2017/06/12 nuscale smr dc docs - nuscale seismic

1

NuScaleDCDocsPEm Resource

From: Vera Amadiz, MarielizSent: Monday, June 12, 2017 8:57 AMTo: NuScaleDCDocsPEm ResourceSubject: NuScale Seismic Methodology Overview, FSAR Section 3.7 and 3.8. Public Meeting

June 12, 2017Attachments: Seismic Methodology Overview - Final.pdf

NuScale Seismic Methodology Overview, FSAR Section 3.7 and 3.8. Public Meeting June 12, 2017 Thanks Marieliz Vera

Hearing Identifier: NuScale_SMR_DC_Docs_Public Email Number: 8 Mail Envelope Properties (f9cad002d43b484daec56c2fa97598c0) Subject: NuScale Seismic Methodology Overview, FSAR Section 3.7 and 3.8. Public Meeting June 12, 2017 Sent Date: 6/12/2017 8:57:27 AM Received Date: 6/12/2017 8:57:30 AM From: Vera Amadiz, Marieliz Created By: [email protected] Recipients: "NuScaleDCDocsPEm Resource" <[email protected]> Tracking Status: None Post Office: HQPWMSMRS05.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 131 6/12/2017 8:57:30 AM Seismic Methodology Overview - Final.pdf 1636905 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received:

PM-0617-543971

NuScale Nonproprietary

Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R1

Seismic Methodology Overview

Josh Parker, PEStructures and Seismic Supervisor

June 12, 2017

PM-0617-54397

2

Copyright 2017 by NuScale Power, LLC.Revision: 0 Template #: 0000-21727-F01 R1

Acknowledgement and DisclaimerThis material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-NE0000633.

This presentation was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

PM-0617-54397

3


Agenda• Purpose and background• Final safety analysis report (FSAR) Section 3.7

– design parameters (3.7.1)

– seismic analysis (3.7.2)

– subsystem analysis (3.7.3)

• FSAR Section 3.8– other Seismic Category I structures (3.8.4)

– foundations (3.8.5)

• FSAR Appendix 3B– design reports and critical section details

PM-0617-54397

4


Purpose• Provide a high-level overview of NuScale seismic

methodology to assist in addressing the NRC questions on FSAR Sections 3.7, 3.8, and Appendix 3B

PM-0617-54397

5


Background

NuScale Power Structural Team• Dr. Tamás Liszkai, PE –

manager, NSSS• Josh Parker, PE – supervisor,

Structures and Seismic• Dr. Mohsin Khan ARES

Corporation – seismic building analysis

• Dr. Farhang Ostadan – external reviewer to ARES

NuScale Power Seismic Expert Panel • Robert Bachman, PE, SE • Dr. Robert Kennedy, PE• Greg Hardy, PE (component

experience, Simpson GumpertzHeger)

• Dr. Andrew Whittaker, SE (MCEER, University of Buffalo)

PM-0617-54397

6


Background—Site Aerial View

annex building

warehouse

cooling towers A

cooling towers B

reactor building

administration building

radwaste building

switchyard

turbine building B

ISFSI (dry cask storage)

turbine building A

parking

control building

protected area fence

security ingress/egress

PM-0617-54397

7


Seismic Methodology Overview• Purpose and background• FSAR Section 3.7


– seismic analysis (3.7.2)– subsystem analysis (3.7.3)




PM-0617-54397

8


Design Parameters• Philosophy

– develop conservative, generic input to the seismic analysis of the Seismic Category I buildings

– allows the standard NuScale power plant to be sited in a variety of locations

– applicants will perform site-specific analysis to confirm design is acceptable for the location

PM-0617-54397

9


Design Parameters—Input Spectra

0.01

0.10

1.00

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00

Acce

lera

tion

(g)

Frequency (Hz)

Horizontal Input Spectra

NuScaleCSDRS

NuScaleCSDRS-HF

RG 1.60SpectraAnchored at0.3g

RG 1.60SpectraAnchored at0.1g

PM-0617-54397

10


Design Parameters—Input Spectra

0.01

0.10

1.00

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00

Acce

lera

tion

(g)

Frequency (Hz)

Vertical Input Spectra

NuScaleCSDRS

NuScaleCSDRS-HF

RG 1.60SpectraAnchored at0.3gRG 1.60SpectraAnchored at0.1g

PM-0617-54397

11


Design Parameters• Soil profiles

– four generic soil profiles utilized • align with profiles seen in previous applications

• profiles represent a wide range of site parameters (soil depth, shear wave velocity, unit weight, water table, and depth to rock)

• soil profiles are for a range of shear wave velocities between 1000 fps to 8000 fps

• combined license (COL) applicant will perform site specific analysis

PM-0617-54397

12


Design Parameters—Soil Profiles• Soft soil: Type 11

• Medium soil: Type 8

• Rock: Type 7

• Hard rock: Type 9

PM-0617-54397

13


Design Parameters—Time Histories• Time histories

– philosophy• use the input spectra as the target

– seed earthquakes chosen• 1992 Landers recorded at Yermo Fire Station• 1989 Loma Prieta recorded at Capitola• 1999 Chi-Chi recorded at Station TCU076• 1989 Kocaeli recorded at Station Izmit• 1940 Imperial Valley recorded at Station El Centro #9• 1992 Landers recorded at Lucerne (for CSDRS-HF)

– spectrum compatible time histories were generated from the seed time histories using an iterative process with RspMatch2009

PM-0617-54397

14


Design Parameters—Time Histories

PM-0617-54397

15


Design Parameters—Time Histories

PM-0617-54397

16


Seismic Analysis• SAP2000 models

– reactor building (RXB) and control building (CRB) finite element models are developed using SAP2000• these models are the master models

– all SAP2000 models meet ASCE-43 requirements• uncracked concrete uses full in-plane shear and out-of-plane flexure

properties for concrete walls and slabs

• cracked concrete uses reduced in-plane shear and out-of-plane flexure properties for concrete walls and slabs

– models use the following elements• roof, slabs, and walls are modeled with shell elements

• foundation is modeled using solid elements

• equipment, equipment supports, and pilasters are modeled with beam elements

PM-0617-54397

17


Seismic Analysis• ANSYS models analysis

– A finite element structural analysis model of the RXB was developed using ANSYS to determine the hydrodynamic pressures on the reactor pool walls and foundation from a fluid structure interaction analysis.

– This was necessary since neither the SAP2000 nor SASSI2010 computer programs have an explicit fluid element formulation to accurately calculate the hydrodynamic effects due to all three directional components of earthquake input motions.

– The ANSYS model of the RXB is based on the SAP2000 model.

PM-0617-54397

18


Seismic Analysis• Individual SASSI models

– For the seismic analyses, the finite element models of the RXB and CRB developed using the SAP2000 computer program are converted to SASSI2010 models with identical input data of the geometry, material properties, element connectivity, and boundary conditions.

• Triple building models– In addition to individual models for the RXB and CRB, a large-

scale finite element model was constructed that includes both buildings and the Seismic Category II radwaste building (RWB). • In SAP2000 this model was used to study the effect of differential

settlement induced on one building from the other two (e.g., on the CRB from the RXB and RWB).

• The SAP2000 model is converted to SASSI2010 to examine dynamic structure-soil-structure interactions (SSSI).

PM-0617-54397

19


Seismic Analysis• SASSI model—interaction nodes

In the SASSI analysis, the extended subtraction method is used to calculate the soil impedance matrix.

interaction nodes are nodes on the ‘seven planes’ (i.e., six sides [east, west, north, south, top, and bottom]) and the middle plane, of the excavated soil model

based on NuScale study testing, using the interaction nodes on the seven planes, (7P) was found to be sufficient

7P interaction nodes (in red)

Cross section through RXB

PM-0617-54397

20


Seismic Subsystem Analysis• Reactor building crane

– modeled in RXB SAP2000 and SASSI2010 models with beams and springs

– RXB output in-structure response spectra is used by crane designers to analyze the reactor building crane (RBC)

– to evaluate the RBC, a detailed finite element model representing the bridge and the trolley was developed to evaluate the crane per the load combinations in ASME NOG-1

• Bioshields– simplified model in global RXB SAP2000 and SASSI2010 models

– RXB output in-structure response spectra is used in a detailed submodel to evaluate bioshield components

PM-0617-54397

21


Seismic Methodology Overview• Background• FSAR Section 3.7




• FSAR Section 3.8– other Seismic Category I structures (3.8.4)– foundations (3.8.5)


PM-0617-54397

22


Other Seismic Category I Structures• Seismic Category I structures

– Seismic Category I structures are the RXB and the CRB• these buildings are site independent and designed for the CSDRS and

CSDRS-HF (high frequency) described in Section 3.7.1

– static analysis is performed with SAP2000, the seismic analysis is performed using SASSI2010, and added fluid loads are determined using ANSYS

– loads are combined to determine overall demand to capacity ratio

PM-0617-54397

23


Other Seismic Category I Structures• Loads and load combinations

– limits for allowable stresses, strains, deformations and other design criteria for the reinforced concrete structures are in accordance with ACI 349/349R and its appendices as modified by the exceptions specified in RG 1.142

– structural acceptance criteria for the steel components are in accordance with AISC N690

– seismic governed majority of load combinations—was used to assess the adequacy of the structures

PM-0617-54397

24


Foundations• Stability

– a nonlinear analysis was performed for the RXB to show sliding was insignificant

– a nonlinear analysis was performed for the CRB to show that sliding, overturning, and uplift are insignificant

• Bearing pressure– in the RXB, high bearing pressures exist along the east and west

edges of the RXB basemat and under the NPMs

• Settlement– calculated using the SAP2000 triple building model

PM-0617-54397

25


Seismic Methodology Overview• Background• FSAR Section 3.7







PM-0617-54397

26


RXB and CRB Critical Sections• Critical section selection criteria

– perform a safety-critical function

– subjected to large stress demands

– a feature that is considered difficult to design or construct

– considered to be representative of the structural design

• Resulted in 14 sections for the RXB and seven sections for the CRB– selection of walls, slabs, beams, buttresses, pilasters, NuScale

Power Module (NPM) bay wall, and NPM supports

PM-0617-54397

27


RXB Sections• Overall demand loads

– SAP2000 for nonseismic demand

– two SASSI models: one standalone RXB model and one combined triple building model• five sets of certified seismic design response spectra (CSDRS)

compatible time histories

• one certified seismic design response spectra-high frequency (CSDRS-HF) time history

• four soil types: soil Types 11, 8, 7 for CSDRS input, 7 and 9 for CSDRS-HF input

• seismic demand forces and moments have increased by five percent to account for accidental torsion effect

– ANSYS model for added fluid loads

PM-0617-54397

28


CRB Sections• Overall demand loads

– SAP2000 for nonseismic demand

– two SASSI models: one standalone CRB model and one combined triple building model• five sets of certified seismic design response spectra (CSDRS) compatible time

histories

• one certified seismic design response spectra-high frequency (CSDRS-HF) time history

• for standalone CRB model

» four soil types: soil Types 11, 8, 7 for CSDRS input, 7 and 9 for CSDRS-HF input

• for triple building model» two soil types: soil Type 7 for CSDRS input, 9 for CSDRS-HF input

• seismic demand forces and moments have increased by five percent to account for accidental torsion effect

PM-0617-54397

29


Critical Section Analysis• Critical section analysis approach

– every element in the structure was evaluated

– the concrete design process was organized by defining each wall, slab, pilaster, buttress, and t-beam into several small zones

– the finite element models often show highly localized forces and moments that are not representative of the average demand forces and moments over the wall and slab sections

– the design zones with demand/capacity (D/C) ratio exceedances over a single finite element are averaged with adjacent elements to show a more realistic value• the length of the failure plane considered is taken approximately four

times the thickness of the element

• demand in-plane shear stresses over the full available section length of wall or slab cross-sections are considered

PM-0617-54397

30


Critical Section Analysis• Example wall design—reactor building wall at Grid Line 3

PM-0617-54397

31



PM-0617-54397

32



PM-0617-54397

33



PM-0617-54397

34



PM-0617-54397

35


Conclusion• Overview of background, FSAR Sections 3.7, 3.8, and 3B• Proceed to closed portion of meeting

PM-0617-54397

36


6650 SW Redwood Lane, Suite 210Portland, OR 97224971.371.1592

1100 NE Circle Blvd., Suite 200Corvallis, OR 97330541.360.0500

11333 Woodglen Ave., Suite 205Rockville, MD 20852301.770.0472

2815 Coliseum Centre Dr., Suite 230Charlotte, NC 28217980.349.4804

1st Floor Portland HouseBressenden PlaceLondon SW1E 5BHUnited Kingdom+44 (0) 2079 321700

http://www.nuscalepower.com

2017/06/12 nuscale smr dc docs - nuscale seismic

Documents