south texas project units 3 & 4south texas project units 3 & 4 public meeting with stpnoc for an...

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECTUNITS 3 & 4

Public Meeting With STPNOC for an Overview of the STP Combined License

Application (COLA)Seismic Analyses

Thursday, July 9, 2009


Agenda and Opening Remarks

TOPIC• Introduction• Desired Outcomes• Tier 1 Departures• Input Ground Motion• UHS Seismic Analysis• Reactor Building/Control Building Analysis

– Shear Wave Velocity Departure Analysis Results– Model Reconstitution

• Radwaste Building Design• Concluding Remarks

Agenda & Opening Remarks

3 09JUL09


Desired Outcome

Steve ThomasManager - Engineering

STP Units 3 & 4

Desired Outcome

Understand STP Methodology for Seismic Analysis• Ultimate Heat Sink• Reactor and Control Buildings• Radwaste Building

5 09JUL09

Copyright © 2009 Toshiba Corporation. All rights reserved.6 09JUL09

Tier 1 Departures

• Tier 1 Departure on Shear Wave Velocity (STP DEP T1 5.0-1):

– The site shear wave velocity does not meet the 1000 feet/sec minimum requirement of DCD Tier 1 Table 5.0 on Site Parameters

– The average, measured geophysical velocities vary from about 550feet/sec near the ground surface to about 1000 feet/sec near theReactor Building Foundation, gradually increasing to about 1500 feet/sec at a depth of 600 feet

– These properties have been incorporated into SSI analyses– The analysis results are enveloped by the DCD


Tier 1 Departures

• Tier 1 Departure on Seismic Classification of Radwaste Building Substructure (STD DEP T1 2.15-1):– The seismic classification of Radwaste Building substructure was

revised from Seismic Category I to non-seismic. – Basis for Radwaste Building Departure STD DEP T1 2.15-1

• Radwaste Building does not house any safety related systems or components

• Regulatory Guide 1.29, Seismic Design Classification, refers to use of Regulatory Guide 1.143 for design of radioactive waste management systems

• Regulatory Guide 1.143 provides detailed requirements for design of radioactive waste management systems, structures, and components

• Departure STD DEP T1 2.15-1 commits to the use of Regulatory Guide 1.143 for the design of radioactive waste management systems, structures, and components



Input Ground Motion

P. K. AgrawalStructural Manager – Sargent & Lundy

STP Units 3 & 4


Definition of Input Ground Motion

• Ground Motion Response Spectrum (GMRS) for the site was developed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.208

• GMRS consists of horizontal and vertical response spectra for 5% damping, defined at free field ground surface

• GMRS is less than one third of the DCD spectra, in the frequency range of interest (above 2 Hz)


Spectrum Comparison• Comparison of GMRS with DCD Design Spectrum in Horizontal Direction (5% Damping)

(Blue): DCD Design Spectrum----

(Red): GMRS____


• Comparison of GMRS with DCD Design Spectrum in Vertical Direction (5% Damping)

Spectrum Comparison

(Blue): DCD Design Spectrum----

(Red): GMRS____


Requirements for Input Ground Response Spectrum

• For SSI Analysis, broad band Input Ground Response Spectra were developed, in the horizontal and vertical directions, to meet the following requirements :– The Input Spectra shall envelop the GMRS– The response spectrum at the SHAKE outcrop of each Seismic

Category I foundation shall envelop the Foundation Input Response Spectrum (FIRS)

– The response spectrum at the SHAKE outcrop of each Seismic Category I foundation shall meet the minimum requirement of a broad band spectrum anchored at 0.1g, as required by Appendix S to 10CFR50


• Comparison of GMRS with the Input Spectrum in Horizontal Direction (5% Damping)

Spectrum Comparison

(Blue): Input Spectrum----

(Red): GMRS____


• Comparison of GMRS with the Input Spectrum in Vertical Direction (5% Damping)

Spectrum Comparison

(Blue): Input Spectrum----

(Red): GMRS____


Development of Synthetic Time History

• A single set of time histories (two horizontal and one vertical) was developed satisfying the enveloping requirements of SRP 3.7.1


• Comparison of Spectrum from Synthetic Time History, Input Spectrum, and GMRS in Horizontal Direction (5% Damping)

Spectrum Comparison

(Green): Input Response Spectrum___(Blue): Response spectrum from synthetic time history ---

(Red): GMRS___


• Comparison of Spectrum from Synthetic Time History, Input Spectrum, and GMRS in Vertical Direction (5% Damping)

Spectrum Comparison

(Green): Input Response Spectrum___(Blue): Response spectrum from synthetic time history ---

(Red): GMRS___


• Comparison of Spectra at Foundation of UHS Basin in one Horizontal Direction (5% Damping)

Spectrum Comparison

(Magenta): RG 1.60 spectrum scaled to 0.10g_._(Green): Outcrop spectrum from deconvolution___(Blue): FIRS ---

(Red): GMRS___


• Comparison of Spectra at Foundation of UHS Basin in Vertical Direction (5% Damping)

Spectrum Comparison

(Magenta): RG 1.60 spectrum scaled to 0.10g_._(Green): Outcrop spectrum from deconvolution___(Blue): FIRS ---

(Red): GMRS___



UHS Seismic Analysis

Javad MoslemianStructural Manager – Sargent & Lundy

STP Units 3 & 4


UHS Seismic Analysis – Structural Model

• The Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) consists of a water retaining reinforced concrete basin and a reinforced concrete cooling tower enclosure located on top of the basin

• The RSW Pump House is a reinforced concrete structure that is contiguous with the UHS Basin


UHS Seismic Analysis – Structural Arrangement


UHS Seismic Analysis – Site Arrangement

Due to the large distance between the UHS and the RB, the structure-to-structure interaction

is considered negligible.



• Seismic Analysis of the UHS/RSW Pump House utilized a 3-dimensional finite element model of the structure

• The structural model of the UHS/RSW Pump House was developed using the SAP2000 program with beam, shell/plate and solid elements

• To transmit nodal rotation from beam or shell elements to solid elements, the beam and shell elements are extended to the basemat solid elements



• The structural model includes 6295 nodes and 6677 finite elements. In addition to distributed mass in the structural elements, discrete nodal masses are defined in 1557 nodes

• Hydrodynamic masses are included in the structural model as nodal masses on the basemat and walls of the UHS basin using the guidelines of ASCE 4-98

• Material damping of 7% is used for the reinforced concrete elements


UHS Seismic Analysis – SSI Analysis

• The SSI analysis of the UHS was performed using the ACS SASSI program

• The program has been verified and validated under Sargent & Lundy’s QA Program

• The SSI model includes 3 constituent parts:– Free-field soil layering model (far field soil layers)– Structural modeling (UHS/RSW Pump House)– Excavated soil modeling (soil excavated to create UHS

embedment)


UHS Seismic Analysis – SSI Model



• Soil excavation model contains 18 embedment layers• The vertical dimensions of the soil layers were selected to be

sufficiently small to transmit accurately vertically propagatingshear waves up to 33 Hz for mean soil profile

The number of SSI interaction nodes at interface of structure, soil excavation volume and the free-field soil layering is 2325 nodes. All structural nodes in contact with soil deposit are considered as SSI interaction nodes.



• In the SSI analysis, the soil profile up to a depth of 704 ft below the grade and viscous-elastic half-space below 704 ft are considered

• The 704 ft depth is selected to meet the SRP 3.7.2 requirement that the model depth, generally, should be at least twice the base dimension below the foundation level

– N-S dimension of UHS basemat is 312 ft– Pump House foundation depth is 64 ft– 2x312+64 = 688 ft < 704 ft



• The backfill properties are based on granular soil compacted to a minimum of 95% modified Proctor density

• To include the effect of backfill around the building, backfill was considered down to 64 ft below grade elevation

• To account for variability in the backfill properties, three conditions were considered

– Mean (BM)– Lower bound (BLB)– Upper bound (BUB)).

• The BLB shear wave velocities are BM/(1.5)1/2• The BUB shear wave velocities are BMx(1.5)1/2



• In ACS SASSI the linear SSI analysis is performed for each input direction X, Y and Z

• To compute the maximum SSI response for each soil profile under a three directional earthquake as required by RG 1.92, the co-directional SSI responses are combined using SRSS

• The maximum SSI responses are computed by enveloping the maximum SSI responses obtained from all six soil layer profiles

• For in-structure response spectra, the envelope spectra curves were widened +/-15% per RG 1.122


UHS Seismic Analysis – SSI AnalysisSample Acceleration Response Spectra

Acceleration response spectra generation meets RG 1.122 requirements.



E-W (X) N-S (Y) Vertical (Z)

Top of Pump House (PH) Mat 4.00 0.3731 0.5149 0.4815

Bottom of PH Walls 4.00 0.3659 0.4087 0.4392

PH Operating Floor 36.00 0.3212 0.3962 0.4698

Mid-Level of PH Walls 36.00 0.4374 0.3453 0.3905

Top of Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) Mat 36.00 0.5112 0.5104 0.3472

Bottom of UHS Basin Walls 36.00 0.4444 0.4816 0.2950

PH Roof 70.50 0.3352 0.4277 0.7994

Mid-Level of UHS Basin Walls 81.67 0.5501 0.5442 0.2871

Top of UHS Basin Walls 119.50 0.4846 0.5056 0.3927

Bottom of Cooling Tower Walls 119.50 0.6651 0.8542 0.8588

Mid-Level of Cooling Tower Walls 147.25 0.7823 1.2870 1.0190

Top of Cooling Tower Walls 175.00 0.8594 1.2689 0.9293

Envelope ZPA Values

Location Elevation (ft)

ZPA (g)



E-W (X) N-S (Y) Vertical (Z)

Pump House Operating Floor 36.00 0.2244 0.4773 0.2549

Top of Ultimate Heat Sink Mat 36.00 1.0486 1.1843 0.4842

Pump House Roof 70.50 0.2552 0.4852 0.2460

Top of Ultimate Heat Sink Basin Walls 119.50 0.9772 0.9889 0.4705

Bottom of Cooling Tower Walls-Cell3 119.50 1.1835 1.0443 0.4400

Mid-Level of Cooling Tower-Cell3 147.25 1.3012 1.2873 0.4259

Top of Cooling Tower Walls-Cell3 175.00 1.1733 1.3152 0.4486

Location Elevation (ft)

Displacement (in)

Envelope Maximum Relative Displacements With Respect to Pump House Mat


UHS Seismic Analysis – Stability Check

Overturning Sliding Flotation Overturning Sliding Flotation

- - 1.80 - - 1.1

69.00 12.10 - 1.5 1.5 -

49.50 8.70 - 1.1 1.1 -

1.11 1.15 - 1.1 1.1 -

Where:

D Dead Load

F`

H

W Design wind load Wt

Ess SSE load effects of safe shutdown earthquake (SSE), including hydrodynamic and soil dynamic pressures

Loads generated by the design basis tornado

Buoyancy force due to design basis flood

D + H + W

D + H + Wt

D + H + Ess

Lateral soil pressure and ground water effect

SRP Required Safety Factors

Ultimate Heat Sink/RSW Pump House Stability Safety Factors

Load Combination

D + F`

Calculated Safety Factors


Resulting COL FSAR Changes

• In accordance with the Commitment COM 3H-2, COLA Rev. 3 will include the following:– Details of soil-structure interaction analysis of the UHS and RSW

Pump House– Results of seismic analysis of UHS and RSW Pump House in terms

of dominant structural frequencies, accelerations, displacements, and in-structure response spectra

– Design information for the UHS,RSW Pump House, and RSW Piping Tunnel in terms of design forces, required and provided reinforcing steel, factors of safety against sliding, flotation, and overturning



Reactor Building/Control Building AnalysisShear Wave Velocity Departure Analysis Results

Bob HooksBuilding Design Director – Sargent & Lundy

STP Units 3 & 4


• Tier 1 Departure on Shear Wave Velocity (STP DEP T1 5.0-1):– The site shear wave velocity does not meet the 1000

feet/sec minimum requirement of DCD Tier 1 Table 5.0 on Site Parameters

• For the site-specific SSI performed for the shear wave velocity departure analysis, reconstituted models were used with the site-specific soil properties and site-specific SSE

• The results were then compared with DCD results

Shear Wave Velocity Departure


RB Horizontal Response Spectra Comparison

PRELIMINARY



PRELIMINARY


RB Vertical Response Spectra Comparison

PRELIMINARY



PRELIMINARY


RB Member Force Comparison PRELIMINARY

Element No. Location

Response Type

STP 3&4Site Specific

Value

Maximum DCD Value

Shear (Ton) 80 420 Moment (MN-m) 5 29 Torsion (MN-m) 0 2 Shear (Ton) 215 1,200 Moment (MN-m) 12 70 Torsion (MN-m) 0 10 Shear (Ton) 196 1,100 Moment (MN-m) 10 54 Torsion (MN-m) 1 5 Shear (Ton) 640 3,138 Moment (MN-m) 121 588 Torsion (MN-m) 4 22 Shear (Ton) 3,514 25,000 Moment (MN-m) 569 3,825 Torsion (MN-m) 57 402 Shear (Ton) 6,356 40,000 Moment (MN-m) 1,513 9,317 Torsion (MN-m) 186 1,177

Comparison of Member Forces for Reactor Building

28 Shroud Support

69 RPV Skirt

78 RSW Base

86 Pedestal Base

89 RCCV at Grade

99 R/B at Grade


Resulting COL FSAR Changes

• In accordance with the Commitment COM 3A-1, COLA Rev.3 will include the following:– Details of site-specific SSI, performed using site-specific shear wave

velocities and site-specific SSE ground motion– Comparison of site-specific SSI results with the DCD results for

seismic accelerations, displacements, forces, and in-structure response spectra at key locations to demonstrate that the results of site-specific SSI analysis are bounded by the DCD results



Reactor Building/Control Building ModelModel Reconstitution

Bob HooksBuilding Design Director – Sargent & Lundy

STP Units 3 & 4


Reconstitution Background

• Seismic Analysis Rules for the STP 3&4 Project• Used DCD Methodology

– Analysis methodology is per DCD– Input design response spectra (R.G.1.60 Earthquake Ground Motion

Spectra) per DCD– Damping values per DCD– Seismic models per DCD– SSI software is same as DCD– Enveloping soil parameters per DCD– Spectra enveloping and broadening are per DCD– Calculated mass and stiffness from DCD Drawings and Figures– Developed synthetic time histories meeting the requirements of SRP

3.7.1


DCD Models


Reconstituted Analyses

• Developed structural models for the Reactor and Control Buildings– DCD Drawings and Figures– Experience from Japanese ABWRs

• Analyzed DCD R1U Case (Rock Case) for the Reconstituted Analyses– Provides generally higher responses– Un-widened spectra are available in the DCD for comparison

• Results of Reconstituted Analyses confirm that the models and methods provide results consistent with those in the DCD


Reconstituted Analysis – Study Cases

XVert. Time History

XHoriz. Time History 2

XHoriz. Time History 1

Time History

XXXXDCDModel

Horiz.(N-S)Vert.

Horiz.(N-S)

Case 2Case 1Frequency

ComparisonSSI Cases: R1UX & R1UZ


Reconstituted Analyses

• Method– Calculated frequencies for the fixed base models and

compare to frequencies in the DCD [Frequency Comparison]

– Developed an SSI model that closely matches the DCD model [Case 1]

– Used a second time history to judge the effect of using different time histories [Case 2]

• The Reconstituted Model is a realistic representation of the building configuration


• The reconstituted models match the DCD models• High confidence in our mass and stiffness

–Based on available data from the DCD–Remaining mass and stiffness from as-built ABWRs

• High confidence that the models represent the behavior of the ABWR

• The reconstituted models are appropriate for performing SSI analysis in support of the shear wave velocity departure

Reconstitution Study Results


RB Member Frequency Comparison

Reconstituted Mass Part. % DCD Reconstituted Mass Part. % DCD Reconstituted Mass Part. % DCD1 3.75 0.7% 4.14 3.75 2.9% 3.92 7.71 13.9% 7.792 4.22 68.3% 4.53 3.93 64.3% 4.52 9.20 19.1% 9.533 8.68 13.4% 7.71 8.02 13.7% 7.71 9.95 0.1% 10.694 8.83 2.7% 9.01 8.81 0.0% 8.68 11.29 13.3% 11.505 9.90 2.1% 9.60 9.97 7.1% 9.60 12.03 1.8% 12.056 10.21 0.0% 10.10 10.21 0.0% 9.84 14.99 7.6% 13.307 12.15 0.0% 11.53 12.15 0.0% 11.53 15.91 0.4% 14.128 13.19 0.0% 12.72 12.36 0.1% 12.72 17.26 1.5% 15.599 13.22 0.0% 13.44 13.21 0.0% 13.25 20.45 3.3% 20.6910 14.95 0.0% 13.58 14.36 2.4% 13.53 23.13 3.0% 28.4111 15.22 2.0% 14.64 14.96 0.0% 14.16 35.64 2.3% 28.9312 16.89 0.4% 15.60 16.72 1.5% 16.06 32.3213 17.06 1.5% 17.46 16.93 0.1% 18.0014 17.20 1.1% 18.00 17.15 0.0% 18.9515 19.17 1.4% 18.95 19.24 0.0% 21.2216 19.28 1.2% 22.01 19.91 3.7% 22.6217 20.76 0.4% 22.72 21.53 0.0% 22.8818 21.55 0.0% 24.31 22.41 0.4% 25.4419 23.72 0.1% 25.48 23.31 0.0% 25.9320 25.97 0.0% 26.11 25.81 0.1% 26.7921 26.58 1.9% 27.08 26.12 0.6% 27.8022 29.10 0.0% 28.20 26.82 0.7% 28.5423 30.16 0.7% 29.84 30.11 0.2% 30.5924 32.65 0.0% 30.94 30.37 0.4% 33.1325 34.02 0.1% 33.16 32.65 0.0%26 33.98 0.0%

Bold - Predominant Structural Mode

Comparison with DCD Tables 3.7-2, 3.7-3 & 3.7-4Natural Frequencies of the Reactor Building

Fixed Base Condition

ModeX

(0º-180º)Y

(90º-270º)Z

(Vertical)


RB Model



PRELIMINARY


RB Member Force Comparison


Response Type

Reconstituted Model DCD

Shear (Ton) 263 287 Moment (MN-m) 17 19 Axial (Ton) 99 150 Shear (Ton) 735 798 Moment (MN-m) 45 44 Axial (Ton) 827 974 Shear (Ton) 743 747 Moment (MN-m) 36 39 Axial (Ton) 491 401 Shear (Ton) 1,607 2,218 Moment (MN-m) 268 350 Axial (Ton) 2,769 3,449 Shear (Ton) 14,444 17,010 Moment (MN-m) 1,870 1,823 Axial (Ton) 11,216 22,740 Shear (Ton) 34,836 34,600 Moment (MN-m) 6,596 8,073 Axial (Ton) 21,996 18,190

78 RSW Base

86 Pedestal Base

99 R/B at Grade

89

Comparison of Member Forces for Reactor BuildingR1UX/R1UZ

69

RCCV at Grade

RPV Skirt

28 Shroud Support

PRELIMINARY


RB Horizontal Response Spectra Comparison (Case 2)

PRELIMINARY


CB Member Frequency Comparison

Reconstituted Mass Part. % DCD Reconstituted Mass Part. % DCD Reconstituted Mass Part. % DCD1 6.22 65.0% 5.59 7.21 68.5% 6.72 13.04 49.7% 13.522 17.47 13.7% 15.91 17.52 8.5% 16.24 15.10 2.5% 15.863 29.50 1.3% 29.22 23.51 1.8% 23.76 15.40 0.8% 15.934 36.23 2.2% 30.85 31.94 2.6% 35.20 15.46 0.2% 15.975 46.84 0.8% - 43.54 1.5% - 15.48 0.0% 22.386 - - - - - - 21.48 22.6% -

Comparison with DCD Table 3.7-5Natural Frequencies of the Control Building

Fixed Base ConditionMode X Y Z

PRELIMINARY


CB Model


CB Horizontal Response Spectra Comparison

PRELIMINARY


CB Vertical Response Spectra Comparison

PRELIMINARY


CB Member Force Comparison


Response Type

Benchmark Model DCD

Shear (Ton) 5,369 5,624 Moment (MN-m) 603 439 Axial (Ton) 3,629 3,612

Comparison of Member Forces for Control BuildingR1Ux/R1UZ

6 C/B at Grade

PRELIMINARY


• The reconstituted models match the DCD models• High confidence in our mass and stiffness

–Based on available data from the DCD–Remaining mass and stiffness from as-built ABWRs

• High confidence that the models represent the behavior of the ABWR

• The reconstituted models are appropriate for performing SSI analysis in support of the shear wave velocity departure

Reconstitution Study Results



Radwaste Building Design

Javad MoslemianStructural Manager – Sargent & Lundy

STP Units 3 & 4


Tier 1 Departures

• Tier 1 Departure on Seismic Classification of Radwaste Building Substructure (STD DEP T1 2.15-1):– The seismic classification of Radwaste Building substructure was

revised from Seismic Category I to non-seismic. – Basis for Radwaste Building Departure STD DEP T1 2.15-1

• Radwaste Building does not house any safety related systems or components

• Regulatory Guide 1.29, Seismic Design Classification, refers to use of Regulatory Guide 1.143 for design of radioactive waste management systems

• Regulatory Guide 1.143 provides detailed requirements for design of radioactive waste management systems, structures, and components

• Departure STD DEP T1 2.15-1 commits to the use of Regulatory Guide 1.143 for the design of radioactive waste management systems, structures, and components


Radwaste Building Analysis & Design

• Design– Design Basis– Additional Requirements due to Proximity to Seismic

Category I Structures• Seismic Analysis



• Analysis and Design of the Radwaste Building will meet the requirements of RG 1.143, Rev. 2

• The Radwaste Building is a reinforced concrete structure, about 217 ft long x 127 ft wide x 115 ft high. The bottom of the foundation is about 51 ft below grade, thus the roof is about 64 ft above grade



Location of Radwaste Building Relative to Other Adjacent Buildings



• The distance in the E-W direction between the Radwaste Building and the Seismic Category I Reactor building is 19’-9”

• The Radwaste Building extends 64 ft above grade • To ensure the integrity of the Reactor Building, the

Radwaste building design will meet II/I criteria (i.e. not to collapse on Reactor building under extreme environmental Seismic and Tornado loads)



• To ensure that the safety margin of the Seismic Category I structures are not reduced, when considering II/I criteria, the Radwaste Building will be designed for the same Seismic SSE and the same Tornado loadings as Seismic Category I structures

• Conservatively the design of the Radwaste Building for II/I will be based on elastic design

• The Seismic SSE and Tornado design parameters for Seismic Category I (0.3g RG 1.60 SSE and 300 mph Tornado) exceed STP site-specific design parameters



• STP 3 & 4 Radwaste Building classification is shown to be RW-IIb (Hazardous) as defined in Revision 2 of RG 1.143

• Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 of RG 1.143 provide the design requirements for various components of the structure (i.e. loads, load combinations, Codes and Standards, and Capacity Criteria)

• Design of structural components will be per ACI 349-97 and N-690 (1984)



• In summary, the design will be as follows:– Components of the structure will be designed per

requirements outlined in Tables 1 through 4 of RG 1.143, Rev. 2

– Earthquake Loading per ASCE 7-95 Category III– For meeting II/I requirements, the lateral load resisting

system will be designed to withstand the induced loads due to the following:

– 0.3g RG 1.60 Seismic (SSE)– 300 mph tornado and 2 psi tornado

depressurization


Radwaste Building Seismic Analysis

• Based on the design requirements, a fixed base seismic analysis will be performed to obtain induced forces due to 0.3g RG 1.60 Seismic SSE in lateral load resisting system

• The seismic analysis will be performed using a stick model


Concluding Remarks

Steve ThomasManager - Engineering

STP Units 3 & 4


Public Meeting With STPNOC for an Overview of the STP Combined License

Application (COLA)Seismic Analyses

Thursday, July 9, 2009

south texas project units 3 & 4south texas project units 3 & 4 public meeting with stpnoc for an...

Documents