new plant seismic issues resolution program, structural ... · outline of presentation-, -. ~...

. - ELECTRIC POWERR RESEARCH INSTITUTE

New Plant Seismic IssuesResolution Program

Structural Tasks Working MeetingsTask S2.1 - Effect of Seismic WaveIncoherence on Foundation andBuilding Response

Presentation to USNRC

Greg HardySteve ShortJim Johnson

May 12, 2006

Outline of Presentation

-, -. ~ ~

" Background and Summary of Key Points

" Status

- Phase 2 Work Scope

- Responses to RAIs

* Overview of S2.1 Implementation Approaches

S S2.1 Phase 2 Activities- Re-evaluate induced rotations from Phase 1 analyses- Sensitivity study on coherency function uncertainty- Compute incoherence at Diablo Canyon and compare to data

from recent small earthquakes

- Review Perry Nuclear Power Plant recordings due to LeroyEarthquake

- Additional foundation analysis

* NRC RAI Discussion© 6 t o e It , . r s eE$KIRIC POWER

0 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.2 RESEARCH INS1I17131

NRC Request for Information (4/24/06)

" Results from Phase 2 tasks will address many NRCcomments/questions, others potentially beyond the scope of currentprogram

* Key NRC Issues- Verification from real earthquake data- Rocking and torsion induced by incoherence- Effects of embedment on incoherence- Effects of basemat flexibility on incoherence- Effects of other foundation shapes-Peer review of coherency functions

- Phase 1 report comments* Presentation will address these issues

@ 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 3 ESARCH INS71TUTe

A~~Aw

Background and SummaryPhase 1 Activities

unAErg eCeIIC POWERute, Inc. All rights reserved. 4r ia RESEARCHI INSTITUTE

@ 2006 Electric Power Research Instit

Horizontal Spatial Variation of GroundMotion -Incoherence

" Wave passage effectsSystematic spatial variation due to difference in arrival times of seismicwaves across a foundation

" Random spatial variation

- Scattering of waves due to heterogeneous nature of the soil or rock atthe locations of interest and along the propagation paths of the incidentwave fields

" Horizontal spatial variation of both horizontal and vertical ground motion areconsidered

" For this project, only random spatial variation of ground motion will beconsidered

- Random spatial variation results in large reductions in foundation motion- Wave passage effects produce minimal further reductions- Based on recorded data, apparent wave velocities are typically on the

order of 4 km/sec or greater. Structure response is minimally affectedby wave passage for these large apparent wave speeds

2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 5 R ERINS 71TTI$

Motivation for S2.1 Task

Background- Observations have shown that effective input motion to

structures accounts for the averaging or integrating effects of thefoundation especially for structures with large, relatively rigidfoundations such as those at NPPs

- Phenomenon was recognized early, but the lack of extensiverecorded data prevented the incorporation of the effect into thedynamic analysis of NPP structures

e Prior High Frequency Response Considerations Used Early (limited)Incoherence Data

e New research effort required to properly address incoherency- Generate new coherency function based on all current applicable

data- Systematically study the ground motion incoherency effects on

structures/foundations similar to those being considered forAdvanced Reactor designs

©E200LECTRIC POcERN '

@ 2006 Electric Power Research Ins .titute, Inc. All rights reserved. 6 I I I RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Motivation for S2.1 Task (Cont)

*Significant New Data Exists:- EPRI TR-1 00463, "Spatial Variation of Earthquake

Ground Motion for Application to Soil-StructureInteraction", 1992, presented coherency functionsbased on LLST array (Taiwan) data for fifteenearthquake events

- Arrays used for coherency model also include allavailable and appropriate data, e.g.,:e EPRI Parkfielde Chiba, Japan* Coalingae UCSC ZIYAe Pinyon Flat

ELECTRIC POWERI@ 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 7-f~ -215 RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Coherency Observations/Conclusions

" Spatial Coherency Models for Soil-Structure Interaction

- EPRI #1012968

" Coherency functions are appropriate for all frequencies(including above 20 Hz)

* For the purposes of this Task S2.1 study:

- Coherency does not vary as a function of site conditions

- Coherency does not vary as a function of earthquake magnitude (formagnitudes of interest, greater than 4.5 to 5)

- Each component of earthquake input can be treated as uncorrelated

" Mean input ground motion is the goal. Mean and median coherencyfunctions are approximately the same. Median values are used.

ri~rELE CTRIC OWERC 2006 Efectric Power Research Institute, inc. Alt rights reserved. 8 a!.rlfT:RIA HNSTITUTE .

Coherency for Horizontal Motion

@ 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. EVEIVR2 POi

S2.1 Task Objectives

* Develop a state-of-the-art representation of the coherency function basedon the most applicable data available (Dr. Norm Abrahamson)

Develop Incoherency Transfer Functions (ITFs) to be applied to the RiskInformed Site Specific SSE Ground Motion (RISS-SSE) to account for theeffects of incoherence on NPP structures/foundations as a function offoundation size, site conditions, and other relevant parameters(ARES Team)

- Apply to the Fourier amplitude spectra of the free field ground motion

- Input to SSI analysis (CLASSI or SASSI)

* Validate Incoherency Transfer Functions (ITFs) and their implementation:

- CLASSI

- SASSI

r~lELICTRIC PW© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 10 RESEA11 " IN S17UTE

S2.1 Phase 1: Task Results

" Benchmark Problem Comparison - The effect of incoherent groundmotion has been evaluated by:

- 2 different programs; CLASSI and SASSI- 2 different algorithms; CLASSI-stochastic method and SASSI

eigen decomposition method- 2 different analytical approaches; RVT by CLASSI; eigen

function decomposition by SASSI

" Excellent agreement is obtained for Incoherency Transfer Functionsand response spectra reductions- Verification completed for application methodology given

coherence function- NRC and TRAG Agree

* Reductions for Foundations Significant and Expected to be PrimeTool to Alleviate High Frequency Issue

MORK POYER© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 11RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Horizontal Spectra Reduction Due toIncoherency, Rock Site Profile

.2

a)

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.1Frequency (Hz) 10

- Free Field Input -,150 ft Square Fdn - 100x225 Fdn- 75 ft Square Fdn - 300 ft Square Fdn - AP1000 SSE

100

@ 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 12 erIla2 IREEC INSTITUTE

Vertical Spectra Reduction Due toIncoherency, Rock Site Profile

0

U

.2(I)

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 -

0.1 100.01.0 10.0Frequency (Hz)

- Free Field Input - 150 it Square Fdn - 100x225 Fdn-75 ft Square Fdn - 300 ft Square Fdn - AP1000 SSE

• I ~MRKC POWER~I~I~IJRfSEARCH fN$TITUTIE@ 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 13

Horizontal Spectra Reduction Due toIncoherency, Soil Site Profile

- ~~

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

o 0.4CL

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.1 0.11 10Frequency (Hz)

100

-reField Input - 150 ft Square Fdn - 1 0x225 Fdn-7 tSquare Fdn -300 ft Square Fdn -AP11000 SSE

@ 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. ANl rights reserved. 14 RESEARCH• 4N$7JT0j7F

Vertical Spectra Reduction Due toIncoherency, Soil Site Profile

~F'I2 E.ICIRIC POWE~Ref~fI I MESARCH INSTITUTE@ 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. .15

Task S2.1 Ground Motion Incoherence:Phase 2 Tasks

* Benchmark study comparing CLASSI and SASSI SSI response ofrepresentative NPP structure

- Completed (Report to be updated to include SASSI results)

• Coherency Function

- Sensitivity Study for Coherency Uncertainty (Ongoing)- Peer Review of Coherency Data (Completed)

* Further Case Analyses for Foundation Shape (Ongoing)

* Address the Data from Recent Earthquake ResponseMeasurements- Deer Canyon at Diablo (Ongoing)- Perry Plant (Ongoing)

- Kim and Stewart Paper (Ongoing)

©otEErCTRIC POWER02006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 16 I I I Ie l RESEARCHIt NSTITUTE

NRC Request for Information (4/24/06)

• Key NRC Issues

- Verification from real earthquake data- Rocking and torsion induced by incoherence

- Effects of embedment on incoherence

- Effects of basemat flexibility on incoherence- Effects of other foundation shapes

- Peer review- Phase 1 report comments

e Current activities

- Phase 2 ongoing tasks- Examine rocking and torsion more closely from Phase 1 runs- Incorporation of approach into overall integration document

2 E P e I e AeELECRIC PW ERQ 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 17 t ~ I I jRESEARCHt lNTITUTE

Overview of ImplementationApproaches

MORK POWERr= F111 RESEARCH.,INSTITUTE© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 18

Risk InformedSite-Specific SSE

Ground Motion(RISS-SSE)

IIncorporate the

Effects ofIncoherence ofGround Motion

I

fl

b7irect~ Incorporation,Of ýAACoherency~Func•tions into SSI

Analysis Procedurese 'g, LAS, -SASSI1.A na ly si .............

LIYLCLASSI-_lTYPEI

I

SASSI-- --TYPE

Incoherency TransferýýFunctions (ITFs)'ý-Applied to Fourie .rAmplitudeS pectra-.RISS-SSE

*Function of-Foundation Size',ShapeSite Conditions

Existing SSIIDynamic. AnalysisComputer Programs.Used Without

*Modification.19© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

aI~ai ITS*n NTTf

Direct Incorporation of NAA CoherencyFunctions into SSI Analysis Programs

" Phase 1 effort evaluated implementations of NAAcoherency functions into two substructure approaches tothe SSI analysis of soil-structure systems

- CLASSI- type

- SASSI - type

- Characteristics and limitations

" Other SSI analysis approaches and implementationscould be used

20EciP e eecIiu nAlitre2I TR! POWERI@©2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 20 a 1 ..... I• RESEARCH INSTI,,UT,

Elements of the Substructure SSI Analysisas Implemented in CLASSI Programs

Free-Field Motion Foundation Input MotionKinematic Interaction

M

Soil ProfileSite Response Analysis Impedan SSI

Structural ModelflJ L!TRIt POWER

@ 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 21 I i a!RM .R INSTITUTE

Characteristics and Limitations of the CurrentI CLASSI Implementation of Incoherency Effects

CharacteristicsFoundations assumed to behave rigidly for overalldynamic response purposes* Effective foundation stiffness strongly dependent on stiffening

effects of interconnecting walls and other structural elements* Commonly treat foundations of reactor containment structures

(including internal. structure and NSSS) and heavy shear wallstructures as behaving rigidly

* Design forces are developed from second stage structureanalyses, which include structure element flexibility

Surface or near-surface founded

ELCRCPOWER.02006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 22 E IR•EI2 SEARCH, IN, TIUT,

Characteristics and Limitations of the CurrentCLASSI Implementation of Incoherency Effects(cont.)

" Embedded foundations treated through a hybridapproach using finite element representations of theembedded foundation shapes (SASSI or others)

° Limitations- Flexible foundations not practically treated

i ELECTRIC POWER6 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved- 23 |USEARuC $1¶•T¶UT© 200

Schematic of SASSI Analysis Process

f b f II i-! •Jhi

I I- ~ i

k

ret; Field

A

~- "~

Structure

4- 1

Excavated

ISASSI1c IV:

© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 24ECRCPOWERarmialI RESEARCH INS1ITUTIF

Characteristics and Limitations of the CurrentSASSI Implementation of Incoherency Effects

" Characteristics

-Foundations may be modeled to behave rigidly orflexible for overall dynamic response purposesSurface-founded structures or structures withembedded foundations and partially embedded wallsmay be modeled

Current assumption is that NAA coherency functions applyequally to surface motions and motions on horizontal planesin the soil

* Limitations- Additional expertise required by analyst

2 t e t AELECTRIC POWERC 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 25 Im~ f J RESEARlCH INS7TITUTE

Incoherency Transfer Functions (ITFs):Approach

Frequency-dependent functions to be applied to the RiskInformed Site Specific SSE Ground Motion (RISS-SSE)to account for the effects of incoherency of groundmotion- Applied to the amplitude of the Fourier transform of

the RISS-SSE; phase of the Fourier transform of theRISS-SSE is unchanged

- Function of foundation size, shape, and site.conditions (ongoing Phase 2 evaluation); differentITFs for different structures at the same site

20 lrTRPC POWER

@ 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 26 I I RE SEARCH INSTITUTE

Incoherency Transfer Functions (ITFs):Advantages and Limitations

e Advantages- Provides transparency to the effects of incoherency of ground

motion on soil-structure response- Easily applied- Existing SSI/dynamic structure response analysis programs may

be used directly - no requirement for extensive code modificationand validation

o Limitations- Engineering rules that apply to all foundation shapes may be

difficult to develop and validate- Potential effect of the necessity to account for additional rotations

(torsion and rocking) being evaluated (Phase 2) - may addcomplications

- For foundation-structure systems whose foundation behavesflexibly additional rules may need to be developed

© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 27 RESEARCH "M' 11TE

S2.1 Phase 2 Studies

2 ccEII 2RIC POWRi

@2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 28 D r~ fa IESEARCIH ISTITUTE

Phase 2: Foundation and BuildingResponse to Incoherence

" Re-evaluate the potential for induced rotations (torsion and rocking)of the rigid massless foundation due to the incoherency of theground motion

-Compare with literature, e.g., Kim and Stewart- No effect on Phase 1 translational response of rigid massless

foundations - translational ITFs- Evaluate impact, if any, on calculation of in-structure response- Evaluate impact, if any, on conclusions for rock and soil sites

* Effect of coherency function uncertainty on Incoherence TransferFunctions (ITFs)

" Compute incoherence at Diablo Canyon and compare to data fromrecent small earthquakes

" Review Perry Nuclear Power Plant recordings from the Leroyearthquake (previously presented on Thursday with S2.2)

" Analyze additional foundation shape (Circular)

ELECTRC rPOWER0 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 29 E I f RM~ARC 1IN3TUF1J1

Induced Rotations

* Re-evaluate induced rotations due to incoherence ofground motions in Phase 2

* Torsion due to horizontal ground motion* Rocking due to vertical ground motion• Compare rigid, massless foundation response with

published data- Kim and Stewart

- Veletsos

IRESEARCU© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 30

Kim and Stewart

* "Kinematic Soil-Structure Interaction from Strong MotionRecordings," ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental, April 2003.

* Evaluation between free-field and foundation response- 29 instrumented sites considered - 14 near surface/1 5

pile or shaft foundations - some multiple earthquakerecords

- Transfer functions between free-field and foundationmotion developed based on Veletsos and validatedo Approximately corrected for a representative structure

9 Approximately corrected for inertial interaction effects

@ 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 31 R|1 I ESEARCH iNSTITUTE

Kim/Stewart Estimation of Incoherence ParameterKa for Site 44 (Whittier Earthquake)

Tranamisslbi~lty function estimate. I H.I

M Trannm lssibllity function o*dinates with high Coherence

C>) Tra.smn ssiblilty function oridnalas with high coherence near the lirst-mode trequency- - - - Model (Veletsos at al.. I 997)

a

4

3

2

1

0

! | Transverse translation

- ii-iI )c~= 0.13 -

J I I , I• I - - f I I •

0 T 10 15 20

First mOede frequency f (Hz)25

J--CA,_

180

0

-1 80

0 5 10 15 20 25

4

3

zr'2

1

0

4

3

z'1- 2

1

0

f (H z)

Longitudinal translational )-0.13 -

I'' I-4 Vki

E

) 5 10 15 20 2Sf (H z)

I

7 Transverse torsion

At . I I

0 5 10 15 20 25f (Hz)

© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved, 32 (El=(al IR:E5EARCH iINSTITUTE

Kim and Stewart

I Recorded data evaluated for reliability - only data atfrequencies less than 10 Hz. considered

* Translation and rotations- Translations derived from single or averaged over

multiple recordings on foundation- Rotations derived from differences in motion from

multiple recordings on the foundatione Transfer functions developed and verified - highest

confidence in frequencies less than 10 Hz. and fortranslations

* Transfer functions defined identically to the Phase 1approach

ELECTR3IC' OW•° R© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 33 c-:r 2 i jRESEAR:CIH INSTITUTE

Kim and Stewart Translation and TorsionTransfer Functions

1.0

0.8

0.4

0.2

0.02 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8

a,' a.10

RESEARCH N!NSITUTTE© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.. 34

N

Kim - Stewart Recommendations forImplementation in SSI Analysis Procedure

e Identical approach to the Phase 1 derivation of theIncoherency Transfer Function (ITF) - Apply totranslational input only

* No recommended additional treatment ofrotations

induced

• Phase 2 - continue verification withstudies

other published

UCRCFOWERsriaf2 I j SEAi1COtINSITUTE0 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 35

Phase 2 Foundation Responses-Transfer Functions and PSDs

4 Transfer functions similar to Kim and Stewart- Different coherency functions (NAA)

* Foundation PSD functions

- Translations due to torsion are small for rock andsoil sites

- Translations due to torsion on rock greater than onsoil due to site specific ground motion frequencycontent• Soil site specific ground motion - low frequency (less than 10

Hz.) - minimal incoherency effect* Rock site specific ground motion - high frequency (greater

than 10 Hz.)

ELECTRIC POWER

2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 36 I RE SEARCH I N4STITUTE

Transfer Function -

Horizontal Translation and Torsion - Rock

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

.2 0.6U

'Z 0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Frequency

80

-*-Trans lation-H-xyz -U-Torsion-xyz -£--Translation-H-x only -=X-Torsion-x only

Blue Line underlies the Yellow Line© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

ELuE~CTRIC POWERM =10 1 I REEs APCH INVtITUTE37

Transfer Function-Horizontal Translation and Torsion - Soil

MEF-7- 7-11

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

.0 0.6

u- 0.5C.)

S0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Frequency

80

I --- Translation-H-xyz -U-Torsion-xyz -A-Translation-H-x only -X-Torsion-x only I

Blue Line underlies the Yellow Line© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. '-' r fE ARCH I14$ITUTE38

Transfer Function -

Vertical Translation and Rocking - Rockm

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

.2 0.6

"Z 0.50-

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Frequency

1-4-Translation-V-xyz -U--Rocking-xyz - Translation-V-z only -X-Rocking-z only]

80

Red Line underlies the Green Line0 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. al~alI EUIRIC1R POWE~R

39

Transfer Function -

Vertical Translation and Rocking - Soil"•'- - • ••' 1---2-7 . - • iii:ii• i!!!;i;i:<:.;••

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6U

't 0.5

P 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Frequency

80

I-4-Translation-V-xyz -41 Rocking-xyz Translation-V-z only -X- Rocking-z only I

Red Line underlies the Green Line@ 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved,

Blue Line underlies the Yellow Line4 ELTRK POWER

40 S R 0 11 ESARCH INS$TITUTE

PSD - Foundation Response - Rock

-+4. >4-7• <v-~~* V.-

C3(I)0.

1.2E-04

1.0E-04

8.OE-05

6.OE-05

4.OE-05

2.OE-05

O.OE+O00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Frequency

80

I - Rock-H1 -Transl due to Torsion Free Field - Rock-HI

afR(a IRSAH INMT© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 41

PSD - Foundation Response - Soil

C)(/}

1.4E-04

1.2E-04

1.OE-04

8.0E-05

6. OE-05

4.0E-05

2. 0E-05

O.OE+000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Frequency

80

I

-- Soil-H1 -Trans due to Torsion Free Field - Soil-Hi

EMORIC POWERRESEARCH INVITUTE© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 42

Effect of Uncertainty in the CoherencyFunction on Foundation Response

" Phase 1 study focused on the median coherency function

- Approximated the mean coherency function

- Generated Incoherency Transfer Functions (ITFs) approximatingthe median values

" Phase 2 objective- Perform a sensitivity study to establish a reasonable estimate of

the effects of coherency uncertainty on ITFs

- Generate an approximation of the 84% ITF and the 84% NEP ofthe foundation response for the rigid massless foundation (150foot square)

- Evaluate the potential effect on the approach to defining the ITFsfor application to the RISS-SSE

2 EELEtTPIo PORrER

0 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 44 RIEA N1 l'J1TU1E

Coherency Function

* Median coherency function has been used for Phase1 analyses

* The 84th percentile coherency function ishorizontal motion

defined for

IPw 84 (f, ý ) = tanh [tanh -1(ypW (f' ,) + f J)

e Where for frequencies greater than 20 Hz9',, (f, •: 0.4

e And for frequencies less than or equal to 20 Hz

UH (f, 9) = 0.4 + (f - 20)(-0.0065 - 1.9xlO-6 2 )

~ 1 ELECTRIC POWER©2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 45 IRESl ARCH11N1TITUTE

Phase 2 Study on Uncertainty in CoherencyFunctions: Assumptions

* Coherency functions and Incoherency TransferFunctions may be assumed to be independent offrequency. Analyze each frequency of interestindependently.

* Point-to-point coherency functions are assumed to beindependent. That is, no correlation of coherencyfunctions for points equi-distant or for points withindefined radii.

iiELCTRIC FONVER© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 47 111 RESEAfCHMSTITUTE

Phase 2 Study on Uncertainty in CoherencyFunctions: Approach

• Assume a distribution for ypw,p defined by the median and sigmavalues. The resulting coherency, ypw,p will be permitted in the rangeof -1.0 to +1.0.

" Perform Monte Carlo simulations, sampling on ypw,p, andcalculating values of ITF. Analyze each frequency of interestindependently.

* From the resulting 84% NEP ITFs, evaluate response spectra for therigid massless foundation on a rock site to estimate the 84% NEPresponse spectra.

" Compare the incoherency transfer functions and rock foundationresponse spectra- Phase 1 ITFs and foundation response spectra generated

assuming median coherency functions- Phase 2 "reasonable estimate of uncertainty" of ITFs and

foundation response spectra

© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 48 RESEARCH !INSTITUTE

Diablo Canyon Earthquake RecordingsEvaluation

" There are recordings in the free field and on the foundation- Magnitude 3.4 Deer Canyon Earthquake - 10/18/2003

- Magnitude 6.5 San Simeon Earthquake - 12/22/2003

" Opportunity to compare calculated and measured incoherencyeffects- The lower magnitude Deer Canyon motion is narrow banded with

high frequencies in the 10 to 20 Hz range; PGA is between 0.01and 0.02g depending on the component

- The larger magnitude San Simeon motion is broad banded withlargest amplification in the 2 to 8 Hz range but significant contentat 10 Hz; PGA is 0.02 to 0.05g depending on the component

© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 50 I 1U I• 1 RESEARCH [INS l TITUTE

Deer Canyon Horizontal #1 Response

------------." -4 ~

.rC4t4~r½-~, -

U)

.2

C)

UC.)

C.)C)a.

U)

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.1 10

Frequency (iz)

100

I - - FFH1 -CBH I

2nE!CTI WTR52 MARC"INSTTUTE© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Deer Canyon Horizontal #2 Response

-.2

.9

0(U

C)

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

0.1 1 10

Frequency (Hz)

100

I - - ,FFH2 -CBH2 I

© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 53ELECTRIC POME'!R• 1 ..... I~ l ESFARCHIWIUTE

Deer Canyon Vertical Response

I I ýM :7

.2

U)

UU

UU)0.

(j~

0.11

0.1

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0

0.1 S" F10

Frequency (Hzu)

100

- FFV -CBV

@ 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 54REEAC IN$TITUTE

Deer Canyon Spectral Reductions

2.00

0

1 10

Frequency (it)

- - CB/FF-H1 - CB/FF-H2 .. CB/FF-V - CB/FF-Havg

100

ELECTRIC POWERer=fai I RMARCHINSTITUTE© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 55

Diablo Canyon Earthquake RecordingsEvaluation Approach

e Input free field ground response spectra to the CLASSIRVT approach to compute response of a rigid, massless153 foot diameter circular foundation and compare tomeasured response spectra

• Isolate the effects of incoherency from other SSI effects(i.e., inertial interaction, embedment) using DiabloCanyon existing SSI transfer functions to developincoherence only response spectra and compare tomeasured response spectra

* Determine whether calculated spectra and measuredspectra match sufficiently close considering results fromthe uncertainty task

..... .EEC.TR.C POWER© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 56 S ! 2 I RESEARCH INVTITUTW

ESP Task S2.1 Status and Schedule

* NRC/TRAG Technical Working Meetings- ARES So Cal June 22/23- ARES So Cal August 22-23

* NEI/NRC Meeting in October in Washington DC* Completion of Phase 1 Structural Tasks November 2005* Final Report Submitted to NRC January 2006* NRC Comments Received April 24, 2006* NEI/NRC Meeting in Washington DC May 11-12, 2006

- Discuss Phase 2 Status- Discuss NRC Comments

• Future Activities- Phase 2 Draft June 30 2006- S Task Incorporation into Integration Document October 2006- Respond to NRC RAts (schedule TBD)

~ I ELECTRIC POWER© 2006 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 58 I =I I 11 RE"ARCH °INSTITUTE

new plant seismic issues resolution program, structural ... · outline of presentation-, -. ~...

Documents