ML20214E650
| ML20214E650 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1986 |
| From: | Gucwa L GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | Muller D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| SL-1579, NUDOCS 8611250048 | |
| Download: ML20214E650 (116) | |
Text
Georeta Fbwer Company 333 Piedmont Avenue Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Telephone 404 5264526 Mailing Address:
Ibst Office Box 4545 ANanta, Georgia 30302 g
Georgia Power L. T. Gucwa ine souvern eiertre system Manager Nuclear Safety and Licensing 0906C November 14, 1986 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. D. Muller, Project Director BWR Project Directorate No. 2 Division of Boiling Water Reactor Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 NRC 00CKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL SEISMIC INFORMATION Gentlemen:
In a letter dated October 1,1986, from Mr. G. R. Rivenbark of the NRC to Mr. J. T Beckham, Jr. of Georgia Power Company (GPC), the NRC requested that GPC submit additional information relative to the seismic analysis of the Edwin I.
Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2.
The requested information is enclosed, and a copy of this information has been provided to Mr. J. Johnson, NRC consultant employed by EQE, San Francisco, California.
If you have questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact this office at any time.
Sincerely, v l. T. Gucwa Enclosure c: Georgia Power Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr.
v.
P. O'Reilly Dr. J. N. Grace, Regional Administrator Mr. J. T. Beckham, Jr.
Mr. P. Holmes-Ray, Senior Resident Mr. H. C. Nix, Jr.
Inspector-Hatch p(6 GO-NORMS
<g 8611250048 861114
(
- d$d-PDR ADOCK 05000321 P
PDR t
r Georgia Power d ENCLOSURE TO SL-1579 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL SEISMIC INFORMATION 0906C 700775
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO LICENSEE'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW 0F DISCREPANCIES IN THE SEISMIC ANALYSIS AT HATCH UNITS 1 AND 2 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY Item No. 1 Please provide-soil profiles at the site including dynamic soll properties (shear modulus, density, Poisson's ratio). Variation of soll properties (shear modulus and material damping) with shear strain. Low strain values and those used in the dynamic analyses of the buildings.
Response to Item 1:
Supplement 2A of the E. I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit 2 FSAR presents the results of the subsurface soil investigation and foundation analysis performed by Law Engineering Testing Company (LETCO), of Atlanta, Georgia, including soil profiles for the power block area (Figures 2A-2, 2A-3, Sheets 1-7, and 2A-41).
They are attcched for reference. Also discussed in Supplement 2A are the following:
a.
Field exploration b.
Site conditions c.
Laboratory testing d.
Structural data e.
Foundation evaluation f.
Slope stability g.
Lateral earth pressures h.
Excavation and backfill 1.
Excavation and replacement of backfill for the intake structure, buried piping and concrete ducts Supplements 28 and 2C of the Unit 2 FSAR contain boring logs and LETCO's report on the main stack pile foundation installation.
Field geophysical data (including a refraction survey) were used to establish a single value of shear modulus for the natural soil. There was no site specific dynamic soil tests performed that would give the shear modulus and soil material damping variation with strain.
In the case of backfill, shear modulus values of similar materials from other sites were used to establish a range of shear moduli.
c' For the revised dynamic analysis, the soil properties used in the original analysis were reviewed to ensure their appropriateness and consistency with the original licensing conditions and analysis methodology which was common practice at the time when the original analysis was performed.
Generally, the soll properties used in the original dynamic analysis were found to be appropriate and in accordance with the state-of-the-art and licensing commitments at the time.the original analysis. However, in the Case of the main stdtk, intake structure, and Diesel Generator Building, some soil properties or range of soil properties were modified for the reasons given below.
The specific properties reviewed were:
a.
Shear modulus and Poisson's ratio b.
Total unit weight c.
Soil damping The subsurface soil investigations were performed by LETCO and documented in their correspondence in July 1968. As mentioned earlier, no variation of shear modulus and soil damping with shear strain for the site soils was determined. This is generally typical for soll investigations performed in this licensing era. A summary of the properties used in the original and revised dynamic analysis is given in the attached Tables 2A through 21, supplemented by the discussion given below.
A.
SHEAR MODULUS AND POISSON'S RATIO The shear modulus for the natural soil was based on a refraction survey performed by LETCO in July 1968.
The results of the investigation are given in Section 2A.l.4 of the FSAR, and are summarized below:
- Compression wave velocity - 6600 1 300 FPS
- Shear wave velocity - 2450 1 200 FPS
- Rayleigh wave velocity - 2200 1 200 FPS These velocities represent a single refracting layer which extends to an undetermined depth.
They are representative average velocities to a depth of at least 50 feet. No significant velocity increase appears to exist to a depth of 100 feet below the ground surface. For this reason, a single value of shear modulus and Poisson's ratio was used in the original seismic analysis for structures founded on natural soil.
Those values were:
Shear modulus - 23,300 KSF Poisson's ratio - 0.42 l
For the revised analysis these values were re-examined.
Even though there is some variation of soil density at different levels, it was determined that values of shear modulus and Poisson's ratio were reasonable and representative of the soll data, therefore, ro change was made.
1.
Units 1 and 2 Reactor Buildings and Control Buildings The shear modulus and Poisson's ratio of the natural soil as discussed previously were used for the original and the revised analysis.
- 2.. Main Stack The main stack is a special' case since it is pile-supported.
In the original analysis, the values of shear modulus and Poisson's ratio (for the natural soil) were used. To account for uncertainties as to the effect of the piles, the shear modulus was varied by 125%. This resulted in the following data being used in the original analysis of the main stack:
Shear modulus Upper bound - 29,100 KSF Average - 23,300 KSF Lower bound - 17,500 KSF Poisson's ratio - 0.42 However, for the revised analysis, it was judged that the range of shear modulus was not appropriate since driven piles would have a tendency to increase the stiffness of the soil. Therefore, two bounding analyses were performed. One analysis used the average shear modulus of 23.300 KSF, while the other analysis assumed the soil to be infinitely rigid (i.e., a fixed base analysis was performed).
The value of Poisson's ratio did not change.
3.
Intake Structure The intake structure is also a special case in that it is founded on natural soil but is deeply embedded.
It is surrounded by several types of material, which include sand backfill, K-Krete backfill, natural soil, and cellular cof ferdams.
In the original analysis, the established values of shear modulus and Poisson's ratio for the natural soil below the foundation were used (shear modulus = 23,300 KSF, Poisson's ratio = 0.42).
The effect of side soil around the intake structure was not accounted for in the original analysis.
For the revised analysis, the values for Poisson's ratio and the shear modulus were re-evaluated.
The shear modulus and Poisson's ratio for the foundation soil were judged appropriate for the revised analysis.
I
.r-
.n-.
-.._.-.-..,,7-
-.,n,-,
,,mr-.
r The reanalysis included the effects of the side soil around the intake structure.
The properties for this side soil material were reviewed and composite values for the shear modulus and Poissan's ratio were determined based on experience gained from other sites (in the case of K-Krete), and on previously estimated values for the backfill. The side 5011 values used in the reanalysis were:
Shear modulus - 2700 KSF Poisson's ratio - 0.34 4.
Diesel Generator Building The Diesel Generator Building is largely founded on fill at grade, therefore, the estimates of shear modulus and Poisson's ratio for a sand backfill were used in the original analysis. Although the Unit I and Unit 2 DG Building is a common structure, two different ranges of shear moduli were originally used for each unit. A consistent value for Poisson's ratio was chosen for both Units 1 and 2.
The values used in the original analysis were:
Shear Modulus Unit 1 Unit 2 Upper Bound 1522 2520 Average 1750 Lower Bound 144 1120
-Poisson's Ratio 0.36 0.36 For the revised analysis, these values were reviewed to assure their reasonableness for the compacted granular backfill.
The values used for the original Unit 2 analysis were found to be appropriate with the best estimate mean G being 1750 KSF.
s Therefore, the Unit 2 reanalysis was performed with the same variation of shear modulus as was done.for the original Unit 2 analyses.
The Unit I reanalysis used the mean G3 of 1750 KSF with a larger variation based on the Unit 1 FSAR commitments. The Poisson's ratio of 0.36 that was originally used was determined to be an acceptable value for the reanalysis of each Unit.
B.
TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT The unit weight used in the original analysis for the natural soil was 125 PCF and for backfill was 100 PCF. Both of these values appeared to be representative values at the time of the original analysis.
However, a review was made of laboratory test information for the natural soils and backfill to enable a more accurate estimate of unit weight to be made for the soils encountered below the structures. The calculated unit weights used ranged from 110 PCF to 130 PCF with the average being about 120 PCF.
The actual values selected in the revised analysis for each structure are given on the attached Table 2J. These values were used only to calculate damping coefficients for the Unit 2 analyses per Table 3.7A-2 of the Unit 2 FSAR.
C.
SOIL DAMPING The soil damping used in the reanalysis met or was more conservative than that allowed in the FSARs. For Unit I the soil damping values specified in Table 12.3-2 of the Unit 1 FSAR were used. Notes 8 and 12 to Tables 2A through 21 explain that a lesser value of soll damping was used than was allowed in Unit 2 FSAR. Note 8 applies to the Unit 2 Reactor Building, Unit 2 Control Building and Intake Structure, and the Main Stack. Note 12 applies to the Unit 2 analysis of the Diesel Generator Building.
The soil material damping used in the Unit 2 reanalyses (6% for DBE and 3% for OBE) is based on a reasonable estimate for the two levels of earthquakes corresponding to a shear strain of 10-2 to 10-3 percent for granular material per curves by Seed and Idriss in Bechtel's BC-TOP-4-A, Rev. 3, " Topical Report for i
Seismic Analysis of Structures and Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants."
i i
I r
l f..
I i
4*
w, a
7,", '
LEGE N O m u.
gs'
..s. m.
. gy,.m..s..<,.
.40 u..
se n - v zm 4f(
v,U SG4 i p-g" 6
==
.u
,; L _.g.
- =;+
15
,w so.y w
.j.
-o.., i.e u m m
.u
.a yo W *." t*
- i> y p r
_ +
m e
___ao
- e
.u..to.a v
=,
..... n mn
- 's E
t.. - "5'a=
.a =a'.
.,.q,3 u, j n
E
-u TL t
+
2 g,' '
t 1,,.
- ,';!.6,.',
-n v,
n
,i M
/s.m-f
-y y
wr.
W.*
,,.,0 00 e at uw' p
+
s w.
4
,ge.er
.a.,%
8
.aa.
6
+>
an
+=
w
(
l,
~ _.
i l'
J BORING AND PROFILE LOCATIONS IN PLANT AREA EDWIN l. H ATCH GCOrgiaIDWCf NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 FIGURE 2A-2 non o
F
,p rz:P e
d=
N g4 ese-se0-43 0 -
a g e( 80 s 4 6 0 f.
eawatti kOfe west 5 west a teO-C
\\
80 0-M 3
i WOO 5-30.16 Q
- ~
sc6 soo-
~
800 6 E00I-aggV.
NE M j
M 33-g7 s
so-N-
g
-e3 e6
= co-
.,Se Z\\
.m
,3e j
=
u-g
- w th J6 85-gg.
30-30 W
g 36
~
- E V
36 so
[g7
,g.
jy
"; ()
=%
m-x
- * ~
eus-
.aone s.'
-sr
-= @ '
.mw s
-.o
- ~
5,
'-.n>.-. e.
s,-
.g
. -g3
.e0 30-
-mO9'
-83 eme" SEC1 (cmasutten er stueraation asstpast wfth gehntfWS seestTT app temeIWtem minan er a:Aus_ e g
e*6 WI I
Basus 4 30 g
te
- DB F1 MeM BE WEa M vs El e.
we 3.e 84 Silas am (tsvg 4.O p:
8 = 19 et 15 - M
- E ne. Se sa ets M WE 1
,,,,r.
t t
-l 8.
8 8
8 8
{
S I
i 1
5 I.
5 i
s
}
..a
(
.. =.......
j;
.s f G).Nk_n,.
I 80 x.
=
?
N oa h
a f,,
..o :;,
s
- -y_,.. _..,
e e
.o
-A.DF
.,n:.=.
.j e
n y,
2 1..
7 --ya-e
-.og,*
.-,0 iO N A. A e--
@..,..m.,--_.,.
e- -.... - _.-....
e e
e...._....-_.
TI
,, m e- - - -..__
F,_.
e - -.- - -.
APERTURE e-e -..... ~.
CARD e - -..
e-e e
Also Availa131e w e-.~._m
.Aperture Card e-e~-.
e-e.
w 350048~OI SUBSURFACE PROFILES EDWIN 1. HATCH A-A Georgia Power NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 FIGURE 2A-3 (SHEET 1 OF 7)
'F'
,,,e W O
d o
3 E
3
,~
e DJ
]o a
~
6 g
s I
=.e.
l e
e a
e e
'l
..o.
. Bo=
O'llf t Ga ng a 4'oe es.st-twas.es a v.t t.46 e s.a - #
.ne.
do e.u O
4.
. - = n
.exy r--
- Db
- soo83 k.
m
, eoe r g
. co.,
..oorr eens e
so.
-..o.
a -
~
.ac.c.s
- 'a
-x a s s-g
..nos
- cor s
,,u,.
o se 6
-e6' O -[*
- a". n
~
~*
- N.s g
- 2 lll.o.
O g.p A%" n
'.o
-=
..o
.u N.g }_
g so.
~m.w D
c m
se
-r
-es
- ai i.
',[ p as g
n.
o sr
-e
--,**y.g
- so i
no so.
so.
88 as
-n 40 g
.o.
ns cosu
-par
.co
- 'c
-u
..s or, g
M O
)m.
~1
.,o.
CM Ten sensur=.
- n. "an
.m mmenses m coa EM N Am a swPt m:Te e..
use sa=
==
u.=
,r.
==
== w
==
Cm;M e.
mn t..
ee, aus cw.
n.
e.n sna 19. BB est SH.P 3D. M a.de em M 995r SIA8 r
1 i
ac".me
- a r
of 2
r r
E I
5 -
i' i
2 3
't $
d 5
i.
t
, di e e
s l
q
. st.
'. 4 4.W*...b(.
- e.. #
.J W
o a
w
..s.
L E
d j
i l
l
}
=
E
~
^f4
,,g
. q t..
t 8 8,
,,,.,JB
.90 t
ti ci r
. wn, e
m
- 2..
e
- e m
_n
.... e
- ',t e SW F
'" i O
s.
.u
.e.
~
..r Lfte.
/
e - -...
e-_...-
e--...
e y
e e--....._.-_._.--
<g,ERTURE e--
e-.-.._"_
e....
CARD
...-su_...__
e..
e.
. ~._,_
g,,
6-
.. ~....
e Aperture Card e. ---
e -. - -
.. s G-------.
O ~ ~ ~~*~ === ~ ~~ -.* ~ ~,,
0-~~---~~==--~~~
86/JQ50048-Oe2 i.
1 SUBSURFACE PROFILES e
EDWIN 3. HATCH B-B Georgia Power NUCLEAR PLANT. UNIT 2 FIGURE 2A-3 (SHEET 2 OF 7)
I
/
I I
8 g
g e
O.,
I s
i c
+
c l
l 1
.EI t a a
1
..a L
i.
~:
' * ~
3
..J......
i 'I-t an'u so.
i G
moro"
.E oo D.e.
--W:
w
.m
'"j l,, a -
- W
- "Am.
i w
. g,,
4,
=
.,, e
"~
-Mw
- ",- :"r
~"
-.=.
g
- E - -; -L-!g g
..e SECTION C-C 1
I
&NE e -
,u...- - _
a
...-....=.- -
e--.
.-~ --...-.
- i
'.- u.
e
-.u
@u - -.,.
,a,
..,m m
e--
u.
e, -.
., ~
e--.
O..
e
-.o
.-u..
e--...-
e....
_.mm e.
.... ~. -. -
@-.---.-.=~
e.,-
l,i n
n.
e -... - -
.. u.
I:
e.
- ~
,u.
e e.
l s
SUBSURFACE PROFILES k
EDWIN I. HATCH C-C Geo,_. Power m ia uuCosaa rt*ur.uui12 FIGURE 2A-3 (SHEET 3 OF 7) 36040 I
.g d
d.
a.
d s.i s.'
R
=
5 g
i i
e el e
.e.0 9 v....g gw.tDa.f.
a.g at.,s. v sg.
t, l
..so i
\\. 2.-
2 i-i
..ok-5 l
E.
eo -
..o).
.so s
e e..
. n. e
. ', ', g..
e 'o -
7q
_[O h.
"f
.a
=*
,f N.@
5"
_. e.
L,, e 2
.. o
. I.
y 30-
.m
.g3 30
.i.s
..t
- =,
- e m, e
SECTION 0-D
@, - = u....
e--....
e
... -.. u.
e
. ~.
e-.
=.u..
-.=---
.mm m
e--
~..-u.
e--..
e-e..
. ~..
e - -..
.-u.....-
e - -.u e-..~.....=-..
-...i.
e---.....-..
e e.- - - -
e - = - -
.,u.
..i.
.u,,
e - - - ~. - - u.
e - -.
/
e
-. ~
SUBSURFACE PROFILES EDWIN 1. HATCH D-D Georgia Power nuCtean etaur.uuir 2 FIGURE 2A-3 (SHEET 4 OF 7) 3604 0
M N
N N
h 8
t t
A i
i y
d d
E w
- l I
9 9
i
,,4
.3
.,,o y
. e,.
.,o 3
q p
m
.ao.
i..
=
..z..
=
o 3
.o
..oo,,
Ie
.m,
!*,, v e
,. g s r
.,o pc g
v
..o -
NC,.
0
.w
,, e so -
..o e o
,,o u
. 3,xy:Tr-
,o :
,o, no-j
-s no
.o.
s.
, 3,
..o o.
..,o
..o.
..o i
SECTION E-E
[
a
.m mus.m..
e- -
ca w..
s.m.
e.
e--.o.--
e
.o
.-.. =
e
, i... _.
i e..
mm m
e--
e -.i,-,i e-e.
...a.
e -.
m..
e-e
.~...
e ~ - -- -
i e.-.-i e
,=
m.,
e.--.~
,u.
m.,
e -
.o., -
. - o -.
e 1
(
I SUBSURFACE PROFILES EDWIN 1. HATCH Georgia Power E-E NUCLEAR Pt. ANT. UNIT 2 FIGURE 2A-3 (SHEET 5 OF 7) 3604 0 i
F V
w an=* *"* #
c E
S.
8 8
d i
a e
e.
?
M e'
=
s a
W e SO.
( Oe t not sv. t e e ns asagnos evetDae6 w ee t >
- 0-9e 850-ey 1
e,o.
3 la 0
,0 e 80 =
m
- %O
}
. so,y e
00 0
- %* Q ' 'C e
w er* 46
.[,
E
- too, #
90-
~<
,1 m.o/,s
...,0 g
80-
.g, a.g.
V
~
0.
"~@
~w v
j Th 51 De a,9_
ee
" II
$f
{
t as.
.Mgg. 3,o 1
so-ty Sp.s
. e.
..co.,
i u
3
=
og )
- 66
'O#
8 0=
- 0' S
- '00 r fg g
.' a t
, eg
- scr,/es 0-3 m,80 S
" 0)
..oor s
'co 80*
b cesswense op magreatles ESstStemt WTTW M4stpt egefTV ese CRIB 18FtET I
m EF Anae. 9 Maa!1T1 Miff Ge4 Det 45E08 tedes 4
- 18 488N te. De pte 35 M We8 9
was te vest some ECW113ET Gea WWF 0887 3=4 SEPT sen,e se semes 6.O tam 9 + tl STIFF tt. to
- Est sitfr se a te Gaas man W W hast e
9 san n emW"sae
8 5
i 5
E x
(" > r..
./o w
3 or.
g
.nio _. r.
.* O
- y.... h a.,o @
/
..,..gn..
~
.n Why,,-T
- . T
.T.
ao.
~
.-. _ _ ~ MJ-t
- .'. :K>:'.
..d
~~
w...
'W D
.n
.e
.w :
,..a
..~.x v.u.,,. ;..
3N o
a.
h.n
.o
- - - < :::~
- . h::: o :::
O EC Te0N r.F o - -
e - _
e - -... - - -.
@ -.u e
e TI e-e-..-_.
APERTURE e
e-.......---
CARD e--..
e.
, ~. -
e e.
Also AvaHable on O-.-~~,
e-.-
,,,-~~--
Aperture Card e -.-. -
o--------
O
..-,e-~.--~~
l e --
I l
g&nasco42'-03 SUBSURFACE PROFILES EDWIN 1. HATCH F-F Georgia Power Nucuan n.wr.uNir 2 FIGURE 2A-3 (SHEET 6 OF 7)
op-.
- 4 S.
e' C
w T
8 O
e O
3 E
M M
w 8
{
8 z
~
w 4
di a
e e
an 3
z z
4 z
z V
a y
o e
y o
E a
2 n
N
'D' AVERAGE Ettvarlow i
5 E
5 7
g PtPELIN( C(leT[Rtl(
C FILL iro-
,_ _ _ _ _ _ __ 12
-?
f> _f_3 k#_
gy.
f.
a t
~
20 12 1 0
' 10 5
., 90 m
g loos 6 10 0s6 a go.
. loos 3
- yg"';g LOO,ir v
b
--n
)
i g
- 2. t 0
.,z 60 9
[>
-((
g_ so.
-3 e@
g
.,6 38 42
.o.
6:
g h
g, a3M@
[*d
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1
~
. ss 20 S4
-er 50015
-80 10 00#2
- 57
- man O.
' 11
- 00/S
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
e, l
-800/9 4o.
- 100 t6
-loos 9-l Writ AsiatIDE emerrt est testarget emesa er am a g,gglyt m,m l
Ge4 WWT IMS name
.. is une 10. W Ftw 9
98 M NWf DES 99
- tRT Mm8 605.271K1 0.I est ee8T 34 set SIGS se (tars e.3 pte S 1%
STift 19 99 WWWSt1FP 38 90 eaap pm te TG5p asse w
1
'l
=
2 a
B 4
g 2
X s
c 2
- 2
=B 2
I 85 y
?
9 8
5~
3$
8 i
s i
25 e
if 8
i, i
- 3 r
z r
- - E e,
5 T
4 9
n o
y AVEllAGE ELEmt:0N E
f 7
g, PIPEtsNE CENT (pLisst 7
m a
.i3o k,, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /_ _ _ _ _
3r- - - -[*32 -NA N,N,.
g m_____
.,,o Ia 10012 100I i 10 10 0 #
)
800 iso 80018 64 800#4 5 1001F-40 01,6
.nOO 5 899'73 00/05' 60016 a00 2
-100f 3-80 0
, e00i4 ivv H 100 SIS 800H 800f4 00l2
. a00te 0087 poor 3 80012 800t8 B00l4 S 90 -.
,g4 10084*
t00s3 80012 800ss 00 80 a d
66 0016-toor 3-,er
. a00 s S-00l8 i
+--
12 47 23
'34 33g g
10
,)
N.3.,6
-a
'h p
60 -
g SO Sg 34 aa 42 if l O O
~~
~~
w o
de 3,
3v
-s e-r 30 m:
l
'TCE76-de
$6 64 56 18
.u Si 79 g 59 Se
, Se
- 2C 49 79 84
-Si 80013 66
,gg de 68 7a en 74
'O
.d D'>
63 54
. Cope-100/10 soOfg,100s2 100s10
'C 62 < 00 g " IOOIS 80 ION GG i
e-e-._...-...__.
e- -... - - -...
8--..
e e....._--.-..-
Tl b.
APERTURE m....
I--.
CARD e
e._.
e-e Aa.e Annable on c-.-
A_m.- e Card l
e.
C-----~~.
e-_.
~.
e---..---
l 96/ /O$00W'O i
SUBSURFACE PROFILES ELA.A1.HArCH G-G Georgia Power uucteAartmar.usira FIGURE 2A-3 (SHEET 7 OF 7)
./
a a
est.
e4L=
-a
,i
?
.=
{
l e*%,__'___
.a i
',.'8 SF
' f,
}
s
.**2.
[
7 m
. so-
..r J
l se r-.qy,
3
{~ ~P-- --l -1
- 4 Seau-q m* a/
g l
',w 4
. e
..e g
b!
. ear
...e
- =
'i Ji/
,t I
t
. ee a
s' L
ELE..VATio u O
=
gou
.a._
n
<=
< Lamais emmenee
- L*L.
H e,
ac.,4,!..
l
+,
+
u 44, l
W FW-Wj
,.C
,e 4.enar l
iW
< SW t.ad is E L E V AT r o s; /gg
~
see" w'ai es er keese
- ee.ee
=ans sun r
wn#
aid'*
m C
[
i 3
~
N~
h.
aj
.e r
w
~
I t.
A G L C vhTIOM /C\\
G
=s..,.o-g.em ese e.es as-ete
{
- 1.-
w.,
1 i
i I
.e - so
N J
~
n g- -
- y,,. y - :
.. n O.n
,.,a w
m.rs
...,n
..,.,- - =.
-r. M Q-
..st sea.
2.
..a.., ;1,.,
.,a.
,5 p.l.
'I' l..
wa
_ l g%-gm
~
.x.a :,:
i
.;) '!-
j
. w
- 7.,
i
....ml m.
j N.
ELEVAT6ooJ /Os
- t..:. <~=-
i
,aa
- 3m: :
i e q w-
- y. e 2 L c_,
u,
._E g
g r.
~
z
--ei 1
G LL vAroos) /T'\\
a,.<~~
-=
I' d
n TI q
APERTURE ou.
===::. - "" ~ ~
CARD Also Available On i
A erture Card P
t I
B&l/D50648-05 EDWIN S. HATCH SUBSURFACE PROFILES GeorgiaIbwer
c'a'
'"'a^""
^S' O
UNIT 2 FIGURE 2A-41
i TMLE 2A t
9 7 of soil Parameters for DEE Analyses of thit 1 Rea:: tor Buildirq and Internals original Rev Parameter Analysis Ara Dynamic Shear Mxhilus (ksf) 23,300(1) 23,.
Shear Strain (t)
(2)
(:
Poisson's Ratio 0.42 0..
Soil Damping (4 of critical)(3)
N-S and E-W Analyses (4)
Translational and Ietational 5.5 5
so e e
4 w-,,,
,--,a---w--,m,,,-s--m--
,vw-----~ew--
- - - -,-m.,-
.,---,-a,,,,,._,-c,---
,-n,
--we-,
~
s 4
TMLE 2B 9===7 of soil Parameters for DBE Analyses of Unit 2 Reactor Building and Internals Original Revised Parameter Analysis Analysis Dynamic Shear m dulus (ksf) 23,300(5) 23,300(5)
Shear Strain (t)
(2)
(2)
Poisson's Ratio 0.42 0[42 Soil Damping (t of critical)(6)(8)(9)
N-S Analysis Translational Radiation (Gxmetric) 36.5 34.2 mterial 0.0 6.0 Total 36.5
~
31.7(10)
Rotational Radiation (Gecmetric) 10.4 9.2 mterial 0.0 0.0 Total 10.4 9.2 E41 Analysis Translational Radiation (Geometric) 37.2 34.9 mterial 0.0 6.0
' Ictal 37.2 32.2(10)
Rotational i
Radiation (Gecretric) 10.2 9.0 I
mterial 0.0 0.0 Total 10.2 9.0 Vertical Analysis 1
Translational Padiation (Geometric) 63.3 59.3 mterial 0.0 6.0 Total 63.3 50.5(10) l l
l
.._--.-r-
.-,._,,n
--.-----. n.-
s i
TAELE 2C 9 = =ry of soil Parameters for Unit 1 DEE Analyses of Control B2ilding Original Revised Parameter Analysis Analysis Dynamic Shear Mx1ulus (ksf) 23,300(5) 23,300(5)
Shear Strain (%)
(2)
(2)
Poisson's Ratio 0.42 0.42 Soil Damping (% of critical)(3)
N-S and E-W Analyses (4)
Translational and Ibtational 5.5 5.5 e
6
O TAILE 2D 9m=ary of Soil Parameters for Unit 2 DEC Analyses of control Building original Bevised Parameter Analysis Analysis
^
Dynamic Shear redulus (ksf) 23,300(5) 23,300(5)
Shear Strain (t)
(2)
(2)
Poisson's Ratio 0.42 0.42 Soil Damping (4 of critical)(7)(8)
N-S Analysis Tranrlational 50.2 Badiaticn (Gemetric) 6.0 mterial Ibtal 5.0 43.7(10)
Ibtational 30.0 Radiation (Geometric) 0.0 mterial Total 5.0 30.0 E-W Analysis Translational 49.0 Radiation (Gemetric) 6.0 mterial Total 5.0 42.8(10)
Ibtaticnal 28.3 Radiation (Geometric) 0.0 m terial Total 5.0 28.3 Vertical Analysis Translational 84.5 Badiaticn (Gemetric) 6.0 mterial Total 5.0 69.4(10)
S 4
TABLE 2E 9 - ry of Soil Parameters for Unit 1 DEE Analyses of Diesel Generator Building Original Revised Par==>ter Analysis Analysis Dynamic Shear tedulus (ksf)(ll)
Upper Bound Value 1,522 2,630 1,750 Average Value I.ower Bound Value 144 700 Shear Strain (%)
(2)
(2)
Poisscn's Ratio 0.36 0.36 Soil Damping (t of critical)(3)
N-S and E-W Analyses (4)
Translation and R)tational 5.5 5.5 i
l TAnz 2r Sunnary of Soil Parameters for Unit 2 DBE Analyses of Diesel Generator Building Original Revised Parameter Analysis Analysis Dynamic Shear Madulus (ksf)(11)
Upper amnd Value 2,520 2,520 Average Value 1,750 1,750 Iower Ibund Value 1,120 1,120 Shear Strain (%)
(2)
(2)
Poisscm's Batio 0.36 0.36 Soil Damping (t of critical)(7)(12)
N-S Analysis Translational 82.6 Radiation (Geometric) 6.0 mterial Total 5.0 20.0 lbtational 64.7 Radiation (Geanetric) 6.0 mterial
' Ictal 5.0 20.0 E-W Analysis Translational 82.3 Padiation (Geometric) 6.0 mterial
' Ictal 5.0 20.0 i
lbtational 74.3 Padiation (Geometric) 6.0 mterial Total 5.0 20.0 vertical Analysis Translational 133.7 mdiation (Geometric) 6.0 Material Total 5.0 20.0
TAILE 2G an=ary of Soil Parameters for tJnit 1 DEE Analyses of Intake Structure original Revised Parameter Analysis Analysis Dynamic Shear Mex1ulus (ksf)
Foundation soil 23,300(5) 23,300(5)
Side Soil (13) 2,700(14)
Shear Strain (t)
Foundaticn Soil (2)
(2)
Side Soil (13)
(2)
Poisson's Patio Foundation soil 0.42 0.42 Side Soil (13) 0.34 Soil Danping (% of critical)(3)
')
Ebundation and Side Soil N-S and E-W Analyses (4)
Translational and Potaticral 5.5 5.5 D
,n_,
i TAILE 2H Sumary of Soil Parameters for Unit 2 DBE Analyses of Intake Structure Original Pevised Parameter Analysis Amalysis Dynamic Shear Madulus (ksf)
Poundation soil 23,300(5) 23,300(5)
~
Side soil (13) 2,700(14)
Shear Strain (t)
Poundation soil (2)
(2)
Side Soil (13)
(2)
Poisson's Mtio Ecundation Soil 0.42 0.42 Side soil (13) 0.34 Soil Damoing (4 of critical)(7)(8)(13) hatim and Side Soil N-S Analysis Translational 39.0 Badiation (Geometric) 6.0 mterial Total 5.0 35.3(10) letational 15.9 Radiation (Gemetric) 0.0 mterial Total 5.0 15.9 E-W Analysis Translational 35.4 Padiation (Geometric) 6.0 Material Total 5.0 32.5(10)
Ibtational 7.8 Radiation (Gemetric) 0.0 mterial Tetal 5.0 7.8 Vertical Analysis Translational 60.0 Badiation (Geometric) 6.0 mterial Total 5.0 51.0(10)
TAEE 2I 9 - ry of Soil Parameters for DBE Analyses of min Stack (15)
Original Bevised Parameter Analysis Analysis Dynamic Shear ledulus (ksf)
Lpper Bound Value 29,100(16)
(17)
Average value 23,300(5)
(17)
Irwer Bour5 Value 17,500(16)
(17)
Shear Strain (%)
(2)
(2)
Poisson's Batio 0.42 0.42 Soil Dunping (% of critical)(7)(8)
N-S and E-W Analyses Translaticmal 38.5 Radiation (Geometric) 6.0 mterial
- ' Ictal 5.0 34.9(10)
Ibtational 0.8 Radiation (Geometric) 0.0 mterial Total 5.0 0.8 Vertical Analysis Translaticmal 66.1 Padiation (Gecmetric) 6.0 mterial
'Ittal 5.0 55.6(10)
-i NorES '!O TABLES 2A THRolm 2I Notes (1)
From Table 12.6-3 of the thit 1 PEAR.
(2)
The material danpirq value used corre. p de to an estimated shear strain of 10-2 to 10 S percent.
(3)
Frosi Table 12.3-2 of the thit 1 FSMt.
(4)
No thit 1 vertical analyses were performed (see Section 12.3.3.2 of the thit 1 FSAR).
(5)
Same as used in the analysis of the thit 1 Beactor Building and Internals.
See Table,12.6-3 of the thit 1 FSAR.
(6)
In the original analysis, only radiation A=T ny was considered. Table i
3.7A-2 of the thit 2 FSAR was used to calculate the appropriate desping values.
(7)
We 5.0 percent danping value specified for the original analysis was obtained frcza Table 3.7A-1 of the thit 2 FSAR.
=
(8)
We translational damping used in the revised analysis was to be equal to the lesser of 100 percent of the radiation damping ~1~1=ted using Table 3.7A-2 of the thit 2 FSAR or 75 percent of the radiation danping plus an allowance for material danping (6 percent). For this analysis, 75 percent of the radiation damping plus material damping governed and was therefore used. Se calculation of the rotational dasping used in the revised analysis considered only radiation damping.
Table 3.7A-2 of the thit 2 FSAR was used to m1m1=te the appropriate damping values.
We methodology defined above was established by the "SSRP Guidelines for SEP Soil-Structure Interaction Daview."
(9)
We radiaticas dasping values for the original and revised analyses differ due to the fact that while an ~ assumed soil density was used in the original calculations, a different soil density, based cut field data, was used in the revised calculations.
(10)
Equal to 75 percent of the radiation damping plus 6'.0 percent (material damping).
i
Notes to Tables 2A Through 2I Pace 2 of 2 Diesel Generator alilding is founded at grade, and there is a (11)
We degree of uncertainty to its soil ahear modulus that does not exist for the other Seismic category 1 structures which are founded in deeper soil.
Accordingly, the soil shear modulus values were varied to for this uncertainty.
%e original Unit 2 analysis of the account Diesel Generator axilding reflected a more recent estimate of the mean Gs and its variation, and this mean value was used for both Unit 1 and Unit 2 revised analyses.
All available soil data was reviewed to ensure the mean value used in the revised analysis was indeed am piate.
We upper and lower bound values identified for the revised Unit 1 analysis meet or exceed the wenitment made in Secticn 12.6.2.1 of the Unit 1 ESAR.
We upper and lower bound values identified for the original and revised Unit 2 analyses ocerespond to the best estimate of the variation in the shear modulus.
To account for possible impedance mismatch, the criteria used to (12) i calculate soil damping in the revised Unit 2 Diesel Generator h41Mng analysis was more conservative than the criteria used in the other revised Unit 2 analyses. W e translational and rotational damping used was to be equal to the lesser of 20 percent of critical or 30 percent of the radiaticn damping calculated using Table 3.7A-2 of the Unit 2 FSAR plus an allowance for material damping (6 percent).
As can be seen from the data in the table, 20 percent damping governed and was therefore used.
(13)
We effect of the side soil was not accounted for in the original analysis.
Side soil shear modulus is a micsite value which accounts for the (14) presence of sand backfill and K-Krete that surround a portion of the structure.
the min Stack is shared by both units, cnly the Unit 2 Although (15) seismic criteria was employed in the analysis of this structure.
(16)
W e upper and lower bound values correspond to a + 25 percent variation in the average value.
Since driven (17)
We Main Stack is supported cn driven steel H piles.
piles increase the stiffness of the soil, two bounding analyses were performed.
While one analysis used the average soil shear modulus value of 23,300 ksf, the other analysis assumed the soil to be 1
infinitely rigid (i.e.,
a fixed based analysis was performed).
l
TABLE 2J SOIL DENSITY FOR THE REVISED SEISMIC ANALYSIS SOIL DENSITY (I)
STRUCTURE Lb/ft3 Unit 1 Reactor Building 110 Unit 2 Reactor Building 110 Control Building 110 Intake Structure 110 Diesel Generator Building 130 Main Stack 110 Notes: 1) For the revised seismic analyses these soll densities were used only for Unit 2 analyses in calculating damping coefficients per Table 3.7A-2 of the Unit 2 FSAR.
,-.._.---.<,,.__-y.
,,,,.--_,m
_-.___c 7-
3 Ites No. 2:
Foundation elevation and thickness for all buildings.
Response to Item 2:
Foundation Thicknesses and Elevations for E.I. Hatch Units 1 and 2 Structures Listed in the following table are the thicknesses and elevations of the base mats of all the Seismic Category 1 Structures at Plant Hatch.
Thickness of Elevation of Bottom Structure Base Mat of Base Nat Control Building 7'-0" 105'-0" Diesel Generator Building 5'-0" 125'-0" Intake Structure 4'-0" 52'-0" Main Stack (1) 11'-0" 108'-6" Unit i Reactor Building 12'-0" 74'-8" Unit 2 Reactor Building 12'-4" 74'-8" (1) The Main Stack is ;upported on H piles, in addition to the base mat.
0192N
Item No. 3:
Description of approach to obtaining soil damping values (radiation plus material).
Response to Item 3:
The composite modal damping values used in the analyses of Hatch Unit 2 Seismic Category I Structures were calculated using methodology similar to that developed by N. C. Tsai (Reference 1) to account for soil-structure interaction (SSI).
To assist in the calculation of these damping values, two similar Bechtel standard computer programs (CE207 and CE931) were utilized which are based on the Tsal concept.
Provided below is a description of the program inputs and solution techniques which were used to calculate the composite modal damping values for the Hatch structures.
The values for composite modal damping were obtained by coupling the spring and damping coefficients of the soil to a fixed base structural model through a rigid base mat. The soil system was idealized and evaluated as described in Table 3.7A-2 of the Unit 2 FSAR to determine representative spring constants and radiation damping coef ficients.
These properties were used to calculate the percent critical damping values for the soil as follows:
Translation:(1)(2)
Dx=(C'x / Ccx) X 100%
Rotation:(2)
D,=(C'9 / Cc,) X 100%
where:
Ccx=2 (Kx s)l/2 M
Ccp=2 (Ky Is)U2 Ms = Mass of the structure Is = Mass moment of inertia of the structure 1
relative to the base (1) To be conservative, the percent critical damping of the soil in translation was taken as the lower of D or.75 x
times Dx plus the material damping of the soil for the Unit 2 Reactor Building, the Main Stack, and the Unit 2 analyses of the Control Building and Intake Structure.
(2)
To account for possible impedance mismatch, the percent critical damping of the soil beneath the Diesel Generator Building for the Unit 2 analyses was taken as the lower of or 0.3 times D,Y plus the material damping or Dx$y x
20
~.
,__,m,
.._-,,.:,y.
,.----+-m_
-,..,---.m
When executing CE207, the resulting damping values were used to back-calculate soil damping coefficients which were supplied as input to the program. This calculation was not required when executing CE931 as the program internally calculates the damping coefficients based on the input damping ratios, soil stiffness values, masses, and mass moment of inertia values.
In either case, the relationship between the damping coefficients and the damping ratios was as shown in the preceding equations. The calculated soil springs, masses, and mass moments of inertia were provided as input to the SSI programs.
The decoupled dynamic properties of the building structure were obtained for input to the SSI programs, by performing a " fixed base" modal analysis of the structure.
This analysis produced eigenvalues, eigenvectors, participation factors, and modal damping values for the decoupled structure.
The modal damping values in this case, were derived based on the stif fness weighting technique which is similar to that described in FSAR section 3.7.A.2.14.
Utilizing either of the two cited computer programs, the soil stiffness and damping coefficients were coupled to the " fixed base" model in a manner similar to that described in Reference 1.
CE 931 then utilized a physical coordinate or " control point" to determine the coupled composite modal damping as described in Reference 1.
Structures which were evaluated using CE 931 and their corresponding " control point" locations are identified below.
Building Elevation Mass Pt.
Location Control 241' 6
TOP Intake 127' 6
TOP Diesel Generator 150' 1
TOP The approach used in CE207 to establish modal damping values is similar to that employed in CE931, however, the specification of a control point is not required. CE207 utilized similar transfer functions except that both the
" exact" and uncoupled solutions are in terms of the generalized coordinate system shown in Equation 20 of Reference 1.
Thus, a given modal damping value is established by equating the value of the modal transfer function for the uncoupled and " exact" systems when excited at the corresponding modal frequency.
References 1.
Tsal, N.C., " Modal Damping for Soll-Structure Interaction," Journal of I
Enaineerina Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. EH2, Proc. Paper 10490, April, 1974, pp. 323-341.
Item No. 4:
Mode-by-mode / bldg by b1dg equivalent modal damping values (radiation plus material).
Response to item 4:
Following are tables that provide composite modal damping for the following structures:
Unit 1 Reactor Building Unit 2 Reactor Building Control Building Intake Structure Diesel Generator Building Main Stack
>D 1
5 i
0192N
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units No. 1 and 2 Reactor Building Composite Nodal Damping i
Unit 1 Composite Damping
(% of Critical)
Direction Mode No.
Frea.(H l 08E 08E z
North-South 1
1.69 3.00 5.00 2
3.23 3.20 5.06 3
4.49 3.60 5.18 4
7.53 2.22 3.42 5
8.03 3.00 4.97 6
10.63 4.04 5.33 7
14.95 2.68 4.33 8
21.36 2.70 4.39 9
21.88 2.94 4.75 10 30.47 3.03 4.97 East-West 1
2.80 3.10 5.03 2
4.40 3.69 5.21 3
6.16 3.00 5.00 4
7.54 2.20 3.39 5
10.50 4.03 5.33 6
14.95 2.67 4.33 7
20.10 3.08 5.00 8
21.57 2.59 4.14 9
27.46 3.02 4.99 0192N
/
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units No. 1 and 2 Reactor Building Composite Modal Damping Unit 2 Composite Damping
(% of Critical)
Direction Mode No.
Frea.(H l 08E OBE z
North-South 1
3.40 5.40 6.69 2
4.48 5.37 7.19 3
9.00 11.76 16.01 4
9.51 14.59 22.49 5
9.81 24.12 29.05 6
15.35 5.10 6.23 7
17.98 1.82 2.80 8
20.98 3.83 4.87 9
28.28 1.13 1.87 10 30.39 2.13 2.73 11 31.33 1.55 2.33 East-West 1
2.71 3.33 5.13 2
3.92 7.36 8.57 3
6.15 3.19 5.35 4
9.29 16.68 21.27 5
9.71 23.00 29.64 6
15.47 1.48 1.73 7
17.87 1.11 1.88 8
20.31 5.12 6.31 9
28.21 2.44 3.25 10 28.29
.2.51 3.33 11 31.31 0.91 1.37 Vertical 1
6.45 37.33 39.65 2
20.41 7.31 8.37 3
26.26 1.63 2.45 4
29.00 1.81 2.45 i
=\\
0192N l
l
, a#^
/:
?
I f
Cdwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units No. I and 2 1
J Control Building
/
f Composite Modal Damping
/.
08E Composite Damping D8E Composite Damping
(% of Critical)
(% of Critical)
Direction Mode No.
Frea.(H ), Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 z
North-5outh '~
1 0.76 i 3.00 6.23 5.00 1.30 2
2.23 '
3.02 4.32 5.01 7.70 3
6.63 3.81 14.21 5.27 15.51 4
8.14 3.04 6.62 5.01 5.05 5
14.96 3.97 14.79 5.32 15.69 6
19.35 3.64 1.47 5.21 1.80 7
23.22 3.46 5.62 5.15 6.08 8
46.86
- 3.07 3.57 5.02 4.42 c
1.01 3.00 4.20 4.99 4.17 East-West 1
2 5.38 3.01 0.39 5.00 0.72 3 01 3.96 17.10 5.32 18.40 7
3 e
4 11.07 3.00 0.05 5.00 0.06 5
15.29 4.40 11.66 5.47 11.93 6
22.22 3.63 8.19 5.18 8.73 i '
7 30.73 3.08 3.90 5.03 4.85 8
40.08
-3.02 1.48 5.01 2.06 vertical 1
- 2.37 0.02 0.02 2
f ' 9.44 40.61 42.43
-f 3.
13.71 46.44 41.00
~
., ~
4
,37.87, '
4.77 5.14
[
f o
e
/
(
/
.+
c
<[
- /
1, i
h' 0192N 4
e<
.n-,
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units No. I and 2 Intake Structure Composite Nodal Damping OBE Composite Damping 08E Composite Damping
(% of Critical)
(% of Critical)
Direction Mode No, frea.(H,) Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 North-South 1
10.13 4.08 13.81 5.36 14.99 2
24.02' 4.37 18.20 5.46 18.40 3
40.21 3.36 4.95 5.12 5.52 East-West 1
7.04 3.90 5.70 5.30 6.48 2
21.13 4.08 21.90 5.36 23.35 3
35.32 3.59 2.55 5.20 2.64 Vertical 1
14.60 34.46 36.22 2
66.27 4.93 5.38 i
0192N
s Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units No. 1 and 2 Olesel Gen. Building Composite Modal Damping Composite Damoine
(% of Critical)
Unit Direction Mode No.
.G (KsF)
Frea.(H l OBE 08E 3
z I
North-South 1
700 2.54 4.50 5.50 1747 4.00 4.49 5.50 2629 4.90 4.49 5.50 2
700 4.27 4.50 5.50 1747 6.74 4.50 5.50 2629 8.27 4.50 5.50 3
700 40.13 3.00 5.00 1747 40.21 3.01 5.00 2629 40.28 3.02 5.01 East-West 1
700 2.61 4.49 5.50 1747 4.11 4.49 5.50 2629 5.04 4.48 5.49 2
700 4.93 4.50 5.50 1747 7.78 4.50 5.50 2629 9.54 4.49 5.50 3
70n 36.07 3.01 5.00 17);
36.20 3.02 5.01 2629 36.31 3.03 5.01 e
w-
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units No. I and 2 Diesel Gen. Building Composite Modal Damping Composite Dampina
(% of Critical)
Unit Direction Mode No.
G (KsF)
Frea.(H l OBE OBE 3
z 2
North-South 1
1118 3.21' 19.65 19.65 1747 4.00 19.56 19.56 2516 4.80 19.46 19.46 2
1118 5.39 0.49 0.49 1747 6.73 0.49 0.49 2516 8.08 0.50 0.50 3
1118 40.22 0.86 1.26 1747 40.27 1.12 1.60 2516 40.33 1.39 1.95 East-West 1
1118 3.30 19.28 19.28 1747 4.12 19.17 19.17 2516 4.93 19.02 19.03 2
1118 6.21 1.81 1.81 1747 7.76 1.85 1.85 2516 9.31 1.91 1.91 3
1118 36.13 1.07 1.52 1747 36.20 1.39 1.94 2516 36.30 1.73 2.37 Vertical 1
1118 3.68 19.96 19.96 1747 4.59 19.93 19.93 2516 5.51 19.90 19.90 2
1118 83.22 0.43 0.66 1747 83.25 0.56 0.83 2516 83.28 0.68 1.01 0192N
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units No. I and 2 Main Stack Composite Modal Damping Composite Damping
(% of Critical)
Direction Mode No.
Frea.(H l 08E 08E z
North-South 1
0.60 2.93 4.88 2
2.27 2.91 4.83 3
4.92 2.97 4.89 4
8.17 3.27 5.24 5
11.66 4.24 6.42 6
15.21 6.58 9.24 7
18.59 13.44 16.67 8
21.28 16.03 20.24 9
24.52 8.63 12.54 10 26.63 4.56 8.01 11 31.36 2.53 4.31 12 34.02 2.18 3.65 East-West 1
0.60 2.93 4.88 2
2.24 2.91 4.84 3
4.88 2.97 4.90 4
8.14 3.26 5.23 5
11.66 4.21 6.40 6
15.22 6.65 9.34 7
18.57 13.75 16.97 8
21.26 15.81 20.05 9
24.52 8.57 12.45 10 26.63 4.54 7.97 11 31.36 2.53 4.31 12 34.02 2.18 3.67 Vertical 1
8.64 4.70 6.64 2
18.02 24.93 26.91 3
24.60 18.49 21.18 4
34.74 4.68 6.09 0192N
Item No. 5:
Selected comparisons of Unit 1/2 response spectra at common points.
Response to Ites No. 5:
Comparisons are provided at 5% of critical damping, DBE, at the following locations:
Structure Elevation (ft.)
Mass Point Reactor Buildings 87.0 1
130.0 2
185.0 4
256.5 7
114.5 10(Unit 1), 9(Unit 2) 204.0 14 128.0 15 170.0 18 146.0 19 204.0 22 Control Building 112.0 1
147.0 3
180.0 7
Intake Structure 88.75 4
128.0 6
Diesel Generator Building 130.0 3(Unit 1), 2(Unit 2)
Note that the Unit i floor response spectra is plotted using a solid line and the Unit 2 floor response spectra is plotted using a dotted line.
0192N i
~
UNIT 1 UNIT 2
~~---
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS POINT NO.1 ELEVATION 87.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION NORTH-SOUTH m_
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY (4 ITngtf DATE 1D-6-86 REVIEWED BY8MM DATE /O '7'4 N
N-
\\
p Q
/
\\
,s
~~%
O s'
e'
/*
- %m
,,e*#
_,e**-*
a a
e a
a e
a g 8
e a
e a
e e s E 5
5 E
E 5
5 e ' 5 0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
l i
!i o
o
,o g
2-TI~
N~
U-1 T
I N
U
.~
~
.0 1
k-
)S t
P C
(
Y C
/
N E
U Q
E s,
=
FR b
C.
f I1 T
6 1 N
0 o
A
(
T E E L
S T T E
A A P
W D D RR E-A T
KS AT AA J
C E
UE E
t P
QN c
L S
.H 5
CGE TT 0 %
O I
NS1FRT AC0 K U I N. 0. E E 8
DOO O (
NL RI PN7 SIT USTBIDA Y Y I
S B B ENNAER HB RI D D OOBSG E E CR C NN R W OIPITN TTMSVIP P
AGOl A E P
ACSSESSM E V I
AI HEEA LEEA R E RSWEDRD P R 1
0 m
e.N N
P Oo o
unit i yNgy_
l HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS POINT NO.1 j
ELEVATION 87.0 FT.
RESPONSE DIRECTION VERTICAL n.
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY ClLTele DATE ID 8&-
REVIEWED BYf M DATE /o-N4 i
- a..
N r
u.
l j
i 1
a
- e. _
O
- - ~,
mW" j
~~~~~~-~~________,
__,,.=***
l O
0.1 1
10 10 0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
0 0
1 J
m u
i T
i N
u s
g0 1
s s
)S
~
PC I
(
,l Y
CN r'
E f
U i
Q E
/
R F
/
y
/
., y 6
(.
8 f
,1 T
6 ?
N H
/o T
0 A
U 1
._w L
O E E T T S
A A P
D D A
H R R ET d
KR AT AO C
E E UN P
Q
/-
L S N 5 c T. HO n
tan T 0 CGE F I
NS2 RT AC0 U IN.0.E E (E O DOO O
NLPN SIT Y Y 0
RI 3
IUST1SIDA B B ENNAER
~
HB Rl D D oOBSG E E CR C OIPITNNN R W TTMSAGOI A E VIPP P ACSSESSM E V I
AI HEEA LEEA R E
.RSWEDRD P R 1
0 m
- .N N
M gO O
j*
uMIT 1 uMIT
- HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS POINT NO. 2 ELEVATION 130.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION EAST-WEST n_
DAMPlNG RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CILTecs-DATE io-b- %
REVIEWED BYh M DATE /o-?-84
=.
N N-a s'
s e
t d'
s'
\\
- -L,,, ~',, '
~~-
- - ~ ~
O
{
10 100 0.1 FREQUENCY (CPS)
UNIT 1 Utill.3_
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS POINT NO. 2 ELEVATION 130.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION VERTICAL j
m-i DAMPlNG RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CKrond.
DATE 10 8b REVIEWED BY8MM DATE eo '7-4
- a. -
N
- .0 O
E N-2o 5
acdum
- 4 4-
~~~' -- ~ '
s_, ' -
~ ~,,,,
g
d0 o
1 FREQUENCY (CPS)
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT uNg.2_
unit i REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA WASS POINT NO. 4 I
ELEVATION 185.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION NORTH-SOUTH 1
m_
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY Cx raV#-
DATE 80-6-Sb REVIEWED BY[ M DATE /o-74f-
- c..
N
- ,oo N-2
- O 5
. a:
I na o
~
( ~ ~s 4
g g
i 1
I I
/
l e
il e-l
\\
/
\\
/
t
/
\\
/
\\ ~
/
/
e_
/
s o
~~.
0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS) l l
UNIT 1 UNIT 2
--~~~
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDIN",
SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS POINT NO. 4 ELEVATION 185.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION EAST-WEST m.
DAMPlNG RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CKT c/-.
DATE so-6-86 REVIEWED BY 8 M
DATE /o-9-#b N
I G
O
-- N -
i Z O
i 6-
~
- 15
'd
,o e S J-I i
i I
I I
I I
1 e-g i
I' l
l-i 1
/
\\
/
'g t'
\\
@~
's o
l'
____ ( ________.
i j
o 0.1 1
10 100
- l FREQUENCY (CPS) i i
UNIT 1 UNIT 2 HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISWIC RESPONSE SPECTRA WASS PolNT NO. 4 ELEVATION 185.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION VERTICAL m_
DAWPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CKT u-DATE 10-6-86 REVIEWED BYO M DATE /o-? -O
- a. _
N i
Po E
n_
Zo k
d
a
$.*~
i i
o s '- ' q
~ _,
s
~
~~~~~
i 0
O.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
}
~
~
^
~
UNIT 1 UNIT 2 HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS PolNT NO. 7 ELEVATION 256.5 TT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION NORTH-SOUTH DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CK_Tqcs.
DATE to ~l-86 REVIEWED B6 d DATE *-Ml-to -
.- g O
I, l
b g_
i g
g O
l V
g 4
5 i
c; i
8 m-
~
~
i i
i I
i l
i a-I i
I
\\
I
\\
l
/
i i
\\
g
,/
s_,--
s
/
~-----____,
- /
/
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
UNIT 1 UNIT 2 HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT
~
l REACTOR BUILDING l
SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA t
MASS PolNT NO. 7 e--
l ELEVATION 256.5 FT.
8 I
8 g
RESPONSE DIRECTION EAST-WEST i
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 I
I I
3' PREPARED BY CKTeu-DATE 80-7-86 i
REVIEWED BYC~2 M DATE /04,f4 l
i i
I an -
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 I
b>
I I
3 g-3 I
Z l
g O
I g
I 4
g s
5 5
8 1
I d
s i
g,, _
i i
I 1
I s
I I
I 1
8 I
l a-s i
\\
j
'z l
\\ s
,~~~~~~~~~_
f y
/
/
0
____.-,=-1 0.1 1
10 100l FREQUENCY (CPS) i i
UNIT 1 UNIT 2
~~---
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA 1
WASS PolNT NO. 7 ELEVATION 256.5 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION VERTICAL m_
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CXW D ATE 1o %
REVIEWED BYk ed-DATE /o-9-N a_
N l
j
."o N-2 i
O P
4 I
bdo a_
4 O
,,s-
%g e=#
p=***
l
~~~~~~-.
~
- -==-----e
__m m em "" "
O 0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS) t i
UNIT 1 UNIT 2
-~~--
9-HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS PolNT NO. 9 UNIT 2 MASS PolNT NO.10 UNIT 1 ELEVATION 114.5 FT.
RESPONSE DIRECTION NORTH-SOUTH DAMPlNG RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CKAc/-
DATE 80 l-8 6 REVIEWED BY9 M DATE # '7 #5 a
I O
E I_
N_
z O
l 54 i
td i:! c_
o
(
i l
r-g
[
e' s
O j
-g w
- p*
mm m#
_,m O
0.1 1
10 10 0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
I
UNIT 1 UNIT 2
-~~~~
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS PolNT NO. 9 UNIT 2 MASS PolNT NO.10 UNIT 1 ELEVATION 114.5 FT.
RESPONSE DIRECTION EAST-WEST DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CFTeu-DATE 80-1-86 REVIEWED BY9IM DATE /o '/-N n
Po Z_
n_
z O
5 6
do e_
N
,i e
i-d~
's,
- - ~ ' ~,
' ~, -
'~~- w -----
o
~ ~- i 0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
UNIT 1 Ut[lI l HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT PEACTCR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS PolNT NO. 9 UNIT 2 MASS P0lNT NO.10 UNIT 1 j
ELEVATION 114.5 FT.
DEScGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE l
m_
i RESPONSE DIRECTION VERTICAL DAM > LNG RATIO 0.05 PREFARED BY Ct: Jay /-
D ATE 10 %
,WVIEWED BY9 D ATE N-7-F4 N
- ."o I Z n_
i 2o k
a:
w d
l o e S
~_
l i
o
~~', _
~
~~~~~----_________
r l
C 0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
UNIT 1 UNIT 2
~~-~~
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS PolNT No.14 ELEVATION 204.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION NORTH-SOUTH m.
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CE_Tou.
DATE so 86 REVIEWED BY9jd DATE M-7-84 c_
N
,M i
o N-
~
2 O
P i g S
l i
s i
4 i
I
/
'I I
i i
1 l
's
,i s,
/
s t
'g i
t I
\\
's
/
,/
g'~~,
o i
,/
'--~~ -
/
^ _
- W, '
o O.1 1
10 100 :
FREQUENCY (CPS)
{
UNIT 1 UNIT 2
~~~~~
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS PolNT NO.14 ELEVATION 204.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION EAST-WEST m_
DAMPING RATIO O.05 PREPARED BY C.K.Tec/-
D ATE 10 86 REVIEWED BY9 M DATE /o-9-F4 m.
N
- ."o j
2, N,
1 x
O P
4 5
d l
i o
c.
I
~
4 l
g i
i i
1 I
l I
t 8
l l
i, s,
\\ x
/
g i
/j J
b
/
\\
,,, aus #
- O l
0.1 1
10 100
)
FREQUENCY (CPS)
l UNIT 1 UNIT 2
~~~~~
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING j
l SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA l
MASS POINT NO.14 ELEVATION 204.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION VERTICAL m_
l DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CXTect-DATE 10 %
REVIEWED BYCIP M DATE /o-9#
i l
?
i.=a b
N-z
- o i <
i =,
l U *_
4 l
1 i
i I
I o
's 4
s_
's ~~~~--- ----__---
l j
O 0.1 1
10 100 1
FREQUENCY (CPS) l
j h,l[1jl
)llI l
[
s
(
\\
l 9.
o
,o 2-
, j T-N-
I U-1 T
I N
U N
s s
,o t
)S s
P C
1
(
1 g
Y C
r 's N
E 1
U
/
Q f
E
/
R
's, F
61 8 #
,1 T
1 7 N
H 01 o'
~
T A
U L
O E E T T S
A A P
D D A
C E
UN A
E P
Q C
N L S
%. M H 5 O
TT CGE5 NS1 RTI0 F AC0 K 9 UIN 0.E E C
DOO O
NLIPN8 RI SIT UST1S2IDA Y Y B B E
ENNAER HB RI D D OGBSG E E CRC I
NN R W O
TTIPTN AGOI A E MS P
ACAISSVIP P
I ESS M E V HEE ALEEA R E RSMEDRD P R 1
~
0 m
n md D*o o
" OE29456o?
!fl
UNIT 1 UNIT 2 HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS POINT NO.15 ELEVATION 128.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION EAST-WEST m_
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CEThtA-DATE so-7-86 REVIEWED BY9dd DATE /o-9-J'A
~
O i
- c. -
2 O
~F-<f bdo o
/~~%
/
~~
f g
4 b
\\
,/
's f
a
- mm i
,,ww#
5 I
l 5
g g
g i i i i i e
i i
FREQUENCY (CPS) m-
UNIT 1 UNIT 2
~~~~~
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS POINT NO.15 ELEVATION 128.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION VERTICAL m_
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY Ck Tmo.
DATE 80 ~7-86 REVIEWED BY@
DATE /o-O-# k c.-
N Mb i
N_
2 9'i 15da c.
4 W=
~
O g
O y
O.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
UNIT 1
' UNIT 2, HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS POINT NO.18 ELEVATION 170.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION NORTH-SOUTH m_
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CIC. TecA.
DATE to l-86 REVIEWED BY9 DATE " '/ M N
.o N-z 9
4 5do o Q J~
I
\\
l I
l 8
i s
/
\\
/
\\
/
\\
/
\\
/
\\
/
\\
/
\\
4
/
\\
j,#
\\
o
,,^i 8
s ' ~ ~-
2 s
\\
_ 3,
,s*'
%,l
- t
~
l-
--L~r'~
)
o---
1 10 a'
100-0.1 e
FREQi)ENCY(CPS)
~
X e
k' O
8
'h
[gf a
'- sw e
z.
unit i UNIT 2_
t si s
at HATCH NUCLEAR PLANTx
' w' e
REACTOR BUILDING
!'s SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA
{
MASS POINT NO.18 ELEVATION 170.0 FTc.
5
- s DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE o
RESPONSE DIRECTION EAST-WEST 1
,,3 _
\\
N1 DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CK_ToyJt.
DATE 10 8 6 9EVIEWED BY9 M D ATE o-1-f 4 "..
.t
's d
s=
\\
S N,
\\'
' '- {
,. ~"
y d
n s
w' t
z_
O i~
4 tr ts.1 1
s l
i.s.1 o o_
o p-"\\
/
1
\\
l
\\
l 1
l
\\
I g
i 1
_l-t I
q
\\
/j
\\
'g O.
\\
o
/
\\_/
p#
p an. #
_,,,. *~~
~
4 5
5 5
g 5
5 5
)
I I
I I
5 5
5 5
l 4
I I
I E
E E
5 g
0.1 1
10 10 0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
W UNIT 1 UNIT 2
~~~~~
- - HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS POINT NO.18 ELEVATION 170.0 FT.
j DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION VERTICAL m_
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 l
PREPARED ?Y Cx. Tot /-
DATE to-7-as,,
REVIEWED BY 9 M D ATE /o-7-#I-o.-
N I
enb E
n-z 9
4 5d
-. o e_
4 ga O
. ""~~'y em" m
, ese ** #
~%#**==m-==e%,,,,
~
C) 0.1 1
10 100)
FREQUENCY (CPS) l
UNIT 1
' UNIT-2 "l-HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS POINT NO.19 ELEVATION 146.0 FT.
RESPONSE DIRECTION NORTH-SOUTH DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CJ-%c#-
DATE to l- %
REVIEWED BY9 DATE A> 'I-@
a_
N C
2, N,
2 O
P Mbdm y.: ~
i
/
/
I i
1
/
/
g O_
/
g f
\\
O
_t p**
= " " "
u a
s s
s a
s a g
,,, 9 u
u s
c s
u u 0.1 1
10 10 0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
9 UNIT 1 UNIT 2 HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS POINT NO.19 ELEVATION 146.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION EAST-WEST m_
DAMPING RATIO O.05 PREPARED BY CK.Tqu, D ATE to 86 REVIEWED BYM[M D ATE e' '7-FJ-c_
N i
O E
u_
z O,
k 5
d o
e_
U $.
4 i
/
/
\\
~~/
I i
/
l O,
,s
\\
\\
o
.i r...
~,
we /
- **em m.
, an **
se #
,,s.==**""
3 5
5 5
3 5
E g
4 5
5 3
4 5
5 5
g 5
3 g
3 g
s g
g g
0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
unit i m.2_
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 7EACTOR BUILDING 3EISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA M ASS POINT NO.19 ELEVATION 146.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION VERTICAL m_
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY C# Tqu_
DATE to l-84.
REVIEWED BY@
DATE A9-9-#.4 c_
N O
E u_
1 O
G<
b do o_
4
,o o
~~~
___r u
_ em om
~
0 5
5 5
I 5
5 I
I 5
5 I
l I
Il
- '" {
]
--"~'{
'{'"~{'~'l"""{
0.1 1
10 10 0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
UNIT 1 UNIT 2
~~~~~
9-HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS PolNT NO. 22 ELEVATION 204.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION NORTH-SOUTH n_
DAMPING RATIO O.05 PREPARED BY CK.Thu-DATE lo l-86 REVIEWED BY M
D ATE "- 9-Pf-
{
~
1 I
7 i
o 3
n_
zo 5
l l
5 d
'I o
e_
\\
g g
's
's
)
i 1'
l n'
/
\\
/
I f
i I,i
\\,,--,
's, N
m
~
3-l
~,
, e* l p om #
ase * * "
O -- - -
~,
,y 0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
UNIT l UNIT 2
-~~~~
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS POINT NO. 22 ELEVATION 204.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION EAST-WEST n-DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CK.%t#-
DATE to r-%
REVIEWED BY 9 d DATE /o-9 -O O*
N O
E n-
,--\\
5 l
i s
i d
l O
O-I g
U N I
g 4
I i
i g
i g
/
g i
g i
g I
\\
e-
_I
\\
,/
N,
/
\\
/
\\
c
/
\\
,#'--~~.
/
\\/
\\
O l
,/
\\~~~~~~____,
/
_,**""**,,,..=**,a**
O
~~~,
0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
UNIT 1 UNIT 2 -
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS POINT NO. 22 ELEVATION 204.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION VERTICAL n.
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY Cx.ht#-
DATE to-7-86 REVIEWED BY h M DATE /O-?-f4 e_
N
.*o 3
m-2 9
4 5
do D_
N o
,-__,r#-'s,, _
~~~~~,,__
- ~,
~ ~
~
o 0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
UNIT 1 UNIT 2 HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT
~~~~~
CONTROL BUILDING SEISWIC RESPONSE SPECTRA WASS PolNT NO.1 ELEVATION 112.0 FT.
DES!GN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION NORTH-SOUTH m.
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY $7q' f#.
DATE 10-1-86 i
REVIEWED BY98M DATE /o-2 96 u
,es O
E u_
2 O
5 5
4 d
O m.
O i
4 i
i j
MO O
ym j
O g
/
p f
\\mmmm p
^ ^5
___ --- h,_
O
-- --~
-[-
0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
UNIT 1
' UNIT 2
~~~--
- - HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT CONTROL BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS PolNT NO.1 ELEVATION 112.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION EAST-WEST m_
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY CE.Tqte.
DATE 10-/-84.
REVIEWED BY6MP DATE /#->-#/,
N P
O N-z O
5 5
i:1o *_
4 i
/,
N e-O g
f p
---m
_...--- n O-0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
4 UNIT 1 UNIT 2
~~~~~
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT CONTROL BUILDING SEISWic RESPONSE SPECTRA WASS PolNT NO.1 ELEVATION 112.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION VERTICAL m.
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED AY f,E. TelcE DATE 10-t-66 REVIEWED BYDM4 DATE e -2,et, t
o I
i.s i
I_.
n_
2 5
a:
l d
i Uee-n l
4 l
l
- e..
o
~ _.
-f i
o
'*I s
e e
a a
s
, g
,,B 0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
s UNIT 1 UNIT 2 HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT CONTROL BUILDING SEISWIC RESPONSE SPECTRA WASS PolNT No. 3 ELEVATION 147.0 FT.
RESPONSE DIRECTION NORTH-SOUTH n.
DAWPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY &Tayck.
DATE /O-t-64 REVIEWED BY68 E# DATE a>-2,flo N
.o I
u_
zo 5
5 d*
oEI r
i
/
s' 1
o
,s'
~,
---c O
~~
0.1 1
10 100 TREQUENCY (CPS)
0
~
,0 2~
,1 '
T~
I N~
U~
1 T
==
I NU
=
=
=
4=
em.
y\\
,o t
N
\\
.\\
[
f
'l' S
)
l PC
(
/
YCN
/
E U
s_
Q E
R F
/
p 4,
,1
(.
T 6
N I
2 0
A T
/o
/
L S
E E e
m E
T T en-P W
A A A
D D RR E-T T
E UE E
P QN L S
.HO Y
5 CGE TT 0 I
NS3FRT AC0 U I N. 0. E E D O O
NLON7 RI IP SIT ST1S4IDA Y Y U
B B B
HENNAER
~
LRI D D COCOOBSG E E
~
NN R W
~
I PTN TRI AGOI A E TMSVIP P
P ANSS I
ESSM E V I
HOE ALEEA R E CSWEDRD P R 1
0 n
- .N N
- 4
- ,O O
".O E 2O5abd4
t
,l 0
~
,0 2-
,1 T"'
iN-u-
e
.a e
mma i
me T
m e
e os e
m m
e o
a m
u
=
=
==
,0 1
)
SP (C
e.
Y e
C m
EN U
Q E
R F
W 6 6
,1 T
8 P N
2 I
e s
y A
M o L
f L
E E P
A T T A
C A A RR EI D D T
QN c
L S o
i 5
m CGE T. HO
'n z
a T 0 e
(JmT. jF I
NS3FRT.
m AC0 U I N. 0. E E D.LOO O
NlPN7 RI
(
SIT uST1S4IDA Y Y B B HBENNAER LRl D D COC0OBSG E E NN R W I
PTN TRI TWSAGOI A E P
ANSSVIP P
I ESSM E V I
HOEALEEA R E CSWEDRD P R 1
0 2
m
- .N N
a
- O O
".G 2 2O55do <
ii1 1l ll 1
"'U-
~*
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT CONTROL BUILDING SEISWIC RESPONSE SPECTRA WASS PolNT NO. 7 ELEVATION 180.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION NORTH-SOUTH m.
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY (ITofc4 DATE /0-/-86 REVIEWED BYGPc@d DATE /o.2-#6 N
O E n.
2 O
5do e 4
i~
t s
l f
,1 t
1
- r
~~----
O
~--
, as*
- es* * " " #
,,e On
-i 0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
UNIT 1 UNIT 2
~~~~~
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT CONTROL BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA
~
MASS POINT NO. 7 ELEVATION 180.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION EAST-WEST m_
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY (J ToftA DATE /0 -/-8(,
REVIEWED BY9M DATE /O-2-#4
- m..
N o
E n.
z O
6 d
f u e
- ae i
j l
I
,..__g t
l
_ _ s"
's r,
o l
's _
, _ _ m o
1 0.1 1
10 10 0 l
rREQUENCY (CPS) i
UNIT 1 UNIT,3-HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT CONTROL BUILDING SUSMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS PolNT NO.7 4
l ELEVATION 180.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION VERTICAL m.
i DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY (f.7eyct-DATE /0-/-66 REVIEWED BYOMM DATE /o-2-#/-
N
.a E a_
z O
E 8 e_
42 t
o o
' ' ~
0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
1 UNIT 1 UNIT 2
--~~~
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT INTAKE STRUCTURE SEISWIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS PolNT No. 4 ELEVATION 88.75 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION NORTH-SOUTH n_
DAWPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY $Tenftk.
DATE /0-1-86 TtEVIEWED BY&jd DATE /o-2,96-N
.o 2,,
N, z
O 5
5do D
$f
- 's _,
/
- m. _
\\
/
- ~ - - ~
O
~[
0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
YSI2-2 INTAKE STRUCTUREHATCH NUCLEAR PLANT SDSMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS PolNT NO.4 El.EVATION 88.75 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION EAST-WEST m.
DAMPlNG RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY dE 7/y/.4 DATE /O-/-66 REVIEWED BYMMM DATE e-2,P(,
- e. -
N O
E n.
2 O
5-b d a.-
g 4
r-s i
\\
l 1
1 1
I l
I I
w.
I i
\\
j
/
I I
\\
/
\\
/
\\
,/
s O
s
,s
~~~~"mmm___
e f
_,,e-O
~~.
0.1 1
10 10 0 FREQUENCY (CPS)
n UNIT 1 UNIT 2 HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT INTAKE STRUCTURE SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA WASS PolNT NO. 4 ELEVATION 88.75 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION VERTICAL m.
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY (f Tsys#
DATE /0-I-86 REVIEWED BY9dM DATE /e.2-d%
N
.O E
n-z OP 4
bd*-
o 4
,a-O
,,--- - ~~~~~~'~~~~~_____
p#
~M.
p _ me **
__m m
ee***""
O 1
0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
UNIT 1 UNIT 2 HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT
~
~
INTAKE STRUCTURE SEISWIC RESPONSE SPECTRA WASS PolNT NO. 6 ELEVATION 128.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION NORTH-SOUTH m.
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY (K7qtd DATE /0-I-66 REVIEWED BY@g DATE /o->-TG=
N
.o E
n.
2o E
5d*
o O
r
,1
, s g
\\
d-s 1
's
-n,_
j o
l 0.1 1
10 100 f
FREQUENCY (CPS)
3 3-HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT INTAKE STRUCTURE SE!SWIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS PolNT NO. 8 ELEVATION 128.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION EAST-WEST DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY (J Tayct.
DATE /O-/-86 REVIEWED BY8jd DATE*-> fC
- e..
N I
,3
.O N-I g
2E I
O I
g 5
iy b
i g
0 e.-
i, i
a" I
4 I
i 4
1 I
\\
i i
I s
I i
1 g
s f
\\
/
o i s
I i
\\
/
\\
/
\\
l
% s M_
,_/
C
,, =
m.
as
- y aoe. " " " #
O 0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
r UNIT 1 UNIT 2 -
~~~~~
- - HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT INTAKE STRUCTURE SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS PolNT NO. 6 ELEVATION 128.0 FT.
DESIGN BASIS EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE DIRECTION VERTICAL m_
DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY @ Targ#
DATE /0-/-86 f
REVIEWED BY9M DATE /o-2 F4 N
1 O
E u_
z O
P i
<bd@
U o
I 4
- a. _
O s
,___-__~-~~~~'~~~~,_____
_,p*
O
~,
m W j
0.1 1
10 100 l
FREQUENCY (CPS)
e UNIT 1 UNIT 2 HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 1
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS POINT NO. 2 UNIT 2 MASS POINT NO.- 3 UNIT 1 ELEVATION 130.0 FT.
RESPONSE DIRECTION NORTH-SOUTH DAMPING RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BY8
- ,_4-DATE /O '/VI.
REVIEWED BY CF.'F%
DATE to-7-8(o N
O 2,,
N_
zo s
I Ct' S
U c_
42 k
/
\\
,/
\\
\\
\\
O_
o
/
's O
's s'
~~
___mw-o 0.1 1
to 1oo FREQUENCY (CPS)
llljjll)i l
l!
1l j1) 2 T
I N
U 1
T I
NU
~
w s
,\\
A T
)S P
C W
(
Y a_
C N
E U
Q E
R F
/.J.
s s
%6 T
s, h
8 1
N 7
~
~
f A
eo s-T L
S s
p E
E E P
W T T G
A A A21 E-D D RNITTT KS T
R ADCNN AA II L
UE d
EIEUU tc UP Q
me N
LBS
.H 5
T O M ~K.
CR T 0 E
F 7-I OS23 RT AC0 UTN
- 0. E E SC AOOO O
NR 0
RI PNN 3 SIT Y Y E STT1SIDA B B NE HE NNNAER RII D D OOOBSG E E CGC NN R W I
T LIP P T N EMSSAGOl A EI ASS VIPP P
SSESSM E V EI HIEAA LEEA R E
DSMMEDRD P R m
4c D
D-O
= o _ z o p< t.do <
L 1ll f!!'
l
unit i
_u_Ng 2_ _
9-HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA MASS PolNT NO. 2 UNIT 2 MASS POINT NO. 3 UNIT 1 ELEVATION 130.0 FT.
RESPONSE DIRECTION VERTICAL DAMP!NG RATIO 0.05 PREPARED BYGP[g DATE /a-?-#G, REV;EWED BY (JLT"' gs DATE lo 7-g N
.o 2_.
N_
2 0,_
E 5
do e_
m *%
i'
't o
i
_/
f
%m,
,=/
~ ~ - -
o 0.1 1
10 100 FREQUENCY (CPS)
Item No. 6 Dynamic models of selected structures, a) Diesel Generator Building Pesponse to Item 6:
Attached is the modeling data used to develop the floor response spectra for Unit 1 and Unit 2 for the Diesel Generator Building. Note that the models were not changed from those used originally (in the early 70's) except for the Unit No. I soll shear modulus values and the Unit 2 soll damping. The three mass model for Unit 1 and the two mass model for Unit 2 have the same fundamental modal values (i.e. frequency and mode shapes).
Ol92N l
J
SouthernCompanyServites A De ign Criculations
%'L L L & L,( M J iMwA
%"/ec.
Subject / Title Zu ) }d, 1 GAA ReDewUBy a/9/s?.
i Date 19 ry cc.
a O
C/!culation Number Sheet Y
Of 1/Amn
'M.
Ar,,
e s.
ccA cA4 7oA 6AD6. UMET Y Mo0E2.
l arts c4 O st EDBE QQ DEY /So '
O d
ry Xt Wl fitt J.W
'l
[t--
0 4
N Memeen 9RoPeraries o s e a bisc DIR E C Tio aJ McMf3ce
/Wi nt (Na v A SHene AceA Afters M om m r.1 UA 9 WT L;ecn A
(# 9 NO gn-south 1
2939,o 139 % s-10,/09,3/1 psT-west 1
% 438, o io(,c,o 3,312,7tf j
p
,t.
p
[
oeiign criculationg
~
SouthernCompanyScnices A
~$IJL 7%;L:(>%f Ubd
o ArL, Reviewe By Date Subject / Title 19f t/
)' Y I.
W d.
/0/ 9 /S C
'~
, 1..
U CaRulation Number Sheet b
of
_' 2dm.A M.
Au 4 -JE.
IJoJ rT
- 2 L.
w f t/ M pen m Asse s oGc 4 DaE M etss w ei c. t+T e.
P T.
u ps
,v.
d
/ /199,Y LA 2
J i> 39 /, 2.
e
_NA%
M or/ n.T ot Just ri A
'Ci<tP F7 k 06C (DGC (dL m 7.2 s m)
A b cs tc.u c A.rev c, E QuivAte J t om PN tv co ef, r-o c R o c.k m c,.
c o rtw-so u w ewsr-w sr 4
Sec
^S Uv ' T
- 1 C E C 3 C-)
To.r 1
Io c
- b(h q)p;c c ur> u r Ar 8 es t M AT e MAThe e ricAL MoocL iv D y ve" > < Avn.,
4 M O 2 n -300%
EhS T-we sT
^
l' / 0' '2 * ' O 3399Y##
oi - 1 I^ / N 07-g f..
DAM oso e BEE OGC i
S T v.u C.T u R k t-S7o 376 bo t L.
N Arent.INL.
(o ? u 37o s o L.
D w pie ce us en 30 9o 3 0 7 e>
/AJ A VA LM $ t S roorrpmo<vT De r e e es, o FR E C DOM CGE 400C Jo/vT IBoP C
.I TAAv s tar >ov x on-
'a 2.
79 6v swr >ou y o c_
6 RoTATiou E
SouthernCompanyServices A Des 6gn Cuculations Project Prepared By Date AIA78N AlbMM AAM /2AJZT 2-Wim A L 2h 3-2 C, - b W n
.7 /
1m x rs _ symw rr >J T
w$
lloffY Calculation Ngmber Sheet Drmt
%, '~- 4 n e &n e, D:n - t+'-e 2I
/4 of M DZe sc~t. Cc A/x~M7c/t & C :.,. uaZ7./ Sc Z1 JAe:A's s C=
C. =
Ca =
3
///8 As/
/797/d J T No kSi At
'//3 C X/o' lo'.Wo Q.Vo' 9306 //c.Y
~
(X/f7)
N.5 Ry 9.M / //oI 6.4 / A/o*
9.S*7/.uc '
(R./7/ap) 4't
+' Wo No'
- 4. 938 //o*~
9 99/ //o' (K/fr) j-g 4
/. 7/2 Sto '
J h1S*//oA 3.6 s's /1o 9
(Kf7//AD) yyy Rt.
5314 1/o
& foos/o'
/.2/o //o*
(Mr) 1
,_ u...m.
i
SouthernCompanyServices A Design Criculations Project Prepared By Date NA7tW A}k W1/"A" A l4 Ale f /JAf 2 Ydda m /Yw
- =.2 G '0 'l Subject / Title Revi By Date j j A-nF2 2/
Jfr Mar #_
1*Lm M 7b d
_/
M N // /[Y D
calcu!ation Ngmber Sheet breut Ae t %2M2 81 D 6 S H C - A 4 - n 3't
/$~ of Y9' r
8Ea~3c~l Ge~Alr4A7cd &&G. UA/Z7 J / M :A7Zor) 0/m/ ZA/G 0
N - 3 TAA/.tsiprz a /
$3 CX Cce Cx f/S/)
A S//7 2 //t Mr Ccx
///8 3.34 6 X/oY Y.0YfX/oY O.844
)?97 9'2/o rioV So 99)vo4 0.Baco
.26~/4 5 0 r2 1/oY fo.N 9 t/oY o.844 Mr: (/o yy.8 + fo Pr?. !, +.?o 5 92. I)l3.?.a = /cos'.b 9 A*ol/r
/
N-J Aoc/:s/G s.s Cv Cu =
ce (n/)
s.fr.s/sso
.2 Vtr.
ca z
///8
/41f//oo
.?. Sa n xio" O.fo 97'
/YW
,Ro93xx" 3.)33 //o*
O. 4 'l1 o
3.19/ tioa
- o. 4 'l'f
.?S/fo e?.VD oa Io = /2/f Xfo#/3.t.a :" J. Y73X/oS )(.{7 5
- r_ u...uan
SouthemCompanyServices A Design calculations Project Prepared By Date jYA 7"~d N A)11 & A&~A A NAA/7~ //AJrf 2 WJsx1w D bw > b Z.26 -3 Y SubAct/ Title Rev' 8
Dats
/n-MA.?/
$t'~r <mz~e. 1:~L491/,A M ^/
W-Y l0 Calculation Number Sheet YY bEF_ set W)JfNATM? 8/O6 J/J 0
$Y = 03/
/h of 4~-k/
Tw3 JA71o d.
Gs ex Ccx cr (s.sf) fxs//7)
.2 V/a A dca
///8 3.19 9 sto#
+'027t/oY o.8D3
/7YY V.34'9//oY daa Y X/oY 0.8.23
.?S/4 5..e/9 vo" 6.J fo t/cY 0.8.23 i%: /005.29 A.S '/fT Z-W Ao c RIA/C l
Gs Cp Ccx cv
(/3/]
{R /74/s.Ao)
.t YZo /p Cex.
///8.
4.131/ //o' 9.04/ fio #
Q.743
/197 8.4/so //o#
/.'/33 X/o#
0 Y'/S
.?s /6
/ola ' tso" d3S9 X/o*
0.793 4 = 3 8 59.1xio'/Js.2 = /, / 99 Xto' fx.H.J')
l l
~.. -.
SouthemCompanySenices A Design Cuculations Project Prepared Ely Date NATMJ/ MMMA A'Ad7 b^/E7 ' 2 Ys -~ d W O S-K -8'l
/ -e
-./ /_
J f r w 2*L
/>A' s L A 72 M /
/d Y
Calculation rgmber Sheet b Z~/361 W/f*/M L2 BJLX.a SA)2. -8 4 ~6 3 /
// of "fdl Ve~l TZ a M L Co Cz Cea Ce (xs()
(4 s//r) 2 YAtMe cer Y
///8
- 4. J/ $ xto
9'.65/.<m A 33 Y
/7W Y. 77.2 1/oV f 8/9' //o4
/.33 Y
.7629 9.ud.xio Y fa. 917 11o4
/331 Ma = /oo CB 9 K 3'd'r l
l em m
m E
korm ten. 4-3P4 A
...----,.~:---
SouthernCompanySenices A Design criculations Wh4 kA~ G4 3 Dbnd
'?>/?
Subject / Title Rhviewed By lKh 1o /9 /e,c, 196'Y d % ) YA - x L 6 4 4 Date V
061culation Number Sheet 14._ s,
n m.
s, b L
of D1858J. Cis/LAATM &DG.
lblET
/ F?oDG oge e DOE II h O
noss a w
9'
~ N'#'#
}
ELEK /50 Jo' r,
X sf'MM b
W flE V
/,50
=
k e
O Cy 4
Memeen 9Ro pe< Ties c6e a D86 Dl 9 CC.Tso d MEMGER A%)At MtrA S werft A (tc A Arch Mowwr of (Jd
( # ')
rucens (J4 ")
N0ern - s our, A
l '71/, V
//F3
$4% fo1 A
2438,O
/ 3 9 '/, 5
/ q /o t,3 //
sasr-war f
l'? f /, Y 5'71,5-1/2/f62.
.2 3 Y 3 9, o
/o c 4. 0 3,3/ p, 728 1
l SouthernCompanyServices A Design criculations nae ~L '/7.aeAn PL/
D$nk b/PL Subject / Title
' Ueviewe By Date b$Y 1.14U -
- 4. bn-N 0
JD f C) / V,.s V
A CJIculation Number Sheet u -,,. < i
&n A, b.s.
) #$
7 of Lumoeo me m e s CSeecr6o M ASS,
w e t c. s T P T.
(K. l P_3) i l o4 't.g '
2.
10 952, L.
- 3 703'12,I '
Msss mo n wT of Ta Ett ish
( kn e. Frb 06C t D6E
(& & 3. 2-Q W)
AW <
c_A_c.ucAriou E Q u s t/AL< vT MA M P 84(e Coef Fo K Rd e t m t.-
AJ o c % - S o u n.
6Asr-we sT
/. 2 /So E6 3,85 93 d 7
( CcA 3-Q IoT b
,,, Toy + M+ (N ce ejy f o e. J A> P / T AT - G Ase., /* AT o f era'nc.nAT,c AL Moocu n a D Y u e n,ic.
A = L.
AJo c 71, - iou r, ea s7 - ~ e s7~
To c =-
T or S. t' J H' 1.11, ; 4 c 2 T 3333 50 g=
l DA s O N w DGE OBE STRu cxu n st -
5%
39a S o i t._
5 59 4,51
- g*
TobeOEubed DEcaQ e art o# PRCEhoM-06 C 4 D Si
~50 s o T TDof N
.i 7RAa s L A T/ov
.)<
M,_ 2:
2 T R % s.t_ % rio v X
e 3
DN S LAT)0V Ne d
ROTAT>od 2
SouthemCompanyServices A oesign calculations 5l 21. L_)n CPL.9
$$J
b/r4
/
Subject / Title Rese
,d B Date IO$Y J2 22 lQf9f$$
F Cliculation Number Sheet A
JJ-n* e U.rp
.4 5
of Qv,T 1 Ec;t u WA t-cwt Eoe t spiq u; ce c o a trws ;
c e e e t> c_q Die c c T ioV S P9-l o 4 G s = 900 kSF C,3 : / 9 'i') u s A C,.s 2.2 619 #sr r
f G,46.1 vio r
- 9. '22 9 x so now -saan Ks 2 591 x s o
(* /P)
Ky x s4 9 xio' 6, 4 to iso
- 9.9erxso' (x M/mQ E M T-w esT Ky 2.9801/O'
&.9391/O'
). O 4 V * /O '
(x /p)
N Y
(" " /eu n i I,oqa gio' 2.G ?r x/o' f, oss x /o '
... c.-
.P
Item No. 7:
Comparison of methods of seismic analysis between equivalent but1 dings in Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Response to item No. 7:
The following tables provide the differences between the Unit I and Unit 2 analyses for the Reactor Buildings, Control Building, Intake Structure, and Diesel Generator Building.
The Main Stack was analyzed for the Unit 2 seismic criteria only and therefore no comparison is made for this structure.
0192N 1
TABLE 1 BUILDINGS: Unit 1 Reactor Building and Unit 2 Reactor Building MATHEMATICAL MODEL UNIT 1 UNIT 2 Mass (1)
(1)
Structural Properties (1)
(1)
Structural Damping Same Same Soil Spring Constants /Gs Same Same Soll Damping 4.5(0BE), 5.5(DBE)
(2)
COMPOSITE MODAL DAMPING Stiffness Proportional Tsal Method Method INPUT Design Basis: Ground Response Spectra Figures 1 and 2 Figures 3 and 4 Time History used to Develop FRS Figures 5 and 6 (3)
Figures 7 and 8 (3)
TIME HISTORY METHOD Same Same PERCENT SPECTRA PEAK BROADENING Same Same 1.
Minor differences exist between Unit 1 and Unit 2 modeis in some mass and stiffness properties that were provided by General Electric Company for their scope of supply.
2.
The translational damping used in the revised analysis was to be equal to the lesser of 100 percent of the radiation damping calculated using Table 3.7A-2 of the Unit 2 FSAR or 75 percent of the radiation damping plus an allowance for material damping (3 percent OBE and 6 percent DBE).
For this analysis, 75 percent of the radiation damping plus material damping governed and was therefore used.
The calculation of the rotational damping used in the revised analysis considered only radiation damping.
Table 3.7A-2 of the Unit 2 FSAR war used to calculate the appropriate damping values. The methodology defined above was established by the "SSRT Guidelines for SEP Soil-Structure Interaction Review."
3.
Figures 5 and 6 and Figures 7 and 8 provide a comparison of the spectra of the time histories to the design ground response spectra for Plant Hatch Unit 1 and Plant Hatch Unit 2 respectively.
0192N
--,,---.-y-,
,..-c.
.-.-...n, m.-
TA8LE 2 BUILDING: Control Building MATHEMATICAL MODEL UNIT 1 UNIT 2 Mass Same Same Structural Properties Same Same Structural Damping Same Same Soil Spring Constants /Gs Same Same Soil Damping 4.5(0BE), 5.5(DBE)
(1)
COMPOSITE MODAL DAMPING Stiffness Proportional Tsal Method Method INPUT Design Basis: Ground Response Spectra Figures 1 and 2 Figures 3 and 4 Time History used to Develop FRS Figures 5 and 6 (2)
Figures 7 and 8 (2)
TIME HISTORY METHOD Same Same PERCENT SPECTRA PEAK BROADENING Same Same 1.
The translational damping used in the revised analysis was to be equal to the lesser of 100 percent of the radiation damping calculated using Table 3.7A-2 of the Unit 2 FSAR or 75 percent of the radiation damping plus an allowance for material damping (3 percent OBE and 6 percent DBE). For this analysis, 75 percent of the radiation damping plus material damping governed and was therefore used. The calculation of the rotational damping used in the revised analysis considered only radiation damping. Table 3.7A-2 of the Unit 2 FSAR was used to calculate the appropriate damping values. The methodology defined above was established by the "SSRT Guidelines for SEP Soil-Structure Interaction Review."
2.
Figures 5 and 6 and Figures 7 and 8 provide a comparison of the spectra of the time histories to the design ground response spectra for Plant Hatch Unit I and Plant Hatch Unit 2 respectively.
3 0192N
,m y
--e.-.
r--..------
r-
4 TA8LE 3 BUILDING:
Intake Structure NATHENATICAL MODEL UNIT 1 UNIT 2 Mass Same Same Structural Properties Same Same Structural Damping Same Same Soil Spring Constants /Gs Same Same Soil Damping 4.5%(0BE), 5.5%(DBE)
(1)
COMPOSITE MODAL DAMPING Stiffness Proportional Tsai Method Method INPUT Design Basis: Ground Response Spectra Figures 1 and 2 Figures 3 and 4 Time History used to Develop FRS Figures 5 and 6 (2)
Figures 7 and 8 (2)
TIME HISTORY METHOD Same Same PERCENT SPECTRA PEAK BROADENING Same Same 1.
The translational damping used in the revised analysis was to be equal to the lesser of 100 percent of the radiation damping calculated using Table 3.7A-2 of the Unit 2 FSAL or 75 percent of the radiation damping plus an allowance for material damping (3 percent OBE and 6 percent DBE). For this analysis, 75 percent of the radiation damping plus material damping governed and was therefore used. The calculation of the rotational damping used in the revised analysis considered only radiation damping.
Table 3.7A-2 of the Unit 2 FSAR was used to calculate the appropriate damping values. The methodology defined above was established by the "SSRT Guidelines for SEP Soil-Structure Interaction Review."
2.
Figures 5 and 6 and Figures 7 and 8 provide a comparison of the spectra of the time histories to the design ground response spectra for Plant Hatch Unit I and Plant Hatch Unit 2 respectively.
i Ol92N i
TABLE 4 BUILDING: Diesel Gen. Building MATHEMATICAL MODEL UNIT 1 UNIT 2 Mass See Response to See Response to Item 5 Item 5 Structural Properties See Response to See Response to Item 5 Item 5 f
Structural Damping Same Same Soll Spring Constants /GS See Response to See Response to Item 5 Item 5 Soil Damping 4.5%(0BE), 5.5%(DBE)
(1)
COMPOSITE MODAL DAMPING Stiffness Proportional Tsal Method Method INPUT Design Basis: Ground Response Spectra Figures 1 and 2 Figures 3 and 4 Time History Used to Develop FRS Figures 5 and 6 (2)
Figures 7 and 8 (2)
TIME HISTORY METHOD Same Same PERCENT SPECTRA PEAK BROADENING Enveloped the three Enveloped the three FRS/G FRS/G s
3 1.
To account for possible impedance mismatch, the criteria used to calculate soll damping in the revised Unit 2 Diesel Generator Building analysis was more conservative than the criter'a used in the other revised Unit 2 analyses. The translational and rotational damping used was to be equal to the lesser of 20 percent of critical or 30 percent of the radiation damping calculated using Table 3.7A-2 of the Unit 2 FSAR plus an allowance for material damping (3 percent OBE and 6 percent D3E). 20 percent damping governed and was therefore used, t
2.
Figures 5 and 6 and Figures 7 and 8 provide a comparison of the spectra of the time histories to the design ground response spectra for Plant i
l Hatch Unit 1 and Plant Hatch Unit 2 respectively.
0192N t
i
e-
' y.. s,.,..s, i., :
, ^.
sie, 31 g:.4,s gi o1,
.4,
..e f.., 4.:4,,,,:
s W,1 f,A,....,.1 v,.s..,
.a:s 2,4
..w.,-
s
,. s.,...aj1,_.
j, 4
.^-
/,.!. v :..:... i., t.. '
... M, p,,,-/ t.,.Q;,,.' L A A1.1 14. : $..e.
..r.. '
- 1. a. h., y
.a s
- - 4, 3 *.,.
s v
Q. y
'e, v.A r, h W'.. ;s::.
v.
4 fM.,#.
.. d. y. j
/,y,>/ >
.',:... -._ s...
W 6
r, u a.. Q%y A, y _-y e.
L,x.,
...e r
7...
h is >
.,v /,., =,
,r y,,s.. s p
s
,~,y. e. y..,
- .. y.,.,...,q. ;.,., :.,0
,t g7, x
- sNy.
9'1.,x,,e,,4.-
4 x. A.
- . vv..>
. qq. 3.,,.
x..
Ng'f, $i"f, G..* '.
/
....s>. %m:ygg gg Y.s 6.' Q< A lR,:..
'..,,:,.5
. i....... ' '.y
,o
.a.,.+,,gy.-_,ys.,%,..A n.
, m...
. : g.......
....x.=
pW M f M N %-,-@W :.?
3 ?
r . ^..
s *.^: P M
,/f%y yg'x;:
X y. ;%
, ~
,..: ? ?
=
}l.
, ~--Ja pA-->7'ry;*,J~
'~
- ~. i~ '., - ~ t-
-~
~;
y q
w-
%..s.-
A. - x,, y, y, c., -
a y.a.. n e.s o
? '
.~ <
4 ~ 2 <.,.
g t.
s
..,p,. ' >
u O
JO
=
^
a
'x.
. ' 'i',., * * ~/ ' "','T- ~a 'f'. t * ; ~4,*.. -vm
. W ~~* ~ ~b'/.,,/*f w*
"* V ' l
- .~
a
- s A
, y<, ',
, fc. f x.>....
u,v y,.4_1
- ..:4_,e. x,
.. x.s., q.
.p,.,
- 3.. w..
....v,,.,
/.,
.4 M,w,,m,c.,,y x
- .;. G.:'
, /,'.
s y
- s. u, s. g$1,.'s...,..,,..
r.q.;O 'sw.,..%
^
7
.,c
..t mw,z, e x~,
_v,.
.a
..,,... ~,....,,..ss y _ _4_ q4@e.
/,,
y,
- Z g. h,.,g s / 't. /zl
.v.
l_/
_.,,..s._ g g
- g. g 4l
=
if /
m X\\ / ff
.*o,..
- 'y. v,.4.% < q e
. f.. c...-(
~
- ..?
,(;, : sq+N; e yL
- Q> i
~-
~.. -
s
)
,... _Ss,/.,. c.$,..,/..
,4
,..... v. L
- 3.,>s, e
.. \\ *.'g-w
.A.
f.,,s s
s
/.'-
- .c.
.o,.
..wxA y
y
..i..A.a. #.
t
,>..A...T
- i.. x, N. ;
w
_y,,,ss,.-
s
>s.
... s, 4
,6. <, s i
s.,3
... o
- c..,,. w 8
, s r...,...,..,,, s
,. r
,. g x,
N 7
x =.
s. '.g
.g
/ y., Lg 3s v p:.#.w.*--,.._w,,, O.N ;,. z/ >K.,_
k.4_A. 5 4
.r.
s.
.c,
- ., 5 i
.b c - -
- --/ jC,q/. g. ',
./.'. / v,v.,....'-
, /.
/,.N >ssei V
- v-N
-.o.--
.o..o..
PERIOD (secs) ces PLANT SITE SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA RECOMMENDED EDWIN I. HATCH Georgia Power RESPONSE SPECTRA OBE NUCLEAR PLANT - UNIT 1 FIGURE 2.5-2 3604 0 Figure 1
t 1_x vm A n a wtW x / t /xi x o '1x g
/f,;,'.s' A 4..
o.
....., y
...a._.
'. : A' g
.i,..
' 5.b.'
.,,.,., y.
- -g y
^3.9, o y
+,pp. c,*N y/ j M_'A. bin % l '- {
'r.,.
v.'
-..- '
- 64 j,. fy a
s y
p\\
3.;.t 1. f.
s,, s;< sp]
.a e
' _ <*2 4
g A4 y
.,'. h-
.~
P,,'e,v.'1\\,h,$2..F.u,'y.A.
.. [ 'i. '.,..
...g s
p y.>r
. r' q.. :, g.r (V.%
s
, v A
- t. + f j.. b s. x,.s, -
? h,. 9'f,g,' ' \\... x'.,. f.f...',,.-;. )
- 3. _ G Am g ' [< %
As g
.. :::W ?m.4,,
.r NXX L'AM. L' :.
4.
O';...
..3.-
y[u w,q g".,,
',-,. 3:0.-
,,fx
',x
,.fs- ?--
p: F p m i---
'A-e
'o
.,'c
. re xe A ^ --
. /r/pt a n2n W, i* ' J-z..,g?,,i..,.. v ;,v: g--+y
~
s g* >< w x A e-
- +
z, m n u,+ w w,
u a
.,~ ?
P wnx/\\xx.mr/
RM,^^ N. y;>R., M 'h
. -..,WW7.u.V..._._s~.._.".
e=
N >,. $... ;. i:.. -
.s
- q g.
p_
~
w x.
_.3 u. s. ~ A.,.,y x
s O
KN 's,
. As,, y,A.. a.
.p.
=
s
.t. % %.,x.<. s. <
C>
Q M g<' y' &s..
a
+
R<,%
V,XX '9%{6*/
.)$g'Y/
f N
/
y
- if~ gow-q 4
g s
y u*T
/a < n,x i
xwa s
, - x u xf a n A vin r m. g s e _ A x < >
s f _. x x,-
. A... A,_"1_". x V1w Y g-\\ // / r/ A A. 'I'i1JII X _ _,,,,.s,,.._
x
~1
.._>v
->v.w x a x art s ' I,...
,.- x a rx
.[;p_ _.Qq-Qey ' *' p.'J t
x.<
Y
'1 _[_,dt sV 7//1;wn'I 'I w//IN MMAnx ic\\ x t
o s / _.^R.Nw x '. y N xxm V.,,
'$ M N., Q, w% 4>m.'.g,...'L
'-4'
,.~
a
',1
,/...y
)
f
\\;h' )6 J.
A e,I.
1 qn "A. A..A..
48 1,,
n'
.7 Pf
- 4s,N$
., s
.5... b y
A<, fi N
s
- ~~
c
- i,
.3
.34 Aw,(,s,"... *. >
3
- - xy
.y...., e..-m. m.,y;i+q,.
.y+9 s
.e
.,. [' -
3(
f a'
,)
' d) a
.{,4 *.f
/
,e,-
/ '.'.w'A'4
.t
^
\\_
N_
. g
.o a 04
.o s.c s
.e 2
4
.6
.e 2
e a e su PERIOD (secs) aos Y
PLANT SITE SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA RECOMMENDED EDWIN 1. H ATCH RESPONSE SPECTRA DBE Georgia Power NUCLEAR PLANT - UNIT 1 FIGURE 2.5-3 Figure 2
FREQUENCY (Hz)
' a,. *.... I..-.?..... ?, *. 7 m
- T XWxTX97S( 'N 1MTX95Ss ' A 1MTX95$
2
'XAA A ^A3OM N/XXA A AAJOM N/XAA A AAJOM l
(ff\\Aff\\h)DN(/A(f(^ht{\\fDONf/A(Af\\hAf^{dCN X X YX X >OCUSW/X X XX X )DCs5W/X X XX x )DCd
[/VXXV\\M$dMI/V}'XV\\M$dMf/V>'XY\\X$3
~
M@2N}S33%3 M&2h>S33$$ M&7>}S33$34
~
~
nwsn zwaxm nswaxm n Xwa
@lX>M NhM3CO(
'X>MNhZ$63(X)('X)NMM3cod
,o
>S>'$@9h)C<DDSDN95 8"Eca77'cC'kShE9h3C4
)d%@$$25A@9s$@s_ONS$A$$(2$d
[v/A ous( ;um=, sam
=sq XXA A A)OOW N/XX N95( 5El^M
?_t Mf_E A]MNO f{\\Af(h{QCGd/ACAfD(#WdDNf/ACf(^^ f>NM
%)* W/X X XX X >OCW590'WMMMX YWE fg' X W MN I *
$. %f/V>'XV\\M$dM i4KW)f\\XfM'f/V>'XVo3Q l WgM&7h}5hM hi E,Wh/N>Sh3$3<
{mhMS>jh nhYM A
hwM 6% h hYx A ENd!
e vstm5Coc essenc 'x>MatM5cos s,
>SDB9h3C#/8/SN@fhCC D}S289h?C4 ssN@s(2Y/ Ss$@$(2Id@9s$@s(2$d
-MNXX A X)ah 7/',
N/XXA A X)OOM H/XXA A XJROM uw
-s e.om-soum>=so x
//A(A/NA A/V)#
/ACA/\\AA/NA3D.%%o(A/NA A/NA3ON
' W/Y X YYX/f
/X X YX X )PCD5WAY X )Od X )DCd I
Mf/VS'XN8 pdMf/VXXV\\X$$M[/V>'XV\\X$3 Mk/h)@ M34Mb/hs%3%3<Mb/>}Sh3334 xwx /v2 w<xxwz ^ w<xxwm A >swa EMVM //s 686(MVa M3C6(MMNKM3d6d DddSM9k)C2D}9'\\ 9h3C<DDSkM9h< 4 b o PERIOD (s) e DESIGN SPECTRUM FOR THE I EDWIN I. H ATCH OBE Georgia Power aucu4a naar - unir 2 FIGURE 3.7A-1 3604 0 Figure 3
FEEQUENCY (Hz) DO SO 30 to IS O 7 S 3 2 IS 8 QF QS 03 02 04 Os 5 l l 5 l 5 ) c NAA A XA3&M NWAA A AA10M NuxA A AAlOM-(f(\\(NPf\\P3DNI/A(ff\\htl'f'dDN(/A(/'f\\h/'f'fh's('N \\ "X X YX X )DC95W/X X XX X Y CW5W/X X XX X )Disi i /VXXVNX$5Mf/V)'XVNX$dMf/V}'XNNX$3 M%D'ESh3$skM&/>XSkilcMl@tc[/>'>Sh3$34 ? nws n zw/Xswx A XuJmMx ^ zw<r ,0 IX>MNhM%3CO( 'X)NN4Z2 ^,Cd61^^2 RX%3 Cod ,0 DOWS>lfW/>?<)dEo'>S23N3<34 ~ D}SNM9h39 @SAN@$$ds@Sd$$3$(ds%sNN3Md wxaxNsa>=rxm< m uxxx=m . - NWAA A AA30%_ NMW %A10M NWAA A AA1 N 06 j)h ~ Q, f//>Cffhhffhf'dDNWA KOt7('//'f^f'dDN//AC/'f^^ fl'l' d W/X X >C< X >OCWSMJWX)XX XX Cs5W/X X XX X DS' l5 q [. Mf/V)'XVNX$d68VF)#>'XVNX$sMf/V}'XVM1 E,,Mk/3XS33$3MW/>XSh333kM&/>XSM3334 E YM A )$M(X//'/kXNA )>N( K hMM A MN()4 X} O d EWMNhM%3CW////xMN4Z%3CO( 'X>NNAZ%3 Cod D}SDW9h36@>O*>ShW993<) DDS289h3<)4 GRRR@RMFM949B9(b?@999Bs(dd $ YI YNN[N[< YI YNNS( [ NN!vYNNS( ) x Y x Y x -uu xx ^ -uw unxA n Ax,nw uuxx ^ xx,ow f/b(fl%h /1(fNJ EDNf/A(/'Ph tf\\h)DNf/A(/'f\\h frh)DN W/X X Y'>6C//>Os'J5W/X X YX X )OMW/X X XX X 30JG9 l Mf/V>M7/\\M$$Mf/V}'XVNC$bMf/V)'XVNX$3 R$8hu/8/SX3$32MD'/>XSM3$3kM88fDXSh3334,, >xw n xu<xxwx ^ zw(Xxwx ^ Xu< a b(>VMh /23C6(MYNh/23C6(MMNh d%3 Cod DMSDE9h)C2DUR289h3C<DDSk@i993C4 l' ,@,)dN@ssdN@SsE@ssdd@Cs$$$$dd, O. PERIOD (s) N DESIGN SPECTRUM FOR THE i EDWIN 1. HATCH DBE l Georgia Power uucuanpuur_umT2 l FIGURE 3.7A-2 l 3604-0 l . Figure 4
s 58 /7 3 V E M E MHU R ITR TI T 2 WC 0 C E c. . i] ,1 I i I MPu 9 TUSr ER e i.I HTEw 6 .li! TCSn NENo
- Y
!,i YPO 2 S S P r. R Sa 1 O EEEc iIt} ,T BSRt E 5 S ON r OEi R e IH FPTR U r OSIc E ES G u Dn I g NR M SYE F O i I ii F T RHr I C ROTn TI M _E ATO _ T PSO U !,I E R 4 'l MIM 1 H OHS T D M C T C %E N E H U YP T R SS O T O C MP ,0 E 1 s ,Il l-f .i l ll' SS 1 'l; !+ ~ ,i l t ,i!' i r t t .li ) i z ~ H nu ( j lr! :., ; ,1 ,i{ Y C r N Hu f i - i I E Cru U Q Ae H. n E a R t v Nu i!; !l.!q
- q' F
a I WC Du En i jy 0 ,0 1 f f g r e / o y t P + a ig p r oe G
- l!l,j
.llj1 i lg rl. I i; { li 1 5 1 o. 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 O 0 0 0 0 O' o 3 z9>< cwa _wl'$< e 3 1 1
\\ A 58 /7 3 V E E M MHU R I TR TIT 2 WC 0 C EG 1 IMPN 0 TUSI 1 i ER P HTEM TCSA 6 Y NEND YPO R SSPL 2 O SA 1 T EEEC S BSRI 6 I DN T E H OEI R e E ' PTR r M OSIC U u ES G g N I NR T O D5 I i SYE F F CIM E IRHT TU T ROTA E R ATO t H 4 TC M PSO T D MIM OHS NE E YP H U C SS T R O T C O E MP .[' SS 10 (, Y ,s' )J- , 1 1 T ) 6 IN z H U ( Y T A C HN N C A 1 [ E T L U AP Q H. R E f A R NE I L F WC DU EN ,00 / 1 e r w 7 Po / a j o ig r eG 16 1 7 8 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 $ gP<EU8o4 i w
{ i 58 /7 3 V E E H R T ) E4 2 HB8 0 TO9 1 I 1 0 .i i. ,-l. l- .i WE( H 2 DTM '1 E Ac PFR~ A . i i' .6 +.* ' ; .!i 8 6- .f; P OP AOGr 7 MMRa OUEa 3 CRLn Y TE 7 R E 'I I' g j-si'
- O l,
T UECn E MCC R e I T S RPA S TS a U r I D u M C CO G EEIr g M EH U PST I i m. E SNE F F T R M O T OH NFT O C I '} ,I- . T jMP IEY GSN E C SRS M SS I E T U D E R H T T C N E YP 1 SS 0 l gi leIiI-1 l +I l; L .el / a i ) i a r e j-z n H u ( Y C r N Hu i I' .7 ,l! E CTu U Ar Q H. a u E m m o R I w F Nu IWC Du Ea 0 l' .0 1 j ;. ' .,,t l fi / l} / r e p w .* i 'I .h / o P .i. l.- -1 / a .g -4 / r o e . L .8 l .a j. h G l.' I' e i.. .i' l /. e m o 10 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 S ZOp4ewaw8< 4 40 6 jI!l, ,+ i t,Is;! ,,j8 }; li. 4,
ll j1 O 58 /7 3 V E E HT ) R E4 HB8 TD9 2 I 1 0 WE( 1 I i1
- i' l,.;
l. i I ~1 1 H 1 DTM 2
- a' RFPm E
A A Y AOG> P O 7 R OUE= MMR O ' ',i i'j T CRLn 3 I. !:l l.II t. ' eI IS TE 8 MCCi E H t'ECs RPA R e E ' i TS a U r M C CO u I EEIr G g T PST I i C SNE M OH F F T C .[- v I NPT T U GSN E R IEY H SRS T E i i 6 N E D YP E SS T s = I s' 4 = s' D M N EH U 10 i N,.s-T R 1 O T 3 '6' O C E W s P WS i ,2.^ iI s a 7 r in r.,' 8 lI ) u z H ( r I ' Y Hw E An C C a. T N H. a U n ~ Q l E Nu I ~ .R tY C j-F UDu ,/,/ En a - a /- l 80 I' j I* f'4 'e 1 r e t ;. . I 5 l i 1i~ d' w b .l .h .:t.4 lll[' P r '
- 1' i!
- .'/'
,a i g r 1h o eG .il 6 1 1 7 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iD s Wj e o w l}}