ML20234D977

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ack Receipt of Forwarding Matl Re Engineering Plans for Proposed Bodega Head Power Plant.Some Questions Still Unanswered & Commented on in Replies to Recent Inquiries
ML20234D977
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Bodega Bay
Issue date: 06/24/1963
From: Neumann F
WASHINGTON, UNIV. OF, SEATTLE, WA
To: Bryan R
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20234A767 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-665 NUDOCS 8709220249
Download: ML20234D977 (3)
v • d • e


Text

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .

e ; a .'n *

" . ' [r s . n . w. . .

(,)

l.' 7 p y 7 . - e , ,,) -  ; , _ g --cR g

. F' RANK NEUMANN ~ g3 y *b SEssMOLOSiev. GEcLosY DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY OF WASHIN 5?DN SEATTLE S.WASHIN GTON June 24,1963. *

- Dr. Robert H. Bryan, Chief, Research and Power Reactor Safety Branch, Division of Licensing and Regulation, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington 25, D. C.

Dear Dr. Bryan:

Over the week end I have reviewed the material for-warded with your letter of June 20 and in other ways have endeavored to reconcile my views with PG&E's engineering plans for the proposed

. Bodega Head power plant. There are still some unanswereiquestions

._ which I shall touch on briefly in ocumenting on the rglios to the recent inquiries. Reference is made to the questions in Mr. Lowen-stein's letter of May 24, 1963 and the PG&E replies in Aamendment No. 3 (Docket No. 50-205) .

The answer io question 1 is straightforward enough; I sm just a little skeptica.'. about the optimism expressed in view of the fact that Housner in his paper " Behavior of Structures During Earthquakes" (Journ. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, Oct.1959) and-Blume, Newmark and Corn-ing in their book "' Design'of Multistory Reinforced Conorate ~ Buildings for Earthquake Motions" both give the impression that one should never  ;

expect even a well designed structure to escape damage entirely in an I earthquake of abnormal intensity. Housner says (p.128):"It is more  !

, - reasonable to take,the point of view that -- in the more rare event' ,

of a very strong ground motion, damage would be tolerated so'long as it was not a hasard to life and limb. This is the usual point of view of engineers". Blume, Newmark and Corning state (p.vi) " The -

]

objective is to proportion a structure in such a way that -- the structure should not collapse even when subjected to the motions of . i an earthquake of abnormal intensity". This- evidently is what the Uniform Building Code contemplates and this is the code that will be '

used in designing critical structures at Bodogs. Head.

In question 2 Mr. Lowenstein asked "What ground motions are to be used for dynsaio design?". Housner answered by stating "The design of critical structures will be based on the design velocity spectrum  ;

shown on the attached sheet". This is not an answer to the question.  ;

It is noted thsit for the respective' dampings of 15%, 7.5% and 2.5%

the spectra 1Tr reformational motions would be only about 1.5, 2.0 and 3.5 times greater than the El Centro . ground motions. If the El i Centro ground motions were doubled as suggested in my recent report . -

to you the reformational motions would be only".75,1.0 and 1.6 '

times the ground motions. . What concerns me is that Coast and Geodetic seismographs placed on the top floors of building,s show approximately 5 to 10 times as much motion on top floors as in basements. The higher:

1 slues no doubt indicate resonance' or partia oe. Realizing

-- ; ,-,. q  !

W" '

p et t , . .Y n- ' .

')

8709220249 8512177 '* /,

f, PDR -FOIA. 4610 . <

j..n FIRESTOB5-665 PDR) (!

,,,.~..a.

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

a

_ f, ' . v . . . . . .

s. . ' .'

-, d 2. . d .

I -

thatthese top floor motions are not reformational motions (Building '

notions relative to the round motion) and that at the building's' t centers the motions ma uly about half the top floor motions the

'l resulting ratios are never-the-less so much greater than indiented in

I the. proposed velocity spectrum sad the El Centro ground motion as to ,
I. be a cause for some second thoughts. Considerable data on top floor '-

i building motions during earthquakes are available but ' engineers seem

! to prefer using theoretical building motions (velocity spoetra) in.

J their estimates of structural deformations. (I believe a test.or-r- two was made with controlled explosions with this in mind).

If you do not have the B1tane,' Newmark, Corning book you should l

-i by all means get it; the preface is especially interesting. It is (

( difficult to reconcile the unquestionable sureness that permeates j j the PG&E proposals and ammendments with the sometimes almost epolo-gotic attitude found in professional papers on the same subject where ,

researchersadmittheexploratorynatureoftheentirejoissiodesign problem and the dearth of adequate knowledge in so many important .,

r :- phases of it.

)

1 .

s' \

, In answerg No. 3 Housner states:"a further analysis will be made j to insure that ground motion five times as intense as the design spoo-d i- - trian will be required to produce incipient failure of structure". Ii' )

L the design velocity spectra are multiplied by 5 and drawn on a 4-way

, log chart it will be_seen that the tround motions will range from

(

2.5 to 4.6 g. Is this what is meant? If not, just what is the ground motion that is related to the ' design spoetra -- same as question No. 2.

i s

With reference to the design lateral acceleration at'the roof level-of the reactor structure being nine times larger than is specified by

~

the Uniform Building Code does this refer to a design acceleration in

!n Zone 1 (minor damage) or Zone.3 (major damage)? In Zone 3 the code a calls for increasing lateral force factors four times over those used r in Zone 1. This would sesmingly represent a doubling of the lateral

force factor over that called for anywhere in Zone 3 earthquake areas "

l

,l - -- to take care of maximum forces in the epioentral area. Just what i, intensity does Zone 3 signity? -

).

) The proposed damping factors are less than had been anticipated.

i! They would on11 for quite large ratios between expectable building l: -

(spectral) motions and ground motions; not the minimum so often found

.f in the computations of oscillator spectra.

~

The answer to question No. 4 should be left to geologists exclus-s

]. ively.

f /

6 ,

1 I

Sincerely yo e,  !

-l ~ '

-i sf.-<%

_\"?LcwJx mm

,* N" Frank Neumann, Seismologist.

3 i Y.i [. $ ,

tr 7, k f69c'.

1

  1. 4 s f, ,

!I ff.l

_______________________________- --- -.+ -- . + .- w -w J

i - -:. -

s. .. i .. . . .i .

' ._ . . . .~, .

& &s~<.,.y/ f. .. 1 l' . . c

- vi .

}

a OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN

' /. . ,2. [

(Date)

~

. To: 4W 6m

( d or Information I 3 b or appropriate handling i For preparation of reply for Chairman's

- signature (Refer to Manual Chapter 0240) .

. ..a . .-- .. .

For discussion at Commissioners' Information

._ '-" Meeting

. -, . .- . 4, - --

-1 For distribution to other Commissioners

.7.

p ily Da Log

. . ;._... . A-,.

.. ._o .2. _
  1. ma l g q. .

ha

- :. . - --e . . . , - .; s~.a., ,s4p

'g...a q* ..* -n,h W. .. m.
y. - -; .

w.v:.':-...l.;-.-

n 3

G...:... +, . n ,. y & ; m  ;

=

_ e n . .: . ..

~a- c .

  1. ..4.'C _ . . . ..M.

,,,:._",, 2., .'i.:. .

4 : w ct.

y~ .~- .

-. yaw- _, , ,; . -

.r 2-..w: . - - . . __.

-: * '%~ -- ;.3%.;[ .y.f;.. . ,

x * ' '. '4 ';_; -f.,- = ;=

f.: . L. . '

~'

L .
.

l Howard . rown, Jr.

For the Chairman 1

f

. ~

L W

I

. e E

l

,1<

t e

2' ,

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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20234D977&oldid=3227107"