ML20065L785

Seismic Reanalysis of Reactor Building Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.

ML20065L785
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	07/30/1993
From:	EQE, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20065L779	List: BECO-94-036, Requests Approval to Use Alternative Reactor Building Response Spectra,Reg Guide 1.61 & ASME Code Case N411 Modal Damping as Alternate to Existing Design Response Spectra ML20065L785 ML20065L794
References
42103-R-001, 42103-R-001-R00, 42103-R-1, 42103-R-1-R, NUDOCS 9404210289
Download: ML20065L785 (195)

Text

'

r - _ --

a Item

• 1, q

42103-R-001 Revision 0

- July 30,1993 ENGINEERING Page 1 of 79 CONSU LTANTS SEISMIC REANALYSIS OF REACTOR BUILDING PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION  :

JULY 1993 l

l 1

- i

/ g\y 3

'Rgpg\oH O

\gFO ',w-Prepared for:

BOSTON EDSION COMPANY 25 Braintree11ill OfTice Park Timintree, MA 02184 9404210289 940401 PDR P ADOCK 05000293 PDR EQE ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS A Division of EQE International

42103-R-001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 2 of 79

@ 1993 by EQE Incorporated ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The information contained in this document is confidential and proprietary data, No part of this document may be reproduced or trans-mitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, record-ing, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from EQE Incorporated.

pam L -~1 . - - - - - - - - - ---_----3

I; '

- 42103-R-001 Revision 0 - l

. July 30,1993 j

.Page 3 of 79 '

I l

TABLE OF REVISIONS Revision Descriotion of Revision Date Acoroved 0 Original Issue July 30,1993

[

8

%-- , - - - . . - -c. . -.

,w -

u a, a e _, - +-u- wm -

- ~ . . 4 % +

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 4 of 79 APPROVAL CCVER SHEET TITLE: Seismic Reanalysis of Reac1RLBuildine Pilcrim Nuclear Power Station REPORT NUMBER: 42103.01 CLIENT: Boston Edison Comoany PROJECT NO.: 42103 REVISION RECORD REV.NO. DATE PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED 0 07-30-93 L. lA) fM l

'l lim L

A 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 5 of 79 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . ...... .. .. ... . . .......... ....... ... ............7

2. TECHNICAL APPROACH. .... . . .. . . ..... . .. ...... . . ... ... .. . .... ....11 2.1 O ve rvi e w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . ........11 2.2 Free-field Ground Motion., . . .. . .. ... . . . . . . .. ..............12 2.3 Soil Profile.... ..... .... . .. .. .. . ........ . . .... .. .... . ..............13 2.4 Site Response Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . ............13 2.5 Implementation of the Substructure Approach in SSI Analysis . . . .15 2.5.1 Foundation input Motion .... . . ... .. .. . . ....... ... ... 1 6 2.5.2 Foundation Impedances . ... ...........................16

2. 5. 3 S truct u re M o d el . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 17 2.6 SSI Analysis.. . . . . ...... .......... .. ....... .........................18

3. BUILDING MODEL. .. .. .. .. ... .. . ... . . .... . . .. .. . . .... ........25 3.1 Introduction.... .. ..... ... ... ..................... ..... . .... . ............25 3.2 Description of the Reactor Building and Internal Structures...... ....... 25

3. 3 M od el Stif f ness Pr o pe rtie s . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . . ... .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . .... . . . . 2 6 3.4 Model Mass Properties . .. . .. .. .. .. . ... ........................28 3.5 Element Damping ..... ... . . ... . .. .. .. .......................30

3. 6 Fl o o r Fl e xi bili ty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 D2g=

90M90*

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 6 of 79

4. ANALYSIS RESULTS.. . . . . . . .....54 4.1 Time Histories .. . . . . . . . . ............54 4.2 Building Model Frequencies . .. . . .... .. . .. . ....54 4.3 Soil Impedances and Scattering Functions . . .. ...... . . ... . . .54 4.4 In-Structure Response Spectra . .... . . .. .... .. . . .. .. ........55

5. REFERENCES. .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. .... . .... . .........78 PAGES ATTACHMENT A - REGULATORY GUIDE 1.60 SSE IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA .... .. .. . . . .. . . . .65 ATTACHMENT B - RESUMES OF PROJECT PERSONNEL .. . ... . .. . .. . .33 1

i l

l

)

33 3 EV8d

)

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 7 of 79

1. INTRODUCTION This report describes the seismic reanalysis of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) Reactor Building as requested by Boston Edison in Reference 1 and subsequent correspondence.

The scope of work consisted of upgrading the Reactor Building dynamic model to current requirements; performing a soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis using seismic inputs corresponding to (1) Regulatory Guide 1.60 ground response spectra anchored at 0.159 for SSE and 0.08g for OBE, and (2) PNPS FSAR (Housner) ground response spectra anchored at 0.15 9 for SSE and 0.08g for OBE; and generating new in-structure response spectra suitable for use in future design activities.

The Reactor Building model was revised to be a 3-D model, rather than 2-D as originally developed, incorporating vertical and torsional properties. Mass and stiffness properties were recalculated using plant drawings and equip-ment locations. Internal structures were modeled separately: (1) the drywell vessel, (2) the torus suppression pool, (3) the biological shield, (4) the reactor pressure vessel, and (5) the reactor pedestal. The building model properties were derived in a OA calculation (Reference 7) with all sources of information documented. A schematic of the dynamic model with elevations for genera-tion of in-structure response specta is shown in Figure 1-1.

The SSI analysis was performed as a 3-D analysis in accordance with current practice, input time histories to characterize the ground spectra were i generated to meet current NRC requirements (Reference 2). Impedances and scattering functions were computed using soil layer properties determined by j others (Reference 13). The soil properties were coupled with the upgraded building model for analysis of the coupled soil-structure system. Soil para-meters were varied in accordance with Reference 2.

I 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 8 of 79 New in-structure response spectra were generated for both ground spectrum inputs (Regulatory Guide 1.60 and PNPS FSAR) and for SSE and OBE. The new spectra were generated at the poi cs contained in BECo Specification C-114, the torus, and El. 27.17 on the drywell vessel. For the main building floor elevations, the new spectra consist of an envelope of the center of mass location and the four extreme corners of the floors in order to capture torsional effects. The spectra for the torus is an envelope of four points around the circumference of the vessel. All spectra envelop the best estimate, upper bound, and lower bound soil cases, and are broadened in accordance with current criteria. A flow chart of the analysis process is shown in Figure 1-2. The computer programs used in each step are shown in parenthesis in each box.

The new spectra for the Regulatory Guide 1.60 SSE ground spectrum input are contained in Attachment A to this report. All analysis was performed and documented in accordance with EQE QA procedures. Computer program inputs and outputs are saved on electronic media.

The following personnel performed work on this project:

. Modelling

- Paul Baughman

- James White

- Gordon Bjorkman e Analysis

- Alejandro Asfura l

- David Doyle  !

- Basilio Sumodobilia e Design Review

- James Johnson Their resumes are contained in Attachment B to this report.

i

,i.

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 REACTOR

" 9* 8 # 78 BUILDING L.164.50 L.145.00 DRYWELL EL.117.00 REACTOR VESSEL EL. 91.25 BIOSHIELD g EL. 86.75 0 EL. 81.80 ..

& L. 74.25 EL. 71.50 EL 56.64 EL. 55.18 EL. 51.00 EL 52.81 EL. 47.35 s EL. 47.27 El 35.42

+ EL. 27.17 '

EL 28.00

. EL 23.00 EL. 21.70 TORUS h EL.15.40 L. -0.25 MAT L -17.5 Figure 1-1 S

42103-R-001 Revision O  :

July 30,1993 Page 10 of 79 ORotsc- G /

A, LOW STRAm N /

7 N STRUCn/A t (s SOst PROFILE }

R E SPOks.i mCTRu e WODfL

.)

/  % / /

l l l Y II I

" y .Rco H

_i.=>PSTORY mCTR=

TO PIT . ITR,ANTuM, PR,OPg R O-,__.,

k SCATTER #esG APCTIONE inunL.,

__ m-,

DYNueaC mmCn .mC.Rf.5PON11 (Fff) g spiaggi (MODSAP) l l l l 1f Y Y -Y Cp(CX STRO*sG CALULAff STituttjnAL OENElA TE COPNERT MODSAP OUTPtfr WonOMDURAMON - E TO 53m W FORWAT

-> ,7tME M5,?QME3 AT s f 3PONSE OF<m Co,uf' LEO.

- mmL muerun ..ss.

l LS>sxE) t &Sm>

l l l Y Y Y

- ,.. - R O- R.-. _,,R.-.

SPECTRUM SPILMW Af SPECTRA PROM asOQAL 02tDuRAnON FOLa%MN LML nug gaging,g3 FFouRIER, 625PEC) gg3pgc) l l l 1r y

/\ s N. sROADEN ao / P ves la #

q3,,"" "7, 'x vis RO$i N unacToa" -

,,~, m O, On, /

\j/ 'N [ I l

EM4 LOP SPECTRA FLOOR EXTMuES

?>eREg 30eL CASE $

( A Stem l

Y PLOT FhAL 9LOOR RESPOh58 SPECTRA (R5PLD Figure 1-2

b 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 11 of 79

2. TECHNICAL APPROACH 2.1 Overview in this chapter, the technical process used by EQE to perform the soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis of the PNPS Reactor Building is described.

The major tasks involved in the seismic analysis of the PNPS Reactor Building are described here in general terms.

Ir the last decade, significant advances have been made in the area of SSI alalysis. Better and more theoretically sound SSI analysis techniques have.

heen developed and implemented, and experience has been gained in their use. Theoretical developments and experimental programs have furthered the understanding of the combined behavior of soil-structure systems with the spatial variation of ground motions. Better and more efficient techniques have been developed for the generation of site-specific seismic motions, and a significant amount of data has been collected. Questions regarding the location of the control motion for the analyses, acceptable radiation damping, soil material behavior, variability of the soil and structure properties have been addressed with analytical and experimental studies. All of these advances have culminated in regulatory revisions as evidenced by Revision 2 of the USNRC Standard Review Plan (SRP), Section 3.7, NUREG-0800 (Reference 2).

The overall approach is described here in the context of the substructure method to SSI. The substructure approach is particularly attractive for SSI analysis. It separates the SSI problem into a series of simpler problems, solves each independently, and superimposes the results. This approach allows one to examine meaningful intermediate results and perform sensitivity ,

o studies in a cost-effective fashion. The elements of the substructure ,

approach as applied to structures subjected to earthquake excitations are:  ;

(1) specifying the free-field ground motion; (2) defining the soil profile; (3) l l

Sim  :

7 42103-R-001  ;

Revision 0 I July 30,1993 Page 12 of 79 i

performing site response analysis; (4) calculating the foundation input motion; I (5) calculating the foundation impedances; (6) determining the dynamic characteristics of the structure; and (7) performing the SSI analysis, i.e.,

combining the previous steps to calculate the response of the coupled soil- '

structure system. Figure 2-1 shows the several steps schematically. A brief discussion of each of these elements and their applicability to the PNPS l Reactor Building is given below.

2.2 Free-field Ground Motion Specification of the free-field ground motion entails specifying the control i

point, the frequency characteristics of the control motion (typically, time histories or response spectra), and the spatial variation of the motion. For the PNPS Reactor Building, the free-field ground motions are described by the PNPS FSAR (Housner) and Regulatory Guide 1.60 response spectra applied at l 1

finished grade in the free field (Reference 1). The SSI analysis will utilize  !

artificial acceleration time histories generated to the criteria of NRC SRP Section 3.7.1 (Reference 2). Generating the time histories is a simple yet critical task. Any excess conservatism incorporated in the time histories in a l

frequency range including or close to the principal soil-structure system frequencies will be directly transmitted to the floor response spectra and impact the design and evaluation of plant components. Therefore, the ,

reduction of unnecessary conservatism in the artificial time histories meeting '

the requirements of the SRP Section 3.7.1 deserves special attention. EQE l proprietary computer code FIT has been developed to meet the SRP Section 3.7.1 requirements without introducing unnecessary conservatism by closely l l

matching target response spectra. Figure 2-2 compares a representative j response spectrum corresponding to an artificial acceleration time history l generated with the program FlT using the horizontal SSE design spectrum at l 5% damping for a typical site as the target. A very close match is observed.

Figure 2-3 ant' 2-4 compare the response spectra of artificial acceleration I

I' 42103 R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 13 of 79 time histories generated with the program FIT using Housner and Regulatory

~

Guide 1.60 as the target spectra. Time histories generated in this fashion closely fit target response spectra, meet the SRP Section 3.7.1 criteria, and are realistic time functions as shown in Figure 2-2. They eliminate unwanted conservatism in the SSI analysis and in the generation of floor response spectra, in addition to enveloping the design response spectra, the artificial time histories must comply with requirements of compatibility of energy distributions with the target motions. To ensure that the artificial time histories do not have frequency ranges with deficient energy content, the power spectral density functions of the artificial time histories are compared with the requirements of Reference 2.

2.3 Soil Profile Defining the soil profile for SSI analysis first involves defining the low strain soil properties as a function of depth. This is usually done from site data compiled by the geotechnical engineer. The important parameters for the SSI-analysis are soil shear modulus, soli material damping, Poisson's iatio, mass density, and water table location--all as a function of depth in the soil. An additional aspect of defining the soil properties is the variation in soil shear modulus and soil material damping with shear strain level, i.e., the reduction in shear modulus and the increase in damping as shear strain increases. The low strain soil profile for this work was provided by Boston Edison (Reference 13).

2.4 Site Response Analysis A site response analysis serves two purposes: (1) estimate shear strain compatible equivalent linear soil properties, and (2) calculate motions at foundation depth in the free field to compare with SRP requirements.

B

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 14 of 79 The generation of shear-strain compatible soil properties is an important step in the SSI analysis. Strain compatible soil shear modulus and soil material damping will affect the motion at the foundation of the structure and thus the seismic response. It is common practice, lacking site-specific laboratory test data, to use the soil material properties versus shear-strain relationships developed by Seed and Idriss (Reference 3) in conjunction with the computer program SHAKE (Reference 4) to estimate equivalent linear soil properties compatible with the soil shear strains induced by the design basis response spectrum. The program SHAKE is a commonly used and well-accepted program in the nuclear industry for the development of equivalent linear strain compatible soil properties and for the calculation of time histories of motion at any location in the soil column. SHAKE is based upon one-dimensional vertical propagation of shear waves through linear viscoelastic soils consisting of homogeneous horizontal layers extending to infinity in the horizontal direction and overlying a homogeneous half-space. Figure 2-5 shows an example of variations of soil shear wave velocity and soil material damping compatible with soil shear strains obtained with the program SHAKE.

Based on Reference 1, the location of the control motion for the PNPS site is defined in the free field at the ground surface. In anticipation of the need to perform SSI analyses for three soil profiles--a best estimate, a lower range profile, and a higher range profile-- three site response analyses will be performed for each earthquake level (OBE and SSE) and each design response spectrum (PNPS FSAR and Regulatory Guide 1.60).

To comply with the requirement in the SRP Section 3.7.2 (Reference 2) which states that the spectral amplitude of the horizontal acceleration response spectra in the free field at the foundation depth shall be not less than 60% of the corresponding design response spectra at the finished grade-

~,

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 15 of 79 in the free field, a site response analysis is performed with the program SHAKE to generate the acceleration time histories (and response spectra) at the free-field foundation level for each of the cases defined above and for each earthquake. Treating each case as a triplet, the three foundation level response spectra are enveloped and the result compared with 60% of the surface spectra. If deficiencies exist that cannot be corrected by slight changes in soil properties, then the control motion will be altered. To do so, the power spectral density functions of the motions at the surface and foundation level are calculated. In the frequency ranges where the foundation level spectra do not meet the SRP 60% requirement, the corresponding frequencies of the foundation level power spectral density function are amplified by the square of the ratio of 0.6 times the surface spectral values to the foundation level spectral values at those noncomplying frequencies. The corrected power spectral density function can then be used to generate a new acceleration time history at the foundation level and, by convolution, a new design time history at the surface level that will fully compi r with the 60% requirement. This procedure will minimize the conce vatism added in the frequency ranges where the 60% requirement was originally met. Iterations are performed as necessary with the express intent of not adding unnecessary conservatism to the artificial time histories. All SRP Section 3.7 criteria are then reverified.

2.5 Implementation of the Substructure Approach in SSI Analysis The three remaining steps in the substructure approach (determining the foundation input motion, calculating foundation impedances, and modeling the structure) are discussed next. For this approach to be valid, one important assumption needs to be verified, i.e., that the foundation behaves rigidly with respect to the surrounding soil. This is the case for the PNPS Reactor Building due to the stiffness of the foundation itself and the effective

~

stiffness of the interconnecting walls and slabs.

v - e

42103-R-001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 16 of 79 2.5.1 Foundation Inout Motion The foundation input motion differs from the free-field ground motion in all cases, except for surface foundations subjected to vertically incident waves.

The motions differ for two reasons. First, the free-field motion varies with soil depth. Second, the soil-foundation interface scatters waves because points on the foundation are constrained to move according to its geometry and stiffness. The foundation input motion (u') is related to the free-field ground motion by means of a transformation defined by a scattering matrix

[s(w)], which is complex valued and frequency dependent:

{u' (w)} = [s(w)] {f(w)}

The vector {f(w)} is the complex Fourier transform of the free-field ground motion, which contains its complete description.

As already discussed in Section 2.4, the three foundation level response spectra corresponding to the foundation input motion from the three soil cases are enveloped and the result is compared to 60% of the surface spectra, if deficiencies exist that cannot be corrected by slight changes in soil properties, then the control motion is altered.

2.5.2 Foundation imoedances Foundation impedances [ks(w)] describe the force-displacement characteristics of the soil. They depend on the soil configuration and material behavior, the frequency of the excitation, and the geometry of the foundation. In general, for a linear elastic or viscoeleastic material and a uniform or horizontally stratified soil deposit, each element of the impedance matrix is complex-valued and frequency dependent. For a rigid foundation, 1

the impedance matrix is a 6 X 6 which relates a resultant set of forces and moments to the six rigid body degrees-of-freedom.

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 17 of 79 The embedment of the PNPS Reactor Building foundation is one of the most significant parameters on structure response, and modeling this embedment is essential The computer code SUPELM (Reference 5) is used for this purpose. SUPELM is based on a rigid circular foundation embedded in a layered medium with infinite boundaries. These assumptions are appropriate for the PNPS Reactor Building and equivalent properties are computed. EQE has verified SUPELM under its OA program by comparing to SASSI. SASSI is a well-known computer code which has been reviewed and approved by the NRC for its use in the nuclear industry and has been extensively used for nuclear projects.

Horizontal ground motions are assumed to be composed of vertically propagating shear waves, and vertical ground motions are assumed to be composed of vertically propagating compressional waves. These assump-tions are consistent with current practice and it has been demonstrated that they result in realistic structural and soil responses (Reference 3).

2.5,3 Structure Model Depending on the end use of the SSI analysis, the dynamic model can exhibit various levels of refinement from a detailed member specific model to a single -

equivalent beam lumped mass model in addition, depending on the com-plexity of the structure between floors (e.g., curved or skewed wall systems) l detailed finite element models can be constructed to derive the equivalent l

)

beam properties (shear area, moments of inertia and center of rigidity) or '

element stiffness matrices. The details of the PNPS Reactor Building model j are described in Chapter 3.  !

4 l Using an appropriate finite element model (i.e., a lumped mass equivalent )

beam model for spectra generation) the dynamic properties of the structure are described by the fixed-base eigensystem and the individual modal i

i Bf

,: a j- m# aeo, j

l-42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 18 of 79 damping ratios. The modal damping ratios are the composite viscous damping ratios for the fixed-base structure expressed as a fraction of critical damping. The structures' dynamic properties are then projected to a point on the foundation at which the total motion of the foundation, including SSI effects, is determined.

2.6 SSI Analysis The final step in the substructure approach is the actual SSI analysis. The results of the previous steps (foundation input motion, foundation impedances, and structure model) are combined to solve the equations of motion for the coupled soil-structure system. For a single rigid foundation, the SSI response computation requires the solution of, at most, six simultaneous equations - the response of the foundation. Solution is obtained by first representing the response in the structure in terms of the foundation motions and then applying that representation to the equation defining the balance of forces at the soil / foundation interface. The formulation is in the frequency domain. Hence, one can write the equation of motion for the unknown harmonic foundation response {ub} exp(imt), for any frequency m, about a reference point selected on the foundation. The computer program SSIN is used to combine the several steps to give the final structure response.

The computer code CLASSI (Continuum Linear Analysis for Soil-structure Interaction) consists of a set of subprograms for analyzing the effect of soil-structure interaction on the response of structures. Basically, the CLASSI program may be divided into two parts, CLAN and SSIN, using a special substructure method developed by Wong and Luco. The CLAN portion applies the theory of linear continuum mechanics to analyze the harmonic interaction between the rigid foundation mat and the underlying soil medium.

The information generated by CLAN is the impedance and scattering

A e-, t-4.1- : 4 -- 1.

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 19 of 79 matrices. The impedance matrix describes the harmonic force-displacement relatinnship of the response to incident waves. The SSIN part of the program completes the substructuring process by combining the stiffness matrix of the 9

structure at the base level and the impedance matrix to determine the unknown foundation motions and structural responses. For this project, SUPELM is used in place of CLAN, so only the SSIN portion of CLASSI is used.

Time histories generated in the SSI analysis are converted to floor response spectra for each of the three soil cases. The three floor response spectra in each direction are enveloped and then broadened and smoothed according to the requirements specified in SRP 3.7.2 and Regulatory Guide 1.122, considering however that uncertainties in soil properties and SSI will be -

included in the SSI analysis.

F 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 20 of 79

'l X X /

Free-field motion Foundation input motion

.e u

. O W/////

f.

X Soil profile Impedances 33g Site r=sponse analysis Strucarral model Figure 2-1

I 1 42103-R-001 q Revision 0 l July 30,1993 l Page 21 of 79 -i l

x to ' -

l 4 . i I

3.4 -

3 j 2. >.

3 1.> .

e.

6' 10 3

10 1 '

10 2 r: m ency (s::

Legend: Noces:

Syrtenatic T/5 Acceleracions la g# s CCNG3 serizontal 5% rpectral camping o

W N 1.., .

1. ..

i 0.S=

g", t> .{ ' l l

\ , , ,

l l 4 ,

m4 bh e hb ,

yi * '

["yv' a f y (0 N1 f J

g "I

(

, 1 4

-t.>. 1

... 2.. ... ... ... .... u.. .... .... ,

I 10 Figure 2-2

l-42103-R-001- {

Revision 0 -  ;

July 30,1993

, Page 22 of 79 X 10'I 3.0 2.5 - - -- - - -

pl 2.0 - - - - - - - - -

a a x

'd p

m \

5 0 1.5 I a

j/

V,- +/ "- -

u U t' J

FC

{

i.0 __

./ - - . __ _ __ _- .

T

/

0.s - - - - - .

/

0.0 J .

16 0 I 10 10 10  ;

Prequency (liz)

Legend:

Notes:

llorizontal flousner 5.0 i Spec. Damping (PSAR) Spectrum .,

llorizontal Matching Accelerations in g's Spectrum, X-Dir:EH - - - - . - - - . - 1 SSE Level - 0.159 I Figure 2-3  ;

i

-1' B

c" l 42103-R-001 1 Revision O i July 30,1993 Page 23 of 79 l

1 1

j l

0 X 10 0.; 1 l

0.5

~~~

'IT b  %,

04 D

~ ~ - - - - -

l _

{y __

.s N a ,I r N '

,a o3 \ ,

g

/

\, -

U

< . y 0 . 2- - - _

-f! '

pI um 0 .1 - 4: # _ _

V _ ...

00

/ '

1 - - ---

10 ___. _ _

go O I

10 go 2 l'requency (liz)

Legend Notes:

llorizontal RG 1.60 3.

Design Spectrum pe . Damping llorizontal Hatching A era i na in g's Spectrum, X-Dir:EH _ _ _ _ , _ . , _ _ _ 1 SSE Level - 0.159 Ilorizontal Matching Spectrum, Y-Dir:NS _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ ,

l l

Figurc 2-4 N

'I 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 24 of 79 samancs ,

N m.a-e= 2.sch t a 330

n. m. , ma gru. ; r- .i s- 4- + . - - . rman-se C f.CW S""AAW P4QPeEE3 m,.- .;; 2. .r . o p . 2 . u=ei,1:so C TNAW c wPatet.2 P4CPE.4TTES

.s

n..a..r.

, .e. ..e.. 4;%

=..

m .: .

. . ;- :;.taas p =sa we a;ts av ,-cuo4 ,1:so Q, * '* gm -.m-~ .

~t ~<s~ : ".aw&v wet U ***

= m ,. w_:w-e b  :=_.e. :wmuun lia

>= .4 8

g. g u. ,,,...,s,.,.,., , ..,.,

. , .ar. ., 4 . . + .- WM- uA38 s , 1444 w w w w ~:;.w::.w.~2:C~ W~l '"

.4 .m *

.t' * *y~Q~ *%G= ,_.. .. .. .-

W pe ;A!"7.

EDt 5, *4'.'M' % ;. w&lP.M.'% *.pJa=L TM-1879

.as M  %~

acw=e %eWAv.2E"*?*D'A.4,,.ed'

,em h w c?CCt*Q _

.n%+.2- n.

e r ' . . . -, - m'* ..sts

. a. - . . . -

.m - *e..r,.%u -.Q

_. ,W Mww*(n.

a r-%w-. e . .a-r Q w,,..%,.

. ' +

. ..r.21 1679 etn = . % h-'

A

?c:::W,u*'h.n -w K'*

w.w'.WK _ ez_r*?.h.

. . . . . : a.*SY .

3 gyn -

.u uwscs =0a 4 Soo tocu t500 2000 2300 i.

SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY I

su m c o - - . - - -. . t m m, , _ _ . -

- - . % e . ,. .

6 w-+

m ~ sswa mr= rr- 2m da

s . . . - u s a s; rem-:=wstm

.. m:::::em-c e:sm/i.=

8

.is -

wavr.massum;1==sr= -Im MNWE.-M a*l*'CW31EC R & W .T.,,%h.Ms

$ E E W i @ ?"~"*::"! M E *.ia-W h M ,=s d n v x W~

Tw'w=

a som:

' t v."'.** a cmWh*?231 z%rew<=ui*

.a -

wc.m ., www4.~ v_ ~_ ~. :~_c

-,- . .n

. =

. kg e -z: : w r* $ 4-w e w= : h--!J'a m ~ .v5 --

y s:y a.-mw w . w e++. e k  ;::c_m=,=- :e. . ==

.u m ,

n~.,~ ....a..- . : ;, : =. n.,w, ,a.-a uasea u u.- -.. a, m_.=+,,,> .- .

= ...

. n . .

41 *2 23 Jl14 AS DAMPfNG RADC -

Figure 2 5 Eg s

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

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 25 of 79

3. BUILDING MODEL 3.1 Introduction This chapter presents an overview of the structural model of the Reactor Building and Internal structures used in the SSI analysis and response spectra generation. The development of the model is documented in Reference 7.

Figure 1-1 shows a schematic of the model with the mass points indicated.

Table 3-1 and 3 2 contain the nodal properties ar,J element properties of the model.

3.2 Description of the Reactor Building and Internal Structures The Reactor Building is a rectangular reinforced concrete structure up to the refueling floor at EL.117. Above that it is a steel frame with exterior precast concrete panels.

The foundation mat is 144.5 feet square and 10 feet thick with the finished top surface at El. -17.5. It rests on a 6 inch thick concrete working slab.

There is an extension of about 40 feet by 60 feet on the northwest side comprising the HPCI compartment under the Auxiliary Bay. The exterior shape of the building is essentially rectangular for the remainder of its height, with an interior grid of walls between floor levels. Figures 3-1 through 3-10 show cross-sections at different elevations. Site grade is at El. 23. The shear centers and centers of mass of the Reactor Building are not coincident over the height of the building, introducing the potential for significant torsional response.

The drywell containment vesselis an axisymmetric steel structure surrounded by a reinforced concrete shield wall which follows the contour of the vessel from the foundation of the drywell up to the operating floor. The drywell d

afyLAl 9S

-*- , , m e ,, - - - , -

42103-R-001 PeWion 0 July 30,1993 Page 26 of 79 shield is an integral part of the main building structure. The centerline of the drywell vessel is not coincident with the centerline of the reactor building.

The torus suppression pool is located below the drywell and is supported by the mat.

The reactor pressure vessel is supported by a reinforced concrete pedestal inside the drywell. The vessel is surrounded by a biological shield wall built up of welded steel sections and infill concrete. The biological shield is supported on the reactor pedestal. The pedestal and drywell are supported on a solid concrete section extending about 25 feet above the top of the mat.

The reactor pressure vessel, biological shield wall and drywell structures are braced to the Reactor Building structure at El. 81.8. The reactor vessel is ,

braced to the top of the biological shield by a stabilizer system which resists lateral movement and torsion but not vertical movement (it also allows radial growth, but this is not relevant to seismic response). The biological shield is braced to the drywell by the star truss which acts similarily to the stabilizer.

The drywell is connected to the drywell shield concrete by heavy steel lugs which also restrain only lateral and torsional movement.

3.3 Model Stiffness Properties The floors of the Reactor Building are connected by a grid of walls and the drywell shield structure. This irregular pattern makes it difficult to simulate using composite beam element properties. Therefore, finite element models were constructed to obtain stiffness properties. The models are shown in  :

Figures 3-11 through 3-15. All reinforced concrete walls extending from floor to floor with adequate length to develop shear resistance were included.

Walls with small openings infilled with block were considered continuous if it was judged that the block infill would transmit shear. Full height reinforced block walls two feet or more thick were also included, although the modulus r

. . ~. ~ -= -- . _. --, . - . . _ . .

I 42103-R-001 -

Revision 0 -

July 30,1993 Page 27 of 79 of clasticity was adjusted to reflect the lower stiffness of concrete block construction. The change in wall sections and the floor slab in the Auxiliary Bay at El. 3 was modeled explicitly in the finite element model from El. -17.5 to El. 23 (Figure 3-11).

1 The nodes at the top and bottom of the wall meshes were rigidly connected to nodes at the z-axis (reactor centerline). These nodes were then given unit displacements and rotations. Using the reaction forces, stiffness matrices were assembled. The finite element models also yielded mass properties for the walls. These were distributed to the floors above and below in the mass property calculations.

The drywell lugs are connected to the Reactor Building at El. 81.8 which is between floors. The lugs are embedded in the drywell shield concrete. To model this connection a node (5) was introduced between El. 74.25 and 91.25. This node was connected to the floors by beam elements representing the drywell shield crcss-section. The stiffness of this cross-section was then subtracted from the stiffness matrix of the element connecting the two floors. This provided a good representation of the ,

. stiffness restraint for the drywell lugs while also providing a good representation of the stiffness between the two floor elevations.

The superstructure above the operating floor at El.117.0 consists of steel columns with exterior precast concrete panels inves@ation determined that the panels were adequately connected to the columns to provide shear transfer. The stiffness properties were then determined based on a composite of the precast panels and the columns at the perimeter of the building. This could be well represented in the model by an equivalent beam ,

element.

I 42103 R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 28 of 79 -

The torus structure was deter;nined to be rigid based on review of drawings and References 11 and 12. It was modeled as four nodes around the circumference of the vessel joined by rigid elements to the base mat center of mass. The mass properties of the torus were combined into the base mat rnass properties.

The drywell vessel stiffness was calculated assuming that it consists of a series of cylindrical sections. This simplification was considered acceptable .

because the drywellis light and stiff relative to the overall building and is connected at the top and bottom. The approximation as a series of cylinders somewhat underestimates the stiffness; thus, the approximation is conservative. The drywell lugs which connect the drywell to the drywell shield structure were simulated with high stiffness values since the lugs are very stiff.

The stiffness properties of the biological shield, reactor vessel and reactor pedestal were taken from prior work by Bechtel and General Electric (References 9 and 10). The documentation of this was reviewed and felt to be acceptable. Likewise, the stiffnesses of the star truss and stabilizer were taken from this documentation. The torsional stiffnesses for the star truss and stabilizer were estimated using the lateral (tangential) stiffness and mean radius between the connected structures.

3.4 Model Mass Properties The Reactor Building mass was lumped at eight locations corresponding to

• the main floor levels, the crane rail elevation and the roof. Mass properties of the floors were determined using finite element representations. The weights of the concrete, steel framing, secondary walls, platforms and major equip- l 1

ment were combined to determine the total mass. Allowances for piping, l miscellaneous equipment and live loads were added to the mass based on judgment. Judgments are acceptable because the dynamic response is not I sensitive to moderate changes in these parameters. This was then spread a: .

BG~b I

- . - - - _ _ ___i

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 29 of 79 over the floor area to determine the centroid and mass moments of inertia.

The centroid, mass, and mass moments of inertia of the primary walls were determined in the stiffness calculations and distributed to the floors above and below. The floor and wall properties were then combined to determine the net mass, centroid, and mass moments of inertia. Massless nodes were  ;

specified at the extreme corners of the floors for use in obtaining torsional effects. The final response spectra were an envelope of the spectra from the centroid and the extreme points.

The Auxiliary Bay was included in the model because it is integral with the Reactor Building. This was not done in the original analysis. A review of the Radwaste and Turbine Building drawings and Reference 8 showed that these '

are not integral with the Reactor Building. However, certain portiom cf the buildings are supported on the Reactor Building, and a suitable portion of this mass was included in the model.

The following interface locations were considered:

• Reactor Building Auxiliary Bay Roof (El. 50)

• Turbine Building El. 50

• Turbine Auxiliary Bay Roof (El. 82)

. Radwaste Building Roof (El. 51)

All other interface points (e.g., Turbine Building El 23 and 37, Radwaste Building El. 37) have insignificant mass contribution. The mass contribution of these areas were considered covered by the dead load allowances used at

• these floor levels. a The mass properties for the drywell were calculated based on the weight of the spherical or cylindrical sections. Because the rotational inertias would have negligible effect on the response of the model, they were not calculated.

I 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 30 of 79 The mass properties of the biological shield, reactor vessel and reactor pedestal were taken from prior work by Bechtel and General Electric (Reference 9 and 10). The mass of the reactor internals was condensed and lumped at the point of connection with the vessel. This simplification was considered acceptable because the high stiffness of the vessel would isolate it from effects of the internals. This was supported by examination of the original vessel spectra in Reference 10 which showed a single predominant peak at the fundamental Reactor . Building frequency. ,

3.5 Element Damping Dampings of different portions of the model were selected based on the materials involved. Dampings for the Reg. Guide 1.60 input cases were taken from Reg. Guide 1.61. Dampings for the PNPS FSAR input cases were taken from the original PNPS FSAR, but were adjusted as judged appropriate for use with Housner spectra.

The Reactor Building main structure was considered reinforced concrete L

including the superstructure. The superstructure was considered reinforced concrete because the main earthquake resisting elements are the precast panels attached to the exterior building columns. For the PNPS FSAR input cases, damping ratios of 5% for SSE and 2% for OBE were used rather than 7.5% and 5% as specified in the PNPS FSAR. The values used were judged .

i more appropriate for use with Housner spectra, t

The drywell was considered a welded steel structure per Reg. Guide 1.61 or welded assembly per PNPS FSAR. The biological shield wall was considered a welded ste' structure per Reg. Guide 1.61 (this is conservative) or internal concrete structure / equipment support per PNPS FSAR. The pedestal was assigned the same damping as the shield wall. This is conservative, but the m a

..as met

I 42103-R-001 '

Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 31 of 79 pedestal would not be subject to high earthquake stress; hence, lower damping than the standard for reinforced concrete is appropriate. The reactor vessel was considered equipment /large diameter piping per Reg.

Guide 1.61 or welded assembly per PNPS FSAR. The values used for the PNPS FSAR input cases agree with those used in Reference 10.

The element damping ratios are summarized below:

Element Damping Ratio (Percent)

Reg. Guide 1.60 PNPS FSAR SSE OBE -SSE OBE Reactor Building 7 4 5 2 Drywell 4 2 2 1 Bio-Shield & Pedestal 4 2 3 2 i Reactor Vessel 3 2 2 1 3.6 Floor Flexibility Floor sections in the Reactor Building main structure were checked for.- j flexibility and potential for resonance in the vertical direction of excitation.

Four sections were checked at El.117, three at EL. 91.25 and one at El.

74.25. These were judged to be the bounding cases for all elevations. The frequencies were calculated using composite concrete-steel elastic cross-sections continuous over supports (i.e., fixed end boundary conditions). The calculated frequencies ranged from 22.7 Hz. to 47.3 Hz. Since ~ the predominant vertical response of the coupled soil-structure system for the main building structure was expected to be below 10 Hz., local floor resonance potential was judged not significant and special modeling was not necessary.

l s nem

b

.t.

42103-R 001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 32 of 79 TABLE 3-1 NODES.XLS I I i 1 i i I l

} REACTOR SUILDING MODEL N00AL PROPERTIES I i l l l 1 I I I I I I i 1  ! I l l l NOOE I ELEV I X l Y l Z l MASS l MOM X l MOM Y l MOM Z l l I I I I i l l l REACTOR BLOG I i l I i l i i i i i i 11 17.501 3.1 81 13.031 -4.001 1752.501 43902111 30633571 7453567 21 23.001 1.3 41 20.761 39.301 1272.40i 37597491 2374697l 6134446 31 51.001 -5.141 0.791 67.501 678.901 14148801 12770621 2691942 41 74.251 7.211 5.9 61 90.301 594.201 10949941 596840 1691834 51 81.806 0.001 0.001 99.301 l i 61 91.251 7.771 ' 6.901 108.201 442.601 8418871 450498- 1292385 71 117.001 10.961 7.27) 133.80i 363.401 7118001 409675 1121475 8 145.001 17.13i -7.631 162.501 60.301 1896461 1'10563 300209 9 164.501 17.131 0.001 182.001 29.501 647031 40218, 104920 l l l l l l REACTOR BLDG WALL MEMBER ENO POINTS j l l I l 811 17.501 0.00 0.001 -4.001 I 821 23.001 0.00! 0.001 39.301 l l 831 51.001 0.001 0.001 67.501 l l 841 74.251 0.001 0.001 90.301 l l l 861 91.251 0.001 0.001 108.201 i i I 871 117.001 0.001 0.001 133.801 I l 971 117.001 17.131 0.001 133.801 1 I-881 145.001 17.131 0.001 162.501 I i i i I i i i l I i i REACTOR BLOG FLOOR EXTREME FolNTS I I l l l l I 1 I I i 1011 17.501 72.301 109.001 -4.001 l  !  !

2011 -17.501 72.301 -72.301 4.001 I t 1 3011 17.501 -72.301 -72.301 -4.001 1 I I 4011 17.501 -72.301 72.301 -4.001 I i i 1021 23.001 68.501 121.401. 39.301 l I i 202l 23.001 68.501- -68.501 39.301 i i I 3021 23.001 67.801 -68.501 39.301 I I I 402t 23.00. 71.301 134.101 39.301 1 I i 1031 51.001 68.801- 68.801 67.501 1 1 l i 2031 51.001 68.801 -68.801 67.50i

• I I I 3031 51.001 71.301 70.801 67.501 1 I I-4031 51.001- 71.301 85.101 67.501 l l- l 1041 74.25i 69.301 68.801 90.301 i l l 2041 74.251 69.301 -68.801 90.301 l J l 304) 74.251 35.001 -68.801 90.301 l l l 4041 74.251 -35.001 68.801 90.301 l l l 1061 91.251 69.501 69.501 108.201 I I I 2061 91.251 69.501 -69.501 108.201 1 I I m.

42103-R 001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 33 of 79 TABLE 3-1 (Continued)

NODES.XLS 3061 91.25i 35.301 -69.50i 108.201 i i I 4061 91.25i 35.301 69.501 108.201 I I I 1071 117.001 70.801 70.801 133.801 l l l 2071 117.001 70.801 70.801 133.801 l' i l-3071 117.001 36.501 70.801 133.801 1 I I 4071 117.001 36.501 70.801 133.801 1 I i 1081 145.001 70.801 70.801 162.501 I I i 2081 145.001 70.801 70.801 162.501 1 I i 3081 145.001 -36.501 70.801 162.501 i i  !

4081 145.001 36.,501 70.801 162.501 I I i 1091 164.501 70.801 70.801 182.001 I I I 2091 164.501 70.801 70.801 182.001 j l l 3091 164.501 -36.501 70.801 182.001 i l i 4091 164.501 -36.501 70.801 182.001 I i l l l l l l l l 1

) i RPV PEDESTAL i l i i l l l 201 9.1 21 0.001 0.001 26.62) l 101 15.401 0.001 0.001 32.901 7.971 11l 21.701 0.001 0.001 39.201 15.081 121 28.001 0.001 0.001 45.501 10.111 l 131 35.421 0.001 0.001 52.92l 18.251 I I l l l I i I 8!0 LOGICAL SHIELD WALL l I i i l I i i l i i 14l 47.351 0.001 0.001 64.851 7.341 1 I 151 52.811 0.001 0.001 70.311 2.751 i i 1 61 56.641 0.001 0.001 74.141 9.291 i i 171 71.501 0.00I 0.001 89.001 11.071 I i 181 81.801 0.001 0.001 99.301 2.75i l l 191 82.101 0.001 0.001 99.601 i i i l I I i i l i i i i REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL i i i i ,

I I i i i i i i 291 36.881 0.001 0.001 54.381 I i I 301 40.751 0.001 0.001 58.251 l I I 311 47.271 0.001 0.001 64.771 66.221 I i 321 55.181 0.001 0.001 72.681 9.911 I i 331 58.681 0.001 0.001 76.181 l l- 1 341 61.931 0.001 0.001 79.431 8.701 I I 351 68.431 0.001 0.001 85.931 10.131 1 l 361 76.081 0.001 0.001 93.581 9.551 l 1 3 71 80.431 0.001 0.001 97.931 I -l l 3 81 82.101 0.001 0.001 99.601 I l 391 86.751 0.001 0.001 104.251 8.2 61 401 92.031 0.001 0.001 109.531 l 411 93.651 0.001 0.001 111.151 5.3 81 I i l l l l l l l l l 1 i i l i I I E

. . - - . ~ . .. - . . . - .

42103 R-001 Revision 0 )

July 30,1993 '

Page 34 of 79 l

TABLE 3-1 (Continued)

)

l NODES.XLS I l l ORYWELL I I l 1 i l l I I I l l l 501 16.431 0.001 0.001 33.931 1 841 l l ,

511 23.691 0.001 0.001 41.191 1.291 52l 27.171 0.001 0.001 44.67l 1.271

. 531 36.081 0.001 0.001 53.58l 1.761 1 541 44.981 0.001 0.00 62.481 1.551 SSI 53.891 0.001 0.00 71.39- 1.86l 561 59.821 0.001 0.00 l 77.32. 1.591 l 57I 69.191 0.001 0.001 86.691 0.851 58 '

78.561 0.001 0.001 96.061 0.71l 59 81.801 0.00l 0.001 99.301 0.87l 601 88.81 0.0 01 0.001 106.31 l 1.92 61l 97.81 0.00l 0.001 115.31' 1.95 62 106.39i 123.89 O.001 0.001 0.63l

\ l TORUS I I i 70 -0.251 -65.751 l 17.25 71 -0.251 1 65.751 17.25 72 -0.25l 65.751 l 17.25 l 73, -0.251 I +65.751 17.251 I l

^

42103-R-001  :

Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 35 Of 79 TABLE 3-2 MEMPROP.XLS I I I I REACTOR 8UILDING MODEL ELEMENT PROPERTIES REF FROM TO Al A2 A3 11 12 13 E pol REACTOR BLOG WALLS I I 82 81 STIFFNESS MATRIX K21 83 82 STIFFNESS MATRIX K32 84 83 STIFFNESS MATRIX K43 86 84 STIFFNESS MATRIX K64 87 86 STIFFNESS MATRIX K76 I I REACTOR 8LDG WALL MEMBER END POINT CONNECTIONS 1 81 RIGIO 2 82 RIGID 3 83 RIGID 4 84 RIGID 6 86 RIGID 7 87 RIGID 7 97 RIGID 8 88 RIGID DRYWELL SHIELD WALL llOLDING DRYWELL LUGS 84 5 765.30 382.65 382.65 322340 161170 161170 519000 0.17 5 86 765.30 382.65 382.65 322340 161170 161170 519000 0.17 REACTOR 8LDG SUPERSTRUCTURE I 8 97 08 262.88 112.40 150.48 1544428 890235 654193 519000 0.17 9 88 9 262.88 112.40 150.48 1544428 890235 654193 519000 0.17 RPV PEDESTAL hf tM M9

i i

42103 R-001 l Revision 0  !

July 30,1993 -l Page 36 of 79  ;

'l TABLE 3-2 (Continued)  ;

i l

i MEMPROP,XLS 10 20 10 278.50 139.00 139.00 35330 17665 17665 457000 0.17 '

11 10 11 278.50 139.00 139.00 35330 17665 17665 457000 0.17 12 11 12 278.50 139.00 139.00 35330 17665 17665 457000 0.17 13 12 13 354.00 177.00 177.00 40006 20303 20303 457000 0.17 DIOLOGICAL SHIELO WALL I4 13 14 241.80 120.50 120.50 34058 17029 17029 457000 0.17 15 14 15 196.00 98.M 98.00 26388 13712 13169 457000 0.17 16 15 16 105.00 .. 52.30 15014 7507 7507 457000 0.17 17 16 17 306.40 15'..J0' 153.30 46907 23451 23451 457000 0.17 18 17 18 152.90 76.00 76.50 22113 9290 12823 457000 0.17 10 18 19 RIG 1D RPV SKIRT 26 13 29 50.00 25.00 25.00 3800 1900 1900 3950000 0.265 27 29 30 8.56 4.28 4.28 570 285 285 3950000 0.265 REACTOR PRESSunE VESSEL 28 30 31 14.10 7.05 7.05 978 489 489 3740000 0.265 29 31 32 33.92 16.96 16.96 3154 1577 1577 3740000 0.265 30 32 33 33.92 16.96 16.96 3154 1577 1577 3740000 0.265 31 33 34 28.86 14.43 14.43 2684 1347 1342 3740000 0.265 32 34 35 28.86 14.43 14.43 2684 1342 1342 3740000 0.265 33 35 36 28.86 14.43 14.43 2684 1342 1342 3740000 0.265 34 36 37 28.86 14.43 14.43 2684 1342 1342 3740000 0.265 35 37 38 33.92 16.96 16.96 3154 1577 1577 3740000 0.265 36 38 39 33.92 16.96 16.96 3154 1577 1577 3740000 0.265 37 39 40 ___ 33.92 16.96 16.96 3154 1577 1577 3740000 0.265 38 40 41 67.22 33.61 33.01 6574 3287 3287 3740000 0.205 DRYWELL

-l l 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993  ;

Page 37 of 79  !

TABLE 3 2 (Continued)

MEMPROP,XI.S 50 20 50 15.09 7.55 7.55 11102 5551 5551 4176000 0.3 51 50 51 16.93 8.47 8.47 15668 7834 7834 4176000 0.3 -

52 51 52 13.50 6.76 6.76 13586 6793 6793 4176000 0.3  !

53 52 53 13.43 6.72 6.72 13381 6691 6691 4176000 0.3 54 53 54 12.59 6.30 6.30 11006 5503 5503 4176000 0.3 SS 54 55 10.28 5.14 5.14 5996 2998 2998 4176000 0.3 56 55 56 25.77 12.89 12.89 9060 4530 4530 4176000 0.3 57 56 57 5.99 3.00 3.00 1748 874 874 4176000 0.3 58 57 58 5.99 3.00 3.00 1748 874 874 417G000 0.3 59 58 59 11.18 5.59 5.59 3262 1631 1631 4176000 0.3 60 59 60 11.18 5.59 5.59 3262 1631 1631 4170000 0.3 61 60 61 25.76 12.83 12.83 9940 4970 4970 4176000 0.3 62 61 62 9.66 4.83 4.03 1585 792 792 4176000 0.3 TORUS 70 1 70 HIGID 71 1 71 RIG 10 72 1 72 RIGIO 73 1 73 RtG10 DRYWELL LUGS KXX KYY KZZ KRXX KRYY KRZZ 5 59 1.0E 8 1.0E8 0 0 0 1.0EIO STAR TRUSS KXX KYY KZZ KHXX KRYY KRZZ 59 18 3.095ES 3.095ES 0 0 0 6.964 E 7

~

RPV STA0luZER KXX KYY KZZ KHXX KRYY KRZZ 19 38 4.801 E 4 4.801 E 4 0 0 0 5.809E6 lim

_y.r w p. 3 y- y, -y- --

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

1 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 38 of 79 TABLE 3 2 (Continued)

MEMPROP.XLS REACTOR FLOOR EXTREME POINTS 1 101 RIGID 1 201 R!GIO 1 301 RIGIO 1 401 RIGID 2 102 RIGID 2 202 RIGID 2 302 RIGIO 2 402 RIGIO 3 103 RIGID 3 203 RIGIO 3 303 RIGID 3 403 RIGID 4 104 RIGID 4 204 RIGIO 4 304 RIGID 4 404 RIGID 6 106 RIGID 6 206 RIGIO t 6 306 RIGID 6 406 RIGID 7 107 RIGID 7 207 RIGID 7 307 RIGIO 7 407 RIGID 8 108 RIGID 8 208 RIGID 8 300 RIGID 8 408 RIGID 9 109 RIGID 9 209 RIGID D 309 RIGID 9 409 RIGID

l 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 39 of 79 s 7 9 ll 13 i

is 17 l t  !

- 0. 5 'pitLC4 s T

- ~

i f

- I, o '

l I4' N ,

I,o t s

05'

• "puc15r ,

~

, I, 19' r

[ -l. o ' 2. I '

6.5 '

""I , /V.I' , 90. f ' o 1 -M

, e.1' )

4 c:% +

20'2'  %

/ ~I

~'

70.t'

+ .

l

_g l

3 A u.' c 49,c-lo (4AN El, il 7'-o" c-1/S i

l Figure 3-1 l l

I 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 40 of 79 un E $* 9 A II 13 lT I1 h 31.n

• l, 23. zs' t, n,tr' l, 23.zs* _, za zs> u zg.zg' L zg,u r

/  ! ( ) ,

10'f 4, 1,5 * ,4,o* E1 f- I.3 ' ,,

- I

.l .-

-...-.o . . _ _

y l--- P s E ,J , (I,5'sw

- t I  ! , a. 23.ts' I s LH")

/, S9 p f a o,

'! O ' _-.. // W 5 o' , _, 1c 3.o '

,_N

$0* I l .

!3.t5'

'L. 2.75' l M

/ / '

Q- -' -

I t- {D .

/ - . . . . _ .

l t

...., ,g

3. 5 '

I 4'

< s F. I __m.v_. 23.2 5' l0 4 , Y b'0' t-In 0 '

Qwm}i 'F, 1" p,o TK.cm.49$y____'( _ _ _ _ __ -

, l

- - e._. g 7

40' '

bk jA i

! 23,u,

~~

CL Jc l l

<- g

,, 7-

\ t It.u' REF.

• s .

q\ 9 --.

.. '<_3 c-co c4/ Q(ap s g 39 ,4' 4

( /rf g , t, c 71 m ($ F , 4.

(z.o's ito 3q,y' Er. z'- p )

Bp e3. o *

. ....fLA.N_ " ~8 cc. -/7 ' G" =

g4

- 1. o '

-{W,  :

> 14C5, l ,

t e ,

t I l Figure 3-2

'l '

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 41 of 79

~

2. 3 5 7 II 13 JE I?

9

, e 24.0' , 31.2S' ,

) / 4 g- /, o '

2s'r -

.. p l- /. 5 '

-- /. 6 '

.k 1C.S'-

1 l

, , , I i

, - yy,3 ,

, - 11 9, $ '

$s0 ~ '

_ UI i i i iE ritiii

' , ..g l - - l-l- 1

['4 Iis.o'*Qgl I

' L l !8

& g,3 l

' l.S' . +'A' I

t d ,, j l . .

. g, -

5 l l N

hfj .h" " '" _. / ,,

y-

,')!

I. o ' ,

r I'UPI, o ' I 21,f ' I 39,3L__

+q ,

2.0 I. s '

, -  ! t 3_ , ,

l lU t.5 '

A UX. Bif Y

' '" * 'jf**

p -l##j, p u d E L. 9 '-0 "

nrf, C-Igf Figure 3-3

42103-R 001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 42 of 79 t

Eov4roz

, g a. ze s -

/ "*E*' . . . . . . n ... [ _

H-EL. 9. 2 '

t*

T- e t .17 '-6 .

&L , 9 '-f " ,

I l 5

EL. - $lo" 7

J EL

~

__ _ .__I l

r .5' 1

i l

. 1 4

l F- P f/2ff. C- 72 Secr. 4 c-/s/ )

Figure 3-4

v' 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 43 of 79 (24.23'

) c l.o' ;Yh I. o '

l l j.S' , l' ,' j.s !

EL 3 '0")

i 3.2s' l

?,' I.75' g .7 7 . y *>

s d '

o

.. $oO l

t- woM Nxr wo

^{fAGA4NC

/' U W V &tM P40 D -a (ext c tu ucr. p)

~

-~ , ,, ,.

l EL.13 o'3 i g ._

[.5 ' // z .s '

l

64. -/ 7 f (,' 3 O

j i d~E. (/{tA C - 73 sw sj g N) ,

Figure 3-5

.1 -

42103-R-001 ,

Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 44 of 79 LL 2 3' 9 @

[L.1-3 '

__ ]1

)

i EL /7' 6" .

3. O ' , ,

EL. Unit /ES EL* Vd/ZJfS /

(TY/. / 4")

3,o' / l l,0 ' c =C -I91) 1,0' .

LL-l7'b" __

ct. -17 '.f," _

LO' 3 i , blo hc M 4 Y b

1MfM6Md6 A -A [gpc.99 - 0*b _ fAL6 C-73 SLc7. f) s

.ser.9)

.I ,

-4 I, S ' /

l.S' l

EL. 3.0)

? ___

2. 5' ' , . ,

l.5 '

l .

44. -/7 's "

, i l

C -C Figure 3-6 (RAF. C-13 l sema.)

. _ _ _ _ _ $83

l' 42103 R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 45 of 79 2

,lt.o*,52 5 1 9 il 13 ff 17

.I2.o,3 37,3 , 139 5 ,

, , s ,

13, ~t o.s'PM w r 0.T '{mwr m s.) ,,,,

7 l - -

'P

$?m.N l 'l-0 )

JT g ' o.si d- I y

n "M ' racer l l M.3, i M - -.

. . . - ?g-. ..

p I s'-- - -1,1s*  ? c?,_* ~.

,. te t* I 2$ ' l. 5 '

+ -

r, r

11. 3' ,,

e i

t- - 8.

l g C "6J' l <

-19f.

mwr l / y 'gr

! - .- . . _ 2 k

2.,,4 , .; e s, i Ns - /

/

. . . _f l l. _

7 i .

4.s'1

%, 2.0* 7 &

~' ,,, u J,,,,, / S.1 '

,,5 , g, a n

' ~

gy.'[ 13 0 ' W, 2.n'

= 4,; ,

yniG, g,j r --e s' pozor ,,, S 27,3,, ,,,, ,

+-

I ,9

~ ~

I }. g,$ , l t b'E

aci~

c-s 3 ! c ts8 (U[d' N,# }

PLAd I c- h1 -

<i. , , , ,

p _10.23'0"

)

Figure 3-7

I 42103-R-001 Revision O July 30,1993

' age 46 of 79 3 0' 1 4 II l6 ;3 y .y i /31,3  !

< s

~

o - 0.$ '

-l.0 p44y j -

--. -p

,,- ' 2.I'

, /.

I lf,o ' l

-I.o *

/.6 '-}

, l, M.o' l, ---

-d i f 4 z./' I I 5' /.5' 3.:r '

W.o' PW43i "0 5' g,, e  % 2. 0'

'  %',I ' II/'H /~1f ,' ','

'~

P M C4tr -M-

% 2.o' 1 /

, l ^/ '2b .g,ge.

4 l 1 '* J . 4 '

g'fl,6 s. , i s/ / " -.-.. ,,s. .

//

, / --

_3,3'

- /

L 7

'Wb ~C :J,'5 '

p m-E ',

4* .

/.o T " /,0

' 8 i4 / / / 4.0' / /^

, 3. s' '

//. ._/t_ l

,g U'Y l ITA' Q_G,, .

+ - 14 ' I - ,

g.o . ,

. 1 20.5 - -

n y,3 e g ILc wt- - u I o, 4 s.o. 1.r ' >,,,. ,,) +,,,. -

3),3' l.0, VI// // / / / //J facL4Jr

/,5, ' u. t-

- ._1. l 7. T ' , 2 C. 5' '

,l f go. f' j'

-l.f .

,,g J)1)1 l

u, ( 1:o. w.

AVG. EL, M $1,'(r'

/ / - -- _ y j L 15al' . l' $

• MA e i N0TC. : JL46 47 .}

PLA+l tt. 41'-v ilv4.

C-4 4, C -4 5, C.j s +, c .9 4 , c .qy ,, q,, ,,

p,(y, - jg n + 4'If ectxf: 1,1 TX l

Figure 3-8

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 47 of 79 3 7 4 Il 13 is* og

/2tS' ,

, 20.s* l.4 '

ren 785'FlutSY ', ,

l. 4 ' g il9

~

, 3, q - g g, l?

\ lf. 0

• l 23,J' i 1,8 ',f' .,/* 8 '

[ f 9,3, [ ,t __ _ fj .

W" , '< i ,

4. t, -

1.I' '

e o

/, a ' _ o w f,o i l /0s,15

'9

,.m

, 2J.5'

~ ~

[ j M ,

. -i ,6

' 7.1 ' ' 5;J ' d. s o ,- -- ~ p.S'

, go.S'y , , y Mtusr g

.c 2 o' S.o'

o. y' _ o _.

'4 )"  !

" "'" i n l i

/ ' / / / / / // 32o' ,

,m

% 1.0, 4. s*

no' o .

3  ; ,l W/)~1'// // / // j2 o. K 9  : .

> g, $ I 2,o' ,l[S' l.0 ' . l0. 0 , , (0. 3 , g,3*

.n. . ,

' ~

l l , ?2.o ', rf .

-o.s' n ussr 1, o , C 2,o s L t1.o ' %.o ' .l R,r/ j PIAN Ar EL. 79'-3* c.gg, c.g g l I

l Figure 3 9 n

I 42103 R-001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 48 of 79 5' 7 4 // /3 IS' /7 I e

• I ,

4.S' fitLc4JT L t.o'

- -. x .,. _ p

'3- 2. l

• 0.15' p ,.

,.0.: 2 S ' 'Y' #

2. I' g,g$s , , , f,o

• I.6 A

/1. o '

) Tjeg -

o.s* -- -

/ttcasr } l yf 2.o' ,

t

'e '

A g

.I 4' +-- --

1,o*-y(j to.S\ $ 3.o '

1.7 ' <_c. 4, g o go,$* y, g o ,,

,. ,, o o q, $ , ,

-. = . _ . _.-._ _ _u j _t to.i 9,, 10.5' n.s *

, , so.so "o.1 *

,, 3.o

• rectssr

[ - 3. l' f

bu g

• 2. 0 '

l .o.ts'

'es'Paccnsr 'l'0

g,, ,

ca.1. c u c -tog PL4/1 EL. 91'-3" Figure 3-10

.- l 42103-R-001 -

Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 49 of 79 l

MNSYS*AC 4.4N1 EDE -- PNps peac tor- Bu i ld i ng be twesen Elev.-87*-o* & 23'-O" mppt 29 1993 15 24123 PLOT NO. 2 POST 1 ELEMENTS TYPE NUM XV = =' t YV =0.5 ZY al CIst=134.225

,,sg xr =0.25 j N YF 31.6 g I,. #\ 17.65 p <,.*-J ~

T Z P*

NNGZ=108.43-

.', . .. ';; % 5 ""ccccc ~'c c"

. . _ \

/ , , - . . . . . ' - - -~~- \y

-c........-1 /

\Nx

',..-4.....-//

.- 7/ / .-

. ,~~ ~. ~ .

~ , , \N \

Nr/// / \\ s\ys l<\

clX s s .. s'.\ y//

,..-r \y/xx x

s\

\\ s .\.y\

'//\\N j p'

\sNNNN.. ..-

N,x.xxg. - h\\ , ....

...- i N,N \. \ .

....s.- \... . , , / '. , , . . / .- ,.

,}' ,. , , . .- ..

C '\h.-/\q.\

\ -

..), .-

\ ,, .. - x

, v- ... .

NN ..

K,.

. , s- . . . - s. .-

, . . ,s,

- ,..../.,.. j

\\ f ,-

,s

..- - s.

\\...- s.- ,

y Figure 3-11 l

m ,

wiemanes  !

42103 R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 50 of 79 MNSYS-AC 4.4R$

t.L ? - ANAs Asoctora Su&1dariQ betueers Elow. 238-0 & 51*-O' MPft 49 1993 11325850 PGOT NO. 8 AOSTt Et,ENENT5 TYPC NUM XV .-I YY .O.5 ZY 1 015f.1c0.395 xr -=0.2

,"' YF .a3.75 s IF 53.4

• s NNGZ = 100. 4 '3 g PAECISE H IDOEN

.. - . . s N Nh sssy Ns\ s s

./ -

./- s\ss 5

\ssy

.- < \ss ss jf"'. y~%. g (N(N ss

,c,. ..

.., sqs \s \s

3. .

y.

s

-1, -

~ .

. .vs-.s sss Nss 3

- sh(

sN sssQ 3A ,

,,g:

o

..'c-A \ssRN(N Nss

\sss k),

. f > @. \ssg sg .,

sss s sss' .

s f  :., :: - ;

sw N\WQ S ',

.. , s # -

h ,.. ,,,,

\sss& NN .

_ s - sss . .

\sss *  %. Q #sssss:, ::, -

. "L.-

.,- '(s NNssN M. g ssss ... ,. - ,J.. -

w ,-

sss< . , .J , s ..-

((s sss x -

\s s .,.:.- , ',..

\ss -;.. -; ..- ,.

+, ,.

- /

.,. .. .. .. -/.....

Figure 312

=

e

i' 42103 R 001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 51 of 79 MNSYS AC 4.4M1 mpp ag ggg3 202 ANAS Anoc tora Du a lcit rq betuewen Elev . 518-O" in 74'-S" IS:06 43 PLOT NO. A post 1 ELEMENTS TYPC NUM XV ..l YV =0.5 ZY- 1 OtST=100.477

.. ,,,, N xr .s.vs

/.\N zr 78.o mNaz.10a.43 voecise M1oa N x \,

L. ,,.. ', ../ \\;\

h

,.; ;;,,..-3 .. .- ,

, . \\\

/. ..

. ..\< ,

f.- ,.

,.- . ., - 7 .-

\;g sx

.-7,,.- ;;.

.~ ,..

. 7;,..

- f ,,, \ \

\-Ngg\\

\ (

y ,

,...- . - x; , /- \ \q\\i\g ,

\ \ y\ . . - p w

s\ ,y . . .. , .... y ,.

-D. I -

\

\k .5

- *- ..- s

\N \ t ^ - .

I j

\\\k \ .~-:.'.'- '

h.c, s,

.j10

- -;fs., .-s

,- , / . . T, . .

.\

. ~. . ... , ,

\\\,

yy , < s. .

+ .. .- .. ...

\\\ \ ,

\ \\ ,--

-l. . . .

}....;.;- ,;'C.y .::l

\\ {\\

gy -

.8 .. ... . .

xN ,. .... .

N..N N....,.....- f......,-

gg , s

\,..-

Figure 313

-, 1

42103 R 001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 52 of 79 NNSYS 8'C 4.4MI EQE - PNPS Anocto'* SuAidiN between Elev. 743-3" Er 91'-3" MPH E9 1993 15a36 37 PLOT NO. 8 POST 1 Et,EMENTS TYPE NUM XV a- I VV .O.5 IV al 015T.94.094-xte =17.4 2F =99.25

, *' ,,- \ nNGZ.100.43 p / "' ' j, \ PRECISE H100EN

- - \

...- '..\g N \

\ g

. . . , , -,. ..- ,. -..../,,.- -

\

..,. . \

\

, \

,,... y\ /

,,.. .- f

. .s

\ /

. ... .<s.

N .,....

/ ,.

..~

\

...- -., . ~ ~-', ,/ ~ ,..N, ,

\ '

y\

Ns\.-Q..-

,/

s K .... /y ./

-.3

\N ' - -

y:/-.;',/(

\ , '

\ ,/-

\

s%\ g;N

\ s \\ g -

7

- / r' . '- '

\ \s .... ,t ...- ' ,

\ \ \ \s 5 .

s s , - ;.

,- y-s .,

NN ,s -

g \ ,- .- -

\

N."..- ,

i l

Figure 314 l

l l

. ~ . , -

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 53 of 79 f

P.dSYS AC 4.4M1 91*-3* & 117*-O" py2p gg agg3 EDE = PNAS Aacc tora Bu J 11C 1nQ bet *Jamri E lov . *5 48:40 PLOT NO. E PAEPT ELEP1ENTS T YPC NLfM xv --i YV =0.5 ZY -1 OIST=95.48 XF =17.15

, -N Zr .iei RNGZ=1OS.43

. # ,e\ \ g Paeczse nroceN

y. ,. ' -

.. . , \

x \

\

\

y .- s y-

..... \ s s

s s

\

., ,f

\ py

,/ ,.

, \

\,K.. . ..- .. ,

./ y

.. ,. , .... ....y... , . -

.. . . ,. .8

\ ... ...

, . .N

\ \ g. N\

\\ ys -

'- - . -)/ -/

-gs N' ,..

' .- s s .

s sN s \. . ..-g,,,- ys . .. - - ... ,.

\\N g \ .-

...\s../

- / .- '

.. f.

y\ (... \

3 ,.. / ~

\

[<w 7 ,

- / -

g s \z,. s \ y z.

.- e-

,, s -

.... .s.

sy ss\ ,3- -

.y '--

s ' ' . "

,,' /-

y\

bs\ ,

N \ g s.5 y \ ,

/ ,,- <,

./

g\ .

\ s 3 .

.- ', /.- ' ,

\\ s y _, ,

.s

\ - ...

y \. . - ,/ ./

\ ,./

Figure 3-15 teme=er40369

l 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 54 of 79

4. ANALYSIS RESULTS 4.1 Time Histories Three statistically independent ground motion time histories were generated for each earthquake case and their spectra compared to the target spectra.

These comparisons, at the surface and at the foundation level, are shown in Figures 4-1 to 4-5 for the Reg. Guide 1.60 SSE. Power spectral density functions for the time histories are showri in Figures 4-6 to 4-7.

4.2 Building Model Frequencies The first 30 fixed base frequencies and composite damping ratios for the Reactor Building dynamic model are given in Table 4-1. The percent mass participating in each direction is also shown. The frequencies in Hertz of the first significant modes for the main building portion of the model in each direction are shown below and compared to those calculated by EQE using the original Bechtel models (Reference 15):

New Model Old E-W Model Old N-S Model Direction Frequency Frequency Frequency N-S 5.04 5.61 E-W 6.36 5.79 Vertical 14.66 14.96 13.78 Composite modal damping ratios were computed using the stiffness weighting function method of Reference 2.

4.3 Soil Impedances and Scattering Functions The soil impedances and scattering functions were computed using the low strain soil layer properties provided in Reference 13. These are shown in Table 4-2. A weighted average, effective embedment of 31.5 feet was used.

Impedances and scattering functions were computed for best estimate, upper ,

42103-R-001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 55 of 79 2.0) soil properties for the R.G.1.60 SSE and PNPS FSAR (Housner) SSE cases. The best estimate impedances are shown in Figures 4-8 to 4-15 for R.G.1.60 SSE. The scattering functions are shown in Figures 4-16 to 4-20.

Because of smooth variations in the soil properties, the impedances and scattering functions for the upper bound and lower bound OBE cases could be scaled from the calculated impedances and scattering functions for the best estimate OBE cases.

4.4 In-Structure Response Spectra The coupled soil-structure system was analyzed for seismic response. In-structure response time histories were calculated at the required node points for each direction of input for each soil case. Directional responses could be combined algebraicly because the input time histories were statistically independent. Response spectra were generated at the nodes, for each direction, for each soil case. The spectra were broadened. Regulatory Guide 1.122 specifies that the broadening ratio shall be determined by varying parameters but shall be at least 10%. A ratio of 15% may be used in lieu of varying parameters, in this analysis, the only parameters whose variance would significantly affect the building frequency are the soil properties. To be conservative, each stil case was individually broadened using a broadening factor of 15% for the best estimate soil case and 10% for the upper and lower bound soil cases. The spectra for the three soil cases were then enveloped. Finally, for the Reactor Building floors outside containment-and the torus, spectra at all the points at the same elevation were enveloped.

The final in-structure response spectra for R.G.1.60 SSE input are contained in Attachment A to this report. The in-structure response spectra for other cases may be found in Reference 14. The analysis is documented in Reference 14.

42103-R-001 Revision 0 -

July 30,1993 Page 56 of 79 TABLE 4-1 mode freq dampg x y  : xx yy  ::

no h: ratio 5) g') (V) 1 5.04 0.067 49.454 0.132 0.003 0.287 84 935 0.745 2 6.36 0.055 0.117 35.065 0.017 55.475 0.164 0.377 3 6.83 0.038 0.015 0.000 0.001 0.009 0.408 0.089 4 7.07 0.051 0.052 12.007 0.019 25.409 0.100 0.659 5 9.20 0.070 0.106 1.000 0.000 0.681 0.008 47.643 6 12.62 0.070 8.327 0.036 1.810 0.024 0.023 0.131 7 13.43 0.070 0.000 12.396 3.569 0.083 -0.007 0.074 8 14.62 0.041 0.229 0.691 8.859 0.228 0.143 0.018 9 14.63 0.035 0.317 0.125 0.160 0.053 0.129 0.000 10 14.66 0.063 0.000 0.277 35.883 0.058 0.023 0.040 11 17.42 0.070 5.123 0.024 0.609 0.002 0.033 7.425 12 18.72 0.070 0.964 0.640 0.140 0.488 0.036 1.966 13 19.54 0.070 0.257 0.555 0.179 0.615 0.014 2.879 14 20.28 0.035 0.000 0.000 3.199 0.000 0.000 0.000 15 21.63 0.069 0.191 2.729 0.225 1.898 0.544 0.563 16 22.32 0.069 0.561 0.494 0.851 0.350 2.412 0.010 17 24.99 0.037 0.010 0.004 0.013 0.005 0.061 0.022 18 25.02 0.037 0.002 0.070 0.001 0.041 0.006 0.000 19 27.24 0.069 0.518 0.033 0.576 0.038 0.545 0.217 20 27.55 0.069 0.715 0.004 0.042 0.049 0.001 1.141 21 30.33 0,069 0.009 0.783 0.854 1.131 0.001 0.047 l 22 32,92 0.070 0.000 0.003 0.173 0.976 3.111- 0.007 23 34.36 0.070 0.025 0.003 0.005 0.047 0.004 0.165 24 36.56 0.068 0.059 0.003 0.890 0.013 0.136 0.082 25 39.35 0.038 0.000 0.203 0.001 0.049 0.002 0.000 26 39.38 0.039 0.253 0.000 0.108 0.001 0.075 0.003 27 39.38 0.040 0.000 0.075 0.000 0.024 0.000 0.000 28 39.38 0.040 0.006 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.003 0.001 29 40.21 0.059 0.158 0.004 2.156 0.038 0.001 0.066 30 41.47 0.065 0.000 0.108 0.003 0.024 0.024 0.G;'

total pct mass 67.470 67.465 60.368 88.094 89.950 64.369

=

1.

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 57 of 79 TABLE 4-2 Layer No. Thick (ft) Shear Wave Velocity Density Damping Poisson's (ft/sec) (Ib*sec^2/ft) Ratio (%) Ratio 1 10 535 3.92 0.02 0.33 2 10 745 3.92 0.02 - 0.33 3 10 860 4.26 0.02 0.4 4 10 925 4.26 0.02 0.4 5 5 963 4.26 0.02 0.4 6 5 1215 4.01 0.02 04 7 10 1255 4.01 0.02 0.4 8 10 1310 4.01 0.02 0.4 9 10 1365 4.01 0.02 0.4 10 10 1415 4.01 0.02 0.4 11 10- 1465 4.01 0.02 0.4 Rock -

3000 5.22 0.02 0.4 l

1 I

i

-l 42103-R-OO1 Revision 0 July 30,1993 -

Page 58 of 79 '

1 x 10 0 0.5 I

/

/ b\.

.s s

0.4 - -

f

-[

/

/ \

c

.3 0. 3- --- - - - -- \- -

\

% /

s N

% \

O 0.2 A

< */

!/ *

/ 4 9

0,1 ff 0 . 0- -- -- - - - - - -- - - - --

10 10 10 10 Frequency (Hz) ,

Legend: Notes:

R4.(Ao ":::n:r Oc;ign 5% Spectral Damping Spectrum -- -- -

Accelerations in g's l Generated Matchin9 Input Anchored to 0.159  !

Spectrum _.-----

l BECO: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Reactor Building, Soil Analysis  !

Comparisen of Generat ed Motion Matching RG 1.60 Design Spectrum, Comp 1 Figure 4-1

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 59 of 79 0

\

X 10 0.5  !

s I s / 'g

/ sf N '

s I h. (

0.4 - - - -- - -- - --

/ c -- .- h e - --- - -- -- . - -

/ \'\

/ \

0 0.3 \ '

% \

e \

T \

O 0.2

< /

/

!/ \_s e f

0.1

/

y'

/ - -

0.0 I 0 I IU 10 10 2 10 Frequency (Hz)

Legend: Notes:

(Lc.1 b ' ::c a::,; 0 -ign 5% Spectral Damping Spectrum Accelerations in g's Generated Matching Spectrum (Modified) ._ _

Input Anchored to 0.161g BECO: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Reactor Building, Soil Analysis Comparison of Generated Motion Matching RG 1.60 Design Spectrum, Comp 2 Figure 4-2 hh ,

I 42103-R-001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 60 of 79 X 10 0.5 R< e 0.4 -- -- -

- - - ---! - - D N( \ -- - - - -- -- - - - -

I \\

/ \

c \

O 0.3 l 4 - --

-\

% / \

5 e j I! i

\

,s E> 0. 2 / b fa

/ '

N\ -

/ '

/

O.1 --

--y 2 - - - -- ----

/  :

f

/o l

' . 1 0 , 0,-- - - - - --- - --

1-- I- - - - - - -

10 10 10 10 Frequency (Hz)

Legend: Notes:

9.4, . 1.b o " ^ - -

"::i p 51 Spectral Damping Spectrum Accelerations in g's Generated Matching Input Anchored to 0.109 Spectrum _ _ _

BECO: Pilgtim Nucleat Power Station, Reactor. Building, Soil Analysis Comparison cf Gener at ed Motion Matching RG 1.60 Design Spectrum, Comp 3 Figure 4-3

42103-R-001 ,

Revision 0 l July 30,1993 l Page 61 of 79 i X 10

~I 4.0

/

l\ \

s 3.c 'k-[N L A 1 J' '\ j n N N 8

'/ kl s ' j\ f\/\

T

.- / ,t

$ 2.0

'\ / \

\

/If 1 g J' y , 7

\

f; /

/ ,

1.c

,7 f

/

/

/

\ u-

/ /

/ /

/

/

0.0 I 0 I 16 10 10 10 Frequency (Hz)

Legend: Notes:

60% of RG 1.60 Input Sand Degradation Curves Design Spectrum 5% Spectral Damping Env of LB,BE & UB at b . o . f nd, -2 3' , la y .110 . ._. _

Accelerations in g's 1

BECO: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Reactor Building, Soil Analysis Envelope of Deconvolved Motion at Foundation vs RG1.60 Input, Comp 1 Figure 4-4

,)

?

4 42103 R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 62 of 79 X 10'I '

4.0

\

Ik \

8

/' (' '

3.0 '

J \ '

8 \

/ M '

l[WVs

.a

/ VI s ia

% ~

/ \ i U 2.0  ! \

f

.?

([ 'h t

i

\

'i ;l

\ ~.._.

e

- ~ I

,v I'e '

) / t

- / i i

/ f '

0.0 I 0 16 10 10 1 2 10 Frequency (Hz)

Legend: Notes:

60% of RG 1.60 Input Modified Input Motion Design Spectrum -

Sand Degradation Curves Env of LB,BE & UB at b.o.fnd,-23', lay.fl0 __ __ ._ __

5% Spectral Damping

,g ,, _

BECO: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Reactor Building, Soil Analysis Envelope of Deconvolved Motion at Foundation.vs RG1.60 Input, Comp 2 l

Figure 4-5

I 42103 R-001 Revision O July 30,1993 Page 63 of 79 BECO: Pilgrim RB RG 1.60 DBE, Camp 1 25 . .

i RG 's.60 l . .

80% Taf9et 20-- -- '

i

---

r-------------------t.--------------:------------------

: 1srget

. 4 3o 15-- - ----- --

-~---+-----~~~------+------~~--+-------~~------

A  :  :  :

./ '.

.c e '.

i.

o ,

i.

u) <

a. 10- t - - - h. - - - - - - .lr - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - vl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - v: - - ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ -

s.. .

g s .

p ....... ......... s,........

i

\

..s . . .

x .:

.  : I l

l O , .

0 8 12 18 24 Frequency,(Hz) l l

Figure 4-6 4

I i

'l i

s' -

4

'I' 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 64 of 79 BECO: Pilgrim RB RG 1.60 DBE, Comp 2 30 .

:  : RG 1.60

~, . . .

25- ---~~------:~~----~~-~~:-~~----~~-:---------~~-. . .

80% Target

:  : Target

} . . .

20- - -----

M .

m  :  :  :

N L c 15-- <

3

- - - - - -. - . > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + . - - - - - - - - - -. + . - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~

-o  :  :  :  :

u) e Q. ,

. =.

--r---~~~~~---v.-------------v.------------

10- f- - ~ ~ +i ---

\., . .

g . .

s .

e .

5- ------- ---- -

%-s - -- -. ------ -- --- ----- - t. ---- -- - -- --- - - -e. ----

s :  :

0 0 8 12 18 24 Frequency,(Hz)

Figure 4-7 S

r 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 65 of 79 42103,01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props G = 0.9950e+03, Vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, Impedance Component ( 1, . 1 )

F =0.9349e+00

• a0 values are physical units e

x to Stiffness Coefficient K( 1, 1) x to Damping Coefficient C( 1, I

O.2 1) 0.3 '

0,2 0.1 -

0.1-.

e 0.0 _

d -

+

-0 .1 -

-0.1

-0. 2 -

.0 ~5!0 10.'O 15.b 20!0 25!0 3,' 6 ~ 2d!b 0

.b 5!0~ l'b!O '2 5.' O ' ' ~

0 requency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) i i

Figure 4-8 i

1

{

42103-R-001 Revision O l July 30,1993 j Page 66 of 79 l l

42103.01 BECO:Pilgetim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props I G = 0.9950e+03, Vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.0580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F =0.9349e+00

• a0 Impedance Component ( 1, 5) values are physical units x 10 ' Stiffness Coef ficient K( 1, 5) x 108 Damping Coefficient C( 1, 5) 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 -

0 .1--

0.0 0.0 ^

v

-0.1

-0.2

-0. 2 -

'0,0 50 10.0 15.0 id 0 250 0.0 5 [ 10.0 15.0 20 0 25'.0 0

x 0 0 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4-9 <

(

42103-R 001 Revision 0 8

9y00,~1993 I

Page 67 of 79-42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props G = 0.9950e+03, Vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.BS80e+02, Dampg =0.032, F =0.9349e+00

• a0 Impedance Component ( 2, 2) values are physical units x 108 Stiffness Coefficient K( 2, 2) x 10 ' Damping Coef ficient C( 2, 2) 0.2 0.}

0.2 0.1 -

0 .1--

e

~

0.0 ~ 0.0

-0.1 -

-0,1

-0. 2--

0.2 - --- ~ t--- -w +---*----6 0.3 , _ _ , + _ _ __

0.t 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20,0 -25.0 0 'O x to x to Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4-10 l

I

=

hh

-l. _

42103 R 001 1

' Revision 0 .I July 30, .1993 Page 68 of 79 ,

'l i

I l

J 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim R8 Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props -

G = 0.9950e+03, vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, l Impedance Component ( 2, 4) F =0.9349e+00

• a0 )  !

values are physical units '

x to ' Stiffness Coefficient 'K( 2, 4) 8

)

0.4 -- - -' - - - - - - - -

x to0.3 0amping Coefficient C( 2, 4)  !

}

0.2 i

0,2 -

l 0 .1--

l i

i 0.0 -- A 0,0

%/" -

\

-0,1

-0.2 j

l

-0,2

-0,4 -- - -_ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ , . . _ , , ,

0.0 5,0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25IO -0.g.0 ,

i. ;____, , , , ,

0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20,0 25.0 X 10 X 10 0 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

FIGURE 4-11 SY

4I 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 69 of 79 P

42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props G = 0.9950e+03, .Vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F =0.9349e+00

• a0 Impedance Component ( 3, 3) values are physical units-x 10 'Stif fness Coef ficient K( 3, 3) x to ' Damping Coef ficient C( 3, 3) 0.6 - - - - - - - - -

0.6 a

L 0.4 -

0,4 '

, 0. 2-- o . g-f 0,0 Q --

0,0 Q~^ - '

N\

\

-0.2 / -o,2 .

N

-0.4 -0,4

'O.h ~ 5!b ~ $0IO~ l5 0 ib!b 25!0 0

.0 0 10 [ 3 .5

~

EbYO 3Y x 0 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

FIGURE 4-12 lim

.....,.,,_y ,- , . - . . , . . . - . . . . , ~ , _ _ , ,

Y ' 42103-R-001 Revision 0

, . July '30,1993 Page 70 of 79 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props G = 0.9950e+03, Vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F =0.9349e+00

• a0 Impedance Component ( 4, 4) values are physical units 11 18 x .i O Stiffness Coefficient K( 4, 4) x 10 Damping Coefficient C( 4, 4)

O.4 -- - - - - - - - - - - - --

0.2 -

0.2 -

0.1 f -

~

0.0

~

0.c -

i

+0.2 -0.1-

~

5,d

~

0,0 Ib!b15!b hb.'b 2 5.' 0 ' 0 . 10.0 15.0 20! E N.3 '~ 0 X 10 X 10 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) l 1

d FIGURE 4-13 I

!I i 42'i O3-R-001 l Revision 0 l July 30,1993 Page 71 of 79 1

l 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props -

G = 0.9950e+03, Vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F =0.9349e+00

• a0 Impedance Component ( 5, 5) values are physical units )

13 x 10 Stif fness Coefficient K( 5, 5) x 10 Damping Coefficient C ( 5, 5 )

1 0.4 0.2 R

i 0.2 0,1 1

7

0. 0- - -- ^ ~

0.0 i

-0.2 0,3

'08~ TO 10 0 15!0 ' 3. 0 5!0 0

.0 5.0 10.'O 15.0 20 0 25N' X 10 x 10 0 Frequency 012) Frequency (Hz) (

FIGURE 4-14 kh

i I

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 i Page 72 of 79 l

I 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props G = 0.9950e+03, vs -0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F =0.9349e+00

• a0 Impedance Component ( 6, 6) values are physical units ll x 10 Stiffness Coefficient K ( 6, 6) 11 0.6 -

x 10 Damping Coefficient C( 6, 6) 0.2 - - - - - . - - - - , . - .

0.4 -

0.1

0. 2--

e f

0.0 -

0,0

~

-0.2

-0.1

-0.4

.b 5 M ~d 15 2b' 25 0 O 0.0 50 1010 15.0 20.0 25'0 .

x 10 x 10 0 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4-15

+

^

.: ( .

42103-R-001 F Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 73 of 79 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props >

G = 0.9950e+03, Vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, Incident Wave Case 1 F = 0.9349e+00

• a0 Component 1 values are physical units O

x to Real 0 x to Imaginary 1.0 - - - - - - - - - --

1,0 _ ..... . _ _ _ _ _ _

f.

0.5 -

0,5 .

5 0.0 o,o -

i i

-0.5 -0.5 M

l

'O.o- ~ i!o 16Io ~ ~ 57 75!5~ 2D- ~

1 g 'I'O. o ~ i!5 ~~ T5 3 ~ ii.o ~ 2015 ~ 'is';o -

x to x to (  :

Frequency (Hz) Frequency' (liz) '! >

l i

l

)

Figure 4-16 l

]

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 74 of 79 -

42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props G = 0.9950e+03, Vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F = 0.9349e+00

• a0 Incident Wave Case 1 Component 5 values are physical units 0 0 x to Real x 10 Imaginary 0.3 - - - - - - - -- -- - - - -

o.3 .. - -- . . . . . _ _ . . _ . .

0.2 0.2 0.1-- o,1 _

0.0 -

o,o _

-0.1 0.1

-0.2 -0,2 t

~ 'o.o s!o io ! o i s ."o~ "20l0 23lo~ ~ - g - $o ilo - ioT~ isl0 20!o~ ziT ~

X 10 x to (

Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4-17

I

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 75 of 79 42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE DE Props G = 0.9950e+03, Vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, Incident Wave Case 2 F = 0.9349e+00

• a0 Component 2 values are physical units x 10OReal x 10 0

Imaginary 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - -

1.0 - - -

0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0

-0.5

-0.5

/

.0 5!0 lb!O' 55.b ~ 2U10 25.0~' 5$ ' 16 [ 15 Y 20.$

0

.0 25.0 x 10 .,

X 10 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4-18

. l?

42103-R-001 Revision 0-July 30,1993 Page 76 of 79 k

42103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60.SSE BE Props G = 0.9950e+03, vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F = 0.9349e+00

• a0-Incident Wave Case 2 Component 4 values are physical units 0

'~

x 10 Real 0 0.3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

x to Imaginary 0.3 - - - - - - - - - - -- -

r 0.2 0.2 0.1-- o,3 _

00 -

0,0 _

\

-0.I _o,3 l

-0.2 0,2

.0 50 ib!b~~~is$d 2b!0 25!b~

x g 0

.0 Nb ~ib.'O' 15!b 20!b" ~35Y p-FrecJuency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) l

'l Figure 4-19 BM

~

Ll. 1 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 77 of 79-i 1

12103.01 BECO: Pilgrim RB Impedances,RG 1.60 SSE BE Props G = 0.9950e+03, vs =0.5040e+03, R =0.8580e+02, Dampg =0.032, F = 0 9349e+00

• a0

ncident Wave Case 3 Component 3 values are physical units O 0 x to Real x to Imaginary

1. 0 z- - - - - - - - - - - -

1.0 - - - - - - . - . - - - . - ~ ~

't o . 5-- 0.5 -

f 4

0.o o.o =

\

-0.5 -0.5

\v s

~0.0 s'o

~

. 16!6~' 15.'o 26!o 2s!6' ~I'o.o s!6 to!o 15!o 20"o 55'5 ~

o .

3 X 10 .X 10 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4-20 l

- -r-- .

42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 78 of 79

5. REFERENCES

1. Boston Edison Company, November 1992, " Request for Quotation No.

52560, Civil / Structural Consulting Services, Design Basis Reconstitution Project".

2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. August 1989. " Standard Review Plan". NUREG-0800, Section 3.7, Revision 2.

3. Seed, H.B., and I.M. Idriss. December 1970. " Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analysis." Report No EERC 70-10.

Berkcley, CA.: University of California.

4. SHAKE, A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontal Layered Sites n.d.

5. SUPELM, Version 2.0, " Foundations Embedded in Layered Media:

Dynamic Stiffness and Response to Seismic Waves," 1992.

6. CLASSI, A Series of Computer Programs for Continum Linear Analysis for Soil-Structure Interaction.

7. EQE Calculation 42103-C-001, " Reactor Building Seismic Model," July, 1993.

8. Bechtel Study Z87-001, " Review of Seismic Separation Design Basis at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station," April 1987, SUDDS/RF #87-760.

9. Bechtel Calculation, " Seismic Analysis-Biological Shield," File No. Vol.

79, Calc. No. 085-C1, Rev. O,10-23-81, SUDDS/RF #93122.

10. General Electric Report 383HA494, " Pilgrim Seismic Analysis of Reactor DAR#113," February 1971, SUDDS/RF #93122.

11. Teledyne Report 5310-23, Rev. 0 (10-7-82), " Pilgrim Torus Saddle Analysis," SUDDS/RF #88-195 (Cassette 5596, Frame 0814).

Dee.ee /40A M2

I 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 79 of 79

12. Teledyne Technical Report TR-5310-1, Revision 2, " Mark l Containment Program, Plant-Unique Analysis Report of the Torus Suppression Chamber for Pilgrim Station Unit 1," Sept.14,1981, SUDDS/RF # 88 195.

13. S&A Calculation 91C2672 C-002, Revision 0, " Soil Properties for the Soil Structure Interaction Analysis for the Pilgrim Site," January 1993, SUDDS/RF #93-029.

14. EQE Calculation 42103-C-002, "PNPS Reactor Building - SSI Analysis and Response Spectra Generation," July,1993. ,

15. EQE Calculation 42087-C-001, " Pilgrim Station Reactor Building Study,"

September,1992.

, ;-ll ' .

42103 R-001' Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 1 of G5 d

4 ATTACHMENT A REGULATORY GUIDE 1.60 SSE IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTA e

n

,e M31M 41T g 4

-u- = e e

0 x 10 0.8 74 t4 .

o El z-

.i i

m 0.6 - - - - - - -- -

t-c o x

'd ~

u -r no ' '

H J es 0.4 - - - - - - - --- - - -- -- --

. -i

• a o I o ..

< u.

/ *

/

/

s /

s v-- .

"a a

0.2 \

y Q - -

/

K e/ m e t

/

/ D m ,

0.0 - -- - --

I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 Frequency (ilz) -

tiotes :

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 Five Locations Enveloped

• BECO: Pil l Reactor Building, grim El. Reactor Building,.RG 23.0', Translation in 1.60.SSE the 11S' Direction

e t  !  ?  ::  !  !!? e!  ;' ; .L. *  ! .ft:

oo

't*eH n (E I b '}m< )7 k1

. '$ O' I iso '

2 0

1

.n

.o

.i ll

.t

- - - c e .

- - - - r i

- D E-SW

- Q SE

- - k 0e 6h

- -.t 1

- n

- Gi

- - I R 0 n 1 ,o

- gi

\ -

nt

- _ - i a

- ) dl

- l s z

i i n

- - - l

( ua

- Br l d T

a. - - --

- y c e p

r o, _

n m o t' e u s

- u ge l c0 a

q tr 'g 5 v

/ e e3 .

n f

- r c 1 R2

- F e n .E S

pi0 s m.

il

- j s = n rE

- /f -0 o

0 1

d n e ol i lg, .

, pi et i g

- - mt v a Pn

- ' a a ec i f

D rL o :d j - .

e E,L Ol s 1 l Ci

- - f - e 1 eS e Eu t 4 cS v BB o - c

-- - ' - N N A1 F i

r o

- t c

- - a e

- R

[-

- -- I 6 6 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 0O 0 0 0 0 0 0 _

1 X

c o )} a. ooo4 ,

j' ,

<' l :4 ,  ::

0 x 10 j; 1.0 i% .-

-e

) z-

5 0.e - - --- - - - - -

n C U N

et 0.6 -- -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- --

.n. "

j a

d i

~

I4 at e

ri

\

v  %

o o o,4 _ _ _ ._ _ ( .

w l>

~

w

- <- x o.2 .--

l- . .- -- .'. 3

/ B.

n.

. .. / o I 0 Id - 10 10 3

10 2

Frequency ( 11 2 )

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level =-0.10g Pive Locations Enveloped i

a BECO:. Pilgrim Reactor Building, itG 1.60 SSE Reactor Building, El. 23.0', Translation in the Vertical Direction

y -,

I.,

! 0 x to g 1.0 "

U. -

01 E

w 0.8 ----- - -- - - -- -

L

) .

. I -

C .a

' 0 L**

0.6 -

SJ ,

m p, 64 r.

a >

W o

y o,4 _ _ _ _ _. .

in

/ O

\

/ \ , / \. . , f -

..L %

i f

0.2 -- -- -- -

r - - - - - - -

=

f o

' te s D

/ as s

O.0 -'./

~

'O 16 10 I 2 10 10 Frequency (liz) >

tiotes :

11-411 Damped Spectrum i Accelerations in g's i 1 SSE Level = 0.15g Five Locations Enveloped 1

DECO: Pil i Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE

. Reactor Building,gr m 51~.0', Translation in the NSl Direction

.El.

0 X 10 g 0.8 '

N Li

?1

' z L

0.6 - - - - - - -~ ~ -

L U

8 i M

~;j

-b m '

J ll o.4 _ . _ . _ _ _ . ___

~s o

4M

/ ( 5 r

/ a ra 0 . 2- ,- 4

~ ..

/

/ 1 w

0.0 C- --- - -- - -

- t- - - - - - - - -

I 0 I 16 10 10 10 2

Prequency (112) 110tes :

11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1.SSE Level = 0.159 Pive Locations Enveloped BECO: Pil Reactor Building, grim El. Reactor Building, RGin 51.0', Translation 1.60 theSSE EW Direction

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

.n.

0 X 10 e in 1.0 "

t-ws un E

O.8 -- - - -- - - - - - - -

.u.

c 'E 0 w 0.6 - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

o i

n (3- ~

S w

en  :

.-t g3 .

u o o4 _ _ ) _ _ .

m o

U

\- ,

0.2 e-- -- - - - - -- - - E ' x, - -

/ ,

/- h- ,

s.

~'.. '

s u

i 0.0 16 0 I 10 10 10 t Frequency (Itz) i i

Notes: '11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE 1,evel = 0.109 Five.I,ocations Enveloped

~

1 i

BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60,SSE

, Reactor Building, El. 51.0', Translation -in . the Vertical Direction

i-

, ev '

t 0

, x 10 g.

1.2 .

@.i en r

E

1. 0 - ---

I 4 h i

t 0.8 ---- - -- - - - - -- - '

Ja C

O M .

T1 0 Q" e 0.6 - - -- - - - /

a (

, m u  !

o .

< u. .

g t 0.4 - - --

- -- -- - - '" I Y.

s .

/ '- s , _ _

f - -..

0.2 '

3

/ ~ c

./

f

/ U-N y $.

0.0 I 0 I 16 10 10 10 2

e .

Frequency (itz) ,

! tiot es :

I

,11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g  !

Five Locations Enveloped BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Buil' ding, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Building, El. 74.25',-Translation in the flS Direction.

_m.. _ _ . _ _ _ _ .

c.-

0 x 10 E.

l.0 m

E e

0.8 - - - -- - -- - - - -- - - --- - -- - - -

h

. \

c )

E

~

0.6 -- - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - - -

?

Y  %"

0

.- n

. )

O e

,y 0.1 - - - - - -

?

\ /_]s O

h 0.2 --

(. ,

o f b d ~

I'.

0.0 - --- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- -

I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 Frequency. (liz) flotes :

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g Five Locations Enveloped 3

1 BECO: Pil i Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE

. Reactor Bui'1 ding, gr mEl. 74.25', Translation in the EW. Direction

= _ _ _ _ ..___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . - . - - . . . -. -

r~

6 X 10 is 0.8 'J

, t-*

.a 8

<=

?

to 0.6 - - - - - - - " - - -

k --

g i '

c o

~l i

e4

{

3ai

• 5.,

n

, o 0.4 - --- - - - - - --- - - -- - -

g s c) o ..

M I" a

o m

s, N _ _ _

/

8 r b -

/ .-

,.. s  %

0.0

' I 0 16 10 10 10

! Frequency (liz) i Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.10g Five Locations Enveloped t

BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor. Building, El. 74.25', Translation in the Vertical Direction

~

s r, .

t i

0 '

X 10 :n tn l

t

>3 tn

-C z

. 1.2 - - - - - - - - -- -

~

L 'L 1.0 - -- -- - - -

l- -- - -- - - - - -- -- -

{'

e c n en o X 6

i

','j 0.8 -- -- -

k8 n1 14 I--- N i W

-4 W

o 0.6 - - - - - --

+*

u in b

0.4 sa

)  %. ---

I o

0.2 , -- -

/- ~

./

0.0

_/

I 0 ,

16 10 10 2 r 10 f

Frequency ( 11 2 )  !

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum

- Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g Five Locations ~ Enveloped b

i  !

BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Building, El. 91.25', Translation in the NS Direction

-i i

0 X 10 jg ,

!.O '

e en .

g 9

t-O.8 - - - - - - - - - - -

-q - - - - - - - -- -

m Y

c U 0

m .

0.6 - -- -- - -- - - - - -- - - - -

7  ;

'N d  %  ;

&4 tT ri Q) .

U L y 0.4 - - - --

sa

!?

\ '

.4-

, \

-  % x-r N' 0.2 - - - -

g j o

/ R m

f j 1

/ 6 0.0 '- - --- -- - - -- -- - -- - - - - - - - - -- -- --

I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 l i

Frequency (Itz)

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1

1 SSE Level = 0.159

~

Five Locations Enveloped- '

BECO: Pil Reactor Building, grim El. Reactor 91.25', Building, Translation RGin 1.60 theSSE EW Direction ,

,,m,e - -*

b 0

X 10 x m

0. 8-p 0.6 -

(

a a $

O '4

))m 70 hl 0.4 -- - - - - - - - - -

ti

.-i e

o I M k T S

kb 0.2 -- - - - -

7 s _

/

t

'. 3 r h e

s  %

0.0 16 0 I 2 10 10 10 Frequency (112) 110t es :

11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's

-1 SSE Level = 0.109 Five Locations Enveloped BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Building, El. 91.25', Translation in the Vertical Direction

s 7

t 0

X 10 g I

?

e

? - in

,s.

j ~

1.2 - - - - - - -

l--

~ -

j I

1.0 - A -- -

C U

-J O X j o,s  ; .;o, as 1

s. ,, .

e t L

.-t e

o 0.6 - - - - -- -

a ~

w f

g s

• 0.4 . - - - - - -

8 i b ~ - .

'(

o .

0.2 --- -- --

i - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - *

' h t y

w

, 0.0 I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 S

Frequency (!!z)

Notes: .

N-411 Dannped Spectrum t

Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g Five Locations Enveloped i'

i BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG-1.60 SSE Reactor Building, El. 117.0', Translation in the NS. Direction i

0 X 10 E.  :'

1.2 ;3

-s

=-

1.0 - -- - - - - - - - -- -

d 0.8

'j i u

a a o <

-et *

.n N U

?$ 0.6 - - - - - - - -

G1 '

u ..

u w

< g 0.4 -- --- -- - - -

\ O '

\ __

o.2 S

~.

t h

/ '

_. / U ,

0. 0 -- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-t I 0 I 2 '

] 16 10 10 '10 Frequency (liz)

Ilotes:

t N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15 9

~

l Five Locations Enveloped i

i b

e BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60-SSE i Reactor Building,'El. 117.0', Translation in the EW Direction -

.' 1" ,

0 X 10 jg 1.0 -

<n si o,g ___ _ ._ _ _

g _

l c  ; $

w  !

. 0.6 -- - - - -

\r = [ - - - - - - -

,I

o fd e 14 rt W

r-4 01 U

y 0.4 - - - -

g e

O

\

0.2 -- -- --

\- = -

- o ,

/

• y

, . - e w

0.0  !

16 0 I 2 10 10 10 6

Frequency (liz) tiotes :

11-411 Damped Spectrum Accel'erations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.10g Five Locations Enveloped a

BECO: ?ilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor' Building, JJ. 117.0', Translation in the Vertical Direction ,

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

L - i; W

• l' .r t  ? .p i , '  ; .

P g~Mt v m:c* <v.u -

• 6n ,w~

._ 6 w' + w uwDe w -

2 0

1 i

I 0

a 1

- - )

\

z

- - - r (

~\ -

~

- - - - y d ll f

- - - - c e p

n m o e us l

- - u q g e tr 'g 5 v ll e c 1 n r en .

E F pi0 S s

,/ s = n 0

0 d n o 1 eol i

- pi et

- - - - - mt v a

'r -

a a e c D rL o

e L s 1 l E

- - - - - ,. - e t

1 eS e 4 cS v

- s- o H

- c N A1 F i

yI 6

0 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 1 0 I 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

X

@ tm1et0ou< 4 e

a e

0 x 10

' iX o

U m-7 E 1.2 - - - - - -

F o

1.0 - a- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

N U

.c m o m II ( \

0 0.0 - -- - - -

k" e ,

'd u 0.6 - --- -- - - - -- - - -- - - - - --- - - - --

M  !"

L -

9 0.4 -- - - -- - -- - }' - -

e ~ ~ i t

r o 0.2 - -- - --

1. s

~

/ e"

/ 3 9

__ / _

• r I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz )  !

c i

Notes: '-

H-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g Five Locations Enveloped l

BECO: Pil Reactor Building, grim El. Reactor Building, RGin 145.0', Translation 1.60 SSBDirection the-EW  !

_- .- _ ~_ _

n 0

x 10 ' g ,

t.o 3

s4 .

cn E

0.8 - - - - - -

~

L l

T

~

• s c T -

(T o 0.6 y a>

I' o' ' (

n

! ra 54 1 e, .

r  :

D L. I 1

e-4 ' \

L O

U o o,4 ( e m

.E O

0.2 --- -- --

j N

I 7,. ,

r

/-

h W

- s ,

y' .w u

0.0 I 0 I 16 10 10 2 10 Frequency (liz) tiotes:

11-411 Damped Spectrum '

Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level'= 0.10g Five. Locations Enveloped;

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

0 x 10 jg iS s

1.6 - - -- -

5 1.4 - - -

f - - - -- - - - - -

1.2 - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

. ;}-

c =

0 M

-d 1.0 k i2

M - - - - -

y 44 a

c3 r

J~

g 0.8 - - -- - --

[

j j --

. y ,, \ ~'

!?

O 0.6 - - -- - - - - -- -

0.4 - -- --

s __

s g

f 0.2 -- - - - - - -

N r s y w O.0

~~ /

' I 0 I 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz)

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 Five Locations Enveloped t

i

-BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60'SSE Reactor Building, El. 164.5', Translation in the NS: Direction

-3 t

0 X 10 g

, Eo 0z 1.2 -

F 1.0 - 1-

-)

8 u 7j . oe ri e

[j j I I

6 m

H o 0.6 ---- -- - ]

M ( r' T 3

i 0.4 - - - - -- - -

m - - - - - --

A -

t O.2 a c '-

< l'!  ;

I

. / "

0.0 16 0 10 10 2

• 10 Prequency (Ilz) i Notes: '

N-411-Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g Five Locations Enveloped BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Buildina .

Reactor Building, El. 164.S',.Translatio,nRGin 1.60 theSSE-EW Direction '

. - w ==r +n~ e

i r, .

0 x 10 ju,

-1.0 ,

U a

~~

O.8 --- - --

f - - - - - - - -- - -- -

i, g

" '-- \ U

.a N, .

0.6 -- - - -

(f v

\--

f X

G)

.-4 8

y o,4 ._ _ .. _ ._ _ _ _

_{ _ __ _ _

=a

}_ a T. g X

\

0.2 -- - - - --

i

. < O

/

89

- r s

so 0.0

/ "

16 I 0 I 2 t

10 10 10 Prequency (liz)

, tiotes :

, N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level =~0.10g Five Locations Enveloped BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Building, El. 164.5', Translation in the Vertical Direction '

-4, .n.

2 X 10 i$

, 0.5 "

C m

c

/~ 3 <

0.4 - -- - -- - -

/ F l

t c

0.3 - -- -- - - - - - - -- - - - . - - - - -

f a

e ~}2 1

o

]

a }

O '

o \ .

u 0.2 - - - - -

\_ ~ ~

j

\, 5 v

! y\  %

0.1

/

f

/ 0

, n

.~

i a N e s

. 0.0 - -- -

I6 I 0 2 10 10 10 l Frequency (liz)

, tiotes :

11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's

, 1 SSE Level = 0.15g Five Locations Enveloped ,

l l

BECO: Pilgrim. Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE

' Reactor Building'Basemat, El.-17.5', Translation in the ils Direction >

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

X 10 0.5 i

a 3 3. -

S 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

j f - -- - - - -- - - - - -

3 k >

c C

• s 0.3 - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- -- - - - --- - - -- -

F

'O 0 /

E e

) ..

O U

o 0 ' 2-s ' e m

/ \~ E r - -

0.1 - - - - - - -

R M

3 w

0.0 -- -- -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) tiotes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 Five' Locations Enveloped i

BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, PG 1.60 SSE t Torus, El.-0.25', Translation in-the flS Direction

• o o

M{ o,@ <r u Un* ?"

.* h w

. vD~3u 0

1

- - n_

o

- ~ - - Et i

Sc Se r

0i 6D b -

1W E

\

G I

o Re.

.h g \ -

l ,t

\'

g

\8 - -

nn

- - ii

- ) - ) d Il q - z ln

- ) i io f

,i - -

- ( ui Bt r"-

u - - y c

d e

p rl os a

n m o C,t e u u s g e l

tn ca ar

, q tr 'g 5 v e eT

- c 1 n R

- F r e n . E ,

pi0 m

- S s i 5' 0 s = n r2

,/ 0 d n o g.

1 e ol i l0 I -

I pi et i-

- ' - mt v a P .

- I a a ec 1 D rL o :E

- - - I - -

e . L O s 1 l E C ,

l- - e 1 eS e Es t 4 cS v Bu

,- o - c i r

- - - N NA1 F o j T

-f

/

/

O 5 4 3 2 1

/6

o. ' I o0 t

o 0 o 0 o x

c0ONw48u-e

.t 4 -

4 0-X 10 g 0.6

• G m

r E'

0.s - - -- ' 3 -

~

b L t

o,4

\

( .-- - - .h - - - - - -- -

g c n O j **

--4

• o .g 8 ) "

w 0.3 - - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - -

-e e ( .

O O e

< in i g -

0.2 -- - - - - -

_ l / E

/ _.

0.1 --- -

g r - - - - -- - - - -- -- - -

3 s

U

/ 2:

I 7 u 0.0 - - - -- - - --- - - -- -- - - -- -- - --

I 0 I 16 10 10 2 10

.. Frequency (liz) l tJot es :

,11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's i

1 SSE. Level = 0.10g Five Locations Enveloped .

BECO: Pilgrim' Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Torus, El.-0.25 , Translation in the Vertical Direction

. i.

- -- , - , , . , ~ - > .- ___ _ .___ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - - - _ -

. ~

$ 0 X 10 g.

0.6

• N a

,I '

l 0.5 ..--

m 0,4 _ _ _ _ .. - _ _ __ _ _ __. __ __ __ _

g 8 , 3 et M O * '

e o

S 0.3 --- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - r", '

.-t O

u e u } sn 4

0.2 -- -- -

f-I',-\

'/ _ / _T o j \._/- \

,- N. -- ,

0.1 --

./

o,

/' ~

m

/ ~

' / e O.0 - - -- -

l-- -- - -- - - - -

16 0 2 j 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) flotes :

11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's-l 1 SSE Level - = 0.15g i

l BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE i Drywell,.El. 27.17', Translation'in the NS Direction l

. ,' [ . !I  ; t* !>- > - ;~ [

j i, s i -

w -

$"U mE s L a.4oU 5 oto -

?.o a d N$

0 1

n

- ~. - o i

- Ec t -

(

Se Sr 0D i _

6

- ' - .W fm -

1E _

- - 3 -

- Ge Rh _

0 t 7

1 ,

gn _

ni _

i _

) dn

- 1 - 2 l o ii

- 1 1

( ut _

- Ba _

- l _

l - - -

c y

rs

- n on _

f- m _

e ta u u s cr q g aT

I tr 'g 5 e e c R ,

- - F r en pi0 1

m7 S i1

/! ~0 s = r .

- 0 d n g7 _

1 eol l2 _

I - -

pi e i 4 mt v P .

- -I a a e l _

D rL :E _

)  : e O s 1 l E C , _

e 1 eS El t 4 cS Bl

- o - c e r '

- N NA1 w y

A , r _

- - .D _

- I 6

5 4 3 2 1 0 1 _

00 0 0 0 0 0 1 _

X _

cOOo sE '

4es -sa o y

4 0

x 10 0.5 M

+g in

^ 4-l

< t <

i

\ v 0.4 (x

- --- -- = - - - - - - - - ---- -

4 a

C O

. 0.3 - - - - - --- - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - -

\, ----- -- -

c a

5

.O.

II 6

.-e N C

o

,y 0.2 - - - - -- - -

7

,a

/ 8 i

.. ~,

a 0.1 -

ft

/* O

/ h

/ U e

/ "

0. 0 -- - - - -- - -

---

r----

I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 4

Frequency (liz)

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.109 BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE

{ Drywell, El. 27.17',- Translation in the Vertical Direction

, .n i

0 X 10 .

g 0.5 "'

,, N 8x O.4 - - - - -

L

'N g s.- -

.g 0.3 - - - - - - -

o o

<a 64 .

.Fo p

GJ j tt 4 o u -

y ~

t

0. 2- b

'y\ r P -

/

S f

1 y v ,

g 0.1 - - - - - -

J

./ 0 t'

8 0.0 - - - - -

16 10 0 I 2 10 10 Prequency (liz)

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level ='0.15g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Buildin Pedestal, El. 15.40', Translation'g, in RG-1.60 ~

the-'NSSSE Direction

, _ - , ,e-, ,

.- , e-- o - , -- - - - -- -~_n--_-

6 v,

0 x 10 iX 0.5 s.

m r-V l 0.4 -- - - - - ' - - - - -

L g 1 0.3 -- - - - - -

d o

f. / 5

.5 /

r E

8 (~

N o 0.2 A 2

~

1 - - - - - -

m 3 s

_[ V~ ( _ _ .

~

/

0.1 - - - - - - '

0 s

u 0.0 - - -- - - -

16 0 I 10 10 10 Frequency (liz)

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal, El. 15.40', Translation in the EW Direction

m o

x to p, 0.5 , y tn

^

S t

\ 'E

~

0.4 4

L s._.

c E

( o.

., 0.3 - - - -

- - -- - - - \ -- - - - -

E o "

0

.  ?,,

o y 9. 2 -

- - - -- ~

1. - 7 - - - -

t"

\

a

=

f

/ \ -

0.1 -- -

r -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -

O-

/

/ C M

y J  ;

w 0.0 - - - - -

-s - - - - - - -

0 I 2 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz)

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE; Level = 0.10g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal,'El. 15.40', Translation in the Vertical Direction

9'* P 4

i 0

x 10 g.

0.6 g v>

S~

.c .

1 0.5 _ _._ .

L>

1 C

0.1 -- - -- . _ - - -

y o

- t U N I 5; e 0.3 - _ __ _ . . _ __ __. _ _. __ j; e '

j s H

< ( . 1" o.2 --- -. -

f . .

\ ,i .-. __ _.

?

c . h \~_ =

7 \ v ,

o.1 ---

J

__ __ _ _ _ o s

0.0 -- -- - __ ___ _ _ _- - _._ __ _ _ _ _

16 10 I 2 10 10 Frequency (llz)

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal, El. 21.70', Translation in the NS. Direction

_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - e. ..

.+ .#,

r, 0

X 10 g 0.5 f m 0.4 - -. - - -

s i,

\

c (

o 0.3 J

a n

/

,$ J E"

0 I -

s y 0.2 - -

g

~

r

' x_

o J  % ._

x T

~

f 0.1 - - - - - ~ - -

w w

0.0 -

16 0 I 2 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) 110t es :

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in'g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g N BECO: Pilgrim-Reactor Buildin '

' Pedestal, El 21.70', Translation ~ g,inRG the1.EW 60 SSE Direction

~

0 x 10 0.5 5

s..

Un S -

F 0.4 - - - -

A._ _

L c ('

E

> o 0.3 ~

.S 1-

{

o f.

j ,

u y 0.2 -- - -

i'?

) 8

/

l ~. _

L.

o 0.1 --

( - -

,i w

,/

/ 3

/ "

0.0 - - - - - -

I 0 I 16 10 10 10 Prequency - (liz) t-lot es :

11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.109 2

BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE

• Pedestal, El. 21.70', Translation in the Vertical Direction

0 X 10 :u 0.6 10

, t*

y. n u: .

z +

0.5 - - - -

L>

0.4 - - - - -- -- --

c ~8 o o

,5 .

'O F 0

e 0.3 - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - -

a <*

m 1 o ..

,u / w c - - -

g 0.2 - -

\ .-

i s-65

/

0~1 - ---- -- ! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

l---' *

/

/ 'il~ '

/ $

0.0---- - - -

I 0 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz)

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal, El. 28.00', Translation in the NS Direction

0 X 10 g; 0.6 I

tn S

0.5 -

f \ - - - - - -- - -

e f.

f 0,4 i 3

g '

~;j "

to "o

0 0.3 ---- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

N.  ;

U

' e M {

I" a

0.2 -- ' - - - - -- -- 7 s '

I"

'\

r, -

'~

/

0.1 f~j

- - - - - -- -~ -- -- ---- - -- -- -- -- -

h 0.0

- / --

E w

16 I 0 I '

10 10 10 i

Frequency (liz) flotes :

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 l

BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE l Pedestal,-El. 28.00', Translation in the EW Direction ,

6 ee 4

0 X 10 g o.s '

l I

w

,s s E e-a 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

m 7-q-a c y Ro o 0.3 '

C a "

f. l!.

G) /

tt

~5 o

o 0.2

) o 7

/ s ., _

~

o.1 --- -

/ - -- - - -

o

/

,. - R o

/ C

/ 0

o. - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 Frequency (liz)

Notes:

11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE 1,evel = 0.109 BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal, El. 28.00', Translation in the Vertical Direction

0 X 10 IN 0.6 s

El

= i h t

[" L 0.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 7 8

.a w a

• ns ,

o

?0 0.4 ---

X a

O o 1 U .-

< ar sw I ,.-. D

0. 2- - -

--I \ --- -

.t \ - - .

-m o.

./ s

'/ n

,. . /

(

0.0 ' - - - - - -

8 16 0 2 10 10 10 Frequency (liz)

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's.

1 SSE Level = 0.15g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal, El. 35.42',. Translation in the NS Direction

r,-

0 x 10 g 0.6

\ 8 0.5 /

-l- - - - - -

-5 f ) L, 0.4 - - - -

3 8

et E3 0  %

on 0,3 -- --- - - - - - - - -- '- - - -- -- - - -

es

~~$

a

/

i ,

( ) -' ./ e-0.2 --- - -

O

, .cx

/

0.1 '

C 8

h

/ C

/ U 0.0 ---- -- - - -

I I 1D 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) tiotes :

11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal, El. 35.42',. Translation in the EW Direction

s 4 0

x 10 g

O.5 o

i C

u, i

, c: ..

m' 1 0.4 --

3  ;

.r - -

'l w

c 't '

3o 0.3 /

{

&J m .

'd u

~J N

u y 0.2 -- - - - - -

3 o

?

/ V 3 l %_

o.1 -- - - - --

g ---- - - - -- -

f R

/ "

0.0 -- -- - -- -- - -- - - - --

b I

16 0 I 2 10 10 10 Prequency (liz)

Notes:

11-411 Damped Spectrum.

Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.10g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Pedestal, El. 35.42', Translation in the Vertical Direction

- r, 0

x 10 g 0.8

@4 l_, n z

I  !  ?

o 0.6 - - - - - - - - - -

-f- -- -- - - - - -- - - - -

c T o

O

[

'd F m

o S 0.4 - - - - - - - - - - -- -I - -- -

o!

8 u 0'2 -- - -- - - 1 - - - ----

/

/ \ f '

X

/ 8

./ s

/ sN y

0.0 - -- - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - -

0 I 2 15 10 10 10 Frequency (liz)

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Wall, El. 47.35', Translation in the NS Direction

A r,

0 X 10 y, 0.8 ,

a tn b

.3 L

0.6 .' >

c $

o O

'd 5 m \ 5,,

N 0.4 --- - -- - - - - - - - ----- - - - -- -

N 11 o

o na

• u.

/ t 5

/ h .

O . 2- - - - '-

f

- - - (- I

,r} - - - -

3 7 ,

./ '

Yn

,./

/

/ 3 w

0.0 2 -- - - -- -

I 0 I 16 10 10 10 2

Frequenci (liz) '

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g '

i BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE i Biological Shield Wall, El. 47.35', Translation in the EW Direction

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

4

• M r,.

0 X 10 -u -

in 0.6 '

'.'4 t

E z

0.5 - - - -

L 0.4 - - - - - - --- -- --

?

1 - - - - - -

8

.a

\

)

a y g

M .

M o.3 - -

-s -- --- --

U 1

Q)

U o se a: ta g

0.2 P

} C,

/ \ ~.

0.1 f f

• w

- N

,. s N

0. 0 --

3 -

I t 16 0 3 2 10 10 10 Prequency (llz) t Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in ' g's 1 SSE Level =-0.10g s 1

-BECO: Pilgrim Reactor. Building, RG 1.60 SSE '

Biological Shield Wa11, ' El. 47.35', Translation in the Vert. Direction

n o

x to i; 1.0 "'

t-*

vs E

z 5

0.0 - - - - - - - -- --

L t

c: .T o

0.6 -

C II f

i e

r-t 2 r e

,y 0.tj - - - -

j

/ - - -- - -

/ ( 2

/ (  ;

s' m

( s y 0.2 - - - - - - -

-% c y

/

, f=

w

• s h

/ C

.. / 0 O. - - - -- - -

Frequency (liz)

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE. Level = 0.15g I

DECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG l'.60 SSE Biological Shield Wall, El. 52.81', Translation in the NS Direction

1 X 10 0.8 d-'

"E'n - -

.g 2: -

._ I

(

I F

'FJ 0.6 - - ' I

?

8 r P.

m w a

v,

)

U 0.4 -- -- ---- - - - - - -- - -- -

a - -

77 G)

O o p

< w j i c.

\ ^

/ D o.2- - -- c - -

-- -(--' f. F \

i e

~~ .-

[ o.

<- U 0.0 - - -- - - - - -- --

16 0 I 10 10 10 Frequency (llz )

tiot es :

11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE I.evel = 0.15g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Wall, El.-52.81',. Translation in the EW Direction ,

r-0 X 10 jg t 0.6 ,

iS a

vs

.6 ,

0.5 - I L$-

L 0.4 --- -- - -- - - - - -

E 8

.a n s -

m 0

0.3 ---- - - - ---

K G) o  ?

.Y f  ?"

o 0.2 -

/- - - ---

] $

J

'/-

/ \ _

0.1 - -- --

g S

~

,../ .

y/ <a u

0.0 -- -

0 I Id 10 10 10 2

Frequency (liz)

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's  ;

1 SSE Level = 0.10g i

t BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE '

Biological Shield Wall, El. 52.81', Translation in the. Vert. Direction

4 rn; 0

x 10 g 1.0  ;

[ .N. -

U z

b 0.0 -

io c N o

0 0.6

{

43 N. .

?,-,.

"o!

o y 0.4 --- - - - - -

2

/ \

j ,

s 0.2 '

f - -

x\ A c N' r S

_ ,- b

/ '

./ P3 0.0 ' --- -- -- ---- ---- - -- - -- - - - -

0 I 2 1 10 10 10 Frequency (liz)

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.159 BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Wall, El. 56.64', Translation in the NS Direction

. " t ,- ,

r i"e y' $L [

l  ? yE . ,

.o 5 ^u,~ OsUb .

2 n 0

1 o

i t

c

- e r

- - i

- D W

E _

- .L - E' Se Sh 0

t _

-\

- 6n s -

.i 1

n

(

(

- I 0

1 Go Ri gl

.t

,a

- h - ns t\ in

) da

( - z l r I iT _

I

( u _

, B , -

y ' _

- c r4 _

n o6 e m t .

u u s c6 g a5 q tr 'g 5 _

e e r c 1 R . _

F e n l -

pi0 mE _

S i s =

[ '

0 0

1 d n e ol r ,

gl ll r - pi e ia

'. mt v PW r

a a e -

D rL :d

- / -

e Ol s 1 l E Ce

/

e 1 eS Ei t 4 cS Dh o - c S i

t 1

1 A1 l

- a I/

c i

g o

l o

/,-

- i

- I B

6 U 8 6 4 2 0 1 00, 0 0 0 0 1

x .

8 l In s $ e~ oo .

.a 4

M '

0 x 10

{3 0.6

@n El r- i 0.5 --- - - - -- -

5 es D '

0.4 -- - - - - -.

i = -- - -- -- --

jf 8

.a o

\ m N ll' e 0.3 - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - -

c.

a O

O O s*

in a:

g 0.2 ~

} .- -- - --

2

) U l N 0.1 -- -- - - -

p - ~ ~ - - - - - -- - - ---

,, s

. - M

/ rd

/

• 0.0 - - - - - -- - -

16 10 I 2 10 10 Frequency (liz) tlot es :

11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.10g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Diological Shield Wall, El 56.64', Translation in the Vert.. Direction

w .

0 x 10 g;

1. 2--

"n-i E l 2: -

i 1.0 - - -

5 L

\

0.8 ~ - - - - - - - - - l - '- - - - - - - - - - -- - - -

E c o o

N M

m P u

Il 0.6 - - ---- -- - -- - -

a G) o .

o

1. / ..

o 0.4 - - -

.9

?: t

, ~~ m./- x 0.2

/

S s

./

/ '

,/ 0 0.0 ----- --- ----- - -- .- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Id' 10 10 10 2

Frequency (112) 110tes :

11-411 Damped Spectrum

Accelerations in g's l

1 SSE 1.evel = 0.159 l

I l DECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building,'RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Wall, El. 71.50', Translation in the 11S Direction

0 x 10 ;g .

1.O

.s.

N z

0.8 - - - - - - - - - - -

5 h

c Il o *

.S 0.6 Z

o /

m 7 S / o lT

, u y O.4 - - - - - --- -

u f s

\

, ,, ~~ ,--

0.2 -- --- -- -

i I

h

/ t'

0. 0

. .. . /

0

' I 16 10 10' 2 10 i

Frequency (liz)

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Wall, El. 71.50', Translation in the EW Direction

~

0 x 10 u, 0.6 ---

S

.a

,- '. E 2

0. 5- - - --

5 I

g  %

0.4 - - - - - - -

- - - - = --- - - - -- --- -

c E o o a

rJ \ t o

U 0.3 - - ---- -- - -

E a

e o

o .

n: u.

0.2 -

, - -~ ,

/

E

, / < _

0.1 ---- --- -

r- -- --- -- - - - - -- - - o e b t- t

,J ~

3 -

0. 0 - -- - -

I 0 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) t Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's

' 1 SSE Level = 0.10g r

i BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Wall, El. 71.50', Translation in the Vert. Direction i

r, ,

t 0

X 10 g-

1. 2-s-

'i

~'

(a a

2:

1.0 - - -- --

s>

6 h

0.8 - -- - -

c S o

x st! ~

u Y 0.6 -- - -- -- -- - -- - - - -

U >

-. r e

o .

o ..

o .

0.4 - - - --- -- --- -

2

u. ,

~n s .,

, ,~

r N 0.2 [

3 i ~

,/

/

il~

,. J^ U I 0 I 2 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) 2 Notes: ,

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g BE'CO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Wall,-El. 81.80', Translation in the NS Direction

6 m

0 X 10 1.0 "e

$1.

.l <a E

, 0.8 --- -- -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

3 .

1

)

c o 0.6 --- - - -

o cJ /  ? ,

ti [ *u O e

- .-t st u

y 0.4- - - - -

yf ,

\ F

\  :-

~

.- - 3 O.2 ,

A r

J o w

f s t </ Iis i

,/ U  !

0.0 -- - ---- - - -

r I 0 I 16 10 10 2 t 10 l

Frequency (IIz)

Notes:

• N-411 Damped Spectrum "

Accelerations in g's '

1 SSE Level = 0.15g 3 BECO: Pil RG 1.60 SSE BiologicalShieldWal$,rimReactor'Buildin$a,tionintheEWDirection El, 81.80', Trans

~

b i

X 10 0 g  !

0.6 " '

t~

+4 i m i f' E 0.5- - -

N L

. ~ ~

0.4 -- - - - --

s ---

,?

c o

u m m ( ."

m

$ 0.3 -- -- - -- '

l- - - - --

g - - -

t G) u 2 /

o 0.2 -

I J "

/ V ._

, 0.1 -- -- -

r' g w x

,s U

y'/ 3 u

0.0 - --- - - - --

16 0 I 2 10 10 10 Frequency -(ilz)

Notes:

H-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.10g \ '

t BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Biological Shield Wall, El. 81.80', Translation in the Vert. Direction

L rt '

I 0

x 10 g 1.0 --

o un

, E I 1 .:

g 5

0.0 -- --- - - -

L l f

c $ I o o  ;

0.6 --

M o

43  : i 64 o i o>

.a s. .

8 y 0.4 -

[ - -- -

i- .}

w

- ba ' l w

/ \

0.2 -- - / - - -

/ \ ,

N-- -

c,

,' , w

~

~-

../

,- M..

../ w

~

0.0 - -- -- -

I I 16 10 10 10 i

Frequency (liz) t tiotes: '11-411 Damped Spectrum j i

j Accelerations in g*s i 1 SSE Level = 0.159 i 4

1 BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG'1.60 SSE Reactor Vessel, El. 47;27', Translation in the llS Direction ,

i

J 0

x 10 gg 0.0 "'

e

'I E

z i s'1

'u 0.6 - --

.a ,

[/

e o *<

PJ '

.g U 0.4 - -- -- -

e-4 N

as \

O

' p M .

[ '\ 8

\ , J \ u, f

\ Ch 0.2 C-N ---_- -- - - -

J

[ o

/. z

,- s

0. --- - -- - - - - - -- - - . .--- - -

-1 Frequency (liz) flot es :

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor. Vessel, El. 47.27', Translation in the EW Direction

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

m -

a r,

l 0

X 10

• gg 1.0 - - . -

.E.

'en i e f 0.0 - - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - -- - - -- - -

3 i

w e

C G 0 0.6 - -

o U* i o

o$

-i U

• y b

0.4 - - - - - - -

~

( #

I -- -- - - -

v i '

f ( w u -

0.2 - - - - -- --

-/ \ - -- -

j ~ *

,. M

'" sa 16 10 I 10 10 Prequency 012) I Notes: ,

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE. Level = 0.10g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Buildincy, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Vessel, El. 47.27', Translation in the Vertical Direction

4 r,

I i 0 x 10 ju, 1.0 , '

o en c:

7 0.8 -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - ---

i3 c: to O g,g o N

y o P ti Q) s r

u.

p

-e rt as o

o o,4 _ _ __._ . ._

._ _ _ _ _ _ sa

/ -

o s

/

)

/ \ .

v-, ~

i 0.2 - - - -- - - -

[ - -- -- -- -- - - -

h= == == - -

r

? / (n >

,/ U s

o,o './l ___ . ) _

U I 0 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) lioles :

11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g '

k

i

.BECO: Pilgrim. Reactor. Building, RG 1.60 SSE i Reactor Vessel, El. 55.18', Translation in the NS Direction-  ;

. _ , ... . . . . .. . . ,x - .. . . - . .- . . . ,, -. - _. . - _ _ . ._. .- - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ =

S

< ro 0

X 10 j 1.0 -

,- p o-en +

0.8 -  :- -- -

i ._ __ _

j w l

c: tu o '

0.6

. 4.

u M

M 7- *<

al f es R

Q) Y

• o y 0.4 - - - - - -

3 ,.

r i i o

\ '".

o m

' f

, \ . - .

0.2 - -- - .

1 - --- - - -- -- - - -- -- M .--. - - L

' o

/ '"

, ./ *'

N 0.0

~ /

2 Id' 0 10 10 10 Frequency (liz) tiot es : ,11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE.I,evel = 0.159 i t

L BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Vessel, El. 55.18', Translation in the EW Direction

t ,

o L

0 x 10 1.0 iX

8

~

E r -

y z +

0.8 -- -- --- -- -- - -- - - -- -- -- -

r: $ .

o 0.6 - -

u O

f. .

as "P.

i et et ,

(

GJ o 4 i

/ # ..

j! 0.4 --- .- - - -

\ - - - - ----- - - - - -

?

j' S ,

0.2 -- - --

/

O, o

, ~

_ _ , ~

,,Y

' w 0.0 - - - - - - -- - - - - - -

16 0 I 2 10 10 10 Frequency (112) i Notes: -t N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE I.evel = 0.10g '

i i

BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE 1

Reactor Vessel, El. 55.18', Translation.In the vertical Direction-t

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __e __.__m _ - _ _ , - _ .

i- , -

X 10 0. w i m .

G m

1.4 -- --- - -

S F

u-1.2 - - - -

-f - - - - - - - - '- - - - - - - - - - - - - '

@' 1.0 - -- - --- -

-r4 j

&J

• s m

' o d 0.8 If

.-s (D

o u .-.

< os . . . . _ .- ..

w 3

\

0.4 - - -

Y <

/

/

/ Q i O

', w 0.2 - --

n

/-

' t-* ,

,s a;

'~

.- w

0. 0 - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - -

I I 16 10 10 2 >

10 Frequency (liz) tiot'es :

11-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.1Sg -

1- ,

i- DECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Vessel, El. 86.75', Translation 'in the 11S Direction [

i

. n 0

x 10 g s.

U

=

1.2 -- --

-- ) -

e tJ 1.0 - - - - - - - -

8 o

to 0.0 -- - -- -

l \ t S

'n

) 6

-i L G) o 0.6 - - - - - -

U .-

ui o

m 0.4 - - - -- - - /~ T o u

/

/ \

\

N. . . _

0.2 --- -- -

Il

~

^

f U

/ )

' - u 0.0 - - -- ---- - - -

I 0 I 16 10 10 10 Frequency (liz )

Notes:

N-411 Damped Spectrum Accelerations in g's 1 SSE Level = 0.15g BECO: Pilgrim Reactor Building, RG 1.60 SSE Reactor Vessel, El. 86.75'r Translation in the EW Direction a___________----_-__---____--_-_ . . . - . -_

n

g " C n n E 3 L 4eO '

. , ,** ?2 ,NU~

0 n 1

o i.

t.

- c e

r

- i

- - D

- - - Ea l

- - Sc

- - Si 0r t

6e

- .V.

- 1 e

- Gh.

\ I Rt 0

1 ,n

\ yi c

n

' in

) do

'- li z

i it

-- l

( ua

- Bl s .

y c rn n oa e m tr u u s cT g

q a tr 'g 0 e,

- - e c 1 R' r en .

5

- - F pi0 a r7 _

S

- i

- - 0 s = r6 0 d n g8 1 eol l m

- pi e i . .

- mt v Pl

- / a a e E .

D r L  :

- , e - O ,

s 1 l E Cl

- - e 1 eS Ee t

o 4 cS

- c Bs s

- - N N A1 V

e _

i

- r

- o t _

- c .

- a _

~

~

l e _

l i_

6 o 2 0 0 6 4 2 0 1 o1 1 0 0 0 0 0 t

x . )

C . sS n ,.G"oc

I 42103-R-001 Revision 0 July 30,1993 Page 1 of 33 ATTACHMENT B ,

RESUMES OF PROJECT PERSONNEL

+

k 9

D6 N MT

Ir PAUL D. BAUGIIMAN PROFESSIONAL lilSTORY EGEInternational, Stratham, New Ilampshire, Regional Manager,1987 present Cygna Energy Services, Boston, Massachusetts,Vice President, 1980-1987 Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Westboro, Massachusetts, Senior Structural Engineer, 1976 1980 Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., Bostor., Massachusetts, Mechanical / Structural Engineer,1969 1976

SUMMARY

Mr. Baughman has over 22 years of professional engineering and project management experience in the power and industry fields. Ile has held a wide variety of positions encompassing structural and mechanical design, safety and risk evaluations, and nuclear licensing.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Mr. Baughman manages structural engineering and evaluation programs, safety and reliability assessments, carthquake veri 0 cation programs, and risk evaluations, Ile is currently assigned as Project Manager for the IPEEE/USI A.46 projects at Indian Point 2, Three Mile Island, and Oyster Creek Plants.

Project assignments have included acting as Projects Manager for the D.C. Cook Small Bore Piping Conf..mation Program, the Salem 11/1 Interaction Program, the Virginia Power STERI Procedures Project, the Indian Point 2 Control Room Seismic Veri 0 cation Baseline Project, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor Tritium llandling Systems Review, and the Darlington Station 11/1 Piping Review.

lie has performed mechanical equipment seismic evaluations for lloston Edison, Maine Yankee, Public Service of New Ilampshire, Consolidated Edison, Gulf States Utilities, Rochester Gas and Electric, Southern Electric International, Virginia Power, Ontario liydro, Public Service Electric and Gas, and GPU Nuclear; electrical equipment evaluations for Vermont Yankee, Boston Edison, Maine Yankee, GPU Nuclear, Philadelphia Electric, Virginia Power, Rochester Gas and Electric, and Consolidated Edison; and piping evaluations for Vernmnt Yankee, Tennessee Valley Authority, Ontario llydro, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Westinghouse Savannah River, Rochester Gas and Electric, Public .

Service Electric and Gas, Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, American Electric Power, Northeast Utilities, and Mesquite Lake Resource Recovery Center.

lie has performed seismic veri 6 cations of cable tray, conduit, instrurnent tubing, and ductwork for Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Tennessee Valley Authority, Public Service of New IIampshire, Consolidated Edison, GPU Nuclear, and Rochester Gas and Electric.

I!c has prepared procedures for seismic technical evaluation of replacement items (STERI) for Maine Yankee, GPU Nuclear and Virginia Power, and presented training in STERI and Equipment Veri 5 cation at Virginia Power, GPU Nuclear and Rochester Gas and Electric.

lie has carried out numerous structural engineering and design activities for nuclear power plants, fossil  !

power plants, cogen facilities and commercial projects. Clients have included City of Boston,IIanscomb Air Force Base, Quincy City llospital, Brocton Veterans Administration Medical Center, Boston Edison, Consolidated Edison, Northeast Utilities and Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority.

~__ _

t.

PAUL D. BAUGitMAN PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued)

At Cygna Energy Services, Mr. Baughman managed structural and mechanical activities for the castern United States. Ile directed technical activities at more than 30 nuclear plants, including seismic evaluations of critical structures, piping, and equipment. Assignments included failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) for high energy piping at Seabrook Station, probabilistic risk evaluations of the reactor containment at Scabrook Station, and FMEA of spent fuel cask handling systems at Yankee Rowe. lie also provided licensing consultation services related to structural and mechanical issues for Yankee Rowe, Vermont Yankee, Maine Yankee, Pilgrim, Millstone Units 1 and 2, Seabrook, Three Mile Island Unit 1, Davis Besse, and R. E. Ginna.

While at Yankee Atomic, Mr. Baughman was responsible for many structural and mechanical issues, including seismic upgrade of structures and equipment, spent fuel pool modifications at Yankee Rowe, and spent fuel storage expansions at Vermont Yankee, Pilgrim, and Maine Yankee. Spent fuel pool modifications at Yankee Rowe required FMEA of the 75-ton overhead crane and evaluation of smaller cranes used during construction or operation. Spent fuel storage expansions required FMEA of the spent fuel storage pools, fuel handling systems, and movement of heavy loads near stomd fuel. Mr. Baughman also performed a structural safety evaluation of the polar crane in the reactor containment at Maine Yankee. lie was a member of the Nuclear Safety Audit and Review Committee for Maine Yankee.

With Stone & Webster, Mr. Baughman carried out a variety of design assignments on nuclear plants under construction in the Mechanical Analysis and Structural Mechanics groups, including containment design, building seismic analysis, generation of floor response spectra, and equipment seismic qualification.

EDUCATION NORTilEASTERN UNIVERSRY: M D.A.,1984 NORTilEASTERN UNIVERSHY: M.S. Civil Engineering,1978 NORT11 EASTERN UNIVERS3Y: U.S. Civil Engineering,1972 AFFILIATIONS American Society ofCivil Engineers American Concrete Institute American Society of Mechanical Engineers REGISTRATION Structural Engineer: Massachusetts Structural Engineer New Ifampshire Civil Engineer. New llampshire SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

" Level 1 Seismic Technical Evaluation of Commercial Grade Replacement Items, Surry Power Station, North Anna Powcr Station." July 199L Prepared for Virginia Power.

" Level 2 Scismic Technical Evaluation of Commercial Grade Replacement items, Surry Power Station, North Anna Power Station." July 1991 Prepared for Virginia Power.

" Planning Report, Comparison of Methods for Responding to Seismic IPEEE for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station." Decembei 1990. Prepared for Boston Edison Company.

, - , . w ,,- ..

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

t i PAUL D, IIAUGilMAN SELECfED PUBLICATIONS (Continued)

" Experience Data Methodology for Scismic evaluation of Alternative Commercial Grade Replacement items (Level 1) for Oyster Creek and TMI Unit 1." June 1990. Prepared for GPU Nuclear.

" Management Report, Scoping Review for Resolution of Unresolved Safety issue A-46, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Station." January 1990. Prepared for Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.

With M. Aggarwal.1989. " Seismic Evaluation of Piping Using Experience Data." ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, July 1989.

"Scismic Verification of Control Room Design Changes for Indian Point Unit 2." June 1989. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company.

With II. Johnson, G. !!ardy, and N. llorstman.1989. "Use of Seismic Experience Data for Replacement ,

and New Equipment." Second Symposium on Current issues Related to Nuclear Power Plant Structurcs, Equipment, and Piping with Emphasis on Resolution of Scismic Issues in Low-seismicity Regions, May 1989.

With M. Aggarwal, S. Ilarris, and R. Campbell.1989. "Scismic Evaluation of Piping Using Experience Data." Se cond Symposium on Current Issues Related to Nuclear Power Plant Structures, Equipment, and Piping with Emphasis on Resolution of Scismic issues in Lowocismicity Regions, May 1989.

" Procedure for Seismic II/I Interaction llazards Evaluation for Pilgrirn Nuclear Power Station." January 1989. Prepared for 130ston Edison Company.

"Scismic Evaluation of Tritium ilandling System, Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor, Princeton Pl+ .na Physics Laboratory." December 1988. Prepared for Burns and Roc.

" Generic Criteria for Seismic Evaluation of Piping at Darlington Nuclear Generating Station." March 1988. Prepared for Ontario Ilydro.

" Seismic Evaluation of Non-rafety Piping at Darlington Nuclear Generating Station Using Earthquake Experience Data." December 1987. Presented to the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada.

" Procedure for Overview Walkdown for Seismic Interaction llazards, Salem Nuclear Generating Station." November 1987. Prepared for Public Service Electric and Gas.

5 a

~.

t JAMES L. WillTE PROFESSIONAL ll! STORY EGE lntemational, Stratham, New llampshire, Senior Consultant,1937 present Cygna Energv Services, Boston, Massachusetts, Project Manager,1980-1987 Bechtel Power Corporation, Plymouth, Massachusetts, Senior Construction Engineer,1977-1980 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts, Structural Engineer, 1970-1977 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Mr. White has over 20 years experience in structural engineering and construction for existing and under-construction nuclear power plants. llis msponsibilities have included development of design criteria, specifications, and drawings for power plant buildings and specialized structures such as circulating water tunnels and power piping systems.

At EQE, Mr. White has acted as project manager and seismic review team member on numerous seismic evaluation projects using the EQE seismic experience data base, and the SQUG Generic Implementation Pmeedure (GIP). lie is currently Task Leader for USI A-46 at Three Mile Island and Oyster Creek. lie has completed the SQUG training for Seismic Capability Engineers. Mr. White has performed seismic qualifications of Regulatory Guide 1.97 equipment, piping, valves, control panels, and miscellaneous equipment for Boston Edison's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. Mr. White acted as seismic review team member at the Savannah River Plant, performing seismic reviews of relays, raceways, control panels, tubing, valves, and various equipment in the K, L, and P reactors. In addition, he has analyzed the seismic adequacy of crancs at EDF nuclear power plant through comparison with crancs in the EQE seismic experience data base, lie has also utilized the data base in analyzing the seismic adequacy and hazard potential of equipment at the Salem Nuclear Power plant. This work involved site inspection and evaluation with safety-related equipment as targets and nonsafety n lated piping as sources.

Mr. White has also extensive piping experience and was Project Manager and Project Engineer on several piping and pipe support analysis and modification projects. Specific projects are described as follows:

o Performed field review of Salem Unit 2 small bore piping in containment for seismic 11/I and pressure integrity using deflection screening.

o Participating in data gathering walkdowns of data base sites for tubing, piping, and piping fittings.

o Performed field walkdowns and review of piping and pipe supports for seismic II/I at Browns Ferry. Mr. White was Project Engineer in charge of piping penetration walkdowns to estimate piping movement for Browns Ferry Unit 2.

o Project Engineer for the seismic qualification of diesel air start system piping at Ginna Nuclear Power Station. Evaluated piping using seismic experience data and conventional techniques.

o DECO Pilgrim reactor water level piping modification.

o J. A. Fitzpatrick environmental enclosure chilled water piping project.

-[

~ JAMES L. WIIITE l

PitOFESSIONAL EXPEltlENCE (Continued) l In previous assignments, Mr. White implemented various design changes for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. Projects for which he was responsible include II.P. checkpoint reconfiguration, '

scismic building separation, and reactor water level (RWL) modification. On the RWL project he was responsible for engineering interface for core drilling of two ha'es through the primary containment to install new ASME instrumentation penetrations. llis responsibilities also included ,

engineering interface for installation of ASME Class I piping and pipe supports, modification of l reactor water level instrumentation, and cutting and replacement of Reactor Pressure vessel nozzles.

This assignment was a continuation of work that he perfonned at Cygna as a lead structural engineer preparing the design change package for the RWL modification.

l Mr. White served as Project Manager and Project Engineer for analysis and modification of many l nuclear plants, including the J. A. Fitzpatrick, Salem, Maine Yankee, Vermont Yankee, Pilgrim, and I I

Millstone Unit I stations. Several important projects for which he held primary responsibility, including supervision of sta!Ts of multi-disciplined engineers and designers, are described below.

o Engineering and designing environmental enclosures for Class IE electrical equipment. This  ;

project included pipe stress analysis, piping layout and design, structural design of steel-frame l enclosure stmetures, and specification and qualification oflIVAC equipment in accordance q with IEEE 344. l l

o Assessing management and work practices for piping, pipe support, and as-built documentation -

for the Public Service Electric and Gas Company. l o Analyzing safety related pipe support baseplates for Maine Yankee in response to NRC Bulletin 79-02. Designing modifications for baseplates that failed analytical criteria.

I o Designing on-site structural, IIVAC, electrical, and piping modifications at Millstone Unit 1 in l relation to 79-Ollt .;

l o Analyzing and designing piping and pipe supports for Vermont Yankee to resolve NRC l

Dulletins 79-02 and 79-14.

While with Ucchtel, Mr. White implemented plant modifications for Boston Edison's Constmetion Management Group, a position that required supervision of approximately 16 engineers. In previous assignments for Doston Edison he managed completion of a security building, access roads, and parking lot modifications. Prior to this period, as a structural engineer for Stone and Webster, Mr.

White engineered major plant structures and foundations and prepared design criteria, cost estimates, calculations, specifications, drawings, and reports. lie was also responsible for evaluating, awarding,

. and administrating various procurement and construction contracts as well as resolving constmetion problems.

Additional projects in which Mr. White was involved include the following:

o Project Manager: Seismic review and evaluation ofpiping, pipe supports, equipment, and sinacturesfor maintaining integrity ofmain steam system at towa Electric powerplant.

Evaluated steet-frame sinactures and subcomponentsfor seismic capacity.

o Structurcl Engineerr Participated in the design review of tritmm piping and'related equipment at the Princeton Plasma Physics !.aboratory in New Jersey. Performed seismic review and evaluated stmetural and mechanical components.

o Structural Engineer Participated in seismic qualification and anchorage evaluation of motor generator sets, control panels, battery chargers, and miscellaneous electrical equipment for Consolidated Edison's Indian Point Power Plant. Pf

-_,.,-u . . . . _ , , _,__m...., - , , . - - , y

I JAMES L WillTE -

i t

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) o Project Afanager. Structural evaluation for second-story addition to a 20,000-square-foot vocational school bldg. Reviewed existing building components and design of foundations, and structural / steel concrete slabs.

o Structural Enginecr; in charge of structural engineering services for renovation ofIlanscomb Air Force Base's of6cer's club building. Responsible for structural design, construction specifications, and installation drawings for building and llVAC renovations.

o Structural Engineer Responsible for evaluation and review of retront work for the Massachusetts College of Art. Review included structural assessment of a six-story reinforced conen:te frame building with concrete masonry partition walls. Renovation work was performed to incorporate classroom use changes.

o Project Afanager. Seismic evaluation and upgrade ofIIVAC system for Boston Edison's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. Project included evaluating and modifying seismic loadings.

Equipment included large centrifugal fans, motor control centers, dampers, control panels, plenum structures, electrical raceways, and other mechanical and electrical equipment.

o Project Enginecr; Seismic evaluation of service water piping, pipe supports, and equipment for the Vennont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Project included seismic review orlarge stect-frame power plant stmetures to ensure structural integrity, o Project Afanager. Seismic evaluations of diesel generator building Gre protection piping for Boston Edison's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. Seismic review / modification of sprinkler &

deluge fire protection systems.

o Structural Engineer In charge of design of new diesel generator building for Boston City IIall. Project included structural design, drawing preparation, cost estimates, and pn paration of construction specifications. Interior building renovations were also performed as part of this project.

o Project Afanager: Structural design of modifications to the Bioenergy wood-burning power plant. Projects included design of catalytic converter stack and ductwork modifications, and building floor strengthening for addition of water treatment tank and clean-up system. Projects included structural design, specification, and drawing preparation.

o Project Engineer. Responsible for seismic review and design modincations for control room electrical cabinets and pancis for the Consolidated Edison Indian Point Power Plant.

o Project Alanuger. Seismic qualification ofskid-mounted 12-cylinder diesel generators for SEl/PEICO. Seismic analysis and review of diesel generator anchorage and installation at five ,

different power facilities.

o Structural Engincer. Responsible for structural evaluation of 500 MW power plant structure for Boston Edison's balanced draft stack conversion project. Structural analysis of ten-story j structural steel boiler support structure for wind, seismic, and operating loading conditions.

o Structural Engineer: Investigation of structural cracking and deterioration of swimming pool / gymnasium building at the Brackton Veterans Administration llospital. Design and review of structural renovations and repair work including construction drawings and I specifications.

-n 1

l. l JAMES L. WillTE PROFESSIONAL EXPEltlENCE (Continued) o Project Enginecr Scismic evaluation of bridge crancs and structures for Electricity de France l power plants. Project required site inspection and 6cismic evaluation of various bridge crancs 1 and cranc structures.

o Structural Enginecr: Responsible for duc diligence review of several commercial buildings for a King of Prussia Pennsylvania, realty company. Project included the structural review of large warthouse type buildings for commercial oflice space.

EDUCATION Tuns Umvrnsrrt, Medford, Massachusetts: H.S. Civil Engineering,1970 REGL%'TRATION Professional Engineer Massachusetts Professional Engineer: Maine Civil Enginecr: Vermont b

E I

i GOltDON S. ILIORKM AN, JR.

I PitOFESSIONAL IllSTORY i EGE International. EGE Engineering Consultants Division, Stratham, New Ilampshire, '

Senior Technical Manager,1991-present A## Impell Corporation. Technical Manager, 1986-1991 Qgna Energy Services, Senior Consultant, 1981 1986 United Engineers and Constructors, Consultant,1978 l981 Drexel University, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, 1975-1978,and  ;

Adjunct Associate Professor, 1978-1981. i University ofDelaware, Visiting Assistant Professor, 1974-1975 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Design Engincer, 1969-1970 '

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Dr. Hjorkman is Senior Technical Manager of EQE's Engineering Consultant's Division and has over 24 years of combined experience in nuclear power plant evaluation, university teaching, and government irscarth. More than 16 of those years have been spent in the analysis and design of nuclear power plant ,

structures, piping, and components lie is expert in the areas of stmetural dynamics, scismic qualifica-  !

, tion, finite element analysis, structural behavior, and reinforced and prestressed concrete design.  !

l Dr. Hjorkman has provided expert testimony before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on finite j clement modeling and dynamic analysis of civil structures, piping systems and raceways and has made .

numerous presentations to utility management and the NRC staff. In addition, he has twice been a 1 l

Principal Research Investigator for the National Science Foundation working on inverse problems in mechanics and stress concentration minimization. This research lead to the discovery ofilarmonic l Shapes, which are a class of hole and inclusion geometrys that are invisible to La Placian fields.

Dr. Bjorkman is currently involved in several projects. These include:

• Independent review of a design basis analysis for a Fuel Storage Facility. I

• Deveiopment and implementation of a 42 hour4.861111e-4 days <br />0.0117 hours <br />6.944444e-5 weeks <br />1.5981e-5 months <br /> training program on Seismic Equipment Qualification.

• Operability Evaluation of a spent fuel pool.

l

• Development of a Reactor Building dynamic model and generation of design floor response sp:ctra l using state-of-the-art soil-structure interaction methods. .i i

• Independent review of the stmetural aspects of replacing steam generators thmugh the primary l containment dome. )

l Recently, Dr, Bjorkman completed teaching a 28 hour3.240741e-4 days <br />0.00778 hours <br />4.62963e-5 weeks <br />1.0654e-5 months <br /> training course on Structural Dynamics and Seismic Analysis fbr Rochester Gas and Electric's Civil / Structural, Mechanical, and Site Support Staff.

The course stressed the fundamental simplicity of structural dynamics,its link to the finite element l method, and its relationship to the overall scismic analysis process, as applied to nuclear power plant facilities. In the area of piping, topics such as mass point spacing and missing mass were discussed and illustrated in detail. Issues related to A-46, such as anchorage ficxible and in-cabinet amplification, were discussed and demonstrated using EQE's direct generation software, EQE FSO, the ANSYS program, and the response spectra database management program, SpectraDb. j

I GORDON S. BJORKMAN, JR.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued)

For Carolina Power & Light, Dr. Bjorkman performed an evaluation of prestress losses in the large girders which support the spent fuel pool. !!c also determined the root cause oferacks in the bottom of the spent fuel pool slab which had puzzled CP&L and its consultants for a number of years.

At ADB Impell, Dr. Bjorkman was Technical Manager for the Engineering Mechanics Division. lie was ,

Project Engineer for the resolution of Generic Letter 87-02/ Unresolved Safety Issue A-46 at Northeast Utilities' Connecticut Yankee, and Millstone Units 1 and 2 stations.

For Rochester Gas and Electric's Ginna Station, Dr. Bjorkman developed a strategy to address NRC concerns regarding the behavior and integrity of the neoprene joint detail between th : vertically prestressed containment shell and basemat. Using an axisymmetric ANSYS model, which extended from below the prestressed rock anchors to the containment dome, and a 180 containment shell model, Dr. Bjorkman investigated numerous limiting boundary conditions including slip between the various concrete / rock interfaces and failure of radial tension ties. In addition, dynamic analysis using the shell model substantiated the original seismic design basis for the containment. Dr. Hjorkman's presentation before the NRC stalT and sabsequent discussions resolved the NRC's concerns and allowed RG&E to obtain a three year extension to their operating license.

At GPU Nuclear's Oyster Creek Plant, cracks in the concrete girders supporting the spent fuel pool (SFP) prompted safety concerns for the storage of high density racks. To address the safety concerns, Dr.

Hjorkman developed a nonlinear analysis strategy to account for the redistribution ofinternal forces caused by concrete cracking due to mechanical and thermal loads. To implement the nonlinear strategy and to account for force redistribution within the entire reactor building structure, a large ANSYS model, consisting primarily of solid elements,was created. The results showed that the location and orientation -

of existing cracks in ihe girders, SFP walls, reactor shield wall, and operating floor slab were predicted by the analysis, and that the high density rack loads were within the load carrying capacity envelop of the SFP and its supporting members.

Prior to these projects, Dr. Djorkman was Project Consultant to the Three Mile Island 1 Skewed Pipe Clamp Evaluation Project. He developed project instructions and special criteria for the nonlinear (gaps and friction) analysis of pipe clamps, as well as an evaluation methodology for pipe wall stresses when lug-induced stresses exceed Code Case N 318 values. This project was highly successful and resulted in no modifications to any of the 56 clamps involved.

In support of the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP1) restart effort, Dr. Bjorkman performed a structural integrity investigation to determine the significance of 1,400 pipe support deficiencies found during the ISI Program. In addition, he performed an extensive technical quality review for the NMP1 static and dynamic finite element building models, which ranged in size from 2,000 to 60,000 degrees-of-freedom and which will be used during NMPI's Design Hasis Reconstitution Program.

For Rochester Gas & Electric, Dr. Bjorkman developed an innovative methodology to inexpensively analyze, evaluate, and qualify the major braced column line between the turbine and intermediate buildings, which other consultants' evaluations (NUREG 1821) had reported to be significantly overstressed under safe shutdown carthquake loads. Dr. Bjorkman's final report was submitted directly to the NRC by Rochester Gas & Electric and resolved the seismic safety issue.

Based on the success of Dr. Bjorkman's 1981 training program on piping system analysis, Virginia Power's Civil Structures Group asked him to return in 1987 to deliver a 40-hour training program on structural dynamics. Complete example problems of actual Virginia Power buildings were developed on the STARDYNE computer program and were used to demonstrate the finite element modeling of structures for dynamic applications.

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

C GORDON S. IUORKMAN, JR.

PROFESSIONAL EXPEIUENCE (Continued)

Prior to joining Impell, Dr. Hjorkman was the Senior Consultant for the Engineering Mechanics Division at Cygna Energy Services. In this capacity, he was responsible for providing corporate wide technical guidance and directing special projects.

While at Cygna, Dr. Bjorkman served for three years as a member of the Senior Review Team for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independen: Assessment Program. In this capacity, he provided expert witness testimony at the hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the NRC on all technical issues involving finite element, structural dynamics, piping, pipe suppons, and cable trays.

In a previous assignment, Dr. Djorkman functioned as the Project Engineer on the Rochester Gas &

Electric Cerporation project related to NUREG-0612 for the Ginna Station. On this project, Dr. <

Bjorkman directed the analytical efforts, which evaluated the structural safety consequences of postulated load drop accidents from plant cranes. The work involved finite element modeling and clastoplastic time history impact analysis (using ANSYS) for an accidental drop of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head and upper reactor internals onto the RPV. Additionally, numerous smaller load drops onto concrete floor systems were postulated and evaluated. Dr. Bjorkman developed special purpose software for these analyses and supervised the project staffin the evaluations.

As a Consultant for both Maine Yankee and Vermont Yankee piping and pipe support reanalysis pmjects, Dr. Bjorkman was responsible for reviewing technical criteria and developing modeling techniques for piping systems and baseplates.

Previously, Dr. Djorkman was the Director of a 10-week piping system analysis and design training program for Virginia Power's newly formed Engineering Mechanics Group. lie was responsib!c for structuring and reviewing all lecture and workshop materials, and taught the two-week modules on dynamic analysis and the use of the STARDYNE computer program.

Prior to joining Cygna, Dr. Bjorkman worxed at United Engineers and Constructors, where he managed the vent system analysis and design of modifications for a Mark I nuclear power plant. Ile supervised -

personnel in the proper development and use oflarge finite element shcIl and beam models, which incorporated numerous superclements in oath static and dynamic analyses. lie also developed computer programs to evaluate fatigue damage at highly stressed intersections. In addition, Dr. Bjorkman completed a stability and stress analysis of a discontinuously stiffened containment shell liner, and acted as a Consultant to the Seabrook project on matters concerning liner stability during construction.

As a facility member of Drexel University and the University of Delaware, Dr. Bjorkman taught graduate and undergraduate courses in experimented mechanics, advanced structural analysis, solid mechanics, finite element analysis, and prestressed and reinforced concrete design. During this period, Dr. Djorkman was twice Principal Research Investigator for the National Science Foundation working on Problems in inverse clasticity and stress concentration minimization.

Prior to caming his Ph. D., Dr Hjorkman worked as a Design Engineer for Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation,where he perfonned the fmite element analysis and complete reinforced concrete design of the turbine building mat foundation and retaining walls for the Heaver Valley Nuclear Power Plant. lie also developed an analysis procedure and performed the initial finite element analysis of the reinforced concrete containment shell and suppression chamber for Bell Station and Drunswick nuclear power plants while with Jackson and Moreland (DE&C). Dr. Djorkman has been a Consultant to a number of corporations including the Hocing Vertol Company, for whom he developed and taught a 40-hour lecture series on the finite element method.

, , . . . - -w -- ,

t GORDON S.11JORKMAN, JR.

EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF DElAWARit: Ph.D. Applied Mechanics CORNI1L UNIVERSMY: M.S. Structural Engineering PRINctrrON UNIVr RSIlY: U.S. Civil Engineering REGISTRATIONS Pennsylvania: Professional Engineer AFFILIATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

ASCE Committee on Structural Computations ASCE Technical Committee on Optimal Structural Design Reviewer, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Journal of Applied Mechanics Sigma Xi JOURNAL AND CONFERENCE PUllLICA~lONS With R. Richards.1993. " Harmonic Inclusions: Elastic inclusions of Uniform Strength." To be published in Journal ofApplied Afechanics.

" Benchmark Problems for Planc Stress Shape Optimization " Proceedings of the ASCE Tenth Conference on Electric Computation. Indianapolis,IN., April 1991.

"On The Behavior and Qualification of Pipe Clamps Used in Nonstandard Applications." Proceedings ofthe ASAfE Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference. San Diego, CA., June 1991.

With R. Richards. August 1984. " Optimum Shape and Pressure Vessel Attachments." In Proceedings ,

ofthe 5th ASCE Engineering Alechanics Division Specialty Conference. Laramic, WY: University of '

Wyoming.

With R. Richards. May 1983. "On the Derivation of11armonic and NeutralIIoles Using Complex '

Variable Methods." In Proceedings ofthe 4th ASCE Engineering Afechanics Division Specialty Conference. West Lafayette,ID: Purduc University.

With R. Richards. October 1982. " Neutral lloles: Theory and Design." In Journal of the Engineen'ng Afechanics Division. Vol. 108: 945-960. American Society of Civil Engineers.

With R. Richards. December 1980. " Harmonic Shapes and Optimum Design." In Journalof the Engineering Atechanics Divtsion. Vol.106,No EM6: 1125-1134. American Society of Civil Engineers.

i With R. Richards. May 1979. " Inverse Elasticity for llarmonic Shapes." In Proceedings ofthe 7th Canadian Congress ofApplied Afechanics. Sherbrooke.

With R. Richards. September 17-19, l979. In Proceedings ofthe 3rd ASCE Engineering Afechanics Division Specialty Conference. Austin,TX.

With R. Richards. September 1979, "llarmonic lloles for Non-constant Field." inJortrnal ofApplied Atechanics. ASME No. 78-APM-30. Vol. 46, No. 3: 573-576.

i

,,.*=+*n 1

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

'l GOllDON S. ILJORKMAN, JR.

1 JOURNAL AND CONFERENCE PUllLICATIONS(Continued)

With R. Richards.1978. " Optimum Shapes for Unlined Tunnels and Cavitier." In Engineering  ;

Geology. Vol. 12:171 179. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

With R. Richards.1976. " Optimum Shapes for Tunnels and Cavities." In Proceedings of the 17th United States Srmposinni on Rock Alechanics: 5 A7 1. S A7-6. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah.

With R. Richards. November 1976. "llarmonic IIoles: An Inverse Problem in Elasticity." In Journal o.f Applied Afechanics. Vol. 43, Series E, No. 3: 414-418. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

l l

l l

l

-i

- h

}

I  ;

I ALEJANDRO P. ASFURA l

l i

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY EOE International, San Francisco, California, Associate and Technical Manager,1990-present

/mpe// Corporation, San Ramon, California, Senior Technical Specialist, 1984 1990 PMB Systems Engineering, San Francisco, California, Lead Engineer, 1983 1984 University of Ca///ornia, Berkeley, Califomia, Research Assistant, 1980-1984 Consultant, Santiago, Chile, 1975-1980 Institute of Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, Research Assistant, 1973-1975  !

University F. Santa Maria, Valparaiso, Chile, Associate Professor, 1972-1973 l i

I

SUMMARY

Dr. Asfura, Technical Manager for EOE's Engineering Consultants Division, has 20 years of combined practice in industry and in the academic world. He possesses a wide range of practical, l research, and teaching experience in structural engineering, earthquake engineering, dynamic analysis, and structural mechanics.

Practical experience includes analysis and design of major steel and concrete structures for industrial and mining plants; analysis and design of highway bridges, residential concrete buildings, i and offshore structures; analysis of nuclear power plants and equipment; and development of l several computer programs for application in structural and offshore engineering. l Dr. Asfura has expertise in the areas of earthquake engineering and dynamic analysis, random vibration techniques, and direct generation of in-structure response spectra. His responsibilities at EOE includes project management, technical support for related projects, marketing, technical presentations, preparation of proposals, and licensing support. j Dr. Asfura's theoretical background and research experience in the areas of Earthquake Engineering, )

Structural Dynamics, Random Vibrations, Soil Dynamics, and Optimum Design have been achieved through advanced degrees from prestigious universities, individual research, and joint research with such renowned professors as Professor Emilio Rosenblueth at the Institute of Engineering in Mexico, and Professor Armen Der Kiureghian at the University of California, Berkeley. )

l PROFESSIONAL-EXPERIENCE-Dr. Asfura's practical experience in the United States is described as follows:

From June 1990 to present, Dr. Asfura has been a Technical Manager for the Engineering i Consultants Division at EOE International. Some of the projects on which he is or has been in charge are the following:

o Toledo Edison Company. Project Manager for the generation of in structure spectra for USl A-46 and seismic margins for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. This project involves review / development of structural models and deterministic soil structure interaction analysis.

l o GPU Nuclear Corporation. Project Manager for the generation of probabilistic l median-centered and conservative in-structure spectra at all Class I buildings I for resolution of IPEEE and USI A 46 at Three Mile Island. This project  !

involves development of structural models and deterministic and probabilistic .I soil structure interaction analysis. l

,w-,,,,

t ,

ALEJANDRO P. ASFURA PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) o Northern State Power Company. Project Manager for the soil-structure interaction analysis of the intake structure at Brunswick Steam Electric Plant for resolution of USI A 46. This project involves development of structural models and deterministic soil-structure interaction analysis, o Virginia Electric and Power Company. Project Manager for the soil structure interaction analysis of all Class I structures at Surry and North Anna Nuclear Power Plants. These analyses involve development of structural models and probabilistic and deterministic soil structure interaction analysis, o Northern State Power Company. Project Engineer for the seismic analysis of all Class I buildings at the Monticello and Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plants.

This project involves probabilistic and deterministic soil-structure interaction analyses for the generation of 50th percentile and A-46 floor acceleration response spectra.

o GPU Nuclear Corporation. Project Manager for the soil structure interaction analysis of the Reactor Building at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. The analyses are being performed to generate design floor acceleration response spectra according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's recommendations and to develop probabilistic response spectra for seismic PRA.

o Carolina Power and Light Company. In charge of the soil-structure interaction analyses of Class i buildings at the Robinson Nuclear Power Plant to generate 50th percentile floor acceleration response spectra for PRA and fragility studies. This project involved development of structural models and probabilistic and deterministic soil-structure interaction analysis, o SydAraft/OKG Aktiebolag, Sweden. Project Engineer for the development of median-centered response spectra and the probabilistic assessment of the capacity of the reactor / containment buildings at three nuclear power plants in Sweden. This program consists of the probabilistic dynamic analysis (considering SSI effects and structural and soil properties variability) of the structure to calculate the statistics of the floor response spectra and the structural stresses. Factor of safety and confidence level are estimated from the ultimate capacity of the structure and the statistics of the stresses, o Washington Public Power Supply System. Project Manager for the generation and quality assurance verification of codes EQEFSG and E0EMPF for the direct generation of floor response spectra and the calculation of modal participation factors from modal test results, respectively, o Amoco, in charge of the soil dynamic analysis for the generation of design site specific response spectra and acceleration time histories at the Caspian Sea in Azerbaijan for two earthquake levels. These site-specific seismic excitations will be used for the design and ductility analyses of a fixed offshore platform.

o California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Project engineer for the seismic analysis of the Carquiner Bridge in the San Francisco Bay Area. This project involves the structural rnodeling and analysis of two double cantilever through truss bridges construction circa 1927 and 1958. Soil-structure interaction, multiple support excitation, and nonlinear effect are included in the analyses.

o SASS / OA Verification. Project Manager for the modification, installation, and OA Verification of the computer code SASSI in the EOE computer environment. -

u w.w n

I ALEJANDRO P. ASFURA PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) o Sandia Nationallaboratory. Project Engineer for the study to assess the effect of the degradation of the stiffness of shear walls on floor spectra and on fragility studies. _This project involved probabilistic SSI analyses of severallarge soil-structure models for several seismic excitation levels, o Paci//c Gas & E/ectric (PG&E). Consultant for the direct generation of floor spectra at two PG&E buildings in San Francisco. In this project, modal participation factors were evaluated directly from an estimated set of mode shapes.

o Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory. Project Engineer for the seismic and transportation analysis of the finite element model of the magnets for the superconducting super collider system.

From February 1984 to May 1990, Dr. Asfura worked at Impell Corporation in the San Ramon, California, offices Dr. Asfura's responsibilities at Impell Corporation included management of projects, technical support for all Impell's offices in the United States and Europe, marketing, technical presentations, preparation of proposals, and licensing support.

Some of the main projects on which he was in charge at Impell were; o Brookhaven NationalLaboratories. Project Engineer for a Brookhaven National Laboratories Project for the post test analytical prediction of the nonlinear dynamic response of a reactor coolant loop tested at the Tadotsu Engineering Laboratory at Japan.

o Texas Utilities Electric Company. Project Engineer for the Maintenance Mitigation Program for the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant. This program consisted of developing the technicaljustification to substantiate the assertion that the non safety related electrical conduit Train C systems at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station would maintain their structural integrity during or af ter a Safe Shutdown Earthquake event. This project involved dynamic analyses of conduit lines and statistical analysis of previous experience.

o Texas Utilities Electric Company. Project Engineer for the Validation of Design Basis Floor Response Spectra Program for the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant. In this Program, the design basis floor spectra at all Category I buildings at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station were validated by demonstrating their adequacy and assessing their conservatism.

Soil structure interaction and direct generation of floor response spectra methodologies were used to generate state of-the-practice floor response spectra at all safety related buildings in the plant.

o Texas Utilities Electric Company. Project Engineer for the Secondary Walls '

Program for the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant. This project consisted of the calculation of the maximum relative displacements between floor slabs and the top of disconnected secondary walls for Category I buildings at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. This involved use of finite elements, soil structure interaction, and direct generation of floor response spectra techniques.

~ ..

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

't ALEJANDRO P. ASFURA 1

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) )

o Southem Califomia Edison, Return to Service and Long term Services Programs for the Southern California Edison's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, Dr. Asfura was involved in the generation of floor response spectra, nonlinear analyses of structural components and piping systems, special studies, and licensing efforts.

From September 1983 to January 1984, Dr. Asfura worked as a Lead Engineer at PMB Systems Engineering, San Francisco, California, in the analysis of the Schio Arctic Mobile structure (SAMS).

This was a conceptual design for a mobile exploration structure to be initially utilized in water depth of 40 to 60 feet in the Diapir Basin of Harrison Bay, Alaska Some of the main engineering projects in which Dr. Asfura participated during his practice in Chile i between 1975 and 1980 are listed as follows:

Industrial Plants o Chilean Copper Corporation (CODELCO). Expansion of the Chuquicamata Smelting Plant, Chuquicamata Copper Mine o La Disputada de las Condes Mining Company. Expansion of the Chagres Smelting Plant, La Disputada de las Condes Copper Mine o La Disputada de las Condes Mining Company. Expansion of the San Francisco Concentration Plant, La Disputada de las Condes Copper Mine o Chilean Copper Corporation (CODELCO). Technical quality review of the complete project for the expansion of the El Salvador Concentration Plant, El Salvador Copper Mine All of the above projects included analysis and design of major concrete and steel underground, at  ;

grade, and elevated structures. Analysis and design of foundations for structures, equipment, and vibratory machinery. Analysis and design of chimneys, conveyors, storage tanks, and minor structures.

o National Mining Corporation (ENAMI). Analysis and design of steel chimneys for the Paipote Smelting Plant Bridges o Secretary of Transportation. Analysis and design of 39 highway bridges (lengths between 20 and 100 meters).

Offshore Structures o Empresa NacionaldelPetro/eo. Development of computer code for the analysis of offshore structures including automatic generation of wave and current loads. Costa Afuera Project.

o Empresa NacionaldelPetro/eo. Analysis and design of a steel offshore jacket and another marine structure. Costa Afuera Project Residential Buildings  ;

o Analysis and design of 30,000 square meters of residential reinforced concrete buildings.

I l

u.....

t ALEJANDRO P. ASFURA i l

l RESEARCH EXPERIENCE During 1972 and 1973, Dr. Asfura worked as an Associate Professor at the department of Civil Engineering of the Federico Santa Maria University in Chile in the area of Dynamic Analysis.

From 1973 to 1975, he worked as a Research Assistant at the Institute of Engineering of the Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico. He worked in the areas of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Optimization with Professor Emilio Rosenblueth and in Soil Dynamics with Professor Gustavo Ayala.

From 1981 to 1984, he worked as a Research Assistant at the Division of Structural Engineering and Structural Mechanics of the University of California, Berkeley. He worked in Finite Elements with Professor Robert L. Taylor and with Professor Armen Der Kiureghian in the area of Random Vibrations of Structures. Dr. Asfura's Doctoral Dissertation was performed under Professor Der Kiureghian's supervision. While at Berkeley, he developed the Cross Cross Floor Spectrum method ,

for the analysis of multi-supported system using the response spectrum approach. l Based on his research work, he had developed several computer codes for application in structural dynamics. Examples of these codes are a computer program for the generation of modal properties from in situ tests results, and a computer module to allow the direct generation of floor spectra considering soil structure interaction.

EDUCATION UNIVERslTY OF CAUFoRNIA, Berkeley, California: Ph.D. Civil Engineering,1984 Autonomous UNIVERSITY oF MEXICO, Mexico City, Mexico: M.S. Structural Engineering,1975 UNIVERslTY oF CHILE, Santiago, Chile: B.S. Civil Engineering,1972 REGISTRATION Professional Engineer: California Structural Engineer: Chile AFFILIATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Co-spokesman of the Working Group on Multiple input Floor Spectra Analysis of the Nuclear Structures and Materials Committee of the ASCE Dynamic Analysis Committee Member of the Working Group on Generation of Floor Spectra of the Nuclear Structures and Materials Committee of the ASCE Dynamic Analysis Committee PUBLICATIONS

" Soil structure Interaction Observations, Data, and Correlative Analysis." In Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Development in Soil-structure interaction,- Antalya, Turkey, July 1992.

"A Simplified Analytical Method to Evaluate Pipe To Pipe impact Loads." June 1992. ' ASME PVP Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.

.- m

i S

ALEJANDRO P. ASFURA PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) ,

l "An Evaluation of Approximate Methods for Correcting Amplified Floor Response Spectra." May l 1990. Fourth National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Palm Springs.

" Methodologies for Rapid Evaluation of Seismic Demand Levels in Nuclear Power Plants Structures."

December 1988. Second Symposium on Current Issues Related Nuclear Power Plant Structures, Orlando, Florida.

" Random Vibration Methods for the Seismic Qualification of Secondary Systems." June 1988.

ASME PVP Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

" Floor Response Spectrum Method for Seismic Analysis of Multiply Supported Secondary Systems."

1986. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. Vol.14, pp. 245-265.

" Modal Participation Factors from In-Situ Test Data." August 1985. Transaction, Eighth International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Brussels, Belgium.

"A New Combination Rule for Seismic Analysis of Piping Systems." June 1985. ASME PVP Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.

"A New Floor Response Spectrum Method for Seismic Analysis of Multiply Supported Secondary Systems." 1984. Report No. UC8/EERC-84/04, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.

" Earthquake Response of Multiply Supported Secondary Systems by Cross Cross Floor Spectrum Method." January 1984. Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability.

" Seismic Response of Multiply Supported Piping Systems." August 1983. Transactions, Seventh International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Chicago, Illinois.

" Stochastic Method for Seismic Analysis of Secondary Systems." June 1983. Proceedings, International Workshop of Stochastic Methods in Structural Mechanics, Department of Structural Mechanics, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.

" Optimum Seismic Design of Linear Shear Buildings." May 1976. Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.102, No. STS, pp.1077-1084.

" Method of Developing Optimum Tolerances." February 1976. Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.102, No. ST2, pp. 323 336.

" Dynamic Behavior of a Soil Structure Model Considering Absorbent Boundaries." July 1976.

Second Chilean Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Santiago, Chile. ,

" Absorbent Boundaries in Soil Dynamics." November 1975. Fourth National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Oaxaca, Mexico.

..~.m

i 'I ALEJANDRO P. ASFURA PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued)

" Optimum Tolerance in Rolled Steel Sections." 1974. Revista de Ingenieria, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp.

337 348. Mexico

" Vibrations of Chimneys with Variable Inertia." 1974, XVI South American Conference on Structural Engineering, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

" Dynamic Analysis of Chimneys with Variable Inertia. Comparison between Continuous and Discrete Models." 1972. University of Chile report, Santiago, Chile, 1

l 1

l 1

l

1. .%w a*.e n

t DAVID J. DOYLE PROFESSIONAL HISTORY EOE /nternational, San Francisco, California, Lead Engineer,1987-present Skidmore, Owings, and Merri//, Chicago, Illinois, Summer Intern, 1984 1986 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Mr. Doyle is an engineer in EOE's Engineering Consultants Division. Mr. Doyle has been involved in a variety of seismic engineering projects involving detailed finite element analyses, in plant screening evaluations, and soil-structure interaction analyses. He performed a structural computer modeling and analysis of SSC magnet and supports of the Super Conducting Super Collider and assisted computer modeling and analysis of four reactor structures for the Hatch Nuclear Power Plant. In addition he has been involved in a time history and response spectra generation for soil-structure interaction anLlysis for United Nuclear Corporation. Mr. Doyle has completed the SOUG certified seismic evaluation training course.

Notable exampics of Mr. Doyle's werk has included the following projects.

o Soil structuralinte action analysis of the Oskarshamn Power Plant for the Swedish uti5ty company Sydkraft.

o Deterministic and probabilistic soil-structure interaction analysis of the Peach Bottom and Zion Power Plants to determine the effects of shear wall degradation as a function of shear stress for Sandia National Laboratory.

o In-plant screening evaluations of seismic qualification operability issues at the Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant for safety related equipment ,

components and systems, o Computer modelling and soil-structure interaction analysis of buildings at the Savannah River Site. )

l o Modelling and response spectrum analysis of large steel-frama structures at the Savannah River Site.  !

o Soil structure interaction analysis of a Pacific Bell facility in Northern California, o inspection of a structure for Carter Hawley Hale for structural damage 1 af ter the October 17,1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. I o Generation of in-structure response spectra for the Belene Nuclear Power Plant in Romania, o Equipment anchorage calculations and in-plant screening evaluation of ,

plant systems and components at the Comanche Peak Steam Electnc

)

Station.  ;

o Various in house computer code quality assurance verification work.  !

Mr. Doyle worked three consecutive summer internships with Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill.

His miscellaneous jobs included finite element structural analysis and beam and column design. In addition, he wo'ked with computer-aided structures programs.

we.e,. u

't DAVID J. DOYLE EDUCATION University of California, Berkeley: M.S. Structural Engineering,1980 University of Illinois, Charnpaign Urbana: B.S. Civil Engineering,1985 REGISTRATION Certified Engineer-in-Training: lilinois AFFILIATIONS AND HONORS Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honor Society Chi Epsilon Civil Engineering llanor Society (Treasurer - one year)

Phi Kappa Phi Senior Honor Society i

T

- - . . . . EM

f BASILIO N. SUMODOBILA, JR.

e b

PROFESSIONAL IllSTORY EGE!ncorporated, San Francisco, California, Principal Engineer,1986-present East Ray Municipal Utility Distdct, Oakland, California, Associate Engineer, 1984-1986 URS/ John A. Blume and Associates, San Francisco, California, Senior Engineer, 1982-1984 Bechtel Power Corporation, San Francisco, Califorma, Senior Engineer 1979-1982 URS/ John A. Blume and Associates, San Francisco, California, Senior Engineer,1973 1979 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Mr. Sumodobila has over 19 years of experience in seismic evaluations, structural dynamic analyds, seismic analysis, structural design, linear and nonlinear analysis, and finite element sonwatt development. As Principal Engineer for EQE's Engineering Consultants Dividon, he .

provided support for the equipment qualification at the Savannah River Site. Mr. Sumodobila

- is sesponsible as a seismic capability engineer for Toledo Edisonc This includes resoluthn of '

USI A-46 using the SQUG GIP methodology, nr.d IPEEE using the EPRI margin assess nent -

methodology at the Davis-Desse nuclear power plant.

At EQE Mr. Sumodobila has perfonned various aspects of seismic evaluation and analysis of a variety of electrical, mechanical and structural components. IIe has extensive experience in r seismic evaluation of electrical raceways and components, mechanical equipment, piping, and ,

structures.1-le has also perfonned seismic interaction evaluations, including !!/I interaction, and seismic induced spray hazards evaluation. In addition, he has performed building structure analysis and evaluation, including soil-structure interaction effects. lie is well -

versed with the actual performance of industrial components and structures in actual ,

earthquake, and has applied the seismic experience approach in qualification of equipment.

For the Umwns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Cooper Station, and Savannah River Plant, Mr.

Sumodobila was involved with the scismic evaluation of electrical raceways. For the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, and Savannah River Plant he has performed 11/1 interaction hazards For the 3equoyah Nuclear Power Plant, Beznau Nuclear Power Plant

~

evaluation. .

(Switzerland),!!igh Flux Isotope Reactor (!! FIR Oakridge), and Savannah River Plant he has - f performed piping analysis and evaluation. For the Winfrith Generating Station (UK), and Savannah River Plant he was involved with the scismic evaluation of confinement system.

For the Browns Feny Nuclear Power Plant, he was involved with seismic induced spray hazards evaluation.

q Mr. Sumodobila has also performed a number of seismic analysis of structures, including soil- '

structrure interaction effects. For the SRS 105-K, L, and P Reactors, he performed the stmetural analysis of the VTS monorail frames. lie performed the seismic analysis including soil-structure interaction for the Tower Shielding Reactor (TSR-Oak Ridge), Surry Nuclear Power Plant, N-Reactor Intake Pump Structure, and the Bellene Nuclear Plant (Bulgaria). I!c also performed the seismic analysis end evaluation of the IIFIR Reactor Building.  ;;

At East Bay Municipal Utility District, Mr. Sumodobila was icsponsible for scismic analysis of Water Storage Tanks. !!c developed a computer code for seismic analysis and design of water storage tanks per AWWA D-100 Code. lie was also involved with layout of filter ,

plants for the San Ramon Valley Filter Plant.

l OEM7i.,)

?

. = . ~. . .-

BASILIO N. SUMODOBILA, JR.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued)

As a senior engineer at URS/Blume, he was responsible for the dynamic analysis of structures using finite element methods, which included ma'.hematical modeling, calculation of structural response, and detennination of critical sections. In addition, he' provided 1 modifications to structures to reduce stresses.

lie completed the analysis of several nuclear power plant structures. For the Diablo Canyon Nucicar Plant, he completed the analysis of the Turbine Buildings for the llosgri Earthquake load. As a lead engineer, his responsibilities included mathematical modeling for finite element analysis, time history analysis, calculation of dynamic time history n:sponse, generation of response spectra, preparation of calculations and repons, and supervision of other engineers working on the specified task. Ile was also responsible for the dynamic seismic analysis of the Turbine and Administration buildings of the Nine Mile Point Unit i Power Plant.

While employed at Bechtel Power Corporation, he completed several aspects of design, structural analysis, and stress evaluation for the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant. Ile was involved in the stress analysis of various structural components such as the containment primary structures, suppression chamber columns, downcomers and downcomer bracing system for dead, seismic and various hydrodynamic loads such as safety relief valve actuation, chugging, condensation oscillation and thermal loads. Tasks included the development of mathematical models for ANSYS, BSAP (a Bechtel program), STRUDL and NASTRAN computer programs. IIe also performed design assessment of these structural components and was responsible for the complete analysis and design of the downcomer bracing system constructed of stainless steel, which was designed by analysis iterative process due to the numerous loadings. Various methods were developed in the analysis for the hydrodynamic loads. Some unusual design approaches were used. Ile developed a computer program to check member stresses for numerous loading combinations for acceptability.

Ile was also involved in the stress evaluation of the concrete slab and walls for the spent fuel pool for the Limerick Plant for dead, seismic and thermal loads. Performed a finite element nonlinear analysis of the spent fuel pool to determine the stress distribution and the capacities of the critical sections in the concrete slab and walls of the spent fuel pool.

While employed at URS/Blume, he was responsib!c for the seismic and stress analysis of structures, equipment, and piping systems of nuclear facilities.

For the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, he performed the dynamic analysis of the containment structure, (using axisymmetric finite element method) the auxiliary building, (including torsional modes of vibration) and the turbine building, as weil as performing the seismic analysis of piping systems for the DE and DDE.

Ile was involved in the stress analysis of several underground waste storage tanks for the llanford Reservation in Washington, for dead, live, and thermal loads and carthquake ground motions, and evaluated stresses at the steel tank shcIl in accordance with the ASME Section VIII Division 2 code.

Also, he assisted in the development and debugging of various computer T ograms for structural analysis. lie developed a module for direct integration and modal <aperposition time history analysis for a piping analysis program and other algorithms for time series analysis, w

sus 2=sedsb+ eb23 el

BASILIO N.' SUMODOBILA, JR.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued) in addition, he is proficient in the use of the following computer programs: SAPlV, ANSYS, BSAP, STRUDL, AXIDYN, NASTRAN, DRAIN-2D, STARDYNE.

EDUCATION MAPUA INSTlWiliOF TECilNOLOGY, Manila, Philippines: B.S. Environmental Engineering, 1973 MAPUA INSIlTU11? OF TEClINOLodY, Manila, Philippines: B.S. Civil Engineering,1970 U.C. BEPXELEY EXTE.NsiON: Courses in structural dynamics, design and computer programming REGISTRATION California: Civil Engineer Philippines: Civil Engineer IIONORS Philippine Board Examination for Civil Engineers, First Place,1970 Philippine Association of Civil Engineers, Certificate of Merit,1971 PUBLICATIONS With J. J. Johnson and R. L. Stover.1989 "Scismic and Cask Drop Excitation Evaluations of the Tower Shielding Reactor." Second DOE Natural Phenomena llazards Mitigation Conference.

With S. J. Eder and J. P Conoscente. 1989. "Scismic Fatigue Evaluation of Rod liung i Systems." Tenth Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology. i With S. P. Ilarris, P. S. Hashimoto, J. O. Dizon, G. M. ZaharotT, and L J. Utagagnolo. March ]

1988. " Seismic Evaluation of the !!igh Flux Isotope Reactor Primary Containment System."  !

Report prepared for Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. San Francisco: EQE Engineering.

1 l

1

I-l 1

JAMES J. JOllNSON 1

l l

PROFESSIONAL lilSTORY EGE International, San Francisco, Califomia, Division President,1986-present NTS/ Structural Mcchanics Associates, San Ramon, California, Vice President, 1984-1986 1 Structural Mechanics Associates, San Ramon, Califorria, Vice President, Project Manager,1980- )

1984 lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, Project Manager, 1978 1980 l General Atomic Company, San Diego, California, Branch Manager, Staff Engineer, Senior I Engineer, 1972 1978 l

PROFESSIONAL EXPElllENCE l Dr. Johnson has participated in the development, implementation, and teaching of seismic risk I and seismic margin assessment methodologies. lie has participated in scismic PRAs of over 20 nuclear power p' ' Ilis participation encompasses many aspects including hazard definition, seismic respons; ad uncertainty determination, detailed walkdowns, and fragility assessment. A major dement of seismic PRAs and seismic margin assessments is best estimate response analyses. Dr. Johnson participated in the development of best estimate or median-centered response procedures and has participated in its application to over 60 nuclear facilities. Dr.

Johnson was responsible for several portions of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seismic Safety Margins Research Program (SSMRP)-- Soil-structure interaction, major structure response, subsystem response, and the seismic analysis calculational procedures (SMACS). Dr.

Johnson has presented numerous seminars and training courses on scismic PRA and scismic margin methodologies.

Dr. Johnson has played a significant tole in the development of general and plant-specific seismic evaluation procedures. This project participation has ranged from the SQUG General Implementation Procedure (GIP) to plant-specific procedures for the Savannah River Site.

Procedures include criteria for assessing equipment and component functionality and structural integrity, scismic systems interaction, anchorage, and other issues.

Dr. Johnson has extensive theoretical and practical experience in the soil structure interaction (SSI) analysis of major facilities and has written a comprehensive assessment of the state-of-the-art of SSI. Most recently, Dr. Johnson was principal investigator for EQE on the SSI modeling, predictive analysis, and resolution of measured and predicted response for the combined EPRI/NRC Lotung, Taiwan scale model project. lie has performed SSI analyses of a wide variety of surface and embedded stmetures using simplified to sophisticated substructure methods and linear and nonlinear finite element techniques. Nonlinear analyses included geometric efTects (sliding and separation) and soil material behavior. He has made extensive use ofcomparative analyses and parametric studies to benchmark techniques and soil and structure configurations.

Dr. Johnson was a consultant to the U.S. Nuc! car Regulatory Commission (NRC) concerning revisions to the Standard Review Plan for seismic analysis and design.

Dr. Johnson has developed, verified, maintained, and extensively applied several large computer programs to perform stress and scismic analysis. Among these are: MODSAP, a general purpose finite element program with special capability in the dynamic analysis of structures with locali7ed nonlinearities; and SMACS, a probabilistic response analysis program for soil, structures, equipment, and piping systems.

l e

JAMES J. JOllNSON PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued)

Dr. Johnson was responsible for the analysis and design of components subjected to extreme internally and externally generated loading conditions. This work includes seismic qualification of control room equipment and motor control centers, fuel handling components, core and core support structures, heat exchanger shcIl and tubes subjected to a tube burst loading, and shipping casks ofirradiated fuel and equipment subjected to impact loading.

Dr. Johnson has taught Earthquake Engineering of Major Facilities at the University of California, Berkeley. This course covered all phases of the carthquake engineering process, including scismic hazard definition; scismic analysis and design of stmetures, equipment and tanks; and scismic risk analysis. Dr. Johnson coordinated and taught portions of the SQUG training course that covered the scismic evaluation of equipment, cable trays and conduit, piping, anchorage, and seismic systems interaction.

Dr. Johnson is a member and chairman of the Working Group on Input to Secondary Systems of the ASCE Nuclear Structures and Materials Committee, Dynamic Analysis Committee, and the g ASCE Committee on Nuclear Standards, Seismic Analysis of Safety Class Structures.

EDUCATION UNIVDLSrlY Or ILUNOIS: Ph.D. Civil Engineering,1972 UNIVatsnY Or ItuNOls: M.S. Civil Engineering,1969 UNIVERSHY Of MINNESOTA: B.C.E. Civil Engineering,1967 REGISTRATION California: Civil Engineer SECURITY CLEARANCE Department of Energy: Q-Clearance AFFILIATIONS Phi Kappa Phi llonor Society Sigma Xi American Society of Civil Engineers Earthquake Engineering Research Institute PUBLICATIONS AND REPOllTS Dr. Johnson has contributed to over 40 technical reports and journal articles. The following is a selection of documents for which he is the principal author.

Seismic Margin Studies and Risk Analyses With A. P. Asfura. July 1992. " Soil-structure Interaction Observations, Data, and Correlative Analysis." In Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Development in Soil-structure Interaction, Antalya, Turkey, July 1992.

IM

1 p

JA31ES J. JOllNSON PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS (Continued)

With M. K. Ravindra. June 1991. " Treatment of Seismically Induced Common Cause Failurcs in Nucicar Powcr Plant PSA." ln Proceedings ofSixth International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering. Mexico City, Mexico.

"A Methodology for Assessment of Nucicar Power Plant Scismic Margin." October 1988.

Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI NP-0041.

With D. P. Moore et al.1990. "Scismic Margin Assessment of Edwin L Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit 1." Electric Power Research Institute.

With O. R. Mastenikov and D. J. Doyle.1987. " Review of Scismic Analysis of!!atch Units 1 and 2: In-Structure Response Spectra." UCID-21015. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

With 0. R. Maslenikov et al.1987. " Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis and In-Structure Response Spectra Generation for the N Reactor Facility." Vol. I and 2. Prepared for UNC NuclearIndustries. San Ramon,CA: EQE Engineering.

With P. S. liashimoto et al. March 1988. "N-Reactor River Pump llouse and Gantry Cranc (181-N) Seismic and Tornado Analysis " Prepared for Westinghouse !!anford Company. Newport Beach, CA: EQE Engineering.

With B. J. Benda et al. Junc 1988. "Quantification of Calculational Margins in Piping System Seismic Response: Methodologies and Damping." Seismic Engineering.1988, The Pressure Vessels and Piping Division, ASME, PVP-Vol.144. (Received " Certificate of Recognition," July 1989.) San Ramon,CA: EQE Engineering.

With B. J. Benda. February 1988. "Quantification of Margins in Piping System Seismic Response: Methodologies and Damping." NUREG/CR 5073, UCRL-21000. Prepared for Lawrence National Laboratory. Livermore, CA.

With O. R. Mastenikov et al. March 1989. " Analysis of Large-Scale Containment Model in Lotung, Taiwan: Forced Vibration and Earthquake Response Analysis and Comparison." In Proceedings: EPR1/NRCMC Workshop on Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Techniques Using Data From Lotung. Taiwan. NP-6154, Vol.1, Papr 13. Electric Powcr Research Institute.

With P. S. Hashimoto et al; Geomatrix Consultants; and Westinghouse Energy Systems International. March 1990. " Seismic Review of the Bclene Constmetion Project (Units 1 and 2)." Prepared for Association Energetika and Techno-Import-Export. Sofia, Bulgaria.

With A. P. Asfura et al. March 1990. " Pilot Study of Reactor / Containment Building:

Oskarshamn 2 and Barsebeck 1 and 2, Probabilistic Response and Capacity." Rev.1. Prepared for Sydkrall and OKG Aktiebolag, Sweden. San Francisco,CA: EQE Engineering With O. R. Maslenikov et al.1989. "Scismic Analysis of the Vertical Tube Storage System Monorail Support Frames in Buildings 105-L,105 K, and 105 P." Prepared for Westinghouse Savannah River Company. San Francisco, CA: EQE Engineering.

With G. E. Cummings and R. J. Budrietz. October 1984. "NRC Seismic Design Margins -

Program Plan." UCID-20247.. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

..With L C. Shich et al. August 1985. " Simplified Scismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment:

Procedures and Limitations." NUREG/CR-4331. UCID-20468. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

g.h.e.eM. net 42

---_a

.g J AhlES J. JOllNSON PUBLICNflONS AND REPORTS (Continued)

With A. P. Asfura and O. R. Maslenikov.1990. " Topics in Soil-Structure Interaction." Paper presented at the Ninth Earthquake Engineering Conference, December 1990, Roorkee, India.

With H. J. Henda et al.1988. "SSC Dipole Magnet System: Stress Analysis for Seismic and Transportation Loading " Prepared for the University Research Association. San Ramon, CA:

EQE Engineering.

With O. R. Maslenikov et al.1991. "Scismic Analysis of the Vertical Tube Storage Systern Monorail Support Frame in Building 105-K at the Savannah River Plant Using Upgraded Seismic Input Motions, Volume 1: Soil Structure Interaction Analysis of Building 105-K, Volume 2:

Respcnse Spectrum Analysis of the VTS Monorail Support Frame." Prepared for Westinghouse Savannah River Company. San Francisco, CA: EQE International.

With L J. Uragagnolo and S. J. Eder. February 1991. "Scismic Evaluation of the Energy Management System." Prepared for Pacific Gas & Electric Company. San Francisco, CA: EQE Enginecting With G. S. Ilardy. August 1988. " Technical Basis, Procedures, and Guidelines for Scismic Characterization of SRP Reactors." Savannah River Report RTR 2582. Costa Mesa, CA: EQE Engineering.

" Procedure for the Seismic Evaluation of SRS Reactor Systems Using Experience Data." October 1989. WSRC RP 89-1163, Procedure SEP-6. Revision to Savannah River Report RTR 2582.

With G. S. Ilardy et al. October 1989. "Scismic Evaluation of Safety Systems at the Savannah River Reactor." In Proceedings ofthe Second DOE Natwal Phenomena Ha:ards Afitigation -

Conference. Knoxville, Tennessee.

With S. P. IIarris et al. October 1989. "Scismic and Cask Drop Excitation Evaluation of the Towcr Shielding Reactor." ln Proceedings of the Second DOE Natural Phenomena Ha:crds Mitigation Conference. Knoxville, Tennessee.

With P. S. Hashimoto et al. December 1990. "U. S. NRC Structural Damping Research  ;

Program." Paper IV-4. In Proceedings of the Thini&mposium on Currentissues Related to Nuclear Power Plant Structures. Eqtdyment. and Piping. Orlando, Florida.

With M. P. Hohn et al. April 1990. " Analysis of Core Damage Frequency Due to External Events at the DOE N-Reactor." SAND 89-1147. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

With M. P. Ilohn. December 1990. " Analysis of Core Damage Frequency: Peach Bottom, Unit 2 External Events." NUREG/CR-4550, SAND 86-2084, Vol. 4, Rev.1, Part 3. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque,New Mexico.

l With M. P. Bohn. December 1990. " Analysis of Core Damage Frequency: Surry Power Station, Unit 1 External Events." NUREG/CR-4550, SAND 86-2084,Vol. 3 Rev.1, Part 3. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, New Mexico. j With H. J. Henda.1986. " Seismic Fragility Analysis: Methodology and Application." Prepared for Earthquake Engineering Technology. San Ramon, CA.

With R. D. Campbell et al.1985. "LaSalle Scismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Responses and Fragilities." Report SMA 12211.21. Prepared for Lawrence Livermott National Laboratory.

San Ramon, CA: Structural Mechan;cs Associates. ,

y - , - . . -

i t

JAM ES J. JOllNSON PUBLICATIONS AND ItEPORTS (Continued)

With B. J. Henda and M. J. Mraz.1985. " Specification of Seismic Qualification Environment for Equipment." Paper presented to DOE Natural Phenomena 1Iazards Mitigation Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada.

With O. R. Maslenikov and R. P. Kennedy.1985. " Washington Public Power Supply System WNP-1 Containment Building: SSI Analysis and the EITect ofControl Point Location." Report SMA 46001.03. Prepared for United Engineers and Constructors. San Ramon, CA: Structural ,

Mechanics A:sociates.

With R. P. Kennedy.1985. " Summary of Observations on Control Point Location and Spatial Variation of Free-Field Ground Motion." Report SMA 46001.02. Prepared for United Engineers and Constructors. San Ramon, CA: Structural Mechanics Associates.

With J. C. Chen. August 19-23,1985. " Influence of the Local Site Condition on Seismic Response of a PWR-Containment Building." In Proceedings Eighth SMiRTConference.

Brussels, Belgium.

With T. Y. Chuang et al. August 19-23,1985. "Scismic Risk Assessment of a BWR: Status Report." Preprint, Proceedings Eighth SMiRT Conference. Brussels, Belgium, With O. R. Maslenikov and E. C. Schewe. August 19-23,1985. "SSI Response of a Typical Shear Wall Structure." In Proceedings Eighth SMiRT Cor!ference. Brussels, Belgium.

With O. R. Maslenikov et al. August 19-23,1985. " Seismic Analysis of the MITF Facility" In Proceedings Eighth SMiRT Conference. Brussels, Belgium.

With B. J. Benda et al.1985. "The Effects of Basemat Uplif) on the Seismic Response of ,

Stmetures and Interbuilding Piping Systems." Report SMA 12211,44.01. Prepared far Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. San Ramon, CA: Structural Mechanics Associates.

With o. R. Maslenikov et al.1984. SMACS: a System of Computer Programsfor Probabilistic \

Seismic Analysis ofStructures and Subsystems. 2 vols. Report SMA 12211.31.01/12211.31.02.

Prepared for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. San Ramon, CA: Structural Mechanics Associates.

With O. R. Maslenikov and B. J. Henda.1984. "SSI Sensitivity Studies and Mode! )

Improvements for the U.S. NRC Seismic Safety Margins Research Program." UCID 20212;  ;

NUREG/CR-4018. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livennon: National Laboratory. -l With B. J. Benda et al. May 16-18,1983. " Response Margins of the Dynamic Analysis of Piping  ;

Systems: Best Estimate vs. Evaluation Method." In Proceedings ofthe Second CSN/ Specialist Meeting on Probabilistic Methods in Seismic Risk Assessmentfor Nuclear Power Plants. l Livermore, CA, I i

1 With B. J. Benda et al.1984 " Response Margins of the Dynamic Analysis of Piping Systems." I UCID-20067, rev.1; NUREG/CR-3996. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National 'l Laboratory.

With E. C. Schewe and O. R. Maslenikov.1984. "SSI Response of a Typical Shear Wall -

Structure." 2 vols. UCID-20122. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

With R. D. CampbcIl and L W. Tiong.1984. " Neutral Beam Pivot Point Bellows Fatigue .

Evaluation per ASME Code." Report SMA 18503.0L Prepared for Lawrence Berkeley  !

Laboratory. San Ramon, CA: Structural Mechanics Associates.

s.hseaMove'*

t-JAM ES J. JOIINSON ,

PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS (Continued)

With O. R. Maslenikov and M. J. Mraz.1984. "Scismic Analyses of the Mirror Fusion Test Facility Building 431." Report SMA 12210.03. Prepared for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. San Ramon, CA: Structural Mechanics Associates.

With O. R. Maslenikov and L W. Tiong.1984. "Scismic Analysis of the Mirror Fusion Test Facility: Soil Structure Interaction Analyses of the Vault." Report SMA 12210.02. Prepared for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. San Ramon, CA: Structural Mechanics Associates.

With 0. R. Maslenikov and L W. Tiong. 1984. "Scismic Analysis of the Mirror Fusion Test Facility: Soil Structure Interaction Analyses of the Vessel." Report SMA 12210.01. Prepared for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. San Ramon, CA:. Structural Mechanics Associates.

With R. D. Campbell and L W. Tiong. 1984. "Re-design of the Neutral Beam Pivot Point Bellows: Validation of Stress Analysis." Report SMA 18502.01. Prepared for Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. San Ramon,CA: Structural Mechanics Associates.

With M. P. Bohn et al.1984. " Application of the SSMRP Methodology to th'c Seismic Risk at the Zion Nuclear Power Plant." UCRL-53483; NUREG/CR-3429. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

With J. C. Chen et al.1984. " Uncertainty in Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis of a Nuclear Power Plant Due to Different Analytical Techniques." In Proceedings ofthe Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.

With B. J. Benda and L Y. Cheng.1983 " Evaluation of PVRC Proposed Changes for the Seismic Analysis and Design of Piping Systems: Damping and Peak Broadening." Report SMA 12209.03 01. Prepared for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. San Ramon, CA:

Structural Mechanics Associates.

With T. Y. Chuang et at 1983. " Impact of Changes in Damping and Spectrum Peak Broadening on the Seismic Response of Piping Systems " UCRL 53491; NUREG/CR-3526. Livermore, CA:

Lawn nce Livermore National Laboratory, With M. P. Bohn et al. August 22-26,1983. " Application of the SSMRP Methodology to the Seismic Probabilistic Risk Analysis at the Zion Nuclear Power Plant." In Proceedings Seventh SMiRTConference. Chicago, Illinois.

With J. C. Chen and D. L. Bernreuter. August 22-26,1983. "The Effect of Local Soil Conditions on Site Amplification." Paper presented at the Seventh SMiRT Conference, Chicago, Illinois.

With 0. R. Maslenikov and J. C. Chen. 1983. " Uncertainty in Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Arising from Differences in Analytical Techniques." UCRL-53026; NUREG/CR-2077.

Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

With P. D. Smith et at 1981. "SSMRP Phase I Final Report: Overview." UCRI-53021, vol 1; NUREG/CR 2015, vol.1. Livemmre, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

With O. R. Maslenikov et al. 1982. "SSMRP Phase 1 Final Report: Soil Structure Interaction (Project 111)." UCRL-53021, vol 4; NUREG/CR-2015, vol. 4. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

With B. J. Benda and T. Y. Lo.1981. "SSMRP Phase 1 Final Report: Major Structure Response (Project IV)." UCRI-53021, vol. 5; NUREG/CR 2015, vol. 5. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

4

,I JAMES J. JOllNSON

. PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS (Continued)

With G. L. Goudreau et al.198_1. "SSMRP Phase 1 Final Report: SMACS (Scismic Methodology Analysis Chain with Statistics)(Project Vill)." UCRL-53021, vol. 9; NUREG/CR-2015, vol. 9.

Livermore, CA: Lawrence Liverrnore National Laboratory.

" Soil Structure Interaction: the Status of Current Analysis Methods and Research." 1981.

UCRL 53011, NUREG/CR-1780. Livennore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

With B. J. Benda and P. D. Smith. 1981. " Variability in Dynamic Characteristics and Scismic Response Due to the Mathematical .Modeling of Nuclear Power Plant Stmetures." UCRL 85713.

Preprint submitted to Nuclear Engineering and Design. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

With P. D. Smith et al.1981. "A Review of a Scisinic Risk Analysis of the Decay llcat Removal Capability of Nuclear Power Plants." UCID 18692. Livctmore, CA: 1.awrence Livennore National Laboratory.

With C.M. Charman. August 17 21,1981. "An Isoparametric Shell of Revolution Finite Element for !!armonic Loadings of Any Order." In Proceedings Sixth SAfiRT Conference. Paris, France.

"Scismic Response Calculations for the U.S. NRC Scismic Safety Margins Research Program."

August 17 22,1981. In Proceeding.: Sixth SAliRT Conference. Paris, France.

With R. C. Chun et al. August 17 21,1981. " Uncertainty in Soil. Structure Interaction Analysis of a Nuclear Power Plant: a Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Analysis Methods." In Proceedings Sixth SAliRT Conference. Paris, France.

With B. J. Benda. August 17 21,1981. " Uncertainty in Mathematical Models of a Typical Nuclear Power Plant Structure." In Proceedings Sixth SAfiRT Conference. Paris, France.

With S. E. Bumpus and P. D. Smith. August 17 21,1981 "Best Estimate vs. Evaluation Method Seismic (BE-EMS): an Introduction and Demonstration," In Proceedings Sixth SAfiRT Conference. Paris, France.

With P. D. Smith et al.1980. "An Overview of Seismic Risk Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants."

UCID-18680. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

With S. E. Bumpus and P. D. Smith.1980. "Best Estimate Method vs. Evaluation Method: a Comparison of Two Techniques in Evaluating Scismic Analysis and Design." UCID.52746; .

NUREG/CR-1489. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

" Soil Structure Interaction Analysis for the U.S. NRC Scismic Safety Margins Research )

Program." August 13-17,1979. In Proceedings Fifth SAfikT Conference. Berlin, Gennany.

" Subsystem Response Determination for the U.S. NRC Scismic Safety Margins Research Program." August 13 17,1979. In Proceedings Fifth SAliRT Conference. Berlin, Germany.

With W. Schlafer 111 and D. Tow. August 1317,1979. " Seismic Response Comparisons for an Embedded liigh Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (IITGR) on a liigh Scismic Site." In Proceedings Fifth SAfiRT Conference. Bctlin, Germany.

"SOILST: a Computer Program for Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis." 1979. GA-A15067 UC.

77. San Diego,CA: General Atomic Company.

8 J AM ES J. JOllNSON PUllLICATIONS AND itEPORTS (Continued) i "MODSAP: a Modined Version of the Structural Analysis Program SAPlV for the Static and Dynamic Response of Linear and Localized Nonlinear Structures." GA A 14006. San Diego, CA: General Atomic Company.

"Prcliminary Seismic Analysis of the GCFR Core and Core Support Structure." June 22 23, 1978 Paper presented at the Third SAP User's Conference, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

With R. P. Kennedy. October 17 21,1977. " Earthquake Response of Nuclear Power Facilities."

Paper presented at the ASCE Fall Convention and Exhibit, San Francisco, California.

With D. A. Wesley and I. T. Almajan. August 1519,1977. "The Effects of Soil Structure l Interaction Modeling Techniques on In Structum Response Spectra." In l'roceedings Fourth  ;

j SMiRT Ctmference. San Francisco, CA. .j "MODSAP a Modified Version of the Program SAPIV for the Static and Dynamic Response of Linear and Localized Nonlinear Structures." June 22-23,1977. Paper presented at the Second SAP User's Conference, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Dr. Johnson was also a contributing author to the following publications:

" Shutdown Decay IIcat Removal Analysis of a Combustion Engineering 2-Loop Pressurized i Water Reactor Case Study (St. Lucie)." August !%7. NUREG/CR-4710, SAND 86-1797.

Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

" Shutdown Decay IIcat Removal Analysis of a Westinghouse 3-Loop Pmsrurized Water Reactor

-- Case Study (Turkey Point)." March 1987. NUREG/CR-4762, SAND 86-2377. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

" Shutdown Decay lleat Removal Analysis of a Ocneral Electric IlWR4/ Mark 1 -- Case Study (Cooper)." July 1987. NUREU/CR-4767, SAND 86-2419. Sandia National Laboratories.

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

" Shutdown Decay lleat Removal Analysis of a General Electric 11WR3/ Mark 1 - Case Study (Quad Cities)." March 1987. NUREG/CR-4448, SAND 85 2373. Sandia National Laboratories.

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

" Shutdown Decay lleat Removal Analysis of a llabcock and Wilcox Pressurized Water Reactor -

Case Study (ANO 1)" March 1987. NUREG/CR 4713, SAND 86-1832. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

" Shutdown Decay lleat Removal Analysis of a Westinghouse 2 Loop Pressurized Water Reactor

-- Case Study (Point Beach). March 1987. NUREG/CR 4458, SAND 86 2496. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

I l

L

,n Itemv,n~3 2.

@ 6o5% 6/15o n Calculation No. C-oo2 Ocne Titk= SoiI Pro <<<-hes 4< 44 e 50n s/>ueLre b,k ra e A n %/yxs

&< # e Pi/pri- 3:he Project: /FEEE - Se/.rm /c //4-44 Method:

Acceptance Criteria: A s c 6 4 -- 6 C.

Remarks: _ _ ,_ r n. EAT 1Atil O Nk k 1 ZNE-Uhwiru w .._

/ r u i g . _.-

,q REVISIONS No. Description By Date Chk. Date g - Date o inaia: tssue <THr 1-25 t Mb l .%-9-(M//p,,/g-@f

/

\j v I

l CALCULATION COVER CONTRACT NO.

t S

SHEET FIGURE 1.3 9/- c z c ? 2- ,

)

1-20

-949 3 asqs+s-

JOB NO. 91C2672 Calculation C 002 ~ SHEET #2 SUBJECT BECo IPEEE/A-46 OF 5 STEVENSON SSI Soil Properties Revision o

& ASSOCIATES By 7M T /-25-93 a structural-mechanical Chk./Ati 1-2Vf 3 consulting engineering 6rm For the Reactor Building, the Radwaste Building, the Diesel Generator Building, and the Intake Structure, the compacted fill layer has a depth of 45 ft according to the gel report. For the Turbine Building, the compact.a Gli layer has a depth of 35 ft.

For the SSI analysis, the average shear wave velocity across each layer is calculated. The input data for the SSI programs is summarized in the following tables:

Shear Wave Velocity Density Damping Poisson's Layer No. Thick (ft)

(ft/sec) (ib'sec^2/ft) Ratio (%) Ratio 535 3.92 0.02 0.33 1 10 2 10 745 3.92 0.02 ~ 0.33 860 4.26 0.02 0.4 3 10 4 10 925 4.26 0.02 0.4 5 5 963 4.26 '0.02 0.4 1215 4.01 0.02 0.4 6 5 1255 4.01 0.02 0.4 x 7 10 10 1310 4.01 0.02 0.4 8

10 1365 4.01 0.02 0.4 9

1415 4.01 0.02 0.4 10 10 10 1465 4.01 0.02 0.4 11 3000 5.22 0.02 0.4 Rock -

Table 2 - Reactor Building, Radwaste Building, Diesel Generator Building Intake Structure t

a

JOB NO. 91C2672 Calculation C-002 SHEET #3 SUBJECT BECo !PEEE/A-46 OF 5 STEVENSON SSI Soil Properties , Revision O

& ASSOCIATES By TMT /-25 'ij a structural-mechanical Chk. W Li iM3 consulting engineering firm .

Layer No. Thick (ft) Shear Wave Velocity Density Damping Poisson's (ft/sec) (lb'sec^2/ft) Ratio (%) Ratio 1 10 535 3.92 0.02 0.33 2 10 745 3.92 0.02 0.33 3 10 860 4.26 0.02 0.4 4 5 913 4.26 0.02 0.4 5 5 1153 4.01 0.02 0.4 6 10 1200 4.01 0.02 0.4 7 10 1255 4.01 0.02 0.4 8 10 1310 4.01 0.02 0.4 9 10 1365 4.01 0.02 0.4 10 10 1415 4.01 0.02 0.4 11 10 1465 4.01 0.02 0.4 Rock - 3000 5.22 0.02 0.4 Table 3 - Turbine Building ,

(m

~

The soil material damping ratio is assumed to be 2 percent. The final soil damping v'alues, however, were calculated from LAYSOL iterated properties. The Poisson ratio is assumed to be 0.33 for soil above the water table, and 0.40 for saturated soil. The soil densities are given in gel report (Appendix A-1).

Water Table j As reported by gel, the water table ranges from +1 to +6 feet above the mean sea level for the Reactor Duilding and varies from +2 to +7 feet for the Turbine Building. De location of the water table is not critical for the SSI analysis, it affects only the unit weight and the Poisson ratio. The effect will be much less significant than the variation of the shear modulus. i l

In the SSI analysis, the water table is assumed to be located at + 1 feet for all buildings. The level of water will the subject of a parameter study in a separate calculation.

Variation of the Soil Shear Wave Velocities For the PRA analysis, the variation of soil properties must be taken into account. Among the soil properties, the shear wave velocity or shear modulus has the highest uncertainty. Each analysis in this study is based on three representative runs, namely, the best estimate, the low bound, and the high bound soil propenies.

The best estimate properties are the values recommended in previous sections. De low bound and the high bound properties are taken at the plus and minus one standard deviation estimates. According to the

(, recommendations by Professor Whitman, the standard deviation of the shear wave velocity is 15% of the best estimate at the base of the stratum increasing to 35% at ground surface to reflect the greater uncertainty

JOB NO. 91C2672 Calculation C-002 SHEET #4 SUBJECT BECo IPEEE/A-46 OF 5 STEVENSON SSI Soil Properties Revision O

& ASSOCIATES By TWT '-2 S-93 a structural-mechanical Chk.f.P. , i _% m ~

consulting engineering firm concerning wave velocity at shallow depth in cohesionless soil. The standard deviation of the outwash is 35%

of the best estimate considering the wide spread between the available data.

In this study the standard deviation of the shear wave velocity is taken as 35% of the best estimate. His variation in shear velocity corresponds to 82% (1.35

• 1.35 - 1) variation in the shear modulus, which is greater than the minimum of 50% required by the ASCE Standard, but lower than the 100% required by the Standard Review Plan.

In the SSI high bound analyses, the shear wave velocities in tables 2 and 3 are multiplied by a factor of 1.35.

In the low bound analyses, the shear wave velocities are divided by 1.35.

Foundation De.ptti According to the design drawings, the foundation base level are approximately Building Common Z Reference Reactor Building -23 ft GEI Report i Turbine Building -3 ft gel Report Radwaste Building -3 ft Drawing 6498M-26 Rev.E4 Diesel Generator Building 23 ft Drawing 6498M-26 Rev.E4 Intake Structure -24 ft Drawing 6498C-47 Rev.E2 1

1 The closest soil layer elevation is selected for the foundation embeddment depth in the LAYSOL analyses. I The grade level is approximately 22 ft for all buildings. These foundation depths are used in the EKSSI input '

(

as Common Z which ties the model fixed-base to the foundation impedance matrix at this level. I t l s

I l

l C

JOB NO. 91C2672 Calculation C-002 SHEET #5 SUBJECT BECo IPEEE/A-46 OF 5 _,

STEVENSON SSI Soil Properties Revision O

& ASSOCIATES By T/47 l-25 'LT a structural-rnechanical Chk.lC.' i 1-ry".L consulting engineering firm Annendix A A-1 Letter from Eugene A. Marciano, GEI Consultants, Inc., February 28,1992,91C2672-LRS2-002 A-2 Letter from Eugene A. Marciano, GEI Consultants, Inc., February 28,1992,91C2672-LRS2403 A-3 Letter from Robert V. Whitman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, November 30,1992,91C2672-LRS6-001 A-4 Letter from Robert V. Whitman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 18,1992, 91C2672-LRS6-002 O

s l

l l

l L \

91C2672-l.RS2-002 00#7 ' A I 64.1 of }

GEI Consu tants, Inc.

1021 M.un Suce:

Wirkhester MA 018%194) 617 721 4000 February 28,1992 Project 92012 Mr. Thomas J. Tracy Vice President Stevenson & Associates ,

Ten State Street '

Wobum, MA 01801

,w

Dear Mr. Tracy:

Re: Shear Wave Velocities, Unit Weights, and Ground Water Table ,

Pilgrim IPEEE, Pilgrim Station, Plymouth, Massachusetts This letter provides a description of the stratigraphy, unit weights, and shear wave velocities for the soils beneath and surrounding the reactor and turbine buildings of Pilgrim 1. In addition, the ground water fluctuation in this area is provided.

Stratigraphy 1

The stratigraphy in the area of the reactor and turbine buildings is shown in the attached Fig.1. It consists of approximately 35 to 45 feet of compacted fill materials, designated as type A and type B fills on Bechtel Drawing C8, above approximately 45 to 35 feet of glacial outwash deposits, which are underlain by bedrock at a depth of approximately 80 feet. The type A and B fills are specified to have been compacted to a minimum of 98% and 96%, respectively, of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 and have simils ranges of values for unit weight and shear wave velocity. The outwash deposits are very dense as a result of loading due to glaciation subsequent to their deposition. The outwash deposits are granular, consisting predominately of poor- to well-i graded sands. The limits of the compacted fill areas beyond the area of the reactor and V turbine buildings are also shown on Drawing C8.

Concord. New Hampshire Raleigh. Norih Carolina Denver, ColoraJo

C oo2. - h I 54.2

• f 1-Mr. Thomas J. Tracy February 28,1992 Sections F and H of Drawing C8 indicate that the reactor building is founded on the outwash ' material. Section A indicates that at least a portion of the turbine building foundation is underlain by type A fill. The elevations of the building foundations and thicknesses of fill are approximate and should be verified when a complete set of drawings becomes available from BECO.

Groundwater Table The elevation of the ground water table in this area can be expected to experience the following fluctuations due to tidal effects and normal rainfall:

Reactor Building +1 to 46 feet above mean sea level (depths of 21 to 16 feet)

Turbine Building +2 to +7 feet above mean sea level (depths of 20 to 15 feet)

This is based on observation well readings conducted by gel' over nearly a 3-year period within and surrounding the Pilgrim 1 area. This does.not include the potential effects of flooding, storm surges, or other extreme events 6n the ground water table.

Total Unit Weights 2

Based on the data available in the soils report for Pilgrim 2, the average total unit weights for the soil strata are 126 pcf for the compacted fill above the water table,137 pcf for the compacted fill below the water table, and 129 pcf for the outwash deposits!

Bechtel indicates in the soils report a unit weight of 168 pcf for the bedrock.

Shear Wave Velocities The results of seismic crosshole testing conducted by Weston Geophysical for the site of Pilgrim 2 in 1972 and 1976 is available in the soils report 2 The results are plotted in Fig. 2 and range from 1,700 to 2,700 fps. There is no compacted fill in this area.

Therefore, only the cross-hole results below a depth of about 35 feet are relevant to the Pilgrim I site. For the outwash deposits, the following shear wave velocities were reconunended for design by Bechtel2 based on the cross-hole results.

' gel (1983). " Analysis of Groundwater Levels. Pilgrim Station Unit 1, Plymouth, Massachusetts," February 28.

L 2 Soils Report prepared by Bechtel as part of Pilgrim 2 PSAR. dated August 31,1976, Amendment 26 (contains gel soils data reports).

' C. o. 2. - A t $4. 3 of ,L h Mr. Thomas J. Tracy February 28,1992 Depth Elevadon Shear Wave Velocity (ft) (ft) (fps)  ;

l 35 to 51 -13 to -29 1,950 I 51 to 71 -29 to -49 2,300 )

71 to 80 -49 to -58 2,650

>80 <-58 5,900 In addition, we have estimated the shear wave velocities of the outwash soils and compacted fills based on field exploration data and laboratory testing data from the soils report for Pilgdm 2.2 The outwash deposits of the Pilgrim 1 and Pilgrim 2 sites have similar soil descriptions and ranges of blowcounts and are part of the same depositional history and were both subjected to glacial loading. This information indicates that the characteristics of the outwash materials at Pilgrim 1 and Pilgrim 2 can be expected to be similar.

The results of our estimates of the shear wave velocities are shown in Fig. 2. They are based on blowcount data and laboratory testing on samples obtained from the same area as Weston Geophysical's cross-hole tests for Pilgrim 2. ' All of the plotted points and curves in this figure are based on a ground water table elevation of +5 feet, i.e., a depth of 17 feet below the ground surface.

Values of shear wave velocity versus depth were calculated and plotted using the following field and laboratory soils data, which were obtained for the outwash deposits in the vicinity of the Pilgrim 2 cross-hole tests:

1) Blowcount data within the glacial outwash corrected for the influence of gravel content.

2) Impulse shear wave velocity tests on undisturbed samples of glacial outwash.

3) Resonant column test results on specimens prepared by compaction of materials from bulk samples obtained from the glacial outwash. The bulk samples were obtained from borings in the vicinity of the Pilgrim 2 cross-hole tests.

In addition, Hardin and Drnevich's relationship for granular materials was used to calculate curves of shear wave velocity versus depth using ranges of measured values for the tmit weight and of estimated values of the at-rest coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K . This was done for both the compacted fill and the outwash deposits, which have different unit weights and different values of K,. The range of unit weights of the outwash deposits were determined from in situ field density test results. The range of unit weights of the compacted fills were estimated using the results of compaction tests

(

V on samples of the outwash materials. The gradation of these compaction samples meets that specified by Bechtel2 for the compacted fill.

~

C o ,2. ; A A $/>$ */ %

Mr. Thomas J. Tracy Febmary 20,1992 For the compacted fills, upper and lower bound estimate curves for the shear wave velocity are plotted from depths of 10 to 50 feet. For the outwash deposits, upper and lower bound estimate curves are plotted from depths of 35 to 80 feet. The best estimate .

curve for the fill and the outwash materials is plotted from 0 to 80 feet, passing midway between the upper and lower bound curves.

The plotted results based on the three sources of data listed above generally fall within the range of values indicated by the curves based on Hardin and Drnevich's expression with the fourth source of data, the unit weights and estimated values of K,, as inpuL The estimated values of shear wave velocity are considerably lower than the results of the cross-hole tests. This may be the result of the specific procedures used to perform the cross-hole tests for Pilgrim 2 including the use of explosives for the signal source and the large spacings between the source and receiver holes. The use of explosives for the source generates a much larger percentage of compressive wave (P wave) energy than shear wave (S wave) energy. The velocity of the S wave is typically about half of that of the P wave, and thus the P wave always arrives before the S wave. The result of this is that the P wave tends to obscurc the arrival time of the S wave recorded at the receiver holes. In addition, the large spacings (approximately 150 feet) between the source and receiver holes may have resulted in refraction of the wave through deeper, denser layers, which tends to overestimate the shear wave velocity. .

( It is not possible from the information available to conclusively determine if the cross-hole results are in error. Nevertheless, the similarity of the estimates obtained using four independent sources of field and laboratory data indicates that these estimates should not be ruled out either.

For the outwash materials, we reconunend that whichever of the two shear wave velocity profiles will result in the more severe loading, i.e., either the best estimate curve'shown in the figure or Bechtel's recommended values, which are given above, be used. In either case, the best estimate curve passing midway between the upper and lower bound :

curves in Fig. 2 should be used for the fills. Alternatively, cross-hole determinations of shear wave velocity could be made. These measurements should be made using closely spaced (10 to 15 feet) boreholes with signal generation that enhances shear wave propagation.

b

C os2. - A1 - Sh.S oi b Mr. Thomas J. Tracy . February 28,1992 If you have any questions, please contact me or Dr. Gonzalo Castro.

Sincerely yours, GEI CONSULTANTS, INC.

AMCA-QeV AffrL Eugene A. Marciano, Ph.D.

Project Manager EAM:ms Enclosures e

0 D

d

+

1

\

9/czt12.- Goo 2. - A 1 - 5464}- l l

I l

1 l;

REACTOR TURBINE EL +22 BUILDING BUILDING n_ +22*

I=t 126 PCF h GWT EL VARIES 5 APPROX 1MATO.Y FILL 4s O= ru 35 or

, PROX. 10 y _ , ,, ,, m << ._ , 3 EL -23' [ " "

I=t 129 PCF , IN SITU OUTWAS11 45' DEPOSITS s R. --58' P f Iat 168 PCF BEDROCK NOT TO SCALE 1

NOTE THE FOUNDATION ELEVATIONS OF THE REACTOR AND TURBINE BUILDINGS AND THE THICKNESS OF FILL ARE ESTIMATED FROM SECTIONS A F AND H OF BECHTEL DRAWING C8 AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED FROM THE DESIGN AND AS-BUILT DRAWINGS FOR PILGRIM 1.

{ Stevenson & Associates Wobum, Massachusetts SOIL PROFILE.

g Pilgram 1 IPEEE SCHEMATIC DRAWING Y --

GEI Consultants, Inc. Project 92012 February 1992 Fig. 1

..f f' ;

+ X

[ g.k

" 001 08 09 DJ) 91dag Ok OI 0 0 O 0

$a a

s.

, *3 p$

R 5

i N 005 7

[ h a -

-; 1 x

=

- ,x ym g

. 0001 '

i

+E x i. MJ

• g x

; 4 m 00n a;.

s 1 R O s 3r E

Y "

Y Y Y 000I E y y l y v Y $

!? & Y v r

g y a 00SZ y U y .y ir Y .y YY Y o

O o 000E E

e. 2.

y o

a o '

w H -i N' W W D' C 3 =

E. E. e N

G u a

b:

~ N.

! .Yl r

O

<s

9/ C 2.4 2 - cw2 -h z. 2, i .g , .

GEI Consu tants, Inc.  ;

1021 M.un Screet Wincheuer. MA 01890-1943 1 617 721 4000  ;

Matth 23,1992 Project 92012 91C2672S2-LRS2-003 Mr. Thomas J. Tracy Vice President Stevenson & Associates Ten State Street Woburn, MA 01801

Dear Mr. Tracy:

Re: Poisson's Ratio and Small Strain Damping Values Pilgrim IPEEE, Pilgrim Station, Plymouth, Massachusetts <

,, This letter is in response to Dr. Tsiming Tseng's request for recommended values of j Poisson's ratio and the small strain damping ratio for the soil-structure-interaction analyses.

The outwash deposits and the compacted fills at the Pilgrim I site are very dense granular materials. These materials are relatively free draining and so can be expected to experience at least partial drainage during a seismic event. For this type of material, a Poisson's ratio of about 0.33 to 0.40 is reasonable. The damping ratio at small strains can be taken as 1/2 to 1% based on the range of values reported in the literature for granular materials.

\

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely yours, i

~

gel CONSULTANTS, INC.

A ?d o 2. /214 Qf Eugene A. Marciano, Ph.D.

Project Manager L,

EAM:ms Concord, New Hamnhire Ralei;;h, %rth Carohna Den s cr. Colorado

- +

~G f {(,jk COeh-f l 0 RODERT V. W H I T M A N M AS$ ACHUSETTS I N S TIT U T E OF TCCHNOLOGY, C A M D R I D G E, M A 02139 91C2672-LRS6-001 Room 1-342 Tel: 617-253-7127 November 30,1992 FAX: 617-253-6044 cmail: twhitman@ eagle.mit.edu Stevenson & Associates Attn: Thomas J. Tracy 10 State Street Woburn MA 01801

Dear Mr. Tracy:

In response to your letter of 19 October, I have reviewed the information concerning shear wave velocities for the soils at the site of the Pilgrim Nuclear Station.

In particular, I have studied the data provided in a report ~ Pilgrim IPEEE, Plymouth, Massachusetts", dated July 9,1992 and prepared by gel Consultants, Inc.

My recommendations for shear wave velocities are given on the attached figure.

s There are separate sets of curves for compacted fill and for glacial outwash. For each set, there is a best estimate curve plus curves for this best estimate plus and minus '

one standard deviation. The best estimate values may be tabulated as follows:

Shear _ Wave Velocity - ft/sec

_ Depth - ft Fill Outwash  ;

0 400  !

10 670 l 20 820 I 30 900 1100 ,

40 950 1170 l 50 1000 1230 60 1050 1280 '

70 1340  ;

80 1390 l 1

90 1440 100 1490 The standard deviation for the fill is 15% of the best estimate, increasing (above 10 i foot depth) to 35% at ground surface to reflect the greater uncertainty concerning wave l velocity at shallow depths in cohesionless soils. The standard deviation for the glacial l outwash is 35% This number reflects the apparent discrepancies among the reported f

data. I do not believe that the very large reported velocities are realistic, and - as noted 4 L in the gel report - there are reasons for doubting these data. On the other hand, it does i I

i

C ova -k ) Sf 1 4) seem possible, or even likely, that in-situ velocities exceed those measured in laboratory tests.

Use of the original Seed-Idriss curves for modulus degradation and damping still represents the state-of-the-art. Their continuing validity has been confirmed by a recent study, in which all data pertaining to soils with near-zero plasticity were reviewed (see Vucetic and Dobry, *Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response", J. -

Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol.117, GT1, January,1991.) While the data on which these curves are based come from laboratory tests upon reconstituted samples, these curves apply to in-situ conditions provided that cementation is not a significant factor - which it is not for the Pilgrim site.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need clarifications concerning these recommendations. i Best regards, Yd Robert V. Whitman ,

/ ,

5

' l l

4 L

ce2-A3 M 3 43 1

1 l

- I Y, '

3 SnFJm W4ve VEtoctrv U+)sec).

s

o 1000 200 0 sooo o

. F. u. t. . . ._. . .. . ..

a.

20 h i 49 g. n

)'

s v .

i x

~ '

.}

p s w D(>j} .

W o . .

(/>r / .

x f \

Ouwna t _ _ . . .. _ . . . . . . _ .

g

. . . . go >

A . . ..

4

.  : I

} .

soo - ! /- L i a .

i ,

+

t . _...4 .. _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . .

'?

he C~

I

• W y - . .. .. . . . . . . . ......_J._,.....a..-,. .. . _ . . .

. ..- . . . . . . . . .-a f '

g _ ._ . .. . ._ _ _ .- _ . . . . _ . ..

,s. .

e-

O .} l L 91C2672-1.RS6-002 O ROBERT V. W H I T M A N M ASS ACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. C A M D R I D G E, M A 02139 Room 1-342 Tel: 617-253-7127 December 18,1992 FAX: 617-253-6044 email: rwhitman@ eagle.mit.edu Stevenson & Associates Atto: Thomas J. Tracy 10 State Street Woburn MA 01801

Dear Mr. Tracy:

You have asked me to document the basis for the recommendations, conceming shear wave velocities for the Pilgrim site, made in my letter to you dated 30 November 1992. -

c As regards the compacted fill, I selected as most reasonable the resonant

(,' column test results in Figure 6 of the report by gel Consultants. This is a we!!-

developed test procedure that has been found to give results comparing well to those measured in situ. My best estimate curve is the same as the gel recommended curve, except near the ground surface where I reduced the velocities to accord better with the results from the resonant column tests. I then made a calculation for the standard deviation of the scattered data points in this figure, with respect to the mean curve. This resulted in the recommended standard deviation of 15%, except that I rather arbitrarily increased the standard deviation near ground surface to account for the greater scatter of data in this zone. .

As regards the outwash deposit, I rejected as unreasonable the large values reported from the in situ measurements. General experience indicates tha'such large values are quite unlikely unless sands are cemented., and the record contains no such description for the outwash deposits at Pilgri.m. I am aware of instances where more recent measurements of in situ shear velocities , using modern methods, have resulted in values substantially lower than those measured some years ago by Weston Geophysical.

At the same time, it is credible that a deposit in place for several millenia might have a velocity larger than measured in the laboratory using samples that have had at least some disturbance. I hypothesized a 50% proabability that the velocities might be 1.5 times those measured in the laboratory. This implies mean values 1.25 times those k measured in the laboratory, with a 35% standard deviation. I felt quite comfortable _with

Co*2 4y M 2 sg 2. - l this result. The -10 curve for outwash fell somewhat above that for compacted fill, while the +1o curve for outwash was credible to me as giving possible although unlikely values. Hence I felt very comfortable with the expectation that computations would be made using such a range of values.

l Please let me know if I can provide any further clarifications.

Sincerely yours, I YN w  !

Robert V. Whitman as-ML s

e s

a f

.