ML20236B420
Text
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i O
, t I
J
- Sectenber 10,1Q76 SUPPLEMENT NO. 5 I
TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY Com!SSION IN THE MATTER OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DI ABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 l DOCKET N05. 50 275 AND 50 323 l
1 l
I i
PDR FOIA PDR i CONNORB7-214 u-----------____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___>
I e
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE i
I
... .... ............................. . .. .. ...... .. 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS.......... .. ...... .... .... .......... . . .. .. . 2-1 2.4 Hydrology.......... . ........ ......................... . ... ... .. 21 j 2.5 Geology. Seismolo;<, and Foundation Engineering..... .. . . . ... 2-3 3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA - STRUCTURES. COMPONENTS EQUIPMENT. AND SYSTEFS. . ... . 3-1 3.7 Seismic Design. .. . . . . ............... ..... . . . .... 3-1 6.0 ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES... .. ......... .... . .. . . . .. 6-1 6.3 Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS)... . .... . ...... .. ... 6-1
22.0 CONCLUSION
S. .. .. . . . . ... ... ....... . , .... ,. . 22 1 APPENDICES APPENDIX A CONTINUATION OF THE CHRONOLOGY Of THE RADIOLOGICAL REVIEW.. ... ... A-1 APPENDIX B - BIBLIOGRAPHY, ... . .. ... .... ...... .. . .. . .... .. .. B.1 APPEN0!X C REPORT BY OR. NATHAN M. NEWMARK DATED SEPTEMBER 3.1975. . . . . . . . . . C1 ,
i i
I s
i i
J l
l l
I .
g f
4 l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
{
l The Comission's Safety Evaluation Report in the matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's application for operating licenses for the Diablo 'anyon Nuclear Power ,
Station Units 1 and 2, was issued on October 16, 1974. In the Safety Evaluation l Report it was stated that supplemental reports would be issued to update the Safety l Evaluation Report in those areas where the staff's evaluation had not been completed, f' Supplement Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 to the safety Evaluation Report, issued on January 31, 1975, May 9,1975, ' aptember 18,1975 and May ll,1976 respectively, documented the ,
resolution of several outstanding items, and sumarized the status of the remaining outstanding items. ]
l The purpose of this supplement is to further update the Safety Evaluation Report by providing the staff's evaluation of certain matters which we-e not resolved wnen ,
Supplement No. 4 was issued. Each of the following sections of this supplement is l numbered the same as the corresponding section of the Safety ! valuation Report that is being updated. A sumary of the remaining outstanding issues, wnich will be addressed in future supplements to the Safety Evaluation Rep:rt, is presented in ,
l Section 22.0 of this supplement.
Appendix A to this supplement is a continuation of the (hrorclogy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's principal actions with respect to radiological matters related to the processing of the application. Appendix B is a bibliography. l Appendix C is a report by our consultant. Dr. Nathan M. Newert, dated September 3, 1976.
l l
l O
1-1 w-____-_-________-____
l t.
g a k 3
o ,
1 2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS )
l I
2.4 Hydrology ,
In Sections 2.4.2, 2.4.3 and 2.4.5 of Supplement No. I to me Safety Evaluation !
Report, we stated that we had completed our evaluation of tsunamis due to distant !
generators. However, additional infomation was required % the applicant concern- l ing the effects of nearshore generated tsunamis on safety related portions of the intake structure. Subsequent information and additional analyses concerning nearshore generated tsunamis were provided by the applicant in Amena::ents 27, 29. and 31 to the l FSAR. Our evaluation of this infomation is described below.
Tsunami Analysis There are two nearoy offshort; faults potentially capable of generating tsunamis that could result in appreciable runup at the intake structure. The Santa 1ucia Bank fault is located 29 miles from the site and the Hosgri fault is about 31/2 miles offshore. The applicant analyzed tsunami runup from both faults using a two step approach. Tsunami height at the coast, outside the intake cove, was determined for various ground motion configurations at both faults, using a finite difference numerical model described in Reference 1 of Appendix B to mis supplement. We con-sider the model used to be, at present, state of-the-art in the modeling of the I
generation and preparation of tsunamis. The resulting wave history outside the intake cove was used with a harbor resDonse model to detemine runup at the intake structure, which is flood protected to 30 feet, Mean Lower .:w Water datum.
For purpcses of analysis, vertical ground displacement was *aken to se 6.5 feet for t'he Santa Lucia Bank fault and 7.3 feet for the Hosgri fault Based on our review of the nature Of these faults. we have concluded that both val;es are conservative.
The design water height is considered to be the maximum tsu.ami occurring coincident with high tide and short period, one-year storm waves. The ;reatest wave height at the intake structure resulted from a postulated large radius, circular area of ground l disp 1ccement on the Hosgri fault. Including the effect of ;emanent ground displace-l ment, the maximum wave height was calculated to be 9.2 feet. The tidal height (astronomical and meteorological) is 6.3 feet Mean Lower ':w Water datum. These values result in a total elesation of 15.5 feet Mean Lower low Water datum, not including the stort wave effects.
Stom eve height was taken as 18 feet outside the breakwater. The applicant cal-culated wave transmission by overtopping of the breakwater to estimate wave heignts within the cove and calculated runup on 'ie intake structurt 'or waves with a ;eriod 2-1
+
,' s -
of 10 seconds. The applicant detemined the maximum runup at the intake structure to be 27.7 feet, Mean Lower Low Water datum.
We consider the method used by the applicant to be sufficiently conservative to more than compensate for the use of 10-second peMod waves rather than the more conservative 15-second period than can occur during the one year storm. ss a confirmation of this, j we calculated the maximum runup at 21 feet Mean Lower Low Wa:ar datum using Wiegel's model results presented in Appendix 2.48 to the FSAR and ushg the more conservative 15-second period design wave.
Effects of Breakwater Damage The possibility of the breakwater being damaged or destroyec ey the same seismic event that generates the tsunami was also investigated. At sur request the applicant submitted, in Amendment 31 to the FSAR, additional informati:n on the design and construction of the breakwater and the characteristics of the geologic material underlying and supporting the breakwater.
The assumption used in the calculation of runup is that the side slopes of the break-water would slump to a 1 on 4 slope (vertical to horizontal anich corresponds to about 17 feet of slumping at the crest. Using conservative strength characteristics I for the breakwater materials, a conservative method of analysis of the slope displace- !
1 I
I ment and site motions for a magnitude 7.5 earthquake on the msgri fault, we determined I that the crest of the breakwater would slump no more than 5 'eet. Accordingly, we ;
have concluded that the assumption used in the calculations 's conservative. l l
The applicant, using a conservative method, calculated the muimum runup on the intake structure for waves with a 15-second period as 29.4 'tet, Mean Lower Low Water datun with the breakwater slumped to a 1 on 4 slope. We inoecendently calculated the maximum runup for this case and concluded that the applicant's estimate was conser-vative and acceptable.
Conclusions Based on our review we conclude that: (1) a locally generated tsunami will not exceed the design basis flood level of 30 feet, Mean Lower L:w Water datum at the intake structure; and (2) the breakwater, even if damaged by ee initiating event, affords sufficient protection to the cove to prevent floodin; of tbo intake structure in the event that the maximum tsunami occurred coincident wiu high tide and short period, one-year stem waves.
With regard to low water levels, any event large enough to gerate a substantial tsunami will also lower the sea floor in the cove because the sense of displacement on the two nearshore faults is downward on the side closest *o shore. This will have a compensating effect in relation to low water level. There':re, we have concluded that the most adverse combination of tsunami drawdown, low %e and storm waves will 2-2
e s .
not result in water levels at or below the design basis low .ater level of minus 17.4 feet, Mean Lower Low Water datum.
Accordingly., based on our evaluations as described above anc in Supplement No. I to the Safety Evaluation Report, we have concluded that the de5f gn features for protection against the effects of tsunamis are acceptable. We conside* this matter resolved.
2.5 Geoloqy, Seismology and Foundation Engineering Effective Acceleration
]
In Supplement No. 4 to the Safety Evaluation Report we statec that our consultant.
Dr. Nathan M. Newnark of N. M. Newmark Consulting Engineer 9 g Services, had recommended and we had accepted an effective horizontal ground acceleration of 0.75 g. This value I was to be used in developing response spectra which define 7e effective ground motion at the plant site from a postulated magnitude 7.5 ea .aquake on the sector of J the Hosgri fault nearest the site. These spectra would thea ce used in reevaluating the plant's seismic design capabilities. We also stated tMt ne would provide further discussion of this matter and a report from Dr. Newmark in a future supplement to the .
Safety Evaluation Report.
Dr. Newnark's report, which is presented in Appendix C to t*is supplement, discusses the effective horizontal ground acceleration (0.75 g) and onsents the rationale that it is based upon. As stateo in Suppleoent No. 4 to the Safety Evaluation te%rt, 1 4
we have accepted Dr. Memark's recoseendatten. Further dis:ussion concerning l l
revaluation of the facilities is presented in Section 3.7 9 this sucolenent, j I
1 l
1 1
2 23 I i L
l' f
3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA - STRUCTURES. COMP 0NENTS. E00!pMEE" AND SYSTEMS 3.7 Seismic Design 1
In Supplement No. 4 to the Safety Evaluation Report we sta:ed that we had requested tnat the applicant evaluate the plant's capability to wit stand a magnitude 7.5 earth-quake on the Hosgri fault with an effective horizontal gro.nd acceleration' of 0.75 g for the purpose of developing design response spectra. We also outlined the pro-cedures that we believed would be appropriate for this eve *uation.
Since then, the applicant has developed design response spectra based on the recommen-dations of the applicant's. consultant, Dr. John A. Blume ." John A. Blume & Associates.
Engineers. These spectra were documented in Amendment 45 o the ;FSAR. At meetings on August 11, 1976, and September 7,1976, the applicant :mvided additianal informa-tion concerning these spectra. -
In addition, our consultant. Dr. Nathan M. Newnark, has inoecendently developed design response spectra. Dr. Newmark's recomended spectra and T'eir basen are discussed in Appendix C to this supplement.
We have reviewed the applicant's proposals concerning desi;n response spectra as well as our own consultant's recerinendation. Based on our review and in accordance with the advice of our consultant, we infomed the applicant, 4 a meeting on September 7, ,
1976, that response spectra confoming to the following e teria' would be acceptable: .
i (1) The response spectra recomended by our consultant, as described in Appandix C to this supplement, are acceptable for use in reevaluating the plant's seismic design capabilities. As discussed in Appendix C to *is supplement, the spectra would be modified to account for building size effects. In doing so, the response spectrum for each structure would be detemi'ed according to the follow -
ing values for transit time parameter (Tau):
(a) Containment or Intake Structure: Tau = 0.04 i
(b) Auxiliary Building: Tau = 0.052' {
(c) Turbine Building: Tau = 0.08 ,
(d) Smaller Structures: Tau = 0 Further reduction of these spectra to account for non-linear effects would not be made. However, if the applicant proposes to take cre:it for this in certain' ,
soecific areas. then we will constder it on an indivi:ual case hosts.
1 e ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - __ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _
e' .J (2) Alternately, the response spectra proposed by the applicant are generally acceptable for use in reevalua*ing the plant's seismic cesign capabilities. They..
would be used in the following manner:
(a) As a starting point. for small structures where Tag = 0, the applicant's proposed response spectrtsn would be used. However, this spectrum would be .I I
raised as necessary in certain frequency ranges so that it does not fall below the spectrum for small structures recommenced by our consultant in Appendix C to this supplement.
(b) For larger structures, the spectrum described in (a) above would be reduced to account for building size in accordance with the methods proposed by the applicant using the following values for Tau:
(1) Containment or Intake Structure: Tau = 0.04 l
(ii) Auxiliary Building: Tau a 0.052 (iii) Turbine Building: Tau = 0.08 (c) The spectra discussed above would be reduced to acc:unt for non-linear behavior using a ductility ratio up to 1.3.
(d) The calculated value for zero period acceleration =ould not be rounded to a lower value, but used as caiculated.
(e) For each structure, the spectrum obtained by these means would be adjusted in certain frequency ranges as necessary so that it does not fall below the spectrum recommended by our consultant in Appendis 0 to this supplement, i
The applicant is currently proceeding with the reevaluation :n this basis. Ww will present our evaluation of the reanalysis in a future supole e-t to the Safetv Evaluation Report.
l l
,., i
_ - - J
I
.j 6.0 ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES l l
1 6.3 Emeroency Core Coolina System (ECCS)
In Supplement No. 4 to the Safety Evaluation Report we foure the ECCS enalyses to be acceptable, subject to satisfactory resolution of certain . utters cencernicg single l
failures of motor operated valves and the time period befon switching recirculation l
modes after a loss-of-coolant accident. These matters are now resolved and our evaluation is presented below.
Long-Term Bo-ic Acid Concentration Builduo in Supplement No. 4 to the Safety Evaluation Report we stated that we would reouire )'
that the switchover time from cold leg to simultaneous hot feg and cold leg injection
, be ct'anged to 19.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> (the applicant had proposed 24 hovs). .This switchover would effectively terminate the concentration of boric aci: in the reactor vessel j during the long term recirculation mode following a loss-cf-coolant accident. The shorter time would allow a margdn of four weight percent below the solubility limit j l
for cold leg breaks to 4: count for uncertainties in predict'ng the boric #cid concen- {
l tration, providiag greater assurance that solid boric acic sill not deposit in the reactor vessel. In Amendment 43 to the FSAR. the applicart committed to initiate hot leg recirculation about 19.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> after the beginning of circulation, thus pro-viding simultaneous hot and cold leg recirculation. Since this procedure would terminate the concentration of boric acid before the soluo4f ty limit is reached. we have concluded that this commitment is acceptable. We consider tnis matter resolved. )
Single Failure Criterion l
In Supplement No. 4 to the Safety Evaluation Report we stated that we would require modifications for certain motor operated valves in order t: meet the single failure criterion and we described modifications that would be accectable. In Amendment 43 ;
to the FSAR the applicant incorporated acceptable modifica 4cns as described in Supplement No. 4 by disconnecting electrical power from the motor operators involved and, where required, provfding the capability for restorin; power from the control' l room. This ensures that single electrical failures will net result in spurious i actuation of critical valves. Since these modifications assure that no single failure i is worse than the single failures which were aslumed in the !CCS analyses, we have concluded that they are acceptable. j In Supplement No. 4 to the Safety Evaluation. Report we stated that we would review l the detailed means of disconnecting power from motor opera:ad ECCS valves and, where ;
appropriate. the means of restoring power from the control "Jom. In a letter dated l 6-1
I Ju',y 21, 1976 the applicant submitted dates 'ed electr .il :rawings which describe these provisions. We have reviewed these provisions and cetermined that they are in I
confortance with our position which is docuniented in Branc? Technical Pasition EIC3B 18.
" Application of the Single Jailure Criterion to hanually-C:ntrolled Electrically- !
Operated Valves." contained in Appenoix 7A to our Standarc Review Plan. Accordingly, we have concluded that the detailed means of removing powe- from and restoring power to motor operated ECCS valves are acceptable.
Conclusions e
The items which were outstanding in our review of ECCI per :mance when Supplement j No. 4 to the Safety Evalvation Report was issued have now :een resolved, as discussed above. However, Westinghouse Electrir. Company recently informed us, in a telephone conversation on August 5,1976 and a meeting on Asgust 9.1976. of two matters which will affect the results of our revitw. A brief discussior. Of these matters is presented below.
Measurements made in an operating plant and calculations .sve indicated that the temperature of the reactor coolant in the upper head of t.e* reactor vessel may be higner than the temperature which was assumed in the ECCS analysis. Using the higher temperature in the ECCS analysis is expected to increase ce calculated peak clad temperature which could change our conclusions concerning I;CS perfomance. Based on our experience in evaluating this effect for other Westinpouse reactors, we believe that the Diablo Canyon ECCS perfomance can be shown to be acceptable for full power operation, perhaps with reduced allowable peaking factors. riowever, we will present 1 our evaluation of this matter in a future supplement to t.*e Safety Evaluation Report. )
Recent tests by Westinghouse have indicated that the effect of rod bow on departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) may be greater than previously 7 ported in the Westing.
nouse Topical Reports WCAP-8176 (Proprietary) and WCAP-8323 (Non-proprietary), "Effect of Bowed Red on DNB." This could change our conclusions concerning rod bow as stated in Sections 4.4 and 6.3 of Supplement No. 4 to the Safety Ivaluation Report. Based on our experience in evaluating this effect for other Westinghouse reactors we believe i that the Diablo Canyon fuel design and ECCS perfomance can be shown to be acceptable f for full power operation with ppropriate restrictions on nargin to DNB. However, we will present our evaluation of this matter in a future suosiement to the Safety Evaluation Report.
I l
I i
l t
l I
62
I l
l
22.0 CONCLUSION
S In Section 22 of Suppler.ent No. 4 to the Safecy Evaluations eport, we stated that several items were still outstanding, and that favorable resalution of these items j would be required before operating licenses for Diablo Cany:n Units 1 and 2 could be issued. Items which turrently remain outstanding are sunrnad2ed below.
- 1. An evaluation of the plant's capability to withstand at earthquake of magnitude 7.5 on the Hosgri fault (Section 3.7 of Supplement No.1).
l 2. An evaluation of the environmental and seismic qualifi:stion of Category [ elec-trical, instrumentation and control equipment (Sections 3.10 and 7.8 of the i Safety Evalurtion Report). .
- 3. An evaluation of the consequences of Anticipated Trans ents 2ithout Scram (Section 7.2.5 of supplement No. 4).
l 4 An evaluation of the ability of the liquid and gaseous arJioactive waste man-agement systems to meet Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 Section 11.0 of Supplement No. 4).
- 5. An evaluation of the effects of postulated pipe breaks 3utside containment (Sec-tion 3.6 of the Safety Evaluation Report).
- 6. An evaluation c# the plant's tornado missile protectio, (Section 3.5 of Supple-ment No. 3 to the Safety Evaluation Report).
- 7. An evaluation of the matters concerning fuel rod bowin; and the temperature of the reactor coolant h the upper reactor head (Section 5.3 of this supplement).
Subject to favorable resolution of the outstanding matters :escribed above, the con-clusions as stated in Section 22 of the safety Evaluation :tecort remain unchanged.
22-1
APPEN0!X A CONTINUATION OF THE CHRONOLOGY OF 1HE RADIOLOGICAL. REVIEW Septeinber 18, 1975 Supplement No. 3 to the Safety Evaluation Report issued.
Letter from applicant 5. omitting velocity data f March 26,1976 related to the Western " geophysical Compa,ny offshore survey records submitte: previously and requesting proprietary treatment f:r the velocity data.
April 21, 1976 Letter from applicant p oviding schedule for submitting information -equested February 25, 1976 concerning Appendix I :: 10 CFR Part 50.
May 6, 1976 Letter to applicant previding draft technical specifications for use n preparing proposed technical specifications with regard to Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50.
K May 11, 1976 Supplement No. t to the Safety Evaluation Report issued.
May 12, 1976 Submittal of Amendment 12 including (1) informa ,,,,
tion on electrical, ins:mmentation and control equipment (eouipment c.411fication) in part 4.-1 response to request for information dated (
August 17,1976, and (21 mis:ellaneous changes.
May 18, 1976 Letter to applicant re:.esting additional information regarding ::ntainment structural j i
integrity test.
)
ACRS Subcommittee meetim in San Luis Obispo, May 21, 1976 California.
May 25, 1976 Letter from applicant w;uesting extension of Unit I construction pe -rit.
June 4, 1976 Letter from applicant sabmitting document entitled "Information Required 3:e Compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix 1 for 01:31o Canyon, Units 1 and 2."
A-1
6 8, .
a 1
I t
June 10,1976 Letter to applicant recuesting a schedule for pro-viding an evaluation of the adequacy of the reactor pressure vessel suppor ts.
June 10, 1976 Meeting with applicant to discuss seismic design I reevaluation.
June 11, 1976 Letter to aplicant recuesting schedule for submittal of information concerning outstandit.g items.
June 11, 1976 Letter to ACRS fowarding Dr. Nownerk's draf t report concerning Diablo Canyon seismic design bases.
June 21, 1976 Letter from applicent providing schedule recuested June 11 for submitting infomation concerning out-standing items.
vane 23,1976 Meeting with applicant to discuss seismic design reevalua tion.
June 24,19J6 Submittal of Amendment 43 including (1) information on electrical, instrumentation and control ecuip-ment (equipment qualification) in partial response to recuest for information dated August 17, 1975 and (2) miscellaneous c anges.
l June 25,1976 and ACRS Subcommittee Meeting in San Luis Obisco, June 26, 1976 Cali fornia. .
July 2,1976 Letter to applicant reovesting schedule for submit- j ting additional infomation concerning ATWS, July 6, 1976 Letter to applicant stating that velocity :ata sub-mitted Maren 26, 1976 would be withneld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790.
July 6, 1576 Construction Fermit for 'Jnit 2 extended until January 1, 1977.
July 8,1976 ACRS Full Comittee Metiing in Washington, D. C.
July 19, 1976 Letter to applicant recuesting additior.nl infoma-tien concerning the material submitted June a, 1976 regarding Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50.
A-2 e_-__-_-__-_-___ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - _ _ .
July 20,1976 Letter frum applicant resconding to a request for information concerning reactor vessel supports dated June 10, 1976.
July 21, 1976 Letter from applicant previding detailed information concerning design modifications to satisfy the i I
single failure criterion for electrically eeerated {
ECCS valves. f July 29, 1976 Letter from applicant previding information requested on May 18,1976 concerning the Unit I containment structural integrity test.
July 29, 1976 Submittal of Amendment 4 including information related to Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50.
July 29, 1976 Submittal cf Amendment 45 including infomation i concerning reevaluation :f seismic design I capabilities.
July 30. 1976 Letter from applicant su:mitting document related to Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 entitled "Draf t Model Technical Specifications for Pressurized Water Reactors. Docket %mbers 50-275, 50 323.
Including Additions to 5s: ply Recuested Information."
August 11,1976 Meeting with applicant concerning reevaluation of seismic design capabilitf es.
August 27, 1976 Meeting with applicant concerning reevaluation of seismic design capabilit'es.
September 7, 1976 Meeting with applicant concerning reevaluation of seismic design capabilities, i
l l
i 1
I A.3
i I. -
APPENDIX B BIBLIOGRAPHY (Documents referenced in or used to prepare Supplement No. 5 to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station, U.11ts 1 and 2, are listed below.
This list of documents is in addition to those previously listed in the bibliographies for the Safety Evaluation Report and Supplement Nos. I ano 4 to the Safety Evaluation Report.)
Hydrology
- 1. Hwang Li San. H. L. Butler and D. J. Divoky, Tsunami Model: generation ano open sea characteristics, Bull . Seism. Soc. Am., g, ?972, i 1
l l
I B-1 e
APPENDIX C l
A RATIONALE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN SPECTRA i FOR DI ABLO CANYON REACTOR FACILITY by j
Nathan M. Newmark 4
A Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission I
l l
l Nathan M. Newmark Consulting Engineering Services 1211 Civil Engineering Building Urbana, Illinois 61801 1
3 3eptember 1976 C-1 L
', O.
A RATIONALE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN SPECTRA FOR DI ABLO CANYON REACTOR FA,CILITY by Nathan M. Newmark
- 1. INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
This report describes a basis for development of design spectra to be considered in the possible re-design and retrofit of Diablo Canyon Unit No. 1 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 i
magnitude of about 7.5 could occur in the future anywhere along the Hosgri i fault, and the near field ground motions attributable to such an earthquake i
should be considered in addition to other earthquakes previously considered i
in the design of the plant. !
In the assessment of the potential motions and design criteria }
i 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. l l
The design spectrum is drawn for a value of " effective" ground acceleration 1 I
of 0.75 g, although it is recognized that occasional peaks of higher acceleration might be experienced. In addition, consideration is given to the maxiraum ground velocities and displacements consistent with the site geology, and consideration is also given to the attenuation of high f requency l l
motion input in the major parts of the facility caused by the large size and close spacing of these parts of the facili y.t 1
C-2 m
i i
2 i
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 may be needed to review the resistance provided,
- 11. DESIGN INTENSITY OF SITE MOTIONS Re'!ations were given by Donovan (Ref.1) for the attenuation of maximum ground acceleration as a function of magnitude and hyperfocal distance from 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 i 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 i
inconsistent with the values in USGS Circular 672 (Ref. 2) for near field l l
strong motions, considering a repeated acceleration peak of several times, l
rather than one isolated peak.
l Although, for more distant scurces, response spectrum calculations indicate that the peak acceleration value is a reasonable basis f rom 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 Lam record, the Parkfield record, the Ancone records, and the Melendy Ranch record.
C-3 u
1 l
s: .
3 The most intense near field earthquako record available is that for Pacolma Dam in the San Fernando earthquake of 9 February 1971. For that record, there are shown in Figs la and b comparisons of the response spe'ctra, computed from the two horizontal records, with the design spectra developed in UASH-1255 (Ref. 4) and NUREG-0003 (Ref.10). The computed response spectra for 2 percent damping are the upper curves in Fig.1, identified by the symbol 1
- 1 T = 0.
The design spectra for 2 percent damping, based on an effective acceleration of 0.75g, with the appropriate amplification factors (summarized i below for convenience) are shown by the upper solid lines in Fig. 1. The standard velocity and displacement values used- for drawing these are 0.75 x 48 = 36 in/sec, and 0.75 x 36 = 27 in., respectively, with amplifi-cation factors of 3.66 for acceleration, 2.92 for velocity, and 2.42 for l
displacement, for 2 percent damping, and one standard deviation above the median, the amplified values plotted are 2.75g,105 in/sec, and 65.in. The
]
plotted values generally envelope (with a substantial margin, on the whole) the computed spectra.
This is the most direct indication that the " effective" peak acceleration for the Pacolma Dam record is not in fact the measured value of 1.20g, but actually does not exceed 0.75g. Therefore this is taken as the effective peak acceleration for design.
As a further comparison there are shown in Figs la and b modified design spectra for 2 percent damping based on appropriately amplified values of the ground velocity and ground displacement expected in the near field in rock, of 24 in/sec and 8 in, respectively, as summarized in Table 1, and as explained below. These spectra are shown by the second highest pclygonal solid lines in the figures. Similar spectra for 5 percent damping are shown in Figs. 18 and 19 C-4 _ ___ ____
i e,. .
4 The foundation conditions at the Diablo Canyon site are very good.
The material on which the major facilities are foundec is 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 ft/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 f t/sec. ,
I 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 l for a i g maximum acceleration (Ref. 3), it is believed that a somewhat l
l 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 l Mohraz (Ref. 5), of the same order of magnitude given by Seed in Ref. 3 l For the purpose of this study, a value of 32 in/see for i g maximum ground 1
acceleration is used. This is believed to be conservative. Consequently, for 0.75 g the maximum ground velocity is considered to be 24 in/sec.
1 i 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. This paraceter 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 C-5
5 displacement is computed as approximately 8 in. These values are summarized in Table 1.
Ill. RESPONSE TO NEAR EARTHQUAKES j Several earthquake records have been obtained close to the source.
These include the Parkfield earthquake of 27 June 1966, for which the I
maximum recorded acceleration is 0.5 g; the Melendy 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 (cn rock) had a maximum acceleration j 1
of about 0.6 g and at Palombina (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 Ly the buildings near the source was considerably less than would ha"e been expected from the acceleration levels or from the response spectra corresponding to the near field records. This i: in contrast to the fact that for more distant earthquakes, at distances over about 40 km, the damage levels appear to be consistent with response spectra when inelastic behavior of the structure is taken into account.
- Both Housner and Cloud (Refs. 6 and 7) refer to'the small damage occurring in the Parkfield earthquake. Lander (Ref. 3) indicates the relatively \'ight damage in the Helendy Ranch earthquake. Observatin" hv Italian seismologists and engineers (Ref. 9) Indicate the relatively small damage in the Ancona earthquakes, and the fact that buildings designed with j a seismic coefficien,t of 0.07 g, in accordance with the then recently adopted Itallan earthquake code, suffered no damage. Near Pacoima 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.
C-6 t- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ - -
6 Response spectra for these several earthquakes are given herein.
Figures 2a and 2b show the Pacolma Dam response spectra, in two directions, for 2% damping. Figures 3 ani 4 show the spectra for the two Ancona earthquakes for 5% critical damping. In these figures, the curve for T = 0 l is the response spectrum from the actual m.ord. In Fig. 5 there is shown the response spectrum for the Melendy Ranch barn record, for various amounts l of damping. The record for the Melendy Ranch and Ancona earthquakes are l
surprisingly similar, with a relatively sharp spike at about 5 to 6 hertz l
l frequency. The Pacoima 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 s:ectrum marked " elastic" l
l 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 ground acceleration, velocity, and displacement, are given in the second line of Table 1. These values are taken f rem Ref s. 4,10, or 11. The response spectrum bounds are approximately 1.2 g for amplified acceleration, 50 in/sec for amplified velocity, and about 33 in for displacement response.
Modifications of the elastic response spectrum are made in accordance with procedures described in Ref s,11,12 and 13, and are shown in Fig. 6 for two values of ductility factor. The value currespond:ng 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 C-7 i
q
5, .
7 ductility factors, and the , local factors in structural members might be somewhat higher. However, these would. correspond also to the. ductility ;
factors in items supported on floors or walls or on the ground foundation i structure.
i Ali of these are drawn for a peak ground acceleration of 0.5 9 ,
I
\
For larger values of ground acceleration, the required values would be higher, in proportion to the "ef fective" . ground acceleration value. The .l 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 !
coef ficient in the frequency range corresponding to the ampilfled acceleration i
level, since the spectra are generally proportional to-these values in the range of important frequencies for structural or equipment design in nuclear reactor facilities, although the values are more nearly proportional to the ductility factor levels or the amplified velocity portion of the diagram 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, J 1
would have been designed in the past for a seismic coeffi: lent of 0.1 g. I
]
This, at amplified working stresses, corresponds to a strength of about 0.15 g. It can be seen that a structure designed in this way would lie 1'
below the collapse level in general, and would fail in an earthquake having i
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 i
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 C-8 o
8 .
i maximum ground acceleration without collapse. Damage would occur at lower levels of maximum ground acceleration, but not collapse. j
(
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 yleid levels. This'would certainiy lose function in a 0.5 9 :
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 wi.th 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 i
peak ground acceleration value of 0.4 considered in the ATC code. This is i 1
compared with the response spectrum or the design spectrum for elastic l behavior corresponding to the methods in Refs. 4 and II, 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, I for well-designed structures, values of spectral reduction factors of the 1 l
order of 5 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 9 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 I's 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 C-9
)
I i
i to 0.5 g effective ground acceleration, or possibly somewhat higher than q i
C*
this value.
The importance of this discussion lies in tre fact that an I
ef fective peak ground acceleration of I g would cause loss of function and collapse of practically all structures of any sor: in an area, even those designed in accordance with the best current codes. This has never been observed. The only structures that have f ailed have been those that ,
have been either grossly deficient in design or desig.9ed to levels considerably below those which are appropriate for the region. Hence it 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 wi th 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 SIZE OF FOUNDATION ON DESI;N SPECTRUM
{
The observation has frequency been made that structures on large foundations appear to respond with less intensity to earthquakes than do i 1
smaller structures, and more'specifically, than does free-field 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 Scanlan (Ref. 16). These references give in general a 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 l
C-10 1
L _ _ ______ _ ______________ ___________.________ _ _ . _ _
9 10 1
foundation. Perhaps a better measure of the reduction in ef festiveness i
)
j of an earthquake on a large building is given by use of the average acceleration taken from the record itself. A number of examples of this kind of calculation are given herein. This has the virtue of net requiring an assessment of the particular f requencies 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 in a building foundation and in the f ree field near the building. The most complete 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, vas measured at 112 ft away from the nearest corner of the building, which is 51 ft in the north-1 i south direction and 217.5 ft 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 )
I subsurface model of the building, with Figs, 8 and 9 being taken f rom a !
I study by Duke et al (Ref. 17).
The shear wave velocity in the upoer 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 ti e Kern County earthquake. Typical of i
the results are those shown in Figs! 10 and 11, which give the response i
1 C-17 l ,
1 k________________.______._____________________
1
+ .
spectrum for the storage basement and for the parking lot, in both the east'and'the south directions, for a damping value of 2% critical, as a function of period. it can be seen that for periods less than about 0.4 4
sec there is a significant decrease in the response spectrum.for the building compared with that for the parking lot, whereas for longer periods j i
1 the response spectra are practically Identical. This shows the filtering-It is of interest to note, however, that the l effect, discussed above.
)
reduction is of the order of a factor of 2' to 2 5 Similar effects are
)
observed for 5% damping spectra as well.
1 On the other hand, no attenuation was observed for the. Kern County earthquake in the same building, which was considerably further away, i
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 f rom Ref.17 -l The fundamental period of the building in the east-west direction is 0.5 sec 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 ,
l 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 5% 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 C-12 u_ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ ._. _ ___ __ _
12 l i
i structure is shown by the dashed line in the figures, which is very nearly )
l identical with the computed value for the parking lot for a transmit time of j about 0.08 sec in the north-south direction, and for :ne 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 l velocity of 2000 ft/sec, it appears that either the 'ongest dimension of the building or the mean or geometric mean of the dimensions controls the effective transmit time insofar as the reduction in response is concerned. !
Similar results are shown for the Kern Cour y earthquake in i Figs.14 and 15, where again the transit time of 0.06 appears to be the best value. However, there is very little attenuation, which is indicative of the f act that at the very large distance of the Ke n Countv. earthquake j the major influences reaching the building are surface waves with a much longer wave length than those for the closer San Ferr.ando earthquake.
Now, referring again to Figs.1 or 2 we may observe how the responses of the structure to the Pacolma Dam record .,ould be affected by I
i transmit time. There is apparently a substantial redction as the transit time increases f rom 0 to 0.12 sec, but only a slight eduction beyond that to 0.16 sec. However, this reduction af f ects only the high f requency range, above about 2 hertz. Similar 'y, 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 larger 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.
C-13
.. l l
13 l V. DIABLO CANYON DESIGN SPECTRA i
Referring again to Table 1, one finds spectrum bounds defined by the ground motions discussed earlier and the spectrum amplification factors given in Table 1, as shown on the last line of Table 1, for several acceleration levels. These values are plotted in Figs. 16 and 17 in terms of the usual type l of design spectrum considered earlier in this report. 'he T spectra shown in 1
Fig. 16 are for the free field, for an acceleration level of 0.759, the plant l an complex for an acceleration level of 0.6 9 , and for the reactor building for 1
I acceleration level of 0.59 The acceleration levels for these response spectra are based on the results in Figs. 2a and 26, taking into account the dimensions of the structure considered, and the wave transit time over the area of the structure.
The transit time parameter t probably is more closely associated with the a/eraging of accelerations over the area of the structure than it is with an actual wave transit time. In other words, accelerations at any instant s
of time vary both in the direction considered and in the transverse direction.
This is taken account of by use of a value of transit time determined by the
" effective" width (the square root of the area, in general) of the foundation divided by the wave velocity, which is generally considerably less than the shear wave velocity of the foundation medium.
The reduction f actor R used to obtain the ground acceleration ,
design value for the foundation for the Diablo Canyon site conditions are based on the general level of reduction shown in Figs. 2a and 26, or in Figs.18 and 19 (for 5 percent damping), and are taken as follows:
Ag=A ,R (1)
C-14 L----__---_---_--___-_---
i
., o, .
l 1
14 1
. )
where Af = acceleration for foundatlor' ]
A, = acceleration for free field and R=1-ST (2) but not less than 0.67. I The lower limit on R is kept purposely high for adequate conservatism in the application of this concept, in view of the small amount
]
(> data on which the concept is based.
hc r With the use of this relationship,3the reactor building, with its diameter of 160 f t and a wave velocity of 4000 fps, one finds a transit time of 0.04 sec, for which R = 0.8 and Af = 0.69 . If one considers the ,
I entire plant structure as effectively tied together tnrough the foundation, !
l1 the effective width of about 480 f t gives a transit time of 0.11 sec, and the lower limit of R = 0.67 is applicable, with Af = 0 5g. Small separate structures not close to the main complex should be designed for a higher )
1 I
spectrum, however, corresponding to the f ree field value of 0.759 Figure 17 shows the spectra in Fig. 16 plotted in another way, in terms of acceleration values as a function of f requency, and compared with previously used design :;pectra for the plant. These previously used values are defined as the DDE or the double design earthquake spectrum originally used of 0.4g maximum ground acceleration, and the so-called "Hosgri" spectrum which has been developed by Dr. John A. Blume for PGt,E.
It appears that the latter is relatively close to the recommended design spectrum for 0 59 developed herein for frequencies higher than ebout 2 or 3 hertz, but may be somewhat low for lower f requency elements. j C-15 L.
)
I 15 For other damping levels, spectra"may be drawn using the i
amplification values in Table 3, taken from Refs. 4 and 11.
Consistent with the concept of a wave motion of earthquake l deformation, there are torsions and tiltings of a building foundation.
Both effects are less on rock than on soll. 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 effect is less, however, for a very large structure, and the tilting effect is even smaller. Account should be taken of these ef fects in design.
I f
I i
C-16 ,
L_______.________________ ___ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ )
-., e, .
16 REFERENCES ,
- l. N. C. Donovan, A Statistical Evaluation of Strong notion 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. Seed , R. Murarka, J. Lysmer, and I . M. Idriss, " Relationships between Maximum Acceleration, Maximum Velocity, Distance from Source, and Local Site Conditions for Moderately Strong Earthquakes",
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, EERC 75-17, July 1975.
- 4. N. M. Newmark, W. J. Hall, B. Mohraz, "A Study of Vertical and Horizontal Earthquake Spectra", Di rectorate of . Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 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, Journal Po'.ier Division, Proceedings ASCE, Vol . 97, 1971, pp. 77-91.
7 W. 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 . Sei sm. Soc. of America , Vol . 62, No. 5,1972, pp. 1360-1362.
Lander, J. F. ,' edi tor, Seismological Notes, September-October 1973.
- C-17 c - _-- . _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ -
l I
i 17 Bull . Seism. Soc. of America, Vol . 63, No. 3,1973, pp. 1177-1178. )
i 9 R. Console, F. Peronaci, A. Sonaglia, Relazione Sui Fenomeni Sismica i Dell ' Anconitano (1972), Annali di Geofisica, Vol. 26, Supplement 1973, Rome, j 1
- 10. W. J. Hall, B. Mohraz, and N. M. Newmark, Statistical Studies of Vertical csind Horizontal Earthquake Spectra, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Contract A1(49-5)-2667, Report NUREG-0003, January 1976.
- 11. N. M. Newmark, Ea rthquake ,Wistant Des ign of Nuclear Power Plants, Article for UNESCO Intergovernmental Conference on Assessment and Mitigation of Earthquake Risk, Paris, February 1976.
i
- 12. N. M. Newmark and W. J. Hall, Procedures and Criteria for Earthquake I Resistant Design, Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation, National J
. l Bureau of Standards, Building Science Series 46, Vol .1, February 1973, 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/l .
- 14. H. Yamahara, Ground Motions during Earthquakes and the input Loss of Earthquake Power to an Excitation of Buildings, Solls and Foundations, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1970, pp. 145-161, Tokyo.
15 N. Ambraseys, Characteristics of Strong Ground Motion in the Near Field 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, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol . 4,1976, pp. 379-388.
C-18
18 17 c. M. Duke, J. E. Luco, A. R. Carriveau, P. J. Hra::llek, R. Lastrico, and D. Ostrom, Strong Earthquake Motion and Site Conditions: Hollywood, Bull . Sei sm. Soc. of America , Vol . 60, No. 4,1970, pp. 1271-1289 i
g I
I 1
C-19 l
Y_______--_-
i I
v:a TABLE 1. . MAXIMUM GROUND MOTIONS AND SPECTRAL BOUNDS I
J Maximum Values ,
I Acceleration, g Small Reactor Plant Vel, in/sec Displ, in Structs. Bldg. Complex All All l l
0.75 0.6 0.5 24 8 Ground l 2.1 1.9 j Spect. Amplif. 2.4 2.4 2.4
)
7% Damping Spect. Bounds 1.8 1.4 1.2 50 15
)
l C-20
o n
\ s6 re0 o
\
c%
oAM^
/
o aS8
- t
- s o6oA s
_ ' p c
_ 2 y
6 6
/ c n
e m6 u
\ i q
/mMd s o
F e
r oA66o z
r6DwXa
_ i.
6C 6o
\ s o
a eh'6o6o
\ z
_ o ' d z
gi i~
o o
s
/
6\ \
/ =l .
r 0
5
\
/M^
2
/ /
'SW TwN
\ _
N o
' t 9
- , /
\ \ \
/ h3 s M ,
\ 6o 2
s p
i
/d^ // /N /y c
n e
s \ \ u N q
/v i
o,/ / e r
F
%'N
' \ \ s o
/
( />
\
/
/
/P
$~ Xw g
> 9 o N? / > l
/s N 5 0
0
~
( ~
d x
\
JmN
' 8 2
0 a .
m
o o
N'x\ o 6'Ia=2" i
a o
s o
5 4y/ M%m/
80 ,\
\ o s
i
^
Gy/ /6 (
666. A 2
s p
c y
c n
e
\ u q
v/
i S e f \ 6 \ s a
r F
9, 6/
%3/6tz/
2 a
g po 6D
%9(
\ \ s o
a
~
o -
6
~
o m\
' - 8 2
0
0 0
/1
\ k .\ 05 0h Oo Nk
" i W^/b6^
r h
\ 0 2
/ / /
i^ O $o OMy\
_ : t
/ b
_ \ { \ 5
/
4\d('x
^
_ s p
c
_ \
&^\O5A\
i2
/
/ /
/ y
_ c n
Y\
_ e u
_ 1 q
% / e b6'
_ r F
'x
\ N N \5G
/
hoy-( /\2 S
/ / / ' - /G
\10 h(A\OMm\Y'
%/
b N
_ N N \50
/a o Do /D
_ N2O
~ - d
~
d! i-e"
0 0
/ # 2 y
/sN/' /'\ ./'\
n /A,/ f
\ \ '
N -
o o
I
/ s x x /\ 'X '
g> #
\ \ \ / N^ s'4 \
ogtd0 'd0 il O.
l ,
s e
',,/g
/ ; = =
0 O
N X \
\'i
'; r
\
rr=/ '=g-0 NT
/A,/\ / s /k.
2 n
, .f-
, i 'o. \ o
'g 'x' i
\
g/ /' / N N
\
\
5 v / s\ .[i o,(\.' . k' -
_. /
,4 2
n N/ ,- '
K
\ /A,/,/A/'(s_$f
- )
\ .\
/
j
_ x, /_
'q,' '/,\
o',
i e
/\7 /-3 F
x f d f
' / \f\ N \ % N \ s.o 4
/
/ '
Q, .
/
_ \ \ 2 o
/)/ Y\/ /o, F
N-
,\ \ f\ /\
/ '
c.y/ /^ /
\ \ \
/
\'
j x ( s!,[ /-
\'j / !
s R
i.
o s
o.
N/ ' -
- o
.N
\
0 2
o, N
/
/GN'/\[/
\
3 a
\
2 0
i.0 o
2 0
$N1
- lIl)ll 6
1
. 0 0 ,
0
/ /\ j / -
4,N 2 2
l y
O,
\ \ \ \ \ ,\ /p\ 0 0
8 0
/ / / \ -
N/
1 0G
/
\ \ \ / S
/\/
N 6I
,N
- 0. P y
N f -
a 0
/ i a
5 0,M
'\ ,
/j O
r [r
{
- _V N7' a'
\
\ 4 0 D 0 L A
- ,A
\ -
2 0IC 0
2
/ \ / / \/ g fx /'s /
\ x,
\
k 0,. T
/
\ j s
\
N/p\ 0R I
,/ 2 o
t
=C
/ N s y, rT
\ x,
\
\
., \
,N/
/ '
\5 SE N
\ ( NCR x x'y ' '
\ /, \ T E
/
/ '
y\ \
/
g \
o j
/
s_
f s
[ [_.' \.
N/
2 s
p c
y M
G0 2 5 P
'K N
\ c 7 p \- N u7 \ '
o j'
, 'v/k n e
u q
e 1 G 1
2I S N
/ h g N /, / r U
/\ x, s
F 6
'\ /, \ /m /
,/ N ,N \
D
\ \ /N !\ - 5 AE N
/ [ _
/
- 0 I T
[ BU gN \ ' '
/ MP
\y's
/
\
/ /
\,
, X
\ / g/ 0 l 2
AC P
x,
~.
/ _
g ,M U
\ /
\ /' \ , .' . e, N
. 1 AR NT j
0 y' / N _
\ / f ' ' /N / OC
/, \ ! \ 17\ ,
/
j
/ [ j 4 '
- ji
/s'- N5 0
y'-
0
/ \
- v
^
s
/ - : 4
, \ -
v / G I
\ \ / ,
'+
/ 2 F 0 ,
5 ,0,0
~ 2 0 n c E >
n l 1 !
9 8 N'x 'x'XX'xx'X'yl
,- fe
'N s
,/ T
/ \
/ \ '
/
/
Js b
\x/r'
,/
I
\
2 8 3' i
N/ /'
//./
'bh/ R
\ , - /
/ / \
9 ,
l _
/ o
/ N, 'N .*'
s \ \ /\ \ /\ \ f3 E T NY - / / / o N
- xA'r'x I '
h 5 \ s?/
/
g' W i
- h. N / \ / in
- i
$5b N, n? $
D.
W /'
c
[ \ \
r
/\ W \ /
\ , \ d
~ st I
/ / / / N/ ? A / -
sox'X'xX'xO6id' /
"; E!
N m.
- I
/ / , &
c
('<X-X'XX X X'O:
o o o e o o o e ~d a
!;l f f i n i O c3 - d
?
33$/N! 'U13013A C-27 L_--_--__-____-_-___
o o
^\n Nb^/
i
/,
\^ \ \os
\
> ^/, {, D6\ $
0
/(X^\N b^\
2
/ / \ /
/
\ o b^\
s
/
\O /
\ N N \s
/ /
s h
S
)<,[
o\
\g
/
/5 2 Owoh
^
N i
/[9,O^
X/\
/
2 M'^/
=
n i
/ o g u^x^li N it c e n p s
[=1ic o F,
'f o N ' \ sa t
o ,
s s la s o '
O^c E L
\ ' \ ' z N
/WS O'\
)i
/O
, O%\\
/a
\ %
8 I
0 0
\b
/ N/ /
- \%\/\
/
\
/
/1
\0 5 hsh/ D
- /
w
\ 0
/ / / / /2
\^/ \/'s \d k \ \ 0
\b /
1
/
\ k \ \
N/
N5
\ ]/ O o,
\ \ 2
' / / //
nM /\[,
u C
\ \
\]\d \Y'/
I 7 %/
g a .o < "
\ \ '
e N5Q 4
) ^
~
9
/
N^(
/
> \ ON//
N
/O 2
/k/ A/\ \/
O \ \ b I.
g2 7
. l l
- :g<
u; .h (3 .t:
c; _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
14 9' 6
- t i
D e M &i a a J g i l 9'0* I gj 4i
- lkl h' ill is ll l'll gea ~
SECTION A A $(CTION 0 8 ACCELEROGRAPH (ROOF)
/ Aq L , . . .
\ACCELEROGRAPM Ad (GROUNO) 112'O* 217'6" TYPtCAL FLOOR PLAN l t O 10 0 SCALE iN FEET FIG. 8 PLAN AND ELEVATION OF BUILDING 4
1 0-30 ;
i I
' __ _-_-__________ O
' 8 .
SHEAR wave %ELOCfTY, DENSITY. POUNOS FEET PER SECOND PER CUSIC FOOT 0 4000 6000 42000 120 140 16 0 0- , , , ,,,.
fw Ef 3E
" ~
ti5 bd kg 28 =
2000 c5 bE 2' $w ow w $ g gde' 25 5e sa g #
0 gk 5
g 4MO -
E 8 . . 5 E
0
$"9 $
6000 - -
g 3
4 6 l"
8l- urce: Carder,19G4.
G-31 L. . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
j
- kk k?Y-Yi
- ?b$
- in NX98
/ A "T\ X' ;\f,4X /\ 'xh\//Y /\ M //X /
/b)hk/b/\ /)'N/b/\,) /b
\
4 5
W>69W&%66
- ' A NX X4FN/WM s(J /' A N M N 'XNN/Ak /\ YN b f/ _^ / / ! NN\//X /
X/ /N k /NNS)\/Y / N N NN/\
/ / .
- RI<bf@f>MO68 g
N LAA N
'%//X'/\
X Y/ AA wo#
Y'NN//'x' /* , MNN#
Y/ A l
/ /\/bN / xbhhk/ '
I b [ N $$ b ) $$d 4
M) MWSMx9 d Period , see FIG.10 SAN FERNANDO EARTHQUAKE, FEB. 9,1971 - 0600 PST HOLLYWOOD STORAGE BASEMENT AND P.E. LOT, COMPONENT EAST , DAMPING VALUE 2 % OF CRITICAL C-32
, _ _ _ __----- o
" / -- e
'* %V'>W>6(&V %//'X N x+- %,x / fx/ ,x x x / /N A N >'
^$$/ A i b- KN v',o^X /\ /\\//'x' /N 'X /
/\Nk/k/ N NN/\/ , /\
u / Y
'*X NX 4 X/ /WtKLN%l WV MA NV "
X/ /N
.s X N/\N//N JLY YN1,.;.5/ / 1x %/fX'/
$ /\Nk)b/\ / \/ x / 3
$ YW/hb$
- hb "8
%'WikV>M A NM/ %'/ AA N X N yog//^X'/\ \/\X//^X' f' '/\\# \'
x' /
(l'k AA w#
W' M Y/
A
/7 '/ k/ '
N/ N NN/k/ ^
N )/hk,h N
/ / s ,
Period , see FIG.Il SAN FERNANDO EARTHQUAKE, FEB. 9,1971 - 0600 PST HOLLYWOOD STORAGE BASEMENT AND P.E. LOT, COMPONENT SOUTH, DAMPlNG. VALUE 2% OF CRITICAL
~
C-33
o a
\
/
6C o o
u\O6D^x
'6h^ 6D
)
o s
i
\^n66oo
\
/
O' % 0 2
y\O6,2;c%C
/b
\ t s&C o
s
\
x\ /OMdoo6c a x
bC6mMD
\ _
w i e
- \ d a F
oDN6o('>6
\ \O66^ 6G
/
a
\ s p\b66^x6C o
Oo6~ '
i"'"
sod
o o
z
\
\ o o
i haAh^>6 tn6Dc6/Y 4 o 0
\ doA6oA r 0
Bo 2
b tcMim o
D^> ,
S/ \bn s
\ 6o doO hc a D c /O
\ % dom Dn 8C^> e
\
Oiqs a
6oN6o('> %,
2
\(bc5DcM/[/o o s
\
/ba
\ s o
D^>6ds<M
\
~6<>?d
~
i'
,Oa o
,6 2
0 r
/ / / 2 8^\
\
N/
\ \
/
\ 52 91 1
1 O.
\ 9A/ N \
/
o "5h N
/
2 8 Y 0 L0 U
J 4 E0
\ K0
\ ' A ,
/ / / / U0 6a\ N p,
\ \ Q=
H TR T A
E 6g/'
L
\ k \ \ \ YA TIC
> / NT UI _
(
s p O R c CC
\ , F
/ c RN O y
/ n E%
\ \
%/
e u
q e
r K
5 A^\ \ \ \ \
F TG ON LIP n$
/ / E M P. D A E
\ N G ,
/ / / / / A RT
- OS TA N
%x \ \ SE C .
I
/ / E D TS g\
ON
\ \ \ O E6
- ' / WN1 Y OO
' / LP
(
x 3
o N
LMD OON HCA 4
1
$ ~s G.
I F
?a
N/
' N /
/ / /' /
6 ( 2 ,
52
\
\
/
/\ \ 91 1
,O.
9 '
8
\/ 1 2 8
^ %80 0 Y 0
/>[ \ \ _
\ \ \ := L0
/ :r U ,
^ < O \
/
J E0 K0 A
4
/
\ 6t 'm n
e /
C/ M/\[d /
\ .
U0 Q
H=
T R T X b\
8 9 /
A 6
Ne
' E L
r
\ YC A
> s
\K
,< /.h
\ e\
/
s p
c TI NT UI OR CC N \ F W/^x /' N// ' \d/
s/ c RN O y
n
~
e u E%
K
&\ q e ,5
/ %,/ r F TG de
' ON
\' \ \^' \ / %" \ LIP
/ / E .M q
/'
\
/
Q/ \
k P. D E
G AH A
%o'D*
/ /
( \
^/\ \ b/ RT OU TO .
f r S SC p
r
/> / ') /
D TS E
\f ^
x \ ON
\ /\ \ \ \ O E6 x ;/ / WN1 -
Y OO Q
' ' / LP
( X\ 3 g "
\
g o %
U 2
LMD OON HCA 5
1 a ~
E -
- G I
F j
a$
EllL
o o
\b
/ \ i A \S\ <
q#a
\
Q
/s o
^
x/
a
'ED \ 0
^ /^/\
/ / 2 O \ o
^ /
i
\
/
\ b \
/
5 N<sx^>
/^
/
/
9' Of \
/
2
+n -\ )
- /O" 0/
N i
g 9 /
\^> \
/
\ O f'
/
s a
^<
i ( 'O
\
\ z
^
~'
///
/\ -
/O2
\
/ / o.
h O
0
, , ?: .
10 i 1
5 2
/
[ . -)
ff 3
, 1 A % .
[ [ \ 0.75g 0.5 -
\
_8_ / \_ _ _ _ _ . _ _0.d.9_ _ l C
..H osg ri -7 % Damping 0.2 .-
1 - j al -
1 005 l
i 0.02 ODI O,1 02 05 1 2 5 10 20 50 10 0 Frequency , cps F IG.17 RECOMMENDED " DESIGN" SPECTRA,7 % DAMPlNG, COMPARED WITH "HOSGRI" AND DDE SPECTR A C-39 L
6 \ \ /6 o o
i
\ 6 \ '
- ss o
\ ' e^ o s
M a
/
Q io
'M k / s
,\ o s p
c Wr a
/^
/ y c
n e
\ u q
^
i e
r F
N \ ' \ s a
^
/
os 2
a
\ >
d'z
\ s 6o s o
( \ '
oad z
o a -
n
0 D f/ D e 6 x
,i 0 2
\ ^/\0 0 1
\ \ \0 0/)
fa del 6 os ^
5 g
\ {0 Df/ @c (s 'A/^/2 L < - \0
\ D h N U \/1 S$(g\ /\ 5 65 o > /
N(/
/c n 2
s p
c y
$f/ 'N e
u 6v>?^\^\ 1
\ q B
e d A3\}\5 r
F s
\
x d<&y Q
MxY /
6a\ /
\la 2
Q O^x6 d\ D&6'g\Q2
/
9/ \]\5 0 G
~
6 '
0 k!~ " "
' .1 . . a i
TABLE 3. SPECTRUM AMPLIFICATION FACTORS FOR HORIZONTAL ELASTIC RESPONSE i
Damping. One Sigma (84,1%) Median
% Critical A V D A y 0 3.% 3.04 3.68 2.59 2.01 f.5 f1038 3.38 2.73 3.21 2.31 1.82 2 3.66 2 92 2.42 2.74 2.03 1~63 3 3.24 2.64 2.24 2.46 1.86 l'52 5 2.71 2.30 2.01 2.12 1 65 l jo *9 l- 1. 1. 1.2 1.26 1.37 1.38 1.17 i.08 1.01 i
1 i
0 C-42 l
.