ML14177A086: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 15: Line 15:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Near-term Task Force Recommendation21Seismic Recommendation 2.1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Southern June 26, 2014 ReferencesforMeetingReferences for Meeting*Licensee Presentation Slides
{{#Wiki_filter:Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2  2.1 1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Southern June 26, 2014
-ML14176B239
*NRC Presentation Slides -ML14177A086
*Public Meeting Agenda -ML14169A437MtiFdbkF(tffb@)
*M ee ti ng F ee db ac k F orm (reques t from m fb@nrc.gov) *May 9, 2014, NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for central and eastern US Licensees(ML14111A147)
*May 21, 2014, NRC memo providing preliminary staff groundmotionresponsespectraforcentralandground motion response spectra for central and eastern Licensees(ML14136A126)
*Meeting Summary to be issued within 30-day MeetingIntroductionMeeting Introduction Purpose: support information exchange and begin dialog to have ddifhfhidiffcommon un derstan ding o f t he causes o f t h e pr i mary differences between the preliminary NRC and licensee seismic hazard resultsBackground
:NRCandlicenseeseismichazardrequireresolutionBackground
: NRC and licensee seismic hazard require resolution to support a final seismic screening decision and to support related follow-on submittalsOutcomes:
*Begin NRC and licensee resolution to support regulatory decisionsanddevelopmentofseismicriskevaluations,as decisions and development of seismic risk evaluations, as appropriate
*Establish resolution path, including timelines and identification of  potential information needs Look-ahead:
lPotentia l Next Steps
*NRCwillconsiderthemeetinginformationNRC will consider the meeting information
*Potential paths:Libitltliftibd-Li censee su b m it s supp l emen t a l i n f orma ti on b ase d on public meeting dialogNRCstaffissuesarequestforinformation
-NRC staff issues a request for information
-Licensee sends a revision or supplement to the seismichazardreport seismic hazard report*NRC completes screening review and issues thfilidtitiltt th e fi na l screen i ng d e t erm i na ti on l e tt er HatchUnitsNuclearPlantHatch Units Nuclear PlantSarah TabatabaiOfficeofResearchOffice of Research June 26, 2014  


Screening*Screens in: Expedited Approach, Seismic Risk, High Frequency, SFP EvaluationsPiititiG2*P r i or iti za ti on G roup: 2 0.6 Licensee SSE (Unit 1)
References for Meeting
Licensee SSE (Unit 2)0.4 0.5tion (g)()Licensee GMRSNRC GMRS (Updated) 02 0.3 ctral Accelera 0.1 0.2 Spe c 00.1110100Frequency (Hz)
* Licensee Presentation Slides - ML14176B239
StratigraphySite Geologic Column (Source: FSAR Figure 2.5-8, Rev. 19)
* NRC Presentation Slides - ML14177A086
ControlPointControl Point NRC SS E Co ntr o l P o int El. 12 9 ft Submittal SS E Co ntr o l P o int El. 12 9 ftSSCooo9SSCooo9 VsProfileDevelopment VsProfile Development NRCTemplatevelocityprofilefor SubmittalISFSIdatausedtodevelopnearTemplate velocity profile for Vs=400 m/s (1312 ft/sec) from
* Public Meeting Agenda - ML14169A437
* M ti FFeedback Meeting      db k FForm ((requestt ffrom mfb@nrc.gov) fb@        )
* May 9, 2014, NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for central and eastern US Licensees (ML14111A147)
* May 21, 2014, NRC memo providing preliminary staff ground motion response spectra for central and eastern Licensees (ML14136A126)
* Meeting Summary to be issued within 30-day


SPID used for entire profile.
Meeting Introduction Purpose: support information exchange and begin dialog to have common understanding d      di off the h causes off the h primary i     diff differences between the preliminary NRC and licensee seismic hazard results
Template velocity profile supported ISFSI data used to develop near surface Vs profile (i.e. to a depth of 229 ft). Deeper portions of the profile (i.e. below a depth of 509 ft) by Vs data found in the literature were developed with nearby oil well exploration (Vp) data Epistemic Uncertainty in VsProfilesProfiles NRC A pp li ed a sca l e f ac t o r o f 1.2 t o th e Submittal A pp li ed a sca l e f ac t o r o f 1.5 7 t o th e ppedascaeacoooebase case profile for development of the upper and lower case profilesppedascaeacoo5oebase case profile for development


of the upper and lower case profiles Vs ProfilesShear-Wave Velocit y (ft/sec)0 500020004000600080001000012000y()0 5002000400060008000Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec)
==Background:==
NRC-BC NRC-LBC 1000 1500 t)50 100 150 NRC-UBC Licensee-BC Licensee-LBC Licensee-UBC 1500 2000 2500 o ntrol Point (f t 150 200 n trol Point (ft) 2500 3000 epth Below C o 250 300 pth Below Co n 3500 4000 D e NRC-BC NRC-LBC NRC-UBC 350 400 De p 4500 5000 NRC UBC Licensee-BC Licensee-LBC Licensee-UBC 450 500 00200040006000800010000Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec)Hawthorn Fm.
NRC and licensee seismic hazard require resolution to support a final seismic screening decision and to support related follow-on submittals Outcomes:
TFVs=2450 +/-200 ft/s in upper 50-100 ft(FSAR)Information from other sites:Saxena(2008) Vs=1500 -
* Begin NRC and licensee resolution to support regulatory decisions and development of seismic risk evaluations, as appropriate
1900 ft/s(HawthornFm
* Establish resolution path, including timelines and identification of potential information needs
)500 1000 T ampa  F m.Undifferentiated OligoceneOcala Fm. VogtleCOL: Vs=2650 ft/s Parker (2008) Vs=2296 ft/s (Ocala Fm.)1900 ft/s (Hawthorn Fm.)1500 n t (ft)Lisbon Fm. TallahataFm. Wilcox GroupClayton Fm.
at 149 ft (Lisbon Fm.
)Odumet al (2003): Vs=2805 ft/s at 98 ft (WilcoxGroup
)2000 2500 w Control Poi nPost Tuscaloosa Deposits (Wilcox Group)3000 3500 Depth Belo wTuscaloosa Fm.Odumet al (2003): Vs=2840 ft/s at 98 ft 3500 4000 NRC-BCUndifferentiated Early Cretaceous Deposits (Tuscaloosa Fm.
)4500 5000 NRC-LBC NRC-UBC Licensee-BCPre-Cretaceous Basement Rock 00200040006000800010000Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec) 500 1000An avera ge Poisson's ratio of 1500 nt (ft)Lisbon Fm.
g0.43 is reported for the Lisbon Formation at the Farley site 2000 2500w Control Poi NRC-BC NRC-LBC 3000 3500 Depth Belo NRC-UBCLicensee-BC (v=0.25)Licensee-BC (v=0.33) 4000Licensee-BC (v=0.45) 4500 5000 Aleatory Uncertainty in VsProfiles NRCSbittl NRC60 Randomizations Using USGS "B"SiteConditions S u b m itt a l30 Randomizations Using USGS "B""C"and"D"SiteConditionsfor "B" Site Conditions "B", "C", and "D" Site Conditions for the Upper-Range, Median, and Lower-Range Profiles, Respectively ln= 0.25 Upper 50 ft.ln= 0.15 Below 50 ft.ln= 0.25 Upper 90 ft.ln= 0.15 Below 90 ft.
Epistemic Uncertainty in Shear ModulusandDampingCurves Modulus and Damping Curves NRC M1 Submittal M1 M1EPRI Soil: 0 -276 ftEPRI Rock: 276 -500 ft Linear & No Dam p in g:  > 500 ft M1Av. of EPRI 50-120 ft& 120-250 ft:
0 -129 ft Av. of EPRI 120-250 ft& 250-500 ft:
pg M2Peninsular: 0 -276 ftLinear&1%Damping:276 500 ft129 -279 ft Idriss& Boulanger Weathered Rock


Curves: 279 to 509 ftLinear&KappaBasedDamping:>
Look-ahead:
Linear & 1% Damping: 276 -500 ftLinear & No Damping: > 500 ft Linear & Kappa-Based Damping: > 500 ft Kappa and Epistemic Uncertainty NRCKappawascalculatedforeach SubmittalCalculatedakappadistribution 2 for Kappa was calculated for each base case profile using Q values from Campbell (2009). A ln=0.2 was applied to determine the range Calculated a kappa distribution 2 for each base case Vs profile based on
Potentiall Next Steps
* NRC will consider the meeting information
* Potential paths:
  - Licensee Li          submits b it supplemental l    t l iinformation f    ti bbased d
on public meeting dialog
  - NRC staff issues a request for information
  - Licensee sends a revision or supplement to the seismic hazard report
* NRC completes screening review and issues th fi the  finall screening i d determination t    i ti lletter tt


a median kappa of 0.04 sec (i.e. a deep soil site) and a ln=0.4 of kappasfor each base case profile.Base Case KappasLBC:0057 1 Kappa Distribution kL:0024 LBC: 0.057 BC: 0.040 UBC: 0.030 kL: 0.024 kM: 0.040 kU: 0.067 1Imposed an upper limit of 0.04 sec based on the SPID Guidance 2Clarification needed Am plification Functions p 5 6NRC (Input PGA = 0.01 g)NRC (Input PGA = 0.2 g)NRC (Input PGA = 0.5 g)Licensee (Input PGA = 0.01 g) 3 4 f icationLicensee (Input PGA = 0.2 g)Licensee (Input PGA = 0.5 g)NRC Sigma (Input PGA = 0.01 g)NRC Sigma (Input PGA = 0.2 g)NRC Sigma (Input PGA = 0.5 g)Licensee Sigma (Input PGA = 0.01 g) 2 3 Ampli fLicensee Sigma (Input PGA = 0.2 g)Licensee Sigma (Input PGA = 0.5 g) 0 10.1110100Frequency (Hz)
Hatch Units Nuclear Plant Sarah Tabatabai Office of Research June 26, 2014
GMRS Comparison 1 0.1 t ion (g)e ctral Accelera t NRC GMRS 0.01 Sp e Licensee GMRSHatch Unit 2 SSEHatch Unit 1 SSE 0.0010.1110100Frequency (Hz)Licensee GMRS (NRC Calc.)
 
PrimaryDifferencesPrimary Differences
Screening
*Kappa-Southern considered Hatch to be a deep soil site and used a median kappa of 0.04 sec, while the NRC placed an upper limit of 0.04 sec on kappaClassificationasadeepsoilsiteinconsistentwithVs
* Screens in: Expedited Approach, Seismic Risk, High Frequency, SFP Evaluations
-Classification as a deep soil site inconsistent with Vs base cases
* Prioritization P i iti ti G  Group: 2 0.6 Licensee SSE (Unit 1)
*Largedifferencesinshear
Licensee SSE ((Unit 2))
-wavevelocitiesLarge differences in shearwave velocities below a depth of approximately 500 ftdue toanassumedPoisson
0.5 Licensee GMRS NRC GMRS (Updated)
'sratio to an assumed Poissons ratio}}
Specctral Acceleration (g) 0.4 0.3 02 0.2 0.1 0
0.1                        1                    10  100 Frequency (Hz)
 
Stratigraphy Site Geologic Column (Source: FSAR Figure 2.5-8, Rev. 19)
 
Control Point NRC                  Submittal SSE Control SS  Co o Point o El. 129 9 ft SSE Control SS  Co o Point o El. 129 9 ft
 
Vs Profile Development NRC                              Submittal Template velocity profile for      ISFSI data used to develop near Vs=400 m/s (1312 ft/sec) from      surface Vs profile (i.e. to a depth of SPID used for entire profile.      229 ft). Deeper portions of the Template velocity profile supported profile (i.e. below a depth of 509 ft) by Vs data found in the literature  were developed with nearby oil well exploration (Vp) data
 
Epistemic Uncertainty in Vs Profiles NRC                              Submittal Applied pp ed a sca scale e factor ac o oof 1.2 to o the e Applied pp ed a sca scale e factor ac o oof 1.57 5 to o the e
base case profile for development    base case profile for development of the upper and lower case profiles of the upper and lower case profiles
 
Vs Profiles Shear-Wave Velocity y ((ft/sec))
Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec)                                                        0  2000  4000    6000    8000 10000    12000 0  2000      4000          6000        8000                                      0 0
NRC-BC NRC-LBC                                                500 50 NRC-UBC Licensee-BC                                            1000 100 Licensee-LBC Licensee-UBC                                            1500 De epth Below Co ontrol Point (ftt) 150 Dep pth Below Con ntrol Point (ft) 200                                                                                      2000 250                                                                                      2500 300                                                                                      3000 350                                                                                      3500 NRC-BC 400                                                                                      4000      NRC-LBC NRC-UBC NRC UBC 450                                                                                      4500      Licensee-BC Licensee-LBC 500                                                                                      5000      Licensee-UBC
 
Information from other sites:                                                      Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec) 0    2000      4000      6000          8000    10000 Vs=2450 +/-200 ft/s in upper                                      0 50-100 ft (FSAR)                                                                          Saxena (2008) Vs=1500 -            Hawthorn Fm.
1900 ft/s (Hawthorn Fm.)
Fm )            TTampa FFm.
500                                                            Undifferentiated Oligocene Parker (2008) Vs=2296 ft/s Ocala Fm.
(Ocala Fm.)
Vogtle COL: Vs=2650 ft/s                                      1000 at 149 ft (Lisbon Fm.)                                                                                                        Lisbon Fm.
Odum et al (2003):                                            1500                                                            Tallahata Fm.
Wilcox Group Depth Below w Control Poin nt (ft)
Vs=2805 ft/s at 98 ft (Wilcox Group)                                                                                                                Clayton Fm.
2000 2500                                                          Post Tuscaloosa Deposits 3000 Odum et al (2003):
Vs=2840 ft/s at 98 ft                                                                                                        Tuscaloosa Fm.
3500 (Tuscaloosa Fm.)
4000                                                            Undifferentiated Early NRC-BC                                              Cretaceous Deposits NRC-LBC 4500                                                            Pre-Cretaceous NRC-UBC                                              Basement Rock Licensee-BC 5000
 
Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec) 0  2000      4000      6000          8000    10000 0
500 An averageg Poissons ratio of                                    1000 Lisbon Fm.
0.43 is reported for the Lisbon Formation at the                                          1500 Depth Below Control Point (ft)
Farley site 2000 NRC-BC 2500                                NRC-LBC NRC-UBC 3000 Licensee-BC (v=0.25)
Licensee-BC (v=0.33) 3500 Licensee-BC (v=0.45) 4000 4500 5000
 
Aleatory Uncertainty in Vs Profiles NRC                      S b itt l Submittal 60 Randomizations Using USGS 30 Randomizations Using USGS B Site Conditions          B C, B, C and D Site Conditions for the Upper-Range, Median, and Lower-Range Profiles, Respectively ln = 0.25 Upper 50 ft.      ln = 0.25 Upper 90 ft.
ln = 0.15 Below 50 ft.      ln = 0.15 Below 90 ft.
 
Epistemic Uncertainty in Shear Modulus and Damping Curves NRC                            Submittal M1                                M1 EPRI Soil: 0 - 276 ft            Av. of EPRI 50-120 ft & 120-250 ft:
EPRI Rock: 276 - 500 ft          0 - 129 ft Linear & No Damping:
p g > 500 ft    Av. of EPRI 120-250 ft & 250-500 ft:
129 - 279 ft M2                                Idriss & Boulanger Weathered Rock Peninsular: 0 - 276 ft            Curves: 279 to 509 ft Linear & 1% Damping: 276 - 500 ft Linear & Kappa Kappa-Based Based Damping: >
Linear & No Damping: > 500 ft    500 ft
 
Kappa and Epistemic Uncertainty NRC                                      Submittal Kappa was calculated for each                    Calculated a kappa distribution2 for base case profile using Q values                each base case Vs profile based on from Campbell (2009). A ln=0.2                  a median kappa of 0.04 sec (i.e. a was applied to determine the range              deep soil site) and a ln=0.4 of kappas for each base case profile.
Base Case Kappas                                Kappa Distribution LBC: 0.057 0 0571                                    kL: 0.024 0 024 BC: 0.040                                    kM: 0.040 UBC: 0.030                                      kU: 0.067 1Imposed   an upper limit of 0.04 sec based on the SPID Guidance 2Clarification needed
 
Amplification p          Functions 6
NRC (Input PGA = 0.01 g)
NRC (Input PGA = 0.2 g)
NRC (Input PGA = 0.5 g) 5 Licensee (Input PGA = 0.01 g)
Licensee (Input PGA = 0.2 g)
Licensee (Input PGA = 0.5 g) 4                                    NRC Sigma (Input PGA = 0.01 g)
NRC Sigma (Input PGA = 0.2 g)
Ampliffication NRC Sigma (Input PGA = 0.5 g)
Licensee Sigma (Input PGA = 0.01 g) 3 Licensee Sigma (Input PGA = 0.2 g)
Licensee Sigma (Input PGA = 0.5 g) 2 1
0 0.1  1                      10                                         100 Frequency (Hz)
 
GMRS Comparison 1
Spe ectral Accelerattion (g) 0.1 NRC GMRS 0.01                               Licensee GMRS Hatch Unit 2 SSE Hatch Unit 1 SSE Licensee GMRS (NRC Calc.)
0.001 0.1  1                    10                          100 Frequency (Hz)
 
Primary Differences
* Kappa
  - Southern considered Hatch to be a deep soil site and used a median kappa of 0.04 sec, while the NRC placed an upper limit of 0.04 sec on kappa
  - Classification as a deep soil site inconsistent with Vs base cases
* Large differences in shear-wave shear wave velocities below a depth of approximately 500 ft due to an assumed Poissons Poisson s ratio}}

Revision as of 03:05, 4 November 2019

06/26/2014 NRC Presentation Slides for Public Meeting with Southern on Seismic Reevaluation (GMRS)
ML14177A086
Person / Time
Site: Hatch  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 06/26/2014
From:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Balazik M, NRR/JLD, 415-2856
References
Download: ML14177A086 (21)
v • d • e


Text

Near-term Task Force Recommendation 2 2.1 1 Seismic Hazard Evaluation Southern June 26, 2014

References for Meeting

  • M ti FFeedback Meeting db k FForm ((requestt ffrom mfb@nrc.gov) fb@ )
  • May 9, 2014, NRC letter regarding Seismic Screening and Prioritization Results for central and eastern US Licensees (ML14111A147)
  • May 21, 2014, NRC memo providing preliminary staff ground motion response spectra for central and eastern Licensees (ML14136A126)
  • Meeting Summary to be issued within 30-day

Meeting Introduction Purpose: support information exchange and begin dialog to have common understanding d di off the h causes off the h primary i diff differences between the preliminary NRC and licensee seismic hazard results

Background:

NRC and licensee seismic hazard require resolution to support a final seismic screening decision and to support related follow-on submittals Outcomes:

  • Begin NRC and licensee resolution to support regulatory decisions and development of seismic risk evaluations, as appropriate
  • Establish resolution path, including timelines and identification of potential information needs

Look-ahead:

Potentiall Next Steps

  • NRC will consider the meeting information
  • Potential paths:

- Licensee Li submits b it supplemental l t l iinformation f ti bbased d

on public meeting dialog

- NRC staff issues a request for information

- Licensee sends a revision or supplement to the seismic hazard report

  • NRC completes screening review and issues th fi the finall screening i d determination t i ti lletter tt

Hatch Units Nuclear Plant Sarah Tabatabai Office of Research June 26, 2014

Screening

  • Screens in: Expedited Approach, Seismic Risk, High Frequency, SFP Evaluations
  • Prioritization P i iti ti G Group: 2 0.6 Licensee SSE (Unit 1)

Licensee SSE ((Unit 2))

0.5 Licensee GMRS NRC GMRS (Updated)

Specctral Acceleration (g) 0.4 0.3 02 0.2 0.1 0

0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Stratigraphy Site Geologic Column (Source: FSAR Figure 2.5-8, Rev. 19)

Control Point NRC Submittal SSE Control SS Co o Point o El. 129 9 ft SSE Control SS Co o Point o El. 129 9 ft

Vs Profile Development NRC Submittal Template velocity profile for ISFSI data used to develop near Vs=400 m/s (1312 ft/sec) from surface Vs profile (i.e. to a depth of SPID used for entire profile. 229 ft). Deeper portions of the Template velocity profile supported profile (i.e. below a depth of 509 ft) by Vs data found in the literature were developed with nearby oil well exploration (Vp) data

Epistemic Uncertainty in Vs Profiles NRC Submittal Applied pp ed a sca scale e factor ac o oof 1.2 to o the e Applied pp ed a sca scale e factor ac o oof 1.57 5 to o the e

base case profile for development base case profile for development of the upper and lower case profiles of the upper and lower case profiles

Vs Profiles Shear-Wave Velocity y ((ft/sec))

Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 0

NRC-BC NRC-LBC 500 50 NRC-UBC Licensee-BC 1000 100 Licensee-LBC Licensee-UBC 1500 De epth Below Co ontrol Point (ftt) 150 Dep pth Below Con ntrol Point (ft) 200 2000 250 2500 300 3000 350 3500 NRC-BC 400 4000 NRC-LBC NRC-UBC NRC UBC 450 4500 Licensee-BC Licensee-LBC 500 5000 Licensee-UBC

Information from other sites: Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 Vs=2450 +/-200 ft/s in upper 0 50-100 ft (FSAR) Saxena (2008) Vs=1500 - Hawthorn Fm.

1900 ft/s (Hawthorn Fm.)

Fm ) TTampa FFm.

500 Undifferentiated Oligocene Parker (2008) Vs=2296 ft/s Ocala Fm.

(Ocala Fm.)

Vogtle COL: Vs=2650 ft/s 1000 at 149 ft (Lisbon Fm.) Lisbon Fm.

Odum et al (2003): 1500 Tallahata Fm.

Wilcox Group Depth Below w Control Poin nt (ft)

Vs=2805 ft/s at 98 ft (Wilcox Group) Clayton Fm.

2000 2500 Post Tuscaloosa Deposits 3000 Odum et al (2003):

Vs=2840 ft/s at 98 ft Tuscaloosa Fm.

3500 (Tuscaloosa Fm.)

4000 Undifferentiated Early NRC-BC Cretaceous Deposits NRC-LBC 4500 Pre-Cretaceous NRC-UBC Basement Rock Licensee-BC 5000

Shear-Wave Velocity (ft/sec) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0

500 An averageg Poissons ratio of 1000 Lisbon Fm.

0.43 is reported for the Lisbon Formation at the 1500 Depth Below Control Point (ft)

Farley site 2000 NRC-BC 2500 NRC-LBC NRC-UBC 3000 Licensee-BC (v=0.25)

Licensee-BC (v=0.33) 3500 Licensee-BC (v=0.45) 4000 4500 5000

Aleatory Uncertainty in Vs Profiles NRC S b itt l Submittal 60 Randomizations Using USGS 30 Randomizations Using USGS B Site Conditions B C, B, C and D Site Conditions for the Upper-Range, Median, and Lower-Range Profiles, Respectively ln = 0.25 Upper 50 ft. ln = 0.25 Upper 90 ft.

ln = 0.15 Below 50 ft. ln = 0.15 Below 90 ft.

Epistemic Uncertainty in Shear Modulus and Damping Curves NRC Submittal M1 M1 EPRI Soil: 0 - 276 ft Av. of EPRI 50-120 ft & 120-250 ft:

EPRI Rock: 276 - 500 ft 0 - 129 ft Linear & No Damping:

p g > 500 ft Av. of EPRI 120-250 ft & 250-500 ft:

129 - 279 ft M2 Idriss & Boulanger Weathered Rock Peninsular: 0 - 276 ft Curves: 279 to 509 ft Linear & 1% Damping: 276 - 500 ft Linear & Kappa Kappa-Based Based Damping: >

Linear & No Damping: > 500 ft 500 ft

Kappa and Epistemic Uncertainty NRC Submittal Kappa was calculated for each Calculated a kappa distribution2 for base case profile using Q values each base case Vs profile based on from Campbell (2009). A ln=0.2 a median kappa of 0.04 sec (i.e. a was applied to determine the range deep soil site) and a ln=0.4 of kappas for each base case profile.

Base Case Kappas Kappa Distribution LBC: 0.057 0 0571 kL: 0.024 0 024 BC: 0.040 kM: 0.040 UBC: 0.030 kU: 0.067 1Imposed an upper limit of 0.04 sec based on the SPID Guidance 2Clarification needed

Amplification p Functions 6

NRC (Input PGA = 0.01 g)

NRC (Input PGA = 0.2 g)

NRC (Input PGA = 0.5 g) 5 Licensee (Input PGA = 0.01 g)

Licensee (Input PGA = 0.2 g)

Licensee (Input PGA = 0.5 g) 4 NRC Sigma (Input PGA = 0.01 g)

NRC Sigma (Input PGA = 0.2 g)

Ampliffication NRC Sigma (Input PGA = 0.5 g)

Licensee Sigma (Input PGA = 0.01 g) 3 Licensee Sigma (Input PGA = 0.2 g)

Licensee Sigma (Input PGA = 0.5 g) 2 1

0 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

GMRS Comparison 1

Spe ectral Accelerattion (g) 0.1 NRC GMRS 0.01 Licensee GMRS Hatch Unit 2 SSE Hatch Unit 1 SSE Licensee GMRS (NRC Calc.)

0.001 0.1 1 10 100 Frequency (Hz)

Primary Differences

  • Kappa

- Southern considered Hatch to be a deep soil site and used a median kappa of 0.04 sec, while the NRC placed an upper limit of 0.04 sec on kappa

- Classification as a deep soil site inconsistent with Vs base cases

  • Large differences in shear-wave shear wave velocities below a depth of approximately 500 ft due to an assumed Poissons Poisson s ratio
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML14177A086&oldid=2047505"