NRC-95-4478, Forwards Draft Rev 4 of Section 3.7 of AP600 Ssar for Discussion at Meeting on Seismic & Structural Issues During Wk of 950612-16

Forwards Draft Rev 4 of Section 3.7 of AP600 Ssar for Discussion at Meeting on Seismic & Structural Issues During Wk of 950612-16

ML20085D047
Person / Time
Site:	05200003
Issue date:	06/02/1995
From:	Liparulo N WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:	Quay T NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NTD-NRC-95-4478, NUDOCS 9506160125
Download: ML20085D047 (102)

Text

,

/ \

( )

\

', _l/

Westinghouse Energy Systems Ba 355 Electric Corporation P"*'8 P"""*""' 15230 0355 NTD-NRC-95-4478 DCIVNRC0338 Docket No.: STN-52-003 June 2,1995 Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION: MR. T. R. QUAY SUl! JECT: SSAR SECTION 3.7

Dear Mr. Quay:

linclosed is a preliminary copy of Section 3.7 of the AP600 SSAR text and revised tab!cs and figures.

It is provided as a preliminary copy for discussion at the meeting on seismic and structural issues during the week of June 12-16, 1995.

This section will be included in a future revision of the SSAR.

If you have any questions, please contact lirian A. McIntyre (412) 374-4334.

Sincerely, px /#7 ic N. J. Liparulo. Manager Nuclear Safety Regulatory and Licensing Activities

/nja Enclosure cc: T. Cheng NRC Q. Ilossain LLNL C. Costantino CCNY N. Tsai NCT Engineering

13. McIntyre Westinghouse _

K. Gross llechtel 0

9506160125 950602 run PDR ADOCK 05200003 A PDR k J

3. Design of Structures, Componerts, Eq:1pment, and Systems 3.7 Seismic Design Plant structures, systems, and components important to safety are required by General Design Criterion (GDC) 2 of Appendix A of 10 CFR 50 to be designed to withstand the effects of earthquakes without loss of capability to perform their safety functions.

Each plant stmeture, system, equipment, and component is classified in an applicable seismic category depending on its function. A three-level seismic classification system is used for the AP600: seismic Category 1, seismic Category II, and nonseismic. The definitions of the seismic classifications and a seismic classifications listing of stmetures, systems, equipment, and components are presented in Section 3.2.

Seismic design of the AP600 seismic Categories I and 11 structures, systems, equipment, and components is based on the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). The safe shutdown earthquake is defined as the maximum potential vibratory ground motion at the generic plant site as identified in Section 2.5.

The operating basis carthquake (OBE) has been eliminated as a design requirement for the AP600. Low-level seismic effects are included in the design of cenain equipment potentially sensitive to a number of such events based on a percentage of the responses calculated for the safe shutdown earthquake. Criteria for evaluating the need to shut down the plant following an eanhquake are established using the cumulative absolute velocity approach according to EPRI Repon NP-5930 (Reference 1) and EPRI Report TR-100082 (Reference 17).

Seismic Category I structures, systems, and components are designed to withstand the effects of the safe shutdown earthquake event and to maintain the specified design functions. Seismic Category 11 and nonseismic structures are designed or physically arranged (or both) so that the safe shutdown earthquake could not cause unacceptable structural interaction with or failure of seismic Category I structures, systems, and components.

3.7.1 Seismic Input The geologic and seismologic considerations of the ger.eric plant site are discussed in Section 2.5.

The peak ground acceleration of t' e n safe shutdown eanhquake has been established as 0.30g.

The vertical peak ground acceleration is cc: servatively assumed to equal the horizontal value of 0.30g as discussed in Section 2.5.

Draft Revision: 4

[ We5tingh0dSe 3.7-1 June 2,1995

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipm:nt, end Syst:ms f

d i L- '

3.7.1.1 Design Response Spectra l

The AP600 design response spectra of the safe shutdown earthquake are provided in Figures l 3.7.1-1 and 3.7.1-2 for the horizontal and the vertical components, respectively.

The horizontal design response spectra for the AP600 plant are developed, using the l Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra as the base and several evaluations to investigate the high frequency amplification effects. These evaluations included:

1) Comparison of Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra with the spectra predicted by recent eastern U.S. spectral velocity attenuation relations (References 23,24,25, and 26) using l a suite of magnitudes and distances giving a 0.3 g peak acceleration, d

2) Comparison of Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra with the 10 annual probability uniform l hazard spectra developed for eastern U.S. nuclear power plants by both Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Reference 27) and Electric Power Research Institute (Reference 28), and

3) Comparison of Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra with the spectra of 79 additional old and newer components of strong earthquake time histories not considered in the original derivation of Regulatory Guide 1.60.

Based on the above described evaluations, it is concluded that the eastem U.S. seismic data exceed Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra by a modest amount in the 15 to 33 hertz frequency range when derived either from published attenuation relations or from the 10" annual probability of exceedance uniform hazard spectra at eastern U.S. sites. This conclusion is consistent with findings of other investigators that eastern North American earthquakes have more energy at high frequencies than western earthquakes. Exceedance of Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra at the high frequency range, therefore, would be expected since Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra are based primarily on western U.S. earthquakes. The evaluation shows that, at 25 hertz (approximately in the middle rf the range of high frequencies being considered, and a frequency for which spectral ampStudes are explicitly evaluated) the mean-plus-one-standard-deviation spectral amplitudes for 5 percent damping range from about 2.1 to 4 cm/see and average 2.7 cm/sec. Whereas, the Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectral amplitude at the same frequency and damping value equal just over 2 cm/sec.

It is concluded, therefore, that an appropriate augmented 5 percent damping horizontal design velocity response spectrum for the AP500 project is one with spectral amplitudes equal to the Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectrum at control frequencies 0.25,2.5,9 and 33 hertz augmented by an additional control frequency at 25 hertz with an amplitude equal to 3 cm/sec. This spectral amplitude equals 1.3 times the Regulatory Guide 1.60 amplitude at the same frequency. The additional control point's spectral amplitude of other damping values were determined by increasing the Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectral amplitude by 30 percent.

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-2 W Westinghouse

3. Design of Structures, Componexts, Eq:1pme t, cnd Systems The AP600 design vertical response spectrum is, rimilarly, based on the Regulatory Guide 1.60 vertical spectra at lower frequencies but is augmented at the higher frequencies.

The AP600 design response spectra's relative values of spectrum amplification factors for control points are presented in Table 3.7.1-3.

The design response spectra are applied at the finished grade in the free field.

3.7.1.2 Design Time History A " single" set of three mutually onhogonal, statistically independent, synthetic acceleration time histories is used as the input in the dynamic analysis of seismic Category I structures.

The synthetic time histories were generated by modifying a set of actual recorded "TAFT" earthquake time histories. The design time histories include a total time duration equal to 20 seconds and a corresponding stationary phase, strong motion duration greater than 6 seconds. The acceleration, velocity, and displacement time-history plots for the three orthogonal earthquake components, "Hi," "H2," and "V", are presented in Figures 3.7.1-3, 3.7.1-4, and 3.7.1-5. Design horizontal time history, H1, is applied in the north-south (Global X or 1) direction; design horizontal time history, H2, is applied in the east-west (global Y or

2) direction; and design vertical time history is applied in the venical (global Z or 3) direction. The cross-correlation coefficients between the three components of the design time histories are as follows:

pe = 0.05, pu = 0.043, ar 1 pn = 0.140 where 1,2,3 are the three global directions.

Since the three coefficients are less than 0.16 as recommended in Reference 30, which was referenced by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92, Revision 1, it is concluded that these three components are statistically independent. The design time histories are applied at the finished grade in the free field.

The ground motion time histories (H1, H2, and V) are generated with time step size of 0.010 second for applications in soil structure interaction analyses. For applications in the fixed-base mode superposition time-history analyses, the time step size is reduced to 0.005 second by linear interpolation. The cutoff frequency used in the horizontal and vertical seismic analysis of the nuclear island for the hard rock site is 34 hertz. The cutoff frequencies used in the soil structure interaction analyses are 33 hertz for the soft rock site, and 15 hertz and 21 hertz for the soft-to-medium stiff soil site in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively. The maximum " cut-off" frequency for both the soil structure interaction analyses and the fixed-base analyses is well within the Nyquist frequency limit.

The comparison plots of the acceleration response spectra of the time histories versus the design response spectra for 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 percent critical damping are shown in Figures 3.7.1-6, 3.7.1-7, and 3.7.1-8. The SRP 3.7.1, Table 3.7.1-1, provision of frequency intervals is used in the computation of these response spectra.

Draft Revision: 4

[ WB5tirigh0VSe 3.7-3 June 2,1995

.______ \

i 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, end Systems In SRP 3.7.1 the NRC introduced the requirement of minimum power spectral density to prevent the design ground acceleration time histories from having a deficiency of power over any frequency range. SRP 3.7.1, Revision 2, specifies that the use of a single time history is justified by satisfying a target power spectral density (PSD) requirement in addition to the design response spectra enveloping requirements. Furthermore,it specifies that when spectra  ;

other than Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra are used, a compatible PSD shall be developed using i procedures outlined in NUREG/CR-5347 (Reference 29).

The NUREG/CR-5347 procedures involve ad hoe hybridization of two earlier PSD envelopes.

Since the modification to the RG 1.60 design spectra adopted for AP600 (see subsection 3.7.1.1) is relatively small (compared to the uncertainty in the fit to RG 1.60 of PSD-compatible time histories referenced in NUREG/CR-5347) and occurs only in the frequency range between 9 to 33 hertz, a project-specific PSD is developed using a slightly different hybridization for the higher frequencies.

l Since the original RG 1.60 spectrum and the project-specific modified RG 1.60 spectrum are identical for frequencies less than 9 hertz, no modification to the PSD is done in this frequency range. At frequencies above 9 hertz, the third and the fourth legs of the PSD are slightly modified as follows:

• The frequency at which the design response spectrum inflected towards a 1.0 amplification factor at 33 hertz takes place at 25 hertz in the AP600 spectrum rather than at 9 hertz as in the RG 1.60 spectrum. The dird leg of the PSD, therefore, is I extended to about 25 hertz rather than 16 hertz.

The lead coefficient to the fourth leg of the PSD is changed to connect with the extended third leg.

The AP600 augmented PSD, anchored to 0.3 g, is as follows:

So (0 = 58.5 (f/2.5)a2 n2 /sec3 , f 5 2.5 hertz So(0 = 58.5 (2.5/O" in 2/sec', 2.5 hertz $ f 5 9 hertz So (0 = 5.832 (9/O' in'/sec8 , 9 hertz s f $25 hotz So(O = 0.27 (25/O' in2 /sec', 25 hertz 5 f The AP600 Minimum Power Spectral Density (PSD) is presented in Figure 3.7.1-9. This AP600 target PSD is compatible with the AP600 horizontal design response spectra and envelops a target PSD compatible with the AP600 vertical design response spectra. This AP600 target PSD, therefore, is conservatively applied to the vertical response spectra.

The comparisen plots of the power spectral density curve of the AP600 acceleration time histories versus the target power spectral density curve are presented in Figures 3.7.1-10, 3.7.1-11, and 3.7.1-12. The PSD functions of the design time histories are calculated at Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-4 [ Westkigttouse

We

3. Design of Struct::res, Compone ts, Equipm:nt, and Systems WR -

uniform frequency steps of 0.0489 hertz. The PSDs presented in Figures 3.7.1-10 through 3.7.1-12 are the averaged PSD obtained over a moving frequency band of 220 percent centered at each frequency. The PSD amplitude at frequency (f) has the averaged PSD amplitude between the frequency range of 0.8 f and 1.2 f as stated in appendix A of Revision .

2 of SRP 3.7.1.

3.7.1.3 Critical Damping Values Energy dissipation within a structural system is represented by equivalent viscous dampers in the mathematical model. The damping coefficients used are based on the material, load conditions, and type of construction used in the structural system. The safe shutdown eanhquake damping values used in the dynamic analysis are presented in Table 3.7.1-1. The damping values are based on Regulatory Guide 1.61, ASCE Standard 4-86 (Reference 3), and 5 percent damping for piping, except for the damping values of the primary coolant loop piping, which is based on Reference 22 and conduits, cable trays and their related suppons.

The damping values for conduits, cable trays and their related supports are shown in Table 3.7.1-1 and Figure 3.7.1-13. The damping value of conduit, empty cable trays, and their related supports is similar to that of a bolted structure, namely 7 percent of critical. The damping value of filled cable trays and supports increases with increased cable fill and level of seismic excitation. The damping value for cable trays and suppons is based on test results (Reference 19).

For structures or components composed of different material types, the composite modal damping is calculated using the strain energy method. The strain energy dependent modal damping values are computed based on Reference 20. The modal damping values equal:

IC,l'0,I K,},f$ I En *E 4i ( $,}'[ K,J( Q,)

where:

= ratio of critical damping for mode n nc = number of elements

( $, ) = mode n (eigenvector)

[ K, ], = stiffness matrix of element i

, = ratio of critical damping associated with element i

[ K, ] = total system stiffness matrix Draft Revision: 4

[ Westingt10USe 3.7-5 June 2,1995

3. Design of Structur:s, Components, Equipm:nt, rnd Systems Strain-dependent damping values are used for the foundation material in accordance with Referetxe 5 and 6 for rock sites and Reference 33 for soil sites. The strain-dependent damping curves for the foundation materials are presented in Figures 3.7.1-14 and 3.7.1-15 for rock material and soil material, respectively. The strain-dependent soil material damping is limited to 15 percent of critical damping.

3.7.1.4 Supporting Media for Seismic Category I Structures The seismic design basis for the AP600 is to provide design coverage for as many plant sites as practical. For the design of seismic Category I structures, a set of four design soil profiles of various shear wave velocities is established in Appendices 2A and 28. The four design soil profiles include a hard rock site, a soft rock site, an upper bound soft-to-medium stiff soil site and a soft-to-medium soil site. The shear wave velocity profiles and related governing parameters of the three sites considered are the following:

• For the hard rock site, an upper bound case for firm sites using fixed base seismic analysis

• For the soft rock site, a shear wave velocity of 2400 feet per second at the ground surface, increasing linearly to 3200 feet per second at a depth of 240 feet, and base rock at the depth of 120 feet

• For the soft-to-medium soil site, a shear wave velocity of 1000 feet per second at ground surface, increasing parabolically to 2400 feet per second at 240 feet, base rock at the depth of 120 feet, and ground water at grade level.

• For the upper bound soft-to-medium soil site, a shear wave velocity of 1414 feet per second at ground surface, increasing parabolically to 3394 feet per second at 240 feet, base rock at the depth of 120 feet, and ground water at grade level. The initial soil shear modulus profile is twice that of the soft-to-medium soil site.

The strain-dependent shear modulus cutves for the foundation materials, together with the corresponding damping curves, are shown in Figures 3.7.1-14 and 3.7.1-15 for rock material and soil material, respectively. The shear wave velocity profile for the design soil profiles, with variation of depth to base rock, is shown in Figure 3.7.1-17.

The AP600 nuclear island consists of three seismic Category I structures founded on a common basemat. The three structures that make up the nuclear island are the coupled auxiliary and shield buildings, the steel containment vessel, and the containment internal structures. The nuclear island is shown in Figure 3.7.1-16. The foundation embedment depth, foundation size, and total height of the seismic Category I structures are presented in Table 3.7.1-2.

A coupled nuclear island stick model and design soil profile finite element models are used in the three-dimensional soil-structure interaction analysis described in subsection 3.7.2.4.

. Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-6 W-Westinghouse .

l

%~

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipmint, cnd Systems 9

3.7.2 Scismic System Analysis 1

Seismic Category I structures, systems, and components are classified according to Regulatory Guide 1.29. Seismic Category I building structures of AP600 consist of the containment building (the steel containment vessel and the containment internal structures), the shield building, and the auxiliary building. These structures are founded on a common basemat and are collectively known as the nuclear island or nuclear island structures. Key dimensions, such as thickness of the basemat, floor slabs, roofs and walls, of the seismic Category I building structures are shown in Figure 3.7.2-28.

Seismic systems are defined, according to SRP 3.7.2,Section II.3.a, as the seismic Category I structures that are considered in conjunction with their foundation and supporting media to form a soil-structure interaction model. The following subsections describe the seismic analyses performed for the nuclear island. Other seismic Category I stmetures, systems, equipment, and components not designated as seismic systems (that is, heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems; electrical cable trays: piping systems) are designated as seismic subsystems. The analysis of seismic subsystems is presented in subsection 3.7.3.

Seismic Category I building structures are on the nuclear island. Other building structures are classified nonseismic or seismic Category II. Nonseismic structures are analyzed and designed ,

for seismic loads according to the Uniform Building Code (Reference 2) requirements for Zone 2A. Seismic Category II building structures are designed for the safe shutdown earthquake using the same methods as are used for seismic Category I structures. The acceptance criteria are based on ACI 349 for concrete structures and on AISC N690 for steel structures. The seismic Category II building structures are constructed to the same requirements as the nonseismic building structures, ACI 318 for concrete structures and AISC-S355 for steel structures.

Separate seismic analyses are performed for the nuclear island, one for each of the four design soil profiles defined in subsection 3.7.1.4. The analyses generate one set of in-stmeture responses for each of the design soil profiles. The four sets of in-structure seismic responses are enveloped to obtain the seismic design envelope (design member forces, nodal accelerations, nodal displacements, and floor response spectra) used in the design and analysis of seismic Category I structures, components, and seismic subsystems.

Table 3.7.2-14 summarizes the types of models and analysis methods that are used in the seismic analyses of the nuclear island. It also summarizes the type of results that are obtained  ;

and where they are used in the design.

3.7.2.1 Seismic Analysis Methods ,

Seismic analyses of the nuclear island are performed in conformance with the criteria .ithin SRP 3.7.2.

Seismic analyses, using the response spectrum method, the mode superposition time-history method, and the complex frequency response analysis method, are performed for the SSE to Draft Revision: 4 ,

June 2,1995

[ W85tillgl10USe 3.7-7 l l

4 l

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipmint, and Systems determine the seismic force distribution for use in the design of the nuclear island structures,

(

and to develop in-structure seismic responses (accelerations, displacements, and floor response spectra) for use in the analysis and design of seismic subsystems.

3.7.2.1.1 Response Spectrum Analysis l Response spectrum analyses, using computer program BSAP (Reference 7), are performed to obtain the seismic forces and moments required for the structural design of the auxiliary building, the shield building, and the containment internal structures on the nuclear island.

The response spectrum analyses consider modes up to 33 hertz using the double sum modal '

combination method, and consider high frequency responses using the procedure given in Appendix A to SRP 3.7.2, Revision 2.

The analyses are performed using the three-dimensional, finite element models of the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings and the containment internal structures developed and discussed in subsection 3.7.2.3. Figure 3.7.2-1 shows the finite element model of the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings without the shield building roof stick model. The finite element model of the containment internal stmetures is shown in Figure 3.7.2-2. In addition, two typical wall sections of the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings are presented in Figure 3.7.2-3. l Response spectrum analyses are performed only for the hard rock site where the soil-structure interaction effect is negligible, as described in Appendix 2B. Therefore, the response spectrum analyses are performed using the fixed-base, three-dimensional, finite element models. The in-plane forces obtained from the analyses are used for the design of floors and walls.

A comparison of the member forces and moments obtained in the three-dimensional analyses of the lumped-mass stick models, Tables 3.7.2-11 through 3.7.2-13, shows that the hard rock profile does not always govern design of the nuclear island structures. In cases where other design soil profiles give higher element forces than the hard rock profile, the in-plane forces obtained from the response spectrum analyses of the finite element models for the hard rock site are increased by a scaling factor. The scaling factor, at a given plant elevation, is equal to the ratio of the largest three-dimensional stick model element force over the three-dimensional stick model element force for the hard rock profile.

3.7.2.1.2 Time-flistory Analysis and Complex Frequency Response Analysis Mode superposition time-history analyses using computer program BSAP and complex frequency response analysis using computer program SASSI (Reference 8) are performed to obtain the in-structure seismic response (accelerations, displacements, and floor response spectra) needed in the analysis and design of seismic subsystems.

The three-dimensional, lumped-mass stick models of the nuclear island structures developed as described in subsection 3.7.2.3 are used in conjunction with the design soil profiles presented in subsection 3.7.1 A to obtain the in-structure responses. The lumped-mass stick models of the nuclear island structures are presented in Figure 3.7.2-4 for the coupled shield Dra rt Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-8 { Westilighouse

1

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, cnd Systems i

i and auxiliary buildings, in Figure 3.7.2-5 for the steel containment vessel, in Figure 3.7.2-6 for the containment internal structures, and in Figure 3.7.2-7 for the reactor coolant loop model. The individual building lumped-mass stick models are interconnected with rigid linking elements to form the overall dynamic model of the nuclear island. The nuclear island l basemat and the periphery walls of the embedded ponion of the nuclear island are represented by a three-dimensional, finite element model, as shown in Figure 3.7.2-8.  ;

For the hard rock site the soil-structure interaction effect is negligible, as described in Appendix 2B. Therefore, for the hard rock site, the nuctor island is analyzed as a fixed-base structure, using computer program BSAP without the foundation media. The three components of earthquake (two horizontal and one vertical time histories) are applied simultaneously in the analysis.

For the remaining design soil profiles, the three-dimensional, nuclear island stick model is coupled with the foundation media to form a soil-structure interaction model to account for the effects of embedment and foundation rocking, torsion, and translation The seismic soil-structure interaction analysis of the coupled nuclear island and soil foundation model is performed using computer program SASSI. The soil-structure interaction analyses are performed with the three statistically independent acceleration time histories of earthquake applied separately. The total seismic response is then obtained by combining the responses of the three components of earthquake algebraically in each time step. Subsection 3.7.2.4 provides details of the soil-stmeture interaction analysis.

Seismic responses of the nuclear island structures for the various design soil profiles are enveloped and the resulting response spectra are used in the design and analysis for most of the seismic subsystems. Certain subsystcms, as described in subsection 3.7.3.6, are analyzed using the time histories obtained from a series of soil-specific analyses for the design soil profiles presented in subsection 3.7.1.4.

3.7.2.2 Natural Frequencies and Response Loads Modal analyses are performed for the lumped-mass stick models of the seismic Category I structures on the nuclear island developed in subsection 3.7.2.3. Table 3.7.2-1 summarizes the modal properties of the stick model representing the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings. Table 3.7.2-2 shows the modal properties of the steel containment vessel.

Table 3.7.2-3 shows the modal properties for both the containment internal structures without the reactor coolant loop stick model (sheet 1) and the coupled containment Mternal structures and reactor coolant loop stick model (sheets 2 and 3). Table 3.7.2-4 shows the modal properties of the overall stick model of the nuclear island.

The seismic analysis of the nuclear island considers 74 vibration modes, up to the frequency limit of 34 hertz, shown in Table 3.7.2-4. The total cumulative mass panicipating in the seismic response constitute 90,90, and 83 percent of the total mass, excluding the building mass within the embedded portion of the nuclear island.

. 1 Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7 9 June 2,1995

s fP] - 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipm:nt, and Systems Table 3.7.2-3, sheet 1, demonstrates the large stiffness of the containment internal structures.

The table shows, for frequencies up to 33 hertz, a total cumulative mass of 42 percent in the north-south direction, 39 percent in the east-west direction, and negligible amount in the <

vertical direction. For frequencies up to 60 hertz, the table shows the total cumulative mass increased to 99,99 and 43 percent in the three respective directions. Because of the high frequency modal participation, the seismic force and moment responses of the containment

]

internal structures are determined from a response spectrum analysis of the fixed-based nuclear island lumped-mass stick model. The response spectrum analysis considers 74 vibration j modes, up to 34 hertz, using the double sum method and, above 34 henz, high frequency L responses using the procedure given in Appendix A to SRP 3.7.2, Revision 2.

I Figures 3.7.2-9 through 3.7.2-1I show, respectively, representative vibration mode shapes for  !

L the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings, the steel containtnent vessel and the containment j internal stmetures.

Maximum absolute acceleration (ZPA) responses of the design soil profiles at selected locations on the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings, the steel containment vessel, and the containment internal stmetures are summarized in Tables 3.7.2-5, 3.7.2-6, and 3.7.2-7, respectively. These maximum absolute acceleration responses are plotted in Figures 3.7.2-12 through 3.7.2-14. Similarly, maximum displacement responses relative to the base of the lumped-mass nuclear island stick model at top of basemat, for the design soit profiles, are summarized and plotted in Tables 3.7.2-8 through 3.7.2-10 and in Figures 3.7.2-15 through 3.7.2-17, respectively, for the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings, the steel containment vessel, and the containment internal structures.

Maximum seismic response forces and moments determined in the lumped-mass stick model for the design soil profiles are summarized in Tables 3.7.2-11 through 3.7.2-13 and plotted in Figures 3.7.2-18 through 3.7.2-23 respectively, for the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings, the steel containment vessel, and the containment internal structures.

3.7.2.3 Procedure Used for Modeling Based on the general plant arrangement, three-dimensional, finite element models are developed for the nuclear island structures-a finite element model of the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings, a finite element model of the containment internal structures, and axisymmetric shell models of the steel containment vessel and shield buildmg roof. These three-dimensional, finite element models provide the basis for the development of the lumped-mass stick model of the nuclear island structures.

I Three-dimensional, lumped mass stick models are developed to represent the steel containment vessel, the containment internal structures, and the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings.

Discrete mass points are provided at major floor elevations and at locations of stmetural discontinuities. The structural eccentricities between centers of rigidity and the centers of 1 mass of the structures are considered. These seismic models consist of lumped masses i connected by clastic structural elements together with rigid elements to simulate eccentricity.

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-10 [ W85tiligh00Se

)

3. Design of Structures, Compone:ts, Equipment, cnd Systems The individual building lumped-mass stick models are interconnected with rigid linking elements to form the overall dynamic model of the nuclear island.

Seismic subsystems coupled to the overall dynamic model of the nuclear island include the coupling of the reactor coolant loop model to the model of the containment internal structures, and the coupling of the polar crane model to the model of the steel containment vessel. The criteria used for decoupling seismic subsystems from the nuclear island model is according to Section II.3.b of SRP 3.7.2, Revision 2. The total mass of other major subsystems and equipment are less than one percent of their respective supporting nuclear island structures, therefore, the mass of other major subsystems and equipment are included as concentrated lumped-mass only.

3.7.2.3.1 Coupled Shield and Auxiliary Buildings and Containment Internal Structures The finite element models of the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings and the reinforced concrete portions of the containment internal structures are based on the gross concrete section with the modulus based on the specified compressive strength of concrete of contributing structural walls and slabs. The properties of the concrete-filled structural modules are computed using the combined gross concrete section and the transformed steel face plates of the structural modules. Furthermore, the weight density of concrete plus the uniformly distributed miscellaneous dead-weights are considered by adjusting the material mass density of the structural elements. An equivalent tributary slab area load of 50 pounds per square feet is considered to represent miscellaneous dead-weight such as minor equipment, piping and raceways. Live load is not included in the mass of the global seismic models. Major equipment weights are included as concentrated lumped masses at the equipment locations.

Figures 3.7.2-1 and 3.7.2-2 show, respectively, the finite element models of the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings and the containment internal structures. A lumped-mass stick model of the shield building roof structure is coupled with the finite element model and the stick model of the coupled auxiliary and shield buildings. The stick model of the shield building roof stmeture is included in the seismic analyses. The lumped-mass stick model of the shield building roof is not shown in Figure 3.7.2-1 to maintain visual clarity of the finite element model.

Because of the irregular structural configuration, the properties of the three-dimensional, lumped-mass stick models are determined using building sections extracted from the three-dimensional building finite element models. Figure 3.7.2-3, sheets 1 and 2, show two typical building sections from the coupled shield and auxiliary buildings finite element model. The propenies of the stick model beam elements, including the location of centroid, center of rigidity and center of mass, and equivalent sectional areas and moment of inertia, are computed using specific finite element sections representing the walls and columns between principal floor elevations of the structures. The equivalent translation and rotational stiffness (sectional areas and moment of inertia) of the three-dimensional beams are computed by applying unit forces and moments at the top of the specific finite element sections.

The eccentricities between the centroids (the neutral axis for axial and bending deformation),

the centers of rigidity (the neutral axis for shear and torsional deformation), and the centers Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-11 June 2,1995

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipmmt, tnd Systems i

of mass of the structures are represented by a combination of two sticks in the seismic model. {

One stick represents only the axial areas of the structural member and is located at the j centroid. This stick model is developed to resist the vertical seismic input motion. The other  ;

stick represents other beam element properties except the axial area of the structural member '

and is located at the center of rigidity. This stick model is developed to resist the horizontal seismic input motions. At a typical model elevation, there are four rigid beam elements y connecting the center of mass node to the sticks located at the shear centers and the centroids of the wall sections above and below. ,

i The shield building roof including the passive containment cooling system water storage tank i is represented by a lumped-mass stick model simulating the dynamic behavior of this portion  !

of the roof structure. This lumped-mass stick model is combined with the lumped-mass stick i model representing the lower portion of the shield building. In the three-dimensional finite ,

element model, the lumped-mass stick model of the shield building roof is located at the i center of the shield building represented using cylindrical shell elements. The lumped-mass j stick model of the shield building roof is connected to the three-dimensional shell elements using 18 horizontal rigid beams. ,

The in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) is included in the three-dimensional l FEM used in the development of the lumped-mass stick model representing the containment j intemal stmetures (CIS). Therefore, the lumped-mass stick model of the CIS includes the j stiffness and mass effect of the IRWST.

i Figures 3.7.2-4 and 3.7.2-6 show, respectively, the lumped-mass stick models of the coupled ,

shield and auxiliary buildings and the containment internal structures.

A simplified . ator coolant loop model is developed and coupled with the containment internal structures model for the seismic analysis. The reactor coolant loop stick model is l presented in Figure 3.7.2-7.  ;

3.7.2.3.2 Steel Containment Vessel  !

The steel containment vessel is a freestanding, cylindrical, steel shell structure with ellipsoidal upper and lower steel domes. The three-dimensional, lumped-mass stick model of the steel ,

containment vessel is developed based on the axisymmetric shell model. Figure 3.7.2-5 presents the steel containment vessel stick model. In the stick model, the properties are calculated as follows:  ;

• Members representing the cylindrical ponion are based on the properties of the actual  !

circular cross section of the containment vessel. i

• Members representing the bottom head are based on equivalent stiffnesses calculated  ;

from the shell of revolution analyses for static 1.0g in venical and horizontal directions. j

• Shear, bending and torsional propenies for members representing the top head are based i on the average of the properties at the successive nodes, using the actual circular cross  !

Draft Revision: 4 h June 2,1995 3.7-12 W Westinghouse e

._e

en

3. Desig3 of Structrres, Compone:ts, Equipmelt, and Systems ~

'Ah section. These are the properties that affect the horizontal modes. Axial properties, which affect the venical modes, are based on equivalent stiffnesses calculated from the shell of revolution analyses for static 1.0g in the vertical direction.

This method used to construct a stick model from the axisymmetric shell model of the containment vessel is verified by comparison of the natural frequencies determined f om the stick model and the shell of revolution model as shown in Table 3.7.2-15. The shell of revolution venical model (n = 0 hannonic) has a series of local shell modes of the top head between 23 and 30 henz. These modes are predominantly in a direction normal to the shell surface and carmot be represented by a stick model. These local modes have small contribution to the total response to a vertical earthquake as they are at a high frequency where seismic excitation is small.

The containment air bafne, presented in subsection 3.8.4.1.3, is supponed from the steel containment vessel at regular intervals so that a gap is maintained for airflow. It is constructed with individual panels which do not contribute to the stiffness of the containment vessel. The fundamental frequency of the baffle panels and suppons is about twice the fundamental frequency of the contairunent vessel. The mass of the air baffle is small, equal to approximately 10 percent of the vessel plates to which it is attached. The air baffle, therefore, is assumed to have negligible interaction with the steel contairunent vessel. Only the mass of the air baffle is considered and added at the appropriate elevations of the steel contaimnent vessel stick model.

The polar crane is supponed on a ring girder which is an integral pan of the steel containment vessel at elevation 209'-O". It is modelled as a single degree of freedom system attached to the steel containment shell as shown in Figure 3.7.2-5. The polar crane model includes the flexibility of the crane bridge girders and truck assembly, and the containment shell's local flexibility.

During plant operating conditions, the polar crane is parked in the direction 10 degrees off the plant north-south direction with the trolley located at one end near the contairunent shell. In the seismic model, however, the slight offset of the polar crane is neglected by assuming the crane bridge spanning in the north-south direction and the mass eccentricity of the trolley is considered by h>cating the mass of the trolley at the northem limit of travel of the main book.

Funhemmre. the mass eccentricity of the two equipment hatches and the two personnel airlocks are considered by placing their mass at their respective center of mass as shown in Figure 3.7.2-5.

3.7.2.3.3 Nuclear Island Seismic Model The various building lumped-mass stick models are interconnected with rigid linking elements to fonn the overall dynamic model of the nuclear island. The nuclear island seismic model consists of 80 mass points and 249 dynamic degrees of fieedom. The mass properties of the Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-13 lune 2,1995

3. Design of Structures, Compo ents Equipm:nt, aid Systems lumped-mass stick models include all tributary mass expected to be present during plant operating conditions. This includes the dead weight of walls and slabs, weight of major equipment, and equivalent tributary slab area loads representing miscellaneous equipment, piping and raceways.

The nuclear island seismic model includes the effect of flexibility of typical floor slabs.

Typical floor slabs with vertical frequency less than 33 henz are simulated in the dynamic model using single degree of freedom vertical oscillators attached to their respective elevations on the nuclear island lumped mass stick model. The masses of the venical oscillators are deducted from the corresponding nodal masses in the building lumped mass stick model.

Furthennore, the hydrodynamic mass effect of the water within the passive containment cooling system water tank on the shield building mof and the in-containment refueling water storage tank within the contaitunent intemal stmetures is evaluated. The convective (sloshing) effect of the water mass is found to be negligible. llence only the impulsive effect of the water mass is included in the nuclear island seismic model.

For the soil-structure interaction analyses, the nuclear island basemat and the periphery walls of the embedded portion of the nuclear island are represented by a three-dimensional, finite element model, as shown in Figure 3.7.2-8.

3.7.2.4 Soil-Structure Interaction Soil-structure interaction (SSI) analyses of the nuclear island are perfonned to generate its SSI responses. The nuclear island SSI responses generated for the analysis and design of seismic subsystems include nodal displacements, nodal accelerations, and floor response spectra.

The nuclear island SSI analyses are perfonned for the design soil profiles described in subsection 3.7.1.4, except for the hard rock site condition, where the possibility of SSI is negligible. Furthermore, the effects of the adjacent structures (turbine, annex and radwaste buildings) on the seismic response of the nuclear island are negligible. herefore, the adjacent structures are not included in the SSI analyses.

SSI analyses are performed using the complex frequency-response method with computer program SASSI. Computer program SilAKE (Reference 9) is used to compute the safe shutdown earthquake dynamic strain compatible soil propenies, such as shear modulus and damping. The material (hysteretic) damping ratio for soil in the SSI analyses is limited not to exceed 15 percent. The SSI analyses of the nuclear island are performed using the program SASSI, which is capable of handling two- and three-dimensional SSI problems invohing multiple stmetures with rigid or flexible embedded foundations of arbitrary shape.

SSI analyses are performed using the three-dimensional model of the soil profiles coupled with the nuclear island lumped-mass stick model developed in subsection 3.7.2.3. The nuclear island lumped-mass stick model consists of lumped masses coruected to elastic structural elements by horizontal rigid beam elements to simulate eccentricity. For the SSI analyses using program SASSI, the rigid elements have the following properties:

Draft Resision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-14 W W85tingh00S8

j WM

3. Design of Structures, Compone:ts, Eq11pment, and Systems f' 'l !

.A i

1

• The area to length ratio of the sigid element is within the range of 10' to 10' times the l i

largest area to length ratio of i'.s connecting clastic stmetural elements, and L

• The moment of inenia to length' ratio of the rigid element is within the range of 10' f to 10' times the largest moment of inertia to length' ratio of its connecting elastic l structural elements.

Furthermore, the stiffness and mass contributed by the periphery walls in the embedded ponion of the nuclear island are subtracted from the model propenies of the lumped-mass stick model. The mass and stiffness properties adjustment is accomplished by recalculating the properties of the embedded portion of the 3D lumped-mass stick model based on the finite element model without the periphery walls. To form the soil-structure interaction model, the ,

lumped-mass stick models are coupled to the three-dimensional, finite element foundation  !

model through rigid connections at elevations 82'-6",100'-0" (see Figure 3.7.2-29).

The SSI effects on the seismic Category I structures due to embedment of the nuclear island, the location of the ground water, and the layering of soil profiles selected are considered in modeling of the soil medium. A technical selection process has been used to determine the representative soil conditions for the generic plant sites as described in Appendices 2A and 2B.

3.7.2.5 Development of Floor Response Spectra The design floor response spectra are generated accc:omg to Regulatory Guide 1.122.

Seismic floor response spectra are computed using time-history responses determined from the nuclear island seismic analyses with the various design soil profiles. The time-history responses for the hard rock condition are determined from a mode superposition time history analysis using computer program BSAP. The time history responses for the soft rock and the soft-to-medium soil cases are obtained from a complex frequency response analysis using computer program SASSI. Floor response spectra for damping values equal to 2,3,4,5,7, 10, and 20 percent of critical damping are computed at the required locations.

The floor response spectra for the design of subsystems and components are generated by enveloping the nodal response spectra determined for the different design soil profiles. The envelopes of the floor response spectra for the four design soil profiles are developed as follows:

• The spectral acceleration is calculated at the same frequencies for all four of the design soil profiles

• The maximum spectral acceleration at each frequency from any of the four design soil profiles is then selected for the envelope

• The enveloped floor response spectra is then broadened by 15 percent Draft Revision: 4 3,7-15 June 2,1995

[ W85tiflgt100S8

t

=

W 3. Design of Structures, Components. Equipment, end Systems

.i The enveloped floor resporise spectra are smoothed, and the spectral peaks associated with the structural frequencies are broadened by fifteen percent (zl5 percent) to account for the variation in the structural frequencies, due to the uncertainties in parameters such as material-and mass properties of the structure and soil, damping values, seismic analysis technique, and the seismic modeling technique. Figure 3.7.2-24 shows the smoothing and broadening procedure used to generate the design floor response spectra.

The safe shutdown earthquake floor response spectra for 5 percent damping, at representative locations of the coupled auxiliary and shield buildings, the steel containment vessel, and the containment internal structures are presented in Figures 3.7.2-25 through 3.7.2-27. The sepresentative response spectra figures include the acceleration response spectra computed for the individual design soil profiles and the corresponding enveloped and widened floor i response spectrum.

3.7.2.6 Three Components of Earthquake Motion Seismic system analyses are performed considering the simultaneous occurrences of the two .

horizontal and the vertical components of eanhquake.

in mode superposition time-history analyses using computer program BSAP, the three components of eanhquake are applied either simultaneously or separately. In the BSAP i analyses with the three earthquake components applied simultaneously, the effect of the three components of eanhquake motion is included within the analytical procedure so that funher combination is not necessary.

In analyses with the canhquake components applied separately and in the response spectmm analyses, the effect of the three components of earthquake motion are combined using one of the following methods:  ;

• For seismic analyses with the statistically independent canhquake components applied separately, the time-history responses from the three earthquake components are combined algebraically at each time step to obtain the combined response time-history. i This method is used in the BSAP time-history and SASSI analyses.  !

. The peak responses due to the three canhquake components from the response spectrum l analyses are combined using the square root of the sum of squares (SRSS) method. This  !

method is used in the BSAP response spectrum analyses.

- The peak responses due to the three earthquake components are combined directly, using the assumption that when the peak response from one component occurs, the responses from the other two components are 40 percent of the peak (100 percent-40 percent-40 percent method). Combinations of seismic responses from the three canhquake components, together with variations in sign (plus or minus), are considered.

This method is used in the nuclear island basemat analyses and in the containment vessel stability analyses.

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-16 [ WB5tkigh0Use

I ]

I

3. Design of Structures, Components, Eq:Ipm:nt, cnd Syst;ms The containment vessel is analyzed using axisymmetric finite element models. These axisymmetric building structures are analyzed for one horizontal scismic input from any horizontal direction and one vertical earthquake component. Responses are combined by either the SilSS method or by a modified 100 percent-40 percent-40 percent method in which one component is taken at 100 percent of its maximum value and the other is taken at 40 percent of its maximum value.

For the seismic responses presented in subsection 3.7.2.2, the effect of three components of earthquake are considered as follows:

. Response Spectrum Analysis - the responses from the three components of eanhquake motion are combined using the square root of the sum of square (SRSS) technique.

. Mode Superposition Time History Analysis (program BSAP) and the Complex Frequency Response Analysis (program SASSI)- the time history responses from the three components of earthquake motion are combined algebraically at each time step.

A summary of the dynamic analyses perfomed and the combination techniques used are presented in Table 3.7.2-16.

3.7.2.7 Combination of Modal Responses The modal responses of the response spectrum system structural analysis are combined using the square root of the sum of squares method. When closely spaced modes are present, these modes are considered using either the grouping method, the 10 percent method, or the double sum method shown in Section C of Regulatory Guide 1.92, Revision 1. When high frequency effects are signi0 cant, they are included using the procedure given in Appendix A to SRP 3.7.2. In the fixed base mode superposition time history analysis of the hard rock site, the total seismic response is obtained by superposing the modal responses within the analytical procedure so that further combination is not necessary.

A summary of the dynamic analyses performed and the combination techniques used are presented in Table 3.7.2-16.

3.7.2.8 Interaction of Seismic Category II and Nonseismic Structures with Seismic Category I Structures, Systems or Components Nonseismic structures are evaluated to determine that their seismic response does not preclude the safety functions of seismic Category I structures, systems or components. This is accomplished by satisfying one of the following:

. The collapse of the nonseismic structure will not cause the nonseismic structure to strike a seismic Category I structure, system or component.

The collapse of the nonseismic structure will not impair the integrity of seismic Category I structures, systems or components.

Draft Rension: 4

(# Westinghouse 3.7-17 June 2,1995

r; g.

t' _j 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems i l

• The structure is classified as seismic Category 11 and is analyzed and designed to prevent its collapse under the safe shutdown eanhquake.

The structures adjacent to the nuclear island are the annex building, the radwaste building, and the turbine building. The annex building is classified as seismic Category II and is designed '

to prevent its collapse under the safe shutdown eanhquake. The minimum space rquired between the annex building and the nuclear island to avoid contact is obtained by absolute summation of the deflections of each stmeture obtained from either a time history or a response spectrum analysis for each structure. [

The radwaste building is classified as nonseismic and is designed to the seismic requirements of the Uniform Building Code, Zone 2A with an Importance Factor of 1.25. As shown in the radwaste building general arrangement in Figure 1.2-29, it is a small steel framed building.

If it were to impact the nuclear island or collapse in the safe shutdown earthquake, it would not impair the integrity of the reinforced concrete nuclear island. The minimum clearance between the structural elements of the radwaste building and the nuclear island is four inches.

The turbine building is classified as nonseismic. As shown on the turbine building general arrangement in Figures 1.2-30 through 1.2-34, the major structure of the turbine building is separated from the nuclear island by approximately eighteen feet. Floors between the turbine building main structure and the nuclear island provide access to the nuclear island. The floor beams are supported on the outside face of the nuclear island with a minimum horizontal  !

clearance of four inches between the structural elements of the turbine building and the nuclear island. These beams are of light construction such that they will collapse if the differential deflection of the two buildings exceeds the clearance and will not jeopardize the two foot thick walls of the nuclear island. The roof in this area rests on the roof of the '

nuclear island and could slide relative to the roof of the nuclear island in a large earthquake.

The seismic design is upgraded from Zone 2A, Importance Factor of 1.25, to Zone 3 with an imponance Factor of 1.0 in order to provide margin against collapse during the safe shutdown earthquake. The turbine building is a concentrically braced steel frame structure designed to meet the following criteria:

• The turbine building is designed in accordance with ACI-318 for concrete structures and with AISC for steel structures. Seismic loads are defined in accordance with the i Uniform Building Code for Zone 3 with an imponance Factor of 1.0.

• The minimum horizontal clearance between the structural elements of the turbine building and the nuclear island and annex building is 4 inches.

• Steel structural bracing connections are designed with suf6cient strength to develop ,

tensile yield in the bracing before the connection fails.

3.7.2.9 Effects of Parameter Variations on Floor Response Spectra ,

Seismic model uncertainties due to, among other things, uncertainties in material properties, mass properties, damping values, the effect of concrete cracking, and the modeling techniques are accounted for in the widening of floor response spectra, as described in subsection 3.7.2.5.

Draft 14evision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-18 W .-

Westinghouse

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Syst:ms 3.7.2.10 Use of Constant Vertical Static Factors The vertical component of the safe shutdown earthquake is considered to occur simultaneously with the two horizontal components in the seismic analyses. Therefore, constant vertical static factors are not used for the design of seismic Category I structures.

3.7.2.11 Afethod Used to Account for Torsional Effects The seismic analysis models of the nuclear island incorporate the mass and stiffness eccentricities of the seismic Category I structures and the torsional degrees of freedom. An accidental torsional moment is included in the design of the nuclear island structures. The accidental torsional moment due to the eccentricity of each mass is determined using the following:

. Horizontal mass properties of the building stick models shown in Figures 3.7.2-4, 3.7.2-5, and 3.7.2-6,

. The enveloping value of the north-south and east-west nodal accelerations shown in Tables 3.7.2-5, 3.7.2-6, and 3.7.2-7.

. An assumed accidental eccentricity equal to 5 percent of the maximum building dimensions at the elevation of the mass.

• The torsional moments due to eccentricities of the massas at each elevation are assumed to act in the same direction on each structure. Both positive and negative values are considered.

3.7.2.12 Comparison of Responses In the seismic analyses, the response spectrum analysis method is used in conjunction with the finite element models, while the mode superposition time-history and the complex frequency response method are applied to the lumped-mass stick model of the nuclear island.

Therefore, a comparison of responses calculated by alternative methods is not necessary.

3.7.2.13 Afethods for Seismic Analysis of Dams Seismic analysis of dams is site specific design.

3.7.2.14 Determination of Seismic Category I Structure Overturning atoments Subsection 3.8.5.5.4 describes the effects of seismic overturning moments.

3.7.2.15 Analysis Procedure for Damping Subsection 3.7.1.3 presents the damping values used in the seismic analyses. For structures comprised of different material types, the composite modal damping approach utilizing the Draft Revision: 4 3.7-19 June 2,1995 W Westinghouse

3. Design of Structures, Compos ents, Fquipment, and Systems strain energy method is used to determine the composite modal damping values.

Subsection 3.7.2.4 presents the damping values used in the soil-structure interaction analysis.

3.7.3 Seismic Subsystem Analysis This subsection describes the seismic analysis methodology for subsystems, which are those structures and components that do not have an interface with the soil-structure interaction analyses. Structures and components considered as subsystems include the following:

• Structures, such as floor slabs, miscellaneous steel platforms and framing

. Equipment modules consisting of components, piping, supports, and structural frames

. Equipment including vessels, tanks, heat exchangers, valves, and instrumentation

. Distributive systems including: piping and supports, electrical cable trays and suppons, HVAC ductwork and supports, instrumentation tubing and suppons, and conduits and supports i l

l Subsection 3.9.2 describes dynamic analysis methods for the reactor internals.

Subsection 3.9.3 describes dynamic analysis methods for the primary coolant loop support  !

system. Subsection 3.7.2 describes the analysis methods for seismic systems, which are those structures and components that are considered with the foundation and supporting media.

Section 3.2 includes the seismic classification of building structures, systems, and components. (

1 3.7.3.1 Seismic Analysis Methods The methods used for seismic analysis of subsystems include, modal response spectrurn analysis, time-history analysis, and equivalent static analysis. The methods described in this subsection are acceptable for any subsystem. The particular method used is selected by the designer based on its appropriateness for the specific item. Items analyzed by each method are identified in the descriptions of each method in the following paragraphs.

3.7.3.2 Determination of Number of Earthquake Cycles Seismic Category I structures, systems, and components are evaluated for one occurrence of the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). In addition, subsystems sensitive to fatigue are evaluated for cyclic motion due to earthquakes smaller than the safe shutdown eanhquake. Using analysis methods, these effects are considered by inclusion of seismic events with an amplitude not less than one-third of the SSE amplitude. The number of cycles is calculated based on IEEE-344-1987 (Reference 21) to provide the equivalent fatigue damage of two SSE events with 10 high-stress cycles per event. Typical'y, there are five seismic events with an amplitude equal to one-third of the SSE response. Each event has 63 high-stress cycles. For ASME Class I piping, the fatigue evaluation is performed based on five seismic events with I I

an amplitude equal to one-third of the SSE response. Each event has 63 high-stress cycles.

l l

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-20 [ WB5tiflgh0US8

=

3. Design of Structur:s, Compon:nts Equipment, end Systems When seismic qualification is based on dynamic testing for structures, syvems, or components containing mechanisms that must change position in order to function, Operability testing is performed for the safe shutdown earthquake preceded by one or more earthquakes. The number of preceding earthquakes is calculated based on IEEE-344-1987 (Reference 21) to provide the equivalent fatigue damage of one SSE event. Typically, the preceding earthquake is one SSE event or five one-half SSE events.

3.7.3.3 Procedure Used for Modeling The dynamic analysis of any complex system requires the discretization ofits mass and elastic properties. This is accomplished by concentrating the mass of the system at distinct characteristic points or nodes, and interconnecting them by a network of elastic springs representing the stiffness properties of the systems. The stiffness properties are computed either by hand calculations for simple systems or by finite element methods for more complex systems.

Nodes are located at mass concentrations and at additional points within the system. They are selected in such a way as to provide an adequate representation of the mass distribution and high-stress concentration points of the system.

At each node, degrees of freedom corresponding to translations along three orthogonal axes, and rotations about these axes are assigned. The number of degrees of freedom is reduced by the number of constraints, where applicable. For equipment qualification, reduced degrees of freedom are acceptable provided that the analysis adequately and conservatively predicts the response of the equipment.

The size of the model is reviewed so that a sufficient number of masses or degrees of freedom are used to compute the response of the system. A model is cor.sidered adequate provided that additional degrees of freedom do not result in more than a 10 percent increase in response, or the number of degrees of freedom equals or exceeds twice the number of modes with frequencies less than 33 hertz.

3.7.3.4 Basis for Selection of Frequencies The effect of the building amplification on equipment and components is addressed by the floor response spectra method or by a coupled analysis of the building and equipment.

Certain components are designed for a natural frequency greater than 33 hertz. In those cases where it is practical to avoid resonance, the fundamental frequencies of components and equipment are selected in be less than one-half or more than twice the dominant frequencies of the support structure.

3.7.3.5 Equivalent Static Load Method of Analysis The equivalent static load method involves equivalent horizontal and vertical static forces applied at the center of gravity of various masses. The equivalent force at a mass location is computed as the product of the mass and the seismic acceleration value applicable to that Draft Revision: 4 3.7-21 June 2,1995

[ Westiligt10USe

t h k

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems f

-fQ

{

7 i

mass location. Loads, stresses, or deflections obtairaed using the equivalent static load method i are adjusted to account for the relative motion between points of support when significant.

3.7.3.5.1 Single Mode Dominant or Rigid Structures or Components For rigid structures and components, or for cases where the response can be classified as ,

single mode dominant, the following procedures are used. Examples of these systems,  :

structures, and components are equipment, and piping lines, instrumentation tubing', cable trays, HVAC, and floor beams modeled on a span by span basis.

. For rigid systems, structures, and components (fundamental frequency 2 33 hz) an equivalent seismic load is defined for the direction of excitation as the product of the component mass and the zero period acceleration value obtained from the applicable floor response spectra. l

. A rigid component (fundamental frequency 233 hz), whose support can be represented  ;

by a flexible spring, can be modeled as a single degree of freedom model in the  ;

direction of excitation (horizontal or vertical directions). The equivalent static seismic load for the direction of excitation is defined as the product of the component mass and  ;

the seismic acceleration value at the natural frequency from the applicable floor  ;

response spectra. If the frequency is not determined, the peak acceleration from the applicable floor response spectrum is used. l f

. If the component has a distributed mass whose dynamic response will be single mode dominant, the equivalent static seismic load for the direction of excitation is defined as  ;

the product of the component mass and the seismic acceleration value at the component  :

natural frequency from the applicable Door response spectra times a factor of 1.5. A factor of less than 1.5 may be used if justified. A factor of 1.0 is used for structures or equipment that can be represented as uniformly loaded cantilever, simply supported,  !

fixed-simply supported, or fixed-fixed beams (References 10 and 11). If the frequency is not determined, the peak acceleration from the applicable floor response spectrum is used.

3.7.3.5.2 Multiple Mode Dominant Response This procedure applies to piping, instrumentation tubing, cable trays, and HVAC that are multiple span models. The equivalent static load method of analysis can be used for design of piping systems, instrumentation and supports, that have significant responses at several vibrational frequencies. In this case, a static load factor of 1.5 is applied to the peak accelerations of the applicable floor response spectra. For runs with axial supports the i acceleration value of the mass of piping in its axial direction may be limited to 1.0 times its calculated spectral acceleration value. The spectral acceleration value is based on the i frequency of the piping system along the axial direction. The relative motion between support points is also considered.

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-22 W-W95tingh0USe l

wh.

3. Design of Struct res, Components, Eq;ipment, and Syst:ms j

i 3.7.3.6 Three Components of Earthquake Motion -  !

Two horizontal components and one venical component of seismic response spectra are  !

employed as input to a modal response spectmm analysis. The spectra are associated with j the safe shutdown earthquake. In the response spectrum and equivalent static analyses, the effects of the three components of earthquake motion are combined using one of the following methods:

=

The peak responses due to the three earthquake components from the response spectrum f

analyses are combined using the square root of the sum of squares (SRSS) method.  ;

The peak responses due to the three earthquake components are combined directly, l using the assumption that when the peak response from one component occurs, the responses from the other two components are 40 percent of the peak (100 percent-40 percent-40 percent method). Combinations of seismic responses from the three ,

eanhquake components, together with variations in sign (plus or minus), are considered. l One set of three mutually orthogonal artificial time histories is used when time-history analyses are performed. When the responses from the three components of motion are ,

calculated simultaneously, each component is statistically independent of the other two. For i this case, the components are combined by algebraic sum.

In addition, an optional method for combining the response of the three components of earthquake motion is presented in the following paragraphs.

- The time-history safe shutdown earthquake analysis of a subsystem can be performed by l simultaneously applying the displacements and rotations at the interface point (s) between the i subsystem and the system. These displacements and rotations are the results obtained from j a model of a larger subsystem or a system that includes a simplified representation of the subsystem. The time-history safe shutdown earthquake analysis of the system is performed  ;

by applying three mutually orthogonal and statistically independent, artificial time histories.

Possible examples of the use of this method of seismic analysis include the following: ,

i

. The subsystem analysis is a flexible floor or miscellaneous stmetural steel frame. The  ;

corresponding system analysis is the soil-structure interaction analysis of the nuclear l island structures. '

i The subsystem analysis is the primary loop piping system and interior concrete building l structure. The interface point is the top of the basemat. The corresponding system  !

analysis is the soil-structure interaction analysis of the nuclear island structures.  !

i

=

The subsystem analysis is the reactor coolant pump and internal components. The i interface points are the welds on the pump suction and discharge nozzles. The corresponding system analysis is the primaty loop piping system and interior concrete building structure.

i

\

Draft Revision: 4 l

[ W6Stingt10US6 3.7-23 June 2,1995 I

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, end Systems 3.7.3.7 Combination of Modal Responses For the seismic response spectra analyses, the zero period acceleration cut-off frequency is 33 hertz. High frequency or rigid modes are considered using the Left-Out-Force method or the Missing Mass Method described in subsection 3.7.3.7.1. The method to combine the low frequency modes is described in subsection 3.7.3.7.2. The rigid mode results in the three perpendicular directions of the seismic input are combined by square-root-sum-of-the-squares (SRSS) method. The resultant response of the rigid modes is combined by SRSS with the flexible mode results. The combination of modal responses in time history analyses of piping systems is described in subsection 3.7.3.17. Modal responses in time history analyses of other subsystem <. are combined as described in subsection 3.7.2.6.

3.7.3.7.1 Combination of Iligh Frequency Modes This subsection describes alternative methods of accounting for high-frequency modes (generally greater than 33 hertz) in seismic response spectrum analysis. Higher-frequency modes can be excluded from the response calculation if the change in response is less than or equal to 10 percent.

3.7.3.7.1.1 Left Out-Force Method or Missing Mass Correction for Iligh Frequency Modes The left-out-force method is based on the Left-Out-Force Theorem. This theorem states that for every time history load there is a frequency, f,, called the " rigid mode cutoff frequency" above which the response in modes with natural frequencies above f, will very closely resemble the applied load at each instant of time. These modes are called " rigid modes." The left-out-force method is used in program PS+CAEPIPE.

The left-out-force vector, $ Fr }, is calculated based on lower modes:

$ Fr } = .1 - E M e, e, ' f (t) where f (t) = the applied load vector, M = the mass matrix e, = the eigenvector Note that E is only for all the flexible modes, not including the rigid modes.

In the response spectra analysis, the total inertia force contribution of higher modes can be interpreted as:

i Fr } = Am [ M ) . $ r } - E P ,e, .

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-24 W Westinghouse

3. Design of Struct:res, Components, Eq:ipment, and Systems where:

Am = the maximum spectral acceleration beyond the flexible modes.

[ hi ) = the mass matrix frI = the influence vector or displacement vector due to unit displacement P, = participation factor Since, P ; = e, T [ M ) $ r f, I Fr } = Am [ M ) { r } l E hi e, e,7 In PS+CAEPIPE, the low frequency modes are combined by one of the Reg Guide 1.92 methods in the response spectrum analysis. For each support level, there is a pseudo-load vector or left-out-force vector in the X, Y and Z directions. These left-out-force vectors are used to generate left-out-force solutions which are multiplied by a scalar amplitude equal to a magnification factor specified by the user. This factor is usually the ZPA (zero period acceleration) of the response spectrum for the corresponding direction. The resultant low frequency responses are combined by square root of the sum of the squares with the high frequency responses (rigid modes results).

In GAPPIPE, the results from the high frequency responses are also combined by the square root of the sum of the squares with those from the resultant loads contributed by lower loads modes. The missing mass correction for an independent support motion or multiple response spectra analysis is exactly the same as that for the single enveloped response spectrum analysis except that Am used is the envelope of all the zero period accelerations of all the independent support inputs.

3.7.3.7.1.2 SRP 3.7.2 Method The method described in SRP Section 3.7.2, may also be used for combination of high-frequency modes.

The following is the procedure for incorporating responses associated with high-frequency modes.

Step i Determine the modal responses only for those modes having natural frequencies less than that at which the spectral acceleration approximately returns to the zero period acceleration (33 hertz for the Regulatory Guide 1.60 response spectra).

Combine such modes according to the methods discussed in subsection 3.7.3.7.2.

Step 2 For each degree of freedom included in the dynamic analysis, determine the fraction of degree of freedom mass included in the summation of all modes included in Step 1. This fraction d ifor each degree of freedom is given by:

Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-25 June 2,1995

ub: isp 5 I 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems N

d,={ C, x $g e.\

where:

n = order of mode under consideration N = number of modes included in Step 1

&n,i = nth natural mode of the system Cn is the participation factor given by:

($,)T (1)

C"=

(Q,)T [tn] ($,)

Next, determine the fraction of degree of freedom mass not included in the summation of these modes:

ei = d, - Sjj where Sj i is the Kronecker delta, which is 1 if degree of freedom i is in the direction of the earthquake motion and 0 if degree of freedom i is a rotation or not in the direction of the earthquake input motion.

If, for any degree of freedom i, the absolute value of this fraction ei exceeds 0.I, the response from higher modes is included with those included in Step 1.

Step 3 Higher modes can be assumed to respond in phase with the zero period acceleration and, thus, with each other. Hence, these modes are combined algebraically, which is equivalent to pseudostatic response to the inertial forces from these higher modes excited at the zero period acceleration. The pseudostatic inertial forces associated with the summation of all higher modes for each degree of freedom i are given by:

Pi = ZPA x Mj x ei where:

l l

Pi = force or moment to be applied by degree of freedom i Mj = mass or mass moment of inertia associated with degree of freedom i.

l The subsystem is then statically analyzed for this set of pseudo static inertial I forces applied to all degrees of freedom to determine the maximum responses associated with high-frequency modes not included in Step 1.

Draft Resision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-26 W

~~

Westinghouse 1

3

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipm:nt, end Systems i I

Step 4 The total combined response to high-frequency modes (Step 3) is combined by the square root of sum of the squares method with the total combined response from lower-frequency modes (Step 1) to determine the overall structural peak responses.

3.7.3.7.2 Combination of Low Frequency Modes This subsection describes the method for combinis. . nodal responses in the seismic response spectra analysis. The total unidirectional seisma response for subsystems is obtained by combining the individual modal responses using the square root sum of the squares method.

For subsystems having modes with closely spaced frequencies, this method is modified to include the possible effect of these modes. The groups of closely spaced modes are chosen so that the differences between the frequencies of the first mode and the last mode in the group do not exceed 10 percent of the lower frequency.

Combined total response for systems having such closely spaced modal frequencies is obtained by adding to the square root sum of squares of all modes the product of the responses of the modes in each group of closely spaced modes and coupling factor. This can be represented mathematically as:

N S Nrl NJ R ={ R,2+2 { { {

T pl R, R, e , t j=1 k=MJ f =k l where:

RT = total unidirectional response R; = absolute value of response of mode i N = total number of modes considered S = number of groups of closely spaced modes Mj = lowest modal number associated with group j of closely spaced modes NJ = highest modal number associated with group j of closely spaced modes ekt = coupling factor, defined as follows:

(w ' ' - w ' ')2 r , = (1 +

1

,, )- 3 (D,g w t + , , W,)~

and,  !

w'g=w, [1-( ,)2]"2

, i

= +

t ,

Wi t, Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-27 June 2,1995 l

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

4 l

' {b, p r'  ;

R 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems s

i where: '

• k = frequency of closely spaced mode k i k = fraction of critical damping in closely spaced mode k  ;

td = duration of the canhquake (= 30 seconds) i l

Alternatively, a more conservative grouping method can be used in the seismic response j spectra analyses. The groups of closely spaced modes are chosen so that the difference j between two frequencies is no greater than 10 percent. Therefore, i RT ={R,2 +2{cR,R, u j l'I where: ,

lw - w,l g

w, All other terms for the modal combination remain the same. The 10 percent grouping method is more conservative than the grouping method because the same mode can appear in more than one group.

i In addition to the above methods, any of the other methods in Regulatory Guide 1.92 may be  ;

used for modal combination.

3.7.3.8 Analytical Procedure for Piping l

This subsection describes the modeling methods and analytical procedures for piping systems. '

The piping system is modeled as beam elements with lump masses connected by a network of elastic springs representing the stiffness propenies of the piping system. Concentrated weights such as valves or Danges are also modeled as lump masses. The effects of torsion  ;

(including eccentric masses), bending, shear, and axial deformations, and effects due to the changes in stiffness values of curved members are accounted for in the piping dynamic model.

The lump masses are selected so that the maximum spacing is not greater than the length that would produce a natural frequency equal to the zero period acceleration (ZPA) frequency of ,

the seismic input when calculated based on a simply supponed beam. As a minimum, the  !

number of degrees of freedom is equal to twice the number of modes with frequencies less f than the ZPA frequency.  ;

r The stiffness matrix of the piping system is calculated based on the stiffness values of the pipe ,

elements and support elements. Minimum rigid or calculated suppon stiffness values are used  ;

(see subsections 3.9.3.1.5 and 3.9.3.4). When the support deflections are limited to 1/8 inches in the combined faulted condition, mini num rigid suppon stiffness values are used. If the i t

i i

Draft Revision: 4 (

June 2,1995 3.7 28 [ Westinghouse  !

t i

jiE

3. Desiga of Structures, Compone:ts, Equipm:nt, and Systems A"iy E combined faulted condition deflection for any suppon exceeds 1/8 inches, calculated support stiffness values are used for the piping system.

Valves, equipment and piping modules are considered as rigid if the natural frequencies are greater than 33 hertz. Valves with lawer frequencies are included in the piping system model.

See subsection 3.7.3.8.2.1 for fle:.ible equipment and subsection 3.7.3.8.3 for flexible ntdis See subsection 3.9.3.1.4 for the primary loop piping and support system.

3.7.3.8.1 Supporting Systems This subsection deals with the analysis of piping systems that provide support to other piping systems. The supponed piping system may be excluded from the analysis of the supporting piping system when the ratio of the supported pipe to supporting pipe moment of inertia is less than or equal to 0.04.

If the ratio of the run piping outside diameter to the branch piping outside diameter (nominal pipe size) exceeds or equals 3.0, the branch piping can be excluded from the analysis of the run piping. The mass and stiffness effects of the branch piping are considered as described below.

Stiffness EITect The stiffness effect of the decoupled branch pipe is considered significant when the distance from the run pipe outside diameter to the first rigid or seismic suppon on the decoupled branch pipe is less than or equal to one half the deadweight span of the branch pipe (given in ASME 111 Code Subsection NF).

Mass Effect Considering one direction at a time, the mass effect is significant when the weight of half the span (from the decoupling point) of the branch pipe in one direction is more than 20 percent the weight of the main run pipe span in the same direction. Concentrated weights in the branch pipe are considered. A branch pipe span in x direction is the span between the decoupled branch point and the first seismic or rigid support in the x direction. A main run pipe span in the x direction is the piping bounded by the first seismic or rigid support in the x direction on both sides of the decoupled branch point. Similarly, the same definition applies to the spans in other directions (y and z).

If the calculated branch pipe weight is less than 20 percent but more than 10 percent of the main run pipe weight, this weight is lumped at the decoupling point of the run pipe for the run pipe analysis. This weight can be neglected if it is less than 10 percent of the main run pipe weight.

Draft Revision: 4

[ WeStingh0USe 3.7-29 June 2,1995

ip 33 1 3. Design of Structures, Compone:ts, Equipment, end Syst ms Required Coupled Branch Piping If the stiffness and/or mass effects are considered significant, the branch piping is included in the piping analysis for the run pipe analysis. The ponion of branch piping considered in the analysis adequately represents the behavior of the nm pipe and branch pipe. The branch line model ends in one of the following ways: a) the first six-way anchor; b) four rigid / seismic supports in each of the three perpendicular directions; or c) a rigidly supponed zone as described in subsection 3.7.3.13.4.2.

3.7.3.8.2 Supported Systems This subsection deals with the analysis of piping systems that are supported by other piping systems or by equipment.

3.7.3.8.2.1 Large Diameter Auxiliary Piping This subsection deals with ASME Class 1 piping larger than one inch nominal pipe size and ASME Class 2 and 3 piping with nominal pipe size larger than two inches. The response '

spectra methodology is used. l I

l When the supporting system is a piping system, the supported pipe (branch) can be decoupled j from the supporting pipe (run) when the ratio of the run piping nominal pipe size to branch pipe nominal pipe size is greater than or equal to three to one. Decoupling can also be done when the moment of inenia of the branch pipe is less than or equal to 4 percent of the moment of inertia of the run pipe.

When the mn pipe is decoupled from the analytical model of the branch pipe, the connection point is considered to be anchored for seismic inertia analysis. The response spectra for this analytical anchor are the spectra at the building floor location corresponding to mn pipe supports near the connection point. The motions of the connection point are determined from a separate seismic inertia analysis of the run pipe. These motions are applied as static anchor motions to the branch pipe. This criterion is accepted industry practice. For example, a 3-inch branch pipe can be decoupled from a 10-inch or a larger run pipe. When this approach is used the safe shutdown eanhquake inertial displacement of the run pipe branch location (or equipment nozzle) is limited to 1 inch in each of three coordinate directions to minimize the amplification effects of the mn pipe (or equipment) on the building floor response spectra.  ;

i During the analysis of the branch piping, resulting values of tee anchor reactions are checked against the capabilities of the tee.

When the supporting system is equipment, the supported pipe can be decoupled from the supponing equipment using the same criteria as when the supponing system is a piping Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-30 3 WB5tingh0US8

= 2::

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, cnd Systems i* a system with the run pipe stiffness replaced by the stiffness of the equipment. The equipment stiffness at the nozzle to pipe weld must satisfy the following:

h, c 200El L3 w here:

K = Equipment stiffness along each of three orthogonal directions E = Young's Modulus I = Moment of inertia of equivalent run pipe that can be decoupled for branch pipe analysis L = Span length of equivalent run pipe based on Table NF-3611-1, ASME Code,Section III 3.7.3.8.2.2 Small-Diameter Auxiliary Piping This subsection deals with ASME Code Class I piping equal to or less than 1-inch nominal pipe size and ASME Class 2 and 3 piping with nominal pipe sizes less than or equal to two inches. This includes instrumentation tubing. These piping systems may be supported by equipment or primary loop piping or other auxiliary piping or both. The response spectra or equivalent static load methodology is used. One of the following methods may be used for these systems:

• Same method as described in subsection 3.7.3.8.2.I; or,

+

Equivalent static analysis based on appropriate load factors applied to the response spectra acceleration values.

3.7.3.8.3 Piping Systems on Modules Many portions of the systems for the AP600 are assembled as modules offsite and shipped to the plant as completed units. This method of construction does not result in any unique requirements for the analysis of these structures, systems, or components. Existing industry standards and regulatory requirements and guidelines are appropriate for the evaluation of structures, systems, and components included in modules.

The modules are constructed using a structural steel framework to support the equipment, pipe, and pipe supports in the module. The structural steel framework is designed as pan of the building structure according to the criteria given in subsection 3.8.4.

l Draft Revision: 4 l

[ WBSilfigh00Se 3.7-31 June 2,1995

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, end Systems One exception is the pressurizer and safety relief valve module, which is attached to the top of the pressurizer. For this module the structures and piping arrangements suppon valves off the pressurizer and not the building stmeture. The structural steel frame is designed as a component support according to ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NF. Piping in modules

( is routed and analyzed in the same manner as in a plant not employing modules. Piping is l analyzed from anchor point to anchor point, which are not necessarily at the boundaries of the module. This is consistent with the manner in which room walls are treated in a nonmodule plant.

The supported piping or component may be decoupled from the seismic analysis of the structural frame based on the following criteria. The mass ratio, Rm, and the frequency ratio, Rf, are defined as follows:

Rm = mass of supponed component or piping / mass of supponing structural frame l Rf = frequency of the component or piping / frequency of the structural frame Decoupling may be done when:  !

l

• Rm < 0.01, for any Rf, or I

• Rm 2 0.01 and 5 0.10, if Rf 5 0.8 or if Rf is 21.25.

In addition, supported piping may be decoupled if analysis shows that the effect on the structural frame is small, that is, when the change in response is less than 10 percent. When piping or components are decoupled from the analysis of the frame, the contributory mass of the piping and components is included as a rigid mass in the model of the structural frame.

l When piping or components are decoupled from the analysis of the frame using the precedmg criteria, the effect of the frame is accounted for in the analysis of the decoupled components or piping. Either an amplified response spectra or a coupled model is used. The amplified response spectra are obtained from the time history SSE analysis of the frame. The coupled model consists of a simplified mass and stiffness model of the frame connected to the seismic model of the components or piping.

Alternative criteria may be applied to simple frames that behave as pipe support miscellaneous steel. Decoupling may be done when the deflection of the frame due to combined faulted condition loading is less than or equal to 1/8 inch. These deflections are defined with respect to the structure to which the structural frame is attached. The stiffness of the intervening elements between the frame and the supponed piping or component is considered as follows:

Rigid stiffness values are used for fabricated suppons, and vendor stiffness values are used for standard suppons such as snubbers and rigid gapped supports. The mass of the structural frame is evaluated as a self-weight excitation loading on the frame and the structures supporting the frame. The same approach is used for pipe support miscellaneous steel, as described in subsection 3.9.3.4.

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-32 W Westinghouse

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, rnd Syst:ms b$

" a When the supponed components or piping cannot be decoupled, they are included in the analysis model of the structural frame. The interaction between the piping and the frame is incorporated by including the appropriate stiffness and mass properties of the components, piping, and frame in the coupled model.

3.7.3.8.4 Piping Systems with Gapped Supports This subsection describes thu amtlysis methods for piping systems with rigid gapped supports.

These supports may be used to minimize the number of pipe suppon snubbers and the corresponding inservice testing and maintenance activities.

The analysis consists of an iterative response spectra analysis of the piping and support system. Iterations are performed to establish calculated piping displacements that are compatible with the stiffness and gap of the rigid gapped suppons. The results of the computer program GAPPIPE, which uses this methodology, are supported with test data (Reference 13).

The method implemented in GAPPIPE to analyze piping systems supported by rigid gapped supports is based on the equivalent linearization technique. GAPPIPE analysis is performed whenever snubber suppons are replaced by rigid gapped supports.

The basis of the concept is to find an equivalent linear spring with a response-dependent stiffness for each nonlinear rigid gapped support, or Limit Stop, in the mathematical model of the piping system. The equivalent linearized stiffness minimizes the mean difference in force in the suppon between the equivalent spring and the corresponding original gapped support. The mean difference is estimated by an averaging process in the time domain, that is, across the response duration, using the concept of random vibration. Details of the design and analysis methods and modeling assumptions are described in Reference 34.

3.7.3.9 Combination of Support Responses This subsection describes alternative methods for combining the responses from the individual support or attachment points that connect the supponed system or subsystem to the supporting system or subsystem. There are two aspects to the responses from the support or attachment points: seismic anchor motions and envelope or multiple-input response spectra methodology.

Seismic Anchor Motions - The response due to differential seismic anchor motions is calculated using static analysis (without including a dynamic load factor). In this analysis, the static model is identical to the static portion of the dynamic model used to compute the j seismic response due to inertial loading. In particuhir, the structural system supports in the I static model are identical to those in the dynamic model. l l

The effect of relative seismic anchor displacements is obtained either by using the worst combination of the peak displacements or by proper representation of the relative phasing characteristics associated with different support inputs. For components supported by a single concrete building (coupled shield and auxiliary buildings, or containment internal structures),

the seismic motions at all elevations above the basemat are taken to be in phase. When the Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-33 June 2,1995

!--- ii

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipm:nt, rnd Systems component supports are in the same structure, the relative seismic anchor motions are small and the effects are neglected. This is applicable to building structures and to those supplemental steel frames that are rigid in comparison to the components. Supplemental steel frames that are flexible can have significant seismic anchor motions which are considered.

When the components supports are in different structures, the relative seismic anchor motion between the structures is taken to be cut-of-phase and the effects are considered. The results of the modal spectra analysis (multiple input or envelope) are combined with the results from seismic anchor motion by the absolute sum method.

Response Spectra Methods - The envelope broadened uniform-input response spectra can lead to excessive conservatism and unnecessary pipe supports. The peak shifting method and independent support motion spectra method are used to avoid unnecessary conservatism.

Seismic Response Spectra Peak Shifting The peak shifting method may be used in place of the broadened spectra method, as described below.

Determine the natural frequencies (f,), of the system to be qualified in the broadened range of the maximum spectrum acceleration peak, i

if no equipment or piping system natural frequencies exist in the 15 percent interval associated with the maximum spectrum acceleration peak, then the interval associated with the next highest spectmm acceleration peak is selected and used in the following procedure.

Consider all N natural frequencies in the interval fj - 0.15f, s (f,), s f, + 0.15f; where:

fj = the frequency of maximum acceleration in the envelope spectra n = 1 to N The system is then evaluated by performing N + 3 separate analyses using the envelope unbroadened floor design response spectrum and the envelope unbroadened spectrum modified by shifting the frequencies associa:ed with each of the spectral values by a factor of +0.15;-

0.15; and (fe b - f)

I J

where:

n = 1 to N Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-34 3 Westirighouse

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, end Systrms The results of these separate seismic analyses are then enveloped to obtain the Enal result desired (e.g., stress, support loads, acceleration, etc.) at any given point in the system, if three different floor response spectrum curves are used to define the response in the two horizontal and the vertical directions, then the shifting of the spectral values as defined above may be applied independently to these three response spectrum curves.

Independent Support Response Spectrum Afethods The use of multiple-input response spectra accounts for the phasing and interdependence characteristics of the various support points. The following alternative methods are used for the AP600 plant. These are based on the guidelines provided by the " Pressure Vessel Research Committee Technical Committee on Piping Systems" (Reference 14).

Envelope Uniform Response Spectra - Afethod A - The seismic response spectrum that envelopes the suppons is used in place of the spectra at each support in the envelope uniform response spectra. Also, the contribution from the seismic anchor motion of the support points is assumed to be in phase and is added algebraically as follows:

N q, = d, E P,,

ja!

where:

qi = combined displacement response in the normal coordinate for mode i dj =

maximum value of di j dji = displacement spectral value for mode i associated with suppon "j" Py = participation factor for mode i associated with support j N = number of support points Enveloped response spectra are developed as the seismic input in three perpendicular directions of the piping coordinate system to include the spectra at all floor elevations of the attachment points and the piping module or equipment if applicable. The mode shapes and frequencies below the cut-off frequency are calculated in the response spectrum analysis. The modal participation factors in each direction of the earthquake motion and the spectral accelerations for cach significant mode are calculated. Based on the cal:ulated mode shapes, participation factors, and spectral accelerations of individual modes,the modalinenia response forces, moments, displacements, and accelerations are calculated. For a given direction, these modal inenia responses are combined based on consideration of closely spaced modes and highly frequency modes to obtain the resultant forces, moments, displacements, accelerations, and suppon loads. The total seismic responses are combined by square-root-sum-of-the-squares method for all three earthquake directions.

Independent Support Afotion - hiethod B - When there are more than one supporting structure the independent support motion (ISM) method for seismic response spectra may be used.

Draft Revision: 4 WB5tingh0USe 3.7-35 June 2,1995

_ 1

'[

t.

k 3. Design of Struct:res, Components, Equipment, and Syst:ms L_._ - I Each support group is considered to be in a random-phase relationship to the other supports I groups. The responses caused by each support group are combined by the square-root-sum-of-the-square method. The displacement response in the modal coordinate becomes:

N q, = [E (P yd )2)u2 y

J'I A support group is defined by supports that have the same time-history input. This usually means all supports located on the same floor (or ponions of a floor) of a structure.

3.7.3.10 Vertical Static Factors Constant static factors can be used in some cases for the design of seismic Category I subsystems and equipment. The criteria for using this method are presented in subsection 3.7.3.5, 3.7.3.11 Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses The methods used to account for the torsional effects of valves and other eccentric masses (for example, valve operators) in the seismic subsystem analyses are as follows:

When valves and other eccentric masses are considered rigid, the mass of the operator and valve body or other eccentric mass are located at their respective center of gravity.

The eccentric components (that is, yoke, valve body) are modeled as rigid members.

l

( .

When valves and other eccentric masses are not considered rigid, the dynamic models are simulated by the lumped masses in discrete locations (that is, center of gravity of valve body and valve operator), coupled by elastic members with properties of the eccentric compcnents.

3.7.3.12 Scis;;;!: Category I duried Piping Systems and Tunnels There are no seismic Category I buried piping systems and tunnels in the AP600 design.

3.7.3.13 Interaction of Other Systems with Seismic Category I Systems The safety functions of seismic Category I stmetures, systems, and components are protected from interaction with nonseismic structures, systems, and components; or their interaction is evaluated. The safety-related systems and components required for safe shutdown are described in Section 7.4. This equipment is located in selected areas of the auxiliary building and inside containment. The primary means of protecting safety-related structures, systems, and components from adverse seismic interactions are discussed in the following paragraphs in the order of preference.

. Separation - separation with the use of physical barriers Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-36 W Westinghouse

7 g=3

3. Design of Structures, Components, Eq:1pment, c.nd Systems r

• Segregation - routing away from location of seismic Category I systems, structures, and components

• Impact Evaluation - contact with seismic Category I systems, structures, and components may occur, and there is insufficient energy in the impact to cause loss of safety function.

• Support as seismic Category II Interaction of connected systems with seismic Category I piping is considered by including the other piping in the analysis of the seismic Category I system. Interaction of piping systems that are adjacent to Category I structures, systems, and components is also considered.

This is discussed in subsection 3.7.3.13.4.

The containment and each room outside containment containing safety-related systems or equipment, as identified in Table 3.7.3-1, are reviewed for potential adverse seismic interactions to demonstrate that systems, structures, and components are not prevented from performing their required safe shutdown functions. In addition, the review identifies the protection features required to mitigate the consequences of seismic interaction in an area that contains safety-related equipment.

The evaluation steps to address seismic interaction taken for each room or building area containing seismic Category I systems, stmetures, and components are:

Define targets susceptible to damage (sensitive targets)

Sensitive targets are those seismic Category I components for which adverse spatial interaction can result in loss of safety function Define sources which can potentially interact in an adverse manner with the target If possible, assure adequate free space to eliminate the possibility of seismically-induced damaging impacts for the sensitive targets Assess impact effects (interaction) when adequate free space is not preser.t Correct adverse seismic interaction conditions The three-dimensional computer model and composites developed for the nuclear island are used during the design process of the systems and components in the nuclear island, to aid in evaluating and documenting the review for seismic interactions. This review is performed using the design criteria and guidelines described in Subsections 3.7.3.13.1 through 3.7.3.13.4.

The seismic interaction review will be updated by the Combined License applicant. This review is performed in parallel with the seismic margin evaluation (see PRA Report, Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-37 June 2,1995

R, . .=. l

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, end Systems Appendix H, Subsection H.2.5). The review is based on as-procured data, as well as the as-constructed condition.

3.7.3.13.1 Separation and Segregation Separation - The general plant arrangement provides physical separation between the seismic Category I and nonseismic structures, systems, and components to the maximum extent practicable in the nuclear island. The objective is to assist in the preclusion of a potential adverse interaction if the nonseismic structures, systems and components were to fait during a seismic event. Whenever possible nonseismic pipe, electrical raceway, or ductwork is not routed above or adjacent to safety-related equipment, pipe, electrical raceway, or ductwork thereby eliminating the possibility of seismic interaction.

Workstations and other equipment in the Main Control Room are separated from piping.

Further, as stated in Section 3.2.1.1.2, structures, systems, and components that are located overhead in the Main Control Room are supported as seismic Category II.

Segregation - Where separation by physical means cannot be accomplished and it becomes necessary to locate or route nonseismic structures, systems, and components in or through safety-related areas, the nonseismic structures, systems and components are segregated from the seismic Category I items to the extent practicable.

Nonseismic cabinets are separated or segregated from seismic Category I cabinets. Also, if a cabinet is a source or a target, the cabinet doors must be secured by latches or fasteners to assure they do not open during a seismic event.

3.7.3.13.2 Impact Analysis Adverse spatial interaction (i.e., loss of stmetural integrity or function effecting safety) can potentially occur when two items are in close proximity. Adverse spatial interaction can result from contact or impact from overtuming. Seismic Category I systems, structures, and j components that are sensitive to seismic interaction are identified as potential targets. Sources are structures or components that can have adverse spatial interaction with the seismic Category I systems, structures, and components. Identification and evaluation of spatial interactions includes the following consiJerations:

• Proximity of the source to the target. That is, the location of the source within the impact evaluation zone (shown in Figure 3.7.3-1)

If a source is outside the impact evaluation zone, and does not enter this zone if overturning occurs, no adverse spatial interaction can occur with the identified target.

If the source is within the impact evaluation zone and the supports of the source fail, the source could free fall potentially impacting the target.

t l

l l

Draft Revision: 4 j June 2,1995 3.7-38 [ W05tirigh00Se L_____________._____ _________________ _________ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _.______ _ _ ._

• 1"glC::.

3. Desig3 of Structures, Compo=ts, Equipm:nt, and Systems n-

• Robustness of target If a target has significant structural integrity, and its function is not an issue, adverse spatial interaction could not occur with the identified source.

. Energy of impact The energy of the source impacting the target may be so low as not to cause adverse spatial interaction with the target.

A specific nonseismic structure, system, or component identified as a source to a specific safety-related component can be acceptable without being supported as seismic Category II, if an analysis demonstrates that the weight and configuration of the source, relative to the target, and the trajectory of the source are such that die interaction would not cause unacceptable damage to the target. For example, a nonseismic instrument tube routed above a seismic Category I electrical cable tray would not pose a hazard and would be acceptable.

Nonseismic equipment can overturn as a result of a safe shutdown earthquake. The trajectory of its fall is evaluated to detennine if it poses a potential impact hazard to a safety-related stmeture, system, or component. If it poses a hazard, the equipment is relocated, or it is supponed as described in subsection 3.7.3.13.3.

Nonseismic walls, platfonns, stairs, laddcrs, grating, handrail installations, or other stmetures next to safety-related structures, systems, and components are evaluated to detennine if their failure is credible.

Should a nonseismic structure, system, or component be capable of being dislodged from its supports, the trajectory of its fall is evaluated for potential adverse impacts. If these present a hazard, the stmetun', system or component is relocated or supported as described in subsections 3.7.3.13.3 and 3.7.3.13.4. Impact is assumed for sources within an impact evaluation zone amund the safety-related equipment. The impact evaluation zone is defined as the envelope around the target for which a source, if located outside of the envelope, would not impact the target during a safe shutdown earthquake in the event the supports of the source were to fail and allow the source to fall. The impact evaluation zone is defined by the volume extending 6 feet horizontally from die perimeter of the seismic Category I object up to a height of 35 feet. The impact evaluation zone above 35 feet is defined by a 10-degree cone radiating vertically from the foot of the object, projected from its perimeter. This definition of the impact evaluation zone is illustrated in Figure 3.7.3-1. The impact evaluation zone need not extend beyond seismic Category I structures such as walls or floor slabs.

The following seismic Category I equipment (potential targets) are not sensitive to piping, IIVAC ducts, and cable tray interaction because they are robust to these types of impact:

Tanks, " heavy" equipment (e.g., heat exchangers, etc.)

i Mechanical or electrical penetrations '

• IIVAC

- Adjacent Piping Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-39 , lune 2,1995

57 y b 1

[ ] 3. Desig3 of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems b I

- Conduits

. Cable trays

. Structures 3.7.3.13.3 Seismic Category 11 Supports When the preceding approaches of separation, segregation, or impact analysis cannot prevent unacceptable interaction, the source is classified and supported as seismic Category II. The seismic Category 11 designation provides confidence that these nonseismic structures, systems, and components can withstand the forces of a safe shutdown canhquake in addition to the loading impaned on the seismic Category 11 supports due to failure of the remaining nonseismically supponed ponions. This includes nozzle loads from the nonseismic piping.

Design methods and stress criteria for systems, stmetures, and components classified as seismic Category 11 are the same as for seismic Category I systems, structures, and components, except for piping which is described in subsection 3.7.3.13.4.2. However, the functionality of these seismic Category 11 sources does not have to be maintained following a safe shutdown canhquake.

IIVAC duct and/or cable trays within the impact evaluation zone are seismically supponed using the criteria given in Appendices 3G and 3H for seismic Category I assuring that the llVAC and cable tray segments identified as a source will not fall or adversely impact the sensitive target. Adequate free space between the source and target is assured using the load combination that includes the safe shutdown earthquake. The seismic displacement of the HVAC duct and/or cable tray is 6 inches or the calculated displacement.

Nonseismic equipment identified as a source within the impact evaluation zone is supponed as seismic Category 11. Suppon seismic loads include seismic inenia loads of the equipment detennined as described in subsection 3.7.3.5 and nozzle loads from attached piping determined as described in subsection 3.7.3.13.4.2. Adequate free space is assessed considering a six inch deflection envelope for equipment identified as a source, or calculated deflections obtained using the safe shutdown earthquake load combination and elastic analysis.

3.7.3.13.4 Interaction of Piping with Seismic Category 1 Piping Systems, Structures, and Components This subsection describes the design methods for piping to prevent adverse spatial interactions.

3.7.3.13.4.1 Seismic Category 1 Piping The safe shutdown earthquake piping displacements obtained for the seismic Category I piping are used for the evaluation of seismic interaction with sensitive equipment. Adequate free space between a source and a target is checked adding absolutely the piping safe shutdown earthquake deflection and the safe shutdown canhquake target deflection along with the other loads (eg.. dead weight, thennal) that are in the appropriate design criteria load combinations.

Sensitive equipment for piping as the source is seismic Category I equipment shown in Ilraft Itevision: 4

. lune 2,1995 3.7-40 3 WB5tiligh0USB

y b

. :mamm.e

~

r

3. Design of Struct:res, Components, Equipment, and Systzms i

?

Table 3.7.3-2 along with the ponion that must be protected (" zone of protection"). Supports l may be added to limit seismic movement to eliminate potential adverse interaction. j i

3.7.3.13.4.2 Seismic Category II Piping  !

i I

This subsection describes the methods and criteria for piping that is connected to seismic Category I piping. Interaction of seismic Category I piping and nonseismic Category I piping  !

connected to it is achieved by incorporating into the analysis of the seismic Category I system (

a length of pipe that represents the actual dynamic behavior of the comple;e run of the l nonseismic Category I system. The length considered is classified as seismic Category 11 and  ;

extends to the interface anchor or rigid support as described below.

The seismic Category Il ponion of the line, up to the interface anchor or interface rigid  ;

suppon (last seismic support), is analyzed according to Equation 9 of ASME Code, Section l III, Class 3, with a stress limit equal to the smaller of 4.5 Sn and 3.0 S,. In either case, the  ;

nonseismic piping is isolated from the seismic Category I piping by anchors or seismic j supports. The anchor or seismic Category II supports are designed for loads from the j nonseismic piping. This includes three plastic moment components (M g ,M g , or Mg)in each of three local coordinate directions. The responses to the three moments are evaluated independently. The seismic Category II ponion of the line is analyzed by the response ,

spectrum or equivalent static load method for safe shutdown earthquake. j i

Single Interface Anchor i l

The seismic Category II piping may be terminated at a single interface anchor (six-way). This (

anchor and the suppons on the seismic Category II piping are evaluated for safe shutdown i earthquake loadings using the rules of ASME III Subsection NF. If the anchor is an i equipment nozzle, then the equipment load path through the equipment suppons are evaluated i to the same acceptance criteria as seismic Category I equipment. l Anchor Followed by a Series of Seismic Supports  !

The seismic Category Il piping may be terminated at the last seismic support which follows f a six-way anchor on the seismic Category II piping. This last seismic support and the supports  !

on the seismic Category II piping are evaluated for safe shutdown canhquake loadings using  ;

the rules of ASME 111 Subsection NF. From the anchor to the last seismic support the I response to the plastic moments (M g , Mg, or M g)is combined with the responses to seismic  !

anchor motions and equivalent static seismic inertia of the piping system by the absolute sum j i

methoi The responses to these moments are evaluated independently. The support and anchor loads due to the plastic moments (M g , Mg , or M g) of the seismically analyzed and  ;

supported section can be reduced if the elbow / bend resultant moments have exceeded the  !

plastic limit moments of the elbow / bend. The value of the reduction factor RF is as follows:

RF = Multiplier used to reduce the interface anchor and support loads RF = < l (if RF > 1, no reduction is applicable)

Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-41 June 2,1995

munusms  ;

r 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipm:nt, end Systems

.l I

RF = Mt/M,  !

M, = Resultant moment at elbow / bend. Use maximum value if several elbows / bends j are within seismically supported region. l Mt = 0.8h" D2 t Sy for h < l.45 l

Mt D2 1 Sy for h > 1.45

=

h = Flexibility characteristic of elbow / bend D = Outside diameter of elbow / bend t = Thickness of elbow / bend R = Bend radius of elbow / bend  !

Rigid Region The seismic Category 11 piping may be terminated at the last seismic support of a rigidly i supported region of the piping system. The rigid region is typically defined as either four bi-  ;

lateral supports around an elbow or six bilateral supports around a tee. The structural behavior ,

of the rigid region is similar to that of a six-way anchor. This last seismic support in the rigid region and the supports on the seismic Category 11 piping are evaluated for safe shutdown l earthquake loadings using the rules of ASME Ill Subsection NF j i

3.7.3.13.4.3 Nonseismic Piping  ;

Nonseismic piping within the impact evaluation zone is seismically supported, thereby ensuring that the pipe segment identified as a source will not fall or adversely impact the sensitive target (Table 3.7 2). This situation is shown in Figure 3.7,3-2, and the seismic supported piping criteria described below:

b

= Supports within the impact evaluation zone, plus 1 transverse support in each transverse direction beyond the impact evaluation zone, are classified as seismic Category II, and ,

are evaluated for the safe shutdown earthquake loading using the rules of ASME III, i Subsection NF.

. Piping within the impact evaluation zone plus one transverse support in each transverse direction are evaluated to Equation 9 of ASME Code,Section III, Class 3, with a stress limit equal to the smaller of 4.5 S, and 3.0 Sy . Outside the impact evaluation zone, the nonseismic piping meets ASME/ ANSI B31.1 requirements.

• The nonseismic piping and seismic Category Il supports are designed for loads from the nonseismic piping beyond the impact evaluation zone. This includes three plastic moment components (M,i, M,,, or M,3) in each of three local coordinate directions applied at the first and last seismic Category 11 support. The responses to the three Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-42 W Westingtiouse

==

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems

{

moments are evaluated independently. The response from the moments applied at the first seismic Category Il suppon is combined with the response from the moments applied at the last scismic Category Il support and with the responses to seismic anchor motions and equivalent static seismic inertia of the piping system by the absolute sum method. The support and anchor loads due to the plastic moments (M,,, M,,, or M,3) of the seismically analyzed and supported section can be reduced if the elbow / bend resultant moments have exceeded the plastic limit moments of the elbow / bend. The r value of the reduction factor RF is the same as the value for connected seismic l

Category Il piping described above.

• The piping segment identified as the source has at least one effective axial support.

• Adequate free space tetween a source and a target is checked adding absolutely the piping safe shutdown earthquake deflections (defm' ed following seismic Category Il piping analysis methodology) and the safe shutdown canhquake target deflection. Also included are the displacements associated with the appropriate load cases.

. When the anchor is an equipment nozzle, the equipment is supported as seismic Category 11 as described in subsection 3.7.3.13.3.

1 l

I I

I Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-43 June 2,1995

h i

p. m '

f 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, end Systems L.

3.7.3.14 Seismic Analyses for Reactor Internals See subsection 3.9.2 for the dynamic analyses of reactor internals. ,

l 3.7.3.15 Analysis Procedure for Damping i

Damping values used in the seismic analyses of subsystems are presented in subsection 3.7.1.3. SSE damping values used for different types of analysis are provided in j Table 3.7.1-1. For subsystems that are composed of different material types, the composite  ;

modal damping approach with either the weighted mass or stiffness method is used to i determine the composite modal damping value. Alternately, the minimum damping value may  ;

be used for these systems. Composite modal damping for coupled building and piping systems is used for piping systems that are coupled to the primary coolant loop system and the interior concrete building. Piping systems analyzed by the uniform envelope response spectra method, including coupled equipment, and valves, can be evaluated with 5 percent damping. Five l percent damping is not used in piping systems that are susceptible to stress corrosion cracking.  ;

For the time history dynamic analysis and independent support motion response spectra analysis of piping systems,4 percent,3 percent, and 2 percent damping values are used as l described in Table 3.7.1-1. I When piping systems and nonsimple module steel frames (simple frames are described in  !

subsection 3.7.3.8.3) are in a single coupled model, composite damping, as described in l subsection 3.7.1.3 is used. i 3.7.3.16 Analysis of Seismic Category I Tanks f This subsection describes the seismic analyses for the large, atmospheric seismic Category I {

pools and tanks. These are reinforced concrete structures with stainless steel liners, as j discussed in subsections 3.8.3 and 3.8.4 or with structural modules, as discussed in ' i Appendix 3A. They include the spent fuel pit in the auxiliary building, the in-containment i refueling water storage tank, and the passive containment cooling water tank incorporated into the shield building roof. There are no other seismic Category I tanks.

The seismic analyses of the tank consider the impulsive and convective forces of the water  ;

as well as the flexibility of the walls. For the spent fuel pit, cask loading pit and fuel transfer canal the impulsive loads are calculated by considering a portion of the water mass responding with the concrete walls. The impulsive forces are calculated by conventional methods for rigid tanks. The passive containment cooling water tank is analyzed using methods described in Reference 15 for toroidal tanks. It is also analyzed by finite element methods. The in-containment refueling water storage tank is irregular in plan and is analyzed by finite element methods.

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-44 y Westingt10USS

3. Design of Structures, Compone:ts, Equipm:nt, rnd Systems E_

3.7.3.17 Time IIistory Analysis of Piping Systems The time history dynamic analysis is an alternate seismic analysis method for response spectrum analysis when time history seismic input is used. This method is also used for dynamic analyses of piping systems subjected to time history hydraulic transient loadings or forcing functions induced by postulated pipe breaks. Modal superposition method is used to solve the equations of motion. The computer programs used are GAPPIPE, PS+CAEPIPE, and WECAN.

The modal superposition method is based on the equations of motion which can be decoupled as long as the piping system is within its elastic limit. The modal responses are obtained from integrating the decoupled equations. The total responses are obtained by the algebraic sum of the individual responses of the individual modes at each time step. The time steps used are no larger than the time history input time steps.

For time history analysis using the PS+CAEPIPE program, low frequency modes are combined by absolute sum in the bounded solution analysis and are combined by algebraic sum in the selective true time history analysis. The resultant low frequency responses are combined by square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares with the high frequency responses in the time history analysis. Composite modal damping is used with PS+CAEPIPE program.

For time history analysis using the GAPPIPE or WECAN programs, the number of modes used in the modal analysis is chosen so that the results of the dynamic analysis based on the chosen number of modes are within 10 percent of the results of the dynamic analysis based on the next higher number of modes used. The number of modes analyzed is selected to account for the principal vibration modes of the piping system. The modes are combined by algebraic sum. Composite modal damping is used with WECAN program.

3.7.4 Seismic Instrumentation 3.7.4.1 Comparison with Regulatory Guide 1.12 Compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.12 is discussed in this section and in subsection 1.9.1.

3.7.4.1.1 Safety Design Ilasis The seismic instrumentation serves no safety-related function and therefore has no nuclear safety design basis.

3.7.4.1.2 Power Generation Design Itasis The seismic instrumentation is designed to provide the following:

• Collection of seismic data in digital format

• Analysis of seismic data after a seismic event Draft Revision: 4

[ WB5tingh0USe 3.7-45 June 2,1995

h 1

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, end Systems Operator notification that a seismic event exceedini; a preset value has occurred Operator notification (after analysis of data) that a pred;termined cumulative absolute velocity value has been exceeded.

3.7.4.2 Location and Description of Instrumentation The following instrumentation and associated equipment are used to measure plant response to earthquake motion.

Four triaxial acceleration sensor units, located as stated in subsection 3.7.4.2.1, are connected to a time-history analyzer. The time-history analyzer recording and playback system is located in a panel in the nuclear island in a room near the main control room. Seismic event data from these sensors are recorded on a solid-state digital recording system at 200 samples per second per data channel.

This solid-state recording system has internal batteries and a charger to prevent the loss of data during a power outage, and to allow data collection in a seismic event during which the power fails. Normally 120 volt alternating current power is supplied from the non-Class IE de and uninterruptible power supply system. Recording capacity is 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of data after system initiation. The triaxial acceleration sensors have a dynamic range of 1000 to I (0.0001 to 1.0g) and a frequency range of 0.2 to 50 hertz.

Seismic triggers, as recommended by Regulatory Guide 1.12, are not provided since the system uses triaxial accelerttion sensor input signals to initiate the time-history analyzer recording and main control room alarms. The system initiation value is adjustable from 0.002g to 0.02g.

The time-history analyzer st.irts recording triaxial acceleration data from each of the triaxial acceleration sensors after the initiation value has been exceeded. Pre-event recording time is adjustable from 1.2 to 15.0 seconds, and will be set to record at least 3 seconds of pre-event signal. Post-event run time is adjustable from 10 to 90 seconds. Each recording channel has an associated timing mark record with 2 marks per second, with an accuracy of about 0.02 percent.

The instrumentation components are qualified to IEEE 344-1987 (Reference 16).

The sensor installation anchors are rigid so that the vibratory transmissibility over the design spectra frequency range is essentially unity.

3.7.4.2.1 Triaxial Acceleration Sensors Each sensor unit contains three accelerometers mounted in a mutually orthogonal array mounted with one horizontal axis parallel to the major axis assumed in the seismic analysis.

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-46 3 Westilighotise

l l

3. Design of Structures, Components, Eq:lpment, cnd Syst:ms l

1 One sensor unit will be located in the free field. Because this location is site-specific. the planned location will be determined by the Combined License applicant. The AP600 seismic monitoring system will provide for signal input from the free field sensor.

A second sensor unit is located on the nuclear island basemat in the spare battery charger room at clevation 66'-6" near column lines 9 and L.

A third sensor unit is located on the shield building structure at elevation 229' near column lines 4-1 and K.

The fourth sensor unit is located on the containment intemal structure on the east wall of the east steam generator compartment just above the operating floor at elevation 138' close to column lines 6 and K.

Seismic instrumentation is not located on equipment, piping, or supports since experience has shown that data obtained at these locations are obscured by vibratory motion associated with normal plant operation.

3.7.4.2.2 Time History Analyzer The time-history analyzer receives input from the triaxial acceleration sensors and, when activated as described in subsection 3.7,4.3, begins recording the triaxial data from each triaxial acceleration sensor and initiates audio and visual alarms in the main control room.

This recorded data will be used to evaluate the seismic acceleration of the structure on which the triaxial acceleration sensors are mounted.

The time-history analyzer is a multichannel, digital recording system with the capability to automatically download the recorded acceleration data to a dedicated computer for data storage, playback, and analysis after a seismic event.

The operator may select the analysis of either cumulative absolute velocity or the response spectmm. Analysis results are printed out on a dedicated graphics printer that is part of the system and is located in the same panel as the time-history analyzer.

3.7.4.3 Control Room Operator Notification The timr-history analyzer provides for initiation of audible and visual alarms in the main control room when predetermined seismic acceleration values sensed by any of the triaxial acceleration sensors are exceeded and when the system is activated to record a seismic event.

In addition to alarming when the system is activated, the analyzer portion of the system will provide a second alarm if the predetermined cumulative absolute velocity value has been exceeded by any of the sensors. Alarms are annunciated in the main control room.

Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-47 June 2,1995

Nf %fm

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems 3.7.4.4 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Responses The recorded seismic data is used by the combined license applicant operations and engineering departments to evaluate the effects of the earthquake on the plant structures and equipment.

The criterion for initiating a plant shutdown following a seismic event will be exceedance of a specified response spectrum limit or a cumulative absolute velocity limit. The seismic instwmentation system is capable of computing the cumulative absolute velocity as described in EPRI Report NP-5930 (Reference 1) and EPRI Report TR-100082 (Reference 17).

3.7.4.5 Tests and Inspections Periodic testing of the seismic instrumentation system is accomplished by the functional test feature included in the software of the time-history recording accelerograph. The system is modular and is capable of single-channel testing or single channel maintenance without disabling the remainder of the system.

3.7.5 Combined License Information 3.7.5.1 Seismic Analysis of Dams Combined License applicants referencing the AP600 certified design will evaluate dams whose failure could affect the site interface flood level specified in subsection 2.4.1.2. The evaluation of the safety of existing and new dams will use the site-specific safe shutdown earthquake.

3.7.5.2 Post Earthquake Procedures Combined License applicants referencing the AP600 cenified design will prepare site-specific procedures for activities following an earthquake. These procedures will be used to accurately determine both the response spectrum and the cumulative absolute velocity of the recorded earthquake ground motion from the seismic instrumentation system. The procedures and the data from the seismic instrumentation system will provide sufficient information to guide the operator on a timely basis to determine if the level of earthquake ground motion requiring shutdown has been exceeded. The procedures will follow the guidance of EPRI Reports NP-5930 (Reference 1), TR-100082 (Reference 17), and NP-6695 (Reference 18), as modified by the NRC staff (Reference 32).

3.7.6 References

1. EPRI Report NP-5930,"A Criterion for Determining Exceedance of the Operating Basis Earthquake," July 1988.

2. Uniform Building Code.1991.

3. ASCE Standard 4-86, " Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and Commentary," American Society of Civil Engineers, September 1986.

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-48 W Westingh00S8

IE

3. Design of Structures, Compone1ts, Equipm:nt, cnd Syst ms R'] .

4. ASME B&PV Code, Code Case N-411.

5. H. B. Seed, and I. M. Idriss, " Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analysis," Report No. EERC-70-14, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,1970.

6. H. B. Seed, R. T. Wong, I. M. Idriss, and K. Tokimatsu, " Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Analysis of Cohesionless Soils," Report No. UCB/EERC-8914, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Califomia, Berkeley,1984.

7. Bechtel Corporation, " User's and Theoretical Manual for Computer Program BSAP (CE800)," Revision 12,1991.

8. Pechtel Corporation, " Theoretical, Validation and User's Manuals for Computer Program S ASSI (CE994)," 1988.

9. Bechtel Corporation, " User's and Theoretical Manual for Computer Program SHAKE (CE915)," dated August 1989.

10. Hyde, S. J., J. M. Pandya, and K. M. Vashi, " Seismic Analysis of Auxiliary Mechanical Equipment in Nuclear Plants," Dynamic and Seismic Analysis of Systems and Comr>onents, ASME-PVP-65, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Orlando, Florida,1982.

I1. Lin, C. W., T. C. Esselman, " Equivalent Static Coefficients for Simplified Seismic Analysis of Piping Systems," SMIRT Conference 1983, Paper K12/9.

12. Deleted.

13. " Impact Response of Piping Systems with Gaps," P. H. Anderson and H. Loey, ASME Seismic Engineering,1989, Volume 182.

14. " Independent Support Motion (ISM) Method of Modal Spectra Seismic Analysis,"

December 1989; by Task Group on Independent Support Motion as Part of the PVRC Technical Committee on Piping Systems Under the Guidance of the Steering Committee.

15. J. S. Meserole, A. Fortini, " Slosh Dynamics in a Toroidal Tank," Journal Spacecraft Vol. 24, Number 6, November-December 1987.

16. IEEE 344-1987, " Recommended Practices for Seismic Qualification of IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations."

17. EPRI Repon TR-100082, " Standardization of the Cumulative Absolute Velocity,"

December 1991.

Draft Revision: 4 3.7-49 June 2,1995

[ W85tingh0USe

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, cnd Systems

18. EPRI Report NP-6695, " Guidelines for Nuclear Plant Response to an Earthquake,"

December 1989.

19. Cable Tray and Conduit Raceway Seismic Test Program, Release 4,"

Repon 1053-21.1-4, ANCO Engineers, Inc., December 15,1978.

20. Kross, P. W., " Element Associated Damping by Modal Synthesis," Proceedings of the Water Reactor Safety Conference, Salt Lake City, March 1973, National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce.

21. IEEE 344-1987, " Recommended Practice for Seismic Qualification of Class lE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations."

22. WCAP 7921 AR, "Dampmg values of Nuclear Power Plant Components," May 1974.

23. McGuire, R. K., G. R. Toro, and W. J. Silva, " Engineering Model of Earthquake Ground Motion for Eastem North America," Technical Repon NP-6074, Electric Power Research Institute,1988.

24. Boore, D. M. and G. M. Atkinson," Stochastic prediction of ground motion and spectral response at hard-rock sites in eastern Nonh America," Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 77:2, pages 440-467.

25. Nuttli, O. W., Letter dated September 19, 1986 to J. B. Savy, Reproduced in:

D. Bernreuter, J. Savy, R. Mensing, J. Chen, and B. Davis, " Seismic Hazard Characterization of 69 Nuclear Plant Sites East of the Rocky Mountains:

Questionnaires," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Technical Repon NUREG/

CR-5250, UCID-21517, 7, Prepared by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

26. Trifunar, M. and V. W. Lee, " Preliminary Empirical Model for Scaling Pseudo Velocity Spectra of Strong Eanhquake Accelerations in Terms of Magnitude, Distance, Site Intensity and Recording Site Conditions," Report No. CE 85-04, University of Southern California. Department of Civil Engineering,1985.

27. Bernreuter D., J. Savy, R. Mensing, J. Chen, and B. Davis, " Seismic Hazard Characterization of 69 Nuclear Plant Sites East of the Rocky Mountains:

Questionnaires," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Technical Repon NUREG/

CR-5250, UCID-21517, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,1989.

28. McGuire, R. K., G. R. Toro, J. P Jacobson, T. F. O'Hara, and W. J. Silva, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Evaluations at Nuclear Plant Sites in the Central and Eastern United States: Resolution of the Charleston Earthquake Issue," Technical Report NP-6395-D, Electric Power Research Institute,1989.

29. Philippacoupoulos, A. J., " Recommendations for Resolution of Public Comments cn USl A-40, Seismic Design Criteria," Brookhaven National Laboratory Report Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-50 W Westinghouse

1

3. Design of Structures, Compu.nts, Eq:1pment, c.nd Systems BNL-NUREG-52191, prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and published as NUREG/CR-5347,1989.

30. C. Chen, " Definition of Statistically Independent Time Histories," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, February 1975.

31. WCAP-9903, " Justification Of The Westinghouse Equivalent Static Analysis hiethod For Seismic Qualification Of Nuclear Power Plant Auxiliary hicchanical Equipment,"

August 1980.

32. Letter from James T. Wiggins to John J. Taylor, September 13,1993.

33. Idriss 1.ht., " Response of Soft Soil Sites during Eanhquakes," H. Bolton Seed hiemorial ,

Symposium Proceedings,51ay 1990.

34. M.S. Yang, J.S.M. Leung, and Y.K. Tang " Analysis of Piping Systems with Gapped Supports Using the Response Spectrum Method." Presented at the 1989 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference at Honolulu, July 23-27, 1989. l l

l l

l l

l Draft Revision: 4 ,

W Westinghouse 3.7-51 June 2,1995

=

i-E

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, stnd Systems i

i Table 3.7.1-1 SAFE SIIUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE DAMPING VALUES Welded aluminum structures (%) . . . .... . . . . , . . . J  ;

Welded and friction-bolted steel structures and equipment (%) . . . . .. . . 4 13 earing bolted structures and equipment (%) . .. . . ...... ... . ., 7 Prestressed concrete structures (%) . .. . . . . . . .. 5

- Reinforced concrete structures (%) . . . . ... . .... 7 !

Concrete filled steel plate structures (%) . .. . .. . . ... . 5 :

Primary coolant loop (%) . .. . . . . . . 5 Piping systems (for uniform envelope response spectra analysis) . . . . . 5 ,

i Piping systems (alternative for time history analysis and independent support motion sesponse spectra analysis) i Less than or equal to 12-inch diameter (%) . . . .. . . 2 Greater than 12-inch diameter (%) . .. . . . . . .. .. 3 Primary coolant loop (%) . . . . . .. . 4 Fuel assemblies (%) . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ~

Control rod drive mechanisms (%) . .. .. . . . . . . . . 5 Cable trays & related supports (%) . . . 20 (see Figure 3.7.1-13)

Conduits & related supports (%) . . . . . . . ... .. 7 IIVAC ductwork (%) . ... . . . . . . . 7 IIVAC welded ductwork (%) . . 4 Cabinets and panels for electrical equipment (%) . . . . . . . 5 Equipment such as welded instrument racks and tanks (%) . . . . .. 3 i

+

i i

i Draft Revision: 4 i June 2,1995 3.7-52 W Westirighouse

= q;

3. Design of Structures, Componezts, Equipment, end Syst:ms 2_2 I

Table 3.7.1-2 EMIIEDMENT DEPTII AND RELATED DIMENSIONS OF CATEGORY I STRUCTURES Foundation Embedment Iwast Foundation Structure Depth (ft) Width (ft) Structure Ileight (ft)

Shield Building See Note See Note 246.75 Steel Containment Vessel See Note See Note 189.83 Auxiliary Building See Note See Note 119.50 Note:

1. The seismic Category I structures are founded on a common basemat embedded 39.5 feet, with dimensions shown in Figure 3.7.1-16.

Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-53 June 2,1995

r.

T: 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems Table 3.7.1-3 AP600 IIORIZONTAL DFSIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA RELATIVE VALUES OF SPECTRUM AMPLIFICATION FACTORS FOR CONTROL POINTS Amplification Factors for Control Points Percent of Critical Acceleration' Displacement' Damping A (33 cps) B' (25 cps)2 B (9 cps) C (2.5 cps) D (0.25 cps) 2.0 1.0 1.70 3.54 4.25 2.50 3.0 1.0 1.66 3.13 3.76 2.34 4.0 1.0 1.63 2.84 3.41 2.19 5.0 1.0 1.60 2.61 3.13 2.05 7.0 1.0 1.55 2.27 2.72 1.88 AP600 VERTICAL DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRA RELATIVE VALUES OF SPECTRUM AMPLIFICATION FACTORS FOR CONTROL POINTS Amplification Factors for Control Points Percent of Critical Acceleration' Displacement' Damping A (33 eps) B' (25 cps)2 B (9 cps) C (3.5 cps) D (0.25 cps) 2.0 1.0 1.70 3.54 4.05 1.67 3.0 1.0 1.66 3.13 3.58 1.56 4.0 1.0 1.63 2.84 3.25 1.46 5.0 1.0 1.60 2.61 2.98 1.37 7.0 1.0 1.55 2.27 2.59 1.25 Note:

1. Maximum ground displacement is taken proportional to maximum ground acceleration, and is 36 inches for ground acceleration of 1.0 gravity.

2. The 57c damping ampli6 cation factor for control point B' is derised per discussion in subsection 3.7.1.1.

This 57c damping amplification factor equals 1.3 times the RG 1.60 response spectra at 25 Hertz. The amplification factors at control point 11' for other damping values are determined by increasing the RG 1.60 response spectra at 25 hertz by 30 percent.

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-54 [ W85tiligh0LISO

i" He w

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, cnd Systuns =

1 Table 3.7.2-1 COUPLED SIIIELD AND AUXILIARY BUILDINGS LUMPED-MASS STICK MODEL MODAL PROPERTIES Mode Freq. Gen 1. Participation Facters Modal Masses Camulative Mass, 4 No. (CPS) Mass X Y Z X Y Z X Y Z 1 4.04 1.00 -0.861 34.698 -1.764 0.742 1203.954 3.112 0.0 28.2 0.1 2 4.42 1.00 -32.920 -0.730 1.099 1083.739 0.534 1.208 25.4 28.2 0.1 3 6.55 1.00 0.406 7.720 -21.618 0.165 59.602 467.357 25.4 29.6 11 1 4 6.66 1.00 -4.325 19.851 10.858 18.701 394.082 117.886 25.9 38.9 13.8 5 6.76 1.00 -22.265 -4.455 -4.144 495.711 19.845 17.175 37.5 39.3 14.2 6 8.62 1.00 3.738 -2.308 -0.082 13.969 5.326 0.007 37.8 39.4 14.2 7 12.10 1.00 2.129 -31.038 -0.983 4.532 963.357 0.965 37.9 62.0 14.2 8 12.45 1.00 -23.372 -2.274 -0.434 546.271 5.171 0.189 50.7 62.1 14.2 9 13.35 1.00 22.072 0.128 0.421 487.160 0.016 0.177 62.1 62.1 14.2 10 19.63 1.00 -1.071 0.504 35.702 1.147 0.254 1274.604 62.1 62.1 44.1 11 22.06 1.00 9.727 10.760 2.204 94.616 115.778 4.857 64.4 64.9 44.2 12 22.13 1.00 12.887 -9.994 1.828 166.077 99.887 3.340 68.3 67.2 44.3 13 23.72 1.00 2.581 6.996 -0.578 6.661 48.940 0.334 68.4 68.3 44.3 14 28.39 1.00 -0.920 11.099 -4.892 0.846 123.177 23.933 68.4 71.2 44.9 15 29.12 1.00 -11.866 -1.044 1.536 140.796 1.089 2.358 71.7 71.3 44.9 16 34.26 1.00 2.756 4.151 28.835 7.593 17.232 831.467 71.9 71.7 64.4 17 35.09 1.00 -7.754 -7.272 10.281 60.120 52.881 105.707 73.3 72.9 66.9 18 35.45 1.00 9.210 -8.158 0.975 84.830 66.546 0.952 75.3 74.5 66.9 19 37.22 1.00 4.194 0.004 -0.705 17.590 0.000 0.496 75.7 74.5 66.9 20 40.20 1.03 9.007 -7.609 0.364 81.128 57.892 0.132 77.6 75.8 66.9 21 40.84 1.00 7.203 9.432 -2.069 51.890 88.955 4.282 78.8 77.9 67.0 22 42.40 1.00 -0.407 -1.151 0.140 0.166 1.324 0.020 78.8 77.9 67.0 23 42.77 1.00 2.039 -3.162 -1.925 4.157 9.996 3.707 78.9 78.2 67.1 24 43.85 1.00 3.069 1.949 5.535 9.419 3.800 30.634 79.2 78.3 67.8 25 46.28 1.00 13.138 1.923 -0.497 172.605 3.698 0.247 83.2 78.3 67.8 26 47.26 1.00 -3.669 9.310 -0.229 13.462 87.041 0.053 83.5 80.4 67.8 27 49.38 1.00 4.575 3.363 -0.057 20.934 11.308 0.003 84.0 80.6 67.8 28 53.87 1.00 -0.441 -8.312 -0.298 0.194 69.089 0.089 84.0 82.3 67.8 29 55.60 1.00 -0.444 0.500 -4.233 0.197 0.250 17.917 84.0 82.3 68.3 30 56.13 1.00 0.385 -0.301 -2.298 0.148 0.091 5.282 84.0 82.3 68.4 31 57.10 1.00 -13.915 2.197 -0.153 193.640 4.827 0.023 88.6 82.4 68.4 32 59.94 1.00 -1.731 -9.937 +1.460 2.997 98.737 2.130 88.6 84.) 68.4 33 60.92 1.00 0.107 0.209 15.294 0.012 0.044 233.908 88.6 84.7 73.9 34 64.94 1.00 0.845 13.262 -0.572 0.713 175.868 0.328 88.6 88.8 73.9 35 64.98 1.00 0.134 -7.695 1.723 0.018 59.216 2.969 BB.6 90.2 74.0 36 65.03 1.00 -2.522 -18.980 -0.610 6.360 360.257 0.372 88.8 98.7 74.0 37 65.81 1.00 20.342 1.163 0.116 413.802 1.351 0.013 98.5 98.7 74.0 SUMMATIONS 4203.107 4211.416 3158.233 TOTAL MASS 4267.520 4267.520 4267.521 Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-55 June 2,1995

@M3

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, cud Systems rs l Table 3.7.2-2 .

i STEEL CONTAINMENT  !

VESSEL LUMPED-MASS STICK MODEL l MODAL PROPERTIES i Mode Freq. Gen 1. Participation Factors Modal Masses Cumulative Mass. %

No. (CPS) Mass X Y Z X Y Z X Y Z i

1 2.19 1.00 0.000 -4.840 0.000 0.000 23.422 0.000 0.0 11.2 0.0 2 4.46 1.00 0.000 0.000 4.686 0.000 0.000 21.955 0.0 11.2 10.4

• 3 5.06 1.00 -7.687 0.000 0.000 59.086 0.000 0.000 28.4 11.2 10.4 .

4 7.61 1.00 0.000 -11.595 0.000 0.000 134.453 0.000 28.4 75.8 10.4 -

5 8.03 1.00 -9.937 0.000 0.000 98.752 0.000 0.000 75.8 75.8 10.4 '

6 14.92 1.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.8 75.8 10.4 7 18.38 1.00 0.000 0.000 -11.509 0.000 0.000 132.456 75.8 75.8 73.3 8 22.02 1.00 0.000 5.528 0.000 0.000 30.563 0.000 75.8 90.5 73.3 9 22.03 1.00 5.534 0.000 0.000 30.626 0.000 0.000 90.5 90.5 73.3 10 30.08 1.00 0.000 0.000 -5.862 0.000 0.000 34.358 90.5 90.5 89.6 i 11 35.16 1.00 0.000 1.647 0.000 0.000 2.711 0.000 90.5 91.8 09.6

• 12 35.16 1.00 -1.640 0.000 0.000 2.689 0.000 0.000 91.8 91.8 89.6 13 44.15 1.00 0.000 2.311 0.000 0.000 5.340 0.000 91.8 94.4 89.6  !

14 44.20 1.00 -2.311 0.000 0.000 5.342 0.000 0.000 94.4 94.4 89.6 15 44.94 1.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 94.4 94.4 89.6 i

SUMMATIONS 196.498 196.469 188.769 TOTAL MASS 208.206 208.206 210.762 Nde: I

1. The first three rnodes of vibratum are pnncipally polar crane resp (mse modes.

i l

I Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-56 W Westilighouse

3. Design of Struct res, Components, Equipm:nt, and Systems ~

4 Table 3.7.2-3 (Sheet 1 of 3)

CONTAINMENT INTERNAL STRUCTURES, WITHOUT RCL LUMPED-MASS STICK MODEL MODAL PROPERTIFS Mode Freq. Genl. Participation Factors Modal Masses Cumulative Mass, %

No. (CPS) Mass X Y Z X Y Z X Y Z 1 13.38 1.00 -1.601 18.512 -0.389 2.563 342.681 0.151 0.2 30.0 0.0 2 15.72 1.00 20.540 4.627 -0.498 421.873 23.295 0.248 37.1 32.0 0.0 3 17.13 1.0? -7.719 9.207 -0.169 59.578 84.770 0.029 42.3 39.4 0.0 4 39.44 1.00 -0.982 -9.211 -2.733 0.963 84.833 7.471 42.4 46.8 0.7 5 41.67 1.00 0.264 24.386 -1.000 0.070 594.653 1.016 42.4 98.8 0.8 6 42.03 1. 0 -24.053 0.577 -4.210 578.525 0.333 17.726 93,0 98.8 2.3 7 44.81 1.00 -6.260 0.793 10.407 39.193 0.630 108.308 96.4 96.9 11.8 8 46.21 1.00 5.401 0.769 -8,562 29.174 0.591 73.305 99.0 98.9 18.2 9 47.16 1.00 -0.833 -0.649 -16.664 0.694 0.421 '277.673 99.0 99.0 42.4 10 58.40 1.00 0.509 -0.023 2.087 0.259 0.001 4.354 99.0 99.0 42.8 11 61.81 1.00 0.072 -0.051 0.236 0.005 0.003 0.056 99.0 99.0 42.8 12 63.02 1.00 0.058 -0.269 -2.640 0.003 0.072 6.969 99.0 99.0 43.4 13 78.69 1.00 -0.017 0.013 -0.046 0.000 0.000 0.002 99.0 99.0 43.4 14 84.52 1.00 -0.006 0.009 1.417 0.000 0.000 2.007 99.0 99.0 43.6 15 90.93 1.00 0.050 0.172 -21.741 0.003 0.030 472.666 99.0 99.0 84.8 SUMMATIONS 1132.903 1132.313 911.981 TCTAL MASS 1143.900 1143.900 1146.500 Draft Revision: 4 W Westingh0USe 3.7-57 June 2,1995

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, end Syst:ms Table 3.7.2-3 (Sheet 2 of 3)

CONTAINMENT INTERNAL STRUCTURES, INCLUDING RCL LUMPED-MASS STICK MODEL MODAL PROPERTIES Mode Freq. Gen 1. Participation Facters Modal Masses Cumulative Mass.t No. (CPS) Mass X Y Z X Y Z X Y Z 1 4,26 1.00 -0.120 1.250 -0.005 0.014 1.561 0.000 0.0 0.1 0.0 2 4.26 1.00 1.139 0.120 -0.004 1.298 0.014 0.000 0.1 0.1 0.0 3 5.05 1.00 0.020 6.998 -0.030 0.000 48.975 0.001 0.1 4.0 0.0 4 *.20 1.00 -0.001 0.000 0.221 0.000 0.000 0.049 0.1 4.0 0.0 5 6.61 1.00 -6.598 -0.199 0.032 43.539 0.040 0.001 3.5 4.0 0.0 6 6.73 1.00 2.457 -0.325 -0.003 6.036 0.106 0.000 4.0 4.0 0.0 7 11.89 1.00 -0.052 -1.907 -0.001 0.003 3.636 0.000 4.0 4.2 0.0 8 12.20 1.00 0.025 -0.131 -8.731 0.001 0.017 76.226 4.0 4.2 6.0 9 12.26 1.00 -0.287 0.942 -1.239 0.082 0.708 1.535 4.0 4.3 6.1 10 12.40 1.00 3.371 0.753 -0.029 11.362 0.567 0.001 4.9 4.3 6.1 Il 13.33 1.00 -0.907 21.239 -0.358 0.823 451.075 0.128 4.9 39.6 6.1 12 13.65 1.00 -9.717 0.816 0.003 94.427 0.666 0.000 12.3 39.7 6.1 13 14.11 1.00 -2.748 -0.115 -0.144 7.551 0.013 0.021 12.9 39.7 6.1 14 14.43 1.00 -10.106 -0.112 0.089 102.134 0.012 0.008 20.9 39.7 6.1 15 15.05 1.00 -0.688 -1.326 -0.014 0.473 1.759 0.000 20.9 39.8 6.1 16 15.16 1.00 -0.831 -1.267 0.028 0.690 1.606 0.001 21.0 39.9 6.1 17 15.55 1.00 1.796 0.234 -0.072 3.224 0.055 0.005 21.2 39.9 6.1 la 15.89 1.00 -17.416 -4.755 0.496 303.310 22.612 v.246 45.0 41.7 6.1 19 17.29 1.00 -7.727 8.248 -0.160 59.704 68.022 0.026 49.6 47.0 6.1 20 17.34 1.00 0.370 -0.395 0.047 0.137 0.156 0.002 49.6 47.0 6.1 21 17.68 1.00 0.924 -0.547 0.0$0 0.854 0.299 0.003 49.7 47.1 6.1 22 18.87 1.00 -0.025 0.025 0.352 0.001 0.001 0.124 49.7 47.1 6.1 23 20.18 1.00 0.058 -0.220 0.020 0.003 0.048 0.000 49.7 47.1 6.1 24 20.29 1.00 0.096 0.866 0.041 0.009 0.750 0.002 49.7 47.1 6.1 25 20.50 1.00 -0.089 0.034 0.013 0.008 0.001 0.000 49.7 47.1 6.1 26 23.20 1.00 -0.009 0.024 -1.186 0.000 0.001 1.407 49.7 47.1 6.2 27 23.86 1.00 -0.006 0.029 -0.110 0.000 0.001 0.012 49.7 47.1 6.2 28 25.34 1.00 0.060 0.076 2.812 0.004 0.006 7.909 49.7 47.1 6.8 29 26.02 1.00 0.396 -0.450 0.064 0.157 0.202 0.004 49.7 47.1 6.8 30 26.33 1.00 -0.693 -0.344 -0.157 0.480 0.118 0.025 49.7 47.1 6.8 31 29.41 1.00 -0.002 0.536 -0.222 0.000 0.287 0.049 49.7 47.2 6.8 32 30.21 1.00 0.414 -0.214 -0.080 0.172 0.046 0.006 49.8 47.2 6.8 33 34.35 1.00 -0.020 -0.019 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 49.8 47.2 6.8 34 35.10 1.00 -0.247 -0.143 -9.038 0.061 0.021 81.679 49.8 47.2 13.2 35 36.52 1.00 0.017 -0.171 2.299 0.000 0.029 5.286 49.8 47.2 13.6 36 37.14 1.00 0.655 5.790 0.099 0.430 33.523 0.010 49.8 49.8 13.6 37 37.36 1.00 4.760 -0.797 0.123 22.660 0.635 0.015 51.6 49.8 13.6 38 37.99 1.00 -0.251 0.029 -0.160 0.063 0.001 0.026 51.6 49.8 13.6 39 38.10 1.00 -3.808 0.806 +0.025 14.500 0.650 0.001 52.7 49.9 13.6 40 38.95 1.00 -0.079 -0.301 -1.376 0.006 0.091 1.894 52.7 49.9 13.8 41 39.21 1.00 0.939 10.082 1.930 0.882 101.651 3.724 52.8 57.8 14.1 42 40.34 1.00 0.677 -1.138 0.148 0.458 1.295 0.022 52.8 58.0 14.1 43 41.82 1.00 18.669 -0.321 4.230 356.051 0.103 17.891 80.7 58.0 15.5 44 42.30 1.00 -0.576 -22.739 1.216 0.332 517.042 1.4e0 80.7 98.4 15.6 45 44.23 1.00 14.100 -1.271 -2.806 198.822 1.615 7.873 96.2 98.5 16.2 Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-58 W sWB5tingh00Se

3. Design of Structures, Compone ts, Equipme:1, t=d Systems Table 3.7.2-3 (Sheet 3 of 3)

CONTAINMENT INTERNAL STRUCTURES, INCLUDING RCL LUMPED 41 ASS STICK MODEL MODAL PROPERTIES Mode Freq. Geni. Participation Facters Modal Masses Cumulative Mass, L tso . (CPS) Mass X Y Z X Y Z X Y Z 46 45.94 1.00 0.749 2.299 14.118 0.561 5.286 199.320 96.3 98.9 31.8 47 46.42 1.00 -6.026 -0,763 7.458 36.310 0.582 55.616 99.1 99.0 36.1 46 46.75 1.00 -0.410 -1.226 10.693 0.168 1.504 114.343 99.1 99.1 45.0 49 48.77 1.00 0.067 -0.212 -7.457 0.004 0.045 55.611 99.1 99.1 49.4 50 55.43 1.00 -0.005 0.115 -C.004 0.000 0.013 0.000 99.1 99.1 49.4 51 55.45 1.00 -0.001 -0.001 -0.339 0.000 0.000 0.115 99.1 99.1 49.4 52 58.42 1.00 -0.512 0.C24 -2.046 0.262 0.001 4.185 99.1 99.1 49.7 SUMMATIONS 1268.068 1267.448 636.881 TOTA 1. MASS 1279.110 1279.110 1281.740 l

Draft Revision: 4 W Westingh0USB 3.7-59 June 2,1995

• - * - C P h L

rw k,

j' e 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipmint, and Syst1ms  ;

l ,_ _ _ _ ? '

Table 3.7.2-4 (Sheet 1 of 2)

NUCLEAR ISLAND COMBINED LUMPED-MASS STICK MODEL MODAL PROPERTIES I

Mode Freq. Gen 1. Participation Factors Modal Masses Cumulative Mass %

No. (CPS) Mass X Y Z X Y

{

Z X Y Z +

1 2.01 1.00 -0.002 -0.006 2.983 0.000 0.000 8.896 0.0 0.0 0.1 l 2 2.19 1.00 -0.003 4.953 -0.004 0.000 24.533 0.000 0.0 0.4 0.1 l

3 3.06 1.00 0.018 -0.005 0.93$ 0.000 0.000 0.874 0.0 0.4 0.2 4 3.63 1.00 1.046 -0.374 3.574 1.094 0.140 12.775 0.0 0.4 0.4 5 4.13 1.00 -0.929 32.296 -1.997 0.863 1043.062 3.988 0.0 17.6 0.4 !

6 4.26 1.00 -0.125 1.058 0.012 0.016 1.120 0.000 0.0 17.6 0.4 7 4.26 1.00 1.224 0.119 -0.007 1.498 0.014 0.000 0.1 17.6 0.4 8 4.46 1.00 -0 909 0.264 4.879 0.826 0.070 23.809 0.1 17.6 0.8 9 4.50 1.00 30.543 0.751 -1.433 932.894 0.564 2.054 15.4 17.6 0.9 10 5.01 1.00 0.040 6.364 0.013 0.002 40.504 0.000 15.4 18.3 0.9 11 5.06 1.00 6.944 0.007 0.033 48.219 0.000 0.001 16.2 18.3 0.9 12 5.19 1.00 0.001 0.000 -0.208 0.000 0.000 0.043 16.2 18.3 0.9 13 6.54 1.00 -0.451 -3.479 24.185 0.203 12.102 584,897 16.2 18.5 10,5 14 6.60 1.00 6.852 -0.330 0.042 46.946 0.109 0.002 17.0 18.5 10.5 15 6.72 1.00 2.701 -1.037 -0.126 7.296 1.076 0.016 17.1 18.5 10.5 16 6.77 1.00 -5.119 19.367 6.323 26.209 375.081 39.985 17.6 24.7 11.2 17 6.87 1.00 -20.300 -5.652 ~3.493 412.105 31.940 12.204 24.4 25.2 11.4 j 18 7.55 1.00 0.028 9.757 0.297 0.001 95.190 0.088 24.4 26.8 11.4 '

19 7.88 1.00 0.010 -0.527 4.384 0.000 0.278 19.221 24.4 26.8 11.7 7.88 '

20 1.00 -0.011 0.047 1.873 0.000 0.002 3.509 24.4 26.8 11.8 21 8.00 1.00 -8.932 -0.141 0.068 79.782 0.020 0.005 25.7 26.8 11.8 22 8.63 1.00 -3.130 1.818 0.433 9.794 3.304 0.188 25.8 26.8 11.8 23 8.89 1.00 1.412 -0.128 5.626 1.993 0.016 31.648 25.9 26.8 12.3 24 9.50 1.00 0.628 -0.019 4.870 0.394 0.000 23.722 25.9 26.8 12.7 25 10.68 1.00 -2.231 -13.215 -0.031 4.978 174.626 0.001 25.9 29.7 12.7 26 11.67 1.00 0.147 0.742 -3.779 0.021 0.551 14.281 25.9 29.7 12.9 27 11.91 1.00 0.339 0.357 0.046 0.115 0.127 0.002 26.0 29.7 12.9 i 28 12.07 1.00 0.046 -0.299 -8.403 0.002 0.090 70.617 26.0 29.7 14.1 29 12.25 1.00 -0.118 0.755 -3.851 0.014 0.570 14.828 26.0 29.7 14.3 30 12.43 1.00 -2.975 2.976 0.052 8.850 8.858 0.003 26.1 29.9 14.3 31 12.72 1.00 5.180 2.513 0.196 26.829 6.313 0.038 26.5 30.0 14.3 32 13.56 1.00 6.929 -18.312 -0.241 48.009 335.343 0.058 27.3 35.5 14.3 33 13.67 1.00 7.380 12.210 0.484 54.472 149.082 0.234 28.2 38.0 14.3 34 13.70 1.00 -2.135 20.730 1.318 4.559 429,720 1.737 28.3 45.0 14.3 35 13.82 1.00 0.351 -4.165 3.515 0.123 17.348 12.353 28.3 45.3 14.6 36 14.36 1.00 -0.736 -0.540 6.472 0.541 0.291 41.885 28.3 45.3 15.2 37 14.42 1.00 12.283 0.508 0.827 150.867 0.258 0.684 30.8 45.3 15.3 >

38 14.60 1.00 24.809 0.842 0.630 615.494 0.709 0.396 40.9 45.4 15.3 39 14.92 1.00 -4.976 0.213 0.022 24.759 0.045 0.000 41.3 45.4 15.3 40 14.99 1.00 0.149 0.362 -0.020 0.022 0.131 0.000 41.3 45.4 15.3 41 15.08 1.00 -0.736 -1.858 -0.457 0.541 3.454 0.209 41.4 45.4 15.3 42 15.55 1.00 1.985 0.174 -0.004 3.939 0.030 0.000 41.4 45.4 15.3 43 15.81 1.00 16.208 5.365 0.091 262.697 28.786 0.008 45.7 45.9 15.3 44 16.74 1.00 -0.380 0.381 0.872 0.145 0.146 0.761 45.7 45.9 15.3 45 17.22 1.00 7.946 -8.418 -0.795 63.133 70.858 0.632 46.8 47.1 15.3 i

Draft Revision: 4 Jime 2,1995 3.7-60 W Westinghouse  !

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems R.

?E Table 3.7.2-4 (Sheet 2 of 2)

NUCLEAR ISLAND COMBINED LUMPED-MASS STICK MODEL MODAL PROPERTIES Mode Freq. Gen 1. Participatic,n Factc:rs Modal Masses Cumulative Mass, %

No. (CPS) Mass X Y Z X Y Z X Y Z 46 17.66 1.00 -0.590 0.631 1.C43 0.348 0.398 1.088 46.8 47.1 15.3 47 17.71 1.00 0.642 -0.116 28.566 0.413 0.013 816.031 46.8 47.1 28.8 48 18.06 1.00 -0.145 0.015 -1.918 0.021 0.000 3.678 46.8 47.1 28.8 49 18.06 1.00 0.477 -0.116 -1.298 0.227 0.014 1.686 46.8 47.1 28.9 50 18.10 1.00 0.759 -0.336 -11.372 0.576 0.113 129.322 46.8 47.1 31.0 51 18.17 1.00 -0.173 0.213 -0.107 0.030 0.045 0.011 46.8 47.1 31.0 52 18.91 1.00 0.166 -0.171 13.289 0.C28 0.029 176.610 46.6 47.1 33.9 53 19.71 1.00 -1.314 0.103 23.634 1.728 0.011 558.548 46.8 47.1 43.1 54 20.18 1.00 -0.056 0.218 -0.068 C.003 0.047 0.005 46.8 47.1 43.1 55 20.29 1.00 0.087 0.804 0.058 0.008 0.646 0.003 46.8 47.1 43.1 56 20.49 1.00 0.100 0.085 -0.024 0.010 0.007 0.001 46.8 47.1 43.1 57 21.33 1.00 0.250 0.001 -3.765 0.063 0.000 14.17e 46.8 47.1 43.3 58 21.57 1.00 -0.042 0.064 -1.436 0.002 0.004 2.061 46.8 47.1 43.4 59 21.96 1.00 -3.588 4.216 -0.046 12.874 17.776 0.002 47.1 47.4 43.4 60 22.00 1.00 3.914 3.832 -0.409 15.320 14.687 0.167 47.3 47.6 43.4 61 22.60 1.00 -0.211 -2.147 0.094 0.044 4.609 0.009 47.3 47.7 43.4 62 22.94 1.00 -1.353 -1.045 -3.270 1.832 1.092 10.696 47.3 47.7 43.6 63 23.05 1.00 2.847 5.301 1.136 B.106 28.103 1.290 47.5 48.2 43.6 64 23.96 1.00 12.253 -2.441 1.106 150.139 5.957 1.223 49.9 48.3 43.6 65 24.70 1.00 -1.161 -9.013 -1.234 1.347 81.242 1.523 50.0 49.6 43.6 66 25.33 1.00 -0.080 -0.121 -3.105 0.006 0.015 9.638 50.0 49.6 43.8 67 25.98 1.00 -0.367 0.589 0.032 0.134 0.347 0.001 50.0 49.6 43.8 68 26.30 1.00 0.683 0.136 0.157 0.466 0.019 0.025 50.0 49.6 43.8 69 28.05 1.00 -0.793 -0.453 4.376 0,628 0.205 19.151 50.0 49.6 44.1 70 29.41 1.00 -0.012 -0.403 -0.045 0.000 0.163 0.002 50.0 49.6 44.1 71 29.69 1.00 0.087 2.207 -12.985 0.006 4.870 168.620 50.0 49.7 46.9 72 30.21 1.00 -0.271 -1.070 0.538 0.073 1.145 0.290 50.0 49.7 46.9 73 30.25 1.00 -0.831 7.810 -2.977 0.691 60.998 8.860 50.0 50.7 47.0 74 30.73 1.00 -7.977 -0.272 1.821 63.639 0.074 3.314 51.1 50.7 47.1 SUMMATIONS 3099.010 3079 v93 2854.682 TOTAL MASS 6070.271 6070.271 6062.211 1

I l

Draft Resision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-61 June 2,1995 i

1 l

i

• m =- n .

+:

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems l

Table 3.7.2-5 (Sheet I of 3)

MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE NODAL ACCELERATION (ZPA)

COUPLED AUXILIARY & SIIIELD BUILDINGS IIARD ROCK SITE CONDITION Elevation hiaximum Absolute Nodal Acceleration, ZPA (g.)

(ft) N-S Direction E-W Direction Vertical Direction 307.25 1.34 1.26 0.90 297.07 1.I7 1.08 0.90 284.41 0.96 0.95 0.89 271.58 0.84 0.87 0.88 246.00 0.80 0.78 0.57 241.00 0.78 0.75 0.57 230.00 0.72 (0.75) 0.69 (0.72) 0.56 (0.64) 210.00 0.61 (0.64) 0.73 (0.74) 0.52 (0.59) 180.00 0.49 (0.52) 0.72 (0.74) 0.43 (0.53) 160.50 0.49 (0.52) 0.63 (0.67) 0.38 (0.48) 153.00 0.48 (0.51) 0.61 (0.64) 0.37 (0.45) 135.25 0.43 (0.44) 0.48 (0.54) 0.35 (0.40) 117.50 0.37 (0.37) 0.38 (0.41) 0.34 (0.36) 100.00 0.30 (0.30) 0.30 (0.3 I) 0.32 (0.33) 82.50 0.30 (0.30) 0.30 (0.30) 0.30 (0.31) 66.50 0.30 0.30 0.30 Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the north, south, east and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-62 3 Westinghouse  ;

pn -

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipme:t, cmd Syst:ms I =t l l Table 3.7.2-5 (Sheet 2 of 3)

MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE NODAL ACCELERATION (ZPA)

COUPLED AUXILIARY & SIIIELD BUILDINGS SOFT ROCK SITE CONDITION Elevation Maximum Absolute Nodal Acceleration, ZPA (g.)

NI) N S Direction E-W Direction Vertical Direction 307.25 1.38 1.62 0.94 297.07 1.20 1.38 0.94 284.41 1.04 1. I7 0.94 271.58 0.93 1.14 0.93 246.00 0.84 1.05 0.54 241.00 0.82 1.02 0.53 230.00 0.77 (0.83) 0.99 (0.99) 0.52 (0.62) 210.00 0.68 (0.69) 0.77 (0.79) 0.49 (0.59) 180.00 0.53 (0.55) 0.M (0.67) 0.40 (0.53) 160.50 0.44 (0.45) 0.56 (0.58) 0.36 (0.49) 153.00 0.41 (0.43) 0.54 (0.55) 0.36 (0.47) 135.25 0.36 (0.38) 0.43 (0.46) 0.34 (0.44) 117.50 0.34 (0.34) 0.34 (0.35) 0.33 (0.41) 100.00 0.31 (0.32) 0.31 (0.31) 0.32 (0.38) 82.50 0.30 (0.3 I) 0.30 (0.31) 0.3 I (0.35) 66.50 0.30 0.30 0.32 Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the north, south, east and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in ,

parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes. l I

i I

l J

l Draft Revision: 4

[ W85tlIlgh0LISe 3.7-63 June 2,1995

1 l

l m 77 l f .h 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipme:t, and Systems L

Table 3.7.2-5 (Sheet 3 of 3)

MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE NODAL ACCELERATION (ZPA)

COUPLED AUXILIARY & SHIELD BUILDINGS SOFT TO-MEDIUM STIFF SOIL CONDITION Elevation Maximum Absolute Nodal Acceleration, ZPA (g.)

(II) N S Direction E-W Direction Vertical Direction 307.25 0.86 0.98 0.74 297.07 0.79 0.90 0.73 284.41 0.69 0.76 0.73 271.58 0.60 0.72 0.73 246.00 0.56 0.65 0.50 241.00 0.55 0.63 0.49 230.00 0.52 (0.53) 0.58 (0.59) 0.48 (0.57) 210.00 0.46 (0.48) 0.50 (0.50) 0.47 (0.55) 180.00 0.40 (0.41) 0.40 (0.41) 0.42 (0.52) 160.50 0.35 (0.37) 0.36 (0.36) 0.39 (0.50) 153.00 0.34 (0.35) 0.37 (0.38) 0.37 (0.49) 135.25 0.30 (0.31) 0.32 (0.33) 0.36 (0.48)

I17.50 0.27 (0.28) 0.30 (0.30) 0.36 (0.45) 100.00 0.26 (0.26) 0.29 (0.29) 0.35 (0.43) 82.50 0.24 (0.24) 0.29 (0.29) 0.34 (0.41) 66.50 0.23 0.29 0.35 Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the north, south, east and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-64 3 West lIlgt10USe

3. De,ign of Structures, Components, Equipm:nt, end Systems Table 3.7.2-6 (Sheet 1 of 3)

MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE NODAL ACCELERATION (ZPA)

STEEL CONTAINMENT VESSEL IIARD ROCK SITE CONDITION Elevation Maximum Absolute Nodal Acceleration, ZPA (g.)

III) N-S Direction E W Direction Vertical Direction 256.33 0.87 1.15 1.30 248.33 0.85 1.11 1.(M 240.33 0.82 (0.85) 1.07 (1.07) 0.92 (0.93) 229.52 0.78 1.02 0.81 218.71 0.73 0.96 0.77 205.33 0.69 (0.71) 0.89 (0.89) 0.75 (0.78) 205.33 1.82 1.09 1.17 (Polar Crane) 190.00 0.64 0.80 0.71 170.00 0.55 0.66 0.65 162.00 0.51 (0.51) 0.60 (0.60) 0.62 (0.65) 144.50 0.41 0.48 0.55 132.25 0.36 0.39 0.50 116.86 0.33 (0.33) 0.34 (0.34) 0.43 (0.44) 1I2.50 0.32 0.33 0.41 104.13 0.31 0.31 0.37 100.00 0.30 0.30 0.32 Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the north and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses.

This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

1 l

l I

l 1

l l

Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-65 June 2,1995 ,

l

ui B

3. Design of Structures Components, Equipment, and Systems Table 3.7.2-6 (Sheet 2 of 3)

MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE NODAL ACCELERATION (ZPA)

STEEL CONTAINMENT VESSEL SOFT ROCK SITE CONDITION Elevation Maximum Absolute Nodal Acceleration, ZPA (g.)

"' I N-S Direction E-W Direction Vertical Direction 256.33 0.66 0.90 0.78 248.33 0.64 0.86 0.63 240.33 0.63 (0.63) 0.83 (0.83) 0.57 (0.57) 229.52 0.61 0.78 0.49 218.71 0.59 0.74 0.46 205.33 0.56 (0.57) 0.67 (0.67) 0.45 (0.47) 205.33 1.31 1.15 1.10 (Polar Crane) 190.00 0.54 0.59 0.44 170.00 0.47 0.49 0.39 162.00 0.45 (0.45) 0.45 (0.45) 0.41 (0.44) 144.50 0.40 0.38 0.37 132.25 0.37 0.34 0.37 116.86 0.35 (0.35) 0.33 (0.33) 0.36 (0.41) 1I2.50 0.34 0.31 0.36 1(M.13 0.32 0.31 0.35 100.00 0.31 0.31 0.34 Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the north and west edge rmdes of the structure are shown in parentheses.

This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

Dran Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-66 W WB5tingh0USB

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipm:nt, tnd Systems 5 Table 3.7.2-6 (Sheet 3 of 3)

MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE NODAL ACCELERATION (ZI'A)

STEEL CONTAINMENT VESSEL SOFT-TO-MEDIUM STIFF SOIL CONDITION Elevation Maximum Absolute Nodal Acceleration, ZPA (g.)

INI N-S Direction E-W Direction Vertical Direction 256.33 0.47 0.63 0.69 248.33 0.45 0.61 0.57 240.33 0.43 (0.44) 0.59 (0.59) 0.51 (0.53) 229.52 0.41 0.56 0.45 218.71 0.38 0.53 0.42 205.33 0.35 (0.37) 0.49 (0.49) 0.42 (0.50) 205.33 0.69 1.12 1.35 (Polar Crane) 190.00 0.34 0.44 0.41 170.00 0.31 0.38 0.41 162.00 0.30 (0.30) 0.36 (0.36) 0.40 (0.48) 144.50 0.29 0.31 0.40 132.25 0.28 0.32 0.39 116.86 0.27 (0.28) 0.30 (0.30) 0.38 (0.44) 1I2.50 0.27 0.30 0.38 104.13 0.26 0.29 0.38 100!.X) 0.26 0.29 0.37 l

Note: j

l. Enveloped response results at the north and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

i 4

1 Draft Revision: 4 1 T Westinghouse 3.7-67 June 2,1995

~q cc

$ 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipmert, rnd Systems l -. .

Table 3.7.2-7 (Sheet 1 of 3)

MAXIh1UM ABSOLUTE NODAL ACCELERATION (ZPA)

CONTAINMENT INTERNAL STRUCTURE' i

HARD ROCK SITE CONDITION lasimum Absolute Nodal Acceleration, ZPA (g.)

Elevation (ft) N-S Direction E-W Direction Vertical Direction 158.00 0.84 0.69 0.30 t (PRZ Compartment)

I 148.00 0.78 0.59 0.31 (SG-West Comprt )

148.00 0.71 0.57 0.31 (SG-East Comprt.)

135.25 0.69 (0.75) 0.56 (0.81) 0.30 (0.32) 107.17 0.35 (0.37) 0.31 (0.32) 0.30 (0.31) 103.00 0.34 0.31 0.30 98.10 0.33 0.30 0.30 82.50 0.30 0.30 0.30 Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the nonh, south, east and south edge nodes of the stmeture are shown in parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

t

'ir f

I l

Draft Revision: 4  ;

June 2,1995 3.7-68 3 Westiftgh00se  !

3. Design of Structures, Compone:ts, Equipmrt, and Syst ms Table 3.7.2-7 (Sheet 2 of 3)

MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE NODAL ACCELERATION (ZPA)

CONTAINMENT INTERNAL STRUCTURE SOFT ROCK SITE CONDITION Maximum Absolute Nodal Acceleration, ZPA (g.)

Elevation (ft) N-S Direction E-W Diration Vertical Direction 158.00 0.45 0.44 0.34 (PRZ Companment) 148.00 0.42 0.40 0.34 (SG-West Comprt )

148.00 0.38 0.39 0.31 (SG list Compn )

135.25 0.38 (0.40) 0.37 (0.43) 0.33 (0.36) 107.17 0.31 (0.31) 0.31 (0.31) 0.32 (0.35) 103.00 0.31 0.31 0.33 98.10 0.31 0.31 0.32 82.50 030 0.30 0.32 Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the north, south, east and south edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

1 Draft Revision: 4

[ W85tingh0USB 3.7-69 June 2,1995

r 7,y p

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipannt, end Systems b I Table 3.7.2-7 (Sheet 3 of 3) hlAXIhfUM ABSOLUTE NODAL ACCELERATION (ZPA)

CONTAINMENT INTERNAL STRUCTURE SOFT-TO-MEDIUM STIFF SOIL CONDITION 1 I

Elevation hlaximum Absolute Nodal Acceleration, ZPA (g.)

(ft) N-S Direction E-W Direction Vertical Direction 158.00 0.27 0.40 0.38 (PRZ Companment) 148.00 0.27 0.37 0.38 (SG-West Compn )

148.00 0.27 0.36 0.34 (SG-East Compn.)

135.25 0.26 (0.28) 0.35 (0.39) 0.37 (0.41) 107.17 0.25 (0.25) 0.28 (0.29) 0.35 (0.40) 103.00 0.25 0.28 0.37 98.10 0.25 0.28 0.36 82.50 0.24 0.28 0.36 Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the north, south, east and south edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-70 g Westinghouse

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems if 3N+

Table 3.7.2-8 (Sheet 1 of 3)

MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT RELATIVE TO TOP OF BASEMAT COUPLED AUXILIARY & SIIIELD BUILDINGS IIARD ROCK SITE CONDITION Elevation Staximum Relatise Displacement (inches)

(ft) N-S Direction E W Direction Vertical Direction 307.25 0.66 0.70 0.20 297.07 0.58 0.63 0.20 284.41 0.47 0.53 0.20 271.58 0.37 0.45 0.20 246.00 0.34 0.40 0.05 241.00 0.33 0.39 0.05 230.00 0.30 (0.31) 0.35 (0.37) 0.05 (0.17) 210.00 0.24 (0.26) 0.29 (0.30) 0.05 (O.I6) 180.00 0.15 (0.17) 0.19 (0.21) 0.02 (0.12) 160.50 0.10 (0.11) 0.13 (0.15) 0.02 (0.10) 153.00 0.08 (0.09) 0.12 (0.13) 0.02 (0.09) 135.25 0.05 (0.06) 0.07 (0.09) 0.01 (0.07)

I17.50 0.02 (0.03) 0.04 (0.05) 0.01 (0.05) 100 00 0. (O. ) O. (0.01) 0.01 (0.02) 82.50 0. (O. ) 0. (O. ) O. (0.01) 66.50 0. O. O.

Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the north, south, east and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

Draft Revision: 4 W W85tingh00Se 3 7-71 June 2,1995

i f3 2'

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems L. -

Table 3.7.2-8 (Sheet 2 of 3)

MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT RELATIVE TO TOP OF BASEMAT COUPLED AUXILIARY & SHIELD BUILDINGS SOFT ROCK SITE CONDITION Elevation Maximum Relative Displacement (inches)

(ft) N-S Direction E-W Directioa Vertical Direction 307.25 0.71 0.94 0.24 297.07 0.62 0.83 0.24 i 284 41 0.53 0.74 0.24 271.58 0.45 0.65 0.24 246.00 0.41 0.59 0.07 241.00 0.40 0.56 0.07 230.00 0.36 (0.40) 0.51 (0.53) 0.06 (0.21) 210.00 0.30 (0.32) 0.4 I (0.43) 0 06 (0.20) 180.00 0.20 (0.22) 0.27 (0.28) 0.03 (0.16) 160.50 0.14 (O.15) 0.19 (0.20) 0.02 (0.14) 153.00 0.12 (0.13) 0.17 (0.17) 0.02 (0.13) 135.25 0.08 (0.09) 0.11 (0.12) 0.02 (0.11) 117.50 0.05 (0.06) 0.07 (0.07) 0.01 (0.08) 100.00 0.02 (0.02) 0.02 (0.02) 0.01 (0.05) 82.50 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.0I) 0.01 (0.04) 66.50 0. O. (0.01) 0. (0.(M) f Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the north, south, east and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

l Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-72 3 Westingh00Se

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, end Systems l

l Table 3.7.2-8 (Sheet 3 of 3)

MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT RELATIVE TO TOP OF BASEMAT COUPLED AUXILIARY & SHIELD BUILDINGS SOFT-TO-MEDIUM STIFF SOIL CONDITION Elevation Maximum Relative Displacement (inches)

! (ft) N-S Direction E-W Direction Vertical Direction 307.25 0.60 0.95 0.20 1 297.07 0.54 0.88 0.20 I

l 284.41 0.46 0.76 0.20 271.58 0.40 0.68 0.20 246.00 0.36 0.60 0.06 241.00 0.35 0.58 0.06 230.00 0.32 (0.34) 0.53 (0.54) 0.06 (0.26) 210.00 0.25 (0.27) 0.45 (0.46) 0.05 (0.25) 180.00 0.19 (0.22) 0.31 (0.33) 0.02 (0.23) 160.50 0.I3 (O.I7) 0.26 (0.28) 0.04 (0.21) 153.00 0.12 (0.15) 0.23 (0.24) 0.N (0.20) 135.25 0.08 (0.11) 0.18 (0.19) 0.N (0.19) 117.50 0.09 (0.09) O.12 (O.I3) 0.N (O. I7) 100.00 0.03 (0.05) 0.07 (O.10) 0.N (O.I 5) 82.50 0.01 (0.N) 0.N (0.14) 0.02 (0.14) 66.50 0. (0.03) O. (0.06) 0. (0.13)

Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the north, south, east and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

Draft Revision: 4 ,

[ Westingh0USe 3.7-73 June 2,1995 1

l I

f.IMM t

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipm:nt, and Syst:ms L -I Table 3.7.2-9 (Sheet 1 of 3)

NIAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT RELATIVE TO TOP OF BASEh1AT STEEL CONTAINMENT VESSEL IIARD ROCK SITE CONDITION taximum Relative Displacement (inches)

Elevation (ft) N-S Direction E W Direction Vertical Direction 256.33 0.19 0.21 0.05 248.33 0. I 8 0.20 0.04 240.33 0.18 (0.18) 0.19 (0.19) 0.04 (0.06) 229.52 0. I7 0. I 8 0.03 218.71 0.16 0.17 0.03 205.33 0.14 (0.15) 0.15 (0.15) 0.03 (0.05) -

205.33 0.59 2.23 0.57 (Polar Crane) 190.00 0. I 2 0.13 0.03 170.00 0.09 0.10 0.02 162.00 0.08 (0.09) 0.09 (0.09) 0.02 (0.05) 144.50 0.06 0.06 0.02 132.25 0.04 0.04 0.01 116.86 0.02 (0.02) 0.02 (0.02) 0.01 (0.03) 1I2.50 0.02 0.02 0.01 104.13 0.01 0.01 0.01 100.00 0. O. 0.01 Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the north and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7 74 [ Westirigh00S8

i

3. Design of Structures, Components, Eq:1pm:nt, cnd Systems Table 3.7.2 9 (Sheet 2 of 3)

MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT RELATIVE TO TOP OF IIASEMAT STEEL CONTAINMENT VESSEL SOFT ROCK SITE CONDITION taximum Relative Displacement (inches)

Elevation (ft) N-S Direction E-W Direction Vertical Direction 256.33 0.20 0.27 0.03 248.33 0.19 0.26 0.03 240.33 0.18 (0.19) 0.24 (0.24) 0.03 (0.08) 229.52 0.17 0.22 0.02 218.71 0. I7 0.20 0.02 205.33 0.15 (O.I6) 0. I 8 (O.I8) 0.02 (0.08) 205.33 0.49 2.34 0.54 (Polar Crane) 190.00 0. I3 0. I 7 0.02 170.00 0. I 1 0. I 3 0.02 162.00 0.10 (0.10) 0.11 (O.I 2) 0.02 (0.07) 144.50 0.07 0.09 0.02 132.25 0.06 0.07 0.02 116.86 ON (0.04) 0.05 (0.05) 0.01 (0.05) 1I2.50 0.04 0.04 0.01 104.13 0.02 0.03 0.01 10(100 0.02 0.02 0.01 Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the north and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

Draft Revision: 4

[ Westingt10USe 3.7-75 June 2,1995

f

c. F ,

T'j 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, erd Systems q

Table 3.7.2-9 (Sheet 3 of 3) 7 MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT RELATIVE TO TOP OF BASEMAT STEEL CONTAINMENT VESSEL SOFT-TO41EDIUM STIFF SOIL CONDITION Elevation faximum Relative Disrlacement (inches)

(ft) N-S Direction E-W Direction Vertical Direction 256.33 0.21 0.42 0.04 248.33 0.20 0.40 0.04 240.33 0.19 (0.21) 0.38 (0.38) 0.03 (0.18) 229.52 0.19 0.36 0.03 218.71 0. I7 0.33 0.03 205.33 0.16 (0.17) 0.30 (0.30) 0.03 (0.18) 205.33 0.33 2.32 0.64 (Polar Crane) 190.00 0.14 0.26 0.03 170.00 0. I 1 0.22 0.02 162.00 0.10 (0.12) 0.20 (0.20) 0.02 (0.17) 144.50 0.08 0.I7 0.02 132.25 0.07 0.14 0.02 116.86 0.07 (0.08) O.1 I (O.I1) 0.02 (O.I5) 1I2.50 0.05 0.10 0.02 1G4.13 0.(M 0.08 0.02 100.00 0.03 0.07 0.02 Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the north and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

l l

l Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-76 [ WOStingh0US0 i

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems !i -

l Table 3.7.2-10 (Sheet 1 of 3)

MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT RELATIVE TO TOP OF BASEMAT CONTAINMENT INTERNAL STRUCTURE IIARD ROCK SITE CONDITION Alaximum Relative Displacement (inches)

Elevation (ft) N-S Direction E-W Direction Vertical Direction 158.00 0.N 0.05 0.01 (PRZ Compartment) 148.00 0.N 0.N 0.01 (SG West Comprt )

148.00 0.03 0.04 0.

(SG-East Compet.)

135.25 0.03 (0.04) 0.04 (0.05) 0. (0.01) 107.17 0. (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0, (0.01) 103.00 0. O. O.

98.10 0. O. O.

82.50 0. O, O.

Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the north, south, east and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

Draft Revision: 4 3.7-77 June 2,1995 W Westinghouse

si

=til

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipm:nt, end Systems Table 3.7.2-10 (Sheet 2 of 3)

MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT RELATIVE TO TOP OF BASEMAT CONTAINMENT INTERNAL STRUCTURE SOFT ROCK SITE CONDITION

! hiaximmn Reladve Displacement (inches)

Elevation (ft) N-S Direction E W Direction Vertical Direction 158.00 0.05 0.07 0.02 (PRZ Compartnrnt) 148.00 0.04 0.06 0.02 (SG-West Comprt )

148.00 0.(M OM 0.01 (SG East Comprt )

135.25 0.04 (0.04) 0.06 (0.06) 0.01 (0.04) 107.17 0.02 (0.02) 0.02 (0.02) 0.01 (0.03) 103.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 98.10 0.01 0.02 0.01 82.50 0.01 0.01 0.01 Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the nonh, south, east and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in parenthres. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-78 W Westingh0USB

g . . .

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipme:1, cnd Systems I a

l Tabl ~ 7.2-10 (Sheet 3 of 3)

MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT RELATIVE TO TOP OF BASEMAT CONTAINMENT INTERNAL STRUCTURE SOFT-TO MEDIUM STIFF SOIL CONDITION Elevation Maximum Relative Displacement (inches)

(ft) N-S Direction E-W Direction Vertical Direction 158.00 0.08 0. I7 0.08 (PRZ Compartmeno 148.00 0.07 0.15 0.07 (SG-Wes. Compn )

148.00 0.05 0.15 0.04 (SG-East Compn.)

135.25 0.08 (0.09) 0.13 (0.14) 0.04 (O.13) 107.I7 0.03 (0.05) 0.08 (0.08) 0.01 (O.12) 103.00 0.03 0.07 0.04 98.10 0.02 0.06 0.02 82.50 0.01 0.0% 0.02 Note:

1. Enveloped response results at the north, south, east and west edge nodes of the structure are shown in parentheses. This is the maximum value of the response at any of these edge nodes.

Draft Revision: 4 WeStiflgh00Se 3.7-79 June 2,1995

I fE' ~ "ijd H-m 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems i i.

l Table 3.7.2-11 (Sheet 1 of 3)

MAXIMUM MEMBER FORCES AND MOMENTS i COUPLED AUXILIARY & SillELD BUILDINGS IIARD ROCK SITE CONDITION i Maximum Forces (x10' Kips) Maximum Moment (x10' K-ft) t Elevation  !

(ft) Axial N-S Shear E W Shear Torque about N-S Axis about E W Axis 307.25 24.70 32.40 1.67 2.65 2.49 5.02 ,

297.07 72.80 88.20 3.69 5.47 5.07 11.06 ,

284.41 190.00 222.50  ;

7.09 9.33 8.47 26.56 i 271.58 391.00 443.10 11.17 9.33 8.47 51.92 246.00 631.00 659.00 13.18 14.45 14.64 53.32 i 241.00 697.20 722.20  !

14.29 15.54 15.83 53.63 l 230.00 843.30 891.60  !

16.46 17.58 17.85 68.05 I 210.00 1135.00 1234.00 f 19.52 20.37 20.14 92.89 j l80.00 1807.00 1893.00 -!

22.17 24.03 22.66 784.80 ,

160.50 2341.00 2316.00

[

23.62 26.41 25.42 952.60 153.00 2513.00 2428.00 25.26 29.41 29.63 694.70 135.25 2981.00 2940.00 27.92 33.81 36.41 958.10 117.50 3535.00 3422.00 29.94 36.62 41.13 1173.00 100.00 4200.00 3937.(X) l 4

i i

l l

Draft Revision: 4  ;

June 2,1995 3.7-80 g Westingflouse l i

3. Design of Structures, Components, Eq ipment, cnd Systems Table 3.7.2-11 (Sheet 2 of 3) h1AXIh1Uh1 AIEh1BER FORCES AND A1051ENTS COUPLED AUXILIARY & SIIIELD BUILDINGS SOFT ROCK SITE CONDITION Elevation Maximum Forces (x10' Kips) Maximum Moment (x10' K-ft)

(ft) Axial N-S Shear E-W Shear Torque about N-S Axis about E-W Axis 307.25 22.40 23.40 1.80 2.59 2.97 3.01 297.07 78.10 77.20 3.97 5.38 6.06 6.62 284.41 220.00 212.00 7.63 9.30 10.10 15.90 271.58 462.00 436.00 12.00 9.30 10.10 31.10 246.00 757.00 642.00 13.80 15.30 16.90 34.20 241.00 836.00 713.00 14.50 16.50 18.40 35.20 230.00 1010.00 890.00 16.10 18.60 21.(X) 41.60 210.00 1360.00 1250.00 18.50 21.30 24.50 56.30 180.00 1980.00 2090.(X) 21.40 24.90 28.00 872.00 160.50 2600.00 2580.(X) 23.30 27.20 29.90 941.00 153.00 2800.00 27(X).00 25.50 30.00 32.90 735.00 135.25 3380.00 3310.00 29.70 34.90 37.40 995.00 117.50 4050.00 3940.00 34.80 40.30 42.90 1200.00 100.00 4740.00 4640.00 Draft Revision: 4

[ W85tiligh0USe 3.7-81 June 2,1995

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems Table 3.7.2-11 (Sheet 3 of 3)

MAXIMUM MEMBER FORCES AND MOMENTS COUPLED AUXILIARY & SIIIELD HUILDINGS SOIT-TO-MEDIUM STIFF SOIL CONDITION Maximum Forces (x10' Kips) Maximum Moment (x10' K-ft)

(ft) Axial N-S Shear E-W Shear Torque about N-S Axis about E W Axis 30715 10.70 8.77 1.44 1.64 1.93 1.45 297.07 43.10 32.60 3.20 3.49 4.04 3. I 8 284.41 126.00 98.70 6.15 6.20 7.08 7.83 271.58 271.00 216.00 9.68 6.20 7.08 15.40 246.00 467.00 387.00 11.10 10.50 12.20 17.40 241.00 525.00 442.00 11.80 11.40 13.00 18.00 230.00 664.00 558.00 13.20 13.00 14.70 22.20 210.00 947.00 824.00 15.40 15.30 16.90 29.00 180.00 1440.00 1560.00 18.30 18.20 19.50 616.00 160.50 1780.00 1890.00 20.30 19.90 21.40 658.00 153.00 1950.00 1990.00 22.90 22.30 24.10 545.00 135.25 2380.00 2470.00 27.80 26.50 28.70 660.00 1I7.50 2830.00 2950.00 33.30 31.00 32.20 848.00 1(XMK) 3380.00 3470.00 Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7 82 [ W85tiflgh0USS

i

3. Design of Structures, Componeets, Equipment, and Systems Table 3.7.2-12 (Sheet 1 of 3)

MAXIMUM MEMBER FORCES AND MOMENTS STEEL CONTAINMENT VESSEL IIARD ROCK SITE CONDITION Elevation Maximum Forces (x10' Kips) Maximum Moment (x10' K-ft)

(ft) Axial N-S Shear E W Shear Torque about N-S Axis about E W Axis 256.33 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.16 0.20 0.00 248.33 2.50 2.10 0.51 0.43 0.56 0.51 240.33 8.70 7.20 0 83 0.71 0.93 1.45 229.52 21.10 17.10 1.15 0.98 1.29 2.78 218.71 37.80 30.20 1.47 1.25 1.66 4.24 205.33 66.10 52.80 2.66 2.47 2.45 7.48 190.00 107.50 93.40 3.08 2.83 2.94 9.52 170.00 169.90 151.50 3.42 3.10 3.31 11.04 162.00 199.50 178.30 3.73 3.30 3.59 12.22 144.50 265.80 238.70 4.01 3.50 3 85 13.36 132.25 315.60 283.40 4.22 3.62 4.02 14.11 116.86 378._ 339.60 4.29 3.65 4.06 14.32 112.50 397.20 356.20 4.36 3.68 4.10 14.51 1(M.13 432.00 387.10 4.40 3.68 4.10 14.57 100.00 449.00 402.20 I

l 1

I Draft Revision: 4 l

[ Westingh0USe 3.7-83 June 2,1995 l

1 1

l

[~'

'f) 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipmert, and Systrms j l l Table 3.7.2-12 (Sheet 2 of 3)

MAXIMUM MEMBER FORCES AND MOMENTS STEEL CONTAINMENT VESSEL SOFT ROCK SITE CONDITION  ;

8 Elevation hiaximum Forces (x10' Kips) hlaximum hioment (x10 K-ft) 3 (ft) Axial N-S Shear E-W Shear Torque about N-S Axis about E W Axis 256.33 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.13 0.17 0.00 248.33 2.30 1.70 0.36 0.35 0.46 0.17 240.33 7.90 5.60 0.57 0.59 0.76 0.48 229.52 18.90 13.30 0.75 0.83 1.05 0.92 218.71 34.00 23.40 0.91 1.07 1.35 1.41 ,

205.33 59.30 40.70 1.87 2.02 1.98 2.49 190.00 93.60 72.50 2.15 2.44 2.36 3.I8 170.00 143.00 129.00 ,

2.37 2.99 2.66 3.77 ,

I62.00 167.00 148.00 2.59 2.99 2.89 4.21 ,

144.50 220.00 210.00 2.81 3.01 3.11 4.70 132.25 259.00 248.00 3.00 3.01 3.22 5.02 116.86 311.00 292.00 3.08 3.01 2.99 5.15 112.50 327.00 305.00

3. I7 3.06 2.99 5.24 104.13 355.00 329.00 3.23 3.08 3. I 1 5.41 100.00 368.00 341.00 Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-84 [ WOStingt100S8

3. Design of Structures, Components, Eq:lpment, rnd Systems Table 3.7.2-12 (Sheet 3 of 3)

MAXIMUM MEMBER FORCES AND MOMENTS STEEL CONTAINMENT VESSEL SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF SOIL CONDITION Elevation Maximum Forces (x10' Kips) Maximum Moment (x10' K ft)

(ft) Axial N S Shear E-W Shear Torque about N-S Axis about E-W Axis 256.33 0.00 0.00

0. I3 0.09 0. I 2 0.00 248.33 1.42 1.08 0.33 0.24 0.34 0.14 240.33 5.03 3.75 0.52 0.40 0.57 0.40 229.52 12.60 9.12 0.69 0.55 0.80 0.77 218.71 22.80 16.30 0.85 0.70 1.03 1.18 205.33 39.90 28.40 1.73 1.35 1.80 2.13 190.00 70.30 43.80 2.05 1.36 1.99 2.78 170.00 116.00 71.90 2.27 1.58 2.05 3.35 162.00 138.00 85.70 2.46 1.73 2.24 3.87 144.50 187.00 117.00 2.63 1.93 2.43 4.52 132.25 223.00 144.00 2.78 2.10 2.57 5.10 116.86 265.00 178.00 2.85 2.18 2.64 5.37 112.50 273.00 183.00 2.93 2.26 2.72 5.67 104.13 318.00 209.00 2.97 2.32 2.76 5.84 100 00 332.00 214.00 Draft Revision: 4

[ Westingh0use 3.7-85 June 2,1995

3rTn h-tJ(

t 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems L_

• Table 3.7.213 (Sheet 1 of 3) i h1AXIh1Uh1 h1Eh1BER FORCES AND h1051ENTS CONTAINh1ENT INTERNAL STRUCTURES IIARD ROCK SITE CONDITION Elevation 51azimum Forces (x10' Kips) Maximum Moment (x10' K-fu (ft) Axial N-S Shear E-W Shear Torque about N-S Axis about E W Axis ,

Above Elevation 135.25', West SG Compartment 158.(X) 0.02 0.

0.08 0.23 0.32 0.52 148.00 3.55 2.82 0.23 0.70 0.90 7.73 j 135.25 15.05 11.67 Above Elevation 135.25', East SG Compartment 148.00 0.12 0.07 l 0.11 0.34 0.35 1.35 135.25 4.40 4.40 Below Elevation 135.25' 135.25 27.90 25.60 2.15 7.37 9.64 363.90 107.I7  !

306.90 223.20 4.03 8.69 10.29 405.90 I

103.00 348.50 257.40 6.74 9.57 11.12 364.90  ;

98.10 394.10 299.10 10.85 13.22 13.50 418.70 82.50 582.20 475.80 f

Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-86 [ Westirigtiouse

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipm:nt, rnd Syst:ms Table 3.7.2-13 (Sheet 2 of 3)

MAXIMUM MEMBER FORCES AND MOMENTS CONTAINMENT INTERNAL STRUCTURES SOFT ROCK SITE CONDITION Elevation Maximum Forces (x10' Kips) Maximum Moment (x10' K-ft)

(ft) Axial N S Shear E-W Shear Torque about N-S Axis about E-W Axis Above Elevation 135.25', West SG Compartment 158.00 0.02 0.

0.09 0.10 0. I 1 0.06 148.00 1.26 1.34 0.26 0.34 0.37 2.64 135.25 5.95 5.73 Above Elevation 135.25', East SG Compartment 148.00 0.12 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.30 135.25 1.80 1.70 Below Elevation 135.25' 135.25 18.30 23.40 2.51 4.44 4.77 69.40 107.17 162.00 135.00 4.69 6.64 6.73 139.00 103.00 188.00 151.00 7.78 8.74 8.71 61.90 98.10 216.00 191.00 12 60 13.10 13.90 58.60 82.50 416.00 407.00 Draft Revision: 4

[ W85tingh0llSe 3.7-87 June 2,1995

r h 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipm:nt, and Systems !

w-j Table 3.7.2-13 (Sheet 3 of 3)  !

MAXIMUM MEMBER FORCES AND MOMENTS CONTAINMENT INTERNAL STRUCTURES SOI"I'-TO-MEDIUM STIFF SOIL CONDITION Elevation Maximum Forces (x10' Kips) Maximum Moment (x10' K-ft) j (ft) Axial N-S Shear E-W Shear Torque about N-S Axis about E-W Axis Above Elevation 135.25', West SG Compartment 158.00 0.02 0. >

0.10 0.07 0.10 0.05 148.00 1.14 1.31 0.28 0.25 0.29 1.89 f 135.25 4.89 4.50 Above Elevation 135.25', East SG Comportment 148.00 0.13 0.07 j 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.21 135.25 1.67 1.30 Below Elevation 135.25' ,

135.25 19.70 25.10 2.78 3.44 4.10 55.60  ;

I07.I7 155.00 112.00 l 5.16 5.19 5.88 124.00  ;

I03.00 175.00 119.00 8.62 6.80 7.71 58.40 98.10 203.00 154.00 13.90 10.50 11.70 54.20 j 82.50 381.00 316.00 1

l Drafi Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-88 3 W95tirigh0USe l

1

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, cnd Systems Table 3.7.2-14 (Sheet 1 of 2)

SUMMARY

OF MODELS AND ANALYSIS METIIODS Analysis Type of Dynamic Model Method Program Response / Purpose 2D lumped mass stick Complex frequency SASSI To identify governing site properties and design models coupled with 2D response analysis soil profiles.

model of the foundation 2D lumped mass stick. Mode superposition BSAP To identify governing site properties and design fixed base models time history analysis soil profiles.

3D lumped mass stick, Mode superposition BSAP Performed for hard rock profide.

fixed base models time history analysis To develop time histories for generating floor response spectra.

To obtain the following:

Maximum absolute nodal accelerations (ZPA).

Maximum displacements relative to basemat.

Maximum member forces and moments for all structures, except the containment internal structures.

Response spectrum BSAP To obtain the seismic force and moment response analysis of the containment internal structures (Subsection 3.7.2.2) including the high frequency modal effect.

Member forces are used also to determine the SSI scaling factor (see note 1).

3D lumped mass stick Complex frequency SASSI Performed for the soft rock and soft-to-medium models coupled with 3D response analysis soil profiles.

model of the foundation To develop time histories for generating floor response spectra.

To obtain the following:

Maximum absolute nodal accelerations (ZPA).

Maximum displacements relative to basemat.

Maximum member forces and moments.

Member forces are used also to determine the SSI scaling factor (see note 1).  !

i l

3D finite element, fixed Response spectrum BSAP Performed for the hard rock profile. )

base models, coupled analysis To obtain the in-plane forces"' for the design of Aux / Shield buildings and floors and walls. i Cont. internal structures I Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-89 June 2,1995 l

l 1

m:msm:-.

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, cnd Systems n-Table 3.7.2-14 (Sheet 2 of 2)

SUMMARY

OF MODELS AND ANALYSIS METHODS Analysis Type of I)ynamic Model Method Program Response / Purpose '

3D finite element model Equivalent static ANSYS To obtain SSE bearing reactions and member of the nuclear island analysis using nodal forces in the basemat basemat accelerations and member forces from 3D stick model 3D shell of revolution Equivalent static CBI 0781 To obtain SSE Stress for the containment vessel model of steel analysis using nodal containment vessel accelerations from 3D stick model 3D finite element model Equivalent static ANSYS To obtain SSE member forces for the shield of the shield building roof analysis using nodal STRUDL building roof accelerations from 3D stick model The in-plane forces for the hard rock profiles are increased by an SSI scaling factor when, based on a comparison of force responses of the 3D lumped-mass stick model, either the soft rock or soft-to-medium stiff soil cases give higher element forces than the hard rock case. The SSI scaling factor, at a given plant elevation, is equal to the ratio of the largest 3D stick model element forces over the 3D stick model element force for the hard rock case.

I i

l I

l l

l Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 Y W85tiflgh00Se u

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems Table 3.7.2-15 COMPARISON OF FREQUENCIES FOR CONTAINMENT VESSEL SEISMIC MODEL hiode No. Vertical Afodel llorizontal Afodel Shell of Shell of Revolution Model Stick Model Revolution Model Stick blodel 1 17.71 Henz 18.33 Henz 7.39 Henz 7.56 Hertz 2 23.59 Hertz 30.06 Hertz 20.88 Henz 22.0 Hertz Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse 3.7-91 June 2,1995

m7~.

L n-

+

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems i

Table 3.7.2-16 SUAIMARY OF DYNAMIC ANALYSES & COMBINATION TECIINIQUES Model

^"*I Y SIS 3 Components Modal Propam Method Combination Combination 3D lumped mass stick, Mode superposition time BSAP Algebraic Sum n/a fixed base models history analysis Response spectrum BSAP SRSS SRSS w/

analysis Double Sum 3D lumped mass stick Complex frequency SASSI Algebraic Sum n/a models coupled with 3D response analysis model of the foundation 3D finite element, fixed Response spectrum BSAP SRSS SRSS w/

base models, coupled analysis Double Sum Aux / Shield buildings and Cont. internal structures 3D finite element model' Equivalent static analysis ANSYS 100%,40%,40% n/a i of the nuclear island using nodal accelerations basemat & Member forces from 3D stick inodel 3D shell of revolution Equivalent static analysis CBI 0781 SRSS or n/a model of steel using nodal accelerations 100%,40 %

containment vessel from 3D stick model 3D finite element model Equivalent static analysis ANSYS SRSS n/a of the shield building roof using nodal accelerations STRUDL from 3D stick model Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-92 [ Westingh0US0

J!

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems

.,4 Table 3.7.31 (Sheet 1 of 3)

SEISMIC CATEGORY I EQUIPMENT OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT HY ROOM NUMBER Room No. Room Name Equipment Description 12101 Division A battery room i Batteries 12102 Division C battery room 1 Batteries 12103 Spare battery room Spare batteries 121(M Division B battery room 1 Batteries 12105 Division D battery room 1 Batteries 12113 Spare battery charger room 12162 RNS pump room A RNS pressure boundary 12163 RNS pump room B RNS pressure boundary 12201 Division A DC equipment room DC equipment 12202 Division C battery room 2 Batteries 12203C Division C DC equipment room DC equipment 12203B Division B DC equipment room DC equipment 122(M Division B battery room 2 Batteries 12205 Division D DC equipment room DC equipment room 12211 Corridor Divisional cables 12212 RCP trip switchgear room B RCP trip switchgear 12253 Pipe chase RNS containment isolation valves 12255 CVS makeup pump niom CVS isolation valves 12256 Lower annulus CVS/WLS containment isolation valves RNS piping 12257 Pipe chase CVS/WLS containment isolation valves RNS piping 12300 Corridor Divisional cable 12301 Division A I&C room Divisional I&C 12302 Division C I&C room Divisional I&C 12303 Remote shutdown workstation Remote shutdown workstation 12304 Division B I&C/ penetration room Divisional I&C/ electrical penetrations Draft Revision: 4 Westiflgt100Se 3.7 93 June 2,1995

i.rl" ':

m 3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, end Systems Table 3.7.3-1 (Sheet 2 of 3)

SEISMIC CATEGORY I EQUIPMENT OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT BY ROOM NUMBER Room No. Room Name Equipment Description 12305 Division D I&C/ penetration room Divisional I&C/ electrical penetrations 12306 Valve / piping penettation room CCS/CVS/DWS/ FPS /SGS containment isolation valves 12311 Corridor Divisional cabling 12312 RCP trip switchgear room A RCP trip switchgear 1

12313 Division C 1&C/ penetration room Divisional I&C/ electrical penetrations 12321 I&C/non IE penetration room Divisional cabling 12351 Maintenance floor and staging area Divisional cabling (ceiling) 12352 Personnel hatch Personnel airlock (interlocks) 12354 Rad pipe chase PSS/SFS containment isolation valves 12356 Middle annulus Class lE electrical penetrations Various mechanical piping penetrations 12362 RNS HX room A RNS pressure boundary 12363 RNS HX room B RNS pressure boundary 12400 Control room vestibule Control room access 12401 Main control room Main control panels VBS HVAC dampers VES isolation valves Lights 12404 Lower MSIV compartment B SGS containment isolation valves, instrumentati(n and controls 12405 VBS B and D equipment room VWS/PXS/CAS containment isolation valves 12406 Lower MSIV compartment A SGS containment isolation valves, instrumentation and controls 12412 Electrical penetration room Division A Divisional electrical penetrations Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-94 3 Westiligh0Use

l i

I

,, j

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems 9 l

Table 3.7.3-1 (Sheet 3 of 3)

SEISSilC CATEGORY I EQUIPMENT OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT BY ROOM NUMllER Room No. Room Name Equipment Description 12421 RCC/non IE penetration room Divisional cabling 12422 Reactor trip switchgear 11 Reactor trip switchgear 12423 Reactor trip switchgear I Reactor trip switchgear 12452 VFS penetration room VFS containment isolation valves, divisional cabling 12454 Rad pipe chase SFS/PSS/VFS/CVS cont. isolation valves 12504 Upper MSIV compartment B SGS CIVs, instrumentation and controls 12506 Upper MSIV compartment A VWS/PXS/CAS containment isolation valves 12552 Personnel hatch Personnel airle:k (interlocks) 12553 Operating deck staging area VES high pressure air bottles 12556 Upper annulus PCS piping and cabling PCS air baffle 12561 Fuel handling area Spent fuel storage racks 12701 PCS valve room PCS isolation valves / instrumentation PCS Water storage tank Lesel and temperature instrumentation Draft Revision: 4

[ Westingh0USe 3.7-95 June 2,1995

..w m.

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems w_

Table 3.7.3-2 EQUIPMENT CLASSIFIED AS SENSITIVE TARGETS FOR SEISMICALLY ANALYZED PIPING, HVAC DUCTING, CABLE TRAYS Component Discussion Zone of Protection Seismic Category I Valve These are manual valves. The actuator Valve body and No Class IE Electrical Equipment must be protected from impact. actuator area l Not pressure sensitive Seismic Category I Valve These valves have sensitive Class IE One support (acting in Class IE Electrical Equipment equipment (eg., Position indicators, limit direction of impact) on Pressure sensitive switches, motor operator) or solenoid each side of vaive valves.

1 Seismic Category I Dampers The actuator must be protected along Within one support with any Class lE equipment. (acting in direction of impact) on each side of liVAC Monitors This includes Neutron Detectors, Monitors and Radiation Monitors, Resistance associated wiring Temperature Detectors, Speed Sensors, Thermocouples, Transmitters Sensitive Electrical Equipment Housed This includes: relays, contractors, Cabinets, panels, and in Cabinets, Panels or Boards breakers, and switchgear. boards housing sensitive devices Class IE exposed cables and wiring Cables and wiring which are not housed Exposed cables and in cable trays or conduits must be wiring protected.

Device or Instrument Tubing Any device or tubing that could be Device or tubing damaged resulting in the loss of the pressure boundary of a safety class line.

Penetrations Rigid penetrations are considered Floating penetration ,

robust. Floating penetrations with and associated bellows bellows are censidered sensitive i

i Dran Revision: 4 ,

June 2,1995 3.7-96 [ WeSfiligh00S8 1

3. Design of Structzres, Compone:ts, Eq:ipmes.t,tnd System ru-a 1

4 I

l SOIL MODULUS / DAMPING RATIO - STRAIN (SDIL) 1.s i , , . .; , .

...i . . . . ....i . . . . . . . .

- IDRISS *Se

,g.. --

3 o ,o,_ -.

o K

a: .4 - -

w I

.2 - --

,, . . . ....e . . . ....t . . . . ...e i i e i . ...

10 4 1e-8 1g-3 g g-t gge 28.e i i i ii.ij i i i i i e i si . . . . ..ij i . . . . ...

- IDRISS '30

,,24.e.- --

z w

u me.e.-

2:

y16.e-- -

u,12.e-- --

z 2

1 e.o.- -

5 4.e.- --

S e* to-8 10-8 to- tes SHEAR STRAIN-PERCENT Figure 3.7.1 15 Strain Dependent Properties of Soil Material Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse June 2,1995

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and System k l

0 , .

$ =

e l

g . .

\. *

- - - Soft Rock

\ s a

\ *

' \ '

- - Soft to Med. Upper 20

\ i I ,

, - -Soft to Med. Parabolic

\ .

t 40 -

i. .

\ \, e

\ '. ',

2 \ \'

- t a

$ ** \ \' '

S g t. i .

's

\ i.;*

g 80 '.'. ,

\ \. '

\ .

is 5

100  ! b I l i I k I L 3 l 120 -

O 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 initial Shear Wave Velocity (fps)

The design soil profiles also include a hard rock site, which represents an upper tound case for finn sites, using fixed base seismic analysis.

Figure 3.7.1-17 Shear Wave Velocity of Design Soil Profiles Draft Revision: 4 W Westinghouse June 2,1995

??? ...

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems ._

l Z (up) g El.

4> - - 256.333' S Moss point

, 4D - 248.333' 4D - 240.333' "9 - 229.521' 4>

Stiff Boom 4> - 218.708' Polar Crone O OVM - 205.333' Polar Crone Trolley 4D - 190.000' (D - 170.000' s e,.

4> - 162.000' 22' EQuio Hatch O O - 144.500' O - 138.583' Personnel Lock 4> - 132.250' 16' Equip.Hotch - II 0'O O O - 112.500' O -

- 110.500' Personnel lock (> - 104.125' 77;4 >; r - 100.000' Figure 3.7.2-5 Steel Containment Vessel Lumped Mass Stick Model Draft Revision: 4 W Westingh0USe 3.7 97 June 2,1995

I l

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems 7

g; ,

18 107 g 19 ll l

1a0 lif 121 122 125 es 1 180 IM 107 los 100 110 108 BD5 as 170 135 182 183 154 IM tu 1a7 las les f10 17f 172 105 tm IM 177 127 IN sol IM 17s las 103 200 f85 115 III '

147 le le tuo ist IRE 155 154 15 tes 157 185 IRA ISO ISI lot Igg let 174 IBC 106 IW ISI 1T3 131 145 445 i44 16 14E 144 140 IN 135 13T IN 15 154 15 IN LOCATION OF RIGID BEAM ELEENTS S EL.66'-6' (TOP OF BASEMAT)

NOTES NtD1BERED LINES INDICATE RIGID BEAM E1DIENTS The following three nodes of the 3D lumped mass stick model are located at Elevation 66.5':

Node # 3001 - Mass Center of coupled auxiliary / shield building @ Elev. 66.5',

Node # 3021 - Shear Center of building section between Elev. 66.5' to 82.5',

Node # 3041 - Centroid of building section between Elev. 66.5' to 82.5' Figure 3.7.2-29 (Sheet I of 3) 3D Seismic Analysis Model, Plan at Elev. 66.5' Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-98 [ WBStingh0llSe

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipmint, end Systems

_ is _ y l

9 13 M

• le si _ at as N J 11 7 a e _ to

" 4 s 3

• soorauss comn y a suck e ar-se so l

4 w sw a  ?

e so I si 4 4 - 44 'e' 4 4D - 35 m- 3T - N 3 M 3' R LOCATION OF RIGID BEAM ELDENTS 9 EL.82'-6' NOTE:

MMIDG LDES DCICATE RIGID BEAM ELEPENTS l

The following four nodes of the 3D lumped mass stick model are located at Elevation 82.5'-

Node # 3031 - Shear Center of building section between Elev. 66.5' to 82.5',

l Node # 3022 - Shear Center of building section between Elev. 82.5' to 100.0',

Node # 3051 - Centroid of building section between Elev. 66.5' to 82.5' Node # 3(M2 - Centroid of building section between Elev. 82.5' to 100.l' Figure 3.7.2-29 (Sheet 2 of 3) 3D Seismic Analysis Model, Plan at Elev. 82.5' Draft Revision: 4 W WB5tlRgh0USe 3.7-99 June 2,1995

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems m "

as 50 es a _c m m N N ST e _ s4 m as 73 er a 3023 si vs s 32 moseuss ammut e is sTux e sore B0 gy ,4 3 100

_ ,s

a ,,

4 ,

er rr ut 31 m us - as sT 55 55 M M ut si ~ 50 ~ TW 75 LOCATION OF RIGID BEAM ELDENTS 9 L 100'-F NDTEs MMIERED LINES DEICATE RIGID BEAM ElRENTS id following four nodes of the 3D lumped mass stick model are located at Elevation 100.0':

Node # 3032 - Shear Center of building section between Elev. 82.5' to 100.0',

Node # 3023 - Shear Center of building section between Elev.100.0' to 117.5',

Node # 3052 - Centroid of building section between Elev. 82.5' to 100.0'.

Node # 3043 - Centroid of building section between Elev 100.0' to 117.5'.

Figure 3.7.2-29 (Sheet 3 of 3) 3D Seismic Analysis Model, Plan at Elev.100.0' Draft Revision: 4 June 2,1995 3.7-100 W W85tingh00Se

r.

..+ p

3. Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, end Systems -

I I B31.1

. X Effective B31.1 S e.ismic Category ll 1 Axial Restraint r>

(A r>

f) r>

f%

r>

f\

vJ E1 Impact Evaluation Zone l

l Figure 3.7.3-2 Impact Evaluation Zone and Seismic Supported Piping Draft Revision: 4

[ Westingh0!!Se 3.7-101 June 2,1995 1

i