50 10 0 200 Freq00ncy, cps FIG.13 HOLLYWOOD STORAGE P.E. LOT, SAN FERNANDO EARTHQUAl(E FEB. 9,1971, COMPONENT
- SOUTH, DAMPlNG 5 % OF CRITICAL, T = 0, 0.04, 0.08, 0.12, j
k g
~.
\\
\\
/
,/
/
/
o p
\\
N
/\\
/ \\
\\
A'1
'/h/ \\
/\\
/ \\
/\\
/\\
/
y j)'
'4
\\/
\\
\\
/
\\
\\/
9
-(
=
'(
/\\
/
\\
\\
/
/
/\\/
\\
/ \\
/i g
2, A
d Add
/
\\
/\\
/\\
/'
\\
\\
\\
\\
/
\\
~
t
\\
/
\\
/
\\
De /
5
\\/
a,
/
\\
\\
/
\\
'0
/
\\g
\\
- &o4
\\
/
o, g
l
/
$~
\\
/\\
/ \\
/\\
/g/\\
/\\
/\\
A
/\\
/ \\
/
oo3
/
\\/
\\
/
\\' \\/
\\
\\/
\\
b2 ODS 0.1 Q2 0.5 1
2 5
10 20 2
10 0 200
, Frequency, cps
, FIG.14 HOLLYWOOD STORAGE P.E. LOT, KERN COUNTY EARTHQUAKE JULY 21,1952,
CGMPONENT
- EAST, DAMPING 5 % 0F CRITICAL, T = 0, 0.04, 0.08, O.12,
\\
\\
\\
f9
'n l
\\
/ \\
/\\
%,,(
/\\dv b6\\
/ \\
/ \\
/\\
/ \\
/
3
'4 srkea ment
/
\\
/
\\
/
\\
/
l
\\
>re N
\\
\\
I
/
t g\\am\\m\\y/ny\\
2 5
'\\
\\
\\
/
/ \\
/
\\
/
o3
/
O
/
i
\\
/
\\
/
. \\/
\\
/
"OYO^\\
/
,:Ox/'
\\
\\
/
\\
fo
/
\\p
\\
/
r = o.os /\\
/
i
%,,\\
f f
/
/\\
/ \\
/\\
/ \\
/
\\
/ \\
/ \\
/ \\
/
om
/
gP~
\\-
/
\\
\\/
\\'
/
\\
/i 0%
, Frequency, cps
, FIG.15 HOLLYWOOD STORAGE P.E. LOT, KERN COUNTY EARTHQUAKE ~ JULY 21,1952,
^ " " ' "
" ^
4'
= - --
o s
\\
/ \\
/\\ SoipsN
/
\\
/ \\
/
)
/
\\
/
sa \\
/
'o
\\
go//'QN/'QQ/N/<^> ^x
\\
/
\\
/\\
/
g h /^x]\\^O\\X}\\&f/4
\\
/
)
\\
/\\
/
\\
/
\\
\\
[
\\
/
3 i 4
^[, M 4
/
\\
/
o,
\\
o9'
\\
\\
/
k i
'\\
/ \\
/ 'a
/
/
/\\
/\\
/ \\
/\\
/
^[ bd!
M d
\\/
\\
-/
\\
/
\\
Oh o.2 as i
2 s
to 2
Frequency, cps FIG.16 RECOMMENDED " DESIGN" SPECTRUM FOR PLANT
34 10 5
~
2 s
I
/
- 7
%W
/
C~
f_
.DDE 8
/
h E
r-U y
"Hosgrl"- 7 % Damping
]
u 0.2 u
f.
l l
=
ni
[:
005 i
n02 Qoial 02 G5 1
2 5
10 20 50 10 0 Frequency, cps I
FIG.17 RECOMMENDED " DESIGN" SPECTRA, 7 % DAMPING, l
COMPARED WITH "HOSGRI" AND DDE SPECTRA i
l
{
s-
.listribution:
-Dncket File ACRS(16)
?!PC "DR P. !!accary Local PDR
". Ross TIC P. Todasco Wi? ' leading J. Knight LuP el Filo S. Pawlicti
". C. EtlScho I. ST!Meil
'~
l'. 's. Case D.
C hnC '*
D. S. noyd I. UOYa
3
. 'teYounc I. "oszteczy
^
' '..':eni sa
- 3. S! ovholt.
V. Penaroya.
'i. Lainas J. Stolz T. Incolito
- <. I'niel V. Moore
- 9. Parr
".. Vollrer
- 7. Vassallo -
M. Frnst R. Clark 11 Gamill T. Socis G. Y.nichton P. Collins D. Youngblood C. Ifeltemes - :.
- 9. Pegan R. Ifoilston D. Funch S. Varoa _
E-J. Collins J. ililler U. Kreacr F.
.T. Willia n R. Ballard R. !!einaman
't. rpar.oler
~
'f. Denton:
J. Stenn
- 7. Allison p
Attorney, ELD '
L. liulran L. D. Davis IF (3,)
K. Kapur F. Goulbourne-.
J. O'Rrien
- 9. Fir.k A. Pates S. Levine bec:
J. Devine F. ffcKeown fl. l'anner N. M. Newmark 4
orrece >
svawame >
omee >
Form AFC3Is (Rev. 9 53) ABCM 0240 W u. s. sovannesswv pasamme orreces sere.sas.soe
- "N[
A-es
(
I p
B
'M JUN
/ '1
.f IIY"rJiT N09. 50-275'
~
AN"1 50-323 APPLICUTT: PACIFIC cAS AND EIECTP.IC CTfPK!Y O'C.E)
FACILITf:
DIABID CWiON NUCIZAR P&'Eit 9TATITi, trilE 1 A'!D 2 (DIAND CA. WIT!)
SL?m'lY OF ACRS SU%MIITTEE RETING IELD ON MAY 21, 1976 An ACRS Sutromittee saeeting regarding Diablo Canyon was held in Avila Beach near San Luis Obispo, Califomia 'on May 21, 1976. The agenda is i
provided in Enclosure No. 1.
A list of attendees is given in Enclosure No. 2.
BACKGROU;'Q The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) had concluded that a magnitude 7.5 earthquake could occur on the Hosgri fault. Based on titis the staff had requested that PG6E evaluate the plant's capability to withstand such an earthquake, which is more severe than the earthquakes for which the plant was originally designed. Based on the recur-endation of another consultant, Dr. Newmark, the staff had detemined an effective site acceleration of.75g to be used in engineering design calculations for MJg the reevaluation and had provided certain criteria for the reevaluation.
p These positions were doctseented in Supplement No. 4 to the Safety Evaluation Report on Mqc 11, 1976.
t PGGE did not agree with the postulated earthquake of map '.tude 7.5.
Nevertheless, the company was pmceeding with the reanalysis.
I S01EDUUVRTIURE METINGS We stated that the staff presentations on deriving, from the USGS rar==manA= tion, an effective site acceleration to be used in design would be deferred tatil our consultant, Dr. Newmark, could be available.
He would be available for a full coeunittee meeting on June 4,1976 and we hoped to publish his report prior to Jme 25, 1976. The staff and i
PGEE expressed a desire to have the full comittee consider Diablo l
Canyon on.Ame 4.
'!he subcouseittee chairman, Dr. Okrent, stated that j
another eiwttee meeting had been scheduled for June 25 and June 26.
He did not believe that the full r= mittee would consider Diablo Canyon on Jime 4.
f y.
.~...
y o
p 3
r k L.'
?n ij3h *
.h 4
- ~
Forkw-Mi;(
A-55 A-55 s
(
(
JUN i 1976 nr. Okrent requested that the staff pmvide certain descriptive miterial in a form that could be reviewd prior to the next subcomittee riceting.
The material should include a rather couplete discussio functions to be used in design calculations.
TdI4tICTH Dr. !!amilton made a presentation on geology considerations and Dr. Smith The staff nade a presentation on seisrticity considerations for PG6E.
and USGS provided brief statements.
Dr. Page and Dr. Thompron asked if further details on l
between theto tuffs could be used to eliminate the possibility of a Dr. Thomson and Dr. Trifunac l
major lateral slip on the Ibsgri fault. asked questions about how the considered as separate faults, since they are only separate key to future expectations, and in his view the geologic evidence 2 1/2 niles.
indicated that the two faults do not act as one.
Dr. Philbrick asked why the USGS and PGSE could not discuss this matter t
further and obtain additional infomation as necessary until ags had been reached.
we would be willing to do more of it if the applicant wi postulated earthquake which allowed the applicant to go forward.with a E!ERW reanalysis of the plant.
SEISMIC DESIGT Mr. Sihweil and Dr. Kapur gave presentations for the staff on seismic design considerations.
In some. cases, for the same earthquake, instruments located at the foundation of large buildings have shown smaller responses than those
' theoretical considerations located on the gmund surface nearby.
published by Yamahara and Scanlan predict a reduction in the res structural foundations relative to the free field motions and we used these theoretical considerations in developing the criteria for the We believed these theoretical reductions were supported by data described above where the foundation motion was less than t reevaluation.
Dr. Trifunac asked if the opposite might be ground surface motion.
true, that is, if the instruments at the ground surface were showing an amplified motion rather than the structural foundation showing a reduced motion.
'i
. s c.s.: m,...
m I-p s
)
)
JUN
'7 1976 ' >~
Dr. Pickel asked if, when ductility is allowed in structural calculations, an urtlerprediction of the floor response spectra (for the purpose of component and' system desis;n and qualification) could occur.
is P. Allison Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Project Managenent
Enclosures:
1.
ACRS Agend:
2.
Attent!ance list cc: Service list N
Mcma ase >
OATE >
Focus AEC SIS (Rev, b53) ABCM O240 W u e. oovannosant enistime orrecas nove.sae.ase
~d
- u
.a..
)
Enclosure hb.1 AGENDA DIABLO CANYON ACRS SUBC0bMITTEE MEETING May 21,1976 Begin at 9:00 A.M.
I.
Seismicity Considerations A.
NRC Staff Stanary (30 minutes)
B.
Applicant Presentation (60 minutes)
C. - Coments by USGS (30 mir.utes)
D.
Discussion II. Seismic Design Considerations A.
NRC Staff Presentation (90 minutes) 1.
Proposed basis for the seismic design evaluation for D ablo Canyon g
T.
Caparison with " usual" design approach 3.
Comparison with recomendations of USGS 4.
Probabilistic Considerations and Safety bhrgins.
5.
Bases for Backfitting decisions e
6.
Other Considerations B.
Presentation by Applicant (45 minutes)
III. Plans for seismic design verification and for seismic quality assurance (30 minutes)
Presentation by NRC staff and applicant IV. Pros and Cons of Seismic Scram (30 minutes)
Presentations by staff and applicant V.
Other Topics (as time permits) 4:30 P.M. - Caucus 5:00 P.M. - Adjournment i
l l
FoTA 3 6 - 391 g 55
(
s
~
t i
Enclosure No. 2 List of Attendees Diablo Canyon ACRS 9*=nittee Meeting May 21, 1976 ACRS U. S. GBOIDGICAL SURVEY (NRC (DNSULTl f
D. OWent J. Devine M. Plesset F. McKeown H. Wagner j
P. Henshaw i
ACRS STAFF R. Yerkes I
J. McKinley PG43 i
f ACRS CONSULTANTS W. Lindblad i
J. Hoch i
B. Page R. Bettinger M. White V. Ghio J. Wilson H. Gonnly J. Maxwell R. Young i
S. Philb.'.ick P. Crane T. Pickel G. Lenfesty M. Trifuasc J. Strache G. Thompson P. Antiochos S. M. Lean R. Davin
,;;;:1,;j NRC STAFP A 8- -
R. Patterson l
S. Brown i
R. C. DeYoung L. LaFaver j
R. Maccary W. Gammill I.-Sibweil PG6E CONSULTANTS J. Stepp K. Kapur R. Jalms L. Haller D. Hanilton P., Ibfmann S. Smith L. D. Davis J. Bhane R. Engleken D. Willingham J. Crews D. Meehan T. Young R. Gallagher G. Speru:er M. Hill J. Hanchett G. Gates T. Hirons
' 9 9,C. >
i
.v..e a.. >
an s >
!. - - m +.q9
- w.................
fbIArtfo -39/
A-55 a=
..a
)
)
MEETING SUPNARY
~
DISTRIBUTION Docket File K. Kniel LWR-1 File J. Knight NRC PDR G. Knighton Local PDR W. Kreger 8
R. Maccary IE V. Moore OELD J. Muller R. Ballard T. Novak V. Benaroya
- 0. Parr R'. Boyd S. Pawlicki D. Bunch W. Regan W. Butler D. Ross E. Case Z. Roszteczy P. Check B. Rusche R. Clark I. Sibweil W
J. Collins D. Skovbolt P. Collins E. Goulbourne R. Denise M. Spangler H. Denton T. Speis R. DeYoung J. Stepp M. Ernst J. Stolz W. Gammill R. Tedesco
$4 R. Heineman S. Varga C. Heltemes D. Vassallo s
R. Houston R. Vollmer L. Hulman F. Williams T. Ippolito B. Youngblood Project Manager
/
Participants t.
~
Ft:cA %-591 A-s5'