Structural Building

EBASCO

Structural Building Response Review <
t

Project IV Structural Building Response
o' the ~

Seismic Safety Margins ^Research Program (Phase!)'

MASTER
SEISMIC SAFETY MARGINS RESEARCH PROGRAM* {PHASE I)

< , c , a i 5 1 8

*

Project IV - Structural Building Response Structural Building Response Review

February 1980

Prepared by Ebasco Services Inc New York, NY P.0.#3552519
-MCUMEHT^iLod *fimfwtd«m«i!wiic'i>P* Kara«Jb**usff«r c * * 1*»S0StanG* • — V . »»'**>. *\?*a w >fMd. a N M d i*t fcpl hC'iIv fr iWomA'i.ti' < C* • 1*1. w tt"*t«iil Pttml. ( n A w • • * « br I'M. W IW»*»'. •n#nAd**f.« 6ff»». *1

John J Healey Spencer T Wu Nike! Murga

Prepared for Nuclear Test Engineering Division Mechanical Engineering Department Lawrence Livermore LaboratoryLivermore, California

NRC Program Manager J E Richardson Project Manager C H Burger

LLL Program Leader F J Tokarz Program Manager P D Smith Project Manager J J Johnson/T Lo

*Th1s report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract No. W-74Q5-ENG-48.

PREFACE

This study was performed byEbasco Services Incorporated under sub­ contract to the University of California, Lawrence Liverwore Laboratory. The comments and cooperation of the LLL Project personnel, Ors. 0. J. Johnson and Ting-Yu Lo are gratefully acknowledged. The principal investigators would also H k e to express their appreciation to Mr. J, J. Gilmore for his interest and support, and to Messrs. E. Odar $id K, D. Chiufor their assist­ ance, review and cooperation. Finally, special thanks to Dr. C. Gong for his valuable technical input and to Mr. S. P objectives of the SSMRP. This material forms one component in the development of the overall com­ putational methodology involving state of the &rt computations including explicit consideration of uncertainty and aimed at ultimately deriving estimates of theprobability of radioactive releases due to seismic effects on nuclear power plant facilities. The scope of this study, as originally formulated, consisted of thir­ teen different items. The following list of items provides then an over­ view of the basic objectives of the study subject to some redefinitions of scope which were made in the course of project performance: Task 1 Description Describeavailable methods and the methods under develop­ ment to analyze structural building response and in addi­ tion, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each method; Describe and discuss the methods used to handle the inter­ actions between structural building response and soilstructure interaction response and between structural res­ ponse and subsystem response (piping, mechanical and elec­ tricalequipment); Describe the various structural and component idealization methods and mathematical models and discuss advantages and disadvantages of each method and model;

2

3

2
Task (Cont'd) 4 Description (Cont'd) Discuss advantages and disadvantages of finite element idealization versus a beam element model for various build­ ings and heavy equipment for a four-loop PWR/1 system;Describe the various structural analysis computer codes and discuss advantages and disadvantages of each code; Describe the various material properties used in the mathematical models and discuss the approach of modifying material properties to simulate the structures nonlinear behavior and further discuss how the concrete cracking phenomena is considered and handled in structural building responsecalculations; Describe the methods used to evaluate nonseismic response and discuss the approach to combine various responses; Describe and provide information on the experience for structural building nonlinear analysis and structural damp­ ing evaluation; Identify sources of random variables (parameters) in the structural building response calculation and quantify the . contribution of each...